Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Two Criminals, Part Two

  • GM Gserper
  • | Sep 29, 2013
  • | 8862 views
  • | 21 comments

Last week we analyzed the games where great world champions (Fischer, Petrosian, Smyslov) happily parted with their fianchettoed bishops to isolate and double their opponent's pawns, turning them into long-term weaknesses. Another famous world champion, Mikhail Tal, went even further. He traded his Bg7 just to accomplish the b7-b5 advance to start an expansion on the queenside. As you can see in the following games, he had mixed results there:


In the first part of this article I mentioned that as much as I was suspicious at first, at the end I embraced Fischer's idea. Not so with Tal's concept. It is difficult for me to give up such a powerful bishop just to advance my queenside pawns, and therefore, I can only imitate the signature McKayla Maroney expression: not impressed. It is the games like the next one that show the big real danger of such a trade:

Another Bxc3 trade was pioneered by the great Tigran Petrosian. It is very close by its spirit to the Nimzo-Indian Defense where Black tries to blockade the position (we discussed this concept here). 

The final position where the opponents agreed to a draw is probably slightly better for Black.

You shouldn't think that when Black plays Bxc3 just to blockade the position he is playing for a draw. Just look at the next positional/tactical masterpiece by Mikhail Tal (thanks to our reader kamalakanta for mentioning this game in his comment to the first part of the article!).


If White tries to break the blockade it will cost him some material and it can easily backfire as the next game of another world champion shows:


At the risk of being called Captain Obvious, let me sum up: giving up the fianchettoed bishop just to advance the queenside pawns looks very risky. Meanwhile, the positional Bxc3 trade to blockade the position is quite safe.


RELATED STUDY MATERIAL

Comments


  • 9 months ago

    hcgbbo2012

    Thinking about tactical point or strategy position of combinationale positions ,thanks to inspired and reminds me of it Suetins Book !

  • 15 months ago

    b0bcat

    I have observed that in diagram 1, two rooks are actively participating in the attack against the white's monarch. While in diagram 2, the two knights are being outplayed by the two bishops. Two knights have low reputation against two bishop. In addition, white's passed pawn on the e-file is really hurting.

  • 15 months ago

    kamalakanta

    Fotodi1- Your diagram is wrong....but in the game, notice that 41.e8(Q)+ wins because after 41....Nxe8 42.Qe7+ is decisive.

  • 15 months ago

    kamalakanta

    MindWalk, the pawn structure in that game favors that trade for Black. Notice, after the trade, that white's dark-square bishop has no real way of getting active....White's own pawn at c3 blocks the deployment on the long diagonal with Bb2, White's pawn on f4 blocks the bishop's pathway to the kingside, and finally, black's pawn on c5 does not allow the white bishop to go to d4. So White is almost playing with one piece less!

  • 15 months ago

    mon03

    fun article :D

  • 15 months ago

    fotodi11a

    I fail to see why e8=Q is a sure winner! Anyway, I still think that Qb1 allows him to fight on! Perhaps Qd4 was a nice way of saying I've had it?

  • 15 months ago

    showkat

    interesting article ?!

  • 15 months ago

    kennethngyuwei

    Nope 40. ... Qb1 41.Kh2 Qe4 42.Qxe4 fxe4 43.e8=Q and black is finished

  • 15 months ago

    fotodi11a

    In the Borisenko-Tal game Qd4 must be the result of a mental collapse. Qb1 followed by Qe4 should take away the immediate threat, shouldn't it?

    Undecided

  • 15 months ago

    kennethngyuwei

    In Dzagnidze-Krush after 19. ... Bxd5 why not 20.Bxf6? 20. ... Nd3+ is met with Bxd3, 20. ... Rxf6 and 20. ... Qxf6 are both met with Qh7# and anything else is met with bishop takes queen so did i miss out anything that might make 20. 0-0-0 better? Thanks in advance!

  • 15 months ago

    Kngbshpp

    very interesting acticle. i have sacrificed by "fishhyeronado" bishop already but wasnt shure what i had to do next. ill keep in mind that its to advance the queen side pawns. with someone not expecting it i might get a cool win!Cool

  • 15 months ago

    trados

    well dont understand all of it and either way wont be much help since i rarely have those fianchettoed bishops but still was very nice read and never hurts to know a thing or two more :) thanks for the article enjoyed it as usual ^^

  • 15 months ago

    Chessxboy3

    i'm going to use that in a game some time later.

  • 15 months ago

    hcgbbo2012

    what would have been ! de character of player to reduce factors (crimes) ,thinking Tal and Spassky ! Style|gennerall . Cool nde Chess Gang

  • 15 months ago

    valmaster

    Benoni-rama  

    Placement of the knight on the E8 square is a recurrent move!

  • 15 months ago

    MindWalk

    In Timman-Tal, I don't see the point of giving up the bishop for the knight. The c3-knight might possibly have gone to b5, but that doesn't look terribly harmful; what changes because Black gives up his dark-square bishop for the c3-knight that makes Black better than he otherwise would have been?

  • 15 months ago

    upen2002

    thanks

  • 15 months ago

    chessfan25

    cool

Back to Top

Post your reply: