THE LOST ART OF COMMON SENSE IN CHESS Lars Bo Hansen -------------------------------------------
Master Chess Lesson 3
Text copyright © 2015 Lars Bo Hansen All Rights Reserved
TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface The loss of common sense and logical thinking in modern chess Common sense in the opening Common sense in the middlegame Common sense in the endgame Tips for self-improvement Master another chess topic
Preface In my experience, logic and common sense can take you a long way in chess. Chess has an inner logic to it which must be adhered to. The game is grounded in a range of fundamental principles that together define “sound chess”. Neglecting development, accepting a damaged pawn-structure for nothing in return or initiating a flank attack with just a few pieces and the center in a flux are typical examples of costly violations of well-known principles. More broadly, the game starts – so most experts agree – in equilibrium. The starting position is equal and it takes inaccuracies or mistakes by one of the sides to disturb the equilibrium. Contrary to what some chess players might think, you cannot win chess games by simply playing well; if the opponent plays well too, the game will end in a draw. The “perfect game of chess” is a draw. To win, you have to put your opponent under pressure, set difficult problems, and hopefully induce mistakes. The fundamental principles of chess were developed by World Champions and other chess giants about 100 years ago – players like Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, Reti and others. Break the fundamental principles and you will pay the price. At least that is how it used to be. Over the past 20-30 years more and more of the fundamental principles have been challenged. In modern top chess, there are plenty of examples of how Grandmasters intentionally – and successfully – break long-standing principles. Examples include putting knights on the rim, leaving the king in the center, accepting doubled pawns, sacrificing pawns for the initiative, and starting flank attacks early in the game by g2-g4 (or g7-g5). Conventional wisdom has turned out to be not as universally valid as was previously thought. I credit two major developments for this shift. First, the ascent to the top of the chess world by the probably still best player ever, Garry Kasparov. Winning the World Championship from Anatoly Karpov in 1985 and remaining the World No. 1 for almost two decades, Kasparov helped initiate a new era of chess that I refer to as “Creative Concreteness”. The series of World Championship matches between Karpov and Kasparov in the 1980s
was an epic clash between two fundamentally different styles of chess. Karpov, probably the best proponent of classic positional chess, versus Kasparov’s dynamic and creative style. In the years that followed, Kasparov’s dynamic brand of chess attracted many followers. Creative Concreteness refers to the propensity of these contemporary dynamic players to on the one hand be ready to break away from conventional wisdom and search for creative solutions, and on the other hand adopt a very concrete and specific approach to each position rather than the more general, strategic approach that was outlined by the old masters and perfected by positional giants like Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian and Karpov. In this modern approach, fundamental principles are merely treated as rules of thumb, nothing more. The second, and perhaps even more important, development was the emergence of powerful chess programs that are now stronger than even the World Champion. These chess programs use brute force and specific calculations, not general principles, to find the best move. It doesn’t matter to the machine if the move “looks weird” or breaks with conventional wisdom. Working with such chess programs has taught contemporary Grandmasters that many “old truths” have numerous exceptions or are not valid at all. In general, these developments represent a giant leap forward for chess. Modern chess is much more nuanced than in the old days when the fundamental principles were first developed. We now know much more about what works and what doesn’t in chess than before. As a result, there is little doubt that contemporary top players are stronger than previous generations. That is quite natural; chess is a game in which knowledge is accumulated and new generations stand on the shoulders of the previous ones.
The loss of common sense and logical thinking in modern chess However, I still feel that it is prudent to hoist a few warning flags here. There are some drawbacks and risks to these developments as well. The most important risk is probably that common sense and logical thinking may slowly be crowded out of chess. Computer programs don’t care about common sense. The more exceptions to the old fundamental principles that computers help point out and the more positions are treated as one-of-akind and with concrete calculations and computer evaluations trumping general considerations, the less room there is left in chess for common sense and logical thinking. I think that is both unfortunate and counterproductive. I still see chess as a logical game at the core. Therefore, I always advice my chess students to try to find a good balance between the general (common sense/logic) and the specific (concrete, computer-assisted analysis and calculations). That includes sometimes looking at a position – switching off the analysis engine that you have running in the background with millions of concrete moves and specific evaluations – trying to understand in general terms what is going on here. Which fundamental principles are at work in this position? In this article I will try to make a case for common sense and logical thinking in chess, not as a substitute for concrete calculations or computer assistance, but a complement. To illustrate the dangers of trusting computer analysis and a concrete approach over more general considerations grounded in the old fundamental principles, take a look at this game: Topalov – Kamsky Candidates Match, Kazan 2011, 2nd match game 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 Qb3 Modern chess. White wishes to avoid the main lines of the Grünfeld Indian Defense (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5). But bringing out the queen early on is a
violation of the old principle of developing the minor pieces first while keeping the major pieces – especially the queen – at home until later in the game. The logical basis of this principle? The opponent can gain time by harassing the queen with his minor pieces. 5…Nb6 6 d4 Bg7 7 Bf4 Be6 There we have it – Black starts harassing White’s queen. 8 Qa3!?
Here we go. Although this move has been played by a number of contemporary world class players, such as Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Radjabov, and Topalov in the present game, I have to say that I am not a big fan – on general grounds. In my view, this move runs counter to common sense and fundamental principles of chess. The queen is tucked away on the rim early in the game and will have some trouble reentering the battle. My analysis engine, on the other hand, is pretty fond of the move and it has scored reasonably well on the highest level. Still, I have a feeling that if in pre-computer times someone would have suggested this idea to Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov or Petrosian – all logical players – they would have rejected it. Chess is much different nowadays than in former times. 8…Nc6
A natural move. Black wants to harass White’s queen by a7-a5 and Nb4. Another sharp, but natural way of attempting to punish White’s violation of the fundamental principle of not bringing the queen out too early is the pawn sacrifice 8…c5!? After 9 Qxc5 Nc6 10 e3 Rc8 11 Qa3 0-0 12 Rd1 a5! 13 Ne5 Nd5 14 Nxc6 Rxc6 15 Bb5 Rb6! Black was already better in the game Sadorra – Ganguly, Subic 2009. Notice how White has problems with his queen! 9 0–0–0?!
This is really taking the “rule-breaking” to the limit – and in my view beyond it. The text move defies common sense because neither the king nor the queen will ever be really safe on the queenside. In most other Grandmaster games with this position, the more cautious 9 e3 was chosen. For example, Kramnik – Nakamura, Tal Memorial 2011 continued 9…0-0 10 Be2 a5 11 0-0 Nb4! 12 Rfc1 c6 13 Be5 Bh6 14 Ne4 Nd7 15 Nc5 Nxc5 16 Rxc5 with an even position and an eventual draw. 9…Nd5! 10 Bg3 Bh6+!? In the only other Grandmaster game I could find in my 4 million+ games database with this position, Giri – Vachier Lagraeve, Unive Crown 2011, Black chose the natural 10…Bf5. After 11 h4, both 11…Nxc3 12 bxc3 Qd5 or 11…e6!? with the idea of harassing the queen by 12…Bf8 look good for Black. In the game Black chose 11…0-0 which led to a draw.
11 e3 11 Kb1? would already be losing after 11…Bf5+ 12 Ka1 (12 e4 Nxc3) 12… Ndb4! 13 Ne1 Bc2!, winning material. 11…a5! Planning 12…Ncb4, when White’s king and queen are both vulnerable. 12 h4 Ncb4! 13 h5 c6 14 hxg6 hxg6
White already has some problems, based on his insecure king and queen positions. Black threatens 15…Bxe3+ 16 fxe3 Rxh1, and White always has to look out for ideas like Nxc3 and Nxa2+. His next move is a defensive measure against these two threats but is also a tacit admission that the opening has gone wrong for White. 15 Rd2 f6! 16 Ne4 b6 17 Be2 Qc8! Black prepares to open the position b6 c6-c5, going after White’s weak king. 18 Rh4 Kf7 19 Rd1
19…g5!? Back already has a choice between two very promising continuations. He could strike with 19…Nxa2+!? 20 Qxa2 Nxe3! 21 Qb1 Nxd1+ 22 Kxd1 Qd7 with advantage for Black. Kamsky instead chooses to stay loyal to the plan begun with 17…Qc8: To open the position by c6-c5. First, though, he pushes White’s pieces back. 20 Rh2 g4! 21 Nfd2
21…c5! 22 dxc5 f5!
The point. If the knight retreats to c3, 23…Qxc5 is crushing. Topalov seeks relief in an exchange sacrifice but this only temporarily stalls Black. White’s king’s position is simply too big a liability and his queen completely out of the game. 23 Rxh6 Rxh6 24 Ng5+ Kf8 25 Nxe6+ Qxe6 26 Bc4 Rc8! 27 Bf4 Rf6 28 e4
28…Rxc5! 29 exd5 Qxd5 White’s position collapses as there is no good defense against 30…b5 or 30… Rxc4. Notice the inactive queen still on a3! 30 b3 Qd4! 31 Be3 Qc3+ 32 Kb1 Qc2+ wins. 0–1 A strong game by Kamsky but also one which highlights an inherent risk in modern chess: Don’t trust your computer too much! Remember to add a sound dose of old-fashioned human common sense as well. In his preparation, Topalov was probably seduced by the computer’s initially rather favorable evaluation of White’s set-up. It takes a while before the analysis engine discovers the inherent dangers of placing the king and queen on the queenside in this way. Again, computers don’t have any common sense, only humans do! That’s why it is so important to sometimes turn the
computer off and look at the position from a more general perspective. The well honed human skills of common sense and logical thinking, on the other hand, should never be switched off! In fact, your chess will benefit from consciously activating common sense and logical thinking, especially at critical junctures of the game. The question is, how to do that in practice? In the remainder of this article, I will give some examples, including some from my own Grandmaster practice, of how common sense and logical thinking can be exploited in the opening, middlegame, and endgame.
Common sense in the opening The first step in applying common sense to the opening starts long before the first move is made. A critical feature in competitive chess is to develop a consistent opening repertoire – one that suits your particular chess style. Yet, surprisingly many chess players have inconsistent opening repertoires littered with openings that don’t suit them. They may play some sharp openings, some solid openings, and even some unsound sidelines. Such a broad approach is typically not advisable. Most chess players have distinct strengths and weaknesses – chess style – and the opening repertoire should fit these characteristics. Early in my career, I too had a number of inconsistencies in my opening repertoire – such as playing the solid 1 d4 as White but sometimes venturing some sharp stuff like various Sicilians or the Benko Gambit as Black. Once I became better aware of my own style – solid reflector with some theorist traits – I could weed out the most counterproductive opening choices and build a more coherent opening repertoire with which I was much more comfortable. And my results soon improved. Every time I start working with a new chess student, the first thing I do is therefore to analyze 20-30 of their games. One of the clues I look for is consistency in the opening repertoire. That is an area in a player’s game which can and should be fixed by applying some common sense. How to figure out which openings are consistent with your style? Obviously, the first step is to define your style. I distinguish between four broad types of chess players: Pragmatics, activists, reflectors, and theorists. Different openings suit different styles. Pragmatics favor being on the attack and are strong in calculations. Such players should choose 1 e4 and build an opening repertoire based on sharp openings, such as the Najdorf Sicilian vs. 1 e4 and the King’s Indian or Grünfeld Indian vs. 1 d4. · Activists treasure the initiative more than anything and are very strong at spotting beautiful combinations. These players are also ·
typical 1 e4 players and should go for lines that secure the initiative, even at the cost of sacrificing material. Against 1 e4, the Sicilian is the most obvious choice while against 1 d4 the Grünfeld Indian or some more adventurous openings such as the Dutch, Modern Benoni or Benko Gambit make sense. · Reflectors are typical 1 d4 players and prefer quiet positional play over tactical adventures. Good choices for such players against 1 e4 are the Caro-Kann, French or Ruy Lopez while against 1 d4 the Queens Gambit or Nimzo Indian and Queens Indian are the most suitable. · Theorists prefer a slow pace of the game and above all want a solid pawn-structure. For White, they will be well served by 1 d4 or 1 c4. With Black, they should build a repertoire around solid main lines such as the Ruy Lopez against 1 e4 and Slav Defense or Nimzo Indian and Queens Indian against 1 d4. Common sense is also very useful in preparing for individual games. At the 2008 Olympiad I had to face the Bangladesh Grandmaster Rahman. In my preparation I noticed that Rahman is very fond of the rather rare Wijk aan Zee line 1 d4 d6 2 Nf3 Bg4!? and has had good results with it. I searched for ways to obtain an opening advantage for White by studying some of the sharp lines White players had tried against this set-up, but I could not find anything that suited me in the forcing lines. Instead, I decided to approach the problem in a different way: Through common sense and logical thinking, drawing on the fundamental principles of positional chess. Black’s set-up has the drawback that it allows White to take control of the center and gain space. These are assets that the “Founding Fathers” of positional chess saw as fundamental. And if you control the center and possess a space advantage, the fundamental principles state that you do not need to do anything else than making sure your opponent cannot break free! In that case the opponent’s forces will be restricted and will slowly suffocate. So that was my strategy for the game: Take control of the center, build a space advantage – and then wait and see while Black struggles to find good squares for his pieces. A good moment may then appear in which Black’s pieces are uncoordinated, allowing White to strike. This simple common
sense approach worked like a charm. L. B. Hansen – Rahman Dresden Olympiad 2008 1 d4 d6 2 Nf3 Bg4 As expected. 3 e4 Taking the chance to seize the center. 3…Nf6 4 Nc3 e6 5 h3 Bh5
6 Qe2! This is a small subtlety which is known to be White’s best. By threatening 7 Qb5+, winning the b7-pawn, White wins a tempo for his subsequent advance on the kingside. The queen is not really blocking the light-squared bishop as this bishop will be developed to g2 and h3 anyway. 6…c6 7 g4! Bg6 8 h4! Here we see the effect of interpolating 6 Qe2 c6: The e4-pawn is overprotected and White can proceed with his space-gaining advances on the kingside.
8…h5 9 g5 Nfd7
This was the well-known theoretical position that I was aiming for. White controls the center and has gained space on the kingside. But theory has not yet established how White should best continue from here. A number of forcing ideas have been tried, such as 10 d5!?; 10 Bh3 Be7 11 d5!?; 10 Bh3 followed by 11 Nd2 and 12 f4; or even the direct 10 Nd2 followed by 11 f4. I my preparation, I was unconvinced by these attempts. The simple plan I execute over the next few moves instead is in my view much more straightforward: Just complete development, centralize the pieces, and ask Black how he plans to free his cramped position! 10 Bf4 Na6 11 Bg2 Be7 12 0–0 0–0 13 a3 Nc7 14 Bg3 Re8 15 Rad1 a6 16 Ne1!
Black is already in serious trouble. White’s last move introduces two threats: Either f2-f4-f5, harassing Black’s bishop on g6, or simply Nd3-f4, picking off the h5-pawn. Black has to do something but that is exactly what White’s setup has been directed against: Preventing Black from breaking free. 16…e5? 17 dxe5 dxe5 18 Bxe5 simply loses a pawn because of the pin in the d-file and 16…f6 17 f4 doesn’t help much. That only leaves… 16…d5 17 Nd3 ...but White’s center is securely overprotected so he can simple continue with the intended knight transfer. 17…dxe4 18 Nxe4 Bf8 19 Ne5 19 Nf4 was equally good and will probably just transpose to the game continuation. 19…Bxe4 19…Nxe5 20 dxe5 Qb8 21 Nd6 followed by Bf3xh5 is horrible for Black. 20 Bxe4 g6
21 Nxg6! The time to strike has come. Black’s pieces are restricted and poorly coordinated, and they will thus be unable to come to the king’s rescue in time. White gets three pawns and an attack for the piece so it is not even a real sacrifice. 21…fxg6 22 Bxg6 Re7 23 Qxh5 Rg7 24 Rd3! This rook lift threatens 25 Rf3 and 26 Bf7+. 24…Ne8
25 Re1! Following the Number One Rule of Attack: Include all your pieces into the attacking force. With the fall of the e6-pawn, Black’s position collapses. Notice that the bishop on g3 also plays a part here by preventing Black from using the c7 and d6 squares in his defense. 25…Rxg6 26 Qxg6+ Bg7 Setting a last trap – 27 Rxe6? Nf8. 27 Qxe6+ Kh8 28 Rde3! Nc7 29 Qf7 30 Re7 next wins. 1–0
Common sense in the middlegame In the middlegame too, common sense and logical thinking can be useful. This is especially the case in slow maneuvering positions where concrete calculations are less important. In such positions, outlining to yourself the general features of the position may help you find the right plan – and even the right move. Before reading on, take a close look at the following position and try to answer the question that the American Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan posed to the readers of Chess Life: “Could you please verbalize your assessment of the position? Using words, weigh the advantages of the position first for White and then for Black.”
Karpov – Seirawan Exhibition Match, Saint Louis 2012 Did you finish your assessment? Then let’s see how Seirawan answered his own question: “I would say that the position favors White. He has a little more space in the center and, in the long term, his two bishops may come alive and offer a serious pull in the late middlegame. For the short term, however, look at the arrangement of White’s pieces. All of them are on the back rank and well out of “harm’s way”. Making his pieces untouchable is a
hallmark of Karpov’s style of play. From my perspective, the position is quite solid. I’ve cleverly traded my light-squared bishop, while putting the rest of my army on the light squares. But I’m facing a problem: My solid position is cramped. Generating counterplay will not be easy. While both players have to keep a constant awareness of Black’s ideas of …d5xc4, to be followed up by …e6-e5 or …c6-c5, opening up the position, to do so prematurely would only improve the prospects of White’s two bishops. Patient maneuvering is needed. Black faces one major strategical problem: White may achieve the “big clamp”. If White could play two moves at once (c4-c5 and f2-f4), there is a serious danger that bereft of counterplay Black would be strangled without a whimper.” A brilliant and highly instructive assessment by Seirawan! In a clear, logical way he explains the main features of the position, the dangers especially Black is facing, and outlines the strategic choice Black is faced with. Stepping back from calculations for a while, really trying to understand the position, is a highly recommended approach in the early middlegame. But Black still has to make a move. Take another minute before reading on to decide on Black’s next move – and be ready to explain why that is the best move! 17…Nb6! Did you find it? And are you ready to answer the “why question”? If you apply common sense and logic to this decision, the text move is actually not so hard to find. It follows directly from the discussion above about the general features of the position. Here is how Seirawan explains his decision process – notice again the logic, clarity, and common sense leading to the correct move: “An important move. As I had decided against lines that would open the position, to the advantage of the two bishops, I began to anticipate the big clamp mentioned above. In that case, I will need to prepare counterplay based upon the central push …f7-f6, followed by …e6-e5, creating some breathing room. To advance the f-pawn, the f6-knight has to get out the way. To do that, the d7-knight will have to get out of the way as well. Therefore this needed shift.” As Sherlock Holmes would probably have added: “Elementary, dear Watson!” 18 b3
Karpov refrains from going for the “big clamp”. After 18 c5 Nc8 19 f4 Ne7 20 Bd3 Nd7! 21 Bf2 f6 22 b4 e5, Seirawan assesses the position as level. 18…Nc8! Centralizing the knight. 19 Bd3 Nd6 20 a4 Nd7!
Apart from toying with d5xc4 + c6-c5 or e6-e5 ideas, the text move also introduces the possibility of adopting a rock-solid Stonewall structure by f7f5. So Karpov decides to act. 21 c5 Nc8 22 Bf1?! Typical Karpovsque prophylaxis but letting Black off the hook a bit. Seirawan recommends 22 f4! Ne7 23 b4 f6! 24 b5 axb5 25 axb5 e5 26 Ne2 Nf8!, with a solid position for Black but maybe still an edge for White because of his extra space. 22…Ne7 23 b4 e5!
With this push Black equalizes completely and may even hope for an advantage. 24 dxe5!? If White allows Black to exchange on d4, this pawn might be vulnerable and Black could batter up on it with maneuvers like Nd7-f8-e6 and Ne7-f5, forcing White onto the defensive. However, even after the text move it is clear that Black is fine. White’s problem is that after b4-b5 – White’s only active plan – his isolated c5-pawn will always be a cause of concern. 24…Bxe5 25 Ne2 Nf5 26 b5 axb5 27 axb5 Qc7 28 Rd3?! With the idea of 29 Rb3 and – after bxc6, bxc6 – penetrating to b7 with the rook. But this is too slow. Instead, White should pull the brakes with 28 Nd4 Nxd4 29 exd4 Bg7 30 Qb4 Nf8 31 Bc3 Ne6 32 Ra1 Ra8. Seirawan assesses this as balanced – I would probably say that Black has a tiny edge since White is tied to the defense of the d4-pawn. Either way, the most likely result would be a draw. 28…Ra8 29 Qc2 Ng7 30 Nd4 Ne6 31 Nxe6 Rxe6 32 Rb3 Bg7 33 Bb4 Ree8 34 Rcb1 Ra4! Black prepares to double on the a-file, forcing White to go for exchanges. But with each exchange the c5-pawn becomes an even larger liability.
35 Ra3 Rxa3 36 Bxa3 Ra8 37 Bb4 Qe5 38 g3
38…Nf8! Again a nice logical maneuver by Seirawan. The knight heads to e6 where it not only hits c5 but also supports a possible d5-d4. And what’s more, on e6 the knight is safely protected. This is key to prophylactic and blunderavoiding chess – if all your pieces are well protected, the risk of falling prey to a “sudden accident” is considerably reduced. 39 Rb3 Qa1 40 Rb1 Qa2 41 Qxa2 Rxa2 42 Be1 Bb2 43 bxc6 bxc6 44 Rd1 Ba3 45 Rb1 Bb2 46 Rd1
We have reached an endgame in which Black has the upper hand because White will be unable to hold onto his c5-pawn. After repeating moves Seirawan has to make a critical decision: How best to capture this pawn – with the bishop or the knight? 46…Ba3?! Not the most accurate. It turns out that it was better to go after the pawn with the knight, as the text move allows White to activate his rook. But Seirawan rejected 46…Ne6?! because of 47 Rd2 Ra1 48 Rxb2 Rxe1 49 Rb6!, with a draw. However, this line can be improved by 46…Nd7! 47 Rd2 Ra1 48 Rxb2 Rxe1, and now White’s rook doesn’t have access to b6. He will need to lose a tempo with 49 Rb7 Nxc5 50 Rc7 Ne4 (threatens 51…Nd2) 51 Kg2, but then Black has good winning chances after the accurate 51…Rd1! with the idea of 52…Rd2, as pointed out by Seirawan. 47 Rb1! Bxc5 48 Rb8 This active rook now offers White good drawing chances despite the pawn deficit. 48…Rc2 Perhaps 48…d4 49 exd4 Bxd4 gave Black better practical winning chances. 49 Bd3 Rc1 50 Kf1 Bd6
51 Rb1! Good defense by the former World Champion. White accepts to trade his active rook because he has seen that he can force Black’s c- and d-pawns forward with the maneuver Bb1-c2-a4-c6. Then he will be able to build a blockade on the light squares. 51…Rxb1 52 Bxb1 Ne6 53 Bc2! Kf8 54 Ba4! c5 Forced as 54…Nd8? is met by 55 Ba5. 55 Bc6! d4 56 exd4 Nxd4 57 Bd5 Now the draw is clear; Black will never be able to break the light-squared blockade. 57…Ke7 58 Bc3 Nb5 59 Bb2 Nc7 60 Bb3 f6 61 f4 h5 62 h4 Ne6 63 Kg2 Bc7 64 Bc3 Nd4 Acknowledges the draw by allowing the transposition to an endgame with bishops of opposite color and no possibilities for progress. 65 Bxd4 cxd4 66 Bc4 Ba5 67 Kf2 Bd2 White just puts his king on e2 and shuffles his bishop back and forth between c2 and d3. ½–½
Common sense in the endgame I have met some chess players who are not fond of the endgame because of the need to memorize a lot of “boring” endgame positions, such as rook and pawn vs. rook, how to mate with bishop and knight, and how to defend rook vs. rook and bishop. It is true that in such technical endgames, memorization is critical, although you may still benefit from applying common sense even if you have forgotten some of the details! There is, however, a whole different class of endgames which I call strategic endgames. In this type of endgames, there is no known “best play” and players need to make a number of critical decisions. Here common sense and logical thinking are key components and may be of great help. One – of many – reason that Magnus Carlsen is currently the Number One player in the world is his exceptionally strong play in strategic endgames. Carlsen possesses the ability – like e.g. Capablanca, Smyslov or Karpov before him – to outplay other world class players in deceptively simple strategic endgames. Often he exploits common sense and logical thinking. Here is a good example:
Radjabov – Carlsen Tal Memorial, Moscow 2012
Six pawns, a rook and a bishop on each side and no apparent weaknesses – can Black really win this with a 2784 player on the White side? As it turns out, there is still much play in this position! Magnus identifies a subtle advantage in Black’s camp: His extra number of central pawns. In fact, the double c-pawns constitute an asset for Black as they help increase his influence in the center. But how to exploit this potential strength? Magnus provides a very logical answer to this question. 29...Kd7! Black wants to prepare the slow advance of his central pawns, but for the moment he cannot push the pawns because of the vulnerability of the b5pawn – e.g. 29…d5? 30 exd5 cxd5 31 Bxb5. But there is no need to hurry, so Carlsen devises a subtle plan: First, the king is brought to b6 to protect the b5-pawn, then Black is able to play c6-c5-c4 followed by c7-c6, and finally d6-d5, taking over the center. Very logical, isn’t it – once you get the idea! 30 Ra1 Bb3! Preventing any counterplay by a3-a4. 31 Rc1 Kc8! 32 Kf2 Kb7 33 Kg3 Be6 And now the king is kept out of g4. 34 Ra1 Kb6 35 Rc1 c5! 36 Ra1 c4! 37 Bc2 Kc5 38 Re1 c6! 39 Bb1
The first part of the plan has been executed but for now White has prevented the desired advance d6-d5 because of the indirect threat on the e5-pawn, e.g. 39…d5? 40 exd5 cxd5? 41 Rxe5. So what now? Another logical answer: The king has done his duty on the kingside, let’s bring him back to f6, after which d6-d5 is unstoppable! 39…Kb6! 40 Bc2 Kc7 41 Kf2 Kd7
42 a4!? Faced with a difficult defense, White abandons the passive wait-and-see policy. But it is not clear that this advance improves his position; it also hands Black a clear target: The b2-pawn. 42…bxa4 43 Ra1 Rb8! 44 Ra2 d5!
Finally! This advance is what Black envisioned all along. 45 exd5 White elects to eliminate as many pawns as possible. 45 Bxa4 d4 is not pleasant either. 45…cxd5 46 Bxa4+ Kd6 47 Bc2 d4! The central pawns keep rolling. 48 Be4 Rb6 49 Ke2 g4!
Leaving White with an unenviable choice. White is not happy to take on g4, as this leaves Black with two connected central passed pawns. But if White just waits, Black takes on f3, exchanges the bishops with Bd5, and penetrates via the h-file to h2, exploiting the newly opened second rank. Notice how helpless White is against this simple but powerful plan because of the weakness of the b2-pawn and the passive White rook. 50 fxg4 Bxg4+ 51 Kd2 Be6 52 Kc2 Bd5! Here too the exchange of bishops is a key part of Black’s plan. Once the bishops are removed from the board, the passed central pawns are ready to advance. Notice the timing of this move: Black waited until White’s king went to c2 in an attempt to free the rook on a2 from its defensive duties. Why it is important to exchange the bishops exactly at this moment we will soon see. 53 Bxd5
53…d3+! This important intermediate move exploits White’s king’s position on c2. With this advance, Black makes sure that White cannot eliminate more pawns with a timely cxd4. Notice that with the bishops on the board White also couldn’t take on d4, as this would set up a discovered threat by the Black bishop on the rook on a2 by a timely c4-c3.
54 Kd2 Kxd5 55 Ke3 Rg6! 56 Ra5+ Ke6
The triumph of Black’s logical strategy, begun with the king maneuver to b6 on move 29! The central passed pawns decide the game. 57 Ke4 57 Kf3 Rf6+ 58 Ke3 Rf1 transposes, and the king and pawn ending after 57 Ra6+ Kf5 58 Rxg6 Kxg6 is lost for White, e.g. 59 b4 cxb3 60 Kxd3 e4+, and one of the pawns queens. 57...Rg4+ 58 Kf3 Rf4+ 59 Ke3 Rf1! The final penetration. White has no defense against 60...Re1+ 61 Kd2 Re2+ 62 Kd1 e4, and the pawns roll decisively forward. Rather than facing this bleak scenario, White resigned. 0–1
Tips for self-improvement Summing up, common sense and logical thinking still has a lot to offer chess. Yes, many of the old, “fundamental principles” have nowadays been challenged and may not be as universally applicable as was once thought. This progress was caused by the style of inventive and non-dogmatic players that I call Creative Concreteness and the rise of powerful chess programs. However, while modern chess computers are stronger than even the best players in the world, they still cannot match humans in the areas of common sense and logical thinking. Applying a sound dose of common sense in the opening, middlegame, and endgame is a powerful, but sometimes neglected practical skill in chess! I certainly do not argue that computer analysis and evaluations are worthless, but it is in my experience counterproductive to trust the computer too much – chess is still a game played between two humans. My advice is therefore to look for a good balance between the specific and the general – and general considerations are strongly supported by the ability to apply common sense and logical thinking.
Master another chess topic
