|
 |
Garry
Kasparov on
My Great Predecessors Part III
by Garry Kasparov
Reviewed by
Prof. Nagesh Havanur
Everyman Chess, 2004
ISBN: 1857443713 |
hardcover, 332 pages
figurine algebraic notation |
|
|
 When
Garry Kasparov commenced his project My Great
Predecessors it raised great expectations. There had never
been a work of this magnitude in chess literature before.
The first volume dealt with the
early champions, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and their
contemporaries. While it was well-received by the chess public,
it faced considerable flak from historians for its errors of omission
and commission.
The second volume dealt with the
later champions, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal and other great
players. This book had an even better reception, although there
was some criticism from scholars on points of fact and interpretation.
The third volume is the subject of this review. It is devoted to
world champions Petrosian & Spassky and their contemporaries, Gligoric,
Polugaevsky, Portisch and Stein. |
 |
In dealing with Petrosian and Spassky
Kasparov is on a surer ground, having met both over the board and also known
them for years.
 I
was particularly interested to see Garry’s treatment of Petrosian’s play.
In stylistic terms these two players are poles apart. For all its
wonderful analysis, Garry’s interpretation of Petrosian begs many questions.
For example, he quotes Spassky distinguishing conformists and
non-conformists in chess:
“I would simplistically divide chess
players into two categories: believers and non-believers. In the
chess sense, of course. There are laws that demand respect, which
players aim not to violate. These are the “believers”. To them
I would assign the classics: Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian and Geller.
I too am a religious player, Korchnoi and Larsen (and also Tal-G.K.)
belong to the atheists, who by no means always respect these laws.”
Petrosian himself appears to support this
view:
“What I value more than anything in
chess is logic. I am firmly convinced that in chess there is nothing
accidental. This is my credo. I believe only in logical, “correct” play.”
But elsewhere in this book the same
Petrosian qualifies his statement:
“A strong player knows all the rules and
laws of the game. A talented player knows everything that a strong
player knows, but he also sees exceptions to the rules. But major
chess talents (we call them geniuses) gradually transform those exceptions
into new rules. And so on infinitum, since chess is inexhaustible.”
| This is, indeed, the crux of the matter. There has
never been an agreement between the Classical and the Hypermodern
schools on what constitutes “correct” play. In his formative years
Petrosian studied both Capablanca and Nimzovitsch. But the
deeper impact was made by Nimzovitsch. Not only did Petrosian
follow Nimzovitsch but also he extended the frontiers of theory laid
down by Nimzovitsch and other Hypermoderns like Breyer, Reti and
Tartakower. |
Aron Nimzovitsch |
Yet there are grey areas in his play.
Manuevering becomes an end in itself in a number of his games.
Golombek described it as the art of doing nothing. In an interview
with Leonard Barden (Chess Life & Review,
January 1970) Spassky makes the following interesting comment:
“Botvinnik told me that he disagreed
with people who compared Petrosian with Capablanca. Capablanca, says
Botvinnik, was a genius who could find a new plan in any position. Petrosian doesn’t
do that. He begins to maneuver, and this is a great difference,
because a chess master of the highest class must always be able to find
fresh ideas.
I feel myself that Botvinnik’s comment
is only a part of the truth. Petrosian is better than he says.
Tal told me that Petrosian is a very careful player, not passive, but a
little bit cowardly. He’s a very practical man; a real Armenian.
Capablanca was quite the opposite; he was an optimist, and he played very
simple and pure chess.”
Thus we have a peculiar phenomenon.
In openings Petrosian went beyond Nimzovitsch, and in seeking exceptions to
established theory often broke “rules”. In the middlegame he was the
pragmatist par excellence, choosing aggression only when it suited him.
This depended on his mood, the position over the board and his assessment of
the opponent.
Above all it depended on his position in
the score table.
He would bide his time, accepting an easy draw.
Or he would seek a victory with positional pressure as White and with
obscure complications as Black. In the endgame he had few peers.
He could convert a microscopic advantage into a win or defend an inferior
position for hours together to hold a draw.
 Did
Petrosian break rules? In Part IV of this series (on Fischer) in this
series, Kasparov himself gives a celebrated example from the Candidates’
Final Match between Petrosian and Fischer.
The score before this game was level:
2½-2½. Petrosian had everything going for him. After the initial
setback in the first game he had scored a sensational victory in the second
game, ending Fischer’s winning streak. In the next three games he
consistently outplayed Fischer only to lose his advantage and settle for a
draw.
Then came the 6th game, the turning point
of the Match...
Petrosian - Fischer [A06]
Candidates' Final Match, 1971
1.Nf3 c5 2.b3
Petrosian claims that he did intend
to play the English Opening. But he can’t explain why he played
2.b3. This appears rather disingenuous. He had opted for
this kind of setup against Korchnoi in the decisive game of the
semi-final match and won.
2…d5 3.Bb2?
       
   
 
 
    
Fischer had reached this position
with White through the move order 1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 c5 3.Nf3?! against
Mecking the year before at Palma de Majorca Interzonal. He went
on to win the game in Hypermodern style, demonstrating his eclectic
understanding of chess.
It was characteristic of Fischer to
subject all his games to the analytical microscope and find
improvements, especially in the opening. Here he discovered that
he had not heeded Nimzovitsch's warning that Black could build a
formidable pawn centre with 3…f6.
3.e3! is the right move as
recommended by Nimzowitsch. Then if 3...f6?! White can play
4.d4! undermining Black's pawn centre, as pointed out by Kasparov in
this book. It is ironic that Fischer, the classicist, follows
Nimzovitsch more closely than Petrosian here.
3...f6!
Botvinnik lamented that Petrosian
should have missed this move, as he had played it way back in 1944.
4.c4
4.e3 e5 5.Bb5+ Nc6 6.0–0 Bd6,
although even here Black has the upper hand (Lisistyn-Botvinnik 1944).
4….d4 5.d3 e5 6.e3 Ne7
6...Nc6 appears to be the natural
move. GM Robert Byrne explained that Black intended to
play...Nb8-d7 and move it to c5 in the event of 7.exd4 cxd4.
Nevertheless, 7.exd4!? should have been played. After 7…cxd4
White can try the advance b2-b4.
7.Be2?! Nec6! 8.Nbd2 Be7 9.0–0
0–0 10.e4 a6 11.Ne1 b5 12.Bg4 Bxg4 13.Qxg4 Qc8 14.Qe2
If 14.Qxc8 Rxc8, and Black is
slightly better.
14...Nd7 15.Nc2 Rb8
(0-1, ...66 moves)
The Iron Tigran was the master of evasion
and often avoided a direct confrontation. But against a maximalist
like Fischer, it did not work. In this game he paid the price for his
neglect of development.
There are quite a few eulogies on
Petrosian from the Soviet press in this book. They all seem to
contradict one another. Consider the following:
Spassky: “Of course, his was a colossal
tactical talent. In general he was a strategist, but a tactician by
nature.”
Karpov: “Petrosian was able to make
combinations no worse than Tal, but he restrained his talent and played
purely positionally.”
This kind of hyperbole was too common in
the past. But it makes little sense today.
|
 |
Yes,
Petrosian did possess an unusual tactical talent, but his own extraordinary
sense of danger and the tendency to limit the opponent’s possibilities,
offered less scope for the expression of this talent.
As for the games, many of them are
familiar stuff from the past. But how are these well-known games to be
excluded? Personally speaking, I would have liked to see more of his
games from the Candidates' Matches. Quite a few of Petrosian’s victories
against opponents like Keres, Korchnoi and Hübner are conspicuous by their
absence.
But the opening analysis is up to date.
The annotations are detailed, and culled from a number of sources.
Finally, it is Kasparov’s analytical work that makes this book valuable.
|
For the present review I have chosen an
unusual example of Petrosian’s play that appears to contradict whatever I
have stated so far. Petrosian conducts a speculative attack against
none other than Smyslov, a leading contender for the world title at that
time.
In his youth Petrosian was a free and
uninhibited spirit ready to attack and combine, unmindful of risk. In
the first two rounds of this tournament Petrosian had “thrown himself” at
his opponents, Kopylov and Aronin and lost. Then he picked up pace, winning
game after game.
In those days Petrosian was friendly with
Geller. The young duo prepared for tournaments together. For this
Championship they had a sharp variation ready - involving the sacrifice of a
pawn in the Slav Defence. The author of this idea was Geller, but he
did not have to spend long persuading Petrosian.
Now in the thirteenth round Geller was
paired with Flohr and Petrosian, with Smyslov. Both friends decided to
try out the variation they had prepared. On the seventeenth move two
identical positions appeared on two different demonstration boards.
But then a crisis developed. For the sacrificed pawn White did not get
any attacking chances, and what was worse, the Black pawns on the queenside
threatened to move forward.
For once Geller lost his nerve and went
over into defensive. The game was doomed. Petrosian saw what was
happening and threw caution to the wind…(See the game
Petrosian –Smyslov
1951-Ed.)
-Tigran Petrosian: His life
and games, Vik.L. Vasiliev, RHM Press 1974
In a massive work like My Great
Predecessors there is always room for human error. Mihail Marin
has pointed out a flaw in Kasparov’s analysis in this book.
Petrosian-Gligoric [E97]
Rovinj-Zagreb1970
1.c4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3
0–0 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4 Nh5 10.Nd2 Nf4 11.a4 f5
Kasparov prefers 11...Nxe2+ gaining
the two bishops, and only then ...f5.
12.Bf3 g5
This move does not solve the problem
of White's domination of e4 square according to Kasparov. He
recommends instead 12...Kh8!? 13.a5 Ng8 14.c5 Nf6.
13.exf5 Nxf5 14.g3
Not 14.Nde4?! Nh4 15.Bxf4 exf4.
Kasparov recommends 14.Be4 followed
by Nb3, freeing the position.
14...Nd4
While other commentators have
adorned this move with "!!", Kasparov allots it a "!?" symbol.
But the sacrifice initiated with this move may as well be unsound.
As Garry rightly points out, Black
should play instead 14...Nh3+ 15.Kg2 Qd7! and the position is a
minefield for White.
Analysis Diagram: after 15...Qd7
If 16.Bg4? Nxf2! Or if
16.Nde4? Nd4 17.Bh5 Nf4+ with active play.
The game Keene-Kavalek, Teesside
1975 continued 16.Nb3 Nd4 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.Nb5 c6 19.Na3 Rxf3 20.Qxf3
g4 21.Qb3 Qe7 22.Ra2 Bf5 23.f3 and now Black should play 23...Rf8 with
attacking chances.
In recent years White has
tried16.Be4. But after 16… g4! 17.Nb3 Qe7 Black has had no
problems. (Mannion-Smirin, Las Vegas 1997)
15.gxf4 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3?
Kasparov mentions that Gliogoric
recommends 16.Nxf3 exf4 17.Bb2 g4 18.Kh1 (aiming to return material
for the sake of equality) 18...gxf3. He continues the analysis
with 19.Rg1 Kh8 missing altogether.
Analysis Diagram: after 19...Kh8
20.Rxg7! (20.Qxf3 Be5=)
20...Kxg7 21.Ne4+ Kf7 (21...Kh6 22.Qxf3+-) 22.Nf6 followed by
23.Qxf3 winning.- (Secrets of Attacking Chess
by Mihail Marin, Gambit 2005)
16...g4!
and Gligoric won with a fine
kingside attack.
(0–1, …33moves)
The chapter on Spassky offers a better
treatment of the subject as the direct and dynamic style of the former world
champion is more appealing to Kasparov. He is also right in rejecting
the 'universal' label attached to Spassky’s play. Spassky always aimed
for the attack and initiative. He didn’t care for passive positions
that demanded patient maneuvering.
But Kasparov overstates the case when he
writes that in his chess roots Spassky is closer to Tschigorin, Alekhine and
Tal than Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian. Tschigorin anticipated the
Hypermodern Movement with his revolt against the Classical School. He
did not care for a mobile pawn centre and free development so valued by
classicists like Tarrasch. His openings like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6!? and
1.e4 e6 2.Qe2!? defied the laws of his time.
Unlike Tscigorin Spassky is a player in
the classical mould, playing the Ruy Lopez, and the Queen’s Gambit Declined.
He revived the Tarrasch Defence, and played it with success against
Petrosian in the 1969 World Championship Match. His role model has
been Tarrasch, not Tschigorin.
It is true that Spassky played the King’s
Gambit on occasion. But he did not play gambits as consistently as
Tschigorin did. In any case the credit for reviving and
re-interpreting the King’s Gambit in modern times belongs to Bronstein, not
Spassky.
Similarly Spassky did not deliberately aim
for kingside attacks the way Alekhine did. Nor did he revel in
tactical complications for their own sake like Tal. His forte was the
middle game and his intuitive understanding of its dynamics. Surely,
Kasparov appreciates all this, and it is borne out by his analysis of
Spassky’s games.
(See the games,
Spassky-Fischer, Siegen1970 and
Kasparov-Spassky, Tilburg1981 - Ed.)
As for the treatment of other players in
the book, John Watson is right in stating that Portisch's standing and
influence are a little understated, and Kasparov goes rather overboard in
dwelling on Polugaevsky and Stein (45 pages!).
What makes this book a prize possession is
the sheer depth of analysis in positions like the following:
Spassky - Stein
Alekhine Memorial Tournament1971
In this tense position Black is
tempted by an incorrect combination.
26...Bxg3?
After 26...hxg6! it would not have
been easy for White to convert his advantage.
27.Rxg3 Rxd3
28.Rc8+?!
An error in time trouble virtually
throwing away the win. Kondratiev gives two paths to the goal.
The first is prosaic: 28.Qxd3 Bxe4+
29.Kh2 Bxd3 30.Rc8+ Kg7 31.Rc7+ Kf6 32.g7 Bc4 (32...Qf4!? 33.g8Q
Qxc7 34.Qg5+ Ke6 35.Qe3+ Qe5 36.Qxd3 Nc6 37.Qxh7!+-) 33.Rxc4 Qxc4
34.g8Q Qe2+ 35.Rg2 Qe5+ 36.Qg3 Qxg3+ 37.Kxg3 Nc4 38.Kh4!+-
The second is artistic: 28.gxh7+!
Kxh7 (28...Kh8 29.Rc8+ Bxc8 30.Qxd3 Kxh7 31.e5+ Kh8 32.Qg6 Qe4+
33.Qxe4 Bb7 34.Qxb7 Nxb7 35.e6) 29.Rc7+ Kh8 30.Rf3!!
Analysis Diagram: after 30.Rf3
(30.Qxd3? Bxe4+ 31.Rf3 Qg5+!
32.Kf2 Bxd3 33.Rf8+ Qg8 34.Rxg8+ Kxg8 35.Rxa7 Nc6=) 30...Bxe4
31.Kh2!!+- ...with a unique win, discovered a quarter of century
before the invasion of computers into the laboratory of chess
analysis!
28...Bxc8
29.gxh7+?
According to Kasparov there was
still a win with 29.Qxd3! hxg6 30.Qd5+ Kg7 31.Rc3! Bxh3+ 32.Rxh3 Qg4+
33.Rg3 Qe2+ 34.Kh3 Qf1+ 35.Kg4 Qe2+ 36.Kg5 Qh5+ 37.Kf4 Qh4+ 38.Kf3 and
the king escapes from checks.
29...Kxh7 30.Qxd3 Qf6!
½–½
Recommended
Links:
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/petrosianvselite.htm
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/BorisSpassky10thWorldChampion.htm
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/GarryKasparovMyGreatPredessorsPart1.htm
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/GarryKasparovMyGreatPredessorsPart2.htm
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev58.html
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev64.html
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev73.html
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/kasparov.html
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review385.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review413.pdf
|
