Alexey Chizhov and Rob Clerc at the start of their game at the 1989 Coupe du Monde. The latter would sensationally defeat the reigning world champion. Partly as a result of that, the Netherlands defeated the Soviet Union and won the countries' tournament. Photo: Henk Fokkink
The game I want to analyse was played in spring 1989 in
Cannes and is historic in more ways than one. At that time, the
Netherlands-Soviet Union interland was still played every year, and
the Netherlands had never won. The so-called Coupe du Monde, a kind
of world championship for continental teams, was held in Cannes. The
USSR and the Netherlands were considered continents. The first
edition of that tournament was held in 1985 in Valkenburg and was won my
the USSR (Gantvarg, Korenievski, Shchegolev) followed by the
Netherlands (Wiersma, Sijbrands, Clerc), Africa, America and Europe A
and B.
Until then, the only Dutch team success was in 1978 in
Tbilisi at the European Championship for national teams. In that
tournament, entering the final round, it was sufficient for the Netherlands to play a draw (3-3). After quick draws by Wiersma (26
moves against Gantvarg) and Sijbrands (24 moves against Mistchanski),
I was fortunate that Shchegolev, in a whim of insanity, gave away a
piece and lost.
In Cannes, the Netherlands (Clerc, Van der Wal,
G.Jansen, Wesselink) led with a score of 100 per cent going into the
final round. Of course, the Soviet Union (Chizhov, Gantvarg,
Baliakin, Valneris) was on the programme in the final round. The
Soviet Union had surprisingly lost a point against America by four
draws, Baliakin's against Birnman being miraculous. Also present then
were America and Europe A, B and C. Conspicuously absent from Cannes
1989 was Africa. To my knowledge, the Coupe du Monde was never again held.
During my time as national coach (2008-2020), the
World Cup of Nations teams was never even held. Unfortunately, Russia was absent from
both Turkey (2022) and Portugal in May 2024. The only World Cup
national teams I experienced was in 2012 in Lille, but that was a
rapid tournament.
In that all-decisive final round in Cannes,
Jannes van der Wal played a draw against Gantvarg, despite a big
advantage. Gérard Jansen defeated Baliakin on the third board. The
Huissen native had become European champion in Moscow in 1987 with
the fabulous score of 23 out of 13! On the fourth board, Wieger
Wesselink played an eventful draw against Valneris.
I want to
analyse the game on the first board. My opponent had just become
world champion for the first time in Paramaribo in the autumn of
1988.
Turbo Dambase lists 30 games between Chizhov and me. Of
those 30 games, 25 ended in a draw. They are not all equally
interesting, but there are plenty of games in which the battle was at
the cutting edge. Among them are also games with shorter time
controls. Of the games with classical time control, we both won two.
Chizhov's third victory was with shorter time control. After the 1996
world championship in Ivory Coast, the necessary barrage for the title in the spring of 1997
in Groningen ended in six draws, after which a game with shorter time
control brought the decision.
The continuation 5...17-21 had been played at the highest level since 1983, but became really popular later.
6.35-30 20-25In his analysis of this game, Jannes van der Wal wrote in Het Vrije Volk at the time after this move: „Against Chizhov, you have to play flank play, because he doesn't know it: he prefers to play classical."
7.40-35 15-20 8.44-40 20-24 9.50-44 17-21 10.31-26 21-27 11.32x21 16x27 12.33-28 23x32 13.37x28 11-17 14.28-23 19x28 15.30x19 13x24 16.34-30 25x34 17.40x20 7-11 18.20-15 1-7 19.45-40At a training event on 28-5-1989, I played position with white against Mike Voskamp:
So far it's all opening theory. My next move is based on preventing 41-37. Absolutely logical.
8-13! 21.42-37?Chizhov regretted this move after the game. It is indeed a hefty concession. Better are waiting moves on the right wing until 41-37 becomes possible. Moreover, the text move seems to foreshadow a 48-42 setup, and I will come back to the playing up of the golden piece later.
Here there is nothing to criticise about the white game, but the black game all the more. Also illustrative is the following game from the 1984 World Cup Baljakin-Dubois, although 44 was still on 45, 13 on 8 and 34 on 40. Game:
[Click here to go to Baliakin-Dubois 1984.]
This is the most logical but also the best move.
Black strengthened his attack with healthy moves and I felt more than comfortable here.
2-8! 25.38-32What else should white do? Moving the outpost to square 29 is logical, but from this moment on, black targets white's short wing.
27x38 26.43x23 18x29 27.37-32 13-18For the next ten moves, black plays
everything to the left except for an mandatory move. The intent of an
attack against the hostile short wing is clear.
The actual beginning of the attack against
the white right wing! Obviously with thanks to the golden piece. In
this context, I allow myself a side-step in honour of the golden
piece!
Here is an interlude with two diagrams reflecting the power
of the golden piece.
[Click here to go to "Cross of Keller".]
Puts the finger on the sore spot. It is clear that white has to worry about defending its right wing.
38.44-40In his column in Het Vrije Volk, Jannes wrote: „This move was accompanied by Chizhov's offer of a draw. But both players had noted that Wesselink on the fourth board had run into trouble against Valneris, and this fact was enough to continue fiercely in this favourable position." Anno 2024, of course, I don't remember anything about a draw offer by Chizhov. I would say: if you don't play for a win here, when will you?
12-18Of course not 38...24-30 39.40-35 29-34 40.35x24 34-40 41.39-34! nor 39...30-34x34 41.32-28! and the black position is split (41...12-18 43.28-23).
39.39-33 25-30 40.43-39 7-12 41.36-31The alternative 41.39-34 30x28 42.32x34 24-29! 43.34x23 18x29 does not look right for white. A human now concludes to big advantage for black. The Kingsrow programme, however, 'simply' concludes to a draw. The value of this computer valuation is however next to nil for human beings in practical situation
30-35 42.31-26 35x44 43.39x50 29-34The attack is gaining speed! A breakthrough is coming in the long run. Black not only has a strong outpost, but also piece 15 is getting weaker.
44.47-42 3-9 45.32-27 9-1352...40-44 53.50x39 45-50 54.21-16! =.
18-22! 53.21-16 12-18 54.16x7 17-21 55.26x17 22x2 56.32-27 40-44 57.50x39 45-50 58.27-21 50-45 59.15-10 45x16 60.10-5 19-24 This looks very promising for black for a human, but the computer's defence is convincing: 61.5-41! 16-49 or? 62.33-28! 24-30 63.41-47! 30-35 64.47-29=
These are obviously nauseating computer variants that are still draw. According to Kingsrow, it is almost always still a draw. To repeat: the practical value is nil.
However, these variants do almost argue that 45..24-30 is more promising than the game continuation, but then the game sequence would have been withheld from us...
In the game, I was convinced that I was winning and of course I saw the game variation coming. Once again Kingsrow puts an end to all illusions: the diagram position is analytically a draw!!
47.37-32??Such a computer draw is of course nice for the objective value of the position, but obviously has no practical meaning. I do think it is true that more and more top players are convinced by Kingsrow: even if i have a position that is worse it is always still a draw...
White gives up.
After
the 6-2 win in the final round, the victory in this Coupe du Monde
was celebrated into the early morning of the morning!