(1) Spraggett,K - Spassky,B [A31]
Montpellier Candidates, 27.10.1985
[Spraggett]
My ambition, with respect to the opening stage, was to establish a
solid, relatively safe position. Perhaps sensing my plan, Spassky managed
to create a double-edged position with castling opposite sides. I am
particularly proud of this game because Spassky made only one mistake
(16...Rc8) and this was sufficient to give me chances to win. Spassky's
characteristic reluctance to defend passively (only to lose inevitably),
led to some lively tactics with both sides sacrificing pieces.
1.c4!? At the beginning of 1985 I had planned to bring 1.e4
back into my repertoire. However, because of my tournament schedule,
and also some disappointing results with 1.e4, I felt it wisest to stay
with the Q-side openings. Is there really a "best" first move ? From
the point of view of trying to obtain the initiative from the opening
stage of the game, I think that 1.e4 is the best move. Against 1.d4
or 1.c4 Black can always build a "strong-point" defence, as in the Queen's
Indian Defence, where Black gets control of the e4 square, or in the
Nimzo-Indian Defence. Then what can White do? Attempts to force the
move e2-e4 usually lead to mass simplification. It is very hard for
White to complicate play ! However, I feel that against 1.e4 Black does
not have an analgous opportunity to "strong-point" one of White's center
squares. If he plays 1.e4 then it is indeed very difficult, if not impossible,
to prevent a very quick d2-d4. Of course, this does not give White an
advantage-there is no way to "force" an advantage. (For that, you must
rely on your opponent !) But, if Black is forced into a situation where
life is never safe or easy, then that I consider an advantage.
1...b6 Spassky has a very wide opening repertoire. You can never
really pin him down to just one opening. But it should be remarked that
Spassky has never been completely successful with this move.
2.Nc3 c5 Probably the best move. Now to play d2-d4 requires
a certain willingness on my part to give up my center P for Black's
c-pawn.
3.Nf3 Bb7 4.d4 I considered 4.e3 and then 5.d4, but after 4...Nf6
5.d4 cd4 6. ed4 e6 followed by ...Bb4, Black has no problems, as praxis
has proven. [4.e3 Nf6 5.d4 cxd4 6.exd4 e6]
4...cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.f3 it is clear that White plans to play
e2-e4, and with his P/c4 have a so-called "bind". But is it really logical
to play so many P moves so early ? And besides, Black will have the
advantage of the extra center P. So I don't believe Black has much to
worry about here. But as stated earlier, I just wanted a safe, respectable
position. Sharper is 6. Bg5.
6...e6 Black can also play 6...Nc6 and if 7.e4 then 7...g6
transposes into a popular variation. The text is more common.
7.e4 Nc6! Not a common move but, as becomes clear soon enough,
part of a deep plan, which in my opinion, completely equalizes the game.
During the game I felt this was a new move - as I had never seen it
before - but apparantly one can find it on page 191 of ECO A. After
the game Spassky said he thought it was a new move, and agreed with
me that it makes it difficult for White to develop peaceably.
8.Be3 White has nothing better. If 8. Ndb5 then Black replies
8...Qb8 and White is embarrassed. Similarly, 8. Bf4 with the same idea,
doesn't work. Furthermore, 8.Nxc6 leads to nothing after 8...dxc6 9.
Be3 e5 ! and possibly leads to favorable complications after 8... Bxc6
9.e5 ?! Nh5 !. [8.Ndb5 Qb8; 8.Bf4; 8.Nxc6 dxc6 (8...Bxc6
9.e5 Nh5) 9.Be3 e5]
8...Bc5! A great move !
9.Qd2 [If White now continues "logically" with 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0
Then Black has 10...d5! and White must seek a good method to avoid getting
into big trouble. Clearly, in this position, my "bind" just doesn't
work ! After some thought I came to the realization that the only way
to avoid having my center crumble was to castle Q-side. It thus appeared
that having an "easy life" in this game was too ambitious !; It should
be noted that the attempt to simplify with 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Bxc5 bxc5
11.Qd6 (11.e5 Nh5 is awkward for White.) 11...Qe7 leads
to better chances for Black.]
9...0-0 10.0-0-0 Now my B/e3 is protected and Black can't dissolve
my center with ...d5 because with my R on the d-file the Black Q would
be embarassed. But let's take a look at the position: Black has developed
all of his pieces whereas White hasn't. Furthermore, with my K on the
Q-side, the danger exists that I could easily come under attack. What
about my center "bind" Ps on c4 and e4? They are the only things that
prevent Black from unleashing his better developed pieces against my
K. I have to admit that I would feel safer with the c-P on c2! White
must play precisely in order to avoid disadvantage.
10...Qe7 A logical move which connects Black's Rs and gets the
Q off the d-line.
11.Be2 Here I thought for some time. I had one other possibility,
namely 11.Kb1, getting my K into a safer position. However, I finally
decided that, at least for the moment, it was more important to catch
up in development.
11...Rfd8 Spassky decides to play for the logical thrust ...d5.
During the game I thought the plan ...Rac8, ...Bb4 and ...Na5 was more
ambitious. After the game Spassky said he was quite satisfied with 11...Rfd8,
but that possibly was less ambitious than several of the alternate possibilities.
It should be remarked that Black spent a fair amount of time on his
last two moves. Against 11...Rac8 I would have replied 12. Kb1 followed
by Rc1.
12.Rhe1 d5! The exclamation mark is for the logical way in which
Spassky has developed his pieces and effected the advance ...d5 so quickly.
His play has led me to conclude that the f3,e4,c4 set-up in this position
is ineffective.
13.cxd5 Nxd4 Forced. After the immediate 13...exd5 White replies
14. Nf5 followed by 15. Bxc5 and 16.Qg5 with a winning position. So
Black must remove the N.
14.Bxd4 exd5 15.e5 Nd7 16.f4 I really didn't want to play this
move, as it weakens the e4 square, but White has little choice.
16...Rac8 Believe it or not, after this move Black is lost
! A seemingly logical move - but in sharp positions one mistaken or
useless move can tip the scales. The problem with the move is that I
get to play Bg4 later with a decisive gain of time. [16...Bxd4
17.Qxd4 Nc5
A) 18.Bg4 Ne4
A1) 19.Re3 Nf2;
A2) 19.Kb1 Nxc3+ (19...Qh4 20.h3 h5!) 20.Qxc3 d4;
A3) 19.e6 fxe6 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.Qe5 Kf7!;
A4) 19.Nxe4 19...dxe4 20.Qe3=;
B) 18.f5? Qg5+;
C) 18.Bd3 18...Ne6] I remember that after the game Spassky
said that after 16...Bxd4 17. Qxd4 Nc5 Black would have a "normal" position,
meaning that the position was nothing special for either side. I agree
completely. I have spent many hours since then trying to gain a more
definite understanding of this position., and the more I look at it,
the more I am convinced of Spassky's judgement. Spassky thought that
16...Rac8 was a mere transposition.
17.Kb1 Bxd4 18.Qxd4 Nc5 19.Bg4! A very strong move !
19...Ne6 [ If Black moves the R/c8 then 19...Ra8 20.Nb5 Ne4
21.Bf5 with the idea of 22. Nd4. Perhaps he should try this possibility
anyway, as he gets no play in the game continuation. (21.Qe3) ]
20.Bxe6! Simple and very clear !. Now Black finds himself in
a position where his only minor piece is no match for White's N.
20...fxe6 [20...Qxe6 is no better. In fact, after 21.Nb5 Qg6+
22.Ka1 Qxg2 23.Nd6 and 24. Rg1 I get a winning attack for nothing. White
has a strategically winning position. Spassky, being the great player
he is, however defends ingeniously !]
21.Nb5 Rc4 22.Qd2 g5!? A surprising move. Spassky is noted for
his unwillingness to defend bad positions passively, and so tries to
introduce tactical problems to confuse the strategic plans of the opponent.
23.Nd4 This is a much better square for the knoght than d6.
23...gxf4 24.Qxf4 Bc8 Eventually Black would like to position
this B/g6, but for now he must watch out for the defence of P/e6.
25.Re3 Rf8 26.Qh6! White's plan is to use his central superiority
to mount an attack on the Black K.
26...Bd7 27.a3!? White must constantly be on guard against
a possible ...Rxd4 and ...Rf1+ whcih would force his K into the center.
I began to get the feeling that Spassky was going to exploit and create
as many tactical nuances as possible. Exploiting my positional advantage
was not going to be easy.
27...Rf7 28.Rf3! Giving Black the awkward choice of exchanging
a pair of Rs or conceding the f-file to White.
28...Rg7 29.Rf6 White must be fast. Otherwise Black plays ...Qg5
or even ...Rg4.
29...Rxg2! Black plays the only move each time.
30.Rdf1 [Now if I get greedy and play 30.Nxe6 Bxe6 31.Rxe6
Rcc2 Forcing perpetual check ! ]
30...Rc8 31.Qf4! [Instead 31.Rf7 leads to nothing decisive
after 31...Qxf7. White's threat is to play 32. Rf7, because once the
R is on the seventh rank further resistance would quickly be brushed
aside.]
31...Qc5!? Another move characteristic of Spassky ! Rather than
play the passive 31...Rg7, he opts for a desparate, but brilliant, counter
attack ! After .... Rg7 my original intention was to advance my h=P
to h6 to remove or "burn" the Black R from the 7th rank. However, analysis
shows that this wouldn't be so clear: [31...Rg7 32.h4 (However,
White can win by playing a bit slower: 32.Ka2 Kh8 33.Rf3 Rcg8 34.Rg3!
and black is in zugzwang. The threat is Rxg7 and if ...Rxg7 then
if...Rxg7then White plays Rf8+ and then Rf7. Should Black play Rge8,
intending to answer Rxg7 with ...Kxg7, White should play, among other
things, Rc3 followed by Rc7. Black is completely tied up. Rather than
defend, only to suffer a sure and horrible end, Black prefers to try
something ingenious. I had now approixmately 10 minutes left to reach
move 40. Here I consumed most of my time. How does White win ?. )
32...Kh8 33.h5 Rcg8 34.h6 Rg4 with good possibilities.]
32.Ka1!! [If I play 32.Rf7 Black has the surprising resource
32...Rxb2+ with a draw 33.Kxb2 Qc3+ 34.Kb1 Qd3+ 35.Kb2 Qc3+ 36.Ka2 Qc4+
37.Nb3 Qc2+; If I try to get clever and play 32.b4 so as to reply to
32...Rb2+ with 33.Ka1 then Black can still draw by 33...Ra2+ Amazing
! How do I avoid perpetual Check ? Suddenly the solution appeared..
Ka1 !!] now Spassly has nothing better than...
32...Rxb2 33.Qg3+ I must defend the P/a3
33...Kh8 34.Rf7! [The game would still not be over after the
faulty 34.Rg1 due ot the cunning 34...Rg2!!]
34...Rg2! The best chance
35.Rxh7+ Kxh7 36.Rf7+ Kh6 37.Rf6+!? [I saw that I could mate
with 37.Qh4+ Kg6 38.Qh7+ Kg5 39.Nf3+ Kg4 40.Qh4# but being short of
time I chose the equally effective, though somewhat slower ( I had no
time to count!) mate]
37...Kh7 38.Qh3+ Kg7 39.Qxg2+ Kh7 40.Qg6+ Kh8 The time control
- with seconds to spare. At this point a curious thing happened ! Spassky,
as he played 40...Kh8 looked at me and apologized for having played
on so long. He explained that he had an adjournment against Vaganian
that he was winning - and he had not yet looked at it. If he should
resign my game, then he would have to play it out that evening. (Apparently,
earlier against Timman he had played out an ending for about 100 moves,
a piece down with absolutely no compensation, because if he resigned
itthen he would have had to play his adjournment against Vaganian immediately
!). I told him I would seal my move in that case (even though I had
mate in 3 moves !). At this point he got up and checked out Vaganian's
game from this round.. Fortunately for me, that game was going to be
adjourned. Even if Spassky resigned against me, Vaganian would have
to play his adjournment with Portisch before Spassky's adjournment.
So Spassky came back to my board and extended his hand in resignation.
Curiously, in the tournament bulletins, Spassky is supposed to have
resigned at move 37 ! 1-0
| 
