Karpov vs. Unzicker, Nice 1974

For twenty-five full moves, from move 16 to move 40, not a single capture occurs. When Unzicker resigns, material is still equal. That is the paradox of this victory: almost nothing disappears from the board, yet the two sides’ possibilities become very different.

On 18 June 1974, Anatoly Karpov was playing on board one for the USSR against West Germany in the final stage of the Nice Chess Olympiad. His point contributed to a 3.5 to 0.5 team victory. The Soviet team would finish first, while Karpov completed the tournament with an unbeaten 12 points from 14 games. This encounter belongs to that collective performance, although its chess interest stands on its own.

Keep the pieces, change the problem

With the centre closed, extra space matters because it allows pieces to change tasks without losing coordination. White’s pieces can take turns supporting the centre, backing the rooks and seeking new entry points. Black also manoeuvres, but many of those moves preserve existing support rather than create new possibilities. The difference is not that one side moves while the other does not: it lies in what each move makes possible next.

The most distinctive image is 24.Ba7. It neither captures nor gives check; it places a bishop on the file where the rooks might otherwise be exchanged. Its importance goes beyond an unusual piece of geometry. Karpov keeps many pieces in play when the space available to coordinate them is unequal. He can then prepare a second front without abandoning the first.

Closing the kingside pawns does not guarantee safety either. Lines need not burst open for pieces to enter: a change in the control of a few squares and the removal of a key defender can be enough. The final attack grows out of that transformation. It does not replace positional work with a combination unrelated to what came before.

A victory told by its author

Karpov included the annotated game in his selection covering 1969 to 1977, published in 1978. Douglas Griffin’s translation makes the winner’s own explanation accessible. It is a retrospective account: it helps us understand how he organised the problems of the position, but is not a transcript of everything he thought during the game.

Viewed from the finish, the victory can seem inevitable long before it actually was. That impression is worth resisting. The game’s value lies in how a position with resources becomes progressively more restricted through concrete decisions, not in assuming that the opening condemned Unzicker. Resignation comes with queens, rooks and numerous minor pieces still on the board. Material equality no longer describes the struggle: one side has coordinated threats, while the other has pieces unable to respond together.