Transit Squares- How to Get Your Pieces There for the Attack!

Hi, everyone!

One thing is true: to have a successful attack, you have to get your pieces there. Different players have shown us different ways to do it. And for me it is a delight when I see something, a fundamental technique, expressed throughout centuries of chess praxis. The technique we will look at today is called "transit squares".

But how do you come across something like that? Well, for me, the portal is Bronstein, my favorite player. He studied the games of all the great Masters of the past, from Philidor to Morphy to Lasker and beyond, and applied the wisdom learned from these great Masters (who were really Grandmasters before the GM title was official) and applied them in his own games. Some games have an impact on the psyche, which is a good thing (otherwise, how would we learn?). And some of the ideas become imprinted, as it were, on our brains.

I remember reading a quote from Petrosian about Bronstein (I paraphrase): "Nowadays chess players think that modern chess started with the Informator. But players of my generation know that modern chess started with David Bronstein!"

When I first read it, I could not understand it. Why? What did Bronstein do? This past year I encountered an extended version of that quote (I paraphrase again):"Nowadays chess players think that modern chess started with the Informator. But players of my generation know that modern chess started with David Bronstein! Bronstein gave new interpretations to "old" openings."

Now THAT made a lot of sense! I have seen Bronstein play the King's Gambit with White, the Old Indian Defense with Black, and I have seen him give them a completely new twist. As an example of this, I show this game against Mikenas. It is said that after resigning, Mikenas expressed joy, at the fact that he had been immortalized by being on the receiving end of this brilliancy:

Enjoy this, with GM Bronstein's notes!

And here is a masterpiece by Bronstein in his own variation (Bronstein-Larsen Variation) of the Caro-Kann Defense. his game is full of creative fireworks. A genius at work!

OK, one more example of Bronstein's genius....this game was played at the Petropolis Interzonal. Bronstein was 49 years old! He sacrifices a whole rook in the opening, with some compensation, but will it work? Before this game, Ljubojevic was leading the Interzonal. After this game, he struggled.....losing this game to Bronstein had a profound effect on Ljubojevic.

Nowadays grandmasters usually play the Alekhine Defence with the quiet 4.Nf3, which in most variations gives White a small but tangible advantage. Bronstein however picks up the gauntlet and chooses the old main variation of this defence, which promises a sharp game with chances for both players. This promise comes to full fruition in this game. I have anaylsed extensively the opening, not only because it is interesting and has been hardly examined in depth before, but also because the crisis already erupts in this part of the game.

Now, I want to present this same game with the position a few moves after the rook sacrifice. You will notice a few things:

1) White is down a rook.

2) Black's King is quite unsafe, with no Bishop on g7 and no Knight on f6.

3) Black's Queenside is undeveloped.

4) Last but not least, and a main point of this article, White has gained the e4 square as a huge transit square for his pieces, in this case the Knight on e4.

Going back to transit squares....when I first mentioned this to my dear friend, Simaginfan, he pointed out that there was a Philidor game with this idea. Luckily for me, it is the first game in Philidor's page on chessgames.com. And here is the game, with Philidor's comments!

Doing some light research for this blog post, I found a nice game from the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell matches from 1834. Even though the game ended in a draw, the concept of a transit square happened in the game!

A few weeks ago I posted a blog about a pattern I saw in two games.....

https://www.chess.com/blog/kamalakanta/want-to-save-the-game-play-rd5 

In one game, Botvinnik could have drawn against Tal in game 11 of their World Championship Match by playing.....Rd5!

In another game, a training game between Bronstein and Korchnoi, Korchnoi could have drawn the game by ALSO playing ....Rd5!

Chess is a game of patterns, as demonstrated by Susan Polgar in the following video documentary:

But in this case, for me, two or three things happened, where patterns intersect and coincide, and it is, as I perceive it, a direct result of chess culture (in Bronstein's case), which fuels and enriches his mind with novel ideas.

It is here that Petrosian's quote makes sense: Bronstein, the Artist, gave new interpretations to openings that our forefathers used to play. Thus he created a new wave of modernism in chess, and gave rise to original ways of thinking about our royal game. His intelligence, talent and artistic sense propelled the game to new heights, and we are all beneficiaries of this.

OK, in my previous blog, the first game was Bronstein-Korchnoi, 1970 Training Game. In this game Bronstein uses a novel setup from the White side of a Closed Sicilian. Now, remember the Closed Sicilian can resemble or transpose to a French Defense in some cases. Please look at the following diagram after White's 9th move.....

That is NOT the usual way for playing the Closed Sicilian with White. The usual pawn structure looks more like the following game, Spassky-Geller, Candidates' Match 1968.....

Ok, so you may ask: is this article about Bronstein's novel move in the Closed Sicilian with White, or is it about transit squares? Well, as it turns out, it is about both. I noticed this phenomenon (transit squares) in at least 3 of Bronstein's games, which gave me the idea for this blog. When I mentioned this to my good friend, Simaginfan, he told me about a Beliavsky game, which I will include here. He also mentioned the game by Philidor mentioned above, as well as the following game by Botvinnik:

Now, that Botvinnik game reminded me of the Penrose-Tal game.......which was played two years before the Botvinnik game (so I think Botvinnik got the idea from Penrose).

Penrose-Tal, Leipzig 1960

Leonard Barden posting on the English Chess Forum on Aug 11, 2010 throws some interesting background information about this game.

https://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2016&p=35541&hilit=Tal#p35541 

The Postman Won It.

"The postman arrived just as I was leaving the house on the departure day for Leipzig, delivering inter alia the latest issue of the Deutsche Schachzeiting.

I hastily jammed the mail into the rest of my luggage, which included my opening indexes, then around 40 thick looseleaf files, effectively a handwritten ChessBase.

There was a significant excess luggage charge at the airport.

On the morning of the final round when we were paired with the USSR who had already won the Olympiad, Jonathan Penrose asked me for suggestions on what to play against Tal.

I presented him with half-a-dozen bulging files, provoking a glazed look, and then as an afterthought added the Deutsche Schachzeitung which led on its first two pages with the game Ojanen-Keres from a friendly Finland v Estonia match.

Jonathan was immediately hooked and quickly decided this was his weapon for that afternoon.

It succeded rather easily, and afterwards JP described his feeling during the game as being like an Essex v Middlesex county match.

Tal failed to suss out Ojanen's key white plan of e5 dxe5 f5 with Ne4 and a mighty attack down the f file, erred early with Re8, fell into awful time pressure, and was crushed.

Tal had left Riga for a pre-Olympiad engagement causing him to arrive two days late in Leipzig (where on the morning he arrived I witnessed him in the Olympiad barber shop having a haircut while whizzing through the bulletins of the previous rounds) so hadn't received his Deutsche Schachzeitung.

Keres didn't mention his own disaster against Ojanen before Tal took on Penrose. Tal was apparenly quite annoyed at that.

What isn't generally known is that we had a fleeting chance that afternoon to draw with or even defeat the mighty Soviets at their peak. No thanks to me, as when Korchnoi as Black transposed my g3 Scheveningen Sicilian into a kind of f4 French, I was bemused and fell into a tactic where my Kh1/Ph2/Bg1 formation backed a d4 knight faced Black's Ba8 Rc8 and Qd7. I played Bd3-b5, Viktor took a brief swig at his cigarette, and played Qxb5 Nxb5 d4+ (check from the a8 bishop) forcing Qg2 Bxg2+ Rxc2+ and the rook ate my pawns. I felt a real idiot for that.

However during the time pressure Keres, who had been better against Peter Clarke for most of the game, made an error and Clarke had a brief chance for advantage, which he missed. Meanwhile Bob Wade was defending tenaciously against Petrosian and had good chances for a draw.

These two games were adjourned and I remember looking up at the scoreboard which said England 1 Sowjet Union 1, cursed again my stupidity and vowed that if I ever got a chance to get even with the Russians I would take it. I did remember that moment when working with juniors in the 1970s.

When Jonathan came into the dining hall, he was accorded a standing ovation. I think it was the only game the USSR lost at that Olympiad.

We spent ages on the adjourned games but by then Clarke was under the cosh again. If I recall right, Bob's game could still be salvaged but their adjournment analysis was better.

The opening did become known as the Penrose-Tal system, which upset Ojanen who had worked out the entire plan before his game with Keres and deserved the credit. Jonathan has recounted how Ojanen came up to him at the next Olympiad in Varna saying something like 'Penrose-Tal, MY variation'."

Here is the Ojanen-Keres game:

Here is the Penrose-Tal game:

Now, with Bronstein, the earliest game I can find with this theme is Bronstein-Kottnauer, Prague vs. Moscow Match, 1946:

(The extra time spent on this and other blogs is worthwhile, to bring you comments by Bronstein and other GMs who teach us so much with their comments)

Now, when I first shared this idea with my friend Simaginfan of doing an article about transit squares, he pointed out the following game by Beliavsky. At my request, he sent scans of the pages with comments by GM Beliavsky himself! Enjoy.....

The next game, Bronstein-Zlotnik, Moscow city championship 1978, is also a French Defense. In this instance, Bronstein does not play the Closed Variation, but plays the Tarrasch (3.Nd2) instead. Yet, a transit square on e4 arises after just 16 moves. Let us go to this Master Class.....

OK, before I put the last example, the game Bronstein-Nowak, I am reminded of a concept that Bronstein commented was seen in the first Lasker-Steinitz WC match. He mentioned that you can have an extra piece, let us say a Knight, but if it is stuck in the corner, your position might be lost anyhow. I believe the following Lasker-Steinitz game is a good start to illustrate this concept (please excuse this digression; it is for didactic purposes).

Now please look at the following diagram, and see how lost Black is, in spite of his material advantage.....Bronstein's attack was spectacular!

Now , the next game illustrates Bronstein,playing his original plan with 9. c4 in the Closed Variation against the Sicilian (which transposes to a French Defence formation), obtaining a transit square on e4, and then, sacrificing a pawn on g5 to obtain ANOTHER transit square on g4. The final position says it all: Black is a piece ahead, but helpless.

I hope you all derive some benefit from this; otherwise, I am just wasting my time......

P.S.- I am adding two games or more; the first one is the Pilnik-Geller game from the 1955 Interzonal, a game which Simaginfan recommended to me.

Best wishes of peace and joy to all for this Holiday Season!