Chess: Drawing the right lesson from opposite-coloured bishops
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BORIS SPASSKY once said of his first marriage: 'We were like bishops of opposite colour,' which is a concept that most players think they understand, but few grasp properly.
Everyone knows that opposite- coloured bishops have a drawish tendency in endgames. But that simplistic view only holds true in the absence of other pieces. If you add a rook or a knight on each side to a drawn opposite-bishop endgame, it can make all the difference.
The diagram position was reached after White's 32nd move in the game Belyavsky-Karpov, Tilburg 1993. With rooks exchanged, the position would be a dead draw. With bishops off the board too, the players might as well shake hands and go home. But the presence of the opposite-coloured bishops enabled Karpov to start a squeezing process that led to a remarkable victory.
Black's advantage lies in the fact that his bishop holds up b4, making his pawn majority on the other wing the more significant. His first task, however, is to activate the rook. Since 1 . . . Rd8 is met by 2. Rd1, he played 1 . . . Bd6 2. Rd1 Rc5.
Perhaps fearing an advance of the black b-pawn, Belyavsky continued 3. Bd3 when Karpov gained space on the other side of the board with 3 . . . g5 4. Bb5 h5. The game continued 5. Kg2 Rf5 6. Bd3 Re5 7. Kf1 g4 8. Re1 Rd5 9. Bc4 Rg5 10. Kg2 h4 and White already had a difficult decision to make. If he lets the pawn advance to h3, he becomes totally passive. Black puts his bishop on c5 and Rook on f3, ties White to the defence of f2, then advances e- pawn and f-pawn. But if he plays 11. h3, then he is saddled with a weak pawn and passivity again after 11 . . . gxh3+ 12. Kxh3 hxg3 13. fxg3 Bd6.
Belyavsky played 11. gxh4 but after 11 . . . Rh5 12. Re4 Rxh4 13. Kf1 e5] (Bxh2 would have been met by f3) he was in trouble. The final moves were 14. Bd5 f5 15. Rc4 Rxh2 16. b4 e4 17. Rc6 g3] 18. fxg3 e3 19. Bc4 Rf2+ 20. Ke1 axb4 21. cxb4 Bxb4+ 22. Rd1 Rd2+ 23. Kc1 Kd7 24. Rxb6 Ba3+ 25. Kb1 e2 26. Bxe2 Rxe2 27. a5 Bd6 28. a6 Re5 29. Kc2 Ra5 30. Rb7+ Ke6 and White resigned.
A fine demonstration of technique by Karpov, but White should have realised what was happening before it was too late. Playing h4 on move 2 or 3, or h3 on move 5 or 6 would have blunted the Black advance and made White's game easier to defend. He put too much faith in the opposite-coloured bishops, and that is why Karpov is now contesting the final in Tilburg instead of him.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments