Positional Chess Sacrifices

By

Mihai Suba

Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to Symbols used 4
Introduction 5

1 The Open Games 14

2 The Ruy Lopez 36
3 The Semi-Open Games 46
4 Alekhine’s Defence 56
5 The French Defence 74
6 The Caro-Kann Defence 91
7 The Sicilian Defence 118
8 The Closed Games 165
9 The Semi-Closed Games 181
10 The Modern Benoni 214
11 The Nimzo-Indian Defence 231
12 The Queen’s Indian Defence 243
13 Flank Openings 257

14 Pawn Sacrifices 279

15 Exchange Sacrifices 286
16 Minor Piece Sacrifices 312
17 Queen Sacrifices 324
18 Other Sacrifices 333
19 Endgame Sacrifices 345

End Notes 360

Game Index 363
Name Index 368
66 Positional Chess Sacrifices

Oleg Korneev – Mihai Suba why Theory has cherished it for so long. The
weakness of b5 is less important than that of
Orense 2000 b4 in the Alekhine. If you do not believe me, I
call a horse to testify about its possible hippety-
Points to look for in this game: hoppety between d5 and b4. And in the event
of the exchange of pawns on e5, another horse
 An overrated pawn move – 5.a4 may bear witness to the secure stable on c5.
 A pawn sacrifice to undermine the centre The explanation might be that White is
– 15...c5! afraid that a typical break with ...c5 will ruin
 The wrong exchange sacrifice – 21.¦d5? his proud centre, and so he seeks compensation
“in advance” by creating a hole on b5. Or it
The most critical moment of this game came at could be that White is anticipating an exchange
move 21, when White had to choose between of pawns on d6, and with the a-pawns fixed,
sacrificing an exchange immediately, and taking he will feel safer against a minority attack by
a different path which would have led to a Black. Should an admirer of Nimzowitsch try
different kind of exchange sacrifice in the near to encourage you in this overly prophylactic
future. The second option was more or less prophylaxis, do not let him assault your ears.
satisfactory, but fortunately for me it remained in Just believe in me and equine testimonies!
the background. My opponent went for the ill-
fated option, which was overoptimistic and led 5...a5 6.h3
to a swift downfall. It provides a good counter- Over the board, Korneev realized that the
example to the theme of this book, showing a theoretical recommendation of 6.¥b5† c6
tempting sacrifice whose positive features are 7.¥d3 ¥g4 was not exactly what he wanted.
outweighed by other more salient factors. For example: 8.exd6 exd6 9.0–0 ¥e7 10.c3
¤8d7 11.¤bd2 d5 12.¦e1 ¥h5 13.¤f1 ¥g6
1.e4 ¤f6 2.e5 ¤d5 3.d4 d6 4.¤f3 ¤b6!? 14.¤g3 0–0 15.¤f5 ¦e8 16.£c2 ¤f8 17.¥f4
5.a4 ¤c4 18.b3 ¥xf5 19.¥xf5 ¤d6= led to a draw
 in 61 moves in Rodriguez Cespedes – Suba,
Barcelona 2000.
 
  6...dxe5 7.¤xe5 ¤8d7 8.¤f3 g6 9.¥e2 ¥g7
     10.0–0 0–0 11.¤c3 c6 12.¥g5 ¤d5?!

     
     
    
     
    
    
It is a mystery to me why this move with   
such lamentable consequences is on top of  
the popularity chart in this variation, and
  

Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence 67

13.¤e4?! 15.¥d2 ¦e8 16.¦e1 ¥f8 17.c4 ¤b4 18.£b3

This is not best. ¥f5 19.¦ac1 ¥e4 20.¥e3 ¥d6 21.¤d2 ¥f5
22.c5 ¥c7 23.¥c4 £d7³
13.¦e1 offers White a slight advantage.
14...h6 15.¥d2
After 13.¤xd5!? cxd5 14.¥b5 ¤b6 15.¦e1
Black has to play well to keep the balance: 
  
    
 
      
      
       
     
    
   
   
15...f6! 16.¥f4 ¥d7 17.£e2 ¦e8 18.b3 e6 
19.£d3 ¥c6! 20.¦e2 £d7 21.¦ae1 ¥xb5 White’s position looks favourable due to the
22.£xb5 £xb5 23.axb5 ¢f7= and Black opponent’s apparent lack of counterplay. His
intends ...a4 next. plan is simple: with £c1 he will provoke ...¢h7.
Then, by c3 and ¥d3 he will pin the g-pawn,
13...¤7f6 14.¤g3 threatening h4-h5 and provoking ...h5. Once
Without central domination or a clear the square g5 is conquered, the queen will be
attacking idea, White simply amasses pieces on transferred to the b1-h7 diagonal, with various
the kingside. However, he has nothing better, sacrifices in the air.
as the alternatives give Black comfortable play:
Is it really that simple? I only omitted one
14.¤c5 b6 15.¤d3 ¤e4 16.¥c1 ¥b7 17.¤de5 detail – the duty of Black to play moves in the
c5 18.¥d3 ¤b4³ meantime!

14.¤xf6† is well met by 14...exf6! when I 15...c5!

prefer Black, for example: As in all hypermodern defences and most
 semi-open games, Black must undermine
  the white centre. Of course, he could have
prepared this by 15...£c7 or 15...£b6, but
  offering some bait is not bad either. You never
   know...
   
    16.dxc5?!
   This move is not in itself bad; the “dubious”
  symbol refers to White’s intention to keep the
captured pawn.
  

68 Positional Chess Sacrifices

Against 16.c3, I intended 16...b6!? accepting


an inferior pawn structure in exchange for play   
in the centre and on the b-file. For example:
17.dxc5 bxc5 18.£c1 ¢h7 19.¥b5 ¥b7
 
20.¦d1 £c7 21.¦e1 e6 22.¤e5 ¦fd8=    
    
Another possibility for White is 16.c4 ¤b4
17.d5 e6 18.dxe6 ¥xe6 19.£c1 ¢h7 20.¥c3   
£e7 21.£f4 ¦ad8 22.¦fd1 b6 23.£h4 ¤g8=.   
16...£c7 17.£c1 ¢h7
  
    
   
19...e5!
  Before getting his pawn back, Black occupies
    the centre and prevents a knight trip via d4
to b5.
   
    20.¦d1 ¤a6

   
    
     
   
18.c4     
This advance “kills” White’s majority on the
queenside. As Korchnoi might say, “It is well   
known that pawns cannot go back.”   
An alternative is 18.c3 £xc5 (18...¤d7?!
19.b4!²) 19.c4 ¤b4 20.¥e3 £c7 21.¤d4 ¥d7
  
22.¤b5 ¥xb5 23.axb5 ¤d7 24.¦d1 ¤c5 with    
equality. 
21.¦d5?
18...¤b4 19.¥e3?! Although it may appear tempting, this
Defending the pawn is not good, but how exchange sacrifice is a mistake. It will quickly
else should White justify the heresy of his become clear that the text move helps Black to
previous move? It is fashionable for football mobilize his strong centre against the tangled
commentators to use chess terms like “strategy” web of white pieces on the kingside.
and “tactics”. I shall pay them back by
borrowing their terminology and saying that The correct path was:
this was an unforced error, because 19.¤d4! 21.£c3 ¦e8
£xc5 20.¥e3 £e5 21.¦d1 ¥d7 would still be 21...¤d7 22.¤e4 ¤dxc5 23.¤xc5 ¤xc5
a touch better for White. 24.£a3 b6 25.¤d2 ¥e6 26.¤b3=
Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence 69

22.£a3 Highlighting the awkwardness of White’s

 cluttered kingside pieces.
 
23.d6 £d8 24.¥d2 e4 25.¤e1
 
   
       
     
     
  
       
   
22...¥e6    
22...¥f8?! 23.¦d6! would be a much more
desirable exchange sacrifice.
  
23.c6 bxc6 24.£d6 £xd6 25.¦xd6 ¦ec8     
26.¦d2 ¤d7 27.¤e4
Threatening 28.¤fg5†.

The strength of the mobile centre has pushed
27...¢g8 28.¦d6 ¦ab8 29.¦ad1 ¦c7 30.c5 back White’s forces. It is now time to deal with
¤b4 the passed pawns.

    25...b6!
   The rest is simple.
 
26.¥xa6 ¦xa6 27.c6 £xd6 28.¥f4 £e7
     29.£c4 g5 30.¥b8 £c5 31.£b5 ¦a8 32.¥c7
   ¥d4 33.¤e2 ¥xf2† 34.¢f1 ¥a6 35.£xc5
   ¥xc5 36.¦d1 f4 37.¦d7† ¢g6
   0–1
   
Post-game reflections

31.¦xe6!
In a book mostly filled with inspirational
This exchange sacrifice does not fully solve
examples of glowing positional sacrifices,
White’s problems, but it is much better than
we should keep our feet on the ground and
the option seen in the game.
remember that a tempting sacrifice will not
31...fxe6 32.¥xh6 ¥xh6 33.¦xd7 ¤d5!
always have the desired effect. In the above
34.¦d6 ¦xb2³
example certain elements of the position
White’s compensation is not quite enough
favoured the exchange sacrifice, such as the
for equality, but at the same time it will not
correcting of White’s pawn structure and the
be easy for Black to convert his extra material.
advanced c- and d-pawns. Unfortunately for
Korneev, his minor pieces were poorly placed,
21...¤xd5 22.cxd5 f5!µ
and he had to waste valuable time moving
70 Positional Chess Sacrifices

them while my kingside pawns roamed 6.¥d3

forwards. Once that happened, White’s prized This is not the best square for the bishop;
pawns were devoid of support, and it was easy instead both 6.¥e2 and 6.¥c4 are sound
to undermine and capture them. choices.

We will conclude the chapter with a game It should be noted that the aggressive 6.c4?!
from super-GM praxis. is hasty here due to 6...¤b4! (threatening
7...£xd4!) 7.¥e3 ¥f5 8.¤a3 (8.¤d3 e5!)
Some part of a mistake is always correct – 8...¤d7 with a slight advantage for Black.
Savielly Tartakower
6...¤d7 7.¤xd7
Veselin Topalov – Magnus Carlsen This is not bad, but more in the spirit of
the position is 7.¤f3 ¤7f6 8.h3 (or 8.c3²)
Morelia/Linares 2008 8...¤b4 9.¥c4 ¥f5 10.¥b3 a5÷.

Points to look for in this game: A less ambitious approach for White is 7.0–0
¤xe5 (7...g6 is also possible) 8.dxe5 ¥e6!?
 Small but significant inaccuracies from with a balanced position.
White – 6.¥d3, 9.¤d2, 11.¦e1 and 12.c3
 Ambitious play from Black – 12...c5! 7...¥xd7 8.0–0 g6 9.¤d2
 A positional pawn sacrifice to fight for a This move is a bit ‘flat’ and cannot promise
draw – 15.h3! in the notes any real advantage.

Casual play in the opening by Topalov leads to Another move deserving the same epithet, or
some problems for White. Black takes over the worse, is 9.¦e1 ¥g7 10.c3 0–0 11.¥g5 £b6
initiative, and after again failing to choose the and Black already has some initiative.
more promising options, Veselin finds himself
in a difficult endgame. The forthright 9.c4!² is best.

1.e4 ¤f6 2.e5 ¤d5 3.d4 d6 4.¤f3 dxe5 9...¥g7 10.¤f3 0–0
5.¤xe5 c6

   
M  
    
       
        
       
      
    
b 

Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence 71


Topalov now starts to play a bit carelessly.
  
11.¦e1  
In order to have h2-h3 available as an    
immediate answer to ...¥g4, a good preparation     
for the text move would be 11.c3!.    
  
11...¥g4 12.c3
Another negligent move.
  
   
White might still hope for a tiny advantage 
after 12.¥e2 ¥f5 13.c3 ¦e8 14.¥d3. 15...¥xe1
 The only good option, as 15...¦e8? 16.¦e3
and 15...¥xa1? 16.£xa1 are both winning
   for White.
  16.£xe1 £xd3 17.¤e5
17.£e5? f6 18.£xe7 ¦f7–+
   17...£d4
    
      
    
   
       
       
     
12...c5!   
The Norwegian prodigy does not miss the     
opportunity to free his game and seize some
initiative, both real and psychological. Beyond

18.c6!
the pawn sacrifice looms the spectre of a
Probably the move that Topalov missed.
further offering on the c3-square.
Worse is 18.¥xf8 ¢xf8 19.¤xg4 £xg4³.
18...bxc6 19.¤xc6 £f6 20.¤xe7† ¢h8
13.¥e4?
21.¤d5 £d4 22.¤c7!
Steinitz said that the best way to refute a
More accurate than 22.¥xf8 ¦xf8 23.¤e3
sacrifice is by accepting it. In the present case
¥e6 24.¦d1 £e5 25.£b4 ¢g7 26.h3 ¦c8
White could hardly hope to refute the sacrifice,
27.a3 a5³.
but he could have equalized by accepting it.
22...¦ac8 23.¥xf8 ¦xf8 24.h3 ¥e2 25.¦c1
£b2 26.¤d5 ¢g7 27.¦b1
13.dxc5 ¤xc3!
The position is equal.
It looks like Topalov overestimated this sham
sacrifice.
If White preferred to avoid the above
14.bxc3 ¥xc3 15.¥h6
complications, he could also have maintained
72 Positional Chess Sacrifices

the balance by simple means: 13.¥e2!? cxd4 when White succeeds in regaining the pawn.
(13...¥xf3 14.¥xf3 cxd4 15.cxd4= gives White His position remains somewhat worse, but his
an improved version of the game) 14.¤xd4 drawing chances are much higher than in the
¥xe2 15.¤xe2= game.

13...cxd4 14.cxd4 e6 15...¥xf3 16.¥xf3 ¥xd4 17.¥xd5

Black has a dream version of an IQP It is possible that Topalov had been
position, with a solid blockade on d5 and intending 17.£xb7?!, but only now realized
easy play against the weak d-pawn. Now it that 17...£a5! 18.¦d1 ¦ab8 would allow Black
is White’s turn to think in terms of making to develop both rooks with tempo, followed
a positional sacrifice. His objective is to give by capturing on b2 with an extra pawn and a
up the d4-pawn in a way that will enable him dominant position.
either to regain the pawn in a few moves, or to
obtain enough activity to hold a draw. 17...£xd5 18.£xd5 exd5 19.¦d1 ¥g7
 
     
   
      
       
       
        
     
       
 
15.£b3? 20.¢f1
This is a waste of time, as it turns out that 20.¥g5!? may be a better defensive try.
Black can ignore the threat to the b7-pawn.
In the event of 20.¦xd5? ¦fd8! 21.¦xd8† ¦xd8
Attempting to keep the d-pawn with 15.¥e3?! 22.¥e3 (22.¢f1 ¦d1† 23.¢e2 ¦h1) 22...b6
leads to trouble after 15...¤xe3 (15...f5!? is 23.¦b1 ¥xb2 Black’s advantage is obvious.
also strong) 16.fxe3 f5! 17.¥xb7 (17.¥d3 f4!) This is where the weak back rank comes into
17...¦b8 when Black has a clear advantage. play, and explains why 15.h3! would have been
an improvement earlier.
In the absence of a useful developing move,
White should have forced simplifications 20...¦fd8
with 15.h3!. Compared with the game Black is a healthy pawn up, and the presence
continuation this provides a crucial bolthole of the bishops improves his winning chances.
for the king. Play continues 15...¥xf3 16.¥xf3 The technical part of the game is less relevant
£b6 17.¥xd5 exd5 18.¥e3 £xb2 19.£d3 to our main subject, so I will refrain from
£b6 20.¦ab1 £c7 21.¦b5 ¦fd8 22.£b3 commenting on it.
Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence 73

21.¥g5 ¦d7 22.¦d2 h6 23.¥e3 d4 24.¦d3

¦c8 25.¥d2 ¦c2 26.¦b1 ¦e7 27.a4 f5 28.b3
¦ec7 29.¥e1 ¢f7 30.¦d2 ¦c1 31.¦xc1
¦xc1 32.¢e2 ¦b1 33.¦d3 ¢e6 34.h4 ¢d5
35.¥d2 ¢e4 36.¦g3 f4 37.¦d3 ¥e5 38.f3†
¢d5 39.¥e1 ¥d6 40.¥d2 g5 41.hxg5 hxg5
42.¥e1 g4 43.fxg4 ¢e4 44.g5 ¢e5
0–1

Post-game reflections

Topalov conducted the opening and early

middlegame with an uncharacteristic lack
of drive, and Carlsen quickly obtained the
initiative. The outcome of the game rested on
some form of sacrifice by either side. Carlsen’s
12...c5! echoed the 15...c5! from the previous
game, although this time the active pawn
break was not a true sacrifice as Black had the
means to maintain material equality through
tactics. White’s 13.¥e4? was a weak reaction,
but even after that mistake he could still have
obtained good drawing chances with 15.h3!, a
strong defensive sacrifice.