The Point of Studying Master Games, Part OneIM Silman Henry asked: You often talk about studying master games, but is one master game as good as another, or are certain games better than others? Dear Henry: I’ve gotten many, many letters about studying master games. It seems people are confused by the whole idea. Thus, I’ll be giving a three-part reply that, hopefully, will put the matter to rest. Henry, you are mixing two separate topics. There are two main reasons to look over master games. One is to absorb patterns and thus calls for the student to go over as many games as possible as quickly as possible. These games should be by fairly strong players (IMs or GMs), and you can either zip through reams of them without having any idea what each is teaching you, or you can try and label at least one major pattern from each game. Thus, quick mental labels like (starting with, “That game showed me …”) “a lead in development”, “a central enemy King”, “a space advantage”, “dueling pawn majorities”, “a tactical trick”, “the strength of two Bishops”, “a Knight wiping a Bishop out in a closed position”, and on and on it goes. As I said, you don’t really need to do that since you’ll still be absorbing patterns on the subconscious level, but if you’re able to make even that one mental comment, it will help nail a game’s lesson home. The other reason for going over master games is simple enjoyment – going over a favorite player’s game is relaxing, fun, and will also continue your pattern absorption mania. We’ll explore that in Part Two of this answer (next weeks column). This particular article will address going over many master games and, after each one, giving it a basic pattern-label. Here are a few examples (with minimal, if any, notes). Example One Akiva Rubinstein – T. Tylor, Ramsgate 1929 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 0-0 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Nc3 c6 8.h3 Rb8 9.a4 a5 10.e4 Qc7 11.Be3 h6 12.Rc1 Rd8 13.Qc2 Nf8 14.Kh2 Be6 15.Nd2 Bd7 16.f4 Kh7 17.f5 g5 18.Nf3 Kg8 19.e5 N6h7 20.Qe4 Qc8 21.g4 Qc7 22.Kg1 Be8 23.Rfe1 Nd7 24.Bf2 dxe5 25.dxe5 e6 26.Nb5! (Other moves would also win, but this is by far white’s best) 26…Qc8 (26…cxb5 27.cxb5 and black’s Queen has nowhere safe to go) 27.Nd6 Qc7 28.c5 b6 29.cxb6 Nxb6 30.Nxe8 Rxe8 31.Rxc6 exf5 32.Qc2 Qd8 33.Rd1 Nd7 34.gxf5 Nhf8 35.f6 Bh8 36.Bc5, 1-0. After this game, you would quickly tell yourself, “Man, what a huge space advantage! Seems that a game can win itself if you have a space advantage like that!” Then you move on to the next game. Over time, you’ll see thousands of games where a space advantage wipes the opponent out, and you’ll become quite adept at making use of it due to your brain’s subliminal addiction to space, which was caused by it witnessing countless space crushes. I can already imagine the government’s anti-space commercials: This is your brain (a smiling person) … this is your brain on space (eggs frying in a pan). Example Two J. Silman – L. Christiansen, Los Angeles 1989 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.Nc3 axb5 6.e4 b4 7.Nb5 d6 8.Bf4 g5 9.Bxg5 Nxe4 10.Bf4 Qa5 11.Bc4 Bg7 12.Qe2 b3+ 13.Kf1 f5 14.f3 0-0 15.fxe4 fxe4 16.g3 Qxa2 17.Rxa2 bxa2 18.Bxa2 Rxa2 19.Nc7 Bf5 20.Ne6 Rxb2 21.Nxf8 Rxe2 22.Nxe2 Kxf8 23.Kf2 Na6 24.Bd2 Nc7 25.Nf4 Be5 26.Ba5 Bxf4 27.Bxc7 Bg5 28.h3 Ke8 29.g4 Bc8 30.Kg3 Bd2 31.Rb1 e3 32.Kf3 Kd7 33.Bb8 Ba6 34.h4 e2 35.Kf2 Bd3 36.Ra1 Kc8 37.Ba7 Kb7, 0-1. Here you would think, “Silman got his ass kicked! And his opponent didn’t even have a Queen. I guess you can give up your Queen and still do well.” And, over time, you’ll see many more games where three minor pieces beat a Queen, or a Bishop and Rook hold their own against the enemy Queen, or other material mixes prove their stuff vs. the enemy lady. Eventually, giving up your Queen for various other imbalances will just be business as usual. Please keep in mind that going over games quickly means you don’t care if a game is sound or if many mistakes were made. You just want to absorb those all-important patterns! Example Three R. Britton – J. Silman, Lloyds Bank London 1978 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.0-0 0-0 9.Nb3 Qc7 10.f4 d6 11.Be2 b6 12.Kh1 Bb7 13.Bf3 Na5 14.Nxa5 bxa5 15.a4 Bc6 16.Qd3 Nd7 17.Rad1 Nb6 18.b3 Rac8 19.Ne2 Bb7 20.c4 Nd7 21.e5 Bxf3 22.gxf3 Nc5 23.exd6 exd6 24.Qxd6 Nxb3 25.Qxc7 Rxc7 26.Rb1 Nc5 27.Rb5 Nxa4 28.Rxa5 Rxc4 29.Kg2 Re8 30.Kf2 Bf6 31.Rd1 Nb2 32.Rd7 Bh4+ 33.Ng3 Rc2+ 34.Bd2 Nc4 35.Rad5 Nb6, 0-1. After this game, you might say, “Doubled isolated a-pawns? It’s okay to have doubled isolated a-pawns? Really?” That would be more than enough since, as you continue to look at games, you will continue to see many “poor” pawn structures that somehow turn out to be not so poor. Of course, in the Britton game black’s doubled isolated a-pawns gave his Rooks two powerful half open files (b- and c-files). This led to enormous queenside pressure and, ultimately, to a superior endgame. Example Four Ruy Lopez de Segura – Giovanni da Cutro Leonardo, Rome 1560 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d6 3.Bc4 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.fxe5 dxe5 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke8 8.Qxg4 Nf6 9.Qe6+ Qe7 10.Qc8+ Qd8 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Nf7+, 1-0. Okay, a stupid game (but hey, it would have taken you all of 4 seconds to look at it). But it does demonstrate an important tactical pattern, and after you go over such tactical patterns enough times you’ll never fall for them (and you’ll trap your opponents by using these tricks). In fact, you might think, “Nice tactical trick. I’ll make sure I keep that in mind!” Example Five G. Greco – NN, Europe 1620 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d4 Bh4+ 5.Kf1 g5 6.g3 fxg3 7.hxg3 Bxg3 8.Qh5 Qf6+ 9.Nf3 d6 10.Bxg5 Qg6 11.Qxg6 fxg6 12.Bxg8 Rxg8 13.Kg2, 1-0. Here the game’s message might be reflected in the following personal dialogue: “Note to self, don’t leave my pieces too deep in enemy territory. They might not get out alive!” Example Six A. Alekhine – J. H. Giersing, Stockholm 1912 1.c4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.cxd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Qa5 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bc4 Be7 9.Qe2 Qd8 10.0-0 0-0 11.h3 Bf5 12.d4 Nbd7 13.Nh4 Bg6 14.Re1 Re8 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.Bg5 Nb6 17.Bb3 Qxd4 18.Rad1 Qc5 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Ne4 Qh5 21.Qxh5 gxh5 22.Ng3 h4 23.Nf5 Bb4 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Rd4 Re1+ 26.Kh2 Bc5 27.Rg4+ Kf8 28.Rxh4 Kg8 29.Rg4+ Kf8 30.h4 Bxf2 31.h5 Bg1+ 32.Kg3 Rf1 33.Bc2 Nd7 34.h6 Bf2+ 35.Kh2 Ne5 36.Rg7 Bg1+ 37.Kh3 Bf2 38.g3 Ng6 39.h7, 1-0. There was a lot going on here. But perhaps the following was the one thing that really hit you: “Wow, that Knight on f5 ruled the universe! I’m going to make a point of getting my Knights to squares like that in the future.” Indeed, after a few thousand games where Knights reach advanced squares, you’ll be doing everything you can to turn your horses into gods, just like Alekhine did. The Point of Studying Master Games, Part Two IM Silman Henry asked: You often talk about studying master games, but is one master game as good as another, or are certain games better than others? Silman: In Part One of this three part answer to Henry’s question, I pointed out that one of the main reasons for studying master games is to subliminally absorb patterns by zipping through as many games as possible. I also wrote that mentally labeling each game with an imbalance or tactical point you noticed adds to the effect, and I gave various examples of how this is done. Of course, this “zipping” through games is only for those that have serious aspirations – i.e., ultimately dreaming of reaching master class (2200) or beyond. Note the difference between “serious aspirations” and the more laid back “I’d like to improve my game”. One is based on the desire to improve without making it a life-changing, insanely time-consuming obsession (learn by experience, read some books, perhaps take a lesson or two – these things don’t take over your life and are an easy and enjoyable way to improve), while the other demands hard work, commitment, and perhaps even some measure of sacrifice. Please understand that making master, though a nice dream, won’t necessarily make you enjoy chess more. A rating of 1500 means you’re already a strong player, and if you make 1900 you’re at a level few achieve (and you can do it with minimal work). Whatever your rating might be, the main goal of chess should be pleasure … kicking opponent ass gives one pleasure, watching your chess idols do things that only gods can do gives pleasure … learning about the imbalances and slowly but surely integrating them into your own game so that you suddenly see and appreciate things that were invisible to you a short while before – that gives one enormous pleasure. And so, knowing that at heart we’re all seekers of joy, here we’ll discuss the other reason master games are such an integral part of the complete chess experience: pure entertainment and pleasure. I should add that this entertainment comes with an added bonus – you still get the full instructive bang that comes with every game: opening plans, imbalances strutting their stuff in all the game’s phases, and endgame technique (if it lasts that long). You can enjoy master games in many ways: * Watch online blitz chess in games featuring titled players brutally hacking away at each other. It’s relaxing, it’s a rush, and you even get to root for your favorite “horse.” * Pick a chess hero and go through all his/her games. They can be with or without annotations. If they have annotations, the whole experience becomes slow and relaxing and, as you look over one amazing variation after another, intense. If it’s sans notes, then you can just view it as a movie of a famous player’s art and life work. * Go through lists of the best games of all time and look over all of them. * Look through whole tournaments (old and new … New York 1924, featuring notes by Alekhine, is a classic example) and enjoy the ebb and flow as some favorites smash the opposition while others fall on their face. In the present article we’ll look at my three picks for the best (dynamic – the best positional games are quite another matter) games ever (I list my least favorite first). And, even though the games are all insanely complex, I’ll point out the salient points that shaped the play. You might not be able to calculate like these giants did, but everyone can understand the position’s basics and gain some insight into the board’s needs. Our first game features perhaps the most violent attack ever seen. It’s depth is staggering, but one must understand that though Kasparov calculated a mind-numbing amount of variations, much of what he did was based on intuition – he simply believed in the attack’s soundness. I’m not going to give the vast amount of notes these games deserve – proper annotations could fill many, many pages! Remember: what we’re looking for here is the raw visual entertainment they offer. Nevertheless, I’ll toss in enough variations to give you a feel for what was happening behind the scenes! What to look for in Game One: White comes up with a mind-blowing attack (beginning on move 24), but the factors that made this attack possible were: 1) Holes on a5 and c6. 2) Possible Rook penetration down the open e-file (if black’s Queen loses touch with e7, then Re7+ can be tough to deal with). 3) Black’s King position is loose. 4) White’s pieces are more active than black’s. 5) The Knight on f6 will be loose in many lines (black’s Queen is babysitting it). G. Kasparov – V. Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6 6.f3 b5 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6 Bb7 10.a3 e5 11.0-0-0 Qe7 12.Kb1 a6 13.Nc1 0-0-0 14.Nb3 exd4 15.Rxd4 c5 16.Rd1 Nb6 17.g3 Kb8 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Bh3 d5 20.Qf4+ Ka7 21.Rhe1 d4 22.Nd5 Nbxd5 23.exd5 Qd6 So far we’ve seen an interesting Pirc Defense where both sides have played well. Black appears to be safe, but he missed (or underestimated) the incredible continuation that follows. 24.Rxd4!! In general, tactics only work if factors like a vulnerable King or undefended pieces or inadequately guarded pieces exist. In the present case we see them all: black’s King is obviously vulnerable, his f6-Knight hangs in some lines, and even the h8-Rook will turn out to be inadequately protected in a variation or two! 24…cxd4?? Hard to resist, but better was 24...Kb6! 25.Nb3 Bxd5 (and not 25...cxd4?? 26.Qxd4+ Kc7 27.Qa7+ Bb7 28.Nc5 Rb8 29.Re7+ Qxe7 30.Nxa6+ Kd6 31.Qc5+ Ke5 32.Qxe7+ Kd4 33.c3+ Kc4 34.Bf1+ Kb3 35.Nc5 mate) 26.Qxd6+ Rxd6 and Black is fine. 25.Re7+! Kb6 No better are lines like 25...Qxe7 26.Qxd4+ Kb8 27.Qb6+ Bb7 28.Nc6+ Ka8 29.Qa7 mate, and 25...Kb8 26.Qxd4 Nd7 27.Bxd7 Rxd7 28.Rxd7 Qxd7 29.Qxh8+. As mentioned earlier, the h8-Rook turned out to be far less safe than one might have supposed! 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 26...Qc5 27.Qxf6+ is an example of f6 being loose. After 27...Qd6 28.Be6!! Bxd5 29.b4 Bc6 30.Qxf7 Qd1+ 31.Kb2 Qxf3 32.Qg7 black’s losing. For example, 32…Rhf8 (hoping to trade Queens by …Qf6+) 33.Rc7! (now 33…Qf6+ 34.Qxf6 Rxf6 35.Rxc6+ is an easy win for White) 33…Ba8 34.Rc3! and the dual threat of 35.Qc7 mate and 35.Rxf3 ends the game. 27.b4+ Ka4 28.Qc3 Kasparov feels that 28.Ra7 is even stronger. 28...Qxd5 29.Ra7! Bb7 30.Rxb7 Qc4 31.Qxf6 Kxa3 32.Qxa6+ Kxb4 33.c3+! Kxc3 34.Qa1+ Kd2 Black’s Queen vanishes after 34...Kb4 35.Qb2+ Ka5 36.Qa3+ Qa4 37.Ra7+. 35.Qb2+ Kd1 36.Bf1! Rd2 36...Qxf1 37.Qc2+ Ke1 38.Re7+ Qe2 39.Qxe2 mate. 37.Rd7! Rxd7 38.Bxc4 bxc4 39.Qxh8 There’s that inadequately defended h8-Rook again! 39…Rd3 40.Qa8 c3 41.Qa4+ Ke1 42.f4 f5 43.Kc1 Rd2 44.Qa7, 1-0. Very flashy, brilliant stuff, though I’ve always viewed it as being a bit shallow since, after the opening, a nuke-like tactic went off and it was all downhill from there. In other words, the “battle” wasn’t a battle at all – it was one-sided. What to look for in Game Two (which is my pick for the greatest game of all time): This game has a bit of everything, and is extremely complicated. However, many of its salient features are easy to comprehend: 1) Black creates a pawn weakness (the a4-pawn, which is a static weakness) and aims everything he can at it. 2) White gives up the pawn, but makes some (dynamic) gains of his own. 3) White misses a tactical chance to put the game up for grabs (move 25), and as a result enters a technically lost position. 4) At this point both players show tremendous imagination and do everything they can to make use of their positive imbalances – After move 34, White has opposite colored Bishops (his dark-squared Bishop gives him control over many important dark-squares) and a passed d-pawn. Black has an extra pawn and a passed a-pawn. These pawns are shoved down the opponent’s respective throats, which only increases the tension and the game’s overall difficulty. 5) A one of a kind endgame occurs which features an entombed black Rook and multiple pawns vs. white’s Rook. V. Spassky – R. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.h3 a5 9.a4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Spassky was surprised by Fischer’s choice of the Alekhine Defense, and didn’t play the opening particularly well. In the present position Black sees that he has two potential targets: e5 and a4. White’s e-pawn can be given support by Qe2 followed by 0-0 and Re1, but the a-pawn turns out to be a real liability. Thus Black brings as many soldiers to bear against a4 as possible. 10…Na6! 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Qe2 Qe8 A lovely picture – black’s assault against a4 is a true team effort. However, there’s a price to pay for this demonstration against a4 – it takes time, and this allows White to seek compensation in the form of central and kingside space and a potential kingside attack. Thus we get to see a true dynamic vs. static battle, where each side will push his agenda with as much energy as possible. 13.Ne4 Nbxa4 14.Bxa4 Nxa4 15.Re1 Nb6 16.Bd2 a4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bh4 Bf5 19.g4 Be6 20.Nd4 Bc4 21.Qd2 Qd7 22.Rad1 Rfe8 I’m sure Fischer (who loved gulping material) wanted to chop on e5 via 22…Bxe5, but perhaps he was a bit put off by the Bishops of opposite colors that occurs after 23.b3 axb3 24.cxb3 Ba6 25.Nc3 Bxd4 26.Qxd4 Qxd4 27.Rxd4. Of course, Black would have tremendous winning chances here, but he probably thought he could get even more with the restrained 22…Rfe8. 23.f4 Bd5 24.Nc5 Qc8 25.Qc3? Various commentators pointed out that Spassky missed a great chance here: 25.e6! Nc4?! (25…a3! 26.bxa3 Rxa3 is better, with chances for both sides) 26.Qe2 Nxb2 27.Nf5!! and White has created a very strong attack. 25…e6 26.Kh2 Nd7 27.Nd3 Years later, as is always the case, computer analysis discovered that 27.Ne4 was a better try. 27…c5 28.Nb5 Qc6 29.Nd6 Qxd6! Forcing a technically winning position. 30.exd6 Bxc3 31.bxc3 f6 32.g5 hxg5 33.fxg5 f5 34.Bg3 Kf7 35.Ne5+ Nxe5 36.Bxe5 b5 37.Rf1 Rh8 38.Bf6 a3 39.Rf4 a2 40.c4 Bxc4 41.d7 Bd5?! A quick move. Later analysis showed that 41…e5! was best. 42.Kg3! The sealed move (which creates the threat of Rh4 in many lines). The game was now adjourned and, as Kasparov wrote in Book 4 of his Great Predecessors series, “The adjournment session of this intricate game became virtually the most colorful and gripping in the history of chess.” Now the “good” stuff really begins, and what follows is so complicated that it boggles the mind. 42…Ra3+ 43.c3 Rha8! And not 43…a1=Q 44.Rxa1 Rxa1 45.Rh4 Rha8 46.Rh7+ Kf8 47.Rh8+ with a draw. 44.Rh4 e5! This gives black’s King access to e6. 45.Rh7+ Ke6 46.Re7+ Kd6 47.Rxe5 Rxc3+ 48.Kf2 Rc2+ 49.Ke1 Kxd7 50.Rexd5+ Kc6 51.Rd6+ Kb7 52.Rd7+ Ka6 Black’s King has escaped the assault by white’s Rooks, and though he’s a piece down, his armada of queenside pawns is hard to deal with. 53.R7d2 Rxd2 54.Kxd2 b4 55.h4 Kb5 56.h5! White creates his own passed pawn! 56…c4 57.Ra1! Far easier for Black was 57.h6 c3+ 58.Kd3 a1=Q 59.Rxa1 Rxa1 60.h7 Rd1+ 61.Ke2 Rd2+ 62.Ke1 Rh2 63.h8=Q Rxh8 64.Bxh8 Kc4 and black’s pawns will win the game. 57…gxh5 58.g6 h4! 59.g7! A nice Kasparov quote: “Brilliant play by both sides – their imagination in this ending is truly inexhaustible! Black would win mundanely after 59.Bxh4? Rg8 60.Rxa2 Rxg6 61.Ra8 c3+. 59…h3 60.Be7! Threatening to promote the g-pawn by Bf8. 60…Rg8 61.Bf8 Entombing black’s Rook. The resulting position is simply incredible. I’ll share a Botvinnik quote here: “Fischer finds a paradoxical solution: he stalemates his own Rook, but blocks white’s passed pawn and ties his Bishop to it. Now five passed pawns are fighting against the white Rook. Nothing similar had previously occurred in chess. Spassky was astounded and he lost. Soon Smyslov found a draw for White, but would he have found it at the board, sitting opposite Fischer?” 61…h2 62.Kc2 Kc6 63.Rd1! This excellent move traps the enemy King on the queenside and should draw. 63…b3+ 64.Kc3 h1=Q The best chance, which forces the Rook off the d-file and let’s black’s King penetrate to the kingside. Black gets nowhere fast with 64…f4 65.Rd6+ Kc7 66.Rd1 f3 67.Kb2 f2 68.Kc3 Kc6 69.Kd6+ Kc7 70.Rd1. 65.Rxh1 Kd5 66.Kb2 f4 67.Rd1+ Ke4 68.Rc1 Kd3 Both players have played flawlessly since move 42, which is actually quite remarkable. Now, though, Spassky cracks from the pressure. 69.Rd1+?? 69.Rc3+! would have drawn: 69…Kd4 70.Rf3 c3+ 71.Ka1 (71.Rxc3 a1=Q+ 72.Kxa1 Kxc3) 71…c2 72.Rxf4+ Kc3 73.Rf3+ Kd2 74.Ba3! (The only move!) 74…Rxg7 75.Rxb3 Rc7 76.Bb2 (and not 76.Kxa2?? Ra7 and Black wins), =. After 69.Rd1+ Black wins by force. 69…Ke2 70.Rc1 f3 71.Bc5 Rxg7 72.Rxc4 Rd7 73.Re4+ Kf1 74.Bd4 f2, 0-1. After 75.Rf4 Rxd4 76.Rxd4 Ke2 77.Re4+ Kf3 78.Re8 f1=Q (78…a1=Q+ also did the job) 79.Rf8+ Ke2 80.Rxf1 Kxf1 81.Ka1 Ke2 82.Kb2 Kd3 83.Ka1 Kc4 (and not 83…Kc3?? Stalemate!) 84.Kb2 a1=Q+ 85. Kxa1 Kc3 86.Kb1 b2 there wouldn’t be any reason for White to continue the game. Why do I prefer this game (which I consider to be the best of all time) to the Kasparov victory? Because, where the Topalov – Kasparov brilliancy was a one man show, the Fischer game offers us an epic strategic struggle that takes us through a tense opening (going after enemy weaknesses but giving White some dynamic compensation), an even more tense middlegame (material vs. white’s dynamics), and an insanely complex and original endgame (which almost defies description). Both players gave it their all. Our final game was my childhood favorite, and I’m still crazy about it many decades after the love affair started. What to look for in Game Three: This game starts out as a positional contest but soon turns tactical. Here are its basic features: 1) White plays the opening quite well and is soon building up a very threatening initiative on the queenside. 2) By advancing his queenside pawns, White makes use of the time-honored Minority Attack – he will push his b-pawn to b5 and create serious pawn weaknesses in the enemy camp. 3) Understanding that he’s ultimately doomed on the queenside, Black pushes his hpawn (moves 20 and 22) to h4, which loosens up white’s protective kingside pawn structure. 4) Just when it seems that White is having his way with the game, Alekhine tosses a bomb on the board via 26…Re3!! (taking aim at that loosened g3-pawn). Suddenly Black is threatening all sorts of things and White is forced to adjust to the new situation. 5) White doesn’t defend properly and drowns under a sea of Alekhine tactics. The final tactic is based on two undefended pieces (b7-Knight and f3-Rook), and on an odd, quite beautiful, anomaly which stops white’s Rook from giving support to its Knight. R. Reti – A. Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925 1.g3 e5 2.Nf3 e4 3.Nd4 d5 4.d3 exd3 5.Qxd3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2 0-0 9.c4 Na6 10.cxd5 Nb4 11.Qc4 Nbxd5 12.N2b3 c6 13.0-0 Re8 14.Rfd1 Bg4 15.Rd2 Qc8 16.Nc5 Bh3 17.Bf3 Bg4 18.Bg2 Bh3 19.Bf3 Bg4 20.Bh1 h5 21.b4 a6 22.Rc1 h4 23.a4 hxg3 24.hxg3 Qc7 Two legendary chess icons do what they do best: Reti has the superior game and is going to bust up black’s queenside with b4-b5. Alekhine knows he will lose if he can’t get something going on the kingside (hence his …h7-h5-h4 idea, which loosened up white’s protective kingside pawn cover). 25.b5 axb5 26.axb5 Black can’t avoid a weak queenside pawn, but Alekhine isn’t one to roll over and die without a fight. 26...Re3! A shock! I’m sure Reti was quite happy with his position, but a move like this can destroy anyone’s confidence. Taking by 27.fxe3 isn’t possible due to 27…Qxg3+ 28.Bg2 Nxe3 with mate to follow. However, Black now threatens …Rxg3+, so White is obliged to stop his queenside assault and deal with the impending kingside explosions. 27.Nf3? An error. It turns out that 27.Bg2? doesn’t stop black’s threat: 27…Rxg3! 28.fxg3? Ne3 29.Qd3 Qxg3 and it’s game over. Another defense is 27.Kh2 but then 27…Raa3! keeps up the pressure. Alekhine then gives 28.Ncb3 (28.fxe3? Nxe3 29.Qb4 Nf1+! and White is toast) 28…Qe5! 29.bxc6 bxc6 and Black retains serious kingside chances. White’s best was 27.Bf3 Bxf3 28.exf3 cxb5 29.Nxb5 Qa5 when 30.Rxd5 (30.Rdd1 is correct) 30…Re1+ 31.Rxe1 Qxe1+ 32.Kg2 Nxd5 33.Qxd5 Ra1 34.Qd8+ leads to a draw by perpetual check. 27...cxb5! 28.Qxb5 Nc3 Black’s pieces are extremely active and White has no way to deal with them. 29.Qxb7 Qxb7 30.Nxb7 Nxe2+ 31.Kh2 Black also wins after 31.Kf1 Nxg3+ 32.fxg3 Bxf3 33.Bxf3 Rxf3+ 34.Kg2 Raa3. Now, after 31.Kh2, neither 31…Nxc1 32.fxe3 nor 31…Rxf3 32.Rxe2 offer Black any real winning chances. Has 31.Kh2 plugged up the leaks? 31...Ne4!! Alekhine doesn’t slow down and instead just steams ahead like a rabid elephant! What blew my mind was Alekhine’s note (in his book of best games), which makes it clear that he saw the rest of the game at this moment (actually, he hints that he might have seen the remaining moves quite a bit earlier): “The beginning of a new combination – which, however, is the absolutely logical consequence of the previous maneuvers – aiming, after a series of twelve practically forced moves, at the capture of white’s exposed Knight at b7.” Really? He already saw that he was going to win the b7-Knight? No wonder Alekhine was my first chess hero. 32.Rc4 Best. 32.fxe3 Nxd2 wins the Exchange for Black. 32...Nxf2! Simple but efficient. Other moves failed to do the trick: * 32…Nxd2? 33.Nxd2 Rd3 34.Nc5, =. * 32…Bxf3 33.Rxe4! Bxe4 34.fxe3 Bxh1 35.Kxh1 Nxg3+ 36.Kg2 and black’s extra pawn won’t be enough to win the resulting endgame. 33.Bg2 Be6! Setting up an elegant finish. 34.Rcc2 Ng4+ 35.Kh3 Sadly for White, moving back to h1 allows …Ra1+. 35…Ne5+ 36.Kh2 Rxf3! 37.Rxe2 Ng4+ 38.Kh3 Neither now nor before could the white king move to the first rank because of the deadly check on a1 38...Ne3+ 39.Kh2 Nxc2 40.Bxf3 Nd4 41.Rf2 Nxf3+ 42.Rxf3 Bd5 and white’s Knight can’t be saved, meaning that Black will end up with an extra Bishop and pawn. White resigned. This game featured some nice positional chess from Reti, and Alekhine’s impressive answer to white’s “I’m going to weaken a pawn and ultimately win it” mentality. In other words, we have witnessed yet another statics vs. dynamics battle (that same battle occurred in the Fischer game). After the shocking 26…Re3!!, Reti wasn’t able to regain his equilibrium. He made one mistake and the resulting Alekhine tidal wave rolled him off the board. I also prefer this game to the Kasparov one-sided rout because, in Reti – Alekhine, both sides were pushing their position’s agendas. It was a battle of ideas, and in this instance Alekhine’s brilliance won the day. Others will surely disagree though, and pick Kasparov’s breathtaking attack. But, for me, it’s Spassky – Fischer (1st), Reti – Alekhine (2nd), and Kasparov – Topalov (3rd). As you can see, I’ve gotten tremendous pleasure from looking over master games ever since I learned how to play chess. And though I no longer participate in tournaments, I still get enormous enjoyment from going over these same classic games again and again. The Point of Studying Master Games, Part Three IM Silman Henry asked: You often talk about studying master games, but is one master game as good as another, or are certain games better than others? Silman: In Part One of this three part answer to Henry’s question, I pointed out that one of the main reasons for studying master games is to subliminally absorb patterns by zipping through as many games as possible (an important learning tool for players that have lofty [2200 master rating] aspirations). In Part Two, I discussed why master games can be a source of enormous pleasure (and gave my picks for the three best games ever – if those didn’t make you smile or even hyperventilate with amazement/joy, then nothing will). This final installment, Part Three, brings up an interesting question: are nonmaster games of any value? The fact is, non-master games are often FAR more instructive than grandmaster games. How can this be? The reason is simple: non-master games feature the same errors that the vast majority of my audience makes, and that allows me (and other teachers) to point out these common mistakes and show how to step beyond them. On the other hand, grandmaster games are often way over the head of most amateurs, and the lessons one obtains from them aren’t as useful as a well-chosen amateur game. Of course, using amateur games as learning tools calls for more than a database, it calls for the guidance of a strong player – he has to pick the games that call out to his students, and it’s the teacher’s ability to point out the errors and make their cure personal and easy to understand that gives the game(s) ultimate value (or a lack thereof). Here’s a quote from the introduction of my new book (How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Edition): “A word about the examples: you’ll notice that I’ve used games by grandmasters and also games by amateurs! I’ve used new games, and I’ve also used games from the seventeenth century! I made use of blitz games from the Internet, and even used the blitz players’ online names. I have a simple philosophy: if a position or game is instructive, it’s important. I don’t care if Kasparov played it, or if it’s beginner vs. beginner. In fact, lower rated games and/or blitz games often feature the kind of errors real players make, and this makes the example far more personal for a large range of readers.” Here’s a very recent example from a student’s game (Mr. Glover), who also happens to be a chess.com member! I highly recommend you look at my written version of the game at the same time as the board version … the instruction will be much richer that way. S.C. Radmacher (2003) – B. Glover (1796), U.S. Open 2010 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0–0 5.0–0 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.d4 c6 Very passive (but playable). It’s clear that White will get a big center with e2-e4, so Black needs to immediately fix his mindset on this and prepare to prove the center will be a target. If Black played …c6 with the idea that he would go after white’s center soon after, then it’s okay. But was he thinking that way? Here’s one example of the kind of play Black should be trying to create (alternatives for White are everywhere, but the mindset is the important thing!): 7…Bg4 (targeting one of the main defenders of d4) 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 (white’s happy to get the two Bishops) 9…Nc6 (hitting d4) 10.Nc3 (ignoring black’s threat and making one of his own. Now 10…Nxc3 11.bxc3 would strengthen white’s center, so Black avoids it) 10…Nb6 (renewing the heat against d4) 11.e3 (11.d5 Nd4 12.Bg2 Qd6 13.Bf4 Qb4 14.Rb1 Nc4 15.a3 Qb6 16.Na4 Qb3 17.Qxb3 Nxb3, =) 11…Qd7 (developing and hitting h3 with tempo) 12.Bg2 Rad8 (increasing the pressure against white’s center) 13.Ne4 e5 (at last!) 14.Nc5 Qc8 15.d5 e4! 16.Bxe4 Ne5, = (…c7-c6 will prove annoying for White). Notice the energy Black played with in this example? He understood that the whole battle would be about white’s center, and he instantly went after it (imagine a starving animal and a piece of meat – that’s how you should view a large enemy center). Now compare this straightforward slap to white’s center to the move actually played – 7…c6. The difference should be crystal clear. 8.e4 Nb6 9.h3 Be6 10.Na3? A horrible move. White reacts to his fear of …Nc4 or …Bc4, and deals with it by placing his Knight on the poor a3-square. Keep in mind that White, the guy with the big center, should be doing everything he can to make his center indestructible. Clearly, 10.Na3 doesn’t do that. So, instead of doing what the board wants White to do (defend his center), he bows to fear. This kind of lemming mindset (see a threat, react, see another threat, react again, etc.) is quite common, and leads to many painful defeats. Instead of moving his Knight to Siberia via 10.Na3, 10.Nc3 is far more natural (it defends e4 and also keeps an eye on the central d5-point. One very instructive line (for both sides) is: 10.Nc3 Qd7 11.Kh2 Na6 12.b3 (not only taking the b3-square away from black’s pieces, but also allowing the c1-Bishop access to both a3 and b2) 12…Rad8 13.Be3?! c5 14.Ne2 f5 (black’s smashing the White center from all sides!) 15.Ng5 fxe4 16.dxc5 Nd5 17.Bd4 Nf6 18.Qc2 Nb4 and the battle rages on. One would think that 13.Bb2 would be better since it defends the Knight on c3. This means that 13…c5 would now be met by 14.d5. Also, note that 13.Bb2 Bxd4 14.Nxd4 Qxd4 runs headlong into an X-Ray from the b2-Bishop: 15.Nd5 (now the b2-Bishop threatens the Rook on d4) 15…Rd2?? 16.Nxe7 mate! In a game, I can see many masters refusing to chop on d4 (13.Bb2 Bxd4) because of this soul-numbing line. And this takes us into a completely different piece of instruction: a real student of the game needs to train his mind to laugh at enemy threats, ignore them if possible, and strive to push his own agenda (this is covered in great detail in the chess psychology section of my new book – How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Edition). Sadly, players from beginner to master tend to see a threat, panic, and react to it. However, titled players tend to think every threat is garbage. In fact, when seeing a threat, their first thought is, “Rubbish!” (use stronger language if the mood strikes you). The titled player only reacts to a threat after convincing himself that it’s for real. If it’s not real, he’ll play the move he wants to play, not the move the enemy is trying to brainwash him into playing! But the amateur tends to deal with all threats (real and imagined) as if they were the coming of the Apocalypse. Thus, a good teacher will try hard to rewire his student’s brain to spit on enemy threats and push his own plans as if his life depended on it. Looking back at white’s lame 10.Na3, we see him making a move he didn’t want to play to stop a threat that (at least at that moment) wasn’t even a threat. And now we come to the really scary 10.Nc3 Qd7 11.Kh2 Na6 12.b3 Rad8 13.Bb2 Bxd4 (else White will play Qe2 followed by Rad1 when his strategy has won out: his center is huge and safe, while Black has failed in his bid to prove it’s an attackable weakness) 14.Nxd4 Qxd4 15.Qxd4 Rxd4 16.Nd5. As I said earlier, even many masters would reject this line for Black, but a titled player would dispassionately stare at the position after 16.Nd5 in an effort to unlock any hidden secrets that might be lurking behind the obvious things I’ve mentioned. And, if you toss fear into the garbage bin, you’ll soon realize that 16…Rxd5! 17.exd5 Bxd5 gives Black two solid pawns for the Exchange and, with it, an excellent position. Of course, this is an advanced moment (calling for good calculation skills), but rejecting 10.Na3 doesn’t call for any calculation at all. The right attitude, the ability to laugh at enemy threats, and a rewired brain that insists on pushing its own agenda, will make you a far stronger player. 10…N8d7? And there it is! Black is developing and ignoring his correct plan instead of developing AROUND his correct plan! Development that has nothing to do with one’s proper plan is often worse than no development at all. So what should Black do instead? Here’s a possible line: 10…Qd7 (attacking h3 and preparing to bring a Rook to d8 and increase the pressure against d4) 11.Kh2 Na6 12.Be3 f5 (forcing the e4-pawn to trade or move forward – in both cases the d-pawn will become backward on an open file and the d5-square will fall into black’s hands. In other words, instead of having a space gaining center that takes squares away from enemy pieces, the center will be weak and riddled with holes) 13.e5 Rad8 14.Qd2 Bd5 and Black has a nice position. 11.Ng5 This is best, but White didn’t play it for the right reason. If White were my student, I would have been much happier if he had tried 11.b3 when something like 11…h6 12.Be3 Nf6 13.Ne5 Qc8 14.Kh2 Rd8 15.Nd3 leaves White with a comfortable positional plus since he’s managed to retain his center. This line would show me that he was working hard to push that, “I must make my center indestructible” mindset. 11…Bc4 12.Nxc4 Nxc4 13.e5 Trying to milk the position for everything he can. The quiet 13.Qe2 Nd6 14.Rd1 gets less, but leaves Black with a passive, unpleasant position. 13…h6 14.Nxf7? White is getting a bit too excited! A more restrained move like 14.Ne4 promises a safe, large advantage: 14.Ne4 Qb6 15.Qa4 and now 15…Qa6 is probably best but obviously ugly after 16.Qxa6 bxa6 17.Rd1. However, 15…Na5 16.Bd2 is game over, and 15…Qxd4 16.Rd1 Qxe5 17.Qxc4 is also hopeless. After 14.Ne4, 14…Qa5 is better, but even then 15.Qd3 Ncb6 16.a4 Qb4 17.b3 Nd5 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.a5 Qc7 20.f4 leaves Black in a straightjacket and gasping for breath. The problem with 14.Nxf7 is that it revels in tactics but fails to assess the positional ramifications that it creates. If you look at the position after 14.Ne4, you would see that black’s pieces aren’t very active. However, 14.Nxf7 ends up activating black’s kingside Rook and his Bishop! Since active enemy pieces are dangerous enemy pieces, one should always do one’s best to keep the opposing army as contained and passive as possible. 14…Rxf7 14…Kxf7 15.e6+ Kg8 16.exd7 Qxd7 leads to the exact same position that’s reached in the game. 15.e6 Rf8 16.exd7 Qxd7 17.Qb3 Qe6?? Black should have played 17…b5 when the game is very sharp. 18.Qxb7 Bxd4 19.Bxh6 Rab8 20.Qa6?? Why? What’s wrong with the obvious 20.Qxc6 Qxc6 21.Bxc6 Rfd8 22.Rac1 Nxb2 23.Be4 when black’s in serious trouble? 20…Rxf2 21.Rxf2 Rxb2 22.Rd1?? Okay, the position after 21…Rxb2 looks horrible for White. However, if you find yourself in such a situation, and if you have plenty of thinking time, settle back in your chair and look hard for a way to survive. As it turns out, 22.Raf1 hangs on (though it looks like a rough ride!): 22…Rxf2 23.Rxf2 Kh7 24.Bf4 Qe1+ 25.Kh2 Bxf2 26.h4 Bg1+ 27.Kh3 Qe6+ 28.g4 Ne3 29.Bf3 Qf6 30.Qxa7! and white’s somehow still alive! Even if black’s winning after 22.Raf1, he would have to find a way to break down white’s defense, which most people wouldn’t be capable of doing. 22…Bxf2+ 23.Kh1 Bb6 A good move, but 23…Kh7 was more accurate. 24.Qb7 Qe2, 0-1. 24…Qe2 was killing, but 24…Rxg2 was even stronger. However, it’s hard to argue with a move that makes the opponent resign! Lessons From This Game * When your opponent has a big pawn center, you MUST find a way to rip it apart or turn it into a target. * If you have a big pawn center, do your best to make it indestructible - then your opponent will choke to death due to his lack of space. * In general, you want to develop your pieces to squares where they can participate in the overall game plan. If you don’t know the position’s imbalances/goals, then you will often find that you’re developing pieces to poor squares. * Never develop and then say, “What’s going on?” Instead, figure out what’s going on and then develop in accordance with the board’s needs. * Train your mind to laugh at enemy threats. Your first impulse when seeing such a threat should be to laugh at it. Sadly, most feel instant fear, forget about their own goals, and react – they become puppets and the opponent the puppet master. Only react to a threat after you prove that it’s indeed a real threat - in many cases you can create a counter-threat that overshadows the opponent’s, and in many other cases you can just ignore it completely and continue with your own agenda. * If things seem bad but you still have a lot of time on your clock, don’t just toss something out in despair. Instead, use every bit of that time looking for a miracle or, at the very least, a tough defense that will put pressure on the opponent to find the right path. Many smug teachers (grandmasters included) and many deluded amateurs love to rave how only grandmaster games, and the games of the world champions in particular, are instructive and worth looking at. This game completely refutes that view. It’s dripping in instructive content, and all it takes is a good teacher to make it shine. Once again: If a position or game is instructive, it’s important. I don’t care if an earthworm played it, an instructive position is worth its weight in gold, no matter whose name is attached to it!