Table Of Contentmodern chess:
by move
Colin Crouch
EVERYMAN CHESS
www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2009 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc),
Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
Copyright © 2009 Colin Crouch
First published 2009 by Gloucester Publishers plc
The right of Colin Crouch to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in ac
cordance 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 978185744 599 2
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708
email:
Contents
Preface
I ntroduction
1 Kasimdzhanov-Kasparov, Linares 2005
2 Dreev-Dominguez, Poikovsky 2005
3 Adams-Yusupov, French League 2005
5
7
22
46
4 Topalov-Anand, Sofia 2005 56
5 Bacrot-Rublevsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005 73
6 Karjakin-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2006 85
7 Svidler-Topalov, Morelia 2006 98
8 Sargissian-Nisipeanu, German League 2006 119
9 Leko-Radjabov, Morelia 2006 126
10 Ivanchuk-Aronian, Russian Team Championship 2006 139
11 Karpov-Akopian, Russian Team Championship 2006 151
12 Bareev-Efimenko, Turin Olympiad 2006 161
13 Kramnik-Leko, Dortmund 2006 172
14 Navara-Socko, Polish Team Championship 2006 186
15 Sokolov-Polgar, Hoogeveen 2006 199
16 Shirov-Aronian, Moscow 2006 212
17 Shirov-lIIescas Cordoba, Pamplona 2006 228
18 Rublevsky-Grischuk, 7th matchgame, Elista 2007 239
19 Van Wely-Radjabov, Biel 2007 250
20 Ni Hua-Jakovenko, Nizhniy Novgorod 2007
21 Alekseev-Tkachiev, Spanish Team Championship 2007
22 Stellwagen-Eljanov, German League 2007
23 Carlsen-Tiviakov, European Team Championship, Crete 2007
24 Kamsky-Carlsen, Khanty-Mansiysk 2007
25 Morozevich-Sakaev, Russian Championship, Moscow 2007
26 Wang Yue-Movsesian, Pamplona 2007
265
279
292
300
312
321
27 Cheparinov-Nepomniachtchi, Wijk aan Zee 2008 344
28 Eljanov-Ponomariov, Kharkiv 2008 354
29 Bu Xiangzhi-Zvjaginsev, Russian Team Championship 2008
30 Gelfand-Alekseev, Russian Team Championship 2008
31 Mamedyarov-Nepomniachtchi, Russian Team Ch'ship 2008
361
373
32 Inarkiev-Ni Hua, Russian Team Championship 2008 388
33 Karjakin-Inarkiev, Baku 2008 401
Index of Openings
Index of Games
415
Preface
This is by far the most ambitious of the various chess books and articles I have
written. To have analysed in detail a win by 3 3 different 2700+ grandmasters
again st 2600+ strength opposition is a big effort. It is fair to say that no writer
could even h ave con sidered such a task fifteen years ago. One reason is that only
Kasparov and Karpov had reached this chess stratospheric level, although a few
others were pressing hard. Chess has changed considerably during the age of the
computer, and players have had the opportunity of improving their play and understanding considerably.
Without the computer, I myself would only be able to scratch the surface in
analysing the games, and would not be able to say with confidence whether such a
move is good or a mistake. It is good not to have to guess. Of course, in some positions the pl ay is so complicated, or so subtle, or both, that even the computers and
the strongest players would find it beyond themselves to understand everything.
Quite often it is a major task of the top players to try to understand wh at is going
on in such difficult lines, on the basis that if the top player has been able to analyse the position in depth at home, and is capable of outplaying the opponent over
the board, there is an excellent chance to win. A 2600 grandmaster is still a very
strong grandmaster, but a 2 700+ grandmaster will take his opponent out of their
comfort zone. We must not forget that ultra-sophisticated positional pl ay can al so
work.
The main dedication I give is to the players who have dedicated themselves to
such high levels of chess. Without them, there would have been no book.
The games themselves were at the time completely fresh to me. After a serious
brain seizure in 2004, I was fortunate that I was able to pl ay chess, or even see the
board. I feel grateful in having the opportunity, with this book, to catch up with so
many marvellous games, and even participate in discussing them.
It turned out that it has taken almost a whole year to write up such an effort.
The world outside has changed considerably in terms of chess, and the world in
general . At some stage, I will no doubt want to catch up with the world of chess
from Easter 2008 onwards. Outside chess, there has been a year of financial and
economic crisis. It seems a long, long time since I wrote a Ph D on the economics of
recession and unemployment in Britain in the early 1980s, and I would like to
think that the argument I made at the time still has merit. The question was always not whether there would be another serious recession, but when. Naturally
there has always been the dominant opposite argument, among politician s,
economists, journalists and others, that the economy is stable, that there is no
such thing as unemployment, that the banks have stabilized growth, and that poli-
5
M o d e rn C h e s s : M o ve by M o ve
ticians have ended the problems of boom and bust. It will be of interest to see how
the orthodox thinkers will now empirically justify such a point of view.
Colin Crouch
Harrow
July 2009
6
Introduction
This book is based on games by contemporary players at the very highest level. The
idea is based around a move-by-move approach to annotation, with the hope that
players from all level s will be able to appreciate something of top-level chess.
Do not be excessively deterred at what might seem a long-winded approach, a
dozen or more detailed pages over a single game. Chess is complicated. While writing up this book, I played through Sergey Shipov's annotations of Shirov-Aronian,
Moscow 2006 (Game 16), in New in Chess Magazine (2006, vol. 8, pp. 23-35). Shipov
went through the first 22 moves at great speed, and commented that the players
have reached 'another deep-water tabiya. The best analysts in the world began
their analysis in positions which simple chess amateurs are not even capable of
reaching.' Which is, of course, absolutely believable. The problem for the reader is
that Shipov gives no an alysis. This is understandable enough, since space is precious, and there is no room to go through moves which are already established
and analysed. Where does this leave the reader, though ? Half the content of the
game has been dropped in the annotations, and the simple chess amateur has no
chance of trying to understand what is going on. One of the main aims in this book
is to try to bridge the gap in understanding between the amateur and the top
players, which I suppose means I must regard myself as somewhere midpoint in
this gap. It is up to the reader to decide how deeply, or how briefly, he or she would
want to explore the opening. There is no obligation to try to plough through every
variation.
There is al so another reason, beyond the opening part of the game, why the
analysis might seem long-winded. The point is that a top-level grandmaster when
writing up games will tend to concentrate only on the most difficult positions, and
will tend to ignore writing down what is seen as 'obvious'. The obvious points are,
though, absolutely fundamental to good chess, and no top grandmaster will ignore them while pl aying a competitive game. A player may note that there is a
simple back-row checkmate if he snatches a piece, and he will avoid this. It would
seem h ardly worthwhile to mention this elementary tactic while annotating, but
the tactic is central to the game, and needs if possible to be mentioned.
Inevitably there will need to be some juggling when trying to annotate games
which will be satisfactory both for stronger players and for the less-experienced
player. My hope is that everyone will be able to gain something.
As time goes on in chess, analysis tends to become more complicated. The use
of the computer means that an author is these days expected to cover long strings
of analysis. There is no longer any excuse. Nowadays it will be easy enough for the
reader to check, with the help of the computer, whether the author might be dodg-
7
M o d e rn C h e s s : M o ve by M o ve
ing critical lines. In the old days an author might give a one-move line in a complicated position, saying that 'White is better' or 'Black has compensation for the
pawn', or whatever, and not much is gained. Perhaps before the computer, it
would have taken a whole afternoon for the writer to try to work out what is going
on, in even a relatively uncomplicated position, and it is often better to be more
economical with the time. With the help of the computer, it is now possible to
delve into any position or variation. This makes thing s both easier and more complicated. One can jump much higher, but the bar is al so much higher. There is also
the standard warning that the computer can make mistakes in interpreting a position . The best analysis is through the combination of the computer and human
assessment. If pushed, I would argue that a conscientious human analyst without
the use of the computer would still be preferable to the routine use of the computer.
It would be flattering if 2700+ players were to be interested in this book, but no
doubt they will be able to show that I have misinterpreted parts of the game. Such
is life. As the reader will be able to verify, there are 3 3 games in this book in which
a 2600+ pl ayer has done something wrong, and lost. I cannot pretend that I too
will not have made some extra errors, maybe serious. The hope of the annotator is
always that new and good ideas will outweigh the introduction of extra errors. Of
course, the audience would be extremely small if I were trying to write for the top
3 3 players. What guidance might there be for the much wider chess public?
Good and interesting chess games are always complicated. There is no way of
avoiding this. The most complicated positions may take up two pages of analysis,
to decide whether the grandmaster has in fact found the best move, or whether a
mistake has been made. The cardinal rule of scientific chess theory is that if a
player loses a game, he must have made a mistake somewhere. The conscientious
chess writer is always extremely interested in trying to untangle where the decisive mistake has been made, and will al so be worried about the possibility that a
question mark is given, maybe by the author himself, maybe by other commentators, when the supposed error is in fact sound.
Much of the analysis in a game will concentrate on the technical point of
whether any move is correct, or a mistake. This might seem boring and technical,
but it is not. There is only such a small gap between a mistake and a brilliant move
that it is a wonder that so few mistakes are made at higher levels. In a really complicated position, two amateur players may make half a dozen slips each, and one
of them eventually wins, and the other player loses. It will still be a good and entertaining game, but a really top grandmaster will be able to guide his way
through even the most mind-blowing positions, and will often be able to find a
win after even the slightest of the opponent's mistakes. This is great chess, and
vastly entertaining chess, at the highest level.
When playing though these games, it is probably best to skim through the
games first time around. Gain the general features of the game, and then look at
the position more closely next time. Take note of the careful thought behind the
8
I n t ro d u c t i o n
modern opening in chess, take note of the mistakes of the loser in each game, and
also enjoy the creativity of chess.
Some Points on the Chess Rating System
We start with the final official tourn ament event of Garry Kasparov, Linares 2005.
It is, of course, quite possible that he may decide that he will try a tournament or
match at some subsequent event, but on the other hand, why bother? He has already made his mark in history, and this will never be forgotten for as long as
chess is played. He now has other interests.
If we go back to the match when Kasparov beat Karpov to become World
Champion in 1985, Kasparov's rating was 2700, and Karpov's 2720. These days,
there are now more than 30 players who have reached 2700. There has been considerable speculation as to whether the ratings have been inflated to some extent.
Certainly from playing through the current games, one feels the 2700 player is not
quite as strong as Kasparov in 1985. This, however, is a relatively small gap. A
guesstimate would be that Kasparov's 2700 at the beginning of the match would
equate to about 2 7 2 5 these days, and Karpov's 2720 would have been the equivalent to 2745 nowadays. Going through other players, Timman would probably
have been equivalent of around 2 700 at that time, but no-one else. We provide
this merely as a base-mark.
Kasparov continued to improve considerably since 1985, and it was clear at the
time that he was not yet at his peak. In Belgrade 1989 he won, three points ahead
of Timman and Eh1vest, and rather more points ahead of other 2600+ opposition.
His reward was to reach 2800 for the first time, for himself or for anyone.
Kasparov's rating dropped slightly, at various times during the 1990s, but then
between 1997 and his retirement in 2005, his play was con sistently over 2800.
Other players, such as Anand, Kramnik and Topa10v, have reached 2800, but have
since dropped down again at some point. In early 2004, for example, both Anand
and Kramnik had a frustrating 2799 rating score, while Topa10v was 2780, although the Bulgarian is now back over 2800.
No player as yet has emulated Kasparov's achievement in keeping his rating
over 2800 for a con sistent length of time. We have many players now who would
like to aspire to this challenge, but who will fully emulate it? Maybe one of the
younger players? Who knows?
The Games
I wanted to write up games from 2004 onwards, for strong personal reason s. As a
result of a stroke, a 'brain attack', and a loss of much of my eyesight, I had missed
seeing many top-level encounters. It was time to rectify this gap, and to try to
study the game properly.
How could I decide which games to use in this book? There soon turned out to
be an obvious and natural an swer. Garry Kasparov retired at the beginning of
2005. My aim was to select a game from Linares 2005, and then to give a win by
9
