For Friends and Colleagues: Volume 2 – Reflections on My Profession

2015

Signs, Symbols and Abbreviations

Competitions

I wrote many articles for various periodicals on competitions in which my students or I had participated. The specific nature of this genre is such that readers tend to lose interest in such reports in due time. However, some of those articles are not limited to accounts of the battles at some particular tournament or of its everyday details. They also comprise reflections on various teaching, sporting, and creative problems which, in my opinion, remain relevant today, as well as some vivid and instructive chess fragments. Such articles are included in this book.

Spartakiad of Second Category Players

In 64 – Shakhmatnoye Obozreniye magazine there is a section titled Junior. Since about the end of 2007, they have been publishing games annotated by well-known chessplayers, which games were played by them in their youth. I also wrote such a story, but it was not a story of a single game but of a whole tournament called the Spartakiad of Second Category Players.

The narrative was preceded by a short introduction that you can find in the section Beginnings that opens the first chapter of Volume 1.

Qualifying standards were enormously high: a score of 75 percent. That meant 9 points out of 12, but, as we had to play 13 games and the standards were never rounded down, it was necessary to win 10 games out of 13. I outscored that norm by a half-point, won first place, and was awarded the first category title.

Gorelik – Dvoretsky (Round 1)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Be2 Nge7?!

7.Na3

White fails to take advantage of Black’s opening inaccuracy, well-known in theory. In Euwe-Kramer (Zaandam 1946), there followed 7.dxc5! Qc7 8.Nd4! (the exclamation mark is from the old books and notes; in fact, no less strong is 8.Na3!?) 8…Nxe5? 9.Nb5 Qxc5 10.Qd4!, and it is about time for Black to resign.

Unfortunately, it was not my habit then to check a reference book either before a game or after it, to look into the books in order to get to know an opening variation better, so I was doomed to repeat my mistake sooner or later. Indeed, a year later, when I was already a student in the Palace of Pioneers, my friend Sasha Shvartz caught me in the variation.

, White’s task is simpler).

Fritz on my PC has no particular objections to my partner’s subsequent moves; nevertheless, the position soon becomes unclear: 12.Be3 Be6 13.Nd2 0-0-0 14.Nf3 d4! 15.c×d4 B×c5 16.Rc1 Bb6 17.Ne5 Bd5 18.Bf3 Kb8 19.B×d5 R×d5 20.N×c6+ b×c6∞. On move 36, the game ended in a draw.

7…c×d4 8.c×d4 Nf5 9.Nc2 Bb4+ 10.Kf1 Be7 11.a3?!

Theory recommends here 11.h4 or 11.g3, followed by 12.Kg2. My opponent chooses an ineffective plan, resulting in a considerable lag in development.

11…Bd7 12.b4 Rc8 13.g4? Nh4 14.N×h4 B×h4 (with the threat of 15…N×e5!) 15.Be3 f6 16.f4 0-0 17.Kg2

Has any kind of association occurred to you in connection with the position that has been created? One did occur to me during the game. In my case, slithering through opening theory did not mean no interest at all in chess literature or in general chess theory. I recalled a game between Alekhine and Capablanca at the 1938 AVRO Tournament in Holland where Alekhine moved his king forward to destroy an enemy piece that had wandered into his camp.

31.Kg3! Qf7 32.K×g4 Nh4 33.N×h4 Q×h5+ 34.Kg3 Qf7 35.Nf3, and Black resigned.

So, I started to worry about losing my bishop after a king move to h3. I did not want to take on e5 with my pawn because of the reply 18.d×e5. Of course, I thought about a reciprocal attack on the vulnerable c2-knight. Having figured out a forced (as it seemed to me then) variation, I immediately saw its impressive concluding move.

My dad watches my friendly game against Sasha Shvartz. Near Moscow, summer of 1967.

17…Ne7! 18.Kh3 Ba4

There is a simpler way to play: 18…Ng6 19.Bd3 f×e5 20.B×g6 (20.f×e5 Bf2) 20…e×f4!–+, but I was so enchanted with the idea I had found that I was not looking around anymore.

And, I did not look around later either; this game was not subjected to critical analysis for many years after it was played. The reason is obvious. Subconsciously, I did not wish to throw doubt on an idea I was justifiably proud of. And, only recently, Fritz the Merciless put everything in its place; it became clear that Black had many ways to obtain a great advantage, and the one chosen by me, although not bad, objectively is not the best.

19.Bd3 Rc3

There are worthy alternatives here as well; for example, this combination is very strong: 19…B×c2! 20.B×c2 f×e5 21.K×h4 e×f4, followed by 22…e5–+.

20.Qd2 Qc7 21.Rhc1 Rc8 22.Ra2

22…Be1!!

Right under three strikes! In Lasker’s Manual of Chess, which was unavailable to me at the time, such thrusts are called desperado. The world champion showed that pieces seemingly doomed to death are capable of all kinds of craziness. I will speak of desperadoes at greater length in the opening section of the chapter dedicated to the art of coaching.

Understandably enough, I have never ever considered any other move, although 22…f×e5 23.d×e5 (23.f×e5 g5) 23…g5! (but not 23…Ng6 24.B×g6 h×g6, counting on 25.K×h4? g5+!, because of 25.Nd4!) 24.f×g5 Q×e5–+ is not bad.

23.R×e1 B×c2 24.R×c2 R×c2 25.B×c2 Q×c2 26.e×f6 (this is preferable to exchange queens immediately) 26…g×f6

The picture of the battle has changed sharply. Black has a clear advantage because of the opponent’s bad bishop (it has been my favorite positional theme since childhood!) and my possession of the open c-file. However, this latter factor becomes irrelevant if White manages to knock all the major pieces off the board.

27.Re2?!

. The text move allows him to create an attack with queens still on the board, continuing 27…Qg6!, but I was already in the mood for a favorable endgame.

27…Q×d2 28.B×d2 Kf7 29.Re3 Rc2 30.Be1 Rc4 31.Rd3 b5!

Correct: my opponent’s pawns are fixed on the squares which are the color of his bishop.

32.Kg3 Nc8!

The knight comes closer to the holes in the pawn chain, the e4- and c4-squares.

33.Kf3 Nd6 34.Ke2 Rc2+ 35.Rd2 Rc3 36.Rd3 R×d3

The temptation to win a pawn was too strong. Although it is not impossible that, with rooks still on the board, it would have been easier for Black to make the best of his advantage.

37.K×d3 Nc4 38.Bf2 N×a3 39.Bg3 Kg6 40.h3 Nc4 41.Bf2 Nd6 42.Be1 Ne4 43.Ke3

In this position, the game was adjourned. I had to analyze it myself; computer programs did not exist in those days, and I had no coach. Of course, I evaluated my position as easily winning, but, to my surprise, it all turned out to be not so simple. In the end, I managed to find a correct plan. As it turned out, my analysis was very useful for the future; it helped me to understand important peculiarities of similar endings.

A knight by itself cannot win the game. Black has to create a path to his opponent’s camp for his king. For that, you have to exchange one or two pairs of pawns on the kingside.

The immediate 43…f5 is a mistake because of 44.g5, so I sealed the move 43…h6.

44.Kf3

My opponent chose a waiting tactic. During analysis, I had to account for a more active try, 44.h4!?. On the direct 44…h5?, White replies 45.f5+! e×f5 46.g×h5+ K×h5 47.Kf4, with sufficient counterplay. I intended 44…Nd6 45.h5+ Kf7, with a subsequent Ne8-g7 (taking the h5-pawn in my sights), and only then f6-f5. I do not know how convincing that plan was, but I did not see a better one.

44…Nd6 45.Bc3 Nc8!

Now, it was already possible to play f6-f5, then exchange on g4 and h6-h5. But what then? The white king gets in the way of the black one! It was the principle of two weaknesses (about which I had not the slightest idea at the time, of course) that came to my aid. Transferring the knight to с6 creates a threat of breaking through with a7-a5; and to prevent this breakthrough, the white king must get closer to the queenside. Then, undermining the pawn chain on the kingside has more force.

46.Ke3 Ne7 47.Bd2 f5! 48.Be1 f×g4 49.h×g4 h5

Black’s knight is positioned ideally. On 50.g5, the continuation 50…Nf5+ 51.Kd3 h4 52.Bf2 h3 53.Bg1 Ng3 decides matters. And, the main idea of Black’s plan is displayed in the variation 50.Kf3 h×g4+ 51.K×g4 Nc6! 52.Bc3 a5 53.b×a5 b4 54.Bd2 b3 55.Bc3 N×a5–+.

50.g×h5+ K×h5 51.Kf3 Nc6 52.Ke3

The same thing again: 52.Bc3 a5! 53.b×a5 b4–+.

52…Kg4

In my comments on an episode from an ending in the first Karpov-Kasparov match, I wrote:

In such positions, the opponent’s king is slowly pushed back, the knight comes to f5, and after the king’s forced retreat, the black king goes to f3, followed by another knight check, etc. (In relation to this endgame, the specific squares and the color of the pieces have been changed). As you can see, I mastered this typical plan back in my childhood game with Gorelik.

53.Bd2 Ne7 54.Bc1 Ng6

54…Nf5+ corresponded to the plan described above, but it is also possible to play this way: first gobble the pawn, and only then, drive the king back.

55.Bd2 N×f4 56.Bc3 Ng6 57.Bb2 Ne7 58.Bc3 Nf5+ 59.Kd3 Kf3 60.Be1 Ne7 61.Bh4 Ng6 62.Bf6 Nf4+ 63.Kd2 Ke4 64.Be5 Ng2 65.Bf6 Ne3 66.Be5 Nc4+ White resigned.

The grandmaster did not spoil his opponents with a variety of openings (a line from my favorite novel by Ilf and Petrov, The Twelve Chairs), and I also followed the example of the great con man Ostap Bender. In my next game, as Black, as in almost all my subsequent ones, my favorite French Defense was played.

Komov – Dvoretsky (Round 3) (D)

19.h4! N×h4?!

Impudent play. Black does not want to defend accurately with 19…Rfe8 20.h5 (20.N×h7!? K×h7! 21.h5 Qc3 22.h×g6+ f×g6 23.Kg2 Q×d4 24.Rd1!, and only after a queen retreat, 25.Rh1+ is unclear) 20…Nf8 21.h6 Qc3.

Objectively, the best reply is 19…h6! 20.N×e6, and now either 20…N×f4 21.N×f4 Nd2 22.g5!?, with a sharp position, or 20…f×e6!? 21.B×g6 Qc3, with good play for Black. Here, and later, I am giving (far from exhaustive) variations only for objectivity; in second-category tournaments, no one calculates them accurately. That is a difficult task even for masters and grandmasters.

The main drawback of the text move is the opening of the h-file, on which White will attack. By luring his opponent’s king there (20.B×h7+! Kh8 21.Bg3!, but not 21.Bd3? Qc3), he achieves a decisive advantage.

For example, 21…Nf3+ (sacrifice of a piece for two or three pawns does not help either: 21…Qc3 22.B×h4 Q×d4 23.Bg3!, with a subsequent Kg2) 22.Kg2! (22.N×f3 K×h7 is unclear) 22…Ncd2 (22…N×g5 23.Q×g5 K×h7 24.Rh1+ Kg8 25.Qh5+–) 23.N×f3 N×f1 24.Q×f1 (24.Bd3 N×g3 25.K×g3 Kg8 26.Qh1 Rfd8 27.Qh5 is also good, intending Rh1 and Ng5) 24…K×h7 25.Qh1+ Kg8 26.Qh5 B×c2 27.Rh1 f6 28.e×f6 g×f6 29.g5+– (or 29.Bd6+–).

20.N×h7?!

My opponent was tempted with an attack on the rook, hoping to mate me after 20…Rfe8 21.Bg5! Nf3+ 22.Kg2 N×g5 (22…N×d4 23.Nf6+! Kf8 24.Rh1) 23.Q×g5. However, Black could defend successfully here too, by continuing 21…Ng6! (instead of 21…Nf3+?), as 22.Nf6+ g×f6 23.B×f6 Qd2 does not work. And, on 22.B×c4 (with the idea of 22…R×c4? 23.Nf6+!), there follows 22…K×h7 or 22…Qc3.

I solved this problem in a much simpler way, with a positional exchange sacrifice.

20…Qc3!

In such a sharp position, the rook is no more valuable than a minor piece. And time is what is really important here. It is vital to create reciprocal threats as quickly as possible. Counterplay in the center, according to the well-known classical principle, is the best way of opposing a flank attack..

For a sophisticated player, the solution for Black is probably obvious, but, for a young second-category player, this was a small discovery.

21.N×f8 K×f8

21…Q×d4! is stronger.

22.Be3

22.Bg5 Nf3+ 23.Kg2 Q×d4 (for 24.Rh1 is threatened) 24.Qf4 (24.K×f3? N×e5+) 24…Q×f4 25.B×f4 Nc×e5!? (or 25…Nf×e5) leads to a favorable endgame for Black.

22.Bg3!? Q×d4! (22…Nf3+? 23.Kg2, with a subsequent Rh1) 23.B×h4 Q×g4+ 24.Bg3 N×e5 25.Qf4 Nf3+ deserves attention, and now, White either agrees to a repetition of moves, 26.Kg2 Nh4+ 27.Kg1 Nf3+, or continues the battle in the double-edged position that arises after 26.Kh1 Qh3+ 27.Bh2 Bc6!?.

22…Nf3+ 23.Kg2 N×d4 24.B×d4?

A hasty exchange. 24.Rh1 Ke8 is better, with mutual chances.

24…Q×d4 25.Qg5

25…N×e5?

The simple 25…Q×e5 brings Black a clear advantage. Without thinking twice, I made a natural-looking move, attacking everything at once (g4, c2, d3), after which my opponent could force a draw. Alas, I was not able to rid myself of this kind of flunk throughout my entire playing career.

26.Rh1 Kg8

26…Ke8 27.Q×g7 also led to equality. For instance: 27…B×c2 (27…Q×g4+ 28.Q×g4 N×g4 29.Rh4! f5 30.f3 is risky) 28.Rh8+ Kd7 29.Bb5+ (29.R×c8 B×d3 30.Qg8=) 29…Kc7 30.R×c8+ K×c8 31.Rc1 Qe4+ 32.Kg1 Nf3+ 33.Kf1, with an inevitable perpetual check.

27.Bh7+ Kf8 28.Bd3

Neither player noticed the interesting retort 28.Bf5!?. On 28…Kg8, it is possible to play 29.Qh4 (the g4-pawn is defended). On the other hand after 29…Ng6 30.B×g6 f×g6, the position remains drawn. 28…f6 29.Rh8+ Kf7 30.Qh5+ Ke7 31.R×c8 Q×a1 32.Qh8 e×f5 33.g×f5 (33.Q×g7+ Ke6) 33…Nc6 34.Q×g7+ Kd6 probably leads to the same outcome, but via a more complicated path.

28…Kg8 29.Qh5??

Fighting spirit triumphs over reason – this reminded me of a phrase from Bronstein’s book about the 1953 Candidates Tournament. My opponent does not want to repeat moves, but playing for a win turns out to be playing for a loss.

29…Q×g4+ 30.Q×g4 N×g4 31.Rh4 f5

Black has too many pawns for the exchange, and his opponent does not manage to win a piece.

32.Rb1 b6 33.Kg3?! B×c2!

A straightforward tactic: 34.Rc1 Rc3.

34.B×c2 R×c2 35.f3 Rc3 36.Kf4 Nf6 37.Re1 Kf7 38.Re3? g5+ White resigned.

Weak play? Of course it was weak, but it was not devoid of ideas.

Dvoretsky – Romanov (Round 6)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 c×d4 8.e×d4 d×c4 9.B×c4 b6 10.Bg5 Bb7 11.Qe2 Be7 (11…Nbd7!?) 12.Rfd1 (12.Rad1) 12…Qc7? 13.Bb3 (13.Rac1!) 13…Nc6 14.Rac1 Rac8

The typical breakthrough in the center, 15.d5, suggests itself. However, after 15…e×d5 16.N×d5 N×d5 17.B×d5 B×g5 18.N×g5 h6, White does not obtain anything. 16.B×f6 B×f6 17.N×d5 Qd6 (there is also 17…Nd4!? 18.N×f6+ g×f6 19.N×d4 Q×c1=) is useless too.

Despite my younger age and low chess qualification, I managed to find an unusual solution to the problem. As a result, I not only won the point I needed, but also added a useful little brick to the wall of my future strategic arsenal.

15.d5! e×d5 16.B×d5!

This move, when it is not the knight that is being exchanged, but the bishop, is discussed in the book School of Future Champions 2, In the Footsteps of One Game.

16…Rfe8 17.Qc4

, with the idea of 18.Qf5.

17…N×d5? 18.N×d5 Qb8 19.Bf4

Black is defenseless. On 19…Qa8, the move 20.Nc7 is decisive, and on 19…Bd6, either 20.B×d6 Q×d6 21.N×b6, or 20.Nf6+ g×f6 21.B×d6 Qa8 22.Qg4+.

19…Na5 20.N×e7+ R×e7 21.Q×c8+! Black resigned.

Not all my games ended so favorably. I suffered two defeats and made one draw, and I had to score 1½ points in the last two rounds to achieve the first-category norm. I had to play Black in both games. However at that level, color had no significance. It was probably even the other way around; all my losses of points occurred when I had the white pieces.

Lukachevsky – Dvoretsky (Round 12)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nce2 Nc6 7.c3 Qb6 8.Nf3 f5 (8…f6; 8…Be7) 9.a3 c4

My perception of these kinds of positions back then was simplistic and dogmatic. I had no doubt that the weakened b3-square guaranteed Black a protracted positional advantage. I did not sense the dangers (especially as my opponent apparently was not thinking about the natural plan of attack on the kingside with g2-g4), played carelessly, and in the end, I was punished for it.

10.Qc2 Na5 11.Be3 Qb3 12.Qd2 Nb6 13.Nc1 Qb5 (13…Qa4!?)

I missed the reply 14.b4!?, of course. Although, objectively, it is not clear whether it is worth pushing the pawn because, after 14…Nc6 15.Be2 a5, Black retains counterplay.

14.Qc2 Qa4 15.Qd2 Nb3 16.N×b3 Q×b3 17.Qc1 a5?

An inane move. 17…Bd7 suggests itself.

18.Be2 Bd7 19.Kf2 (D)

19…Ba4??

A serious mistake, and a double one at that. Firstly, White could have attacked the e6-pawn with 20.Ng5, winning a tempo in order to attack with 21.g4, which is why it was necessary to play 19…Be7. Secondly, there is a very strong tactical idea that my opponent implemented in the game.

20.Nd2 Qb5

Black still does not suspect the danger. On the other hand after 20…Qc2 21.Qf1, his position remains weak too.

21.b3!

Only here did it finally hit me: I lose a piece, at minimum. This is where the ridiculous advance of the a-pawn made itself felt! I did not want to resign, especially as losing meant not achieving the norm. So, I had to find the best practical chance, create at least some kind of difficulty for my opponent. And I made the best decision; I sacrificed my queen for just a rook.

21…B×b3 22.N×b3 Q×b3 23.Rb1

23…a4!!

As one of the characters from the old Soviet comedy movie Abduction in the Caucasus used to say, He who gets in our way will help us! Black manages to extract an advantage from the unhappy a-pawn anyway; this pawn will move over to b3, becoming a strong passed pawn, making coordination of the enemy pieces more difficult.

24.R×b3 a×b3 25.Qb1?

Strange as it may seem, despite being a queen up, playing White is not easy, and he does not cope with the task. It was probably worth bringing his rook to the queenside: 25.Rd1.

25…R×a3 26.Bc1? (26.Rd1) 26…Ra2 27.Rd1 Na4 28.Bd2

Hooray! I am not losing any more. I can chase the queen with the rook forever on the b2-, c2-, and a2-squares. And, here, I made a courageous decision. Sensing my opponent’s uncertainty, as well as the objective difficulties he was facing, I did not try to force a draw but continued the battle. In fact, no active possibilities are evident for White, while Black can bring up the reserves, finally completing (with considerable delay) his kingside development.

28…Kd7! 29.g4 g6 30.g×f5?! (for whom is this line being opened?) 30…g×f5 31.Ke3 (31.Be1 is better) 31…Rg8 32.B×c4?

And this is now desperation!

32…d×c4 33.d5 (33.Rg1 R×g1 34.Q×g1 b2) 33…Rg2

33…Bc5+ 34.Kf3 N×c3 decides matters more impressively.

34.d×e6+ K×e6 35.Kf3 Ra×d2 36.R×d2 R×d2, and White soon resigned.

My main impression from the game was that, in any situation, it is not worth getting desperate; you can almost always find counter-chances, making your opponent’s task harder. This conclusion was very useful to me later. I regularly got into bad positions, but I rarely lost because I had learned how to get out of the water still dry.

Rubtsov – Dvoretsky (Round 13)

In my last game, I only needed a draw. So, I tried to play more solidly, sometimes even being excessively cautious. But only until a curious tactical opportunity turned up…

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 d×e4 5.N×e4 Nbd7 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Ng3 h6 8.Bd2 c5 9.c3 b6 10.Bc4 Bb7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Re1 Qc7 13.Rc1 Nd5

The position is roughly equal, and White is perhaps even a little better after 14.Ne5. But here, my opponent undertook a strange operation.

14.B×d5?! B×d5 15.c4 B×f3 16.Q×f3 c×d4 17.Re4?!

is bad. Although, after 17.Nh5! (with the idea of 18.Qg4), White maintained approximate equality. I would probably have replied with the solid 17…Nf6, on which White should not rush with 18.N×f6+ B×f6 19.B×h6 because of 19…Be5, with an attack on the h2-pawn. 18.Bf4! is stronger, and only then 19.N×f6+ B×f6 20.B×h6.

17…Nf6

A move that can be explained by the tournament position. Of course, Black is worrying about safety above all, not allowing the appearance of a rook on the kingside and the thrust Nh5. The variation 17…Nc5 18.Rg4 (or 18.R×d4 Bf6 19.Rg4) seemed too sharp. Objectively, the strongest continuation is probably 17…Ne5!?. Although, not everything is clear here either after, for example, 18.Qb3!? Rad8 19.Bf4.

18.R×d4 Rad8 19.Bc3 R×d4 20.B×d4 Rd8 21.Be3 Qe5 22.b3

Black’s pieces are more active, but there is no obvious way to capitalize on it. For instance, 22…Qb2!? 23.Qe2 Q×e2 24.N×e2 Ng4 25.Bd4 leads to a roughly equal endgame. But, a tactical idea attracted my attention: could I not I lure my opponent into winning the a7-pawn? The main variation quickly flashed through my head, and I could not resist the temptation any longer.

22…Rd3!? 23.Qa8+? (23.Rd1) 23…Kh7

But not 23…Bf8 so as not to frighten my partner off. The bishop should stay under attack.

24.Q×a7?

The trap worked!

24…R×e3! 25.Q×e7 Re1+ 26.R×e1 Q×e1+ 27.Nf1 Ne4 28.Q×f7 Nd2

White loses a piece.

29.h4 N×f1 30.h5 Ne3+ 31.Kh2 Ng4+ 32.Kg3 Nf6

The knight succeeded in shielding the king from perpetual check. Black won easily.

Let’s draw some conclusions:

First, when a young player is at the interim level (i.e., stronger than a beginner, but not yet a master or a candidate master), every serious event is important. I tried to show, with my example, how a style is formed in these tournaments. Old habits are displayed; new useful (and also harmful) ones are acquired; technical skills are mastered in practice. Gifted children can follow this path by themselves, but the help of a good coach speeds up and regulates the improvement process considerably, of course. A bad coach, on the contrary, can do a great deal of damage.

Second, creative achievements are by no means a prerogative only of masters and grandmasters. Players of almost any level are capable of making breakthroughs, finding and bringing to life interesting ideas.

Lastly, I was a weak player then, of course, and even the somewhat better games that I gave in the article are full of inaccuracies and mistakes. Still, focusing attention on oversights and playing defects makes sense when solving the problem of further improvement. If we are talking about evaluating the talent and promise of a young player, though, it is more important here to evaluate his achievements, his ability to generate interesting ideas at the board. From that point of view, everything was seemingly fine with me, and it was no accident that right after the tournament I received an invitation to study at the Palace of Pioneers, in the strongest group.

Back Into Battle

In July 1996, grandmaster Zviagintsev and this writer took part in two opens in Spain, or, to be exact (and the locals often insist on it rather seriously), in Catalonia, near Barcelona. The tournaments were not very strong, but we had our reasons for this visit.

Zviagintsev had just successfully graduated from the university. During his student years, he played rarely and being free again, Vadim was eager to return to the atmosphere of the tournament battles as quickly as possible. He needed some training before entering more important competitions.

It so happened that I had never worked with Zviagintsev during a tournament before. But, training sessions and competitions are not the same. And so, I thought it rather important to watch my student’s actions over the board. Playing in an open with a coach would have looked rather strange, so I had to pose as a participant.

Zviagintsev convincingly won the first tournament in the small town of Barbera del Valles. He won seven games, drew two, and outstripped Cuban grandmasters Walter Arencibia and Amador Rodriguez and Karen Movsziszian from Germany by one and a half points, which is a great lead for Swiss system! Vadim would show me his games in the evenings, and I got creative satisfaction from the variety of deep and interesting ideas that the young grandmaster put into his moves. By the way, before the tournament, we had spent some time improving his technique of calculating variations, and it looked like our efforts were not wasted.

In this connection, I would like to touch upon a delicate issue. It is clear that the high and stable coaching reputation that I have managed to earn throughout my career does not rule out grudges, rejection of my methods, etc. Recently I became acquainted with a theory that appears to circulate among some chessplayers and coaches. According to it, Dvoretsky is a dictator who does not accept any other approach to improvement in chess but his own. By cultivating a high level of technique in his students he dries up their styles and impedes development of their creative individualities.

In principle, it is useful for a coach to consider different opinions about his work – the same goes for any chessplayer and the opinions about his/her play – as it may be quite possible to find a core of good sense there. But there are a couple of necessary conditions. Firstly, those estimations must not be founded on envy or personal dislike. And, secondly, the person than expresses an opinion must be competent and should not form it by relying on rumors and speculations but only in accordance with facts and his own knowledge. And those professing the above-mentioned theory have never participated in my sessions; more than that, they seem not to read my books at all, as I set forth principles contrary to it. Just like in memorable Soviet times: I have never read Solzhenitsyn (or was it Pasternak?), but I strongly disapprove of everything he has written. And so, I have every reason to recall Kozma Prutkov here: Speak only of things you understand. So if you are ignorant of the laws of Iroquoian language, every opinion you express on this matter is both groundless and silly.

With Vadim and Sergey Dolmatov, 2001

I am convinced that a high level of technique is something that is necessary for every chessplayer dreaming of great success. Can you imagine a tennis or a soccer star than lacks technical skills? It is true that purposeful improvement of technical skills is associated with certain risk of undesirable alternation of the playing style, but this danger (by the way, I have mentioned it in my School of Future Champions 1, On The Way Up) can be overcome easily enough, if both player and coach are aware of it and keep this possibility in mind.

Zviagintsev, in his game against Arencibia, had evaluated the position incorrectly and was faced with seemingly insurmountable difficulties. He found the only practically reasonable way out and sacrificed a pawn just to transpose the game to a rook ending – we would discuss this technical device more than once during our lessons. I think that this endgame is objectively lost, but the Cuban grandmaster’s technique was not up to the mark, and the position became drawn. Searching for a way to win, Arencibia lost his guard just for a moment… (A similar psychological mistake was examined in Volume1 in connection with an endgame in Sigurjonsson-Dvoretsky, Wijk aan Zee 1975. A protracted advantage with no chances of counterplay for an opponent sometimes results in the loss of the sense of danger. A player automatically rejects continuations that lead to a draw and misses a simple reply that allows his opponent to achieve much more than that).

Arencibia – Zviagintsev

47.f4? Ra5!!

As you see, Zviagintsev’s technique does not exclude effective tactics at all. On the other hand the ideas of distraction and interception, connected with Black’s last move, are an integral part of the skill of playing sharp rook endings.

48.Rf7+

I thought that White should continue 48.R×a5 b2 49.R×a6 in the hope of creating a fortress with the rook and pawns battling against the queen, but, during a quick analysis in the evening, neither I nor Vadim was able to find a solid way to build such a fortress.

48…Kg8 49.Ra7 b2 50.Ra8+ Kg7 51.Ra7+ Kf8! (51…Kf6? 52.Rf7+ Ke6 53.Rb7 Rb5 54.g7) 52.Ra8+ Ke7 53.g7 b1Q 54.Re8+ Kf6 55.g8Q R×h5+ 56.Kg4 Qd1+ 57.Kg3 Qg1+ 58.Kf3 Rh3+ 59.Ke4 Q×e3+ 60.Kd5 Qb3+ 61.Kd4 Rd3+ White resigned.

And now a few words about dictatorship and imposing one’s own approaches to life and chess. Everyone knows that, at some time, dictator coaches will inevitably begin to clash with their grown-up students. Sometimes those conflicts develop into clean breaks with noisy mutual accusations, etc. – the events connected with Stanislav Zhuk (figure skating) or Victor Tikhonov (ice hockey) are what comes to mind immediately in this context. I am lucky to preserve, at the very least, good personal relationships with practically all my former students. With some of them, such as Artur Yusupov, Sergey Dolmatov, or Nana Alexandria, we became friends, and our friendship has easily withstood the test of time. Quite an atypical situation for a dictator, is it not?

And will the people who know Yusupov, Dolmatov, Zviagintsev, Chernin, or Dreev well ever say that they are all alike? Every one of them possesses his own creative manner, his own playing style (and those styles are all quite different from mine), his own opening repertoire…

When Artur Yusupov was young, there was a marked dryness and rigidity of decisions in his play; his tactical vulnerability was obvious. I – and of course, Artur himself in the first place – took great pains to overcome those drawbacks and make him into the bright and deeply creative player that we all know him to be. Remember those two brilliant games in the end of his candidate match against Ivanchuk that finished first and second in the "Informant (52) Game of the Year" contest (see SCE-2, A Decisive Game and The Spectators Were Delighted)?

In the beginning of our cooperation, both Vadim Zviagintsev and especially Alexander Chernin suffered from excessive caution, lack of self-confidence at the board; the common consequence of this is the often unnecessary aggression in words. Our main purpose in the first stage of our work together was to overcome this weakness. We succeeded – if not completely then to a large degree – which led to a great progress in their chess strength and results.

The previous year, Zviagintsev’s spectacular battle with Cifuentes at Wijk aan Zee was voted the best in Informant (63) (see SFC-5, Creative Achievements of Pupils from Our School). In Barbera, Vadim was also awarded a prize for the best game of the tournament. You will see this game below, but I personally would have given this award to another victorious game of Vadim’s. Well, tastes differ. The organizers were probably impressed with the young grandmaster’s fighting spirit; in the last round, when a draw would secure the undisputed first place for him, he, nevertheless, went for complications quite readily.

Dimitrov – Zviagintsev

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd 4.N×d4 e6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 a6 8.Qe2 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Na5 10.Bd3 b5 11.a3 Rb8 12.Bg5 Be7 13.Qe1?!

I am no expert on the Sicilian Defense and can only state that it is White’s last move that seems to be a novelty (before that 13.f4!? had been played) Later, I found two earlier games in the database: Sokolov-Tukmakov (USSR Championship, Lvov 1984) and Dimitrov-Inkiov (Championship of Bulgaria, Sofia 1989). In both cases, Black replied 13…Nc4 14.f4 Bb7.

The idea of the queen retreat is to hinder the advance b5-b4: 13…b4? 14.a×b4 R×b4 is bad now because of 15.B×f6 B×f6 16.Nd5.

This assessment does not seem to be justified: after 16…e×d5 17.Q×b4 (or 17.e×d5+ Kf8 18.Q×b4 B×d4) 17…B×d4 (Sergejev-Veingold, Championsip of Estonia, Tallinn 1999), the bishop is invulnerable because of 18…Nb3+; the position is double-edged.

Without opening lines on the queenside, Black’s life will be difficult, and all his previous play was aimed at this. Zviagintsev finds an interesting way to implement his opening idea.

13…h6 14.Bh4 g5! 15.Bg3 e5! 16.Nf5 B×f5 17.e×f5 b4 (this move is possible now!) 18.a×b4 R×b4 19.h4 g4 20.Qe3 (D)

Black wants to castle and bring the king rook into the attack. It appears that White prevents castling by attacking the h6-pawn, but… no such luck!

20…0-0!! 21.Q×h6 R×b2!

It is interesting what impressions, which are occasionally rather awry, you have while watching a game from the sidelines. During the game, I felt that the move 21…Rfb8, clearing the f8-square for the king, is natural and correct. But, if we continue calculating this variation, 22.Qg5+ Kf8 (or 22…Kh7 23.Nd5! Nb3+ 24.Kb1 Nd2+! 25.Kc1!, with a draw) 23.Qh6+ Ke8 24.B×e5!, it becomes clear that the argument for clearing the f8-square is mostly irrelevant. Black must decide based on other reasons.

22.Nd5? N×d5 23.f6 Nb3+! White resigned.

Of course, White’s 22nd move is a blunder. Also erroneous is the reason why Dimitrov rejected the intermediate check with his queen: 22.Qg5+! Kh7!? (22…Kh8 23.Qh6+ leads to a draw, which, as we have already said, suited Zviagintsev according to his tournament situation but did not agree with his fighting mood for the game).

23.Nd5! (23.K×b2 Rb8+ 24.Nb5! Nc4+!? 25.B×c4 Q×c4 26.Rd3! R×b5+ 27.Rb3 Nd5!) 23…Rb1+! 24.Kd2! (24.K×b1 Qb7+ 25.Kc1 Q×d5 is dangerous) 24…Ne4+??. After 25.B×e4 B×g5 26.h×g5+, it is not White who loses, but vice versa, because the black king is in check. It is necessary to give check with another knight: 24…Nb3+! 25.c×b3 Rb2+ 26.Ke1 Qa5+. Here a position arises in which Black probably has better chances, but the outcome is still completely unclear.

About my own performance, I can say only that my modest result (5½ points) entirely corresponded with the low quality of my play. I expected nothing better because I had completely switched to coaching almost twenty years before, and my last tournament game had been played five years before Barbera.

The day after the end of the tournament was rather eventful: official closing ceremony, a big blitz tournament that Zviagintsev also won, a trip to Terrassa where we would sit down at the boards again on the very next day, and finally, an evening excursion to Barcelona organized for me and Vadim by Miguel Sanchez, a local chessplayer and organizer.

The entrants in Terrassa were stronger. Almost all the participants of the Barbera Open had gone there and were joined by grandmasters Nogueiras, Westerinen, Ubilava, members of Spain’s national team Magem Badals, Garcia Ilundain, Izeta and a number of other good players.

For certain reasons, Zviagintsev played less compactly in Terrassa than in Barbera and scored only 6 points out of 9. So, not to let the first prize slip from our collective hands, I simply had to win it!

How does an aged player, who had come to the board again almost by chance, get himself geared up for the game? The stupidest thing to do is to indulge himself in memories of the those-were-the-days kind. It is quite clear that those times are gone, and you cannot bring them back again. More than that, the game of chess itself has become quite different with time. I suppose that my success mostly resulted from the fact that, during the competition, I felt calm and never gave a thought to points, prizes, and norms. I came to know the amount I had won only after the end of the tournament, and believe me, to this day, I do not know whether I earned a grandmaster norm there, as this fact does not worry me at all. With the passing of the years, one begins to appreciate other things. Even in the past, my play was nothing to write home about, and I surely had no chances to improve on it now. But, I felt really great when both ordinary chess-lovers and grandmasters would come to me, speak with respect about my coaching activities, and tell me that they had read my books and liked them.

Besides my loss of form, my greatest problem should have been a complete absence of any kind of opening preparation. I had never in my life been a great fan of boning up on the theory of openings, and now, when some of my opening variations were just plain forgotten and others became hopelessly obsolete, I felt, pardon my frivolity, completely naked with respect to openings. Rags compiled from my own fragmentary recollections and some opening systems I had analyzed with my students could not make even a reasonably decent opening suite. So, before each game, I had to find out my opponent’s preferences and then try and cover myself with a fig leaf of some variation that could be learned or remembered quickly. To my surprise, I basically made it, though it was impossible to avoid opening mistakes altogether. Thus, playing against Nogueiras in the third round, I managed to hang a pawn in a well-known (but not to me) calm position and hard as I had tried, lost the game subsequently.

In 1992, a young master named Volodya Kramnik took part in one of the sessions of the Dvoretsky-Yusupov school for young and gifted chessplayers. In particular, he told us about his own understanding of basic ideas of the Stonewall system in the Dutch defense. His excellent lecture became part of our book Positional Play, which has been recently published in Great Britain (the Russian edition, titled School of Future Champions-4, appeared later). I took this book to Spain with me.

I have always had a hard time playing against 1.d4. In Spain, I re-read Kramnik’s lecture – it did not take much time – and then employed the Stonewall with Black three times. I won one of those games and drew the other two.

As is apropos, I would like to address the young chessplayers. Think for yourselves. If it is possible to make a successful use of some opening variations so quickly and easily, is it worth it to spend all you time at your PC trying to remember thousands of freshly played games? Would not it be better to use this time for some other kind of chess work, no less important than opening preparation? Naturally, such an approach will not work at the highest levels, but I strongly believe that, until the time comes, one should not aim for the total mastery of opening theory. A purposeful and all-round development of qualities necessary for every player, both purely chess and personal, will surely bring much better results.

It goes without saying that success in a tournament, especially in my situation, is inconceivable without some favors of fortune. I do not want to say that this good luck necessarily means serious mistakes on the part of opponents; it might take form of a successful pairing, or your partner may choose an opening variation that suits you well. A good example of this is my game against Cuban grandmaster Walter Arencibia, who played Black.

In the exchange variation of Ruy Lopez, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.B×c6 d×c6, I have always made the standard move 5.0-0, but, here, I made up my mind to turn aside from the modern theory from the very start. Some years ago, I had fed a small selection of material connected with the 5.Nc3 into my PC – basically, it consisted of the games played by Moscow masters, and most notably by Sergey Yanovsky – and decided to make use of it now.

Arencibia was full of fight. He thought for a long time and then made a move that made me happy.

5…Qe7?! 6.d4

I knew that we would soon arrive at the position from my game against Vasily Smyslov that was favorable for White. This game was 22-years old, but I remembered its ideas well because I had annotated it in my book.

6…e×d4 7.Q×d4 Bg4 8.Bf4! B×f3 9.g×f3 Rd8 10.Qe3 Nf6 11.0-0 Nh5 12.Bg3 N×g3 13.h×g3

Smyslov had chosen 13…Qc5, Arencibia preferred 13…Qe6. You can learn about further developments in both games from SCE-1, Annotations without Variations.

Before the last round, first place was shared among four players with six points each: yours truly, Izeta (we had to face each other), Nogueiras, and Gomez Esteban. The last was a very interesting player, creative and plucky, who needed desperately a win to achieve a grandmaster norm. Alas, no cigar – he lost to his countryman Garcia Ilundain.

By the way, after returning to Moscow, I shared my impressions of the atmosphere in both Spanish tournaments (correct and friendly relations between players with not even a hint of any possibility of game-fixing) with my friend, an experienced grandmaster. He explained to me that there simply were too few of our fellow countrymen there. Alas, everybody knows how some grandmasters behave during tournaments. Everybody knows, but nobody reacts: their colleagues maintain friendly relations with them (where they probably should have declined to shake hands); organizers keep inviting them to the tournaments or to their teams; editors of chess publications order game commentaries from them and congratulate them upon their coming anniversaries. But, after all, actions of those pros cause damage to the image of chess in general and serve to earn bad reputation for Russian (or, to be exact, post-Soviet) players, most of whom – and I am absolutely sure of that! – have nothing to reproach themselves with.

Jesus Nogueiras had good chances to win this tournament. In the last round, he had an overwhelming advantage in his game against Elizbar Ubilava. But, the latter defended himself with extraordinary stubbornness and managed to draw eventually. So, it happened that the following game turned out to be a decisive one, and I had a great stroke of luck with the opening again.

Dvoretsky – Izeta

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e×d5 c×d5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.c×d5 N×d5 8.Qb3 B×f3 9.g×f3 Nb6 10.d5 Nd4 11.Bb5+ (11.Qd1 e5 leads to great complications) 11…Nd7 12.Qa4 N×b5

It is dangerous to take on f3 because Black’s lag in development is too great. The move made in Yusupov-Timoshchenko (Kislovodsk