In my last couple True Combats, I’ve talked about defeating the weaker player with attack and opening knowledge – now it’s the turn of good old-fashioned experience.

This game took place just last week, at a Game/30 tournament at the Glendale Chess Park. The game seemed perfect for what I’m trying to convey in this series, and furthermore, there was a very curious conversation after the game, which I thought might be of interest to those who have not forgotten Rudolf Spielmann! But more on that later.

First, experience: and to that effect, boys and girls, you need to sit down and listen to a story from Grandpa – yes, the very, very hard to believe truth is that I am a grandfather, and when my oldest daughter has her second child (due any day) I will be a grandfather twice over! How can this be possible??

I suppose it’s just as possible as the opening line of my story – so let’s get back to it:

Once upon a time, about thirty years ago (now that’s experience right there! How many of my young opponents today were even alive then?) I played a young master named Jonathan Schroer. I was White, I was a little higher rated, I had a good personal score against him, I got into one of my favorite openings (the Four Pawns Attack in the King’s Indian) and … I only drew!! I was exceedingly annoyed!

The game started like this:

Taylor - Schroer

Somewhere, circa 1975

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.exd5 Nh5 10.0–0 Bxc3

Black’s point: he gives White doubled pawns, and aims for a closed, blockaded position – thus he is not afraid of giving up his King’s Indian Bishop.

11.bxc3 f5

Preventing any quick line opening.

12.Ng5 Ng7

Black is solid as a rock.

I flailed at Black’s solid position (a patient approach would have been better, even my last move, 12.Ng5, is decidedly too impetuous to my experienced eyes now) and got absolutely nowhere – Schroer just sat behind his pawn wall, and after I bashed my head against said wall for a while, I took a draw, to my considerable displeasure.

I went home, determined to find a way to an open, attacking position – and I found a little sacrifice! What happened then? Nobody played the 9…Nh5 line against me again!

So time goes by, and I’m sitting out in the sun at the Glendale Spring Open, on this very recent April 9, 2005, and what do I see? The Taylor - Schroer position on my board, in a tournament game, for the first time in thirty years!

Taylor - Dimercurio

Glendale Spring Open, 2005 (Round 2)

King’s Indian Defense [E77]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.exd5 Nh5

There’s the position! Remembering my old idea in an instant, I immediately played

10.Bd2!

My opponent, an 1800 player, almost as quickly accepted the sacrifice.

10...Bxc3?!

Now I have to jump ahead of my story a bit: when I got home after winning this game, and the tournament (I tied for first with the rising player Melikadamian) I looked up this position, and my “innovation” in the aptly named “Big Database.”

And there, to my shock, I discovered that my idea had been played, with success, by the strong Czech IM Josef Pribyl, back in 1970! (I would later defeat Pribyl in a tough game at the Eerbeck International, but we never discussed this opening!).

And even Pribyl was not the originator, for a Canadian player named Dennis Allan had played it all the way back in 1963!!

In other words, in 1975, when I was “inventing” this move, I was actually (in those pre-database, pre-internet days) reinventing a twelve-year-old innovation! In 2005, when I thought I was finally playing my innovation, I was replaying a forty-two year old line!

But at least I came up with the idea independently – I never saw a single one of the other Bd2 games (there are four in the Big Database) until after I had played Dimercurio.

Which brings us back to my fearless opponent, who, as I mentioned, very quickly decided to snatch a pawn. Let’s contrast this to the masters who faced 10.Bd2 in the database: not one took the pawn.

Two played 10… Bd4, and two played 10… Re8. The latter is a sound positional move, the former has an interesting tactical idea. Pribyl-Vukic took a particularly dramatic course: 10...Bd4 11.Nxd4 cxd4 12.Nb5 a6 13.Nxd4 Qh4+ 14.Kf1 Ng3+ 15.Kg1 Nxh1 16.Kxh1 Nd7 17.Nf3 Qf6 18.Qc1 Nc5 19.Bc3, when White has a pawn and strong Bishop for the exchange, and Pribyl went on to win after a difficult struggle.

But why did none of the masters take White’s offered pawn? The answer comes back to that word, experience: they knew, as a weaker player might not, that Black would suffer long term problems after accepting White’s gambit – let’s look at the position after two more logical moves, and see what I mean.

11.Bxc3

Clearly White’s idea, I didn’t play 10.Bd2 so I could get doubled pawns!

11…Nxf4

Likewise Black has no choice, since he has no positional compensation for White’s two Bishops unless he takes material.

12.0–0

The preceding comments show that this position is reached by force after the acceptance of the sacrifice. What does White have for the pawn?

First and foremost, the extremely powerful and unopposed White Q-Bishop. This piece alone gives me excellent kingside attacking chances, especially considering Black’s dark square holes on f6 and h6.

Next, because Black removed the White f-pawn, White now has a half open file bearing down on Black’s King.

Third, White has a small but significant lead in development; he can bring his Q-Rook quickly and easily into the game, while Black is a long way from a similar maneuver.

In human terms, I would annotate the position like this: White has excellent attacking chances, which outweigh the small material sacrifice.

Mr. Fritz puts it into numerical and symbol form, and says I have a .44 advantage, or +/=.

Now one sees why the masters who had faced 10.Bd2 before did not take the pawn: after a short forced sequence, White reaches a position full of play, while Black has nothing before him but painful defense.

This is the benefit of experience: the wiser player can feel the dangers of this position for Black. He’s probably lost a game sometime where an unopposed Bishop wreaked havoc; he’s probably won a game with a similar pawn sacrifice. He stays away from this kind of joyless position.

I am not knocking my opponent: this is just the sort of game that will give him the experience he needs – and I have to thank him for excellent material for this column!

12...Nd7 13.Qd2 Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2

As is well known, Bishops of opposite color favor the attacker: Black’s Bishop can never defend against mine.

14...Qe8

After14...Re8 15.Qf2 utilizes that open f-file, and Black is faced with myriad dangers, e.g. 15… f6 16.Rae1 Ne5 17.Nxe5 fxe5 (17… dxe5 18.Qxf6 is winning for White) 18.Qf7+ Kh8 19.Rxe5!! dxe5 (19...Rxe5 20.Re1 and mates) 20.Re1 Qe7 21.Rxe5 and mates.

15.Qd2?!

Not bad, but not the best either. This sidestep gives Black the tempo he needs to set up a block on e5, which gives him some chances of holding the game.

Instead, I could have increased my advantage nearly to decisive proportions with the straight forward, forcing and logical 15.Qxe8! Rxe8 16.Rae1! The idea is that Black can’t block the e-file with … Ne5, and he can’t contest the file either (16...Kf8 17.Bg7). So after 16...Rxe1 17.Rxe1 White controls the only open file and has a virtually unstoppable queenless middle game attack: here are a couple of illustrative lines:

* 17...Kf8 18.Ng5 Ne5 (18...h6? 19.Nh7+ Kg8 20.Re8+ Kxh7 21.Rh8 mate is a drastic exploitation of the long diagonal!) 19.Bxe5 dxe5 20.Rxe5 f6 21.Nxh7+ Kf7 22.Re2 Bg4 23.Rf2 Bf5 24.g4 Bxg4 25.Nxf6, ±.

* 17… f6 18.Nd2 18...f5 (18...Ne5 19.Ne4) 19.Nf3 b5 20.Ng5 Ba6 (20...b4 21.Re8+ Nf8 22.Bf6) 21.Re7, ±.

15...f6! 16.Rae1 Ne5 17.Qh6 Qe7 18.Nd2 Bf5 19.Ne4 Bxe4 20.Rxe4 Qg7 21.Qh4 Rae8 22.Bd2

White’s unopposed Bishop still gives him plenty of compensation, but there is nothing forcing. This leads to another observation about the nature of the sacrifice, and why the experienced player would have avoided it: White’s game is easier to play.

White can, as I just did, proceed with little threats like the joke on h6. There is also the chance of opening a file on the queenside with b4; Rooks might be doubled on the f-file, etc. White can shuffle around practically forever, always causing problems, while Black must be fiendishly alert to threats from every direction.

Sure, Korchnoi could defend this position at a regular time limit – but the average player in a thirty-minute game? Not a chance!

22…h5 23.b3

White waits …

23…Ng4?

And Black blunders! Black could dig in with 23...Rf7 24.Ree1 Ref8 25.a3, but White could play on both sides, as the last move indicates – I’d call that a slight edge for White.

Best might be the surprising 23...f5! trying for kingside counterplay at all costs.

After, for example, 24.Re3 Qf6 25.Qf4 Ng4! (but not 25...g5 26.Rg3 g4 27.Re3 Kg7 28.Bc3 Qh6 29.g3, +/=) 26.Bc3 g5 27.Bxf6 gxf4 28.Rxe8 Rxe8 29.Bg5 Kf7 30.Bxf4 Ne5, Black has reasonable drawing chances.

24.Rxe8

White is winning: the open f-file proves disastrous for my opponent.

24…Rxe8 25.h3 Ne5

Now the game enters a technical phase, where White reaches a R+B vs. R+N ending, which is clearly favorable to the first player.

During the game, I was hoping my opponent would try to avoid this with 25...Re2, when I could win with direct attack: 26.hxg4 Rxd2 27.Qe1! Rxa2 (27...Qh6 28.Rxf6) 28.Qe8+ Kh7 (28… Qf8 29.Qxg6+ Qg7 30.Qe8+ Qf8 31.Qe6+ Qf7 32.Rxf6 Qxe6 33.dxe6 Re2 34.gxh5) 29.Re1! and it’s easy to see that White wins the Queen however Black plays, e.g. 29… Qg8 30.Re7+ Kh8 31.Qd7 etc.

26.Qxf6

26.Rxf6!? is also playable, but in the absence of forcing variations, I went for the technically simple ending.

26...Qxf6

Or 26...Nf7 27.Bc3 Qxf6 28.Rxf6 g5 29.Re6 Rxe6 30.dxe6 Ne5 31.Bd2 g4 32.hxg4 Nxg4 (32...hxg4 33.Kf2 Kf8 34.Bf4 Ke7 35.Bxe5 dxe5 36.Kg3 Kxe6 37.Kxg4) 33.Bf4 Ne5 34.Kf2 Kf8 35.Bg5 and White’s Bishop dominates the hapless black Knight – note here the long term effects of White’s sacrifice, in that this powerful Bishop (the main raison d’etre for the pawn sac) is still earning his keep!

27.Rxf6

27…Kg7

27...Rd8 also loses simply to 28.Bc3 g5 (28… Kg7 29.Rxd6!) 29.Bxe5 dxe5 30.Rf5 Re8 31.Rxg5+ Kf7 32.Rxh5 Kg6 33.Rh4 Kf5 34.Rh7 b6 35.Kf2.

28.Rxd6 Re7 29.Bc3 Kf7 30.Bxe5

Spying a forced win, I finally give up the mighty Bishop!

30…Rxe5 31.Rd7+, 1-0 in view of 31… Re7 32.Rxe7+ Kxe7 33.h4 and the pawn ending presents no problems.

So the game ended, my pawn investment yielded full dividends, I sat back, quite pleased with myself – when a strange incident occurred: Another player came by and said something to the effect that I had blundered a pawn.

I thought he was joking, and replied lightly, “I try not to blunder the little guys, but I don’t mind sacrificing them!”

And my interlocutor, undeterred, said, “So you blundered, right?”

I took a good look at him and realized he was serious!

So I tried to explain a little about positional pawn sacrifices, but it was clear my words fell on deaf ears, so I soon gave up explaining, and just got ready for the next game!

Then, after the tournament, the strange little conversation continued to bother me. How could a player, even a weaker player, not realize that 10.Bd2 was a sacrifice? I don’t think my title gives me any magical powers, but it must be said that it is rare for any IM in the world to blunder a pawn in a known position on move 10!

So I speculated (I have no way of knowing if this is true or not) that my interlocutor thought the sacrifice was a blunder because there was no forced way to get the pawn back.

If that was his opinion, I began to wonder how many weaker players share that – and I thought that view (erroneous, in my opinion), in connection with the game, would make a good True Combat!

We have now made it all the way back to the title player of this article: Rudolf Spielmann! Mr. Spielmann was a great attacking player, renowned for his violent, intuitive sacrifices of pawns, pieces, even a famous speculative Queen sacrifice against Moeller. His book, The Art of Sacrifice in Chess, is justly celebrated as a classic, and I learn from it even today.

Spielmann differentiates between “sham” and “real” sacrifices: the former you get back, possibly with interest, after a forced series of moves, while in the latter, the outcome is unclear. You sacrifice material based on your judgment and experience, and trust that your positional compensation will justify your idea.

My 10.Bd2 is a real sacrifice. There is no way to verify its correctness mathematically; one must simply weigh up the positional factors, and make a decision.

This is how Spielmann puts it: “If each and every sacrifice had to be of that cast-iron soundness which can be verified by analysis, it would be necessary to banish from the game of chess that proud and indispensable prerogative of the fighter: enterprise. All real sacrifices would have to disappear; only the sham sacrifices, which are in effect not sacrifices at all, would be allowed to remain.”

Beautiful words!