Article: 4337 of rec.games.chess.analysis Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis Path: info!dregis From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis) Subject: Re: Drawing whit WHITE Message-ID: Organization: University of Exeter, UK. References: <3283C60A.529D@cesi.it> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:06:22 GMT In article <3283C60A.529D@cesi.it> Marco Aspes writes: >Yes, I know that "Chess in fight" but, sometime, you just need a draw. [...] >So, what an intermediate player, as I am, has to choose as opening? Well, Marco, the time-honoured approach is to start 1.Nf3, or if you know what your opponent is likely to play (say, the Pirc or Petroff) to prepare some exchanging variation. But if you have never played a line before, or it does not suit your style, you cannot expect even a draw. Say, 1.Nf3 e6 2. g3 f5 and you may face a lively King's-side attack. Play as you normally play, play to get an advantage, and you may hold the draw more easily! What do you normally play? There may be some safer alternative at some point, but your opponent may also be preparing a different opening... Krogius advises: "Instructive examples of correct psychological preconditioning are furnished by Botvinnik's games. During his matches against Bronstein (1951) and Smyslov (1954) the score before the last round was 11 1/2: 11 1/2. A draw would secure the World Championship title for Botvinnik. "(In the 1951 match) The decisive game began. Bronstein with a smile of cunning on his face advanced his QP: 1 P-Q4. The hall was silent. People made guesses as to what opening Botvinnik would play? Somebody's voice predicted "It will be the Orthodox Defence. True, Black has to defend for a long time, but the position is stable. Botvinnik needs a stable position today." "But no! The first moves already refute the prognosis. We see the sharp and tense variation known to theory as the "Botvinnik Variation". The champion bravely challenges his opponent, as if saying: "Although I would like a draw I am not going to beg for it myself!" "I would like to make clear to the reader that I do not wish to deprecate the Orthodox Defence, which was used by Lasker and Capablanca. The point is that Botvinnik hardly ever used to play this system of development. The champion chose the safest, most thoroughly analyzed and, perhaps, the most aggressive continuation in his repertoire. One can only guess what the feelings of his opponent were, but the movements of the White pieces suggest that he was assailed by doubt. One can see a sort of resignation in the action of the White army. Perhaps he was recalling the successful course of his battle in the preceeding twenty-third game of the match, or perhaps his balance was upset by Black's coolly executed, precise and relentless attack. The denouement was not long in coming: after gaining a won position the champion offered a draw "just in case". It was accepted. "[...] "In my game against Gheorghiu at Sochi in 1964 ... I did not think only of defence. Although a draw would secure me first place and the Grandmaster norm... Gheorghiu did not expect such an aggressive, even if positionally justified, style of play. When the game ended in victory for me he remarked: "I did not think one could play like that when going for the first place." "Not only 'can', but must" -- I mentally answered the Rumanian." -- KROGIUS See also http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Canon/canon468.html, where Bondarevsky played for a draw with Black, and succeeded only in sliding downhill. -- May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and your sacrifices be sound in all variations D _ / "()/~ Dave Regis &8^D* WWW: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html || \_/| = DrDave on BICS ~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?" _|||__SHEU: ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV From info!dregis Tue Nov 12 09:45:50 GMT 1996