Artur Jussupow:
The lesson from the
champions. Opposite-colored
Bishops.
In the 8th game of the Fide World
Championship match in Sofia between
Topalov and Anand a very interesting
endgame with opposite-colored bishops
aroused. In the difficult situation Anand
gave up a pawn and went for this ending,
hoping, that a drawing tendency of this
type of endings would save the day.
This dramatic game was of course already
analysed (for example in the article of Jan
Timman in NIC 4/2010), but it is so
instructive, that I would like to come back
to it.
Topalov V. : Anand V.
World Championship, Sofia 2010
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+p0
9p+-zPp+p+0
9zP-+-+l+-0
9-+-+-vL-zP0
9+-+-+P+-0
9-zP-+K+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
In his comments to the game Jan Timman
stresses the importance of the right
devision of the roles between the king and
the bishop: "In the endgames with
opposite-colored bishops, it is often of
great importance for the defender to
determine exactly which roles the king and
bishop are going to play." I think the
picture would be more clear, if we speak
instead about the two different types of
fortress, which the defender can built. For
the less expirienced players it would be
very useful to refer to the book of Mark
Dvoretsky
"The
Endgame
Manual".
According to Dvoretsky, building of the
fortress is the main theme of opposite-
colored bishop endings: "The weaker side
strives to create one, the stronger side
strives to prevent its formation, or (if it is
already exists) to find a way to break
through it."
34...Kd7?
34...Lc2! 35.Ke3 Kd7=.
35.Ke3?
35.Kd2!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+k+-+p0
9p+-zPp+p+0
9zP-+-+l+-0
9-+-+-vL-zP0
9+-+-+P+-0
9-zP-mK-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
35...Ke8 (35...e5 36.Le5 Kc6 a) 36...Le6
37.Ke3 Lc4 38.Kf4 Lf1 39.g3 Le2 40.Kg5
Lf3 41.Kh6+- ; b) 36...Ke6 37.g4 Lb1
38.Kc3 La2
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+p0
9p+-zPk+p+0
9zP-+-vL-+-0
9-+-+-+PzP0
9+-mK-+P+-0
9lzP-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
39.b3! Lb1 40.Lg3 Kd7 41.Kd4 Ke6
42.Kc5 Kd7 43.Kd5 Ld3 (43...Lc2 44.Ke5
Ld1 ) 44.Ke5 Le2 45.Kf6 Lf3 46.g5 Lh5
47.Kg7 Ke6 48.Kh7 Kd7 49.Kg7 Ke6
50.Le5 Kd7 51.Kf7 Kd8 52.Lf6 Kd7
53.Le7 Kc8 54.Ke8 Lg4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+K+-+0
9+p+-vL-+-0
9p+-zP-+p+0
9zP-+-+-zP-0
9-+-+-+lzP0
9+P+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
55.h5!+- ; 37.Ke3 Kd5 38.Lh2 Ld7 39.Kf4
Kd6 40.Kg5 Ke6 41.Kh6 Kf7 42.Kh7 Lb5
43.Le5 Lf1 44.g3 Le2 45.f4+-) 36.Kc3 Lb1
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+k+-+0
9+p+-+-+p0
9p+-zPp+p+0
9zP-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-vL-zP0
9+-mK-+P+-0
9-zP-+-+P+0
9+l+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
37.g4! (37.Kd4 Lc2 38.Kc5 (38.Ke5 Kf7)
38...Kd7 39.Kb6 Kc8 40.d7 Kd7 41.Kb7
Ld3=) 37...La2 (37...Kd7 38.Kd4 Lc2
39.Ke5 Ld1 40.Kf6 Lf3 41.g5+-) 38.b3 Lb1
39.Kd4 Lc2 40.Ke5 Lb3 41.Kf6 Ld5 42.g5
(42.Kg7 Lf3 43.Kh7 Kf7 44.g5 (44.h5?
gh5 45.g5 Le4 46.Kh6 h4 47.Le5 h3
48.Lh2 Ld3=) ) 42...Lf3 43.Ke6 Lg4
44.Kf6 Kd7 45.Kg7 Le2 46.Kh7 Lh5
47.Kg7 Ke6 48.Lg3 Kd7 49.Kf7‡
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+k+K+-0
9p+-zP-+p+0
9zP-+-+-zPl0
9-+-+-+-zP0
9+-+-+-vL-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
35...Lc2! 36.Kd4 Ke8! 37.Ke5 Kf7!
38.Le3
38.Lg5 La4=.
38...La4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+k+p0
9p+-zPp+p+0
9zP-+-mK-+-0
9l+-+-+-zP0
9+-+-vLP+-0
9-zP-+-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
38...Ld3!?
39.Kf4
39.Ld4!?
39...Lb5
39...Kf6 40.Ld4 e5 41.Le5 Ke6 42.Lc3
(42.Ke4 Lb5 43.Kd4 (43.g4 Lc6) 43...Lf1
44.g4 (44.g3 Lg2 45.f4 Lh3) 44...Le2
45.Ke3 Ld1 46.g5 Lb3 47.Kd4 Ld1 48.f4
Lf3=) 42...Kd6 43.Kg5 Ke6 44.Kh6
Kf7? (ą44...Lc2! 45.Le1 (45.Kh7 g5
46.Kh6 gh4 47.Kg5 h3 48.gh3 Ld1 49.f4
Lc2=
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9p+-+k+-+0
9zP-+-+-mK-0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+-vL-+-+P0
9-zPl+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
:45.g3 Kf7 46.Kh7 g5 47.Kh6 gh4=)
45...Ld3 46.Kh7 g5 47.Kh6 gh4 48.Lh4
Lf1 49.g4 (49.g3 Le2 50.f4 Kf5=) 49...Le2
50.g5 Lf3 51.g6 Le4=) 45.Kh7 Lc6 46.Kh6
Ld5 47.h5 gh5 48.Kh5+-
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+k+-0
9p+-+-+-+0
9zP-+l+-+K0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-vL-+P+-0
9-zP-+-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Timman.
40.Lc5
40.Kg5 Le8 41.Kh6 Kg8 42.Ld4 Ld7
43.g4 (43.Lf6 Lc6 44.f4 Ld7 45.Lg5 Lc6
46.g4 Lb5 47.h5 Le8= (47...gh5 48.Kh5
Kg7 49.Ld8 Kf7 50.Kh6 Ke8=) ) 43...Lc6
44.f4 Ld7 45.Le5 Lc6 46.h5 gh5 47.Kh5
Kf7 48.Kh6 Le4!=.
40...Kf6 41.Ld4 Kf7
41...e5 42.Le5 Ke6 43.Lc3 (43.Ke4!?)
43...Lf1.
42.Kg5 Lc6 43.Kh6 Kg8 44.h5 Le8!
45.Kg5 Kf7 46.Kh6 Kg8 47.Lc5 gh5
48.Kg5 Kg7 49.Ld4 Kf7 50.Le5 h4
51.Kh4 Kg6 52.Kg4 Lb5 53.Kf4 Kf7
54.Kg5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+k+p0
9p+-zPp+-+0
9zPl+-vL-mK-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+P+-0
9-zP-+-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
I was following the game live in Internet
and was very much impressed by the
skillful defence of Anand till this point. It
seems that he discovered in time how
white can break down the second fortress
and is goinig to change the defensive
system again! But all of a sudden he makes
a huge blunder and ruins all previois effort.
54...Lc6??
54...Ke8! 55.g4 Kd7 56.f4 Ld3 57.f5 ef5
58.gf5 h6 59.Kf6 Lc2 60.Lh2 Ld3 61.Ke5
h5 White's play can be slightly improved
with 62.f6
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+k+-+-0
9p+-zP-zP-+0
9zP-+-mK-+p0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+l+-+-0
9-zP-+-+-vL0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Let's consider the worst case sczenario:
black gives up his bishop for two passed
pawns and his h-pawn is still on h4. It can
happen after 62.Kf6 h4 63.Kg5 h3 64.f6
Ke6 65.Le5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9p+-zPkzP-+0
9zP-+-vL-mK-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+l+-+p0
9-zP-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
In "Chess Life" magazin (July 2010) there
are a very strange quote of Anand, who
thought, that this position is lost for black
and gave following moves: 65...Lb5
66.Kh4?? Ld7 (66...Ke5! wins for black
now, 66...h2 draws easily.) 67.Kg3 and
here he saw black in Zugzwang. That is
extremly strange since any normal move
draws for black. He doesn't even need to
go for 67...Le8 (67...Kf7= is enough for a
draw and in the proper moment black
would exchange pawns with h2), with the
idea 68.Kh3? Ke5 69.f7 Lf7 70.d7 Le6–+)
62...Lg6 63.Kf4 (63.Kd5 Lf7 64.Kc5 h4
65.Kb6 Ld5 66.f7 Lf7 67.Kb7 Lc4 is a dead
draw) 63...Le8 (63...Ke6 64.Kg5 Lf7 is
more precise: 65.Le5 Le8 66.Kh6 h4
67.Kg7 h3= -here black pawn riches h3
square.) 64.Kg5 Ke6 65.Le5 Lf7 66.Kh6
h4 67.Kg7 Lh5 68.f7 Lf7 69.d7 Kd7
70.Kf7. It looks like maximum what white
can achieve in this endgame. But also here
black holds a draw. 70...Kc6 71.Kf6
(71.Ke6 h3 72.Lh2 b6 73.ab6 a5 74.Kf5
(74.Ke5 a4 75.Kd4 a3) 74...a4 75.Kg4 a3
White has a wrong bishop. 76.ba3 Kb6=)
71...b6 72.ab6 (72.Kg5 ba5 73.Kh4 a4=)
72...a5! 73.Kg5 a4 74.Kh4 a3 75.b3 Kb6
76.Kg4 Kb5 77.Lc3 a2 78.Kf3 a1D 79.La1
Kb4=.
55.Kh6 Kg8 56.g4 Lb5 57.g5 Lc6
58.Lg7!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9+p+-+-vLp0
9p+lzPp+-mK0
9zP-+-+-zP-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+P+-0
9-zP-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
58...Le8 59.f4 Ld7 60.g6 hg6 61.Kg6+-
1:0.
Why world champion failed to find a draw
in this ending? I think it was not easy to
defend. At the beginning black should
switch from the first defensive system to
the second, then to discover, how white
can break through and then to switch back
to the first defensive system in time!
Anand saw the right idea, but failed to see
that it is working!
In the two supplementary positions we
would see the same winning idea as in the
game in slightly different versions.
Euwe M. : Yanofsky D.
Groningen, 1946
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9zP-+-+k+-0
9-+-+-+p+0
9+P+-+-mK-0
9-+-vL-+-zP0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+l0
xiiiiiiiiy
44.Lf6!
Like 58.Lg7! in Topalov's game, white
cuts the black king from the queen's side in
advance.
44...Lg2
44...Le4 45.Kf4 and ˘e5+-.
45.h5!+- gh5 46.Kf5
Black resigns. 1:0 (46.Kf5 - if 46...Lh1,
then 47.Lh4 Lg2 48.Ke5 Lh1 49.Kd6 Ke8
50.Kc7+-. Note, how good is white's
bishop positioned: he restrains the h-pawn
and simultaneously deprives the enemy
king of the squares e7 and d8 (The One-
Diagonal Principle).
Line from the game Ghinda M. :
Jussupow A.
Dubai (ol), 1986
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-vL-mk-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-zp0
9+KzP-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+l+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
51...Ld3!
Cuts the enemy king from h-pawn.
51...Ke6? was wrong, because of 52.Kc2
Kf5 53.Kd2 Kg4 54.Ke1 Lc4 55.Kf2=.
52.Kb2
If 52.c4, then 52...dc4 53.Kc3 Ke6 54.Lb8
Kd5 55.Lc7 h3 56.Le5 Lf5 and after Le6
black king is ready to move towards h-
pawn and bishop protects its passed pawn
and stops the enemy pawn on the same
diagonal.
52...Ke6 53.Kc1 Kf5 54.Kd2 Ke4 55.Ke1
Kf3–+ 0:1.