Contents of ChessBase Magazine 98

By Frederic Friedel

The main database CBM 98

When you start the ChessBase Magazine 98 CD the contents appears as icons on the desktop of the ChessBase program or the ChessBase Reader supplied with the Magazine. If you are using Fritz or a Fritz-compatible program you must “Open” each database you want to see.

The main database of games is “98 CBM”. Double-clicking the icon will produce a list of 2410 games and four database texts, three of which appear at the top of the list.

One of the reports is the “Openings' Section Report”, which is worth a look. It gives you a list of blunders, combinations, attacking and strategic motifs. Clicking the games quoted will load them on the chessboard, and the program will jump to the position in which the motif occurred.

You can browse through the list of games, but it is better to click one of the tabs at the top to get a different overview. The most important tab here is “Tournament”. When you click it you get a list of the different tournaments included in this issue. If you right-click the list you can sort the tournaments according to name, place, nation, date, category, etc. “Category” sorts the strongest tournaments to the top.

Another way to access the games is by clicking on “Players”. Right near the top you will find the most successful of the bunch, Vishy Anand, who won the super-tournament in Wijk aan Zee. If you right-click his name and select “Statistics” you will get a display you may not have seen before.

As you can see the top tournaments were the Cap d'Agde A and B groups, each a category 19. Four players in each group qualified for the knock-out finals. In the A Group these were Kramnik, Ponomariov, Bacrot and Topalov (after a playoff against Gelfand); in the B Group it was Svidler, Grischuk, Anand and Judit Polgar. The table at the top of the page shows you how the knock-out phase ended:

Theory

Double-clicking the directory “Theory” in the database desktop of ChessBase opens up its contents, eight theory articles by openings experts. Double-clicking on any of them will open the database. At the top there is a theory article which you should load with a double-click.

In the theory articles there are usually many links to games. You can load these by simply clicking on the link (as in an Internet browser). You can also select games from the games list.

A57 Volga Gambit

Actually Jerzy Konikowski's article is entitled “A weapon against the Volga Gambit”. It deals with the position that arises after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5!? With this pawn sacrifice Black wants to open the a- and b-files on the queenside in order to exert strong pressure on the opponent's position on this side of the chess board. This aggressive plan enables him to successfully tie up White's forces, preventing him from developing initiative on the kingside. However, if Black does not succeed in getting compensation for the pawn (or pawns), the first player remains with a material advantage which usually means a clear victory. Despite many complications and imponderabilities, the text move has gained many followers since 3...b5 leads to a tense struggle with good counterchances for Black.

By the way where does the name “Volga Gambit” come from? In the second edition of the magazine “Schachmaty in USSR” 1946, there was an article by B. Argunow from Kuybyschew at the Volga river on the gambit continuation 3...b5!?. That's why the term “Volga Gambit” was suggested and found its way into Russian chess literature. This name was taken over by many countries in Europe. At the end of the sixties this idea was also promoted Pal Benko, the Hungarian grandmaster living in the USA, who provided many new suggestions. This is the reason why in chess literature, particularly in the English speaking countries, one can also find the term “Benko Gambit”.

Konikowski looks at the continuation 4.cxb5 (“the most principled reply: the gambit pawn is captured”) 4...a6 5.b6!?

His conclusion, drawn from extensive analysis and illustrated in 20 annotated games: “The continuation 5.b6!? is without doubt a strong weapon against the Volga Gambit. Above all, the first player avoids the complicated and far analysed variations arising after 5.bxa6 and channels the game into positions which are not “Volga-like”. In this system Black, who usually strives for initiative on the queenside, is confronted with completely different ideas. Thus, White dictates the tempo of play and determines which kind of struggle will arise on the board.” Konikowski also quotes grandmaster Alexey Dreev: “Having analysed and systematized the material, I have come to the conclusion that after 5.b6, at the moment Black has no secure way of obtaining equal play. Although by no means as popular as other lines against the Volga Gambit yet, my favorite continuation is thus worth of being taken up into the first league” (Schach/71999, page 53).

A63 Modern Benoni

“The alternative plan in the Fianchetto of the Modern Benoni” is the title of Albert Kapengut's article. The basic position of the Fianchetto System arises after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0 (the move order may differ)

White can either choose the knight's pirouette Nf3-d2-c4-(a3), or he can reject this time-consuming manoeuvre and complete development in various ways. According to statistics in about 30% of the games White avoids the transfer of the knight.

There are a number of plans for the first player, but the author limits this article to the key moves Bf4 for White and Qc7 for Black (including different moves orders). The flexible move order of this system gives both sides the opportunity of combining various ideas and determining their own plans depending on the opponent's setup. That's why it's complicated to explain the material in the traditional printed form. The ChessBase format allows the author to provide the reader with as much information as possible avoiding any loss of content.

Kapengut's conclusion: “The system is important for players who have reached it from other openings, for example the English Opening (one game came from E12!) and don't want to go for the classical plan Nf3-d2-c4. I would recommend paying attention not only to my improvements (which partially include funny tactics), but also to the move orders which sometimes differ from the ones in the model games! The analysis of material shows that the possibilities for both sides in this system are far from being exhausted. In my opinion, Black sometimes underestimates the possibility of fighting for the central squares by the advance c5-c4!?”

A84 Stonewall Variation

The variation dealt with by GM Evgeny Postny arises after the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 f5 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.Nge2 Bd6.

As can be seen from the opening moves, Black is building a typical “Stonewall” setup, while White adopts a somewhat unusual strategy. He develops his kingside knight to the passive square e2, where it does not control the important e5 square, but reserves for himself an option for f2-f3 followed by the advance e3-e4 which appears to be White's main course in this variation. This frequently leads to sharp positions, where the price of every move is high.

The articles as they appear in the database text screen of ChessBase

There are several strong players who use this scheme as White: K. Bischoff, V. Georgiev, Ibragimov, Volkov, Chiburdanidze etc. As for Black, this database includes the games of “Stonewall” experts like Tregubov, Krasenkow, Pr. Nikolic, Malakhov etc. There are 81 selected games in this database, 21 of them annotated by the author, at least the opening stage. His opinion: “Objectively speaking, Black has a lot of problems to solve in this opening variation. On the other hand he has sufficient resources to maintain the balance. If Black manages to solve the problem of space, he gets convenient play. For the White players it can be recommended to pay more attention to the plan connected with the c4-c5 advance, gaining space like in the game Kramnik-Tregubov. Many of the resulting positions are very complicated and require deep understanding and precise calculation.”

B19 Caro-Kann with 11...c5

IM Thomas Engqvist looks at the variation after the moves 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 Bh7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bd2 c5

The idea of 11...c5 is to develop the knight on b8 to c6 followed by quick queenside development so as to exercise strong pressure against the White centre pawn. If Black manages to liquidate the white centre and at the same time complete his development, he should have good prospects both in the middlegame and the endgame.

This variation could well be called the Campora variation, because the Argentinian grandmaster was the first player in the history to play it in serious tournament games. Campora tried the variation in two games in the period between 1982 and 1983, but was unsuccessful. The reason he scored only a half point out of two is not in the move itself, but rather the fact that he did not continue properly.

Postny's conclusion: “12.Ne4 is a stronger continuation for White and a more demanding move for Black to meet than the natural looking move 12.0-0-0, and thus should replace the main line. It seems Black has to play 12...cxd4!? 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6! to be able to eventually equalise the position. Still, there is too little practice from these positions and only future experience will tell the final verdict about the Campora variation.”

B78 Sicilian Dragon 10...Rb8

GM Dorian Rogozenko looks at the lines that arise after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rb8

This system does not have an “official” theory yet. It started to gain popularity after an interesting survey written by Luc Henris in New in Chess at the beginning of the year 2002, where the author entitled the whole variation starting with 10...Rb8 the “Chinese Dragon”. However, at that moment there were just few games available with 10...Rb8 and almost the entire survey was based on Henris' own analysis. Since then many games were played with it, and the present work is based mainly on the games from practice.

In the diagram position Black's idea is obvious – to support the advance of the b-pawn. Often, after b7-b5 followed by Nc6-e5(a5)-c4, the b-file will open and the rook will be perfectly placed on b8. But there are drawbacks as well. In the Sicilian Dragon White usually has the better control in the center, and the last move 10...Rb8 doesn't fight at all against White's supremacy here (the difference can be seen comparing it with the main lines, where the rook comes often to c5 in order to control central squares). Although the rook supports b7-b5, this advance is still sometimes connected with a pawn sacrifice. Finally, the pawn a7 is left without protection which can also play a role in certain lines.

In the diagram position White has several possibilities, but in fact only two of them can be considered as main options: 11.h4 and 11.Bb3. In order to avoid confusion it must be mentioned that the position after 11.Bb3 Na5 can also arise via the move order 10...Na5 11.Bb3 Rb8, which is briefly considered in some theoretical sources.

The Chinese Dragon is still developing, becoming more and more popular (from the total amount of available games, half were played in year 2003). Even lifetime Dragon adherents included it in their repertoire. Although some possibilities haven't been tested in practice yet, it's time to draw first conclusions about the whole variation.

E09 Catalan

GM Zoltan Ribli's analysis starts after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Qc2 c6 8.Rd1 b6 9.b3 Ba6 10.Nbd2 Rc8 11.e4 c5 12.exd5 exd5 13.Bb2

Ribli comes to the conclusion that “in general this is a very comfortable variation from White's point of view, because with two bishops on the long diagonals there is no great risk for him, whereas Black must be careful in his attempts to level the game. In the variation. 13...b5 it would be interesting to see more games featuring 14.b4. The variation 13...cxd4 is the sharpest one for Black, with the line 14.Nxd4 b5 15.Qf5 bxc4 16.bxc4 g6 the latest thing, leading to great complications and double-edged play; and 16...Nc5 also needs to be put to the test. The variation 13...Re8 14.Qf5 g6 15.Qh3 leads to an exciting position, but White appears to have better chances, whereas in the case of 13...Bb7 Black has excellent chances to equalize. The forthright continuation 13...dxc4 gives Black the better pawn structure, since White plays 14.bxc4 and because of the threat of 15.d5 Black has to take on d4. 14...cxd4, but after 15.Nxd4 White has a very active piece set up.”

E15 Queen's Indian with 5.Qb3

GM Alik Gershon looks into the opening that arises after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3

After failing to achieve anything real in other lines, White is returning to the 5.Qb3 in this opening. Black has many alternatives in this position (5...d5 – Ivanchuk,V-Anand,V draw, or the more solid continuation 5...c6 – Karpov,A - Leko,P draw, to name just two of them), yet his main reply has always been 5...Nc6 which was sufficient to obtain counterplay.

However, in the beginning of 2002 White came up with the setup 6.Nbd2 Na5 7. Qc3! (as opposed to 7.Qa4, which failed to yield White any advantage in the past). Black's only try to contest White's plan so far has been 7...c5. Although his results are fairly reasonable (50% in top level encounters), the position he achieves is hardly satisfactory. Therefore, Black turned to seek equality in other continuations, beginning with 6...d5. Anand is the most faithful adherent of this move, defending the black side with big success.

E94 King's Indian with 7...Na6

GM Boris Avrukh article deals with the variation after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Na6 8.Be3 Ng4 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.h3 f6!?

Avrukh writes: “Actually the continuation 11...f6 is Black's last word in this line. Before we start to examine the main lines of 11...f6, it should be noted that 11...h6 was Black's only reply for many years (recently we can see even 11...Nf6), and the position arising after 12.Bd2 Nf6 13.Be3 Qe7 was once the main tabya of the whole line starting with 8 Be3. In the diagram position the main priority for White is to develop his play on the queenside, while Black will try to seize the initiative on the kingside.

The variation gained popularity only since the year 2002, despite the fact that this line was first introduced as early as 1998 by the Spanish grandmaster Comas Fabrego (in my opinion one of the best experts of the whole 7...Na6 variation). Nowadays, this line is a frequent quest in tournament practice. There are many strong grandmasters, who use this variation consistently, viz. Piket, Movsesian, Motylev, Volokitin, Damljanovic and others. Furthermore, there are several top GMs who use this line as a surprise weapon, like Shirov, Radjabov and Svidler.”

In the opening database you will find 67 games, played mostly by strong players. The database includes 23 annotated games, 18 of them by the author and especially for this database.

Multimedia

On your CBM 98 CD there is a multimedia (video) interview with American GM Yasser Seirawan, conducted immediately after the Kasparov vs X3D Fritz match in New York last November.

The video clips provided in the multimedia report are in the somewhat antiquated Indeo 3.2 format. In the near future we will switch to modern codecs for our video reports and animated lectures. It is especially important that you are able to read Windows Media files (WMV and WMA). This will be no problem in newer computers, where the Media Player 9 is part of the Windows XP operating system. But it may be a hurdle on older machines.

To test whether this is the case we have put part of the Seirawan interview as a separate file on the CD. Please try starting the file yaz06.wmv on the root directory of the CD. It should open up the Windows Media player and give you a very high-quality video. If you are unable to start the file then you should download the (free) Media Player 9 from the Microsoft web site.

Strategy

GM Peter Wells presents part 3A of his series on Material Imbalances, dealing with Rook v Two Minor Pieces. Peter writes:

This is the final column in my mini-series. In common with the others, the battle between a rook and two minor pieces throws up complex questions involving the inter-play between material and positional considerations. Indeed, at least at this moment as I start to write, a little daunted by some of the material, I am tempted to suggest that it might be the most difficult (for the author even if not the player!). The relative neglect of this topic in the literature is probably one bit of evidence for this claim. Many of my usual favourite sources have rather drawn a blank. The most honourable exception was Mihail Marin's recent book Secrets of Chess Defence which not entirely surprisingly, but still interestingly, considers the topic in the context of defensive sacrifices. This is in a sense fair enough - using standard measures with a hint of modern sophistication should indicate that a rook would need more than one pawn, maybe about 1.5, in order to claim full material parity. On average a rook and a pawn is the most common exchange for two pieces and this can be seen as a slight material offer. Still, in addition to the usual caveats about the limitations of the numerical measures of material (albeit those which are intelligent enough to accept that the old-fashioned value of `3' for a minor piece does not on average quite do it justice) which I do not wish to dwell on again here, there really is a separate issue about the increased power of the rook as the position becomes simplified.

I alluded to this right back in CBM 78, and since this will be implicit throughout the column I think it worth briefly revisiting what I said there: `Since there are certain piece combinations the value of which is by no means regarded as constant through the game, it may not always be clear exactly when we are giving up material. The classic example is probably that the power of a rook in combat against a pair of minor pieces grows as material is reduced, that is as the endgame approaches (for essentially the same reason exchange sacrifices tend to be a middlegame phenomenon!)'.

Tactics

The combinations extracted by GM Valery Atlas deal with the “Art of Rook Sacrifice”. He presents 25 instances of games which were decided by spectacular rook sacrifices.

Endgame

Our endgame expert GM Hans-Joachim Hecht has selected 64 instructive endings. Apart from the obligatory pawn endings his database contains minor piece endings. A theme which always crops up is using the king in the endgame; this database is no exception. In addition Hecht has turned to two further themes. The first one is general in nature and concerns all sorts of endgames. This is the question of exchanging pawns, yes or no. The other is concerned with the sometimes crippling minor piece, the knight. These themes are subsumed under the title “Of active kings, pawns in search of an exchange and lame ducks”.

Fritz Forum

Peter Schreiner has written a comprehensive article on the Computer Chess World Championship in Graz (Austria). This was staged in November 2003 and had the best atmosphere and was the best organised computer chess world championship that had ever taken place under the aegis of the ICGA. The number of participants was low. In spite of the boom in engine development only 16 chess programs took part in the competition. Well-known programs such as Rebel, Hiarcs, Gandalf or The King were missing and missed.

The favourites were the local hero Chrilly Donninger with his hardware-software combination Brutus; Shredder, the current SSDF leader and several times world champion by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen; Fritz by Frans Morsch and Mathias Feist; and title defender Junior by Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky.

In this tournament Shredder and Fritz gave a demonstration of computer chess of the very highest level. In both programs there had been noticeable advances in development, and based on their performance, both Fritz and Shredder would have deserved to win the title. At the very end Stefan Meyer-Kahlen had that extra little piece of luck, which is necessary to win such a strongly contested tournament.

Telechess

The correspondence chess section contains an astonishing 4182 games from international tournaments.

In this connection it may interest you to know that the 16th International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) World Championship was won by Tunc Hamarat, with a remarkable 11/15 score. Hamarat was born on 1.12.1946 in Istanbul and lived in Turkey until 1972. In that year he moved to Austria in order to do a degree in physics at the Technical University of Vienna. Since then he has lived in Austria and for the last ten years been an Austrian citizen. In over-the-board chess Hamarat was in the finals of the Turkish championships three times. In Vienna he played in the top league.