Chess Informant - Monthly column 69

The Best of Chess Informant
Viswanathan Anand

Zdenko Krnic

“In the 1980's in India chess information was very difficult to come by. You had to wait for a month or sometimes two before you could get the chess informants. If I was at an international event sometimes we used to wait in line just to look at the latest games or read the latest informant.

My parents were aware of that. My mother travelled in me to Thessaloniki in 1984. This was the first time I was to play in the Indian team. When we saw that I would share the hall with other great legends, my mother was extremely proud that I was to play there. I casually mentioned to her that I would never even dream that my games could be published in the Informant. She chased Milutin and persevered until he agreed to have a game of that Indian boy who played fast. If I am not mistaken they carried a game of mine from Thessaloniki. The first game I did for them was with Deen Hergott.

This was the first game I analysed for Chess Informant. Over the years I have used chess informant for the quality of the analysis and reference material like ECOs and ECEs. When I played in the World Junior in Kiljava 1984, there was a big queue outside the door of Mark Condie because he had a copy of the latest Informant 36! Remembered seeing the game Tukmakov - Dreev there before giving it to the next boy in the queue. This was game 36/449.”

Viswanathan Anand

This is how the current world champion Viswanathan Anand describes the beginning of our twenty-five year collaboration in the foreword of our latest CD: The Best of Chess Informant - Viswanathan Anand. From the rich treasury of Anand’s creative output, this article brings you a small sampling of what the CD has to offer for your chess enjoyment.

Anand has provided an enormous contribution to the development of chess theory. From the abundance of novelties he introduced, the eighth game of his match against Kasparov in New York 1995 is very important, as he played the move 9…g5 for the first time in a very popular variation of the Scotch game. In the thirteen years that followed, many games were played in this continuation, all of which can be found in the theoretical survey below.

C 45

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc6 bc6 6. e5 Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. c4 Ba6 9. b3 g5
	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	h4¹	Bb2	Nd2³	hg5⁵	Qg4	0-0-0	Nf3	Kb2	gf6	equal
1	Bg7	0-0-0²	Rde8⁴	Nf4	Be5	f6	Bb2	Ne6	Qf6⁶	equal
2	Ba3	ed6⁸	Be2	cd5	Ke2	Rc1⁹	Rc6	Nd2	Kd3	equal
2	d6⁷	Qe2	Bg7	Be2	Ba1	0-0-0¹⁰	Rd7¹¹	Re8	Re5¹²	equal
3	g3	Bb2	Nd2¹³	Qh5¹⁵	h4	Kd1	a3¹⁷	Rg1¹⁹	Bd3	and White is slightly better
3	Bg7	0-0	f6¹⁴	Nb4	g4¹⁶	c5	Bb7¹⁸	Nc6	f5²⁰	and White is slightly better
4	. . .	. . .	Nd2²¹	Nf3²³	a3²⁵	ab4²⁶	Qe3	Bc3	Bb4	with compensation
4	. . .	0-0-0	Nb4²²	Rhe8²⁴	g4	gf3	Qb4	Re5	Re3²⁷	with compensation
5	. . .	. . .	Bg2	0-0	Qe5	Be5	cd5	Kf1	Nc3³⁰	unclear
5	. . .	. . .	Rde8²⁸	Be5²⁹	Qe5	Re5	Bf1	cd5	c6³¹	unclear

10. Qe4 Bg7 11. Bb2 Nf4 12. h4 0-0-0 equal, see 10. h4

11... Nf4 12. Qe3 h6

a) 13. g3 Ng6 14. f4 gf4 15. gf4 h5 [15... Nh4 16. Nd2 c5 17. Qg3 Ng6 18. Bg2 0-0-0 19. Qf3 c6 20. Ne4 Nh4 21. Qh3 Ng2 22. Qg2 Rhg8 unclear; Duarte – Hungaski, Mar del Plata 2006] 16. Bd3 Bh6 17. e6 0-0 18. Rg1 Qe6 19. Qe6 de6 20. Nd2 Kh7 21. Ne4 Bf4 22. Ng5 Bg5 23. Rg5 Kh6 24. Bf6 with compensation; Van der Wiel – M. Erwich, Amsterdam 2002;

b) 13. Nd2 Ng6 14. Nf3 gh4 [14... g4 15. h5 gf3 16. hg6 fg6 17. gf3 and White is superior; Ten Hertog – Mannion, Cappelle la Grande 2006] 15. 0-0-0 0-0 16. Qd4 Rad8 17. Qa7 Ne5 18. Qc7 Nf3 19. Bg7 Qg5 20. Kc2 Kg7 21. gf3 d5 22. Rd4 Bc8 23. Rhh4 and White is superior; Smeets – Timman, Amsterdam 2002;

11... h6 12. Qe4 [12. Nd2 0-0-0 13. 0-0-0 Rde8 14. g3 Nb6 15. f4 Bb7 16. hg5 hg5 17. Rh8 Bh8 18. Nf3 gf4 19. gf4 and White is slightly better; Dworakowska – Vijayalakshmi, Moscow 2001] Nb6 13. hg5 hg5 14. Rh8 Bh8 15. Nd2 d5 16. Qe3 dc4 17. Nc4 Bc4 18. Bc4 Nc4 19. bc4 and White is slightly better; Smeets – Jonkman, Amsterdam 2002

12. Qe4 Nf4 13. hg5 Qg5 14. Nd2 d5 15. Nf3 Qg4 16. Nh2 Qg5 17. Nf3 Qg4 equal B. Savchenko – Khruschiov, Moscow 2005

12... Nb4 13. 0-0-0 c5 [13... Na2 14. Kb1 Nb4 15. Qe3 (G. Staf – D. Borisenkov, corr. 2003) c5 16. hg5 with the idea f4 and White is superior; G. Giorgadze] 14. a3 Nc6 15. hg5 Qg5 16. Rh5 Qe7 17. f4 and White is superior; S. Bermudez – Murillo, San Jose (zt) 2004

13. 0-0-0 Nf4 14. Qe4 Be5 1/2 : 1/2 St. Kristjansson – Belov, Hastings 2005/06

19. Kb1 Bb7 20. Bd3 Reg8 21. Qh4 Qh4 22. Nh4 c5 23. Rh2 Nf4 24. Bf5 Bc6 25. Rd2 Re8 26. Rh1 Re7 equal; Palac – G. Giorgadze, Pula 1997 see 70/299

10... c5 11. g3 Nb4 12. Bg2 0-0-0 13. 0-0 Bg7 14. Bb2! with the idea a3 and White is superior; Anand;

10... Qa3 11. Na3 Bb4 12. Qd2 Bd2 13. Kd2 Nf4 14. h4 g4 15. g3 Ng6 16. Re1 h5 17. c5 Bf1 18. Rhf1 and White is slightly better; Ganguly – Vladimirov, Hyderabad 2000

11. Qe4?! Bg7 12. Bb2 Nb4 13. a3 f5 [13... d5? (Sutovsky – Azarov, Internet 2004) 14. Qe2! and White is winning] 14. Qf5 Be5 15. Be5 Rf8 16. Qe4 Rf4 17. Qe2 Nd3 18. Qd3 Qe5 19. Be2 Qa1 and Black is superior; H. Tiemann – K. Sakai, corr. 2001

15. dc6 cd6 16. Nd2 Be5 17. Ne4 Ke7 18. Ng5 Rac8 19. Nf3 Ke6 20. Rc1 Rc7 21. g3 h6 22. Nd2 Rhc8 23. f4 Bg7 24. f5 Kf5 25. Nc4 Rc6 26. Nd6 1/2 : 1/2 Charbonneau – Khassanov, Canada (m/1) 2000

15... cd5 16. Rc7 and White is superior;

15... cd6 16. Rc6 Be5 17. Nd2! with the idea Nc4 and White is superior;

15... Be5 16. Rc6 Bd6 17. Bd6 cd6 18. Na3 Kd7 19. Nc4 and White is superior; Anand

16... Rhe8 17. Kd3 Rd7

a) 18. Nc3 Re5 [18... Bc3?! 19. Kc3 Re5 20. Kc4 Re4 21. Kd3 Re5 22. Kc4 Re4 1/2 : 1/2 Kasparov – Anand, New York (m/8) 1995 see 64/293] 19. Nb5 Rd5 20. Kc4 Rd2 21. Bc5! Be5! unclear; Anand;

b) 18. Nd2 see 16... Rd7

18... Be5 19. Nc4

a) 19... Bh2 20. g3 Kb7 21. Na5 Kc8 22. Rc1 with the idea Rh1 and White is winning;

b) 19... Kb7 20. g3! f6 21. Bc5 cd6 22. Be3! g4 23. Na5 Ka8 24. Ra6 Ree7 [24... Rb8 25. Nc6 Rbb7 26. b4 f5 27. a4 Bf6 28. Kc4 h5 29. b5 Rdc7 30. b6 Rc8 31. Kb5 h4 32. Na7 1 : 0 Ganguly – Vijayalakshmi, Kolkata 2000] 25. b4 f5 26. b5 Rf7 27. b6 h5 (Szieberth – Peredy, Magyarorszag 1996 see 69/298) 28. ba7 with the idea Nc4 and White is winning;

c) 19... Kd8 20. Bb4! cd6 21. Bd6 Bd6 22. Nd6 Re5 23. Kd4 f6 24. b4 Rc7 25. Ra6 Re2 26. Ne4 and White is superior; Szieberth;

18... Re5! 19. Nc4 Rd5 20. Ke4 Rd4 21. Ke3! f5! 22. Bc5 Re4 23. Kd3 Kb7 24. Rc7 Rc7 25. dc7 Kc7 26. Ba7 Rh4! [26... Re1 27. a4 (Motylev – Shirov, Moscow (m/2) 2001 see 83/301) Rc1 28. Bb6 Kb8 equal] 27. h3 g4 28. hg4 Rg4 29. Ne3 Rg8 30. Bd4 Bd4 31. Kd4 Rd8 32. Ke5 Rd2 equal Shirov

12. Bg2 Rae8 [12... f6 13. Qd2! Nb6 14. 0-0 fe5 15. Ba3 d6 16. Bc6 and White is superior; Makropoulou – B. Trabert, Pula 1997 see 71/(320)] 13. 0-0 Be5 [13... Nb6 14. Re1 f6 unclear; G. Livshits – Jirka, Olomouc 2001] 14. Qe5 Qe5 15. Be5 Re5 16. cd5 Bf1 17. Kf1 cd5 18. Nd2 c6 19. Nf3 Rf5 20. Nd4 Rf6 21. Re1 Kg7 22. Re7 1/2 : 1/2 A. Murariu – Zhao Zong-Yuan, Oropesa del Mar 1998

12... Nb4 13. 0-0-0 Na2 14. Kb1 Nb4 15. h4 Rae8 (Kotrotsos – Kokolias, Athens 2004) 16. hg5 Qg5 17. Ne4 Qg6 18. Rh4 and White is superior; 15... d5!?;

12... Rfe8 13. 0-0-0 Nb6 14. f4 gf4 15. gf4 f6 16. Re1 fe5 17. fe5 and White is slightly better; Nataf – Pelletier, Bermuda 1999

13. ef6 Bf6 14. Qe7 Ne7 15. Bf6 Rf6 16. Bh3 and White is slightly better

14... Qe8 15. Qe8 Rae8 16. 0-0-0 Na2 17. Kb1 Nb4 18. Ne4 fe5 19. Rd7! Bc8 20. Rc7 Bf5 21. Bg2 Nd3 22. Ba3 and White is superior

16. Bg2 Rae8 17. Be4 f5 18. Bf5 Rf5 19. Qf5 Rf8

a) 20. Qg5 Qg5 21. hg5 Rf2 22. Bc3 Bb7 with compensation Ganguly – Vladimirov, Kolkata 2001; 21... Nd3 and Black is superior;

b) 20. Qg4! Nd3 21. Kc2 Nf2 22. Qg5 Qg5 23. hg5 Nh1 24. Rh1 equal; Postny

16... Nc6? 17. Bd3 f5 18. Bf5 Be5 19. Re1 d6 20. Be4 Bb7 21. Qg4 Qg7 22. Bd5 Kh8 23. Be5 de5 24. Qg7 Kg7 25. Ne4 and White is winning; Kasparov – P. Nikolic, Linares 1997 see 69/299

17. f3 Nc6 18. Bd3 f5 19. Bf5 Rf5 20. Qf5 gf3 21. Qf3 Na5 22. Qf1 Rf8 23. Qe1 Bh1 24. Qh1 Nc6 25. Qd5 Kh8 26. Nf3 Ne5 27. Ne5 d6 28. Ke2 and White is slightly better

19. Bf5 Be5 20. Re1 d6 21. Qg4 Kh8 22. Be5 Ne5 23. Qh5 Qg7 24. Ra2 and White is slightly better; Kasparov

12. Qe4 f5 13. Qf5 Rhf8 14. Qe4

a) 14... Qb4 15. Nd2 Nc3 [15... Rf2 16. Kf2 Qd2 17. Qe2 and White is superior; Sax – Bacrot, Balatonbereny 1996] 16. Qe3 Be5! 17. Ba3! Qa3 18. Qa7 Qb4 19. Qa8 Qb8 20. Qa6 Qb7 21. Qb7 Kb7 with compensation;

b) 14... Nf6 15. Qe2 Ng4! 16. Qg4 Be5 17. Qe2 Bb2 18. Qe7 Rde8 19. Qe8 Re8 20. Kd2 Ba1 21. Bd3 Bd4 22. f3 h6 23. Nc3 Kd8 equal Charbonneau – Khassanov, Canada (m/3) 2000

12... Rde8 13. 0-0-0 Nb6 14. f4 Kb8 15. Kb1 Bb7 16. Ne4 h6 17. Qc2 Rhg8 18. Bg2 gf4 19. gf4 c5 20. Ng3 and White is superior; Nataf – Je. Netzer, France 2004;

12... f5 13. ef6 Qe2 14. Be2 Nf6 15. 0-0-0 Rhe8 16. Bd3 Re7 17. Rde1 Rde8 18. Re7 Re7 19. f3 and White is slightly better; Maksimenko – Jenni, Deutschland 2006;

12... Rhe8 13. 0-0-0 Nb6

a) 14. f4 gf4 15. gf4 f6 16. ef6 Bf6 17. Qe7 Bb2 18. Kb2 Re7 19. Bh3 [19. a4 Kb8 20. a5 Nc8 21. c5 Kb7 equal Hector – Timman, Malmoe 2001 see 82/(296)] Rf8 20. Rhe1 Re1 21. Re1 Kd8 22. f5 and White is slightly better; Rublevsky – Ponomariov, Foros 2006;

b) 14. h4 g4 [14... Be5 15. Qe5 Qe5 16. Be5 Re5 17. hg5 Rg5 18. Rh7 and White is superior; A. Bartsch – W. Clews, corr. 2001] 15. Qg4 Be5 16. Qf5 and White is slightly better

13. Kd1 c5 [13... d5? 14. a3 dc4 15. ab4 Qb4 16. Kc1 and White is winning] 14. Bg2 Bb7 15. Bb7 Kb7 16. f4 [16. a3 Nc6 17. f4 d6 and Black is superior; Bohlke – M. Poulsen, Kobenhavn 2003] d6 17. Qe4 (Gaston – Verat, Paris 2001) Nc6 and Black is superior;

13. 0-0-0 Na2 14. Kb1 Nb4 15. Qe3 c5 16. Ne4 Bb7 17. Bh3 f5 18. Bf5 Rhf8 19. Bh3 Be5 20. Rhe1 Bd4 1/2 : 1/2 Arizmendi Martinez – Je. Baron Rodriguez, Espana 2003;

13. Qe4 Rhe8 [13... Bb7 14. Rg1? c5 15. Qf5 Rhe8 16. f4 gf4 17. gf4 Qh4 18. Kd1 Bh6 19. Rg4 Qh2 and Black is superior; Rantanen – O. Sepp, Suomi 1997; 14. Bg2 equal] 14. f4 gf4 15. gf4 f5 16. Qf5 Rf8 17. Qh7 Rf4 18. Rg1 Qc5 19. Rg7 Qe3 20. Kd1 Rf2 21. Bc1 Qd4 22. Bh3 Qe5 23. Re7 Qa1 24. Rd7 Rdf8 25. Rd8 Kb7 26. Rf8 Rf8 27. Qe7 Na2 28. Qf8 Qc1 29. Ke2 (Simacek – Jenni, Brno 2006) Qg1 and White is slightly better; 18... Rf7 with compensation

13... g4? 14. Nh4 Qg5 [14... Be5 15. Qe5 Qe5 16. Be5 Rhe8 17. Kd2 Re5 18. a3 and White is winning] 15. a3 Nd5 [15... Be5 16. f4! Bb2 17. fg5 Rhe8 (Wang Hao – Jenni, Calvia (ol) 2004) 18. Kd2 Re2 19. Be2 Ba1 20. Ra1 and White is winning] 16. Qd2 and White is superior;

13... c5 14. Bg2 g4 [14... Rhe8 15. 0-0 Bb7 16. Rfe1 Kb8 17. Qd2 h6 18. a3 Nc6 19. Rad1 Qf8 20. h3 Qh8 21. b4 and White is slightly better; Goloshchapov – Sepman, Saint Petersburg 1996; 14... Bb7 15. a3 Nc6 16. 0-0 h5 17. Rfe1 h4 18. Bc3 Rde8 19. Rad1 hg3 20. hg3 Nd8 21. Rd3 Ne6 22. Red1 and White is slightly better; Kovchan – Potapov, Noyabrsk 2003] 15. Nh4 Be5 16. 0-0 Rhe8 17. Rae1 (K. van der Weide – C. Richter, Nederland 2005) Bd6 equal

14. Bh3

a) 14... c5 15. 0-0 [15. Bg4 f6 16. Bh5 fe5 17. Be8 Re8 18. 0-0 Bb7 19. Rfe1 e4 20. Rad1 g4 21. Nh4 e3 22. Bg7 Qe4 23. fe3 Qh1 24. Kf2 Qh2 25. Kf1 Qg3 26. Ng2! Re7 27. Qf2 (only move) Qf2 28. Kf2 g3 29. Kg1 Rg7 unclear; Motylev – Jakovenko, Russia (ch) 2001] h5 16. Bg2 Bb7 17. Rfe1

a1) 17... f6 18. Qd2 fe5 19. Ne5 [19. Be5 g4 20. Bb2 Qf8 21. Re8 Re8 22. Bg7 Qg7 23. Re1 Re1 24. Ne1 Qa1 25. Qe2 Bf3 26. Bf3 gf3 27. Qe4 c6 28. Kf1 Qa2 1/2 : 1/2 Nataf – E. Perelshteyn, Montreal 2005] Bg2 20. Kg2 Qf6 21. a3 Na6 22. Rad1 and White is slightly better;

a2) 17... d6 18. Qf1 Qf8 19. Rad1 1/2 : 1/2 Nataf – Mikhalevski, Montreal 2005;

b) 14... h5! 15. a3

b1) 15... g4 16. ab4 gf3 17. Qf3 Qb4 18. Kf1 Bb7 19. Ra7 c5 20. Ra8 Ba8 21. Qa8 Qb8 22. Qa1 Qb7 [22... c6? 23. e6 Bb2 24. ed7 Rd7 25. Qb2 and White is winning; Baklan – N. V. Pedersen, Bruxelles 2000] 23. Bg2 c6 unclear;

b2) 15... Nd5! 16. Qd2 g4 17. cd5 Qc5 and Black is superior; G. Jones – Gajewski, Hersonissos 2007

15. Nh4 Be5 16. 0-0-0 Na2 17. Kc2 Qf6 18. Be5 Re5 19. Qd2 Rde8!! 20. Kb1! Re2! 21. Qd7 Kb7 22. Be2 Re2 23. Rd2 Qf2! with compensation; Macieja – Kallio, Stockholm 1999/2000 see 78/334

19. fe3 Ba1 20. Bh3 Be5 21. 0-0 Bb7 22. Rd1 c5 23. Bc5 Bc6 24. Kf2 with compensation; Rublevsky – A. Onischuk, Foros 2007 see 100/(215)

12... h5 13. 0-0 Kb8 14. Nd2 Nb6 15. Rfe1 d5 16. Nf3 c5 17. Qe3 Bh6 18. Qc3 d4 19. Qa5 Bb7 20. Ba3 Bf8 21. Rad1 and White is superior; Voitsekhovsky – D. Lobzhanidze, Moscow 1999;

12... Rhe8 13. 0-0 Be5 14. Qe5 Qe5 15. Be5 Re5 16. cd5 Bf1 17. Kf1 cd5 18. Nc3 [18. Nd2 g4 19. f4 Rh5 20. Kf2 c6 21. Nf1 Rg8 equal Ju. Zorko – De Val, Nova Gorica 2004] c6

a) 19. Rd1 Kc7 [19... Rde8 20. Bf3 R8e6 21. b4 Rh6 22. Kg2 Rhe6 23. Kf1 Rh6 24. Kg2 Rhe6 25. Kf1 1/2 : 1/2 Bergstrom – Landgren, Sverige 2002] 20. Bf3 Rb8 21. Rd4 a5 22. Ra4 Rbe8 23. Ra5 Re1 24. Kg2 f5 25. h3 Ra1 26. Ne2 Kd6 unclear; M. Erwich – Jonkman, Amsterdam 2002;

b) 19. Rc1 Kb8 20. Bf3 [20. Na4 Kc7 21. Nc5 Rde8 22. Bf3 Kd6 23. Nb7 Kc7 24. Nc5 equal Fercec – Nikcevic, Cannes 1996] f5 21. h3 Rg8 22. Ne2 Kc7 23. Rd1 g4 24. Bg2 a5 25. Nf4 Rge8 26. f3 a4 1/2 : 1/2 Kotsur – Tishin, Tula 2001

13... Nb6 14. Re1 f6 [14... Bb7 15. Nd2 Kb8 16. Rac1 h5 17. h3 Rh6 18. Nf1 and White is slightly better; Kotsur – E. Egorov, Yekaterinburg 1997] 15. e6 Qe6 16. Qe6 Re6 17. Re6 de6 18. Bc6 Rd8 equal Galyas – Van Zyil, Duisburg 1992

18. Nd2 g4 19. b4 Rhe8 20. Nb3 c6 21. Nd4 Kc7 22. Rc1 Kd6 equal; A. Murariu – Slavina, Budapest 2005

19. Ne2 h5 20. Nd4 f6 21. Rc1 Kb7 22. f4 Ree8 23. Kf2 h4 24. g4 Kb6 unclear, with counterplay; R. Mamedov – Jenni, Calvia (ol) 2004;

19. Rc1 Kd8 [19... Kb7 20. Na4 Re7 21. Nc5 Kb6 22. Bf3 d6 23. Nd3 a5 24. Bg2 Ra8 25. a4 Raa7 26. Bf3 h6 27. h3 f6 28. Kg2 1/2 : 1/2 Kreiman – G. Giorgadze, Ubeda 1999]

a) 20. Bf3 h5 21. Be2 Ke7 [21... h4 22. g4 f5 23. Na4 Rhe8 24. Bf3 unclear; Markus – Lanin, corr. 2002] 22. Bd3 f5 23. Ne2 h4 unclear; Ruan Lufei – N. Kosintseva, China – Russia 2007;

b) 20. h3 h5 [20... Rhe8 21. Bf3 Ke7 22. Na4 Kd6 23. Nb2 R5e7 24. Nd3 a5 25. Bg4 Rf8 26. Bf5 h6 equal; Macieja – Delchev, Budapest 2000] 21. Na4 Kc7 [21... f5 22. f4 Re3 23. Rc3 Rc3 24. Nc3 gf4 25. gf4 Kc7 unclear; Afromeev – Tishin, Tula 2004] 22. Nb2 h4 23. Nd3 Ree8 24. g4 Kd6 unclear; Protaziuk – Potapov, Pardubice 2005

It is well-known that Anand calculates very quickly and can find even the most hidden tactical opportunities straightaway. In the position below, although Lautier did not find the best possible defense after the introductory sacrifice 1.h6!!, the move 2.Bg6!! impressed me greatly.

Anand 2765 – Lautier 2660
Biel 1997 — 70/89
I c

1. h6!! gh6? [1... Ne3 (only move) 2. Be3 Qe5 3. hg7 Rg8 4. Qc1 (4. Bh6 Qh2!; 4. Qg1 Bf3 5. Kf3 and White is superior) Bf3 (4... Qh2 5. Bf4 Qh3 6. Qa3! and White is winning) 5. Qa3 Qh2 6. Kf3 Qh3 7. Ke2 Qg4 8. Kd2 Qh4 9. Qc3 c5 10. Ra7 and White is superior] 2. Bg6!! Ne7 [2... Qe3 3. Be3 fg6 4. Bc5 and White is winning; 2... Qf6 3. Bf7 Qf7 4. Rf7 Ne3 5. Qd8! (5. Qe2 Nd1 6. Kg2 Kf7 and White is slightly better) Kd8 6. Be3 Bh3 7. Ra7 and White is winning] 3. Qd4 Rd4 4. Rd3! Rd8 5. Rd8 Kd8 6. Bd3! [6... Bh1 7. Bb2 Re8 8. Bf6 and White is winning] 1 : 0 [Anand]

In the next position, Anand capitalized on his attacking position through a series of combinatory moves.

Anand 2762 – Bologan 2641
New Delhi (m/2) 2000 — 80/379
I c

1. Nf6! Re5 [1... Rd8 2. Nh7! Kh7 3. g6! Kg8 (3... fg6 4. Qh4 and White is winning) 4. Qh4 fg6 5. Qd8 and White is winning] 2. g6! fg6 [2... gf6? 3. Qf6 Bg7 4. Qd8 and White is winning; 2... h6 3. gf7! (3. Nh7 Kg8! 4. Bc2 with the idea Rb1 and White is slightly better) g5 (3... Rf7? 4. Qh6!) 4. Ne8 Bf5 5. Nc7 gf4 6. Rg8 Kh7 7. Ne8! Bh3 8. Kh3 Rh5 9. Kg4 Rg5 10. Kf3 Rg6 11. e5 and White is winning; 2... hg6 3. Qh4 Rh5 4. Nh5 gh5 5. Bc2! (5. Qh5 Kg8 6. Bc2 Nb4 7. Rb1 Nc2 8. Rb2 cb2 9. Rb3 Nd4) g6 6. Rb1 Qa2 7. Qd8 Kg7 8. Rb8! and White is winning] 3. Nd7! Be7 4. Ne5 de5 5. Qf7 h6 6. Qe8 1 : 0 [Anand]

In the position below, the move 1.Qd6 looks very attractive; however, Black wins by a knight sacrifice and king breakthrough. It is necessary that White first plays 1.Kg1!! and gets the escape square f1.

Anand 2720 – Shirov 2740
Buenos Aires 1994 — 62/163

1. Kg1!! [1. Qd6? Ndf3 2. Kh1 Kf4!! (2... Rg2 3. Qf6 Kh5 4. Qf3 equal) 3. gf3 Nf3 4. Qd3 Ra2 5. Qf1 Kg3! and Black is winning, with the idea h5; 1. Qh7? Rg2 2. Kh1 Kf4 and Black is superior] Kf4 2. Qd6 Rg2 3. Kf1 Ndf3 4. Ne5! (equal) Rg1 5. Kf2 Rg2 1/2 : 1/2 [Anand]

After a brilliant novelty in a well-known position of the Ruy Lopez, Anand’s attack was indefensible.

Anand 2788 – Adams 2719
San Luis 2005 — 94/267

1. Nh6! Bh6 2. Qh6 Qf2 [2... Be4 3. Ng5 (3. Be3 Bf3 4. Bd3 Nd3 5. Bb6 Re1 6. Kh2) Qf2 4. Kh2 Ne1 5. Qh7 Kf8 6. Ne4 Qd4 7. Rg6! Re4 8. Be4 Qe5 9. Kh1 Nf3 10. Bf3 and White is winning] 3. Kh2 Ne1 [3... Nc1 4. ed5! Ncd3 5. Re6! and White is winning] 4. Nh4 (only move) Ned3 [4... Re6 5. ed5 Rf6 (5... Re2 6. Bg6) 6. Ng6 fg6 7. Rg6 Rg6 8. Qg6 Kf8 9. Qd6 Kg8 10. Qg6 Kf8 11. Bh6 Ke7 12. Bg5 Kd7 13. Qe6 Kc7 14. d6! Kb7 (14... Kb6 15. Be3) 15. Be4 Kb6 16. Ba8 and White is winning; 4... Nf3 5. Nf3 Be4 6. Be4 Re4 7. Ng5 and White is winning; 4... Ra7 5. Nf5! (5. Ng6? Qg3! 6. Kg3 fg6) Qg3 (only move) 6. Ng3! Bc6 7. Bg5 Re6 8. e5! de5 9. Nh5! and White is winning] 5. Ng6 Qg3 6. Kg3 fg6 7. Qg6 Kf8 8. Qf6 Kg8 9. Bh6 [9... Ra7 10. Qg6 and White is winning] 1 : 0 [Anand]

Today much has changed in the approach to chess compared to the first half of the last century. The following example well illustrates how the current generation of chess players unhesitatingly sacrifices material to obtain the initiative.

Anand 2770 – Kamsky 2790
Monaco (blindfold) 1998 — 72/(152)

1. b4!? ab4 2. a5 ba5 3. Bc5 Bh6! 4. Qb1 Qc7 5. Ra4 Bd2 6. Nd2 Rfb8 7. Qa1 Qd8 8. Rb1 Kf7 9. h4! with compensation

Anand has achieved many victories because of his attacking style. The next two examples show that he is a great master of defense as well. In the position below, it seems that there is no salvation for White. However, by a series of brilliant moves, Anand found a solution.

Anand 2720 – Kamsky 2695
Sanghi Nagar (m/1) 1994 — 61/345

1. Ra8 [1. Be3? Qf3 and Black is winning] Kf7 2. Ng5! Kg6 [2... Qg5? 3. Qe2! and White is winning] 3. Be3 Ne3 4. Rf1 only move [4. Re8 Ng4! and Black is winning; 4. Rc8 Kg5 5. Rc7 Qf3 and Black is winning; 4. Ra6 Kg5 5. h4 Kh6 6. Rc6 g6] Kg5! [4... Nf1 5. Kf1 (5. Nf3!? Nh2 6. Nh2 Rf2 7. Kf2 Qh2 8. Ke1) Rb2 6. Nf3 and White is superior] 5. Re8! [5. h4 Kh6 6. fe3 Qg4 7. e4 fe4 and Black is winning] f4 6. Qe4 [6. h4!? Kh6 7. Qe4 g6 (7... Rb2 8. Qc6 g6 9. Qc7 Qf3 10. Qf4 Qf4 11. gf4 Nf1 12. Kf1) 8. Qe7 (8. fe3 Re3 9. Qc6 Rg3 10. Kf2 Rd3!‚) Qf3 a) 9. Qf8 Kh5 10. Re3 Re3 11. Qg7 fg3! 12. Qh7 Kg4 13. Qd7 (13. Qg6 Kh3!) Kh4 14. Qh7 Kg5 15. fe3 Qe3 16. Kh1 Qe4 17. Kg1 Bf4!; b) 9. Qg5 Kg7 10. Re7 Kg8 11. Re8 equal] fg3 [6... Qh2!? 7. Kh2 Nf1 8. Kg2 Re4 9. Re4 Nd2 10. Re6 and White is superior; 6... g6!?] 7. h4! Qh4 8. Qh4 Kh4 9. Re4! [9. Re3?? gf2; 9. fe3 Kh3] Kh3 10. Re3 Rb2 11. Re7! Bf4 12. fg3 [12. Rg7? gf2 13. Rf2 Rb1 14. Rf1 Be3] Rg2 13. Kh1 Rh2 14. Kg1 Rg2 15. Kh1 Rh2 16. Kg1 Bg5 17. Re5 Rg2 18. Kh1 1/2 : 1/2 [Anand]

In the next game, Anand is three pawns down, but by reducing the material and creating an impenetrable blockade, he forced Short to accept a draw, despite his material advantage.

Short 2690 – Anand 2765
Dos Hermanas 1997 — 69/196

1... ab4! 2. Bb4 ba4 3. Ra4 Rg4 4. Ra6 Kb5 5. Ra5 Kc6 6. Re4 Rg2 7. Rf4 Rgg8! 8. Kc4 Ra8! 9. Ra8 Ra8 10. Re4 Rg8 1/2 : 1/2 [Anand]

The following two examples illustrate that it is sometimes possible to win in the ending via tactical means.

Anand 2525 – Spassky 2580
Cannes 1989 — 47/441
NB 9/b

1. a5 Nb4 2. b3 Bf7 3. Nd3!! [3. a6?? Na6 equal] Nd3 4. a6 Be8 5. Nd5 [5... Ke5 6. Ne7 and White is winning] 1 : 0 [Anand]

Anand 2753 – Morozevich 2678
Monaco (blindfold) 2003 — 87/(294)
R 9/i

1. Rh6! Kh6 2. Nf5 Kh5 3. Nd4 Bc4 4. b4 Kg4 5. Kd2 Kf4 6. b5 Bb5 7. Nb5 h3 8. g4 Kg4 9. Ke3 Kh4 10. Nd4 Kg4 11. Ne2 Kf5 12. Kf3 Ke5 13. Kg4 d4 14. Ng1 d3 15. Nh3 d2 16. Nf2 Kd4 17. Nd1 1 : 0

The following examples show that world champions are human too.

Kasparov 2780 – Anand 2670
Dortmund 1992 — 54/(369)

1... f5?? 2. ed5 1 : 0

Anand 2765 – Hübner 2580
Dortmund 1997 — 70/359

1. Kd2? [1. Kb2? Rh7 2. Re2 Rf7 3. Rf2 Kd4 with the idea Ke3 equal; 1. Kd3 Ra3 (1... Ra2? 2. Re8 and White is winning) 2. Ke2 Ra2 3. Kf1 Rh2 4. Re2 Rh8 unclear; 1. Kb4! a) 1... Rb7 2. Ka5 Rf7 (2... Rh7 3. Re8 and White is winning; 2... Kd6 3. Re4 and White is winning) 3. Kb6 Rh7 4. Re8 and White is winning; b) 1... Rf7 2. Kb5 (2. Rd3 Ke5 3. Kc5 Rc7 4. Kb6 Rh7 5. Rd2 Rf7 6. Rf2 Kd4 equal) Rf6 (2... Rb7 3. Ka6 Rf7 4. Kb6 see 1... Rb7) 3. Rc3 and White is winning] Ra2 equal [Hübner]