Techniques of Positional Play: 45 Practical Methods to Gain the Upper Hand in Chess

By Valeri Bronznik

Opening preparation is useful, but understanding the middlegame is much more important. This book, an improved edition of a Russian classic, teaches amateur chess players 45 extremely effective skills in a crystal-clear manner.

Quite a few of the ideas presented here will surprise the reader, because they offer solutions for problems the club player is only subconsciously aware. How do you activate your rook pawn? How do you prevent your opponent from opening a file? How do you restrict the efficacy of your opponents pieces? Which rook belongs on the c-, d- or e-file? What is the best way to exchange a piece? How do you castle artificially?
In most cases the techniques are easy to understand and memorize. Bronznik and Terekhin do not burden the reader with deep analysis and only present those variations that are really necessary to get the point. There is a special training section at the end of the book where you can test your skills.
,

• Language: English
• Publisher: New in Chess
• Release date: Feb 18, 2014
• ISBN: 9789056914738

Valeri Bronznik

Ukrainian International Master Valeri Bronznik lives and works in Germany. He has written a number of highly acclaimed books, such as ‘Techniques of Positional Play’.

Book preview

Introduction

Dear chess lover,

Please give me an honest answer: have you not often come out of the opening with a dream position only to see the tables turned on you afterwards? – I at least have often had that experience.

Or vice versa: your position after the opening was a modest one, but suddenly everything went splendidly right for you and the game took on a new aspect? Actually the question is more of a rhetorical one, the answer is obvious.

Why then do 90% of all chess players ascribe their tribulations to poor knowledge of the opening? We must at least be honest with ourselves: of course, good opening preparation is desirable, but it is not the main factor in our playing strength. An understanding of the middlegame and the endgame is far more important and can often enough help us to save dubious positions and not to spoil the good ones we have.

It may well appear tempting to acquire a few books or CDs on openings, to learn a few variations by heart and to hope that we can overcome an unsuspecting victim right in the opening with the theory we have mugged up on.

Unfortunately, it is only too easy for us to fall victim to such an attitude, if it leads us to a neglect of the middlegame and endgame – and even a completely superior position as we leave the opening in no way guarantees us a win, on the contrary: it demands of us an ability to play the middlegame and the endgame.

But, unfortunately, it is not quite so simple to acquire such good knowledge of the middle- and endgame, since it is only recently that appropriate books have been gradually coming on the market. So that made it all the more interesting for me to lay my hands upon the book by the well-known Russian trainer FM A.Terekhin ‘Strategic Methods’ ¹ (the Russian prototype of the book which you have in your hand). Terekhin chose a lot of examples and from them worked out ideas the knowledge of which can turn out to be extremely useful for players of practically all levels – from advanced club players all the way up to masters. Many of his points of view – here I am thinking, e.g., of the explanations concerning the potential passed pawn – are completely new and to the best of my knowledge have not yet appeared in chess literature.

The idea soon occurred to me to translate the book into German – as usual with the able help of my late friend Dieter Mohrlok (IM and correspondence chess GM). In doing so, I have greatly revised the material from the Russian edition. Some not very convincing examples have been omitted, but in return I have included some new, and hopefully appropriate game fragments.

In addition the reader of the German resp. English edition will find significantly more analysis and explanations than there were in the Russian original. Nevertheless the main emphasis in this book was not laid on deep analysis, but rather on giving you as good as possible a feeling for and understanding of the ideas and methods which are presented. Consequently I have deliberately tried to avoid, where possible, complicated and confusing analyses.

Firstly, a little caution: in this book you will be confronted with new concepts which may at first glance appear strange, for example the aforesaid ‘potential passed pawn’ or the ‘wave-breaker’ or the ‘pendulum manoeuvre’. These expressions are inventions of A. Terekhin, and we have translated them to the best of our ability. Whenever you encounter each such technique the concepts will then be explained in greater depth.

The overwhelming number of examples comes from the creative work of world famous players. But there are also extracts of games played by less well-known people, whose names you may perhaps not know. That proves that it is not necessary to be a GM or even an IM to demonstrate successful use of a strategic idea. And a good thing it is too!

I must thank Anatoli Terekhin for having appreciated my work and making no objection to allowing me to stand as his co-author for the German and English edition.

IM Valeri Bronznik

Stuttgart, August 2005

Dear reader,

When Valeri Bronznik showed me the inconspicuous little Russian book by Terekhin, I was immediately affected in a very special way. It is not that no good middlegame books had previously appeared – sterling service in this field has been done above all by Dvoretsky and Watson. No, for some reason there appeared to be specific and not so peculiarly complicated artifices with which I had never become systematically acquainted, but which I had come up against in fragmentary and painful fashion in my encounters with strong players.

The idea occurred immediately that the book had to be published in German, though it was clear that for a publication which would come up to Western standards – and I am not just talking about the translation – some fine-tuning was still required. Following the proverb ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ I also became involved with the work, changing the order of the techniques and arranging them in individual chapters, putting together a chapter with exercises drawn from ‘superfluous’ examples, etc.

The result – a tribute to the German penchant for systematising – is that the first four chapters are devoted above all to the art of pawn play, chapters V to X on the other hand to piece play. With appropriate reservations, of course.

I wish the readers a whole host of instructive moments!

FM Harald Keilhack, editor

Schwieberdingen, Nov.2005/July 2013

Footnote

¹ Strategic Methods/Techniques, Methods/Techniques of positional play; translating it is not so clear-cut, and we spent a long time on possible variations of the German resp. later on the English title.

Chapter I

Restricting the enemy pieces

‘If one piece is badly placed, then your whole game is bad’

The whole of the first chapter is devoted to this adage from the Russian chess school. It illustrates different techniques for excluding an opposing piece from the action by means of clever pawn play and it presents the subtle consequences of this – which sometimes reach far into the endgame.

Putting the knight in chains

Technique No. 1

I. Paralysing the knight with the duo of wing pawns

We start with the surprisingly frequent motif of restricting a knight by the wing pawns: Pawn g3/Pawn h4 against a Ng6 is the main subject with various mirror image variations. The opponent is frequently faced with a choice only between different evils: Opposing with his own rook pawn (…h5 or …a5) creates weaknesses or is not really possible. Allowing h4-h5 or a4-a5 leaves him at a disadvantage in space, and for the rest of its days the knight can often never find a good square.

▶ 1.1 Botvinnik–Boleslavsky

Moscow (USSR Ch) 1941

The last move was 24…Qd6-c6.

‘Black wants to tie in one of the opposing pieces to the protection of the Pawn a4. In that case the development of White’s initiative would slow down. But White has at his disposal a clear attacking plan: drive away the Ng6 so as to gain access to the e7-square for his rook and to the e5- and f4-squares for the knight. For that reason White ignores the petty threat posed by his opponent’ (Botvinnik).

25.g3! Rd6

The continuation 25…Qxa4 26.h4 was extremely dangerous for Black, e.g. 26… Rd6 (or 26…Rfd8 27.h5 Nf8 28.h6, and according to Botvinnik White’s attack plays itself) 27.h5 Nh8 28.Nf4 .

26.h4! f6

So as to control the e5-square.

27.Qf5! Qc8

27…Qxa4 was quite bad on account of 28.h5 Nh8 29.Nf4, e.g. 29…Nf7 30.Ne6! Rb8 31.Qg4 Ng5 32.Nxg5 fxg5 33.Re7 h6 34.Qf5+− or 29…Qd7 30.Qxd7 Rxd7 31.Re7 Rxe7 32.Rxe7 Nf7 33.Nxd5+−.

28.Qxc8 Rxc8 29.h5 Nf8 30.Re7 Rcd8

30…Rc4 31.Rb7 Rxa4 32.Ree7+−.

31.Nf4 ,

and White won on move 49.

▶ 1.2 Tamburini–Botvinnik

Leipzig (Olympiad) 1960

Before looking at the further course of the game, I should like to draw your attention to Black’s queen’s rook, which is ready to pop up on the e-file in a single move – we shall delve more deeply into this idea and similar ones under Technique No. 32, ‘The rook lift.’

21…h5!

∆…h5-h4, …Nf6-h5.

22.Bf1 h4 23.Nge2 Nh5

A further gain of space on the kingside is the threat after …g6-g5, …f5-f4, when the Bc8 becomes active; in addition the Bh8 is now no longer blocked and can thus exert strong pressure along the long diagonal.

As far as White’s position is concerned, one can sense a certain lack of harmony – the constellation Ne2/Bf1 looks really unnatural. The game ended surprisingly quickly.

24.Nf4??

Of course White’s desire to swap off his badly posted knight is an easy one to fulfil, but …

24…Nxf4 25.Bxf4 Bd4+

0-1

After 26.Kh1 g5 White loses the Bf4. So there was no longer any need for the rook lift to e7 – White had already abandoned his position.

▶ 1.3 Petrosian–Botvinnik

Moscow (1st WCh game) 1963

White has at his disposal the usual plan of the minority attack on the queenside (b2-b4-b5). And what about Black’s counterplay?

12…g6!

Intending …h6-h5-h4.

13.f3?!

As Botvinnik writes in his notes on this game, the only possible reason for this move is as preparation for queenside castling – the pawn would otherwise be left hanging on f2.

Of course there would be another reason for 13.f3, namely to prepare e3-e4. But for the moment that does not look like a realistic option and in fact in the future course of the game White manages neither e3-e4 nor queenside castling, and thus f2-f3 turns out just to be a waste of time and a weakening of his own position.

13.Bd3!? looked much more natural and much sounder, though Black would also then get considerable counter-chances on the kingside after 13…h5 (intending to follow up with …h5-h4 at the appropriate moment).

13…h5!

∆…h5-h4.

14.Be2

After 14.0-0-0 h4 15.Ne2 Bf5 Black has the initiative.

14…Nd7

Black takes his time about …h5-h4, as long as White has not decided on where to place his king. But 15.0-0?! would immediately be followed by 15…h4, and after 16.Nh1 Qg5 17.Kf2 Nf6 the Nh1 looks like some insignificant bystander, who is not allowed to take part in the game. On the other hand 15.0-0-0 is followed by 15…Qg5 16.Rd3 Nf6, and the Pawn e3 is under pressure.

15.Kf2 h4!

Now Black should no longer delay this move, or else on the next move White could bring the Rh1 into action.

16.Nf1 Nf8 17.Nd2

Actually the knight is pretty well placed on f1, from where it protects the Pawn e3 – but the Rh1 has to be freed and that costs White two extra tempi (Nf1-d2-f1).

17…Re7 18.Rhe1 Bf5 19.h3

‘This move has only one advantage – from now on White has no need to calculate any variations with …h4-h3. But its disadvantages are obvious: the g3-square is weakened and the option of g2-g4 is no longer viable’ (Botvinnik).

19…Rae8 20.Nf1 Ne6 21.Qd2

And now, as Botvinnik explains, Black could by

21…Ng5!

immediately bring about a won position, e.g. 22.Kg1 Bxh3! 23.gxh3 Nxh3+ 24.Kh1 (24.Kh2 Rxe3! 25.Nxe3 Qf4+ 26.Kh1 Nf2+ 27.Kg1 Qg3+ 28.Kf1 Nh3 29.Bd1 Qg1+ 30.Ke2 Nf4#) 24…Qg5! 25.Kh2 Qg1+ 26.Kxh3 Rxe3 (with the deadly threats of …g6-g5 or …Re8-e4) 27.Kxh4 R8e4+! 28.fxe4 (28.Kh3 g5−+) 28…g5+ 29.Kh5 Rh3# or 22.Qd1 Bxh3! 23.gxh3 Ne4+! 24.Kg2 Qg5+ 25.Kh2 Nf2 26.Qd2 Rxe3 27.Bd1 Qf4+ 28.Kg2 Nxd1 29.Raxd1 Qxf3+ 30.Kg1 Re2 31.Rxe2 Rxe2 32.Qg5 Qf2+ 33.Kh1 Rxb2−+.

▶ 1.4 Spraggett–Ehlvest

Clermont-Ferrand 1989

For now White has an extra pawn, but it is Black’s move – of course, Black can recover the Pawn a3 whenever he feels like it.

21…h5!

But first Ehlvest plays …h7-h5-h4 to push the Ng3 into a passive position and at the same time gains space on the kingside.

22.f3 h4 23.Nf1 Nxb2 24.Qxb2 Rxa3 25.Ra1 Rxa1 26.Rxa1 Bf5!

Black has an obvious advantage – the white knights cannot rival the activity of the black bishop pair, the Nf1 is really passive (but should remain on this square to protect h2), whilst the Ne4 may well be centralised but its position is insecure. At the same time, thanks to his space advantage on the kingside Black (on account of …h7-h5-h4!) has good attacking chances.

27.Ra7

27.Nfd2 Bb8! (∆…Qc7) 28.Qb6 Bg6! (∆…f5).

27…b6

With the threat of 28…Bxh2+.

28.Qa2 Rd8 29.h3 Rd7

Renewing the threat of …Bh2+.

30.Ra8+ Kh7 31.Qc2

Or 31.Nfd2 c5! 32.dxc5 bxc5 , intending …Qe5 with an attack.

31…Rd6! 32.Nfd2 Rg6

Black has outstanding attacking prospects.

▶ 1.5 Yevseev–Loginov

St. Petersburg 1998

What we have here is a well-known position from the Modern Benoni Defence. 13.Bxh6 would be followed by 13…Nxe4! and after 14.Nxe4 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qxh6 16.Qxh6 Bxh6 17.Nxd6 Rd8 Black obtains good compensation for the pawn he has sacrificed. If the first player does not want to see play follow this course then he has to look round for other options.

13.Ng3

GM Stohl criticises this move, and not without good reason – after Black’s reply the knight can hardly feel comfortable. Possible alternatives might be 13.Nc1 ∆Be2, 0-0 or 13.Nd1 ∆Nec3, Be2, 0-0, Nf2.

13…h5! 14.Be2 h4!

Black drives the knight back and at the same time gains space on the kingside.

15.Nf1

After this, Black must in any case deal with the threat of Bg5.

15…Nh7!

A pitiful knight on f1 – it is preventing the chance of castling, the Pawn h4 is denying it the g3-square, whilst the Qd2 and Be3 have occupied other desirable squares. For that reason, White has to regroup his forces, which of course costs him time.

16.Bf2

16.Qc2!?.

16…Ne5 17.Ne3 Bh6

∆…f7-f5.

Black has an easy and active game.

Now let us turn to the ‘other’ rook pawn, the a-pawn. In the next example, White does play a2-a4 to defend against his knight being pushed back, but nevertheless the knight on b3 is a blot on the landscape and also the weakening of the b4-square has its consequences in the long run.

▶ 1.6 Atkins–Capablanca

London 1922

14…a5

Perhaps the move order 14…b6!? 15.Rac1 a5 would have been a bit more precise, because White could now try the variation 15.Nc5!? b6 16.Na4 ∆ Nc3-b5.

15.Rac1 b6!

Now the Nb3 is really hemmed in.

16.a4

This prevents …a5-a4, but weakens the b4-square.

16…Kd7 17.Nc3

∆Nc3-b5.

17…Na7 18.Kf1 Nec6 19.Ke2 Rc8 20.Be1 Be7 21.Nb1 f5 22.exf6 Bxf6 23.Bc3 Nb4 24.Bd2 Nac6

On account of the unchanged passive position of the Nb3 (which may well be protecting d4, but is not achieving anything else) and the chronic need of protection of d4 Black’s chances are clearly preferable.

In the following example, after a4-a5 and …Nb6-a8-c7-a6 the knight can no longer find a safe perch. Black feels the consequences of this right into the endgame:

▶ 1.7 Réti–Ed. Lasker

New York 1924

17.a4!

The plan is naturally 18.a5.

17…Red8

17…a5? 18.c5 Na8 19.Bc3 Qd8 20.Qd2+−.

18.a5 Na8 19.e5 Qg6 20.Qe2 Nc7

Of course this knight felt wretched on a8, but things are not that much better for it on c7 – it does not have a sensible square at its disposal.

21.Ba3 Na6 22.Rfe1 Be8

Black is hoping to get in …c6-c5 and by doing so to make the position of his knight on a6 look a bit more sensible. But White’s next move thwarts this intention.

23.Bd6! f5

23…c5? 24.cxd5+−.

24.f4 Qh6 25.Bf3

The Na6 remains completely out of the game, and even the Be8 is for the moment ineffective, and in addition White has a major advantage in space.

25…g5

Black tries to become active on the kingside. But his problem is that, on account of sad position of the Na6, he is, for all practical purposes, playing with a knight less, which makes itself felt more and more with each succeeding exchange.

26.Ra2

26.fxg5!? Qxg5 27.Qe3 .

26…gxf4 27.gxf4 Rd7

27…Qxf4 28.Qf2 Rd7 29.Kh1 Kh8 30.Rg1 with an attack.

28.Qe3 Rg7+ 29.Rg2 Rxg2+ 30. Kxg2 Bh5 31.Bxh5 Qxh5 32.Rg1 Kf7 33.Kh1 Rg8 34.Rxg8 Kxg8 35.cxd5 cxd5 36.b4!

In the long run, Black’s operations on the kingside have led to major simplifications, which once more leaves him with a hopeless endgame because the Na6 is not only ineffectual, but also in great danger on account of the threat of b4-b5. In addition, the dark squares in Black’s camp are hopelessly weak. White simply has to watch out for a few tactical tricks.

36…Kf7 37.Qd3

37.b5? would be premature on account of 37…Qd1+ 38.Kg2 Nc7! 39.Bxc7 Qc2+=.

37…Qh4 38.Qf1

38.b5? Qe1+ 39.Kg2 Nb4.

38…Qd8 39.Qh3 Kg8 40.Qg3+ Kf7 41.Qg5! Qc8

Or 41…Qxg5 42.fxg5 Kg6, and then finally 43.b5+−.

42.b5 Qc1+ 43.Kg2 Qd2+

Or 43…Qb2+ 44.Kg3 Qxb5 (44…Qc3+ 45.Kh4 Qe1+ 46.Kh5 Qe2+ 47.Kh6 Qxh2+ 48.Qh5+ +−) 45.Qf6+ +−.

44.Kh3 Qe3+ 45.Kh4 Qe1+ 46.Kh5 Qe2+ 47.Kh6 Qxh2+ 48.Qh5+ Qxh5+ 49.Kxh5 Kg7 50.bxa6 bxa6 51.Bc5,

and White won in a few moves.

▶ 1.8 Kasparov–Spassky

Barcelona 1989

White is planning the central breakthrough e3-e4, but first of all measures need to be taken against …Nb6-c4.

14.b3! g6 15.a4!? a5

Or else Black would have to reckon with the further advance of the a-pawn. But now his own a-pawn tends to be weak.

16.f3 h5 17.g5 Qd6 18.Nge2 Ng8 19.e4

White has the initiative.

In the next example a4-a5! only apparently opens up a prospect for the Nc7 on b5:

▶ 1.9 Eingorn–Hickl

Zagreb (Interzonal tournament) 1987

Black is very cramped, but nevertheless he is hoping to get some counterplay by means of …b7-b5.

20.a5!

This nails down the Pawn b7. But it looks as if Black can activate his knight with his next move, doesn’t it?

20…Nb5 21.Na4!

A lovely idea. White does not exchange the knight, but wishes to rob it of its freedom of movement by c2-c3.

21…g5

After 21…Nd4 22.c3 Nf5 23.g4 Nh4 24.Kf2 g5 25.Rfe1! (∆26.exd6 exd6 27.Rxe8+ Rxe8 28.Nxd6) 25…Bf8 26.f5+− the poor knight on h4 would feel even worse than ever.

22.g3 gxf4 23.gxf4 Kh7

After 23…Nd4 24.c3 Nf5 25.Kf2 too, the knight is hardly very effective, but this was the lesser evil.

24.c3!

Black now has absolutely no counterplay.

The game did not go on for much longer:

24…f6?! 25.e6 Rg8 26.Kf2 Nc7 27.Ne3 Na8 28.Nf5 Rde8 29.Kf3 Bf8 30.c4

30…Rb8 31.Rd3 Kg6 32.Rg1+ Kh7 33.Rxg8 Kxg8 34.Kg4 Kh7 35.Kh5

1-0

In the final example it is exceptionally the pawn formation a3/b4, which keeps the black knight out of the action:

▶ 1.10 Rubinstein–Tarrasch

Berlin 1928

What is more important here: the somewhat awkward position of the white king or the passive position of the Na6?

13.Rc1

Additionally, the rook also takes control of the c5- and c7-squares – that makes life even harder for the Na6.

13…0-0 14.a3!

Preventing …Nb4.

14…Rfd8 15.Ke1 Ne8 16.Be2 Nd6

After 16…Bxb5 17.Bxb5 Nac7 the knight would finally get into the game, but it would mean that White would get the advantage of the bishop pair. However, that would perhaps have been the lesser evil.

17.Nac3!

Naturally not 17.Nxd6 Bxd6 18.Nc3 Nc7 (or 18…Bc5!?), and the black knight can breathe again.

17…Nxb5 18.Nxb5 b6

∆…Nc5.

19.b4! Be6 20.Kf2

And the white king has found a comfortable square, whereas the Na6 is still languishing in its prison.

20…Rd7 21.Rhd1 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 Kf8 23.g3! Ke8 24.f4!

White is practically playing with an extra piece, and this will be felt most clearly in the forthcoming hand-to-hand struggle.

24…f6 25.fxe5 fxe5 26.Bc1!

∆26.Bb2.

26…Bc8

Protects the Na6.

27.Bb2 Bf6 28.Nd6+ Ke7 29. Nc4!

29.Nxc8+?! Rxc8 ∆30.Bxa6? Rc2+ =.

29…Ke6

29…Bb7 30.Bxe5 Bxe5 31.Nxe5+−.

30.Nxe5! Nc7

30…Bxe5 31.Bc4+ Kf6 32.Rd6+ +−.

31.Bc4+ Ke7 32.Nc6+ Kf8 33. Bxf6 gxf6 34.Rd8+ Ne8 35.b5 Bb7 36.Rd7 Bxc6 37.bxc6

And Black resigned.

Technique No. 2

II. Other ways of dominating the knight

As well as the very typical procedure with the wing pawns (b3/a4, g3/h4 etc., which we have just seen) there are a lot of other possible ways of limiting the mobility of an opposing knight.

The selection which follows is somewhat unsystematic, but that should help it sharpen the reader’s eye in his search for the various ways of dominating an opposing knight. As we will see, sometimes the main work falls on the pawns, and at other times on the pieces.

Let us begin with two examples which are mirror images of the same motif ‘the Pawn b4 restricts the Nb7’ or ‘the Pawn g4 restricts the Ng7’:

▶ 2.1 Keres–Unzicker

Hamburg (3rd match game) 1956

14.b4

Keres hems in the opposing knight, and in addition he plans to play b4-b5 when appropriate. A further point: the Pawn b4 is preventing his opponent from getting the central pawn pair d5/c5.

14…Re8

After 14…c5 15.bxc5 Nxc5 the knight would have come back into the game, but the Pawn d6 and the d5-square would then be very weak: after 16.Be3 (intending Rad1 or Nb5) White would clearly be better off.

The advance 14…d5 (∆…Nd6) could be well met with 15.b5! . Also 14…a5 is followed by 15.b5 with a strong initiative.

15.Be3 Be6

15…c5 16.bxc5 Nxc5 17.Rad1 .

15…d5 16.b5 .

15…a5 16.b5 with an initiative for White.

16.Qf3 Qd7

Here 16…d5 ∆…Nd6 was very interesting. The best reply is once more 17.b5!. The resulting variations have many branches and are very complicated; consequently here is only the main line with a few deviations: 17…c5 (17…cxb5 18.Nxd5 with the initiative) 18.Rd3! (18.Rdd1 d4 19.Qxb7 Qa5 20.Bxd4 cxd4 21.Nd5 Rab8 22.Ne7+ Kf8 23.Nc6 Rxb7 24.Nxa5 Rxb5 25.Nb3 Bxb3 26.axb3 Re2 27.Rxd4 Rxc2=) 18…d4 19.Qxb7 Bc4 (19…Bf5 20.Rdd1 Qc8 21.Qxc8 Raxc8 22.Nd5 ) 20.Rdd1 Qa5 21.Bxd4 cxd4 22.Nd5 Bxb5 23.Qc7 Qa3 24.Qf4 Be2 25.Rxd4 Rc8 (25… Qb2 26.Re1 Bd3 27.Rc1 ) 26.Ne3, and Black does not obtain sufficient compensation for the pawn he has lost.

17.Ne4

White’s centralisation becomes even more threatening.

17…Bf5?

Black absolutely had to neutralise the strong knight and to do so he had to play 17…Bd5!, e.g. 18.c4 Bxe4 19.Rxe4 a5 20.Rxe8+ Rxe8 21.a3. Of course White is better here too (advantageous pawn structure, the Be3 is superior to the Nb7), but Black’s position would remain playable.

18.Ng3!

White sacrifices a pawn, but on the other hand almost all his forces are storming the opposing king.

18…Bxc2

18…Bg6 was no better: 19.h4! Bxc2 20. Rc1 Ba4 21.Rg4 with a strong attack.

19.Rc1 Ba4

Now both black minor pieces are out of