[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Bd4 mate, so there was no time to extricate the knightfrom g2.Exercises196White played 1.Nd6+ and Black resigned.Why ?107.297Black to move.He played 1.& Na6.But could he have taken the bishop at g6?398Find the best continuation assuming it is White to move, and then do thesame if Black is to move.108.499Black s last move was 1.& a6.Could White have responded 2.Qa3?5100White played 1.Bh5.109.How would you have replied if you were Black?6101After 1.e6! Qf6 find the mate in 3 moves.7102Black to move110.8103White to move9104White to move111.10105White to move11106White to move112.12107White to moveSolutions1.Boleslavsky-Gurgenidze, USSR 1960: Black resigned because on 1.&Kd8 or 1.& Kd7 White has 2.Nxc8+ Kxc8 (2.& Kc7 3.Nxa7 andWhite has a material advantage as well as an attack) 3.Qe6+ Kc7 4.Rd7+Kc8 5.Rd6+ Kc7 6.Qd7 mate.2.Smyslov-Kamyshov, USSR 1944: No, you can t afford to capture thebishop: 1.& hxg6 fails to 2.Nxg6+ and after the king moves, White grabsthe queen with 3.Nxh4.3.Instructive Example: A.If it is White to move, the win is 1.Qxh7+!Kxh7 2.Rh3 mate; B.With Black to move, the tables are turned: 1.&Qa1+! 2.Kxa1 Bd4++ 3.Kb1 Ra1 mate.4.Euwe-Benitez, 1948: Yes, indeed.White plays 1.Qa3! to deflect theenemy queen from defending d8, and now 1.& Qxa3? 2.Rd8+ Ke7 3.Re8 mate.113.5.Utyaganov-Konovalov, USSR 1950: The correct continuation on 1.Bh5is 1.& Qg2+! 2.Kg2 Nf4++ 3.Kg1 Nh3 mate.6.Alekhine-Forrester, 1923: 1.Bxd7 Kd8 2.Bc6+ Qxd4 3.e7 mate.7.Perlis-Tartakower, Moscow 1907: 1.& Qxc3! and now 2.Qxe2 Qxc6or 2.bxc3 Bxd1 or finally 2.Qa4 Qc6 leaves Black with at least an extrapiece.8.Boleslavsky-Lilienthal, Leningrad 1941: 1.Bxc7!, for example 1.&Qxc7 2.Qe6+ Ne7 3.Qf7 mate or 2.& Qe7 3.Bb5 mate.9.Petrosian-Simagin, Moscow 1956: 1.Qxh8+! (decoy) 1.& Kxh8 2.Nxf7+ (fork) 2.& Kg7 3.Nxe5 and White has a winning endgame.10.Sveshnikov-Timman, Holland 1992: 1.Rxc8+ Rxc8 2.Bb5+ andWhite has won two pieces for the rook.11.Kasparov-Karpov, Moscow 1985: 1.Qxd7! Rxd7 2.Re8+ Kh7 3.Be4+ g6 4.Rxd7 and here the two rooks are stronger than the queen.12.Botvinnik-Golombek, Moscow 1956: 1.Bxg7 Kxg7 2.Rc1! Qd7 3.a4Black resigns (on 3.& Nc7 4.Qc3+ Black loses his knight).114.Lesson 5Destructive CombinationsWe have seen a number of examples of attacking play involving a kingthat was exposed.Now we must turn our attention to the task of strippingaway the defenses that usually protect the king.To that end we will studydestructive combinations which are designed to remove the king sdefenders.To try to master the art of attack without understanding these destructivecombinations is futile.If you are involved in an attack and pass up theopportunity to score the point by combinative means, you may find thatthere is no way to win the game, or that the game is prolonged becauseyou failed to strike at the necessary moment.Destructive combinationscan also emerge suddenly, as a consequence of mistakes made by you orby your opponent.In the examples presented in this chapter, the attacker will destroy all orpart of the defense by means of a sacrifice, which leads either to mate or tomaterial advantage.But note that mate or the win of material is not alwaysthe goal of a destructive combination.Sometimes a destructivecombination is made in order to gain attacking chances, to create practicalproblems for the opponent, or to improve the harmony of the pieces in theattack.Seizing a SquareTo illustrate the basic idea, let s consider a few examples where the enemyking is already vulnerable, and can be finished off by a simplecombination by threatening a mate delivered on a weakened square.Thesecombinations are often characterized by the sacrifice of a piece which iseither under attack or is deliberately left en prise.115.Diagram 108Spielmann  Tartakower, Marienbad 1925White to move1.Qh6!Here White sacrifices the rook which sits undefended at e1 in order tocreate an immediate and fatal threat of mate at g7.1.& Qxe1+2.Bf1Now Black could delay immediate defeat by 2.& Qe3+, but the gamecontinued &2.& Re83.Qg7 mate116.Diagram 109Taimanov  Zhukhovitsky, USSR 1949Black to moveWhite threatens both the black king and queen (Rd8+), but a surprisingmove follows.1.& Ng4!2.g3The queen can t be captured because of the smothered mate at f2.2.& Qc6+3.Rg2 Nf2+4.Kg1 Nxd1And White resigned.117.Diagram 110Nimzowitsch  Rubinstein, Berlin 1928White to move1.Qg6!Black resigned, since there is no defense to the threat of Qxh6+.If 1.&Rxd1+, then 2.Kg2 Rd2+ 3.Kh3 and Black has only one check left togive.Now let s move on to actual destructive combinations.Here the enemyking is not exposed, so we have to do something to create the matingattack.In the next example we would like to check the enemy king at b6, but thatsquare is protected by a pawn.How do we demolish that protection, whilemaintaining the initiative?118.Diagram 111Averbakh  N.N., USSR 1954White to move and force mate1.Qb6+!!This takes control of b6 with decisive effect by sacrificing the queen todestroy the king s protection.1 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]