Spassky vs. Tal

Spassky vs. Tal

Montreal 1979

Queen’s Indian Defense, Classical System

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 e4 Bb7 5 Bd3 d5 6 b3 Bd6 7 0-0 0-0 8 Bb2 Nbd7 9 Nbd2 A harmless system for White. 9…Qe7 This position has turned up now and again for over 130 years; the first example I can find is Paulsen-Kolisch, match (23), London 1861. 10 Rc1

After 10 Rc1

10 Ne5 is another possibility, but 10…c5 equalizes. 10…Rad8 Tal suggested 10…c5 and 10…Ne4 as possible alternatives, but the text-move was also played in the only other example of this position I could find: Colle-Yates, Karlsbad 1929. 11 Qc2 11 Qe2 is well met by 11 Ne4; for example, 12 cxd5 exd5 13 Ba6 Bxa6 14 Qxa6 Nxd2 15 Nxd2 c5 with equality. Therefore Spassky plays to prevent Ne4. Colle preferred 11 Ne5 and went on to win after some weak play of Black. 11 c5

After 11...c5

12 cxd5 White makes the doubled-edged decision to inflict ‘hanging pawns’ on Black. Whether these pawns are strong or weak depends largely on the relative piece activity of the two players. Here Black should have no cause of concern as none of White’s minor pieces is actually attacking the pawns. 12 Ne5 is a safer option, but White cannot really hope for an advantage. 12…exd5 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 Qc3 Another double-edged move. White wants to rule out …Ne4, nut the queen is exposed to typical liberating thrust …d4. 14…Rfe8 15 Rfd1

After 15 Rfd1

15 Rfe1 runs into tactical difficulties after 15…c4!; for example, 16 bxc4 Bb4 17 Qc2 dxc4 18 Bxc4 Bxf3 19 gxf3 Bxd2 20 Qxd2 Ne5 and Black wins. 5…d4?! Perhaps the dubious symbol is rather severe, as this sacrifice leads to a quick win. However, in the harsh light of home analysis, it is revealed as not fully correct. 16 exd4 cxd4

After 16...cxd4

17 Qa5? Only this move gives Black the advantage. Having played so provocatively, White should have been consistent and taken the pawn, not by, 17 Qxd4 Nc5 18 Re1 Nxd3! 19 Rxe7 Bxe7 20 Qc3 Bb4 21 Qc7 Bxd2 22 Nxd2 Nxb2 23 Qxb7 Rxd2 with a large advantage for Black, but by 17 Nxd4!. Then Black has various continuations, but nothing very convincing; for example, 17...Bxh2+ (17…Qe5 18 N4f3! Qh5 19 Be4! defuses Black’s attack) 18 Kxh2 Ng4+ 19 Kg1! (19 Kg3 Qe5+ 20 f4 Qe3+ 21 N2f3 22 Nxf3 Ndf6 23 Bxh7+ also favours White) 19…Qh4 20 N2f3! (20 N4f3? Qxf2+ 21 Kh1 Nde5!  Wins for Black) 20…Qxf2+ 21 Kh1 Re5 22 Bf5 Rc5 23 Bxg4 Rxc3 24 Bxc3 and White wins. 17…Ne5 Now Black obtains dangerous attack without any sacrifice. 18 Nxe5 18 Re1 Bxf3 19 Nxf3 Nxf3+ 20 gxf3 Qb7 favours Black. 18…Bxe5 19 Nc4? Moving this knight away further away from kingside is asking trouble, especially against Tal! There are many other false paths: 19 Ba3? Qe6 20 Nf1 Bf4!, with …Qg4 to come, is very good for Black; 19 Re1?! Qd6 20 Nf1 Ng4 gives Black a dangerous attack; and 19 Bb5 Rd5 is similar to the game. 19 Nf1! Is relatively the best defense, although Black still has some advantage. 19 Rd5 20 Qd2

After 20 Qd2

There is no defense, e.g. 20 Ba3 Bxh2+ 21 Kxh2 Ng4+ 22 Kg3 Qf6 23 Qd2 Nxf2! Or 20 Qxa7 Bxh2+ 21 Kxh2 Ng4+ 22 Kg3 Rh5, winning in both cases.  20…Bxh2+! 21 Kxh2 Rh5+! Even more convincing than 21…Ng4+. 22 Kg1 Or 22 Kg3 Ne4+ 23 Bxe4 Qh4+ 24 Kf3 Qxe4+ 25 Kg3 Qh4#. 22…Ng4

After 22...Ng3 0-1

0-1 There is no defense to the twin threats of 23…Qh4 and 23…Rh1+.

Source from:

GAMBIT: John Nunn’s 101 Brilliant Chess Miniatures (Pages 41 - 42)

#SpasskyVsTal

#chess

#chessbrilliancy

#chessminiature

#chessnovelty

#chesslesson

#chesstactics

#chesstechniques