All,
Again, for completeness sakes, I give the two Botvinnik games Tyson references
here. These can be found beneath my signature.
Some excellent examples here by Tyson.
I might contend the notion that the Portisch game is in the top ten ever, but
if you asked me to draw up my own list, then, I might be struggling a bit! All
down to taste though at the end of the day. Capablanca is my favourite ever,
so, naturally, I am upset that Botvinnik managed to play such an excellent
strategic against him, though he does finish with a tactical flourish!
It just shows how complex the fortress is. As Tyson says, it is tough to judge
when they work and when they don’t. I think Botvinnik’s studies are of
particular note.
Cheers,
Chris
[Event "Monte Carlo"]
[Site "Monte Carlo"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]
[Black "Portisch, Lajos"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A29"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "1968.04.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "13"]
[EventCountry "MNC"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Be6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O Nb6 8.
d3 Be7 9. a3 a5 10. Be3 O-O 11. Na4 Nxa4 12. Qxa4 Bd5 13. Rfc1 Re8 14. Rc2 Bf8
15. Rac1 Nb8 16. Rxc7 Bc6 17. R1xc6 bxc6 18. Rxf7 h6 19. Rb7 Qc8 20. Qc4+ Kh8
21. Nh4 Qxb7 22. Ng6+ Kh7 23. Be4 Bd6 24. Nxe5+ g6 25. Bxg6+ Kg7 26. Bxh6+ 1-0
[Event "AVRO"]
[Site "Holland"]
[Date "1938.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]
[Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E49"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "1938.11.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "14"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. cxd5 exd5 8.
Bd3 O-O 9. Ne2 b6 10. O-O Ba6 11. Bxa6 Nxa6 12. Bb2 Qd7 13. a4 Rfe8 14. Qd3 c4
15. Qc2 Nb8 16. Rae1 Nc6 17. Ng3 Na5 18. f3 Nb3 19. e4 Qxa4 20. e5 Nd7 21. Qf2
g6 22. f4 f5 23. exf6 Nxf6 24. f5 Rxe1 25. Rxe1 Re8 26. Re6 Rxe6 27. fxe6 Kg7
28. Qf4 Qe8 29. Qe5 Qe7 30. Ba3 Qxa3 31. Nh5+ gxh5 32. Qg5+ Kf8 33. Qxf6+ Kg8
34. e7 Qc1+ 35. Kf2 Qc2+ 36. Kg3 Qd3+ 37. Kh4 Qe4+ 38. Kxh5 Qe2+ 39. Kh4 Qe4+
40. g4 Qe1+ 41. Kh5 1-0
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew
Sent: 10 June 2017 19:55
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Chris Ross
<c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [usbca_chess] More on Fortresses
Hello everyone.
Apologies for the delay on this but I've been suffering from a bad back and
haven't been able to sit in the PC chair.
This post is split into three parts.
1) Troianescu-Botvinnik and associated study,
2) MJR White-Mordue,
3) Mordue-Whittle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly Troianescu-Botvinnik. Note that Troianescu is one of the few players
who has all five vowels in his surname!?
The bare game score is:
[Event “Budapest”]
[Site “Budapest”]
[Date "1952.??.??"]
[Round “11”]
[White "Troianescu, Octavio"]
[Black "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “D94”]
[PlyCount “46”]
[EventDate "1952.??.??"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. b4 c6 7. Qb3 dxc4 8. Bxc4
b5 9. Be2 a5 10. O-O Be6 11. Qb2 axb4 12. Qxb4 Na6 13. Qb2 b4 14. Na4 Qa5 15.
Qc2 Bf5 16. Qb3 Ne4 17. Bb2 Nc7 18. Bd1 Nb5 19. Bc2 Nbd6 20. Rfc1 Be6 21. Qd3
c5 22. dxc5 Nxc5 23. Nxc5 Bc4 0-1
Black's last move avoided a subsequent Nxe6 "with counterplay". Now White,
despite being momentarily a piece up against the reigning World Champion(!),
has his Queen. c5 Knight and b2 Bishop en prise. He has no way of defending the
latter and when Black takes on b2 he forks the two White Rooks ensuring the win
of material. I suspect Troianescu was very short of time after such a
complicated game - he was a known time-trouble addict - and just resigned
without looking too hard at the position.
In his notes Botvinnik gives the following possible continuation:
24 Bxg7 Bxd3 25 Bxf8 Bxc2 26 Bxe7 Qxc5 27 Nd4 b3! 28 Nxb3 Qb6 29 Bxd6 Bxb3 30
axb3 Rxa1 31 Rxa1 Qxd6 and subsequently analyses a position where White has
played g2-g3 and posted his Rook on d4. Black has his Queen on b3. (Black Kg8,
Qb3, Ps f7, g6 and h7, White: Kg1, Rd4, Pawns e3, f2, g3 and h2). Botvinnik
claims that the win here is very difficult but it can be done.
Restarting the move numbering at 1 Botvinnik's analysis goes on with 1...Kf8 2
h4 Ke7 3 Kg2 f5 4 Kg1 h6 5 Kg2 Ke6 6 Kg1 Ke5 7 Kg2 g5 8 hxg5 hxg5 9 Kg1 Qc2 10
Kg2 Qc3 11 Kf1 Qa1+ 12 Kg2 Qxd4 13 exd4+ Kxd4 14 Kf1 Kd3 15 Ke1 f4 16 g4 Kc2 17
Ke2 Kc1 18 Kd3 Kd1 19 Ke4 Ke2 20 f3 Kf2 21 Kf5 Kxf3 22 Kxg5 Ke3 and Black wins.
Subsequently Botvinnik published a study based on this analysis. The position
is White: King c4, Pawns g4 and f4, Black: King g7, Pawns f7 and g6 and it is
White to play and win.
This game and the study are given in "Botvinnik's Best Games 1947-1970". This
was a key book for me to study as a youngster. Its sister book was "One Hundred
Selected Games", also by Botvinnik, and it covered the pre-World Championship
preiod up to 1946. Any game annotated by Botvinnik is worth studying. Modestly
Botvinnik omits from the former book his spectacular win against Portisch at
Monte Carlo 1968 which is arguably regarded as one of the top ten games of all
time. Botvinnik's win over Capablanca at AVRO 1938 is regarded by many
annotaters as the best strategical game of all time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly the game of my own that I referred to:
[Event “FROME CONGRESS”]
[Site “FROME”]
[Date "2005.8.5"]
[Round “4”]
[White “WHITE MJR”]
[Black “TYSON MORDUE”]
[Result “1-0”]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e6 7.Qf3 Qc7 8.g4 h6
9.h4 h5 10.gxh5 Rxh5 11.Be3 Nc6 12.O-O-O Bd7 13.Be2 Rh8 14.h5 Rc8 15.Qg2
Na5 16.f5 e5 17.Ne6 Bxe6 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.h6 gxh6 20.Rdf1 Qg7 21.Qh3 Rxc3
22.bxc3 Kd7 23.Rhg1 Qe7 24.Qh4 Ne8 25.Bg5 Qh7 26.Bf6 Nxf6 27.Qxf6 Nc6
28.Rg6 Nd8 29.Bc4 h5 30.Bxe6+ Kc7 31.Rfg1 Nxe6 32.Qxe6 Qe7 33.Rg7! Qxg7
This was the point at which I thought I could create a fortress.
34.Rxg7+ Bxg7 35.Qe7+ Kb8 36.Qxg7 Rc8 37.Kd2 Rc6 38.Qh8+ Ka7 39.Qxh5 Rc5
40.Qg6 Rc6 41.Qe6 Kb6 42.Qd7 a5 43.a4 Ka7
And it was around here that I realised that I couldn't maintain it but White
needs to use his imagaination.
44.Kd3 Kb6 45.c4 Ka7 46.c5 Rxc5 47.Qxd6 b6 48.Qxc5! bxc5 49.Kc4 Kb6 50.Kd5 c4
51.Kxc4 Kc6 52.c3 1-0
The extra tempo decides. Over my five games with MJR White the score was 5-0 to
White yet I won 3-2. Odd isn't it!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally whilst working on this reply I recalled another game of mine where a
fortress could have been a feature. Here's the bare score:
[Site "CHESTERFIELD"]
[Date " 15-11-2009"]
[Round "5"]
[White "TYSON MORDUE"]
[Black "WHITTLE L"]
[Time Control: All moves in 105 minutes]
[Result "1-0"]
1.e4 c6
2.d4 d5
3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxe4 Bf5
5.Ng3 Bg6
6.Nf3 Nd7
7.h4 h6
8.h5 Bh7
9.Bd3 Bxd3
10.Qxd3 Ngf6
11.Bd2 e6
12.Qe2 Bd6?!
13.Nf5 Bf8
14.O-O-O Qc7
15.Ne5!? Nxe5
16.dxe5 Nd7?
17.Nd6+ Bxd6
18.exd6 Qxd6?
19.Bxh6 Qf8
20.Bf4 O-O-O?!
21.Bd6 Qe8
22.Rh3 Nf6!
23.g4! Nd5
24.Bh2 Qe7?
25.Qe5 Nc7
26.Rxd8+? Rxd8
27.Rd3! Rxd3
28.cxd3 f6??
29.Qxc7+! Qxc7
30.Bxc7 Kxc7
31.f4 Kd7
32.g5 Ke7
33.d4! b6
34.Kd2 a6
35.Kd3 f5
36.Kc4 Kf7
37.b4 Ke7
38.a4 Kf7
39.a5 bxa5
40.bxa5
1-0
This game is instructive for many reasons. If anyone wants to see the full
annotated game please let me know. For the purposes of this discussion the
critical position arises after Black's 22nd move ...Nf6. The position is:
White: King c1, Queen e2, Rooks on h3 and d1, Bishop d6, Pawns on a2, b2. c2,
f2, g2 and h5.
Black: Kc8, Queen e8, Rooks on d8 and h8, Knight f6 and Pawns on a7, b7, c6,
e6. f7 and g7.
My note at this point reads "When I played my previous move I thought I was
winning. The intention was 23 Ra3 a6 24 Rxa6 but then it occurred to me that
23...Rxh5 24 Rxa7 Rd5! was a decent defence. ChesterMaster 9000 [CM9000] points
out that now 25 c4! Rxd1+ 26 Qxd1! and the Black pieces are all in each other’s
way. The big threat is 27 Ra8+ Kd7 28 Bb4+ Kc7 29 Rxd8 Qxd8 30 Ba5+ b6 31
Bxb6+. The desperate 26...Nd5 just loses a piece because …Rxd6 is answered by
Ra8+.
However, once again the computer is good at calculation but it falls down with
its judgment. After 23 Ra3 Rxh5 24 Rxa7 Rd5! 25 c4 the alternative 25...R5xd6
loses the Queen after 26 Rxd6 Rxd6 27 Ra8+. [However,] Black has Rook and
Knight for the Queen and a very solid position. CM9000 says White is better but
this is not necessarily the same as winning!"
Now the part that's relevant to our discussion. "Even if White can produce a
passed Pawn on the Queenside Black can attempt to liquidate all the Queenside
Pawns by giving up his Knight and he may have a fortress by using various fifth
rank squares as pivot points for his Rook. For example the structure with Black
Pawns on e6, f7 and g6 versus White Pawns on g5 and f4 allows the Rook to pivot
on d5 and f5. Apparently White has no breakthrough but in the 1950s Botvinnik
produced a study in an analogous position where White won by giving the Queen
back and winning the King and Pawn ending." That's the one given above.
The note ends: "Anyway I saw no point going into this when I had a simple
alternative.
The text gives solid support to the h5 Pawn, keeps the Black Rook out of play,
prepares the further advance g4-g5 and h5-h6 and retains the initiative. Black
now gains a little respite by driving back the Bishop only to slip up again by
playing the move after too quickly."
This example also serves as a warning about computer judgements in semi-closed
positions. The silicons are not always accurate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose the bottom line here is that while knowledge of fortresses is an
important thing to have, working out when to go for a fortress is a matter of
judgement. However, knowing how to break a fortress down can also be a
difficult process so it can be worth a go!
Best wishes,
Tyson
