Chess Lessons: Solving Problems & Avoiding Mistakes

Crush

Signs & Symbols

Foreword

The book you have just opened is a collection of thoroughly annotated games. Some of them are far from being exemplary, but every one of them, without exception, is rather interesting and instructive. Their prehistory follows.

Every day a great number of fascinating games is played all over the world; to examine them all is certainly impossible. If it is not a question of searching for material on an opening variation that is of interest or of getting acquainted with the creative work of future opponents, it makes sense for a coach to limit himself only to games and fragments that have already been analyzed by annotators whom he respects. This approach enables him to save a great amount of time. Giving a cursory glance to comments, he can often determine right away if there is any useful information for him there, be it a convincing illustration of some important ideas, or, on the contrary, an edifying exception from a general rule, or, perhaps, an unusual combination or a fragment that may serve as a successful training exercise.

A given example is put to a severe test, as it pays to use high-quality material only. If a game under examination passes it successfully, it gets registered in some form or other and your own comments are noted.

Almost inevitably, during training work with students, new subtleties turn up, so you have to refine and revise your earlier conclusions and correct your own comments. This process keeps repeating.

Occasionally, the reasons for changes are the readers’ feedback on articles in which I publish my analysis; or they may be the results of other authors’ publications in which I happen to find my examples with fresh comments. Finally, when you do a computer check of your own earlier analysis, you always find out some details you previously missed, as the quality of both computers and analytical engines constantly improves.

Then somewhere along the line I start to feel that I have hoarded a fairly large amount of interesting and informative analysis that I would like to introduce to a wide range of chessplayers by writing a book about the results of my investigations.

It is this desire that was the main stimulus for publishing the four volumes of the School of Chess Excellence series that I consider to be one single large book (even the numbering of the chapters is consecutive for the whole series). It was my first book. Analytical programs were rather weak then, so all the analysis was carried out without computer assistance. The engine had already been employed during preparation of the reprints, so I had to make many corrections; however, those were usually not fundamental and did not change either concept of the book or the character of the tests.

More than ten years later, I decided to prepare a new portion of my teaching material for publication and wrote Dvoretsky’s Analytical Manual. This book certainly could not have been written without computer assistance, so it is understandable that the comments were much more voluminous and informative than before. Undoubtedly, this is my a most complex book, so I feared that it would be in demand only among a narrow circle of elite chessplayers. However, I was pleasantly surprised and greatly delighted to find on Amazon only positive reviews with highest possible ratings sent by average chess amateurs.

More years have passed, and now the time has come for another analytical book. You are holding it in your hands now. In its conception and structure, this book is similar to the previous one, so they share some common features that my other books lack. I mean above all the complexity indication system for exercises that I suggest: the more asterisks you see, the more complicated is an exercise. Opinions of opponents who have played the examined games are italicized, as is every quotation.

The basic aim of delving into complex analysis was to obtain a most exact and objective pattern of the struggle, to evaluate the pros and cons of opponents’ decisions as accurately as possible. Sometimes the result turned out to be a pile of purely computer-like variations that made it next to impossible to figure out the inner logic of a position. In such cases, I would drop variations, leaving only conclusions which resulted from them. Still, I have included most analysis into the book, although I understand perfectly well that this abundance of complicated variations is bound to make comprehension difficult for readers (not that you have to explore every one of them; you may limit yourselves to the ones that are most interesting for you).

The main reason for that is that every statement in the text should be proven; verbal evaluations alone are insufficient in our times. Both readers who study books and my students during training sessions often disagree with me and suggest their own versions. Only objective analysis will help us to determine who is right – and this analysis turns out to be rather extensive sometimes.

Second, while immersing myself in variations, I often stumble onto some most interesting situations, both instructive and/or really striking and beautiful. It would be a great shame to omit such moments, even if they are only indirectly connected with an original position from which analysis started.

Another reason for the abundance of analysis was my desire to give an objective evaluation of the earlier annotations: either to corroborate them, to improve on them or, in some cases, to refute them. My wish is that, while they are getting acquainted with already well-known games, neither practicing players nor authors of new books on chess would become influenced by errors committed earlier, but would see a more accurate pattern of struggle. An ideal is certainly unattainable here, but the least we can do is to try to approach it as best we can.

So far I have been talking mostly about analysis, but analysis is certainly not an end in itself, but only a tool that is necessary for any author. While working on the games that I have included in this book, I have sought to uncover their core ideas which are important for a chessplayer’s improvement and demonstrate them as vividly as possible. Those may include both approaches to playing out certain typical situations and mastering various positional and tactical ideas, as well as improving technical skills and training an ability to search for decisions and to make them on the basis of the precise calculation of variations.

In purely educational monographs, an author recounts his planned subjects consistently; however, this is not possible in collections of complex games (in particular, in the collections of great players’ selected games). On the other hand, in such collections, there is no need to proceed consistently from the first page to the last. That goes for this book too: a reader may choose to study only those parts that are most interesting to him, for example, those devoted to positional play, or to attack, or defense… He may even read only certain short chapters that illustrate, say, positional material sacrifice or disastrous consequences of being overcautious in the games against stronger opponents. One can also concentrate on purely practical training by solving exercises in diagrams where you will see a question mark next to an indication of the side to move. The last two parts of the book are devoted to the specific forms of training that I routinely use during my lessons: analysis of games in the form of solving a string of consecutive tasks and playing out of certain specially selected positions.

I hope that this book will be of help not only to high-ranking players at whom it is primarily aimed, but also to every reader who is serious about self-improvement and wishes to understand problems that grandmasters and masters face over the board and the ways they solve them; what are the reasons for errors they sometimes commit and how to avoid those mistakes.

Mark Dvoretsky

Part 1

Lessons from a Certain Game

One of my favorite aphorisms by the fictional Kozma Prutkov (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozma_Prutkov) is: Throwing pebbles into the water, look at the ripples they form on the surface. Otherwise this activity will be an empty amusement. This thought of a Russian armchair philosopher remains true even if we switch from pebble throwing to analysis of chess games, so I suggest that my readers look closely at the ripples formed by a pebble I am going to throw into the water right now.

In Secrets of Opening Preparation (volume 2 in the series School of Future Champions) that I wrote many years ago in collaboration with Artur Yusupov, there is a chapter called In the Footsteps of One Game. In it, we first briefly analyze the beginning of a game between Viktor Gavrikov and Sergey Dolmatov (½-½, Tallinn 1985), singling out problems that the opponents encountered, and then examining those problems using new instructive examples. Such an approach to improvement in chess looks sensible and effective to me. Emerging chains of association with either your own games or games played by others do not get unnoticed and forgotten, but are examined, allowing for the mastering of the main ideas behind them.

Many famous games by former champions are really one-sided as a result of the difference in levels of skill; their insufficiently experienced opponents’ resistance is much too weak. But still, examination of such chess battles has its uses: tactical, strategic and technical ideas of great players are carried out in a clear and convincing way, without the difficulties which inevitably accompany games between opponents who are roughly equal in strength. Because of this, those ideas are easily mastered and easily remembered. But if we analyze such games carefully (which is done only rarely), we are inevitably going to stumble on lost chances and the patterns of struggle cease to be crystal clear.

Winter – Alekhine

Nottingham 1936

(Alexander Alekhine’s comments are used)

1.d2-d4 e7-e6 2.e2-e4 d7-d5 3.e4xd5

This move is generally taken to show that White is only playing for a draw. But, as a matter of fact, Black will have at least no fewer opportunities at complicating matters, if he wants to do so, than in the most of the other variations of the French.

Lesson 1: Passivity resulting from an eagerness to draw serves to pass the initiative to an opponent, making his task considerably easier.

3…e6xd5 4.Bf1-d3 Nb8-c6 5.Ng1-e2

Worth attention is 5.c3 Bd6 6.Qf3!?.

5…Bf8-d6 6.c2-c3

On 6.Nbc3, Alekhine recommends 6…Nb4!?, forcing either the exchange of the bishop or, after 7.Bb5+ c6, its retreat to an unfavorable square.

6…Qd8-h4

It was important to prevent 7.Bf4. The first in the string of prophylactic moves (6…Qf6 with the same purpose is also possible) made by Alekhine in this game.

Lesson 2: Prophylactic thinking is a universal weapon that should be employed constantly, even by the most aggressive players in their struggle against weaker opponents.

7.Nb1-d2

is better) 8…Qxh6 9.0-0 Ne7 .

Worth attention is 7.g3!? Qh5 (pointless is 7…Qh3 8.Nf4 Bxf4 9.Bxf4 Qg2 10.Qe2+ and 11.Qf1) 8.Nf4 (the most precise reply to 8.Bf4!? is not advantageous, and 10.Qc2 is met with 10…Bxf4 10.Nxf4 0-0 with rough equality) 8…Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1.

Later this position arose in the game Apseniek-Alekhine (Olympiad, Buenos Aires 1939). Black chose 9…Nf6 10.Re1+ Ne7 11.f3 Bd7, having underestimated the exchanging operation 12.b3! 0-0-0 13.Ba3 Nf5 14.Bxd6 Nxd6 15.Nd2=.

Alekhine recommends 9…Bg4+ 10.Kc2 (10.Ne2 Nf6) 10…0-0-0 (10…Nf6= is better), but after 11.h3! Bf3 12.Re1, intending 13.Nd2 Bxf4 14.Nxf3, the position is favorable for White.

In the game Zak-Dvoretsky (Moscow Team Championship, 1972) there followed 9…Nce7!? is stronger) 13.Nxf4 Bf5 14.Nd2 Nf6 Draw.

7…Bc8-g4!

Another active prophylactic move – Black prevents 8.Nf3 and is prepared to sacrifice his pawn in the process. After 8.Qb3 0-0-09.Qxd5 Nf6 followed by Rhe8, Black would have an overwhelming advantage in development.

Actually, in this variation, White successfully solves his problems and gains an advantage through 10.Qb5.The point is that on both 10…Rhe8 and 10…a6, he has a very strong retort, 11.Nf3! (11…Bxf3 12.Qf5+), and if 10…Kb8, then 11.Nc4.Therefore, Black should sacrifice another pawn, 8…Nge7!, as 9.Qxb7?! Rb8 10.Qa6 0-0 is clearly in his favor.

8.Qd1-c2

.

8…0-0-0

Black is quite comfortable with the exchange 9.Bf5+ Kb8.

9.Nd2-f1 g7-g6

Preparing for the exchange of his opponent’s good bishop, after which the white squares in his position will be left somewhat weak.

Lesson 3: In symmetrical positions of this kind, the importance of both having control over the f4/f5-squares and trading the good opponent’s bishop for your own bad one is obvious.

10.Bc1-e3 Ng8-e7 11.0-0-0

It would be a good idea to hamper the exchange with 11.Nfg3!?.

11…Bg4-f5 12.Nf1-g3 Bf5xd3 13.Qc2xd3

13…h7-h6!

Subtle prophylactics; otherwise White would play 14.Qd2!, preparing either 15.Bg5 or 15.Bf4.

14.f2-f4?!

This move, weakening without compensation important squares on the e-file, may be considered the decisive strategic mistake. It would have been appropriate if the pawn were pushed further with advantage, but this never happened. Comparatively better was 14.Ng1 followed by Nf3 with a rather cramped, but still defensible position.

I would suggest the move 14.Qd2!. The consistent reply 14…g5?! somewhat weakens Black’s position. White has a right to consider 15.f4, but the prudent 15.f3! seems even stronger, as it limits the mobility of the enemy queen. On 15…f5 16.Bf2 f4, there is 17.Ne4, but while there is no threat of the knight being taken yet, White can make a useful move, for example, 17.Kb1!?.

14…Qh4-g4!

Prophylactics once again! Black aims – and with success – to keep the f5-square under control. How important this is will be evident in the second half of the game.

Weaker is 14…f5 15.Qd2, planning Ng1-f3.

Now White could have tried a pawn sacrifice, 15.f5!?, but after 15…Bxg3 (not immediately 15…Nxf5? 16.h3) 16.Nxg3 Nxf5 17.Nxf5 gf 18.g3 (18.Rde1 Rde8; 18.h3 Qg6!? followed by Re8-e4) 18…Rde8 19.Bf4 Re6! (worse is 19…Re4?! 20.Qb5, and now there is the simple reply 20…Rd8, and the h6-pawn is defended), Black’s advantage is obvious.

15.h2-h3 Qg4-d7

16.Rh1-f1?

You cannot say A without saying B! The only way for White to justify his aggressive fourteenth move is to keep on playing in an active fashion by pushing forward his f-pawn. And now is the perfect time for that: after 16.f5!, neither 16…Nxf5 17.Nxf5 gf 18.Bf4 nor 16…Bxg3 17.Nxg3 Nxf5 18.Nxf5 gf 19.Rhf1 Rde8 20.Bd2 Re4 21.Qg3! followed by 22.Qg7 brings an advantage to Black.

16…h6-h5! 17.Ne2-g1

White admits that his strategy was a bust – now his opponent’s knight occupies the key point f5. However, after 17.f5 h4 18.f6 Ng8 19.Nh1 Re8, the f6-pawn would most likely be lost.

17…h5-h4 18.Ng3-e2 Ne7-f5 19.Ng1-f3 f7-f6!

This is also a kind of prophylactic, though obvious enough. Now Black’s advantage is overwhelming.

20.Nf3-h2

Alekhine does not comment about the subsequent sequence to move 25, and how wrong he is! For this is just the part of the game that seems to contain the most complex and subtle problems.

20…Rd8-e8

Black establishes control over the only open file. Alekhine’s move, however strong and natural, is still debatable. The point is that he has to solve another problem, namely activating his c6-knight which so far has not been taking part in the battle. The most natural-looking route for that is Nc6-a5-c4. His opponent would certainly wish to deprive the knight of the c4-square by b2-b3.

After the immediate 20…Na5!, the reply 21.b3 is pointless as it fails to prevent the invasion: 21…Nc4! 22.bc dc 23.Qd2 (23.Qxc4 Nxe3) 23…Ba3+ 24.Kb1 Nxe3 25.Qxe3 Qb5+ with mate.

, but also with 22…Ba3! 23.Bc1 Bxb2! 24.Bxb2 Qb5 25.Rd2 Nxd2+ 26.Qxd2 Rhe8 (26…Nd6 27.Ne3 Rhe8) 27.Rf2, and now the most energetic move is 27…Ng3!–+. For example, 28.Nxg3 hg 29.Rf3 Re2, or 28.Nc1 Ne4 29.Qc2 Nxf2 30.Qxf2 Rd6, or 28.c4!? dc 29.Nc3 Qf5+ 30.Ka1 b5!.

Of course, there is no need for Black to activate his knight right now, but it is still not advisable to delay it for too long, as there is the risk that it may later become impossible to move it to c4 or, at the very least, this move would become less effective.

21.Be3-d2 Re8-e6!

Lesson 4: The optimal pattern of the placement of the major pieces on an open file is queen behind rooks.

22.Nh2-g4

22…Rh8-e8

An absolutely natural-looking move, which, paradoxically, is also inaccurate. Before strengthening his control over the open file, it makes good sense to play 22…Na5!, as 23.b3 will be met with 23…Nc4! anyway, and accepting the piece sacrifice will end in a quick collapse: 24.bc? Ba3+ 25.Kb1 Rb6+ 26.Ka1 Bb2+ 27.Kb1 Qa4! 28.Rde1 dc, etc.

Lesson 5: Having obtained a clear superiority, it is important to feel the key moment when there appears a specific, often combinational, method of magnifying your advantage or even of converting it into a win. You must not miss this chance, as any delay may lead to difficulties in utilizing your advantage – or even make it altogether impossible.

.

An attempt to delay the move b2-b3 by 23.Rde1 Nc4 24.Ng1 does not make White’s fate any easier. In addition to the variation 24…Rhe8 25.Rxe6 Rxe6 26.b3 Nxd2 27.Qxd2 Ng3 28.Rf3 Qe7–+ pointed out by Aagaard, there is a winning combination: 24…Ba3! 25.ba Rb6 26.Ne3 Nfxe3 27.Bxe3 Qe7 28.Rf2 Re8–+.

Lesson 6: Chess rules (in this particular case the one proclaiming the importance of occupying an open line as quickly as possible, and also considerations about good and bad bishops) are of a conditional nature. Sometimes they have to be broken, either as a result of specific considerations or because in the given position, they are overridden with other rules which are considerably less obvious.

23.Rd1-e1 Re8-e7!

Weaker is 23…Qe7?! 24.Kd1.The queen’s position on e8 will be better, first, from the point of view of exerting pressure along the e-file, and second, because, if desired, it can be activated from this square along the e8-a4 diagonal.

).

24.Kc1-d1 Qd7-e8 25.Qd3-f3

is not particularly dangerous, but possible is 25…Ng3! 26.Rxe6 Rxe6 27.Re1 Ne4 followed by Ne7-f5 (in this line the c6-knight manages to find a good active square for itself).

Alekhine decided that now, after the queen had retreated from the queenside, was just the time for a diversion on that board sector.

25…Nc6-a5!

The downside of Black’s active move is that the d5-pawn is left en prise. The former world champion must have felt that his cautious opponent would not go in for complications.

In reply to 26.Qxd5, Alekhine points out the variation 26…Rxe2! (26…Qa4+? 27.b3 Qxa2 28.Nc1 does not work – Dvoretsky) 27.Rxe2 Rxe2 28.Qxa5 (28.Nxf6 Rxd2+) 28…Ng3 29.Rf3 Qe4–+.

He would have to solve more complicated problems after 27.Qxa5!. There are threats of both 28.Qxa7 and 28.Nxf6, so Black has to create his own with the move 27…Ng3.

Totally bad is 28.Nxf6? Rxd2+! 29.Kxd2 Re2+ (or 29…Nxf1+ 30.Rxf1 Re2+).

The simplest refutation for the tempting 28.Qxa7 is 28…Rxd2+! 29.Kxd2 Nxf1+ 30.Rxf1 Qb5!. Another strong move is 28…c5!? with the idea of interposing the bishop on b8 after the queen checks. To achieve his objective after 28…Qb5!? 29.Qa8+ Kd7 30.Nxf6+ Kc6 is somewhat more difficult.

The most stubborn move for White is 28.Ne5!, pointed out by Aagaard and which is not that obvious. Then Black would have to make the only right choice out of several opportunities. Some general variations are as follows:

(a) Capturing the knight is pointless: 28…fe?! 29.Rxe2 Nxf1 30.fe.

(b) After 28…Rxd2+ 29.Kxd2 Nxf1+ 30.Rxf1 fe 31.fe Bxe5 32.de Rxe5, White escapes by means of 33.Rf8!=, and if Black delays simplification in the center for a single move (30…a6 31.Rf2 fe 32.fe Bxe5 33.de Rxe5), then in the queen endgame after 34.Rf8 Re2+ 35.Kd1 Re1+ 36.Kd2 Qxf8 37.Kxe1 Qf4, Black still retains a certain initiative, but after 34.Qb4, he has nothing at all.

) 31.fe b6 32.Qa6 Bxe5 33.de Rxe5 34.Kc2= hardly helps.

Black’s position is preferable (but not by much) after 28…Rxe1+ 29.Rxe1 a6.

The strongest continuation is 28…Rxg2! 29.Rg1 (29.Qxa7? fe will not do) 29…Rxg1 30.Rxg1 a6 (30…c6!?) 31.Nc4 (31.Qd5 runs into the break 31…g5!).

The simple 31…Qc6! 32.Nxd6+ cd allows Black to retain a decisive positional advantage. More difficult to calculate is 31…Re2 (with the threat of 32…Rxd2+ 33.Nxd2 Qe2+ and 34…Bxf4) 32.Qd5 (32.Nxd6+?! cd 33.Qd5 Rxd2+ 34.Kxd2 Qe2+ 35.Kc1 Qe3+ 36.Kc2 Qxg1, and White has no perpetual check: 37.Qe6+ Kc7 38.Qe7+ Kc6, etc.). Useless is 32…Qa4+ 33.b3 Qxa2 34.Rxg3! Rxd2+ 35.Nxd2 hg 36.Qg8+ with equality. It is necessary to play 32…Kb8!, for example, 33.Na5 Qa4+! 34.Kc1 (34.b3? Rxd2+!) 34…Qb5 35.Qxb5 ab with great advantage to Black. And in the variation 33.Nxd6 cd 34.Qxd6+ Ka8 35.Qb4, winning a piece after 35…Rxd2+? allows White to give perpetual check, but there is no such opportunity after 35…Qe4! 36.Qf8+ Ka7 37.Qc5+ Kb8 38.Qd6+ Kc8, and Black wins.

Unpredictability of the outcome of the complications we have examined was exactly the reason for my doubts about the merit of Black’s strategy. It is clear that there must be certain more effective means of converting his overwhelming superiority into a win, and they do exist – see comments to Black’s moves 20 and 22.

However, it is well known that in such complex positions, fortune often favors stronger and, most significantly, more self-confident players. The English master chooses the move that looks most solid to him – and overlooks a rather simple combination.

26.b2-b3?

.

26…Na5-c4!

The knight is untouchable: 27.bc Qa4+ 28.Kc1 Ba3+ 29.Kb1 Rb6+ 30.Ka1 Qc2 with inevitable mate. Now absolutely all Black’s pieces coordinate successfully; White’s position is completely hopeless.

27.Bd2-c1 Nc4-e3+

Enough for a win, but 27…Qb5! 28.bc Qa4+ 29.Kd2 Qxa2+ 30.Kd1 Qb3+ 31.Kd2 dc–+ seems even stronger.

28.Bc1xe3 Nf5xe3+ 29.Ng4xe3 Re6xe3 30.Qf3-f2 Qe8-b5

The queen takes up an active position. The terrible threat 31…Qd3+ forces White to part with a pawn. Another no less strong way to win is 30…Rd3+ 31.Kc2 Ree3.

31.Ne2-c1 Re3xc3 (D)

32.Re1xe7

The pawn capture 32.Qxh4 fails to the beautiful 32…Rxc1+! 33.Kxc1 Ba3+ 34.Kd2 (34.Kc2 Re2+) 34…Bb4+ 35.Kc1 Qd3! 36.Qh8+ Kd7 37.Rxe7+ Bxe7–+.

32…Bd6xe7 33.Qf2-e1 Kc8-d7!

Alekhine skillfully utilizes his advantage without allowing his opponent even the slightest counterplay.

34.f4-f5 Rc3-e3! 35.Qe1-f2 g6-g5 36.Rf1-e1 Re3-e4! 37.Re1xe4

This exchange, giving Black a strong passed pawn, shortens matters. But White was helpless in any case.

37…d5xe4 38.Kc1-d2 Be7-d6

The threat is 39…e3+!.

39.Kd2-c2 Bd6-f4 White resigned.

Some of the subjects that we have singled out in the course of the analysis of this game, such as the conversion of an advantage into a win and prophylactic play, are too broad to discuss them here. They have been discussed more than once in my books, but we are now going to discuss others.

Lesson 1: Disastrous Consequences of Playing for a Draw from the First Moves

The following game was played in the last round of an Interzonal Tournament. To qualify for the Candidates’ Matches, a draw was sufficient for Mikhail Gurevich, but Nigel Short had to win with Black.

M.Gurevich – N.Short

Manila 1990

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.ed ed 4.Nf3 Bg4?! (4…Bd6; 4…Nf6) 5.h3 Bh5 (D)

6.Be2?!

His eagerness to draw had influenced not only Gurevich’s choice of opening, but also subsequent decisions. In a later game Kasparov-Short (Tilburg 1991), White’s play was

, chosen by Short, does not allow him to equalize.

6…Bd6 7.Ne5?!

Another passive move. With this kind of pawn structure, exchanging light-square bishops is in Black’s favor. 7…Bxe2 8.Qxe2 Ne7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bf4 (10.c3) 10…Re8 11.Qg4

11…Bxe5! 12.Bxe5 Ng6

This balance of material is favorable for Black: a good knight against a bad white bishop.

13.Bg3 Nd7 14.Nd2 Nf6 15.Qf3 c6 (there is the threat of 16…Qb6 17.Nb3 Ne4) 16.Qb3 Qb6!

The need to play for a win does not prevent Short from offering the exchange of queens that is favorable for him.

17.Qxb6 ab

18.a3

It was reasonable to fix the enemy pawn on b6 with 18.a4!, where it can be attacked by the bishop. The rook’s invasion on e2 is not dangerous: 18…Re2 19.Rfd1 Ne4 20.Nxe4, and bad is 20…de? 21.Rac1 followed by 22.Kf1. Or 18…Ne4 19.Nxe4 Rxe4 20.c3 Re2 21.b3.

18…Ne4

) 21.Rad1 Nh4 22.Rfe1 Rae8 23.Rxe2 Rxe2, retaining the initiative.

19.Nxe4 Rxe4 20.Rfd1

A positional pawn sacrifice for the sake of activating his forces is interesting, but still insufficient: 20.Rae1?! Rxd4 (20…Rae8 21.f3) 21.Re2 f6 (apparently 21…Re4 22.Rxe4 de 23.Rd1 Nf8 24.c4! is weaker) 22.Rfe1 Kf7 (Dvoretsky).

20…b5 21.Kf1 f6 22.f3 Re6 23.Re1 Kf7 24.Rxe6 Kxe6 25.Re1+

Worth attention is 25.Be1!? followed by Bb4, aiming at disrupting his opponent’s activity on the queenside.

25…Kd7

26.Ke2?!

A positional inaccuracy. Black wants to obstruct the kingside by advancing his pawn to h4. A better idea is to prevent it with 26.Bf2 (or 26.Bh2!?) 26…h5 27.g4.

26…h5! 27.Kd3 h4 28.Bh2 Ne7 29.Bf4 Nf5 30.Bd2 b6 31.Re2

White is unable to prevent c6-c5: 31.Bb4 Rc8 32.Re2 c5 33.Bc3 Ra8, planning 34…Ra4.

31…c5 32.Be3

32…b4

But not 32…Kc6 33.Bf2, and there is the threat of 34.Re6+. However, a transposition of moves is possible: 32…c4+ 33.Kc3 (33.Kd2 b4! is worse) 33…b4+.

33.ab (33.dc? ba 34.ba Rxa3+) 33…c4+ 34.Kc3

Considerably weaker is 34.Kd2 Ra2 35.Kc1 Ra1+ 36.Kd2 Rb1 37.Kc3 Nd6.

34…Nd6 35.Re1

35.b3 Ra2 (there is the threat of Nb5+) 36.bc Ra3+ is losing.

35…Ra4

Short seems to have come far, but White’s position is not hopeless yet. He could have played