LearnfromBentLarsen Excerpt
LearnfromBentLarsen Excerpt
LearnfromBentLarsen Excerpt
By
Mihail Marin
To my wife Mariya, who shares my enthusiasm for
the games of one of the most remarkable players ever
Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to Symbols used 4
Preface 5
1 A Boundless Optimist 9
2 Initiative and Accuracy 35
3 Larsen’s Hypermodern Approach 63
4 Advancing the Rook Pawns 99
5 Endgames the Larsen Way 123
6 Transformations 159
7 A World Title Contender’s Biography 229
8 Tests 271
9 Solutions 277
Coincidence decreed that on both occasions when, using South American terminology, I crossed
the “puddle” to visit Argentina, it was to act as a second during World Championship-level
events. In 2005, I was Judit Polgar’s second at the World Championship in San Luis, and four
years later I accompanied Daniele Vocaturo and our friend and manager, Yuri Garrett, to the
Under-20 World Championship in Puerto Madryn.
Even in our modern times, such a long trip can turn out differently than planned, and in 2009
Yuri had to rebook our return tickets from Buenos Aires. Due to the circumstances, I flew back to
Europe one day earlier than my Italian friends, which resulted in me missing an episode I would
gladly have been part of.
During their last evening spent in the Argentinian metropolis, Yuri and Daniele paid a visit to
the Danish legend Bent Larsen. Memory is known to play unexpected tricks sometimes. Being
familiar with his numerous pictures in chess magazines since my early teenage years, I was for
many years convinced that I had occasionally seen Larsen after I entered the international arena,
as I had the fortunate opportunity to do with many other great players from his generation, or
even older.
Checking the statistics, I realised that I was wrong. Larsen played his last Olympiad and
Interzonal long before I started participating in these events. One way or another, meeting him
on that last evening would have been a real blessing. Fate knows its ways and offers compensations
for everything. During their long chat, Yuri asked Larsen which books he would recommend to
a young and talented player like Daniele. “From the modern ones... there is this book by Marin,
in which he analyses the games of several great players.”
Larsen was obviously referring to my book Learn from the Legends, but it was with mixed
feelings that I listened to Yuri as he was telling me about this episode. The simple fact that Larsen
knew my name as a player and author was flattering enough, and his high opinion of my book
was more pleasing than words can say. Nevertheless, at the same time I felt that something was
wrong from my side: I had never systematically studied the games played by this great player, nor
had I written any articles about him.
It was at that moment that I understood that I owed – to Larsen and to chess history – a capital
work about him and to let him know about it. Sadly, Larsen passed away less than one year later,
and I postponed my endeavour for a whole decade.
My latent curiosity, accumulated during the decades when I had only a vague knowledge of
Larsen as a player, was fully rewarded when I started studying his games methodically. A mixed
feeling of variety, freshness and depth invaded me from the first few games I played through and
6 Learn from Bent Larsen
analysed over the board, and it never faded away on my long journey examining more than 120
of his best wins.
The more my work advanced, the less I felt able to describe Larsen’s style with just a few words:
“Is it possible to talk about a style at all? Will a chess player conduct all his games in the same
style?” These rhetorical questions launched by Larsen may be a bit pointless in the case of a wide
range of players, but they surely cast a light over his own beliefs and faithfully describe his style
or, if you wish, his absense of style.
Larsen was a brilliant attacker and tactician, embarking on concrete play at the first given
opportunity. As obvious as that may be, Larsen himself wrote that he was not an exclusively tactical
player, one openly aiming for complications even at the risk of landing into a worse position. This
disclaimer opens new possibilities for understanding Larsen’s thinking as a harmonious whole,
but also for falling into the opposite extreme. For instance, Polugaevsky writes – contrary to the
opinion of most commentators – that Larsen’s main strength is his strategic play.
I believe that there is truth in all these statements, but the general portrait still requires some
specifications. It is probable that Larsen’s main approach was strategic, with tactics intended as
a useful tool. However, this tool developed so strongly, and he resorted to it so frequently, that
it became one of his possible modus operandi – an almost independent part of his global style.
Larsen is a strategic player, but, to no lesser extent, a tactician, too!
Botvinnik adds a third dimension to the portrait: “Larsen can create things which did not exist
in chess before.” Indeed, many of Larsen’s plans, tactics and attacks were unexpected and original.
One brief glance at Larsen’s games is enough to understand that it would be difficult to compare
him with any other player that came before or after him.
Without prior knowledge, there is no genuine creativity nor originality. Larsen was familiar
with the rich inheritance of the previous generations, both classical and hypermodern, but he
related to it with a critical eye and an open mind. He used this to rehabilitate openings and plans
which theoreticians and thinkers had long catalogued as dubious, or he simply opened new ways
where long years of practice and analysis seemed to have settled everything.
Both over the board and in analysis, Larsen was an innate and incurable optimist and an
uncompromising fighter. These were important parts of his strength, but also causes for occasional
weakness. He would firmly believe in his chances to win in equal or even dry positions, and fight
until all the hidden resources had been exhausted. Larsen knew how to find ways to create tension
and generate active ideas as if out of nothing. Michelangelo famously said: “I saw the angel in the
marble and carved until I set him free.” Larsen also freed ideas that only he could see...
Many times, this approach seemed to take him over the border of admissible risk, but in
his best games of this kind, analysis proves that he was never in danger during his attempt to
unbalance the position. True, there were also less fortunate cases when his optimism and fighting
spirit would cause him to lose objectivity and ended in defeat, but Larsen explained that he did
not mind this at all. “In my opinion, it is completely pointless to remain undefeated during
the whole tournament and take, say, fifth place. (In those years, round robin tournaments used to
include around 20 players – M.M.) In most of the cases, this is the result of over-cautious play,
lacking fantasy. [...] In order to accumulate the needed number of points to take first place, one
has to take risks in a series of games...”
Preface 7
All the technical and psychological qualities mentioned above characterized Larsen’s play in all
three phases of the game. We can notice, though, that his strategic originality was especially obvious
in the opening and early middlegame, his tactical skills and accuracy in the late middlegame,
while his squeezing chances out of dry stone is most astonishingly encountered in the endgame.
I cannot claim that I have illustrated all the facets of Larsen’s style in the chapters below, but I
have chosen those which impressed and taught me to the deepest extent. I have left aside a few of
his most famous wins, as I could not classify them easily. On the other hand, you can find some
of his lesser-known – but no less instructive – games that did fit into the general structure.
The time has come to let Larsen’s games complete the detailed portrait of this highly inspiring
player.
Mihail Marin
Bucharest, June 2022
Chapter 2
Initiative and Accuracy
16.f3
Karpov had good reasons to refrain from
pawn-grabbing: 16.hxg5 h4 17.£h2 (17.£f4
fxg5 is no improvement) 17...h3 18.g3 fxg5
19.¥xg5 ¦df8 20.¦fe1 ¥d5 After ...¥g2 the
white queen will look simply pathetic. White’s
extra pawns are of little importance and his
king would most likely get into trouble too.
16...¦dg8 17.¦f2
16.¦ad1 g5
16...¥d5 allows 17.£h3 £xh3 18.gxh3.
Black is slightly better, but without queens,
White’s position is survivable.
17.d5!
A thematic, anti-blockading move.
17...¥xd5 18.hxg5!
18.c4? does not work tactically, due to
18...gxh4 19.£h2 ¥xg2 20.¦xd7 ¥c6†
winning material.
18...h4 19.£h3
White is struggling, but the queen exchange
once again makes his life easier.
17...£c6?!
Judging by Karpov’s 20th move, we can be Larsen tries to play across the whole board,
sure that he would have used the opportunity but this slows down his kingside attack a bit.
to ease his defence had Larsen hesitated with
his kingside pawn break. We cannot know 17...g4! would have been stronger, with play
whether Larsen foresaw all this, or simply felt similar to the game. If 18.¦e1 ¥d5 and White
that he should break on the kingside at once. cannot maintain control over the light squares.
Chapter 2 – Initiative and Accuracy 41
18.¥d2?
This passive move returns the tempo
offered by Black’s previous move. The mutual
inaccuracies at this level were a result of the
false belief that the pawn on c3 is important.
Karpov could have used the “free” move with:
18.¦e1!
As witnessed so many other times,
development should be the highest priority.
Concretely, White should aim to attack
Black’s only relative weakness, the pawn on
c7, without delay.
18...g4!
Everything returns to “normal” now.
19.f4
A sad necessity.
It is too late for 19.¦e1, as after 19...¥d5 the
white bishop is too passive to contribute to
White’s counterplay.
19...¥c4
18...gxh4!
The best way of retaining part of the previous
advantage.
18...g4 allows White to activate his newly-
developed rook: 19.¥f4! gxf3 20.£xf3
¥d5 21.£h3† ¦g4 22.¦e7 with enough
counterplay. For example: 22...¢d8 23.£e3
¥xg2 24.¥xc7† ¢c8 25.¥g3 with unclear
play.
If 18...£xc3 then 19.¥d2 £c6 20.hxg5 h4
21.£f4 fxg5 22.£f6 and White has solved
all his problems and the position is equal.
19.£xh4 ¥xa2!µ
White has managed to avoid immediate
With such unchallenged control of the light
kingside problems, but after retrieving the
squares all over the board, Black’s position
pawn, Black has an advantage on the other
is strategically won. We cannot know how
wing. The a-pawn could become threatening
Larsen would have coped with the technical
in the endgame.
phase had Karpov defended passively, as the
World Champion finally loses his patience.
42 Learn from Bent Larsen