HOW NOT TO LOSE IN CHESS

Lars Bo Hansen

-------------------------------------------

Master Chess
Lesson 6
Text copyright © 2015 Lars Bo Hansen
All Rights Reserved

Table of Contents
Introduction
The importance of sense of danger
Warning signals triggering the sense of danger
Sense of danger in symmetrical pawn-structures
Exercises
Exercise 1:
Exercise 2:
Exercise 3:
Exercise 4:
Solutions to exercises
Exercise 1:
Exercise 2:
Exercise 3:
Exercise 4:
Tips for self-improvement
Master another chess topic
Introduction
If you are like me, you hate losing more than you enjoy winning. Losing
chess games makes most people more unhappy than winning makes them
happy. In this sense chess is an asymmetric and somewhat cruel game,
despite the fact that it is a zero-sum game in which there are as many losers
as winners.
The aim of this lesson is to help you lose fewer chess games. The bad news is
that I cannot promise you that you will never lose again. The good news is,
though, that it is possible to reduce the number of losses drastically if you
improve your sense of danger. This lesson will help you do just that.
At the core chess is a draw – most experts agree on that. The drawing range
is even quite broad; it is often possible to hold positions where you are
material down, e.g. rook vs. rook and pawn or even rook vs. rook and
bishop. The most radical example is two knights vs. a bare king where the
superior side cannot win despite his vast material advantage.
It takes mistakes – typically more than one but some blunders are bad
enough to lose the game essentially in one move – to push the game past
the drawing range. The purpose of this lesson is to help you make fewer
mistakes by improving your understanding of where mistakes come from –
in other words boosting your sense of danger.
Sense of danger is a meta-competence, meaning that it operates at a deep
level and is not necessarily tied to something specific. It is “a hunch” that
tells you that something bad may happen if you are not alert. It is a kind of
alarm bell that goes off in your head, telling you to raise your alertness level
to the highest level – DEFCON 1, so to speak.
Just as the US Armed Forces operate at different DEFCON levels depending
on the political situation in the world (with DEFCON 1 representing the
highest danger, with the threat of nuclear war imminent), strong chess
players operate at different levels of alertness during a chess game. While
you should always be alert to various tactics, threats etc, it would be
impractical to always be at the highest level of alertness. This would be too
time and energy consuming and you would hardly get to play a move. Note
that I am not saying that you should not be focused throughout the game –
you should always be focused. What I am saying is that you must learn
which signals should cause you to be extra focused and alert. Let’s say that
you operate most of the game on DEFCON levels 5 or 4 (normal or slightly
above normal readiness, depending on the sharpness of the position), but
when you perceive some warning signals you immediately move to a higher
state of alertness.
In this lesson you will be introduced to a range of warning signals that
should trigger this shift to a higher alertness level. That meta-competence is
what I call sense of danger in chess. Some unique chess talents are endowed
with this competence from nature’s hand – say, Capablanca, Petrosian or
Karpov. Most of us, though, have to practice this skill.
The importance of sense of danger
Let’s start out with two examples from the Chess Olympiad in Tromsø,
Norway, to show how sense of danger works – and what happens when it
doesn’t. Both games feature my good friend and former teammate in the
Danish National Team GM Allan Stig Rasmussen. Allan is a strong and
experienced Grandmaster, but in these two games he was let down by his
otherwise sharp sense of danger and forgot to raise the alertness level when
needed. In other words, he misread or ignored the warning signals. That
happens to everybody from time to time; the trick is to reduce the number
of such instances so as to lose fewer games.

Allan Stig Rasmussen – Anton Filippov

Chess Olympiad Tromsø 2014
According to my computer, White is very slightly better in this position, but
the most likely result is a draw. One possible line is 26 Rfe1 Qd5+ 27 Kg1
Rab8 (if 27…Rfc8 28 Re3 Black will be tied to the defense of the c3-pawn) 28
Qxc3 Rxb3 29 Re5!? Rxc3 30 Rxd5 Ra8 with a drawish rook endgame. But
White instead commits an instructive inaccuracy:
26 f4?
Why is this move bad and what is the warning signal involved? The problem
is that from now on and for the rest of the game, White will suffer from his
king being exposed and without pawn shelter. I call the warning signal that
should have caused White to refrain from this weakening move long-term
king safety. Your sense of danger is telling you not to voluntarily weaken
your king, especially when the vulnerability is irreparable as with pawn
advances – after all, pawns cannot move backwards!
Of course GM Rasmussen knows these things; why did he play 26 f4 then?
On Facebook he explained that the decision had two reasons: 1) The team
was in trouble and he felt he needed to play for a win; and 2) He thought he
could pick up the c3-pawn without giving up the b3-pawn, but missed
Black’s powerful 29th move in his calculations. The first reason is fully valid; I
too have felt the pressure in team events to play in ways I wouldn’t have in
an individual event.
However, the second reason is in my view an instructive error and a good
example of the relationship between calculations and sense of danger – the
specific vs. the general; the cognitive vs. the intuitive.
The point of the long-term king safety warning signal is that your sense of
danger is trying to tell you to not even seriously calculate this move! In my
view, 26 f4? is not a calculation error, but a sense of danger error. As a
candidate move, this advance should be rejected on general, intuitive – not
specific, cognitive – grounds because of its long-term king safety
implications. That’s the essence of sense of danger – that it guides and
warns you even when you don’t see a specific risk somewhere in a
calculated line. Even if the calculation had been correct and White indeed
would have been able to win the c3-pawn, his open king’s position would
have made it unlikely that he would be able to convert the extra pawn with
all the major pieces still on the board.
26…Qd5+ 27 Rf3 Rac8 28 Rd1 Qb7 29 Rd3 Qe4!
This is what White missed. The queen takes up a powerful centralized
position and with the multiple pins White can’t win the c3-pawn as
anticipated. Black is now clearly better, though probably not winning yet.
However, it is difficult to adapt to an unpleasant defense, protecting the
vulnerable king while keeping the passed pawn on c3 under control. In the
run towards the time control on move 40, both sides make some
inaccuracies, but the margin of error is slimmer for White given the
difference in king safety.
30 Kh3?!
The king is not really safer here. Probably 30 Kg1 Rfe8 31 Rf1 gave better
chances to hold.
30…Rfe8 31 Rf2 Rc6 32 Rdf3?! Qd5?!
Black misses the decisive 32…f5! 33 Kg2 (after 33 Qxe4 fxe4 34 Re3 c2 the
passed pawn decides) 33…Rd8! 34 Kg1 Rd2! 35 Rxd2 cxd2, winning the f3-
rook, as White’s queen is overloaded.
33 g4 h5! 34 g5 Qd4 35 Kg2 g6
Solid, but 35…Re1! with ideas like Rd1-d2 was cleaner.
36 h3 Re3 37 f5
Now Black wins a pawn, but 37 Rxe3 Qxe3 38 Rf3 Qd4 was hardly better.
37…Qd5! 38 fxg6 Qxg5+ 39 Kf1 Rxf3 40 Rxf3 Qxg6

The time control has been reached and Black is clearly winning.
41 Rf2 Qxc2
Good enough, but 41…Qd6! was probably even simpler. Keeping the queens
on reminds White of his vulnerable king’s position.
42 Rxc2 Kf8 43 Ke2 Ke7 44 Kd3
The ensuing king and pawn endgame is hopeless, but 44 Kd1 would not
really have saved White either. In that case, though, he could hope for some
miracle by activating his rook and blockading the c-pawn with his king.
44…Kd6 45 Kd4 h4 46 Rxc3 Rxc3 47 Kxc3 Kc5 48 b4+
Otherwise Black simply starts pushing his f-pawn.
48…axb4+ 49 Kb3 f5 50 a5 f4
White resigned as after 51 a6 Kb6 52 Kxb4 f3 he will not be in time to catch
the f-pawn. 0-1
----------

Allan Stig Rasmussen – Filip Pancevski

Chess Olympiad Tromsø 2014
In a Queens Gambit Accepted, Black has equalized comfortably and has just
offered the trade of queens with 16…Qd7. White should acknowledge this
state of affairs, trade the queens and accept a likely draw. But wishing to
keep the game going, White commits a losing blunder:
17 Qc2??
17…Nf3+!
Ouch – this wins on the spot. White’s king will fall victim to a swift and lethal
attack, which is not surprising given that White is clearly understaffed on the
kingside. As Mikhail Tal would put it, the attacking ratio is significantly in
Black’s favor. Obviously White must have missed this tactical shot, but as in
the previous example this is not a calculation error, but a sense of danger
error. The warning signal that should have kicked in here is of the kind short-
term king safety. 17 Qc2 leaves White’s kingside dangerously exposed. His
sense of danger tried to warn him that with a queen, rook, two bishops, a
knight, and two pawns lumped together on 3x3 squares far away from the
king, maximum alertness – DEFCON 1 – is required, and all possible attacking
threats should be diligently examined.
18 gxf3
There is nothing better; 18 Kh1 Nxh2 19 Re1 Rae8 20 Be3 Qg4 wouldn’t last
long either.
18…Qh3 19 f4
19 Re1 is met by 19…Rae8! 20 Be3 Bxh2+ 21 Kh1 Re5!, and the lonesome
White king will be mated.
19…Ng4 20 Re1
20 f3 Bc5+ wins immediately.

20…Rae8!
Strong attacking play. Black brings another piece into the attack and prevent
White from using any form of the “run from the bully defense”. Notice how
Black patiently avoids taking the h2-pawn until it is clear if this pawn is best
grabbed by the queen or the knight.
21 Be3
Alternatives are no better, e.g. 21 Ne4 Qxh2+ 22 Kf1 Qh1+ 23 Ke2 Rxe4+ or
21 Re4 Qxh2+ (21…Nxh2 also wins) 22 Kf1 Rxe4 23 Nxe4 Qh1+ 24 Ke2 Re8!,
and despite his material advantage White is completely tied up and dead
lost.
21…Nxh2!
Finally – now it is clear that taking with the knight is best as White has no
adequate defense against the threat 22…Nf3+ mate.
22 f3 Nxf3+ 23 Kf2 Nh4!
The final accurate move. White cannot simultaneously defend against 24…
Qg2+ mate and keep the bishop on e3 covered.
24 Kg1 Rxe3 0-1
----------
The two games above show what happens when your sense of danger lets
you down. A strong sense of danger is a powerful weapon. In the following
example Black’s sense of danger helped him win the famous Candidates
tournament in Zürich 1953:

Paul Keres – Vassily Smyslov

Candidates tournament, Zürich 1953
This is one of the most famous games from one of the most famous
tournaments in chess history. It was played in the 24th (of 28) round, and at
the time of the game Smyslov and the American Samuel Reshevsky were
tied for the lead, half a point ahead of Keres and David Bronstein. Winning
this game and in the following round defeating Reshevsky, Smyslov
effectively assured himself of a World Championship match against the
reigning World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik. That match would end in a 12-
12 tie, allowing Botvinnik to retain his title as the Champion in those days
had draw odds.
Three years later Smyslov again fought his way through the Candidates to
challenge Botvinnik a second, and this time he was successful. However,
Smyslov’s reign as World Champion lasted only one year, as Botvinnik won
the return match – another privilege of the World Champion in those days –
to regain the title he had held since 1948.
18 Rh5
Given the tournament standings, it is understandable that Keres was not
happy with retreating the rook to e.g. e3 because of 18…dxc4, when the
threat to the d4-pawn forces White to recapture with the rook, leaving Black
with a pleasant edge because of White’s isolated d-pawn.
18…g6 19 Rch3!
White goes all in, offering a rook for a strong attack. Should Black accept the
challenge or not? This is a typical sense of danger decision! As Smyslov later
explained, he very much wanted to snatch the rook as he did not see a
direct follow-up for White after 19…gxh5 20 Qxh5 Re8, preparing to use the
“run from the bully defense”, fleeing with the king via f8 and e7. But while
he was not able to calculate why 19…gxh5 was too dangerous, his intuitive
sense of danger warned him from accepting Keres’ generous gift of a rook.
Again we see how sense of danger is separate from calculation. What are
the warning signs here that should alert Black’s sense of danger? There are
several. First, clearly short-term king safety is a concern; Black’s king will
come under direct attack while being left without pawn protection. Second,
the attacking ratio would be in White’s favor; after all Black’s king would
only be defended by the bishop. Third, Smyslov of course knew his
opponent’s reputation as a brilliant attacker. It was unlikely that Keres would
sacrifice a rook without having some creative idea up his sleeve. So on
purely intuitive grounds, Smyslov rejected 19…gxh5.
It turns out that his sense of danger was correct – accepting the offered
rook would indeed be too dangerous after 20 Qxh5 Re8 and now Bronstein’s
suggestion in the classic tournament book 21 a4!, activating the dark-
squared bishop via a3 and cutting off Black’s king’s intended escape route.
This position has been extensively analyzed in the chess literature, and I will
not reproduce all the variations here. The main line, given by Kasparov in
volume 2 of his My Great Predecessors series, goes like this: 21 a4! Qd6 22
Qh6! Bg7 23 Qxh7+ Kf8 24 Rg3 Bf6 25 c5!, and now Black’s only chance is to
sacrifice his queen with 25…Qxg3 26 hxg3 bxc5 – hoping to hold a bad
position after 27 Qh6+ Bg7 28 Qd2 – as 25…Qf4? loses to 26 c6! followed by
27 Ba3+. Despite not seeing all of this, Smyslov correctly sensed the danger
and instead played…
19…dxc4!

Brilliant cool-headed defense. Now the light-squared bishop can join the
defense via e4, making capturing the rook a genuine threat, e.g. 20 bxc4?
gxh5 21 Bd3 (21 Qxh5 Be4!, winning) 21…Re8 22 Qxh5 Kf8 23 a4 Qd6 24 Bf1
Qf4 25 Ba3+ Be7 26 Rh4 Qf6, and the attack peters out, as indicated by
Smyslov.
20 Rxh7??
Faced with an unexpected change of events, Keres loses the thread. Now he
had to sense the danger of the position. Just as a defender should be careful
not to underestimate the opponent’s attacking potential, the attacker
should not underestimate the defensive resources of his opponent. You
should always expect your opponent to find the best defensive moves.
I have sometimes seen attacking players becoming disappointed when their
first wave of attack is repelled and then floundering when preparing the
next wave, as if they have somehow lost the spirit. Strong attacks often
proceed in waves; while the opponent might survive the first wave(s), you
should keep setting difficult problems and come up with new attacking
ideas. To be fair, Keres rarely fell into this trap, but in the present high-
stakes game he failed to adjust to the new situation. As Bronstein pointed
out, it was not too late for White to steer the game towards a draw with 20
Qg4! c3 21 Bxc3 Rxc3! 22 Rxc3 Qxd4 23 Qxd4 Bxd4 24 Rc7 gxh5 25 Rxb7 Rc8
26 Bc4, with a draw. Kasparov later tried to improve on this line with 20…
cxb3!?, but showed that this too leads to a draw after 21 Rxh7 Rc2 22 Bd3
Qc7 23 R3h6! Rc1+ 24 Bxc1 Qxc1+ 25 Bf1 Bg7 26 Qh4 Bxh6 27 Rxh6 Rc8 28
Rh8+ Kg7 29 Rh7+ Kg8 30 Rh8+, with a draw through perpetual check.
20…c3!
This simple move dispels all illusions of a kingside attack. The pawn is clearly
immune as 21 Bxc3? is met by 21…Rxc3! 22 Rxc3 Kxh7, winning, and 21 Bc1
is simply met by 21…Qxd4, when White’s queen cannot join the attack.
21 Qc1!?
A shrewd trap but of course not one a top player like Smyslov falls for.
21…Qxd4!
Clearly not 21…cxb2?? 22 Qh6 Qxd4 23 Rh8+!, followed by mate on h7.
22 Qh6 Rfd8!
The last precise move. Black creates an escape route for his king so that the
Rh8+ and Qh7+ ideas don’t work.
23 Bc1 Bg7 24 Qg5 Qf6 25 Qg4 c2!
With the attack extinguished, Black’s passed c-pawn decides the game.
26 Be2 Rd4! 27 f4 Rd1+! 28 Bxd1 Qd4+ 0-1
Warning signals triggering the sense of danger
As I have already explained, sense of danger works independently from
calculation – that’s why it is called a “sense”. Strong players don’t need to
see a particular threat or refutation but can sense the danger. The sense of
danger is activated by warning signals that you should pick up on.
Some of the warning signals have already been noted in the games above –
e.g. short and long term king safety, or not underestimating the opponent’s
attacking or defensive resources. Here is a list of warning signals that should
trigger your sense of danger. It is not an exhaustive list; you can add to it
yourself based on your own experiences!
- Short-term king safety
- Long-term king safety
- Pieces with few or no squares
- Loose pieces
- Lack of development
- Superior activity of opponent’s pieces
- Attacking/defensive ratio
- Long-term weaknesses (pawns/squares)
- Pins
- Intermediate moves
- Underestimating the opponent’s attacking prospects
- Underestimating the opponent’s defensive resources
- Underestimating the opponent and/or his ideas
- Believing position is dead draw or dead lost for either side
Going over the list you will notice that many of the warning signals are
related to piece play and dangers in the short run. But there are also more
long-term factors such as positional weaknesses. Sense of danger is not only
a short-term concept! Finally, the list also includes a number of
psychological warning signals; e.g. by urging you not to underestimate the
opponent’s ideas and resources – or even the opponent himself. But don’t
overestimate him, either!
Sense of danger in symmetrical pawn-structures
As mentioned, many warning signals are related to the pieces – loose pieces,
pieces that may be trapped because of lack of squares, lead in development
or superior activity of the opponent’s pieces. One method for practicing
sense of danger related to pieces that I often recommend for students is to
study game with symmetrical pawn-structures. By de facto taking the pawns
out of the equation, issues related to the pieces will be highlighted.
At my first Chess Olympiad, playing Board 2 for Denmark in Thessaloniki
1988, I learned a valuable lesson about sense of danger and piece play in
symmetrical pawn-structures from former World Champion Anatoly Karpov.
Anatoly Karpov – Lars Bo Hansen
Chess Olympiad, Thessaloniki 1988
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nf3 b6 3 g3 c5 4 Bg2 Bb7 5 0-0 e6
In those years, I like playing the Black side of the flexible Hedgehog System.
Later I started appreciating White’s chances in these positions. An
instructive game illustrating White’s plans is Karpov - Ribli, Olympiad Dubai
1986.
6 Nc3 a6
6…Be7 is the most frequently played move here.
7 b3 Be7 8 d4
The recent high-level rapid game Kramnik – Carlsen, Nice 2011, took a
different course: 8 Bb2 0-0 9 e3 d6 10 d4 Ne4 11 d5 Nxc3 12 Bxc3 exd5 13
Ne1 Bf6 14 Bxf6 Qxf6 15 Rc1 Qf5 16 Nd3 Nd7 17 Nf4 Nf6 18 Re1 Rfe8 19 h3
Re5! 20 g4 Qd7 21 Nxd5 Bxd5! 22 cxd5 Qe7 23 Qd3 g5!? (Carlsen plays on
the dark squares, trying to prove that the bishop on g2 is “bad”) 24 Kf1 Nd7
25 a4
25…Rf8!? (A creative pawn sacrifice, taking aim at White’s king) 26 Qxa6 f5!
27 Qb7? (Kramnik blunders; after 27 Kg1 f4 Black has sufficient dark-square
compensation for his pawn, but hardly more) 27…fxg4 28 hxg4 Rxe3! 29 Qa6
Qf6! 30 Re2 Ne5 31 Rce1, but White resigned without waiting for the
crushing 31…Nxg4.
8…cxd4 9 Qxd4 d6 10 Ba3 Nc6 11 Qf4
11…Qb8?
Although this move has been played by a number of strong Grandmasters, I
now believe the basic idea is conceptually flawed. The idea of the move is
straightforward: Black wishes to push d6-d5, trading some pieces and
reaching a position with a symmetrical pawn-structure when Black’s d-pawn
is traded for White’s c-pawn. But as Karpov demonstrates, despite the
symmetrical pawn-structure White is clearly better in the ensuing position
because of his more active pieces. This game taught me a lot about the
importance of the relative activity level of pieces. Chess consists of pawns
and pieces. Earlier in my career, I was too focused on pawn-structure issues,
having studied the games of the great pawn-structure virtuoso Rubinstein in
my early teens. That’s why I recommend my students to study games with
symmetrical pawn-structure: In such games, play is predominantly evolving
around piece play, and differences in piece activity are clearly apparent.
Instead of 11...Qb8, Black can equalize with 11…Qc7! 12 Rfd1 Rd8 13 Rac1
Na7! (preventing 14 Nd5); ten years after this game Karpov himself used this
sequence as Black to beat Gelfand in a rapid game.
12 Rfd1 d5
12…Ne5 has also been tried, but after 13 Qd2 Nxf3+ 14 exf3 (or 14 Bxf3,
with a solid edge for White) 14…d5 15 Bxe7 Kxe7 16 cxd5 Nxd5 17 Nxd5
Bxd5 18 Qg5+ Kf8 19 Rac1 Black is left with a different problem: Lack of king
safety. White went on to win in D. Gurevich – Vujovic, Ischia 1997.
13 Bxe7 Nxe7
The ending after 13…Qxf4 14 gxf4 Nxe7 15 Ne5 is also very unpleasant for
Black.
14 Ne5 0-0 15 cxd5 Nexd5 16 Nxd5

16…Bxd5
As planned, now Black obtains the symmetrical pawn-structure I envisioned
when initiating the 11…Qb8 plan. I was hoping that Black would be able to
gradually equalize. But the warning signal that should have activated my
sense of danger and told me to avoid this line is the superior activity of
White’s pieces. 16…exd5 may have been the lesser evil at this stage,
accepting a broken pawn-structure, although this would clearly not be
pleasant against Karpov who has won many games by exploiting isolated d-
pawns. After 17 Nd3 Re8 18 e3 a5 19 Rac1 White has a small but very
durable advantage and went on to win in Salov – M. Gurevich, Biel
Interzonal 1993.
17 e4 Bb7 18 Rac1

At Chess Olympiads opponents usually do not analyze their games together;

players analyze with their teams or coaches. But it is common to have a little
chat about the game afterwards. Chatting a bit with Karpov, the ex-World
Champion remarked “After 18 Rac1 it is over”. This remark surprised me and
it had a profound impact on how I now evaluate chess positions. I realized
that I was somewhat worse, but did not think to this degree. I had actually
thought that my main mistake came later (18…Rd8?).
In hindsight, Karpov’s evaluation was probably overly optimistic from
White’s point of you – my computer gives the position as clearly better for
White with a +0.81 evaluation, not yet winning – but his point about the
importance of the relative activity levels of pieces is certainly valid. Just
compare the pieces: All of White’s pieces are more active than their Black
counterparts. Subsequently I studied a lot of games with symmetrical pawn-
structure, and I learned to have a much more balanced appreciation of the
relationship between static features of a position (pawn-structure and
space) and dynamic features (piece play).
18…Rd8?

This is just a blunder that loses immediately. I missed White’s 20th move. A
waiting move like 18…b5 was better, and in fact Black managed to hold the
endgame after 19 Nd7?! Qxf4 20 gxf4 Rfc8 in the game Nogueiras – Leyva,
Cuba Ch. 2001. 19 Nd7 seems premature though, as there is no apparent
reason to trade the active knight on e5. Probably Karpov would have played
some quiet move such as 19 Bf3, stopping Nh5 ideas from Black and
preparing a gradual advance on the kingside. Black’s position remains
critical.
19 Rxd8+ Qxd8

20 Nxf7!
Oops – 20…Kxf7 loses to 21 Rc7+.
20…Qd4
Trying to create some counterplay against e4 and f2.
21 Qd6!
Karpov finds the most accurate follow-up. After 21 Nd6? e5 22 Nf5 exf4 23
Nxd4 fxg3 24 hxg3 Bxe4 or 21 Ng5 e5 22 Qf5 Qd6 Black is still in the game.
21…Qb2
21…Qxd6 22 Nxd6 Rb8 23 Rc7 is hopeless.
22 Rf1 Re8 23 Qc7 Ba8
23…Bxe4 loses to 24 Nd6
24 Ng5 h6 25 Qf7+ Kh8

26 e5! 1-0
26…Qxe5 runs into 27 Qxe8+! Nxe8 28 Nf7+, and 26…hxg5 27 exf6 is
hopeless too with the double threat 28 Qxg7+ mate and 28 Qxe8+ and 27…
Rg8 obviously falls to 28 Qh5+ mate!
----------
One of the instructive games to study with a symmetrical pawn-structure is
this one between two World Champions with exceptional sense of danger.
But in this game Smyslov’s – World Champion 1957-1958 – sense of danger
uncharacteristically lets him down and he is severely punished by Petrosian
– World Champion 1963-1969.
Tigran Petrosian – Vassily Smyslov
Soviet Championship, Moscow 1961
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 d4 Bb7 5 a3!?

This was one of the first times (the very first game I could find was Petrosian
– Szabo, Portoroz Interzonal 1958, an uneventful draw) that Petrosian
employed the move in the Queen’s Indian that now carries his name: The
Petrosian Variation. Interestingly, this little move with the side pawn
actually helps White in the fight for the center. In the Queen’s Indian and
Nimzo-Indian systems, Black pins White’s knight on c3 with Bb4 in order to
indirectly fight for the light squares in the center (e4 and d5). Petrosian’s
move is prophylaxis against this idea.
5…d5
A sensible reaction by Smyslov – if he cannot fight for the center with pieces,
he will do so with pawns.
6 cxd5 Nxd5!?
It is also possible to recapture with the pawn, which often leads to a position
with hanging pawns in the center (c5 and d5). 6…Nxd5 prepares to trade the
c3-knight and thus again plans to fight for the light squares in the center
with pieces.
7 e3
These days 7 Qc2 is more popular, planning e2-e4. Notice how the opening
battle revolves around the center – always remember the three principles of
opening play: Center, development, and king safety!
7…Be7
One reason why 7 Qc2 has now superseded 7 e3 is the move 7…g6!? In the
famous 1st match game of the Kasparov – Korchnoi Candidates semi-final
match in London 1984, Korchnoi won a classic game with this move.
Kasparov still went on to win the match, though, and by beating the now 63
years old Smyslov in the final, he earned the right to a World Championship
match with the reigning Champion Karpov. This was the prelude to no less
than five hard-fought World Championship matches in the period 1984-1990
between the two K’s! Kasparov won three narrowly, one was drawn 12-12,
and the last was abandoned after 48 exhausting games at the score 5-3 for
Karpov (only wins counting, playing to six wins). Kasparov had just won the
last two games after trailing 5-0 earlier, leading to all kinds of conspiracy
theories as to why the match was abandoned at this particular moment and
who the decision favored.
8 Bb5+ c6 9 Bd3 c5!?
Slightly risky. The main moves nowadays are 9…0-0 (e.g. Petrosian –
Reshevsky, 1966), 9…Nd7 (e.g. Petrosian – Szabo, 1958) or 9…Nxc3 (e.g.
Kasparov – Petrosian, 1981).
10 Nxd5

10…Qxd5!?
Like in my game with Karpov, Smyslov aims for a position with a symmetrical
pawn-structure but seems to underestimate the dangers. This move is not
bad, but it does require utmost care from Black. The alternative was 10…
exd5, when after 11 b3 White has an edge according to Kasparov.
11 dxc5 Qxc5
After 11…Bxc5 12 Bb5+ Ke7 13 Qe2 a5 14 Bd2 Rd8 15 Bc3 Kf8 16 0-0, a draw
was agreed in Gheorghiu –Karpov, Moscow 1981. I assume Petrosian would
have played on if he had this position; White has a small but stable edge.
12 Bd2 Nc6 13 Rc1

The critical position in the game. Where should the Black queen go? This is
where Smyslov’s sense of danger deserts him. Like me, he tucks away his
queen on b8 (via d6), but that is much too passive and allows White a clear
advantage based on more active pieces. White will then use his superior
piece activity to whip up a powerful attack against Black’s king.
13…Qd6?!
A subtle inaccuracy according to Kasparov, who in Volume 2 of his excellent
My Great Predecessors comments: “Smyslov makes the most “solid” move
on general grounds, failing to sense all the dangers lurking in the position: a
symmetrical structure often leads to complacency.” That is exactly right; it is
easy to underestimate dangers in symmetrical pawn-structures, as I learned
from my game with Karpov. But in fact it should be the other way around –
in such seemingly dull positions you have to be extra attentive because play
might evolve very rapidly as the fast-moving pieces are in focus.
Pawn-structure chess is often slower in nature. According to Kasparov, Black
had good chances to equalize with 13…Qd5! The point is that in some lines
the queen has to go to h5 in order to make sure that Black can safely castle
without being outnumbered on that side of the board – as we shall see in
the game. A possible line is 13…Qd5 14 Qc2 Rc8 15 Bc3 (15 0-0 Qh5; 15 Be4
Qd7 16 Bc3 f5! 17 Bd3 0-0 18 0-0 Bd6 19 Rfd1 Ne7 with equality according to
Kasparov) 15…Qh5! followed by 16…0-0, when Black is OK.
14 Qc2 Rc8 15 0-0 h6
Since a queen maneuver to h5 is no longer possible, Black has to weaken his
kingside in order to be able to castle. It is possible that 15…g6 was the lesser
evil, despite the serious long-term weaknesses on the dark squares around
Black’s king. After 16 Bc3 0-0 17 Rfd1 Qb8 18 b4 Black’s position is
unpleasant, though.
16 Rfd1 0-0 17 Bc3 Qb8

This was the last chance to try to redirect the queen to the defense of the
kingside with 17…Qc5, a suggestion by Petrosian. But as Kasparov points
out, it is not good enough – after 18 Bh7+! Kh8 19 Rd7 Ba8 20 Be4 Rfd8 21
b4 Qh5 22 Rcd1, White is close to winning.
Kasparov then gives a highly instructive assessment of the position,
highlighting the differences in piece activity: “It follows that this [pawn-
structure] symmetry is only apparent. Note the qualitative difference in the
placing of the two sides’ pieces. About the bishops it has already been said –
Black’s are clearly inferior to White’s. The knight at c6 is rather passive, and
it would stand far better at f6. The black queen rushes about the board, not
knowing where to go. It finally hides at b8, but here too White finds an
elegant solution.”
18 Qa4!
Now that Black has hidden his queen on b8, far away from the action, White
brings his own queen to the kingside, and in just a few moves he will build
up an irresistible attack – irresistible because of the more active White
pieces and the resulting dominance in “Attacking Ratio”.
18…Rfd8 19 Qe4!
Creating more weaknesses around Black’s king.
19…g6 20 Qg4 h5
20…Kh7 loses immediately to 21 Bxg6+! fxg6 22 Qxe6 (threatening 23 Qf7+
mate) 22…Rf8 23 Rd7 Rc7 (23…Rce8 24 Ng5+! hxg5 25 Qh3+ Kg8 26 Qh8+
Kf7 27 Qf6+ leads to mate) 24 Ne5!, and the Black position collapses.
21 Qh3
21…f5?
Black wishes to prevent sacrifices on g6 or g2-g4, breaking open his kingside,
but according to Kasparov this is the decisive mistake. Kasparov gives 21…
e5!? as the only move to continue the fight. Here is his main line, indicating
Black’s best defense: 22 Bc4! immediately targeting the now vulnerable a2-
g8 diagonal: 22…Rxd1+ 23 Rxd1 Rd8 24 Rd7! Qc8 25 Qg3! (a powerful
intermediate move) 25…Kf8! 26 Rxd8+ Qxd8 27 h4 Qd1+ 28 Kh2 e4 (28…Bd6
29 e4, with a clear advantage to White) 29 Qf4! Bd6 30 Ne5 Nxe5 31 Bxe5
Bxe5 32 Qxe5 Qd7 33 b3 a6 34 a4 Kg8 35 Qf6, and although White is clearly
better, Black still has chances to survive the endgame. Curiously, now
White’s advantage resides mainly in the pawn-structure; with almost all
Black’s pawns on light squares, White’s bishop is now the good one in the
endgame!
22 Bc4!
Taking aim on e6.
22…Rxd1+ 23 Rxd1 Kf7
24 e4!
Breaking up Black’s defensive formation.
24…Qf4 25 Re1! Qg4
25…Bf6 allows a beautiful finish: 26 Bxe6+! Kxe6 27 exf5+ Kd7 28 fxg6+ Kxg6
29 Bxf6 Kxf6 30 Qd7! Nd8 31 Qe7+ Kg6 32 Ne5+ Kh6 33 Qd6+ Kg7 34 Qg6+
Kh8 35 Nd3, and wins (Kasparov).
26 exf5!
This piece sacrifice decides the game.
26…Qxc4 27 fxg6+ Ke8
27…Kxg6 loses to the nice geometrical motif 28 Rxe6+ Kf7 29 Rxc6!, followed
by a knight fork on e5.
28 g7! e5
Or 28…Kd7 29 Rd1+ Bd6 30 Qg3, winning.
29 Qxh5+ Kd7 30 Rd1+ Bd6 31 Bxe5 Nd4!? 32 Nxd4 1-0
----------
Underestimating the warning signal of superior activity of the opponent’s
pieces in symmetrical pawn-structures is a common occurrence, even in
modern Grandmaster games. Here is an example from the recent Olympiad
in Tromsø, Norway.
Pavel Eljanov – Valentin Iotov
Chess Olympiad, Tromsø 2014
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 a6
The flexible Chebanenko Variation in the Slav Defense. Black plays a useful
waiting move while holding all options open.
5 Nbd2!?
With this rare move White avoids a theoretical battle. The text move is not
as innocuous as it appears at first sight; after all it is a developing move.
5…Bf5 6 Nh4 Be4 7 Be2 e6 8 0-0 Bd6 9 g3 Nbd7 10 Nxe4 Nxe4

The loss of the two bishops is not a big deal for Black here, given that it was
his “bad” bishop and that the position is rather closed. But it does mean that
Black has to be extra careful as White’s two bishops may spring to life if the
position opens up.
11 Bd3 Nef6 12 b3 0-0 13 Bb2
White only has a very slight edge here after a natural move like 13…Qe7,
connecting the rooks and toying with ideas of Ba3, trading one of White’s
two bishops. Valentin Iotov, who in recent years attended the University of
Dallas on a chess scholarship, had a great Olympiad for Bulgaria, scoring
8/11 on Board 3. But here he is let down by his sense of danger. The warning
signal that should tell Black to abstain from even calculating his next move is
rooted in White’s two bishops. Probably Black missed White’s strong 17th or
18th move, but again the point is that sense of danger should operate
independently of calculations.
13…c5? 14 cxd5 Nxd5 15 dxc5
Of course White jumps at the chance to open as many diagonals for his
bishops as possible.
15…Nxc5 16 Bc2 Be7
This was Black’s idea. If the knight retreats, say 17 Nf3, Black will play 17…
Bf6, trade one of White’s long-range bishops and be absolutely fine. But
unfortunately White does not have to retreat the knight…
17 Qh5!
A crude mating threat on h7, but a surprisingly hard one to meet. 17…g6?
loses easily to 18 Nxg6! fxg6 19 Bxg6, and 17…h6 runs into the powerful
temporary piece sacrifice 18 Nf5! exf5 19 Rad1!, when Black cannot hold on
to the extra piece because of the pin in combination with the two bishops’
threats against his king. Still, this was Black’s best chance, since after 19…
Bf6! 20 Qxf5! g6 21 Qxd5 Qxd5 22 Rxd5 Bxb2 23 Rxc5 Rac8, Black has decent
chances to hold the endgame a pawn down because of the bishops of
opposite color. However, Iotov went for the third option to prevent mate.
17…f5?!
Again Black is just one move short of more or less equalizing with 18…Bf6,
but White is in time to strike.
18 Nxf5! exf5 19 Rad1!
Once more this annoying pin! And this time it is even worse than after 17…
g6, because White will soon play b3-b4, setting up another pin on the a2-g8
diagonal.
19…Qd6?!
This is hopeless. Black had to defend the f5-pawn with 19…Qd7, although
the force sequence 20 b4! Na4 21 Bb3! Nab6 22 Bd4! Qe6 23 Bxb6 Qxb6 24
Rxd5 Kh8 25 Rxf5 Rxf5 26 Qxf5 Rf8 27 Qe5 Qxb4 28 Rd1 offers White better
chances to win than Black chances to draw, despite the bishops of opposite
color. Not only does White emerge with an extra pawn, Black’s king is also
vulnerable on the light squares.
20 b4! Ne6
Forced, as 20…Ne4 loses to 21 Rxd5! Qxd5 22 Bb3.
21 Bxf5! Ng5
21…g6 22 Bxg6 wins.
22 Rxd5!
The final touch! Black cannot take the rook, as 22…Qxd5 23 Bxh7+! Kh8 (23…
Nxh7 24 Qxd5+) 24 Be4+ wins.
22…Qxb4 23 Bd4
With an extra pawn and still attacking chances, White is now clearly winning.
23…Rad8 24 Rxd8 Bxd8 25 Qg4?!
25 Bc2! was more accurate.
25…Qc4 26 h4 Qd5?!
The ending after 26…Qf7! 27 hxg5 Qxf5 28 Qxf5 Rxf5 29 f4 is obviously
highly unpleasant but still offers Black chances to keep the game going.
27 Bxh7+! Kxh7
Of course not 27…Nxh7? 28 Qxg7+ mate.
28 hxg5 Qxg5
28…Bxg5 29 Qh5+! Kg8 30 f4 wins.
29 Qe4+ Qg6 1-0
White simply picks up a second pawn with 30 Qxb7 and wins easily. A great
game by Eljanov, once again highlighting the hidden dangers of symmetrical
pawn-structures.
Exercises
This section consists of four exercises, in which one side failed to sense a
warning signal and was punished for it. In each position, your task is to
identify the danger that the player missed, and suggest a better move than
the one played in the game.
Take your time and focus – the exercises are not easy! The positions are
from Grandmaster games, and the Grandmasters failed to recognize the
danger even if these were tournament games where they were fully
concentrated.
Exercise 1:

In this position White played 24 a3?? What danger did he miss, and what
would have been a better move to avoid the danger?
----------
Exercise 2:

In this position White played 16 bxa7?? What danger did he miss, and what
would have been a better move to avoid the danger?
----------
Exercise 3:

In this position Black played 14…Bxa3? What danger did he miss, and what
would have been a better move to avoid the danger?
----------
Exercise 4:

In this position Black played 17…Bb7?! What danger did he miss, and what
would have been a better move to avoid the danger?
Solutions to exercises
Exercise 1: Korchnoi – Karpov, 1st match game World Championship
match, Meran 1981
Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi fought a dramatic battle for the World
Championship in Baguio City in the Philippines in 1978, which Karpov
eventually won 6-5 in 32 games (draws not counting) to retain his title. In
1981 in Meran, Italy, they were at it again, but this time it wasn’t close –
Karpov won convincingly 6-2 in just 18 games. The reigning World Champion
took the lead already in the first game, when the Challenger was let down by
his sense of danger.
I start a couple of moves before the exercise position to illustrate how you
can set your opponent up for his own downfall. Take a look at this position:

Coming out of a Tartakower Variation in the Queens Gambit Declined, one if

Karpov’s favorite systems, Black has comfortably equalized, but not much is
going on. However, now Korchnoi embarks on a flawed plan.
22 Bd3
In itself not a bad move, but it is the start of a flawed plan where White is
not sensitive to one of the main dangers of his position – the warning sign
that his queen is running low on squares and does not have a safe and active
place.
22…Kg7!
A subtle little move typical of Karpov’s style. The World Champion senses
that his opponent is on to something which is dangerous to himself, not to
Black. In such situations, you should look for ways that you can exploit the
opponent’s upcoming mistakes – if they indeed are to occur. With the text
move, Karpov prepares to let White run into his own dagger. Taking the king
off the 8th rank makes sure that there are no back rank checks, which turns
out to be critical in one of the forthcoming lines. Did Karpov calculate the
following sequence at this point? I doubt it, but he sensed that Korchnoi’s
intended plan was flawed, and in any case the king is safer on g7 than g8 – if
possible, always place your king so that it is the least exposed to checks and
tactics.
In chess, two types of senses can greatly help you: A defensively oriented
sense of danger identifying threats – the focus of this lesson – and a more
offensively oriented intuition identifying opportunities.
23 Bb1
As expected! Karpov had correctly guessed that White’s plan was Be2-d3-
b1+a3+Ba2, putting pressure on d5. This is a standard plan in this type of
position, but in the present version it does not work because of the exposed
queen on a4. Better was instead something like 23 Ne2 with the idea 24 Nf4,
as suggested by Mednis. I prefer Black with the two bishops and the
dynamic central pawns, but White should be OK.
23…Qb6!
This move doesn’t threaten anything, but mere repositions the queen,
anxiously waiting to see if White will continue to ignore the warning signs
and continue with his bishop maneuver. Now we have arrived at the
exercise position.

24 a3??
As noted, White misses the warning signal that his queen has few squares –
the move a2-a3 even takes one more square (b3) away from the queen.
What should White have played instead? Ironically, my computer has 24 Bd3
as White’s best, illustrating that the bishop maneuver was a flawed concept
in the first place. Other moves are possible too, including 24 Qb3. The
doubled pawns on the b-file after 24…Qxb3 25 axb3 are not really weak and
in fact hamper Black’s central pawns a bit. Karpov himself accepted such a
pawn-structure in a similar position against Kasparov in the 25th game of
their first match – that game was soon drawn.
24…d4!
Ouch! By now Korchnoi realized that 25 exd4 loses material to 25…Bc6!
when his queen has no good escape route. The lines are not too difficult to
calculate. Korchnoi, who is famous for calculating great amounts of lines
during a game, must have missed something simple in his calculations
But again – sense of danger should work independently of calculation. Just
by noticing how few squares his queen has available White should have
realized that his queen was in trouble and extra care needed.
26 dxc5 loses to the simple 26…Bxa4 27 cxb6 Bxd1, and 26 Qc2 is no better
after 26…Bxf3 27 gxf3 (27 dxc5 Bxd1) 27…cxd4 28 Na4 Qb5!, and White loses
material as his queen cannot keep the a4-knight defended. The most tricky
line is 26 Qc4, and it is exactly in this line that the little move 22…Kg7! comes
in handy. White can try 26…Bxf3 27 gxf3 cxd4 28 Na4 Qb5! and now 29
Qe2!, hitting the bishop on e7 (29 Qxb5 axb5 30 Nb6 Rb8 traps the knight).
But with his king on g7 – but not on g8 – Black still wins with 29…Rc7! 30 Bc2
Rdc8! 31 b4, and now…
31…d3! 32 Qxd3 (32 Bxd3 Qxa4; 32 Rxd3 Rxc2) 32…Rxc2! 33 Rxc2 Qxd3 34
Rxd3 (if the Black king had been on g8, White would win with the
intermediate check 34 Rxc8+ here!) 34…Rxc2. Seeing that these lines don’t
work, Korchnoi instead tried…
25 Ne2
… but after…
25…dxe3 26 fxe3 c4 27 Ned4 Qc7
... his position was in shambles. Despite time pressure and a few minor
inaccuracies, Karpov had no problem bringing home the point.
28 Nh4 Qe5 29 Kh1 Kg8!
Now this is the safest square for the king, out of reach from White’s knights.
Of course Black should avoid 29…Qxg3?? 30 Nhf5+.
30 Ndf3 Qxg3 31 Rxd8+ Bxd8! 32 Qb4 Be4 33 Bxe4 Nxe4 34 Rd4 Nf2+ 35
Kg1 Nd3 36 Qb7 Rb8 37 Qd7 Bc7 38 Kh1 Rxb2 39 Rxd3 cxd3 40 Qxd3 Qd6?!
The last move before the time control Karpov plays it safe. 40…g5! won
immediately.
41 Qe4 Qd1+ 42 Ng1 Qd6 43 Nhf3 Rb5! 0-1
----------

Exercise 2: Kovalyov – Ivanchuk, Edmonton 2014

Young Anton Kovalyov – born 1992 – is one of the big hopes of Canadian
chess. However, in this game against one of the longest-lasting top 20
players in the World, Vassily Ivanchuk, he ignores the warning signal of
short-term king safety. White is behind in development and his king is still in
the center. In such situations it is necessary to raise the alertness level to
DEFCON 1, since the danger of a lethal attack against the uncastled king is
imminent. The opening has clearly not gone White's way, as he has fallen
behind in development and is left with his king in the center – both
violations of critical opening principles. But nothing is seriously wrong yet, as
long as White is careful and senses the danger he is in.
16 bxa7??
Unfortunately White fails to sense the danger. It is very likely that Kovalyov
missed Black’s powerful rejoinder, but as I have repeated several times:
Sense of danger should work independently of calculations.
Given the obvious warning signs, White shouldn’t even calculate a move like
16 bxa7. This move does nothing to catch up in development or safeguard
the king. As Black’s most dangerous attacking piece is the queen, White
should jump at the opportunity to force an exchange of queens with 16 a3
Nd5 17 Qe4! After 17…Qxe4 18 Nxe4 Nxb6 19 Nc5 Bd5 20 e4 Rfc8 21 b4 Bc6
22 f3 a5 23 Bd3, Black has a slight edge in the endgame, but White should be
able to hold without too much trouble.
16…Qa5!

Ivanchuk immediately pinpoints the weakest link in White’s position: The e1-
a5 diagonal. The threats are 17…Nxa2 or 17…Nd5.
17 a3 Na2! 18 Rd3 Rfc8
19 e4?
This loses, as Black is allowed not only to regain both of his sacrificed pawns,
but also to keep White's king stuck in the center as a sitting duck. The only
chance to survive was to try to trade some pieces with 19 b4! Nxc3 20 Rxc3
Qxa7 21 Rxc8+, although this is still clearly better for Black. He has the
choice between 21…Bxc8 22 Qd3 Qxa3 23 Qxa3 Rxa3 24 Kd2 Rb3, winning a
pawn, or playing for a direct attack against White’s stranded king with 21…
Rxc8 22 Qb2 Bf5!, threatening 23…Rc2. White could try to bank on some
psychology here: While 21…Rxc8 is probably stronger than 21…Bxc8, some
players (likely not the experienced Ivanchuk, though) might be reluctant to
forego the chance of entering an endgame with a pawn up. From a
defensive perspective, though, the endgame a pawn down offers White
better survival chances than the middlegame with the king stuck in the
center.
In general, in chess you should try to set your opponent difficult problems
and force him to make hard choices.
19…Nxc3 20 bxc3 Rxc3 21 Qb4 Rc1+ 22 Kd2
22…Qg5+!
With White’s exposed king in mind, Black is obviously not interested in
trading queens.
23 Re3 Ra1 24 e5
24 Qxb7 Rd8+ 25 Bd3 Ra2+ 26 Ke1 Qf6 leads to mate.
24…Rxa7
Finally material equality is restored, but Black is clearly winning due to the
differences in king safety and piece activity.
25 f4 Qg4 26 Rf3 Bd5 27 h3 Qe6 28 Rc3
28…Ra8!
Threatens to include this rook into the attack via d8.
29 Ke3
White attempts to use the “Run from the bully” defense, but it is too late.
29…Re1+! 30 Kf2 Re4!
Wins material with an ongoing attack.
31 Qc5 Rxf4+ 32 Kg1 Qxe5 33 Bb5 Qe4 34 Rg3 Rf5 35 Qb6 Rxa3! 0-1
The rook on g3 is overloaded.
----------

Exercise 3: Lars Bo Hansen – Karsten Müller, German Bundesliga

2000/01
The German Grandmaster and PhD in Mathematics Karsten Müller is rightly
acclaimed for his fine work on endgames. Here, though, he is let down by his
sense of danger in a typical isolated pawn middlegame. With my last move,
14 Nf3-e5, I have offered Black to grab a pawn with 14…Bxa3 15 bxa3 Rxc3.
Should Black take the bait?

14...Bxa3?!
No, it turns out that this is too dangerous. What are the warning signs that
should have alerted Black’s sense of danger? There are several, but they are
more subtle than those from the previous examples. The main one is that by
parting with his dark-squared bishop, Black loses a critical defender of his
king. White obtains command of all the dark squares and can exploit this to
whip up a powerful attack on Black’s king.
15 bxa3 Rxc3 16 Bd2!
A strong intermediate move to push Black’s rook back. 16…Rxa3?! now fails
to the forced line 17 Bb4 Ra4 18 Bxf8 Kxf8 19 Nxd7+ Qxd7 20 Bxe6! Rxa1 21
Qxa1 fxe6 (21…Qc7 22 Qa3+ Kg8 23 Ba2 wins) 22 Qxa5 Qxd4 (after 22…b6
23 Qa6 followed by 24 Ra1, the a7-pawn drops with a technically winning
position for White) 23 Rxe6, and White should win, even if it still requires
some accuracy.
16…Rc8

17 Bg5!
This sets up a highly annoying pin and highlights why Black’s sense of danger
should have advised him against giving up his dark-squared bishop to win a
mere pawn.
17…Bc6?!
After this Black is lost. The only chance was to bring the sidelined knight on
a5 back into the game with 17…Nc6. Apart from being objectively the best
move it would force White to make a hard choice between two promising
but not decisive lines. As noted earlier, always try to set your opponent
difficult problems or hard choices. Chess is also about psychology! 18 Nxd7
Qxd7 19 Bxf6 gxf6 20 Qg4+ Kh8 21 d5! Ne5 22 Qh4 Qd8 (not 22…Kg7? 23
Rxe5! fxe5 24 Qg5+ Kh8 25 Qf6+ Kg8 26 dxe6, winning) 23 dxe6 fxe6 24 Bxe6
regains the sacrificed pawn with a clear advantage, but is it better than 18
Ng4 e5! 19 Nxf6+ gxf6 20 Bh4 Bf5 (or 20…Nd4 21 Rxe5 Nf5 22 Rd5 Nxh4 23
Rxd7) 21 d5 Nd4 22 Rxe5 Bg6 23 Bxf6! Qxf6 24 Qxd4 ? Hard to say, and that
is exactly why Black should have forced White to make a decision on this!
18 Ng4! Kh8 19 Qd3!
Zooming in on h7 with the threat of 20 Bb1. Because of the pin on the h4-d8
diagonal, Black is never able to defend with g7-g6 as he would have been if
he still had his dark-squared bishop.

19…Nxg4!?
A spirited attempt to change the course of the game. The endgame
specialist Müller is hoping for an endgame with two knights, a pawn and a
blockade for the queen. After 20 Bxd8 Rfxd8 Black plays b7-b6, Nf6 and Bd5,
covering all entry squares and making it hard for White to exploit the extra
material. But remember always to sit on your hands and look for
alternatives. White has better than grabbing the queen!
20 Bb1!
This intermediate move, in combination with White’s 22nd move, decides
the game. Black is forced to weaken his dark squares – remember again the
danger of giving up the dark-squared bishop!
20…g6
The alternatives are no better: 20…f5 21 Bxd8 Rfxd8 22 Ba2 is an easy win as
e6 falls, and 20…Be4!? fails to 21 Qxe4 f5 22 Bxd8 fxe4 23 Bxa5 (a loose
piece!), and the two bishops easily convert the advantage.
21 Bxd8 Rfxd8
22 Qc3!
The point of 20 Bb1. The double threats of 23 Qxa5 and 23 d5+ win extra
material.
22…Rd5 23 Be4!
The rest is easy.
23…Rcd8 24 Bxd5 Rxd5 25 Qf3 Nh6 26 Re5 Nf5 27 Rxd5 Bxd5 28 Qf4 Nc6 29
Qc7 Kg7 30 Qxb7 Ncxd4 31 Qb2 e5 32 Rc1 Nh4 33 f3 Bc6 34 Rc5 Kf6
34…f6 35 Rxc6 Nxc6 36 Qb7+
35 Qb8 Nhf5 36 Qxe5+ 1-0
----------

Exercise 4: Karpov – Kasparov, 27th match game World Championship

match, Moscow 1984/85
This is a famous game in chess history. By exploiting Kasparov’s lack of sense
of danger in this position, Karpov took a 5-0 lead (playing to six wins) in the
two archrivals first World Championship match in 1984/85. But as is well
known, the reigning World Champion did not manage to finish off his young
challenger, and after 48 games, with the score now 5-3, the match was
abandoned. Kasparov then won the subsequent dramatic match, now
limited to 24 games, by a 13-11 score to take the World Championship title
from Karpov.

17…Bb7?!
While this is not a mistake in itself, it is the first sign that Kasparov is
underestimating the possible dangers in the position. What are these
dangers? A rook maneuver to a5 via b5! On this square the rook
simultaneously hits Black’s two weaknesses on a7 and c5. Black is not yet in
any serious danger, but he could have avoided any problems with 17…Bd7!
instead, keeping White’s rook at bay. On the psychological level, Black’s
mistake is that he assumes that because of the preceding series of 17
consecutive draws and the early exchange of queens White has no particular
ambitions of playing for a win in this game. But as my great compatriot
Grandmaster Bent Larsen remarked in the Danish chess magazine
Skakbladet: “At this point Karpov is fully concentrated while Kasparov
believes this is draw number 18”. Believing an endgame is an easy draw is a
crucial psychological mistake, especially when facing an endgame specialist
like Karpov.
18 Kf1
Of course 18 Rb5 is as yet premature because of 18…Ba6. But now that the
bishop on e2 is defended, 19 Rb5 is a positional threat.
18…Bd5
As Kasparov points out, Black’s position would still be safe after 18…Rac8 19
Rb5 Rfd8 20 Ra5 Bxf3! 21 Bxf3 Rc7. But by Kasparov’s own admission: “I did
not yet sense the danger”.
19 Rb5!

19…Nd7
Of course not 19…Bxa2? 20 c4, when the bishop is trapped, but it was still
not too late to maneuver a rook to c7 with 19…Rac8 20 Ra5 Rc7!, when
Black should hold (Kasparov). In general, the best square for White’s rook
offensively is a5, hitting a7 and c5, while the best square for Black’s rook
defensively is c7, simultaneously covering these two pawns. But Kasparov
had not yet noticed the danger he is drifting into and White’s subtle
upcoming maneuver with the knight. This brings me to for the last time in
this book to emphasize one of the major points about sense of danger:
Sense of danger should work separate from calculation. Black does not lose
this game because he missed the rook maneuver Rb5-a5 and/or the knight
maneuver Ne1-d3 in his calculations, but because he did not sense that
there was any possible danger whatsoever, missing the warning signs.
Notice again that this is a position with symmetric pawn-structure – we have
already seen how it is common to underestimate the warning signs of such
positions, typically associated with relative piece activity and maneuvers.
20 Ra5 Rfb8
Bringing a rook to c7 with 20…Rfc8! 21 c4 Bc6 22 Nd2 Rc7 was still possible.
21 c4 Bc6?!
And here too Black could have played 21…Bb7 22 Rd1 Rd8 23 Nd2 Rdc8 24
Ne4! Rc7! (but not 24…Bxe4 25 Rxd7), although his position is somewhat
unpleasant after 25 Nd6 (Kasparov).
22 Ne1!
Kasparov: “It was only after this move that I became aware of the threat to
the c5-pawn, and I became flustered, as indicated by the time spent in
thought [23 minutes on his next move] and my unsuccessful reply. “
22…Rb4?
Despite the long think Kasparov fails to find the right defense. As he later
pointed out, Black would likely still be able to hold with 22…Be4! 23 f3 Bh7!
24 e4 Rb7 25 Nd3 Rc8 26 Rc3 g5 27 Rb3 Rxb3 28 axb3 Rc7. How is it that
Kasparov, probably the greatest player ever, commits inaccuracies on six
consecutive moves in an apparently simple position? The only explanation I
can come up with is the psychological factor of underestimating the warning
signs and the subsequent panic when the danger is suddenly perceived. This
goes to show how important psychology is in chess.
23 Bd1!
Karpov at his best. The then-World Champion’s trademark has always been
prophylaxis, but of the active kind, not the defensive kind associated with
Petrosian. Before striking, Karpov always emphasized bringing all pieces into
the best possible position and eliminating the opponent’s counterplay.
Before carrying out his plan of Ne1-d3, Karpov therefore first prevents
Black’s intended defense 23 Nd3 Ra4! Now the c5-pawn can no longer be
saved.
23…Rb7 24 f3 Rd8 25 Nd3 g5 26 Bb3!
Again the most accurate, not allowing 26 Nxc5?! Nxc5 27 Rxc5 Rb2! with
sufficient counterplay, as 28 Rxc6 Rdd2 leads to a draw.
26…Kf8 27 Nxc5 Nxc5 28 Rxc5
With subtle maneuvers White has finally won the c5-pawn and is now
winning. The rest of the game is not of interest for our current topic, so I will
only give it with brief notes. Interestingly, Karpov’s execution is not flawless
and Black does in fact get a chance to save himself which however is missed
by Kasparov.
28…Rd6 29 Ke2 Ke7 30 Rd1 Rxd1 31 Kxd1 Kd6 32 Ra5 f5 33 Ke2 h5 34 e4
fxe4 35 fxe4 Bxe4 36 Rxg5 Bf5 37 Ke3 h4 38 Kd4 e5+ 39 Kc3 Bb1 40 a3 Re7
41 Rg4 h3 42 g3?!
42 gxh3 was more accurate.
42…Re8
43 Rg7?
This natural move misses the win – 43 Rh4! was better and winning
(Kasparov).
43…Rf8 44 Rxa7 Rf2 45 Kb4
45…Rxh2?
Black misses his chance and returns the favor. As Kasparov shows with some
lengthy lines in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985, Black could have drawn with
45…Rb2! The main line goes 46 c5+ Kc6 47 Kc4 Bc2 48 Ra6+ Kc7 49 Bxc2
Rxc2+ 50 Kd5 Rxh2 51 Ra7+ Kb8 52 Rh7 Rh1 53 Ke4 h2 54 Kf3 Kc8! 55 Kg2
Rc1 56 Kxh2 Rxc5 57 g4 Kd8! 58 g5 Ke8 59 g6 Kf8 60 Ra7 Rc6 61 g7+ Kg8 62
Kg3 Rc4! with a draw.
Curiously, this position would be drawn even without Black’s e5-pawn
through the so-called Vancura Defense, as discussed in the previous book in
this series on rook endgames. Now, though, Black gets no more chances.
46 c5+ Kc6 47 Ba4+ Kd5 48 Rd7+ Ke4 49 c6 Rb2+ 50 Ka5! Rb8 51 c7 Rc8 52
Kb6 Ke3 53 Bc6 h2 54 g4! Rh8 55 Rd1 Ba2 56 Re1+ Kf4 57 Re4+ Kg3 58 Rxe5
Kxg4 59 Re2 1-0
60 Rxh2 next wins.
Tips for self-improvement
Sense of danger is a critical skill for the ambitious chess player. To be
successful in tournaments it is important to win games, but it is equally
important not to lose games. Apart from reading this book and carefully
going over the games and exercises, how can you work at home to boost
your sense of danger? Here are a couple of tips for self-improvement.
Analyze your games carefully. Probably the most valuable time investment
in chess study is to systematically analyze your own games to thoroughly
understand your strengths and weaknesses as a chess player. In my
experience, most players spend far too little time analyzing their own
games, often just running the games casually through a computer engine.
That is not enough, if you are really serious about improving in chess. As
already former World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik pointed out more than 60
years ago, game analysis is an art that requires diligent work. I always
recommend to first analyze your games without a computer. Make notes
about which positions you think are the critical ones in the game. Then – and
only then – run the game through an engine and compare the computer’s
evaluations and lines to the ones you noted yourself. The computer engine
will likely come up with ideas, evaluations and moves that you did not
consider on your own. This process helps you to improve your sense of
danger. Boosting your sense of danger, at the core, is being more attentive
to warning signs that you have not previously paid attention to.
Study master games. One of my favorite methods of chess study is the
“Master games approach”. Select one or more masters who are known to
have a strong sense of danger, e.g. the World Champions Capablanca,
Smyslov, Petrosian, Karpov or Kramnik. Play over a lot of their games – at
least 30-40 - and pay attention to how they “stay out of trouble”. Each game
does not have to take more than 15-20 minutes; it is not necessary to
analyze the games. It is better to go over many games, looking for patterns.
For example, you will be hard-pressed to find many Petrosian games where
he starts advancing pawns in front of his king or in other ways leaves his king
exposed. King safety was always a priority for the master of prophylaxis!
Personally I prefer looking at games on a real board, but I realize that some
readers might prefer just doing it on the computer. That is a matter of taste
and habit.
Make a list of warning signs. Earlier in this book, I presented a list of typical
warning signs. Take that one as a starting point, but it is not meant to be
exhaustive. As you are analyzing your own games or studying Master games,
add to the list when you encounter new warning signs. Review the list
before each game (but don’t bring it to the tournament hall, that would be
cheating!) to remind yourself about the warning signs you should always pay
attention to.
Use your common sense – warning signs are often pretty straightforward if
you pay attention to them. As I have discussed in another book in this series,
I believe common sense is currently underappreciated in chess. The
computer revolution has led to a focus on the specific rather than the
general. However, in my view the general guidelines for sound positional
play invented by the old masters – Steinitz, Nimzowitsch and many others –
still apply. Of course we need to pay attention to all the exceptions that
computers point out, but many of the warning signs outlined in this book are
derived from the guidelines from the old masters. For example, keeping
your king safe and your pieces protected is a simple common sense notion
that may prevent many unpleasant surprises!
This book aims to help you boost your sense of danger and hopefully reduce
your number of losses. Let me close, though, with another little warning: Be
careful not to become too obsessive in your pursuit of eliminating danger. It
is not possible or advisable to eliminate all perceived dangers. Then you
would hardly get to play a move. Don’t cross the line and start playing too
passively. Do your homework, believe in your own abilities and trust your
instincts. Let’s have World Champion Magnus Carlsen present the final piece
of advice with this quote from one of his interviews:
Self-confidence is very important. If you don’t think you can win, you will
take cowardly decisions in the crucial moments, out of sheer respect for your
opponent. You see the opportunity but also greater limitations than you
should… It is better to overestimate your prospects than underestimate
them.
Master another chess topic