First published in 2015 by Gloucester Publishers Limited, Northburgh House,

10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0AT

Copyright © 2015 Zenón Franco

Translated by Phil Adams

The right of Zenón Franco to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN Kindle: 978-1-78194-267-3

ISBN epub: 978-1-78194-268-0

Distributed in North America by National Book Network,

15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. Ph: 717.794.3800.

Distributed in Europe by Central Books Ltd.,

99 Wallis Road, London E9 5LN. Ph 44(0)845 458 9911.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess,

Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0AT
email: [email protected]; website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under
licence from Random House Inc.

Dedicated to Lucas

Everyman Chess Series

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs
Commissioning editor: John Emms
Assistant editor: Richard Palliser

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Printed by TJ International Limited, Padstow, Cornwall.
About the Author
Zenón Franco is a Grandmaster from Paraguay, now living in Spain. He represented
Paraguay, on top board, in seven Chess Olympiads, and won individual gold medals at
Lucerne 1982 and Novi Sad 1990. He is an experienced trainer and has written numerous
books on chess.

Also by the Author:

Test Your Chess
Anand: Move by Move
Contents
About the Author
Bibliography
Introduction
A Short Account of Spassky’s Chess Career
The Style of Boris Spassky

1 Universal Style
2 Initiative and Attack
3 The Ruy Lopez
4 The Sicilian Defence
5 The Exchange Variation Against the Grünfeld Defence
6 The Sämisch Variation Against the King’s Indian Defence
7 The Queen’s Gambit
8 The King’s Gambit
9 The Leningrad Variation Against the Nimzo-Indian Defence

Index of Games
Bibliography
Books
Petrosian Spassky 1969, Igor Bondarevsky and Isaak Boleslavsky, Fisicultura & Sport,
Moscow 1970
Think like a Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov, Batsford 1971
Las 100 mejores partidas de Spassky, Bernard Cafferty, Editorial Pomaire, 1973
XLI Campeonato Soviético de Ajedrez, Editorial Sopena 1974
The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, Mikhail Tal, RHM Press 1976
Second Piatigorsky Cup, Isaac Kashdan, Dover Publications 1977
Play like a Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov, Batsford 1978
Grandmaster Preparation, Lev Polugaevsky, Pergamon 1981
200 Open Games, David Bronstein, Dover Publications 1991
Boris Spassky’s 300 wins, Sergey Soloviov, Chess Stars 1998
Averbach´s Selected Games, Yuri Averbach, Cadogan Chess Books 1998
Soviet Chess 1917-1991, Andrew Soltis, McFarland & Company, 2000
My Best Games Volume 1, Victor Korchnoi, Edition Olms, 2001
Leonid Stein, Master of Risk Strategy, Eduard Gufeld & Efim Lazarev, Thinker’s Press 2001
My Great Predecessors Part III, Garry Kasparov, Everyman 2004
4 x 25, Paul Keres & Iivo Nei, Editorial Chessy 2005
My Great Predecessors Part V, Garry Kasparov, Everyman 2006
The Art of Attacking Chess, Zenón Franco, Gambit 2008
Chess Duels: My games with the World Champions, Yasser Seirawan, Everyman 2010
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov Part 1: 1973-1985, Garry Kasparov, Everyman 2011
Test your Chess, Zenón Franco, Everyman 2014

Periodicals and Electronic Resources

Mega Database 2014, Chessbase
Ajedrez Magazine, 1959-1971
Chess Informant, 1966-2014
New in Chess Magazine, 1990-2014
Jaque Magazine, 1990-2012
Chess Today, 2005-14
The Week in Chess, 1996-2014

Chess Engines
Houdini
Introduction
When Everyman suggested that I should write about Spassky, I greeted this idea with
enthusiasm. There is very little literature about our 10th world champion and it was a
pleasant challenge to present the best games of Boris Vasilievich Spassky.
I would have liked to have operated as in all my previous books by using the player’s own comments as a starting point
and then amplifying them, trying to explain the ideas more clearly. Unfortunately Spassky has left us very little to work with; of
all the world chess champions he is the one who has written the least, and he is possibly also the one about whom the least has
been written.
The name of Boris Spassky forms part of the collective memory of every chess player of
my generation. His name is linked for ever with that of Robert Fischer, and their match in
Reykjavik gave a huge boost to the popularisation of our game. Time and again I have come
across people just a bit younger than me who say “I learned to play as a result of the Fischer-
Spassky match”. For many years, their names were the most well-known ones among non-
chess players.
This match took place at a time when, according to Spassky himself, Fischer was the best player in the world. Spassky
often said that he himself was the best in the world between 1964 and 1970, “even better than Fischer, although not by much”.
Since I was born in South America it was very difficult for me to see Spassky playing
‘live’, so I consider myself very fortunate to have seen him play in the Buenos Aires
Olympiad in 1978 and I even played against him in the ‘Clarín’ tournament in Buenos Aires in
1979.
Later on when I was press officer for the León tournament I was lucky enough to hear many
of his reminiscences about his career and the history of chess.
Spassky produced some chess masterpieces that are very well known. I suppose that in
almost any discipline the basic ‘problem’ involved in writing about something that is very
well known is how to add something new. With Spassky this is a bit easier than writing about
his opponent Fischer, for example, about whom so much has been written, for the reason
mentioned above; insufficient attention has been given to Spassky’s work, and he himself has
not been interested in telling us much about it.
It is surely impossible for a relatively experienced chess player not to be acquainted, even
superficially, with Spassky’s victories against Fischer before the 1972 match (the King’s
Gambit and the two Grünfelds), his win against Bronstein (the finish of which even appeared
on the silver screen), his work of art against Larsen, etc. However, even though these are his
best known games, I considered that most of them ought to have their place in this book.
Finally I should like to say that in analysing fairly deeply a large number of Spassky’s
games, it was a pleasant experience to view games from before the computer age, from a time
when ‘theory’ stopped and the ‘real’ game began much earlier than is the case today.
In Spassky’s best games it was possible to see harmony being established on the board,
gradually everything seemed to be in the right place at the right time. It is a sensation very
similar to what one feels when admiring works of art.

The Structure of the Book

The structure of this book will be different from my last one (about Anand), where after a
description of his style of play the games were presented chronologically, with brief details
of Anand’s career interspersed.
We will begin with a discussion of Spassky’s style, illustrated with game extracts which
can also be used as training exercises. Then come the forty annotated games, grouped to
match some of Spassky’s statements: “My forte was the middlegame”, which can be seen in
his handling of the initiative, his ‘universal style’ and his specialisation in certain openings,
which he explained thus: “I played my systems and did not particularly like to learn new
ones. I relied on my skill in the middlegame. By the way, it was the same for Capablanca.
Overall, of course, I knew the openings badly, but in my own systems I felt confident”.
Spassky also pointed out that his games had contributed towards a better understanding of the
Ruy Lopez, which he played with both colours.
In the game annotations I have included many references to other games by Spassky which
are relevant to the opening used, as well as a few games by other great champions, even in the
form of supplementary games in some cases. These are closely related to the main game and
contribute to a better understanding of it. The supplementary games are annotated in less
detail.
That being said, the 40 games are organised as follows:

Chapter 1: Universal Style (7 games)

Chapter 2: Initiative and Attack (7 games)
Chapter 3: Ruy Lopez (7 games)
Chapter 4: Sicilian Defence (5 games)
Chapter 5: Exchange Variation against the Grünfeld (3 games)
Chapter 6: Sämisch Variation against the King’s Indian (3 games)
Chapter 7: Queen’s Gambit (3 games)
Chapter 8: King’s Gambit (3 games)
Chapter 9: Leningrad Variation against the Nimzo-Indian (2 games)

Zenón Franco,
Ponteareas, October 2015
A Short Account of Spassky’s Chess Career
Boris Vasilievich Spassky was born on the 30th of January 1937 in Leningrad, now St.
Petersburg. He was crowned as the tenth World Champion after defeating T.Petrosian in 1969
by a score of 12½–10½ in Moscow, in a match played between the 24th of April and the 17th
of June 1969.
He lost his world title in 1972 in a match against Robert J. Fischer.
In 1992 he played a second match with Fischer, who won by 10 wins to 5 (17½-12½).
He became World Junior Champion in Antwerp in 1955.
He was champion of the USSR twice, in 1961 and 1973, and on two occasions, in 1956
and 1963, he shared first place but lost the tie-break.
He was a Candidate for the World Championship on seven occasions: 1956, 1965, 1968,
1974, 1977, 1980 and 1985.
He played for the USSR team in seven Olympiads, winning 13 team and individual
medals. He also represented France in three Olympiads.
He was awarded the ‘Chess Oscar’ in 1968 and 1969.

First Steps
Spassky learned to play at the age of five during the evacuation of Leningrad. He began to
attend the famous Pioneers’ Palaces in his native city in October 1946. In 1947, at the age of
ten, he defeated the Soviet champion and soon-to-be World Champion (1948) Mikhail
Moiseevich Botvinnik in a simultaneous display in Leningrad. In a certain way this recalls the
earlier victory of Botvinnik himself (at a slightly older age) against Capablanca, also in a
‘simul’.
Vladimir Grigorievich Zak was his first trainer. Spassky achieved ‘First Category’ status
at the age of ten, Candidate Master at eleven and Soviet Master at fifteen.
In 1952, aged fifteen, he finished second in the Leningrad Championship behind Taimanov,
and ahead of Levenfish, Korchnoi, Furman, etc.

Young Grandmaster
Spassky made his international debut at the age of sixteen in 1953, in Bucharest, Rumania,
where he shared fourth place and gained the title of International Master.
In his first USSR Championship final in 1955 in Moscow, Spassky tied for third place
behind Smyslov and Geller, thus qualifying for the Interzonal to be held in Gothenburg that
same year.
Later in 1955 he was crowned World Junior Champion in Antwerp, Belgium.
In Gothenburg Spassky tied for sixth place and qualified for his first Candidates Tournament, played in Amsterdam in
1956. He tied for 3rd behind Smyslov (who thus for the second time gained the right to challenge Botvinnik for the world title),
and Keres. Spassky was awarded the title of Grandmaster.
In the 23rd USSR Championship held in January and February of 1956 in Leningrad,
Spassky shared first place with Mark Taimanov and Yuri Averbakh. The tie-break match was
won by Taimanov.
A Period of Slight Stagnation
Spassky continued to make progress in the next few years, but experienced two important
failures in USSR Championships: the 25th in 1958 in Riga and the 28th in 1961 in Moscow.
He thus failed to qualify for the Interzonal tournaments in Portoroz 1958 and Bled 1961,
which excluded him from competing in two World Championship cycles.
This competitive crisis coincided with a personal one (his first divorce) and a change of
trainer, Alexander Tolush being replaced by Igor Bondarevsky.
In 1960 Spassky played in Mar del Plata, Argentina, where he shared first place with
Bobby Fischer, whom he defeated in this their first encounter. Bronstein was 3rd, two points
behind.

Candidate for the World Title

Spassky gained his first USSR Championship title in the 29th such event, held in Baku at the
end of 1961.
Spassky played in his first Olympiad 1962 in Varna, where the USSR won easily and
Spassky gained the best result on the third board.
In the 31st USSR Championship in late 1963 in Leningrad, Spassky tied for first place with
Leonid Stein and Ratmir Kholmov. Stein won the tie-break match.
In the Zonal tournament held in February and March of 1964 in Moscow, seven players
competed for the four qualifying places for the Interzonal in Amsterdam. Spassky recovered
from a bad start and finished in first place.
In the Amsterdam Interzonal held in May and June of 1964, Spassky shared first place with
Smyslov, Larsen and Tal, thus qualifying as a Candidate for the world title for the second
time.
Spassky showed excellent form in triumphing in a tournament in Belgrade held in
November-December of 1964, ahead of Ivkov, Korchnoi, Gligoric, Larsen, etc.
Later, in Sochi, at the start of 1965, Spassky shared first place with Unzicker, which was a
good omen for the Candidates matches.
Spassky beat Paul Keres 6-4 in a quarter-final Candidates match held in Riga in April
1965.
In the semi-final Candidates match held in May 1965, also in Riga, Spassky beat Efim
Geller 5½-2½.
In the Candidates Final in Tbilisi later that year Spassky beat Mikhail Tal 7-4, winning the
last three games in a row.

First Match for the World Title

Spassky was already the best player in the world in 1964, but he was unable to achieve his
aim of becoming world champion in his first match against Petrosian, played over April and
June of 1966. Petrosian gained the 12 points necessary to retain the title after 22 games, when
he was leading 12-10. Spassky wanted to play the last two games and the match ended
12½-11½.
In 1966 Spassky won one of the strongest tournaments in history in Santa Monica (the 2nd
Piatigorsky Cup), ahead of Fischer, Larsen, Portisch, and World Champion Petrosian.
In the 1968 Candidates cycle, Spassky’s first opponent was once again Geller, in a match
held in Sukhumi. Spassky won by the same score as in 1965: 5½-2½.
His opponent in the semi-finals was Bent Larsen. In their match in Malmo Spassky won
5½-2½ and in the Candidates final in Kiev he defeated Viktor Korchnoi 6½-3½, which led to
his second match against Petrosian for the world title.

World Champion
The World Championship match began in Moscow on April 14th 1969. This time Spassky
was the winner, by 12½-10½, and on June 17th he was crowned the tenth World Chess
Champion.
Spassky won his first tournament as World Champion, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
In March-April 1970, Spassky played on top board in the USSR vs. Rest of the World
match in Belgrade, scoring +1 1 =1 against Larsen. Due to illness, he was replaced by Stein
in the final game. In the end the USSR won 20½-19½.
Later in 1970 Spassky won a quadrangular event in Leiden. This was Botvinnik’s last
tournament. The other participants were Donner and Larsen.

Match with Fischer and Loss of the Title

Spassky’s reign lasted three years. By 1971 Fischer was the best player in the world
according to Spassky himself, for who 1971 was not a good year.
The ‘Match of the Century’ was played in Reykjavik, Iceland, at the height of the Cold War,
between the 11th of July and the 1st of September 1972. Fischer gained the world title by
winning 12½-8½.

Ex-World Champion
The 41st USSR Championship was held between the 2nd and the 26th of October 1973 in
Moscow. It was one of the strongest in the history of the event and was also one of Spassky’s
greatest successes. He finished ahead of the best Soviet players, such as Karpov, Korchnoi,
Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Geller, Tal, etc.
In the next Candidates cycle Spassky beat Robert Byrne in San Juan 4½-1½, but then lost
the semi-final against Anatoly Karpov 7-4.
In 1976 Spassky had once more to play in the Interzonal stage. In Manila he had a bad
result and failed to qualify for the Candidates, but he was awarded the spot left vacant by
Fischer.
In the Candidates quarter-finals in 1977 in Reykjavik he beat Vlastimil Hort 8½-7½. In the
semi-finals in Geneva 1977 he defeated Lajos Portisch 8½-6½, but lost in the final against
Viktor Korchnoi in Belgrade 1977–78, 10½-7½.
In the following Candidates cycle in 1980, Spassky once again faced Portisch. This time
the match finished 7-7, but Portisch went through to the next phase on the tie-break system in
use (more games won with Black).
Spassky failed to qualify for the Candidates at the Toluca Interzonal of 1982. He finished
third, but there were only two qualifying places.
The Candidates tournament of 1985 was a closed event with sixteen players held in
Montpellier, France. The top four qualified for the finals. Spassky tied for sixth. This was the
last tournament in which Spassky competed as part of the FIDE World Championship cycle.

Other Important Results

In addition to the main Olympiads, Spassky represented the USSR five times in the so-called
Student Olympiads, winning eight medals.
 Spassky played twice for the USSR in European Team Championships, winning four gold
medals: two team golds, one for best fifth board in Vienna 1957, and the other for best first
board in Bath 1973.
Some other notable results:
Equal 1st with Smyslov and Bronstein in Moscow 1959, 1st in Riga 1959, ahead of Mikenas, Tolush and Tal, 1st in Belgrade
1964, ahead of Korchnoi and Ivkov, equal 1st with Unzicker in the Chigorin Memorial in Sochi 1965, equal 1st with Uhlmann in
Hastings 1965/66, 1st in Beverwijk 1967, equal 1st in the Chigorin Memorial in Sochi 1967, 1st in San Juan 1969, equal 1st with
Polugaevsky in the Amsterdam IBM event of 1970, equal 1st with Karpov in Bugojno 1978, 1st in Montilla–Moriles 1978,
equal 1st with Balashov, Andersson and Hübner in Munich 1979, equal 1st with Beliavsky in Baden-Baden 1980, 1st in
Linares 1983, ahead of Karpov and Andersson, etc.
The Style of Boris Spassky
Boris Spassky was the first World Champion of whom it was said that he possessed a
‘universal style’, meaning that he was equally adept in all phases of the game. He had no
distinguishing feature, in the way that, for instance, Capablanca was acknowledged as a
master of the art of simplifying.
Anatoly Karpov commented that “Spassky was a complete and absolutely universal player.
He was equally good at attacking, defending, and accumulating positional advantages. It was
he who created the fashion for universality, which is alive to this day”.
Nevertheless Spassky’s forte was the middlegame, with a “dynamic, individual style”
according to Robert Fischer, while Kasparov emphasised that he was often able to appreciate
“how subtly Boris Vasilievich sensed the dynamic and critical moments of the game”.
Spassky himself said “My forte was the middlegame. I had a good feeling for the critical
moments of the game. This undoubtedly compensated for my lack of opening preparation and,
possibly, not altogether perfect play in the endgame. In my games things often did not reach
the endgame!”
Kramnik opined that “Spassky has an attacking style. He combines the qualities of different
chess players. Like Alekhine he values time. He is a very good strategic player. He might not
have polished up his tactical proficiency and sometimes he miscalculated a bit but I think that
Spassky spent a great deal of energy on every game and chess was a reflection of his
character. His games are pleasant to watch: he uses the whole board. He manages to deal
with everything, grabs space, turns on the pressure here and there”.
“He uses the whole board” continues Kramnik, “which is something that I grew to
appreciate when I started to look at Spassky’s games ‘with fresh eyes’”. From the very first
games that I analysed for this book I noticed that he almost always had all his pieces in play
and generally had more pieces than the opponent in the critical sector of the board. He rarely
entered complications without first having all his pieces working together in delightful and
effective harmony.
Spassky was also fond of achieving an active position in exchange for a slight
disadvantage in material, especially if the enemy king was weakened, exemplified in his
predilection for the King’s Gambit; this was part of his nature.
I shall always remember an incident that happened at the 1979 Clarín tournament in
Buenos Aires. For some reason, in the analysis room the Cochrane Gambit was being
discussed, which arises after:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nxf7
 Theory does not approve of this gambit and Kramnik, in Chess Informant, went so far as to
award 4 Nxf7 a question mark when annotating his game against Topalov at Linares 1999.
White gains two pawns for the piece and the black king is somewhat insecure. Spassky
never played this gambit in an official tournament, and perhaps he never analysed it deeply.
But on that occasion, with gestures rather than words, moving his shoulders, he made it clear
that he thought it was quite playable, even at a glance. It should be remembered that at that
time, the end of the 1970s, the present computer age was still a long way in the future.
None of this undermines the claim of a ‘universal style’. Even if he had a preference for
certain positions, he could adapt in order to play positions in which his opponent was less
comfortable, helped by the fact that “Spassky was the first of the great players who employed
both 1 e4 and 1 d4 in equal measure and with identical success”, as pointed out by Kasparov.
This was especially useful to him in the Candidates matches in 1968 on the way to winning
the world title. There he decided on an attacking game against Efim Geller, not always
objectively correct, but certainly very effective from the psychological point of view; it
proved very unpleasant for his opponent since “Geller was relatively weak in defence and I
only needed to attack him at all costs”, according to Spassky.
Another success was his unexpected choice of the Marshall Gambit against Mikhail Tal,
denying him the sort of active positions he preferred; “I did not allow Tal to seize the
initiative. That approach brought me success”, said Spassky.
Spassky caused another surprise in his second match for the World Championship in 1969,
where he used The Tarrasch Defence against the Queen’s Gambit. Playing with an isolated
queen’s pawn against none other than Tigran Petrosian looked like a mistake, but it took
Petrosian several games before he came up with a line that was unpleasant for Black.
We have already mentioned what Spassky himself said about his style and his way of
handling the openings: "I played my systems and did not particularly like to learn new ones. I
relied on my skill in the middlegame. ... Overall, of course, I knew the openings badly, but in
my own systems I felt confident". When the point was put to Spassky that it is not possible to
make progress without a lot of work on the openings, Spassky's answer was “That is
nowadays. At that time I quickly got my bearings in any position. I'd find a plan and my main
strength was that I had a good feel for the critical moment. If you have got that talent you have
the ability to find the only correct path in a critical position. By that I mean not only an
individual move, but a whole concept based on calculation and an evaluation of the variations
you have analysed. That is a talent that even the World Champions haven't always possessed”.
Before delving into some practical examples I am going to round off this description of the style of the tenth world
champion with a personal impression. In my last book, about Anand, I quoted something that the five-times champion of the
world said: “This is an especially clear example of the principle of moving all your pieces into attacking positions before cutting
loose with sacrifices”. I was astonished at the number of times this was also true of Spassky; I was left with the feeling that in
nearly all his won games he did not embark on complications (unclear or not) before all his pieces were working together. In
the vast majority of cases his decision proved to be objectively a good or even the best continuation.

“Boris Spassky, Master of Initiative”

This was the accurate title of the book about Spassky written by Alexander Raetsky and Maxim Chetverik; within his
universal style, the search for the initiative was his main characteristic. It is often the case that when the initiative triumphs, it
leads to a direct attack on the opponent’s king, and this was often true in Spassky’s case. Let us examine a few examples:

B.Spassky-L.Schmid
Varna Olympiad 1962

We are in a critical position. The h6-pawn is hanging but at the same time Black is
threatening 13 ... b4 followed by 14 ... Nxe4. White also has the option of playing 13 axb5,
followed by the exchange of rooks, and he needs to assess which side benefits from inserting
this exchange. What is the best move?
13 e5!
After an appropriate amount of calculation, Spassky opted for this thematic advance, with
which White is able to foil Black’s threat and at the same time launch a slow-moving attack
on the black king.
Capturing one of the pawns protecting the enemy king is always attractive, but in this case
13 Bxh6 can be strongly answered with 13 ... b4! and after 14 Bxg7 Kxg7 (of course not 14 ...
bxc3?? 15 Qh6 Nh7 16 Ng5) 15 Nd1 Nxe4 or 15 e5 dxe5 16 Nd1 e4 17 Ng5 Ncxd5 18 Nxe4
Qc7 Black has an excellent position, with active pieces.
The line 13 axb5 axb5 14 Rxa8 Rxa8 15 e5 Nfe8 definitely came into consideration, but
Spassky decided instead to maintain the tension on the queenside, avoiding any
simplification, especially because in that position there would still be a threat of ... b4,
endangering the d5-pawn, making the outcome hard to assess.
 13 ... dxe5
Forced, since both 13 ... Nh5? 14 Bxh6 b4 15 Ne4 and 13 ... b4 14 exf6 bxc3 15 bxc3
Bxf6 16 Bxh6 are clearly worse.
14 Bxe5 b4 15 Bxf6!
This is the key. White gives up his bishop but in return the c3-knight becomes active, given
that 15 ... bxc3? fails to 16 Bxc3.
15 ... Bxf6 16 Ne4!
Of course the idea was not to defend the b2-pawn with the passive 16 Nd1?
16 ... Bg7
It was not yet advisable to play 16 ... Bxb2, in view of 17 Qxh6 (threatening 18 Nfg5) 17
... Bg7 18 Qh4 (again threatening Nfg5) and combinations against the black king are breaking
out everywhere: 18 ... f6? runs into 19 Bc4, while 18 ... Nxd5 can be punished with 19 Nfg5
Re8 20 Qh7+ Kf8 21 Nxf7! Kxf7 22 Ng5+ Kf6 (to defend g6) 23 Bd3, with a decisive attack.
17 Nxc5 Bxb2
With the white knight now at some distance from the kingside, Black regains his pawn.

18 Rad1!
This is a little taste of something we shall see many times throughout the book. Suddenly
all of Spassky’s pieces are centralised and activated.
There were interesting alternatives, such as the combinative 18 Qxh6, but in situations like
this Spassky does not go in for complications when there is a good, straightforward
continuation.
18 ... Bf5
Of course 18 ... Bc3? 19 Qxh6 Bxe1?? fails to 20 Ng5. Although it was not easy to
acquiesce to going a pawn down after 18 ... Bg7 19 Nxd7 Qxd7 20 Qxb4, this was more
tenacious.
19 Qxh6!
 Continuing to target the black king. 19 Qxb4 also won a pawn, but would grant Black
greater activity, for example 19 ... Rb8 20 Qc4 a5.
19 ... Bg7 20 Qh4
Once again threatening 21 Ng5, preventing 20 ... Bxc2 in view of 21 Ng5 Re8 and now e.g.
22 Qh7+ Kf8 23 Bg4 Bxd1 24 Nce6+ fxe6 25 Nxe6+ Nxe6 26 Bxe6 mating.
20 ... Qd6 21 Ng5 Rfe8
This defends e7, but it also prevents the black king from fleeing via e8. Instead 21 ... Rfb8
could be answered with the simple 22 Nce4 with an attack, although it would be even
stronger to play as in the game.
22 Bd3!
More pieces enter the attack! Once again normal moves were also effective, such as 22
Nce4, or even computer lines such as 22 Nb7 followed by d6, but since these are no stronger
than the text move. Spassky prefers to bring all his pieces into play, which in this case is also
objectively best.
22 ... Qxc5
Instead 22 ... Bxd3 is punished with 23 Qh7+ Kf8 24 Nce6+! fxe6 25 Rxd3.
23 Bxf5 Nxd5
If 23 ... gxf5 White mates after 24 Qh7+ Kf8 25 Qh5 Kg8 26 Qxf7+ Kh8 27 Rd3.
24 Be6! 1-0
There is no good defence against 25 Bxf7+ and 26 Qh7. If 24 ... fxe6 then 25 Qh7+ Kf8 26 Nxe6+ and mate. Also
effective was 24 Bxg6!

E.Geller-B.Spassky
Moscow 1964
 White has just played 14 Nd2-b1!? with the unmistakable intention of capturing on d5, but
this slows down White’s development. Once Spassky had recovered from the initial surprise
(assuming that there was one), he proved the move to be illogical, and in fact there was more
than one good reply.
14 ... Qc8!
It was difficult to choose between this retreat and 14 ... Qe8, because both are good
against the capture of the d5-pawn. 15 Qxd5?? would be impossible on account of 15 ... Rd8,
while after 15 Bxd5?! Rd8 16 Bxc6 Qxc6 17 Nbd2 (not 17 Qe2? Nxc3! 18 Nxc3 Bd3 and
wins) Black gains an excellent position with active pieces by playing 17 ... Nxd2 18 Nxd2 f5!
(or 17 ... Rd3). So White would have had to forget about the pawn and play something like 15
Qe2, threatening 16 Bxd5, with Rd1 or a4 also on the agenda.
15 Nd4
A change of plan. If 15 Qxd5, which now attacks the knight on c6, Black becomes
extremely active after 15 ... Na5 16 Qd1 and now 16 ... h5! which was perhaps why Spassky
opted for 14 ... Qc8! since this lends more force to the advance of the h-pawn.
Black is also better after 15 Bxd5 Rd8 16 Nd4 Nxd4! 17 Bxe4 (not 17 Bxa8? on account
of 17 ... Nc2! 18 Qxc2 Ng3 19 Qb3 Nxf1 and the white king is very weak after 20 Kxf1
Qxa8) 17 ... Bxe4 18 cxd4 c5.
In view of this White might consider giving up the queen with 16 Bxc6, but after 16 ...
Rxd1 17 Rxd1 once again Black has 17 ... h5! when the queen is worth more than the two
rooks in view of the weakness of White’s king’s position after 18 Bxa8 Qxa8, while 18 e6
can be met strongly with 18 ... hxg4! as 19 hxg4? allows 19 ... Qxe6 and after 19 exf7+ Bxf7
20 Ne5 Nf6 21 hxg4 Bd6! 22 Bxa8 Bxe5 once again the white king suffers.
15 ... Nxe5!
With the necessary calculation, it can be seen that the complications will not be
unfavourable to Black, on account of his greater activity. There is no need to resign oneself to
15 ... Nxd4? 16 cxd4.
16 f4
If 16 Bxd5 both the simple 16 ... c6! and the more complicated 16 ... Rd8! are good.
16 ... c5! 17 fxe5
 No better is 17 Nc2, which leaves the b3-bishop without any retreat-square. A possible
continuation is 17 ... Ng3 18 Rf2 Nd3 and White has everything hanging and even worse is 17
Ne2? on account of 17 ... Nxg4 18 hxg4 Qxg4+ 19 Kh2 Bf5.
17 ... cxd4 18 cxd4 Qd7
The outcome of 14 Nb1 has not exactly been a success for White. He has no advantage in
material, while his king is weak and the black pieces are more active. Nevertheless, Black’s
advantage is far from being decisive.
19 Nd2
White wants to keep the c-file open, rather than accept a weakness at c3 after 19 Nc3 Nxc3
20 bxc3 Rac8.

Black’s advantage is minimal, so what line offers him the best chances of success?
19 ... f6!
A normal move here would have been 19 ... Rac8, but after 20 Nxe4 Bxe4 21 Rc1 Black is
slightly better but it is difficult to make progress. With the text move Black plans to open the
kingside, seeking to exploit the weakness of the white king, while ignoring the open c-file for
the time being.
20 Rc1
White sees an opportunity for counterplay on the c-file.
20 ... Kh8 21 Bf4?
Consistent, but flawed. The move Rc7 is in the air, but it will be resoundingly refuted.
Instead, 21 Nxe4 Bxe4 22 Bc2 would have been more cautious.
21 ... fxe5! 22 Bxe5
If 22 dxe5 Black has several ways to infiltrate the white king’s defences, for instance 22 ...
Qa7+ 23 Kg2 Bg5! or 22 ... Rxf4 23 Rxf4 Qa7+ 24 Kg2 Bg5!
 And now how should Black respond to the threat of 23 Rc7?
22 ... Bg5!!
Counter-attacking against the white king. The next few moves are forced.
23 Rc7 Qxc7! 24 Bxc7 Be3+ 25 Kg2
25 Kh1 is punished with 25 ... Rxf1+ 26 Qxf1 Nxd2 27 Qe2 Be4+ 28 Kh2 Rf8.
25 ... Nxd2 26 Rxf8+ Rxf8
Black has only a rook and a piece for the queen, but the white king is defenceless against
the attack of the four black pieces.
27 Bxd5 Rf2+ 28 Kg3 Nf1+ 29 Kh4 h6 30 Bd8 Rf8 0-1

T.Petrosian-B.Spassky
World Championship (Game 4), Moscow 1969

The position is balanced. It has arisen from a tense manoeuvring struggle resulting from the
Tarrasch Defence to the Queen’s Gambit. We can see that Black’s typical isolated queen’s
pawn on d5 is opposed by a white pawn on d4, which is a relief for Black. Also White’s
king’s position is weakened, and his minor pieces are far from their most effective positions.
Nevertheless, Black cannot say that he has any advantage. His own minor pieces are not
particularly well placed and his control of the e-file in itself does not give him much.
There follows a manoeuvring phase in which each side tries to improve the position of his
pieces and if possible worsen the position of the enemy pieces.
How should Black begin this phase?
31 ... Bg6!
A seemingly modest move, giving the black king some luft. But that is not the main idea. As
Kasparov pointed out, “Spassky hits on a plan that his opponent discerns too late”, as we
shall see.
32 Bf1
A move that is easy to understand. The bishop is inactive on g2 and thus seeks better
prospects. However, this begins to justify a remark by Kasparov, who indicated a few moves
earlier that there were other priorities: “White urgently needed to exchange the queens or at
least the rooks, retaining the theoretical hope of exploiting the weakness of the d5-pawn”.
32 Kf2 was recommended here, but Kasparov thought that Black could then follow the
same plan as in the game and keep some life in the position, starting with 33 ... Qd6, to avoid
exchanging the major pieces. One might equally be wondering what exactly is the problem
with 32 Bf1? Nothing serious, but read on ...
32 ... Nh7!
Kasparov wrote that he thought that it was here that Petrosian realised that his position
might have problems. The knight threatens to become active from g5 or, via f8, at g6 or e6,
supported by the queen from. In the nine minutes that he devoted to his reply he might have
thought that his bishop had not been so badly placed on g2 after all.
33 Qf4
Neutralising the threat of 33 ... Qf6, and also ruling out 33 ... Ng5?? on account of 34 h4,
winning. Boleslavsky thought that 33 h4 could have been answered with 33 ... Qf6 34 h5 Ng5!
with advantage to Black, for example 35 Bg2 Bh7 36 h4 Ne4.
33 ... Nf8
This is the most consistent. The knight heads for its best post, which is e6. Note that
Spassky still had 25 minutes to reach the time control at move 40; Petrosian had only 15.
34 Rc5?
Seeking to tie the black pieces to the defence of the d5-pawn. This is White’s first wrong
step. Kasparov thought that it was the product of the situation (known to chess players at all
levels) of not knowing whether he could keep playing for a win or whether it was now
appropriate to start thinking about drawing the game.
After 34 Qe5! the game would almost certainly have ended in a draw.
 34 ... Bb1!
A strong move in the opponent’s time pressure. Suddenly all the black pieces are
increasing their activity.
35 a4
If 35 Qd2 Black could play 35 ... Qf6!, as indicated by Boleslavsky, making room for the
knight at e6. Kasparov stated that Spassky was seeking to activate his pieces in lines such as
36 Qd1 Rd8! 37 Rb5 Bg6 38 Rxb7 Ne6 39 b4 Rc8, with a strong attack.
35 ... Ng6 36 Qd2 Qf6
The changed situation is obvious. The black queen is putting pressure on both d4 and f3
and the black knight is ready to invade the white camp.
37 Kf2?
The king is ‘putting his head in the lion’s mouth’. Even in his own territory the king
becomes a tactical weakness. Boleslavsky and Bondarevsky and later Kasparov pointed out
that the best move was 37 Rc1!, even though after 37 ... Nh4 38 Bg2 Bg6 39 Kf2 Black is
slightly better; here Kasparov refined the assessment of the position, indicating 39 ... b6!, to
control c5.
37 ... Nf4
This location for the knight is much more effective than on h4, as in the previous note.
38 a5?!
In serious time pressure White overlooks a neat tactical shot. He had to play 38 Rc3, even
though Black would obtain a decisive initiative according to Kasparov with 38 ... Ne6 39
Ne2 h5!
 38 ... Bd3!
This threatens 39 ... Qxd4+. “Moves such as this are rarely encountered in matches for the
World Championship” commented Boleslavsky.
39 Nf5
If 39 Qc3 then 39 ... Qh4 40 Kg1 Bxf1 41 Rc8 Bb5! (Boleslavsky).
39 ... Qg5!
Another heavy blow, threatening 40 ... Nh3+. Also good was 39 ... Bxf5 40 Qxf4 g5 41
Qd2 Bxg4.
40 Ne3 Qh4+ 41 Kg1 Bxf1 0-1
This was the sealed move. Petrosian resigned, since if 42 Nxf1 then 42 ... Re2 wins, while if 42 Kxf1 Black has 42 ...
Qh3+.

B.Spassky-G.Sigurjonsson
Munich 1979

If we look at this position from the static viewpoint, it looks extremely depressing for
White. He has an isolated pawn on d4, a very bad bishop on b2, and the exchange of the light-
squared bishops was clearly in Black’s favour.
What does White have to brag about? Only his knight on e5. However, a closer look at the
position reveals that Black has a weakened castled position and his minor pieces are not
ideally placed. If the b4-bishop were on g7, Black’s position would be very advantageous. It
is essential for White to do something soon though, before Black regroups. How can White’s
prospects be improved?
22 Ng4!
White’s only well-placed piece shows the way.
22 ... Be7 23 Ba3!
White seizes the initiative, looking for more than 23 Qe5, with equality. Suddenly the
bishop is not so bad, and Black, who was contemplating the future with equanimity, must now
adapt to the new situation.
23 ... Qh5?
This decentralisation of the queen drastically worsens the situation.
If 23 ... Bd8? White could continue forcefully with 24 f5! gxf5 25 Nh6+ Kg7 26 Nxf5+.
It was difficult to opt for 23 ... h5 24 Bxe7 hxg4 25 Bf6 and the bishop is very scary, but
the situation does not appear so serious after 25 ... Qf5.
Another reasonable option was to begin a hand-to-hand struggle with 23 ... Bh4, e.g. 24 g3
f5!, but not 24 ... Bd8? 25 f5.
After 24 Re2 (instead of 24 g3) trying to bring the knight back into the fray with 24 ...
Nc6?! can once again be answered with 25 f5! gxf5 26 Nh6+ Kg7 27 Qf4! and now 27 ...
Bf6? fails to 28 Qg3+! Kxh6 29 Bc1+ mating. So Black must play 24 ... h5! 25 Qh3 Bd8 and
even though Black’s king remains weak White appears to have no more than a draw after 26
Nh6+ Kg7 27 Nxf7 Kxf7 20 Re5 Qd7 21 Rxh5 gxh5 22 Qxh5+ Kg7 and perpetual check,
since after 23 Rd3 Black defends with 23 ... Rc3!.
24 h3 Bh4 25 Re2
Threatening 26 d5! exd5? 27 Qxe8+ Rxe8 28 Rxe8+ Kg7 29 Bf8+ mating.
25 ... f5?!
The position was already difficult. 25 ... Red8? loses to 25 g3, while 25 ... Qd5 allows 26
f5!, with a strong attack, e.g. 26 ... gxf5 27 Nh6+ Kg7, and once again 28 Qf4!.
26 Ne5
 The situation has changed radically from the first diagram. Black’s position has clearly
deteriorated, so much so that there is no longer any good defence against the mounting threats,
such as 27 g4, 27 Nf3 followed by d5, etc.
26 ... Rc3?!
Black wants to activate his queen, which stands remote from the struggle. After 26 ... Bf6
White could play 27 Nf3, as has already been pointed out, with the idea of d4-d5 and also
preparing 28 Rc1 (threatening 29 Rxc8 and 30 Qxe6+) 28 ... Rxc1 29 Qxc1 and the white
queen invades Black’s queenside with decisive effect.
27 Qxc3 Qxe2 28 Rc1
This is good enough to win. With so many weaknesses and with his pieces lacking
coordination, Black cannot hold the position. Nevertheless, it was quicker to play 28 Qc7!
Qxd1+ (or 28 ... Kh8 29 Rc1 Qe3+ 30 Kh1 Qxd4 31 Qf7 Rg8 32 Rc7) 29 Kh2, e.g. 29 ... Kh8
30 Nf7+ Kg8 31 Nh6+ Kh8 32 Qe5+.
28 ... Rd8 29 Qc7 Qf2+ 30 Kh1 Qxf4 31 Qf7+ Kh8 32 Nf3 1-0
This defends the back rank and there is no good defence against the numerous threats, such as 33 Rc7, or 33 Bb2
followed by d5, etc.

B.Spassky-Z.Ribli
Tilburg 1980
 The position is balanced. White’s pawn structure has little mobility, because Black has not
yet created hanging pawns with ... cxd4. On the other hand this means that the white pawns
are not yet under worrying pressure. White does not have the useful manoeuvre Nf1-e3
available and must decide how to proceed.
18 Ne4!
Although in theory it is not generally advisable for the side with hanging pawns (which can
appear at any moment) or an isolated d-pawn to exchange pieces without any concrete reason,
this offer to exchange knights does not in fact flout that rule. The concrete reasons are that no
other move offers any better prospects and exchanging the knight that is guarding Black’s
kingside might pay off for White in the long run and demonstrate that Black’s last move, the
strange 17 ... Kg8-f8?!, was not the best.
18 ... Nxe4
Black does not object to the exchange. If he plays something else he has to reckon with 19
Nc3, trying to exploit the position of the black pawn on a4.
19 Bxe4 cxd4
If 19 ... Ba6 White could play 20 d5, reducing the bishop’s activity by preventing Black
from opening the c-file with ... cxd4.
20 exd4 a3
On 20 ... Na5 White can play 21 d5! Nxc4 22 d6! and after e.g. 22 ... Bxd6 23 Bxb7 Qxb7
24 Rxc4 Rxc4 25 Qxc4 Bh2+ 26 Kxh2 Rxd1 materially Black is not doing badly, but the bad
position of the black king after 27 Qg4! gives White some advantage.
21 Bc3 Na5?!
The other attack with 21 ... Ba6?! would have been answered forcefully with 22 d5!.
Therefore it was better to reduce the mobility of the hanging pawns with 21 ... Bf6!, based
on the fact that after 22 d5 Black can safely play 22 ... Bxc3 23 dxc6 Rxd1+ 24 Qxd1 Bxc6!
25 Bxc6 Bb2! 26 Bb5 Rd8 27 Qc2 Bxc1 28 Qxc1 Qd6, and unlike in the line given in the note
20 ... Na5 above, the position of the black king is not a factor here and so Black is fine.
22 c5!
It was also worth considering both advancing with 22 d5 and, naturally, damaging Black’s
pawn structure with 22 Bxa5, which would leave White a pawn up, but White is after more
than the advantage offered after 22 ... bxa5 23 Bb7 Qxb7 24 c5 (preventing ... Bb4) 24 ...
Kg8.
22 ... Bxe4
22 ... bxc5? loses to 23 Bxa5, while 22 ... Nc6 is answered with 23 d5!.
23 Qxe4 bxc5
If 23 ... Kg8 White can take on a5 under better circumstances: 24 Bxa5 bxa5 25 Rd3.

24 d5!
This threatens 25 Qh7, to which there is no good defence. I suppose that this is the typical
moment when even very strong masters might be starting to have a few negative thoughts
about the move 17 ... Kf8.
24 ... exd5
If 24 ... Kg8 then White can play 25 dxe6, decisively weakening the black king; then 25 ...
fxe6? loses to 26 Qxe6+ Kh7 (or 26 ... Kf8 27 Ne5) 27 Bxa5 and 28 Qxe7.
25 Qh7! f6
After 25 ... Bf6 then among other things 26 Re1 wins.
26 Nh4 Ke8
If 26 ... d4 then 27 Bxa5 Qxa5 28 Nf5 wins.
27 Qg8+ 1-0
After 27 ... Kd7 White wins with 28 Qxd5+ Ke8 29 Qg8+ Bf8 30 Ng6.

Boris Spassky, “an unstoppable attacking machine”

Spassky’s career featured many beautiful attacking games, in which he became “an
unstoppable attacking machine”, which was how Yasser Seirawan described him in his
annotations to a game they contested. Most of these games were based on a methodical build-
up. According to Paul Keres and Iivo Nei, “he did not usually undertake any dubious venture
based on speculative sacrifices, unless this was dictated by his extraordinary positional
intuition”.
Let us look at some examples.

B.Spassky-E.Geller
6th matchgame, Sukhumi 1968
 In the Candidates match in 1968 between Spassky and Geller the Closed Variation of the
Sicilian Defence was debated on four occasions and Spassky, playing White, won three of
these. In games 2 and 4 of the match White’s victory was not due to any objective advantage
gained in the opening. In game 2 Black was much better and in game 4 White could well have
lost, but both games ended in a mating attack on the black king.
For game 6 Spassky devised a better plan, but before we look at this let us briefly examine
the course of game 4. Both games reached the position shown in the diagram above.
Spassky played 14 Qd2?! which is an apparently logical move, connecting the rooks and
perhaps preparing a future f5 and Bh6 etc. The game continued 14 ... Ra8 15 Rab1 Qa5,
(“Black again has an active position” wrote Kasparov, who suggests 15 ... Qc7!? here,
followed by playing one rook to a2 and the other to a8) 16 b3 (There is no time for 16 f5?!
because Black can break up White’s pawn structure with 16 ... b3! 17 c3 c4!) 16 ... Rfc8
(Geller suggested 16 ... d5!? 17 e5 d4 18 Bf2 Nd5, with a positional advantage.) 17 f5! Qb6
18 g4 Ra2 19 Nc1 Ra5 20 Qf2 Qc7 21 Ne2 Ra2 22 Rbc1 Qd8 23 Nf4 Qe8
 24 Ng5? This attacking move, surrendering control of d4, should have led to defeat.
Spassky’s initial idea here was 24 g5 Nd7 25 h4, but he changed his mind, judging it to be too
slow. Kasparov suggested 24 Qh4 and gave a long variation resulting in a double-edged
position. After 24 Ng5? the game continued 24 ... Nd4! (highlighting the weakness at c2) 25
fxg6 hxg6 26 Nd5 Nxb3, with a winning position. Spassky complicated the game with 27 e5!?
and created practical chances for himself and he actually won the game after a terrible
blunder by Geller in a winning position on move 35.
In game 6 of the match Spassky improved with:
14 b3!
This is a surprising move and one which would be far from the first move that a master
would think of. Spassky and his second Bondarevsky sought and found a better arrangement
for the white pieces compared to game 4.
14 ... Ra8
Geller continues as in game 4, although he was later of the opinion that it would have been
more practical to vary his plan with 14 ... Nd7!? 15 Rc1 e6! 16 g4 d5, with good play.
15 Rc1
This is an improvement; the rook goes directly to c1, instead of unnecessarily to b1 first.
15 ... Ra2 16 g4 Qa8?!
“The queen should have been kept closer” commented Kasparov, and he suggested 16 ...
Qc7 or the more active 16 ... Qa5 17 Qe1 Qb5! (hindering 18 Qh4, on account of the “X-ray”
pressure on the knight at e2) 18 Qf2 Rfa8, with the idea of 19 ... Nd7 and 20 ... Ra1.
17 Qe1!
This reveals another advantage of the ‘new’ white set-up. With the rook on c1 the queen is
not tied to the defence of the c2-pawn and can move to the kingside.
17 ... Qa6?!
Geller commented that after 17 ... d5 18 e5 Nd7 19 Qh4 e6 “it was still possible to
construct a defence”.
18 Qf2
The positive side of Black last move is that once again 18 Qh4? is prevented, on account
of 18 ... Rxc2! (even better than 18 ... Nxe4!) 19 Rxc2 Qxd3, shattering White’s position.
It is true that the queen is less active on f2, but nevertheless it has greater influence in the
game than the black queen on a6.
18 ... Na7?!
This decentralisation understandably received some criticism. 18 ... Nd7 was suggested
instead, maintaining control of e5.
 19 f5!
“The beginning of the end” said Geller, adding that the white attack now develops so fast
that Black does not have enough time to capture the c2-pawn. In comparison with game 4,
White has clearly improved the arrangement of his pieces, while just the opposite can be said
of the black pieces.
19 ... Nb5 20 fxg6 hxg6?!
Here 20 ... fxg6 was more tenacious, allowing the rook to use the f7 square for defence,
even though with 21 Nf4 Bc8 22 Ng5! (planning 23 Qh4) White retains the advantage.
Kasparov analysed 22 e5 and concluded, after a long and complicated line, that White can
reach a better endgame.
21 Ng5 Na3 22 Qh4
With the threat 23 Rxf6 and mate, to which there is no good defence. If 22 ... Re8 then
White has 23 e5! (weakening the c5-pawn) 23 ... dxe5 24 Rxf6! exf6 25 Qh7+ Kf8 26 Bxc5+
Re7 27 Bxe7+ Kxe7 28 Qxg7 fxg5 29 Qxe5+ and wins.
So Black bolsters his c5-pawn.
22 ... Rc8
 23 Rxf6!
Anyway! Now the black king has only a single defender. All his other pieces are on the
opposite wing and the white pieces can more readily join in the attack.
23 ... exf6 24 Qh7+ Kf8 25 Nxf7!
Here 25 Nf4! was also strong. Both moves leave Black defenceless.
25 ... Rxc2
Sparing the life of the intruder is hopeless, but if 25 ... Kxf7 White plays 26 Bh6 Rg8 27
Nf4 Rxc2 28 Rf1! g5 29 Bxg5! with a decisive attack.
26 Bh6!
Eliminating the last defender of the black king.
26 ... Rxc1+ 27 Nxc1 Kxf7 28 Qxg7+ Ke8 29 g5
Another way was 29 e5 Bxg2 30 e6.
29 ... f5 30 Qxg6+ Kd7
If 30 ... Kd8 then one way to win is 31 Qf7 Qc6 32 g6 Qd7 33 e5! Bxg2 34 exd6 Rb8 35
Kxg2 Kc8 36 Bf8, preparing g7.
31 Qf7+ Kc6 32 exf5+ 1-0

B.Spassky-N.Rashkovsky
USSR Championship 1973
 White has all his pieces in play and his king is secure. Black still has his king in the centre,
but he had faith in his position, since he had played it before. The game Savon-Rashkovsky
from the second round of the same 1973 USSR Championship had continued 12 Kb1 Nc5 13
e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 Nd5 15 Nxd5 Bxd5 16 Bxe7 Qxe7 with good play for Black. Spassky played
differently ...
12 e5!
Played after fifteen minutes thought. This game attracted the attention of all the spectators ,
not a few of whom thought that the advance was premature.
12 ... dxe5 13 fxe5 Nd5
Here there are two main lines; Spassky analysed both of them and chose the more original
path.
14 Bxe7!?
In the press room the great attacking player Rashid Nezhmetdinov asserted that White
could gain a winning attack with 14 Nxe6! and if 14 ... fxe6 15 Qh5+. Both the players saw
this and also that it was more tenacious to play 14 ... Bxg5+! 15 Nxg5 Nxc3 16 bxc3! Qxc3,
reaching an extremely complicated position, in which there are many possible continuations.
For example 17 e6! as pointed out by Spassky himself, and 17 Qg4! as given by Keres, are
the main lines based on long and complicated analysis, and both these continuations give
White an advantage.
14 ... Nxc3
14 ... Nxe7? is punished with the typical Sicilian sacrifice on b5: 15 Bxb5! axb5 16
Ncxb5, for example 16 ... Qb6 17 Nd6+ Kf8 18 Qf1! Nf5 19 N4xf5 Rxa2 (or 19 ... exf5 20
Qxf5) 20 Nc4 Ra1+ 21 Kd2 Qb4+ 22 c3 Rxd1+ 23 Rxd1 Qc5 24 Nfd6, and the black king is
defenceless.
If 14 ... Kxe7 the white attack triumphs after 15 Qg4! Nxc3 16 Nxe6! Nxa2+ 17 Kb1 Nc3+
18 bxc3 Qxc3 19 Bf5! and there is no good defence against 20 Qh4+.
15 Qg4!
Kasparov commented: “This unexpected and spectacular stroke utterly stunned
Rashkovsky, who was expecting only the ‘normal’ 15 bxc3 Kxe7 16 Qg4 Bd5 17 Qg5+ Kf8”.
15 ... Nxd1
 16 Nxe6!
So, a Sicilian sacrifice on e6 after all. “How many of them did he make in his career!”
commented Kasparov. This continuation is the reason why Spassky opted for 14 Bxe7.
16 ... Qc6?
With only five minutes for twenty-five moves Black did not find the strongest defence,
which was pointed out by Keres: 16 ... fxe6! 17 Bd6 Qb6!, but this could realistically only
have been played as a result of deep and accurate calculation, and Black did not have enough
time for this. Be that as it may, even after a great deal of analysis the conclusion is that there
is still life in the position, and the outcome is uncertain. The main lines now are 18 Qxe6+
Kd8 and 18 Qg5 Nf6!
17 Nxg7+! Kxe7 18 Qg5+ f6
If 18 ... Kf8 then among others White has 19 Nf5 Nc5 20 e6! Nxe6 21 Qf6 and wins.
19 exf6+ Kd8 20 f7+ Kc7 21 Qf4+ 1-0
If 21 ... Kb6 White has 22 Re6.

This was a spectacular attack, involving energy-draining complications that were impossible to calculate precisely over the
board. According to the tournament book, when the players finished the game and left the stage, “anyone who had not been
following the game closely would have been unable to tell which player had won, since they both looked so tired”.

B.Spassky-J.Timman
3rd matchgame, Amsterdam 1977
 Black has played a provocative line of the Grünfeld Defence against one of Spassky’s
specialities, the Exchange Variation, and allowed a quick h4-h5 to open the h-file.
With his last move, 11 ... Ba6, Black has prevented the typical manoeuvre of Qd1-d3
followed by the queen heading for the h-file. Black does not fear the capture on g6, followed
by Bh6, exchanging the key defensive piece. Black has adequate defensive resources and
plans to repel the d5-bishop with ... e6, followed by ... Na5 and ... c5. White must now look
for a plan, otherwise his initiative will quickly evaporate.
12 hxg6 hxg6 13 Nf4!
This threatens 14 Nxg6. Instead 13 Bh6? does not work, because White has insufficient
development to consolidate his control of the h-file. For example 13 ... e6 14 Bb3 Bxh6 15
Rxh6 Kg7, followed by ... Rh8.
13 ... e6
Black has all his pieces developed. He attacks the d5-bishop and is poised to strike at
White’s centre with ... Na5 and ... c5. Nevertheless, it will be seen once again that the
security of the king can be the most significant factor. White succeeds in exploiting his great
achievement of having opened the h-file by bringing fresh forces into the attack.
14 Qg4!
Preparing Qh4 or Qh3 and already envisaging combinations based on the squares e6 and
g6.
14 ... Rfd8?!
This renews the threat against the bishop. Knowing what happens next, it is easy
recommend the prophylactic move 14 ... Rfe8 even though this allows 15 Qh3 (threatening
Qh7+, followed by Ba3+) Black appears to be able to defend with 15 ... Qd6! and after 16
Qh7+ Kf8 17 a4? fails to 17 ... exd5 18 Ba3 Rxe4+ 19 Kd1 Nb4! 20 Bxb4 Rxd4+ (or 20 ...
c5); so the correct continuation is 17 Bxc6 Qxc6 18 Ba3+ Re7 19 Rh3 Qxe4+ 20 Re3 Qxf4
21 Bxe7+ Kxe7 22 Qxg7 and now after 22 ... Rd8, White is better, but it will not be easy to
realise the advantage in material.
 15 Bxe6!
The other sacrifice, 15 Nxe6, is also good, but less clear after 15 ... Re8! Now 16 Bb3?
can be answered advantageously with 16 ... Na5 or 16 ... Rxe6. It is stronger to play 16 Qh4!
Rxe6 17 Ba3, when according to the engines Black’s best is the wild 17 ... f5.
As usual, Spassky prefers the clearest continuation, as long as this grants good prospects.
15 ... fxe6 16 Qxg6
White has two pawns for the piece and the black king is weak. This is rather better than the
Cochrane Gambit that Spassky said he liked, don’t you think?
White threatens 17 Nxe6, as well as 17 Rh3 (with the idea of Qh7+ followed by Rf3,
among other things).
16 ... Bc4
Instead 16 ... Qf7? loses to 17 Rh8+, while after 16 ... Ne7 White would not capture a
third pawn, allowing the exchange of queens, but would instead continue to press his attack
with 17 Qh7+ Kf7 18 Nh5 Rg8 19 Bh6. Now 19 ... Qb5 is answered by 20 0-0-0, while in
answer to the counter-blow 19 ... Qc6 the move 20 Rh3 is strong.
17 Qh7+ Kf7
Instead 17 ... Kf8 allows 18 Ba3+.
18 Nh5 Rg8
Again if 18 ... Kf8 19 Ba3+.
19 Rh3!
19 Bh6! was also winning.
19 ... Raf8
The try 19 ... Nxd4 20 cxd4 Qxd4 loses to 21 Rf3+ Ke7 22 Bg5+.
20 Nxg7 Rh8
Or 20 ... Rxg7 21 Rf3+ Ke8 22 Rxf8+ Kxf8 23 Bh6.
21 Rf3+ Ke7 22 Ba3+ Nb4 23 Bxb4+ c5 24 dxc5! Rxh7 25 cxb6+ 1-0
A possible continuation is 25 ... Qd6 26 Bxd6+ Kxd6 27 Rxf8 Rh1+ 28 Kd2 Rxa1 29 b7.

K.Hulak-B.Spassky
Toluca Interzonal 1982
 We are in a typical position arising from the Exchange Variation of the Queen’s Gambit
with the kings castled on opposite wings. Both sides have made progress. Black has
advanced an annoying pawn to a3, setting up many tactical possibilities. It might seem that
White has achieved more, given that he has already opened a file against the black king, but
Spassky will soon demonstrate that in fact White is not ahead in the attacking race.
19 ... Rac8!
The priority for Black is to open lines against the white monarch so Black prepares ... c5.
The half-open g-file presents no danger to Black yet, as the white queen is still a long way
from the kingside.
20 Nf4
This holds up the 20 ... c5 break on account of 21 Bxf6.
20 ... N8d7 21 Qe2
Now White seeks to restrain the ... c5 advance by means of the attack on the b5-pawn.
21 ... c5!
The priority is to open lines, and the tactics will follow.
22 dxc5
Instead 22 Bxb5 is answered strongly with 22 ... Ne4! (threatening ... Nc3+) and the
weakness of the white king starts to be obvious. If 23 Nxd5 then 23 ... Nb6! follows.
After 23 Rc1 there are several attractive moves, such as 23 ... Bxg5, although it is even
better to interpolate 23 ... Nd2+ 24 Ka1, when after 24 ... Bxg5 the white king is in a very
dangerous situation; the engines see no defence for White, for instance 25 Bxd7 cxd4 26 Bxe8
dxe3 (or 26 ... d3) with a deadly check on the diagonal a1-h8 to follow.
22 ... Nxc5!
More ambitious than 22 ... Rxc5 23 Rc1.
With the sacrifice of the d5-pawn the threats from the black knights start to multiply. Both
... Ne4 and ... Na4 are on the agenda, also ... Qc3 is to be considered.
23 Bxf6
If 23 Qe1 then 23 ... Qc7! (planning ... Qe5 and maintaining the threat of ... Ne4).
23 ... Bxf6 24 Nxd5
 The threat of ... Ne4 has been parried, White controls c3 and is ready to eliminate the
dangerous black bishop with 25 Nxf6, as well as to fend off the black queen with 25 Qd2.
24 ... Na4!
Black finds another way, elegant and effective, to continue the attack.
25 Rc1
The knight is immune from capture; after 25 bxa4?! bxa4 26 Nxf6 Black wins with 26 ...
Qb4+ 27 Ka1 Qc3+ 28 Kb1 Rb8+ 29 Bb5 gxf6 (planning 30 ... Re5) 30 Rd5 Rec8 31 Rgd1
Rc4! 32 Rd8+ Kg7, and there is no defence.
26 Bc4 looks better, but then 26 ... Red8! (planning 27 ... Rxd5) 27 Nxf6 Rb8+! 28 Bb3
axb3 29 Rxd8+ Rxd8, and the best White can achieve is an unpleasant endgame after 30. Rd1
Qxf5+ 31 e4 Rxd1+ 32 Qxd1 bxa2+ 33 Kxa2 Qxf2+ 34 Kxa3 Qxf6.
25 ... Nc3+ 26 Nxc3?!
This makes Black’s task easier. We reach a typical attacking position with bishops of
opposite colour, coupled with the great weakness of the white king on the dark squares.
It was better to play 26 Rxc3, even though Black has a strong initiative after 26 ... Bxc3 27
f6 g6 28 Bxb5 Red8; material is secondary here – the white king remains very exposed.
26 ... Rxc3 27 Rgd1 Qb4!
Threatening 28 ... Rxb3+.
28 Bc2
If 28 Rc2 then 28 ... Rec8, renewing the threat of 29 ... Rxb3+. The text move is punished
with the same elegance with which Spassky has conducted the whole attack.
 28 ... Rcxe3! 29 Qd2
If 29 fxe3 then 29 ... Qc3 wins.
29 ... Rc3
Black is not content with 29 ... Qxd2 and 30 ... Rxh3, instead seeking to conclude matters
before the endgame.
30 Re1 Rxe1 31 Qxe1
If 31 Rxe1 Black would create luft with 31 ... h6 before continuing the attack.
31 ... h6 32 Rd1
After 32 Qe8+ Kh7 33 Qxf7 Rc8! White has no good defence against 34 ... Qc3, or any
queen move on the long diagonal; for instance, if 34 Bd3 Rxc1+ 35 Kxc1 allows mate in two
moves after 35 ... Bg5+.
32 ... Kh7!
White is paralysed by the need to prevent the invasion of the black queen and in addition
the white pawns will soon prove to be very weak.
33 Qe2
White abandons the pawn on h3, but it was not possible to defend it anyway. 33 f3 would
allow 33 ... Qc5, threatening 34 ... Rxf3, when the defensive try 34 Qe4 fails to 34 ... Rxf3!
(34 ... Re3 also wins) 35 Qxf3 Qe5 36 Kc1 Bg5+ with a quick mate.
33 ... Rxh3 34 Qe1 Qc5 35 Kc1 Rxb3! 36 axb3 a2 0-1

B.Spassky-Y.Seirawan
Zürich 1984
 The position seems quiet. White does not seem to have anything special here, at least at
first sight. Black’s bishop on g7 is threatening to become active, thanks to the pressure on the
e5-pawn.
11 Ng5!
Charge! Spassky fully justifies his statement: “Maybe people are right when they call me a
lazy bear, a Russian bear. But if somebody wants to fight, I will fight. And I can still be
successful”.
If 11 0-0 Black could complete his development with 11 ... dxe5 12 Nxe5 Nc6, with a
good position, while 11 e6 f5 gives White nothing special.
11 ... Bxg2 12 Rg1 Bc6
The e5-pawn is still under attack. How should White play?
13 Qg4!
More white pieces are being fed into the attack. The queen now joins the rook on g1. Of
course, this obvious move requires some calculation, but it is encouraging to verify that after
13 ... dxe5 there are several promising moves. The simple 14 dxe5 is playable, since 14 ...
Bxe5? loses to 14 Qh4 h5 15 Nxf7! with a decisive attack, but even more direct is 14 Qh4! h6
and combinations are hanging over the weak black king, the strongest being 15 Ne6! although
15 Nxf7 also gives White the advantage.
13 ... e6
Black tries to neutralise the strong c4-bishop, while White continues to mass forces against
the black king.
14 0-0-0
Having played a4, White rarely castles queenside, but White committed himself to this
when he played 11 Ng5!, and besides, it does not help Black’s counterattack as much as one
might think, since the focus of the struggle will be on the opposite flank.
14 ... Nd7
 This is a scenario that we shall see many times. Over the next few moves there will be
several continuations to be analysed, such as the sacrifices on e6 and f7, which could well
decides the game in White’s favour. But if Spassky is not satisfied that they are decisive, his
recipe is always to add more troops.
Perhaps this is what Kramnik was referring to, in his slightly critical comment quoted at
the start of this chapter. To that we can respond that although sometimes Spassky possibly
fails to find a slightly quicker solution, his choice does not squander the advantage, and from
the practical viewpoint it is very unpleasant for the opponent.
Having said that ... what do you think Spassky played?
15 h4!
Here, as in the majority of cases, the move chosen by Spassky is the strongest one.
Analysis confirms that neither 15 Nxf7 nor 15 Bxe6 are winning.
15 ... dxe5
Playing ... h5 now or in the next moves would prevent White from advancing with h4-h5,
but obviously it would weaken the kingside even more.
16 dxe5!
Once again White brings a fresh piece into attack, namely the rook on d1. Here 16 Nxe6!?
was an interesting alternative.
16 ... Qe7
 The worst seems to be over for Black, thanks to the attack on the e5-pawn. He plans ...
Rfd8 preparing ... Nf8, as well as ... b5 opening lines against the white king.
How should White continue?
17 Rxd7!
White speeds up his attack with a fresh sacrifice of material in order to open the h-file.
17 ... Bxd7 18 h5
The attack is very difficult to parry. Black failed to find the most tenacious defence and the
game finished in a 23-move miniature.
This game is annotated more thoroughly in my book Test your Chess.

‘Universal style’
According to Karpov, Spassky “was equally good at attacking, defending, and accumulating
positional advantages”, and Botvinnik added “he is a good psychologist, and he subtly
evaluates the situation, his strengths, and the strengths of his opponent”.
This characteristic frequently allowed him to adapt himself to the opponent’s style, playing
in a way that made the opponent feel uncomfortable.
Let us look at a few examples.

B.Spassky-E.Geller
2nd matchgame, Sukhumi 1968
 In this position from the second game of the aforementioned match against Geller, we can
safely say that the opening has not been a success for White. If 19 b3 Black plays 19 ... Nc3
20 Ra1 gxf5 and White’s compensation is more than doubtful. More importantly, it would be
totally incompatible with Spassky’s playing style, leaving him with a passive rook on a1
defending a pawn.
Spassky took a surprising decision, partly based on his knowledge of his opponent, who
disliked having to defend.
19 bxa3 Nxa3 20 Rbe1!?
“Spassky sits over the board with the same dead expression whether he is mating or being
mated”, commented Fischer. No doubt it was with the same unruffled expression that Spassky
decided to ‘burn his bridges’ and sacrifice the exchange.
20 ... Bc3 21 Qf2 Bxe1 22 Rxe1
The situation has changed radically. Black’s castled position is weak and the knight on a3
is a long way from the main struggle. Does this mean that White has full compensation for the
exchange? The objective response is “no”. Black has many good lines from here, but there are
practical difficulties, one of which is precisely the abundance of good options!
 22 ... f6
Here 22 ... Nb5 was good, improving Black’s worst placed piece.
23 Bh6 Rf7
First inserting 23 ... gxf5 24 exf5 before 24 ... Rf7 is bad on account of 25 Nh4, followed
by Qe2 and the queen goes to g4 or h5.
24 g4 e6
Black still has some good options, such as 24 ... e5 and 24 ... Nb5.
25 Nh4 g5?!
Spassky recommended 25 ... Qe8 26 fxg6 (Kasparov suggested 26 Bc1) 26…hxg6 and
now 27 Nxg6? fails to 27 ... Rh7, but 27 g5!? fxg5 28 Qg3 would maintain the tension; then 28
... gxh4? would lose to 29 Qxg6+ Kh8 30 Bg7+!.
26 Nf3
Now White intends to play h4, against which there are several possibilities. Retreating the
knight with 26 ... Nb5 still comes into consideration, as do 26 ... e5 and exchanging on f5.
Making such decisions is not easy, thus Black’s practical difficulties persist.
26 ... exf5 27 gxf5 Kh8 28 h4 g4 29 Nh2 g3?!
Geller was already in serious time trouble. Here 29 ... Qg8 would have been answered
with 30 Re3!
30 Qxg3 Nxc2 31 Rg1
 White has made considerable progress and thanks to the open g-file his position is quite
threatening. His main idea now is 32 Bf3-h5.
31 ... Bb7?
Black allows the white pieces to increase their activity while doing nothing to defend his
first and second ranks. It was preferable to play 31 ... Rbb7 (or first 31 ... Nd4) 32 Bf3 Nd4
33 Bh5 Rfc7, and “everything was still unclear” (Kasparov).
32 Bf3!
White is now better. His attack is very strong.
32 ... Qd7 33 Bh5 Re7 34 Ng4! Rg8
If 34 ... Qxf5? then 35 Qxd6! wins, threatening ‘the whole family’. Counter-blows against
e4 do not work. If 35 ... Bxe4+ 36 dxe4 Qxe4+ 37 Kh2, or 35 ... Rxe4 36 Qxb8+ Re8+ 37
Qxb7.
35 Qf2 Nd4 36 Nxf6! Rxg1+ 37 Qxg1 1-0
If 37 ... Qd8 then 38 Be8!

B.Spassky-J.Penrose
Palma de Mallorca, 1969
 White has managed to infiltrate on the queenside, but apparently this is no great
achievement, since the queen is not dangerous on her own, and the entry points of White’s
other pieces are all covered. How can White breach the black position?
36 Nxe5 fxe5 37 Bxc5!! dxc5 38 Qxe5
White has gained two connected passed pawns, which give him a great advantage. In game
16 we shall discuss this concept again. The white infantry prevents Black’s minor pieces
from becoming active. The task now is to advance the white centre pawns at the right moment
without allowing the black pieces to break out.
38 ... Ng8
If 38 ... Qd6 nothing special is achieved by 39 Qxd6?! Nxd6 40 e5 Nf7 41 Be4+ Kg7 42
d6 Bxe4+ 43 Nxe4 Nc6 44 e6 Nxd6 (or 44 ... Nfe5) 45 Nxd6 Kf6 46 Ne4+ Kxe6 seems
satisfactory, since the active king guarantees Black equality after 47 Nxc5+ Ke5.
However, it is a different matter if White avoids the exchange of queens with 39 Qa1!
followed by 40 e5, when the pawns are more dangerous and the weakness of the black king
remains a factor.
39 Qb8 Nef6 40 Nf5
White should not rush with 40 e5? in view of 40 ... Nxd5!
40 ... Ne7
 41 Nxh6!
This follow-up sacrifice is the most elegant continuation. Instead 41 e5? is still premature,
on account of 41 ... Nxf5! 42 gxf5 g4! 43 Be2 Nxd5!
The alternative was 41 Nd6 Bc8! 42 e5! Nxh5! 43 Be4+ Kg7 44 Bf5! but the text move is
simpler.
41 ... Nexd5
If 41 ... Kxh6 White wins with 42 Qf8+ Kh7 43 Qf7+ Kh8 44 Qxf6+ Kh7 (or 44 ... Kg8 45
Qxg5+) 45 Qf7+ Kh6 46 e5.
42 cxd5 Kxh6 43 Qf8+ Qg7 44 Qxc5 Nd7 45 Qd6+ Kh7

Now there is only one way to win, the one chosen by Spassky.
46 e5!
White prevents the blockading move 46 ... Ne5 and bringing the white bishop into play is
decisive.
46 ... Kh8
After 46 ... Nxe5 47 Be4+ Kg8, the simplest win is with 48 Qb8+.
 47 h6 Qh7 48 e6! Qc2+
If 48 ... Nf6 White wins with 49 Qb8+! Qg8 (49 ... Ng8? 50 Qe5+) 50 Qxb7.
49 Kg3 1-0

The ease with which Spassky could orient himself in all types of positions allowed him to
exploit different types of advantages in the most appropriate manner. But that characteristic
could also prove useful when he found himself in an inferior position, allowing him to change
the character of the struggle when the normal result was negative, as we saw earlier in the
extract from the game against Geller.
To round off this brief survey of Spassky’s style, let us conclude with two examples that have a certain similarity.

Y.Averbakh-B.Spassky
USSR Championship 1956

Black’s position is bad, and objectively there are no grounds for hope. What to do? A
normal continuation would be 16 ... Nd7 17 Nh4 Qe8 18 Qg4, and the play is very one-sided.
16 ... Nc6!?
It is easy to understand the shock that Averbakh must have felt on seeing this move. He was
so affected by it that incredibly he now thought for an hour.
So, is it a good sacrifice then? No, but there is nothing better. Objectively Black’s position
remains lost, but from the practical viewpoint it was indeed an excellent move. Instead of a
comfortable attack, resulting in the demolition of Black’s position, White is forced to
calculate and take decisions with no clear line of play.
As a result of the shock and the wasted hour’s thought, in the words of Averbakh himself,
“My state was far from normal and my tired brain found it hard to withstand the resulting
load”.
17 dxc6 bxc6
Averbakh said that during his hour’s reflection basically he was wondering what to do
after the capture of the piece: whether to continue with the attack or focus on consolidating the
material advantage.
18 Nh4
 He chose to continue with the attack, which is objectively correct, but it was more
practical to continue in the positional manner recommended by Averbakh himself with 18 a5!
(to be able to play Na4). After 18 ... Ne6 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 Na4 and now 20 ... Nd4? loses to
21 Nb6 Qg4 22 Nxd4 f3 23 Nc2 Qxe4+ 24 Ne3, while 20 ... Qd8 21 Nb6 Ra7 allows White
to regroup without allowing Black to become active after 22 Bc3 Nd4 23 Bxd4 exd4 24 Qd3,
followed by 24 0-0-0, as Averbakh indicated.
18 ... Qe8 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 Qg4 Rb8 21 Nd1 Ne6 22 Ra3 Nd4 23 Rah3 Qf7

The position has changed radically. It is true that Black has only a pawn for the piece, but, in Averbakh’s words, “The
black pieces have become much more active, whereas for the moment White’s attack does not look dangerous”. The game
was very hard-fought and exciting. Both players missed wins, but in the end it was drawn after a long struggle.

G.Kasparov-B.Spassky
Niksic 1983

This position arises from a line both champions had already played with both colours.
K.Weih-B.Spassky, Germany 1983, had continued 11 hxg6 fxg6 12 Nf4, which, according to
Kasparov, is not very dangerous. After 12 ... e6 13 Bxc4 d5 14 Bb3 Rxb3! 15 axb3 dxe4 16
0-0-0 exf3 17 gxf3 Ne7! 18 Nd3 Nf5 19 Ne5 Bb7 20 Bg5 Qe8 Black had good play.
The move 11 Bh6 is also unconvincing after 11 ... Nb4! For example 12 Ng3 Bxh6 13
Qxh6 Nc2+ 14 Kd1 Nxa1 15 hxg6 (not 15 Nd5? g5! and wins) 15 ... fxg6 16 Nd5 Kf7!
(preparing to flee from the white queen) 17 Nxf6 exf6 18 Qxh7+ Ke8 19 Qxg6+ Kd7, and ...
Kc6, with a material advantage.
Kasparov played much more strongly.
11 g4!
This move combines attack and defence. “The knight at e2, in expectation of ... e7-e5,
guards the d4-square for the moment. But now 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 Nf4 and Qh2! is threatened”.
(Kasparov)
What should Black do now? Spassky had a long think here. He did not like 11 ... e5 on
account of 12 d5, followed by Ng3 and 0-0-0.
11 ... Bxg4!?
“Spassky realised that he had to do something, since otherwise he might be suffocated and
quickly mated. And he took a decision which, from a purely chess standpoint is perhaps
dubious (it is clear that the piece sacrifice is not fully correct), but from the practical,
psychological standpoint it is the best, since it sharply changes the character of the play.
White will no longer have a direct attack, and he has to readjust to the conversion of a
material advantage, while Black acquires some counterplay”. (Kasparov)
Spassky’s piece sacrifice is similar to his reaction against Averbakh. Nevertheless,
Kasparov continued playing the strongest moves for a while.
12 fxg4 Nxg4 13 0-0-0! Nxe3 14 Qxe3 e6
Kasparov commented that objectively 14 ... e5 was better, but Black would still be worse,
so Spassky decided to maintain the tension, “[Spassky] chose a move which, though perhaps
objectively indifferent, did not fix the pawn structure and did not allow me a clear line of
play: as if to say, go on, attack, and let us see what happens…”, as Kasparov wrote.
15 hxg6 hxg6 16 Rd2 Re8 17 Ng1! d5 18 Nf3

Black has lost the initiative, while White now threatens 19 Rdh2, and “White has sufficient
force to mate the enemy king” according to Kasparov. Black’s position remains lost, yet it is
essential to offer the greatest possible resistance, but how?
 18 ... a5!
“Played because everything else is hopeless. But from this point incredible things begin to
happen”, commented Kasparov. White has more than one promising way, but the strongest
move, 19 Rdh2! requires concrete calculation, more analysis and more time.
19 e5
Kasparov analysed 19 Rdh2! but failed to see the decisive blow. “Becoming agitated, and
thinking that I could win as I pleased, I did not even bother to calculate this line to the end and
I chose 19 e5”, commented Kasparov.
19 ... Ne7!
As in the game with Weih, the knight goes to f5, from where it both defends and attacks,
and it also prepares a timely ... c5.
20 Bh3 c5! 21 dxc5 Qc7 22 Qf4?! Nc6!
Black has now gained good counterplay. In the following phase of the game there were
several inaccuracies by both sides, but time trouble made it impossible to play accurately and
after a complicated and exciting struggle Black emerged victorious in 33 moves.
It is strongly recommended to play through the whole game with Kasparov’s deep annotations in Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov Part 1.
Chapter One
Universal Style
Debut in the Soviet Championship
Spassky played in his first USSR Championship at the age of 18 in Moscow in February-
March 1955. The list of contestants in this, the 22nd championship, which would also grant
four places in the Interzonal in Gothenburg, was impressive. Here were the World Champion
Mikhail Botvinnik, the future World Champions Vassily Smyslov and Tigran Petrosian, and
several challengers for the world title from different epochs: Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Viktor
Korchnoi, Efim Geller, Mark Taimanov, etc.
Spassky’s debut was extraordinary. He shared third to sixth place with Botvinnik,
Petrosian and Ilivitsky, only half a point behind the winners, Geller and Smyslov (Geller won
the tie-break match).
Not only did Spassky qualify for the Interzonal on his first attempt, at the age of just 18, he also defeated the winner. He
was even playing on the latter’s ‘home turf’, as far as the opening was concerned.

Game 1
E.Geller-B.Spassky
USSR Championship 1955
Nimzo-Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3 Bxc3+ 5 bxc3

It is easy to agree with Kasparov’s opinion that the Sämisch Variation “was fully in
accordance with the creative views of the young Spassky: the two bishops, a solid centre and
possibilities of creating an attack – even if the weak c4-pawn should perish in the process!”.
Nevertheless, in Spassky’s practice there have been few games with either White or Black
with this line.
In contrast, this was Geller’s favourite weapon with White.
5 ... c5 6 e3 Nc6 7 Bd3
 7 ... d6
The classical line is 7 ... 0-0 8 Ne2 b6 9 0-0 (or 9 e4 Ne8, played in N.Littlewood-
B.Spassky, Hastings 1966-7) 10 ... Ba6 10 e4 Ne8.
It is possible that Spassky’s lack of enthusiasm for the Sämisch Variation stems from a very painful memory: B.Spassky-
M.Tal, from the last round of the 25th USSR Championship, Riga 1958, continued 7 ... e5?! 8 Ne2 e4 9 Bb1 b6 10 Ng3 Ba6 11
f3! (“An excellent move, opening lines for an attack” – Kasparov) 11 ... Bxc4 12 Nf5 (12 fxe4! d6 13 Ba2! Bxa2 14 Rxa2 0-0
15 0-0 Re8 16 Raf2 Nxe4 17 Nxe4 Rxe4 18 Rxf7 Re7 19 R7f5 “with unpleasant pressure” -Kasparov) 12 ... 0-0 13 Nd6 Bd3
14 Bxd3 exd3 15 Qxd3 cxd4 16 cxd4 Ne8! with chances for both sides.
Spassky lost this dramatic game and, after having led the championship for many rounds,
he finished in fifth place, when there were only four qualification places available for the
Interzonal. If Spassky had taken the draw that was available, he would have qualified to play
a match against Yuri Averbakh for the fourth spot.
For his part, Tal had a meteoric rise. He won the USSR Championship for the second time
and went on to win the Interzonal, the Candidates tournament and finally the match for the
world title against Botvinnik.
8 Ne2 b6 9 0-0 Qd7
Black has the typical idea of assailing the c4-pawn with ... Ba6 and ... Na5, as well as
preparing queenside castling. If Black plays 9 ... Ba6 right away, White can play 10 Qa4 Bb7
11 e4.
Against 9 ... e5 10 e4 Nd7 11 Ng3 g6 White has available a typical manoeuvre that
exploits the advantage of his doubled pawns, which control both the d5- and d4-squares: 12
dxe5! was played in E.Geller-I.Lipnitsky, USSR 1951, and after 12 ... dxe5 13 Qe2 Qe7 14
Rd1 Bb7 15 Nf1! the knight heads for d5, a ‘Spanish manoeuvre’, to use Tal’s terminology.
10 e4 Ba6 11 Bg5
 White creates the possibility of damaging Black’s pawn structure combined with ideas of
Ng3-h5 or Nf4-h5.
11 ... 0-0-0
It is premature to play 11 ... Na5?! 12 Ng3, and after 12 ... Bxc4 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14 Nh5 0-0-
0 15 Bxc4 Nxc4 16 Qe2 Qa4 17 Nxf6 Black has entered a very bad bargain by exchanging his
pawn on g7 for White’s doubled c-pawn. The knight on f6 is stronger than the one on c4 and
furthermore the black king is weaker than the white monarch.
In view of White’s improvement on move 12, it is worth considering 11 ... h6!?, and after
12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Ng3 cxd4 14 Nh5 0-0-0 15 cxd4 Nxd4 16 a4 Nc6 Black has a playable
position. R.Garcia-R.Shocron, Buenos Aires 1958 continued 12 Be3?! but then White had no
convincing response to the attack on his c4-pawn with 12 ... Na5 and after 13 Ng3 Bxc4 14
Bxc4 Nxc4 15 Qd3 Nxe3 16 Qxe3 0-0 the compensation for the pawn was almost non-
existent and Black won in 33 moves.

12 Ng3?!
 Question: A dubious move? You just said that this was one of White’s ideas.

Answer: Yes, it is, but it is also necessary to consider the opponent’s intentions and not just blindly follow one’s own plans
without evaluating the dangers involved. In this case it was appropriate to change course, because the opponent’s plan is
stronger, and requires neutralising first.
Geller himself improved White’s play with 12 Nc1!, and if 12 ... cxd4 13 cxd4 Nxd4 14 a4
Nc6 15 a5 bxa5 16 Nb3 Qc7 17 Bd2 White has managed to open up Black’s king position
advantageously.
E.Geller-G.Lisitsin, Moscow 1955, continued 12 ... Na5 13 Nb3! Qa4 (admitting the
failure of the attack on c4, since if 13 ... Bxc4? 14 Nxa5 Bxd3 15 Qxd3 bxa5 16 Rab1 the
black king is not going to be able to resist the attack; also unsatisfactory is 13 ... Nxc4? 14 a4!
[intending Qe2] 14 ... cxd4 15 Qe2 d5 16 cxd4 and 17 Rfc1). The game continued 14 Nxa5
Qxa5 15 Qc2 h6 16 Bd2, with an advantage. The white centre is strong and the black pieces
are passive.

Exercise: How should Black continue?

Answer:
12 ... h6!
‘First things first’. White was threatening 13 Nh5, so Black releases the pin, forcing the
bishop to take a decision.
On 12 ... cxd4?! rather than 13 Nh5?! Nxh5! 14 Bxd8 Nf4 15 Bg5 Nxd3 16 Qxd3 d5,
gaining two pawns for the exchange, White plays 13 cxd4! and now after 13 ... Nxd4 14 Nh5
Nxh5 15 Bxd8 Nf4 16 Bg5 Black will have only one pawn for the exchange.
13 Bxf6
In the event of 13 Be3, Black can attack c4 in ideal manner with three pieces by playing 13
... Na5 14 Qe2 Qa4 and White has problems equalising; after 15 e5 dxe5 16 dxc5 it is
possible to play simply 16 ... bxc5! (16 ... Bxc4 17 Bxc4 Qxc4 and 16 ... Rxd3 17 Qxd3 Bxc4
are the alternatives) 17 Bxc5 Bxc4 18 Bxc4 Qxc4 19 Bxa7 Qxe2 20 Nxe2 Rd7 21 Be3 Nc4,
with the better endgame, since the white pawns are weaker.
13 ... gxf6 14 Nh5
 Consistent, although 14 a4!? is an interesting option, with complications. For example 14
... cxd4 15 cxd4 Nxd4 16 a5. Instead Black can reinforce his position with 14 ... Kb8,
maintaining the option of capturing on d4 and then playing ... Na5, although the position
would remain double-edged.
14 ... cxd4!
It is possible that White thought that 14 ... Qe7 was forced, after which he could return to
the idea of 15 a4, but Black accepts the challenge to open the game by exchanging the doubled
pawns.
15 cxd4 Nxd4 16 Nxf6 Qe7

17 Qa4?!
The position is complicated and this move is tempting, but it is not the best.
Sokolsky suggested 17 Ng4 in order to answer 17 ... Bb7 with 18 Ne3, and the knight is
useful on e3, overprotecting g2.
Even better seems 17 Nd5! and after 17 ... exd5 (17 ... Qg5 allows 18 f4 and the g2-square
can be defended along the second rank; then if 18 ... Qg7 19 Qa4 is strong) 18 cxd5 White
regains the piece with equal chances after 18 ... Bb7 19 Qa4 Nf3+! 20 gxf3 Qf6, or 18 ... Kb8
19 Bxa6 Qxe4.

Exercise: How did Spassky show that 17 Qa4 is imprecise?

Answer:
17 ... Bb7!
Instead 17 ... Kb7? is weak in view of the energetic response 18 e5! threatening Be4+, and
after 18 ... d5 19 cxd5! Bxd3 20 Qxd4 Bxf1 21 d6 the compensation for the exchange is
overwhelming, giving White a clear advantage.
18 Nh5
Here 18 Qxa7? was no better on account of 18 ... Qxf6, and Black wins the attacking race.
19 Qxb6 loses to 19 ... Nf3+! 20 Kh1 (20 gxf3 Rhg8+ mating) 20 ... Qf4 21 g3 Qg4 22 Rab1
Rd7, threatening ... Qh3, with an extra piece and the attack.
After 18 Ng4 the natural 18 ... Rhg8 is strong (18 ... f5 also works) and then if 19 Ne3
there are many attractive moves, such as 19 ... f5, 19 ... Qh4 or 19 ... Qg5, which are all good,
although they require analysis, so the most practical continuation is 19 ... Kb8, after which
White’s king position cannot be held. This defensive move with the king is always to be
considered, reducing the force of 17 Qa4.
If 18 Nd5 there now follows 18 ... Qh4! (better than 18 ... exd5 19 cxd5 Nf3+ [after 19 ...
Qf6? 20 Qxa7 Rd7 21 Ba6! and White’s attack strikes first] 20 gxf3 Rhg8+ 21 Kh1 Kb8 22
Qd4 when White has an extra pawn and stands well) and now 19 Qxa7? loses to 19 ... Nf3+
20 gxf3 Rhg8+ 21 Kh1 Qh3, and mate in a few moves. 19 f3 is better, although after our
familiar 19 ... Kb8, followed by ... Rhg8, Black maintains the initiative.
18 ... Rhg8!
Black has a semi-open file along which to apply pressure against opponent’s castled
position. He also has the ‘sniper’ at b7, impatient to join in the struggle. It remains to be seen
whether it was even better to play 18 ... Rdg8!? to lend more force to a future ... h5.
19 Qd1
An acknowledgement of the failure of the attacking move 17 Qa4. Now the queen retreats.
Black did not even need to play ... Kb8. Grabbing the pawn with 19 Qxa7? loses to 19 ...
Rxg2+! 20 Kh1 (20 Kxg2 Bxe4+) 20 ... Rxh2+! 21 Kxh2 Qh4+ 22 Kg2 Qxh5.
Best was 19 Ng3, even though after 19 ... h5! 20 Qxa7 Qc7! Black’s advantage is clear.

Exercise: How did Spassky increase the pressure on the kingside?

19 ... f5!
The bishop on b7 begins to stir.
20 Re1
If 20 f3 then 20 ... Qg5 21 Ng3 f4 wins.
20 ... Qh4
Black puts more pressure on e4 as well as on the h5-knight. By now there are many good
continuations; almost any move that brings another piece into attack is good, such as 20 ...
Qg5 or even 20 ... Rdf8. Black’s initiative is unstoppable.
21 f4
If 21 g3, to answer 21 ... fxe4 with 22 Bxe4 (threatening the knight on d4), the most
attractive winning line is 21 ... e5! (defending the knight and threatening to capture on e4) 22
Kh1 fxe4! 23 gxh4 exd3+ 24 f3 and now, 24 ... Nxf3 (24 ... Bxf3+ and even the quiet 24 ...
Rdf8 also win) 25 Nf6 Nxe1+ 26 Nd5 d2! 27 Ra2 (or 27 Qxd2 Rg1+!) 27 ... Rdf8 leaves
White defenceless, since if 28 Qe2 Black plays the deflection 28 ... d1Q.
21 ... e5!
Seeking more than the simple 21 ... Qxe1+ 22 Qxe1 Nf3+, winning the exchange. The
threat is 22 ... Rg4 23 Ng3 exf4. The f4-pawn cannot be defended.
22 Rc1 exf4 23 Bf1 Qxe1!
Spassky considers that he already has sufficient booty. The materialistic engines prefer the
strange but effective 23 ... Nc6.
24 Qxe1 Nf3+ 25 Kf2 Nxe1 26 Rxe1 f3
So as not to leave the knight loose on f4 after 26 ... fxe4 27 Nxf4, although this would not
save White. Now White could safely resign.
27 gxf3 fxe4 28 fxe4 Rdf8+ 29 Ke3

29 ... Bxe4!
Elegance even in the endgame.
30 Bh3+ Bf5 31 Bxf5+ Rxf5 0-1
“This game was completely worthy of a World Champion – and who knows!” was the
Argentinean GM Oscar Panno’s prophetic comment in the April 1955 issue of the magazine
“Nuestro Tablero”.

Punishing a mistake in the opening

Spassky’s path to his first match for the world title in 1966 began with the 31st USSR
Championship held in Leningrad over November and December 1963. Spassky shared first
place with Leonid Stein and Ratmir Kholmov (Stein won the tie-break match) but this did not
qualify him to compete in the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal. He had to contest a double-round
tournament with six other challengers for the three qualification spots.
Spassky began badly by losing his first two games, after which he had two draws, but then
he rediscovered his best form and scored four victories and moved into clear first place in
the tournament. We have already seen his win against Geller involving a queen sacrifice in
the section where we were discussing Spassky’s style of play. In this game Spassky “punished
Korchnoi for his negligence in the opening”, to quote the book Boris Spassky’s 300 wins.

Game 2
B.Spassky-V.Korchnoi
Moscow 1964
Queen’s Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 g3 Bb7 5 Bg2 Be7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Nc3

7 ... d5
This was the first time Korchnoi played this move and after his devastating defeat in this
game he never played it again. His normal choice was the more popular 7 ... Ne4, with which
he gained some memorable victories.
With Black, Spassky played 7 ... Ne4 himself several times at the start of his career, but
later he played the structure with ... d5 a few times. The game W.Browne-B.Spassky, Tilburg
1978, continued 7 ... Na6 8 Bg5 d5 9 Ne5 c5 and Black was able to reach a structure with
hanging pawns. The game continued 10 e3 Ne4 11 Bxe7 Qxe7 12 cxd5 exd5 13 Qa4 Nc7! 14
Rfd1 Rfe8, after which the struggle became very sharp and finally was drawn.
It is not really surprising that Spassky should choose that structure, since in the Tartakower
Variation of the Queen’s Gambit which he played throughout his career, the hanging pawns
structure appears frequently. Similar structures can also arise from in the Queen’s Indian after
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 e3, a line which Spassky also played with White.
8 cxd5
The main alternative is to maintain the central tension with 8 Ne5, after which a well-
known inaccuracy is 8 ... Nbd7?! which can be answered with 9 Qa4!
It was the World Champion Anatoly Karpov who revitalised the set-up based on ... d5 in
the 1970s with the move 8 ... Na6. Then after Black plays ... c5 the knight not only supports
the c5-pawn without getting in the way of Black’s major pieces but can also support the d5-
pawn from the c7-square, and even go ... Nc7-e6 if appropriate.
8 ... exd5
In A.Karpov-B.Spassky, USSR 1975, Black failed to equalise completely after 8 ... Nxd5
9 Qc2 Nd7 10 Nxd5 exd5 11 Rd1 Nf6 12 Ne5 c5 13 dxc5 Bxc5 14 Nd3. Karpov, who had
recently been crowned World Champion, emerged the winner from the complications that
Black created in an attempt to compensate for his weak pawn structure.
9 Ne5
White creates pressure on the d5-pawn and along the long diagonal generally, since the b7-
bishop is undefended, which may pose tactical problems for Black. The knight is very well
placed on e5, and in addition it has the possibility of attacking the black pawns if Black plays
... c5, as we shall see.
There are other moves, for instance 9 Bf4, when 9 ... c5?! can be punished with a
manoeuvre that is worth knowing: 10 dxc5 bxc5 11 Ne5 (11 Qb3 is also strong) 11 ... Na6 12
Nc4! (the square f4 is occupied, so there is no Nd3-f4 manoeuvre, but e3 is free) 12 ... Qd7.
This defends the b7-bishop, so that after 13 Ne3? d4 is possible, but now White has 13 Na5!,
and since Black cannot retain his b7-bishop, the d5-pawn , and therefore the hanging pawns,
are very weak. The game V.Tukmakov-A.Kochyev, USSR 1978 continued 13 ... Rad8 14
Nxb7 Qxb7 15 Be5 c4 16 Bxf6 Bxf6 17 Nxd5 Qxb2 18 Qa4, winning material.
With 9 Ne5 White’s plan is clear. He will put pressure on the d5-pawn with Bg5 in order
to eliminate the defender of d5 at an opportune moment. Therefore Black will not find it easy
to play ... c5.

Exercise: In the light of the above, what do you think is Black’s best move here?

Answer:
As we commented above, it is not yet appropriate to play 9 ... c5?! in view of 10 dxc5,
since after 10 ... bxc5 11 Qb3! is strong. Then M.Dlugy-A.Afifi, Tunis 1985 continued 11 ...
Bc6 12 Bg5! and Black’s position collapsed quickly after 12 ... c4 13 Nxc6 Nxc6 14 Qa4
Ne4 15 Nxe4 dxe4 16 Bxe7 Nxe7 17 Qxc4, and White won in 26 moves.
Black has to play the sad 10 ... Bxc5, leaving himself with an isolated pawn on d5 which
proves to be weak. White would continue 11 Bg5 (to increase the pressure on the d5-pawn, in
the way we have already seen) followed by Nd3-f4 and playing one of the rooks to d1, etc.
Black’s next move initiates a typical manoeuvre to bring the queen to e6 in order to
support the d5-pawn and make room for the f8-rook. Then, at an opportune moment, Black
hopes to break with ... c5. Furthermore, by making contact with the knight on e5, the queen
limits White’s possibilities, since now he cannot play dxc5.
As we pointed out earlier, this is the type of position in which Karpov subsequently
breathed new life to Black’s structure with 9 ... Na6! In the game Black found yet another
move.
9 ... Qc8
This is not as bad as 9…c5?! but it is inferior to Karpov’s move.
10 Bg5 Qe6 11 Rc1
With the threat of 12 Nb5.
11 ... c5?
Spassky will demonstrate that this natural move is played at a very inopportune moment.
The passive 11 ... c6 invites the standard break on e2-e4, which could be played immediately,
but perhaps it is even stronger to prepare it with 12 Re1. Instead 11 ... Na6 was still worth
considering.

Exercise: How did Spassky highlight the defect of Black’s set-up?

Answer:
12 Nd3!
With the terrible threat of 13 Nf4, winning the vital d5-pawn pawn. There was speculation
as to how Korchnoi could have overlooked, or rather underestimated, the strength of this
retreat, which sacrifices the d4-pawn temporarily.
12 ... cxd4
If 12 ... Nbd7? there naturally follows 13 dxc5 and 14 Nf4. Also note that 12 ... Rd8 fails
to save the d5-pawn on account of 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 Nf4, followed by 15 Bxf6 and the d5-
pawn falls. The pin along the d-file is harmless.
13 Bxf6
White needed to decide which move order to adopt here: capture on f6 first, or play Nf4.
In fact 13 Nf4 was good, since after 13 ... Qd7 14 Qxd4 Rd8 15 Rfd1 the d5-pawn falls
sooner rather than later. If 13 ... Qe5 White’s best continuation is not 14 Ncxd5?! Nxd5 15
Bxd5 (15 Bxe7? Nxf4 16 Bxb7 Qxe7 only leads to equality) 15 ... Bxd5 16 Bxe7 Re8 and
White’s advantage is evaporating, but 14 Bxf6! Bxf6 15 Ncxd5 Nc6 16 Qa4 Rac8 and now
there are several good moves to choose from, including 17 Bh3, 17 Nd3 and 17 Rc2 planning
Rfc1. Black’s pawn structure is very weak.
13 ... Bxf6?!
It was more tenacious to play 13 ... dxc3 when one possible continuation is 14 Bxe7 Qxe7
(not 14 ... cxb2? 15 Rc7) 15 Rxc3 Na6 when White has just a positional advantage.
However, 14 Bxc3! is even stronger, threatening Nf4. White gains a considerable
advantage after either 14 ... Bd6 15 Nb4, or 14 ... Rd8 15 Nf4 Qd6 16 Qc2 (intending 17
Rfd1) and then if 16 ... Bg5 White highlights Black’s weakness on the diagonal h1-a8 with 17
Nxd5! Bxc1 (or 17 ... Bxd5 18 Rcd1 Qc5 19 Rxd5 Rxd5 20 Qe4) 18 Nf6+ gxf6 19 Bxb7.
No better is 15 ... Qf5 16 Qc2 Qxc2 17 Rxc2 (planning Rd1) 17 ... Bg5 18 Nh5 Bh6 19
Rd1 Na6 20 e3, with several ideas, such as 21 Rcd2, followed by 22 h4 or 22 f4.

Exercise: Once again we have options regarding the move order. There are
two ‘necessary’ moves, which must be made one after the other, but one
move-order might be more precise than the other. What did Spassky choose?

Answer:
14 Nxd5!
Threatening to win with 15 Nxf6+ or 15 Nc7.
In contrast, 14 Nf4? would allow Black to construct a better defence by lending support to
the b7-bishop with 14 ... Qd7! 15 Ncxd5 Be5 and the worst is over for Black.
14 ... Bxd5
If 14 ... Bd8 there are several ways to win, the most crushing being 15 Nc7 Bxc7 16 Bxb7.
15 Nf4 Qd6
Black fails to win three pieces for the queen with 15 ... Bxg2 16 Nxe6 Bxf1 17 Nxf8 Bh3,
because his undeveloped queenside proves decisive after, for instance, 18 Qd3 Kxf8 19 Qe4.
16 Nxd5
This threatens 17 Nxf6+ and 18 Bxa8, seeking even more than he could attain with 16
Bxd5 Nd7 17 Bxa8, which is also winning, of course.
16 ... Bg5
If 16 ... Bd8 White plays 17 Nf4.
17 f4 Bd8

18 Nc3!
Spassky chooses the most elegant and at the same time the strongest way.
18 ... Na6
If 18 ... Nc6 then 19 Nb5.
19 Bxa8 Qb8 20 Nd5 Qxa8 21 Qxd4 Nc5 22 b4 Ne6 23 Qd3 Re8 24 e4 1-0
And Korchnoi resigned. This miniature caused great surprise. Bernard Cafferty wrote,
“One of the most crushing wins ever played in games between world class players”. It is
impossible to disagree, don’t you think?

Trying to Win a Balanced Game

In 1966 Spassky won the 2nd Piatigorsky Cup, held in Santa Monica in the United States, one
of the strongest tournaments in history. He finished ahead of Bobby Fischer, the World
Champion Tigran Petrosian, Bent Larsen, and other elite players. It was a long tournament,
with ten players in a double-round event, i.e., eighteen rounds.
To have a realistic hope of first place it was important to ration one’s energies and decide
which games to play with maximum effort, regardless of colour, basically taking account of
the position and ... the opponent’s form.
The following game was one of those that Spassky chose to try to win. Although the
circumstances did not look very promising (the position was very quiet and level), Spassky
was ready for a long struggle to try to create an imbalance.

Game 3
B.Ivkov-B.Spassky
Santa Monica 1966
Queen’s Indian Defence
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 g3 Bb7 5 Bg2 Be7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Nc3 Ne4 8 Nxe4 Bxe4 9 Ne1
Bxg2 10 Nxg2

10 ... d6

Question: Does not Black have clearer ways to equalise?

Answer: Yes, 10 ... d5 leads to more balanced play. Many games have continued 11 Qa4 Qe8 or 11 ... Qd7, leading to
endgames with a minimal advantage to White which have almost always ended in a draw. But, as Spassky commented in the
tournament book, “Taking into account the peaceful mood of the Yugoslav grandmaster, I had no desire to define the pawn
formation in the centre and thus lessen the tension of the struggle”.
11 e4
Confirming Spassky’s remark. White accompanied this move with a draw offer.
11 ... Nd7 12 Be3?!

Question: Why is this developing move dubious?

 Answer: Ivkov himself was even more critical and awarded it a question mark. The reason is that it takes away the best
squares from the knight on g2, while the best place for this bishop is on the long diagonal.
12 ... Qc8 13 Nf4 c6

Question: What is the idea of this modest move? Isn’t it very slow?

Answer: We are in a manoeuvring phase and Black is ready for a long struggle. First he controls the square d5, so that he
can perhaps consider playing ... e5 without fearing Nd5. The other purpose of 13 ... c6 is defensive. As Spassky commented,
this move is directed against the advance 14 d5, which can be answered with 14 ... exd5 15 cxd5 (or 15 exd5 c5) 15 ... c5,
with a good Benoni structure, since the white pieces are badly placed.
14 Rc1 Re8 15 Nd3?!
Another move that Ivkov criticised. Without Black’s cooperation, the knight’s prospects
will be no better on d3.
15 ... c5 16 f3
If 16 dxc5 Black achieves the structural imbalance that he was seeking by replying 16 ...
bxc5. But if 16 d5, since it is not possible to recapture on d5 with the knight, Black reaches
the promising Benoni structure mentioned earlier by playing 16 ... exd5, followed by ... Bf6.
 16 ... Qa6!?

Question: I know that we are in a closed position, and that

even though the queen attacks the pawn on a2, sidelining the
queen like this seems a bit strange to me. Am I right?

Answer: It is impossible to detach the objective evaluation from the competitive situation. Spassky is trying to keep the
position alive. This is how he explained it: “Objectively this move could not have been the best since Black’s queen at the side
of the board is hardly well placed. However, the objectively stronger 16 ... cxd4 would undoubtedly, after several moves, have
led to a draw”.
17 a4
Ivkov considered the advance 17 b4, abandoning the pawn on a2, because 17 ... Qxa2?! is
more than dubious on account of 18 b5, threatening 19 Rf2 Qa3 20 Ra1 Qc3 21 Rc2 Qb3 22
Bc1, planning Ra3. Spassky would have elected to maintain the tension with something like
17 ... Rac8.
 Exercise: How can Black try to create problems for White?

Answer:
17 ... Bf6
Increasing the pressure on the centre and forcing White to decide between several options.
As Spassky indicated, “This move presents Ivkov with definite problems – it may be called a
critical position”.
18 Nf2?
White continues to want to play without taking any important decisions, but here this will
prove not to be a good idea.
With 18 d5 exd5 19 cxd5 b5! Black fully justifies the placing of his queen on a6 and seizes
the initiative; once again it is a good Benoni for Black. Also unsatisfactory was 18 e5 dxe5
19 dxc5 Nxc5 20 Nxc5 bxc5 21 Bxc5 Bg5!
Both masters considered that it was better to take active measures with 18 dxc5!? bxc5 19
b4, which was Ivkov’s original intention, but he was afraid of 19 ... Bd4. However Spassky
did not find this convincing, since after 20 Bxd4 cxd4 White can play ambitiously with 21 c5,
when at least he has no problems.
Probably Spassky would have chosen 19 ... cxb4 20 Nxb4, when sacrificing a pawn with
20 ... Qc8 21 Qxd6 Be5 22 Qa6 is not convincing, so it seems better to play 20 ... Qb7 21
Nd3 (or 21 Rb1 Qc7) and here Black has a choice of rook placements, 21 ... Rec8 or 21 ...
Red8, with which he could have continued the struggle.
“Thus, of the three possibilities open to Ivkov not one pleased him and he preferred
another path which, perhaps, turned out to be the most unfortunate”, commented Spassky.

Exercise: How should Black play here? Continue manoeuvring,

like the opponent, or take some concrete decision?

Answer:
18 ... cxd4!
 The moment has come to resolve the position in the centre. The black knight gains a good
post on c5 and the contrast with the knight on f2 is striking.
19 Bxd4 Bxd4 20 Qxd4 Nc5
The alternative 20 ... Qxa4 21 Qxd6 Nc5 transposes to the game.
21 Qxd6 Qxa4 22 Qd1
If 22 Rfd1 then 22 ... Qb3, threatening two pawns.
22 ... Qb4 23 Qc2
As a result of the passive 18 Nf2 White’s pawn structure is weak and exposed, while all
the black pieces are, or will be, more active than White’s.
23 ... Red8 24 Rfd1

Exercise: What is Black’s most promising continuation?

Answer:
24 ... h6
This luft is very annoying for White, because it is a useful move that keeps all of Black’s
options open. As Ivkov explained: “A good tactic when an opponent is in time trouble.
Spassky holds the moves ... Nb3 and ... a5–a4 as permanent menaces which I always have to
consider and lose time”.
25 Rxd8+ Rxd8 26 Rd1
Another endgame, without the queens, arises after 26 Qc3 Qxc3 27 Rxc3. This is also
unpleasant for White due to 27 ... a5! (threatening ... Rd2) 28 Rc2 a4! and White is paralysed.
26 ... Rxd1+ 27 Nxd1 Qe1+ 28 Kg2 a5
Spassky’s comment on the position is very illuminating: “White’s position is difficult. His
pieces, above and beyond weaknesses and lack of harmonious formation, are deprived of any
activity”.
29 h4
Ivkov considered that 29 Nf2 Qe3 30 Qd1 was preferable, preventing the game
continuation.
 This is true, although after 30 ... Kh7 White can still hardly move. 31 Qd8? loses to 31 ...
Qe2! 32 Qxb6 Nd3.

Exercise: What was it that Ivkov wanted to prevent

with his suggestion of 29 Nf2 Qe3 30 Qd1?

Answer:
29 ... Kf8!
The king heads for e7 and arrives in time to prevent the possible invasions of the white
queen, and in the event of the exchange of queens the black king will be much nearer the
queenside.
30 h5 Ke7

31 Nf2
No better is 31 Nc3 Qe3 32 Nd1 Qd3! and now if 33 Qxd3 Nxd3 34 b3 Nc5, winning.
 Exercise: How can the continuation 34 Kf1 be refuted?

Answer: The quickest way is with the typical combination 34 ... a4 35 Ke2 Nxb2! 36 Nxb2 a3 and the pawn queens.
31 ... Qe3 32 Qd1 f6
White has no useful moves and must await execution, which is not long in coming.
33 Kf1 Nb3! 34 Kg2 Nd2 35 Nh3
As useless as any other move.
35 ... Nxc4 36 Nf4 Qxf4! 0-1
If 37 gxf4 Ne3+ wins.

Lessons in the art of manoeuvring and simplifying

“He was equally good at attacking, defending, and accumulating positional advantages”, said
Karpov about Spassky. In the following game we shall see how he sets about accumulating
small advantages, manoeuvring his pieces towards better squares while limiting the
opponent’s options.
In the supplementary game his play is reminiscent of Capablanca, with timely
simplifications, after which his prospects improved more and more.

Game 4
B.Spassky-J.Donner
Leiden 1970
French Defence

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 dxe4 5 Nxe4 Be7 6 Bxf6 Bxf6

Petrosian posed Fischer some problems with 6 ... gxf6 in their match in Buenos Aires
1971; this move is fully playable, and was later popularised by Alexander Morozevich at the
end of 1990s, although not everyone likes to double their pawns voluntarily.
7 Nf3 Bd7

Black starts a familiar manoeuvre to get rid of his ‘bad bishop’ with ... Bc6, ready to
exchange it for a knight.
8 Qd2

Question: Isn’t it better to continue with development,

by playing 8 Bd3 or 8 Bc4 and then castling on the kingside?

Answer: It is a question of deciding where to place the king, by castling short or long. Both these moves mentioned are
popular and it is not clear what is best. Spassky opts to prepare queenside castling.
8 ... Bc6 9 Nxf6+ Qxf6
It is also possible to play 9 ... gxf6 here, although it has only been played a few times.

10 Ne5!

Question: An exclamation mark? Hmm, doesn’t this move flout

the rule about not moving the same piece twice in the opening?

Answer: It does go against that particular rule of thumb, but in this case the benefits are greater than the loss of time, and
it relies on the fact that Black is not ahead in development and is unable to take advantage.
Instead, if 10 Be2 Black could play 10 ... Nd7, or even 10 ... 0-0 followed by 11 ... Nd7,
after which the f3-knight would lose the chance to activate itself. In contrast, after 10 Ne5 if
Black plays ... Nd7 he must reckon with the damage caused to his pawn structure after Nxc6.
10 ... 0-0 11 0-0-0
 11…Rd8

Question: Is it really so bad to play 11 ... Nd7, allowing 12 Nxc6 bxc6?

Answer: It’s not all bad for me – I have the b-file and the possibility of undoubling my pawns with …c5, is that not so?
We shall look at this in Supplementary Game 4.1.
Let us return to our main game, after 11 ... Rd8. Black’s plan is to develop his queenside
without damaging his pawn structure. The idea is to play 12 ... Be8 and then ... Nc6.
12 Qe3

Question: This is a peculiar move, isn’t it? Why move the queen yet again?
Isn’t it better to play 12 h4, or perhaps 12 f4 bolstering the knight?

Answer: White’s move is directed against Black’s plan. Spassky had reached this position in an earlier game and failed to
gain any advantage. We learn from experience. Spassky had previously played 12 f4 Be8 13 Bd3 Nc6 14 Nf3 a5 (it also
seems correct to play 14 ... Nxd4 15 Nxd4 c5! regaining the piece) 15 Kb1 Nb4 16 Be4 Bc6 and Black had a good position in
B.Spassky-M.Damjanovic, Sochi 1967 and the game was agreed drawn here.
Similarly, 12 h4 would see Black continue with the plan of 12 ... Be8 followed by 13 ...
Nc6.
12 ... Be8
 Exercise: As expected. Now, what did Spassky have in mind in choosing 12 Qe3?

Answer:
13 g3!
The idea was to move the queen off the d-file before deploying the bishop on the long
diagonal so that after 13 ... Nc6 14 Bg2 White threatens to capture on c6, damaging Black’s
pawn structure. Then 14 ... Nxe5 would be unplayable because of 15 dxe5, followed by
Bxb7.
The engines also like some ‘non-human’ versions of the idea like 13 Be2 planning Bf3, 13
Bd3 intending Be4, and even 13 g4 with the idea of Bg2.
13 ... Nd7 14 Bg2 c6
This is a definite concession. For the time being the black bishop is shut in on e8, a much
less happy fate for it than in the game against Damjanovic quoted earlier.
15 f4
White has the advantage. There are no obstacles to his making progress on the kingside,
although Black’s position remains solid.
15 ... Qe7 16 h4
Creating the possibility of advancing with h5 and, if possible, h6.
16 ... f6
An important decision, since it creates a weakness at e6, and in the longer term it provides
White with a ‘hook’ for a later g4-g5.
16 ... Nf8 was suggested, with the plan of 17 ... Rac8 and 18 ... c5. Against this 17 h5
seems good, when 17 ... h6 invites g4-g5, so White plays 18 g4. Instead 17 ... Rac8 18 h6 g6
19 g4 and White is better, with all his pieces more active than their black counterparts.
 Exercise: What should White do about his attacked knight?

Answer:
17 Nf3
Naturally White declines to exchange the knights, so as not to ease Black’s cramped
position.
17 ... Bh5

Exercise: What should White play now?

Answer:
18 Bh3!
The bishop was no longer doing anything useful on g2. From h3 it not only strikes at the
weakness on e6 but also plans g4 and g5.
 18 ... Bxf3 19 Qxf3 Nf8
It would be ideal for Black to be able to play ... e5, eliminating the weakness on e6, but
with such a passive position it is not surprising that 19 ... e5? does not work. Among other
things, White can continue simply with 20 Rhe1 Qf7 21 Kb1 and Black is defenceless. The
strong bishop and White’s control of the central files will soon win material.
20 Rhe1 Qf7

Exercise: With e6 under control, Black can think about playing ... e5 and eliminating his weakness thanks to the attack on
the a2-pawn. How should White proceed?

Answer:
21 Bf1!
Naturally it was possible to play 21 Kb1, with advantage. The text move is more direct
and ambitious. The bishop heads for c4 and clears the h-file, increasing the strength of a
possible pawn storm.
In the supplementary game with Petrosian, as we shall see, one of the keys is to simplify at
an appropriate moment. In this position the most important factor is to manoeuvre the pieces
to constantly improve their positions.
21 ... Rd6
Of course, Spassky’s decision needed to be justified tactically: after 21 ... e5? White has
22 fxe5! (22 b3! is also effective) and 22 ... Qxa2 loses to 23 exf6 Qa1+ 24 Kd2 Rxd4+? 25
Kc3 Rxd1 26 Bc4+ with mate to follow. Also note that the rook sacrifice 25 ... Qa5+ 26
Kxd4 is insufficient because after 26 ... Rd8+ 27 Ke3 Qc5+ 28 Kf4 the king escapes and is no
longer in real danger.
22 Bc4 Rad8?
A serious error, but 22 ... b5? also fails after 23 Bxb5. It was preferable to play the sad 22
... f5; White is still better but this was much more tenacious. White could play h5 at an
opportune moment and possibly g4.
 Exercise: How can White punish Black’s last imprudent move?

Answer:
23 f5!
Of course, the pawn on d4 is much less important than opening the diagonal a2-g8.
23 ... Rxd4 24 fxe6 Rxd1+
There is now no defence. If 24 ... Qe7 we have another demonstration that the queen is a
poor blockading piece, because White can play 25 Qa3! when 25 ... Qxa3 loses to 26 e7+
Rxc4 27 Rxd8! Neither does 25 ... Rxd1+ 26 Rxd1 Rxd1+ 27 Kxd1 Ng6 28 Qxa7 offer Black
much hope. Finally 25 ... c5 26 Qxa7 is equally agonising for Black. White has a strong extra
pawn on e6 and eliminating it with 26 ... Rxd1+ 27 Rxd1 Rxd1+ 28 Kxd1 Nxe6 provides
scant relief on account of 29 Bd5, when the b7-pawn falls and White wins.
25 Rxd1 Rxd1+ 26 Qxd1 1-0
If 26 ... Nxe6 then 27 Qd6 wins, while if 26 ... Qe7 the most elegant win is with is 27 Qd8!

Supplementary Game 4.1

B.Spassky-T.Petrosian
23rd matchgame, Moscow 1966

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 dxe4 5 Nxe4 Be7 6 Bxf6 Bxf6 7 Nf3 Bd7 8 Qd2 Bc6 9
Nxf6+ Qxf6 10 Ne5! 0-0 11 0-0-0
 You asked: is it really so bad to play 11 ... Nd7, allowing 12 Nxc6 bxc6?

Answer: It’s not all bad for me – I have the b-file and the possibility of undoubling my pawns with …c5, is that not so?
Visually this is “ugly” but that’s not the decisive factor. In chess, unlike in children’s fairy tales, something can be “ugly” and at
the same time good.
Seriously though, the decision to allow White to capture on c6 deserves respect, since it
was played by Petrosian in no less than a match for the world title.

Exercise: Nevertheless, Spassky succeeded in demonstrating the weak

points of the idea. What do you think Spassky played here with White?

Answer:
13 h4!
This allows the rook to emerge at h3, among other ideas.

Question: Other ideas? Such as?

 Answer: Be patient. All will soon be revealed.
13 ... Rab8 14 Rh3 c5

Exercise: What is White’s best move here?

Answer:
15 Qg5!
Black’s weaknesses will be most salient in the endgame, and even though Black gets rid of
his doubled pawn, his structure remains bad on account of the isolated a7- and c7-pawns, and
the bishop will also prove superior to the knight.
15 ... Qxf2? is unplayable because of 16 Rf3 Qg1 (if 16 ... h6 White wins with 17 Qe7) 17
Qg3! winning the queen on the next move, which is even better than 17 Bb5 Qxd1+ 18 Kxd1
Rxb5.
Also note that 15 ... Rfd8 brings no relief after 16 Rhd3. Black loses at least a pawn.
15 ... cxd4 16 Qxf6 Nxf6 17 Rxd4 Rb7
If 17 ... Rfd8 18 Rxd8+ Rxd8 the weakness of the black pawn structure remains evident
after 19 Ra3! Ra8 20 Ba6! followed by Bb7, and White will soon have a passed a-pawn.
 Exercise: How to continue now?

Answer:
18 Rb3!
Once again Spassky chose to simplify. The exchange of a pair of rooks makes it more
difficult for Black to defend his pawns. White’s advantage is clear.
18 ... Rxb3 19 axb3 Ra8 20 Rc4! Ne8
If 20 ... Nd5 then both 21 Rc5 (intending c4) and 21 g3 (planning Bg2) are good.
21 Ra4 Nd6 22 g3
White won a pawn and later the game (1-0).

Trying to Play Against the Opponent’s Style

After the loss of the world title in 1972, everything indicates that Spassky looked for a fresh
success that would show that he was still one of the best players in the world.
His wish came true with a vengeance in the form of his triumph in the 41st USSR
Championship in 1973, which was one of the strongest in the history of the competition. In
doing so, he overcame the best representatives of his own and earlier generations, such as
Tal, Petrosian, Smyslov, Korchnoi, Geller, Smyslov, Keres (what names!), and also of the
new generation, with Karpov as the principal standard-bearer.
He played excellent games of all types, as we have already seen, including games featuring
brilliant attacks. The game we shall look at now was played in the phase between rounds 8
and 13, in which Spassky took a firm grip on first place by scoring five wins, against a single
loss.
Against Smyslov, the future Soviet champion took a different tack. Thanks to his universal
style, even with the black pieces he seeks, right from the opening, a type of position in which
he feels at home but his opponent will not feel comfortable.

Game 5
V.Smyslov-B.Spassky
USSR Championship 1973
Sicilian Defence

1 e4 c5
Spassky’s main defence against 1 e4 was the Ruy Lopez. As he himself said, this helped
develop his understanding of this opening since he specialised in it with both colours.
Against Smyslov he opted for the Sicilian Defence, thinking that it was possible that
Smyslov would be more uncomfortable in a theoretical discussion than in the sort of
manoeuvring struggle that he was more used to.
2 Nf3
Against the Sicilian Defence Smyslov frequently played the Closed Variation, but this was
also a field in which Spassky excelled, so Smyslov decided to avoid it.
2 ... e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Bd3

Smyslov avoids theoretical continuations. This move is certainly not the most dangerous in
this position. 5 Nc3 is more ambitious.
5 ... Nc6
Forcing White to make a decision about his undefended d4-knight.
6 Nxc6
Smyslov sometimes played this exchange in the lines after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Nxd4 a6 5 Bd3 Nc6 6 Nxc6 and 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Nxc6.
The difference with these positions is that in the game position Spassky can argue that he is
a tempo up through not having played ... a6; furthermore he has avoided weakening his
queenside prematurely, specifically the square b6.
6 ... dxc6
6 ... bxc6 has also been played many times, followed either by a quick ... d5 or by closing
the diagonal of the d3-bishop and at the same time releasing the c8-bishop with ... e5.
7 Bf4
After 7 Nd2 or 7 0-0 the most frequent reply is 7 ... e5. With the text move White prevents
this. Of course 7 e5? is not playable because of 7 ... Qa5+.
 Exercise: We are still in the opening and so there are several
reasonable moves, but what do you think Spassky played here?

Answer:
7 ... Nd7
Playing right away for ... e5. This is the clearest.
Black could develop with 7 ... Bc5, but after 8 0-0 0-0 he would soon have to start
worrying about the advance e4-e5, evicting the knight from f6 and closing the diagonal h3-c8
to the detriment of the bishop on c8.
A provocative move such as 7 ... Qb6 could be met by sacrificing the b2-pawn to speed up
White’s development with 8 0-0 Qxb2 9 Nd2, obtaining clear compensation. White could
also just play 8 b3.

Question: Isn’t 8 b3 just a useless move, and therefore a loss of time?

Answer: It would indeed be a loss of time if Black had provoked it with a useful move, but the queen does nothing special
on b6 and it is quite probable that it will have to move again in search of more profitable tasks. The queen is also vulnerable to
Nd2-c4, gaining time.
8 Nd2

Question: Why not prevent Black’s idea by playing 8 e5?

Answer: Because the pawn would lack sufficient support and it would become a pawn sacrifice after 8 ... g5 9 Bg3 Bg7
10 Qe2 Qa5+. It is possible that White would gain some compensation, but sacrificing a pawn so soon without a clear reason
is not an easy decision.
8 ... e5 9 Bg3 Bd6
Overprotecting the e5-pawn against the imminent Nc4.
10 Nc4 Bc7 11 Qf3
 11 ... 0-0

Question: Why determine the position of the king now? Wasn’t it better to wait and see where White was going to castle
on by playing a useful move such as 11 ... Qe7?

Answer: As a general rule, this is very useful, but here its application is unnecessary, because most probably White will
castle short, given that if he castles long his pieces are not optimally placed for an attacking race against the enemy king, since
he can neither quickly start a pawn storm nor launch an attack with pieces. Black would have an easier task attacking the
white monarch on the queenside.
12 0-0 Qe7 13 c3
Preparing a retreat for the d3-bishop.
13 ... Nc5 14 Bc2 a5

Black has emerged from the opening with a good position, but without anything concrete.
The position offers equal chances. Since there is only one open file, it is possible that the
rooks will be exchanged and the equilibrium will continue.
 With 14 ... a5 Black stabilises his knight without yet committing himself to any general
plan, which will depend on what White does.
15 Rfd1 f6
Another useful move. By defending the e5-pawn like this, several black pieces gain
mobility.
There were other options, such as 15 ... a4 and even 15 ... b5, but these were not clearly
better, which is why Spassky considers that it is better to first strengthen the position.
16 Ne3
The knight retreats in anticipation of ... Be6. White first makes a move that he will
seemingly have to make anyway.
16 ... g6
Preventing a possible Ne3-f5. Let us note that with his last few moves Black has prepared
another plan for the short or long term: after suitable preparation he could think about playing
... f5.
17 h4?!
White does not want the sort of quiet life that he could have by playing 17 Rd2, followed
by Rad1. Instead he seems to be saying ‘this land belongs to me’ by seeking to demonstrate
that 16 ... g6 is a concession, giving White a possible ‘hook’ with h4-h5.
The character of the position has changed. It has sharpened substantially compared to just a
few moves ago.

17 ... Be6

Question: Why not prevent the advance h4-h5 with 17 ... h5?

Answer: This was indeed playable, but it would make the position more rigid. Black does not judge it to be necessary,
since he is not afraid of h4-h5 followed by hxg6. He considers that in that case neither the weakness inflicted on Black’s
kingside, nor the open h-file, would be exploitable by the white pieces, which are in no position to offer any dangers to Black.
Thus Black prefers to continue with his development.
18 h5?!
Consistent, although it will soon be seen that White is not better prepared than Black for a
fight on the kingside.
18 ... a4
A reminder of the weakness of a2, tying down the rook on a1. If White plays a3, the b3-
square will be weakened, although that would be a lesser evil.
19 Bh4
“White’s attack looks serious; however, all the black pieces occupy active positions” (V.
Shashin in the tournament book).
19 ... Qg7
The queen moves off the h4-d8 diagonal. This may allow Black to play ... f5 in some
circumstances, specifically if White relaxes his influence over the f5-square by moving away
any of his three pieces.
20 Ng4?!
After the last few moves on the kingside 20 Rd2 is no longer so attractive. Black could
play 20 ... Qh6, or even 20 ... Rf7, with the plan of 21 ... Raf8 and ... f5. If White wants to
prevent this with 21 hxg6?! hxg6 22 g4, it is Black who is able to profit from the lines opened
on the kingside after 22 ... Qh6 23 Bg3 Rh7.
Note that 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 Ng4? is also bad because Black can play the obvious 21 ... f5,
while if 21 g4 instead Black can play 21 ... Qe7 with the plan of ... Kg7 and ... Rh8, and if 22
Kg2 then 22 ... Bc8!? is interesting, with the idea of ... Ne6-f4+.
So we see that it is understandable that White is not attracted by hxg6, since opening the h-
file benefits Black more than White.
“On general grounds this move seems logical, but in chess, in addition to logic, there is
concrete calculation, which was what led White astray in this position” according to
V.Zhidkov in the tournament book.

Exercise: Demonstrate the truth of these words, which requires some of

the above-mentioned “concrete calculation”. What did Spassky play here?

Answer:
20 ... gxh5!
 Here again the quotes from the tournament book are enlightening:
“Spassky’s reply brought the spectators in the hall to the edge of their seats: Black exposes
the position of his own king and gives up the f6-pawn with check (!)” (V.Shashin)
“A non-routine move, and a good one!” (V.Zhidkov).
White’s idea was that without the exchange on g6 played 20 ... f5? was not good because
of 21 h6! Qf7 22 Nf6+ Kh8 23 exf5 gxf5 24 Bxf5 and after 24 ... Bd8 White stands much
better after 25 Rxd8! Raxd8 26 Bxe6 Nxe6 27 Qe4, with total domination of the position.
21 Nxf6+
The sad retreat 21 Ne3 can be answered with 21 ... Bg4.
21 ... Kh8
White’s activity has been extinguished and his knight left in a precarious position. He is
faced with the immediate threat of 22 ... Nd7, which would force 23 Rxd7. If White plays 22
Nxh5 Black wins after 22 ... Qg6 23 Bf6+ Kg8, threatening 24 ... Bg4, among other things.
22 Qe3

Having removed his queen from the pin, White appears to have solved a large part of his
problems. Can you show that this is not the case?

Exercise: How did Spassky keep the initiative?

Answer:
22 ... Bb6!
There was no need to retreat the knight. On b6 the bishop highlights the fact that with the f-
file opened there is a new weakness on f2.
23 Nxh5

Exercise: 23 Qg5 did not work. Why not?

Answer: Because of 23 ... Qxg5 24 Bxg5 h6! (another win was pointed out by Kotov: 24 ... Kg7! 25 Nxh5+ Kg6 and
Black wins material) 25 Bh4 Bd8, forcing 26 Rxd8.
23 ... Qg6 24 Qg5
Insufficient, but now it is forced.
 The weakness of f2 prevents 24 Ng3? on account of 24 ... Nd7, e.g. 25 Qd3 Rxf2 (or 25 ...
Bxf2+ 26 Kh2 Rf4) 26 Kh1 Qh6; we can see once again that the files opened on the kingside
benefit Black.
24 ... Qxg5 25 Bxg5 Bg4
At the end of the complications White remains the exchange down.
26 Nf6?!
Not the most tenacious, but 26 Ng3 Bxd1 27 Rxd1 Ne6! 28 Be3 Bxe3 29 fxe3 Rad8 was
also hopeless.
26 ... Bxd1 27 Rxd1

Exercise: How did Spassky increase his advantage?

Answer:
27 ... h6!
Once again the resource mentioned in the note to White’s 23rd move is useful. Black
forces the bishop to a bad square. Note that the immediate 27 ... Bd8? could have been
answered with 28 Be3!
28 Bh4 Bd8
This forces White to give up the exchange a second time. The rest is easy.
29 Rxd8 Raxd8 30 b4 Rd2 31 bxc5 Rxc2 32 Nd7 Rf4 33 Bf6+ Rxf6 0-1

A Typical Isolated Queen’s Pawn with an Untypical Treatment

The following game was played in the 13th Team Championship of the USSR. Spassky led the victorious RSFSR team (also
composed of Polugaevsky, Geller, Krogius, Kholmov, Suetin, Sveshnikov, Kozlovskaya, Kislova and with Tseshkovsky as a
reserve). They won easily with 30 points out of 45, ahead of Ukraine on 23½.
Spassky beat his great opponent from the 1960s, Tigran Petrosian, in a game featuring a
typical IQP position, but one which developed in untypical fashion. “He uses the whole
board”, said Kramnik of Spassky. That is certainly the case in this game, which features
devastating piece play and a typical blow with the isolated pawn to seal the advantage.

Game 6
B.Spassky-T.Petrosian
Riga 1975
Nimzo-Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 c5 5 Bd3 d5 6 Nf3 0-0 7 0-0 dxc4 8 Bxc4 a6

9 a4
This restrains ... b5 in the most direct fashion. The main alternative is 9 a3, reaching a
position that Petrosian played with both sides. After 9 ... Ba5, Polugaevsky and others had
successfully defended Black’s position against 10 Bd3, followed by Ne4. This leads to
isolated Queen’s pawn (IQP) positions in which it is not easy for White to exploit the absence
of the a5-bishop from the kingside.
Petrosian introduced 10 dxc5! and gained some advantage after 10 ... Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qa5
12 a4! Nbd7 13 c6 (13 Ba3 is also attractive) 13 ... bxc6 14 Qc2 c5 15 e4 Qc7 16 Re1 when
White is somewhat better in T.Petrosian-G.Kuzmin, USSR 1973 because his bishop pair can
become an important factor.
With Black, Petrosian answered 9 a3 with 9 ... cxd4 10 axb4 dxc3 11 Qxd8 Rxd8 12 bxc3
Ne4 13 Bb2 Nd6 14 Be2 b5 15 Nd2 Bb7 16 c4, with a slightly better endgame for White in
L.Portisch-T.Petrosian, Biel 1976, once again on account of his pair of bishops.
9 ... cxd4 10 exd4
 Question: White has played Bd3 before playing Bxc4, so hasn’t he lost a tempo
compared with similar positions arising from the Queen’s Gambit Accepted?

Answer: Yes, this is true, but it is not the only difference from the Queen’s Gambit Accepted. We should note that the
black bishop is on b4 instead of its usual post on e7. If the bishop retreats then both sides will have lost a tempo, in effect
cancelling each other out.
10 ... Qa5
Black seeks to utilize the bishop’s position on b4 by creating immediate tension. More
prudent choices are 10 ... Nbd7 and 10 ... Nc6.

Exercise: What is the best way to respond to the attack on c3?

Answer:
11 Bg5!
Treating the threat against c3 with disdain. Now, in the event of 11 ... Bxc3 12 bxc3 Qxc3
13 Rc1 Qb4 White first weakens Black’s king position with 14 Bxf6 gxf6 and then opens the
game up with 15 d5! Then if 15 ... exd5 16 Bxd5, White plans Nd4, giving his queen access to
the kingside, while the rook on c1 is also ready to swing across via c4.

Question: In that case, with this same idea, was not it better for Black to postpone the capture 9 ... cxd4, thus preventing
Bg5? So 9 ... Qa5 was better, surely?

Answer: No, not capturing on d4 restricts not only the bishop on c1 but also the one on b4, so White could reply with 10
Na2!, exchanging the imprudent bishop and gaining the bishop pair.
11 ... Nd5

Question: Was it not better to develop a piece with 11 ... Nbd7 (defending
against 12 Bxf6) instead of moving an already-developed piece? Perhaps
then Black would indeed be threatening to win a pawn by capturing on c3,
given that his king would be safe, unlike in the note to White’s 11th move.

Answer: Of course this was possible, but it is not clear that this would be better. With the text move, Black also threatens
to capture on c3 and wants to force a concession of some sort.
In answer to 11 ... Nbd7 White can play simply 12 Rc1, but continuing to offer the pawn 12
Re1!? also comes into consideration, since 12 ... Bxc3 13 bxc3 Qxc3 would give White a lot
of play. There are many possibilities including 14 Bb3, with the plan of Re3, followed by
Ne5. The missing pawn is hardly noticeable, while the compensation is obvious.
12 Ne4
Naturally there is no need to make life easier for Black with 12 Nxd5 exd5, which would
solve the problem of the inactive c8-bishop.
White is following the rule of thumb that the side with the IQP should not exchange pieces
without clear justification.
12 ... Nd7
The alternative was 12 ... Nc6. With the text move Black is also thinking about the defence
of his king. He may bring his knight back to f8 at some point to strengthening the kingside.
13 Qe2 Re8
Vacating f8, which was Black’s idea. An alternative was 13 ... N7b6, to answer 14 Bd3
with 14 ... Bd7 and then if 15 Ne5 Be8, threatening 16 ... f6.
 Question: So, here we have an IQP position, but it is a strange
one, isn’t it? Where is White’s normal kingside play?

Answer: Yes, this position is not a typical one. Neither sides’ pieces are occupying their usual positions. Now I’m going to
bat the question back to you.

Exercise: White’s last move gives you a clue. What do you think Spassky played here?

Answer:
14 Rfc1!
With 13 Qe2 White not only routinely connected his rooks but also prepared this move.
For the moment the black king it is not a target. After 14 Ne5 Black could play 14 ... f6!
and if 15 Nxd7 Bxd7 Black has a more than acceptable position, while inserting 15 Qh5 Rf8
before 16 Nxd7 Bxd7 does not change much.
Thus White directs his attention to the queenside. He occupies the c-file, which Black is
unable to contest owing to his lag in development. White is thinking about exploiting the
uncomfortable position of the black queen with ideas such as Nf3-d2-b3, and there is also the
possibility of occupying c5 if the knight moves from d7.
14 ... Nf8
If 14 ... h6 the exchange of bishops with 15 Bd2 is appropriate.

Question: But didn’t you just say that the

side with the IQP shouldn’t exchange pieces?

Answer: Not exactly. As Alexander Baburin correctly pointed out in his instructive book Winning Pawn Structures, with
an isolated d-pawn it is not appropriate to exchange without clear justification. In this case the justification would be the
possibility of exploiting the dark squares (such as c5, d6, etc.) which would no longer be defended by the black bishop.
15 Nc5
Immediately exploiting the absence of the black knight. White now threatens 16 Bxd5,
while also preventing 15 ... Bd7? on account of 16 Nxb7.
There were other moves to consider, such as 15 Ne5, 15 Nfd2, and even 15 Bd2, but you
can only choose one move at a time…
15 ... Ne7
Of course the pawn cannot be captured: 15 ... Bxc5 16 dxc5 Qxc5? loses to 17 Bb5, but 16
... Bd7 is better, after which White can play 17 Ne5 with some advantage. One of the ideas
could be to occupy d6 with the knight, after Bd3 and Nc4 at an opportune moment.

16 Qe4
White puts pressure on the b7-pawn.

Exercise: If Black repels the bishop with 16 ... f6

(also controlling e5) how would you respond?

Answer: White should create more difficulties for the black queen with 17 Bf4, threatening 18 Nd3 and Black has
problems with his bishop on b4.
16 ... Nf5 17 Bd3
Renewing the threat of Nxb7.

Exercise: Why not carry out the threat now by playing 17 Nxb7?

Answer: Because the white queen is trapped after 17 ... Bxb7 18 Qxb7 Nd6 19 Qc6 Rec8.
17 ... Qb6
 Exercise: There are many possible continuations. What do you think Spassky chose?

Answer:
18 Rc2!
Of course. White prepares Rac1, putting all the pieces in play.
It was tempting to sacrifice a pawn with 18 a5 Bxa5 19 Na4 Qa7 (if 19 ... Qd6? then 20
Rc5!, threatening both 21 Rxa5 and 21 Rxf5) leaving the black queen out of play. Then 20
Qe5 threatens the bishop on a5 as well as 21 Bxf5, but this line is not so clear; Black can play
20 ... Bd8 21 Bxf5 f6 or 20 ... b5 21 Bxf5 f6.
It is possible that White gains some advantage in some of these lines but precise
calculation is required. If this pawn sacrifice were the only way forward, Spassky would
surely have analysed it deeply, but there is no need for radical measures. White simply plans
to carry on increasing his activity. Meanwhile the pawn sacrifice with a4-a5 and Na4 is not
ruled out.
18 ... a5
Black prevents the possibility of the sacrifice with a5, at the cost of weakening b5.
 19 Qg4
A good alternative was 19 Rac1. White postpones this in favour of a direct threat, 20 Bb5.

Exercise (easy): Why was not 19 Bb5 winning?

Answer: Because of the simple 19 ... Nd6, attacking both the queen and the b5-bishop.
19 ... Qd6
If 19 ... Ng6 White can play 20 Rac1, although with the knight on g6 there is also the
possibility of 20 h4.
20 Bb5
With this White penetrates to the seventh rank after a simple sequence of moves and gains
an advantage.
He could also do so in other ways, for instance 20 Ne4! and if 20 ... Qd5 21 Rc7 (also the
curious 21 Bc4! is advantageous, since after the only defence 21 ... h5 White can play 22
Qxh5! Qxe4 23 Re2 and Black must return the piece with 23 ... Ng3, ending up a pawn
down).

Exercise: Instead of 20 ... Qd5, what is wrong with 20 ... Qb6?

Answer: It loses to 21 Bb5 Bd7 22 Nf6+! gxf6 23 Bxf6+ Ng6 24 Bxd7.

20 ... Bd7 21 Bf4 Qe7
Instead 21 ... Qd5? is unplayable because the white pieces can immediately demolish
Black’s position with 22 Bc4! Qc6 23 Ne5 Qc8 24 Nexd7 Nxd7 25 Nxe6!
22 Nxd7 Nxd7 23 Rc7
‘Mission accomplished’. Although Black has finally managed to complete his
development, this rook on the seventh rank restricts Black’s mobility by pinning the knight on
d7 and attacking b7, among other virtues.
23 ... Red8
 Exercise: Among several options available to White, our familiar 24 Rac1
gives some advantage, and 24 Rd1 also looks good. But can you confirm
Lasker’s dictum “When you see a good move, look for a better one”?

Answer:
24 d5!
“Finally there is a typical IQP theme!” I hear you say. The lack of a blockade on d5 allows
the isolated pawn to advance. Opening the position gives White a clear advantage due to his
greater activity. There were other moves but they would yield a smaller advantage than that
achieved in the game. After, for instance, 24 Bg5, Black has nothing better than 24 ... Nf6 but
after 25 Rxe7 Nxg4 26 Rxb7 Nf6 he has good drawing chances.

Exercise: Does the apparently very strong 24 Ne5 give White the advantage?

Answer: No, because Black can solve his problems with the pin-breaking move 24 ... Nf6! when the play is forced: 25
Rxe7 Nxg4 26 Rxb7 Rxd4. In contrast, 24 ... Nxe5 25 Bxe5 Qh4 (if 25 ... Qf8 then 26 Rxb7) 26 Qf3 leaves White more
active.
24 ... Bd6
Here the c7-rook remains defended, so 24 ... Nf6? fails to 25 Qh3 Qf8 26 dxe6 fxe6 27
Ng5, and there is no defence.
25 Bg5!
Now entering the endgame is clearly advantageous to White.
25 ... Nf6
Almost forced, since 25 ... f6 fails to 26 Rxd7! Rxd7 27 Bxf6! Qxf6 28 Bxd7 Qxb2 and
now almost any sensible move leaves White a pawn up, with the safer king.
26 Rxe7 Nxg4 27 Rxb7 f6 28 Bd2 exd5
The best response to the counterattack 28 ... Bc5 is the simple 29 dxe6! Bxf2+ 30 Kf1, and
the extra pawn on the sixth rank tilts the balance in White’s favour.
 Question: Can we talk of an advantage here? After everything
that has happened, White is not even a pawn up!

Answer: Yes, in fact White has a very big advantage here. Black has great difficulty maintaining the material balance
because he has two serious weaknesses on a5 and d5. Furthermore White has a great dynamic advantage, based largely on
the pair of bishops and the rook on the seventh rank.

Exercise: How can White create further disruption in Black’s game?

Answer:
29 Bd7!
After this powerful activation of the bishop the black knights will be forced to defend each
other, losing mobility.
29 ... Ngh6
Another virtue of 29 Bd7 can be seen after 29 ... g6 when having vacated the b5-square
White can win material with 30 Be6+ Kh8 31 Rb5.
30 Be6+ Kh8 31 Rc1
The rook finally comes into play, although equally strong was 31 Rb5, which remains a
threat.
31 ... Ne7
Black overprotects d5, but at the cost of losing control of d4.
32 Nd4 Ra6
 33 Bd7
White improves the placing of his pieces once again. He just needs to strengthen his
position a little more in order to consolidate his advantage.
Among the best ideas for White here are creating luft for his king and not losing the b2-
pawn in return for the one on a5. Therefore 33 g3 or 33 b3 were also strong, but there is no
rush, since Black no has counterplay. White can manoeuvre more or less as he wishes without
jeopardising his advantage.
33 ... Nhg8
If 33 ... Raa8, as well as 34 g3, White can play 34 Nb5 and after 34 ... Be5 35 Be6 Nef5
then the quiet 36 b3 brings Black’s position to the point of collapse. The threats are 37 Rc5 or
37 Nc7, for example.
34 Bb5 Raa8 35 Kf1
Another revealing feature of the position: White is able to centralise his king, unlike Black.
35 ... Be5 36 Ne6 Rdb8
The white rook is a nuisance, but exchanging brings little relief, since following the
exchange of rooks it is easier for White to exploit the weakness of the black pawns.
37 Rxb8 Rxb8 38 b3
The b2-pawn will not fall and limiting Black’s rook means that there will not be any back
rank mating threats for White to worry about.
23 ... Ra8 39 f4
Other strong moves here were 39 g3 and 39 Ke2. White’s position is so strong that it
would be enough to create a passed pawn with 39 b4 to have a decisive advantage, but there
is no need. White will play b4 only if he cannot win the a5-pawn at no cost.
39 ... Bd6 40 Nc7 Ra7?
Abandoning the back rank makes White’s task easier. It was preferable to play 40 ... Rc8
seeking to exchange rooks, but even then after 41 Ne6 Rxc1+ 42 Bxc1 Bb4 White can do as
he pleases: first he can eject the Bb4 with 43 Nd4-c2, followed by Bd2, g3, Ke2-d3, etc.
Once White has strengthened his position to the maximum the creation of a passed pawn with
b3-b4, supported by the bishops, would make the defence very difficult.
41 Na6 1-0
 Here the game was possibly adjourned and resigned without resuming. If 41 ... Nf5 White
plays 42 Rc8 and then 42 ... Nd4? loses to 43 Be3, while 41 ... Ra8 is well met by 42 g3
followed by Bxa5.

Lessons in Exchanging Pieces and Pawns

There are questions that a player should ask himself several times during each game, such as
“which pieces to exchange, and which to retain?” and “which file to open or close?”
It is no exaggeration to say that replying accurately to these questions can determine who
gains the advantage. In the following game, Black made a few questionable decisions
concerning exchanges of pieces and pawns. In contrast, White got things right and then kept
methodically increasing his advantage, matching Kramnik’s observation that Spassky “grabs
space, turns on the pressure here and there…”. Finally Black becomes paralysed and Spassky
concludes with a powerful mating attack.

Game 7
B.Spassky-Y.Seirawan
London 1982
Caro-Kann Defence

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5
Spassky generally played 3 Nc3, but he also employed this advance on occasion.
3 ... Bf5

4 h4!?
This line is more overtly aggressive than the currently more common 4 Nf3, popularised
by Short. It looks somewhat primitive, with its idea 4…e6?? 5 g4 Bg6 (5…Be4 6 f3) 6 h5.
But of course that it is not the main idea. White wants to gain space on the kingside,
smothering the black pieces which are already cramped by the e5-pawn.
It is no surprise that Tal used this sharp line in his match with Botvinnik in 1961. However
more striking was its use by Kramnik in the last game of his match with Leko in Brissago
2004, when he had to win to level the match.
 4 ... h5
This stops White’s plan but weakens the g5-square somewhat. Black can also play 4…h6.
5 c4
White plays 5 c4 only after the insertion of the moves 4 h4 h5, instead of 4 c4 immediately,
on the assumption that the weakness of g5 is more important than that of g4; on the other hand,
Black can argue that his f5-bishop is now more stable.
5 ... Bxb1?!

Question: What? After the previous explanation he goes and

exchanges the ‘stabilised’ bishop for an undeveloped knight. Why?

Answer: It is true that the natural 5 ... e6 is considered best here. The text move cannot be so bad, but the idea with
which he played it, to win the pawn on a2, is indeed bad. Later Seirawan was so dissatisfied with his decision that he awarded
it two question marks, although he admitted that the second was excessive.
6 Rxb1

6 ... e6

Question: I thought that the idea was to capture the pawn on a2. Why not 6 ... Qa5+?

Answer: Black’s original idea was indeed to play 6 ... Qa5+? 7 Bd2 Qxa2, based on the fact that 8 Bc3, threatening Ra1,
can be answered by 8 ... dxc4. But after looking into it more deeply he rejected it. His queen would remain in serious danger,
and soon he saw a crushing line, 8 e6! followed by Nf3–g5 and/or Bd3, with an overwhelming position.
There were other ways to win. Spassky had considered 8 Rh3! and the black queen will
not get out alive, for example after 8 ... e6 the strongest continuation is to cut off the queen’s
retreat with 9 c5! while after 8 ... Qa6 White can play 9 Ra3 Qb6 10 Ba5 Qa6 11 Bc7.
7 a3

Question: Is this just to protect the a-pawn?

Answer: Let us hand over to Seirawan: “No, no ... This move was to prevent ... Bb4+, which would help Black trade
pieces, thereby reducing the influence of White’s cramping centre”.
7 ... Nd7 8 Nf3 g6?
 Question: I understand that the position is closed and that
Black’s lack of development cannot be punished easily, but
the point of this move eludes me. Was there nothing better?

Answer: Yes, you are right, this move weakens the dark squares even more without any clear reason. The psychological
effect of knowing that you have made a bad move, or had a bad idea, is at times very damaging, even for strong and
experienced masters.
The position demands that Black try to exploit almost the only good thing about his
position, the good central outpost that he could create with 8 ... dxc4 9 Bxc4 Nb6, followed
by ... Ne7–f5, and perhaps ... Qd7 and ... Rd8. Although in that case White would gain the use
of the e4-square and a more comfortable game, thanks to his great advantage in space. But at
last there would still be a lot of play in the position.
9 Bg5 Be7

Exercise: The exchange of dark-squared bishops will leave

weak squares in Black’s position, but this is not enough on
its own to increase the advantage. How should White continue?

Answer:
10 cxd5!
The new element that White adds is the opening of the c-file, which can only favour the
side with more space and better development.
Seirawan commented, “and it is why I had to play 8 ... dxc4”.
10 ... cxd5
10 ... exd5 is even worse on account of 11 e6!
11 Bd3 Rc8 12 0-0
Both white rooks are ready to occupy the c-file, something that Black cannot match.
12 ... Kf8
It was slightly better to speed up his development with 12 ... Bxg5 13 Nxg5 Ne7 followed
by castling, hoping then to be able to contest the c-file. White can maintain the pressure by
playing 14 Qf3 0-0 15 Rfc1 (the tempting 15 g4?! achieves no advantage due to the counter-
blow 15 ... Qb6, attacking d4 and defending e6, which will allow him to play ... f6; but 15
Qf4 is a good alternative) 15 ... Rxc1+ 16 Rxc1 Qb6 17 Qf4 Nc6 18 Nf3 (planning 19 Qh6)
18 ... Rc8 (18 ... Qxb2?! allows a strong attack after 19 Rb1 Qxa3 20 Qh6! Rb8 21 Bxg6!
fxg6 22 Qxg6+ Kf8 23 Ng5 Nd8 and with a precise series of checks White gains a dangerous
passed pawn: 24 Nh7+ Ke7 25 Qg5+ Kf7 26 Qxh5+ Ke7 27 Qg5+ Ke8 28 Qg6+ Ke7 29 Nf6
Nxf6 30 exf6+ Kd7 31 h5 and the passed pawns give White a decisive advantage) 19 b4.

13 Rc1!
The exchange of a pair of rooks is the first step towards seizing control of the c-file.

Question: Hmm, but it will be the white queen that ends

up on c1. Shouldn’t it be the rook that goes there instead?

Answer: Do not be in such a hurry – the rook will soon reach c1. Although the queen is badly placed on c1, it is only for
one move. Black can do nothing important with this tempo, owing to the passivity of his position.
13 ... Rxc1 14 Qxc1 Kg7 15 Qf4
Putting pressure on f6 and soon f7 too.
15 ... Bxg5 16 Nxg5 Nh6
 Exercise (easy): What is White’s best move?

Answer:
17 Rc1!
Of course we do not yet know where this rook is headed; perhaps to c3 and then to the
kingside, but what we do know is that the threat to penetrate Black’s position reduces the
opponent’s mobility.
17 ... Qb6
Instead 17 ... Qb8 with the idea of 18 ... Rc8 can be punished with 18 Bb5! Rd8, when the
easiest way is 19 Bxd7 Rxd7 20 Qf6+ Kg8 21 Nxe6!
White’s task would be easier after 17 ... Nf5?! 18 Bxf5 gxf5 and White then has two
possible ways to invade along the c-file. One is 19 Qg3 Kf8 20 Qc3 Kg7 21 Qc7 with a clear
advantage. The other is 19 Rc3! (with the idea Qc1) Nb8 (or 19 ... Nf8 20 Qc1 Ng6 21 Rc7)
20 Qc1 Nc6 21 Kh2! (avoiding a possible check on e2 if Black plays ... Nxd4).
Seirawan suggested 17 ... Nf8 with the idea of ... Nh7, followed by trying to dispute the c-
file with the slow manoeuvre ... Re8–e7–c7, even though he admits that his position would
remain bad, but “it was my obligation to put up the best resistance I could”.
White would have the whole board at his disposal. He could continue with his idea of
exploiting the c-file with 18 Rc5 Nh7 and simply retreat the knight to f3 or h3, followed by
Qc1, although it is also worth considering 19 Qxf7+ Nxf7 20 Nxe6+ Kh6 21 Nxd8 Nxd8 22
Rxd5.
18 b4 Re8
 19 Rc3!
As usual, if he cannot see a decisive continuation, Spassky does not hurry and first
activates all his pieces to the maximum. With the threat of the rook swinging across to
kingside via the third rank, combinations on f7 and g6 are now in the air.
19 ... Re7
This defends against the main threat of 20 Nxf7! Nxf7 21 Bxg6! Kxg6 22 Rg3+, mating.
The alternative 19 ... Rf8 was suggested but this still leaves White with a free hand. One
interesting idea is 20 Bc2! with the plan of 21 Ba4 Qd8 22 Bxd7 Qxd7 23 Qc1.
Seirawan suggested 19 ... Nf5 “when prayer is in order” but there seems no way for Black
to save himself after 20 Bxf5! exf5 (20 ... gxf5 21 Qg3) 21 g4! hxg4 22 h5 with a decisive
attack.

Exercise: How to continue now?

 Answer:
20 Rc8!
It is essential to be attentive to changes in the position. This opportunity to invade the
enemy position is too good to be missed. The rook on the 8th rank, harassing the black king,
immediately creates a lot of tactical possibilities.
20 ... Ng8

21 g4!
Decisively opening up the kingside. This is the clearest and most logical continuation.

Exercise: There was a slightly better alternative – what was it?

Answer: It is possible to exploit the accumulation of favourable factors, such as the insecurity of the black king, the
discoordination of the black pieces and White’s greater activity, in an artistic way with 21 Bxg6! fxg6 22 Re8!!, which is even
slightly better than the direct 21 Re8! which allows 21 ... f5, but also wins.
21 ... hxg4 22 h5 f5
Opening the game even more is hardly recommendable, but there was no defence. If 22 ...
gxh5 then one way is 23 Nxf7! Rxf7 24 Qg5+ mating.
22 ... Nh6 isn’t satisfactory either. One winning continuation then is 23 Nh7! (with the
threat of 24 Bxg6 fxg6 25 Qg5 and a rapid mate) 23 ... Kxh7 24 Qg5! and mate in seven
moves according to the engines.
23 exf6+ Ndxf6
If 23 ... Ngxf6 the quickest way is 24 h6+! Kxh6 25 Nf7+ and mate in two moves.
 Exercise: Demonstrate one of the several ways to win.

Answer:
24 Qe5!
“Nicely played indeed” (Seirawan). The main threat is 25 Rxg8+, against which there is
no good defence.
24 Bxg6 was almost equally strong, but by now there are even other ways to win.
24 ... g3 25 Rxg8+ Kxg8 26 Qxf6 gxf2+ 27 Kg2 Qc7 28 Qxg6+ Kf8 29 Qf6+ 1-0
Further resistance is impossible. After 29 ... Kg8 ‘everything wins’, but the strongest continuation is 30 h6, while 29 ... Ke8 30
Bb5+ is no better.
Chapter Two
Initiative and Attack
International Debut with a New Style
Spassky’s international debut, at the age of sixteen, was in a strong tournament in Bucharest,
Romania. The event also included Smyslov, Petrosian and Boleslavsky, who were soon to
compete in the Candidates Tournament in Zürich.
Spassky gained the title of International Master, a great achievement at that time at such a
young age. He shared fourth place with Boleslavsky and Szabo, behind Petrosian and
Smyslov.
The winner of the tournament was Alexander Kazimirovich Tolush, who had taken over as
Spassky’s trainer a few months earlier. Previously Spassky’s style was rather cautious and
risk-averse. This was possibly due to the influence of his first trainer, Vladimir Grigorievich
Zak, although much later, in an interview with Leonard Barden, Spassky himself gave a
different explanation: “I played ... like an old man, very positional and solid. You can
understand this better if I tell you that when I was six or seven years old I was the chief in my
family. My mother had a very difficult position; she was alone in Moscow with three
children”.
After Tolush took over, the change was radical. Attacking play and sacrifices began to
appear frequently in the games of the young Spassky, but once again this neat scheme of cause
and effect is called into question by Spassky himself. In an interview in New in Chess
1988/7, in answer to the question: “Wasn’t it Tolush who incited you to play more
aggressively?”, Spassky replied: “No, I had already become more aggressive of my own
accord”.
However, it is quite likely that the influence of both trainers had a positive influence on the
creation of Spassky’s ‘universal style’. Later, in 1961, Spassky started to work with his third
trainer, Igor Zakharovich Bondarevsky, with whom he obtained his greatest successes.
In an interview conducted in 2010, but only published in 2012, Spassky said: “I remember
all my trainers with great reverence and respect. Vladimir Zak gave me a weapon, Alexander
Tolush sharpened it, Bondarevsky hardened it. With that weapon I became World Champion”.
When Kasparov writes about Spassky in his series of books “My Great Predecessors” he
mentions Tolush’s favourite slogan: “Forward Kazimirovich!” As we shall see, from 1953
onwards Spassky played many games to which Tolush’s motto was appropriate. In the
following game this is not so much on account of the initiative but the variation employed.

Game 8
L.Szabo-B.Spassky
Bucharest 1953
King’s Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nf3 g6 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 e4 0-0 6 Be2 e5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d5 Ne7 9 Ne1 Nd7 10
Be3

For a long time this move was considered weak. The tempo conceded after ... f4 seemed
important and on several occasions Black’s attack won brilliantly. One of the games that
caused a great impact was M.Taimanov-M.Najdorf, Zurich 1953. However, in the 1980s
V.Korchnoi was the main driving-force behind the development of White’s chances in this
line. He was able to demonstrate the virtues of White’s queenside attack supported by the
bishop on f2 and the defensive resources of White’s kingside.
Another popular line is 10 Nd3 f5 11 Bd2.
10 ... f5 11 f3 f4 12 Bf2 g5
We have reached one of the main tabiyas of the variation, with clearly defined attacking
plans on opposite flanks.
13 b4
This move, along with 13 Nb5, 13 a4 and 13 Rc1 were other moves played subsequently
by Korchnoi. Alternatively, 13 Nd3 is rather slow, as was demonstrated in the above-
mentioned game between Taimanov and Najdorf, from Zürich 1953 (Supplementary Game
8.1) which you might want to look at before continuing with our main game.
 13 ... Rf6
This rook manoeuvre has both defensive and aggressive purposes. It prophylactically
overprotects the d6-pawn in anticipation of White’s c4-c5, followed by cxd6, and it also
heads either for h6, followed by ... Qe8-h5, or for g6, in support of the ... g5-g4 break.
It was seen with greater frequency before Gligoric popularised a different regrouping (see
Supplementary Game 8.1) which gives a Black a more harmonious way of combining attack
and defence.
Subsequently, thanks to lessons learned from the above-mentioned examples, 13 ... Nf6!
became the most popular move in this position, and this is indeed better. It was played by
Kasparov himself in another model game, J.Piket-G.Kasparov, Tilburg 1989 (Supplementary
Game 8.2), which I invite you to play through before continuing.

Exercise: Based on what we have seen in the supplementary

games (a great advantage not available to the player of the white
pieces in 1953!), what do you think is White’s best move here?

Answer:
14 Nd3?!
We know that speed is very important here, and this move is not needed in order to play
c4-c5. It was preferable to play 14 c5! right away, so that we have available, among other
things, our familiar manoeuvre 15 cxd6, followed by Nb5.
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue?

Answer:
14 ... Rg6!
The choice basically is between this move and 14 ... Rh6, but we saw that Taimanov had
shown that the attempt to attack with the latter move was not very convincing, so Spassky
seeks to accelerate the ... g5-g4 break.
15 c5 Nf6 16 Qb3?!
White continues to play in a very optimistic fashion; consistent with 14 Nd3, he seeks to
build up a great concentration of forces on the queenside, bringing the f1-rook to the c-file,
but in this typical attacking race we shall see that there is no time for this.
It was better to play 16 Rc1, with our familiar idea of playing cxd6 and Nb5 at an
opportune moment, attacking a7 and dreaming of being able to play Nc7-e6.
16 ... Kh8

Question: You just said that we are in a race, but

this modest retreat looks like a loss of time, doesn’t it?

Answer: Black pays due respect to White’s idea, removing his king from the ‘X-ray’ pressure exerted by the white queen
from b3. This not only rules out any tactical ideas bases on Nxe5, followed by d6+, but also parries the immediate threat of 17
Nb5, e.g. 17 ... a6 18 Nxc7 Qxc7 19 cxd6 Qxd6 20 Bc5 and once again 21 d6+.
On the other hand the king move, vacating the g8-square, is generally not a complete waste
of time. We can even say that it helps Black’s attack, since the g8-square can be (and in this
game, will be) useful for Black’s major pieces.
17 Rfc1
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue?

Answer:
17 ... g4!
Of course. All the preparatory moves have been made, and there is no reason to postpone
this advance; White must now reckon with the move ... g2-g3, opening lines against the king.
18 fxg4
A concession, opening the g-file and leaving the e4-pawn weak. As we know, an idea for
White in such positions is 18 cxd6 cxd6 19 Nb5.

Exercise: Why was White not convinced by this continuation?

Answer: On account of our familiar idea 19 ... g3!, which highlights the lack of coordination among the white pieces, and
here it is not even a pawn-sacrifice, since after for instance 20 hxg3 fxg3 21 Be1? Qb6+ wins, while 21 Bxa7? does not work
either, failing to 21 ... Rxa7 22 Nxa7 Qb6+.
That just leaves 21 Be3, when several sources recommend 21 ... Bh6, which is indeed
better for Black, since 22 Bxh6? is simply answered with 22 ... Rxh6 with a decisive attack
along the h-file (the main threat being 23 ... Qe8), while 22 Ne1 walks into the typical
combination 22 ... Bxe3+ 23 Qxe3 Nfxd5! (or 23 ... Nexd5!) 24 exd5 Nxd5 and White has no
good defence against the numerous threats: against his queen, 25 ... Qh4, 25 ... Qb6+ etc.
Nevertheless, in answer to 21 Be3 even quicker seems the same combination, 21 ... Nfxd5!
and after 22 exd5 Nf5 (threatening both 23 ... Nxe3 and 23 ... Qh4) 24 Ne1 Black has 24 ...
Nxe3 25 Qxe3 Bh6! and once again it is impossible to defend against so many threats. In all
these lines it is notable that the pawn on g3 considerably increases the strength of Black’s
attack.
18 ... Bxg4
This threatens 19 ... Bxe2 and 20 ... Nxe4, as well as 19 ... f3.
19 Bf1 Bf3!
Immediately seeking to exploit the open g-file. Black threatens the e4-pawn, and White
also has to worry about ... Bxg2, followed by ... f3.
 20 Qc4
If White defends the e4-pawn with 20 Re1, then even stronger than 20 ... Bxg2 21 Bxg2 f3
22 Bg3 seems 20 ... Qd7! (or 20 ... Qc8) planning 21 ... Qg4, with a decisive attack, for
instance if 21 Kh1? then 21 ... Qh3! wins.
20 ... Bxg2
Logical, even though the surprising 20 ... b5! 21 cxb6 cxb6, followed by 22 ... Rc8, was
even stronger.
21 Bxg2 f3

22 Ne1?!
More tenacious was 22 Bg3 fxg2 23 Rc2! increasing the number of defenders, although the
black attack would continue after 23 ... Bh6, followed by ... Nh5, not excluding the idea of ...
Ng4 followed by bringing the major pieces into the attack.
22 ... fxg2
With ideas such as 23 ... Qd7 and bringing the a8-rook into the attack, as well as ... Ng4, ...
Bh6, etc.
23 Nxg2 Bh6
Clearing the g-file. It is difficult to know which is the most accurate order of moves here.
Placing the queen on its best square with 23 ... Qd7 was also very attractive. With the text
move Black is seeking to triple on the g-file.
24 Rc2 Qg8 25 Bg3?
If 25 Be1 the strongest reply is another of Black’s standard moves, 25 ... Ng4, which
seems even stronger than 25 ... Qg7, planning 26 ... Rg8.
The best defence was 25 Bh4! when Black can continue with 25 ... Qg7, intending to bring
the a8-rook into the attack.
Very possibly this would have been what Spassky would have chosen, after first checking
whether 25 ... Ng4 might be better. Then 26 Bxe7? can be punished with 26 ... Ne3 27 Qe2
Qg7 28 Bh4 Rxg2+ (28 ... Nxc2 also is strong) 29 Qxg2 Nxg2 30 Rxg2 Be3+ and 31 ... Qh6,
with a decisive advantage. However 26 Kh1 Ne3 27 Nxe3 Bxe3 28 Ne2 is more difficult to
break down. If 28 ... Qf7 (or 28 ... Qf8 intending ... Qh6) White has 29 Ng3.
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue the attack?

Answer:
25 ... Rxg3!
The complete triumph of the concept of attacking along the g-file.
26 cxd6
White’s position cannot be held after 26 hxg3 Qxg3, planning 27 ... Ng4, as well as ... Rg8
and ... Be3+. If 27 Ne2 Black has 27 ... Be3+ mating.
26 ... cxd6 27 Qc7
This is equivalent to resigning but there was nothing better.
27 ... Rg7 28 Qxd6 Ng4 29 Kh1 Rd8 0-1

Supplementary Game 8.1

M.Taimanov-M.Najdorf
Zurich 1953

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nf3 g6 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 e4 0-0 6 Be2 e5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d5 Ne7 9 Ne1 Nd7 10 Be3 f5 11 f3 f4 12 Bf2
g5 13 Nd3
 13 ... Nf6
Taimanov had been successful with White against another typical idea, 13 ... Rf6, with the
plan of ... Rh6. M.Taimanov-D.Bronstein, Moscow 1952 continued 14 c5! Rh6 15 cxd6 cxd6
16 Nb5 Nf8 17 Be1! a6 18 Na3 b5 19 Nc2 Nd7 20 a4! and White struck first. The black
attack remained paralysed and 1-0 in 41 moves.
14 c5 Ng6!
Here 14 ... h5?! is imprecise. M.Taimanov-L.Aronin, Moscow 1952 continued 15 Rc1 g4
16 Qb3 Bh6? 17 cxd6 cxd6 18 Nxe5! and 1-0 in 40 moves, “In both cases it was one and the
same plan that brought White success: pawn breakthrough on the c-file, bypass from the flank
and penetration into the opponent’s rear. For the defence of his king White left only his dark-
squared bishop” was Bronstein comment on Taimanov’s two triumphs. Instead Najdorf
employed a new idea used by Gligoric and Trifunovic in Mar del Plata 1953.
15 Rc1
With the familiar idea of playing c4-c5, capturing on d6 and then playing Nb5.

15 ... Rf7! 16 Rc2?!

 Logical, but here it is just too slow and practice has shown 16 a4! is more effective.
16…Bf8!
“This was the system employed by Gligoric and Trifunovic at Mar del Plata. Now the d-
pawn is defended, the rook can go to the g-file, and Black’s knights hang over the king’s wing.
Taimanov, however, trusts the invulnerability of his position, and continues with his cavalier
assault on the queenside” (Bronstein). “The so-called ‘Mar del Plata Variation’, which would
be more correctly called the Gligoric Variation, was an enormous step forward. His plan,
which very harmoniously combines defence of the d6-pawn and the potentially weak c7-point
with an attack on the kingside (the preparation of ... Rg7 and ... g5-g4) is nowadays known to
every schoolboy, and all these moves are made automatically” (Kasparov).
17 cxd6 cxd6 18 Qd2 g4 19 Rfc1 g3!

“A pawn sacrifice with an enormous future” (Bronstein).

20 hxg3 fxg3 21 Bxg3 Nh5 22 Bh2 Be7!
And Black went on to win with a brilliant attack, which deserves to be analyses deeply.
“This was one of the tourney’s most interesting games, and the recipient of a brilliancy prize.
Both of its phases – opening and middlegame – were conducted by Najdorf with such a high
degree of erudition and mastery that the need of a third phase never arose” (Bronstein).
The game can be found annotated in several places.

Supplementary Game 8.2

J.Piket-G.Kasparov
Tilburg 1989

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nf3 g6 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 e4 0-0 6 Be2 e5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d5 Ne7 9 Ne1 Nd7 10
Be3 f5 11 f3 f4 12 Bf2 g5 13 b4 Nf6!
 This is the move that Kasparov preferred to Spassky’s 13 ... Rf6.
14 c5 Ng6 15 cxd6 cxd6 16 Rc1
Planning Nb5-c7.
16 ... Rf7! 17 a4 Bf8!
Employing the manoeuvre conceived by Gligoric.
18 a5
If 18 Nb5?! the break 18 ... g4! is already strong, thanks to the fact that the e4-pawn is
undefended, as Kasparov pointed out, and after 19 Bxa7? (worse is 19 Nxa7? g3!) Black can
play 19 ... Bd7 20 Bf2 g3! 21 hxg3 fxg3 22 Bxg3 Nh5 reaching a scenario very similar to the
Taimanov-Najdorf game.
18 ... Bd7! 19 Nb5?!

At the board, Kasparov was more afraid of the typical prophylactic move 19 Kh1!? which
can be found in many of Korchnoi’s games. The king leaves the g-file and vacates g1 for the
bishop, if necessary. Black’s best response in that case would be 19 ... Rg7!
19 ... g4! 20 Nc7?!
 20 ... g3!
“Black’s main trump in connection with ... Nh5” (Kasparov).
21 Nxa8?
Kasparov indicated that White needed to accept the pawn sacrifice.
21 ... Nh5!
Piket was hoping to defend after 21 ... gxf2+ 22 Rxf2 Qxa8 23 Bc4.
22 Kh1
White returns some material to be able to stop worrying about the powerful infantryman on
g3.
22 ... gxf2 23 Rxf2 Ng3+!
“A new wave of the attack: the knight cannot be taken because of mate” (Kasparov).
24 Kg1 Qxa8
Black has a material advantage, and the game is effectively over. However, the finish is
worthy of the tremendous power with which Kasparov conducted the whole game.
25 Bc4 a6!
A beautiful move to finish the game, opening the g1–a7 diagonal for the queen.
26 Qd3 Qa7 27 b5 axb5 28 Bxb5
 28…Nh1! 0-1
A very famous move.

A Queen’s Gambit Converted into a King’s Gambit

Spassky played both 1 d4 and 1 e4. Nevertheless it seems very difficult to arrange for a
Queen’s Gambit to resemble a King’s Gambit, yet this is exactly what happens in the
following game, which sees a violent struggle for the initiative.
“Spassky is a player of enormous practical strength, versatile to the highest degree. He
prefers clear methods of play, but he feels very much at home in complicated positions, full of
tactical possibilities” V.Smyslov once commented. In this game we see both these sides of
Spassky’s play. After complications, in which he outplays his opponent, there is a short phase
in which calculation takes a back seat and all of Spassky’s pieces collaborate in the final
attack.
This game, played in the sixth round, decided the outcome of the Riga 1959 tournament.
Spassky scored 11½ points out of 13 while Mikenas finished on 11 (!). Further back was not
only Tolush but also Tal, who had already qualified as Botvinnik’s challenger. The following
year Tal would become the eighth world champion.

Game 9
B.Spassky-V.Mikenas
Riga 1959
Queen’s Gambit

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4
 The violent Albin Counter-gambit, which Mikenas played a few times in his long career.
Kasparov thinks that Mikenas was trying to put Spassky “in the unaccustomed role of
defender”. As we shall see, the plan did not work.

Question: Tell me what Black gains with this pawn sacrifice.

Answer: The d4-pawn cramps White and Black is able to develop his pieces quickly. After ... Nc6 Black can try to
regain the e5-pawn with ... Nge7-g6, or make it a real sacrifice by playing ... f6.
Furthermore the white king is most probably going to castle on the kingside, so Black can
respond by going queenside, turning the fight into an attacking race with the kings on opposite
flanks.
4 e4
This advance is a change from the usual set-up. Subsequently Spassky played the most
popular, and less risky, 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 g3 Bg4 6 Bg2 Qd7 7 0-0 0-0-0 8 Qb3. Here there are
several moves, such as 8 ... h5 or 8 ... Nge7. However, in B.Spassky-G.Forintos, Sochi 1964,
Black played 8 ... Bh3? which looks logical at first sight since it seeks to exchange the g2-
bishop. White’s bishop not only fulfils defensive duties, but it exerts pressure against Black’s
castled position. However 8 ... Bh3? is a bad move.
 Exercise: How did Spassky punish this mistake?

Answer: In addition to general considerations it is vital to look at the tactical possibilities. Here 9 e6! is very strong. After
the forced reply 9 ... Bxe6 the game continued 10 Ne5 Qd6 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12 Qa4, and the weakness of Black’s queenside is
already almost decisive. The game continued 12 ... Qc5 13 Na3 Qb6 14 Bxc6 and White went on to win.
Instead of 5 g3 the move 5 a3 is also played, when 5 ... Be6 is the most usual reply. In the
fifth round of the same tournament (Riga 1959), I.Niemela-B.Spassky continued 5 ... Bg4 and
after 6 Nbd2 Qe7 7 g3 (7 h3! was the preference of Emanuel Lasker) 7 ... Nxe5 8 Nxe5 Qxe5
9 h3 Bh5, the bishop was exposed on h5 and Spassky did not flinch from sacrificing a piece:
10 Bg2 0-0-0 11 Nf3?! (the critical move was to accept the piece sacrifice with 11 f4,
followed by g4 and f5) 11 ... Qa5+ 12 Bd2 Qa6 13 0-0 Nf6 14 b4 Ne4 15 c5 d3 16 e3? (it
was better to eliminate the advanced pawn) 16 ... f5 and Black had the upper hand.
4 ... Nc6 5 f4
 Question: Playing e4 and f4 looks very ambitious to me. I like that White
plans to hang on to his extra pawn, gain space and develop his pieces
comfortably with Nf3, Bd3 and castling. Why it this line not the most popular?

Answer: If there were only advantages, there is no doubt that it would be the best line, but of course there are also
concessions and drawbacks. Firstly, with 4 e4 the black d4-pawn becomes a passed pawn. Furthermore, after f4 the dark
squares are left weak. We should also note that so far White has moved only pawns, without developing a single piece.
So, White’s approach compels Black to play very energetically, or else he will be left a pawn down with almost nothing to
show for it.
5 ... g5?!
This ambitious move (the top choice of the engines, at least at first) had been played
before by Mikenas, albeit without success, but he had prepared an interesting improvement.
It is better to turn this into a real gambit with the old move 5 ... f6! (the engines’ top choice
after ‘thinking’ for a while) already played in S.Tarrasch-H.Caro, Vienna 1898. Black has an
advantage in development and good play after 6 exf6 Nxf6, followed by ... Bb4+, ... 0-0 with
... Ng4 on the agenda, targeting the weakness on e3.
Later Spassky faced the position after 5 ... f6. B.Spassky-A.Lutikov, played in the first
round of Kharkov 1963, continued 6 Nf3 fxe5 7 Bd3 Bb4+ 8 Nbd2 exf4 9 0-0 Nf6 10 Nb3 0-
0 and here Kasparov recommends 11 Bxf4 Nxe4 12 Bxe4 Rxf4 13 Qd3, reaching a double-
edged position.
Spassky preferred the sharper 11 c5, but incarcerating the bishop on b4 did not bring
White any advantage. After 11 ... Qe7 12 Qc2? Nd7 the bold c5-pawn fell and after 13 Bb5
Bxc5 14 Kh1 Bb6 15 Bxc6 bxc6 16 Nfxd4 Nf6 17 Bxf4 Qxe4 White’s position lay in ruins, a
pawn down and at the mercy of the black bishops, but Spassky managed to draw.

Exercise: How did Spassky respond to this violent counter-blow?

Answer:
6 f5!
“Unhesitatingly gives up both a pawn and the e5 square. Mikenas wanted to hide his king
on the queenside, but now this is difficult on account of the c8-bishop being restricted. Now,
with his king in the centre and yawning ‘holes’ on the kingside, Black must defend with
extreme care” commented Kasparov.
Black has no problems after 6 Bd3?! when A.Burn-C.Schlechter, Munich 1900, continued
6 ... gxf4 7 Bxf4 Nge7 8 Bg3 Ng6 and the weaknesses in White’s camp are glaring.
6 ... Nxe5 7 Nf3 Bb4+
A game with some similarity to our main game, played in a junior team tournament ten
years before, saw 7 ... Nxf3+ 8 Qxf3 Bb4+ (Kasparov also gives 8 ... Bd6 9 Bd3 Qe7 as
playable) 9 Kd1!? T.Petrosian-M.Mukhitdinov, Tashkent 1951 continued 9 ... Bd7 10 Bd3
Qe7 11 h4, and here Black played 11 ... g4. Also playable is 11 ... gxh4 12 Qg4 Nf6 13 Qxh4
Bd6 14 Bg5 Be5, and Black is OK. He plans to castle queenside and play ... h6, etc. Black is
not afraid of a tactical struggle, since the white king is not well protected.
Instead of 8 ... Bb4+, the game V.Korchnoi-Shapkin, Moscow 1949 continued 8 ... Qf6 9
Bd3 Bd6.

Black plans to cement his control of the vital e5-square with 10 ... Ne7-c6, something that
White cannot allow to happen without challenge. One interesting idea is 11 Nd2 Ne7 12 c5!?
Bxc5 13 0-0 Nc6 14 Nc4, with the idea of 15 e5. It is worth noting that, the black king
remains in the centre.
A young Korchnoi chose the immediate 10 e5!? and gained a terrific victory after 10 ...
Bxe5 (after 10 ... Qxe5+ 11 Kd1 Qg7 12 Re1+ Kf8 13 Nd2 White has compensation, since the
black king is not well protected) 11 Nd2 Qe7 12 0-0 f6?! Now 13 Qh5+ Qf7 14 Qe2,
followed by Nf3, was good, but the impetuous young Korchnoi re-appeared and he played 13
c5! Qxc5?! (more tenacious was 13 ... Nh6 14 Nc4 Nf7 even though White keeps the initiative
with 15 b3! planning Ba3) 14 Nc4 Kd8 15 b4! Qc6 (if 15 ... Qxb4 16 Nxe5 fxe5 17 Bxg5+
wins, while after 15 ... Qe7 White can play 16 Bxg5 fxg5 17 Rae1) 16 Nxe5 fxe5 17 Bxg5+
Ne7 18 f6 1-0.
It is worth noting that in most of these lines the struggle for the control of e5 was one of the
main themes. If Black manages to consolidate his grip on that square, he will be OK.
 8 Nbd2
The point of the check can be seen in the reply 8 Bd2, when after 8 ... Nxf3+ 9 Qxf3 Bd6,
the white knight would a long way from being able to fight for control of the e5 square.
After the game Spassky said that 8 Kf2 was better, and after 8 ... Ng4+ 9 Kg1 Bc5 10 b4!
White has the advantage, since 10 ... Bxb4? loses to 11 Qa4+. However, Kasparov indicates
that the correct continuation would have been 8 ... Nxf3! 9 Qxf3 Bd6, or 9 Qa4+ c6 10 Qxb4
Ne5 11 Qc5 Qf6! with equality.
8 ... Nc6?

Question: Hmm, this is a strange move, isn’t it? Even though

we are in a closed position this is a loss of time and does not look
right. This is not how I was taught to play – what is the explanation?

Answer: Yes, you are right. Mikenas continues with what he knows, thinking that he will be able to introduce his novelty,
but “wasting a tempo in such a position is an impermissible luxury”, according to Kasparov. It was better to play 8 ... Nxf3+ 9
Qxf3 and now Kasparov points out that 9 ... Ne7, seeking to strengthen his hold on e5 with ... Nc6, is inaccurate, owing to 10
a3 Bd6 11 c5! Bxc5 12 Nb3.
9 ... Nf6! is better, when 10 e5? fails to 10 ... Qe7 11 Qe2 d3! with advantage to Black, but
Kasparov points out that it is better to play 10 Bd3! Nd7! 11 0-0 Ne5 12 Qg3 f6, and even
though according to his analysis White retains a slight initiative, “Black’s defences in the
centre are solid (control of the e5-square!), whereas the attacking front on the flanks is very
restricted”.
 9 Bd3!

Question: That is a bit excessive, isn’t it? It is a

normal move, so why award it an exclamation mark?

Answer: Yes, it is true that it is a normal move, but it is not an easy one to make. It is essential for White to have a
satisfactory response prepared against 9 ... g4.
However, this is where play diverges from Mikenas’s earlier game, which continued 9 a3
Bd6, and now I want you to do some work and show that you have learnt something from
what we have seen so far.

Exercise: How did White seize the initiative here?

Answer: By means of the sacrifice that we have already seen in such positions: 10 c5! Bxc5 11 Bb5 Bd7 12 Nb3 Qe7 13
Bxg5 f6 14 Qc2 Bb6 15 Bf4 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 a6 17 Bd3, with a clear advantage which led to a win for White in A.Geller-
V.Mikenas, Riga 1951.
 The engines immediately indicate the improvement that Mikenas possibly had prepared.
Iinstead of 9 ... Bd6, it is better to play 9 ... Bxd2+ 10 Bxd2 g4! 11 Ng1 Qe7! and the black
pieces are developing quickly.
9 ... g4

Exercise: What did Spassky intend to play here when he opted for 9 Bd3?

Answer:
10 0-0!
Of course, not 10 Ng1? Ne5, nor 10 a3? gxf3 11 axb4 fxg2. Instead, Spassky plays in the
spirit of the Muzio Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0 gxf3 6 Qxf3. Although
Spassky frequently played the King’s Gambit, he never actually played the Muzio and always
opted for 4 h4.
10 ... gxf3 11 Nxf3
“The battle for control of the e5-outpost is the leitmotif of the entire game, and White is
prepared to make great material sacrifices for the sake of domination of this key square”,
commented Kasparov.
11 ... Bd6
The computer age being far in the future, it is probable that Mikenas was unaware that this
was the first new move. A game B.Spassky-B.Beliavsky, Leningrad 1955 continued 11 ...
Qe7?! 12 e5! a5 13 a3 Bc5 14 b4! axb4 15 Bg5 f6? (better was 15 ... Qd7! 16 e6, “with
‘only’ a dangerous initiative”, according to Kasparov) 16 exf6 Qf7 17 axb4 Rxa1 18 Qxa1
Bxb4 19 Qa8 Kd8 20 Be4 Qxc4 21 Ne5! with an overwhelming position. Spassky commented
that a better defence was 11 ... f6, when he planned to continue with 12 a3 Bd6 13 b4 (with
the idea of 14 c5 Bf8 15 b5 Na5 16 e5, and if any black piece takes on e5 White plays Nxe5,
followed by Qh5+) 13 ... Ne5 14 c5 Nxf3+ 15 Rxf3 (15 gxf3! would be even better,
according to Kasparov, once more fighting for control of e5, and after 15 ... Bf8 [15 ... Be5?
16 f4] 16 Bc4, “it is hard for Black to coordinate his forces in order to parry the impending
storm”) 15 ... Be5 16 Bc4, “followed by 17 Rd3 and Bb2, with the aim of opening the d-file
or in some cases Rh3. Generally speaking White has good chances for the sacrificed piece”,
was Spassky’s verdict.

Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

Answer:
12 e5!
This sacrifice should not come as a surprise after everything we have seen. Unlike in the
King’s Gambit, there are no open lines, so with this sacrifice White seeks to open the position
before Black manages to regroup.
12 ... Nxe5?!
This capture makes White’s task easier. It was preferable to play 12 ... Bxe5, when
Spassky was considering 13 Re1 f6 14 b4, or immediately 13 b4. Kasparov prefers to attack
with pieces rather than pawns by playing 13 Nxe5 Nxe5 14 Re1 f6 15 Bf4, when the white
pieces are quickly coming into attack and the black king can find no safe haven after 15 ...
Qe7 (15 ... Qd6? is punished with 16 Rxe5+! fxe5 17 Qe1) 16 Qh5+ Kd8 17 Qh4 (threatening
18 Rxe5 fxe5 19 Bg5) 17 ... h6. Now White has great compensation for the piece after 18 c5.
No better is 16 ... Qf7 17 Qh4 Qe7, when as well as Kasparov’s recommendation 18 Qg3
Kf8 19 Bxe5 fxe5 20 Rxe5, the surprising sacrifice 18 Bxe5 fxe5 19 Rxe5! is strong: 19 ...
Qxe5 20 Re1 Qxe1+ 21. Qxe1+ (threatening Qe5) 21 ... Kf7, when Black has two rooks and a
knight for the queen, but with 22 c5! to play Bc4+, White gains a decisive attack.
13 Re1 f6
If 13 ... Qe7 Spassky had considered 14 c5, regaining the piece after 14 ... Nxf3+ 15 gxf3
Be5 16 f4, but 16 ... Qh4, pointed out by Kasparov, complicates White’s task.
Once again it seems better to rely on the rapid development of the pieces and play 14 Bf4!
and the engines can find no good defence. If 14 ... f6 then 15 c5! to open the diagonal a2-g8, is
once again an important resource, and now 15 ... Nxf3+ (forced) 16 Qxf3 Be5 17 Qg3
(inserting 17 c6! is also strong) 17 ... Kf8 18 Rxe5 (18 Bxe5 fxe5 19 Rxe5 Qf6 20 Rf1, with
all the white pieces in action and with Re6 on the agenda, is also strong.) 18 ... fxe5 19 Bxe5
Nf6 20 Re1 Rg8 21 Qh4, and there is no defence.
 Exercise: How did Spassky make progress in this position?

Answer:
14 c5!
A move which is very familiar to us by now. It destroys the barrier that Black has been
trying construct on the e-file.
14 ... Be7
The intruder cannot be eliminated, since 14 ... Bxc5? loses to 15 Nxe5 fxe5 16 Rxe5+ Be7
17 Qh5+ Kd7 (or 17 ... Kf8 18 Bc4 Qe8 19 Bh6+ mating) 18 Rd5+ (even better than 18 f6
Nxf6) 18 ... Bd6 19 Bb5+ c6 20 Bf4.
15 Nxe5 fxe5 16 Rxe5 Nf6 17 Bg5 0-0
Black’s king has managed to escape from the centre, but he will be unable to preserve his
material advantage.
 Exercise: There are several good moves here. What do you think Spassky chose?

Answer:
18 Qb3+
Of course, the piece can also be regained with 18 Qe2 or 18 Qe1 (to be able to go to g3 in
some lines) almost forcing Black to play 18 ... Bxc5, since 18 ... Rf7 19 Bxf6 Bxf6 20 Re8+
loses. However, Spassky prefers to regain the piece by bringing the queen’s rook into play,
while the c8-bishop and the a8-rook remain inactive.
18 ... Kh8
Instead 18 ... Rf7 loses to 19 Bc4, while 18 ... Kg7 19 Rae1 Re8 (if 19 ... Rf7 then e.g. 20
Bh6+ Kxh6 21 Qxf7) when one of several routes is 20 Bxf6+ Kxf6 21 Bc4, intending 22 Qg3.
19 Rae1 Bxc5
If 19 ... Re8 White wins with 20 Rxe7 or 20 Bxf6+.

Exercise: There are at least two tempting lines. What do you think Spassky chose?

Answer:
20 Rxc5!
The simplest and at the same time the best. The computer’s suggestion 20 Qb5 was also
strong, as was the more human continuation 20 Re8 Qd6 21 Qf7! But Black can put up greater
resistance with 21 ... Ng8! 22 Rxf8 (not 22 Qh5? on account of 22 ... Bxf5) 22 ... Qxf8 23
Qxf8 (23 Qxc7 Qg7 24 Qxc5 Qxg5 also allows Black to fight on) 23 ... Bxf8 24 Re8 Kg7 25
f6+ Nxf6 26 Bxf6+ Kxf6 27 Rxf8+ Kg7, with the worse position, but not as bad as in the
game.
20 ... Qd6 21 Rce5 Ng4 22 Bf4! Bd7
Finally Black has managed to develop this bishop while retaining material equality, but
White dominates the whole board. In addition, Black’s king is still weak and White’s pair of
bishops stand ready to exploit this.
23 Bg3
This threatens several winning rook moves, such as 24 Re7 Qc6 25 f6 Nxf6 26 Be5, or 23
R5e4 followed by Rxg4.
23 ... Bc6?
This fails to address one of the threats. It was better to play 23 ... Qb6, although Black’s
position would remain desperate after 24 Qxb6 axb6 25 Rd5 Bc6 26 Rxd4.
24 R5e4 1-0

“My best game”

Someone with such a long and successful career as Boris Spassky has difficulty in choosing a single game from all those he
has played.
When Spassky was interviewed in 1970, after the USSR – Rest of the World match in
Belgrade 1970, he said, “It is hard to single out one of your games. The game that is dearest
to me is the one I played 10 years ago with the Leningrad player Reshko. But tastes change
with time…”
It is an impressive attacking game, with one sacrifice after another. Subsequently his
opinion kept changing and new games were added to his first choice.
This game was played in the 32nd Championship of Leningrad, in which Spassky
dominated the field and played several fine attacking games, He finished with 14 points out of
17, two and a half points ahead of Geller.

Game 10
B.Spassky-A.Reshko
Leningrad 1959
Caro Kann Defence

1 e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Nf3 Bg4 4 h3 Bxf3 5 Qxf3 Nf6 6 e5

Question: An ambitious move which gains space but closes the

position. Is it the best though? At first sight it would appear to
be better to continue development with 6 d3 or 6 d4.

Answer: Yes, it is ambitious, but it is difficult to know what is best here. Be that as it may, 6 d3 is the most popular
continuation. 6 d4 is also worthy of consideration, a move that Fischer played a lot in simultaneous exhibitions. White stands
well after 6 ... dxe4 7 Nxe4 if Black responds docilely with 7 ... Nbd7, but White does not have much after the critical 7 ...
Qxd4! as Fischer also pointed out.
6 ... Nfd7 7 Qg3

Question: An idea for White in such positions

is the pawn sacrifice 7 e6. Is this good here?

Answer: The sacrifice is justified if it succeeds in keeping the black pieces incarcerated, but here that is not the case, so it
is unsound. A possible continuation is 7 ... fxe6 8 d4 e5 and Black frees his position, remaining with a strong pawn centre
after. For example, 9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Qg3 Nf7 11 Bd3 e5 12 0-0 Nd7 with advantage to Black.

Question: OK, you have convinced me, but why the strange
7 Qg3 instead of 7 d4? Isn’t this an obvious developing move?

Answer: 7 d4 is playable, of course, and might even be objectively the best, but this could only be ascertained after post-
mortem analysis.
Spassky played 6 e5 to reach a complicated position and not a position in which Black
could achieve a good game by simply playing obvious moves. After 7 d4 e6 (or 7 ... Nb6
first), we would reach a sort of French Defence position but without the usual ‘bad bishop’ on
c8, so Black would be fine.
With the text move White shows that he had another idea. The queen move not only defends
the e5-pawn but also puts pressure on g7, preventing the immediate development of the
bishop on f8.
7 ... e6 8 Be2 Qc7?

A weak move.

Question: Why is it weak? It gains a tempo by

developing the queen with an attack on the e5-pawn.

Answer: The defence of the e5-pawn with f4 is something that figured in White’s plans in any case, so in reality it does
not gain any time.
One problem is that if Black subsequently plays ... c5, the queen finds itself exposed to an
eventual Nb5; another is that it is not a move that is either necessary or useful.
 Black could instead play the immediate 8 ... c5! followed by ... Nc6, when the threat of ...
Nd4 is annoying, given the unusual deployment of the white pieces. For example 9 f4 Nc6 10
b3 (not so much to let the c1-bishop out as to ‘stabilise’ the bishop on d3, preventing ... c4)
10 ... Nd4 11 Bd3 and if White could just play 12 0-0 his set-up would be fully justified, but
it is Black’s move.

Exercise: Show that ‘all that glitters is not gold’. What should Black play?

Answer: Black highlights the lack of coordination among the white pieces with 11 ... c4! 12 bxc4 dxc4 13 Be4 Nc5 when
the threat of 14 ... Nxe4 15 Nxe4 Nxc2+ forces concessions, for example 14 Qe3 Nxe4 15 Qxe4 Qh4+ and White has to
move the king.
9 f4 a6
We can see clearly the defect with Black’s previous move as 9 ... c5 would allow 10 Nb5.

Exercise: How do you think that Spassky intended to continue here?

 Answer: By minimising the strength of 10 ... c5 with ...
10 b4!
Of course, not the natural 10 d4 since then Black’s game is easy and probably
advantageous after 10 ... c5 11 Be3 Nc6 and White is unable to solidly support his centre.
Black is fine after 12 0-0-0 cxd4 13 Bxd4 Nxd4 14 Rxd4 g6! followed by expansion on the
queenside with ... b5, ... Rc8, etc.
10 ... c5
Spassky’s suggestion of abandoning the kingside and sacrificing a pawn with 10 ... Bxb4
with the idea of answering 11 Qxg7 Rf8 12 Qxh7 with 12 ... c5, followed by ... Nc6 and ... 0-
0-0, is a good practical option, but today’s engines view it with scepticism.
11 b5 c4 12 Rb1
It is necessary to defend b5. Instead, 12 0-0?! is a dubious pawn sacrifice after 12 ... axb5
since 13 Nxb5? loses to 13 ... Qb6+ or 13 ... Qc5+.
12 ... d4

13 Ne4
There was an alternative version of the pawn sacrifice which would also close the a-file:
13 b6! and after 13 ... Nxb6 14 Ne4 N8d7 there is a choice between several attractive moves:
15 Nd6+, 15 0-0, 15 Bf3, 15 Ba3, etc.
With the text move Spassky shows that he is not afraid to sacrifice more pawns in order to
open more lines.
13 ... axb5 14 0-0
Not 14 Rxb5?? on account of 14 ... Qc6. However 14 Nd6+! Bxd6 15 exd6 followed by
16 Qxg7 was a promising alternative. Once again Spassky opts to further activate his forces
instead of playing with the pieces that he has already developed.
14 ... Rxa2
14 ... Nc6 would be answered with the quiet 15 d3, but not 15 Rxb5?! d3! 16 cxd3? Nd4.
 15 d3

Question: What? Sacrificing a third pawn? Isn’t this going rather over the top? White does not seem to have anything,
even against the black king, that might justify it.

Answer: White is certainly not approaching the game in a conservative manner. He is definitely not attracted by the sort
of position that might arise after 15 Nd6+ Bxd6 16 exd6 and now 16…Qc5! Hanging on to the b5-pawn is the most important
thing, given that this restricts the activity of both the rook on b1 and the bishop on e2. 17 Qxg7 Rf8, with threats of 18 ... d3+
and 18 ... Rxc2, and the d6-pawn is weak. Instead 16 ... Qxd6? 17 Qxg7 Rf8 18 Rxb5 is too risky. White would be only one
pawn down and his pair of bishops and better development would be starting to tell.
15 ... Rxc2! 16 Bd1

Exercise: Three extra pawns! What is Black’s best way to continue?

Answer:
16 ... Ra2?
 Black wants it all. Now White’s lead in development will start to make itself felt.
It would have been interesting to sacrifice the exchange with 16 ... cxd3! 17 Bxc2 dxc2 and
obviously there is sufficient compensation after 18 Rxb5 Qc4!? (or 18 ... Qc6 19 Qd3 Nc5 or
19 ... Na6) 19 Rxb7 d3.
Another idea is 16 ... Rxc1 17 Rxc1 c3, which would also be interesting.

Exercise: What is the snag with the text move?

Answer:
17 f5!
White sacrifices a fourth pawn, but the black king will suffer the consequences. Black’s
position will begin to totter after the opening of lines.
17 ... Nxe5
Worse is 17 ... exf5 18 Rxf5, with ideas such as 19 Rxf7 and 19 Nd6+.
If 17 ... Qxe5, it is possible to play 18 Bf4 and Bxb8, or 18 fxe6 when 18 ... Qxe6? fails to
19 Re1! (or 19 Rxb5) with a winning attack.
18 fxe6 f6
After 18 ... fxe6 the black king remains very exposed. One possible continuation is 19 Bf4
Nbd7 20 Rxb5 and after 20 ... Ra5 there are several strong lines, such as 21 Bxe5 (21 dxc4
and 21 Bh5+ are other good possibilities) 21 ... Nxe5 22 Ba4! Rxa4 (or 22 ... Rxb5 23 Bxb5+
Kd8 24 Ra1! and it is not possible to defend against White’s attack by all the white pieces)
23 Rxe5 Qc8 24 Rxf8+! (24 Ng5 and 24 Rg5 also work) 24 ... Kxf8 25 Rc5, with rapid
demolition. The black queen must defend b8 and d6, and 25 ... Qd8 26 Rc7 is untenable.

Exercise (difficult): Black seems to have escaped the worst by closing

the game. How can White demonstrate that this is not the case?

Answer:
19 Rxf6!!
The opening of lines against the black monarch is decisive. Today’s engines do not
approve of this sacrifice at all at first, but they gradually change their opinion. The sacrifice
cannot be the objectively best, but over the board its effect is devastating.
The continuations 19 Rxb5 cxd3 20 Bf4 and 19 Bh5+ Kd8 20 Rxb5 both give White the
advantage in a quiet manner, but we know that Spassky did not approach this game in a quiet
manner.
19 ... gxf6
The influence of the rook is just too strong, so it has to be taken. If 19 ... Nbc6 then 20 Rf7,
and after 20 ... Qc8 there are many natural moves that win, such as 21 Bh5 or 21 Rxg7, though
the most spectacular is 21 Qxg7! Bxg7 (or 21 ... Qxe6 22 Nf6+ Kd8 23 Rxf8+ Rxf8 24 Qxf8+
Kc7 25 Rxb5 with a material advantage and an attack; the immediate threat is 26 Nd5+) 22
Nd6+ Kd8 23 Bg5+ Ne7 24 Rxe7! and wins.
20 Nxf6+ Kd8 21 Nd5 Qd6
If 21 ... Qg7 the simplest is 22 e7+.
22 Bg5+ Kc8
Instead 22 ... Ke8 loses in several ways, the quickest mate being with 23 Nc7+ Qxc7 24
Bh5+.
23 Bg4!

Threatening 24 e7+.

Exercise (difficult): How can Spassky’s rook sacrifice be called into question?

Answer:
23 ... Nxg4?
This threatens the queen and seems to save the game, but it will soon be seen that it loses
easily.
Also losing is 23 ... Nbd7? after 24 exd7+ Nxd7 25 Bxd7+! Kxd7 26 Qg4+ Qe6 (26 ...
Kc6? 27 Qc8+ leads to a rapid mate) 27 Nb6+ Kd6 28 Nxc4+! etc.
23 ... Qxd5 is no use either, since it allows White to promote after 24 e7+.
The most tenacious, and the reason for the engines’ doubts, is 23 ... Bg7! 24 Ne7+ Kc7 25
Nf5 and now 25 ... Qa3! (25 ... Qxe6 is inferior in view of 26 Nxg7 Qd5 27 Bf3 etc., while
25 ... Qc5 allows 26 Be7 Qd5 27 Bf3 Qxe6 28 Bd6+ Kb6 29 Rxb5+! Ka7 30 Bxb7! winning)
26 Bf4 Nbc6 27 Rxb5 Bf6 28 Bf3, with a tricky position that the engines manage to hold as
Black.

Exercise: Finally a relatively simple task for you.

How can Black’s mistake be punished?

Answer:
24 e7!
But not 24 Qxg4? Bh6! and Black is on top.
After the text move the queen is immune in view of 25 e8Q mate, so White regains all the
sacrificed material with interest.
24 ... Bxe7
Returning material with 24 ... Rxg2+ does not help: 25 Qxg2 Bg7 26 Qxg4+ Nd7 27 Rxb5
(or even better 27 Ra1!).
25 Qxg4+ Nd7 26 Nxe7+ Kc7 27 Bf4!
This forces the knight to ‘put its head into the lion’s mouth’, after which the game is over.
27 ... Ne5 28 Qg7 Kb6 29 Bxe5 Qe6 30 Bxd4+ 1-0

Audacious Play in a Quiet Tournament

As mentioned in Game 2, Spassky shared first place in the 31st Championship of the USSR in Leningrad in 1963. Although it
might seem strange, coming first was not the main target that year. The goal which was merely to finish in one of the top six
slots in order to qualify for the ‘Zonal Tournament of Seven’ in 1964, which would in turn grant the opportunity to reach the
next stage, the Interzonal Tournament to be held in Amsterdam in 1964.
After two consecutive failures in the key Soviet championships of 1958 and 1961, which
were also zonal tournaments, Spassky played more cautiously in many of his games in the
1963 event, taking risks only on very few occasions. He drew 14 games and won 5. Thus he
met his goal of qualifying for the zonal. There Spassky also achieved his target, finishing in
first place and qualifying to play in Amsterdam.
One of the few games in which he took risks was the one we shall look at next. In a Torre
Attack Spassky sacrificed a pawn for reasonable compensation. White seized the initiative,
which grew and grew, culminating in a mating attack against the black king which never
managed to escape from the centre.
 There are also two further games in Spassky’s practice which help us understand the
opening better.

Game 11
B.Spassky-V.Osnos
USSR Championship 1963
Torre Attack

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bg5

Spassky employed the Torre Attack from time to time, including, rather surprisingly, in his
first match for the world title against Petrosian in 1966.
3 ... c5
Kasparov considers that it is useful to insert 3 ... h6, and if White responds with 4 Bh4, as
we shall see, the inclusion of these two moves gives Black more flexibility, while after 4
Bxf6 Qxf6 the two bishops compensate for White’s advantage in space. This line has been
played a lot.
In the above-mentioned game against Petrosian, it has been said that Spassky played on the
first Armenian World Champion’s home turf, since Petrosian himself had played several
model games with the Torre.

Question: I know that this is not a technical question,

but you said “the first Armenian World Champion” – is
this a prediction? Or has there already been more than one?

Answer: I’m not the right person to allocate nationalities, but some (perhaps many) Armenians definitely consider that
they already have two World Champions. In Armenia in 1997 the present writer was told: “We have two World Champions,
Petrosian and Kasparov” (his mother is Armenian).
We shall examine the seventh game of the 1966 match in Supplementary Game 11.1.
4 e3 Qb6
The natural move 4 ... b6?! it is not good on account of 5 d5!, as Petrosian himself had
already shown in 1958. It is notable that Karpov committed the same inaccuracy against
Yusupov in their match in London in 1989. Part of the tactical justification is that after 5 ...
exd5 6 Nc3 Bb7 7 Nxd5 Bxd5 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 9 Qxd5 Black cannot play 9 ... Qxb2? because of
10 Rd1 Qb4+ 11 c3! Qxc3+ 12 Rd2 Qc1+ 13 Ke2 and White wins. In the stem game,
T.Petrosian-J-Kozma, Munich 1958, Black played 9 ... Nc6 10 Bc4 Be7 11 0-0-0 and White
held the advantage. Thanks to his early break with 5 d5 he controls the d5-square and has
given Black a weak backward pawn on the d-file.
After Spassky’s painful defeat against Petrosian, we shall take a brief look at a more
pleasant memory, B.Spassky-A.Matanovic, Havana 1962, in Supplementary Game 11.2.
5 Nbd2
Spassky employed this sacrifice in the 1960’s and 1970’s. In the 1980’s he preferred the
more modest 5 Qc1.
5 ... Qxb2
This continuation is the most consistent with his previous move. The game B.Spassky-
A.Zaitsev, USSR 1962, continued 5 ... d5 6 Bxf6 gxf6. Now Spassky continued to offer the
b2-pawn with 7 c4 and after 7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 dxc4?! (8 ... Nc6 seems better, not helping
White’s development) 9 Bxc4 Nc6 10 0-0 Bd7 (if 10 ... Nxd4?! then 11 Ne4! and Black’s
lack of development is already starting to tell) 11 d5! exd5 12 Qe2+ Ne7 13 Bxd5 0-0-0 14
Bxf7 leaving White with an extra pawn and the better position. After 14 ... Ng6 (14 ... Qxb2?
loses to 15 Rfc1+ Kb8 16 Rab1, followed by Qe4, and the black king is defenceless) 15 Nc4
Qa6 16 Rfd1 Kb8 17 Bxg6 hxg6

Spassky failed to play the strongest move. He chose 18 Rxd7?! Rxd7 19 Qe8+ Kc7 20 Ne3
(20 Nce5! was better) 20 ... Qc6, and White’s advantage has evaporated.

Exercise: Instead of 18 Rxd7, White could White have played?

Answer: The wining move was 18 Nfe5! exploiting the loose rook on h8. After 18 ... Rh7 19 Rxd7 Rhxd7 20 Nxd7+
Rxd7 21 Qe8+ Kc7 22 Rc1 White would have an extra pawn and the attack.
6 Bd3
Kasparov suggested 6 Bxf6 gxf6 7 Be2, “with sharp play precisely in the style of
Spassky!”, something which he also achieves in the game.
 6 ... cxd4
After 6 ... d5 the game B.Spassky-A.Miles, Tilburg 1978, continued 7 c4 Qc3! 8 Ne5 Nc6
9 Rc1 Qa3 10 Nxc6 bxc6 11 Qc2 Rb8! and Black had emerged very well from the opening.
Instead of 7 c4, it is better to insert the moves 7 Bxf6 gxf6, then after 8 c4 Qc3 9 Be2 cxd4
10 Rc1 Qa5 11 cxd5 Na6 12 Nxd4 Qxd5 13 0-0 Be7 14 Bf3 White had greater activity and
compensation for the pawn in V.Salov-J.De la Villa, Szirak 1987.
7 exd4 Qc3 8 0-0 d5
Restricting the knight on d2. The careless 8 ... Be7?? loses to 9 Nc4 (threatening 10 Bd2) 9
... Qb4 10 c3! Qxc3 11 Rc1 Qb4 12 a3.
9 Re1 Be7
Black proceeds with his development, which is the most sensible course of action since he
already has an extra pawn. It would be very dangerous to neglect his development. For
example, after 9 ... Nc6 10 Rb1 Nxd4 11 Nxd4 Qxd4 12 Bb5+! the black king is caught in the
centre and can scarcely be defended. If 12 ... Bd7 White plays 13 Bxf6 Qxf6 14 Bxd7+ Kxd7
15 c4! while 12 ... Nd7 allows 13 Qh5.
Also unconvincing is 10 ... Nb4, trying to exchange the d3-bishop. White can play 11 Rb3
Qc6 (or 11 ... Qc7 12 Bb5+ Bd7 13 Bxd7+, followed by Qb1!) 12 Ne5 Qa4 (preventing the
check on b5) 13 Bf1, or the more imaginative (computer-like!?) move 13 Be2, planning Bh5.

Question: I found your previous commentary convincing, but

now that I look at the board I see that the position is not open,
Black is ready to castle and has no weaknesses, and 10 Ne5 allows
10 ... Qxd4, so I’m wondering – where is White’s compensation for the pawn?

Answer: Certainly, the compensation is not so obvious as in other cases. There is nothing immediate, but it should not be
forgotten that White has a notable advantage in development.

Exercise: White must now look for a way to improve

the placement of his pieces. How did Spassky achieve this?

Answer:
 10 Re3!
It is notable that the engines prefer other moves, such as 10 Nb3, with the idea of
defending d4 and then playing Ne5, but a master would worry about the future prospects of
the knight on b3, so this would not be the first option he would consider.
Another move that the engines like is 10 Rb1, which is fine, since it is a useful move
occupying an open file. However Spassky’s choice is more energetic. The immediate threat is
11 Bb5+, and the rook might come in useful later on the third rank.
10 ... Qc7
It was also possible to play 10 ... Nc6, after which White would still continue 11 Bb5 and
after 11 ... Qa5 12 c4 the position is complicated but the white pieces are more active.
11 Ne5
The first advance. The knight becomes active.

11 ... Nc6

Exercise: Why did Black not play 11 ... 0-0?

Answer: On account of the simple continuation 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 Bxh7+! Kxh7 14 Qh5+ and Rh3, with mate to follow.
The influence of the move 10 Re3 is already starting to be felt.
12 c3
A quiet move, defending the d4-pawn and leaving Black with the difficult decision of what
to do next.

Question: Wasn’t it better to defend the centre pawn with 12 Ndf3?

Answer: There is no definitive answer. The advantage of 12 c3 is that it prevents Black from castling, on account of the
line we saw above, starting with 13 Bxf6. In contrast, after 12 Ndf3 Black can play 12 ... 0-0.
12 ... Nxe5
A difficult decision. Black cannot castle on the kingside and he needs a couple of tempi
(12 ... Bd7, plus defence of the f-pawn) before he can think about castling queenside, so he
opts to simplify. In theory, being a pawn up, this should be correct unless there is a clear
refutation, which there isn’t. Nevertheless, 12 ... Bd7 deserved serious consideration.
 13 dxe5 Ng8
Better than 13 ... Nd7 14 Bxe7 Kxe7 15 Qh5, or 15 Qg4, followed by opening the game
with c4, and the inclusion of more pieces with Rae1 or Rc1. Here it would be very risky to
play 15 ... Qxc3?! in view of 16 Qg5+ Ke8 17 Nb3, threatening 18 Qxg7.
14 Nf3
Naturally White declines to exchange on e7 in order not to facilitate the development of
Black’s knight.
14 ... h6?!
At the cost of a tempo Black seeks to develop the knight. No better was 14 ... Bxg5 15
Nxg5 h6 16 Qh5! with great activity and the plan of 17 Rf3. Then if 16 ... Kf8 (not 16 ... g6?
17 Bxg6) White wins with 17 Nxf7 Qxf7 18 Bg6, followed by Rf3+ giving White a winning
attack.
It was better to play 14 ... Bd7, even though White has good compensation after 15 Rb1 0-
0-0 16 Re2! with the plan of Reb2 seeking to provoke ... b6, after which he would play a4.
15 Bf4 Bd7 16 Nd4 Bg5
Of course not the suicidal 16 ... Qxc3? on account of 17 Nxe6! destroying Black’s position.
With the text move Black wants to solve the problem of his knight on g8. The obvious
alternative was 16 ... 0-0-0, which White might answer with 17 Rb1 and then perhaps 18
Re2, as we mentioned above. It is also worth considering 18 Bb5, to exchange the bishops
and then play Nb5-d6, depending on what Black does.
17 Bxg5 hxg5

Exercise: The pawn structure has changed. What do you think Spassky played now?

Answer:
18 Qg4!
Now there is a weakness on g5 which requires attention. Spassky does not hesitate to
activate his pieces, even at the cost of another pawn.
18 ... Qxc3
Understandably Black accepts the challenge, not wanting to ‘undevelop’ with 18 ... Qd8.
Now he is not only attacking the rook on a1 but he also threatens 19 ... Nh6, which would
drive away White’s queen from the defence of the d4-knight.
19 Nb3

Question: White is two pawns down and now he has

to retreat his knight. Is this not a sign of failure?

Answer: Nobody likes to retreat a knight from the centre, I grant you that, but it should not be forgotten that Black still
has problems with his king. Generally king safety is a decisive factor, while the two pawns deficit will be reduced to just one
right away.
19 ... Nh6?
This is a clear error. Black is trying to clarify the situation, focusing on defence. The
position will indeed clarify, but in White’s favour.
Instead of blocking the h-file it was better to play 19 ... Ne7! with the idea of the manoeuvre
... Qb4-h4, for example 20 Qxg5 Qb4, or 20 Rc1 f5! 21 Qxg5 Qb4, and we would still have a
complicated struggle in prospect, with no clear advantage to either side.
20 Qxg5 Qb4 21 Rg3
Of course White is in no hurry to capture on g7 which would allow Black to castle long.
21 ... Qf8?!
Black loses the thread with this passive move. Instead 21 ... g6 22 Rh3 Qf8 23 Qf6 fails to
inspire confidence, since Black is passive. Now if 23 ... Rc8 24 Rb1! is strong, threatening
25 Na5 b6 26 Nb7, and if 24 ... b6 25 Ba6 followed by Nd4.
It was better to play 21 ... Qe7, answering 22 Qxg7 with 22 ... 0-0-0, and even though 23
Rc1+ Kb8 24 Rh3 Qf8 (not 24 ... Rdg8? 25 Rxh6 Rxg7 26 Rxh8+ Be8 27 Bb5) 25 Qg5
leaves White with some advantage on account of his greater activity. But at least Black would
have solved the problem of his king.
 Exercise: What did Spassky play now?

Answer:
22 Rc1
Of course, as we see so many times in Spassky’s games, the last piece is brought into in
play. Here the obvious idea is an invasion on c7.
22 ... f6
Black cannot contest the file with 22 ... Rc8 because of 23 Rxc8+ Bxc8 24 Bb5+ Bd7 25
Rc3! winning.
23 Qe3!
There were many strong moves here, even 23 Qxg7, but with this retreat White shows
clearly his desire to avoid an endgame. The black king is defenceless, the white pieces have
access to many weak points, and it is impossible to defend everything.
23 ... f5
Preventing Bg6+, but the decisive blow will come on the other flank.
24 Nc5 f4
This loses, but there is no defence. The b7-pawn was under attack and there was also a
threat of 25 Nxd7 Kxd7 26 Bb5+. If 24 ... Rc8 White plays in the same way: 25 Nxd7 Kxd7
(or 25 ... Rxc1+ 26 Qxc1 Kxd7 27 Bb5+ Kd8 28 Rc3) 26 Bb5+ Ke7 27 Rxc8 Qxc8 28 Qg5+
mating.
25 Bg6+ Ke7 26 Qa3! 1-0
If 26 ... Bc6 White plays 27 Nxb7+ (first undermining the bishop) 27 ... Kd7 28 Nc5+ Ke7
29 Nxe6+ Kxe6 30 Rxc6+, etc.

Supplementary Game 11.1

B.Spassky-T.Petrosian
World Championship (Game 7) 1966

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bg5 d5 4 Nbd2 Be7 5 e3 Nbd7 6 Bd3 c5 7 c3

 Here Petrosian considered that 7 ... Qc7 was the correct move, controlling e5. On the other
hand, he himself had demonstrated that Black should not yet determine the destination of his
king with 7 ... 0-0?! in view of 8 Ne5! After 8 ... Nxe5 9 dxe5 Nd7 10 Bf4! f5 11 h4!
(fortifying the position of the bishop on f4) 11 ... c4 (of course not 11 ... Bxh4? 12 Qh5 g5 13
Bh2, winning material) 12 Bc2 was T.Petrosian-V.Liublinsky, Moscow 1949. White will play
Nf3-d4 and dominate the whole board.
Against Spassky he preferred just to continue with his development.
7 ... b6 8 0-0 Bb7 9 Ne5 Nxe5!
Showing the importance of not having castled.
10 dxe5 Nd7
Here Spassky played like Petrosian in the similar position against Liublinsky.
11 Bf4
Later it became clear that it was better to play 11 Bxe7 Qxe7 12 f4, as Spassky played
against A.Sokolov in Bugojno 1986.
11 ... Qc7 12 Nf3
 Exercise: How did Black demonstrate the advantages of
not having castled, while White has already done so?

Answer:
By starting a pawn storm on the kingside with ...
12 ... h6! 13 b4 g5! 14 Bg3 h5 15 h4 gxh4! 16 Bf4
It is worse to give up the centre pawn with 16 Nxh4? c4 17 Bc2 Bxh4 18 Bxh4 Qxe5.
16 ... 0-0-0 17 a4?
Since White failed subsequently to open the game on the queenside, 17 bxc5 was suggested
here, so that after 17 ... bxc5 18 Rb1 he would have a dangerous open file. Kasparov thinks
that Petrosian would have played 17 ... Nxc5!, not fearing to give up control of the d4-square.
If the bishop retreats from d3 Black could play 18 ... Rdg8, followed by ... Rg7, ... Rhg8, and
... Ne4; while after 18 Nd4 Nxd3 19 Qxd3 Qc4! followed by 20 ... Rdg8, Black’s attack on
the g-file is already under way, while White’s on the other wing has not even begun.
 Exercise: Here Black began a manoeuvre that
ruled out any possibility of a white attack. How?

Answer: By means of ...

17 ... c4! 18 Be2 a6!
“Black blocks the queenside, by which he nips the opponent’s initiative in the bud and
secures the safety of his king, freeing his hands for play on the g-file (and in some cases also
for ... Bf8-g7, winning the e5-pawn)”, commented Kasparov.
19 Kh1 Rdg8 20 Rg1 Rg4 21 Qd2 Rhg8 22 a5 b5
Petrosian won in 43 moves (0-1), and this is considered to be one of the best games of his
career. I highly recommend that you study the whole game.

Supplementary Game 11.2

B.Spassky-A.Matanovic
Havana 1962

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bg5 c5 4 e3 d5 5 Nbd2 Nc6 6 c3 h6 7 Bh4 cxd4 8 exd4 Be7 9 Bd3
 9 ... Nh5
By means of this simplifying manoeuvre Black seeks to neutralise White’s usual attacking
plans, but it is positionally rather risky, since he is exchanging his better bishop.
10 Bxe7 Qxe7 11 0-0 Nf4 12 Bc2 Qf6
This move is made to be able to play ... Ng6 without allowing his pawn structure to be
disrupted by Bxg6 fxg6.
The position features the same pawn structure as the Caro Kann Exchange Variation that
arises after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 but here Black has little to celebrate, since he has
already played ... e6 without first developing his c8-bishop outside pawn chain.
13 Re1 0-0 14 g3 Ng6 15 Qe2 b6 16 h4! Re8 17 Ne5 Ncxe5 18 dxe5
Now the structure is reminiscent of the French Defence, and favourable to White.
18 ... Qe7 19 Nf3 a5 20 Nd4 Bd7
20 ... Ba6 would have been answered with 21 Qg4, leaving the black bishop firing into
empty space.
21 Bd3 Rab8
 22 a4

Question: I understand that White wants to restrain ... b5, but I remember
that you told me that Black played 12 ... Qf6 to prevent Bxg6. So was not
it better to double Black’s pawns with 22 Bxg6, before playing a4?

Answer: Yes, this would indeed damage Black’s structure, but the position is very different from the one at move 12.
Here this would be of little benefit to White, since after 22 ... fxg6 23 a4 Black now has 23 ... g5 available, and a bad French
Defence has tuned into a reasonable one for Black. ‘A weaknesses is only a weakness if can be exploited’, is a useful saying.
This is not the case here as White cannot extract any clear benefit from the doubled black pawns.
22 ... Nf8 23 f4 Rec8 24 Kh2 Qe8

Exercise: What did Spassky do about his attacked pawn?

Answer:
 25 g4!
White sacrifices the pawn, which it is not very important, to open lines. This is the most
direct way. It was not advantageous to play 25 f5 immediately because Black could play 25 ...
exf5 26 Nxf5?! Bxf5! 27 Bxf5 Rd8, followed by ... Ne6, with a balanced game. A good
alternative however, was 25 Qf3, for example 25 ... Bxa4?! 26 f5! but Spassky chooses the
clearest way.
25 ... Ng6
Trying in vain to hold up the offensive. Black did not play 25 ... Bxa4 because he saw that
the attack after 26 g5 is strong.
26 Qf2 Qe7 27 h5 Nf8
The exchange of queens with 27 ... Qh4+? 28 Qxh4 Nxh4 was not a solution since the
knight is badly placed after 29 f5! (29 Kg3 g5 30 hxg6 Nxg6 31 f5 is also strong) 29 ... exf5
30 gxf5, followed by Kg3.
28 Rg1

Spassky shows the practical side of his decision-making. The break g5 was playable here
and at other points in the game, but since it cannot be prevented, he will only play it when he
is satisfied that he has thoroughly prepared it.
28 ... f6?!

Exercise: There are several strong moves here, but knowing what we
know now about Spassky style, what do you think he played here?

Answer:
29 Rae1
Spassky brings the last piece into attack. Also very strong was 29 g5, or even 29 exf6
followed by g5.
29 ... Bxa4 30 Qg3 Be8 31 exf6 Qxf6
If 31 ... gxf6 32 g5 wins.
32 Re5 Qf7 33 g5!
33 f5! exf5 34,Rxf5 followed by g5 was another way.
 33 ... Qxh5+ 34 Kg2 hxg5 35 fxg5
This threatens 36 g6 and 37 Rh1 and now there is no defence.
35 ... Qf7 36 Rf1 Qe7 37 g6 Rc4 38 Rh5 Rxd4

Exercise: What did Spassky play to force Black’s resignation?

Answer:
39 Rxf8+! 1-0
Black resigned in view of 39 ... Qxf8 40 Rh8+ Kxh8 41 Qh3+ Kg8 42 Qh7+ mate.

“A thousand years may pass…”

The following game is one of the best known and most surprising in the history of chess. It
was played at the highest level, on the top board of the match USSR vs. Rest of the World in
Belgrade in 1970. This match finished on a narrow victory for the USSR by 20½ to 19½.
The Dane Bent Larsen, at that time a serious challenger for the world title, opened with 1
b3, a line which he popularised and which he handled in his own original and provocative
style. Spassky gave priority to the rapid and harmonious activity of his pieces and seized the
initiative. He launched an early offensive while preventing a vital simplification which
would have relieved the pressure.
The result was that White resigned after just 17 moves following a brilliant combination.
The game caused great excitement among the more than two thousand spectators in the theatre
where the contest took place. Spassky’s victory was greeted with thunderous applause.
Kasparov described this work of art as “a worthy continuation of the romantic tradition of
the 19th century!”

Game 12
B.Larsen-B.Spassky
Belgrade 1970
Larsen’s Opening
1 b3
Bent Larsen popularised this move at the end of the 1960s, and it was later even used by
Robert Fischer.
1 ... e5 2 Bb2 Nc6 3 c4
So we reach a Sicilian Defence with reversed colours.
3 ... Nf6

4 Nf3?!

Question: This is a strange move, isn’t it?

Answer: It is certainly original, but it remains to be seen whether it is a good one or not. Certainly in this game it did not
justify itself.
It is a move in the spirit of Nimzowitsch, who conceived the variation of the Sicilian that
now carries his name: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nf6, provoking the advance of the king’s pawn, in the
hope of that it will become weak.

Question: What alternatives are there?

Answer:
Larsen said that 4 g3 was not appropriate, reaching a Sicilian position in which the extra
tempo yields White no advantage after 4 ... d5.
The continuation that very soon became more popular was 4 e3, as played by Larsen
himself against Spassky in Leiden 1970, and the well-known games Fischer-Andersson,
Siegen 1970, and Fischer-Tukmakov, Buenos Aires 1970.
4 ... e4
Spassky was happy to gain space.
5 Nd4 Bc5
The black pieces develop easily to good squares and with gain of time, which rather casts
doubt on White’s strategy.
6 Nxc6
This helps Black’s development, but the alternative 6 e3?! Bxd4 7 exd4 d5 is better for
Black according to Larsen. White’s pawn structure, especially the d4-pawn, is weak, and the
diagonal of the Bb2 is blocked. White even has the worse development, with nothing to show
for it.
6 ... dxc6 7 e3 Bf5
Black makes development his priority, seeking to put quick pressure on the backward
pawn on d2.
8 Qc2 Qe7

Black continues to prepare queenside castling.

9 Be2

Question: Why does White not rid himself of the weakness on d2 while he can?

Answer: After 9 d4 exd3 10 Bxd3 Bxd3 11 Qxd3 Rd8 we see that it is not so easy. With the disappearance of the d-pawn
lines have been opened, and the white king has become more exposed. The king is uncomfortable in the centre, but will be not
feel secure on the kingside either. For example after 12 Qc2 (if 12 Qe2 Ne4 is very annoying, because it attacks the d2-square
and prevents the development of the b1-knight) 12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 Ng4! 14 Nc3? Qd6 15 g3 Qh6 16 h4 Nxe3! 17 fxe3 Qxe3+
18 Kh1 Rd2 White’s position collapses.
9 ... 0-0-0
The next two moves will be 10 ... Rd7 and ... Rhd8 if there is no substantial change in the
position, for example 10 Nc3 Rd7.
10 f4?
 Question: What an ugly move! What is the idea?

Answer: Yes, it is ugly, and Spassky will demonstrate that it is an error. 10 a3 was Larsen’s later suggestion, and
Kasparov considers it to be best.
In reply to your question about 10 f4 I shall set you an exercise.

Exercise: What is Black’s best response?

Answer:
10 ... Ng4!
As Spassky pointed out, White was planning to play Bxf6, followed by Nc3. That idea has
been frustrated and now tactical possibilities in the centre and against the poorly defended
white king spring up with great force.
11 g3

Exercise: Show a simple refutation of 11 0-0.

 Answer: Black can play 11 ... Rxd2! 12 Nxd2 Nxe3 13 Qc1 Nxf1+ 14 Kxf1 Qh4 15 g3 Qxh2 16 Ke1 e3, winning.
Of course 11 Bxg4 would surrender all the light squares. The best response would be 11 ...
Qh4+, leaving the white king in jeopardy, with great advantage to Black.
Finally, 11 Bxg7 opening the g-file looks suicidal, and it is. For example 11 ... Rhg8 12
Bb2 (12 Bxg4 Bxg4 13 Bb2 Qh4+ 14 g3 [or 14 Kf1 Be2+! 15 Kxe2 Qh5+ 16 Kf1 Rxg2!] 14
... Qh3) 12 ... Nxe3! 13 dxe3 Qh4+ 14 g3 Rxg3 with mate in a few moves.
Now we return to the game continuation, 11 g3.

Exercise: How to proceed now?

Answer:
11 ... h5!
Spassky thought for 18 minutes here. He also considered the sacrifice 11 ... Rxd2 but
failed to reach a clear conclusion. Today’s computer programs support his decision to play 11
... h5! although they also consider the sacrifice on d2 to be correct.
 In his own words, Spassky opts for “the way that does not leave White any chances”. As
we have already seen and shall see many times more, he always seeks to increase his
dynamic possibilities at the slightest opportunity. In this particular case he sets up the
possible pawn-break ... h5-h4 and starts a manoeuvre culminating in a spectacular finish.
12 h3
If 12 Nc3 then 12 ... Rxd2! gives Black a winning attack and eventually an advantage in
material as well, as can be seen after 13 Qxd2 Bxe3 14 Qd1 (or 14 Qc2 Bf2+ 15 Kd2 e3+)
14 ... Nf2 15 Qc2 Nxh1.

Exercise: How should Black respond to the attack on knight?

Answer:
12 ... h4!!
Bernard Cafferty in the book Spassky’s 100 Best Games commented that after this
excellent move “the hall, with over two thousand spectators, bubbled over with enthusiasm”.
13 hxg4
Larsen analysed the position for 53 minutes before embarking on this capture.
After 13 Bxg4 Bxg4 14 hxg4 hxg3 15 Rg1 then one way to win is with 15 ... Rh2. Spassky
also pointed out the possibility of 15 ... Rh1! 16 Rxh1 g2 17 Rg1 Qh4+ 18 Ke2 (18 Kd1 Qf2
19 Qxe4 Qxg1+ 20 Kc2 and now 20 ... Bxe3! or the simple 20 ... Qf2 both win) 18 ... Qxg4+
19 Ke1 Qg3+ 20 Ke2 Qf3+ 21 Ke1 Be7 and Black wins, although 21 ... Bxe3! is even
quicker.
13 ... hxg3 14 Rg1
 And now comes something special.
14 ... Rh1!!
Kasparov wrote that the Yugoslav press greeted this brilliant move with the following
plaudit: “A thousand years may pass, and the world champion’s brilliant sacrifice will be for
ever verdant in his laurel wreath”.
It is indeed a marvellous move. Black, a piece down, sacrifices a rook just to gain a
tempo.
There were two other ways to win. One less spectacular but also effective way was 14 ...
Qh4! 15 Rg2 (or 15 gxf5 g2+ 16 Kd1 Qf2) 15 ... Qh1+ 16 Bf1 Bxg4 17 Qxe4 Rhe8 18 Be5
f5! 19 Qc2 Bh3 and wins, although admittedly in a less attractive manner. For example 20 d4
Bb4+ 21 Nd2 Bxg2 22 0-0-0 Bxd2+, followed by Bxf1.
The other win similar to Spassky’s conception was 14 ... Bxe3! 15 dxe3 Rh1!
15 Rxh1 g2 16 Rf1
In the event of 16 Rg1 Qh4+ 17 Kd1 Qh1 18 Qc3 Qxg1+ 19 Kc2 Qf2 20 gxf5 Qxe2 (20 ...
g1Q is good enough) 21 Na3 Spassky indicated that the quickest win is with 21 ... Bb4.
During the game he analysed the sequence 21 ... Qd3+ 22 Qxd3 exd3+ 23 Kc3 Bxe3 24 dxe3
d2 25 Rd1 Rh8, which also wins.
16 ... Qh4+ 17 Kd1 gxf1Q+ 0-1
 And Larsen resigned, in view of the mate in four moves: 18 Bxf1 Bxg4+ 19 Kc1 Qe1+ 20
Qd1 Qxd1++.

Quiet Play Followed by a Terrific Attack

Kasparov’s assertion that Spassky never opened with 1 Nf3 is untrue (he did play it a few
times), but it is definitely true that with White he very rarely played closed openings such as
the Reti or openings of the “‘g3-type’ and ‘b3-type’ set-ups” as Polugaevsky called them.
This game is one of the few exceptions. After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 Spassky played 4
g3, the Catalan Opening rather than the classical 4 Nc3. The character of the game was
basically quiet, but all that was needed was for Black to make one bad decision in the centre.
This allowed White to seize the initiative, which grew until the game culminated in a terrific
mating attack.
The game was played in the 10th Amsterdam tournament, sponsored by IBM. It included
six participants from the recent USSR vs. Rest of the World match. Spassky shared first place
with Polugaevsky, followed by Uhlmann, Geller, etc.

Game 13
B.Spassky-D.Ciric
Amsterdam 1970
Catalan Opening

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 g3 Be7 5 Bg2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 b3 Nbd7 8 Bb2 b6 9 Nbd2 Bb7 10
Rc1 Rc8
 11 e3
“White is planning to place the queen on e2 and not on the usual c2-square, where it would
be ‘exposed’ to the c8-rook” (Najdorf).
11 ... c5
Bronstein noted that the f1-bishop is on g2, while in Black’s camp the f8-bishop is on e7,
and thanks to this the white queen can go to e2, while the black queen does not have e7
available. So Black must seek a comfortable spot for the queen away from the c- and d- files,
where the white rooks will be deployed.
In the event of 11 ... dxc4?! White would not reply 12 bxc4?! when 12 ... c5! solves
Black’s problems, since he can play ... Qc7, ... Rfd8, etc., but 12 Nxc4! exploiting the
opportunity to activate his pieces, and after 12 ... c5 13 Qe2 cxd4 14 Nxd4 Bxg2 15 Kxg2
Nc5 16 Rfd1 Qd5+ 17 f3 Rfd8 18 e4 Qb7 19 Ne5 White has gained an advantage, thanks to
his better-placed minor pieces, in B.Larsen-A.Matanovic, Zagreb 1965, which finished with
a beautiful win for White.
12 Qe2
White is preparing Rfd1 and an eventual Ne5, as Spassky commented in the Danish
magazine Skakbladet.
12 ... Rc7
In P.Keres-A.Kotov, Zurich 1953, Black played 12 ... cxd4. Najdorf criticised this move
because “it is well known that it is never good to open the position when behind in
development. Kotov could and should have delayed this move until he had his forces fully
developed” and he echoes Bronstein’s comment: “although at first sight the position looks
symmetrical, there is one detail which can indicate to the reader the difference that exists:
while the white queen is perfectly developed and cannot be harassed, the black queen has
still not found its ideal square”.
The game continued 13 Nxd4 Nc5 14 Rfd1 Qd7 15 N2f3 Rfd8 16 Ne5 Qe8 17 cxd5 and
here Bronstein commented: “Keres initiates an unusual and complicated combination with
many variations, based on possible pins along the c-file, on the activity of his bishop on g2
and, in one line, even on the threat of mate on g7!”. 17 ... Bxd5 18 Ndc6! A surprising and
strong move which exploits White’s great dynamic superiority. 18 ... Rxc6 19 Nxc6 Qxc6 and
now, instead of 20 Bxd5?! exd5 21 b4 Nfe4 22 bxc5 bxc5, which resulted in a draw after a
long struggle, it was much better to play 20 Bxf6! for example 20 ... Bxf6 (or 20 ... Bxg2 21
Bxe7 Re8 22 Bxc5 Bf3 23 Qd2 bxc5 24 Qd7 Qa8 25 Rd2 Bh1 26 f4 and wins) 21 e4 Bxe4
22 Rxd8+ Bxd8 23 Bxe4 Qxe4 24 Qxe4 Nxe4 25 Rc8 and wins.
Najdorf suggested the move chosen by Ciric, 12 ... Rc7, precisely “to play ... Qa8 and ...
Rfc8 and only then try to open the game”.
13 cxd5
If 13 Rfd1 then 13 ... Qa8 is satisfactory, as Spassky indicated.

Exercise: How should Black recapture on d5?

Answer:
13 ... Bxd5?!
This will result in something similar to Kotov’s 12 ... cxd4?! which Najdorf criticised, and
also Matanovic’s 11 ... dxc4?!
It was better to play 13 ... exd5! ready to play with hanging pawns, keeping the white
minor pieces at a distance.

Exercise: What is the drawback of recapturing with a piece on d5?

Answer:
14 e4
Of course, this is the problem. White evicts Black’s minor pieces and gains space for
activating his own minor pieces.
14 ... Bb7 15 e5 Nd5

Question: Black has also gained something, in the form of a

strong knight on d5. Is this position really advantageous for White?

Answer: The advantage is still small, of course, and yes, Black has a strong knight on d5, but he has little else to boast
about. On the other hand the space gained by White gives his pieces great mobility, as we shall see.
 16 Nc4 Qa8
Consistent with 12 ... Rc7, but as well as carrying out the one’s own plans it is necessary
to be attentive to the opponent’s ideas. Here 16 ... Ba6 deserved consideration, hindering the
mobility of the c4-knight. White would possibly have evacuated the diagonal f1–a6, first
playing 17 Rfd1 and then deciding where to put the queen.

Exercise: How to continue?

Answer:
17 Nd6!
“A strong move which forces the following reply” (Spassky).
White is aware that the d6-pawn is going to fall, but he hopes to use the time it will take
Black to round it up to seize the initiative.
17 ... Bxd6
17 ... Bc6, acquiescing to the presence of the strong knight on d6, was not an easy decision;
White would have continued to strengthen his position with 18 Rfd1.
18 exd6 Rc6
 Exercise: How can White increase the scope of his own pieces?

Answer:
19 dxc5
First White opens the long dark diagonal; the b2-bishop is the master of the long diagonal
and other dark squares.
19 ... bxc5
If 19 ... Nxc5 then 20 Ng5! is very strong with a myriad of threats, such as 21 Qg4! or 21
Bxd5 exd5 22 Qe5 f6 23 Qxd5+, as well as 21 Nxh7 Kxh7 22 Qh5+ Kg8 23 Bxg7 Kxg7 24
Qg5+ Kh8 25 Rc4.
20 Ng5
The poorly defended black monarch is the target. The threats include 21 Nxe6 Re8 22 Qg4
and 21 Nxh7.
“Less effective would be 20 Ne5 Rxd6 etc.”, according to Spassky.
20 ... Rxd6
 Exercise: What do you think was Spassky’s choice in this position?

Answer:
21 Rfd1!
“The strongest move, pinning the knight and bringing his last inactive piece into play”
commented Bernard Cafferty. There is nothing strange about this, in fact it is Spassky’s
‘trademark’, as has already been pointed out.
First Spassky tries to find a decisive continuation, but if there isn’t one, or if he is not sure,
he increases the activity of his pieces, with new threats.
The sacrifice 21 Nxh7 Kxh7 22 Qh5+ Kg8 23 Bxg7 Kxg7 24 Qg5+ Kh8 25 Rc4 fails to 25
... Nf4! 26 Rxf4 Rd4.
Moving the knight away from Black’s kingside with 21 Ne4 Ra6 is not yet necessary.
21 ... Ra6?
A move criticised by Spassky, who said that it was better to play 21 ... h6! For example,
22 Ne4 Ra6 23 Qg4 f6 24 Nxc5 Nxc5 25 Rxc5, “with more defence”.
 22 Qe4
Starting a strong attack against the poorly defended black king, which obliges Black to
weaken his position further.
Nevertheless 22 Nxh7! was stronger now, winning a pawn, with echoes of the famous
Lasker-Bauer game after 22 ... Kxh7 23 Qh5+ Kg8 24 Bxg7! Kxg7 25 Qg5+ Kh8 26 Rc4
N5f6 27 Rh4+ Nh7 28 Rxd7 and now if 28 ... Bxg2 the quickest win is with 29 Qg6!
22 ... f5
The alternative 22 ... g6, weakening the dark squares, is obviously inadequate and can be
refuted with 23 Nxh7! Rb8 (23 ... Kxh7? 24 Qh4+ mating) 24 Qh4 Rxa2 25 Rxd5! (25 Bxd5
also wins) 25 ... Bxd5 (or 25 ... Rxb2 26 Rxd7 Bxg2 27 Ng5 mating) 26 Nf6+ and the Black
position collapses.
23 Qc4
23 Qe2! was more precise, and after 23 ... Qe8 24 Re1 the pressure is very strong.
23 ... Qe8?
And now 23 ... Re8! 24 Nxe6 N7b6 25 Qe2 Rxa2 26 Qe5 Re7 was more tenacious.
24 Re1!
“The simplest,” according to Spassky; the pressure on e6 does not allow Black to recover.
24 ... Rxa2
24 ... Kh8 loses in several ways, the simplest being 25 Bxd5 exd5 26 Rxe8 dxc4 27 Re7
Rd6 28 Rxg7.
25 Rxe6 Qa8 26 Bxd5
Among several winning continuations, Spassky chooses the most artistic finish. 26 Qh4
was equally strong, while 26 Re7 and 26 Rd6 would win more prosaically.
26 ... Bxd5 27 Qh4 h6
After 27 ... Nf6 28 Rxf6 leads to an unstoppable mating attack.
 28 Qxh6!
This was the key idea behind 26 Bxd5.
28 ... Nf6
After 28 ... gxh6 there is a curious mate with 29 Rg6++.
29 Rxf6 1-0
There is no defence after 29 ... Rxf6 30 Qh7+ Kf8 31 Qh8+ Bg8 (or 31 ... Ke7 32 Qxg7+)
32 Bxf6.

A Decisive Last-round Victory

The Munich tournament in 1979 was played in the Hilton Hotel, and it was originally dubbed
‘The Small World Championship’, since the sixteen players originally included the World
Champion Anatoly Karpov, in his first appearance after successfully defending his title
against Korchnoi in Baguio in 1978. The other challengers for first place were Spassky,
Hübner, Andersson, Adorjan and Balashov, who had been Karpov’s second in Baguio.
After five rounds Karpov had to withdraw from the tournament following the death of his
father and then Adorjan also had to pull out through illness. The fight for first place was
reduced to the other four challengers mentioned above.
Spassky took the lead, playing excellently until he suffered an unexpected defeat in the
ninth round after losing a piece against Lieb, who finished in last place, and his play
weakened.
Spassky fell behind and before the fifteenth and last round he had one point less than the
leader, Hübner. Spassky came out determined on victory. He launched an attack and after an
extremely complicated struggle, in which he did not flinch from sacrificing material, he
gained a spectacular victory.
In the end Spassky, Andersson, Balashov and Hübner shared first place with 8½ points out
of 13. With the better tie-break, Spassky was deemed the winner.

Game 14
B.Spassky-R.Hübner
Munich 1979
Nimzo-Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 b6

This move was also occasionally used by Spassky with Black.
In V.Mikenas-B.Spassky, Leningrad 1962 White played the very unusual 5 Qf3, a move
which is known in similar positions, but here it brings no benefits after 5 ... d5. White must
already seek equality with 6 cxd5 or make a developing move such as 6 Bd2, but of course
inserting 5 Qf3 d5 does not favour White. All he has done is force Black to make a normal
move (5 ... d5) while his queen has been placed in a position which hinders his development.
White played the imprudent move 6 Bd3 when 6 ... Ba6! created tension in the centre
which Black was able to exploit. The game continued 7 Bd2?! and now Black seized the
initiative with energetic moves: 7 ... c5 8 dxc5 Nbd7! 9 Be2 Bxc4 (with the awkward threat
of ... Ne5-d3) 10 cxb6 0-0 11 Bxc4 Ne5 12 Qe2 dxc4! and the knight reaches the d3-square,
after which the white king suffers. White position collapsed after 13 Nf3 Nd3+ 14 Kf1 axb6
15 Be1 (the black cavalry cooperate to perfection) 15 ... Bxc3! 16 bxc3 Ne4 and Black won
quickly: 17 Nd4 e5 18 Nc2 Qf6 19 f3 Rfd8 20 Kg1 Nxe1 21 Nxe1 Nxc3 22 Qxc4 e4! 0-1,
since material losses are unavoidable. The threat is 23 ... Ne2+ and after 23 Rc1 23 ... Rdc8
24 Qf1 Ne2+ wins.
5 Nge2 Ba6 6 Ng3
The main alternative is 6 a3 Bxc3+ 7 Nxc3 d5 8 b3, which had already been debated in the
Botvinnik-Smyslov match in 1957. White defends the c4-pawn and, among other ideas,
prepares the timely activation of the c1-bishop with a4 and Ba3. Spassky never showed any
liking for this line.
Playing with Black he faced the Qf3 idea once again, but in better circumstances for White.
In the game M.Taimanov-B.Spassky, Baku 1961 play continued 8 Qf3 0-0 9 Be2 (9 g4!? is
sharper) 9 ... c5! “a solution that is both brave and well-motivated. In the event of 9 ... c6 10
b3 White’s game is clearly preferable” commented Taimanov. So White played 10 dxc5.

Exercise: What did Spassky play here?

 Answer: As you have probably guessed, he played similarly to the game with Mikenas. Instead of consenting to the
creation of hanging pawns, Spassky preferred to sacrifice a pawn to activate his pieces with 10 ... Nbd7! 11 cxd5 Bxe2 (here
there is no advantage in occupying the d3-square with 11 ... Ne5 12 Qg3 Nd3+, since the white king does not suffer and White
gains the advantage after 13 Bxd3 Bxd3 14 e4! Bxe4 15 dxe6 [even better than Taimanov’s recommendation 15 Bg5] 15…
fxe6 16 Be3 bxc5 17 0-0, and it is not easy to justify the weak black structure) 12 Qxe2 Nxc5 13 b4 (13 dxe6?! Nd3+ 14 Kf1
fxe6 would be similar to the game with Mikenas) 13 ... Nb3 14 Rb1 Nxc1 15 Rxc1 Nxd5, with equality, and here a draw was
agreed.
6 ... 0-0
The alternative is 6 ... Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 d5, which was played by Fischer. Then 8 Ba3! is
considered best. Now 8 ... dxc4 is risky and White gained good compensation after 9 e4 Qd7
10 Be2 Nc6 11 Qc2 0-0-0 12 0-0 h5 13 Rfd1 h4 14 Nf1 and after 14 ... Nh5? 15 d5! Black’s
position was close to collapse in L.Portisch-R.Fischer, Siegen 1970, although the game
finished in a draw.
It is safer to go into the endgame after 8 ... Bxc4 9 Bxc4 dxc4 10 Qa4+ Qd7 11 Qxc4 Qc6
12 Qxc6+ Nxc6 13 c4, which the players of our main game had already played on two
occasions in the match B.Spassky–R.Hübner, Solingen 1977, with one draw and one win for
Spassky.
7 e4 Nc6 8 Bd3

Question: Why is it not appropriate to play 8 e5 Ne8

9 f4? gaining space without any loss of tempo?

Answer: In this case, rather than gaining space, it seems that White has overextended and ‘bitten off more than he can
chew’, because his development is inadequate to support his centre, which can be undermined with 9 ... f6 or 9 ... d6, not
forgetting a timely ... Na5.

8 ... e5

Exercise (difficult): It has been said that 8 ... Nxd4 loses to 9 Qa4 Bxc3+ 10 bxc3.
Can you find an improvement for Black that makes the verdict less clear?

Answer: Black can play 9 ... Ba5! and after 10 b4 d5! White has no more than a small advantage after 11 exd5 exd5 12
0-0 dxc4 13 Bb1. Here Black has several possibilities. He will answer 14 bxa5 with 14 ... b5, so perhaps the best is to force
matters with 13 ... c5 14 bxa5 b5, and at an opportune moment ... b4 and ... c3, with two pawns for the piece and with
White’s queenside congested.
Playing with Black, Spassky was unsuccessful with 8 ... d5?! when L.Portisch-B.Spassky
Moscow 1967, continued 9 cxd5 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 exd5 11 e5 Ne4 12 a3! Bxc3+ 13 bxc3. Here
Black did not want to open the h-file with 13 ... Nxg3 14 hxg3 g6 (14 ... h6? loses to 15 Bxh6!
gxh6 16 Rxh6) so he opted for 13 ... f5. Now Portisch began a campaign of harassment
against the e4-knight with 14 Ne2! Here it is not possible to retreat immediately with 14 ...
Ng5? on account of 15 Qb5! attacking the c6-knight, with the idea of 16 Bxg5 and Qxd5+, so
Spassky played 14 ... Na5 15 h4! (threatening f3) 15 ... Nb3 16 Rb1 Nxc1 17 Rxc1 f4 18 Qf3!
Qe7 (only here was Portisch forced to deviate from L.Portisch-L.Shamkovich, Sarajevo
1963, where Black preferred 18 ... c5 and White played 19 Nxf4 and went on to realise his
extra pawn) 19 c4 c6 20 cxd5 cxd5 21 Nxf4 and again Black had insufficient compensation.
White managed to gain the advantage after activating his pieces and returning the extra pawn
after 21 ... Qd7 22 g3 Qb5 23 Qe2 Qa5+ 24 Kf1 Qxa3 25 Kg2 Rf7 26 Rc2 Raf8 27 Rhc1 h6
28 Qg4. White won in 40 moves.

9 d5

Exercise: Why is 9 0-0 incorrect here?

Answer: Because Black has 9 ... Nxd4! (much better than 9 ... exd4 10 Nd5 Nxd5 11 cxd5 Bxd3 12 Qxd3 Ne5 13 Qxd4)
based on the fact that after 10 Qa4 Black has the resource 10 ... Bxc3 11 bxc3 Ne6! 12 Ba3 (not 12 Qxa6? Nc5) 12 ... Bb7
13 Bxf8 Qxf8 14 Qc2 Nf4, with excellent compensation for the exchange. The c4-pawn soon fell, and Black eventually won
in A.Lombard-V.Korchnoi, Switzerland 1978.
9 ... Na5?!

Question: What is dubious about this? It is a

common idea, isn’t it, putting pressure on c4?

Answer: It is a typical idea, yes, but in this position the pressure on c4 is not so important because White will be able to
make progress on the kingside unhindered. The knight will be missed from the defence of the kingside, so 9 ... Ne7 was
preferable.
 10 Qe2 Bxc3+

Exercise: How would you respond to 10 ... Ne8, which is a typical move
that not only evades a possible pin with Bg5 but also plans ... Nd6.

Answer: The simplest and best idea is to defend the knight with 11 Bd2, to be able to reply to 11 ... Nd6 with 12 b3.
11 bxc3 c6
Hübner criticised this logical move which seeks to open the queenside and suggested 11 ...
d6, when 12 Bg5 seems promising, provoking 12 ... h6. In E.Krueger-G.Iskov, Dortmund
1978, White won quickly after 13 Bd2 Nd7?! 14 Nf5 Qf6 15 h4! Nc5?

Exercise: How did White win?

Answer: With the beautiful combination 16 Bg5! hxg5 17 hxg5 Qxg5 18 Qh5!! Nxd3+ 19 Kf1 Qxg2+ (if 19 ... Qxh5 it is
mate following the zwischenzug 20 Ne7+) 20 Kxg2 Nf4+ 21 Kf3 and 1-0 in view of the same mate 21 ... Nxh5 22 Ne7+ etc.
12 Nf5
Spassky delays castling, intending to attack the black king as soon as possible.
12 ... Ne8
Black delays exchanging on d5. In the event of 12 ... cxd5 13 cxd5 it seems bad to activate
the white queen with 13 ... Bxd3 14 Qxd3, when the importance of the f5-knight outpost is
evident. White threatens 15 Bh6! among other moves, such as Qg3.

Exercise: Demonstrate why the counterattack 13 ... Qc7 is incorrect.

 Answer: The black queen is badly placed and the black king exposed to attack after 14 Bxa6! Qxc3+ 15 Qd2 Qxa1 16 0-
0, for example 16 ... Nxe4 17 Qc2 Nc5 18 Bd2 Qxf1+ 19 Bxf1. If instead 16 ... Nb3 it is the black king that suffers: 17 Qg5
Ne8 18 Bb7 Rb8 19 axb3 Rxb7 20 Nh6+ Kh8 21 Qe7 mating.
13 f4!
Once again White refrains from the obvious move 13 0-0. Castling can wait; instead
Spassky wants to create immediate pressure.
13 ... Qc7?!
Black is trying to keep his pieces active, but the surrender of the centre will be too high a
price to pay. 13 ... d6 was better, when it seems best to open lines with 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 dxc6
f6 16 0-0 Nxc6 17 Ba3 Rf7 18 Rad1, and White is more active.
14 fxe5 Qxe5
The white pieces ‘wake up’ easily after 14 ... cxd5 15 exd5 Bxc4 16 0-0 Bxd3 17 Qxd3
Nc4 (17 ... Qxe5?! 18 Ba3 and now 18…d6? loses to 19 Rae1 Qf6 20 Ne7+, and the
exchange sacrifice 18 ... Nf6 brings no relief in view of 19 Rae1 Qc7 20 Nh6+! destroying
Black’s castled position, since if 20 ... Kh8? 21 Rxf6 gxf6 22 Qd4 wins) 18 Bf4, followed by
Rf3.
15 0-0
With the idea of 16 Bf4 Qxc3 17 Rac1 Qa3 and now there is a choice between 18 Be5 and
18 Rf3 – both look devastating.
15 ... f6
15 ... Qxc3 loses in many ways, the simplest being 16 Bb2 Qb4 17 Nh6+.
16 Bf4
The most direct, sacrificing the insignificant c3-pawn. 16 Be3 also was attractive,
threatening 17 Bd4 and then e5.
16 ... Qxc3 17 Rac1 Qa3
 18 d6!

Question: White is spoilt for choice, isn’t he? There are so many possibilities!

Answer: Yes, there are no less than three moves that look very strong here. The other two are 18 Rf3! and 18 e5!
With his wedge on d6 (criticised by Hübner, who considered 18 Rf3 was stronger)
Spassky decided to prevent the opening of the c-file, thus depriving Black’s three pieces on
the queenside of almost all activity and at the same time giving his knight the e7-square.
Naturally the decision was not just based in general considerations but also on concrete
analysis.
18 ... Nb7 19 Ne7+!
The white position is so strong and there is such a big mismatch in forces on the kingside
that once again it is difficult to decide between three attractive moves.
19 Rf3! was also strong, lending more force to the e4-e5 push by the ‘x-ray’ pressure of the
rook on f3 against the black queen. Then 19 ... Nexd6 loses to 20 Nxd6 Nxd6 21 c5! winning
a piece, with no diminution in the strength of White’s attack.
The other tempting move was the immediate 19 e5! opening the diagonal b1-h7, and
threatening among other things 20 Ne7+ Kh8 21 Bxh7! If 19 ... fxe5 then simply 20 Bxe5 is
good enough. It is unnecessary to employ a combinative solution, although these also exist, for
example 20 Rc3! Black could also try 19 ... Rf7, and now 20 Ne7+ Rxe7 21 dxe7 Qxe7 22
Qh5 g6 23 Qh4 leaves the black king defenceless, but even stronger seems 20 Qe4!
threatening 21 Ne7+ and 22 Qxh7+. If 20 ... Kh8 21 e6! is very strong, for example 21 ... dxe6
22 Qxe6 Rf8 23 Qe7 Rg8 24 Nh6 and wins.
19 ... Kh8 20 e5!
With our familiar threat of 21 Bxh7.
20 ... fxe5 21 Bxe5
White brings more pieces into play. 21 Bxh7? was not winning yet owing to 21 ... Rxf4!
(giving the king the f8-square, rather than 21 ... exf4?? which would allow 22 Ng6+ Kxh7 23
Qh5+ Kg8 24 Ne7++) and there is no more than a draw after 22 Ng6+ Kxh7 23 Qh5+ Kg8 24
Ne7+ Kf8 or 22 Qh5 Qe3+ 23 Kh1 Rxf1+ 24 Rxf1 Qh6. However, the computer move 21
Bg5! was effective: 21 ... Nf6 22 Rxf6! Rxf6 (or 22 ... gxf6 23 Qe4) 23 Qe4.
 21 ... Nf6

21 ... Nexd6 allows mate after 22 Bxg7+! Kxg7 23 Qg4+ Kh8 24 Qd4+.
22 Bxh7!
Once again the most practical and the strongest move. It was also possible to crash through
with 22 Bxf6 Rxf6 23 Rxf6! for example 23 ... gxf6 24 Rf1 Bxc4 (24 ... Qxd6 25 Qe4 f5 26
Rxf5 Nc5 27 Rf8+ Kg7 28 Qxh7+ Kxf8 29 Ng6+ wins) 25 Bxc4 Nxd6 26 Bd3 and the attack
remains strong, but this is no better than the continuation played by Spassky.
22 ... Nxd6
Nothing saves Black. 22 ... Nxh7 allows mate by 23 Bxg7+! Kxg7 24 Qg4+ Kh8 25 Ng6+
Kg7 26 Nxf8+ Kh8 27 Ng6+ Kg7 28 Ne7+ and 29 Qd4+.
If 22 ... Kxh7 then 23 Rc3! Qc5+ 24 Kh1 and there is no good defence against Rh3. If 24 ...
g6 one of the many winning moves is the spectacular 25 Qe4.
23 Qf2?
This was Spassky’s only error in the conduct of the attack, but it could have cost him half a
point. It is possible that both players were already in time pressure following the very
complicated struggle so far (there was no increment in those days!).
There were two ways to win. One was the retreat 23 Bd3! threatening both the simple 24
Ng6+ as well as 24 Qe3 with the idea Qh3+. After 23 ... Rae8 24 Bxf6! Qc5+ (24 ... Rxf6 25
Qh5+ Rh6 26 Qxe8+ Nxe8 27 Rf8++) 25 Bd4! (stronger than 25 Kh1 Rxf6) 25 ... Qxd4+ 26
Kh1 Rxf1+ 27 Rxf1 Qc5 28 Qg4 (or 28 Rf3) 28 ... Qe3 29 Qh5+ Qh6 30 Qxe8+! and mate, as
pointed out by Kholmov.
The other way, which would have been typical of Spassky, was to bring more pieces into
the attack with 23 Rc3! Qc5+ 24 Kh1, with 25 Rh3 as the main threat. There is no good
defence, because the black king is so weak. If 24 ... Nxh7 there are several ways to win,
including 25 Rxf8+ Rxf8 26 Rh3 (threatening 27 Rxh7+ Kxh7 28 Qh5++) and now if 26 ...
Qxe5 27 Ng6+ wins, while if 26 ... Rf6 then 27 Bxf6 gxf6 28 Qd3! f5 29 Qc3+ mates.
23 ... Ng4!
Also possible was 23 ... Nxh7! If White tries 24 Bxg7+? Kxg7 25 Qd4+ Rf6 26 Qg4+ Kh8
he even loses. There is no compensation for the two pieces, for example 27 Ng6+ Rxg6 28
Qxg6 Qe3+ 29 Kh1 Ne4.
 Also 24 Qd4 allows Black a good defence with 24 ... Nf5! 25 Rxf5 Rxf5 and the attack on
the c1-rook saves Black.
White has no more than a draw after 24 Ng6+ Kg8 25 Ne7+, which is objectively best. A
draw, however, would have been enough to make Hübner the winner of the tournament.
Perhaps in time pressure he thought he could win.
24 Qd4!
The only move. In the event of 24 Ng6+? Kxh7 25 Nxf8+ Rxf8 26 Qxf8 Qe3+ 27 Kh1
Qxe5 Black would have a material advantage and his king is safe.
Even worse would be 24 Qh4? Qe3+ 25 Kh1 Nf2+! 26 Kg1?! Nd1+ mating.

Exercise (difficult): Here Black missed the best defence. Can you find it?

Answer:
24 ... Qe3+?
A fatal error. Also losing was 24 ... Qc5? 25 Ng6+ Kxh7 26 Nxf8+ Rxf8 27 Qxc5! Rxf1+
28 Rxf1 bxc5 29 Bxd6.
The correct defence was 24 ... Nxe5! 25 Qxe5 Nf7! (not 25 ... Qc5+? 26 Qxc5 Rxf1+ [or
26 ... bxc5 27 Ng6+ Kxh7 28 Nxf8+ Kg8 29 Nxd7 with a decisive material advantage] 27
Rxf1 bxc5 28 Bg6 Bxc4 29 Rf4 mating) and now if 26 Qh5 Black holds with 26 ... Nh6,
followed by 27 ... Qc5+.
Another good defence was 24 ... Rxf1+ 25 Rxf1 Qc5! 26 Qxc5 bxc5 27 Bxd6 Kxh7 28 Rf4
Nh6 29 Rh4 and here instead of 29 ... Rf8, as recommended by Kholmov, 29 ... g5 seems
simpler, since White’s pressure evaporates.
25 Qxe3 Rxf1+
If 25 ... Nxe3 then 26 Rxf8+ Rxf8 27 Ng6+ Kxh7 28 Nxf8+ wins.
26 Rxf1 Nxe3 27 Rf3 Nc8
Or 27 ... Ndxc4 28 Rh3 mating.
28 Bg6 1-0
The curious 28 Bg8 also works, when 28 ... Nxe7 loses to 29 Bf7!
Chapter Three
The Ruy Lopez
Resist, Resist
This game was played in the semi-final of the 6th USSR Team Championship between
Spassky (Leningrad) and Tal (Latvia). The Leningrad team (with Spassky, Taimanov,
Korchnoi and Tolush on the top boards) won 5-4, and Spassky’s victory over Tal was
decisive.
In the end, Moscow (led by Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian and Bronstein) beat Leningrad.
Spassky was the best first board in the finals, with 4 wins and 4 draws.
In the tense and complicated game that we are now going to examine, Spassky rejected an
early draw offer and gained a slight advantage in a surprising manner, placing a knight on a1!
But it took only a single inaccuracy for Tal to seize the initiative and the knight on a1 was left
out of play. Tal gained a clear advantage and Spassky’s only option was to try to offer the
maximum resistance.
His tenacious defence, combined with Tal’s time pressure, allowed Spassky to maintain
the tension and finally he was able to turn the tables.

Game 15
B.Spassky-M.Tal
USSR League, Moscow 1959
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 c3 d6 9 h3 Nd7 10
d4 Nb6 11 Nbd2 exd4 12 cxd4 d5
 Fifty-five years ago Spassky commented that he could not understand this manoeuvre:
“Why lose two (!) tempi (…Nfd7 and ... Nb6), in order then to exchange the central pawns
and advance the d-pawn?”
It is true that this line has never been very popular, although many years later Spassky
himself played the same knight manoeuvre to b6, but rather than exchanging on d4, his idea
was 11 ... Bf6, putting pressure on the white centre.

Exercise: How should White respond to this manoeuvre (…Nfd7

and ... Nb6, followed by …d5) that Spassky could not understand?

Answer:
13 Bc2!
White maintains the central tension. On the other hand 13 e5 allows Black to solve the
problem of developing his queen’s bishop with 13 ... Bf5.
13 ... Be6

Question: But doesn’t 13 ... Nb4 14 Bb1 dxe4 15 Bxe4 N4d5 saddle White with an isolated pawn on d4, while also giving
Black a good square for his knight on d5?

Answer: Yes, Black certainly obtains a good outpost on d5, but after 16 Nb3 “the black queenside remains considerably
weakened and all the effort to dominate the d5-square is not justified”, commented Spassky.
In fact these moves were seen in the game E.Vasyukov-S.Furman, Moscow vs. Leningrad
1959, which continued 16 ... Bf6 17 Qc2 h6 18 Nc5 Re8 19 Bd2 Be6 20 b3 Qd6 21 Ne5 and
while Black controls d5, White controls nearly all the rest of the board.
14 e5 Qd7

Question: I already know that Spassky has a low opinion of this line, but
how can we evaluate the present position? What are the possible plans?

Answer: Let us listen to Spassky himself: “Black has weakened his queenside (the hole at c5 and the backward pawn on
c7), and allowed White to obtain a pawn majority on the kingside, with the e5-pawn restricting the scope of the black pieces.
Apparently Black’s plan is based on undermining the e5-pawn by means of ... f6. On the queenside he must try to carry out
the advance ... c5, otherwise White will be able to start exploiting his preponderance of pawns on the kingside”.

Question: A very good explanation, but then why does Black not play 14 ... Nb4
15 Bb1 c5, getting rid of the backward pawn, as Spassky suggests?

Answer: The above-mentioned plans are a guide, but everything depends on the details.
In this case after 16 dxc5! Bxc5? 17 Nb3 Be7 18 Nfd4 it is White who profits from the
change of structure; he threatens to win with 19 a3, against which there is no good defence.
Also good is the immediate 18 a3 Nc6 19 Qc2 with a double attack. White does not even
need to implement his other plan, the advance f2-f4, putting his kingside majority in motion.
15 Nb3 Bf5
Shortly after this game, in the Candidates Tournament, Tal faced 15 ... Na4 which even
though it places ‘a knight on the rim’, controls c5 and puts pressure on b2.
The undefended b2-pawn did not deter Tal from playing 16 Bg5! since 16 ... Nxb2 17 Qb1
Nc4 18 Bxh7+ Kh8 19 Bxe7 Qxe7 20 Bc2, threatening Qd1–d3, leaves Black with a weak
king and a chronic weakness at c5, which must count for more than the strong c4-knight, while
16 ... f6 17 exf6 Bxf6 18 Qd2 leaves White with much the better position. Black’s position is
weakened without any great compensation.
M.Tal-F.Olafsson, Yugoslavia 1959, continued 16 ... Nb4 17 Bxe7 Qxe7 (17 ... Nxc2 18
Qxc2 Qxe7 19 Rac1 leaves White with a clear advantage due to the weaknesses of the c5-
square and the c7-pawn) 18 Qb1 h6 19 Rc1 Rac8 and here Tal played 20 Bh7+ Kh8 21 Nc5
and after 21 ... g6! 22 Bxg6 (22 a3? now fails to 22 ... Bf5) 22 ... Nxc5 23 Rxc5 fxg6 24 Qxg6
he obtained compensation for the piece and eventually won.
More precise was 20 Nc5! Nxc5 21 Bh7+ Kh8 22 Rxc5 when 22 ... g6 can be answered
advantageously with 23 a3 Bf5 24 Qc1 Kxh7 (not 24 ... Nd3? 25 Qxh6) 25 axb4.

Exercise: How should White continue?

Answer:
16 Bg5!
The exchange of dark-squared bishops would highlight the weakness of c5, as we have
appreciated in the lines examined earlier.
On the other hand, renouncing the weakness at c5 in order to win a pawn with 16 Nc5?!
Bxc5 17 Bxf5 Qxf5 18 dxc5 gives no advantage after 18 ... Na4 (18 ... Nd7?! 19 Qxd5 Nb4
20 Qd2! Nc2?! 21 Nh4! Qh5 22 Qxc2 Qxh4 23 c6 with a healthy extra pawn) 19 Qxd5 Nb4
20 Qd2 Nd3 21 Nh4 Qd7 22 Re3 Naxc5 23 b4 Nxc1 24 Qxd7 Nxd7 25 Rxc1 Nb6, with
equality.
16 ... Bb4
Instead 16 ... f6 17 exf6 Bxf6 18 Nc5 Qc8 19 Rc1 is very advantageous for White, who has
gained everything he could ask for in the position.
The docile 16 ... Rfe8? allows White to attain his objectives after 17 Bxe7 Rxe7 18 Rc1!
Nb4 19 Nc5! Bxc2 (after 19 ... Qc8? 20 Bxf5 Qxf5 21 Qb3! Nc6 22 Nxa6 White wins
material) 20 Qd2! leaving Black with his poor bishop, while retaining his own strong knight
on c5, for example 20 ... Qe8 21 Qxb4 a5 22 Qc3 Bg6 23 Nh4! Na4 24 Qb3 Nxc5 25 Rxc5 c6
26 Rec1 Re6 27 f4! as played in R.Fischer-S.Reshevsky, Santa Monica 1966.
17 Re2 Rfe8
Vacating f8 for the retreat of the bishop and accompanied with a draw offer.
18 Rc1
After the game Tal mentioned that he feared 18 Nh4, with the idea of organising an attack
on the kingside after 18 ... Bxc2 19 Qxc2, but Spassky indicated that this is not possible, since
after 19 ... Nc4 20 Nf5?! Black has the counter-blow 20 ... f6! overloading the white queen.
Better is 20 Rd1 but even here Black gains counterplay with 20 ... a5!
18 ... Nc4

Exercise: How to respond to Black’s annoying queenside pressure?

Answer:
19 Na1!
“It almost makes one feel ashamed to make such an ugly move”, said Spassky. The idea is
to evict Black’s best-placed piece with 20 b3.

Question: Hmm, but playing a knight to a1 isn’t a move to be made without careful consideration, is it? How did Spassky
reach the conclusion that this was a good idea?

Answer: Spassky explained it as follows, stating that he had a long think on this move: “ ... to convince myself that Black
could not take advantage of the bad position of the knight and of the weakness of the d4-pawn. Above all I analysed the
replies 19 ... Be4 and 19 ... f6”.
If Black plays 19 ... Be4 now, Spassky was attracted to the exchange sacrifice 20 Rxe4 (20
Bxe4 dxe4 21 Rxe4 Nxb2 22 Qc2 Nc4 23 Rh4 is an interesting alternative which Tal
mentioned after the game) 20 ... dxe4 21 Bxe4 with good compensation. The e4-bishop is the
master of the light squares.
After 19 ... f6 20 exf6 is strong because the sacrifice 20 ... Be4 can be met with the strong
move 21 Ne5! (21 Bxe4 dxe4 22 Ne5 N6xe5 23 dxe5 Qxd1+ 24 Rxd1 Rxe5 is inferior), for
example 21 ... N6xe5 22 dxe5 Nxe5 23 Rxe4! (also good is 23 Bxe4 dxe4 24 Qb3+ Nf7 25
Qxb4 Nxg5 26 Qb3+) 23 ... dxe4 24 Bb3+ Kh8 25 Qxd7 Nxd7 26 fxg7+ Kxg7 27 Rxc7 Kg6
28 h4 and despite the fact that the a1-knight is not playing at the moment, the other three white
pieces are active to the maximum and White has an advantage.
Also note that 19…Nxb2? loses immediately to 20 Bxf5 Qxf5 21 Rxb2.
19 ... Bxc2 20 Qxc2 Re6
With the idea of ... Rg6.
21 Qf5
White simply prevents Black’s idea. Evicting the knight immediately with 21 b3 was the
obvious alternative.
21 ... h6! 22 Bf4 Rf8 23 b3?!
Spassky goes as far as to award a question mark to his logical move and he later suggested
23 Qg4! threatening Bxh6. After 23 ... f5 (23 ... Kh7 allows the knight to be ‘recycled’
advantageously with 24 Nc2, followed by b3, Ne3, etc.) 24 exf6 Rfxf6 25 Rxe6 Qxe6 26
Qxe6+ Rxe6 27 b3, when Black’s structure is weak and White’s prospects are better. In this
case it seems best for Black to try to complicate the game with 27 ... Nb2!?.

Exercise: Why was Spassky so critical of his last move?

Answer:
 23 ... f6!
For tactical reasons. The rook on e2 is loose and the white pieces lined up on the f-file are
vulnerable.
24 Qg4
Once again Spassky criticised his move, but this time it is not clear that his suggestion of
24 Bxh6 is such a good idea. It is true that after the suggested line 24 ... fxe5 (or 24 ... gxh6 25
bxc4 bxc4 26 Nc2) 25 Qg4 Nb6 26 Be3 the chances are balanced.

Exercise: Find something better for Black after 25 Qg4.

Answer: Black gains the advantage with 25 ... Rxf3! 26 gxf3 (26 Bxg7 is refuted by the zwischenzug 26 ... Rf4!) 26 ...
Nxd4 and White loses material. In these lines where the position opens, the a1-knight is definitely missed.
24 ... f5
Black chooses a positional path. Another idea was to continue tactically (which is what
one would expect from Tal!) by playing 24 ... fxe5, for example 25 dxe5 Qe8! 26 bxc4 Rg6
27 Bg5 (forced) 27 ... dxc4.
25 Qh5
 Exercise (easy): What was the idea of 24 ... f5?

Answer:
25 ... Nd6!
Of course. Black manages to centralise his c4-knight by placing it on the dominating e4-
square.
26 Nc2
The knight returns to the fray, but Black has the edge now. The queen has achieved nothing
on h5. Spassky had considered the sacrifice 26 Rxc6 Qxc6 27 Rc2, considering that the
forced 27 ... Nc4 would lead to a satisfactory game for White. It is complicated but seemingly
balanced.

Exercise: Spassky confessed that after the game he was astonished when Tal
showed him a simple refutation of this short variation. What had Spassky missed?
 Answer: With 27 ... Qe8! 28 Qxe8 Nxe8 and Black remains the exchange up.
26 ... Ne4 27 Nxb4 Nxb4 28 Ne1
This controls the d3-square and threatens to evict the e4-knight with f2-f3.
28 ... c5!

29 Rb2
Restraining the advance ... c4, as well as making room for the queen.

Question: This is not a very pleasant move to have to play, is it?

Answer: You are right, it is not pleasant, but White must accept that the advantage has passed to Black and offer the
maximum resistance. There is nothing better. For example, 29 f3 can be met with 29 ... cxd4! 30 fxe4 dxe4, which is very
good for Black. Or if 29 dxc5 then 29 ... d4 is a strong reply. Inserting 29 a3 Nc6 before playing 30 dxc5 runs into 30 ... g6! 31
Qf3 (31 Qxh6? g5) 31 ... Nd4, winning the exchange.
29 ... cxd4 30 Qd1 g5!
Forcing White to make an awkward retreat or else give up the e5-pawn.
 31 Bh2?!
In the light of what might have happened after this, it is easy to suggest the sad 31 Bd2,
abandoning the e5-pawn to its fate.
31 ... Rc8!
There were several attractive moves for Black here. Tal emulates Capablanca and tries to
‘get rid of the dead leaves in the position’. He uses simplification to remove the protection
from some queenside squares ready for invasion.
32 Rxc8+ Qxc8 33 f3
It would have been difficult to play 33 Qxd4, giving up control of c1, although by
activating the queen White would create practical chances for himself. After 33 ... Qc1 34
Re2 (34 Kf1? loses to, among other things, 34 ... Nd3!) 34 ... Nc3 35 Re3 Ncxa2, (35 ...
Nbxa2 36 Qa7 would be less clear) and Black is a pawn up, although this may still have been
White’s best line.

Exercise: We are at a critical point in the game, so put

yourself in Tal’s place. What would you play here?

Answer:
33 ... Qc3
This is one of the strongest moves, although time pressure meant that Tal made it with the
wrong idea in mind.
Another good move was 33 ... Nc3, for example 34 Qxd4 (after 34 Qd2 f4! 35 Nd3 Nxd3
36 Qxd3 Qc7 37 Qxd4 Qxe5 Black has an extra pawn and the better position) 34 ... Ncxa2,
followed by ... Qc3.
The clearest win seems to be 33 ... Rc6! After 34 fxe4 Rc1 35 Qd2 Qc3! 36 Bg3 f4 37 Bf2
dxe4 and White cannot defend all his loose pieces.
34 fxe4 Qxb2?
Black squanders his advantage in time pressure. 34 ... dxe4! was better “and despite the
loss of a piece, Black’s centre pawns would even maintain winning chances for Black”,
according to Spassky.
If 35 Rf2 d3! (35 ... Nd5, as suggested by Shamkovich, runs into 36 Rc2 Qe3+ 37 Kh1 Nc3
38 Qa1 Ne2 when White has the surprising resource 39 Rxe2! Qxe2 40 Qxd4 Qxe1+ 41 Bg1
and the black king cannot escape perpetual check) 36 Rxf5 Nd5 and White’s position is
difficult. Let us look at two examples:
If 37 Qh5 then 37…Qxe1+ 38 Rf1 Qe3+ 39 Kh1 Nf4! 40 Bxf4 Qe2! 41 Qxe2 dxe2 42 Re1
gxf4 43 Rxe2 Rxe5 with a big advantage in the endgame.
Even worse is 37 Nxd3 because of 37 ... Ne3! 38 Qe2 Nxf5 39 Qxe4 Qa1+! 40 Ne1 Qd4+
41 Qxd4 Nxd4 with a winning endgame.
Of course, analysing these variations precisely while in time pressure was almost
impossible, especially with so many tempting options, even for one of the best tacticians in
the history of chess.
35 exf5 Rc6

The position has changed. Instead of powerful centre pawns, Black is the exchange up, but
now it is White who has strong pawns and in addition the black monarch is now weak.
36 Bg3!

Question: Wasn’t 36 Qh5 better? I don’t see how Black can escape perpetual check.

Answer: You are right that this move guarantees a draw, but with 36 Bg3 Spassky was not risking anything. He was
making the most of his practical chances, since Black was in time trouble and the consciousness of having missed an earlier
opportunity might induce him to make a mistake.
If 36 Qh5 Black could force a draw himself with 36 ... Nd3 (indicated by Tal) and if 37
Nxd3 Rc1+ 38 Nxc1 Qxc1+ 39 Kf2 Qe3+ and it is White who cannot escape the perpetual.
Instead 37 Qe8+ Kh7 38 Qe7+ Kg8! and now if 39 Bg3 Nxe1 40 Bxe1 Qc1 41 f6 Qxe1+
42 Kh2 Black has the resource 42 ... Rxf6! 43 Qxf6 Qe4 and draws.
What Spassky saw, and which made him reject 36 Qh5, was the simple 36 ... Qc3, which
should also lead to a draw.
 Exercise (difficult): You have the ungrateful task of trying
to find a way to draw, after having spoilt a winning position.

Answer:
36 ... d3?
“The final and decisive error in this game of so many ups and downs,” commented
Spassky.
Instead 36 ... Nc2? with the idea of drawing after 37 Qh5 Nxe1 38 Bxe1 Qc1! fails to 37
Qf3! Ne3 38 e6 and Black is surprisingly helpless against the threat of Qh5 with a decisive
attack, for example 38 ... Qb1 39 Qh5 Qxf5 40 Qe8+ and the rook is lost, or 38 ... g4 39 Qf4!
and the queen finds other ways to penetrate Black’s position, with a winning attack.
Returning to the original exercise, the only playable move was 36 ... Qc3!! 37 Kh2 (37
Qh5 Qxg3 38 Qe8+ Kh7 only draws) and now, unlike in the game continuation, after 37 ... d3
38 Qh5 d2 39 Qe8+ Kh7 40 Qe7+ Kg8 41 f6 Black has the beautiful saving resource 41 ...
Qxg3+! 42 Kxg3 dxe1Q+ 43 Kh2 Rxf6! as in the note to White’s 36th move above.
37 Qh5 d2 38 Qe8+ Kg7 39 Qe7+ Kh8 40 f6 dxe1Q+ 41 Bxe1 1-0
And faced with forced mate Black resigned.

The First Match

After sharing first place in the Interzonal Tournament in Amsterdam in 1964, Spassky
qualified for the Candidates matches to be held in 1965. His first opponent was a very
experienced one, the Estonian Paul Keres, a living legend who had had crossed swords
(successfully) with Capablanca and Alekhine and who had been a challenger for the world
title from the 1940's onwards. Compared with Keres, Spassky was almost a novice. This was
the first head-to-head match of his career.
Here is how Spassky himself described his route to the first World Championship match
with Petrosian: "During the final stages there were bloody matches against Keres, Geller and
Tal. The most difficult match was against Keres, which turned into a street brawl".
Keres won the first game of the ten scheduled, but Spassky was not disheartened. In an
interview with Leonard Barden he said that in that first game: "I made a very good sacrifice,
but made a mistake and was crushed".
Kasparov commented that this strength of character was characteristic of Spassky when he
was a world title challenger, above all in his second campaign in 1968-69. Spassky seemed
to play with the conviction that 'If I do not win this game, I will win the next one!', and
Kasparov wondered "Can one mentally withstand such pressure?!"
The course of the match indicated that Spassky was already playing with that total
confidence in victory. After drawing the second game, Spassky won three games running.
Keres was a worthy opponent and after two draws he won the eighth game and the
outcome remained in doubt. Spassky said that he was surprised at feeling so tired by that
stage, but he managed to pull himself together and win the last game, thus winning the match
6-4.
We shall look now at the fourth game from the match, which was Spassky's second win
with the black pieces. The unusual creation of a passed pawn was a key factor.

Game 16
P.Keres-B.Spassky
4th Matchgame, Riga 1965
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6

In this match Spassky successfully used the Closed variation of the Ruy Lopez. In the
following Candidates match against Geller he never had to face 1 e4, while in the Candidates
final against Tal he successfully used the Marshall Attack.
8 c3 0-0 9 h3 h6 10 d4 Re8

11 Nbd2
This is the most common continuation. In Y.Kotkov-B.Spassky, Sochi 1965, played a few
months later, White played 11 Be3 and the game continued 11 ... Bf8 12 Nbd2 Bd7. In this
variation Spassky preferred to develop the bishop here rather than on b7, which is more
popular. Here White decided to close the centre and after 13 d5 Ne7, and now, before turning
his attention to the queenside, he played 14 Nh2. This deters 14 ... c6?! on account of 15 dxc6
Bxc6 16 Ng4! and Black is unable to free his position with ... d5. So Spassky played 14 ...
Ng6 15 a4 Be7! and the game turned into an unclear struggle featuring attacks on opposite
wings. It continued 16 c4 bxc4 17 Bxc4 Nh7 18 Nb3.

Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

Answer: He completed the manoeuvre begun with 15 ... Be7! with 18 ... Bg5!, exchanging his bad bishop. After 19 Na5
Bxe3 20 Rxe3 (20 fxe3 controls f4, but weakens his king) 20 ... f5! 21 exf5 Bxf5 22 Rc1 Nf4 23 b4 Rf8, and the black attack
was victorious.
11 ... Bf8 12 Nf1 Bd7
As we mentioned earlier, Spassky was not fond of the more popular 12 ... Bb7. A typical
trick is 12 ... exd4?! 13 cxd4 Nxe4?? 14 Bd5 and wins.

13 dxe5
 Releasing the central tension here is unusual and it does not seem to offer any chances of
advantage. In matches the players generally try to ‘squeeze’ with the white pieces, so it is
likely that Keres considered that this was an interesting option.
The most frequently played continuation is 13 Ng3 Na5 14 Bc2 c5, when there are several
options. Spassky has played this position with both colours, as is quite normal for him in the
Ruy Lopez.
One possibility is 15 d5 Nc4 16 Nh2. In L.Stein-B.Spassky, Yerevan 1962 Black played
the weak 16 ... a5?! 17 a4! (not 17 Nf5?! Bxf5 18 exf5 Nb6 and the white centre is weak, for
example 19 Be4 Nxe4 20 Rxe4 Qd7 21 g4 Qb7!) 17 ... Nb6 18 axb5 Bxb5 and this time 19
Nf5! was strong and White seized the initiative on the kingside after 19 ... Bd7 20 g4 Nh7 21
Kg2 Be7 22 Nf3 Nf8 23 h4.
Instead theory recommends 16 ... g6 17 b3 Nb6 18 f4 exf4 19 Bxf4 Bc8, making room for
the b6-knight on d7 to control e5. Kasimdzhanov thinks that the white attack looks dangerous
and he suggests the immediate 16 ... Nb6 instead, to answer 17 f4?! exf4 18 Bxf4 with 18 ...
Nc4! heading for e5, so it is better to play 17 b3, allowing 17 ... c4, and the position is
complicated after 18 f4 cxb3 19 axb3 Qc7.
The most frequently-played move here is 15 b3. Spassky also had some problems against
this when he played 15 ... cxd4?! 16 cxd4 Nc6 17 Bb2 g6 18 Qd2 Bg7 19 Rad1 Qb6 20 Nf1!
(heading for d5) 20 ... Rad8 21 Ne3 and slowly White was making progress, improving all
his pieces while Black could only wait. It would be unfavourable now for Black to release
the central tension because White would benefit more from this. In R.Fischer-B.Spassky,
Havana 1966, White gained an almost decisive advantage, but he was in too much of a hurry
to exploit his advantage and the game ended in a draw.
The usual response to 15 b3 is 15 ... Nc6, when Smyslov has shown that it is not
advantageous to maintain the central tension with 16 Be3 because Black can open the centre
with 16 ... cxd4 17 cxd4 exd4 18 Nxd4 d5! 19 exd5 Nb4! with an excellent game.
That is why it is more popular to close the game with 16 d5, but Kasimdzhanov considers
that Black has no great problems after 16 ... Ne7.

One common plan here is 17 Be3 Ng6 18 Qd2 Nh7 19 a4, when Black has a move which
is already familiar to us: 19 ... Be7, activating the passive bishop. Instead the historically
important game Deep Blue–G.Kasparov, 2nd Matchgame, New York 1997 continued 19 ...
Nh4?! This game was mainly notable for the fact that the machine outplayed Kasparov
positionally but messed up tactically. Eventually Kasparov resigned in a position where he
could have drawn by perpetual check.
Instead of 17 Be3, Spassky played 17 c4 with White. After 17 ... Ng6 18 Nf5 Nf4 19 Bxf4
exf4 Spassky sharpened the play with 20 Nxd6!? Bxd6 21 e5 Bf8 22 Qd3 bxc4?! (Portisch
himself indicated that Black should play 22 ... g6 23 e6 Bg7 24 exd7 Qxd7, with chances for
both sides) 23 bxc4 g6 24 e6 Bg7 25 exd7 Qxd7, we each the same position as in Portisch’s
analysis, but without the pawns on c4 and b5.

Exercise: How did Spassky show that exchanging with 22 ... bxc4 was inaccurate?

Answer: With the pawns exchanged White now has 26 Qa3! and after 26 ... Qc7 the previously inactive bishop on c2 can
be activated with 27 Ba4! White gained the advantage, although the game finished in a draw.
In M.Tal-T.Ghitescu, Miskolc 1963, Black replied to 15 b3 with 15 ... g6, which we shall
examine in Supplementary Game 16.1.
Let us get back to our game.
13 ... Nxe5
This is sufficient to equalise. The creator of the variation with 9…h6 and 10…Re8,
Smyslov, decided to retain the knights with 13 ... dxe5 in his game with Flores Alvarez in
Santiago 1965, and he managed to win in the endgame.
14 Nxe5 dxe5
In this position Keres agreed to a draw with Gheorghiu in the Budapest 1970 tournament.
15 Qf3 c5
Instead P.Keres–V. Smyslov, Moscow, 1973 saw Black play 15 ... Be6, but the game soon
led to general exchanges and a draw after 16 Rd1 Qe7 17 Ne3 Rad8 18 Rxd8 Rxd8 19 Nf5
Bxf5 20 Qxf5 Qd7 21 Qxd7, etc. In this tournament, which was the last USSR Championship
in which he competed, Keres was not in contention for first place, so a draw was not a bad
result for him.
16 Rd1 c4 17 Bc2 Qe7
 Question: This is an unusual move, isn’t it, blocking in the bishop on f8?

Answer: That is true, but it is a minor inconvenience. The queen won’t stay on e7 for ever, and from there it overprotects
the knight on f6 against a possible Bxh6. It was appropriate to step out of the pin on the d-file and in addition the rooks are
now connected and the one on e8 can move to the queenside if necessary, or contest the d-file with ... Rd8.
18 b3
White is keen to remove the annoying pawn on c4. It was possible to play 18 Ne3 first and
in the event of 18 ... g6?! then play 19 b3 in better circumstances than in the game. However
Black has no need to fear Nf5, as we saw in the Smyslov game, so he can play simply 18 ...
Rad8, ready to capture on f5 with no great problems.
18 ... cxb3
Instead of supporting the c4-pawn Black plays with greater ambition, primarily seeking to
put pressure on the backward pawn on c3.
19 axb3 Rec8 20 Bb2
 Exercise: What else persuaded Spassky to exchange on c3? What did he play now?

Answer:
20 ... a5!
Black can quickly create a passed pawn, which will help him maintain the balance and
which might increase in importance if White underestimates it and becomes too ambitious.
21 Ne3 a4 22 bxa4
White is indeed playing with ambition, seeking to activate his bishop on b2 and keeping in
mind that he has a potential outpost on d5.
It was possible to play 22 Nd5 Nxd5 23 exd5 when Black has 23 ... Qf6! and in the event
of 24 Qxf6?! gxf6 the pressure on the white queenside pawns is unpleasant, while if 24 Qe4
Black activates his bishop with 24 ... Bc5, with a good position and equal chances.
Another idea was 22 Ba3 to exchange the bishops.
22 ... bxa4 23 c4?!
This is consistent, and it was White’s idea, but it will end badly. It was better to get rid of
the passive bishop by first playing 23 Ba3 Qe8 (here Tal suggested the interesting sacrifice
23 ... Qxa3 24 Rxa3 Bxa3, with sufficient compensation) and only then 24 c4, among other
possibilities.
23 ... a3 24 Bc3
White has all his pieces well placed and the black passed pawn seems unimportant for
now.

Exercise: How did Spassky manage to make progress here?

Answer:
24 ... Ba4!
After the exchange of bishops the pawns on e4 and c4 will be weaker.
25 Bxa4?!
White does not want to defend passively with 25 Qe2 and seeks a way to activate his
pieces, although exchanging on a4 also allows the black forces to gain space.
25 ... Rxa4 26 Rdb1?!
Once again consistent, and bad… White wants to play Rb5, but there will not be time.
Here 26 Nd5 Nxd5 27 cxd5 is not at all satisfactory either. Black should not play 27 ... Rac4?
immediately on account of 28 d6! but once again 27 ... Qf6! first is strong. Black’s passed
pawn is stronger than White’s after 28 Qd3 (28 Qxf6? gxf6 loses the e4-pawn) 28 ... Rac4,
with the initiative.
With 26 Qf5 White could restrain Black’s initiative for the moment, but after 26 ... Re8 the
problems persist. If 27 Nd5 then 27 ... Qe6! and the c4-pawn requires attention.

Exercise: What is the best move here?

Answer:
26 ... Qe6!
Preparing to bring Black’s only inactive piece. his f8-bishop, into play. This move also
increases the pressure on c4, which means that White now cannot play 27 Rb5? owing to 27
... Raxc4! 28 Rxe5 Qc6 and if the bishop retreats Black has 29 ... Rxe4, while 29 Nxc4 Qxc4
30 Be1 Qd4 wins for Black.
27 Qd1?
White’s position is uncomfortable but this attempt at a tactical solution will not work out in
White’s favour. After 27 Qf5 instead there are several satisfactory replies. One involves the
sacrifice of an unimportant pawn to achieve greater activity with 27 ... Qxf5 30 exf5 Bc5 31
Bxe5 Ne4, and White’s position is riddled with weaknesses. Note how Black’s passed a-
pawn is constantly growing in importance.
27 ... Nxe4!
The sacrifice 27 ... Raxc4 was also possible here, netting two pawns for the exchange, but
why run the risk? To maintain the material balance White must now allow exchanges, after
which the a3-pawn will turn out to be a winning trump.
28 Bxe5 Qxe5! 29 Qxa4 Nc3 30 Qc2
If 30 Qa6 then 30 ... Nxb1 and since the a1-rook is en prise White must play 31 Rxb1,
when 31 ... Rb8 would lead to similar play to the game.
30 ... Nxb1 31 Rxb1 Ra8 32 Qa2 Bc5 33 Rb5
33 Rb3 would have been met in the same way.

33 ... Rb8!
The a3-pawn plays the main role here and exchanges will help Black to realise its full
value.
34 Rxb8+ Qxb8 35 Nd5 Qg3!
Spassky chooses the most elegant way to win. He threatens 36 ... Qxf2+, after which the a-
pawn will queen.
36 Kf1 Qd3+
Not allowing White to hang on after 36 ... Qxf2+ 37 Qxf2 Bxf2 38 Nc3, although Black
should still win in that case.
37 Ke1
Or 37 Kg1 Qd4 38 Kh2 Qe5+ 39 g3 Qe1, etc.
37 ... Qd4!
Now there is no satisfactory way to prevent f2 falling with check.
38 Qb3 Qxf2+ 39 Kd1 a2 0-1

Supplementary Game 16.1

M.Tal-T.Ghitescu
Miskolc 1963

In chess it is useful to ‘know something about everything’, even lines that you do not play, since there can be a useful ‘cross-
fertilisation’ of ideas. We have an example in this famous game by M.Tal, who was inspired by an idea of D.Bronstein’s who,
inspired in turn by Paul Morphy, played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 d3 and after 6 ... h6 7 Nf3 e4,
in a game against the Norwegian A.Rojahn at the 1956 Moscow Olympiad, he sacrificed the bishop with 8 dxe4 Nxc4 9 Qd4.
 White followed with c4, “and subsequently the avalanche of White pawns swept away
everything in its path” (Tal).
Bronstein wrote that he asked his team-mates for permission to play 8 dxe4. He also
reported that at the end of the game, “my opponent asked in a very quiet voice: ‘You, of
course overlooked the bishop on c4?’”, showing that despite Black’s defeat he was not
convinced by the sacrifice.

Question: Very interesting, but ... what has that got to do with the line
of the Ruy Lopez that we are looking at? I do not see the connection.

Answer: Just be patient, all will be revealed now.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 h6
10 d4 Re8 11 Nbd2 Bf8 12 Nf1 Bd7
Now our supplementary game M.Tal-T.Ghitescu, Miskolc 1963 varies from the main game.
15 b3
Black’s reply does not grab the essence of the Smyslov Variation.
15 ... g6
This is a move which does not fit in with what we have been looking at since, as Tal
indicated, it weakens the kingside and it rules out the manoeuvre ... Ne7-g6.
16 Be3 Nc6 17 d5 Ne7 18 Qd2 Kh7
 “The somewhat disorganized state of the black pieces suggests to White the idea of a
possible piece sacrifice” commented Tal, explaining his decision.
19 Bxc5!
“In fact this sacrifice owes its existence to Bronstein, for it was on this very day that he
told me about his game with Rojahn ... The idea of the sacrifice in the diagram position is
roughly the same. White succeeds in setting up a solid pawn roller, and at the first opportunity
sets it in motion”, commented Tal.
19 ... dxc5 20 Nxe5 Nc8 21 f4 Qe7 22 c4!
And after a complicated struggle White won.

Question: OK, that is better, but excuse my persistence, given

that this book is about Boris Spassky, is there some concrete
connection between this notable idea and Spassky’s play?

Answer: It limits your understanding if you just focus on what seems directly relevant. It is better to appreciate the
interconnectedness of everything. An idea might not actually appear on the board, yet it might crop up in an important variation
that passes unseen. Coming back to your question, perhaps the link between the Tal game and B.Spassky-J.Penrose, Palma
de Mallorca 1969 is pertinent, a game which we examined earlier in the book during our discussion of Spassky’s style.

Give up Everything, Except the Initiative

After beating Keres in their 1965 Candidates match, Spassky defeated Geller in the semi-finals by 5½-2½ and thus qualified to
contest the best of twelve games in the final match in Tbilisi against Mikhail Tal, who had overcome Portisch and Larsen.
This duel aroused a lot of interest. Some were even calling it ‘the match of the century’,
and opinion as to the likely outcome was divided.
After a draw in the first game, Tal took the lead with a black win in the second game, but
this was his only victory. Spassky equalised immediately and after five draws he won the
three final games.
One of the keys to Spassky’s triumph was that he was successful in neutralising Tal’s
active play with the white pieces by employing the Marshall Attack against Tal’s Ruy Lopez.
Tal failed to score a single victory with White. He scored three draws and suffered three
defeats, one against the Breyer variation (Spassky abstained from the Marshall in that game)
and the other two when Tal avoided the Marshall. After his triumph Spassky joked that he
was thinking about setting up a monument to Frank Marshall.
Let us now look at the eleventh and last game, which Spassky won, concluding the match
7-4 and thus qualifying for his first match for the world title against Tigran Petrosian.

Game 17
M.Tal-B.Spassky
11th Matchgame, Tbilisi 1965
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 h3

This order of moves, instead of 8 c3, is designed to avoid the Marshall Gambit with 8 ...
d5 which Tal had been unable to breach in three of his five previous games with White. The
type of position reached in the Marshall was not to his taste, since it is Black who seizes the
initiative in return for a pawn.
In the ninth game he had varied with 8 a4 but gained no advantage and lost a long endgame.
Curiously, in the only game where Spassky did not play the Marshall Attack when he had
the chance (game 3 of the match) he chose 8 ... d6 and the Breyer variation, winning another
long endgame.
8 ... Bb7 9 d3
After 9 c3 Black can still play 9 ... d5 and Tal did not want to allow this.
9 ... d6
Spassky decides to recycle his knight to b8 and d7. An alternative was to stick with the
plan of advancing with ... d5 by playing 9 ... h6, controlling the g5-square in order to be able
to play ... Re8. For example 10 Nbd2 Re8 11 Nf1 Bf8 12 c3 and now, with the e5-pawn
defended, 12 ... d5 is playable.
10 c3 Nb8
This looks very odd at first, but it is a well-known idea for Black. The knight will go to
d7.
11 Nbd2 Nbd7 12 Nf1 Nc5 13 Bc2 Re8
 14 Ng3
White has also tried 14 N3h2 with the idea of Qf3, Ng3-f5 etc. The standard reaction,
exploiting the lack of white presence in the centre, is 14 ... d5, based on the fact that the e5-
pawn remains defended after 15 exd5 Qxd5. After 15 Qf3 Ne6 16 Ng4 Nxg4 17 Qxg4 Bf8 18
Qg3 f6 the play was equal in B.Parma-R. Wade, Skopje 1968.
14 ... Bf8 15 b4
Spassky faced 15 Nh2 here several times and he had no problems after 15 ... d5. For
example 16 Qf3 Qc8 (16 ... g6 17 Bg5 Be7 with balanced play was his choice in A.Medina-
B.Spassky, Gothenburg 1955) 17 Bg5 dxe4 18 dxe4 Nfd7 with approximate equality,
W.Browne-B.Spassky, San Juan 1969.
He also played 15 ... Ne6 16 d4 (after 16 Nf5 Black can play 16 ... d5, when White failed
to gain any advantage in W.Browne-L.Portisch, Wijk aan Zee 1972) 16 ... exd4 17 cxd4 c5 18
Nf3 Nxd4 (this equalises, but 18 ... d5! 19 e5?! Ne4 seems even more promising) 19 Nxd4
cxd4 20 Qxd4 d5 with equality, L.Schmid-B.Spassky, San Juan 1969.
15 ... Ncd7 16 Bb3
Once the knight has been evicted from c5 the ‘Spanish bishop’ is once more activated on
the diagonal a2–g8.

Question: Why does not White play 16 d4, exploiting the tempi that Black has lost?
 Answer: It is playable, naturally, and there are games by both players featuring this advance. However, it is not clear that
Black has merely ‘lost tempi’, because not only did White lose a tempo compared to the normal Breyer by playing d4 in two
moves, but also the structure has changed. The advance b4 forced the knight to retreat from c5 but it also weakened the c4-
square and gave Black possible pawn breaks on a5 and c5.
Black can even play 16 ... a5 right away. After 17 Bd2 axb4 18 cxb4 exd4 19 Nxd4 the
fact that the b4-pawn is loose allows 19 ... d5! with good play, as played in M.Tal-J.Timman,
Niksic 1983.
The line 17 a3 axb4 18 cxb4 c5 19 bxc5 dxc5 20 dxe5 Nxe5 21 Nxe5 Rxe5 also fails to
set Black any problems.
Spassky himself opted for 16 ... h6 and after 17 Bd2 Nb6 18 Bd3 g6 (18 ... Rc8 is also
interesting, preparing ... c5 after exchanging on d4) 19 Qc2 Nfd7 20 Rad1 Bg7 21 dxe5 dxe5
22 c4 bxc4 23 Bxc4 Qe7? (Black prepares ... c5 if the valuable bishop retreats from c4, but
the tactics will favour White; the natural 23 ... Nxc4 was sufficient to gain good play) 24
Bb3! c5 25 a4! c4 (25 ... cxb4 is weak on account of 26 a5 Rac8 27 Qa2 Na8 28 Bxb4! and
wins) 26 Ba2 Bc6 27 a5 Ba4 28 Qc1 Nc8 29 Bxh6 Bxd1 30 Rxd1 and White won, thanks to
his unpleasant initiative, in which the ‘Spanish bishop’ played an important role, A.Karpov-
B.Spassky, Moscow 1973.
16 ... a5
The most direct, fighting for the initiative. The counter-blow 16 ... d5 has also yielded
satisfactory results for Black and Spassky has also played 16 ... h6 restricting the f3-knight.
After 17 a4 c5 18 Qc2 d5 Black had a fully satisfactory game in N.Gaprindashvili-B.Spassky,
Gothenburg 1971.
 17 a3 axb4
We have seen that Spassky was always wary of the danger of b3-bishop combining with
Nf3-g5. Black played 17 ... c5?! in M.Tal-V.Tukmakov, Sochi 1970, and White seized the
initiative with 18 Ng5! d5 19 exd5 Nb6 (if 19 ... h6 20 Ne6!) 20 bxc5 Nbxd5 21 d4 and in an
already dubious position Black continued to play with fire with 21 ... h6?! Tal, being Tal,
played 22 Nxf7! and after 22 ... Kxf7 23 dxe5 the exposed Black king was unable to defend
itself and White won in 30 moves.
18 cxb4 h6 19 Nf5
Tal subsequently tried the advance 19 d4 but the flexible black pieces were able to support
the counter-blow 19 ... c5! effectively and in M.Tal-J.Smejkal, Tallinn 1971, Black achieved
good play after 20 bxc5 dxc5 21 dxe5 Nxe5 22 Nxe5 Rxe5 23 Bb2 Re8 24 Qf3 c4. Tal still
managed to win this game, but certainly not because of any opening advantage.

Exercise: What do you think Spassky played here?

 Answer:
19 ... d5
Just so! The stack of white pieces aimed at Black’s kingside will be neutralised after this
central blow, which we have already seen several times.
20 N3h4

Question: White continues to mass his forces away from the centre and the
left side of the board. This seems too ambitious, or too optimistic, doesn’t it?

Answer: White prepares to include his rook and/or his queen in the attack, with possible sacrifices on h6 or g7. These
sacrifices are dangerous and only an analysis of the tactics will decides whether or not they are sound.

Exercise: How should Black respond to White’s attack?

Answer:
20 ... c5!
It would be impractical to play 20 ... dxe4 owing to 21 Re3!
Spassky continues in the manner that will be the most uncomfortable for his opponent. He
does not allow White to complicate the game, even though these complications might
objectively be unfavourable, since this can only be ascertained after lengthy and time-
consuming analysis.
The engines maintain that the capture 20 ... Bxb4! was good, since the line 21 axb4 (21
Re3 Bf8 22 Rg3 is the alternative, with an attack that the engines also regard with scepticism)
21 ... Rxa1 22 Nxg7 Kxg7! 23 Bxh6+ Kxh6 24 Qxa1 objectively gives White insufficient
compensation for the piece, but of course this is not all forced and it requires precise
calculation.
21 Re3?!
Obliged to play for win, Tal decides to burn his bridges.
After the objectively better 21 exd5 Black can play 21 ... Bxd5, neutralising the dangerous
b3-bishop and creating a less complicated position in which White has no attack. The more
complicated 21 ... cxb4 22 d6 Nc5 is also good for Black.
 Exercise: How to proceed now?

Answer:
21 ... c4!
Of course, played on the principle of ‘that is one enemy less to worry about’. The b3-
bishop will take no further active part in the game.
22 Rg3

Exercise: What now?

Answer:
22 ... Kh7!
The same approach; Spassky played this after just a few seconds of thought. Instead, 22 ...
cxb3?! 23 Nxh6+ Kh7 24 Nxf7 would lead to the sort of complicated game that White was
seeking, with three pawns for the piece and the possibility of ‘fishing in troubled waters’.
23 Bc2

Question: Was it not better to play 23 Ba2, not ruling out the possibility
that the bishop might still come into play on the diagonal a2–g8?

Answer: Black would not allow the possibility of the Ba2 coming back to life. He would possibly play 23 ... Nb6! keeping
the bishop caged in on a2. Black’s castled position can cope with the momentary absence of the knight, for example 24 Nxg7
Bxg7 25 Nf5 Rg8 26 exd5 Bxd5.
23 ... d4!
Definitively closing the diagonal of the light-squared bishop.
24 Qf3
After the game Tal thought that it would have been better to interpolate 24 a4. Black must
then choose between several favourable-looking lines, such as 24 ... Qb6 25 a5 Qe6; or 24 ...
cxd3 25 Bb3 Nxe4.
 Exercise: It is obvious that White’s accumulation of forces on the kingside is
about to come to head. Black can look at the three white pieces on the
queenside and feel optimistic. How can Black further strengthen his kingside?

Answer:
24 ... Ra6!
The engines suggest various queen moves, but this is the most ‘human’ move, The rook
joins in the defence of the kingside (which can only arouse the envy of the rook on a1!).
25 Nxh6
This sacrifice will not succeed, but the objectively better move 25 Bd2 fails to strengthen
the attack. The best answer seems then seems to be 25 ... g6.
Equally fruitless would be 25 dxc4 bxc4 26 Nxd4 exd4! 27 e5+ d3 28 Qxb7 Rb6 and
Black wins, for example 29 Qa7 (or 29 Qf3 Nxe5 30 Qd1 [30 Qf5+ g6] 30 ... Ne4!) 29 ...
dxc2 30 exf6 Qxf6!
25 ... gxh6 26 Nf5 Qa8!
Striking at e4, and calculating that the king’s defences are adequate. The threat is 27 ...
cxd3 28 Bxd3 Bxe4.
27 Nxh6 Bxh6 28 Qf5+ Kh8 29 Bxh6 Rg8 30 Bg5
 Exercise: Black has the several attractive moves here. Which one do you prefer?

Answer:
30 ... Qe8!
It is no surprise that Spassky should prefer a move which allows all the black pieces to
work together. The queen defends f7 and prepares ... Nh7, allowing the a6-rook to cross to
the kingside.
In contrast, 30 ... cxd3 31 Bxd3 Bxe4? would be bad on account of 32 Bxf6+ Nxf6 33
Bxe4 Qxe4 34 Rxg8+ Kxg8 35 Qc8+ and Qxa6.
31 f4 Nh7
The engines suggest several other moves which are good, but continuing with the
advantageous plan begun with ... Qe8 is the most consistent.
32 Bh4 Rxg3 33 Bxg3 Rf6
And now there are more defenders than attackers, with an extra piece.
34 Qg4 Rg6 35 Qh4 exf4!
Clearing e5 for the knight.
36 Qxf4 f6 37 Bf2 cxd3 38 Bxd3 Ne5 39 Bf1 Ng5 40 Kh1 Nxe4 41 Rc1 0-1
Spassky was about to seal his move but Tal resigned here.

A Long Manoeuvring Phase Followed by a Stunning Attack

There are games in which a large number of possibilities remain open for a long time. For
example when the game is closed, few pieces have been exchanged, there are no exploitable
weaknesses in either camp, and it is not even clear on what flank one should be trying to take
the initiative.
This was the case, according to Spassky, at the start of our next game. After a long
manoeuvring phase, there was a change in the pawn structure and the situation was
completely transformed and play became extremely complicated. Black incautiously
weakened his kingside and was blown away by a brilliant attack.
This was another key victory contributing to Spassky’s great triumph in Santa Monica
1966, ahead of Fischer, Larsen, Petrosian and Portisch, among others, as we have already
mentioned.

Game 18
B.Spassky-W.Unzicker
Santa Monica 1966
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 c3 d6 9 h3 Nb8

The Breyer variation remains one of Black’s most solid defences.

10 d4 Nbd7 11 Nbd2 Bb7 12 Bc2
A typical retreat and necessary here to defend e4 and restore mobility to the d2-knight.
12 ... Re8 13 Nf1 Bf8 14 Ng3 g6 15 Bg5
The most popular continuations at that time were 15 a4 c5 16 d5 c4 17 Bg5 and 15 b3.
15 ... h6
Necessary, before White can exert a paralysing grip with 16 Qd2.
16 Bd2 Bg7
Another idea, used by Spassky himself, is to strike in the centre with 16 ... exd4! 17 cxd4
c5, as he played against Fischer in games 3 and 5 of their 1992 match.
 White has carried out the typical manoeuvre Nbd2-f1-g3 and has developed his queen’s
bishop. Now it is necessary to decide the next step and find a plan.
17 Rc1

Question: I understand that the rook is escaping the influence of the g7-bishop,
but this is a rather passive move, isn’t it? What is the rook doing on this square?

Answer: You are not wrong. Spassky has games with both colours featuring 17 Qc1 instead. The move in the game is not
the most energetic, although it has its own logic.
Let us hand over to Spassky, who gave a very instructive evaluation of this type of
position: “Where can White gain the victory, on the queen’s wing or the king’s? In the present
instance, with the configuration of pawns not clarified, I decided to make a move to bide
time. Such a move should prove useful in the proper circumstances. It should be mentioned
that Black’s position is so sound and his men so harmoniously placed that surprise attacks of
any kind do not bring victory. Often, in the Ruy Lopez, one must be patient, wait and carry on
a lengthy and wearisome struggle”.
This general assessment remains valid in positions like this one, but there has now been
extensive experience of this concrete position over the course of many years. As an example
of how different players can have different opinions about the same position, in a game of
great historical importance, R.Fischer-B.Spassky, 1st Matchgame Sveti-Stefan/Belgrade
1992, which saw Fischer’s brief return to competition after an absence of twenty years, he
made up his mind here and now which flank to operate on, selecting 17 a4 in Supplementary
Game 18.1.
Let us get back to our main game.
17 ... c5
The harmlessness of 17 Rc1 is apparent in the line given by Unzicker in the tournament
book: 17 ... d5 18 Nxe5 Nxe5 19 dxe5 Nxe4 20 Nxe4 dxe4 21 Bxe4 Bxe4 22 Rxe4 Bxe5 23
Qe2 Bg7 24 Bf4, and White has just an insignificant space advantage. This was later
confirmed in I.Morovic-M.Wong, Salonika Olympiad 1984, where Black had no problems.
18 d5
White gains a slight advantage in space, and nullifies the bishop on b7, although the
resolution of the central tension allows Black greater liberty to regroup.
“White’s goal (and it is a quite difficult one!) lies in making use of a slight superiority in
space to concentrate his forces on the weak part of the opponent’s position” (Spassky).

Exercise: With the knowledge gained so far, how would you play with Black here?

Answer:
18 ... Nb6?!
Unzicker criticised this move, which threatens 19 ... Nc4. More natural was 18 ... c4,
followed by ... Nc5, as played by Spassky himself against Fischer. Subsequently Black
reverted to this set-up.
19 Bd3 Qc7
Both here and in the future the move ... Bc8 deserved consideration, increasing the scope
of the bishop.
20 Nh2
 Question: Is this also a typical move in this opening?

Answer: Yes it is, with two basic ideas: making way for the advance f2-f4, when appropriate; and possibly playing Nh2-
g4. Here, since White has played d4-d5, Nh2-g4 would not, as in other cases, help in the fight for the d5 square by exchanging
the f6-knight; it merely applies pressure to Black’s kingside, without fearing the exchange with ... Nxg4, because bringing the
h-pawn closer to the centre and opening the h-file are more important than the creation of a doubled pawn.
20 ... Na4

Exercise: What is the best way to defend the b2-pawn?

Answer:
21 Rb1
This defence is more flexible that 21 Qc2, since White has envisioned another role for the
queen on the kingside. Black could reply in the same way as in the game, 21 ... c4 22 Bf1
Nc5, putting pressure on the e4 pawn, while the white bishop seems to be worse on f1 than
c2.
21 ... c4

Question: You mentioned the idea of playing ... c4 and ... Nc5
before. Isn’t it a bit late for it now, after losing two tempi?

Answer: It is true that Black has consumed two extra tempi on this manoeuvre, but the position is a closed one and White
is unable to use the time gained to open the position, so there’s no serious harm done.
22 Bc2 Nc5 23 Ng4 Kh7 24 Qf3
White continues with his manoeuvring game. Instead 24 Bxh6 Nxg4 25 Bxg7 Nxf2! 26
Kxf2 Kxg7 would give White the half-open f-file, but Black would be left with the better
structure.
 24 ... Nxg4
An important decision. Unzicker believed it to be almost forced, while Spassky was not so
sure that the exchange of knights was better than 24 ... Ng8!? After this both masters
considered 25 h4! to be the main continuation, followed by 26 h5, since it is not possible to
prevent this with 25 ... h5? owing to 26 Nxh5! gxh5 27 Qf5+ and wins. Black could continue
with the defensive 25 ... Bc8 or with the more active 25 ... a5, accelerating his counterplay.
Spassky himself suggested first regrouping with 25 ... Qe7 26 h5 Rf8, when there is no clear
way for White to make progress on the kingside, so he should possibly turn his attention to the
queenside with the break 27 b4 or 27 b3.

Exercise: How should White recapture on g4?

Answer:
25 hxg4
Of course, this was one of the ideas mentioned earlier, because “Black’s king will not feel
completely comfortable, since the prospect of an attack along the h-file is quite unpleasant”
(Spassky).
25 ... Qe7?!
Black starts a plan which will be punished by White in instructive fashion. It was
preferable to keep playing on the queenside with 25 ... a5.
 Exercise: How to attack? Or rather, how can White prepare an
offensive against the Black’s castled position? There is the
half-open h-file, but it is not obvious how to make use of it.

Answer:
26 b3!
White can only make progress gradually, as mentioned in Spassky’s comment at move 17.
Here he wrote, “The idea of this move is to exchange pawns and deprive Black’s knight of
the d3 square”.
26 ... cxb3 27 axb3 Bf6?!
This was the idea of 25 ... Qe7. The exchange of dark-squared bishops would suit Black,
since it would leave many weak dark squares in the white camp, but he will not achieve it. It
was better to regroup with 27 ... Bc8, followed by 28 ... Bd7.
28 Nf1!

Question: Why is this a good move?

Answer: Let’s just wait a while, and you’ll be able to tell me.
28 ... Bg5
 Exercise: How should White respond to the offered exchange of bishops?

Answer:
29 Ne3!
This was one of the ideas behind 28 Nf1! White prevents the exchange of bishops, because
“Of course it is better for White to avoid an exchange of bishops. The bishop’s position on g5
is rather insecure…” (Spassky).

Question: You said “one of the ideas”. What is the other one?

Answer: Once again I ask you to wait and answer it yourself.

29 ... Bc8

Exercise: So, what was the second main idea behind 28 Nf1?
 Answer:
30 g3!
Spassky’s comment quoted in the note to White’s 29th move continued: “ ... White can
prepare for f4 after a preliminary g3”. This was the other idea behind 28 Nf1!
30 ... Nd7?!
Black decides to give battle on the kingside, preventing f4 and targeting the g4-pawn.
Since this idea results in failure, it was better to play 30 ... a5 followed by ... Bd7,
maintaining harmony among Black’s forces.
31 Qe2 Nf6 32 f3
Black has managed to prevent the immediate threat, which was the advance f2-f4.
However, White can still gradually improve his position, whereas it is not so easy for Black.
For example after 32 ... Bd7 33 Kg2 Kg7, White could play on both flanks. He could force
through his idea of playing f4 by preparing it with 34 Rf1, without any haste; or he could first
paralyse the queenside with 34 Bd3, followed by doubling rooks on the a-file.
32 ... h5?

This is Black’s only clear error. He does not want to watch his initiative evaporate and so
he increases the tension on the kingside, where he has a lot of pieces, but where it turns out
that his king is not as well protected as the white monarch, and also the undefended bishop on
g5 proves to be a tactical weakness. Do not forget the general rule says ‘do not move the
pawns on the flank where you stand worse’.

Exercise: It does not look as though Black is in any danger from

tactical complications, but now we are entering a phase where
concrete calculation is important. How should White respond?

Answer:
33 Kg2!
It is clear that 33 gxh5 Nxh5 can only favour Black, who is thus able to improve the
coordination of his forces, while 33 Nf5 can be met with 33 ... Qa7+! But with the white king
on g2 “a threat is created by Nf5, because Black will not have a saving check by the queen at
a7” (Spassky). In addition the way is now clear for a rook to occupy the h-file. The text move
was overlooked by Unzicker when he started the plan of becoming active on the kingside with
30 ... Nd7.
33 ... Qd8

Exercise: How can 33 ... hxg4 be refuted?

Answer: White plays 34 Rh1+ Kg7 35 Nf5+! and the dark squares fall into White’s hands to devastating effect. 34 ...
Kg8 would also be answered with 33 Nf5!, and the pin on the f6-knight after 33 ... gxf5 34 Bxg5 is equally decisive.
34 Rh1 Kg8

Exercise: I think you have already been given enough insights into Spassky’s methods of play for you to be able to guess
what he played here.
Answer:
35 Rbf1!
Bringing up his reserves if he cannot find a concrete solution is Spassky’s trademark.
“Each of White’s move is a blow. He deploys his forces into positions of maximum
activity and all with gain of time, because they contain threats” (Panno).
The advance f4 is on the agenda again. If now 35 ... hxg4 White wins with 36 f4 exf4 37
gxf4, when the sacrifice 37 ... Nxe4 38 Bxe4 Rxe4 39 fxg5 Qxg5 does not work, since 40
Qf2! unpins and simultaneously attacks f7, highlighting the fact that Black is really suffering
from the absence of his a8-rook and the c8-bishop from the struggle. In the event of 40 ... Qe7
Unzicker gave 41 c4, with the idea of 42 Bc3, with a winning advantage, while 41 Rh6 is
also strong. Also 40 ... f5 is refuted by 41 Nxf5! Qxf5 42 Qh4 Qf3+ 43 Kg1! and wins.
35 ... Bh6
 Exercise: White has all his pieces on the kingside, and furthermore Black has
somewhat weakened his position on that wing. How to break through?

Answer:
36 Nf5!
“A very beautiful sacrifice which decides the fight” (Unzicker). The weakened squares in
Black’s castled position will be at the mercy of the white pieces.
36 ... Bxd2
Black must accept the sacrifice. In the event of 36 ... Bf8? White can gain a winning attack
in several ways. Spassky gives 37 Nh6+ Kg7 38 gxh5 Nxh5 39 Rxh5 (or the simple 39 Nf5+
Kg8 40 Rh2 etc.) 39 ... gxh5 40 f4‚ for example 40 ... Kxh6 41 f5+ Kg7 42 Qxh5, followed by
43 Rh1, or 43 f6, mating quickly.
37 Qxd2 gxf5
Spassky gives a convincing line against 37 ... Nh7 with 38 Qh6 Qf6 39 g5 Qh8 40 Nxd6
Rd8 41 Nf5! gxf5 42 Rxh5 Qg7 43 Qb6 Bd7 44 Rfh1 Nf8 45 Qf6! and the black king cannot
escape mate after 45 ... Ng6 46 exf5 etc.
38 Qh6!
Threatening 39 g5, followed by Rxh5.
38 ... fxe4 39 fxe4 Bxg4
The opening of the h-file with 39 ... Nxg4 40 Qxh5 Ne3+ 41 Kg1 leads to immediate mate.
40 Rxf6
Now that White has regained the piece, any hope of salvation for Black is dashed.
40 ... Qe7
If 40 ... Qc7 then 41 Qg5+ Kf8 42 Rh6, mating.
41 Qg5+ Kf8
 Exercise: The black position hangs by thread.
What is White’s most effective continuation?

Answer:
42 Bd1!
“After the exchange of bishops Black is helpless”, said Spassky.
42 Rhf1 was also good, with the idea of the quiet but deadly manoeuvre 43 Qg6 and 44
Qh7.
42 ... Bxd1 43 Rxd1 Rec8 44 Rdf1 Rxc3 45 Qxh5 Rc2+ 46 Kh1 1-0

Supplementary Game 18.1

R.Fischer-B.Spassky
1st Matchgame Sveti-Stefan/Belgrade 1992

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 c3 d6 9 h3 Nb8 10 d4 Nbd7 11 Nbd2 Bb7
12 Bc2 Re8 13 Nf1 Bf8 14 Ng3 g6 15 Bg5 h6 16 Bd2 Bg7
 17 a4!
“A classic Spanish motif – play against the b5-pawn” (Kasparov).
17 ... c5 18 d5 c4
This advance is also typical. Black gains the c5 square for his knight and is able to
improve the coordination of his pieces.
19 b4! Nh7?!
It was better to play 19 ... cxb3 20 Bxb3 Nc5 and now if 21 c4 Kasparov suggested that
Black can survive his slight inferiority with 21 ... bxa4 22 Bxa4 Rf8, followed by regrouping
with ... Qc7, ... Rfb8, ... Nfd7, etc., with adequate control of the queenside.
20 Be3 h5 21 Qd2 Rf8

22 Ra3!
This doubling of rooks on the closed a-file bears a certain resemblance to the manoeuvre
employed in Karpov-Unzicker, Nice Olympiad 1974, although the motivation in that game
was to be able to continue manoeuvring without allowing an exchange of rooks until it suited
White. In this game White has a different, more concrete idea.
 22 ... Ndf6 23 Rea1 Qd7 24 R1a2 Rfc8 25 Qc1!
White will not just double but triple on the a-file.
25 ... Bf8 26 Qa1 Qe8

Black has made all his preparations to deal with White’s invasion along the a-file, which
would now only lead to simplification. However, White now shows that there is a serious
weakness in Black’s position, namely the b5 pawn, and he now begins a knight manoeuvre to
attack it.
27 Nf1!
The knight is heading for b1, with the plan of exchanging pawns on b5, swapping off the
major pieces and then playing Na3, winning the pawn on b5.
27 ... Be7 28 N1d2 Kg7 29 Nb1!
Here Black was almost forced to take radical measures.
29 ... Nxe4! 30 Bxe4 f5 31 Bc2 Bxd5
With this Black gained counterplay, but after a complicated struggle White won.

A Surprising and Devastating Attack

The semi-final Candidates match between Spassky and Lajos Portisch began on July 3rd 1977
in Geneva, Switzerland, to be contested over sixteen games. After losing the eighth game,
Spassky was down 4½-3½. The ninth game, which we shall examine now, proved to be
critical. Spassky had the white pieces, with which he had so far scored only 50%. After a
manoeuvring struggle in a position that both sides handled perfectly, Spassky made an
apparently harmless move which induced Portisch to lower his guard, and he made an error.
After that Spassky’s pressure turned into a hurricane that blasted Black’s position and he won
with a brilliant attack.
This was followed by three draws, (according to Portisch, he missed a win in the 12th
game). Spassky won the 13th and 14th games and after drawing the 15th game Spassky
emerged the winner by 8½-6½, thus qualifying for the final against Korchnoi, which we will
discuss later.

Game 19
B.Spassky-L.Portisch
9th Matchgame, Geneva 1977
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 Nb8
Both opponents are experts in the Breyer variation. Portisch played it from 1964 to 1989,
while Spassky played it for much longer, from 1955 to 1998, and with both colours.
10 d4 Nbd7 11 Nbd2 Bb7 12 Bc2 Re8

13 Nf1
The alternatives are 13 a4 and 13 b4. The latter move was used by Fischer against
Spassky in their match in Reykjavik 1972.
13 ... Bf8
This is the normal move, but in the 1980’s Spassky experimented with 13 ... d5 several
times, but without much success. In the 1990s he once tried giving up the centre by playing 13
... cxd4 14 cxd4 d5 15 e5 Ne4, but after 16 N3d2! he had to exchange his best piece and
White was left with a slight advantage in J.Polgar-B.Spassky, Hoogovens 1998.
14 Ng3 g6
The inactive bishop heads for g7, where it stands ready for action if the centre is opened. It
is also possible to start with 14 ... c5, when H.Westerinen-B.Spassky, Tallinn 1973 continued
15 b3 g6 16 Bb2 Bg7 17 Qd2 Qc7 18 Bd3?! (this fails tactically, so it was better to play 18
Rad1 or even 18 d5) 18 ... c4! 19 bxc4 bxc4 20 Bc2.
 After this Black clearly takes charge. 20 ... d5 was good, but what Spassky played was
even better: 20 ... exd4! 21 Nxd4

Exercise: With this move White concedes the squares e5 and c5, to the
benefit of the black knights. Of course White does not make this move
willingly, but it is the lesser of the evils. Why didn’t White play 21 cxd4?

Answer: Black has the move 21 ... c3! gaining great activity after 22 Qxc3 Qxc3 23 Bxc3 Rac8 24 Ne2 (not 24 Re3?
Bh6, while 24 e5 Rxc3 25 exf6 Nxf6 is similar to 24 Ne2) 24 ... Nxe4! 25 Bxe4 Bxe4 and the black bishops are very strong.
In these lines the absence of the a1-rook from the struggle is felt.
The game continued 21 ... Nc5 22 Qf4 Nfd7! 23 Ba3 Ne5 24 Re3?! Ncd3! 25 Qh4 Qa5 and
Black parried the white attack easily and gained the advantage.
15 a4
In the earlier game, B.Spassky-W.Unzicker, Los Angeles 1966, we saw 15 Bg5.
15 ... c5 16 d5 c4 17 Bg5
Trying to provoke 17 ... h6. The immediate 17 Be3 has also been played. In A.Karpov-
L.Portisch, Milano 1975, Black neutralised the danger on the a-file with 17 ... Nc5 18 Qe2
Nfd7 19 Nd2 Qc7 20 Ra3 Nb6 21 axb5 axb5 22 Rea1 Rxa3 23 Rxa3 Bc8! 24 Qd1 Bd7 25
Qa1 Nba4 and a draw was agreed after 26 b3.
17 ... h6
Spassky played this move a few times himself. He also played 17 ... Nc5 in L.Kavalek-
B.Spassky, Montreal 1979 and 17 ... Be7 18 Be3 Qc7 19 Ra3 Nc5 in V.Ciocaltea-B.Spassky,
Dortmund 1973.
With White, Spassky faced 17 ... Rb8, which is a typical move that we have already seen
used by Portisch. The plan is to play ... Bc8 and ... Nc5, followed by moving the bishop to d7
at an opportune moment. The preparatory rook move is necessary, because 17 ... Bc8? fails to
18 axb5. B.Spassky–A.Karpov, Leningrad 1974 continued 17 ... Rb8 18 Qd2 Bc8 19 axb5
axb5 20 Ra2 Bg7 21 Rea1 Nc5. The character of the position is similar, leading to long
manoeuvres, where one of Black’s priorities is to neutralise White’s domination of the a-file.
18 Be3 Nc5
 19 Qd2

Question: Isn’t it appropriate to double the

pawns with 19 Bxc5, weakening Black’s structure?

Answer: Both in this position and later on, it is possible to double the pawns, but the problem is how to exploit the
weakness. The pawns are not on an open file, and there is no obvious plan for White which would compensate for the loss of
his dark-squared bishop, so it would seem that White stands to lose more than he gains. On the other hand, Black would have
a plan to move a knight to the newly available d6-square.
19 ... Kh7

20 Nh2
In the third game of the match Spassky followed the typical plan of doubling the rooks with
20 Ra3. Black regrouped satisfactorily in a similar way to what we have already seen with
20 ... Rb8 21 Rea1 Re7 22 R1a2 Rc7 23 axb5 axb5 24 Qd1 Nfd7 25 h4 Bc8 26 h5 Nf6! The
black pieces are all harmoniously deployed and after a long struggle Black emerged the
winner.
On this occasion Spassky decides to focus his attention on the kingside first, preparing to
break with f2-f4 an opportune moment.
20 ... Bg7 21 Rf1
Spassky continues to regroup, in order to be able to play f2-f4 in the best circumstances.
This pawn break would cede control of the e5-square to Black, so it is best not to rush with
it. After the immediate 21 f4?! Black can play 21 ... exf4 22 Bxf4 bxa4! and the e4-pawn is
weak. If 23 Bxa4? then 23 ... Nfxe4.
Of course exchanging on b5 to be able to play f2-f4 opens up the game and White cannot
easily make progress, while Black can regroup satisfactorily. For example, 21 axb5 axb5 22
Rxa8 Qxa8 23 f4 exf4 24 Bxf4 Qa6, with the idea of ... Nfd7 and ... Ne5, when White’s
activity on the kingside is not dangerous.
After 21 Rf1 White is ready to play 22 f4 exf4 23 Rxf4, with the e4-pawn solidly
defended, followed by Raf1. It should be appreciated that in return for granting Black the e5-
square, White gains not only the half-open f-file but also the use of the d4-square, so Nf3-d4
comes into the picture.
21 ... h5

22 f3

Question: Only as far as f3? I thought f2-f4 was the plan?

Answer: You cannot always do what you want. 22 f4 would be answered with 22 ... h4! so White makes a waiting move,
bolstering his e4-pawn and thus freeing his minor pieces from its defence.
22 ... Qe7?
White’s last move seems so harmless that Black relaxes and seriously weakens his
position.
22 ... Nfd7 was playable. It allows 23 f4, but Black has nothing to complain about after 23
... exf4 24 Rxf4 Kg8. Other moves suggested were 22 ... Qc7 and 22 ... Kg8, maintaining the
pressure on e4.
 Exercise: "I had a good feeling for the critical moments of the game"
said Spassky about his play in general, and this is a good example.
How did Spassky demonstrate that Black’s last move was a mistake?

Answer:
23 Bg5!
This unpleasant pin places the bishop in a dominating position and prepares f4.
Of course not the immediate 23 f4? exf4 24 Rxf4 Nxd5!
We can now see more clearly the usefulness of the suggestion 22 ... Kg8. Black would
have prophylactically defended f7 (in case White opens the f-file) and vacated the h7-square
for possible use of the f6-knight.
23 ... Qf8
Black escapes the pin, keeping f7 defended in case the f-file becomes open. It allows him
to play ... Nfd7 after taking on f4, although we’ll see that this defence seems to be more
artificial than defending f7 with the king or with a rook.

Exercise (easy): How did Spassky continue?

Answer:
24 f4!
Of course, why not?
24 ... exf4 25 Rxf4 Nfd7 26 Raf1 Ne5
 Exercise: After the dubious move 22 ... Qe7 White has opened
the f-file and Black has placed his knight on e5. How did
Spassky show that his achievements are the more important?

Answer:
27 Nxh5!
Exploiting not only the weakness of Black’s kingside but also taking advantage of White’s
numerical superiority of forces (attackers vs. defenders) and also the bad placement of the
black pieces.
It is possible that if the immediate knight sacrifice was not so crushing, Spassky would
have chosen 27 Qd1, which is also strong.
27 ... gxh5 28 Qe2 Qh8
In the event of 28 ... Kg8 White plays 29 Qxh5, threatening 30 Rh4, and then if 29 ... Ng6
30 e5! or if 29 ... Ncd7 30 Ng4! (also good is 30 Rh4 f6 31 Qh7+ Kf7 32 Rhf4 with a
winning attack) when 30 ... Ng6 loses to 31 Rxf7 Qxf7 32 Rxf7 Kxf7 33 e5, while if 30 ...
Nxg4 the quickest way is 31 e5! Nh6 32 e6! with rapid demolition.
 Exercise: What is the best way to continue the offensive?

Answer:
29 Rh4!
Bringing more pieces into the attack. White should avoid 29 Qxh5+? Kg8 30 Qe2 Qh7! and
Black successfully regroups.
29 ... Kg6
Venturing out with the king like this is not something one does willingly, but of course 29 ...
Kg8 30 Rxh5 is unacceptable.

Exercise: How should White continue now?

Answer:
30 Bd1!
The bishop on g5 is immune from capture and now we have another piece aiming towards
the black king; 30 Qf2 was also good, threatening mate, and if 30 ... f6 31 Bd1.
30 ... f5
In the event of 30 ... f6 then 31 Qf2! transposes to the previous note. Let us take this a bit
further: if 31 ... Bc8 in addition to the simple retreat 32 Be3 followed by capturing on h5, it is
possible to play 32 Bxh5+ Qxh5 33 Rxh5 right away, for example 33 ... Kxh5 34 Qh4+ Kg6
35 Bxf6 and wins. After other moves Black does not even have a material advantage: if 33 ...
fxg5 then among other things 34 g4 wins, while after 33 ... Nxe4 34 Qh4 Nxg5 35 g4! Black
has no good defence against 36 Rxg5+ and 36 Qh5++.
31 Rxf5 Rf8 32 Qxh5+
The exchange of queens brings Black no relief, since he will soon have to return material.
32 ... Qxh5 33 Bxh5+ Kh7

Exercise (easy): How can White regain the sacrificed material with interest?

Answer:
 34 Bf7+
Of course! This prevents 34 ... Kg8 and Black must now return the piece.
34 ... Bh6 35 Rxh6+ Kg7

Exercise: There are now many ways to win.

Spassky chose the quickest way. Can you find it?

Answer:
36 Bf6+!
If 36 ... Kxh6 37 Rh5++.
36 ... Kxf7
Forced, but now White wins even more material.
37 Bxe5+ Ke8 38 Rxf8+ Kxf8 39 Bxd6+ Kg7 40 Ng4 1-0

The ‘sleepy bear’ Counter-attacks

Spassky scored a great triumph in the Linares tournament of 1983, ahead of World Champion Karpov, who shared second
place with Andersson. That year was the fourth such annual tournament in Linares and it was very strong. Subsequently it
became the strongest event in the world and was known for its great fighting spirit.
It cannot be said that Spassky showed great fighting spirit in his games that year. Many of
his games ended quickly, but when he was forced to fight, he fought. He won three games,
proving that his saying “I’m a sleepy bear but, when I wake up, I can be dangerous” was not
said in vain.
He should have lost his game against Seirawan, but he fought with great tenacity and ended
up winning. Another victory was against Larsen, who overreached in a balanced position and
the third win was the one we shall see now, against Timman.
The Dutch Grandmaster played an aggressive set-up with castling on the opposite wings.
They reached a type of position in which attack has to be combined with defence and here
Spassky was superior, winning brilliantly.

Game 20
J.Timman-B.Spassky
Linares 1983
Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Deferred

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 Bxc6+ bxc6 6 d4 exd4 7 Qxd4 c5 8 Qd3 g6

This was a novelty when Spassky played it, although the idea is familiar from many lines
of the Ruy Lopez, including the Fianchetto defence 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 g6. This was
developed by Steinitz and Pillsbury, subsequently revived by Smyslov, and more recently
played by Carlsen.
The f8-bishop has a splendid diagonal on g7, and ideally Black hopes to gain two tempi
compared to the lines where the bishop first develops on e7, then goes to f8 and g7.
9 Nc3
White proceeds with his development, not yet committing his king.
Direct methods to try to punish 8 ... g6 have been tried, for example 9 0-0 Bg7 10 e5 was
played in M.Wahls-J.Piket, Hamburg 1991. The idea is 10 ... dxe5?! runs into 11 Nxe5!
Bxe5? 12 Qe4, regaining the piece with advantage. But this is not a serious problem, because
instead Black can reply 10 ... Ne7 and now White is unable to increase the pressure on the
black pawns quickly enough. After 11 Bf4 Bf5 12 Qd2 0-0 13 exd6 cxd6 the long diagonal is
once again open and the b2-pawn is attacked. If 14 Nc3 then 14…d5 is playable.
Piket’s choice of 10 ... Bf5 was also fine, but after 11 Qe2, instead of his 11 ... d5 it seems
better to play 11 ... Ne7, without fearing 12 Bg5 h6 13 Bf6 0-0 13 Nc3 Bxf6 14 exf6 Nc6 15
Nd5 Be6 and Black no has problems. He can complete his development and bring all his
pieces into play, while the pawn on f6 presents more of a weakness than a threat.
9 ... Bg7 10 Bf4
White continues to prepare queenside castling, with the possibility of playing e4-e5 to
block out the g7-bishop and put pressure on d6.
Another idea was 10 Bg5, to provoke ... f6, temporarily closing the long diagonal.
 Exercise (easy): What is wrong with the reply 10 ... Nf6?

Answer: The vigorous advance 11 e5 wins a piece after 11 ... dxe5 12 Qxd8+ Kxd8 12 Nd5 or 11 ... Bf5 12 exf6 Bxd3 13
fxg7.
However, 10 ... f6 does not harm Black’s game, since he can quickly complete his
development. J.Timman-K.Spraggett, Taxco 1985, continued 11 Bh4?! (this hinders a future ...
f5, although it was better to play the more natural 11 Bf4) 11 ... Ne7 12 0-0-0 Be6! (12 ... 0-0
is dubious on account of 13 e5! fxe5 14 Nd5, even though after the typical computer sequence
14 ... Bh6+ 15 Kb1 g5 16 Nxg5 Black seems to hold with 16 ... Ng6!; but of course this line is
hardly practical and needs checking in over-the-board games and it is almost miraculous that
Black is not losing) 13 h3 (a slow plan, but there is nothing dangerous for Black) 13 ... 0-0 14
g4 Nc6 15 Nd5 and here there are several attractive possibilities, including the typical
Steinitz Deferred manoeuvre 15 ... Qb8, followed by ... Qb7, Rb8, etc. In the game Black
chose the prophylactic move 15 ... Kh8 and gained some advantage after 16 Nd2?! Qb8! 17
c3 Ne5! 18 Qc2 Bxd5! 19 exd5 Bh6!
10 ... Ne7
 11 0-0-0

Question: Queenside castling? Isn’t it very dangerous, considering the open b-file and the strength of the g7-bishop?
Wasn’t it better to castle on the kingside?

Answer: There is no doubt that 11 0-0 was safer. What you say is true, but do not forget that by playing 8 ... g6 Black
presented White with a possible ‘hook’ with h4-h5 and White is relying on his attack striking first.
White had another possibility as well. The advance 11 e5 was not clear, as Black seems to
be able to neutralise the pressure on d6 after 11 ... Bf5 12 Qe3 Be6! 13 0-0-0 Nf5 14 Qe2
Qc8! (heading for b7, and hindering the advance g2-g4), followed by ... Rb8, ... 0-0, etc.
It is worth mentioning Timman’s suggestion: 11 Qd2! planning to answer 11 ... 0-0 with 12
Bh6, exchanging the powerful g7-bishop, which he never achieved in the game.
Good ideas do not guarantee that you will play well. The order of moves is also important, as
this game will once again confirm, and to ascertain the best order it is necessary to analyse
accurately.
11 ... 0-0 12 Qd2
Both sides need to keep the advance e4-e5 under consideration, but Black seems to be able
to gain counterplay by sacrificing the d6-pawn, with two very different ideas in mind. After
12 e5 one idea is to keep the queens on and prepare an offensive against the white king, using
the long dark diagonal, with 12…Nf5 13 exd6 cxd6 14 Bxd6 Nxd6 15 Qxd6 Qa5. The other
idea is 14 ... c4 15 Qd5 Nxd6 16 Qxd6 Bb7 when the bishop pair should keep the balance in
the endgame. It would be risky for White to play 16 Qxa8 Qa5! 17 Rxd6 Bxc3 and now
White’s best seems to be 18 Qd5 (18 bxc3? Qa3+ and ... Qxd6) 18 ... Qxa2 19 bxc3 Qa1+
and 20 ... Qxh1, equalising the game.
There are further aggressive ideas. 12 ... Bf5 is playable. After 13 Qd2 (if 13 Qe2 Rb8! or
13 Qe3 Re8!) 13 ... Nc6! 14 exd6 cxd6 and now 15 Qxd6?! looks dubious in view of 15 ...
Qa5! 16 Qxc6 Bxc3 17 bxc3 Rac8! followed by 18 ... Qa4, hitting both c2 and the bishop on
f4; 15 Bxd6 is better, but Black still gains good counterplay by sacrificing the exchange with
15 ... Qb6 or 15 ... Qa5.
 Exercise (easy): What is Black’s best move here?

Answer:
12 ... Re8!
You might have realised that this is what Timman wanted to prevent with his suggestion of
11 Qd2. Now Black is not obliged to exchange his strong dark-squared bishop. This move is
also familiar from similar positions in the King’s Indian and the Sicilian Dragon.
13 Bh6?!
White abandons the idea of e4-e5. Admittedly after 13 e5 Black could gain good play in a
similar manner to what we have already seen with 13 ... Bg4 14 exd6 cxd6 15 Bxd6 Nf5,
according to Vasyukov, but 13 Bh6 is inferior, as Spassky will demonstrate.
13 ... Bh8 14 h4
It is not surprising that without the bishop on f4, 14 e5 is not as threatening now, since it
puts less pressure d6. Almost any reply is playable, such as 14 ... Bg4, 14 ... Bb7 or even 14
... Rb8, based on the fact that 15 exd6 cxd6 16 Qxd6? loses to 16 ... Qxd6 17 Rxd6 Nf5.
 14 ... Rb8
Black has a clear plan to occupy the b-file with his major pieces, well supported by the
long-range bishop on h8.

Question: Wasn’t it better to play 14 ... Bg4, preventing

the advance h4-h5 and pinning the knight on f3?

Answer: The problem is that it does not prevent h4-h5 permanently. For example White can play 15 Rde1, unpinning the
f3-knight, with the idea of 16 Ng5, f3, h5, etc. Playing h4-h5 as a sacrifice at some point should not be ruled out either,
although it does not seem to be necessary.
15 a3?

Question: I really do not understand this move, which seems to violate

at least two rules that I thought were valid: ‘do not advance pawns on
your weaker flank’ and ‘in an attacking race with the kings castled on
opposite wing no time should be lost’. So why didn’t White play 15 h5?

Answer: Leaving aside the obvious fact that both grandmasters also know these rules, White rejected 15 h5 for tactical
reasons. However, it is true that appearances do not deceive here and White’s move is bad for exactly the reasons you
mentioned.
The tactical justification is that after 15 h5 Black can play 15 ... c6, planning 16 ... Qb6.
Then 16 Na4 can be answered by 16 ... Rb4 and after 17 b3 Black can play 17 ... Rxe4 or 17
... Rxa4 18 bxa4 Qb6 (threatening mate on b2) and now 19 c3?! allows 19 ... Nd5! when 20
exd5? loses to 20 ... Bf5 21 Qb2 Qxb2+ 22 Kxb2 Rb8+ despite White’s extra rook. There are
many other possibilities for both sides, but this at least explains White’s decision. Timman’s
15 a3 rules out ... Rb4, and now 15 ... c6 can be answered with 16 Na4, holding up the black
attack.
 15 ... Be6
The alternative was 15 ... Bg4, which perhaps was even stronger, but the most important
thing for Black is not to be side-tracked from his objective, which is to attack the white king.
Now, with the c8-square vacated, Black plans 16 ... Qc8 and ... Qb7.
16 Ng5
After 16 h5 Qc8 16 hxg6 Nxg6 White’s attack is almost paralysed, while Black’s continues
unabated. In such attacking positions it would usually be beneficial to White to open the h-
file, either now or later on, but here it wouldn’t help, because White is already behind in the
attacking race.
16 ... Qc8 17 Nxe6 Qxe6 18 Kb1
White wants to defend b2 with Rb1, after putting his king on a1, although playing in such a
passive way voluntarily is a bad sign.

Exercise: How should Black continue now?

 Answer:
18 ... Rb7
As he almost always does, Spassky opts to enlist all his pieces in the attack. He now plans
to bring the rook from e8 to b8.
18 ... Nc6 was also strong, heading for the c4-square at an opportune moment. Both moves
will be necessary and useful and could well transpose.
19 Ka1 Reb8 20 Rb1 Nc6
Heading for the c4-square, as mentioned above.
21 f4

Exercise: What do you think Spassky played here?

Answer:
21 ... Bd4!
Keeping all his pieces active, without deviating from his objective.
The move 21 ... Na5! was also attractive. After 22 f5 Qe5 23 Bf4 Black has 23 ... Nc4!,
since simplifying with 24 Bxe5 Nxd2 25 Bxh8 Nxb1 leads to the loss of the exchange, while
24 Qf2 allows the pretty sacrifice 24 ... Qxc3! 25 bxc3 Bxc3+ and mate in a few moves.
It is possible that Spassky did not consider, or quickly dismissed as unnecessary, the move
preferred by the computers: the surprising 21 ... Bxc3, based on the fact that after 22 Qxc3
Nd4 the pretty tactical shot ... Rb3! is in the air.
22 Qd3

Exercise: All of Spassky’s pieces are in play. What do you think

he played here to increase the pressure on White’s position?

Answer:
22 ... a5!
All his pieces are indeed in play, but, as we shall see, the knight can still increase its
activity.
23 Qh3 f5
Spassky continues with his logical play. There is no inconvenience in opening his king’s
position, because White is unable to exploit this. Naturally Black does not want to exchange
queens. Black has the initiative and his queen is very well placed on the a2-g8 diagonal, as
we shall see.
There were other good moves here too, such as 23 ... Qc4.
24 Rhe1

Exercise: What was the idea of 22 ... a5!?

Answer:
24 ... Nb4!
The knight lands the decisive blow. This move has been in the air for a while, but Spassky
plays it at the strongest moment.
25 axb4
This is forced, but the opening of the a-file is decisive and the game ends in a few moves.
25…axb4 26 Na4
26 Na2 is also answered with 26 ... Ra7, with mate in three moves.
26 ... Ra7 27 Qb3 c4 28 Qa2 Rba8 29 exf5 Rxa4 0-1

‘The Code of Honour of the Icelandic sagas’

To explain the heading of this game, we have to understand what happened in the twelfth round of the Reykjavik tournament
in 1988, in the third leg of the World Cup, which was organised by the now defunct GMA. This was the era when Kasparov
and Karpov were clearly the best players in the world. Kasparov was winning all the tournaments, almost always outright, but
in this event he was in the chasing group just behind the leaders.
For his part, Spassky was not having a good tournament. This was a 17-round tournament
and he lacked the energy to fight in every round. He had squandered some good positions as a
result of tiredness, such as losing a winning position against Yusupov in the fifth round. In the
fourth hour of play his playing strength declined. The rate of play was also faster now, which
did not suit him.
“In former days you played this kind of tournament once every two years, now there are
three in a year”, he commented. The following game is an example of Spassky saving his
energy.

B.Spassky-G.Kasparov
Reykjavik 1988
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Bc4 e6 5 Nf3 Ne7 6 0-0 Nec6 7 d3 g6 8 Nxd4 cxd4 9 Ne2
Bg7 10 Bd2 0-0 11 b4

Accompanied with a draw offer.

11 ... b6 12 b5 Ne7
The knight will be badly placed on e7. 12 ... Na5 was suggested as better.
13 Bb4! d6 14 a4 a5 15 Ba3 Bb7 16 Bb3 d5 17 f3 Qc7 18 Qe1 Rad8 19 Qh4 ½-½
 Spassky now repeated his draw offer. Here’s how Timman evaluated the position in New
in Chess magazine: “White can quietly consolidate his position with Rae1 and then redirect
his knight to g4 (Ng3-h1-f2-g4). Black has little to set against that. With ... e5, he would only
make matters worse for himself, as this would give White another point of action”.
Spassky accompanied his draw proposal with a little speech, more amusing than
threatening, as he was in the habit of doing. According to Timman, Spassky said to Kasparov
something like “I’m giving you a last chance. If you refuse the draw now I will wipe you off
the board”. It is worth remembering that at this time the score between Spassky and Kasparov
was 2-0 in Spassky’s favour.
Timman wrote: “The code of honour of the Icelandic sagas would have forced the hero to
fight to the death after such a humiliating challenge; but Kasparov wisely accepted the offer.
And it was true that his position had become extremely dubious”.
Of course Spassky did not offer draws ‘out of generosity’. He knew that to win this game
he would have had to fight to the death, very probably beyond the fourth hour, consuming all
his energy, at the risk of repeating what happened against Yusupov. If the second draw offer
had been refused, there would have been no third offer and psychologically he would then be
playing without pressure, free of any regret that he had not offered a draw.
In the last round of the tournament Spassky faced Beliavsky, who was leading the
tournament along with Kasparov, who had to play Nikolic.

Game 21
B.Spassky-A.Beliavsky
Reykjavik 1988
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 Nc3

Spassky had an affinity for this natural, but uncommon continuation.
5…b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 d3 d6 8 Nd5 Nxd5
This exchange brings the bishop into a dominating position, but it still leads to an
approximately equal game.
Another idea is to eliminate the ‘Spanish bishop’ with 8 ... Na5. Spassky played several
games with this variation which continued 9 Nxe7 Qxe7 10 0-0. Now B.Spassky-J.Van der
Wiel, Rotterdam 1988 saw 10 ... c5 11 Bd2 Nxb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 Qe2 Bb7 14 Nh4! d5 15
Nf5 Qe6 16 f3 Kh8 17 c4! (restricting the b7-bishop) 17 ... dxc4 18 dxc4 Nd7 19 Rfd1 g6 20
Ne3 and White’s position is advantageous. White’s domination of d5 is more important than
Black’s hold on the d4-square. Black played 20 ... f5 to try to force the position, but without
success.
In B.Spassky-A.Yusupov, Linares 1990, Black preferred to do without ... c5, opting for 10
... 0-0, to which Spassky replied 11 Bd2. This game was played in the first round and
Spassky suffered a crushing defeat after 11 ... Nxb3 12 axb3 Nd7! 13 Re1?! (White’s plan to
play d4 will be severely punished; Spassky thought that he should have played 13 Ba5 c5 14
Nd2, with equality) 13 ... Bb7 14 d4? (consistent, but wrong; it was better to play 14 Bg5 f6
15 Bh4 with the same idea of continuing with Nd2)
 Exercise: How can Black punish White’s idea?

Answer:
Black can strongly activate his pieces with 14 ... f5! 15 exf5 (no better is 15 dxe5 fxe4 16
exd6 Qf7! 17 Bc3 Rae8 and Black soon regains the material with interest, thanks to his
tremendous activity, for example 18 Ng5 Qxf2+ 19 Kh1 e3 20 Qg4 h5 21 Qg3 cxd6 as
indicated by Yusupov) 15 ... Rxf5 16 dxe5 and here Yusupov chose the most elegant and at the
same time the strongest continuation 16 ... Rxf3! 17 gxf3 Nxe5 and Black won quickly.
In a later round of the Linares tournament, instead of 11 Bd2 Spassky left that square
vacant and played 11 Bg5, as he had already played against Beliavsky in Tilburg 1981. The
Linares game continued 11 ... h6 12 Bh4 (12 Bxf6, played in the Tilburg game, is less
ambitious) 12 ... Bb7 13 Nd2, B.Spassky-N.Short, Linares 1990, with a slight advantage to
White.
9 Bxd5 Bd7 10 c3 0-0 11 d4 Qe8 12 0-0
Spassky offered a draw (naturally without the little lecture he had given Kasparov), which
was rejected.
It would sound romantic to say that Beliavsky wanted to respect the ‘code of honour of the
Icelandic sagas’ and carry on fighting for victory ‘to the death’, taking all sorts of risks. But
the reality was that Beliavsky turned down the draw because he considered that Kasparov
stood better against Nikolic.
12 ... Rd8 13 dxe5 dxe5
In the event of 13 ... Nxe5 14 Nxe5 dxe5 White can play 15 Qh5 and although the queen
cannot attack alone and is therefore not to be feared, the position has been simplified and it is
more difficult for Black to complicate the game. So Black tries to maintain the tension,
consistent with his rejection of the draw offer.
14 Qe2
The white queen evades the ‘X-ray’ pressure of the rook on d8 and postpones the decision
about the deployment of his pieces. Creating tension on the queenside with 14 a4 Bf6 (or 14
... Bd6 with the same idea) 15 axb5 axb5 16 Qe2 Ne7 would not give White much.
 14 ... Bd6

Exercise: There is still no great imbalance in the position, but that should
not prevent White from trying to make progress. What would you play here?

Answer:
15 Nh4
White takes advantage of the black bishop having moved from e7 to play this move, which
allows the possibility of playing the queen to h5, while at the same time dreaming of playing
the knight to f5 at some point.
15 ... Ne7 16 Bb3 c5
Black continues with the plan of nullifying the bishop with ... c5-c4.
A different idea was suggested here: 16 ... Kh8 with the idea of ... f6, ... g5 and ... Ng6.
This was also interesting, but over the board it would not have been easy to opt for this rather
untypical continuation, especially if Black also has a good position by more normal play.
17 Be3 c4
Another possibility was17 ... Bc8, with the idea of ... Qc6 followed by ... c5-c4, or ... Be6.
18 Bc2 Bc8 19 Bb6
The opportunity to disturb Black’s coordination should not be wasted, especially if it
comes ‘for free’.
19 ... Rd7
 Exercise: How should White continue?

Answer:
20 Rfd1
We can see that playing ... c5 and ... c4 was not without its drawbacks. The bishop on d6 is
short of support and White has connected his rooks, while Black has yet to achieve that, so
there is a chance that White will be able to benefit more from the open d-file.
Spassky once again deploys his pieces to their best positions before taking other measures.
This is the correct rook, because the other one might be useful in support of a2- a4.
20 ... g6

Exercise: And now? How should White proceed?

Answer:
 21 b3!
Of course, Spassky brings another piece into play – the dormant bishop on c2. In contrast,
the weakness created in Black’s kingside cannot be exploited with 21 Be3, for example 21 ...
Kg7 22 Qd2 Ng8 and White can make no progress.

Question: But doesn’t 20 ... g6 leave the h4-knight out of play? Would it not also
be in accord with Spassky’s style to recycle the useless knight with Nf3?

Answer: Perhaps so, but the knight it is not completely inactive on h4; it has some influence on the Black’s kingside, while
the ‘Spanish bishop’ on c2 is doing nothing.
For now there is no hurry to move the knight. It is better to activate the bishop first and
then consider what to do about the knight, if there is no better alternative.
21 ... cxb3 22 Bxb3 Ba3
If 22 ... Bb7 White can play 23 Nf3, but there are other options, such as 23 Rd2 or 23 a4,
which is what Beliavsky’s last move prevents.
23 Qe3 Rxd1+
In the event of 23 ... Kg7, controlling h6, White can play 24 Nf3 f6 25 Bc5 (the exchange
of bishops allows White to invade and even gain control of the queenside; another idea is 25
Ne1, with the idea of sending it to queenside with 26 Nc2 Bd6 27 Nb4) 25 ... Bxc5 26 Qxc5
and White’s greater activity is obvious, while Black has an uncomfortable position.
24 Rxd1
White now controls the open file and his pieces are more active.
24 ... Nc6?
It was better to play 24 ... Kg7, even though once again with the same stratagem of
exchanging bishops with 25 Bc5 White can seize the centre and the queenside. Also playable
was 25 Nf3 Nc6 26 Bc7 f6 27 Qb6, when Black’s position is full of weaknesses.

Exercise: What is the best continuation for White?

Answer:
25 Nxg6!
 “A magnificent piece sacrifice, paving the way for a decisive attack” (Timman).
The alternative was 25 Qh6 (threatening 26 Nf3, or 26 Rd3 with the idea of sacrificing on
g6 and bringing the rook into the attack) 25 ... Be6 26 Rd3 (or 26 Nf3 and White is slightly
better). White threatens 27 Nf5 Bxf5 28 exf5, and after 26 ... Qc8 27 Bxe6 fxe6 (not 27 ...
Qxe6? 28 Nf5! Qf6 29 Rh3 Qh8 30 Qg5, with an unstoppable initiative, for example 30 ...
Rb8 31 Nh6+ Kg7 32 Rf3) 28 Nf3 (but not 28 Nxg6?! Rf6) with a slightly advantageous
position.
25 ... hxg6 26 Qh6
Threatening 27 Qxg6+.
26 ... Ne7?!
Now Black loses rather easily. In the post-mortem analysis it was found that the most
tenacious defence was 26 ... Be6!? 27 Rd3 (planning 28 Bxe6, followed by Rh3) 27 ... f5.

In the analysis after the game Tal suggested 28 Rg3! (29 Rh3! also wins) 28 ... Rf6 29 exf5
Bxb3 30 Rh3!! (threatening 31 Qh8+ and 32 Rh7++) 30 ... Kf7 31 Qh7+ Kf8 32 axb3 Rxf5 33
b4! cutting off the bishop on a3, with the threat of 34 Bc5, and Black is defenceless, for
example 33 ... Qe6 loses to 34 Bc5+ Ke8 35 Qb7! threatening Rh8+ or Rd3, and the black
king cannot defend against the attack by the three white pieces.
“Spassky would have been awarded the brilliancy prize if this variation had actually
appeared on the board” (Timman).
Let us return to the game after 26 ... Ne7.
 Exercise: What is White’s best move against the defence of g6 that Black has chosen?

Answer:
27 Bc7!
This is the only winning move, with the brutal threat of 28 Bxe5 and mate.
27 ... Nf5 28 exf5 Bxf5 29 g4!
Harassing the defender of g6. Now 29 ... Bxg4 would allow 30 Qxg6+.
29 ... Be4 30 Re1
And White wins a piece and the game. If now 30 ... Bc2 then 31 Bxe5 is decisive. The rest
is easy.
30 ... Bc1 31 Qxc1 Qc6 32 Qe3 Bh1 33 Qh3 Qxc7 34 Kxh1 Re8 35 Qh6 Qc6+ 36 Kg1
Qf6 37 Rd1 Qc6 38 Rd3 Qe4 39 Rh3 Qe1+ 40 Kg2 Qe4+ 41 Kg3 1-0
Kasparov could not avoid drawing with Nikolic, but this was enough for him to win the tournament outright.
Chapter Four
The Sicilian Defence
The Most Brilliant Game
This game was considered the most brilliant of the 25th Championship of the USSR,
contested in January and February 1958 in Riga.
It is probable that at the time this was no consolation to Spassky, who turned twenty-one
during the tournament, which was also a Zonal Tournament with four qualifying places for the
Interzonal. Spassky failed to achieve his main aim, which was to qualify for the Interzonal,
then become a Candidate and finally challenge for the World Championship. He would have
to wait a further three years, which became six, since he also failed in the following cycle.
After twelve rounds he was leading the tournament with 9 points, one ahead of Petrosian
and two ahead of Tal. His qualification seemed assured and his first gold medal was looking
very probable, but something inexplicable happened. Spassky collapsed, scoring only 1½
points from the five games preceding the last round.
As we commented in Game 1, a draw with Tal in that last round would have resulted in a tie-break match with Averbakh.
Spassky described that dramatic game in a lecture in Saint Petersburg in 1977: “I adjourned with an advantage, possibly
enough for winning, but there was no easy way to get through. Under the influence of Alexander Kazimirovich [Tolush] I
decided to slightly ‘overstep the edge’. I was perfectly aware that I had lost my advantage and had to draw. Even later on,
when I already ‘passed beyond the ridge’, it was still possible to save the game. Misha instantly felt that I was ‘taking a
nosedive’. He just glanced at me slyly and, sure thing, finished me off”.
Let us now turn to a more pleasant episode for Spassky: the honour of winning the
Brilliancy Prize at the 25th Championship of the USSR.

Game 22
B.Spassky-L.Polugaevsky
USSR Championship, Riga 1958
Sicilian Defence

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 Nbd7 7 Bc4

 It is not surprising that Spassky has always preferred 6 Bg5, since it leads to rapid
development of his pieces to active squares.
7 ... Qa5
But it is rather more of a surprise that Spassky has also played this position with Black.
V.Bagirov-B.Spassky, Leningrad 1963 continued 7 ... h6 8 Bxf6 Nxf6 9 Qe2 g6 10 0-0-0 Qc7
11 f4 Bg4 12 Nf3, and here Spassky played 12 ... e5?! and stood worse after 13 fxe5 dxe5 14
Rhf1 Bg7 15 h3 Be6 16 Bxe6 fxe6 17 g4, although he eventually won anyway.
8 Qd2 e6
Spassky faced 8 ... h6 in a key game in the World Championship which we shall see later.
9 0-0-0 b5

Exercise: What do you think Spassky did about his attacked bishop?

Answer:
 10 Bb3!
Spassky also considered the typical move 10 Bd5, not fearing 10 ... exd5? since the
opening of the e-file leads to a typical attack position after 11 Nc6 Qb6 12 exd5, followed by
12 Rhe1.
What put him off was the counter-blow 10 ... b4! and after 11 Bxa8 bxc3 12 bxc3 Nb6
(also possible is 12…Qxa2, as played successfully in A.Giri-V.Gashimov, Wijk aan Zee
2012) the position resembles one where Black has made a typical Sicilian exchange sacrifice
on c3, with the weakness of the white king compensating for the exchange. For example, after
13 Nb3 (13 Bc6+?! Bd7 14 Bxd7+ Kxd7 15 Qf4 Nc4 favours Black) when as well as 13 ...
Qb5, proposing a repetition of moves, Black has 13 ... Qa3+ 14 Kb1 Nxa8 15 Qd4 e5! 16
Qa7 Nxe4 17 Bd2 Be7 18 Qxa8 Nxd2+ 19 Rxd2 0-0 with unclear play.
10 ... Bb7

Exercise: What happens here after 10 ... b4?

Answer: As you probably thought, 11 Nd5! works now, since 11 ... Nxe4? leads to a curious mate after 12 Qxb4! Qxb4
13 Nc7++, while 11 ... exd5 12 Nc6 followed by 13 exd5 gives White a very strong attack, as we have already seen in such
positions.
11 Rhe1 Be7
Black wants to castle on the kingside. The alternative 11 ... 0-0-0 was chosen by Petrosian
and Reshevsky, among others.
In this position 11 ... b4?! does not lead to a clear loss after 12 Nd5! Nxd5! (12 ... exd5?
13 exd5+ Kd8 14 Nc6+ Bxc6 15 dxc6 Ne5 16 Qf4 leads to familiar positions) 13 exd5 Bxd5,
but after the quiet 14 Kb1, threatening to win with 15 Bxd5 Qxd5 16 Nxe6! when the black
king in the centre compensates for the sacrificed pawn.
As can easily be imagined, it is risky to keep the king in the centre with 11 ... Nc5. Then 12
e5 dxe5 13 Bxe6 leads to brutal complications, although after the reply 13 ... b4! the game is
not clear. In Supplementary Game 22.1 we shall take a brief look at a classic model game,
L.Stein-M.Tal, Moscow 1961, in order to improve our understanding of this type of position.
12 f4 Nc5
Once again 12 ... b4? runs into 13 Nd5! exd5 14 exd5 Kf8, and now ...
 Exercise: What is the best continuation?

Answer: 15 Rxe7! Kxe7 16 Nc6+ Bxc6 17 dxc6 is very strong. Black is forced to defend the d6-pawn with 17 ... Qc5,
when White has excellent compensation for the exchange due to the precarious state of the black king after 18 Qe2+ Kd8 19
cxd7 Kxd7 20 Bxf7.

13 e5?
White’s priority is to open up the defences of the black king which is still in the centre.
White has an excellent sequence of moves available, but Spassky played it in the wrong
order, as was discovered afterwards.
The idea of 13 e5 was correct, but the tactics indicate that it was best to start 13 Bxf6!
when after 13 ... Bxf6 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 we transpose to the game.
The capture 13 ... gxf6 is best met with 14 Kb1! (not 14 Bd5? on account of 14 ... b4!) 14
... 0-0-0 (if 14 ... b4? then once again 15 Nd5! is good, as in M.Tal-Johannsson, Stockholm
1961) 15 a3! (preparing the typical advance f5, but not immediately 15 f5? in view of 15 ...
b4!) 15 ... Kb8 16 f5 Nxb3 17 cxb3, with advantage to White, according to Kasparov.
13 ... dxe5
The computer fails to show a clearly advantageous continuation after 13 ... b4! when 14
exf6?! bxc3 15 bxc3 gxf6 leaves Black with the safer king.
It is tempting but ineffective to play 14 Ba4+? Nxa4 15 Nxa4 Qxa4! 16 exf6 gxf6, and
White’s attack is insufficient, for example 17 Nxe6 fxe6 18 Rxe6 0-0-0, or 17 Nf5 fxg5! 18
Nxe7 (if 18 Qd4 then 18 ... Rc8! is very strong) and now not 18 ... Kxe7? 19 Qxd6+ Ke8 20
Rxe6+ fxe6 21 Qxe6+ Kf8 22 Qf6+, winning, but the zwischenzug 18 ... b3! 19 cxb3 Qxf4,
with great advantage in the endgame.
The game could end in a draw after the computer line 14 Na4! Nfe4! 15 Nxc5 Nxd2 16
Ba4+ Kf8 17 Bxe7+ Kxe7 18 exd6+ Kf8 19 Re5! Bd5 20 Nd7+ Ke8! (not 20 ... Kg8? 21
Nc6!) 21 Nb6+ Kf8 22 Nd7+.
14 Bxf6
This exchange is forced, since 14 fxe5?! Nfe4! 15 Nxe4 Qxd2+ would lead to a good
endgame for Black.

14 ... Bxf6?

Question: A bad move? Why? It keeps the lines closed and

Black’s structure is better than if he recaptured with the pawn.

Answer: Black would very much like to keep his structure intact but in this position tactics rule, rather than general
considerations. It would be a different matter if the queens were off the board.
Black had to play 14 ... gxf6! 15 fxe5 0-0-0 16 exf6 Bxf6 17 Qf2 Bg7, when the pair of
bishops gives Black an excellent position.
“Such is the price of a move in the Sicilian – one inaccuracy leads to an instant change of
scene!” (Kasparov).
15 fxe5 Bh4 16 g3 Be7
 Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position to justify his idea?

Answer:
17 Bxe6!!
This is the tactical reason calculated by Spassky that refutes 14 ... Bxf6? It is a blow with
a devastating practical effect. The bishop is immune from capture, as we shall see, and White
captures an important pawn, weakening Black’s control of the squares f5 and d5.
17 ... 0-0?!
The computers indicate that this is not the best defence, although this was hard to find.
Instead 17 ... fxe6 fails to 18 Nxe6! Rd8 (or 18 ... Nxe6 19 Qd7+ Kf7 20 Rf1+) 19 Nxg7+
Kf7 20 Qh6, with a mating attack. Something similar happens after 17 ... Nxe6 18 Nxe6 fxe6
19 Qd7+ Kf7 20 Rf1+.
The counter 17 ... b4 does not help here. White’s attack is decisive after 18 Bxf7+! Kxf7
19 Qf4+ Ke8 (or 19 ... Kg8 20 Nf5 Qc7 21 Qc4+ Kf8 22 Nd6) 20 Nf5 Ne6 21 Nd6+ Bxd6 22
exd6 Kd7 23 Qf7+.
Kasparov pointed out the surprising computer move 17 ... Qd8! defending the weak d7-
square and threatening ... Bg5.
I do not think that it would be too bold to say that neither of the players seriously
considered this possibility. Kasparov deeply analysed this complicated defence, with its
surprising complications. If 18 Qf2 fxe6 19 Nxe6 Nxe6 20 Rxd8+ Rxd8 21 Qb6 Bc8 22 Qc6+
Bd7 23 Qxa6 0-0, when Black obtains good compensation for the queen, so Kasparov
analysed that White’s best line is 18 Bxf7+ Kxf7 19 Qf4+ Kg8 20 Nf5 and after great
complications Kasparov concludes that “White would nevertheless have retained what is
probably a decisive advantage, but the young Spassky would have had to find a whole series
of brilliant moves”.
18 Bb3
Also strong was 18 Bd5! b4 (or 18 ... Bxd5 19 Nxd5 Qxd2+ 20 Kxd2 Bg5+ 21 Ke2, with
an extra pawn in the endgame) 19 Nf5 Rae8 20 Ne4 Nxe4 21 Rxe4, “giving White a powerful
initiative” (Kasparov).
 18 ... Rad8 19 Qf4 b4

20 Na4!
A brilliant move, although Kasparov preferred the less spectacular 20 Nf5! which would
also have given White the advantage after 20 ... Nxb3+ 21 axb3 bxc3 22 Nxe7+ Kh8 23 Kb1.
If 20 ... Rde8 White can play in similar fashion to the game: 21 Na4! Nxa4 22 Rd7 Nc5 23
Nxe7+ Kh8 24 Bxf7! and the bad situation of the black king is the decisive factor after 24 ...
Nxd7 25 Ng6+! mating.
20 ... h6?!
Objectively the best defence was to accept the sacrifice, although this would not have
saved the game either. After 20 ... Nxa4 21 Nf5 Rxd1+ 22 Rxd1 Bc5 White wins with 23 Qg5
g6 24 Nh6+ Kg7 25 Ng4 Qb6 26 Rd6.
Let us look at the line indicated by Kasparov in the event of 22 ... Bd8 (preventing Qg5).
White should avoid 23 Bxa4? owing to the surprising 23 ... h6!! – “a human may miss it, but a
machine – never!” (Kasparov) – but instead 23 e6!! wins, when 23 ... fxe6? loses to 24 Nh6+!
gxh6 25 Bxe6+ Kg7 26 Rd7+ mating.
In the event of 23 ... Nc5, there is probably only one way to gain an advantage according to
Kasparov: 24 e7! Nxb3+ 25 axb3 Bxe7 26 Nxe7+ Kh8 27 Qd6! Re8 (or 27 ... Ra8 28 Rd4)
28 Qd7 Rb8 29 Kb1, etc.

Question: So, on moves 18 and 20 White had less risky ways to gain
the advantage. Taking unnecessary risks when there is a simpler
path to advantage is not Spassky’s usual way. What is the explanation?

Answer: Kasparov explains it thus: “In the period of his ascent to the chess heights he was notable for his phenomenal
intuition, especially when conducting an attack, and at times he did not trouble himself with precise calculation. On this
occasion too his intuition did not let him down”.
21 Nxc5! Qxc5
White’s advantage is overwhelming after 21 ... Bg5 22 Qxg5 hxg5 23 Nxb7 Qc7 24 Nxd8
Rxd8 25 e6, with an advantage in both material and position.
22 h4
Preventing 22 ... Bg5. White has an extra pawn and all of his pieces are harmoniously
placed.
22 ... Bd5 23 Nf5 Bxb3 24 axb3 Rxd1+ 25 Rxd1 Rc8 26 Qe4 Bf8

27 e6!
Not so much to weaken the enemy king as to help stabilise the position of the strong knight
on f5.
27 ... fxe6 28 Qxe6+ Kh8 29 Qe4 Qc6 30 Qd3
The exchange of queens with 30 Qxc6 Rxc6 was also good. Then 31 h5 fortifies the knight
outpost, as 31 ... g6 fails to 32 Rd8 Rf6 33 Nh4 gxh5 34 Rxf8+ Rxf8 35 Ng6+, with a winning
endgame, while 31 ... Rf6 32 g4 g6 33 hxg6 Rxg6 34 Rd8 Rg8 35 Kd1 also leaves Black
paralysed. However, there is no harm in just strengthening White’s position.
30 ... Re8
White’s next move could be prevented by 30 ... g6, but after 31 Ne3 h5 32 Nd5 Black’s
position would not have been improved.
31 h5! Be7 32 Nxe7 Rxe7 33 Qg6!
Now White is happy to exchange queens, since his king will be able to become active,
while Black’s will not.
33 ... Qe8 34 g4 Re1 35 Qxe8+ Rxe8 36 Rd4 a5 37 Kd2 Re5 38 c3!
The pawn majority starts to advance and Black is defenceless.
38 ... bxc3+
38 ... Rb5 was no better. For example, 39 c4 Rg5 40 Ke3 Kg8 41 Kf4 Kf7 42 Rd5.
39 bxc3 Rg5 40 c4 Kg8 41 Rf4! 1-0
Polugaevsky sealed 41 ... g6 but resigned without resuming, in view of 42 hxg6 Kg7 (or 42
... Rxg6 43 c5) 43 Rf5 Rxg4 44 Rxa5.

Supplementary Game 22.1

L.Stein-M.Tal
Moscow 1961

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 Nbd7 7 Bc4 Qa5 8 Qd2 e6 9 0-0-0
b5 10 Bb3 Bb7 11 Rhe1 Nc5
 This game has followed a course that is familiar to us.
12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Qf4 Be7 14 Qg4!
If 14 Nd5 it seems fine for Black to win the piece with 14 ... e5! rather than opening the e-
file. “I learned about this move from one of your articles!”, Stein said to Tal after the game.
14 ... 0-0-0 15 Bd5!
Gufeld and Lazarev recommend replying to the typical sacrifice 15 Nd5 with 15 ... Rhe8,
although with the two bishops it also worth considering 15 ... Bf8! for example after 16 Nxf6
h5! 17 Nxh5 Nxb3+ 18 Nxb3 Qxa2 White’s position is over-extended and Black can continue
with ... Kb8, followed by ... Rc8, combined with ... a5-a4, etc.
“Besides a strategical appraisal, this move required a deep calculation because in turn
Black was finally able to threaten the a2-pawn” (Gufeld and Lazarev).
15 ... b4

16 Bxb7+ Kxb7 17 Nd5!

It is curious to see Tal on the black side of such a position. Now if 17 ... Rhg8 White has
the spectacular 18 Nc6!!
 17 ... exd5
If 17 ... Bf8 18 Kb1 is now playable, offering the piece since if 18 ... exd5 19 exd5 White
has the square c6, with good compensation; instead, 18 Qh5!? leads to greater complications.
If 17 ... h5 play might continue 18 Qh4 exd5 19 exd5 Qc7 20 Nc6 Rd7 21 Qxb4+ Kc8 22
Qc3! or 21 ... Ka8 22 Qc4!, with a devastating attack.
18 exd5 Rd7 19 Nc6! Qxa2
Or 19 ... Qc7 20 Qxb4+ Kc8, when almost any queen move, 21 Qc4, 21 Qd4 or 21 Qg4,
gives White a very strong initiative.
20 Qxb4+ Kc7 21 Nxe7
White has an extra pawn and the attack. His advantage is not in doubt. Stein conducts the
following phase with the same energy as before and gains a decisive material advantage.
21 ... Rb8 22 Qa3 Qc4 23 Nc6 Rb3 24 Qa5+ Rb6
Or 24 ... Kb7 25 Re8!
25 Kb1 Na4 26 Rd4! Nxb2 27 Kc1! Qc5 28 Re3 Kb7 29 Rc3 Rb5 30 Qa3 Qxa3 31 Rxa3 Rxd5 32 Na5+ 1-0

Olympic Debut and Two Gold Medals

Spassky played his first Olympiad in Varna 1962, where the USSR won easily, as was usually the case in those days.
Spassky’s debut was excellent. He gained the gold medal for the third board with 11 points out of 14.
In the introductory chapter of this book, when we were discussing Spassky’s style, the first
example we examined was from this tournament: his victory against the West German GM
Lothar Schmid. Later we shall see another game from this competition in Game 30.
The game we shall see now was also against West Germany, but was played in the group
phase. It is a Sicilian Defence in which Black played actively but left his king in the centre
for longer than is advisable against Spassky.

Game 23
B.Spassky-K.Darga
Varna Olympiad 1962
Sicilian Defence

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e6 5 Nc3 Qc7 6 Be3 a6 7 a3

 This apparent loss of time was popular for some years. The idea is to prevent ... Bb4 and
later, if Black plays ... b5, it will be useful to maintain the stability of the knight on c3.
In later games Spassky opted to ignore the ‘threat’ to play ... Bb4 and double White’s c-
pawns, which could well prove more costly for Black on account of his lag in development
and weakness on the dark squares.
In the 23rd game of his match for the world title against Petrosian, Spassky chose 7 Bd3. The
game finished in a draw, with which Spassky won the match 12½-10½, becoming the 10th
World Champion.
7 ... b5 8 Be2 Bb7 9 f4 Nf6
Another playable idea is 9 ... Nxd4 10 Qxd4 Ne7, to bring the knight to c6 and then
prepare kingside castling.
10 Bf3
There was no need to fear 10 e5, owing to 10 ... Nxd4 followed by 11 ... Nd5; but now 11
e5 is a threat.
10 ... d6 11 0-0

11 ... Na5
An ambitious move, encouraged by the development of the bishop on e3. Objectively there
is nothing wrong with it, although we have already seen that in general, and in particular
against Spassky, losing tempi in the opening and neglecting development is risky, at least from
the practical viewpoint.
Another possibility was 11 ... Nxd4 12 Qxd4 and then pre-empt White’s central advance
by playing 12 ... e5 13 Qd3 Be7 or 13 ... Rc8. With his bishop on f3 and the e4-e5 advance
prevented, Black would be in little danger from the half-open f-file, but on the other hand the
structure now encourages White to play Nd5.
It was also good to play the most natural move, which was to continue to prepare castling
with 11 ... Be7. Then 12 e5 would be premature, since after 12 ... dxe5 13 Nxc6 Bxc6 14 fxe5
Black gains an excellent position with 14 ... Rd8! (increasing control of d5 with tempo) 15
Bxc6+ Qxc6 16 Qe2 Nd5, and White has only simplified the position in Black’s favour.
The typical manoeuvre to bring the queen to g3 with 12 Qe1 can be met with 12 ... 0-0 (12
... Nxd4 13 Bxd4 is also playable and now once again Black prevents 16 e5 by playing 15 ...
e5 14 Be3 0-0 15 Rd1 Rfe8, etc.) 13 Rd1 Rac8 14 Nxc6 Bxc6 15 Bd4 e5 16 Be3 and now
Black can make progress on the queenside with 16 ... a5, as in the classic example P.Keres-
F.Olafsson, Bled 1959.
12 Qe2 Nc4?!
Consistent, and played before White can play Rad1 and withdraw his bishop to c1, but it
was more prudent, as Spassky will demonstrate, to play 12 ... Be7 and castle first.

Exercise: Black has carried out his plan. How did Spassky continue?

Answer:
13 e5!
We are on familiar ground. Normally the dark-squared bishop is very valuable and
deserves to be preserved, but here we are not in a normal position. Black is behind in
development. If the game opens up it will tend to favour the better developed side and the
uncastled black king is likely to come off worse.
Of course it is essential for White to check that the tactics work, but it is not surprising that
they do, given that White has more pieces in play.
13 ... Nxe3
This exchange was forced, although this “time-devouring” (Nimzowitsch) move costs
Black three moves, to exchange a piece that has only moved once, and represents a bad deal
for Black in such an open position.
 Exercise (easy): What is wrong with 13 ... Nd7?

Answer: White exploits the overloaded black queen with the typical tactical shot 14 Ndxb5! axb5 15 Nxb5, followed by 16
Bxb7 and 17 Qxc4.
13 ... dxe5 meets the same fate: 14 Ndxb5! and Black does not seem to have enough
compensation for the pawn after 14 ... axb5 15 Nxb5 Qd7 16 Qxc4 Rc8 17 Qa4.
14 Qxe3 dxe5
Once again the only move. 14 ... Nd7? is punished with 15 exd6 Bxd6 16 Ndxb5! axb5 17
Nxb5 Qc5 18 Nxd6+ Qxd6 19 Bxb7 Rb8, and although Black can regain the pawns, after 20
Bf3! (this seems better than 20 Be4, to avoid being attacked by the black knight) 20 ... Rxb2
21 a4 the well-supported passed a-pawn should be a decisive trump.
15 fxe5 Nd7

Exercise (easy): What is White’s strongest

continuation after 15 ... Nd5 16 Nxd5 Bxd5 17 Bxd5 exd5?
 Answer: The most direct is 18 e6! and to prevent a further opening of the game Black must play the sad 18 ... f6, when
the most energetic continuation is to insist on opening the position by sacrificing a pawn with 19 e7! Qxe7 20 Qh3, or 19 ...
Bxe7 20 Rae1.
16 Bxb7 Qxb7

Exercise: How can White increase the pressure on Black’s position?

Answer:
17 Qf4
On this occasion White can definitely benefit from of the opening of the f-file resulting
from being able to play e4-e5.
17 ... Nb6
The only possible defence of the f7-pawn. The position did not allow moves such as 17 ...
f6 or 17 ... f5, after which White would prepare for further activity with the prophylactic
move 18 Kh1!
Another possible defence was 17 ... 0-0-0, which for the moment prevents 18 Qxf7?
because White has problems with the pin on his knight on d4 after 18 ... Bc5! 19 Nce2 (or 19
Rad1 Qb6) 19…Qe4.
The immediate 18 a4 is ineffective because after 18 ... b4, 19 Ne4 fails to 19 ... Nxe5! 20
Qxe5 Rd5, while after the more modest retreat 19 Nce2 Black can play 19 ... Qd5 20 Nf3 (not
20 Qxf7?! Bc5!) 20 ... f6 and it is clear that White has achieved nothing with 18 a4.
A reasonable reply is 18 Rad1, although it is a pity to move the rook away from the a-file.
Another idea is to leave the rook on a1 for the moment and play the preparatory move 18
Kh1! which threatens 19 Qxf7 and does not give up on the idea of playing a4.
A possible continuation is 18 ... Nb6 19 Nb3! (once again threatening 20 Qxf7) 19 ... Rd7
and now 20 a4! is good, since after 20 ... b4 the complications favour White after 21 a5!,
although the simple 21 Ne4 is also attractive.

Exercise (easy): How did Spassky continue?

Answer:
18 Rad1
Of course, this being Spassky, the only inactive piece is brought into play. White
overprotects the d4-knight, thus impeding queenside castling and at the same time planning
Ne4.
18 ... Na4?!
This move looks bad, but it was played as a last resort, since Black could find nothing
better. This knight too now gets exchanged after consuming three tempi for White’s knight,
which has only moved once. But Black could not see a better way to prevent Ne4.
It would be desperate to have to play 18 ... Rd8 19 Ne4 h6, leaving the king in the centre,
but 18 ... Bc5? would be even worse, allowing the strong 19 Ne4! when 19 ... Rc8? can be
punished with 20 Nxc5 Rxc5 21 Qg4 0-0 22 Nxe6!.

Exercise: In that last line, if instead of 19 ... Rc8 Black played

 19 ... Bxd4+ 20 Rxd4 0-0 White’s superiority would be
obvious, but what would the most effective continuation?

Answer: White could gain a decisive attack with 21 Nf6+! and if 21 ... gxf6 22 Qxf6 forces mate, while after 21 ... Kh8
there are several ways to bring White’s major pieces to bear, for instance 22 Qg5 threatening 23 Rh4, or 22 Rf3 with the plan
of 23 Rh3.
Perhaps the most tenacious move for Black would be 18 ... 0-0-0! because now capturing
the pawn with 19 Qxf7? turns out to be a poor transaction for White after 19 ... Qxf7 20 Rxf7
Bc5 21 Nce2 Nc4.
Possibly White would have continued with 19 Ne4, renewing the threat to capture on f7, or
else 19 Kh1.
19 Nxa4 bxa4 20 Kh1!

Question: Hmm, once again this prophylactic move that you

seem to like so much, but was there nothing better immediately?

Answer: It is really Spassky who likes this move, but no, there does not seem to be anything stronger. Although there are
other playable moves, they are not any better. Spassky’s move leaves Black without any tactics along the diagonal g1-a7,
which is practically his only defensive resource.
20 ... Bc5?!
In reality this developing move only makes White’s task easier, and it will be punished
resoundingly.
20 ... Rd8 was no better. One strong reply would be to exchange the active rook with 21
Ne2! which threatens the a4-pawn, and after 21 ... Rxd1 22 Rxd1 Qc6 23 Rf1 Qd7 24 Nc3
White wins a pawn, for a start.
The engines suggest waiting with 20 ... Rc8, when there is no immediate winning
continuation, but of course the black king would remain in the centre and this would surely
lead to his defeat in the long run.
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue here?

Answer:
21 Nxe6!
Of course. White immediately gets two pawns for the piece and, with his three major
pieces in play, he can exploit the fact the black king remains the more exposed. White can
also accelerate his attack by probing the unguarded weaknesses at g7 and e6 and the loose
bishop at c5.
21 ... fxe6 22 Qxa4+ Qb5
After 22 ... Ke7 the continuation 23 Qh4+ Ke8 24 Qg4 Qc6 25 Qxg7 transposes to the
game.
23 Qg4

23…Qc6
The attempt to exchange a rook with 23 ... Rf8 brings no relief after 24 Qxe6+ Be7 25 c4
(to protect f1; 25 Rxf8+ Kxf8 26 c4 also works) 25 ... Qb7 26 Rxf8+ Kxf8 27 Rf1+ Ke8 28
Qf7+ and 29 Rd1+, winning.
24 Qxg7 Rf8 25 Rxf8+ Bxf8 26 Qxh7 Rc8
If 26 ... Rd8 White has 27 Qg6+ Ke7 28 Qf6+ Ke8 29 Rxd8++, while after 26 ... Bc5 27
Qg6+ Ke7 28 b4 Bb6 29 Qg7+ Ke8 30 Rf1 there is no defence.
27 Qg6+ 1-0
And Black resigned. If 27 ... Ke7 the simplest way is to win the queen with 28 Rd6,
forcing 28 ... Qxd6 (if 28 ... Qc4 then 29 Qh7+ wins) 29 exd6+ Kxd6 30 h4.
Since Black is defenceless, 28 h4 is also playable, planning simply to advance the pawn
Then if 28 ... Qxc2 White wins with 29 Qf6+ Ke8 30 Qxe6+ Be7 31 Qg8+ Bf8 32 Rf1.

Conquest of the World Championship

The conquest of the world title was obviously one of the high points in the career of Boris
Vasilievich Spassky, but it came only after a titanic struggle.
During the first match against Petrosian, in 1966, one day Spassky happened to meet
Botvinnik in the street, who asked him: “Boris Vasilievich, can you always guess Petrosian’s
moves?”, and Spassky acknowledged: “Not always”.
Spassky discovered here one of the reasons why Petrosian had emerged the winner against
Botvinnik in 1963 and against him in 1966.
It is worth recalling that, according to Botvinnik, the extreme tension and sheer wear and
tear involved in playing a World Championship takes years off your life.
Preparing for his second match for the world title, Spassky said, “I became a real hermit”.
He spent three months training in Dubna, a town to the north of Moscow, accompanied by his
seconds Bondarevsky and Krogius.
The match of 24 games was played in Moscow between the 14th of April and the 17th of
June, 1969. In the event of a 12-12 tie Petrosian would retain the title. As in 1966, Spassky
was the favourite. Korchnoi once commented to Kasparov that in those days it was very
difficult to play against Spassky: “Boris cleverly maintained the tension, and made strong,
unexpected moves, at decisive moments”.
After eight games Spassky was leading 5-3. He gained a winning advantage in the ninth
game but did not have the strength to finish it off. When he offered a draw on the 65th move,
Petrosian and Suetin thought that Spassky still held a winning advantage. Petrosian then won
the tenth and eleventh games and the score was equal again.
According to Krogius, Petrosian made the mistake of believing that Spassky would now
crumble, without any help from him. Spassky sought urgent medical attention and managed to
stop the rot. Games 12-16 were drawn. Petrosian seemed to be making no effort to sharpen
the fight, although in The Games of Tigran Petrosian, Volume 2, he writes: “the 12th came as a
serious blow to me. After obtaining an overwhelming position, I delayed, and as a result
instead of the legitimate win with difficulty I obtained a draw”. For his part, against the
Petroff Defence Spassky twice chose to exchange queens on move 5, just to conserve energy.
There was no great struggle in these five games, except for game 14. By move 30 Petrosian
was in time trouble. Petrosian offered a draw at move 33 but Spassky declined. According to
Kotov, “the time has come for the adjournment but the players carry on obstinately. The result
is that Spassky makes a ghastly mistake”. The game was adjourned, to be resumed the next
morning. In Soviet Chess 1917-1991, Andrew Soltis relates that Spassky and his seconds
analysed the position and concluded that it should be drawn. His seconds then sent Spassky to
bed to grab some sleep, but they soon realised to their horror that if Petrosian had sealed the
right move, Spassky would be in serious trouble. Petrosian had indeed sealed the strongest
move but he then let the win slip through his fingers as a result of, according to Petrosian
himself, an “inexplicable nervous collapse”. Both players considered that this had a crucial
influence on the remainder of the match. Spassky thought that Petrosian would be as affected
by this as he had been by not winning the ninth game, and he was right. After draws in games
15 and 16, Spassky won his next two games with White, games 17 and 19.
Petrosian’s later account offers us some interesting insights into the psychology of chess
competition: “I think that every loser asks himself when, at what point, he faltered. I think that
I lost the match in the 17th game, at the point when I offered a draw. My position at that point
was slightly more pleasant, yet when I offered a draw I was sure that Spassky would decline.
But the rejection of a draw usually imposes certain obligations, and I had reason to expect
that Spassky would overreach himself ... my expectation had been correct ... and had I played
correctly, he would have had to regret his rejection of the draw. But alas, although I saw the
correct move, I did not make it. Angry with myself, I lost a level endgame without a struggle.
The disaster in this game also explains the stupid choice of opening in the 19th and 21st
games”.
Petrosian did not employ the Petroff Defence again, even though this had yielded good
results so far, and it seems there was some discord with his trainers Boleslavsky and Suetin.
In games 17 and 19 he chose the Sicilian and lost both. In game 21 he defended the Ruy Lopez
and also lost. However, as Boleslavsky pointed out, it would have been naïve to expect that a
revitalised Spassky would have avoided a fight once again by exchanging queens against the
Petroff.
Petrosian managed to win the 20th game, but Spassky struck back immediately by winning
the next one. The 22nd game was drawn, bringing the score to 12-10 in the challenger’s
favour; Spassky thus needed only a draw from one of the two remaining games to win the
title.
Spassky adjourned the 23rd game with a winning advantage, revealed his sealed move to
the arbiter Alberic O’Kelly de Galway and through him offered a draw, which Petrosian
accepted. The match thus ended 12½-10½ to the challenger.
In an interview in 2010 Spassky commented that, instead of a kitten attacking a tiger, as in
1966, by 1969 he had turned into a bear that was always putting the tiger under pressure: “I
held him in a grip that even if it was loose was constant, and he did not like that”.
As for the above-mentioned question by Botvinnik in 1966, Spassky summed up the 1969
match in this way: “This time, I guessed everything”.
Let us now look at the most brilliant game of the match.

Game 24
B.Spassky-T.Petrosian
World Championship (Game 19), Moscow 1969
Sicilian Defence

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 Nbd7 7 Bc4 Qa5 8 Qd2
 8 ... h6
Polugaevsky played the more prudent 8 ... e6, as we saw earlier.
9 Bxf6

Question: Isn’t it a concession to exchange this bishop? Is it better to play 9 Bh4?

Answer: It is very difficult to be sure about what is best at this point. Spassky’s choice can indeed be regarded as a
concession, since it gives up the bishop pair. However, the move ... h6 can also be considered a concession, since it loses a
tempo and in the event that Black castles on the kingside, it provides White’s g-pawn with a ‘hook’ on h6.
Spassky decided to prioritise rapid development and we already know how important this
is in the Open Sicilian.
9 ... Nxf6 10 0-0-0
Naturally, castling queenside, with a rook already occupying a central file, is more
energetic than castling on the other flank. In the event of 10 0-0, as well as 10 ... e6 and ...
Be7, Black can even consider 10 ... g6 followed by 11 ... Bg7.
10 ... e6
Now 10 ... g6?! does not seem advisable because White can open the game quickly with 11
f4 Bg7 12 e5!? (12 Rhe1 is also interesting) and if 12 ... dxe5 13 fxe5 Qxe5 14 Nc6! Black
must play 14 ... Qd6, and White has the advantage after 15 Qxd6 exd6 16 Rhe1+, regaining
the pawn and remaining with the more active pieces.
This game has been deeply analysed over the years. A good reference, according to
Spassky himself, is the very good book Petrosian-Spassky 1969 written by the players’
seconds, Igor Bondarevsky and Isaak Boleslavsky.
Bondarevsky and Geller (in Informant) mentioned the possibility of changing the pawn
structure with 10 ... e5 11 Nf5 Bxf5 12 exf5.
 Geller continues 12 ... Be7 13 Kb1 Rc8 14 Bb3 Rxc3! 15 Qxc3 Qxc3 16 bxc3 Ne4,
winning a pawn and with compensation for the exchange. However, it is possible prevent this
sacrifice, for example with 13 Bb3, followed by 14 Rhe1.
In the event of 12 ... Rc8 13 Bb3 Be7 14 Rhe1, Bondarevsky considers that White has the
advantage. In this line 13 ... Rxc3 would be less promising since after 14 Qxc3 Qxc3 15 bxc3
Ne4 16 Rde1 Nxf2 17 Rhf1 Ng4 18 Rf4! Nf6 19 Rb4 White activates his extra rook too
quickly for Black. If 19 ... b5 White plays 20 a4.
11 Rhe1
In F.Kuijpers-M.Damjanovic, Beverwijk 1966 White preferred 11 Bb3 Bd7 12 f4 Be7 13
Kb1 Qc7 (if 13 ... 0-0?! 14 Nd5 Qd8 15 Nxe7+ Qxe7 16 Rhe1 is unpleasant for Black, with
ideas such as 17 e5 and 17 g4) 14 Rhe1 Rd8 and White seized the initiative with 15 g4!
11 ... Be7
Petrosian is seeking to castle on the kingside quickly, but both Bondarevsky and
Boleslavsky considered this an error. There are two other possibilities; one is to prepare
queenside castling with 11 ... Bd7, and the other is to play 11 ... b5.
After 11 ... Bd7 12 f4 0-0-0 it is necessary to consider the advances 13 e5 and 13 f5. In
both cases White maintains a certain initiative, although in general the black king is better
placed than in the game and White’s advantage is not very big.
After 13 f5 responding with 13 ... e5? is weak, owing to 14 Nb3 and Bxf7. There has been
analysis of the counter-blow 13 ... d5, when after 14 fxe6 Black cannot play 14 ... fxe6? in
view of the simple 15 exd5 exd5 16 Nxd5, with an extra pawn, so 14 ... dxc4! is necessary,
and after 15 exd7+ Rxd7 16 e5 White seizes the initiative, for example 16 ... Bc5 17 exf6
Bxd4 18 fxg7 Rhd8 19 Qf4, or 16 ... Nd5 17 Nxd5 Qxd5 18 Qe2 c3 19 Kb1, with the advance
e5-e6 in the air. Black’s lag in development is glaring and White has the advantage. In this
last line, the endgame after 17 ... Qxd2+ 18 Kxd2 Rxd5 19 Kc3 b5 20 Nf5 Rxd1 21 Rxd1 is a
little better for White, who is more active; in addition Black’s queenside pawns are too
advanced, which allows White to probe them with a timely a4, but Black can aspire to
equality.
If 11 ... b5 the continuations 12 e5 and 12 Bb3 have been suggested, but the strongest
response seems to be the typical sacrifice 12 Bd5! for example 12 ... exd5 13 e5! (opening
the e-file with 13 exd5+ Kd7 is less clear) 13 ... Ne4 (13 ... dxe5? 14 Rxe5+ Kd7 15 Qf4 is
untenable) 14 exd6, regaining the piece with advantage.
12 f4
After 12 Kb1 Black would have to play 12 ... Qc5 or 12 ... Qc7 retreating the queen with
an attack on the bishop prior to castling, since the immediate 12 ... 0-0?! would once again
invite 13 Nd5.
12 ... 0-0

13 Bb3

Question: Is this move necessary? Isn’t it a bit slow?

Answer: It would be nice to able to open the game right away, while Black’s queenside remain inactive, but there is
nothing direct yet to get excited about.
In the event of 13 e5?! dxe5 14 Rxe5 (14 fxe5 is no good either, since after 14 ... Ng4
Black has several threats, the most serious being 15 ... Bg5) 14 ... Qc7, as given by
Bondarevsky, the position has opened up but White has no attack and in fact if anyone has
benefited it is Black with his bishop pair. In particular his unopposed dark-squared bishop is
strong.
If 13 f5 Black can still play 13 ... Ng4! and White achieves nothing after 14 Kb1 Bg5 15
Qe2 exf5.
That explains why White is just making useful moves. Now the bishop is no longer loose,
so Black will not be able to gain a tempo at some point by attacking it.
13 ... Re8
This defends the bishop on e7 and prepares to reinforce the defence of the e6-square.
If 13 ... Bd7 White might continue with 14 Kb1, to be able to play 15 f5 or 15 e5 without
worrying about any problems on the c1-h6 diagonal, not forgetting that 15 Nd5 might now be
possible in some lines.
Although it looks artificial, 13 ... Nd7 was interesting.
 Exercise: After 14 Kb1 (so that after Nc3-d5, the capture ... Qxd2
comes without check), demonstrate why 14 ... Qc7 is not advisable.

Answer: It is because of the typical sacrifice 15 Bxe6! (even better than 15 Nxe6 fxe6 16 Bxe6+ Kh8 17 Nd5, with
sufficient compensation for the piece) 15 ... fxe6 16 Nxe6, when Black’s king is insecure and White has no disadvantage in
material, since he has a rook and two pawns for two pieces.
Nevertheless, instead of 14 ... Qc7? it is possible to play 14 ... Nc5!? neutralising the b3-
bishop, without fearing 15 Nd5, since after 15 ... Bd8 White does not seem to have anything
serious.
14 Kb1 Bf8

Exercise (easy): How should White reply to 14 ... Bd7?

Answer: With the d7-square occupied, 15 e5! is very strong. After 15 ... dxe5 16 fxe5 Nh7 17 Nf5! exf5 (or 17 ... Bc6 18
Nxe7+ Rxe7 19 Nd5, as given by Boleslavsky) 18 Qxd7 Rad8 19 Qxf5, White’s bishop is active, and the unfortunate position
of the black pieces means that White’s attack is decisive, for instance 19 ... Rf8 loses to 20 Nd5 Bc5 21 e6! fxe6 22 Ne7+
Kh8 23 Ng6+.
 Exercise: White has exhausted all his prophylactic
moves. How can he now take active measures?

Answer:
15 g4!!
The most energetic, seeking to highlight one of the defects of the move 8 ... h6.
It is notable that the engines do not consider it to be among the best moves here. They take
a long time to see the importance of opening the g-file.
It is probable that the engines’ preference, 15 e5! is also sufficient for an advantage. White’s
greater activity is obvious after 15 ... dxe5 16 fxe5 Nd7 17 Qf4, with the idea of slowly
making progress on the kingside with moves such as 18 Re3 (planning Rf1) or 18 Rd3, as
well as slower moves such as h4, or Nf3 followed by Ne4.
15 ... Nxg4
Black accepts the challenge. This is the only move that presents White with practical
difficulties.
According to Geller the plan of exchanging White’s bishop with 15 ... Nd7 is too slow
after 16 h4 Nc5 17 g5, etc.
If 15 ... Bd7 White plays 16 Rg1 and the attack develops at no cost in material.
Boleslavsky suggested more radical measures to change the course of the game, such as 15
... e5, but it should not be forgotten that this increases the scope of the currently dormant
bishop on b3. White can still make progress, either by exchanging on e5 followed by Nf5, or
by playing 16 Nf5 immediately and after 16 ... Bxf5 17 gxf5 exf4 18 Nd5! Qd8 (18 ... Qxd2
19 Nxf6+ gxf6 20 Rxd2 leads to an unpleasant endgame for Black) 19 Qxf4, and the activity
of his pieces, plus the open g-file, gives White a great advantage.
The alternative is 16 fxe5 dxe5 (if 16 ... Qxe5?! then 17 Nf3 and 18 g5) 17 Nf5 Bxf5 18
gxf5 Rad8 19 Qg2 Rxd1+ (if 19 ... Qc7?! White can preserve both his rooks with 20 Nd5,
with the plan of activating them along the third rank) 20 Rxd1, followed by Nd5, and once
again White has the better pieces.

Exercise: How should White continue after 15 ... b5 16 g5 hxg5 17 fxg5 Nh5?
 Answer: Spassky would have played 18 g6! when 18 ... f6 leaves the h5-knight in trouble. White’s options then include 19
Qe3, 19 Qf2, and 19 Nf5 and Black’s position collapses, so Black would have to accept the pawn with 18 ... fxg6, to which
White would reply 19 Qg5 or 19 Rg1, regaining the pawn with more lines opened against the black king.
16 Qg2 Nf6
In the event of 16 ... e5 White can play 17 Nf5 Bxf5 18 exf5 Nf6 and now either simply 19
Qxb7 (Boleslavsky) or Bondarevsky’s idea of opening the d-file first with 19 fxe5 dxe5 20
Qxb7, when after 20 ... Be7 21 Rg1 Rab8 22 Qg2 Bf8 the move 23 Ne4! is almost decisive,
since f7 is under pressure and if the knight moves from f6 then Black will always have to
reckon with White’s f5-f6.
The b3-bishop once again plays a leading role, and we can add this example to all the
classic games in which the presence of bishops of opposite colour favours the attacking side.
17 Rg1 Bd7
If 17 ... Qc5 Bondarevsky and Boleslavsky agree in suggesting 18 Nf3, with the idea of e4-
e5, and with the e4-square free White can follow up with Ne4. The moves 18 ... Bd7, 18 ...
b5 and 18 ... Nd7 would all be met by 19 e5; in the latter case 19 e5 d5 would be met with 20
f5!
 Exercise: How can White make progress now?

Answer:
18 f5!
Just so. The b3-bishop is itching to enter play.
18 ... Kh8
If 18 ... e5 the simplest and strongest is 19 Nf3 (threatening 20 Rxd6) 19 ... Qb6 20 Qh3
planning 21 Qxh6, regaining the pawn with an attack.
In the event of 18 ... exf5, opening the diagonal of the b3-bishop, there are several
attractive options. 19 Nxf5 and 19 exf5 are both good, while after 19 Qg6 the only move to
call the white attack into question is the surprising 19 ... Nd5!? 20 Bxd5 Qxd5.
In contrast 19 ... Kh8 20 Bxf7 fxe4 fails to 21 Rdf1! and there is no good defence against
22 Rxf6, for example 21 ... Qe5 loses to 22 Nf5! Bxf5 23 Rxf5 Qd4 24 Ne2.
19 Rdf1
White does not hurry with the capture on e6, partly so as not to open the fifth rank and thus
keep the black queen shut out on the queenside, for example 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 Rdf1 could be
met with 20 ... Qg5!?.
19 ... Qd8?!
A very passive defence which will fail to restrain White’s offensive.
One of the reasons why Spassky did not exchange on e6 is because he was not afraid of 19
... e5, closing the f-file, since in that case he could simply play 20 Nde2 and the weakening of
the d5-square, plus the opening of the diagonal a2-g8, would give White great compensation
for the pawn and a dangerous attack. The threat would be 21 Bxf7, and after 20 ... Re7 21
Nd5 Nxd5 22 Bxd5 f6 White would have to choose between 23 Nc3, heading for d5, or 23
Rf3, ready to play Rh3 at an opportune moment.
In contrast, the tempting 20 Ne6, quoted in various places as winning, is not so clear after
20 ... fxe6 21 fxe6 Rxe6! (but not 21 ... Bxe6? 22 Rxf6!) 22 Bxe6 Bxe6 23 Rxf6 gxf6 and now
24 Qg6 looks very strong, but the computer finds a surprising defence.
 Exercise (difficult): How to defend with Black?

Answer: 24 ... Qd8?! 25 Nd5 Qd7 26 Nb6, sacrificing the exchange, fails to guarantee equality, but after 24 ... Bc4!! 25
Qxf6+ Kh7, with the idea of 26 ... Qc7, White does not seem to have more than a draw.
Another defence was 19 ... Qe5 when one suggestion was 20 Nf3 evicting the queen away
from its strong position. Then if 20 ... Qc5 White has 21 h4! with the idea of 22 Ng5, while
20 ... Qf4 can be answered by 21 Qh3, also with the idea of 22 Ng5, as well as 22 fxe6 fxe6
23 Nh4.
But for tactical reasons it seems better to play the immediate 20 fxe6 with similar ideas,
for example 20 ... fxe6 21 Nf3 Qh5 22 Qg3 with the idea e4-e5. There are many other
possibilities, naturally.

Question: What is the problem with first playing 20 Nf3 instead of 20 fxe6?

Answer: The problem is that 20 Nf3 can be answered by 20 ... Qa5 (or 20 ... Qc5) and then if 21 fxe6 Bxe6 22 Bxe6
Black can play 22 ... Rxe6! (this is possible because the knight is not on d4) since if 23 Nd4 Black has 23 ... Re5, preventing
24 Rxf6 on account of the zwischenzug 24 ... Rg5! White would have compensation after 24 h4 Qd8, but 20 fxe6 seems to
offer more.
Boleslavsky considered the most tenacious defence to be 19 ... exf5 20 Nxf5 Bxf5 21 Rxf5
Re5, when White is slightly better after 22 Rxe5 Qxe5 23 Bxf7, although given the strength of
the b3-bishop it is interesting to consider the sacrifice 22 Rxf6 Rg5 23 Qxg5 hxg5 24 Rxf7,
with an attack based on the threats of 25 Rf5 or 25 Rg3, and White’s compensation is more
than sufficient.
20 fxe6 fxe6
In the event of 20 ... Bxe6 21 Nxe6 (21 Bxe6 is also good) 21…fxe6 there are several
good moves. White could continue in a similar way to the game, while at least equally strong
is Smyslov’s recommendation 22 Ne2, intending 23 Nf4, when 22 ... e5? fails to 23 Bf7,
winning the exchange, while 22 ... Re7 allows our familiar blow 23 Rxf6.
 Exercise: How did Spassky manage to include more pieces into the attack?

21 e5!
With this elegant move White is able to bring the distant c3-knight into the attack.
The more prosaic 21 Nf3 was also strong, threatening 22 e5 as well as Nh4.
21 ... dxe5 22 Ne4!
This was the idea. This knight is immune from capture, since 22 ... Nxe4? allows mate
after 23 Rxf8+ Rxf8 24 Qxg7++.
22 ... Nh5
After 22 ... exd4 23 Nxf6 the threat is 24 Qg6, and after 23 ... g5 24 Qh3 Re7 25 Rxg5 Bg7
White wins with 26 Rxg7! Kxg7 27 Rg1+ Kxf6 28 Qf3+ Ke5 29 Qg3+ (Boleslavsky).
23 Qg6!
23 Nf3 is less precise in view of 23 ... Nf4.
23 ... exd4?!
This loses almost without a fight, but by now there was no defence. The best try was 23 ...
Nf4, but after the forced sequence 24 Rxf4! exf4 all the white pieces are attacking and there
are several tempting moves.
One crushing way to win is to include the bishop in the attack from an even more effective
square with 25 c3! (planning 26 Bc2), when 25 ... Re7 allows mate with 26 Nf6, while after
25 ... e5 the quickest way is to play 26 Nd6!
Another way is 25 Nf3! with 26 Ne5 as the main threat. Then 25 ... Qa5 is answered with
26 Nf6! mating (if 26 ... Qf5 27 Qxh6+).
Against 25 ... Qb6 the strongest move is not 26 Ne5, owing to the surprising defence 26 ...
Re7 27 Nf6 Qxg1+! 28 Qxg1 gxf6 29 Ng6+ Kh7 30 Nxe7 Bxe7, still with some advantage to
White, but there is still fight in the position.
Even worse is 26 Nf6? Qxg1+ 27 Qxg1 gxf6.
The most precise move is the beautiful quiet move 26 Rg5!! (Geller) preventing the
resource ... Qxg1+ and threatening 27 Nf6. After the sad move 26 ... Qd8 several moves win,
but the most natural and strongest is 27 Ne5.
 Exercise: How did Spassky force resignation here?

Answer:
24 Ng5! 1-0
The threat of mate on h7 finishes the game, because 24 ... hxg5 25 Qxh5+ Kg8 26 Qf7+
Kh7 and White forces mate with 27 Rf3.

Bath 1973: On the Way to the – Possibly – Best Tournament of his Life
Following the loss of his world title in 1972, Spassky had a few weak tournament
performances on his return to competition, starting in 1973 with a mediocre result in Tallinn
(3rd out of 6 players) behind a majestic Tal and Polugaevsky. Then after scoring just 1½/4 in
a match-tournament in Moscow, he shared first place in Dortmund with Andersson and Hecht.
After losing two games, this was not actually a bad result, but it was not a very good one
either.
These performances gave no hint of the fact that later in the same year 1973 Spassky would
achieve one of the greatest triumphs of his career, playing some brilliant games in one of the
strongest Soviet championships in history.
The 5th European Team Championship was held in Bath, England, where he played
successfully on first board for the USSR. His team (with four former World Champions,
Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian and Spassky, together with a future World Champion, Karpov) easily
won the event, winning all their matches. Spassky tied with Gligoric for the best score on first
board.
In this game that we shall see how Spassky seized the initiative and gained greater piece
activity. The queens came off early but his advantage allowed him to reach a very favourable
endgame.

Game 25
B.Spassky-F.Gheorghiu
European Team Championship, Bath, 1973
Sicilian Defence

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5 6 Ndb5

6 ... h6
An unusual move. Instead of the usual 6 ... d6, preventing the check on d6, Black prefers to
protect the defender of d5 from exchange by Bg5xf6, without worrying about now having to
exchange his ‘bad’ bishop.
7 Nd6+

Question: After 6 ... d6 one possible move is 7 Nd5. Here it looks very much as though that move can be played under
even better conditions. Why is that not the case?

Answer: It is true that after 7 Nd5 Nxd5 8 exd5 the c6-knight cannot now go to e7 owing to the reply Nd6 mate; and 8 ...
Nb8 9 d6 does not look attractive either, but it is not all bad news for Black: he can play 8 ... a6! and after 9 dxc6 axb5 10
cxb7 Bxb7, the b5-pawn is immune from capture because of 11 ... Qa5+, while after 9 Nc3, going forward with 9 ... Nd4 is
now playable.
7 ... Bxd6 8 Qxd6 Qe7 9 Nb5
The main alternative is 9 Qxe7+ Kxe7 and now after 10 b3 or 10 Be3 Black plays 10 ... d6
and his pieces develop easily, ... Be6, ... Rd8, etc., although White has the pair of bishops and
an advantage in space.
9 ... Qxd6
Not 9 ... 0-0? on account of 10 Qxe7 Nxe7 11 Nd6, paralysing Black’s position. 9 ... Rb8
has also been played, although without much success.
10 Nxd6+ Ke7 11 Nf5+ Kf8
Later Black tried to revive the line with 11 ... Kd8, although this also seems suspect. Even
Ulf Andersson played it, but encountered difficulties after 12 Be3. A more recent example is
E.Najer-V.Usmanov, Vladivostok 2014, which continued 12 b3 Kc7 13 Ba3 d5 14 Bd6+ Kb6
15 Ne3 and Black’s position is barely hanging together. After 15 ... Rd8 16 exd5 Rxd6 17
Nc4+ Kc5 18 dxc6 Rxc6, White can gain the advantage with the simple 19 Nxe5 according to
the engines.
 Exercise: Black is threatening the e4-pawn and also
plans 12 ... d5. What did Spassky play in this position?

Answer:
12 b3!!
This pawn sacrifice is what the position demands in order to prevent Black from easily
gaining a good game. After 12 Nd6 Black can play 12 ... Ke7, repeating the position, while
after the passive 12 f3 defending the pawn Black can free his position with 12 ... d5.
12 ... d5
After 12 ... Nxe4 13 Ba3+ Kg8 14 Nd6 White pawn minus is compensated for by Black’s
lack of mobility. If Black does not exchange the d6-knight, this will turn out to be a very
unpleasant intruder, for example after 14 ... Ng5 15 Bc4. However, the dark-squared bishop
is very strong after 14 ... Nxd6 15 Bxd6 and in addition White has very easy play, for instance
with 16 0-0-0, followed by g3, Bg2, Rhe1 and finally f4 at an opportune moment, to open the
position. In contrast, Black has a very difficult game, with no satisfactory counter-plan.
13 Ba3+ Kg8 14 exd5 Nxd5
The Black’s structure is clearly weak after 14 ... Bxf5 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 0-0-0.

Exercise: Black’s lack of development and the strength of the white bishops mean that the tactics should favour White in
this position. If Black tries to become active prematurely with 16 ... Ne4, what would be White’s strongest response be?
 Answer: The most awkward move to meet is 17 Bc4! (aiming at f7, but 17 Ba6 is also good) because if 17 ... Nxf2?
White wins material with 18 Rdf1 Nxh1 19 Rxf5 and the h1-knight will soon be captured after Rf5-f1.
15 Nd6
Black’s game is more comfortable than if he had accepted the pawn, but nevertheless he
still needs a few tempi to bring all his pieces in play.
15 ... Rb8
This is necessary to develop the bishop. Just as on the previous move, Black must focus on
his development before starting a tactical fight, with 15 ... Ndb4 for example.

Exercise: What would be the best reply to this attack on c2?

Answer: White should sacrifice the insignificant a2-pawn with 16 0-0-0! when 16 ... Nxa2+?! 17 Kb2 Nab4 18 Bc4
regains the pawn with an even more active position than before.
16 Bc4 Be6 17 0-0-0
With his last two moves White has developed quickly and now he plans to increase the
pressure on Black’s position with another developing move like 18 Rhe1.
17 ... Nf4
This holds up 18 Rhe1 on account of the attack on g2 (18 ... Bxc4 and 19 ... Nxg2).
Instead 17 ... Nc3? was inferior because of 18 Bxe6 fxe6 19 Rde1 Nxa2+ 20 Kb2 Nab4 21
Bxb4 Nxb4 22 Rxe5, regaining the pawn with advantage in view of Black’s weak structure.
17 ... Nc7 could be met simply with 18 Rhe1, with advantage, although the difference in
activity also makes 18 Nxf7! possible, when 18 ... Bxf7? 19 Bxf7+ Kxf7 20 Rd7+ loses a
pawn without compensation, while after 18 ... Kxf7 19 Rd7+ Kf6 20 Rxc7 Bxc4 21 bxc4
Rhc8 22 Rd7! White’s extra pawn is doubled, but in view of White’s strong bishop and rook
on the seventh rank, Black’s compensation is debatable. For example 22 ... Na5 (22 ... Nd4
leaves the knight more exposed, enabling White to play 23 Bd6 Ra8 24 Bxe5+! Kxe5 25
Re1+ and 26 Rxd4) 23 Bd6 Ra8 24 c5 when White’s extra pawn is doubled but useful. 24 ...
b6 is answered with 25 Bc7!
18 g3 Bxc4 19 Nxc4 Ne2+
Black tries to create a lack of coordination in White’s game, seeing that 19 ... Ne6?! 20
Rhe1 f6 21 f4 b5 22 Nd6, with ideas such as Bb2, is clearly worse, while 19 ... Ng6 allows
20 Rd7.

20 Kb2

Question: This move removes the king from the centre. Is it appropriate here to do the opposite, as nearly all the books
tell us we should do in the endgame?

Answer: I can see that you have some good books. These can be an excellent guide, but at the board you have to think
“with your own little head” as Miguel Najdorf used to say. Although the king is now decentralised, it leaves the central files
clear, granting greater activity to his other pieces, especially the rooks.
Putting the king on b2 is better than playing 20 Kd2, when after 20 ... Ned4 21 c3 Ne6 22
Rhe1 f6 23 f4 b5 24 Nd6, having played c2-c3 White cannot use the Bb2 idea that was
effective after 19 ... Ne6 in the note to Black’s 19th move.
20 ... b5
Previously Black had rejected this active move because he considered it (correctly) to be
premature, but he decides to play it now, because the safer move 20 ... f6 would probably be
answered with the unpleasant 21 c3!?, threatening Rhe1, when Black would have to play 21
... b5 anyway, in order to have the possibility of the tactical shot ... Nxc3, followed by ... b4+,
regaining the piece.

21 Rhe1
Spassky decides to include his last piece in the struggle, reckoning that after the ensuing
exchanges he is bound to be left with the more active pieces.
The position also permitted White to gain an advantage just using the pieces already
developed by playing 21 Bd6! when 21 ... Rd8? fails to the simple 22 Nxe5, while 21 ... Re8
22 Na3 a6 23 c3 leaves the e2-knight in trouble.
Gaining a fleeting material advantage with 21 ... bxc4 22 Bxb8 c3+ (22 ... Nxb8 23 Rd8+
Kh7 24 Rxh8+, followed by 25 c3, loses the e2-knight) is no better, since after 23 Kb1 Nxb8
24 Rd8+ Kh7 25 Rxh8+ Kxh8 26 Re1 Nd4 27 Rxe5 Kh7 28 Re3 White wins a second pawn,
with a big advantage in the endgame.
21 ... bxc4
Forced, since 21 ... Ned4 fails to 22 Nxe5 b4 23 Bxb4 Nxe5 (or 23 ... Rxb4 24 c3) 24
Rxe5 Nc6 25 Bd6!
On the other hand the desperado 21 ... Nxg3 can be answered simply with 22 Nxe5, and
after 22 ... Nxe5 23 Rxe5 f6 White has the zwischenzug 24 Bd6! with advantage. White could
also seek a bigger advantage with the more complex 22 Rd6! with the idea of 22 ... Nd4 23
Nxe5 Ngf5 24 Rd7 b4 25 Bxb4 Rxb4 26 Nxf7, when White’s advantage should be decisive.
22 Rxe2 f6 23 Re4
Spassky is seeking to stabilise the structure and clarify the position. At the same time, he is
planning to activate this rook along the fourth rank.
23 ... cxb3
 24 cxb3

Question: Another move away from the centre! Why not 24 axb3?

Answer: It is possible that there is no great difference here between the two possible ways to recapture. The basics of
the position are the same in both cases. White is better because all his pieces are in play and his bishop is superior to the
enemy knight. Furthermore the pawn on a7 is weak. With the text move White is planning to use the c-file which is now open.
24 ... Kh7 25 Rc4 Rhd8
25 ... Nd4 fails to relieve the pressure, since after 26 Bc5 Rhc8 27 Rdc1 Black will have
to play an endgame a pawn down. If 27 ... Nb5 then 28 a4.
26 Rxd8 Nxd8 27 Bc5 a6
Advancing this pawn to a5 would leave it even more exposed.
In the event of 27 ... Rb7, White forces Black into passivity with 28 Ra4 Nc6 29 Ra6 Rc7
and then starts to advance his pawn majority with 30 b4, followed by Kb3-c4, etc., with b4-
b5 a constant threat.
28 Kc3 Kg6 29 a4 Kf7
Black centralises his king, but it is too far from the queenside, specifically from his
isolated pawn on a6.
 Exercise: Now that Spassky has improved the position of his king and started to
advance his queenside majority, what do you think Spassky played in this position?

Answer:
30 Be3
Making way for the rook to head for the seventh rank and then harass the weak pawn on a6.
30 ... Ke6 31 Rc7 Rb7 32 Rc8 Rd7
The endgame after 32 ... Kd7 33 Ra8 Rc7+ 34 Kb2 Ne6 35 Rxa6 Nd4 36 b4 Rc2+ 37 Kb1
Rc4 38 b5 (vacating b4 for the king) is also difficult for Black; the two connected passed
pawns should win.
33 Bb6 Nb7 34 Ra8

The a-pawn falls and the win becomes clearer, although several more moves were
required to bring it to fruition.
34 ... Rd6 35 a5 Rc6+ 36 Kb4 Nd6 37 Rxa6 Nc8 38 Kb5 Kd5 39 Ra8 Rc3 40 Kb4 Rc2 41 Be3 1-0
“How many of them did he make in his career!”
This is what Kasparov wrote, referring to the host of successful sacrifices that Spassky made against the Sicilian Defence.
This game is a good example. It was played in the fourth round of the 41st USSR Championship, one of the strongest in its
history, (the strongest according to many sources) from which we have already seen some games. In this event Spassky
overcame several generations of Soviet masters with his brilliant play.
In an interview after the tournament Spassky said: “The first tournaments after the match
[against Fischer] were very difficult for me, therefore I tried to reduce the pressure a little.
Now, as I feel stronger, I began to put more effort into my play ... I feel satisfied by some of
my games, where there were intense struggles, and not only games that were won. Take the
last encounters, which were rather tense: with Korchnoi, Grigorian and Petrosian ... About
midway through the tournament I felt that, in all probability, the odds of my winning overall
were perceptible”.
Winning the (possibly) strongest USSR Championship in its history was a great
achievement and required a huge expenditure of energy, as Spassky himself relates, and as
can be seen in the magnificent games that he played there. The negative side according to
Korchnoi, was that this triumph left Spassky with little energy for the rest of his career.
Many years later this writer asked Spassky what he thought of that statement and, laughing,
he said it was probably right.

Game 26
B.Spassky-V.Tukmakov
USSR Championship, Moscow 1973
Sicilian Defence

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5

In the 1970s this was the most fashionable move and Spassky had employed it in his match
with Fischer in Reykjavik 1972. In fact throughout his career Spassky hardly ever made any
other move in this position.
6 ... e6 7 f4 Nbd7 8 Qf3 Qc7 9 0-0-0 b5 10 Bd3
Only once, in Amsterdam 1970 against Polugaevsky, did Spassky play the sharper 10 e5,
which after spectacular play ended in a draw.
The other thematic sacrifice, 10 Bxb5, has also been played here, but practice has not
supported these violent and complicated attempts to quickly demolish Black’s position.
 10 ... Bb7

Exercise: In B.Spassky-G.Zaichik, Moscow 1972,

Black chose 10 ... b4. How do you think Spassky replied?

Answer: Naturally with the sacrifice 11 Nd5! and after 11 ... exd5 brought his last piece into play with 12 Rhe1.
11 Rhe1

Question: Without being familiar with this variation, at first sight Black’s position looks dubious. White has all his pieces in
play and the knight sacrifice Nd5 that White has prepared is a worry. Would I be wrong to be scared here?

Answer: It is not as bad as it looks, but there is something in what you say.
If 11 ... b4? then, as you predicted, White plays 12 Nd5!
Instead 11 ... Be7 looks like the most natural move, speeding up Black’s development, but
then 12 Qg3! is unpleasant, as Spassky himself played against Fischer in their world title
match, gaining the advantage. One of the ideas is to follow up with 13 e5, while it is also
necessary to consider 13 Bxf6 Nxf6 14 Qxg7. It is not possible to defend g7 by playing 13 ...
Bxf6, since this leaves the d6-pawn undefended, allowing White to play 14 Bxb5!
After 11 ... Be7 the immediate 12 Nd5 was the idea of the great attacking player Dragoljub
Velimirovic. The flawed but spectacular game D.Velimirovic-L.Ljubojevic, Umag-Katoro
1972, was awarded the tournament’s brilliancy prize.
Interpolating 11 ... h6 is not a solution either. White can respond with the simple 12 Bh4,
but it is also possible to play 12 Qh3. The game J.Timman–L.Polugaevsky, Hilversum 1973,
had a surprising and rapid finish after 12 ... 0-0-0 13 Bxf6 Nxf6 14 Nd5 Qa5?? 15 Nb3 1-0.
The black player, one of the greatest Sicilian Defence experts of the 20th century, loses his
queen.
Later the move 11 ... 0-0-0 became popular and this has accumulated a great deal of theory.
At the time this game was played, Black experienced some difficulties, until that
inexhaustible source of ideas, Polugaevsky, saw that it was appropriate, and tactically
justified, to evict the strong knight from d4.
11 ... Qb6

Question: Hmm, another queen move, with

the king still in the centre? Isn’t this too risky?

Answer: Polugaevsky himself answered your question, annotating the game in which he employed it for the first time: “Of
course it is a risky experiment to make a second move with the queen while leaving the remaining pieces in their places, but
over the board it was not easily refuted, and my opponent Geller (at Portoroz 1973) was unable to cope with the task”.
In this game Geller thought for 90 minutes before playing 12 Nxe6? “but he was unlucky. I
had analysed this tempting sacrifice at home, when I was preparing 11 ... Qb6”, said
Polugaevsky, and after 12 ... fxe6 13 Qh3 e5! Black, conceding the d5-square, nullified the
d3-bishop and closed the e-file; Geller continued with 14 Nd5, since it was necessary to
open the game, but this allowed the exchange of an important piece, according to
Polugaevsky, and with 14 ... Bxd5 15 exd5 0-0-0! 16 Bf5 Kc7! Black repulsed the attack and
won the game.
12 Nb3
This is the most natural move, although later the surprising 12 Nd5 came into fashion.
According to Kasparov this was an idea of Rotislav Korsunsky, who showed it to Eduard
Gufeld, who was then the trainer of the Women’s World Champion Maia Chiburdanidze.
On its first outing in the game M.Chiburdanize-S.Dvoirys, Tallinn 1980, this was answered
with 12 ... exd5?! but after 13 Nc6! Bxc6 (13…dxe4 is better) 14 exd5+ Be7 15 dxc6 Nc5 16
Bxf6 gxf6 (16 ... Nxd3+ 17 Qxd3 gxf6 loses to 18 Rxe7+! mating) 17 Bf5, and the
vulnerability of the black king was decisive.
There is a lot of theory on this line. Later it was discovered that the best reply to 12 Nd5 is
12 ... Qxd4! with very complicated play, the main line being 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14 Bxb5 Qc5.
12 ... b4
Also playable is 12 ... Rc8!? 13 Kb1 and now Black can consider attacking the c3-knight
with 13 ... b4, mentioned by Kasparov, or sacrificing the exchange with 13 ... Rxc3!? as
‘patented’ by Kasparov himself in a similar position in his game against Movsesian in
Sarajevo 2000.

Question: “Patented”? What is that about?

It is just a typical sacrifice, known for many decades.

Answer: Yes, the idea is familiar, but what is untypical is that Kasparov’s idea was not so much to win a pawn in
compensation but to content himself with weakening White’s king position; Black gains sufficient compensation, since his king
is much more secure than White’s.
Thus 13 Qh3, played in A.Shirov-V.Anand, Morelia/Linares 2008, was answered with the
sacrifice 13 ... Rxc3! 14 bxc3 Qc7 15 Kb1 Be7. Anand commented that his sacrifice was
inspired by Kasparov’s example.
13 Na4!?
One of the ideas of 11 ... Qb6 is that with the knight on b3, away from centre, the sacrifice
13 Nd5? is unpromising now, since after 13 ... exd5 14 exd5+ Kd8 the black king is more
secure.
The apparently less ambitious 13 Nb1 was nevertheless employed by Shirov in Khanty-
Mansiysk 2007 against Karjakin, who awarded it an exclamation mark. The opening favoured
White after 13 ... Be7 14 N1d2 Qc7 15 Qh3 e5 16 Nc4 0-0 17 Nba5 Bc8 18 Qg3, etc.
This was what led Anand to seek alternatives, resulting in his choice of 12 ... Rc8 against
Shirov in the game quoted above.
 13 ... Qc7

Exercise: One important reason why the move of the knight to the edge
of the board is effective is that 13 ... Qc6 is not appropriate. Why is that?

Answer: Because of 14 Na5! Qxa4 15 Nxb7 Rb8 16 e5! dxe5 17 fxe5 Nd5 18 Bc4! Rxb7 19 Rxd5! with equal material
and the black king defenceless.
15 ... Qxa2 is no better, since White can open the centre with 16 e5! Nd5 17 f5! Nxe5 18
Rxe5! dxe5 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 Rf1, and wins.
14 Nd4 Be7
“The attempt to justify the advance of the b-pawn by 14 ... Qa5?! 15 b3 Nc5 16 Nxc5
dxc5? does not work” commented Kasparov.

Exercise: What is wrong with this line? Demonstrate your combinative abilities.
 Answer: The insecurity of the black king is revealed by the combination 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18 Nxe6! fxe6 19 Qh5+ Ke7 20 e5,
and once again the black king lacks defenders.
The capture 16 ... Qxc5 also leads to an advantage to White after 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18 Bc4! 0-
0-0 (not 18 ... f5? 19 Bxe6!) 19 Kb1, and Black’s structure is very weak. “Black simply has
an inferior position” (Kasparov).
15 Qh3 Nc5
An ambitious move, exchanging the knight on a4 and compelling White to play
energetically, although it is not clear whether it is completely sound.
15 ... 0-0-0! was better, and after 16 f5 Black can play 16 ... e5 17 Nf3 h6 with adequate
counterplay (Timman).

Exercise: In contrast, it would be bad for Black to opt for the

imprudent 15 ... 0-0, ignoring the danger of the white queen
on h3, supported by the d3-bishop. How would you continue?

Answer: With the simple refutation 16 e5 dxe5 17 Bxf6! Nxf6 18 fxe5, and wins.
16 Nxc5 dxc5
 Exercise: How should White continue here?

Answer:
17 Nxe6!
White decides to sacrifice material in order to harass the black monarch, just as Geller did
against Polugaevsky, “but in a more favourable situation for White” (Polugaevsky).
Furthermore this course of action is necessary, since the alternative 17 Nf3? cedes the
initiative after 17 ... c4.

Question: I’m impressed. How did Spassky decide on this sacrifice?

Was it an easy decision to take? Did he calculate as far as the endgame?

Answer: The piece sacrifice on e6 is a typical Sicilian motif, although this is not a case of ‘White to play and win’. It is an
intuitive sacrifice, the consequences of which are impossible to calculate. It requires a solid grounding in combinational
methods and it is essential to be able to make an accurate risk assessment. Acquiring those skills requires intense and
appropriate training.
Let us recall the phrase used by Kasparov when discussing the sacrifices that Spassky
made against the Sicilian Defence: “How many of them did he make in his career!”
17 ... fxe6
 18 Bc4!

Question: Oh! This is not the first move that I’d

consider here. How did Spassky come to select it?

Answer: It is the best move, already foreseen before the sacrifice on e6. The black king will be stuck in the centre for a
long time and the initiative, plus the two pawns, guarantees sufficient compensation. Of course, it was not clear whether it was
advantageous or insufficient, but it is what the position ‘demands’.
Spassky considered other moves too. 18 e5?! is bad on account of 18 ... Nd5 19 Qxe6 (as
Geller noted, 19 Bg6+? fails to19 ... hxg6! 20 Qxh8+ Kf7, with clear advantage to Black) 19
... Qd7! (safer than the theoretically recommended move 19 ... Qc8, since White can then
complicate the game with 20 Bg6+!? hxg6 21 Qxg6+ Kf8 22 Rxd5 Bxd5 23 Bf6, although
Black seems to be able to hold).
The immediate capture 18 Qxe6?! brings no advantage either, on account of the reply 18 ...
Qc6! 19 Qb3 (to hinder ... c4) 19 ... 0-0-0
 18 ... Rd8?

Question: OK, what is wrong with this? Bringing a rook into play
looks logical and I see that the engines do not condemn it so harshly.

Answer: Let us listen to Kasparov: “In the Najdorf Variation, approximate play is not good enough”.
This is a critical point, requiring concrete calculation, which will demonstrate that Black’s
last move was bad. Now White’s advantage will become tangible, with an enduring initiative
for White, condemning Black to a very difficult defence.
Instead it was necessary to play 18 ... Bc8! when after 19 Bxe6 the most precise defence is
19 ... Bxe6! 20 Qxe6 and now Black can play either 20 ... Rf8 or Kasparov’s recommendation
20 ... Qc8 21 Qc4 Rf8, and for the moment the black king is reasonably well defended.
In contrast, 19 ... Qc6?! is dubious because of the advance 20 e5! Ng8? 21 Rd6! Bxd6 22
exd6 Kf8 23 Qf5+ and wins. It is better to play 20 ... Bxe6 when White’s best line appears to
be 21 exf6! Bxh3 22 Rxe7+ Kf8 23 fxg7+ Kg8 24 gxh3 h6 25 gxh8Q+ Kxh8 26 Bh4 (Alpert),
with ample compensation and winning chances in view of the insecurity of the black king.
19 Qxe6 Rxd1+ 20 Rxd1 Rf8
 Exercise: How to continue the attack?

Answer:
21 Bxf6!
This exchange is necessary to be able to penetrate the black position. The f-pawn is
immune from capture, even though it is with check, since the black queen needs to control d7.
On the other hand 21 e5?? would be a serious error in view of 21 ... Bc8.
21 ... Rxf6 22 Qg8+ Bf8
Forced, since 22 ... Rf8?? walks into a curious checkmate with 23 Bf7++.
23 g3
This defends f4 with the plan of advancing with e5, which cannot be prevented.
23 ... Bc8
Another defensive try was 23 ... Qe7, which can be answered with the winning
combination 24 e5 Rh6 25 Bf7+! Qxf7 26 Rd8+ Kxd8 27 Qxf7 Be7 and now the capture of
the g7-pawn, combined with the advance f4-f5 is crushing. White is spoilt for choice of very
strong continuations here: 28 f5, 28 Qxg7, or 28 Qg8+ followed by Qxg7, etc.
24 e5 Rb6
 25 Qxh7
This move, played in time pressure, is the most practical. It gains material and maintains
threats. Away from the heat of battle, we can see that this move relaxes the pressure on the
black king.
The tempting advance 25 e6?! is not as good as it looks, since it allows 25 ... Rd6!, when
White has no clear way forward.
Nevertheless, White had a winning combination here, although it required deep calculation
and further sacrifices of material, so in practice it would difficult to choose it. The winning
move was 25 Rd8+! Kxd8 (25…Qxd8 26 Qf7 mate) 26 Qxf8+ Kd7 27 Qxg7+ Kd8 (27 ...
Kc6? loses to 28 Bd5+) 28 Qg8+ Kd7 29 Qxh7+ Kd8 30 Qh8+! (to defend the e5-pawn and
thus prepare f4-f5) 30 ... Kd7 (30 ... Ke7 loses to 31 f5! Bxf5 32 Qg7+ Kd8 33 Qf8+ and 34
Qxf5+) 31 f5! and analysis shows that the advance of the four passed pawns leads to victory,
for example 31 ... Qd8 32 e6+ Kc7 33 Qg7+ Kd6 34 h4 and the result will not be in doubt for
much longer.
25 ... Be6?!
Black misses the most tenacious defence, 25 ... Bg4! disrupting the coordination of the
white forces. The outcome is unclear after 26 Rd2 Qc6 27 b3 Qg6 28 Qh4 Be7 29 Qh8+ Bf8,
etc.
26 Qg6+ Qf7
After 26 ... Ke7 the finish involves bringing the white bishop into the attack from another
angle: 27 Be2 Bf7 28 Qg5+ Ke8 29 Bg4 and wins.
27 Qe4 Qc7
Of course 27 ... Bxc4? loses to 28 Qa8+ Ke7 29 Qd8+ and mate in two moves.
28 h4 Bxc4 29 Qxc4 Qc6
 Exercise: There are several options here, but one
is clearly better than the rest. Can you find it?

Answer:
30 b3!
An excellent ‘quiet move’ that prepares Qe2 and the advance of the pawns. On the other
hand the immediate 30 f5 could be met by 30 ... Qf3, complicating the game, while 30 Qe2
would allow 30 ... c4, once again creating counter-chances.
30 ... g6?
It was better to try 30…Rb7.
31 Qe2!
Seeking to open lines against the king and at the same time create three connected passed
pawns with 32 h5.
31 ... Qe6 32 h5 Rb7?
This move makes White’s task easier. Even after the best defence 32 ... Be7 33 hxg6 Qxg6
White can play 34 g4 immediately or else prepare it by strengthening his position with 34
Kb1, followed perhaps by Rh1, etc., and at an opportune moment g3-g4, since there is no
hurry.
 Exercise (easy): Why is Black’s move bad?

Answer:
33 Qe4!
With this double attack the queen centralises with a gain of time and increases its scope.
Now the pawns can advance with devastating effect.
33 ... Rg7 34 hxg6 Qxg6 35 f5 1-0
And Black resigned. If 35 ... Qh6+ 36 Kb1 Rxg3 then 37 e6! is one way to win.
Chapter Five
The Exchange Variation against the
Grünfeld Defence
An Ideal Type of Position for Spassky
The Exchange Variation against the Grünfeld Defence led to a very pleasant scenario for
Spassky: domination of the centre, active pieces, the possibility of seizing the initiative, and
attacking the opponent’s king. It is no surprise that Spassky played so many brilliant games
with this line, even against very strong opponents, including two triumphs against Fischer, one
in an endgame and the other after an overwhelming initiative.
This game was played in the Hoogovens tournament in Beverwijk 1967, where, according
to the book Boris Spassky’s 300 wins, “The play of Spassky in the tournament was easy and
winning. He outplayed his opponents with the help of various tactical coups. In his game with
Kuijpers, Spassky got the advantage of a pair of bishops by an unexpected 14 ... g5. Spassky
twice sacrificed an exchange to win his games against Pomar and Ghitescu”.
The game we shall see now was decided by a terrific attack. It could be said that a
Spassky in top form demonstrated the full range of his ‘universal style’.

Game 27
B.Spassky-B.Larsen
Beverwijk 1967
Grünfeld Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 0-0 8 Ne2
 8 ... Qd7

Question: A strange-looking move, isn’t it? It is not exactly

the first move that springs to mind. What is the idea?

Answer: Black wants to avoid the main line with 8 ... c5 and with this move he prepares ... b6, postponing for a while the
usual ideas of attacking the white centre with ... c5, or sometimes ... e5.

Question: Hmm, I partly understand this, but how does

it prepare ... b6? Why not play 8 ... b6 immediately?

Exercise: I’ll answer with an exercise. What possibility for White

after 8 ... b6 does Black want to avoid? What is Black worried about?

Answer: After 8 ... b6 Black is of course not afraid of a normal move such as 9 0-0, but he is worried about a rapid
attack with 9 h4! Perhaps this is not really a serious threat, and it is just a matter of taste, but there are not many people who
like to be attacked if they can avoid it. The game B.Spassky-J.Timman, Amsterdam 1977 continued 9 ... Nc6. Black intends to
play a quick ... Na5, to drive away the bishop and then strike back at the white centre with …c5. Spassky then played 10 Bd5.
 White wants to play h5 under even better conditions (although of course the immediate 10
h5 is also sound, as we shall see later). After 10 ... Bb7, Timman himself has played some
model games with White. J.Timman-L.Riemersma, Rotterdam 1977, continued 11 h5 e6 12
Bb3 Na5 (exchanging the white bishop is appropriate in view of the strong pressure it exerts
against e6 and f7) 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 Qd3! (the transfer of the queen to the h-file, combined
with the exchange of the g7-bishop is the ideal complement to White’s plan of opening the h-
file) 14 ... Nxb3 15 axb3 f5 16 Qg3! and Black was unable to withstand the white attack.
Against Spassky, Timman preferred 10 ... Qd7 and the game continued 11 h5 Ba6
(preventing Qd3, but the attack continues) 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 Nf4! e6 14 Qg4! Rfd8 15 Bxe6!
and White won quickly. We saw the finish when we were discussing Spassky’s style earlier
in the book.
In Supplementary Game 27.1 we shall take a brief look at something that could be
instructive for anyone unfamiliar with this type of position. The classic game T.Petrosian-
M.Stean, Moscow 1975 saw White played the immediate 10 h5 instead of 10 Bd5.
9 0-0

Question: This move abandons the idea of opening the h-file,

or at least the plan of attacking along it. Is 9 h4 playable here?

Answer: 9 h4 can be answered by 9 ... Qg4! and White must either exchange the queens after 10 Ng3 or sacrifice a
centre pawn for dubious compensation after 10 h5 Qxe4.
9 ... b6
 10 Be3
This is the most natural move, and the most common. There are several others, among
which it is worth highlighting 10 e5, which seeks to attack in a similar way to what we have
already seen. White reckons that his initiative is more important (or at least compensates for)
than the loss of control of the d5-square. The game Y.Balashov-B.Gulko, Moscow 1976
continued 10 ... Bb7 11 Nf4 e6 12 Qg4! c5 13 Be3 (not 13 Nxe6? Re8) 13 ... Nc6 14 Rad1
cxd4 15 cxd4 Rfd8 16 h4! (seeking to weaken Black’s castled position – this is rather
reminiscent of the Spassky-Timman game mentioned above) 16 ... Rac8 17 h5 Nb4 18 Bb3,
with complicated play.
10 ... Bb7 11 f3
White is prepared for a positional struggle. This move bolsters the e4-pawn, largely
nullifying the bishop on b7. The snag is that it renounces, at least for a while, the idea of f4-
f5, something he could still contemplate after 11 Qc2 Nc6 or 11 Bd3, although it is not clear
that these moves are any better.
11 ... Nc6
“In this system Black delays his central action, maintaining both possibilities: ... e7-e5 and
... Nc6-a5 followed by ... c7-c5”, commented Michal Krasenkow, an expert on the Grünfeld
Defence.
12 Rc1
 Another typical move in this line. With a view to the future, the rook escapes the influence
of the bishop on g7. Looking even further ahead, in line with Krasenkow’s comment above,
after ... c5 or ... e5, if there is an exchange on d4 the rook will be well placed on the c-file.
12 ... Rad8
The alternatives were the immediate 12 ... Na5 or playing the other rook to d8, which
allows Black to avoid the exchange of bishops after Bh6 at some point, since the black bishop
can now move away. Curiously D.Bronstein and V.Lepeshkin awarded a question mark to 12
... Rfd8 in Chess Informant 18, although this seems excessive. The reason is that (along with
12 ... Rad8) it allows the pin 13 Bb5, when Black is forced to play 13 ... a6 14 Ba4 b5 if he
wants to get rid of the pin, but then ... c7-c5 is ruled out. After 15 Bb3 Na5 16 Qc2 Black
resorted to the other counter-blow 16 ... e5 in A.Beliavsky-R.Vaganian, Leningrad 1974. It
cannot be said that Black stands badly. In the game White won, but this was because he
played better and not because he gained any advantage from the opening.
13 Qd2 Na5 14 Bd3 c5 15 Rfd1
Another possibility was to exchange the black bishop with 15 Bh6.
15 ... Qa4
 With the idea of ... Nc4 and putting pressure on the a2-pawn.

Exercise: Did White decline the opportunity to exchange

the black bishops with 15 Bh6? Or is this still possible?

Answer:
16 Bh6
This is still playable because there is no need to fear the capture of the a2-pawn: after 16
... Bxh6?! 17 Qxh6 Qxa2? White plays 18 e5! with ample compensation. White plans Nf4,
followed by Nh5, with the advance e5-e6 also on the agenda. Here 18 ... Bc8? would lose to
19 Ra1 Qb3 20 Rdb1 Qe6 21 Nf4 and 22 Nh5.
Instead 18 ... c4 19 Bc2 Nb3 provides no relief, because the attack continues with 20 Nf4!
(once again threatening Nh5) and if 20 ... Nc5 21 Re1! (not 21 dxc5? Rxd1+ 22 Bxd1 Qd2!
and Black wins) threatening to capture on c5. Black’s position becomes critical, for example
after 21 ... Ne6 22 Nxe6 fxe6 both 23 h4 and 23 Qd2 are good. The latter move threatens to
trap the black queen, and after 23 ... Qa5 24 Ra1 Qb5 25 Rxa7, Black’s position is full of
weaknesses.
16 ... Nc4
After the exchange of the d3-bishop Black’s position appears to be safer.
17 Bxc4 Qxc4 18 Bxg7 Kxg7
 Exercise: What did Spassky do in this position?

Answer:
19 Ng3
He improved his worst-placed piece. The knight was in a passive position on e2, but now
he is planning to play Nf1-e3.
19 ... f6
Providing a refuge for the queen.
20 Nf1 Qf7 21 Ne3

21 ... cxd4?!
Black is preparing to put pressure on the d4-pawn by doubling his rooks on the d-file.
However, this opens the c-file in White’s favour. It does not seem a high price to pay, but
nevertheless it was not necessary.
If 21 ... Rd7 White would have played 22 d5 and c3-c4, but the prophylactic 21 ... e6
would have been more cautious.
22 cxd4 Rd7
If 22 ... e6 White could play 23 a4, planning to attack with a4-a5, to leave Black with an
isolated pawn. Or he could play 22 Qb4 first, with the idea of 23 Qa4 to weaken Black’s
queenside. If Black responds with ... a6 followed by ... b5, White’s a2-a4 would be even
stronger.
We can see that this would not be possible if Black had not prematurely exchanged pawns
on d4.
23 d5 Rfd8
After 23 ... e6 White could play 24 Ng4, preventing 24 ... exd5? on account of 25 e5!.
24 Ng4
Suddenly Black’s position has become passive. The pressure on d4 has not borne fruit and
White is now threatening to gradually improve his position, either with h2-h4 or with Qf4,
preparing to play Rc7 at an opportune moment. Another plan is a4-a5.
If Black does not manage to attack the white centre, the d5-pawn threatens to leave Black
virtually a piece down, since the bishop is out of play.
24 ... h5
This weakens the kingside, but it does not look as though White is in any position to take
advantage of it.
25 Qh6+!
Better than 25 Ne3 e6! followed by ... f5, and the black pieces spring to life. Now ... e7-e6
is temporarily ruled out.
25 ... Kg8 26 Ne3 Qg7 27 Qf4
Naturally White does not exchange the queens, since he wants to retain the possibility of
harassing Black’s weakened kingside.
27 ... Kh7

Exercise: Black still wants to exchange queens

with 28 ... Qh6. How should White respond?
 Answer:
28 Kf2!
With this surprising ‘defence’. However, as we shall see, it is also an aggressive move,
since by defending the knight White will be able to respond to 28 ... Qh6 by retreating his
queen to h4. Nevertheless, this is what Black should have played.
18 ... Qf7?!

Exercise: Show that Black has underestimated White’s last move.

Answer:
29 g4!
And suddenly another advantage of 28 Kf2! appears: the g-file has been cleared, so that
now the threat is to win with 30 gxh5 gxh5 31 Nf5.
29 ... hxg4?!
This facilitates White’s task, although the defence would have also been difficult after 29
... e6 30 gxh5, since Black’s king suffers more than White’s from the opening of lines.
30 Qxg4 Qg7

Exercise: What is White’s most effective move now?

Answer:
31 Rg1!
With the immediate threat of Nf5. If 31…Qh6 32 Rg3! wins. Black has no good defence.
31 ... e6 32 Qxe6 Qh6 33 Qxf6 Rf8 34 Qg5 Qg7 35 Rc2 Rdf7 36 Rg3 Rf4 37 Ng4 1-0

Supplementary Game 27.1

T.Petrosian-M.Stean
Moscow 1975

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 0-0 8 Ne2 b6 9 h4 Nc6
 10 h5 Na5 11 Bd3
Petrosian prefers to preserve the bishop. If he plays 11 Bb3 Black can postpone the
capture on b3 until the best moment and, as in the game, attack the centre with 11 ... e5, and
the transfer of the white queen to the h-file is very difficult to achieve.
11 ... e5 12 hxg6

Exercise: How should Black recapture on g6 in this position?

Answer:
12 ... hxg6?
Black chose the capture that is usually the better of the two, ‘towards the centre’, but here
the complete opening of the h-file favours White.
13 Bh6!
The exchange of bishops is an achievement for White. There is no relief for Black in
exchanging the queens with 13 ... Bxh6 14 Rxh6 Qg5?! (it is better to play 14 ... Kg7 15 Qd2
Rh8, exchanging rooks) 15 Qd2! Qxd2+ (if 15 ... Qxg2? White plays 16 0-0-0 when 16 ...
Qxf2? loses to 17 Rh8+! Kxh8 18 Qh6+ Kg8 19 Rh1) 16 Kxd2 exd4 17 cxd4 Bb7 18 Rah1,
with a very strong initiative even without the queens, for example 18 ... Kg7 19 Rh7+
(preventing 19 ... Rh8) 19 ... Kf6 (or 19 ... Kg8?! 20 e5) 20 Nf4, with the idea of e4-e5.
13 ... f6 14 Qd2 Qe7 15 0-0-0! Be6 16 d5 Bd7 17 Rh2! Rf7 18 Rdh1 Re8 19 f4!
To open the f-file, or gain squares for the knight.
19 ... c6 20 fxe5 Qxe5
Or 20 ... fxe5 21 Bxg7 Rxg7 22 Rh8+ Kf7 23 Rf1+.
21 Nf4
and White won quickly.

Let us go back to move 12, where it is better to play 12 ... fxg6!

After 13 Be3 Qe7 the kingside is better defended, and Black has the counter-blow ... exd4
and ... c5 in mind.

Question: Now I can see that it is not the same to have the h-file only half-open
(and the f-file half-open, which is in Black’s favour). Nevertheless, isn’t it
still beneficial to exchange the dark-squared bishops here with 13 Bh6?

Answer: In this position preserving the bishop favours White more, since after 13 ... Bxh6 14 Rxh6 Black has several
possibilities, for example 14 ... Qg5 forcing 15 Rh2, given that White cannot play 15 Qd2? Qxd2+ 16 Kxd2 Rxf2. Also
adequate is 14 ... exd4 15 cxd4 c5, and the opening of the centre makes some dark squares accessible to Black, and in none
of these lines does Black miss his bishop from the kingside.

Exercise: With the f-file half-open after 14 Rxh6 there is also

a tactical possibility which is good for Black – what is it?
 Answer: Black has 14 ... Rxf2! when 15 Kxf2? allows 15 ... Qf8+ and ... Qxh6, so White has to play 15 Rxg6+ fxg6 16
Kxf2, but after 16 ... Be6 it can be seen that the simplification has been in Black’s favour. Weaknesses have appeared in the
white camp, the white king is more exposed and his two minor pieces are passive (even more so in the event of 17 d5?!). In
contrast, Black’s game is harmonious and easy, with plans of ... Qh4, ... Kg7, ... Rh8 or ... Rf8, with ... Nc4 also in the air.

A Stellar Contest, with Tickets Sold Out before the Start of the Tournament
In the Olympiad in Siegen in 1970 the USSR did not have as good a start as they usually
did. In the finals, after five of the eleven rounds they had won only three matches and drawn
two, with the result that they were sharing third place on 12 points with Yugoslavia, behind
Hungary and the USA, who each had 12½.
The key match in the sixth round was USSR vs. USA, which garnered all the attention. The
tickets to see the match had run out even before start of the Olympiad. The main attraction
was on the top board, where the two best players in the world faced each other. It attracted
3,000 spectators.
It was an extremely complex struggle. “Boris was obviously nervous before and during the
game, and he smoked one cigarette after another, but he managed to control his nerves”,
commented Mednis. There was a point in the match when it seemed that the USSR was going
to lose 3-1 at best, but Spassky managed to solve his problems and won after a spectacular
counterattack, which prompted thunderous applause and the USSR also proved the
predictions wrong and won 2½-1½.
Korchnoi commented that “Spassky himself did not rate this game too highly as regards its
chess content: he considered that he had won a war of nerves”.
Spassky said about his triumph: “I myself do not know how I succeeded, but before the
game with Fischer I experienced that special fervour, without which high achievements are
unthinkable”.
The USSR continued to improve their results and by the seventh round had taken the lead,
which they held on to till the end. Spassky scored the best result on the first board with 9½
points out of 12; in second place came Fischer, with 10 out of 13.

Game 28
B.Spassky-Robert Fischer
Siegen Olympiad 1970
Grünfeld Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 c5 8 Ne2 Nc6
9 Be3 0-0 10 0-0 Qc7

For the second time Fischer plays the Smyslov Variation against Spassky.
11 Rc1 Rd8
Spassky had very good results against the Grünfeld Defence using the most aggressive line.
About this particular position he commented: “I approach Black’s opening pawn structure
somewhat sceptically since it gives the pawn centre to White. I have gained favourable
results many times with this line”.
12 h3
Played after twenty minutes thought.
If 12 f4 the problem is that 12 ... Bg4! forces White to take active measures. Spassky had
played it in an earlier game and was successful with 13 f5 gxf5 14 Bxf7+ Kxf7 15 Qb3+ e6
16 Nf4 Qd7 17 exf5 Na5 18 Qxe6 Qxe6 20 Nxe6, B. Spassky- V.Shishkin, Tallinn 1959. But
Black’s play can be improved, for example 15 ... Kf8 16 Nf4 Qb6 is a possibility when
White’s compensation is minimal. In any case Spassky never played 12 f4 again.
12 Qe1 was his choice in his game against Fischer in Santa Monica 1966. This is
Supplementary Game 28.1, which we shall examine only briefly, since it is analysed at length
in many other places.
Coming back to the move 12 h3 chosen in Siegen, this was Spassky’s explanation:
“Commenting on that game, I drew attention to 12 ... Qa5! with good chances of equalizing; it
is hard to prevent ... cxd4 and the exchange of queens. It is possible that Fischer went in for
this position with my recommendation in mind, and since I did not have anything prepared, I
was forced to seek new paths. I thought for quite a long time over my 12th move. But being a
practical player and fearful of wasting precious time, I chose a standard plan, which did not
give me any advantage”.
Later the fashion moved on to the moves 12 Qd2 and 12 Bf4.
12 ... b6 13 f4 e6 14 Qe1 Na5
 14 ... Bb7 was played in the model game (from Black’s point of view) S.Gligoric-
V.Smyslov, Kiev 1959, which continued 15 Qf2 Na5 16 Bd3 f5! 17 e5 c4 18 Bc2 Nc6 19
Rfd1 Ne7, with advantage to Black. White’s two bishops are inactive and Black has an
excellent square on d5 and a queenside pawn majority.
15 Bd3 f5!

Fischer plays Smyslov’s recipe, with which he not only prevents White’s f4-f5 advance
but also reduces the mobility of the two white bishops. It is worth noting the move order that
Fischer used: 14 ... Na5 instead of 14 ... Bb7 prevents White from being able to play 15 f5.
16 g4!
“An aggressive, although also risky course, significantly weakening his own king’s
defences”. (Kasparov)
Instead 16 Qf2 Bb7 transposes to the above-mentioned game Gligoric-Smyslov.
16 Rd1 has been recommended, but after 16 ... Bb7 17 e5 c4 18 Bc2 Nc6 and ... Ne7 we
would reach the same scenario as in Gligoric-Smyslov, as Kasparov pointed out.
16 ... fxe4
One year later Black varied with 16 ... Bb7!? in B.Spassky-L.Stein, Moscow 1971, which
continued 17 Ng3 Qd7 18 gxf5 cxd4 19 fxe6 Qxe6 20 f5!.
 “Thus, White has burned his boats – his centre has been destroyed and he can only rely on
the strength of his attack” (Kasparov).
We can see that Spassky felt in his element in this type of position (Fischer less so, as
we’ll see), where he needed to take drastic decisions at critical moments, and he was able to
sense these moments. 20 ... Qe7 (the alternatives are Kondratiev’s 20 ... gxf5 and 20 ... Qd6,
as suggested by Kotov) 21 cxd4 Rxd4 (Kasparov describes this attractive sacrifice to seize
the dark squares to be characteristic of Stein’s play, but he considers that in reality it was an
error and it was better to play 21 ... Bxd4) 22 Bxd4 Bxd4+ 23 Kg2 Be5 24 Qe3 Rd8 25. Qh4
26 fxg6 Bxg3? (26 ... hxg6!) 27 Rxg3 Rxd3 and in time pressure Spassky let the win slip
away and the game was drawn in 30 moves. Kasparov’s annotations to this game in My Great
Predecessors Part III are most interesting.
17 Bxe4 Bb7 18 Ng3 Nc4

19 Bxb7?!
Bondarevsky suggested 19 Bf2 Bxe4 20 Nxe4, not fearing 20 ... Qxf4 21 Bh4 (not 21
Nxc5? Nd2, but 21 dxc5 Ne5 22 Bh4 Nf3+ 23 Rxf3 Qxf3 24 Bxd8 Bxd8 25 Ng5 leads to an
endgame with an extra pawn, but with just a token advantage) 21 ... Qe3+ 22 Qxe3 Nxe3 23
Rf3 cxd4 24 Bxd8 Rxd8 25 cxd4 Bxd4, with equal chances, since there is enough
compensation for the exchange.
19 ... Qxb7 20 Bf2
Opening the d-file with 20 dxc5? Rd3! 21 Bf2 Qd5 would leave Black in control.
20 ... Qc6 21 Qe2 cxd4 22 cxd4
At the moment it is not appropriate to exchange the dark-squared bishops with 22 Bxd4?
since after 22 ... Bxd4+ 23 cxd4 Rxd4 Black would be a pawn up, while the white pieces are
not in threatening positions.
22 ... b5

23 Ne4!
Spassky sacrifices the centre pawn but in better circumstances than after 22 Bxd4. His
pieces will be better placed. The knight first heads for g5.

Question: So, this is one of those positions

where White needs to take drastic measures?

Answer: Yes, it is essential for White to keep the position ‘alive’. In the event of 23 Rfd1 Rf8! Black puts pressure on
White’s other weakness. “It is insipid” according to Kasparov.
Let us listen to Spassky himself: “Thanks to White’s routine play, Fischer has gained good
prospects, and already I am practically forced to sacrifice a pawn”.
Korchnoi’s view is also illuminating: “Boris is able to maintain the balance in any
position by tactical means, which is especially valuable”.
23 ... Bxd4
“Fischer prefers to take the pawn. Why? Well, because he simply likes having extra
pawns. I noticed this little weakness of his a long time ago. Black should have considered 23
... Rf8 24 Nc5 Rae8, with the advantage”, commented Spassky.
However, his trainer Bondarevsky corrected that evaluation: “after 25 a4! a6 26 Nxa6
Qxa6 27 axb5 Qxb5 28 Qxc4 Qxc4 29 Rxc4 Rxf4 Black, although he stands slightly better,
has no winning chances. It is natural that Fischer should try to find a better continuation”.
 24 Ng5 Bxf2+
More ambitious than 24 ... Bf6, which gives no more than equality after 25 Qxe6+ Qxe6 26
Nxe6 Rd3, and now if 27 Nc7 Rad8, not 28 Nxb5? Nd2, but 28 Rfe1.
Instead 24 ... Bb6 25 Nxe6 Re8 26 f5 is less precise, according to Kasparov.
25 Rxf2 Rd6
“25 ... Re8 was stronger” (Spassky), although Kasparov pointed out 26 Ne4! Rf8 27 g5
Rad8 28 Nf6+ Kh8 29 Re1 Rd6 and here the artistic move 30 f5! “after which he would have
retained tactical counter-chances”. If 30 ... gxf5 White has 31 Nxh7! and he draws by
perpetual check, while 30 ... exf5 31 Qe7 is no better.
26 Re1 Qb6!
Fischer is still playing for a win. After 26 ... e5 27 fxe5 Re8 Kasparov gives the pretty
drawing line 28 exd6 Rxe2 29 Rexe2 Nxd6 30 Ne6! h6 31 Rf8+ Kh7 32 Ng5+! Kg7 (no 32 ...
hxg5?? 33 Re7+ Kh6 34 Rh8++) 33 Ne6+, and draws.
Even better seems 28 Qf1! retaining the e5-pawn, which is ready to go to e6, because 28 ...
Nxe5? loses to 29 Rxe5 Rxe5 30 Rf8+ Kg7 31 Rg8+! mating.

Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

Answer:
27 Ne4!
True to his style, he prefers to play actively, seeking to complicate the game. In contrast,
27 Nxe6?! would leave his pieces awkwardly placed after 27 ... Re8 28 f5 Rd2 29 Qf3 (29
f6 Rf8 30 Qf3 Rxf2 leads to an endgame a pawn down for White) 29 ... Rxa2. Now after 30
Rf1 Rxf2 31 Rxf2 Black can reach a very advantageous endgame with 31 ... Qe3! 32 Qxe3
(32 Qb7? Qe1+ 33 Kg2 Ne3+) 32 ... Nxe3, and if 33 Nc7 Re5 34 fxg6 a5! and the black
pawns advance very quickly.
27 ... Rd4?!
“Unfortunately for Bobby, the type of position that has arisen is one where it is extremely
difficult to calculate the consequences of this or that variation. Meanwhile, Fischer requires
accuracy and clarity. He has an exceptionally ‘pure’ style of play and in positions that do not
lend themselves to concrete analysis he feels unsure. After 27 ... Rc6 the game would
probably have ended in a draw, but Bobby flinched, lost the thread of the game and began
playing too nervily”, commented Spassky.
Kasparov considers that after 27 ... Rc6! which defends the e6-pawn, preventing the game
continuation, 28 Rd1 is not convincing in view of 28 ... Rf8! (better than Bondarevsky’s
recommendation 28 ... Rd8 2 Rd3) and White has problems with the pin on his rook, while
after 29 g5 Ne3! 30 Rd7 Rc2 31 Qe1 Qc6! 32 Nf6+ Rxf6! Black is winning.
Therefore White’s most tenacious course of action after 27 ... Rc6 would be to fight for the
draw, a pawn down in the double-rook endgame arising after 28 Nf6+ Kh8 29 Nd7 Qd4 30
Ne5 Nxe5 31 Qxe5+ Qxe5 32 Rxe5 a6 33 Rfe2 Re8 34 Kf2.
28 Nf6+ Kh8
Black continues with the idea of playing for a win initiated with 27 ... Rd4. In the event of
28 ... Kg7 29 Qxe6 Qxe6 30 Rxe6 the material would be equal and Black would have no
advantage.
With the text move the king escapes from any check along the second rank and seems to
have prevented the capture of the pawn on e6.
29 Qxe6!

29 ... Rd6
In the event of 29 ... Qxe6 30 Rxe6 Kg7 “White has the unpleasant 31 f5!” (Kasparov),
which is even better than 31 g5 Rf8, but not 31 ... Kf7? 32 Rfe2! and it is now White who is
the one playing for a win.

Question: Why is 29 Qxe6 so good? OK, if you tell me so (and all

previous commentators said the same), then I suppose it must be
true, but if this is the best reply, then 29 Qxe6 is rather obvious, isn’t it?

Answer: It is more complicated than that. Everything indicates that Fischer thought that it was not possible to play 29
Qxe6 owing to the apparently crushing 29 ... Rd1.

Exercise: Find what Fisher had overlooked after 29 ... Rd1.

 Answer: Even though it is not with check, White can play 30 Qf7!!, sacrificing the rook, since after 30 ... Rxe1+ 31 Kg2
Qc6+ the white king even escapes from perpetual check and White wins after 32 Kg3 Rg1+ 33 Kh4 Rxg4+ 34 Kxg4 Ne3+ 35
Kg5 Qc5+ 36 f5.
That leaves only 31 ... Ne3+, but the white king escapes after 32 Kf3! Qc6+ 33 Kg3 Rg1+
34 Kh4, and once again Black is forced to play 34 ... Rxg4+ 35 hxg4 Qh1+ 36 Kg5.

The threat is 37 Re2. Now 36 ... Rc8? loses because the white queen repositions itself on
the long diagonal with 37 Qd7! Rb8 (37 ... Rc5+ loses to 38 f5) 38 Qd4!.
If 36 ... Nxg4!? there is still no perpetual. White is able to preserve his material advantage
and win after 37 Kxg4 Qg1+ 38 Kh3 Qh1+ 39 Kg3 Rd8 (or 39 ... Qg1+ 40 Rg2 Qe1+ 41 Kg4
Qh1 42 Re2) 40 Nd7! Qg1+ 41 Rg2 Qe1+ 42 Kh3 Qh1+ 43 Rh2.
30 Qe4 Rf8?!
Fischer is still intent on winning, but he neglects the safety of his own king. Black could
have retained equal chances by going into an endgame with 30 ... Rad8! 31 g5 Rd2 32 Ree2
Rxe2 33 Qxe2 Qe3 34 Qxe3 Rd1+! 35 Kg2 (or 35 Kh2 Nxe3 36 Re2 Rd2! 37 Rxd2 Nf1+ and
38 ... Nxd2) 35 ... Nxe3+ 36 Kf3 Nf5.
31 g5 Rd2 32 Ref1

White defends his rook and threatens to win with 33 Qe7.

32 ... Qc7?
“An indication that Black is completely rattled” (Spassky).
If 32 ... Nd6? (to answer 33 Qe7 with 32 ... Rf7) White wins after 33 Qe5! Nf7 (or 33 ...
Qd4 34 Qe7) 34 Qc3 Rfd8 35 Nd5+ and 36 Qxd2.
The endgame arising after 32 ... Rxf2 33 Rxf2 Qe3 fails to equalise, because the white
rook becomes active after 34 Qxe3 Nxe3 35 Rd2.
The best defence was 32 ... Kg7! to defend against 33 Qe7+ with 33 ... Rf7, and analysis
by Bondarevsky and others failed to find any appreciable advantage for White, and the
engines confirm this.
For example 33 h4 Rd4 (this seems safer than the universally recommended 33 ... Qd4 34
h5 Qxe4 35 h6+ Kh8 36 Nxe4) 34 Qe7+ (other queen moves are not dangerous either) 34 ...
Rf7 35 Ne8+ Kg8 and there is no more than a draw.
 Exercise: What is the snag with Black’s last move?

Answer:
33 Rxd2!
The retreat of the black queen allows White to exchange the invading rook, with which
White not only escapes from the pressure of the rook but also gains access to squares that
were previously denied him, such as d4, and he is able to attack the black king.
33 ... Nxd2 34 Qd4!
This powerful centralisation of the queen threatens 35 Ne8+.
34 ... Rd8
Now the endgame brings no relief: after 34 ... Qb6 35 Qxb6 axb6 36 Rd1! Rd8 37 Kg2
(threatening 38 Ne4) 37 ... Rd4 38 Re1! (Spassky), the threat is 39 Re7 and mate. The rook
breaks through to the seventh rank, after which pawns at h7 and g6 fall one after the other, for
example 38 ... Kg7 39 Re7+ Kf8 40 Rb7 Rxf4 41 Nxh7+ Ke8 42 Nf6+ Kf8 43 Nd7+ Ke7 44
Ne5+ Kd6 45 Nxg6 Ra4 46 Nf8 Rxa2 47 g6 (Kasparov).
35 Nd5+ Kg8 36 Rf2
Of course not 36 Qxd2? Qc5+.
36 ... Nc4
 Exercise (easy): How did Spassky continue?

Answer:
37 Re2!
Of course, occupying the open file, with the threat of 38 Re7.
37 ... Rd6
If 37 ... Qb6 then 38 Re8+! Rxe8 39 Nxb6 wins. The text move prevents 38 Re7? on
account of the reply 38 ... Qb6! but it leaves the back rank undefended.
38 Re8+ Kf7

39 Rf8+! 1-0
After 39 ... Kxf8 40 Qh8+ Kf7 41 Qxh7+ Black will have only a rook for the queen.
After this fresh defeat with the Grünfeld Defence against Spassky, Fischer did not employ
it in the world title match in 1972, or even in their 1992 rematch.
Supplementary Game 28.1
B.Spassky-R.Fischer
Santa Monica 1966

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 c5 8 Ne2 Nc6 9 Be3
0-0 10 0-0 Qc7 11 Rc1 Rd8

12 Qe1
As previously mentioned, later, at Siegen 1970, Spassky played 12 h3, a move also played
after a long think, based on the conviction that Fischer had found a good recipe against 12 f4
and so needed to vary. In both cases, these moves were over-the-board inspiration.

Question: That is almost unthinkable now, at such a high (and even not
such a high) level. That approach seems almost amateurish, does not it?

Answer: There’s no doubt that it is a different approach. Opening preparation has changed a great deal. Now it is more
concrete as there are many more games available to study. Of course there is also the influence of the computer, which helps
players to deepen their analysis and find novelties at home.
Even so, it is a bit shocking that Spassky should improvise over the board against no less
an opponent important than Fischer, who himself revolutionised opening preparation, taking it
to a whole new level. That Spassky was able to get away with this approach several times up
to 1972 shows the tremendous talent of the 10th World Champion.
12 ... e6 13 f4 Na5 14 Bd3 f5! 15 Rd1! b6 16 Qf2 cxd4
Fischer commented after the game that 16 ... Bf8 was stronger, to which Spassky was
considering 17 g4, “leading to sharp play”.
17 Bxd4!
In both his games against Fischer featuring this variation, Spassky managed to exploit the
weaknesses in Black’s kingside following the exchange of dark-squared bishops.
17 ... Bxd4 18 cxd4 Bb7 19 Ng3 Qf7
 Exercise: What do you think Spassky played in this position?

Answer:
20 d5!
Here’s how Spassky explained this violent break: “This energetic breakthrough in the
centre determines White’s advantage. The unstable king’s position and the unfortunate
placement of the knight on a5 are the basic shortcomings of Black’s game”.
20 ... fxe4 21 dxe6 Qxe6 22 f5! Qf7 23 Bxe4 Rxd1 24 Rxd1 Rf8
After 24 ... Bxe4 25 Nxe4 Qxf5? does not work, because the weakness of Black’s kingside
can be exploited with 26 Nf6+! Kg7 27 Rd7+ Kxf6 28 Qh4+ g5 29 Qh6+ Qg6 30 Rd6+ and
wins.
25 Bb1
And Spassky continued to hold the initiative. After a complicated struggle he won an
endgame featuring a superior bishop against a knight, although analysis made years later
suggests that Fischer could have drawn.

The Triumph of the Initiative

This game proceeded in similar fashion to many other of Spassky’s victories. We can roughly
sum it up as follows:
Black commits an inaccuracy and White seizes the initiative, forcing a series of
concessions from Black, until Spassky, with all his pieces in play and working together (or
“he uses the whole board”, to use Kramnik’s description), rounds the game off with a
devastating mating attack.

Game 29
B.Spassky-R.Hübner
Tilburg 1979
Grünfeld Defence
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 0-0 8 Ne2 Nc6

9 0-0
In his younger years Spassky liked to strike out with 9 h4?! here, as he did against 8 ... b6,
but Black’s knight move allows him to hit back faster with 9 ... Na5. Then the normal retreat
would be 10 Bd3, but in that case the d4-pawn loses protection, and the central strike 10 ...
c5 is awkward to meet. Supporting the centre with 11 Be3 proved without prospects for
White in B.Spassky-J.Sajtar, Bucharest 1953, which continued 11 ... cxd4 12 cxd4 Nc6 13 e5
Qa5+ 14 Kf1?! Rd8 15 h5 Be6 and not even the opening of the h-file with 16 hxg6 hxg6
improved White’s prospects. His set-up lacked coordination and contained many weaknesses.
The sacrifice of the centre pawn with 11 h5 cxd4 12 cxd4 Nc6 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 Bh6 is
equally unproductive for White. Black is able to repel the offensive without great problems
after 14 ... Bxh6 15 Rxh6 Nxd4 16 Qd2 e5! as in A.Schneider-A.Bless, Budapest 1990, when
Black stood better after 17 Nxd4 Qxd4 18 Rd1 Kg7 19 Rh4 Be6 20 Qh6+ Kf6, with an extra
pawn and no real danger for his king.
That leaves just the retreat 10 Bb3, leaving the d4-pawn better supported and hoping to
create a more dangerous attack, in return for allowing his strong bishop to be eliminated.
After 10 ... c5 11 h5 (11 dxc5 Qc7 12 Be3 Rd8, followed by ... Bd7-b5 or the typical
sacrifice ... b6 gives Black good counterplay) 11 ... Nxb3 12 axb3 (12 Qxb3, dreaming of
transferring the queen to the kingside via the third rank, can be answered with 12 ... cxd4 13
hxg6 hxg6 14 cxd4 Bg4! (it is worth remembering this idea, provoking f3, which obstructs the
third rank; it is not a universal panacea but definitely a manoeuvre to consider, and after 15 f3
Be6 Black has the better development and a safe king in H.Berliner-P.Benko, New York
1962/63) 12 ... cxd4 13 cxd4.
 Exercise: Here we have several moves to consider. Let us
focus on two options, 13 ... Bg4, provoking f3 as we have already
seen, or the immediate 13 ... Bd7. Which is the better move here?

Answer:
In B.Spassky-A.Suetin, Riga 1958, Black chose 13 ... Bg4?! but after 14 f3 Bd7 15 hxg6
hxg6 16 Be3 Bb5 17 Nc3 Qd7 18 Qd2 Black “ended in a difficult position, since f2-f3 is a
useful move for White in view of the possibility of Kf2”, according to Leonid Stein. We can
add the possibility of playing g2-g4 and transferring the queen to the h-file along the second
rank. The position remains complicated, but in this case provoking f3 was not advantageous.
Thus we can see that 13 ... Bd7! is better, with the threat of ... Bb5, and after 14 hxg6 hxg6!
(14 ... fxg6, keeping the h-file closed, is unnecessary here, since Black has enough resources
to parry any threats and can counterattack quickly) and now exchanging the g7-bishop with 15
Bh6?! is not dangerous to Black since he can play 15 ... Bxh6 16 Rxh6 Kg7 17 Rh1 Rh8,
repelling the premature white attack.

Question: In this position, with the third rank open, doesn’t

it make sense to play 15 Qd3, trying to reach the h-file?

Answer: Yes, of course it makes sense. In fact 15 Qd3 was played in a classic game, B.Spassky-L.Stein, Moscow 1964,
which we shall see in Supplementary Game 29.1, although the course of that game showed that Stein’s suggestion 15 Be3 was
preferable.
Let us go back to our game, after 9 0-0.
9 ... b6
Later 9 ... e5 came into fashion.
10 Be3 Bb7 11 f4
 As there are no problems with the pin ... Bg4, White can play f4. Other typical moves are
11 Qd2 and 11 Rc1, and even 11 f3, which can transpose to the game B.Spassky-B.Larsen,
Beverwijk 1967, which we saw earlier.

Exercise: Based on what we have seen, what would you play as Black in this position?

Answer:
11 ... e6
Black is not worried about the white attack, and despite the unfavourable outcome in this
game it does not seem bad. A more cautious approach was to play in similar way to what we
have already seen Smyslov and Fischer do in such positions: 11 ... Na5 12 Bd3 f5 13 exf5
Qd5! (better than 13 ... gxf5 14 Ng3 Qd5, which allows the more harmonious 15 Qe2) 14 Rf3
gxf5. A more radical approach would be the pawn sacrifice 12 ... c5 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 Bxc5
Qc7 15 Bd4 e5 which provides sufficient counterplay according to Botvinnik.
12 f5
Of course, this was the idea, although the engines view it with scepticism.
12 ... Na5 13 Bd3 exf5
For his part Black opens the e-file and the long diagonal h1-a8 to be able to counterattack.
14 exf5 Re8 15 Qd2 Be4

Question: Why exchange this bishop and give up the pressure on the long
diagonal? Wasn’t it better to play 15 ... Qd5, which also supports ... Nc4?

Answer:
It is not clear that it would be any better. With the text move Black wants to exchange
bishops to gain control of the light-squares and place his knight on c4, as you noted.
As always, the tactical element is vital. After 15 ... Qd5 it would be a concession to play
16 Rf2?! allowing Black to seize the light squares ‘for free’ after 16 ... Nc4 17 Bxc4 Qxc4.
But let’s not forget that White could parry Black’s threat with a gain of time by playing 16 Nf4
and after 16 ... Qc6, instead of 17 Rae1?! Nc4, White should seriously consider 17 Ne6!
when it is not good for Black to play 17 ... fxe6?! 18 f6 Bxf6 19 Rxf6, threatening 20 Bh6.
The loss of the dark-squared bishop is a high price to pay for a single pawn.

Exercise: How do you think Spassky replied in this position?

Answer:
16 Bg5!
The white pieces on the e-file constitute a tactical weakness, so White moves his bishop
away with tempo and at the same time he creates some discomfort in Black’s position, forcing
the opponent to take decisions.
16 ... f6?!
This is probably the first point in the game where Black’s play could clearly be improved.
The weakening of Black’s castled will become noticeable, but of course it will require good
calculation to demonstrate it.
In the event of 16 ... Qd5 once again White plays 17 Nf4, and 17 ... Qxf5? loses to 18 Nh5
Qd5 19 Nxg7. It is better to play 17 ... Qc6 (or 17 ... Qd7) when White must choose between
18 Rae1, not fearing 18 ... Nc4 19 Bxc4 Qxc4 20 Ne6! with complicated play, or the
immediate 18 Ne6.
The quieter alternative was 16 ... Qd7, with possibilities for both sides after 17 Bxe4
Rxe4 18 Ng3, followed by Bh6, when both players have reason to be satisfied.
17 Bxe4 Rxe4
 Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

Answer:
18 Qd3!
Once again the tactics come to White’s aid. With this zwischenzug (once again, based on
good calculation), White improve the coordination of his pieces. In contrast, 18 Ng3?! Re8
would leave the bishop short of squares and after 19 Bh6 Black can play 19 ... Nc4 20 Qd3
Qd5, with all his pieces now well placed.
18 ... Qd5?!
If 18 ... Re8, White could now advantageously play 19 Bd2. Something similar happens
after 18 ... Qe8 19 Ng3 Re7 20 Bd2, but as we shall see this was preferable to what was
played.
A critical line that needed to be checked was to accept the sacrifice with 18 ... Rxe2 19
Qxe2 fxg5, but it turns out to be advantageous for White after 20 Qe6+ Kh8 21 f6 Bf8 22
Rae1! and the greater activity of the white pieces gives him a clear advantage. He threatens
23 f7, followed by Qe5+ and promoting the pawn, for example 22 ... Bd6 23 f7! Kg7 24 f8Q+
Bxf8 25 Rf7+ Kh8 26 Rd7, and wins.
If 22 ... Qd6 then 23 f7? fails to 23 ... Qxe6 24 Rxe6 Rd8 25 Re8 Nb7, but the attack
continues after 23 Qf7! (threatening 24 Re7) 23 ... Nc6 24 Re4, followed by Rfe1 and Re8.
19 Bd2 g5
A sad move, but what is Black to do against the threat of Ng3 and capturing on g6? If 19 ...
Nc4 White plays 20 Nf4 Qc6 21 fxg6, while 19 ... Rae8? loses the exchange after 20 Ng3
Rg4 (to defend g6) 21 h3.
20 Ng3
 20…Rh4

Question: What is this? The rook goes to h4? Isn’t it badly placed there?
Why not move the rook to a more normal square, such as e7 or e8?

Answer: Yes, on h4 the rook is not well placed, you are right. But it is not a voluntary choice. I’ll complete the answer to
your question with an exercise.

Exercise: What would White have played in reply to 20 ... Re7?

Answer: White has 21 Bxg5! fxg5 22 f6 Bxf6 23 Rxf6, followed by Raf1, with a winning attack. Note that 20 ... Ree8
would be met with the same blow: 21 Bxg5! fxg5 22 f6 (threatening to take the bishop as well as to play f7+) 22 ... Bxf6 23
Rxf6, once again with an unstoppable attack.

Exercise: What did Spassky play after 20 ... Rh4?

Answer:
21 Rae1
Did you have any doubts about this? All the white pieces are now in play, and at the same
time the threat is 22 Bxg5! fxg5 23 f6, again with a winning attack. If 23 ... Bf8 White plays
24 f7+ Kh8 25 Re5.
21 ... Rf8 22 Ne4
An attractive alternative was 22 Re7 Rf7 23 Rxf7 Qxf7 24 Re1 with the idea of Re6. The
white pieces are well coordinated and centralised, in stark contrast to Black’s. You cannot
have everything however, and White has to make a choice.
22 ... Nc4
The a2-pawn is of no importance. It is curious that after 22 ... Qxa2 the strongest move is
the quiet 23 Bc1, to be able to free the white queen to move without allowing ... Rxe4 and ...
Qxd2. Black cannot do much with the breathing space this gives him, for example 23 ... Qc4?!
is met with 24 Qg3, threatening both 25 Nxg5 and 25 Nxf6+ Bxf6 26 Bxg5, winning in both
cases.
White also has available, at an opportune moment, the move g2-g3, forcing the sad ... Rh5
or ... Rh6, and the rook has even fewer prospects.
23 Bc1 c5
Seeking counterplay, although of course the black pieces are in no position to cause
trouble.

Exercise: 24 g3 is good here, but there is something more dynamic.

How did Spassky exploit the poor coordination of the black pieces?

Answer:
24 Qf3!
Threatening both 25 Nxf6+ and 25 Nxg5. Black has no good defence.
24 ... Kh8?!
Instead 24 ... Rd8 could be answered with 25 Nxg5! fxg5 26 Bxg5, and wins. In the event
of 24 ... Qd8 there are several possibilities. One is 25 g3 Rh6 26 Qe2, for example 26 ... Nd6
27 Nxd6 Qxd6 28 Qc4+ Kh8 29 Re6, followed by d4-d5, with total domination of the
position.
25 Nxg5!
White has an extra pawn and the better position. If 25 ... Qxf3 26 Nxf3 the black rook
cannot escape.
25 ... Qd6 26 g3
Winning the exchange and the game.
26 ... fxg5 27 gxh4 g4 28 Qxg4 Bxd4+?
An hallucination which hastens the denouement. Black can achieve nothing on the g-file.
29 cxd4 Rg8 30 Bg5 1-0

Supplementary Game 29.1

B.Spassky-L.Stein
Moscow 1964

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 0-0 8 Ne2 Nc6 9 h4 Na5 10 Bb3 c5 11 h5
Nxb3 12 axb3 cxd4 13 cxd4 Bd7 14 hxg6 hxg6 15 Qd3
 Black now starts the counterattack against the centre and the white queen.
15 ... Qb6!
This supports ... Bb5 and connects the rooks, preparing ... Rfc8.
16 Bd2
Spassky rejected 16 Qg3 (which Stein considered best and which, fifty years later,
Houdini prefers) on account of 16 ... f5, allowing the black king to flee to the f7-square if
necessary. Then if 17 e5 Bb5, and 18 ... Rfd8.
Instead of advancing the f-pawn, 16 ... Rfc8! is also strong, and if 17 Qh4 Rxc1+! 18 Rxc1
Qb4+ 19 Kf1 (not 19 Rc3? Rc8! 20 Rh3 Rxc3, followed by ... Bxd4) 19 ... Bb5 with a
dangerous initiative for the exchange sacrificed, as Kasparov pointed out.
16 ... Rfc8 17 Ra5
A strange-looking move, aimed at preventing ... Bb5 and preparing castling, without losing
the d4-pawn.
17 ... a6! 18 Rc5 Rxc5 19 dxc5 Qc7 20 Bc3 e5
Preserving the g7-bishop. Admittedly this piece is now out of play, but there will be an
opportunity to activate it later. It is more important that the black king retains its defender.
21 b4 Rd8 22 Qg3
The alternative 22 0-0 has been recommended, but White’s position is still not pleasant
after 22 ... Bb5 23 Qe3 Rd3 24 Qg5 and now 24 ... b6? is hardly best because after 25 cxb6
Qxb6 26 Bxe5! Bxe5 27 Qxe5 Rd2 28 Rc1! and White survives. But Black need not rush with
24 ... b6? as he can play 24 ... Qd7, threatening both 25 ... Rd1 and 25 ... Rxc3 26 Nxc3 Bxf1,
winning in both cases, and also with ideas such as ... Qe6-b3. Black’s pieces are much more
active and he has the advantage.
22 ... Bb5 23 f4?
“An irreparable weakening” (Kasparov).
23 ... Qd7 24 Kf2 Bxe2 25 Kxe2
 Exercise: Black has several promising moves here. What would you play?

Answer:
25 ... a5!
The computers all agree with Stein’s choice, which was nevertheless the most ‘human’,
aimed at destroying White’s queenside pawn structure.
There are other moves that calculation endorses, such as 25 ... Qb5+ and 25 ... Qa4,
infiltrating with the queen. Black won in 33 moves.
“The accuracy with which Stein refuted his formidable opponent’s idea is impressive” was Kasparov’s final comment.
Chapter Six
The Sämisch Variation Against the King’s
Indian Defence
Emulating Alekhine (and Morphy)
Just as in the Siegen Olympiad in 1970 against Fischer, it was Spassky who gave the USSR
victory against the USA in the Varna Olympiad of 1962. This time it was against Larry Evans,
and on the third board.
“Spassky has an attacking style. He combines the qualities of different chess players. Like
Alekhine he values time”. This comment by Kramnik turns out to be more than appropriate
when considering this game. His play could even be described as Morphy-like.
Black committed an error on the opening, facilitating White’s development. Spassky
unleashed an overwhelming attack against the black monarch, sacrificing pawn after pawn to
speed up the offensive.

Game 30
B.Spassky-L.Evans
Varna Olympiad 1962
King’s Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3

The Sämisch Variation was Spassky’s main choice against the King’s Indian Defence
throughout his career.
5 ... c6 6 Be3 a6
It is said that this move, seeking a rapid ... b5, was prepared by American team for this
tournament. It is known as the Byrne variation.
 7 Qd2
On this first occasion Spassky decided to continue with the usual plan of queenside
castling.
7 c5 and 7 Bd3 are also played here.
As in similar positions, preventing Black’s queenside expansion with 7 a4 is met with 7 ...
a5, and the white structure loses some mobility, while Black can plant a knight on the
weakened b4-square. Nevertheless some experts on the Sämisch Variation have played this
occasionally, considering that the extra space gained compensates for the loss of control over
b4 and that the black knight can be tolerated with no great problems.
Later Spassky played 7 Bd3, as we shall see in Supplementary Game 30.1 and Supplementary Game 30.2.
7 ... b5 8 0-0-0

8 ... bxc4?
Black prepares the break ... d6-d5, but the idea fails to justify itself. The f1-bishop, which
seldom plays a starring role in the Sämisch Variation, does so in this game.
The move 8 ... Nbd7?! is not appropriate because of 9 e5! Black’s results have not been
very encouraging after the more popular 8 ... 0-0 9 Bh6.
However 8 ... Be6 is interesting, forcing the white centre to advance. This was played
later by Robert Byrne, although the most usual continuation is 8 ... Qa5 9 Kb1 Nbd7.
9 Bxc4 0-0
It is possible to play 9 ... d5 immediately, but there is no clear plan for Black after 10 Bb3.
White’s centre is strong, and 10 ... dxe4 11 fxe4 Ng4 12 Bg5! achieves nothing.

Exercise: What do you think Spassky played in this position?

Answer:
10 h4!
Of course, this is the first move to consider. If we regard the struggle here as an attacking
race against kings castled on different wings, it is obvious that Black cannot compete. He is a
long way behind with his attack and must therefore seek alternative paths.
10 ... d5
If 10 ... h5 White can continue with quiet preparatory or developing moves, such as 11
Nh3, 11 Bb3 or 11 Kb1. He could also attack right away with 11 e5!? In such positions,
exchanging queens but leaving a strong white pawn on e5 nullifying the g7-bishop, is not very
pleasant for Black. Thus in the event of 11 ... dxe5?! 12 dxe5 Qxd2+ 13 Rxd2 Ne8 14 f4,
Black’s position is difficult, while retreating with 11 ... Ne8 can be answered with 12 g4!
Exchanging the light-squared bishops with 10 ... Be6 11 Bxe6 fxe6 fails to restrain White’s
offensive. He can respond with a typical sequence of moves, first eliminating the strong
defensive bishop with 12 Bh6 and then, after 12 ... Nbd7, opening the h-file with 13 h5.
11 Bb3 dxe4
If 11 ... h5 once again 12 e5 Ne8 13 g4! hxg4 14 h5! is strong.
 Exercise: How should White continue?

Answer:
12 h5!
Correct. In the event of 12 fxe4? White loses control of g4.
The priority is to open lines against Black’s king position, exploiting the fact the white
forces can quickly reach the kingside and join in the attack. The sacrificed pawns are
relatively unimportant, since their capture does not help Black to defend. Furthermore, by
capturing the pawns Black not only loses time, he also opens more lines against his own
monarch.
12 ... exf3
If 12 ... Nxh5 White plays the typical sequence 13 g4! Nf6 (13 ... Ng3 14 Rh3 is no better)
14 Bh6!

Exercise: Demonstrate how White’s attack triumphs after 14 ... exf3.

 Answer: White play 15 Bxg7 Kxg7 16 Qh6+ Kh8 17 g5 Nh5 (it is necessary to give up the piece with 17 ... Nbd7, but
that wouldn’t save the game either) 18 Rxh5! gxh5 19 Bc2 f5 20 g6! mating.
13 hxg6 hxg6 14 Bh6!
Once the h-file is open, White seeks to exchange the bishop on g7, even at the cost of
another pawn.
14 ... fxg2

Exercise: What is the best move now?

Answer:
15 Rh4!
It is necessary to consider not only one’s own plans, but also the opponent’s possible
defences. Here 15 Qxg2? allows 15 ... Bg4!, and Black can block the h-file with a piece on
h5.
The threat now is 16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 Qh6+, followed by mate.
 Witnesses relate that Evans was not convinced that his position was so bad and like his
opponent he was consuming a lot of time looking for better defences, but without success.
15 ... Ng4
Controlling h6. Instead, 15 ... Nh5? loses to 16 Rxh5 gxh5 17 Qg5.
16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 Qxg2 Nh6?
One threat was 18 Rxg4, but the most dangerous was 18 Nf3 followed by 19 Rah1.
There were several possibilities:
17 ... Ne3? loses to 18 Qh2 Rh8 19 Rxh8 Qxh8 20 Qe5+ and 21 Qxe3.
17 ... f5 18 Nf3 Rh8 fails to curb White’s pressure. He plays 19 Rxh8 Qxh8 20 Rh1 and 21
Qh3, with an irresistible attack.
The most tenacious defence seems to be to return some material with 17 ... Rh8! even
though after 18 Rxg4 Bxg4 19 Qxg4 e6 (trying to reduce the scope of White’s minor pieces;
19 ... f5? would concede more squares) 20 Nf3 intending Ng5, White’s position is preferable.
18 Nf3
Renewing the threat of attacking along the h-file with 19 Rah1 Rh8 20 Qh2.
18 ... Nf5 19 Rh2 Qd6
After 19 ... Ne3 the most crushing continuation is 20 Qh1! and if 20 ... Rh8 then 21 Ng5 is
one way to win.
The alternative 19 ... Rh8 can be refuted in several ways, the simplest being 20 Rdh1 Rxh2
21 Qxh2, threatening Qh7+ and Qxf7+, and with the rapid inclusion of the cavalry (Ne4, Ng5)
the attack is irresistible.
The combinative solution 20 Bxf7! also works, e.g. 20 ... Rxh2 (or 20 ... Kxf7 21 Ne5+
mating) 21 Qxg6+ Kh8 22 Nxh2 Qf8 23 Ng4 Ng3 24 Rd2 with mate to follow.
20 Ne5!
Not allowing ... Qf4+. This is even stronger than 20 Rdh1.
20 ... Nd7
If 20 ... Nxd4 then 21 Qg5! wins, for example 21 ... Nxb3+ 22 axb3 Qc5 and now the
quickest way is 23 Rf1! and mate in a few moves.
21 Ne4
In accordance with Lasker’s dictum “when you see a good move (here 21 Rdh1!) look for
a better one”. Before occupying the h-file Spassky includes a new piece in the attack,
controlling f6 with a gain of time.
21 ... Qc7 22 Rdh1
With numerous threats, such as the simple mate in three with 23 Rh7+, or the more
beautiful mate in two with 23 Qxg6+!
22 ... Rg8
Allowing White to capture on f7 is equivalent to resignation, but there is no defence. If 22
... Nf6 White plays 23 Bxf7!
23 Rh7+ Kf8 24 Rxf7+ Ke8
 25 Qxg6!
Not only the most elegant, but also the quickest, forcing mate in four moves.
25 ... Nxe5 26 Rf8+ 1-0

Supplementary Game 30.1

B.Spassky-L.Kavalek
San Juan 1969

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 c6 6 Be3 a6 7 Bd3

7 ... b5 8 e5 dxe5?!
This opens the diagonal g1-a7 and frees up the d4-square, factors that White exploited in
masterly fashion in this game. Subsequently Kavalek improved the line by playing 8 ... Nfd7 9
f4 0-0 10 Nf3 Nb6 11 b3 N8d7 12 a4! bxc4 13 bxc4 c5 14 a5 cxd4 15 Nxd4, L.Portisch-
L.Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1975, which was drawn after a spectacular struggle, in which Black
sacrificed his queen for a single minor piece.
9 dxe5 Ng8 10 f4 Nh6 11 Nf3 Bf5
 12 Be2!
White is not opposed to an exchange of queens. This will bring no relief for Black, since
his pieces are very uncoordinated and have little mobility.
12 ... Qxd1+
It is hardly better for Black to avoid the exchange of queens. After 12 ... Qc8 White can
play 13 h3 and after 13 ... 0-0 14 0-0 Rd8 15 Qe1 Bd3 16 Bb6! Rd7 17 Bf2! not fearing 17 ...
bxc4? because of 18 Na4, with the idea of 19 Bxd3 Rxd3 20 Qe2, followed by Rc1, and
White has strong pressure. Note the passivity of the three black minor pieces.
13 Rxd1 f6
Black tries to eliminate one of the causes of his problems, the wedge on e5.
14 Nd4!
This move is designed to reduce Black’s mobility even further. It is playable because if
Black keeps capturing on e5 the h6-knight will be loose.
14 ... fxe5 15 fxe5 0-0
If 15 ... Ng4 White plays something similar to what happens in the game: 16 Nxf5 gxf5 17
Bxg4 fxg4 18 e6! is very strong.
16 0-0 Nf7 17 Nxf5 gxf5
 18 e6!
Black’s queenside pieces are unable to intervene.
18 ... Ne5
If 18 ... Nd8 White shows the strength of his bishops with 19 Bg4! Nxe6 (after 19 ... fxg4
20 Rxf8+ Bxf8 21 Rxd8, and Black will soon be in zugzwang) 20 Bxf5 Nc7 21 Bb6! Ne8 22
Be6+ Kh8 23 Rxf8+ Bxf8 24 Rd8, and once again Black is paralysed.
19 g4
Again White seeks to exchange the rook on f8, after which Black’s position collapses, as
we have seen.
19 ... f4
Almost equivalent to surrender, but there was nothing better.
20 Rxf4 Re8 21 Rfd4!
To defend against Rd8 Black must sacrifice more pawns. The rest is easy.
21 ... c5 22 Rd8 Nbc6 23 Rxe8+ Rxe8 24 cxb5 Nd4 25 bxa6 Ra8 26 Bxd4 cxd4 27 Nd5 1-0

Supplementary Game 30.2

B.Spassky-J.Penrose
Palma de Mallorca 1969

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 c6 6 Be3 a6 7 Bd3 Nbd7

 We’ve already seen the ending of this game, in the section discussing Spassky’s style and
also in the annotations to Game 16. Let’s take a glance at how it began.
8 Nge2 b5 9 Qd2 Bb7 10 0-0 0-0 11 b3 e5 12 d5 b4 13 Nd1

13 ... c5?!
With this advance Black gives White a free hand. Admittedly the position is closed and it
is very difficult for White to take advantage, but White can do more or less what he wants. It
was better to go in for the complications, which are not clearly unfavourable, with 13 ... cxd5
14 cxd5 Nxd5! 15 exd5 e4 16 fxe4 Bxa1 17 Qxb4 Qc7 etc.
Let us take a look at the critical moments of this game:
14 g4! Kh8 15 Nf2 Ng8 16 Ng3 Qh4 17 Kg2 h6 18 a3!
To make progress White needs to open some lines. White is trying to exploit the fact the
majority of the black pieces are on the kingside.
18 ... a5 19 Ra2! Ndf6 20 Rfa1 Nh7 21 axb4 axb4 22 Rxa8 Rxa8 23 Rxa8 Bxa8 24
Qa2 Bb7 25 Qa7 Qe7
 White has managed infiltrate the black queenside and create discomfort, but there is
nothing tangible yet. With his next move Spassky prepares to advance.
26 Be2!
This clears d3 for the knight and at the same time defends g4, making f2-f4 possible.
26 ... Nhf6 27 f4! exf4 28 Bxf4
Threatening 29 Bxd6.
28 ... Ne8 29 Qb8!
This attacks d6 and prevents Black from regrouping with ... Qc7 followed by ... Ne7-c8.
29 ... Bd4 30 Nd3 f6 31 Bf3 Qd7 32 h4 Kh7 33 h5 g5 34 Bd2 Be5 35 Be3! Ne7?!
We already know the finish, which we saw when we were discussing Spassky’s style.
36 Nxe5 fxe5 37 Bxc5!!
By means of this sacrifice, initially for only two pawns, White creates an irresistible
central pawn storm.

“A creeping move”
After defeating Geller and Larsen in the 1968 Candidates matches by the same score, 6½-2½,
Spassky faced Viktor Korchnoi in the final, to be held in Kiev. The excitement was enormous.
The tickets to watch the games in Kiev’s October Palace of Culture were sold out before the
match began.
The match started very well for Spassky. After five games he was leading 3½-1½, thanks
to his two victories with Black, in games 2 and 4. The 6th game looked as if it would bring
another victory for Spassky, who sacrificed a piece for a strong attack, but he did not follow
it up in the best way and Korchnoi showed one of his strong points: his extraordinary skill in
defence and counterattack, winning the game and reducing the gap to 3½-2½.
Korchnoi had managed to neutralise Spassky’s Closed Sicilian, which had given such good
results in the matches against Geller and Larsen, so for the seventh game Spassky switched to
1 d4. Korchnoi misread Spassky’s state of mind and overestimated Spassky’s jitters. Spassky
was not feeling at all weak, as Korchnoi thought, but was instead eager for a fight.
This game is well known for Spassky’s 26th move, which Alexander Kotov, in his famous
book Think like a Grandmaster, described as “a creeping move”, a move that looked quiet but
was in fact very strong, and which left the spectators amazed.
Spassky also won the eighth game and won the match 6½-3½.
Korchnoi commented on this Candidates final and on the prospects for the title match
between Petrosian and Spassky as follows: “Spassky defeated me in a crushing manner, and
my only consolation is that I held the advantage at various points, especially in the opening ...
Spassky’s superiority in the middlegame is so great that he easily nullified all my efforts. At
the present time Spassky is superior to all his contemporaries and he has demonstrated this in
his more than convincing victories against the strongest grandmasters in the world. I do not
doubt for a moment that we are going to have a new World Champion”.

Game 31
B.Spassky-V.Korchnoi
7th Matchgame, Kiev 1968
King’s Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7

Question: Korchnoi playing the King’s Indian Defence? How come?

I’ve read in several places that he has a very poor opinion of this
defence. After 2 ... g6 I was expecting him to play the Grünfeld.

Answer: Yes, you are not wrong. Let us see how Korchnoi himself explained it:
“Before playing my second move I thought for more than ten minutes. This was a mistake!
If I’d decided quickly I would have played what I’d planned, 2 ... e6, but instead of this I
indulged in psychoanalysis. My opponent will surely be depressed after losing the sixth game
and he will want to have a rest. He has even changed his opening, because the previous
games have shown that after 1 e4 it is not so easy to make a quick draw. The most important
thing, therefore, is to force my opponent to enter a complex struggle. I think the most
complicated opening is the King’s Indian Defence. I have rarely played this opening, and
without much success ... On the other hand my results [with White] allow me to categorise
this opening as ‘incorrect’. It soon turned out that both the analysis of the situation and the
strategy adopted on the basis of that analysis were both totally wrong. Although Boris was
upset by his previous defeat, he managed to completely recover his fighting spirit, while I had
to accept battle in an unfamiliar system and a situation in which I felt uncomfortable”.
4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 Nc6 7 Nge2
The g1-knight is the principal ‘victim’ of the aggressive Sämisch Variation. Gufeld used to
say “ask the knight on g1 what he thinks about 5 f3”. To be able to continue with his
development White needs to make a few awkward moves with his knight.
7 ... a6
 8 Nc1
The main line is 8 Qd2 Rb8 9 Nc1 e5 10 d5 Nd4 11 Nb3 (or 11 N1e2), for which Spassky
never showed any liking. On the other hand he interpolated 8 h4 h5 and then played 9 Nc1
three times in his 1992 match against Fischer, winning the first time, drawing the second after
gaining an advantage, and losing the last game, in which Fischer varied. Instead of basing his
play on the typical counter-blow ... e5, he opted for 9 ... Nd7! which, curiously, is the move
preferred by the engines. After 10 Nb3 a5! 11 a4 Nb4 12 Be2 b6 Fischer refuted the
premature attack that Spassky launched with 13 g4 hxg4 14 fxg4 c5 15 h5 cxd4 16 Nxd4 Nc5
17 Nd5 Bb7 18 Nf5? gxf5 19 gxf5 Bxd5 20 exd5 Bxb2, emerging with an extra piece at no
significant risk.
8 ... e5 9 d5 Nd4 10 Nb3
Seeking to eliminate the best placed black piece before Black can stabilise its position by
playing ... c5 ‘for free’. Having lost tempi, and with his king still in the centre, White should
avoid 10 Bxd4? exd4 11 Qxd4? which is met by the typical blow 11 ... Nxe4!
White main alternative is 10 N1e2.
10 ... Nxb3
Since White has lost several tempi with his knight, it is always essential to consider ... c7-
c5, a typical pawn sacrifice to open the game. B.Spassky-F.Gheorghiu, Marianske Lazne
1962, continued 10…c5 11 dxc6 bxc6 (11 ... Nxc6 is safer) 12 Nxd4 exd4 13 Bxd4 c5 14
Be3 Rb8 15 Qc2 Be6 16 Bd3 Nd7 17 0-0 Ne5 18 b3 Nc6 19 Qd2, and here White has an
extra pawn with no problems.
In this particular case the pawn sacrifice did not give Black anything especially positive,
but one can gain a better appreciation of the potential of Black’s idea (in a slightly different
position) by looking at the beautiful game S.Lputian-G.Kasparov, Tbilisi 1976.
11 Qxb3
 A novelty which had a great impact. The usual continuation was 11 axb3 c5, which
Korchnoi had even written on his score-sheet already.
11 ... c5?!
Tal suggested aiming for the typical break ... f5 with 11 ... Nh5!? Subsequently 11 ... Nd7
was also played, with the same idea, for example 12 0-0-0 f5 13 Be2 b6 14 Qc2 a5 15 a3
Nf6, with equal chances, V.Salov-I.Dorfman, USSR 1984.
12 dxc6!
The black centre will be exposed and quickly put under pressure.
12 ... bxc6 13 0-0-0!

Black must now reckon with several threats, such as 14 Qa3, 14 Bc5, and the advance c4-
c5.
13 ... Be6?!
This natural developing move was condemned almost unanimously.
Instead 13 ... Qe7 was later suggested, to be able to defend with ... Rd8, and this was how
Kasparov himself played against Timman in Moscow 1991, although he later wrote that the
difficulties that he faced in the opening in that game, and in his game with Portisch in this
tournament, “highlighted the problems that were still present in my opening repertoire, which
was not yet fully developed”.
Then 14 c5 is still premature, not because of 14 ... dxc5?! which can be answered with 15
Qb6!, but because of 14 ... d5! 15 exd5 cxd5 16 Nxd5 Nxd5 17 Qxd5 and now 17 ... Be6! 18
Qd6 Qh4, with ideas including 19 ... Rfd8, 19 ... Qa4, 19 ... Bxa2, etc.
Timman played the troublesome 14 Qb6 Bb7 (if 14 ... Bd7? 15 Qb4! is strong). The
solidity of this move was underestimated by Korchnoi, which explains why he rejected 13 ...
Qe7. Here 15 c5? is still ineffective, since the opening of lines on the queenside favours
Black after 15 ... d5! 16 exd5 cxd5! 17 c6? Bxc6 18 Qxc6 Rfc8 19 Qa4 d4. The game
continued 15 g4 Rab8 16 h4 Rfc8 (16 ... Rfd8! is correct according to Kasparov, to be able to
answer 17 h5 with 17 ... d5! 18 Bc5 Qe8, with the d5-pawn solidly defended) 17 h5 and
Kasparov survived by playing the surprising sacrifice 17 ... Nd5, which, even it was not
sound, complicated the game so much that he managed to salvage half a point.
14 Qa3!

Forcing a passive move.

14 ... Ne8

Question: Earlier the advance ... d5 was almost always

a good response. Why does not, 14 ... d5 work here?

Answer: With the queen on a3, instead of b6, Black cannot gain a tempo by attacking it. So 14 ... d5 is not as good now
and would be answered with 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 exd5 Nxd5 17 Bc4, when the pin creates serious problems. The line 17 ... Rc8
18 Bxd5 Bxd5 19 Kb1 forces Black to sacrifice the exchange with 19 ... Rxc3, while the queen sacrifice with 17 ... Nxe3 18
Rxd8 Rfxd8 (not 18 ... Nxc4? 19 Qxf8+ Bxf8 20 Rxa8) 19 Bxe6 fxe6 is bad for Black.
It is possible that 16 ... Bxd5 is a slight improvement, but the pin on the d-file is obviously
unpleasant. There are several moves, such as 17 Bc4, which almost forces the sacrifice of the
queen, the quiet move 17 Kb1 or the more active 17 Bg5 and 17 Bc5.
15 h4!
Now 15 c5? fails to 15 ... d5! and the black centre is strong.
 Question: But with 15 h4 White isn’t thinking of mating, surely?
He does not seem to have sufficient pieces on the kingside.

Answer: You are right. The advance of the h-pawn does not really help prepare a mating attack. The motivation is
different: since White has nothing immediate, he strengthens his position by advancing on the kingside, seeking to weaken
Black’s king position, which might become important in the future. It is worth noting that Timman did something similar against
Kasparov with 15 g4, 16 h4 and 17 h5.
15 ... f6?!
This prepares ... Rf7 and the inactive ‘Indian’ bishop can help out the defence with ... Bf8.
Nevertheless it is a passive move.
Tal recommended 15 ... Bf6! with the idea of answering 16 h5 with 16 ... Bg5 to exchange
the ‘bad bishop’. If White plays something like 16 g3 instead, then Black can play 16 ... Be7,
fulfilling one of the objectives of 15 ... f6 more quickly.
Against 16 Bh6 Tal’s suggestion was to sacrifice the exchange with 16 ... Bxh4 although it
is not clear that the compensation is sufficient after 17 Bxf8 Kxf8 and now, for example, 18
c5.
Black could also retreat with 16 ... Bg7. It is true that even exchanging the bishops would
bring a slight relief for Black, but his structural weaknesses would remain.
Blocking the advance of the h-pawn with 15 ... h5 was another possibility, although it
would give White the chance to break at an opportune moment with g2-g4.
 Exercise: What move do you think Spassky chose now?

Answer:
16 c5!
Now this is good, since with the diagonal a2-g8 open the tactics will help White. Here 16
... d5 is not playable owing to 17 exd5 (17 Bc4 is another possibility, since with this order of
moves White retains options, such as the possibility of recapturing on d5 with the knight) 17
... cxd5 18 Bc4 Nc7 19 Nxd5 Nxd5 20 Qb3 Rb8 and now the drawback of playing 15 ... f6 is
apparent: 21 Bxd5! Bxd5 (not 21 ... Rxb3? since 22 Bxe6 is now with check) 22 Qxd5+ Qxd5
23 Rxd5, with an extra pawn in the endgame.
16 ... Rf7 17 Qa4!
Not rushing. After 17 cxd6 Rd7 18 Bc5?! Bf8 Black regains the pawn and the black knight
will soon have squares to get back into the game.
17 ... Qc7

Exercise: What was Spassky’s idea?

Answer:
18 Bc4!
This was the idea behind 17 Qa4. White will be the great beneficiary of the exchange of
these bishops.
18 ... Bxc4 19 Qxc4 Bf8
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue to make progress?

Answer:
20 h5!
White’s play is very harmonious. Since he has nothing immediate, Spassky adds a new
advantage, the open h-file, weakening the black king. Keeping the file closed with ... g5
would leave the light squares even weaker.
The engines prefer to prepare 21 h5 with 20 g4, which would seem strange if a human
played it.
20 ... dxc5
Seeking a bit of activity with ... Nd6 and perhaps ... Nb5.
21 hxg6 hxg6 22 Qe6
Also with the activity as his main aim. White wants more than the advantage that could be
gained with 22 Bxc5.
22 ... Rd8
The clash of ideas is evident in the line 22 ... Nd6 23 Bxc5 Nb5, when White arrives first
with his attack after 24 Bxf8 Rxf8 25 Rh6! Kg7 26 Rxg6+! and the rook is immune from
capture in view of 27 Qg4+, and mate next.
Black does not benefit much by weakening White’s king position with 24 ... Nxc3 25 bxc3
Rxf8. The white pieces still arrive faster with 26 Rh6. The attempt at counterattack with 26 ...
Qa7 fails, since after 27 Rxg6+ Kh8 (if 27 ... Kh7 then 28 Rh1+ soon mates) 28 Rh6+ Rh7 29
Rxf6 the black queen can do nothing on its own.
23 Rxd8 Qxd8 24 Rd1!
Once again preferring the most active option. 24 Qxc6 was good, with the possible
continuation 24 ... Nc7 25 Bxc5 Bxc5 26 Qxc5, leaving White a clear pawn up. An attempt to
counterattack with the queen alone would have failed: 24 ... Qd3? 25 Bxc5 Qc4 (or 25 ... Nd6
26 Qd5) 26 Qxe8! Qxc5 27 Qe6!
On the other hand it would have been a mistake to exchange the rooks with 24 Rh8+? since
after 24 ... Kxh8 25 Qxf7 Nd6 26 Qxg6 Nb5 Black gains some counterplay.
 24 ... Qe7 25 Qxc6 Nc7

Exercise: What do you think Spassky played here?

Answer: White’s position is clearly advantageous. Black’s structure with three ‘pawn islands’ is weak, especially the a6-
and c5-pawns. Furthermore all of the white pieces are more active than their Black counterparts and the square d5 is an
excellent outpost for the white knight.
However, it is not easy find a clear way to quickly gain a material advantage. The
immediate 26 Nd5 can be answered with 26 ... Qe6! and after 27 Qa4 Nb5, followed by ...
Nd4, Black’s position would be substantially improved.
This position is analysed in the famous book Think like a Grandmaster by Alexander
Kotov, who wrote as follows: “[Spassky’s next move] was a surprising one, elegant, far from
obvious, modest – in other words a ‘creeping move’. White simply plays his queen one
square sideways”.
26 Qb6!
Kotov added: “But what a difference it makes, as the position now comes alive for
White”.
26 ... Kg7
With the white queen on b6, 26 ... Qe6 is no longer attractive on account of 27 Bxc5.
26 ... c4 offered greater practical chances. A possible continuation is 27 Nd5 Nxd5 28
Rxd5, although Black could then complicate the game somewhat with 28 ... c3! 29 bxc3 Qa3+
30 Qb2 Rb7! 31 Qxa3 Bxa3+ 32 Kd1! Rb1+ 33 Ke2 Rb2+.
Probably Spassky would have preferred to keep playing with activity as his priority,
maintaining his advantage with 27 Qb8! planning 28 Rd8 next.
27 Nd5 Qe6
If 27 ... Nxd5 28 Rxd5 c4 White can now play 29 Qxa6.
28 Bxc5 Bxc5 29 Qxc5 Nb5 30 Qe3
White turns his attention back to the kingside, with the threat of Rh1.
30 ... Qc6+ 31 Kb1 Nd4 32 Rc1 Qb5
Seeking to create threats. The more passive move 32 ... Qd6 would allow 33 Rh1 g5 34
f4!
 33 Nc7! Qe2?!
Allowing a spectacular finish, but the game was now beyond saving. For example, after 33
... Qb6 the white attack is irresistible after 34 Ne8+ Kf8 35 Rc8 Ke7 36 Nc7 Kd7 37 Nd5.
34 Ne6+! Kh7
The endgame after 34 ... Kg8 35 Rc8+ Kh7 36 Qxe2 Nxe2 37 Ra8 would be hopeless for
Black.

Exercise: How did Spassky finish off the game?

Answer:
35 Qh6+! 1-0
Now if 35 ... Kxh6 White plays 36 Rh1++.
“I am still not sure, however, which queen move of Spassky’s was the best – the sacrifice
to force mate or the insignificant Qb6. The first move is far prettier but is not too hard to find.
The second is the sort that many people just wouldn’t think of at all” (Kotov).

A Lesson on Exchanging Pieces in a Reversed Sämisch

Spassky became champion of the USSR for the first time by winning the 29th Championship,
contested in Baku in November-December 1961. This was a great achievement, but in general
1961 was not a year that Spassky would remember just for pleasing results.
Earlier the same year, in January and February, the 28th USSR Championship was held in
Moscow. It was also a FIDE Zonal and just as in 1958, Spassky had finished outside the four
qualifying places for the Interzonal Tournament.
In Baku, Spassky began with 3½/4 points and he won with 14½ points out of 20, ahead of
Polugaevsky, Bronstein, Tal, etc. Another positive event for Spassky that year was that he
began to work with Igor Bondarevsky, which gave a new stimulus to his career and would
help him attain the highest goals.
The game that we will look at now can be considered as a lesson in making appropriate
piece exchanges, with key decisions on moves 13, 14 and 31, as well as an accurate
manoeuvring game.
Game 32
V.Savon-B.Spassky
USSR Championship, Baku 1961
Reti Opening

1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6

With this order of moves Spassky shows his desire to play ... e5, reaching a King’s Indian
Defence with reversed colours.
4 0-0

Question: But, why does White allow this? With 4 d4 we

could frustrate Black’s plans and play a Grünfeld with reversed
colours, where the extra tempo might perhaps be more significant.

Answer: Of course 4 d4 is possible, but I wouldn’t be so optimistic that this is frustrating Black’s plans. Spassky had the
Queen’s Gambit as his main weapon against 1 d4 and here he could transpose to the Tarrasch Defence, which Spassky began
to play in 1961. He employed with success against Petrosian, no less, in their match for the world title in 1969.
The game G.Forintos-B.Spassky, Leningrad 1960, continued 4 d4 Nf6 5 0-0 e6 6 b3
(White declines to enter the main line of the Tarrasch with 6 c4) 6 ... cxd4 7 Nxd4 Bc5 8 Bb2
(with 8 Nxc6 bxc6 9 c4 we would indeed reach a reversed Grünfeld, but not the most
dangerous version for Black, since the move b3 it is not the most energetic and furthermore it
prevents White from playing Qa4 which in some lines could be unpleasant for Black).
 Exercise: Black has several reasonable moves. What do you think Spassky chose here?

Answer: Of course there is no nothing wrong with 8 ... 0-0 but White was not exerting much pressure in the centre, so
Spassky seized the opportunity to gain more space, even at the cost of the bishop pair, by continuing 8 ... Bxd4! 9 Bxd4 e5.
Now if 10 Bb2 0-0 11 c4 Black could play 11 ... d4, achieving his idea of having a strong presence in the centre, with a good
position.
So White chose 10 Bc5!? seeking to create difficulties for Black by preventing kingside
castling. Black was able to demonstrate that he had sufficient resources to make up for the
inconveniences. The game continued 10 ... Qa5 11 Bd6 Be6 (Black is ready to evict the
bishop with ... Rd8, or perhaps even ... 0-0-0) 12 c3?! (an ugly move, perhaps motivated by
optimism, planning b4, a4, etc., but it seems better to settle for equality with 12 Qd2) 12 ...
h5! Black shows that he is not bothered about being unable to castle on the kingside. Now 13
h4 was necessary, but Black would still have an excellent position after 13 ... 0-0-0 14 b4
Qa6 15 Bc5 g5! 16 hxg4 Ne4, and soon ... h4). Instead White played 13 Qc1?! and Black did
not waste the opportunity to open the h-file with 13 ... h4. The game continued 14 Na3 (White
looked as though he was intending to play 14 Qa3, but perhaps he changed his mind on
account of 14 ... hxg3 15 hxg3 Qd8! with the idea of 16 ... Qd7 and 17 ... Bh3, or 17 ... 0-0-0;
but the move he chose is not much better) 14 ... hxg3 15 hxg3 0-0-0 16 b4 Qa4 17 Bc5 Ne4 18
Be3 (giving up the g2-bishop in search of a counterattack is insufficient, since 18 Bxe4 dxe4
19 b5 is punished on the h-file with 19 ... Rh3! intending to double rooks to force mate; now
20 bxc6?! is met with 20 ... Qxc6 21 Be7 e3! winning quickly).
 Exercise: How did Spassky make progress in this position?

Answer: 18 ... Bh3! (with the exchange of the vital defensive bishop White’s position collapses) 19 Qb2 (after 19 Bxe4
dxe4 20 Re1 Black gains a decisive attack with 20 ... Rh5) 19 ... Bxg2 20 Kxg2 d4 (another good idea was 20 ... Ne7!
planning 21 ... Nf5) 21 cxd4 exd4 22 b5?! (this loses quickly, but 22 Bf4 is met with 22 ... g5! and after 23 f3 gxf4 24 fxe4
fxg3 there are too many weaknesses in White’s camp – not just the king, but also the pawns, so that endgames will be bad for
him; 23 Bc1? Ne5 is even worse) 22 ... dxe3 23 bxc6 Qxc6! 24 Rfc1 Nc5+ 25 f3 Rd2 26 Qxg7 Rxe2+ 27 Kg1 Rh1+ 0-1
4 ... e5 5 d3 f6
The Sämisch Variation with reversed colours, chosen not only because it was Spassky’s
main weapon against the King’s Indian Defence, but also because it is possible to reach
closed positions in which White’s extra tempo is insignificant.
6 e4
Spassky also faced the other pawn break, 6 c4, which transposed to a Maroczy formation
after 6 ... Nge7 7 cxd5 Nxd5 8 Nc3 Be6 9 Nxd5 Bxd5. The game U.Andersson-B.Spassky,
Sochi 1973 was soon agreed drawn.
In another game against Andersson, Spassky played the more ambitious 6 ... d4,
transposing to a Benoni structure. The game continued 7 e3 Be6 8 exd4 cxd4 9 Re1 Bd6 10
Nbd2 Nge7 11 a3 a5 12 Ne4 0-0 13 Bd2 a4, with equal chances, U.Andersson-B.Spassky,
Amsterdam 1973.

In both of these games we can see that the impact of White’s extra tempo is not great
enough to be of concern to Black.
6 ... d4
Naturally, Black’s safest course is not to allow the centre to be opened. In a closed
position the fact that Black is a tempo down is less noticeable.
7 Nh4 Be6 8 f4 Qd7 9 Nd2 0-0-0
 10 a4
White’s extra tempo can be used in several ways. White chooses a typical King’s Indian
move, which in similar positions is generally connected with installing a knight on c4.
This position can be compared with the classic game T.Petrosian-S.Gligoric, Zurich 1953
(Supplementary Game 32.1). For a more modern example see A.Giri-M.Carlsen, Wijk aan
Zee 2013 (Supplementary Game 32.2). You can even play through these games first to get a
better understanding of what follows.
White does have alternatives to the text move. The game T.Petrosian-B.Spassky, Moscow
1957, continued 10 f5 Bf7 11 Bf3. Petrosian himself is following the plan that Gligoric
adopted against him four years earlier, but with an extra tempo. Spassky could have played in
similar fashion to Giri with 11 ... Qe8, but he preferred 11 ... Nge7 and after 12 Bh5 Bg8
(Petrosian once again turned to Gligoric’s recipe) 13 b3 Kb8 14 a4 Nb4 15 Rf2 Nec6 16 Rg2
(this is the same as Gligoric played against Bukic) 16 ... Bd6 17 Nc4 Bc7 18 g4 h6 19 Ng6
Rh7 20 h4 Ba5, and the chances are equal. White has managed to prevent the pawn break on
c4 and soon managed to carry out his own break with g4-g5, but without making clear
progress and at the cost of leaving weak squares on the queenside. The struggle soon
sharpened; Spassky sacrificed material and anything could have happened, but the game was
eventually drawn.
10 ... Bd6
Before developing the g8-knight Black develops the bishop to an ideal square,
overprotecting the e5-square and preparing the (still distant) possibility of ... exf4, followed
by ... g5. Furthermore, as we saw above in the game with Petrosian, in appropriate
circumstances the bishop can also invade the queenside via a5.
11 Nc4 Bc7 12 Bd2 Nge7 13 f5?
 A move that might seem natural, but here it is an error.

Exercise: Demonstrate why White’s move is bad.

Answer:
13 ... Bxc4!
We should note that this exchange is good here mainly because after f4-f5 the bishop on g2
is passive, and it will be almost impossible to activate it.
14 dxc4

Exercise: Which move complements the previous exchange?

Answer:
14 ... Ba5!
Of course, if Black manages to exchange White’s ‘good’ bishop his advantage will be
clear.
15 Rf2

Question: Hmm, so why does White fall in with Black’s plan?

Can’t he prevent the exchange of bishops by playing 15 Bc1?

Answer: He can, but after 15 Bc1 the move 15 ... d3! is very strong. Then 16 cxd3? is bad, because after 16 ... Qxd3 17
Qxd3 Rxd3, followed by ... Rhd8, White is paralysed. It would be better to play 16 Be3, although Black would still be better
after 16 ... dxc2 17 Qxc2 Nd4. Nevertheless, you are probably right, because there are more possibilities here than in the
game.
15 ... Bxd2 16 Rxd2
 Exercise: Now it is time for Black to regroup his pieces in the best way.
What typical move in this type of position did Spassky play?

Answer:
16 ... Kb8
A prophylactic move that we have already seen many times. In this case it allows the
strong manoeuvre ... Nc8-d6.
17 Qf3 Qc7

Question: What is this? What was wrong with 17 ... Nc8?

Answer: There was nothing particularly wrong with playing 17 ... Nc8 immediately, but there is no hurry. From c7 the
queen keeps an eye on the queenside, with the possibility of going to b6 or a5, seeking to weaken the white queenside even
more, and to infiltrate at an opportune moment.
18 Bf1 Nc8 19 g4?!
White is still intent on his thematic break on g5, which is the only way he can even dream
of any activity, although for tactical reasons this move order is inaccurate. It was better to
postpone it and play 19 Bd3 first.
19 ... Nd6 20 Rg2 Qf7
A strong move, putting pressure on c4, but also with other ideas in mind. Owing to the lack
of a retreat square for the h4-knight it was already possible to resort to tactics by playing 20
... g5! and after 21 fxg6 hxg6 it is not possible to prevent material losses. For example 22 Qf2
Nxe4, or 22 Qxf6 Rdf8 23 Qg5 Nf7 24 Qf6 Nfd8 25 Qg5 Ne6. Neither is 22 Nxg6 Rh6 23
Qxf6 Rg8 a solution.
21 Qe2 g6
There were several attractive moves, for instance 21 ... Rdg8, preparing ... g6. The
immediate 21 ... g5 was also very tempting, when 22 fxg6 would transpose to the game, while
after 22 Nf3 h5 White’s position would be very unpleasant. The attack along the h-file would
be unstoppable, especially since Black can alternate h-file pressure with pressure against the
other weaknesses in the white camp.
 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 Nf3

Exercise: There are several good moves here; Spassky chooses

what seems to be the clearest, with a definite plan in prospect.

Answer:
23 ... g5!
With the simple plan of doubling the rooks on the h-file and transfer a knight to the outpost
that he has created on f4.
24 Rf2 Qe6 25 Ne1 Rh6 26 b3
He still cannot play 26 Nd3 because of 26 ... Qxc4.
26 ... Qe7 27 Nd3

Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

 Answer:
27 ... Ne8!
The simplest route towards f4.
28 Bg2 Nc7 29 Re1 Ne6 30 Rf5 Rdh8 31 h3

Exercise: Once again there are several good moves

available. What do you think Spassky chose here?

Answer:
31 ... Nb4!
Instead 31 ... Nf4 32 Nxf4 gxf4 was also good, but Black would still have to find a way to
breach White’s position. Spassky’s move is clearer because it guarantees the arrival of the
other knight on the crushing square f4.
32 Ref1 Nxd3 33 Qxd3 Nf4 34 R1xf4
White decides to sacrifice the exchange so as not to lose the h3-pawn and he tries to guard
all the entry points, but he will not succeed in this. However, there was no better defence.
34 ... gxf4 35 Kf2 Qc7
Clearly with the idea of 36 ... Qa5.
36 Qd2 Rg8 37 Ke2

Exercise: Black’s position is winning, but some patience is still

required, as well as good technique. What move did Spassky play?

Answer:
37 ... Rg5
Of course. By exchanging White’s remaining rook, Black relieves the pressure on f6.
38 Rxg5 fxg5 39 Kf3 Qb6 40 Bf1 Qb4 41 Qxb4 cxb4 42 Kg2
 Exercise: Once again there are many possible moves. Try to emulate Spassky’s
good technique by finding a strong move, in connection with a winning plan.

Answer:
42 ... d3!
Not the only move, but definitely one of the simplest ways of securing victory. The black
king will now have the d4-square available to invade the white camp, with the later help of
the rook on the d-file if necessary.
43 Bxd3 Kc7 44 Bf1 Kd6 0-1
The arrival of the king on d4 snuffs out any attempt at resistance.

Supplementary Game 32.1

T.Petrosian-S.Gligoric,
Zurich 1953

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 e5 7 d5 Nh5 8 Qd2 f5 9 0-0-0

 We can see that, with reversed colours, this is the same position, except that Savon had the
extra move Nd2 (which would be …Nd7 here).
9 ... f4 10 Bf2
Black now starts a familiar manoeuvre to try to arrange the favourable exchange of his bad
bishop or, failing that, to transfer it to a more active position.
10 ... Bf6 11 Nge2 Bh4 12 Bg1
Not 12 g3? fxg3 hxg3 Rxf3.
12 ... g5?
As Najdorf pointed out, in an attacking race with the kings castled on opposite wings, the
pawn storms are normally aimed towards the enemy king, but in this curious position the
attacks are taking place in front of each player’s monarch.
In the simple attacking race seen this game, White strikes first, so in subsequent games
Black preferred 12 ... b6! first to restrain White’s c4-c5 break. Only after 13 Kb1 Rf7 14 Nc1
did Black play 14 ... g5, with a decent position.
13 c5! g4 14 Kb1
A typical manoeuvre, evacuating the king from the centre and vacating the c1-square for his
pieces, for instance Nc1-d3 or Rc1.
14 ... gxf3 15 gxf3 Na6 16 c6!
White hammers an unpleasant wedge into c6. White’s king is safe and his queenside play
has already borne fruit. In contrast, Black cannot be satisfied, either with his pawn storm or
with the safety of his king. The exchange 16 ... bxc6 17 dxc6 would clear the d5-square and
open the a2-g8 diagonal in White’s favour. Let us continue a bit further.
16 ... Nf6 17 cxb7 Bxb7
 18 Ng3 Bc8
Not 18 ... fxg3? 19 hxg3 Bxg3 20 Qg5+ and the black king is even weaker.
19 Nge2
Petrosian wanted to gain a bigger advantage than could be achieved with 19 Bxa6
followed by Nf5, or with the immediate 19 Nf5.
19 ... Nc5?
It was better to play 19 ... Nd7, intending ... Nac5.
20 Bxc5! dxc5 21 Nc1
Black’s pawn structure has been damaged without compensation. After an intense and
complicated struggle Petrosian eventually prevailed.

Exercise: Perhaps with 19 Nge2 Petrosian wanted to return to the position in the last diagram, since he now saw that
there was a very strong continuation which would exploit the drawbacks of Black’s pawn storm – Black’s more exposed king
and the bad positioning of all the black minor pieces. What had Petrosian missed at move 18?
 Answer: 18 Nd4!! would have been decisive (this is slightly more precise than 18 Nxf4 followed by Bd4) after 18 ... exd4
19 Bxd4. White threatens 20 Rg1+, which would force Black into an awkward pin, and then after 21 Qxf4 White would
capture the bishop trapped on h4. There is no good defence to White’s threats, for example after 19 ... Ne8 20 Rg1+ Kf7 21
Qxf4+ Bf6, the strongest of several decisive continuations is 22 Qh6.

Supplementary Game 32.2

A.Giri-M.Carlsen,
Wijk aan Zee 2013

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 e5 7 d5 Nh5 8 Qd2 f5 9 0-0-0 f4 10 Bf2 Bf6

11 Qe1
In this game White preferred to prevent ... Bh4.
11 ... Nd7 12 Kb1 Be7
Giri commented: “From now on I was playing in the modern spirit. While earlier players
might have played 13 g4! Ng7 14 h4! and would have written +/- due to the long term
queenside plan, I feel that nowadays such a dogmatic view is not a guarantee of victory.
Instead I was aiming for some more concrete action”.
13 g3
Faced with direct play, Carlsen immediately made an error.
13 ... c5?
“Magnus assumed that he would be able to take advantage of my undeveloped kingside in
the complications but in fact his pieces lack coordination”, wrote Giri, and he suggested
instead 13 ... a6, followed by preparing ... c5 with useful moves such as ... Kh8 and ... Rb8.
14 dxc6! bxc6
 15 c5! dxc5 16 Na4 Qc7 17 Qc3 Rb8 18 Bh3!
Giri gained a decisive advantage, but Carlsen kept presenting him with practical problems and eventually held a draw.
Chapter Seven
The Queen’s Gambit
A ‘Hobby-horse’
For much of his career Spassky was fond of playing the Queen's Gambit with Black.
According to Kasparov a particular 'hobby-horse' of the 10th World Champion was the
Tartakower Defence, or Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky, as it was known in the USSR.
Kasparov wrote that Spassky influenced his own opening repertoire against 1 d4. Despite
being a player with marked preference for the King's Indian Defence, on his way to the
conquest of the world title Kasparov not only adopted the Tarrasch Defence to the Queen's
Gambit, but also the Tartakower Defence, paying special attention to the games of Spassky
and Geller.
The Tartakower offers the possibility or reaching a wide range of very different types of
positions, including positional struggles, manoeuvring games, positions with hanging pawns,
etc. It can also lead to sharp attacking races featuring opposite-sides castling, as in the main
game, where both players need to combine attack and defence.

Game 33
W.Uhlmann-B.Spassky
Moscow 1967
Queen’s Gambit

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 Be7 5 Bg5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 Bh4

In the 20th game of the Petrosian-Spassky match in 1969, Petrosian chose the line 7 Bxf6
Bxf6 8 Qd2, which was invented by Korchnoi.
 White retains the option of castling queenside, as well as playing Rd1. In addition, having
defended the c3-knight (which the main alternatives 8 Qc2 and 8 Rc1 also do), White seeks to
deter a rapid ... c7-c5.
Spassky chose 8 ... b6 and after 9 cxd5 exd5 10 b4 he played 10 ... Bb7?! “This is
passive!” was Kasparov’s comment. The game continued 11 Rb1 c6 12 Bd3 Nd7 13 0-0 Re8
14 Rfc1 and White exerted unpleasant pressure which led to victory, reducing Spassky’s lead
to 10½-9½. He struck back in the 21st game to restore his two-point advantage with only
three games left. Kasparov’s summary was that “Black employed a waiting strategy, but ...
this proved unsuccessful”.
Instead of 10 ... Bb7, Geller recommended 10 ... Be6, with the plan of preparing ... c5. It was not until 2005 that Spassky
had this position on the board again, against Karpov in Mainz. This time he adopted Geller’s recommendation, and after 10 ...
Be6 11 Be2 Nd7 12 0-0 he activated his position with 12…c5! achieving a balanced game.
In the crucial 22nd game of their 1969 match Petrosian varied and instead of 10 b4 he
played 10 Rd1. After 10 ... Be6 11 g3 Nd7 12 Bg2 Be7 13 0-0 c6 14 Qc2 Rc8 Black
achieved a reasonable position and although Petrosian tried to seize the initiative with 15
Ne5, Spassky gained reasonable counterplay after 15 ... Nxe5 16 dxe5 f6, and the game was
eventually drawn.
The line with 8 Qd2 took a back seat in the 1980s, because Black did not allow White to
put pressure on his position and began to open the game to activate his dark-squared bishop,
for instance with 8 ... dxc4 9 Bxc4 Nd7, followed by ... c5, or with 9 ... c5!? 10 dxc5 Nd7.
In time, the more positional 8 Rc1 became White’s most popular line.
7 ... b6

8 Qc2
For many years the main line of the Tartakower was 8 cxd5. Spassky’s most famous game
featuring this line was in fact a defeat, which is covered in Supplementary Game 33.1.
Other common moves here are 8 Rc1 and 8 Be2, which we will look at in the following
games.
8 ... Bb7 9 Bxf6 Bxf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0-0
 White has very aggressive intentions, which even attracted the young Kasparov. He is in a
hurry to start a ‘bayonet’ attack with h4 and g4 to open lines quickly against the black king.

Exercise: How do you think Spassky responded?

Answer:
11 ... c5!
Immediately striking in the centre, even at the cost of allowing the d5-pawn to suffer after
dxc5. Instead 11 ... Nd7 is less energetic. Spassky wants to develop this knight on c6,
although Kasparov commented that after 12 h4! c5 13 g4 cxd4 14 exd4 Qc7! “White has not
yet discovered an advantage”.
12 g4
White continues with his plan.
In the event of 12 dxc5, White is slightly better after 12 ... Bxc3 13. Qxc3 Nd7 14 c6 Bxc6
15 Kb1 Rc8 16 Qd4. However, Black has a strong alternative…
Kasparov was confronted with the “splendid pawn sacrifice” 12 ... Nd7! in G.Kasparov-
I.Zaitsev, Baku 1980. Both players had analysed this position, which quickly became
complicated, but they came to different conclusions. On this occasion Zaitsev was more
accurate. Kasparov did not like 13 cxb6?! Qxb6, since Black has excellent compensation.
Nor did he want to create an isolated d-pawn with 13 c6 Bxc6 14 Nd4 Bb7, since Black’s
game is very comfortable and quickly becomes active after e15 Be2 a6! 16 Kb1 b5 17 Bf3?!
Rc8, S.Lputian-A.Petrosian, Yerevan 1980.
After 13 Nxd5, which was what Kasparov had planned, the game continued 13 ... Nxc5 14
Bc4 b5! 15 Nxf6+ Qxf6 16 Bd5 Rac8 17 Kb1 Na4 18 Qe2 Bxd5 19 Rxd5. The strong a4-
knight and the slightly insecure position of the white king gave Black counterplay, although
“he has to hurry, as otherwise in a move or two White will consolidate his position”,
according to Kasparov. Zaitsev did just that with 19 ... Rc4! 20 Rd4 (forced) 20 ... Rfc8, with
excellent prospects, but then another competitive factor made itself felt: Kasparov had a big
time advantage, and he won rather quickly.
12 ... cxd4 13 exd4
 Question: How about creating an isolated pawn with 13 Nxd4?

Answer: This would be worse than recapturing with the pawn, since Black can play 13 ... Nc6! and if White wants to
keep playing against the isolated queen’s pawn he has to play 14 Nxc6 Bxc6, when the problem is that the bishop on f6 is
much more active, while the weakness of the IQP is hardly noticeable and Black’s piece activity counts for more.
13 ... Nc6 14 h4 g6

15 g5
White does this before Black plays ... Bg7, when he could respond to g4-g5 with ... h5,
closing the kingside.
After 15 h5 g5 White can try the typical attacking manoeuvre on the diagonal b1-b7 with
16 Qf5, planning Bd3, but he does not have enough pieces in the attack and it is not clear if
playing Qh7+ achieves much. The engines see no problems after 16 ... Re8, or 16 ... Bg7 first,
but it is more ‘human’ to prevent Bd3 with 16 ... Nb4, when ... Bc8! is a threat. S.Agdestein-
H.Olafsson, Gjovik 1985 continued 17 Ne5 Bc8 18 Qf3 Bxe5 19 dxe5 Qc7 20 Kb1 Qxe5,
with equal chances.
15 Kb1 or 15 Bb5 are both more solid, but it does not seem that solidity should be the
priority after playing g4 and h4.
15 ... hxg5 16 h5?!
After this Spassky will refute this attack. 16 hxg5 was more dangerous.
 Exercise: How should Black play in that case?

Answer: Not with 16 ... Bg7, since after 17 Rh4 White has managed to open the h-file at no cost.
It is better to play 16 ... Bxg5+! even though after 17 Kb1 White has some compensation
for the pawn. After 17 ... Bf6 the spectacular game J.Bellon-Kir.Georgiev, Tarrassa 1990,
continued 18 Bd3 Nb4 19 Bxg6 Nxc2 20 Bh7+ Kg7 21 Rdg1+ Bg5 22 Nxg5 (not 22 Rxg5+?
Qxg5! 23 Nxg5 Nxd4, and wins) 22 ... Kf6 23 Rh6+ Ke7 24 Bxc2 Qd7 25 Re1+ Kd8 26 Re5
Kc7, when there is barely enough compensation for the queen – just two minor pieces plus a
strong initiative. Objectively this is dubious, but it offers White good practical chances,
especially considering the element of surprise. Black defended well for a time but then
committed a serious error and lost the game.
In J.Bellon-M.Chandler, Gibraltar 2004, surprisingly the same moves were played as far
as 26 Re5, when Black played 26 ... Qg4. White soon went wrong and Black won easily.
When interviewed by this writer in 2014, Murray Chandler said: “I did note the previous
Bellon game in preparation, but did not expect White to repeat. I’m not sure I prepared 26 ...
Qg4, more that I felt Black should be OK in such a position”, and he was correct, according
to today’s engines.
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue, by attacking or defending?

Answer:
16 ... Kg7!
He needs to attend to defence first, and bolstering g6 is a good start.
There is no time for try to dislodge the f3-knight with 16 ... g4?! owing to 17 hxg6! gxf3?
(17 ... Bg7 is necessary) 18 g7! Bg5+ 19 Kb1 Kxg7 20 Qh7+ Kf6 21 Rh3! and the exposed
black king cannot be defended, for example 21 ... Ke7 22 Qf5! Ke8 23 Re1+ Be7 24 Nxd5
Qd6 25 Bb5 (regaining the piece with the black king still very weak) 25 ... Kd8 26 Bxc6
Bxc6 27 Nxe7 Bb7 and now White has the simple 28 Qg5 and if 28 ... f6 White exploits the
weak seventh rank with 29 Qg7 Re8 30 Rh7. Kasparov pointed out the more artistic 28 Rxf3!
which also wins, e.g. 28 ... Bxf3 (or 28 ... Re8 29 Rfe3) 29 Qxf3 Kd7 30 Nf5, with an
unstoppable attack.
21 ... Ke6 is no better. After 22 Rh6+! Kd7 (22…Bxh6 23 Bh3+! f5 24 Re1+ White soon
mates) 23 Qf5+ Kc7
 Exercise: What is the surprising (and only winning) move for White in this position?

Answer:
White prevents the black king from escaping with 24 Rd6!! and with Nb5+ in the air White
regains the piece at least. For example 24 ... Qe8 25 Nb5+ (this is the move ‘human’ move,
but the engines say that the immediate 25 Qxg5! is even better) 25 ... Kb8 26 Qxg5 a6 27 Qg3!
winning the queen.
17 hxg6 fxg6 18 Bb5?!
White’s compensation is more than dubious and this move worsens the situation. Initially
the engines views moves such as 18 Rg1 as more tenacious, but abandoning the h-file without
an overwhelming reason is something that a master would do only in desperation.
If 18 Kb1 or 18 Qd2 Black can play 18 ... Bc8! heading for g4 or f5.
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue?

Answer:
18 ... g4!
Now this is good. Black goes on the counterattack and this attack on the knight is very
strong. Now 19 Rdg1 can be answered by 19 ... Bg5+ 20 Nxg5 Qxg5+ 21 Kb1 Nxd4, with
two extra pawns and the initiative.
No better is 19 Bxc6 Bxc6 20 Ne5 (if 20 Rdg1 Bd7 is sufficient) 20 ... Bxe5 21 dxe5 d4!
22 Ne4 Rc8, and wins.
19 Qd2
White tries to keep his attack alive.

Exercise: Is the knight on f3 poisoned? How should Black play now?

Answer:
19 ... gxf3!
The alternative 19 ... Rh8 was not bad, but this capture is even better.
20 Qh6+ Kf7 21 Qh7+ Bg7 22 Rh3

The white attack can be halted in several ways. Defending f3 with 22 ... Qf6 is good
enough, since there is no danger in 23 Nxd5 Qg5+! 24 Ne3 Na5.

Exercise: What elegant manoeuvre did Spassky choose instead?

Answer:
22 ... Rh8! 0-1
And Uhlmann resigned, since after 23 Rxf3+ Qf6! 24 Rxf6+ Kxf6 25 Nxd5+ Kf7, the game
is simplified and Black is left with an extra piece.

Supplementary Game 33.1

R.Fischer-B.Spassky
World Championship (Game 6), Reykjavik 1972

1 c4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 d4 Nf6 4 Nc3 Be7 5 Bg5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 Bh4 b6 8 cxd5 Nxd5

This recapture is the most popular, because “Since the times of Pillsbury it has been
known that after 8 ... exd5 9 Bd3 Bb7 10 0-0, with the idea of Ne5, Black has a solid, but
passive position” (Kasparov).
9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Nxd5 exd5

11 Rc1
This is the most precise move, immediately initiating pressure against Black’s structure.
Black no has problems in organising his queenside if White simply continues with his
development. For example after 11 Be2 Be6! 12 0-0 c5 the game B.Larsen-B.Spassky, 8th
matchgame, Malmo 1968, continued 13 Qd2 Nd7 14 b3 a5! 15 Bb5 Nf6 16 Rac1 Rfc8 17
Qb2 Bd7 18 Bd3 a4, with good play.
It is premature to grant too much liberty to the hanging pawns with 13 dxc5?! bxc5 14 Qa4
Qb7! 15 Qa3 Nd7 16 Ne1 a5 17 Nd3 c4! (a positional idea played for the first time in
O.Bernstein-J.R. Capablanca, Moscow 1914) 18 Nf4 Rfb8 19 Rab1? Bf5! 20 Rbd1 Nf6 21
Rd2 g5! and Black won material in M.Bertok-R.Fischer, Stockholm 1962.
After 11 Rc1, against Petrosian in Santa Monica 1966, Spassky reached the position after
11 ... Bb7 (by transposition), and after 12 Qa4 c5 13 Qa3 Rc8, Kasparov recommends 14
Bd3! with advantage. Instead, Petrosian played 14 Be2 and Spassky still had to play
imaginatively to gain a draw.
11 ... Be6!
This move which is (or will become) familiar, is the correct one here, leaving the second
rank uncluttered, especially the b7-square. Instead 11…Bb7 would reach Petrosian-Spassky
above.
12 Qa4 c5
“This counterplay in the centre should relieve Black of any difficulties” (Kasparov).
13 Qa3 Rc8 14 Bb5
 Furman’s idea. 14 Be2 is another move here. In the second game of their 1966 match
Spassky played 14 ... a5 against Petrosian, but after 15 0-0 Na6?! 16 dxc5 bxc5 17 Nd4!
Black’s pawn structure was under pressure. Kasparov himself, against Winants on Brussels
1987, defended the Black’s cause with 14 ... Kf8, solving the problem of the undefended
black queen, but he was dissatisfied with his choice and marked it as dubious.
Instead 14 ... Qb7! is better. Kasparov gives 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 0-0 Qb6, followed by ...
Nd7 “with equality”.

14 ... a6
Later Averbakh suggested the pawn sacrifice 14 ... Qb7! and this was played with great
success in J.Timman-E.Geller, Hilversum 1973, culminating in a terrific victory for Black
after 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 Rxc5 Rxc5 17 Qxc5 Na6! 18 Bxa6 Qxa6 19 Qa3 Qc4! 20 Kd2?! Qg4
21 Rg1 d4!! 22 Nxd4 Qh4! and Black went on to win.
15 dxc5 bxc5 16 0-0 Ra7 17 Be2 Nd7
Here Spassky deviates from S.Furman-E.Geller, Moscow 1970, where Black played 17 ...
a5 18 Rc3! Nd7 19 Rfc1 Re8?! 20 Bb5! and White’s queenside pressure was very strong.
Kasparov noted that Black misses his queen from the defence of the queenside.
18 Nd4! Qf8?! 19 Nxe6! fxe6 20 e4! d4?! 21 f4 Qe7 22 e5! Rb8?! 23 Bc4
 White has a clear advantage. This model game ended in a spectacular victory for White,
and you can find it well annotated in many sources.

“How Spassky tricked Korchnoi”

Kasparov relates that this was how in 1981 Karpov described the pawn structure reached
after Black’s 20th move, where the presence of the pawns on a4 and a5 favours Black.
The game was played in another Candidates Final between Spassky and Korchnoi, in
Belgrade in 1977/78. At this point in the match, after 10 games Spassky was surprisingly
trailing by 7½ to 2½ and the atmosphere had become rather tense (Spassky wrote a book on
this match, but it was never published).
In this eleventh game Spassky opted for a manoeuvring game, instead of a theoretical
dispute with the risk of rapid simplification. After a complicated struggle he gained the better
endgame, aided by the above-mentioned pawn structure, and he scored his first win of the
match.
With this game the match took another surprising turn: Spassky won four games in a row.

Game 34
V.Korchnoi-B.Spassky
11th matchgame, Belgrade 1977
Queen’s Gambit

1 c4 e6 2 Nc3 d5 3 d4 Be7 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 0-0 7 e3 b6 8 Rc1

 In the previous game we clearly saw that in the pawn structure arising after the exchanges
on d5, in the majority of positions the c8-bishop is better on e6 than on b7. The text move is
played with this in mind. Let us see how Korchnoi, a veritable fountain of novel ideas,
explains it in his annotations to the seventh game of the match:
“With the useful waiting move in the game White defers the exchanging operations in the
centre, waiting for the black bishop to go to b7, where it will not be as well placed as at e6,
and may even prove to be a tactical weakness in Black’s position. I carried out a similar idea,
with practical success, in my 1971 match against E.Geller. There I continued 8 Be2. Which of
these moves is better is not clear to me to this day”.
8 ... Bb7

Question: After the previous explanation, isn’t it better to postpone this move?

Answer: Korchnoi’s idea is good, but that does not mean that this move is bad. Furthermore there is no waiting move that
would be better. 8 ... Nbd7 is playable, and in the event of 9 Bxf6? Nxf6 10 cxd5 exd5 the idea would be a success, but White
has no need to exchange on f6 and could play 9 cxd5 right away, when the importance of 8 Rc1 can be seen in that Black
cannot play 9 ... Nxd5? 10 Nxd5 exd5 11 Bxe7 Qxe7 12 Rxc7, so he would have to play 9 ... cxd5. This is not so bad, but
practice has shown that it is hardly better than the game continuation.
9 Bxf6
Korchnoi continues with his idea. This exchange is aimed at stabilising the centre. The
main alternative is 9 Bd3, maintaining the central tension.
Instead, 9 cxd5 gives White nothing special here. Black isn’t compelled to give White
what he wants by playing 9 ... exd5 and instead he can play 9 ... Nxd5 10 Bxe7 Qxe7 11 Nxd5
Bxd5 12 Bd3 Rc8, followed by ... c5, as in W.Uhlmann-B.Spassky, Solingen 1974.
9 ... Bxf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 b4
 Question: Explain to me a little the point of White’s manoeuvre.

Answer: Let us hand over to Korchnoi again: “Hinder the advance of the black pawn chain, tie down Black’s forces by
the need to defend his under pressure queenside, and mount a breakthrough on the other side – this in general terms is White’s
optimum plan”.
Of course Black will try not to fall into White’s plans. Black must deal with the positional
threat of b4-b5, making the c7-pawn backward, and if Black then responds with ... c5 or ...
c6, after bxc6 the d5-pawn would remain isolated.
11 ... c6
Spassky contents himself with a solid position, but with the possibility of striking back
with ... a7-a5. Now he can answer 12 b5 with 12 ... c5 without any problems. This move had
given him a good position in the seventh game of the match, although he lost to a beautiful
sequence of play.
Later it was found that the most effective way to call the exchange 9 Bxf6 into question is
to open the game with the counter-blow 11 ... c5! After 12 bxc5 bxc5 13 dxc5 Nd7 14 Nb5
Black has the neat defensive resource 14 ... Rc8! and if 15 Nd6 Black plays 15 ... Rxc5 16
Nxb7 Rxc1 17 Qxc1 Qb6, regaining the piece with equality, J.Timman-R.Hübner, Tilburg
1979.
Instead of 13 dxc5, in a game of great importance in the history of the chess Olympiads,
White played the sharper 13 Bb5, but after 13 ... Na6 14 0-0 Nc7 15 Qa4 cxd4 16 Nxd4 Bxd4
17 exd4 Ne6 Black had managed to regroup his pieces well and had a reasonable position,
since the weakness of d4 compensates for the worse bishop. White then tried to weaken the
d5-pawn with the mistaken exchange 18 Ba6? (the game is balanced after 18 Ne2, according
to Kasparov, and the engines agree) and after 18 ... Bxa6 19 Qxa6 Qg5! it was evident that the
exchange of the inactive bishop on b7 had favoured Black, who seized the initiative by
combining threats against the white king with the rapid activation of his pieces. Let us follow
this game a little further: 20 Ne2 Rab8! 21 Rc3 (if 21 Qxa7 Black plays 21 ... Ra8 and 22 ...
Rxa2, activating his position) 21 ... Rb2! 22 Re3 Rd2! (freeing b2 for the other rook) 23 h3
Rb8, with the more active position, 0-1 in 30 moves, C.Hoi-E.Geller, Valetta 1980. The
historical importance is that it was played in the last round of the Malta Olympiad and with
Geller’s help the USSR beat Denmark 3½-½ and became champions, having the better tie-
break.
12 Bd3!
As we shall see, this deployment of the bishop is more consistent with Korchnoi’s
explanation in the note to 11 b4 above. This move is a change from the seventh game, where
he played 12 Be2.

Spassky chose 12 ... Nd7, which is playable, but a possible improvement here is to play
12 ... Qd6 first. One of the virtues of this move is that it defends the d5-pawn, so that a future
b4-b5 by White can be answered with ... c6-c5, since if dxc5 Black will be able to recapture
on c5 with the pawn. After 13 Qb3 Nd7 14 0-0 a5 15 a3 Rfe8 16 Rfd1 Be7 (Black could
have played the plan of 16 ... axb4 13 axb4 b5, followed by ... Nb6) 17 Rb1 was W.Browne-
V.Hort, Reykjavik 1978. Here Black would have been fine after opening the a-file with 17 ...
axb4! 18 axb4 Ra7, followed by Rea8 “with a comfortable game for Black” (Kasparov).
After 12 ... Nd7 the Korchnoi-Spassky game continued 13 0-0 a5 (another typical plan is
13 ... Re8, with the idea of ... Nf8-e6) 14 b5 (14 a3 is answered with 14 ... axb4) 14 ... c5 15
dxc5! Nxc5 16 Nd4 Qd6 and Black achieved an acceptable position, with free play for his
pieces, although Korchnoi considers that White is slightly better in view of the weakness of
the d5-pawn and the passive bishop on b7. Subsequently the game became complicated and
White eventually won in V.Korchnoi-B.Spassky, 7th matchgame, Beograd 1977.

Question: Returning to the move in our main game, 12 Bd3, can you explain to me why this is more consistent (than 12
Be2) with Korchnoi’s remarks quoted above.

Answer: The key phrase is “mount a breakthrough on the other side”. He has the interesting idea of moving the bishop to
b1, and after a2-a3 or a2- a4, playing Ba2, followed by a timely break with e3-e4, while Black will also have to reckon with
b4- b5, on account of the greater pressure on d5 (from the bishop on a2).
12 ... Re8
Spassky chooses the plan of bringing the knight from b8 to e6. We have already seen that in
another position this plan gave Black a good game in C.Hoi-E.Geller, Malta 1980. From the
e6-square the knight puts pressure on the important c5- and d4-squares.
13 0-0 Nd7 14 Qb3 Nf8 15 Rfd1 Rc8
 15 ... Ne6 at once is also playable, putting pressure on d4 and thus preventing 16 e4.

16 Bb1!
Advancing with 16 e4 was also possible and in the event of 16 ... dxe4 17 Nxe4,
according to Stean White is slightly better, since after 17 ... Ne6 White can play 17 Bc4 and
then perhaps Ne5, with the freer game. But Black is not obliged to capture on e4 and can play
16 ... Ne6 instead, not fearing 17 e5 Be7, with a reasonable position, since it is hard to see a
clear way for White to make progress. 18 b5?! fails to 18 ... c5.
16 ... Ne6 17 a4
In the Informant Stean recommended a change of plan with 17 Qc2 g6 18 Ne5, but then 18
... Qd6 is satisfactory for Black according to Kasparov. This seems better than taking the
radical decision to play 18 ... Bxe5 given by Stean. Najdorf suggested 18 ... Bg7 19 f4 “as no
doubt [with White] Tal would play. But everyone has his own style”.
Nevertheless, seeing what happens in the game, it definitely seems better to play 17 a3,
with the same idea as in the game, but without weakening the b4-square.
17 ... Ba8 18 Ba2 Rc7!
 The idea of this move, unanimously praised, is to have ... Rd7 available, bolstering the
defence of the d5-pawn. It also has another virtue that we shall appreciate later: on c8 the
rook is a tactical weakness, but curiously on c7 it is not.
19 Qb1

Question: What is this? Was not the idea to play b4-b5? Is this not possible?

Answer: Many people, and not just amateurs either, were of the same opinion as you, that it was better to play 19 b5(!) c5
20 Nxd5.

This was described as more energetic and slightly favourable to White after (following the
main line quoted by Kasparov) 20 ... Bxd5 21 Qxd5 Rd7 (Stean leaves off here, evaluating it
as slightly better for White) 22 Qf5! (Kasparov considers that 22 Qb3 cxd4 23 exd4 Bxd4
gives White nothing, and it is easy to agree that this is the case, since all the black pieces are
active) 22 ... cxd4 23 Bxe6 Rxe6 24 Qd3 Rdd6 25 exd4 Bxd4 26 Nxd4 Rxd4 27 Qxd4 Re1+
28 Rxe1 Qxd4 29 Ra1 and Kasparov concludes, “and although things are closer to a draw, it
is nevertheless White who is playing for a win”.

Question: OK, if that is the case, I’ll rephrase

my question: why didn’t Korchnoi play 19 b5?

Answer: I’ll reply by setting it you as an exercise.

Exercise: Look for an improvement for Black in

the position of the last diagram (after 20 Nxd5).

Answer: We do not have Korchnoi’s account, but it is possible that he rejected 19 b5 because after 19 ... c5 20 Nxd5
Black can play 20 ... c4! 21 Nxf6+ (it is worth noting that with the black rook still on c8 White could play 21 Rxc4! and
whether Black replies with 21 ... Qxd5 or 21 ... Bxd5 White plays 22 Rxc8, with two extra pawns) 21 ... Qxf6 22 Rxc4 Rxc4
23 Qxc4 Bxf3 24 gxf3 Qxf3, followed by ... Ng5, with a very strong attack against the weak white king.
It is very probable that this last line explains why Korchnoi did not play 19 b5? and
provides another reason why Spassky played 18 ... Rc7!
 19 ... a5!?
“I had a good feeling for the critical moments of the game” said Spassky of his play. This
pawn break seems to be a sign that Spassky sensed the hesitation in Korchnoi’s play and
sought to seize the initiative.
Spassky’s move was considered dubious and the safer 19 ... Rd7 was recommended
instead. This is objectively better, but seeing that Korchnoi now thought for forty minutes
before replying, this move definitely had a strong impact on Korchnoi.
20 bxa5?!
This justifies the decision to play 19 ... a5. After his long think Korchnoi was unsure about
following his plan with 20 b5! which once again, from an objective viewpoint is a better
move. The key is that after 20 ... c5 21 dxc5 Black is forced to play 21 ... Bxc3.

Exercise: Why is 21 ... Rxc5 inferior?

Answer: On account of the elegant move 22 Ne4! and after 22 ... Rxc1 23 Qxc1 the weakness of the d5-pawn is clear.
Sacrificing the queen with 22 ... dxe4 23 Rxd8 Rxd8 is inadequate, for instance White can play 24 Bxe6 exf3 25 Rxc5 bxc5 26
Bb3 fxg2 27 Qc2, as given by Kasparov.
Let us go back to the forced reply 21 ... Bxc3. Now the natural 22 Rxc3 is inferior, since
after 22 ... Nxc5 23 Qc2 once again Black gains good piece play and can even sacrifice a
pawn with 23 ... Qf6! 24 Bxd5 Rd7 25 e4 Red8 “with counterplay thanks to the powerful
knight at c5”, according to Kasparov, and the engines are equally enthusiastic.
Instead of 22 Rxc3 the key move is the piece-sacrifice 22 c6! suffocating the black pieces.
After 22 ... Bf6 23 Bxd5 Qe7 24 Nd2 Nc5 25 Qc2, White has more than enough compensation
for Black’s extra piece, which is the bishop on a8.
20 ... bxa5
 Question: Why was 19 ... a5 was justified? I just see a
backward c6-pawn and a chronic weakness on c5.

Answer: The weakness of the b4-square (17 a3!) compensates for the weakness of the c6-pawn, according to Kasparov,
and it is also important that the pawns are on a4 and a5, preventing White’s possible Na4-c5 manoeuvre. This is “how Spassky
tricked Korchnoi”, as Karpov said. Of course it also needs to work tactically against the move White now plays.
21 Qb6?!
A tempting move, attacking a5 and putting pressure on c6, but it will prove fruitless. It was
necessary to regroup, adapting to the change of structure, with 21 Qd3 and “the gradual return
to life of the a2-bishop” (Kasparov), with which White could hope to equalise. However, we
should not overlook that before this, the eleventh game of the match, there had been five
draws but Korchnoi had managed to win no less than five games, so it is possible that his
sense of danger could have been numbed.

Exercise: How did Spassky respond?

Answer:
21 ... Rb7!
Exploiting the fact that 22 Qxc6?? loses to 22 ... Rb6, Black seizes the b-file. He is
activating his pieces, unafraid that the exchange of queens might highlight the weakness of the
c6-pawn, since he will control the b-file and have an outpost on b4.
22 Qxd8
It was possible to avoid the exchange of queens with 22 Qa6, intending to recentralise it,
but after 22 ... Rb4 23 Qd3 White would have lost two tempi in comparison with 21 Qd3.
22 ... Rxd8 23 Ne1 Rb6 24 Nd3 Rdb8
 25 h3?!

Question: It seems to me that this move is unnecessary. Why not play

25 Rb1, ready for mass exchanges on the b-file, bringing the draw closer?

Answer: You are right! “Not sensing the danger” was Kasparov’s comment on 25 h3.
Korchnoi’s second, Michael Stean, himself suggested 25 Rb1! Kf8 26 Rxb6 Rxb6 27 Rb1,
although here Kasparov suggested (instead of Stean’s 27 ... Rxb1+) improving the pieces with
27 ... Bd8! and after 28 Rxb6 Bxb6 29 Kf1 Bb7 30 Ke1 Ke7 31 Bb1 Bc7, followed by 32 ...
Bd6, Black would be slightly better. The pair of bishops would allow him to continue playing
with hopes of increasing his advantage, or at least continuing the fight.

Exercise: How did Spassky improve his prospects in this position?

Answer:
 25 ... Bb7!
Of course. He plays in the style that we have seen so many times already and shall
continue to see, getting all his pieces to work together, not leaving any of them inactive.
26 Ne5
“Korchnoi tries to eliminate one of the bishops” wrote Najdorf, and this will be
accomplished, but at a price.
26 ... Bxe5 27 dxe5
With this change of structure the c-pawn, backward for now, is freed to advance. This does
not matter at the moment, but in the future it might be important.

27 ... Rb4!

Question: This move could wait. Why not first activate the bishop with 27 ... Ba6?

Answer: In addition to general considerations it is essential to always be alert to possible tactics. After 27 ... Ba6 White
can play 28 e4! equalising more easily than in the game. Then there would be no advantage in playing 28 ... d4?! because of
29 Bxe6 dxc3 30 Bd7 Rb3 31 e6, with good play.
With 27 ... Rb4! Black not only puts pressure on a4 but also fights against the counter-blow
e4, as we shall see.
28 f3?!

Question: You owe me an explanation. What happens after 28 e4?

Answer: In fact that move was recommended by several commentators and it is perhaps White’s best move at this point.
Now 28 ... dxe4?! would allow 29 Rd7, with 30 Bxe6 fxe6 31 Re7 on the agenda, depending on Black’s reply. So Spassky
would very probably have played 28 ... d4 and now if 29 Bxe6!, thanks to having the rook on b4, Black could play 29 ... fxe6
30 Ne2 Rd8, although the endgame wouldn’t be at all clear if White sacrifices a pawn with 31 Nf4 Kf7 32 Nd3 Rxa4 33 Nc5
Rb4 and now 34 Ra1 or 34 Rb1.
The other move order suggested, 29 Ne2?! intending to answer 29 ... Rd8 with 30 Bxe6,
reaching the previous variation, is questionable on account of 29 ... Ba6! 30 Ng3 R8b6! 31
Nf5 and now 31 ... Be2 32 Rd2 d3 is not clear, owing to 33 Rxc6! Rxc6 34 Ne7+ Kf8 35
Nxc6 Rxa4 36 f3 Nf4 37 Kf2. But 31 ... Nf4! seems more dangerous, for example 32 Rxc6
Rxc6 33 Ne7+ Kf8 34 Nxc6 Rb2 and the d-pawn is going to cost White a piece.
 Exercise: How did Spassky continue after 28 f3?

Answer:
28 ... Ba6!
Of course, now the bishop can be activated, controlling more squares and supporting the
other pieces from its new position.
29 Rd2 Bc4 30 f4
White’s position would also be difficult to defend after 30 Bxc4 Rxc4 and now 31 Rdc2?
d4! 32 exd4 Nxd4 33 Rf2 (if 33 Rd2 then 33 ... Nb3) 33 ... Rb3 34 Rd2 c5, and the fork on e2
means that White loses material after 35 Na2 Rxc1+ 36 Nxc1 Rb1 37 Rd1 Rxc1. Instead 31
Ne2 is better, although Black can keep the advantage with 31 ... Rxc1+ 32 Nxc1 Rb4! for
example 33 Ra2 Nc5 34 Rc2 Rc4! or 33 Rc2 c5 (which seems even better than the superior
knight endgame arising from 33 ... Rxa4 34 Rxc6 Rc4 35 Rxc4 dxc4 36 Kf2).

30 ... Nc5!
Starting “a fine knight manoeuvre!” (Kasparov), not so much to capture immediately on a4
(since this would lead to exchanges, after which the dictum ‘all rook endings are drawn’
might receive some confirmation) but in order first to strengthen Black’s position.
31 Rd4 Nd3!
Heading for b2, where the knight will be ideally placed, attacking the a4-pawn once more
and supporting the advance of the black infantry.
32 Rd1 Nb2! 33 Rc1 c5!
Placing White, whose flag was about to fall, in a critical situation.
34 Rxd5?!
This exchange sacrifice will bring no relief. Black will still have two passed pawns. But
there was really nothing better here, for example after 34 Rd2 Black can win in a manner
which is already familiar to us: 34 ... Bxa2 35 Nxa2 Rxa4 36 Nc3 Rc4 37 Rxd5?! Na4 38
Rd3 Rb3 39 Ne2 Rxc1+ 40 Nxc1 Rb1 41 Rd1 Nc3 42 Re1 Rxc1, etc.
34 ... Bxd5 35 Bxd5 c4 36 Ne4 Nxa4 0-1
Korchnoi resigned, in view of 37 Bxc4 Rb1 38 Rxb1 Rxb1+ 39 Kf2 Nb6, followed by 40
... a4, or 37 Rxc4 Rb1+ 38 Kh2 Nb6 39 Rc5 Nxd5 40 Rxd5 Ra8.

This was the first of Spassky’s four victories in a row, bringing the score to 7½-6½ before
finally losing 10½-7½, making Korchnoi the challenger to Karpov in Baguio City, 1978.

“One of the key games of this variation”

"From the point of view of Black's plans, this is also one of the key games of this variation".
This is how Kasparov characterised the next game, in which Spassky provides us with
another lesson on the Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky Defence.
The game was played in the then traditional match that Jan Timman played at the end of
every year against a strong opponent. The match finished 3-3 after Timman won the first game
and Spassky struck back in this instructive game, which he won by delivering a devastating
counter-blow.

Game 35
J.Timman-B.Spassky
3rd matchgame, Hilversum 1983
Queen’s Gambit

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e3 0-0 6 Nc3 h6 7 Bh4 b6 8 Be2

This is Korchnoi’s other idea that we mentioned. It was introduced in his match with
Geller in 1971. White waits for the bishop to go to b7 (effectively preventing it from going to
e6) and then stabilises the centre with the exchange Bxf6 followed by cxd5, leaving the black
bishop on b7.
8 ... Bb7

Question: Why does Black fall in with White’s plans? Can’t he play
something else, for example 8 ... Nbd7, preventing White’s idea?
 Answer: Yes, this is possible. 8 ... Nbd7 is a developing move, which has nothing clearly wrong with it, and it was even
played in the matches between Karpov and Kasparov. It simply leads to a different type of position after 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 0-0
Bb7. Here the plan of putting pressure on d5 with 11 Qb3 can be answered with 11 ... c5! showing that instead of ... Qe7 and
... Rd8, as we shall see in Supplementary Game 35.1, Black has made developing moves. Black achieved a good game after
12 Bxf6 Nxf6 13 dxc5 Bxc5 14 Rfd1 Qe7 with good piece play compensating for the isolated pawn. Black won a model game
in A.Beliavsky-E.Geller, Minsk 1979.
In the 31st game of the 1984/85 match between Karpov and Kasparov, Karpov played 11
Rc1 c5 12 Qa4. Now 12 ... Ne4 is a natural continuation, but Kasparov was not keen on “the
unclear position with hanging pawns after 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 dxc5 Nxc3 15 Rxc3 bxc5”.
Nevertheless, he concludes that “although White is pressing on the pawn pair in the centre, all
the time he has to reckon with the possibility of ... d5-d4”. Kasparov preferred 12 ... a6,
preventing Ba6, although this was not something that Kasparov feared especially. The main
idea can be seen in the continuation of the game: 13 dxc5 bxc5 (“Understandably, playing
with an isolani after 13 ... Nxc5 did not attract me”, commented Kasparov) 14 Rfd1 Qb6.

Here White played the surprising but correct 15 Qb3! Kasparov rejected the exchange of
queens almost without thinking since, according to him, “in the endgame after 15 ... Qxb3 16
axb3 the weakness of the hanging pawns is more perceptible than the weakness of the doubled
b-pawns”. He played 15 ... Qa7, which was what he had prepared beforehand with
Timoshchenko. Karpov continued with 16 Bg3! with the idea of retreating the knight from f3
and playing Bf3, increasing the pressure on Black’s hanging pawns. The game was drawn
after a hard struggle.
Kasparov repeated this same position with success against Topalov in a rapid match in
1998, but he stated that 8 ... Nbd7, preventing White’s plan, “leads to more dynamic play with
hanging pawns for Black, but with accurate play White retains some advantage”.
9 Bxf6 Bxf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0
Another typical idea is 11 b4.
 White hinders the advance ... c7-c5, which would lead a position with an isolated queen’s
pawn. Nevertheless, one of the critical continuations is precisely 11 ... c5 12 bxc5 bxc5 13
Rb1 Bc6 14 0-0 Nd7 which was played many times in the matches between Kasparov and
Karpov.
Spassky never liked to play the rapid advance ... c5, so it is possible that he would have
chosen to play in more restrained fashion with 11 ... c6, postponing the struggle until the
middlegame. Then after 12 0-0 there are several possibilities, for example 12 ... Qd6,
followed by ... Nd7, putting off the decision about how to strike back.
The advance b2-b4 is not exclusively advantageous to White. It also grants Black the
possibility of trying to open the a-file with a timely ... a7-a5. For tactical reasons, here 12 ...
a5 is “slightly premature” according to Kasparov, in view of 13 b5! and if 13 ... c5 14 Ne5,
“with the initiative for White, the source game: Onischuk-Rychagov, Moscow 2002”.
If Black is determined to play ... a5 it is preferable to preface it with 12 ... Re8 and if 13
Qb3 then 13 ... a5 is fine, since 14 b5 can be answered with 14 ... c5! 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 Rac1
Bxc3! 17 Qxc3 Nd7, with an unusual position in which there is a white pawn on b5,
alongside Black’s hanging pawns. This type of position has proved satisfactory for Black, as
in two games of the Timman-Short match in El Escorial 1993.
Black also gains reasonable play after 14 a3 Nd7 15 b5 c5! 16 Nxd5 Bxd4! and Black
came out of the complications in good shape in A.Karpov-N.Short, Amsterdam 1991.
The most common continuation has been 14 bxa5 Rxa5 15 Rfe1 Nd7, with the counter-
blow ... c7-c5 as a latent possibility. Nigel Short, among others, has demonstrated the solidity
of Black’s position several times.
 11 ... Nd7
Spassky had an unpleasant experience with 11 ... Qd6 12 Rc1! a6 (forced in order to
prevent Nb5).

Question: Forced? It is not a very useful

move, is it? Isn’t it better to play 12 ... c6 instead?

Answer: If he could, Spassky would surely have played 12 ... c6, but, as you will understand from what we have already
seen, that would allow White to break favourably with 13 e4!
Note that 12 ... c5? was not playable either, on account of 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 Ne4!
The 11th game of the 1974 Karpov-Spassky match in Leningrad continued 13 a3 Nd7 14
b4. After this, according to Kasparov, Black can almost forget about playing ... c5. On the
other hand, White has weakened the c4-square, which sometimes allows Black to play ... b5,
followed by ... Nb6-c4. Spassky indeed played 14 ... b5, although Tal later criticised this,
suggesting instead a regrouping of Black’s pieces with 14 ... Be7 15 Bd3 Qe6! followed by
16 ... Bd6.
After ... b5 the square c5 also becomes accessible to a white knight. Karpov chose the
route f3-e1-d3, but later commented that it was preferable to head to c5 via d2 and b3, since
that would prevent a possible counter-blow with ... a5. The game continued 15 Ne1 c6 16
Nd3 and here Black should have played 16 ... a5! getting rid of the weakness that was created
in the game, and after ... a4, followed by ... Nb6-c4, it would be White who would have a
weakness on a3 as Kasparov pointed out. Spassky played 16 ... Nb6?! and after 17 a4! Bd8?!
18 Nc5 Bc8 19 a5! Bc7 20 g3 Nc4 21 e4! Bh3 22 Re1 dxe4 23 N3xe4 White won a classic
model game.
Returning to the position of the last diagram, the violent 11 ... c5!? is possible, and after 12
dxc5 Bxc3 (Kasparov points out that 12 ... bxc5 is also playable, based on the line 13 Qb3
Bc6 14 Rad1 Nd7!? 15 Nxd5 Rb8 and Black regains the pawn with a satisfactory game) 13
bxc3 bxc5 14 Rb1 Qc7! (to bring out the knight via d7; instead 14 ... Qe7?! as played in
G.Kasparov-E.Torre, Moscow 1981 is inferior owing to 15 Qa4! Nc6 15 Qa3, and Black has
problems) 15 Ne5 and White gains slight pressure, for example 15 ... Nd7 16 Nxd7 Qxd7 17
Qb3 Bc6 18 Qa3 Qe7 19 Bf3! However, by sacrificing a pawn at an opportune moment to
reach the typical rook endgame with four pawns against three with the a-pawn being the extra
one, Black held the endgame without any difficulties in V.Kramnik-A.Khalifman, Linares
2000.
The stem game of White’s plan, V.Korchnoi-E.Geller, Moscow, 1971, is our
Supplementary Game 35.1.
12 Qb3 c6

13 Rad1

Exercise: The break e4 is ‘in the air’ in several versions.

How would Black play after 13 Rfe1 Re8 14 e4?

Answer: Naturally not with 14 ... dxe4? because of 15 Bc4! followed by Nxe4. I am sure you would reply with the same
counter-blow as Spassky: 14 ... c5! reaching equality without any problems after 15 Nxd5 cxd4 16 Nxf6+ Qxf6 17 Qa4 Nc5
18 Qxd4 Qxd4 19 Nxd4 Rxe4 20 Nb5 Bc6 as seen in J.Timman-B.Spassky, Bugojno 1982.
13 ... Re8 14 Rfe1
Preparing the e4-break under good conditions.
In R.Vaganian-B.Spassky, Moscow 1975, White employed a rather passive plan with 14
Ne1, which fails to create problems for Black, who can easily regroup his pieces. The game
continued in typical fashion with 14 ... Nf8 15 Nd3 Ne6 16 Rfe1 (seeking to strengthen his
castled position) 16 ... Qd6 17 Bf1 and here, following the astute move 17 ... Re7! which
apparently plans to double rooks on the e-file, White played the consistent but mistaken 18
g3?
 Exercise: How did Spassky refute White’s idea?

Answer: With 18 ... Bxd4! 19 exd4 Nxd4. If the black rook were on e8 instead of e7, White would have the move 20
Rxe8+, but now he must allow the check on f3. The game continued 20 Qa4 Nf3+ 21 Kh1 Nxe1 22 Nxe1 d4 23 Ng2 c5 24
Kg1 Rae8 with a winning advantage for Black.
14 ... Nf8 15 e4
After 15 Bf1 Ne6 16 e4 dxe4 17 Nxe4?! Black can play 17 ... Bxd4! 18 Nxd4 Nxd4 19
Qg3 and now he can choose between 19 ... c5 20 Nd6 Rxe1+ 21 Rxe1 Qd7 22 Nxb7 and the
even better 19 ... Re6, controlling d6, without fearing 20 Bc4 since after 20 ... c5! 21 Bxe6?
fails to 21 ... Ne2+.
In M.Chandler-B.Spassky, Bundesliga 1981, White played 17 Rxe4 but after 17 ... c5 18
dxc5 Qb8 19 Nd5 Bxd5 20 Rxd5 Nxc5 21 Rxe8+ Qxe8 the black pieces are rather more
active and White has to be careful. Following 22 Qb4 Qe6 23 Qd2 Ne4 24 Qd1 Rc8 Black
achieved a slight advantage.
 Exercise: How did Spassky respond to the central break 15 e4?

Answer:
15 ... Ne6
Of course, once again not 15 ... dxe4?! for the same reason: 16 Bc4 Qc7 17 Nxe4 and the
white pieces have managed to become active.
16 e5
After 16 exd5 cxd5 17 Bb5 Re7 White does not achieve more than equality.
16 ... Be7 17 a3
A modest-looking move, but it is designed to fight against ... c5. After 17 Qc2 Black
prepared the ... c5 break with 17 ... Qc7 18 Bd3 Rad8 19 Ne2 c5, with a balanced game in
P.Nikolic-E.Geller, Sochi 1982.
17 ... Bf8

Exercise: Why Spassky refrain from playing 17 ... c5?

Answer: Because following 18 dxc5 Nxc5, the move 17 a3 would prove useful after 19 Qa2! winning a pawn.
18 g3
Black experiences no difficulties after 18 Bf1 Qc7 19 g3 Rad8 either, as everything is
ready to play ... c5, E.Torre-J.Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1984.
18 ... Rc8 19 Rd2 g6 20 Bf1 h5
With his last two moves Black creates an eventual outlet for his dark-squared bishop to
become active, as well as discouraging White from moving his knight from f3 for fear of a
possible ... h5-h4. However, the ... c7-c5 break is Black’s main plan, which White is
preventing for now.
21 Bg2 Rc7
Heading for d7, in order to overprotect d5 and be ready to play ... c5 at an opportune
moment.
22 Qa2 Rd7 23 b4
White decides to cease manoeuvring and take a step forward, not finding any other clear
way to strengthen his position.
23 Red1 Bh6 24 Rc2 “is more solid” (Kasparov). The text move is ambitious, but also
double-edged. Of course, to try to win White needs to do something.
 23 ... Qe7

Question: Was it not possible to play 23 ... c5 here?

Answer: Yes, it was, and after 23 ... c5 24 dxc5 bxc5 25 bxc5 Bxc5 Black gains active play, “but Spassky did not want to
define the position so quickly” (Kasparov). Spassky seems to consider that there is no harm in continuing to manoeuvre, since
White can hardly prevent ... c5 in any effective way.
24 Rdd1
White relies on the solidity of his position, which objectively is correct, but from the
practical viewpoint 24 Rb1 was better.

Exercise: What do you think Spassky played in this position?

Answer:
24 ... a5!
 “The same unexpected undermining move, as in the game with Korchnoi”, commented
Kasparov. Objectively the position continues to offer chances to both sides, but White must
now adapt to the unexpected change in the position.
25 Na4
With the rook on b1 overprotecting the b4-pawn, this move would be even stronger.
Kasparov suggested playing more actively with 25 bxa5 bxa5 26 Qd2! Ba6 (26 ... Qxa3 27
Ra1 Qe7 28 Rxa5 c5 29 Bh3 is no better) 27 Rb1 Qd8 28 Qe3, “maintaining a dynamic
balance”.
25 ... axb4 26 Nxb6 Rc7 27 axb4 Qxb4 28 Rb1 Qe7 29 Red1
The exchanges initiated with 25 Na4 have not given White any advantage, but neither have
they spoiled his position. The chances remain equal.
29 ... Rd8
Once again Spassky sees no problems in holding back from 29 ... c5, which would lead to
a balanced position after 30 Nxd5 Bxd5 31 Qxd5 Rd8 regaining the pawn, or 30 dxc5 Nxc5
31 Rxd5 (31 Nxd5? Bxd5 32 Rxd5 Ne4! is worse) 31 ... Ne4 32 Qb2 (avoiding 32 ... Nc3?
33 Rd7!, with advantage) 32 ... Rd8 33 Rd4 (33 Rxd8?! is worse in view of 33 ... Qxd8, with
the idea of ... Bc5, as 34 Na4 Bc6! gives Black the initiative) 33 ... Nc3 34 Re1 (controlling
e2) 34 ... Rxd4 35 Nxd4 Qc5, with active play which compensates for the pawn.
30 Rb2?
White underestimates the dangers of the position. 30 Ne1 has been proposed here, but
Kasparov suggested recycling the distant knight with 30 Na4! and after 30 ... c5 31 Nxc5
Nxc5 32 dxc5 Qxc5 33 Nd4 Bg7 34 f4 White has no difficulties, while in the event of 30 ...
Ba6 31 Bf1 Bxf1 32 Kxf1 Ra7 33 Qc2 White’s position is again problem-free.

Exercise: How did Spassky continue after 30 Rb2?

Answer:
30 ... c5!
This advance now takes place in better circumstances than on earlier occasions. The white
pieces are not well placed. It is still too early to talk of an advantage, but the trend of the
game is now favourable to Black.
31 dxc5?!
This brings the black pieces to life. However, if 31 Rb5!? then 31 ... Bc6! is good (but not
31 ... c4? 32 Ne1! with advantage, since there is no good way to defend the d5-pawn) and
after 32 Ra5 c4 sets up a passed pawn, with a slight advantage to Black because White has no
good blockading piece ready.

Exercise: What is wrong with 33 Ne1 here?

Answer: The tactical weaknesses at b6 and e1 can be exposed by 33 ... Nxd4! 34 Rxd4? Qb4 35 Nxc4 Qxe1+ 36 Bf1
Rb8! with advantage. It is better to play 34 Nxd5 Bxd5 35 Rxd5 Rxd5 36 Bxd5 Qxe5 37 Bxc4 h4, with just a slight initiative to
Black.
31 ... d4!
Another step forward. The c5-pawn can wait.
32 Qa3?!
White’s position is already uncomfortable. The line 32 Nd2 Bxg2 33 Kxg2 Qxc5 34 Nbc4
Qd5+ 35 f3 Ra8 36 Qb3 Nc5 37 Qc2 Na4 was suggested as better, although also leading to
some black advantage, but there are other possibilities along the way (34 ... d3 is one) and
even in this position Houdini sees no defence for White.
After both 32 c6 Bxc6 33 Ne1 and 32 Nc4 Bd5 33 Nfd2 Qxc5 34 Bxd5 Qxd5 Kasparov’s
assessment evaluation seems appropriate: “Although Black has the advantage everywhere,
White is capable of resisting”.
32 ... Rxc5 33 Na4?
 Exercise: This is definitely the decisive error. Demonstrate why.

Answer:
33 ... Rc1!
Do you recall Spassky’s 17 ... Re7! move in his game with Vaganian? Now it is Spassky
who takes advantage of an undefended rook which is in danger of being captured with check.
34 Qd3
The alternative 34 Qb3 Bd5 35 Rxc1 Bxb3 36 Rxb3 Qa7 is scarcely more tenacious, for
example 37 Nb6 d3 38 Nc4 Bh6, followed by ... Qa4 or ... d2, depending on White’s
response.
34 ... Qa3!
A devastating shot, based on the same theme. This threatens both the queen and the knight
on a4, which defends the rook on b2.
35 Qf1 Rxd1 36 Qxd1 Bc6 0-1

Supplementary Game 35.1

V.Korchnoi-E.Geller
Moscow 1971

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Be7 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bg5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 Bh4 b6 8 Be2 Bb7 9 Bxf6 Bxf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0
 11 ... Qe7
This is the first step in a piece regrouping: the d8-square is cleared for the rook, which in
turn gives way to the knight for our familiar manoeuvre ... Nd7-f8-e6. Black also makes
preparations to strike with ... c5.
12 Qb3 Rd8 13 Rad1!
Korchnoi in turn restrains the advance ... c5, but this is not merely prophylaxis, as we shall
see.

Question: The truth is that I’m not understanding much here. Why not put
the other rook on d1? It seems more natural to put the a-rook on the c-file.

Answer: Yes, it is often difficult to decide how to deploy the rooks. Capablanca is supposed to have said, only half in jest,
that you should diligently analyse where to place the rooks, carefully weighing up the pros and cons, come to a decision – and
then do the exact opposite! This joke reflects the fact that often, if there are no open files, or several, it is not easy to decide
based on general rules. Here there is a concrete reason for choosing to play Rad1, as we shall see.
13 ... c5!
 Question: Is it good to play ... c5? After playing Qb3 and Rd1 White seems
be well prepared against this advance. Isn’t it better to opt for the alternative
plan with ... c6 and ... Nd7-f8 that we have already seen in similar positions?

Answer: That plan is possible in this position too, and has been played many times, although in practice it has not given
Black good results. As regards this particular game, we must assume that Geller was facing a new idea and, feeling unsure,
desisted from his initial idea of 13 ... c6 (with the plan of ... Nd7-f8-e6) in view of the variation 14 Rfe1 Nd7 15 Bd3 Nf8 16
e4 dxe4 17 Bxe4 (or 17 Nxe4), considering that the white rooks were very well placed in the centre. Here we have the
concrete answer to the question ‘why 13 Rad1?’
Later 13 ... c6 was played many times and Beliavsky especially contributed ideas to
strengthen Black’s play. Nevertheless, White’s position is slightly better.
A variation on the same theme was seen much more recently: instead of 15 Bd3, Anand
played the immediate 15 e4!? against Harikrishna in the World Blitz Championship in Dubai
2014. Anand quickly gained an overwhelming position after 15…dxe4 16 Bd3 Qf8?! 17 Nxe4
c5 18 d5 Bd4?! 19 Bc4 Ne5 20 Nxd4 Nxc4 21 Nf5, although its theoretical value is
diminished with it being a blitz game.
Let us go back to Korchnoi-Geller.
14 dxc5 Bxc3 15 Qxc3
In this position, converting Black’s two hanging pawns into a single isolated pawn gives
no advantage: after 15 c6 Nxc6 16 Qxc3 Rac8 Black has no great problems, since the d-pawn
is easily defended.
15 ... bxc5
Kasparov considers that this version of the hanging pawns is acceptable for Black.
16 Rc1 Nd7 17 Rc2

17…Rab8?!
Tal commented that there are no prospects on the b-file and furthermore the a7-pawn is left
weak. He suggested 17 ... Rdc8! instead, with the idea of ... Nf6-e4, and he played this
against Veingold in Tallinn 1983, achieving a balanced game.
18 b3 Qe6 19 Rd1 Qb6 20 Ne1! Rbc8 21 Bg4!
White is in control. The hanging pawns are suffering and furthermore Geller now had only five minutes for 20 moves. White
won shortly.
Chapter Eight
The King’s Gambit
Spassky’s ‘Evergreen Game’
In the early 1960s, the Czechoslovakian Kronsteen contested a match with the Canadian
MacAdams, in Venice. The score was 11½-11½, and in the decisive game the villainous
Kronstein played a spectacular combination. The final move, made with a challenging look,
was a queen check on e4, which forced the Canadian to resign.
As film buffs will recall, this scene occurs at the start of the James Bond film From Russia
with Love, and the final position (minus two white centre pawns) is taken from the game that
we are going to see now, between Spassky and Bronstein, from the 1960 USSR
Championship.
We know that initially Spassky preferred his win against Reshko (Game 10), but tastes change and later, in answer to the
question as to which was his ‘evergreen game’, Spassky replied: “I think that the evergreen game is the game with Bronstein
in 1960. There was a very good balance between the strategy and tactics. This idea was used in one of the movies of James
Bond”.
In the 1960 Soviet Championship neither of these players was having a very good
tournament, but this game made up for everything It was awarded the tournament’s Brilliancy
Prize and is indeed one of the most brilliant and most well-known games in the history of
chess.

Game 36
B.Spassky-D.Bronstein
USSR Championship, Leningrad 1960
King’s Gambit

1 e4 e5
 “What the devil possessed me to reply 1 ... e5??” commented Bronstein.

Question: What a strange remark! What does he mean?

Answer: Let us allow Bronstein himself to reply.

2 f4
“I completely forgot that Spassky, like Spielmann in the past, very much likes the King’s
Gambit”.
On other occasions Bronstein chose the French Defence, the Pirc and the Sicilian, although
it is true that in 1971 in the Alekhine Memorial tournament in Moscow Bronstein once again
played 1 ... e5 against Spassky, but this time he was expecting the King’s Gambit and he
played the Falkbeer Countergambit 2 ... d5. The game finished in a quick draw.
2 ... exf4 3 Nf3 d5
3 ... g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6 6 d4 d6 7 Nd3 Nxe4 8 Bxf4 Bg7 was the course of a historic
encounter, the first game between Spassky and Fischer, in Mar del Plata 1960, and although
Spassky won with 9 Nc3? he stood worse.
4 exd5 Bd6
With the idea of continuing with ... Ne7. This is an old idea of Adolph Anderssen’s that
Bronstein remembered at the board.
4 ... Nf6 is the usual move, as Sakharov played against Spassky in the 8th round of the
same tournament, which we shall see in Supplementary Game 36.1.
5 Nc3
5 Bb5+ was considered better at that time.
5 ... Ne7 6 d4 0-0 7 Bd3 Nd7
Here 7 ... Bf5 was to be considered, neutralising the d3-bishop.
8 0-0 h6?!
A loss of time. The developing move 8 ... Nf6! is the most natural and best, as indicated by
Bronstein himself. A possible continuation is 9 Ne5 (the feared 9 Ng5 can be answered with
9 ... h6!) 9 ... Nexd5 10 Nxd5 Nxd5 11 Qh5! (or 11 Bxf4 Nxf4 12 Rxf4 Qg5 with equality) 11
... g6 12 Qh6 and now 12 ... Qf6 leads to a balanced position according to Spassky.
 Exercise: White has run out of “obvious” moves. How should he continue now?

Answer:
9 Ne4!
“That is why the knight should have been on f6; this strong move gave Spassky a decisive
advantage” (Bronstein).
White sacrifices his d5-pawn in order to launch a strong offensive.
9 ... Nxd5

Exercise: What is the point of White’s idea?

Answer:
10 c4
“Beginning to build up an initiative, although, of course, there is nothing terrible as yet”
(Kasparov).
10 ... Ne3
The timid 10 ... N5f6 leads to a clear advantage for White after 11 Nxd6 cxd6 12 Bxf4.
11 Bxe3 fxe3
 12 c5!

Question: Why is this a good move? I can see right away that
it surrenders the square d5. What does it achieve in return?

Answer: The weakness at d5 is very difficult for Black to exploit, while the positive sides are that after the bishop retreats
the black pieces will be left with less space and will get in each other’s way. Another factor is that the diagonal a2-g8 is now
open. This is not insignificant, as we shall see.
12 ... Be7
It is bad to try to hang on to the e3-pawn with 12 ... Bf4? because White can plays 13 g3 f5
(13 ... Bg5? 14 Nfxg5 hxg5 15 Qh5 is worse, according to Spassky) 14 Nh4! g5 (or 14 ...
fxe4? 15 Qb3+ Rf7 16 Rxf4 Nf6 17 Bc4) 15 Qh5 gxh4 16 Qg6+ Kh8 17 Rxf4 fxe4 18 Qxh6+
Kg8 19 Bc4+ mating.

Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

 Answer:
13 Bc2!
Spassky wrote that this was the most difficult move of the game.
White is clearly taking aim at h7. “Objectively Black’s position is still quite defensible,
but here psychology came into the picture: Bronstein did not like what was happening on the
board at all – there is a weakness on h7, and also one on f7…” (Kasparov).
Spassky’s move is sharper than 13 Qe2 Nf6 14 Qxe3 Be6, which leads to a rather unclear
position. The surrender of the d5-square could indeed become important now.
13 ... Re8
Vacating f8, to allow the knight to defend h7.
After 13 ... Nf6 14 Qd3 Re8 (14 ... Nxe4 15 Qxe4 g6 16 Qxe3 is advantageous for White),
in addition to 15 Rae1, the move 15 Ne5! is very attractive, when the continuation might be
very similar to what happens in the game.
14 Qd3 e2
If 14 ... Nf8, Spassky suggested 15 Ne5 Be6 (not 15 ... f6? 16 Ng5!! hxg5 17 Qh7+!! Nxh7
18 Bb3+ forcing mate) 16 Rae1. White is also slightly better after 15 Rae1 or 15 Qxe3, with
more space and greater activity, but there would still be fight in the position.
Bronstein decided to interpolate ... e2 since, as he said, “I had no doubt that 15 Rf2 would
follow”.

15 Nd6!!
Objectively this is not the best continuation, and Kasparov even gives it a “?!”, but it is
certainly one of the most spectacular moves in the history of chess, and also one of the most
surprising decisions, because the quiet 15 Rf2! (or even 15 Qxe2) would have given White
the advantage, for example 15 ... Nf8 16 Rxe2 Be6 17 Rae1, etc.

Question: If there was no need for it, why did Spassky prefer to sacrifice a rook?

Answer: Let us hand over to Spassky himself, who once again demonstrates the accuracy of his statement that he had a
good feeling for the critical moments of the game. He explained the rook sacrifice as follows:
“First of all, this move, independently of whether it is good or bad, appealed to me
because it was so unusual: White pays no attention to the ‘insignificant’ threat of the enemy
pawn to win the rook, which will not be necessary for the attack. Secondly, without any delay
White takes advantage (the effectiveness of this can soon be proved) of the traffic jam of the
black pieces on the e- and d- files to deliver a decisive blow on the kingside. Thirdly, (the
psychological factor), the best defence for Black consists of evacuating his king to the centre.
It seemed to me that this wouldn’t appeal to Bronstein, who never liked moving his king
much, and that he would try to defend in some other way. Fourthly (the competitive factor),
Black had only 20 minutes left to make 26 moves. Furthermore, you have to reckon with the
unpleasant psychological effect that such moves have on the opponent. When the game was
over, Bronstein said to me more or less the following remark: “It is clear that your score in
the tournament isn’t exactly good. So it is understandable that you could afford to try a tactical
shot like that one. But that is no consolation to me!”
Kasparov adds an interesting insight. Against players who specialise in defensive play,
such as Petrosian or Korchnoi, it is possible that Spassky would not even consider playing 15
Nd6.
15 ... Nf8?
“Panic!” (Kasparov). “I made the final error: despite my earlier calculations, I trusted that
my opponent had found a decisive continuation after ... and I rejected it in favour of something
worse, what I regret, even to this day”. (Bronstein)
Of course Black cannot play 15 ... cxd6?? in view of 16 Qh7+ Kf8 17 Qh8++.
However, after the calm 15 ... exf1Q+! 16 Rxf1 Bxd6! 17 Qh7+ Kf8 18 cxd6 cxd6! (but not
18 ... Nf6? 19 Qh8+ Ng8 20 Ne5 f6 [or 20 ... Rxe5 21 Bh7!] 21 Bh7 Be6 22 d7!! and wins
[Kasparov], for example 22 ... Re7 23 Bxg8 Bxg8 24 Rxf6+! gxf6 25 Qxf6+ mating) 19 Qh8+
Ke7 20 Re1+ Ne5! 21 Qxg7 Rg8! 22 Qxh6 Qb6! 23 Kh1 Be6 24 dxe5 (Spassky), White
would have compensation for the exchange, but there would still be a struggle ahead.

16 Nxf7!
“An unusual variation of the tragedy of the f7-square” (Kasparov).
16 ... exf1Q+ 17 Rxf1
 17 ... Bf5
As Kasparov points out, despite the fact that Black is a rook ahead and has several pieces
close to his king, he cannot defend against White’s domination of the light-squares.
We can add that all five remaining white pieces are attacking.
If 17 ... Qd5 the tempting move 18 N3e5? fails to a complicated variation that the engines
find immediately: 18 ... Bxc5! 19 Nxh6+ gxh6 20 Bb3 Rxe5! 21 Qg3+ Kh7 22 Bxd5 Bxd4+
23 Kh1 Be6 24 Qd3+ Kg8, and Black can defend.
The right move is 18 Bb3! After 18 ... Qxf7 19 Bxf7+ Kxf7 20 Qc4+ Kg6 (not 20 ... Be6?
21 Ng5+) 21 Qg8! Bf6 (21 ... Be6 22 Ne5+ Kh5 23 Qxg7 with rapid mate) 22 Nh4+! Bxh4
(22 ... Kg5 23 Qd5+ Kxh4 24 g3+ and mate in two) 23 Qf7+ Kh7 24 Qxe8 and wins, as
Spassky pointed out.
Finally, 17 ... Kxf7 loses to 18 Ne5+ Kg8 19 Qh7+! Nxh7 20 Bb3+ Kh8 21 Ng6++.
18 Qxf5
With two pawns for the exchange and an attack on the king, the result is no longer in doubt.
18 ... Qd7 19 Qf4 Bf6
Now there are several continuations of similar strength: 20 Bb3, 20 N7e5 and 20 Nxh6+
gxh6 21 Qxf6. Spassky chooses a fourth way.
20 N3e5 Qe7
According to Kasparov, from the practical viewpoint 20 ... Bxe5 was preferable, because
there are many tempting lines for White, and he could go wrong. But surely Spassky would
have found one of the decisive continuations, such as 21 Nxe5 Qe7 22 Qe4 g6 23 Bb3+ Kh8
24 Qd5 Qg7 25 Rf7, etc.
Kasparov thinks that Bronstein already felt defeated and “ ... at the mercy of the
combinative hurricane”.
 21 Bb3! Bxe5
After 21 ... Ne6 one way to win is 22 Nxh6+ gxh6 23 Qxf6, while 21 ... Kh7 loses to 22
Qf5+ g6 23 Qh3 h5 24 Qe3.
22 Nxe5+ Kh7 23 Qe4+ 1-0
And faced with imminent mate, Bronstein resigned. If 23 ... Kh8 (or 23 ... g6 24 Rxf8 Qg7
25 Rf7) 24 Rxf8+ (or 24 Qd5) 24 ... Rxf8 25 Ng6+ Kh7 26 Nxf8+ Kh8 27 Qh7++.

Kasparov considers that when Fischer included Spassky among the ten strongest players of
all time he had this game particularly in mind, since it exemplifies the individual and dynamic
style of the Russian, and his extremely sharp repertoire of openings.

Supplementary Game 36.1

B.Spassky-Y.Sakharov
USSR Championsip, Leningrad 1960

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d5 4 exd5 Nf6

 Spassky scored an attractive victory. Let us take a quick look.
5 Bb5+ c6 6 dxc6 bxc6 7 Bc4 Nd5 8 0-0 Bd6 9 Nc3 Be6 10 Ne4 Be7 11 Bb3 0-0 12 d4
Necessary, to continue White’s development, although it allows ... Ne3. However, this is
not a great relief for Black.
12 ... Nd7 13 Qe2 g5
A move that was heavily criticised. Admittedly it seriously weakens Black’s kingside, but
the alternative 13 ... c5 that has been suggested can be answered by 14 c4 Ne3 15 Bxe3 fxe3
16 d5, followed by Qxe3, with an extra pawn.
14 c4 N5b6 15 h4 h6
If 15 ... g4 White plays 16 Nfg5.
16 hxg5 hxg5

Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

 Answer:
17 Nfxg5!
Spassky proves in the most crushing fashion that the black king is very weak.
17 ... Bxg5 18 Bxf4!
All the white pieces head for the kingside.
18 ... Bf6
After 18 ... Bxf4 19 Rxf4 f5 White plays 20 Qh5!, with the idea of 21 Qg6+, 21 Rh4, etc.
19 Rad1 Bf5 20 Be5!
There were many options here, but Spassky’s idea is the clearest. It is necessary to
eliminate a few of Black’s kingside defenders in order to be able to infiltrate.
20 ... Bxe4 21 Qxe4 Bxe5 22 dxe5
Threatening 23 Qg4+, followed by Rf3 or Rf5.
23 ... Qg5
This delays the inevitable for a few moves, but the open files cannot be defended and the
rest is easy.
23 Rf5 Qg7 24 Qf4 Rfe8 25 Rg5 Nxe5 26 Rxg7+ Kxg7 27 Rd6 Ng6 28 Qf6+ Kg8 29 Bc2 Nxc4 30 Rd7 1-0

An Unstoppable Attack, Exchanging, and the Spirit of Steinitz

The attacking side generally wants to avoid exchanging pieces, but in this game, on two occasions, White’s initiative actually
increases after an appropriate exchange of pieces.
The spirit of Steinitz in the King’s Gambit appears in the supplementary game, in which
Spassky’s king advances in the centre, not only without this harming White’s position, but
even improving it.

Game 37
B.Spassky-R.Kholmov
USSR Championsip (playoff), Moscow 1964
King’s Gambit

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7

 Question: Without knowing the theory, this move looks good to me. The check
on h4 is very unpleasant as the king on e2 will create an awkward lack of
coordination, and I’m wondering if 4 h4 is best. What can you tell me about this?

Answer: It is a good reply but, as we shall see, the check on h4 has drawbacks for Black as well.
The negative side to this variation is that it fails to defend the f4-pawn, and once White
recaptures it he will have the freer game.
4 Nc3
There are several possible replies. 4 Bc4 is the most popular, this and 4 Be2 both vacate
the f1-square for the king in the event of 4 ... Bh4+, although naturally the move Bc4 is more
aggressive, and controls the d5-square.
4 d4 has also been played. If we include Spassky’s choice in this game, these four lines all
allow the check on h4, although 4 h4 also has been played to prevent it.

Question: OK, but which move is best?

Answer: I fear that there is still no clear answer to this question. If I remember correctly the most popular move is 4 Bc4,
but the strongest player to open with the King’s Gambit with any frequency, Spassky himself, always played 4 Nc3. Personally
this writer would imitate Spassky, if I were ever brave enough to play the King’s Gambit regularly.
4 ... Nf6

Question: The check on h4 is very tempting. Why didn’t Black play it?

Answer: The first world champion, William Steinitz, was not afraid to play with his king in a ‘funny’ position in such
openings, and neither was the tenth world champion! The game B.Spassky-M.Hermann, Germany 1984, continued 4 ... Bh4+
5 Ke2, which we shall see in our Supplementary Game 37.1.
5 e5
Both before and after this game Spassky also played 5 d4. In the 14th round of 1960 USSR
Championship in Leningrad (the same tournament in which Spassky played his spectacular
King’s Gambit against Bronstein which we saw earlier) a game B.Spassky-V.Liberzon
continued 5 ... d5 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 Bc4 Be6 8 Qe2.

Here Black played 8 ... Nxc3 9 bxc3 Bxc4 10 Qxc4 Bd6, with equal chances. Spassky
went pawn-hunting, but gained no advantage after 11 Qb5+ Nd7 12 Qxb7 Qe7+ 13 Kf2 0-0
14 Re1 Qf6 and the game was eventually drawn.
Many years later Spassky reached the same position via a different move order (after 1 e4
e5 2 f4 Black played 2 ... Nf6) and after Black played 8 ... c6 the game continued 9 0-0 0-0
10 Nxd5 cxd5 11 Bd3 Nc6 12 Bxf4, leaving White slightly better with the better structure
(two ‘pawn islands’ against Black’s three) and more active pieces. Following 12 ... Nb4 13
Bb5 a6 14 Ba4 b5 15 Bb3 Nc6 16 c3 b4 17 Rae1 bxc3 18 bxc3, Black managed to equalise
the number of pawn islands, but the white pieces remained better coordinated and after 18 ...
Ra7 19 Qd3 Bf6 20 Ne5 Nxe5 21 Bxe5 Bxe5 22 Rxe5 Re8 23 Qf3 White won a pawn (if 23
... Rd7 24 Ba4) and eventually the game in B.Spassky-K.Pytel, Nice 1974.

In B.Spassky-M.Najdorf, Varna 1962 5 d4 d5 6 Bd3 was played.

Kasparov wrote that after 6 ... dxe4 7 Nxe4 Nxe4 8 Bxe4 Bd6 9 0-0 White gains “a slight
initiative, but one that is not without venom” (as with the line chosen against Kholmov, 5 e5).
Spassky managed to sharpen the game after 9 ... Nd7 with 10 Qd3 h6 11 c4 c5 12 b4! and
after the imprecise 12 ... cxd4?! (it is better to accept the challenge with 12 ... cxb4) 13 c5
Be7 (on 13 ... Bc7 14 c6! bxc6 15 Bxc6 Rb8 16 Re1+ is annoying) 14 Bxf4 0-0 15 Nxd4, he
gained an advantage, although Black did manage to draw.
5 ... Ng4 6 d4 Ne3
To answer the threat of 7 Bxf4 because the knight stands badly on g4.

Question: I understand, but why not 6 ... Bh4+? Doesn’t that win material?

Answer: Yes, Black can win exchange, but in some lines the knight would be trapped on h1. For example 7 Ke2 Nf2 8
Qe1 Nxh1 9 Qxh4 Qxh4 10 Nxh4 g5 11 Nd5! Kd8 12 Nf3 h6 (12 ... fxg3? fails to 13 Nxg5!) 12 g4! and after Bg2 White
picks up the h1-knight, with a complicated position. Nevertheless the position is relatively unexplored and there are interesting
possibilities such as 8 ... d6!? although so far 6 ... Bh4+ has not been played in any master games.
7 Bxe3 fxe3
 Exercise: What is the priority in this position? What do you think Spassky chose?

Answer:
8 Bc4!
The priority is development. The capture of the e3-pawn can wait. The bishop move
prevents ... d5 and reminds Black of the weakness of the f7-square.
8 ... d6 9 0-0

Question: Was queenside castling an option?

Answer: The benefit of castling kingside is that the f1-rook increases the pressure on f7. Queenside castling is possible
but it does not seem any better. For example 9 Qd3 0-0 10 0-0-0 can be answered by 10 ... dxe5 11 Nxe5 Nd7 (impossible
with a rook on f1) threatening to exchange pieces, and for now the e3-pawn is taboo, owing to ... Bg5.
9 ... 0-0 10 Qd3 Nc6 11 exd6 cxd6?!
The alternative was to keep a sounder pawn structure with 11 ... Bxd6 12 Qxe3 (if 12 Ne4,
instead of 12 ... Be7 13 Qxe3, 12 ... Bf4! seems better) 12 ... Be7 or 12 ... h6, controlling the
g5-square. White is still slightly better, but this line seems preferable to the game
continuation.
On the other hand the optimistic 12 ... Bg4?! allows White to seize the initiative with 13
Ng5.
 Exercise: Indicate the strongest continuation after 13 ... Bh5.

Answer: 14 Nce4 brings another piece into play, but allows Black to reinforce his defences with 14 ... Be7, even though
after 15 c3 White would still have a slight advantage. Rather more precise is 14 Rxf7! Bxf7 15 Nxf7 Rxf7 16 Rf1 followed by
Rxf7.

Exercise: What did Spassky play now?

Answer:
12 Rae1
Of course. As usual with Spassky, the last piece is brought into play.
12 ... Bg4
After 12 ... Nb4 13 Qxe3 Black has the neat defensive resource 13 ... Be6. White’s
advantage is minimal after 14 Bxe6 Nxc2 15 Bxf7+ Rxf7 16 Qe6 Nxe1 17 Ng5! Bxg5 18
Qxf7+ Kh8 19 Rxe1 h6. White can retain an extra pawn, but the strong bishop compensates
for it after 20 Qxb7 Rb8 21 Qxa7 Bd2! 22 Rf1 (or 22 Rd1?! Rxb2 23 Nd5 Qe8, planning ...
Qe2) 22 ... Ra8! (slightly better than 22 ... Rxb2 23 Nd5 Qe8 24 Qa3) 23 Qb7 Be3+ and ...
Bxd4.
White does better to play 13 Qe4! Bf6 14 a3! Nc6 (not 14 ... Re8? 15 Bxf7+! Kxf7 16
Ng5+ Kf8 17 Nxh7+ Kf7 18 Ng5+ Kf8 19 Qg6) 15 Nd5, with dynamic advantage. Once again
15 ... Re8? would fail to 16 Nxf6+ gxf6 17 Bxf7+! Kxf7 18 Ng5+ and mate in a few moves.
13 Rxe3
The imminent Nd5 is uncomfortable for Black. White will play it following almost any
move by Black.
13 ... Kh8?!
There are many alternatives, such as 13 ... Bf6, 13 ... Bh5 (to reinforce f7) or 13 ... Na5. In
all cases, White plays 14 Nd5 and stands better. All his pieces are active, while Black’s
position is passive.
14 Nd5
Threatening to win with 15 Nxe7 Nxe7 16 Ng5.
14 ... Bg5
After 14 ... Be6 15 Nxe7 Bxc4 White can win with 16 Qxc4 Nxe7 17 Ng5, although he has
a faster and more attractive combination to draw out the black king with 16 Qxh7+! Kxh7 17
Ng5+ Kh6 18 Rh3+ Kxg5 19 Rf5+ Kg4 20 Rhh5! with a rapid mate.

Exercise: What sequence did Spassky begin in this position?

Answer:
15 Nxg5!
In general, piece exchanges are not in the attacker’s favour, but it all depends on the exact
position.
15 ... Qxg5 16 Rg3
This is the reason why exchanging on g5 was good. White gains great numerical
superiority on the kingside. There is an immediate threat to win with 17 h3.
16 ... Qh5 17 Ne3 Bd7
 Instead 17 ... f5 can be answered with 18 h3, with great advantage after 18 ... Be2 19 Qxe2
Qxe2 20 Bxe2 f4 21 Rg4 fxe3 22 c3 and the e3-pawn’s doom is imminent.
Even worse is 17 ... Be6? 18 Bxe6 fxe6 19 Rxf8+ Rxf8 20 Rh3.

Exercise: How did Spassky make progress in this position?

Answer:
18 Nf5!
Allowing another exchange, but leaving White with a more and more noticeable
superiority in forces on the kingside.
18 ... Bxf5
In answer to the counter-blow 18 ... d5, one good reply is 19 Bb3, although White can also
play 19 Bxd5 Nb4 20 Qb3 Bxf5 (not 20 ... Nxd5? 21 Nxg7) 21 Qxb4 Bxc2 22 Bxb7 Rab8 23
Re3, with an extra pawn.
19 Rxf5 Qh4
If 19 ... Qh6? 20 Rh3 Nb4 (20 ... Qc1+ 21 Rf1 wins; while 20 ... Qg6 fails after 21 Bxf7!
Rxf7 22 Rxf7) 21 Qc3 Qg6 22 Rfh5 Nc6 23 Rxh7+ Qxh7 24 Rxh7+ Kxh7 25 Qb3 and White
is winning.
20 c3
This defends the d4-pawn and threatens 21 Rh3, with disaster for Black on h7.
20 ... Qe7 21 Re3 Qd7 22 Ref3 Nd8
22 ... f6 allows 23 Rh5 h6 24 Qg6, with the idea of 25 Bd3, or 25 Rfh3.
 Exercise: There are several attractive moves here. What do you think Spassky chose?

Answer:
23 Qe4
There were several other good moves, such as 23 Rh5 or 25 Rh3. Instead, Spassky
chooses a method that we have already seen in other games of his. If he cannot find anything
immediately decisive, he increases the activity of his pieces, attacking with all his forces.
The queen moves closer to Black’s kingside, to join in the attack at an opportune moment
from h4.
23 ... g6
If 23 ... Rc8 would have allowed a finish similar to in the game.

Exercise: Once again White has several attractive

options. Spassky chose the best way. What did he play?
 Answer:
24 Qh4!
The simple 24 Rf6 was good, but this move is more energetic, and better. It threatens 25
Rh3, and if 24 ... Qxf5 25 Rxf5 gxf5 26 Qf6+ Kg8 27 Bd3 Black has no defence.
24 ... Rg8
To defend with ... Rg7, but there will not be time.
No better was 24 ... gxf5 25 Qf6+ mating, while after 24 ... Kg7 there are several ways to
win. One line is 25 Qf6+ Kg8 26 Rg3 Ne6 27 Rh5 Ng7 28 Rxg6 hxg6 29 Qxg6 Rfe8 30 Rg5
Kf8 31 Qxg7+ Ke7 32 Bxf7.
25 Rxf7 1-0

Supplementary Game 37.1

B.Spassky-M.Hermann
Germany 1984

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7 4 Nc3 Bh4+ 5 Ke2

The white king has been forced to go to e2 and the f1-bishop is blocked in at the moment,
but once Black has got over his initial euphoria he will realise that it is far too early to claim
triumphantly ‘mission accomplished!’ On the kingside, the g8-knight cannot go to either e7 or
f6, and developing it on h6 would be depressing (and bad), which means that the black king
will have to stay in the centre for the time being.
White plans to play 6 d4 and 7 Bxf4 and only then sort out the congestion on his kingside,
perhaps with g3 followed by Kf2.
5 ... c6
The most popular replies are 5 ... d6, after which White can continue in the way described
above, and 5 ... d5, returning the pawn to speed up Black’s development. A game by another
frequent and successful practitioner of the King’s Gambit continued: 6 Nxd5 Nf6 7 Nxf6+
Qxf6 8 d4 Bg4 9 Qd2! Nc6 10 c3 (preparing both Qxf4 and Kd1-c2) 10 ... 0-0-0?! (it is better
to support the f4-pawn with 10 ... g5) 11 Qxf4 Qe6 and here, in N.Short-J.Piket, Madrid
1997, White continued ‘à la Steinitz’ with 12 Ke3. After a complicated struggle in which
almost anything could have happened, White went on to win. Instead, 12 h3! seems good,
since the complications after 12 ... Rxd4 13 cxd4 Nxd4+ 14 Kd1 appear to be favourable to
White.
6 d4 d5 7 Bxf4 Bg4

Question: Although the black knight is still on g8, thanks to the pin of
the f3-knight, which affects not only White’s king but also his queen,
the g8-knight can now be developed and it seems to me that the two
black bishops are causing the white king a lot of inconvenience. Am I right?

Answer: You are right in that the black bishops are a nuisance, but on the other hand White is able to make progress.
Instead of trying to break the pin immediately with h3, he activates his queen and brings his king to a better position.
Admittedly this takes time, but it is possible, because Black cannot increase the pressure on the white king.
Spassky solved the pin problem in two moves.
8 Qd3! Ne7 9 Kd2!
 Now Black must decide what to do about his bishop which is en prise on h4.
9 ... Bxf3 10 Qxf3 Ng6
After 10 ... dxe4 11 Qxe4 Bf6 White can play 12 Rd1, not fearing 12 ... Qxd4+? 13 Kc1!
Qxe4 14 Nxe4, at the very least regaining the pawn with advantage. He could also try 12 Bd3,
sacrificing the pawn, and at the same time preventing Black from castling. After 12 ... Qxd4
13 Qxd4 Bxd4 14 Rhe1 Black has serious problems with his king in the centre. In these lines
both kings are stuck in the centre, but the early displacement of the white monarch allowed his
rooks to develop quickly.
Black did have an interesting alternative in 10 ... 0-0!? for example 11 g3 dxe4 14 Qxe4
Ng6 15 gxh4 Qxd4+ 16 Bd3 f5, with only a slight advantage to White after 17 Bg3 fxe4 18
Qxe4, thanks to his pair of bishops.
11 Be3 dxe4 12 Qxe4+!
We have already seen that the exchange of queens is something that White does not need to
refuse, since his rooks can quickly occupy the central files, unlike Black’s rooks.
12 ... Qe7
Leaving the king in the centre with queens still on the board would not be a cause for
celebration. After 12 ... Be7 13 h4! Black’s position is unpleasant and White’s game is much
more active.
13 g3 Qxe4 14 Nxe4 Be7 15 Re1 Nd7 16 h4!
White has an advantage and he went on to win.

‘Stupidly-placed’ Pieces versus ‘Harmoniously-placed’ Pieces

According to Seirawan, this was the result of the position after a mere ten moves of the game
that we shall see now. By any reckoning, it is a contest with an obvious winner.
But of course, no master, not even one far below Seirawan in strength, opts voluntarily, or
inadvertently, to misplace his pieces so badly. For this to happen, something extraordinary
must have taken place, and the prime responsibility usually lies in the field of tactics.
First, there was White’s eighth move, which Black had overlooked (and which appears to
this writer to be a move of great beauty) and subsequently Black made an error in calculation
on his ninth move. That was all it took, and Spassky’s precise play did the rest.

Game 38
B.Spassky-Y.Seirawan
Montpellier, 1985
King’s Gambit

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Ne7

 Question: Hmm, that is a bit unusual, isn’t it?

Answer: It is indeed. Seirawan explained that he wanted to play a slightly unusual line to try to make Spassky play on
unfamiliar ground but where he (Seirawan) had some experience through blitz games against decent opponents. One of the
ideas is naturally in some cases to defend the f4-pawn from g6.
Influenced by the disappointing outcome, Seirawan subsequently described his move as “a
combination of over-the board inspiration and poor home analysis”, but objectively it is not a
bad one.
4 d4 d5 5 Nc3 dxe4 6 Nxe4

6 ... Ng6
The most common move here is 6 ... Nd5, but Black continues in a very optimistic spirit.
He plans to play 7 ... Be7 and castle, when his position would be excellent.

Exercise: How can White try to draw Black out of his ‘comfort zone’?
 Answer:
7 h4!
This is the most consistent move. However, its evaluation depends on how Black’s
responds on his next move.
First, weakening the g5-square without defence with 7 ... h5 is bad, in view of 8 Bc4, with
the idea of 9 Nfg5 or 9 Neg5.
Equally 7 ... Bf5 8 Bd3 Be7 9 Qe2! Nc6 (9 ... 0-0 10 h5 Nh4 11 Bxf4 is similar) 10 h5
Nh4 11 c3 Nxf3+ 12 gxf3, followed by Bxf4 and 0-0-0, seems be somewhat favourable to
White.
However, perhaps the simple 7 ... Be7 might be good. After 8 h5 Nh4 9 Bxf4 0-0 Black
has a decent game.
7 ... Qe7?

Exercise: It remains for us to find a reply

to the more direct move that Black has chosen.

Naturally 8 Bd3? loses to 8 ... f5, while after 8 Qe2, which Seirawan considered to be
almost forced, Black gains good play now with 8 ... h5, followed by 9 ... Bg4, 10 ... Nc6, 11
... 0-0-0, etc.
If that is the case, is there any alternative?

Answer:
8 Kf2!!
“A real zinger. A powerful move that totally rocked my boat,” wrote Seirawan.
This defends the knight indirectly and it is useful in several ways: it clears e1 for a rook
and also defends g2, which, as we shall see, is important.
If 8 ... Qxe4 White plays 9 Bb5+ c6 (or 9 ... Kd8) 10 Re1, winning the queen. Seirawan
considers that this was the lesser evil, but his final comment after 10 ... Qe7 11 Rxe7+ Bxe7
12 Bd3 Bg4 13 Qe1 Bxf3 14 Bxg6 Bd5, “sure White has a clear advantage, but there are
some holding chances” does not invite optimism, and the engines do not have any faith in
Black’s position either.
8 ... Bg4
Since the centralised white knight is immune from capture, the only thing that Black has
achieved with 7 ... Qe7 is to worsen the position of his pieces. Now we can say with
certainty that the correct markings are 7 h4! and 7 ... Qe7?.
9 h5
Since White does not need to defend the knight on e4, White drives off the defender of the
f4-pawn.
9 ... Nh4
Seirawan’s first idea was to play 9 ... Bxh5 10 Rxh5 Qxe4.

With two extra pawns and the rook seemingly badly placed on h5, Seirawan was hoping to
hang on by giving back some material at an opportune moment.

Exercise: Why did he abandon that idea?

Answer: Because of 11 Bc4! threatening both 12 Bxf7+! and 12 Bd5, followed by Bxb7. He could then see nothing better
than 11 ... Qe7, to which White replies 12 Ne5! “and horror of horrors, the h5–rook is magnificently placed as well”, wrote
Seirawan.
10 Bxf4
Having recovered the pawn and still not needing to move the knight, White’s pieces are
much better placed. It only remains to develop the f1-bishop. In contrast, Black’s queen is
badly misplaced, impeding the development of the f8-bishop and making kingside castling
virtually impossible.
“Hard to imagine more stupidly-placed black pieces and more harmoniously-placed white
ones” was Seirawan’s blunt assessment.
10 ... Nc6
 Exercise: What is the most effective move now?

Answer:
11 Bb5!
White continues his development, with the idea of weakening the future refuge of the black
king.
11 ... 0-0-0 12 Bxc6 bxc6

Exercise: What should White do now about his knight, which is really en prise at last?

Answer:
13 Qd3!
The queen defends the knight, escapes the pin, connects the rooks and eyes the a6-square.
13 ... Nxf3 14 gxf3 Bf5 15 Qa6+ Kb8 16 Nc5 Bc8 17 Qxc6 Rxd4
 Exercise: Black maintains the material balance and threatens
the f4-bishop. Can you demonstrate that Black’s activity is illusory?

Answer:
18 Rae1!
And the black queen cannot defend c7. The rest is easy for White, who keeps up the
pressure to the end.
“Boris played the rest of the game in very accurate style. A deserved, even inspired, win”
was Seirawan’s summary.
18 ... Rxf4
Taking the knight with 18 ... Qxc5? was impossible because of 19 Bxc7++.
19 Qb5+ Ka8 20 Qc6+ Kb8 21 Rxe7 Bxe7 22 Rd1
All of Spassky’s pieces are active, as we have now seen on many occasions.
22 ... Rf6 23 Nd7+ Bxd7 24 Qxd7
After these exchanges both the black king and all the light-squares are left more exposed.
24 ... Rd8 25 Qb5+ Kc8 26 Rxd8+ Bxd8 27 Qa4 g5 28 Qxa7! Rf4
If 28 ... g4 White plays 29 Qa8+ Kd7 30 Qa4+ and Qxg4.
29 Qa6+ Kb8 30 Qd3
This double attack allows White to create a passed pawn on the h-file, which prevents
further resistance.
30 ... Be7 31 Qxh7 g4 32 Kg3 1-0
Chapter Nine
The Leningrad Variation against the
Nimzo-Indian
A Favourite Variation and a Promising Start
In Game 8 we discussed Spassky international debut, where at age sixteen he scored a great
performance. This is the first game he played in that tournament. Spassky beat the player who,
only a short time later, would go on to win the 1953 Candidates Tournament in Zurich and
challenge the World Champion.
Throughout his career, but especially between 1953 and 1973, Spassky frequently played
the Leningrad Variation against the Nimzo-Indian. This line was not highly regarded either by
Fischer or Kasparov, but Spassky gained a great many victories with it. In our main game and
the supplementary games we shall see several instructive examples.
In this game Spassky gained a central pawn majority and a slight advantage. Smyslov
failed to defend in the best way. White’s centre became powerful and all of Spassky’s pieces
seemed to grow in strength, until a position was reached in which all of the pieces were
attacking, a characteristic of Spassky’s from the start of his career.

Game 39
B.Spassky-V.Smyslov
Bucharest, 1953
Nimzo-Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bg5

 The Leningrad Variation, with which Spassky won many games and suffered only one
defeat, in a brilliant, very well-known game against M.Tal in Tallinn 1973.
4 ... h6 5 Bh4 c5 6 d5 exd5
Black has several plans available. The one that Fischer considered best, and in
accordance with Nimzowitsch’s idea, is based on doubling the pawns with ... Bxc3+ and then
placing Black’s centre pawns on dark squares.
This can be achieved using various different move orders, like 6 ... Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 e5.

This allows White to advance 8 d6, in readiness to sacrifice the pawn in order to impede
Black’s development. B.Spassky–J.Timman, Tallinn 1973, continued 8 ... Nc6 9 e3 g5 10 Bg3
Ne4, when instead of 11 f3, White can play 11 Bxe5! Nxe5 (or 11 ... Nxf2?! 12 Qd5! f6 13
Be2 Nxe5 14 Bh5+ Kf8 15 Kxf2 Kg7 16 Nf3 and Black has many weaknesses and an inactive
queenside; the engines see no good defence for Black) 12 Qd5, with some advantage after 12
... Qf6 13 Qxe4 0-0 14 Rd1 b6 15 h4.
Timman frequently played the Leningrad Variation himself in the 1970s.
Previously, after 8 ... g5 9 Bg3 Nc6, Spassky had played 10 Qc2, as in B.Spassky-P.Lee,
Hastings 1965/66, which we shall see in Supplementary Game 39.1.
The move order suggested by Fischer is designed to prevent White’s d6 advance by
playing 6 ... d6 7 e3 Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 e5, and this is very popular (another idea is to delay 8 ...
e5 with the useful move 8 ... Qe7, to keep open the possibility of ... Nbd7-e5).

Now if 9 Bd3 Black plays 9 ... e4!, creating an unpleasant wedge, with a gain of time, as in
the classic example A.Williams-A.Karpov, Nice 1974, which continued 10 Bc2 (not 10
Bxe4? g5) 10 ... g5 11 Bg3 Qe7 12 h4 Rg8 13 hxg5 hxg5 14 Ne2 Nbd7 15 Qb1 and here
Kotov commented: “White has prospects of pressure on the b-file and enjoys more space.
However a deeper study of the position reveals Black’s chances of counter attack by ... Nf6-
g4, ..f7-f5, ... Nf8-g6 and ..f4.

Exercise: What did Black play in this position?

Answer: 15 ... Kd8! First of all Black removes his king from the zone where it might become exposed once the position
opens. After 16 a4 a5! 17 Ra2 Kc7 18 Rh6 Ra6! “Careful play, defending d6 and preparing to exchange a pair of rooks, which
will reduce White’s chances on the b-file” (Kotov). After 19 Qb5 Kb8 20 Rb2 Ka7 (with the idea of ... Nb6 and ... Bd7) 21
Qb3 Ng4 22 Rh1 f5! and Black seized the initiative and won in 30 moves.
The position is not clearly favourable to Black after 9 ... e4, but there is no reason to allow
this.
Let us go back to 6 d5. The sharpest reply is a pawn sacrifice, 6 ... b5.

After 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5 the move 8 ... Qa5? is bad, because of 9 Bxf6 gxf6 10 Qc2, as in
B.Spassky-H.Posner, Vancouver 1971. The correct way is first to protect the pawn structure
with 8 ... 0-0 and after 9 e3 d5 White must play 10 a3 or 10 Bd3. The latter move was played
in B.Spassky-W.Unzicker, Bath 1973, which continued 10 ... d4 11 exd4 cxd4 12 a3 Ba5 13
b4 dxc3 14 bxa5 Bb7 15 Nf3 (Timman preferred 15 Ne2, also against Unzicker in Haifa
1976). The position remains complicated.
In the above-mentioned game against Tal, Spassky played the weaker 10 Nf3?! We will
take a look at this in Supplementary Game 39.2.
7 cxd5 d6 8 e3 Nbd7 9 Bb5
The alternative is 9 Bd3, which Spassky also employed. We will see this in the last game
of the book.
9 ... 0-0

Exercise: Somewhere it was written that 9 ... Qa5 was bad on account of 10 Bxf6, weakening Black’s pawn structure.
Demonstrate that this is not certain.
 Answer: Black isn’t forced to play 10 ... gxf6? Instead he can play 10 ... Qxb5! and he does not lose a pawn since 11
Bxg7 can be answered by 11 ... Rh7 (11 ... Rg8 is also playable) 12 a3 Ba5 13 b4 Qc4 14 Qe2 Qxe2+ 15 Ncxe2 (if 15
Ngxe2? then 15 ... Bd8! wins material) 15 ... Bxb4+ 16 Bc3 Bxc3+ 17 Nxc3 Rg7, followed by ... Nf6, ... Ke7, etc. There are
many other possibilities and this just an example.
So after 9 ... Qa5 it is better to play 10 Bxd7+ and if 10 ... Bxd7?! then 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Ne2 is good, so it is better for Black to recapture on d7 with the knight.
Spassky also faced 9 ... g5 10 Bg3 Qa5, and after 11 Bxd7+ Bxd7 12 Ne2 Black played the
active 12 ... Bb5?! which threatens 13 ... Bxe2 followed by capturing on c3. Spassky
continued 13 a3! Bxc3+ (12 ... Bxe2?! 13 axb4 Bxd1 14 bxa5 Bb3 15 Bxd6 loses a pawn) 14
Nxc3 Bc4? (Black needed to play 14 ... Ne4, when after 15 Rc1, followed by f3, White
would be slightly better) was played in B.Spassky-Y.Porath, Amsterdam 1964.

Exercise: How did Spassky show that 14 ... Bc4 was bad?

Answer: 15 Qf3! is a winning response. If 15 ... Qd8? White plays 16 Ne4! and the fact that the c4-bishop is undefended
leads to Black’s downfall. So Black had to play 15 ... Ke7, but after 16 Bxd6+ Kxd6 17 Qxf6+ Kc7 18 Qxf7+ the game ended
in White’s favour.

A more recent example is A.Korobov-V.Kramnik, Tromso 2013, where Black played 9 ...
Bxc3+ (before White could play Ne2, so as to force White to recapture with the pawn) 10
bxc3 Qa5 11 Bxd7+ (now 11 Bxf6? Qxb5 12 Bxg7 Rh7! is winning for Black) 11 ... Nxd7 12
Ne2

12 ... 0-0! 13 Be7 (the most critical move; after 13 0-0 Re8 14 Bg3 Ne5 Black has no
problems) 13 ... Re8 14 Bxd6 and here, even better than Kramnik’s move 14 ... Qa6, is the
engines’ suggestion of 14 ... Nf6! 15 0-0 Bg4 and if 16 f3 Black brings all his pieces into play
with 16 ... Rad8 (much worse is 16 c4? which loses after 16 ... Ne4).
10 Nge2 Ne5
Black continues with his development and is ready to free himself from the pin by the
bishop on h4 without playing ... g5.
11 0-0
 11…Ng6

Question: What we have here is a Benoni structure, so why

doesn’t Black expand on the queenside with a gain of time, thanks
to the placement the bishop on b5, by playing 11 ... a6 and 12 ... b5?

Answer: It is possible to play like that, but unlike similar positions in the Benoni, there is no bishop on g7 and thus no
pressure on the queenside, so the advance is less strong, and the problem of the pin on the f6-knight remains.
12 Bg3 Nh5

Question: Now that Black has successfully solved the

problem of the pin, why doesn’t he play 12 ... a6 13 Bd3 b5?

Answer: It is essential not just to think about your own plans but also to consider the opponent’s. In that position 14 a4!
would be unpleasant, forcing Black to make a concession.
Instead, 12 ... Bf5 was interesting, with the idea of exchanging the light-squared bishops
after playing ... a6. For example 13 f3 a6 14 Bd3 Bxd3 15 Qxd3, although Black would
remain rather passive and White could play e4 and after appropriate preparation (bringing the
queen’s rook to the centre, evacuating the g1-a7 diagonal with Kh1, etc.). The advance f3-f4
would come into consideration and White’s pawn majority in the centre and on the kingside
once again might be more dangerous than Black’s queenside majority.
13 Bd3 Nxg3
Getting rid of the bishop which was aimed at the d6-pawn means one less problem for
Black. Nevertheless he must still play carefully because in the Benoni structure the advance
of the white central/kingside majority is potentially more dangerous than the advance of
Black’s queenside majority.
For this reason, 13 ... f5 has been suggested (here and also further on, on moves 15 and
16), but this is a difficult move to make, because even though it restrains White’s majority it
makes the c8-bishop very passive.
14 Nxg3 Ne5 15 Be2
The bishop retreats, with the plan of playing f4 and e4.
15 ... Bxc3
Black exchanges in preparation for playing ... Qh4. The bishop could easily find itself out
of play after 15 ... Qh4 16 Nce4, when 16 ... Rd8 can be answered in a similar way to the
game, or with the immediate 17 Qa4 (threatening 18 a3) and in the event of 17 ... Bd7 18 Qb3
there are threats against the d6-pawn and the b7-pawn after 19 a3, while 17 ... f5? can be
answered with 18 Nxd6! Rxd6 19 Qe8+ and Qxe5.
16 bxc3 Qh4 17 f4!
And so the pawn majority is set in motion. Even though it entails exchanging a minor piece,
we shall see that this fails to diminish White’s initiative.
17 ... Ng4 18 Bxg4 Bxg4
 Exercise: What is the best square for the queen?

Answer:
19 Qa4!
All the other safe squares were good as well, with the idea of preparing to advance with
e4 and f4. This move might appear strange, but its strength is based on the threat of 20 f5,
creating problems with the unusual pin on the g4-bishop.
19 ... Bc8?
If this move, shutting in the a8-rook, is the best defence, then Black’s position is already
very bad.
Less depressing and at the same time better was the natural 19 ... Qe7, attacking e3. The
pawn sacrifice 20 f5 Qxe3+ 21 Kh1 h5 does not seem to be advantageous for White, since 22
Ne4? can be answered with 22 ... Qd3! Instead, White could play 20 Rae1 Bd7 and, after
retreating the queen, play e4.
20 e4 Qg4
Preparing ... Bd7 and also ... h5 and ... h4 to create nuisance threats, but the difference in
activity means that this attempt at counterplay can be neutralised, so once again 20 ... Qe7
seems preferable.
 21 Qc2

Question: I can see that the queen retreats in anticipation of being attacked, but wouldn’t it be more typical of Spassky to
bring the last piece into play with 21 Rae1?

Answer: That is a good alternative, you are right. It is possible that Spassky’s choice was based on the fact that when he
plays e5, if Black takes, he wants to be able to recapture with the f-pawn, which is prevented at the moment by the lateral pin
on the queen.
Also there are tactical reasons. One of the positive sides of retreating the queen to the
second rank and the diagonal b1-h7 can be seen after 21 ... f6 (trying to hinder the advance
e5), can be answered nevertheless by 22 e5!, since after 22 ... fxe5 23 fxe5 Rxf1+ (against the
threat of 24 Rxf8+ Kxf8 25 Qh7) 24 Rxf1 dxe5 25 Qf2 White has a dangerous initiative, for
example 25 ... Bd7 26 Qf7+ Kh8 27 Rf3! threatening 28 h3.
21 ... h5
21 ... Bd7 can be answered by 22 Rae1 or the immediate 22 e5.
22 Rf2!
Still not rushing with 22 e5, so as not to allow 22 ... h4 23 Ne4 Bf5! when some mobility
is lost.
22 ... b5
Against this advance, 23 a4! is interesting, since with the bishop on c8 Black cannot play
... a6 and must consent to a deterioration of his pawn structure.
23 e5
White prefers to continue with his typical break.
23 ... h4 24 Nf1
Of course, not 24 Ne4 which could once again be answered with 24 ... Bf5.
24 ... Bf5 25 Qd2 dxe5?
Not only do the white pawns gain mobility, but one of them becomes a strong passed pawn.
It was better to play something like 25 ... Rad8.
26 fxe5
Threatening 27 Ne3.
26 ... Bg6 27 Re1 h3 28 d6
 Planning 29 Ne3-d5.
28 ... Be4 29 Ne3! Qe6
If 29 ... Qg5 then 30 Nd5 comes into consideration, since in a rook ending the strength of
the advancing passed d-pawn increases. For example 30 ... Qxd2 31 Rxd2 Bxg2 32 Nc7
Rab8 (32 ... Rad8 allows 33 Nxb5) 33 d7, threatening 34 e6. But even better is simply 30 g3,
with the plan of 31 Rf4, because 30 ... Qxe5? loses immediately to 31 Nf5.
29 ... Qg6 can also be answered by 30 Nd5, with advantage.
30 Rf4!

Forcing the bishop to decide between defending d5 or f5.

30 ... Bxg2
Instead 30 ... Qxe5? loses a piece to 31 Ng4.

Exercise: How would you refute the attempt to save the piece with 31 ... Qd5?

Answer: With 32 Nf6+! gxf6 33 Rg4+ Kh7 34 Rh4+ Kg6 35 Qh6+ leading to mate.
31 Nf5
Threatening 32 Ne7+ and 33 Rh4+.
31 ... Rfe8
If 31 ... g6, one way to win is 32 Rh4 (32 Nh6+ followed by 33 Rh4 also works) 32…gxf5
33 Rh6 and Black must sacrifice his queen.
32 Re3!
And as we have seen so many times in this book, all the pieces are attacking.
32 ... Rad8
 Exercise: How do you think Spassky finished off the game?

Answer:
33 Nxg7!
The attack by White’s three major pieces is unstoppable after 33 ... Kxg7 34 Rg3+ Kf8 35
Rxf7+! with mate in two moves.
33 ... Rxd6 34 Nxe6 1-0
If 34 ... Rxd2 35 Rg3+ forces mate.

Supplementary Game 39.1

B.Spassky-P.Lee
Hastings 1965/66

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bg5 h6 5 Bh4 c5 6 d5 Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 e5 8 d6 g5 9 Bg3 Nc6

10 Qc2
 10 ... Qa5?!
It was advisable to play 10 ... Nh5, since Black gains good play after 11 e3 Qf6. After 12
Rd1 Black continues with his development with 12…b6 13 Be2 Nxg3 14 hxg3 Bb7 followed
by 15 ... 0-0-0, and Black has solved the problems caused by the wedge on d6.
11 Rc1
By overprotecting c3 White frees his queen to move, without allowing the blow ... Ne4.
11 ... Qa3
Attacking the rook on c1, thus keeping the white queen’s movements restricted.

Exercise (easy): What would have happened if Black had

proceeded with his development by playing 11 ... b6?

Answer: White’s last move would be fully justified with 12 Qf5!

 12 Nf3 Ne4 13 Bxe5 Nxe5
Black manages to eliminate the annoying d6-pawn, at the cost of being left with his pieces
uncoordinated. 13 ... f6 would have allowed 14 Bxf6!
14 Nxe5 Nxd6

Exercise: What did Spassky play here?

Answer:
15 h4!
Of course, seizing the initiative!
15 ... gxh4 16 e3
16 Rxh4 was also strong.
16 ... b6 17 Rd1!
The rook attacks the knight with gain of time and the white queen’s liberty is restored. 17
... Nb7
If 17 ... Ke7 18 Rxd6 Kxd6 19 Nxf7+ is good enough. Now there are several decisive
continuations. Spassky chose the most attractive.
 18 Nxf7! Kxf7 19 Qf5+ Kg7
Or 19 ... Kg8 20 Qg6+ Kf8 21 Qf6+ (defending c3) 21 ... Kg8 22 Rxh4.
20 Qe5+ Kg8 21 Rxh4 d6 22 Qg3+ Kf7 23 Rf4+ Ke8 24 Qg7 1-0

Supplementary Game 39.2

B.Spassky-M.Tal
Tallinn 1973

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bg5 h6 5 Bh4 c5 6 d5 b5 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5 d5 9 e3 0-0

10 Nf3?!
The correct move as this same game proves is 10 Bd3, but Spassky had played 10 Nf3
before with success. Black responded imprecisely: 10 ... Nbd7?! 11 Bd3 e5?! 12 Bf5! e4 (if
12 ... d4 White plays 13 a3 Ba5 14 b4!) 13 Be6+ Kh8 14 Bxd5 and White won quickly in
B.Spassky-Liebert, Sochi 1967.
Tal played more energetically.
10 ... Qa5
 Threatening 11 ... Ne4.
11 Bxf6 Rxf6 12 Qd2 a6! 13 bxa6
“A very risky move”, wrote Tal, suggesting instead 13 b6 or 13 Be2 axb5 14 0-0.
13 ... Nc6 14 Be2

Here the rejuvenated and once again brilliant M.Tal of the early 1970s gained the
advantage.
14 ... d4! 15 exd4 Rxf3 16 Bxf3 cxd4 17 0-0 dxc3 18 bxc3 Bxc3 19 Qd6 Rxa6 20 Bxc6
Bb4!
“The final move of the combination. White loses his bishop on c6”, wrote Tal.
21 Qb8 Rxc6
Tal went on to gain a winning attack, sacrificing a piece. You can, and should, look at this
brilliant game in one of the many sources where it is fully annotated.

First Interzonal Tournament

As we commented earlier in Game 1, Spassky made his Soviet Championship debut in the
22nd edition, held in Moscow at the start of 1955 and he made a good score, qualifying for
the Interzonal, which took place in Gothenburg in September and October of that year.
Spassky arrived fresh from winning the World Junior Championship (under-20, at that time
held every two years) in Antwerp, Belgium. This was the first time a Soviet representative
had competed.
Before that he had played on second board for the USSR in the 2nd Student Olympiad in
Lyon, which the USSR won easily. Spassky won the prize for best score on second board
with a whopping 7½ points out of 8.
As is natural, despite being only eighteen years old, Spassky was very tired when he
arrived to compete in Gothenburg. Nine of the 21 participants would qualify for the
Candidates Tournament, scheduled for 1956 in Amsterdam. To finish among these nine
qualifiers it would be necessary to score plus two. Spassky spent most of the tournament in
the middle of the score table, and with two games remaining he stood on 50% with 9 points
out of 18.
But this event turned out to be yet another successful debut for Spassky that year. He won
his last two games in Gothenburg, against Filip and Stahlberg, which was sufficient to reach
the plus two required to qualify for the Candidates and at the same time acquire the title of
Grandmaster.
Let us now see his win against Filip.

Game 40
B.Spassky-M.Filip
Gothenburg 1955
Nimzo-Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bg5 h6

The alternative is the immediate 4 ... c5, without first chasing the bishop.

Question: Hmm, I do not understand. 4 ... h6, almost forcing

5 Bh4, has the benefit of preventing the bishop from
retreating later along the diagonal c1-h6. What is the snag?

Answer: It is for tactical reasons. There is a particular line in which it suits Black that the bishop is still on g5, as it is now,
undefended. I’ll show you later.
5 Bh4 c5 6 d5

6 ... exd5
In Supplementary Game 40.1 we take a brief look at the spectacular game B.Spassky-
R.Kholmov, Moscow 1957, which continued 6 ... Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 e5 8 Qc2.
Instead of 8 Qc2, as we noted in the previous game, Spassky played 8 e3 d6 9 Nf3 several
times, and we will look at this line in Supplementary Game 40.2.
Before returning to the game let us recall another important example: 4 ... c5 5 d5 Bxc3+ 6
bxc3 e5 7 Nf3 d6 8 Nd2 h6 9 Bh4 Nbd7 10 e3 Nf8 11 Bd3 Ng6 12 Bg3 0-0 (Larsen suggested
that it was more precise to play 12 ... Ne7, preventing the game continuation) 13 0-0 Ne7
 Exercise: The position remains closed, which in general is unfavourable to White, and Black plans 13 ... Bf5 or 13 ...
Nf5. How did Spassky bring the position to life?

Answer: With 14 f4! After 14 ... Bf5, the complications following 15 fxe5 Nfxd5! 16 e4! seem to favour White, whose
compensation for the exchange is fully adequate after 16 ... Ne3 17 Qf3 Nxf1 18 Rxf1 Be6 19 exd6 Ng6 20 e5. Larsen
preferred 14 ... exf4. Now if White recaptures with the pawn Black could indeed play ... Bf5, or perhaps ... Nf5. The game
continued 15 Rxf4 Ng6.

Exercise: What had Spassky planned to play in this position?

Answer: Naturally not 16 Bxg6 fxg6 and White’s position has lost all its venom, for example 17 Qc2 g5 and after 18 Rf2
or 18 Rff1 Black prepares to play ... Nd7 –e5 with 18 ... Qe7, followed by 19 ... Bg4.
Spassky played 16 Rxf6!? and after 16 ... Qxf6 17 Ne4 Qd8 18 Nxd6 (18 Bxd6? f5 19
Bxf8 fxe4 20 Bxc5 exd3 21 Qxd3 Qg5 favours Black) 18 ... Qg5! (praised by both Larsen and
Spassky; 18 ... f5?! was inferior because of 19 Qh5! Qg5 20 Qxg5 hxg5 21 Rf1 Ne7 22 Nxc8
Rfxc8 [not 22 ... Raxc8? 23 d6 Nc6 24 Bxf5, preserving the two bishops] 23 Bd6 Kf7 24
Bxf5, with two strong pawns for the exchange) 19 Qd2 b6. Here Spassky played 20 Ne4 and
the game was eventually drawn after a complicated struggle in B.Spassky-B.Larsen, Belgrade
1970. Spassky later thought that 20 Bxg6! Qxg6 21 e4 would have been stronger.
7 cxd5 d6 8 e3 Nbd7 9 Bd3

9 ... 0-0
Capture the d5-pawn with 9 ... g5 10 Bg3 Nxd5 has never been played and does not look
very attractive, since after 11 Ne2 the d6-pawn is attacked and Black is underdeveloped with
a weakened kingside.
With 9 ... Qa5 Black can capture one or two pawns, at the cost of his development. After
10 Nge2 Nxd5 11 0-0 Nxc3?! 12 bxc3 Bxc3 13 Nxc3 Qxc3 White has 14 Be2! which regains
one of the pawns. With the pair of bishops and development advantage, White gains sufficient
compensation.
Instead 11 ... Bxc3 12 bxc3 0-0 has been played many times. Black contents himself with
winning just one pawn, but develops faster. Nevertheless White has an advantage in
development and the black king is rather weak, so that White has compensation with 13 c4 or
the more aggressive 13 Bc2.
Regarding to this last line, let us return for a moment to the note after 4 ... h6 above.
In the same position, but without including the moves 4 ... h6 5 Bh4, J.Timman-A.Karpov,
Amsterdam 1976 continued 4 ... c5 5 d5 d6 6 e3 exd5 7 cxd5 Nbd7 8 Bd3 (8 Bb5 is the
alternative, just as when the moves ... h6 and Bh4 are inserted) 8 ... Qa5 9 Nge2 Nxd5 10 0-0
Bxc3 11 bxc3.
 In the game Karpov innovated with 11 ... c4! based on the fact that 12 Bxc4? is not
playable since it loses to 12 ... N5b6, attacking both white bishops. That is why Karpov did
not drive the bishop back with ... h6. Timman replied 12 Bf5, to which the most accurate
response seems be 12 ... N7b6.
A more recent example is Vl.Georgiev-P.Leko, Istanbul 2012, which continued 12 Bc2 0-0
13 Ng3 (another idea is 13 Bh4) 13 ... Nxc3 14 Qh5 f5! with complications that seem
satisfactory for Black.
In none of these lines does White gain any advantage, according to current theory.
10 Nge2

Question: We are in a Benoni structure with the fundamental difference

that Black’s bishop is on b4 instead of g7. Which side does this favour?

Answer: At first glance it seems worse for Black, because the bishop is not exerting any pressure on the long diagonal
and the queenside pawn majority is less powerful without the bishop’s support. Furthermore, the pin exerted by the bishop on
h4 can prove unpleasant.
 On the other hand White’s e4-e5 break looks more difficult to carry out. At least it looks a
long way off just now. In addition, the knight on e2 has no clear future. All in all it is difficult
to say who the position of the bishop favours. Probably the chances are equal.
10 ... Ne5
Black tries to eliminate the pin, simultaneously attacking the d3-bishop. Tolush suggested
keeping this move in reserve and instead preparing the advance of the queenside pawns with
10 ... a6, followed by ... Re8, exerting pressure along the e-file.

11 0-0

Question: Generally in such positions White would want to

preserve his bishop, wouldn’t he? Isn’t it better to play 11 Bc2?

Answer: 11 Bc2 is playable, but it does not seem to be better than the text move. We have seen in a similar position that
after 11 ... Ng6 the move Bxg6 it is not to be feared, while after 12 Bg3 Black can play for instance 12 ... Nh5, to exchange
the bishop on g3 at an opportune moment, without any major problems.
11 ... Bxc3?
Black does not want to be left with the bishop out of play and he hurries to exchange it, but
this is not the most accurate move. This position is very flexible and Black should be fine
here. It is true that the problem of the pin would persist after 11 ... Nxd3 12 Qxd3 (which has
never been played) but after 12 ... Bd7 13 e4 Rc8 it is not so easy for White to arrange f4 and
e5. He would have to find some other plan because 14 f4?! c4 15 Qf3 Bg4 is unpleasant.
Also 11 ... Ng6 12 Bg3 Nh5 13 f4 has been played, with chances for both sides. Black’s
practical results have not been bad.
12 Nxc3
Remembering that Eduard Gufeld used to say that the g1-knight is not happy in the Sämisch
Variation of the King’s Indian (since the key Sämisch move f2-f3 takes away the knight’s best
square), here we could say that the knight on e2 is delighted with Black’s last move!
12 ... Ng6 13 Bg3 Qe7
 Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

Answer:
14 e4
Of course, there is no better move. Finally the white centre starts to advance.
14 ... Bd7 15 Re1

Question: 15. f4 also looks good here. Isn’t it better?

Answer: It was possible, of course, and as good as the move played, but we know that Spassky does not like to weaken
his position (the pawn structure in this case) while he can still improve the position of his pieces. This is not a ‘now or never’
situation, so Spassky’s move does not rule out playing f4 later.
After 15 f4 Black should avoid 15 ... b5? in view of 16 e5! dxe5 17 fxe5 Nxe5 18 d6! (18
Re1 allows 18 ... c4!) 18 ... Qe6 19 Re1, and the pin is decisive.
It is better to reinforce his control of e5 with 15 ... Rfe8, or 15 ... Rae8, keeping in reserve
the manoeuvre ... Bg4 and ... Nh5 to eliminate the bishop on g3.
15 ... Ne5
If 15 ... Rae8 White can prepare f4 with 15 h3, to be able to preserve the g3-bishop.
16 Be2 g5
This move is also typical in the Benoni, but the difference is that here there is no g7-bishop
to defend the king’s position. Black is trying to restrain f2-f4, which would have been the
response to 16 ... Rae8?! For example, after 17 f4 Black would have to play 17 ... Ng6 and
White is making progress after 18 Bf3. Also note that 17 ... Neg4? would fail to 18 h3,
winning material. In the event of 16 ... Ng6 the scenario would be similar to what we have
already seen. After 17 Bf1 Rfe8 18 h3 a6 19 a4 White is now ready to play 20 f4 under
favourable conditions.
 Exercise: What do you think Spassky played in this position?

Answer:
17 Rf1!
Spassky’s trademark! This move reminds us of 15 Re1. It was possible to play 17 f4
immediately, but Spassky prefers to add some venom first, and in this case his choice is
objectively better.
17 ... Kh7 18 Qd2
Continuing the preparations for f4.
18 ... Ng8
A sad retreat, seeking to reorganise Black’s defences. His position is already inferior, and
after 18 ... Ng6 19 f4 gxf4 20 Bxf4 Nxf4 21 Rxf4, followed by Raf1 White’s prospects are
excellent.
 Exercise: What did Spassky play here?

Answer:
19 f4
Of course. No further preparations are needed. Black has a strong knight centralised on e5,
but a single well-placed piece is not enough to compensate for the weakness of his kingside
and the great activity that White gains, thanks to his half-open f-file.
19 ... gxf4 20 Rxf4 a6 21 a4
21 Raf1 was also very strong, intending to continue as in the game, but there is no hurry.
There is time to restrain ... b5 first.
21 ... f6 22 Raf1 Rf7 23 Bh5 Rg7 24 a5!
A multipurpose move, restraining ... b5 and ...
24 ... Rf8

Exercise: Show what the other purpose behind

the move 24 a5 was. What did Spassky play?

Answer:
25 Nd1!
The knight no longer has to defend a pawn on a4 and can join in the attack.
25 ... Rg5 26 Be2 Ng6 27 R4f2 Ne5 28 Ne3 Rg7
 Exercise: White advantage is unquestionable. What did Spassky play now?

Answer:
29 Bxe5!
He eliminates the (only) pride of Black’s position. Now 29 ... Qxe5? loses to 30 Nc4 Qe7
31 Qf4.
29 ... dxe5

Exercise: What was the point of exchanging on e5?

Answer:
30 d6
The passed pawn gains space and opens the a2-g8 diagonal.
30 ... Qd8 31 Bc4
With several ideas. One is 32 Bd5, and another is 32 Bxg8, followed by 33 Nd5.
31 ... Bc6
There was no good reply. With this move Black controls d5, but surrenders f5.
32 Nf5 Rg5 33 h4 Rg6
It is necessary to defend h6. 33 ... Rg4? loses to 34 Bxg8+.
34 Bxg8+
This wins the exchange and the game, but we should carry on, in order to appreciate an
elegant final blow.
34 ... Rfxg8 35 Ne7 Bxe4 36 Nxg6 Rxg6 37 h5 Rg7
 Exercise: How did Spassky finish the game?

Answer:
38 Rxf6!
The pressure on g2 is insufficient to defend the position.
38 ... Rxg2+ 39 Qxg2 Bxg2

Exercise: Now 40 Kxg2 wins, but Spassky chooses the most

practical way, forcing immediate resignation. What did he play?

Answer:
40 Rf8! 1-0
Attacking the queen and also threatening mate with 41 R1f7++.

Supplementary Game 40.1

B.Spassky-R.Kholmov
USSR Championship, Moscow 1957

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bg5 h6 5 Bh4 c5 6 d5 Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 e5

 8 Qc2
We already know that Black’s order of moves can be called into question with 8 d6!
Spassky’s move prevents Black from developing with ... Bf5.
8 ... d6 9 e3
This is more precise than 9 e4. The weakness created on f4 would allow Black to play 9
... g5 10 Bg3 Nh5 11 Nf3 Nd7 (heading for g6) 12 Nd2 Nf8 13 Be2 Nf4 14 Bxf4 (before
Black can play ... Nf8-g6) and in B.Spassky-B.Sliwa, Riga 1959, Black played 14 ... exf4,
with the idea of ... Ng6-e5. This virtually forced Spassky to sacrifice a pawn with 15 e5 dxe5
16 Bd3, gaining some compensation, although it is not clear whether White can claim any
advantage. The alternative 14 ... gxf4 was also adequate for Black.
9 ... Qe7 10 Nf3

Spassky faced 10 ... g5 11 Bg3 e4 12 Nd2 Bf5 several times. However 13 Rb1 is then
rather unpleasant for Black. It impedes the development of the b8-knight and 13 ... b6 can be
answered with 14 Qa4+ Bd7? (14 ... Qd7 is better) 15 Qa3! followed by 16 Rxb6, as in
B.Spassky-H.Neunhoeffer, Germany 1986. Instead 13 ... 0-0 was played in Spassky-
L.Brunner, Germany 1990 and Spassky continued with 14 h4 Bg6 15 Be2 b6.

Exercise: What plan should White adopt here? Queenside

castling is impossible, but castling on the kingside makes no
sense after playing h4. What do you think that Spassky played?

Answer: Do you remember the manoeuvre that Karpov used against Williams that we saw earlier? Spassky did
something similar, but with White: 16 Kd1 Nbd7 17 Kc1 Kg7 18 Kb2 Ng8 19 hxg5 hxg5 20 Rbe1 Nh6 21 Bh5, with
advantage. It is possible to debate some of the moves in this sequence, but White did eventually win.

Let us go back to B.Spassky-R.Kholmov.

10 ... Nbd7 11 Nd2

11 ... e4!

Question: I have two questions: 1) Why does this move

deserve an exclamation mark? 2) What is wrong with 12 ... 0-0?
 Answers:
1) I’m guessing that you are not a young player. I’ll let Kasparov give you the explanation:
“Black’s solid bulwarks in the centre deprive the position of dynamism, which the white
bishops so need, and restrict any possible activity by White to diversions on the h- and b-
files. Nowadays the soundness of Black’s setup is known even to young players”. Curiously it
is also the top choice of the engines.
2) 11 ... 0-0?! is not appropriate in view of 11 Bd3! Re8 12 f3 and the black pieces are left
with little space.
Spassky now made a surprising choice.
12 0-0-0
Kholmov was expecting a quieter continuation, such as 12 Be2 0-0 13 0-0 Re8 14 Rae1.
Now, with the white king castled, Black could play 14 ... g5 15 Bg3 Nf8 16 f3 exf3 17 Bxf3
Ng6. Kasparov notes that with the centre so closed, and the kings relatively secure. It is also
possible to play 12 ... g5 13 Bg3 Nf8 14 h4 Rg8 15 Rb1 Kd8!? as in J.Rubinetti-
L.Polugaevsky, Mar del Plata 1971, but the engines are less keen on this idea.
12 ... 0-0 13 g4

13 ... g5!
Kasparov highlights the difficulty that a master in the 1950s would have in making this
move: “such a move, away from the king, would have been made only by the ‘chosen’ few”.
The positional basis is that “when you have a strong centre, you do not have to fear flank
operations by the opponent”. (Kasparov)
14 Bg3 Ne5 15 h3 Ng6 16 Be2 Re8 17 Rdg1 Bd7 18 h4 Rab8
Not 18 ... Bxg4? 19 Bxg4 Nxg4 20 hxg5 hxg5 21 Bxd6! However, with the same idea as in
the game, breaking on b5, Kholmov suggested 18 ... a6. There is a subtle tactical point that
only becomes clear on move 24. 18 ... a6 is also the move preferred by Houdini. Will it be
for the same reason as the one given by Kholmov?
19 hxg5 hxg5
 Exercise: What do you think Spassky played in this position?

Answer:
20 Rh5!?
Doubling rooks on the h-file with 20 Rh6, followed by Rgh1, is not promising. If Black
wants, he can play 20 ... Kg7, followed by ... Rh8 and the exchange of all the rooks, but it
seems even better to play 20 ... a6 21 Rgh1 Kg7 (over-protecting the g6-knight and thus
neutralising the f2-f3 break), followed by ... b5. Black’s attack can progress while White’s
has come to a halt, not forgetting that the g4-pawn remains en prise.
20 ... Nxh5 21 gxh5 Nf8

Exercise: How was Spassky able to justify the exchange sacrifice?

 Answer: White gains nothing by attacking the g5-pawn with 22 Bf4 or 22 Bh4, since Black just plays 22 ... f6. “After
lengthy thought Spassky finds a clever possibility”, wrote Kholmov.
22 Nxe4!!
Now the sacrifice becomes a whole rook!
22 ... Qxe4 23 Qxe4 Rxe4 24 Bxd6
Here is where we can begin to understand Kholmov’s remark, quoted in the note to Black’s
18th move, criticising his move 18 ... Rab8. If he had played 18 ... a6 instead, there would be
no rook en prise on b8. “Of course when he played 18 ... Rab8 Black could not have
anticipated such a cascade of sacrifices!” wrote Kholmov.
24 ... Rbe8
According to Kholmov, 24 ... Rc8 25 Rxg5+ Kh8 26 Be5+ Rxe5 27 Rxe5 Re8 28 Rxe8
Bxe8 29 e4 Nd7 30 f4 f6 is no better. Let us continue this line a bit further: 31 Kc2 Kh7 32
Kd3 Kh6 33 Bg4! Nb6 34 d6, and Black has made no progress.
25 Rxg5+ Kh8 26 Bxc5

Now there are already four pawns for the rook, with a central majority that sooner or later
will be set in motion. “In just six moves the position has altered beyond recognition, without,
however, changing from the evaluation ‘unclear’. But the colourful spectacle does not end at
this” (Kasparov).
26 ... f6 27 Rg3 b6 28 Bd4 Nh7 29 Kd2 Rg8 30 Rg6! Be8 31 Bd3!
Not 31 Rxf6? Rxd4+! nor 31 Bxf6+ Nxf6 32 Rxf6 Kg7 (Kholmov).
31 ... Bxg6 32 hxg6 Rxd4
 Exercise (difficult): This position seems to have escaped the
attention of commentators. How should White recapture on d4?

Answer: Spassky chose what seems like the more logical capture.
33 cxd4
However, everything indicates 33 exd4! was much better. If Black plays as in the game,
after 33 ... Nf8 34 c5 bxc5 35 dxc5 Nd7 (35 ... Nxg6? loses to 36 Bxg6 Rxg6 37 c6,
queening) 36 c6 Nb6, now it is much more useful to have the c-pawn than the e-pawn,
because White can play 37 c4 (threatening d5-d6) 37 ... Rd8 38 Kc3, with the idea of Bf5
followed by c7. The pawns, supported by the bishop (and also the king, if necessary) are
unstoppable.
33 ... Nf8 34 c5 bxc5 35 dxc5 Nd7 36 c6 Nb6 37 e4
Spassky is not content with the draw that could be forced by 37 d6 Rd8 38 d7 Nxd7.
37 ... Kg7 38 Ba6 Kxg6 39 a4 Kf7
And the game was soon drawn. It is worth playing through the whole game, preferably
with Kasparov’s annotations in his book My Great Predecessors Part III. The ending
continued to be very complex.
“A beautiful flight of fantasy by Spassky!” was Kasparov’s summary.

Supplementary Game 40.2

B.Spassky-N.Short
Zurich 2001

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bg5 c5 5 d5 h6 6 Bh4 d6 7 e3 Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 e5 9 Nf3

 9 ... Bf5
With this move Black prevents an eventual Bd3. A similar idea is seen in the popular line
9 ... Qe7 10 Nd2 g5 11 Bg3 Bf5 12 h4 Rg8, followed by developing the queenside.
10 Nd2 g5 11 Bg3 Nbd7 12 f3!
As we shall see this move gains some space and postpones the decision about where to
place the king. After 12 Be2 Qe7 13 0-0, thanks to White’s early castling, Black achieved
good play with 13 ... h5! as in A.Planinc-V.Hort, Hastings 1974. Here White opened the game
with 14 f4? (the natural 14 f3 was better) 14 ... exf4 15 exf4 h4 16 Bf2 gxf4 and there was no
compensation for the pawn, and after 17 Qa4 Kf8 18 Rae1 Ne5 Black’s advantage was clear.
12 ... Bg6 13 e4 Qe7 14 a4 Nh5 15 Bf2 a5 16 Qb1 b6
White was hoping to provoke this weakening move, which was not yet necessary. Black
can play 16 ... 0-0 without fearing 17 Qxb7, which would lead to a draw after 17 ... Rfb8 18
Qc7 Rc8 19 Qb7 Rcb8.
17 g3 0-0 18 Bd3 Ng7 19 g4!
This prevents ... f5, leaves the g7-knight badly placed, cramps the black pieces, and plans
h2-h4. What more can be asked of a single move?
19 ... h5
 Black does not want to wait passively for White to play h4.

Exercise: What did Spassky play in this position?

Answer:
20 h4!
Anyway! White increases the pressure on Black’s kingside. In the event of 20 ... hxg4 21
fxg4 (with the positional threat of 22 h5) 21 ... gxh4 22 Bxh4 f6, White still has a possible
pawn-break with g4-g5. This can be prepared with 23 Nf3, followed by Ra2-g2, or 23 Qb5
followed by 24 0-0-0 and Rdg1, keeping Nf3 as a possibility. Something similar would occur
after 20 ... gxh4 (without capturing on g4) 21 Bxh4 f6 22 Qb5, followed by 0-0-0 and Rdg1.
20 ... f6 21 Nf1
Heading for f5.
21 ... Kf7 22 Ne3 Rh8 23 Kd2 Rh6 24 Nf5 Bxf5 25 gxf5
With advantage to White, who and after a long manoeuvring struggle. This was Spassky’s
last game with the Leningrad Variation.

With this example we end this exciting and enjoyable review of the games in the career of Boris Vasilievich Spassky.
Index of Games
Fischer.R-Spassky.B, 1st Matchgame Sveti-Stefan/Belgrade 1992
Geller.E-Spassky.B, USSR Championship 1955
Giri.A-Carlsen.M, Wijk aan Zee 2013
Ivkov.B-Spassky.B, Santa Monica 1966
Keres.P-Spassky.B, 4th Matchgame, Riga 1965
Korchnoi.V-Geller.E, Moscow 1971
Korchnoi.V-Spassky.B, 11th matchgame, Belgrade 1977
Larsen.B-Spassky.B, Belgrade 1970
Petrosian.T-Gligoric, .S, Zurich 1953
Petrosian.T-Stean.M, Moscow 1975
Piket.J-Kasparov.G, Tilburg 1989
Savon.V-Spassky.B, USSR Championship, Baku 1961
Smyslov.V-Spassky.B, USSR Championship 1973
Spassky.B-Beliavsky.A, Reykjavik 1988
Spassky.B-Bronstein.D, USSR Championship, Leningrad 1960
Spassky.B-Ciric.D, Amsterdam 1970
Spassky.B-Darga.K, Varna Olympiad 1962
Spassky.B-Donner.J, Leiden 1970
Spassky.B-Evans.L, Varna Olympiad 1962
Spassky.B-Filip.M, Gothenburg 1955
Spassky.B-Fischer.R, Siegen Olympiad 1970
Spassky.B-Fischer.R, Santa Monica 1966
Spassky.B-Gheorghiu.F, European Team Championship, Bath, 1973
Spassky.B-Hermann.M, Germany 1984
Spassky.B-Hübner.R, Munich 1979
Spassky.B-Hübner.R, Tilburg 1979
Spassky.B-Kavalek.L, San Juan 1969
Spassky.B-Kholmov.R, USSR Championship, Moscow 1957
Spassky.B-Kholmov.R, USSR Championsip (playoff), Moscow 1964
Spassky.B-Korchnoi.V, 7th Matchgame, Kiev 1968
Spassky.B-Korchnoi.V, Moscow 1964
Spassky.B-Larsen.B, Beverwijk 1967
Spassky.B-Lee.P, Hastings 1965/66
Spassky.B-Matanovic.A, Havana 1962
Spassky.B-Mikenas.V, Riga 1959
Spassky.B-Osnos.V, USSR Championship 1963
Spassky.B-Penrose.J, Palma de Mallorca 1969
Spassky.B-Petrosian.T, 23rd matchgame, Moscow 1966
Spassky.B-Petrosian.T, Riga 1975
Spassky.B-Petrosian.T, World Championship (Game 7) 1966
Spassky.B-Petrosian.T, World Championship (Game 19), Moscow 1969
Spassky.B-Polugaevsky.L, USSR Championship, Riga 1958
Spassky.B-Portisch.L, 9th Matchgame, Geneva 1977
Spassky.B-Reshko.A, Leningrad 1959
Spassky.B-Sakharov.Y, USSR Championsip, Leningrad 1960
Spassky.B-Seirawan.Y, London 1982
Spassky.B-Seirawan.Y, Montpellier, 1985
Spassky.B-Short.N, Zurich 2001
Spassky.B-Smyslov.V, Bucharest, 1953
Spassky.B-Stein.L, Moscow 1964
Spassky.B-Tal.M, Tallinn 1973
Spassky.B-Tal.M, USSR League, Moscow 1959
Spassky.B-Tukmakov.V, USSR Championship, Moscow 1973
Spassky.B-Unzicker.W, Santa Monica 1966
Stein.L-Tal.M, Moscow 1961
Szabo.L-Spassky.B, Bucharest 1953
Taimanov.M-Najdorf.M, Zurich 1953
Tal.M-Ghitescu.T, Miskolc 1963
Tal.M-Spassky.B, 11th Matchgame, Tbilisi 1965
Timman.J-Spassky.B, 3rd matchgame, Hilversum 1983
Timman.J-Spassky.B, Linares 1983
Uhlmann.W-Spassky.B, Moscow 1967