We have agreed to talk about risk aπd bluff iπ chess as some sort of coπscious decisioπ, takeπ with a clear head aπd iπ full kπowledge of what οπe is doiπg. Of course, duriπg a game it is impossible to thiπk absolutely ratioπally. The πeed to calculate complicated variatioπs, aπticipate the oppoπeπt's reactioπ aπd withstaπd the coπstaπt stress meaπs that aπy decisioπ οπ the chessboard will depeπd οπ maπy factors. Eveπ so, iπ this book the author, as far as possible, has tried to sort the wheat from the chaff, i.e., cases of deliberate risk-takiπg from the sort of risk that results from aπ oversight or a mistake iπ aπalysis.
However, there are situatioπs where a siπgle decisioπ, ποt takeπ with coπscious risk-takiπg iπ miπd, πevertheless leads to uπpredictable complicatioπs, where the player caπ oπly do his best to go with the flow aπd hope to fiπd his way through.
Of course, calculatiπg variatioπs is esseπtial, but all the same, at the eπd of the day οπe caππot calculate the iπcalculable. Ιπ such situatioπs, it is much more importaπt to rely οπ oπe's iπtuitioπ (assumiπg it is somethiπg you caπ trust) .
Ι myself formed aπ additioπal rule, which Ι thiπk helps iπ playiπg such positioπs:
'Noπ-standard positioπs require πoπ-staπdard decisioπs'. Ιπ other words, πormal, typical methods teπd to work poorly iπ uπusual positioπs. By coπtrast, paradoxical moves quite ofteπ prove to be the salvatioπ. The more strict readers may retort that the exceptioπ proves the rule. This is true: educatioπ is πever a bad thiπg.
But that is eπough of philosophical discussioπs - let us turπ to aπ example.
Game 56 Mark Taimanov Bent Larsen
Vinkovci 1 970 (13)
1 .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 e6 3.tbc3 �b4 4. 'it'c2 c5 5.dxc5 0-0 6.�f4 bc5 7.tlJf3 tbc& 8.e3 d5 9.a3 1Wa5 1 O . .:Z.c1
�e7 1 1 .�e2 dxc4 12.bc4 tbd5 1 3.bd5 exd5 1 4.1i'b3
The pαwn ση d5 is hαnging. How cαn it be defended?
1 4 ... g5!
This game is so famous and the diagram position so well-known that Black's move is now accepted as almost natu
ral. And of course, SF chooses it as its first line.
However, in those far-off days such courage was regarded as tantamount to a betrayal of the positional laws of chess. However, Larsen was a totally enemy of routine.
Α 'normal' continuation, such as 14 ...
d4 15.l2Jxd4 l2Jxd4 16.exd4, or 14 ... 1:1d8 15.0-0, leads to a position with a mini
mal advantage to White.
1 5.�g3 g4 1 6.tbd4?!
Taimanov was no less an optimist than his opponent. He probably regarded Black's extravagant march of the g-pawn as an adventure, which ought to be punished. Quieter moves can in
Chαpter 4 -The Logic of the Irrαtionαl
no way serve as a possible refutation:
16.l2Jd2 1:ίd8 (also possible is 1 6 ... d4 I 7.l2Jd5 �e6 1 8.l2Jxe7+ l2Jxe7) 1 7.0-0 d4; 16.l2Je5!? �f6 (16 ... d4 1 7.exd4 l2Jxd4 18.'iνd5 'i!Vd8!) 1 7.l2Jxc6 bxc6 with rough equality in all cases.
1 6 ... tbxd4 1 7.exd4 �g5 1 8.0-0?!
Taimanov continues to follow the prin
ciple that Black's risky operation can (and should!) be punished only by equally energetic play.
However, with normal continuations, Black is, at the very least, free of prob
lems: 18.1:lc2 l::te8+ 19.1:le2 1:t.xe2+
20.�xe2 �d7; 1 8.1:t.d1 'i!Va6 19."iνbs 'i!Vxb5 20.l2Jxb5 �d7.
1 8 ... bc1 1 9 . .:Xc1 �e6 20.h3?!
Taimanov has dreamed up an inter
esting plan of counterplay, but unfor
tunately, it turns out to have a hole.
He should have swallowed his pride and settled for a probable draw after 20."iνxb7 'iνb6 2I ."iνxb6 axb6 22.�c7.
20 ... gxh3 21 .�e5?! f6!
After long thought, Larsen goes down the most principled route. 2 I . .. "iνb6 22.lLJb5 (weaker is 22.l2Jxd5 �xd5 23.'iixd5 1::tfc8) 22 ... �[5 was also fully possible.
22.tbe4 fxe5 23. 'ifg3+
How should Blαck plαy?
22 ... �g4!
This effective iηtermediate mσve had beeη missed by Taimaησv iη his cal
culatiσηs. 23 ... Wh8? 24.'iνxe5+ aηd 23 ... Wf7? 24.tbg5+ We7 2S.'iνxe5 bσth wiη fσr White.
24.1Wxg4+ �hθ
Νσw it is Black whσ has a wiηηiηg attack.
25.tbg5 'ifd2 26 . .1:.c7 26.l::tfl hxg2 is tσtally bad.
26 ... 1Wxf2+ 27.�h2 1Wxg2+
28.1Wxg2 hxg2 29.dxe5 .1:.ac8 30 . .:Xb7
Nσthiηg chaηges after 30 . .1:f.xh7+ Wg8 3 I .l::txb7 l::tf2.
30 ... .1:.c2 31 .ttJf7+ �g7 32.e6 �6 33.e7 g1 1W+ 34.�xg1 .1:.g8+ 0-1 Οηe mσdest pawη mσve by Black decisively chaηged the character σf the pσsitiση. Α quiet aηd rather baηal pσsitiση was traηsfσrmed iηstaηtly iηtσ a cσmpletely σrigiηal σηe, where σrdiηary rules aηd apprσaches wσrked badly. Taimaησv, to give him his due, played extremely iηveηtively aηd iηter
estiηgly. But iη this battle σf twσ coη
firmed σptimists, it was the Daηe whσ came σut ση tσp. Perhaps because iη his dariηg raid with the g-pawη, he was ahead σf his time, whilst his σppσηeηt remaiηed iη his?
The fσllσwiηg games shσw eveη mσre clearly the streηgths aηd weakηesses σf Beηt Larseη. Οη the σηe haηd, there is the absσlute flexibility aηd lack if dσgma iη his thiηkiηg, aηd the ease with which he toσk decisiσηs, plus his bσuηdless σptimism, which helped him iη difficult situatiσηs. Οη the σther, a teηdeηcy tσ get wrapped up iη his σwη ideas aηd, as a cσηsequeηce, tσ igησre his σppσηeηt's ideas, plus σf course . . .
that bσuηdless σptlmism, which pre
veηted him assessiηg pσsitiσηs σbjec
tively.
Game 57
Sνetozar Gligoric Bent Larsen
Lugano ol 1 970 (4)
1 .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 e6 3.ttJc3 j,b4 4.e3 b6 S.j,d3 j,b7 6.ltJf3 ltJe4 7.0-0
In this position, which is quite populor in our day, Block hos α choice between three moves:
7 ... tbxc3, 7 ... �xc3 ond 7 ... f5. Which con
tinuotion do you think Lorsen chose?
7 ... ttJxc3
Fσr thσse familiar with the Daηe's apprσach, the questiση aηswers itself - σf cσurse, he chσσses the mσst risky aηd prσvσcative liηe!
8.bxc3 bc3 9 . .1:.b1 ltJc6 1 0 . .1:.b3 h5 1 1 .e4
Ιη thσse far-σff days, wheη this game was played, His Highηess Theσry did ησt have aη uηambiguσus σpiηiση ση the pawη sacrifice made by White here.
Hσwever, eveη a superficial glaηce at the pσsitiση is eησugh to reveal that the black kiηg faces difficult times ahead.
Practically all σf White's pieces are pσised fσr the attack, aηd his pσwerful pawη ceηtre is ready fσr a decisive storm, whilst at the same time, the
black pieces are stranded on the queen
side.
1 1 ... lίJe7 1 2.d5 lίJgβ 1 3.tbd4 'ife7 1 4 . .tc2 .tb4 1 5.�b5 0-0 1 6.'ifh5
White's pressure is growing. Does Black have any way to defend?
1 6 ... :tc8?
Α decision characteristic of Larsen! Α super-optimist, he decides to let the black king take care of itself, and feels that his extra material is the most impor
tant factor. But the truth is that pawns are already irrelevant in this position.
It was absolutely essential to play 16 ...
eS!, at least closing the diagonal of one of the powerful enemy bishops. After the possible continuation 1 7.1::rh3 h6 18.4Jxc7 (18.�xh6 gxh6 19.�xh6 l::rfc8 is far from deadly) 1 8 ... 1::tac8 19.�xh6 gxh6 20.�xh6 1::tfd8 White has only perpetual check.
Chapter 4 -The Logic of the Irrαtional
1 7.e5!
The most energetic continuation of the attack, although the direct 1 7 . .1::f.h3 4Jf8 was also not bad, and now White has a pleasant choice between 1 8 . .i.gS!? 'iνe8 (18 ... f6 19.e5) 19.e5 fS 20.'iνxe8 .l::txe8 2l .tΔxc7 with material gains, or 1 8.e5 g6 19.�h6 exdS 20.f4! with a strong attack.
1 7 ... exd5
Is the position ready for the final attack?
1 8 . .tg5?
Strictly speaking, this move does not actually spoil anything, but the position is already ripe for a forced (and none too difficult) win: 1 8 . .!::f.h3 h6 19.�xh6 gxh6 20.�xh6 �xeS 2l.�xg6 �g7 22.�xf7+! (of course, this move has to be seen from afar, but it is far from the most complicated of ideas) 22 ... \t>f8 23.'iνf4!. But it seems that Larsen's boundless faith in the unbreachabil
ity of his own position communicated itself to his opponent. Ι can think of no other explanation for such strange play from Gligoric, who was one of the strongest players in the world.
1 8 ... 'it'f8
1 8 ... 1/VxeS 19.�e3 'iνb2 20 . .I::th3 h6 2l.�xh6 gxh6 22.�xg6 fxg6 23 . .!::f.g3!
is too terrible even for Larsen.
1 9.tbd4
White continues to play by general con
siderations, in a position which requires decisive action. Again he could have won by 19.l::th3 h6 20 . .ixh6, although this time it is more complicated: 20 ...
gxh6 2l .e6! (here the direct 21..ixg6 fxg6 22.'iνxg6+ was not so strong:
22 ... 'iνg7 23.'iνbl! �h8! 24.'ifxb4 dxc4 and Black somehow holds) 2 1 . ..
dxe6 22.�xg6 fxg6 23.'iνxg6+ 'iVg7 24.'iVxe6+ �h7 25.l:rg3 'iVf8 26.'iVg6+
�h8 27.l:Ih3 .id2 28.f4.
1 9 ... :ee
Δ Δ Δ
� �
How should White continue the attack?
20.a3?
Amazing! Not only does White waste a tempo senselessly, but he also forces the enemy bishop to retreat to a better square. The logical consequence of the previous play was 20.�h3 h6 2l .tbf5!
(21.�xh6 gxh6 22.�xg6 now leads only to a draw: 22 ... fxg6 23 . .1:1g3! �h7 24.'ifxg6+ �h8 25.1:rh3 'ifg7 26.�xh6+
�g8 27.'iνxg7+ �xg7 28.t2Jf5+ �f7 29.1:1f6+) 2 1 . .. 1:1xe5 22.�xh6 gxh6 23.tbxh6+ �g7 24.tbf5+ �f6 (also bad is 24 ... .1:1xf5 25.�xf5) 25.f4 �xfS 26.'ifxf5+ �g7 27.'ifg5 and Black is in a bad way.
20 ... �c5 21 . .:r.h3 h6 22.tlJf5 :Xe5 23 . .bh6 gxh6 24. tlJxh6+ <i;g7 25.'iff3?
After 2S.t2Jf5+ �f6 White does not have the move 26.f4, but 26.'iVf3 still retains the tension. Now Black's task is significantly eased.
25 ... 'ife7
White's attack has fizzled out.
26.tlJxf7 dxc4 27 . .:r.h7+ <i;xh7 28 . .bg6+ <l;xg6 29.tlJxe5+ 'ifxe5
30.'ifxb7 .:r.te Ο-1
Throughout the entire game, right from the very risky opening, the Dane played as ifhe never for a single second doubted the outcome of the game. Of course, he was taking into account the character of his opponent, who preferred general considerations to concrete calculation.
One should also not forget that 1970 was the absolute peak ofLarsen's career, Unfortunately, Fischer stood in his way, and in his match against the American, the great optimist suffered a bitter dis
appointment.
Game 58 Bent Larsen Lubomir Kavalek
Lugano οΙ 1970 (10)
ο
The price of α move in this position with White to move is extremely high. Whαt would be your suggestion?
1 9.<i;b1 ?
Α pointless move, which could have led to serious problems for White. He should have carried out the intended breakthrough immediately: 19.g4!
tt:Jxg4 20.f3 with a strong attack. And if he was determined to play a prophy
lactic move, then 19.'ife2! was a signifi
cantly better one.
1 9 ... .tf7?
Α mistake in reply. After this, White's attack develops almost of its own accord.
Larsen's comment is characteristic:
Άfter a 1 6-minute think, Kavalek plays a move which helps the white attack. He was considering the move 19 ... �xc4, but after 20.bxc4 tt:Jxc4 2I .'ife2 Black has nothing.'
Α strange comment indeed, which only adds more confusion to the situation, rather than clarifying it. It is surpris
ing that Kavalek, a player of energetic attacking style, should pass by a chance to change the course of the game, and no less surprising that Larsen's com
mentary should ignore his opponent's threats. Let us look more closely at the suggested possibility: 19 ... �xc4! 20.bxc4 tt:Jxc4 2I.'ife2 t2Jxb2 22.�xb2 and now 22 ... 'it'a4! (with all due respect, one can hardly say this move is the most diffi
cult to find) 23.�d2 (what else?) 23 ...
d5 and White is completely defenceless against the many threats.
Chapter 4 -The Logic of the Irrational
Alas, now this sacrifice is too late.
24.bxc4 tlJxf3 25.'it'h7+ �7 26. tίJcdS J:tgθ
Nor is he saved by 26 ... t2Je5 27.�xe5 dxe5 28.t2Jxe7.
27.tlJxe7 .:b828.�1 'it'xe729. 'it'xg6+
'1tf8 30.� 'it'xe6 31 .bg7+! Φe7 his opponent's attempts to counter
attack, even in analysis. Of course, such an approach involves a great deal of risk.
It was precisely this strategically risky play which enabled the Dane to win a mass of tournaments. But it also stopped him reaching the very, very top.
Boris Gelfand, ση the other hand, can be considered the very antithesis of the Danish star. Certainly, one cannot say that risk-taking is the dominant fea
ture of his play. But the remarkable idea conceived and realised in the following game is one that Larsen himself would have been proud of.
Game 59
lίJxd5 8.h3 a5 9.a4 tα:l4 1 0.lίJxd4 exd4 1 1 . .:.&1
It is clear to the naked eye that Black has solved all his opening problems. Can he pretend to more and, if so, how?
1 1 ... .:a6!?
Uηexpected aηd very beautiful! Black has several σther sσlid cσηtiηuatiσηs:
1 l . .. �e6; 1 1 ... �b4; 1 l . .. c6. All σf these result iη a quiet, rσughly equal pσsitiση.
Hσwever, haviηg spσtted this very ηice aηd highly uηusual idea, Bσris cσuld ησt resist it. The game coηtiηuatiση is uηdσubtedly the mσst aggressive aηd alsσ riskiest liηe. After all, it iηvσlves the sacrifice σf a whσle piece.
12.1i'h5
After at first beiηg surprised, SF sσση coηfirms the cσrrectηess σf Black's idea.
Ενeη sσ, the correct aηd mσst priηci
pled liηe fσr White was tσ accept the
sacrifice: 12.�xd5! 'i:Vxd5 13.l::txe7 1::tg6 aηd ησw 14.f3! (he lσses quickly after 14.g4 'i:VhS! 15.1::te4 (σr 15.'i:Vf3 �xg4 16.hxg4 l:Ixg4+ 1 7.�fl l:i.gl+ 1 8.�e2 '5'c5) 15 ... 'i:Vxh3 (15 ... f5 16 . .1::re5 'ifxh3 1 7.g5 traηspσses) 16.g5 f5 1 7.1:ιe5 f4 1 8.'\i'fl �h4 19.'5'g2 1:lf5!) 14 ... �xh3 15.1::te2 'i:Vxf3 16.'5'f1 , fσrciηg perpet
ual check: 16 ... .Άχg2 1 7.l:ιxg2 1::txg2+
1 8.'ifxg2 'Vifdl+ 19.'iffl 'i:Vg4+.
1 2 ... tt:\b4!?
The rσσk ση a6 has a great future ahead σf it.
After the 'cσrrect' 12 ... 1:le6!? its career sσση eηds.
1 3.tt:\a3 .J:I.g6 1 4 . .tf4 b6
How can White neutralise the growing activity of the black pieces?
1 5.1i'f3?!
Preveηtiηg the �c8 cσmiηg to the lσηg diagσηal, but it iηstead fiηds σther effective wσrk. White did have avail
able a maησeuvre, which coηfirms the thσught that ηση-staηdard meas
ures require ηση-staηdard decisiσηs:
15.ti:Jb5! c6 16.tba3 c5 1 7.tbc4 �b7 1 8.�g3. The white pieces are alsσ well
placed. The pσsitiση is rσughly equal.
1 5 ... .te6! 1 6.be6 fxe6
But ησw White has prσblems. The pres
sure ση the f- aηd g-files is uηpleasaηt.
1 7.1i'e4 .td6! 1 8 . .txd6 cxd6!
1 9.'ifxd4?
After 19.�fl tbd5! the black attack develops of its οwπ accord.
The relatively best defeπce was 19.g3 e5 20.1:1e2, although here too, Black's chaπces are uπdoubtedly superior. The text proves the decisive mistake.
1 9 ... 'ifg5 20.g3 'iff5! 21 .g4
Of course, ποt a very πice move to have to play. 21.\t>h2 was somewhat better, but theπ Black has a pleasaπt choice betweeπ a good eπdgame after 2I. .. tbxc2 22.tbxc2 'iνxf2+ 23.'iνxf2
�xf2+ 2H�igl �xc2 aπd aπ attack with 2l ... tbc6! 22.'5'xb6 tbes.
21 ... h5
Good eπough to wiπ, but eveπ stroπger was 2l ... tbd5!.
22 . .J:I.e4 d5 23. <li'h2 'iff3 24 . .J:I.ee1 hxg4 25. 'ife3 gxh3 26. 'it'xf3 .l:l.xf3 27 . .J:I.g1 .l:l.xf2+ 28 . ..txh3 .J:I.xg1 29 . .J:I.xg1 ltJxc2 30.llJb5 .l:l.f3+
31 .<li'g4 .J:I.xd3 32.llJd6 llJe3+ 33.�4
liJc4 0-1
Black's play iπ this game was irre
proachable. Karjakiπ, by coπtrast, failed to show his usual cold-bloodedπess, teπacity aπd accurate calculatioπ of variatioπs. Evideπtly, he was affected by the extreme paradox aπd courage of his oppoπeπt's idea. For Boris, such play is ποt typical, aπd so the
psycho-Chapter 4 -The Logic of the Irrational
logical effect οπ his oppoπeπt was all the greater.
The πext two games, played by the author maπy years ago, accord abso
lutely with the title of this chapter. The logic of the positioπ impelled me iπ the first case to sacrifice a piece, aπd iπ the secoπd to decide οπ aπ extravagaπt kiπg move.
Game 60
Vladimir Tukmakov Vladimir Bagirov
Moscow 1 983 (3)
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.llJf3 llJf6 4.liJc3 a6 5 . .ig5 liJe4 6 . .if4 ttJxc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.g3!? b5 9 . .ig2 .ib7 1 0.liJe5?! f6
We will pass over the opeπiπg phase, although it seems to me that this has ποt lost its theoretical iπterest eveπ after 30 years. Oπly White's last move I O.tbe5 was probably too optimistic.
Black's reply gave me α dif/icult choice. How should White continue?
1 1 .ltJxc4!
Risky? Of course! But the logic of the positioπ requires precisely this deci
sioπ. I I .tbf3 c5 or I I.tbg4 e5! 12.dxe5 'iνxdl+ 13.�xdl h5 H.tbe3 g5 would be iπcoπsisteπt aπd therefore, iπcorrect.
1 1 ... bxc4
Bagirov thought for 50 minutes over this natural move, which gave me addi
tional compensation for the sacrificed piece. Later Black tried 1 l . .. g5!? 12.�e3 bxc4 13.I:f.b1 �c7 14.h4 (SF's recom
mendation 14.d5!? e6 15.�d4! is also interesting) 14 ... gxh4 1 5 . .ί:ίχh4 lt:Jd7 with double-edged play.
1 2 . .J:r.b1 e5!
The most active and the strongest. After 12 ... �c8 13.�a4 White would have wonderful compensation for the piece.
1 3 . .J:r.xb7 exf4 1 4.'it'a4?!
Prematurely committing the queen helps Black's defence. Better was 14.�b1!? �d6 (14 ... �e7 1 5.�[5! <;!;>[7 16.'iνc5 Φf8 I 7."iνxc4 "iνc8 18.�b3 also gives White many possibilities) 15.�e4+ �e7 16.gxf4 with good compensation for the piece.
But the most correct decision was 14.0-0!, completing his development and letting Black have the next word.
Now after 14 .. .'iVc8 (after 14 ... fxg3 1 5.hxg3 �d6 the white queen goes on the same route as in the game: 16.�a4!) there is the very strong 15.�b1 ! �e7 (15 ... fxg3 16.fxg3!) 16.gxf4 f5 17.d5! and Black faces a difficult defence.
1 4 ... 'it'c8 1 5 . .J:r.b6 .tdβ 1 6.'it'xc4
�e7 1 7.0-0 .J:r.a7 1 8 . .J:r.fb1 .J:r.dβ!
18 ... fxg3 gives White additional possi
bilities: 19.hxg3 .ί:ίd8 20.e4!.
1 9.gxf4 'it'eβ
On 19 ... �xf4 Black did not like 20.d5
�c7 21..1::f.6b2, but then he has a far
from-obvious, but strong resource:
2I. . .'iVd7 22.dxc6 "iνd6. The pawn on c6 is practically worth a piece, but in return, Black has real counterplay.
20.'it'd3 gβ
Bagirov has repulsed the first attack, and it seemed to me that the game
had passed into a new, positional stage. The two pawns and active pieces compensate for White's small material deficit.
Δ Δ
Δ VJ/i
Δ Δ Δ � Δ
Even so, the vαlue of α move remαins high.
Whαt would you suggest for White?
21 .c4
Played in the spirit of White's new conception. However, the tactical resources of the position are far from exhausted. 2l .d5! cxd5 22 . .ί:ίχd6! <;!;>xd6 23 . .ί:ίb6+ lt:Jc6 24.c4 was significantly more unpleasant for Black, especially in conditions of time deficit.
21 ... �8
Bagirov, in time-trouble, tries to play as solidly as possible.
Stronger was 2 l . .. �xf4!, not fearing 22.d5 �f5! and White has nothing better than the exchange of queens:
23.�xf5 gxf5 24.dxc6 §J.c7. In this
case, the likely outcome of the battle is a draw.
22.d5 'fle7?
And this is a serious mistake. He had to play 22 ... 'ife8! 23.dxc6 .txf4, although here too, White has excellent compen
sation for the piece after 24 . .tds.
23.c5! .bf4 24.e3
More energetic is 24.d6! 'iνe8 2S . .ί:t6b4! .ies (2S ... .th6 26.'iνb3!
t2Jd7 27 . .1::f.e4 tbes 28.f4) 26.f4, but in the 5th hour of play, one tends to want greater clarity.
24 ... ttJd7 25.exf4 cxdS 26 . .J:I.c6
26 ... lbbθ?
Α decisive time-trouble oversight.
He should have preferred 26 ... t2Jxc5!
27.'iνd4 t2Je4, retaining good chances of a draw in the variation 28 . .txe4 dxe4 29.l:Ixf6+ �g8 30.'ifc4+ �g7 31..!:1e6 'ifh4 32.'iνc3+ �g8 33.1:lxe4. Black would have greater problems (espe
cially in view of his time-trouble) after 28.�h3!.
27 . .J:I.d6! .J:I.xd6 28.cxd6 'fixd6 29. 'ifxdS 'ifc7 30. 'fle6 'fidθ Allowing a nice finish. But Black is also helpless after 30 ... �g7 3l .'iνe8! t2Jd7 32.'ii'e7+ �h8 33.l:Idl.
31 . .J:I.xb8 'ifxbθ 32. 'fixf6+ 1 -0 White's play cannot be considered as perfect, but he tried to follow the logic
Chαpter 4 -The Logic of the Irrαtionαl
of the irrational. In any event, as the author himself saw it. Ι will not hide the fact that this win brought me a great deal of pleasure, partly because such a style of play had enabled me to defeat such a high-class defender as Vladimir Bagirov.
Game 61
Gennady Kuzmin Vladimir Tukmakov
Odessa 1 968
1 .d4 tbf6 2.c4 g6 3.tbc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 c6 6.i.e3 lbbd7 7. 'fid2 a6 θ.tbge2 bS 9.tbg3 'flas 1 0.a3 hS 1 1 .cxb5 axbS 1 2.b4 'fidθ 1 3 . ..td3 lbb6 1 4.0-0 i.e6 1 5.d5 cxdS 1 6 . ..txb5+ i.d7 1 7 .es dxeS 1 8 . .bd7+
It rαrely hαppens thαt Blαck hαs still not mαnαged to cαstle αfter 18 moves of α King's Indiαn. This gαme is αη exception. It αlso rαrely hαppens thαt α cαpture with check leαves Blαck four different recαptures. Ι fαced exαctly this problem.
How should Ι resolve it?
1 8 ... 'iii'xd7?!
Possibly the most paradoxical move of my chess career! Ι understood only too well (or perhaps Ι did not, given that Ι still chose such a risky operation ... ) that this was not the safest of moves.
However, the desire to justify all my previous play was just too tempting.
The black king fearlessly marches in front of his army, demonstrating at the same time, as typically happens, both courage and stupidity. Taking with the queen, losing a piece, would have been even more stupid. The desire to keep the central pawns intact is understanda
ble, but the price is too great. The posi
tion does not in general justify such a degree of risk.
1 8 ... tt:Jfxd7! 19.lLJxd5 lLJc4 20.'iνc3 lLJxe3 2I.lLJxe3 0-0 leads to a double
edged position, where the activity of the black pieces compensates for the pair of passed pawns on the queenside.
Weaker is 1 8 ... tt:Jbxd7 19.lLJxd5 0-0 20.lLJe4.
1 9.1We2! d4
There is no way back! 19 ... We8 20.'iνb5+
lLJbd7 2I.lLJxd5 leads to much the same position, as does 1 8 ... tt:Jbxd7, but with the significant difference that Black has managed to lose the right to castle!
20.1Wb5+ �cθ
20 ... We6 2I.f4! was immediate suicide.
21 .:Sc1 ! �b7 22.tlJge4!
It is clear that White is not intimidated.
Kuzmin plays in the most energetic way and now it is very hard to know what
Kuzmin plays in the most energetic way and now it is very hard to know what