CAPÍTULO 4: IMPLEMENTACIÓN
4.3 Diagrama de despliegue
So far, we have seen more examples which show the effects of insufficiently good use of intuition (Zukertort, Carlsen in one case, and Fischer) than of its successful use (Anand, Kramnik in one case) . It is time to become acquainted with some ex
amples of effective, successful use of intuition in the games of great masters. Let us see.
How Serious People Do It
This is important partly because 1t IS significantly harder to describe the op
eration of intuition than other weapons within the player's armoury. I am not thinking about stories, such as how in the year 1 9-whatever, Capablanca looked at such-and-such a position, and within a few seconds said that White was winning. I am concerned with con
crete games and concrete decisions, and very much wish to show how these de
cisions were the result of the exercise of intuition, even though proving such things is very difficult. But let us agree such exercise of intuition needs to be shown and explained as far as possible, preferably in the games of the greatest players.
We will start looking at examples in chronological order, although some
times, in order to enhance the effective
ness of our material, we may depart from this principle.
The first name on our list in Paul Morphy. To my mind, it is clear that the greatest part of his huge talent was intu
ition. I say this as the author of a book
on Morphy, and one who has devoted a great deal of time to the study of his games.
Anderssen,Adolf Morphy,Paul Paris m-4, 1 8 5 8
As I have already said, the fact that a cer
tain decision was made on the basis of intuition is much more difficult to demonstrate than the fact that it was based on calculation or positional judgement (these two factors almost al
ways occur together, but they vary in proportion from case to case) . Even so, I will try to do this in as convincing a manner as possible.
45
The Enigma of Chess In tuition
1 9 . ... 'iYd8-d6 In the game, Morphy played this, but in his commentaries (very brief, but they are commentaries nonetheless) , he claimed that he could have taken the pawn without being punished, and he gave several variations. But alas, his analysis was wrong! Here is his varia
tion : 1 9 .. . tt:Jxe5 2 0 .dxe5 .!:!.xeS 2 1..�. xb6 cxb6 2 2. .�a2 'iYe8 2 3 . lt:Jxd5 lt:JxdS
2 L�xd5 .!:i.d8 2 S .�xf7 + 'it>xf7 2 6. 'iV xd8 .l:f.e 1 + etc. , with equality.
This contains two completely elemen
tary mistakes, not worthy of Morphy's level of play. Firstly, instead of 24.�xd5 one can play simply 24.f4 and thereby win a piece. And secondly, the real mis
take is the 'obvious' capture of the rook:
2 6 .'iYxd8 . Instead of this, by playing 2 6 .'iVf4+, White can force 2 6 .. . 'it>e6 and then both 2 7 . 'iYf3 and 2 7 . .!::!.ac 1 give him an easily winning position, thanks to the appalling position of the black king. Thus, we have terrible mis
takes, and not just one of them, in anal
ysis, committed by a player whose ge
nius nobody doubts. In actual play, on the other hand, he very rarely commit
ted such mistakes (he only did so
Paul Morphy
twice!), and only because he relaxed in completely winning positions. How can this be explained?
It is quite possible that Morphy simply did not concentrate properly, when ana
lysing a game he had already played, because the result was no longer at stake. Yes, this is perfectly possible. But then the question arises - surely he must have considered the capture of the pawn during the game? Yet he did not take it. So what was going on? Maybe he overlooked the move 2 6 .. . .!:!.e 1 + in the above variation? Maybe, but there are also other continuations which offer a decisive advantage, such as the move 24.f4, already pointed out, and the vari
ation 2 3 .�xdS .l:f.d8 24 . .l:re 1 lt:JxdS 25 Jhe5 'iVxeS 2 6J�d 1 which is also winning for White.
What can one say about a player who overlooks so much during a game?
There are two possible answers - either he is a mediocre player, which is cer
tainly not true of Paul Morphy, or the
player simply did not examine these variations seriously. It is obvious that the second explanation is the more probable. But why would a great player, playing one of the most important games of his life, not even consider the possibility of winning a pawn? I do not see any other explanation than the fact that he simply felt that this direction of play did not promise him anything at
tractive.
Here, there are two important words -'felt' , which means intuition, and 'di
rection' , which is one of the most im
portant factors connected with the functioning of intuition. From this, I would risk drawing this conclusion: in
tuition was involved in Morphy's play. I would go further: to me it is obvious that intuition was one of the most im
portant components of the American's chess strength. In fact, I think it played a far greater role in his play than it did in that of the other great American cham
pion, Bobby Fischer. We will say more about the percentage of different com
ponents later.
For now, let us make an important ob
servation: similar mistakes in analysis, combined with clock-like precision in play, can be seen in the games of other great players of the past, such as Capablanca, Smyslov and Tal. It is a characteristic of all the great exponents of chess intuition. We will encounter such mistakes in commentaries later in this book.
But now let us return to the game. In this position Anderssen, by playing
20. 'iYd2-c2?
C hapter 2 - Successful Use of Intui tion
committed an oversight. Instead, he should have played 2 0. ltJxdS and then events could have developed as follows:
2 0 .. . tt:Jxd5 (the only move)
.i .i •
i i i
.. ..ttJ
8
2 I .'iVc2 (if 2 I .'iVd3 lt:Jf6 2 2 .lt:Jg4 l:rad8 Black's chances are superior) 2 l ... tt:Jxe5 (this too is practically forced) 2 2 .dxe5 'iVxeS 2 3 .'iYh 7 + �f8 and now 24.�xd5 ! ? 'iVxdS 2 5 .�a2 'iVe4 2 6 .'iVh8+ �e7 2 7 .'iVxg 7 'iVg6 2 8 .'iYe5+ �f8 2 9 .'iYh8+ with perpet
ual check. As we see, this variation is not simple, especially playing Black, since his king is permanently under fire. In addition, White has other possi
bilities as well. It is extremely difficult to calculate all this at the board, and there is no doubt that in this case, Morphy would have had to be guided by his intuition, which, as we have seen, is unlikely to have let him down.
47
The Enigma of Chess Intui tion
But now there is scope for direct calcu
lation.
20 . ... tt:Jc6xd4!
21 . �e3xd4
Black is clearly better in the variation 2 1 .Ii.xd4 .itxd4 2 2..�.xd4 .itb7 ! (it is also possible to take the knight at once) 23 .ih2 .l:IxeS.
21 . ... �b6xd4
22. tt:Jc3xd5
Black also has a clear advantage after 2 2 . .l::!.xd4 l::rxe5 23 . .ita2 �cS .
22. �d6xe5
23. tt:Jd5xf6+ �e5xf6 24. �c2-h7+ <;t>g8-f8
When Morphy played his 20th move, he had, among other variations, not only to see this position, but also to fore
see that his king would be safe, both now and in the further play. At the same time, this was with one of the greatest mas
ters of attack that have ever lived, sitting opposite him!
25 . .itb1 -e4
The attempt to manage with checks loses at once: 25 .�h8+ <;t>e7 2 6.l:!.e l +
�d7.
25. l:!.a8-d8
26. �g1 -h1
26 . ... .itd4xb2 A very simple, but also very strong con
tinuation. Morphy takes a pawn and then exchanges queens. Anyone would do the same. But first, he had to bring about the conditions for such a simple decision!
27. l::ra1 -b1 28. l:!.b1 xd1
29. �h7-h8+
l:!.d8xd1 +
�f6xf2
Even weaker is 2 9 .l:!.d7? 'liVe 1 + 30 .�h2 .iteS + .
29 . ...
30. 'iYh8-h7 31 . .ite4-f3 32. �h1 -g1
�f8-e7 .itb2-e5
�f2-g3
32 . ... �g3-g6 Just so! I am convinced that Morphy did
not even consider other possibilities.
Fritz immediately points out a forced have found this variation. But he simply did not bother looking, since the game was won. It is interesting that one can find similar occurrences in several of Lasker's games, and he was also a great tactician. Psychologically, this is very noteworthy! However, Black had no more difficulties in the game.
33. "i¥h7xg6
A simple and at the same time powerful game. Subsequently, Capablanca was also able to play in such a style.
Here, we have found several answers to the question of what made Morphy su
perior to the great attacking master Anderssen. The latter only learned much later not to be afraid of having to defend, when the position demanded it. And he would only take a purely technical decision if there was dire ne
cessity. Morphy, on the other hand, could do all this from birth!
But if his opponent had been outplayed, but no simple decision was lying on front of his eyes, Morphy preferred to attack energetically, and could do so wonderfully. We will look now at a clas
sic example, but without in any way di
verting our attention from our main subject, which is intuition!
In this section, I will also seek to kill two birds with one stone, by correcting some errors in my book Paul Morphy, A Modern Perspective, Russell Enterprises,
49
The Enigma of Chess Intui tion
Inc. Milford, USA, 2 0 0 5 , as well as con
firming what to me is obviously the case, namely that one of the most im
portant components of the phenomenal natural talent of the tragic American champion was the strength of his intu
ition.
In my book, I analysed the following fa
mous game Bird-Morphy, London, ca
sual match, 1 85 8 , but I did not manage to shake off the impression created by a century and a half of commentators, supported by the authority of modern computer analysis taken from Kasparov's multi-volume work. As a re
sult, I gave a long version of what re
duces to the following: 'the match with Bird did not have great sporting signifi
cance in Morphy's eyes. As a result, hav
ing obtained an overwhelming position from the opening, in the following po
sition,
•
... when he spotted a striking idea, he did not resist its charms in favour of a guaranteed technical method of play.
But everything has its price, and in this case, it should have cost him half a point, if his opponent had not commit
ted an obvious mistake on move 2 2 .. .' But later, when the book had already appeared in print and it was too late to
correct anything, after experiencing a long feeling that something was wrong (is this intuition?) , I discovered that the truth was quite different, and that Morphy turned out to have pene
trated the position more deeply than several (four of five?) generations of analysts.
And if I am right, and this is really the case, then we must start our analysis one move earlier than the point at which most commentators usually start taking an interest.
Bird, Henry Morphy,Paul London match, 1 8 5 8
•
" ,;s
' � '' 0 ,'
�
1 6 . ... J::!.a8-b8
Analysis starts here, because the main alternative is 1 6 ... �g4! with a simple positional idea: to exchange light
squared bishops (White has many holes on the light squares) , then double rooks on the f-file, then exchange the other bishops (the pawn on f2 !) and the rest is quite easy. If this plan is to be played, it should be played now, since then the a8 rook can go to f8 in one move.
1 7. 0-0-0
1 7 . ... l::f8xf2(!!)
This is what Morphy had seen and the reason he moved the rook on the previ
ous move! Incidentally, I have deliber
ately left that move without punctua
tion, because the assessment of its strength depends entirely on the strength of the sacrifice just played.
1 8. �e3xf2 'ifh3-a3!
I have only given Black's last move one exclamation mark, because he simply does not have any other move. Moving the bishop to this square is incompara
bly weaker. All the astonishment, inso
far as it is justified, should be devoted to Black's previous move or to the whole concept, which one has to say is grandi
ose, even if not fully correct at the end of the day For 1 5 0 years or so, it has
in-Chapter 2 - Su ccessful Use of Intui tion
deed been considered incorrect, as I said above.
But now let us turn to the analysis. In doing so, I will make use of the past analyses. Fortunately, the most impor
tant of these are summarised in Kasparov's first volume, to which he has added his own analysis and that of the computer. Effectively, it is with him that we will be debating.
The main question is this: was the sacri
fice simply the whim of a genius, since there can be no doubt that it would have been a simple matter for Morphy to see the technical route beginning with 1 6 ... �g4. So why did he choose an incalculable line with a sacrifice? Or did he in fact feel with his intuition (we will soon realise that the number of possible variations makes it beyond hu
man capacity to have calculated it out) , that he had great chances of conducting the attack to a successful conclusion? I am inclined towards the latter answer, but only analysis can show the effec
tiveness of the American genius' intuition.
1 9. c2-c3
This move is forced. For example, 1 9 . 'if g S loses thus: 1 9 .. .lhb 2 ! 20.'ii'd8+ �f8 2 l .�d2 e3 + ! 2 2 .�xe3 'ifb4+ 2 3. We 1 l::b 1 mate.
1 9. "ii!Ya3xa2 20. b2-b4
This too is forced After 2 0.'iYc2 �f4+
2 1 .�d2 e3 Black wins.
20.
21 . �c1 -c2
"ii!Ya2-a1 +
"ii!Ya1 -a4+
5 1
The Enigma of Chess Int u i tion
22. �c2-b2?
Without any doubt, a terrible move, which loses quickly. 22.�cl was oblig
atory, and in the opinion of several gen
erations of commentators, as men
tioned earlier, should have saved the draw. Through the efforts of all these commentators, White's defensive lines have been worked out, which Kasparov (or whoever helped him with his book, which I think is very likely) corrected and refined. I, however, believe that White's defences can be breached even in this case. This is the main line of what I have found: 22 ... .ifs 23 . .iel !
Kasparov awards this move an exclama
tion mark, considering that it saves White. It is indeed the most tenacious, as shown by the variations:
A) 2 3 .�e3 �a2 ! 24Jlhg 1 aS ! 2S Jld2 (2S .�h6 is no better: 2S .. . g6 2 6 .�gS axb4 ! 2 7 .'i¥xfS .if4+ ! 2 8 .'iVxf4 bxc3 winning) 2S ... 'iVa l + 2 6.�c2 �a4+ 2 7 .�c 1 axb4 with a de
cisive attack;
B) 23 . .ie3 .ixb4! 24.cxb4 .l:i.xb4 2 S .�c2 'i¥a3 + 2 6.�d2 l::rb2 winning.
23 ••• 'iVal + 24.�c2 The greatest in
trigue starts with this move. First, let us look at the main variation, which is given in Kasparov's book:
24 .. . e3 + 2S .�b3 exd2 2 6 . .l::!.xa 1 .l::!.e8 ! 2 7 . .ia6 (I would mention in passing that this move is bad. White loses two important tempi, whereas after 2 7 . .if3 ! dxe 1 � 2 8 . .r.f.axe 1 l:txe 1 2 9Jhe 1 .ixh2 3 0 . bS the advantage is already on his side, although it seems that Black should hold) 2 7 . . . dxe 1 'iV 2 8 .tlaxe 1 l::rxe 1 2 9 Jhe 1 .ixh2 3 0 . .ib7 .ie4 3 l ..ixc6 �f7 ' ... gave Black a minimal advantage' .
However, if we refrain from the natural check and play instead 24 • • .'iVa3! then White's prospects look much less rosy.
2S.'iVcl 2S ."iVe3 ? loses at once to 2 S .. . l::rxb4. 2S ... e3+ 26.l:ld3 Worse is 2 6 . .id3 'i¥a4+ 2 7 .�b2 e2 ! 2 8 . .ixe2 (after 2 8 Jld2 .ixb4! Black wins) 2 8 .. . aS ! with a winning attack.
26 .. .'iYa2+ 2 7.'i!iidl If 2 7 .�b2 'ifc4 2 8 .'i¥b3 aS ! 29 . .t!.fl .ie4 30 . .U.f3 axb4!
3 I . .U.xe3 .ig6 Black has a serious, prob
ably even decisive advantage. I cannot prove this by variations, because there are too many non-forcing lines here, but I ask you to believe me - White is in a bad way. 2 7 ... aS ! 28.'iVc2 'iYa3 29 . .llfl .ie4! As a result, we have reached a po
sition in which, despite his extra rook (for which, by the way, Black has three pawns already and will soon have an
other!) White has serious trouble
sur-viving. Once again, showing any further lines makes no sense, and I simply ask you to believe me when I say that White will not be able to escape from the pin without major material losses, and Black will then have every grounds for winning.
In the game, Morphy won with a direct attack, practically by force:
22.
23. c3xb4 24. �d2xb4 25. Wb2-c2
�d6xb4 l:.b8xb4+
'iYa4xb4+
'On 2 S . tit>a2 decisive is 2 S .. . c5 ! 2 6.dxc5 d4! ' - Kasparov. I will add a couple of lines, just for clarity:
2 7 .�xd4 �e6+ 2 8 .�al 'iYb3 (also good is 2 8 ... 'iVa3 + 2 9 .Wbl 'iYa2+
30.tit>c l 'li'xe2) 29J:£d2 e3 3 0.�xe3 'iia3+ 3 l .�b l AfS + .
25.
26. �f2xe3 27. l:rd1 -d3 28. �c2-d2 29. tit>d2-d1
e4-e3!
�c8-f5+
'tWb4-c4+
'tWc4-a2+
'tWa2-b1 + 0-1
This game was not very important in a sporting sense. Morphy, we have to say, played for pleasure. But even so, it is
Chapter 2 - Successful Use of Intui t i on
very nice that his intuition did not de
ceive him!
But one cannot help noticing that the game, like others of his, was powerful. I am convinced that the most important part of the gigantic superiority that Morphy had over his contemporaries, and the reason why he remained ahead of his time by several decades, was his enormous natural intuition.
Chronologically, the next player we come to is one who is universally ac
knowledged as a chess genius, and par
ticularly unrivalled for the strength of his chess intuition. This, of course, is Jose Raul Capablanca.
Jose Raul Capablanca
Legends abound of his intuition, and chess literature is rife with stories such as the following :
'During the Second Moscow Interna
tional tournament in 1 9 3 5 , Ragozin and I were showing him our analysis of the adjourned game Ragozin-Lasker.
Watching the complicated variations 5 3
The Enigma of C hess Intuition
played out, Capa just nodded his head each time, as a mark of agreement. But no sooner had we reached one varia
tion, finishing in an endgame, than he instantly (italics mine - VB) rejected my superficial summary, and expressed the view that the ending was lost for White;
and as the result of joint analysis, Ragozin and I were unable to prove him wrong' (Mikhail Botvinnik, 2004) . I would point out that here we are deal
ing with a case of analysis by Botvinnik, a great master in this sphere.
But that is just words, whereas concrete demonstrations (and this is a very tough requirement!) showing the working of the intuition of one or other player are more important and easy to understand than any number of stories.
So let us look. We start with a fragment from a very well-known game.
Bernstein,Ossip Capablanca,Jose Moscow, 1 9 1 4
•
This was not a tournament game, but an exhibition game, and so it may be that the players did not achieve a full level of concentration during the en
counter. So firstly, we should not
criti-cise Capablanca's opponent too severely for his mistakes, and secondly, one can
not but be amazed at the grace and depth of Capablanca's play. In this posi
tion, he played
1 5 . ... c5-c411
This decision could be considered one of genius, had not the idea been seen before. I have in mind Lasker's move f4-f5 , which he had played some five years before, in an Exchange Spanish against Janowski. In this position, how
ever, Capablanca had to consider much more serious counter-measures from the opponent, than was the case in the aforementioned predecessor game. But what is really remarkable is that later in this same year of 1 9 1 4, Lasker beat Capablanca in one of the most famous games in chess history, again employ
ing the advance f4-fS in the Spanish Ex
change variation! Fate loves to smile ironically on us!
But why does a quiet advance of a pawn
But why does a quiet advance of a pawn