1.Bf3 was played in the game, with a small advantage for White.
1. … Qc7xc5
1…Qb6 2.a5!+−.
1…Qb8± is more solid, but White is in the driving seat here.
2. Bd5xf7+ Kg8-h8
3. Qh5xc5 Rd8xd1+
4. Kg1-f2 Rf8xf7
Black would be better in this position, were it not for
5. Qc5-h5!!
Attacking both rooks, thus winning one, and the game.
Why was this an invisible move?
- It is a horizontal move.
- The move affects both wings simultaneously.
Back
EXERCISE 6
***
Houdini Escape
Flohr,Salomon
Grob,Henry
Arosa m 1933 (1)
White, one of the world’s top players at the time, resigned here, not seeing any reply to the mate threat on f1, as the white queen must protect the exposed bishop on d5. Still there was a defence. Can you see it?
Solution
Solution 6
***
Flohr,Salomon
Grob,Henry
Arosa m 1933 (1)
White’s king could have escaped the mate à la Houdini2.
1. Kg1-h1!
This simple move does the trick, after which White is better:
1. … Qb5-f1+
2. Bf2-g1
Why was 1.Kh1 an invisible move?
- As there is a mating threat, it is hard to visualize the king moving.
- The possibility of moving the bishop backwards is also not easy to foresee.
- When defending, such cold-blooded moves are difficult to conceive of.
Back
Footnotes
1 In Chapter 1 we already studied a backward move in the Kramnik-Leko example.
2 Houdini was an American magician who was famous for his escapes in public from jails, boxes or bags suspended in the air or plunged into the water. His main trick, when tied down in ropes or straitjackets, was to enlarge his shoulders and his arms, and then dislocating his shoulders would gain him some room.
Part II – Subjective Invisibility
In this second part, we will examine another type of move: invisible moves due to subjective reasons, either in a cultural or a psychological sense. In this case the invisibility is related to various effects, like the quality of the players or the context of the game. Obviously sometimes objective causes of invisibility (see Part I) can be found in certain examples that we classify in this part under subjective invisibility. See for example the famous Capablanca-Thomas game in Chapter 4.
Chapter 3 – Invisible moves for positional reasons
High-level players have generally learned the principles of good positional play at a very early age, guided by experienced trainers who taught them the main axioms. Day after day they have repeated the same maxims; sometimes they learned them by heart, like golden rules. However, there are moves that seem to oppose the positional principles and therefore do not cross such a player’s mind.
A – Pawn structures
The most important principle at a certain stage of the evolution of a player is respect for the integrity of the pawn structure. This is in itself a quite boring concept for many youngsters, who are mainly attracted by direct attacks against the enemy king. But as they reach higher levels, these former youngsters never forget the original lessons of their childhood. An interesting example occurred between two students of the great Soviet teacher Mikhail Botvinnik.
Kasparov,Garry
Kramnik,Vladimir
Wijk aan Zee 2001 (5)
We are dealing with a classical structure from the Spanish game, the Berlin Variation. White has a healthy 4:3 majority on the east side, like in the Exchange Variation, but Kramnik has managed to contain the enemy chain with the technical move …h5-h4, which allows Black to destroy White’s majority in case of g2-g4 thanks to the en passant rule. On the other hand, it would be very annoying for Black if he did not have this possibility, because if he could not take on g3 White would expand with g2-g4, f4-f5 and possibly e5-e6, with a nice advantage.
It is a stereotypical ‘Kramnikian’ position, involving a blockading strategy adhering to Nimzowitsch’s proud motto ‘Restrain, block, destroy!’. The last black move, …Rh8-h5, contains the threat of activating the rook from the side, attacking the potentially weak f4 pawn by a possible …Rh5-f5.
Kasparov now played 1.Ng5, obstructing the black rook and demonstrating respect for his adversary’s plan. This led to a quick draw. Meanwhile he missed a superb opportunity to gain a large advantage. The position contains a possibility that a less educated player would certainly not have discarded. Can you see the small tactical trick that enables White to get a strong position?
Had he calculated just three moves deep, White could have gained a decisive advantage with
1. g2-g4! h4xg3+
1…Rhh8 2.f5± would give White a large superiority. He has a strong and mobile pawn majority and the black pawn on h4 might also become weak.
2. Ne4xg3
Attacking the h5 rook.
2. … Rh5xh3
Or elsewhere…
3. Rd1xd4
Winning a piece due to the knight fork on f5, should Black take back on d4. A very simple tactic, missed by the two best players in the world at the beginning of this century. Probably we could find psychological reasons to explain this mutual blindness. After the London World Championship match of 2000, Kramnik felt invincible against Kasparov, especially when playing his favourite ‘Berlin Wall’, which served him so faithfully in his conquest of the world title. This may explain his overconfident …Rh5.
On the other hand, Kasparov, usually so quick to refute tactical mistakes, had not managed to win a single game against Kramnik since his World Championship loss. This is another explanation for the slightly ‘depressed’ move 1.Ng5.
But the main reason for this reciprocal blunder lies in an exaggerated respect for the pawn structure and its integrity. The two players, carefully educated in the great tradition of the Soviet chess school, simply refused to consider such an atrocious positional move as g2-g4, enabling Black to irreparably spoil White’s formation, creating two weaknesses on h3 and f41.
Euwe, a great connoisseur of pawn structures (see his book Judgement and Planning in Chess, dedicated to the subject), missed the best move for the same reasons in the following game.
Euwe,Max
Alekhine,Alexander
Zurich 1934 (9)
A solid pawn structure and the possession of the good bishop give White the advantage here. Black would probably like to play a quick …c7-c5. What would you play as White?
The great Max managed to convert his advantage after a long fight beginning with the technical 1.b4, in order to fix the potentially weak c7 pawn, and sometimes, especially after …c7-c6, to continue with a minority attack (b4-b5).
The good move was
12. e3-e4!
Threatening 13.e5, and winning a pawn.
12. … d5xe4
12…Nxe4 leads to the same position.
13. Nc3xe4 Nf6xe4
14. Bd3xe4±
With a double attack on a8 and h7. Hard to see this is not, but in the starting position, where White has a risk-free advantage, devaluating his own pawn structure and weakening the d4 pawn by playing e3-e4 is very hard to consider.
Even such an agile mind as Anatoly Karpov’s – the complete opposite of a rigid positional player – managed to forget (?, see the comment after the first move) a small combination, as we see in his following game against Judit Polgar.
Karpov,Anatoly
Polgar,Judit
Linares 1994 (6)
White has an indisputable advantage, especially as regards the pawn structure – like in most of Karpov’s games. The great Anatoly loves to have the more compact pawn structure and will try to make it prevail – for example, his ability to play against isolated pawns is proverbial. Here ot
her factors also play a role: an advantage in development, and the fact that the black king is still stuck in the centre. What would you play as White?
1. Qc5xb6!?
Karpov played 1.Bb4!? Kf7 2.Ra4 Qxc5 3.Bxc5 a6 and achieved victory after a positional struggle. True, his positional advantage gives chances of a win here as well, in a more complicated position. So it is possible that he preferred his own version to the win of the b6 pawn.
1. … a7xb6
2. Ba3-c5!
White exploits the fact that the enemy king is still in the centre not with a direct attack, but by taking advantage of the lack of connection between the black rooks after the exchange of queens.
Shirov,Alexey
Timman,Jan
Wijk and Zee 1996 (11)
In this position Black resigned. Commenting on this game, Shirov noticed that he had already won a nearly identical ending not long before (see next game). Some months later, an amateur from Switzerland analysed the position and discovered that it was a draw! A typical example of mutual blindness with two great players, who are hypnotised by a favourable pawn structure for White, i.e. the theoretical advantage of the protected passed pawn.
1. … Ke7-d6
2. h2-h4 Kd6xc6
3. f4-f5 Kc6-d6
And not 3…gxf5 because White wins after 4.h5 Kd6 5.g6+−.
4. f5-f6 Kd6-d7
5. Kg2-f3 Kd7-d6
6. Kf3-e4 Kd6-d7
7. Ke4-d5 Kd7-e8
8. Kd5-c6 Ke8-d8
There is no way to make progress. The result is a draw.
Shirov may have been referring to this game:
Shirov,Alexey
Akopian,Vladimir
Oakham 1992 (8)
1. Kf3-g2!!
Certainly not the programs’ first choice (in 2011)! Even the best can have blind spots…
1. … Ke5xe4
2. c4-c5! Ke4-d5
2…bxc5 3.a5 Kd5
Analysis diagram
4.a6!! is the subtle point that had to be seen when White played his first move.
4…Kd6 5.b6 Kc6 6.bxa7 and the black king is unable to stop the doubled pawns.
3. c5-c6 Kd5-d6
4. Kg2xh2
A similar structure as in the game with Timman.
4. … Kd6-c7
5. Kh2-g3 Kc7-d6
6. Kg3-f4 Kd6-e6
7. Kf4-e4 Ke6-d6
1-0
B – Weakening of the king’s defences
One basic positional principle is to keep your king as safe as possible. A deterioration of the king’s cover is known as a long-term disadvantage, and in this regard the pawns that are protecting the fortress are especially important. Therefore, strong players are reluctant to commit them.
Yusupov,Artur
Gavrikov,Viktor
Minsk ch-URS 1987 (12)
White, who enjoys a space advantage, decides to force the opening of the long diagonal in a classical way, playing:
28. Nc4-d6 Bf8xd6
29. e5xd6
White won in the game after 29…f6 30.Rd1 with an edge. Yusupov told us: ‘After the game, I was happy with the level of my play. I was analysing this position with my opponent, when an amateur player came by and suggested:
29. … Rd8xd6!
The venerable grandmasters, with their scientific knowledge of the game, can quickly and without calculation discard such silly moves, which weaken their king…’ Still, an objective analysis of the position after
30. Bc3xg7
(30.b4 is more cautious, maintaining approximate equality)
30. … e6-e5!
shows that it is the white king who is in danger!
31. Bg2xc6
The only try to save the trapped bishop.
31. … Be8xc6
32. Qb2xe5 Qb5-d3!
With this brutal attack Black is threatening to give a lethal check on d1, and after the forced defence 33. Qe1 he continues with 33…Qf3 with mate – not mentioning the possibility of taking the unprotected bishop. There is no defence.
Grandmaster Epishin shows a similar respect for the established principles in the following game: enjoying a large space advantage and superior piece coordination, he could have won in one move. Which one?
Epishin,Vladimir
Volokitin,Andrey
Copenhagen 2002 (9)
Epishin decided to play the active move 1.Bd3, reducing the activity of the black pieces while forcing some exchanges which will enable White to weaken the black fortress after 1…Nxc3 2.Bxc3 followed by Bxf5, for instance 2…Qb6 – not 2…Qa3 3.Bxf5± like in the game, which was won by White.
Can we expect more from a single move? In some cases, yes.
The trivial
1. g2-g4!
wins a piece, by deflecting the defender of the central knight (if 1…Nxc3 2.Bxc3+−).
1. … Ne4xf2
2. Rf1xf2 Bf5xg4
gives Black fighting chances, but White has a clear advantage.
In the following game, played in a youth championship, two future grandmasters both failed to notice an elementary win.
Kasparov,Garry
Yermolinsky,Alex
Vilnius jr 1975 (9)
Black committed a grave mistake, self-trapping the dark-squared bishop:
16. … Nc8-e7?
Even more incredibly, the future world champion missed the obvious
17. g2-g4!
In the game Garry played 17.Nb3= and in the end he lost.
17. … Bh5-g6
18. g4-g5 Bf6xg5
This creates some difficulties to convert the advantage. Modern programs find some counterplay for Black, partly justifying the young Kasparov’s ‘prudence’…
19. Nf3xg5 Bg6-f5
Still White should win after 20.h4 Ng6 21.Qb3 Nxh4 22.Qg3±.
Andersson,Ulf
Velimirovic,Dragoljub
Bar 1997 (10)
1. e2-e4 e7-e6
2. d2-d4 d7-d5
3. Nb1-c3 Bf8-b4
4. Ng1-e2 d5xe4
5. a2-a3 Bb4-e7
6. Nc3xe4 Nb8-c6
7. g2-g3 Ng8-f6
8. Bf1-g2 e6-e5
9. Ne4xf6+ Be7xf6
10. d4-d5 Nc6-e7
11. Ne2-c3
In this seemingly innocent position, Black blundered à la Yermolinsky (see the previous example) and played
11. … Bc8-f5??
Unlike Kasparov, Andersson did not miss the opportunity and the Swede proceeded to finish the game immediately with the ‘classical’
12. g3-g4!
Black resigned.
Leko,Peter
Carlsen,Magnus
Morelia/Linares 2007 (14)
Black is threatening check on h3, with mate in three. White found the only way to parry the attack, and even to enter a winning position, with the self-weakening move
1. g3-g4!
Comments by Marin in his report on ChessBase: ‘This paradoxical move is the only way to prevent the deadly check on h3. Black cannot capture the pawn because of 2.Qxe8!+ followed by mate; a curious way of coordinating White’s queen with the other pieces.’
1.Rxe7 was a mistake because of 1…Qh3+ (2.Kg1? allows mate in two beginning with 2…Nf3+) 2.Ke1 Rxe7+.
1. … Re7xe1+
2. Rc1xe1 Re8-f8
3. h2-h3
White is a pawn up and has a decisive advantage. He logically went on to win.
Shirov,Alexey
Dominguez Perez,Lenier
Wijk aan Zee 2010 (13)
Pressed for time, Shirov agreed a draw in this position. He missed a forced win, beginning with a self-weakening of his king:
1. b2-b4! Qa5-c7
In the event of 1…Qb6, 2.Qa8+ Bf83.Rf1 decides.
2. Qf3-a8+ Bg7-f8
3. Rd1-f1
Sokolov,Andrey
Speelman,Jonathan
Madrid rapid 1989 (3)
How could Black have taken profit from his development advantage?
In the game after 1…Re4 2.
b3 Rde8 (also 3.g3!? with good chances of equalizing) 3.h3 (3…Re2 4.g3 Qb6 5.Rh2) 3…Nh5 4.g3 Nxg3+ 5.fxg3 Re3 (6.Kg2 Re2+ 7.Kf1 R2e3 8.Kg2 was a draw) 6.Ng1?! Qd6! Black got the upper hand and won.
The daring
1. … b7-b5!
was necessary, in order to weaken White’s pawn structure. Black has to self-weaken his own king’s defences in order to play for an advantage.
2. b2-b3
Now this is virtually forced (2.cxb5 Qxb5+ 3.Kg1 Rxd5).
2. … b5xc4
3. Qc1xc4
If 3.bxc4 Re4 4.g3 Qxc4+ 5.Kg2 Qxc1 6.Rhxc1 Rxd5.
3. … Qb4-b6
Also possible is 3…Nxd5!? 4.Qxb4 Nxb4 and Black is better thanks to his superior pieces.
4. Qc4-c6
4.Rd1 Re4! is too dangerous.
4. … Rd8xd5
5. Qc6xb6 a7xb6
Now in this ending, Black is clearly better, with a solid pawn structure and the open files in his possession.
6. g2-g3 Rd5-c5
6…g5!? 7.h3 h5 8.Kg2 g4.
7. Kf1-g2 Rc5-c2
With pressure.
Alexeev,Evgeny
Radjabov,Teimour
Sochi 2008 (4)
Less obvious, but suggested by the computer programs, are the best moves in this position.2
Radjabov demonstrated the best move for Black here. Black has the advantage, but there are some prospects of an unwelcome pressure that White might engender by creating counterplay on the kingside, and from this perspective the safest move, revealed by the program, is the surprising
Invisible Chess Moves Page 8
