FIDE Surveys – Viacheslav Eingorn  

 

   1 

 

Viacheslav Eingorn: 
 
The positional piece sacrifice as 
a technical reception 

 
Here we shall talk about the positional 
sacrifices which are aiming to provide the 
further movement of pawns. The motive for 
such transformations quite often arise in 
different opening structures: Rue Lopes, 
French, Nimsovich, Slav, KID, etc. Usually 
those operations are not based on the 
concrete calculation and therefore they do 
not offer any quick and clear result – instead 
both players get a chance to practise in 
intuition and psychology. Let us look at the 
following examples: 
 
1) Peaceoffering 
 
Bronstein D. : Smyslov V. 
Budapest (Candidates) 1950 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+-+-+0 
9+-mknsn-+-0 
9ptr-zp-+q+0 
9tR-zpPzp-+p0 
9-+P+Pzpp+0 
9+-zPQ+P+-0 
9-+NvL-+PzP0 
9+-+-+RmK-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

White’s position is lost in all respects, but he 
doesn't want to wait passively for the 
decision of his fate. 
35.Nb4 
The knight stands “en prise” without 
creating any threats. This looks like a joke: 
although Black can accept the gift (at once 
or after preliminary 35…Kb7), he prefers 
not to pay attention to opponent’s 
provocation. 
35...gf3 36.Qf3 
But now that knight-suicide has a  
convenient square d3 at his disposal and 

Smyslov starts being nervous. 
36…Qg4 37.Qf2 
To the madness of the brave, we sing the 
glory! By playing 37.Nd3 White already 
could try to hold the line. 
37...cb4 
After all. Not bad decision, of course, but 
37...Rg8 was more consecutive, 
emphasizing the superiority at the equal 
quantity of pieces. 
38.cb4 
A new life begins оn the board and Black 
appears to be not ready for it: he makes two 
second-rate moves and then commits a 
decisive mistake. 
38…Rbb8 39.c5 Nc8 40.Rc1 Kd8 41.c6 
and white won (58) 1:0. 
 
2) To beat or not to beat 
 
Mamedyarov S. : Huzman 
Warsaw 2005 
 
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bc3 5.bc3 
c5 6.f3 d5 7.cd5 Nd5 8.dc5 Qa5 9.e4 Nc7 
10.Qd4 f6 11.Qb4 Nc6 12.Qa5 Na5 13.Rb1 
Bd7 14.Ne2 e5 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+k+-tr0 
9zppsnl+-zpp0 
9-+-+-zp-+0 
9sn-zP-zp-+-0 
9-+-+P+-+0 
9zP-zP-+P+-0 
9-+-+N+PzP0 
9+RvL-mKL+R0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

The game quickly passed to the ending 
where Black plans sooner or later to 
reestablish the material balance. 
15.Nd4 
Not so easy! Now Black must either agree to 
the radical change of position or to give up 
his intention of getting pawn back. 
15...0–0–0 
The safety comes first. Meanwhile, the 

FIDE Surveys – Viacheslav Eingorn  

 

   2 

 

principled continuation 15...ed4 16.cd4 was 
fully justified – for instance, 
16...f5 17.Be2 (17.Bd2 Nc6 18.d5 fe4 19.fe4 
0–0–0 20.dc6 Bc6) fe4 18.fe4 0–0–0 19.d5 
Rhe8 20.Rb4 Nd5 21.ed5 Bf5. The piece 
refund in an appropriate moment is the 
standart mode of defence. 
16.Nb5 Nb5 17.Bb5 Kc7 18.Ke2 Be6 
19.Be3 
This is an inaccuracy which leads to 
exchange of all light pieces.  
19...Bc4 20.Bc4 Nc4 21.Rb4 Ne3 22.Ke3 
Rd7 23.Rhb1 Kc6 24.R1b2 Rhd8 25.Ke2 
Kc5?! 
Black is asking for troubles, he has better to 
wait. 
26.Rb7 Kc4 27.Kf2 Kc3 28.Kg3 g6 29.a4, 
and White won at a later date (41) 1:0. 
 
3) Be prepared 
 
Belov : Jakovenko  
Sochi 2005 
 
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 a6 5.e3 b5 
6.c5 Nbd7 7.Bd2 a5 
The modern reality of Slav: Black does not 
want to cede territory on the queen’s side 
but now the capture on b5 becomes a quite 
probable thing. 
8.a3 Qc7 
Look at that quick catastrophe: 8...g6 9.b4 
ab4 10.ab4 Bb7 11.Nb5 cb5 12.Bb5 Qc8 
13.Ne5 Ba6 14.Bc6 Rb8 15.Qa4, Ftacnik : 
Movsesian, Czechia 2010.  
9.b4 e5 10.Nb5 cb5 11.Bb5 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+l+kvl-tr0 
9+-wqn+pzpp0 
9-+-+-sn-+0 
9zpLzPpzp-+-0 
9-zP-zP-+-+0 
9zP-+-zPN+-0 
9-+-vL-zPPzP0 
9tR-+QmK-+R0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

Such flank sacrifices are correct almost 
always and the opponent may need to be 
rather careful to defend well. 
11…ed4 12.ed4 Be7 
The preliminary exchange 12...ab4 13.ab4 
Ra1 14.Qa1 could be a wrong decision: after 
14…Be7 15.Qa5! Bd8 (or 15...Qa5 16.ba5 
0–0 17.a6) 16.0–0 Ne4 17.Qc7 Bc7 18.Bc6 
0–0 19.b5 white pawns become dangerous. 
13.0–0 0–0 14.Bg5 ab4 15.ab4 Ra1 
Here 15…Rb8 was more to the point as now 
Black runs into difficulties.  
16.Qa1 Bd8 17.Bd3 Ne4 18.Bd8 Rd8 19.b5 
Ndc5 20.dc5 
This automatical reply keeps some White’s 
advantage, but 20.Rc1! was stronger.  
20…Qc5 21.Qe5 Nd6 22.Rb1 Re8 23.Qb2 
Nc4 24.Qc3 Bb7, and the game ended in a 
draw (35) draw. 
 
4)  Tastes differ 
 
Tal M. : Ghitescu 
Miskolc 1963 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-wqrvl-+0 
9+-+lsnp+k0 
9p+-zp-snpzp0 
9+pzpPzp-+-0 
9-+-+P+-+0 
9+PzP-vLNsNP0 
9P+LwQ-zPP+0 
9tR-+-tR-mK-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

The piece sacrifice for the two central pawn 
is usually the most problematic one. For 
instance, in the position on diagram (from 
Smyslov variation of Ruy Lopez) White 
stands better and the question is whether he 
should now complicate the game.  
19.Bc5 
By evidence of Tal, he owed this move to 
Bronstein and his game with Royan 
(Moscow 1956): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 
Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed5 Na5 6.d3 h6 7.Nf3 e4 
8.de4 Nc4 9.Qd4 Nb6 10.c4 etc. Of course, 

FIDE Surveys – Viacheslav Eingorn  

 

   3 

 

in the present case we really have the ground 
for discussion, but еvery man to his taste. 5 
later Geller did not follow Tal and Bronstein 
(oh that Bronstein!) – he played prosaically 
19.c4 a5 20.cb5 (Geller - Liebert, Lugano 
1968), refusing even the enhanced version 
of sacrifice: 20.Bc5!? dc5 21.Ne5. 
19...dc5 20.Ne5 Nc8 
Black hastens to part his forces pending the 
advancement of White’s pawn phalanx, 
20...Kg8 deserved more attention instead. 
21.f4 Qe7 
Quite illogical, also here 21...Kg8 was 
preferable. 
22.c4 Bg7 23.Nf3 bc4 24.bc4 
Tal vainly ignores the variation 24.e5 c3 
(24...Nd5 25.Qd5 Nb6 26.Qe4) 25.Qd1 Nd6 
26.ef6 Qf6 27.Nh5, where he could get 
somewhat better chances. Now Black’s 
pieces come into battle. 
24...Nd6 25.e5 Nc4 26.Qc3 Bb5 27.Rad1 
Rad8 
What a pity: Ghitescu at all costs tries to 
return the game into the usual frame. Why 
not 27...Nb6 28.d6 Nfd5 29.Qc5 Qa7? 
28.d6 Nd6 29.ed6 Qb7 
Decisive mistake. After 29...Qf8 30.Qc5 
Re1 31.Ne1 Rc8 Black could hope tо win 
the pawn d6 back. 
30.Ne5 Nd7 31.Nh5 Bh8 32.Qg3 Ne5 
33.fe5 Qd7 34.Nf4 Be5 35.Bg6 
and White won (41) 1:0. 
 
5) Сui prodest? 
 
Carlsen M. : Navara D. 
Dresden (ol) 2008 
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–
0 Be7 6.d3 d6 7.c3 0–0 8.Re1 Re8 9.Nbd2 
Bf8 10.h3 b5 11.Bc2 Bb7 12.d4 g6 13.d5 
Ne7 14.Nf1 Bg7 15.b3 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-wqr+k+0 
9+lzp-snpvlp0 
9p+-zp-snp+0 
9+p+Pzp-+-0 
9-+-+P+-+0 
9+PzP-+N+P0 
9P+L+-zPP+0 
9tR-vLQtRNmK-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

The point of departure. 
15...Ne4 16.Be4 f5 17.Bc2 Nd5 
Most likely this continuation and the 
variation 17...e4 18.Nd4 Nd5 19.Bd2 are of 
equal worth – now after 18.Bd2 c5 19.Ne2 
the simple move transposition could arise. 
White prefers to take another  possibility. 
18.b4 Nc3 
This capture of third pawn looks very 
natural but it appears to be the reason of 
further Black’s failure. Мeanwhile, by 
playing 18...c5 he could keep activity in 
position with mutual chances.  
19.Bb3 d5 20.Qc2 Ne4  
Now the Black’s central pawns will not 
move and the initiative passes to the 
opponent. This is not a good sign – one can 
only imagine that Philidor or Bronstein 
could play here 20…c5!?  all the same. 
21.Re4 
Tempting but a little bit premature decision. 
21...fe4 22.Ng5 a5 
The subtle reply 22...Bf8 could help Black 
to maintain the balance, now his position has 
become worse. 
23.ba5 Ra5 24.Ne4 Kh8 25.Bg5 Qc8 
26.Nf6 Rd8 27.Ne3 
After entering this reserve into the game 
White get too big preponderance in strength. 
27…e4 28.Rc1 h6 29.Ne4 de4 30.Bd8 Qd8 
31.Qc7, and White won (50) 1:0.