The Enigma Variation (and The Centre)
Some variations and positions are evaluated in one way initially, and then some Grandmasters do some more research (this is before engines, thank God) and discover hidden resources and themes in it, and I love it!
This particular variation that we will look at use to be thought of as equal, but then players like Spassky and Polugaevsky found hidden resources for White. This is why I call it the Enigma Variation. But I am getting ahead of myself!
Let me start at MY beginning, which is not THE beginning for this variation; not even close.
I first saw it in a game between Spassky and Petrosian in one of their World Championship matches:
The game is given, with analysis, in Kaasparov's "My Great Predecessors, Part III" (page 285).
The next time I saw this position was in Polugaevsky's book, "Grandmaster Preparation"
The tale starts on page 18.....by the way, this book is highly recommended. Polugaevsky's humility and erudition, his honesty and candor shine through. A real enjoyable book!
The third time I saw this variation, which was a surprise, is in Isaac Lipnitsky's book, "Questions of Modern Chess Theory".
This wonderful book was published in 1956, and it is a masterpiece! It covers many facets of analysis.
He mentions the following position, and evaluates it as slightly favorable for Black, because the White centre is weak, and will be a constant source of concern.
Lipnitsky writes:
"In the diagram position White's pawn centre is more of a weakness than a strength, as it constantly needs to be looked after. He is unable to use it to organize an attack on his opponent's position. Black already threatens Qe7-f6. His game is obviously promising; he can combine an attack against the centre with active play on the queenside."
And the last time I saw this variation (twice) was in the book "Petrosian Year by Year", by Tibor Karolyi and Tigran Gyozalyan:
So, this article will attempt to cover this variation a bit as it appears in these sources (no engine analysis). I hope you all enjoy this small chess journey into the realm of creativity and understanding of the possibilities of a position.
But here the subject gets deeper. Why? Because in Lipnitsky's book, which was published in 1956 (the year I was born), this variation is presented as an example of how occupying the centre is not necessarily a virtue in itself. From what I have seen, this is one fundamental aspect of Russian and Soviet chess, as exemplified by Chigorin is his games, and then by the Soviet masters of the 20th Century.
The subject is covered in Chapter 2 of Lipnitsky's book. The chapter is titled "The Centre", and it starts with the following example:
Lipnitsky writes:
" What stands out when you look at the diagram is the radical difference in the placing of the two side's forces. Black has gained total control of a stronghold in the centre. Making a mighty striking force out of his pieces there, he dominates the entire board. White's forces are scattered and have been driven into rear positions. He can no longer get them co-ordinated to resist his opponent's fearsome and constantly mounting pressure. The outcome of the struggle is a foregone conclusion. The final moves were:"
Lipnitsky continues:
"The centre is of great significance in all phases of the game, but especially in the opening To underline this last fact, Peter Romanovsky in his day shrewdly noted that "the opening is a fight for the centre".
"Attitudes to the centre have changed as chess has evolved. At first the aproach was extremely straightforward and superficial.: it boiled donw to stating that the player possessing the centre always had the advantage- when domination of the centre was understood in purely mechanical terms, by an arithmetical count of the pawns occupying it."
"According to such views.in the following position White undoubtedly predominates in the centre, where he has two pawns to his opponent's one:
"Back in 1895, after the opening moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4, Chigorin emplyed the defence 2...Nc6, which was subsequently named after him. Rather than support the centre pawn with another one, Chigorin allowed the exchange of White's pawn on c4 for his own on d5. According to his orthodox contemporaries he was committing an obvious "sin" in allowing White two central pawns ("d" and "e") facing a single black pawn on the e-file."
"For example Grandmaster Tarrasch, the leader of the German school of chess at the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th, declared that with this defence Chigorin was "contradicting" theory, which demands that in the Queen's Gambit the c-pawn should be moved."
"Chigoring nevertheless used his "incorrect" opening to score wins against the strongest players of that time- Steinitz, Lasker, Pillsbury and others."
(As an addendum, I would like to include here Chigorin's win against Lasker from the 1895 Hastings Tournament)
Going back to Polugaevsky, he regales us with the following story:
"I should like to describe one further incident which I consider to be rather out of the ordinary. Early in 1969, on the outskirts of Moscow in the small town of Dubna, which is justifiably called the "Physicists" Capital, I was preparing for my match with grandmaster A. Zaitsev for the title of Champion of the Soviet Union. Boris Spassky was also there, preparing for his match for the World Crown with Tigran Petrosian. Since ethics demanded of each of us that we should remain neutral with regards to each other, we decided not to touch on specific problems of pre-match preparation, but simply to work together on openings which interested us both, and which we both employed."
And finally, Petrosian beat Korchnoi in the 6th game of their Quarter-Final Candidate's Match in 1977 from the White side of this variation.
So, the "enigma" for this variation was solved brilliantly by Spassky and Polugaevsky. And thereby hangs a tale!
Peace.
P.S.- Addendum 10/28/22- Thanks to TDgeek, who made me aware of the following game between Carlsen and Firouzja:
Now, where did Carlsen get his 14.a4 idea from? Well, believe it or not, from Petrosian!
Take a look!
