The greatest skill in chess lies in not allowing the opponent to show you what he can do.
GM GARRY KASPAROV
Prophylaxis. It's an awkward word that I can never remember how to spell and I feel preten
tious every time I say it. Many players think of it as something profound that Nimzowitsch conjured up but nobody fully understands, and I suspect most club players consider it an en
tirely foreign concept, not applicable to the hussle and bussle of your average game. Wat
son (Secrets of Modem Chess Strategy) does an excellent job of surveying recent thinking on the matter, including the instructive writings of Dvoretsky and Yusupov (Positional Play and
Training for the Tournament Player) and Tis
dall (Improve Your Chess Now) but in all of these cases I have the impression that many readers must find the whole idea of prophylaxis
a bit perplexing, occurring only in exceptional circumstances and something which only hap
pens over 2600 level.
This is certainly my experience when teach
ing the idea to junior and adult players. There is an inclination to admire prophy I axis from a dis
tance, as if it were something to be revered as a part of chess culture, but not incorporated into chess below a certain level. This is sad because it's really not such a regal or exclusive area, and I believe it can and should be used and under
stood by players of all strengths. What is more significant in the context of this chapter is that
prophylactic thinking arises naturally from viewing chess from an inter-subjective per
spective. Once you start to look at positions with an awareness of your opponent's perspective, you are already thinking prophylactically to an extent. Indeed, as far as I can tell, prophylactic thinking needn't be considered as anything more than a state of mind whereby you are aware of your own plans and how they relate to your opponent's. This is not such an easy state of mind to attain, but having seen the value in 'inter-subjectivity' with reference to chess psy
chology and responsibility, it shouldn't be too difficult to add the positional aspect of 'inter
subjectivity' into your arsenal. And if you can, the rewards should be plentiful.
Indeed, through a long and somewhat alco
holic grapevine in Holland I heard that GM Ar
tur Yusupov, who had recently been coaching in Apeldoorn, had proclaimed that "If you un
derstand prophylaxis, you understand chess".
A few months after hearing this I found myself climbing up a more sober grapevine and on reaching the top I was pleased to have the op
portunity to speak to the man himself. I asked if this quotation was an accurate reflection of what he had said and, not surprisingly, was told by Yusupov that he did not make such an extrava
gant claim. However, he did say that although the given statement is an over-simplification, it is not very far from the truth and that a close study of top players and their thinking pro
cesses reveals that prophylaxis is never far from the minds of the strongest players. Yusupov singled out Kasparov in this respect, whom he referred to as ''deeply prophylactic", and sug
gested that Kasparov's famous victory against Karpov (World Ch match (game 1 6), Moscow
1 985) in the Taimanov with 8 ... d5 was an ex
quisite demonstration of the power of prophy
lactic thinking. I suspect that this game can easily be found elsewhere by readers so I will just single out the following moves, all of which strike me as being "deeply prophylactic":
17 ... h6, 1 8 ... b4 ! , 2l ...g5! !, 23 ... tlJd7 !, 24 ... 'iif6!, 27 ... ii.g6 ! and 28 ... g4! .
Yusupov was also keen to stress that prophy
laxis should not be seen as in any way defensive or passive, but rather as a very active, even ag
gressive way of looking at chess. This was a particularly interesting insight because another aspect of the average player's thoughts on pro
phylaxis is that it tends to lead to highly pro
found but usually quite defensive moves, and of course this may not appeal to your average 1800 hacker. The truth, however, is that pro
phylaxis is every bit as important in attack
as it is in defence. It's all about seeing chess as a struggle between subjects. Prophylaxis is 'ac
tive' in the sense that every aspect of a battle is ultimately about defeating the opponent. The attackers who are most likely to succeed are those who acknowledge the opponent's right to defend himself. They strive to work around these defences that they have seen ahead of time, and always make plans for themselves with reference to the opponent.
I felt the best way to 'popularize' prophy
laxis here was by talking my way through a few of my own games. Hopefully an account of my own thought-processes, and consideration of my opponent's, will reveal just how ubiquitous prophylaxis is, and that it's not an especially difficult notion when you allow yourself to be
come aware of your opponent's intentions.
Rowson - L. Cooper Walsall 1997
1 c4 b6 2 d4 e6 3 tlJc3 Ji.b7 4 a3 fS 5 dS tlJf6 6 g3 g6 7 tlJf3 exdS?! 8 cxdS i.g7 (D)
So, nothing startling so far, you might think;
"just get castled as quickly as possible and take it from there". That's fine as a starting point for thought, but you mustn't forget about your op
ponent! Black's early capture on d5 was not necessary but it might make sense if Black can demonstrate that the white d-pawn is weak.
One obvious way to remove a defender of d5 is w
... tlJa6-c5-e4, after which Black's forces will coordinate rather effectively. However, this is really the only way in which Black can develop the queen' s knight because ... d6 intending ... ltlbd7 would leave e6 and c6 gruesomely weak . ... c6 also leads to serious weaknesses so if I can stop Black's above-mentioned plan he'll have a hard time making use of his minor pieces on the queenside and I can gradually turn my attention to playing e4 or attacking on the kingside. The best way to do this seems to be just to wait for ... tlJa6 and then play b4, but this has the shortcoming that it' s liable to run into tactics on the h8-al diagonal. So the long and short of it is that I need to be in a position to meet . . . ltla6 with b4 without allowing tactical tricks based on ... ltle4 or ... ltlxd5.
9 :b1!
A strange-looking move, but hopefully it makes sense in light of the above. I am only two moves from castling and since the centre is rel
atively closed there is no great urgency to de
velop. The main thing is the quality of White's development, not the quantity, and this move seriously hinders the quality of my opponent's development.
9 i.g2 is of course met by 9 ... ltla6!, when 10 b4 ltle4 is problematic and 10 0-0 ltlc5 leaves Black with a harmonious position and a clear object of attack (d5).
9 ••• 0-0
9 ... tlJa6 is met by 1 0 b4 ! - shutting out the knight is the idea.
10 i.g2 aS
This plan doesn't turn out particularly well, but I don't see a convincing alternative for Black.
11 0-0 lba6 12 b4! axb4 13 axb4 c5
This looks like a big mistake in hindsight, but it's not so easy for Black to play with such passive queenside pieces, e.g. 13 ... 'ii'e7 14 i.f4 tDe4 1 5 lbxe4 fxe4 1 6 d6 ! and White is on top.
14 dxc6 dxc6 15 tiJd4! 'ii'd7 16 'ii'b3+ �h8 17 lbe6 lUe8 18 lbxg7 �xg7
White is clearly better due to the two bish
ops, Black's weakened dark squares and vul
nerable queenside pawns. I won on move 43.
Rowson - Motwani Scottish Ch, Edinburgh 1999
1 lbf3 dS 2 c4 c6 3 e3 lbf6 4 tDc3 g6 5 d4 i.g7 6 i.e2 0-0 7 0-0 i.g4 8 cxdS tDxd5 9 h3 i.xf3 10 i.xf3 e6 1 1 e4 lbb6 12 e5 lb8d7 13 tDe4 'ii'c7 14 i.g5 f5 15 exf6 lbxf6 16 tiJc5 �ae8 (D)
w
A tricky position. Black is fully mobilized and has a variety of ideas including ... lbfd5-f4 and ... e5. Although . . . e5 will 'open up the posi
tion for the two bishops' it will also give Black's rooks considerable activity, which is not ideal given my lack of development. More
over, the pawn-structure allows Black to have a very well anchored knight on d5, which in most cases is at least as good as my light-squared bishop. For these reasons I was keen to prevent ... e5 and my thoughts revolved around this aim.
I also realized that if! could prevent ... e5, Black would be rendered very passive, and e6 could become weak.
17 �el!
Not such a difficult move of course, but I wasn't very comfortable about weakening f2, and the battle for the ... e5 break is not yet over.
17 ... 'iff7
The queen no longer covers e5, but Black has a somewhat ominous presence on the f-file and ... tDfd5 and ... e5 is still pending. 17 ... e5 18 dxe5
�xe5 1 9 tDe6 is a very important tactic here.
18 i.h4!
This is the key prophylactic move and is a good example of what I was saying about pro
phylaxis being a very 'active' notion. This move overprotects f2 and thus comforts my king, and the main aim is to cover e5 from the g3-square.
These are all 'negative' aims, in the sense that I'm just preventing the opponent's plans, but only by doing so can I allow myself to imple
ment my own plans successfully, and part of the plan is to threaten to cause trouble by landing my versatile bishop on d6. 1 8 i.f4 (also strong) didn' t seem so clear to me after 1 8 . . . tDc4. I didn't like the vulnerability of my bishop on f4, and the most forcing line seems to end in Black's favour: 1 9 b3 ( 1 9 'il*'e2 ! ?) 19 ... e5 20 dxe5 lbh5 2 1 i.xh5 'ii'xf4 22 tiJd3 tiJb2 23 tbxf4 tL'lxd1 24 tbxg6 hxg6 25 i.xg6 �e6.
18 • • . lbfd5 19 .tg3!
Black's plans have effectively been stopped and it's hard to make sense of his position. On the other hand, White has threats of i.g4 and i.d6. It often happens this way with prophy
laxis: that when you 'plug' your opponent's in
tentions, your own plans flood into the position.
19 .•. e5!
An excellent practical decision. Those who know Paul will not be surprised to hear that I consider him relatively resistant to Egoism!
Here this manifests itself by having the serenity to accept that he is worse and making a fight of it by starting a new type of game.
20 dxeS lbf4 21 �xf4 'ii'xf4
Now there are various ways to keep the extra pawn, but the presence of opposite-coloured bishops and the difficulties in coordinating White's position mean that the battle is far from over. Paul fought tenaciously, but his position on the board and the clock were too bad to al
low for a full recovery, and I won on move 4 1 . Cummings - Rowson
British League (4NCL) 1997/8
1 lbf3 dS 2 g3 i.g4 3 i.g2 lbd7 4 d4 e6 5 0-0 i.d6 6 b3 c6 7 c4 i.xf3!? 8 i.xf3 fS (D)
Essentially we now have a Stonewall Dutch with Black having carried out the task of the elaborate manoeuvre ... i.d7-e8-h5 followed by ... i.xf3 in two moves instead of four. I already prefer Black's position, if only because I have the advantages of a Stonewall (space, kingside attacking chances, solidity) without the disad
vantages (finding a role for the c8-bishop, dark-square weaknesses, White's e5 outpost).
That said, the position is still about equal be
cause there's nothing much wrong with White's position, and the two bishops should ultimately count for something.
w
9 i.a3?!
This is a significant positional error. In the Stonewall it is generally favourable to ex
change these bishops, and often in this way, be
cause White can try to exploit the dark-square weaknesses in Black's position and hope to show the remaining light-squared bishop to be 'bad' . But here I have no bad pieces remaining, and have no problems covering the dark squares with my knights. Indeed, I have space for all my pieces and I feel sorry for White's remaining bishop on f3 which has, according to the appro
priate cliche, to bite on granite. However, the main reason this move is mistaken is that it gives away the hermaphrodite, which was the only positive feature of White's position. As was suggested in the previous chapter, this is equivalent to giving away material. I suppose my opponent fell victim to the conventional idea that since my pawns are on light squares, exchanging my dark-squared bishop must be an achievement, but this is only one aspect of the position, and not the most significant one.
It seems clear that dropping the bishop back to g2 will be a good idea sooner or later, allow
ing for f3 intending e4, or maybe to put a knight on f3; and since ifs not yet clear where the other pieces should go, 9 i.g2 !? seems to be the best move. Moreover, it is useful to know where Black will put his king's knight before develop
ing the queenside pieces, and this move-order prevents 9 ... liJh6. After 9 ... l2Jgf6 1 0 liJd2 0-0 1 1 i.b2 'iie7 1 2 .C.b1 !? (to keep the bishop with i&.al after ... i.a3) 1 2 ... a5 1 3 'iic2 the game is balanced.
9 . . . liJdf6!
The closed position means that there is no rush to develop the g8-knight and, in any case, after 9 ... i.xa3 1 0 l2Jxa3 the knight is on its way to its ideal square, d3. This is already prophy
lactic thinking - I am aware of where my oppo
nent's pieces should go. On d3 the knight covers c5, e5 and f4, and can support b4 as well.
Since it's not in my interest to help the knight get there, I decide how I relate to my oppo
nent's intention and in doing so I find the opti
mal development for my pieces.
10 i.xd6 'iixd6 11 liJd2 liJh6 12 i.g2 ttJn The knight is well placed here, covering e5 and sometimes coming to g5.
13 'iic2 (D)
B
What does White want here? I decided that White's plans were based around making use of his bishop, either with f3 and e4 or else a grad
ual advance on the queenside and bringing the bishop into play on the fl-a6 diagonal. To keep the bishop at bay, it is in my interest to keep the centre closed, so I wasn't too keen on plans in
volving central pawn-breaks like ... e5 or ... c5. I
could just castle and play .. . a5 but that seemed a bit vague and wouldn't test my opponent in any way. In the end I decided that my threesome on the f-file indicate that I should seek play on the kingside, and my h8-rook was very quick to agree.
13 ... h5! ?
The main idea of this move i s prophylactic in that by targeting g3 I discourage the idea of f3 and e4 and by threatening to soften the kingside I oblige the bishop to stay near the king. The other idea is actually to trap the bishop ! I want to push the bishop to h l with ... h3 and then play . . . g5-g4 after which, in theory, it is trapped be
cause even f3 and e4 cannot change the struc
ture in any way which would allow the bishop to move. I didn't really think I would find time to achieve this, but I enjoyed the idea all the same. Moreover, I remember showing this idea to IM Luke McShane a few days later when, af
ter a momentary glance to check that the bishop would indeed be trapped on h l , he couldn' t contain his laughter! ('the unexpected punch
line' - see Thinking). This was my main idea, but it's important not to be too rigid, and there is some chance that an attack down the h-file might transpire if White is too slow with his counterplay.
14 cxdS cxdS 15 l:.ac1 Intending 'fkc7.
15 . .. �d7
Preventing flc7 and connecting the rooks.
16 'fkd3
Intending 'fibS+.
16 ... a6
Preventing 'fibS+.
17 b4!
b5 does not seem to be such a huge threat be
cause I can just leave it, and while White is working out what to do next I will probably play . . . ltJgS intending . . . lDe4 or nasties down the h-file. lDb3-c5 is a more serious idea be
cause I don't want to weaken the c6-square by playing ... b6, if only because bS and l:.c6 would then be dangerous. I had quite a deep think and saw that even if the knight gets to cS there was a way I could try to remove it, so I went ahead with my main idea.
17 ... h4 18 ltlb3
After 1 8 b5 ! ? lDg5 ! ? I still prefer Black, but I must admit that it's quite unclear.
18 ... h3?!
There comes a point where you have to com
mit, and I decided that h-file action was less likely to succeed than the slower plan of play
ing against White's bishop. Moreover, as we saw in the last chapter, such an 'alien' in White's camp is such a significant positional feature that it can be considered as a material advan
tage for Black. However, in a few moves I suf
fer from lack of kingside counterplay, so I suspect that this was not the right time to play this move.
19 lDc5+ rl;e7 20 �h1 (D)
When I showed this game to GM Dharshan Kumaran, he raised his eyebrows at this point, and suggested that White should prefer 20 �f3 intending e3 followed by re-routing the bishop.
After 20 ... :a7 21 e3 l:ha8, Black will play . . . b6 and then probably . . . gS and maybe ... g4, to keep the bishop from breathing.
B
The text-move (20 �h l ) is not so kind to the bishop, but it keeps the rest of White's position healthy and I have to stay on guard against f3 and e4.
20 ... :a7! ?
I was pleased with this move, which makes creative use of my rooks. The main idea is just to play . . . l:.ha8 and then ... b6. Without this move, it is difficult to remove the knight from c5, which is by far White's most effective piece in this position.
21 f3?!
I suspect this is too ambitious, though it is admirable that White should try to strike while his knight on cS is still hot. 2 1 a4! , intending to fix the queenside structure with a5 and thus
keep the knight on c5, looks like a better way to cut across Black' s plans (prophylactic think
ing). White can afford to be a little slow now that the kingside is closed. Even if I succeed in trapping the bishop with ... g5-g4 there is too much happening in the position for this to be a decisive gain. I have to admit that I think White is objectively a bit better after 2 1 ...l:.ha8?! 22 a5 ! , because it is difficult for Black to use his rooks, but in a real game the position would be felt to be more unclear than anything else, and there are still plenty of chances for both sides.
21 ... b6!
This is more accurate than 2 1 . ..f4 because this gives White the murky option of 22 e4 fxg3 23 e5 gxh2+ 24 �xh2 lbxe5 25 dxe5 fixeS+ 26 f4, when things are rather unclear, and the a7-rook looks a bit bewildered.
22 lb_xa6 f4! 23 g4
23 gxf4 b5 24 lbc5 'Ci'xf4 gives Black a dan
gerous attack, while 23 e4? fails to 23 ... dxe4 24 fxe4 fxg3 25 e5 lbxe5.
23 ... b5!
Freeing the knight, but making use of the rooks.
24 lbc5 l:lxa2 25 l:lal
The more pieces that are exchanged, the more significant is the 'burial' of the bishop on h l , so in principle White may have been better off without trading rooks: 25 fi'xb5 ! ? l:b8 26 tbb7 ! 'Ci'd7 27 'Ci'c5+ (after 27 'ii'xd7+ ll:lxd7 28 ll:la5 lbd8 ! Black is in control) 27 ... �e8 28 ll:la5 l:xe2 29 ll:lc6 l:ta8 30 l:tc2 l:txc2 3 1 'Ci'xc2 l:tc8 32 b5 tbd6, with a messy position.
25 ... l:lha8 26 l:lxa2 :Xa2 27 1i'xb5 't'i'c7!
Freeing d6 for the knight, covering b7 and intending ... 't'i'a7-a3 .
28 l:lcl 'fia7 29 '1\?n?
This is a big mistake which clarifies the situ
ation in Black's favour. White has lots of alter
natives, most of which leave the position unclear. From a practical point of view I would always prefer to play Black in such a position, if only because it must be hard for White to adjust psychologically to that bishop on h l . It's like a corpse, which is there in body but not in spirit
natives, most of which leave the position unclear. From a practical point of view I would always prefer to play Black in such a position, if only because it must be hard for White to adjust psychologically to that bishop on h l . It's like a corpse, which is there in body but not in spirit