CHESS
Cycling
Raymond Keene
Iam sorry to see that both Nigel Short (on the weekly BBC 2 chess report) and John Nunn (in the British Chess Magazine) have recently been attacking the Fide two-year world championship cycle. In the BCM Nunn wrote: 'In my view, Fide expects too much of players to do this once every two years . . . already Karpov and Kasparov have been taken out of circula- tion; the new system threatens to drastical- ly curtail the appearances of top players in non-Fide events.'
What they both overlook is that without the introduction of the two-year cycle and related expansion of the Candidates' tournament to 16 players, Nigel Short's result in Biel would not have been enough to qualify. The situation before was that each Interzonal produced only two quali- fiers and the Candidates' tournament used to be restricted to eight players. So Nigel owes his qualification for the coming Montpelier Candidates' event directly to the introduction of the maligned two-year cycle. In fact, the book Nigel Short Chess Prodigy (published in 1981) presents a carefully researched case for a world cham- pionship once a year!
What is actually to blame for the conges- tion this time in top tournaments is not the two-year cycle itself but the Fide lead- ership's recent case history of irregularity and constant rule changes. In addition to the grafting of the old world championship system (6 wins) on to the two-year cycle, Fide's confusing approach has led to the intrusion of an extra world championship match, a revenge match if the champion should lose and yet another match between the world championship loser and the victor of the current Candidates' cycle. At least two of the aforementioned events were not envisaged in the original plans of the two-year cycle. Furthermore, Fide's failure to co-ordinate the dates of events such as Interzonals, so that they all occur at one and the same time, has maximised confusion concerning tournament invita- tions among leading players.
The renewed world championship match (for the last cycle!) currently looks like this:
Karpov 0 1/2 11 1 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 0 1/2 1/2 Kasparov I 1/2 1/2 0 0 I/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 V21/2 This week I analyse one of the stirring draws with comments based on Grandmas-
ter analysis from the press room. .
Karpov-Kasparov: Game 10, 28 September; Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bet e6 7 0-0 Bel 8 f4 0-0 9 Khl Qc7 10 a4 Nc6 11 Be3 Re8 12 Bgl Rb8 13 Qd2 e5 14 Nb3 Na5 15 NxaS Qxa5 16 Ba7 Ra8 17 Be3 Qb4 17 . . . Qb4 and 18 . . Be6 surprised the Grandmasters and when Black's pieces were forced back the plan raised criticism from the 'GM Council' (a name coined by Taimanov for the press corps of Grandmasters). 18 Qd3 The analysis team was busy looking at 18 a5 which seems quite good, for example: 18 . . . Nxe4 19 Nxe4 Qxe4 20 Bf3 Og6 21 f5 Qf6 22 Bd5 or 20 . . . Qf5 21 fxe5 OxeS and now 22 Bd4 or even 22 Rael. 18 . • • Be6 19 f5 Bd7 20 Ra3 Qa5 21 Rb3 b5 Kasparov's pawn sacrifice appears forced due to the threat of 22 Bb6, but Kasparov must have seen it waY back at move 17, and also, at least, the idea of . . . Qa8, if not the actual move order. At first the Grandmasters thought White was better and could not understand what Kasparov was up to, but then a group of candidate masters came over and showed the imminent . . . Qa8 idea. 22 axb5 axb5 23 NxbS 11c6 24 Bf3 If 24 Ne3 Reb8 24 . • • Rab8 25 c4 If 25 Nc3 Rxb3 26 cxb3 Rb8. 25 . • • Qa8 26 Bg5 If 26 Nc7 Rxb3 27 Qxb3 Rb8! 26 . • • Bxe4 27 Bxe4 Nxe4 28 Bxe7 Rxe7 29 Ra3 Qc6 30 b4 h5 Maybe 30 . . . h6 is better as then it appears White is fighting for the draw. The text allows a clear draw. Maybe even 30 . . . g6 was a possibility for Black. 31 Na7 Best (Taimanov): White now threatens to consolidate with b5 and Nc6. 31 . . . Rxa7 32 Rxa7 Rxb4 33 Qf3 Rug! 34 QxhS Nf2+ 35 Kg1 Nh3+ 36 KM Nf2+ Draw agreed. So Gary was back on form and the match still very much a fight. Amazingly, Black's impudent N is immune from capture, viz: 35 (or 37) Rxf2? Rcl+ or 36 Qxh3 Qc5+.
Previous page
