Recognizing Your Opponent's Resources: Developing Preventive Thinking

2015

Chapter I: Pay Attention to your Opponent’s Resources

The key word in the title of this chapter is attention. It is no accident that a significant proportion of mistakes (we call them oversights and blunders) are by no means associated with your own failed ideas, but with strong opposition on the part of your opponent. You do not notice them because your attention is mainly directed towards looking for and studying your own strongest moves. You should put yourself in the position of your partner a little more often, and think about how he is going to react to the idea you have in store for him. However, this very important skill that forms the title of this chapter (like any other skill) does not appear by itself.

Training it in tournament battles is difficult: you are being bombarded with too many different problems and overwhelmed by emotions that are too strong. But if you set up the pieces on the board in peaceful surroundings (at home, at a chess school or during a training meet), it is easier to correct your approach to decision-making. Even more so when there are positions in front of you that you are unlikely to successfully investigate without paying enough attention to your opponent’s resources.

By learning to confidently and accurately solve the exercises from this book, you will subsequently be able to deal with similar problems confidently in tournament games too. To get a better idea of the challenges on this road, let’s have a look at some practical examples and think about the reasons for the mistakes which were made in them.

Vallin – Nielsen

1968

Does 1.b8Q win?

White has an overwhelming advantage and there is no way he is going to allow the blow …f3-f2+. Simplest of all is 1.Rf1! or 1.Kf1! – his opponent has to capitulate immediately.

In completely winning positions, when almost all roads apparently lead to Rome, it is easy to lose your caution and concentration, which, obviously, also happens to the person playing White. The classic formula: Winning a won position is the most difficult thing of all, warns against dangerous complacence. In situations like this you have to be a predator, trying to choose out of several possibilities the one path on which your opponent will not get even the tiniest chance.

1.b8Q? f2+ 2.Kf1 Bg2+!!

White probably overlooked this ingenious thrust, which should put him on his guard, but does not. By taking with the rook on g2 he forces a transposition into a rook ending, in which he retains a big advantage. But he did not want to drag out the battle.

3.K×g2?

In the variation 3…feQ+? 4.Q×b2, the king easily gets away from the checks: 4…Qe4+ 5.Kh3 Qf3+ 6.Rg3 Qh5+ 7.Kg2. But here a new surprise follows.

3…f1Q+!! 4.K×f1 Rf2+!, and the rook pursues the king on the squares f2, g2, and h2 – taking it is stalemate.

The answer to the question under the diagram is: Yes! In the rook endgame, White wins.

3.R×g2! feQ+ 4.K×e1 R×b8, and now either 5.a7 Rb1+ 6.Kd2 Ra1 7.Rg7 Ke6 8.h4 f5 9.h5 Kf6 10.h6+–, or 5.Ra2 Ke4 6.a7 Ra8 7.h4 Kf4 8.Kf2 Kg4 9.Ke3 f5 10.h5+–.

Taimanov – Vorotnikov

Leningrad 1978

Evaluate 21.f4

Black only has two pawns for the piece with no direct threats, and that means that he should probably lose. But sometimes a single careless move is enough to change the evaluation to its diametrical opposite.

21.f4?

Commenting on one of his games against Mark Taimanov, Mikhail Botvinnik remarked: He did not like doubt, which often led to rushed decisions. Taimanov himself also acknowledges the fairness of that characterization: I often make natural moves without thinking, and sometimes even completely let my opponent’s ‘time trouble rhythm’ draw me in.

White was reckoning on 21…Nc6 22.B×g4 fg 23.Q×g4+–, and missed the very strong counter-blow.

21…Nf3!! 22.R×f3?! Mistakes never come singly! 22.N2xf3?! Ne3+ 23.Kg1 N×d1 24.R×d1 B×f4 does not promise chances for salvation either, but 22.Nc4! is considerably more stubborn. However, in the variation 22…Nfh2+! 23.Kg1 B×f4 24.Bc1 B×c1 25.R×c1 b5!, Black retains an overwhelming advantage.

22…Qh4! 23.Rg3 (the only defense to the threat of mate on h1) 23…Qh1+ 24.Rg1 Ne3+ 25.Kf2 Qh2+ White resigned.

The center of gravity in these examples is not in determining the strongest continuation (there may be several good moves), but in avoiding a tempting but erroneous path. Still, let’s try to make the best choice for White.

(you can also play this way after a preliminary exchange of pawns on g6). Since White is a piece up, simplifying the position is favorable in principle. The ingenious try 21…N×c4 22.B×c4 Bg3!? (and if 23.R×g3?, then 23…Qh4 24.R×g4 Qh1+ 25.Rg1 Qh3+ with perpetual check), suggested by Artur Yusupov, is refuted by 23.hg hg 24.Qb3!, preparing the decisive blow 25.B×f7+!.

Another way to force a simplification, 21.Ne4 fe 22.B×g4, looks worse: after 22…Nd3 Black is left with good compensation for the piece.

The most energetic and strongest decision is associated with switching to a counterattack: 21.hg hg 22.c4!, and if 22…c5, then 23.N×f5! gf 24.B×g4 fg 25.Q×g4+! with unavoidable mate.

It is much more difficult to evaluate the following position than the two previous ones.

Hodgson – M. Gurevich

European Team Championship Haifa 1989

Is 31…Rfc8 worth playing?

It is clear that Black’s initiative compensates for being two pawns down, especially since he can immediately win one of them back (only not by 31… Q×c4?? because of 32.Q×f8+!). The only question is whether he will find a way to convert his activity into a decisive attack.

The move 31…Rfc8?!, creating the difficult-to-repel threat of 32…Q×c4, at first glance solves the problem convincingly. But Mikhail Gurevich rejected it, finding the ingenious refutation 32.R×d5! Q×c4 33.Qb2!! Qc6 (33…B×b2? 34.bc is bad), and now not 34.Rc5? Qa6! 35.R×c8+ (35.Re5 R×c2!–+) 35… R×c8 36.Qc1 Qa5–+, but 34.Rd4! – here White at least is not worse.

Black could simply play 31…dc!? 32.Rd6 (32.Qd6 Qc8) 32…Qc7, intending 33… cb 34.ab Qc3. The initiative remains in his hands, although breaking through his opponent’s defenses will not be easy.

The consequences of the move that the grandmaster made, 31…Rfd8!? are rather unclear as well. The variation 32.cd Qc3 33.Rd4 Rbc8 34.Qb2 Q×b2+ 35.K×b2 B×d4+ 36.ed R×d5 37.B×e4 R×d4 leads to a better endgame for Black (the only question is by how much). However, White has the defensive resource 32.Kc1! at his disposal, repelling the threat 32…Q×c4 and simultaneously preventing 32…dc? because of 33.R×d8+ R×d8 34.Rd1+–. Black maintains the tension by 32…a5!?.

32.c5?! Rb5 33.B×e4 R×c5

White’s position looks alarming both after 34.Rc1 R×c1+ 35.R×c1 Qb6, with a subsequent 36…Q×e3, and after 34.Bd3 Qd6! (preventing the move 35.Rc1 and pointing the queen in the direction of e5). But both of these were much better than the capture of the a7-pawn that occurred in the game. Julian Hodgson clearly underestimated the danger his king was facing.

34.Q×a7? Rc8 35.B×d5 Qb5

35…R×d5! 36.Rc1 Rd1!! 37.Rhxd1 Qe4+ decides matters more quickly and impressively.

36.Rd2 (36.Qf7 Rc1+!; 36.Be4 Qe8!) 36…R×d5 37.Qf7 Rd6! 38.Rc2 Q×f5 39.Rhc1 Q×c2+! White resigned.

It often happens that when a player is enthusiastic about the combinational idea he is found, he does not have the time or the patience to check it. As a result he does not notice a refutation; sometimes a fairly simple one.

Simagin – Beilin

Vilnius 1946

Find the combination and evaluate its correctness.

Vladimir Simagin was seduced by the tactical idea 1.Ng6? fg 2.R×e6 Qf7 3.N×b7. His opponent replied 3…Nd5!, and taking the knight leads to mate 4… Q×f2+ 5.Kh1 Qf1+; otherwise, Black retains his extra piece. There followed 4.Re2 Q×b7 5.Rc5 Rad8 6.Re5 Qf7!–+ (again the same motif; however, 6…Rf5–+ is also enough).

White should recognize that he does not have an advantage and limit himself to a peaceful move: most likely it makes sense to exchange off the strong bishop, 1.N×b7=.

On the other hand, when you find an apparently strong retort by your opponent, you do not always have to reject your idea immediately. Sometimes that retort in its turn runs into a refutation. The next example had already become a classic a long time ago.

Short – Miles

British Championship, Brighton 1984

This time there is no leading question under the diagram as there has been for each of the previous exercises. They directed your attention towards solving a specific problem and thereby made the search for the right answer easier. From now on in most cases I will do without these hints.

However, sometimes it is essential nevertheless. For example, it is highly likely that in solving the position from the game Taimanov-Vorotnikov, a player with a good positional instinct would quickly find the strong idea of opening the h-file in combination with the a1-h8 diagonal. And then he probably would not pay any attention to the move 21.f4?, which means he would not train himself to look for its hidden refutation – in other words, the exercise would not achieve its aim.

In the position in the last diagram White has a strong extra pawn with well-positioned pieces. The move made in the game, 22.a3, retained a big advantage for him.

But could White not end the battle immediately? Nigel Short decided not to win the exchange by 22.Nb6! because of the beautiful counter-blow 22…Ne2!. Taking either of the black pieces leads to mate: 23.N×d7? Rc1+ 24.R×c1 R×c1# or 23.B×e2? Q×d1+ 24.B×d1 Rc1#.

We are left with the deflecting/attracting blow 23.Qf8+!!, (which went unnoticed by both players) as a result of which White is left with a big material advantage.

A sharp opening duel unfolded in the following game.

Sax – Veingold

Tallinn 1979

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.Bh4 (more often the bishop retreats to f4 or e3) 9…N×e4 10.Qf4 Ng5 11.N×c6 bc 12.Qa4 Qb6 13.f4 Nh7 14.f5 Rb8 15.fe B×e6 16.Bc4 Be7 17.B×e7 K×e7 18.B×e6 fe 19.Qg4 Qe3+

A slightly unusual situation: in the course of the last few moves Black could take on b2 with check, but he did not do so, and he was right! For example, in the game Vasiukov-Zurakhov, 1960, after 19…Q×b2+?! 20.Kd2 Ng5? (20…Rhf8 is better) 21.Rb1 Qa3 22.h4 Nf7 23.Rhe1 e5 24.Rf1, White created a winning attack.

20.Rd2 Ng5

Gyula Sax played carefully, 21.Nd1?!, and did not get anything out of it.

21…Qe4 22.Qg3 Qe5 23.Q×e5 (he has to exchange queens: after 23.Qf2 Ne4 24.Qa7+ Kf6 the advantage is on Black’s side) 23…de 24.Re1 Nf7 with approximate equality. It is no worse for Black either with 24…Rhd8 25.R×d8 R×d8 26.R×e5 Rd5, as occurred in the game Westerinen-Csom, Las Palmas, 1978.

Natural and best is the move 21.h4!. I will risk suggesting that Sax rejected it because of the counter-blow 21…R×b2?, which, however, can be refuted, even in two ways: 22.Rh3! Qe1+ 23.Rd1+– or 22.Qd4! Q×d4 23.R×d4+–. That is why Black has to reply 21…Nf7, on which 22.Nd1 or 22.Rh3 are possible, with a complicated battle.

In each of the previous examples, as in the majority of the exercises from the section for solving on your own, the center of gravity lies in the search for a hidden tactical resource for our opponent that is capable of upsetting our plans. In practice, tactics are usually closely intertwined with strategy: in order to make the best choice, it is important not only to find specific moves, but also to evaluate their consequences and to sense the dangers that lie in store for us on one path or another. Let’s investigate a few games and fragments in which the problem of taking into account and correctly evaluation the opponent’s possibilities arose for the players on more than one occasion.

Dvoretsky – Ludolf

Viljandi 1971

Black intends to destroy my pawn chain with the move 18…b3. Then 18.dc Qc5 is favorable for him with the threats of 19…R×f3 and 19…Q×c4. So how to avoid unfavorably opening up files on the queenside? The problem is solved by a positional pawn sacrifice.

18.d4! N×d4?

He should not accept the sacrifice, since the black king falls under a decisive attack. Underestimation of the opponent’s possibilities sometimes manifests itself in precisely this form: not a concrete blunder, but failing to understand the disadvantages or dangers of the position into which the player is going.

19.Nexd4 B×d4 20.N×d4 R×f1+ 21.Q×f1 Q×d4 22.e5! d5 (22…Q×e5 23.Bh6+–)

If I make the natural move 23.Bh6?, Black defends by 23…Qc5! 24.Qf4 Ng7 with a subsequent 25…Rf8 or 25…Qf8. It is vital to take control of the c5-square.

23.Be7! White resigned.

On 23…Ng7 or 23…Nc7, the moves 24.Qf6 and 25.Rf1 are decisive. Black resigned.

Inarkiev – Vitiugov

Russian Championship, Moscow 2008

Black’s position is difficult; there is absolutely nothing for him to do. The advance …g7-g5 leads to the creation of multiple weaknesses on the kingside, and the same can also be said about the move …f7-f5 (which at the moment is impossible anyway, as the b8-rook comes under attack). There are also almost no chances to start play on the opposite side of the board. For example, an immediate 27…b4 is easily refuted by 28.ab ab 29.cb N×d4 30.Qa1 or 29…N×b4 30.R×a4 N×a4 31.Qa3.

White has at his disposal the obvious and extremely dangerous plan f2-f4-f5. Black cannot let the pawn get to f5, which is why in these kinds of positions he usually replies to f2-f4 by …g7-g6, but then the knight or the bishop gets through to f6.

The situation turns out to be very simple: if Black has no serious response to f2-f4, then it should be played immediately; if there is a response, then the pawn march must be prepared. If Ernesto Inarkiev had thought about his opponent’s possible reaction, even for a moment, he undoubtedly would have understood everything and played 27.Bh4!, retaining all the advantages of his position. But, unfortunately, concentrating on his own plans, Ernesto often forgets about his opponent and allows dangerous counterplay.

27.f4? f5!

It becomes clear that in the event of 28.ef gf, the g3-bishop is under attack. After 29.Bh4 f5, the position stabilizes and Black has the strong maneuver …Nb6-c8-d6-e4.

The commentary on White’s next two moves illustrates one of the most important aspects of an attentive attitude towards your opponent’s possibilities: prophylactic thinking.

28.Qd1?!

Obviously Black intends to play …g7-g5. White will take the pawn en passant; his opponent can take on g6 with his queen, but he would prefer to put the knight there. To prevent the knight from getting to g6 it makes sense to play 28.Bh4!, preserving better chances after 28…g5 29.hg Q×g6, though of course White’s advantage has significantly decreased over the last few moves.

28…Ne7!

After the exchange of pawns on g6, he has to reckon with …h6-h5-h4. He would like to prevent this by putting his queen on h5, but the lack of defense for the g3-bishop allows his opponent to deliver the blow …N×e5!. White should make the prophylactic move 29.Kh2!, having in mind the variation 29…g5 30.hg N×g6 (30…h5 31.Bh4 N×g6 32.Bg5) 31.Qh5!.

29.Rf1?! g5 30.hg N×g6

The situation has changed sharply. White’s active possibilities are now limited, while his opponent intends to move his h-pawn forward, and later he will also think about preparing the advance …b5-b4. White’s position remains defensible, but it is indisputable that with this development of events Black has complete possession of the initiative. That is why I think that Inarkiev is absolutely right in trying to halt an unfavorably developing situation with a positional piece sacrifice for two pawns.

31.B×f5! ef 32.N×f5 Ka6 33.Qf3?!

The latest inaccuracy. It is better to play 33.Bh2!?, intending 34.Qh5, and if 33…h5, then 34.Ne3 with a subsequent f4-f5.

33…h5!?

Nikita Vitiugov saw the variation 33…Rf8 34.Ne3 Ne7 35.f5 (a blockade on the f5-square cannot be allowed) 35…N×f5 36.N×f5 R×f5 37.Q×f5 Q×g3 38.Qf3 with approximately equal chances, but he decided that he has a right to fight for an advantage.

34.Ne3 h4 35.Bh2 h3 36.g4 Nh4 37.Qg3 Rb7! 38.f5 Ng2

39.g5?

The decisive mistake, again associated with inattention to his opponent’s resources: Inarkiev overlooks Black’s lethal 41st move. Meanwhile, after 39.N×g2 hg 40.Rf2 (on 40.K×g2? both 40…Rbh7 41.Bg1 Qg5–+ and 40… Rg7!? 41.Rf4 Rgh7 42.Bg1 Qg5–+ are very strong) 40…Rbh7 41.R×g2 Rh3 42.Qf4, White preserves his main trump card: the passed pawns on the kingside, and with them the hope for a favorable outcome to the battle.

It is not that simple to refute 39.Rf4!? (suggested by grandmaster Vugar Gashimov).

39…Rh5 40.g6 N×e3 41.Q×e3 Rf7!

One of the pawns is lost and the game quickly ends.

42.f6 Q×g6+ 43.Bg3 h2+ 44.Kh1 Rh3 45.Rf3 B×c2 White resigned.

Anand – Ninov

World Junior Championship Baguio 1987

Choosing a square for the knight’s retreat, White solves a purely positional problem, which, however, is also associated with the evaluation of his opponent’s counterplay. By playing 15.Ne2 he plans to develop a pawn attack on the kingside, but Black still has a similar opportunity on the queenside. The alternative is a blockade of the enemy pawns with the move 15.Na4 with a transfer of the main battle to the center and to the queenside. What decision would you have made in the young Indian player’s place?

Viswanathan Anand saw that after 15.Na4! Rb8 (otherwise the knight goes to b6) 16.e5! conquers the important c5-square and obtains an advantage, but he preferred a sharper route.

15.Ne2 a5 16.Nbd4 N×d4 17.N×d4

In the game, White’s strategy was justified: there followed 17…Qb6?! 18.e5! Bb7 19.Rhf1 de (19…a4 20.f5!) 20.fe Rd8? ) 21.B×h7+! K×h7 22.g6 + Kg8 23.Qh3 Nf6 24.ef fg 25.fg Black resigned.

With opposite-side castling every tempo counts, and you have to act with the utmost energy, not letting material sacrifices stop you. Black obviously rejected the principled 17…a4! because of 18.Nc6 Qc7 19.N×b4 a3 (otherwise 20.a3 with a subsequent Kb1 and c2-c3) 20.b3.

White intends Qd4. Anand gives two short variations:

20…Qc3 21.Qe1! Qb2+ 22.Kd2 is clearly in White’s favor – to Black’s surprise he has little compensation for the pawn.

20…Rb8 21.Na6 B×a6 22.B×a6 with a subsequent Bc4 – White’s position on the queenside is solid, as the poorly-positioned knight on e8 is unable to chase the white bishop away.

Alas, Anand was inattentive towards his opponent’s resources. The second variation contains a serious mistake: on 21.Na6? follows 21…Qb6!! 22.Q×b6 R×b6, and the knight is lost. That is why White has to play 21.Qd2 Qc5 22.Na6 B×a6 23.B×a6 Nc7 with a subsequent 24…d5 – Black gets good compensation for the pawn. Then Anand would probably regret rejecting the accurate 15.Na4!.

Khodos – Sergievsky

Voronezh 1959

A choice obviously has to be made between 19…bc and 19…b4.

The simple move 19…bc!, creating the extremely unpleasant threat of a knight check on d3, secures Black a winning position. The desperate 20.Nf4 (threatening 21.R×h7+) 20…ef 21.Qd4+ does not work because of 21…Nf6! 22.R×h7+ (22.e5 R×e5!) 22…K×h7 23.Q×f6 Nd3+ 24.Kb1 Qh5–+. And 20.Nd4 is refuted in exactly the same way.

Vladimir Sergievsky chose 19…b4? counting on 20.Nb1? Rcd8! 21.Q×c6 Re6–+.

His choice was unsuccessful in part because the combination examined above, 20.Nf4!?, which does not work with a black pawn on c4, is enough for a draw here. True, it is practically impossible to calculate and evaluate the arising complications precisely at the board.

no longer works) 22.R×h7 Re7 23.R×e7 (on 23.Rh8?! the strong reply 23…Nd7! can be found) 23…N×e7 24.Qf6 + Ke8.

.

However, 25.e5! is much stronger: 25…bc 26.Qh8+ Kf7 27.Qf6+ Kg8 28.Rh1 (if Black had deflected the rook with check from d3 on the 25th move, then the e6-square would now be accessible to the queen) 28…Nd3+ 29.Kb1 c2+! 30.K×c2 Nb4+ 31.Kc1! N×a2+ 32.Kb1 Nc3+ 33.Kc2 Qa4+ (another small problem related to attention to the opponent’s resources: 34.K×c3? Nd5+! loses) 34.Kd3! Rd8+ 35.K×c3 Qa5+, with perpetual check.

But it is not only about this: having advanced his pawn to b4, Black did not foresee his opponent’s brilliant reply, which allows him to create a decisive attack.

20.Na4!! N×a4 21.Qd7+ Ne7 22.Qe6 (threatening 23.R×h7+) 22…h5

And here German Khodos missed the opportunity to complete his attack impressively by 23.R×h5!! gh 24.Rd6! with the deadly threat of 25.Qh6+ Kg8 26.Qg5+.

23.g4?! Nd5?!

Black could not allow the capture of the pawn on h5, creating the threat of h5-h6+: 23…N×b2? 24.gh or 23…Qc7? 24.gh! is lost (but not 24.Rd7? Nc5!–+). However, 23…Nc5! 24.Q×e5+ is significantly stronger than the move in the game, and now not 24…Kg8? 25.Kb1 Nd5 (25…b3 26.a3 Nf5!? 27.Qf6 Ng7 28.gh!+–) 26.Qg5+–, but 24…Kf7!, leaving the g6-pawn defended by the king. 25.Kb1 Nd5! 26.Qg3 b3 27.a3 h4! 28.R×h4 Nf6 with the idea of 29…Rcd8 is no longer dangerous; 25.Qf4+ Kg8 leads to an unclear and, evidently, approximately equal position.

24.Qd7+

The primitive 24…Ne7? gives White a very important tempo to continue his attack, and the game quickly ends.

25.gh Qc5

Neither 25…Rcd8 26.Qe6 R×d1+ 27.R×d1+– nor 25…Nc5!? 26.Qd6 g5 27.Ng3! Kf7 28.Nf5+– saves him.

26.Qe6! (threatening 27.h6+) 26…Ng8 27.Rd7+ Re7 28.R×e7+ Q×e7 29.Q×c8 Qg5+ 30.f4 Qg2 31.Rg1 Black resigned.

Let’s go back to the position in the last diagram. As indicated by Vadim Zviagintsev, Black’s best practical chance is to switch to a counterattack, for the sake of which he should not mind even sacrificing a rook. 24…Re7!!

25.Q×c8 (25.R×d5 R×d7 26.R×a5 N×b2! 27.K×b2 Rd2+ 28.Kb3 R×e2 29.gh c5! leads to a playable rook ending for Black) 25…b3!

White has a big choice, the variations that arise are fairly complicated and it does not take long to get lost in them. White should reject both 26.ed? ba 27.Kc2 Qb4 28.Q×c6 Q×b2+ 29.Kd3 Qa3+ 30.Kd2 e4! 31.fe Nc5–+ and 26.a3?! Qc5 27.Kb1 N×b2!? (27…Qf2 is also possible) 28.K×b2 Nb6∞. Not bad is 26.ab!? Nab6 27.Qb8!, although the position that arises does not look safe for White and so going into it is not easy. The most energetic and strongest is 26.R×h5!! gh 27.gh Nf6 (27…Qc5 28.ab+–) 28.Qf5 Rf7 29.ab Nc5 30.Kc2, retaining excellent winning chances.

Before we move from the introductory part to the collection of exercises I will make a couple of final remarks. Considering the topic of the training, do not forget to check your ideas, constantly look for pitfalls that may have been set by your opponent. In fact, this is the skill that you should be developing ultimately.

There is not one strict solution to some of the exercises. Do not waste too much effort identifying a microscopic difference (sometimes even a nonexistent one) between continuations that appear to be roughly equivalent, but only concern yourself about not missing something that is truly important.

Exercises

1-1 Leko – Piket

Tilburg 1997

1-2 Veselovsky – Psakhis

Soviet Championship semifinal Krasnoyarsk 1980

1-3 Yanvarev – Shcherbakov

Moscow 1994

1-4 V. Bron *

1970

1-5 Tomczak – Anand

Lugano 1988

1-6 Tal – Kortchnoi

Soviet Championship, Riga 1958

1-7 Azmaiparashvili – Ye Jiangchuan

Beijing 1988

1-8 V. Bron *

1975

1-9 A. Kuznetsov, N. Kralin *

1981

1-10 Dvoretsky – I. Ivanov

Soviet Championship, 1st League Minsk 1976

1-11 Ellison – Collins

Port Erin 1999

1-12 H. Mattison *

1925

1-13 Bradford – Byrne

USA 1980

1-14 Short – Bareev

Tilburg 1991

1-15 Morozevich – Kramnik

Frankfurt (rapid) 2000

1-16 Vilela – Augustin

Prague 1980

1-17 Pinter – Larsen

Interzonal Tournament Las Palmas 1982

1-18 Dvoretsky – Polovodin

Soviet Team Championship Moscow 1979

1-19 Shneider – Agzamov

Soviet Championship 1st League, Telavi 1982

1-20 Dworakowska – Calotescu

European Team Championship Gothenburg 2005

1-21 Shamkovich – Sherwin *

Lone Pine 1976

1-22 Shtukaturkin – Shakarov

USSR 1981

1-23 Georgadze – Polugaevsky

Soviet Championship, Tbilisi 1978

1-24 Nikolac – Nunn *

Dortmund 1979

1-25 Seirawan – Lobron

Arnhem/Amsterdam 1983

1-26 Forintos – Vukic

Zemun 1980

1-27 Wedberg – Kozul

Olympiad, Novi Sad 1990

1-28 E. Pogosyants *

1977

1-29 Dolmatov – Podgaets *

Soviet Championship, 1st League, Kharkov 1985

1-30 G. Kasparyan *

1963

1-31 Smyslov – Botvinnik

20th Game, World Championship Match, Moscow 1957

1-32 Mikenas – Bronstein

Soviet Championship, Tallinn 1965

1-33 Mikenas – Polugaevsky

Soviet Championship, Tallinn 1965

1-34 Klinova – Spence

Gibraltar 2006

1-35 Ligterink – Keene

The Netherlands 1981

1-36 Gligoric – Commons

Lone Pine 1972

1-37 Y. Meller

1916

1-38 Spassky – Karpov

London 1982

1-39 Yermolinsky – Kaidanov

U.S. Championship, Long Beach 1993

1-40 Dolmatov – G. Kuzmin *

Soviet Championship, 1st League Kharkov 1985

1-41 Jansa – Sax

Interzonal Tournament, Biel 1985

1-42 I. Popov – Savchenko

Russian Championship, Top League Ulan-Ude 2009

1-43 Spraggett – Spassky

Candidates’ Tournament Montpellier 1985

1-44 Martynov – Ulibin

Daugavpils 1986

1-45 Shirov – Zhuravlev

Riga 1986

1-46 Azmaiparashvili – Barbulescu

Albena 1986

1-47 Malinin – Lavrentiev

Correspondence 1983

1-48 Pigusov – Kir. Georgiev

Moscow 1990

1-49 Spraggett – I. Ivanov

4th Match Game, Montreal 1987

1-50 Nunn – Portisch

Reykjavik 1988

1-51 Lputian – Petursson

World Team Championship Lucerne 1993

1-52 Junge – Ahrens

Lübeck 1939

1-53 Tseshkovsky – Miles

Palma de Mallorca 1989

1-54 Fernandez – Marino

Spanish Championship, Zamora 1996

1-55 Adams – Anand

Hilversum 1993

1-56 Petrosian – Najdorf

Santa Monica 1966

1-57 Plaskett – Hebden

England 1982

1-58 Euwe – Alekhine

Zurich 1934

1-59 Marshall – Lasker

New York 1924

1-60 M. Liburkin

1947

1-61 R. Réti (corrected by A. Rink)

1928

1-62 Gawlikowski – Olejarczuk

Warsaw 1963

1-63 Kremenetsky – Arbakov *

Moscow 1981

1-64 A. Wotawa

1937

1-65 P. Benko

1980

1-66 Thipsay – Ivell

Edinburgh 1985

Can you take on c2?

1-67 Zagrebelny – Kovalev

Vladivostok 1995

1-68 A. Rink

1923

1-69 Taimanov – Geller

Soviet Championship, Moscow 1951

1-70 Ftacnik – Hartston

European Team Championship Skara 1980

1-71 Trabattoni – Barlov

La Valetta 1979

1-72 Gheorghiu – Ivanovic

Lone Pine 1980

1-73 R. Réti

1928

1-74 J. Vancura

1924

1-75 Klinger – Blatny

Bad Wörishofen 1988

1-76 A. Gerbstman

1954