Chess Strategy

In the diagrammed position, White is holding small advantage thanks to the certain pressure on the queenside. But it appears that Black will be able to free himself as Nc6 is challenging wonderfully placed Nb4. Then, if 24. Nxc6 Bxc6 25. Bxc6 Rxc6 we have drawish Rook endgame, while 24. Nd5 or 24. Nd3 can be met with 24…b4! where Black is blocking a2-pawn and increases the scope of his pieces.

24. Bxc6!
Unexpected, but positionally justified solution. The Knight on b4 is very valuable piece for White. It blocks b5 pawn on the light square, the same as Bishop’s color, defends a2 and covers 2nd rank entry point on c2. The Knight is also controlling c6 and d5, which are important squares for Black Bishop, while the piece itself cannot be attacked again.

Every chess player was warned at some point of his/her study (verbally or by reading a book), that fianchettoed Bishop should not be exchanged if this leaves enemy’s Bishop of the same color to run unopposed on the just weakened square complex. This issue is also directly connected with the King’s safety.

Nevertheless, in the given situation, there are no Queens on the board and thus Black’s attacking potential on the weak complex has almost completely vanished - White only has to be careful about possible back rank mate, but this can be prevented by timely f2-f3 for example.

Perhaps this process is what GM Jonathan Rowson described as “Unlearning” in his book. We first soak in a bunch of positional rules, including the advice on preserving the fianchettoed Bishop, and then couple of hundred rating points later, we start to appreciate the possibility of bending and breaking those rules when the position is calling for it. Already on that level, we do not think of positional factors that much, as the fight for the initiative becomes one of the primary objectives.

Read also the related article Exchange of Fianchettoed Bishop.

24…Bxc6 25. Rc1 Bd7
Small inaccuracy as Black misses a chance to ruin White’s coordination for awhile, by hitting on c2 with 25…Be4. Then, 25. Rxc8 Rxc8 allows excellent counterplay to Black as his Rook breaks down to the back ranks. For this reason, White would be forced to continue with 26. Rdd1, which preserves status quo on the open c-file, and then play f3 and move the King to d2 before trading the Rooks. Also, because of Be4 motif, 25. Rc2 would have been wrong move order.

26. Rdc2
Now White has the upper hand on the c-file and it holds the option of trading the Rooks or penetrating to the 7th rank.

26…e6 27. Kf1
27. Rc7 was a very attractive alternative as White takes possession of the 7th rank 27…Rxc7 28. Rxc7 Be8. White is better, but I suspect that Azmaiparashvili already planned to go into Knight vs Bishop endgame which he evaluated as winning. Also, maybe he didn’t want to allow tempo against Rc7 after Black brings the King to d6.

27…Kf6 28. Ke1 d5
Natural desire to advance the pawn majority and free d6 for the King, but the drawback is that Black puts another pawn on the square of same color as his Bishop, which further limits the scope of this piece. This triggers White to trade both pairs of Rooks and go into the endgame with minor pieces where Knight dominates the board.

29. Rxc8 Rxc8 30. Rxc8 Bxc8 31. Kd2
I won’t go into deep analysis of this endgame, except taking a moment to highlight White’s general plan. The King will replace the Knight on square b4, from where is presses Black pawn b5 and prepares to create passed pawn with a2-a4. The Knight will then head to c5 but only after temporarily residing on d4 in order to tie both Black King and Bishop for the pawn on b5.

31…Bd7 32. Kc3 Ke5 33. Nc2 Kd6 34. Kb4 Kc6 35. Nd4+ Kb6 36. f4
Important link in White’s plan as he wants to break opponent’s compact pawn mass into smaller parts which will then become vulnerable to Knight’s attacks.

36…f6 37. a4 bxa4 38. bxa4 e5 39. fxe5 fxe5 40. Nf3 e4 41. a5+ Ka6 42. Nd4 e3 43. Nc2 Bb5 44. Nxe3 Bxe2 45. Nxd5 Kb7 46. Nf6 h5 47. h4 Kc6 48. Kc3 and Black resigned as he will soon lose the pawn on g6.