Round 6 20th January 2001

WIJK AAN FIRE!

IMAGINE you’re leading the strongest tournament of all-time (I’m sure Edward Winter will soon correct me on this one!) by a full point, but unfortunately you have the mother of all opponents - Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk and Morozevich - in the final five rounds?

Sounds like a job for a superhero from another Planet, doesn’t it? Well, we have one in Wijk. Step forward Alexei “Fire On Board” Shirov! Right now, as he builds up his lead in the tournament, he’s going to have to hold onto that precious one-point lead as he faces those seemingly impossible odds in the final five rounds.

Someone once remarked a few years ago that when you play him it’s like being welcomed to “Planet Shirov” because his games are like nothing you’ll ever see in this world. To get a good idea of what goes through his head during a game in his own little parallel universe at the chessboard, try reading his hugely entertaining book of best games, fittingly entitled Fire On Board.

He’s widely regarded as one of the most imaginative attacking players in the game today. His penchant for wild attacking games has made him a favourite with the chess public, who see him as the natural heir to another great Latvian, the former world champion Mikhail Tal.

For Shirov, the game is far more important than the final result and this accounts for many of his losses as he seeks to complicate the game by his many piece sacrifices. Such is his imagination at the board, the English GM Jon Speelman, who wrote the foreword to Shirov’s entertaining book, aptly named Fire On Board, claims that he “regularly alchemises positions, the like of which the rest of us only get to enjoy under the bluest of moons.”

But, being accident prone as only geniuses can, we could say that Alexei has had his fair share of misfortune also in the past. We shan’t go in to the gruesome details, but he’s been turned over by an ex-wife. He’s lost money, and a chance at glory, when he was cruelly deprived of a title match with Garry Kasparov. As if these mishaps weren’t enough, poor old Alexei had to physically write his best-selling book twice!

After finishing Fire On Board and ready to send to the publishers, tragedy struck for our hero when his notebook computer got stolen at an airport. Of course, like most of us, he didn’t think to make a back up of his hard drive, so therefore had to rekindle it by starting again from page.1!

Here at Wijk, he’s wooing the large audiences with his electrifying games – albeit against weaker opponents than his final run in. In the past, no one has ever won three successive Audience Prizes at Wijk. With two already to his name from rounds four and five, could he break that elusive record? Well, he came close, but unfortunately lost out to Vassily Ivanchuk. Nevertheless, a high-spirited Shirov was in top form when he took his turn to entertain the hacks in the press room by analysing his game for us.

Rather than going through one of my half-hearted stabs at annotating it, sit back and enjoy Alexei in full swing – the notes and comments come from him!

Shirov,A (2718) - Van Wely,L (2700) C02

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Well, obviously Loek didn't fancy the same variation of the Sicilian that I used to defeat Topalov earlier in the tournament! Ok, I usually play 3 Nc3 here but, after my recent games with Vishy from Tehran, I decided to change to prevent preparation. Being a French player myself, I knew what was involved in this line. 3 ..c5 4 c3 Nc6 5 Nf3 Bd7 6 Be2 Nge7 7 Na3 cxd4 8 cxd4 Nf5 9 Nc2 Qb6 10 g4 Nfe7 11 0–0 h5 12 h3 hxg4 13 hxg4 f6?!

Of course, correct was 13 ..Ng6 14 Be3 Be7 14 Bd3! Without Ng6 he has problems with his pieces - he can't develop then correctly. But still I think the position is very complicated and I can't honestly say White is better. 14 ..0–0–0 15 b4! Nxd4? A typical French sacrifice, but with such an exposed king it cannot work. Maybe with the black king on a8 it would have worked. He should have played 15 ..Be8. 16 Ncxd4 fxe5 17 Qe2! Here I had many ideas, one of them being 17 b5, but I didn't know how to make it work after 17 ..Kb8. Still, White would have been better after 18 Qa4, but I decided 17 Qe2 was just stronger. 17 ..e4 18 Bf4

I didn't calculate it all to the end, but while he was thinking I thought to myself that it makes a change to be attacking a piece up, instead of a piece down! 18 ..Ng6 19 Rac1+ Black has counterplay if I check with the other rook. Maybe with the help of a computer it's still completely winning, but I couldn't see it: 19 Rfc1+ Bc6 20 Be3 exf3 21 Nxc6! (21 Qxf3?! Ne5 22 Qg3 Nxd3 23 Nxc6 Nxc1! 24 Rxc1 Qxc6 25 Rxc6+ bxc6) 21 ..bxc6 (21 ..fxe2? 22 Nxd8+ Kxd8 23 Bxb6+ axb6 24 Bxg6) 22 Bxb6 fxe2 23 Bxd8 Nf4! 19 ..Bc6 20 Bg3 Bd6 21 b5?! Boris Gulko, who was among the hacks in the audience, found what Shirov should have played: 21 Bxe4! dxe4 (21 ..Bxg3 22 Bxg6!) 22 Qxe4, which the maestro readily agreed would have been better. 21 ..Bxg3 22 fxg3 exf3?

Tragedy! Black's only chance was 22 ..Ne5! 23 Nxe5 Qxd4+ 24 Kg2 exd3 25 Nxd3 Qe4+ 26 Qf3 Rhf8 27 Nf4 (Shirov had intended 27 Qxe4? dxe4 28 Rxf8 after which Gulko pointed out 28 ..exd3+! , to which Shirov, rubbing his chin profusely at this stage, commented: "Hmmm, that would be bad news indeed!") 27 ..e5 28 Qxe4 dxe4 29 Ng6 and White must be winning. 23 Qe3 Now there are no tricks left to play - I have to be winning. 23 ..Qc7 24 Rxf3 Ne5 25 bxc6 Nxf3+ 26 Qxf3 Qe5 27 cxb7+ Kxb7 28 Nc6 1–0

I hold myself to hostage at times when I do these reports – I have been known to get some things wrong! Unfortunately, it’s impossible for me to carry around all those wonderful – and many, many - reference books that quite happily get sent to me for free by publishers looking to plug their latest offerings.

The good reader (i.e. “You!”), get the chance, after leisurely spending a couple of hours sitting in your favourite armchair with a drink in your hand, consulting a vast library. Me? From a dingy hotel room with no heating and a very small laptop screen, I only get to use what’s in my head and the latest freebies from ChessBase. No substitute indeed!

So, a Mr Michael Jensen from Torshavn in the Faroe Islands (obviously a haven for King’s Gambit players), writes: “While I usually enjoy your reports of the Corus2001 tournament, I have to say that your coverage of the game Fedorov-Anand contained enough inaccuracies, chesswise, to prompt me into writing this reply. I do recognize that your column is not supposed to contain a complete and exhaustive analysis of games, but since you do include game references, why not choose the "right" ones?”, and he then goes on to correct me. Well, Mr Jensen, whilst I do admit that I got the Muzio Gambit bit wrong, I’m afraid I have to take issue with you on some of your other comments – the main one being the naming of the Kieseritzky Gambit –as the definitive reference guide (which a chess journalist shouldn’t be without – even if he’s just going as far as the next room in his own home!), Hooper and Whyld’s The Oxford Companion to Chess, begs to differ.

Thankfully with Alexander Fedorov being a creature of habit by being a King’s Gambit fiend, we get the opportunity to correct – and otherwise be a bit more aware – of some of the nuances thanks to Mr Jensen’s email.

Fedorov,A (2575) - Ivanchuk,V (2717) C39

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 Well, of course, everyone – apart from me that is! – knows that the Muzio Gambit is 4 Bc4 g4 5 0–0 gxf3 6 Qxf3 4 ..g4 5 Ne5 It's amazing what a quick visit to the bookstall at a tournament will do - especially for a struggling journalist! I'm afraid, Mr Jensen, that this is universally accepted as the Kieseritzky Gambit - Ivanchuk's reply even being known as the Berliner Variation! 5 ..Nf6 Whilst our Faroe friend is correct in suggesting that 5 ..d6 6 Nxg4 Nf6 7 Nf2!? was a recommendation in ECO by Korchnoi, and subsequently used by Plannic against Korchnoi(!), it was also in the venerable Viktor's book with Zak on the King's Gambit 6 d4 d6 7 Nd3 Nc6!?N

Highly unusual from Ivanchuk - it's almost universally accepted that 7 ..Nxe4 is played here. Perhaps our King's Gambit expert can enlighten us? However, as Mr Jensen points out, despite Fischer recommending 3 ..d6! as the refutation in an article entitled "A Bust to the King's Gambit" in 1961, he continued to play it himself thereafter. Fischer's reason for penning the article was this defeat at the hands of Spassky with 7 ..Nxe4: 7 ..Nxe4 8 Bxf4 Bg7 9 Nc3 Nxc3 10 bxc3 c5 11 Be2 cxd4 12 0–0 Nc6 13 Bxg4 0–0 14 Bxc8 Rxc8 15 Qg4 f5 16 Qg3 dxc3 17 Rae1 Kh8 18 Kh1 Rg8 19 Bxd6 Bf8 20 Be5+ Nxe5 21 Qxe5+ Rg7 22 Rxf5 Qxh4+ 23 Kg1 Qg4 24 Rf2 Be7 25 Re4 Qg5 26 Qd4 Rf8 27 Re5 Rd8 28 Qe4 Qh4 29 Rf4 1–0 Spassky,B-Fischer,R/Mar del Plata 1960 8 c3? This looks bad already. The only game I managed to find in my many databases from ChessBase with 7 ..Nc6, was the following postal game, where White played what looks like the stronger 8 d5: 8 d5 Ne5 9 Bxf4 Qe7 10 Nc3 h5 11 Qd2 Bd7 12 Bxe5 dxe5 13 Qg5 Bh6 14 Qxe5 c6 15 Qxe7+ Kxe7 16 d6+ Kd8 17 e5 Nd5 18 Nxd5 cxd5 19 Be2 Rc8 20 c3 Re8 21 Rf1 Be6 22 Nb4 a5 23 Nd3 b6 24 Nf4 Bxf4 25 Rxf4 Rg8 26 Kd2 Kd7 27 Bb5+ Kd8 28 Raf1 Rg7 29 Rf6 Rc5 30 a4 Rxb5 31 axb5 Rh7 32 Rxe6 fxe6 33 Rf8+ Kd7 34 Rb8 Rf7 35 Rb7+ Ke8 36 Rxf7 Kxf7 37 Ke3 Ke8 38 Kf4 Kf7 39 Kg5 a4 40 Kxh5 1–0 Hartmann,W-Bettermann,B/corr (BDR) 1990. 8 ..Nxe4 9 Bxf4 d5 10 Nd2 Bd6 11 Ne5 11 Nxe4 dxe4 12 Ne5 Bxe5 13 dxe5 Be6 , and White's simply a pawn down with an endgame looming. 11 ..0–0 11 ..Qf6! 12 Nxe4 dxe4 13 Qc2 Qf6 14 Bg5 Qf5 15 Nxc6 Bg3+! 16 Kd1 bxc6 17 Bc4 Bf2!

The end is nigh for White. Fedorov is never going to recover from this mess. 18 Qe2 Be6 18 ..Rb8!? also had to be an option. 19 Rf1 Better would have been 19 Bxe6! fxe6 20 Rf1 g3 21 Be3 c5!, but White still has problems. 19 ..g3 20 Be3 c5 21 Bxf2 Bxc4! 22 Qxc4 gxf2 23 Qe2 23 Qxc5? Qg4+ 24 Kd2 (24 Kc2 Qe2+) 24 ..e3+! 25 Kxe3 (25 Kd3 Rfe8) 25 ..Rae8+ 26 Kxf2 Re2+ 27 Kg1 Qxg2# 23 ..cxd4 24 Rxf2 Qe5 25 Qg4+ Kh8 26 Rf5 Qd6 27 Kc2

If you're going to go, go in style! 27 Qxe4 dxc3+ 28 Rd5 Qxd5+! 29 Qxd5 Rad8 30 Qxd8 Rxd8+ 31 Kc2 cxb2 and the rook and pawn ending is simply lost. 27 ..d3+ 28 Kd2 Rae8 29 Re1 e3+ 30 Rxe3 Rxe3 31 Kxe3 d2 32 Rf1 Re8+ 33 Kf2 Qf6+ 34 Qf3 Qb6+ 0–1

“Two’s company, three’s a crowd” could well be the theme for Kramnik and Anand as both have become world champions. At a press conference on the eve of the tournament, Kramnik quickly ruled out any possibility of a way back for Kasparov by getting a return match after losing his title. “He’s got to earn the right to play me again,” said a defiant Kramnik. “I’ve told Brain Games that they have to stick by their contract of providing a proper structure to determine a challenger for my crown.”

After years of the game being dominated by Kasparov and Karpov, these two now find themselves hogging the limelight with much hype of a reconciliation match between the two. Now being the center of attention, it was therefore no surprise that there was a big media presence on hand for the big battle of the new world order of Anand and Kramnik. In the end, despite having the better game throughout, Kramnik landed in time trouble and had to agree to the draw.

Kramnik,V (2772) - Anand,V (2790) [E55]

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 0–0 5 Bd3 d5 6 Nf3 c5 7 0–0 dxc4 The old mainline of 7 ..Nc6 8 a3 Bxc3 9 bxc3 dxc4 10 Bxc4 Qc7 was seen in round four between Kramnik-Tiviakov. 8 Bxc4 Nbd7 9 a3 cxd4 10 axb4 Taking back on d4 is bad news - Black gets an easy game: 10 exd4?! Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qc7 12 Qe2 b6 13 Bb2 Bb7 14 Ba2 b5 15 Qxb5 Rab8 16 Qe2 Nd5 17 c4 Nf4 18 Qd2 Bxf3 19 gxf3 e5 20 dxe5 Nh3+ 21 Kg2 Nxe5 22 Bxe5 Qxe5 23 Kxh3 Rb6 24 Kg2 Rh6 25 h4 Rg6+ 26 Kh3 Qf5+ 27 Kh2 Qf6 0–1 Golz,W-Averbakh,Y/Dresden 1956/EXT 99. 10 ..dxc3 11 bxc3 Qc7 12 Qb3 Nb6 13 Be2 e5 14 Ra5 14 ..Be6 15 Qc2

The only other alternative seen here, c4, saw my "good friend" getting a deserved kicking from Jan "The Man": 15 c4!? Nfd7 16 Ng5 Bxc4 17 Qc2 g6 18 f4 Rac8 19 fxe5 Bxe2 20 Qxe2 Nxe5 21 Ne4 Nbd7 22 Rxa7 Qb6 23 Ra5 Qxb4 24 Rxe5 Rxc1 25 Nf6+ Nxf6 26 Rxc1 Ng4 27 Rb5 Qe4 28 h3 Ne5 29 Qd2 Nc4 30 Qd4 Qxe3+ 31 Qxe3 Nxe3 32 g4 f5 33 Kf2 f4 34 Rc7 f3 35 Rbxb7 1–0 Timman,J-Keene,R/Reykjavik 1976/EXT 98. 15 ..Nbd7 16 c4 b6 17 Ra6 The immediate Ra3 has it's merits as it ties up the d7 knight to the defence of e5 - and may have been a better option: 17 Ra3!? Rfc8 18 Bb2! Bxc4 19 Rc1 b5 20 Bxc4 bxc4 21 Ra5 Rab8 22 Bc3 Re8 23 e4 h6 24 Rca1 Rb7 25 Qe2 Re6 26 h3 Ne8 27 Qe3 Qb6 28 Rxa7 Rxa7 29 Rxa7 Qxe3 30 fxe3 Ndf6 31 Bxe5 Nxe4 32 Ra8 Kh7 33 Rc8 Ng5 34 Nxg5+ hxg5 35 Bd4 Nd6 36 Rc5 Kg6 37 b5 Nf5 38 Kf2 Nd6 39 Ke2 f6 40 Rc6 Kf5 41 b6 1–0 Lein,A-Rohde,M/USA-ch 1986/CBM 03. 17 ..Rfc8 18 Nd2 18 Bb2? Bxc4! 19 Bxc4 Qxc4 20 Qxc4 Rxc4 21 Nxe5 Rxb4! 22 Nd3 Rb3 18 ..Nb8 19 Ra3 a5 20 Bb2 Nc6 21 b5 Ne7 22 f4! Looking to open up the a1–h8 diagonal. 22 ..Nd7 23 Nf3 Bf5? Not the best, as admitted by the players during the post mortem, as it seems to give White an overwhelming attack. Instead, it was suggested that 23 ..Qc5 24 Nxe5 Nxe5 25 fxe5 Ng6 26 Qc3 Rd8 and White's permanently defending the weak pawns. 24 Qc3 Ng6 25 Ng5 Nc5 26 Bf3 Ra7 27 e4?

Kramnik: "So many moves, so little time!" Short of time, Kramnik misses the powerful idea of 27 Bd5!, which both players seemed to agree, crashes through for White. There was just no way a constructive defence could be found for Anand. 27 ..Bd7 28 fxe5 28 f5? Nh4! and White's the one with problems! After a quick f6 now, Black can defend everything - leaving White with the weak c-pawn. 28 ..Be6 29 Bh5 h6 30 Nxe6 Nxe6 31 Qg3 Qc5+ 32 Kh1 Qxc4 33 Raf3 Qxb5 34 Bxg6 fxg6 35 Qxg6 Qe8 Still in serious time trouble, Kramnik agrees to Anand’s draw offer. ½–½

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of TWIC, Chess & Bridge Ltd or the London Chess Center.

You can contact John Henderson at: jbhthescots@cableinet.co.uk