In his introductory video to this issue, our Hamburg grandmaster Karsten Müller shows you a little bit of all this. The decisive moment in the WCh match, an appetiser for the European Cup, two exciting openings reports (a surprise weapon against the Queen’s Gambit and the London System from White’s point of view), and even an introduction to Rainer Knaak’s trap – naturally without giving away the secret. You must take a look! | | |
| | In hisretrospective, Dorian Rogozenco reviews the important tournaments of the month of October. He goes from the WCh match, over which he casts an eye in two extensive videos below, to the Russian individual championships, from the European Club Cup to the Essent tournament in the Netherlands. With the range of high class games on offer, it was not difficult for him to discover a whole series of new opening ideas and tactical finesses that you absolutely must not miss. |
Anand annotatesVishy Anand defeated Vladimir Kramnik 6.5:4.5 to defend in majestic fashion his title as world champion. The opening two games in Bonn were rather quiet affairs and served above all as reconnaissance missions to find out what variations each participant might have. What attracted most interest was Anand’s opening move in the second game: 1.d4. In game three, which Anand annotates extensively from the first to the last move in three audio clips and to which he has provided a lot of variations, the World Champion first played in the Meran Variation of the Queen’s Gambit the rarer move 8...a6 and then an innovation for top level chess: 14...Bb7. As Anand explains in his comments, in preparation he had analysed the position extensively with his team, especially Rustam Kasimdzhanov. After Anand’s 17...Rg4 Kramnik devoted almost an hour to his next move and found the best reply with 18.Bf4. Anand meticulously explains the moves which followed up till the critical position after Kramnik’s error 29.Ra3 and on the way gives a whole series of breathtaking variations. | | The key move of the WCh: Anand’s 14...Bb7 Anand annotates
Game 3 - Part 1
|
Anand annotates
Game 3 - Part 2
| | The second audio clip continues in the critical phase of the game from move 31, at which point both players had only approximately 10 minutes' thinking time left. Anand explains why his move 31...Bg4 was a mistake and how Kramnik could have saved the draw by sacrificing the exchange, thanks to his queenside passed pawn in conjunction with the open black king position. But in time trouble Kramnik too went wrong and let himself be tempted into 32.f3 – a move which decisively weakens the second rank. |
But the game was still not yet absolutely over. When, two moves later, Anand missed a clear winning continuation, his seconds almost fainted according to Anand himself. But as he demonstrates in his detailed analysis, after 33...Bh3 Black is still clearly winning. After Kramnik’s counter 34.a5 the game was decided, Anand won the white queen and blockaded the a-pawn the only remaining hope for White. Against Kramnik in particular, who had got off to a good start in all his previous WCh matches (against Kasparov, Leko and Topalov), it was an exhilarating feeling for Anand to take the lead in round 3 – even more so with such a convincing game with the black pieces. | |
Anand annotates
Game 3 - Part 3
|
Anand annotates
Game 5 - Part 1
| | The fifth game turned out in the long run to be almost a complete duplicate of the third one. As Anand points out in his audio commentary, it was in the nature of things that the same variation as in game three would appear on the board. This was because he had counted on the fact that Kramnik would have prepared an improvement for White and because he himself still had full confidence in the positions after 14...Bb7. However, so that he did not run straight into Kramnik’s preparation, it was Anand who deviated from the previous game with 15...Rg8. In his analysis of the opening phase, Anand explains in great detail the numerous ideas and sharp tactical motifs in this position. And in contrast to Kramnik, who was soon having to work out his moves over the board again, the World Champion was able to follow his team’s preparation all the way to move 21. According to Anand, Kramnik’s next move (22.Ra3) is an inaccuracy - the same move which also contributed in no inconsiderable fashion to Kramnik’s defeat in the third game. |
The disadvantage of 22.Ra3 is that the rook is not really doing anything on the third rank and that with 22...Rac8 Black can take control of the open c-file and force White to retreat his rook to a1. After this, Anand manoeuvred his queen via c5 and e5 to f6, so that the position opposite appeared. Remarkably, both sides were quite pleased with this same position; Kramnik had aimed for the position just like Anand. Here, however, the challenger had to recognise that taking the d4-pawn (followed by Rd1) fails to moves such as Ne5 then f3 or the rook manoeuvre Rc5-g5. But, shortly after this, something strange occurred: Anand had always had in mind that White could not play Nxd4, but as he looked at his opponent after his 28th move, he had the feeling that Kramnik would commit exactly that decisive mistake. What had to happen happened, and Anand played the following moves at blitz tempo, secure in the knowledge that 34...Ne3 wins the game. | | Anand annotates
Game 5 - Part 2
|
Veni, vidi, Vishy!During the match itself GM Dorian Rogozenco was already annotating all the games for Spiegel-Online. On this DVD he spends more than an hour characterising the course of the match in video format and putting the critical moments under the microscope. In the first videohe deals with games 1 to 3, with game three, Anand’s first victory, taking up most of the space. | |
Video on game
1 to 3
|
Key move for the WCh: Anand’s 14...Bb7
| | After the first two relatively quiet opening games – the main subject of interest was merely Anand’s opening move in game 2: 1.d4 – the World Champion came up with an innovation (14...Bb7) in the Meran Variation of the Queen’s Gambit, a move which would turn out to be decisive in the match. In the video Rogozenco explains the consequences of this innovation in the light of theory up till that date. His conclusion: no matter what is the objective quality of the move, it was an excellent practical decision. It took Kramnik out of his prepared main lines at an early stage and forced him into the sort of position which is very concrete and very hard to play over the board without pre-knowledge. Rogozenco elucidates this sharp game with its two extremely exposed kings and shows you the routes which Kramnik might have taken to save the draw. |
In the fourth game Anand once more opened with 1.d4, but could not turn his minimal advantage into anything. At the start of this video, Rogozenco shows how Kramnik cleverly got rid of his weak, isolated d-pawn and by doing so forced the draw. But the challenger’s consolidation phase was of short duration, In games 5 and 6 there followed Anand’s double blow, leading to a halfway lead of 4.5:1.5. Game 5 turned into a duplicate of the third game. Anand repeated his 14...Bb7 and once more surprised Kramnik by continuing differently from the previous game with 15...Rg8 and 16...Bd6. This change was enough to thwart any preparation by his adversary. Though Kramnik went on to find a series of strong moves, he had to invest a lot of thinking time in doing so and in the exchanges leading to the endgame he overlooked a tactical finesse by the Indian. | |
Video on games
4 to 11
|
Anand - Kramnik (6) Position after 15.Bd2
| | The next game did not improve matters for the challenger. Anand again opened with 1.d4, but this time he allowed the Nimzo-Indian and chose the Classical Variation with Qc2. Kramnik’s offer to head for a drawish endgame (6...Qf5) was rejected by the Indian, who then soon innovated with 9.h3. At first glance, perhaps an improbable move, but it sets Black some problems. The black queen looks a bit vulnerable, and at the same time Black will soon have to part with his bishop on b4. The consequence: only a few moves later, Anand would find himself in a slightly advantageous endgame with the bishop pair and pressure down the semi-open c-file again. Kramnik tried to free himself from his unfortunate position with a pawn sacrifice, but never achieved full compensation and finally went down to Anand’s brilliant endgame technique. |
In the seventh game our participants followed a variation of the Slav, which Kramnik had already employed frequently in his match against Topalov, with the difference that on the previous occasions he had had the white pieces. After the exchange of queens, Kramnik offered a draw, but the World Champion declined. The position may actually have been quite balanced, but Black had to play very precisely so as not to lose the path to a draw. Karsten Müller has studied the ending in detail. In his video analysis he explains Kramnik’s clever setting up of a fortress and how Anand could have set his opponent further practical problems. | |
Endgame analysis of the 7th game
|
Kramnik - Anand (10) Position after 18.Re1
| | For the first time in the entire match, Kramnik achieved a minimal advantage in the 8th game, but both here and in the following game it did not suffice to put Anand in any serious danger. When in round 10 Kramnik for the first time seized an initiative after an opening innovation (18.Re1 see diagram) and went on to defeat the World Champion in a relatively short game as the result of powerful play, it was probably too late.
Anand avoided all confusion and with the white pieces he safely steered the eleventh game to a draw, thus defending his title as World Champion in impressive fashion. |
What was the key to this surprisingly clear-cut success for the "Tiger from Madras"? Rogozenco devotes his final videoon the WCh to this question. On the one hand, it is impossible to overestimate the significance of preparation in a WCh match. When you get down to it, each of the four victories was won by the side which was able to come up with an innovation. Anand’s strategy came up trumps here. But also – as Rogozenco insightfully points out – in almost every game of the match, the World Champion demonstrated an enormously fine-tuned instinct for his king. | |
|
| | It was not only in his two victories, but in every game, that he managed to find the optimal position for his king in order to ward off any dangers or to put the opposing king under pressure. Stimulated by Anand’s subtle use of his king, in another videoRogozenco has also collected from other top games in this issue samples of perfect play with the king or fabulous attacks on a king (with an especially impressive example in the game Aronian - Volokitin from the European Cup). |
European Club CupGerman champions OSG Baden-Baden led the field for a long time in Kallithea. But at the end it was not enough to secure the title. As a result of Baden-Baden’s 3:3 draw in the final round, the team from Ural Sverdlovsk (with Radjabov, Kamsky, Shirov, Grischuk, Malakhov etc.) drew ahead of them because of their far superior board count. Three participants in the tournament, Teimour Radjabov, Pavel Eljanov and Nikita Vitiugov, have annotated games on this DVD. You will find all the games under European Cup 2008 via the list of links. | | European Champion runners up, OSG Baden-Baden
|
Sasikiran,K - Radjabov,T
Position after 43.Re2
| | Teimour Radjabov led the new European Cup winners to victory from top board. Because of their early defeat in round 4 by the Armenian representatives MIKA Chess Club, it was clear that his team would have to win their games in all the following rounds. This was echoed in many of the games played by the Ural team and also in the high number of board points secured. Radjabov’s encounter with the strong Indian player Sasikiran is an example of this fighting spirit, which can be seen in so many games. In his analysis Radjabov grants that his opponent had the superior setup; Sasikiran restricted Black’s space more and more with simple, clear moves, but then lost the thread in a sharp position. After 43.Re2 (diagram) Radjabov found a fantastic resource, which put him directly on the road to victory. Can you find Black’s deadly counter? |
The only weak point in the victorious team Ural Sverdlovsk was Gata Kamsky, whose negative result was easily made up for by his team mates. The WCh candidates’ finalist from the USA suffered one of his two defeats at the hands of Pavel Eljanov, who has annotated this game for you on the DVD. Surprised by the opening choice of his opponent, the young Ukrainian decided on a rare continuation of the Queen’s Indian with 6.Bg5; it was answered in totally unorthodox fashion by Kamsky (h6 and then g5). Eljanov's subtle move 14.e3 (see diagram) prepares to redeploy his knight to the f4-outpost, from where it highlights Black’s kingside weaknesses and the same time influences the centre. Click here or on the link under the diagram to play through the game with Eljanov’s comments. | |
Eljanov,P - Kamsky,G
Position after 14.e3
|
| | In the gameEljanov,P - Milov,Vthe Ukrainian tried out the move 5.a4 against the ever-popular Slav with 4...a6 – with success. However, Milov deviated from the main continuation for no obvious reason with the retreat 11...Na6 (instead of 11...Nxa2 in which White, according to Eljanov has so far not been able to demonstrate any advantage). After the exchange of black-squared bishops White had strong play. Only a few moves later Milov would lose his f-pawn. Eljanov deliberately carried his advantage into the endgame and quickly brought things to a conclusion in it. |
The young Russian GM Nikita Vitiugov leapt over the 2600 Elo barrier in October of this year, partly thanks to his good performance in the super-finals of the Russian Championship in which he was in there with the leading players right up till the final round. On this DVD he has annotated two of his games both from there and from the European Team Championships. Fans of the French will have a ball, because Vitiugov’s games as Black are truly fiery French. | | |
Alekseev,E - Vitiugov,N
Position after 17.Rb4
| | The first comes from the third round of the European Cup and was against Alekseev. The latter had – so Vitiugov conjectures in his analysis – had obviously forgotten his theory in the Winawer Variation, perhaps because the French is still so rarely played at the top level, But Vitiugov did not really manage to exploit Alekseev’s unusual 17.Rb4 (see diagram) and, in this complex position, he turned to a faulty plan – as did his opponent later on. Vitiugov’s analysis of this game and the many question marks it contains makes clear how much potential and how many chances for creative play lie hidden in these positions and how hard it sometimes is even for strong grandmasters to handle such types of position correctly. Click on the link under the diagram to play through the game with Vitiugov’s analysis. |
In the following round the young Russian came up against the scarcely any older Tomi Nyback from Finland. In the Slav Defence with 4...Bf5 Nyback introduced in 15.a4 a good innovation (see diagram). Vitiugov admits in his analysis that at the board he did not find the best reply, and suggests as alternatives to his move in the game 15...Ba5 or 15...Nbd7. However, in what followed he managed to equalise the game, because his opponent took too long about restoring material equality. In an ending with queen + knight against queen + bishop, Vitiugov exploited his extra pawn and won the game in convincing fashion. | | Nyback,T - Vitiugov,N Position after 15.a4
|
There are other training lessons, e.g. in video format, for you in the various columns, for example in Dr. Karsten Müller’s Endgame column, the Trap by Rainer Knaak or Tactics by Oliver Reeh. The column New DVDs offers you further video clips in Chess Media format with introductory glances at new Fritztrainer DVDs from ChessBase. |
Surveys Prié: Nimzo London System A46 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 c5 | | The author takes a critical look at Moskalenko’s article on 4.e3 Qb6 in CBM 125 and then concentrates in detail on what he considers a superior move: 4.c3! |
Stohl: Caro-Kann B12 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 (4.c4) | | With 3…c5 Black successfully avoids the main variations. A very recent reply is then the radical 4.c4 (or also first 4.Nf3, and then c2-c4). |
Rogozenco: Sicilian Defence B78 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 | | In 2008 there have been some developments in the Dragon Variation. Rogozenco sums up the innovations in the Chinese Dragon (10…Rb8) and in the Carlsen-Variation 10…Ne5 11.Bb3 Rc8 12.Kb1 a6. |
Langrock: French Defence C03 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Be7 4.Bd3 c5 5.dxc5 Nf6 6.Qe2 | | After 4.Ngf3 in the first part, Langrock this time deals with what he considers the more critical variation 4.Bd3. But here too things are ok for Black, and from the position in the diagram he even examines two possible moves (6…Nc6 and 6…0-0). |
Kritz: French Defence C11 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qd2 0-0 | | Holding back with the capture on d4 is actually very venomous, because after, e.g., 9.0-0-0? there is the strong reply 9…c4. However, Kritz shows how, beginning with 9.dxc5, White gets good chances of an opening advantage. |
Karolyi: Ruy Lopez C68 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Qd6 6.Na3 b5 | | The Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez remains a popular choice, and it is important to have a good weapon against it. Karolyi offers a repertoire for Black based on 5…Qd6. |
Postny: Ruy Lopez C88 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.h3 Bb7 9.d3 d5 | | Like 8.a4, the move 8.h3 is one of the important Anti-Marshall Variations. But after 9…d5, as analysed by Postny, we are again reminded of the Marshall Attack: Black sacrifices a pawn and obtains good compensation for it. |
Marin: Ruy Lopez C90 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 Na5 9.Bc2 c5 10.d4 Qc7 | | If as Black you play the Chigorin Variation (8…0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5), then adopting the Accelerated Chigorin Variation as introduced by Marin allows you to avoid the Yates Variation (8…0-0 9.d4). |
Breutigam: Queen's Gambit D06 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 | | As the author shows, it is not at all easy for White to obtain an advantage against the bold pawn advance. The danger of a draw is high, but if you do not know what you are doing you can quickly land up in worse positions. |
Rogozenco: Slav Defence D10 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4 4.e4 b5 5.a4 b4 6.Na2 Nf6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Bxc4 e6 9.Nf3 Ba6 | | 3.Nc3 allows White to avoid numerous lines, but the immediate 3…dxc4 constitutes a disadvantage. Black can easily equalise with the variation introduced here and above all with the surprisingly simple 9…Ba6. |
Ftacnik: Slav Defence D11 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 | | The author follows up his article in CBM 126, where he examined 5…Bxf3. After 5…Bh5 the bishop is at first preserved, though it is usually exchanged later on g6. White probably does not obtain an opening advantage. |
Krasenkow: Semi-Slav D45 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 Nxg4 8.Rg1 | | Why should one not actually accept the Shabalov-Shirov Gambit? After a Morozevich-Kramnik game, this logical continuation could gain in popularity; as Krasenkow shows, it is surprisingly full of possibilities. |
Marin: Catalan Opening E05 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.a4 Bd7 9.Rd1 Bc6 10.Nc3 | | After 8.a4 and once more 9.Rd1, White can in this case choose a sideline, but nevertheless there are still prospects of an opening advantage. Marin once more analyses the variations in great depth. |
Grivas: Queen's Indian Defence E16-E19 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 | | In the second part of his repertoire for White against the Queen’s Indian, Grivas looks into the old main line 4…Bb7. Our author is once more able to offer his some of his own games for consideration. |
|