Master Preparation-Fall 1996

Lesson 9. Positional sacrifice II:
Trading material for positional gain

Lecture by UMBC Chess Coach Igor Epshteyn

This lecture proceeds the discussion about positional and material advantage, their conversion in order to reach strategical goal,possible tactical complications and drawbacks, which are going from uncomplete positional evaluation of forseeing results.Two types of positional gain are discussed: compensation for Sacrifice Exchange and compensation for the Queen.

It is trivial that Rook is stronger than minor piece in a great majority of positions(constant value), but real value of the piece is different in every moment of the game. There also are some types of positions(rare) where Knight is stronger than Rook(very closed), or centralized bishop is better than Rook( halfopen positions with rolling center). Some minor pieces could be more valuable exactly in moment of the game, because of tactical conditions on the board, which it fits better(in King's attack, for instance). All this examples have a little in common with the topic of this lecture, because here we consider other type of positional trade pursuing long term positional goal and it's connection to a pawn chain structure. The set of positional tools that arise from the changes in pawn structure accompanying the material trade include: destruction of opponents pawn chain to create King's unsafety, forced opening of the lines (files for the Rooks, diagonals for the Bishops), creating 'everlasting ' outpost for the Knight, creating far advanced and defended passing pawn, creating of the pawn majority at the most important part of the board, constructing the blocked pawn chains on the part of the board where opponent has advantage in Space ,etc.

Constant material compensation for the queen lies somewhere between Rook+Bishop+Pawn and Rook+Knight+2 pawns, but this exchange often does not meet equality, because it creates wast diversity of additional positional features that are responsible for final position evaluation. The scope of strategical ideas of such exchange suppose the variety of eventual strategical plans for both sides and makes this type of position one of the most complex and obscure for evaluation. As a rule , a side with a queen should strive for King's attack, in which the queen is exceptionally strong, at the same time another side, having edge in number of pawns and pieces, have to rely on plan converting pawn majority to passing pawn. In reality both types of plans often combined in dependence of conditions on the board(pieces displacement and pawn structure).

As examples for this lesson two games of FIDE World Championship match between Karpov and Kamski(Elista, 1996) were chosen.In first(m/5) game Karpov(White) managed to receive a positional edge in pawn structure, but the price he paid for that was delay with pieces development and castling(time). Kamski(Black) used Sacrifice Exchange to destroy the White's pawn chain and create the threats to the White King. In his turn, Karpov was urged to put all efforts creating counter attack on Black king, and, as reflection of reciprocal discomfort in King's unsafety, positional draw was agreed with moves repetition. This game is not long, but filled with positional tactical fighting and it reminds another game(See homework) from match-revenge Smyslov - Botvinnik(Moscow,1958,m/7), where similar idea could bring the victory to Black.

In the second game Karpov - Kamski(m/9), Black's material compensation was not enough, but they relyed on far advanced passing pawn on queen side which in their plan should froze the White pieces and edge in Time.It looks like Kamski missed the opportunity to receive very serious chances with 27... a3! 28.Ra2 Rf6 and either 29.Qb7 Ra6 30.Q:e7 Be6 31.Ra1 a2 and Rb~ or 29.Qb4!? Ra6 30.Bc1 e5! turns the whole picture in Blacks favor. After Black's 27...e6?, Karpov played strategically solid and subsequently - first he finished development,then blocked the pawn, later he opened the ways for his pieces to the King side activity and tied the Black with defense problems, then White moved the pawn 'h' for support in attack and combining threats in center with King side attack reached decisive advantage. Black performed splendid strategical sacrifice in the game and their positional compensation was enough but in a very complex position they missed.

For this topic the game Lotier - Spasski(Cannes,1989) will serve as homework. In this game the 10-th world champion purposely fall in tactical trap and 'loose' his Queen for the Rook, bishop and pawn. It turned that additional positional gain for this exchange was extremely valuable - two bishops with open center! At the same time cohesion of White Queen and Knight (usually effective because of complementary features of this pieces) was damaged - in open center Knight has no outposts - and White also does not had a time(tempo) to transfer it to King side for attack. At end, perhaps of time pressure, with 35...Rd3 Spasski missed winning opportunity (35...Be4!) and Lotier drew the game.Also position for the homework was taken from PCA World Champion match between G.Kasparov and V.Anand. V.Anand could create masterpiece using positional Queen sacrifice for only Rook and Knight, but receiving much superior pawn structure.


Game 1:
Karpov-Kamsky (Elista, 1996 FIDE World Championshipoship, Game 5)

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 d5
4. Nf3 Bg7
5. Qb3 dxc4
6. Qxc4 0-0
7. e4 a6
8. e5 b5
9. Qb3 Nfd7
10. e6 fxe6
11. Qxe6 Kh8
12. Qe4 Nb6
13. Qh4 Nc6
14. Bd3 Rxf3
15. gxf3 Nxd4
16. Be4 Bf5
17. Be3 c5
18. Bxd4 cxd4
19. Rd1 Rc8
20. Rg1 Bf6
21. Qh6 Bg7
22. Qh4 Bf6
23. Qh6 Bg7
draw


Game 2:
Karpov-Kamsky (Elista, 1996 FIDE World Championshipoship, Game 9)

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 d5
4. Nf3 Bg7
5. Qb3 dxc4
6. Qxc4 0-0
7. e4 a6
8. e5 b5
9. Qb3 Nfd7
10. Be3 c5
11. e6 c4
12. exf7 Rxf7
13. Qd1 Nb6
14. Ne5 Rf8
15. a4 b4
16. a5 bxc3
17. axb6 cxb2
18. Bxc4 Kh8
19. Rb1 Qxb6
20. Qd2 Nd7
21. Rxb2 Nxe5
22. Rxb6 Nxc4
23. Qb4 Nxb6
24. Qxb6 a5
25. 0-0 a4
26. Ra1 Bf5
27. h4 e6
28. Bf4 Be4
29. Bd6 Rfc8
30. Qb5 Bc6
31. Qb4 Kg8
32. Ra3 Ra6
33. Qc4 Rca8
34. Qxe6 Kh8
35. Be5 Bxe5
36. Qxe5 Kg8
37. h5 Be8
38. h6 R6a7
39. d5 Rb7
40. d6 Rd8
41. Rf3
1-0


Homework 1 (Game 3):
Smyslov-Botvinnik (Moscow, 1958, World Championship Rematch, Game 7)

Should Black have accepted a draw in the final position? Justify your answer with concrete variations.

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 d6
6. Be2 g6
7. Be3 Bg7
8. h4 0-0
9. h5 d5
10. hxg6 fxg6
11. exd5 Nxd5
12. Nxd5 Qxd5
13. Bf3 Qc4
14. c3 Nxd4
15. cxd4 Be6
16. Qb3
draw


Homework 2 (Game 4):
Lotier-Spassky (Cannes, 1989, Match, Game 5)

Comment on Black's 35th move. Calculate possible alternate moves.

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 d5
4. cxd5 exd5
5. Bg5 Be7
6. Qc2 0-0
7. e3 Nbd7
8. Bd3 Re8
9. Nge2 Nf8
10. 0-0 c6
11. f3 h6
12. Bh4 Ne6
13. Kh1 b6
14. Rad1 Bb7
15. e4 dxe4
16. fxe4 Ng4
17. Bf2 Nxf2
18. Rxf2 Nxd4
19. Nxd4 Qxd4
20. Ba6 Qxf2
21. Qxf2 Bxa6
22. e5 Rad8
23. Qf3 Rxd1
24. Qxd1 Bf8
25. Qd4 f6
26. Qa4 Rxe5
27. h3 Bd3
28. Qxc6 Bc5
29. Kh2 h5
30. h4 Kh7
31. Qd7 Bf5
32. Qd1 Bg6
33. a3 Bf2
34. g3 Re3
35. Ne2 Rd3
36. Qf1 Rf3
37. Qd1 Be4
38. Nd4
draw


Homework 3 (Position 1): Ksparov-Anand (New York, 1995 PCA World Championship, Game 2)

Black to move. Can Black play 17 ... Bc6? Explain.