SPACE, CENTRE, AND EXCHANGING ON PRINCIPLE

SPACE, CENTRE, AND EXCHANGING ON PRINCIPLE      53

move, and shows again that there are no simple

rules) 16...acc8 17 thc2 eac5 18 t?ie3! and

White is ready to play taed5 with a standard ad‑

vantage. His e-pawn is protected in view of

18...tcxe4 19 ti)cd5! e5 20 Wixb61Lixd5?! 21

1?ixd5 eac3 22 ii(xd6!12)xd1 ? 23 iiiif64-sth6 24

xg2 25 4)6+ ith5 26 *Mt

9...bd7 10 :tad a6 11 'UM Mb8 12 b3

0-0 13 eh4

Again, White wants to exchange at least one pair of bishops, and maybe both, to limit the effectiveness of a black pawn-break with ...b5.Compare the Hedgehog games above. The g2‑bishop will often be exchanged by del, but White can also explicitly avoid its exchange by h3, allowing Black to double his pawns after •si xf3 in return for open lines and a throng bishop (this type of doubled f-pawn position is increasingly popular on both sides of the board; see Chapter 2, Section 2, on doubled pawns).13.0:te8!?

But now it's the cramped side that avoids ex‑changes, very much as Kasparov did versus

Kramnik  in a similar situation. The reader may recognize this idea from the Dragon Sicilian.14 h6 h815 h3!?

Perhaps 15 e4!?, since 15...b5?! 16 cxb5

axb5 17 b4 seems to favour White.

15...b5!? 16 cxb5 axl:o5 17 WM

Now 17 b4 is ineffective due to 17... xf3 18

exf3 ithe5.

17... xf3 18 exf3 12)1e5 19 g2 /c6 20

lith4 Via5 1/2-1/2

The Philosophy of

Exchanging in a Broader

Context

In the last two sections I have been particularly concerned with the issue of exchanges with relation to space. In part this arose because in collecting master annotations, I have often noticed comments such as 'Since he commands more space, White (Black) avoids exchanges’ or 'White (Black) follows the principle of seeking exchanges when one has less space'. On the other hand, I haven't seen the annotation

`Possessing more space, I sought simplification' or 'Confined to three ranks, Black avoids exchanges that would reduce his counter play', or anything similar. Yet in most of the games and notes above, we have seen exchanges favoring the side with more space. That is not to say that there aren't also plenty of examples that support the conventional wisdom. The points that no generality can be applied. An example of this attitude appears in Dvor‑etsky's book School of Excellence 3: Strategic

Play. The author, a favorite of mine, is one of the most insightful of theoreticians when writing about opening and middle game strategy. Nevertheless, even he is subject to classical oversimplification and, I think, errors about various old saws that we all grew up with. In his chapter on 'Advantage in Space' , he advocates the classical notion: "The side who has an ad‑vantage in space can freely maneuver with his pieces, switching them from flank to flank,

whereas his opponent often lacks scope for mandarin, and his pieces hinder one another.

From this it is clear that, if you have an advantage in space, it is advantageous to retain as

many pieces as possible, whereas in a cramped position, by contrast, you should aim for ex‑changes", soon adding "All these considerations are fairly obvious." But he then adds

scant evidence favoring, and some contradicting, his own thesis. Dvoretsky gives a single

game in which Black has surrendered the centre in a Pirc Defence resulting in a position struc‑ turally similar to those in the first chapter of this book. He criticizes Black, who has less space, for failing to exchange pieces and then White for encouraging exchanges on the very next move. Dvoretsky calls this "an astounding strategic mistake". That it is a mistake is clear, although White probably just missed the move sequence that followed the exchange and thus invalidated it. Be that as it may, one is left won‑

dering whether this example by itself is meant to justify the broad claim quoted above. After all, we have seen many counter-examples, particularly in this type of pawn-structure. The obvious problem with Dvoretsky's reasoning is that exchanges may simplify the task of the side with space, whose pieces are still more easily transferred from flank to flank, in some cases with greater or decisive effect. In Dvoretsky's next few examples, the issue of exchanging to free a cramped game isn't essentially involved,