Mark Dvoretsky The Inst16.Pdf

The Instructor

Training with Grandmasters

“Every missed opportunity to play better - even in a

drawn game, or a difficult game to win - is your loss.

That is why it is necessary for you to return again

and again to study your oversights, regardless of how

the game turned out.” - Garry Kasparov

The

Instructor

Mark Dvoretsky

In the days of my youth, the nation’s leading grandmasters

frequently gave simultaneous exhibitions against young

Moscow players. I always loved to participate in these,

perhaps first and foremost because of the understandable

urge to acquire one more famous grandmaster’s scalp. But

there was another reason: the games played in those

exhibitions, or at least episodes from them, usually proved

educational. The ideas I discovered in them, etched solidly

into memory, would later prove useful to me in tournament

games. This form of training is undoubtedly useful for young

players.

Truth be told, I remember hardly any occasion in a simultaneous exhibition

(either the normal kind, or with clocks on a small number of boards) where it

was the grandmaster’s decision that revealed anything to me. It was my own

discoveries and omissions that I learned the most from. No surprise there. The

simul-giver, after all, has no time to give serious consideration to his moves,

and therefore plays superficially; while his opponent will occasionally be able

to penetrate deeply into the position, and guess its secrets. And, on the whole,

each of us is inclined to concentrate on his own thoughts, plans, discoveries and

side tracks - absorbing others’ experience is psychologically much more

difficult.

I’d like to offer some examples of my participation in

simultaneous displays, and, with their assistance, to show

file:///C|/Cafe/Dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm (1 of 13) [01/08/2002 7:50:52 AM]

The Instructor

what point of view the chessplayer must take in considering

games he has played, in order to extract useful information

from them. Here, perhaps, it would be useful to recall an

aphorism of Kozma Prutkov: “When you throw a stone into

the water, pay attention to the ripples that spread out from it;

otherwise, it’s nothing but empty entertainment.”

Bronstein – Dvoretsky Moscow 1963

29...Qd2+ 30 Ne2 Nd7! 31 Qc7

Ke7

Note that neither White’s nor

Black’s queen can give a single

check. Conclusion: A knight

placed next to the king

provides secure shelter

against queen checks . This

was the first game in which I

encountered this technique, which I was to employ

frequently later on.

Here, White should choose either the careful 32 Qb7

Qxb2 33 Qxa6 b4, with a significantly inferior position, or

sacrificing a pawn to create a passed pawn, with 32 cb!? ab

33 Qb7 Qxb2 34 a4. However, Bronstein committed the

sort of awful oversight so common in simuls: 32 Kf3?? ,

and lost quickly after 32...Qd3+ 33 Kf2 Qxf5+ 34 Ke3

Qe6+ 35 Kf2 Qxc4 .

Botvinnik - Dvoretsky Moscow 1964

1 g3 Nf6 2 Bg2 g6 3 e4 d6 4 Ne2 Bg7 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4

c5?! 7 c3

7 dc!?

7...Nc6 8 h3 Qc7 9 Be3 Rd8 10 Nbd2

file:///C|/Cafe/Dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm (2 of 13) [01/08/2002 7:50:52 AM]

The Instructor

White has an obvious space advantage. To avoid a

positional squeeze, I resolved to undertake a central

diversion, figuring that, even if it led to the loss of a pawn,

I would have definite compensation in the open lines.

10...cd 11 cd d5 12 e5 Ne4 13 Nxe4

Another good line was 13 Nb3 f6 14 f3 Ng5 15 Bxg5 fg 16

Qd2, with advantage to White.

13...de 14 Qc2 Bf5 15 g4 Be6 16 Bxe4

Both players missed the strong positional move 16 Nf4!

16...Rac8 17 Qa4!?

17 Rac1

17...Qd7! (threatening

...Nxe5) 18 Qa3 h5

The sacrifice on g4 is incorrect:

18...Bxg4? 19 Bxc6 Rxc6 20 hg

Qxg4+ 21 Ng3 h5 22 Qxe7.

19 f3?!

The positional exchange

sacrifice with 19 gh!? Bxh3 20 hg was worth considering.

19...hg 20 hg Bxg4! 21 Rf2

Botvinnik judged the position after 21. Bxc6 Rxc6 22. fg

Qxg4+ 23. Kf2 Rc2 too dangerous. Simulgivers, on the

whole, tend to avoid such adventures.

21...Bf5 22 Bxf5 Qxf5 23 Kg2

file:///C|/Cafe/Dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm (3 of 13) [01/08/2002 7:50:52 AM]

The Instructor

23...f6?

Having played an excellent

opening, White, by his

uncertain play thereafter, found

himself in an inferior position.

The text move looked

completely natural to me,

attacking the enemy center, and

bringing the inactive darksquare

bishop into the game.

But when I showed the game to GM Simagin the following

day, and got to the move f7-f6, he stopped me, and asked in

surprise:

- Why are you weakening your king position, and giving

White counterplay? Can’t you play anything else here, but

this?

- Well, what should I do instead?, I asked.

- Look at the “holes” in White’s position on the light

squares. Your knight dreams of reaching them - replied

Simagin; and he proposed a move which, I admit, never

entered my head: 23...a5!! Black’s knight obtains an

excellent transfer point at b4, from which he threatens to

invade at c2, d3 or d5.

No further comment is needed here. Such episodes become

fixed in memory for a long time, increasing a chessplayer’s

positional understanding.

24 Qb3+ Kf8 25 ef Bxf6 26 Rh1 Nxd4 27 Nxd4 Rxd4!

27...Bxd4 28 Rh7 Bxe3 29 Qxe3 is dangerous.

28 Rh7

file:///C|/Cafe/Dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm (4 of 13) [01/08/2002 7:50:52 AM]

The Instructor

On 28 Bxd4? Bxd4 29 Re2 (29 Qxb7 Qg5+ 30 Kh3

Rc4!) 29...Qg5+ 30 Kf1 (30 Kh3 Kg7) , the quickest

decisive line is 30...Rc1+ 31 Re1 Qd2!

28...Rd5 29 Qxb7

This complex position offers equal chances to both sides, as

the further course of the game confirmed.

29...Kg8 30 Rh3 Rc2 31 Qb8+ Kf7 32 Rh7+ Ke6 33 Qb3

Rxf2+ 34 Kxf2 g5 35 Rh5 Qg6 36 Rh Qf5?!

(36...Qd3) 37 Rd1 Qe5 38 Rxd5?! (38 Kf1!) 38...Qxd5 39

Qxd5+ Kxd5 40 Bxa7 Bxb2 41 Be3 e5 42 Bxg5 e4 43 f4

Bc1 44 Ke2 Kc6 45 Kd1 Bxf4, draw.

In my study of the classic works, I took note of how often

they differed in their treatment of one and the same

question of chess strategy. Thus: Aron Nimzovich

generally played to exploit weak squares in the enemy

position; while Richard Reti, by contrast, often mounted an

attack on the most solidly defended enemy point,

attempting first to weaken, and then to destroy it, thereby

bringing down the enemy’s entire defense. For example,

after 1. Nf3 d5, Nimzovich developed his bishop to b2, in

order to control the weakened dark squares (first and

foremost, e5). Reti would play to break up the d5 strong

point with c2-c4, and attack it again by developing his

bishop to g2.

Fortunately, I already had enough sense to avoid getting

into foolish arguments, such as who’s right, or whose

strategy is superior. I understood that, depending upon the

particular circumstances, one would give preference to one

strategy or the other - or that one might sometimes need to

combine them. Nevertheless, Nimzovich’s ideas were

closer, more understandable to me, and I often used them. I

first employed a Reti-style plan - that is, a logical attack on

file:///C|/Cafe/Dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm (5 of 13) [01/08/2002 7:50:52 AM]

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: