Tiger’s Chaos Theory

By

Tiger Hillarp Persson

Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
 Contents
Key to Symbols Used & Acknowledgements 4
Preface 5
Introduction 7

1 Hecatomb 19
2 Houdini Breakout 55
3 Real Queen Sacrifices 81
4 When 5+5>10 115
5 Where Pieces Cannot Go 127
6 Kings on Tour 165
7 Stability & Structure 183
8 Channelling Karpov 217
9 Looking to the Endgame 223
10 Ramblings on Patterns, Creativity & Intuition 237
11 Exercises 247
12 Solutions 253

Name Index 279

 Preface
“Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t” – Hamlet

What started out as a book about creativity ended up as something else – but not quite. It is a
book about navigating chaos, calibrating your intuition in outrageous situations; about the limits
of the possible, and about spotting zebras. I believe I have an obsession with queen sacrifices, and
no one will doubt me at the end of this book.

Historically, intuition has often been contrasted with logic, and seen as a weaker, whimsical and
less valuable version of the real thing. In chess, we cannot do without intuition. I will argue that
there are certain things intuition should be used for, and others that it should not be used for.
I hope to help you improve your intuition in certain areas in which calculation may previously
have seemed like the only choice.

There are numerous situations where we subconsciously filter out good moves because they come
into conflict with our intuition. In Chess for Zebras, Jonathan Rowson quotes a Sufi saying:
“When you hear hoofs beat, think of a zebra” to illustrate “being more open to experience and less
constrained by convention” and thus “allowing yourself to think differently.” For a long time, I
was very much into zebras; I was looking for them everywhere, and it was my ambition to become
the best zebra-spotter you had ever heard of. In one sense, this book is a guide to recognizing and
handling rare types of zebras. Your intuition is likely to generalize and recognize the sound of
horses – but if you calibrate your intuition, you will start to detect the subtle difference in sound
between horse and zebra hoofs.

Some chess players seem to bend the rules again and again, producing moves that we do not
understand, at least at a glance. The creativity shown by the likes of Morozevich and Ivanchuk is
often credited to “genius” – and that may well be a part of it. However, creativity is also a learnable
skill to some extent. Players who make a habit of looking “outside the box” will eventually make
their box bigger. When one of these players carries out an amazing move or concept which you
don’t understand, the explanation might be that what lies outside your box is inside theirs.

For more than twenty-five years I have collected games that challenged my perception of chess, and
over that period I have slowly changed my way of thinking about the game. I used to seek chaos
for chaos’s sake, but nowadays I rely more on my ability to actually evaluate the consequences
of pressing the chaos button. I have arrived at some kind of theory of chaos, and although it is
neither complete nor clear to me, I want to share the ideas I have formulated.
6

I believe the potential to do something genius-like is within the reach of anyone – but it does
take effort to reach for it. In Stiller by Max Frisch, the main character reflects on a person who
he “cannot stand”, who is “more intelligent” than himself, but only “uses his intelligence to avoid
mistakes” (all freely quoted from my memory). I will try to push you away from such an attitude,
towards madness. But I promise there will be method in’t.

Tiger Hillarp Persson

Malmö, May 2024
 Introduction
“The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory,
and information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition.”
– Herbert Simon

It is unlikely that chess was invented or discovered in a moment of creation; rather it evolved
through hundreds of mutations into the game we now know. (There were games played on an 8x8
grid, in Greece, in the third century BC.) The first known mutation, the Chaturanga, had its own
history – one which we can never know. These earlier mutations continue to haunt the game into
our days. As such, I see chess as a gathering of ghosts, bound together by their mutual history.

Chess is a logical yet paradoxical game. Sometimes we can capture the reason for a move in a few
words (“the bishop is well placed on the long diagonal”); at other times the logic becomes more
complex (“the bishop belongs on the long diagonal, but for now it needs to keep an eye on h6”);
and sometimes, the logic behind a move becomes outright obscure (“no other move fulfils the
requirements of the position”). I see no way to bring all these ghosts into a straight line; to build
a grand theory of chess. Collisions and paradoxes are just part of the game, and I neither can nor
want to pretend that it should be otherwise.

If you try to deal with chess, or any other complex system, with only the help of formal logic, you
will end up with false conclusions. There are far too many factors with far too intricate relations
for logic to be of more than a rudimentary aid. Not that logic does not have a part to play – but
it is not enough in its purest form. You need ways to deal with immense amounts of information;
something which can lead you in the right direction when trying to make a choice. I am referring
to that mystical being which most chess players refer to as intuition. Much of this book is about
finding ways to fine-tune your intuition so that it helps you in extreme situations.

Let me start with a not-too-complex example.

8 Tiger’s Chaos Theory

Daniel Semcesen – Tiger Hillarp Persson This was the main line that I calculated
before playing 23...¤fxe4.
Stockholm 2016
 

     
      
       
     
       
     
     

    
   
 
30.£g1 ¥xc3 31.¦h1 ¥d2
After twenty-odd moves of not the most
White resigned.
precise chess, Black is on top. I spent a few
0–1
minutes calculating the consequences of my
next move and felt no doubt that it was the
Not a remarkably interesting game, except for
strongest – so I played it.
what happened afterwards. On our way to the
commentary room, Daniel and I discussed the
23...¤fxe4!
game a bit and basically agreed about most of
This move simply wins the game, and it
its aspects. He only expressed his doubts about
is verging on the superfluous to calculate
one of my moves: “Did you really have to
anything in order to make that assessment.
take on e4?” I was quite puzzled. If there was
First of all, the white centre is destroyed, and
one move in the game that I was completely
Black gets two pawns for a piece. Secondly, the
sure was the strongest one, it was taking on
e-file is opened, and White has serious tactical
e4. Looking in the rear-view mirror, I can
problems with the position of the bishops.
understand that Daniel felt desperate about
Thirdly (and here some calculation comes in),
his position and sensed that almost anything
I can press through with ...c4-c3. Furthermore,
would win for me. From that perspective,
White’s coordination is non-existent, with the
giving up material might seem to offer White
rook stranded on h3 and the knight on d1. I
some chances – but in reality, it won cleanly
did not even consider a second candidate move.
and much more efficiently than anything else.
24.fxe4 ¤xe4 25.£c1
Well, behold my surprise when I arrived at
If 25.£e1, then 25...c3! 26.bxc3 ¤xc3
the commentary room and they immediately
27.¦a7 ¦b7 28.¦xb7 £xb7 29.¤xc3 ¦xe3
exclaimed, “Nice game, but you didn’t really
wins easily.
have to take on e4.” This shocked me! Again, I
had to explain that I was absolutely sure that it
25...c3 26.¦a7 ¦b7 27.¦xb7 £xb7 28.bxc3
was the best move. Still, as soon as I got home,
¤xc3 29.¤xc3 b2
I switched the engine on to check whether I
 Introduction 9

had missed something. Clearly, I had not. Obviously, a rook will outperform a knight in
The position is so simple that it is virtually most endgames – but if the endgame is far away,
impossible to miss anything. of what significance is the material disparity in
the meantime? It took me a while to stumble
Thinking more about what happened, I realized over an explanation that chimed with how I
that this is something I encounter quite a lot: view chess. It goes something like: “The side
players who ask “was that really necessary?” with less material has fewer options to choose
or “couldn’t that have been avoided?” when I from in any given situation, since exchanges
give up material for – to me – obvious reasons. generally have to be avoided.” (Freely quoted
Evaluating whether 23...¤xe4 should be high from my own memory). The side with a
on the list of candidate moves is exactly the material advantage has more freedom in that it
kind of decision that good intuition will help can choose the roads which lead to exchanges.
you with. A material deficit is a slippery slope, and if you
start sliding it is not within your own power
What’s so great about material? to stop. You end up in a situation where you
“gotta do or die”. In this book we will examine
The example above illustrates how many chess some extreme cases where material is not the
players, even strong ones, have an intuitive bias most important aspect of the position. Or
towards not giving up material, even when it is perhaps it is? It is for you to decide.
obviously the best option. This is partly why
my playing style is seen as “creative”. When
I started to play chess more seriously, I had
few inhibitions towards sacrificing material
for other advantages such as time, structure
or piece efficiency. Often, I went too far and
found patterns which were better ignored:
dead and buried ghosts which called out to
me. And they keep calling out to me, loud and
clear. Sometimes I spot long combinations in
a split second because I see the themes weaved
together, long before I start calculating. I guess
other strong players can do this too, but I would
still say that my ability to discover patterns is
my strongest trait, compared to others. So, this
book will focus mainly on patterns and only a
little about calculation.

Over the last twenty years or so, I have slowly

drifted towards an attitude where I weigh
material relatively higher than before, but I
remain convinced that “what are my pieces
doing?” is a more important question than
“what is the numerical value of my pieces?”
What is so great about material anyway?
Chapter 4
When 5+5>10

“‘The rook is my favourite piece,’ she said. ‘It’s the one that you think you don’t have to watch
out for. It is straightforward. You keep your eye on the queen, and the knights, and the bishop,
because they are the sneaky ones. But it’s the rook that often gets you. The straightforward is
never quite what it seems.’” – Matt Haig, The Midnight Library
116 Tiger’s Chaos Theory

A rook is a piece that gets stronger as the Regarding positions such as this one, I have
game goes on. It excels when the clutter of the many a time said something like, “You feel that
middlegame leaves the board to reveal a scenic Black must have full compensation.” With the
endgame, with open pathways stretching as passage of time, however, I have come to think
far as the eye can see. Then there are those that “It is quite possible that Black has full
extreme situations when two rooks join forces compensation, and more” is a better intuitive
along a file or rank, where their combined evaluation. It is a subtle distinction, but it
strength turns them from mere turrets into is better to keep as open a mind as possible
creatures of myth. Along open files, they rule. before you start working on the minutiae.
But it is when they reach the last ranks of the If your initial reaction to the above position
opponent’s position that they gain an almost was to think, “I cannot believe Black can have
Hegelian the-whole-is-greater-than-the-parts enough for the queen”, it means that you have
strength that is hard to oppose. How do we to work on your intuition. As we will see, in
go about evaluating such situations more the event that White insists on holding on to
precisely? the queen, Black can usually force a draw at
the minimum.
Vasily Smyslov – Mikhail Tal
26.£c1?!
Moscow 1964
We will focus on this critical but risky
continuation, where Black must prove the
1.c4 g6 2.¤c3 ¥g7 3.g3 c5 4.¥g2 ¤c6
value of a rook versus a queen.
5.b3 e6 6.¥b2 ¤ge7 7.¤a4 ¥xb2 8.¤xb2
0–0 9.e3 d5 10.¤f3 ¤f5 11.0–0 b6 12.¤a4
In the game, Smyslov bailed out from the
¥b7 13.cxd5 exd5 14.d3 £f6 15.£d2 ¦ad8
complications with 26.£xe2 ¥xe2 27.¤b2
16.¦fd1 ¦fe8 17.¦ab1 ¤d6 18.¤e1 d4
gxf5, but the endgame proved to be tricky.
19.e4 £e7 20.¤c2 f5 21.exf5 ¤e5!? 22.f4
28.¦e1 ¥h5 29.¤c4 ¤xc4 30.bxc4 ¦e8
¤f3† 23.¥xf3 ¥xf3 24.¦e1 £e2!? 25.¦xe2
¦xe2 
Without stopping to calculate in any detail,   
how would you intuitively evaluate this    
position?     
   
       
       
  
        

    
    31.¢f2 ¦xe1 32.¢xe1? (White could have
  held relatively easily with 32.¤xe1 intending
¤f3-e5.) 32...¢f8 33.¢d2 ¢e7 34.¤e1 a6
  35.a4? a5 Tal went on to win.

    A curious defence is: 26.£e1!

 Chapter 4 – When 5+5>10 117

 White cannot afford to lose time with:


   
    28.fxg6? ¤f5 29.£e1
    29.gxh7†? ¢xh7 would be even worse for
    White, as the black king escapes further out
    of checking range.
29...hxg6 30.£e6†
  Another nice line continues 30.b4 ¢f7 31.g4
  ¥xg4 32.¢g1 ¦xc2 33.¦b2 ¦e8! 34.£xe8†
    ¢xe8 35.¦xc2 when Black delivers the coup
 de grâce with 35...¥d1!.
White will be doing fine if the queen reaches 30...¢h7
the defences, so 26...¦xe1† 27.¤xe1 ¥g4 
28.fxg6 hxg6 is the best continuation. After     
something like 29.¤g2 ¤b5 Black has full    
compensation for the pawn, but nothing more.
  
26...¦g2† 27.¢f1    
    
 
   

  
    
  
    
    31.¤xd4! cxd4
31...¦xd4 also wins.
    32.¦b2 ¤e3† 33.£xe3 dxe3 34.¦xh2† ¢g7
  35.¤b2 b5
Threatening ...¦c8 with a mating net.
  36.¦e2 ¥xe2† 37.¢xe2
   Giving up the exchange was White’s only
 way to prolong the game, but the position
is hopeless after:
27...¦xh2
Black must not hurry to cash in with 
27...¤xf5? as after 28.¤e1 ¦xh2 29.¤xf3     

¤xg3† 30.¢g1 ¦h1† 31.¢f2 ¦xc1 32.¦xc1,     
Black is still short on cash.    
   
28.¤e1
If it was not for this possibility, Black would     
be winning. The knight takes the sting out   
of ...¦h1†, while also winning a tempo by   
attacking the bishop.     

118 Tiger’s Chaos Theory

37...¦c8 38.¤d1 ¦c2† 39.¢xe3 b4!


The a2-pawn falls and the rook will have no    
trouble mopping up the rest of White’s pawns.    
     
  
   

  
      
       
    
  
    
30.¤xc5! ¦c8 31.£a3
  31.b4? fxg4 is no good.
    31.¤d7!? is a reasonable alternative though.
31...¤b5
   31...¦xc5 and 31...bxc5 should also result in
 equality after accurate play.
28...¥a8! 32.£a6 ¦xc5 33.gxf5
Why this square? The reason becomes clear Black has numerous ways to keep the
when we check the alternative: balance, but there is no route to an advantage.

28...¥d5 29.g4!
This appears a more active square, and it As on the previous move, giving away a
has the advantage of keeping White’s queen tempo with 29.fxg6? ends in misery after
out of c4 once the knight moves from d6. 29...¤f5!. Interestingly, there is a slight change
However, the downside is that White can in the details, as this time 30.gxh7† should
sacrifice the knight on c5 and, if Black be met by 30...¦xh7!, all because of a tactical
captures it, the queen will land on c5 and detail several moves further into one particular
hit the bishop. line, where a potential knight check on g5
29.g4! saves White from disaster when the king is on
Stopping the knight from coming to f5, h7.
while simultaneously freeing the g3-square
for the king. 29.¤xc5? bxc5 30.g4 h5 transposes to
The immediate 29.¤xc5 bxc5 30.g4 leaves 30.¤xc5? bxc5 in the notes below.
Black with more options. For instance,
30...¤b7!? is possible, although this should What should Black play now?
also lead to eventual equality.
29...gxf5
29...¦e8?! invites 30.¤xc5 when Black will
have to play accurately to draw.
29...h5 30.¤xc5 ¦c8 31.¤d7 ¦xc1 32.¦xc1
is safe enough for White.
 Chapter 4 – When 5+5>10 119

 
  
    
        
   
      
        
     
      
      


   35.¢g1 ¦e2 36.¦c1 ¦g8 37.£xg8† ¢xg8
 38.¦xc5 ¦xe1† 39.¢f2 ¦e3 The endgame is
29...h5! winning for Black.
Aiming to undermine the light squares so 31...hxg4 32.£c7 ¦h1† 33.¢f2
that the knight can get to f5. 
  

In the event of 29...gxf5 30.¤xc5! ¦c8! 31.£a3!
bxc5 32.¦c1 ¦e8 33.£xc5 the queen is right on
    
time to create counterplay. 33...fxg4 is the only    
decent option, when 34.£g5† ¢h8 35.£f6† is    
a simple perpetual if White wants it.    
  
After the text move, there is a simple threat    
of ...hxg4 followed by ...¤f5, when White’s
position collapses. It is time to put some skin
  
in the game. 
33...g3†! 34.¢xg3 ¤xf5† 35.¢f2 ¦e8
30.¤c3!! This is the kind of position Black should aim
White’s only saving move is anything but for. Everything is protected, and the queen
easy to find. It is worthwhile to compare can no longer make any serious threats.
it to some of the lines from the Kislinsky – 36.¦c1 ¦h2† 37.¢g1 ¦h7 38.£a5
Pieniazek game in the book’s introduction. 
When the queen reaches f6, it won’t matter if 
 
Black picks up the rest of White’s pieces.    
30.¤xc5? bxc5
   
This familiar idea does not work as well here.    
31.£xc5     
If White instead tries 31.gxh5, there   
follows 31...¤xf5 32.£c4† ¢g7! 33.£e6    
¦f8 34.£xg6† ¢h8 when White’s lack of
additional checks will lead to the loss of the
    
queen. For example: 
120 Tiger’s Chaos Theory

38...¦h4! 31...hxg4 32.£f6

Black’s attack is devastating. A sample line is: Now Black has to force matters with:
39.¦c2 ¤e3! 40.£a6 ¦g4† 41.¢h2 ¢g7
42.£xa7† ¢h6 43.£f7 ¦h4† 44.¢g3 ¤f5† 32...¦h1† 33.¢e2 ¦e8† 34.¢d2 ¦h2†
45.£xf5 gxf5 46.¢xh4 ¦xe1 35.¢d1 ¥f3† 36.¤xf3 gxf3 37.£xg6† ¢h8
With a winning endgame for Black. 
30...dxc3    
30...gxf5!? could also be considered. A     
possible continuation is 31.g5!? ¦e8 when the
only move to hold the balance is:    
    
      
      
        
  
       

   
38.£f6†
    White may as well take the perpetual now, as

   38.£xd6 f2 gives White no chance of playing
 for a win.
32.¤b5! Intending 32...¤xb5 33.£c4†, with
some sort of perpetual the likely outcome. The main thing I took away from the above
game and analysis is the sorry state of White’s
31.£xc3 queen and rook, as well as the knight on a4.
The queen will soon reach the vicinity of Only the knight on e1 was participating and
Black’s king. This theme is recurring again and fulfilling an important chore. Some situations
again. are more dangerous than they seem; and when
 doubled rooks are involved, it is dangerous
to place too much emphasis on the material
  
 balance (or imbalance).
     Why did I attach differing punctuation to
    26.£c1?! and 26.£e1! when both moves ended
   in equality? The point is that it was practically
impossible to foresee the details of the former
    line, in which White had to find many difficult
   moves to avoid defeat, whereas 26.£e1! was
    easy to handle and even easier to evaluate.
The only difficult thing about the latter move
   was spotting the idea in the first place, as it is
 extremely rare to move an attacked queen to
another unsafe square.
 Chapter 4 – When 5+5>10 121

At a time when computers can point out 31...¦c3!?

the best moves almost instantly, it is vital to An ambitious move.
remember that we are all fallible when making
decisions over the board. Naoki Hane, a famous In the event of 31...£xa4 32.£xc6 (32.£xd3?
Japanese Go player with a rank of 9th dan, has ¦xd3 33.¤xd3 £c2 is no good for White)
written a book on the game of Go, in which 32...¦a3 the queenside pawns have been
he recommends striving to make the “80%” liquidated, and there is little more to play for.
move. His reasons are a bit hard to explain for
someone who does not play Go, but part of it 32.£e6 £c5 33.¤a6 £a7 34.£xe5 ¦d2
has to do with acknowledging the fact that it is 35.¦b8
beyond human reach to play Go with perfect 35.£e8 ¦xf2 36.¦b8 leads to the same
accuracy. In chess, the strongest players have the position as in the game.
ability to play close to perfectly, at least some
of the time. Nevertheless, I think it is wise for

us to strive for the best human level possible,     

rather than the best non-human level possible.    
In the next example, Black missed a spectacular  
opportunity to harness the power of the rooks.    
Alexander Ipatov – Sabino Brunello   
Warsaw 2013    
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 dxc4 5.a4
   
¥f5 6.e3 e6 7.¥xc4 ¥b4 8.0–0 ¤bd7 9.¤h4     
0–0 10.h3 ¥g6 11.¤xg6 hxg6 12.£b3 £b6 
13.¦d1 a5 14.¥d2 e5 15.d5 ¤c5 16.£a2 35...¦xf2!?
¦ad8 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.¥e1 £b7 19.b3 Both 35...£f7 and 35...£d7 would have led
¤fe4 20.£c2 ¤d6 21.¥e2 £b6 22.¦ab1 to approximate equality.
¦d7 23.¥g4 f5 24.¥e2 ¦fd8 25.¤a2 ¥xe1
26.¦xe1 ¤de4 27.b4 ¤d3 28.bxa5 £xa5 The game continuation could have been
29.£c4† ¢h7 30.¥xd3 ¦xd3 31.¤b4 a tricky move, if Black had followed it up
 correctly. As it happened, he soon went down.

     The remaining moves were:

    36.£e8 ¢h6? 37.£h8† ¢g5 38.£d8† ¢h5

   39.g4† fxg4 40.£h8† ¢g5 41.h4† ¢f5
42.£c8† ¢e5 43.£e8† ¢f5 44.£f8† ¤f6
    45.£c8† ¢e5 46.¢xf2 ¦c2† 47.¢g1 ¦c1
 
  
   
   

122 Tiger’s Chaos Theory

 38.£h2
    This is a moment where many would stop
     calculating, even with plenty of time on the
clock. However, if we take into account the
  passivity of the queen and the weakness of
     White’s back rank, it should be well worth
   continuing at least one move deeper.

     
         


        
  
48.¦b5†! ¢e4 49.£e6† ¢f3 50.¦f5†    
Black resigned.   
1–0
   
When I first saw this game, I immediately   
wondered what would have happened if Black,
instead of 36...¢h6?, had played:     
 
38...¦fe2!
   
 It shouldn’t be too difficult to calculate this
    far.
  38...¤g5? looks tempting: Black threatens
...¤f3†, and if the queen goes to g3, then
    Black can repeat moves. However, White has
   an awesome defence: 39.£h1!!

        

       
      
    
36...£xb8! 37.£xb8 ¦cc2    
Considering that this was just before the    
time control, I am guessing that Black had   
little time left to evaluate the consequences
of this crazy position. White’s next move is
   
forced. 
Removing Black’s threat and giving White
the tempos needed to pick up the c-pawn and
get back with the knight, thus achieving a
winning position.
 Chapter 4 – When 5+5>10 123

39.¦f1 a) 44.¤xc6 ¦c2 45.¤b4 ¦b2 46.¤c6 ¦c2

White must of course avoid 39.¦xe2?? ¦c1†. leads to a draw.

If the white rook goes anywhere else, the b) 44.¦a1 c5 45.¤d5 ¦d2 46.¤c7 c4 47.¦c1
c2-rook will chase it: for instance, 39.¦a1 ¦a2 ¤e4 48.¦xc4 ¦a2 comes down to the same
40.¦b1 ¦ab2 and so on. Therefore, if White thing.
wants to play for a win, the only option is to
place the rook on f1 at some point. White 41.¤xc6
may as well do so immediately, so that the
upcoming ¤b4 will gain a tempo against the

rook on c2.     


39...¦xe3
   
It may seem as if Black is capturing a   
meaningless pawn, but in reality this is an    
essential step towards strengthening Black’s
kingside bind. The white knight will soon be
  
heading back towards the kingside, so Black    
has no time to lose.
   
40.¤b4 ¦b2    
It feels most natural to hit the knight. 
41...¤g3!
40...¦d2!? is also satisfactory though. Play Five moves have been played since the queen
could continue 41.£f4 ¦ee2 42.£f3 ¤g5, sacrifice on move 36. None of them have been
when White must either accept a repetition or especially difficult, and when you get this far it
give back the queen: should be possible to make a decent evaluation.
 Black has given up a queen for a rook, but just
     look at that queen. How do you suggest White
    should proceed to get it out of the corner? It
cannot be done. So, the next question is: can
   White use the a-pawn to deflect Black’s rooks?
    What do you think?
   
   42.¦a1?
   White should get his stuff together before

    things get out of hand. One way to reach
safety is: 42.¤d4! f4 (42...¤xf1 43.£f4 ¦d3
 44.£h4† is also equal.) 43.h4 ¤xf1 44.£xf4
43.£xe2 ¦xe2 White has some vague hopes of ¦e1
making something out of the outside passed
pawn, but Black is active enough to stay out of
danger. For example:
124 Tiger’s Chaos Theory

 43...¦a2! 44.¦b1

     The rook was untouchable because of mate
    in two.
    
     
    
   
        
       

        
    
45.¤f3! ¦d1 46.¤g5† ¢h6 47.¤e6† ¢h7
With a draw.    
  
The move in the main line looks reasonable,
doesn’t it?    
 
44...¦ea3!
    
 Continuing to hunt for mate along the first
    rank.
   Black does not have time for 44...¦xa4?
    because of 45.¤f3 ¦a2 46.h4! when White
    obtains enough counterplay with checks on g5
and f7, or with the queen coming to h3. Black
    has a few ways to force a draw, but the win has
    gone. (By the way, it should be no surprise that
passive defence fails for White. For instance,
     after something like 46.¤e1? g5 47.¤f3 ¢h6
 48.¦b6† ¢h5 49.¦b1, then 49...¦ea3! leaves
42...f4! White with no good defence against ...¦a1.)
Setting up a deadly threat of ...¦be2,
followed by a check on e1 and mate on f1. 45.¤f3
Believe it or not, White’s position is already Most random knight moves fail to
beyond saving. ...¦a1, while 45.¦e1 allows a lovely finish:
45...g5! (But not 45...¦a1? 46.¤c2! when
43.¤d4 White escapes.) 46.h4 g4 47.¤f5 g6 48.¤xg3
White must avoid 43.a5 ¦be2 (43...¦eb3 fxg3
also works) 44.¦f1 ¦e1 with a mating net. The
text move stops the enemy rooks from moving
to either e2 or b3, but Black has more strings
on his lute.
 Chapter 4 – When 5+5>10 125

 48...g5!
     White has ended up in a terrible bind.
    
   
         
       
         
       

    

   
49.£h1 It’s hard to imagine a worse-placed   
queen. 49...¦a1 Black will win the queen for    
nothing. 
    
The text move is White’s best defence, but it is 
not enough to save the game after: 49.¢f2
49.h4 g4 only hastens the end.
45...¦a1 46.¦e1
 49...¦3a2† 50.¢g1 ¦xa4
Only now does Black have time to remove

     the a-pawn without spoiling the win.
   
    51.¢f2 ¦4a2† 52.¢g1

     

    
   
       
        
         
     
46...g5!!   
This curious sacrifice gains time for the black   
king to advance, thus enabling the second
g-pawn to safely reach g5.     

47.¤xg5† ¢h6 48.¤f3 52...¢h5!
48.¤f7† ¢h5 49.¢f2 ¦xe1 50.¢xe1 ¦a1† The zugzwang is complete, so Black wins.
is another cute variation, when 51.¢f2 ¦f1# is
mate, and 51.¢d2 ¤f1† picks up the queen.
126 Tiger’s Chaos Theory

Conclusion

Again, I offer no grand theory of anything. The answer to the question at the start of the chapter
– “How do we go about evaluating such situations more precisely?” – can only be answered in the
most roundabout of manners. The apple falls. It hits you on the head. At least you’ve learned not
to fall asleep under apple trees when they are full of fruit. Also, do not underestimate the force of
a rook or two as they become cosy on the back ranks.

If Plato had read my conclusions to all this, he would have turned me into one of those poor guys
that Socrates pokes fun at, most philosophically. And I am fine with that.