THINK LIKE A GRANDMASTER

Alexander Kotov

Translated by Bernard Cafferty
B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        |
|    First published in the USSR                                         |
|    English translation [C] B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1971                    |
|    Fifth impression 1978                                               |
|    Reprinted 1980, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994      |
|                                                                        |
|    ISBN 0 7134 3160 1                                                  |
|                                                                        |
|                                                                        |
|    All rights reserved. No part of this book may be                    |
|    reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of               |
|    the publisher.                                                      |
|                                                                        |
|    Acknowledgement                                                     |
|    The translator and publishers would like to thank                   |
|    Daniel Castello for his help in reading the proofs                  |
|                                                                        |
|    A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK                                               |
|    Adviser: R.D. Keene GM, OBE                                         |
|    Technical Editor: Graham Burgess                                    |
|                                                                        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


CHAPTER ONE
ANALYSIS OF VARIATIONS

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO ANALYSE?

Recently I was invited to the closing ceremony of a team tournament in which candidate masters and first-category players were playing. I asked my audience what they would like me to talk to them about, and I was inundated with requests. Some asked me to demonstrate some interesting combination, others wanted to know how to play the Sicilian Defence correctly for Black.
`But do you know how to analyse variations?' I asked my listeners, and without giving them time to reply went on, `I will show you how to analyse variations and if I'm wrong, then stop me. Let us suppose that at one point in your game you have a choice between two moves, R-Q1 or N-KN5. Which should you play?' You settle down comfortably in your chair and start your analysis silently saying to yourself the possible moves. `All right I could play R-Q1 and he would probably play B-QN2, or he could take my QRP which is now undefended. What then? Do I like the look of the position then?' You go one move further in your analysis and then you pull a long face--the rook move no longer appeals to you. Then you look at the knight move. `What if I go N-KN5? He can drive it away by P-KR3, I go N-K4, he captures it with his bishop. I recapture and he attacks may queen with his rook. That doesn't look very nice ... so the knight move is no good. Let's look at the rook move again. If he plays B-QN2 I can reply P-KB3, but what if he captures my QRP. What can I play then? No, the rook move is no good. I must check the knight move again. So, N-KN5, P-KR3, N-K4, B x N, Q x B, R-Q5 No good! So I mustn't move the knight. Try the rook move again. R-Q1 , Q x RP.' At this point you glance at the clock. `My goodness! Already 30 minutes gone on thinking whether to move the rook or the knight. If it goes on like this you'll really be in time trouble. And then suddenly you are struck by the happy idea--why move rook or knight? What about B-QN1?' And without any more ado, without any analysis at all you move the bishop. Just like that with hardly any consideration at all.
My words were interrupted by applause. The audience laughed, so accurate was my picture of their trials and tribulations.
When I revealed that I was writing a book to tell all that I knew about analysis, based on what I had learned from other grandmasters and what I had discovered myself I was rewarded yet again by applause. Thus I came to realise that players even in high grades have a great need of such guidance. Then I said jokingly, `Botvinnik is working hard at trying to make a computer play chess as well as a human being, so let me teach human beings to analyse with the accuracy of a machine.'
The case I have described of faulty unsystematic thinking is quite a common one even with players of real ability and high gradings. They suddenly abandon their analysis and make a move which they haven't examined properly at all. Let us consider one such case.
looks very threatening, and naturally the master who was White tried to find a concrete way to shatter the enemy king or to get some decisive advantage. As it is not very difficult to see this concrete line must involve a sacrifice.

        1. ;-,b;r,r;-,-;k,-
           ,-;b,-;-,-;p,p;-
           ;p,p;-,-;p,q;n,p
           ,-;-,-;-,N;-,-;Q
           ;-,-;-,P;-,-;-,-
           ,-;B,-;-,-;-,R;-
           ;P,P;-,B;-,P;P,P
           ,-;-,-;-,R;-,K;-
`I have to sacrifice,' the master told himself, `but which piece? There are several possibilities: 26 B x RP, 26 N x N, 26 N-N4 and 27 N x P+ Which then? Let us analyse. 26 N x N B x R 27 RP X B P x N 28 R x P P x Q 29 R x Q+ K-R2. The exchange down, the QP weak, Black's bishop is strong. No, that's not it. What if 26 B x RP? Let's have a look. 26 ... P x B 27 Q x P B x N 28 R x B Q-N2 29 Q-K3 (29 R x N Q x R/3!) 29 ... B-Q4 and White has nothing concrete.
`Possibly 26 N-N4 is stronger? Where will the black queen go? B4 is bad because of 27 N x P+ P x N 28 Q x Q P x Q 29 R x N+ K-R2 30 R x P+ K-N2 31 R-R4 x Two pawns up, White stands better. Nor does 26 ... Q x QP save him, as then 27 N x P+ P x N 28 R x N+ or 28 R x P! and the black king cannot be defended.
`So 26 N-N4 is good? But what if 26 ... Q-R5? Then 27 N x P+ K-B1! No, White cannot allow that, queens are exchanged and all his pieces are en prise. So knight to knight four doesn't work. Let's look at the other captures on R6 and N6 again.'
And once again his thoughts dwelt on the various ramifications of those two moves, and yet again the resulting positions did not appeal to the master. Once more he returned to consider 26 N-N4 and once again he did not find a win there. How many times he jumped from one variation to the other, how often he thought about this and that attempt to win, only he can tell. But now time trouble came creeping up and the master decided to `play a safe move' which did demand any real analysis: 26 B-B3. Alas this was almost the worst move he could play. Black played the decisive 26 ... N-B5 and after 27 Q-N4 P-KR4 28 Q-Q1 P-R5 White had to resign. Note in passing that White was wrong to reject 26 N-N4. After 26 ... Q-R5 27 N x P+ K - B1 28 Q x Q N x Q 29 N x P K x N 3O B x P+ K-B1 31 R-N4 N x P 32 B-N4+ B-Q3 33 B x B+ R x B 34 B x R N x R 35 B x B White would win.
Can you remember cases when this happened to you in tournament games? No doubt you can! So let us discuss how to learn to think about possible moves with the greatest efficiency.

Historical Digression

Practice has shown that only a few players have mastered the technique of analysis; even highly graded players are lacking in this respect.
In chess circles, where one hears many apt sayings, there is a common joke that no type of exercise can change a player's playing strength. Wits like to quote the words of Ostap Bender(*) who in his famous chess lecture said, `The blond plays well and the brunette plays badly, and no lectures will change this state of affairs!' However the experience of many players of widely different playing strength shows that the opposite is true.
We shall be mentioning again the need for regular self-examination, for the need to summarise the lessons of the tournaments we have played in. It is by means of such self-criticism that we can best clarify the faults of our chess thinking. To give the reader a better idea of what I mean I shall tell you about the work I did myself in this field, work which gave much better results than I expected.
In the period 1935-36 I had managed to take first prize in a number of first-category tournaments. I had played with success in two Moscow championships, but all the same I was not satisfied with my play. When I did a critical survey of my games I came to the conclusion that there were serious defects in my play. I am looking, as I write this, at the many exercise books that I filled in those days with notes to my games. Believe me, they are full of harsh self-critical comments. No splenetic annotator ever gave such angry assessments to my moves as I did. I once wrote in the press: `Most of all it became clear to me that my main trouble was not superficial knowledge of the openings or poor endgame technique, but my poor understanding of the middle game. My worst fault was inability to analyse variations. I would spend immeasurably too much time on examining comparatively simple positions which led to time trouble. Moreover I often made serious blunders. Finally after the game I would always find out that my opponent had seen much more at the board than I had. It became clear to me that I had a lot of hard work to do on mastering the technique of analysis.'
This was how I expressed it in public, but in my exercise books I put it much more strongly. `I had worked out the following variations at random, and was duly punished by my opponent. Such vague analysis is the main drawback in my play and I must make every effort to root it out.' That was what I wrote in my notes to my game with A. Yeltsov. `A lack of desire really to go into concrete variations thoroughly, a vague wandering about, those are my characteristic mistakes in my play in the 1936 Moscow championship,' was another gloomy summing up.
I was particularly discouraged by my game with Panov (Black) which after a sharp opening reached the following position.
        2  ;r,-;b,q;r,b;k,-
           ,-;p,p;-,-;n,-;p
           ;-,-;-,-;-,-;p,-
           ,-;-,-;P,p;-,-;-
           ;-,p;P,-;P,p;-,-
           ,-;N,-;-,-;-,P;P
           ;N,-;Q,-;-,P;B,K
           ,-;R,-;-,-;R,-;-
White's attack on the queen side, so it seemed to me, was developing in a systematic and logical way. I judged that the `ugly' formation of the black pieces was proof of his serious positional difficulties. In the game there now came 22 P-B5 N-N4! after which it suddenly became apparent that Black had very dangerous threats. The main point, however, was that his kingside pieces which I had thought gave the impression of awkwardness and lack of cooperation were working together very well, whereas my `nicely placed' pieces were unable to parry his nasty threats.
There now followed 23 KR-Q1 P-B6 24 P-R4 N x P 25 B x P R x N 26 Q x R N-B6 27 Q-Q2 Q-B3 and Black has a winning game. The finish was just punishment for my ill-founded optimism. 28 B-N2 P-K5 29 QR-B1 N x R 30 R x N Q-QB6 31 Q-K3 B-B4 32 K-R1 Q x Q and Black easily won the ending.
After the game we analysed all possible variations. Panov told me that after 22 ... N-N4! he thought White had no good defence. If 23 KR-K1 their 23 ... P-B6 24 B-B1 (24 P-R4 N x P 25 R x N P x B with the terrible threats of 26 ... Q x QP, 26 ... Q-Q2 and 26 ... B-B4) 24 ... B x RP! 25 B x B N x B 26 K x N Q-N4 27 P-N4 B-K2 28 K-N3 Q-B5+ 29 K-R3 Q-R3+ 30 K-N3 B-R5+ 31 K x PR-B1+ 32 K-N2 R x P+ wins the queen.
Black's whole manoeuvre--his original plan and the unexpected sacrifice--are attractive. These possibilities which were hidden in the position remained a mystery for me to the end of the game. I had not examined a single one of the tactical operations given above. Here is what I wrote in my summary of the tournament about my misconceptions in this game: `I was not able to find a single one of the variations and combinations at the board. I didn't even suspect that there was a combination coming at move 24, and I was very surprised when Panov showed it to me. To what a laughable extent my thinking is based on general principles and plans.'
In passing I did the following summary of the thinking time I took in the games of the 1935 Moscow championship: `Out of the 17 games I was in serious time trouble in 7 games, in simple time trouble (5 minutes for 8-10 moves) in 5 games, not in time trouble in 5 games (in 3 of which the game did not last long enough for the time control to matter). In time trouble I played badly, most of the time going on mixing up variations and general reflections.' Well then, that's pretty clear. Such severe self-criticism presupposes that the next step will be efforts to root out the faults, and I started to work.
Having examined the games of other players, particularly masters, and read the occasional comments on this point that appeared in game annotations, I became even more convinced that the ability to analyse clearly a sufficient number of variations so as to clarify the position was the basic condition for success. However, I also came to the conclusion that in their analysis some players make various mistakes. Some examine a few lines to a considerable depth, others analyse a large number of variations two or three moves deep. The correct solution is to find the golden mean, especially as one is playing against a time limit. It also became clear to me that the ability to orientate oneself in the labyrinth of possible variations is not only a natural gift, but also the result of serious and prolonged effort, and training.
How should one go about this training? Where was there a description of how to train and discipline one's thought? There were no books on the subject, and it did not seem possible to get help from anyone else, so I had to fend for myself I chose a method which seemed to me the most rational, and fortunately it was the right one. Ever since that time I have considered it the most effective method to get good results.
I selected from tournament books those games in which the greatest complications had arisen. Then I played them through on a board but when I reached the crucial point where there were the greatest complications and the largest number of possible variations I stopped reading the notes. I either put aside the book or covered the page with a sheet of paper and set myself the task of thinking long and hard so as to analyse all the possible variations. All the time I tried to work myself into the frame of mind that I was sitting there at the board in the tournament room.
Having spent between half an hour and an hour on this task I would sometimes (especially in very complex positions) write down the variations I had examined and then I would compare them with those of the annotator. At first there was a big discrepancy in favour of the latter, but then I learned how to widen my scope and delineate each variation with considerable exactitude. Naturally I analysed without moving the pieces so as to make it just like a tournament game.
In this fashion I examined a large number of most tricky and complicated positions. I remember one of them in particular. I think the reader will be interested to study the many variations which are the product both of the players themselves and of many annotators.
        3  ;r,-;r,-;-,-;k,-
           ,p;-,-;-,-;p,p;p
           ;b,p;q,-;N,n-,-
           ,-;-,-;-,R;-,-;-
           ;-,P;B,R;-,-;-,-
           ,-;-,Q;-,P;P,-;-
           ;-,-;-,-;-,-;P,P
           ,-;-,-;-,-;-,K;-
This position arose after Black's 23rd move in the game Flohr-Fine, Hastings 1935-36. The tension has reached its peak and the outcome can be resolved by the slightest inaccuracy. Grandmaster Flohr did in fact commit such an inaccuracy by playing the obvious 24 N-Q8? which was convincingly refuted by Fine. He retreated his queen to B2, after which he simply won the knight and all White's attempts to attack KN7 came to nothing.
Annotators the whole world over analysed this position. A win for White found in one country was quickly refuted in articles published in another. A practically invisible finesse spotted by one analyst was soon shown to be an error on further examination. Finally the English master Winter found the one and only way to win. I too had worked out the same line in my own analysis.
Examine the variations which arise after the winning pawn advance 24 P-N5! The idea behind the move is not immediately apparent. It is to open the QR3/KB8 diagonal for the White queen to attack the enemy king. The win after the forced reply 24 ... B x P 25 N x P is proved by the following variations:
A. 25 ... K x N 26 R-N4+ when none of the various replies saves Black; 1. 26 ... K-B1 27 Q-N4+; 2. 26 ... K-R3 27 R5-N5! and Black cannot meet the two threats of 28 Q-K5 and 28 Q-K1; 3. 26 ... K-R1 27 R x B R-KN1 28 R x R+ K x R 29 R-N5+ K-R1! 30 R-KB5 K-N2 31 P-N4 and White must win though not without technical difficulties; 4. 26 ... N x R 27 R-N5+ K-B1 28 Q-N7+ K-K2 29 Q x P+ K-Q3 30 Q-B4+ with a decisive attack.
B. 25 ... B x B 26 N-B5! This strong move creates mating threats as well as the threat of a family check on K7. Black has various defensive tries but they are all unsatisfactory:
          1. 26 ... Q-B2 27 R-N4+ K-R1
        28 R-K8+
          2. 26 ... K-R1 27 R x B followed
        by R-K8+
          3. 26 ... R-B2 27 R-N4+ K-R1
        28 R x  B and 29 R-K8+
4. 26 ... Q-R5 (to prevent a queen check on the QR3/KB8 diagonal) 27 R-K8+ R x R 28 R-N4+ K-B1 29 Q x N and after Black has run out of checks he has no defence against R-N8+.
Training exercises of this sort gradually led to an improvement in the accuracy of my analysis, and I was able to penetrate more deeply into the secrets of very complicated positions. Finally I set up a personal record by analysing a possible variation from the fourth game of the Chigorin-Tarrasch match 24 moves deep. I confess I was very proud of this, though it is now clear to me that I was helped by the exceptional `straight line' nature of the variation, which had comparatively few side lines. Here is the position.
        4  ;-,-;-,b;-,k;n,-
           ,-;-,-;-,-;-,p;-
           ;-,-;-,q;-,p;-,-
           ,-;-,-;-,p;P,P;-
           ;p,P;-,p;P,-;N,-
           ,-;-,-;P,-;N,Q;-
           ;-,r;r,-;-,-;-,-
           ,-;-,-;-,-;R,R;K
Chigorin went wrong by 48 P x P and after 48 ... B x P 49 Q-R3 P-R6 50 N x B Q x N 51 R-N6 P-R7 52 R x Q P x R soon lost. After looking at the position many times I found a win by 48 Q-R3! I give the main variation and omit the subsidiary ones: 48 .. P-R6 49 Q-R8 P x P 50 P-B6 B x P 51 N x NP P-R7 52 N-R7 + K-B2 53N/7 x B N x N 54 N-R6+ K-K3 55 R x N+ P x R 56 Q-N8+ K-Q2 57 R-N7+ Q-K2 (57 ... K-B3 58 Q-R8+ and mate in two) 58 Q-Q5+! K-B1! (58 ... K-K1 59 R-N8+ Q-B1 60 Q-B7+) 59 Q-R8+ K-Q2 60 Q-N7+ R-B2 61 R x Q+ K x R 62 Q x R+ K-K3. Now despite his material advantage White's win is not simple. He forces it by the following fine manoeuvre: 63 Q-B8+ K-K2 (63 ... K-Q3 64 N-B5 mate) 64 N-B5+ K-B2 65 Q-Q7+ K-N3 66 Q-N7+ K-R4 67 Q-R6+ K-N5 68 Q-R4+ K-B6 69 Q-N3+ K-K7 70 Q-N2+ K x P 71 Q x R.
After further examination of the position I found a quicker win for White, but this is not important. Such exercises analysing and covering up the page with the grandmaster's notes are very beneficial in perfecting the technique of analysis. If the reader will try it for himself he will soon realise how effectively it helps him to improve. However, one must not restrict oneself to this method as there are others. Great help can be got from solving studies from a diagram without setting up the position on the board. One can read chess books `blind' without using a set, there is analysis of positions where the task is given `White to play and force a win' and so on. Every player who spends some time on such methods will soon notice an increase in his playing strength.
So I was able to discover for myself an excellent method for training in analysis. Subsequently I shared this discovery with a number of candidate masters and first-grade players who studied under me for several years in a Moscow chess club. They liked it, and I feel it played a part in improving their playing ability.
Later on I formulated for myself and also borrowed from other sources certain rules and recommendations which one must know in analysing, particularly the concept of the `tree of analysis', which I shall deal with a little later.
I soon realised that it is not enough for a master simply to analyse variations scrupulously just like an accountant. He must learn to work out which particular moves he should consider and then examine just as many variations as necessary--no more and no less. With superficial analysis one cannot get down to all the fine points of a position, but to get carried away by a large number of possible variations can lead to awkward consequences. I know players who consider an immense number of possibilities, then regularly get into time trouble and so lose all the fruits of their labours.
In order to avoid this I tried to analyse the maximum number of variations, wrote them down, and then tried to establish which of them were worthy of consideration within the demanding conditions of tournament play, and which could be left out so as to save time. Normally a master decides this by intuition, but you have to develop your intuition. I managed to develop mine by the method described below and then I successfully tried out the same method in study groups of second-and third-category players.
(I shall deal later in detail with the question of choice of moves and variations. Here I describe the one example with which I began all my research.)
        5  ;-,-;r,-;-,b;-,k
           ,-;-,-;-,P;-,p;p
           ;-,-;-,-;-,-;-,-
           ,p;p,q;-,-;-,-;-
           ;-,-;p,-;-,-;-,-
           ,P;-,Q;-,R;-,P;-
           ;-,B;-,-;-,-;K,P
           ,-;-,-;r,-;-,-;-
I once analysed in detail the apparently simple, but in fact very tricky position of the diagram. Then I asked the people in the group to study it and in the course of half an hour write down all the variations which they thought should be examined. They were not allowed to move the pieces. Then we examined the position together and so exhausted all the possibilities contained there. It turned out that it was far from

Return to the USCF Chess Home Page

Return to Chapter One Home Page

Go to Dial-A-Book, Inc. Home Page.

[think.htm]