SPECIALIST CHESS OPENINGS series edited by R. G.Wade

Ruy Lopez: Breyer System

L. S. Blackstock

1 c4 c5 2 f3 -1iJc6 3 llb5 a6 4 ila4 [z:Jffi 5 00 Jle7 6 a el b5

7 Jl b3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 b8

S P E C I A L I S T C H E S S O P E N I N G S

G E N ERAL E D I T OR: R. G . W A D E

Ruy Lopez: Breyer System

L. S. BLACKSTOCK

B. T. Batsford Limited London

First published 1976 L. S . Blackstock, 1 976 ISBN 0713431245

Printed in Great Britain by Willmer Brothers Limited, Birkenhead for the publishers B. T. Batsford Limited 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London WI H OAH

BATSFORD CHESS BOOKS Advisor: .R. G. Wade Editor: K. J. O'Connell

Contents

Symbols I n trod uction 1 1 2)bd2 : Introduction

2 1 1 2) bd2 Main Line except 15 a4 3 1 1 2)bd2 Main Line with 1 5 a4 4 1 1 2)bd2 : 1 3 b4 without 1 4 a4 5 1 1 2)bd2 : 1 3 b4 with 1 4 a4 6 1 1 2)bd2 with 1 2 . . . c5 7 1 1 2)h4 8 1 1 g5 9 1 1 c4 without 1 1 . . . c6

1 0 1 1 c4 c6 1 1 1 0 d3 : Introduction 1 2 10 d3 Main Line with 1 5 2)h2 1 3 10 d3 Main Line with 1 5 b4 1 4 1 0 a4 1 5 1 0 d4 b7

Index of Complete Games Index of Variations

VI

vu

4 1 3 20 24 32 38 47 55 60 70 80 85 91 93 97

1 0 1

Symbols

;t slight advantage for White + slight advantage for Black clear advantage for White + clear advantage for Black White has a won posi tion + + Black has a won position

Introduction

The Breyer System involves a regrouping manoeuvre by Black in the main line of the Closed Ruy Lopez (Spanish Game) . At first sight the queen's knight being re-developed via its original square (c6-b8 ) appears to be a bizarre retrogressive step.

I e4 eS 2 f3l')c6 3 A bS a6 4 Aa4 ffi S00 Ae7 6 . el bS 7 A b3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 and now 9 . . . . b8!? introduces the Breyer System.

This idea is generally attributed to the hypermodern Hungarian master, Gyula Breyer ( 1 894- 1 921 ) . He is quoted by Hans Muller as asking: 'Is there no possibility of satisfactorily bolstering the key point eS without the positional liability c7-cS , whereby Black can combine defence with activating the bishop on c8 which is difficult to develop effectively?' There is no further documentary evidence of this idea in more concrete form either in theoretical articles or in tournament practice during Breyer's lifetime. There is scope for further historical research in this direction ( the most likely source is the Becsi M agyar Ujsag-ed.).

I t was not until the early 1 9S0s that the idea was moulded into a viable defensive system, largely as a result of the work and games of two Leningrad players, Georgi Borisenko and Semyon Furman. A great deal of theory on the Breyer accumulated during the 1 960s until it became (and has remained) the most popular of Black's 9th move alternatives, having replaced the classical 9 . . . aS .

The Breyer has been the favourite defence of two world champions, Boris Spassky and Anatoly Karpov, the latter, no doubt, being influenced in his choice by Furman, his trainer! Otherl eading exponents of the system are Lajos Portisch, Svetozar Gligoric, Alexander Matanovic and Wolf gang Unzicker. It is a tribute to the flexibility of Black's position that many leading players have constantly been prepared to play the variation for either side.

To return the knight to b8 cannot be regarded as a waste of time, considering how many times the Lopez bishop is moved and the trouble

viii Introduction

often taken to bring the white knight from bl to d5 or f5. Furthermore, in traditional lines, Black's counterplay on the Q-side involving . . . c6-a5-c4-b6 or . . . a5, . . . c4 and . . . a5-b7-c5 necessitates lengthy manoeuvres.

When the position after White's 9 h3 is examined it should be noted that the black pawns b5 and a6 are isolated from most of Black's forces by the physical barrier made by the black pawns c7 /d6 /e5 . White has prospects of exploiting the advanced black pawns to force open lines on the Q-side, gain manoeuvring space and, as a result, enjoy a prolonged initiative. Black may have an urgent need to transfer pieces to that wing and will find the pawn at c7 (and therefore the knight at c6) an obstacle . Traditionally a certain harmony has been achieved by the manoeuvre 9 . . . a5 1 0 it c2 c5, while the Breyer-Borisenko-Furman idea is 9 . . . b8 and if 1 0 d4

1 1 1 4Jbd2: Introduction

1 e4 eS iJf3 iJc6 3 A bS a6 4 Aa4 iJf6 S 00 Ae7 6 .. el bS 7 Ab3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 iJ b8 1 0 d4 iJ bd7

1 B

1 1 iJ bd2 ( 1)

The 'natural' Lopez move intending to swing the knight to the K-side though, as will be seen, White still retains options of playing on the Q-wing.

1 1 . . . A b7 1 2 Ac2

Already feeling the effect of the Breyer set-up. If White wishes to manoeuvre his QN to g3, the 'Lopez bishop' has to leave its fine diagonal to defend the e-pawn.

1 2 a4 promises nothing, e.g. : a) 12 . . .. c:51 3 i!Ye2 c4 1 4 Ac2 i!Yc7 IS iJfl .. fe8 16 iJg3 Am 1 7 Ae3 g6 18 iJd2 dS Nedeljkovic-

Bobotsov, Belgrade-Sofia 1 9S7 b) 12 g6 1 3 i!Y e2 c6 14 iJfl iJhS I S iJl h2 i!Ye8 16 Ah6 iJg7 1 7 iJg4 proved much too artificial for Black, Novopashin-Estrin, i-final 28th USSR Ch 1 960.

1 2 . . . .. e8 For 1 2 . . . cS see chapter 6. This

has been championed by Gligoric in recent years, the idea being to avoid the lines arising after 12 . . . .. e8 1 3 b4 (chapters 4 & S ) . The text intends to put further pressure on White's e-pawn after . . . Am.

Now White has several alternatives: A 1 3 a4 B 1 3 c4 C 1 3 a3 D 1 3 b3 E 1 3 iJf1

1 3 b4 has enjoyed great popularity in recent years, so much so that this will be discussed separately (see chapters 4 & S ) . A

13 a4 Am Perfectly play able is 1 3 . . . cS 1 4

b 3 A m (Also sa tisfactory is 14 . . . ed I S cd ba 1 6 .. x a4 iJb6 1 7 .. a2 cd

2 11 lL:Jbd2: Introduction

Haag-Lengyel, Gyula 1 965 .} 1 5 d5 . b8 16 ab ab 1 7 i!re2 Ac8 1 8lL:Jfl

lL:Jh5 with equality, LebanRobatsch, Sarajevo 1 968.

14 lL:Jfl 14 Ad3 c6 15 lL:Jfl i!rb8 1 6 g4?!

d5! is very good for Black, HoenFilip, Siegen Olympiad 1 970.

1 4 . . . ('d 1 5 lL:Jx d4 c5 1 6 lL:Jf5 lL:JX e4 1 7

i!rg4 g6 1 8lL:Jh6+ A x h6 1 9 A x h6 f5+ Ravinsky-Bebchuk, i-final 33rd USSR Ch 1 965. B

13 c:4 Am 1 4 b3 ed 1 5 lL:J x d4 bc 1 6 bc lL:J c5

1 7 f3 g6 1 8lL:J2b3lL:Jh5 1 9lL:Ja5 A c8 20 . bl i!rh4! with advantage to Black, Ciocaltea-Barcza, Moscow 1 956 . C

13 a3 Am 1 4 b4

Also 1 4 . . . c5 when: a) 15 de de 1 6 c4 i!rc717lL:JfllL:Jb8! 1 8 lL:Je3lL:Jc6 1 9lL:Jd5 i!rd8 2 0,lld3 b4 2 1 lL:Jh2 lL:Jd4 is satisfactory for Black, Ciric-Robatsch, Sarajevo 1 968. b) 15 cl5 lt c8 1 6,lld3 . bBI7 i!r e2

lL:Jb6 1 8 h2lL:Jh5 1 9 g3 g6 20 c4 b4 21 i!re3 ltg7 and, though White has a spacial advantage, Black's position is very solid, M. KovacsPortisch, Hungarian Ch 1965.

1 5 a4 ' 1 5 de i-i Ciric-Parma, Sarajevo

197 1 . 1 5 . . . ,1lg7

Unclear is 1 5 . . . lL:Jh5 1 6 c4 c6 1 7 lL:Jfl bc 1 8 bc ed 1 9 Ax d4 i!rc7 Romanishin-A. Petrosian, USSR Olympiad 1 972 .

1 6,1ld3 c6 1 7 i!r c2 (2)

After 1 4 d5 c6 1 5 dc A X c6 1 6 2 lL:Jfl i!rc7 1 7 lL:Jg3 i!rb7 1 8 lt g5 d5 B Black stands better, Filep-Lengyel, Hungarian Ch 1965 .

1 4 . . . d5 ! 1 5 de lL:Jx e4 16lL:Jx e4 de 1 7 e6

. x e6 1 8lL:Jg5 . e7 1 9lL:Jx e4 i!r e8 with excellent chances for Black, Filep-Zinser, Reggio Emilia 1 968-69. D

13 b3 ,llm 1 4 ,ll b2

Or 1 4 d5 c6 and now both 1 5 dc Ax c6 c4 bc and 15 c4 bc 16 bc i!rc7 lead only to equality.

1 4 . . . g6

17 ... . c8 Alternatively:

a) 17 i!rb6?118 b4 ed 1 9 cd c5 20 bc dc 2 1 ab ab 22 dc x c5 23 . x a8 ,1lx a8 24 ,1ld4 lL:Jfd7 25 ,1lx g7

Carlo 1 968. Despite the loss of a pawn Black has good drawing chances with pawns on one side of the board only . b) 17 . . . c7 1 8 b4 b6! 1 9 a5 a4 gives equal ity,Haag-Forintos, Hungarian Ch 1 965.

18 de?! Korchnoi suggests 1 8 A fl as an

improvement. 1 8 . . . de

19 b4 Am 20 . ed1 b6 2 1 b3 c5 22 ab ab 23 bc A x c5 24 x b5 Ax 12+ with advantage to Black, Korchnoi-Portisch, USSR-Rest, Belgrade 1 970. E

13 t1.

11 bd2: Introduction

The 'normal' plan. 1 3 . . . A m 1 4 g3

1 4 de de 1 5 3h2 c5 1 6 f3 e6 1 7 g4 x g4 1 8 X g4 g6 1 9 g3 Ag7 20 h2 c5 2 1 g4 "&c7= Diickstein-Unzicker, Bamberg 1 968 . The play here is similar to variations arising from 1 0 d3 (chapter 1 2 ) .

1 4 . . . g6 The basic position of the main

line of 11 bd2 which many leading players, notably Karpov and Spassky, are prepared to play from either side. White's many alternatives at this point are considered in the next two chapters .

2 1 1.J bd2 Main Line except 15 a4

White now has several tries : A 1 5 de B l5 h4 C 1 5 b3 D 1 5 Ag5 E 1 5 Ad2

The most popular continuation in the mid-70s has been 1 5 a4 which is considered separately in chapter 3 owing to the wealth of material now available. It should be noted that 1 5 a4 as well as C: 15 b3 and D: 15 Ag5 can transpose to lines with 1 2 . . . c5 (chapter 6) with the

concurrence of either player. Other ideas include:

a) 15 d5?! This surrenders the initiative. After 1 5 . . . c6 16 dc Ax c6 1 7 4:Jh2 d5 Matov-Wade, Vinkovci 1 968, Black has a very pleasant position. b) 15 4:Jh2 d5! The usual recipe when White takes his eye off the centre. After 1 6 de 4:J x e4 1 7 4:J x e4 de 18 A x e4 J'l x e4 19 .x e4 4:Jx e5 20 x d8 . aX d8 21 Ag5 4:Jd3! 22 4:Jg4 . x e4 23 4:Jffi+ cJJg7 24 4:Jx e4 .e8 25 4:Jffi .e2 Sherwin-Benko, USA 1 959, Black has a favourable ending which he won quite comfortably. c) 15J'lb3J'lg7 1 6 a4 c5 1 7 d5 c4 1 8 J'lc2 4:Jc5 1 9 J'le3 c7 20 d2 (White could have this position without having wasted two tempi with his white-squared bishop-see chapter 3 . ) 20 . . . . eb8 21 . a3 Ac8 22 . eal and now: cl) 22 . . . 4:Jx a4 23 .Q,x a4 ba 24 . X a4 a5 25 e2 Ad7 26 . 4a2 a4 with equality, Lehmann-Portisch, Malaga 1 964, is better than: c2 ) 22 . . . A d7 23 ab A x b5 24 e2 . b7 25 4:Jd2 . ab8 26 bl

Ad7 27 x c4 Stein-Averbakh, 3 1 st USSR Ch 1 963 . A

15c1e de Or 1 5 . . . x e5 1 6 x e5 de 1 7

x dS !!ax dS I S Ag5 Ae7 1 9 !! adl g7 20 3 d5 2 1 l;lx e7 x e7 22 \fIf2 c8 23 !! x dS !! x dS t-t Ivkov-Matanovic, Beverwijk 1965.

16 h2 1 6 e2 c5 1 7 l;le3 c7 I S a4 c4

is not dangerous for Black, ArulaidLipnitsky, USSR Team Ch 1 955.

1 6 . . . c5 Or 1 6 . . . Ag7 1 7 g4 x g4 1S

x g4 h 5 19 e2 c5 20 fl e7 2 1 d2!! edS 22 b3 x b3 23 A x b3 c5 24 a4 t-t RaisaUnzicker, Leningrad 1 960.

1 7 3 1 7 J,tg5 x dl l S !!ax dl l;lg7

1 9 g4 x g4 20 hg e6 Djurasevic-Furman, BelgradeLeningrad 1 964, leads to equality .

1 7 . . . e6 and Black held the balance after I S A e3 Ad6 1 9 l;lh6 d7 20 l;lb3 f6 2 1 g4 l;lm 22 h5 e7 23

4 B

II hd2 Main Line except 15 a4 5

!! adl to J anosevic-Wade, Skopje 1 965. B

15114(4) d5 ! Black can also eq ualize wi th

1 5 . . . Ag7 1 6 h5 d5 1 7 hg hg I S Ag5 cS I 9 dex e4 20 X e4 de 2 1 l;lx e4 l;lx e4 22 !!x e4 X e5 Faibisovich-Tukmakov, USSR Students Ch, Dubna 1 970.

16 de de 1 7 x e4 x e4 I S xe4 l;lx e4 19 !!x e4 x e5

with an excellent game for Black. 0lafsson-Benko, Candidates 1 959, went 20 l;lg5 x dl+ 21 !! x d l x 1'3+ 22 gf l;ld6 23 !!del !! x e4 24 fe !! eS 25 3 f5 26 \t>f2 f7 27 e3 fe 28 fee6 29 h5 !! m 30 hg hg 3 1 d3 !! 3+ 32 !! e3 !! fl 33 !! h3 !! dl+ 34 \t> c2 !! gl 35 d2 g5 36 !! h6+ f7 37 d3 !! g3+ 38 'It'e2 !! g2+ 39 \t>d3 g4 40 e5 Ax e5 41 !!X a6 g3 42 l;le3 !! x b2 43 a4 b4 44 cb g2 45 e4 !!e2 46 3 !!x e3+ 47 Xg2 !! b3 48 b5 l;ld6 49 f2 \t>e6 50 \t> e2'1t'd5 5 1 !! aS c4 52 !! a6 Ac5 53 !! c6 !! e3+ 54 d2 !! e7 0-1 . C

15 b3(5} 1 5 . . . Ag7

I t is far better to delay . . . c5 until White has committed his QB. Furthermore, with the bishop on the long diagonal Black's chances of achieving the central thrust . . . d5 are distinctly increased . However,

6 11 0,bd2 Main Line except 15 a4

1 5 . . . c5 is playable and after 1 6 d5 would transpose to lines arising from 1 2 . . . c5 when Black's most usual reply is then 1 6 . . . 0,b6 (see chapter 6) .

Other possibilities are: a) 16 . . . i,lg7 1 7 i!re2 i!rc7 1 8 i,l e3 , ec8 1 9 0,d2 i,lffi 20 a4 b4 21 a5 ! with strong pressure on the Q-side for White, Klovan-Holmov, U zhgorod i-final 40th USSR Ch 1 972 . b) 16 . . . i!rb6 1 7 a4 , eb8 18 i,le3 0,e8 1 9 i!r e2 i,lc8 20 b4 i!rb7 2 1 , ab l c4 22 0,h2 and White's position is preferable, EnklaarHartoch, IBM Amsterdam 1 974.

After 15 . . . i,lg7 Black has : Cl 1 6 a4 C2 1 6 i,ld2 C3 1 6 d5 Cl

16 a4 d5!? 1 7 de 0,x e4 1 8 i,lx e4

1 8 0,x e 4 de 19 A x e4 A x e4 20 , x e4 0, x e5 allows Black full equality.

1 8 . . . de 19 Ag5(6)

Now 1 9 . . . i!rc8 is eq ual, but

6 B

Spassky tried for more with the enterprising queen sacrifice 19 . . . ef 20 i,lx d8 , ax d8 . R. ByrneSpassky, 3rd match game, SanJuan 1974, continued 21 ab? (White must try 2 1 , e4 0,x e5 22 , d4 , x d4 23 cd , d8 24 ab ab 25 , a7 or 2 1 e6. ) 2 1 . . . !::JX e5 2 2 b a , x d1 23 , ex dl i,la8+ 24 gf 0,x 3+ 25 'it'fl i,lx c3 26 , acl0,d2+ 27 'it'gl i,la5 28 b40,3+ 29'it'fl 0,h2+ 30 'it'gl 0,3+ 31 'it'fl i,lb6 32 , c2 0,h2+ 33 'it'gl 0,3+ 34'it'fl 'it'ffi 35 0,e2 0,h2+ 36 'it'gl 0,3+ 37

'it'fl A e4 38 , a2 0,h2+ 39 gl 0,3+ 40 'it'fl 0,h4 41 0,f4 A3 42 , d3 g5 43 0,e2 Ag2+ 44 el 0,3+ 45 dl 0,e5 46 , c3 A d5 47 , d2 Jl c4 48 , a3 , a8 49 f4 gf 50 0,x f4 , x a6 51 EX x a6 Jl x a6 52 0,d5 Jl c4 53 0,x b6 cb 54 , d6 b5 55 d2 0,g6 56 e3 h5 0- 1 . C2

16 Jl b2 c5 1 6 . . . d5 !? was not adequately

tested in J anosevic-Tringov, Titovo Uzice 1 966, which went 1 7 c4? 0,x e4 1 8 0,x e4 de 1 9 Ax e4 .Q.,x e4 20, X e4 f5 21 , e2 e4 with great advantage to Black.

A better reply to 1 6 . . . d5 !? was the 1 7 ed played by Klovan against Podgayets, 41 st USSR Ch 1 973 (2nd Group) , the game going 17 . . .

tlJx d5 1 8 de tlJx e5 1 9 . x e5 !? . x e5 20 c4 . e8 21 A x g7 x g7 22 cd i!rx d5 23 i!rc l d8 24 tlJg5 i!r d4 25 Ae4 i-i.

1 7 i!rd2 Or 1 7 de de 18 i!r e2 c7 19 a4

i-i Kraidman-Parma, Netanya 1 9 7 1 .

1 7 . . . i!r c7 Now White should try 1 8 d5 .

Westerinen-Spassky, Tallinn 1 973 , continued instead 1 8 Ad3 c4! 1 9 be be 20 Jl c2 ed ! 2 1 tlJ x d4 (2 1 cd? c3! 22 i!r x c3 i!rx c3 23 A x c3 . ac8 24 . e3 Ah6+ ) 2 1 . . . tlJc5+ 22 i!r f4 tlJfd7 23 A a3 tlJe5 24 . e3 tlJcd3 25 i!rh4 a5 26 A b4tlJx b4 27 cb i!r x b4 28 tlJgf5 gf29 ef tlJg6! 30 fg hg 3 1 . bl i!rd2 32 . dl i!ra5 33 . e7 . ab8 34 . bl . x e7 35 i!r x e7 A x d4 36 A x g6 fg 37 i!r x d6 i!r e5 0- 1 . Cl

16 cI5 tlJb6 1 7 Jle3

Tal has suggested 1 7 . bl . Less good is 1 7 e2? c6 1 8 c4 cd

1 9 cd tlJfx d5 ! 20 ed e4 2 1 tlJx e4 A x a l 22 Ag5 f6 23 A e3 (23 J;th4 Jlc3 24 i!rd3 bH ) 23 . . . tlJx d5! 24 . x al tlJx e3 25 x e3 .Q. X e4 26 AX e4 d5 0-1 Unzicker-Tal, W. Germany-USSR 1 960 .

1 7 . . . . c8 1 8 d2 c6 19 de . x c6

11 tlJbd2 Main Line except 15 a4 7

Black has good counterplay. Martinez-Spassky, San Juan J969, went 20 . acl c7 2 1 Abl d5r 22 J;tg5? ! (22 Ax b6) 22 . . . de 23 tlJx e4 tlJfd5 ! 24 .,Q.h6 . c8 25 . edl f5 26 A x g7 x g7 27 tlJeg5 tlJx c3 28 d8+ m! 29 x m+ . x m 30 &z:) x e5 tlJe2+ 3 1 fl . x c l 0-1. D

15 J;t gS h6 1 5 . . . J;tg7 is rather passive, e.g.

16 d2 c6 1 7 . adl e7 18 &z:)h4 m 1 9 J;tb3 c5 20 d5 J. Littlewood-Bely, Hastings 1963-64, or 1 6 i!rd2 c5 1 7 J;t h6 &z:)b6 18 J;t x g7 Shagalovich-Usachy, USSR Team Ch 1 955 .

1 6 J;td2 In the lines with 1 2 . . . c5 and a

subsequent d5 by White ( chapter 6) the bishop can retreat to e3 followed by i!rd2 connecting rooks but here the e-pawn is still sensi tive and must remain defended by the rook on e l .

1 6 . . . A g7( 7) Alternatives are:

a) 16 . . . &z:)b6 1 7 b3 . e7 1 8 a4 Ag7 19 a5 &z:)bd7 20 b4 i!r e8 21 bl . d8 22 . e2 d5 Gasic-Ayanski, Plovdiv 1 973 . b) 16 . . . cS when : bl ) 17 de &z:)x e5 18 &z:)x e5 de 19 e2 &z:)h7 20 . adl i!th4 LeinKrogius, Sochi 1 965. b2) 17 cI5 &z:)b6 18 &z:)h2 Ag7 19 i!tf3 A c8 20 &z:)gfl . a7 2 1 &z:)e3

8 11 t;Jbd2 Main Line except 15 a4

reasonable position for Black in all cases.

White now has: Dl 1 7 i!rc l D2 1 7 .. c l

Other ideas are : a) 17 t;J h2 ?1 d5 ! IS de t;Jx e4 1 9 t;Jx e4 de 20 A x e4 A x e4 2 1 .. x e4 t;Jx e5 22 Af4 i!r x dH 23 .. x d l t;J c4 with a good ending for Black, J . Szabo-Kostro, Stary Smokovec 1 972 . b) 17 a4 c5 (Or 17 . . . t;J b6 1 8 a5 t;Jc4 1 9 Acl d5 20 de t;Jx e4 21 f:jx e4 de 22 i!rx dS .. aX d8 23 Ax e4 .Q.x e4 .. x e4 t;Jx Kruszynski-Manasterski , Polish Ch 1 973) 1 8 d5 c4 gives play similar to 1 5 a4 lines in chapter 3. Now: bI ) Sznapik-Vogt, Lublin 1 972 , went 19 t;J h2 h7 20 t;Jgfl t;Jc5 21 i!rf3 d7 22 t;Je3 .. eb8 23 a5 .. m 24 g4 and White has chances on the K-side, while b2) Klovan-Furman, 41 st USSR Ch 1973 (2nd Group) , improved with 19 h2 b51 20 t;Jgfl t;J h7 2 1 t;J f3 .. b8 22 A e3 i!r c 7 23 t;J 1 d2 t;Jc5 24 i!re2 AeS 25 ab ab 26 .. a2

J.i d 7 27 .. eal .. ecS 28 .. a 7 .. b 7 29 .. a8 .. bbS 30 .. 8a7 .. b7 t-t . c) 17 a4 t;Jb6 1 8 ab ab 1 9 b3 t;J fd7 20 Ad3 b4 2 1 .. x a8 A x a8 22 de t;J x e5 23 t;J x e5 de 24 i!rc2 bc 25 Ax c3 i!r d6 26 t;Jfl .. d8 27 .Q.e2 i!rc5 2S t;J d2 i!r c6 29 Afl 1;1 b7 30 i!rb2 1;1 c8 31 t;J f3 ffi 32 t;J d2 J,l,e6 33 .. cl i!r c5 34 t;Jf3 i!rd6 35 J,l,a5 Am 36 i!r c3 c5 37 Ac4 .. b8 38 Ax b6 i!r x b6 39 t;Jh4 h7 40 .. dl A x c4 41 bc .. dS 42 .. a l i!rb7 43 i!r f3 Ag7 44 .. a5 .. d4 45 .. x c5 b l + 46 h2 i!rx e4 47 i!rx e4 .. x e4 4S g4 h5 49 g3 hg 50 hg .. d4 51 .. c7 .. d3+ 52 f3 e4 53 .. e7 ef 54 t;J x f3 .. c3 55 .. c7 gS t-t Karpov-Korchnoi, training match 1 97 1 . Dl

17 i!r cl h7 18 h4

Or IS A b3 .. e7 1 9 de de 20 c4 when: a) 20 . . . cS 2 1 i!rc2 t-t KaplanSpassky, San Juan 1 969 . b) 20 . .. . t;J cS 2 1 Ab4 t;Jd3 22 Ax e7 i!rx e7 23 i!rc3 t;Jx e l 24 .. x e l Kaplan-Unzicker, Lugano Olympiad 1 965, gives equal chances.

1 8 . . . c5 Black can also play 1 8 . . . d5

when : a) 19 ed ed 20 t;Jx d4 Ax d5 2 1 h5 .. x eH 22 i!rx e l i!re8 23 t;J de2 t;Je5 24 t;J f4 .. dS 25 .. dl A b7 26 i!re2 .. d6 and Black has defensive chances, Spassky-Berrois, SanJuan 1 969 .

b) 19 h5de 20 hg+- fg 2 1

10 11 t;Jbd2 Main Line except 150.4

10 W

Spassky sets up a winning attack with 36 t;Jf5! the game concluding 36 . . . A x d2 37 x d2 gf 38 h6 fg 39 fg A x g4 40 . x f6 e7 41 g5+ fB 42 Adl A x d l 43 . x dl . ec8 44 . dfl . x c3 45 x h5 . c2+ 46 hl 1 -0.

20 t;Jh2 e7 Also possible is 20 . . . t;Ja4 2 1

. b l c4 22 A c2 t;Jc5 retaining the queen on the d8-h4 diagonal to meet t;Jg4 with . . . t;J x g4 and . . . h4.

2 1 . fl . a 7 22 Ae3 . b7

23 d2 h7 24 . cel t;J bd7 25 a4 c4 26 A c2 . c7 27 ab ab 28 . a l t;Jc5 29 f3 t;Jfd7 30 t;Jg4 fB 3 1 t;Jf2 h 5 t-t Spassky-Krogius, Sochi 1 966 . E

15 -'t d2 Ag7 Also possible is 15 . . . c5 16 d5

and now: a) 16 . . . c41 7 b3 t;Jb6 1 8 a4 cb 1 9 -'t x b 3 t;J fd7 20 a5 t;Jc8 2 1 c 4 t;J c5 22 -'ta2 t;Ja7 Balashov-Holmov, Moscow Team Ch 1 97 1 . b) 16 . . . h81 7 t;Jfl t;J b6 1 8 g4 Ag7 1 9 t;Jg3 -'tc8 20 g2 . fB 21

. hi t;Jg8 22 e2 t;Jc4 HindleKuijpers, Clare Benedict, Brunnen 1 966. c) 16 .. . -'t g7 when: c l ) 17 b3 t;J b6 18 t;Jh2 ( I 8 cl -'tc8? ! 1 9 a4! c7 20 -'td3 Ad7 2 1 a5 t;J c 8 2 2 b4 BalashovZuidema, Wijk aan Zee 1 973 ; 1 8 . . . e7 != ) 1 8 . . . Ac8 19 . fl . a7 20 f4 ef2 1 A x f4 e7 22 d2 fB 23 . ae l t;J fd7 24 t;Jg4 t;Je5 25 t;J h6+ \!i> h8 26 . e2 t;J bd 7 27 . ef2 t;J f6 28 t;Je2 . c7 29 g4 t;Jg8 t-t Liberzon-Portisch, Amsterdam 1 969 . c2) 17 cl h8 1 8 Ag5 e7 1 9 t;Jh2 fB 20 t;Jg4 t;Jg8 2 1 h4 h 5 22 t;Jh2 t;J b6 23 dl f6 24 -'te3 -'th6 25 t;Jhfl -'t c8 with a good game for Black . Rubinetti-Zuidema, Skopje Olympiad 1 972 , continued 26 -'td3 Ad7 27 d2 -'tx e3 28 t;Jx e3 h6 29 f3 f4 30 g8 52 t;Jg4 -'tX g4 53 fg t;Jd7 0-1 .

1 6 c l (11 ) Or 16 de t;J x e5 1 7 t;J x e5 . x e5

18 Af4 when: a) 18 ... . e8 19 d2 t;Jd7 i -i Yanofsky-Spassky, Lugano Olympiad 1 968 b) 18 ... . e61 9 d2 e7 20 f3 c5 2 1 . ad l . d8 22 -'th6 (22 e5 t;J d5

23 Ag5 to 24 ef 11, x to 25 e4 is better.) 22 . . . .Q.x h6 23 xh6 d5 ! Gaprindashvili-Olafsson, Reykjavik 1 964.

11 B

Now Black has : El 16 . . . cS E2 1 6 . . . d5

Black also has other play able alternatives, viz. : a) 16 . . . e7 17 A h6 Ax h6 18 x h6 m 19 d2 cS 20 a4 b6 2 1 de de 22 g5 fd7 Tseshkovsky-Furman, 41 st USSR Ch 1 973 (2nd Group) . b) 16 . . . fB 1 7 Ah6 6d7 1 8 . d l e7 1 9 Ab3 e6 2 0 d e d ; 2 1 e3 ec5 2 2 Ac2 b6 23 b3 . ad8 24 h2 A c8 25 hfl e6 26Ax g7X g7 27 . x d8 .. x d8 28 . d l .. d6 29 cl (29 e2!) 29 . . . f4 30 e3 h5 3 1 ..x d6 x d6 32 fl as 33 e2 b4! 34 c4 e6 35 d5 d7 36 b2 c6 37 df4 ec5 38 g3 tO 39 h4 fx e4 40 A x e4 x e4 41 f3 c5 42 g2 tO 43 h3 d3 0-1 LiberzonAverbakh, 36th USSR Ch 1 968. An impressive game by Black whose use of e6 and cS for the knights is highly thematic of the Breyer.

11li::Jbd2 Main Line except 15 a4 11

Abstinence from . . . cS proved very useful for keeping the d5 square under control in the later stages of the game. El

16 . . . cS 1 7 Ah6

Or 1 7 d5li::Jb6 1 8 A h6 fd7 1 9 b 3 as 2 0 a4 ba 2 1 b a A a& 2 2 fl . b8 23li::Jl h2li::JtO 24li::Jg4li::JX g4 25 hg Ac8 with equality, Balashov-Spassky, Tallinn 1 973 .

1 7 . . . e7 1 8 A x g7

1 8 d2 Ax h6 1 9 x h6 .. ac8 20 A b3 as 2 1 g5 c4 puts Black under no pressure, ZhukhovitskyLein, Sochi 1 967 .

18 . . . ctJx g7 1 9 d2 b6

20 . adl .. ac8 2 1 A b l li::Jc4 22 c l li::Jd7 23 b3 !-! UnzickerKarpov, Hastings 1 9 7 1 -72 . E2

12 B

16 . . . cI5 1 7 Ag5 (l2)

1 7 . . . c8 ! I t i s best to break the pin

immediately. Inadequate is 1 7 . . .

i2 11 t[:jbd2 Main Line except i5 a4

de 1 8 A x e4 A X e4 19t[:jX e4 ed 20 cd i:!rc8 and now: a) 21 !:Jx t6+- t[:jx ffi 22 . x e8+ ,x e8 23 i:!r c6 Spassky-Antoshin, Sochi 1 965. b) 21 Ax f6 Axffi 22 t[:jx ffi+ !:Jx ffi 23 . x e8+ {) x e8 24 i:!r c6 Penrose-Unzicker, Clare Benedict, Brunnen 1 966, with advantage to White in both cases.

1 8 {) x e5 Other moves also afford White

no advantage: a) 18 de {)x e4 19 {)X e4 de 20 Ax e4 {) x eS 21 Ax b7 i:!rx b7 t-t U nzicker-Portisch, Santa Monica 1 966. b) 18 ed ed 19 . x e8+ i:!rx e8 20 {)x d4 A x dS 2 1 i!rd2 i:!rffi 22 a4 cS 23 {)de2 Ac6 24 ab t-t

Spassky-Unzicker, Siegen Olympiad 1970.

18 . . . 1 9 de 20 A x e4 21 A ffi 22 ef

{)xe5 {) x e4 de ,il x ffi e6

Now White should be content with 23 !:Jx e4 Ax e4 24 . x e4 i!rx ffi with a drawn ending.

Balashov-Spassky, Sochi 1 973 , continued 23 {) hS?! e3! 24 . x e3 i!rd5 25 {) f4 g5? (25 . . . i!r c6!+ ) 26 g3 i!r x ffi 27 {)h5 i!re5 28 i!rh6 e6 29 . g5 i!rh8 30 . dl ilc6 3 1 \t> h2 . ae8 32 d3 . d6 33 x d6? (33 dg3 ) 33 . . . cd 34 g3 . e2 35 i!rg5 t-t (35 . . . i!re5 36 i!rd8+ Ae8 37 {) ffi+ \t> g7 38 {)x e8+ i!r x e8= ) .

3 1 1 4jbd2 Main Line with 15 a4

I e4 eS 2 4Jf3 4J c6 311bS a6 4 ita4 4J ffi S 00 ite7 6 e l bS 7 itb3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 4J b8 1 0 d4 4J bd7 I I 4:Jbd2 it b7 1 2 itc2 e8 1 3 4J fl it ffi 1 4 4Jg3 g6

I S a4 (J3)

This variation has been played a great deal since 1 973 and leaves many strategical options open . (For White's other tries on move I S see chapter 2 ) . White usually intends to close the centre and invade along the a-file or seal the Q-side and attack on the other wing with 4J h2 and f4.

I S . . . cS I S . . . itg7 is less satisfactory,

e .g. :

a) !-! ! Hort-Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1 975 . b) 16 it c12 4J b6 1 7 de de 18 ab ab 1 9 b3 d7 !-! CiocalteaUnzicker, Nice Olympiad 1 974. c) 16 it d3dS?! ( 1 6 . . . c6!?) 1 7 itgS! de 1 8 it x e4 it x e4 1 9 4:Jx e4 ed 20 4J x d4 cS 21 it x ffi ! 4J x ffi 22 4J x cS with advantage to White, Karpov-O'Kelly, Caracas 1 970. d) 16 d51 and now: d l ) 16 . . . e7 1 7 b3 c6 1 8 c4 bc l 9 be cd 20 cd as 2 1 itd3 4J cS 22 ,1},bS Gipslis-Stanciu , Lublin 1 969 . d2) 16 . . . b8 1 7 b3 c6 1 8 c4 c7 1 9 as cS 20 4Jh2 4Jffi 2 1 itd3 b4 22 a2 Ghinda-Kostro, European Team Ch, Bath 1 973 . d3) 16 . . . 4Jc5 1 7 b4 4:JX a4 18 it x a4 ba 19 x a4 d7 20 c4 c6 21 4J d2 jansa-Milicevic, Kragujevac 1974, with better prospects for White in all cases.

1 6 dS Less thematic are:

a ) 16 de de and now: a l ) 17 its5 h6 1 8 it e3 -gyc7 ( 1 8 . . . c4!) 1 9 4Jh2 c4 20 4J g4 2)x g4 21 -gyx g4 4JcS+ Parma-Pachman, Sarajevo 1 964.

14 11 t;Jbd2 Main Line with 15 a4

a2) 17 e2 b61 8 lte3 c6 with eq ual chances, Shishkov-Tarasov, Sverdlovsk 1 965 . a3) 17 b3 c7 1 8 .,Q.g5 .,Q.g7 1 9 e2 ltc6 2 0 ab ab t-t KarpovPodgayets, 38th USSR Ch 1 970. b) 16 bUI cd 1 7 cd d5 ! 18 de de 1 9

t;J x e4 t;Jx e4 20 lt x e4 lt x e 4 2 1 Et x e4 t;Jx e5 22 x d8 t;Jx f3+ 23 gf Et aX d8 24 lte3 Et x e4 25 fe Et e8 26 ab ab 27 f3 f5 28 Et a5 t-t Karpov-Tukmakov, 38th USSR Ch 1 970. c) 16 b3 l;tg7 1 7 de t;Jx e5 ( 1 7 . . . de!) 1 8 t;Jx e5 de 1 9 lte3 x d l ( 1 9 . . . t;Jd7 20 e2 ltc6 2 1 ab ab 22 ltd3 b6 23 b4 ltffi 24 Et ebl b7! Keres-Spassky, Dortmund 1973,just maintains the balance) 20 Et ex dl l;t ffi 21 f3 Et ec8 22 lt d3 ltc6 23 t;JO c4 24 ab .1l x b5 t-t Keres-Reshevsky, Petropolis interzonal 1 973 . d) 16 lt e3 c7 ( 1 6 . . . ed 17 cd t;Jx e4 18 t;Jx e4.,Q.x e4 1 9 lt x e4 Et x e4 20 d3 is in White's favour.) 1 7 d2 cd 18 cd t;Jb6 1 9 ltg5 ltg7 2 0 Et ad t;Jc4 2 1 c3 ed 22 t;J x d4 Keres-Szabo, Moscow 1963, and now 22 . . . t;Jd7 gives Black a solid position.

1 6 . . . c4 A little-tried alternative is 1 6 . . .

t;Jb6 when: a) 17.,Q.e3 t;Jc4 1 8 -'td t;Jb6 19 -'te3 t;Jc4 20 -'td t;Jb6 t-t Robatsch-Portisch, Malaga 1 964. b) 17 as and now: bl ) 17 t;Jbcl718 b4 .,Q.g7 1 9 -'ta3 Et c8 20 -'td3 Et e7 21 Et b l c4 22

ltc2 t;Jffi t-t Tringov-Ivkov, Nice Olympiad 1 9 74. b2 ) 17 t;Jct 18 b4 cb 19 cb Et c8 20 ltd3 ltg7 21 Et a2 Et ffi 22 Et c2 d7 23 t;Jh2 h8 24 h4 h5 25 e2 'i!tg8 26 lt x c4 Et x c4 27 Et x c4 bc 28 x c4 t;Je8 29 Et 0 t;Jc7 30 f4 ef 31 ltx f4 t;Jb5 32 d3 Et c8 33 -'t d2 Et c 7 34 t;J e2 oil c8 35 t;J f3 e7 36.,Q.g5 Ri 37 .,Q.f4 f5 38t;Jg5 fe 39 x e4 x e4 40 t;Jx e4 Et c4 41 t;Jx d6t;Jx d6 42 lt x d6 Et x h4 43 .,Q.c5 Et e4 44 t;Jf4 h7 45 t;Je6 .,Q.x e6 46 de Et x e6 47 Et f7 h6 48 Et b7 Et e4 49 f2 Ad4+ 50 Ax d4 Et x d4 t-t Karpov-Portisch, Madrid 1 973 . White won a pawn on the Q-side but Black has counterplay with possession of b5 and the c-file. c) 17 b3 could transpose to lines arising from 1 2 . . . c5 (chapter 6) d) 17 t;Jd2 c4 1 8 a5 t;Jbd7 19 b3 cb 20 .,Q.x b3 t;Jc5 2 1 .,Q.c2 ,il c8 22 .,Q.a3 c7 23 .,Q.b4 ltd7 24 f3 .,Q.g7 2 5 ,ild3 t;Jxd3 26 x d3 El. ec8 27 El. ad t;J e8 t-t KarpovGligoric, Ljubljana/Portoroz 1 975 .

A little home analysis was tested a few months later: e) 17 e2I?t;JX a4 1 8 AXa4 ba 1 9 El.x a4 ltg7 20 c4 Ac8 2 1 ltd2 Et b8 22 Et b l Et e7 23 t;Jel Et eb7 24 t;Jd3 Et b3 25 Et bal t;Je8 26 A c3 h4 27 Et l a3 f5 28 Ael ! Karpov-Gligoric, Milan 1 975 ; White can untangle his Q-side ana eventually force b4, but Black is not without counterplay cl. la King's Indian.

White now has two plausible continuations: A 1 7 Ag5 B 1 7 A e3 A

14 B

17 Ag5(14)

Black has a variety of moves in this position: Al 1 7 . . . h6 A2 1 7 . . . Ag7 A3 1 7 . . . Ae7 A4 1 7 . . . .. b8

Naturally there are considerable possibilities of transposition from one line to another AI

17 h6 1 8 Ae3 cJ c5

Or 1 8 . . . i!fc7 1 9 i!td2 \t>h7 20 cJ h2 Ag7 21 .. f1 .. e7 22 cJg4 cJ g8 23 f4 ef 24 .. x f4 cJe5 25 cJ x e5 A x e5 26 . f3 b4 BalashovVogt, Leipzig 1973 ; Black's strongpoint on e5 compensates for White's pressure along the f-file but White eventually won after Black had lost control of e5 .

1 9 i!fd2 \t> h7 19 . . . h5 may be better and is

11 cJbd2 Main Line with 15 a4 15

considered in chapter 6 (another transposition! ) .

20 .. a3 ! White prepares to infiltrate

along the a-file and sets Black tricky defensive problems. With limited space to manoeuvre Black must decide whether to oppose the a-file or abandon it in the hope that White is beating into thin air. This forms the theme of the whole chapter. Two complete games illustrate the strategical ideas of the variation. a) 20 . . . c7 21 .. eal Ag7 22 i!tdl ! (intending .. l a2 and al ) 22 . . . .. ab8 23 ab ( lf23 cJd2 Black should play 23 .. . ,ilc8 but not 23 . . . cJ fd7 24 ab ab 25 .. a5 ! i!tb6! 26 b4 cb 27 l)x b3 .. a8 28 itd3 .. x a5 29 .. x a5 c7 30 .. a7 Hort-Hecht, Budapest 1973 . ) 23 . . . ab 24 .. a7 i!tb6 25 .. l a5 .. a8 26 i!tal (/5)

15 B

26 . . . .. x a7 27 .. x a7 cJfd7 28 h4 (28 cJ d2 !? threatening b4 could be considered) 28 . . . .. b8 ! 29 h5 d8 30 cJ d2 .. a8 3 1 b4 {Another plan is 3 1 .. x a8 i!t x a8 32 i!t x a8 A x a8 33 cJ bl ltb7 34 cJ a3 A a6 35 hgt

16 JJ li::,bd2 Main Line with 15 a4

fg 36 li::,e2 followed by li::,c l -a2- 16 b4.) 31 . . . cb 32li::,x b3 li::,x b3 33 W x b3 . x a7 34 X a7 a8 35 x a8 x a8 36 c4 bc 37 a4 2)b8 38 a7.li::,a6 39 b5 b7 40 x c4 f6 41 2)1 g5 42 b5 g7 43 hg fg 44 f3 f7 45 f2 e7 46li::,e3 x e3+ 47 x e 3 g5 48 d3li::,c7 49 c4 c8 50 e3 d7 5 1 c6 c8 52 b5 d7 53 c6 c8 !-! Geller-Karpov, Budapest 1 973 . b ) 20 . . . . b8 1 2 1 . ea l A c8 22 ab ab 23 cl . e7 24 . a7 (24 . I a2 and a l ) 24 . . . . x a7 25 . x a7

li::,fd7 26 al b6 27 li::,d2 (27 a5 !?) 27 . . . . b7 28 . a8 c7 29

li::,e2? ! (29 b4) 29 . . . li::, b6 30 . a3 f5! 3 1 f3 [4 32 Af2li::,d3 33 b4li::, x f2 34 x f2 A e 7 35 . a6 d 7 36li::, 1 Ad8 37 li::,gl li::,c8 38 li::,e2 . a7 ( threatening 39 . . . b6+ !) 39 el b6 ! 40 . x a7 li::,x a7 41 a5 x as 42 ba A x as 43li::,d2 h5 44 dl A b6 45 Abl h6 46 A a2 g5 47 el Ac5 48 dl li::,c8 49 el li::,b6 50 dl h4 5 1 c2 A x h3 ! 0- 1 Enklaar-Zuidema, Dutch Ch play-off 1 973 . A2

17 . A g7 1 8 d2 li::,c5 (J6)

1 8 . . . c7 1 9 Ah6 h8 20 x g7+ x g7 21 h2 h6 22 li::,h4 li::,g8 23 f4 GerebenGrunfeld, Beverwijk 1 96 1 , was rather passively played by Black.

19 li::,h2 Or 19 . a3 . b8 20 ab ab 2 1

. eal ! -! Dueball-Matanovic,

European Team Ch, Bath 1 973 , but White could well continue, pursuing the strategy typical of AI.

If White wishes to play li::,h2 and f4 he could preface that plan with 19 Ah6.

1 9 . . . 20 li::,f3

h5

Now 20 A is met by 20 . . . ef 2 1 x f4 b6 ! 22 A x f6 (22 hl

li::,h7+) 22 . . . li::,d3+ 23 e3 x e3+ 24 . x e3 A x f6 25 x d3 cd 26 . x d3 h4 with advantage to Black-Kuzmin.

To avoid this awkward check Balashov-Baikov, USSR 1 974, continued 20 h11 and White had better chances after 20 . . . c7 21 Ah6 A h8 22 f4 ef 23 x f4 . ab8 24 ab ab 25 li::,f3 Ac8 26 . adl .

20 . . . c7 21 . a3 . ab8 22 A h6 Ah8 23 . eal Ac8

The prospects are eq ual. Kuzmin Spassky, 41 st USSR Ch 1 973, continued 24 ab ab 25 e1 Ad7 26 . l a2 . ec8 ! 27 hl li::,h7 28 . a7 d8 29 Ae3 Ae8? (29 . . . Af6!= ) 30 a 1 ? (30 li::,gl ! h4 3 1

f4 ef 32 &Llf3 i!r ffi 33 d4 i!rd8 34 &Lle2 -Kuzmin} 30 . . . ffi 3 1 .. 2a5 d7 32 i!re l i!r e8 33 .. a l A d8 ! 34 &Lld2 b6+ 35 .. 7a2 i!r e7 36 i!re2 i!rffi 37 .. a3 i!rh4 38 &Llf3 i!re7 39 &Lld2 'llg7 40 .. el .. a8 41 .. aal h4 !-! A fine illustration of Black's defensive possibilities ID this difficult variation. A3

17 . . . e7

I I &Llhd2 Main Line with 15 a4 17

!sl.x g4 27 ffi .. b7 28 !sl.d4 (The sacrifice 28 &Llx h5 is met by 28 . . . gh 29 i!rg5+ \fth7 30 e5+ &Lld3 31 ed i!r x d6 32 .. f3 .. e2!) 28 . . i!re7 29 !sl.ffi i!rc7 30 d4 i!r e7 31 ffi !-! Ljubojevic-Portisch, 2nd match game, Milan 1 975 .

17

19 ab ab 20 .. a2 A g7 2 1 .. eal &Llc5( 17)

1 8 Ae3 Or 1 8 i!rd2 &Llc5 1 9 .. a3 &Llfd7 W

20 !sl.x e7 i!rX e7 2 1 .. eal &Llb6 22 ab ab 23 .. x a8 .. x a8 24 .. x a8+ !-! Tringov-Ciocaltea, Reykjavik 1 974.

18 . . . i!rc7 19 .. a3 &Llc5 20 i!re2 f8

2 0 . . . &Llfd7 !? is another try but then White will revert to the K-side plan 21 &Llh2, followed by f4 or &Llh4 with an unclear position.

2 1 .. eal Ciocaltea-Spassky , Dortmund

1 973 , ended 21 . . : g7 22 .. l a2 &Llfd7 23 i!rdl &Llb6 24 ab ab 25 .. x a8 !-! but White would still have an edge after 25 . . . .. x a8 26 .. x a8+ x a8 27 i!ral followed by i!r a3 and i!r b4. A4

17 .. b8 1 8 i!rd2 !sl.c8

A recent divergence is 1 8 . . . &Llc5 1 9&Llh2 Ac8 20 ab ab 2 1 M (2 1 f3 !?} 21 . . . h5 22 f4 i!r b6! 23 'llhl ef 24 i!rx f4 &Llg4 25 fl i!rc7 26 &Llx g4

A typical position ID this variation. White has a slight initiative due to control of the a-file and greater room to manoeuvre. Spassky-Karpov, 1 0th match game, Leningrad 1 974, continued 22 i!r e3 .. e7 23 &Lld2 .. c7 24 b3 (Another idea is 24 &Lle2 intending to arrive at b4 via cl and a2.) 24 . . . cb 25 &Llx b3 Ad7 26 &Llx c5.. x c5 27 i!r d2 i!rc8 28 &Lle2 &Lle8 29 .1ld3 f5 30 .1le3 .. c7 3 1 f3 f4 32 .1la7 .. bb7 33 i!rel i!rd8 34 i!rf2 .. c8 35 .. a6 Jtffi 36 b6 i!re7 37 .. a7 .. cb8 38 .. x b7 .. x b7 39'llfl (39 'llh l !) 39 . . . M 40 i!rgl \ftg7 41 .. a7? (41 .. a8 or 41 &Llcl preserve some initiative.) 41 . . . .. x a7 42 x a7 i!rd8 43 i!r b6 i!rc7! 44

/8 / / CiJbd2 Main Line with /5 a4

x c7 CiJ x c7 45 b8 CiJe8 46 CiJel Ad8 47 Aa7 Aa5 48 c4 bc 49 x c4 f7 50 CiJb3Ac7 5 1 Af2 g5 52 el h5 53 CiJel CiJffi 54 CiJ d3 g6 55 A a6 g4 56 hg hg 57 CiJ b2 CiJh7 58 CiJ c4 CiJ g5 59 f2 ffi 60 b4 CiJ f7 !-!. B

17 e3 CiJ c5 1 7 . . . h6 1 8 CiJh2 Ag7 1 9 . fl

c7 20 d2 h7 2 1 f4! ef 22 . x f4 CiJe5 23 . afl e7 24 CiJf3 CiJ fd7 25 CiJd4 Cuasnicu-Grinberg, San Isidro 1 974, allows White far too free a hand .

1 8 e2

advantage, Kuzmin-Rukavina, Leningrad interzonal 1973.

18 . . . c7 (l8) Spassky-Holmov, Sochi 1 973 ,

varied with 1 8 . . . . b8 1 9 . a3 Ac8 20 ab ab 21 . fal A b7 22 CiJd2 Aa8 (22 . .. . a8 23 . x a8 ! Ax a8 24 b3 cb 25 CiJ x b3 b6 26 . a5 . b8 27 Ad3! is very strong for White.) 23 b3 cb 24 CiJ x b3 CiJfd7 25 CiJd2 e7 26 CiJgfl and now Black blundered away material with 26 . . . Ag5? 27 . x a8 ! . x a8 28 . x a8 x a8 29 x g5 .

The queen could equally well be /8 developed on d2 as in A but leaving W d2 vacant for a knight has its points.

Other possibili ties are : a) 18llb2 d7? ! 1 9 Ag5 e7 20 f4 ef 2 1 x f4 h5 22 CiJ f3 CiJh7 23 Ae3 CiJx a4? ! 24 Ax a4 ba 25 Et x a4 Et ac8 26 CiJ hi f5 27 CiJ d2 fe 28 CiJ x c4;t Damjanovic-Vogt, Lublin 1 974, but Black's play was not thematic of the line. b) 18 d2 and now: bl) 18 fc17 1 9 h4 h5 20 CiJg5 e7 2 1 . a3 Ah6 22 Et eal CiJb6 23 ab ab 24 Et x a8 . x a8 25 . x a8+ Ax a8 26 CiJ fl !-! Jansa-Holmov, Sochi 1 9 74. b2 ) 18 . b8 19 . a3 Ag7 20 Et eal Ac8 21 ab ab 22 el b7 23 . a7 CiJ fd7 24 Et l a5 b6 25 al Affi 26 a3 d8 27 b4 Aa6? (27 . . . Ac8) 28 . x d7 ! x a5 29 x a5 A x a5 30 . x d6 Ac7 31 . c6 with a winning

1 9 . a3 Alternatives are:

a) 19 c12 CiJfd7 20 Ah6 CiJ b6 2 1 Ax ill . x ill 22 a5 CiJba4 23 x a4 CiJ x a4 24 h6 ffi 25 . e2 CiJc5 and Black has no problems, Matov-Robatsch, Vinkovci 1 968. b) 19 CiJ d2 . ab8 ( 1 9 .. . CiJfd7 !?) 20 . eel ! A c8 21 ab ab 22 b3 cb 23 CiJ x b3 CiJa4 24 Ad3 Ad7 25 d2 Et ec8 26 c4 b4 27 CiJe2 Ae8 28 . a2 . a8 29 . cal b7 30 f4 with advantage to White, JansaSmejkal, Czech Ch 1 972.

1 9 . . . Ag7 Or 1 9 . . . . ab8 20 . eal Ac8 2 1

ab ab 22 d2 Ad7 with the standard type of pOSi tiOn, Padevsky-Pachman, Havana 1 964.

20 . eal . ec8 Razuvayev-Furman, 4 1 st USSR

Ch 1 973 (2nd Group) , continued 2 1 d2 d8 2 2 . l a2 fd7 23 dl b6 24 ab ab 25 al . x a3 26 . x a3 . a8 27 gf1 Am 28 bl b8 29 . a5 Ac8 30 a3 Ad7 3 1 fd2 t-t Black unravelled his

11 hd2 Main Line with 15 a4 19

forces very neatly and the,strategy of not abandoning the a-file proved successful.

Conclusion: 1 5 a4, if played in this vein with a closed centre, is quite promising for White unless Black defends with the utmost accuracy and will certainly appeal to those who prefer long games with intricate manoeuvres. Further examples of this type of middlegame will be found in chapter 6.

4 1 1 lLJbd2: 13 b4 without 14 a4

I e4 e5 2

ed 16 cd6 dc 1 7 Ax c3 .Q.x d6 18 e5 d5 1 9 Ad4 Ab4 20 i!fbl with a slight edge to White, TrofimovGrigorescu, corres 1 970. A

14... p1l 1 5 a3

The most common reply, but not the most dynamic. Other lines are : a) 15 c4l ed 16 cb ab 1 7 x d4 d5 1 8 e d El x e l + 1 9 i!f x el A x d 5 20 a3 c6 21 c:)e4 Dueball-O'Kelly, W. German Team Ch 1 970. c6 2 1 c:)e4 with . a definite advantage to White, DuebaU-0' Kelly, W. German Team Ch 1 970. b) 15 Ac13 c:)b6 1 6 El bl Ag7 1 7 i!:Yc2 c:)fd7 1 8 c4 bc 1 9 c:)x c4 c:)x c4 20 Ax c4 ed 2 1 Ax d4;!; Pokojowczyk-Moles, Groningen 1 968-69. c) 15 i!fbl when: c l ) 15 c:)h51 6 A b3 ed 1 7 cd d5 proved satisfactory, Filep-Fldi, Hungarian Ch 1 966. c2) 15 c6 1 6 a3 i!f c7 1 7 Ab3 Ag7 1 8 i!fa2 El e7 1 9 de c:)x e5 20 c:)x e5 de 21 c4 El d8 22 El adl El ed7 1-1 Suetin-Lengyel, Budapest 1970.

1 5 . . . Ag7 1 5 ... a5 could transpose to B. 1 5 . . . c:) b6 transposes to C.

1 6 c4! 1 6 d5 is also quite promising, e.g.

1 6 ... c:)b6 and now: a) 17 c4 bc 18 a4 c6 1 9 dc Ax c6 20 a5 cS 21 c:)x c4 El ba 22 Aa3 Ciric-Kuijpers, Beverwijk 1 967.

11 c:)bd2: 13 b4 without 14 a4 21 b) 17 a4 c:)x a4 1 8 Ax a4 ba 19 c4 c6 20 c:)a5 i!:Yc7 2 1 dc Ax c6 22 x c6 i!fx c6 23 i!f x af i!fb7 White has a faint initiative, Smejkal-Unzicker, Bamberg 1 972 .

1 6 . . . ed If 16 ... bc then 1 7 de leaves

Black with a sickly pawn structure.

20 B

1 7 cb ab 1 8 c:)x d4 c6 1 9 c:)4b3 ! El cS 20 a4! (20)

An ideal position for White in the 1 3 b4 variation . Black's pawns are weak and his minor pieces have little scope.

Ivkov-Filip, Vrsac 1 97 1 , continued 20 cI5?1 21 e5 c:)h5 22 f3 i!:Yc7 23 c:)a5 Aa8 24 ab cb 25 J,td3 i!f b8 26 cl .

No better was 20 ba 2 1 c:)a5 Aa8 22 c:)dc4! d5 23 d6 c:)x e4 24 El x e4! de 25 Ax g7 \t'x g7 26 ac4! and Black, despite his material advantage, is very short of moves. Hartston-Haygarth, British Ch 1 972. B

14 ... &5(21)

22 11 t;Jbd2: 13 b4 without 14 a4

21 W

1 5 Ad3 The immediate 15 a3 could

transpose to the text. After 1 5 a3 i!tb8 1 6 de? ! de 1 7 t;Jb3 ab 18 cb c5 19 bc t;J x c5 20 x c5 Ax c5 Black had solved his opening problems, Gufeld-Dely, Kecskemet 1 965.

1 5 . . . c6 16 a3

1 6 t;J b3 !? 1 6 . . . b6

White has some pressure after 1 6 . . . g6 1 7 b 3 a b 1 8 "C b cS 1 9 de de 20 i!td2 e7 2 1 ad i!t e6 22 llc2 t;J h5 23 a5 AaS 24 A b3 e7 25 cdl Kavalek-M. Kovacs, Salgotarjan 1 967.

1 7 d Or 1 7 bI fd7 1 8 t;Jb3 ab 1 9

cb c8 2 0 d lla8 2 1 a5 g6 22 c2 i-i Gipslis-Podgayets, 38th USSR Ch 1 970.

1 7 . . . ed ! I S t;Jx d4 fd7 19 2b3

Gipsfis now considers that after 19 .. t;J et 20 llx c4 bc 21 t;Jx a5 x a5 Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange.

Instead, Tal-Karpov, Leningrad interzonal 1 973, went 19 . . e5 20 t;Jx a5 x a5 2 1 ba t;Jbc4 22 c2 x a5 23 fl (23 c l x d3 24 x d3 d5 25 ce2 c5 26 b3 might be better.) and the exchange sacrifice is probably just insufficient. The game continued 23 . . . t;Jx b2 24 x b2 x c3 25 b3 i!ta5 26 bl a7 27 dl d7 2S f5 e6 29 d4 eS 30 Ax b5 ! cb 31 t;Jx b5 c5 32 t;Jx d6 Ax d6 33 x b7 f6 34 b3 ltc7? ! (34 . . . e6 !) 35 b5 c2 36 bl ! x bl 37 dx bl lld6 3S a4 x e4 39 dl (39 a5 !) 39 . . . e8 40 a5

x c4 .Q.x e4 2 1 .Q.a4 .. e6 22 i!rx d8+ .. x d8 23 .. adl .. d5 24 .Q.b3 .. e8 25 d2 .Q. c2 26 Ax f6 .. X el+ 27 ,,x el,,x d2 28 .. e8+ .Q.m 29 .Q.x c2 1 -0 Parma-Masic, Vrsac 1973 . c ) 15 ... h6 1 6 c4 ! when: c l ) 16 ... ed 1 7 cb ab 18 x d4 a4 1 9 Ax a4 ba 20 i!rc2 Matanovic- Kuzmin , USSRYugoslavia 1971 i s given as unclear by Matanovic and as ;!; by Parma. c2) 16 ... x et 1 7 x c4 be 18 de de 19 x e5 c5 20 x c4 cb! (not 20 . . . i!rxdl 21 .. ax dl .Q.Xe4 22 .Q.a4 .. e6 23 .Q.x f6 gf 24 Ad7) 2 1 e5 d5 22 i!rx d5 x d5 ParmaUnzicker, Berlin 1 97 1 , and now, instead of23 a5? .. ab8= , Parma gives 23 d6!;!; .

22 W

Many moves have been tried in this position (after 1 5 . . . fd7 ) : a ) 16 et ?! be 1 7 de x e5 1 8 x e5 de 1 9 i!re2 c5 20 bdtx c5 21 x c4 x c4 22 x c4 i!r b6 with a slight initiative for Black. HartstonSpassky, European Team Ch, Bath 1 973 , went 23 .. e2 x b2 24 .. bl i!rx a3 25 .. x b7 .. e7 26 .. x e7

11 hd2: 13 h4 without 14 a4 23

cl+ 27h2 .Q.x e7 28 i!rc6 .. d8 29 x a6 h5 30 .Q.b3 f4+ 3 1 gl .Q. c5 32 a5 .. c8 33 i!rd2 f6 34 c2 .. c7 35 .. d2 g6 36 .. d3 .Q.e3 37 e2 .. cl+ 38 .. dl .. x dl+ 39 .Q.x dl i;td4 40 f3 t-t . b) 16bl c5 1 7 be de 1 8 a4 c7 19 a5 c8 20 x e5 x e5 2 1 de c4! is reasonable for Black, KupreichikA. Petrosian, Kiev 1 973 . c ) 16 de X e5 1 7 X e5 de 1 8 e2 c5 1 9 fl c4 20 .Q.c l cb 2 1 cb a5 22 ba X a5 23 g3 xa3, = , Triana-Vogt, Cienfuegos 1 975 . d ) 16.. cl g6 1 7 Abl .Q. h6 (A fair alternative is 1 7 . . . c5 1 8 de dc l9 be {)a4 20 .Q.al Jix c5 2 1 i!rb3 b6 22 .. fl Inkiov-Ayansk i, Varna 1 974, and now Black should play 22 . . . .. ad8 .) 18 .. c2 a5 R. ByrneTukamakov, Leningrad interzonal 1 973 , and now instead of the game continuation 19 c4? ab 20 ab ed 21 .Q.x d4 be 22 Aa2 .. a4 23 bl a8 !+ White could try 19 ba .. x a5 20 c4 be 2 1 {)x c4 x c4 22 .. x c4;!; . e) 16 .. bl g6 1 7 d5 i;t g7 (Better is 1 7 . . . c6! but after 1 8 de Ax c6 19 .Q. b3 d5 20 ed .Q.x d5 2 1 .Q.x d5 x d5 22 c4 White still retains some initiative.) 1 8 c4 c6 (Or 1 8 . . . x c4 1 9 x c4 be 20 d2 ) 19 de .Q.x c6 20 Ad3 b8 2 1 e2 a4 22 .Q.al m 23 b3 SteinHennings, Kizlovodsk 1 972 . White has strong pressure on the Q-side.

The lines in this chapter represent one of White's most challenging tries against the Breyer.

5 11 4:Jbd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4

I e4 e5 2 1'jf3 I'jc6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 I'jffi 5 00 l'je7 6 . el b5 7 A b3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 I'j b8 I D d4 I'j bd 7 I I I'jbd2 A b7 1 2 Ac2 . e8 1 3 b4 A m

23 B

1 4 a4 (23)

This move, which has long been considered innocuous, was successfully revived by Fischer against Spassky in the 1972 World Championship match . Since then a considerable amount of theory has developed .

Black has three main continuations : A 1 4 . . . I'jb6 B 1 4 . . . d5 C 1 4 . . . a5

A forgotten line is 14 . . . c5 and after 1 5 bc ed 1 6 cd4 (Gipslis

suggests 1 6 c6!?) 16 . . . dc 1 7 e51'jd5 1 8 l'je4 Balashov-Podgayets, USSR Team Ch, Moscow 1 966, 1 8 . . . c4 is not too bad for Black. A

14 . . . I'jb6 1 5 a5

Less challenging is 1 5 A b2 ed 1 6 cd I'jx a4 1 7 Ax a4 ba and now, according to Spassky, White should play 18 1!rc2 d5 19 e5 l'je4 20 1!rx a4 with an equal game. Instead, Hennings-Spassky, Sochi 1 973, continued 1 8 d5 c6 ! 19 I'jc4 cd 20 l'ja5 I'jx e4! 21 I'jd4 (2 1 I'jx b7 i s met by 21 . . . 1!rb6 threa tening 22 . . . 1!rx b 7 and 22 . . . 1!rx f2+ followed by 23 . . . 1!rx b2 .) 21 . . . A c8 22 f3 I'jg5 23 l'jac6 1!rd7 24 1!rd2? (24 1!rx a4!) 24 . . . I'j e6 25 f41'jx d4 261'jx d4 A b 7 2 7 . a3 .x eH 28 1!rx el . e8 29 1!rf2 1!re7 30 \t1h2 1!rel 3 1 1!rc2 1!re4 32 1!rf2 g6 33 . c3 Ah6 34 . c7 . e7 35 . x e7 1!rx e7 361'je2 1!re4 37 d4 Jtg7 38 J;tx g7\t1x g7 39 .!)d4 a3 40 f5 1!re5+ 0- 1 .

1 5 . . . I'jbd7 1 6 b2

Eyeing the square e5 after the

intended break with c4. Harmless is 1 6 . bl d5 ! 1 7 ed ed 1 8 x d4 Ax d5 19 fl . x el 20 x e l e8 2 1 Jld2 i-i Savon-Vogt, Skopje Olympiad 1 972 .

1 6 . . . b8 Spassky's choice when playing

this position for the first time, but now considered rather suspect.

Black has also tried : a) 16 . . . g6 1 7 c4 (Tringov recommends 1 7 . bl ! as an improvement.) and now: a l ) 17 . ed?1I8 cb ab 1 9 xd4 c5 20 x b5 Ac6 21 J;td3 b6 22 a3 x b4 23 ac4 b8 24 c2 with advantage to White, Timman-Eslon, Islington 1 973 . a2 ) 17 be 18 d5 c6 1 9 dc Jlx c6 20 x c4 b8 2 1 A a4 TringovRee, Skopje Olympiad 1 972, and now Black could equalize with 2 1 . . . J;tx a4 2 2 x a 4 d5 . b) 16 . . . . b8 1 7 . b l (Petrosian suggests 1 7 . e3!? whereas 1 7 Ad3 h6 1 8 c2 g6 1 9 c4 bc 20.Q.,x c4 ed 21 Ax d4 Ag7 22 e5 de 23 x e5 x e5 24 Jlx e5 . x e5 25 . x e5 d5 , Rossman-Vogt, E. German Ch 1 975, is eminently satisfactory for Black.) 1 7 . . . A a8 ( 1 7 . . . g6 1 8 c4 bc 1 9 x c4 d5 ! 2 0 ed J;t x b4 2 1 . fl J;tx d5 2 2 e3 , LitvinovMishnik, USSR 1 974, would turn out well for Black after 22 . . . Jlx f3 23 x f3 e4.) 1 8 J;tal g6 and now: b l ) 19 Jld31 c5 20 d5 h5 21 Jlb2 f4 22 Afl . Black should now admit to a slightly inferior position with 22 . . . .1lg7 as after 22 . . . cb 23

11 bd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4 25

cb f5 ? 24 g3 fe 25 x e4 x d) 26 b3 c7 27 . bdl c6 28 .)c3 7f6 29 . x d5! VasyukovPodgayets, Leningrad 1 974, White has a manifest advantage. b2 ) 19 et ed 20 cb ab 21 x d4- d5 with equal chances. PlanincSpassky, Amsterdam 1 973, continued in complicated vein: 22 4f3 de 23 g5 e3 24 fe Jld5 25 A b3 c6 26 e4 Ax b3 27 x b3 e7 28 df3?! (28 . fl !) 28 . . ' h6 29 e5 d5 30 e6 hg 31 ed x d7 32 e5 d6+ 33 f3 f5 34 Jtd4 x b4 35 b3+ d5 (35 . . . d5 !) 36 x d5+ cd 37 d7 . x eH 38 . x el . a8 39 !3 e6! c2 40 Ae5 Ab4 i-i.

1 7 . bl Fischer's preference at Reyjavik

but this has now been superceded by 1 7 c4! bc 1 8 .1la4 c6 ( 1 8 ... . d8t is more tenacious.) 19 x c4 with advantage to White, e.g. : a ) 19 . . . e7 20 cl (20 de! de 2 1 b3 ) 20 . . . . ac8? (20 . . . ed! and if 21 x d4 d5! or 21 )( d4 x e4 22 f5 d5) 21 de de 22 b3 h6 23 c3 Jld6 24 . cdl . e6 25 J;l b3 . d8 26 x d6 . . x d6 27 . x d6 x d6 28 . dl e7 29 x e5 x e5 30 . x d8+ )( d8 3 1 x e5 c5 32 x c5 .1lx e4 33 a7 J;ld5 34 J;lx f6 x f6 35 b8+ 1 -0 Savon-Mukhin, Moscow 1 973. b) 19 . . ecIJ 20 x d4 (20 )( d4 d5!+) 20 ... d5 21 ed .>e el+ 22 x el x d5 23 d3 c7 244)e3

26 11 t;Jbd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4 t;J 7ffi 25 t;Jx d5 t;Jx d5 26 t;Jc5 with strong pressure, KavalekReshevsky, Chicago 1973 .

24 W

1 7 . . . c5 1 8 bc dc 19 de t;J X e5(24)

White now has: Al 20 t;Jx e5 A2 20 c4! AI

20 x e5 x e5 2 1 c4 f4 22 .Q,x ffi x ffi 23 cb f:!. ed8 24 cl c3

Safer i s 24 . . . ab 25 f:!. x b5 .Q.a6 26 f:!. b6 c3 27 t;Jb3 g6 ! (27 . . . c4? 28 e5 g6 29 f:!. e3 !) 28 e5 .Q.h6! as in Vasyukov-Smejkal, Polanica Zdroj 1 972 , which continued 29 bl c4 30 t;Jc5 x a5 3 1 t;Je4 Jlc8 32 t;Jd6 . a6! 33 f:!. b8 .Q.e6 34 f:!. e4 Jlffi 35 f:!. x d8 x d8 36 !zjx c4 c7 37 Jld3 f:!. c6 38 fl Jl f5 39 f:!. f4 e6 40 i!re2 Jlg7 !-! .

25 t;Jf3 x a5 25 . . . ab!?

26 b3 with a dangerous K-side attack in

the offing. Fischer-Spassky, 1 0 th match game, Reyjavik 1 972 , continued 26 . . . ab 27 f4 f:!. d7 28 t;Je5 c7 29 f:!. bdl f:!. e7 (29 . . . f:!. x d l ? 30 .Q.x f7+ h8 3 1 t;J g6+ or 29 . . . f:!. ad8 30 .Q.x f7+ as in the game) 30 .Q.x f7+ f:!. x f7 3 1 x f7+ x f7 32 t;J x f7 .Q.x e4 33 f:!. x e4 x f7 34 f:!. d7+ ffi 35 f:!. b7 f:!. aI+ ? (35 . . . b4 36 fl f:!. c8 !;!; ) 36 h2 .Q.d6+ 37 g3 b4 38 g2 h5 39 f:!. b6 f:!. d l 40 f3 f7 41 e2 f:!. d5 42 f4 g6 43 g4 hg H hg g5 45 f5 Ae5 46 f:!. b5 ffi 47 f:!. eX b4 .Q.d4 48 f:!. b6+ e5 49 f3 f:!. d8 50 f:!. b8 f:!. d7 51 f:!. 4b7 f:!. d6 52 f:!. b6 f:!. d7 53 f:!. g6 d5 54 f:!. x g5 .Q.e5 55 ffi d4 56 f:!. bl 1 -0 . A2

20 et! t;J x f3+ Also unsatisfactory is 20 . . . t;J fd7

21 cb ab 22 .Q.x e5 t;Jx e5 23 f:!. x b5 x f3+ 24 x f3 c7 25 .Q.b3 lta6 26 f:!. b6 c4 27 t;Jx c4 (At this point !-! ! Matera-Shapiro, US Open 1 973) 27 . . . Ac5 28 t;J e3 ! Ax b6 29 ab c3 30 .Q.x f7+ h8 3 1 f:!. d l with great advantage to White, Micheli-Matanovic, Madonna di Campiglio 1 973 .

2 1 x f3 d8 2 1 . . . t;Jd7 has been suggested by

Matanovic. After 2 1 . . . d8 Kostro claims

an advantage with 22 .Q.c3 b4 23 ltx ffi x d2 24 f:!. e2 but not so good is 22 f:!. bdl x a5 23 ltx ffi gf 24 x ffi? (24 g4+ ! .Q.g7 25 f:!. e3 .Q.c8 ! 26 h4 offers better chances . ) 24 . . . i;tg7 25 f5 c3 !

26 e5 X e5 27 x e5 i!fx e5 28 i!fx h7+

28 11 !i:Jbd2: 13 b.4 with 14 a4 Balashov-Spiridonov, Sochi 1 973. ) 24 Et x e8+ i!t'x e8 25 Et e 1 i!t'd7 26 .Q.h6! i!t'd6 (If 26 . . . Et e8 27 Et x e8+ x e8 28 i!t'x c7 .Q.x g2? 29 .Q.b3 .Q.c6 30 .Q.x f7+ i!t'x f7 3 1 i!t'x c6 i!t'e 7 32 i!t'd5+ wins) 27 Et e5 !i:J b6 28 i!t' e3 .Q. c6 29 .Q. b3 !i:Jc4 30 .Q.x c4 bc 31 d5 f6? 32 Et e6 1 -0. If 32 . . . i!t'x d5 33 Et x c6 i!t'x c6 34 i!t'e7 wins. B2

15 de 4::) x e4 1 6 !i:Jx e4 de 1 7 ltg5

1 7 .Q.X e4 .Q.x e4 1 8 Et X e4 !i:Jx e5 allows Black comfortable equality.

1 7 . . . f6 1 8 .Q.x e4 .Q.x e4 1 9 Et x e4 !i:Jx e5 (26)

19 . . . fg? is strongly met by 20 Et d4 Et e7 2 1 e6 .

26 W

20 Et d4 Black should hold the ending

after either: a) 20 !i:Jx e5 i!t'x dl+ 21 Et x dl fg or b) 20 b3+ !i:Jc4 21 Et x e8 i!t'x e8

22 .Q.f4 c6 23 !i:Jd2 ZhelyandinovUsakovs.ky, Riga 1 964 .

20 . . . !i:Jx f3+ Inferior is 20 . . . i!t'e7 2 1 !i:Jx e5 fg

(21 . . . i!t'x e5 22 .Q.f4) 22 b3+ i!t'e6 23 x e6+ Et x e6 24 !i:J f3 ba 25 !i:Jx g5 Et c6 26 !i:J e4 g6 27 Et x a4 with a won ending for White, Timman-Knaak, Sombor 1 972 .

2 1 x f3 c8 22 .Q.e3 c5 23 d5+ h8 24 Et M cb 25 d3 h6

Vasyukov-Zuidema, Wijk aan Zee 1 973 , continued 26 cb ba 27 Etx a4 Et e5 28 Et d4 e8 29 al i!t'b5 and the ending was drawn on move 39. C

27 W

14 . . . &5(27)

1 5 ba 15 ab ab 1 6 .Q.b2 ( 1 6 x a8

i!t'x a8 1 7 cb ed 18 !i:Jx d4 !i:Jx e4 is clearly good for Black.) 1 6 . . . bc 1 7 .Q.x c3 c6 1-1 Kavalek-Portisch, Wijk aan Zee 1 969.

An interesting idea was played in a consultation corres game between

Dutch TV viewers and Polish radio listeners in 1 974: 15 cl51 ? ab (If I S . . . c6 1 6 dc x c6 1 7 ab x bS 1 8 c4 i s good for White.) 1 6 cb ba 1 7 .!) c4! c6 1 8 .!)aS c8 1 9 dc x c6 20 .!) x c6 x c6 2 1 Jt x a4 b7 22 E! bl and White stands well as Black has difficulty in forcing . . . dS to free his position .

I S . . . E! X aS 1 6 E! bl

Now: Cl 1 6 . . . Jta6 C2 1 6 . . . a8 Cl

16 . . . A a6 1 7 ab

The usual move in this position, but possibly stronger is 1 7 dS a8 1 8 Aa3 cS 1 9 dc x c6 20 itb4 E! x a4 21 x a4 ba 22 E! al .!)b6 23 ,1;taS .!)fd7 as in Belyavsky-A. Petrosian, Kiev 1 973 . Black has some compensation for the exchange and drew in S8 moves, but White's chances are preferable.

Another way to offer up the exchange after I 7 dS is 1 7 . . . .!) b6 1 8 ,1;ta3 cS 19 dc dS 20 ,1;tb4 J;tx b4 2 1 cb E! x a4 22 Ax a4 .!)x a4 23

28 W

11 .!)hd2: 13 h4 with 14 a4 29 c2 d4 24 .!)b3 .!) c3 GoloveiShul, USSR Women's Ch 1 974.

1 7 . . . E! x bS (28) At this point i-i ! Kuzmin

Adorjan, Hastings 1 973-74 . White now has:

Cl l 1 8 ,1;tb3 C1 2 1 8 E! al Cll

18 ,1;tb3 E! e7? ! In Gruzman-Korabelnikov,

Moscow 1 973, Black overlooked White's threat and lost a pawn after 18 . . . h6 ? 1 9 ,1;tx f7+ x f7 20 E! x bS x bS 2 1 i!r b3+ dS 22 x bS . This error was repeated in Klovan-Zhelyandinov, USSR Armed Forces Team Ch, Leningrad 1 974, and after 22 . . . ed 23 .!) x d4 cS 24 l)4f3 i!r b6 2S a4 i!r e6 26 eS White had a solid extra pawn.

A safer way of dealing with this is 18 . . . 001 19 c2 E! a5 ! 20 ,1;tb2 i!rc7 2 1 E! al h6 22 E! x as i!rx as 23 E! al b6 24 ,1;ta3 dS 2S x ill x ill i-i Razuvayev-Smejkal, Ljubljana 1973 .

19 c2 Razuvayev gives 1 9 E! al as

maintaining some initiative. 1 9 . . . E! aS

Black gets into difficulties after 1 9 . . . E! b8 20 l)gS (threatening 2 1 .!)x f7 E! x f7 22 Ax f7+ x f7 23 a2+ ) 20 . . . Ab7 2 1 f4! h6 (21 . . . ef22 eS de 23 Aa3 cS 24 de wins) 22 fe de 23 l)gf3 cS 24 a3 and White's bishops exert strong pressure. Mecking-Reshevsky, Pet-

30 11 t;:Jbd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4

ropolis interzonal 1 973 , continued 24 . . . c7 25 t;:Jh4 ee8 26 a2 t;:J b6 27 de x e5 28 Ax 7+ i!fx 7 29 i!fx 7+ x 7 30 x b6 t;:Jd7 3 1 b5 Aa6? 32 n+ 1 -0. If 32 . . . g8 33 x b8 t;:Jx b8 34 x m+ x m 35 t;:Jg6+ wins a piece.

20 t;:Jc4 21 Ax c4

AX c4 a8

R azuvayev- Furm a n , 40 th USSR Ch 1 972, continued 22 i;td2 a3 23 Ab5 c6 24Ac4 d5 25 ed cd 26 i;t b3 e4 27 t;:Jh2 t;:Jb6 28 i;tg5 e6 with satisfactory counterplay for Black. C12

18 al 1 9 Ab3 20 Aa3

b6 h6

An alternative is 20 i!fe2 Ab7 and now: a) 21 A aof a6 22 i;tb2 i!fa8 23 i;t b5 x al 24 x al e8 25 e1 i!fa8 26 al i!fe8 27 el t-t Matanovic-Karpov, European Team Ch, Bath 1973 . b) 21 as and rather than: b l ) 21 . . . ed22 cd Ax e4 23 t;:Jx e4 x e4 24 x e4 t;:Jx e4 25 A x 7+ x 7 26 i!fx e4 t;:Jili 27 e2 wi th advantage to White, KuzminTukmakov, 41 st USSR Ch 1 973, Kuzmin suggests b2 ) 21 . . . elSl 22 de t;:Jx e5 23 t;:J x e5 X e5 24 f4 x e4! 25 t;:J x e4 t;:J x e4 26 i;te3 c5 27 a7 i!fb8 with equality.

20 . . . c5 2 1 de t;:Jx c5

22 AX e5 de 23 A e4 Ab7

23 . . . Ax c4 24 t;:Jx c4 i!fx d l 25 aX d l b3 26 cl would keep White's advantage to a minimum.

24 c2 Less challenging is 24 bl A e6

25 e2 x bl 26 i!fx bl i!f c7 Matanovic-Smejkal, Ljubljana 1973 , and a draw was soon agreed.

24 . . . i!fe7? ! Better i s 24 . . . b8 when Black

stands only marginally worse. 25 a7 !

White is well placed to exploit the awkward positions of Black's pieces. Tal-Tukmakov, 4 1 st USSR Ch 1 973 , continued 25 . . . e7 26 i!fa2 i!rb8 27 al d7 28 A b3 g6 29 Ax 7+ ? ! (29 i!fa5 ! ) 29 . . . x 7 30 t;:J e4 e6 3 1 t;:J cx e5 X e5 ! 32 t;:Jx e5 Ad5 ! 33 ed x a7 34 x a7 i!fxe5 35 El. dl ? (35 e4;!; ) 3 5 . . . t;:Je4 36 b6 Ad6 37 i!fd8+ 7 38 i!fd7+ m? (38 . . . e7+ ) 39 f4! x c3 t-t . C2

16 . . . i!f aB Black puts pressure on the white

e-pawn, but he has to withstand tactical threats after taking it .

1 7 ab 1 7 de t;:Jx e5 18 ab t;:J ed7 ( I 8 . . .

t;:J x f3+ 1 9 x f3 d5 20 e5 d4! , with an unclear position is better.) 19 c4 t;:Jx e4 20 t;:Jx e4 Ax e4 21 x e4 x e4 22 t;:Jg5 (White should play along similar lines to the column variation with 22 g3 !) 22 . . . El. h4

23 {) x f7 x f7 24 jlg5 e4 25 f3+ {)ffi 26 Ax ffi White has reached the same position as Geller-Portisch below, except with a pawn on c4 instead of d4; this means that simplification a la Portisch is no longer so appetizing as after a) 26 . . . eH 27 x el x f3 28 gfX ffi the pawn on b5 is already protected and White has time to capture on h7 with a won ending. b) Instead, Browne-Castro, Pan American Ch, Winnipeg 1 974, continued 26 . . . e61 (Black stands better. ) 27 Ad8+ x f3 28 gf a7 29 c5 ! dc 30 A b3 jld6? (He should have played 30 . . . e8 31 J;ix e6 xd8 or 31 jlx c7? g6+ with advantage) 3 1 b6 ! cb 32 e l e8 33 x e6+ x d8 34 x d6+ and White won the ending with his extra material .

1 7 . . . ed 18 cd {)x e4 19 c!Jx e4 J;ix e4 20 x e4! x e4 21 c!Jg5 h4

21 . . . c!Jffi 22 {)x e4 c!Jx e4 23 d3

11 {)bd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4 31

22 g3! 22 c!Jx f7? ! x f7 23 .a,g5 Et e4

24 f3+ (24 d5? e8 and 24 .a,b3+ g6 are good for Black.) 24 . . . {)ffi 25 jlx ffi . eH (Black could try for more with 25 . . . e6 e.g. 26 d5 . x ffi 27 h5+ g6 28 x h7+ l;tg7 or 26 i!t x a8 . x a8 27 J;ig5 jle7 28 .a,e3 d5.) 26 x el i!tx f3 27 gfx ffi 28 jld3 a4 29 d5 d4 30 jle4 .a,e7 3 1 g2 g6 ii Geller-Portisch, interzonal playoff, Portoroz 1 973 ; an imaginative rook sacrifice met with good tactical defence.

22 . . . . h6 23 {)x f7 x h3 24 d5 {) ffi 25 l;t5 . h5 26 c!Jg5 h8 (or 26 . . . g6 27 e6+ g7 28 g4 etc . ) 27 Ae6 . x g5 28 A x g5 c!J e4 29 .a, h4 i!t e8 30 b4 c!Jc5 3 1 . f4 and White has strong threats on the K-side and soon won material, SznapikKostro, Polish Ch 1 974.

The conclusion is that 13 b4 followed by 1 4 a4 is still slightly uncomfortable for Black and must be regarded as one of White's most promising systems.

6 1 1 2j bd2 with 1 2 . . . c5

1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 ffi 5 OO Ae7 6 . el b5 7 A b3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 b8 10 d4 bd7 II bd2 Ab7 1 2 Ac2 c5(29)

29 W

As 1 2 . . . . e8 1 3 b4 (chapters 4 and 5) can prove somewhat restricting for Black, 1 2 . . . c5 is played to restrain White's Q-side expansion. This move order has been adopted enthusiastically by Gligoric since 1972 and a fair amount of theory has accumulated. Sometimes this line merely represents a transposition to chapters 2 or 3 but the order of moves in the games cited has been retained for convenience of reference.

White has three main continuations : A 1 3 d5 B 1 3 b3 C 1 3 fl

Another possibility is 1 3 a4 . e8 14 d5 b6 1 5 b4 cb 1 6 cb x a4 1 7 Ax a4 ba 1 8 c4 Ac8 1 9 x a4 Ad7 with equal chances, MinicGligoric, Ljubljana 1973 . A

13 d5 g6 GligoriC's usual choice. After 13 . . . b6 1 4 fl A c8 1 5

g3 i;td7 1 6 x e5 de 1 7 d6 . e8 18 de x e7 1 9 f3 h6 20 f5 A x f5 2 1 ef . ad8 Banas-Holmov, Luhacovice 1973 , Black is well centralized but some would prefer the bishop pair.

13 . . . c:4 is also possible, e.g. 1 4 fl . e8 1 5 Ae3 c7 1 6 g4 c5 1 7 g3 Am 1 8 d2 a5 1 9 b3 . eb8 Bronstein-Lengyel, Tallinn 1 975 .

1 4 fl h5 ! 14 . . . e8 has been played and

would transpose to Al below. 1 5 Ah6

Or 1 5 a4 Affi 1 6 b3 Ag7 1 7 Ag5 c7 1 8 g3 ba 19 . x a4 b6 20

E!. a3 a5 with level chances. TorreGligoric, Manila 1 974, continued 21 .!) 3d2 c8 22 h4 d7 23 e2 E!. a7 24 E!. eal E!. fa8 25 d3 a4 26 b5 (26 b4) 26 . . . ab 27 j;td8? ! (27 E!. x a7= ) 27 . . . E!. x a3 28 ltx c7 E!. x al 29 .!)X b3 (29 lt x b6 j;th3!) 29 . . . E!. l a2 30 .!) bd2 E!. b2! 31 Ax d7 .!)x d7 32 ltx d6 lth6 33 e7 .!)hffi 34 i!r f3 ltx d2 35 Ax ffi? Ael 36 Ag5 Ax f2+ 37

34 11 J;:Jbd2 with 12 . . . c5

1 5 J;:J O l1f6! 1 6 dc J;:Jx cS 1 7 ab ab 1 8 llh6 Ag7, Suetin-Gligoric, Yugoslavia-USSR 1 974, is satisfac. tory.

1 4 dS 14 de is innocuous: 14 . . . de 1 5

J;:J h 2 J;:Jffi 1 6 'Y:'re2 t-t CiricMatanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 967 .

14 llb2 A ffi I S de de 1 6 a4 g6 1 7 ab ab 1 8 c4 b4 1 9 J;:J O llg7 20 J;:J3d2 J;:Jffi, Planinc- Matanovic, Ljubljana 1 973 , leads to an even position.

1 4 . . . g6 After 1 4 . . . J;:Jffi I S a4 . bS

White should play 16 b4! c4 with a slight edge. ( 1 6 . . . c7? ! is worse: 17 bc 'Y:'rx cS IS . e3 J;:J6d7 1 9 Aa3 'Y:'rc7 2 0 b l AcS 2 1 c4 ) . Inferior is 16 c4 b4 1 7 J;:J 1 AcS I S g4? ! hS ! and Black stands better, Suetin- Matanovic, Lj ublj ana 1973 .

IS a4 Or I S c4? ! b4 1 6 a3 as 1 7 a4 Affi

I S J;:J O Ag7 1 9 Ae3 J;:J ffi 20 J;:Jg3 hS 2 1 'Y:'rd2 J;:JSh7 ! t-t RazuvayevSuetin, Ljubljana 1973 .

IS . . . . bS The latest refinement is I S . . .

J;:J hS but after 1 6 b4 c4 1 7 J;:J O ll to 18 . a3 J;:J b6 19 as J;:Jd7 20 ll e3 . ffi 21 'Y:'rd2 'Y:'re7 22 J;:Jg3 J;:J f4!? 23 Ax f4 ef 24 'Y:'rxf4 J;:JeS 25

ed f6 27 g5 x d5 28 jte4 x e3+ 29 fe d5 30 i;tx d5 e4 3 1 i;tx b7 eft- 32 i,l,x .f3 !:! e5 33 h4 i!!/ e7 34 !:! adl !:! x e3 35 !:! hel !:! x e l 36 !:! x e l i!!/ c7 37 i!!/ e3 f5 38 e2 .Q..e5 39 d4 .Q.. f4 40 x b5 1 -0. C

13 t1 !:! e8 Alternatives are:

a) 13 . . . cd 1 4 cd and now: al ) 14 . . . c7 1 5 g3 g6 1 6 Ah6 !:! fc8 1 7 i;tb3 b6 1 8 g5 c4 1 9 de de 20 i!!/f3;j; GerebenSchifferdecker, Bad Mondorf l 974. a2 ) 14 . . . !:! e8 1 5 g3 .Q..ffi 16 b3 ed 1 7 i;tb2 !:! c8 1 8 x d4 d5 19 ed !:! x el+ 20 i!!/x el .Q..x d5 21 !:! cl g6 with equality, Sznapik-Holmov, Sochi 1 974. b) 13 . . . g6 1 4 g4? ! ( I 4 0g3 !) 14 . . . cd 1 5 cd d5 1 6 de x e4 1 7 g3 Ac5 1 8 i;te3 x g3 1 9 fg !:! c8 with advantage to Black, BogdanovicIvkov, Yugoslav Ch 1 958.

14 g3 Also possible is 1 4 d5, e.g.

a) 14 . . . A c8 1 5 e3 ( I 5 g4 h5 leads to complicated play .) 1 5 . . . g6 1 6 g4? ! ( I 6 c4 is better.) 1 6 . . . c4 1 7 h2 ( I 7 b3 ! cb 1 8 ab c5 1 9 d2 h5 20 b4 b7 2 1 c4 jtd7 -Borisenko) 1 7 . . . c5 1 8 f3 h5! 1 9 !:! e2 hg 20 hg h7 with an edge to Black, Zagorovsky-Borisenko, Gorky t-final 22nd USSR Ch 1 954. This was one of the earliest games with the Breyer variation. b) 14 . . . p l 5 b3 ( I 5 lt e3 .1lffi 1 6 l h2 ltg7 1 7 g4 X g4 1 8 hg

11 hd2 with 12 . . . c5 35

f6 i-i Spassky-Gligoric, European Team Ch, Bath 1 973) 1 5 . . . b6 and now: b l ) 16 % e2 h5 1 7 lt h6 ltffi 18 A g5 .1le7 1 9 lth6 lt ffi 20 ltg5 t-i Schmid-Gligoric, Nice Olympiad 1 974. b2) 16 a4 ba 1 7 ba a5 18 e3 lta6 1 9 g4 x g4 20 hg Ac8 2 1 g3 f6 with equal chances, TorreGligoric, Nice Olympiad 1 974.

14 . . . i;t ffi I t i s best not to weaken the dark

squares on the K-side while White still has the option of keeping the centre fluid, e.g. 14 . . . g6 1 5 .1lh6 A ffi 1 6 i!!/d2 i!!/e7 1 7 a4 Ac6 1 8 b3 A x h6 19 i!rxh6 i!!/ ffi 20 %g5 %g7 21 d5! i,l,b7 22 ab ab 23 Ad3 with strong Q-side pressure to follow, Keres-Gligorii:, San Antonio 1 972.

15 d5 15 b3 g6 16 d5 would transpose

into the text (see also chapter 2 ) .

32 W

1 5 . . . g6 (32)

A rare alternative at this stage is 1 5 . . . c4, e.g. : a) 16 AsS %c7 1 7 f5 !:! ebB 1 8 h2 Ac8 1 9 %f3 e8 20 .)g4

36 11 !0,bd2 with 12 . . . c5

!0,c5 2 1 b3 f6 22 Ad2 a5 LeinHolmov, 40th USSR Ch 1 9 72 . b) 16 J;t e3 !0, c5 1 7 !0, h2 g6 1 S d2 Ag7 1 9 a4 E! bS 20 ab ab 2 1 J;th6 J;tcS 22 J;tx g7 x g7 23 f41; Damjanovic-Rukavina, Sombor 1972 .

White has tried two continuations: Cl 1 6 b3 C2 16 Ag5 Cl

16 b3 White plans to close the Q-side

by 1 7 a4 b4 I S c4 and then concentrate on the K-wing.

1 6 . . . !0, b6 1 7 "t!re2

Again White has several other options: a) 17 A lP h6 1 S J.te3 J.tg7 1 9 cl h5 ( 1 9 . . . h7 !?) 20 Ag5 "t!re7 2 1 J;td3 (21 a4!?) 2 1 . . . "t!r m 22 a4 ba 23 ba E! ebS ! 24 a5 !0, bd7 25 A c2 !0, h7 with chances for both sides, Ciocaltea-Gligoric, Ljubljana 1 973 b) 17 Ae3 and now: bI ) 17 . . . J.t c8 1 8 a4 ba 1 9 ba !0, c4 20 J;tg5 J.tg7 2 1 e2 !0, a5 22 d2! E! bS? ! (22 . . . J;td7 or 22 . . . e7, preparing . . . "t!rm and . . . h6-Tal-is more exact.) 23 E! ebl E! x bI+ 24 E! x bI Ad7 25 c4! (planning c3 IAd2) gave White the advantage, Tal-Gligoric, Leningrad interzonal 1973 . b2 ) 17 as 1 8 Ad3 b4 1 9 A b5 !0, fd7 20 c4 Ag7 2 1 d2 E! m 22 J;th6 e7 23 a3 E! fb8 24 E! a2 Ax h6 25 -a x h6 !0, m 26 !0, h2 Ac8

27 Ac6 a7 2S ab ab 29 x a7 x a7 30 !0,g4 AXg4 31 hg f6 with a solid position for Black, TataiGligoric, Manila 1 973 . c) 17 a4 ( see also chapter 3 ) when: cl ) 17 .c7 ? 1 8 Ag5 Ag7 1 9 "t!rd2 ( 1 9 a5;t ) 1 9 . . . ba 20 b a a5 21 J.th6 J"tcS 22 E! ebl E! a6? ! 23 cl J;tx h6 24 "t!r x h6 dS 25 E! a2 and White is clearly better, IvkovUnzicker, Nice Olympiad 1 974. c2 ) 17 bai l S ba a5 (also IS . . . !0, c4-Tal) 1 9 E! bl ( 1 9 Ag5 A a6 20 i!rd2 Ag7 2 1 E! ebl !0, bd7 1-1 I vkov-Gligoric, Manila 1 9 73) 1 9 . . . Aa6 20 jlg5 J;tg7 21 cl !0, bd7 22 !0,d2 c7 23 a3 E! abS 24 E! x bS" E! x bS 25 E! bl E! x bl+ 26 Ax bl !0, b6 27 jle3 !0,c4 2S !0, x c4 J;tx c4 29 f4 ef 30 jlx f4 !0,d7 3 1 !0,fl A e5 1-1 Rotterdam players in consultation-Ivkov, 1 974.

1 7 " . " a5 l S Ad3

Or 18 c4 b4 1 9 a4 Ag7 20 A e3 !0,bd7 2 1 d2 e7 22 !0, h4 c;f7hS 23 Ag5 m 24 E! fl !0,gS 25 E! ael 1-1 Tal-Gligoric, Hastings 1 973-74.

I S " " . b4 19 Ab5 E! e7 20 A d2 Ag7 21 a3 bc 22 Ax c3

The text is Jansa-Gligorii:, Nice Olympiad 1 974. BlaGk now tried an enterprising sacrifice of a piece for two pawns: 22 . . . !0,bx d5 23 ed x d5 24 -'i, b2 b6 25 4)e4 Oansa gives 25 a4! , when Black has

insufficient counterplay} 25 . . . .!Dc7 26 i;ta4 d5 27 .!Ded2 e4 28 i;tx g7 x g7 29 .!Dh2 e6 30 .. acl f5 3 1 f3 c4+ 32 i:!rf2 i:!rx f2+ 33 x f2 c5 34 fe d3+ 35 e2 .!Dx cl+ 36 .. x c l cb 37 Jlx b3 i;ta6+ 38 e3 de 39 .. c5 .. d8 40 i;tc4 i;tx c4 41 x c4 .. d3+ 42 e2 .. c3 43 O .. c2+ 44 el e3 45 .. e5 .. x e5 46 x e5 f4 47 g3 e2 48 d2 fg 49 x ("2 g2 50 ("f3 .. a2 5 1 f2 .. x a3 52 x g2 a4 0-1 . C2

16 AgS h6 Or 1 6 . . . Ag7 1 7 i:!rd2 b6 1 8

A d 3 c4 1 9 Ac2 bd7 20 h2 i:!re7 2 1 g4 i:!rm 22 h6+ is in White's favour. Geller- Ivkov, USSR-Yugoslavia 1 973 , continued 22 . . . h8 23 .. e2 g8 24 x g8 x g8 25 .. 0 ffi 26 Ae3 i:!re7 27 El. eel Jlc8 28 b3 m 29 bc bc 30 .. bl Ad7 31 .. b6 .. ec8 32 .. fbl Ae8 33 i:!rcl d7 34 .. b7 i:!rd8 35 Aa4 c5 36Ax c5 Jlx a4 37 i:!ra3 ! .. x c5 38 i:!rx a4 Am 39 .!DO i:!ra5? 40 i:!rd7 1 -0 .

17 Ae3 Ag7 18 d2 h5 (33)

11 bd2 with 12 . . . c5 37

1 9 b3 Alternative experiences from this

position have run 1 9 a4 c4 20 .. a3 .!Dc5 which transposes to chapter 3 except that 1 8 . . . \fih7 was play("d then instead of l 8 . . . h5. Examples with this minor difference are: a) 21 Jl gS i:!rc7 22 .. eal .. eb8 23 ab ab !-! Kavalek-Gligoric, Wijk aan Zee 1975 . b) 21 .. eal h4 22 Ax c5 dc 23 O d7 24 ab ab 25 .. x a8 Ax a8 26 .. a7 b6 27 i:!re3 i:!r b8 28 .. al d7 29 x h4 Ab7 30 h2 i:!rd6 3 1 g4 .. a8 32 .. x a8+ Ax a8 33 i:!rg5 i:!rm 34 g3 Ab7 35 f4 i:!ra8 36 i:!r e7 i:!ral + 37 \fig2 i:!rx b2 38 i:!rx d7 x c2+ 39 f2 ef 40 i:!r e8+ Am 41 gf i:!rx c3 42 f3 i:!r ffi 43 i:!rx b5 c3 44 i:!rx b 7 c2 45 .!Dd3 c4 46 e5 cd !-! GellerGligoric, Wijk aan Zee 1 975 .

1 9 . . . .. b8 Or 1 9 . . . b6 and :

a) 20 A h6 h7 ! 2 1 Ax g7 x g7 22 a4 ba 23 ba c4 24 i:!r e2 a5 !! Gheorghiu-Gligoric, Los Angeles 1 974. b) 20 i!r e2 a5 2 1 a4 ba 22 ba Aa6 23 Ad3 Ax d3 24 i:!rx d3 bx d5 25 ed e4 Buljovcic-Gligoric, Yugoslav Ch 1 975, gives Black excellent chances.

20 a4 Ac8 2 1 h2 .!Dh7

22 .. 0 b4 23 c4 .. b 7 24 .. ael as and Black should hav(" time to organize a defensive set-up on the K-side, Suetin-Matanovic USSR-Yugoslavia, Belgrade 1 974.

7 11 h4

1 e4 e5 2 .!) f3 .!) c6 3 it b5 a6 4 ita4 .!) ffi 5 00 ,Ae7 6 el b5 7 .Q" b3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 .!) b8 1 0 d4 .!) bd 7

1 1 .!) h4(34)

This sharp line was introduced by Simagin in 1 96 1 and was accorded the accolade of respectability following Fischer's successful adoption of it in the late 1 960s . Recently, however, it has fallen out of fashion.

Black now has the following defences: A l l . . . .!)x e4 B 1 1 . . . .!) b6 C 1 1 . . . ed 1 2 cd .!) b6 D I l . . . g6 E I l . . . e8 F 1 1 . . . .Q.,b7

A 1 1 . . . 1 2 .!) f5

.!)x e4 .!)dffi

Universally regarded as necessary, but 1 2 . . . .!)effi should not be dismissed too lightly. The original game in the variation, Simagin-Estrin, Moscow Ch 1 96 1 , continued 13 i!r f3 bS 1 4 ,Ag5 g6 1 5 ,!)x e7+ i!r x e7 1 6 .!)d2 J;t b7 1 7 i!rg3 r:;g7 1 8 i!r h4 h5 1 9 .!) fl i!r e8 20 f4! e4 2 1 f5 and Black's position is very difficult. However, Black can improve with 13 . . . e4! for if 1 4 i!rg3 .!) h 5 1 5 i!rg4 .!) dffi is playable, while 1 4 x e4 .!) x e4 1 5 i!rx e4 ,A g5 1 6 f4 is answered by 1 6 . . . d5 ! e .g. 1 7 ,Axd5 .!) ffi or 1 7 i!r x d5 .!) b6-analysis by Moles .

Alternatively after 1 2 . . . .!) effi White has 13 J;t g5 .!) b6 1 4 .!) x e7+ i!r x e7 1 5 .!) d2 ,Ab7 when: a) If 16 A e4 1 7 d5 .!) bx d5 1 8 .!) x e4 i!r d 7 1 9 .!) x f6+ .!) x ffi 20 ,Ax ffi gfWhite has nothing to show for his pawn, Shianovsky-Gufeld, Kiev 1 964. b) 16 ,A c2 i!r e6 ! and Black stands better. If instead 16 . . . h6 1 7 it h4 i!re6 1 8 J;t b3 ! led to equality in

Bottlik-Nadin, 6th Corres Olympiad prelim, but after 1 6 . . . if"e6 ! 1 7 b3 if"f5 gains vital tempo.

1 3 f3 A strong alternative i s Bron

stein's recommendation 1 3 x e7+ if" x e7 1 4 .. e2 ! threatening 1 5 if"el followed by f3.

Less than convincing after 1 3 ClJ x e7+ if" x e7 is 1 4 .. x e4 ClJ X e4 1 5 d5 when: a) Simagin preferred 15 151 1 6 if" f3 g6 1 7 ltx e4 ed 1 8 A x a8 if"el + 1 9 h2 if"x cl with ample compensation for the piece . b) 15 x t2 1 6 x f2 .. b8 1 7 Ae3 Ae6 1 8 il. b3 .. be8 1 9 de if"hH 20 fl lt x h3 21 f2 if"e4 22 gh .. X e5 23 if"g4 if"hl+ 24 ltgl h5 25 if"g3 .. fe8 0- 1 Bogdanovic- Lengyel , Sarajevo 1 965 .

After 1 3 if" f3 Black can choose between: Al 1 3 . . . ltb7 A2 1 3 . . . Ax f5 AI

35 W

13 . . .

1 4 Ac2

b7(35)

ClJ c5!

11 ClJh4 39

Not 14 . . . d5 1 5 de ClJd7 1 6 x e4 d e 1 7 if"g3 g6 1 8 .. d l with a clear advantage to White, KotsZhelyandinov, Baku 1 964.

15 if" g3 ClJ e6 16 de

After 1 6 h6 Black should play not 1 6 . . . ClJe8? 1 7 de de 1 8 .. x e5 as in Vasyukov-Holmov, USSR Tean Ch 1 964, but 1 6 . . . ClJh5 1 7 i!Yg4 ClJ ffi 1 8 if"g3 ClJ h5 1 9 i!Yg4 ( 1 9 if"d3 e4!) t-t Hort-Jansa, Marianske Lazne 1 965 .

1 6 . . . de 1 7 Ab3

Alternatives are: a) 17 if"x e5 .. e8 t-t BogdanovicHort, Sarajevo 1 965 . b) 17 A h6 h5 1 8 ClJ X e7+ if" x e7 1 9 if" x e5 if" c5 with eq uali ty. c) 17 !:2Jx e7+ if"x e7 1 8 if" x e5 with some advantage--Shamkovich. d ) 17 .. x e5 Ad6 18 ClJX d6 cd 1 9 .. e l . Holmov thought this position to be better for White, Bronstein gave it better for Black while Averbakh and Furman considered it equal ! Zakharov-Holmov, 32nd USSR Ch 1964-65 , continued 1 9 . . . d 5 20 J;t e3 .. e8 2 1 .. d l (if 2 1 ClJ d2 d4!) 2 1 . . . if" e7 22 ClJd2 b4 and Black eventually won.

1 7 . . . ClJ e4! Both 1 7 . . . ClJd5 18 .. dl and 1 7

. . , ltd5 1 8 lth6 are in White's favour.

18 if"g4 g5 !? Black should be able to hold the

position after 1 8 . . . ClJ ffi 19 ClJX eH if" x e7 20 i!YM ClJd5 21 i!Yx e7

40 11 tiiJh4

tiiJx e7 , e.g. 22 -'1 x e6 fe 23 . x e5 . ad8 !

1 9 x g5 i!rx g5 J anosevic-Robatsch, Venice

1 967 , continued 20 . x e4! Jlx e4 2 1 i!r x e4 i!r cl + 22 c;t> h2 . ad8 23 i!rx e5 . d7 and now according to Petrosian White should play 24 c4! bc 25 Aa4 with advantage. A2

36 B

13 . . . ilx f5 1 4 i!rx f5 ed 1 5 . X e4 tiiJX e4 1 6 i!rx e4( 36)

1 6 . . . ilg5 Zakharov-Gufeld, Baku 1 964,

went 1 6 . . . ilffi 1 7 Jld2 c5 ( 1 7 . . . . e8 1 8 i!rd5 i!rd7 is a possible try.) 18 cd -'1x d4 19 Jlc3 . e8 20 i!rf3 . a7 2 1 tiiJd2 Jlx c3 with a balanced position. 1 9 il c2 ! g6 20 tiiJ c3 would have been better for White.

1 7 il-d2 ilx d2 18 tiiJx d2 dc 1 9 bc i!rg5

Black is already in some trouble. If 1 9 . . . i!rd7 then 20 ild5 gives him difficulties in rolling his Q-side

pawns, while if he cannot oppose the e-file White can develop attacking chances with tiiJd2-f3-g5 or tiiJ h4.

20 tiiJf3 i!rc5 2 1 . el c6

Not 2 1 . . . i!rx c3 22 ilx f7+ ! 22 . e3 d5 23 i!re5 g6

Now 24 h4! would give White good winning chances. ZakharovKrogius, USSR Team Ch 1 966, continued instead 24 i!rffi? . ae8 25 tiiJ e5 . e6 26 i!rf4 i!rd6 27 i!rd4 c5 ! 28 i!rx d5 c4 29 i!rx d6 . x d6 30 ilc2 . d2 3 1 -'1e4 . x a2 32 g4 c;t>g7 33 il c6 . d2 34 g5 . d6 35 ilb7 a5 36 c;t>g2 a4 37 ilc6 ffi! 38 gfl- . dx ffi 39 f3 a3 40 . e2 . e6 41 ilx b5 . f5 O-\ .

One must conclude that I I . . . !zJ x e4 followed by 1 2 . . . tiiJ dffi does not equalize satisfactorily but the retreat 1 2 . . . tiiJ effi deserves further investigation. B

37 W

11 tiiJ b6(37)

White now has a choice between: BI 1 2 tiiJ f5? !

B2 1 2 de B3 1 2 4Jd2 BI

12 4J 6 ?1 1,tx f5 1 3 ef ed 1 4 cd c5 !

1 4 . . . d5 is not so good: 1 5 4Jc3 . e8 16 f3 c6 1 7 1,tc2 1,td6 IS Ag5 4J bd7 1 9 g4 h6? { l9 . . . b6 is better.} 20 . x eS+ x eS 21 d2 with advantage to White, SteinGligoric, Amsterdam interzonal 1 964.

1 5 4J c3 1 5 e3 c4 1 6 c2 t-t Peretz

Parma, Netanya 1 97 1 . 1 5 . . . c4

Also good for Black is 1 5 . . . . a 7 1 6 g5 h6 1 7 e3 c4 I S c2 4J bd5 1 9 f3 4J x e3 20 . x e3 d5 Listengarten-Yudovich, Baku 1 964.

1 6 c2 b4 1 7 4Ja4

No better is 1 7 4J e4 4Jx e4 I S Ax e4 . a7 1 9 e3 f6 20 d2 a5+ Penrose-Unzicker, Clare Benedict, Berlin 1 965 .

1 7 . . . 4Jx a4 I S Ax a4 d5 19 g5 . a7 20 . e2 h6 2 1 Ah4 4J e4

Black stands better due to his mobile Q-side pawn majority, Suetin-Podgayets, USSR Olympiad, Moscow 1 972 . B2

12 de de 13 4Jf5

1 1 4Jh4 41

13 x d8 x dS 14 4J d2 1,tb7 15 4Jf5 4J bd7 16 4Jf3 4Jx e4 1 7 c2 4J4c5 ! leaves Black very comfortably placed, Tal-Spassky, 3rd game Candidates' match 1 965 .

13 4J d2 x e4 ( 1 3 . . . c5 would transpose to B3 .) 1 4 . x e4 Ax h4 1 5 . x e5 is best met by 1 5 . . . f6 but not 15 . . . b7 1 6 g4 4Jd7 1 7 . e2 4J c5 I S c2 g5 1 9 4Jf3 Schmid-Tatai , Venice 1 966.

1 3 . . . A x f5 1 4 x dS . fX dS!

Less accurate are: a) 14 . . . . ax d8 1 5 eft PachmanHolaszek, European Team Ch prelim, Veseli na Morave 1 967 b) 14 . . 1,tx d8 1 5 ef . eS 1 6 4Jd2 c5 1 7 .Q. c2t Rittner-Yudovich, Ragozin memorial corres 1 966.

1 5 ef 4J fd7 1 6 4Jd2 a5 1 7 4Jf3 a4 I S Ac2 f6 1 9 1,te4 . a5 20 Ae3 4J c5

Black has a good Shianovsky-Liberzon , Team Ch 1 964.

position, USSR

B3 12 d2 c5

Always played in practice. 1 2 . . . 4Jx e4!? is worth a try, e.g.

1 3 !z:JX e4 x h4 14 h5 d5 1 5 Ag5 x g5 1 6 4J x g5 and now either 1 6 . . . h6 or Euwe's 1 6 . . . A f5 1 7 . x e5 Ag6 should give equality .

13 de R . Byrne-Reshevsky, Chicago

42 11 t;:Jh4

1 973 , varied with 1 3 t;:J f5 b7 1 4 t;:J fl c4 1 5 c2 . e8 1 6 t;:J I g3 ltm 17 A e3 t;:J bd7 1 8 d5

fine position, Unzicker-Antoshin, Sochi 1 965 . b) 13 e5 de 1 4 de fd5 1 5 f3 has been suggested by Krogius but never given practical tests . c) 13 d2 and now: c l ) 13 . . . cl5 1 4 ed bx d5 15 i!tf3 c6 16 f5 i;t b4 with equality Janosevic-Donner, Wijk aan Zee 1 970. c2) 13 . . . x e4 ? 1 4 X e4 i;tx h4 1 5 i!th5 d5 1 6 g5 i;tx g5 1 7 i;tX g5 ffi 1 8 i;t c2 g6 1 9 .Q. xg6 hg 20 i!i' x g6+ !i!I h8 2 1 f! e8 ! -Unzicker.

11 h4 43

fair posItIOn for Black, BouazizMades, Nice Olympiad 1 974.

1 4 .1lf4 .1l b7 1 5 dc de 1 6 i!i' x d8 i;t x d8

Not 1 6 . . . f! aX d8? 1 7 .1lc7 1 7 .1ld6 f! e8 1 8 i;tx c5 bd7 19 AM X e4

Better was 1 9 . . . f! x e4. 20 c3 i;t ffi

Fischer-Robatsch , Vinkovci 1 968, continued 21 i;td5 ! .Q. x d5 (21 . . . ec5 !? could be considered .) 22 x d5 i;t x d4 23 x d4 effi 24 x e8+ x e8 25 a4! ba 26 x a4 c5 27 f! c4 d3 28 c6 ! and White had excellent winning chances . o

11 p(40)

c3) 13 . . . c5 1 4 .Q. c2 cd 1 5 hf3 f! e8 1 6 x d4 .1l m 1 7 b3 .1lb7 with full equality, R . ByrneSpassky, Moscow 1 97 1 . The game ended 1 8 .Q.b2 bd7 1 9 i!tf3 c8 20 adl d5 ! 2 1 .Q.b l de 22 x e4 x e4 23 Ax e4 x e4 24 f! x e4 e5 25 i!i'e2 Ax e4 t-t . c4) 13 . . . fc15 1 4 hf3 b4 1 5 40

d5 ! c5 1 6 dc x c6 1 7 f1 Affi 1 8 W .Q. e3 a5 1 9 .Q. d4! and White retained the initiative, FischerForintos, Monaco 1 967 .

13 . . . c5 Inferior is 13 . . . cI5 ? 1 4 e5 e4

1 5 bd2 x d2 1 6 i;tx d2 .1lf5? ( 1 6 . . . c4) 1 7 .1l c2 i;tx c2 1 8 i!tx c 2 cB 1 9 b 3 d7 2 0 e6 ! fe 2 1 f! x e6 c5 2 2 .Q.a5 i!t x a5 2 3 f! x e7 i!td8 24 g5 1 -0 Fischer-Barczay, Sousse interzonal 1 967 .

Another plan i s 13 . . . .1l b7 14 bd2 ( 1 4 de!?) 1 4 . . . c5 1 5 .1lc2 f! e8 1 6 dc dc 1 7 b3 fd7 1 8 i;tb2 m 1 9 a4 c7 20 e2 .1lc6 with a

Black prevents the knight manoeuvre to f5 by drastic means and trusts that the resulting darksquared weaknesses will not prove too serious.

1 2 .1lh6 Tal has suggested 1 2 f3

44 11 CiJh4

threatening -'l,h6 followed by CiJgS thus forcing 1 2 . . . cS , but this has never been tested in tournament play.

1 2 . . . e8 1 3 f4

1 4 4j f3 I S .1l c2 1 6 4j bd2 1 7 -'l,x ill

c4 .1lb7 -'l,ill l-l

R. Byrne-Portisch, Amsterdam 1 969 .

The most consistent con- E tinuation. Alternatives are : 11 . . e8(41) a) 13 CiJf3 cS 14 CiJ bd2 it ill IS ite3 itb7 1 6 dS CiJb6 1 7 itc2 -'l,c8 1 8 41 h2 as 1 9 gl b4 t-t R. Byrne- W Unzicker, Ljubljamr 1 969, but Black is a little better in the final position. b) 13 de CiJx eS ! (not 1 3 . . . de 1 4 itx f7+ ! ) when: bl ) 14 fI i c4 IS J;tx c4 bc 16 CiJf3 Darga-O'Kelly, Bordeaux 1 964, leads to nothing for White after 1 6 . . . b8 ! b2 ) 14 CiJ f3 "j x f3+ I S llrx f3 itb7 1 6 4jd2 J;till 1 7 itgS itg7 1 8 J;tdS! and White stands better, V. Nedeljkovic-Gaprindashvili, Yugoslavia- USSR, Leningrad 1964.

1 3 . . . cS ! Not 13 . . . er? 1 4 eS CiJ hS I S

itx f7+ ! Also undesirable is 13 . . . it .. 1 4

-'tgS h 6 ( 1 4 . . . ef l S eS !) I S CiJx g6 hg 1 6 fg CiJh7 1 7 llrhS (threat Ax f7+ ) 1 7 . . . e6 1 8 .1lx e6 fe 1 9 CiJx ill 4j hx ill 20 fl llre7 2 1 4jd2 llrg7 22 f2 ed 23 cd x d4 24 f7+ h8 2S afl -'l, b7 26 g6 itc6 27 eS ! 1 -0 { lf27 . . . x eS 28 f4!} Sauermann-Cording, 9th W. German corres-Ch prelim 1 964-6S .

A natural move, preparing to preserve the black-squared bishop.

1 2 CiJ fS Innocuous is 1 2 CiJ d2 -'l, ill 1 3

CiJdf3 c S 1 4 d e CiJx eS I S 4j x eS de 16 J;tgS

c) Robert Byrne has experimented with 13 f3 to bolster the centre, e.g. 1 3 . . . J,tb7 ( I . Zaitsev prefers 1 3 . . . c6 with . . . d5 in mind and answering 14 J,tg5 with 1 4 . . . b6, while Taimanov has suggested 1 3 . . . c5 .) 1 4 i;tg5 h6 1 5 i;th4 and now: c l ) 15 . . . g6 1 6 4J e3 i;t g7 1 7 4Jd2 c6 1 8 4Jdfl b6 1 9 i;t f2 c7 20 .. cl .. ad8 21 .. c2 4J b6 22 .. d2 4J h5 with roughly equal chances, R. Byrne-Ree, Skopje Olympiad 1 972 , though White eventually won. c2 ) 15 . . . d5 ? 1 6 ed ed 1 7 cd g6 1 8 4J e3 4J b6 1 9 4J c3 g5? 20 J,tg3 4J fX d5 2 1 4J ex d5 .. x el+ 22 x el 4Jx d5 (42)

42 W

23 e4! 4Jx c3 24 g6+ Ag7 25 x 17+ h8 26 bc b4 27 J,te5 i;t x e5 28 de bc 29 .. d l m 30 x c7 .. c8 31 x b7 c2 32 .. cl .. d8 33 Ax c2 1 -0 R. ByrneRukavina, Leningrad interzonal 1 973 .

1 3 . . . c5 13 g6 gives equality

according to some several commentators.

11 4Jh4 45

Sharp is 13 . . . A b7 1 4 4J f3 ed (Dueball suggested 1 4 . . . h6 ! 1 5 d5 leading to difficult play for both sides.) 15 4Jg5 d5 1 6 cd 4Jx e4 1 7 h5 (Dueball gives 1 7 .. x e4 as only equal after 1 7 . . . .. x e4 18 h5 .. el+ 19 h2 4J f6 20 x 17+ h8 21 J,t f4 .. x al 22 e6.) 1 7 . . . 4Jx g5 1 8 .ilx g5 and White has compensation for his pawn, Dueball-Tukmakov, W. Berlin-Ukraine 1 970.

1 4 4Jf3 White can try for a K-side attack

with a Rauzer-type centre but after 1 4 de de 1 5 4Jfl c4 1 6 A c2 c7 1 7 4J g3 4J c5 1 8 Ag5 4J fd7 1 9 g4 h8 20 .. adl f6 2 1 .ild 4J b6 22 f3 Ae6 Dueball-Kane, Skopje Olympiad 1 972, Black should have adequate defensive resources.

1 4 . . . ed 1 5 cd

I . Zaitsev-Averbakh, 36th USSR Ch 1 968, continued 15 c:f 1 6 A c2 d5 1 7 e5 4J e4 1 8 .. x e4? (Better is 1 8 4Je3 !) 1 8 . . . de 1 9 A x e4 4Jx e5 ! (not 1 9 . . . .. b8 20 4Jg5 !) with equality .

A safer treatment would have been t5 . . . .ilb7 1 6 4Jg3 cd 1 7 x d4 4J c5. F

11 . . . b7 A rare line which made a brief

appearance in 1 969 but which has since been discarded from tournament practice.

1 2 4Jf5 .. e8 1 2 . . . 4Jx e4 is met by 1 3 g4

46 11 ljh4

and 1 2 . . . .llx e4 by 1 3 . x e4. 1 3 ljx e7+ . x e7 1 4 13 (43)

43 B

1 4 . . . h6 Another try is 1 4 . . . c5 ( I f l 4 . . .

d5 1 5 f4 !) 1 5 d5 h6 1 6 ljd2 c4 1 7 1;tc2 b6+ 1 8 c;,t(h2 lj h5 1 9 ljf1

g5? 20 f4! Kavalek-Martinez, San Juan 1 969.

1 5 ljd2 1 5 A e3 is also well answered by

1 5 . . . d5 but 1 5 Ac2, keeping minor pieces out ofrange of Black's central pawns, deserves exam-ination.

1 5 . . . d5 ! 1 6 f4 ed 1 7 e5 dc 1 8 bc lj e4

After 1 9 ljx e4 de 20 g4 (20 .lla3 !?) 20 . . . ljc5 21 Aa3 ljd3 22 . adl . e8 23 . e3 Ad5 24 . g3 g6 25 . gX d3 ed 26 . x d3 Black has successfully defended himself, R. Byrne-O'Kelly, San Juan 1 969.

8 1 1 Ag5

1 e4 e5 2 .I fS 4J c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 4J ffi 5 OO Ae7 6 . e1 b5 7 lt b3 d6 8 c3 00 9 h3 4J b8 1 0 d4 4J bd7

44 B

1 1 Ag5 (44 )

White aims for rapid development and can often put pressure on Black's e-pawn by playing his QB to g3 . Another point is that the bishop is ready to remove Black's key defendu in some lines.

1 1 . . . A b7 1 2 4J bd2

13 Ax e7 Also playable is 1 3 A e3 , e.g. :

a) 13 . . . A m 1 4 g4 g6 1 5 Ah6 Ag7 1 6 ltg5 .itffi 1 7 h4 4Jg7 1 8 A h6 c5 1 9 d5 and, though Black eventually won, White has considerable attacking chances, Ulvestad-Zinser, Malaga 1 966. b) Much more reliable is 13 cS 1 4 a4 4Jc7 1 5 i!Ye2 A ffi 1 6 de de 1 7 4J h2 Ag5= Minic-Matanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 967 .

1 3 . . . i!Yx e7 1 4 4Jfl !

1 4 a4 4Jeffi 1 5 i!Y e2 c6 1 6 .I n 4J h5= Varnusz- M. Kovacs, Hungarian Ch 1 965-66.

1 4 . . . g6 1 5 i!Yd2 c:tg7 1 6 . ad l 4J effi 1 7 4J g3 with a great advantage to White, Schwarzbach-Karlsroetter, Austrian Ch 1 965 .

Black now has three mam B alternatives: A 1 2 . . . 4Je8 B 1 2 . . . . e8 C 1 2 . . . h6 A

12 . . .

12 . . . . e8 1 3 a4

Also 1 3 Ac2 is good as : a) 13 . . . cS 1 4 .I n h6 1 5 Ad2 Am 1 6 d5 c4 1 7 b3 cb 18 ab g6 1 9 g4 is in White's favour, Murei-Bakulin,

48 11 5

Moscow Central Chess Club Ch 1 970. b) 13 . . . fB 14 .j h2 ( 1 4 d5 h6 1 5 e3 c6 1 6 dc x c6 1 7 a4 d5 gives Black no worries, ZatulovskayaShul, USSR Women's Ch 1 973-74) 14 . . . c5 15 de de 16 .jg4 b6 1 7 ,!}f3 d6 1 8 x d6 x d6 1 9 . adl c7 20 . d2 . ac8 2 1 .j e3 gives White some initiative, Shamkovich-Kuijpers, Amsterdam 1 965 .

1 3 . . . c5 1 4 de

If 14 a2 c6 (but not 14 . . . ed? ! 1 5 cd cd 1 6 .jx d4 .j c5 1 7 .j f5 ba I S e5 Bednarski-Grabczewski, Poland 1 972) 15 de .jx e5 1 6 .j x e5 d e 1 7 x ffi x ffi I S c2 is Tatai-Robatsch, Venice 1 967 , and now instead of 1 8 . . . d7? 1 9 . adl b7 20 d5 ! Black should have played 18 c4 with equality.

1 4 . . . de 14 . . . .jx e5 15 .jx e5 de 1 6

x ffi .1lx ffi 1 7 ab ab I S e2 c4 1 9 c2 c 7 20 b 3 c b 2 1 x b3 . x al 22 . x al x c3 is quite satisfactory for Black, Ostoj icStupica, Yugoslav Ch 1 965.

1 5 .1lx ffi .jx ffi ! Not 1 5 . . . .1l x ffi? 1 6 .Q.d5 x d5

1 7 ed .j b6 I S ab ab 1 9 . x aS X aS 20 b3 ! a6 2 1 .j e4 c4 22 dl aS? 23 d6 d5 24 .j x ffi+ gf25 x d5 .jx d5 26 .j d4 m 27 .jx b5 . b8 2S .j a3 . x b2 29 . dl } -O Ivkov-Robatsch, Palma 1 966.

1 6 ab

The immediate win of a pawn is too hasty : 1 6 .jx e5? c4 1 7 c2 c5 I S .j df3 b6+ MatanovicRobatsch, Maribor 1 967 .

1 6 . . . ab 1 7 ,bl x a8 .Q. x as 1 8 .jx e5 c4 1 9 .Q.c2 .Q. c5 20 .j ef3 b6 2 1 e2 .jh5 22 .j fl .jf4 with compensation for the pawn, IvkovRobatsch, Sarajevo 1 968.

The same position, but with . . . h6 interpolated for Black, occurs in the main lines and wiil be further discussed under section C. C

12 . . . h6 1 3 .1l h4(45)

1 3 x ffi x ffi 1 4 d5 ( l 4

Cl 13 . . . 4J h7

Preparing to bolster Black's eS strongpoint with . . . .Q.ffi and aiming at relieving exchanges with . . . 4JgS or . . . .Q.gS . This line has never enjoyed a good reputation.

1 4 l1.g3 White gets nothing with 1 4

.Q.x e 7 i!t x e 7 I S 4J f1 4JgS 1 6 4Jg3 g6 1 7 e3 4Jx f3+ l S x f3 4Jffi 1 9 i!td2

50 11 5

. e6 20 a4 . c8 (20 . . . e8 -Ljubojevic-is a possible improvement) 21 ab ab 22 dl b6 23 f3 . d8 24 Af2 Ag7 (Lj ubojevic also gives 24 . . . d5 as a possible improvement.) 25 4J b3 A m 26 d2 . de8 27 4J a5 ,i},a8 28 b4 c7 29 4J b3 4Jd7 30 . a6 ,il b7 3 1 . a7 . a8 32 . eal . X a7 3 3 . x a 7 b8 34 . a2 c7 35 Ad l . e8 36 ,il e2 ,ilc6 37 . a6 4J b8 38 . a5 cb 39 cb d5 40 ed ,ilx d5 41 Ax b5 . d8 42 4Jd4 b7 43 4J c2 c8 44 ,il b6 . d6 45 A c5 . d8 46 Ax m . x m 47 Ad3 . d8 48 x A Ax , x + '\t> m 51 ffi+ '\t> e8 52 . e5 . d6 53 4Jd4 1 -0.

1 7 f3 c4 1 8 Ac2 g6 1 9 . adl ,ilg7 20 4J fl b6

Black stands much better. Browne-Smejkal, Wijk aan Zee 1972 , continued 21 e3 4J c5 ! 22 f3 4Jh5 23 A f2 Am 24 4Jg3 4J f4 25 4Je2 ffi! 26 4J X f4 ef27 e2 e5 28 '\t> h2 4J e6 29 g4 Ac5 ! 30 4Jg2 h5 3 1 ,ilx c5 x c5 32 h4 hg 33 fg e5 34 f3 . ad8 35 b4 ffi 36'\t>gl

47 B

g5 37 h5 '\t> g7 38 a4 . x dl 39 . x dl . d8 40 . x d8 4J x d8 41 dl 4J f7 42 d7 (47) 42 . . . .llx e4 43 h6+ '\t> 44 ,ilx e4 x e4 45 h7 f3 '46 d8 '\t>x h7 47 x ffi '\t>g8 48 x a6 e2 0-1 . C23

14 e2 c5 1 5 . adl c7 1 6 de de 1 7 c4 4J m 1 8 ,ilg3 ,ild6 1 9 d3 b4 20 ,ilh4 A e7 2 1 4J fl . ed8 22 bl . x d l 23 Ax dl 4J e6 24 Ax ffi ,ilx ffi !-! Gipslis-Matanovic, Zagreb 1 965 . C24

14 A c2 Am Or 14 . . . p l 5 b4 4Jh5 1 6 A X e7

X e7 1 7 4J b3 4J b6 1 8 de de 1 9 4Jc5 ,ilc6 with equality, NovakM. Kovacs, Harrachov 1 967 .

A sound alternative i s the natural 14 cS. Now: a) After 15 4J O Black should play 1 5 . . . cd but not 15 . . . 4J h7? 1 6 ,ilg3 4Jg5 1 7 de 4Jx f3+ 1 8 x f3 4Jx e5 1 9 h5 g6 20 e2 A ffi 2 1 . ad l ;t Shamkovich-Liberzon, Moscow 1 967 . b) Shamkovich-Holmov, Moscow Ch 1 970, continued 15 de de 1 6 4J fl c4 1 7 4J e3 1 8 a4 4J c5 1 9 4J X e5 4J fX e4 20 Ax e7 . X e7 21 x d8+ . x d8 22 ab . x e5 23 ba Ax a6 24 4J g4 . e6 25 ,ilx e4 h5 with great advantage to Black. c) Velimirovic-Parma, Havana 197 1 , went 15 a4 c7 16 Ad3 c4 1 7 Ac2 -'tm !-!

1 5 a4 1 6 de

Or 16 d3 c6 1 7 b3 g7 1 8 An c7 and Black has a solid position, Grodetsky-Balashov, !final 32nd USSR Ch 1 963.

1 6 . . . de 1 7 e2 c6 18 b4 c7 1 9 g4 g7 20 c4 ba 21 El )( a4 a5 22 El bl ab 23 Et aX b4 c5 !-! TringovLengyel, Sarajevo 1 965 . as

48 B

14 "'(48)

14 . . . cS The most common reply. Other

possibilities are: a) 14 . . . El cl 1 5 de X e5 1 6 x e5 de 1 7 ab ab 1 8 e2 !-! Matulovic-Matanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1967. b) 14 . h7 15 Ag3 Am 1 6 Aa2 ! {Threatening 1 7 ab ab 1 8 b3 winning a pawn-and thus stronger than 1 6 e2 c6 1 7 El adl e7 1 8 fl g5 1 9 e3 g6 Sergievsky-Zelinsky, RSFSR Ch 1955.} 1 6 . . . e7 { 1 6 . . . c6 is better.} 1 7