Lesson 4.
Strategic ideas in piece-pawn centers I:
The problem of the fianchetto bishop in Marocy-like systems
Lecture by UMBC Chess Coach
Igor Epshteyn
The piece and pawn center structure (Marocy-like - by the name of
variant of Dragon system in Sicilian Defense) is characterized by
pawns c4 and e4 with half open file 'd' from White side, and pawns d6
and e7 and half open file 'c' from Black side. This structure can
arise from Sicilian, King-Indian Defense, Ben-Ony,
Pirc-Ufimtsev, English opening(reversed). Very close to this type of
positions are ones with Black pawn on c7 and open 'e' file that can
arise from King-Indian and some systems of open openings like Spanish
and Four Knights(non-Marocy), that in spite of the difference in
structure has sufficient influence on the upper mentioned
problem. That is why in this lecture we stress on Marocy-like
positions and will make notes about similar ideas in another one if
exists.
Both type of positions are also characterized by king flank fianchetto
bishop that means that king side bishop developed on the long
diagonal. The value of this bishop arises when:
- White castles to the long side and Black to the short. In this
case for Marocy-like system fianchetto bishop combines defense duties
of own king with targeting the position of enemy king.
- For non-Marocy systems with the different side castle but with
pawn on e5(long diagonal is closed),'bad' fianchetto bishop is also
valuable as defender when many pieces on a board and king's attack is
most obvious plan(like King-Indian Zemish).
- For Marocy-like systems fianchetto bishop is also vitally
important when both sides castled to the same king's flank, but plan
for king's attack from White is expected(majority of pieces is on the
board).
- For the both types of systems fianchetto bishop is important when
White can conceive an operations in center that can be sufficiently
effected by fianchetto bishop(black square operations or white square
if reversed).
The fianchetto bishop looses the value if:
- King side attack is not a reality because of exchange of most of
minor pieces.
- White provided typical plan of pieces replacement to the center
and king side and there are no targets on long diagonal for it.
- Both sides made short castle and providing the plans of pawn
advancing on queenside. In this case black-square White bishop can
support to the plan more effective than fianchetto bishop.
- Fianchetto bishop can sometimes be very effectively exchanged for
the knight on c3(c6 for reverse position), damaging the pawn
structure, if in this case one can avoid (or fade) king's attack and
create stacked pawn chains which devaluate the bishops in favor of the
knights(see the game Botvinnik-Goldenov). Game #1 Botvinnik-Goldenov
is exposition on the theme: real and imaginary weaknesses. In this
reversed Marocy-like structure White(Botvinnik) voluntarily exchanged
their 'good' fianchetto bishop for the knight but created damaged and
idle pawn structure. At this time the weaknesses of white square on
the king side were not as important as positional advantages because
the king was not castled yet. white managed to castle to another(long)
side and made this weaknesses imaginary. Then they blocked the Black
pawns on center from king side with dare move e4 creating second
imaginary weakness on d3.Black missed an opportunity for resistance
playing on template way (move the knight on d5 instead of d4). After
complications white technically perfect transformed of their
positional advantage in instructive king's attack.
- The second game is real masterpiece of 9th world champion
T. Petrosian, in which fianchetto bishop was exchanged in right
moment. In this game also was demonstrated imaginary strength of
aggressively placed but non-cohesive(not supportive for the real plan)
White pieces that was refuted by fine positional precise play.
Game 1:
Keres-Petrosian (Bled, 1959, Candidate's Tournament)
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 g6
5. c4 Bg7
6. Be3 Nf6
7. Nc3 Ng4
8. Qxg4 Nxd4
9. Qd1 Ne6
10. Qd2 d6
11. Be2 Bd7
12. 0-0 0-0
13. Rac1 Bc6
14. Rfd1 Nc5
15. f3 a5
16. b3 Qb6
17. Nb5 Rfc8
18. Bf1 Qd8
19. Qf2 Qe8
20. Nc3 b6
21. Rc2 Qf8
22. Qd2 Bd7
23. Nd5 Rab8
24. Bg5 Re8
25. Re1 Rb7
26. Qf2 Bc6
27. Qh4 f6
28. Be3 e6
29. Nc3 Rd7
30. Bd4 f5
31. exf5 gxf5
32. Rd2 Bxd4
33. Rxd4 Rg7
34. Kh1 Rg6
35. Rd2 Rd8
36. Red1 Rd7
37. Qf2 Qd8
38. Qe3 e5
39. f4 e4
40. Ne2 Rdg7
41. Nd4 Bd7
42. a3 Qa8
43. Kg1 h5
44. Rb1 h4
45. Rbb2 Rg4
46. Rf2 Qd8
47. b4 Rg3
48. hxg3 hxg3
49. Rfd2 Qh4
50. Be2 Rh7
51. Kf1 Qxf4
0-1
Game 2:
Botvinnik-Goldenov (Moscow, 1952, 20th USSR Championship)
1. c4 e6
2. g3 d5
3. Bg2 dxc4
4. Qa4 Qd7
5. Qxc4 c5
6. Na3 Nc6
7. Qb5 a6
8. Bxc6 bxc6
9. Qa4 Rb8
10. Nf3 f6
11. d3 Ne7
12. Nc4 e5
13. Bd2 Nd5
14. Ba5 Be7
15. e4 Nb4
16. 0-0-0 Qg4
17. Ne1 Bd7
18. a3 Nd5
19. Qc2 Rb5
20. f3 Qe6
21. Ng2 0-0
22. Rhe1 Rfb8
23. f4 Bf8
24. fxe5 fxe5
25. exd5 cxd5
26. Nf4 Qh6
27. Rxe5 dxc4
28. Rh5 Qf6
29. Bc3 Qf7
30. dxc4 g6
White resigned after 35 moves
Homework 1 (Position 1):
Botvinnik-Goldenov (Moscow, 1952, 20th USSR Championship)
Position from Game 2 after White's 15th move:
Questions:
- Identify all weaknesses in the pawn structure
for each side. Which of these weaknesses
are real, and which are imaginary?
- How would you complete Botvinnik's attack after move 30?
Homework 2 (Game 3):
M. Stangl-V. Korchnoi (Garmish-Partenkirchen, 1994)
1. c4 c5
2. Nf3 g6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nc6
5. e4 Nf6
6. Nc3 d6
7. Nc2 Bg7
8. Be2 Nd7
9. 0-0 Bxc3
10. bxc3 Nc5
11. f3 Qa5
12. Qe1 Be6
13. Bh6 Na4
14. Bg7 Rg8
15. Bd4 0-0-0
16. Nb4 Kb8
17. f4 Nxd4
18. cxd4 Qb6
19. Qd2 Ka8
20. f5 gxf5
21. exf5 Bc8
22. Nd5 Qc6
23. Bf3 Qd7
24. Rab1 e6
25. Nf6 Qc7
26. Nxg8 Rxg8
27. Rfc1 e5
28. Qb4 Qd7
29. c5 dxc5
30. dxc5 Qd4
31. Kh1 Kb8
32. Rc4
1-0
Questions:
- Comment on Black's 12th move Be6. What is Black's plan?
Is this move consistent with this plan?
- Comment on Black's 13th move Na4.
Design possible plans for Black.
- Find an opportunity for Black resistance after White's
17th move f4.
- Comment on Black's 18th move Qb6.