Two new titles by Gambit Publishing show that this English company is not intent to rest on its laurels. CREATIVE CHESS STRATEGY by GM Alfonso Romero and DECISION-MAKING AT THE CHESSBOARD by GM Viacheslav Eingorn are original books that will provide the serious student plenty of food for thought.

It’s not easy to categorize either book. Both deal primarily with various aspects of middle game play with very detailed annotations. While there is plenty of prose commentary, neither author shies away from offering extensive, concrete analysis. Reading the books I couldn’t help but notice that both authors offered in-depth examinations of the famous game Petrosian-Bannik from the 1958 USSR Championship. Ever since coming across the tournament book of the 1966 Piatigorsky event where many games were analyzed by both players, I’ve become a fan of games that are annotated by more than one player. There’s something about getting two views on a position – often different – that widens ones perspective. That’s certainly the case here.

Petrosian-Bannik, a striking example of the Armenian’s brilliant positional understanding, has been featured in many books including another recent release by Gambit, CHESS RECIPES FROM THE GRANDMASTER’S KITCHEN by Valeri Beim (click to see Donaldson’s review of that book), as well as standard Petrosian sources such as the GAMES OF TIGRAN PETROSIAN: VOLUME I 1942-1965, compiled by E. Shekhtman and PETROSIAN’S LEGACY by the late World Champion.

This classic starts out with Petrosian obtaining an advantage right from the opening and immediately steering towards a favorable endgame. The question is, would it be enough to win against the tough Ukrainian master Anatoly Bannik (1921-?), probably best known for losing this game and another famous ending (double Rook) against Petrosian. Interestingly, according to ChessBase, the lifetime score between the two players was 3-3 in games played from 1951-61. Bannik, a 2500 plus player, never even received the IM title, undoubtedly because he didn’t have the opportunity to play outside the Soviet Union.

Petrosian - Bannik

USSR Championship 1958

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 d6 5.d4 g6 6.dxe5 Nxe5 7.Nxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bg5 Be7 10.0–0–0+ Nd7 11.h4 f6 12.Be3 c6 13.h5 g5 14.Bh3 Kc7 15.Ne4 Nb6 16.Bxc8 Raxc8 17.b3 (?)

WAS 17.b3 CORRECT?

White’s reply after 16…Raxc8 17.b3 is passed over by Petrosian, Beim and Romero, who consider the critical position to occur after Black’s 17th move. The conventional wisdom has been that Petrosian’s decision, not to capture on b6 and play for good Knight versus bad Bishop, was correct. Though this would seem to be the thematic idea in the position, the “Tiger” felt that White couldn’t win the resulting position after the Rooks were traded. Romero gives much analysis to show that this evaluation of the position is correct. Following in the footsteps of Petrosian (and Beim), he shows a position with the White King on e4, Knight on f5, and pawns on the Kingside on e2, f2, g4 and h5, against a Black structure of King e6, Bishop f8 and pawns on e5, f6, g5 and h7. As Beim explains, with accurate play, there is no way to put Black into zugzwang.

GM Eingorn, a fixture in Soviet Championships throughout the 1980s (with several plus scores in the days when Kasparov and Karpov both competed), begs to differ. He gives 17.b3 a question mark. First, he isn’t convinced that White can’t capture on b6. His suggestion is not to fixate on the kingside, but to transfer the Knight to d3 and place the queenside pawns on b4 and a4 and break with b5 to create an outside passed pawn. Eingorn gives the following line (condensed): 17.Bxb6+ axb6 (17...Kxb6 18.Rd7) 18.g4 Rhd8 19.Kc2 Rxd1 20.Rxd1 Rd8 21.Rxd8 Kxd8 22.Kd3 Kd7 23.Nc3 Ke6 24.Ke4 Bb4 25.Nd1 Be7 26.a3 Bd6 27.b4 Be7 28.Nb2 Bd6 29.Nd3 Be7 30.a4 Bd6 31.b5 Be7 32.bxc6 bxc6 33.c5 Bd8 34.cxb6 Bxb6 35.e3.

He then points out that even stronger was the immediate 17.Bc5, when Black is practically forced to exchange pieces and gets a position very much like the actual game continuation. The critical line he gives is: 17.Bc5! Bxc5 18.Nxc5 A) 18...Rce8 19.b3 or 19.Rd2 e4 20.Rd4 Re5 21.b4; B) 18...Nxc4 19.Rd7+ Kb6 20.b4 Rb8 21.Kc2! a5 22.Kb3.

17...Rcd8?

All commentators, except for Eingorn, are silent about Black’s 17th move, …Rcd8, which he gives a question mark. He writes, “Black in turn should have moved his Knight back to d7 at once so that the approaches to his position would be guarded again. The resulting situation, though unpleasant, would still have offered defensive chances. His strategic error does irreparable damage.”

18.Bc5 Rxd1+ 19.Rxd1 Bxc5 20.Nxc5 Re8 21.Ne4 Re6 22.g4 a5 23.Rd3 Nd7 24.Kc2 b6 25.Rf3 Kd8 26.a3 c5 27.Kc3 Ke7 28.Rd3 Rc6 29.Rd5 Nf8 30.Ng3 Ne6 31.Nf5+ Ke8 32.e3 Nc7 33.Rd1 Ne6 34.Kd3 Rc7 35.Ke4 Rc6 36.Nd6+ Ke7 37.Nf5+ Ke8 38.Nd6+ Ke7 39.Nf5+ Ke8 40.a4 Nd8 41.Nh6 Ne6 42.Ng8 Nf8 43.Rd2 Kf7 44.Nh6+ Ke8 45.Nf5 Ne6 46.Rd6 Rxd6 47.Nxd6+ Kd7 48.Nb5 Ng7 49.h6 Ne8 50.Kd5 f5 51.Kxe5 fxg4 52.Nc3 Ke7 53.Ne4 Kf7 54.Kf5 g3 55.fxg3 g4 56.Ng5+ Kg8 57.Ke6 Nc7+ 58.Kd7 Na6 59.e4 Nb4 60.e5 Nd3 61.e6, 1–0.

It’s not 100% clear to me that 17.Bxb6, with the plan of trying to create a queenside outside passed pawn is winning, but certainly 17.Bc5 is more precise as Bannik could have played 17…Nd7 in the game. Eingorn deserves credit for going against the prevailing sentiment.

Romero, who uses seven (!) oversized pages to analyze this game, sites this as an excellent illustration of Petrosian’s dictum that technique should not always be considered something mechanical, but is also a skill that often requires creativity.

Both books are outstanding and will repay careful study many times over. Though the explanations offered are clear, the material is quite advanced and consequently players of master level and above will receive the most benefit. Beim’s LESSONS IN CHESS STRATEGY (also by Gambit – Donaldson’s review of that book can be seen HERE) is a good, recent middlegame book for those in the 2000-2400 range.

Click to see Silman’s Review of DECISION-MAKING AT THE CHESSBOARD.