Inevitability

Who's winning the long game?

One of my favorite ways to get a new perspective on chess is to think about concepts from different strategy games. In the card game Magic there’s a strategic concept called “inevitability.” It refers to who will win the long game: if things continue along a more or less normal path, who will come out on top? In Magic, this is generally due to one player having more powerful cards in their deck (maybe the other player prioritized faster, less powerful cards).

In chess, inevitability comes from long term positional advantages. The simplest is a lead in material, but it could also be a better pawn structure, more space, or any other static advantage. The key though is how inevitability affects your thought process. If you have inevitability, you don’t need to do much to win the game. All you have to do is maintain the game on its current course, don’t let anything too crazy happen, and you’ll eventually win. In contrast, if your opponent has inevitability, you must look for opportunities to change the course of the game. These could be opportunistic tactics, sacrifices, or creating a new imbalance. One way or another, you need to change the course of the game before time runs out.

Of course, this concept already exists, but putting a name to something often makes it easier to remember. Probably the most famous author to emphasize this concept is GM Josif Dorfman. My co-author GM Eugene Perelshteyn trained with Dorfman and we included this example in our book:

Black to play. According to Dorfman, White has a long-term advantage due to controlling the d5-square. If White is allowed to continue with natural moves like Bg2, 0-0, Nf4, they will consolidate an advantage. Black lacks comparably good natural moves. In my terminology, White has inevitability. That’s why it makes sense to start with unorthodox, dynamic play immediately:

9… a5! 10. Nf4 a4 11. Nxa4 Rxa4 12. bxa4 Ne5!

Black has good compensation for the exchange: White is still several moves from completing development, their king is stuck in the center, and Black has active pieces and an initiative with ideas like Nxc4, Ne4, and Re8.

A similar scenario arose in the game Anish Giri vs. Daniil Dubov from the recent World Rapid Championship. In this position, White has inevitability thanks to an extra pawn and better pawn structure. Black could get the pawn back with 15… Bxd4 but after 16. Qd2, White would still have an edge thanks to Black’s isolated pawns on the queenside. Defending passively isn’t really Dubov’s style. He came up with a wild way to expose White’s king on f2.

15… f5 16. Bxc6 f4! 17. gxf4 e5! 18. dxe5 Qh4+ 19. Kg1 Rbxf4

By sacrificing three (!) pawns and an exchange, Dubov completely changed the nature of the position. White is now up far more material, but his king is boxed in and at risk of being checkmated.

Another thing I like to think about is making the position about the factors that favor me. If I’m up a pawn, I want everything else about the position to be stable and balanced, so the game is about my pawn advantage. After this sequence, White may win if he is able to defend against Black’s attack, but the position is certainly not about a differential of one pawn: it’s about whether or not White will be able to survive. In the game, Giri was not able to defend perfectly and Dubov won brilliantly.

Here’s another example from the Speed Chess Championship match between Magnus Carlsen and Fabiano Caruana. Again, White has inevitability because of a pawn advantage. In an endgame White would win or trade off Black’s b-pawn followed by advancing the passed pawns on the queenside. Carlsen came up with a daring way to confuse the issue.

25… Re5 26. Qxf4 Re2 27. Rxb6 Rdd2 28. Rg1 Ne5

Black has given up two more pawns, but the rooks are exerting a lot of pressure on the second rank and the knight is threatening to jump into d3, hitting White’s queen and preparing a smothered mate on f2. The computer thinks this position is still better for White, but it’s far from easy to defend, especially in a blitz game.

Another relevant theme from both of these examples is that if you’re down material, it often makes sense to sacrifice more material if you can get an attack for it. If you’re already down material you would probably lose an endgame anyway (your opponent has inevitability) so sacrificing more isn’t a big deal if you can get a strong attack out of it.

So far all of our examples have been how to mix things up when your opponent has inevitability. When you are the one with inevitability, the situation is different; rather than mixing it up, you want to keep the game on a steady course.

In this position from a recent training game, Black to play stands better because they have more space in the center and White has created some weaknesses by advancing the kingside pawns. It’s tempting to take the bishop pair with Nxe3 or even Nf4, but either way this introduces more imbalances into the position. After 17… Nxe3 18. fxe3 White could dream of one day establishing a clamp on the kingside with e4 and Nf5. Likewise, after 17… Nf4 18. Bxf4 exf4 19. Nf5 Black faces a tough decision. You could play 19… Bxf5 20. gxf5 to give White a weak isolated pawn, but in that case White’s bishop on g2 is starting to look very powerful on the long diagonal. Which factor is more important? These are the kinds of complications you want to avoid when you’re starting from a clearly better position.

Objectively, Black still stands better in both of these cases, but the situation has gotten murkier. From a practical perspective it’s much better to simply play 17… Rad8, protecting the loose knight on d5, getting the rook into the game, and adding pressure to the weak pawn on d3. Black can improve the position with simple moves like Rfe8 and Bf8 whereas it’s very hard to find a productive move for White. In such a situation, many players will sabotage their own position in the desire to do something active.

Well, that’s all for next week. In your next game, ask yourself, “Who has inevitability?” If the answer is you, keep the ship steady, don’t rush to change the position, and look forward to winning in the long run. If it’s your opponent, look for creative ways to upset the balance of the position, even if it means sacrificing material, to give yourself a fighting chance.

---

My friend GM Nöel Studer just released a new course on how to study chess efficiently. I’ve been watching the videos while I bottle feed my 6-month-old and learning a lot. For example, I really liked Noël’s suggestion to divide study time into thirds:

1/3 tactics/calculation

1/3 playing + analyzing

1/3 everything else

This helped me cut through the anxiety of trying to design a perfect study plan. If you’re a fan of this newsletter I think you might really like the course. You can find it here. If you use this link, I get a percentage of the course price.