ISSUE 7

MODERN CHESS
MAGAZINE

Farewell, Viktor
Endgame Sicilian Structures –

Series - Part 7 Part 2

Strong Knight Methods of

Against Bad Bishop Playing against

in the Endgame Semi-Hanging Pawns

GM Repertoire Against 1 4
.d – Part 3
Table of contents
3 Farewell, Viktor

5 Gavrikov,Viktor (2550) - Gulko,Boris F (2475)

7 Strong Knight Against Bad Bishop in the Endgames (GM Viktor Gavrikov)

7 Educational example
8 Zubarev,N - Aleksandrov,NMoskow, 1915
10 Almasi,Zoltan (2630) - Zueger,Beat (2470) Horgen-B Horgen (6), 1995
11 Torre,E - Jakobsen,O Amsterdam, 1973

14 Methods of Playing against Semi-Hanging Pawns (GM Grigor Grigorov)

15 Rubinstein,Akiba - Salwe,Georg Lodz mt Lodz, 1908

17 Gavrikov,Viktor Nikolaevich (2450) - Mochalov,Evgeny V (2420) LTU-ch open Vilnius (10), 15.03.1983
18 Flohr,Salo - Vidmar,Milan Sr Nottingham Nottingham, 1936
21 Petrosian,Tigran Vartanovich - Smyslov,Vassily Moscow tt, 1961
22 Kramnik,Vladimir (2710) - Illescas Cordoba,Miguel (2590) Linares 12th Linares (6), 1994

24 GM Repertoire against 1.d4 – Part 3 (GM Boris Chatalbashev)

24 Zhigalko,Sergei (2656) - Petrov,Marijan (2535)

26 Arkhipov,Sergey (2465) - Kuzmin,Alexey (2465) Moscow1 Moscow, 1989
28 Nikolov,Momchil (2550) - Chatalbashev,Boris (2555)
30 Kortschnoj,Viktor (2643) - Chatalbashev,Boris (2518) EU-ch 2nd Ohrid (2), 02.06.2001
33 Taras,I (2267) - Chatalbashev,B (2591) 19th Albena Open Albena BUL (8.22), 02.07.2011

Sicilian Structures – Part 2. How To Fight For The Weak d5-square

34 (GM Petar G. Arnaudov)

34 Smyslov,Vassily - Rudakovsky,Iosif URS-ch14 Moscow, 1945

36 Fischer,Robert James - Bolbochan,Julio Stockholm Interzonal Stockholm (21), 03.03.1962
37 Polgar,Judit (2670) - Anand,Viswanathan (2770)
39 Spasov,Vasil (2551) - Halkias,Stelios (2548) EU-chT (Men) 15th Gothenburg (2.3), 31.07.2005
41 Korneev,Oleg (2657) - Moiseenko,Alexander (2632) EU-Cup 22nd Fuegen (4.5), 11.10.2006

43 Endgame Series - Part 7 (GM Davorin Kuljasevic)

43 Bronstein,David I - Botvinnik,Mikhail
44 Korneev,Oleg - Videnova,Iva
45 Square rule 1-5
48 Triangulation 1-5
54 Bajarani,U (2500) - Adhiban,Baskaran (2646)
55 Exercise 1-6
 Farewell, Viktor
Dear Readers,
We deeply regret to inform you that after being
in a coma for more than a week, our author GM
Viktor Gavrikov passed away on April 27th. This
is a tremendous loss not only for the Modern
Chess community, but also for the entire chess
world. Before publishing Viktor’s last article, I
would like to say a few words about Viktor.
Viktor Gavrikov was born on 29th July 1957 in
Criuleni, Moldova. He was 12 years old when he
learned the rules of chess. A leading role in his
chess education has the famous Moldavian
trainer and theoretician Vyacheslav Chebanenko
(among his pupils, we find the names of strong
grandmasters like Bologan, Komliakov,
Rogozenco and many others). It is mainly thanks
to his work with Chebanenko that he became
GM in 1984. The biggest success in his chess
career is the shared 1 - 3 place at the URSS
championship in 1985. At the subsequent
interzonal tournament in Tunis, he shared 4 – 5
place. Another memorable tournament success
is the second place (immediately after Karpov)
at the World rapid championship held in 1988 in
Mexico.
To list just a few of his more important
tournaments:
• West Berlin 1989
• Biel 1990
• Geneva 1991
• Biel 1994
• Switzerland championship 1996
• Göteborg 2001
Since 2004, he retired from serious chess
tournaments and dedicated himself to his
students.
Being merely biographical, the above could
hardly do justice to Viktor Gavrikov as a chess
player and as a person. This is the reason why I
have decided to share with you my personal
impressions from him. Hopefully, my
observations will help paint a more vivid picture
of the man Viktor and the period in which he
was no longer an active chess player.
Sometimes we me meet people who change the
course of our lives. As a rule, they come at the
moment we need them the most. Undoubtedly,
one of the most important encounters in my life
was the one with Viktor Gavrikov.
I first met Viktor in the summer of 2004. I was
17 years old and my FIDE rating was 2321.
Although I was nowhere near earning the IM
title at the time, I still had to decide whether
putting in additional effort into becoming GM
was worth considering at all. Since at the time
when our communication began Viktor was
living in Germany, I started taking online
lessons. Within a short period of time, he
managed to completely change my chess
understanding. I was fascinated by his
tremendous chess erudition and phenomenal
memory. Viktor possessed a substantial amount
of knowledge in every single aspect of the game.
During our training sessions, I started
discovering the so-called Soviet Chess School.
In the summer of 2006, after 2 years of working
with Viktor, I became IM. Later on, despite the
fact that I concentrated mainly on my education,
thanks to Viktor’s support, I continued to
progress in chess and became GM in 2010.
3
The same year, Viktor and his wife Riina decided
to move to Bulgaria. During the period in which
he was living in my home town (he stayed in
Petrich from 2010 to 2012), I had the privilege
of not only enjoying face-to-face interactions
with my trainer, but also being able to better
understand Viktor as a person.
Just like in the field of chess, in his personal life,
Viktor was best characterized by his strife for
perfection. He aimed for perfection in
everything he did. This attitude was developed
to such an extent that in a number situations he
failed to come up with a practical decision. I am
inclined to believe that this feature of his
character may have held him back from
achieving even more spectacular results in
chess.
Another of Viktor’s distinctive qualities was his
critical thinking. He never trusted a piece of
information which was not personally checked
by him. He had absolute confidence in the
rightfulness of his personal judgment. Yet, he
was always ready to accept different arguments
if well justified. I am convinced that critical
thinking was the cornerstone of his progress in
the field of chess. To this day, I have not met
anyone whose analytical abilities can be said to
be superior to Victor’s. Indeed, when I first
entered the room in which he worked, I had the
feeling that I was stepping into a scientific
laboratory.
In 2012, together with his wife, he moved to
Burgas – a nice Bulgarian city on the Black Sea
coast. He lived there until the very last day of his
life. In the period 2012 – 2016, we were
communicating on a regular basis. He was
always ready to help me in my preparation for a
particular game or before a tournament.
Quite naturally, in 2015, when together with GM
Petar Aranudov, I launched the Modern Chess
magazine, Viktor was the first person who
started to collaborate with us. I am sure that his
articles on the typical middlegame positions will
continue helping our readers to better
understand chess.
Obviously, I am not the only student of Viktor’s
who managed to become a GM. As an active
chess player he worked with a host of strong
players such as Yannick Pelletier (see picture
below),
Victoria Cmilyte and many others. It would not
be an overstatement to say that they also
managed to obtain their GM titles to a great
extent thanks to Viktor’s expert advice and
support. Here is what GM Pelletier wrote in his
Facebook page the day Viktor passed away:
Viktor Gavrikov passed away. He would have
turned 59 in a few months. He was a strong
grandmaster, but his talent and understanding
should have made him achieve more.
Should I owe my GM title to one person only, it
would be him. He was my trainer from 1994
until he left Switzerland in 1997. Thanks to him,
I got a glimpse of what the Soviet school of chess
really was. His knowledge was immense, and his
phenomenal memory was backed with the old
card index system. With him, it felt like
computers existed already. I have kept all copies
of the lessons he gave me. Though the ink on the
fax paper has long started to vanish, the content
of the lectures is permanently stored in my
mind. Such is his memory.
People say that every chess player is best
described by his games. That's why at the end of
this article I would like to include a game which
4
perfectly illustrates the style of Viktor Gavrikov.  
In this game, he is White against Boris Gulko.
The game is annotated by Viktor himself. 

Gavrikov,Viktor (2550) - Gulko,Boris F
(2475)
URS-ch52 Riga (8), 02.02.1985





Having more space White avoids the exchange of

knights.

 Preparing the following manoeuvre.


The common move is  when White must keep 
the tension by playing  (less promising is


 with
sufficient counterplay for Black)

 The plan with exchange on d4 is

dubious.

 Also favourable
for White was 


 This advance leads to the difficult

position for Black. 
 I decided to transfer my queen on g3–square to
 create an opposition with black king and open the d-
 More precise was immediately  file for d1.

5

 
White needs to create new weaknesses in
Black’s camp.
 Perhaps
stronger was 


White also maintains an advantage after
,
but the game continuation is clearly worse.




Demolishing Black’s pawn-structure on the
queenside.



Here the game was adjourned and I sealed the
move
 As the analysis showed, White’s winning
task is not difficult.


 Simpler was 



1–0
6
Strong Knight against Bad Bishop illustrates the superiority of the knight over the
bishop. All white pawns are on the color of the
in the Endgame c1–bishop. In White's camp, there are two
GM Viktor Gavrikov important weaknesses - a3 - and g3 - pawns. If
it's White to move, he will be in a situation of
zugzwang. That's why Black should transmit the
move to his opponent. That could be done by
means of the triangulation method.
Educational example

 A waste of time would have been 

since after  Black's best is to enter the
initial position by means of 
 If  then  and
Black king is ready to invade white camp.; In
case of  Black has  making use of
the long opposition.  again the same
idea.  is
just a transposition)  and we transpose
to the main line.
Dear Reader,

We are about to start dealing with one of the 
most important types of endgames - knight
against bishop. In this article, I am going to focus
on positions in which a strong knight fights
against a bad bishop. When could the bishop be
weak? According to the classical positional
principles, a bishop is weak when it is restricted
by its own pawns. That's why we should avoid
putting our pawns on the color of our own
bishop. There are two cases in which a bishop
could be dominated by a knight in the endgame:
1) the bishop is restricted by its own pawns; 2)
all the pawns are on one wing. Within the 
framework of the present article, I will explain
both cases. The diagram position perfectly Now White is losing his g3–pawn. Nevertheless,

7
 Because of the awkward position of his 

king, White is going to lose the g3–pawn. Next
few moves are pretty much forced.




And Black promotes with a check.

0–1

Zubarev,N - Aleksandrov,N
This is the stubbornest defense. White sets some Moskow, 1915
traps before resigning.

After  Black is winning since his knight

stops white pawn just in time. For example:






 This is the last subtlety. Black is ready to

close the diagonal of white bishop by means of
 followed by 
A mistake would have been  since after
 black
knight couldn't reach the important squares g6
and e6. After 
 the draw is obvious. 
On the diagram position, we have a typical
French ending where white knight dominates
the opponent's bishop. The way in which White
managed to convert his advantage is highly
instructive. First of all, white king should invade
the opponent's camp.

 The king is heading for c5–square.

Obviously, Black couldn't stop this idea.

8
 The attempt to create a counterplay on plays with the bishop instead, then one of the
the kingside by means of could be easily weaknesses will be lost.
prevented - 
  with a
threat 



Black couldn't make a progress on the kingside

while White king is ready for an invasion. White
is already winning.


Now White is planning to proceed with .
Black should further weaken his kingside.




Now White should execute the second part of his

plan - provoke the opponent making a kingside
weakness. In order to win in this kind of
White's mission is almost accomplished. Now
endgames, we need at least two weaknesses
Black has two potential weaknesses - h5 and e6.
which could be simultaneously attacked by our
In order to attack them simultaneously, White
knight (the opponent's bishop should be tied to
should transfer his knight to f4–square.
his defense). Moreover, there should be an
opposition between the kings. In this way our
 After 
opponent will be in zugzwang. If he makes a
 Black is in zugzwang.
move with the king, he allows an invasion. If he

9
 Almasi,Zoltan (2630) - Zueger,Beat (2470)
 Horgen-B Horgen (6), 1995

White fixes the h5–pawn and frees the f4–

square for his knight. Here is another ending which arose from the
French Defense. Given the fact that almost all
 Even simpler was black pawns are placed on the color of the
 and White knight bishop, White's advantage is out of question.
reached the f4–square. Almasi converts his advantage in a very precise
way.

 
 

Zugzwang. White is simply winning. White fixes Black`s kingside pawns.



1–0

10

 a5–a4 in order to create another weakness in
After this advance, White could use the c5–
square for his knight.



Now the knight prevents the penetration of
black king and White can transfer his king to g5.



The next step in White`s winning plan is to force
Black`s position.


1–0
Torre,E - Jakobsen,O
Amsterdam, 1973
As I have already pointed out, knight is stronger
than a bishop in positions in which all the pawns
are on the same wing. That's why in this
position, Black should first exchange the
queenside pawns. In the game, he went for
 After transferring his king to b6–
square, at a suitable moment, Black could realize
the c6–c5 advance.


Since White has no counterplay, he doesn't rush
with the c6–c5 advance. First of all, he wants to
improve the position of his knight.
11



Now white bishop is tied to the g2–pawn. If
White makes a move with his bishop, Black has a
knight sacrifice on f3.

Very strong move. We are already aware of this
method of playing. Since Black wants to invade
the opponent's camp, he should transmit the
move order. In order to do this, Jakobsen starts
maneuvering with the king.
 White king should control the c2–square.
Otherwise, Black is winning by means of Nc2–e3.
 Loss of a time.


Black king should go back since the careless
 would have allowed White to save the
day after 


 In response to  Black could play
but not 
 and black
king occupies b4–square by force. To the same
leads 



White is forced to make further concessions
The natural looking  loses on the spot
after  followed by 


 A simple stalemate
trick which could be ignored.


Black knight is heading for the e3–square. In
order to reach it, Black is planning the maneuver
 
12
 



If  then Black king reaches the e3–square

Black's winning plan is fairly simple - his knight
should reach d2 or d4 squares while the king
should be on e2 or e3. In this way, a knight
sacrifice on f3–square would become possible.

 
via the queenside - 

 with  to come.
 



 Black
wins the last white pawn, since  loses to

Finally, Black is ready to execute the desired
sacrifice.




More stubborn was  Even in this case,
however, Black was winning by means of the
following knight manoeuvre: 


 Black is threatening to take on "f3".
  Black
knight will reach the important a5–square via
b7. Later on, we transpose to the game
continuation.
Black is winning because there is no way to
 prevent Black from playing Kg3 followed by b3–
f2.

 0–1

13
Methods of Playing against Semi-
hanging Pawns
GM Grigor Grigorov
Dear Reader,
We are about to start dealing with one of the
most important pawn structures - semi-hanging
pawns. This is an isolated pawn couple c3 - d4
(c6–d5 for Black) which very often arises when
in a position with an isolated queen's pawn
(Issue 2, 3 and 4) there is an exchange on "c3"
("c6", respectively). Later on, if the backward c-
pawn is advanced, we reach a position with
hanging pawns (see Issues 5 and 6). In this way,
it is not difficult to see that all the pawn
structures that were covered until now are
interrelated. The semi-hanging pawns will be
covered in two articles. The current one features
all the basic ideas we should know when playing
against semi-hanging pawns, while the next
article will discuss the ways in which we could
use the potential of these pawns. Before we dive
in, it will be useful to have some general
understanding of positions with semi-hanging
pawns. That's why I will begin by introducing
their strong and weak points. Obviously, the side
playing with semi-hanging pawns enjoys a
considerable spatial advantage (it is also the
case in positions with IQP and hanging pawns).
As the reader probably knows, the extra space
gives us room for manoeuvres as well as
considerable chances to organize a kingside
attack. Unlike the other structures we are
familiar with (IQP and hanging-pawns), in
positions with semi-hanging pawns, our central
pawn is protected. That is the reason why it's
much easier to start an attack on the kingside -
our pieces are not occupied with the defence of
the d4 (d5)-pawn. Also, it's important to point
out that when we play with semi-hanging
pawns, we could always make use of the semi-
opened e and b files. In the next article, we will
focus on the typical ideas allowing us to develop
a kingside attack. Nevertheless, this pawn
structure is far from perfect. Its most significant
defect is the backward pawn on the c-file. This
pawn is our main target when we play against
semi-hanging pawns. Another important
weakness is the a-pawn (note that there are two
pawn islands on the queenside). Also, it's
important to point out that when playing against
semi-hanging pawns, we should always aim for
exchanges. In the final stage of the game, there
are no attacking chances while the isolated
pawn couple in the centre could be very weak.
The general structural background being clear,
we can proceed with the methods of playing
against the semi-hanging pawns. As I already
mentioned, we should try to build an attack
against the backward pawn on the c-file. At the
same time, it's extremely important to control
the squares in front of the opponent's central
pawns ("c5" and "d4" or "c4" and "d5").
Otherwise our opponent could enter a position
with hanging pawns by advancing his c-pawn.
We could enter a position with hanging pawns
only when we are ahead in development. In
general, it is always advantageous to block our
opponent's semi-hanging pawns with a knight.
All the typical ideas in the fight against semi-
hanging pawns are demonstrated in the classical
game Rubinstein - Salwe played in 1908. This is
a model game to always have in mind when
14
handling positions with semi-hanging pawns. On
the diagram, we have a position which is highly
advantageous for White. White controls the
important squares "c6" and "d5", while Black
has no chances to organize an attack on the
kingside. As I have already pointed out, the
opponent's central pawns should be blocked
with a knight. In order to achieve this,
Rubinstein played
Rubinstein,Akiba - Salwe,Georg
Lodz mt Lodz, 1908
This is a typical way of fighting for a
weak square. We should always exchange pieces
which control the weakened square. After the
exchange of the dark-squared bishops, the weak
c5–square will be occupied by a knight.

This is a fantastic positional move. White is
planning to include all his pieces into the fight
against his opponent's central pawns. Later on,
he could consider playing  followed
by 
Black is ready to execute
the typical c6–c5 advance, thus entering a
position with hanging pawns. Accordingly,
White’s response should be to prevent his
opponent from executing this idea.
White not only improves the position of
his queen but at the same time takes the c5–
square under control.



This is a model position for this pawn structure.
Since Black has no counterplay at all, he is
doomed to passivity. Furthermore, all black
pawns are on the colour of the e6–bishop. At the
same time, White could gradually strengthen the
pressure against opponent's pawns. At this
point, I would like to mention something very
important. There are two main weaknesses in
Black's camp - c6 and a7 pawns. According to
the classical positional principles, the
opponent's weaknesses should be fixed as soon
as possible. In this line of thought, White should
seize the first opportunity to go for b2–b4.
Nevertheless, the old master Georg Salwe didn't
detect this positional subtlety and went for
15
This move seems to be too passive.
Black should have prevented his opponent from
playing b2–b4 by means of 

This time, Rubinstein makes a move

which is not so precise. White rook could go to
c2–square anytime. Instead of doubling the
rooks along the c-file, White should have
preferred b2–b4.

Again, Black misses the chance to play

a7–a5. Now, however, Rubinstein doesn't miss
the chance to punish his opponent.

 a direct way allowing to convert the advantage.
Finally, White executes this typical idea. Now
Black has difficulties to protect his queenside
Despite the fact that Black's position remains
extremely passive, it is not easy for White to find
A possible idea is to create a weakness on the
kingside. This could be achieved by means of the
advance of the h-pawn (the g7–pawn could be
contacted by means of h2–h4–h5–h6). Another
possible plan is to contact the central d5–pawn
by playing  followed by e3–e4. Later on,
White's pressure against the weak c6–pawn will
be much stronger. Nevertheless, before starting
to advance his pawns, White should take care of
his king.
This mistake leads to the loss of a
pawn.
Black could maintain the material balance after




weaknesses. Note that white b4–pawn not only

fixes Black's weaknesses on the queenside but at
the same time takes the control of the important
a5–square. For instance, in a number of
positions, White could proceed with .

Here Black`s a-pawn becomes

vulnerable.

It was better to prevent a possible b4–b5

advance by 

16
An obvious combination which leads to
the decisive advantage for White.
Or




1–0
Gavrikov,Viktor Nikolaevich (2450) -
Mochalov,Evgeny V (2420)
LTU-ch open Vilnius (10), 15.03.1983
Despite the fact that Rubinstein's play made the
structure look easy, in modern chess, our task is
much more difficult since the majority of players
are aware of the typical defensive resources.
Strong opponents do not allow us to flawlessly
execute our ideas. In order to explain the
modern way of playing against the semi-hanging
pawns, I provide you with one of the many
remarkable games played by my coach GM
Viktor Gavrikov. This game was played at the
Lithuanian championship which was held in
Vilnius in 1983. Viktor Gavrikov plays with
White against the Soviet master Evgeny
Mochalov. On the diagram, we have a typical
position with an isolated queen's pawn. White
should decide whether to transform the pawn
structure by means of Nxc6. As Gavrikov
manages to prove, this transformation is
advantageous for White since White is ahead in
the development while Black's immediate
threats on the kingside are neutralized.

A typical position with hanging-pawns arose. It's
obvious that White should start pressing the
backward c6–pawn after taking the control over the
c5 and d4 squares. In this line of thought, the move
looks pretty logical. Nevertheless, there is
an important detail. In response to this move, Black
could play . Black knight is very well placed
in the centre - from "e4", it controls the c5–square
and participates in possible active actions on the
kingside. That's why, in this kind of positions, before
playing  we should prevent our opponent's
knight from jumping to e4. In the game, Gavrikov
achieves this by means of
 This is a multi-purpose move. From f3–
square, the bishop prevents Black from playing 
and covers the weakened light-squares on the
kingside. Moreover, besides the standard idea 
under favourable circumstances, White could
weaken Black's pawn structure by playing the typical
e3–e4.
 Very logical move. Black should cover the
e4–square as soon as possible.



17
This move is highly instructive - before playing favourable for the side which is playing against
c3–a4 White prevents f6–e4. Note that it's not the hanging pawns. After the exchange of the
advisable to give our light-squared bishop for queens, Black couldn't hold his central pawns.
the black knight since White had already

weakened his kingside by playing g2–g3. The 
reader, however, may ask the following logical
question: "Why does White allow his opponent
to enter a position with hanging pawns?". The
answer is simple. In positions where our
opponent is better developed, we should avoid
the formation of hanging pawns in our camp.
That is the reason why Black is not advised to go
for c6–c5 here. However, this is exactly what he
did in the game.

 Now black central pawns are extremely

vulnerable. White is winning almost by force.

Was necessary 


It seems that Black defended his hanging pawns
but the following tactical possibility dispels this
illusion.








1–0

Flohr,Salo - Vidmar,Milan Sr
Nottingham Nottingham, 1936

Even though Black's position is worse, there is

still a lot of fight. Obviously, the exchange of the
dark-squared bishops is favourable for White
since now Black has difficulties to cover the
weakened d4 - and c5 - squares. Later, White
could gradually increase his pressure against
Black's queenside weaknesses. On the other
hand, we must be aware of the fact that Black
could create some threats on the kingside. For
example, a possible exchange of the light-
squared bishops will allow him to make use of
the weakened light-squares.

 Of course! Exchanges are always

18
Another important method of fighting against
semi-hanging pawns is the transposition into an
endgame. As I already mentioned, in the final
stage of the game, the side playing with semi-
hanging pawns couldn't organize a kingside
attack and must focus on the defence of the
weaknesses. Usually, it's very difficult to defend
in such kind of positions since the attacker plays
without any risk. The weakness of the semi-
hanging pawns in the endgame is perfectly
illustrated in the game Salo Flohr - Milan Vidmar
played at the traditional Nottingham
tournament in 1936. On the diagram, we have a
rook ending in which White's advantage is out of
question. Black's rook is rather passive since it's
almost impossible to get rid of the queenside
weaknesses. Nevertheless, we should admit that
with a precise play Black could make a draw. In
this game, the legendary Flohr not only shows
us how to fight against semi-hanging pawns but
at the same time he gives an endgame lesson. At
this point, White's first task is to securely block
Black's central pawns. Later on, he could
proceed with fixing his opponent's queenside
weaknesses.

 on the kingside, Black is fighting against the
This move is very important from a technical
point of view. In rook endings, our main task is
to activate our pieces. Furthermore, we try to
prevent our opponent from activating his own
pieces. With his last move, Flohr wants to tie the
opponent's rook to the weak a6–pawn. In this
way, Black couldn't make use of the potential of
his rook. Generally speaking, it's always
preferable to free our rook by protecting our
weaknesses with the king.
The natural  allows  His
queenside weaknesses being covered by the
king, Black could proceed with the activation of
his rook.


This move is generally useful. By gaining space
typical e3–e4 central break.
This time, the attempt to cover the weak a6–
pawn by the manoeuvre – () doesn't
work because of the invasion of white king.
 Black is helpless
before the manoeuvre –
 By now, we have already learned how
important it is to fix the opponent's queenside
weaknesses.
 Vidmar proceeds with his waiting
strategy. However, it's almost never a good way
to handle the rook endings. Here, Black should
activate his rook at any price.
The most reliable continuation was
 Here, if White decides to
invade with his king by playing  ,Black
achieves the activity by the following pawn
sacrifice   Now Black
19
rook is ready to invade the second rank. To a
draw lead the following sequence 

 

 
Since Black managed to protect his queenside
weaknesses, White should open a second field of
action. Given the fact that Black had already
played g7–g6, his h7–pawn could potentially
become a target. That's why the transfer of
white king to h6–square comes into
consideration. This idea could be realized only
by means of e3–e4. Moreover, with his last
move, White clears the 5th rank for his rook.

It seems that Black doesn't perceive the danger.
It was not too late to start activating the rook.
Correct was  Again the known idea -
black king goes to b6 in order to free the rook.
After the following forced sequence 

Black must be able to save the game. Within the
framework of the current article, we are not
going to deal with the subtleties of this complex
ending. Nevertheless, I would like to explain
some general principles. Obviously, at a certain
moment, White will be forced to sacrifice his
rook for Black's c-pawn. It turns out that the
distance between black king and white kingside
pawns is not enough for White to win the game.
 Black tries to prevent the penetration
of white king on h6–square.
If  then was
possible 

 In case of
 White has to reckon with

 The waste
of time.

 Played for clarify
the position of black king.
 After  decides 

20
 Simpler was 

 

 would have gone for  followed by c3–c4 with
 Or





situations, it's very important to play
energetically in order to prevent our opponent
from improving the position of his forces. For
example, if White had one more tempo, he
a promising position. Smyslov gave no such
chance to his opponent.
 Was  a blow in the
air?


1–0

Petrosian,Tigran Vartanovich -
Smyslov,Vassily
Moscow tt, 1961

A wonderful tactical shot. Black hits the most

vulnerable point in White's position. Now White
faces considerable tactical problems and the
chance to commit a mistake is very high.

Until now, we were trying to fight against the
semi-hanging pawns in a positional way. In
some positions, however, these pawns are very
weak from a tactical point of view. Very often, in
positions where we are ahead in the
development and our pieces are more active, we
should find a way to exploit the tactical
vulnerability of the semi-hanging pawns. The
diagram position arose in the game Petrosian -
Smyslov played in 1961. It is not difficult to spot
that Black's pieces are more active while the
position of the white queen is very bad due to
the opposition along the c-file. In such
A tactical mistake.

 White should
defend by 

 keeping chances to
save the game.
White is also in trouble after


21

This is simpler than 



 side playing against the semi-hanging pawns
This leads by force to the winning rook ending
for Black.
An alternative was 







0–1
Kramnik,Vladimir (2710) - Illescas
Cordoba,Miguel (2590)
Linares 12th Linares (6), 1994
At the end of the current article, I would like to
provide you with one more game in which the
finds a way to exploit the awkward position of
the opponent’s major pieces. The diagram
position arose in the game Kramnik - Illescas
played in Linares 1994. The fact that three pairs
of minor pieces are already exchanged favours
White - as we know, the semi-hanging pawns
are weak in the endgame. Kramnik could
consider a variety of interesting plans. A
classical way of handling the position would be
, thus attacking the backward c6–pawn.
Later on, after taking the control over the c5 and
d4 squares, White could start attacking his
opponent's queenside weaknesses. Kramnik,
however, evaluates the position in a more
dynamic way. Black's central pawns are under
attack while his queen is misplaced. These
factors allow Kramnik to create some tactical
problems for his opponent.
Just like in the previous example, the
pressure along the c-file turns out to be
dangerous. Now White is threatening to play

22
  There is no choice.
 



 As a result, an unpleasant situation

arose for Black where his task is difficult in
practical game.

 Perhaps stronger was





A serious mistake.
 allowed White to realize his threat and
win the pawn by  was
necessary to play  Even in this case,
however, White retains a considerable
advantage because of the opposition along the d-
file.


It seems that better was 

 keeping
defensive possibilities.
 

 Black hardly has chances to save the

game after 


 Deserved attention 




Overlooking White`s blow.
This elegant exchange sacrifice weakens the
position of black king and eliminates the 
defender of d5–pawn. Black's position is already

very difficult. 

 If then
 1–0



23
GM Repertoire Against 1.d4 – Part 3 Zhigalko,Sergei (2656) - Petrov,Marijan
GM Boris Chatalbashev (2535)
Warsaw Najdorf Memorial op-A Warsaw (8),
24.07.2010

 Quite often I have gone for , but this

can be taken into consideration only by players
enjoying the Pirc, like myself!

The idea behind Black's first move is that if

White likes the positions without –, like -
 also allows Schmid
Benoni  - and we will reach a position from
the game) oror
 he can not go into them
here. After either or do not make
great impression. Another idea is that after ,
Black might choose lines without early  -
more about it in the next part of this chapter.

  is not dangerous, of course

 (worse  and
Chapter III: Move Orders and Rare Lines White enjoys a small but steady plus)

As I mentioned, one of the ideas behind playing might be a little better move order
Late Benoni is that quite often the opponent is  (Here White should have
not able to use all the theoretical lines in his taken ) 
repertoire against King's Indian or Modern 
Benoni. In our system the main line is far from 
King's Indian theory, and the most dangerous
lines against Modern Benoni - early  with 
and  with  are not possible here. But when
preparing for a certain player, it is good to note
what he plays in these openings, what kind of
positions he is familiar with. Many players, for
instance, have never faced Late Benoni in their
practice and would most likely prefer to
transpose to a line they already know. Some
might even be reluctant to push –. That is
why over the years, I have employed practically
all move orders - always searching to stage a
war on an unknown for the opponent territory!
Sometimes this proves to be a very effective 
strategy, like in my game with Kortchnoi; at 
other times it might just result in going into 
some original and tricky positions.  1–0 (31) Mamedyarov,S (2717) -
Chatalbashev,B (2548) Struga 2009 

24

This development, without playing c2–c4, is the
so-called Schmid Benoni. Generally, it is a
positional variation, but as we will see in our
games, it can also become rather sharp.


In my opinion - the only move that could mean
trouble for Black.
After  I consider the best to be
 Now the main options are: 
a) The knight goes to the excellent square
in all Benoni position - c4, but we will either
exchange it or chase it from there.

Protecting, just in case, d6 pawn and preparing
f7–f5, gaining space at the kingside.

 (I
saw the next strong move, but somehow was not
sure of the evaluation of the final position...


 (61) Novikov,S (2545)-
Chatalbashev,B (2523) Vienna 2013;
b) 
is rather drawish.;
 Black should be always
careful with the pawn on  but
White also has to remember that in this
variation his pawn on  is not overly protected.
(Important line: 



 Like in the previous game, I
managed to lose that one also, despite my better
position...The moral: Whatever opening you
choose, the most important thing is to play it
well! 1–0 (40) Mamedov,R (2659)-
Chatalbashev,B (2522) Minsk 2014



There are some other options, but up to this
point it seems to me that both sides have made
perhaps the most logical moves. White has
prepared a breakthrough in the centre, while
Black will counterattack with b7–b5.
25
  deserves attention in view of 
the improvement for White on the next move. 




 The prophylactic  hindering –

might be best. It may have given White some
slight edge in a dynamic position, but from a
practical point of view it is an awfully difficult
move - going back to where the rook has been
just two moves ago!




Here the move order does not matter much -

you may start with or.

 White's choice in this variation is not

huge - apart from the main plan with 
and future , he may try also  but this
placement of the bishop is not in harmony with
future , because in that case after – a
retreat to  is not possible (–). And the
important thing here is that neither  not –
 work well for White -



This nice shot turns the tables in Black's favour. 
0–1 (51) Chatalbashev,B (2548)-Banikas,H
 
(2598) Kallithea 2009
  



0–1

Arkhipov,Sergey (2465) - Kuzmin,Alexey

(2465)
Moscow1 Moscow, 1989

System with  and 


 The best reaction against this set-
up is going straight in a Modern Benoni type of
position.

 In this line normally White is aiming for f2–f4

26
with a future sacrifice e4–e5. When Black takes, 

the "f" pawn advances to f5 with e4 square to be
occupied by one of the knights. Black must not
allow such scenario, because the pressure on the
"f" file, the passed pawn on d5 and the gloomy
looking bishop on g7 would make his life hard.

 This weakening of the kingside is justified

with the need to spoil White's plans. Black gets
ready to chase the knight and apply pressure on
e4 pawn. The play might get double-edged,
though.

Similar is , preparing the standard 

advance, as Black goes for – on the next
move. The complications in the following game
worked nice for him - 


Aggressive, but might be slightly premature.
is more restrained, with complex,
approximately equal position. 


0–1 (77)
Dumitrache,D (2504)-Smetankin, S (2455)
Avoine 2002









 0–1 (46) Navara,D (2722)-Maximov,D
(2479) Pardubice 2011








27
 Nikolov,Momchil (2550) -
 Chatalbashev,Boris (2555)
BUL-ch 74th Blagoevgrad (3), 09.04.2010
Saemisch (Kapengut) Variation.

1.d4 d6 I shall deal with different move orders

in the next chapter. Generally, we will receive
the position from the game like that: 







If Black takes the exchange, he will be left with

no active play while his king is vulnerable. In
Modern Benoni quite often the activity is more
important than the material gains!


 But here it was safe to grab another pawn,
leaving White to prove that his threats are
giving him enough compensation. 


 
In Modern Benoni positions Black's counterplay

is often connected with pressure on e4 pawn.

Sometimes we manage b7–b5 or c5–c4, using
the fact that if White takes that pawn - then he
loses the more important one in the centre. In
Saemisch by playing f2–f3, White makes sure
such things do not happen. Well, the pawn is
protected, but the knight on g1 does not have
useful square and is often seen manoeuvring
around for quite some time. Although the
positions in this variation are complex, I am
convinced that Black has nothing to be afraid of.

Sometimes White starts with . The line I

propose, though, is universal and it hardly
makes any difference here - we will chase the
knight with – The following interesting
1/2 game shows the main ideas - 



28
The most typical idea for Black - the knight
makes a path for  break. 
 (White has more
problems after  
 for example 


 and it is just
a miracle he might survive.) 

 players do not know is that Black better
is about equal 
 In this variation the most important thing
for Black to know is that he must never play
 before the opponent’s knight had already
gone to e2. Otherwise White plays with
better prospects.
 Another subtle thing that many
postpone inclusion of the moves a7–a6 and a2–
a4, respectively. Why? See the game!
 The potential danger of rushing with
the knight to e5 is that White may try to arrange
f3–f4. But in that concrete position Black has
enough tactical resources!








 1/2 (46) Elsness,F (2447)-
Turov,M (2591) Norway NOR 2015






29
 is premature due to  Kortschnoj,Viktor (2643) -
Here, like in the game two moves later, this Chatalbashev,Boris (2518)
move would not be possible if a7–a6 and a2–a4 EU-ch 2nd Ohrid (2), 02.06.2001
were included.
 This position can
 Tempting, but leading only to be reached also after  first move.
trouble.

After  the position is complex
with many possibilities for both sides. In our
example Black gradually outplayed his opponent
- 






I did expect my opponent to go for f2–f3, but not
until the next move. Here it is important
for Black to know that  is not
dangerous or

After the knight is trapped
with  next

0–1 (43) Shishkin,V (2480)-Ionescu,C (2465) better is 
Bucharest 2004 although Black is at least
equal
 White had to hurry castling, 
even if it might cost him a pawn.


 


 





0–1

30
0–1 (78) Koneru,H (2513)-Kosintseva,T (2451)  Now whatever
Elista 2004 move Black chooses the bishop on g7 makes a
sad impression.
 That was the
  was
idea of delaying the development of the knight.
safer
As we saw in Saemisch we have to move it from
f6 in order make f7–f5 break possible. Here 
everything should be OK for Black, as we are


saving some tempos.

Although  is at least not worse than the

text, from h6 the knight might go to f7 in the
future.





 was more precise  (the difference
is that after  the queen is controlling
g5 square) 

Always remember: activity is often of crucial
importance in all Benoni positions. So it is better
to give up a pawn, just to free the bishop.

 Black's compensation is obvious,
though for the engines White has some ways of
improving his position and stands better. But for
a human it is not easy and even Victor the Great
collapses in the time trouble.




 White's strategy

is to restrict the knight on e7, but it is
immediately going to f6.

 instead, might promise him some edge



 


 Here I was afraid of kingside
weaknesses after 
but actually the position is unclear

0–1

31
Taras,I (2267) - Chatalbashev,B (2591) 
19th Albena Open Albena BUL (8.22), 
02.07.2011




The normal move is 

Another way to make use of the move order

without  is the case where White goes for an
early . But if the same position occured with
 instead of , then the best advice for
Black is to transpose to the Main Line - with
.

 After  leads to a very

original play. One of the ideas for Black is future
–, but mainly it is the plan with –,
gaining space at the kingside. For
example and now the
standard in all other similar lines  is only
loosing a tempo 
 
  is dangerous for White - he is far
behind in development.
when we reach a theoretical position from
Modern Benoni. I like the following game -
 Black's plan is to
possibly manage  (or
). It is not easy, but the opponent has
to be careful about that - the squares b3 and d3
can be weak.  This move prevents that
kind of play, but now e4 pawn becomes the
target - 

 0–1 (46) Nikcevic,N
(2485) -Kolev,A (2510) Zaragoza 1996 Black is
obviously better - huge difference in the
strength of the bishops!

32
  is another way
 not really
fighting for an advantage 



 0–1 (28) Jurek,J (2368)-
Chatalbashev,B (2596) Imperia 2008






 Black should
be able to hold.

 Somehow White got scared of all the

tricks 
 but it is
actually Black who is playing with fire 



All the lines with  are quite an unexplored

territory. Playing them is a bit riskier, although
surely entertaining. Ok, that is why we all love
chess! Conclusion: Late Benoni is safer than
Modern, but as in many lines (apart from the
main one) transpositions happen into it, a good
idea is to wake up your inner Tal. Remember -
Black should always search for activity and
initiative! Good luck!

0–1

33
 Sicilian Structures – Part 2. How threats against Black's king. The f7–square in
particular is extremely vulnerable;
to Fight for the Weak d5-square
GM Petar G. Arnaudov 3) White exchanges all minor pieces and plays
endgame with major pieces remaining on the
board. In such kind of endings, the weakness of
d6–pawn is a significant factor. How should
White fight for the d5–square in this case? His
usual plan is to exchange every piece which
belongs to the opponent and controls the d5–
square. That's why the exchange of the light-
squared bishops is almost always favourable for
White. Moreover, under favourable
circumstances, White will be trying to get rid of
his dark-squared bishop which has nothing to
do with the weakened central square. If it's
possible, this bishop should be exchanged for a
knight. On the diagram, we have a classical
example in which the 7th World Champion
Vassily Smyslov wins by following his main
strategical goal to take control of the d5–square.
Dear Readers,
In the present issue of Modern Chess magazine,
we continue dealing with the typical Sicilian
structure with a weak d5–square. In his last
article, GM Viktor Gavrikov analyzed the
positions in which White puts his knight on the
weak d5–square and takes with a pawn in case
of an exchange. The present material features
structures in which White tries to occupy the
weakened d5–square by a piece. In this Smyslov,Vassily - Rudakovsky,Iosif
structure, both sides are trying to control with URS-ch14 Moscow, 1945
as many pieces as possible the critical "d5"
square. That's why the first thing to know is
which piece to exchange and which piece to
keep. There are 3 main scenarios which favour
White:
1) White exchanges all minor pieces except his
wonderful d5–knight. This plan works very well
if Black has a dark-squared bishop against the
knight;
2) White enters a position with opposite
coloured bishops and heavy pieces. In this case,
he tries to combine his queenside initiative with

34
This move is a well-known mistake.  Black's
Now White could deflect black light-squared main problem is that he has no counterplay at
bishop by means of f4–f5. all. In such situations, we shouldn't rush.

 This move allows White to finish the
Black should have played  game quickly.
Keeping a firm control over d5.
But even after: 
One of the defenders of d5 is
exchanged.




White wins without much effort. One idea is to

After this move Black's position is strategically
lost.

play followed by a queenside invasion. It is
also possible to consider an attack on the
kingside. For example, moves like  and 
come into consideration. Later, White could
transfer his a1–rook to the kingside.





The winning method here is very simple. After

dealing with Black's concrete threats on the
queenside, he should improve the position of his
major pieces. Later on, White could start an
attack against Black's king.
1–0

35
Fischer,Robert James - Bolbochan,Julio  Nice move. It is impossible
Stockholm Interzonal Stockholm (21), for Black to trade queens because of the fork on
03.03.1962 e7

 With his last move, Fisher

makes use of one of the main advantages of the
strong d5–knight. In this kind of positions, the
extra space allows us to create threats on both
sides of the board. Note that white knight ties up
black pieces, thus restricting their mobility. Now
Black has difficulties to defend his a6–weakness.




Obviously, it's impossible to write an article

concerning the fight for the weakened d5–
square without providing the reader with at
least one of the games of Robert Fischer. His
contribution to the modern understanding of
the Sicilian positions is enormous. Let's take a
look at his game against Bolbochan played at the
Interzonal tournament held in Stochholm in
1962. We have a typical double-edged Sicilian
With every single rook move White spoils more
position. White has gained a considerable
and more the coordination between Black's
amount of space on the kingside while Black is
forces. Now he is threatening to invade Black's
trying to create some threats along the c-file.
camp by means of . In order to parry the
Nevertheless, it's easy to spot that the d5–
immediate threats, Black should create new
square is very weakened. Furthermore, the fact
weaknesses on the kingside.
that light-squared bishops are already
exchanged favours White. Fisher decides to 
eliminate the only remaining defender of d5. 

 The position is already

winning for White. Now the plan is to use the
strong outpost of the knight and to organize an
attack against the black king.

 White immediately opens the

position. This idea allows him to quickly bring
his major pieces into the attack.

 This move is pretty much forced.

Otherwise, White could follow with f4–f5
advance with a complete domination.

36
Of course, White is not really planning to
exchange the queens. According to the classical
positional principles, queen + knight is an
extremely strong attacking combination. Now
Black couldn't prevent the opponent's rook from
invading his camp.
 It's enough to take a look at black
bishop to understand that White is already
winning.




1–0
Polgar,Judit (2670) - Anand,Viswanathan
(2770)
Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (6), 22.01.1998
On the diagram, we have a typical position
which arises from the following variation

Generally speaking, in this kind of
positions Black's counterplay is restricted since
his pieces are tied to the defence of the weak
d5–square. Nevertheless, with a precise play, he
has no problems in keeping the balance. At this
point, however, Anand went for
 This move is a positional mistake. As
we have pointed out on a number of occasions,
Black should avoid the exchange of the light-
squared bishops.
is considered to be the best move in this
position. In this way, Black not only prevents his
opponent from playing , but at the same
time he is planning to follow with . If he
develops the knight immediately, White could
make use of the unprotected e6–pawn. For
instance runs into fxe6
winning the e6–pawn. Later on Black will
try to generate some counterplay along the c-
file. For example moves like ,  
followed by b5–b4 come into consideration.
 We already
know that it is good for White to exchange his
dark-squared bishop for the opponent's knight.


The Knight protects c2–pawn and will be
relocated to d5
37


 White’s major pieces.
Very strong move. White gets rid of his useless
dark-squared bishop and manages to establish a
firm control over the central d5–square.
Again we enter
the well-known position with all major pieces on
the board and Knight against the dark squared
bishop. What to do now? White's first task
consists in transferring the knight to d5. Later
on, he could consider playing on both sides of
the board.

It is a mistake to exchange one
more rook. With rook, queen and knight, White
can organize an attack against Black's king.
Black doesn't have any counterplay and should
wait for the execution of his opponent's ideas.

 opponent's position by making pawn contacts.
The knight is heading for d5.

 The first part of the plan is
over. With his next moves, White will be trying
to improve the position of his major pieces
before starting a kingside attack.
 In
general, when we fight for an open (semi-open
file) the queen should be placed behind the rook.
Meanwhile, with his last move, Polgar created
the threat  followed by .
Nevertheless, this is not the optimal set-up for


It can happen that we are unable to organize an
attack by using our pieces alone. In such
situations, it is necessary to further weaken the
In this way we not only create additional
weaknesses in the opponent's camp, but at the
same time we open files for our major pieces.
For example, in this concrete position, White is
planning to open the h-file by means of
 and only then execute the
manoeuvre 

This is a
multipurpose move. Now White could start
playing on both sides of the board. From f2–
square, White queen could not only invade
38
Black's camp by means of but at the same intends to place the queen behind the rook.
time it could be transferred to h2 if the h-file is Finally
open. White penetrates Black's position.

It is understandable that Black The end is close. Black is helpless

doesn't want to open the h-file. against White's threats






White opens a second front of the attack.

Here Black resigned, because of the beautiful
Now White finish
controls the only open file in the position.
Furthermore, the domination of his knight over  And
the opponent's bishop makes his advantage White wins a piece.
decisive.
1–0

 Spasov,Vasil (2551) - Halkias,Stelios (2548)
EU-chT (Men) 15th Gothenburg (2.3),
31.07.2005

A typical way of fighting for an open file. White

39
As I pointed out in the introduction to the 

present article, the weakness of the d5–square
could be very important even in positions with
opposite-coloured bishops. We should be aware
of the enormous attacking potential of the
positions with opposite-coloured bishops. The
attacking possibilities are considerably higher if
one of the sides has weakened squares in his
camp. In the structures with a weakness on d5,
White’s light-squared bishop could be extremely
strong if it is supported by some major pieces.
White's attacking potential in such kind of
positions is perfectly illustrated in the game
Vasil Spasov - Stelios Halkias played in 2005.
After manoeuvring play and many exchanges,
the critical position of the game was reached. An Of course, as always in this kind of structures, it
inexperienced player may decide to agree to a is highly advantageous to further weaken the
draw here, because of the opposite-coloured opponent's kingside structure.
bishops and the reduced material, but actually
for a trained eye it is obvious that White has a  33...g5 was a
huge advantage. His bishop will be transferred positional suicide as Black not only weakens the
to a2–g8 - diagonal and will dominate the entire light-squares in his camp but at the same time
board. Black has weaknesses - "a5", "d6". he closes his bishop.
White’s plan is similar to the one in the positions
 Later on, White will be looking for a way
where White has a knight on d5.
to bring his major pieces to the kingside.
1. Improve the position of all our pieces.
2. Start making weaknesses on the kingside. 
3. Put pressure on weak pawns - "a5" and "d6"  Finally White starts the attack
4. Combine attack against the weaknesses with against the Black king. Black is hopeless against
an attack against the king and finally invade the the numerous threats.
opponent's camp.


 This move creates new
weaknesses on the kingside. The main problem
for Black is that his dark-squared bishop is very
passive. Had his bishop been on the a7–g1 -
diagonal, the assessment would have been
completely different. For example, with a bishop
on c5, Black could have created some threats on
the kingside by means of Rf8 followed by f7–f5.

 Another important positional

move. By overprotecting his bishop, White
reduces the activity of his opponent's rook.

White's rook is coming on f3

40
 White simply ignores Black's
simple trick. Black's position is completely
hopeless.
Of course the bishop is untouchable since after
Black will play  winning the
rook.




Wonderful game which shows the potential of
White's position.
1–0
Korneev,Oleg (2657) - Moiseenko,Alexander
(2632)
EU-Cup 22nd Fuegen (4.5), 11.10.2006
Despite the fact that in the vast majority of the
positions it's highly advantageous to occupy the
d5–square, there are some exceptions.
Sometimes, we manage to place our knight on
d5 but since our pieces are not optimally
developed, the play goes around our strong
knight. As an example, I would like to provide
you with an interesting game played by
Ukrainian GM Alexander Moiseenko. On the
diagram, we have a typical position for the
Sveshnikov variation in Sicilian defence. Despite
the fact that White controls the d5–square, Black
has two bishops and some lead in development.
Black’s plan is very logical:
1. Prepare f7–f5 which will help him to open the
position for his rooks and bishops
2. Relocate dark-squared bishop to a7–g1–
diagonal.
3. Try to exchange his light-squared bishop for
the Knight but only when White can't take on d5
with a piece. If White should take exd5, then d-
file will be closed, and d6– pawn will not be a
target anymore.
 Important moment! Black
pawn stands much better on a5 than on a6.
From here, it prevents White from gaining space
on the queenside by means of b2–b4 and is well-
protected by the queen and the rook.
 preparing f7–f5
 First part of the plan is
completed. Now Black should try to activate his
a8–rook.
  is a
very typical manoeuvre in this structure.
41
 
 

 
This characteristic manoeuvre was discussed in
Beautiful move which Korneev missed. Black
my comments to the previous game. Black dark-
brings his queen into the game.
squared bishop is heading for the a7–g1 -
diagonal. By now, the reader should have
 
noticed that play goes around white d5–knight.
This is caused by the lack of coordination  Black easily converted his
between white pieces. extra piece.

 Usually,
 0–1
this exchange favours White, but now Black
could take with g-pawn and later on he will
consider doubling the rooks along the g-file.


  Was the last chance for

equality.


 White king is in danger.


 Better was  Black is
better but the game is still on.

42
 Endgame Series - Part 7
GM Davorin Kuljasevic
Hello, Dear Chess Friends!
So far, our focus has been the role of pawns in
endgame. Hopefully, you now have a solid
understanding of pawn race, breakthrough,
"electric" pawns, outside passed pawn, and a
number of other ideas we discussed in the first
part of Endgame series. At the end of the day,
most endgames are won by promoting one's
pawn into a queen, so first and foremost we
need to develop a sense for the pawns.
However, in many endgames, passed pawns
need the help and/or protection of the king, and
this is what we will focus on in the following
issues of our magazine. In addition to helping his
own pawns, the king is often a brave attacking
piece in the endgame; we should therefore
know how to maneuver with it in this context as
well.
At the end of the previous issue of Modern Chess
we gave a preview of the second part of
Endgame series – the role of king in
endgames. We drew an important conclusion
about the nature of king's movement on the
chess board: "Distance on the chess board is not
always equivalent to distance in the "real"
world." As we explained using a real-world
example (**correction from the previous issue:
the distance between two tram stations is 4
minutes, not 2 minutes) diagonal movement
towards a certain line on the horizon always
takes longer than straightforward one. In chess,
however, it takes king the same time to reach
from h1 to a8 (moving diagonally) and to h8
(moving straight). This gives rise to certain
"anomalies" involving king – the only piece on
the chess board whose movement is restricted
to one square at a time.
This anomaly in king's movement sometimes
plays tricks on the minds of even the strongest
players, the best point in case being the
following World Championship game:
Bronstein,David I - Botvinnik,Mikhail
World Championship 19th Moscow (6),
26.03.1951
Bronstein played
 counting on Black supporting his pawn
with the "natural" 
The game would be drawn after 



However, he got shocked by Botvinnik's shrewd
response
43
 which led to his immediate resignation.
Black took "the unnatural" route to f2, but the
one that is equally fast. This way, white knight
can not win the crucial tempo to stop black
pawn by giving check to the king on f3.
Bronstein only calculated  when White
has  This crucial check is
possible only with black king on f3, but not on
g3!  This is possible due to white
knight being close enough. 
 and the pawn endgame is drawn
after 

In case of
 or 
 
Black promotes the pawn into queen and wins.
0–1
Korneev,Oleg - Videnova,Iva
Casablanca 2015., 12.04.2016
A similar oversight happened to Bulgarian IM
Iva Videnova in this sharp rook endgame against
GM Korneev. She played the straightforward
 which loses the ensuing pawn race by a
single tempo.
Instead, she had the amazing resource:
we will see shortly why black king
should go to g2 and not f2. 
It became obvious that Black plays with his king
to g2 to support the less advanced h-pawn!
just loses a tempo.



 and
now the position is drawn as White does not
have a useful check with his freshly promoted
queen.
 We
have a pawn race. Who will be faster?


Only here did Black realize
that promoting the pawn after 
would lose to  skewer, and the queen on
h1 falls! That's why it was important to go to g2
in the first place and push the h-pawn before the
e-pawn.
 White queen was promoted to a perfect
square. From b8 it controls h2, so Black can not
push the pawn forward yielding her a
theoretically drawn position.
 With the pawn on third rank
Black wins easily as there are no stalemate
motives as with pawn on h2.
 and
Black resigned in view of
44
 with a  After
checkmate to follow soon.
 The square shrinks, but Black draws by
1–0
continuing his diagonal movement:
 Draw.
Let us now explore two essential endgame
principles which also arise as a result of the
Square rule 2
specificity of king's movement on the chess
board:
1) Square rule
2) Triangulation

Square rule 1
Let us look at some of the applications of the square
rule in pawn endgames.

This is a famous study by Richard Reti from

1921. White king is way out of pawn's square
h5–h1–d1–d5, while black king is in the square
of White's pawn. Loss seems inevitable, but
White king achieves a miracle using the anomaly
of the chess board!

The square rule itself is very simple to  Seemingly White has not improved his
remember. We begin by counting the squares chances to catch the pawn, but that is not so.
that remain for the f4 pawn to reach the
promotion square - in this case it is 4 squares
 By stepping on the f-file, white king
(f5–f8). When we reach promotion square f8
(first corner of the square), we count the same created a threat of  and pushing the c-
number of squares (4) to the left, and from e8 pawn. Thus, Black plays
we reach b8. This is the second corner of the
square. Then we go backwards 4 squares, and  If Black pushes his pawn  then
from b7 we reach b4 (third corner). We White is just as fast with his own passer after
complete the square by going from c4 back to  with a
the initial square f4. Finally we have a square
drawn queen endgame.
with corners f4–f8–b8–b4. The rule of pawn's
square says that if black king manages to reach
this square, he is able to catch the passed pawn.
So, here Black draws only with:

45


 but regardless, Black will pick up White's pawn
A beautiful demonstration of the strength of
king's diagonal movement. White has a double
threat: either to step into the square of Black's
pawn with  or to support his own pawn with

 
 Pawns will promote at the same
time, so the endgame is drawn.

Square rule 3
Square rule can be important in other types of
endgames as well:
In this relatively difficult, but very important
study by Mandler (1938), White wins only with
a paradoxical:
 The main purpose of ignoring Black's
pawn is to restrict the movement of black king
within the square of White's passed pawn.
This is necessary because the natural 
allows Black to move freely within the square of
the pawn after  It is essential to
remember that the square of the pawn on the
initial square (such as f2) is the same as the
square of the pawn on the third rank (f3)
because the pawn can reach fourth rank in one
move from both f2 and f3.  The pawn can
not make it alone as black king is in the square,
so it needs king's support.


because his king is too far to support it.
 Black abandons the race after white
pawn and stays with his own passed pawn,
hoping to promote it at the same time as White.
If Black pushes the pawn without the help of his
king, the first point of this study is revealed in
the following variation: 
 We have a similar situation as
when White takes the pawn on b7 on first move,
but here the kings are shifted one rank
backward, which makes all the difference:
  and now Black is forced out of the
square of the f-pawn:  and White wins
with  Black is not in time to catch
opponent's pawn with  due to  and it
only blocks its own pawn, so White achieves a
winning queen vs. pawn endgame after
 etc.


46
Bringing the king closer to the pawn will
obviously not stop it, but it contains a key
tactical idea that will be revealed later.
Otherwise  is a pawn race in which no
one wins.
 White king
follows the pawn to c3, which forces black king
to step on a3:
 where it is vulnerable to promotion
check by f-pawn!
 The pawns did promote
at the same time, but unfortunately for Black, his
king is not only in check, but also in a very
vulnerable position, so he needs to play
 not to get checkmated immediately after

but this loses the queen by force after

 
A very instructive study.
Square rule 4
In this position Black obviously wants to achieve
draw by taking either the knight or the pawn.
White has a narrow path to the winning position
and he needs to use the rule of square!
 The only move.
Other moves are not sufficient: 
 would be wrong on the account of
  and white king is just
in time!) 
when black king reaches the square of the pawn.
 That's the winning method one
should remember. The knight is best at
defending the passed pawn from the back. White
wins because the pawn is defended and the
knight can not be taken as black king would step
out of the square of white pawn.
On the other hand, defending the pawn from the
front  is wrong due to  and white
king is too slow 
and the position is drawn as Black controls the
key squares in front of the pawn (more on that
in the next issue).
47

 
 
White wins.
Square rule 5
It is common knowledge that the endgame with
rook's pawn and wrong-coloured bishop is
drawn when defender's king is on g8 or h8. This
position seems to be heading that way, but
White has an important resource to force black
king out of the pawn's square.
 So far - so good. Black king is in the
square.
 but now White has:

and Black can resign as his king is forced to
leave the square of the pawn.
It is important to put the bishop on h5 and not
on  because then Black stays in the square
with  (or 
and White can not prevent Black from
reaching g8, so position is a draw.

Triangulation 1
Another important idea involving king's
movement is triangulation. In short, the king
maneuvers on neighboring squares in triangular
fashion in order to "catch his opponent on the
wrong foot", that is, force the opposing king into
moving to a losing square. Let us see some
examples to clarify this concept:
48
 We reached a critical position. What should
White do? Of course, he needs to resort to
triangulation!



This is an excellent example to show how

triangulation works. In order to win White will
need to take the h-pawn because he does not
control the key squares in front of his f-pawn.

 Black needs to defend passively,

Taking one step back. White has plenty of
since active try  is too slow: squares in the background to maneuvre with his
 and White king, while Black does not have this luxury.
promotes much faster. Direct attempts 

or would not yield the
 desired result for White as black king denies
him penetration squares.

 Black also needs to keep distance.

Because if Black was the first one to step on
 then White completes the
triangulation with 


This is the key to Black's defense. He needs to
stop white king from reaching g6.

On the other hand,  would allow White to

do exactly that after , and after
snatching the h-pawn White wins trivially.

49
and we get the same position we have just seen
to be drawn with White to move .
But with Black to move, White wins because the
king has to give way to g6. This shows us
another important concept in endgames - "the
correspondent squares". In this case, f5 and f7
are correspondent squares, meaning whoever
steps on that square first loses (or White draws
in this case). They could also be called squares
of "mutual zugzwang" or "mined squares", but
more on those topics later. There are two more
pairs of correspondent squares in this position:
e6 - e8 and e5 - f8. is similar to after

 Another step in the background.


White king is coming back to the "crime scene".
If you look back at the position after move 3, you
will realize it is the same position, only now it is
Black to move and before it was White. How did
white accomplish that? By triangulating his king
between "neutral" squares e4 and f4. Notice that
he could not triangulate his king using f5 or e6
squares because they are correspondent
squares. So by doing triangulation on neutral
squares (which Black could not do because of
lack of manoeuvring space) White "granted" a
tempo to Black, but it will turn out that this is a
Greek gift that Black has no choice but to accept.
He has only correspondent squares to choose
from - e8 (or g8) and f7 - and we know what
happens to the first to step on one of those.
  and White wins the h-pawn:
 etc.
 Now White wins even without the h-pawn.
 Last precise
move.
is a stalemate! wins too.

Triangulation 2
We have seen a similar endgame before, when
stretching opponent's king out of the square of
defended passed pawn did the job. Here, however,
this method does not work, but fortunately White
also has triangulation in his arsenal.
 White is hinting at the queenside route: b2–
a3–b4 and Black needs to do something about it.
The reason why "stretching method"
 does not work is
 when
Black reaches a theoretically drawn endgame  vs.
c-pawn. To repeat, Black draws like this:

 and the pawn is indirectly defended
by the stalemate motive.
50

 Again,  does not work.
This move leaves Black "wrong-footed". c1 (and
c2, for that matter) is the perfect base for attack
as both routes d2–e3–f4 and b2–a3–b4 are
available. Black's ideal king position in this case
is d5, but as he has to move, he is in zugzwang. If
you concluded that c1(c2) and d5 are
correspondent squares even before you read
this sentence, then bravo to you!
is too straightforward and therefore easily
parried by 
 The most flexible, but insufficient.
On the other hand, loses even more
easily after 
and c-pawn is lost.

  only draws because after 
With this move White completes triangulation.
 Now white king penetrates from
the center. Black has to retreat and the battle is
won.

etc. White wins.
Triangulation 3
We can see how triangulation can be decisive in
the following famous knight vs. rook's pawn
endgame:
 Of course, White wants to reach c2
square, but he takes a longer route to force
checkmate.
Black has  with stalemate.
 Triangulation is completed.
 Now White has just enough time to bring
the knight to c1:

  is a common beginner mistake.
Stalemate!
  was important to
prevent  because of 
51

 pawn endgame after 
That's the winning square. Black king can not go
to a2 any more, so he is forced to play
 and then
 checkmates!
Triangulation 4
This is a position from Adorjan's study. White is
a pawn up in a knight endgame, which is not
decisive yet as White does not have a passed
pawn. But the poor positions of black knight and
king are at the bottom of his defeat.
 Restriction of movement is one of the
basic winning strategies in the endgame.
 This is forced since  leads to a lost

After creating a defended passed pawn, White
just needs to bring his king to the other side:


 We have seen in previous examples how
quietly powerful such indirect moves can be.
The point is that a direct attempt to create the
passed pawn with 
is just drawn. But if we could push
the b-pawn when black king is on a8, we could
win with c6–c7. So we just need to waste a
tempo, and triangulation is perfect means to
that end. It’s also worth noting that there is
another equally strong triangulation:

 that leads to the same position as in the
main line.



 Again does not promise salvation:

 etc.
 Thanks to triangulation, we reached the
same position with Black to move.
 Now this works.
52
 In this important theoretical rook and pawn vs.

rook endgame with c-pawn on fourth rank and
black king cut 2 or more files from the pawn,
White wins by using a triangulation-like
manoeuvre with his king:

 This is more precise than

 which loses immediately to
 once the pawn
reaches fifth rank, it is all over.




 Else  is a nice

checkmate.

 White finally created a passed pawn, which

will be decisive in combination with
checkmating threats to black king.

 The only move, but White wins

with
 anyway.

 Actually, Black would rather

not have this pawn on the board (without it the
position would be drawn even with knights on This is the furthest we can get with the king.
the board!), but as it is, he is getting checkmated Note the triangular movement of the king from
on the next move. a5 to a6.
  As before,  does nothing to stop
the c-pawn from advancing
Triangulation 5  etc.

 The rook lets black king off the hook, but
at the same time it gives the necessary support
to the pawn. Now white king does not have to
worry about defending the pawn, so it can
assume a more active role.

 Finally, black rook has

to make way for the c-pawn.

 Black is almost in time to reach

a drawn position by putting his king in front of
the pawn, but not quite.

53

  etc.
White must activate his rook before pushing the
pawn.
It would be wrong to push  too fast,
because after  Black draws by giving
checks from the back: 
 or  when passive defense
with  is known not to work with c- and d-
pawns (it does with a- and b-) 
 This is the key move to
remember. 
 and White wins.
 Black king is forced out of
the c-file, so the rest is simple:
 and White is bound to
promote the pawn as in response to checks from
the back

 would allow Black to accomplish his
he wins by the famous "zig-zag" method:

Bajarani,U (2500) - Adhiban,Baskaran
(2646)
Nakhchivan Open 2015 Nakhchivan AZE (9.8),
10.05.2015
Black is up a pawn in the knights endgame. His
only problem is that with white king on f2 his
knight is stuck on the edge of the board. But if
white king would leave f2 square, Black could
bring his knight into the game via g2 or f3. How
do we waste a move to get the same position
with opponent to move? By triangulation, of
course!
The knight can not go to as
White reaches a drawn pawn endgame after the
exchange of knights: 

The king has to move since
goal of bringing the knight back into the game
with with a technically winning
position.
Black needs to improve the position of
his king before moving the knight.
Immediate is not as good because
White has with some
counterplay against the weak d6 pawn. In case
of White gets into pawn's square with
 with some
drawing chances.
54
 We have seen just a few of many theoretical and
 practical examples of square rule and
triangulation, but it should be enough to get a
good understanding of these principles. In the
Exercises section, we provide further examples
to strengthen your endgame skill.
Stay tuned for the following issue of Endgame
series, where we will talk about king battles
using the techniques of key squares, opposition,
correspondent squares etc.
Exercise 1

Triangulation!
By virtue of some heavy
manoeuvring Black achieved the exact same
position as in the first diagram, only with White
to move! Now white king has to abandon control
of squares f3 and g2.
 loses as well after 

 etc.; but  was perhaps more
tenacious:  as black
king can not pass through due to
 White to move and win.


Exercise 2

The passed pawn decides the issue. The game

continued with some inaccuracies, but the gist of
it is that after
 White to move and draw.
white pieces are too far away
from queenside and Black wins the b3 pawn.
0–1

55
Exercise 3 Exercise 5

White to move and draw. White to move and win.

Exercise 4 Exercise 6

White to move and win. White to move and win.

56