Tal Forces a Queen Sacrifice and Hunts Some Kings - HCWMTS Part 6

All of my content and writings will be free forever. Donate or become a patron to help support this content.

Writing these articles took about 4 months of reasonably constant daily work (March 2024 till June 2024). I looked through almost 3000 games by Mikhail Tal. A 200-part series on Mikhail Tal's sacrfices takes some work, yes!

Important Information

Please refer to the master article, split into four parts: parts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Note that since this series of articles aims to analyze whether or not Tal's sacrifices were as unsound as most people make them out to be, I will only be analyzing the sacrifices and judging them — the remaining parts of the game will only be discussed briefly.

I've also stored all the analysis done by Stockfish 16.1 and it's available upon request.

Introduction

In this article, Tal really showcases why world champions are world champions. Count how many times in this series of 10 games I mention that Tal found a move that improves upon the engine move! Indeed, Tal's "unsound sacrifices" are sometimes sounder than sound (?!)!

Games

Game #1: Mikhail Botvinnik vs. Mikhail Tal, 1960, 76 moves (Liquidating Pawn Sacrifice)

Tal chooses to go for the Nimzo-Indian Defense and goes for liquidating moves early on, absorbing White's positional pressure and seemingly heading for an easy draw. Botvinnik applies strong pressure in the endgame, though, but Tal uncorks a liquidating pawn sacrifice that forces a relatively clear path toward a draw, which he achieves.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 36...Rd6, is given a 0.00 evaluation, while Tal's move, 36...e5, is given a +0.12 evaluation. According to our table, Tal would get 3 points out of 5, but since this difference is so small, and these kind of evaluation differences in endgames are basically meaningless, I'll give it a 5/5, or 3/3.

Subjective rating: A very practical and smart human sacrifice to force the draw! 7/7.

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Game #2: Mikhail Tal vs. Roman Dzindzichashvili, 1991, 26 moves (Kingside Attack Pawn Sacrifice and Kingside Attack Piece Sacrifice)

Of course, in blitz, Tal is even more likely to sacrifice all of his pieces. In this game against his fellow legend, Roman Dzindzichashvili, he transposes to the Alapin and sacrifices a pawn early on, which Dzindzichashvili declines, to get a strong attack. After Dzindzichashvili plays slowly on the queenside, though, his king is forced to contend with a White rook staring it down, and Tal wins the game shortly thereafter.

Sacrifice #1 Rating

Objective rating: The best move was chosen, so 5 points are awarded. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: No reason to go against the objective rating here! 7/7. Tal also somewhat improved on Stockfish's lower-depth suggestion, so that's amazing, too!

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Sacrifice #2 Rating

Objective rating: Objective rating: The best move was chosen, so 5 points are awarded. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: No reason to go against the objective rating here! 7/7

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Game #3: Anatoly Karpov vs. Mikhail Tal, 1978, 23 moves (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity)

From another Nimzo-Indian Defense, Tal finds an ingenious way to trick White and entice him to capture a pawn. In a position where most people would play the "normal" move, Tal finds a nice, activating move.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 12...h6, is given a -0.07 evaluation, while Tal's move, 12...Bd7, is given a -0.05 evaluation. Considering the different depths those moves were evaluated at, and how little of a difference -0.02 is, well within an "error margin," this sacrifice gets a 5/5 on the objective rating. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: No reason to go against the objective rating here! 7/7. Again, an excellent practical decision by Tal!

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Game #4: Mikhail Tal vs. Mikhail Botvinnik, 1960, 41 moves, 41. h4 (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity)

Facing the Dutch Defense, Tal goes for a pawn sacrifice that is quite similar to the long-term pawn sacrifices that arise out of the Catalan Opening.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 16. b3, is given a +0.04 evaluation, while Tal's move, 16. Bd2, is given a +0.01 evaluation. The difference is insignificant, so the full score, 5/5, can be awarded. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: No reason to go against the objective rating here! 7/7. The only issue here is that Tal follows up incorrectly, but that doesn't mean that the initial sacrifice is incorrect, of course.

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Game #5: Mikhail Tal vs. Svetozar Gligoric, 1978, 63 moves (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity)

Tal finds a clever way to sacrifice a pawn for activity as he enjoys an unopposed light-squared bishop, which affords him great attacking possibilities on the light squares. Gligoric declines Tal's sacrifice, and Tal eventually becomes greedy himself, winning a pawn which he later converts into a fine endgame victory.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: Two moves are evaluated at 0.10 while Tal's move is evaluated at 0.00. The difference is so minor that I won't give 4/5 points (according to our table), but 5 points instead. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded

Subjective rating: No reason to go against the objective rating here! 7/7. Yet again this is a very nice and precise developmental scheme by Tal that sets up a subtle "trap", enticing Black to take the sacrificed pawn and give White a free attack.

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Game #6: Mikhail Tal vs. Boris Spassky, 1978, 66 moves (Material Imbalance)

For a "Closed" Ruy Lopez, the position in this game sure does open up! As the position slowly opens up, Spassky achieves equality and even more as he gets a big space advantage on the queenside. The opposite-colored bishop middlegame is technically winning for Spassky, so Tal decides to spice things up and entices Spassky to sacrifice his queen to get his passed pawns rolling — a sacrifice Spassky could not refuse.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: According to our table, for moves in a lost position, any move is equal objectively speaking, so 5 out of 5 points can be awarded for Tal's move. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: As I mentioned in the annotations, I think this is a good practical decision, but perhaps Tal could have (also) held by playing the quiet 44. Qd1. Thus, I'll give this sacrifice a 5/7 on the subjective scale.

Sacrifice rating: 8/10, a sound sacrifice.

Game #7: Mikhail Tal vs. Roman Dzindzichashvili, 1991, 30 moves (Defending by Counter-Sacrificing)

It is actually Roman Dzindzichashvili who sacrifices first, but Tal, not being used to having more pieces on the board, counter-sacrifices back and gets a simplified position, after which the game eventually ends in a draw. Of note is Tal's very weird rook lift/maneuver! It turns out, though, that because of tactical reasons, Tal had to keep his rook on the fourth rank after Dzindzichashvili's 17...Bb6, but he actually chose the wrong square.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 25. Rh5, is given a +0.32 evaluation, while Tal's move, 25. Ne4, is given a -0.17 evaluation. Therefore, Tal gets 0/3 for his move.

Subjective rating: It seemed that both players were comfortable with a draw — Tal because he wanted to counter-sacrifice to force some clarity, and Dzindzichashvili because he agreed to a draw in an advantageous position. Thus, Tal's 25. Ne4 is actually not so bad because the resulting position which offers Black a slight advantage should not be too difficult for White to hold. If Tal wanted to go for a draw and not play for an advantage with 25. Rh5, he cannot be faulted too much. However, Tal did say "To play for a draw, at any rate with White, is to some degree a crime against chess"! Then again, Tal was not in the best of shape in 1991, so he can of course be excused for his decision. I'll be generous and give this sacrifice a 5/7.

Sacrifice rating: 5/10, neutral.

Game #8: Mikhail Tal vs. Oleg Romanishin, 1978, 42 moves (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity)

In the Queen's Gambit Accepted, Tal goes after Black's light-squared bishop and plays a position that is reminiscent of some lines in the Scandinavian Defense where White also chases Black's light-squared bishop. In an equal queenless middlegame, Tal finds a strong pawn sacrifice that gives him a slight advantage, but he misplays the position and is forced to sacrifice a pawn to maintain the balance, which proves to be effective.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move was chosen, so 5 points are awarded. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: No reason to go against the objective rating here! 7/7.

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Game #9: Garry Kasparov vs. Mikhail Tal, 1978, 17 moves (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity)

From a position in the Exchange Ruy Lopez that is somewhat similar to the Berlin Defense endgame, Tal sacrifices a pawn to allow his pieces to apply pressure against White, forcing White to sacrifice the pawn back. The position in question had been played only a handful of times previously, so I decided to include this game under "pawn sacrifice for activity" even though 10...Nf6 is just technically a theoretical pawn pseudo-sacrifice.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move was chosen, so 5 points are awarded. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: No reason to go against the objective rating here! 7/7. A wonderful appreciation of the complications by Tal!

Sacrifice rating: 10/10, a completely sound sacrifice.

Game #10: Mikhail Tal vs. Vladimir Tukmakov, 1978, 27 moves (Proximal Open King Pawn Sacrifice)

Tukmakov, the famous Ukrainian trainer, plays the Najdorf against Tal, which morphs into a Richter-Rauzer-like position with the doubled pawns on the kingside and Black's bishop pair. Black's king remains in the center, so Tal sacrifices a pawn to open up some lines toward the enemy king, but Black smartly declines the sacrifice — accepting it would actually be bad. The game eventually ends in a draw as pieces get hoovered off the board.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: Many moves are considered "best" here, including Tal's 15. e5 move. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: Practically speaking, not forcing matters may have been the more prudent choice to play for a win as after 15...f5 it seems difficult to imagine how White could press for an advantage. Having said that, there's still a lot of chess left to be played, so the forcing nature of 15. e5 should not be punished too much. Thus, I'll give this a 6.5/7 on the subjective rating.

Sacrifice rating: 9.5/10, a (n almost) completely sound sacrifice.

Inclusion Criteria

For games 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10, the reasons for including those games in their respective categories are pretty clear. For game 3, the sacrifice is basically a pseudo-sacrifice, but it's sufficiently obfuscated and long-term that it should be considered a true sacrifice and not a pseudo-sacrifice. In game 4, the sacrifice could be considered a positional pawn sacrifice as the play is centered around the e5-square and the bad Black light-squared bishop; however, Tal's play (of course) was more "activity-centered," so that's why I categorized this game under "pawn sacrifice for activity". As for game 6, Spassky was the one to go for the imbalance, but Tal did entice him with his 44. Ne3 move, so that's why this game is part of Tal's sacrifices. The Dzindzichashvili game, game 7, could be considered as a material imbalance sacrifice by Tal, but Tal sacrificed to relieve the pressure from Dzindzichashvili, so 25. Ne4 is classified as a "defending by counter-sacrificing" sacrifice. Game 9 is somewhat of a controversial inclusion, but I've already explained my reasoning in the commentary and annotations for game 9.

Puzzles / Review

Force the draw.

King hunt.

Light squares!

Wayward no more.

The power of the bishop pair.

Don't be greedy!