DON’T FORGET YOUR HOMEWORK
by Manuel Monasterio
It is a simple but important fact that one should thoroughly know the pawn structures that typically occur from the openings you play. This is, perhaps, the most important single fact of our homework studies. I, and many others, have failed several times in the accomplishment of this essential part of our chess practice. My only excuse would be to paraphrase Seneca, the great Roman philosopher – born in the territories that now make up Spain – who said the following when confronted with his own inability to do what he preached: “As a philosopher, I am obliged to teach the best way to live. As a man, I am not always able to accomplish that standard…”
Nevertheless, today I will show you an example of yours truly correctly following the advice of doing one’s homework. In this case, my opponent, the Italian IM Massimini, wasn’t up to the task. This might surprise the reader – how does a strong email player fail in this way? Doesn’t he have a lot of time to work these things out?
There might be many reasons for this kind of “dropping of the ball.” My guess was that Massimini was playing too many games at once (I have made the mistake of engaging in more than thirty games at the same time, and some players are playing even more games than that). Therefore, in many instances, because of practical lack of concrete time, you must just appeal to your common sense of the position and to a sometimes superficial reviewing of the available games. That may not be a sufficient excuse for what we are going to see, but I, as it has happened with some of my own worst played games, have no other explanation!
Massimini Gerbino,M (2430) - Monasterio,M (2293) [D13]
IECG, 2003
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6
As some readers may have already guessed from some other article, I am fond of playing the Slav Defense. I suppose that comes mostly from my own practice as a d4 player. I will not hesitate to confess that the pure Slav (not the Semi-Slav, which I have also played as Black) is one of the answers that upsets me most! It is very solid, and it is far from easy for White to find a way to any kind of advantage.
4.cxd5
With this move White is somehow acknowledging his respect for Black’s chances in the usual theoretical lines. The exchange is, of course, also a main line of the Slav. Despite its deceptively simple appearance, it has a lot of venom. One of its oldest advocates was the great American legend Frank Marshall, and also many strong and solid grandmasters like Ulf Andersson. Seirawan, and Portisch have been fond of this move. It is usually played to lead the game into positional waters in which the stronger player may get the upper hand with incredible ease if Black is unaware.
4…cxd5 5.Nf3
At this point White had the chance to try a plan based on the development of this Knight at e2, with f2-f3 also involved. Instead, White tries the classical approach.
5…Nc6 6.Bf4 Ne4!?
This is not the more usual move. The most common plan is based on the symmetrical 6…Bf5. Another plan is the restrained 6…e6, pioneered by the great Lasker and also used by Ljubojevic in modern times.
The radical 6…Ne4 is far from being a modern move, unless one considers “modern” games those from 1911. True, it did not generate much attention until the nineties – before that it was seldom played. Black is tacitly telling White, “If you believed that by choosing the Exchange Variation you were going to dictate the structure of the game, well, my friend, you were wrong. You are now going to play under my own rules.” It is a move concretely designed to break the symmetry of the position, leading the game to more double-edge situations.
7.e3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 g6
Now, this move must be considered the truly modern approach. The oldest move in this position was 8…e6, used by Tartakower to beat none other than Alekhine at Bad Pystian, 1922.
8…g6 was first played in 1990, and I suppose that its “father” may be the Russian-French grandmaster and internationally renowned trainer Iosif Dorfman, as the first two games with this variation appeared in a game played by the same Dorfman and in another game played by Dorfman’s pupil, Arnaud Payen.
9.Be2
In one of the above mentioned games, Eingorn-Dorfman, GMA qualifier, Moscow 1990, White tried 9.Ne5 and the game was drawn after 66 moves.
9…Bg7 10.0–0 0–0 11.c4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Bf5
Natural moves so far. In the other 1990 mentioned game, Giertz-Payen, Geneve “B”, Black instead played the common 12…Bg4. That game was won by White on move 43.
I like 12…Bf5 because it seems to me to be the most natural move in the position, and also because I was following my homework.
13.Qe2 Rc8 14.Rfd1
Although this move cannot for any reason be considered a mistake, it may already be a sign pointing to the fact that perhaps White has not done his homework properly. Let me explain now on what I was basing my own homework. As I have pointed out in another article, the young Scottish International grandmaster Jonathan Rowson is one of my favorite authors. He has written a very interesting and original book on the Grunfeld,
UNDERSTANDING THE GRUNFELD (Gambit Pub. 1999).
The reader can easily discover that the position that we have in front of us may also come from a Grunfeld Defence. Therefore, Rowson (in the aforementioned book) analyzed the important game, Portisch-Kramnik, Biel Iz.1993. It seems that if White wants to strive for an opening advantage, he should now try the more cunning 14.Rc1 which after 14…a6 (14…Na5 15.Bd3 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 Qd7 17.Qa3! and Black cannot play …Nc4 because the a7-pawn is hanging) could lead to 15.d5! (Pointed out in Kramnik’s notes, which have already found their way into ECO) 15…b5!? 16.Bb3! (16.dxc6 bxc4 17.e4 Be6 would be just unclear) 16…Na5 17.e4 and White is better because of his central control.
Instead of the critical 15.d5, 15.Rfd1 would lead back to my game against Massimini, while 15.h3? Na5! 16.Bd3 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 Qd7 18.Rc3 b5! is the above mentioned Portisch-Kramnik game, which Kramnik already evaluates as slightly better for Black because the Knight at c4 is very strong, as it not only supports the crucial e5-square, but also prepares the maneuver …Nb6-d5. The a2-square is rather weak, the c-file is more useful for Black than for White, and the c3-square is potentially weak. All this is pointed out by Rowson. I will append here the complete game without notes (you will find notes of this outstanding game in many available publications) because you will easily notice that my subsequent play was completely based on Kramnik’s plan. No, my friends, I did not invent anything in this game, I just followed my homework.
14.Rc1 a6 15.h3? Na5! 16.Bd3 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 Qd7 18.Rc3 b5! 19.Rfc1 Nc4 20.Qe2 Nb6 21.Rc7 Qe6 22.Bg5 Nd5 23.R7c5 h6 24.Bh4 b4 25.Qb2 Nc3 26.Rxc8 Rxc8 27.Kh1 Kh7 28.Ra1 a5 29.Qb3 29...Qxb3 30.axb3 g5 31.Bg3 a4 32.Nd2 a3 33.Rc1 e5 34.d5 a2 35.Ra1 e4 36.d6 Ra8 37.Nc4 Nb5 38.Be5 Nxd6 39.Rxa2 Rxa2 40.Bxd6 Rxf2 41.Bxb4 Rf1+ 42.Kh2 Rb1, 0–1, Portisch-Kramnik, Biel 1993.
14…a6 15.Rac1
Perhaps 15.h3 was a more subtle approach.
15…Na5 16.Bd3 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 Qd7
Now we have arrived to the other crucial point of our game. The only available published game at this point was Kutirov-Zhukova, Skopje Open 2002, which was not good news for White: 18.Qa3 Nc4 19.Qb4 a5 20.Qb3 b5 21.h3 Rfd8 22.e4 e6 23.d5 e5 24.Bg5 f6 25.Bh4 g5 26.Bg3 Bf8 27.Nh2 h5 28.h4 g4 29.f3 a4 30.Qb1 Bc5+ 31.Kh1 Bd4 32.fxg4 hxg4 33.Rxd4 exd4 34.e5 f5 35.e6 Qxd5 36.e7 Re8 37.Nxg4 Rc6 38.Rxc4 bxc4 39.Ne5 d3 40.Nxc6 Qxc6 41.Qc1 Rxe7 42.Kh2 Rg7 43.Qf4 Qe4 44.Qf2 c3, 0–1.
But of course, White is not obliged to play and lose in this way! Almost anything else was better than the useless 18.Qa3? I believe that the position is rather equal, which I must admit is not something cheerful to say about White after 18 moves. Now, God knows why, my opponent, after playing a pointless “waiting” (?) 18th move, entered into the same senseless variation chosen by Kutirov at the above mentioned game.
18.Bg3?
Here 18.d5 was an interesting choice. What is the point of 18.Bg3?
18…b5 19.Qa3?! Nc4 20.Qb4 a5
Who says that luck does not play a part in chess? Tell me another reason for explaining how you can find yourself in this position against a 2430 player in an email game?
From now on I just followed Kramnik’s recipe, with some subtle personal analysis on my part, I must add, but nothing particularly special. After some precise positional play on my part, I effortlessly achieve a completely won Rook ending.
21.Qb3 Rfd8 22.Rb1 b4 23.Rbc1 Na3!
God blessed you, dear Vladimir!
24.Be5 Nb5!
The beautiful maneuver pointing to the crucial c3-square that the Russian artist designed for his game against Portisch.
25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.Bxg7 Kxg7 27.Qa4 Qb7!?
Perhaps 27…Qf5! was even stronger.
28.Qxa5 Nc3 29.Re1 Ra8 30.Qe5+ f6 31.Qe6 Rxa2
From now on the fate of the game is simply reduced to a slow positional slaughter. The only thing that Black has to watch for is not to rush.
32.Qb3 Ra3 33.Qc4 Na4 34.Nd2 b3 35.Nb1 Ra1 36.f3 Qb6 37.Rf1 b2 38.h3 Qa5 39.h4 Nb6 40.Qb3 Qa6 41.e4 Nc4 42.Rd1 Qa2 43.Qxa2 Rxa2 44.Kf2 Ra1 45.Re1 Kf7 46.Ke2 f5 47.exf5 gxf5 48.g4 f4 49.d5 Na3 50.Nxa3 Rxa3 51.Rb1 Rb3 52.Kd1 Kf6 53.Kc2 Rxf3 54.Kxb2 Ke5 55.Rd1 Re3, 0–1.
After this game, someone may argue that is just a copycat job, but I think otherwise. Creativity does not appear in a vacuum, it needs a nurturing source, which is your continued study – in other words, your constant homework! Until my next article, bon voyage to all!
