Tal's Schrödinger Queen/Piece Sacrifice - HCWMTS Part 7

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

Hair-raising complications are on the menu today as Tal sacrifices a queen in one game and goes for one of the sharpest opening variations in all of chess, the Botvinnik Variation of the Semi-Slav Defense, in another game — Botvinnik would be proud! A curious situation also arises in the queen sacrifice game as Tal sacrifices a queen OR a piece, the determination as such depending on Black's response. As usual, Tal also sacrifices for a litany of other reasons, so without further ado, let's see the magician in action.

Games

Game #1: Mikhail Tal vs. Mikhail Botvinnik, 1960, 41 moves, 41. Qa4 (Opposite-Side Castling Pawn Sacrifice)

From their legendary 1960 match, in which Tal won to become world champion, Tal and Botvinnik play a very interesting game in the Caro-Kann. Tal goes for an early expansion on the kingside with f4, which is an idea that was much more common during Tal's time — nowadays, it is seen as a bit weakening and unnecessary against the Classical Caro-Kann. Botvinnik avoids Tal's kingside attack and lets his attack become an opposite-side castling attack, a decision he would later regret as Tal, from an equal position, encourages Botvinnik to blunder with 39...Qd5. Tal's sacrifice on move 26 is actually a long-term sacrifice as at first it starts out as a pseudo-sacrifice but later becomes a true sacrifice as the game progresses.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 26. a6, is given a +0.26 evaluation, while Tal's move, 26...b5, is given a 0.00 evaluation. According to our table, Tal would get 4 points out of 5, so 2.4/3.

Subjective rating: The engine recommendation, 26. a6, is much more positionally-minded and closes down the position, while Tal's move keeps attacking chances alive. Therefore, I like Tal's move more than the engine recommendation and I'll give it a 7/7 on the subjective scale.

Sacrifice rating: 9.4/10, a (n almost) completely sound sacrifice.

Game #2: Mikhail Tal vs. Adrian Mikhalchishin, 1978, 34 moves (Open King Pawn Sacrifice, Exchange Sacrifice, and Open King Piece Sacrifice)

The Botvinnik Variation of the Semi-Slav Defense is already an ultra-sharp opening variation, but when you add Tal on either side of this opening, you're about to witness mayhem on the board. This game we're going to see is razor-sharp and includes three separate sacrifices!

Sacrifice #1 Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 17. h4, is given a +1.78 evaluation, while Tal's move, 17. O-O, is given a +0.07 evaluation. Therefore, Tal's move gets 0.5 points according to our table. I feel that this is both a bit too generous and not generous enough, though. Here is where the objective rating will be affected by the subjective rating because Tal's move does retain some sort of advantage according to the engine, though the best move is really strong — again, according to the engine. Since 17. O-O does not objectively spoil an advantage, I'll give it a 1/5 instead of a 0.5/5 (or 0/5). Out of 3 points, that's 0.6/3.

Subjective rating: The position remains highly complicated after Tal's 17. O-O, and Tal does get some king safety and better coordination out of this move, while the engine-correct 17. h4 is difficult to navigate as White's king will likely remain in the center (then again, so will Black's). Thus, and because the position is so rich, I'll give this sacrifice a 5/7 on the subjective scale.

Sacrifice rating: 5.6/10, a slightly sound sacrifice.

Sacrifice #2 Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 26. Be3, is equally as good as Tal's move, 26. Rxb3, 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. In terms of complexity, it's unclear whether 26. Be3 or 26. Rxb3 is more complex — probably the former as it's not forcing, but who knows if the complications would have then favored Black in a practical game.

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

Sacrifice #3 Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 29. fxe6, was chosen, so 5 points are awarded. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: My only qualm here is that Tal followed up incorrectly. Technically this doesn't affect the initial sacrifice, but it does mean that Tal did not sacrifice for the correct reason(s). Therefore, I'll deduct one point. 6/7

Sacrifice rating: 9/10, a very sound sacrifice.

Game #3: Roman Dzindzichashvili vs. Mikhail Tal, 1991, 44 moves (Positional Pawn Sacrifice)

The Grand Prix Attack can be a dangerous, well, attacking weapon, but Tal plays a strong line against this opennig which gives him a comfortable position. Tal makes some questionable positional decisions, though, starting with 13...Nd4, 14...bxc3, and 15...Nxb5. On the backfoot, Tal finds a strong positional sacrifice with 16...c4!

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 #4: Lev Polugaevsky vs. Mikhail Tal, 1978, 34 moves (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity and Defensive Pawn Sacrifice)

The Tartakower Defense of the Queen's Gambit Declined is usually a very solid opening choice for Black, but Tal somehow, as usual, finds a way to make the game look like a Romantic era King's Gambit game. Suddenly, after Tal sacrifices a pawn for some sort of activity, White's queen is ensconced in Black's kingside, while Black's king is on f8 and trying to make a run for it. Surprisingly, the position is not all that bad for Black, and Tal eventually manages to make a rather comfortable draw.

Sacrifice #1 Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 14...g6, is given a -0.07 evaluation, while Tal's move, 14...c5, is given a +1.70 evaluation, so Tal gets 0/3 for the objective rating.

Subjective rating: Actually, this sacrifice is practically not so bad. If White does not find 15. h4 and instead plays the very normal and logical 15. dxc5, Black can still be fine after 15...g6. Seeing that 15. h4 prevents Black's best defense, g6, seems very elementary at first, but a world class player like Polugaevsky did not see this defense for a reason. Having said that, the sacrifice was rather unnecessary and Black could have simply proceeded with the more normal 14...g6, but, you know, Tal! I'll give this sacrifice a 2/7 on the subjective scale.

Sacrifice rating: 2/10, an unsound sacrifice.

Sacrifice #2 Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 31...Nxf1, is given a -0.05 evaluation, while Tal's move, 31...Kg7, is given a 0.00 evaluation. The difference is insignificant, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: Tal's move does a good job of achieving the draw. 31...Nxf1 does nothing more than pretend that Black can play for a win. 7/7.

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

Game #5: Tamaz Giorgadze vs. Mikhail Tal, 1978, 64 moves (Returning the Gambited Pawn Sacrifice)

From a very modern position in the Moscow Variation of the Sicilian Defense, Tal is faced with a powerful opening gambit, which is theoretically very sound. Tal immediately sacrifices the won pawn to be better able to develop his pieces, and after some (many) adventures, a draw is achieved.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 9...Bc6, is given a +0.02 evaluation, while Tal's move, 9...d5, is given a +0.22 evaluation. Therefore, Tal gets 3/5 points for his move, 1.8/3.

Subjective rating: The forcing continuation starting after 10. Nbd2 gives rise to a position in which only White can be better. Said position is also somewhat unpleasant for Black. Having said that, 9...Bc6, the engine's top choice, is too complex and all three results are possible. If Black wants to equalize, 9...d5 seems like the best bet. I'll give this a 6/7 on the subjective scale.

Sacrifice rating: 7.8/10, a sound sacrifice.

Game #6: Alexander Beliavsky vs. Mikhail Tal, 1978, 41 moves (Material Imbalance)

Tal effectively neutralizes Beliavsky's Queen's Gambit Declined and achieves a very harmonious position, which is at some point actually slightly better for Black. Beliavsky concocts an attack, but Tal defends well, and, when it's time to defend normally, Tal instead chooses to go for a creative piece sacrifice that is, in fact, completely genius!

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 #7: Mikhail Tal vs. Andres Vooremaa, 1979, 41 moves (Positional Queen Sacrifice OR Material Imbalance Sacrifice — a Schrödinger Sacrifice!)

It's rare to see White castling queenside in the Queen's Gambit, but it is in fact possible (meaning theoretically good) in some lines — but, let's be honest here, even if it weren't, would that stop Tal? Tal is greedy in this game and nabs a pawn, but he does so to get an easier-to-defend position rather than for purely material gains. Tal eventually sacrifices his queen, clearly having foreseen said sacrifice a few moves beforehand.

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 33. Nxd5, is given a +1.64 evaluation, while Tal's move, 33. a3, is given a 0.00 evaluation. Therefore, according to our table, Tal would get 0.5/5 for his move on the objective scale, but it has to be 0 because equality is a far cry from a possible +1.64 evaluation. 0/3

Subjective rating: The "refutation" of this sacrifice is a long series of forced moves that leads to an equal endgame. Meanwhile, the winning line with 33. Nxd5 is a pawn-up position where White's king is dangerously-placed and White has to navigate some complications to get to that position. In addition, accepting the queen sacrifice is quite tempting, and even accepting the piece sacrifice with 34...exd5 is also quite tempting. Therefore, I'll give this a 5/7 on the subjective scale! A very good practical sacrifice indeed.

Sacrifice rating: 5/10, neutral.

Game #8: Mikhail Tal vs. Rainer Knaak, 1979, 58 moves (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity)

A pretty positional line of the King's Indian Defense suddenly turns tactical as Tal sacrifices a central pawn to gain activity against Black's queen. The position then returns to normality as Tal eventually converts an endgame that requires a lot of precision — showcasing once again that Tal is more than "just" a tactical genius, but also an endgame genius!

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 18. Nf5, is given a +2.55 evaluation, while Tal's move, 18. Nc6, is given a +1.35 evaluation. According to our table, Tal should get 3.5/5 for his move, or 2.1/3.

Subjective rating: I have explained that I much prefer Tal's move to the top engine move and also to the greedy move, so I'll give this sacrifice a 7/7.

Sacrifice rating: 9.1/10, a very sound sacrifice.

Game #9: Jose Luis Vilela de Acuna vs. Mikhail Tal, 1979, 44 moves (Pawn Sacrifice for Activity)

Tal goes for a very unique setup against White's English Opening, but his opponent plays reasonable, logical moves and has a standard IQP position in which Tal finds no better than liquidation. Tal's chosen method of liquidation, though, is very creative and quite calculation-intensive!

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: The best move, 25...Nc5, is given a +0.13 evaluation, while Tal's move, 25...Nf6, is given a +0.33 evaluation. Technically, this would mean 1.5/5 points, but 0.33 is so close to <0.3 that it makes more sense to assign this move 3/5 points, for a total of 1.8/3.

Subjective rating: The pawn sacrifice does almost force an opposite-colored bishops position, and if White keeps the queens on the board, said opposite-colored bishops position could prove problematic for Black. However, even then, Black should still be able to draw the resulting position. In a sense, picking between 25...Nc5 and 25...Nf6 is about whether or not Black wants to defend an isolated queen's pawn position or an opposite-colored bishops position (with some potential of an attack for the latter). When one thinks of it with this kind of endgame logic, I think Tal made a very wise choice. 7/7.

Sacrifice rating: 8.8/10, a very sound sacrifice.

Game #10: Francisco Jose Perez Perez vs. Mikhail Tal, 1964, 67 moves (Exchange Sacrifice)

Not often does one see a bishop on g7 and a pawn on e6 in the Sicilian — usually, that's a common beginner mistake. In this specific opening position, though, and mainly because of White having fianchettoed and not being able to play a quick Nd6, Black is fine, but somewhat passive. Tal soon breaks free with the f6 lever, opening up the position in his favor and getting some solid central pawns. White soon activates his pieces, though, and Tal is on the back foot as White also gets a powerful knight on f6. What does Tal do? Sacrifice the exchange to get rid of the knight on f6, of course!

Sacrifice Rating

Objective rating: Many moves are considered "best" here, including Tal's 46...Rxf6 move. The objective rating is weighted at 30%, so 3 points are awarded.

Subjective rating: A brilliant sacrifice! Defending passively is just too risky for Black and invites blunders. I really like Tal's decision here. 7/7

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

Inclusion Criteria

For games 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10, the reasons for including those games in their respective categories are pretty clear. For game 1, the pawn Tal sacrificed could not be initially captured, but Tal left it hanging for a long time, so while the initial sacrifice was not a true one, long-term, the sacrifice was indeed not a psedo-sacrifice. Game 7 includes a curious Schrödinger sacrifice in which whether or not Tal sacrificed a queen or piece depends on Black's response. The sacrifice in game 9 could perhaps be considered a defensive pawn sacrifice, but Tal's intention with 25...Nf6 was to make his rook more active, even though said decision was also partially motivated by defensive considerations.

Puzzles / Review

Improve!

Shift the tide.

No defense

Improve, part 2

A practical decision that many would disagree with!

Envision the win.