Mihail Marin

Author
Mihail Marin
Editorial board
Vitomir Božić, Aleksandar Matanović, Miloš Perunović, Branko Tadić, Igor Žveglić
Design
Miloš Majstorović
Contributor
Momir Radović
Typesetting
Katarina Tadić
Proofreading
Vitomir Božić
Editor-in-chief
GM Branko Tadić
General Manager
Vitomir Božić
President
GM Aleksandar Matanović

© Copyright 2019 Šahovski informator

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
No part of the Chess Informant system (classification of openings, endings and combinations,
system of signs, etc.) may be used in other publications without prior permission in writing from
the publisher.
ISBN 978-86-7297-104-0
Publisher
Šahovski informator
11001 Beograd, Francuska 31, Srbija
Phone: (381 11) 2630-109
E-mail: sales@sahovski.com, Internet: https://www.sahovski.com
 Foreword

When the Chess Informant staff suggest-

ed the idea of gathering together all my ar-
ticles from the "Old wine in new bottles"
cycle within a book covers, I felt enormous-
ly pleased. It is always rewarding to have
your name on a new book's cover. Besides,
it may be no secret for the reader that the
inheritance of the classics, the core of this
whole series, is one of my favourite themes.

But at the same time I could not avoid the

feeling that a book should be a bit more than
just a collection of articles. Therefore I sug-
gested to my Serbian friends that it would
be better to allow me grouping the existing
chapters into thematic categories (or parts
of the book), writing short introductions to
them and not least adding a few new articles
(we should actually call them chapters by now) to the sections where too few previous
articles would be classified. This is how the following new chapters were born: Strong king
in the centre, The strength and weakness of the double pawns in static positions and
The necessity to attack. Their significance for each section will be explained at the due
moment.

The editors kindly accepted idea, displaying understanding for the fact that this would
cause some delay, as I was going to compete in two tournaments, including the București
2019 World Senior Championship. But I hope that in the end things have turned out well
for all the involved parts, editors, readers and (actually this is obvious) the author himself.

It is worth explaining what the reader could expect from this book.

I may be old-fashioned, but I keep using for my inspiration (as an author and as a player
alike) the treasure of the past. It does not make sense to speculate whether, for instance,
Carlsen is stronger than Fischer or Korchnoi, as matches between players separated in
time by so many decades are impossible. But this book aims to prove that some of the
basic aspects of our game did not change over the generations. The same kind of brilliant
ideas and mistakes are played again and again in specific situations.

The idea expressed in the previous paragraph may seem to have a purely historic signifi-
cance but there is more about it. I actually launch an invitation to examine the games of
the classics, featuring ideas thought over only by human brains, and by no means less deep
than those used today. We all use computer assistance when preparing or writing, but at
the chess board we are all alone with our opponent, so educating our mind to work along
the classical values is essential.

But even to those who think that modern players are closer to the truth than their prede-
cessors, the book should have instructional value, as the 25 included chapters are aimed at
offering insight into specific aspects of the enormously complicated chess fight.

It is virtually impossible to write a "complete" chess course, as the general themes and
examples to each of them are practically inexhaustible. But I hope that after studying the
book the reader will feel enriched, technically and aesthetically.

I remember my enthusiasm when receiving my first original copy of the Chess informant
in 1987 (number 43) after having annotated some of my games from the Warszawa zonal
tournament, ending in my first qualification to the Interzonal. Almost a third of a century
has passed since then, but I am looking forward to hold this new book in my hands with
no less excitement.

Mihail Marin
București, November 2019
 Contents

Foreword | 3
System of signs | 7
Part one | 9
Basic principles | 10
CHAPTER ONE - A few twin games and one golden rule - DEVELOPMENT! | 11
CHAPTER TWO - Strong king in the centre | 30
Part two | 47
Tactics | 48
CHAPTER ONE - Is chess a matter of memory? -
Lasker's double bishop sacrifice | 49
CHAPTER TWO - The Achilles heel of the chessboard - f7/f2 weak points | 63
CHAPTER THREE - b4 pawn – a brave foot soldier | 77
Part three | 91
Strategy | 92
CHAPTER ONE - Exchanging the double pawns | 93
CHAPTER TWO - Removing an outpost by an exchange sacrifice | 103
CHAPTER THREE - The positional queen sacrifice and
the strong passed pawn | 114
CHAPTER FOUR -The central pawns attack -
A systematic plan or just a matter of time and nuances? | 125
CHAPTER FIVE - First among equals - Squeezing Water out of Dry Stone | 145
CHAPTER SIX - The double pawns' strength and
weakness in static positions | 162
Part four | 177
The Attack | 178
CHAPTER ONE - Attacking with simple moves | 179
CHAPTER TWO - Exchanging queens during a sacrificial attack | 193
CHAPTER THREE - The necessity to attack | 206
CHAPTER FOUR - e5xf6! - How dramatic can it be? | 224
Part five | 235
Middlegame plans of specific openings | 236
CHAPTER ONE - The Hedgehog | 237
CHAPTER TWO - Pianissimo or Fortissimo? | 259
CHAPTER THREE - FIRE ON BOARD - Sicilian Scheveningen structure | 278
CHAPTER FOUR - SON OF SORROW | 288
Part six | 301
The Individual and Joined Abilities of the Pieces | 302
CHAPTER ONE - The Versatility of the knight | 303
CHAPTER TWO - Are all rook endings till drawn? | 319
CHAPTER THREE - The Unfaithful queen | 331
CHAPTER FOUR - The knight endgames extravaganza | 347
CHAPTER FIVE - A rare but thrilling endgame | 357
CHAPTER SIX - The Spanish knights | 370
About the Author | 381
 SYSTEM OF SIGNS

¢ white stands slightly better \ diagonal

£ black stands slightly better ¿ centre
} king’s side
¥7 white has the upper hand
{ queen’s side
¤ black has the upper hand ^ weak point
+» white has a decisive advantage Ï ending
Ò pair of bishops
»+ black has a decisive advantage
Ó bishops of opposite color
ú even Ô bishops of the same color
Õ unclear Ù united pawns
Û separated pawns
§ with compensation for the material
Ú double pawns
¶ development advantage < passed pawn
Á greater board room > advantage in number of pawns
ï with attack ° time
75/199 Chess Informant
î with initiative
E 12 Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
| with counter-play Ë 3/b Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings
 zugzwang N a novelty
(ch) championship
# mate
(izt) interzonal tournament
! a very good move (ct) candidates’ tournament
!! an excellent move (m) match
? a mistake (ol) olympiad
?? a blunder corr. correspondence game
!? a move deserving attention RR editorial comment
?! a dubious move R various moves
Å with the idea ‘ with
ì only move _ without
Ä better is ß etc
~ file Ñ see

7
 Part
One
BASIC PRINCIPLES
 Basic principles

Despite its scientific and sportive character, chess is also an inspirational game.
When we sit at the board, our intention is to display our technical knowledge and
personal strength, of course, but the way I feel it expressing one's own taste and
preference, as a true artist, is of no lesser significance.

One of the highest secrets leading to success is keeping the balance even between
these aspects. Knowledge does not guarantee anything without inspiration and am-
bition, for instance. But the reverse statement is also valid as illustrated in the chap-
ters from this section.

There are certain situations when we should make a clear difference between what
we wish or dream of and what we should do depending to the circumstances. I
found a statement by Alatortsev in his old book “Taktika i Strategiya Shakhmatii”
very enlightening. According to him, before making our choice we should identify
in which stage we find ourselves, meaning what we have accomplished so far and
what still need doing within the general frame of our main plan. Anyone can be
tempted by winning a pawn, occupying an open file, creating weaknesses in the
enemy territory, but there might simply be essential, more urgent things to do at
that specific stage.

From this point of view things are clearer in the opening. As children we have been
told again and again to move with a few pawns, develop knights and bishops, get
castled and connect rooks. But practice shows that players (including very strong
ones) are never safe of falling into such false temptations as mentioned above.

All chapters from this section are tightly connected with the initial phase of the
game, namely the opening. There is one focusing on development in general, while
that one referring to the king's delay in the centre presents a particular case of it. But
the truth in chess is never one-sided and, as written by Kortchnoi, those knowing
the basic rules in depth can afford to break them. This is how the idea of the chapter
Strong king in the centre was born.
 Chapter One
A FEW TWIN GAMES AND ONE
GOLDEN RULE - DEVELOPMENT!

Ever since Botvinnik's time, chess players of all levels have been with thorough open-
ing preparation. The critical analysis of the existing theoretical and practical mate-
rial, combined with the discovery of new original ideas, became essential in order
to avoid starting the middlegame with a marked positional or material handicap.
While making the analytical investigation easier, computers have also brought in a
negative practical problem. We are all familiar with the feeling that we would nev-
er be able to remember the hundreds of lines we go through during our pre-game
preparation. Much in the general spirit of this column, this feeling is not new at all.
Remembering his only over-the-board encounter with Fischer, Botvinnik wrote that
until the unpleasant surprise on move 17 he mainly had to remember his home anal-
ysis, mentioning that this is not an easy task at all.

Paul Jonkers - Lost at sea

But long before Botvinnik developed his system of working on opening theory,
handbooks for beginners (among which Lasker's and Capablanca's are the most fa-
mous, but by far not the oldest ones) insistently recommended following the golden

11
 MIHAIL MARIN

principle in the first phase of the game: development! Do not repeatedly move the
same piece when a big part of ones own army is placed on the initial squares; do
treasure development more than material; and do not open the position, nor em-
bark in concrete actions with an incomplete development. All these are long-known
corollaries.

By following this golden rule, one can hardly go wrong in the opening. But ignoring
them by falling into concrete temptations such as winning a pawn or starting an
optically promising attack could provoke major setbacks. This classical inheritance
provides us with a wealth of examples illustrating these issues and, unlike the mon-
strous mass of ever-growing theory, requires a moderate memory's effort to offer us
a reliable guideline in the opening.

Forgetting one of the myriads of recently studied variations is understandable and

not really uncommon. But ignoring the moral of a classical game, tightly connected
with our own ideas, used to be considered a major chess sin in the pre-computer
era. On top of that, refraining from studying the values of "the reliable past" for the
sake of dedicating all our time to "finding the truth" with the help of the engines is,
how should I say it, a matter of personal choice. In this article I will try illustrating
one by one the need for permanently taking into account the three corollaries men-
tioned above.

I happened to be a live commentator on the first rounds in Saint Louis and was high-
ly intrigued by the following game, which caused me a strong feeling of deja vu,
even though my perception was somewhat distorted, as you will soon find out.

A 34 is premature. White is incompletely developed

and the old rules say that the queen should be
Wesley So 2779 — one of the last pieces to bring into play. But in
Maxime Vachier Lagrave 2731 concrete terms, there is a strong temptation
Saint Louis 2015 to use the queen for the purpose of attack-
ing the relatively weak c5-pawn or preparing a
1. ¤f3
kingside attack after transferring it to h4.
1. c4 e5 2. ¤c3 ¤f6 3. g3 c6 4. ¥g2 d5 5.
Of course, the move is not really wrong, even
cd5 cd5 6. £b3 ¤c6 7. ¤d5 ¤d4 8. ¤f6
though not the best either. Due to his extra
1... ¤f6 2. c4 g6 3. ¤c3 d5 4. cd5 ¤d5 tempo, White has the right to waste some
5. g3 ¥g7 6. ¥g2 c5 7. £a4 time in the opening without necessarily being
punished for it.
Wesley So played this move after almost ten
minutes, making me wonder whether it was But pushing things too far in this direction can
part of his preparation. It is more likely that accumulate into an opening fiasco.
when preparing this anti-Grünfeld variation 7... ¤c6 8. ¤g5
he simply was not aware of this concrete move
order. According to the classical principles, the This and the next move were played rather
queen incursion initiated with the last move quickly, but they follow the same risky policy.

12
 OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES

8... e6 9. ¤ge4 again moves with an already developed piece

while half of his army is still undeveloped.
The c5-pawn experiences some discomfort,
but the main question remains whether a The time has come to think of the other piec-
pawn is worth neglecting the development es, too, abandoning the illusory dreams of
that badly. winning the c-pawn and not shying away from
temporarily sacrificing one with 11. d3 (\c1-
h6), even though Black would have at least
  comfortable play: 11... cd3 (Possibly more
  principled is to continue developing with 11...
 0–0 12. ¥g5 f6 13. ¥e3 f5 14. ¤c5 a6 15.
¤b7 ¥b7 16. £b6 £b6 17. ¥b6 cd3 18. ed3
   ¦ab8§ but 11... cd3 takes a pawn without
   the involvement of any major commitment.)
    12. ¥g5 f6 13. ¥e3 f5 14. ¤c5 (14. ¥g5
  £c7 15. ¤f6? Èf7 traps the knight.) de2Õ
   
 
9... ¤b6!  
Dotting the 'i' and crossing the 't': what is the 
queen doing coming out so early?   
10. £b5  
   
White played this consequent move after an-
other roughly ten minutes' thought.  
   
The other way of attacking the pawn is 10.
£a3, but the queen would not feel too happy 11... 0–0!
after 10... ¥f8 11. b3 (11. ¤c5 ¤d4î) ¥e7
(11... ¤d4 12. £b2!) 12. 0–0 0–0 13. ¤c5 With this simple and strong move, Black
This is risky, but otherwise White's previous keeps developing without paying attention to
play does not make any sense. 13... £d4 14. White's over-ambitious intentions.
b4 a5î; By way of suggestion, the engines' 12. ¤b6 ab6!
slight favourite is 10. £d1, as if trying to cor-
rect the previous inaccuracies; 10... £e7!?= Black takes his chance to develop his queen's
Å ¤d4 rook without even moving it, thus proving that
...¤b6 was not a waste of time.
10... c4 11. ¤a4?
13. £c4
Even though from the classical point of view
the entire series of previous moves has been White has finally won the pawn, but he played
a bit too provocative, only this last one cross- most of his moves with only three pieces: the
es the border of admissible risk. White once queen and the knights. It is little wonder that

13
 MIHAIL MARIN

he is in serious trouble already. ¤d4 ^b3) ¥d5 (^¤b5, ¥g2, ¦h1) 18. f3
e4 19. fe4 fe4 20. ¤c3 (20. ¥e4 ¦a4! 21. d3
13... e5 ¥e4 22. de4 £b6 ^Èe1»+; 20. a4 £b6
21. e3 ¤b4»+) £b6»+
 
    
   
    
     
       
     
    
Around this moment I already had the deja
   
vu feeling. In my live comments I referred to 15... b5!
an old game, Tatai » Karpov, in which White
got crushed after wasting lots of time to win a Increasing the pressure by exploiting the dy-
pawn. But I added that the opening had been namic force of the double pawns. One of them
different in that case, mentioning the move defends its own knight; the other questions
order 1. c4 e5 2. ¤c3 ¤f6 3. g3 c6 4. ¥g2 the stability of the errant white knight. (¤g1-
d5 5. cd5 cd5 6. £b3 ¤c6! 7. ¤d5 ¤d4. I f3-g5-e4-c3). The tempting 15... ¤d4 16.
later discovered that I was partly right but also £b1 ¥b3?! fails to 17. ¥e4! defending c2
partly wrong. As a commentator, I did not have and threatening ab3, thus forcing the enemy
the right to use any the engines, but when one bishop's retreat. After the last move White
of the spectators asked me why So chose such loses ground completely.
an opening line I received confirmation that
16. ¥c6
White's position is as precarious as it looks.
White desperately attempts to save the game.
14. £c2
He exchanges his strongest piece in order to
White begins a general retreat of his exposed eliminate the danger of ...¤d4 and ...b4.
pieces, involving new losses of time.
16. ¤b5 ¤b4 17. £d1 ¥d5! (^¤b5, ¥g2,
14... ¥e6 N ¦h1) 18. f3 £b6 19. ¤c3 ¥a2 20. ¤a2 ¤a2
21. ¦b1 ¦fd8 (Å ¥h6, ¤c3) 22. d3 ¤c3»+;
14... ¤d4 see next game Stefano Tatai 2480 16. 0–0 b4 17. ¤b5 (17. ¤a4 ¤d4 18. £d1
» Anatoly Karpov 2690, Las Palmas 1977 Ñ b3»+) b3»+; 16. b4 ¤d4!¤ (16... ¤b4 17.
23/86 £b1Õ) 17. £b1 (17. £b2 e4 18. ¥e4 ¦e8;
15. ¤c3 17. £d1 ¥b3 18. ab3 ¦a1»+) ¥f5 18. e4
(18. ¥e4 ¥e4 19. £e4 f5 20. £b1 e4¤; 18.
15. £b1 f5 16. ¤c3 b5 17. ¤b5 (17. ¥c6 ¤e4 ¦c8; 18. d3 e4! 19. ¤e4 ¦c8»+) ¥e6
bc6 is similar to the game continuation; 17. a3 19. 0–0 £d6¤ Å ¦fc8

14
 OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES

16... bc6 22. f3 ¥d4

22... f5»+
  
23. e3
  
 After this move, the weaknesses of the first
and second ranks become an important issue.
   23. Èg2 f5
   
    23... ¥g7 24. ¦d1 £c7 25. ¦d6 c5 26.
¦d5
 
    26. £c5 £c5 27. ¤c5 ¥f8 28. ¦c6 ¥c5 29.
¦c5 ¦a2 30. Èf1 ¦d8 31. Èe1 ¦h2»+
17. b3 ¥f5 26... ¦e5 27. ¦d1
This is the beginning of the end. White has no 27. ¦e5 £e5 28. ¤c5 ¦c8 29. b4 ¥f8»+
way of neutralizing pressure exerted by the
enemy bishop. 27... c4 28. a3 ¦e7 29. bc4 £c4 30.
£d2 £b3 31. £d6 ¦c8 32. ¤f2 ¦ec7
18. d3 33. ¥d2 ¥f8 34. £d4 ¥a3 35. ¢g2
¥b2 0:1
18. e4 ¥h3¤ ^Èe1; 18. £b2 b4 19. ¤a4
e4»+ Immediately after the round was over I was
curious to check Karpov's game. At first, I
18... e4! 19. de4 ¥e4 20. ¤e4 ¥a1 21.
thought I was under some sort of illusion,
0–0
caused by the late hour in Romania, but then
I resigned myself to the obvious. Judge for
   yourself!
  
  A 34
   Stefano Tatai 2480 —
   Anatoly Karpov 2690
   Las Palmas 1977 [23/86]

  1. ¤f3 c5 2. c4 ¤f6 3. ¤c3 d5 4. cd5

   ¤d5 5. g3 g6 6. ¥g2 ¥g7 7. £a4

21... ¦e8»+ Later, Karpov developed his initial comments

in his game collection Izbranniie Partii (Se-
Black has won the exchange and remains bet- lected games) 1969-1977. Here is his some-
ter coordinated. What is even worse for White what mild evaluation of White's plan: "An in-
is that his a2-pawn is a permanent source of teresting idea. White tries to immediately take
worries. advantage of his slight advance in develop-

15
 MIHAIL MARIN

ment and the relative lack of harmony of the Danish legend enjoyed playing systems with a
black pieces." fianchetto and frequently embarked on pro-
vocative operations, so we can understand, if
7... ¤c6 8. ¤g5 e6 9. ¤ge4 ¤b6! 10. not his sympathy, at least his indulgence with
£b5 c4 11. ¤a4 0–0 12. ¤b6 ab6 13. respect to White's plan.) 16. ¥d8 ¦fd8 17.
£c4 dc4 f5 18. ¤c3 e4§ /¢ Mihail Marin; 14. 0–0
After mentioning the already familiar ele- ¥e6 "and the queen has no good squares for
ments of the position, Karpov concludes that retreat" (Anatoly Karpov).
Black should have a definite advantage. 14... ¤d4
13... e5 I slightly prefer Vachier's non-committal 14...
¥e6
  15. £b1
 
15. £d1? ¥e6 Å ¤b3, ¥b3
 
    15... f5 16. ¤c3 e4 17. d3
  17. e3 ¤f3 (17... ¤c6!? Å ¤e5) 18. ¥f3 ef3
    Anatoly Karpov.
 
     
  
Indeed, it was precisely the same opening, not   
just a similar position to that from the previ-
ous game! My concrete memory proved wrong,
  
but I was pleased by the way its abstract side   
worked.   
This situation perfectly illustrates the widely  
known (but frequently forgotten) truth that   
those who do not know history tend to repeat
its mistakes. 17... b5 18. ¥e3

Karpov confesses that he pondered for about RR 18. de4 b4 19. ¤d5 fe4! (19... b3 20. 0–0
one hour when choosing between the game Bent Larsen 20... ¤e2 21. Èh1 fe4 22. ¤c3
move and 13... ¥d7 "in order to activate the ¤c1 23. £c1 ¥c3 24. £c3 ba2 25. £c4
rook along the c-file as soon as possible." Èg7 26. ¦a2 ¦a2 27. £a2 £d4= Mihail
Marin) 20. ¥e4 b3 21. ¤c3 (21. 0–0 ¤e2 22.
14. £c2 Èg2 ¥e6 23. ¦d1 ¦a5»+) ¥f5¤ Mihail
Marin; 18. e3 ¤f3 19. ¥f3 ef3 20. ¤b5 £a5
RR 14. d3 ¥e6 15. ¥g5! ¥c4 (15... £d7 16. 21. ¤c3 b5¤ Anatoly Karpov.
£c1 Bent Larsen. There are a few comments
by Larsen to this game. The highly original 18... b4 19. ¤d1 ¦e8 20. de4 fe4

16