thechesscorner
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 48 |   |
Karma: 2
|
Prepared Innovations - 2007/07/12 12:02
In the good old times, various opening discoveries were made in almost every master game, and these gradually developed chess theory. In these years there were favourable grounds for the birth of innovations.
Nowadays it is extremely difficult to devise something new in opening theory. To do this one has to carry out a great amount of preparatory work. The rational selection of the necessary theoretical information and its systemization greatly facilitates the independent analysis of the variation being studied. It is only in this case that the depth of the prepared variation can be efficient and that the innovation, developed in the player’s laboratory, will prove 100% effective. The role of a fresh opening idea developed in the quiet of a player’s study is very great. After all at the board the opponent will himself have to delve into the secrets of the innovation, and discover its pitfalls and this is extremely difficult.
The psychological effect of an opening innovation should also not be forgotten.
Prepared innovation can vary in content and depth. Some of them radically changed the evaluation of entire systems and variations, which until their appearance had for long years faithfully served many players. Other prepared “surprises” have been claimed only at one specific game, when the element of suddenness was used to strongly affect the opponent psychologically. A third type has been specially prepared for an opponent taking account of his style and character, or of his condition and tournament position.
In the first game of the Fisher-Petrosian Candidate Math played in 1971, in a favourite variation of Bobby which he has thoroughly studied and which had brought him a number of impressive victories, the ex-world champion introduced a new idea, which for many proved to be a genuine sensation.
Fisher Petrosian
Buenos Aires 1971
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Be3 Nf6 8.Bg5 Be6
9.N1c3 a6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Na3
All this was well known and had occured many times in practice. Theory considered White’s chances to be better, but the following reply changed this diagonis
11. … d5!!
This came like a bolt from the blue.
The innovation has an interesting history. Black’s 11th move, with an analysis of the subsequent variations was offered to Petrosian during his preparations, a month before the start of the match, by the Moldavian Candidate Master Chebonenko. Then in the Riga magazine Shakhmaty it was recommended as a move deserving consideration by the Latvian Master Vitolinsh, in his note to the 6th game of the Fiischer-Tainamov match.
12.exd5 Bxa3 13.bxa3 Qa5 14.Qd2 0-0-0 15.Bc4 Rhg8!
I considered only 15. … Kb8!. The way chosen by the ex-world champion appears to be even more effective. White’s defense is very difficult since 16. 0-0 fails to 16. … Bh3
16. Rd1
After this modest continuation the point of black’s previous move is lost.
The resolute 16. … Rxg2! Suggest itself. In this case the attempt to win a piece does not succeed.
17 Qe3 (17.Bd3 Nd4 18.Be4 Rg4 with advantage, or 17. … Bg4!?) 17. ... Nd4 18.Kf1 Nxc2
17. Bd3 Bxd3
Black is too hasty. More interesting was Kholmov’s suggestion of 17. … Nd4 18. Bxf5+ Nxf5 19. Qd3 Nd6! And then 20. … f5
18.Qxd3 Nd4 19.0-0 Kb8 20.Kh1
Necessary in order to avoid the trap 20. … Qxc3
Of Black’s advantage not a trace remains. To some extent the sharp turn of events must have demoralized the ex-world champion, and in the second half of the game his play is full of inaccuracies. Here he should have considered 20. … f5!? 21. f4 f6 22. fxe5 fxe5 23. Rfe1! Rc8 or 20. … Rc8 21. Ne4 Qxd5 22. c3 f5 and although after 23 Ng3 f4 24. cxd4 fxg3 25. fxg3 White’s position is more promising, Black nevertheless has every right to count on a draw. However even in the game Black had sufficient chances to gain a draw.
20…. Qxa3 21.f4 Rc8 22.Ne4 Qxd3
taking the pawn by 22. … Qxa2 is risky in view of 23. Rd2! (23. Nxf6 Rxg2!) 23. … Rxc2 24. Rxc2 Nxc2 25. Qe2 followed by 26. Nxf6. True Black does better to continue 24. … Qxc2 25. Qxc2 Nxc2 26. Nxf6 Ne3! 27. Re1 Nxg2 28. Rg1 Rg6, with drawing chances.
23.cxd3 Rc2
Petrosian creates counter play, and Fischer is forced to exchange rooks, which increase Black’s defensive possibilities.
24.Rd2 Rxd2 25.Nxd2 f5
The alternative was 25. … Rc8, but Petrosian prefers to solve the problem of defending his f-pawn, and also takes away the e4 square from the white knight.
26.fxe5 Re8 27.Re1 Nc2 28.Re2 Nd4 29.Re3
The American GM rightly avoids the repetition. He gives up his central pawn, but in return picks up the important h-pawn.
29. … Nc2 30.Rh3 Rxe5 31.Nf3 Rxd5 32.Rxh7 Rxd3 33.h4
Although white has achieved much, by now continuing 33. … Nd4 Black could have help the position after 34.Ne5 Re3 35.Nxf7 f4 36.h5 f3 37.gxf3 Nxf3 38.Kg2 Nh4+ 39.Kf2 Rf3+ 40.Ke2 Rf6 or 34.Ng5!? f6 35.Nh3 Rg3 36.h5 Rg4 when it is not clear how white can win.
33. … Ne3 ? 34.Rxf7 Rd1+
Another inaccuracy. 34. … Kc8 was correct
35.Kh2 Ra1?
In time trouble, one mistake follows another. Here too it was still possible to save the game- 35. … Kc8 should have been played.
36.h5 f4?
The only practical chances were offered by 36. … Rxa2 37.Rg7 (Nh4 Nf1+ 38.Kh3 is also good) 37. … Ng4+ although after 38. Kg3 white should win.
37.Rxf4 Rxa2 38.Re4 Nxg2 39.Kg3 Ra5 40.Ne5
White resigns
Thus here we witnessed a failure, formally the innovation did not succeed. But although Petrosian did not win, the value of the innovation was great: the variation went out of fashion, and practically ceased to exist.
Sometimes the solution to a complex opening problem is found during the direct preparations for a game. One’s thinking at this time is sharpened, it is in a specific direction and the search for new ideas is significantly accelerated.
Post edited by: thechesscorner, at: 2007/07/13 11:42
Popular posts by thechesscorner
Crushing Opening Defeats
hi my first lecture here on chessci...
The mystery move!
|
post new topic