Several Masters are playing a consultation game. Kasparaov says: “The weak point in our opponent’s position is g7, therefore we should play R-g1.” Direct attack. Spassky says: “yes, we should attack g7 but let’s play N-d4 first, then we can attack g7 with N-e6 or N-f5, either before or aftter R-g1.” Combination. Karpov says: “Those are both good plans, but let’s attack c7 first, because that square must be defended by the same types of pieces that can defend g7, and our opponent might think we aren’t going to attack g7 at all.” Misdirection. Bronstein says: “I have a grand idea. Let’s play Q-e5, attack both squares at once, then we can play N-d4, which threatens N-b5 attacking c7, or N-f5 attacking g7, or N-e6 attacking both squares simultaneously.” Unecessary complexity in order to avoid playing the ‘obvious’ move – R-g1. Ulf Andersson says: “g7 is weak, and could be attacked, but every attacking move weakens something. Let’s first start with R-b2, in order to prepare to defend against a counter-attack.” Excessive caution. Seirawan says: “Are you certain it’s our turn to move?” Distraction. So far no one has said that Kasparov’s plan is bad, but now he gets up and says: “If you don’t like my plan, I quit!”

by James Schroeder

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments