The Complete

c3 Sicilian

To Nimet

The Complete c3 Sicilian

Murray Chandler

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1996 ©Murray Chandler 1996

ISBN 0 7134 7828 4

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher.

Typeset by Petra Nunn and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W 1H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, Jon Speelman General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE Specialist Adviser: Dr John Nunn Commissioning Editor: Graham Burgess

Contents

Symbols 6 Preface 7

1 2 ... d5: Lines with ... e5 8 2 4 ... cxd4 14 3 4 ... lbf6 (including 5lbf3lbc6!?) 19 4 4 ... lbf6 5 lbf3 �g4 25 5 4 ... llJc6 36 6 4 ... e6 (including 5 lbf3 ltJc6) 43 7 4 ... e6 5 lt:Jf3 lt:Jf6 (deferring ... tt:Jc6) 54 8 6 .id3 lt:Jc6 7 0-0 various 65 9 9 .. .'ii'd8 and 9 .. .'ifd6 70

10 Modem Main Line: 6 �e3 78

11 2 ... lt:Jf6- Early Deviations 85 12 3 e5 lt:Jd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'iixd4 98 13 5 cxd4 e6 6 lt:Jf3 d6 including 7 a3 109 14 5 cxd4 e6 6 ltJf3 b6 116 15 5 cxd4 d6 6 ltJf3 llJc6 129 16 5 cxd4 d6 6 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 7 �c4 ltJb6 143 17 4 d4 cxd4 5 lt:Jf3 153 18 7 ... d5 8 exd6 'ii'xd6 164 19 9 0-0 �e6 10 �xe6 'fixe6 171 20 9 0-0 �e6 10 lt:Ja3 181

21 2 ... e6 191 22 2 ... d6 205 23 Other second moves for Black 221 Index of Variations 233

Symbols

+ Check ++ Double Check # Mate

Good move ! ! Excellent move ? Bad move ?? Serious blunder !? Interesting move ?! Dubious move � Small advantage to White ; Small advantage to Black ± Large advantage to White + Large advantage to Black +- Decisive advantage to White -+ Decisive advantage to Black 00 Unclear position = Equal position 1-0 White wins 0- 1 Black wins lfl-lfl Draw Ch Championship Echt European team championship Web World championship Wcht World team championship OL Olympiad z Zonal IZ Interzonal Ct Candidates event corr Correspondence game (n) nth match game (D) Diagram follows

Preface

"It is not easy to play against this line, partly because many people do not consider it a strong move and un­derestimate it"- Judit Polgar

Since my original book on this sub­ject in 1981 , the c3 Sicilian has gone through a remarkable transforma­tion. Of course grandmasters like Sveshnikov and Rozentalis have al­ways played it, and no doubt they always will, but this little second move has also gained a niche in the repertoires of GMs such as Kramnik, Adams, Nunn and J.Polgar, not to mention Anatoly Karpov. Its unex­pected blossoming has probably been assisted by the advent of data­bases - which encourage top players to vary their openings - and faster time limits, which make surprises in the opening harder to deal with.

As the title suggests, this book aims to provide an in-depth refer­ence work. I felt this was needed, as there has been an explosion of games played, and there is simply no mod­ern work of any substance on the variation. Which variations should be classified as main lines were not even clear to me when I started my research this time, as the majority of variations have changed beyond recognition since my first book. I apologise in advance if some of the material is quite heavy. However as you work your way through a line,

console himself with the pleasant thought that your efforts will cer­tainly be rewarded soon over the board. Unlike many specialised vari­ations, the chances of actually get­ting the c3 Sicilian are extremely high because it requires such mini­mal co-operation from the opponent. If Black plays the Sicilian, you get it!

Acknowledgements

Andrew Harley for providing many original ideas from his files, Michael Adams for explaining the entire opening on a flight from Dusseldorf, Graham Burgess for infinite patience through my disgraceful series of missed deadlines, John Nunn for ice­cream and technical assistance over the years, Petra Nunn for typesetting and fabulous meals, and finally John Wareing and Najet Needham for so competently managing the BCM Chess Shop in London during my six months of hibernation.

This book was prepared with the aid of the ChessB ase program, and, on occasion, the Fritz analysis mod­ule (however, errors are entirely my own responsibility). For readers in­terested in further study a catalogue of top chess software, including ChessBase, can be obtained from the BCM Chess Shop, 69 Masbro Rd, Kensington, London W14 OLS, England (phone 0171-603 2877).

1 2 ... d5 : Lines with ... e5

B

1 e4 2 c3 3 exd5 4 d4 (D)

The main . . . e5 break (4 . . . lLlc6 5 ltlf3 cxd4 6 cxd4 e5) received atten­tion from Joe Gallagher when he made it one of his recommendations for Black in his 1994 book Beating the Anti-Sicilians. Gallagher con­tends that the main variation 7 lLlc3 ..tb4 8 ..td2 ..txc3 9 ..txc3 e4 does not deserve its reputation as a poor line for Black, and this view is rea­sonable. In the principal continu­ation, 10 lLle5 lLlxe5 1 1 dxe5 lLle7, White has a wide choice, but against exact defence the route to an advan­tage remains problematic. Yet giving up the bishop pair so early simply does not seem to appeal to top play­ers; the . . . e5 defences continue to be used infrequently by Black at grand­master level.

Game 1 Ubilava - Zaichik

USSR 1976

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 1Wxd5 For surprise value Black can try

3 . . . lLlf6? ! , intending the pawn sacri­fice 4 c4 e6 5 dxe6 ..t xe6 with play against White's backward d-pawn. However, after 4 d4 he has nothing better than 4 . . . 1Wxd5 transposing into standard lines, as 4 . . . cxd4 5 ..tb5+!? ..td7 (for 5 . . . lLlbd7 6 'ibd4 see Ser­mek-Nemet below) 6 ..tc4 dxc3 7 lLlxc3 lLla6 8 lLlf3 'ii' a5 9 lLle5 ! ? b5 10 lLlxd7 bxc4 1 1 lLle5 lLlb4 12 0-0 l:.d8 13 'ii'f3 gave White a substantial lead in development in the game Chandler-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan

Zee 1982. Black must also contend with 4

..tb5+ lLlbd7 5 c4 (5 d4 cxd4 6 'ifxd4 g6 7 d6 a6 8 dxe7 'ifxe7+ 9 ..te2 ..tg7 10 ltlf3 0-0 1 1 'ii'e3 l:.e8 12 0-0 'ifxe3 13 fxe3 lLlb6 14 lLld4 lLlbd5 15 ..tf3 was ;!; in Sermek-Nemet, Lu­cerne 1994, or 5 . . . 'ii'b6 6 c4 cxd4 7 lLle2 e5 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 lLlxd4 ..tc5 10 ..te3 0-0 1 1 0-0 lLle5 12lLlc3 ;!; B1at­ny-Piachetka, Tmava 1986) 5 . . . a6 6 ..txd7+!? (6 ..ta4 b5 "" Lane-Koch, Geneva 1988) 6 . . . ..txd7 7 lLlf3 e6 8 'ife2 ..te7 9 dxe6 ..txe6 10 0-0 ..tf5 1 1 l:.e1 ..td3 12 'ife5 �f8 (12 . . . ..txc4 13 'ifxc5) 13 lLlc3 ..td6 14 'ife3 ! ..txc4 (14 . . . lLlg4 15 'ifxd3 ! ..txh2+

16 l0xh2 Wxd3 17 lDxg4) 15 d4 � 16 l0e5 ! .i.b5 17 Wf3 is clearly better for White, Smagin-Sveshni­kov, Amantea 1995.

4 d4 (DJ

4 ... lDc6 For 4 . . . g6 see the lines with 2 . . . g6

in Chapter 23. There are two variations where

Black plays an early . . . e5 without first developing his queen' s knight. After 4 . . . e5 5 dxe5 (5 lDf3 is also playable, for example 5 . . . e4?! 6 l0e5 .i.e6 7 .i.c4 _.d6 8 Wb3 ± Matan­ovic-Udovi!ic, Yugoslavia 1953; nor­mally Black continues 5 . . . lDc6 or 5 . . . cxd4 6 cxd4 lDc6 transposing into lines covered later) Black has:

a) 5 . . . Wxdl+ 6 �xd llDc6 7 f4 .i.f5 8 lDf3 (8 .i.e3 0-0-0+ 9 lDd2 f6 1 0 lDgf3 fxe5 1 1 lDxe5 lDxe5 12 fxe5lDh6 13 .i.e2lDf7 14 Afl .i.e6 15 .i.f4 g5 16 .i.g3 .i.g7 17 Axf7 ! Axd2+ 18 �xd2 .i.xf7 19 .i.g4+ ± Afek-Tyomkin, Amsterdam 1994) 8 . . . 0-0-0+ 9 �el f6 10 .i.b5 .i.d7 1 1

lDbd2 :es ( 1 1 . . . lDxe5 12 l0xe5 .i.xb5 13 00; l l . . .fxe5 !? 12 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 1 3 lDxe5 .i.xg2 14 Ag1 .i.d5 15 c4 .i.e6 16 f5 ! ;I; Ftai!nik) 12 .i.xc6

2 . . . d5: Lines with . . . e5 9

.i.xc6 13 � lDh6 14 h3 with a slight advantage for White, Rozen­talis-Ftai!nik, Germany 1994.

b) 5 . . . Wxe5+ 6 .i.e3 (better are 6 .i.e2 lDc6 7 lDf3 Wd6 8 Wa4 .i.d7 9 .i.f4 ;I; Pedis-Tartakower, Vienna 1908, or 6 l0e2!? lDf6 7lDa3 .i.d7 8 .. b3 Wd5 9 c4 .. c6 10 lDr4lDa6 1 1 .i.e2 0-0-0 1 2 0-0 .i.f5 13lDb5 �b8 14 lDd5 ! ± Lepeshkin-A.Ivanov, USSR 198 1) 6 . . . lDf6 7 lDr3 .. c7 8 .i.e2 .i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 = Harley-Mor­tazavi, British Ch 1994.

The other break is 4 ... cxd4 5 exd4 e5 6 lDf3 (6 dxe5 is less effective now) 6 . . . exd4 7 Wxd4 (7lDxd4 .i.c5 8 .i.e3 lDf6 9 lDc3 ,.e5 10 .i.b5+ .i.d7 Makropoulos-Armas, Baile Herculane 1984, and now best is 1 1 0-0 ;I;) 7 ..-xd4 •xd4 8lDxd4 a6 (in Cvetkovic-Sokolov, Belgrade 1954, Black omitted this move but af ter 8 . . . lDf6?! 9 .i.b5+ .i.d7 10 0-0 lDc6 1 1 Ael+ .i.e7 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 13lDc3 lDd5 14lDxd5 cxd5 15 .i.f4 was un­able to get castled) 9 lDc3 lDf6 10 .i.g5 ! . After this old recommenda­tion ofGligoric and Sokolov, White stands better.

SlDf3 cxd4 For 5 . . . lDf6 6 .i.e3 e5 ! ? see Chap­

ter 3, Game 5 . Instead 5 . . . e5 allows White a safe plus with 6lDxe5 lDxe5 7 dxe5 Wxe5+ 8 .i.e3, for example 8 . . . lDf6 9 .i.b5+ .i.d7 10 .i.xd7+

lDxd7 l llDa3lDb6 12 lDc4 Wc7 13 lDxb6 ;I; Gipslis-Tal, Riga Ch 1954 or 8 . . . .i.d7 9 .. b3lDr6 10 lDa3 .i.e7 1 1 .i.b5 .. c7 12 0-0-0 a6 13 •a4 AdS 14 i.xd7+ :Xd7 15 .i.f4 .. c8 16 Abel b5 17 Axd7 bxa4 18 Aexe7+ �f8 19 Axf7+ �g8 20 Axg7+ �f8

10 2 ... d5: Lines with ... e5

21 J..d6+ 1-0 Okhotnik-Berg Han­sen, Lyngby 1990.

Additionally White has 6 dxe5 !? ... xd1 + 7 �xd1 J..g4 8 .i.f4li:Jge7 9 J..e2, e.g. 9 . . . li:Jg6 10 J..g3 0-0-0+ 1 1

li:Jbd2 J..xf3 1 2 J..xf3li:Jgxe5 1 3 J..e2 f5 14 �c2 .td6 15 l::r.adl l::r.he8 16 l::r.hel g5 17 f4 gxf4 18 .1xf4li:Jf3 19

li:Jxf3 J..xf4 20 .i.d3l::r.f8 21 g3 J..b8 22 J..b5l::r.xd1 23 �xd1li:Jd8 24 J..d3 J..d6 25 li:Jh4 f4 26li:Jf5 J..c7 27 g4 ;!;; Smagin-Nikac, Yugoslav Ch 1994. A good example of how White main­tains a persistent endgame edge after Black regains his pawn.

6 cxd4 e5 (D)

The most widely played of the . . . e5 breaks. It is unwise for White to continue 7 dxe5? ! 'ifxd1+ 8 �xd1 .tg4 as Black has the f8-a3 diagonal available to his bishop, e.g. 9 t'Llbd2 0-0-0 10 J..e2 J.. c5 1 1 t'Llg5 t'Llh6 12 �el t'Llxe5 13 t'Llb3 .i.b4+ 14 �fl

l::r.he8 + Vollin-Conquest, Brest 1979. However as Black has exchanged pawns on d4, the c3-square is cleared for White's knight.

7 lbc3 .tb4 8 .td2 An interesting offshoot is the late

Sir Stuart Milner-Barry's idea of 8

J..e2 ! ?, when 8 . . . e4 9 0-0! J..xc3 10 bxc3 exf3 11 J.. xf3 is a dangerous piece sacrifice which Sir Stuart ana­lysed as a win for White. Instead Black gets an unclear game with 8 . . . t'Llxd4 9 .td2 (9l'Llxd4 'ifxd4 10 .tb5+ .i.d7 alternatively 9 'ifa4+ 'ti'd7 !) 9 . . . .txc3 (9 . . . 'ti'd6? ! 10 t'Llxd4 'ifxd4 1 1 0-0 with good play for the pawn, Finkel-Teplitsky, Israel 1993) 10 .txc3l'Llxf3+ 1 1 J..xf3 'ifxdl + 12

l::r.xdl f6 13 .ta5 ! (Finkel) 13 ... J..e6! (Gallagher) and now after 14 J..xb7

l::r.b8 15 .tc6+ �f7 and Black has adequate compensation due to his better development: . . . t'Lle7 is com­ing with tempo.

Unconvincing is the continuation 8 'ti'd2!? .txc3 9 bxc3 exd4 10 cxd4 t'Llge7 1 1 .1e2 (Rozentalis-Witkow­ski, Poland 1985) when the sug­gested 1 1 . . . .te6 12 0-0 0-0 13 l::r.d 1 ';!;;' looks more like 'oo' to me.

8 ... J..xc3 9 .txc3 e4

After 9 . . . exd4?! 10 t'Llxd4 the po­sition is opened up for White's bishop pair: 10 . . . t'Llge7 (10 . . . t'Llf6 l ll'Llxc6 'ifxc6 12 J..xf6 'ifxf6 13 J..b5+ �f8 14 0-0 ;!;; Van Wijgerden-Glienke, Plovdiv 1983) 1 1 t'Llxc6 'ifxc6 12 .te2!? (12 J.. xg7 l::r.g8 13 J..d4 .th3 14l::r.c l 'ife4+ 15 .1e3 .txg2 16l::r.g1 .txfl 17 l::r.xg8+ t'Llxg8 18 �xfl ;!;; Matulovic-Ciric, Yugoslav Ch 1956) 12 . . . 0-0 13 0-0 J..e6 14 'ifd4 f6 15

l::r.fd 1 ± Kavalek-Hermann, Bochum 1981 .

1 o lbes t'Llxe5

10 . . . t'Llh6 1 1 J..c4 'ii'd6 12 ... e2 .tf5 13 l::r.d1 l::r.d8 14 0-0 0-0 15 h3 (the problem with Black's lOth is now clear; his h6-knight is badly

decentralised) IS . . . lDxeS I6 dxeS 'ii'g6 I7 l:.xd8 l:.xd8 I8 l:.di l:.c8 I9 l:.d6 .te6 20 .tdS ± Ostermeyer­Kaiser, Germany I987.

11 dxe5 lDe7 12 1i'e2!? (D)

B

The major alternatives I2 1i'a4+!? and I2 1i'c2 are covered in Game 2. Worthy of serious examination is the underrated I2 .te2! , e.g. I2 . . . 0-0 I3 0-0 .td7 ( 13 . . . 1i'e6 I4 'ii'd4 1i'g6 IS l:.fei lDc6 I6 'ii'e3 .tfS 17 l:.adi l:.ad8 18 h4 ! ;t Smagin-Yagupov, Moscow I99S) I4 1i'c1 ! ( 14 l:.ei .tc6 1S .tn l:.fe8 16 1i'h5 1i'e6 17 g3 1i'g6 ; O'Shaughnessy-Chandler, Newcastle I996) I4 . . . .tc6 IS l:.di 'ii'e6 16 l:.d6 'ii'fS 17 g4 !? 1i'c8 I8 'ii'gS 1i'c7?! ( 18 . . . lDg6 is less clear) I9 l:.ad1 with a powerful bind, Van der Brink-Bezemer, Dutch Ch 1993.

12 ••. 0-0 13 l:.d1 1i'c6 13 . . . 'ii'xa2 14 .tb4! 'ii'e6 1S 'ii'xe4

l:le8 16 .tbS lbc6 17 0-0 ! 'ii'g6 (I7 ... .i.d7 18 l:.fei l:.ad8 I9 .td6

lDxeS 20 .tc7 .i.c6 2I l:.xd8 1 -0 Kuijf-Wiersma, Leeuwarden 199S) 18 1i'xg6 hxg6 19 .i.c3 .te6 20 l:.d6 ;t Anbuhl-Akermann, W.Germany I982.

14l:.d6

2 . . . d5: Lines with .. . e5 11

14 .i.b4 l:.e8 IS .i.xe7 l:.xe7 I6 l:.d8+ l:.e8 I7 l:.xe8+ 1i'xe8 I8 1i'xe4 .te6 "".

14 .•• 1i'a4 15 1i'c4 IS b3 !? 1i'a3 16 'ii'd2 'ii'cS! 17 .tc4

.te6! "" Schmittdiel-Hodgson, Bad Worishofen 1994.

15 ••• 1i'xc4 1S . . . 1i'c2!? Hodgson. 16 .txc4 lDf5! 17 l:.d1 .i.e6 18

.txe6 fxe6 19 �e2 (;t according to Ubilava) 19 ••• l:.ac8? ( 19 . . . l:.f7 or I9 . . . l:.ad8) 20 l:.d7 :C7 21 l:.hd1 l:.c7 22 l:.d8+ :r8 23 g4! lDh6 (23 . . . lDe7 24 .tb4) 24 h3 lDf7 25 l:.1d7! +- l:.xd8 26 l:.xc7 lbg5 27 l:lxb7 lbxh3 28 l:.xa7 l:.d3 29 l:.a4 lbg1 + 30 � lDr3 31 �g2 lDh4+ 32 �h1 l:.d1+ 33 �h2 lDf3+ 34 �g3 lDg5 35 �g2 l:.d3 36 l:.d4 :n 37 .td2 (37 l:.xe4? l:.xc3) 37 • . . lDh3 38 .te3 lDf4+ 39 �n lDd3 40 l:.xe4 lDxb2 41 �e2 1-0

Game 2 R.Maric - Rossolimo

Novi Sad 1972

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 1i'xd5 4 d4 lbc6 5 lDf3 cxd4 6 cxd4 e5 7 lDc3 .i.b4 8 .i.d2 . .i.xc3 9 .i.xc3 e4 10 lDe5 lDxe5 11 dxe5 lDe7 (D)

12 1i'a4+ The white queen heads for the a3-

f8 diagonal, though it is debatable whether the manoeuvre is worth the two tempi spent. For 12 1i'e2 see Game 1, while the other major try is 12 1i'c2 0-0 (12 . . . 1i'c6!? intending I3 l:.dilDfS !? "" • however I3 0-0-0 !? ;t looks a promising deviation) 13 l:.di 'ii'xa2 when:

12 2 . . . d5: Lines with .. . e5

a) 14 'ifxe4 .i.f5: a1) 15 .i.c4 .i.xe4 16 .i.xa2 .i.xg2

leads to exciting tactics: 17 l:.g 1 .i.c6 18 e6 f6 19 .i.b4 l:.fe8 20 l:.d7liJg6 2 1 l:.f7 l:.ad8 22 l:.xg6 hxg6 23 e7 �h7 24 f3 .i.d5 25 �f2 .i.xa2 26 exd8'if l:.xd8 27 l:.xb7 a6 28 .i.e7 .i.d5 29 l:.c7 l:.b8 30 .i.xf6 llb7 112-112 Nun-Witkowski, Hradec Kralove 1975.

a2) Alternatively 15 'ifc4 'ifxc4 16 .i.xc4 l:.ac8 17 .i.b3 .i.e6 18 .i.xe6 fxe6 19 .i.b4 l:.fe8 20 0-0 liJd5 with a better endgame for Black in J.Pol­gar-Kramnik, Monaco rpd 1995.

a3) 15 'ifd4 !? l:.ac8 16 .i.e2 .i.c2 17 l:.d2 'ii'b1 + 18 .i.dlliJc6 19 'ifg4 .i.xd1 20 l:.xdl 'ii'g6 2 1 'iff3 l:.cd8 22 0-0 h6 with equality, Sveshnikov­Ageichenko, Moscow 1987.

a4) 15 'ifxb7 l:.ad8 ! ( 15 . . . liJg6?! 16 'ifa6! ;t Chekhov-Novikov, USSR 1976) 16 .i.e2 (16 l:.xd8 l:.xd8 17 'ifxe7 'ifb1 + with perpetual check) 16 . .. liJd5 17 .i.d2 l:.b8 18 'ifa6 'ifxb2 1 9 0-0 'ii'xe5 20 .i.f3liJb4 21 'ifxa7 = Daniliuk-V.Ivanov, St Petersburg 1992.

b) 14 .i.b4 .i.g4 ! (a significant improvement; 14 . . . 'ife6 15 'ifxe4 ;t transposes to a position examined

via the move-order with 1 2 'ife2 in Game 1) 15 .i.xe7:

b1) 15 ... .i.xdl 16 'ifxd1 'ii'xb2 17 .i.xf8 and now 17 . . . l:.xf8 18 .i.e2 a5 19 'ifd2 'ifbl+ 20 .i.dl 'ifb5 21 'ifd4 l:.e8 22 .i.a4 'ifxe5 23 'ii'xe5 l:.xe5 24 �e2 b5 25 l:.bl ! ± was the game Sveshnikov-Tunik, Moscow 1994, but 17 . . . 'ifc3+!? 18 'ifd2 'ifa1+ 19 �e2 'ifa6+ 20 �e3 'ifh6+ 21 �e2 'ii'a6+ is a draw by perpetual check.

b2) 15 . . . l:.fc8 ! 16 'ifxe4 (after 16 'ifb1 'ii'a5+, 17 b4? 'ii'xe5 1 8 .i.c5 1Wc3+ 19 l:.d2 l:.xc5 ! 20 bxc5 l:.d8 21 'ii'b2 l:.xd2 ! -+ and 17 l:.d2 e3 ! 18 fxe3 'ifxe5 19 .i.h4 'ihe3+ 20 .i.e2 .i.xe2 21 .i.f2 .i.d3+, winning, are two nice variations given by Afek) 16 . . . .i.xd1 17 .i.d3 g6 (Afek-Peretz, Israel Ch 1990) 18 0-0 'iVa4! 19 'ii'e3 .i.c2! 20 .i.f6 'ii'b4 ! +, as Black's queen can retreat to f8 to cover mate threats.

12 ... .i.d7 13 'ii'a3 13 'ilfb4! may be the most accu­

rate move-order if White wishes to transpose to the note given after White's 14th move; this occurs after 13 ... 1Wc6. Instead 13 .. . a5 14 'ifb6 .i.c6 (14 . . . 'ilfc6 is answered by 15 .i.xa5: 15 . . . 'ifd5 16 .i.c3 l:.xa2 17 l:.dl 1Wc6 1 8 'ilfxc6 bxc6 1 9 .i.c4 with an at­tack; 15 . . . liJd5 !? 16 'ii'xc6 .i.xc6 17 .i.d2 ;t Harley-Gormally, London 1 995) 15 l:.dl 'ilfxa2 16 1Wc5 gives White a huge initiative for the pawn sacrificed.

13 •.• 'ii'e6! (D) If 1 3 . . . .i.b5 ! ? then 14 l:.dl .i.d3

15 .i.xd3 exd3 16 0-0 liJc6 (Mart­Kapungut, Ybbs 1968) 17 llfel 0-0-0 18 l:.e3 ;t Boleslavsky, while 13 ... .i.g4

14 h3 .ih5 15 g4 ! e3 (15 . . . .ig6 16 l:ld1 ±) 16 l:lh2 .ig6 17 fxe3 'flf3 18 'fla4+ lLlc6 1 9 'flf4 'fld5 20 l:ld2 'flc5 21 h4 h5 22 0-0-0 l:lc8 23 l:ld5 'flb6 24 e6 0-0 25 l:lb5 'fla6 26 l:lxh5 1-0 was Kramnik-Piket, Monaco rpd 1995.

14 l:ld1 In the first editions of Sicilian 2 c3

I recommended 14 'flb4 as giving White the advantage. Joe Gallagher disagreed and gave some interesting analysis claiming that Black could equalise:

a) 14 . . . .ic6 15 .ib5 e3 !? (alter­natively 15 .. . ltld5 !? 1 6 .ixc6+ 'flxc6 17 'flxe4lLlxc3 18 ._xc6+ bxc6 19 bxc3 0-0-0 with active play in the

2 .. . d5: Lines with ... e5 13

rook ending) 1 6 fxe3lLld5 17 Wc5 lLlxc3 18 bxc3 l:lc8 and White's extra doubled pawn is insignificant.

b) 14 . . . 'flc6 1 5 l:ld1 e3 1 6 fxe3 li:ld5 17 'fld4lLlxc3 18 'flxc3 Wxc3 19 bxc3 .ie6 "and if anyone is better it is Black". While I will agree with Gallagher's analysis in 'a', but I be­lieve 'b' is very murky, e.g. 16 l:ld6!? exf2+ 17 �xf2 'flc7 with a position rich in possibilities for White, for ex­ample 1 8 .id3 or 1 8 .ib5. This line with 14 . . . 'flc6 is particularly signifi­cant, since it appears that White can force it by choosing 'flb4 at move 13.

14 .•• 0-0 15 l:ld6? This position has been reached

several times. It is obviously tempt­ing to attack the queen, as this mis­take is often repeated; the problem is that Black now gains a strong king­side attack. 15 .ie2 is about equal.

15 ... Wr5 16 .ie2 (16 .ic4lLlg6 17 0-0 li:lh4 + Luer-Thorsteinsson, Tel Aviv 1964) 16 ... .ie6! 17 0-0 li:lg6 18 .id4 lLlf4 + 19 l:le1 l:lac8 20 .in .ic4 21 We3 .ixn 22 � lLldJ! 23 l:ld1 (23 'flxe4 l:lc 1 ! ! is a nice touch) 23 ... Wb5 24 We2 Wxb2 25 Wxe4 l:lc2! 0-1

2 4 ... cxd4

1 e4 2 c3 3 exd5 4 d4

cS d5 'ifxd5 cxd4 (D)

This move-order is usually used if Black is intending to play some line with . . . e5 (for example 5 cxd4lbc6 6

lbf3 e5) as already examined in the first chapter. However, if this is not the intention, then 4 . . . cxd4 must be considered a gratuitously premature exchange of pawns by Black. He does not necessarily gain a disadvan­tage by force, but the move definitely gives White more possibilities about where to put his pieces.

The point is that 4 . . . cxd4 5 cxd4 has freed the c3-square for White's knight very early. It has been ac­cepted wisdom that then Black will have serious tactical problems if he tries any . . . i.g4 systems: on 5 . . . lbc6 6lbf3 i.g4, the energetic 7 lbc3 has long been considered to be a very

strong riposte. However, as can be seen from Game 4, things can no longer be considered so straightfor­ward. But even if this previously dis­credited line does prove playable for Black, the significance is not enor­mous, as with the safe alternative 7 i.e2 White brings the game back into the standard lines covered in Chapter 5. The one case where this move-order could conceivably be to Black's advantage is in avoiding some lba3 lines where White usually meets . . . cxd4 by lbb5 , followed by capturing on d4 with the knight. Food for thought.

The most prudent follow-up for Black (after 5 cxd4 lbc6 6 lbf3) is 6 . . . e6. With the . . . i.g4 pin is no longer a worry, White can then seek more active squares for his king's bishop than the e2-square. The bishop can, of course, take up its tra­ditional post on d3, contentedly con­trolling the bl-h7 diagonal, but White can also be more ambitious. In the variation 7 lbc3 'ifd8, the bishop can also develop to the c4-square- giving an excellent IQP po­sition by analogy with some other openings.

It should be noted that the posi­tion after 4 . . . cxd4 can also arise via a Morra Gambit Declined move or­der: 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 d5 4 exd5 'ii'xd5 .

Game 3 Harley - Dixon England 1986

1 e4 cS 2 c3 li:)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cxd4 dS 5 exdS 'iVxdS

Via an unusual move-order (2 . . . d5 3 exd5 'ii'xd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 �6 is standard) we reach the normal po­sition after Black's early pawn swap on d4. Now 6 �3 1i'xd4 7 .td2 or 7 .te3 would actually be a transposi­tion, with colours reversed, to the speculative Hennig-Schara Gambit ( 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 �3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 'ii'xd4 li:)c6 6 'ii'd1 exd5 7 'ii'xd5). I 'm sure readers want more with White from the c3 Sicilian than this theoretically challenged pawn sacrifice; however if you want more information look under D32 in vol­ume D of ECO, the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.

6 li:)f3 .tg4 The most prudent move is 6 . .. e6,

when transposition to later chapters is highly likely if White chooses to develop his bishop to d3 (or e2). But he can also try for more. After 7 �3 there is:

a) 7 .. . .tb4?! 8 .td3li:)f6 9 0-0'iWd8 (9 . . . .txc3 10 bxc3 is very pleasant for White) 10 a3 i..e7 1 1 l:te1 0-0 12 .tc2 (Tal-Arbouche, Seville 1989) and White is a tempo ahead of a main-line position. Not surprisingly this proved to be swiftly terminal for the lowly-ranked player of the black pieces.

b) 7 . . . 'iWd8 8 .tc4 ! (there is noth­ing wrong with 8 .td3, but this is stronger) 8 . . . li:)f6 9 0-0 .te7. Here we

4 . . . cxd4 15

have a position which can arise from a myriad of openings (Queen's Gam­bit Semi-Tarrasch, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Caro-Kann . . . ), with one major difference being that, com­pared to some of these transposi­tions, here White is already a tempo ahead ! For example, Sveshnikov­Tal, Riga 1 973, opened 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4li:)f6 5 �3 e6 6

li:)f3 .te7 7 .td3 dxc4 8 .txc4li:)c6 9 0-0 with exactly the same position, except it is Black's move instead of White's. This gained tempo for White (via our c3 Sicilian move-or­der) gives Black an unpleasant de­fensive task, for example 10 l:te1 (10 a3 !? 0-0 gives a direct transposition to yet another opening, an E57 Nimzo-Indian) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .tg5 b6 12 a3 .tb7 13 'ifd3 li:)d5 14 .txd5 .txg5 15 .te4 h6 16 l:tad1 l:te8 17 d5 exd5 18li:)xd5 �f8 19 1i'b5 1i'c8 20 h4 .td8 21 li:)b4 l:te6 22 l:tcl a6 23 'iVf5 .te7 24 'ifh7 .txb4 25 axb4 1 -0 Andersson-Morovic, Lucerne OL 1982. Actually the game lasted only 24 moves, as the opening move-or­der was different - if you are con­fused you should imagine what it is like for the author ! For further study the Queen's Gambit Accepted, ECO code D26, gives coverage of the ex­act position arising after White's ninth move, assessed by Ribli as ±.

c) 7 . . . 'ifd6!? cannot be refuted di­rectly:

c 1) 8 li:)b5 and after 8 . . . 1i'd8, one outright attempt, 9 i..f4, can be met by 9 . . . .tb4+ 10 �2 .ta5 ! 1 1 �6+ �e7; also possible is 8 . . . 1i'b8 9 g3 i..b4+ 10 i..d2 .txd2+ 1 1 'iVxd2li:)f6

16 4 . . . cxd4

12 �g2 0-0 B.Stein-Marxen, Ger­many 198 1 .

c2) 8 �c4 ltlf6 9 0-0 �e7 1 0 ltlb5 'ii'd8 1 1 �f4 0-0 12 �c7 'ii'd7 1 3 ltle5 ltlxe5 14 dxe5 ltle8 15 �aS b6 16 �c3 a6 17 ltld4 (or 17 'ii'xd7 .i.xd7 1 8 ltld4 ltlc7 with equality, Strikovic-Dlugy, New York Open 1988) 17 . . . ltlc7 1 8 'ii'g4 b5 19 �b3 00 20 .i.d2 l:r.d8 � Nun-Haba, Pra­gue Ch 1986.

c3) 8 �d3 and 8 �e3 are of course standard, and will inevitably transpose to later chapters.

7lt:k3 (D)

7 ... 'ii'aS? 7 . . . .i.xf3 8 gxf3 tlfxd4 9 'ii'xd4

ltlxdS 10 ltlb5 is the subject of the next game.

8 dS ± lLles On 8 . . . 0-0-0, 9 .i.d2 followed by

ltlb5 is very strong. 8 . . . l:r.d8 fails likewise: 9 �d2 ltld4 10 ltlb5 �xf3 1 1 .i.xaS .i.xd1 12 l:r.xd1 ltlc2+ 13 �d2 b6 14 .i.c3 a6 15 ltlc7+ �d7 16 ltlxa6 1 -0 B .Stein-Kjeld, Gausdal 1 992 alternatively 9 . . . ltlb4 10 a3 ltla6 (10 . . . ltlxd5 1 1 .i.b5+ .i.d7 12 ltlxd5) 1 1 ltlb5 'tlfb6 12 tlfa4 .i.d7 13 .i.aS ltlc5? 14 .i.xb6 ltlxa4 15 ltlc7#!

was the abrupt finish of R.G.Lee­Clements, Hastings 1966/7.

9 ltlxeS The queen 'sacrifice' has been

played several times with success. Also promising is 9 �b5+ �d7 10 ltlxe5!? (10 .i.e2) 10 ... .i.xb5 1 1 'ii'f3 ltlf6 12 d6 l:r.b8 13 b4 1i'b6 14 ltlxb5 exd6? (14 . . . 'ii'xb5 15 d7+ ltlxd7 16 tlfxf7+ �d8 17 ltlxd7 'ii'xb4+ 18 .i.d2 tlfe4+ 19 �e3 •b4+ 20 �e2 ±) 15 'ii'e2! �e7 16 ltlc4 and White had won a piece, Risino-Jyanter, Venice 1963.

9 .•. .i.xd1 10 .i.bS+ �d8 11 lLlxf7+ �c8 12 �xd1 g6

12 ... ltlh6 13 ltlxh8 e5 14 dxe6 �b4 15 .i.d7+ �c7 16 ltlb5+ �b6 17 .i.e3+ �a6 18 a3 and White has more than enough material for the queen, Kirillov-Skuja, Latvian Ch 1965.

13 d6 exd6 14 l:r.e1 b6 15 .i.d2 'ii'b4 16 l:r.e4 'ii'cS 17 l:r.c4 1-0

Game 4 Mes - Van der Meiden

Corr 1991

This obscure Dutch correspondence game, which I stumbled across in my research, threatened to become that nightmare all chess authors dread: a tiny sideline which may just alter the evaluation of a much bigger variation.

1 e4 c5 200 Yet another move-order to reach a

c3 Sicilian. The normal route to the position at move 6 would be 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 tlfxd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 ltlc6 6 ltlf3 .i.g4.

2 ... ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c3 dS 5 exdS 'ii'xdS 6 cxd4 �g4 7 M

Of course 7 .i.e2 in possible, when the game should soon transpose into lines covered in Chapter 5.

7 ••• .i.xf3 8 gxf3 'ii'xd4 9 'ii'xd4 lLlxd4 10 lLlbS! (D)

B

Theory's verdict on this danger­ous sacrificial idea of Kirillov's had hitherto been unequivocal: that Black is in big trouble due to his lag­ging development.

lO .•. lLlc2+ ECO (the Encyclopaedia of Chess

Openings) doesn't even bother to mention this knight fork! Alterna­tives have long been known to favour White:

a) 10 . . . lLle6 1 1 f4 ! a6 ( 1 l . . .g6 12 .i.g2 0-0-0 13 .i.e3 a6 14 :cl+ �b8 15 .i.a7+ �a8 16 .i.b6 axb5 17 .i.xd8 lLlxd8 18 :c8+ ± The King­Amy II, 1 3th World Microcomputer Ch 1995) 12 f5 axb5 13 .i.xb5+ �d8 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 .i.e3 (Black's king is caught in the crossfrre of the white bishops) 15 . . . lLlf6 16 .i.b6+ �c8 17 :c 1 + and wins, Kirillov-Salati, Riga 1964.

b) 10 .. . e5 1 l lLlc7+ �d7 12 lLlxa8 .i.b4+ 1 3 �d1 (clearer than 13 .i.d2 ltlxf3+ 14 �e2 lLld4+ 15 �d3 .i.xd2

4 ... cxd4 17

16 �xd2 lbe7 17 f4 Afek-Sobre­cases, Montpellier 1985, when if 17 ... :xa8 18 :d 1 Afek assesses the position as ;!;) 1 3 . . . !De7 14 .i.h3+ f5 15 f4 .i.d6 16 fxe5 .i.xe5 17 .i.e3 lLlec6 18 .i.xd4 lLlxd4 19 :e1 .i.f6 20 :c 1 :xa8 21 :c4 and White re­mains the exchange up for a pawn, Hermann-Jacob, Esbjerg 1978.

c) 10 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 lLlxd4 :xd4 12 .i.e3 :d7 13 .i.b5 :c7 14 .i.xa7 e6 (14 . . . e5 doesn't help: 15 .i.b6 .i.b4+ 16 �d1 :e7 17 :cl+ �b8 18 .i.d8 ! as in Zaitsev-Menkov, Leningrad 1966 as 18 . . . :e6 fails to 19 :c4) 15 .i.b6 :c2!? (Black's rook was trapped after 15 . . . .i.b4+ 16 �dl ! +­Hennings-Bindrich, East Germany 1969: if 16 . . . :e7, 17 .i.d8) 1 6 0-0 lLle7 17 :ac1 :xc1 18 :xc1+ lLlc6 19 a4 �b8 20 a5 ± Rohde-Seltzer, Los Angeles 1991 .

11 �dt :cB!? Apart from this game there is only

one known example with this move. More common has been 1 l . ..lLlxa1 1 2 lLlc7 + �d7 13 lLlxa8 when, whilst in spite of a few quick white victo­ries, Black's position can prove irri­tatingly resilient:

a) 13 . . . e6 14 .i.e3 b6 15 .i.a6 lLlf6 16 .i.b7 .i.d6 17 �d2 :b8 ! 18 .i.a6 :xa8 19 :xa1 .i.xh2 Lund-Lampe, RLNS 1988-9, and Black went on to win. White must try another ap­proach: 15 .i.b5+! �c8 16 �e2 �b7 17lbal �xa8 18 :d1 and Black's kingside pieces are still spectators.

b) 13 . . . g6 14 .i.e3 (14 .i.b5+ �c8 15 .i.e3 �b8 16 �e2 was my old rec-ommendation, but 16 . . . .i.g7 ! looks unclear) 14 . . . .i.h6 (14 . . . b6 15 .i.b5+

18 4 . . . cxd4

�c8 16 i.f4 i.h6 17 i.a6+ �d7 1 8 i.g3 �f6 19 �c7 e6 20 �e2 lbc2 2 1 l:d1 + �c6 22 i.e5 l:f8 2 3 i.xf6 �xc7 24 i.b5 i.f4 25 l:d7+ �b8 26 l:e7 l:c8 27 i.a6 e5 1-0 Wuhrmann­Guiot, Paris 1993) 15 i.b5+ ( 15 i.xa7 �f6 16 �b6+ �c7 17 i.d3 l:d8 1 8 �e2 �c2! and the black knight emerged in Geyer-Schafra­nietz, Germany 1994) 15 . . . �d6 16 i.xa7 �6 17 �b6 l:d8 18 �e2 lbc2 1 9 l:d1 + �c7 20 l:xd8 �xd8 2 1 �c4 i.f4 Crouch-Balinas, London Lloyds Bank 1979. This endgame is not clear, but inter _,ting is Patrick Wolff's suggestion in Chess Life of 22 a3, e.g. 22 . . . i.xh2 23 i.a4 tba1 24 i.d4 �5 25 b4 b5 26 i.xb5 �b3 27 i.b2 when White retains the bet­ter chances.

12 �xa7 l:cS 13 b4 Of course White is no longer ma­

terial down, and can always bail out at this stage with 1 3 i.e3 �xe3+ 14 fxe3 when the endgame is level. However the pawn sacrifice 1 3 b4 has always been assumed to refute Black's choice of defence.

13 .•• �xb4 14 i.b5+ �d8! With a neat defensive idea in

mind. Instead 14 . . . l0c6 15 i.e3 l:d5+ 16 �e2 gave White an unpleasant lead in development in Smart-Nord­strom, Student Teams 1963.

15 i.e3 e6! (D) This fine move could conceivably

make this whole variation playable

for Black. Now after 16 i.xc5 i.xc5 White's a7-knight would be doomed.

16i.a4 �f6! 16 . . . l:d5+?! 17 �e2 still looks

dangerous for Black, but now White has nothing better than to accept the proffered exchange sacrifice. Black's compensation is at least sufficient: a pawn plus the far superior pawn structure, plus excellent outposts for his pieces.

17 i.xc5 i.xc5 18 �b5 �e7 19 �e2 �fd5 20 l:hd1 h5 21 l:acl b6 22 a3 �f4 + 23 �n �bd5 24 i.b3 h4 25 a4 l:a8 26W �xc3 27 :Xc3 g5 28 l:c2 l:a7 29 l:cd2 1f2-1f2

It may be that improvements are found for White in this double-edged line; certainly Black's total lack of kingside development requires de­fensive nerves of steel from the sec­ond player. Nevertheless we can certainly say that, in the past, Black's defensive resources in the position after 10 �b5 have been under-rated.

3 4 ... l2Jf6 (including 5 l2Jf3 l2Jc6! ?)

w

1 e4 2 c3 3 exdS 4 d4 5 ltJf3

c5 d5 'i'xd5 ltJf6 ltJc6 (D)

Even in the second (1987) edition of Sicilian 2 c3 there were scarcely any examples of players using this astute move-order. Since then, how­ever, it has become highly popular. I recommended it at the time for at­tempting to cancel out White's entire .i.d3 systems (6 .i.d3 .i.g4 !), since Black's idea is that White must de­velop his bishop at the less active e2-square. After 6 .i.e2 Black then plays 6 . . . e6, reaching the less critical lines examined in Chapter 6.

But White has not been idle. In this section we examine interesting alternatives that aim to exploit Black's move-order. A principled challenge

is 6 dxcS !? (Game 5). Some very strong grandmasters indeed (Ljubo­jevic, Judit Polgar . . . ) have been com­prehensively wiped out as Black by this deceptively dangerous pawn capture. However, with accurate play White has only a minimal plus.

Therefore 6 .te3 has also emerged as a sound response, as it commonly brings Black back into standard lines examined in later chapters. After 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 ltJc3 1Wd6, for example, White can continue 9 a3 ! .te7 10 .i.d3 and the king's bishop has, after all, occupied its rightful di­agonal. True, White has committed his other bishop quite early to the e3-square, but this move-order has re­sulted in this system becoming the modem main line of the 2 .. . d5 defence (see Chapter 10). If Black should try to cut across this plan with the esoteric 6 . . . ltJg4!? remains unclear.

The third try for White, 6 lDa3, just doesn't work in this particular position- a quick . . . .tg4 and . . . 0-0-0 by Black gives easy equality.

Game S Blatny - Bonsch

Brno 1993

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'i'xd5 4 d4 ltJf6 5 ltjf3

20 4 . ..li).f6 (including 5 l'i::Jj3liJc6!?)

Alternatives: a) 5 l'i::Ja3 !? cxd4 6 t'i::Jb5 l'i::Ja6 7

'iltxd4 e5! 8 'ii'a4 �d7 (8 . . . 'ii'e4+! ?) 9 �e3 1i'c6 10 0-0-0 (10 l'i::Jf3 l'i::Jc5 1 1 'ii'c4 l'i::Jg4 1 2 'ii'd5 t'i::Je6 1 3 0-0-0 \i'xd5 14 llxd5 1h-lf2 Sveshnikov­Petursson, Belgrade 1988) 10 . . . �c5 1 1 t'i::Jf3 �xe3+ 12 fxe3 W'c5 13 W'a3 'ilfxa3 14 l'i::Jxa3 l'i::Jg4! 15 .i.xa6 bxa6 16 :Z.d6 f6 = Vorotnikov-Kholmov, Moscow 1995.

b) 5 �e3 �g4!? (avoiding nor­mal lines with 5 . . . cxd4 or 5 . . . e6) 6 f3 (6 l'i::Je2 cxd4 7 cxd4 e5? ! 8 l'i::Jbc3 1i'a5 9 dxe5 1i'xe5 10 'ii'b3 b6 1 1 .i.d4 ± Van Mil-Stangl, Reykjavik 1993) 6 . . . cxd4 7 'ii'xd4 t'i::Jc6 8 'ii'xd5 l'i::Jxd5 9 �f2 (9 .i.xa7 l'i::Jxa7 10 fxg4 l'i::Je3) 9 . . . .i.f5 10 t'i::Jd2 g6 with a fine game for Black, Handoko-Magome­dov, Bangladesh 1995.

s ... l'i::Jc6 (DJ

6 dxcS!? Giving Black a difficult decision.

Recapturing with 6 . . . 'ii'xc5 leads to a position where White can later gain time attacking the black queen (with moves like .i.e3). However 6 ... 1i'xdl + 7 �xd1 is a murky gambit of the c5-pawn.

Instead of 6 dxc5 White can also try 6 l'i::Ja3, but Black has no prob­lems after 6 . . . .i.g4 7 .i.e2 (7 t'i::Jb5 .i.xf3) 7 . . . cxd4 (the plan of queen­side castling is suddenly very logical here for Black; 7 . . . e6 is reasonable, though after 8 h3 .i.h5 9 .i.e3 cxd4 10 l'i::Jb5 :Z.c8 1 1 l'i::Jbxd4 Black erred in Pirrot-Ftacnik, Lugano 1987, with 1 l . . ..i.c5?! 12 l'i::Jxe6! 'ii'xe6 13 .i.xc5 .i.xf3 14 gxf3 l'i::Je5 15 �a3 and White has the initiative) 8 t'i::Jb5 0-0-0! (8 . . . :Z.c8) 9 l'i::Jbxd4 e5 10 l'i::Jxc6 'ii'xc6 1 1 'ii'c2 !? ( l l'iltb3 can be an­swered by l l . . ..i.e6 12 c4 .i.c5 13 h3 'ii'e4 =F Schmittdiel-Andersson, Dort­mund 1987, while l l . . ..i.c5 =F is also good, Petronic-Cvetkovic, Yugosla­via 1995) l l . . ..i.c5! 12 0-0:Z.heS ! 13 l'i::Jg5! .i.xe2 14 'ii'xe2 :Z.d7 15 .i.e3 h6 = Haba-Stoica, Eforie Nord 1988.

6 �e3 !? is the fashionable re­sponse, when Black usually trans­poses back into standard channels with 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 e6, a commonly used move-order to reach positions dealt with in Chapter 10. Black can also try to mix things up:

a) 6 . . . e5 !? (this recent try may soon receive more attention; com­pared with the . . . e5 breaks in Chap­ter 1 , here the white bishop on e3 can be targeted by Black's knight) 7 dxe5 (7 c4 'ii'd6 8 d5 l'i::Jd4 co:� Demarre­Duncan, Paris-London 1994 or 7 l'i::Jxe5 l'i::Jxe5 8 dxe5 'ii'xd 1 + 9 �xd 1 l'i::Jg4 10 l'i::Ja3 l'i::Jxe3+ 1 1 fxe3 .i.g4+ 12 .i.e2 0-0-0+ 13 �el �e6 14 .i.c4 .i.e7 15 :Z.fl .i.xc4 16l'i::Jxc4:Z.hf8 17 a4 �d7 18 �e2 �e6 19 :Z.f4 � A.Sokolov-Duncan, Gausdal 1996, but this latter example does not look

too convincing for White) 7 . . . 'Wxd1 + 8 'itxd1 tLlg4 9 tLlbd2 (9 i.b5 tLlxe3+ 10 fxe3 i.d7 1 1 .txc6 .txc6 12 c4 g6 1 3 tLlc3 .tg7 =Saint Amand-Don­aldson, Bermuda 1995) 9 . . . tLlxe3+ 10 fxe3 .te7 1 1 .tc4 .tg4 12 h3 i.h5 13 g4 .tg6 14 e4 0-0-0 15 .td5 'itc7 1 6 'ite2 l%he8 17 e6 fxe6 18 .t xc6 ( 1 8 .txe6 !? t) 1 8 . . . 'itxc6 19 tLle5+ 'itc7 20 tLlxg6 hxg6 21 :an l%f8 22 l%xf8 l%xf8 23 tLlf3 g5 24 l%d 1 l%f4 25 tLld2 112-112 Motwani-Ward, Brit­ish Ch 1994.

b) 6 . . . tLlg4 and here: b1) 7 .tg5?! h6 8 .th4 g5 9 .tg3

f5 ! 10 h3 f4 =F Strikovic-N.Nikolic, Yugoslavia 1991 .

b2) 7 i.d3 tLlxe3 (Black can also try for an . . . e5 break: 7 . . . cxd4 ?! 8 cxd4 e5 9 tLlc3 .tb4 10 0-0 .txc3 1 1 bxc3 e4 12 c4 'ir'f5 1 3 .tc2 0-0 14 tLld2 favoured White in B.Filipovic­Smolovic, Kladovo 1992 while 7 ... e5 8 0-0! c4 !? 9 .te2 tLlxe3 10 fxe3 e4 1 1 tLlfd2 'Wg5 12 tLlxe4 'Wxe3+ 13 tLlf2 i.d6 14 .txc4 0-0 15 tLld2 i.f5 was a plausible pawn sacrifice that ultimately fell short in B.Filipovic­Zakic, Kladovo 1992) 8 fxe3 e6 9 0-0 .te7 10 'Wc2 'ir'h5 ! 1 1 tLlbd2 0-0 12 .te4!? .td7 13 tLlc4 l%ad8 14 tLlfe5?! (in his notes Serper suggests the im­provement 14 l%f2!?, intending 15 l:.a£1, without giving an assessment) 14 . . . tLlxe5 15 tLlxe5 .tc8 16 l%f3 f5 ! =F Lautier-Serper, Dortmund 1993.

b3) 7 tLlbd2!? (the threat of8 i.c4 discourages . . . e5 and also other black possibilities) 7 . . . cxd4 (7 ... tLlxe3 8 fxe3 e6 9 .tc4 'Wd8 Finkel-Sermek, Gro­ningen 1994, and now Finkel gives 10 tLle4! cxd4 1 1 exd4 .te7 12 0-0 0·0

4 . . . tLlf6 (including 5 tLl/3 tLlc6!?) 21

1 3 'Wc2!? b6 14 l%ad1 ! .tb7 15 d5 exd5 16 .txd5 'Wc7 17 tLleg5 ! .tc5+ 18 'ith1 ±; 7 ... e6 8 i.c4 'Wd8 9 i.g5!? tLlf6 10 tLlb3 cxd4 1 1 tLlbxd4 also gave White a tiny edge in the game Finkel-A.Shneider, Groningen 1993) 8 cxd4 tLlxe3 9 fxe3 e6 10 i.d3 .te7 1 1 0-0 0-0 and now 12 .te4 'Wd8 ( 12 . . . 'Wh5 1 3 tLlc4 .td7 14 tLlfe5 'Wxd1 15 l:tfxdl ! .te8 16 l%ac1 with unpleasant pressure against c6) 13 'Wc2 g6 14 tLlc4! (14 .txc6 bxc6 15 'Wxc6 l%b8 16 'ii'c2 .tb7) 14 . . . .td7 15 tLlfe5 tLlxe5 16 tLlxe5 .l:.b8 17 l:[f3 ! ± Finkel.

6 ••• 'fixc5 Or 6 ... 1i'xd1+!? 7 'itxd1 and now: a) 7 . . . e5 8 b4 i.f5 9 .tc4! (9 .tb5

transposes to positions covered in the following note while the line 9 i.e3 tLld5 10 'itcl !? a5 1 1 b5 tLld8 12 tLlxe5 tLlxe3 13 fxe3 .txc5 14 .tc4 .txe3+ 15 'itb2 0-0 16 :n � was Rausis-Wirthensohn, Switzerland 1990) 9 . . . 0-0-0+ 10 'ite2 .te7 1 1 tLlg5 l%hf8 1 2 tLlxf7 :d7 1 3 .te3 tLld5 14 tLld6+ .txd6 15 i.xd5 i.e7 16 .tc4 e4 17 h3 .tf6 1 8 g4 .tg6 19 b5 ± Schmittdiel-Donaldson, Liech­tenstein 1994.

b) 7 . . . .tf5 and then: b 1) 8 .tc4!? is still interesting, by

analogy with the line above, though Black can now blunt the bishop's di­agonal with 8 . . . e6. Treffert-Schuh, Germany 1989 continued 9 b4 a5 10 b5 tLlb8 1 1 c6 bxc6 12 bxc6 tLlxc6 13 .tb5 0-0-0+ 14 'ite2 tLlb8 15 tLld4 .te4 16 f3 i.b7 17 tLlb3 �.

b2) Instead 8 .te3 0-0-0+ 9 'ite1 is Sveshnikov-Ugoltsev, USSR 1970 when ECO gives 9 . . . tLld5 ! 10 i.b5

22 4 . . . &i:Jf6 (including 5 &i:Jf3 &i:Jc6!?)

e5 1 1 ..txc6 bxc6 12 &i:Jxe5 :e8 .... See also the 6 . . . ..tf5 reference in Game 10.

b3) 8 ..ib5 e5 9 b4 0-0-0+ 10 �e2 ..ie7 !? (10 . . . &i:Jd.S 1 1..ixc6 bxc6 12 ..id2 f6 ... Blatny-Gross, Czechos­lovak Ch 1988) 1 1 ..te3 &i:Jd5 12 ..txc6 (as this pawn grabbing spec­tacularly backfires, 12 :c1 intend­ing &i:Ja3-c4 was to be considered according to Blatny) 12 . . . bxc6 13 &i:Jxe5 :he8 ! + 14 &i:Jxf7?! ( 14 &i:Jxc6

..ig4+ 15 f3 :d7 16 fxg4 ..ig5 gives Black a raging attack) 14 . . . &i:Jxe3 15 &i:Jxd8 &i:Jc4 16 &i:Jxc6 ..tf6+ 17 �d 1 &i:Jb2+! 18 �c1 &i:Jd3+ 19 �c2 &i:Jxb4+ 20 �b3 &i:Jxc6 21 &i:Ja3 :e7 ! 22 &i:Jb5 :b7 23 a4 a6 24 c4 &i:Jd4+ 0- 1 Ser­mek-Wirthensohn, Mitropa Cup 1 993. For information it should be noted that this game used the move­order 7 . . . e5 8 b4 ..tf5 9 ..ib5.

T he reader should also refer to Chapter 5, Game 10, for similar lines.

7 &i:Ja3! (D) With irritating ideas of &i:Jb5 or

&i:Jc4 followed by ..te3. T he inunedi­ate 7 ..ie3!? allows Black's queen ac­cess to the aS-square, but can still be dangerous: 7 . . . 'WaS 8 &i:Ja3 ..ig4 (8 . . . &i:Jd5 !? Bonsch; 8 . . . e6 !? 9 &i:Jb5 &i:JdS 10 ..id2 'iWb6 1 1 c4 &i:Jf6 12 ..id3 a6 13 &i:Jc3 ..te7 14 a3 ... Schmittdiel­Berg, Gausdal 1987) 9 'Wb3! 0-0-0 10 &i:Jg5 &i:Jd4 1 1 'ii'c4+ �b8 12 ..ixd4 'Wxg5 13 &i:Jb5 +- was Schmittdiel­J.Polgar, Dortmund 1990.

7 ... e5 Alternatives: a) 7 . . . e6 8 &i:Jb5 'We7 9 b3 a6 10

..ta3 'ii'd8 1 1 &i:Jd6+ ..ixd6 12 'ii'xd6

B

'ii'xd6 13 ..txd6 &i:Je4 14 ..ia3 &i:Jxc3 15 ..tb2 &i:Jd5 16 ..txg7 :g8 17 ..tb2 b5 ... Kharlov-Tolnai, Budapest 1992; by analogy with the main line White should play 1 1 ..txf8 ;t.

b) 7 . . . 'ii'a5 8 ..tf4 ..tg4 (8 .. . 'ii'f5?! 9 ..ig3 a6 10 ..id3 'ii'e6+ 1 1 ..ie2! g6 12 0-0 ..th6 1 3 :e1 'ii'd.S 14 &i:Jc4

..ie6 15 &i:Jb6 ± Blatny-Basin, Tmava 1989) 9 ..te2 &i:Jd5 10 ..td2 :d8 1 1 c4 &i:Jdb4 12 0-0 a6 ... Mukhametov­Mikhalets, Yalta 1995.

c) 7 . . . ..td7 8 ..ie3 'ifaS 9 'ii'b3 e6 10 &i:Jc4 'ifc7 1 1 &i:Jd4 &i:Jxd4 12 ..ixd4 ..tc5 13 ..txc5 'ii'xc5 14 'ii'xb7 0-0 15 'iff3 ..tb5 16 'ii'e3 'ii'e7 17 ..ie2 :ac8 18 &i:Je5 &i:Jd5 19 'iff3 'ifg5 20 'ifg3 'ifxg3 21 hxg3 with an extra pawn for White in the endgame, Sermek­Zso.Polgar, Vienna 1991 .

d) 7 . . . &i:Jg4!? (a major branch) 8 'We2 ..tf5 (8 . . . a6?! proved disastrous for the super-OM playing Black in Blatny-Ljubojevic, Antwerp 1994: after 9 h3 &i:Jge5 10 ..ie3 &i:Jxf3+ 1 1 'ifxf3 'ii'f5 1 2 'Wg3 !? 'ife5? ! 1 3 f4 ! 'Wc7 14 &i:Jc4 ..te6 15 ..ib6 'ii'c8 16 'ii'e3 ! ..ixc4 17 ..txc4 e6?! 1 8 f5 ! &i:Je7 19 ..ib3 &i:Jxf5 White merci­lessly hunted down the opposing king with 20 ..ta4+ �e7 21 'ifd3 !

1i'b8 22 'ifd7+ �f6 23 0-0 �g6 24 i.c2 'ife5 25 llael i.c5+ 26 �hi �h6 27 i.xf5 I-0) 9 h3 i.d3 (9 . . . lbge5 10 i.e3 'ifa5 1 1 lbxe5 lbxe5 12 1i'b5+ 'ifxb5 13 lbxb5 .:td8 14 i.xa7 ± was Sennek-Estrada, Ljubljana 1994) 10 'ifxd3 !? (giving up the queen for rook and two minor pieces looks far more promising than the 10 'ifd2 I 0 i.xfl 1 1 .:txfl ofHracek-I.Sokolov, Pardubice I994) 10 . . . 'ifxf2+ II �d1 .:td8 12 'ifxd8+ �xd8 13 hxg4 e6I4 lbc4 i.e7 15 i.e3 1i'g3 16 g5 h5 17 �e2! e5? 18 .:th4 +- i.xg5 1 9 i.xg5+ f6 20 .:td1+ �c7 21 lbe3 fxg5 22 .:th3 1 -0 Blatny-Wang Zili, Thessaloniki OL 1988.

8lbb5 8 i.e3 !? 1fa5 (8 . . . 1fe7 9 i.b5 !

lbg4 10 lbc4 lbxe3 I 1 fxe3 f6 12 1Wa4 1fc7 13 0-0-0 � Sveshnikov­A .Shneider, Podolsk 1993) 9 lbc4 1i'c7 10 'ifa4 i.d7 and despite the in­ventive continuation 1 1 lbb6!? .:td8 12 lbxd7 lbxd7, Sermek-Riegler, Maribor Pirc 1993, White is prob­ably not better. Also worth exploring is 8 lbc4!? with i.e3 to follow.

8 . .. 'ife7 9 b3 i.g4 . 9 . . . a6 !? 10 i.a3 1i'd8 1 1 'ifxd8+

( 1 1 lbd6+ i.xd6 12 i.xd6 i.g4 13 i.e2 e4 with counterplay- Blatny) 1 1 . . .�xd8 12 0-0-0+ i.d7 I3 i.xf8 .:txf8 14 lbd6 �c7 15 lbg5 h6 16 lbge4! (I6 lbgxf7?! i.e6 I7 i.c4 i.xf7 I8 lbxf7 b5 ! 1 9 i.e6 .:tae8 +) I6 . . . lbxe4 I7 lbxe4 Blatny-Tolnai, Kecskemet I992. Blatny assesses this ending as�. though White's ad­vantage looks rather minimal to me.

10 i.a3 'ifd8 (D) lli.d6!?

4 . . . lbf6 (including 5 rt:Jf3 lbc6!?) 23

A subtle idea to lure Black's rook on to the c8-square, when White hopes that a later rt:Jd6 will gain time. Insuf­ficient for advantage is the alterna­tive 1 1 i.xf8 �xf8 (also I l . . .'ifxdi + I2 .:txdi �f8 13 i.e2 �e7 S.Arkell­T hipsay, Kuala Lumpur 1992) I2 'ifd6+ 'ife7 13 rt:Jd2 .:td8 14 1fxe7+ �xe7 I5 h3 i.e6 I6 0-0-0 .:td7 17 i.c4 1h-'h Sveshnikov-Tunik, Anapa 1991 .

ll ... i.xd6? Nevertheless I 1 . . . .:tc8 !? was pref­

erable, when Blatny gives I2 i.xf8 �xf8 13 i.e2 � . White can try the sharp I2 i.c4?! when I2 ... e4 13 lbg5 ! i.xd1 14 i.xf7+ Wd7 15 i.e6+ gives a draw by perpetual check. Black can play for more with 12 . . . a6 13 rt:Jg5 axb5 14 i.xf7+ �d7 (e.g. 15 i.xf8+ i.xd1 16 .:txdi+ lbd4 -+ Palkovi­V.Gurevich, Siofok Hungaroil i990) but there fo llows the remarkable, and totally unclear, tactical shot I5 i.e6+! i.xe6 I6 i.c7+ �xc7 I7 rt:Jxe6+ netting the black queen for three minor pieces.

12 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 Black has no way to avoid losing a

pawn: on I2 . . . .:tc8 comes the capture I3 lbxe5.

24 4 ... &lJf6 (including 5 &iJj3liJc6!?)

13 lbxd6+ �e7 14 &iJxb7 :ab8 15 &iJc5 :bd8 (crippling the white pawns with 15 .. _j,xf3 ! ? 16 gxf3 :hd8 was probably more resilient; now Blatny gradually untangles, whereupon the extra material proves decisive in the endgame) 16 &iJdl! :d5 17 &lJce4 &iJxe4 18 &lJxe4 j,f5 19 &iJdl :bd8

20 0-0-0 e4 21 j,e2 &iJe5 22 &lJc4 &iJd3+ 23 j,xd3 exd3 24 :bel+ �6 25 &iJd2 g5 26 �b2 h5 27 :e3 h4 28 c4 :d4 29 �c3 :r4 30 f3 :rd4 31 &iJe4+ j,xe4 32 :xe4 :xe4 33 fxe4 �es 34 :Xd3 :hs 35 :u f6 36 :r5+ �e4 37 ::xr6 h3 38 :n! g4 39 gxh3 :xb3+ 40 �b4 1-0

4 4 ... �f6 5 �f3 i..g4

1 e4 2 c3 3 exdS 4 d4 5 ll)f3

cS dS 1Wxd5 lLlf6 .tg4 (D)

The attraction of this sound and increasingly popular defence is ob­vious. The queen's bishop immedi­ately takes up an active post, and Black's pieces will develop very naturally: . . . e6, . . . lLlc6, . . . .te7 and . . . 0-0.

A key point about the circumspect move-order 4 . . . lLlf6 (as opposed to the less accurate 4 . . . lLlc6, covered in the next chapter) is that Black can usually delay swapping on d4. To pre­cipitate this pawn exchange White is more or less forced into .te3 at some stage in the main line; not a bad de­veloping move, of course, but also not as active a square for the bishop as g5, for instance. As soon as the white bishop comes to e3 (threatening dxc5)

Black must exchange pawns on d4, whereupon a subsequent lLlc3 for White gains the traditional tempo against the black queen on d5 .

The most notable current adherent of 5 . . . .tg4 is Garry Kasparov. In­deed he lost one of the most famous games of 1 996 using it - to Deep Blue, in the first game of their man v computer match in Philadelphia. De­spite this, the main variations are looking extremely solid for Black, and can be recommended as an ex­cellent choice, especially if Black is content with a draw.

There are, naturally, slight down­sides to the 5 . . . .tg4 defence. On g4 the bishop can be something of a tar­get; h3 invariably gains time for White, and just occasionally a later g4 follows. Black may also notice the absence of the bishop from his queenside when White plays moves like 'ili'b3, attacking the pawn on b7 . Also, in developing a queenside piece like this, Black remains several tempi away from kingside castling. Whilst attempts to capitalise on this lagging development with 6 'ii'a4+ have largely backfired on White, a startling new idea is 6 lLlbd2!?. See Michael Adams's fantastic demoli­tion of Hubner (Game 9) as an exam­ple of just how effective the c3 Sicilian can be, even at the highest levels.

26 4 . . . f£:Jj6 5 f£:Jj3 i.g4

Game 6 Zakharov - Shipov

Moscow Open Ch 1995

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS 'it'xdS 4 d4 f£:Jf6 5 f£:Jr3 i.g4 6 'it'a4+?! (D)

This check has scored badly in tournament play.

6 ... i.d7 6 . . . lDbd7 !? contains a trap that has

brought Hracek several easy points: 7 i.c4 (7 i.e2 e6 promises White lit­tle, while 7 i.e3 i.xf3 8 gxf3 cxd4 9 cxd4 as in the game Sveshnikov­Madsen, Gausdal 1992, would have left White little to show for his pawn after 9 . . . 'ii'xf3 10 l:gl 'ii'c6 1 1 i.b5 'ii'd6) 7 . . . 'ii'e4+ 8 i.e3 i.xf3 9 f£:Jd2? (better but ultimately insufficient was the pawn sacrifice 9 gxf3 'ii'xf3 10 l:g1 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 'ii'c6 12 'it'b3 e6 13 f£:Jc3 l:c8 14 i.b5 'ii'd6 15 d5 a6 16 i.xd7+ 'ii'xd7 17 l:d1 g6 18 i.d4 i.g7 19 f£:Je4 f£:Jxe4 20 .txg7 l:g8 21 i.h6 exd5 22 l: xd5 'it'e6 + Vogt­Hracek, Altensteig 1995) 9 ... 'ii'c6 10 i.b5 i.xg2! (the point) 1 1 i.xc6 i.xc6 12 'ii'b3 i.xh 1 13 f3 cxd4 14 cxd4 i.g2 and Black's rook and two pieces quickly proved too much for

the white queen in both Briiuning­Hracek, Kecskemet 1992 and Ra­biega-Hracek, Bundesliga 1992/3.

6 . . . f£:Jc6? ! is probably dubious: 7 .tc4 'ii'e4+ (7 . . . 'it'd7 8 dxc5 i.xf3 9 gxf3 and then 9 . . . e6 1 0 .te3 f£:Jd5 1 1 i.xd5 'ii'xd5 12 'ii'e4 ± was Svesh­nikov-Neverov, Moscow 1989, but 9 . . . g6 10 i.e3 i.g7 1 1 f£:Jd2 0-0 12 0-0-0 'ii'h3 is less clear, Teitsson­Petursson, Icelandic Cht 1 995/6) 8 .i.e3 i.xf3 9 f£:Jd2 (9 gxf3 'ii'xf3 10 l:g1 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 e6 12 .i.b5 i.e? 13 f£:Jd2 'ii'd5 14 l:xg7 h5 15 l:g1 �f8 16 l:c 1 f£:Jd8 17 i.e2 'ii'd6 18 f£:Jf3 'ii'b4+ = Vogt-Reeh, Bundesliga 1994/5) 9 . . . i.d1 ! (wow! 9 . . . 'ii'g4 10 f£:Jxf3 'it'xg2 11 �e2 ± Sveshnikov) 10.:.Xd1 'ii'xg2 1 1 �e2 cxd4 12 cxd4 e6 1 3 f£:Jf3 'ii'g4 14 .i.b5 f£:Jd7 15 i.xc6 bxc6 16 'ii'xc6 l:d8 (16 . . . l:b8 17 b3 intending l:g 1 and f£:Je5) 17 l:hgl 'ii'f5 18 l:g5 1i'h3 19 l:dg1 h6 20 l:b5 ! ± Stevie-Kurajica, Vinkovci 1995 .

7 'it'b3 cxd4 In theory White claims a margin­

ally better endgame after 7 . . . 'ii'xb3 8 axb3 cxd4 (8 . . . e6 9 f£:Ja3 f£:Jc6 10 f£:Jb5 l:tc8 11 dxc5 .txc5 12 b4 i.e? 13 i.f4 ;t Vogt-Bichsel, Swiss Ch 1995) 9 lLlxd4 lLlc6 10 lL!xc6 i.xc6 1 1 lL!a3 a6 12lLlc4. In practice this edge can evaporate, e.g.: 12 . . . e6 13 lDa5 .i.d5 14 c4 .te4 15 f3 .tb4+ 16 .i.d2 i.xd2+ 17 �xd2 0-0-0+ 18 �e3 .tg6 = B.Filipovic-Szekely, Bu­dapest 1990.

Alternatively 7 . . . e6 8 .i.c4 'it'e4+ (after 8 . . . 'ii'c6, Daniliuk-Petrosian, St Petersburg 1993, simplest is 9 0-0 ;!;) 9 .te3llJc6 10 lL!bd2 'iff5 1 1 'ii'xb7

l:.b8 12 fic7 :Xb2 13 0-0 cxd4?! 14 .i.xd4 .i.e? 1S .i.b3 ± Sveshnikov­Goriachkin, Riga 199S; Sveshnikov's suggested improvement 14 .. . .i.e7 (in­tending 1S .i.b3 llXJS) still looks ;,

8 .i.c4 8 �xd4 �c6!? (8 . . . e6 is also rea­

sonable: 9 �bS �a6 10 WxdS �xdS = Schmittdiel-Kuczynski, Bundes­liga 1994/S alternatively 9llXI2 �6 10 WxdS �xdS 1 1 �2f3 �xd4 12 �xd4 .i.cS 13 .i.d3 .i.xd4 14 cxd4 �b4 1S .i.e4 .i.c6 ; Schmittdiel­Petursson, Gausdal 1996) 9 .i.c4 (9 .i.e3 � 10 Wc2 �g4 1 1llXI2 �e3 12 fxe3 g6; Smagin-Atalik, Iraklio 1 993) 9 .. .'tlhg2 10 .i.xf7+ �d8 1 1 l:.fl �xd4 1 2 cxd4 e6 13 dS fixdS + An. Schmitt-A Sokolov, French Cht 1994.

8 ... We4+ 9 � e6 (D)

10 cxd4 10 �xd4 (10 �bd2 Wc6 1 1 �xd4

Wc7 12�f3 a6 13 .i.g5 .i.d6 14l:.d1 �6 1S �xc6 .i.xc6 16llXI4 .i.d7 17 .i.h4 0-0-0 ; Daniliuk-Dragomar­etsky, Minsk 1994) 10 . . . �c6 1 1 �d2 Wg6! (ll . . .�xd4 1 2 �xe4 �xb3 1 3 �xf6+ gxf6 14 axb3 .i.cS = Kharlov-Tukmakov, Biel 1992) 12

4 . . . �/6 5 �/3 .i.g4 27

Wxb7 l:.b8 13 fic7 l:.c8 14 fig3 �xd4 1S Wxg6 hxg6 16 cxd4 .i.b4 17 b3 .i.c3 18 l:. b1 .i.xd4 19 �f3 .i.b6 20 .i.b2 �e4 + de Ia Villa­Topalov, Pamplona 199S.

10 ... �!? 11M WfS 1 1 . . .Wg6 12 �S?! �xeS 13 dxeS

.i.c6! ; Zakharov-Tregubov, St Pe­tersburg 199S.

12 Wxb7 l:.b8 13 Wc7 .i.e7! 1 3 . . . l:.c8?! 14 Wf4 Wxf4?! (or

14 . . . Wa5 oo Kharlov) 1S .i.xf4 �xd4 16 lDeS; �hS? (16 . . . .i.d6! Kharlov) 17 l:.d1 �6 18 �xd7 �xf4 19 .i.bS ± Kharlov-Hoffman, Cologne 1993.

14 b3! 0-0 (14 .. . .i.b4!? 1S .i.d2 0-0 oo Shipov) 1S Wf4 WaS 16 .i.d2 .i.b4 17 �e2! l:.fd8 (17 . . . l:.bd8 !? Shipov) 18 .i.xb4 �xb4 19 �eS .i.bS 20 g4 �c6 21 �xc6! (if 21 gS? �xeS 22 gxf6 �c4! 23 bxc4 - 23 WgS? llXI2+ - 23 . . . .i.xc4 and White's king is too exposed) 21 ... .i.xc6 22 f3 �dS 23 Wet? (23 .i.xdS ! .i.xdS 24 �f2 is ; according to Shipov; now White's airy king compels him to liquidate into a worse endgame) 23 ... l:.bc8 24 Wet �e3+ 2S �f2 �xc4 26 bxc4 Wa3 27 Wc3 Wxc3 28 �c3 l:.xd4; (having regained his pawn, Black is better, though both sides make sub­sequent inaccuracies in the endgame) 29 �bS! l:.d2+ 30 �g3 l:.d7 31 l:.hd1 l:.cd8 32 l:.xd7 l:.xd7 33 l:.b1 �f8! 34 l:.b3 a6 3S �3? (3S �a3) 3S ... l:d3? (3S . . . l:.d4 36 cS l:.c4) 36 �b1 l:.xb3 37 axb3 aS! 38 �f4 �e7 39 cS? (39 �3! intending 39 . . . �d6 40 �+! =) 39 ... .i.dS! 40 � �d7 41 �eS �c6 42 �d4 f6! 43 f4 eS+ 44 fxeS fxeS+ 4S �c3 �xeS -+ 46 h4 e4 47 �n �d6! 48 �3 ( 48 b4

28 4 . . . lDf6 5 lDf3 i.g4

a4! -+) 48 ••. �eS 49 b4 axb4+ SO �xb4 i.e6 51 �cS �f4 52 �d4 i.xg4 53 lDdS+ �f3 0-1

In February 1996 the most power­ful chess computer in the world used the c3 Sicilian to decimate Garry Kasparov in round one of a six-game game match. Kasparov's new open­ing idea, 10 . . . i.b4 !?, looks bizarre, but the PCA World Champion had enough faith in the plan to try to re­peat it two games later in the match.

Game 7 Deep Blue - Kasparov Philadelphia ( 1) 1996

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS 'ti'xdS 4 d4 lDf6 S lDf3 i.g4 6 i.e2 (D)

6 .•• e6 6 .. . lDc6?! 7 h3 i.h5 8 c4 'ti'd6 9 d5

i.xf3 10 i.xf3 lDd4: a) 1 1 0-0 0-0-0 !? ( l l . . .g6 12 i.e3

lDf5 oo) 12 lDc3 e5 13 i.e3 �b8 14 a3 "ifa6 15 i.e2 lDd7 16 b4 i.e7 17 l:b1 lDf5 18lDe4 �4 19 bxc5 lDxc5 20 i.xd4 exd4 21 'ii"xd4 ltlxe4 22 li'xe4 i.c5 23 d6 l:he8 24 li'f3 l:xd6 25 l:b5 "ifc6 26 "ifxc6 l:xc6 27 i.f3

l:c7 28 i.xb7 l:xb7 29 l:xc5 won a pawn for White in the game Rozen­talis-Savchenko , Tbilisi 1989.

b) 1 1 lDc3 (the most accurate move-order according to Adams) l l . . .g6? (better is l l . . .e5 ! ? 12 0-0 { 12 dxe6 'ii"xe6+ 13 i.e3 0-0-0 14 0-0 "ifxc4 "" Adams} 12 . . . 0-0-0 transpos­ing to the above Rozentalis game) 12 i.e3 ltlxf3+ (now if 12 . . . lDf5, 13 'ii"a4+) 13 1i'xf3 i.g7 14 0-0 0-0 15 l:fel l:fe8 16 l:ad l a6 17 i.f4 "ifd7 18 i.e5 ±Adams-Lutz, Dortmund 1994.

7 h3 In the third game Deep Blue-Kas­

parov, Philadelphia 1996, the com­puter varied here with 7 0-0. After 7 . . . ltlc6 8 i.e3 cxd4 9 cxd4 i.b4!? 10 a3 i.a5 1 1 lDc3 "ifd6 the same po­si tion was reached as in game one, excluding the moves 7 h3 i.h5. Joel Benjamin, the American grandmas­ter advising on Deep Blue's opening book, had prepared a new idea, but had mis-assessed the resulting posi­tion: 12 lDe5 i.xe2 13 1Wxe2 i.xc3 14 bxc3 lDxe5 15 i.f4 lDf3+ ! (this desperado , underestimated by Ben­jamin, gives Black a comfortable game) 16 "ifxf3 'ii"d5 17 'ii"d3 l:c8 18 l:fc 1 'ii"c4 19 "ifxc4 l:xc4 (now .. . b5 and . . . ltld5 threatens to give Black a strategically won game, but Deep Blue finds a very nice manoeuvre to disrupt this plan) 20 l:cbl ! b6 21 i.b8 l:a4 22 l:b4 ! l:a5 23 l:c4!? (an intriguing decision, though not a bad one; most humans would play 23 c4 to contro l the d5-square) 23 . . . 0-0 24 i.d6 l:a8 25 l:c6 b5 26 �fl l:a4 27 l:bl a6 28 �e2 h5 29 �d3 l:d8 30

i.e? :Z.d7 3 1 i.xf6 gxf6 32 l:Z.b3 with equality.

A different tack is 7 .!Da3, e.g. 7 ... a6 8 llk2 (intending lbe3; 8 llk4 i.xf3 !) 8 . . . cxd4 9 ltkxd4 e5 10 .!Dc2 'ifxd1+ 1 1 i.xd1 .!bc6 12 lbe3 i.h5 13 i. b3 i.c5 14 lDf5 0-0 15 0-0 :Z.fe8 1 6 h3 i.xf3 17 gxf3 e4 oo Adams­Romero, Leon 1995.

7 ••• i.h5 8 0-0 Castling quickly is a logical way

of cutting down Black's options, but amongst the alternatives the 8 i.e3 move-order is also common:

a) 8 i.e3 cxd4 (8 . . . i.e7 9 c4 'iid6 10 .!Dc3 0-0 1 1 dxc5 'iixc5 12 i.e3 'iic8 13 .!Dd4 i.xe2 14 'iixe2 ;!; Roz­entalis-Gavrikov, USSR 1988) 9 cxd4 .!Dc6 (after 9 . . . i.b4+ !? 10 .!Dc3 0-0 1 1 0-0 'iia5 !? 1 2 'iib3 lbc6, 1 3 a3 i.xc3 14 bxc3 .!Dd5 oo was Kramnik­Kasparov, Paris PCA rpd 1994 while 1 3 :Z.fd1 :Z.fd8 14 g4 !? i.g6 15 i.g5 i.xc3 16 bxc3 i.e4 17 i.xf6 gxf6 18 .!Dd2 i.d5, as in V.lvanov-Belikov, Moscow 1995, is assessed by Be­likov as equal) 10 .!Dc3 'iid6. Here White has an ambitious try with 1 1 g4 (surely 1 1 0-0 i.e? 12 g4 i.g6 1 3 .!De5 is the more prudent move-or­der?) l l . . .i.g6 12 lDe5 i.e? 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 i.f4 ! 1i'b4 !? (14 . . . '1Wd8 1 5 i.f3 :Z.c8 16 .!bxg6 hxg6 1 7 i.e3 i.d6 18 g5 .!Dd7 19 d5 exd5 20 'iixd5 ;!; Adams-Topalov, Las Palmas 1994 while V.L.I vanov suggests 14 . . . lbd.s ! offering a promising exchange sacri­fice with 1 5 .!Dxg6 .!Dxf4, or if 1 5 i.g3 'ifb4 =i= ) 1 5 a3 'iixb2 16 lba4 1t'c2 17 .!bxg6 'iixg6 18 i.d3 lbe4 19 f3 'iff6 20 fxe4 'it'xd4+ 21 �h2 :Z.ad8 22 i.b5 'ili'xe4 23 llk3 'ifg6 24

4 . . . lbf6 5 lbf3 i.g4 29

'ili'b1 f5 oo Waitzkin-Nunn, San Fran­cisco 1995.

b) 8 .!Da3 (to avoid an IQP) 8 . . . .!Dc6 9 i.e3 cxd4 10 .!Db5 0-0-0! 1 1 .!Dbxd4 ( 1 1 cxd4 i.xf3 ! 1 2 gxf3 i.b4+) 1 l . . .i.c5 ( 1 l . . .e5 12 .!Dxc6 'ii'xc6 13 'Wb3 i.c5 = Blauert-Mikh­alchishin, Dortmund 1995) 12 0-0 e5 = Mufic-Stohl, Croatia 1995.

c) 8 c4 (the Lithuanian grandmas­ter Rozentalis has had some highly complex struggles with this) 8 . . . 'ii'd8 (8 . . . 'ii'd6 !? 9 llk3 cxd4 10 .!Db5 'ii'd8 1 1 i.f4 i.b4+ 12 �fl lDa6 13 llk7+ .!Dxc7 14 'ifa4+ b5 15 'ii'xb4 bxc4 16 1t'xc4 lbcd5 17 'ifc6+ �f8 18 i.d6+ 'it>g8 + Rozentalis-Szekely, Odessa 1989 but not 8 . . . 'ifd7 9 d5 exd5 10 g4 i.g6 1 1 lbe5 _.e6 12 .!bxg6 hxg6 13 g5 .!De4 14 cxd5 'ii'f5 1 5 i.e3 .!Dd6 16 .!Dc3 :Z.xh3 17 'ii'a4+ �d8 18 :Z.xh3 'it'xh3 19 0-0-0 ± Rozentalis­Loginov, Manila OL 1992) 9 'it'b3 cxd4 (9 . . . 1t'b6 10 'ii'xb6 axb6 1 1 lbc3 lbc6 12 .!Db5 0-0-0 1 3 lbe5 ! cxd4 14 i.f4 i.b4+ 1 5 �fl i.xe2+ 16 �xe2 .!Dh5 17 i.h2 .!Dxe5 18 i.xe5 d3+ 19 'it>f3 oo B .Filipovic-Cvetkovic, Yugo­slavia 1995) 10 'ii'xb7 .!Dbd7 1 1 lDxd4 l:Z.b8 1 2 'Wa6 i.b4+ ( 1 2 . . . i.xe2 1 3 .!Dxe2 V.lvanov-Kalinen, Moscow 1993, and now 13 . . . i.b4+ 14 .!Dbc3 0-0 15 0-0 .!Dc5 ! 1 6 'Wc6 'Wd3 ! = Ivanov) 1 3 .!bc3 0-0 14 .!bc6 l:Z.b6 15 .!Dxd8 :Z.xa6 1 6 g4 :Z.xd8 17 gxh5 .!De4 18 i.d2 .!Dxd2 19 �xd2 lDe5+ 20 �c1 :Z.c6 =i= Rozentalis-Heissler, Bundesliga 1992.

8 ... ltJc6 9 i.e3 In the game Short-Topalov, Nov­

gorod 1995, the British grandmaster played one of his deceptive quiet

30 4 . . . lbf6 5 lbf3 i.g4

moves, 9 a3 !?. He made some pro­gress too: 9 . . . i.e7 1 0 c4 'it'd8 1 1 dxc5 'it'xdl 1 2 lhdl a5 13 i.e3 lbe4 14 lbc3 lbxc3 1 5 bxc3 i.g6 1 6 lbd4 0-0-0 17 lbxc6 bxc6 18 i.f3 i.f6 19 kl :txdl + 20 :txdl :td8 21 :Xd8+ �xd8 22 i.xc6 i.xc3 though White's extra doubled c-pawn proved insuffi­cient to win.

9 ... cxd4 After 9 ... :td8 !?, 10 lbbd2?! i.e7 1 1

c4 'it'f5 ! worked out well for Black in the game Men-Yermolinsky, King's Island 1993. Instead 10 dxc5 1i'xdl (but of course not 10 . . . i.xc5?? 1 1 1i'xd5 :txd5 1 2 c4 +-) 1 1 :txdl :txdl+ 12 i.xdl lM5 13 b4 i.e7 14 a3 i.f6 15 i.d2 0-0 16 :ta2 :td8 17 �fl e5 is a variation given by Yer­molinsky without assessment, but now 18 c4 followed by 19 lbc3 looks better for White.

10 cxd4 Very safe is 10 lbxd4! ? i.xe2 1 1

1i'xe2 lbxd4 1 2 1.xd4 i.e7 1 3 :tdl 1i'c6 14 lDd2 0-0 1 5 lDf3 :tfd8 16 c4 1i'e4 17 �fl b6 18 b3 :tac8 19 :td3, giving White a queenside pawn ma­jority in the endgame, Tiviakov-Lau­tier, Linares 1995.

10 ... i.b4!? (D)

"I was quite proud of my move . . . i.b4" said Kasparov afterwards, although it looks strange to develop the bishop here when White's knight has not yet come to c3. The solid al­ternative 10 .. . 1.e7 is covered in Game 8.

11 a3 i.aS 12 lbc3 'it'd6 13 lbbS 'ii'e7?!

After this White is better, so criti­cal is 1 3 . . . 'ilfd5 !, the improvement Kasparov had planned when he re­peated this line in game three of his match with Deep Blue. Indeed it ap­pears that White has nothing better than to repeat with 14 lbc3, because both 14 b4 and 14 1.c4 (intending 14 . . . 'ilfxc4?? 1 5 lDd6+) are met by the surprising 14 . . . 1.xf3 ! capture.

14 lbeS 1.xe2 15 'ii'xe2 0-0 16 :acl :tac8 17 i.gS! i.b6 18 i.xf6

Crippling the black pawn struc­ture, as on 18 . . . 'iWxf6?, 19 lbd7.

18 ... gxf6 19 lbc4! :Cd8 Now Black's queenside pawns will

be doubled as well, but 19 . . . lbxd4 is impossible on account of the piece­winning fork 20 lbxd4 1.xd4 21 'ii'g4+.

20 lbxb6 axb6 21 :tfd1 rs 22 'ii'e3 'ii'f6 23 dS!? :xdS 24 :txdS exdS 25 b3! (the immediate 24 'ilfxb6 allows 25 . . . 'ii'xb2, attacking the rook on cl) 25 ... �h8? (preparing a whirl-wind kingside assault, but with hind­sight the decisive error; Kasparov could have still simplified to a draw with the surprising piece sacrifice 25 ... lbe7 ! 26 :txc8+ lbxc8 27 1Ve8+ �g7 28 1Vxc8 'ilfal + 29 �h2 1Ve5+ 30 g3 1Ve2, attacking b5 and f2) 26 1Vxb6 :gs 27 1Vc5 (27 'ilfxb7? 'it'g5

hitting g2 and c1 ) 27 ... d4 28ll:ld6 f4 29 ll:lxb7 ll:les 30 'ii'd5 f3 31 g3 ll:ld3 (the critical moment; after 3 1 . .. 'ii'f4 32 �h2?? comes 32 . . . l:txg3 ! 33 fxg3 'it'd2+, but the winning alternative 32 l:tc8! had clearly been foreseen by Deep Blue) 32 l:tc7 l:te8! 33 ll:ld6! l:te1+ 34 �h2 ll:lxf2 (threatening mate in one with . . . l:th1 , but there is a forced tactical win for White) 35 0.xf7+ �g7 (35 ... 'ii'xf7 36 'ii'd8+) 36 ll:lg5+ �h6 37 lbh7+ 1-0

After 37 . . . �g6 38 'ii'g8+ �f5 39 ll:lxf3 Black's mating net has van­ished.

This brilliant tactical victory cre­ated a little history; it was the ftrst time ever a computer had beaten a human World Champion in a normal time limit game.

Game S Nunn - Lutz

Germany 1994

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'ii'xd5 4 d4 ll:lf6 5 ll:lf3 .i.g4 6 .i.e2 e6 7 0-0

Usually White inserts 7 h3 .i.h5 here, but the move-order can simply be a matter of preference.

7 ••• ll:lc6 8 .i.e3 cxd4 9 cxd4 .i.e7 A recent idea is to spend a tempo

putting pressure on the white d-pawn with 9 . . . l:td8 ! ? 10 h3 .i.h5 1 1 ll:lc3 'ii'a5. Then 12 a3 ( 1 2 'it'b3 1Wb4 13 l:tfd1 a6 14 g4 .i.g6 15 ll:le5 1Wxb3 16 axb3 ll:lb4 17 .i.f3 ll:lfdS with equal­ity, Palkovi-Zsu.Polgar, Stara Zag­ora 1990) 12 . . . .i.e7 1 3 1Wb3 ( 1 3 b4 1Wc7 14 l:tc1 a6 15 1Wb3 0-0 16 l:tfd1 1Wd6 17 ll:la4 b5 18 ll:lc5 l:ta8 CCI Kise­lev-A.Sokolov, Russian Ch 1994)

4 . . . lLlf6 5 lLlf3 .i.g4 31

13 . . . 1Wc7 14 l:tfd1 0-0 15 dS exdS 16 ll:lxd5 ll:lxd5 17 l:txd5 .i.g6 18 l:tc1 l:txd5 19 1Wxd5 .i.f6, Acs-Palkovi, Budapest 1995, and here perhaps 20 b4!? would give a tiny pull for White as 20 . . . .i.b2?! 2 1 l:tc5 .i.xa3? fails to 22 'it'b3 ! .i.xb4 23 'it'xb4.

10 lLlc3 1Wd6 The most common retreat, though

the queen can also stay active with 10 .. . 1Wa5 1 1 h3 .i.hS when for 12 'it'b3 'it'b4 see the note after Black's 1 2th move in this game, and for others see Game 13, Chapter 5 .

11 h3 .i.h5 (D)

12 'ft3 White has a substantial choice: a) 12 a3 !? (maybe the best move­

order) 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 1Wb3 with a trans­position to the note to White's 13th move, and possibly the main game, whilst avoiding the irritating 12 1Wb3 'it'b4.

b) 12 'it'd2 0-0 1 3 l:tfd1 ( 13 .i.f4 'it'd8 14 a3 .i.xf3 1 5 .i.xf3 ll:lxd4 !? 16 .i.xb7 l:tb8! and then 17 .i.a6 e5 CCI

was the game Markovic-Atalik, Her­aklio 1993; instead 17 .i.xb8? fails to 17 . . . ll:lf3+ 18 .i.xf3 1Wxd2) 13 . . . l:tfd8 14 l:tacl l:tac8 15 a3 ll:ld5 16 b4 lbxe3

32 4.JiJf6 5 liJf3 J.g4

17 'ii'xe3 J.xf3 18 J.xf3 liJxd4 19 J.xb7 l:txc3 20 l:txc3 liJe2+ 21 'ii'xe2 'ii'xd 1 + 22 'ii'xd 1 l:txd 1 + 23 �h2 g5 24 g3 l:td2 = Afek-Andrianov, Ris­hon le Zion 1993.

c) 12 l:tc1 0-0 13 liJb5 'ii'd8 14 liJe5 J.xe2 15 'iVxe2 liJb4 16 lbc3 a6 17 l:tfd1 l:tc8 18 i.g5 liJfd5 19 i.xe7 liJxe7 20 'ii'f3 liJbd5 =i= Handoko­Petursson, Dubai OL 1986.

d) 12 liJb5 'ii'd8 (12 ... 'ii'b8 13 liJe5 J.xe2 14 'ii'xe2 0-0 15 liJxc6 bxc6 16 liJc3 liJd5 17 liJxd5 cxd5 18 l:tac 1 'ii'b6 and a draw was soon agreed in Ljubojevic-Kasparov, Moscow OL 1994) 1 3 liJe5 J.xe2 14 'iVxe2 liJb4 1 5 d5 liJfxd5 1 6 J.xa7 0-0 17 l:tfd1 'tWaS 18 a3 lbc6 19 J.d4 liJf4 20 'ii'n liJxd4 2 1 l:txd4 J.f6 :j: A.lvanov­Petursson, Saint Martin 1991 .

e ) 1 2 g4 J.g6 13 liJe5 0-0 (or 13 . . . liJd5 14 liJxd5 exd5 15 J.f4 0-0 16 l:tc 1 'ii'b4 17 liJxc6 bxc6 18 'ii'd2 'ii'b6 19 a3 a5 20 l:tc3 i.f6 "" Blatny­Fominykh, Stary Smokovec 1990) 14 f4 l:tad8 15 liJxc6 bxc6 16 J.f3 h6 17 l:tc 1 liJd5 18 liJxd5 cxd5 19 1Wa4 1Wb8 "" Kharlov-Loginov, USSR Cht 1991 .

12 •.. 0-0 (D) Although the b-pawn is not yet a

problem ( 1 3 'ii'xb7?! l:tfb8 14 'ii'a6 l:txb2), it was possible to offer the immediate exchange of queens with 1 2 . . . 1Wb4. This position has added importance, because it can also be arrived at via the move-order 1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'ii'xd5 4 d4 lbc6 5 liJf3 i.g4 6 J.e2 cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 liJc3 1Wa5 9 0-0 liJf6 10 h3 ..th5 1 1 J.e3 i.e7 12 'ii'b3 (now the threat to the b-pawn is real) 12 . . . 'ii'b4. See

Game 1 3, Chapter 5, for detailed cov­erage: the crucial continuation starts 13 g4 i.g6 14 liJe5.

Z B M ••• w � l. · � 1. � 1. - - - ­••mti & • • ··- · .

. . . . ... B D . B

•'fl� mttJB [j /j D Bi.D fj • � � • : � Ki • m *

13 l:tfdl 13 a3 !? and then: a) 1 3 . . . a6? ! (depriving White use

of the b5-square and cancelling out any ideas of capturing the pawn on b7, due to 14 1Wxb7? l:tfb8; neverthe­less, this dual-purpose move proves time consuming, as White can ad­vance in the centre) 14 l:tfd 1 l:tfd8 1 5 l:tac 1 b5 16 d5 ! ( 16 'ii'a2 b4 1 7 d5 exd5 18 liJa4? ..txf3 ! 19 J.xf3 liJe5 20 J.xd5?! liJxd5 21 liJb6 liJf3+! 0- 1 Cherniaev-B.Lalic, Hastings 1994) 16 . . . liJa5 (after 16 . . . exd5, 17 liJxd5 liJxd5 18 l:tc5 'ii'e6 1 9 l:tcxd5 l:txd5 20 'ii'xd5 'ii'xd5 21 l:txd5 J.g6 22 liJd4 liJxd4 'h-112 was Chemiaev-Rau­sis, Gausdal 1995, but 17 g4 !? liJaS 18 1Wa2 J.g6 19 g5 is a transposition back to Harley-Roberts; 1 6 . . . liJxd5 17 liJxd5 exd5 1 8 l:txc6! 1W xc6 19 liJd4 1Wg6 20 g4 Harley) 17 'ii'a2 exd5 ( 17 . . . liJxd5 18 liJxd5 exd5 19 i.c5 ;!;) 18 g4 J.g6 19 g5 ! liJe4 20 liJxd5 'ii'e6 2 1 J.b6 J.xg5 22 i.xd8 (22 liJxg5 ! liJxg5 23 .tg4 +-) 22 . . . .txd8 23 ..tfl 'ii'f5 24 ..tg2 J.h5 25 liJe3

'ilkf4 26 'ii'd5 1 -0 Harley-Roberts, British Ch 1993.

b) Passive but possible is the line 13 . . . .l:r.ad8 14 .l:r.ad1 .l:r.d7, e.g. 15 lDe5 .i.xe2 1 6 lL!xd7 .i.xfl 17 lL!xf6+ .i.xf6 1 8 lL!e4 lL!a5 19 lL!xd6 lL!xb3 20 �xfl .l:r.d8 2 1 lL!e4 .i.e? 22 llk3 .i.f6 23 lL!e4 .i.e? 1h- 1h Ivanovic­Miles, Nik§ic 1983.

c) Instead 13 . . . .l:r.fd8 14 .l:r.fdl will transpose into the main game.

13 ••• .l:r.fd8 1 3 . . . 'ifb4 14 d5 !? transposes to a

variation analysed in Game 13, Chap­ter 5.

14 a3 Now 14 .l:r.acl 'ifb4!? looks equal:

15 11kxb4 ( 15 g4 'ilkxb3 16 axb3 .i.g6 17 g5 lL!d5 1 8 lLixd5 .l:r.xd5 19 .i.c4 .l:r.f5 ! + Vorotnikov-Bazhin, Podolsk 1993) 1 5 . . . lL!xb4 16 g4 .i.g6 17 lDe5 lL!fd5, Estrada Gonsalez-Ljubojevic, France 1995.

14 ••• .l:r.ac8 14 . . . lL!d5 !? 15 lL!xd5 ( 15 .l:r.ac1

.l:r.ab8 16 lLib5 lL!a5 ! 17 'ifc2 .i.g6! 1 8 lL!xd6 .txc2 19 .l:r.xc2 .i.xd6 is equal, Kindermann-Babula, Moscow OL 1994) 15 . . . 11kxd5 (15 . . . exd5 16 .l:r.ac1 .l:r.ab8 17 'ilkc3 .l:r.bc8 1 8 'ilkd2 .i.f6 1 9 .i.f4 1h- 1h Harley-P.Nunn, London 1996) 1 6 'ilkxd5 (note that here 16 'ilkxb7 is answered by 16 . . . .l:r.ab8 17 'ilka6 .l:r.xb2, not 1 6 . . . lL!xd4 17 'ifxe7 lL!xe2+ 18 �h2 'it'xd1 19 .l:r.xd1 .l:r.xd1 20 lL!e5 ±) 16 . . . .l:r.xd5 17 g4 .i.g6 1 8 .i.c4 .l:r.dd8 19 lDe5 .i.e4 =i=, as in the gameBashkov-Schlosser,European Cup 1992.

15 .l:r.acl 'ifb8?! John Nunn gives the improve­

ment 1 5 . . . lL!d5 1 6 lL!xd5 'ilkxd5 so

4 . . . lLlf6 5 lLlf3 .tg4 33

that 17 'ilkxb7? can be countered with 17 . . . lL!xd4 =F.

16 d5! ;!; lL!xd5 17 ltJxd5 exd5 18 .l:r.xd5 .i.g6 ( 1 8 . . . .l:r.xd5 19 'it'xd5 .tg6 20 b4 ;t) 19 .l:r.b51 b6 20 .l:r.d5 (having probed for the weakness, White now has the idea of .i.a6) 20 ••• .tf6? (20 . . . 'ifb7 ! 2 1 .l:r.xd8+ lL!xd8 22 .l:r.xc8 'ii'xc8 23 'ifa4 llk6 24 .i.a6 i) 21 .i.a6 ± lL!e7 22 .l:r.xc8 .l:r.xc8 23 .l:r.d7 .l:r.e8?! 24 'ifa4! .i.f5 25 .l:r.b7 'ifd8 26 .l:r.xa7 lL!d5 27 .i.d4 h6 28 .txf6 lLlxf6 29 .i.c4 .i.g6 30 'ifb3?! lL!d7 31 'ifd1? (giving Black a fighting chance; 3 1 .i.d5 ! retains control of the position) 3l ••• lLle5! 32 'ii'xd8lL!xf3+ 33 gxf3 .:Xd8 34 .l:r.b7 .l:r.d6 35 b4 .:C6 36 a4 .l:r.f4 37 .l:r.c7 .l:r.xf3 38 .l:r.c6 .:C4?? (allowing a neat simplification leading to a winning rook endgame; after 38 . . . .te4 39 .l:r.xb6 .l:r.xh3 40 f4 White's queenside pawns should be fastest, but there is a lot of play remaining) 39 .l:r.xg6! .:Xc4 40 .l:r.xb6 .l:r.cl + 41 �g2 1-0

Game 9 Adams - Hiibner Wijk aan Zee 1996

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'ifxd5 4 d4 lL!f6 5 lL!f3 .i.g4 6 lL!bd2!? (D)

A remarkable new attempt. Ac­cording to the Russian international master Vladimir Belikov, this eccen­tric-looking move was dreamt up by Vladimir Kramnik in 1995 (though in fact there follow here several game references from earlier). White's idea is to play .i.c4, followed by a light­ning 'ilkb3 or 11ka4, depending on Black's response. Black's f7- and/or

34 4.J!Jf6 5 ttJj3 i.g4

b7 -pawns come under immediate pressure, and whatever the objective merits ultimately turn out to be, 6 ttJbd2 has already chalked up some quick victories.

6 ••• ttJc6 a) 6 . . . cxd4 7 i.c4 ii'h5 (7 . . . fid7

is proposed as best by Adams; in­stead 7 . . . ii'd8 8 fib3 hits f7 and b7) 8 ii'b3 ttJbd7 9 cxd4 (9 fkxb7 l:tb8 10 ii'xa7 dxc3 1 1 bxc3 is assessed ± by Shipov and Vlassov) and then:

a1) 9 . . . ttJb6 10 i.b5+ i.d7 1 1 ttJe5 e6 1 2 g4 ttJxg4 1 3 ttJxd7 0-0-0 14 fkc3+ 1 -0 Knazovcik-Voboril, Czech Cht 1993/4.

a2) 9 .. . l:tb8 10 0-0 b5 1 1 i.d3 fid5 1 2 l:te1 i.e6 1 3 fid1 i.f5 14 i.xf5 'ifxf5 15 ttJe5 ttJxe5 16 dxe5 lbd.5 17 ttJf3 'ifd7 18 e6 fxe6 19 ttJe5 'ii'd6 20 'ii'h5+ +- Lindgren-Cvetkovic, Eger 1987. This latter reference appears to be the earliest known game with 6 ttJbd2.

a3) 9 ... e6 10 'ii'xb7 l:tb8 1 1 'ii'c6! i.b4 12 ttJe5 ! 0-0 13 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 14 'ifxd7 e5? (Belikov gives best play as 14 . . . 'iia5 ! 1 5 'ii'c6! l:tfc8 16 'iia6! 'ifc7 17 0-0 i.xd2 18 i.xd2 'ifxc4 19 'ifxc4 l:txc4 20 i.c3 and White is a

pawn ahead) 1 5 'iixa7 fig6 16 0-0 l:tbd8 17 f3 i.h3 18 l:tf2 l:txd4 19 i.fl l:tc8 20 ttJb3 i.e1 2 1 ttJxd4 exd4 22 'iixd4 i.xf2+ 23 'itxf2 l:tc2+ 24 i.d2 'ii'g5 25 f4 'iia5 26 b4 1-0 Sveshnikov-Belikov, Russian Ch 1995.

b) 6 . . . i.xf3 7 ttJxf3 e6 was a radi­cal solution to the problem of i.c4 in Bojkovic-Lukin, Groningen 199 1 , but White must be better with the two bishops.

c) 6 . . . e6 7 i.c4 (7 i.b5+ ttJc6 8 'ii'a4 is promising for White -Adams) 7 . . . 'ifc6 (after 7 . . . 1i'd8, 8 'ifa4+ ttJbd7 9 ttJe5 i.f5 10 lMf3 a6 1 1 ttJxd7 'iWxd7 12 'iWxd7+ ttJxd7 13 i.e2 i.e4 = was Knazovcik-Walek, Czech Ch 1993 but moves like 8 'iWb3 !? are possible too) 8 fke2 ttJbd7 9 h3 i.h5 1 0 g4 i.g6 1 1 g5 ttJd5 12 i.b5 'iic7 13 ttJe5 0-0-0 14 ttJxd7 l:txd7 15 i.xd7+ 'iixd7 16 ttJb3 cxd4 17 ttJxd4 i.c5 18 ttJb3 i.b6 19 i.d2 fkc6 20 l:tg1 e5 1h-1h Dolmatov­Szekely, Calcutta 1996. White is an exchange up in the final position, but 21 0-0-0 could be risky. Whilst the immediate 21 . . . ttJb4? fails to the fork 22 'iig4+, Black could prepare this (or . . . 'ii'a4) for later.

7 i.c4 i.xf3 As 7 . . . 'ifd7 8 'ifb3 e6 9 ttJe5 fa­

vours White. 8 gxf3 Here Adams gives some thought­

provoking analysis: 8 'iib3 ttJa5 (8 . . . i.xg2 !?) 9 'ifb5+ 'ifd7 10 ttJxf3 ttJxc4 1 1 'iWxc4 = or 8 'ifa4 'iig5 9 ([Jxf3 'iixg2 10 'ite2! ("a move which I noticed at the board but didn't have the guts to play" - Adams) and now,

in this totally unclear position, 10 .. .'fi'xh1 1 1 d5, 10 ... 0-0-0 1 1 i.xf7 and 10 .. .'ii'g4 1 1 llg1 could all be dangerous for Black.

But there is a flaw in the 8 'fi'a4 line; the fantastic riposte S . . . .td 1 ! ! (Fritz) is +, as on 9 'fi'xd1 or 9 �xd1 comes 9 . . . 1i'xg2.

8 •.• 1i'gS? 8 . . . 'ii'd7 (8 . . . 'ii'd6 9 'fi'b3 e6 10

dxc5 'fi'c7 1 1 i.b5 1h-1h Sveshnikov­M.Makarov, Novgorod 1 995 ; 10 'ii'xb7 i s stronger) 9 dxc5 e6 10 b4 ( 1 0 lLlb3 gives White a solid edge according to Adams) 10 .. . a5 and now instead of the unclear 1 1 llb1 tLld5 12 i.xd5 'ii'xd5 1 3 a3 i.e7 of Vlas­sov-Atalik, Rethymnon 1995, 1 1 'fi'b3 !? ± (Shipov and Vlassov) looks promising.

9 lDe4 'fi'fS As 9 ... 1i'g2 10 lLlg3 threatens .tfl,

trapping the queen. 10 1i'e2 e6 On 10 . . . 0-0-0, l l lLlg5 ! is strong. 11 lLlg3 1fb3 12 dS lLld8 13

i.bS+ lLld7 14 i.f4! After just 14 moves it is apparent

that Black's position is a disaster. His queen is offside, and his king is

4 . . . lLlf6 5 liJj3 .tg4 35

caught in the centre, about to lose the right to castle.

14 .•• a6 15 .txd7+ �d7 16 0-0-0 �e8 17 libel .te7 18 d6 i.f6 19 d7+ �f8 20 lidS g6 21 .td6+ �g8 22 lLlbS! (D)

Wrecking whatever hopes HUb­ner may have had of co-ordinating his pieces. 22 . . . gxh5 23 llg1 + .tg7 24 lldg5 is terminal.

22 ••• i.g7 23 llxcS lLlc6 (the threat was 24 llc8) 24 llxc6 bxc6 25 1i'xa6! i.h6+ 26 f4 lidS 27 1i'c8 1i'h4 28 i.c7 llf8 29 d81i' 'fi'xhS 30 1i'xf8+ i.xf8 31 .td6 1-0

If 3 l ...�g7, 32 .te5+ f6 33 'ii'd7+ while on 31 ...'fi'b6, 32 llxe6! is quick­est.

5 4 . . . l2Jc6

1 e4 2 c3 3 exdS 4 d4

cS dS ..-xdS lDc6 (D)

This move-order is inaccurate for Black. After 5 lbf3 i.g4 6 i.e2 it can be risky for him not to exchange pawns with 6 . . . cxd4 - on the alterna­tive 6 . . . e6 White has the option of 7 h3 i.h5 8 c4! followed by advancing his d-pawn to d5. Whilst exchanging pawns on d4 early is not necessarily catastrophic for Black, it does mean that White has many more options than in the related lines examined in Chapter 4 (with the cautious 4 . . . lbf6 5 lLif3 i.g4 move-order). The most significant variation (after 5 lbf3 i.g4 6 i.e2) runs 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 lbc3 'ii'a5 ! ? (Game 13). The assess­ment of the endgame that can arise after the continuation 9 0-0 lLif6 10 h3 i.h5 1 1 i.e3 i.e7 12 'ii'b3 'ii'b4 is important, but it seems that with

energetic play White can gain reason­able winning chances.

Finally 5 dxc5 (Game 10) is noth­ing special for White after either 5 . . . 'ii'xc5 or 5 . . . 'ii'xd1+.

Game 10 Sveshnikov - Paoli

Plovdiv 1973

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS ..-xdS 4 d4 lDc6 5 dxcS ..-xeS

The positions arising after this re­capture, and 5 . . . 'ii'xd 1+, are similar to those covered in Chapter 3 (see Game 5, Blatny-Bonsch). Indeed if Black plays . . . lLif6 and White lLif3 over the next few moves, there will likely be a direct transposition. A de­finitive evaluation of the ending aris­ing after 5 . . . 'ii'xd1+ 6 �xd1 is rather difficult, as Sveshnikov is the only top grandmaster who has regularly played the position. However the omission here of lbf3 and . . . lLif6 would appear to favour Black: 6 . . . e5 (6 . . . lbf6 7 lLif3 transposes to the aforementioned Chapter 3; 6 . . . i.f5 7 .ie3 lLif6 8 lbf3 0-0-0+ 9 lbbd2 e6 10 i.b5 lbd5 1 1 i.xc6 bxc6 12 lbe5 lbxe3+ 13 fxe3 .ixc5 = Sveshnikov­Martynov, Val Maubuee 1990 - see Chapter 3 for another reference) 6 ... e5 7 .ie3 (7 b4 a5 8 .ib5 .id7 9 lLif3 f6 10 i.d2 lbge7 1 1 l:te1 axb4 1 2 cxb4 lbd5 1 3 i.xc6 i.xc6 14 �c1 � 15

a3 b6 ! + Sveshnikov-Rashkovsky, Moscow is a reminder of how the white queenside pawns can be badly undermined: if 1 6 cxb6 lbxb4) 7 . . . lbf6 8 f3 .i.f5 9 lbd2 lbd5 10 .i.f2 0-0-0 1 1 g3 was Izvozchikov-Gudi­meako, Rostov-on-Don 1977, and now 1 1 . . .e4 ! would have been good - if 12 fxe4 then 1 2 . . . lbxc3+! 1 3 bxc3 .i.xe4.

6 lba3 6 .i.e3 .. a5 gives White a choic�: a) 7 b4 'ilc7 8 lba3 lbf6 9 lbb5

'ilb8 10 lbf3 e5? (Euwe suggested 10 . . . lbg4 = intending . . . g6) 1 1 .tc4 .i.e7 1 2 .. b3 0-0 1 3 lbg5 lbd8 14 .:tdl ± Canal-Euwe, Zurich 1954.

b) 7 lba3 !? lbf6 (7 ... e5? ! 8 lbc4 'ilc7 9 'ila4 .i.e6 10 lbf3 f6 1 1 b4 ! .:tc8 12 b5 ± Markus-Bebchuk, Mos­cow 1 962) 8 lbb5? (instead 8 lbf3 !? gives a transposition to Chapter 3) 8 . . . a6 9 b4 lbxb4 10 cxb4 .. xb4+ 1 1 'ild2 .. xd2+ +. etc. was Bronstein­Vasiukov, USSR 1968.

6 ••• e5 A risky line. Safer is 6 . . ... a5 7

lLlb5 .i.d7 8 lLlf3 (8 b4 'ild8 9 lbf3 a6 10 lLlbd4 lbf6 1 1 lbxc6 .txc6 12 'ilxd8+ .:txd8 13 lbe5 .ta4 with the somewhat better endgame for Black, S veshnikov-Kuindzhi, Daugavpils 1974) 8 . . . a6 9 lbbd4 e5 10 tLlxc6 .txc6 1 1 .tc4 .:td8 12 'ile2 .td6 1 3 0-0 lbf6 14 lbd4 with active piece play for White, Bannik-Shaskov, Kiev 1978.

7 tLlbS .. e7 8 .teJ (D) 8 b3 !? gives a safe if modest

endgame plus to White; the threat is 9 .i.a3, so Black might have to con­tinue 8 ... 'ild8 9 .. xd8+ �xd8.

4 . . . lfx6 37

8 ... b6? Black had to allow White's threat:

in fact 8 . . . a6 9 .tc5 'ilxc5 10 lbc7+ �e7 1 1 lbxa8 lbf6 12 'ilb3 b5 1 3 a4 .i.e6 14 .. d l b4 15 lbc7 (15 .. d3 !?) 1 5 . . . bxc3 gave a very unclear posi­tion in the game Chekhov-Evans, Al­garve 1975.

9 .. f3! .tb7 10 0-0-0 .:td8 11 .:txd8+ lbxd8 12 .. d1 .tc6

Or 12 .. . lbc6 13 'ila4 a6 14 lbf3 f6 1 5 .txb6 ! axb5 1 6 .txb5 'ile6 17 .:tel tLlge7 1 8 .tc4 lbd5 19 'ilb5 +­Sveshnikov-Taimanov, USSR 1972.

13 ira4 .. d7 14 lbf3 .txf3 15 gxf3 tLlc6 16 .tc4 1-0

Game 1 1 Alekhine - Podgorny

Prague 1943

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS .. xdS 4 d4 tLlc6 5 tLlf3 .tg4 6 .te2 (D)

6 ... cxd4 This leads to the usual problems

Black has when he exchanges pawns on d4 very early in the 2 . . . d5 vari­ation. White's knight comes to c3 quickly, and Black's inferior devel­opment starts to show. However, as Black has played 4 ... lbc6 (rather than

JB 4 . . .ta6

the circumspect 4 . . . l0f6 of Chapter 4) delaying this pawn exchange is also not ideal:

a) 6 . . . 0-0-0?! . You can well un­derstand why this has been shunned by most strong players - the black king is visibly less safe on the queen­side - yet there has been no demon­strable refutation:

a1) 7 .i.e3 e5 and then 8 dxc5 -.xd1+ 9 .i.xd l f5 ! 10 h3 .i.xf3 ! 1 1 .i.xf3 f4 1 2 .i.cl .i.xc5 gave Black a fine game in Barlov-Krnic, Vrnja�ka Banja 1983, while the continuation 8 c4 .. d7 9 d5 .i.xf3 10 .i.xf3 l0d4 is not so clear.

a2) Perhaps 7 0-0 !? is the most accurate:

a2 1 ) 7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 lLlxd4 9 l0xd4 .i.xe2 10 'ii'xe2 'ibd4 1 1 .i.e3 .. f6 12 .i.xa7 ± Lane-Vratonjic, Sweden 1984.

a22) 7 . . . e5 8 l0xe5 ! .i.xe2 9 'ii'xe2 cxd4 10 lLlxc6 -.xc6 1 1 cxd4 ± A.Cohen-P.Tomesanyi, Balaton­bereny 1 992 is, like the previous line, clearly horrendous for Black.

a23) 7 . . . lLlf6 8 h3 ! .i.h5 9 .i.e3 e5 10 c4 'ii'd7 1 1 d5 .i.xf3 12 .i.xf3 lLld4 1 3 b4 -.f5 14 bxc5 .i.xc5 15 l0d2! �b8 16 l:bl l:c8 17 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 1 8

a4 l:hd8 1 9 a5 and the semi-open b-file gives White a strong attack, E.Vancini-J.Jefek, Corr 1990-2.

b) 6 . . . e6? ! 7 h3 (7 c4 immedi­ately followed by 8 d5 is also possi­ble, but White might as well insert the useful h3) 7 . . . .i.h5 8 c4 .. d6 (8 . . . -.d7 9 g4 { 9 d5 is a safe plus for White } 9 . . . .i.g6 10 d5 exd5 1 1 cxd5 l0b4 12 l0e5 -.xd5 13 .i.b5+ �d8 14 0-0 ± Adamski-Schneider, War­saw 1981) and here:

bl) 9 g4 .i.g6 10 d5 l0b4 1 1 0-0 exd5 ! (l l . . . f6? 12 lLlc3 lLlc2 13 lOb5 .. b6 14 .i.f4 e5 1 5 l0xe5 ! fxe5 1 6 .i.xe5 0-0-0 1 7 g5 h5 18 l:c l l0b4 1 9 .i.c7 -.xb5 20 cxb5 �xc7 21 .i.c4 +- was the spectacular game Nunn­Sher, Vejle 1994, while Nunn also analyses l l . . .l0c2? 12 l0a3 ! lLlxal 13 lLlb5 �6 1 4 .i.f4 l:c8 15 -.a4 ! as good for White; however, Judit Pol­gar's over-the-board improvement looks, with hindsight, very natural) 12 cxd5 0-0-0! 13 lLlc3 ltJf6! 14 'ii'a4?! a6 15 a3 .i.c2! (did Short overlook this shot?) 16 b3 lLlbxd5 17 l0xd5 'ii'xd5 18 .i.f4 -.xb3 19 'ii'a5 lLld5 20 .i.e5 f6 21 .i.g3 'ii'c3 22 'ii'xc3 lLlxc3 23 .i.c4 .i.a4 and Black wins, Short­J.Polgar, Stomoway rpd 1995.

b2) 9 d5 .i.xf3 10 .i.xf3 lLld4 and here:

b2 1) 1 1 0-0 e5 1 2 l0c3 0-0-0?! ( 12 . . . f5 !? is an untested suggestion by Vlassov) 1 3 .i.e3 f5 14 b4 ! cxb4 15 .i.xd4 bxc3 was Vlassov-Landa, Polanica Zdroj 1993 when 16 c5 ! 'ii'c7 17 d6 .i.xd6! 18 l:bl ! ! would have been winning for White.

b22) l l lLlc3 lOf6 12 .i.e3 e5 1 3 0-0 .i.e7 14 .i.xd4 exd4 15 l0b5 .. d7

16 d6 .i.xd6 17 .i.xb7 .:.b8 and now the tempting 1 8 lLlxd6+ 'iWxd6 19 'ifa4+ �f8 did not achieve much in Vlassov-Obodchuk, Moscow 1995. However 18 .:.et+! .i.e7 19 1lt'f3 ! 0-0 20 .i.c6 ± is the way to play.

7 cxd4 e6 Of course not 7 . . . .i.xf3? 8 .i.xf3

'iWxd4? as 9 .i.xc6+ removes the de­fender of the queen.

S lLlc3 8 h3 .i.h5 is commonly inserted at

this point. Play will generally trans­pose, and in some lines (for example the 8 . . . 1Wd7 variation of Game 12) it can be argued that 8 h3 is the more accurate move-order. The routine 8 0-0 !? of course is also possible.

s ••• .i.b4 The least meritorious of Black's

alternatives. 8 . . . 'ifd7 and 8 ... "it'd6 are covered in Game 1 2, and 8 . . . "it'a5 in Game 13. The 'undeveloping' 8 .. . 'ifd8 loses time - Black will have to rede­velop the queen soon anyway.

9 0-0 'ifaS 10 a3! (D)

Putting pressure on Black to relin­quish the bishop pair with 10 . . . .i.xc3 1 1 bxc3. It is risky for Black then to win a pawn with 1 1 . . . 'ifxc3 due to 12

4 . . . lLlc6 39

.:.b1 lLlge7 ( 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 "it'a4 .i.xf3 14 .i.xf3 lLlge7 15 "it'b5 .:.d7 16 .i.f4 and if 16 . . . "it'xd4, 17 .i.xc6 lLlxc6 18 "it'xc6+!) 1 3 .:.xb7 0-0 14 "it'a4 ±.

10 ••• lLlr6 11 d5! exd5 On 1 1 . . . .:.d8 White continues 12

"it'b3 with the idea of 1 3 axb4 'ifxal 14 .i.e3 trapping the queen.

12 axb4! "it'xa1 13 lLldl! .i.xe2 (Black has no choice, since White threatens to trap his queen with lLlb3) 14 "it'xe2+ liJe7 (after 14 . . . �f8 1 5 lLlb3 'ii'a6 16 b5 'ii'b6 17 lLla4 lLld4 18 it'd I ! White wins a second minor piece for his rook) 15 .:.e1 0-0 16 lLlb3 'ifa6 17 'ifxa6 bxa6 1S l:xe7 .:.abS 19 b5 axb5 20 .:.xa7 b4 21 lLle2 .:.res 22 f3 .:.as 23 .:.xaS .:.xaS 24 �f2 lLld7 25 lLlf4 lLlb6 26 �e3 .:.cs 27 �d3 g5 2S lLlh5 1-0

Game 12 Chandler - Jacoby

Hamburg 1980

1 e4 cS 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'ifxd5 4 d4 lLlc6 5 lLlf3 .i.g4 6 .i.e2 cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 S M "it'd7?!

The move 8 ... "it'a5 is examined in Game 1 3 . The other plausible queen retreat is 8 . . . 'iWd6, when if White continues unambitiously with 9 0-0 lLlf6 10 .i.e3, we will reach a posi­tion already examined in Chapter 4. However the temptation is to try to exploit the queen on d6 with a quick lLlb5 whilst Black's knight is not yet on f6. Indeed there have been some marvellously imaginative (and suc­cessful) attempts:

a) 9 lLlb5 'ii'd8 10 .i.f4 .i.b4+ 1 1 lLld2 .i.xe2 12 "it'xe2 lLlxd4 (12 . . . .:.c8

13 dS 'ii'xdS 14 l&;7+ l:lxc7 15 i.xc7 'ii'xg2 is a more critical test) 1 3 lDxd4 1i'xd4 14 1i'b5+ �f8 1 5 i.e3 i.xd2+ 1 6 i.xd2 'ii'e4+ 17 i.e3 'ii'xg2 18 i.c5+ lDe7 19 0-0-0 'ii'g5+ 20 �b1 b6 21 'ii'd7 l:le8 22 i.a3 with a dan­gerous bind for the two sacrificed pawns, Hajkova-Kubikova, Pardu­bice 199 1 .

b) 9 d5 !? exdS 10 0-0 lDf6 1 1 lDb5 1i'd7 12 i.f4 l:lc8 1 3 lDe5 i.xe2 14 lDxd7 i.xd1 1 5 lDxf6+ gxf6 16 l:laxd1 l:ld8 17 l:lfe1+ lDe5 18 i.xe5 fxe5 19 :Xe5+ i.e? 20 l:lde1 l:ld7 21 lDc3 ± Adams-McDonald, Hastings 1995.

c) 9 h3 i.h5 10 lDb5 1i'd8 1 1 i.f4 l:lc8 12 'ii'a4 i.b4+ 13 �fl lDge7 14 lDxa7 lDd5 15 lDxc8 lDxf4 1 6 lDa7 +- 1 -0 B .Filipovic-Zakil�. Yugosla­via 1995.

No doubt Black has improvements, but these examples give an idea of the risks to which Black has gratui­tously exposed himself by adopting the 4 . . . &&;6 move-order.

9 0-0 lDr6 (D)

10 h3 The direct 10 lDe5 ! could be more

accurate in this particular position,

as it cuts out some Black options. 10 ... i.xe2 (10 ... lDxe5 1 1 dxe5 is simi­lar variations examined in the main game) l l lDxd7 i.xd1 1 2 W6+ gxf6 1 3 l:lxd1 0-0-0 14 i.e3 i.b4 1 5 d5 ! i.xc3 16 dxc6 i.xb2 17 cxb7+ �b8 18 l:lab1 i.e5 1 9 g3 i.e? 20 l:ldc1 Matulovic-Trifunovic, Yugoslav Ch 1958, with good prospects due to the dangerous passed pawn on the sev­enth.

lO ••• i.hS?! After this we soon see the defect

with the position of the black queen, when the white knight leaps to e5. Necessary was 10 . . . i.xf3 !? 1 1 i.xf3 lDxd4 12 .i.xb7 11i'xb7 1 3 'ii'xd4 .i.e7 14 'ii'a4+ 'ii'd7 restricting White's ad­vantage to a modest endgame edge. However, it is worth bearing in mind that if White had chosen to insert h3 i.h5 earlier (at move 8), Black would not have this possibility.

ll lDes! lDxeS 1 l . . .i.xe2 1 2 lDxd7 .i.xdl 1 3

lDxf6+ gxf6 1 4 l:lxd1 gives White a superior version of the Matulovic endgame in the note to White's move 10.

12 dxeS i.xe2 ( 12 ... 'ii'xd1 ? 13 i.xd 1 ! i.xd1 14 l:lxd1 lDd7 15 lDb5 is very unpleasant) 13 1i'xe2 lDd5 14 lDxdS 1i'xd5 15 l:ld1 1i'a5 16 i.gS! i.e7 (or 16 . . . h6 17 'ii'd3! 'ii'd5 18 'ii'xd5 exdS 19 .i.e3, but now Black's centralised king suffers the atten­tions of the white heavy artillery) 17 i.xe7 �xe7 18 1i'g4! 1i'xe5 19 1i'b4+ �f6 20 l:ld7 l:lhf8 21 l:le1 1i'b8 22 1i'h4+! �g6 23 1i'g4+ �6 24 lhr7+! 1-0

After 24 ... :Xf7, 25 l:lxe6 is mate.

Game 1 3 Smagin - Armas

Germany 1991

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS .. xdS 4 d4 lbc6 5 lbf3 .i.g4 6 .i.e2 cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 lbc3 .. aS (D)

Soundest; now, in response to 'ii'b3 at any stage, Black has the pos­sibility of . . . 'it'b4. It requires accu­rate and energetic white play to maintain the advantage once queens are exchanged.

9 0-0 9 h3 .i.h5 10 d5 ! is a very interest­

ing and aggressive plan discovered by Benjamin, involving a pawn sac­rifice for White: IO . . . exd5 ( 10 . . . 0-0-0 l l lbd2! .i.xe2 12 'it'xe2 exd5 13 0-0 lbf6 14 lbb3 'it'c7 15 .i.g5 .i.e7 16 %bel ""• Benjamin; if IO . . . l:td8 then 1 1 'it'b3 with an attack) 1 1 lbd4 lbxd4 (if 1 1 . . . .i.g6, then 1 2 .i.b5 ±; after 1 1 . . . .i.xe2 12 'it'xe2+ j,e7 1 3 lbxc6 bxc6 1 4 0-0 �f8 1 5 l:te1 'it'd8! , 1 6 b3? ! j,b4 ! 17 j,b2 h5 18 'it'd3 l:th6 =F was the game Markovic­Maksimenko, Vrnjatka Banja 1992, but Maksimenko suggests the im­provement 1 6 .i.f4 with an unclear

4 . . . lbc6 41

position, and certainly White has compensation for the pawn) 12 j,xb5 lbe6 1 3 0-0 lbf6 14 l:te1 g6 1 5 j,g4 .i.g7 1 6 j,xe6 fxe6 17 'it'b3 0-0 1 8 l:txe6 �h8 1 9 j,e3 ± Benjamin­Zsu.Polgar, New York 1985.

9 ••• lbf6 10 h3 j,hS 11 j,e3 After this the variation can often

transpose into lines examined in Chapter 4, Game 8. A flexible alter­native worth further study is 1 1 .. b3 'it'b4 12 l:td1 !?, delaying the queen's bishop's development a little longer. The move-order 1 1 a3 is also nor­mal: 1 1 ...l:td8?! provoked sharp play in Capablanca-Czemiak, Buenos Ai­res OL 1939 after 12 g4 j,g6 1 3 b4 j,xb4 (?) 14 axb4 'it'xal l5 'it'b3 :Xd4 1 6 j,a3 j,c2 17 'it'xc2 'it'xa3 1 8 lbb5 and White won easily. More natural is 1 1 .. .j,e7 12 'it'b3 'ifc7 ! ( 12 . . . j,xf3 1 3 j,xf3 lDxd4 14 1i'xb7 lbxf3+ 1 5 'ii'xf3 0-0 16 j,e3 ;t Salov) 13 d5 lbxd5 14 lbxd5 exd5 1 5 'it'xd5 j,g6 16 j,e3 0-0 17 l:tac1 l:tad8 1 8 'it'b3 'ifb8 with a satisfactory position for Black, Salov-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 1992.

ll ... .i.e7 12 'ifb3 Attacking b7. The other main con­

tinuation is 12 a3 0-0 ( 12 . . . lbd5 1 3 'it'b3 lbxc3 14 bxc3 1i'c7 1 5 c4 ;t ls­tratescu-Vl.Georgiev, Halle 1 995) 1 3 b4 ( 1 3 'it'b3 'it'c7 14 l:tfdl l:tfd8 1 5 d5 exd5 1 6 lbxd5 lbxd5 17 l:txd5 l:txd5 18 .. xd5 j,g6 with equality, Schmittdiel-Zsu.Polgar, Dortmund 1990) 13 ... 'it'd8 and now:

a) 14 'it'b3 l:tc8 !? ( 14 . . . j,xf3 15 j,xf3 lbxd4 1 6 .i.xd4 'it'xd4 17 j,xb7 l:tad8) 1 5 l:tadl lbd5 1 6 lbe4 �h8 17 j,ci ?! 'it'b6 18 'ifb2 'it'c7 19

42 4 . . . �6

lLlc5 b6 20 lLld3 i.f6 2 1 lLlde5?! lLlxd4 ! 22 'ii'xd4 i.xe5 ! 23 'ii'h4 i.xf3 24 i.xf3 lLlf6 + Zo.Varga­Zsu.Polgar, Lillafiired 1989.

b) 14 b5 lLla5 15 'ii'a4 (this was good enough for a small advantage after 1 5 . . . b6?! 1 6 l:tfc l in Vasiukov­Toprover, USSR 1954, but a later game shows that White has over-ex­tended) 1 5 . . . i.xf3 ! 16 i.xf3 .Z:.c8 17 lLle2 .Z:.c4 18 'ikd 1 'ii'd7 19 a4 lLld5 20 i.d2 i.d8 :j: Gutop-Kuindzhi, Mos­cow 1976.

c) 14 .Z:.c1 .Z:.c8 15 'ii'd2!? (Grosz­peter-Zapata, Innsbruck 1977 went 15 lLla4 'ii'd6 1 6 lLlb2!? .Z:.fd8 17 lLlc4 �> 15 . . . lLld5 16 .Z:.fd1 with a position that needs practical tests.

12 ... 'ii'b4 (D)

13 g4!?

Some typical variations run 1 3 .Z:.fd1 ( 1 3 'ii'xb4!? i.xb4 14 g4 i.g6 1 5 lLle5 0-0 16 lLlxc6 bxc6 17 .Z:.ac 1 and White might claim a modest plus, Sveshnikov-Hansen, Copenha­gen 1984) 1 3 . . . .Z:.d8 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 d5 'ikxb3 1 5 axb3 exd5 1 6 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 17 .Z:.xd5 i.xf3 18 i.xf3 i.f6 19 .Z:.d7 ± Okhotnik-F.Lengyel, Hajdubosz­ormeny 1995) 14 'ii'xb4 i.xb4 15 g4 i. g6 1 6 lLle5 0-0 17 lLlxg6 hxg6 18 i.f3 i.xc3 ( 18 . . . lLla5 19 .Z:.acl .Z:.c8 � Okhotnik-Van We1y, Lyngby 1990) 19 bxc3 lLla5 � Van Mil-Zsu.Polgar, Lillafiired 1989.

13 ... i.g6 14 lLleS 0-0 1S gS 'ii'xb3 16 axb3 lLldS 17 lLlxdS exdS 18 .Z:.fcl i.fS 19 lLlxc6 bxc6 20 i.g4?!

White will still win a pawn with this, but the resulting endgame looks drawn. However 20 .Z:.xc6 !? a5 21 i.f3 gives White excellent winning chances: 2 l . . ..Z:.fd8 22 i.d2 i.e6 23 .Z:.xa5 .Z:.ab8 24 i.g4 i.xg4 25 hxg4 .Z:.xb3 26 .Z:.a7 i.f8 27 i.c3 ± Ser­mek-Sher, Bled 1993.

20 ... i.xg4 21 hxg4 f6 22 .Z:.xc6 fxgS 23 .Z:.c7 i.f6 24 .Z:.axa7 .Z:.xa7 2S .Z:.xa7 .Z:.b8 26 .Z:.a3 <otf7 27 <otn i.e7 28 .Z:.aS <ote6 29 .Z:.a6+ <otf7 30 .Z:.a7 h6 31 :as <ote6 32 .Z:.a6+ <otf7 33 l:.a5 <ote6 1/z-1/z

6 4 . . . e6 ( including 5 lbf3 lbc6)

1 e4 2 c3 3 exdS 4 d4

c5 d5 'ii'xd5 e6 (D)

Here we examine lines where Black plays an early . . . e6, and gener­ally . . . lLlc6 also, and White avoids the main-line variations (with .i.d3) of later chapters. There are several reasons why developing the queen's knight so quickly with . . . lLlc6 can cause some small extra worries for Black. Also bear in mind that as the position can be reached via the move-order 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 c3 d5 4 cxd5 'ii'xd5 5 d4, these positions cannot necessarily be avoided if Black wishes to always play the . . . d5 lines of the c3 Sicilian.

In Game 14 we see one of those niggling problems for Black. After 6 lLla3 !?, 6 . . . cxd4? ! 7 lLlb5 'ffd8? is powerfully answered by 8 .i.f4 ! ±. In contrast, had Black played 5 . . . lLlf6

instead of 5 . . . lLlc6 (Chapter 7), he would have the defence 8 . . . lLld5 against this plan. There are also sev­eral variations where Black would like to have the useful option of . . . lLla6 or . . . lLlbd7, as can be seen in the follow­ing chapter which deals with lines where . . . llJc6 is delayed. Therefore 6 lLla3, against this particular move­order, is a promising continuation. White has real chances of an endgame edge in the main lines that arise after 6 . . . lLlf6 7 lLlb5 'ii'd8 8 dxc5.

In Games 15, 16 and 17 we exam­ine (after 5 lLlf3 liJc6) the deceptively ambitious move 6 .i.e2. If Black then tries to delay exchanging pawns on d4 for too long (6 . . . lLlf6 7 0-0 .i.e7), White has the thematic plan of 8 c4 ! 'ii'd8 9 dxc5 'ii'xd l 10 l:.xd1 (Game 1 5). Again a typical c3 Sicilian for­mation is reached, where White has that slight but nagging endgame edge on account of his queenside pawn majority. Therefore Black usu­ally exchanges pawns in the centre, and after 7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 .i.e7 9 lLlc3 must decide where to retreat his queen. 9 . . . 'i'd8 10 .i.e3 0-0 1 1 lLle5 ! ? is the subject of Game 1 6. Against the cru­cial test, 9 . . . 'i'd6, some world-class players have had success with the en­terprising manoeuvre 10 lLlb5 !? 'ifd8 1 1 .i.f4 lLld5 12 .i.g3 which must now be considered the main branch of this variation (Game 17).

44 4 . .. e6 (including 5 &DJ3 &Dc6)

Game 14 Sermek - Andersson

1ilburg 1994

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 1i'xd5 4 d4 e6 5 lbt'3

It is worth mentioning here that Smagin occasionally plays a system with 5 .te3. After 5 . . . cxd4 play will transpose into lines examined in Chapter 10; instead one unique con­tinuation was 5 . . . &Df6 6 &Da3 !? cxd4 7 &Db5 'ifd8 8 1i'xd4! &Dc6 (8 . . . &Dd5 9 &Dxa7; 8 .. . &Dbd7 !? 9 &Dd6+ ..i.xd6 10 'ifxd6 &Dg4 Smagin) 9 'ifxd8+ �xd8 10 !Df3 ! &Dd5 1 1 0-0-0 �e7 12 ..i.c5+ �f6 1 3 lDd6! ..i.xd6 14 ..i.xd6 l:.d8 1 5 .tg3 :;!; Smagin-Jovi�ic, Yugosla­via 1995.

Another annoying line (for Black) is 5 lDa3 !?, as there are some differ­ences with the related variation 5 !Df3 lDf6 6 &Da3 covered in Chapter 7:

a) 5 . . . a6 6 lDc4 &Dd7 7 lDf3 b5?! (for 7 . . . &Df6 see Chapter 7) 8 lDe3 'ifc6 9 a4 ..i.b7 10 axb5 axb5 1 1 l:.xa8+ ..i.xa8 12 dxc5 ..i.xc5 13 lDd4 .txd4 14 'ifxd4 lDgf6 15 'ii'b4 &Dd5 16 'ii'xb5 ± Kharlov-Sanchez, Iber­caja 1994.

b) 5 . . . 'ifd8 6 ..i.f4 !Df6 (6 . . . cxd4 7 lDb5 &Da6 8 'ifa4 ! ..i.d7 9 'ifxd4 :;!; Glavina-Pogorelov, Ceuta 1995) 7 dxc5 (7 lDb5 lDd5 8 ..i.xb8 l:.xb8 9 &Dxa7 ..i.d7 10 lDb5 .i.e? 1 1 lDf3 0-0 12 ..i.e2 lDf4 13 0-0 'ifb6 14 a4 cxd4 1 5 cxd4 l:.fd8 CZI Mukhametov-Kise­lev, Russia 1994) 7 . . . lDd5 8 ..i.d6 ..i.xd6 9 cxd6 'ifxd6 10 g3 0-0 1 1 ..i.g2 'ifa6 12 'ii'e2 wasn't much for White in the game Vorotnikov-Stepanov, Moscow 1992.

c) 5 . . . cxd4 6 &Db5 lDa6 7 'ifxd4 'ifxd4 (for 7 . . . lDf6 8 ..i.e3 see the next note) 8 &Dxd4 with a better endgame for White, e.g. 8 . . . &Dc7 9 ..i.f4!? lDd.5 10 ..i.b5+ ..i.d7 1 1 ..i.xd7+ �xd7 12 ..i.g3 .td6 1 3 c4 .txg3?! 14 cxd5 ! ..i.e5 15 dxe6+ fxe6 16 &Dgf3 ± Khar­lov-Thni.k, USSR 1990.

d) 5 ... lDf6 6 &Db5 (or 6 ..i.e3 cxd4 7 lDb5) 6 . . . lDa6 7 ..i.e3 (7 !Df3 lDf6 transposes to Chapter 7, Game 1 9) 7 . . . cxd4 8 'ii'xd4 'ifxd4 (8 . . . .tc5? is a blunder: 9 'ii'xc5 ! ! 'ifxc5 10 .txc5 &Dxc5 1 1 lDc7+, winning, was Svesh­nikov-Osnos, Rostov 1993, while 8 . . . b6?! 9 'ifa4! is also unpleasant) 9 .txd4 b6 10 ..i.e2 ( 1 0 a4 !? &Dd7 1 1 a5 :;!; Sermek-Bukic, Bled 1992) 10 .. . ..i.b7 1 1 ..i.f3 .txf3 12 lDxf3 :;!; Sveshni­kov-Novikov, Tallinn Cup rpd 1988 and Kharlov-Zilberman, Leeuwar­den 1994.

Some of the sting could be re­moved from the above line by adopt­ing the move-order 4 . . . lDf6 - see Chapter 3, Game 5 .

5 .•. lbc6 In fact the game used the move­

order 5 . . . lDf6 6 &Da3 lDc6, but I have reversed moves in order to give some variations en route.

6 lba3 For 6 .te2 see Games 1 5, 1 6 and

17. Instead 6 .te3 cxd4 7 cxd4 lDf6 8 &Dc3 'ifd6 transposes to the main line of Chapter 10.

6 ... &Df6 The fishy 6 . . . cxd4?! 7 lDb5 ..i.d6

has been played a few times (but not 7 . . . 'ifd8? 8 .tf4). One route to an ad­vantage is 8 .tc4 'ii'e4+ 9 ..i.e3 ! (threatening &Dxd6+) 9 . . . .tb8 10

lDbxd4 lDxd4 1 1 1hd4 'ii'xd4 12 i.xd4 f6 12 0-0-0.

Instead, the prophylactic 6 . . . 'ii'd8 (to prevent lDb5 with tempo) gives White a pleasant game after 7 lDc2! (for 7 i.f4 lDf6 see Chapter 7) 7 . . . lDf6 8 i.d3 (8 i.e2 is also cov­ered by transposition in Chapter 7; after 8 .i.f4 !?, 8 . . . cxd4 9 lDcxd4 lDxd4 10 'ii'xd4!? 'ii'xd4 1 1 lDxd4 a6 12 i.e2 .i.d7 1 3 0-0 i.c5 14 lDb3 ;!;; was Sveshnikov-M.Mak:arov, Russia 1994; 8 . . . 1i'b6!? .., Platunov-Kon­dyba, Podolsk 1993) and now (D):

a) 8 . . . 1i'c7 9 'ii'e2 a6 10 .i.g5 cxd4 1 1 lDcxd4 lDxd4 1 2 lDxd4 .i.e7 1 3 0-0 lDd5 1 4 i.xe7 'irxe7 15 .i.e4 lDf4 1 6 'ii'f3 ± Vorotnikov-Vladimi­rov, USSR 1974.

b) 8 . . . i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 'ire2 b6 1 1 dxc5 i.xc5 12 i.g5 .i.b7 13 l:ad1 'irc7 ( 13 ... 'ire7 14 b4) 14 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 5 1i'e4 ± Braun-Postler, West Ger­many 1977.

c) 8 ... cxd4 9 lDcxd4 i.d7 10 'i'e2 lDxd4 1 1 lDxd4 .i.e7 12 .i.f4 lDd5 13 .i.g3 .i.f6 14 lDb5 0-0 15 0-0 .i.xb5 1 6 .i.xb5 'irb6 17 .i.d3 ± Vorotni­kov-Pukshanskia, Leningrad 198 1 .

7 lDb5 1i'd8

4 . . . e6 (including 5 lDf3 lDc6) 45

After 7 . . . 'ii'd7, 8 dxc5 .i.xc5 9 'irxd7+ �xd7 10 .i.f4 lDds 1 1 0-0-0 �e7 is a known transposition to the main game, but White also has 8 lDe5 ! lDxe5 9 dxe5 lDd5 10 c4 lDb4 1 1 .i.e3 .i.e7 12 a3 'ii'xd1+ 13 �xd1 lDa6 14 .i.e2 i.d7 15 i.f3 0-0-0 16 �e2 i.xb5 17 cxb5 ;!;; Blatny-Bt>nsch, Leipzig 1988.

8 dxc5 .i.xc5 9 1i'xd8+ �xd8 10 i.f4!

10 i.g5 offers little, e.g. 10 . . . �e7 1 1 l:d1 a6 12 lDbd4 lDxd4 13 lDxd4 l:d8 = S.Arkell-Carlier, Guernsey 1987.

to ... lDds Alternatives: a) 10 . . . lDe4 1 1 lDbd4 f6 12 l:d1

lDxd4 1 3 lDxd4 �e7 14 i.d3 lDd6 ( 14 . . . lDg5 15 i.xg5 { 1 5 i.e3 !? ) 1 5 . . . fxg5 1 6 lDf3 h6 17 h4 gxh4 18 l:xh4 l:d8 19 �e2 i.d7 20 l:g4 with a very small initiative to White, Bar­lov-Sosonko, Haninge 1988) 15 .i.e3 .i.b6 1 6 f4 h6 17 0-0 g5 18 l:de1 .i.d7 19 lDxe6 ! .i.xe6 20 f5 ;!;; Doncevic-Kiefer, Germany 1986.

b) 10 . . . i.d7 1 1 lDd6 i.xd6 12 .i.xd6 gaining the two bishops is simply better for White, Howell­Murugan, Calcutta 1996.

c) 10 . . . a6 !? has proved solid in practice: 1 1 l:d 1+ ( 1 1 lDd6 �e7) 1 l . . .�e7 12 lDbd4 lDxd4 1 3 lDxd4 l:d8 ! (intending . . . i.xd4) 14 .i.e3 i.a7 1h-1h Lutz-Cladouras, Buda­pest 1989 is a typical example where White achieved nothing. However, there is an unexplored, if rather ma­niacal, possibility : 1 1 0-0-0+ �e7 ( l l . ..i.d7 12 lDbd4) 1 2 lDc7 !? l:a7 1 3 b4 ! .i.b6 ( 1 3 . . . i.xf2? 14 i.d6+

46 4 . . . e6 (including 5 l:iJf3 l:iJc6)

�d7 1 5 .i.g3+) 14 .i.d6+ �d7 15 bS ! and White is the aggressor in the crazy complications.

11 0-0-0 1 1 .i.g3 a6? ! ( 1 l . . .�e7) 12 lthl6

�e7 1 3 l:£Je4 .i.a7 14 .td6+ �e8 15 .i.a3 ± was Rodriguez Talavera-Vein­gold, Seville 1993 and Smagin­Worsfold, London 1990.

ll ... �e7 12 .i.g3 a6 13 l:iJbd4 l:£Jxd4 14 l:£Jxd4 l:td8 15 .i.e2 .i.d7

Or 1 5 . . . l:£Jf6 ! ? 1 6 l:£Jb3 .i.d6 17 .txd6+ l:txd6 18 .tf3 l:tb8 19 l:iJaS l:td7 20 l:the1 with the usual modest endgame plus for White, Strikovic­Franco, San Sebastian 1994.

16 .tr3 .ta4 16 . . . .i.xd4 17 l:txd4 .i.c6 as in

W ober-Titz, Austria 1 995, is a typi­cal liquidation. White gets a small edge with the bishop pair, but con­verting the advantage will not be easy.

17 l:td2! ;t l:td7?! 17 . . . l:tac8? allows the combina­

tional motif that also happened in the game: 18 .i.h4+ l:iJf6 19 .i.xb7 l:tc7 20 l:iJfS+! exfS 21 l:te1+, winning. The best defence is 17 . . . �f8. but An­dersson was actually following (al­beit slowly) the first round game his opponent had had at the same tour­nament. This turned out to be a most unfortunate strategy for the unsus­pecting Swedish super-grandmaster .. .

18 :tel l:tad8 (D) Now on 18 . . . �f8 Sermek gives 19

l:te4 ! and if 1 9 . . . l:£Jb6, 20 l:£Jxe6+! fxe6 21 l:txa4 ! l:txd2 22 l:tf4+ �e8 23 �xd2 ±. 19 l:txe6? would be a mistake because of 19 . . . l:£Jxc3 ! 20 bxc3 .i.a3+ 21 �b1 fxe6.

19 .i.h4+! ± This fine combination was a pre­

pared improvement on 19 l:te4 l:iJf6 20 l:iJfS+ �f8 21 l:txd7 .i.xd7 22 l:tc4 exfS 23 l:txcS ;!; Sermek-Magerra­mov, Tilburg 1994. White ends up with rook and three pawns vs two minor pieces.

19 ... l:£Jf6 20 .i.xb7! l:txb7 In his lnformator notes Sermek

analyses: a) 20 . . . .i.xd4 2 1 l:txd4 l:txd4 (or

2 1 . . .l:txb7 22 l:txa4) 22 cxd4 l:txd4 23 .i.xf6+ �xf6 24 .i.xa6 ±.

b) 20 . . . a5 21 l:te4 ! (21 .i.c6 l:txd4! 22 cxd4 .i.b4 ! with an equal posi­tion) 2l . . ..i.xd4 (21 ...l:txb7 22 l:iJf5+) 22 l:texd4 l:txd4 23 l:txd4 l:txd4 24 cxd4 ±.

21 l:£Jf5+ �e8 22 l:£Jxg7+ �f8 (22 . . . �e7 23 l:txd8 �xd8 24 .i.xf6+) 23 l:£Jxe6+ fxe6 24 l:txd8+ �f7 25 l:tc8 .i.d6 26 .i.g3 .te7 27 b3 .i.d7 28 l:tc7 l:txc7 29 .txc7 .tc6 30 f3 l:iJd5 3l .i.e5 .i.g5+ 32 f4 .i.e7 33 g3 h5 34 �c2 .tcS 35 �d3 l:£Je7?! 36 b4! .tfl 37 l:te2 .tb6 38 c4 l:£Jf5 39 a4! .tgl 40 b5 .i.f3 41 l:tc2 �e7 42 bxa6 lDd6 43 l:tb2 .i.e4+ 44 �c3 .tc6 45 .i.d4 lDe4+ 46 �d3 l:£Jc5+ 47 .txc5+ .txc5 48 l:tb8 1-0

Game 15 Sveshnikov - A.Sokolov

Moscow 1991

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'ii'xd5 4 d4 lLlf6

Of course 4 . . . tLlc6 5 tLlf3 e6 6 ..te2 tLlf6 is another move-order.

5 tLlf3 e6 6 ..te2 tLlc6 7 0-0 ..te7 8 c4! (D)

B

As Black is refusing to exchange on d4, White frees the c3-square himself for his queen's knight. The kind of ending that now results is typical of many c3 Sicilian lines; White has a useful queenside pawn majority to advance, and real pros­pects of a long-term endgame edge. On the plus side for Black, the open d-file means some major piece ex­changes are almost inevitable, which helps ease the defence. Instead after 8 .i.e3 Black has a choice:

a) 8 . . . 0-0 (steadfastly refusing to swap on d4) 9 dxc5 !? (9 c4 'ii'd8 1 0 dxc5 is possible, when l O . . . 'it'xdl l l :xdl tLlg4!? 12 .i.f4 has led to some complicated encounters) 9 . . . 'ii'xdl 10 :Xdl tLlg4 1 1 .i.d2 .i.xc5 12 .tel ! :ds 1 3 :xd8+ tLlxd8 14 a4 lbc6 15

4 . . . e6 (including 5 tLlf3 tLlc6) 47

tLlbd2 ..td7?! ( 15 . . . a5 !?) 1 6 a5 ! :ds 17 b4 .i.d6 18 tLlc4 .i.b8 19 b5 lbce5 20 lbcxe5 tLlxe5 2 1 :d1 �f8 22 c4 ± Pfibyl-Tarjan, Majdanpek 1976.

b) 8 ... cxd4 9 tLlxd4!? (9 cxd4 leads to positions examined in Games 1 6 and 1 7 , but where White has com­mitted his bishop to e3 rather prema­turely, e.g. the most dangerous plan, involving tLlb5 and .i.f4, is no longer sensible because White would have lost a tempo compared to Game 1 7) 9 . . . tLlxd4 (9 . . . e5 10 c4 ! followed by 1 1 tLlxc6 ;!;) 10 cxd4 (10 .i.xd4 =) 10 . . . 0-0 1 l lbc3 and now l l . . .'it'd8? ! 12 .i.f3 .i.d7 1 3 d5 exd5 14 tLlxd5 tLlxd5 15 'it'xd5 .i.c6 16 'ii'xd8 :fxd8 17 .i.xc6 bxc6 18 :ac l ;!; was Sydor­Drimer, Bath 1973, but 1 l . . .'it'a5 12 .i.f3 .i.d7 ! ? planning . . . .i.c6 with equality would have been better.

8 ... 'ii'd8 a) 8 . . . 'it'f5 9 tLlc3 cxd4 (9 . . . 0-0?

10 tLlh4 traps the black queen!) 10 tLlxd4 tLlxd4 11 'ii'xd4 e5 ! ( 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 ..tf4 :d8 1 3 We5 ;!;) 12 'it'd3 0-0 1 3 'it'xf5 .i.xf5 14 .i.e3 :res 15 :fd1 ;!; Sveshnikov-Sunye, Moscow 1989.

b) 8 ... 'it'd7 9 tLle5 !? (9 dxc5 .i.xc5 10 tLlc3 intending a3 and b4 gives positions similar to the main line) 9 . . . 'ii'xd4 10 tLlxc6 'it'xd1 1 1 :xd1 bxc6 12 .i.f3 .i.b7 13 tLlc3 0-0 14 .i.e3 :rd8 15 b3 e5 16 tLla4 e4 17 ..txc5 ! gave White a very good end­ing in Afek-Redon, Paris 1993.

9 dxc5 'it'xdl lO :xdl tLle4 Black delays recapturing the c5-

pawn to stop tLlc3 by White. Also common is the alternative 10 ... .txc5, which leads to the same type of the­matic endgame where White tries to

48 4 . . . e6 (including 5 li:Jj3 li:Jc6)

make something of his queenside majority: 1 1 li:Jc3 0-0 12 a3 b6 13 b4 i..e7 14 i..f4 i..b7 15 li:Jb5 !? .l:.ad8 16 i..c7! ( 16 li:Je5 aS 17 li:Jxc6 i..xc6 18 bxa5 bxaS 19 i..c7 .l:.xd 1 + 20 .l:.xd 1 :as 21 i..d6 �f8 = Sveshnikov-Ser­per, Minsk 1986) 16 ... .1:.xd1+ 17 .l:.xd1 .l:.c8 18 i..d6 �f8 19 i..xe7+ �xe7 20 li:Jd6 .l:.b8 21 b5 ! ! Kharlov-Istra­tescu, Metz 1993.

11 i..e3 i..xc5 1 1 . . . li:Jb4 does not prevent White

from expanding on the queenside: 12 li:Jbd2 li:Jxc5 13 li:Jd4 aS 14 a3 li:Jba6 15 b4 ! li:Ja4 16 .l:.dcl 0-0 17 c5 e5 18 li:J4b3 ± lvanchuk-Petursson, Lu­cerne Wcht 1993. Also I l . . .li:Jxc5 12 li:Jc3 b6 13 .l:.ab1 aS 14 li:Jg5 i..b7 15 li:Jge4 .l:.c8 16 a3 li:Jxe4 17 li:Jxe4 li:Je5 1 8 li:Jd6+ i..xd6 19 .l:.xd6 li:Jxc4 20 i..xc4 .l:.xc4 21 .l:.xb6 i..e4 22 b3 ! .l:.c8 23 .l:.e1 gave White what should have been a winning endgame edge in Acs-Csom, Budapest 1995.

12 li:Jd4! (D)

12 •• .i..d7 After12 . . . li:Jxd4 13 i..xd4 i..d7 14

i..f3 0-0-0 White gained a large posi­tional advantage with the clever 15 i..xe4! (15 i..xg7 li::Jx£2 16 .l:.xd7

�xd7 17 i..xh8 li:Jg4+ 18 �h1 li:Jf2+ 112- 112Sveshnikov-M.Makarov,Mos­cow 1991) 15 . . . i..c6 16 i..d5 ! i..xd4 17 .l:.xd4 exd5 18 c5 ± in Malaniuk­Al Modiakhi, Calcutta 1995.

13 i..f3 i..xd4 14 i..xd4 li:Jxd4 On 14 . . . li:Jg5 White continues 15

i..xc6 i..xc6 16 b4 !. 15 .l:.xd4 li:Jf6 16 li:Jc3 0-0-0 17

.l:.ad1 i..c6 (D) Sveshnikov has pressure on the d­

file and h 1 -a8 diagonal, and given a few moves will advance the queen­side pawns. Sokolov understandably decides to simplify, but the cost is a weakening of his pawn structure.

18 i..xc6 bxc6 19 .l:.xd8+ .l:.xd8 20 :Xd8+ hd8 21 f3! (± according to Sveshnikov, who believes that this is a winning knight endgame for White, in spite of the material equal­ity) 21. •. li:Jd7 (2 l . . .c5 22 li:Jb5 a6 23 li:Jd6 �e7 24 li:Jb7 li:Jd7 25 �f2 in­tending a3, b4 ± Sveshnikov) 22 �fl f5 23 �e3 �e7 24 b4 e5 25 a4 �d6 26 �d3 li:Jf6 27 c5+ �e6? (27 . . . �c7 28 �c4 a6 would put up the most re­sistance; now watch that legendary Soviet grandmaster technique as White plays over the whole board

whilst keeping everything under control) 28 bS! �d7 29 �c4 �c7 30 aS! a6 31 b6+ �b7 32 g3 hS 33 h4 +- lLld7 34 f4 exf4 35 gxf4 lLlf8 36 lLle2 lLlg6 37 lLld4 lLlxh4 38 lLle6 �c8 39 lLlxg7 lLlg6 40 lLlxbS �d7 41 �d3 �c8 42 �e3 lLle7 43 lLlg7 lLldS+ 44 � lLle7 45 lLle6 lLlds 46 lLld4 1-0

Game 1 6 Sveshnikov - J,Polgar

Biel /Z 1993

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS 1rxd5 4 d4 lLlr6 5 lLlf3 lLlc6 6 i.e2 cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 0-0

Also 8 lLlc3 first is quite routine, when Black should move his queen. 8 .. . i.b4 is inadvisable: 9 0-0 'itd6 10 a3 i.a5 1 1 'ifa4 0-0 1 2 i.g5 ! a6 ( 12 . . . i.d8) 1 3 i.xf6 gxf6 14 l:ad1 b5 15 'itb3 i.c7 1 6 lLle4 'ife7 1 7 "W'c3 ! i.b7 1 8 d5 i.e5 19 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 20 f4 l:ac8? 21 d6! and after Black's mistakes White has a com­pletely won game, Em.Lasker-Bern­stein, New York 1940.

8 ... i.e7 9 lLlc3 1rd8 For 9 . . . "W'd6 see Game 17. 9 . . . 1Wa5

is played rarely; in addition to 10 i.e3 followed by a3 and b4, White also has 10 i.b5 0-0 1 1 lLle5 lLlb4 12 1We2 a6 1 3 i.c4 "W'd8 14 a3 lLlbd5 15 l:d1 i.d7 16 i.g5 ;!; Tartakower-Gli­goric, Amsterdam 1950.

10 i.eJ To facilitate lLle5. Other squares

for the bishop achieve little, e.g. 10 .i.f4 0-0 1 1 l:c1 lLlb4 1 2 i.e5 .i.d7 13 a3 lLlbd5 14 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 15 i.d3 i.c6 16 1rc2 g6 1 7 1rd2 l:e8 1 8

4 . . . e6 (including 5 lLlj3 lLlc6) 49

l:fe1 lLlf6 19 'iff4 lLlh5 20 'ife3 l:c8 = Tal-Ricardi, Buenos Aires 199 1 .

10 ... 0-0 Alternatively, 10 . . . lLld5 1 1 lLlxd5

1Wxd5 ( l l . . .exd5) 12 lLle5!? lLlxe5 1 3 dxe5 1ra5 1 4 1rd4 0-0 15 l:fd 1 l:d8 1 6 'ite4 l:d5 17 i.d4 b5 1 8 a4 bxa4 19 i.c3 'itb6 20 l:xd5 exd5 21 'ifxd5 i.b7 22 'itd7 .. c6 23 'iVxc6 i.xc6 24 i.f3 ;!; Vaulin-Groszpeter, Kecske­met 1993.

ll lLleS!? (D)

11 ... lLlb4?! Aiming to maintain a blockading

knight on d5 looks tempting, but in the long-term White can bring too many pieces to bear on that square. From the alternatives, both 'b' and 'c' give good prospects for equality:

a) 1 1 ...i.d7?! (too passive) 12 i.f3 i.e8 13 l:c1 l:c8 14 l:e1 lLla5 15 d5 exd5 1 6 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 1 7 :XeS 'ifxc8 1 8 11fxd5 lLlc6 1 9 l:c 1 ± Harley­Headlong, British Ch 1993.

b) 1 l . . .i.d6 !?(interesting;Black thinks his active pieces will compen­sate for the defects in his pawn struc­ture) 1 2 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 3 .i.g5 l:b8 (also 1 3 . . . i.e7) 14 .. d2 h6 15 i.e3 lLld5 16 lLlxd5 cxd5 with equality,

50 4 . . . e6 (including 5 li::Jf3 li::Jc6)

Yagupov-Tiviakov, St Petersburg 1993.

c) 1 l . . .li::Jd5 !?, for example 12 li::Jxd5 exd5 13 'ii'b3 lLla5 14 'ii'a4 f6 15 b4 fxe5 16 bxa5 e4 (16 . . . exd4 17 .txd4 .td7 18 .tbS .txb5 19 'ii'xb5 ;t Sveshnikov-A.Sokolov, Moscow 1983) 17 a6 bxa6 18 .txa6 .txa6 19 'ii'xa6 'ii'b6 = Vaulin-Ruban, Smo­lensk 199 1 .

12 .tf3 Another method of pressuring d5

is 12 .tc4 !? ; then Smagin-Banas, Trnava 1987 continued 12 . . . ltlbd5 1 3 'ii'f3 'ii'd6 14 l:tac1 a6 15 .tg5 ltlxc3 16 bxc3 li::Jd5 17 .txe7 ltlxe7 18 .td3 ltlc6 19 l:tfe1 g6 20 h4! ±.

12 ... ltlbd5 13 'iVb3 aS 14 l:tacl lbxc3

Or 14 . . . h6 15 l:tfd1 l:ta6 16 .td2 li::Jb6 17 'i!fb5 a4 18 a3 ;t Sveshnikov­Georgadze, Tashkent 1984.

15 bxc3 a4 16 'iVc2 li::JdS 17 c4 ltlb4

17 . . . li::Jxe3 1 8 fxe3 .tg5 19 l:tcel ± Sveshnikov.

18 'iVbl a3 19 l:tfdl 'iVc7 20 .tf4 .td6 21 .tg3?!

Stronger was 21 c5 .txe5 22 .txe5 'i!fa5 23 .te4 ±.

21 ... ltlc6! 22 ltlxc6 .txg3! 23 hxg3 bxc6 24 l:tc3 eS! 25 'iVcl exd4 26 l:txd4 .te6 27 l:txa3 l:txa3 28 'iVxa3 c5 29 l:tdl .txc4 30 l:tcl .te6 31 :xeS 'iVb6 32 :as! g6 33 :as :Xa8 34 'iVxa8+ �g7 35 a4?

35 .td5 ! was still easily decisive according to Sveshnikov. The point is there is no immediate perpetual with 35 . . . 'i!fd4 36 .txe6 'ti'd1+ 37 �h2 'W'h5+? on account of 38 .th3. Now, in the game, White, has to

work hard to shepherd his passed a­pawn through whilst shielding his king from checks.

35 ... 'iVbl+ 36 �h2 'iVb6! 37 aS 'iVxf2 38 a6 'iVe3 39 'iVe4 'iVh6+ 40 'iVh4 'iVe3 41 'iVf4 'iVa7 42 'iVeS+ �g8 43 'iVbS 'iVe3 44 'iVb8+ �g7 45 g4 'iVh6+ 46 �g3 'iVe3 47 'iVh2+ �g8 48 'iVai 'iVa7 49 'iVa4 'iVc7+ SO 'iVf4 'iVaS Sl .tb7 gS 52 'iVe3 h6 53 �h2 'it>g7 54 'iVd4+ f6 55 'iVd6 'iVel 56 'iVg3 'iVaS 57 'iVe3 �f7 58 �hl ! (to stop . . . 'ii'c7+; meanwhile 58 . . . 'ilfal + can be met by 59 'W'g1) 58 ... 'iVb5 59 'iVcl 'iVaS 60 'iVe3 'iVbS 61 'iVcl 'iVaS 62 'iVgl .tdS 63 .txdS+ 'iVxdS 64 'iVbl 'iVaS 65 a7 �g7 66 'iVb7+ 1-0

Game 17 Lautier - J.Polgar

Linares 1994

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS 'iVxdS 4 d4 ltlc6 5 li::Jf3 li::Jf6 6 .tel e6 7 0-0 cxd4 8 cxd4 .te7 9 ltlc3 'iVd6 10 ltlbS!?

Giving a different type of position to routine continuations, as the white queen's bishop will end up on the unusual square g3 .

a) 10 .tg5 0-0: a1) 1 1 l:tc1 ! ? inhibits Black's de­

velopment: l l . . .b6 12 .txf6 .txf6 13 ltle4 or l l . . .l:td8 12 ltlb5 'iVb8 13 .th4 ! or 12 . . . 'W'd7 13 ltle5 !?. How­ever Black solves all problems with the simplifying l l . . .ltld5 12 .txe7 ltlcxe7 1 3 ltle5 b6 14 'iVd2 .tb7 15 l:tfd 1 ltlg6 as in Bjelajac-Jovi�ic, Stara Pazova 1984.

a2) 1 1 'iVd2 b6 12 l:tfd1 (12 l:tad1 ltld5 13 ltlxd5 'W'xd5 14 .txe7 li::Jxe7 15 ltle5 1i'd6 16 .tf3 lt:lds 17 ltlc4

1Wd8 � Kurajica-Timman, Bugojno 1980) 12 . . . i.b7 l3 l:lac 1 l:lac8 14 h3 llfd8 15 1We3 li)d5 16 li)xd5 1Wxd5 17 i.c4 1Wa5? (after 1 7 . . . 1Wd6 Black should be OK - 18 d5 li)a5 !) 18 i.xe6 fxe6 19 1Wxe6+ �h8 20 d5 lDd4 21 1Wxe7 li)xf3+ 22 gxf3 i.xd5 23 l:lxc8 l:lxc8 24 1Wd7 i.e6 (a last hope - 25 1Wxe6 1Wxg5+) 25 1Wxc8+! 1-0 Ionescu-Chandler, Innsbruck 1977.

b) 10 a3 0-0 1 1 b4 b6 12 i.e3 i.b7 13 1Wb3 l:lac8 14 h3 llfd8 15 l:lfd1 h6 1 6 l:lac 1 ao Rogers-Tarjan, Buenos Aires OL 1978.

c) 10 1Wb3 0-0 1 1 lld1 b6 12 li)b5 1Wd8 1 3 li)e5 i.b7 14 1Wh3 ! (an in­genious transfer of the queen to the kingside; Black should reply 14 . . . li)b4 ao) 14 . . . a6?! 15 lDc3 li)b4 ( 15 . . . li)xd4 16 i.d3) 1 6 a3 li)bd5 17 i.d3 l:lc8 1 8 li)e2 1Wd6 1 9 i.g5 g 6 20 li)g3 with an attack, Balshan-Speelman, Hast­ings 1 978.

d) 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 llc 1 and here Black has tried a variety of set-ups:

d 1 ) 1 1 .. .li)g4 12 i.d3 ! b6? ! was the game Brynell-Khenkin, Stock­holm 1991 , and now Khenkin analy­ses 1 3 i.xh7+! ! �xh7 14 li)e4 1Wd5 15 li)fg5+ i.xg5 16 li)xg5+ �g8 17 1Wxg4.

d2) 1 l . ..lld8 12 1Wd2 b6? 13 i.f4 1Wd7 14 i.b5 i.d6 15 d5 exd5 16 i.g5 i.b7 17 i.xf6 gxf6 18 li)xd5 ± Harley-Hennigan, Norwich 1994.

d3) 1 1 . .. b6 1 2 1Wd2 (alterna­tively 1 2 li)b5? ! 1Wd7 13 li)e5 li)xe5 14 l:lc7 1Wd8 15 dxe5 lDd5 16 l:lxa7 l:lxa7 17 li)xa7 i.b7 18 i.f3 1Wb8 19 'iVa4 'iVxe5 20 i.d4 Wf4 21 1Wd7 i.a6 22 l:ld 1 i.d6 0- 1 Pfibyl-Tal,

4 . . . e6 (including 5 li)j3 li)c6) 51

Erevan 1982) 12 ... i.b7 13 i.f4 Wd8 14 llfd 1 li)b4 15 li)e5 lieS 1 6 a3 li)bd5 1 7 i.f3 i.a8 1 8 li)xd5 i.xd5 1 9 li)c6 'iVd7 20 li)xe7+ 1Wxe7 =

Sveshnikov-Tal, USSR Ch 1985. Although these standard continu­

ations are quite playable, Black can usually equalise with a well-timed . . . li)d5 or . . . b6. Hence the keenness of White to disturb the equilibrium with the swift 10 li)b5 !? followed by i.f4, as in the main game we are fol­lowing.

10 ... 'fi'd8 (D)

ll ..tf4 This aggressive plan has become

very popular. Instead 1 1 li)e5 0-0 12 li)xc6 bxc6 1 3 li)c3 and Black seeks active piece play to compensate for his weak c6-pawn:

a) 13 . . . lDd5 14 li)a4 i.f6 15 i.f3 llb8 16 b3 ! i.a6 17 lle1 i.b5 18 lDc5 li)c3 19 1Wc2 i.xd4? ( 19 . . . Wxd4 !? 20 i.e3 _.d8 21 l:lac1 intending 22 li)e4 ao Blatny) 20 i.b2 ! i.xc5 21 'iVxc3 'iVf6 22 1Wxf6 gxf6 23 i.xf6 ± Braga-Schlosser, Mitropa Cup 1993 .

b) 13 . . . 'iVa5 14 1Wa4 1Wb6 15 'iVc4 l:ld8 16lld 1 00 17li)a4 'iVc7 18 i.f3 a5 19 lDc5 'iVa7 20 b3 e5 21 i.b2 f5 !

52 4 . . . e6 (including 5 liJf3 liJc6)

22 g3 e4 23 .i.g2 �h8 Smyslov-Pol­gar, Monaco 1994, assessed by Smys­lov as "'·

c) 13 ... llb8 14 liJa4 lDds 15 'ili'c2 llb4 16 .i.e3 liJxe3 17 fxe3 .i.g5 18 llf3 .i.xe3+ ! 19 llxe3 'ili'xd4 20 �f2 llxa4 21 lld 1 'ili'f6+ 22 llf3 llf4 + Bannik-Korchnoi, Moscow 1961.

u ... �dS On 1 1 . . .0-0 a key position arises

after 12 .i.c7 'ili'd7 1 3 �e5 liJxe5 14 dxe5 (14 .i.xe5 a6 15 �c7 lla7 has been seen a few times) 14 . . . liJd5 15 .i.d6 a6 16 .i.xe7 'flxe7 17 �6 .i.d7. White's knight on d6 is cer­tainly dominating, but in practice Black has held the draw by putting his bishop on c6, playing . . . f6, and exchanging some rooks on the f-file, e.g. 18 'ili'd4 .i.c6 19 f4 f6 20 .i.g4 llad8 21 llae1 (21 llad1 fxe5 22 fxe5 �c7 23 'ife3 �5 24 'ili'g3 h6 25 .i.h5 llxfl + 26 llxfl llf8 27 llxf8+ 'iii>xf8 28 'fig6 �f4 29 'ili'h7 'ili'g5 30 'ifh8+ �e7 31 �8+ �d7 32 �b6+ riile7 '12- 112 Yagupov-Kiseliov, Russia 1994) 21 . . .liJc7 22 'ili'e3 fxe5 23 fxe5 �d5 24 'ji'd2 �c7 25 'ili'e3 �5 26 'ifg3 �7 27 h4 .i.d5 28 a4 .i.c6 29 .i.d 1 llxfl + 30 llxfl llf8 3 1 llxf8+ 'ifxf8 32 .i.b3 �d5 33 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 34 a5 h6 35 1Wf2 '1Ve7 = Meister­Yagupov, Russia 1994.

12 .i.g3 0-0 Of course 12 . . . a6 !? 13 �3 0-0 is

possible, but then White has greater pressure on d5:

a) 14llc1 �f6 15 h3 b6 16 a3 i.b7 17 .i.d3 l:tc8 18 .i. b 1 b5 19 'ji'd3 �a5 20 �5 �c4 "' J .Polgar-Tiviakov, Madrid 1994.

b) 14 '1Vb3 and now:

bl) 14 . . . .i.d6 15 llacl �f4?! 16 llfd1 �xe2+ 17 lDxe2 .i.xg3 18 hxg3 '1Vd6 19 liJf4 lld8 20 d5 ± Svesh­nikov-Kaiumov, USSR 1983.

b2) 14 . . . b6 15 �xd5 exd5 16 llac1 .i.b7 17 llfd1 llc8 18 llc3 b5 19 �e5 ;!; Sveshnikov-Micic, Cheli­abinsk 1990.

b3) 14 . . . �f6 15 llfd1 b5 !? is in­teresting, e.g. 16 llac1 .i.b7 17 a3 llc8 18 'ji'a2 '1Vb6 19 d5 exd5 20 �xd5 �xd5 21 'ili'xd5 .i.f6 :j: Daniliuk­Galkin, Briansky 1995 .

b4) 14 . . . �xc3 15 bxc3 b5 (or 15 . . . .i.d6 16 .i.xd6 'ji'xd6 17 1Wb6 with modest pressure for White, Stri­punsky-Nedobora, Noiabrsk 1995) 16 llfd1 .i.b7 17 a4 b4 18 d5! exd5 19 cxb4 �xb4 (19 .. . .i.xb4 !? Chemiaev) 20 a5 ! lle8 (20 . . . .i.c8 !? Cherniaev) 21 .i.fl .i.c5 22 lla4 '1Ve7 23 llb1 ± Chemiaev-Khenkin, Biel 1994.

13 .i.c4 a6 14 .i.xdS (D)

14 ... exd5?! Safer is 14 . . . axb5 15 .i.e4 !? lla6

(15 . . . 11i'b6 16 .i.f4 lld8 17 .i.e3 'ifa5 18 1Wc2 g6 19 .i.xc6 bxc6 20 'ji'xc6 b4 21 �5 f6 22 �4 1Wa6 23 d5 .i.d7 24 1Wxa6 llxa6 25 d6 ± Kharlov­Badea, Berlin 1994) 16 1We2 ! f5

( 16 . . . ltlxd4 17 ltlxd4 W"xd4 18 :tfd l 1Wb6 19 i.d3 J:[ aS 20 W"c2) and now instead of 17 i.d3 "" Sveshnikov­Korchnoi, Biel IZ 1993, Sveshnikov claims 17 i.xc6 bxc6 18 i.f4 is ;t.

15 tlJc7 .l:.a7 15 . . . :tb8 16 ltle5 i.f6 17 :tel

i.xe5 18 i.xe5 ltlxe5 19 dxe5 d4 20 1Wd3 i.g4 2 1 h3 i.h5 22 e6 :tc8 23 1lrg3 favoured White in Sveshnikov­Foisor, Sochi 1985.

16 1lrb3 i.d6 16 . . . i.g4!? (with the idea 16 ltlxd5

i.d6 ! "") has not yet been refuted. 17 :tad1 ( 17 1lrb6 i.xf3 1 8 gxf3 i.b4 intending . . . i.a5 was Bousfiha­Lhagvasuren, Moscow OL 1994) 17 . . . i.d6 18 ltlxd5 i.xg3 19 hxg3 i.e6 20 lLlf6+ W"xf6 21 d5 i.g4 22 dxc6 'ili'xc6 was nothing for White in Sveshnikov-Gola, Moscow 1989. As the game continuation is advanta­geous for White, this looks the cur­rently critical line.

17 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 18 'ii'b6 f6 White threatened ti)e5. 19 :act :C7 Alternatively 19 . . . i.g4 20 :tc5

:n (20 ... i.xf3 21 gxf3 'ii'f4 22 :xc6

4 . . . e6 (including 5 lLlj3 lLlc6) 53

bxc6 23 'ii'xa7 'ii'xf3 24 J:[cl and Black has no perpetual, Kharlov­ROder, Torey 199 1 ) 2 1 ltlxd5 i.xf3 22 gxf3 a5 Fomin-Shulman, St Pe­tersburg 1994, and here Lautier gives 23 J:[el ! ±.

20 lLleS! 'ii'd7 On 20 . . . 'ii'f4 !? Lautier gives 21

:xc6! (21 'ii'c5 ;t i.g4!?) 21 bxc6 22 1i'd8 J:[f8 23 1Wxc8 J:[e7 24 1i'xa6 J:[fxe8 25 1Wxc6 with a clear advan­tage for White.

21 J:[fe1 aS! 22 tlJc7 h6 (of course if 22 . . . 'ihc7, 23 J:[e8+) 23 ltle6! a4 24 h3 .l:.a6 25 'ii'c5 ltle7 26 lLlr4 :tc6 27 'ifaS (now that White's queen's knight has settled on f4, after its re­markable journey via e8, White has an edge; best now for Black is 27 . . . �h7 according to Joel Lautier) 27 •.. :xct?! 28 :.Xcl �h7 29 'ii'c5! ± 'ii'f5 (the black pieces are too awk­wardly placed to stop the threat; 29 . . . :tf8 30 ltlxd5 ! doesn't help) 30 ltlxd5! ltlxd5 31 'ii'xc8 :td7 32 J:[el lLlf4 33 J:[e8 ltlg6 34 'ifc4? ! h5 35 'ii'e6 'ii'bl+? 36 �h2 :tc7 37 'ifd5! �h6 38 g4 hxg4 39 hxg4 f5 40 'ifd6 1-0

7 4 . . . e6 5 liJf3 liJf6 deferring . . . liJc6

1 e4 2 c3 3 exd5 4 d4 5 �13

c5 d5 •xd5 e6 �f6 (D)

As the title of the chapter sug­gests, here we deal with lines where the move . . . �c6 is either long de­layed or not played by Black. Natu­rally if Black does play . . . �c6, there are often transpositions to and from other chapters. There is also another important point to note: the move 6 i.e3 !? is commonly employed to seek a transposition to Chapter I 0 (after 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 �c6 8 �c3 .. d6 9 a3 i.e7 10 i.d3), and it is not clear that Black can avoid this.

Game 18 deals with the modest 6 i.e2 systems. For once Black might regret not developing his queen's knight earlier, as 8 �5 ! ? is a direct

and logical exploitation. Games 19 and 20 cover the 6 �a3 lines, where postponing . . . �c6 definitely gives Black a wider choice of defences to counter ideas like �b5 and i.f4. For example, the move . . . �a6 is avail­able if required. However, these 6 �a3 systems are popular with White, and this is understandable when you see that the 'undeveloping' 6 . . ... d8 (Game 20) is the main line ! After the continuation 7 �c2 (also 7 i.f4 !?) White very rarely gets an isolated d­pawn, as he can always recapture on d4 with either his queen or a knight. Whether to evaluate many of the re­sulting positions '=' or ';!;;' is a matter of taste. White has, in many cases, only an exceedingly modest edge; but there again, he has no weak­nesses and there are few losing chances. On the whole I have as­sessed these positions as equal, but if you are a higher-rated player want­ing to win with Black, this is not the sort of equality you want! So if you favour the �a3 systems with White, don't necessarily be discouraged by the '=' assessments - many of these positions have play left in them.

Finally, Game 21 covers 6 i.d3 lines where Black attempts to gain a tangible concession by delaying both the development of his queen's

knight and the exchange . . . cxd4. Af­ter 6 . . . .ie7 7 0-0 0-0 White has a choice. He can concede that Black has played a clever move-order, and continue 8 .ie3 or 8 'ir'e2, when after . . . cxd4 and/or . . . tDc6 we reach posi­tions examined in later chapters where White is now committed to certain systems. Or White can con­tinue 8 c4 !?, with unclear play. At present this move-order looks quite playable for Black.

In conclusion, as a general rule, it is sensible for Black to delay . . . tDc6 for a while as it takes some of the sting out of White's early tDa3 sys­tems. However if White chooses the 6 .ie2 .ie7 7 0-0 line (with a view to a quick tDe5 !?), then 7 . . . tDc6 or 7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 tDc6 should be con­sidered, giving a transposition to other chapters.

Game 18 Kr.Georgiev - Lalev

Bulgaria 1983

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS 'ii'xdS 4 d4 e6 5 tDf3 tDf6 6 .ie2 .ie7 7 0-0

Instead 7 .ie3 cxd4 8 cxd4 0-0 9 tDc3 'ii'd6 10 0-0 would transpose into a line from Chapter 6, Game 17, while 7 . . . tDg4 8 .if4 0-0 9 0-0 is an­alysed in the note to White's eighth move in the present game. 7 c4 also transposes to the present game after 7 . . . 'ii'd8 8 0-0 0-0.

A flexible move is 7 tDa3 when 7 . . . tDc6?! 8 tDb5 'ii'd8 9 dxc5 .ixc5 10 'ii'xd8+ gives White an extra tempo (.ie2) on the endgame exam­ined in Chapter 6, Game 14. White

4 . . . e6 5 tDf3 {£jf6 deferring ... ttk6 55

also seems to retain a plus after 7 .. . 0-0 8 tDb5, e.g. 8 . . . tDa6 9 0-0 cxd4 10 tDbxd4 tDc5 1 1 c4 ! 'ii'd8 12 .if4 tDh5 13 .ie3 'ii'c7 14 tDb5 'ii'b8 15 b4 tDd7 16 c5 ± Radovici-Svesh­nikov, Bucharest 1976. A good re­sponse is the prophylactic 7 . . . 'ii'd8 ! , when after 8 tDc2 the white bishop is less aggressively posted at e2 (rather than d3) in comparison to some other tDa3 lines. Nevertheless White is in no danger of becoming worse, as he can always recapture with a piece on d4 and avoid an isolated pawn.

Please note that the actual move­order of the illustrative game ( 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 exd5 'ii'xd5 5 .ie2 tDf6 6 0-0 .ie7 7 d4) has been changed to accommodate the above note.

7 ... 0-0 (D)

s tDes a) 8 c4 ! ? (aiming to utilise that

queenside majority again) 8 . . . 'ii'd8 (8 . . . 'ii'f5? ! 9 tDc3 .l:.d8?? 10 tDh4 1-0 trapping Black's queen was the brief game Lane-Flesch, London 1983) 9 tDc3 (9 dxc5 .ixc5 10 tDc3 'ii'xdl 1 1 .l:.xdl tDc6 1 2 a3 b6 1 3 b4 .ie7 14 .if4 .ib7 15 .id6 .ixd6 1 6 .l:.xd6

56 4 . . . e6 5 liJj3 liJf6 deferring . . . l0c6

:t"d8 17 ltad 1 :xd6 1 8 :xd6 �f8 = is Stein-Fahnenschmidt, Germany 1 989 while 9 . . . liJbd7 !? Vatter-Rib­li, Germany 1 986 is also possible) 9 . . . cxd4 (9 . . . b6 ! ? "" of Sveshnikov­Georgiev, Athens 1983 is worth con­sideration; presumably the idea is 10 d5 exd5 1 1 cxd5 .i.b7 1 2 .i.c4 b5) 10 0.xd4 a6 (10 .. . e5 1 1 0.db5 l0c6 12 li:::.d5 i Mariotti-Soos, Rome 1982) 1 1 .i.f4 liJbd7 12 .i.g3 li:::.c5 (12 ... .tb4 1 3 'ft'c2 'ft'a5 14 :ac1 :e8 15 :fd1 'ft' g5 1 6 liJf3 'ft' g6 1 7 liJe5 0.xe5 18 .i.xe5 liJd7 1 9 .i.g3 i Brynell-Ko­chiev, Leningrad 1989) 1 3 .i.f3 'ft'b6 14 1i'c2 .i.d7 1 5 :abl a5 1 6 :rd t :ac8 1 7 'ft'e2 l:fe8 18 liJdb5 and White went on to win with a masterly endgame demonstration in Hort­Nunn, BBC Mastergame 1979.

b) 8 .i.e3 liJg4 (8 ... cxd4) 9 .i.f4: bl) 9 . . . 0.c6 10 c4 'ft'f5 1 1 .i.c7

cxd4 (Adorjan gives l l . . .liJf6 12 l0c3 cxd4 1 3 liJxd4 liJxd4 14 'ft'xd4 .i.d7 =) 1 2 liJxd4 liJxd4 13 'ft'xd4 liJf6 14 .i.f3 ± Sveshnikov-Admjan, Sarajevo 1983.

b2) 9 .. . :d8?! 10 h3 (improving on 10 'ft'c2 liJc6 1 1 l:dl cxd4 12 cxd4 liJb4 1 3 'ft'd2 1i'f5 f Hulak-Adorjan, Banja Luka 1983) 10 . . . 0.f6 1 1 .i.c7 ! :ct7? ! ( l t . . .:e8 1 2 liJe5 ±; alterna­tively l t . . .:f8 1 2 liJe5 liJa6 1 3 .i.f3 liJe4 14 1i'c2 f5 15 liJd2 0.xc7 16 lL!xe4 fxe4 1 7 .i.xe4 1i'd8 1 8 .i.xh7+ �h8 19 liJg6+ �xh7 20 liJxe7+ �h8 2 1 lL!g6+ �g8 22 lL!xf8 1i'xf8 23 dxc5 1i'xc5 24 :adl ± is analysis by Tsyn and Pechenkin) 12 c4 ! 1i'f5 13 g4 lL!xg4 14 hxg4 1i'xg4+ 15 .i.g3 ± Pechenkin-Vershinin, Russia 1994.

8 ... cxd4

8 ... :d8 9 .i.f3 1i'd6 10 .tf4! 1i'b6 l l liJd2 1i'xb2 12 0.dc4 -.,5 1 3 :bt 1i'e8 14 .i.xb7 .i.xb7 15 :xb7 ;t Sveshnikov-Novikov, Tashkent 1984.

9 cxd4 :ds a) 9 . . . 1i'd8 10 lL!c3 ( 10 .i.f3 is

also reasonable: 10 . . . 0.d5 1 1 li:::.c3 lL!xc3 12 bxc3 0.d7 1 3 .i.f4 liJxe5 14 .i.xe5 .i.d6 15 :e1 :b8 16 1i'd3 b6 17 a4 .i.b7 1 8 .i.e4 .i.xe4 19 1i'xe4 :c8 with equality, Dubrovolsky­Chekhov, Germany 1 993, but White had more testing plans available) lO . . . liJbd7 ( 10 . . . liJc6) 1 1 .i.f4 liJb6 12 .i.f3 liJbd5 13 .i.g3 1i'b6 14 liJc4 1i'd8 1 5 'ft'b3 b6 16 :ret :e8 1 7 :ac 1 .i.a6 18 lbe3 .i.b7 19 lL!b5 l:c8 20 l0c7 ! :rs 21 liJcxd5 i Svesh­nikov-Inkiov, Sochi 1983.

b) 9 ... liJbd7 !? 10 liJc3 ( 10 .i.f3 1i'a5 l l liJxd7 !?) 10 . . . 'ft'a5 l l lL!c4 'ft'c7 1 2 1i'b3 b6! 1 3 .i.f3 .i.b7 14 liJb5 'ft'b8 15 .i.xb7 (15 .i.f4? 1i'xf4 16 .i.xb7 a6 ! 17 liJc3 liJg4 18 g3 1i'h6 1 9 h4 .i.xh4 -+ Petursson) 15 . . . 'fhb7 16 .i.f4 a6 17 li:::.c3 l:fc8 1 8 l:fel b5 19 l0e3 liJh5 20 .i.g3 liJxg3 21 hxg3 .i.f8 = Hjartarson­Petursson, Tilburg 1992, but again, White had many options earlier on.

10 liJcJ! Stronger than 10 .i.e3, because

Black cannot capture the d-pawn with impunity: 10 . . . 1i'xd4 1 1 1i'xd4 :xd4 1 2 liJb5 :e4 1 3 .i.f3 :xe5 14 liJc7.

lO ... 'ii'aS 11 .i.f3 Perhaps even more promising is

l l liJc4!? 1i'c7 1 2 liJb5 1i'c6 13 liJe5 'ft'b6 14 a4! :rs 15 .i.f4 liJd5 16 liJc4 1i'd8 17 .i.xb8 :xb8 18 liJxa7 ± Sveshnikov-Gostisa. Bled 199 1 .

ll .. .li:lbd7 12 W'e2 llJxeS 13 dxeS llJd.7

Dubious according to Georgiev, but 13 .. . llJd5 did not fare better in the game Kharlov-Franco, lbercaja 1994: 14 llJxd5 exd5 15 lld 1 d4? ! (perhaps 1 5 . . . i.e6) 1 6 We4 Wb6 17 b3 a5 18 ..ib2 i.c5 19 llacl a4 20 tlfc2 lla5 2 1 b4 ..ixb4 22 Wxc8 i.f8 23 t!fc7 1-0.

14 ..if4 1lb8? Falling for a magnificient tactic.

14 . . . llJc5 !? intending 15 . . . i.d7 needs a practical test.

1s liJdS! ..trs Or 1 5 . . . exd5 1 6 e6 :as (16 . . . fxe6

17 t!fxe6+ �h8 18 t!fxe7 +-) 17 exd7 llxd7 18 ..ig4 ±.

16 ..id2! W'a6 17 ..igS! W'xe2 18 i.xe2 liJf6 (desperation, but after 18 . . . 1le8 19 liJc7 the rook is trapped) 19 llJxf6+ gxf6 20 ..ixf6 lld2 21 i.f3 ..id7 22 llad1 llxd1 23 llxd1 ..ic6 24 ..ixc6 bxc6 25 g4 ..ig7 26 b3 h6 27 lld7 aS 28 lld8+ llxd8 29 ..ixd8 1-0

Game 19 Blatny - Chekhov

Leipzig 1988

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS W'xdS 4 d4 liJf6 5 liJf3 e6 6 llJa3 i.e7

For the main line, 6 . . . 'i!fd8, see Game 20.

a) 6 . . . a6 is an understandable re­action to White's last move. Denied b5, the white knight now neverthe­less centralises with gain of time by threatening a fork on the freshly weakened b6-square. 7 llJc4 liJbd7 and here:

4 . . . e6 5 llJf3 llJf6 deferring . . . llJc6 57

al) 8 ..ie2 cxd4 (8 . . . b5 9 lLlce5 �

Diickstein-Zso.Polgar, Vienna 1993) 9 'i!fxd4 (9 cxd4 ..ib4+) 9 ... ..ic5 10 t!fxd5 llJxd5 = as in Sermek-Skem­bris, Ljubljana Vidmar mem 1993.

a2) 8 a4 !? b6 (8 ... cxd4 9 t!fxd4 i.c5 I 0 W'xd5 exd5 I l liJe3 ;!; and for once Black has the isolated d-pawn, Hort-Kishnev, Bern 1992) 9 ..ie2 i.b7 10 0-0 i.e7 I I ..if4 liJe4 12 ..id3 0-0 1 3 :tel llJef6 14 llJe3 Wc6 1 5 llJe5 Wc8 1 6 ..ig5 :es 17 llJ3g4 Wd8 18 llJxf6+ llJxf6 19 ..ixf6 i.xf6 20 ..ixh7+! +- Gluzman-Landa, Bel­grade 199 1 .

a3) 8 i.f4 (played repeatedly by Vorotnikov) 8 . . . b5 9 llJe3 'ifc6 (IO . . . 'fi'e4 10 i.g3 ..ib7 I I a4 is risk­ier, Vorotnikov-Bonsch, Leipzig 1979 and Vorotnikov-Vasiukov, Beltsy 1979) 10 ..ie2 ..ib7 1 1 llJe5 llJxe5 12 i.xe5 llJd7 !? 13 i.f3 1Wb6 14 i.xb7 t!fxb7 15 'ii'g4 cxd4 16 cxd4 llJxe5 17 dxe5 g6 1 8 0-0 i.g7 19 'iff4 h5 20 llfel 'ii'b8 2I liJfl 0-0 = Vorotnikov-Baby, Vladivostok 1990.

a4) 8 i.g5 !?: a41 ) 8 .. . b5 9 i.xf6! llJxf6 10 liJb6

1We4+ 1 1 ..ie2 llb8 12 llJxc8 llxc8 13 0-0 ;!; illustrates White's idea.

a42) After8 . . . ..ie7 9 i.e2, 9 . . . b5?! backfired spectacularly in the game Smagin-Stohl, Tallinn 1986, viz. 10 ..ixf6 i.xf6 1 I liJfd2 ! ! bxc4 12 ..if3 'ifd6 13 i.xa8 ±; safest was 9 . . . cxd4 10 ._,xd4 ;!;; Smagin.

a43) 8 . . . cxd4 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 llJxd4 ..ic5 (Black's pawns are dou­bled but he has active pieces) I l lL!e3 'ii'd6 12 i.e2 llJe5 1 3 0-0 ..id7 14 'fi'b3 'ii'b6! 15 ._,xb6 i.xb6 16 l:.adl 0-0-0 = Kotliar-Yermolinsky, New

58 4 . . . e6 5 liJj3 liJf6 deferring . . . liJc6

York Open 1992. However White's 14th looks suspicious; after 14 b4!? for example, it is not clear where Black's king will ultimately find sanctuary.

b) Another try is 6 . . . cxd4 7 liJb5 and now:

bl) 7 . . . liJa6 8 'it'xd4 .i.c5 9 "ii'xd5 liJxd5 10 b4 .i.e7 1 1 a3 liJac7 (or 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 c4 .i.f6 1 3 .l:a2 liJc3 14 liJxc3 .i.xc3+ 15 .i.d2 ;!; Lombardy­Arnason, Iceland 1985) 12 .i.b2 f6 1 3 0-0-0 .i.d7 14 liJxc7+ liJxc7 15 .i.d3 e5 1 6 .l:he 1 0-0-0 17 c4 a5 !? ao

Vorotnikov-Osnos, USSR 1986, al­though clearly Black is struggling to restrain the queenside pawns in this line.

b2) 7 . . . "ii'd8: b2 1) 8 liJbxd4 !? a6 9 .i.f4 ti:'ld5

10 .i.g3 .i.d6 1 1 "ii'a4+?! (Strikovic suggests the improvement 1 1 .i.c4) l l .. ..i.d7 12 "ii'b3 .i.xg3 13 hxg3 "ii'c7 14 "ii'a3 tl:'lc6 ! , Strikovic-Andersson, San Sebastian 1994, is equal, as 15 liJb5 can be answered by 15 . . . "ii'a5 16 liJd6+ �e7 ! 17 ti:'lf5+ <li>f6.

b22) 8 'i!i'xd4 a6 (8 . . . liJd5 9 tl:'lxa7 costs a pawn and 8 . . . 'i!i'xd4 9 liJfxd4 tl:'la6 10 .i.f4 is !, for example 10 . . . tl:'ld5 1 1 liJd6+ .i.xd6 12 .i.xd6 .i.d7 1 3 tl:'lb5 f6 14 ..ta3 Mestrovic­Skembris, Cannes 1995) 9 "ii'xd8+ <li>xd8 10 tl:'lbd4 ( 10 tl:'le5 !? axb5 1 1 tl:'lxf7+ <lieS 12 tl:'lxh8 .i.c5?! 13 .i.xb5+ .i.d7 14 .i.d3 ;!; as in the game Gurieli-loseliani, Tbilisi 1991, is critical and possibly strong; White will probably be able to desperado his/her knight for two more pawns even after the superior 12 . . . .i.d7) 10 . . . .i.d6 1 1 .i.g5 .i.d7 12 0-0-0 �c7

13 .i.h4 liJc6 = Rozentalis-Anders­son, Tilburg 1993.

7 liJb5 liJa6 (D)

8 .i.e2 Preferable is 8 c4 ! (8 .i.e3 liJg4 ao

Chekhov-Yusupov, USSR 1979): a) 8 . . . 'ii'e4+ 9 .i.e2 cxd4 10 0-0

0-0 1 1 .i.d3 "ii'g4 12 .l:e1 tl:'ld7 and now tremendous complications re­sulted from 1 3 .i.e2 'ii'g6 14 liJfxd4 .l:d8 15 .i.h5 "ii'f6 16 .i.g5 'ii'xg5 17 .i.xf7+ �xf7 18 liJxe6 ;!; in Svesh­nikov-A.Sokolov, Sochi 1983; in his notes Sveshnikov recommends an improvement: 13 a3 tl:'lac5 14 .i.xh7+ �xh7 15 tl:'lg5+ 'ii'xg5 16 .i.xg5 .i.xg5 17 b4 liJa6 18 'ii'h5+ ±.

b) 8 ... 'ii'd8 9 .i.e2 0-0 10 0-0 cxd4 ( 10 . . . tl:'lc7 1 1 liJc3 cxd4 12 'ii'xd4 'i!i'xd4 1 3 tl:'lxd4 e5 14 ti:'lf3 ;!; Vera­Reman, Cienfuegos 1984) 1 1 .i.f4 ! ( 1 1 liJfxd4 e5) l l . . .tl:'le8 (l l . . ..i.d7 12 tl:'lbxd4 'ii'b6 1 3 .l:bl 'ii'a5 14 a3 .l:fc8 15 b4 'ii'd8 16 tl:'le5 .i.a4 17 'i!i'd3 .i.d6 18 'ii'e3 ;!; Am.Rodriguez­Adorjan, Thessaloniki OL 1984) 12 'ii'xd4 "ii'xd4 13 tl:'lfxd4 ! . That White has real chances from this po­sition is illustrated by two games: 13 . . . .i.f6 14 .i.e3 tl:'lac7 15 .l:fd1 �h8

16 .tf3 g6 17 l:td2 .te7 18 �xc7 �xc7 19 .i.f4 lbe8 20 ltk6! ± C.Ri­naldi-D.Hamilton, corr. 1985 and 1 3 . . . f6 14 �b3 �b4 15 a3 �c6 16 ..tf3 g5 17 ..i.e3 a6 18 ..txc6 bxc6 19 �a7 c5 20 �c6 ..i.d6 21 �xc5 ± Ree-Langeweg, Amsterdam 1980.

8 ..• cxd4 9 'it'xd4 Very solid is 9 �bxd4 0-0 10 0-0

l:r.d8 1 1 ..i.f4 with an equal position, as in Vorotnikov-Chekhov, Moscow 1 991 and Nadyrkhanov-Poluliak­hov, Novorossisk 1995.

9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 l:r.d8! After this Black even has chances

of an advantage. Others: a) 10 . . . ..td7 1 1 ti'xd5 (1 1 �e5

.txb5 12 'it'xd5 �xd5 13 ..i.xb5 ttk5 14 .i.d2 �e4 1 5 l:r.ad1 1h-1h Benko­Petrosian, Lone Pine 1978) 1 1 . ..�xd5 12 l:r.dl ? ! ( 1 2 �bd4 �c5 13 �e5) 12 . . . l:r.fd8 13 ..i.d2 �c5 14 �bd4 a5 1 5 c4? ! �b4 :j: Blatny-Vogt, Leipzig 1988.

b) 10 ... 'i!t'xd4 11 �bxd4 ttk5 12 .tg5 ( 12 lbe5 �fd7 1 3 �c4 �a4 14 .i.d2 lbdb6 15 �xb6 �xb6 16 l:r.ad1 a6 17 .tel e5 1 8 �f3 f6 = Benko­Sax, Aruba 1992) 12 . . . h6 1 3 ..i.h4 g5 14 .i.g3 �fe4 15 l:r.fd1 �xg3 16 hxg3 .tf6 17 �b3 �a4 = Bondoc-Gheor­ghiu, Romania 1978.

ll .tgS 1 1 l:td1 .td7 12 'ii'f4 'ii'e4 13 'it'xe4

�xe4 14 .i.e3 .i.c5 15 .txc5 �axc5 16 �e5 ..i.xb5 17 ..i.xb5 f6 18 lbd3 a6 19 �xc5 �xc5 20 ..i.c4 �f7 =i= Lu­tovac-Smyslov, Bor 1980.

ll ... 'it'xd4 12 �bxd4 � 13 lladl ..i.d7 14 lbe5?!

14 �c2 .ta4 15 b3 ..i.c6 16 .tel ! intending .i.b2.

4 . . . e6 5 �f3 CiJf6 deferring ... �c6 59

14 .•. .ta4 15 b3? 15 l:r.cl h6 :j:. Now substantial tac­

tical complications begin which ulti­mately net Black the better endgame.

1S ... �e4! 16 ..tf3!? After 16 bxa4 �xg5 17 f3 00 18

h4 Black has 18 .. . �xc3 19 hxg5 ..tc5 ! -+.

16 •.• �xg5 17 .txb7 llab8 18 ..i.c6 �ge4! 19 .txa4 �xc3 20 �ec6 �xdl

Chekhov and Blatny give 20 ... ..tc5 ! 2 1 �xb8 ..i.xd4 22 l:r.xd4 l:r.xd4 + as more accurate. Clearly Black has ac­quired a sizeable advantage in any case, so the rest of the game is scarcely relevant to the opening.

21 �e7+ �f8 22 :.Xdl :.Xd4 23 l:r.xd4 �xe7 24 f3?! �5 25 ..tc6 �b4 26 l:r.d7+ �6 27 .te4 �a2 28 l:r.xa7 �c3 29 l:r.b7 l:r.d8 30 �f2 l:r.d2+ 31 �e3 .l:.xg2 32 h4 �xe4 33 fxe4 :b2 -+ 34 eS+ �g6 35 l:r.b4 l:r.h3+ 36 �d2 hS 37 �c2 �fS 38 l:r.b7 �xeS 39 .:.xf7 g6 40 b4 .:.xh4 41 �c3 �dS 42 bS �cs 43 .:.r6 l:r.g4 44 .:.xe6 �xbS 45 �d3 �cS 46 :eS+ �d6 47 l:r.aS �e6 48 �e3 �6 49 �3 �g7 50 .:.a7+ �h6 51 :.as .:.b4 52 �g3 .:.b3+ 53 �g2 h4 54 �h2 gS 55 .:.a6+ �hS 56 .:.a7 .:.b2+ 57 �hl .:.d2 58 .:.b7 .:.e2 59 .:.a7 h3 60 �gl g4 61 �hl g3 62 :at �g4 63 .:.bt �f3 64 :at .l:.d2 65 l:r.el � 66 .:.gt g2+ 67 �b2 .:.e2 0-1

The conclusion must be that after 9 'i!t'xd4 Black has a fully satisfactory position, as it is difficult for White to get his queenside majority rolling in this particular line. Therefore the sideline with 8 c4! is the only realis­tic try for advantage.

60 4 . . . e6 5 &i:Jf3 li:Jf6 deferring . . . &i:Jc6

Game 20 Vera - J.Horvath

Sochi l985

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'ii'xd5 4 d4 e6 5 &i:Jf3 &i:Jf6 6 &i:Ja3 'ii'd8 (D)

7 &i:Jc2 Or: a) 7 .i.f4 !? (an interesting idea

patronised by Blatny; White aims for dxc5 and a promising endgame) and now:

a1) 7 . . . cxd4!? (logical and under­rated) 8 &i:Jxd4 (8 &i:Jb5 &i:Jd5 9 .i.xb8 l:lxb8 10 'ii'xd4 a6 1 1 'ii'e5 l:la8) 8 . . . .i.c5 (8 . . . .i.xa3 9 'ii'a4+ &i:Jbd7 10 'ifxa3 ±; alternatively 8 . . . a6?! 9 'ifb3 ! ;!; Vera-Gheorghiu, Timisoara 1987 as 9 . . . &i:Jd5? would lose to 10 .i.xb8 l:lxb8 1 1 &i:Jc6) 9 &i:Jab5 00 10 .i.g3 a6 ( 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 li:Jb3 .i.e? fails to 12 &i:Jxa7 ! l:lxa7 13 .ixb8 winning a pawn, B1atny-Bonsch, Bad Woris­hofen 1992) 1 1 li:Jb3 .i.e7 12 lZJ5d4 as in Maric-Cordes, Bad Worishofen 1 985 looks equal to me. lnforma­tor's assessment of ;!; may have put people off this line, but after 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 .i.d3 Black has numerous alterna­tives to 13 .. .f5?! as played by Cordes.

a2) 7 .. . a6?! 8 dxc5 'ifxd1+ 9 llxd1 ;!; .i.xc5 10 &i:Jc4 li:Jd5? ( 1 0 ... 0-0) 1 1 li:Jd6+ �e7 12 &i:Jf5+! ± (a neat ma­noeuvre; 12 . . . �f6 13 .i.g5+ �xf5 14 .i.d3+ leads to a swift mate) 12 .. . �f8 1 3 .i.c4 ! exf5 (now 1 3 . . . lllxf4? 14 l:ld8 is mate) 14 .i.xd5 ± Blatny­Brustman, Warsaw 1987.

a3) 7 . . . &i:Jbd7 8 li:Jc4 lt:Jd5 9 .i.g3 (trying to improve on 9 .i.d6 .i.e? with equality, Blatny-Votava, Ger­many 1993) 9 . . . .i.e7 10 &i:Je3 ( 1 0 li:Jd6+?! .i.xd6 1 1 .i.xd6 'ifb6 B1atny) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 li:Jxd5 exd5 12 .i.e2 'ifb6 1 3 'ifc2 (;!; Blatny) and now instead of 13 .. .f5?! as in B1atny-Votava, Lazne Bohdanec 1 995, Fta�nik's sugges­tion 1 3 . . . li:Jf6 looks unclear after 14 0-0 .i.g4.

a4) 7 . . . 0£6 8 dxc5 li:Jd5 ! 9 ..td6 .i.xd6 10 cxd6 'ifxd6 1 1 ..tc4 ( 1 1 'ii'd2 !? 'ife7 1 2 ..tb5 0-0 13 l:ld1 .i.d7 14 0-0 was the game Blatny-Suba, Baden-Baden 1988; White can play but his edge is very small) l l . . . 'ife7 ! 12 'ii'd2 ( 12 0-0? &i:Jxc3! + Hennings­Korchnoi, Siegen 1 970) 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 0-0 l:ld8 14 l:lad 1 b6 ( 14 . . . &i:Jf6 is a more solid move) 15 'ife2 lt:Jxc3? 16 bxc3 'ifxa3 17 'ii'e4 ..tb7 1 8 li:Jg5 ± 1-0 Strikovic-Zarkovic, Yugoslavia 1992.

b) Another possibility is 7 0£4 (heading for e5) 7 ... &i:Jc6 (7 . . . .i.e? 8 .ie3 cxd4 9 lt:Jxd4 &i:Jd5 10 .i.d2 0-0 1 1 .i.d3 .i.f6 12 llm 'ifc7 13 0-0 &i:Jf4 14 .i.xf4 'ifxf4 1 5 &i:Jd6 g6 1 6 &i:Jxc8 l:lxc8 17 'ife2 &i:Jd7 1h-1h Kholmov­Do1matov, Klaipeda 1988) 8 &i:Jce5 cxd4 (8 . . . &i:Jxe5 !? 9 &i:Jxe5 a6 Hort­Dydyshko, Debrecen Echt 1992) 9 .i.b5 'ifd5 10 'ii'a4 ..td7 1 1 &i:Jxd7

lLlxd7 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 13 'ii'xd4 .i.c5 = Rozentalis-Yudasin, Lvov 1987.

c) Finally 7 .i.e2 lL!c6 8 lLlc2 (8 0-0 cxd4 9 lLlb5 and now 9 . . . dxc3 looks risky, e.g. 10 'ii'xd8+ �xd8 1 1 lLlg5 �e7 1 2 bxc3 Knobel-Dauben­feld, corr. 1988; instead 9 . . . .i.e7 10 lLlbxd4 lLlxd4 11 'ii'xd4 is an accept­able ending for Black that has been played several times, while 9 . . . a6 !? 10 lLlbxd4 lLlxd4 11 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 12 ltlxd4 e5 13 ltlb3 .i.e6 is a reason­able alternative, Nun-A.Petrosian, Polanica Zdroj 1989) and now:

c1 ) 8 . . . b6!? 9 .i.b5 (9 0-0 .i.b7 = Dorfman) 9 . . . .i.d7 10 'ii'e2 cxd4 1 1 ltlcxd4 ltlxd4 1 2 lLlxd4 .i.c5 13 lL!c6? ( 1 3 .i.e3 =) 13 . . . 'ii'c7 14 ltle5 .i.xf2+! 15 �fl (15 �xf2 'ii'xe5 =F) 15 . . . .i.c5 16 .i.f4 0-0 17 lLlg6 .i.xb5 18 'ii'xb5 e5 ! 19 .i.xe5 'flc8 =F Svesh­nikov-Dorfman, USSR 1979.

c2) 8 . . . cxd4 9 lL!cxd4 ltlxd4 10 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 1 1 lLlxd4 a6 12 .i.f4 ltld7 13 ltlb3 .i.e7 14 0-0-0 e5 15 .i.e3 0-0 = Minev-Honfi, Bucharest 1973.

c3) 8 ... .i.e7 9 0-0 0-0: c31) After 10 lL!e5, 10 . . . cxd4 1 1

ltlxc6 bxc6 1 2 'ii'xd4?! c5 ! 1 3 'ii'xd8 l:txd8 14 .i.f3 l:tb8 =F gave Black ac­tive pieces in M.Mihaljmin-Bukic, Banja Luka 1974 and 10 . . . 'ii'c7 !? was also to be considered.

c32) The developing 10 .i.g5 cxd4 1 1 lL!cxd4 = Hulak-Suba, Vink­ovci 1977 is sensible.

c33) 10 dxc5 .i.xc5 1 1 .i.f4 b6 12 .i.d3 .i.b7 13 'ii'e2 .i.d6 14 .i.g5 .i.e7 1 5 l:tad1 'ilc7 16 ltlcd4 l:tad8 = Kholmov-Ionescu, Baile Herculane 1984.

4 . . . e6 5 lLlf3 lLlf6 deferring . . . lbc6 61

7 .•. .i.e7 Or 7 . . . lLlbd7 (for 7 . . . lL!c6 8 .i.d3

see Chapter 6 while 7 . . . 'flc7 8 .i.d3 lLlbd7 gives standard-type positions, e.g. 9 'ii'e2 a6 10 a4 b6 1 1 0-0 .i.e7 12 .i.g5 .i.b7 13 .i.h4 0-0 14 .i.g3 .i.d6 15 .i.xd6 'ilxd6 1 6 lLle5 l:tfd8 17 l:tfd 1 cxd4 18 lLlxd7 l:txd7 19 lLlxd4 l:tad8 = Okhotnik-Mochalov, Ajka KC 1992) 8 g3 !? (this fianchetto is a common theme in the lL!a3-c2 variation; 8 .i.e2 'ii'c7 9 0-0 .i.e7 10 .i.g5 0-0 1 1 dxc5 lLlxc5 12 lL!cd4 a6 13 'ilc2 b6 14 .i.h4 .i.b7 15 .i.g3 'ilc8 16 ltld2 lDfe4 = Borgo-Por­tisch, Reggio Emilia 1993) 8 . . . b6 9 .i.g2 .i.b7 10 0-0 l:tc8!? 1 1 'ile2 .i.e7 12 l:td1 0-0 1 3 dxc5 .i.xc5 14 ltle5 .i.xg2 1 5 �xg2 l:tc7 16 lL!xd7 l:txd7 17 .i.e3 .i.xe3 18 lL!xe3 h5 = Karak­lajic-Averkin, Cetinje 1990.

8 .i.d3 Again 8 g3 ! ? is a solid plan: 8 . . . b6

(8 . . . .i.d7 9 .i.g2 0-0 10 0-0 .i.c6 1 1 'ii'e2 lDbd7 1 2 .:ld1 'ilc8 1 3 c4 l:te8 14 b3 a5 15 .i.b2 b6 16 ltle3 ;!; Svesh­nikov-Romanishin, Moscow 1985) 9 i.g2 .i.b7 10 0-0 lLlbd7 1 1 c4 0-0 12 .i.f4 'flc8 1 3 'fle2 .i.e4 14 lLle5 .i.xg2 15 �xg2 cxd4 16 lDxd4 tDxe5 17 .i.xe5 ltld7 18 00 lDxe5 19 lLlxe5 .i.f6 = Lane-Sher, Hastings 1990.

8 ... 0-0 9 'ii'e2 lLlbd7 (D) 10 .i.f4 The standard 10 0-0 transposes to

Doncevic-Razuvaev, Palma 199 1 : 1 0 ... b6 l l .i.g5 h6 ( 1 l . . ..i.b7 12 l:tad1 'ilc7 13 .i.a6 .i.xa6 14 'ii'xa6 l:tfe8 15 l:tfe1 .i.f8 16 .i.h4 'ii'c8 17 'ii'xc8 l:taxc8 18 ltle5 ;!; Godena-Novikov, Forli 199 1 ) 12 .i.h4 .i.b7 13 l:tad1 lLlh5 !? 14 .i.xe7 'flxe7 15 .i.e4 lDf4

62 4 . . . e6 5 tl:Jf3 tl:Jf6 deferring . . . ti::Jc6

16 'ii'e1 ti::Jf6 17 i.xb7 'ii'xb7 18 'ii'e5 ti::Jg6 =. With the move lO i.f4, White is hinting he is gutsy enough to castle queenside depending on how Black reacts.

10 ... a6!? 10 . . . b6 1 1 0-0-0 ( 1 1 0-0) 1 l . . .i.b7

1 2 ti::Je5 'ii'c8 1 3 l:the1 a6 14 i.g5 cxd4 15 ti::Jxd7 'ii'xd7 16 �xd4 ti::Jd5 17 h4 IX) Sveshnikov-Gavrikov, Riga 1985 while 1 0 . . . :te8 1 1 ti::Je5 cxd4 12 ti::Jxd4 tl:Jxe5 13 i.xe5 ti::Jd7 Vorot­nikov-Yudasin, USSR 1984 is also possible.

ll ti::Je5 b5!? 12 ti::Jc6 'iie8 13 a4 c4 14 i.e4 ti::Jxe4 15 'iixe4 ti::Jb6 16 axb5 i.b7 17 i.e5! axb5

17 .. .f6 18 i.c7 ! . 18 :.xa8 i.xa8? Vera points out that the surprising

18 . . . tl:Jxa8 ! is an improvement. After 19 'ii'g4, in contrast to the game, Black has 19 . . . f6 ! 20 'ii'xe6+? (20 tl:Jxe7+ 'ii'xe7 2 1 i.f4 is equal -Vera) 20 . . . :tf7 21 tl:Jxe7+ 1Wxe7 -+ as the black knight is no longer en prise on b6.

19 'ii'g4 g6 20 tl:Jxe7+ 'ii'xe7 21 'ii'g3 ;!; 'ii'b7 22 ti::Je3 'ii'e4 23 0-0 f5? (now the dark squares around the black king really start to suffer) 24

'ii'g5 ti::Jd7?! 25 f3! 'ii'd3 26 i.d6 :te8 27 b4 e5 28 :td1 'ii'e2 29 dxe5 i.c6 30 :.n ti::Jxe5 31 ti::Jxf5 ti::Jf7 32 'ii'g3 'ii'e6 33 ti::Jd4 'ii'xd6 34 'ii'xd6 ti::Jxd6 35 tl:Jxc6 :te2 36 .:.n l:e1 + 37 :n l:e2 38 :n l:e1 + 39 �b2 tt:Jr5 40 ti::Ja7 ti::Jxb4 41 ti::Jxb5 ti::Jf5 42 ti::Ja3 ti::Je3 43 �g3 �f7 44 ti::Jc2 ti::Jf5+ 45 �f4 l:e7 46 g4 ti::Jd6 47 l:d2 1-0

Game 21 Halasz - Sax Bagneux 1984

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exdS 'ii'xdS 4 d4 e6 5 ti::Jf3 ti::Jf6 6 i.d3 i.e7

Black's most significant inde­pendent idea in this variation in­volves waiting until White captures with dxc5, and then playing his queen's knight via d7 or a6 to recap­ture the pawn on c5. White as usual has the queenside majority, and the prospect of advancing b4 with tempo against the knight on c5 .

7 0-0 Alternatives: a) 7 dxc5 : a1) 7 . . . 1Wxc5 8 0-0 0-0 9 1We2

ti::Jbd7 lO ti::Jbd2 :td8 1 1 l:d1 1Wc7 12 ti::Jb3 b6 13 i.g5 i.b7 14 i.h4 i.xf3 15 1Wxf3 ti::Je5 = Grzesik-Lobron, Germany 1987.

a2) 7 . . . 0-0 is complicated after 8 i.e3 !?, e.g. 8 . . . l:d8 9 i.c2 'ii'h5 10 1We2 i.xc5 11 i.g5 ti::Jc6 12 ti::Jbd2 e5 1 3 i.xf6 gxf6 14 tl:Je4 i.e7 15 ti::Jg3 1Wh6 16 i.f5 ± Ghinda-Radev, Ban­kya 1977, although Black can try 8 . . . ti::Jc6 !?, when 9 0-0 l:d8 ! would be Chapter 8.

a3) 7 . . . .txc5 8 0-0 0-0 9 _.c2 �bd7 10 �bd2 b6 1 1 llJe4 .tb7 12 l:.e 1 h6 1 3 c4 _.c6 14 .tf4 l:.ad8 15 l:.ad1 �xe4 16 .txe4 _.c8 17 a3 a5 18 llJe5 �f6 19 .txb7 _.xb7 20 lDd3 .td4 = Novopashin-Mikhalchishin, Volgodonsk 198 1 .

b) 7 .ie3 !? usually transposes into later chapters. One unique re­sponse is 7 . . . b6 8 0-0 .ib7 9 c4 _.d8 10 dxc5 bxc5 1 1 �3 �bd7 12 _.e2?! ( 12 .tc2 looks �) 12 . . . .txf3 13 gxf3 0-0 14 l:.ad 1 .-c7 ; Makropoulos­Csom, Banco di Roma 198 1 .

7 ... 0-0 8 c4!? (D) A logical counter to Black's re­

fusal to exchange pawns on d4 is the plan c4 and dxc5. Instead 8 .te3 �c6 or 8 . . . l:.d8 9 _.e2 �c6 trans­poses to positions examined next chapter, where Black plays . . . �6 early on.

A major alternative is 8 _.e2, when 8 . . . cxd4! 9 cxd4 �c6 (e.g. Braga-Karpov, Mar del Plata 1982 among many examples) is a move­order that will reach positions exam­ined in Chapters 8, 9 or 10 where White has already committed him­self to _.e2 lines. Neither is it forced for Black to exchange on d4: 8 . . . �6 9 dxc5 (what else? 9 l:.d1 cxd4 10 cxd4 again gives White a poor ver­sion of Chapter 8 or 9 while on 9 c4, 9 . . . .-h5 !? is now viable, not to men­tion 9 . . . .-d8 10 dxc5 �b4) trans­poses to Chapter 8, Game 23.

8 .... d8 The two main alternatives may be

superior: a) 8 . . . .-h5 !? 9 .ie2 (Black has no

problems after 9 dxc5, e.g. 9 . . . l:.d8

4 . . . e6 5 �/3 �/6 deferring . . . �c6 63

10 .if4 •xc5 1 1 _.e2 �6 12 �3 �d4 13 �xd4 _.xd4 14 .ie4 �xe4 15 �xe4 b5 16 c5 .ib7 17 .id6 with equality, Rozentalis-Novikov, USSR 1984 or 9 . . . .txc5 10 �c3 �6 1 1 i.g5 �d4 !? 1 2 �xd4 _.xg5 = Vogt­Stangl, Altensteig 1993) 9 . . . l:.d8 10 .ie3 (White can force a draw with 10 �e5 _.h4 1 1 �f3; also 10 �g5 _.g6 1 1 i.d3 Wh5 1 2 .te2 has been played, drawing: 12 .txh7+!? �f8 ! is unclear as . . . g6 and . . . cxd4 are threatened) 10 . . . cxd4 ( 10 . . . �g4 1 1 .if4 cxd4 12 h3 e5 !? and then 1 3 �xe5 ! Wf5 1 4 lDd 3 � was Kiselov­Novikov, Belgrade 199 1 ; note that instead if 13 hxg4 .txg4 14 .txe5 then 14 . . . d3! 15.ixd3 �c6 works nicely for Black) 1 1 �xd4 _.e5 12 �c3 .id7 1 3 .tf3 �c6 14 �xc6 .txc6 15 We2 l:.dc8 16 l:.ac l a6 17 l:.fd 1 _.f5 18 .txc6 l:.xc6 19 b3 l:.ac8 20 a4 .ta3 21 l:.a1 .tb4 22 l:.ac 1 .ta3 23 l:.a1 .ib4 112-lh Dvoretsky­Polugaevsky, Leningrad 1974.

b) 8 . . . Wd7 !? 9 dxc5 l:.d8 10 llJe5 ( 10 .ic2 Wxd1 followed by ... .txc5) 1 0 . . . _.d4 1 1 _.e2 �bd7 ! ( l l . . .Wxc5 12 b4 !? Wc7 1 3 a3 a5 14 �c3 axb4 15 �b5 Wa5 16 .ib2 was an inter­esting pawn sacrifice in the game

64 4 . . . e6 5 tl:Jf3 tl:Jf6 deferring . . . tl:Jc6

P.David-R.Bemard, Poznan 1 984) 1 2 tl:Jxd7 ( 1 2 ti:Jf3 'Wxc5 1 3 ti:Jc3 b6 14 tl:Je4 'Wc7 with . . . .i.b7 to follow is also OK for Black) 12 ... .i.xd7 13 .i.e3 'We5 14 ti:Jc3 ( 14 ti:Jd2 .i.c6 15 ti:Jb3? l:hd3 ! 1 6 'Wxd3 tl:Jg4 17 .i.f4 'Wxf4 1 8 'Wg3 'Wxg3 + Kharlov-M.Mak­arov, Riabinsk 199 1 ) 14 . . . .i.xc5 15 .i.xc5 'Wxc5 16 0.e4 tl:Jxe4 17 .i.xe4 .i.c6 112-112 Makarychev-Anikaev, Frunze 1979.

9 dxcS ti:Jbd7 a) 9 .. . .i.xc5: a1) 10 .i.g5 .i.e7 1 1 'We2 ti:Jbd7

1 2 ti:Jc3 b6 1 3 .J:r.ad1 .i.b7 14 tl:Je5 'We8 15 tl:Jxd7 tl:Jxd7 16 .i.xe7 'Wxe7 17 .i.xh7+! +- Lehmann-Kiefer, Germany 1986 illustrates White's tactical chances; if 17 .. .'�xh7 then 18 'Wd3+ and 19 'Wxd7.

a2) 10 tl:Jc3 tl:Jc6 1 1 .i.g5 h6 12 .i.h4 .i.e7 1 3 'We2 lLld4 14 ti:Jxd4 'Wxd4 15 .i.g3 ;!; Zysk-Lobron, Dort­mund 1984.

a3) 10 'We2 lLlbd7 1 1 lLlc3 b6 12 .i.g5 .i.b7 1 3 .J:r.ad 1 'Wc7 14 tl:Je4 lLlxe4 1 5 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 1 6 'Wxe4 lLlf6 17 .i.xf6 gxf6 18 'Wh4 ± Csom­A.Schneider, Budapest 1977.

b) 9 ... 0.a6 10 'We2 ( 10 c6 !? bxc6 1 1 tl:Jc3 may also give a edge, Har­dicsay-Sax, Hungary 1984, but not 1 0 lLlc3 tl:Jxc5 1 1 .i.c2 'Wxd1 =) 10 . . . ti:Jb4 l l .l:r.d1 'Wc7 12 ti:Jc3 lLlxd3 13 .J:r.xd3 'Wxc5 14 lbe5 .J:r.d8 (14 . . . b6 has been suggested as an improve­ment, but in the game Howell-Bator, Groningen 1983, White replied ag­gressively with 1 5 b4 ! 'Wc7 16 ti:Jb5 'Wb7 and now best would have been

1 6 .i.g5 with an attack) 15 .l:r.g3 ± Tseitlin-Lukin, USSR 1977.

10 1We2 lLlxcS 11 .i.c2 b6 1 1 . . . 1i'c7 12 tl:Jc3 a6 1 3 b4 ti:Jcd7

14 a3 b6 1 5 .i.b2 .i.b7 16 ti:Je4 .J:r.ac8 17 .J:r.ac 1 ;!; Hort-Hartston, Hastings 1974.

12 lbc3 .i.a6 12 . . . .i.b7 13 .i.g5 'Wc7 ( 13 . . . ti:Jfd7

14 .i.xe7 1Wxe7 15 b4 ti:Ja6 16 a3 ±) 14 tl:Je5 (14 ti:Jb5 'ft'c6) 14 ... .J:r.ad8 15 ti:Jb5 1i'b8 1 6 .J:r.ad 1 a6 17 tl:Jc3 1i'c7 18 1i'e3 ;!; Sax/Hazai.

13 ti:JeS 1Wc8 14 .i.gS ti:Jcd7! IS tl:Jxd7

Not 15 .i.xh7+? 'ii?xh7 1 6 1i'd3+ 'ii?g8 17 tl:Jxd7 .i.xc4 -+.

1S ••• 1Wxd7 16 .J:r.fdl ?! Sax and Hazai give 16 Uad1 ! 'ikc7

17 b3 .i.b7 ( 17 . . . .J:r.fd8 18 ti:Je4 tl:Jxe4 19 'ikxe4 g6 20 .i.f4 'ikc5 21 'ikf3 ;!;) 1 8 'Wd3 .l:r.fd8 ( 1 8 . . Jlad8? 19 lbd5 ! exd5 20 .i.xf6 g6 2 1 .i.b2 dxc4 22 1i'c3) 19 1i'h3 h6 20 .i.c1 ;!;.

16 ••• 1Wc7 17 b3 .J:r.fd8 18 tl:Je4 ti:JdS! = 19 .J:r.acl ti:Jf4 20 'ii'f3 tl:Jg6 21 .i.xe7 'ii'xe7 22 .J:r.xd8+ .J:r.xd8 23 .J:r.dl rs 24 tl:Jc3 .i.b7 25 .J:r.xd8+ 'iixd8 26 1Wxb7 1Wd2 27 .i.d3 Wxd3 28 'ii'f3 1Wxf3 29 gxf3 lLleS 30 ti:JbS tl:Jc6 31 �n? (White would still be OK after 3 1 f4; now the knight end­ing turns nasty) 3l ••• gS 32 �e2 �f7 33 �e3 e5 34 a3 hS 35 b4 �e7 36 'iPd3 �d7 37 cS bxcS 38 bxcS a6 39 ti:Jd6 ti:Jd4 40 �c4 �c6 41 tl:Jc8 ti:Jxr3 42 tl:Je7 + �d7 43 tl:Jxr5 ti:J:xh2 44 �dS ti:Jf3 45 c6+ �c7 46 tl:Jg7 h4 47 tl:Je8+ �d8 48 c7+ �c8 49 �e6 ti:Jd2 0-1

8 6 .i.d3 l2Jc6 7 0-0

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 ex ciS 'it'xdS 4 d4 e6 s ll)fJ li)f6 6 i.d3 lbc6 7 0-0 (D)

B

Black's reason for delaying the central pawn exchange (with . . . cxd4) is a rather familiar one. He wishes to deny White's knight use of the c3-square, at least until White has made a small concession like playing i.e3 or 'ilt'e2. After either of these moves Black can safely exchange on d4, knowing that White can no longer opt for some of the very sharpest main lines of Chapters 9 and 10. This would be a near perfect strategy for Black were it not for 8 c4 !? (Game 22). Whilst this pawn advance is vir­tually White's only try to punish Black for 'move-ordering' him, it re­mains a respectable option. However

there are surprisingly few top-level games in the line.

One explanation for this lack of games is that strong players (such as Michael Adams) are as White cur­rently utilising a move-order involv­ing a much earlier i.e3, with the specific intention of forcing Black to exchange early on d4. After 6 i.e3 cxd4 7 cxd4 lQc6 8 lQc3 White has avoided this whole chapter, and after 8 . . . 'ilt'd6 or 8 . . . 'ii'd8 we reach the­matic main line positions, albeit ones where the white bishop is committed to the e3-square.

Game 22 Sveshnikov - A verkin

USSR Ch 1973

1 e4 cS 2 li)f3 e6 3 c3 dS 4 exdS 'it'xdS S d4 li)f6 6 i.d3 lQc6 7 0-0 i.e7

With 7 . . . i.d7 Black bluffs that he might risk queenside castling, or hopes White will lose a tempo with 8 dxc5?! i.xc5. ECO B (2nd edition) recommends 8 .l:.e1 i.e7 9 dxc5 i.xc5 10 b4 i.d6 1 1 lQa3 .l:.d8 12 li)c4 ;;!;, Also possible i s 8 i.e3 cxd4 9 cxd4 lQb4 10 lQc3 'ii'a5 1 1 i.c4 !? .l:.c8 1 2 lQe5 i.d6 13 lQxd7 �xd7 14 i.b3 'ii'f5 15 h3 �e7?! ( 15 . . . h5oo Hort) 16 g4 ± Hort-Lobron, Bochum 1981 .

8 c4!?

66 6 .td3 �6 7 0-0

8 'lre2 Is Game 23. Alternatives: a) 8 dxcS (considered dubious

because of a game of Adorjan's in which he refrained from immedi­ately recapturing the pawn) S . . . 0-0! and now it is difficult to find a pro­gressive continuation:

a1) 9 'ii'e2 transposes to lines covered under S 'ii'e2.

a2) 9 b4 lidS 10 .i.c2 'ii'xd1 1 1 llxd1 llxd 1 + 12 .i.xd1 a5 will suc­cessfully undermine the white pawns.

a3) The original key game went 9 'ii'c2 lidS 10 lid 1 'ii'xc5 1 1 .i.g5 h6 = 12 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 13 tDbd2 .i.e7 14 .i.h7+ �hS 15 .i.e4 .i.d7 16tDb3 'inK; 17 W'e2 W'c7 1S 'ii'e3 .i.f6 ; Hulak­Adorjan, Osijek 197S.

a4) 9 .i.e3 lidS 10 .i.e2 'ii'xd1 ( 10 ... 'ii'f5 !? 1 1 'ii'a4 .i.xc5 12 .i.xc5 'ii'xc5 = Sveshnikov-Gufeld, USSR 19S2) 1 1 llxd1 llxd1+ 12 .i.xd1 tDg4 13 .i.f4 e5 !? (even 13 ... .i.xc5 14 .i.g3 is not much for White) 14 .i.g3 e4 15 tDfd2 e3 16 tDe4 exf2+ 17 .i.xf2 tDxf2 1S �xf2 tDe5 19 .i.e2 b6! + Hebden-Al Modiakhi, Calcutta 1995, as after 20 cxb6 f5 ! 2 1 tDg3 .i.c5+ the black bishops are danger­ously active.

b) S .i.e3 0-0 (S . . . cxd4!? 9 cxd4 0-0 10 tDc3 would transpose to Chap­ter 10) 9 c4 (for 9 dxc5 see above) 9 . . . W'h5 !? (9 . . . W'dS 10 dxc5 tDb4 �

Makropoulos-Inkiov, Pernik 19S 1 ; 10 tDc3!? ;!;) 1 0 .i.e2 ( 1 0 h3 cxd4 1 1 tDxd4 tDxd4 12 .i.xd4 lidS ; Am­broz-Adorjan, Riga 19S1) 10 . . . tDg4 1 1 .i.f4 cxd4 ( 1 1 . . . W'f5 12 .i.c7! cxd4?! 13 tDxd4 tDxd4 14 'ii'xd4 tDf6 1 5 .i.f3 ! ± Sveshnikov-Adorjan,

Sarejevo 19S3) 12 h3 'ii'f5 13 .i.c7 tDge5 14 tDxe5 tDxe5 15 'ii'xd4 tDc6 16 'ife3 ;!; Sveshnikov-Makarychev, Moscow 19S3.

8 ... W'd8 (D) S . . . 'ii'h5 !? 9 tDc3? (9 .i.e2 - com-

pare with the variations beginning S .i.e3 0-0 9 c4 'ifhS 10 .i.e2) 9 . . . cxd4 10 lDb5 0-0 1 1 tDfxd4 tDxd4 12 tDxd4 lidS ! :f Chandler-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 19S2. Worth consid­eration is S . . . 'ii'd7 9 dxc5 0-0 !? in­tending 10 a3 lidS or 10 'ii'e2 tDb4.

9 dxcS tDd7 Black's idea is to swap queens,

something he doesn't do after 9 .. . 0-0 10 a3 a5 1 1 tDc3 .i.xc5 12 .i.g5 .i.e7 13 'ii'e2 h6 14 .i.f4 tDd4 15 tDxd4 11t'xd4 16 .i.e5 'tlt'h4 17 tDe4 tDxe4 1S .i.xe4 .i.c5 19 llad1 ;!;, as in Svesh­nikov-Onoprienko, USSR 1974.

The straightforward 9 . . . .i.xc5 is playable:

a) 10 tDc3 0-0 1 1 .i.gS h6 12 .i.h4 .i.e7 1 3 11t'e2 tDd4 (or 1 3 . . . tDh5 14 .i.xe7 'ii'xe7 15 1We3 Hazai-Orso, Bu­dapest 1977) 14 tDxd4 'iWxd4 15 .i.g3 .i.d7 Lyell-Turner, Edinburgh 19S9 and Zysk-Lobron, Dortmund 19S4, and White doesn't have very much.

b) 10 a3 !? 0-0 1 1 b4 .te7 12 .tb2 ( 1 1 J:r.a2 intending J:r.d2 is another plan) 12 . .. b6 13 9e2 .tb7 14 llX:3 aS. In this unclear position White be­came worse after the continuation 15 lbe4 axb4 16 J:r.fd1 lbxe4 17 9xe4 g6 18 axb4 .tf6 19 .tc2 9e7 20 Jlxa8 .txa8 21 .txf6 9xf6 22 9e1 9b2 + in Eriksson-L.Schneider, Ril­ton Cup 1980. However there are several other plans, e.g. 15 Jlad1 !? 'fkc7 and then 16 lbb5 or 16 b5 !? lbb8 17 lbe4.

10 a3 lbxc5 11 .tel 9xdl 12 J:r.xdl .tf6 13 .teJ b6 14 J:r.a2 .tb7 IS lbg5

In view of the next note, 15 b4 !? might be more accurate. White has a little more space and a queenside pawn majority.

15 ... lbe5 15 . . . .txg5 ! 16 .txg5 e5 17 llX:3

lbd4 18 b4 lbce6 = gave Black suffi­cient central control to compensate for the bishop pair in C.Johansson­Thurnhuber, COIT. 1991 .

16 b4 lbcd7 17 .ta4 h6? 18 .txd7+

Perhaps Black had only consid­ered 18 lbxf7 �xf7 19 .txd7 Jlhd8 with counterplay. Now his position crumbles, as on 18 . . . lbxd7 there comes 19 lbxf7.

18 ... �e7 19 lbxf7 �f7 20 .ta4 J:r.hd8 21 J:r.ad2 J:r.xd2 22 J:r.xd2 a5 23 bxa5 J:r.xa5 24 .tb5 .te4 25 .txb6 J:r.a8 26 J:r.dl .tdJ 27 .tcS .txc4 28 .txc4 lbxc4 29 g3 .tb2 30 J:r.d3 e5 31 �g2 �e6 32 h4 g5 33 h5 e4 34 Jlb3 �dS 35 .tb4 .td4 36 lbc3+ �eS 37 lbb5 .tb6 38 lbd6 lbxd6 39 .txd6+ �xd6 40 J:r.xb6+ �e5 41

6 .td3 lbc6 7 0-0 67

Jlxh6 Jlxa3 42 JibS �6 43 JigS J:r.a2 44 h6 J:r.a7 45 �h3 J:r.h7 46 �g4 J:r.xh6 47 Jlxg5 J:r.h1 48 J:r.f5+ �g6 49 J:r.a5 J:r.el 50 J:r.a6+ � 51 J:r.a2 �e6 52 �4 �dS 53 Jld2+ �c4 54 g4 �c3 55 J:r.d8 J:r.e2 56 g5 Jlxfl+ 57 �xe4 J:r.g2 58 �f5 .1112+ 59 �e6 J:r.e2+ 60 �6 J:r.l'l+ 61 �g7 1-0

Game 23 Braga - Portlsch

Mar del Plata 1982

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exdS 9xd5 4 d4 e6 5 lbf3 lbf6 6 .td3 .te7 7 0-0 0-0 8 'fke2

Having run out of 'waiting' moves (because of Black's refusal to ex­change on d4) White sets up a forma­tion with his queen on e2 and king's rook on d 1. Whilst this will certainly encourage Black to exchange on d4, White's pieces will not be ideally posted in the resultant IQP position.

8 ... cxd4 8 ... llX:6 and now: a) 9 J:r.d1 'fkh5 (9 . . . cxd4) 10 .tf4

(10 dxc5 !?) 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 cxd4 lbb4 12 lbc3 b6 ; H\inerkopf-Hort, Ger­many 1987.

b) 9 dxc5 'fkxc5 ! 10 .tg5 (10 lbbd2 lidS 1 1 J:r.d1 .td7 12 00 Wb6 1 3 lbg3 .teS = Short-Andersson London 1980) 10 ... h6 1 1 .th4 .td7 12 lbbd2 J:r.ad8 13 J:r.ad 1 J:r.fe8!? 14 .txf6 .txf6 15 lbe4 9e7 16 lbd6?! (16 lbxf6+ 9xf6 17 .te4 9e7 =) 16 ... lbd4! 17 lbxd4 9xd6 ; Tompa­Ribli, Hungary 1975.

9 cxd4 lbc6 10 J:r.dl 10 .te3 lbb4 1 1 lbc3 Wd8 gives

similar positions to the text. 1 1 ... WhS

68 6 i.d3 lDc6 7 0-0

in the game Speelman-Cu.Hansen, Munich 1992 ended in an amusing draw after 12 i.c4 b6 13 a3 lDbd5 14 lDxd5 lDxd5 15 l:lacl i.b7 16 i.a6 i.d6 17 i.xb7 i.xh2+ 1 8 �h 1 i.g3+ 19 �g1 i.h2+ 1h-lh 0

lO ••• lDb4 ll lDc3 'ii'd8!? (D)

1 1 . . . 1i'd6 is a good version of Chapter 9. However the situation af­ter 1 l . . .'fi'd8 is quite important, and we should certainly note that the great Karpov has played it. We are now on the fringe of variations which start transposing into IQP (isolated queen pawn) positions that arise from completely different openings. By Chapter 10 these often surprising transpositions will be coming out of your ears, but, be warned, tempi can be both won and lost along the way!

12 i.c4 After this bishop move, just as

warned, we have transposed into a tempo-down version of a Queen's Gambit Accepted (D26): 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5 6 0-0 lDc6 7 'ife2 cxd4 8 l:ld 1 i.e7 9 exd4 0-0 10 lDc3 lDb4. Arising from the QGA it is White to move; in the c3 Sicilian it is Black to move!

The c3 Sicilian practitioner could try to argue (assuming he is even aware of the transposition) that, as the QGA version is considered favour­able for White anyway, so the loss of time is not life-threatening. Never­theless for White to play a normal line a tempo down gives an odd feel­ing.

Unfortunately 12 i.b1 , the usual c3 Sicilian retreat square, also leaves White struggling to justify his IQP. After 12 . . . b6 some typical examples go:

a) 13 lDe5 i.b7 14 a3 lDbd5 15 lDe4 lDe8 16 'ifc2 g6 17 i.h6 lDg7 18 lDc6 i.xc6 19 'fi'xc6 'fi'c8 20 'ifb5 l:ld8 21 lDg3 'ii'b7 22 'ii'e2 i.h4 23 i.e4 'fi'e7 24 i.xg7 �xg7 + Braga­Karpov, Mar del Plata 1982.

b) 13 i.g5 i.b7 14 lDe5 l:lc8 15 h4 (15 a3 lDbd5 16 lDxd5 'ii'xd5 17 f3 = Panchenko) 15 . . . lDbd5 16 lDxd5 'ii'xd5 17 f3 1i'd6 18 a3 l:lfd8 + Nun­Panchenko, Hradec Kralove 1981 .

c ) 13 a3 i.a6 14 'fi'e1 lDbd5 15 lDxd5 lDxd5 16 'fi'e4 lDf6 17 'ii'h4 g6 18 i.g5 l:lc8 19 i.a2 i.e2 + Velimi­rovic-Inkiov, Banja Luka 1983 (and this game actually arose via a 2 c4 Caro Kann . . . ).

12 • . • b6 13 lDe5 i.b7 14 a3 lDbd5 15 lDe4?!

15 l:ld3!? l:lc8 (tempo or no tempo Black must be careful : 15 . . . a6 16 l:lh3 lDxc3 17 bxc3 b5 18 i.b3 l:lc8 19 i.d2 i.a8 20 l:le1 l:lc7 21 'ii'd3 i.d5 22 i.c2 g6 23 'ii'g3 i.d6 24 i.g5 i.e7 25 i.h6 i.d6 26 'ifh4 lDh5 27 'ii'xh5 ! 1 -0 was the game R.Ber­nard-Nowak, Poznan 1983) 16 l:lh3 lDxc3 17 bxc3 i.e4 18 g4 (giving a

dangerous attack, but ultimately over­ambitious . . . ) 18 . . . .i.g6 19 .i.d2 ltld5 20 l:tfl .i.xa3 21 f4 Cik7 22 f5 exf5 23 gxf5 �xf5 24 �xg6 hxg6 25 l:.xf5 l:txc4 26 l:.f4 'ifd5 27 l:.fh4 f6 28 l:te3 .i.d6 + Mariotti-Toth, Rome 198 1 . After 15 l:td3!? the knowledge­able Portisch says ao, an assessment with which we concur.

15 ... �xe4 16 Wxe4 l:tc8 17 �d3 f5 18 Wet �h8 19 .i.d2 �f6 20 .tb4 l0d5 21 �d2 �g5 22 i.xg5?

22 �f3 was required; now the black kingside attack quickly mounts before ending with a queen sacrifice finale.

22 ••. Wxg5 23 �f3 Wh6 24 l:.acl

6 i.d3 llk6 7 0-0 69

:Xcl 25 l:txcl �4 26 �n �xf3 21 gxf3 Wg5+ 28 �ht h6 29 ....,.. l:td8 30 Well e5 31 d5 l:txd5 32 l:.c8+ �h7 33 Wc2 b5 34 l:.f8 l:td3 35 Wc8 (D)

35 ... Wg2+! o-t

9 9 . . . ifd8 and 9 . . . ii'd6

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exdS WxdS 4 d4 e6 5 ltlf'J ltlf6 6 .i.d3 lLlc6 7 0.0 cxd4 8 cxd4 i..e7 9 lbc3 (D)

Here Black can choose between 9 . . . Wd8 and 9 . . . 'ii'd6, with either queen retreat leading to a thematic IQP (isolated queen's pawn) posi­tion. It is extraordinary how some of these positions can arise via totally different openings (including the Centre Counter and Nimzo-Indian). For example, 9 . . . Wd8 (Game 24) will shortly become a Semi-Tarrasch Defence (ECO code D42) by trans­position, an opening which arises via 1 c4 or 1 d4. Technically, therefore, some of these lines are outside the scope of the present book, but, of

course, your writer is not the kind of brutal, uncaring author who would refuse to cover them for such a pe­dantic reason. However due to the mass of older references, the mate­rial has had to be summarised, as these Semi-Tarrasch variations were quite popular a number of years ago. For further study, the Encyclopaedia of the Chess Openings (ECO), vol­ume D, has reasonable coverage. If you do compare the move-orders, you will see that it is actually quite favourable for White to utilise the c3 Sicilian route - some of Black's best Semi-Tarrasch defensive options are unavailable, or can be easily side­stepped. It is fair to say that, after 9 . . . 'ii'd8, White's dynamic piece play and attacking chances clearly com­pensate for the IQP, and his chances are somewhat preferable.

Nowadays the active 9 . . . Wd6 is more common, and here some of the game references have arisen via the Caro-Kann Defence (ECO code B 10): 1 e4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 cxd5 'ii'xd5 5 ltlc3 Wd6 6 d4 ltlf6 7 ltlf3 e6 8 .i.d3 ltlc6 9 0-0 .i.e7. If White now plays a quick a3 and .i.e3, play will transpose to the Modern Main Line (6 .i.e3) examined in the next chapter. Instead Game 25 covers sev­eral perfectly playable alternatives for White. The most troublesome of these for Black to effectively counter

are 10 lbb5 !? and 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 l:lc l !?.

Game 24 Christiansen - Gheorghiu

Torremolinos 1977

1 e4 cS 2 cJ d5 3 exd5 1Wxd5 4 d4 e6 5 lDt'3 lDt'6 6 i.d3 lbc6 7 0..0 cxd4 8 cxd4 i.e7 9 M 1Wd8

Please note that actual opening moves of this illustrative game were very different: 1 c4 c5 2 lDf3 lbf6 3 lbc3 e6 4 e3 d5 5 cxd5 lbxd5 6 d4 cxd4 7 exd4 i.e7 8 i.d3 lbc6 9 0-0 0-0 10 l:lel lbf6 1 1 a3 b6 12 i.c2 i.b7 13 1Wd3, reaching the position after White's 13th move. I have used the c3 Sicilian move-order (which gives Black fewer options) in order to insert various alternatives along the way.

10 a3 White's idea is to create mating

threats against h7 by setting up the formation i.c2 and 'ii'd3 . Then if Black respo nds with the defensive . . . g6, the white queen's bishop will be able to develop from c 1 to the h6-square in one hop. Therefore this move-order is more forcing than 10 l:lel 0-0 11 a3 b6 12 i.c2 which gives Black the option of 12 . . . i.a6!? (stopping White's 'W'd3), and now White can play:

a) 13 i.g5 l:lc8 14 'ii'd2 (after 14 l:lcl lbd5 15 lbe4 Black achieves a solid position with the continuation 15 .. . i.xg5 16 lilixg5 h6 17 00 1We7, as in Balashov-Hubner, Tllburg 1977 alternatively 15 . . . h6 16 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 Berg-Adianto , Gausdal 1992 and

9 . . . 1Wd8 and 9 . . . 1Wd6 71

Kindermann-Fahnenschmidt, Bun­desliga 1 990) and now:

al) 14 . . . i.c4 15 l:ladl lbd5 16 lDe4 i.xg5 17 lbexg5 lDf6 lost a pawn to 18 lDxh7 ! lbxh7 19 i.xh7 + �xh7 20 1Wc2+ �g8 21 1Wxc4 in Gobet-Campora, Bern 1988.

a2) 14 ... 1Wd6 15 l:ladl l:lfd8 16 i.b1 1Wb8 17 1Wc2 g6 18 i.a2 h6 19 i.xe6 hxg5 20 1Wxg6+ �h8 21 1Wh6+ �g8 22 lbxg5 l:lf8 23 l:le4 1-0 Tal­Chikovani, Gori 1968 is a graphic illustration of White's attacking pos­sibilities in this line.

a3) 14 . . . lba5 15 l:ladl (15 'ii'f4 l:le8 16 d5 ll:)xd5 17 lbxd5 'W'xd5 18 i.xh7+ �xh7 19 i.xe7 oo Chekhov­Psakhis, Vladivostok 1978) 15 . . . lbc4 16 'ii'cl 'ii'c7 17 d5 ll:)xb2 1 8 d6! 1Wxc3 19 dxe7 ll:)xdl was Novik-Va­siukov, Leningrad 1991 . Here Novik suggests 20 i.xf6! 'ii'xc2 21 'ii'g5 'ii'g6 22 exf8'ii'+ l:lxf8 23 'ii'xg6 hxg6 24 i.e7 ll:)c3 25 i.xf8 �xf8 26 ll:)d4 ;!;, as 24 . . . l:le8 would have failed to 25 l:lxdl l:lxe7 26 l:ld8+ �h7 27 ll:)g5+ �h6 28 f4 and the black king is in a mating net.

b) 13 b4!? with a further split: bl ) 13 . . . i.c4 14 b5 ll:)a5 15 lbe5

l:lc8 16 l:le3 (16 i.g5 g6 17 'ii'f3 i.d5 oo Franco-Short, Arnheml Amsterdam 1 983) 16 . . . g6 (16 . . . l:lc7 17 l:lg3 l:le8 18 i.h6 i.f8 19 i.g5 i.e7 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 21 i.xh7+ �xh7 22 1Wh5+ �g8 23 ll:)e4 i.d5 24 l:lh3 �f8 25 'ii'xf7+! ! 1-0 was a lovely queen sac­rifice in Kaidanov-Anand, Moscow 1 987) 17 l:lh3 ( 17 l:lg3 ll:)d5 18 ll:)xg6 fxg6 19 i.xg6 hxg6 20 1Wh5 i.d3 21 l:lxg6+ i.xg6 22 1Wxg6+ �h8 23 1Wh6+ �g8 24 1Wg6+ �h8

72 9 . . . 'fld8 and 9 . . . 'fld6

2S 1i'h6+ �g8 26 'ii'g6+ l!z.lh. How­ell-Machulsky, Dublin Telecom 1991) 17 ... .idS and now instead of 18 'ii'd2 .ib3 ! Savon recommends 1 8 .ih6 Ae8 19 'fkd2 ± intending 'ii'f4.

b2) 13 .. . Ac8!? and here (D):

b21 ) 14 Ae3 !? .ic4 1S bS .!LiaS 16 o!Lie5 as in B.Filipovic-N.Lalic, Banja Vrucica 1987, transposed into the 1 3 . . . .ic4 line above.

b22) After 14 bS .!LiaS 1S 'ii'd3, 1S . . . .ib7 was fine for Black in both Hmadi-De Boer, Cannes 1 990 and Pyhlila-0stenstad, Slupsk 1987. Black tried to be too clever with 15 . . . 1i'c7 16 .td2 o!Lic4 in Pyhlila-Christiansen, Reykjavik 1 986 and paid the price after 17 o!L\e4 o!Lixe4 18 'ii'xe4 g6 19 .if4 ±.

b23) 14 .ib2 .tc4 (of course not 14 .. . 00?? 1 S bS o!Lixc3 16 'ii'd3 ! g6 17 .ixc3 'ii'c7 18 bxa6 .!LiaS 19 .ixaS 1 -0, which was the brevity Anand­Adams, London Lloyds Bank 1987) 1S 'ii'd2 ( 15 bS .!LiaS 16 .!LieS is no longer dangerous, as White's bishop on b2 can be blocked out of the at­tack, e.g. 16 . . . o!LidS 17 o!Lixd5 .ixd5 1 8 .ixh7+ �xh7 19 'ii'h5+ �g8 20 Ae3 .th4 21 f4 Ac2 22 Ah3 Axg2+

23 �fl Af2+ 24 �g1 Axf4 0-1 Lanka-0stenstad, 1989) 1S . . . o!Lid5 16 o!L\e4 aS :j: Mortensen-0stenstad, Nor­dic Ch 1987, though White later won with a scandalous swindle.

Another line is 10 Ae 1 0-0 1 1 .igS, not bothering with a3. After 1 l . . .b6 (the immediate 1 1 . . .o!Lib4 12 .ib1 b6 allows 13 .!LieS .ib7 14 Ae3 g6 15 Ag3 i with attacking chances, Keene-Miles, Hastings 1 975) 121i'e2 .ib7 13 Aad1 o!Lib4 14 .ib1 Ac8 15 o!L\e5 o!Libd5 ( l S . . . .!Lifd5 16 .id2 .!Lif6 17 'fke3 o!Lifd5 1 8 'ii'h3 f5 19 a3 .!L\a6 20 .ia2 ± Petrosian-Najdorf, Mos­cow 1967) 16 'ii'd3 (but not 16 Ad3? .ia6 17 o!LixdS and now instead of 17 . . . o!LixdS 18 .ixe7 1i'xe7 19 Ah3 = Bobotsov-Petrosian, Moscow 1967 Black should play 17 ... exd5 ! +, as 18 .ixf6 .ixf6 19 Ah3 .ixe2 20 .ixh7+ �h8 21 .id3+ .th4 is -+) 16 .. . o!Lixc3 (16 .. . g6 17 .ih6 Ae8 18 'ii'h3 i Kott­nauer-Donner, Leysin 1967) 17 bxc3 'ii'dS 1 8 'flh3 Axc3 19 f3 h6 20 .ixf6 .ixf6 21 .ie4 'ii'xe4 22 Axe4 .ixe4 23 o!Lid7 ! Polugaevsky-Khasin, USSR Ch 1961 .

10 ... 0-0 (D)

ll .tcl

For 1 1 .i.e3 see Chapter 10, while 1 1 .i.g5 b6 (l l . . .h6? 12 .i.h4 �h8 13 .i.c2 g5 14 .i.g3 g4 15 .i.e5 ! ± Kava­lek-Grefe, USA Ch 1973) 12 'tt'e2 .i.b7 13 l:lad1 l:le8 (13 ... l:lc8 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 15 d5 exd5 16 .i.f5 ± Lein-Yaroslavtsev, USSR 1965, or 13 . . . g6 14 .i.c4 ltld5 15 .i.h6 ;t Ghi­tescu-Donner, Beverwijk 1967) 14 l:lfe1 g6 15 .i.c4 li:ld5 16 .i.xd5 ! .i.xg5 ( 16 . . . exd5 17 .i.xe7 l:lxe7 18 'it'd2 ;t) 17 .i.e4 .i.f6 18 ltle5 ;t was the game Korchnoi-Tal, Moscow Ct (8) 1968.

1 1 l:le1 is a major alternative: a) 1 1 . . .a6 12 .i.c2 b5 1 3 'it'd3

.i.b7? (a more refined version of the blunder is 1 3 . . . l:la7?! 14 d5 ! l:ld7 15 ll:le4 g6 16 .i.h6 li:lxd5 17 .i.xf8 ± Makarychev-Ageichenko, Moscow Ch 1987; necessary is 13 . . . g6 14 b4 l:la7 15 .i.h6 l:le8 16 l:lad1 l:ld7 17 h3 .i.b7 18 'it'e3 'it'a8 19 .i.b3 ltld8 20 ltle5 ;t, as in the game Cramling­Hort, London 1982) 14 d5 ! exd5 15 .i.g5 g6 16 l:lxe7 ! 'it'xe7 (16 . . . ltlxe7 17 .i.xf6 ±) 17 ltlxd5 li:lxd5 18 .i.xe7 ± Ligterink-Donner, Leeuwarden 1977, is a familiar trap that has claimed several subsequent victims. The theme is simple but effective -White prises open the c-fi1e and cap­tures on e7.

b) 1 1 . .. b6 12 .i.g5 (for 12 .i.c2 see the main game; 1 2 ltle5 has led to several boring draws after 12 . . . .i.b7 1 3 .i.a6 'ii'c8 14 .i.xb7 'i!fxb7 1 5 ltlxc6 'ii'xc6 16 d5 'i!fc4, e.g. 1 7 'i!fe2 'ii'xe2 18 l:lxe2 .i.c5 19 dxe6 fxe6 20 .i.e3 .i.xe3 21 l:lxe3 ltld5 22 l:lxe6 ll:lxc3 23 bxc3 l:lac8 24 l:le3 l:lf4 25 h3 l:lfc4 26 l:lc 1 l:l8c7 27 �fl l:la4

9 . . . 'iii' dB and 9 ... 'ii'd6 73

28 l:la1 l:lac4 29 l:lc1 h6 1h-1h Ribli­Kavalek, Tilburg 1980) 12 . . . .i.b7 13 .i.c2 (13 .i.b1 !? l:le8 14 'i!fd3 g6 15 .i.a2 ;t is another interesting plan, Suba-Velikov, Lucerne OL 1982) 13 ... l:lc8 14 'i!fd3 g6 15 l:lad1 ltld5 ( 15 . . . l:le8 16 h4 would transpose to the game Kavalek-Larsen, Solingen 1970, which went 16 ... a6 17 .i.b3 ltlas 18 .i.a2 b5 19 ll:le5 ltld5 20 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 21 .i.xe7 l:lxe7 22 li:lxd5 'i!fxd5 23 ll:lg4 ±) 16 .i.h6 l:le8 17 .i.a4 a6 18 ltlxd5 'i!fxd5 19 'i!fe3 .i.f6 20 .i.b3. Here 20 ... 1t'h5? 21 d5 ltld8 22 d6 ± l:lc5 23 d7 l:le7 24 'ii'f4 .i.g7 25 'ii'b8 'ii'xh6 26 1i'xd8+ .i.f8 27 l:le3 .i.c6 28 'i!i'Xf8+ 'it'xf8 29 d8'ii' 1-0 was Smyslov-Karpov, Leningrad 1971 and Karpov's attempt to im­prove for Black many years later was only partially successful: 20 . . . 1i'd7 21 d5 exd5 22 'i!fxb6 l:lxe1+ 23 l:lxe1 .i.xb2 24 .i.xd5 ;t Beliavsky-Karpov, Trud-CSKA 1986.

11 ... b6 12 'ii'd3 .i.b7 13 l:le1 (D)

Setting up a highly disguised and deadly trap. Instead 13 .i.g5 g6 14 l:lfe1 ltld5 15 .i.h6 l:le8 16 ltle4 l:lc8 17 l:lac1 l:lc7 18 h4 lLlf6 19 lLlg3 l:ld7 20 .ta4 li:lxd4 21 .i.xd7 li:lxf3+ 22

74 9 . .. 'fld8 and 9 . . . 'fld6

gxf3 t'Lixd7 ao was Gallagher-Brun­ner, Switzerland 1994.

13 ••• g6 This defensive move, blocking

the potential threat against h7, is now essentially forced, but many players (including Anatoly Karpov and Vas­sily Smyslov) have not appreciated just how dangerous the position is for Black, and the blunders 1 3 . . . 1le8 and 1 3 . . . 1lc8 have been seen on many occasions:

a) 1 3 . . . 1le8 14 d5 ! ! exd5 1S i.gS ! (the trap is sprung ! Now White threatens i.xf6 followed by 'ii'xh7+, but 1S . . . g6 loses to 16 llxe7 ! 'ii'xe7 17 t'LixdS - so Black must return the pawn and suffer an onslaught against his king) 1S . . . t'Lie4 16 t'Lixe4 dxe4 17 'flxe4 g6 18 'flh4 'ii'c7 19 i.b3 hS 20 i.f6 (also 20 llac1 i.f8 21 i.f6 i.g7 22 i.xg7 �xg7 23 lOgS ± Makary­chev-Velikov, Frunze 198S) 20 . . . i.cS 2 1 'ii'gS �h7 22 i.c2 1 -0 Bonk­Werner, Germany 1981 - and Diz­dar-Dizdarevic, Sarajevo 1988 !

b) 1 3 . . . 1lc8 14 dS ! ! (in the game Smyslov-Karpov, USSR Ch 197 1 , White missed 14 dS, but still won a fine game after 14 i.gS g6 - see the note beginning 1 1 lle1) 14 . . . exdS (14 . .. t'Lia5 1S i.gS ! and Black had to give up an exchange with 1S . . . Ilxc3 16 'flxc3 t'Lixd5 17 'fld3 t'Lif6 in Bar­bulescu-Campora, Lucerne 198S) 1S i.gS ! lL\e4 (again if 1S ... g6, 16 llxe7) 16 t'Lixe4 dxe4 17 'ii'xe4 g6 (with the saving defence 1 8 i.xe7 t'Lixe7 19 'ii'xe7 i.xf3 20 gxf3 llxc2 in mind) 1 8 i.h6 lle8 19 llad1 'flc7 20 i.b3 t'Lid8 21 'ii'd4 1 -0 Wl.Schmidt-Ima­naliev, Moscow OL 1994.

14 i.h6 lle8 15 llad1 llc8 1S . . . i.f8 1 6 i.gS i.e7 17 i.a4 ( 17

i.b3 t'Lid5 1 8 i.xd5 i.xgS 19 i.xc6

i.xc6 20 dS exdS 2 1 llxe8+ i.xe8 22 t'LixgS 'flxgS 23 'ii'd4 i.c6 24 h4 'ii'e7 2S t'LixdS i.xdS 26 'ii'xdS lle8 27 hS is only slightly favourable, Ve­limirovic-Bohm, Amsterdam 1976) 17 ... llc8 1 8 tOes t'Lids 19 i.xe7 llxe7 20 t'Lixd5 'ii'xd5 2 1 'ii'g3 t'LixeS 22 dxeS 'ii'c4 23 'ii'gS 'ii'c7 24 h4 hS 2S llcl ;t Sigurjonsson-Bohm, Am­sterdam 1976.

16 i.b3 Probably stronger is 16 h4!? t'Lids

17 t'LixdS 'ii'xd5 18 'ii'd2 'fld6 (not 18 ... lbxd4 19 'ii'xd4 llxc2 20 'ii'g7#) 19 i.e4 ;t Ribli-Gheorghiu, Warsaw Z 1979. Take heed, however, that GM Florin Gheorghiu still consis­tently patronises these systems for Black, even though most sources agree White holds an initiative. The point is that one inaccuracy can turn the tables - if Black neutralises his opponent's active piece play then the IQP becomes a weakness.

16 ... t'Lia5 17 i.a2 t'Lid5 18 t'Lie4 llc7 (better is 1 8 . . . t'Lif6, with a tacit offer of a draw by repetition, because 19 t'LiegS i.dS 20 t'Lixf7? �xf7 21 tOeS+ �g8 22 t'Lixg6 i.d6 proved an unsound sacrifice for White in Lehti­vaara-Gheorghiu, Lenk 1992) 19 l0es i.f8 20 i.g5 i.e7 21 i.xe7 llexe7 22 i.xd5! exd5 23 t'Lif6+ �g7 24 'ii'h3 h5 (now White has a strong piece sacrifice, but 24 . . . �xf6 loses to 2S t'Lig4+ �g7 26 'ii'h6+ followed by 27 t'Lif6) 25 lDxh5+ gxh5 26 lld3 'ii'h8 27 llg3+ �f8 28 llg5 lle6 29 'ii'xe6 fxe6 30 t'Lig6+ �g7 31 lLixh8+

�xb8 32 lhh5+ �g7 33 h4 fOc6 34 l:.:xe6 fud4 35 l:.gS+ �h7 36 l:.d6 :11 37 u l1Jrs 38 ::xrs ::xrs 39 l:.d7+ �g6 40 lhb7 l:.f4 41 lba7 1.0

Game 25 Dorfman - Razuvaev

USSR 1979

1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 e:xdS W:xdS 4 d4 e6 S M l1Jf6 6 .i.d3 .i.e7 7 0-0 c:xd4 8 cxd4 fOc6 9 W Wd6 (D)

10 lObS!? The most unstereotyped of several

sidelines. Instead a common move­order to reach the . . . Wd6 main line (covered next chapter) runs 10 a3 0-0 1 1 .i.e3. Other sensible alternatives:

a) 10 .i.e3 0-0 1 1 l:.c1 !? (specifi­cally to discourage Black's immedi­ate . . . b6 plan) 1 l . . .l1Jb4 ( l l . . .b6?! 12 l1Je4 ! l1Jxe4 13 .i.xe4 .i.b7 14 l1Je5 l:.ac8 15 .i.f4 ± l1Jxe5 16 l:.xc8 .i.xc8 17 .i.xe5 Wb4 18 Wc2 f5 19 a3 Wb5 20 .i.c6 WaS 21 l:.d1 h6 22 h3 �h7 23 .i.f3 Wb5 24 Wc7 Wd7 25 l:.c 1 1 -0 Hort-Mi§ta, Czech Cht 1977/8; l l ... l:.d8 1 2 l:.e1 .i.d7 13 a3 l:.ac8 14 b4 .i.e8 15 We2 .i.f8 16 .i.b1 a5 17 b5 l1Je7 18 a4 a:� Chandler-Matera,

9 . . . WdB and 9 . . . Wd6 75

Lone Pine 1979) 12 .i.b1 b6 (12 ... .i.d7 13 l1Je5 is more passive) 1 3 l1Je5 (worth attention is the line 1 3 l1Jb5 Wd8 14 l1Jc7 l:.b8 15 .i.f4 .i.d6 16 .i.e5 !? Ra.MUller-Schlosser, Ger­many 1995) 1 3 . . . .i.b7 14 .i.f4 Wd8 15 l:.e1 l:.c8 16 .i.g5 Wd6 17 a3 l1Jbd5 1 8 Wd3 g6 with equality, Gorelov-Panchenko, Moscow 1981 .

b) 10 l:.e1 0-0 1 1 .i.g5 (leaving the d-pawn insufficiently bolstered) 1 1 . ..l:.d8 12 l1Jb5 Wd7 13 Wa4 h6 14 .i.h4 l1Jd5 15 .i.xe7 Wxe7 ; Sanz­Sosonko, Amsterdam 1978.

c) 10 We2 0-0 1 1 l:.d1 can com­monly arise via move-orders where Black has delayed exchanging on d4. Black has a good game after 1 1 ... l1Jb4 12 .i.b1 b6 13 .i.g5 (or 13 l1Je4 .i.a6 14 Wxa6 l1Jxa6 1 5 l1Jxd6 .i.xd6) 13 . . . .i.b7 14 a3 l1Jbd5 15 l1Je4 l1Jf4 16 We3 l1Jxe4 17 .i.xe7 Wxe7 1 8 Wxf4 l1Jf6 ; Sanz-Stean, Amster­dam 1978.

d) 10 .i.g5 0-0 1 1 l:.c1 l:.d8 (not 1 l . . .b6? 12 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 3 l1Je4) 12 l1Jb5 Wd7 13 l1Je5 ! ? is interesting and forcing. After 13 .. . l1Jxe5 14 l:.c7! (14 dxe5 Wxd3) 14 .. . Wd5 15 dxe5 Wxe5 ! (the only move! 15 . . . Wxd3 16 Wxd3 l:.xd3 17 l:.xe7 .i.d7 1 8 l1Jd6, a line given in the first edition of this book, duly won for White in Hermann-Sei­bold, Germany 1 991) 16 l:.xe7 Wxg5 17 .i.xh7+ �xh7 18 Wxd8 .i.d7 1 9 Wxa8 .i.xb5 20 g3 ! (not 20 Wxb7? .i.xf1 21 �xf1 Wc1+ 22 �e2 Wc2+ + Suskov-Loginov, Leningrad 1979) 20 . . . -*.xfl 21 �xfl Wc 1+ 22 �g2 Wc6+ draws, Malaniuk-Gorelov, Sarato 1981 .

10 ... Wd8

76 9 . . .'fld8 and 9 . . .'fld6

After 10 . . . 1i'd7, 1 1 lile5 1i'd8 12 1i'f3 ltlb4! ( 12 . . . ltlxd4?! 1 3 1i'g3! gives White a strong attack) 13 l:d1 ltlxd3 14 l:xd3 0-0 with equality, was Smyslov-Espig, Berlin 1979, but White has many other tries. For example, after 1 1 i.f4 lild5 12 i.g3 the queen on d7 is more of a target than in the analogous lines of the main game.

u .tr4 ltlds 12 .tg3 ( D J Manoeuvring the bishop to the

h2-b8 diagonal was the idea behind White's lOth move.

12 ... 0-0 Or 12 . . . a6 13 .!Clc3 and now: a) 13 . . . ltlcb4 14 i.b1 lilf6 15

ltle5 0-0 16 :e 1 i.d7 17 i.h4 i.c6 18 l:e3 g6 19 l:h3 and while White had some kingside attacking chances in Henley-Kuligowski, New York 1981, Black defended satisfactorily with 19 . . . ltid7 20 i.xe7 1i'xe7 21 ltlxc6 ltlxc6 22 i.e4 l:ac8 23 1i'd2 l:fd8 24 d5 exd5 25 1i'h6 lilf8 26 i.xd5 lild4.

b) 13 . . . ltlxc3 (this capture gener­ally gives White a pleasant game) 14 bxc3 0-0 15 1i'e2 g6 16 l:ad1 i.f6 17 ltle5 i.d7 18 i.e4 i.g7 19 ltlc4 b5

20 ltid6 l:a7 21 d5 ± Stripunsky­Kushch, Ukrainian Ch 1990.

c) 13 ... 0-0 14 l:c1 ltlxc3 15 bxc3 i.f6 16 a4 i.d7 17 1i'c2 g6 18 i.d6 l:e8 19 1i'b1 e5 20 d5 lila7 21 l:fe1 i.xa4 22 i.xe5 i.xe5 23 ltlxe5 1i'c7 24 d6 1i'xd6 25 1i'xb7 ± Brodsky­Vehi Bach, Groningen 1994.

13 1i'e2 1 3 i.c4 !? looks strange, but actu­

ally it transposes to Game 17, Chap­ter 6. Instead 13 l:c 1 i.d7 14 i.e4 lbcb4 forced White to continue com­binatively in Grefe-Dzindzihashvili, Lone Pine 1980. The continuation 15 i.xd5 ! ltlxd5 16 lbc7 ltlxc7 17 i.xc7 1i'e8 18 ltle5 i.b5 19 l:e1 l:tc8 20 d5 exd5 21 1i'xd5 looked promis­ing, but after accurate defence by Black the game petered out to a draw: 2l . . .i.g5 ! 22 l:c3 i.c6 23 Wd1 l:xc7 24 ltlxc6 1i'd7 25 Wxd7 l:xd7 26 ltlxa7 g6 27 a3 :as 28 ltlb5 i.d2 29 l:d1 i.xc3 30 l:xd7 i.xb2 31 l:xb7 i.xa3 I!z.Ih.

Also possible is 13 l:e1 , when the continuation 13 . . . a6 14 lbc3 lilf6 15 l:c 1 ltlb4 16 i. b 1 b5 17 ltle4 ltlxe4 was punished by a strong zwischen­zug in Jamieson-Base, Lucerne OL 1982: 18 i.c7 ! We8 19 i.xe4 ltid5 20 i.xd5 exd5 21 i.d6 ±.

13 ... ltlcb4 14 i.b1 a6 15 ltlc3 bS?!

15 ... i.d7 - Razuvaev. 16 ltle4! ± A natural move, but to play it

Dorfman had to calculate the conse­quences of 16 . . . f5. The tactics will fa­vour White: 17 ltlc5 ! f4 ( 17 . . . i.xc5 18 dxc5 f4 19 .th4) 18 ltlxe6 i.xe6 19 ... xe6+ �h8 20 ... h3 h6 21 ltle5

fxg3 22 lLlg6+ �g8 23 'ife6+ :n 24 lLle5.

16 ... g6 17 .Ucl .i.d7 18 a3 lLlc6 19 'ifd2 lLlf6 20 ft6?!

Razuvaev gives 20 h3 ±. Now Black is able to mount an inspired defence.

20 ... ltlg4 21 'iff4 (D)

21 .. Jlc8!!

9 . . . 'if dB and 9 .. . 'ifd6 77

An amazing move, just leaving the g4-knight en prise, but the point is simple enough: on 22 'ifxg4? e5 ! White will have to give up his queen (23 lLlf6+ .i.xf6 24 'ife4 .i.f5). In­stead the immediate 21 . . .lLlxd4 is bad after the continuation 22 lLlxd4 e5 23 'ilfd2 exd4 24 .i.c7 'ife8 25 lLld6.

22 .i.a2 lLlxd4! 23 lLlxd4 e5 24 'ifd2 exd4 25 'ifxd4 llxcl+ 26 .:.Xcl .i.e6 27 'ifxd8 .Uxd8 28 .i.xe6 fxe6 29 �n lLlf6 (White still has a slight edge, but insufficient to win; now if 30 lLlg5, then 30 . . . lLlh5 3 1 lLlxe6 lLlxg3+ 32 hxg3 .l:d2) 30 lLlc5 .Uc8 31 lLld3 llxcl + 32 lLlxcl lLle4 33 .i.e5 lLldl+ 34 �e2 lLlc4 35 .i.c3 �f7 36 �d3 e5 37 a4 e4+ 38 �xe4 bxa4 39 �d5 lLlb6+ 40 �c6 lLlc4 41 �d5 lLlb6+ 112-112

1 0 Modern Main Line : 6 .te3

1 e4 c5 2 c3 dS 3 exdS •xdS 4 d4 e6 5 .!DO .!Df6 6 .i.e3 (D)

One of the reasons 6 .i.e3 is so popular is that it can also be played against the popular move-order 4 . . . o!Df6 5 o!Df3 o!Dc6 ftrst seen back in Chapter 3. The most likely result is a transposition into the lines examined in this chapter. With 6 .i.e3 (against either move-order) White aims to force early clarification in the centre, by getting Black to exchange pawns on d4.

In Game 26, Rozentalis-Anders­son, we see an enterprising attempt to inhibit Black's routine develop­ment with 1 1 ... c2 !?. In Game 27, Adams-Tiviakov, we explore what is now the main variation of the 2 . . . d5 defence against the c3 Sicilian, the

position arising after 1 3 :actt. This is a deeply complex variation, where White often has to manoeuvre posi­tionally in order to create threats, rather than just point his pieces at the kingside and lurch in. If you insist on an assessment I am afraid I am going to hide behind that classic author's phrase 'An unclear position with chances for both sides ! ' The last word is nowhere near being said on these strategically rich positions.

Game 26 Rozentalis - Andersson

Tilburg 1993

1 e4 c5 2 c3 dS 3 exd5 'iVxdS 4 d4 e6 5 o!Df3 .!Df6 6 .i.e3 cxd4

White's idea with 6 .i.e3 is to re­solve the situation in the centre, but occasionally Black refuses to swap pawns on d4. After 6 . . . o!Dc6 two logi­cal continuations have been played (though the untried 7 a3 !? is worth a thought, since after 7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 play will inevitably transpose to the main line):

a) 7 dxc5 ... xd1+ 8 'it>xdl lDg4 9 b4 a5 10 .i.b5 .i.d7 1 1 a3 (1 1 h3 o!Dxe3+ 12 fxe3 axb4 13 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 14 cxb4 b6 15 ll:X:3 bxc5 16 b5 .i.xf3+ 17 gxf3 :a3 18 'it>c2 c4 "" Handoko­Bancod, Jakarta 1993) l l . . . axb4 1 2 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 13 cxb4 tDxe3+ 1 4 fxe3 b6 15 ll:X:3 bxcS 16 bS .i.b7 17 a4 g5

18 �c2 g4 19 o!Dd2 f5 20 a5 and the two connected passed pawns ulti­mately won for White in Varavin­Serper, Novosibirsk 1989.

b) 7 .!i)a3 cxd4 8 .!i)b5 11fd8 (the alternative 8 ... 11fd7 9 .!i)bxd4 �5 10 �b5 looked dangerous for Black in the game Makarychev-Dzindzihash­vili, Tbilisi 1973) 9 .!i)bxd4 �5 10 �g5 (10 i..b5 .id7 1 1 0-0 .!i)xe3 12 fxe3 i..c5 13 i..xc6 i..xc6 14 �5 =

Prins-StAhlberg, Treni:!ianske Teplice 1949 or 10 .td2 .!i)xd4 1 1 .!i)xd4 .tc5 = Meulders-Sosonko, Amsterdam 1 978) 10 . . . f6 (10 . . . 'ii'b6!?) 1 1 .td2 �e7 I2 i..c4 0-0 I3 'ii'e2 11fd6 I4 0-0 i..d8 I5 l:.ad1 ;!; Vorotnikov-Petru­shin, USSR 1985.

Also possible is 6 ... .!i)g4 7 �d3 (7 .ig5!? Smagin; 7 c4 .!i)xe3 8 fxe3 'fi'd8 9 .!i)c3 i..e7 10 d5 is another plan, Handoko-Adianto, Beijing 1992) 7 ... .te7?! (7 .. . .!i)xe3 8 fxe3 �6 trans­poses to Chapter 3, Game 5, note to White's 6th move) 8 �f4 ! 0-0 9 0-0 l:.d8?! IO 'fi'c2 .!i)f6 1 1 i..c7 ! l:.d7 I2 �e5 cxd4 13 cxd4 �6 14 �3 11fa5 I5 .txf6 i..xf6 16 .ixh7+ ;!; Smagin­Maksimenko, Yugoslavia 1994.

A third sideline is 6 . . . i..e7, for ex­ample. 7 dxc5 11fxd1+ 8 �xdi 0-0 9 .!i)bd2 .!i)g4 10 b4 a5 1 I o!Dd4 axb4 12 cxb4 l:.d8 13 �c2 i..f6 14 .!i)2b3 e5 I5 .!i)b5 �6 I6 a3 .if5+ I7 �c3 e4+ 18 .!i)3d4 with very unclear play, Seret-Adorjan, Lucerne I985, al­though the onus is on Black to justify his pawn sacrifice.

7 cxd4 li)c6 8 M 11fd6 After 8 . . . 'fi'd8 9 .tc4! White has

a sort of Semi-Tarrasch type posi­tion with accelerated development:

Modem Main Line: 6 �e3 79

9 . . . i..e7 10 0-0 0-0 (IO . . . .!i)d5? 1 1 i..xd5 exd5 12 11fb3 0-0 1 3 11fxd5 ± Lautier-I.Sokolov, Correze 1992) I 1 �5! ;!; � ( l l . ..�d7 Polak-Rogers, Biel 1992, and here 12 a3 !? l:.c8 13 i..a2) 12 i..e2 .!i)d5 ( I 2 . . . b6 1 3 i..f3 �b7 I4 �xb7 .!i)xb7 15 .!i)c6 'ii'd7 16 'ii'f3 ;!; Smagin) 13 .!Dxd5 exd5 14 .id3 ;!; Smagin-Olafsson, Erevan 1988. '

Less effective, after 8 ... 11fd8, is the same 11fc2 plan of the main game: 9 .id3 �e7 I 0 a3 0-0 I I 'ii'c2 i..d7 ( l l . . .h6 12 0-0 b6 also looks reason­able by analogy with other vari­ations) I 2 0-0 l:.c8 13 l:.ad 1 'ii'a5 I4 'fi'e2 l:.fd8 15 h3 .te8 16 l:.fe1 Dol­matov-Sosonko, Cannes 1994, and here Dolmatov suggests I6 . . . a6 !? as 17 �c1? is met by 17 . . . �xa3 .

However we should also examine the more standard positions (which may also be reached via other move­orders) arising after 8 . . . 'fi'd8 9 �d3 .te7 IO 0-0 0-0 and now:

a) 1 1 :CI b6 (1 l . ...!Db4 I2 i..bi b6 13 a3 .!i)bd5 14 'ii'd3 .!i)xc3 15 bxc3 .tb7 16 .!i)g5 g6 17 c4 .!i)g4 � Karls­son-Hjartarson, Iceland 1995) 12 � .!Db4 13 .!i)xf6+ i..xf6 I4 i..b1 i..b7 I5 a3 .!Dd5 16 'ii'd3 g6 I7 .th6 �g7 18 �xg7 �xg7 19 11fd2 'ii'e7 = Chandler-Gheorghiu, USA 1979.

b) 1 1 a3 b6 I2 11fe2 (12 l:.cl i..b7 13 .ibi l:.c8 I4 'ii'e2 l:.e8 1 5 l:.fd1 .!Dd5 16 'fi'd3 g6 17 i..a2 .!Dxc3 18 l:.xc3 i..f6 19 l:.dc1 i..g7 20 h4 .!De7 2I l:.xc8 1h-lf2 Fedorowicz-De Fir­mian, USA Ch (Estes Park) 1987) 12 . . . �b7 13 l:.ad1 l:.c8 14 l:.fei (in Game 27, note to Black's 1 3th, you will find a reference where Black has

80 Modem Main Line: 6 J.e3

played flrst . . . 'ir'd6 and then .. .'.d8; so by analogy Black should be OK here with an extra tempo, but no one toldMotwani .. . ) 14 ... lba5?! (14 ... :e8) 15 J.g5 00 16 'it'e4!? lbf6 (16 . . . g6) 17 'ifh4 g6 18 d5 J.xd5 19 fud5 fud5 20 J.a6! ± Motwani-Tiviakov, Gausdal l992, as White threatens 21 J.xc8 and 21 :xdS.

Returning to the position after 8 . . . 'ild6 (D):

.......... . w • • • • • • • ' "�.!illii �.- "�· .... . �

• • • • • D • •

• � .ltJ. ,., % '% Dfff •. j!i 0 D% ,., D% Q � " • � " Cl � � v, � v, v,

R D..wr� � �­Mi � - �.a.a : 9 a3 Less clear but still possible is 9

J.c4! ? J.e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 'ife2 (1 1 a3 !? a6 transposes to the game Mikh­alchishin-Vukic, Yugoslavia I 994, which continued 12 J.a2 :d8? ! 13 'ife2 b5 14 b4 !? J.b7 15 :fd l lbb8 16 d5 e5 17 J.c5 'ifc7 18 'ihe5 ±) l l . . .a6 (if l l . . .b6 White's bishop looks well placed on c4; compare many J.d3 lines of Game 27 where White often spends a tempo re-de­ploying his bishop to the a2-g8 di­agonal) 12 a3 (12 :ad1 b5 13 J.b3 lbb4 14 J.g5 J.b7 15 lbe5 :acs 16 :rei lbbd5 17 :d3 "" Rozentalis­Serper, Vilnius 1988) 12 . . . b5 1 3 J.a2 b4 14 lba4 bxa3 15 bxa3 :bs 16 lbc5 00 17 :ac1 :ds 18 'ifc2 'ifc7

19 lbe4 J.b7 20 lbeg5 g6 21 'ife4 oa

Vlassov-Kharitonov, St Petersburg 1994.

9 •.• J.e7 10 J.d3 If White intends to play the 'ifc2! ?

plan examined i n this game, then in fact 10 'ifc2! is more accurate - see the note after Black's next move.

10."0-0 With the prudent 10 . . . b6 ( !), de­

laying castling by one move, Black can side-step the whole 1 1 'ifc2 line (as happened, for example, in the game Short-Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee 1995 and in several games where Rozentalis was White). After 10 . . . b6 there is nothing better than 1 1 0-0, transposing to Game 27, because 1 1 'ifc2 has lost its point: 1 l . . .J.b7 12 lbe4 lbxe4 13 J.xe4 and White has no threats. Therefore White should prefer the less common move-order 10 'ifc2! 0-0 1 1 J.d3 if he wishes to ensure he reaches this main game variation.

ll 'ifc2!? (D)

For the main line 1 1 0-0 see the next game. At fust glance c2 appears an odd square for the queen, since Black will shortly place a rook on the

open c-file. Indeed White almost invariably subsequently moves the queen to e2, but this is not a straight­forward loss of a tempo. White's subtle idea is to prevent Black from achieving the fianchetto with . . . b6 and . . . .i.b7; the immediate 1 l . . .b6? now can be strongly met by 12 lDe4 lL:!xe4 1 3 .i.xe4 attacking both h7 and c6. Therefore Black often re­sponds by developing his bishop to the less active square d7.

ll .. ..i.d7 Alternatives: a) 1 l ...g6 (a concession, but it does

allow Black to fianchetto) 1 2 0-0 b6 (as now after l3 lDe4 lDxe4 14 R.xe4 .i.b7 the h-pawn is no longer en prise) 1 3 .:.adl .i.b7 14 .:.fe1 .:.ac8 15 We2 .:.Ce8 16 .i.c4 lDd5 17 R.xd5 exd5 1 8 .i.h6 f6 19 h4 lL:!d8 20 lL:!b5 Wb8 2 1 Wd2 .i.c6 22 .i.f4 Rozen­talis-Hellers, Stockholm 1990; ;!; due to Black's slightly airy kingside.

b) 1 l . . .h6 is another possibility, when I cannot see a reason why after 12 0-0 (or 1 2 .:.d1 ) nobody has now tried the fianchetto with 12 ... b6!? (in­stead 12 . . . .i.d7 gives positions simi­lar to the main game).

12 o..o .:.aca t3 l:.adt .:.rd8 Or 1 3 . . . g6 14 .:.ret .:.fd8 15 •e2

.i.e8 16 lL:!g5 Wc7 17 .i.c4 lL:!d5 1 8 R.xd5 exd5 19 .. f3 Wd7 20 lL:!h3 f6 2 1 .i.h6 .i.fl 22 lL:!f4 b6 23 .:.e3 ;!; Vogt-Vatter, Germany 1 995.

14 .:.tel R.e8 15 .i.cl Other examples: a) 15 We2 lL:!d5 !? (15 . . ... b8 16

.i.b1 a6 17 .i.a2 b5 18 .i.g5 h6 19 .i.h4 b4 20 axb4 lL:!xb4 21 .i.b1 lL:!bd5 22 lL:!xdS lL:!xd5 23 .. e4 lL:!f6

Modern Main Line: 6 .i.e3 81

24 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 25 Wh7+ �f8 26 dS ± Rozentalis-Novikov, Leningrad 1990) 1 6 lDe4 Wc7 17 .i.bl Wb6 18 h3 lL:!xe3 1 9 fxe3 lL:!a5 20 .i.d3 .. b3 "" Yanovsky-Dolmatov, Dortmund 1992.

b) 15 h3 !? .. b8 16 ife2 a6 17 R.bl b5 18 .i.g5 h6 1 9 .i.h4 .. a7 20 d5 lL:!xd5 21 lL:!xd5 .i.xh4 22 lL:!xh4 exd5 23 lL:!f5 with good play for White, Smagin-Jukic, Pula 1991 .

1S .•• h6 16 We2 .i.f8 17 .i.bl g6 18 .i.a2 .i.g7 19 h3

White's patient opening manoeu­vres are a good illustration of how White may try to improve his posi­tion in this line. Instead the alterna­tive 19 d5 exd5 20 lL:!xd5 lL:!xd5 2 1 .:.xd5 Wf6 achieves nothing, while after 1 9 lL:!b5 1Wf8 20 lL:!c3 .. d6 21 lL:!e4 tfe7 22 lL:!g3 lL:!d5 23 h4 lL:!a5 ! (intending . . . .i.a4) 24 R.d2 b6 25 b4 lDc6 Black was already better in Ser­mek-Zagrebelny, Ljubljana 1994.

19 • . . lL:!e7 20 tDes tDrs 21 R.f4 Wa6

After this Black has a worse end­ing, but could Black have captured the pawn on d4? In his lnformator notes Rozentalis gives the variation "21 . . .lL:!xd4? 22 .. e3 g5 23 .i.h2 Wb6 24 lL:!c4 +-", perhaps being unaware of the spectacular defence 24 . . . lL:!c2! with completely unclear complications.

22 Wxa6 bxa6 23 dS exdS 24 lL:!xdS gS 25 R.h2 � 26 M .:.Xdl 27 .:.Xd1 �g8! 28 � .i.f8 29 .:.d3 �g7 30 lL:!g4 lDxg4 31 hxg4 lDe7 32 �el lL:!g6 33 �d2 lDr4 34 .i.xf4 gxf4 35 .i-dS R.e7 36 .:.d4 .i.f6 37 .:.e4 .:.d8 38 �c2! �8? (and not

ll Modern Main Line: 6 i.e3

38 . . . i.xc3 39 �xc3 l:xd5 40 l:xe8, but Rozentalis gives 38 . . . i.b5 =) 39 i.c4 (with both f4 and a6 attacked Black must lose a pawn) 39 ••. l:d4 40 i.xa6 i.c6 41 l:xd4 i.xd4 42 f3 �e7 43 �d3 i.eS 44 b4 f6 45 i.c8 i.e8 46 i.b7 hS 47 gxh5 i.xh5 48 lDb5 i.b8 49 �c4 i.f7+ 50 �c5 i.e8 51 i.c8 �d8 52 i.f5 �e7 53 lDd4 i.d6+ 54 �d5 i.e5 55 lDc6+ i.xc6+ 56 �c6 i.b2 57 a4 i.c3 58 bS i.aS 59 �b7 i.b6 60 �a6 �d6 61 aS i.cS 62 �b7 1-0

Black cannot stop 63 b6 axb6 64 a6.

Game 27 Adams - Tiviakov

New York Ct (6) 1994

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exdS 1i'xd5 4 d4 lDI6 5 lDI3 lDc6 6 i.e3 cxd4

6 . . . lDg4 and 6 . . . e5 !? are covered in Chapter 3, Game 5.

7 cxd4 e6 8 lDc3 1i'd6 9 a3! i.e7 10 i.d3 0-0 11 0-0 b6 12 1i'e2

1 2 lDe4 lDxe4 1 3 i.xe4 i.b7 14 lDe5 l:ad8 is fine for Black, as in the game Makropoulos-Gufeld, Athens 1985, while 12 i.c2 gives the possi­bility of 12 . . . i.a6 !?, as in Vorotni­kov-Dolmatov, USSR 1978.

12 •. ..ib7 13 l:adl (D) This (by whatever move-order)

has become the key position in the 8 . . . 'ii'd6 variation. There are many ways for both White and Black to de­velop their pieces, together with a bewildering mixture of move-orders. Black can put his rooks on c8 and d8, or d8 and e8 for example. He might retreat his queen to b8, or play . . . i.f8

and . . . 'ii'e7. Even the plan ... i.d8 fol­lowed by .. . liJe7 and ... lLleds has been seen. White meanwhile can build up the pressure with moves like l:fe1, i.b1 , i.g5 or lDg5 in almost any or­der. There are simply so many ways to play, that I have decided to choose the examples to illustrate as many of the different relevant themes as possi­ble.

13 ••. l:ad8 Typical alternatives: a) 13 . . . i.d8!? (a very original

plan) 14 i.b1 ( 14 i.g5 !?) 14 . . . lDe7 (the point: White has taken away the b4-square so the knight takes an­other route to d5) 15 lDe5 lDed5 16 i.c l l:c8 17 .!De4 �xe4 18 'ii'xe4 f5 19 'ii'e2 l:xc1 !? 20 l:xcl ti:lf4 21 'ii'e3 i.g5 with unpleasant threats, Yanovsky-C.Horvath, Budapest 1991 .

b) 13 . . . h6 !? 14 l:fel l:fd8 15 i.c1 (15 i.b1 ) 1 5 . . . i.f8 (this formation with . . . h6 and .. . .tf8 is similar to An-dersson-Rozentalis from the note be­low with 13 ... l:ac8) 16 liJe4 'ii'e7 17 .tb1 g6 18 ti:lxf6+? ! 1i'xf6 19 i.e4 i.g7 20 'ii'b5 l:d6! 21 ti:le5 l:c8 =i= Vi.Ivanov-Zagrebelny, Moscow 1995.

c) 1 3 . . . l:fd8 14 i.g5 (14 l:fe1 l:ac8 would transpose to 13 . . . l:ac8)

14 ... g6 15 .tb1 :acs 16 1lfe1 00 17 o!Lle4 'flc7 1 S .ta2 .txg5 1 9 o!Llexg5 'fle7 20 'fld2 'flf6 2 1 :e4 :c7 22 :h4 h5 23 o!Lle4 'fl g7 24 'fl g5 f6 25 .!Llxf6+! 'flxf6 26 .txdS Wi'xg5 27 .txe6+ �g7 2S o!Llxg5 o!Llxd4 29 .tb3 ± Tal-Yurtaev, USSR 1979.

d) 13 . . . :acS (also a standard square for the queen's rook) 14 1lfe1 :

d1 ) 14 . . . o!Lld5?! 1 5 o!Llxd5 exd5 ( 15 . . . 'flxd5 16 .tc4 'flh5 17 dS lDas 1 S .ta2 .txd5 1 9 .txd5 exdS 20 .txb6 axb6 21 'flxe7 ± Rozentalis) 1 6 o!Lle5 o!Llxe5 17 .tf4 ± Rozentalis­Mikhalchishin, Tmava 19SS.

d2) 14 ... Wi'dS (Gheorghiu has ex­perimented a bit with this retreat) 15 h3 !? g6 16 .th6 :eS 17 .tc4 lba5 IS .ta2 o!Lld5 1 9 o!Lle4 o!Llc6 20 h4! ;!; Yanovsky-Gheorghiu, Biel 1991 .

d3) 14 . . . :fd8 (the most solid) 15 .tg5 (15 .tel !? h6!? 16 .i.bl .i.f8 �

was Rozentalis-Andersson, Tilburg 1993; after the game continuation of 17 o!Lle4 o!Llxe4 18 Wxe4 g6 19 'iVh4 'iVe7 20 'iVh3 'flf6 2 1 d5 l:txd5 22 :xd5 exd5 23 .txh6 all sources as­sess '±' , but why not then 23 .. . 'iVxb2 in reply?) 15 . . . g6 (15 . . . o!Lld5? 16 o!Llxd5 'iVxd5 17 .i.e4 'iVd6 18 dS lDas 1 9 b4 ! with a winning position was Palkovi-Danner, Budapest 1995, as 1 9 . . . o!Llc4 loses a piece to 20 dxe6; however, the most testing may be 15 . . . h6 !, as if 16 .tel White would be a tempo down on Rozentalis-An­dersson above) 16 .i.c4 o!Lla5 17 o!Llb5 !? (bold; 17 .i.a2 is routine) 17 . . . .i.xf3 IS 'flxf3 'flc6 19 d5 'iVxc4 20 .txf6 .i.xf6 21 'iVxf6 'iVxb5 22 dxe6 :rs 23 :d7 ! gave White a dangerous at­tack in return for the sacrificed piece,

Modern Main Une: 6 .te3 83

Jonkman-Wojtkiewicz, Wijk aan Zee 1994.

Returning to the position after 13 ... :acts (D):

14 .i.g5!? The openings of the Scottish GM

Paul Motwani are always interest­ing, so also worth study is 14 .i.b1 !? :Ce8 (15 . . . 'iVbS and 15 . . . o!Lld5 are al­ternatives) 15 :rei 'iVbS 16 o!Llg5 !? . In Motwani-J.Bellin, Walsall 1992, White won incisively after 16 . . . .i.d6 17 o!Llce4 o!Llxe4 (17 ... .txh2+ 18 �hi o!Llxe4 19 .txe4 h6 20 o!Llxf7 �xf7 21 'iVhS+ �gS 22 'flxh2 ;!;) IS .txe4 h6 19 o!Llxf7!? �xf7 20 'fibS+ �gS 21 i.xh6 ! o!Llxd4 22 i.xg7 �xg7? (but 22 . . . o!Lle2+ 23 �fl .txe4 24 .i.f6! is still unpleasant for Black) 23 Wi'h7+ �f8 24 'flh6+ �gS 25 .th7+ 1-0.

Another possibility is 14 :rei 'iVb8 (14 ... o!Lld5 15 o!Lle4 Wi'd7 16 .tbl 'iVc8 17 h4 .ta6 1 8 Wi'c2 g6 19 i.h6 :res 20 :c1 .tb7 21 o!Lleg5 with typical play, Van Mil-Tiviakov, Til­burg 1992) 15 .tbl when an interest­ing defensive plan was 15 . . . :d7 16 i.g5 'fldS 17 i.xf6 .txf6 IS dS exd5 19 o!Llxd5 o!Lld4 20 .!Llxf6+ 'iVxf6 21 o!Llxd4 :xd4 22 :xd4 'iVxd4 23 .ta2

84 Modem Main Line: 6 j_e3

tfl. lfl Van Mil·A.Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 1993.

14 ••• g6 Or 14 . . . .:.fe8 (14 . . .... b8!? 1S j_b1

l:.fe8 16 l:.fe 1 transposes) 1S l:.fe 1 ... b8 (1S . . . ti)d5 16 ti)xdS 'iVxdS 17 j_e4 ... d7 18 dS exdS 19 l:.xdS ... e6 20 'ii'd3 with an attack - V.lvanov) 1 6 j_b1 g6! (16 . . . ti)dS?! 17 ... e4 g6 18 'ii'h4 ti)xc3 19 bxc3 ± V.lvanov­Yarkovich, Russian Ch 1994) 17 j_a2 ti)hS 18 j_h6 j_f6 19 ... e3 j_g7 20 j_xg7 �xg7 21 ti)eS ti)f6 22 h3 ti)e7 ! was Adams-Hulak, Wijk aan Zee 199S, when the continuation 23 ti)g4 tOfS ! 24 •es ... xeS 2S dxeS ti)xg4 26 hxg4 ti)h4 ! was good for Black. Instead 23 ... f4 !? oc is one plausible deviation.

15 j_c4 .:.Ce8 16 l:.fe1 lDd5 On 16 . . . ti)hS comes 17 dS ! (Tivi­

akov). 17 j_x�? Both players later criticised this

capture in their annotations, but suggested different improvements.

Tiviakov gives 17 ti)e4 ;t, while Adams assesses 17 ti)xdS exdS 18 j_bs as ±.

17 ••. exd5 1S 'ii'd2 f6! 19 j_f4 'ii'd7 20 b4 g5 21 j_g3 j_f8 22 h4 h6 23 hxg5 hxg5 24 l:.xeS l:.xeS 25 'iVa2 liJe7? (missing White's follow­ing excellent manoeuvre; 2S . . . �8! followed by . ..&lJf7 is fine for Black) 26 ti)e4! ± j_g7 27 �6 l:.d8 28 .:.ct j_c6 29 'ii'e2 ;_as 30 'ii'd3! j_f8 31 b5 j_b6 32 l:.e1 .:.rs 33 t0b2 (head­ing for fl , e3 and fS ; meanwhile Black's pieces are dreadfully disco­ordinated, and his kingside weak­ened) 33 ••. j_g7 34 tl)fi f5 35 j_e5 ti)g6 36 ti)g3 +- j_xe5 37 dxe5 t0h4 38 ti)dxf5! ti)xf5 39 e6 'ii'h7 40 tOxr5 j_b7 (40 . . .... xfs 41 •xes l:.xfS 42 e7 wins) 41 e7 l:.eS 42 l:.e6 j_c8 43 'ii'xd5 1-0

The conclusion is that this main line variation leads into a complex and genuinelyunclearmiddlegame, where there is a rich variety of plans for both White and Black.

1 1 2 . . . lbf6 : Early Deviations

In this chapter we cover lines that do not fit in easily anywhere else, but this does not mean they are insignifi­cant! Game 28, for example, features a crucially important recent idea for White to side-step the main-line po­sitions (lvanchuk, Adams, Nunn and Dolmatov have all been seen on the white side). With l e4 c5 2 c3 ltlf6 3 e5 ltld5 4 ltlf3 !? lLlc6 5 .tc4 ltlb6 6 i..b3 White intends to postpone (or omit) the central pawn advance d4 in favour of faster piece development. For the present Black has manoeu­vred his way to a reasonable game, but there is still scope for new dis­coveries.

In Game 29 the main subject is the brilliant 8 e6 ! pawn thrust invented by Eduardas Rozentalis (after 1 e4 c5 2 c3 lLJf6 3 e5 00 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d6 6 i.c4 !? ltlb6 7 i.b5+ i.d7). Sev­eral of the dapper Lithuanian grand­master's most creative 2 c3 ideas are to be found in this chapter. Fortu­nately for Black, the bark of 8 e6 is worse than its bite, and there are a number of subsequent continuations to reach an unclear position. Game 30 covers the related system 1 e4 c5 2 c3 ltlf6 3 e5 ltldS 4 d4 cxd4 5 i..c4 (which club-players seem fond of using) where Black plays the well­known 5 . . . Wc7 ! antidote.

Finally, Game 3 1 covers the vari­ation where White fianchettoes with

4 g3, another line to which Rozen­talis has made an enormous contri­bution. Whilst playable it does not give White any advantage against sensible play.

Game 28 Lutz - Khallfman Wijk aan Zee 1995

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lLlr6 3 eS lLlds 4 ltlf3!? Preparing a new and interesting

plan, made better-known by an Ivan­chuk-Kasparov encounter. White in­tends to get positions similar to the main-line variations of Chapters 18-20, but with d4 delayed or even omit­ted. The same idea can be used via the move-order 4 . . . d6 5 i.c4 ltlb6 6 i..b3 when 6 . . . lLlc6 transposes.

4 ... ltJc6 5 i.c4 5 lLla3 (an old Heidenfeld special­

ity of no real merit) 5 . . . g6 ! (5 . . . d6 6 exd6 i..g4 7 i..b5 Wxd6 8 0-0 e6 9 ltlc4 Wc7 10 lLlce5 .txf3 1 1 ltlxf3 i..d6 = Heidenfeld-Penrose, Madrid Z 1960; 5 . . . e6 is also satisfactory) 6 g3 i..g7 7 i..g2 ltlc7 ! (7 . . . d6 8 exd6 Wxd6 9 0-0 0-0 10 d4 cxd4 1 1 ltlb5 ._c5 12 ltlbxd4 l:.d8 1 3 ltlxc6 bxc6 14 Wa4 l:.b8 15 ltld4 i..d7 16 ltlb3 Wb6 17 'irh4 .tf5 = Heidenfeld-Por­tisch, Madrid 1960) 8 ._e2 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10 d4 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 i.g4 12 l:.d1 lLle6 with an excellent game for Black, Bisguier-Fischer, Stockholm 1962.

86 2. , .l{jf6: Early Deviations

s ... l[jb6 (D)

6 -*.b3 Instead 6 -*.e2!7 saw some high­

level usage in 1994/S - for example Adams employed it in his PCA Can­didates Match against Tiviakov. Af­ter 6 . . . d6 (6 . . . g6 7 d4 cxd4 S cxd4 -*.g7 9 l[jc3 0-0 10 -*.f4 d5 1 1 exd6 exd6 12 h3 !? a6 1 3 0-0 dS 14 'li'd2 -*.e6 1S llad1 l[jd7 16 llfel lieS 17 -*.h6 ;t Keitlinghaus-Videki, Buda-pest 1996) 7 exd6 Black has:

a) 7 . . . e6 S d4 -*.xd6 9 0-0 (9 dxcS -*.xeS 10 1i'xd8+ l[jxd8 = Adams-TI­viakov, New York PCA Ct (8) 1994) 9 . . . 0-0 10 -*.d3 (threatening -*.xh7+) 10 . . . g6 1 1 dxcS -*.xeS 12 1i'e2 -*.e7 1 3 l[jbd2 l[jd5? ! ( 13 . . . -*.f6 followed by . . . �g7 - Tiviakov) 14 l[jc4 'flc7 IS -*.e4 l{jf4 16 1i'e3 W 17 1i'h6 ;t Adams-Tiviakov, New YorkPCA Ct (14) 1994.

b) 7 . . . 'flxd6 and then: b1) 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 is a rather

innocuous IQP. b2) S l[ja3 !? eS (8 . . . a6 9 d3 g6 10

-*.e3 -*.g7 1 1 l[jd2 l[jeS 12 d4 ;!; Go­dena Bacrot, Cannes 199S) and now 9 d3 i.e? 10 l[jbd2 fS was Adams­Va.lsser, New York rpd 1994 while 9

d4 cxd4 10 cxd4 e4 1 1 l[jbS 'fle7 1 2 l{jgS h6 1 3 l[jxe4 'flxe4 14 0-0 �d8 1S -*.d3 was a completely unclear piece sacrifice in M.Bonisch-En­ders, Germany 199S.

b3) 8 0-0: b3 1) 8 ... g6 9 d3 (9 l{ja3 -*.g7 10

d3 0-0 1 1 l[jbS 1i'dS 12 -*.e3 a6 1 3 l{ja3 l[jct7 14 d4 ;t Kharlov-Ernst, Haninge 1992) 9 . . . -*.fS 10 l[jaJ -*.g7 1 1 '*.e3 l[jdS 12 l[jc4 'ifd7 13 .*.xeS b6 14 .*.a3 0-0 IS {[je3 l{jf4 16 l{jxfS 'flxfS 17 g3 l[jxe2+ 1S 'ifxe2 llfdS 19 d4 ± Sveshnikov-King, Bern 1992.

b32) S ... .*.fS 9 l[ja3 a6 10 d4 cxd4 1 1 l[jxd4 l[jxd4 12 cxd4 -*.e6 13 b3 lieS 14 .tb2 l[jdS IS llc1 llxcl 16 'flxcl g6 17 'flcS !? (17 l{jc4 'fldS 18 .tf3 .tg7 = Sveshnikov-Ragozin, Russian Ch 1994) 17 . . . -*.h6 1S l[jc4 'fld8 19 i.f3 with chances of an edge, Daniliuk-Nadyrkhanov, Mos­cow 199S.

c) 7 . . . eS ! S d4 (S d3 .txd6 9 0-0 0-0 10 a4 00 = Hjartarson-H.Olafs­son, Icelandic Ch 1994) 8 . . . cxd4 9 cxd4 e4!? (9 . . . exd4 10 l[jxd4 .*.xd6 1 1 l[jxc6 bxc6 12 l[jc3 0-0 13 0-0 l[jdS 14 l[jxd5 cxdS 1S -*.f3 favours White, Kharlov-Visier, Canete 1994 and Sveshnikov-A.Ivanov, Vladi­vostok 1994, but the ending with 9 . . . -*.xd6 10 dxeS l[jxeS 1 1 l[jxeS .txeS 12 'flxdS+ �xd8 is playable, as in Hra�ek-Jirovsky, Czech Ch 199S) 10 l{jgS .txd6 1 I l[jxe4 .tb4+ 12 l[jbc3 'flxd4 13 0-0 •12-•12 Adams­Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 199S.

6 ... d5 6 . . . d6 7 exd6 comes to the same

thing, while 6 . . . g6 7 d4 is a transpo­sition to Chapter 17. This leaves the

forcing move 6 . . . c4 !, when after 7 �c2 (D) Black has:

B

a) 7 . . . d5 (or 7 . . . d6) 8 exd6 Wxd6 9 0-0 reaches the position examined in the note to move nine in the main game, and is in fact a more reliable way to get there, while 9 lba3 11t'e6+ 10 We2 11t'xe2+ 1 1 �xe2 �g4 12 b3 cxb3 13 axb3 .Z::.c8 � 14 h3 1h-1h was the game Sveshnikov-Yudasin, Ke­merovo 1995.

b) 7 .. . g6 8 b3 (8 lDa3 d6?! { 8 ... d5 } 9 We2 ! d5 10 h3 i.g7 1 1 0-0 ;!; lbd7?! 12 e6 fxe6 13 ll:lg5 ll:lf8 14 f4 ± was Adams-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee Ct (7) 1994) 8 . . . d5 9 exd6 Wxd6 10 0-0 with a transposition to the main game, as in the later reference Dol­matov-Yudasin for example.

As the 6 . . . c4 move-order cuts out some of White's options it seems preferable.

7 exd6 11t'xd6 a) 7 . . . �f5 8 d4 exd6 9 0-0 i.e7

10 �f4 0-0 1 1 .Z::.e1 d5 Afek-Nijboer, Groningen 1994 and now 12 dxc5 �xc5 1 3 �e3 ;!; would have been logical.

b) 7 . . . exd6 8 d4 i.g4!? 9 h3 (9 dxc5 ! dxc5 10 0-0 �e7 1 1 ll:la3 0-0

2.Ji�f6: Early Deviations 87

12 i.f4 ! ;!; lvanchuk) 9 . . . i.h5 10 i.e3 !? i.e7 (10 . . . c4!?) 1 1 dxc5 dxc5 12 ll:la3 0-0 1 3 0-0 'ii'c8 !? 14 i.f4 .Z::.d8 (14 . . . 11t'f5 !?) 15 1Ve2 i.f8?! ( 15 . . . 11t'f5 !? 16 �g3 !?) 16 .Z::.fe1 11t'f5 17 i.g3 �xf3 18 .. xf3 11t'xf3 19 gxf3 ;!; lvanchuk-Kasparov, Dort­mund 1992.

8 0-0 8 ll:la3 !? (stopping . . . c4) is a valid

idea, and was the move-order of Sveshnikov-Filipov (note to Black's eighth move in the main game) which transposed after 8 ... i.e6 9 0-0 �xb3, etc. Therefore Black might prefer 6 . . . c4 to prevent this possibil­ity.

8 ••. c4 8 . . . i.e6 9 ll:la3 �xb3 (9 . . . c4 10

�c2 g6 1 1 d4 !? cxd3 12 ll:lb5 Wd7 Wxd3 1Vxd3 14 i.xd3 0-0-0 15 �e2 a6 16 ll:lbd4 ll:lxd4 17 cxd4 f6 18 i.d2 Benjamin-Gavrikov, Horgen 1994 and here Benjamin gives 18 . . . �b8 19 i.a5 �a7 20 .Z::.fe1 �d5 =) 10 axb3 (10 11t'xb3 e6 1 1 d4 cxd4 12 ll:lb5 and now instead of 12 . . . Wd8?! 13 .Z::.d1 ;!; Dolmatov-Grilnfeld, Haifa 1995, Dolmatov gives 12 . . . Wd7 13 ll:lxa7 .Z::.xa7 14 Wxb6 dxc3 15 bxc3 =) 10 . . . e6 l l ll:lc4 1Vd8 12 d4 cxd4 13 ll:lxd4 ll:lxd4 14 ll:lxb6 Wxb6 15 i.e3 ! .Z::.d8 16 �xd4 �c5 17 i.xc5 11t'xc5 18 b4! Wc6 19 Wg4 0-0 20 .Z::.xa7 .Z::.d2 21 .. f3 11t'xf3 22 gxf3 .Z::.b8 23 .Z::.fa1 �8 24 .Z::.a8 ± Svesh­nikov-Filipov, Russian Ch 1995.

9 i.c2 g6 9 . . . �g4!? is also interesting: a) 10 'ii'e2 .. e6!? (10 ... g6 1 1 ll:la3

We6 12 We3 Wxe3 13 fxe3 J..g7 14 b3 lDa5 15 .Z::.b1 cxb3 16 axb3 .Z::.c8 17

88 2 . . . �: Early Deviations

b4 i Hellers-Kuczynski, Leeuwar­den 1994) 1 1 .. xe6 J.xe6 12 ltla3 .ld5 1 3 lt:ig5 g6 14 b3 J.g7 15 llb1 h6 16 lDe4 0-0-0 17 lle1 llhe8 18 llk5 ltle5 19 f4 ltld3 20 lt:ixd3 cxd3 21 J.xd3 J.xg2 22 J.xg6 1h-1h Dan­iliuk-Fomichenko, Russia 1995.

b) 10 lle1 lt:ie5 (10 . . . e6 1 1 h3 J.h5 12 b3 !? Nunn-Anand, Monaco rpd 1994) 1 1 llxe5 J.xf3 12 'ii'e 1 J.d5 13 b3 e6 14 J.a3 .. c6 15 J.xf8 �xf8 16 llg5 f6! 17 llg3 h5 18 ltla3 ! h4 19 llg4 h3 20 bxc4 J.xg2 21 ltlb5 lt:ixc4? (2l . . .e5 22 'ii'b1 a5 23 'ifh3 oo

Adams) 22 ltld4 ltle5 23 llg3 1i'd5 24 J.b3 ± Adams-Miladinovic, Bel­grade 1995.

10 b3 J.g7 (D)

10 . . . cxb3 1 1 axb3 J.g7 1 2 d4 0-0 13 lt:ibd2 ltld5 14 llk4 .. d8 15 J.d2 b6 16 lt:ife5 lt:ixe5 17 ltlxe5 J.b7 18 c4 lt:ic7 19 J.c3 e6 20 .. e2 ± Afek­Griinfeld, Israeli Ch 1992.

U lbaJ!? cxb3 1 l ...J.e6 12 1i'e2 cxb3 13 axb3 0-0

14 d4 lt:id5 15 J.d2 1i'd7 16 llad 1 J.g4 17 h3 J.xf3 18 1i'xf3 ;t Rozen­talis-W.Watson, Germany 1995.

12 axb3 0-0 13 d4 J.g4! 14 h3 J.xf3 15 .. xf3 e5 16 lt:ib5 .. d5

Also 16 . . . 1i'd7 17 J.a3 llfd8 18 dxe5 lt:ixe5 19 1i'e2 a6 20 lt:id6 and now instead of20 ..... c7?! 21 llad1 ;t Dolmatov-Yudasin, Haifa 1995, Dol­matov analyses 20 . . . ltld5 ! 21 c4 ltlc3 22 1i'e3 lik6 with counterplay.

17 .. xd5 lt:ixd5 18 J.e4 a6! = 19 J.xdS axbS 20 lba8 :Xa8 21 dxe5 J.xe5 22 c4 bxc4 23 bxc4 lla1 24 g3 J.d4 25 J.f4 llxfl+?! (Lutz gives 25 ... 1la2 26 g4 �g7 27 J.g3 J.e5 28 J.xc6 J.xg3 29 J.xb7 J.d6 followed by . . . J.c5 with an easy draw despite the pawn minus) 26 �xn ;t lt:ie5 27 �e2 b6 28 J.h6 ltld7 29 g4 J.g7 30 J.r4 J.es 31 J.eJ �rs 32 f4 J.d6 33 �f3 �e7 34 g5 J.cS 35 J.d2 J.d4 36 h4 J.g7 37 J.b4+ lt:icS 38 �g4 h6 39 gxh6 J.xh6 40 r5 J.eJ 41 J.e4 J.d2 42 J.aJ J.c1 43 J.xc1 ltlxe4 44 �4 gxf5 45 b5 � 46 �eS �g7 47 J.e3 lt:if6 48 �xf5 ltlxhS 49 J.xb6 � 50 J.d4 lfl.lfl

Game 29 Rozentalis - Aseev

Klaipeda 1988

1 e4 c5 2 c3 ltlr6 3 e5 ltld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d6 6 J.c4!? lt:ib6 7 J.b5+

With a spectacular idea in mind. The old line was 7 J.b3 and here 7 . . . lt:ic6 8 lt:if3 would transpose to Chapter 16, though White could con­sider the sharp 8 e6!? fxe6 9 lt!f3 g6, which is unclear, e.g. 10 lt:ig5 J.g7 !? or 10 h4 J.g7 1 1 llk3 e5 12 d5 ltld4 13 lt:ixd4 exd4 14 lt:ib5 lt:ixd5 ! 15 lt:ixd4 lt:if6 16 0-0 d5 Van Wijgerden­Ki.Georgiev, Plovdiv Echt 1983. However (after7 J.b3) Black can en­ter the forcing variation 7 . . . dxe5 ! ? 8

'ti'h5 e6 9 dxe5 ll:k6 and here White has two possibilities:

a) 10 �3 'ti'd3 ! 1 1 �3 Jtb4 (12 ... ll:X:4 13 'ti'h4!?aa R.Maric-Honfi, Monte Carlo 1968) 12 Jtd2 Jtxc3 ( 12 . . . lDc4 13 0-0-0 "" but 12 . . . lba5 !? is good: 1 3 0-0-0? ! lDxb3+ 14 axb3 JtOT 15 'ti'h4 Jtxc3 16 Jtxc3 + Tong­Alterman, Beijing 1995) 1 3 Jtxc3 lDd5 14 lld1 'ti'e4+ 15 �fl 0-0! 1 6 lDg5 'ti'f5 ! 1 7 Jtxd5 exd5 18 g4 'ti'g6 19 llxd5 h6 + R.Maric-Radulov, Novi Sad 1974.

b) 10 �3!? Jtc5 (10 . . . 'ti'd3 !? 1 1 lDf3 would be the previous note; 10 .. . lDb4 1 1 Jtg5 lDcl3+ 12 �e2 'ti'd4 13 lDf3 lDf4+ 14 Jtxf4 'ti'xf4 15 g3 'ii'b4 16 lDg5 'ike7 17 lDce4 ± was Papp-Cserna, Hungary 198 1 , while 10 . . . g6 1 1 'ii'g5 'ii'xg5 12 Jtxg5 Jtg7 1 3 f4 h6 14 Jtf6 has been seen) 1 1 lDf3 1!l'd3 12 Jtg5 Jtb4 13 lld1 Jtxc3+ 14 bxc3 'ii'xc3+ 15 Jtd2 'ii'd3 16 'ii'h4 "" Hort-Ballmann, Swiss Cht 1994.

7 ... Jtd7 Surprisingly the natural 7 . . . �6!

has barely been played, even though 8 lDf3 in reply would lead to Chapter 16, which is fine for Black. Instead after 8 �3. 8 .. . dxe5 9 d5 a6 was the game Rozentalis-Tukmakov, Lvov 1990, which ended in a draw after 1 0 Jta4 lDxa4 1 1 'ii'xa4 b5 12 lDxb5 Jtd7 13 �3 lDd4 14 'ii'd1 g6 15 lDge2 Jtg7 16 Jte3 'ii'b6 17 'ii'd2 llb8 18 b3 0-0 19 0-0 llfc8 20 llac 1 'ii'b4 21 llfd1 lfl-112. That leaves the variation 8 . . . a6 "" completely un­tested, but if Black is OK there too, then the whole 7 Jtb5+ line rather loses its point.

2 . . . &iJj6: Early Deviations 89

8 e6!? (D)

A wonderful shock move, but the bishop sacrifice is only temporary. Now if 8 . . . fxe6 9 Jtd3 Jtc6 White has at least enough compensation for the pawn by bringing pressure to bear on e6. Some examples: 10 'ikg4 ( 1 0 lDf3 lD8d7 1 1 lDg5 lDf6 12 0-0 e5 1 3 lDc3 exd4 14 lDb5 e5 15 lle1 Jte7 16 lLle6 'ti'd7 17 lDbc7+ �t7 18 Jtf5 ! ± Carlier-Rajkovic, Brussels 1987) 10 . . . 'ti'c8 (10 . . . 'ii'd7 1 1 lDh3 lDa6 12 a3 g6 13 lDg5 e5 14lLle6 e4 15 Jtxe4 Jtxe4 16 'ti'xe4 'ti'c6 17 'ii'xc6+ bxc6 = Rozentalis-Vitolin§, USSR 1989) 1 1 lDe2 ( 1 1 lDc3 lD8d7 12 lDh3 lDf6 13 'ikg3 'ikd7 14 lDg5 g6 15 0-0 lDh5 16 'ii'e3 Jth6 17 'ii'xe6 Jtxg5 18 'ii'xd7+ �xd7 19 Jtxg5 "" Rozentalis-Domont, Geneva 1987) 1 1 . . .g6 12 0-0 e5 13 'ikh4 Jtg7 14 dxe5 dxe5 (if 14 . . . Jtxe5, 15 f4 !) 15 lDbc3 lDsd7 16 Jth6 Jtf6 17 'ikg3 lDc5 1 8 Jtc2 lDe6 19 llac l lDg7 20 Jtxg7 Jtxg7 21 lDe4 ;!; Meszaros­Jano§evic, Harkany 1987.

8 ••• Jtxb5 9 'ii'hS 'ii'c8! In response to White's double at­

tack (against t7 and b5) Black de­fends with a neat double attack of his

90 2 . ..l�: Early Deviations

own against e6 and c l . Black's king remains in the centre in some sub­sequent variations, but he is not nec­essarily worse.

10 -.xb5+ �d8 Solid is 10 . . .... c6 !? 1 1 exf7+ and

now: a) l l . .. �xf7 12 ... f5+! (to keep

queens on; 1 2 •h5+ g6 13 Wf3+ -.xf3 14 ll:lxf3 h6 with equality, An­tonio-Xu, Shenzhen 1992) 12 . . . �e8 13 •g5 defending cl and g2, and the black king has lost the right to castle.

b) 1 1 .. . �d8 (to get queens off) 12 ll:lc3 •xb5 13 ll:lxb5 �d7 (13 .. . ll:l8d7 14 ll:le2 ll:lf6 15 0-0 �d7 16 f4 ll:lbd5 17 f5 g6 1 8 ll:lbc3 ;!; Rozentalis-Tu­nik, Podolsk 1989) 14 lLlf3 ll:lc6 15 i.e3 e6 16 0-0 i.e? 17 l:r.fel l:r.hf8 18 l:r.e2 l:r.xf7 = Rozentalis-Arbakov, USSR 1988.

11 i.e3! •xe6 The position is also highly un­

clear after: a) l l . . .... c4 12 'it'xc4 lLlxc4 13

exf7 g6 (if 13 . . . ll:lxb2 then 14 ll:lc3 ll:lc4 1 5 ll:lf3 intending d5 and ll:ld4) 14 ll:lf3 �d7 15 ll:lc3 i.g7 16 h4 ll:lc6 17 h5 llaf8 1 8 b3 ll:lb6 19 �d2 l:r.xf7 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 l:r.xh8 i.xh8 22 l:r.h 1 with a good endgame for White, Rozentalis-A.Shneider, USSR 1987 - the original game where Rozen­talis unveiled his inspired 8 e6 move for the first time.

b) 1 l . . .fxe6 !? 12 ll:lc3 Wc4 1 3 ... g5 ll:ld5 1 4 ll:lge2 ll:lxc3 15 ll:lxc3 ll:lc6 16 0-0-0 g6 and so far Black has done well from this position: 17 h4 i.g7 1 8 h5 i.f6 19 Wg3 �d7 ! ; Mirchev-Shmuter, Sofia 1989, 17 l:r.d2 i.g7 18 l:r.hdl l:r.c8 19 �bl i.f6

20 Wg3 ll:lb4 ; Ekstrom-Ballmann, Swiss Cht 1995 or 17 d5 ll:lb4 1 8 dxe6 ll:lxa2+ 19 �c2 ll:lxc3 20 •aS+ 'We? + Pirrot-Gyimesi, St Ingbert 1995.

12 d5! ... d7 (D) Clearly not 12 . . . Wxd5 13 i.xb6+

while if 12 . . . ll:lxd5 13 ... xb7 lLlc7 14 lLlc3 d5, rather than 15 ll:lf3 1i'a6 16 ... b3 e6 oo Preissmann-Adler, Swiss Cht 1995, White can try 1 5 ll:lxd5 !? 1i'c6 16 Wxc7+ ;!;,

w

13 i.xb6+ axb6 14 'Wxb6+ •c7 15 'We3 'WcS 16 'Wd2 g6 17 ll:le2 i.g7 18 0-0 ll:la6

1 8 . . . ll:ld7 19 ll:lbc3 ll:lb6 20 l:r.ac l h5 21 Wd3 ll:ld7 22 ll:lb5 'ii'b6 23 ll:lec3 h4 24 b4 l:r.h5 25 a4 ;!; Rosen­thal-Schneider, Budapest 1990.

19 ll:lbc3 h5 20 a3!? 00

20 �hl h4 ! ; 21 l:r.acl l:r.h5 22 'ii'f4 �e8 23 'ii'g4 'ii'c8 24 'Wa4+ 'Wd7 25 'Wxd7+ �xd7 + Viksnin­Polovodin, USSR 1988 .

20."ll:lc7 21 'Wd3 h4 22 b4 "iib6 23 h3 l:r.h5 24 a4!? 'Wxb4 25 l:r.ab1 'WaS 26 :rei? (26 l:r.xb7 oo) 26 ... ll:lxd5?! (26 . . . 'ii'a6! +) 27 l%b5 ll:lxc3 28 :Xa5 ll:lxe2+ 29 'Wxe2 l%hxa5 ; 30 'Wa2! �e8 31 'Wb3 l:r.xa4 32 1i'b5+ �??

(falling into a bank-rank mate; 32 ... Wd8 33 1fb6+ we8 34 1Wb5+ =) 33 1Vxa4 1-0

Game 30 Braga - Gutman

Ostend 1984

1 e4 c5 l c3 l0f6 3 eS lOds 4 d4 cxd4 5 i.c4 (D)

8

s ... 'ifc7! A dynamic reply. Both White's

bishop and e5-pawn are threatened; on 6 i.xd5? comes 6 ... 'ii'xe5+ while 6 'irb3 1Vxe5+ 7 l0e2 d3 8 i.xd3 e6 is also fine.

The alternative 5 ... l0b6 6 i.b3 has many transpositional possibilities:

a) 6 . . . e6 7 cxd4 d6 8 l0f3 with a transposition to Chapter 17, Game 47, note to Black's fifth.

b) 6 . . . l0c6 7 cxd4 (7 l0f3) 7 . . . d5 - see the 6 ... d5 lines below.

c) 6 .. . d6 7 exd6 (7 cxd4!? dxe5 8 'ii'h5 is covered via Game 29; 7 l0f3 would transpose to various main lines after 7 ... l0c6) 7 . . . 1Vxd6 8 cxd4 and the IQP position should be satis­factory for Black. One immediate try to alleviate any pressure is 8 ... i.e6!?

2 ... &f¥6: Early Deviations 91

9 l0c3 i.xb3 10 'ifxb3 e6, e.g. 1 1 l0f3 i.e7 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 :d1 l0c6 14 d5 exd5 15 h3 1fb4 16 'ifxb4 i.xb4 17 i.xb6 axb6 1 8 fud5 i.c5 1 9 a3 :fd8 20 l0c7 :ac8 = Kurajica-San Segundo, lbercaja 1994 or 1 1 l0ge2 l0c6 1 2 0-0 i.e7 1 3 i.f4 'ifb4 =

Hedke-Bruk, Groningen 1992. d) 6 ... d5 !? (if Black later puts his

bishop on f5 White has the auto­matic attacking plan of l0e2, l0g3, f4-f5, but Black's position may still be viable if he gets his defensive timing right) 7 cxd4 (for 7 exd6, see 6 . . . d6 above) 7 . . . l0c6 (7 . . . i.f5 8 l0c3 e6 9 l0ge2 h5 !? 1 0 l0g3 i.g6 1 1 f4 h4 1 2 f5 i.h7 1 3 fxe6 fxe6 14 l0h5 l0c6 15 0-0 i.f5 = Braga-Kochiev, Mexico 1 980) 8 l0c3 (8 l0e2 i.g4 9 f3 i.f5 10 0-0 e6 1 1 l0bc3 :c8 1 2 i.e3 'ii'd7 1 3 l0g3 i.g6 14 f4 l0a5 1 5 f5 i.xf5 1 6 l0xf5 exf5 1 7 'ii'f3 l0xb3 1 8 axb3 a6 19 i.d2 :c6 20 'irh3 i.e7 2 1 :xf5 1h- 1h Matulovic-Dura�evic, Sombor 1 957) 8 . . . i.f5 (8 . . . g6?! 9 l0ge2 l0a5 10 i.c2 i.g7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 l0f4 ± Braga-Browne, Buenos Aires 198 1 ) 9 l0ge2 e6 1 0 0-0 :c8 1 1 i.e3 i.e7 (l l . . .'ifd7 !? 1 2 l0g3 i.g6 1 3 f4 l0a5 !? as per the above Matulovic game) 1 2 l0g3 i.g6 1 3 f4 'ird7 14 f5 exf5 15 'iff3 f4 1 6 'ii'xf4 0-0 1 7 'ii'f3 ;t M.Mihalj�i�in­Ankerst, Vrnja�ka Banja 1 962.

6 1fel l0b6 7 i.d3 7 i.b3?! fails to 7 . . . d3 (also

7 . . . l0c6 8 l0f3 d3) 8 'ife4 •c6 (or 8 ... l0a6 ;, for example 9 l0n llx:5 10 'ii'f4 l0xb3 1 1 axb3 d6 12 l0a3 a6 1 3 exd6 •xd6 1 4 'ii'xd6 exd6 1 5 0-0 i.f5 Okhotnik-Ikonnikov, Le Touquet

92 2 . . . tiJf6: Early Deviations

1993) 9 1Wf4 (9 tiJd2 1Wxe4+ 10 tiJxe4 tiJc6 1 1 tiJf3 f6 + Papapostol­ous-Geller, Varna OL 1962) 9 . . . d5 10 tiJf3 (10 exd6 e6 =F Jano�evic-Rabar, Yugoslavia 1954) 10 . . . 1Wg6 1 1 0-0 tiJc6 12 tiJa3 .ig4 with advantage to Black, Lukin-Rabar, Novi Sad 1955.

7 ... t1Jc6 Keeping the pawn with 7 . . . dxc3?

is especially bad here because the black queen on c7 becomes a target when White's pieces develop: 8 tiJxc3 tiJc6 9 tiJf3 a6 10 0-0 g6 1 1 a4 tiJb4 12 .ie4 .ig7 13 .if4 e6 14 :Z.ac l 'ii'd8 15 .ig5 f6 16 exf6 .ixf6 17 .ixf6 1i'xf6 18 a5 d5 19 axb6 dxe4 20 tiJxe4 1i'e7 21 l:.c7 .id7 22 l:.d1 l:.d8 23 tiJd6+ 1-0 Pinho-Dubao, Lisbon Ch 1992.

7 ... d6 !? 8 .if4 (8 exd6 1i'xd6 - see 7 . . . d5 next) 8 . . . e6 9 tiJf3 li::ld5 10 exd6 .ixd6 11 .ixd6 1i'xd6 12 li::lxd4 0-0 = was Mikhalchishin-Ornstein, Pamporovo 1976.

It is also a good question why 7 . . . d5 !? is not played more: 8 .if4 is nothing special and 8 exd6 1i'xd6 9 cxd4 li::lc6 10 li::lf3 .ig4 1 1 .ie3 e6 12 0-0 .ie7 13 li::lc3 0-0 14 l:.ad1 tiJd5 =F gave Black a superb anti-IQP position in the game Braga-Semkov, Forli 1988.

8 li::lf3 dS Or: a) 8 ... li::lb4!? 9 0-0 li::lxd3 10 1i'xd3

1i'c4 = Taylor-De Fotis, USA 1971 and Novak-Blecha, Plzen 1995.

b) 8 ... d6 9 .if4 (best is 9 exd6 transposing into the main game) 9 . . . llX15 10 .ig3 dxc3 1 1 li::lxc3? ! ( 1 1 bxc3 e6 =F Zimmermann-Bellon, Bern 1996) 1 1. ..CiJxc3 12 bxc3 llXI4!

+ 13 et:\xd4 1i'xc3+ 14 1i'd2 1i'xa1+ 15 �e2 .ig4+ 16 f3 1i'xh1, etc. Neminovski-J.R.Koch, Cannes 1989.

c) 8 . . . g6 (formerly popular, but White has an initiative for his pawn) 9 0-0 (9 cxd4? li::lxd4 or 9 .if4?! li::ld5 10 .ig3 .ih6 11 1We4 dxc3 12 bxc3 1i'a5 13 0-0 f5 14 1i'h4 .ig7 + Pasman-Gutman, Israeli Ch 1984) 9 . . . dxc3 10 li::lxc3 .ig7 1 1 .if4 ( 1 1 l:.e1 0-0 12 .ig5 d5 1 3 exd6 1i'xd6 14 l:.ad1 1i'b4 Miles-Sax, Bath Echt 1973, and now best is 15 .ixe7 li::lxe7 16 1i'xe7 .ixc3 17 bxc3 1i'xc3 1 8 .ib5 cc) 1 1 . . .0-0 12 :Z.ac1 f6 1 3 li::lb5 1i'b8 1 4 .ig3 fxe5 15 li::lg5 llXI5 16 .ic4 e6 17 .ixd5 exd5 18 1i'd3 d4 19 1i'c4+ ± San Marco-Leontxo Gar­cia, Ales 1984.

9 exd6 9 h3 is slow, and 9 0-0 .ig4 10

.if4 e6 11 l:.cl , Pasman-A.Martin, London 1984, looks like insufficient compensation for the pawn.

9 ... 1Wxd6 10 li::lxd4 g6!? To deny White the easy develop­

ment obtained after 10 . . . tiJxd4 1 1 cxd4 e6 (grabbing the pawn with 1 1 . . .1i'xd4 would be asking for trouble) 12 0-0 .ie7 13 tiJc3 ;t Braga­Larsen, Mar del Plata 1982.

U li::lbS White could look for improve­

ments with 1 1 li::lxc6 !? bxc6 12 0-0 i.g7 and now:

a) 13 li::ld2 0-0 14 tiJe4 1i'c7 (15 c4 i.f5 16 l:.b1 l:.ad8 17 b3 li::ld7 cc

Buisman-C.Shephard, Carr. 1989) 15 tiJc5 1i'e5 16 1!t'xe5 i.xe5 17 i.e4 i.d6 18 li::lb3 i.a6 19 l:.e1 l:.ac8 with equality, D.Graham-W.Taylor, Carr. 1989.

b) 13 i.g5 !? is a suggestion by Gary Lane; logically White should have a nice game (better develop­ment and pawn structure) but some­how Black's pieces also seem quite active. Maybe 13 .. . lbd5 «> is the best reply.

ll ... 'iVb8 12 0-0 i.g7 13 i.g5 lDdS?!

In his notes Gutman later gave 13 . . . 0-0! , e.g. 14 i.xe7 l:l.e8 15 i.d6 l:l.xe2 16 i.xb8 ( 16 i.xe2 i.g4! 17 i.xb8 i.xe2) 16 ... l:l.xb2 17 i.d6 lDe5 18 l:l.e1 i.d7 +.

14 i.c4 (14 i.e4 !?) 14 . • • h6 15 i.h4 o!Df4 16 'iVe3 g5 17 i.g3 a6 18 lb5a3 h5 (the position is unclear, but White shortly goes astray) 19 h4 i.h6 20 hxg5 i.xg5 21 o!Dd2 o!Dh3+ 22 gxh3 i.xe3 23 i.xb8 i.xd2 24 i.c7 i.xh3 (with an extra pawn, which is ultimately converted after some erratic technique) 25 l:l.fd1 l:l.c8 26 i.g3 i.g5 27 i.d5 h4 28 i.h2 i.g4 29 f3 i.h3 30 �f2 e6 31 i.e4 i.e7 32 i.d6 i.d8 33 o!Dc4 b5 34 l:l.h1 bxc4 35 l:l.xh3 f5 36 i.xc6+ l:l.xc6 37 i.e5 l:l.g8 38 l:l.d1 l:l.c5 39 i.d4 l:l.d5 40 f4 l:l.g4 41 � i.c7 0-1

Game 3 1 Rozentalis - Gelfand

Tilburg 1992

1 e4 c5 2 c3 o!Df6 3 e5 lDd5 4 g3 (D) 4 .•• d6 4 . . . o!Dc6 5 i.g2 and now: a) 5 . . . e6 6 'iVe2 (or 6 o!Df3 d6 with

a transposition to the illustrative game after 7 exd6) 6 ... i.e7 7 f4 (more solid is the transposition 7 o!Df3 d6 8 exd6 1i"xd6 9 0-0 0-0 10 o!Da3 b6 1 1

2 . . . l7Jj6: Early Deviations 93

lLlc4 'i/ic7 12 a4 i.b7 13 d3, the move­order of the game Rozentalis-Ljubo­jevi6 found in the note to Black's ninth move in the illustrative game) 7 . . . 0-0 8 o!Df3 d6 9 0-0 dxe5 10 o!Dxe5 lLlxe5 1 1 fxe5 l:l.b8 12 d3 b6 13 lLld2 i.a6 14 o!De4 l:l.b7 15 a3 l:d7 I6 c4 o!Dc7 I7 lLlf2 1i"b8 I8 i.f4 i.b7 19 lDe4 «> Rozentalis-Panzalovi6, Biel 1990.

b) 5 . . . 1i"c7 !? (forcing White's committal response; on 6 1i"e2 comes the trick 6 . . . 1Wxe5 ! 7 1Wxe5 lLlxe5 8 i.xd5 lLld3+, e.g. 9 �e2 lLlxc 1+ 10 �e3 e6 11 i.c4 b5 12 i.xb5 l:b8 13 o!Da3 c4! I4 i.xc4 l:l.xb2 I5 .!Db5 d5 I6 i.fl o!Dxa2 + Onoprienko-Kjeld­sen, Budapest I995) 6 f4 e6 7 1i"e2 i.e7 (7 . . . a6!? 8 d3 b5 9 o!Df3 d6 and now 10 0-0?! dxe5 1 I fxe5 i.e7 I2 a4 i.b7 I3 axb5 axb5 I4 l:l.xa8+ i.xa8 I 5 lLla3 'ii'b8 16 c4 bxc4 I7 dxc4 lLlc7 ! + was Rozentalis-Shirov, Manila OL I992, but Shirov claims White could improve with 10 c4 ! bxc4 I I dxc4 lLlb6 I2 exd6 i.xd6 13 0-0 ;t) 8 lLlf3 d6 (8 . . . a6 9 0-0 b5 10 a4 bxa4 1 1 l:l.xa4 o!Db6 I2 l:l.ai c4! "" Rozentalis-Kotronias, Manila OL I992) 9 d3 0-0 IO 0-0 a6 1 1 o!Dbd2 dxe5 I2 fxe5 b5 13 a4 i.b7 I4 axb5

94 2 .. . l:jjj6: Early Deviations

axbS 15 llxa8 .txa8 16 �h1 b4 17 c4 �b6 and White's backward d­pawn is a potential target, Rozenta­lis-Dvoirys, Leningrad 1990. Forcing White to play f4 so early seems an interesting plan.

S exd6 e6 Black can also keep the c8-h3 di­

agonal open to develop his bishop with 5 ... 'ii'xd6 !?, which gives a more open struggle compared to the illus­trative game. 6 .tg2 l£lc6 (6 . . . g6 !? needs more tests) 7 it)e2 (on 7 �f3 White must contend with both 7 ... .tfS S 0-0 .td3 9 lle1 h6 ao Wang Wen­hao-Zhang Weida, Beijing Lee Cup 1995 and 7 ... .tg4) and here:

a) 7 . . . .tg4 S h3 .th5 9 0-0 e6 10 d4 lidS 1 1 g4 .tg6 12 �a3 'ii'd7 13 c4 �b6 14 d5 exd5 15 cxd5 it)b4 16 �f4 .te7 ao Finkel-Portisch, Biel 1995 . Play proceeded increasingly wildly: 17 h4 .txh4 1S lle1+ .te7 19 �xg6 hxg6 20 .tg5 f6 21 .tf4 �f8 with an ultimate draw.

b) 7 .. . .tf5 8 d4 cxd4 (S ... e6 9 lt)a3 'ii'd7 10 �c4 .tg4 1 1 dxc5 .txc5 = Hoffman-De Firmian, Buenos Aires 1995) 9 it)xd4 fud4 10 'ilfxd4 'ii'e6+ 1 1 .te3 �xe3 12 fxe3 'ilfa6 13 'ilfd5 ! and now rather than 13 . . . e6? ! 14 'ii'xb7 'i!fxb7 15 .txb7 llb8 16 .tc6+ �dS 17 b4 ± Rozentalis-Gelfand, Tilburg rpd 1992, Blatny's sugges­tion of 13 . . . .tg4 14 .tn 'i!fd6 15 .tb5+ �dS looks OK for Black.

c) 7 .. . g6 and now: c1) S d4 cxd4 9 �xd4 should not

be met by 9 ... it)xd4?! 10 'ilfxd4 'ilfe6+ 1 1 'ii'e4 .tg7 12 0-0 'ilfxe4 13 .txe4 �c7 14 it)a3 � McDonald-Enders, Budapest 1995 but rather 9 . . . .tg7 !

10 �xc6 'ii'e6+ 1 1 �e5 'ii'xe5+ 12 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2+ 13 �xe2 .tg4+ 14 f3 .te6, which was excellent for Black in Mufic-Palac, Pula 1994.

c2) S �a3 �c7 9 0-0 (9 d3 .tf5 10 'ii'b3 0-0-0 with a good game for Black, Seul-Enders, Budapest 1995) 9 ... .tg7 10 d3 0-0 1 1 lt)c4 'ii'd7 12 .te3 it)e6 13 lle1 lieS = Rozentalis­Hellers, Malmo 1993.

6 .tg2 .txd6 7 �f3 7 it)e2 l£lc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4 it)de7?!

(9 .. . cxd4 10 �xd4 transposes to the note to 9 �a3 in the main game) 10 �a3 cxd4 1 1 it)b5 .tbS 12 it)bxd4 e5 13 �xc6 �xc6 14 .te3 .tg4 15 lle1 with perhaps a little edge for White due to the queenside majority, Rozentalis-Rogers, Biel 1990.

7 ... 0-0 7 . . . �c6 S 0-0 0-0 is the common

move-order, but it is simply a trans­position.

8 0-0 �6 (0)

w

9 �a3 This leads to structures reminis­

cent of the King's Indian Attack, whilst a similar position arises after 9 d3, for example 9 . . . b6 10 �bd2 .tb7 1 1 'ii'e2 .tc7 12 �c4 lieS !? 13

a4 h6 14 .i.d2 'ii'd7 15 l:ad1 l:ad8 16 .i.e 1 e5 with a good game for Black, Short-Kasparov, London rpd 1993. In Beating the Anti-Sicilians Gal­lagher makes the claim that ''White is in fact playing a King's Indian At­tack but with a tempo less than nor­mal. For example, take the moves 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 e6 3 d3 �6 4 g3 d5 5 �bd2 .i.d6 6 .i.g2 �ge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 exd5 �xd5 9 c3 and you will notice that we have the same position as in Short-Kasparov, apart from the fact that White has an extra �bd2 - and this is Short's next move!" Joe con­cludes: "If this is the best White can do I don't predict a very bright future for the Rozentalis variation."

Whilst the comparison is well­spotted, the logic is unconvincing. True, if both sides played in a certain way in the KIA you could reach that position - but they don't. Black, for example, would recapture on d5 with the pawn on move eight, not the knight. A database sweep did not re­veal any King's Indian Attack games that used the moves or reached the position given by Gallagher, so the claim of a transposition is unrea­sonable. The c3 Sicilian player could as easily argue that, by investing a mere tempo, he has forced Black into an unfavourable line of the KIA! However, I won't argue with Joe's overall assessment, since Black does reach comfortable equality.

The other way to play is 9 d4 and now:

a) 9 ... �e7 10 dxc5 .i.xc5 1 1 'ii'e2 �g6 12 h4 ;!; M.Makarov-Filipov, Moscow 1994.

2 . . . �f6: Early Deviations 95

b) 9 . . . b6 (risky) 10 c4 �e7 1 1 �3 .i.b7 12 d5 !? (the sacrificial course; 12 dxc5 .i.xc5 13 �4 ;!;) 12 . . . exd5 13 cxd5 �b4 14 �g5 h6 15 �ge4 �bxd5 1 6 .i.xh6!? .i.e5?! (in his notes White later gave the best defence as 16 . . . gxh6 17 �xd5 �xd5 1 8 'ii'g4+ �h7 ! 19 'ii'f5+ �g7 20 l:ad1 .i.e7 21 �c3 'ii'c8 22 1Wxc8 l:axc8 23 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 24 �xd5 .i.f6 =) 17 .i.d2 �xc3 18 bxc3 �g6 19 f4 ! ± Magem-Tiviakov, Madrid 1994.

c) 9 . . . .i.d7 10 �a3 !? ( 10 c4 �f6 1 1 �c3 �xd4 12 �xd4 cxd4 13 'ii'xd4 1i'c7 14 b3 l:fd8 15 .i.b2 .i.c6 = Ochoa-Ubilava, Las Palmas 1994 or 10 dxc5 .i.xc5 1 1 �bd2 .i.e7 12 1We2 'ii'c7 13 �4 l:fe8 14 c4 �f6 15 �c3 a6 16 b3 e5 17 .i.b2 .i.g4 18 �d5 1h-1h Rozentalis-Khalifman, Rakvere 1993) 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 �b5 .i.e7 12 �bxd4 .i.f6 13 c4 �de7 14 .i.e3 a6 15 'ii'd2 e5 16 �xc6 .i.xc6 17 l:ad 1 �f5 18 'ii'xd8 l:fxd8 19 .i.b6 l:xd1 20 l:xd1 h5 2 1 �1 (White has the better endgame due to the queenside majority and control of the d-file) 21 . . .l:c8 22 b3 i..e7 23 .i.d5 �f8 24 �f3 f6? 25 �xe5 ! i..xd5 (25 . . . fxe5 26 .i.e6) 26 �g6+ �f7 27 �xe7 �xe7 28 l:xd5 ± Vor­otnikov-Taimanov, Leningrad 1984. Perhaps Black could have played more actively earlier, but this game illustrates how White can play these quiet positions effectively.

d) 9 . . . cxd4 10 �xd4 and now: d1) After 10 . . . .i.c5 1 1 �xc6 bxc6

White should continue 12 1We2, rather than 12 1Wa4?! 1i'b6 13 'ii'e4 .i.a6 14 c4 l:ac8 ! 15 �d2 �f6 16 'ii'c2 .i.d4 =F Finkel-Alterman, Israel 1994.

96 2. JiJj6: Early Deviations

d2) 10 . . . i.d7 !? is a significant idea, as 1 1 �xe6?! fails to 1 1 . . .fxe6 1 2 i.xd5 ( 12 c4 �4!) 12 ... exd5 13 'ii'xd5+ l:r.f7 14 'ii'xd6 i.h3 +. Instead the game Rozentalis-Shirov, Til burg 1993 went 1 1 c4 �e7 1 2 �b5?! (12 �3 i.eS ! .., Shirov) 12 ... i.e5 13 �1c3 a6 14 �6 'ii'c7 15 c5 l:r.ad8 16 l:r.e1 i.c8 17 'ii'hS i.xd6 18 cxd6 'ii'xd6 and White did not have enough compensation for the pawn.

d3) 10 . . . �xd4 1 1 'ii'xd4 'ii'c7 12 �2 i.d7!? (after 12 . . . i.cS, 13 'ii'e4 b5 14 a4 bxa4 15 'ii'xa4 i.d7 16 'ii'c2 l:r.ac8 = was Nunn-Tisdall, San Fran­cisco 1 99S but White managed to get an advantage after 1 3 'W'd3 i.d7 14 �b3 i.e7 15 We2 i.f6 16 l:r.d1 l:r.ac8 17 i.xd5 !? exdS 18 i.f4 'ii'c6 19 'W'hS i.e6 20 i.gS i.xgS 21 'W'xgS ;!; in Keitlinghaus-Rosandic, Vinkovci 1995) 13 � i.eS 14 'W'd3 and here 14 . . . l:r.ad8 = Rozentalis-Ak­opian, Philadelphia 1994 or 14 ... a6 = Pedersen-Schandorff, Danish Ch 1994.

9 ••• i.d7 a) 9 . . . l:r.b8 10 �4 i.e7 1 1 d4 b6

12 �fe5 �xeS 13 �xeS i.b7 14 c4 �6 15 i.xb7 l:r.xb7 16 'W'f3 "fic7 17 i.f4 i.d6 18 dxcS ! bxc5 19 b3 l:r.bb8 20 l:r.fe1 ;!; Rozentalis-Fossan, Oslo 1992.

b) 9 . . . a6 10 �4 i.c7 1 1 a4 �b6 12 �xb6 i.xb6 13 d3 'ii'e7 14 i.g5 f6 1S i.e3 i.c7 16 d4 l:r.d8 17 'ii'b3 ;!; Nunn-U.Nielsen, Vejle 1994.

c) 9 . . . lZ'le5 1 0 d3 ! (10 �xe5 i.xeS 1 1 d3 i.d7 = Rozentalis-Khalifman, Germany 1991) 10 . . . i.d7 1 1 �g5 i.c6 12 �4 ;!; Rozentalis-Gelfand, Tilburg 1992.

d) 9 . . . b6 !? 10 �4 ( 10 l:r.e1 i.b7 1 1 d3 i.e7 12 'ii'e2 'ii'd7 13 �4 l:r.ad8 14 i.d2 i.f6 15 l:r.ad1 i.a6 is unclear, Freckmann-Yakovich, Mu­nich 1992) 10 . . . i.c7 (for 10 . . . i.e7 see the next note with 9 . . . i.e7) 1 1 a4 i.b7 12 d3 l:r.b8 13 Wb3 �h8 14 l:r.e1 a6 15 i.d2 i.a8 16 l:r.ad1 b5 17 axb5 axbS 18 lZ'le3 �ce7 19 i.c1 i.d6 with equality, Wahls-Tischbierek, Biel 1993.

e) 9 ... i.e7 10 d3 b6 1 1 � i.b7 12 a4 'ii'c7 ( 12 . . . a6 1 3 'ii'b3 l:r.b8 14 l:r.d1 'W'c7 1S i.g5 i.a8 16 i.xe7 .!Lldxe7 17 lZ'le3 l:r.fd8 18 d4 = A.Sok­olov-Banas, Viernheim 1992) 13 'ii'e2 l:r.ad8 ( 13 . . . h6 14 i.d2 l:r.ad8 = Roz­entalis-Ljubojevic, Moscow OL 1994) 14 i.d2 l:r.fe8 15 l:r.ae1 i.f8 16 i.g5 f6 17 i.c1 eS 18 �h4 'ii'd7 19 'ii'c2 g5? (19 . . . �e7 = Rozentalis) 20 �f3 �7 21 �fd2! 'ii'xd3 22 'ii'xd3 l:r.xd3 23 lZ'le4 �g7 24 f4 ! with a dan­gerous attack, Rozentalis-Rogers, Malmo 1993.

10 lbc4 For 10 d4 !? cxd4 1 1 �b5 see the

9 . . . i.d7 note at White's ninth move. After 10 �c4 we again reach a type of King's Indian Attack where Black has satisfactory play, but White often manages a slow build-up against the black kingside.

10 .•• i.c7 11 d3 l:r.c8 12 a4 b6 13 'ii'e2 We7 14 l'bh4?! (14 i.d2 - Roz­entalis) 14 ... �f4! 15 i.xf4 i.xf4 16 l:r.ae1 (or 16 i.e4 f5 !) 16 •.• :Cd8?! (16 ... i.g5) 17 i.e4! i.gS 18 �g2 i.f6 19 f4 g6 20 g4 i.g7 21 Wn Wf6 22 'ii'g3 �aS 23 lM6 l:r.b8 24 gS (Rozentalis now believes 25 fS ! was stronger) 24 •.• We7 25 rs i.c6 26

lDxr7! .. xf7 27 f:xg6 -.es 28 g:xh7+ �h8 29 g6 l:.b7 30 h4 l:.bd7 31 hS .i:xe4 32 ::Xe4 l:.:xd3 33 .. g4 l13d6 34 lDr4 �b3 35 �e6 � 36 �gS! (the sacrifice on move 26 was very unpleasant for Black; White's kingside pawns are horrendously cramping,

2 . . . �f6: Early Deviations 97

and are worth far more than a piece) 36 ... �e4 37 .. :xe4 l16d7 38 .. :xe8+ ::xes 39 �f7 + ::xr7 40 ::xr7 .ih6 41 l:.:xa7 .ic1 42 b3 c4 43 bxc4 bS 44 �g2 bxa4 45 l:.:xa4 �g7 46 c5 .tgS 47 c6 .tr6 48 :&7+ �h6 49 c4 l:.e6 50 h8 .. + 1-0

1 2 3 e5 ltld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 li'xd4

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbf6 3 eS lbdS 4 d4 cxd4 5 'ifxd4 (D)

Remarkably little of interest has happened in these 'iixd4 lines re­cently, and there is no change to the old conclusion that these lines give White nothing. After 5 .. . e6 the move 6 J.c4 (Game 31 ) is easily parried, while in the main line, 6 lbf3 lbc6 7 'ife4, Black has a very pleasant choice of defences: 7 . . . d6 (Game 33) and 7 ... f5 (games 33 and 34). Black's extra central pawn even gives him good prospects on a medium-term edge. The old rule of thumb about not developing your queen too early does seem to apply here.

Nevertheless, I recommend a careful study of the lines in this chapter, since these lines are still popular at club level.

Game 31 Handoko - Martin Gonzalez

Lucerne OL 1982

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbr6 3 eS lbds 4 d4 cxd4 S 'ifxd4 e6

Almost invariably played, but the alternatives are not completely out of the question:

a) 5 . . . lbb6 6 i.f4 ! (to discourage . . . d5 for a while; after 6 lDf3 lDc6 7 'ii'e4 d5 Black won a beautiful game in Sedor-Pelts, USSR 1974: 8 exd6 'iixd6 9 i.f4 'iid5 10 lbbd2 i.f5 1 1 'iixd5 lbxd5 1 2 i.g3 f6 1 3 J.c4 lbb6 14 i.b3 e5 15 0-0-0 lbb4 ! 16 lbe1 l:tc8 17 f3 lbxa2+! 18 J.xa2 l:txc3+ 19 bxc3 J.a3#) 6 . . . lbc6 7 'iie4 g6 8 a4 a5 9 lbf3 J.g7 10 i.b5 0-0 1 1 0-0 d5 12 'ii'e3 ± Jacobs-Pavlovich, Hol­lywood 1973.

b) 5 . . . lbc7 6 lbf3 (or 6 J.c4 !?) 6 . . . lbc6 7 'iie4 d5 !? (7 . . . g6 8 J.c4 i.g7 9 0-0 b5 10 J.b3 lba5 1 1 lDbd2 i.b7 12 'iih4 lbxb3 13 axb3 lbe6 14 lbe4 ;!; R.Maric-Defe, Yugoslavia 1969) 8 exd6 'ifxd6 9 i.c4 !? (9 i.f4?! 'ife6 10 'ii'xe6 lbxe6 1 1 J.e3 g6 = Vulicevic-Waitzkin, ACC Inter­national 1993) 9 . . . e5 10 i.f4 f6 1 1 lba3 ;!;.

6 i.c4 For the more usual 6 lbf3 see

Games 32, 33 and 34. White's idea in playing 6 i.c4 is clear enough - he wants to force the centralised black

knight to move, or enter the line 6 . . . �6 7 1i'e4 f5? ! 8 'ii'e2 where his bishop is not hemmed in on f1 (as occurs in some similar variations af­ter 6 li)f3).

Unfortunately this plan is not ef­fective for two reasons. The first is that the black knight can often de­centralise itself rather effectively by . . . ti)de7 and . . . li)g6, putting pres­sure on the white e-pawn. The sec­ond reason is that the bishop move does not threaten much in the line 6 . . . li)c6 7 'ii'e4 d6!?. White would simply get the worse endgame by capturing on d5, and his c4-bishop is often harassed by the opposing knights.

6 •.. ttx6 If Black plays 6 . . . d6 White can

transpose to normal variations with 7 li)f3 or 7 exd6, or try 7 ..i.xd5 dxe5 8 1i'xe5 'ii'xd5 9 1i'xd5 exd5 10 ..i.e3 !, as in Mokry-Skacel, Czechoslovakia 1976.

7 1i'e4 (D)

7 ... d6 7 . . . f5? ! is dubious after the con-

tinuation 8 'ii'e2 1i'h4 9 li)f3 'ii'e4 10 .i.xd5 exd5 1 1 .i.e3 ti)xe5 12 li)bd2

3 e5 t:Dd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'ii'xd4 99

li)xf3+ 1 3 li)xf3 ! Matulovit-Bog­danovic, Yugoslav Ch 1958, but Black has several alternatives:

a) 7 . . . li)b6?! (as we shall see, this knight is needed on the kingside) 8 ..i.b3 d6 9 exd6 .i.xd6 10 li)f3 and now:

a1) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 ti)g5 g6 12 'ii'h4 gives White an attack.

a2) With that in mind, in Pan­chenko-Silseth, Gausdal 1991, Black tried 10 . . . h6 !?. After 1 1 0-0 Q-.0 12 :e1 'ii'c7 13 li)a3 .i.xa3 14 bxa3 li)a5 White still won on the kingside with the dashing sacrifice 15 .i.xh6!? gxh6? 16 'ii'g4+ �h8 17 'iVh5 ! +- at­tacking both a5 and h6. A relevant question is how much better White is after the improvement 1 5 . . . ti)xb3 !? 16 .i.f4 f5 ! 17 'ii'b4! tl)d5 18 'ii'xf8+ �xf8 19 j_xc7 li)xa1 20 j_d6+ �f7 21 :c 1 ! intending ..i.e5 followed by :xal .

a3) 10 . . . li)d7 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 j_c2 li)f6 12 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 1 3 li)bd2 e5 =

Rakay-Peev, Stary Smokovec 197 4) 1 1 . . .ti)c5 ( 1 1 . . .0-0 12 .i.c2 li)f6 13 'ii'h4 !) 12 'ii'g4 ! li)xb3 ( 12 . . . 0-0 13 .i.c2 f5 14 'ii'h5 'ii'e8 15 'ii'xe8 :xeS 16 l:[d1 .i.f8 17 b4 li)d7 1 8 j_b3 ± was R.Maric-Huguet, Monte Carlo 1969, but some years later Marie in­dicated he preferred 1 3 j_h6 'ii'f6 14 ..i.g5 'ii'f5 1 5 'ii'xf5 exf5 16 l:[d1 ±) 13 'ii'xg7 ! li)xa1 14 'ii'xh8+ �d7 15 1i'xh7 'ii'f6 16 l:[d1 ± �c7 17 li)bd2 e5 1 8 li)e4 'ii'f5 19 'ii'xf5 .i.xf5 20 li)xd6 +- and White was two pawns up in R.Maric-Coulon, Strasbourg 1973.

b) 7 ... ti)de7 !? 8 li)f3 ti)g6 9 j_b5 (9 0-0 'ii'c7 transposes to the next

100 3 e5 lbds 4 d4 cxd4 5 'fixd4

note) 9 . . . 11fc7 10 .txc6 'ifxc6 1 1 'fixc6 bxc6 1 2 0-0 f6 13 l:e1 i.b7 � Semeniuk-Yuferov, USSR 1977.

c) 7 . . . 11fc7 !? 8 lt:)f3 lt:)de7 9 0-0 (or 9 .if4!? lt:)g6 10 .ig3 b6 1 1 lt:)bd2 .ib7 12 'ife2 d6 1 3 exd6 .ixd6 14 .ia6 0-0-0 15 .ixb7+ �xb7 16 .ixd6 l:xd6 17 g3 l:hd8 1 8 0-0-0 l:d5 1h- 1h Mukhamedzhanov - Sid­eif-Zade, NaberezhnyeChelny 1993) 9 . . . lt:)g6 10 l:e1 b6 (though even 10 . . . ll)cxe5 1 1 lt:)xe5 lt:)xe5 12 11fxe5 11fxc4 1 3 lt:)a3 11fc6 :j: did not give White quite enough for the pawn in the game Tseitlin-Timoshchenko, USSR 1 977) 1 1 i.b3 .ib7 12 11fe2 f6! (also 12 . . . d6 as in ROder-Cordes, Bundesliga 1980/1) 13 exf6 gxf6 14 lt:)a3 .ixa3 15 bxa3 0-0-0 + Timosh­chenko-Zaichik, USSR 1977. Trans­ferring the knight to g6 does seem a promising plan for Black.

8 00 Or 8 exd6 lt:)f6 9 'ife2 .ixd6 10

i.g5 (10 lt:)f3 h6!? = Maric-Smailbe­govic, Sarajevo 1958) and here:

a) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 lt:)d2 !? ( 1 1 lt:)f3 .ie7 12 0-0 b6 13 lt:)bd2 i..b7 14 l:ad1 'fic7 15 i.xf6?! .ixf6 1 6 lt:)e4 i..e7 17 i..d3 11ff4 18 lt:)g3 l:fd8 was � in Angelov-Spassky, USSR 1975) 1 1 .. .i.e7 12 lt:)gf3 b6 13 0-0-0 !? 11fc7 14 � lt:)xe4 15 'ifxe4 i.b7 16 i..d3 g6 17 11fh4 with kingside pres­sure.

b) 10 ... 11fa5 1 1 00 ll)d4! (tricky!) 12 ll)xd4 'ifxg5 13 i.b5+ �e7 14 0-0 11fe5 � Stein-L.D.Evans, Gausdal 1978.

c) 10 ... lt:)e5 !? 1 1 lt:)d2 lt:)xc4 (or 1 l . . ..id7? ! 12 lt:)gf3 'fic7 13 lt:)xe5 .txe5 14 lt:)f3 i.f4 15 .ixf4 11fxf4 16

lt:)e5 'fie4 17 0-0-0 � Marie-Parma, Bled 1963) 12 lt:)xc4 i..e7 13 l:d1 11fc7 14 ll)e5 0-0 15 lt:)gf3 b6 16 0-0 .ib7 � Alexandrescu-Pavlov, Timi­soara 1972 .

8 ... dxe5 If Black is content to just to equal­

ise there are other choices: a) 8 ... lt:)b6 9 i.b3 when Black

has both 9 . . . ll)d7 10 exd6 ll)c5 = Ma­tulovic-Larsen, Sarajevo 1960 and 9 . . . d5 10 'ii'e2 .ie7 1 1 0-0 i..d7 12 :e1 0-0 13 i.f4 :cs 14 lt:)bd2 a6 15 :ad1 lt:)a5 16 i.c2 .tb5 = Ciric­Damjanovic, Ljubljana 1960.

b) 8 . . . i.e7 9 0-0 (9 exd6 'ii'xd6! 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 i..g5 i..xg5 12 lt:)xg5 lt:)f6 13 11fe3 'ife5 14 11fxe5 lt:)xe5 15 lt:)d2 l:d8 16 l:fd1 .id7 with an ex­cellent endgame for Black, Matulo­vic-Geller, Belgrade 1969) 9 . . . dxe5 1 0 lt:)xe5 lt:)f6 (10 . . . lt:)xe5 1 1 'ifxe5 0-0 12 i..xd5 i..f6 13 'ife2 exd5 = Koz­omara-Shamkovich, Sarajevo 1963) 1 1 lt:)xc6 lt:)xe4 12 lt:)xd8 i..xd8 13 .te3 i..d7 14 lt:)a3 ll)d6 15 i..d3 i..c7 = Kholmov-Andersson, Sochi 1973.

9 lt:)xe5 i..d6 = (D) Or: a) 9 . . . lt:)f6? ! 10 lt:)xc6 lt:)xe4 1 1

lt:)xd8 �xd8 1 2 0-0 .id7 1 3 l:d 1 l:c8 14 i.b5 i.d6 15 lt:)a3 a6 16 i.xd7 �xd7 17 l:d4 f5 18 ll)c4 with prob­lems for Black in Strikovic-Vera, El­goibar 1994.

b) 9 . . . lt:)xe5 10 'fixeS 'ifd6 with an equal position in the game Macie­jewski-Pietrusiak, Polish Ch 1973.

c) 9 ... 11fc7 ! (similar to the main game) 1 0 lt:)xc6 bxc6 1 1 ll)d2 i.d6 12 lt:)f3 0-0 13 0-0 e5 ! 14 l:d1 h6 15 i..xd5?! cxd5 16 11fxd5 i.b7 ! 17

Wb5 c4 + Nun-Kuligowski, Warsaw 1978.

10 llncc6 bxc6 11 0-0 0-0 12 lbd2 eS

Seeking to open the position for the two bishops, even at the cost of a pawn ( 13 i.xd5 cxd5 14 'i'xd5 i.e6 oo) . However both alternatives are maybe preferable: 12 ... 'i'c7 !? 13 lDf3 e5 would transpose to the previously mentioned Nun-Kuligowski game, while solid was 12 . . . i.b7 13 lDf3 h6 14 :e1 :b8 15 i.d3 ltlf6 = Barle­Csom, Ljubljana 1973.

13 'ii'e2 fS 14 ltlf3 'ii'f6?! (14 . . . e4 was still fine for Black, but now Han­doko comes up with an inspired ex­ploitation of the pin on the a2-g8 diagonal) 15 i.gS 'ii'g6?! 16 lbxe5!! WxgS 17 ltlxc6 i.xh2+ 18 �xh2 'ii'h6+ 19 �gl 'ii'xc6 20 l:.fdl i.e6 (it seems that Black saved himself, but. .. ) 21 'ii'xe6+! 'ii'xe6 22 i.xdS :res 23 c4 aS 24 :act 'iPf7 25 c5 l:.ad8 26 i.xe6+ �e6 27 :Xd8 :Xd8 28 :et + 'iii>f6 29 c6 :cs 30 :ct �e6 31 :cS a4 32 l:.c4 a3 33 b4 �dS 34 l:.cS+ �d6 35 :c3 l:.xc6 36 :Xa3 l:.cl+ 37 �h2 :bt 38 :a6+ �eS 39 l:.aS+ �f4 40 bS :b2 41 a3 gS 42

3 e5 l'Dd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'ii'xd4 101

l:.a4+ �eS 43 l:.b4 lhb4 44 axb4 f4 45 �gl �d6 46 'iWl f3 47 gxf3 �c7 48 �g2 �b6 49 �g3 �bS 50 �g4 �xb4 51 �xgS �cS 52 f4 �d6 53 'iPf6 hS 54 �gS �e6 55 f5+ 1-0

Game 32 Rogers - Yudasin Moscow OL 1994

1 e4 cS 2 c3 ltlf6 3 eS lbdS 4 d4 cxd4 5 'ii'xd4 e6 6 ffi ltlc6

6 . . . b6 has not done badly in the handful of games it has been seen, but this may be due to the higher­rated players being on the black side:

a) 7 c4 ltlc6 8 'ii'd1 lbde7 9 i.d3 ltlg6 10 i.e4 i.b7 1 l ltlc3?! ( 1 1 0-0 looks fine; then 1 1 . . .'ii'b8 12 :e1) 1 1 . . .'i'b8 12 'ii'e2 ltlgxe5 1 3 0-0 lDxf3+ 14 'i'xf3 i.d6 + Zurla-Jansa, Cattolica 1993.

b) 7 i.d3 i.a6 8 i.xa6 ltlxa6 9 ltlbd2 lbc5 10 � f5 1 1 ltlxc5 bxc5 12 'ii'd3 'i'c7 13 c4 ltlb4 14 'i'e2 i.e7 1 5 0-0 0-0 16 i.d2 oo Ekstr5m-Tai­manov, Wroclaw 1979.

c) 7 ltlbd2 i.b7 8 ltlc4 ltlc6 9 'i'g4 'i'c7 10 lLld6+ (why so early? 10 'i' g3 and 10 i.d3 look promising) 1 0 . . . i.xd6 1 1 exd6 'i'xd6 12 'i'xg7 0-0-0 oo Bajovic-V.Nikolic, Yugoslav Cht 1990.

7 'ii'e4 (D) · 7 ... d6 7 . . .f5 is examined in the following

two games. Instead 7 . . . ltlde7 is well met by 8

ltla3 ! d5 9 exd6 ltlf5 10 i.f4 i.xd6 1 1 0-0-0 i.xf4+ 12 'i'xf4 'ii'f6 13 i.b5 0-0 14 i.xc6 bxc6 15 lbe5 ± Vasiukov-Gufeld, USSR 1979, so

102 3 e5 liJd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 ilxd4

B

Black should preface this move with 7 . . . ilc7 !? (with the idea of . . . lbde7 followed by . . . lLlg6, attacking the white e-pawn) and now:

a) 8 i.c4 lLlde7 transposes to lines already examined in Game 3 1 , note to Black's 7th.

b) 8 i.b5 b6 (also 8 . . . a6) 9 0-0 i.b7 10 J:le1 0-0-0 1 1 c4 lLlde7 12 fle2 f6 =i= Lehmann-Beckemeyer, Bundesliga 1984/5.

c) 8 g3 lbde7 9 lLla3 lLlg6 10 lLlb5 'ii'b8 1 1 i.f4 a6 ( l l . . .b6 12 i.g2 i.b7 1 3 0-0 a6 14 lLld6+ i.xd6 15 exd6 0-0 16 J:lad 1 lLlce5 112- 112 was Grzesik-Fleek, Bundesliga 1984/5) 12 lLlbd4 (12 lbd6+!? i.xd6 13 exd6 b5 14 i.g2 i.b7 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 1i'e2 looks unclear, though White won a complicated game in Rozentalis­Lanc, Trnava 1988) 12 . . . lLlxd4 13 'ii'xd4 b6 14 i.g2 i.c5 15 ild2 i.b7 (15 . . . 0-0 16 0-0 :a7 17 b4 i.e7 18 i.e3 i.d8 "" Vorotnikov-Klarnan, USSR 1979) 16 b4 i.e7 17 0-0 0-0 18 J:lfd1 :a7 19 ild4 i.d5 20 lbd2 i.xg2 21 �xg2 f6 :J: Grzesik-Wahls, Bundesliga 1986/7.

d) 8 i.d3 !? f5 (8 ... lLlde7 9 0-0 lLlg6 10 J:le1 b6 1 1 h4 i.b7 12 'ii'e2 d6 1 3 exd6 i.xd6 14 .ta6! with a

small plus for White, Rogovskoy­Semeniuk, Podolsk 1993) 9 exf6 lLlxf6 10 'ii'e2 ( 10 ilh4 lLle5 ! =) 10 . . . d5 1 1 0-0 i.d6 12 h3 (12 i.g5) 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 lLlrl4 ilf7 14 f4 i.d7 15 .te3 lLlh5 ! + Marjanovic-Barlov, Yu­goslavia 1986.

e) 8 lLlbd2!? is a line patronised by Vorotnikov (D):

e1) 8 . . . lLlde7 9 lLlc4 lLlg6 10 h4!? ( 10 i.f4 f6 1 1 0-0-0 b5 ! 12 lbd6+ i.xd6 13 exd6 'ii'a5 "" Vasiukov ­Sideif-Zade, USSR 1979) 10 . . . f6 1 1 i.f4 lLlxf4 1 2 'ii'xf4 i.e7 1 3 lbd6+ i.xd6 14 exd6 'ii'b6 15 ild2 'ii'c5 16 :h3 b6 17 J:lg3 ;!; Vorotnikov-Labun­sky, Vladivostok 1990.

e2) White's position is also bet­ter after 8 . . . f5 9 exf6 lLlxf6 10 'ii'h4: 10 . . . d5 1 1 .td3 lLle5 12 i.b5+ �f7 13 lLlxe5+ 'ii'xe5+ 14 i.e2 1i'c7 15 g4 with an attack was Vorotnikov­A.Ivanov, USSR 1979, or 10 . . . i.e7 1 1 i.d3 lLle5 12 i.c2!? b6 13 ilg3 lLlxf3+ 14 gxf3 !? d6 (14 . . . 'ii'xg3 is better) 15 ilxg7 J:lg8 16 'ii'h6 ;!; Vorotnikov-Mukhutdinov, Moscow 1992.

e3) 8 . . . b6 9 i.d3 (9 g3 i.b7 10 i.g2 lLlde7 1 1 0-0 lLlg6 12 'ii'e2 i.e7

13 :e1 oo Vorotnikov-lvanov, Beltsy 1979) 9 . . . lbde7 10 lbc4 lbg6 1 1 a4 .tb7 12 ..,e2 :c8 1 3 0-0 lba5 14 lbxa5 .txf3 15 gxf3 bxa5 16 f4 .te7 oo Rogers-Velikov, Khania 1991 .

S lbbdl 8 .tb5 .td7 9 c4 is an interesting

recent try: a) 9 . . . lbc7 10 exd6 .txd6 1 1 0-0

�xb5 (or 1 l . . .'ilt'e7 12 l:[d1 0-0 oo B.Stein-Kovalev, Gausdal 1990) 12 cxb5 lbe7 B.Stein-Plachetka, Co­penhagen 1990, and now instead of 13 1i'xb7 oo as in the game, Plachetka gives 1 3 lbc3! 'ilt'c7 14 l:[d1 0-0 15 1i'd3 tbd5 ! 16 �xd5 exd5 17 'ii'xd5 .te6 oo.

b) 9 . . . �b6 10 exd6 .txd6 1 1 0-0 a6 12 l:[d1 jkc7 13 lbc3! (Bernd Stein has reached this excellent posi­tion at least three times) 1 3 . . . lbe5 (13 . . . 0-0 14 .te3 ! lbc8 15 c5 .te7 16 i.f4 jka5 17 :xd7 axb5 18 :xb7 ± B .Stein-Bebchuk, Dortmund 1993 or 15 . . . .txh2+ 16 lbxh2 axb5 17 lLlxb5 'ti'a5 18 a4 .te8 19 lLlg4 ± de Ia Villa-Sion Castro, Zaragoza 1995) 13 ... lbe5 14 lLlxe5 i.xe5 15 c5 axb5 ( 15 . . . .txb5 16 cxb6 .txh2+ 17 �h1 'ilt'e5 1 8 'ii'h4 1-0 B.Stein-Birming­ham, Hamburg 1986) 16 cxb6 'jWb8 !? 17 jkb4 (critical, but 17 h3 !? or 17 g3 !? may be better) 17 . . . .txh2+ 18 �h1 'ii'e5 19 jkh4 b4 20 lbe4 .tc6! 21 lLld6+ 'ii'xd6 22 :xd6 .txd6 B .Stein-Skembris, Dortmund 1990, when with rook, bishop, pawn and a solid position Black should be OK.

8 ... dxeS 8 . . . .td7 !? keeps more tension in

the position. One idea is that 9 lbc4 can be met by 9 . . . �xc3 !? 10 bxc3 d5

3 e5 l7Jd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'ii'xd4 103

1 1 'ii'f4 dxc4 12 .txc4 .te7 13 0-0 ( 1 3 .td3 'ii'a5 14 i.d2 g5 ! 15 lLlxg5 �xe5 ; Buljovcic-Browne, Novi Sad 1979) 13 . . . 0-0. Now 14 .td3 jka5 15 'ii'g3 l:[fd8 ! oo 16 �g5 g6 17 .tf4 .te8 18 �e4 lLlxe5 19 .txe5 :xd3 ! 20 f3 (Black has good com­pensation for the exchange after 20 jkxd3 •xeS) 20 . . . 'ii'd8 21 'ii'f4 f5 ; was Sveshnikov-Beliavsky, USSR Ch 1978, but it seems to me that it is worth White questioning this old as­sessment, as the original lnformator notes were not done by either of the players. For example 14 'ti'g3 !? �h8 15 l:[d1 jkc7 16 .td3 is clearly supe­rior to the game.

Instead the usual continuation runs 9 exd6 i.xd6 10 lbc4 .tc7 and here:

a) l l ltlce5? lbxc3 ! ! (a fantastic concept) 12 "jkg4 ( 12 bxc3 .txe5 13 �xe5 jka5 with threats to e5 and c3) 12 . . . �xe5 13 'jWxg7 lLlxf3+ 14 gxf3 l:[f8 15 .th6 .td6 + Govedarica­Plachetka, Trnava 1987.

b) 1 1 i.d3 'ii'e7 12 lLlce5 0-0-0 13 .tc2?! (or 13 �xc6 i.xc6 14 lbd4 .td7 15 .td2 e5 16 �f5 'ii'f6 ; Plachetka-Tal, Nice OL 1974; per­haps interesting 1 3 0-0 �xe5 14 lbxe5 oo is best, Buljovcic-Sigurjons­son, Novi Sad 1976) 13 . . . �xe5 14 �xe5 .te8 15 ltlf3 �b8 16 i.d2 'jWc5 17 a3 e5 18 b4 'jWd6 19 0-0-0 'jWa6 + Klemencic-Plachetka, Mari­bor 1977.

9 �xeS �eS 10 'ii'xeS 'ti'c7 10 .. . 'ilt'd6 1 1 i.b5+ .td7 12 .txd7+

jkxd7 reaches the same position. 11 .tbS+ i.d7 12 .txd7+ 11t'xd7

13 0-0 (D)

104 3 e5 0.d5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'flxd4

Keeping the options of the white knight open for one more move. White made no progress with 13 M 'flc7 (the imaginative 13...0-0-0!? is also playable, as in Bollsteling­P.Fink, Porz 199112; with this kind of creativity it is no surprise that Black later became a superlative chef, fa­mous for her Roehampton curries) 14 'ii'xc7 ltJxc7 15 c4 i.c5 16 <iPe2 a5 ! ? 17 i.f4 ltJa6 18 i.d2 i.b4 19 i.e3 i.c5 20 l::thd1 <iPe7 lf2- 112 Bron­stein-Hort, Monte Carlo 1969.

13 • . • 'flc7! 13 . . . ltJf6 14 ltJf3 i.d6 15 'ife2 0-0

1 6 :ct1 'ii'c7 17 i.g5 gave White a viable edge in Rogers-Gallagher, Biel 1992, continuing 17 . . . ctJdS? ! 18 c4 ctJf6 19 g3 :acts 20 a3 .te7 21 i.f4 :xd1+ 22 l::txd1 'fla5 23 :ct3 l::tc8 24 ltJe5 l::td8 25 b4 'ifa4 26 l::txd8+ i.xd8 27 'iff3 'ifa6 28 b5 'ii'b6 29 a4 (Gallagher's time-wasting has cost him dear) 29 . . . h6 30 a5 'iWxa5 31 'ifxb7 i.c7 32 <iPg2 'ifb6 33 'ifc8+ <iPh7 34 i.e3 'fld6 35 ltJf3 i.b6 36 c5 'ifc7 37 ._xc7 i.xc7 38 c6 i.b8 39 i.xa7 1-0. A salutary lesson on what can happen if the queenside pawn majority is not kept under control.

14 'fle2 14 'ifxc7 ltJxc7 15 ltJe4 i.e7 16

i.e3 ctJd5 17 i.c5 i.xc5 18 ltJxc5 b6 19 ltJd3 :c8 = Sveshnikov-Pan­chenko, Sochi 1980.

14 ••• .td6 15 ffi :cB! =

Inhibiting White's hopes of queen­side expansion with c4. The black pieces are active, and now easily keep the queenside majority under control.

16 g3 0·0 17 ctJd4 'iWcS 18 i.e3?! (18 :.ctl is equal) 18 ••• ltJxe3 19 'iWxe3 :rd8 20 l::tfd1 .te7 21 ltJb3?! (21 'ife2) 21. .. 'flxe3 22 fxe3 hS (better is 22 . . . <iPf8 =F; now White gets some counterplay) 23 ltJaS! i.gS 24 Wf2 b6 25 ltlb3 <iPf8 26 ltld4 i.e7 27 <iPe2 i.d6 28 ltJbS i.b8 29 :xd8+ l::txd8 30 ltJd4 l::tc8 31 :d1 <iPe7 32 �f3 f6 33 l::td4 gS (34 . . . e5 !? =i=) 34 g4 fS 35 h3 <iPf6 36 <iPf2 l::th8 37 <iPg1 :h7? 38 gxf5 exfS 39 :d8 i.g3 40 :r8+ <iPg6 41 l::tg8+ <iPf6 42 :rs+ (on 42 �xg5 l::te7 Black should hold the draw) 42 .•. <iPg6 43 .l:.g8+ <iPf6 lfz.lfz

Game 33 Novopashin - Sveshnikov

USSR 1981

1 e4 c5 2 c3 ltJf6 3 eS ctJdS 4 d4 cxd4 S 'flxd4 e6 6 ctJI3 �c6 7 'fle4 fS 8 exf6

The retreat 8 'ii'e2 is examined next game.

9 ... ctJxf6 9 'flh4 After this White has a clear plan:

i.d3 will threaten i.g6+. If Black castles early to avoid this, White can nevertheless often seize the initiative

with .tg5, threatening to remove the defender of the h7 -square. Instead Black takes control of the centre af­ter 9 'it'c2 d5 (also quite playable is 9 . . . 'it'c7, e.g. 10 .tg5 �5 !? l l lDbd2 b6 12 .te2 .tb7 13 .th4 lDg6 14 .tg3 lC!f4 =i= Hort-Hartston, Hastings 1975) 10 .tg5 e5 1 1 .tb5 .td6 + Lechtyn­sky-Ungureanu, Moscow 1977 and Lendwai-Stanec, Gamlitz 1993.

9 ... dS!? As we will see, Black can allow

White his .td3 idea. Of the alterna­tives, 'c' and 'd' are very sound:

a) 9 . . . 'it'a5 10 .tg5 .te7 1 1 lDbd2 lC!e5 12 'it'd4 lC!c6 1 3 'it'h4 lC!e5 14 0-0-0! (jjf7 (14 . . . lC!xf3 15 lC!xf3 'it'xa2 16 .td3 ± Becerra Rivero) 15 lC!b3 ! _.c7 (15 ... 'Wxa2? 16 �c2 +-) 16 .td3 ± Becerra Rivero-Livshits, Moscow OL 1994.

b) 9 . . . .te7 (long thought inferior, but perhaps playable) 10 .td3 0-0 1 1 .tg5 .:t7!? 12 lDbd2 d5 13 lDd4 h6 14 lC!xc6 bxc6 15 .te3 1h- 1h Mik.Hor­vath-Torok, Hungary 1994.

c) 9 . . . 'it'c7 is solid: c l ) The point is 10 .td3? lC!b4 !

1 1 .tg6+ hxg6 12 'it'xh8 lDc2+. c2) 10 .te2 .te7 1 1 0-0 and now

1 1 . . .0-0 is equal, but not 1 l . . .b6 12 .i.d3 .tb7 13 .tg6+ �8 14 .tf4 ;t Peresypkin-Suetin, USSR 1976.

c3) 10 .tg5 .te7 1 1 lDbd2 is pos­sible: 1 1 . . .llJe5 12 lC!xe5 'it'xe5+ 13 .te2 0-0 14 'Wg3 !? 'it'xg3 15 hxg3 .i.c5 16 f3 d5 17 0-0-0 ;t Kurajica­Popovic, Vrbas 1980; Kurajica sug­gests 1 1 . . . d5.

c4) 10 lDbd2 �5 (also 10 . . . b6!? 1 1 lDe4 lDxe4 12 'Wxe4 .i.b7 13 .tf4 .td6 14 .i.xd6 'Wxd6 with equality,

3 e5 li:Jd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'it'xd4 105

Padevsky-Sax, Vrnja�ka Banja 1974 or 10 . . . .te7 1 1 .td3 lC!e5 12 lC!xe5 'Wxe5+ 13 � 'it'd5 14 lDxf6+ .txf6 15 'Wh3 b6 16 0-0 .tb7 lfl.lfl Padev­sky-Taimanov, Vrnj�ka Banja 1974) 1 1 lC!xe5 'Wxe5+ 12 .te2 b6 13 lDf3 'We4 14 'Wxe4 lC!xe4 = Przewoznik­Vogt, Polanica Zdroj 1980.

d) 9 . . . e5 !? (to prevent White's .td3/.tg6+ plan, e.g. 10 .td3?! e4 1 1 .txe4 'fle7 12 0-0 lC!xe4 1 3 :e1 'flxh4 14 lC!xh4 d5 15 f3 .i.c5+ 16 .te3 .te7 + Sauvetre-Yacob, Paris 1996) 10 .tg5 (10 .tb5 !? e4 !? 1 1 lC!g5 .tc5 1 2 lC!d2 d5 1 3 c4 lC!g4 14 0-0 e3 15 cxd5 'flxd5 16 .tc4 «>

C.Baker-Cafferty, England 1979) 10 ... d5 1 1 .tb5 .td6 12 0-0 0-0! 13 c4 e4 14 cxd5 exf3 15 dxc6 fxg2 16 :e 1 ( 16 �xg2 was the original game, Hort-Miles, BBC Mastergame 1979; after 16 . . . bxc6 17 .tc4+ �h8 18 lDc3 'Wc7 :j: White's king was the more exposed, though Black blun­dered with 19 :ad 1 .i.b7?! 20 .td3 ! :adS 2 1 .tf5 .i.e5? allowing the kil­ler 22 .txh7 ! ±) 16 . . . 'Wc7 17 .txf6 gxf6 18 lDc3 bxc6 19 .tc4+ �h8 20 :e3 .i.e5 + Wockenfuss-Hartston, EEC OL, Berlin 1980.

10 .td3 .td6 (D) ll .tg6+ So White achieves his objective

of making Black's king move, but in fact he may already be worse. The bishop manoeuvre costs several tempi, and Black's control of the centre means his king is not that likely to run into trouble before later 'castling by hand' is achieved. Similar posi­tions arise 1 1 .tg5 �f7 ! (=i= Svesh­nikov; instead after 1 1 . . . e5 12 .tg6+

106 3 e5 liJd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'fixd4

w

�e7, 1 3 .th5 'fkb6 14 .txf6+ gxf6 15 'fig3 �f8 16 lLlbd2 :88 11 11'h4 .te7 1 8 0-0-0 'fka6 19 a3 f5 20 1Wh3 f4 21 g4 fxg3 22 'fig2 .tf5 23 lLle1 lbb4 ! 0- 1 was a pretty finish in Mufic-Koful, Pula 1994, but 13 .tc2 is unclear) 12 lDd4 h6 13 .te3 lbe5 14 .tc2 g5 15 'fih3 lbg6 =!= Vorot­nikov-Sveshni.kov, Lvov 1983.

ll ... �e7!? After 1 l . . .�d7 12 .tc2, 12 ... �c7

13 lbd4 ;!; was Alburt-Smit, USSR 1970, but 12 ... h6 is not so clear; cer­tainly 13 'fka4 'fka5 14 1Wxa5 lbxa5 = Trabert-Rashkovsky, Kuopio 1992 was not the refutation.

12 .tc2 h6 13 .tg6 .td7 Riskier is 1 3 . . . e5? ! 14 0-0 e4 15

lDd4 lLle5 16 .tf5 g5 17 1i'h3 .tc5 18 .te3 and Black's king looks shaky, Barlov-Kozul, Yugoslav Ch 1989.

14 .tf4 e5 15 .tg3 .te8 16 .txe8 :XeS 17 'fka4

The simple 17 0-0 is possible, but after 17 . . . �f8 Black has an excellent position: plenty of space in the cen­tre and his king is nearly in safety.

17 ••• �7 :j: 18 0-0 e4 19 lbd4 .txg3 20 hxg3 'fib6 21 lba3 lbxd4 22 cxd4 llac8 23 llael lle7 (now 24 . . . 1Wxb2 is a threat) 24 :e2 :ec7

25 lld2 �g8 26 'fid1 e3! 27 fxe3 lLle4 28 llc2 :Xc2 29 lLlxc2 'fkxb2 =!= 30 lLle1 'fkc1 31 'fkxcl lhc1 32 � llxfl+ 33 � lbxg3+ 34 �e1 � 35 lLlr4 lLlr6 36 � b6 37 lLlc7 � 38 lbb5 a6 39 lLlc7 aS 40 �e2 �e7 41 lbb5 0-1

Game 34 Vorotnikov - Zilbershtein

USSR 1978

1 e4 cS 2 c3 lLlr6 3 eS lLld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'fkxd4 e6 6 lLlr3 lLlc6 7 'fke4 f5 8 'fke2 'fkc7

a) 8 . . . d6 9 g3 'fkc7 transposes to the game.

b) 8 ... lbde7 and now White should probably continue 9 h4!? ;!;, in view of 9 g3? ! lbg6 10 lLlbd2 (Black's move-order has cancelled out 1 0 lba3 due to 10 . . . .txa3; compare with the 9 . . . lbde7 lines in the note to Black's 9th move) 10 . . . 'fkc7 1 1 lbc4 b5 12 lbd6+ .txd6 13 exd6 11'xd6 14 'ii'xb5 0-0 :j: Alexopoulos-Kelleher, New York 1993.

c) 8 . . . .te7 9 g3 1Wc7 (9 . . . 1lb8 10 c4 lbc7 1 1 lbc3 a6 12 a4 0-0 13 .tg2 b6 14 h4 with a useful space advan­tage for White, Tan-Panno, Manila IZ 1976) and now best is 10 c4 ;!;, as lO .tg2 b5 ! 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 'ii'xb5? lLlcb4! threatening . . . .ta6/ . . . lLlc2) 1 1 . . .a5 12 lbbd2 .ta6 and Black stands well, Jamieson-Woodhams, Australian Ch 1976.

d) 8 . . . b6 9 g3 (9 c4 .ta6 10 b3 .tb4+ 1 1 .td2 lbf4 12 1We3 lbg6 13 .txb4 lbxb4 14 lDd4 'fih4 ! 15 �d2? f4 16 1We4 1Wxf2+ ± was a disastrous opening experiment for White in the

game Vorotnikov-Semeniuk, Po-dolsk 1993) 9 . . . a5 ! ? (9 .. .'1'c7 trans-poses to the 9 . . . b6 note in the main game) 10 .i.g2 .i.a6 1 1 c4 .i.b4+ ( 1 l . ..i.c5 12 0-0 0-0 13 b3 f4 14 .1b2 a4 15 'l'd1 �de7 16 �3 fxg3 17 hxg3 a3 18 .1c1 'l'c7 19 �4 ! .1b7 20 �xc5 bxc5 21 'l'd6 ;!; Rogers­Shirov, Bmo 1991 ) 1 2 .1d2 0-0 1 3 0-0 "ikc7 14 b 3 (;!; Lalic) 1 4 . . . .i.xd2 15 'l'xd2 �xe5 !? 16 cxd5 .1xf1 17 �xfl f4 ! with complications, Ma­gem-B.Lalic, Manresa 1995.

9 g3 (D)

B

9 ... d6 Although this leaves e6 temporar­

ily weak, Black will later advance in the centre with . . . e5 and . . . e4.

a) 9 . . . b6 and here: a1) 10 �bd2 g5 !? 1 1 �xg5 'l'xe5

was a novel idea for Black in Rogers - Har-Zvi, Biel 1992.

a2) The routine 10 .i.g2?! meets a dangerous reply: 10 . . . �b4! and now 1 1 "ikd2? .1a6 12 cxb4 .1xb4 13 �c3 �xc3 14 a3 �b1 ! -+ Baker­Basman, London 1978, or 1 1 c4 b5 12 a3 �a6 13 �d4 'l'xc4 14 "ikxc4 bxc4 oo Kozhevin-Mololkin, Russia 1994.

3 e5 rt1d5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'l'xd4 107

a3) 10 c4 .i.a6 1 1 b3 .1b4+ 12 .1d2 .1xd2+ 13 �bxd2 �b4 14 �b1 �xe5 (14 ... g5 ! Gallagher) and now instead of the tactical complica­tions of 15 �xe5 �2+ in Vorot­nikov-Georgadze, USSR 1979, the line 15 "ikxe5 'l'xe5 16 �xe5 .1b7 17 llg1 �2+ 18 �d2 �xa1 19 �3 (with i.d3 to follow) was assessed ;!; by Vorotnikov.

b) 9 . . . llXle7 !? 10 � (or 10 .i.f4 �g6 1 1 �bd2 oo, e.g. 1 1 .. . a6 12 .1g2 .1e7 13 0-0 0-0 14 l:.fd1 b5 B.Krist­jansson-Cherniaev, Gausdal 1993 or 1 l . . .�xf4 12 gxf4 �7 13 0-0-0 �d5 14 �c4 b5 15 �6+ .1xd6 16 exd6 "ikxd6 17 �e5 0-0 Mellado­Tukmakov, Barcelona 1993) 10 ... �g6 1 1 �b5 'l'b8 12 i.f4 a6 13 �bd4 �xd4 14 �xd4 b5 15 .1g2 .1b7 16 0-0 (White's king is safest after short castling, but possible is 16 .1xb7 "ikxb7 17 0-0-0 l:.c8 18 �bl i.c5 19 �b3 i.e? 20 f3 0-0 21 l:.d3 llc7 22 llhd1 b4 23 i.d2 with typical pres­sure against the d7 -pawn, Rozen­talis-Sturua, Vilnius 1984) 16 . . . -*.xg2 (16 . . . .te7 17 llfd1 0-0 18 lld3 again gives pressure against d7, Rozenta­Iis-Yarkovich, USSR 1986) 17 �xg2 '1'b7+ 18 "ikf3 l:.b8 19 "ikxb7 llxb7 20 b4 .1e7 21 a4 �f7 22 axb5 axb5 23 lla5 llhb8 24 l:.fa1 .1d8 25 l:.a7 llxa7 26 llxa7 �e8 (threatening . . . .i.b6) 27 lla6 .i.e? with an equal position, Rozentalis-Dvoirys, Khar­kov 1985.

10 exd6 .1xd6 11 i.g2 0-0 12 0-0 �f6

12 ... '1'f7 Iooks less natural, Svesh­nikov-Ungureanu, Dubna 1979.

13 �bd2 (D)

108 3 e5 liJd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 'flxd4

Unclear is the line 13 c4 !? e5 14 c5 i..e7 15 lDc3 a6 16 'ii'c4+ �h8 17 b4 h6 18 lLla4 i..d7 19 lLlb6 l:tad8 20 lLlxd7 'ii'xd7 21 i..b2 e4 22 lLlh4 �h7 23 f3, Vorotnikov-Gorbatov, Moscow 1992. The game concluded wildly: 23 . . . lLld5 24 l:tad1 i..xh4 25 gxh4 e3 26 f4 e2 27 'ii'xe2 lLlxf4 28 'flf3 lLld3 29 i..h3 lLle7 30 'ii'g3 g5 3 1 hxg5 l:tg8 32 i..f6 l:tg6 33 i..xe7 'W'xe7 34 i..xf5 lLlxb4 35 l:txd8 1 -0, but alternatives like 23 . . . 'fld2!? or 23 . . . g5 !? are critical.

13 •.. e5 14 llk4 e4 15 tilfdl 15 lLlg5 h6 1 6 lbxd6 'flxd6 17

lLlh3 g5 oo Vorotnikov-Tseitlin, Len­ingrad 1978.

15 ... i..e6 15 . . . i..e7 16 lbb3 i..e6 17 i..f4

'ii'd7 18 l:tadl lbdS oo 19 .tel 'fle8 20 lbd4?! lLlxd4 21 cxd4 'fibS ! 22 l:tfe 1 lLlf4 ! 23 .txf4 .txc4 24 'fle3 i..b4 and Black had won an exchange in B . Kristj ansson-Kotronias, Gausdal 1994.

16 ofu:d6 'flxd6 17 lbb3 17 f3 i.d5 18 fxe4 fxe4 19 lLlb3

lbe5 20 i.f4 'ii'b6+ 2 1 i..e3 lLlf3+! 22 �hl 'ii'c6 23 lbd2 l:tae8 =i= No­vopashin-Rashkovsky, Volgodonsk 198 1 .

17 ... 'fle7 1S i..e3 'flr7 19 lLldl lbg4 20 r3 exr3 21 .txf3 lLlxe3 22 'flxe3 l:tadS 23 lLlb3 :res 24 'flr4 .tc4 25 :ret i..xb3 26 axb3 'flxb3 27 :xeS+ :xeS 2S 'fixes lLles 29 :n lbxr3+ 30 'flxf3 h6 31 :a .,,..•12

1 3 5 cxd4 e6 6 lbf3 d6 including 7 a3

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lDf6 3 e5 lDd5 4 d4 cxd4 s cxd4 e6 6 lDCJ d6 (D)

w

For some reason this line is not very fashionable for Black, even though he can also reach it via White's modem move-order (5 lbf3 e6!? 6 cxd4 d6). Much of the time, when Black does utilise this defen­sive system, it is because he has been tricked into it - for example, 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 c3 lDf6 4 e5, and, as ... e6 has already been played, the main lines of later chapters are not an op­tion any more. Speaking of tricky transpositions, here is one you prob­ably haven't seen before: 1 e4 lDf6 2 e5 lDd.s 3 c4 lDb6 4 c5 lDd.s 5 £c4 e6 6 d4 d6 7 cxd6 cxd6 8 lDf3. The

Chase variation of the Alekhine has metamorphosed into a c3 Sicilian ! This position is covered in the £c4 note to White's seventh move in Chandler-Kasparov below. [Editor's note: There are quite a lot of trans­positions between the Ale/chine and c3 Sicilian, e.g. 1 e4 lDf6 2 e5 liJd5 3 £c4 lDb6 4 £b3 c5 5 c3 c4 6 £c2 lDc6 7 lDf3 (= 1 e4 c5 2 c3 lDf6 3 e5 li:Jd5 4 lDf3 lDc6 5 £c4 lDb6 6 £b3 c4 7 £c2) and 1 e4 lDf6 2 e5 lDd5 3 c4 lDb6 4 c5 lDd5 5 lDc3 c6 6 t&d5 cxd5 7 d4 d6 8 cxd6 exd6 9 lDf3 lDc6 (= 1 e4 c5 2 c3 lQ{6 3 e5 lDd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 lDf3 e6 6 cxd4 lDc6 7 lDc3 d6 8 l'fu:d5 exd5) being two of the more obscure.}

The most critical test of these . . . e6/ . . . d6 variations is White's little preparatory move 7 a3, preparing £d3, when White is all geared up for kingside pressure should Black cas­tle short. After the routine 7 ... lDc6 (Game 35) it can indeed be difficult for Black to generate counterplay, and this may account for the general lack of popularity of this whole vari­ation. However, Black should look again at the old system with 7 ... £d7 !? (Game 36), followed by easy devel­opment with . . . £c6, . . . lDd7 and . . . £e7. True, the white bishop on d3 does remain visually impressive on

110 5 cxd4 e6 6 l'tJj3 d6 including 7 a3

the b1-h7 diagonal, but by postpon­ing castling in favour of developing the queenside minor pieces, Black can take much of the venom out of White's potential kingside threats.

Game 35 Chandler - Kasparov

Wattignies 1976

1 e4 c5 2 cJ lbf6 3 eS rtJdS 4 d4 cxd4 The actual game had the more un­

usual move-order 4 . . . lbc6 5 l'tJf3 cxd4 6 cxd4 e6 7 a3 d6. I have trans­posed it iJt order to present the alter­natives more logically.

S cxd4 e6 6 &'tJf3 d6 7 a3!? This quiet but excellent pawn

move simply prepares White to de­velop his bishop on d3, without fear of molestation from .. . l'tJb4. Com­bined with the white pawn wedge on e5, and the general lack of black pieces on the kingside, the bishop will exert unpleasant pressure on the b1-h7 diagonal should Black castle short.

Instead 7 lbc3 will lead into a po­sition examined in a later chapter (which one depends on how the game continues), while 7 exd6 .i.xd6 8 lbc3 followed by .i.d3 is quite a solid option for White if he wants. Against 7 .i.d3 lbb4 8 .i.e2 dxe5 9 a3 the zwischenzug 9 . . . e4 ! was played with success for Black in Rauze­Lerner, Nimes 1991 and de Haro­Toth, Mar del Plata 1996.

However 7 .i.c4 is a common con­tinuation, when if Black continues with .. . lbc6 either now or shortly, we transpose into lines examined in

Chapter 15 . It is not apparent that Black can benefit especially from avoiding this transposition:

a) 7 ... l'tJb6 when 8 .i.d3 and 8 .i.b3 are examined in the course of Chap­ter 17, in the notes of games 48 and 49 respectively.

b) 7 . . . dxe5 8 dxe5 .i.b4+ 9 .i.d2 (9 l'tJbd2 lbb6 10 0-0 lbxc4 1 1 .,a4+ l'tJc6 12 l'tJxc4 .,d3 13 l'tJd6+ .i.xd6 14 l:r.d1 .,a6 15 .,xa6 bxa6 16 exd6 e5 17 .i.e3 .i.d7 18 l'tJd2 ;t was Svidler-Taimanov, St Petersburg Ch 1995) 9 . . . l'tJc6 (9 . . . .i.e7 10 0-0 lbc6 1 1 .,e2 .,b6 12 lbc3 l'tJxc3 1 3 bxc3 .i.d7 14 .i.d3 l:r.d8 15 l:r.ab1 .,c7 16 l:r.fe1 0-0 17 lbg5 g6 18 l'tJxh7! was a winning sacrifice for White in Yan­ovsky-Krasenkov, Voskresensk 1992) 10 0-0 .i.e7 1 1 1We2 0-0 12 lbc3 lbxc3 13 i.xc3 b6 14 lbd2 i.b7 15 lbe4 lbd4 16 .,g4 h5 17 1Wxh5 i.xe4 18 l:r.ad1 .i.c5 19 b4 i.g6 20 .,g4 .i.f5 21 .,f4 .,c7 22 bxc5 bxc5 23 i.xd4 cxd4 24 l:r.xd4 ± Wolff-Rot­shtein, Wijk aan Zee 1993.

c) 7 ... i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 1We2 (9 lbc3 l'tJxc3 10 bxc3 lbc6 1 1 i.d3 dxe5 12 dxe5 .,a5 13 .,c2 g6 14 l:r.e1 l:r.d8 15 l:r.b1 l:r.b8 16 .i.f4 .i.d7 17 lbd2 i.e8 18 l'tJc4 .., Sveshnikov-Saltaev, Vla­divostok 1994) 9 . . . i.d7 10 l'tJc3 ! l'tJxc3 1 1 bxc3 .i.c6 12 .i.f4!? (12 exd6 .i.xd6 13 lbe5 ;t Sveshnikov­Vera, Sochi 1985) 12 . . ... c7 1 3 exd6 .i.xd6 14 i.xd6 1Wxd6 15 l'tJe5 lbd7 16 f4 ! ;t Sveshnikov-Goriachkin, Boblingen 1991 .

7 ... rtJc6 For other Black seventh moves,

including 7 . . . i.d7, see the following game.

5 cxd4 e6 6 tDf3 d6 including 7 a3 111

8 .id3 (D)

B

8 .. .'5'85+?! This dubious check is an attempt

to disrupt White's development which rebounds.

a) 8 . . . 'ifb6? 9 0-0 .id7 10 .ic2 .l:.c8 1 1 b3 dxe5 12 dxe5 .ic5 13 tDbd2 'ifc7 14 .ib2 tDce7 15 lbe4 0-0 16 .l:.c1 tDe3 17 'ifd3 ! +- Balshan­Kirov, Amsterdam 1978.

b) 8 ... .id7 9 0-0 'ifc7 10 .l:.e1 g6 1 1 exd6 'ifxd6 12 tDc3 .ig7 13 tDxd5 'ifxd5 14 .ie4 'ifc4 15 d5 ± Okhot­nik-Duponchel, Le Touquet 1992.

c) 8 ... g6 !? 9 0-0 .ig7 10 .l:.e1 (10 'ife2 0-0 can become sharp, for ex­ample 1 1 b4 Wb6 12 We4 f5 13 exf6 tDxf6 14 'ifh4 lbds 15 .ie3 .l:.xf3 16 gxf3 .ixd4 "" Rabiega-Kraut, Bun­desliga 1 99 1 and 1 1 h4?! 'ifb6 12 'ife4 f5 ! 13 exf6 tDxf6 14 'iff4 tDd5 15 'ii'xd6 .l:.xf3 16 gxf3 'ifxd4 + Lane-Kraut, Zug 1 989. White must evidently watch out for . . . f5 in this variation) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 b4. This posi­tion has been reached several times, in all cases with an inconclusive out­come:

c1) 1 1 . ..f6 12exd6 'ifxd6 13 tDbd2 b6 14 tDc4 'ifd7 15 h4 .ib7 16 h5 g5

17 'ifc2 h6 1 8 b5 tDce7 Finkel­Milov, Israeli Ch 1992.

c2) 1 l . . .b6 12 .ib2 .ib7 13 .tn dxe5 14 dxe5 tDf4 15 'ii'b3 "" Go­dena-Kaenel, Switzerland 1 99 1 or 1 1 . ..dxe5 12 dxe5 'ifc7 Tringov-Fili­powicz, and now 13 'ife2!? intending 'ife4.

c3) 1 1 ...a6 12 .ib2 tDce7 1 3 .tn b6 14 tDbd2 .ib7 1 5 tDe4 dxe5 16 dxe5 tDf5 17 Wb3 A.Cohen-Milov, Isle of Man 1994.

How you feel about these kinds of positions (for either side) is partly a matter of taste; I prefer White.

d) 8 . . . .ie7 is rather passive. 9 0-0 and now:

d1) 9 . . . .id7 10 .l:.e1 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 .l:.c8 12 .ie4 0-0 13 'ifd3 h6 14 .id2 'ifb6 15 .ixd5 exd5 16 tDc3 .ie6 17 tDxd5 ± Bronstein-Hartston, Hast­ings 1975.

d2) 9 ... b6 was met by 10 'ifc2 .ib7 1 1 tDc3 tDxc3 12 bxc3 dxe5 13 dxe5 'ifc7 14 .ie4 0-0-0 "" in the game Fatalibekova-Gaprindashvili, USSR 1979, but an improvement was 10 tDbd2!? dxe5? ! 1 1 tDxe5 tDxe5 12 dxe5 .ib7 1 3 'ifa4+ r.Pf8 14 .ie4 ;!; S.Arkell-Lanc, Cappelle Ia Grande 1991 .

d3) 9 . . . 0-0 and now: d31) 10 tDc3 immediately is pos­

sible, e.g. 10 . . . tDxc3 1 1 bxc3 dxe5 12 dxe5 'ifc7 13 .l:.e1 .l:.d8 14 'ifc2 g6 15 h4 ;!; S .Arkell-Sigurpalsson, Rey­kjavik 1990.

d32) 10 .l:.e1 scored a thematic white win in the game Okhotnik­Mukhin, USSR 1976 after the con­tinuation 10 . . . dxe5 1 1 dxe5 .id7 12 'ifc2 h6 13 'ife2 .l:.c8 14 .id2 lba5 15

112 5 cxd4 e6 6 liJf3 d6 including 7 a3

.i.xh6 gxh6 16 'ire4 f5 17 exf6 l:txf6 1 8 'iVh7+ �f8 19 'irh8+ �n 20 l!Je5#!

d33) 10 'iVe2 !? .i.d7 1 1 l!Jc3 l!Jxc3 12 bxc3 dxe5 13 dxe5 'iVc7 14 l:te1 l:tfd8 15 .i.f4 .i.e8 16 h4 ;!; Shi­razi-Sherzer, New York 1987.

e) 8 . . . dxe5 9 dxe5 .i.e7 (the e­pawn snatch 9 ... 'iVc7 10 0-0 l!Jxe5 1 1 l!Jxe5 'iVxe5 has been played a number of times, but Black is in great danger for example 12 .i.b5+ .i.d7 13 .i.xd7+ �xd7 14 l:te1 'ird6 15 'irf3 .i.e7 1 6 liJc3 liJxc3 17 bxc3 'irc6 1 8 'iVxn l:tae8 19 .i.e3 l:thf8 20 'irxg7 l:tg8 21 'ird4+ �c8 22 g3 ± 1-0 Vogt-Reich, Bundesliga 1994) 10 0-0 g5 !? (a drastic bid for counter­play; 10 .. . 'irc7 1 1 l:te1 .i.d7 12 liJbd2 h6 13 b4 0-0 14 .i.b2 l:tfd8 15 l:tcl a6 16 .i.b1 liJf4 17 'ii'c2 l!Jg6 18 h4 l:tac8 19 'ii'e4 gave White the initia­tive in Vasiukov-Diaz, Cienfuegos 1975) and now:

e1) 1 1 'ii'a4!? h5 12 l:td1 .i.d7 13 'ii'e4 'ii'c7 14 .i.xg5 .i.xg5 15 l!Jxg5 'iVxe5 1 6 'irxe5 l!Jxe5 17 .i.e4 liJf6 18 liJc3 liJxe4 19 l!Jcxe4 .i.c6 Kristen­sen-H.Olafsson, Groningen 1975n6, and instead of 20 liJd6+ �e7 21 f4 l:thg8! + White could try 20 f4 !? ;!;.

e2) 1 1 'ire2 g4 12 liJe1 'iVc7 13 .i.h6 .i.d7 14 l!Jd2 'irxe5 15 'iVxg4 'irf6 16 .i.g7 l:tg8 17 .i.xf6 l:txg4 1 8 h 3 l:ta4 1 9 .i.xe7 �xe7 "" Lane-Dvoi­rys, Cappelle Ia Grande 1996.

e3) 1 1 l:tel ! g4 12 liJfd2 liJf4 13 .i.fl h5 14 b4 ± was Golod-Kuzmin, Iraklion 1995.

9 .i.dl 'iVb6 10 l!Jc3! ;!; l!Jxc3 The pawn snatch 1 l . ..liJxd4 12

l!Jxd5 l!Jxf3+ 1 3 'iVxf3 exd5 has

never been tried, but Black is lagging dangerously in development.

ll .i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 dxe5 1 2 dxe5 g6 13 0-0

.i.g7 14 'ire2 'iVc7 15 .i.f4 b6 16 h4 .i.b7 17 h5 0-0 18 l:tfe1 l:tad8 is less clear, although White later won in the game Acs-Volzhin, Budapest 1995.

11 ••• dxe5 U dxe5 .i.e7 In Velimirovic-Sax, Amsterdam

1976, Black tried keeping the e7-square free to re-deploy his knight, but his lack of development told after 12 . . . .i.d7 13 0-0 h6 14 'iVe2 liJe7 15 .i.d4 'iVd8 16 b4 liJd5 17 .i.e4 .i.a4 18 l:tfcl .i.e7 19 .i.c5 .i.xc5 20 :Xc5 b6 21 .i.xd5 bxc5 22 .i.xa8 'ii'xa8 23 'ii'c4 'ird5 24 l:tc 1 'irxc4 25 l:txc4 ± and White won a pawn.

13 0-0 .i.d7 14 liJdl!? (14 'iVe2 is natural, to answer 14 . . . 0-0 with 15 'ii'e4, but probably Kasparov has re­signed himself to castling queens ide anyhow) 14 .•. 'iVc7 15 'iVg4 0-0-0 16 l:tfcl �b8 17 'iVc4 (indirectly pro­tecting the e-pawn; if 17 b4? then 17 . . . l!Jxe5) 17 •. .l:tc8 18 b4 f6 19 liJf3 'iVb6 20 'iVe4 rs 21 'iVe1 a6 22 hb1 gS 23 liJdl liJd4? (the start of an un­sound sacrificial attempt to gain counterplay; 23 . . . l:thd8) 24 'iVe3 l:txc3 25 .:Xc3 f4 26 'iVe1 g4 27 l!Je4 .i.c6 28 liJcS �a7 29 a4 .i.f3 30 aS 'iVd8 31 .i.c4 .i.xcS 32 bxcS 1i'h4 33 gxf3! gxf3 (33 .. . liJxf3+ 34 l:txf3 +--) 34 �h1 l:tg8 35 'iVe4 l:tg7 36 'iVxd4 'iVgS (D)

37 c6+ �b8 38 c7+ .:Xc7 39 l:tg1 'iVbS 40 l:tg8+ l:tc8 41 'iVd6+ �a7 (having reached the time-control, Kasparov notices he is a rook and a

5 cxd4 e6 6 li)j3 d6 including 7 a3 113

bishop down, and facing mate in four) 1-0

Game 36 Ree - Langeweg Amsterdam 1976

1 e4 cS 2 liJr3 e6 3 c3 liJr6 4 eS lbdS 5 d4 cxd4 6 cx:d4 d6 7 a3 .td7!?

This straightforward and quite promising plan was originally pa­tronised by the East German GM Malich. Black's bishop will take up an active post on c6, after which the queen's knight will come naturally to d7 . Black is happy to develop his queenside minor pieces in advance of moving his bishop on f8, perhaps to avoid provoking White into a quick exd6. Others:

a) 7 . . . .te7 8 .td3 0-0 (8 . . . .td7 is a common move-order to transpose back to the main game) 9 0-0 lDd7 I 0 l:l.e1 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 lbc5 I2 .tc2 a5 13 1i'd4 .td7 I4 li:)bd2 .tc6 I5 1i'g4 l:l.c8 I6 li:)e4 ;!; Tringov-Taimanov, Vrnja�ka Banja 1977.

b) 7 ... li:)d7 ! ? 8 .td3 dxe5 9 dxe5 (9 li:)xe5?! 1i'a5+! IO .td2 'ifb6 + at­tacking d4 and b2, Votava-Rotshtein, Warsaw 1989) 9 . . . .te7 10 0-0 0-0 I I

1i'c2 g6 I 2 .th6 l:l.e8 I3 li:)c3 li:)xc3 I4 'ifxc3 li:)b6 I5 l:l.adi OO I6 'ifc4 .td7 I7 1i'g4 ;!; Vatter-Vogt, Baden­Baden I993.

8 .td3 8 li:)bd2 dxe5 9 li:)xe5 .te7 10

.tc4 .tc6 1 1 lDdf3 0-0 I2 0-0 li:)f6 1 3 li:)xc6 li:)xc6 14 .te3 1i'd6 I5 'ife2 ll)d5 = was Vasiukov-Polugaevsky, Palma de Mall orca I989.

8 ••. .tc6 9 0-0 lbd7 (D) If 9 . . . .te7, 10 l:l.ei will probably

transpose back to the game, although Hartston's idea of 10 b4 !? has the merit of making . . . ll)d7 impossible (because of b5). Instead 10 ll)c3!? li:)d7 (10 . . . li:)xc3 11 bxc3 ll)d7 I2 exd6! .txd6 13 c4 with an attack, Pfibyl-Malich, De�in 1976) I I exd6 .txd6 12 li)e4 li:)7f6! 13 li:)xd6+ 'ifxd6 14 li)e5 0-0 gave Black a solid position in Mohring-Malich, East Germany I977.

10 l:l.e1 a) IO .td2 .te7 (not surprisingly

1 o ... dxe5 1 1 dxe5 1i'b6 12lbc3 lbc5?! 13 li:)xd5 .txd5 14 .te3 1i'xb2 15 l:l.b1 1i'xa3 I6 .tb5+ .tc6 I7 li:)d4 ± is dangerous for Black, Don�evic­Martinovic, Zurich 1984) 1 1 lbc3

114 5 cxd4 e6 6 t:;).j3 d6 including 7 a3

t:;).xc3 12 j.xc3 0-0 (also 12 . . . dxe5 13 dxe5 lLlc5 14 j.e2 0-0 Don�evic­Illescas, Las Palmas 1989) 13 1fe2 l:tc8 14 l:tfd1 j.d5 = Sarkozy-Lanc, Slovakian Cht 1994.

b) 10 b4 !? a6 (10 . . . b6 1 1 l:tel dxe5 12 t:;).xe5 t:;).xe5 13 dxe5 l:tc8 14 b5? ! j.b7 15 j.e4 1fc7 16 j.b2 j.c5 and Black's minor pieces are well posted, Nun-Ristic, Dortmund 1989) l l l:te1 (1 1 t:;).bd2 t:;).f4 12 j.e4 j.b5 1 3 l:te1 d5 14 j.c2 t:;).d3 ao Bacetic­Mir.Markovic, Yugoslav Cht 1993) 1 l . . .j.e7 12 t:;).bd2 dxe5 13 dxe5 t:;).f4 14 j.e4 l:tc8 (perhaps 14 .. . 0-0!? 15 j.xc6 bxc6 when 16 1fc2 t:;).g6 17 1fxc6 t:;).dxe5 ! ao worked well for Black in Pinter-Estevez, Kecskemet 1977, because 18 t:;).xe5 t:;).xe5 19 l:txe5? loses to 19 . . . 1i'd4) 15 t:;).fl j.xe4 (15 . . . t:;).g6 16 j.b2 ;!; Brynell­Velikov, Haifa Echt 1989) 16 l:txe4 t:;).d5 17 l:tg4 !? �f8 (17 . . . h5 lf2_lf2 Hermann-Tompa, Hamburg 1990, al­though White's position looks better after 18 l:td4 ;!;) 18 l:td4 t:;).7b6 19 t:;).g3 ;!; Onishchuk-Degraeve, Gron­ingen 1995.

c) 10 1fe2 j.e7 1 1 exd6 j.xd6 12 lLlc3 0-0 13 j.e3 1fb8 :j: Manca-Por­tisch, Reggio Emilia 1992.

10 ... j.e7 A flexible idea, played several

times by the Russian GM Alexander Vaulin, is 10 . . . l:tc8 !?, delaying the development of the f8-bishop still further. The complications after 1 1 b4 a6 1 2 t:;).bd2 t:;).c3 1 3 1fb3 dxe5 ! 14 j.c4 e4 1h- 1h Haba-Vaulin, Zlin 1995 were very unclear whilst 1 1 1fe2 j.e7 12 j.d2 0-0 13 lLlc3 t:;).xc3 14 j.xc3 j.d5 gave a solid position

in Jacek-Vaulin, Mlada Boleslav 1995.

Instead 10 ... dxe5 looks a prema­ture exchange of pawns: 1 1 dxe5 ( 1 1 t:;).xe5 t:;).xe5 1 2 dxe5 g6!? 1 3 1fg4 j_g7 14 1fg3 0-0 15 00 0e7 16 lLlc4 1fd4 ! = Nun-Ruban, Sochi 1989) 1 l . . .j.e7 12 b4 !? (as the bishop is now more effective on the a1-h8 di­agonal) 12 . . . t:;).sb6 13 t:;).bd2 (Khol­mov suggests 13 lLlc3 ! with the idea 13 ... a5 14 b5 j.xf3 15 1i'xf3 t:;).xe5? ! 16 l:txe5 1fd4 17 l:te2 1fxc3 18 j.b2 ±) 13 . . . a5 14 b5 t:;).c5 «> Kholmov­Polugaevsky, USSR 1980.

11 exd6?! Although White wins this illustra­

tive game quickly, it is better to maintain the pawn on e5; perhaps 1 1 b4 !? is White's best - see the 1 0 b4 note after White's lOth move. Oth­ers:

a) 1 1 1fc2 (to provoke 1 l ...h6 12 1fe2 and Black has weakened his kingside formation, but is White re­ally going to be so cheeky as snatch the h-pawn ?) 1 1 . . .l:tc8 ( 1 l . . .dxe5 12 t:;).xe5 t:;).xe5 13 dxe5 l:tc8 14 j.d2 j.g5 15 j.e4 h6 1 6 j.xg5 hxg5 17 t:;).d2 g4 "" Haba-Martinovic, Germany 1995) 12 j.xh7 (yes !) 12 . . . dxe5 1 3 dxe5 t:;).c5 1 4 b4 j.a4 15 1i'b2 l:txh7 16 bxc5 j.xc5 17 j.g5 'ii'b6 :j: Ayas­Semkov, Sitges 1992.

b) 1 1 t:;).bd2!? (this natural devel­oping move is better than its current reputation) 1 l . . .dxe5 12 dxe5 ( 12 t:;).xe5 t:;).xe5 13 dxe5 t:;).f4 14 j.e4 t:;).d3 15 j.xc6+ bxc6 :j: Vogt-Spiri­donov, Bmo 1975) 12 ... lLlc5 (12 .. . t:;).f4 13 j.e4 ;!;) 13 j_fl ! ( 13 t:;).e4 t:;).c3 14 t:;).xc3 t:;).xd3 :j: Van Dongen-Miralles,

5 cxd4 e6 6 lbj3 d6 including 7 a3 11.5

France 1989, while 13 i.e4 lbxe4 14 lDxe4 lDb6 15 1i'e2 1i'd5 16 lbc3 1i'c4 was also satisfactory for Black in Makropoulos-Martinovic, Dort­mund 1988) 13 ... lDf4 14 .J:[e3 0-0 (in his notes Grivas suggests 14 . . . lbcd3, but 15 g3 ! seems a strong reply) 15 1i'c2 .J:[c8 16 b4! .ta4 (the line "16 . . . .txf3 ! 17 lDxf3 lDcd3 1 8 1i'd1 lDxc1 19 :xc1 =" is given by Grivas in lnformator, but in this line 1 8 .J:[xd3 ! ± wins two pieces for a rook) 17 'iVb1 lDd7 18 'iVe4 ! lDdS 19 .J:[e1 i.c2! ? 20 'iVg4 with a White initia­tive, Grivas-Veli.kov, Plovdiv 1988.

c) 11 i.c2 'iVc7 ( l l .. .dxe5 12 dxeS lbf8 13 lDd4 lDg6 14 lDxc6 bxc6 15 lDd2 ;t Vasiukov-Balashov, USSR 1975) 12 exd6 ( 12 lbbd2!? ECO) 12 . . . .txd6 13 lDbd2 lD5f6 1 4 lDc4 0-0 15 lbfe5 .J:[fd8 16 lDxd6 1i'xd6 17 lDxc6 1i'xc6 18 i.g5 :ac8 = Dvoretsky-Polugaevsky, USSR 1975.

11 .•• .txd6 12 lDbd2 Inferior is 12 lbe5 lDxe5 13 dxe5

.tc5 14 1i'g4 1Wb6 15 1i'g3 h5 16 h4 0-0-0 1 7 i.e4 f6 1 8 lDd2 g5 with a powerful kings ide attack imminent, Nun-Palac, Prague 1990. Instead 12 lDc3 lDxc3 1 3 bxc3 looks normal, but Black has two reasonable replies: 1 3 . . . 0-0 !? has the point that 14 c4?!

i.xf3! 15 1i'xf3 1i'h4 attacks both h2 and d4, Russek-Velikov, Saint John 1988, while 13 .. . 1i'a5!? 14 lDg5 !? (14 i.d2 'iVhS) 14 ... lDf6 (14 . . . 1i'xc3 !? 15 lDxe6 fxe6 16 :xe6+ �f7 17 .J:[xd6 1i'xa1 18 i.c4+ is given as +- by Vogt in his notes, but 1 8 . . . �f8 wins for Black. Instead White has com­pensation after 15 .J:[b1 , but is it enough?) 15 c4 0-0 16 i.d2 'flc7 ; was Sznapi.k-Vogt, Poznan 1976.

12 ... 0-0 13 lbc4 .te7 14 lDt'e5 .J:[c8 15 .td2 .tb5 16 'iVb3 .ta6 17 .taS 'fle8 (17 . . . b6) 18 ltacl f6?? (D)

Black misses a devastating tactic; 18 . . . lDf4 or 18 . . . lDxe5 would have been fine for Black.

19 .txh7+! 1-0. After l9 . . . �xh7, 20 'iVh3+ �g8 21 1Wxe6+ followed by 22 lDxd7 wins.

14 6 cxd4 e6 6 ttJf3 b6

1 e4 cS 2 c3 lill'6 3 e5 lbds 4 d4 cxd4 s cxd4 e6 6 ltlf3 b6 (D)

w

It makes no difference if White plays 5 ltlf3, as after 5 .. . e6 6 cxd4 b6 play has transposed. Therefore this counter-attacking system has the advantage, from Black's viewpoint, that it is not easy for White to avoid. Furthermore White already has to make a major decision on move seven, over whether to challenge the centralised black knight immedi­ately. The less aggressive lines with 7 J..d3 and 7 a3 (Game 37) allow Black to simplify by means of either . . . i.b4+ or . . . i.a6, or both, though White can usually maintain a solid position.

The main lines with 7 ltlc3 ltlxc3 8 bxc3 are complex and unclear. It is

favourable for Black to slip in the important developing move 8 ... 1i'c7 !, hitting the loose c3-pawn, as White invariably replies with the less useful 9 i.d2. Then the continuation 9 . . . d6 10 i.d3 ltld7 1 1 0-0 is one subtle move-order that gives both sides op­tions (Game 38). However, the main line is usually reached via 9 . . . i.b7 1 0 i.d3 d6 1 1 0-0 ltld7 and now 12 i.f4 i s covered in Game 38, and the critical 12 l:r.e1 is the subject of Game 39. The pawn sacrifice 9 i.e2 is an interesting way to enliven the game immediately.

In many of these lines visually the black kingside often looks a little shaky, due to a lack of defensive mi­nor pieces. Black needs steady nerves, but objectively it is not that easy for White to whip up a really dangerous attack. Even in the lines where the white rook brazenly planks itself on the h-file, a timely .. .f5 ! by Black is often the key defen­sive move. And, potentially, the backward c-pawn is a target for Black, so White must be careful that his initiative doesn't peter out.

Note that some positions in this chapter can also be reached via dif­ferent move-orders, e.g. 1 e4 c5 2 c3 ltlf6 3 e5 ltld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 ltlf3 e6 6 cxd4 d6 7 ltlc3 ltlxc3 8 bxc3 1i'c7 and if/when Black plays a later . . . b6 we will transpose.

Game 37 Blatny - Jansa

Czechoslovakia 1986

1 e4 c5 2 c3 �6 3 eS lbds 4 d4 One attempt to avoid the black

queenside fianchetto was with the unusual 4 lDf3 e6 5 .i.c4!? of the game Sveshnikov-Cvitan, Tilburg 1993, when the continuation 5 . . . d6 6 0-0 .i.e? 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 lDc6 was a transposition to Chapter 15. If 5 . . . b6 Sveshnikov gives 6 .i.xd5 exd5 7 d3 ;I;. In turn Black could try to cancel out this finesse with 4 lDf3 b6!? 5 .i.c4 i.b7.

4 ••• cxd4 5 lDfJ e6 6 cxd4 b6 7 i.dJ

For 7 lDc3 see Games 37 and 38. 7 lbbd2 .i.a6 (the waiting move

7 . . . .i.e? is more prudent, when 8 lDe4 0-0 9 a3 .i.e? transposes to the 7 a3 line below) 8 i.xa6 lbxa6 9 lDe4 i.e? 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 .i.d2 lbac7 12 l:tc1 f5 13 exf6 gxf6 14 .i.h6 :n 15 lDfd2 i.f8 16 1Wh5 .i.xh6 17 1Wxh6 l:tg7 18 lDc4 l:tg4 19 f3 l:tg6 = Hort­Ftaenik, Germany 1995.

A more common idea is 7 a3, stopping any black pieces coming to b4 (and also avoiding having spent a tempo with the Icing's bishop should Black continue 7 . . . .i.a6). However Black can usually gain a good game by playing a timely ... f5 to take pres-sure off his king: 7 . . . .i.e? (7 ... .i.b7 8 i.d3 d6 9 0-0 lbd7 1 0 l:te 1 dxe5 1 1 lbxe5 lbxe5 1 2 dxe5 1Wc7 1 3 .i.b5+ i.c6 14 1Wa4 l:tc8 15 .i.d2 1Wd7 16 i.xc6 1hc6 17 1Wxc6+ l:txc6 18 lbc3 •12- 112 Westerinen-Bellon, Ali­cante 1989) and now:

5 c:xd4 e6 6 lbf3 b6 117

a) 8 i.c4 i.a6 9 i.xa6 was the move-order of the game Rosandic­Stohl, quoted shortly - Stohl gives 9 i.xd5 exd5 10 lDc3 0-0! 1 1 lDxd5 d6 as unclear.

b) 8 lbbd2 doesn't lead to much after 8 . . . 0-0 9 lDe4 f5 10 exf6 lDxf6 1 1 i.d3 i.b7 12 lDrg5 lDxe4 13 lbxe4 .i.a6 14 0-0 l:tf5 15 lDc3 i.xd3 16 1Wxd3 lDc6 = Goldgewicht-Rot­shtein, Cannes 1995 or 8 . . . f5 9 exf6 lDU6 10 i.d3 .i.a6 1 1 lDc4 0-0 12 0-0 i.b7 13 lDe3 'l'e8 14 i.c4 'l'h5 1 5 lDe5 'iFxd1 16 l:txd 1 d 5 = Gold­gewicht-Razuvaev, Geneva 1996 .

c) 8 i.d3 is the main line: c1 ) 8 . . . i.b7 9 0-0 lDa6 10 l:te1

lbac7 1 1 lbbd2 0-0 12 lDe4 f5 13 exf6 gxf6? ( 13 . . . lDxf6 = Miles) 14 'l'd2 :n 15 Vh6 l:tg7 16 Vh3 f5 11 .i.h6 fxe4 18 l:txe4 lDf6 19 l:th4?! ( 19 .i.xg7 ± Miles) 19 . . . .i.f8 20 .i.xg7 .i.xg7 21 l:te1 ? (21 lDe5 !) 2l . . .i.xf3 22 gxf3 We7 + Sanz-Miles, Amster­dam Z 1978.

c2) 8 ... i.a6 (exchanging White's bishop usually forestalls any poten­tial kingside attack) 9 i.xa6 (9 0-0 0-0 10 l:te1 .i.xd3 1 1 1Wxd3 lDc6 12 lDbd2 f5 13 exf6 .i.xf6 ; Gaprindash­vili-Kushnir, Riga 1972) 9 . . . lDxa6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 lDbd2 f6! 12 exf6 gxf6!? 13 lDe4 �h8 ! oa as in Wians­Kouatly, Budel Z 1987 and Rosan­dic-Stohl, Vinkovci 1995 - Black has . . . l:tg8 coming with pressure down the g-file.

7 .. ..i.b4+ (D) Surprisingly, it does not seem es­

pecially good for Black to exchange light-squared bishops at this precise moment as White, about to castle, is

118 5 cxd4 e6 6 li:Jj3 b6

just a little too well developed. The continuation 7 . . . i.a6 (7 . . . i.e7 8 0-0 i.a6 is an alternative move-order) 8 0-0 (8 i.xa6 li:Jxa6 9 0-0 i.e7 10 li:Jbd2 0-0 1 1 li:Je4 li:Jac7 12 i.g5 f6 13 exf6 li:Jxf6 14 i.xf6 gxf6? ! 15 Jlc 1 d5 1 6 li:Jg3 Wd7 17 li:Jh4 i.d6 1 8 f4 f5 19 li:Jh5 'ilf7 20 Jlf3 ! ± Adams-Benjamin, New York 1996) 8 . .. i.e7 (also 8 . . . 'ilc8 9 a3 h6 10 Jle1 i.xd3 1 1 'W'xd3 li:Ja6 12 li:Jbd2 li:Jac7 1 3 li:Je4 Wa6 14 Wc2 Jlc8 15 i.d2 i.e7 1 6 li:Jd6+ i.xd6 17 exd6 li:Ja8 18 Wb3 0-0 19 li:Je5 ± Blatny-Mokry, Czechoslovakia 1986) 9 li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 10 bxc3 i.xd3 1 1 Wxd3 contains a nasty trap. After 1 1 ...d5 12 exd6 Wxd6 White has shocked Black in at least four games with 1 3 i.a3 ! ±, for example 13 ... Wc7 (13 .. .'i'xa3 14 We4) 14 i.xe7 �xe7 15 llad1 li:Jd7 16 d5 Wd6 17 llfe1 with an attack, Fossan-Iskov, Gausdal l988 and Go­dena-Cvitan, Reggio Emilia 1991 or 13 . . . 'W'd8 14 i.xe7 �xe7 15 llad1 f6 1 6 Jlfe1 �f7 17 li:Jg5+ 1-0 Braga­Priehoda, Catania 1993.

Another possible move is 7 ... i.b7 with transpositional possibilities af­ter 8 li:Jc3 or 8 a3: instead 8 0-0 li:Jb4 9 i.e2 i.e7 10 li:Jc3 0-0 1 1 a3 li:Jd5 1 2 li:Je4 f6 13 exf6 li:Jxf6 14 li:Jxf6+ i.xf6 15 i.f4 li:Jc6 16 i.d6 i.e7 17 i.xe7 li:Jxe7 1 8 li:Je5 oo was Turov­Zviagintsev, Rostov 1993.

8 i.d2 i.xd2+ 9 Wxd2 9 li:Jbxd2 i.a6 gives Black an

equal position, but 9 li:Jfxd2!? has the point of allowing White's queen fast access to the kingside. Then 9 . . . 0-0 (9 ... i.a6 10 li:Je4 0-0 1 1 li:Jbc3 i.xd3 12 Wxd3 li:Jxc3 13 bxc3 li:Jc6 14 0-0

transposes) 10 li:Jc3 (10 Wh5 h6 1 1 'W'g4 i.a6 1 2 i.xa6 li:Jxa6 1 3 0-0 .;! llc8 14 li:Je4 f5 = Nun-Koch, Dort­mund 1989) 10 . . . li:Jxc3? ! (Blatny gives 10 . . . i.b7 with the idea 1 1 i.e4 d6 12 Wf3 li:Jc6! or l l . ..�xc3 12 bxc3 i.xe4 13 li:Jxe4 li:Jc6 saving a tempo) 1 1 bxc3 i.a6 12 li:Je4 i.xd3 13 Wxd3 li:Jc6 14 0-0 li:Je7 15 f4 (;t Blatny) 15 . . . f5 16 exf6 gxf6 with a small edge for White in Blatny­Jansa, Namestovo 1987 and David­Plachetka, Bard Cup 1991 .

9 ... i.a6 9 . . . �a6?! 10 li:Jc3 �ac7 1 1 �g5

h6 12 li:Jge4 0-0 1 3 0-0 �xc3 14 bxc3 d5 15 li:Jf6+! �h8 16 llae1 li:Je8 17 li:Jg4 Wh4 18 Wd1 h5 19 li:Je3 ± Sveshnikov-Bonsch, Cien­fuegos 1979.

10 0-0 Or: a) 10 li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 1 1 bxc3 i.xd3

(1 1 . . .0-0 12 0-0 i.xd3 13 'W'xd3 �6 14 :.001 Jlc8 15 d5 li:Ja5 16 Jlfe1 h6 oo

Barlov-Rajkovic, Kragujevac 1977) 12 Wxd3 d5 13 exd6 Wxd6 14 0-0 li:Jd7 = Vogt-Grosar, Altensteig 1995.

b) 10 i.e4 !? li:Jc6 1 1 i.xd5 !? (1 1 li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 12 bxc3 llc8 13 h4 and following 1 3 . . . li:Je7 14 llc1 h6 15

l:lh3 'flc7 Marjanovie-Cvitan, Yugo­slav Ch 1986, Cvitan gives 16 l:lg3 ;!;; however Gallagher's suggestion of 1 3 . . . f5 14 exf6 'flxf6 is unclear) 1 l . . .exd5 12 lLlc3 l'Llb4 (12 . . . l'Lle7 13 0-0-0!? was Godena-Belotti, Reggio Emilia 1994) 1 3 a3 ! lLld3+ 14 �d 1 d6 15 l'Lle1 l'Llxe1 1 6 l:lxe1 ;!; Harley­Pigott, London 1994.

10 ... 0-0 ll l'Lla3?! White is trying to keep the posi­

tion complex, but sounder was 1 1 lLlc3 with similar play to the pre­vious note (with 10 lLlc3). Instead af­ter 1 1 l:lc1 .i.xd3 12 'flxd3 lLlc6 13 a3 f6 14 l'Llc3 l'Llf4 15 1i'e4 fxe5 16 dxe5 'fle8 17 l:ld1 'flh5 White's king came under some pressure in Espi­nosa-Vera, Cuban Ch 1989, though he managed a draw after 18 l'Lle2 l'Llxe2+ 19 1i'xe2 l:lf5 20 1i'e4 1i'f7 2 1 l:ld3 l:lf8 22 l:lad1 l:lf4 23 1i'e2 1i'h5 24 l:le3 l:l8f7 lfl.lh.

ll ••. .i.xd3 12 'iVxd3 lLlc6 13 lbc4 f6 14 l:lfel fxe5 15 dxeS?! ( 15 lLlcxe5 =; now Jansa heads towards the white king) 15 ... 'iVe8! 16 :Sd1 'iVh5 17 'iVd2? (provoking Black into an obviously powerful exchange sacri­fice) 17 ... l:lxf3 18 gxf3 l:lf8 19 l:le4 l:lxf3 20 l:ldel l'Llf4! 21 �h1 (21 l:lxf4 'iVg5+) 21 ... l'Lld3 22 l:lle2 b5 23 l'Lle3 lbcxe5 24 00 l'Llg4 25 �g1 ltlgxfl 26 l'Llg3 :Xg3+ 0-1

Game 38 Hmadi - Murugan Novi Sad OL 1990

1 e4 c5 2 c3 l'Llf6 3 e5 lLldS 4 d4 cxd4 5 l'Llr3 e6 6 cxd4 b6 7 lLlc3 (D)

7 ... l'Llxc3

5 cxd4 e6 6 l'Llj3 b6 119

B

Black can also maintain the knight on d5 for a while with 7 .. . .i.b7. Then 8 .i.c4?! is a mistake on account of Basman's 8 . . . l'Llxc3 9 bxc3 1i'c8 ! forcing 10 'iVd3. Black should not continue 10 .. . .i.a6? 1 1 .i.xa6 1i'xa6 12 'ifxa6 l'Llxa6 13 a4 l:lc8 14 �d2 l'Llb8 15 �d3 ± as in Markland-Basman, Woolacombe 1973, but should play 10 . . . l'Llc6, for example 1 1 0-0 l'Lla5 12 .i.b5 a6 1 3 i.a4 .i.d5 with com­manding control of the light squares.

Instead 7 ... .i.b7 8 .i.d3 gives Black the problem that if he exchanges late on c3 he is likely to have an inferior version of the main line: 8 ... .i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 and now (D):

a) 10 i.c2 f5. 1 1 exf6 gxf6 12 .i.b3 l'Llxc3 13 bxc3 d5 14 l:le1 and the

120 5 cxd4 e6 6 &{jf3 b6

backward e6-pawn was an obvious target in Evans-Hail, London 1978, though Black's weakening of his kingside was self-inflicted in this case.

b) 10 1i'e2!? f5 1 1 i.d2! is prom­ising: l l . . .a6 12 .i.c4 &f:jxc3 13 bxc3 b5 14 .i.d3 ! .i.a3 15 :fbt .i.xf3 16 1i'xf3 ± Illescas-J .Polgar, Linares 1994.

c) 10 :e1 &f:jxc3 1 1 bxc3 d6 12 exd6 1i'xd6 1 3 &f:je5 &f:jc6 14 .i.f4 &f:jxe5 15 .i.xe5 1i'd8 when the black kingside looks vulnerable, but it is not clear that this can be exploited. For example 16 1i'h5 f5 17 :e3 !? .i.f6 18 :h3 .i.xe5 !? 19 1i'xh7+ �f7 20 dxe5 :h8 21 1i'xh8 1i'xh8 22 :xh8 :xh8 23 :dt :c8 24 .i.b5 :C5 25 :d7+ �f8 26 c4 a6 27 :xb7 axb5 28 :xb6 bxc4 29 f4 c3 30 :bt :c4 31 g3 :a4 32 :Cl :Xa2 33 :xc3 :at+ 34 �g2 :a2+ 35 �h3 �f7 36 :c7+ �f8 37 :c8+ �f7 38 :c7+ �f8 39 :ct �f7 40 :gt g5 41 fxg5 �g6 42 :g2 :aS 112-112 Veingold­Hartston, Tallinn 1979. Imaginative defence from Black.

8 bxc3 1i'c7! If 8 . . . ..ta6 9 i.xa6 &f:jxa6 White

has a comfortable space advantage after 10 h4 or 10 1i'd3. The reason Black usually develops with 8 . . . 'ii'c7 is to force White to play 9 .i.d2. Quite often this dark-square white bishop ends up on the f4-square any­way later, and if . . . 'iic7 is delayed, White can save a whole tempo by playing i.f4 in one hop. Even so there have been a few games - even with grandmasters playing Black -where Black has delayed . . . 1i'c7, and

ended up a tempo adrift of the cur­rent illustrative game.

Some sample references from rou­tine (but less accurate) move-orders that did not transpose back to the main lines:

a) 8 . . . .i.e7 9 .i.d3 .i.b7 10 0-0 d6 1 1 .i.f4 &f:jc6 12 :e1 dxe5 13 &f:jxe5 &f:jxe5 14 i.xe5 .i.f6 15 1i'h5 .i.xe5 16 .i.b5+ �f8 17 dxe5 'ii'd5 18 .i.fl .i.c6 19 :adl with a dangerous de­velopment advantage, Donrevic-Tal, Germany 1992.

b) 8 ... .i.b7 9 .i.d3 .i.e7 (9 ... &f:jc6 10 0-0 .i.e7 1 1 &f:jd2 d6 12 exd6 'iixd6 1 3 'ii'g4 g6 14 &f:jc4 'iid5 15 .i.h6 'iih5 16 'iixh5 ;!; Smagin-Velikov, Naleczow 1985) 10 h4!? 'iic7 1 1 .i.d2 d6 12 h5 dxe5 13 &f:jxe5 &f:jc6 14 i.b5 0-0 15 i.xc6 ..txc6 16 'ii'g4 i.f6 17 'iig3 .i.xe5 18 dxe5 f5 19 0-0 :ads 20 .i.g5 :d5 21 :tel 'iif7 22 h6 1Wg6 23 hxg7 �xg7 24 :e3 f4 25 ..tf6+ :xf6 26 exf6+ �f7 27 'ii'xg6+ hxg6 28 :e4 :g5 29 :xf4 :xg2+ 30 �fl with winning chances for White, Sepp-Lputian, Moscow OL 1994.

9 .i.d2 Alternatives are rarely seen: 9 c4

.i.a6 10 'iia4? (10 11'b3 !? Sveshnikov) 10 . . . b5 ! 1 1 cxb5 'iic3+ 1 2 �dl .i.b7! 13 'ii'c2 (13 :bt .i.xf3+ 14 gxf3 'iixf3+ 15 �el 'ii'xhl) 13 ... 1Wxa1 14 .i.d3 &f:jc6! 15 bxc6 .i.xc6 + was a disaster for White in Sveshnikov­Pugachev, St Petersburg 1994, al­though plausible is 9 'iib3 .i.b7 10 ..te2 d6 11 i.f4 &f:jd7 12 0-0 .i.e7 13 .i.g3 !? (tricky; now 13 . . . 0-0 14 'ti'a3! ±) 13 . . . :cs 14 :te l dxe5 15 &f:jxe5 &f:jxe5 16 ..txe5 'ti'd7 17 a4 f6 18

.i.b5 .i.c6 1 9 .i.g3 </in 20 :e1 'W'd5 21 'W'xd5 exd5 = Nunez-P.Cramling, Oviedo rpd 1991 .

However, White has an interest­ing if speculative attempt to cut cor­ners with 9 .i.e2!?, not bothering with .i.d2. Then if Black spurns the pawn on c3, White develops quickly: 9 . . . .i.b7 10 0-0 d6 1 1 .i.f4 �d7. In Yrjolii-Jansa, West Berlin 1986, White now tried the enterprising 12 d5 !? exd5 13 :e1 0-0-0 and now instead of 14 c4? dxe5 15 �xe5 �xe5 16 .i.xe5 .i.d6, Jansa gives 14 e6 fxe6 15 �g5 �5 16 �xe6 �xe6 17 .i.g4 ;!; while 14 'W'a4 ;!; is also possible. So logically Black should continue (af­ter 9 .i.e2 !?) with 9 ... 'W'xc3+ 10 .i.d2 'W'a3 and now:

a) 1 1 0-0 .i.b7 (or l l . . .�c6 12 .i.c1 'W'a5 13 �g5 .i.e? 14 'W'd3 .i.b7 15 :dl �b4 16 'W'b1 :c8 17 a3 �5 1 8 �e4 �c3 19 �xc3 :xc3 Pola­sek-Lanc, Prague 1989, for example 20 .i.d2 'W'd5) 12 'ii'c2 �6 13 :tel .i.e? 14 :ab1 0-0 15 :b3 :ac8 ! 16 'W'bl :xc l+ 17 .i.xcl 'W'a5 + Seifert­Pekarek, Porabka 1987.

b) 1 1 d5 (imaginative, but at the end of the day White is still a pawn down) 1 l . . . .i.b4 12 0-0 0-0 13 �4 .i.xd2 14 'W'xd2 .i.a6 1 5 :acl .i.xe2 16 'W'xe2 �a6 17 �b5 'W'a4 + Po­la8ek-Haba, Prague 1989.

c) 1 1 :c 1 ! �c6 (perhaps best is 1 1....i.a6!? 12 0-0 �6 13 d5 exd5 14 .i.xa6 'W'xa6 15 .i.g5 'W'xa2 16 �4 �xd4 17 'W'xd4 h6 18 .i.h4 .i.c5 19 'W'g4 g5 20 .i.g3 :gs 21 </ih1 :g6 22 f4 1Wa4 + Van der Werf-Van Wely, Dutch Ch 1995) 12 :c3 1We7 13 �g5 (with superior development and the

5 cxd4 e6 6 �f3 b6 121

black queen on e7, it is obvious that White has compensation for the pawn; in a later game White contin­ued more simply with 1 3 0-0 ! ? .i.b7 14 .i.g5 f6 15 .i.h4 0-0-0 16 exf6 gxf6 17 'iVc1 !? :gs 18 .i.g3 and in Van Mil-Rechmann, Germany 1991 , Black was so frightened by the pros­pect of 'iVf4 that he played 18 ... :xg3 19 hxg3 'iVd6 after which White was material up) 13 . . . f5 (a mistake would be 13 . . . �xd4 14 .i.h5 g6 15 �4! and if 15 ... gxh5 16 �d6+ </idS 17 .i.g5 ! ; best may be Gallagher's sug­gestion of 13 . . . h6 14 � 1Wh4 ''with a double-edged position") 14 exf6 'ii'xf6 15 �xe6 dxe6 16 .i.b5 .i.d7 17 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 1 8 :xc6 .i.e? 1 9 1We2 'W'xd4 Van Mil-Krasenkov, Budapest 1 989, and now 20 .i.c3 ! would have favoured White.

In conclusion we can say this bold pawn sacrifice with 9 .i.e2!? 'W'xc3+ deserves further tests.

9 .•• d6!? (D)

This move-order, whereby Black puts direct pressure on the white e­pawn, gives both sides more options than the straightforward 9 . . . .i.b7 10 .i.d3 d6 1 1 0-0 �d7 (Game 39).

122 5 cxd4 e6 6 li:Jj3 b6

Nevertheless a common outcome, as in this game, is that play stays in nor­mal channels.

A completely different idea is 9 ... .te7 (waiting !) 10 i.d3 i.a6, for example 1 1 i.xa6 li:Jxa6 12 'W'a4 (12 'ife2!?) 12 . . . 'W'b7 13 0-0 0-0 14 c4 l:tfd8 15 'tlfb3 d5 16 exd6 i.xd6 17 l:tfel l:tac8 = Chikovani-Frias, Lon­don 1994 or 1 1 c4 i.xc4 12 l:tcl b5 13 i.xc4 bxc4 14 'tlfa4 0-0 15 l:txc4 li:Jc6 16 0-0 l:tab8 17 'W'c2 f5 18 exf6 i.xf6 oo Fragiadakis-Grivas, Iraklio 1994.

10 i.d3 After 10 i.b5+ safest is 10 ... li:Jd7

1 1 0-0 a6 12 exd6 i.xd6 13 i.d3 i.b7 14 h3 0-0 15 l:tel i.f4 16 i.xf4 i!z.i!z Dolmatov-Tukmakov, Elenite 1995 . Instead 10 . . . i.d7 1 1 a4! ( 1 1 i.d3 i.c6 ! ? is similar the main game, with Black's bishop on c7 instead of b7) l l .. .li:Jc6 12 exd6 .i.xd6 13 0-0 0-0 14 :et li:Je7 15 'W'e2 :ac8 16 .i.a6 :b8 17 h4 i.f4?! (17 ... li:Jg6!?) 18 i.xf4 'W'xf4 19 li:Je5 ! ± Smagin­Borriss, Germany 1992.

• 10 •.• li:Jd7 11 0-0 After 1 1 exd6 i.xd6 we reach a

very comfortable position for Black which can also arise from other move-orders (1 e4 c5 2 c3 li:Jf6 3 e5 li:Jd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 li:Jf3 e6 6 cxd4 d6 7 li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 8 bxc3 'W'c7 9 .i.d2 li:Jd7 10 exd6 i.xd6 1 1 i.d3 b6 for exam­ple): 12 0-0 i.b7 13 :et 0-0 14 li:Je5 (14 h3 h6 15 'W'e2 i.f4 16 li:Je5 .i.xe5 17 dxe5 :fd8 18 .i.f4 li:Jc5 19 i.c2 f5 20 l:tadl i.e4 :;: Vogelmann-Jansa, Eupen 1994) 14 ... i.xe5 15 dxe5 li:Jc5 (15 . . . f5 16 exf6 li:Jxf6 17 'W'e2 l:tad8 18 l:tadl e5 19 .i.g5 e4 20 i.xf6

:xd3 1h-1h Asmundsson-Lombardy, Grindavik 1984) 15 . . . li:Jc5 1 6 i.c2 :fd8 17 :e3 'W'c6 18 :g3 li:Je4 19 i.xe4 'W'xe4 :;: Brynell-Jansa, Nzst­ved 1988.

The only other major deviation for White is l l li:Jg5 i.b7 12 0-0 (12 f4 i.e7 13 'W'g4 h5 14 'W'g3 h4 15 'W'g4 .txg5 16 'W'xg5 h3 17 .tn g6 � Lehtivaara-Murugan, London 1989), which transposes to the li:Jg5 note to move 12 in the game.

ll ... .tb7 Now we are back in the main line.

Because of the move-order he has chosen, Black had the possibility of 1 1 . . .dxe5:

a) 12 dxe5 i.b7 13 :et trans­poses to Game 39, note to White's 13th.

b) For 12 li:Jg5 i.b7 see the note to 12 .i.f4 in the current main game.

c) There is also 12 :et , when no one has dared capture on d4, but sev­eral other moves have been tried:

c l ) 12 . . . .tb7 transposes to Game 39.

c2) 12 . . . g6 and here 13 li:Jxe5 li:Jxe5 14 i.f4 .i.g7 15 i.xe5 i.xe5 16 :xeS 0-0 17 'W'd2 i.b7 18 h4 l:tac8 19 l:tc 1 l:tfd8 20 'W'e3 :ds 21 f4 'fle7 was not much for White in the game Blatny-Plachetka, Austria Cht 1993, but 13 'W'a4 is also possi­ble: 13 . . . .i.g7 14 li:Jxe5 0-0 15 .i.e4 li:Jxe5 16 .txa8 li:Jg4 17 g3 i.d7 18 'W'dl li:Jxf2 19 'W'f3 ;!; Majzlan-Timo­shchenko, Sweden 1995.

c3) 12 . . . i.d6 13 dxe5 (13 li:Jxe5 .i.xe5 14 dxe5 can be answered by 14 . . . .tb7 15 .i.g5 ! 'W'c5 16 'W'a4 h6 17 .i.h4 g5 18 .i.e4 = Luther-Stohl,

Namestovo 1987 or 14 ... lDc5 15 .i.c2 .i.b7 16 .i.g5 h6 17 1Wh5 1Wc6 1 8 f3 l:r.g8 19 £h4 g5 20 £f2 0-0-0 ao

Iotov-Forgo, corr. 1991) 13 ... .i.e7 14 lbg5 !? (14 .i.f4 lbc5 15 .i.b5+ .i.d7 16 lbd4 .i.xb5 17 lbxb5 •c6 18 a4 0-0 ao Hmadi-Plachetka. 1\misia 1992) 14 . . . .i.b7 15 •h5 .i.xg5 16 •xg5 h6! 17 �4! ;!; Blatny-Pekarek, Nam­estovo 1987.

Instead 12 lbxe5 lbxe5 is a sensi­ble alternative:

a) 13 .i.f4 !? .i.d6 14 dxe5 .i.e7 (Black has had to lose some time, and will shortly give up the right to castle, but White has not yet found the way to exploit this) 15 •r3 (15 •g4 �f8 16 .i.e4 .i.b7 17 .i.xb7 •xb7 18 l:r.ad1 h5 19 .e2 g6 20 .e3 �g7 21 .i.g5 l:r.hc8 = Duckstein­Arakhamia, Vienna 1993) 15 ... .i.b7 16 .i.b5+ �f8 17 1Wg3 h6 18 l:r.ad1 l:r.d8 19 l:r.xd8+ •xd8 20 .i.e2 g6 21 l:r.d1 •c7 22 h4 �g7 23 h5 g5 24 .i.c1 l:r.g8 ao Dobrovolsky-Jansa, Ceske Budejovice 1993.

b) 13 dxe5 .i.b7 (13 ... .i.c5 14 •g4 .i.b7 15 .i.b5+ .i.c6 16 .i.xc6+ •xc6 17 •xg7 0-0-0 with a king­side attack for Black, Cigan-Slibar, Slovenia 1993) 14 .i.b5+ .i.c6 15 1Wf3 (15 1Wa4 .i.xb5 16 1Wxb5+ 1Wd7 17 a4 .i.c5 18 :Cdl 0-0-0!? ao G.Lee­Murugan, British Ch 1993) 15 .. . l:r.c8 16 a4 a6 (16 . . . .i.e7 17 •g3 �f8 18 l:r.fd 1 h5 19 .i.xc6 •xc6 20 .i.g5 f6 ao

Degraeve-Jansa, Royan 1989) 17 .i.xc6+ 1Wxc6 18 1Wg3 g6 19 c4!? ao

A.Maric-P.Cramling, Belgrade 1988. 12 .i.f4 For the more dangerous 12 l:r.e1

see the next game, while 12 exd6 has

5 cxd4 e6 6 lbf3 b6 123

already been covered in the note to White's l l th move. Against 12 lbg5 Black seems able to beat off the at­tack with careful defence: 1 2 ... dxe5 ( 12 . . . .i.e7 !? 1 3 exd6 .i.xd6 14 •hS lbf6 15 .i.b5+ � 16 �4 h6 17 f4 hxg5 18 1Wxh8+ �e7 19 �3 gxf4 20 .i.e2 g5 21 .tf3 l:r.g8 22 .txb7 •xb7 23 1Wf3 1Wxf3 24 gxf3 l:r.c8 25 a4 lbd5 26 l:r.fcl l:r.c4 27 � e5 lfl-lfl Sermek-Landenbergue, Ptuj Z 1995) 13 1Wh5 g6 (not 13 ... lbf6? 14 .tb5+ +-) 14 �3 and here (D):

a) 14 . . . .i.g7 15 l:r.ael (15 l:r.fel •d6 16 f4 - a typical theme in this line - 16 . . . e4! 17 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 18 lbxe4 •dS 19 lbg5 h6 20 lbf3 0-0 =i= Basirov-Minasian, Kstovo 1994) 15 ... e4 (15 ... a6 16 f4 e4 17 .txe4 .i.xe4 18 l:r.xe4 lbf6 1 9 l:r.xe6+ fxe6 20 1Wxe6+ 1-0 Sermek-David, Bled 1996) 16 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 17 l:r.xe4 lbf6 18 l:r.xe6+ +- Sermek-Osterman, Ljubljana 1993.

b) 14 ... .i.e7 15 l:r.fel (15 l:r.ael h6 16 f4 .i.xg5 17 fxg5 h5 :j: Jonkman­Kjeldsen, Cannes 1995) 15 . . . l:r.f8! (improving on the 15 .. . a6 of V.L.Iva­nov-Sobolev, Cherepovec 1993, while 15 ... h6 16 f4 ! e4? 17 lbxe4 ± with an

124 5 cxd4 e6 6 &iJj3 b6

attack was V.L.Ivanov-Doroshke­vich, Moscow 199S) 16 dxeS (16 &!Jxh7 l:lh8 :j:) 16 . . . 0-0-0 17 i.f4 &!Jcs 1 8 i.c2 h6! :j: Nadyrkhanov-Zvia­gintsev, St Petersburg 1994.

Incidentally, it is worth noting that Black has misplayed the open­ing, since the position after 12 i.f4 can occur with White to move, e.g. 1 e4 cS 2 c3 &iJf6 3 eS &!Jds 4 d4 cxd4 S &iJf3 e6 6 cxd4 b6 7 &iJc3 i.b7 8 i.d3 d6 9 0-0 &!Jxc3 10 bxc3 &!Jd7 1 1 i.f4 'ii'c7 as in the game Claesen-Tuk­makov, Antwerp 1993. Obviously the extra tempo is a bonus for White; nevertheless Black went on to score a crushing victory in 31 moves !

12 •. .i.e7 13 l:lel (D)

13 ••. l:lc8 A mistake is 13 . . . g6? 14 dS i.xdS

1S exd6 i.xd6 16 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 17 i.e4 ! &iJf6 18 c4 1-0 Keller-P.Cram­ling, Zurich 1984, but 13 . . . 0-0 is natural:

a) 14 l:le3 !? i.xf3 !? (14 ... g6 1S l:lc 1 dxeS 16 &iJxeS tL'lxeS 17 i. xeS i.d6 18 h4 i.xeS 19 :xeS l:lad8 20 hS l:ldS 21 f4 ± Ambroz-Jansa, Czechoslovak Ch 1982 although of course 1S . . . i.xf3 could be played in

this line as well) 1S 'ii'xf3 g6 16 l:lae 1 dxeS 17 dxeS l:lfd8 18 i.h6 l:lac8 19 'ii'f4 tL'lxeS ! 20 i.a6 tt:lc4 ! 21 l:le4 ! tL'ld6! (2l . . .tL'ld2? 22 l:l4e2) 22 i.xc8 l:lxc8 23 'ifeS ! 'ii'xc3 ! 24 l:lc1 'ii'xc1 + ! 2S i.xc1 i.f6!? 26 'ii'f4 gS 27 'ii'e3 tt:lxe4 28 h3 l:lc4 and with a dominating position and rook, knight. and two pawns for the queen Black had a large advantage in Sari­ego-Estevez, Sagua Ia Grande 1987. A model of defensive technique from Black.

b) 14 l:lcl .l:.fd8 (14 . . . l:lc8 trans­poses back to the main game) IS tL'lgS g6 16 1i'g4 tt:lf8 17 h4 'ii'd7 18 hS dxeS 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 i.xeS f6 21 i.xg6 tt:lxg6 22 'ii'hS 1-0 Strikovic­Dirnovski, Pula Cht 1990. For the re­cord the move-order of this game was 13 l:lc1 0-0 14 l:lel .

14 l:lcl 0·0 15 tL'lgS?! 1S i.b1 i.xf3 16 'ii'xf3 dxeS 17

dxeS (17 i.xeS tL'lxeS 18 l:lxeS g6 was nothing for White in Dubois-Koch, France 1992) 17 . . . l:lfe8 18 h4 'ii'c6 19 'ii'g3 'ii'a4 20 hS �h8 21 l:led 1 tt:lf8 22 h6 tt:lg6 23 hxg7 + �xg7 24 i.gS? (24 l:ld4 oo) 24 . . . i.xgS 2S 1i'xgS 'ii'f4 26 1i'hS l:lcS + M.Han­sen-Benjamin, London 1987.

15 . • • i.xg5 16 1i'h5 fS! An effective defensive response.

If 16 . . . i.h6, 17 i.xh6 gxh6 18 'ii'xh6 f5 19 'ii'xe6+ gives White several pawns and an attack for the sacri­ficed piece. Now, however, 17 exf6 can be well met by either 17 . . . h6 18 i.xg5 tt:lxf6 or 17 . . . tt:lxf6 immedi­ately.

17 'it'xgS dxe5 18 dxeS li)cS + 19 l:le3 l:lfd8 20 i.n 'it'f7 21 1ib4 l:ld7

22 :b3 g6 23 .tbS .tc6 24 .tc4 :cd8 25 :e3 (not surprisingly the white attack has got nowhere, and now the rook ignominiously re­treats) 2S ... :d1+ 26 :e1 :xe1+ 27 :xet :d7 28 W'g3 .tdS 29 .tbS :c7 30 W'b4 :cS 31 :d1 a6 32 .tn bS 33 .th6 tbe4 34 f3 W'a7+ 35 :d4 lL!xc3 36 �h1 W'b6 37 h3 W'd8 38 .tgs W'eS 39 .tr6 W'r7 40 W'h6 lL!xa2 41 �h2 lL!c3 42 :b4 aS 43 W'e3 b4 44 W'b6 W'c7 45 W'a6 :as 46 W'd3 b3 47 W'e3 b2 48 .td3 b1W' 49 .txb1 lL!xb1 0-1

Game 39 Smagin - Plachetka

Tmava 1987

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lL!f6 3 eS lL!dS 4 d4 cxd4 5 lLlf3 e6 6 cxd4 b6 7 lL!c3 lL!xc3 8 bxc3 W'c7 9 .td2 .tb7 10 .td3 d6 11 0-0 lL!d7 12 :e1 dxeS

12 . . . .te7 is possible: a) 13 exd6!? .txd6 is best, put­

ting White a tempo ahead of the line covered in Game 38, note to White's 1 1th move. A couple of examples:

a1) 14 lL!e5? (not a wise use of the extra move) 14 . . . .txe5 15 dxe5 0-0-0 + Prie-Dizdarevic, Cannes Martinez 1995.

a2) 14 c4 0-0 15 h3 :acs 16 .tc3 :res 17 lL!g5 g6 18 'ii'g4 e5 19 d5 .tf8 20 W'h4 h6 21 lLle4 b5 22 :ab1 bxc4 23 .txc4 .tg7 24 .tb3 ;!; Roz­entalis-Lesiege, Montreal 1995.

b) 13 lL!g5 is a sharp attempt: 13 . . . dxe5 14 'ii'g4 (14 "ilfh5 .txg5 15 'ii'xg5 0-0 16 dxe5 :fd8 17 "ilfh4 lLlf8 18 :e3 oo Acs-Fancsy, Budapest 1996) 14 ... h5 15 "ilfh3 .txg5 16 .txg5

5 cxd4 e6 6 lLlf3 b6 125

f5 !? 17 :ad1 0-0 18 dxe5 g6 oo Rau­sis-Gallagher, Nimes 1992.

c) The more positional 13 a4 has been seen in a couple of games.

d) Instead the tactical 13 .tg5 has had a chequered career:

d1) 1 3 . . . dxe5 14 .txe7 �xe7 (or 14 . . . .txf3 15 "ilfxf3 �xe7 16 W'g3 �f8 17 .tb5 ;!; Ostermeyer-Ramos, Germany 1987) 15 lL!xe5 lL!xe5 16 :xe5 "ilfxc3 !? 17 :c1 "ilfxd4 18 :c7+ now instead of 18 . . . �d6? 19 :d7+! ± Weiss-Siegler, Germany 1994, 18 . . . �f6 is toughest, though the white attack still looks dangerous after 19 :e3.

d2) 13 . . . W'd8 14 .tf4! .txf3 (if 14 . . . dxe5, 15 lL!xe5 ±) 15 'ii'xf3 dxe5 16 dxe5 0-0 17 :ad1 W'c7 18 .txh7+ �xh7 19 'ii'd3+ �g8 20 "ilfxd7 ± Smagin-Dizdarevic, Zenica 1987.

d3) 13 ... .txg5 14 lL!xg5 dxe5 (or 14 . . . h6 15 'ii'h5 0-0 16 :e3 dxe5 17 :g3 e4 18 lL!xe4 .txe4 19 .txe4 lL!f6 20 'ii'f3 = Smagin-Adamski, Buda­pest 1988) 15 'iib5 lLlf6 16 "ilfh3 (Smagin once published some analy­sis claiming 16 lLlxe6? "ilfc6 17 d5 won for White, missing the reply 17 . . . "ilfxe6 ! "'-+ as later happened in De Boer-Krockenberger, Germany 1992) 16 . . . e4 17 lL!xe4 lL!xe4 18 .txe4 .txe4 19 :xe4 0-0 = Wach­Landenbergue, Ptuj Z 1995.

13 lLlxe5 13 dxe5 gives Black no problems:

13 . . . .te7 (13 . . . g6 14 .tf4?! .tg7 15 lL!d4 0-0 16 lLlb5 "ilfc6 17 .te4 'ii'xb5 18 .txb7 :ab8 =I= S.Lalic-Stohl, Isle of Man 1994) 14 lL!d4 (14 W'e2 0-0 15 lL!d4 :rd8 16 h4 lLlc5 17 .tc2 :d5 18 f4 :ad8 19 :ad1 .ta6 20 'ii'f3

126 5 cxd4 e6 6 tl:Jf3 b6

.ic4 :;: M.S.Hansen-Jansa, Gausdal 1987) 14 . . . a6 15 1Wg4 g6 16 'ii'g3 !i:JcS 17 .ic2 .idS 18 a4 "" Ernst­Cramling, Gausdal 1987.

13-!i:JxeS 14 :XeS .id6 15 .:.bS!? (D)

Transferring the rook to the king­side unbalances the game. Later on, after Black castles kingside, White usually manoeuvres his queen to the h-file as well, forcing Black into the defensive . . . f5 (to protect h7 along his second rank). However, this is a double-edged strategy for White, as after he obtains the concession . . . f5, it is usually difficult to make attack­ing progress on the kingside (the il­lustrative game is unrepresentative in this respect). If play switches to the queenside White's rook on the h­file can be misplaced. However, 15 .ib5+ is insufficient for advantage: 15 . . . .ic6 (after 15 . . . �f8 16 l:lh5, 16 ... .ie4 17 1i'e2 .ig6 18 l:lh3 ;!; was the game Blatny Grosar, Debrecen 1992, while 16 .. . g6 transposes to the note after White's 16th move in the main game) 16 'iff3 l:lc8 (16 . . . 0-0-0 17 .ixc6 .ixe5 18 a4 ! l:ld6! 19 .ib5 l:ld5 20 c4 l:lxd4 21 .ic3 'ilfb7 oa

Seguera-Akopian, Mamaia jr Web 1991) 17 .ixc6+ 'ifxc6 18 d5 'ilfc7 !? ( 18 ... 1i'b7 19 l:lh5 e5 20 l:lel f6 21 'ilfh3 'ilfd7 22 'ilfh4 'ilff7 23 l:lxh7 l:lxh7 24 'ilfxh7 1Wxd5 with an equal position, Lombardy-Panno, Buenos Aires 1994) 19 l:lg5? ! (19 l:lh5 e5 20 l:lel f6 21 'ilfh3 1Wd7 = Hmadi­Hughes, Moscow OL 1994) 19 . . . g6 20 dxe6 0-0 21 'ii'h3 l:lcd8 22 .ie3 'ilfxc3 23 l:lcl .ia3 24 :n 'ii'f6 25 exf7+ 'ilfxf7 26 .ixb6? axb6 27

'ilfxa3 'ilfxf2+! 0- 1 Michalek-Orsag, Czech Ch 1995.

B

15 ••. g6 For 15 . . . 0-0-0 16 a4 g6 17 l:lh3

see the note after Black's 17th. 16 l:lh3 (D) On 16 .ib5+ Black has a choice

of the double-edged 16 . . . .ic6 17 1Wf3 ! 0-0-0 ! 18 .ixc6 gxh5 19 a4 a6 20 .ie4 �b8 21 'ilfxh5 .if4 22 .iel ao Rizzitano-Miles, USA 1980, and the solid 16 . . . �f8 17 l:lh3 h5 (17 . . . l:lc8 18 .ih6+ �g8 19 1Wd2 a6 20 .in?! (20 .ia4 ao) 20 . . . f6 21 .ie3? 1Wxc3 + M.Hansen-P.Cram­ling, Gausdal l987) 18 1i'e2 .if4 19 l:lel �g7 20 .ixf4 1i'xf4 with a fine game for Black, Blatny-Akopian, Philadelphia 1994.

16 .•. 11Vc6 a) 16 . . . .tf4 17 11Va4+!? ;!; Vyso­

chin-Chernosvitov probably offers more than 17 i.b5+ �f8 18 'ii'c 1 i.xd2 19 'ii'xd2 h5.

b) 16 . . . 0-0-0 (possible, but in the long term Black's king is more ex­posed on this wing) 17 a4 (17 i.g5 !? .te7 18 i.xe7 't1Vxe7 19 a4 has been seen, when Black's best is probably now 19 . . . 1Vg5 20l:.g3 1Vd5) 17 . . . g5 !? and now instead of 1 8 c4 h5, Panda­vos-Gobet, Thessaloniki OL 1984, 18 a5 is more consistent.

c) 16 . . . h5 and now: c 1) 17 c4 0-0-0 !? "" de las Heras­

Spangenberg, Buenos Aires 1995. c2) 17 i.b5+ i.c6 18 1Vf3 l:.c8 19

i.xc6+ 1Vxc6 20 1Vf6 l:.h7 21 i.g5 'ifd5 = H. de Greef-Hajkova Mask­ova, Manila OL 1992.

c3) 17 a4 !? ;!; could be tried, wait­ing to Black to castle somewhere.

d) 16 . . . 0-0!? (D):

d1) 17 i.h6 l:.fe8 1 8 1Vg4 e5 19 1Vh4 .te7 20 i.g5 .txg5 21 1Vxg5 1Vxc3 22 l:.cl 1Vxd4 23 'ii'h6 e4 24 'ihh7+ �f8 25 l:.c7 i.d5 26 i.b5 1Val + 27 .tfl 1Vg7 = Grosar-Strik­ovic, Geneva 1991 .

5 cxd4 e6 6 t'i:Jj3 b6 127

d2) 17 c4 l:.fe8 18 1Vg4 f5 19 1Vh4 1Vg7 20 i.h6 1Vf7 21 l:.d1 l:.ac8 and White's hanging pawns are un­der pressure, as in Greger-P.Cram­ling, Valby 1991 .

d3) The modest 17 1Ve2 'ii'c6 !? 1 8 f3 'ii'c7 19 l:.e1 l:.ac8 20 1Ve3 l:.fe8 21 1Vh6 f5 left White's pieces uncoordinated in Zila-Medvegy, Hajduboszormeny 1995.

d4) 17 'iVg4 f5 18 'ii'e2 (this makes sense now Black has weakened . . . e6; 18 'iVh4 l:.fl 19 l:.c1 1Vc6 20 f3 b5 21 i.g5 l:.e8 22 i.f6 i.e7 23 i.xe7 l:.fxe7 24 1Vg5 1Vd5 :f Donguines­Kouatly, Manila OL 1992) 18 . . . l:.ae8 19 i.b5 i.c6. The situation is rather unclear; the black king position is marginally compromised, but his pieces are well-centralised. Sariego­Vera, Linares 1992 continued 20 i.c4 .td5 21 i.xd5 exd5 22 •d3 •c4 23 1Vxc4 dxc4 24 l:.e3 l:.xe3 25 fxe3 �fl 26 l:.e 1 l:.e8 27 �f2 �e6 28 e4 fxe4 29 l:.xe4+ �d7 30 l:.xe8 �xeS 31 g3 lfl.lfl; 20 l:.e1 !? is a logical at­tempt to improve.

17 f3 17 1Vf1 !? 0-0 18 l:.e1 aims to avoid

the discoordinating move f3, when the game Rovid-Zila, Hungary 1995, showed White's dream strategy in this type of position: 1 8 . . . 1Vc7 19 'ii'e2 i.f4 (19 . . . 'ii'c6 !) 20 c4 i.xd2 21 1Wxd2 l:.fe8 22 'ii'h6 f5 23 l:.he3 (in­stantly targeting the new weakness on e6) 23 . . . 1Vd7 24 1Vh4 l:.e7 25 d5 l:.ae8 26 1Vf6 i.c8 27 h4 .:CS 28 1Ve5 l:.d8 29 h5 1Vd6 30 hxg6 1Vxe5 3 1 gxh7+ l:.xh7 32 l:.xe5 exd5 3 3 l:.e8+ 1-0.

17 • • • 0-0 18 'iVel 1i'd7?

128 5 cxd4 e6 6 fi:Jj3 b6

Here the queen proves a target for a later zwischenzug; 18 .. . 1Wc7 was an option. Alternatively 18 .. . i.e7 (to stop 1Wh4, but White's queen can still get to the h-file) 19 1We3 f5 20 i.b5 11t'd6 21 1Wh6?! (2l .:tel !?) 21 ...lW 22 i.f4 (provoking tactics, but Black's de­fences are adequate) 22 . . . 11t'd5 23 i.a4 1Wa5 24 i.e5 1Wxa4 ! 25 'ibg6+ �f8 26 1Wh6+ �e8 27 11fxe6 11fc6 =F

and Black defends, Fedorov-Fomari, Aosta 1989.

19 'ii'h4 rs 20 i.b5! 'ikr7 21 l:e1 Suddenly the position has turned

nasty for Black. Although in princi­ple his defensive set-up is solid, it is hard to counter the threat of .:.Xe6.

21 ... h5 22 'ikg5 'ikf6 23 l:xe6! 1-0 23 . . . 11fxe6 24 i.c4! 'ikxc4 25

1Wxg6+ is the point.

1 5 5 cxd4 d6 6 lbf3 lbc6

1 e4 cS 2 c3 lbf6 3 e5 lDd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d6 6 lbf3 lDc6 (D)

Here we examine possibilities (for both White and Black) to avoid the position reached after 7 .i.c4 lbb6 (examined in Chapter 16). The first of these deviations is the insipid 7 lbc3?! (Game 40), which typically leads to the endgame 7 ... dxe5 8 dxe5 lbxc3 9 Wxd8+ lbxd8 10 bxc3. White's modest lead in development barely compensates for his weak­ened pawn structure. Furthermore Black could choose 7 ... lbxc3 8 bxc3 Wc7 9 .i.d2 lbd7 10 exd6 .i.xd6 1 1 .i.d3 b6, which is an excellent ver­sion of the ... b6 systems already cov­ered in Chapter 14.

In Game 41 we see an interesting deviation for Black in 7 .i.c4 dxe5 !?,

when after 8 .i.xd5 !? (8 dxe5 is also critical) 8 . . . Wxd5 9 lDc3 'iVd6 10 d5 lbd4 1 1 lbxd4 exd4 12 Wxd4 e5 Black has usually come away quite well with his bishop pair. But actually the illustrative game shows there are lit­tle-appreciated dangers in the posi­tion for the second player, and any route to equality is much narrower than previously thought.

Finally the move 7 . . . e6 is the sub­ject of the remaining two illustrative games. 10 lbc3 !? (Game 43) is the most dynamic continuation, where White gains persistent pressure on the kingside in return for compro­mising his queenside pawn structure. Black has reasonable defensive re­sources and can certainly play the position, but - as is always the prob­lem with defending your king - one inaccuracy can lead to severe prob­lems.

Game 40 Razuvaev - Shamkovich

Moscow 1967

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbf6 3 eS lMS 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d6 6 lbf3 lbc6 7 lbc3?!

Minor alternatives: a) 7 .i.e2 g6 (of course 7 . . . e6 is

possible while 7 . . . dxe5 8 lDxe5 e6 9 0-0 .i.e7 10 lbxc6 bxc6 1 1 lbd2 0-0 1 2 lbc4 .i.a6 with equality, was Mukhitdinov-Smyslov, Moscow Cht

130 5 cxd4 d6 6 !i:Jj3 !i:Jc6

1959; alternatively 7 . . . .i.f5 !? 8 0-0 e6 9 !i:Jc3 !i:Jxc3 10 bxc3 d5 = was Bogdanovic-Janokvic, Yugoslav Ch 1963) 8 0-0 .i.g7 9 'iWb3 dxe5 lO dxe5 0-0 1 1 .:d 1 e6 12 !i:Jc3 !i:Jxe5 13 !i:Jxd5 exd5 14 .:Xd5 !i:Jxf3+ 15 .i.xf3 'iWc7 = Alburt-Sosonko, USSR Ch 1%7 and 7 'iWb3 e6 8 .i.b5 .i.d7 9 !i:Jc3 !i:Jxc3 (9 . . . dxe5 lO !i:Jxd5 exd5 1 1 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 1 2 !i:Jxe5 'ii'b6 1 3 'iWxb6 axb6 = Minev-Geller, Zagreb 1955) 10 bxc3 dxe5 1 1 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 12 !i:Jxe5 'iWd5 = Minev-Najdorf, Am­sterdam 1954.

b) 7 exd6 is more common: bl) 7 . . . e6 8 !i:Jc3 and then: bl l ) After 8 ... .i.xd6, 9 .i.d3?! !i:Jf4

10 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 = was Przewoznik­Binham, Graz 198 1 , but for 9 .i.c4 see Game 42, note to White's 8th move.

bl2) 8 . . . 'ihd6 !? 9 .i.d3 .i.e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 'iWe2 !i:Jf6 = is an astute idea, as in Moulton-Browne, USA 1991 , which actually transposes to a satisfactory position from Chapter 9 !

b2) 7 . . . 'iWxd6 8 !i:Jc3: b21) Again 8 ... e6 9 .i.d3 .i.e7 10

0-0 0-0 1 1 'ife2 !i:Jf6 would be a trans­position to the 2 . . . d5 lines, Chapter 9.

b22) 8 .. . g6 also offers good play for Black, e.g. 9 'ifb3 !i:Jxc3 10 bxc3 .i.g7 1 1 .i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 !i:Ja5 13 'iWa4 b6 I4 .i.a3 'ifc7 oo Galego-Rantanen, Haifa Cht 1989 or 9 .i.e2 .i.g7 I 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 !i:Jb5 'iWd8 12 h3 .i.f5 :j: Stukalov-Golubev, Yalta 1995.

b23) 8 ... .i.g4 9 .i.e2 e6 10 0-0 .i.e7 gives White a choice:

b23 1) 1 1 ti'b3 can be answered by I I . . .ji'b4 12 !i:Jxd5 'iWxb3 13 axb3

exd5 =i= Smyslov-Hort, Amsterdam 1994 or 1 1 . . .0-0 12 !i:Jxd5 exd5 1 3 .i.e3 = Unzicker-Geller, Gothenburg lZ 1955.

b232) A further unsuccessful try was 1 1 !i:Je4 'ii'c7 12 h3 .i.h5 13 !i:Jg3 .i.g6 14 !i:Je5 !i:Jxe5 I5 dxe5 0-0 I6 f4 !i:Jb4 =i= Eilertsen-Savchenko, Gaus­dal l 993 .

b233) 1 1 h3 .i.h5 12 !i:Jb5 (12 'ii'b3 0-0 13 !i:Jxd5 exd5 14 .i.e3 f5 I5 .:aci f4 with good play for Black, Teschner-Tal, Riga 1959) 12 . . . 'ii'd8 I3 !i:Je5 .i.xe2 14 ti'xe2. Now the po­sition would be roughly level after I4 . . . 0-0, but in the game Zhuravlev­Abrosimov, Leipaja I962 Black con­tinued poorly with 14 . . . !i:Jxe5? ! 15 dxe5 a6 16 !i:Jd4 0-0 17 .:d I 'ii'b6? allowing I8 !i:Jf5 ! ji'c5 I9 .:xd5 exd5 20 .i.h6! with a powerful initia­tive for White.

7 ... dxe5 7 . . . e6 gives a position examined

in Chapter I7, while 7 . . . !i:Jc7?! 8/ exd6 exd6 9 d5 !i:Jb8 IO 'ii'd4 ! was bad for Black in Csom-Quinteros, Siegen OL I970. Instead 7 . . . !i:Jxc3 8 bxc3 e6 also transposes to Chapter 17, though it should be noted that via the present position Black also has the move-order option of 8 . . . 1Wa5 9 exd6 e6 10 .i.d2 ( 10 'ii'b3 .i.xd6 1 1 .i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 e5 = Mikhalchishin­Minic, Zagreb 1961 ) lO . . . .i.xd6 I 1 .i.d3, which cuts out one or two side­lines for White.

However, 7 . . . !i:Jxc3 8 bxc3 dxe5? is weak on account of 9 d5 ! e4 (9 . . . !i:Ja5 lO .i.b5+ .i.d7 I 1 'iWa4 b6 12 !i:Jxe5 wins outright) 10 !i:Jg5 !i:Je5 1 1 !i:Jxe4 g6 ( 1 1 . . .'tWc7 12 'ifd4 .i.d7

1 3 .i.a3 ± Chiburdanidze-Andreeva, Tbilisi 1973) 12 d6 f5 13 '1Vd5 .i.g7 14 .i.h6! .i.xh6 (14 ... e6 15 d7+ ± Withuis-Boven, Amsterdam 1957) 15 '1Vxe5 :rs 16 d7+ ! ! 1 -0 Tam­burro-Russett, corr. 1988.

8 dxe5 lDxc3 Or: a) 8 ... .i.e6: a1) On 9 .i.d2 Black should not

play 9 ... l0db4 10 �b5 .i.f5 1 1 .i.xb4 �xb4 12 �bd4 .i.d7 on account of 13 e6! fxe6 14 .i.c4 '1Va5 15 0-0 ±, as in Redolfi-Saidy, Varna 1958, but should continue 9 . . . �xc3 10 .i.xc3 £d5 ao.

a2) Mter 9 �g5 Tal gives the line 9 . . . �xc3 10 1i'xd8+ :xd8 1 1 bxc3 .i.f5 12 e6 fxe6 13 .i.c4 :d5 with sufficient compensation for the ex­change.

a3) 9 �d4 lDxd4 (9 ... �xc3 !? 10 bxc3 £d5 e6 is unclear - Svesh­nikov) 10 '1Vxd4 �xc3 1 1 '1Vxc3 ;!; Sveshnikov-Tal, USSR Ch 1979.

b) 8 ... l0db4 9 a3 '1Vxd1+ IO�xd1 �a6 1 1 b4 &i:x7 (or 1 1 .. .£g4 12 b5 0-0-0+ 13 .i.d2 �xe5 14 bxa6 �xf3 15 gxf3 .i.xf3+ 16 �c2 .i.xh 1 17 .i.h3+ e6 1 8 :xh1 ;!; Kiik-Rotsagov, USSR 1990) and the position is un­clear according to Sveshnikov. Two examples:

b1) 12 h3?! .i.e6 1 3 .i.d3 g6 14 .i.b2 .i.g7 15 � .i.d5 =i= Menvielle­Gheorghiu, Las Palmas 1972.

b2) 12 �b5 �xb5 13 .i.xb5 .i.d7 14 .i.c4 (14 :el !? 0-0-0 15 .i.d2 in­tending 15 ... .i.g4 16 :c1) 14 ... 0-0-0 15 �e2 .i.g4 16 .i.b2 Babiarz­C.P.Mokrys, corr. 1988.

9 '1Vxd8+ lDxd8

5 c:xd4 d6 6 l0/3 �c6 131

After 9 . . . �xd8 10 bxc3 Black's king is a little uncomfortable in the centre: 10 ... h6 (against the alterna­tive 10 . . . .i.g4, 1 1 e6 is recommen­dated, though 1 1 . . . .i.xe6 12 �g5 g6 13 �xe6+ fxe6 14 .i.c4 .i.g7 15 .i.d2 �c7 16 .i.xe6 :adS 17 0-0-0 :hf8 18 f4 b5 was reasonable for Black in Torre-Jun, Shenzhen 1992) with the possibilities:

a) 1 1 .i.e3!? £g4 12 :b1 �c8 13 l0d4! led to sharp play in the game Sveshnikov-Ruban, Kemerovo 1995: 13 ... �xe5 14 f4 �7 15 h3 £h5 16 g4 e5 17 gxh5 exd4 18 .i.xd4 �c7 19 .i.c4 ;!;.

b) Another idea is 1 1 .i.f4 e6 12 �d2 g5 13 .i.g3 £g7 14 &i:x4 �e7 15 0-0-0 ;!; Milner-Barry - Benko, Moscow 1956.

c) 1 1 .i.b5 e6 12 .i.e3 .i.d7 13 0-0 ( 1 3 a4! b6? 14 a5 ! bxa5 15 0-0 �c7 16 :fd 1 ± Csom-Hennings, Berlin 1968) 13 . . . �c7 14 a4 £e7 15 :Cd1 :hd8 16 a5 .i.e8 17 :db1 g5 1 8 h3 .i.f8 19 h4!? gxh4 20 :a4 ! h3 21 :c4 :d5 22 llkl4 a6 23 �xc6! axb5! 24 .i.b6+ �d7 25 �b8+! :xb8 26 :c7+ �d8 27 :x.n+ �c8 28 :xrs ;!; Csom-Matulovic, Athens 1969.

10 bxcJ (D)

132 5 cxd4 d6 6 fiJ/3 fiJc6

10 •• �d7 White's only justification for liq­

uidating to this endgame lies in a slight edge in development. How­ever practice has proven that, with sensible play, Black can easily neu­tralise any initiative, whereupon the weak white c3-pawn invariably be­comes a subsequent target. Along with the natural 10 . . . .td7 Black has other possibilities:

a) 10 . . . a6?! 1 1 .ie3 fiJc6 12 .tc4 .tf5 13 e6 fxe6 14 fiJd4 fiJd8 15 0-0 g6 16 ltJxf5 gxf5 17 .id4 .J:lg8 18 .J:lfel .J:lg6 19 .ie2 ltJf7 20 .if3 e5 21 .txe5 ltJxe5 22 .J:lxe5 .l:lb6 23 .J:lxf5 ± Csom-Gerusel, Amsterdam 1969 -an example of how White hopes to exploit his better development in this line.

b) 10 . . . e6 1 1 ltJd4 .ic5 12 ltJb3 .te7 13 .tb5+ .td7 14 a4 fiJc6 15 f4 a6 16 .ie2 f6 17 exf6 .t xf6 18 .td2 .te7 19 .te3 0-0-0 20 0-0 e5 21 f5 .J:ldf8 22 .id3 ;!; Bronstein-Lerner, Odessa 1976.

c) 10 . . . fiJc6!?: c1) 1 1 .tf4 e6 and then 12 fiJd4

fiJxd4 13 cxd4 .td7 14 .l:lb1 0-0-0 ; Leban-Krogius, Sarajevo 1968 or 12 .id3 .ie7 13 .l:lb1 .l:lb8 14 0-0 .td7 15 .J:lfd 1 h6 16 ltJd4 fiJxd4 17 cxd4 .tc6 18 .ib5 �d7 ; Sarapu-Kro­gius, Wildbad 1993.

c2) 1 1 .l:lb1 e6 12 .ie3 b6 13 .tb5 .td7 14 0-0 .te7 15 .l:lfd1 .J:lc8 16 a4 ltJb8 17 a5 .ixb5 18 .J:lxb5 1h-1h Ra­dovici-Krogius, Polanica Zdroj 1969.

d) 10 . . . g6 !? (similar to the game line) 1 1 lLxl4 (after 1 1 .if4, 1 I . ...tg7 12 .ib5+ .id7 1 3 .ixd7+ �xd7 14 0-0-0+ �e8 15 fiJd4 .J:lc8 16 �b2

ltJc6 17 .J:lhe 1 ltJxd4 18 cxd4 �d7 19 d5 .J:lc4 � was Nystrom-Ernst, Stock­holm 1994, but 1 1 . . . fiJe6 or 1 l .. ..id7 seems simpler) 1 I . . . .tg7 12 f4 .td7 13 .ta3 :C8 14 �d2 g5 15 fxg5 .txe5 ; Hresc-Ljubojevic, Yugoslav Ch 1982.

11 fiJd4 1 1 .id3 .J:lc8 12 .td2 g6 13 0-0

.tg7 14 .J:lfe1 0-0 15 fiJd4 fiJe6 16 f4 .J:lfd8 17 .tfl f6 ! ; O'Donnell-Ko­zul, Toronto 1990 .

1 1 .te3 g6 ! is again an excellent plan for Black:

a) 12 0-0-0 .tg7 13 .ic4 .J:lc8 14 .id5 .J:lxc3+ 15 �b2 .J:lc8 16 .txa7 fiJc6 17 .ib6 .ig4 with a good game for Black, Afek-Grtinfeld, Tel Aviv 1992.

b) 12 h4 h6 13 .te2 .tg7 14 0-0 ltJc6 with a slight advantage for Black, Pomar-Polugaevsky, Palma de Mallorca 1972.

c) 12 .ie2 .ig7 13 0-0 0-0 14 .J:lfe1 .tc6 15 .tc5 .J:le8 16 a4 fiJe6 17 .td4 J .J:led8 ; Redolfi-Taimanov, Cordoba 1960.

d) 12 .J:lb1 .ig7 13 .ib5 .txb5 14 .J:lxb5 was Sveshnikov-Gutman, Hast­ings 1984, and here Gutman gives 14 . . . .J:lc8 15 �d2 b6 ;.

ll ... .J:lc8 12 .teJ a6 On 12 . . . .J:lxc3 comes 13 fiJb5, but

again 12 ... g6 (oreven 12 ... g5 !?)looks promising .

13 �d2 e6 14 f4 .tcS 15 .td3 0-0 16 .J:labl .J:lc7 17 c4 f6 = 18 exf6 gxf6 19 .J:lhel .te8 20 g4 .J:ld7 21 �c3 .J:lc7 22 �d2 .tr7 (22 . . . .td7) 23 r5 eS 24 lbc2 .txe3+ 25 .fu:e3 fiJc6 26 ltJd5 .txd5 27 cxd5 fiJd4 28 .J:lecl .J:ld7 29 .J:lb6 �g7 30 �e3 b5? 31

gxh5 �h6 32 l:[gl! �xh5 33 l:[g6 (now Black's king is in great danger, trapped on the h-ftle) 33 ••• :df7 34 �e4 �h4 35 a4 a5 36 l:[bl l:[bS 37 l:[bgl lbb3 38 l:[6g4+ �h3 39 .*.fi+ 1-0

Game 41 K.Regan - Griinfeld

USA 1979

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbf6 3 e5 lbds 4 d4 cxd4 5 lbf3 d6 6 cxd4 lbc6 7 £c4 dxe5 (D)

For 7 . . . lbb6 see Chapter 16, and for 7 . . . e6 see the next two games. 7 . . . dxe5 has been played less often than either of these alternatives. In fact in practice Black has scored quite well with it, but whether he can equalise may depend on a judicious offer to exchange queens on move 14.

8 -*.xdS!? Instead 8 lbxe5 permits comfort­

able equality after the reply 8 ... e6, for example 9 0-0 £e7 10 :e1 0-0 1 1 lbc3 lbxc3 12 bxc3 lbxe5 1 3 :xe5 £f6 1 4 :e3 £d7 1 5 .*.d3 g6 Walter-Donchev, Oberwart 1992.

5 cxd4 d6 6 lbj3 lbc6 133

However 8 dxe5 is far more com­plex:

a) 8 ... e6? ! 9 0-0 lbb6 (9 ... £e7 10 •e2 0-0 1 1 l:[d1 •c7 12 £xd5 exd5 13 lbc3 £g4 14 lbxd5 £xf3 15 gxf3 ± Harabor-Vestergaard, corr. 1992) 10 'li'xd8+ (alternatively 10 .i.d3 !? lbb4 11 £e4 1i'xd1 1 2 :xd1 f5 13 exf6 gxf6 14 lbc3 f5 15 £b1 lb4d5 16 lbxd5 lbxd5 17 .i.xf5 exf5 18 :xd5 ± Blatny-Fernandez, Debre­cen Echt 1992) 10 . . . lbxd8 1 1 .i.b3 £d7 12 lbc3 £c6 1 3 lbd4 £b4 14 lbcb5 0-0 15 £e3 lbd7 16 lbc7 :c8 17 lbxc6 lbxc6 18 lbxe6 fxe6 19 £xe6+ :n 20 l:[fd l ! :c7 21 f4 ± Csom-Wedberg, Dortmund 1983.

b) 8 ... lbbd4 (the jury is still out on this one) 9 0-0 •xd1 10 :xd1 £g4!? (if 10 ... lbc2, 1 1 lbc3 lbxa1 12 lbb5 with unpleasant threats, such as mate in one) 1 1 e6 fxe6 12 lbc3 g6 1 3 lbb5 :c8 14 £f4 £xf3 15 gxf3 lbd5 16 :xd5 (16 £xd5 exd5 17 :xd5 £g7 18 lbc7+ �f7 ; Mt>hr­ing-Banas, Stary Smokovec 1979) 16 ... exd5 17 £xd5 e5 18 £e6 l:[b8 19 £g5 £e7 20 £e3. Here 20 ... £f6 21 £c5 £e7 22 £e3 £f6 23 £c5 £e7 24 £e3 was a draw by repeti­tion in the old game Sveshnikov­Hartston, Sochi 1979. However, in Jakubiec-Pokorny, Lazne Bohdanec 1996, 20 ... h6!? was played, and White could not justify his exchange sacri­fice: 21 f4 exf4 22 £xf4 l:[d8 23 lbc7+ �f8 24 £c4 l:[d7 25 lbe6+ �e8 26 :e1 l:[h7 27 b3 lbd4 +.

c) 8 ... lbb6!? (recently revived!) 9 1i'xd8+ lbxd8:

c l ) 10 £b5+ £d7 1 1 lbc3 and now 1 l ...a6 12 £xd7 + lbxd7 13 0-0

134 5 c:cd4 d6 6 li:Jj3 .!Dc6

e6 14 .J:r.d1 li:Jc6 1S i.f4 h6 16 h4 i.e7 17 li:Je4 112-112 Scetinin-Faibisovich, Pula 1990 or 1 1 . ..e6 12 0-0 a6 13 i.e3 i.xbS 14 li:JxbS li:JdS 1S li:Jbd4 h6 16 l:r.ac1 gS f Eichhorn-Svesh­nikov, Finkenstein 1994.

c2) 10 .tb3 !? (the most critical) 10 . . . .te6 (for 10 . . . 0-0 see 8 . . . e6 be­low) l l .te3 li:Jc4 12 .txc4 .txc4 13 li:Ja3 .ta6 14 li:Jd4 l:r.c8 1S li:JdbS li:Jc6 16 e6 fxe6 17 li:Jxa7 li:Jxa7 18 i.xa7 gS 19 .td4 l:r.g8 and Black's bishop pair compensated for his damaged pawn structure in Godena­Enders, Budapest 199S.

8 ... 'ifxdS 9 li:Jc3 'ifd6 The best square for the queen:

9 ... 'ifc4? 10 dS lObS 1 1 li:JxeS ± was Kaidanov-Kalinichev, USSR 197S and similarly 9 ... 'ifaS 10 dS li:Jb4 1 1 li:JxeS e6 1 2 0-0 .te7 1 3 d6 'ifxeS 14 dxe7 li:Jc6 1S l:r.e1 'iff6 16 li:Je4 'ifxe7 17 .tgS gave White an enormous at­tack in Groszpeter-Barczay, Hungary 1978.

10 d5 li:Jd4 11 li:Jxd4 exd4 12 'ifxd4 e5 13 'ifd3

13 'ife4 merely encourages Black: 13 . . . i.e7 14 0-0 fS ! 1S 'ife2 0-0 16 lObS 'iff6 17 f4 .td7 ! 18 a4 a6 19 li:Ja3 (19 fxeS? '1Vb6+ 20 .te3 i.cS) 19 . . . l:r.fe8 20 'ifc4 .td6 + Chikovani­G.Zaichik, USSR 1978.

13 .. ..td7 14 ()..0 Or 14 li:Je4 'ifg6!? (14 . . . '1Vb4+ 15

.td2 .tbS !? 16 i.xb4 .txd3 17 i.xf8 oo Negele-Olsson, corr. 1992) 1S 0-0 f5 16 li:Jg3 .td6 f Kuhnert-Vefling, corr. 1982.

14 ••• 15 Double-edged and probably bad.

14 ... '1Vg6!? 15 'ifxg6!? ( l S 'ife2 .id6

16 f4 0-0 17 fxeS :Ce8 18 .tf4 .txeS ! 19 .txeS f6 = Cuartas-Sigurjonsson, Bogota 1978) 1S . . . hxg6 16 f4 .tcS+ 17 �hl exf4 18 .txf4 .tfS? (to free d7 for the king, but the idea does not work out; 18 . . . 0-0 looks a sensible bid for equality) 19 li:Ja4! b6 20 li:JxcS bxcS 21 l:r.acl l:r.c8 22 i.e3 left Black was struggling to avoid per­manent material loss in K wiatkow­ski-Ward, British Ch 1988.

15 l:r.e1 1S lObS was another Kwiatkow­

ski-Ward encounter, this one from Lloyds Bank 1994: lS . . . .txbS 16 'ifxbS+ Wd7 17 'ife2 i.d6 18 .tf4 0-0 19 .txe5 l:r.ae8 20 f4 .txe5 21 fxeS 'ifxdS 22 l:r.fe1 l:r.e6 and the white pawn on eS is a weakness.

15 ... � 16 a4!? Only this plan sets Black problems.

After the passive 16 .td2 Black has an edge: 16 . . . e4 17 1Wg3 1Wxg3 1 8 hxg3 l:r.c8 f Groszpeter-Szekely, Hungary 1978. If Black is given time J to develop, then his two bishops al­most certainly give him the initia­tive.

16 ••• a6 17 b3! e4 18 1i'h3 l:r.c8 19 .taJ (D)

Harassing the queen is stronger than 19 .tb2 .te7 oo Rahls-Szekely, Berlin 1988.

The whole situation after 19 .ta3 is very problematic for Black, since White has irritating tactical threats based on li:Jxe4. For example 19 .. .' .. h6 20 li:Jxe4! 1i'xh3 (as 20 . . . dxe4 2 1 Wxd7+) 21 lOgS+ and 22 li:Jxh3. In the game White pursues the over­centralised black king with convinc­ing determination.

B

19 •.• 'ii'c7 20 .i.b2! (if 20 .i.xf8, 20 . . . 'ii'xc3 !) 20 .•• .i.cS 21 d6! 'ifd8 (2 1 . .. 'ii'xd6 22 llad I is very strong, but now White smashes through with a dashing e4 sacrifice anyway) 22 lill::e4 fxe4 23 1i'h5+ g6 (23 . . . �f8 24 llxe4 .i.xd6 25 lle3 .i.c6 26 Wf5+ �g8 27 'ii'e6+ �f8 28 lld I +-) 24 1Wd5+ .i.e6 25 'ii'xe4 1Wxd6 26 l:tad1 i.xf2+ (26 . . . 'ii'c6 27 'ii'e5) 27 �h1 1We7 28 1Wf4+ �e8 29 1Wxf2 (now material is level but stuck in the cen­tre Black's king is obviously doomed) 29 •• .1lf8 30 1Wg3 llc6 31 .i.a3 1Wxa3 32 1Wb8+ �f7 33 1Wxb7+ �g8 34 1Wxc6 .i.xb3 35 lla1 1Wb4 36 1Wxa6 i.dS 37 1We2 llf4 38 llab1 1-0

Game 42 Berelovich - Obukbov

Sochi l993

1 e4 cS 2 c3 lL!f6 3 e5 lL!d5 4 d4 cxd4 5 lL!f3 lLlc6 6 .i.c4 e6 7 cxd4 d6 (D)

Black maintains his knight in the centre, at the cost of shutting in his queen's bishop. The white strategy, after developing, involves a straight­forward kingside assault, spearheaded by the pawn on e5. A typical manoeu­vre is 1We2-e4, followed by retreating

5 cxd4 d6 6 lL!/3 lL!c6 135

the bishop to d3, when Black will be forced to compromise his dark squares with the defensive . . . g6.

8 0-0 8 exd6 seems gratuitously early,

but playable. For example 8 . . . .i.xd6 (for 8 . . . 1Wxd6!? see the note to 9 'ii'e2 in the illustrative game) 9 0-0 0-0 10 lLlc3 lL!xc3 (10 ... lL!f6 1 1 i.g5 .i.e7 as in Malevinsky-Yudasin, Kostroma 1985, has transposed to a reasonable IQP position for White that can also arise from many other openings in­cluding the Caro-Kann and Nimzo­Indian) 1 1 bxc3 1Wc7 12 Jld3 (12 1Wd3 !? is interesting) 12 . . . e5 13 lL!g5 g6 14 lL!e4 exd4 15 lL!xd6 1Wxd6 16 cxd4 1Wxd4 17 .i.e3 1Wd6 18 .i.e4 1h-1h Bernard-Nun, Warsaw 1978.

An alternative move-order to the game is 8 1We2 when 8 . . . i.e7 9 0-0 transposes. Instead 8 . . . dxe5?! 9 dxe5 Jlb4+ 10 i.d2 (10 lL!bd2 !? lL!a5 1 1 .i.b5+ Jld7 12 0-0 .i.xb5 1 3 1Wxb5+ 1Wd7 14 'ffe2 llc8 15 lL!e4 0-0 16 lLifg5 h6 17 1Wh5 with attacking chances for White, Gliksman-Bog­danovic, Sarajevo 1976) 10 .. . .i.xd2+ 1 1 lLibxd2 lL!a5 12 0-0 (12 .i.xd5 !? is interesting, e.g. 12 . . . exd5 13 lL!d4 ;t

136 5 cxd4 d6 6 l?:Jj3 l?Jc6

G.Schmid-Wachinger, Bavarian Ch 1986 or 12 ... 'ilfxd5 13 0-0 0-0 14 l?Je4) 12 . . . l?Jxc4 1 3 l?Jxc4 0-0 14 l?Jd6 � 15 :001 .i.d7 16 lld4 f5 ! = Enklaar­Najdorf, Wijk aan Zee 1973.

8 ... .i.e7 8 . . . l?Jc7!? 9 'ilfe2 b6 10 l?Jc3 d5 l l

.td3 l?Jb4 12 .tg5 'i!fd7 13 l?Jb5 (bet­ter than 1 3 llfcl l?Jxd3 14 'i!fxd3 h6 15 .th4 .ta6 Novak-Cvetkovic, Stary Smokovec 1977) 13 . . . l?Jxd3 14 l?Jxc7+ 'ii'xc7 15 'ii'xd3 'ii'c4 16 'ii'e3 h6 17 .i.h4 g5 18 .i.g3 .i.e? 19 h4? (19 llfc 1 ;t) 19 . . . .i.a6 20 llfd l 'ilfe2 :j: Preissmann-Ungureanu, Satu Mare 1979.

Also 8 . . . dxe5 9 dxe5 .tc5?! (for 9 . . . l?Jb6 see Game 4 1 , note to 8 .i.xd5) 10 'ii'e2 ;t a6? ! 1 1 l?Jbd2 l?Jf4 12 'ilfe4 l?Jg6 1 3 b3 'ilfc7 14 .tb2 b5 15 llac l ! .i.b7 16 .i.xe6! l?Jce7 17 llxc5 'ilfxc5 18 'ii'xb7 +- Chekhov­Groszpeter, Tjenti�te 1975.

9 1i'e2 Or: a) 9 l?Jc3 l?Jxc3 l 0 bxc3 dxe5 l l

l?Jxe5 l?Jxe5 12 dxe5 'ilfxd1 13 llxd1 .i.d7 is nothing for White, Miiller­Mohring, Halle 1974.

b) 9 l?Jbd2 dxe5 (9 . . . 0-0 10 l?Je4 l?Jb6 1 1 .td3 dxe5 12 dxe5 l?Jb4 13 .i.bl 'ilfxd1 14 llxd 1 .i.d7 = Gurge­nidze-Petrosian, Gagra 1953) 10 dxe5 l?Jb6 1 1 .i.b3 l?Jd4 12 l?Jxd4 'ilfxd4 13 'ii'e2 .td7 14 lld1 .tc6 15 l?Jc4 'ilfe4 = Antoshin-Averbakh, Lenin­grad 1956.

c) 9 exd6 !? is possible, when 9 . . . 'ilfxd6 10 l?Jc3 0-0 gives an iso­lated queen pawn position that looks typical, but in fact this exact position does not arise from other openings:

c l ) 1 1 lle1 l?Jxc3 (l l . ..lld8 12 .tb3 !? CO) Rausis-Lechtynsky, Oster­skars 1995) 12 bxc3 b6 with two il­lustrative examples:

e l l ) 13 .i.d3 .i.b7 14 'ii'e2 llac8 l 5 .i.d2 llfe8 16 h4 'ilfd5 17 .i.e4 'ii'h5 ac Schandorff-Rausis, Copen­hagen 1995.

c12) 13 h4 .i.b7 14 l?Jg5 .txg5 15 .i.xg5 llfc8 16 .i.d3 l?Je7 17 llc1 h6 18 .td2 00 19 lle4 l?Jf6 20 lle3 lidS 2 1 llg3 �f8 22 .i.e3 ;t Dorf­man-G.Zaichik, Beltsy 1979.

c2) 1 1 'ilfe2 !? transposes to the game Browne-Hort, Venice 1971 (a game which started life from the 'chase' variation of Alekhine's De­fence): l l . ..l?Jxc3 12 bxc3 b6 13 .td3 .tb7 14 'ilfe4 and we are back in lines examined briefly in Game 43, albeit a slightly favourable version for White. Food for thought.

d) 9 a3: d1) 9 ... b6 !? 10 :tel (10 'ilfe2 .i.b7

l l lld1 aS ! ? 12 .txd5 exd5 13 l?Jc3 ) .ta6 14 'ilfe1 ? ! .i.c4 15 l?Jd2 .i.d3 16 l?Jf3 .tc2 17 lld2 .i.b3 l8 l?Je2 0-0 + Herbert-Miles, Buenos Aires OL 1978) 10 . . . dxe5 1 1 dxe5 (1 1 l?Jxe5 l?Jxe5 12 llxe5 .tb7 13 l?Jc3 .tf6 14 .tb5+ �f8 + Angelov-Nicevski, Bulgaria 1975) 1 l . . . .tb7 12 .i.d2!? 0-0 13 .i.d3 llc8 14 'ilfe2 l?Ja5 oo An­gelov-Cvetkovic, Bulgaria 1975.

d2) Interestingly 9 . . . 0-0 10 .i.d3 leaves White a tempo down on a po­sition from Chapter 13 . But in that chapter Black avoids that dubious line anyway, and here White still re­tains attacking chances: 10 . . . .td7 1 1 'ilfe2 dxe5 12 dxe5 'ilfc7 13 .i.d2 llfd8 14 h4 .teS 15 l?Jc3 l?Jxc3 16 .i.xc3

:d7 17 :ad1 Aad8 18 h5 ± Kurajica­Robatsch, Thzla 1981 or 1 O .. . dxe5 1 1 dxe5 1Wc7 1 2 1We2 b6 13 .td2 .tb7 14 l0c3 l0xc3 15 .txc3 Aac8 16 Aac 1 g6 17 h4 Afd8 18 h5 ;t Cripe­Browne, Reno 1994.

9 ••• 0·0 a) 9 .. . 1Wc7 10 .txd5 (10 1i'e4 dxe5

1 1 dxe5 .td7 12 .td2 0-0 13 .txd5 exd5 14 1Wxd5 .tf5 15 1Wc4 Aad8 16 Ae1 is slightly better for White, Ser­mek-Kozul, Portoroz 1993) 10 .. . exd5 1 1 ltlc3 .te6 12 ltlb5 (12 .tf4 dxe5 13 l0xe5 1fb6 14 l0xc6 bxc6 15 l:fd1 0-0 16 Aac 1 Afe8 17 l0a4 1Wa5 18 b3 .ta3 19 Ac3 .td7 = Sermek­Kozul, Ljubljana 1993) 12 . . . 1i'd7 1 3 .tg5 dxe5 1 4 .txe7 1Wxe7 1 5 dxe5 0-0 16 Aadl Afd8 17 h3 .tf5 18 ltlfd4 .tg6 19 f4 f6 20 f5 .tf7 21 e6 ± Godena-Kozul, Reggio Emilia 1993.

b) 9 . . . b6?! 10 l0c3 (10 1We4 .tb7 1 1 1Wg4 1i'd7 !? 12 1Wxg7 0-0-0 gave Black a dangerous attack in the game Yagupov-Vulfson, Moscow 1989) 10 . . . l0xc3 1 1 bxc3 .tb7 12 d5 exd5 13 .txd5 0-0 14 1We4 Ac8 (14 . . . 1Wc7 15 exd6 1Wxd6, Vi.Ivanov-Umansky, Russia 1995, is a puzzling reference annotated in lnformator 64; the un­mentioned 16 ltld4 +- wins out of hand) 15 ltld4 1Wc7 16 ltlb5 1i'b8 17 .ta3 ± Zakharov-Korneev, Moscow 1995.

c) 9 ... l0b6 (? - Dolmatov, but not so clear) 10 .tb3 d5 1 1 l0c3 .td7 ( l l . . .a5 !? 12 a3 .td7 13 .tc2 a4 14 .te3 l0a5 15 l0d2 l0ac4 16 l0xc4 l0xc4 17 .td3 Ac8 18 f4 1Wb6 Strik­ovic-Velikov, Kavala 1990) 12 .tf4 (another plan is 1 2 1i'e3, e.g. 12 . . . a5 1 3 1Wf4 a4 14 .td1 l0a5 15 1i'g3 ;t

5 cxd4 d6 6 l0f3 l0c6 137

Gliksman-M�hring, Stary Smoko­vec 1976 or 12 1We3 Ac8 13 1Wf4 0-0 14 1i'g3 f5 15 .th6 ;t Bergstr�m­Kotronias, Gausdal 1993) 12 . . . a6 13 Aacl Ac8 14 Afd1 ltla5?! 15 .tc2 g5?! 16 .te3 ± Dolmatov-Milov, Haifa 1995.

10 1i'e4 (D) For the more critical 10 l0c3 see

the next illustrative game. White's idea (with 10 1We4) is to force a weakening of the black king position by playing .td3, not to capture twice on d5 . Pawn grabbing would not compensate for the loss of the valu­able light-squared bishop.

10 Ad1 has been played a few times, but serves no real purpose at present.

Or 10 a3 1Wb6 (10 .. . dxe5?! 1 1 dxe5 1Wc7 12 1We4 .td7 was followed by 13 .tg5?! l0xe5 ! 14 1Wxe5 1Wxc4 15 .txe7 l0xe7 16 1i'd6 l0g6! 17 1i'xd7 Afd8 18 1i'xb7 Adb8 1h- 1h in Chan­dler-Leontxo Garcia, Alicante 1979 but 13 .td3 would have been strong) 1 1 Ad 1 ( 1 1 1We4 ltla5 and White has nothing after 12 .td3 f5 13 exf6 ltlxf6 14 'ifb4 l0b3 15 Aa2 l0xcl 16 Axel h6 Grigorian-Sveshni.kov, Moscow 1983 or 12 l0bd2 ltlxc4 13 l0xc4 1Wc7 Marjanovic-Simic, Cet­inje 1993) 1 1 . . .l0a5 = Sveshni.kov­Timoshchenko, USSR 1974.

10 ... b6?! This is a mistake as it actively as­

sists White's plan: now 1 1 .td3 can­not be met by 1 l . . .f5, due to 12 exf6 l0xf6 1 3 1Wxc6. Therefore (along with 10 . . . l0db4!? 1 1 exd6 1i'xd6 12 l0c3 lba5 !?) several 'waiting' moves could be seriously considered:

138 5 cxd4 d6 6 !i:Jj3 !i:Jc6

a) 10 . . . �h8 1 1 i.d3 ( 1 1 a3 !? ;!;) 1 1 . . .f5 12 exf6 !i:Jxf6 13 'ffe2 'ffb6 14 i.e3 00 15 lLlc3 !i:Jxc3 16 bxc3 i.d7 = Chekhov-Dorfman, USSR 1975.

b) 10 . . . 'ffb6 1 1 exd6 i.xd6 12 lLlc3 !i:Jf6 13 'ffh4 !i:Je7 14 !iJe4 fue4 15 'ffxe4 i.d7 16 i.d3 !i:Jf5 17 d5 exd5 18 'ffxd5 1/z-1/z Ostojic-Vaulin, Belgrade 1993.

c) 10 ... .:.e8 1 1 .:.e1 dxe5 12 dxe5 !i:Ja5 1 3 i.d3 g6 14 i.h6 i.d7 15 !i:Jbd2 i.c6 16 'ji'g4 tlJb4 17 i.e4 !i:Jd3 18 i.xd3 'ji'xd3 = Smagin-Ka­legin, St Petersburg 1993.

d) 10 . . . i.d7 1 1 a3 (1 1 i.d3 !? f5 12 exf6 !i:Jxf6 1 3 'ji'e2 tDd5 14 !i:Jc3 !i:Jcb4 15 i.e4 CCI Sermek-Kersten, Biel 1994) 1 l . . .!i:Ja5 12 i.d3 f5 13 exf6 !i:Jxf6 14 'ji'e2 (14 'ffe3 !i:Jd5 15 'ffe2 !i:Jb3 16 i.xh7+ �h8 17 i.g6 initiated crazy complications which favoured Black in Efimov-Azmai­parashvili, USSR 1979) 14 . . . !i:Jb3 =i= Chekhov-Cvetkovic, USSR v Yugo­slavia 1976.

e) 10 ... dxe5 1 1 dxe5 b6 12 i.d3 g6 1 3 i.h6 .:.e8 14 tiJbd2 tDdb4 15 i.c4 i.b7 16 'fff4 !i:Jd3 !? 17 i.xd3 'ffxd3 18 i.g5 !i:Jd4 19 tlJxd4 i.xg5 20 'ji'xg5 'ffxd4 21 :rei CCI Chemiaev­Neverov, St Petersburg 1995.

f) 10 . . . 'ffc7 11 i.d3 (1 1 i.g5? dxe5 12 i.xe7 !i:Jdxe7 13 dxe5 tlJg6 14 .:.e 1 !i:Jcxe5 ! 15 !i:Jxe5 !i:Jxe5 16 'ffxe5 'ffxc4 + Yanovsky-Ko�ul, Bel­grade 1988) 1 1 . . .g6 (after 1 1 . . .f5 12 exf6 !i:Jxf6 13 'ffe2 White will gain time when lLlc3 comes) 12 .ih6 .:.d8 13 !i:Jbd2 dxe5 14 dxe5 lbb6 (in sev­eral games Black has gone passive with 14 . . . .id7 15 a3 .te8) 15 :rei (after 15 .:.ac l !i:Jd7 16 i.b5 Black neatly tricked his way to equality in Strikovic-Ko�ul, Pula 1990: 16 ... !i:Jdxe5 17 !i:Jxe5 'ji'xe5 18 i.xc6 'ffh5 ! 19 .ixb7 .ixb7 20 'ji'xb7 .td6 21 g3 'ffxh6 22 !i:Jc4 'fff8 23 .:.fd1 liz_ liz) 15 ... !i:Jd7 16 i.fl lLlc5 17 'fff4 ! Sermek-Dimitrov, Velden 1993.

ll .td3 Now Black has to weaken his dark

squares, which White must then seek to exploit- typically with moves like 'ii'f4 and .tg5 if given time. Instead on 1 1 i.xd5 exd5 12 'ffxd5 Black has excellent compensation for the pawn after either 12 . . . .ib7 or 12 . . . i.a6. A plausible alternative is 1 1 h4 i.b7 12 'ffg4 �h8 13 .txd5 (13 .lg5 .txg5 14 !i:Jxg5 ! h6 15 !i:Jf3 ;!; Sveshnikov) 13 . . . exd5 14 !i:Jc3 dxe5 15 dxe5 f6 (15 . . . d4 ! =) 16 exf6 .ixf6 17 i.g5 ! Sveshnikov-Gufeld, Sochi 1979.

11 •.• g6 12 .ib6 .:.eS 13 lDc3 13 !i:Jbd2 allowed Black to equal­

ise with 13 . . . !i:Jdb4 14 i.b1 i.a6 15 .:.d1 dxe5 16 dxe5 'ffd5 = in Dvoret­sky-Taimanov, Vilnius 1975.

White still has chances of an edge with 13 a3 i.b7 14 !i:Jbd2 .:.c8 15 l:.ad 1 (15 .:.acl .:.c7 16 .:.re 1 dxe5 17 dxe5 !i:Jb8 18 .:.xc7 'ii'xc7 19 'ji'g4 !i:Jd7 20 h4 !i:Jc5 21 i.b1 i.a6 22 h5

.i.d3 ; Sermek-Korul, Portorof 1996) 15 . . . lt!a5 161i' g4 dxe5 17 ltlxe5 lili6 18 Wf4 lt!c6 19 lt!df3 ;t Platonov­Agzamov, USSR 1977.

13 . . . l0eb4 14 .i.el Or 14 .i.b5 .i.d7 15 .i.xd7 Wxd7

16 i.g5 !? (16 a3 lt!xc3 17 bxc3 ltlc6 18 l:fe1 dxe5 19 dxe5 l:ad8 ; Stri­punsky-Mitenkov, Moscow 1991) 16 . . . dxe5 17 dxe5 lt!xc3 18 bxc3 lt!d5 19 c4 lt!b4 20 Wh4 l:ac8 21 l:ad1 Wc7 22 l:d4 ;I; Sanz-Martin, Alicante 1978.

14 .. ..tb7 15 ltlxd5 .i.xc:IS If 15 . . . lt!xdS White has 16 .i.b5

lt!c3 17 Wxb7 lt!xb5 18 l:ac 1 ;I; Berelovich.

16 Wf4 .i.xf3 17 .i.:xf3 c:IS?! 18 i.el! ± a6 19 :ret Wd7 20 a3 lZX6 21 l:c3 l:ec8 22 l:b3 l:c7 23 i.d3 Wd8 24 l:el b5 25 l:ee3 (White's pieces are all massed for the fmal kingside assault) 25 ... l:ac8 26 l:ef3 i.f8 27 g4! (avoiding any back-rank mate tricks, such as 27 .i.g5? lt!xd4 !) 27 ... lt!b8 28 i.g5 We8 29 i.f6 ltld7 30 l:xh7 �h7 (or 30 . . . lt!xf6 3 1 Wxf6 �xh7 32 l:h3+ i.h6 3 3 g5) 31 l:h3+ 1-0

Game 43 Sveshnikov - Am. Rodriguez

Cienfuegos 1979

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lt!f6 3 e5 ltlc:IS 4 d4 cxd4 5 W ltlc6 6 cxd4 d6 7 .i.c4 e6 8 0·0 i.e7 9 We2 0.0 10 liXJ!? (D)

With this move White aims for fast development at the cost of giv­ing himself a weak pawn on c3. There invariably follows the well­known manoeuvre 1t'e4 and .i.d3 to

5 cxd4 d6 6 ltlf3 ltlc6 139

B

soften up the dark squares around Black's king. Black is certainly not without defensive resources (the de­viations 13 . . . Wc7 or 15 . . . ltla5 in the main line for example), and I suspect the position is objectively rather un­clear. However in practice White can find it much easier to play, especially as he has the automatic attacking plan h4-hS.

10 ... dxe5 Of course 10 . . . lt!xc3 1 1 bxc3 is

another move-order, with the follow­ing possibilities if Black doesn't then exchange on e5:

a) 1 l . . .i.d7 12 i.d3 dS 13 h4 l:c8 14 ltlg5 g6 15 lt!xh7 (forcing a draw, but of course White can continue otherwise) 15 .. . �xh7 16 Wh5+ �g8 17 i.xg6 fxg6 18 1i'xg6+ �h8 19 Wh6+ �g8 Jf2. 1f2 Grosar-Milov, Ge­neva 1996.

b) 1 1 . . .d5? ! 12 i.d3 lt!a5 (alter­natively 12 . . . f5 1 3 exf6 gxf6 14 l:e1 :n 1 5 lt!h4 .i.d7 16 Wh5 .i.d6 17 i.h6 ltle7 18 l:e3 l:c8 19 f4 i.e8 20 l:g3+ �h8 21 Wg4 f5 22 Wg5 1-0 Van der Sterren-Van der Vliet, Wijk aan Zee 1977) 1 3 h4! (offering a pawn to open the h-file) 13 . . . i.xh4 14 g3 i.e7 15 �g2 f6 16 exf6 i.xf6

140 5 cxd4 d6 6 li:l/3 li:lc6

1 7 ll.h 1 g6 1 8 li:leS .*.xeS 1 9 dxeS :n 20 W'g4 ± li:lc6 21 i.xg6! hxg6 22 W'xg6+ ll.g7 23 W'hS ! 'iff8 24 ll.h4 li:le7 25 i.a3 ! 1 -0 Sveshnikov­Rashkovsky, Sochi 1976.

c) 1 1 . . .b6 12 i.d3 i.b7 13 'lt'e4 ( 13 exd6!? W'xd6 14 li:lg5 .*.xgS 15 .*.xg5 li:le7 16 'ifg4 li:lg6 11 h4 f5 18 W'h3 h6 19 i.d2 ;t Sveshnikov-Kro­gius, Sochi 1 976) 13 . . . g6 14 .*.h6 ll.e8 15 ll.ad1 li:la5 (or 15 . . . 11.c8 16 '1Vf4 f5 17 exf6 i.xf6 18 ll.fe1 ± Nun-Mozny, Czechoslovakia 1978; 15 . . . dxe5 is best. transposing back to the illustrative game) 16 W'f4 i.xf3 17 W'xf3 ;!; Hermann-Miles, Bad Lau­terberg 1917.

11 dxeS li:lxc3 12 bxc3 b6 Or: a) 12 . . . '1t'a5 !? is unclear: a1) 13 ll.b1 ll.d8 14 1i'e4 'lt'xc3 15

i.g5 i.xg5 16 li:lxg5 h6 ! 17 W'h7+ �f8 18 .i.xe6 hxg5 1 9 .i.xc8 ll.axc8 20 W'h8+ �e7 21 'ifxg7 li:lxe5 + V.L.Ivanov-Saltaev, Moscow 1995.

a2) 13 W'e4 W'a4 14 i.g5 i.d7 15 ll.fd1 ll.ad8 16 i.xe7 li:lxe7 17 '1t'xb7 1i'xc4 112- •h Pavasovic-Sulava, Nova Gorica 1996.

a3) 13 ll.e1 lld8 (13 . . . 1i'xc3 !?) 14 .i.d2 b6 15 W'e4 i.b7 16 li:lg5 g6 11 'it'h4 h5 18 11t'f4 i.xg5 19 'lt'xg5 ;!; Rahls-Ostermeyer, Bundesliga 1986.

b) 12 ... 11t'c7 leads to similarly murky play:

b1) 13 i.d3 b6 ( 13 . . . 11.d8 14 lle1 i.d7 15 i.g5 h6 16 i.xh6! gxh6 17 W'e4 f5 18 exf6 i.xf6 19 'lt'h7+ �f8 20 ll.e4 was a very dangerous sacri­fice in Rausis-Piesina, Riga Z 1995) 14 lle1 (for 14 'lt'e4 see the main game) 14 . . . .i.b7 15 li:lg5 .i.xg5 16

i.xg5 li:le7 ( 16 . . . li:lxe5 17 'lt'xe5 'lt'xe5 1 8 ll.xe5 f6 1 9 ll.xe6 ;!;) 17 '1t'h5 li:lg6 18 ll.e3 'lt'xc3 19 ll.d 1 "" Gorelov-Maiorov, USSR 1981 .

b2) 13 W'e4: b21 ) 13 . . . .i.d7 14 .i.d3 (an im­

provement over 14 ll.e1 ll.ac8 15 .i.g5 li:lxe5 !? 16 .i.xe7 li:lxf3+ 17 gxf3 W'xc4 18 .i.xf8 '1Vxe4 1 9 fxe4 �xf8 and the endgame should be a draw, S veshnikov-Cvitan, Til burg 1993) 14 .i.d3 g6 15 i.h6 llfd8 16 llfe1 i.e8 17 ll.ad1 ll.d5 1 8 c4 ll.c5 19 'lff4 ll.d8 20 i.gS i.xg5 21 W'xg5 'lt'e7 22 'lff4 �g7 23 h4 ;!; with the usual play against Black's dark squares, Manca­Kozul, Reggio Emilia 1993.

b22) 13 ... 11.d8 14 lle1 ( 14 i.d3 g6 15 .i.h6 i.d7 16 llad1 i.e8 17 'ii'f4 'ii'a5 18 i.e4 1i'xc3 19 llc1 'ifa3 20 .i.xc6 bxc6 Machulsky-Ruban, Sibenik 1990 and now 21 i.g5 ll.ab8 22 .i.xe7 'ifxe7 23 li:lg5 "" is given by Ruban) 14 . . . i.d7 15 li:lg5 g6 16 'lt'h4 h5 17 W'f4 :rs 18 i.d3 ll.ad8 1 9 li:lh7 ! i.c8 (19 . . . �xh7 20 'iVh6+ �g8 21 .i.xg6) 20 W'h6 li:lxe5 21 i.f4 li:lg4 22 'ifxf8+ ll.xf8 23 .i.xc7 �xh7 24 h3 ± Motwani-Grosar, Moscow OL 1994. However I expressly dis­claim responsibility if there is a flaw in this maniacal variation!

13 'ife4 i.b7 1 3 . . . 'ifc7 !? has the advantage of

freeing the d8-square for Black's king's rook after 14 .i.d3 g6 15 i.h6 lld8 ""· A good example is Mukha­metov-Blasek, Moscow 1990 which continued 16 ll.ad1 .i.b7 17 'iff4 ll.d5 18 i.e4 ll.xd1 19 ll.xd 1 ll.d8 20 ll.xd8+ i.xd8 (the wholesale ex­changes should always ease Black's

defensive task, but as we shall see he must still be vigilant) 21 h4 lLlaS 22 ltlg5 .i.d5? 23 .i.xd5 exd5 24 ltle6! 'fle7 25 ltlxd8 'ifxd8 26 e6! f6 (Black is already lost: 26 . . . fxe6 27 'fle5 'ife7 28 'ilb8+ �h7 29 Wh8) 27 'ifd4 'fle7 (27 . . . ltlc6 28 e7 ! +-) 28 'ii'xd5 ltlb7 29 'ii'c6 ltld6 30 'ii'a8+ ltle8 3 1 'ii'c8 1-0. In spite of this de­bacle 13 . . . 'ii'c7 is a valid plan, as Black has chances of gaining a tempo on the main line by getting his rook immediately to the d-file.

However White can consider vary­ing with 14 ..tg5 !? .i.b7 (14 . . . ..txg5 15 ltlxg5 g6 16 l:.ae1 h6? 17 .i.xe6! ± was a nice combination in Howell­Ward, British Ch 1994 - 17 ... fxe6 18 ltlxe6 .i.xe6 19 'ii'xg6+ �h8 20 'ii'xh6+ 'ii'h7 21 'ii'xe6 nets four pawns for the piece) 15 ..td3 g6 16 'ii'h4 .i.xg5 (16 . . . l:.fe8 17 l:.ae1 .i.f8 18 l:.e3 ltle7 19 ltld4 lllf5 20 ..txf5 exf5 Sax-Kagan, Hastings 1978, and now 21 f4 would have favoured White according to Sax) 17 lllxg5 h5. Now White should continue 18 f4 or 18 l:.ae1 ac , since 18 l:.fe1, as in Preissmann-Ghitescu, Buenos Aires 1978, would allow Black various de­fensive possibilities including the surprising 18 ... lllxe5 ! 19 'ii'g3 'ii'xc3 ! +.

14 .i.d3 g6 15 .i.h6 l:.e8 The zwischen:zug 15 . . . ltla5 ! ? has

the idea that White's queen cannot currently go the f4-square (the d3-bishop would en prise): 16 'ile3 l:.e8 17 ..tb5 (17 lllg5 'ild5 18 'ii'g3 l:.ac8 19 .i.e4 1Wc4 20 Jlxb7 ltlxb7 21 l:.ad1 'ii'xc3 22 l:.d3 'fkc7 23 l:.f3 ..txg5 24 1Wxg5 1We7 25 'ii'f4 f5 26

5 cxd4 d6 6 li:Jj3 ltlc6 141

exf6 ± Maksimenko-Neverov, Co­penhagen 1994; White always had play for the pawn, but 23 . . . ltld8 was an alternative) 17 ... .i.c6 18 .i.xc6 (18 l:.fd1 'fkc7 19 ltld4 l:.ed8 20 ..tn ..ta4 21 l:.e1 ac Zhuravlev-Gufeld, USSR 1979) 18 ... ltlxc6 19 l:.ad1 'ii'c7 20 'ii'f4 l:.ad8 21 h4 l:.xd1 22 l:.xd1 l:.d8 23 l:.xd8+ .i.xd8 24 h5 'ii'd7 25 ..ig5 ..txg5 26 'fkxg5. This was the game Kharlov-Gallego, Canete 1994, where logically Black should have equality due to successful exchanges on the d-file, but actually White may still claim a lingering edge due to the plan of h6.

16 l:.ad1 16 'fke3 !? is an interesting idea,

intending not to contest the d-file and thus avoiding later major piece exchanges. 16 . . . ..tc5 (dangerous is 16 . . . 'fkd5? 17 l:.ad1 'ii'c5 18 'ii'f4 ! 'ii'xc3 19 .i.e4 ± Markun-Sale, Bled 1 995 with threats of l:.c 1 or l:.d7) 17 'fke2 1Wc7 18 l:.fe1 ltle7 19 l:.ac 1 lllf5 20 .i.g5 .i.e7 21 ..te4 l:.ac8? (21 . . . .i.xe4 22 1Wxe4 l:.ac8 is better, e.g. 23 1Wf4 f6) 22 .i.xb7 'fkxb7 23 ..tf6 (planning g4) 23 . . . h5 24 h3 b5 25 g4 ltlg7 26 ltld2 l:.ed8 27 ltle4 l:.c4 28 'fke3 +- Westerinen-Hart­ston, Esbjerg 1979.

16 . • • 'ii'c7 17 'ii'f4 l:.ad8 (D) 18 h4!? The habitual plan for White: in

addition to giving attacking possi­bilities this useful move also cancels out any potential bank-rank mate problems. Less direct are 18 ..te4 l:.xd 1 19 l:.xd 1 l:.d8 20 l:.xd8+ lllxd8 21 ..txb7 lllxb7 22 1Wa4 'ii'd8 23 ltld4 = Men-Wolff, USA Ch 1992

142 5 cxd4 d6 6 liJf3 liJc6

w

and 1 8 :re1 :d5 19 i.e4 :xd1 20 :Xd1 :ds 21 :xd8+ liJxd8 22 i.xb7 liJxb7 23 Wa4 i.f8 24 i.xf8 �xf8 25 Wxa7 Wxc3 26 h4 1/z- 1/z Barle­Jansa, Sombor 1976.

18 ••• liJas 19 lilgS fS! A clever way of dealing with the

attack on f7, based on the tactical point 20 liJxe6? Wc6 threatening mate on g2 and the knight on e6. In­stead 19 ... i.xg5? 20 i.xg5 Wc6 21 f3 leaves Black's kingside dark squares fatally weak, while 19 . . . f6? fails tac­tically to 20 liJxh7 ! �xh7 21 i.g7 ! !

(Sveshnikov) 2l . . .�g8 (2l . . .�xg7 22 exf6+ and 23 Wxc7) 22 Wh6 Wc6 23 f3 with a decisive attack for White.

20 i.bS! :xdl 21 i.xe8! :Xfi+ 22 �xfl Wxc3 23 i.f7+ �h8 24 �gl (heading back to safety; now if 24 . . . Wc6, 25 Wg3 ± Sveshnikov) 24 ••• i.dS 25 hS Wc4 26 Wg3 Wg4 27 Wxg4 fxg4 28 liJxe6 i.xe6 29 i.xe6 liJc6 (29 . . . gxh5 30 f4) 30 h:x:g6 h:x:g6 31 i.f4 ± (White has the bishop pair and is about to win a pawn) 31 ••• gS 32 i.h2?! (32 i.g3 intending i.xg4, followed by e6 and f4) 32 ••• i.cS 33 i.xg4 �g7 34 i.d7 liJb4 35 a4 liJd3 36 � i.d4?! (36 ... �g6) 37 e6 i.cS 38 .tb8 a6 39 i.c7 �rs 40 .td8 liJJd'l 41 i.c8 liJe4 42 i.xa6 �e8 43 e7 i.xe7 44 i.xb6 i.d8 45 .tbS+ �e7 46 i.xd8+ �xd8 47 �e2 �c7 48 m liJf6 49 aS �b7 so a6+ �b6 51 .tc4 �a7 52 �e3 �b6 53 �d4 liJhs s4 �e4 liJr4 ss g3 liJg2 56 m 1-0

1 6 5 cxd4 d6 6 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 7 i..c4 lbb6

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbr6 3 e5 ttld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d6 6 tLlrJ tLlc6 7 i.c4 ttlb6 (D)

The former main-line position arising after 8 i.b5 dxe5 9 ttlxe5 i.d7 (games 45 and 46) gives White no advantage. This was established in some top-level Soviet Champion­ship games in the 1970s, and the as­sessment has not changed since. This is hardly surprising, considering that the Soviet players involved in the original games were legends such as Tal, Petrosian, Polugaevsky and Kasparov (all playing Black against Sveshnikov of course !). This line is the principal reason that White has switched his move-orders over the

years, and that most games now pro­ceed with the move-order 5 ttlf3 (as per later chapters).

There have, however, been some recent developments with the more dynamic move 8 i.b3 (which mer­ited only two references in the pre­vious edition, Sicilian 2 d). White has been experimenting with a specu­lative pawn sacrifice (see Game 44 ), and further games are needed for evaluation - as yet the move has not been extensively tested at grandmas­ter level.

Game 44 Sermek - Sveshnikov

Bled 1996

1 e4 c5 2 c3 ttlf6 3 e5 tbd5 4 ttlf3 ttlc6 5 d4 cxd4 6 cxd4 d6 7 i.c4 ttlb6 8 i.b3

This sideline (generally involving an unclear pawn sacrifice) has been the subject of some interesting atten­tion in the 1 990s (for 8 i.c4 see games 45 and 46). Certainly if White could revive 8 .i.b3, the implications for the whole . . . ttlf6 defence would be very considerable.

s ... dxe5 Or: a) 8 . . . g6 9 ttlg5 (9 e6 fxe6 10 h4

i.g7 1 1 h5 e5 1 2 dxe5 .i.f5 1 3 hxg6

144 5 cxd4 d6 6 &i:lf3 &ilc6 7 J..c4 tDb6

hxg6 14 l:txh8+ J..xh8 15 exd6 11fxd6 16 1fxd6 exd6 17 &ilh4 with equal­ity, Yagupov-Eriksson, Minsk 1993) 9 . . . d5 10 f4 J..g7 1 1 &ilc3 f6 12 &ilf3 J..e6 13 0-0 i Karpatchev-Gunnars­son, Gausdal 1993.

b) 8 ... e6 (rather passive, but this position can be reached from other move-orders) 9 11fe2 (for 9 exd6 see Chapter 17) 9 . . . dxe5 (9 . . . d5 10 &ilc3 a5 1 1 J..g5 J..e7 12 J..xe7 11fxe7 13 11fb5 !? 11fb4 14 a3 11fxb5 15 &ilxb5 q;e7 16 a4 J..d7 17 q;d2 h6 18 :ac1 ;t Vlassov-Scherbakov, Russia 1995) 10 dxe5 &ild4 1 1 &ilxd4 11fxd4 12 0-0 J..e7 13 l:td1 ± Yagupov-Furman, Smolensk Alekhine 1992.

c) 8 . . . d5 !? 9 &ilh4!? (to stop ... J..f5 or . . . J..g4, although after 9 J..e3 J..f5 10 &ilh4 J..xb1 1 1 l:txb1 e6 12 &ilf3 J..b4+ Schandorff-Wang Ziti, Co­penhagen 1995, White would have kept an edge with 1 3 J..d2) 9 . . . a5 (9 . . . e6 10 &ilf3 J..d7 1 1 &ilc3 J..e7 12 J..c2 &ilc4 13 0-0 11fa5 14 a3 0-0-0 15 '11fd3 g5 16 b3 g4 17 &ilg5 ;!; Har-Zvi - Shmuter, Rishon le Zion 1995) 10 &ilc3 a4 1 1 J..c2 a3 12 bxa3 e6 13 g3 &ilc4 14 0-0 J..e7 15 1Wg4 q;f8 16 &ilf3 h6 17 h4 f5 18 exf6 J..xf6 19 '1Wf4 g5 !? 20 hxg5 hxg5 with very unclear play in Yagupov-Ragozin, Russia 1992, though both sides have other possibilities en route of course.

9 dS &£las A valid alternative is 9 . . . &ilb4!? 10

&ilc3 e6 1 1 J..g5 J..e7 and now: a) 12 dxe6 J..xe6 13 J..xe6 fxe6

14 J..xe7 11fxd1+ 15 l:txd1 q;xe7 16 &ilxe5 :bd8 17 q;e2 lb6d.S 18 &ilxd5+ l:txd5 19 l:txd5 exd5 20 &ild3 1f2-lf2 Vl.Ivanov-Mi.lvanov, Moscow 1995.

b) 12 J..xe7 11fxe7 13 d6 1i'f6 14 &ile4?! (14 0-0!? 0-0 15 l:te1 &ilc6 16 1Wd3 with interesting compensation) 14 ... 1Wg6 15 11fe2 &ilc6 � Pavasovit­Volzhin, Budapest 1995. The game continued 16 0-0 f5 17 d7 + &ilxd7 18 &ilh4 1Wh6 19 &ild6+ � 20 &ilhxf5 exf5 21 l:tad1 &ilb6 22 &ilf7 11ff6 23 &ilxh8 J..e6 24 l:td6 &ild4 25 11fh5 &ilxb3 26 axb3 q;g8 +.

10 M tbxb3 10 . . . f6, while obviously risky, is

not out of the question, e.g. 1 1 J..e3 g6 12 0-0 J..g7 13 J..c5 q;n 14 l:te1 &ilbc4 15 &ile4 J..f5 16 d6 e6 � Rau­sis-Milller, Germany 1995. Alterna­tively 10 . . . g6 1 1 &ilxe5 J..g7 12 J..f4 &ild7 13 11fe2 0-0 14 0-0 &ilxe5 15 J..xe5 J..g4 16 1We3 &ilxb3 17 axb3 11fb6 18 J..xg7 1fxe3 19 fxe3 q;xg7 20 l:tf4 J..d7 21 l:tc4 l:tfc8 and the ending should probably have been tenable for Black in Rausis-Sadler, Gausdal 1995, though in the game White gained a clear advantage after 22 e4 a6 23 e5 J..f5 24 q;f2 l:txc4 25 bxc4 l:tc8 26 l:ta4 J..d7 27 l:tb4 b5 28 cxb5 axb5 29 q;e3 e6 30 dxe6 fxe6 3 1 h4.

11 1Wxb3 e6 1 l . . .g6 12 &ilxe5 J..g7 13 J..f4 0-0

14 l:td1 &ild7 15 &ilxd7 1i'xd7 16 0-0 ;!; Yagupov-Kozyrev, Podolsk 1992.

12 tbxeS!? Inferior are 12 J..g5? ! J..e7 13

l:td1 exd5 14 J..xe7 11fxe7 15 &ilxd5 &ilxd5 16 l:txd5 f6 17 0-0 J..e6 18 11fa4+ q;f7 + Roos-Ligterink, Am­sterdam 1978 and 12 dxe6? ! J..xe6 1 3 11fb5+ 1Wd7 14 &ilxe5 (14 1Wxe5 J..b4 15 .. xg7 0-0-0 16 0-0 l:tdg8 with an attack, Pachman-Mazel, corr.

5 cxd4 d6 6 lDf3 lDc6 7 .i.c4 liJb6 145

1986) 14 . . ... xb5 15 lDxb5 .i.b4+ 16 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 17 �d2 0-0-0+ 18 �e2 ltd5 + Kresoja-M.Makarov, Bel­grade 1993.

12 ... exd5 12 ... lDxd5 13 'ii'b5+ .i.d7 14 1i'xb7

;!; was Yagupov-Tratar, Groningen 1993.

13 .i.e3 .i.d6 14 .. b5+ � (D) Or 14 . . . .i.d7 15 lDxd7 1i'xd7 16

0-0-0 and now: a) 16 ... 0-0-0 17 .,a5 ! .,c6 (alter­

natively 17 . . . lDc4 1 8 .. xa7 lDxe3 19 fxe3 .. c6 20 ltxd5 .i.b8 21 1i'd4 ± was Sermek-Olivier, Cannes 1995) 18 .. xa7 i.e? 19 �b1 lthe8 20 .i.d4! lte6 21 ltc 1 lDc4 (21 .. . �d7 22 lDa4 ! +- V.L.Ivanov) 22 b3 lDrl2+ 23 �b2 1i'a6 24 .. xa6 ltxa6 25 f3 ! ± V.L.Ivanov-Mirzoev, Moscow 1994 - Black's knight on d2 is trapped.

b) 16 ..... xb5!? 17 lDxb5 �d7 18 .i.xb6 axb6 19 ltxd5 �c6 20 ltxd6+ (obviously White's position is a little better, but rather than simplification to a double-rook ending 20 lthd1 !? ;!; could be tried) 20 . . . �xb5 21 lte1 ltac8+ 22 �d2 lthd8 23 ltxd8 ltxd8+ 24 �c3 ltc8+ 25 �b3 ltc5 1h-1h V.L.Ivanov-Kriventsov, Mos­cow 1994.

15 0-0-0!? With very unclear compensation

for the pawn: if 15 . . . �xe5 White's idea is 16 lDxd5 lDd7 17 .. b4+ �e8 18 lthe1 with a tremendous attack for the piece.

1S ... �e6 16 lDt"3 Supporting the knight with 16 f4

is also natural: a) 16 . . . g6 17 �d4 f6 18 lDd3 ltc8

19 �b1 ltc4 20 lDc5 �f5+ 21 �a1 .. c8 22 lDb3 �g7 23 lDxd5 lDxd5 24 1i'xd5 ltd8 25 lthe1 i.c2 26 i.xf6+ �xf6 27 1i'g5+ �f7 28 ltxd6 ltxd6 29 .. e7+ �g8 30 1i'xd6 i.xb3 3 1 axb3 l:lcl+ 3 2 ltxcl .. xc1+ 3 3 �a2 with an extra pawn in Rausis-Fos­san, Gausdal 1993, although White could hardly have expected to win the queen ending so quickly: 33 ..... c8 34 .. d5+ �g7 35 .. d4+ �h6 36 1i'e3 ..f5 37 .. d2 a6 38 h3 .. b5 39 g4 �g7 40 .. d4+ �h6 41 g5+ �h5 42 1i'd1+ 1-0.

b) 16 ... �xe5 !? 17 fxe5 h6 (here lnformator assesses +. although 18 �b1 still looks unclear) 18 h4? �g8 19 �bl -c7 20i.xb61i'xb6 21 .. xb6 axb6 22 lDxd5 l:la5 23 lDc3 ltxe5 24 l:ld6 b5 25 l:lb6 �d7 26 l:lxb7 i.c6 27 l:lb6 lte6 28 �c1 i.xg2 + Van der Werf-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

16 ••• :cs 16 .. . 1i'c7 17 �b1 ltd8 18 1i'a5 with

an unclear game, V.L.Ivanov-Rogow­ski, Dnepropetrovsk 1993.

17 �b1 ltc6 18 lDd4 18 lthe1 is another possibility for

White. The whole position is rather complex. Logically, having forced the opposing king to f8, White should have some compensation for

146 5 cxd4 d6 6 liJj3 liJc6 7 i.c4 liJb6

the pawn, and sometimes the mate­rial can be later regained with a i.xb6/l'fJxd5 combination anyway, but an exact assessment will await more tests. In the game Sermek's idea of an ambitious piece sacrifice just falls short.

18 ••. l:c4 19 liJxe6+ fxe6 20 liJxdS exdS 21 i.xb6 axb6 22 l:xd5 l:c6 23 l:e1 h5 24 l:d3 l:h6! :J=

Black's second rook joins the de­fence, and it becomes clear that White's attack can be fended off.

25 l:f3+ l:f6 26 'ii'xh5 i.e7 27 l:fe3 l:ce6 28 l:dl l:d6 29 l:del l:de6 30 l:d1 'ii'c7 31 l:c3 l:c6 32 l:e3 l:xf2 33 a3 l:h6 34 l:f3+ l:xf3 35 1Wxf3+ l:f6 36 'tWh5 .-cs 37 'ii'h8+ � 38 :ct •ds o-t

Garne 45 Sveshnikov - Kasparov

USSR Ch 1979

1 e4 c5 2 c3 l'fJf6 3 eS l'fJd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 l'fJf3 liJc6 6 cxd4 d6 7 i.c4 liJb6 8 i.bS dxeS

Here Black has several minor al­ternatives, and one more major:

a) 8 . . . a6 9 i.xc6+ bxc6 10 l'!Jc3 i.g4 1 1 h3 i.xf3 1 2 'ii'xf3 d5 looks dubious after 1 3 e6! fxe6 (Karak­lajic-Tesic, Yugoslav Ch 1991) and now 14 'ii'h5+ ! �d7 (14 . . . g6 15 'i!i'e5) 15 0-0. Black's king has insufficient long-term shelter on the queenside.

b) 8 . . . d5 9 liJc3 i.g4 (9 . . . i.f5 10 liJb4 i.d7 1 1 0-0 has also been seen) 10 h3 i.xf3 (10 . . . i.h5 would be a mistake: 1 1 g4 i.g6 1 2 e6 ! fxe6 13 i.f4 ±) 11 'i!i'xf3 e6 1 2 0-0 i.e7 1 3 'i!i'g3 �f8 14 liJe2 l:c8 1 5 i.f4 h5 16

l:fc1 ± Sveshnikov-Palatnik, USSR 1973.

c) White also has a modest edge after 8 . . . e6 9 l'!Jc3 i.e7 (9 . . . i.d7 transposes to 8 . . . i.d7 lines below) 10 0-0 0-0, e.g. 1 1 'i!i'e2 i.d7 12 i.f4 dxe5 13 dxe5 l'fJb4 14 i.xd7 'ii'xd7 15 i.g5 i.xg5 16 l'!Jxg5 _.d3 17 'i!i'g4 liJc6 18 f4 liJc4 19 liJce4 h6 20 l:ad1 _.c2 2 1 l'!Jxe6 fxe6 22 l:d7 :n 23 liJf6+ �f8 24 -.xe6 l'!Je7 25 l:xe7 l'!Jxe5 26 l:e8+ 1 -0 Groszpe­ter-Georgiev, Innsbruck 1977.

d) 8 . . . i.d7 (the important, and sharper continuation) 9 liJc3 (after 9 exd6 soundest is 9 . . . e6 10 i.g5 'Wb8 1 1 liJc3 i.xd6 12 0-0 0-0 13 l:e1 a6 14 i.d3 liJb4 15 i.e4 h6 16 a3 liJ4d5 17 i.xd5 exd5 18 i.h4 i.e6 = Ban­nik-Polugaevsky, USSR Ch 1958) and now:

d1) 9 . . . dxe5 10 dxe5 (10 l'!Jxe5 transposes to Game 46 while 10 d5 liJb4 1 1 l'!Jxe5 i.xb5 12 l'!Jxb5 g6 13 'Wb3 liJ4xd5 14 i.e3 was unclear in Sveshnikov-Zaid, USSR 1976) 10 . . . g6 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 h3 i.g7 12 'ii'e2 'i!i'c7 13 i.f4 a6 14 i.d3 liJb4 15 i.e4 i.e6 16 l:c 1 _.c4 "" Gipslis-Semen­iuk, USSR 1976) 1 l . . .i.g7 12 _.e2 a6 13 i.xc6 i.xc6 14 e6 f5 1 5 l'!Je5 0-0 16 l'!Jxc6 bxc6 17 i.f4 (17 l:d 1 !? ;!;) 17 . . . l'!Jd5 1 8 i.e5 i.xe5 19 'ifxe5 'ii'b8 = Thipsay-Ljubojevic, Lucerne OL 1982 as 20 'it'e2 liJf4 21 'it'c4 'i!i'xb2! threatens . . . 'it'xc3.

d2) 9 ... e6 100-0 (10 i.g5 i.e7 1 1 l'!Je4 dxe5 12 liJd6+ �f8 1 3 i.xe7+ 'it'xe7 14 dxe5 a6 15 i.e2 l'!Jd5 16 'ifc2 l:d8 17 0-0 l'!Jxe5 18 l'!Jxb7 l'!Jxf3+ 1 9 i.xf3 l:c8 20 'it'd2 i.b5 21 i.xd5 exd5 22 l'fJa5 i.xfl :J=

5 cxd4 d6 6 lbf3 ltJc6 7 .i.c4 liJb6 147

Gulko-Tal, Tallinn 1977) and now Black must be careful (D):

d21) 10 . . . .te7?! 1 1 d5 ! exd5 12 exd6 .i.xd6 13 li:lxd5 ± as in Her­mann-Ristoja, Malta OL 1980 is good for White.

d22) The complications after 10 ... li:lb4?! 1 1 .i.g5! .i.e7 12 lbe4! are also in White's favour, for example 12 ... dxe5 (12 ... .txb5 13 lilxd6+ �f8 14 .i.xe7+ 'it'xe7 15 lilxb5 alterna­tively 12 . . . .txg5 13 lilfxg5 .i.xb5 14 lLlxd6+) 13 lLld6+ �f8 14 ll:lxe5 !? (also 14 lilxb7! 'it'c7 15 .i.xe7+ �e7 1 6 'ii'b3 with advantage for White, Sveshnikov-Misuchkov, USSR 1972; 14 .i.xe7+ 'fixe7 15 dxe5 .i.xb5 16 lilxb5 g6 17 l:c 1 1h- 1h was Rausis­Anand, France 1993 but even here White is doing well in the final posi­tion) 14 . . . .txb5 ! 15 li:ldxf7 'fid5 16 'fih5 .i.xg5 17 lilxg5 .i.e8 1 8 'fi g4 �e7 ! 19 l:ael h5 20 'fih4 l:h6 21 ll:lxe6+! �xe6 22 li:lg4+ �fl 23 'fie7+ �g8 24 lilxh6+ gxh6 25 l:e3 h4! Sveshnikov-Yurtaev, USSR 1975, and here Sveshnikov gives 26 'it'xb4 ±.

d23) 10 ... a6 is therefore safest. For example, 1 1 .i.d3 .i.e7 ( 1 1 . . . dxe5

12 dxe5 lilb4 13 .i.g5 .te7 14 .txe7 'fixe7 15 .i.e4 .i.c6 16 a3 li:l4d5 17 'iib3 0-0 1 8 lLld4 l:ac8 19 lbxc6 l:xc6 20 l:adl ;t Chekhov-Grigor­ian, 43rd USSR Ch or l l . . .li:lb4 12 .i.bl .i.c6 13 a3 ltJ4d5 14 lLle4 ltJc8 15 l:el .te7 16 lilfg5 dxe5 17 'fih5 g6 1 8 'fif3 lilf4 19 dxe5 .txg5 20 .txf4 ;t J.Cobb-A.Kogan, London 1994) and now White should prefer 12 a3 ;t to 12 .i.f4 dxe5 13 dxe5 lilb4 14 li:ld4 li:l6d5 15 li:lxd5 li:lxd5 16 .i.g3 'iib6 "" O.Castro-Sunye Neto, Sao Paulo 1978.

9 li:lxe5 Premature is 9 .txc6+, when after

9 . . . bxc6 10 ll:lxe5 Black has a satis­factory game with either 10 . . . .i.e6 or 10 .. . .ta6, for example l l lbc3 e6 12 'fif3 'fic7 13 .i.f4 00 14 .i.g3 'it'b7 15 0-0-0 .tb4 Fedorov-Leonidov, USSR 1979.

9 ... .td7 (D) Overambitious is the alternative

9 ... 'fid5 10 .i.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 O-O c5 12 li:lc3 'it'xd4 13 li:lb5 'it'xe5 14 l:el .i.g4 and now White has a choice be­tween 15 li:ld6+! ± Makropoulos­Ljubojevic, Albufeira 1978 and 15 f3 l:d8 16 'fixd8+ �xd8 17 l:xe5 .i.d7 18 lilc3 e6 19 l:e2 ± Polak-Lipka, Pardubice 1991.

10 lDc3 For 10 .txc6 and 10 lilxd7 see the

next game. lO ••• ltJxeS Or 10 . . . e6!? and here: a) 1 1 .txc6 .i.xc6 12 lilxc6 bxc6

see the note to White's 12th move in Game 45.

b) 1 1 'fi g4 lilxe5 (l l ...h5 12 'fie4 lilxe5 13 dxe5 .i.xb5 14 lilxb5 lild5

148 5 cxd4 d6 6 ll:Jf3 ll:Jc6 7 i..c4 liJh6

15 0-0 i.e7 16 i.d2 0-0 17 ll:Jc3 ll:Jxc3 1 8 i.xc3 'ii'b6 19 lladl 1h-1h Sveshnikov-Petrosian, USSR Ch 1977) 12 dxe5 i.xb5 1 3 ll:Jxb5 'ii'd7 14 ll:Jc3 'ii'd3 15 i.d2 ll:Jc4 16 0-0-0 llc8 ( 16 . . . h5 17 'ii'f4 llc8 18 i.e1 'iW g6 19 'ii'd4 ll:Jb6 20 Wd3 'ii'xd3 21 llxd3 llc5 = Sveshnikov-Polugaev­sky, Tbilisi 1978) 17 i.f4 'ii'g6 1 8 Wxg6 hxg6 19 'iPb1 ll:Ja3+ 20 'iPa1 ll:Jc2+ 21 'iPb1 ll:Ja3+ 112-112 Svesh­nikov-Tal, USSR Ch 1978.

c) 1 1 0-0 i.e7 (1 1 . . .llc8 12 i.xc6 i.xc6 13 'ii'g4 h5 and then 14 'ii'e2?! i.b4 15 ll:Jxc6 llxc6 16 ll:Je4 'ii'xd4 17 i.g5 'ii'c4 1 8 Wf3 f5 19 llad1 0-0 + was the game Szabo-Marjanovic, Vrbc 1979 but Marjanovic's 14 'ii'f4 ! ? suggestion improves; a sim­pler move is 1 l . . .ll:Jxe5 - see the note to Black's 1 1th move in the main game) 12 'ii'f3 (12 i.e3 0-0 13 i.d3 ll:Jxe5 14 dxe5 i.c6 15 'i!fc2 g6 16 i.h6 lle8 17 i.e4 ll:Jd5 18 :Cd1 'ii'a5 1 9 ll:Jxd5 exd5 20 i.f3 i.f8 21 i.xf8 'iPxf8 with an equal position, Schwe­ber-Browne, Buenos Aires 1979) 12 'ii'f3 0-0 13 lld1 llc8 14 ll:Jxd7 (14 i.e3 a6 15 i.e2 f5?! 16 ll:Jxd7 'ii'xd7 17 d5 ;!; Rausis-Browne, Saint Mar­tin 1991) 14 . . . 'i!fxd7 15 d5 ll:Jxd5 16

ll:Jxd5 exd5 17 llxd5 We6 = Palkovi­Stohl, Stara Zagora Z 1990.

11 dxeS i.xbS A little-used route to equality is

1 l . . .e6 12 0-0 i.xb5 13 ll:Jxb5 a6 ! = as in Zaitsev-Rashkovsky, Sochi 1979, when a few subsequent games have confirmed that Black has no problems. In contrast to the danger­ous related line in the main game (l l . . .i.xb5 12 ll:Jxb5 a6? 1 3 i.e3 !) the white move 14 i.e3 is nothing to worry about here since Black has 14 . . . ll:Jd5.

12 ll:JxbS Wxdl + 12 . . . a6? 13 i.e3 ! sets Black se­

vere problems (13 . . . ll:Jd5 14 'ii'xd5 or 13 . . . axb5 14 'ii'xd8+ llxd8 15 i.xb6 or 13 . . . ll:Jc4 14 'ifa4 axb5 15 'i!fxb5+ 'i!fd7 16 'i!fxc4). 13 . . . ll:Jd7 14 e6! axb5 15 exd7+ 'ii'xd7 16 Wxd7+ 'iPxd7 17 0-0-0+ ± was first played in Svesh­nikov-Govashelishvili, USSR 1979, and 12 years later another strong player fell into this trap: 17 . . . 'iPc7 1 8 lld3 b 6 19 'iPb1 f6 20 llc1+ 'iPb7 21 lld7+ 'iPa6 22 llc6 llb8 23 b4 e5 24 llcc7 lla8 25 a3 1-0 was the quick finish of Rausis-Mokry, Germany 1992 - White's llb7 is imminent and deadly.

13 'iPxdl ll:JdS (D) Very solid. If 13 .. . lld8+?! then 14

�e2 a6 15 ll:Jc7+ 'iPd7 16 i.e3 ! , but 13 . . . 0-0-0+!? is exciting 14 'iPe2 lld5 15 a4 llxe5+ (after 1 5 . . . a6 16 i.e3, 16 . . . llxe5? 17 llac1+ �b8 1 8 llhd1 ll:Jd5 19 llxd5 ! 1 -0 was Galyas­Dobos, Budapest 1995 though even 16 . . . axb5 17 i.xb6 llxe5+ 1 8 'iPf3 'iPd7 was unclear in Kolcak-Golod, Slovakian Cht 1994) 16 i.e3 00 17

5 cxd4 d6 6 lDf3 lDc6 7 iic4 11Jb6 149

l:.ac1+ �b8 1 8 l:.hd1 e6 19 �f3 (19 /?x;7 i.e7 20 lDxd5 exd5 21 �fl i.g5 22 i.d4 l:.f5 23 l:.c3 i.f6 24 i.xf6 1h-1h Kristjansson-Tisdall, Vestmann Isles 1985) 19 . . . l:.f5+! (White threat­ens i.xa7+ and 19 . . . b6? 20 i.f4! 1-0 Biro-Adler, Budapest 1990 is an evil trap as 20 . . . lDxf4 21 l:.d8+ �b7 22 llc7+ �a6 23 l:.xa7 mates) 20 �e2 b6! ? (20 . . . l:.e5 2 1 �f3 with a draw by repetition) 21 g4 l:.e5 22 lDd4 �b7 23 /?x;6 i.d6! 24 lDxe5 i.xe5 25 i.d4 i.xh2 � Tiviakov-Kharlov, USSR 199 1 .

14 �e2 After 14 i.d2 Black has 14 . . . e6 15

�e2 i.e7 16 l:.ac1 �d7 17 l:.hd1 l:.hc8 18 lDc3 lDxc3+ 19 i.xc3+ �e8 20 i.d4 b6 21 f4 :Xc1 22 l:.xc1 �d7 23 �d3 l:.c8 24 l:.xcS �xeS 1h-lh Sveshnikov-Andersson, \Yijk aan Zee 198 1 or 14 . . . a6 15 lDc3 l:.dS 16 �e2 e6 17 l:.hd1 Jie7 1S l:.ac1 lDb4 19 lDe4 lDc6 20 .ic3 l:.d5 Ifl.Ih Sveshnikov-Tal, USSR 19SO.

14 ••. a6 15 l:.d1 0-0-0 16 lDa3 After the continuation 16 lDd6+

exd6 17 llxd5 Black has both 17 . . . l:.e8 � and 17 . . . dxe5 18 l:.xd5 Jid6 �. Perhaps 16 lDd4 e6 is best,

with an equal position after 17 .id2 b6 18 l:.ac1+ �b7 19 l:.c4 .ic5 20 lDf3 l:.d7 21 lDg5 l:.hd8 22 l:.dc 1 h6 23 lDe4 .ie7, as in Tiviakov-Korsun­sky, Frunze 19S9 or 17 i.g5 l:.d7 18 llac1+ �b8 19 lDb3 h6 20 .ie3 .ie7 Borg-Ki.Georgiev, ThessalonikiOL 1984.

16 ••• e6 17 lDc4 .i.e7 18 Jid2 b6! � Black has somewhat the better

endgame, as the e5-pawn makes the white bishop bad.

19 g3 �b7 20 lDe3 lDc7 21 lDc4 l:.d4 22 l:.acl lDd5 23 f3 l:.c8 24 lDe3 lDxe3 25 Jixe3 .:Xd1 26 l:.xd1 l:tc2+ 27 lld2 l:.xd2+ 28 �d2 �c6 29 f4 bS 30 �d3 �d5 31 h4 h5 32 .if2 i.b4 33 b3 g6? (33 . . . .ia5 34 �e2 �e4 35 .ic5 f6 36 exf6 gxf6 in­tending �f5, e5 ± Kasparov) 34 �e2 Jic5 35 .ixcS?? (35 .ie1 is equal) 35 ... �xc5 36 �d3 �b4 37 �c2 �a3 38 �b1 a5 39 �a1 a4 40 bxa4 �xa4 41 �b1 �a3 42 �a1 b4 43 �b1 b3 0-1

Game 46 Dolmatov - Alterman

Pardubice 1993

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lDf6 3 eS lDds 4 d4 cxd4 S lDf3 lDc6 6 cxd4 d6 7 Jic4 lDb6 8 .ibS dxeS 9 lDxe5 Jid7 10 .ixc6

10 lDc3 was covered in the pre­vious game. 10 lDxd7 gains White the bishop pair, but the weakness of the d-pawn soon forces him to relin­quish it for an equal game: 10 ... 'ii'xd7 1 1 lDc3 e6 12 0-0 (12 1Wg4 h5 13 1Wf3 a6 14 Jixc6 'ii'xc6 15 1Wxc6+ bxc6 16 �e2 �d7 gives an equal endgame, as in Sveshnikov-Shirov,

150 5 cxd4 d6 6 ttJf3 ttx-6 7 �c4 li::Jb6

Val Maubuee 1990 and Stripunsky­Dvoirys, Katowice 1992) and here:

a) 1 2 ... a6 1 3 .txc6 1Wxc6 14 1Wg4 ( 14 lte1 �e7 15 1Wg4 �f6 1 6 �g5 �xg5 17 1Wxg5 0-0 1 8 lte3 h6 191i'g4 �h8 20 ltae1 ttJd5 = Alexandria­Chiburdanidze, USSR 198 1 ) 14 . . . h5 (14 . . . g6 is weakening, although 15 d5 ttJxd5 16 ttJxd5 1Wxd5 17 ltd 1 h5 1 8 1Wa4+ 1i'b5 1 9 1i'd4 e5 20 1We4 �g7 21 ltd5 as in Chekhov-Zilber­shtein, Moscow 1976, may not be so clear, for example 21. . .ltd8 !) 15 'ii'e2 (15 1Wh4 �e7 16 'ii'h3 ltd8 17 �e3 ttJd5 18 ltac1 ttJxc3 19 bxc3 1i'c4 20 1Wg3 0-0 2 1 �h6 �f6 = Sveshnikov­Popov, Lvov 1973 or 15 1Wg5 ltd8 16 f3 lth6 17 1We5 ltg6 1 8 'it'xh5 ltxd4 =i= Zhuravlev-Gutman, Riga 1971) 15 . . . �e7 16 �e3 h4 17 ltac1 h3 1 8 gxh3 ltxh3 19 1Wg4 1i'f3 20 'ii'xf3 ltxf3 = Sveshnikov-Kovalev, Buda­pest 1989.

b) 12 ... �e7 13 'it'g4 0-0 (riskier is 13 ... �f6 14 ltd1 a6 15 �xc6 1i'xc6 16 d5 ttJxd5 17 ttJxd5 exd5 1 8 1Wb4 a5 19 lte1+ �d8 20 'ii'a3 Godena­Marinelli, Verona 1995 or 14 . . . h5 15 'ii'e2 ttJd5 1 6 ttJxd5 "'xd5 17 �e3 h4 1 8 h3 0-0 19 �c4 'ii'e4 20 d5 Kosilov-Zaid, Ukrainian Ch 1978) 14 �xc6 bxc6 (14 . . . 'ifxc6 15 �h6 �f6 1 6 ltad1 'it'd? 17 ttJe4 1i'e7 18 ltd3 �h8 19 �f4 gave White more attacking chances in Godena-Bacrot, Cannes 1 995) 1 5 �h6 �f6 16 ltfd1 �h8 ( 16 . . . ltfd8 17 ttJe4 1i'e7 18 ltac 1 �h8 19 �e3 ltac8 = Monel us­Tal, Barcelona 1988) 17 ttJe4 'it'e7 1 8 �g5 �xg5 19 'ii'xg5 'ii'xg5 20 ttJxg5 �g8 21 ltac1 ltac8 22 t{Jf3 f6 = Godena-Pigusov, Vienna 199 1 .

10 ... �xc6 11 ttJxc6 bxc6 12 0-0 (D)

1 2 l0c3 e6 would transpose to a position that could also be reached via the 10 ttJc3 lines of Game 44, that move indeed cancelling out any lines for Black with . . . g6. However (although often mis-assessed as ;!;, or ±) these positions with a black pawn on c6 versus a white pawn on d4 are satisfactory for Black, as the pro­spective knight on d5 is stronger than its less centralised white coun­terpart on c5. Therefore White must proceed dynamically, e.g. 13 'ii'g4 h5 (13 ... ttJd5!? 14 0-0 h5 1 5 1Wf3 1Wf6 = Lerner-Gutman, USSR 1979) 14 1Wf3 (14 'ii'e4 ttJd5 15 0-0 �e7 16 �f4 ttJxf4 !? 17 'ifxf4 0-0 = Chandler­Gruchacz, USA 1979) 14 . . . ltc8 1 5 0-0 'ii'xd4 16 �f4 J..e7 1 7 ltfe1 ttJd5 (better is 17 . . . 1Wf6 1 8 lte5 aa Svesh­nikov) 1 8 �e5 'ii'g4 19 1i'xg4 hxg4 20 �xg7 ;!; Sveshnikov-Browne, Novi Sad 1979.

12 ••• g6 Also possible is 12 . . . e6 13 1Wg4

(13 ttJc3 �e7 14 1Wg4 0-0 =) 13 .. . h5 ( 13 . . . 'iff6 looks fishy) 14 1We4 (14 'ii'f3 1Wd5 1 5 "'d3 c5 1 6 l0c3 1Wxd4

5 c:xd4 d6 6 li:f3 lbc6 7 .i.c4 l0b6 151

17 'iff3 'ifd7 1S .i.g5 f6 1 9 l:r.ad1 'ifc8 20 .i.c1 .i.e7 21 :Ce1 h4 m:� H0i­Gutman, Reykjavik 1984) 14 . . . 'ifd5 ( 14 . . . l:r.c8 15 !&3 lLid5 I 6 l:r.d1 .i.e7 17 'iff3 lbxc3 1 8 'ifxc3 0-0 = Thi­bault-Zaltsman, Lone Pine 1979) IS 'ifc2 .i.e7 16 .i.e3 h4 17 !&3 Wits 18 h3 0-0 = Maciejewski-Yakovich, Belgrade 1991 . Despite the weak­ness generated by 13 ... h5, Black's strong-point on d5 is sufficient for equality.

13 l:r.e1 13 .i.g5 .i.g7 14 l:r.e1 transposes to

the main game. Alternatively: a) 13 !&3 .i.g7 14 .i.e3 (14 'iff3

l:r.c8 15 l:r.dl 0-0 I6 .i.g5 l:r.e8 is equal Obl�sky-Kapengut, Minsk 197S) 14 ... 0-0 15 'ife2 lbds is an equal po­sition that has occurred in several games with Maciejewski playing White.

b) 13 'ifc2 l:r.c8 14 l:r.d 1 .i.g7 15 .i.f4 (15 lbc3 0-0 16 .i.g5 'ifd7 17 l:r.ac1 l:r.feS 1S 'ife4 'iff5 with equal­ity Westerinen-Rantanen, Helsinki 1979) 15 . . . 0-0 16 .i.e5 'ifd7 (16 . . . c5 17 lbc3 c4 1 S .i.xg7 �xg7 19 d5 l:r.cS m:� Machulsky-Podgaets, USSR 1976) 17 lbc3 l:r.fd8 1S l:r.ac1 m:� Pla­tonov-Fta�nik, Kiev 197S.

13 ... .i.g7 14 .i.gS 0-0!? Castling exploits a clever tactical

possibility - Black will not lose the exchange on account of a counter-at­tack againstb2. Inferior is 14 ... 'ifxd4?! 15 l:r.xe7+ �f8 16 'ifxd4 .i.xd4 17 l:r.e2 �g7 1S lbc3 with a favourable endgame for White (the weak pawn on d4 is gone) in Izvozchikov-Kir­pichnikov, USSR 1975. However 14 . . . lbd5 !? is possible: 15 !&3 0-0

16 'ifa4 (16 lbxd5 'ifxd5 17 .i.xe7 and then 17 ... l:r.fe8 18 .i.cS l:r.xe1+ 19 'ifxel .i.xd4 20 .i.xd4 'ifxd4 21 b3 l:r.d8 is equal, while 17 . . . l:r.tbS !? needs tests) 16 . . . 'ifb6 17 lLixdS cxdS 18 .i.xe7 .i.xd4! = 19 l:r.e2 l:r.feS 20 '1Vd7 ! .i.f6 21 .i.c5 'ifdS 22 l:r.xeS+ 'ifxeS 23 'ifxd5 .i.xb2 24 l:r.b1 l:r.dS 25 'ifb7 'ifa4! 26 g3 'ifc2 ! 27 'ifxb2 l:r.d1+ 2S l:r.xd 1 'ifxd1+ (of course not 28 . . . '1Vxb2??, which loses to 29 l:r.dS+ �g7 30 .i.d4+) 29 �g2 lf2-lf2 Daniliuk-Shaposhnikov, Balakovo 1995, since 29 ... 'ifdS+ regains the bishop.

The retreat 14 . . . lbcS keeps more play in the position:

a) 15 'iff3 0-0 (15 . . . '1Vd5"?! 16 'ifxd5 cxd5 17 lbc3 h6 1 S .i.f4 lbb6 19 a4! ;!;) I6 lbc3 l:r.bS! (16 ... 'ifxd4 17 'ifxc6 l:r.bS 18 l:r.ad1 'ifb6 19 'ifxb6 l:r.xb6 20 lba4 l:r.b7 21 b3 with an edge for White in the endgame, Smagin-Tischbierek, Germany 1993) 17 l:r.ad1 l:r.xb2 18 'ifxc6 .i.xd4 and the complications favoured Black in Talavera-Georgadze, Malaga 19S7.

b) I5 '1Va4 0-0! 16 'ifxc6 l:r.bS 17 lbc3 l:r.b6! 1S 'iff3 l:r.xb2 m:� Khol­mov-Mnatsakanian, USSR 1977.

c) 15 lbc3 0-0 (15 ... '1Vxd4 16 'iff3 0-0 is the Smagin game from 15 'iff3 above) 16 .i.e3 lbb6 = S.Lalic-Sher, Hastings 1994.

d) 15 'ife2 h6 16 .i.e3 0-0 17 lbc3 lLid6 IS d5 cxdS 19 lbxd5 e6 =F Sza­bolcsi-Sax, Hungary 19SO.

15 .i.xe7 'ifxd4 (D) 16 'ifxd4 Obviously 16 .i.xf8 'ifxd1 17 l:r.xd1

.i.xb2 recovers the material with in­terest for Black. Instead 16 lbc3

152 5 cxd4 d6 6 �f3 �6 7 i.c4 liJb6

Wt'xd1 ( 16 . . . llfe8 17 11ff3 is unclear) 17 llaxd 1 llfe8 is becoming very equal. For example 18 i.c5 �4 19 llxe8+ llxe8 20 �4 �xb2 21 �xb2 i.xb2 22 i.xa7 lla8 1h-1h Crouch­Plaskett, London 1980 or 18 �fl i.xc3 19 bxc3 �d5 20 i.c5 l:txe1+ 2 1 llxe1 �xc3 22 :C 1 � 23 i.d4 1h-lf2 Gogichayshvili-Ernst, Gausdal 1992.

16 •.• i.xd4 17 �d2 :res

17 ... llfb8!? and now: a) 18 llacl �d5 19 �f3 i.xb2

1f2.1h Typek-Skalik, Poland 1994. b) 1 8 llab1 �5 (Alterman rec­

ommends the alternative 18 .. . �. but White has 19 lle4 c5 20 i.xc5 ! win­ning a pawn) 19 �3 i.g7 20 i.d6 l:tb5 21 l:tec1 � 22 �1 :C8 23 � aS 24 libe l i.xb2 25 llxc6 llxc6 1h-1h S ammalvuo-Krakops, Halle 1995.

1S i.a3 cS Dubious according to Alterman,

who gives 18 . . . i.g7'! 19 llac1 llxe1+ 20 l:txe1 lld8 21 �fl h5 22 �e2 i.h6 =.

19 � ;t c4 20 :xeS+ :XeS 21 llcl lieS 22 �! a6 23 lld1 i.eS 24 g3 hS 25 f4 i.g7 26 W i.xc3 27 bxc3 �a4 2S i.b4 �b2 29 lld7?! (29 lld6 tD<i3 30 a3 !?) 29 ... �3 30 i.d6 �g7 31 i.eS+ lfz.lh.

1 7 4 d4 cxd4 5 ltJf3

1 e4 cS 2 c3 lLlf6 3 e5 lbciS 4 d4 cxd4 5 lbr1 (D)

With 5 00 (instead of the 5 cxd4 of Chapters 13-16) White intends to meet 5 . . . lbc6 with the aggressive 6 i.c4 lbb6 7 ..tb3, which can occa­sionally involve a pawn sacrifice. It is possible for Black to remain in solid lines similar to the earlier chap­ters with the reply 5 . . . e6, and indeed transpositions back to those chapters are common. However White's key point is that, via the present move­order, Black cannot reach the clear equalising plan he had in Chapter 16. In Game 47 we deal with these odds and ends, with the general conclu­sion being that after White should probably play an early a3 and head for Chapter 13. Otherwise White risks allowing a particularly comfortable

(and little-known) defence for Black in the sneaky move 8 . . . 'il'c7 ! (see the note to Black's eighth move). But in tum if Black plays routinely, as in the illustrative game, White gains a pleasant initiative.

The remaining two illustrative games include coverage oflines (af­ter 5 . . . lbc6 6 i.c4 lbb6 7 i.b3 d5 8 exd6) where Black does not continue with the standard recapture 8 ... 'il'xd6. The pawn-grab 8 . . . dxc3 (Game 48) is obviously risky, but perhaps not completely clear. Bologan's 1995 discovery, the fianchetto with 7 ... g6!? (Game 49), was adopted enthusiasti­cally for a time, but White seems to have at least one safe route to a small edge with the continuation 8 cxd4 i.g7 9 i.f4.

Game 47 Minev - Korchnoi

Oslo tt 1954

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbf6 3 e5 lbci5 4 d4 cxd4 5 lbf3

The move-order of the actual game, 5 cxd4 lbc6 6 lLlf3 e6 7 lbc3 lbxc3 8 bxc3 d6, has been altered slightly for administrative conven­ience. In fact there are numerous transposition possibilities to other chapters around this point, and in some ways this game merely ties up some loose ends - both Black and

154 4 d4 cxd4 5 liJ[3

White have promising possibilities to vary early.

s ... e6 5 . . . !iJc6, heading for the main

line, is analysed in the following game.

6 cxd4 d6 (D) Here 6 . . . b6 !? is a transposition to

Chapter 14. On 6 . . . !iJc6 White may choose from several options. After 7 a3 ! (intending .i.d3), for example, Black has nothing better than 7 . . . d6 with a transposition to Chapter 13 -a move-order commonly utilised to reach that chapter. Also possible is 7 !iJc3 liJxc3 8 bxc3 d5 (8 . . . d6 is the main game) and here 9 exd6 is possi­ble, while 9 .i.d3 is equally pleasant for White.

After 6 . . . !iJc6 White can also go for systems with his bishop on c4: 7 .i.c4 !iJb6 (7 ... d6 is a transposition to Chapter 15 while 7 . . . .i.b4+ 8 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 9 !iJbxd2 tD.de7 10 !iJe4 ;t was Sveshnikov-Mrdjen, Pula 1990) 8 .i. b3 (8 .id3 !? would transpose to Preissmann-Gallagher, Swiss Cht 1995, which continued 8 . . . d5 9 .i.g5 .i.e? 10 .i.xe7 Wxe7 1 1 0-0 .i.d7 12 a3 0-0 1 3 liJc3 :ac8 14 1i'd2 f5 15 exf6 .J:[xf6 16 We3 .J:[cf8 17 .!Llg5 g6 oo) 8 . . . d6 (8 . . . d5 is also played) and now 9 1i'e2 is examined in Chapter 16, Game 44, note after Black's eighth move, while 9 exd6 is covered (by transposition) in the course of Game 48 coming up.

7 ltX3 Again 7 a3 !? is Chapter 13 . If 7

.id3 immediately then 7 ... .!Llb4 is ir­ritating, e.g. 8 .ie2 (8 .i.b5+ .id7 9 .ie2 .ic6 10 0-0 tD.d7 1 1 .!Llc3 dxe5

12 dxe5 i.e? 13 .i.f4 !iJd5 = Baev­Kalegin, Moscow 1995) 8 . . . dxe5 9 a3 e4! 10 liJg5 liJ4c6 1 1 .i.e3 g6 12 !iJc3 .i.g7 13 d5 .ixc3+ 14 bxc3 exd5 + Rauze-Lemer, Nimes 1991 .

The third possibility i s 7 i.c4, when Black can continue:

a) 7 . . . .!Llc6 transposes to Chapter 15.

b) 7 . . . dxe5 8 dxe5 .i.b4+ (8 . . . !iJc6 is Chapter 15) 9 .id2 (9 .!Llbd2 !iJb6 10 0-0 .!Llxc4 1 1 Wa4+ .!Llc6 12 tD.xc4 and then 12 . . . 1i'd3 13 !iJd6+ .ixd6 14 .J:[d1 Wa6 1 5 Wxa6 bxa6 1 6 exd6 ;t was Svidler-Taimanov, Russia 1995 but safer was 12 . . . 0-0 13 .i.f4 Wc7 14 .J:[fd1 .i.d7 15 :ac1 .J:[fd8 16 .ig5 .ie7 oo Alexander-Golombek, Hastings 1935 !) 9 . . . .ie7 (9 ... !iJc6 10 0-0 .ie7 11 'ii'e2 0-0 12 .!Llc3 .!Llxc3 13 .ixc3 ;t Wolff-Rotshtein, Wijk aan Zee 1993) 10 0-0 liJc6 1 1 'ii'e2 Wb6 12 .!Llc3 .!Llxc3 13 bxc3 .i.d7 14 i.d3 .J:[d8 1 5 .J:[ab1 ;t Yanovsky­Krasenkov, Voskresensk 1992.

c) 7 . . . .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 We2 .i.d7 (9 . . . !iJc6 is Chapter 15) 10 liJc3 liJxc3 1 1 bxc3 .i.c6 12 .if4 (12 exd6 .i.xd6 1 3 liJe5 .ixe5 14 Wxe5 ltld7 15 1i'g3 .i.e4 16 .ib3 ± Sveshnikov­Vera, Sochi 1985) 12 . . . dxe5 13 !iJxe5

.td5 14 .td3 li:)d7 15 c4 ± Dolma­tov-Zapata, Tilburg 1993.

d) 7 ... li:)b6!? S .td3 (for S .tb3 see Game 47, note to Black's fifth) S . . . �6 9 a3 dxe5 10 dxe5 �7!? (10 . . ... c7 1 1 .tf4 �5 12 .tg3 .td7 13 li:)bd2 .te7 14 0-0 0-0 15 .. bl h6 16 .. e1 •ds 17 1We4 f5 1S exf6 li:)xf6 19 .. e2 ± Kharlov-Marit, Biel 1992) 1 1 .tf4 l2X5 1 2 .tc2 .. xdl+ 13 �xdl .te7 14 li:)bd2 0-0 15 b4 li:)d7 16 li:)e4 .:ds 17 �e2 li:)b6 =

Sermek-Banas, Luxembourg 1993. 7 ... ltlxc3 If 7 ... dxe5, S li:)xe5 ;1;, for example

S .. . .tb4 9 .td2 0-0 10 .te2 (10 .td3 �7 1 1 .. e2 li:)xe5 12 dxe5 .. aS 1 3 0-0 li:)xc3 1 4 bxc3 .te7 15 .. e4 g6 16 .:fd l .. d5 17 c4 •xe4 lS .txe4 lfl_lh. Sveshnikov-Polugaevsky, but White looks better in the final posi­tion) 10 . . . .txc3 1 1 bxc3 �7 12 0-0 li:)xe5 13 dxe5 .td7 14 c4 li:)b6 15 .tb4 .:es 16 �3 .tc6 17 •e3 �7 l S .td6 ± Kholmov-Malich, Halle 197S.

Instead 7 . . . li:)c6 !? gives a fairly standard position, when White has a choice:

a) S .td3 dxe5 9 dxe5 li:)db4 !? (9 . . . .tb4 10 .. c2 .te7 1 1 .te4 li:)xc3 12 bxc3 .. c7 13 .tf4 ;!; Timman­E.Meyer, New York 1974) 10 .te4 .. xdl+ 1 1 �xdl .tc5 12 a3 00 ! 13 li:)xd5 exd5 14 .txd5 0-0 15 �e2 .:ds 16 .te4 (16 .:dl �4+ !) l6 . . . .:es ! 17 .txc6 bxc6 lS .te3 .ta6+ 19 �d2 .:adS+ 20 �c2 .td3+ 21 �c3 .txe3 22 fxe3 .te2 ! 23 b4 .:d3+ 24 �c2 .:xe3 25 .:bel .:e4 ! 26 li:)d4 ! .:4xe5 + Blatny-Lechtyn­sky, Czechoslovak Ch 19S6.

4 d4 cxd4 5 !iJj3 155

b) S .tb5 •aS ! ? (S . . . tDxc3 9 bxc3 .td7 10 0-0 tDxe5 1 1 li:)xe5 dxe5 12 .:b1 .txb5 13 .:xb5 .. d7 14 .. b3 b6 15 .:xeS .td6 = Stanciu­Ghinda, Skopje OL 1972) 9 �3 .td7 10 .td2 tDxc3 1 1 .txc3 .. b6 12 .ta4 d5 13 0-0 .te7 14 .. dl 0-0 15 a3 .:acS «> Kholmov-Saltaev, Volgo­grad 1994.

c) S exd6 .txd6 9 .td3 (9 .tc4 li:)xc3 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 0-0 transposes to the note after White's eighth move in Game 42, a satisfactory IQP posi­tion for Black) 9 . . . li:)f4! 10 .txf4 .txf4 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 .. e2 .th6 (or 12 . . . li:)xd4 1 3 .txh7+ �xh7 14 .. e4+ �gS 15 .. xf4 li:)xf3+ 1 6 .. xf3 .. b6 17 .:fd1 1h-1h. Bisguier-Panno, Lone Pine 1976 while 12 . . . g6 13 .:ad1 .th6 transposes to the 12 ... .th6 1ine) 13 .:adl g6 14 .te4 .tg7 15 .txc6 (15 d5 exd5 16 .txd5 .. f6 17 �4 •e7 1S .:rel .tg4 = 19 h3? �4! 20 .:xd4 .txf3 21 .. xf3 .txd4 + Hecht­Malich, Amsterdam 197 1 ) 15 . . . bxc6 16 li:)e5 c5 17 d5 .. d6 1 S li:)c4 .. a6 19 d6 .tb7 20 � .td5 21 b3 .:adS «> Romanovich-Zitin, Russia 1995.

d) S li:)xd5 exd5 : d1) 9 .te2: dl l) 9 . . . dxe5 10 li:)xe5 .td6 1 1

'ii'a4?! Pazos-Anand, Dubai OL 19S6, and now Anand gives l l . . . .txe5 ! 12 dxe5 0-0 1 3 f4 .. h4+ � .

d12) 9 . . . .te7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 .tf4 .tg4 12 .:e1 .:es 1 3 h3 .th5 14 .:c 1 .:cs with little for White in Pomar­Andersson, Las Palmas 1974.

d2) 9 .td3: d21 ) 9 . . . .te7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 h3

.te6 12 .tf4 .:e8 13 .:c1 .. d7 14 .tb5 f6 15 .. a4 ;t Markland-Ermenkov,

156 4 d4 cxd4 5 li::Jf3

Polanica Zdroj 1973 or 10 h3 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 0-0 12 0-0 .i.e6 13 .i.f4 .:cs 14 .:c1 •d7 15 a3 ti::Ja5 16 'ii'e2 a6 17 ti::Jd4 ± Boeven-Gudat, corr. 1970. The bishop is well posted on d3 if Black does not interrupt White's smooth development.

d22) 9 . . . dxe5 ! 10 dxe5 .i.b4+ 1 1 .i.d2. This position looks satisfac­tory for Black, for example 1 1 . . . 'ii'e7 12 0-0 .i.g4 = MUller-Heuser, Ger­many 1988 or 1 1 . . .0-0 12 0-0 .i.xd2 13 'ii'xd2 .i.g4 14 'ii'f4 .i.xf3 15 'ii'xf3 li::Jxe5 16 .i.xh7+ <i>xh7 17 •h5+ 'i>g8 18 'ti'xe5 .:e8 19 'ii'd4 .:e4 20 'ii'd2 'ii'd6 21 .:ad 1 .:d8 = Nicolini-Hudecek, Slovakian Cht 1995.

8 bxc3 (D)

8 ... lbc6?! There are several move-orders to

reach this standard position. Quite often Black has played . . . lbc6 ear­lier, but if not, Black has an excellent opportunity to continue 8 . . . 'ti'c7 ! in­stead. The queen is developed with game of time on account of the at­tack on the c3-pawn, and it becomes apparent that Black'squeen's knight can be more effectively posted on

d7. Comparing analogous . . . b6 lines (Chapter 14) where Black plays the same manoeuvre; the present ver­sion is very comfortable for Black: the earlier pressure on e5 will prob­ably force White to exchange pawns on d6. First, of course, the c-pawn must be looked after:

a) 9 'ii'b3 ti::Jd7 (9 . . . .i.d7 !? 10 .i.a3 .i.c6 1 1 .t b5 dxe5 12 .i.xf8 <i>xf8 13 Jlxc6 �xc6 14 0-0 g6 15 �xe5 �xe5 16 dxe5 'i>g7 + Karaklajic­Barlov, Pula 1990) 10 Jlf4 dxe5 1 1 Jlxe5 �xe5 12 �xe5 Jld6 13 Jlb5+ ci>f8 14 f4 g6 15 0-0 'i>g7 16 c4 b6 + Baric-Mencinger, Bled 1992.

b) 9 'ii'c2 �d7 10 .i.f4 dxe5 1 1 .i.xe5 �xe5 12 �xe5 Jld6 13 .i.b5+ ci>f8 14 f4 b6 15 0-0 g6 = Lehmann­Kraut, Bundesliga 1990.

c) 9 exd6 Jlxd6 10 .i.b2 c!Dd7 1 1 .i.d3 and now instead of 1 1 . . .b6 12 0-0 .i.b7 13 .:e1 0-0 14 c4 when the white bishops point omniously at the black kingside, Campora-P.Cram­ling, Argentina 1994, the neat tactic 1 1 . . . .i.a3 ! swaps bishops as in the following note.

d) 9 .i.b2 �d7 10 exd6 Jlxd6 1 1 .i.d3 .i.a3 ! (a useful liquidation: obviously 12 Jlxa3? 'ii'xc3+ and 13 . . . 'ii'xa3 would regain the bishop) 12 'ii'b3 Jlxb2 1 3 'ii'xb2 = Ramirez­Llanes, Spain 1995.

e) 9 .i.d2 (the main move) 9...lbd7 (9 . . . lbc6 10 exd6 .i.xd6 1 1 .i.d3 e5 Nunez-Ochoa, Cuba 1992 leaves the black kingside a little exposed, while the plan 9 . . . .i.d7 10 .i.d3 Jlc6 was unclear in Glavina-Komljenovic, Ceuta 1995) 10 exd6 .i.xd6 1 1 Jld3 b6 12 0-0 .i.b7 with a comfortable

position for Black. In fact this posi­tion is examined in Chapter 14, Game 38, note to White's lOth move.

9 exd6 Interesting is 9 ..td3 !? dxe5 10

dxe5 ..te7 (10 ... 'ii'a5 1 1 0-0 li:lxe5 12 li:lxe5 'it'xe5 13 l:tel is dangerous, for example 1 3 . . . 'ii'd6 14 l:te4 ..te7 15 ..tf4 'ii'd5 16 l:td4 'ii'a5 17 l:tbl 0-0 1 8 l:tb5 'it'xc3 19 l:tc4 'ii'f6 20 ..te5 'it'h6 2 1 ..txg7 'it'xg7 22 l:tg4 Kosikov­Khodos, USSR 1978) 1 1 'it'e2 as in King-Friedgood, London 1980. You can understand Black's reluctance to now castle kingside, but in the game the queenside did not prove safer: l l . . .'it'c7 12 0-0 ..td7 13 l:tel 0-0-0 14 l:tbl �b8 15 ..te4 ..tc8 16 ..te3 �a8 17 l:tb5 f5 18 exf6 gxf6 19 l:tebl e5 20 'it'c2 ..td6 2 1 'it'a4 l:thg8 22 ..txc6 bxc6 23 l:tb7 1-0.

Another idea is 9 ..tf4, for exam­ple 9 . . . ..te7 10 i.d3 dxe5 1 1 li:lxe5 li:lxe5 12 ..txe5 0-0 (12 . . . ..tf6 Levi­Canfell, Melbourne 1991 and now 1 3 ..txf6 1 because on 1 3 . . . 1Vxf6, there follows 14 ..tb5+) 13 'it'h5 g6 14 'ii'h6 ..tf6 15 f4 ..txe5 16 fxe5 1, as in Zimmermann-Kotter, Germany 1 994.

9 ••• ..txd6 After 9 ... 1Vxd6 10 ..td3 ..te7 1 1 0-0

0-0 12 l:tel b6 13 li:le5 (13 li:lg5 ! 1 g6? 14 li:lxh7 ! �xh7 15 'it'h5+ �g8 16 ..txg6 fxg6 17 'ii'xg6+ �h8 1 8 l:te3 ..th4 1 9 l:th3 'it'e7 20 ..tg5 'fig7 2 1 l:txh4+ �g8 22 'it'xg7+ �xg7 23 i.h6+ 1-0 was a lovely successful attack in Hliusler-Schlemermeyer, · Bundesliga 1981) 13 . . . li:lxe5 14 ..tf4 ..tb7 15 ..txe5 was played in two games. White looks slightly better,

4 d4 cxd4 5 li:lj3 157

but in both cases was fortuitous to win with bishop sacrifices:

a) 15 . . . 'ii'd8 1 6 i.xh7+? �xh7 17 'it'h5+ �g8 18 l:te3 f6 19 l:th3 ..td6 + 20 i.xd6 'it'xd6 21 l:tel ..td5?! 22 'ii'g6 l:tac8? 23 l:th7 l:tc7 24 'it'h5 1-0 Tsharotshkin-Hanko, Dortmund 1992 .

b) 15 . . . 'it'c6 16 .i.e4 'iid7 17 .i.xh7+ �xh7 1 8 'it'h5+ �g8 19 .i.xg7 �xg7 20 l:te3 'ii'd5? (20 . . . l:th8 21 l:tg3+ i.g5 ! 22 'ii'xg5+ �f8) 21 l:tg3+ �f6 22 'it'h4+ �f5 23 'ii'g4+ 1-0 Palkovi-Pigott, Budapest 1993.

10 ..td3 ..te7 Black takes precautions against

the Greek gift sacrifice on h7, which is in the air either immediately or later if he castles.

a) In the game Mestel-Kirov, Mos­cow 1977, Black successfully bol­stered his kingside with 10 . . . li:le7 !? 11 0-0 li:lg6 12 l:tel 0-0 13 c4 b6 14 i.e4 l:tb8 15 i.b2 'it'c7 16 :C 1 i.f4 ""·

b) Black can also postpone cas­tling with 10 . . . 'ii'a5 when 1 1 ..td2 is probably 1, while 1 1 'it'c2 b6 12 0-0 i.a6 13 i.e4 l:tc8 14 l:tel li:le7 15 i.d2 i.c4 16 i.b7 l:tc7 17 li:le5 l:txb7 18 lL!xc4 'it'd5 19 'fia4+ b5 20 li:lxd6+ 'it'xd6 21 'it'b3 0-0 = was Alekhine­Foltys, Prague 1942! However White can also offer a pawn with 1 1 0-0 !?, when 1 1 . . . 1Vxc3 12 l:tb1 0-0 1 3 l:tb3 'ii'a5 14 ..txh7+! 'iPxh7 15 lLlg5+ �g6 16 l:th3 i.d7 17 li:le4 1-0 Markland­Klundt, Madrid 197 1 is an example of the dangers awaiting Black's ac­ceptance.

c) 10 . . . 'fic7 1 1 0-0 i.d7 12 l:te1 0-0-0 is a method of side-stepping White's potential kingside threats.

158 4 d4 cxd4 5 lCJp

In Benderac-Markovic, Yugoslavia 1993 Black gained a good game after 13 a4 lOa5 14 .i.a3? ! .i.xa3 15 :xa3 �b8 16 lbe5 .i.c8 17 We2 f6 =, but White had more testing methods of trying to exploit Black's king posi­tion on the queenside. The overall impression of these alternatives is that they are certainly playable for Black, although White usually has a bit more space.

11 0-0 0-0 12 1i'e2 .i.f6 13 :e1 Wd5 14 .i.f4 l:[d8 15 :ad1 .i.d7 16 ltJeS ;t

White has an initiative, more space and chances of an attack.

16 •• ..i.e8 17 WhS!? g6 (D)

.I B ....... w • • • • • • •

••• • • • • . ·-� ...

a•� n � �-­� u - -B Oi.. • � a•� a•� rtFd A � � � U t:...:� U a•� �•� : � � � � - �

Now Minev finds a marvellous continuation.

18 lbg4!! .i.e7 ( 1 8 . . . .i.g7 19 Wh4! and 20 lbf6+ is coming) 19 Wh6 'ii'b5 (leaving the black pawns crip­pled, but 19 . . . Wxa2 was too danger­ous a pawn snatch even for Korchnoi: 20 .i.g5 ! and Black's dark squares are critically weak) 20 Wxh5 gxh5 21 lbe5 :ac8 22 l2Jxc6 .i.:xc6 23 le5 .i.a4 24 :ct .i.aJ 25 l:[b1 :Xc3 26 l:[e3 :dc8 27 :g3+ � 28 :Xb7 .:.c1 + 29 .i.n 1-o

The threat is 30 .i.h6+ followed by :g8.

Game 48 Biro - Gueldner Budapest 1990

1 e4 c5 2 c3 The game moves were 2 lbf3 lbc6

3 c3 lbf6 4 e5 lDd5 5 d4 cxd4; I have substituted the usual order in order to fit in the note at move five.

2 ••• lbf6 3 e5 lbd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 00 ll)c6

After 5 . . . d6 White can continue 6 .i.c4 (6 cxd4 was covered in earlier chapters) and now:

a) 6 . . . dxe5 7 lbxe5 is promising for White: 7 . . . e6 8 0-0 (8 Wxd4!? lbc6 9 lbxc6 bxc6 10 0-0 .i.b7 1 1 .i.b3 'it'b6 12 'it'g4 0-0-0 1 3 .i.g5 lbf6 14 Wh4 c5 15 lba3 h6 16 .i.xf6 gxf6 17 lbc4 Wc6 18 f3 .i.e7 19 l0as ! Makarychev-Vasiukov, Moscow 1986) and then:

a1) 8 . . . dxc3? is too risky: 9 lbxc3 lbc6 10 lbxf7 ! lbxc3 (10 . . .'�xf7 loses to 1 1 c!Dxd5 exd5 12 .i.xd5+ .i.e6 13 .i.xe6+ �xe6 14 :e 1 + �f7 15 'it'b3+, etc.) 1 1 'it'h5 'ifaS 12 lbd6+ �e7 13 Wf7+ �xd6 14 bxc3 c!De5 15 .i.f4 �c6 16 We8+ .i.d7 17 'ifxa8 lbxc4 18 :ab1 'it'a6 19 l:[fd1 e5 20 :xd7 �xd7 21 :xb7+ 1-0 Espinoza-Jasnikowski, Cuba 1988.

a2) 8 ... .i.e7 9 cxd4 (9 Wh5 0-0 10 l:[d1 lbd7 1 1 cxd4 lb7f6 12 1t'h3 .i.d7 13 lbc3 .i.c6 = Espinoza-Xu, Mos­cow OL 1994) 9 . . . 0-0 10 lbc3 lbf6 1 1 .i.e3 lbc6 1 2 lbxc6 bxc6 1 3 :c 1 Wc7 14 .i.d3 l:[d8 15 1t'e2 .i.d7 16 :Cd1 ;t Pribik-Hromada, Corr. 1984.

b) However instead Black has 6 . . . lbb6 7 �b3 and now:

b1) 7 . . . lbc6 transposes to earlier chapters.

b2) 7 . . . d5 8 lbxd4!? (for 8 cxd4 see Game 44, 8 . . . d5 note to Black's eighth move) 8 . . . lbc6 9 'it'e2 lbxd4 10 cxd4 �f5 1 1 �d2 e6 12 �a5 !? �e7 13 �a4+ �f8 14 0-0 ;!; Hresc­Gutman, Kirchheim rpd 1990.

b3) For 7 . . . dxe5 8 lbxe5 e6 see the next note.

b4) 7 . . . e6 !? 8 cxd4 dxe5 (8 . . . �d7 9 0-0 �c6 10 lbc3 lDsd7 1 1 'it'e2 h7 12 l:r.d1 0-0 1 3 �f4 dxe5 14 dxe5 l:r.c8 15 lbd4 lbd5 Godena-Borgo, It­aly 1994, and here simply 15 lbxd5 ±) 9 lbxe5 (9 dxe5 'it'xd1+ 10 �xd1 is certainly playable for White) 9 . . . lbc6 (9 . . . lb8d7 10 0-0 lbxe5 1 1 dxe5 'it'xd1 1 2 l:r.xd1 �d7 13 lbc3 �c6 14 �e3 �e7 15 a4 0-0 16 lbb5 �xb5 17 axb5 ;!; in Maliutin-Golod, Minsk 1993) 10 lbxc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0 �e7 12 lbc3 0-0 with quite an im­portant position to evaluate, even though reached relatively few times:

b4 1) 1 3 �e3 a5 14 l:r.c1 �a6 15 l:r.e1 lbd5 16 'it'f3 �b4 17 lled1 'it'f6 1 8 'it'g3 'it'g6 19 'it'h3 h6 20 �c2 f5 2 1 lbxd5 cxd5 22 'it'f3 •12- •12 was Lane-Kuczynski, Gent 1988.

b42) 13 lbe4 a5 14 �c2 lieS 15 l:r.e1 lbd5 16 a3 'it'b6 17 h4 �d7 1 8 'it'd3 f5 1 9 lbg5 �f6 20 lbf3 c5 2 1 dxc5 'it'xc5 22 l:r.b1 �b5 � was the game Sariego-Kuczynski, Polanica Zdroj 1989.

b43) 13 �f4 �a6 ( 1 3 . . . lbd5 14 �e5 gave White a slight pull in Win­ants-Klarenbeek, Netherlands 1995, which increased after 14 ... lbxc3?!

4 d4 cxd4 5 lbf3 159

15 bxc3 �d6 16 l:r.e1) 14 l:r.e1 c5 15 dxc5 'it'xd1 = Kharlov-Yudasin, Ke­merovo 1995. On the evidence of these game references this vari­ation could be a valid alternative to the much sharper main lines where Black has to know a lot of theory.

6 �c4 lbb6 6 . . . e6 7 cxd4 transposes to earlier

chapters, (but of course to lines where Black is denied the straight­forward equalising path found in Chapter 16).

7 �b3 d5 7 . . . d6 gives White the choice of 8

exd6 (transposing into the main game) and 8 cxd4 as per Chapter 16. Or 7 ... dxc3?! 8 lbxc3 gives White a serious advantage in development for the pawn, when the follow-up 8 . . . d6 9 exd6 would transpose to the illustrative game. Finally the move 7 . . . g6 is examined in Game 49.

8 exd6 (D) 8 cxd4 �g4 is very comfortable

for Black.

8 •.. dxc3 The normal move, 8 ... 'it'xd6, forms

the subject of the next few chapters. 8 ... e6, a pet line of Lanka, gives

160 4 d4 cxd4 5 &i:J[3

Black a rather passive anti-IQP posi­tion provided White captures with the pawn on d4:

a) On 9 &i:Jxd4?! Black can con­sider both 9 . . . .i.xd6 10 &i:Jb5 .i.b8 1 1 'ifxd8+ &i:Jxd8 1 2 .i.e3 &i:Jd7 1 3 0-0 a6 14 &i:Jd4 &i:Je5 with equality, Dubois­Lanka, Cappelle Ia Grande 1994 and 9 . . . 'irxd6 10 &i:Jb5 'ii'b8 l l .i.e3 .i.e? 12 'iff3 0-0 13 'ii'g3 e5 14 &i:Jd2 .i.f5 = Kranz!-Lanka, Budapest 1991 .

b) 9 cxd4 .i.xd6 10 0-0 (or first 10 &i:Jc3) 10 . . . 0-0 ( 10 . . . &£Jd5 l l &i:Jc3 &i:Jxc3 12 bxc3 0-0 1 3 'ifd3 e5 14 &i:Jg5 g6 15 'iff3 'ife7 16 .J:[e1 �g7 17 &i:Je4 .i.e? 18 &i:Jf6 ! .i.d8 19 .i.g5 ± Kotliar-Shirazi, Saint Martin 1991) 11 &i:Jc3 .i.e? 12 .i.f4 (12 a3 .i.f6 13 .i.e3 &iJa5 14 .ta2 &iJac4 15 'ife2 &i:Jd6 16 .l:[fd1 :e8 17 .i.f4 ± Strikovic­Lanka, Val Maubuee 1990, and 12 :et would transpose to Am.Rodri­guez-Talavera, Malaga 1987, which continued 12 . . . &i:Jb4 13 a3 &i:J4d5 14 'ii'd3 .td7 15 .tc2 g6 16 .i.h6 :es 17 &i:Je5 .i.f8 18 'ii'h3 ;t) 12 . . . &£Ja5 13 .i.c2 &i:Jd5 14 &i:Jxd5 'ifxd5 15 :e1 &i:Jc6 16 'ifd3 g6 17 .i.b3 'ifd8 18 .i.h6 :es 19 :ad1 .i.f6 20 •e4 .i.d7 21 &i:Je5 We? 22 'iff4 ±, as in Schan­dorff-T.Thorhallsson, Copenhagen 1994.

9 &i:Jxc3 9 0-0 exd6 10 &i:Jg5? is too ambi­

tious: IO . . . cxb2! 1 1 'irh5 g6 12 'ife2+ .i.e? 1 3 .i.xb2 0-0 + Acs-Chachere, Budapest 1993.

9 ... exd6 10 lLlgS! dS IO ... &i:Je5?! 1 1 f4 h6 12 fxe5 hxg5

1 3 0-0 d5 14 &i:Je4 .i.e? 15 .i.xg5 .txg5 16 &i:Jd6+ �f8 17 .J:[xf7 ± was a promising piece-for-two-pawns

sacrifice in Kantsler-N.Popov, USSR 1980.

11 0-0 White can regain his pawn imme­

diately with 1 1 &i:Jxd5 &i:Jxd5 12 .i.xd5 ( 12 .. xd5 .i.b4+ 13 .i.d2 is roughly equal) 12 . . . .i.b4+ 1 3 �fl 0-0 but now White should play 14 •n 'ife7 15 .i.e3 because 14 'irh5?! is dubi­ous: 14 . . . .tf5 15 .i.xf7+ �h8 16 .i.e3 (16 .i.f4 'ird3+ 17 �g1 &i:Jd4 18 g3 .i.e4 ! 19 &i:Jxe4 .J:[xf7 ! 20 •xf7 'ifxe4 -+ Minib6ck-Lanka, Trnava 1986) 16 . . . 16'd3+ 17 �g1 &i:Jd4 1 8 .i.xd4 'ifxd4 and now 19 h4 .i.g6? led to a stunning finish in the game Sibarevic-M.Pavlov, Pernik 1988: 20 •xg6 ! ! hxg6 21 h5 ! ! :xf7 22 hxg6+ �g8 23 gxf7+ � 24 &i:Je6+ 1-0. However 19th move alternatives such as l9 . . . .tc5 and 19 ... 'ifxb2 look promising for Black.

ll ... .i.e7 1 1 . . .f6? 12 &i:Jxd5 &i:Jxd5 13 .i.xd5

fxg5 14 .J:[e1+ .i.e? 15 .i.xg5 �f8 16 .i.xc6 .i.xg5 17 'ifxd8+ .i.xd8 18 .J:[e8+ �f7 19 .J:[xh8 .i.e? 20 .i.d5+ �f6 21 :c 1 1 -0 is quoted as a game I.Horvath-Larsen, Budapest 1989 -not, of course, the Larsen!

12 1i'h5 12 &i:Jxd5 &i:Jxd5 13 &i:Jxfl looks an

over ambitious sacrifice: 13 . . . �xf7 14 .i.xd5+ �f8 15 'ifb5 We8 16 .. f3+ .i.f6 17 .i.f4 and now instead of 17 ... .i.e6? 18 .i.d6+ �f7 19 :ae1 ± &i:Jd8 20 .txe6+ &i:Jxe6 21 'ifxb7+ .i.e? 22 .J:[xe6 �xe6 23 .txe7 � 24 .J:[el 1 -0 Motwani-Coleman, Hast­ings 1991, 17 . . . &i:Je5 ! defends.

12 ••• g6 13 1i'h6 .te6 14 :e1 •d7 15 .i.f4 (D)

B

White has dangerous compensa­tion for the sacrificed pawn, but the situation is by no means completely clear.

15 •• .a6 15 . . . i.d6 16 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 17 lL!b5

'it'f8 18 1i'h3 0-0-0 19 lL!xe6 fxe6 20 lbe6 :d7 21 :ae1 ± Van Mil-Quist, Dieren 1990, while the continuation 15 . . . 0-0-0 16 :ac1 sets up the threat of lL!b5.

16 :act The immediate 16 a4 !? has also

been seen. 16 ••• 0-0-0 17 a4 (or 17 lL!a4 ! ?)

17 •• id6 18 lL!xe6 fxe6 19 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 20 lL!b5!? axb5 21 axb5 �b8 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 'ii'e3 �b7 24 'ii'd4 :bf8 25 g3 (perhaps White could have exploited his queenside pres­sure better; Black's king position is still shaky, but White has to remem­ber he is still a pawn down) 25 ... :!5 26 f4 gS 27 i.c2 cS 28 'ii'g7+ :d7 29 'ii'h6 'ii'f8 30 :xe6 'ii'xh6 31 :xh6 :m 32 fxgS c4 33 b3 c3 34 :e1 d4 35 i.e4+ lLld5 36 :d1 �c8 37 :c6+ �b8 38 :Xd4 lL!e3 39 :b4+ �a7 40 :a4+ �b8 41 :b6+ �c8 42 :a8+ �c7 43 :c6+ �b7 44 :xc3+ lL!dS 45 :.as 1-o

4 d4 cxd4 5 lLlf3 161

Game 49 Smagin - Bologan

Novgorod 1995

1 e4 cS 2 c3 lLlr6 3 eS lLld5 4 d4 cxd4 S lL!f3 lL!c6 6 i.c4 lL!b6 7 i.b3 g6!? (D)

This novelty was first played by Bologan against Rozentalis.

8 cxd4 a) 8 a4? ! d5 9 exd6 'it'xd6 10 lL!a3

(10 0-0 i.g7 1 1 a5 lLld7 12 cxd4 lL!xd4 13 lL!xd4 1i'xd4 14 'ii'f3 lLle5 15 'it'g3 0-0 16 lL!c3 'it'g4 + Han­doko-Hsu, Malaysia 1995) 10 .. . a6 1 1 0-0 i.g7 12 lLlxd4 lL!xd4 1 3 cxd4 0-0 14 a5 lL!d5 15 lL!c4 'it'd8 16 i.g5 i.e6 17 'ii'd2 :c8 1 8 :acl lL!f6 :j: Me�trovic-Thkmakov, Bled 1996.

b) 8 lL!g5 !? with the following possibilities:

b1) 8 ... e6 creates an ugly impres­sion: 9 lLle4 lL!xe5 10 i.g5 i.e7 and now instead of 1 1 lL!d6+ �f8 12 i.h6+ �g8 13 1i'xd4 f6 14 i.e3 'it'c7 15 lL!b5 'ii'c6 16 lL!1a3 i.c5! 17 1i'd2 i.xe3 18 fxe3 d5 Shilin-R.Kozel, Yalta 1995, White could exchange the defender of the dark squares with 1 1 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 12 1i'xd4 !.

162 4 d4 cxd4 5 l!Jf3

b2) Even worse is 8 . . . l!Jxe5? when 9 •xd4 f6 10 •xe5 ! d5 1 1 'ife2 fxg5 1 2 .txg5 is strong, as is 9 .tf4 .tg7 10 .txe5 .txe5 1 1 l/Jxf7 dxc3 1 2 l!Jxe5 ! cxb2, Acs-Nikolai­dis, Budapest 1995, when 13 .tf7+ �f8 14 .. d2 ! threatening the pawn on b2 and mate on h6 was the sim­plest win.

b3) 8 . . . d5 9 exd6 e6: b3 1 ) 10 cxd4 and then after

10 .. . .tg7, 1 1 l!Je4!? is interesting, e.g. 1 1 . . .0-0 12 l!Jbc3 f5 13 .tg5 'ife8 14 l!Jd2 h6 15 .te7 l!Jxe7 16 dxe7 'ifxe7 17 l!Jf3 l!Jd5 18 0-0 ;!; Handoko-Dao, Asian Cht 1995 (round three). How­ever as Handoko varied with 10 •n later in the same event, it is fair to as­sume he believes Black can improve at some point, and indeed the simple 10 . . . 'ifxd6 is at least equal.

b32) 10 'iff3 f5 (10 . . . f6 1 1 l!Jxe6 .txe6 12 .txe6 .txd6 13 •h3 f5 14 0-0 ;!; Filipovic-Cabrilo, Yugoslavia 1995; 10 . . . l!Je5 !? is double-edged: 1 1 .. g3 .tg7 12 0-0 0-0 13 .. h3 h5 14 l!Je4 l!Jec4 15 cxd4 l!Jxd6 16 .tg5 f6 17 .txe6+ �h7 18 l!Jxd6 •xd6 19 .txc8 :axeS 20 .te3 :c2 = Acs-Dao, Budapest 1995, but many deviations are possible) 1 1 .txe6 ( 1 1 l!Jxe6 .txe6 1 2 .txe6 .txd6 1 3 0-0 allows 13 . . . .txh2+ 14 �xh2 .. d6+ 15 .tf4 •xe6 =i=) 1 l . . ..txe6 12 l!Jxe6 'ifxd6 13 l!Jxd4 l!Jxd4 14 cxd4 .. d5 !? and it is a question of whether Black's light-squared control is suf­ficient for him to eventually regain his pawn. Handoko-Xu, Asian Cht 1995 (round nine) went 15 •xd5 l!Jxd5 16 0-0 :cs 17 l!Jd2 .tg7 18 :e1 + �d7 19 l/Jf3 l:[he8 20 l!Je5+?!

.txe5 21 dxe5 :c2 22 b3 f4 ! with excellent compensation, and Black even went on to win .

8 cxd4 .tg7 (D) If 8 . . . d6 White has 9 l!Jg5 e6 10

.. f3 with an initiative.

9 .tf4!? White reasons that Black will in­

evitably employ the freeing break . . . d6, and this early bishop develop­ment will now stop him recapturing with his queen. In addition White threatens the advance 10 d5.

a) 9 0-0 d6 !? (9 . . . 0-0 10 h3 d6 1 1 'ife2 dxe5 1 2 dxe5 .te6! 1 3 l:[d1 ?! •cs 14 .tf4 .txb3 15 axb3 •e6 =i= was Zakharov-Vaulin, Moscow 1995) 10 exd6 •xd6 1 1 d5 l!Ja5 12 .ta4+ .td7 13 .txd7+ •xd7 14 l!Jc3 l!Jac4 and Black has good play.

b) 9 l!Jc3 0-0 10 h4? ! (the cave­man approach; White intends to con­tinue 10 . . . d6 1 1 e6! fxe6 12 h5 with an attack according to Bologan) 10 . . . d5 ! 1 1 h5 .tg4 and now 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 .te3 a5 ! was + in Rozen­talis-Bologan, Belfort 1995 or 12 l:[h4!? gxh5 ! 13 .tc2 f5 ! 14 a3 e6 15 l:[ht :cs + Markovic-Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1995.

9 ••• d6 10 exd6 0-0 11 h3 (if 1 1 dxe7? ! 'W'xe7+ 1 2 �e3 �g4 1 3 0-0 �xf3 14 'W'xf3 o!Oxd4 =) ll ... exd6 12 0-0 (;t Dolmatov) 12 ... lbas (to be considered was 12 ... �f5 13 ltlc3 d5 !?, de las Paz-Benzanilla, Cuba 1995) 13 lL!c3 l0xb3 14 'W'xb3 �f5 lS ilfel (15 a4 !? ;t Dolmatov) 15 ••• 'W'd7 16 a4 llac8 17 lObS?! (17 a5 tLlc4 1 8 'W'b4 still seems more pleasant for White) 17 ... �e6 18 'W'dl o!Llc4 19 �cl? (19 b3 a6! 20 bxc4 axb5 21 cxb5 llc4 22 �e3 �d5 oa) 19 ... a6 20 o!Llc3 'W'c7 21 lle2 'W'aS ; 22 'W'el h6 23 llbl? �fS 24 b4 'W'd8 25 llb3 �d3 26 lla2 o!Llb6 27 llaa3 .trs 28

4 d4 cxd4 5 o!Oj3 163

aS tOc4 29 h2 .te6 30 dS?! .trs 31 .tf4 gS 32 .tg3 lle8 33 o!Lle2 'W'f6 34 'W'dl 'W'g6 -+ 35 o!Oed4 .te4 36 lle2 �xdS 37 llc3 f5 38 lbe8+ lbe8 39 lObS .txf3 40 llxf3 axbS 41 'W'dS+ 'W'e6 42 :xrs 'W'xdS 43 llxdS .tes 44 llxbS .txg3 45 fxg3 lle7 46 h4 g4 47 lldS lld7 48 � �f7 49 l:lhS �g6 50 lldS �6 51 �el tOeS 52 �e3 �e6 53 llbS llc7 54 �e4 o!Od7 55 �d4 o!Llf6 56 �d3 o!Lld7 57 �d4 tOeS 58 �e4 llc4+ 59 �e3 o!Llc6 60 llxb7 o!Llxb4 61 a6 o!Oxa6 62 l:lh7 �eS 63 lbh6 llc3+ 64 � tOes 65 �gl o!Lle4 66 �h2 llcl 67 llhS+ �d4 0-1

1 8 7 . . . d5 8 exd6 ifxd6

1 e4 cS 2 c3 ltlf6 3 e5 li:ld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 ltlf3 ltlc6 6 .i.c4 ltlb6 7 ..tb3 dS 8 exd6 'ii'xd6 (D)

In Game 50 the move 9 ltla3 !? (with ideas of ltlb5) is a significant alternative for White to the main lines (with 9 0-0 .i.e6) of the follow­ing two chapters. It is presently un­clear if Black can try to transpose to those chapters with 9 . . . ..te6, but he does have a forthright attempt at refutation in the pawn grabbing 9 .. . dxc3. Perhaps Black should brave these (most likely favourable) com­plications, because the cautious but very common alternative 9 . . . a6 has scored quite well for White. A sub­sequent capture on d4 by White cre­ates an unusual type of IQP position

where it transpires that White's pieces are deceptively active.

A similar theme arises in Game 5 1 , where we investigate the line 9 0-0 .i.f5 . The key point to note here is that capturing on d4 with the knight (10 ltlxd4 !) frees the f3-square for White's queen. White's development is fluid and fast, and the triumphant advance of the iso­lated d-pawn from d4 to d5 can scarcely be prevented. However an interesting sideline (also Game 5 1 ) is 9 .. . g6 !? which deserves more tests.

Game 50 Blatny - Stocek

Czechoslovakia 1996

1 e4 c5 2 c3 ltlf6 3 e5 ltld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 ltlf3 ltlc6 6 ..tc4 ltlb6 7 .i.b3 dS 8 exd6 'it'xd6 9 ltla3!?

By playing this before castling, White wants to give Black no time for the 9 0-0 ..te6 defence of Chap­ters 19 and 20.

9 ••. a6 To stop ltlb5, but time-consum­

ing. On 9 . . . e5 simply 10 0-0 with threats of ltlb5 and ltlg5 looks dan­gerous, while if 9 . . . ..tf5 Black will lose time with the bishop after 10 ltlb5 'ilfd7 l l ltlfxd4 or l l ltlbxd4. It may be possible to get away with 9 ... .i.e6 in spite of Blatny's clever 10 ltlb5 •d7 l l ..txe6 'ii'xe6+ 12 .i.e3 !

;t, After 1 2 . . . 'ii'd7 (12 . . . 0-0-0?! 13 li)fxd4 'ii'd5 14 'lfb3 ± Sermek-Sosa Macho, Paranana 1993 or 12 . . . .:tc8?! 13 li)fxd4 li)xd4 14 'ii'xd4 a6 15 !f:Ja7 1-0 Strikovi6-Drei, Forli 1988) 13 li)bxd4 e6 14 0-0 li)c4 !? (14 . . . J-e7 15 li)xc6 1Wxc6 16 li)e5 1Wb5 17 J-xb6 axb6 1 8 .:tel 0-0 19 'ii'd7 ± Blatny-Rai�evic, Tmava 1987) 15 'ii'e2 li)xe3 16 fxe3 J-e7 17 .:tad 1 'ii'c7 1 8 'ii'c4 0-0 19 li)xc6 bxc6 20 .:tf2 .:tad8 was unclear in Shaked-de Firmian, Las Vegas 1994.

It is also an open question (and an important one) as to what happens after 9 . . . dxc3 ! 10 'ii'e2 (D):

B

a) 10 . . . cxb2 (Black grabs a sec­ond pawn, but White's bishops are becoming very active) 1 1 J-xb2 'ii'b4+ 12 �fl J-f5 (12 . . . J-g4 and now 13 .:td1 .:td8 14 .:txd8+ ltlxd8 15 ltlc2 'ii'c5 1 6 J-d4 'ii'c7 17 h3 .i.e6 + Mortazavi-Aseev, London 1994 but more dangerous for Black was 13 ltlb5 J-xf3 14 gxf3 'ii'f4 15 J-cl !? 1Wb8 16 'ii'e4 g6 17 J-b2 e5 1 8 .:tel f5 19 'ii'e3 as in de Ia Paz­Cabrera, Matanzas 1995) 13 .:td 1 (13 .:tel .:td8 14 ltlc2 'ii'xb3 ! 15 axb3 J-d3 and Black reached an endgame

7 .. . d5 8 exd6 1Wxd6 165

two pawns up in Mdtrovi6-Grosar, Nova Gorica 1996, but just look how Black's lagging development then plagued him nevertheless: 16 li)cd4 J-xe2+ 17 �xe2 ltlxd4+ 1 8 ltlxd4 a6 19 .:tc7 .:td7 20 .:txd7 �xd7 21 .:td 1 e6 22 ltlf3+ �e8 23 .:tc 1 f6 24 .:tc7 li)d5 25 .:txb7 J-e7 26 li)d4 �fl 27 li)c6 e5 28 J-a3 .:te8 29 .:ta7 h5 30 �d3 a5 3 1 �c4 �e6 32 ltlxe7 ltlxe7 33 .:txa5 and White even went on to win; you feel Black must have been much better at some point, but this example shows how complex these lines are to play and assess) 1 3 . . . .:td8 (13 ... e6 14 li)b5 :C8 15 li)fd4! ± Van Mil-Yakovich, Leeuwarden 1992) 14 .:txd8+ ltlxd8 15 ltld4 J-d7 16 li)ab5 J-xb5 17 li)xb5 a6 18 li)d4 e6 19 g3 J-e7 20 ltlc2 'ii'b5 21 'ii'xb5+ axb5 22 .i.xg7 .:tg8 23 J-d4 li)c4 � Sermek-Sher, Ljubljana 1994. All very unclear, but I suspect this line is Black's best option against 9 !i:Ja3 !?.

b) 10 ... J-f5 !? (the latest try) 1 1 ltlb5 'ii'd7 12 ltle5 li)xe5 1 3 'ii'xe5 f6 14 ltlc7+ (14 ltld6+ 1Wxd6 15 'ii'xf5 g6 16 'fie4 'fic6 17 'fixc6+ bxc6 1 8 bxc3 e5 1 9 f4 J-d6 20 0-0 0-0-0 + Van Mil-Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee 1995) 14 . . . �d8 15 ltle6+ J-xe6 16 'ii'xe6 'ii'xe6+ (16 . . . .:tc8?! 17 'ii'e2 ! e5 1 8 0-0 �c7 19 a4! with a strong initiative to compensate for the pawns, de Ia Paz-Blanco Fernandez, Villa Clara 199 5) 17 J-xe6 ltla4! (Guido­Berthelot, Cannes 1995) and now Nogueiras analyses 1 8 J-e3 ! cxb2 19 .:td1+ �c7 20 0-0 li)c3 21 .:td7+ ! �c6 22 .:td3 blltl! (22 . . . bl1W 23 .:txc3+) 23 .:tel ! with a totally un­clear position.

166 7 . . . d5 8 exd6 'flxd6

10 0-0 10 cxd4 e6 1 1 0-0 will transpose

to the main line. 10 ... e6 (D) Black's defensive set-up (with

9 . . . a6 and 1 0 . . . e6) is viable as White has committed his knight to a3 early. 10 . . . g6 is possible here (see the next game, note at Black's move nine) but alternatives are inferior:

a) 10 . . . dxc3? 1 1 lDg5 lDd8 12 'fle2 e6 1 3 l:.d1 'flc7 14 g3 J..e7 15 i.f4 'flc6 16 l:lac1 ± T.Christensen­Formanek, Gausdal 1991 .

b ) 10 . . . J..f5? ! 1 1 lDxd4 ( 1 1 lDg5 e6 12 'flf3 J..g6 1 3 J..f4 'fld7 14 l:lfe1 J..xa3 !? 15 lDxe6!? Dovzhik-Volo­din, Budapest 1991, when Dovzhik analyses 15 . . . J..e7 ! 16 lDxg7+ �d8 as unclear) 1 1 . . .lDxd4 12 cxd4 e6 13 'flf3 'flc6 (13 . . . 'ii'd7 14 d5 ! lDxd5 15 l:ldl J..xa3 16 bxa3 0-0 17 M! ;!; Okh­otnik-A.Shnaider, USSR 1987) 14 d5 lDxd5 15 l:.d1 lDb6 16 'ii'g3 lDd5 17 lDc4 l:ld8 18 �e3 ! J..g6 19 �xd5 exd5 20 J..g5 ± f6 21 l:lac1 'ii'e6 22 l:le1 J..e4 23 f3 'ii'f5 24 J..f4 1-0 Ser­mek-Kiselev, Ljubljana Iskra 1992.

c) 10 . . . i.e6 1 1 J..xe6 ( 1 1 lDg5 has also been played) 1 1 . . .'ii'xe6 12 �xd4 �xd4 1 3 'flxd4 l:ld8 14 'flh4 ;!; has been seen several times, but is simply a bad version of Chapter 19 for Black, as White's knight is al­ready developed on a3, e.g. 14 . . . 'ii'c6 15 J..g5 f6 16 J..e3 lDd5 17 lDc2 e5 1 8 l:lad1 J..e7 19 c4 �f4 20 l:lxd8+ J..xd8 2 1 J..xf4 'flxc4 22 'ii'h5+ g6 23 'ii'f3 'flxc2 24 'flxb7 'flc7 25 'fle4 ± Sariego-Martin del Campo, Bay­amo 1990.

11 cxd4

A significant alternative is 1 1 �xd4!?, played repeatedly and with success by Sermek. The f3-square is freed for White's queen: 1 1 . . . �xd4 12 cxd4 J..e7 1 3 'flf3 0-0 14 l:ld1 (14 J..f4 'flxd4 ao Strikovic-Matulovic, Yugoslav Ch 1988; instead 14 lDc2!? a5 15 a3 'flc6 16 'fle2 i.f6 17 l:ld1 .i.d7 18 a4 00 1 9 �3 �f4 20 'ii'fl 'ii'b6 looked OK for Black in Ser­mek-Orel, Ljubljana 1993, but even here consider how Black had to sub­sequently retreat: 21 J..c4 l:lfd8 22 �g4 �d5 23 'ii'd3 J..e8 24 �xf6+ lDxf6 25 J..g5 ;!;) 14 . . . 'ii'd8 (l4 . . . 'ii'b8 15 lDc2 J..d6 16 'ii'h5 J..f4 17 �3 .i.d7 18 �g4 l:lc8 19 �e5 J..xe5 20 dxe5 ± Sermek-Zadrima, Moscow OL 1994 or 14 . . . 'ii'c6 1 5 'ii'g3 J..d7 16 J..h6 J..f6 17 l:lel !? ;!; Sermek­Kiselev, Ljubljana 1992) 15 �bl !? (a creative idea, re-routing the knight to c3; the natural 15 lDc2 also turned out promisingly in Sermek-Dvoirys, Groningen 1993: 15 . . . a5 16 a4 J..d7 17 �3 J..c6 1 8 d5 exd5 19 �xd5 �xd5 20 J..xd5 'ii'b6 21 J..e3 'ibb2 22 J..xc6 bxc6 23 .i.d4 'ii'b7 24 l:lab1 J..b4 25 J..xg7 ! �xg7 26 'flg4+ �h8 27 l:ld7 'flb6 28 'flf5 c5 29 'ii'e5+ �g8 30 l:.d6 'flxd6 3 1 'ii'xd6 and

Black is worse but may hold the draw) 15 . . . lDd5 16 �3 �xc3 17 bxc3 .td6 1S c4 :bs 19 c5 � .tc7 20 i.b2 1Wh4 21 g3 'ii'h3 22 :e1 i.d7 23 d5 exd5 24 .txd5 ± Shaked­Krakops, Halle 1995.

Less convincing is 1 1 'ii'e2 and now:

a) 1 l . . .dxc3 12 :d1 'ii'c7 !? (or 12 . . . 1Wb4 1 3 �e5 i.e7 14 bxc3 'ii'a5 1 5 �ac4 �xc4 16 �xc4 'ii'c7 17 'ii'e4 0-0 I S .tf4 e5 19 �xe5 ± Dov­zhik-Bagaturov, Bratislava 1990) 1 3 bxc3 .te7 1 4 c4 0-0 1 5 i.b2 lD<i7 1 6 :acl �c5 17 .tc2 b6 IS .tbl .tb7 19 lbe5 �xe5 20 i.xe5 'ii'c6 21 'ii'g4 f6 22 .tal :adS 23 'ii'h3 �4 + Dovzhik-A.Schneider, Hungarian Cht 1992.

b) 1 l . . .i.e7 12 :d 1 i.f6 13 i.e3 lDd5 14 �xd4 �xe3 15 lDdb5 1i'c5 16 �d6+ �e7 17 fxe3 �e5 (17 ... lbd4 IS :xd4! .txd4 19 �e4 .txe3+ 20 �h1 'ii'a7 21 �c4 .tf4 22 :d 1 with an attack, Dovzhik-Vancszak, Eger 1990) IS �e4 'ii'c6 19 :d4 ! b5 20 :n .tb7 21 .tc2 :adS 22 �bl a5 23 �bd2 � Dovzhik-Moiseev, Buda­pest 1990.

ll •. ...te7 12 .te3!? With an aggressive idea in mind.

Others: a) 12 :el 0-0 1 3 :e4 �d5 (also

13 . . . �b4 14 lbe5 tb4d5 15 :g4 f5 «>

Markovic-Michelakis, Buenos Ai­res 1993) 14 � 'ii'dS 15 � i.d7 16 i.d2 :cs 17 'ii'el �xe5 1S dxe5 i.b5 1 9 :d1 b6 20 h4 i.d3 1/z- 112 Smagin-Popovic, Yugoslav Cht 1992.

b) 12 'ii'd3 0-0 1 3 :dl .td7 14 �g5 .txg5 15 i.xg5 �b4 16 'ii'e3 �6d5 17 1We5 1Wxe5 I S dxe5 :res

7 . .. d5 8 e.xd6 'ii'.xd6 167

with equality, Smagin-Vyzhmana­vin, USSR 19SS.

c) 12 'ii'e2 !? �xd4 (White gains an strong initiative for this pawn; safer is 12 . . . 0-0, but after 13 :d1 or 1 3 1We4 White again has active play around the IQP) 1 3 �xd4 'ii'xd4 14 :d1 'ii'f6 15 .te3 lDd7 16 :acl 1We5 17 'ii'd2 'ii'bS I S .tf4 e5 19 .tg3 .tf6 20 'iVd5 0-0 21 :xeS 1fxc8 22 1Wxd7 ± Benderac-Dujkovic, YugoslavCht 19S9.

12 ••• 0-0 Perhaps Black should consider an

immediate 12 ... lDds (to stop White's next) although this does allow 12 lbc4.

13 lbe5! ! (D)

13 ••. .tf6 Since 1 3 . . . �xe5 14 dxe5 1fxd1

(14 . . . 1fxe5? 15 i.xb6) 15 :rxd1 is favourable for White. Alternatively 1 3 . . . i.dS 14 �ac4 �xc4 15 �xc4 1fd7 16 lbe5 �xe5 17 dxe5 1Wb5 1S 1fd6 i.d7 1 9 i.c2 g6 20 i.e4 ! Darnstadt-Aseev, Berlin 1993 or 1 3 . . . �b4 14 �ac4 �xc4 15 �xc4 1fdS 16 1ff3 �d5 17 �e5 'ii'd6 1 S :ac 1 i.d7 1 9 i.xd5 exd5 20 i.f4 ! Bruchfeld-Van der Wees, Corr. 19S9.

168 7 . . . d5 8 exd6 'ilxd6

14 :ct J.d7 15 lDac4 l0xc4 16 lO:xc4 'ilc7 17 d5 exd5 18 l0b6 J.xb2 19 :c2 J.e5 20 f4 J.f5 21 l0xa8 J.xc2 22 1i':xc2 ::xa8 23 fxe5 1i'xe5 24 11'1'2 1i'e6 25 :d1 :d8 26 J.b6 :ea 21 J.:xd5 1i'd7 28 J.bJ 1-0

Game 5 1 Lautier - J.Polgar

Hilversum 1993

1 e4 c5 2 c3 l0f6 3 e5 lbds 4 d4 c:xd4 5 lbf3 lbc6 6 J.c4 l0b6 7 J.b3 d6 8 e:xd6 1i':xd6 9 0-0 (D)

9 ... J.f5?! The normal lines with 9 ... J.e6 are

the subject of the next two chapters. Others:

a) 9 . . . lba5 (inferior) 10 lbxd4 lbxb3 1 1 axb3 a6 12 :e1 g6 13 J.g5 f6 14 J.h4 J.g7 15 lbd2 0-0 16 lbe4 11/c7 17 b4 e5 1 8 1i'b3+ ± Kantsler­Vitolin�. USSR 1980.

b) 9 . . . d3 (also inferior) 10 l0a3 J.fS 1 1 lObS 1i'd7 1 2 J.f4 :c8 1 3 lbxa7! lbxa7 14 lbeS 1i'bS 1S lbxf7 ± Schmittdiel-Gutman, Lugano 1987.

c) However there has been re­vived interest with 9 . . . g6 !?. For ex­ample:

c 1 ) 10 lOgS e6 ( 10 . . . lbd8 !?, e.g. 1 1 1i'f3 1i'f6 12 1i'xf6 exf6 «> Perissi­notto-Mariotti, Ticino 1 994 and Brauer-Woller, Carr. 1 987) 1 1 1i'f3 (1 1 lbe4 1i'eS 12 :e1 J.e7 1 3 cxd4 and then 1 3 . . . lbxd4 14 J.d2 lbxb3 1S axb3 lbd5 1 6 l0bc3 0-0 17 :a5 1i'd4 «> Acs-Leroy, Budapest 1 994 or 1 3 . . . 1i'd8 12 cxd4 J.g7 1 3 J.gS 1i'xd4! 14 lbd6+ �f8 1S lbc3 1i'xd1 16 :axd 1 h6 17 J.e3 J.e5 18 lOdbS �g7 =F Grushevsky-B1okh, Moscow 1 986) 1 1 . . .1i'e7 12 lbe4 fS 1 3 lbgS J.g7 ( 1 3 . . . dxc3? 14 bxc3 ! J.g7 1S :e1 lbeS 16 1i'g3 lbbc4 17 lbd2 ± Vajda-Chernov, Romania 1 99S) 14 :e1 e5 1S rn (15 1i'g3 J.f6 16 lL!f3 J.e6 17 lbxd4 lbxd4 1 8 cxd4 e4 =F was Demarre-Ward, Paris-London 1 994) 1s . . . :r8 16 J.gs Wcs 17 lbxeS !? lbxeS 1 8 cxd4 1i'xd4 19 lbc3 J.e6 20 1i'f4 ! 11/xf4 2 1 J.xf4 1/z- 1/z V1Ukesalmi-Yrjola, Helsinki 1986.

c2) It may be sensible for White first to gain time developing: 10 lba3 !? a6 ( 10 . . . J.g7 1 1 lDbS 1i'd8 12 lbbxd4 lL!xd4 1 3 lL!xd4 0-0 14 J.gS lbd7 1S :e1 ;!; Lane-Ward, London Lloyds Bank 1994) 1 1 lOgS (1 1 lbxd4 lbxd4 12 cxd4 J.g7 1 3 J.e3 J.e6! = Asaturian-Blokh, Carr. 1991) 1 l . . .e6 12 Wf3 (12 lL!e4 !? 1i'eS 1 3 :e1) 12 .. . 1i'e7 1 3 J.f4 J.h6 14 lbe4 ;!; although Olesen-C.Ward, Gausdal 199S was agreed drawn at this point.

d) 9 . . . e6 10 cxd4 J.e7 1 1 lbc3 0-0 gives Black a rather passive anti­IQP position:

d 1 ) 12 J.e3 lbdS 1 3 We2 b6 14 :acl J.b7 1S lbe4 1i'd8 16 :fd 1 :c8 17 a 3 lb a5 1 8 J.a2 lbxe3 19

'iVxe3 b5 = Van Dongen-Tivia.kov, Paris 1989.

d2) 12 a3 lM5 1 3 ltle4 'iVdS 14 'iVd3 b6 15 i.c2 g6 1 6 i.h6 Ae8 17 Aac 1 ;t Pedersen-Mednis, Copen­hagen 1989.

d3) 12 li.)b5 'ii'ds 13 .tf4 llXi5 14 i.g3 a6 15 li.)c3 (here 15 i.xd5 !? would transpose into Lautier-J.Pol­gar from Chapter 6 !) 15 . . . t'Llxc3 16 bxc3 ;t Blatny-Ki.Georgiev, Stara Zagora Z 1990.

10 t'Llxd4! After 10 t'Lla3 dxc3 White will

have to exchange queens, as on 1 1 'iVe2?, Black plays 1 l . . .i.d3. Play­able is 10 cxd4 e6 (or IO .. . i.xb1 1 1 Axb1 e6 with near equality, As.Ar­nason-Tisdall, Vestmann Isles 1985 and Hickl-Bastian, Bundesliga 1990) 1 1 t'Llc3 i.e7 (1 l . . .Ad8 12 li.)b5 'iVd7 1 3 i.f4 ;t Antonov-Spassov, Pernik 1 98 1 ) 12 i.e3 (12 'iVe2 0-0 1 3 Ad1 li.)a5 14 i.c2 i.xc2 15 'iVxc2 Aac8 with a slight plus for Black, O.Cas­tro-Matulovic, Dortmund 1977 or 12 d5 exd5 13 t'Llxd5 li.)xd5 14 'iVxd5 'iVxd5 15 i.xd5 = Yukhtman-Poluga­evsky, USSR Ch 1959) 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 a 3 Afd8 14 .. e2 a6 15 Afd1 t'Lld5 =

Matulovic-Udovcic, Sombor 1957. 10 ••• t'Llxd4 11 cxd4 e6 If 1 l . . .i.xb1 12 Axb1 e6 13 'iVf3

'iVd7 14 i.f4 i.d6 15 i.xd6 'iVxd6 16 'iVxb7 0-0 17 Afd1 ;t Velickovic-Ma­tulovic, Vdac 198 1 . Overambitious is 1 l . . .g6 12 Ae1 ( 12 'iVf3!? i.g7 1 3 t'Llc3 0-0 14 'iVxb7 Afb8 15 'iVf3 'iVxd4 16 i.e3 ;t Nun-Rantanen, Ek­sjo 1981) 12 . . . i.g7 1 3 i.g5 e6 14 li.)c3 h6 15 i.e3 g5 (White threat­ened g4) 16 d5 e5 17 t'Llb5 •ds 1 8

7 ... d5 8 exd6 'flxd6 169

i.c5 and White is clearly better, David-Farago, Ostrava 1987.

12 t'Llc3 .te7 13 -.n! ;t (D)

This is the reason White often takes with the knight on d4: the queen finds a useful outpost on f3.

13 ••• -.xd4?! After this Polgar's king ends up in

the centre, but otherwise Black has trouble dealing with White's power­ful pawn thrust d5. On 1 3 . . . 'iVd7, for example, comes 14 d5 ! e5 (14 . . . 0-0 see 1 3 . . . 0-0, covered next) 15 a4 a5 16 .. e3 Aa6 17 'iVxe5 ± Palkovi­Sapi, Budapest 1994. After 1 3 . . . 0-0 again comes the advance: 14 d5 ! (14 Adl !? 'iVd7 15 i.e3 Afd8 16 d5 ! e5 17 d6! i.f8 18 i.xb6 axb6 19 t'Lld5 e4 20 'iVe3 ± Chandler-Sep­peur, Bundesliga 1 986 is similar; less good is 14 'iVxb7 l:ltb8 15 .. f3 'iVxd4 1 6 i.f4 AdS with an unclear position in the games Blatny-Ksi­eski, Naleczow 1 985 and Tzermia­dianos-Anastas ian, Komotini 1992) and now:

a) 14 . . . i.f6 15 Ad1 •b4 16 h3 Aad8 17 i.d2 Afe8 18 dxe6 i.xe6 19 t'Lle4 is good for White, Torre-Mok, Asian Cht 1993.

170 7 . . . d5 8 exd6 1ixd6

b) 14 . . . 1ib4 1 5 dxe6 fxe6 16 1ixb7 .i.d6 17 .i.e3 l:tf7 1 8 'ii'a6 ± Mihalj�i�in-Fta�nik. Prague 1979.

c) 14 ... 'tl'd7 15 dxe6 (15 l:td1 !) 15 . . . .i.xe6 16 l:td1 'tl'c8 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 1 8 1ie4 ;t Mi.Tseitlin-Velikov, Pernik 1981 or 18 'ii'e2 Van Mil-Rio, Lugano 1989.

14 1ixb7 ± .i.d6 (15 . . . 1id7 fails to 16 .i.a4!) 15 1ic6+ �e7 16 lDb5 1ie5 17 1ib7+ �6 ( 17 . . . lDd7 18 lDxd6 1ixd6 19 l:td1 l:thb8 20 'ii'f3 lDe5 21 'ii'g3 lDd3 22 'ii'xg7 ± Lau­tier) 18 lDxd6 1ixd6 19 .i.e3 (19 g4 ! ! intending 19 . . . .i.xg4 20 'ii'g2

Lautier) 19 •.• lDd5 20 .i.xa7 l:thc8 21 l:tfdl �g6 22 .i.xd5 exd5 23 :Xd5 1ie6 24 l:tddl .i.e4 25 1id7 1ixd7 26 l:txd7 l:tc2 27 b4 .i.f5 28 l:te7 �6 29 l:tb7 .i.c8 30 .i.d4+ �g6 31 l:ta7 l:txa7 32 .i.xa7 .i.d7 33 h3 .i.a4 34 a3 l:tc3 35 .i.cS h5 36 � f6 37 �e2 �f5 38 �d2 l:tb3 39 l:tel! l:txa3 40 l:te7 g5 41 l:ta7 �e4 42 f3+ �dS 43 .i.e7 l:ta2+ 44 �c3 l:tc2+ 45 �d3 l:ta2 46 �c3 l:tc2+ 47 �d3 l:ta2 48 l:r.a5+ �e6 49 .i.d8 .i.b3 50 l:txa2 .i.xa2 51 �d4 �5 52 b5 .i.e6 53 �cS .i.c8 54 �c6 h4 55 �c7 .i.e6 56 b6 1-0

1 9 9 0-0 i.e& 1 0 i.xe6

1 e4 c5 2 c3 tLlf6 3 eS lDdS 4 d4 cxd4 s tLlf3 lbc6 6 .tc4 tLlb6 7 .tb3 dS 8 exd6 •xd6 9 0-0 .te6

10 .txe6 •xe6 (D)

Black has some reasonable-look­ing possible deviations en route, but nevertheless the vast majority of games in this key line continue 1 1 tLlxd4 tLlxd4 12 1Wxd4 .:d8 13 •h4 'ife2 reaching a quite sharp position. Black's kingside is undeveloped, but White will must now take a commit­tal decision on how to activate his queenside pieces. 14 tLld2 (Game 52) is the first of the three big alter­natives examined for White, leading to very unclear play. 14 .i.d2 (Game 53) looks equal. The real fun comes

if White chooses the dramatic sacri­ficial path of 14 .te3 !? (Game 54) when very tactical play results after 14 .. . 1Wxb2 15 liKl2 .:xd2. Black ends up with two pieces (and even a pawn or two) versus a rook, but White has a dangerous initiative. At present Black's resources appear promising - see the game M .Maric-Cherniaev (note to White's 16th move in Game 54) for a wonderful example of de­fensive technique. Nevertheless, in practice White has not scored at all badly.

Game 52 Acs - A.Schneider

Budapest 1995

1 e4 cS 2 c3 tLlf6 3 eS tLldS 4 d4 cxd4 5 tLlf3 tLlc6 6 .tc4 tLlb6 7 .tb3 d6 8 exd6 •xd6 9 0·0 .te6 10 .txe6 •xe6 11 tLlxd4

Inferior is 1 1 cxd4 'ifd7 12 tLlc3 e6 with an easy game for Black.

ll ... tLlxd4 l l . . .'ifd5 12 •e2 tLlxd4 13 cxd4

e6 14 llk3 •d7 1 5 d5 ! tLlxdS 16 tLlxdS 'ifxd5 17 .:dt gives White an initiative for the pawn, Sveshnikov­Rashkovsky, USSR 1984.

Instead l l . . ... d7 !? is an under­rated move:

a) 12 'ife2 tLlxd4 1 3 cxd4 e6 14 tLlc3 .te7 15 d5 exd5 16 .i.g5 f6 17 .te3 0-0 18 .txb6 axb6 19 :act 1 :as

172 9 0-0 .i.e6 10 ..Le6

oo was Antonio-Liang, Shenzhen 1992.

b) 12 .!Db5 a6 13 1i'xd7+ �xd7 14 l:ld1+ �c8 15 .!Dsa3 e6 16 .i.f4 .i.e7 17 o!Dc2 l:ld8 just gives an equal endgame, Markovic-Liang, Novi Sad OL 1990.

c) 12 o!Dxc6 1i'xc6 leaves White ahead in development, but to date he has not been able to exploit this, e.g. 1 3 'li'e2 e6 14 o!Dd2 .i.e7 15 o!Df3 0-0 16 .i.f4 l:lfd8 17 l:lfd1 l:lxd1+ 18 l:lxd 1 'li'a4 19 .i.g5 .i.xg5 20 o!Dxg5 Ifl. lh Lendwai-Tischbierek, Vienna 1991 .

d) Perhaps Sveshnikov found the best plan for White in an old game: 12 .i.e3 ! ? o!Dd5 13 .!Dd2 o!Dxe3 14 fxe3 e5 (14 .. . e6 15 1i'g4!?) 15 o!Dxc6 1i'xc6 1 6 1i'g4 g6 17 1i'c4 f5 18 'li'xc6+ bxc6 19 o!Dc4 0-0-0 20 o!Dxe5 ± Sveshnikov-Rashkovsky, Kuiby­shev 1986.

12 'ii'xd4 12 cxd4 and Black must proceed

accurately in spite of weak white IQP:

a) 12 . . . g6 1 3 l:le1 (or 13 o!Dc3) 13 . . . 1i'f6 14 o!Dc3 .i.g7 15 o!De4 1i'c6 16 .i.g5 ;t Dontevic-Illescas, JW GC IV 1989.

b) 12 . . . 1i'd7 13 o!Dc3 l:ld8 (if 13 . . . e6 14 1i'g4 f5 15 1i'e2 .i.e7 16 l:le1 �f7 17 .i.f4 l:thc8 18 l:lad1 !) 14 l:le1 (14 1i'f3 !? o!Dd5 15 .i.g5) 14 . . . e6 15 .i.e3 .i.e7 16 1i'g4 0-0 17 l:lad1 o!Dd5 18 .i.h6 .if6 19 o!De4 'li'e7 20 h4 l:ld7 21 l:ld3 �h8 oo Handoko­Martin del Campo, Manila OL 1992.

c) 12 . . . l:ld8 1 3 o!Dc3 g6 14 d5 !? (14 l:te1 l:lxd4! 15 l:lxe6 l:lxd1+ 16 o!Dxd1 fxe6 :j: Sveshnikov-Dvoirys,

Moscow 1990, or 14 1i'f3 1Wc6 = as in Bergstrom-Yakovich, Gausdal 1991) 14 . . . o!Dxd5 15 1i'd4 'li'f6 16 'l'xa7 o!Dxc3 17 bxc3 .i.g7 18 1i'xb7 0-0 19 .ia3 l:lb8 20 1i'xe7 'l'xc3 21 1i'e3 1i'xe3 22 fxe3 l:lfe8 23 l:lab1 .i.h6 = Dontevic-Komljenovic, Bad Worishofen 1985.

12 ... :ld8 (D) Almost invariably played, even

though Black can try to exchange queens. 12 . . . 1i'd5 13 1i'g4 e6 14 l:ld1 h5 15 1We2 1i'c4 16 'li'c2 .i.e7 17 b3 1i'c6 18 c4 .if6 19 o!Dc3 ;t was Wes­terinen-Shamkovich, Brighton 1982, or 12 . . . 1i'd7 13 .ie3 !? ( 13 1i'xd7+ o!Dxd7 14 .ie3 e6 15 l:ld1 allowed 15 . . . .i.c5 ! = in Blatny-Kovalev, Ger­many 1995, as on 16 l:lxd7? .i.xe3 17 l:lxb7?? 0-0-0 Black wins; Black also equalised after 13 1We5 e6 14 o!Dd2 1i'd5 15 1i'e2 .i.e7 1 6 c4 1i'f5 17 b3 0-0 18 1i'e4 1Wxe4 19 o!Dxe4 l:lfd8 20 .ie3 f5 ! in Vorotnikov-Georgad­ze, USSR 1985) 13 . .. 1i'xd4 14 .ixd4 o!Dd7 15 .!Dd2 (15 l:le1 ;t is superior) 15 . . . e5 16 l:lfe1 f6 17 l:lad1 .i.e7 18 .ie3 0-0-0 = Nouro-A.Shneider, Jy­vaskyla 1994.

13 'ifh4

Or: a) 1 3 'ii'b4 'ii'c6 14 a4 (14 lbd2 e6

and now 15 'ii'e4 'ii'd5 16 a4 i.e? 17 a5 'ii'xe4 1 8 lbxe4 lbd5 = Vorot­nikov-Salov, Leningrad 1984 or 15 'ii'g4 h5 16 'ii'g3 h4 17 'ii'f3? ! 'W'xf3 1 8 lbxf3 h3 :;: Hresc-Vaisser, Cap­pelle Ia Grande 1 987) 14 . . . a6 15 'ii'b3 ( 15 i..e3 lbd5 16 'ii'c5 'ii'd7 17 'ii'd4 lbxe3 1 8 fxe3 'ii'c7 19 'ii'g4 e6 20 lba3 f5 21 'ii'c4 'ii'xc4 22 lbxc4 l:.c8 Ifl- 112 Sveshnikov-Pigusov, Po­dolsk 1990) 15 . . . e6 16 lbd2 i..e7 17 lbf3 0-0 18 :te1 lbc4 19 'ii'c2 h6 20 b3 lba5 21 i..e3 i..f6 22 l:.ac 1 'ii'c7 = Blatny-Stohl, Pardubice 1993.

b) 1 3 'ii'e3 'ii'xe3 (in Sariego­Dvoirys, Polanica Zdroj 1989, Black rejected the drawish exchange of queens and duly gained a good game after 14 . . . 'ii'c6 14 lbd2 e6 15 'ii'g3 f6 16 lbf3 �f7 17 l:.e 1 i..c5 1 8 i..e3 l:.he8 19 'ii'h3 i..xe3 20 :txe3 lD£15 21 lbd4 'ii'd7 22 l:.ee1 e5 :;:) 14 i..xe3 lbc4 (14 . . . e6 15 i..xb6 axb6 16 a4 'it>d7 17 l:.d 1 + i..d6 1 8 lba3 �c6 19 lbb5 i..e5 20 �fl i..f6 21 �e2 h5 22 b4 1h-lf2 Lane-Ernst, London 1988) 15 i..xa7 lbxb2 16 lba3 e6 17 lbc2 .l:.d2 1 8 lbd4 i..a3 19 l:.fb1 lba4 20 .l:.xb7 0-0 21 lbf3 l:.c2 22 lbd4 :td2 1h-1h Mikhalchishin-Ki.Georgiev, Sarajevo 1985.

c) 13 'ii'f4: c l ) 1 3 . . . 'W'c6 is logical, when af­

ter 14 lbd2 Black has played several moves: 14 . . . e6 15 00 lbd5 16 'ii'g3 g6 17 i..g5 ;!; was Vorotnikov-Gore­lov, USSR 1985, but equal were 14 . . . g6 1 5 'ii'e5 f6 16 'W'e2 i..g7 17 lbb3 'ii'c4 18 'W'xc4 1h-1h Luther-Ly­senko, Sverdlovsk 1 989 and 14 . . . f6

9 0-0 i..e6 10 .Le6 173

15 'ii'e4 e5 16 'ii'xc6+ bxc6 17 l:.e1 �f7 18 �fl i.e? 19 lbb3 :td5 = Blatny-Aseev, Kecskemet 1992.

c2) 1 3 . . . g6 (D) with three possi­bilities:

c21 ) 14 lba3?! (once popular, but now discredited) 14 . . . i..g7 15 lbb5 (15 'ii'c7 'ii'd5 !? 16 i..e3 i..e5 17 'ii'c5 'ii'xc5 1S i..xc5 lba4 19 i..xa7 lbxb2 =i= O'Donnell-Tukmakov, Canada 19S9) 15 .. . 0-0 ! (previously 15 .. . lbd5 16 lbc7+ lbxc7 17 'ii'xc7 'ii'd7 was played, but castling will be very ef­fective if White cannot safely snatch the a-pawn) 16 lbxa7? (16 lbd4 i..xd4 17 cxd4 lbd5 :;:) 16 .. . 'ii'e2! (threaten-ing . . . :td1 , and 17 'ii'e3? is met by 17 . . . 'ii'a6) 17 i..e3 lD£15 1 S 'ii'f3 'ii'xb2 19 l:.ab1 'W'xa2 20 l:.xb7 'W'a6 21 l:.bb 1 lbxc3 + Yanovsky-Kiselev, USSR 19SS.

c22) 14 i..e3 i..g7 and now 15 i..xb6 'W'xb6 16 'W'a4+ �f8 17 lba3 i..f6 1S lbc4 'ifc5 19 'itb3 �g7 with equality,Sveshnikov-Vyzhmanavin, Moscow 1 9S7 or 15 'W'c7 lbd5 16 'ii'xb7 0-0 17 i..d4 i..xd4 1S cxd4 l:.bS 19 'ii'xa7 l:.aS 20 'ii'c5 l:.fc8 21 'ii'b5 :tabS 22 'ii'a5 .:.Xb2 .., Jackson­S.Arkell, London 1991 .

174 9 0-0 .i.e6 10 .Le6

c23) White could also reach a reasonable ending with 14 'ilc7 1lfd7 15 'ilxd7+ l:lxd7 16 a4 a6 17 a5 ll:X:4 18 l:la4 lL!e5 19 .i.e3 = Bashkov-Ba­gaturov, Mlada Boleslav 1 993.

13 ... 'ii'e2! (D) Considering Black's lack of king­

side development this queen move gives a cheeky impression, but in fact it is now not so easy for White to get his own remaining pieces out. The dangerous . . . l:ld 1 is always in the air, and White's b-pawn will be en prise should the c1 bishop de­velop to the natural e3-square. Alter­natives:

a) l 3 . . . 'ilf5 14 .i.e3 e5 15 .i.xb6 axb6 16 lDa3 J.xa3 17 1i'a4+ 1i'd7 18 'ii'xa3 ± Strikovi�-Cigan, Cetinje 1990.

b) 13 . . . 'ii'g6 14 .i.e3 e5 15 .i.xb6 1i'xb6 16 lDa3 .i.e? ( 16 . . . 1Wxb2 17 1Wa4+) 17 1Wa4+ 'ii'c6 18 1Wxc6+ bxc6 19 ll:X:4 ;t Acs-Cao, Budapest 1995 .

c) 13 . . . g6 !? 14 J.e3 (14 J.h6 'ii'e2 !) 14 . . . J.g7 15 tDd2 0-0 16 lDf3 ;t Kopp-Klingelhofer, Hess en 1989.

d) 1 3 . . . 'ii'c6 14 l:le1 ! (14 tDd2 e6 15 00 J.e7 16 J.g5 f6 17 J.e3 0-0 18 l:lfe1 lDc8 19 lDd4 'ii'd5 20 b3 l:lfe8 21 c4 1Wd7 ., Kostenko-Stripunsky, Moscow 1994) 14 . . . e6 15 J.g5 l:ld5 16 lDd2 h6 17 J.e3 .i.c5 18 lDe4 J.xe3 19 l:lxe3 0-0 20 l:lg3 ± Svesh­nikov-Szekely, Leningrad 1984.

e) 13 ... h5 !? (with the idea of 14 . . . 'ii'g4 ! .,) 14 h3 1Wc4 (14 . . . g6 15 lba3 l:ld7 16 J.g5 f6 17 .i.e3 �f7 18 l:lfe1 ;t Acs-Enders, Budapest 1 996; instead 14 ... 1We2 15 J.e3 !? 1Wxb2 16 tDd2 l:lxd2 17 .i.xd2 1Wxd2 1 8 l:lfd1 1i'h6 gives White a version of Game

54 where the interpolation of . . . h5 and h3 is favourable for him, e.g. 19 l:labl 1Wc6 20 1Wf4 lDc8 21 l:lxb7! f6 22 1Wb8 �f7 23 l:lc7 'ii'a4 24 l:ld4 'ii'xa2 25 l:lxc8 g5 26 l:ldd8 1 -0 An­gelov-Prahov, Primorsko 1985) 15 1Wg3 ( 15 'ilxc4 lDxc4 16 b3 tDd6 17 .i.e3 a6 18 lDa3 l:lc8 19 c4 lDf5 20 J.b6 g5 with equality, Podobnik-Sveshni.kov, Pula 1990) 15 .. . 'ii'd3 1 6 J.e3 lDc4 1 7 tDa3 lDxe3 ( 1 7 . . . lDxa3) 18 fxe3 ;t Sveshnikov-Ubilava, So­chi 1984. Bearing in mind Sveshni­kov is now also playing the line with Black, this plan could become a safe alternative to the sharp 13 ... 'ii'e2 1ines.

14 lbdl For 14 .i.d2 see Game 53, and for

14 J.e3 Game 54. Instead 14 'ii'g3 e6 15 lDd2 transposes to the note after Black's next move while 14 b3? ! g6 15 .i.g5 l:ld1 16 tDd2 l:lxa1 17 l:lxa1 J.g7 18 lDe4 0-0 ! + 19 J.xe7 l:le8 20 :n g5 ! won material for Black in Morvay-Vegh, Hungary 1982. 14 'ii'g5? ! is likewise ineffectual: 14 . . . e5 15 1We3 'ii'xe3 16 J.xe3 ll:X:4 17 J.cl J.c5 18 b3 tDd6 = Pan­chenko-Ionov, USSR 1983.

14 ... h5

The start of a double-edged ad­vance of the kingside pawns. Alter­natives:

a) Immediately grabbing the two pieces for a rook leaves Black with a vastly inferior version of Game 54: 14 ... :xd2? 15 i.xd2 'ti'xd2 16 :rd1 'ti'h6 17 'ti'g3 'ti'c6 1 8 :d3 �8 19 :ad1 f6 20 'ti'b8 �f7 21 :d7 ± Barle-Wittman, Ljubljana 1981 .

b ) 14 . . . g6 needs more tests, e.g. 15 a4 i.g7 16 a5 llk8 17 'it'a4+ :d7 18 �f3 b5 19 1Wb3 0-0 20 :et 1Vd3 21 a6 :fd8 ao Nun-Stohl, Prague 1986.

c) 14 ... e6 15 1Wg3 (D) is quite common:

c l ) 15 . . . i.d6 (White's last move was supposed to prevent this bishop developing) 16 'it'xg7 i.e5 17 1Wg5 :d3 18 �f3 ( 18 �b3 h6! 19 'it'h4 :dt 20 �d2 :xd2 21 i.xd2 1Wxd2 22 :adl 1Wg5 23 'it'e4 'it'f4 ; Afek­Ikonnikov, Paris 1 995) 18 . . . :dt 19 �d2 llk4 20 :xd1 1Wxdl+ 21 �fl h6 22 1Wh4 �d2 (forcing White into a promising exchange sacrifice) 23 i.xd2 'it'xal 24 1Wh5 i.f6 25 1Wf3 i.g7 26 'ti'g3 i.f6 Acs-Volzhin, Bu­dapest 1996, and now 27 11'b8+ i.d8

9 0-0 i.e6 10 .Le6 175

28 'it'e5 ! ± in view of 28 . . . :g8 29 11'b5+.

c2) 15 . . . h5 !? 16 �f3 h4 17 1Vc7 (17 lLlxh4? :xh4! 18 11'xh4 :dt -+) 17 . . . 'ti'a6 ! 18 i.g5 f6 19 i.xh4 �d5 20 'it'g3 g5 21 i.xg5 fxg5 22 'ti'xg5 i.e7 23 'ti'g6+ �d7 24 :ed t �c8 25 tLld4 �c7 ; Morvay-Hardicsay, Hungary 1982, but no one has tried the line again for Black.

1S b3 To prevent . . . 1Wg4 by Black, as 15

lLlf3 is met by 15 . . . :d1 16 tLld2 ltb6 17 'ti'f4 1td6 18 :Xd1 'ti'xd1+ 19 tLlfl g6 ; Khlusevich-Dvoirys, USSR 1982. However the useful move 15 a4 !? is worth consideration, when after 15 . . . 1Wg4 16 1Wxg4 hxg4 17 a5 tLld5 1 8 :a4 f5 19 :e1 g6 20 tLlb3 White had a better endgame in the game Vancini-Hugony, San Bene­detto del Tronto 1987.

1S ... gS!? 16 'ti'g3 Not 16 'it'xg5? i.h6. 16 ... g4 17 b4 17 �b3?! i.g7 (also 17 .. . gxh3 18

lLld4 1Wg4 Acs-Votava, Budapest 1 995) 18 i.f4 00 19 :fe1 'ti'xb2 20 c4 lLlxf4 21 1Wxf4 gxh3 22 'ti'g5 'ti'f6 + Acs-Szuk, Budapest 1995.

17 ... i.g7 18 �b3 0-0 1 8 . . . �d5 19 tLld4 'ti'e5 20 1l'd3

:d7 21 i.g5 tLlf4 ao Acs-Varga, Bu­dapest 1 996.

19 tLld4 i.xd4 20 cxd4 'ti'e4 If20 . . . :xd4 21 i.h6 :e8 22 ltae1

Black's kingside is looking exposed, and Schneider gives the continuation 22 . . . 'it'b5 23 :es 1l'd3 24 :g5+ �h7 25 :xh5 1Wg6 26 'it'e5 ! f6 27 i.f4+ �g7 28 :g5 ! 1Wxg5 29 hxg5 fxe5 30 i.xe5+ �g6 3 1 i.xd4 �xg5 32

176 9 0-0 .l.e6 10 Le6

.i.e3+ �f5 33 lld1 ±. However even in the game Black's king has little shelter, and we should take note that Acs is still playing this line for White.

21 .i.d2 liJds 22 llae1 '1Vg6 23 f3!? '1Vd3! 24 .i.h6 '1Vxd4+ 25 �h2 :res 26 :es �h7 27 .i.d2 (27 llxh5? lLlf6) 27 .•• lLlf6 28 .i.c3 '1Vd6 29 llfel? (29 fxg4! hxg4 30 lle3 was still fine for White; not 29 .. . tLlxg4+? 30

. �h1 tLlxe5 in this line, when 3 1

llxf7+! forces mate next move) 29 ••• gxf3! 30 gxf3 llg8 31 '1Vf4 llg6 32 '1Vb4? '1Vxb4 33 .i.xb4 lld4 0-1

Game 53 Sveshnikov - Salov

Leningrad 1984

1 e4 cS 2 c3 tLlr6 3 e5 tLlds 4 d4 cxd4 5 m tbc6 6 .i.c4 tLlb6 7 .i.b3 dS 8 exd6 '1Vxd6 9 0-0 .l.e6 10 .i.xe6 '1Vxe6 ll tLlxd4 tLlxd4 12 '1Vxd4 lld8 13 '1Vh4 '1Ve2 14 .i.d2 (D)

The idea of 14 .i.d2 is to develop (White intends lle1) without sacri­ficing the b-pawn by 14 .i.e3 !?, the subject of the following illustrative game). As commented on in the 14

tLld2 lines (Game 52), after 14 .i.d2 it is too dangerous for Black to grab the two pieces for a rook with the im­mediate 14 . . . 1lxd2.

14 ... h5 With the idea of 15 lle1 'ii'g4

swapping queens. Others: a) 14 ... 1i'c4 15 'ii'g3 'ii'd3 and Pan­

chenko has had a couple of grand­master draws repeating moves with 16 'ii'h4 'ii'c4 17 '1Vg3 and 16 '1Vf4 'ii'c4 17 '1Vg3.

b) 14 . . . e6 15 lle1 '1Vd3 (another idea for Black is 15 . . . '1Vc4!?) 16 .i.g5 lld5 17 tLld2 'ii'g6 1 8 tLle4 h6 1 9 .i.f6! tLld7 ! ao Sveshnikov-Ionov, Volgodonsk 1983.

c) 14 ... f6 15 lle1 llxd2 16 tLlxd2 'ii'xd2 17 'ii'h5+ (or 17 a4 !? 'ii'd5 1 8 a5 tLlc8 1 9 'ii'g4 'ii'd7 20 lle6 g 6 21 lld1 'ii'c7 22 a6 with pressure for White, Cabrera-Remon, Cuba 1984) 17 . . . g6 18 '1Va5 'ii'd7 19 '1Vxa7 tLlc8 20 '1Va5 (Sveshnikov assesses this position as better for White; Kuzmin thinks it favours Black, but in the game he seriously erred) 20 . . . e6 21 c4! 'ii'c6? (21 . . .b6) 22 llxe6+! '1Vxe6 23 lle1 'ii'xe1+ 24 'ii'xe1+ �d7 25 'ii'd2+ �c7 26 '1Vf4+ .i.d6 27 '1Vxf6 ± because White had too many pawns in Sveshnikov-Kuzmin, Tashkent 1984.

15 h3 15 'ii'g5?! h4! 16 lle1 'ii'h5 17

tLla3 'ii'xg5 18 .l.xg5 1lh5 19 .i.e3 e6 20 .i.xb6 axb6 21 tLlc4 b5 22 tLle3 h3 23 gxh3 llxh3 24 a4 b4 � Svesh­nikov-Tukmakov, USSR 1 984 or 1 5 lle1 'ii'g4 16 '1Vxg4 hxg4 17 .l.e3 e6 1 8 tLld2 .i.d6 19 g3 .i.b8 = Sariego­Pigusov, Bayamo 1985.

15 ••• lbc4 1 5 . . . 1Wc4 16 1i'g3 1i'd3 17 1i'h4

1Wc4 1 8 1i'g3 .. d3 112-112 was Pan­chenko-Sherbakov, Sochi 1989, the same draw as at move 14 with the moves 14 . . . h5 15 h3 thrown on. Panchenko obviously has a sense of humour more highly developed than his fighting spirit

16 .llel .. d3 17 .tel a6 18 b3 lDd6 19 •a4+ .. b5 20 •xb5+ (20 .. f4 !?) 20 ••• li)xb5 21 a4 lbc7! 22 .lla2 e6 23 ..te3 ..te7 24 i.d4 ..tr6 25 i.b6 �d7 26 b4 �c6! = 27 a5 .lld7 28 c4 i.d4 29 li)a3 i.xb6 30 axb6 hb6 31 c5+ 1/z-112

Just when the position was getting interesting: 3 l .. .�a7 32 b5 �.

Game 54 Woodland - Neil

Corr. l989

1 e4 c5 2 c3li)f6 3 e5 lDds 4 d4 cxd4 5 ffi lbc6 6 i.c4 li)b6 7 i.b3 d5 8 exd6 .. xd6 9 0-0 i.e6 10 ..txe6 •xe6 1l li)xd4 li)xd4 12 •xd4 .lld8 13 'ilfh4 .. e2 14 i.e3!? (D)

B

The critical and most dangerous move. White offers a double-edged

9 0-0 i.e6 10 .Le6 177

pawn sacrifice on b2, soon followed by two pieces for a rook. Usually Black grabs the material and then, in good modem style, offers some back to get his kingside pieces developed. In practical play White has not done badly, as Black's king is exposed and accurate defence is essential, but ob­jectively I suspect that Black <;an successfully regroup with precise play.

14 ..... xb2 14 ... llX:4 15 li)a3 (15 ..txa7? .lld1

+) 15 . . . fue3 16 1i'a4+ .lld7 17 fxe3 .. a6 18 1i'xa6 bxa6 19 llX:4 ;!; Mor­vay-Monda, Hungarian Cht 1995.

A more serious line is 14 ... e6: a) 15 li)d2 ..te7 16 1i'g3 0-0 17

i.h6 (17 .llfe1 .. d3 18 i.xb6 1i'xg3 1 9 hxg3 .llxd2 20 ..txa7 = Haba­Stohl, Czechoslovakia 1987) 17 ... ..tf6 1 8 .llfe1 1i'h5 1 9 i.e3 .lld3 20 •f3 1i'xf3 21 li)xf3 lfl. lfl Sveshnikov­Kiselev, Moscow Ch 1987.

b) 15 .i.xb6 axb6 16 lba3 b5 (16 . . . .1ld7 17 .llfe1 1i'xb2 18 li)c4 1Wxc3 19 li)e5 .lld4 20 1i'h5 g6 21 li)xg6 .llg8 22 li)xf8 �xf8 23 .llac 1 ;!; Van Mii-Eiemersma, Netherlands 1992) 17 1i'g5 i.xa3 18 1i'xg7 .i.xb2 (really? 18 . . . .1lf8 19 bxa3 ;!; Hmadi­Mascariiias, Novi Sad OL 1 990) 19 .llae1 1i'h5 20 1i'xh8+ �e7 21 1i'e5 1i'xe5 22 .llxe5 b4 23 .llb5 bxc3 24 .llxb7+ .lld7 25 .llb8 .lld8 26 .llb7+ .lld7 27 .llb8 .lld8 112-112 Lindgren­Kotronias, Gausdal 1990, but White might expect to improve somewhere.

15 ltld2 .llxd2 (D) If 15 . . . 1i'b5?! , 16 .llab1 1i'c6 17

..txb6 .1lxd2 18 .. f4! .lld6 19 ..txa7 ;!; Lagunov-Poliakevich, USSR 1986,

178 9 0-0 i..e6 10 Le6

but 15 .. . e6!? is less clear, e.g. 16 .l:.ab1 (perhaps 16 �4 1fxc3 17 �xb6 axb6 18 i.xb6 .l:.c8 oo) 16 . . . 'Wxa2 17 .l:.a1 'Wd5 18 .l:.xa7 �c8 19 .l:.a4 �6 Htlnerkopf-De Boer, Germany 1990.

16 l:.abl!? This zwischenzug offers a further

pawn or two to activate the rook with tempo. The alternative is 16 i.xd2 'ii'xd2 17 .l:.fd1 (17 a4 leads to simi­lar play: 17 . . . 'ii'h6 18 'W'g3 'ii'c6 19 .l:.fd1 g6 20 .l:.ab1 �7 21 .l:.d3 f6 22 .l:.bd1 �e5 23 .l:.d8+ �f7 + Van der Werf- Har-Zvi, Wijk aan Zee 1993; White's problem in this whole line is that he is so seriously behind in ma­terial Black will usually become bet­ter if he successful develops his kingside) 17 . . . 'ii'h6 18 1i'g3 'ii'c6 and now:

a) 19 ,.b8+ �8 and Black is threatening to develop with 20 . . . e6 and 2l . . .i.e7 (as White's queen no longer exerts pressure on g7), e.g. 20 .l:.ab1 b6 21 a4 e6 22 aS i.c5 +.

b) 19 .l:.ab1 1i'c8 !? (19 ... �8 !?), when 20 1i'e5 e6 21 'W'b5+ 1i'c6 22 'Wxc6+ bxc6 23 a4 i.c5 24 aS �c8 25 .l:.b8 �e7 26 .l:.b7+ �f6 27 .l:.b8 �e7 28 .l:.b7+ �f6 29 .l:.b8 .l:.e8 30

.l:.d7 .l:.e7 3 1 .l:.bb7 .l:.xd7 32 .l:.xd7 �e7 and White was left trying to de­fend (unsuccessfully) with rook v the two minor pieces in Kotliar­Brook, Israeli Ch 1986.

c) 19 .l:.d4!? (this centralising rook move is a good attempt, but as we shall see Black has some remark­able defensive resources which give him a large advantage) 19 . . . f6 20 1i'b8+ �8 21 .l:.ad 1 �f7 22 .l:.d7 (after 22 .l:.d8? �6 the knight takes up a protected central post; after the text move 22 . . . �d6?? is a blunder due to 23 .l:.xd6 or 23 'Wxd6; how­ever Chemiaev understands that .l:.c7 is only a pseudo-threat, and plays an excellent move) 22 . . . g5 ! 23 .l:.c7 (23 .l:.xb7 i.g7 24 .l:.c7 'Wb6 ! 25 .l:.b7 1i'e6 +; probably the best chances are offered by 23 1i'xb7 'ii'xb7 24 .l:.xb7 i.g7 25 c4 f5 26 c5 when Black's knight is without moves, but after 26 . . . i.e5 White's c-pawn is no real danger and Black can gradually un­ravel his position) 23 . . . 'W'a4! 24 .l:.d8 1i'a3 ! + (brilliant defence: of course 24 . . . �d6? would have lost to 25 .l:.xd6, but now, using the threat . . . 1f c 1 , Black gains time to overpro­tect d6 with his queen, e.g. 25 g3 �d6 26 c4 'Wb4! + is analysed by Shirov and Cherniaev in lnformator 53) 25 h3?! �6 26 g3 h5 ! 27 c4 h4 28 c5 �f5 29 .l:.cc8 (White will win back vast quantities of material, but her king is actually in deep trouble) 29 . . . hxg3 ! 30 .l:.xf8+ �e6! 3 1 .l:.xh8 gxf2+ 32 �xf2 1i'xa2+ 33 � 'W'h3+ 34 �f2 (34 �g4 'W'd1#) 34 . . . 'Wc2+ 35 �e1 �d4 36 .l:.c6+ (there is no other way for White to stave off

mate) 36 . . . bxc6 37 'ifc8+ �e5 38 'ifc7+ �e6 39 'ifc8+ �d5 40 'ifd7+ �c4 4 1 'ifxe7 1i'g2! -+ 42 l:td8 'ifg1+ 43 �d2 tl'f2+ 44 �d1 'iffl+ 45 'ife1 (45 �d2 lDb3+) 45 . . . 1i'f3+ 46 �c1 t1'a3+ 0-1 M.Maric-Cher­niaev, Hastings 1991 .

16 ••• 'ifc2?! Although 16 ... 'ifxc3 looks risky,

Black wriggled out after 17 .txd2 'ifxd2 1 8 'ife4 'ii'xa2 19 'ii'xb7 f6 20 l:ta1 'ii'e6 21 'ii'xa7 lDc8 22 'ifc7 (22 'ifc5 !? �fl 23 l:tfe1 'ifd7 24 l:ta8 lDd6 25 l:ta7 is by no means clear) 22 . . . 'ii'd7 23 'ifc4 lDb6 24 'ifb3 lDd5 25 l:ta8+ �fl 26 'ii'a2 �g6 !? + in Hmadi-De Firmian, Manila IZ 1990.

However why not take the a­pawn? After 16 . . . 'W'xa2 ! , if there is nothing better than the capture on d2 in reply, the fact that White has no a­pawn will be important in the long term. 17 l:ta1 tries to exploit Black's pawn grab (intending 17 . . . 'ifc2 1 8 .txd2 'iixd2 19 l:txa7 when Black's lack of development is worrying) but after 17 . . . 'ifc4 !? 1 8 'ifxc4 lDxc4 1 9 .txd2 lDxd2 20 l:tfd1 lDe4 21 l:txa7 lDd6 22 c4 b6 Black is certainly not worse, and may be much better. Whilst White spends time trying to round up to b-pawn Black will de­velop with . . . g6 and . . . .tg7. There­fore White continues 17 .txd2 'iixd2 18 l:tfd1 (D) and now:

a) 1 8 . . . 'iixc3? 19 l:txb6 axb6 20 'ifa4+ 'iic6 21 'iia8+ wins for White.

b) 18 . . . 1i'a2 transposes to the main game (the reference Morvay­Halasz used this move-order).

c) 1 8 . . . 'ifh6! 19 'ifg3 f5 (and not 1 9 . . . 'ifc6? 20 l:txb6! with 21 tl'b8+

9 0-0 .ie6 10 Le6 179

coming) 20 'iib8+ �fl 21 'ifxa7 lDc8 22 'iixb7 lDd6 Hellstrom-Kre­imer, Corr. 1992. Black's knight has reached a solid outpost, and he has two pieces for a rook. White is still ahead in development, and could create problems for Black if he could advance his c-pawn. The game con­tinued 23 'iia7 (this plan looks dubi­ous) 23 . . . 'iie6 24 l:tb8 g6 25 'ii'a8 'iie5 26 g3 .tg7 27 l:txh8 .txh8 28 c4 lDxc4 29 'iid8 lDd6 30 l:tb1 g5 3 1 l:tb8 'iie1+? 32 �g2 'iie4+ 3 3 �g1 'iie1+? (33 . . . .tg7 +) 112-112. I suspect Black is better at move 22, but we await more practical tests.

17 .txd2 'ii'xd2 18 l:tfdl 'ifxa2 Now if 18 ... 'iih6 White is either a

pawn or a tempo up on lines exam­ined earlier: 19 1i'g3 f5 20 'ifb8+ �fl 21 'ifxa7 lDc8 22 'iixb7 ± Di­mov-Halkias, Varna 1994, because White's passed a-pawn is a danger.

19 'ii'e4 Whilst the position remains very

unclear, the activity of the white ma­jor pieces can make life very un­pleasant for Black, in spite of his considerable material advantage. For example, Black ended up returning material for a worse ending after

180 9 0-0 i.e6 10 Le6

both the alternatives 19 'iih5 1i'e6 20 c4 g6 21 1i'b5+ 'ii'c6 22 c5 Wxb5 23 llxb5 .i.g7 24 cxb6 axb6 25 llxb6 0-0 26 llxb7 .i.f6 Van de Oudewee­tering-Boersma, Netherlands 1 993 and 19 'iig3 f6 20 1i'b8+ �f7 21 1i'xb7 'iia5 22 1i'c7 We5 23 Wxa7 lLlc8 24 1i'b7 c!Lld6 25 'ii'c7 h5 26 c4 c!Lle4 27 'ii'xe5 fxe5 28 llb8 llh6 29 lldd8 llh8 30 f3 c!Llc5 3 1 lldc8 lLle6 32 c5 lLld4 33 c6 c!Llxc6 34 llxc6 Vella-Ribeiro, Gausdal 1986.

19 .•• f6 19 ... g5 20 c4 (20 1i'xb7 ;t) 20 .. . .i.g7

21 c5 lLla4?? (21 . . .lLlc8 22 llxb7 0-0) 22 Wc6+ ! 1 -0 was Morvay-Halasz, Hungary 1994.

20 'iixb7 �f7 21 llal 'iic2 22 'iixa7 c!Llc4 23 'iid4 lLleS?! (Black should have tried 23 . . . c!Lld6) 24 f4 c!Llg4 25 h3 lLlh6 26 'iic4+ e6 27 lld7 + 'itg6 28 g4 i.a3 29 'iixe6 i.cS+ 30 �hi llbs 31 :adt ..trs 32 llgl l-0

20 9 0-0 .i.e& 1 0 liJa3

1 e4 c5 2 c3 tLlf6 3 e5 tLld5 4 d4 cxd4 5 tL!f3 lbc6 6 .i.c4 tL!b6 7 .i.b3 dS 8 exd6 'iVxd6 9 0-0 .i.e6

10 tL!a3 (D)

This is the absolute main line of the 2 . . . tL!f6 variation, where Black must make a decision whether to turn his temporary pawn advantage into a permanent one with 10 . . . dxc3. In Games 55 and 56 we examine the unambitious variations where he chooses not to. After 10 . . . .i.xb3 1 1 'ii'xb3 e6 (Game 55) it transpires that the sharpest line, 12 l:.d1 !?, gives promising play. Instead 1 1 . . . 'ii'd5 !? (Game 56) aims to exchange queens, but matters are not so straightfor­ward, since if Black swaps on b3 the

semi-open a-file can be a penetration point for White's queen's rook. In all of these lines White quickly re-es­tablishes material equality, and can exploit his lead in development with no risk of becoming worse. The con­clusion is that if Black declines the pawn he is struggling for equality .

Therefore we turn to 10 . . . dxc3. In Game 57 White pursues a slightly il­logical course with 1 1 tLlb5?!, as af­ter the queen exchange Black's king is safe in the centre. The critical test is 1 1 'ii'e2 !? (Game 58), where White seeks long-term compensation for his sacrificed pawn. After 1 1 . .. .i.xb3 12 tL!b5 Black's queen drops back to b8 to stop a later .i.f4 or attack by White's rook on the d-file. Black's defensive resources appear satisfac­tory at present, but White certainly has active play in many lines, and could experiment with Andrew Har­ley's interesting new suggestions.

Game 55 Schmittdiel - Kotronias

Gausdal 1994

1 e4 c5 2 c3 tL!f6 3 eS tbdS 4 d4 cxd4 5 rn tLlc6 6 .i.c4 tLlb6 7 .i.b3 dS 8 exd6 1ixd6 9 0-0 .i.e6 10 lt:la3 .i.xb3

10 . . . dxc3 is examined in games 57 and 58, while 10 . . . a6 transposes to a line examined in Chapter 18.

182 9 0-0 .i.e6 10 l0a3

11 1i'xb3 1 1 axb3?! a6 ( 1 1 . . .dxc3 12 1We2

see Game 56) 12 cxd4 (12 l0xd4 l0xd4 1 3 .i.e3 l0f5 14 .. xd6 l0xd6 15 .i.xb6 = Motwani -YrjOUl, Manila OL 1 992 and Pedersen-De Firmian, Farum 1993) leaves the white pawn structure very poor. Although he re­mains well ahead in development this has so far been insufficient to compensate: 12 . . . :ds ( 12 . . ... d5 !? 13 1i'd3 e6 14 l0c4 1Wb5 15 .i.f4 :cs 16 l0fd2 00 17 .i.d6 l0f6 18 .i.xf8 �xf8 1 9 l0f3 :ds 20 :fd1 �e7 21 ,.e3 :ds 22 l0ce5 :hd8 ; Rohde­Granda, USA 1992) 1 3 l0c4 l0xc4 14 bxc4 l0xd4! (14 . . . e6 15 .. b3 :d7 16 :d1 ± Smagin-Abramovic, Ca�ak 1991) 15 l0xd4 .. xd4 16 ,.f3 :d7 17 .i.f4 1i'd3 18 .i.e3 g6 19 :ad1 1i'f5 20 :xd7 .. xf3 21 :xe7+ .i.xe7 22 gxf3 �d7 23 :d1+ �c6 ; Rob­de-Wolff, USA Ch 1991 .

ll ... e6?! (D) Whilst Black retains chances of

equality, this quiet move encourages White to gain further time by ex­ploiting the queen's position on d6. 1 1 . . .1i'd5 !? is examined in the fol­lowing game. 1 1...l:.c8 12 l:.d1 !? 1i'd5 1 3 l0xd4 .. xb3 14 axb3 e6 15 l0xc6 :xc6 16 b4 .i.e7 17 .i.e3 l0c8 18 b5 :c7 19 .i.xa7! ± was the game Hoff­man-P.Cramling, Buenos Aires 1994, whilst another inferior prophylactic move is 1 1 . . . 1i'd7?, e.g. 12 l:.d1 ! e6 1 3 l0xd4 l0xd4 (13 . . . l0a5 14 .. b5 ! .i.xa3 15 1i'xa5 ± Blatny-Aseev, Bad Worishofen 1992) 14 l:.xd4 1i'c6 15 l0c4 .i.c5 16 l0e5 •cs 17 .. b5+ ± Markovic-Ilin�ic, Kladovo 1993.

12 l0b5

w

12 :d1 !? is sharper and may keep an edge:

a) 12 . . . d3 13 lObS 1i'd7 14 c4 l:.d8 15 l0xa7 l0xc4 16 1i'xc4 l0xa7 17 .i.e3 l0c6 18 .i.b6 1i'd5 19 1i'a4 :d7 20 l0e1 .i.d6 2 1 :xd3 1i'h5 22 g3 .i.b8 23 :xd7 �xd7 24 :d1 + ± Schmittdiel-Enders, Germany 1990.

b) 12 . . ... d5 1 3 l0b5 0-0-0: b1) 14 l0bxd4? is a mistake:

14 . . . 1Wxb3 15 axb3 e5 16 .i.g5 exd4 17 .i.xd8 l0xd8 + Schmittdiel-Kot­ronias, Gausdal 1992.

b2) 14 .i.f4 •xb3 15 axb3 lbd5 16 l0xa7+ l0xa7 17 :xa7 l0xf4 18 l:.a8+ �c7 19 l:.xd8 �xd8 20 :xd4+ lbdS 21 c4 .i.c5 22 :d2 .i.b4 ! 23 :d4 .i.c5 24 :d2 112- lh Panchenko­Baikov, Yaroslavl 1986 as 24 :d 1 al­lows 24 . . . �e7 25 cxd5 :ds and Black regains the pawn with advan­tage.

b3) 14 l0xa7+ l0xa7 15 .. xb6 .i.cS 16 .. a5 l0c6 17 .. aS+! ( 17 1i'a4 d3 oo Rozentalis - Sideif-Zade, USSR 1985) 17 . . . �c7 1 8 1i'a4 d3?! (after 18 . . . e5 Blatny suggests 19 b4!? or 19 cxd4 l0xd4 20 l0xd4 .i.xd4 21 .i.e3 ;) 1 9 l0e1 ! g5 20 :xd3 1i'f5 21 :f3 ,.g6 22 .i.e3 ± Blatny-Kotronias, Debrecen Echt 1992.

c) 12 .. . .i.e7 1 3 lDb5 (13 .i.e3 Wd5 14 lDxd4 .i.xa3 15 bxa3 0-0 16 lDf3 lDa5 17 'iWb4 lDc6 18 Wb3 lDa5 1 9 'iWb1 Wc6 20 lDg5 f5 21 .:.e1 CCI Sma­gin-Beshukov, St Petersburg 1993) 13 ... Wb8 14 lDbxd4 0-0 15 lDxc6 bxc6 16 c4 Wc7 17 Wc2 e5 1 8 b3 f6 19 lDh4!? .i.c5 20 lDf5 .:.fd8 21 .i.e3 .i.xe3 22 lDxe3 ;t Novik-Pigusov, Berlin 1994.

12 .• .'5'd7 12 ... Wd8?! allows 13 .:.d1 ! .i.e?

(or 1 3 . . . d3 14 c4 .i.c5 15 .:.xd3 We7 16 .i.f4 ;t K veinys-Levchenkov, Ka­towice 1993) 14 lDfxd4 'ii'b8 15 lDxc6 bxc6 1 6 lDd4 ;t Dolmatov­Grtinfeld, Haifa 1995 . 12 . . . Wb8 is possible, when White could play simply with 1 3 lDbxd4 .i.e? 14 lDxc6 bxc6 15 c4 0-0 16 Wc2 1.

13 lDbxd4 A useful feature of 12 . . . 'ffd7 is

that now 13 .:.d 1 ? would be a blun­der due to 13 . . . lDa5 ! -+ winning the knight on b5 ! White must watch out for this surprise . . . lLla5 move in sev­eral variations; 1 3 .i.f4 lDa5 is a pos­sible alternative to 1 3 . . . lDd5, whilst 1 3 lDfxd4?! lLla5 ! 14 'ffd1 a6 ! � 15 lLlxe6? ! (15 lLla3) 15 . . . fxe6 16 'iWh5+ g6 17 'ffe5 axb5 1 8 'ffxh8 'ii'g7 19 'iWxg7 .i.xg7 also favoured Black in the game Smagin-Rotsagov, Copen­hagen 1993. Hence White's decision in the illustrative game to capture on d4 with the b5-knight.

13 ... .i.c5 This is the only route to equality.

1 3 . . . lDxd4 14 lDxd4 and now: a) 14 .. . .i.e7 15 .:.d1 0-0 16 lDf5 (16

.i.e3 'ffc8 17 lDb5 .i.c5 18 .i.d4 'ili'c6 19 a4 Vasiukov-Tseitlin, Tiraspol

9 0-0 .i.e6 10 lDa3 183

1 994) 16 . . . 'iWc7 17 lDxe7+ 'iWxe7 18 .i.e3 lDd5 19 .i.d4 b6 20 c4 t Halasz­Tischbierek, Balatonbereny 1984.

b) 14 . . . .i.c5 15 .i.e3 .:.c8 (Black must spend a tempo, as 15 . . . 0-0? 16 lDxe6! fxe6 17 .i.xc5 +- Harley-Par­mentier, Hastings 1 988) 16 .:.fd1 'ffa4 and now instead of 17 'ffb5+ 'iWxb5 18 c!Llxb5 lDc4! 112-112 Rabiega­Mainka, German Ch 1995 simply 17 lDb5 t.

14 .i.e3 Kotronias gives 14 .:.d1 lDxd4 15

lDxd4 0-0 16 .i.e3 'iWe7 as leading to equality.

14 ... .i.xd4! 15 .:.rd1 0-0 16 .i.xd4 c!Llxd4 17 l:txd4 flc7 = 18 flc2 h6 19 .:.ad1 .:.adS 20 fid3 .:.ds 21 .:.xd5 lDxd5 22 g3 lfl-'h.

Game 56 Benjamin - P. Wolff

New York 1996

1 e4 c5 2 c3 c!Llf6 3 e5 lDd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 lbr3 c!Llc6 6 .ic4 c!Llb6 7 .i.b3 d6 8 exd6 flxd6 9 0-0 .i.e6 10 c!Lla3 i.xb3 11 'ii'xb3 'ii'd5!? (D)

•• ••• • w � i · � i � i - . - -

·�· . . . ·�· .

• • • • �\WI� • ..1':\. � - u - "Z..J -� � " . � � " u . u u

R m B .: � M - -� ?* A logical response, anticipating

White's lDb5. However, White's lead

184 9 0-0 .te6 10 lba3

in development tends to persist even after a queen exchange.

12 �bS l:tc8 1 2 . . . 1i'xb3 1 3 axb3 l:tc8 is tacti­

cally possible (14 l1Jxa7? l:ta8) but after 14 �bxd4 l1Jxd4 15 l1Jxd4 a6 16 b4 White is ready to prise open the a-file as per the game Rash.k:ov­sky-Georgadze in the note at move 15.

13 �fxd4 1 3 �bxd4 l1Jxd4 14 l1Jxd4 trans­

poses to the game, whilst another idea is 1 3 l:tdl !? e6 (Vera analyses 1 3 . . . 1i'xb3 14 axb3 dxc3 15 l1Jxa7 ± as on 1 5 . . . l:ta8 White has 16 l1Jxc6! bxc6 1 7 l:txa8+ l1Jxa8 1 8 bxc3) 14 l1Jbxd4 �xd4 15 l:txd4 !? .. xb3 16 axb3 l:ta8?! ( 16 . . . a6 17 b4 ;!;) 17 l:td1 .te7?! 1 8 .te3 ± Vera-Otero, Cuban Ch 1985.

13 • . . �xd4 14 l1Jxd4 e6 For 1 4 . . ... xb3 1 5 axb3 a6 16 b4

see the note at Black's 15th move. lS l:tdl 15 .te3 l1Jc4 (or 15 . . . .tc5: 16

l:tfd l 0-0 17 l1Jb5 1Wxb3 18 axb3 .txe3 1 9 fxe3 a6 20 �6 = Sermek­Orlov, Pula 1991 while 16 .. b5+ .. d7 17 l:tadl � 18 1Wxd7+ �xd7 1 9 l1Jf5 g6 20 .txc5 l:txc5 is noth­ing much for White, Petronijevic­Kunovac, Yugoslav Cht 1994) 16 .tf4 (16 'ii'a4+ 'ii'd7 17 'ii'xd7+ �xd7 18 l:tad1 �xe3 19 fxe3 �e8 = Petroni­jevic-Zafirovski, Nis 1994 and Rot­sagov-Van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1995) 1 6 ... .te7 17 l:tad1 0-0 18 l:tfe1 l1Jb6 1 9 �b5 'ii'xb3 20 axb3 a6 21 l1Jd6 .txd6 22 .txd6 l:tfd8 23 .tg3 � 24 �fl �f8 25 c4 �7 26 .tc7 l:txd 1 27 l:txd 1 �e8 with equality,

Yudasin-Ki.Georgiev, Manila IZ 1990.

lS ... .tcS If 15 . . . .te7 16 .te3 ± Don�evic­

Juhnke, Germany 1985 as White threatens 17 l1Jb5. Instead 15 . . . 'ii'xb3 allows White play on the a-file: 16 axb3 a6 17 b4 .te7 1 8 b5 axb5 19 l:ta7 ! ( 19 l1Jxb5 0-0 20 .tf4 �5 21 .td6 .txd6 22 l1Jxd6 l:tc6 23 l1Jb5 l:tc5 24 l1Jd6 l:tc6 112- lfl Renet­Smirin, Moscow OL 1 994) 19 . . . b4 20 l:txb7 l1Jd5 21 l1Jf5 .tf8 22 l1Je3 ! ± (22 c4 l:txc4 23 l1Je3 l1Jxe3 24 l:tb8+ �e7 25 .txe3 f5 26 b3 l:tc7 27 l:txb4 ;!; Zarnicki-Van Wely, Buenos Aires 1995) 22 . . . l1Jxe3 23 .txe3 bxc3 24 bxc3 .te7 (24 . . . l:txc3 25 l:tb8+ �e7 26 .tb6 e5 27 .taS l:tc4 28 .tb4+) 25 c4 l:td8 26 l:txd8+ .txd8 27 c5 0-0 28 c6 .tf6 29 c7 .te5 30 .td4 1-0 Rash.k:ovsky-Geor­gadze, Aktiubinsk 1985, as 30 . . . .td6 3 1 .tc5 ! .txc5 32 l:tb8.

16 'ii'bS+ (D) 16 l1Jb5?! 'ii'xb3 17 axb3 a6 18

�6+? (18 b4 axb5 19 bxc5 l1Ja4 20 .te3 �e7 21 .td4 f6 22 b3 l1Jxc5 23 l:ta7 e5 = Sariego-Browne, Linares 1992) 18 . . . .txd6 19 l:txd6 l1Jd5 (now White's rook on d6 is in danger) 20 .tg5 h6 21 .th4 g5 22 .tg3 �e7 + 23 c4 l1Jf4 24 .txf4 gxf4 25 l:tadl ?! (25 l:td4 l:thd8 26 l:txf4 l:td2) 25 . . . l:thd8 26 l:txd8 l:txd8 27 l:txd8 �xd8 reaching a pawn ending in the game Kamsky-Tukmakov, Reykja­vik 1990. According to later analysis by Tukmakov, Black is winning (though in the game he actually lost!).

16 ... �e7?

16 . . . 'iVd7 17 11t'e2 'iVe7 1 8 lbb3 (18 lbb5 a6 1 9 b4 axb5 20 11t'xb5+ .l:lc6 2 1 bxc5 lbd5 22 .l:lb1 0-0 23 'iVxb7 11t'xb7 24 .l:lxb7 lbxc3 25 .l:ld2 h6 26 .l:lc2 .l:ld8 27 g3 .l:lxc5 28 .i.e3 .l:lcc8 29 .i.b6 �4! with an equal position in the game Sveshnikov-Rashkov­sky, USSR 1985) 1 8 . . . 0-0 19 lbxc5 1i'xc5 20 .i.e3 1i'c6 21 .i.d4 f6 22 .i.xb6 11t'xb6 23 .l:ld7 .l:lcd8 24 .l:lad 1 .l:lxd7 25 .l:lxd7 .l:lf7 26 .l:ld2 t Blatny­Arlandi, Groningen 1985.

17 'iVe2 t .l:lhd8 18 .te3 1 8 'iVg4 .i.xd4? 19 .l:lxd4 11t'e5 20

.i.g5+ f6 21 .tf4 1i'f5 22 11t'xg7+ �e8 23 .i.d6 1-0 Tzermiadianos-Ka­lesis, Khania 1993.

18 • • • 'iVeS 19 'iVg4 �8 20 .tr4 hS? (20 . . . 11t'd5) 21 'ii'h4 ± 'iVdS 22 lbxe6+ fxe6 23 .l:lxdS .l:lxdS 24 .i.e3 lbd7 25 .txcS+ lbxcS 26 c4 :.rs 27 .l:ld1 1-0

Game 57 Briiuning - Yarkovich

Munich 1991

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbf6 3 eS lbdS 4 d4 cxd4 5 lbr3 lbc6 6 .tc4 lbb6 7 .i.b3 dS 8 exd6 'iVxd6 9 0-0 .i.e6 10 lba3 dxc3 ll lbbS?!

9 0-0 .i.e6 10 lDa3 185

This looks rather illogical; frrst White sacrifices a pawn to exploit Black's king in the centre, and then he offers to exchange queens, reliev­ing the pressure. Of course there is an idea behind the manoeuvre; White gets to cripple the black pawn structure in compensation.

For 1 1 1i'e2 !? see the following game, while 1 1 .i.xe6?! 1i'xd1 12 .l:lxd1 fxe6 is an inaccurate move-or­der as, for example, 1 3 lbb5 can now be met by 13 . . . c2 ! .

11 ••. 'iVxd1 12 .l:lxd1 .l:lc8 13 .txe6 fxe6 14 bxc3 (D)

Recapturing with 14 lbxc3 leaves White is struggling for equality even if Black returns his extra doubled pawn on e6:

a) 14 . . . g6 15 lbg5 (15 .l:le1 .i.g7 16 .l:lxe6 0-0 also allows Black a comfortable game, Nadyrkhanov­Kruppa, Sochi 1994 and Van Beers­Nijboer, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 996) 15 . . . lbd8 (15 . . . e5 16 lbe6 lbd4 17 lbxd4 exd4 1 8 .l:lxd4 .tg7 = Basirov­Rashkovsky, Kstovo 1994) 16 .l:le 1 .i.g7 17 lbxe6 lbxe6 1 8 .l:lxe6 �f7 19 .l:le3 .l:lhf8 20 lbe4 .l:lc2 =F Mikac­Timoshenko, Pula 1994.

b) 14 . . . h6 !? 15 lbe4 g5 16 lbc5 (but perhaps 16 h4!? g4 17 lbh2 .l:lg8 1 8 b3 as Smagin used to beat Salov in a quickplay game in Moscow in 1 992) 16 . . . lbd8 17 .te3 (17 b4 .tg7 18 .l:lb1 lbc4 19 .l:le1 �f7 is clearly better for Black, Bronstein-Tisch­bierek, Gausdal 1990) 17 . . . .tg7 18 .l:lab1 lbc4 1 9 b4 b6 20 lbe4 lbf7 21 .i.d4 e5 22 .i.e3 lbfd6 =F Handoko­Liang, Asian Cht 1993.

14 ... lbc4

186 9 0-0 .te6 10 �

B

There are other respectable tries: a) 14 . . . h6 15 .te3 lbd5 16 lbxa7

lbxe3 17 lbxc8 lbxd1 18 :xd1 g5 19 lbb6 .tg7 20 :d7 .txc3 (20 . . . lba5 2 1 lbd4 ;t Vorotnikov-Polovodin, USSR 1 985) 21 :xb7 0-0 22 l:.c7 lbd4 ! 23 lbc8 !? lbxf3+ 24 gxf3 (Stoica-Georgescu, Romania 1 986) and now Stoica claims Black can hold with 24 . . . l:.xf3 25 �g2 l:.d3 26 lDxe7+ �f8 27 a4 .tf6! 28 llk6 l:.a3 29 a5 .tc3 30 :a7 :a2.

b) 14 . . . lDa4 !? (successful in its only outing) 1 5 ..if4 h6 16 h4 g6 17 J:.e 1 .tg7 18 l:.xe6 �f7 19 :e3 a6 20 lDbd4 lDxc3 ! 21 lbxc6 l:.xc6 22 .te5 .tf6! 23 l:.d3 l:hc8 + Lautier-Wahls, Hamburg 1986.

c) 14 . . . g6 15 lDg5 (15 l:.b1 !?, for example 15 . . . lDa4 16 l:.e1 a6 17 lDbd4 lDd8 1 8 .ta3 lbxc3 19 l:.bcl l:.c7 20 .tb2 00 21 :xc7 lbxc7 22 lbxe6 lbcxe6 23 .txh8 ± Eruslan­ova-Semina, Moscow 1 986) 15 . . . a6 ( 15 . . . e5 !? 16 lDe4 llk4 17 l:.b1 b6 with an at least equal position for Black, Ochoa-Bellon, Spanish Cht 1995) 16 lDd4 lbxd4 ( 16 . . . lDd5 17 lDrlxe6 ± Panchenko-Gorelov, Minsk 1 985, as on 17 . . . lbxc3? comes 18 .tb2) 17 cxd4 l:.c6 1 8 :e1 .tg7 19

lbxe6 .tf6 20 :bt and White is just a touch better, Degraeve-Jirovsky, Mamaia 1991 .

15 lbg5 e5 16 lbe6 16 l:.b1 h6 17 lDe6 � 18 lDbc7

b6 19 l:.b5 (for 19 f4 see the follow­ing note) 19 . . . g6 20 l:.d7 .tg7 21 lDxg7? lDb8! ! 0-1 Martin del Campo­Browne, Mexico 1994 was an evil trap - 22 :dt :xc7 and the knight on g7 has no escape.

16 ••. �7 17 lDbc7?! After 17 lDg5+ �e8 1 8 lbe6

Black's safest is 18 . . . �f7 1/z-1/z, as in Smagin-Gavrikov, USSR Ch 1986, although Black can avoid the repeti­tion with 1 8 . . . h6 19 lDbc7+ �f7 as in Blauert-Ernst, Lugano 1989. Af­ter the continuation 20 l:.b1 b6 21 f4 (for 21 l:.b5 see Martin del Campo­Browne in the previous note) 2l ...exf4 22 .txf4 g5 23 .tg3 .tg7 24 lDxg7 �xg7 25 l:.d7 �g6 26 l:.el l:.hf8 27 l:.e4 lb4a5 28 lDrl5 �f5 29 l:.e1 :n 30 .i.d6 lDc4 3 1 lDxe7+ lDxe7 32 J:.exe7 lhe7 33 .txe7 the game was equal, but certainly the position after 18 . . . h6 has plenty of play.

17 ... g6 18 f4 .tg7 19 fxe5 lD4xe5 20 l:.fl+ .tf6 21 .th6 g5! 22 .txg5 lbd8!

After Black's surprising 21st, the white minor pieces are in a bit of a tangle. On 23 .txf6 exf6 24 lbg5+ �g6 25 lDge6 lDxe6 26 lDxe6 comes 26 . . . J:.xc3 with a good extra pawn for Black.

23 lDxd8+ l:.hxd8 24 J:.ae1 :xc7 25 l:.xeS l:.d3! + 26 .txf6 exf6 27 l:.h5 (27 l:.ef5 l:.c6 28 l:.1f3 l:.d1+ +) 27 ••• �g6 28 l:.h4 J:.dxc3 29 :g4+ �f7 30 l:h4 �g8! (with a winning

rook ending; if 3 1 l:.g4+ then 3 1 . ..l:.g7) 3t l:.xf6 l:.cl+ 32 cM2 l:.tcl+ 33 ci>g3 l:.xa2 34 l:.g4+ l:.g7 35 l:.xg7+ <i>xg7 36 l:.d6 l:.bl 37 �4 aS 38 g4 a4 39 h4 a3 40 l:.d3 l:.b4+ 4t ci>e5 l:.a4 42 l:.dt l:.xg4 43 l:.d7+ ci>b6 44 l:.xb7 l:.a4 45 l:.bt a2 46 :at ci>b5 0-t

Game 58 Smagin - Dvoirys

Novgorod 1995

t e4 c5 2 c3 lbf6 3 eS lbd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 lbr3 lbc6 6 i.c4 lbb6 7 i.b3 d5 8 exd6 Wxd6 9 0-0 i.e6 tO lba3 dxc3 11 Wel!? i.xb3 1l lbb5

The most accurate. 12 axb3 can transpose after 12 . . . e5 13 lbb5 Wb8. An attempt to exploit the move-or­der with 12 . . . l:.d8 in Winants-Nij­boer, Wijk aan Zee 1995, failed to 1 3 lbb5 Wb8 1 4 bxc3 a6 15 lbbd4 lbxd4 16 lbxd4 'fkc7 17 i.b2 e6 1 8 c4 i.e? 1 9 Wg4 i.f6 20 lbxe6 ! fxe6 2 1 i.xf6 gxf6 22 'fkxe6+ We7 23 'fixb6 ±. The witty 12 ... c2 !? 13 lbb5 'fibS was played in Bianco-Tuk­makov, Zurich 1994, but such a time­consuming plan should be too risky for Black. Interesting, however, is 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 ! ? 1 3 bxc3 'fid3 14 'fib2 e5 ; M.Anderton-Marley, British League (4NCL Ware) 1996.

t2 .•• ft8 t3 axb3 eS (D) After 1 3 . . . e6?! 14 g3 ! (threaten-

ing i.f4) 14 . . . lbd5 1 5 bxc3 Wc8 16 c4 lbc7 17 .i.b2 a6 18 .i.xg7 l:.g8 19 i.xf8 <i>xf8 20 lbd6 and White is ob­viously much better although he eventually lost in Blauert-Kveinys, Groningen 1991.

t4 bxc3

9 0-0 .i.e6 10 l&3 187

Limiting the sacrifice to that of one pawn, but there are serious alter­natives:

a) 14 lbbd4 i.d6 (for 14 ... lbxd4 1 5 lbxd4 see the 14 lbfd4 lines be­low) 15 lbf5 (15 bxc3 !?) 15 . . . g6 16 lbxd6+ Wxd6 17 bxc3 l:.d8! ? (in­tending . . . 'ii'd3; 17 . . . f6 18 i.a3 'ii'e6 oc Soloviov-Ionov, USSR 1986) 1 8 b4?! ( 1 8 i.h6!?) 18 ... lLld5 19 b5 lbxc3 20 'fic4 lbd4! ; Harley-Boyce, Corr 1989.

b) 14 i.f4 i.d6 (14 . . .f6) 15 l:.ad1 0-0! 16 lbxd6 exf4 17 bxc3 lbc8 1 8 lbxf7 l:.xf7 19 lbg5 lbb6 20 lbxf7 <i>xf7 21 l:.fe1 ci>g8 ; Motwani­Ernst, Gausdal 1992.

c) 14 i.e3 cxb2 (also 14 . . . lbc8 !? Vorobiov-Mitenkov, Moscow 1994) 15 'fkxb2 lbd7 (15 . . . lbd5? 16 lbxa7 ! lbxa7 17 i.xa7 l:.xa7 18 l:.xa7 'fkxa7 19 'it"xe5+ lbe7 20 l:.al gave White a winning attack in Spangenberg­Quinteros, San Martin 1995) 16 l:.fdl i.e? 17 'fkc2 a6 1 8 lbc3 lbf6 1 9 lbg5 lbb4 20 'fif5 g 6 21 'fif3 0-0 ; Smagin-Mukhutdinov, St Petersburg 1993.

d) 14 l:.el lbd7 ( 14 ... cxb2 and 14 . . . i.e7 are also candidate moves;

188 9 0-0 £e6 10 liJa3

14 . . . f6 !? 1 S lDfd4 lDxd4 16 lDxd4 �f7 17 bxc3 and then 17 . . . W'c8 !? 18 lDf3 £d6 19 £e3 em was Vajda-Gra­bics, Nadele Z I99S, but 17 . . . exd4 IS W'e6+ �g6 19 :e4 h6 20 :r.g4+ �h7 2I 1i'fS+ gives a draw by repeti­tion) 1S £f4 ! £e7 16 :ad 1 ! ( 16 lDxeS lDdxeS 17 £xeS lDxeS IS W'xeS W'xeS 19 :xeS cxb2 20 :aei �f8) I6 . . . exf4 17 lDd6+ �f8 18 lDxfl ! lDb6! ( 18 . . . �xf7 I9 :xd7 with an attack) 19 lDxh8 �g8 20 lDd4 £f6 2I lDxc6 bxc6 22 lDg6 hxg6 23 1We6+ �f8 24 bxc3 = Torre­lllescas, Moscow OL 1994.

e) 14 lDfd4!?: el) 14 ... g6 IS lDxc6 bxc6 16

lDxa7 ! 1Wc7 17 £e3 £d6 18 lDbS ! cxbS 19 £xb6 1i'c6 20 :xa8+ 1Wxa8 21 1WxbS+ ± Yanovsky-Timoshch­enko, Voskresensk 1992.

e2) After 14 . . . £cS IS lDfS !? g6 16 £e3 £xe3 17 lDfd6+ �e7 18 1Wxe3 cxb2 19 :ad 1 :r.dS 20 1WcS �f6 2I f4 White had a dangerous at­tack for his three sacrificed pawns in Swinkels-Hofland, corr. 1994.

e3) 14 ... £e7 1S tillS 0-0 as in Fer­guson-Sutovsky, Guarapuava 199S is a risky-looking defence, when in­stead of 16 lDxc3?! g6 :f! White must try the violent I6 bxc3 a6 17 £h6! axbS (17 ... gxh6 18 1i'g4+ £gS 19 lDxh6+ �h8 20 1WxgS f6 2I 1i'e3 hits b6) 18 :xa8 lDxa8 19 £xg7 with a dangerous attack for the piece; if White wishes to avoid any of these lines he could consider the move-or­der 14 lDbd4 lDxd4 1 S lDxd4, as above, and it should be noted that the Lautier-Gelfand reference coming up came via this route.

e4) 14 . . . lDxd4 1S lDxd4 f6 16 bxc3 �fl (16 . . . £d6 1 7 lDfS with a strong attack) I7 lDbS a6 1 8 £e3 axbS 1 9 £xb6 :xal 20 :xa1 1We8 21 :aS b4 22 c4 (22 cxb4 1i'e6 23 1i'c4 1Wxc4 24 bxc4 £xb4 2S :a7 :cs 26 :xb7+ �e6 27 :xg7 £f8 ! 28 :c7 :bs! 29 :c6+ �d7 30 :c7+ �e6 3 1 :c6+ �d7 112- 112 Luther­Sadler, Gausdal 1994 - a nice use of bank-rank mate threats by Black, e.g. 28 :xh7? :r.bS ! 29 cS £xeS) 22 c4 W'c6 23 :bs £e7 24 £a5 :as 2S h3 �g8 (2S . . . £cS 26 W'd2 £d4 27 1Wxb4 b6 28 £xb6 :at+ 29 �h2 1We4 30 £xd4 1i'f4+ 3 I g3 W'f3 32 :r.b7+ �g6 33 :xg7+ �xg7 34 1We7+ �g6 3S 'ii'e8+ 'h-112 Soloviov­Vaulin, USSR 1988) 26 'ii'el £cS 27 £xb4 £d4 28 £c3 = Lautier-Gel­fand, Linares 1994.

14 ... £e7 15 £g5! (D) Stronger than IS :el lDd7 16

lDgS £xgS 17 £xgS 0-0 18 :adi lDcS I9 'ii'g4 'ii'c8 20 'ii'h4 'iVfS and Black escaped with his extra pawn in Hoffman-Gavrikov, Biel 1994. The immediate 15 £e3 lDc8 !? 16 c4 0-0 17 c5 b6 1 8 :rei bxcS 1 9 £xeS a6 20 lDa3 'ii'xb3 21 'ii'e4 was Svesh­nikov-Yudasin, USSR 1 986 when 21 . . .£xc5 looks good for Black.

15 ... f6 On 1S . . . a6 !? 16 £xe7 lDxe7 17

lDxe5 ! 0-0 (17 . . . f6 em) I8 lDd4 White is slightly more comfortable, but Black defended the position after 1 8 . . . lDg6 I9 lDxg6 hxg6 20 :rei :es 21 'ii'f3 'ii'c7 22 c4 lDd7 23 :e3 (23 lDc2!? intending lDe3-d5 Onish­chuk) 23 . . . :xe3 24 'ii'xe3 'ii'e5 in Onishchuk-Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee

1996. Instead 15 . . . .i.xg5?! 16 lLlxg5 h6 ( 16 . . . a6 "") 17 lL!e4 0-0 18 l:fd1 ! l:d8 19 lLlbd6 "fkc7 20 "fkh5 "fke7 21 l:d3 ! gave White dangerous pressure in Smagin-Baikov, Moscow 1 995.

16 .i.e3 0-0? Returning the pawn without a

fight, when White is clearly better. There are two critical alternatives:

a) 16 . . . lLld5 17 lLlxa7 !? (an idea of Andrew Harley's; White's com­pensation looked insufficient after both 17 .i.d2 0-0 18 c4 lLlc7 19 .i.e3 l:d8 20 l:fd1 a6 21 lLlc3 l:xd1+ 22 :Xd1 "fke8 23 .i.b6 lLle6 Throv-Nev­ostruev, St Petersburg 1994, and 17 lLlh4 !? a6 18 "fkh5+ �f8 19 lLla3 "fke8 20 "fkf3 lLlxe3 2 1 "fkxe3 g6 22 "fkh6+ �f7 23 lLlc4 "fkf8 24 'ir'e3 �g7 25 "fkb6 "fkc8 26 l:fd1 l:d8 27 g3 l:b8 28 lLlg2 "fke6 29 lLlge3 f5 Sma­gin-Ionov, Russia 1995) 17 . . . lLlxe3 (17 . . . lLlxa7 18 .i.xa7 l:xa7 19 l:xa7 "fkxa7 20 "fkb5+ and 20 "fkxd5 is the idea) 1 8 lLlxc6 l:xa1 19 l:xa1 bxc6 20 "fkxe3 with an unclear position.

b) 16 . . . lLlc8 !? 17 lLlh4 (17 c4 !? 0-0 18 c5 ! �h8 19 "fkc4 "" - Harley) 17 . . . g6 (17 . . . 0-0 !? 18 lLlf5 a6 when instead of 19 "fka2? !, Tzermiadianos­llincic, Cacak 1 995, the variation 19

9 0-0 .i.e6 10 lD.a3 189

"fkg4 g6 20 lLlxe7+ lLl6xe7! 21 "fkc4+ :n 22 lLlc7 lDd6 23 "fkc5 lLle4 24 "fkc4 lLld6 with a draw by repetition is proposed by Tzermiadianos in lnformator 65) 18 f4 0-0 (Chekhov suggests 18 . . . a6 !? with the point 19 fxe5?! 'it'xe5 20 lLld4 lLlxd4 21 cxd4 'it'e6 =!=; instead 19 lLla3 yields un­clear compensation for the pawn) 19 lLlxg6! (19 1kg4 f5 ! 20 'l'g3 .i.xh4 21 1i'xh4 a6 22 lLla3 b5 "") 19 . . . hxg6 20 1i'g4 (according to Chekhov, the white attack is winning) 20 . . . l:f7 21 'it'xg6+ �f8 22 l:ad1 l:g7 23 1i'h5 a6 24 'it'h8+ �f7 25 'ir'h5+ �f8 26 'l'h8+ �f7 27 fxe5 ! 'l'xe5 28 i.h6 l:xg2+ 29 �xg2 'l'e4+ 30 l:f3 axb5 3 1 1i'g7+ �e6 32 'it'g8+ �e5 33 i.f4+ 1-0 Degraeve-Aseev, St Pe­tersburg v Paris 1996.

17 lLlxa7 :Xa7 18 .i.xb6 :Xa1 19 ha1 ;1; (D)

• • ••• B . , . - . , - - - -••• • •

• • • • • • • •

• /j o •tD• • �-�'ifn /j n - � u u R • • � � . � *

White is better. Now if 19 ... 1i'd6, then Smagin gives 20 1i'c4+ �h8 21 b4.

19 ... f5 20 b4 e4 21 b5 exf3 22 'it'e6+ l:f7 23 bxc6 bxc6 24 'it'xc6 ..trs 25 'it'e6 (better is 25 :as ! with excellent winning chances) 25 ••• 'it'd6 26 'it'xd6 i.xd6 27 c4 l:b7 28 c5

190 9 0-0 i.e6 10 liJa3

i.c7 29 :S6 (29 gxf3 i.xb6! 30 l:bl

i.xc5 3 1 l:xb7 g6 32 �fl i.d4 33 �e2 h5 = Smagin) 29 ... fxg2 30 � W = 31 h3 �e7 32 �f3 i.xb6 33 cxb6 �e6 34 �f4 h6 35 h4 g6 36 �e3 g5 37 hxg5 hxgS 38 �d4 �d6 39 �c4 �c6 40 :as :xb6 41 :xrs

l:b2 42 �d4 �d6 43 �e3 l:b3+ 44 �e4 :b4+ 45 �f3 �e6 46 :xg5 �f6 47 :dS :a4 48 �g3 :at 49 l:d8 l:a4 50 :r8+ �g6 51 :r4 :as 52 :b4 �f5 53 :h4 :aJ+ 54 f3 :b3 55 :hS+ �g6 56 :e5 �6 57 :d5 :b4 58 l:h5 :S4 1f2-lf2

21 2 . . . e6

1 e4 2 c3 3 d4 4 exdS

c5 e6 dS exdS (D)

Of course White could also have chosen 4 e5, transposing into an Ad­vance French - this possibility alone can put Sicilian players off 2 . . . e6. In Game 59 (following 5 00 lDc6 6 i.b5) we see a direct transposition to the French Defence, Tarrasch Vari­ation, ECO code C09, after either 10 . . . .tb6 or 10 . . . i.d6. The normal French Tarrasch move-order would run 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tLxl2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 �gf3 �6 6 i.b5 i.d6 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 0-0 �7 9 �b3 i.b6 (or 9 . . . i.d6) and now the transposi­tion would arise if play continued 10 c3 0-0. The fact that White is re­stricted to French Tarrasch lines with c3 is a point to be noted, as, given the choice, White might have preferred to delay or omit the move c3. Whilst

c3 at some stage in these French Tar­rasch lines is a quite standard, it does not always represent optimum play for White. Therefore Black has rea­sonable chances of equalising, but recently there has been a flurry of ac­tivity in the white plan of retreating the bishop with i.d3 and i.c2, fol­lowed by 'ii'd3 softening up the black kings ide.

The next three games show that there can, however, be advantages for White in utilising the c3 Sicilian move-order. In Game 60 (with 6 i.e2) similar positions to the pre­vious game arise where the bishop is not badly posted on the modest e2-square. In Game 61 (with 6 i.e3) White forces a clarification of the central pawn structure, but the most exciting and creative plan against Black's 2 . . . e6 defence is to be found in Game 62, where the move 5 i.e3 !? gives an untypical and very dynamic structure. White does not place his king's knight on f3. Instead the square is reserved for his queen, and this unusual plan has posed Black some fresh problems.

Game 59 Dolmatov - Lobron

Dortmund 1993

1 e4 cS 2 �f3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 e:xdS e:xdS 5 d4 lbc6

192 2 . . . e6

5 ... ..td6 just transposes: 6 dxc5 (6 ..te2 is Game 60) 6 . . . ..txc5 7 .i.b5+ tbc6 is the present game while 6 ..te3 c4 7 b3 axb3 8 axb3 will trans­pose to lines covered in Game 61 if Black shortly plays . . . tbc6.

Instead 5 . . . a6 6 .i.e2!? (6 .i.e3 c4 7 b3 b5 !? 8 lbe5 lbe7 9 bxc4 bxc4 10 tbd2 f6 1 1 tbexc4!? dxc4 12 .i.xc4 was an unclear piece for two pawns sacrifice in Topakian-Jok§ic, Biel 1 994; of course Black can continue 7 . . . cxb3 8 axb3 when 8 . . . lDc6 is Game 61, and 8 . . . tbf6 9 .i.e2 .i.d6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 c4? ! tbe4! = was Dvoret­sky-Smejkal, Wijk aan Zee 1976, but better was 1 1 .i.g5 ;!;; Smejkal) 6 . . . c4 7 .i.f4 (7 b3) 7 . . . .i.d6 8 .i.xd6 'ifxd6 9 b3 cxb3 (9 . . . b5? ! 10 a4 .i.b7 l l 0-0 ± with tba3 to follow) 10 axb3 tbe7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 c4 (12 tba3 !?, intend­ing tbc2-e3, is slightly better for White according to Timoshchenko) 12 . . . tbbc6 1 3 c5 'W'f6 14 tbc3 ..tf5 (14 ... .i.g4 15 :a4 ;!;) 15 'ifd2 .i.e4 16 :Cd1 tbf5?! (16 . . . :008) 17 l:ta4 :008 18 lbe1 ! ;!; Timoshchenko-Kasparov, USSR Ch 1978.

On 5 ... tbf6 (D) White has several ways to handle the position:

w

a) 6 ..te2 .i.e? 7 dxc5 .i.xc5 will be examined in the course of Game 60.

b) 6 .i.d3 !? tbbd7 !? 7 0-0 ..te7 8 .Z:.e1 0-0 9 .i.g5?! (Short suggests 9 tbbd2 intending tbfl-g3) 9 ... .Z:.e8 10 tbbd2 a6 1 1 tbfl cxd4 12 cxd4 tbf8 1 3 tbe5 tb6d7 !? 14 .i.xe7 .Z:.xe7 15 tbf3 .Z:.xe1 16 'ihe1 'W'b6! = Short­Tregubov, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

c) 6 .i.b5+ .i.d7 (on 6 . . . lDc6 7 0-0 .i.e? 8 dxc5 .i.xc5 good are both 9 ..tg5 .i.e6 10tbd4 Smagin-Rom.Her­nandez, Palma de Mallorca 1 989 and 9 tbd4 ..txd4 10 9xd4 0-0 1 1 'ili'h4 .J:r.e8 12 .i.g5 .J:r.e4 1 3 .i.xf6 gxf6 14 1i'h6 ;!;; Handoko-Hurelbator, Ma­nila OL 1 992) 7 .i.xd7+ (7 9e2+) 7 . . . tbbxd7 (7 . . . 'ili'xd7 8 0-0 .i.e? 9 tbe5 1i'c8 10 1i'a4+ tbc6 1 1 .J:r.e1 ;!; Kholmov-Korsunsky, USSR 1978) 8 0-0 .i.e? 9 dxc5 tbxc5 10 tbd4 0-0 ( 10 . . . 1i'd7 1 1 9f3 0-0 12 tbf5 .J:r.fe8 13 .i.e3 tbce4 14 tbd2 ;!; Chandler­Szabo, Hastings 1981 ) 1 1 tbf5 .J:r.e8 12 tbxe7+ 'ifxe7 1 3 .i.e3 .Z:.ac8 14 tbd2 a6 15 tbf3 ;!; Smagin-Velimi­rovic, Yugoslavia 1995.

d) 6 ..tg5 !? c4 (if 6 ... lDc6 White continues 7 .i.b5; alternatively Black can play 6 . . . cxd4 7 .i.b5+ .i.d7 8 1i'e2+ 1i'e7 9 .i.xf6 9xe2+ 10 ..txe2 gxf6 1 1 tbxd4 ;!; Makarychev-Bala­shov, Tallinn 1983, or 6 ... ..te7 7 ..tb5+ ..td7 8 ..txd7+ tbbxd7 9 dxc5 tbxc5 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 tbbd2 lDce4 12 tbxe4 dxe4 1 3 tbd2 tbd5 14 ..txe7 1i'xe7 15 .Z:.e1 tbf6 1 6 1i'a4 ;!; Shirazi-Ben­

jamin, USA Ch 1986) 7 tbbd2 ..te7 8 g3 !? 'ifb6 9 b3 ;!; cxb3 10 axb3 ..tf5 1 1 ..tg2 1i'e6+ 12 tbe5 tbfd7 1 3 ..txe7 tbxe5 14 0-0! �xe7 15 .J:r.e1

li:lbc6 16 b4 ! Anand-Malishauskas, Lyon 1994.

6 i.bS i.d6 Inferior is 6 . . . c4?! 7 lt:le5 ! 'ifb6 8

i.xc6+ bxc6 9 0-0 i.d6 10 b3 ! ± Karpov-J.Polgar, Linares 1994.

7 dxcS i.xcS 8 0·0 lt:lge7 9 li:lbd2 0·0 10 l0b3 (D)

10 .. .i.b6!? Via the French Tarrasch move-or­

der Black commonly retreats with . . . i.d6. The reason is that after 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 li:ld2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 li:lgf3 l0c6 6 i.b5 i.d6 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 0-0 li1e7 9 li:lb3 i.b6 White has the excellent plan 10 l:le 1 0-0 1 1 i.e3 ! challenging the bishop. In the pre­sent illustrative game, as we shall see, the tempo White has spent on c3 means Black has time to discour­age this manoeuvre with . . . li:lf5. Therefore, although strictly speak­ing we are now in a French, we cover the ... i.b6 retreat variation in full, as French Defence books understand­ably view it as a side-line.

Of course in the illustrative game Black could also have continued 10 . . . i.d6 giving a French Tarrasch position where Black has reasonable

2 . . . e6 193

prospects for equality, but there is plenty of play. These typical Tar­rasch positions are covered in books such as The Complete French by Psakhis; however I will give a brief round-up of White's most popular options at this point:

a) 1 1 i.g5 i.g4 (or 1 1 . . .'ifc7) and White can try 12 i.h4, 12 l:le1 or 12 i.e2.

b) 1 1 li:lbd4 i.g4 12 'ii'a4 i.h5 ! (Korchnoi demonstrated that this manoeuvre gives equality in his 1974 Candidates match in Moscow with Karpov) 1 3 i.d3 ( 1 3 i.e3 'ii'c7 14 h3 lOa5 15 i.d3 l0c4 16 lt:lb5 'ii'd7 17 i.xc4 dxc4 18 l:lfd 1 li:lf5! =

Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow Ct (12) 1974 or 13 l:le1 'ii'c7 14 i.fl !? a6! 15 g3 lt:la5 16 li:lh4 li:lc4 = A.Sokolov­Vaganian, Montpellier Ct 1 985) 13 ... i.c5 14 l:le1 h6 15 i.e3 i.b6 16 h3 'ifd6 17 i.e2 l:lfe8 18 l:lad 1 'ii'f6 =

Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow Ct (14) 1974.

c) 1 1 i.d3 !? (stops 1 1 . . .i.g4 ow­ing to 1 2 i.xh7+ �xh7 1 3 lt:lg5+) 1 1 . ..h6 (1 1 . . .li:lg6?! 12 i.g5 l0ce7 13 h3 h6 14 i.e3 li:lf4 15 i.xf4 i.xf4 16 li:lbd4 ;!; Dolmatov-Skomorokhin, Novgorod 1995 or 1 1 . . .'ii'c7 12 h3 l:ld8 1 3 'ii'c2 lt:lg6 14 li:lbd4 a6 15 i.e3 i.d7 16 l:lad 1 l0a5 17 li:lf5 i.f8 18 i.d4 ;!; Tiviakov-Rozen tal is, Gron­ingen 1993) 12 h3 li:lf5 (12 . . . i.c7 !? 13 l:le1 l:le8 14 i.c2 i.f5 1 5 i.e3 'ifd6 16 li:lbd4 li:lxd4 17 i.xd4 i.xc2 1 8 'ifxc2 l0c6 and Black is close to equality, Manca-Portisch, Reggio Emilia 1993) 1 3 l:le1 ( 13 i.c2!? i.e6 14 'ifd3 g6 15 l:le1 { 15 g4!?} 15 .. .l:le8 16 li:lbd4? li:lfxd4 17 cxd4 i.f5 1 8

194 2 . . . e6

'ii'd 1 i.xc2 19 'fi'xc2 lllxd4! 20 lhe8+ lWxe8 21 'ii'd1 lllxf3+ 22 gxf3 -+ as in Sibarevic-lvanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1992) 1 3 . . . 'ii'f6 with a transposition into the variation below starting 1 1 l:el .

d) 1 1 l:e1 !? h6 ( l l . . .i.g4 !? 1 2 i.e2 l:e8 i s Black's safest try for equality, e.g. 13 lllfd4 i.xe2 14 l:xe2 'ii'd7 15 lllb5 i.e5 16 lllc5 'ii'f5 = Ljubojevic-Short, Linares 1 990) 12 h3 lllf5 13 i.d3 'ii'f6 ( 13 . . . i.c7 !? 14 i.c2 'fi'd6 15 'ii'd3 g6 16 'ii'd2 !? ;t Smagin-Lalic, Sochi 1987) 14 i.c2! l:d8 ( 14 ... i.e6 15 'ii'd3 l:fe8 16 i.d2 g6 and now White should play 17 l:e2!? i.f8 1 8 l:ae1 ;!;; Wolff-Ben­jamin, San Francisco 1 991 ; riskier is 17 'ii'b5? ! lllh4 ! as in Ernst-Vagan­ian, Copenhagen 1988 and Renet­Uhlmann, Novi Sad OL 1 990) 15 'ii'd3 g6 (D) and now:

d1) 16 i.d2 a5 17 a4 b6 18 'fi'e2 i.a6 19 i.d3 i.xd3 20 'ii'xd3 llle5 21 lllxe5 i.xe5 = as White could not prevent the advance . . . d4 in Psakhis­Lputian, Rostov 1 993 and I.Gure­vich-Lputian, Philadelphia 1994.

d2) Possible is the modest 16 'ii'd 1 ! ? i.f8 17 i.xf5 i.xf5 1 8 lllbd4

i.e4 1 9 i.e3, Tolnai-Uhlmann, De­brecen 1 988, when Psakhis believes Black has not equalised.

d3) 16 'ii'd2 !? i.f8: d31) After 17 lllh2, 17 . . . lbh4 1 8

'iie2 i.f5 19 lllg4 i.xg4 20 'ii'xg4 d4 21 cxd4 lllxd4 22 i.e4! was still slightly better for White in the game Smagin-Uhlmann, Berlin 1988 but 17 . . . 'fi' g7 !? 18 lllg4 h5 = improved in V.L.Ivanov-Lastin, Russia 1994.

d32) 17 'ii'f4 i.g7 1 8 lWc7? is bad: 1 8 . . . llld6 ! 19 lllc5 i.xh3 ! 20 gxh3 'fi'xf3 -+ Asrian-Lputian, Ar­menian Ch 1995.

d33) 17 'fi'e2!? i.d7 (17 ... a6 !? 1 8 i.e3 lllxe3 1 9 'ii'xe3 �g7 Matulo­vic-Peng, Pozarevac 1995) 1 8 i.xf5 i.xf5 19 i.e3 l:e8 20 'fi'd2 i.xh3 21 i.xh6 i.xh6 22 'fi'xh6 ;t i.g4 23 lllg5 l:ad8?? 24 'ii'h7+ �f8 25 'ii'h4! 1-0 Smagin-Blauert, Vienna 1991 .

11 l:r.el 1 1 lllfd4 and 1 1 i.g5 are nothing

special, but there are two serious op­tions:

a) 1 1 i.d3 !? h6 ( l l . ..lllf5 12 i.g5 'ii'd6 13 'ii'c2 g6 14 'ii'd2 l:e8 15 l:tad 1 a5 16 a4 i.e6 17 i.f4 'ii'f8 1 8 i.xf5 ! i.xf5 19 'ii'xd5 ± Smagin­Cvitan, Zenica 1989; 1 1 .. .i.f5 12 l:e1 'ii'd7 1 3 i.e3 i.c7 14 'fi'c2 i.xd3 15 'fi'xd3 ;t Sermek-Sinowjew, Vienna 1 99 1 ; 1 1 . . .lllg6 !? 12 l:r.e1 i.g4 1 3 i.e3 i.xe3 14 l:r.xe3 lbge5 15 i.e2 lllc4 16 i.xc4 dxc4 is equal, Tivi­akov-Iskusnykh, Russian Ch 1 995) 12 l:e1 (12 h3!? 'ii'd6 13 a4 !? a5 14 i.c2 l:r.e8 15 lllbd4 lllxd4 16 lllxd4 i.c7 17 lllf3 i.f5 1 8 l:r.e1 i.xc2 19 'fi'xc2 lllc6 20 i.e3 ;t Sermek-Jelen, Ljubljana Iskra 1 992) 12 . . . i.g4 1 3

.te3 l:teS ( 13 . . . .tc7 14 .te2 tLlf5 15 .tc5 l:te8 16 h3 .txf3 17 .txf3 :Xe1 + 1 S 1i'xe1 tLlh4 19 1i'd1 tL!xf3+ 20 1i'xf3 1i'g5 21 l:te1 ;t Godena-Por­tisch, Reggio Emilia 1992) 14 .txb6 1i'xb6 15 l:te3 tLlf5 16 l:txeS+ l:txeS 17 .txf5 .txf5 1S 'ifd2 a5 .., Blauert­Balashov, Dortmund 1992.

b) 1 1 tLlbd4 .tg4 12 1i'a4 !? (12 .te2 is solid, or 12 'ifd3 1i'd6 1 3 .ta4 tLlg6 14 i.c2 tL!xd4 15 tL!xd4 .tc7 16 g3 1i'f6 1 7 .te3 .th3 1S l:tfe1 l:tfeS 1 9 f4 tL!f8 = Bondarevsky-Boleslav­sky, USSR Ch 1 940) 12 . . . .td7 1 3 .te3 a6 ( 1 3 . . . l:tcS 1 4 l:tfe1 lbg6 1 5 lbb3 l:teS 1 6 .txb6 'iWxb6 1 7 l:tad 1 l:txe1+ 1 S l:txe1 h6 19 l:td1 .te6 20 i.d3 ;tWahls-Christiansen, Bundes­liga 1992) 14 lbxc6 ( 14 .txc6 bxc6 1 5 tL!e5 = Rause-Winge, Corr 1993) 14 .. . bxc6 15 .txb6 'ii'xb6 16 i.d3 i.f5 = Nadyrkhanov-Fominykh, Alushta 1994.

ll ... tL!fS!? Aimed at discouraging White's

.te3 plan. 1 1 . .. i.g4 allows White to achieve his objective: 12 .te3 (12 .td3 h6 1 3 .te3 was actually the move-order of the game Godena-Po­rtisch, quoted in the note to White's previous move) 1 2 . . . l:teS ( 12 . . . 1i'd6 13 .txb6 axb6 14 i.e2 ;t or 12 ... i.xe3 1 3 l:txe3 lbf5 14 l:te1 lbh4 15 i.e2 l:teS ! 16 lbxh4 1i'xh4 17 f3 ! .te6 1 S .tb5 ;t Smagin-Ortega, Amantea 1 994) 1 3 h3 i.h5 14 a4 !? (14 .txb6 'ifxb6 15 i.e2) 14 . . . .tc7 15 i.c5 a6 16 i.xc6! lbxc6 (16 . . . bxc6 17 lbbd4 i.d6 1 S lbxc6! lbxc6 19 l:txeS+ 'ifxeS 20 i.xd6 ± Smagin) 17 l:txeS+ 'W'xeS 1S 'ifxd5 ± Smagin-Cvitan, Biel 1995.

2 . . . e6 195

12 i.d3!? (D)

This key position can also arise from the 6 i.e2 lines of Game 60. Note that 12 .tg5? is a blunder due to 12 . . . .txf2+ 1 3 �xf2 Wb6+ and Black wins a pawn, Strikovic-Pop­ovic, Yugoslav Ch 19S9.

12 ... h6 12 . . . i.c7 !? and now: a) 1 3 'ii'c2 lbh4 14 lbbd4 .tg4

(14 . . . lbxd4 15 lbxd4 lbxg2 !? 16 �xg2 1i'h4 17 i.xh7+ 'ifxh7 1S 1i'xh7+ �xh7 and Black should be OK in the endgame, Smagin-Velim­irovic, Yugoslavia 1992) 15 lbxh4 'ii'xh4 16 g3 'iWh5 with an attack, Yandemirov-Kovalev, Minsk 1995.

b) 13 g3 !? h6 14 .tc2 Emms­Mortensen, Hastings 1995.

c) 13 .tc2 g6 14 .txf5 .txf5 15 i.h6 l:teS 16 l:txeS+ 1i'xeS 17 lbfd4?! (17 1i'xd5 !? .te4 1S 'ii'd1 ) 17 .. . 'ii'e5 = Kharlov-Rublevsky, Novosibirsk 1995.

d) 13 .txf5 .txf5 14 .tg5 f6 15 .th4 i.g4 16 1i'd3 .txf3 (16 . . . a5 !? Chekhov) 17 1i'xf3 lbe5 1S 'ii'f5 l:teS 19 l:tad 1 'ii'd6 20 .tg3 ;t David-Bar­bero, Lazne Bohdanec 1995.

13 .tel!? aS?!

196 2 . . . e6

White's plan is 'ild3 with the threat of g4, but Black's best de­fence, variation 'd' , currently seems adequate:

a) 1 3 . . . 'iff6 14 .. d3 g6 15 'ifxd5 l:ld8 16 �5 �4 17 lLlbd4 ! Manca­Van der Wiel, Lugano 1989.

b) 13 .. . i.e6?! 14 .,d3 g6? (Black should prefer 14 . . . l:le8 15 i.f4 'iff6 16 g4 'ilg6 17 h3 lLlfe7 18 •xg6 lLlxg6 1 9 i.g3 ! Smagin-Strikovic, Catak 1991) 15 i.xh6! ± Nogueiras­Vogt, Kecskemet 1979 because if 15 . . . lLlxh6, 16 l:lxe6! .

c ) 1 3 . . . i.c7 14 'ii'd3 g6 15 lLlbd4 lLlfxd4 16 lLlxd4 'ii'h4 17 ll:lf3 'ifh5 18 i.d1 ! Ki.Georgiev-I.Gurevich, New York rpd 1994.

d) 13 . . . 'ifd6!? 14 .. d3 (14 i.xf5 i.xf5 15 i.e3 i.g4 16 i.xb6 axb6 17 h3 i.h5 18 .,d3 i.xf3 19 'ii'xf3 l:lfd8 20 .,e3 d4 21 cxd4 ll:lb4 22 'ii'e4 'ifd5 23 'ifxd5 l:lxd5 24 l:le7 l:lxa2 25 l:lxa2 lLlxa2 26 l:lxb7 l:lb5 27 ll:lc5 l:.xb2 28 ll:ld7 ll:lc3 29 l:lb8+ lfl-lh Tiviakov-Lautier, Groningen 1995) 14 ... l:ld8 ! 15 lLlbd4 (15 g4 .. g6 16 h3 is unclear; 15 i.e3 i.xe3 16 fxe3 g6 17 e4 112- 1/z Ivanchuk-Lobron, Dort­mund 1995) 15 . . . lLlcxd4 16 lLlxd4 g6 17 i.e3 .. f6 1 8 l:lad1 �g7 19 i.f4 �h7 20 'ifd2 ll:lxd4 21 cxd4 i.g4 22 f3 i.f5 23 i.e5 'ilg5 24 i.f4 'iff6 25 i.e5 'ilg5 26 i.f4 .,f6 1h- lf2 Filipo­vic-Cvitan, Biel 1989.

14 'ii'd3 a4 15 ltlbd4 g6 (after this move White is able to force a favour­able exchange of minor pieces, but 15 . . . ll:lcxd4 16 ll:lxd4 i.xd4 17 cxd4 1i'h4 1 8 l:le5 ± Dolmatov) 16 ltlxf5 i.xf5 17 'ii'dl i.xc2 18 'ii'xc2 :;t �g7 19 i.f4 'ii'f6 20 'ii'd2 gS 21 i.e3 d4

22 i.xd4 lLlxd4 23 ll:lxd4 l:lfd8 24 l:ladl :as 25 l:le3 l:lad5?! (Black has better defensive chances after 25 . . . i.xd4 !? 26 cxd4 l:lad5 27 l:ld3 !) 26 l:ld3 i.xd4 27 :Xd4! l:lxd4 28 cxd4 l:ld5 29 h3 b5 30 b3 axb3 31 axb3 h5 32 'ii'd3 h4 33 'ii'e4 'ii'd6 34 .:td3 b4 35 g3! bxg3 36 l:lxg3 ± � 37 l:ld3? (37 h4 !) 37 •.. 'ii'd8 38 �g2 �g7 39 'ii'g4 �f8 40 l:lg3 'ii'f6 41 b4 l:lf5 42 �h3 'ii'e6? (42 . . . gxh4 ! 43 'ilg8+ �e7 44 l:le3+ �d6 =) 43 bxg5 l:.xf2 44 'ii'xe6 fxe6 45 �g4 l:ld2?! 46 �f4 l:lxd4+ 47 �e5 l:lh4 48 �xe6 �g7 49 �f5 l:lb8 50 l:lg4 .l:.b8 51 g6 l:lf8+ 52 �e6 l:lf3 53 .l:.xb4 �xg6 54 l:lb8 l:le3+ 55 �d6 �7 56 b4 l:ld3+ 57 �c6 �e7 58 b5 l:ld6+ 59 �b7 l:ld7+ 60 �a6 l:ld6+ 61 b6 �d7 62 �b7 l:lh6 63 :as l:lh7 64 l:lcB l-0

Game 60 Salov - Kasparov

Linares 1993

1 e4 cS 2 c3 e6 3 d4 d5 4 exdS exd5 5 ll:lf3 lLlc6 6 i.e2 i.d6

For 6 . . . ll:lf6 ! ? 7 0-0 i.d6 8 dxc5 i.xc5 see the note to Black's eighth move in the main game. Alterna­tively:

a) 6 . . . c4 7 b3 cxb3 8 axb3 i.d6 is playable, but compared to related lines examined in Game 61 White should benefit from not having al­ready committed his bishop to e3, e.g. 9 0-0 lLlge7 10 c4 0-0 1 1 lLlc3 i.g4 12 cxd5 lLlb4 13 h3 i.f5 14 i.g5 f6 15 i.e3 lLlexd5 16 i.c4 i.e6 17 i.d2 i.f7 18 �4 ! Men-Dzindz­ichashvili, USA Ch 1992.

b) 6 . . . cxd4 7 lLlxd4 (7 cxd4 re-es­tablishing symmetry isn't much for White, because after 7 . . . lLlf6 8 0-0 i...e7 9 lLlc3 we have a transposition to a level Queen's Gambit Tarrasch defence, ECO code D32. Instead 7 . . . i...d6 8 lLlc3 lLlge7 9 i...g5 f6 10 i...h4 0-0 11 i...g3 i...b4 12 0-0 i...xc3 13 bxc3 ;!; was Sveshnikov-Dorfman, USSR Ch 1976) 7 . . . i...d6 8 ... a4 !? (an early excursion; if 8 0-0 then af­ter 8 . . . lLlge7, 9 i...g5 and 9 i...e3 are natural; 8 . . . lLlf6 should probably be answered by 9 i...e3 rather than 9 i...g5 0-0 10 i...h4 .:.e8 1 1 ltld2 ltlxd4 12 cxd4 i...f4 = O'Donnell-Wolff, Saint John 1988) 8 . . . lLlge7 9 lLlb5 i...e5 10 ltld2 0-0 1 1 ltlf3 f6 12 ltlbd4 i...d7 1 3 'Wb3 lLlxd4 14 ltlxd4 'it'c7 15 h3 'itth8 16 0-0 'Wc8 17 lLlf3 ;!; Smagin-Gurgenidze, USSR Ch 1985.

7 dxc5 7 0-0 ltlge7 and now Black equal­

ises easily after 8 ltlbd2 cxd4 9 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 10 cxd4 0-0 1 1 ltlf3 'ii'b6 Tamm-Kramnik, Dortmund 1992 or 8 i...e3 lLlf5 ! Zurla-Kupreichik, Cat­tolica 1993.

7 . . . i...xc5 8 0-0 (D)

8 ... ltlge7

2 . . . e6 197

Interesting is 8 .. . lLlf6!? and now: a) 9 lLlbd2 0-0 10 lLlb3 i...b6 1 1

i...g5 .:.e8 1 2 h3 (12 'Wd3 h6 1 3 i...xf6 'ifxf6 14 .:.ae1 i...f5 15 'Wd2 i...e4 16 ltlbd4 .:.e7 17 i...d1 .:.ae8 � Csom­Spassky, Amsterdam 1970) 12 . . . 'ifd6 13 c4 lLle4 14 i...h4 dxc4 15 i...xc4 'it'g6 16 'itth1 ltld6 17 ltlbd2 lLlxc4 18 lLlxc4 i...c7 19 lLle3 i...d8 20 i..xd8 .:.xd8 21 'Wa4 'ifh5 = Men-Gulko, USA Ch 1992.

b) 9 i...g5 !? i...e6 (9 ... i...e7 10 ltlbd2 h6 1 1 i..h4 0-0 12 lLlb3 g5 13 i...g3 lLle4 14 lLlfd4 i...f6 15 i...d3 i..g7 16 'ii'c2 f5 oo Panchenko-Renet, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 10 ltlbd2 0-0 (10 . . . h6!? 1 1 i...h4 i...b6 12 lLlb3 g5 !? 13 i..g3 lLle4 oo Okhotnik-Velimir­ovic, Belgrade 1988) 1 1 lLlb3 i..b6 12 ltlbd4 i...g4 13 h3 ( 13 .:.el !?) 13 . . . ltlxd4 14 ltlxd4 i..xe2 15 lLlxe2 h6 16 i..h4 .:.e8 17 'ifd3 1We7 18 lbd4 'it'e4 = Kengis-Miezis, Riga Z 1995.

9 ltlbd2 After 9 i...g5 0-0 10 ltlbd2 there

have been three games where Black responded with the bold plan of ex­panding with 10 . . . h6 ! 1 1 i...h4 g5 12 lLlb3 i...b6 13 i...g3 f5 14 h3 f4 15 i...h2 lLlf5 oo (Vujicic-Strikovic, Bel­grade 1989, Schoffstoii-Gulko, Los Angeles 1991 , and Turov-Yuneev, St Petersburg 1994). Black's airy king­side is compensated for by very ac­tive pieces.

9 ... 0-0 10 ltlb3 i...b6 (D) Of course 10 . . . i...d6 is the other

option, when an identical position to Game 59 is reached, but with White's light-squared bishop possi­bly better-posted on e2 instead of the b5-square. 1 1 i...g5 ( 1 1 ltlbd4!? a6

198 2 . . . e6

gives a fairly standard type of Tar­rasch IQP position, while 1 1 �d3 is a transposition to Game 59, note to Black's 1 1th) 1 l . . .'ifc7 (if 1 l . ..�g4?! Black would be a tempo down on lines from Game 59 where White has just retreated his bishop from b5 to e2 in this position) 12 lClbd4 a6 ( 12 . . . lC!xd4 !? 13 'ii'xd4 �e6 ;t Har­ley-McDonald, British Ch 1993) 13 h3 lCJg6 14 �d3 lC!xd4 15 lC!xd4 �d7 16 'ii'c2 �c5 17 �f5 �a7 1 8 �xd7 'ii'xd7 1 9 l:ad1 ;t S.Arkeii­Zsu.Polgar, Novi Sad OL 1990.

11 �gS?! Probably not best if White really

has to exchange on e7 as in the game continuation. 1 1 �d3 !? again trans­poses to Game 59 (where the bishop has just retreated from b5 instead of advancing from e2). Sample alterna­tives:

a) 1 1 lCJfd4 lCJg6 12 �e3 l:r.e8 1 3 'ii'c2 lC!ce5 14 l:ad 1 �d7 15 tDrl2 lCJg4 16 �xg4 �xg4 17 l:r.de1 l:r.c8 �

Padevsky-Karpov, Skopje 1972. b) 1 1 l:e1 'ii'd6 !? ( 1 l . . .�g4 12

lCJfd4 �xe2 13 l:txe2 'iWd7 14 �e3 lC!e5 15 lCJc2 �c7 16 �c5 ;t Braga­Kuijf, Bad Wtirishofen 1993 or

1 l . . .lCJf5 12 �d3 !? as in Game 59) 12 lCJfd4 (12 lCJbd4) 12 . . . lCJf5 1 3 lClb5 'ii'f6 (a sharp sacrifice) 14 'ii'xd5 a6 15 lC!a3 lC!h4 16 lClc5 �f5 17 �e3 l:r.fd8 18 'ii'c4 �xc5 19 1Wxc5 �e4 20 �g5 'ii'g6 21 �h5 'ii'xh5 22 l:xe4 h6! 23 �e7 l:d1+ 24 l:e1 l:r.xa1 25 l:r.xa1 lCJf5 26 �d6 l:d8 27 lCJc4 g6 with compensation for the pawn, Pospi§il-Beroun, Corr. 1991 .

c ) 1 1 lCJbd4 lCJf5 ! , e.g. 12 lC!xc6 bxc6 1 3 �d3 h6 = Duckstein-Kiin­ger, Austrian Ch 1989 or 12 lC!xf5 �xf5 1 3 �g5 'ifd7 (13 . . . f6 14 �f4 �h8 15 'ii'd2 l:e8 16 l:r.ad 1 �e4 leads to equality, Petronijevic-Scher­bakov, Cheliabinsk 1 990) 14 'ii'd2 l:fe8 15 �b5 �e4 = Rooer-Schmitt­diel, Augsburg 1989.

ll ... h6! =

Not 1 l . . .f6 12 �f4 lCJg6 1 3 'ii'd2 lCJxf4 14 'ifxf4 l:r.e8 15 l:r.fe1 l:r.e4 16 'iWd2 �g4 17 l:r.ad1 ± Timoshch­enko-Gufeld, USSR 1978 but possi­ble is 1 1 . . .'ii'd6 12 'ii'd2 �c7 1 3 l:r.ad1 l:r.e8 14 l:r.fe1 �g4 15 g 3 �b6 = Timoshchenko-Kochiev, USSR Ch 1978.

12 �xe7 12 �h4 g5 13 �g3 f5 (+ Kas­

parov) transposes into the note at White's move nine.

12 .•• 'ii'xe7 13 l:r.e1 �e6 14 a4 aS 15 'ii'd3 l:r.ad8 16 'ii'bS?! (16 �d1 !? 'ii'c7 17 �c2 g6 is given as unclear by Kasparov) 16 .•. 'ii'c7 ; 17 c!Dbd4?! �g4 18 �fl g6 19 g3 hS 20 'ii'd3 :res 21 �g2 �g7 22 �1 'ii'd6 23 'ii'bS lC!xd4 24 lC!xd4 l:r.xel + 25 :Xel h4 26 'ii'd3 'ii'f6 27 �g1 h3! + 28 �fl l:c8 29 'ii'd2 �d7 30 lC!bS l:r.d8 31 lb€14 l:r.c8 32 lC!bS l:h8 33

.l:.e2 �g4 34 .l:.el �d7 35 .l:.e2 d4? (35 ... �c6, 35 ... llh5 and 35 .. . g5 !? are all much better for Black) 36 .!tixd4 �xa4 37 l:e4 �d7 38 1i'e3 �c6 39 l:.f4 �xd4 40 1i'xd4 1i'xd4 41 l:xd4 l:e8 42 f4 a4 43 l:d2 .l:.el 44 �f2 :ct 45 �xh3 a3 46 bxa3 l:xc3 47 �g2 :Xa3 lfl.l/z

Game 61 Mann - Christiansen

Bundesliga 1995

1 e4 c5 2 c3 e6 3 d4 d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 l0!3 lOc6 6 �e3 c4

A defence that the talented Ameri­can grandmaster Larry Christiansen has patronised. Instead the rare 6 . . . 1Wb6 needs some high-level tests, but 6 . . . cxd4 is quite common, when White must decide whether to recap­ture with the knight or bishop:

a) 7 .!Oxd4 �d6 (7 . . . lDf6 8 �e2 �d6 will transpose) 8 �e2 (8 g3 lDf6 9 �g2 0-0 10 0-0 l0g4 l l l0c2 �f5 1 2 ltid2 1i'd7 ! 1 3 �d4 �d3 14 .l:.el 1Wf5 15 �h3 �xc2 16 'ii'xg4 'ii'xg4 17 �xg4 .!0xd4 18 cxd4 f5 19 �h3 �b4 20 l:ecl l:.ac8 21 .!tifl g6 = Beliavsky-Tseshkovsky, Yugosla­via 1 994) 8 . . . .!tif6 9 0-0 (9 lDd2) 9 . . . 0-0 10 .!Od2 l:e8 1 1 :tel . Black has a good game, e.g. l l . ..a6 12 ltixc6 bxc6 1 3 b4 a5 14 a3 We? 15 .!On �d7 16 �d4 l:e6 17 �f3 � 1 8 c4 .!tig5 19 l:xe6 lDxe6 = Minev-Tal, Sarajevo 1966 or l l . . .h6 12 h3 a6 13 'ii'c2 �c7 14 :ad I 'it'd6 15 li::Jfl �4 with the initiative, Yagupov-Chek­hov, Moscow Tal mem 1992.

b) 7 �xd4 !? lDxd4 (7 . . . a6 8 'iWe2+ !? �e6 9 g3 .!Oge7 10 .!tibd2

2 . . . e6 199

.!tif5 l l lDb3 �d6 12 �g2 0-0 1 3 0-0 .:.e8 14 .:.ret .!Ofxd4 1 5 .!tifxd4 'iWf6 16 .!tixe6 fxe6 17 c4 ± Plaskett-Me­stel, British Ch 1989) 8 .!Oxd4 (8 1Wxd4 .!tif6 9 �b5+ �d7 10 �xd7+ 'ii'xd7 1 1 0-0 �e7 12 .!tibd2 0-0 1 3 :ret �d8 14 �5 'ii'd6 15 lDg4 lDxg4 16 1i'xg4 �b6 = Sveshnikov­Tal, Moscow 1976) 8 . . . a6 (to prevent the check on b5, as in 8 . . . �d6 9 �b5+ �f8 10 0-0 ;!; Regan-Kuzmin, Budapest 1978; Black is marginally worse after 8 . . . .!tif6 9 �b5+ �d7 10 1We2+ 1i'e7 Ochoa-Perreira, Thessa­loniki OL 1988) 9 �e2 .!tif6 10 0-0 �c5 l l ltid2 0-0 12 l02b3 �b6 1 3 'fid3 _.d6 1 4 .:tad1 .:te8 15 .:tfel �c7 16 g3 g6 = Sermek-Rai�evic, Bled 1989.

7 b3 White should always challenge

Black's pawn structure immediately in these . . . c4 lines. If Black gets time to develop he may later be tempted to respond to b3 with . . . b5.

7 ..• cxb3 8 axb3 �d6 On s. : .�f5 9 �d3 �xd3 10 'ii'xd3

gives White the freer game, but 8 . . . lDf6 is worth a thought, e.g. 9 �e2 (9 �d3) 9 . . . �d6 10 �g5 (10 0-0 0-0 1 1 c4 ;!; Vera-Vilela, Havana 1984) 10 .. . h6 1 1 �h4 0-0 12 0-0 .:r.es 1 3 .:.a2 �g4 14 �1 .i.xe2 15 .:txe2 .l:.xe2 16 'ii'xe2 'ii'e8 17 _.d3 lDh5 lfl.lh Makarychev-Gulko, Frunze 1985.

9 �d3 Or 9 �e2 lDge7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 c4

..llg4 12 .!tic3 a6 13 h3 ( 13 �1 .i.xe2 14 lDxe2 .:.e8 = Ochoa-Gufeld, Cien­fuegos 1984) 13 .. . �h5 14 'ifd2 %Z.c8?! ( 14 . . . .i.b8 !? intending . . . 'ii'c7 Vera)

200 2 . . . e6

1 5 c5 .i.b8 16 .i.f4 :e8 17 .i.xb8 :xb8 1 8 :tel ;t Vera-Zapata, Cien­fuegos 1984.

9 ••• lDge7 (D) Or 9 . . . h6 !? 10 0-0 lDf6 1 1 h3 (in

the game Makarychev-Christiansen, Saint John 1988 a more vigorous re­sponse brought only equality: 1 1 tlJe5 !? lDxe5 12 dxe5 .i.xe5 1 3 .i.b5+ .i.d7 14 .i.xd7+ 'ifxd7 15 .i.d4 .i.xd4 16 :el+ �! 17 'irxd4 :e8 18 lDd2 :Xel+ 19 :xel a6) 1 1 . . .0-0 12 lDbd2 .i.e6 1 3 b4 :c8 14 'ifa4 .i.b8 15 lDb3 lDe4 16 lDc5 .i.f5 17 lDxb7 'ifc7 18 .i.a6 :ce8 19 :rc1 lDg5 20 .i.xg5 hxg5 21 �a5 and Black's compensa­tion looked insufficient in Tomczak­Christiansen, German Cup 1992, although Black later succeeded in smashing through the white king­side.

10 0-0 Or: a) 10 �bd2?! allows 10 . . . .i.f5 !

1 1 'ifbl 'ifd7 12 0-0 0-0 13 :e1 a5 !? 14 �fl b5 ! 15 �g3 .i.xd3 16 'ifxd3 a4 ! + Bukacek-Psakhis, Lenk 1991 .

b) White can try for an edge with 10 lDh4 !7 0-0 (10 . . . �g6 1 1 �f5 .i.xf5 12 .i.xf5 0-0 1 3 0-0 'ifc7 14

'irh5 lixe7 15 .i.d3 a6 16 c4 f5 "" De Kleuver-Gausel, Reykjavik 1996 and 10 . . . .i.e6!? 1 1 0-0 'ird7 12 f4?! lDf5 13 lDxf5 .i.xf5 14 Wc2 lDe7 + N.Pedersen-Psakhis, Gausdal 1 994; however, note White could avoid this latter line with the move-order 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 �h4) 1 1 . . . lDg6 12 �f5 and here:

bl) 12 .. ic7 13 Wh5 ;t �7?! 14 �xe7+ 'ifxe7 15 'ifxd5 .i.e6 16 'ii'h5 .i.xb3 17 c4! a5 18 lDd2 a4 19 �xb3 axb3 20 'ifb5 .i.f4 21 :ae1 .i.xe3 22 :xe3 .. f6 23 .. xb3 .. xd4 24 'ifxb7 :a3? 25 .i.xg6! 1 -0 Yanovsky-Mes­tel, Hastings 1 990, as on 25 . . . :xe3 comes 26 .i.xf7+ :xn 27 .. xf7+! �xf7 28 fxe3+ finishing off.

b2) 12 . . . .i.xf5 1 3 .i.xf5 .. f6 (al­ternatively, 1 3 . . ... c7 !? is De Kleu­ver-Gausel above) 14 'ifh5 lixe7 1 5 .i.d3 h6? ! ( 1 5 . . . .tf4 16 �d2 ;t is better) 16 g3! ± Finkel-Kogan, Israel 1993.

10 ... 0-0 After 10 . . . .i.f5 White can either

continue as in the main game with 1 1 :et, or try 1 1 c4!?, e.g. l l . . ..i.b4 12 lDa3 .ixd3 1 3 'ifxd3 .ixa3 14 :xa3 0-0 15 �g5 �g6 16 h4!? 'ife7 17 :aal :rd8 18 h5 �f8 19 h6 g6 20 :ret ;t Rozentalis-Neverov, Uzh­gorod 1987.

u :et For the interesting 1 1 �h4 !? see

the analysis given in the note to White's lOth move. Other ways to play are 1 1 �a3 a6 12 lDb5 .i.b8 1 3 'ifc2 h6 1 4 h 3 .i.e6 15 lDh4 :e8 1 6 :ret lix8 17 lDf5 lDb6 18 � •f6 19 .id2 .i.c7 "" Maliutin-Lastin, Moscow 1995 and 1 1 'ifc2 g6 12

.i.h6 :e8 1 3 .i.g5 .i.g4 14 �4 'ifd7 1 5 lba3 :.ac8 16 'ifd2 .i.b8 17 llx:2 .i.f5 18 lbxf5 lbxf5 1 9 lbe3 lbfe7 20 f4 with an attack for White, Rozen­talis-Kochiev, Voronezh 1 987, but of course Black has potential improve­ments in this line, starting with 1 l . . .h6!?.

ll .. ..i.f5 = 12 .i.xf5?! The position is roughly level after

12 .i.g5 f6 (12 ... .i.xd3 13 'ifxd3 'ii'd7 14 lbbd2 f6 15 .i.h4 lbg6 16 .i.g3 lbf4 17 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 18 :e2 :.ae8 = Brynell-Schmittdiel, Aabybro Nor­dic Cht 1 989) 1 3 .i.h4 'ifd7 14 J..g3 .i.xg3 15 hxg3 a6 = Kulish-Zsu.Pol­gar, Moscow OL 1994 and = Bry­nell-Larsen, Nmstved 1988.

12 ... lbxf5 13 'ifd3 'ifd7 14 llJbd2 :res 15 .i.g5 f6 16 .i.h4 a6 17 liJfl .i.f8 18 .i.g3 :aca 19 lbe3 lbxe3 20 :xe3 :.xe3 21 'ifxe3 liJe7 22 'ifd3 'ifc6 23 :ct (White is now passive, and Black manoeuvres to exploit his potential outside passed pawn on the queenside) 23 •.. b5 24 liJd2 aS 25 liJbl a4 26 b4 g6 27 lba3 llJf5!? 28 lbxb5 lbxg3 29 hxg3 l:tb8 30 liJa3 :Xb4 31 lDc2 l:tb3 32 lbe3 a3 33 �h2 f5?! (this looks wrong; 33 . . . J..h6!? and White has problems) 34 l:tc2 .i.d6 35 'ife2 'ilb7 36 lbdl (threat­ening 36 'ife6+ and gaining vital counterplay against the black king) 37 ••• � 37 c4 dxc4 38 'ifxc4+ �g7 39 d5 ll.b4 40 'ifc3+ �h6 41 lbe3 'ife7 42 llJc4 'ifh4+ 43 �gl 'ifg5 44 liJxa3 ll.b8 45 ll.b2 :as 46 ll.b3 'ifg4 47 'ifcl+ 'ifgS 48 'ifxgS+ �gS 49 liJc4 :at+ SO �h2 .i.cS 51 f4+ �f6 52 llJeS .i.gl+ 53 �h3 .i.f2 54 �h2 .i.gl + SS �h3 1/z-1/z

2 . . . e6 201

Game 62 Kramnik - Gelfand

Sanghi Nagar Ct (5) 1994

1 e4 cS 2 c3 e6 3 d4 dS 4 exdS exdS S J..e3!? (D)

This unique approach has been scoring well, even against very strong opposition, and represents a serious challenge to Black's hopes of transposing into a French Defence. White avoids the routine develop­ment of his knight to the f3-square, in favour of an unusual formation whereby the f3-square will instead provide an aggressive outpost for the queen.

s ... c4 Possible is 5 . . . cxd4 6 J..xd4 llx:6

(6 . . . llJh6 7 liJf3 liJf5 8 J..d3 llx:6 9 .i.xf5 .i.xf5 10 0-0 .i.e7 1 1 .i.xg7 :.g8 12 J..d4 ± Stripunsky-Berg Hansen, Denmark 1 994) 7 .i.b5 (7 llJf3 !? transposes to Game 6 1 , note to Black's sixth) 7 . . . a6 8 .i.a4 b5 (8 . . . 1fg5 9 liJf3 'ifxg2 10 'ife2+ llJge7 1 1 :g1 'ifb3 12 J..xg7 :g8 1 3 .i.xc6+ bxc6 14 .i.xf8 �xf8 1 5 ll.xg8+ �xg8 16 llJbd2 .i.g4 <CI Rab­iega-Afek, Budapest 1 993) 9 .i.b3

202 2 . . . e6

!i:Jxd4 10 Wxd4 !i:Jf6 1 1 !i:Je2 �b7 12 0-0 �d6 13 !i:Jg3 0-0 14 !i:Jf5 j_c7 = Lima-Mecking, Brazil 1995.

A sharper try is 5 ... Wb6!? when White's best reply is not yet estab­lished:

a) 6 Wb3 !i:ic6 7 !i:Jf3 c4 8 Wxb6 axb6 9 j,e2 �d6 10 0-0 b5 1 1 :d1 !i:Jge7 12 a3 !i:Jf5 1 3 j,d2 0-0 =!= Van Hul-Korchnoi, Antwerp 1995.

b) 6 dxc5 Wxb2 7 Wb3 Wxa1 (7 . . . Wxb3 8 axb3 lbe7 9 !i:Ja3 j,d7 10 !i:Jb5 j,xb5 1 1 j_xb5+ !i:Jbc6 12 !i:Jf3 a6 1 3 0-0 ;!; Van Mil-Cifuentes, Dieren 1 989) 8 !i:Jf3 !i:Jd7 9 �b5 !i:Jgf6 10 0-0 �e7 1 1 !i:Je1 0-0 12 !i:ic2 !i:ixc5 1 3 �xc5 Wxb1 14 :xb1 j,xc5 and Black has close to enough compensation for his queen, Palk­ovi-Backwinkel, Bundesliga 1995.

c) 6 We2 c4 7 b3 axb3 8 Wb5+ j,d7 (8 ... Wxb5 9 �xb5+ j,d7 10 �xd7+ !i:ixd7 1 1 axb3 a6 12 !i:Jf3 j,d6 1 3 c4 lbe7 14 c5 j,c7 1 5 !i:ic3 h6 16 0-0 0-0 17 b4 !i:Jf6 18 b5 ± Strikovic-Gausel, Novi Sad OL 1990) 9 Wxb3 !i:Jf6 10 !i:Jf3 �d6 1 1 Wxb6 axb6 12 lbe5 !i:Jc6 1 3 !i:Jxd7 �xd7 14 �d3 :as 15 �c2 :haS 16 j,b3 :5a7 17 !i:Jd2 1h-1h Dzindz­ichashvili-Benjamin, Philadelphia 1993.

d) 6 Wc2!? !i:ic6 7 !i:Jf3 !i:Jf6 8 !i:Jbd2 (8 dxc5 �xc5 9 j_xc5 1i'xc5 10 j,d3 i.g4 1 1 1i'e2+ �f8 12 0-0 :es 1 3 Wd1 Wb6 14 b3 �xf3 15 Wxf3 !i:Je5 16 Wd1 d4 "" Blatny-Ben­jamin, Philadelphia 1 995) 8 . . . !i:Jg4 9 �d3 cxd4 10 �xd4 !i:ixd4 1 1 !i:ixd4 �c5 12 0-0 ;!; Benderac-Stanimi­rovic, Yugoslav Cht 1992.

6 b3 cxb3 7 axb3 i.d6

Usually 7 . . . !i:Jc6 Ieads to a trans­position. White can also consider the plan 8 g3!? followed by li:Jge2 and 0-0.

8 j_cJ3 !i:Jc6 After 8 . . . !i:Jf6 the course of the

game Motwani-Korchnoi, Manila OL 1992 was very interesting : 9 !i:Jd2 0-0 10 h3 ! :es 1 1 'iff3 1i'e7 (an unusual manoeuvre was 1 1 . . . �d7 !? 12 !i:ie2 �c6 as in Motwani-Bellin, Gausdal 1 992, when a draw was agreed after 1 3 �f4 j_xf4 14 1i'xf4 !i:Jbd7 15 0-0 !i:Jf8 1 6 !i:Jf3 !i:Jg6 17 �xg6 hxg6 112-1/z; however 1 3 !i:Jg3 seems more logical, covering e4 and with ideas of !i:Jf5) 12 !i:ie2 !i:Je4 1 3 0-0 !i:Jd7 14 !i:Jf4!? �xf4 15 1i'xf4 !i:ixc3 16 :re t !i:ie4 17 �xe4 ! dxe4 1 8 !i:ic4. Here the players agreed a draw, but in spite of the extra pawn it is not apparent how even Viktor the Terrible would have dealt with White's unpleasant threat of !i:Jd6 followed by :c7.

Black can also continue 8 . . . !i:Je7 9 1i'f3 (other squares are less testing: 9 1i'h5 !i:Jd7 10 �g5 !i:Jf8! = Cher­niaev-011, Antwerp 1 994 or 9 1i'c2 h6 10 !i:Je2 0-0 1 1 0-0 !i:Jbc6 12 !i:Jg3 j,e6 1 3 !i:Jd2 :cs 14 'ifb1 a5 15 !i:Jf3 f5 "" Kotliar-Kaidanov, New York 1993) and now:

a) 9 . . . j_e6 10 �f4 0-0 1 1 !i:Je2 �xf4 12 !i:Jxf4 1i'd7 1 3 0-0 i.g4 14 'W'g3 �f5 15 !i:Jd2 !i:Jbc6 16 b4 (it is not clear that this is the best plan) 16 . . . a5 17 b5 !i:Jd8 1 8 b6 !i:Je6 1 9 !i:ixe6 fxe6 20 !i:Jb3 �xd3 21 1i'xd3 !i:ic8 22 !i:Jc5 Wc6 23 :ret :r6 24 1i'h3 1h-1h Motwani-Jelen, Sas van Gent 1992.

b) 9 . . . lL!d7 10 l0e2 0-0 1 1 lL!d2 lle8 12 0-0 lL!g6 13 lLlg3 ! i ( 1 3 'it'xd5?! lL!f6 gives Black counter­play) 1 3 . . . 'ii'c7?! ( 13 . . . lL!b6) 14 'ii'xd5 lLlf6 1 5 'ii'c4 and Black did not have enough compensation for his pawn in Motwani-Conquest, Hafnarfudi 1992.

9 'ii'f3! (D) Instead 9 lL!d2!? waits to see

whether the black king's knight goes to f6 or e7. However there doesn't seem much point to this flexible ap­proach, as White usually develops the queen to f3 in any case: 9 . . . .i.e6 (Sermek-Popovie, Velden 1993 took a different course: 9 . . . 'it'f6 10 'ii'h5 lL!ge7 l l .i.g5 'ii'e6+ 1 2 lL!e2 'ii'g4 13 'ii'xg4 .i.xg4 14 lLlfl f6 15 .i.h4 lL!f5 16 .i.g3 lLJxg3 17 hxg3 lL!e7 18 lLlf4 .i.xf4 19 gxf4 and White was mar­ginally better in the endgame) 10 'it'f3 !? lL!ge7 1 1 .i.f4 ( 1 1 lLle2 lLlg6 threatens .. . lL!h4) 1 l .. ..i.xf4 12 'ii'xf4 lL!g6 1 3 'it'g3 0-0 14 h4 ! 'ii'f6 (not 14 . . . lL!ce7? 15 h5 lLlh8 16 h6! and if 16 ... g6??, 17 'it'e5 +-) 15 lL!e2 .i.f5 16 .i.xf5 'it'xf5 17 h5 (17 'it'f3) 17 ... lLlge7 1 8 'ii'f3 with a small plus for White (who later won) in Blatny-Korchnoi, Brno 1992.

B

2 . . . e6 203

9 ... lLlf6 A major diversion. 9 . . . lL!ge7 10

lL!d2 (after 10 lL!e2 0-0, 1 1 lL!d2 lLlg6?! 12 h4 ! is Kramnik's sugges­tion, but less accurate is 1 1 0-0?! lL!g6! when White cannot capture on d5; however White can deal with the . . . lL!g6 plan in another way too: 1 1 h3 would transpose to Markovic-To­dorovic, Cetinje 1990, which contin­ued l l . . . .i.e6 12 0-0 'ii'd7 1 3 lL!g3 lLlg6 14 'it'h5 1lfe8 15 lLlf5 lL!ce7 16 lLlxe7+ llxe7 17 lL!d2 lL!f8 18 c4 a6 19 c5 .i.e? 20 b4 llc8 21 llfb1 ±) 10 ... .i.e6 1 1 .i.f4!? (a typical theme when Black is preparing to play . . . lL!g6, after having protected the d­pawn with his bishop) 1 1 . ..lLlg6 12 .i.xd6 'ii'xd6 1 3 l0e2 (a nice finesse; 1 3 . . . lLlh4 can be met by 14 'it'g3) 13 ... 0-0 14 h4 (14 'ii'g3 'it'd? 15 lLlf4 .i.f5 wasn't anything for White in Hauchard-Renet, Clichy 1993) 14 ... h6 15 h5 lL!ge7 16 'ii'f4 llad8 17 0-0 llfe8 18 llfe1 �f8 19 lLlf3 .i.f5? (19 . . . 'it'xf4 20 lLlxf4 i, but Black has a hallucination planned) 20 lL!e5 .i.xd3?? 21 'ii'xf7# ( 1-0) Motwani­Schmittdiel, Gausdal 1992.

10 h3 h6 10 ... 0-0 1 1 l0e2 and now: a) 1 1 . . .1le8 12 lL!d2 .i.e6 (or

12 . . . 'ii'e7 1 3 .i.g5 ± Kramnik) 13 0-0 'it'd? 14 lL!g3 .i.e? 1 5 .i.g5 .i.dS 16 llfe1 h6 17 .i.f4 i Van Mil-Kosten, Budapest 1989. The continuation of the game was an excellent illustra­tion of White's kingside attacking chances in this line: 17 . . . 1lc8 1 8 llac1 .i.e? 19 .i.b1 .i.a3 20 llcd1 .i.e? 21 'it'd3 �8 22 lLlf3 lL!g8 23 'it'h7 .i.f6 24 lLlh5 'it'd8 25 .i.e5

204 2 . . . e6

.i.xe5 26 dxe5 �e7 27 .!Dxg7 and White wins.

b) 1 l . . . .i.e6 12 l0d2 'ii'd7 was Strikovic-Gallagher, Geneva 1 99 1 , when White suffered for a dubious mixture of plans: 1 3 g4?! ( 13 .i.f4 ;!;) 1 3 . . . lbe7 14 .!Df4 .!bg6 15 0-0 .!bh4 1 6 'ii'd 1 .i.xg4 17 hxg4 .!Dxg4 1 8 .i.e2 &!Dxe3 19 fxe3 'ile7 20 �f2 .!Df5 21 .!bg2 .!Dxe3 22 'ile1 .!Dxg2 23 �xg2 'ilg5+ 24 �h3 'ilh6+ 0-1 .

ll lDe2 lDe7 On 1 1 . . .0-0 12 lbd2 l:.e8 Kramnik

gives 1 3 g4 ! ±; the white attack is looming, as 1 3 . . . .!Dh7 drops material to 14 .i.xh7+ �xh7 1 5 'ilxf7. In­stead 13 0-0 .!Dh7 !? 14 .i.f4 (not now 1 4 .i.xh7+ �xh7 15 'ifxf7 l:.f8 16 'ilh5 l:.f5) 14 . . . .!Dg5 15 'ii'g3 .i.e7 16 .!Df3 .if6 17 .!bxg5 .i.xg5 18 .i.xg5 and a draw was agreed in !.Marko­vic-Topalov, Kavala Balkaniad 1990, though even here White can play af­ter 1 8 . . . 'ii'xg5 19 l:.fel.

12 .!bg3 In his notes in Informator 61,

Kramnik mentions only 12 lbd2 .!bg6 1 3 g3 0-0 14 �fl �. Worth con­sideration, however, is the logical 12 .i.f4!? and I see no reason why White should not be slightly better.

12 ... .i.e6 On 12 . . . .!bg6 Kramnik gives the

following variations: a) 1 3 .i.b5+ �f8 ! ( 1 3 . . . .i.d7?!

14 .i.xd7+ 'ilxd7 15 .!Df5 ±) 14 0-0 &!Dh4 15 'ild1 g5 !? with counterplay, or 15 ... .ie6 intending ... 'ilc8.

b) 1 3 &!Dh5 !? &!Dxh5 ( 1 3 . . . .!Dh4?

14 .!Dxf6+ 'ilxf6 15 'ifxd5 ± or 1 3 . . . .ie6 14 &!Dxf6+ gxf6 15 g3 ±) 14 'ifxh5 .!Df4 15 .i.b5+ (15 .ixf4 .ixf4 16 .i.b5+ �f8 17 0-0 .i.e6 is level) 15 . . . .id7 (as on 16 .i.xf4 .i.xb5) 16 .i.xd7 + 'ilxd7 17 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 =.

13 o-o .!Dg6 14 .!Drs ( 14 .i.b5+ �f8 !?) 14 ••• -i.xrs 1s 'ifxrs lhh4?! (better is 15 . . . 0-0 16 g3 l:.e8 17 'ilf3 .!be4 � 1 8 c4 'ile7 !? Kramnik) 16 .ibS+ �f8 17 'ifc2 g6 (17 . . . g5 !? 1 8 l0d2 g4?! can be met with 19 g3) 18 .id3 'ii'd7 19 c4 a6?! (19 . . . .!Df3+ would rebound on Black after 20 �h1 .!bg5 21 c5 .ib8 22 f4 ± and if 22 . . . &!Dxh3, then 23 l:.f3; 19 . . . �g7 was best, though White is now bet­ter) 20 cS .ic7 21 c6? (hoping for 2l. . .bxc6 22 l:.c 1 , but allowing Black a defensive trick; 2 1 lbd2 l:.e8 22 l:.fe1 �g7 23 b4 ±) 21 ••. 'ii'd6! (with the irritating point that 22 g3 bxc6 23 .i.f4 can be countered by the perpet­ual 23 . . . .!Df3+ 24 �g2 .!Dh4+! 25 �h2 (25 �h1 'ii'e6) 25 . . . .!Df3+, etc.; White has to go into an ending, where, after one further inaccuracy, he loses his advantage entirely) 22 'ii'cS 'ii'xcS 23 dxcS bxc6 24 .:.xa6 ha6 25 .i.xa6 �g7 26 .i.b7 l:.b8 27 .i.xc6 llxb3 28 .!Dd2?! (28 .i.d4 ! ;!;) 28 ••• 1lb4 29 .:.b1 .:.xb1+ 30 .!Dxb1 &!Drs 31 .i.d2 .!Dd4 32 .i.a4 .!be4 33 .ib4 .!be6 34 c6 .ib6! 35 lbc3 .ixf2+ 36 � .icS! 37 .iaS .!Dxc3 38 .i.xc3+ �8 = 39 .i.b3 .!Dc7 40 .ieS .i.b6 41 .i.d6+ �g7 42 g4 �6 43 h4 �e6 44 .irs hS 45 gxbS gxbS 46 .id1 &!DbS 47 .ixhS lfl.t/z

22 2 . . . d6

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d6 (D)

There has been a great deal of ac­tivity in the . . . d6 systems, and sev­eral variations have similarities or transpositions to branches of the Pirc/Modern or Samisch King's In­dian defences. After 3 d4 �f6 White must decide how to deal with the threat to his e-pawn. In Game 63 we examine the least-played of the three major options, 4 f3. In fact White's intentions are deceptively aggressive (after lbc3, ..te3 and 'ii'd2 he will castle queenside and seek a kingside attack); however Black has a fair choice of defensive set-ups to choose from, and even in the illustrative game could probably obtain reason­able counterplay.

4 dxc5 (Game 64) allows Black to show his clever idea of 4 . . . �c6 ! 5 f3 d5 !?. The critical assessment comes after 9 . . . ..te7, where Black

has sacrificed a pawn for long-term compensation.

In the next two games we examine the main line, 4 ..td3. White is better after the pseudo queen offer 4 . . . �c6 5 �f3 ..tg4 6 d5 �e5 7 �xeS ! (Game 65), so Black often fianchet­toes with 4 . . . cxd4 5 cxd4 g6 6 �3 ..tg7 (Game 66). It seems that White can keep an edge, but both sides have a wide variety of plans in this some­what amorphous system, and the complex positions that result may suit a strong player trying to win with Black.

Game 63 Rausis - A.Sokolov

Moscow 1992

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d6 For historical record the actual

move-order of this illustrative game was the less common 2 . . . g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cxd4 ..tg7 5 �c3 d6 6 ..te3 �f6 7 f3.

3 d4 lbf6 Attacking the e-pawn immedi­

ately is an important part of Black's strategy if he is not to be left with a passive game.

a) The premature exchange of pawns with 3 . . . cxd4?! 4 cxd4 frees the c3-square for White's knight a move too early (as now if 4 . . . �f6 White can respond 5 �3). Even so

206 2 . . . d6

this is not an uncommon exchange amongst lower-ranked players, al­though White gains easy develop­ment and a pleasant choice of lines, e.g.:

a1) 4 ... lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 and now 6 .i.d3 transposes to Game 66, and so can 6 �f3 if White choose to place his bishop on d3 later. 6 .i.b5+!? is an option, though after 6 . . . .i.d7 7 1i'e2 lbc6 8 t0f3 a6 9 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 10 0-0 .i.g7 1 1 d5 .i.d7 12 h3 0-0 13 a4 Black equalised with 1 3 ... b5 ! 14 axb5 axb5 15 J:r.xa8 1i'xa8 1 6 'ifd3 b4 17 lbe2 .i.c8 112-112 in Rai�evic-Kla­ric, Geneva 1 989.

a2) 4 ... g6 5 lbc3 .i.g7 6 lbf3 (6 .i.e3 a6 7 J:r.c 1 lDf6 8 h3 0-0 9 lbf3 b5 10 .i.d3 .i.b7 ao Godena-Guevara, Moscow OL 1 994) 6 ... lbf6 7 .i.b5+!? (7 .i.d3 !? would give Game 66; 7 .i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 .i.g4 9 .i.e3 a6 10 h3 .i.xf3 1 1 .i.xf3 lbc6 12 J:r.c1 ;t Han­doko-Angles d' Auriac, Lucerne OL 1 982) 7 ... lbfd7?! 8 .i.g5 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 .i.e2 h6 1 1 .i.e3 b5 12 a4 ± Svesh­nikov-Akopian, USSR 1969.

b) 3 . . . lbc6 (gratuitously provoca­tive) gives White the choice of trans­posing into later games with 4 dxc5 lbf6 (Game 64) or 4 00 lbf6 5 .i.d3 (Game 66), or gaining time with the advance 4 d5.

c) 3 . . . lbd7 4 lbf3 (4 f4 cxd4 5 cxd4 e5 6 lbf3 lbgf6 7 lbc3 exd4 8 1i'xd4 'ifb6 9 1i'xb6 lbxb6 10 .i.e3 ;t Sermek-Kempinski, Groningen 1995) 4 . . . e6 (after 4 . . . g6, White may play 5 .i.d3 .i.g7 6 0-0 'ifc7 7 J:r.e1 a6 8 a4 e6 9 .i.f4 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .i.e3 lbgf6 1 2 o!Oa3 0-0 1 3 lbc4 ;t Frois-Damljanovic, La Corona 1995,

while 5 .i.c4 'ifc7 6 1i'b3 e6 7 0-0 as in Pilgaard-H.Stefansson, Copen­hagen 1990 could also be consid­ered) 5 .i.d3 lbe7 (5 . . . lbf6 is small reference given in Game 65, note to White's fourth) 6 lba3 !? (6 0-0) 6 . . . a6 7 lbc4 lbg6 8 h4 b5 9 h5 !? bxc4 10 hxg6 cxd3 1 1 J:r.xh7 ! J:r.g8 12 gxf7+ �xf7 13 lbg5+ �e7 14 lbxe6! ± Kr.Georgiev-Kofidis, Ath­ens 1 992.

4 f3 (D) For 4 dxc5 lbc6!? see Game 64,

and for 4 .i.d3 see Games 65 and 66.

B

4 ... cxd4 4 . . . 1Wc7 is plausible, e.g. 5 .i.e3 g6

6 .i.d3 .i.g7 7 lbe2 0-0 8 lbd2 b6 9 b4 a5 10 b5 .i.b7 1 1 0-0 lbbd7 12 �h1 e5 1 3 d5 h5 14 lbc4 lbh7 1 5 'ii'd2 J:r.ae8 16 .i.c2 f5 17 exf5 gxf5 1 8 f4 e4 ao Am.Rodriguez-Pfleger, Cienfuegos 1983.

Black can also try to exploit White's early f3 by breaking with an early d5, e.g. 4 . . . lbc6 !? (4 . . . d5 5 e5 lDfd7 6 f4 cxd4 7 cxd4 lbb6 8 lbc3 lbc6 9 b3 .i.f5 10 .i.a3 lbd7!? 1 1 1i'd2 1i'a5 ao Rogers-Sadler, London 1992 whilst 9 .i.e3 is a transposition) 5 .i.e3 (5 dxc5 see Game 64) 5 . . . d5

(5 . . . g6 6 i.d3 .tg7 7 ltle2 0-0 8 0-0 b6 9 'ii'd2 i.b7 10 b4 ltld7 l l ltla3 e6 12 :abl 'ii'e7 1 3 i.g5 f6 14 i.e3 ;!; Yanovsky-Dautov, Sverdlovsk 1989) 6 e5 ltld7 (6 ... ltlg8 7 ltle2 ltlh6 8 g4 e6 9 ltlg3 'ii'b6 10 'ii'd2 i.d7 1 1 .te2 0-0-0 oo Atlas-Oratovsky, Cappelle Ia Grande 1996) 7 f4 (7 e6 fxe6 8 dxc5 ltlf6 9 .td3 g6 10 ltle2 .tg7 l l ltld2 0-0 12 'ii'a4 e5 13 0-0-0 i.f5 =F Viilkesalmi-Dorfman, Helsinki 1 986) 7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 ltlb6 9 lL!c3 i.f5 10 i.d3 (the move-order 10 ltlf3 e6 1 1 i.d3 would encourage Sma­gin's suggestion of l l ...ltlc4 ! 12 .txc4 { 12 .tel .tg4 ! } 12 . . . dxc4 1 3 a3 oo) 1 0 . . . .txd3 1 1 'ii'xd3 e6 12 ltlf3 ltlc4 1 3 .tel :c8 ( 1 3 . . . .tb4 14 0-0 0-0 15 ltlg5 g6 16 ltle2 ± B.Filipo­vic-Kosanovic, Yugoslavia 1 993) 14 0-0 "i!fd7 15 b3 and here 15 . . . ltlb6 16 .td2 .te7 17 :ae1 ± was Smagin­Amason, Sochi 1 988, but 15 ... ltla3 !? would transpose to Novoselsky-Ar­nason, Iraklio 1993, which appears unclear after 16 .td2 ltlb4 17 'ii'e2 .te7 1 8 :acl 0-0 1 9 ltle1 :c7 20 :f3 f5.

Another idea is 4 . . . ltlbd7 (a posi­tion also reachable via the Pirc: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 ltlf6 3 f3 c5 4 c3 ltlbd7, etc.) and here 5 .te3:

a) 5 ... e6 6 .td3 .te7 7 ltle2 0-0 8 0-0 b6 9 ltld2 .tb7 10 ltlg3 ltle8?! 1 1 f4 cxd4 1 2 cxd4 g6 1 3 'ii'e2 e5 14 :adl exf4 15 .txf4 ± Spassky-Jans­son, Gothenburg 1972.

b) 5 ... e5 6 dxc5 dxc5 7 a4 .te7 8 ltla3 0-0 9 "iWc2 (Sveshnikov claims ;!;) 9 0 0 .ltlb8 10 .tc4 lL!c6 l l ltle2 lL!as 12 .ta2 'ii'c7 13 lL!c4 .te6 14 ltlxa5 .txa2 15 b3 'ii'xa5 16 :xa2 c4 leads

2 . . . d6 207

to an unclear position, Sveshnikov­Gufeld, USSR 1983.

c) 5 . . . 'ii'c7 6 a4 (6 .td3 g6 7 ltle2 .tg7 8 0-0 0-0 9 lL!d2 a6 10 a3 b5 1 1 b4 c4 12 .tc2 e5 1 3 a4 i.b7 14 g4 d5 15 g5 ltlh5 16 exd5 ltlb6 oo Strikovic­Cebalo, Mendrisio 1 987) 6 ... g6 7 ltla3 a6 8 ltle2 .tg7 9 g4 b6 10 ltlg3 h5 1 1 g5 lL!h7 12 h4 i.b7 13 f4 with a slight advantage for White, Mar­janovic-Cebalo, Yugoslavia 1985.

d) 5 . . . g6!? 6 dxc5 (6 ltld2 .tg7 7 i.d3 0-0 8 ltle2 cxd4 9 cxd4 e5 10 d5 ltlc5 1 1 .tc2 ltlh5 12 b4 ltla6 13 :b1 f5 = Semkov-Gavrikov, Nimes 1991 ; also 6 ltlh3 .tg7 7 .te2 0-0 8 0-0 e5 9 dxc5 ltlxc5 10 ltlf2 ltle6 1 1 c4 b5 12 lL!c3 bxc4 1 3 .txc4 :b8 14 'ii'd2 ltld4 oo Lautier-D.Garcia, Pam­plena 1992; 6 i.d3 !? .tg7 7 ltle2 0-0 8 0-0 is the natural and perhaps best way to develop) 6 . . . dxc5 7 a4 (7 ltla3 a6 8 lLlc4 b5 9 e5 lDh5 10 e6 fxe6 1 1 ltld2 .tg7 12 ltle4 'ii'c7 13 ltlh3 0-0 1 4 a4 ltldf6 :j: Vorotnikov-Yermo­linsky, Leningrad 1985) 7 ... .tg7 8 ltla3 0-0 9 lL!h3 "i!fc7 10 .te2 toes 1 1 ltlf2 .te6 1 2 0-0 :fd8 1 3 "iWc2 b6 with unclear play, Bergstrom-Shab­alov, Gausdal 1991 .

S cxd4 g6 Or 5 . . . e5 6 dxe5 (6 ltlc3 exd4 7

'ii'xd4 lL!c6 8 .tb5 a6 9 i.xc6+ bxc6 10 .te3 .te7 1 1 ltlge2 0-0 12 0-0 .te6 1 3 :fd1 'ii'b8 = Demkov-Push­kin, Corr 1 993) 6 . . . dxe5 7 'ii'xd8+ �xd8 8 lL!c3 .tb4 9 ltlge2 ltlc6 10 i.e3 .ie6 1 1 0-0-0+ ltld7 1 2 ltld5 .txd5 1 3 :xd5 �e7 14 lL!c3 :hc8 15 .tb5 a6 16 :hd1 :c7 17 .txc6 bxc6 18 :sd2 .txc3 19 bxc3 with a small but lingering endgame edge

208 2 . . . d6

for White, Vorotnikov-Yermolin­sky, Leningrad 19S4.

6 M (D) To be seriously considered was 6

i.e3 i.g7 7 i.d3 0-0 S lLle2. Now S ... lL!c6 9 lL!c3 e5 10 d5 lbd4 fails to 1 1 lL!xd4 exd4 12 i.xd4 �5 1 3 .txg7 'ii'h4+ 14 g 3 lLlxg3 15 i.f6! Praznik-Jeras, Bled 1992, and after S . . . e5 9 d5 a Siimisch King's Indian type position would arise, for exam­ple 9 . . . lLlh5 (9 . . . lL!bd7 10 lL!c3 is a direct Siimisch transposition - see Game 66, note to White's sixth move for more coverage) 10 lLlbc3 f5 1 1 exf5 i.xf5 1 2 0-0 i.xd3 1 3 1Wxd3 lLlf4 14 'ii'd2 lLlxe2+ 15 'ii'xe2 lbd7 16 1Wb5 b6 17 lL!e4 lLlf6 1S i.g5 and White is clearly better, Semkov-Neg­ulescu, Erevan 19SS.

6 .•. .tg7 7 i.e3 0-0 7 . . . lL!c6 S lL!ge2 a6 9 1Wd2 h5 10

lL!c1 �0 1 1 h3 e5 12 d5 lbd4 13 lLl1e2 lLlxe2 14 i.xe2 lLlh7 15 g4 i.f6 16 0-0-0 h4 17 �b1 i.g5 CCI was Khmelnitsky-Goldin, Philadelphia 1992, but more direct is S 'i'd2 i.d7 9 ��0 lieS 10 �b1 0-0 1 1 h4 Lane­Ulrichsen, Oslo 19S7.

8 1Wd2 lL!c6

S .. . a6 9 lLlge2 e5 10 �0-0 lL!c6 1 1 g4 !? lL!a5 (1 l . . .b5 12 d5 lL!a5 1 3 lL!g3 b4 CCI Sveshnikov) 12 lLlg3 exd4 1 3 i.xd4 lLlc6 14 i.e3 i.e6 15 �b1 lieS and now the sacrifice 16 lL!f5 ! gxf5 17 gxf5 i.d7 1 S llg1 gave White huge attack in Sveshnikov­W.Watson, Hastings 1984.

However the immediate 8 . . . e5 ! appears to be a promising alterna­tive: 9 0-0-0 (9 lLlge2! ? exd4 10 i.xd4 lL!c6 1 1 i.e3 d5 12 exd5 lLlb4 1 3 i.c5 lLlbxd5 14 i.xf8 i.xf8 1 5 l:d1 i.e6 was a bold i f unclear ex­change sacrifice in Sariego-Canda, Bayamo 1989) 9 . . . exd4 (9 . . . lL!c6 10 d5 lbd4 1 1 lL!ge2 lLlxe2+ 12 lLlxe2 h5 13 lL!c3 i.d7 14 �b1 a6 15 l:c1 ;t Sveshnikov-Kremenietsky, Mos­cow 1983) 10 1Wxd4 lL!g4! (10 ... lLlc6 1 1 'ii'xd6 'ii'a5 was Bjelajac-Cebalo, Yugoslavia 1984, and here Sariego gives 12 1Wc5 ! ±) 1 1 'ii'd2 lLlxe3 1 2 'i'xe3 i.e6 1 3 lL!ge2 1Wa5 ! 1 4 �b1 l:cS and Black's raking bishops mean danger for White, Sariego-An­dres, Sagua Ia Grande 19S7.

9 0-0-0 i.d7 (D) A sharp but well-known type of

position has arisen: White and Black have castled on opposite wings, and both will attempt to attack the other's king. Possible here was 9 . . . a6, in­tending 10 . . . b5 . As well as caveman assaults it is also important to re­strain the opponent's counterplay, e.g. 9 . . . 'ii'a5 10 �b1 e5 1 1 d5 lbd4 l 2 lLlge2 lLlxe2 1 3 .txe2 a6 14 g4 b5 15 llc1 i.d7 16 a3 'ii'dS 17 h4 'ii'b8 1 8 lba2 a5 19 h5 1Wb7. Here the positional continuation 20 i.d3 !? l:tbS 21 b3 b4 22 a4 l:c8 23 'i'e2

llxcl + 24 l2Jxc1 left Black's queen­side counterplay stymied in Strik­ovi�-Ristic, Cetinje 1991 .

10 �b1 After 10 .i.h6 .i.x:h6 1 1 'ii'xb6 'ifa5

12 �b1 llfc8 13 W'd2 b5 14 fu2 b4 1 5 ltJc 1 :c7 16 l2Jge2 :ac8 17 d5 l2Je5 1 8 l2Jd4 .i.a4 Black had clearly seized the initiative in B .Kutuzovic­F.Arnold, Budapest 1995.

10 . • . 'ii'a5 Once again 10 . .. a6 or 10 .. . l2Ja5 fol­

lowed by . . . :b8 and . . . b5 were op­tions.

ll l2Jge2 b5 12 ltJc1! b4 13 ltJ3e2 :res 14 g4 'ii'd8 15 g5 l2Je8 (not 1 5 . . . l2Jh5?, which would be strongly met by 16 l2Jg3) 16 h4 d5?! (with the laudable intention of 17 exd5? .i.f5+ 1 8 �a1 'ifxd5, but White is not go­ing to capture; 16 . . . l2Ja.s!? creating threats on the queenside was still un­clear) 17 h5 e5 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 tLlb3 ( 19 dxe5? tLlxe5) 19 ... dxe4 20 fxe4 exd4 21 lbexd4 'ii'e7 22 :b4! ;t (with the menacing threat of trebling on h-file) 22 ... l2Je5 23 .i.a6 l:[d8 (23 . . . tiJc4!? 24 .i.xc4 :xc4 25 l:[dhl :ac8 intending 26 1i'h2 1i'e5) 24 'ii'g2! tLlc7 25 .i.e2 tLle6 26 l:[dh1 f6

2 . . . d6 209

(27 1i'h2 was the threat but now a beautiful knight offer forces the ex­change of a key black defender) 27 lLlf5! ± Wf8 (if 27 . . . gxf5 comes 28 l:[h8+! .i.xh8 29 gxf6+, winning) 28 tLlxg7 'ii'xg7 29 l2Jd4 &!Jf7 30 .i.c4 fxg5 31 l:[h7 'ii'e5 32 .i.d5 :rs 33 'ii'h3 :.aeS 34 &!Jf3 g4 35 'ii'xg4 'ii'f6 36 'ii'h3 .i.c8 37 .i.d4 tLlfg5 38 .i.xf6 lLlxh3 39 l:[g7+ 1-0

Game 64 Thorhallsson - Fedorowicz

London 1987

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d6 3 d4 l2Jf6 4 dxc5 tLlc6! (D)

w

The key move in Black's strategy - now the white pawn on e4 is ready to be captured. The blunder 4 . . . tLlxe4? loses a piece to 5 'ii'a4+ (three games on my database) and 4 . . . dxc5 5 'ifxd8+ is considered to be an inferior endgame for Black.

5 f3!? There are numerous other ways

for White to respond: a) 5 .i.d3 d5 ! (a typical theme in

this line, and better than 5 ... dxc5 6 'ii'e2, for example 6 . . . tLle5 7 .i.c2 c4

210 2 . . . d6

8 M �3+ 9 .i.xd3 'ii'xd3 10 �bd2 'ii'xe2+ 1 1 �xe2 .i.g4 12 e5 �7 13 �xc4 l:tc8 14 b3 b5 15 lDa3 l:tc5 16 e6! fxe6 17 .i.e3 ± Van Wijgerden­Van der Wiel, Dutch Ch 1983) 6 �2 e5 7 �gf3 (after ? b4!?, 7 . . . d4 8 'ii'c2 dxc3 9 1i'xc3 �xb4 10 -*.b5+ �c6 1 1 �gf3 �d7 12 0-0 was good for White in Hermann-Podzielny, Bun­desliga 1985 so Black should prefer 7 . . . a5 8 b5 �b8 9 �gf3 .i.xc5 10 'ii'e2 �bd7 = Schandorff-De Jong, Corr 1990) 7 . . . .i.xc5 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'e2 .i.e6 = Van Wijgerden-Van Mil, Am­sterdam 1983.

b) Another sideline is 5 �2 dxc5 (now 5 . . . d5 is less effective) 6 �gf3 g6 !? (6 . . . e6 7 'ii'c2 'ii'c7 8 g3 .i.e7 9 �4 e5 10 .i.g5 �g4 1 1 h3 .i.xg5 12 hxg4 1i'e7 13 �xg5 1i'xg5 14 .i.e2 0-0 15 l:th5 1i'e7 1 6 0-0-0 ± Werner­Fedorowicz, Cannes 1 988) 7 g3 .i.g7 8 .i.g2 1i'd3 = Sveshnikov-Dorfman, USSR 1 98 1 .

c ) After 5 cxd6 �xe4 the critical line runs 6 dxe7? (on 6 .i.d3, 6 �f3 or 6 �d2 comes 6 . . . �xd6 with a good game for Black) 6 . . . 1i'xd1+ 7 �xd1 �xf2+! (7 . . . .i.xe7 8 .i.e3 oo as in several games, but these lines are redundant as the text is strong) 8 �e1 �xh1 9 exfB'ii'+ �xf8 ! 10 g3 .i.f5 (10 ... h5? 1 1 .i.g2 h4, Anton­Kengis, Riga 1981 , fails to 12 gxh4! l:txh4 13 �f3) 1 1 .i.g2 l:te8+ (with this Black saves his knight, or, as in the game, wins White's in return) 12 �e2 .i.g4 -+ Sindermann-Sick, Baden-Baden 1987.

d) 5 1i'c2!7 is complex: dl ) The positions after 5 . . . dxc5

are not unfavourable for White, e.g.

6 �f3 (or 6 .i.f4, when both 6 ... g6 7 �a3 .i.g7 8 l:td1 �7 9 �b5 �ce5 10 �f3 1i'b6 1 1 �xe5 �xe5 12 l:td5 a6 1 3 �a3 �7 14 �c4 1i'a7 15 a4 b6 Kharlov-Van der Mortel, Leeu­warden 1994 and 6 . . . e5 7 .i.g5 h6 8 .i.h4 .i.e7 9 �2 �h5 10 .i.xe7 1i'xe7 oo Cherniaev-Tregubov, So­chi 1993 are roughly equal) 6 ... g6 (6 . . . .i.g4 7 �bd2 1i'c7 8 .i.e2 e6 9 �c4 .i.e7 10 g3 e5 1 1 �3 .i.e6 12 0-0 h6 1 3 �h4 g6 14 l:td1 l:td8 15 -*.f3 l:txd1+ 16 1i'xd1 1i'd7 17 �5 g5 18 �f5 .i.xd5 19 exd5 �xd5 20 .i.xd5 'ii'xf5 21 1i'b3 ;t Mir.Mark­ovic-A.Kova�evic, Cetinje 1993) 7 -*.e3 b6 8 .i.b5 .i.d7 9 e5 �d5 10 'ii'e4 a6 1 1 .i.a4 e6 12 .i.g5 .i.e7 13 .i.xe7 �dxe7 14 0-0 b5 15 .i.c2 ;!; Rausis-Fedorowicz, Saint Martin 1991 .

d2) Therefore, recently Black has tried 5 . . . d5 : 6 �d2 e6!? (6 . . . e5 7 exd5 'ii'xd5 8 �b3 a5 9 .i.g5 1i'e4+ 10 1i'xe4 �xe4 1 1 .i.e3 a4 12 �2 �xd2 13 �xd2 l:ta5 = M.Markovic­A.Kova�evic, Nis 1993 but 7 b4 !7 a5 8 .i.b5 axb4 9 cxb4 .i.d7 10 .i.xc6 -*.xc6 1 1 �gf3 dxe4 12 �xe5 ap­peared favourable for White in the game Cherniaev-Mortensen, Hast­ings 1995) 7 b4 a5 8 b5 �b8 9 �gf3 .i.xc5 10 .i.d3 �bd7 1 1 exd5 exd5 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 c4 h6 14 �b3 .i.e7 was unclear in Yagupov-Tregubov, Mos­cow 1994.

e) 5 .i.c4, and the subsequent tem­porary sacrifice on f7, looks more fearsome than it is: 5 . . . �xe4 (or 5 . . . dxc5 6 1i'xd8+ �xd8 7 e5 ;!;, but 5 . . . e6 is plausible: 6 .i.g5 dxc5 7 1i'xd8+ �xd8 8 �2 h6 9 .i.h4 g5 10

.i.g3 lLlh5 = as in Novak-Plachetka, Strbske Pleso 1 978) 6 .i.xt7+ (on 6 'it'd5 Black has either 6 . . . e6 7 'it'xe4 d5 or 6 . . . .i.e6 7 'it'xe4 d5) 6 . . . �xt7 (D) and now:

w

a) 7 1t'd5+ e6 8 'it'xe4 dS 9 'it'f3+ 'it'f6 (9 . . . �g8 10 .i.e3 b6 1 1 cxb6 axb6 12 'it'd1 .i.c5 and now 1 3 �2?! .i.xe3 1 4 fxe3 1Wh4+ 1 5 lLlg3 .i.a6 + was Sveshnikov-Tseshkov­sky, USSR Ch 1981 , but an improve­ment is 1 3 .i.xc5 bxc5 14 lDe2 l:tb8 1 5 b3 'ilff6 oo Tseshkovsky) 10 .i.e3 b6!? (after 10 . . . .i.e7 1 1 'ilfg3 e5 12 lLlf3 h6 1 3 0-0 g5, 14 lLlxe5+!? 'it'xe5 15 f4 'it'g7 16 fxg5+ �g8 17 g6 was a dangerous-looking sacri­fice in Angelov-Babula, Marianske Lazne 1989; however 10 . . . �5 is possible, when the endgame 1 1 'ilfe2 'it'f5 12 lLlf3 lLlxf3+ 1 3 'it'xf3 'ilfxf3 14 gxf3 has been reached a few times, and Black seems to be OK af­ter 14 . . . e5) 1 1 cxb6 axb6 12 .i.d4 lLlxd4 1 3 cxd4 l:ta4 14 'ilfxf6+ gxf6 1 5 lLle2 .i.b4+ 1 6 lLlbc3 .i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 .i.a6 1 8 �d2 .i.xe2 19 �xe2 l:tha8 = Azmaiparashvili-Topalov, Elenite 1995.

b) 7 'ilfbS+ and now:

2 . . . d6 211

b1) 7 . . . g6 8 'it'd5+ was met by 8 . . . e6 9 'it'xe4 dS 10 1t'e2 e5 1 1 lLlf3 e4 12 �4 .i.xc5 13 .i.e3 �5 14 0-0 .i.g4 15 'it'b5 1t'b6 16 'ilfxb6 ..txb6 oo

in Nun-Kengis, Timisoara 1 987, but 8 . . . �g7 9 'it'xe4 is more common, for example 9 . . . e5 !? 10 cxd6 'it'xd6 1 1 lLlf3 .i.f5 1 2 'it'e3 ..td3 oo Stri­punsky-Mironenko, USSR 1988 or 9 . . . ..tf5 ! ? 10 1t'h4?! ( 10 1t'e3 is bet­ter) 10 . . . lDe5 ! 1 1 'it'd4 � 12 'it'dS+ e6 13 1t'xb7+ �g8 ; Minerva-Fomin, Corr 1987.

b2) 7 . . . �g8 8 'it'dS+ e6 9 'it'xe4 d5 10 'ilfe3 (defending the c5-pawn) 10 . . . b6 (after 10 .. . d4 1 1 'it'e4, the con­tinuation 1 1 . . . .i.xc5 12 lLlf3 'it'd5 1 3 'ilfxd5 exdS 14 b4 ! .i.b6 15 b5 �7 16 cxd4 ;t was Sveshnikov-Ermen­kov, Varna 1987; instead 1 1 . . . 'it'dS !? was met by 12 �2 dxc3 13 bxc3 lLle5 14 ..ta3 lLld3+ 1 5 �e2 lLlxc5 16 'ilfxd5 exd5 17 lLlb3 �4 = in B1auert-Smirin, Groningen 1 990, but White can consider 12 'it'xd5 exd5 1 3 lLlf3 dxc3 14 lLlxc3 d4 15 � .i.g4?! ( 15 . . . ..tf5!? oo Daniliuk} 16 0-0 l:te8 17 l:tel ! ± Daniliuk­Karasev, Russia 1992) 1 1 cxb6 axb6 12 lLlf3 (12 lDe2 ..tc5 1 3 'it'g5 'ilff6! 14 0-0 ..ta6 1 5 'it'xf6 gxf6 16 l:te1 �t7 oo Khmelnitsky-Goldin, Phila­delphia 1992) 12 . . . ..tc5 1 3 'ilfg5 'it'xg5 14 ..txg5 .i.a6 Daniliuk-Treg­ubov, St Petersburg 1993, which has been assessed as ;t but Black looks to have sufficient compensation to me.

s ... dS!? Black challenges the white centre,

hoping later to recapture on c5 with a piece (though sometimes the pawn sacrifice turns out to be permanent).

212 2 . . . d6

Instead S . . . dxcS 6 1Wxd8+ l0xd8 and now:

a) 7 .te3 e6 8 l0a3 .te7 9 .tbS+ (9 lObS 0-0 10 li:x7 l:lb8 1 1 .tf4 lix6 Fta�nik) 9 . . . .td7 10 0-0-0 .txbS 1 1 lOxbS 0-0 1 2 g4 ?! ( 12 l0e2) 12 .. . li:x6 13 gS W 14 l:ld7 a6! 1S lba3 bS 16 l0e2 f6 ! 17 h4 l:lad8 1 8 l:lc7 l:lc8 19 l:lxc8 l:lxc8 20 f4 lbd4 ! with advan­tage to Black, A.Femandes-Ill esc as, Lisbon Z 1993.

b) 7 lba3 !? a6 (now 7 . . . e6 8 lDbS) 8 lix4 lbd7 9 a4 li:x6 10 a5 e6 1 1 f4 l0f6 12 .td3 .td7 1 3 l0b6 l:ld8 14 l0f3 .te7 1S �e2 lOa? 16 l0xd7 l0xd7 17 l:ld1 0-0 18 eS ;!; Handoko­Sitanggang, Djakarta 1994.

6 exdS (D)

B

6 ... lbxd5 6 ... 1Wxd5!?7 1i'xd5 (7 .te3 'ii'xd1+

8 �xd 1 .tfS 9 lbd2 0-0-0 10 l0e2 lbdS 1 1 .tf2 g6 + Gorelov-Ubilava, USSR 1981) 7 . . . lbxdS 8 .tc4 e6 9 .txd5 exdS 10 .te3 tOeS ( lO . . . .tfS 1 1 lOe2 lOeS 12 lbd4 lbd3+ 1 3 �e2 .tg6 14 b4 a5 1S lObS �d7 16 l:ld1 l0b2 17 l:lxd5+ �c6 18 l:ld2 li:x4 19 l0d4+ �d7 20 l:ld1 l:le8 21 lbc2+ �c8 22 l:ld4 ! ± Shrentzel-Ma.Tseit­lin, Tel Aviv 1990) and here:

a) 1 1 lbd2 lbd3+ 12 �fl l0xb2 = Seyb-Leko, Nuremberg 1989.

b) 1 1 b4 a5 ! 12 .td4 lbd3+!? 1 3 �d2 ( 1 3 �e2 .tfS 14 g4 .tg6 1 S l0h3 axb4 16 cxb4 l0xb4 17 lix3 l0c2 + S.Arkell-Sadler, Capelle Ia Grande 1991) 13 ... .tfS 14 g4 ( 14 a3 hS ! 15 l0e2 l:lh61 16 .te3 l:lha6 17 lbf4 d4! ! 1 8 cxd4 l0xf4 19 .txf4 axb4 + Klinger-Cebalo, Biel 1 986) 14 . . . .tg6 1S a3 hS 16 gS f6 17 gxf6 gxf6 1 8 l0e2 �f7 1 9 l:lfl .th6+ 20 f4 l:lhe8 2 1 l:lf3 l0b2 22 l:la2 lbc4+ 23 �c 1 l:le7 0- 1 Kuntz-Cebalo, Can­nes 199S.

c) 1 1 b3 !? l0d3+ 12 �d2 lOxcS (this has occurred in a number of games; Black still has an isolated queen's pawn, and although the bishop pair compensates to a degree White holds a light edge) 1 3 lba3 ( 13 l0e2 l0e6 14 a4 .te7 1S lba3 0-0 16 lObS a6 17 l0bd4 l0xd4 18 l0xd4 .td7 19 l:lhe1 l:lfe8 20 .tf4 .th4 21 g3 .tf6 22 l:lxe8+ l:lxe8 23 l:le 1 l:lxe 1 24 �xe 1 hS 25 .td6 1h-lf2 Thorhallsson-I vanchuk, Groningen 1986) 1 3 ... .td7 ( 13 .. . a6 14 lOe2 .tfS 1S l0c2 .td6 16 .tf4 l:ld8 17 l0e3 ;!; Bojkovic-Tazheva, Moscow OL 1994) 14 lbe2 0-0-0 (or 14 . . . .td6 1S li:x2 lbe6 16 l0cd4 g6 Manca-Gelfand, Arnhem 1988) 1S l0c2 b6 16 l0f4 .te7 17 l0d4 .te8 1 8 l:lhe1 ;!; Blau­ert-Oratovsky, Bundesliga 199S .

7 .tc4 7 c4 1Wa5+ 8 .td2 lbdb4 9 a3

.tfS ! is good for Black, e.g. 10 .tc3 1Wa6 1 1 lbd2 l0c2+ as in Viksnin­Goldin, Leningrad Cht 1 989 and Kharlov-Smirin, Oviedo rpd 1993.

7 . . • e6 8 .txdS exdS

For 8 . . . 1Wxd5 9 1Wxd5 see the note at Black's sixth move.

9 .teJ .te7! (D) 9 . . . 'ii'h4+ favours White: 10 g3

(or even 10 .tt2 1Wg5 1 1 �fl .te7 12 lbe2 0-0 1 3 1i'd2 'ii'f5 14 lDd4 1Wg6 15 ltla3 .txc5 16 ltlxc6 .txa3 17 ltlxa7 ;t Zhuravliov-Goldin, Lenin­grad Cht 1989) 10 . . . 1Wh5 l l lild2 ( 1 1 �f2 lbe5 12 .td4 .te7 1 3 .txe5 1Wxe5 14 1Wd4 1We6 oo Makropoulos­Ivanovic, Budva 198 1 , but possible is l l ltlaJ .te7 12 �t2 0-0 1 3 ltle2 ± Sikora-Cvetkovic, Stary Smokovec 1 977 and An.Fernandez-Damaso, Portuga1 1992) l l . . .J.e7 12 ltle2 0-0 1 3 ltlf4 1We5 and now instead of 14 'ii'e2 b6! with counterplay, Razuvaev gives 14 �t2 ±.

10 ltle2 0-0 11 0-0 :te8 12 'ii'd2?! After 12 .tf2!? the position is un­

clear. Black has little prospect of re­gaining the c5-pawn, but the two bishops and White's slightly awk­wardly placed minor pieces offer compensation. The two known ex­amples both saw Black rewarded for bold play:

a) 12 ... .tg5 13 lDd4 lbe5 14 ltla3 b6 15 cxb6 'ii'xb6 16 1i'b3 'ii'g6 17

2 . . . d6 213

'ii'xd5 .ta6 18 :tfel lDd3 19 :txe8+ :txe8 20 .tg3 h5 21 'ii'f5 1Wxf5 22 ltlxf5 :te2 23 b3 :td2 24 ltlc4 .txc4 25 bxc4 g6 26 lild4 h4 27 .tel :tb2 28 g3 .te3+ 29 �hl h3 30 :tdl :tg2 0- 1 Russek-Ermenkov, Saint John 1988.

b) 12 ... ltle5 1 3 ltlf4 .tf5 14 :tel .tg5 15 ltlxd5 lild3 16 :txe8+ 1Wxe8 17 f4 :td8 18 fxg5 lbd5 1 9 ltla3 ltlf4 20 1Wf3 ltle2+ 21 �hl .te4 22 'iV g4 :tf5 23 .te3 .td3 24 .td2 1We6 25 h3 f6 26 gxf6 'ii'xf6 27 .te3 h5 28 1Wa4 'ii'e5 0- 1 (time) ROder-Kunze, Germany 1990.

12 •.• ltles 13 ltlaJ ( 13 b3 .tf5 with ideas of . . . .td3 or . . . lLlci3) 13 ••. b6!? (another thematic idea in this line; if White exchanges on b6 Black's rook will exert pressure down the a-file) 14 ltlr4 .tb7 15 :tadl .trs 16 'ii'n (16 lDxd5 .ta6!?) 16 ••• 'ii'b8 17 :tfel bxc5 18 lDxd5 ( 18 .txc5 lDxf3+! 19 gxf3 'ii'xf4 =i=) 18 ••• c4 19 'ii'g3 .txdS 20 :txdS lDd3 ;: 21 :txd3 (21 :te2 .txa3 -+) 21 .•• cxd3 22 lDc4 'ii'xg3 23 bxg3 :tac8 24 b3 0-1

Game 65 Smagin - Kofidis

lraklion 1993

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d6 3 d4 lDr6 4 .td3 (D) 4 ... lDc6 For 4 . . . cxd4 and 4 . . . g6 see Game

66. Others: a) 4 .. . e6 (passive but playable) 5

lDf3 .te7 6 0-0 lDbd7 7 1We2 a6 8 a4 0-0 9 :tdl 'ii'c7 10 .tg5 ;t David­Meduna, Czech Ch 1 994.

b) 4 ... lDbd7 (againpassive) 5 lDf3 cxd4 (5 . . . e6 6 0-0 .te7 7 e5 lDd5 8

214 2 .. . d6

B

.i.e4 cxd4 9 exd6 .i.xd6 10 .i.xd5 exd5 1 1 .J:le1+ ;t Godena-Mrva, Mit­ropa Cup 1995 while 5 . . . e5 has also been seen) 6 cxd4 e5 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 lbc3 0-0 9 h3 (9 .J:le1 !? a6 10 a4 b6 1 1 .i.fl .i.b7 12 d5 :cs 13 lM2 lbe8 14 c!Llc4 ;!; Smagin-Ubilava, Oviedo rpd 1993) 9 . . . a6 10 .i.e3 b5 and now 1 1 b4 .i.b7 12 d5 :cs 13 1i'b3 c!Llb6 14 l:lfe1 c!Llh5 15 a4 c!Llf4 1 6 .tn f5 17 axb5 fxe4 led to great complica­tions in Finkel-Golubev, Groningen 1993.

c) After 4 . . . e5 !? White has tried a variety of moves, such as 5 d5 and 5 c!Lle2, while 5 dxe5 dxe5 is also possible, e.g. 6 lLlf3 1i'c7 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 tLla3 tLlc6 9 tLlc4 0-0 10 a4 l:ld8 1 1 1i'c2 h6 1 2 tLle3 tLlas 1 3 tLld2 b6 ao

Okhotnik-Karpman, USSR 1988. However the most common continu­ation is 5 lLlf3 c!Llc6 6 dxc5 (6 0-0 !? g6?! 7 dxc5 dxc5 8 tLla3 .i.g7 9 tLlc4 1i'e7 10 .i.e3 b6 1 1 b4 cxb4 12 cxb4 0-0 13 :C1 c!Llg4 14 b5 � 15 .i.xd4 exd4 16 h3 lLlf6 17 c!Llce5 'ifd6 1 8 tLlc6 ± Rotsagov-Czebe, Cappelle la Grande 1994) 6 ... dxc5. Here some examples show that so far Black has not fared so badly in the ma­noeuvring type of game that results:

7 1i'e2 .i.e? 8 0-0 0-0 9 c!Llbd2 h6 10 :e 1 .i.e6 1 1 c!Llfl :es 12 c!Llg3 .i.f8 1 3 h3 a6 14 c!Llh2 g6 1 5 .i.c2 c4 16 1i'f3 .i.g7 17 .i.e3 1i'e7 1 8 h4 .J:lad8 1h-1h Godena-Kunze, Lugano 1 989 or 7 0-0 h6 8 tLla3 .i.e7 9 tLlc4 1i'c7 1 0 tLle3 0-0 1 1 l:le 1 ? ! .i.e6 12 .i.c4 .J:lfd8 1 3 1i'e2 .i.xc4 14 1i'xc4 tLla5 15 1i'e2 c4 :j: Westerinen-Ermenkov, Dieren 1988. There is a dearth of high-level examples in these 4 . . . e5 lines, so we can assume that these structures with pawns on e5 and c5 are disliked by grandmasters playing Black. However White's exact route to advantage has yet to be demon­strated.

d) 4 . . . 1i'c7, by contrast, has been utilised by several famous names. 5 c!Llf3 (5 tLle2 g6 6 0-0 .i.g7 7 f3 0-0 8 .i.e3 b6 9 lM2 .i.b7 10 1i'e1 tLlc6 1 1 1i'h4 cxd4 1 2 cxd4 c!Llb4 1 3 .J:lfc1 'ii'd7 14 .i.c4 dS 15 a3 tLla6 ao Garma­Ki.Georgiev, Calcutta 1992) 5 . . . g6 (the position after 5 ... .i.g4 6 0-0 e6 7 c!Llbd2 .i.e7 8 e5 lLlfd7 9 exd6 .i.xd6 10 h3 .i.h5 1 1 tLle4, as in Nun-Renet, Dortmund 1 989, is assessed as ;t by Karpov) 6 0-0 .i.g7 and now:

d1 ) 7 h3 0-0 8 l:le1 e5 (8 ... c!Llbd7 9 e5 lLld5 1 0 exd6 exd6 1 1 dxc5 c!Llxc5 12 .i.xg6 fxg6 1 3 'ii'xd5+ ;t Berndt-Christiansen, Wiesbaden 1994 or 8 ... .J:ld8 9 .i.g5 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 'ii'e2 h6 12 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 3 c!Llbd2 c!Lld7 14 .i.c4 c!Llb6 15 .i.b3 .i.d7 1 6 a4 aS 1 7 tLlc4 ;t Torre-Anand, Manila 1992; 8 . . . tLlfd7 !? 9 .i.g5 c!Llc6 is in­teresting; the idea is that 10 d5 tLlces 1 1 .txe7 c!Llxf3+ forces 12 gxf3 ao,

while 10 e5? ! cxd4 1 1 cxd4 dxe5 12 d5 c!Llc5 ! 1 3 dxc6 l:ld8 ! 14 cxb7

.txb7 15 'li'c2 l:.xd3 =!= was Schmitt­diel-Ki.Georgiev, Dortmund 1991) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 ltlbd2 l:.d8 1 1 'li'c2 ltlbd7 12 a4 b6 13 .tc4 ltlf8 14 ltlg5 l:.d7 15 a5 l:.b8 16 axb6 axb6 17 .tb5 l:.d8 18 ltlc4 ;!; Kamsky-J.Pol­gar, Madrid 1994.

d2) 7 .tf4!? 0-0 8 ltlbd2 (8 l:.e1 !? .tg4 9 ltlbd2 cxd4 10 cxd4 ltlc6 1 1 h3 .txf3 12 ltlxf3 e5 1 3 .te3 d5 !? 14 ltlxe5 dxe4 15 ltlxc6 'li'xc6 16 l:.c1 'li'b6 17 .tc4 'li'xb2 1 8 l:lb1 'li'c3 19 'li'a4! ltld7! 20 l:.ec1 ltlb6 21 .txf7+! l:.xf7 22 l:lxb6 'li'd3 23 l:le6 with a slight plus, Tzermiadianos-Tregu­bov,lraklion 1995) 8 . . . ltlbd7 9 l:le1 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .tg3 ttlli5 12 a4 b6 13 aS ! bxa5 14 'li'a4 ltlb6 15 'li'xa5 .tg4 (15 ... lDxg3 16 hxg3 f5 17 .ta6! ;!; Karpov) 16 .te2! l:lfd8 17 ltlc4 lDf4 18 .txf4 exf4 19 e5 ! ± Karpov­Polgar, Dos Hermanas 1994.

5 lDr3 5 dxc5 transposes to analysis in

Game 64. 5 lDe2 g6 is unclear, e.g. 6 0-0

.tg7 7 h3 0-0 8 .te3 (8 d5 lDe5 9 .tc2 b5 with counterplay, S.Arkell­Wilder, London 1989) 8 . . . cxd4 9 cxd4 lDb4 10 lDbc3 lDxd3 1 1 'li'xd3 .td7 12 l:lac1 'li'a5 13 a3 l:lfc8 14 d5 .te8 = Kamsky-Dzindzichashvili, Exhibition game, New York 1989.

Instead 5 d5 lDe5 6 .tc2 g6 7 f4 lDed7 8 lDf3 lDb6 9 0-0 .tg7 10 'li'e1 0-0 1 1 'li'b4 e6 12 dxe6 .txe6 1 3 lDbd2 lDg4 1 4 'li'e1 lDc4 15 lDb3 l:.e8 16 h3 lDr6 17 'li'h4 W 18 'li'f2 1h- 1h was Motwani-Xu, Manila OL 1992.

s ... .tg4 5 . . . g6 and now:

2 . . . d6 215

a) 6 h3 .tg7 (6 ... ltld7 7 .tc2 .tg7 8 d5 lDa5 9 0-0 b5 10 a3 0-0 1 1 l:.e1 'li'c7 12 .tg5 l:.e8 13 lDbd2 l:.b8 14 l:lc1 ltlc4 15 lDxc4 bxc4 16 l:lb1 e6 = Godena-Arnason, Novi Sad OL 1990) 7 0-0 0-0 8 l:le1 ltld7 9 dxc5 lDxc5 10 .tc2 b5 1 1 .te3 l:lb8 12 a3 a5 = Kotliar-Fedorowicz, New York 1992.

b) 6 0-0 .tg7 7 d5 lDa5 (another idea is 7 . . . lDb8!?) 8 lDbd2 b6 9 l:lb1 0-0 10 b4 lDb7 1 1 a3 'li'c7 12 .tb2 e5 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 14 e5 ! dxe5 15 c4 ltld7 16 lDg5 'li'd6 17 ltlde4 'li'e7 18 W'g4 l:lf5 19 h4 and White's posi­tional pawn sacrifice has given him an excellent game, Kaufman-Ehl­vest, Philadelphia 1995 .

6 d5 Almost invariably played, even

though 6 .te3 e6 7 0-0 .te7 8 lDbd2 cxd4 9 cxd4 d5 10 e5 lDd7 1 1 l:lc1 l:lc8 12 h3 .th5 13 g4 .tg6 14 lDe1 lDb4 was unclear in Fang-Benjamin, USA 1987.

6 •• ..txf3 As 6 . . . lDe5 can be met by 7 lDxe5 !

dxe5 (7 . . . .txd1? 8 .tb5+ wins) 8 f3 ;!; Godena-Cesareo, Geneva 1993, or even better 8 W'xg4 ! lDxg4 9 i.b5+. Instead White has a space advantage after 6 . . . lDb8, e.g. 7 lDbd2 (7 h3 .txf3 8 W'xf3 g6 9 0-0 .tg7 10 'li'e2 0-0 1 1 c4 e6 12 lDc3 exd5 13 cxd5 lDbd7 14 .tf4 ;!; Shaked-Fedoro­wicz, Philadelphia 1994) 7 . . . g6 8 h3 .tc8 9 lDc4 .tg7 10 a4 0-0 1 1 .tf4 lDa6 12 0-0 ltlc7 13 l:le1 Sveshni­kov-Loncar, Bled 1994.

7 '1i'xf3 The natural recapture, especially

because White can retain the two

216 2 . . . d6

bishops. 7 gxf3 ltle5 8 .te2 (8 .tc2 g6 9 f4 l!Jed7 1 0 .te3 .th6 1 1 lbd2 l/Jh5 :j: L.Hansen-Mortensen, Den­mark 1994) 8 . . . l/Jed7 9 c4 g6 10 l/Jc3 .tg7 1 1 .te3 0-0 12 1i'd2 Ae8 13 f4 a6 14 0-0 1i'a5 15 a4, Bacrot-Aron­ian, Szeged 1 994, is assessed as ;t in Informator, but it looks odd for White to gratuitously accept doubled pawns.

7 ••• liJeS 8 .tbS+ l/Jfd7 (D) Or 8 .. . liled7 9 a4 (9 0-0 a6 10 .ta4

g6 1 1 .tc2 .tg7 12 a4 0-0 13 1i'e2 l:l.e8 14 .tg5 h6 15 .th4 b5 !? was Sermek-Cebalo, Pula 1994, as 16 axb5 axb5 17 l:l.xa8 1i'xa8 18 'ii'xb5 can by 18 . . . l:l.b8) 9 . . . g6 10 a5 a6 1 1 .ta4 .tg7 12l/Jd2 0-0 13 l/Jc4 ;t Nun­Khalifman, Sochi 1989 and Schan­dorff-E.Mortensen, Aalborg 1994.

9 1We2 ;t a6 10 .ta4 bS 10 . . . c4 1 1 0-0 b5 ( 1 l . . .l!Jd3 12

.te3 b5 1 3 .td1 ! ;t Smagin) 12 .tc2 l/Jc5 13 b4 ! l!Jcd3 14 .te3 (now the threat is f4, so Black must offer a pawn sacrifice) 14 .. . g5 15 .txg5 l:l.g8 16 .te3 'ii'd7 and instead of 17 f4 .th6 with complications, Rausis­Barczay, Paris 1994, Rausis suggests 17 l/Jd2 1i'h3 18 f3 .th6 19 �h1 ±.

ll .tc2 l!Jb6 12 0-0 1i'd7 13 h3!? g6!? 14 a4 (14 f4 is also slightly bet­ter for White) 14 ••• bxa4 15 lbd.2! 'ii'bS 16 c4! 1Wb4 ( 16 . . . ltlexc4? 17 .i.d3) 17 f4 liJexc4 18 l/Jxc4 1Wxc4 19 .txa4+ �d8 20 'ii'el! ± .tg7 21 .tc6 .td4+ 22 �h1 Ac8! 23 .td2 (better is 23 .te3 !) 23 ••• l:l.xc6! 24 dxc6 �c7 25 l:l.b1 11Vc2! 26 .tc3 .txcJ 27 bxc3 �c6 28 :.t'2 11Vd3 29 l:l.d2 1i'c4 30 l:l.db2 Ab8 31 eS!? aS 32 11Vh4 dxeS?! (32 ... 11Ve6 "" Smagin) 33 1i'xe7 l!JdS 34 11Vxf7 l:l.xb2 35 11Ve8+ �d6? (35 . . . �c7 36 'it'xe5+ �c6 37 l:l.xb2 'ii'fl + 38 �h2 'ii'xf4+ 39 'ii'xf4 l/Jxf4 40 c4 ! ;t Smagin) 36 fxe5+ �c7 37 1i'f7+ 1-0

Game 66 Adams - Gelfand

Wijk aan Zee Ct (5) /994

1 e4 c5 2 c3 d6 3 d4 l/Jf6 4 .td3 cxd4

Black does not have to swap pawns before fianchettoing. How­ever, if he doesn't, White can try to exploit the omission (by capturing on c5 for example), or continue nor­mally (with 5 lDf3, 6 h3 and 7 0-0) when sooner or later Black will probably play . . . 'ilc7, transposing to lines examined in the course of the previous game. After 4 . . . g6 play can continue:

a) 5 lDe2 .tg7 6 0-0 0-0 7 f3 (7 h3 l/Jc6 8 d5 l/Je5 9 .tc2 b5 10 f4 l/Jc4 1 1 a4 bxa4 12 l:l.xa4 lDb6 "" Han­doko-Juswanto, Djakarta Z 1993) 7 ... l/Jbd7 8 .te3 a6 9 a4 cxd4 10 cxd4 e5 1 1 l/Jbc3 (1 1 d5 lDh5 12 lDbc3 f5 gives a Samisch King's Indian type

position, Strikovic-Franco, Palma de Mall orca 1995) 1 1 . . .exd4 12 .txd4 tL'le5 1 3 tL'lr4! ;!; Sveshni.kov-Ruste­mov, Russian Ch 1995.

b) 5 dxc5 !? dxc5 6 e5 with four lines:

b1) 6 . . . tL'lg4 7 .tb5+ gives White an edge, since 7 . . . .td7?? 8 e6! wins, Ankerst-Heinatz, Bundesliga 1992.

b2) Instead 6 ... tL'lfd7 7 e6 fxe6 is a cheap investment to wreck the black pawn structure.

b3) 6 . . . c4 !? is a spirited try, e.g. 7 1i'a4+ .td7 8 1i'xc4 tL'lg4 9 tL'lf3 .tg7 10 h3 tL'lxe5 1 1 tL'lxe5 .txe5 12 .th6 ;!; Kuijf-Van de Mortel, Wijk aan Zee 1996.

b4) 6 .. . tL'lds 7 .te4: b41) 7 ... e6 8 .!Df3 tL'lc6 9 c4 tL'lde7

10 1i'xd8+ tL'lxd8 1 1 tL'lc3 ± Sermek­Mali, Bled 1994.

b42) 7 . . . tL'lc7 8 1i'xd8+ ;I; Van der Werf-Mascini, Dutch Ch 1992 and Sermek-Cebalo, Maribor 1994.

b43) 7 . . . tL'lb6 8 1i'xd8+ �xd8 9 tL'la3 tL'lc6 10 tL'lf3 .tf5 and then 1 1 .txf5?! gxf5 1 2 e6 fxe6 1 3 .te3 l:g8 14 tL'lg5 l:g6 15 h4 h5 16 0-0-0+ �e8 17 .txc5 e5 was unclear in Lau­tier-Polgar, Dos Hermanas 1 994, but Lautier later gave the improve­ment 1 1 .txc6 bxc6 12 .te3 l:b8 13 0-0-0+ ;!;.

c) 5 h3 .tg7 6 tL'lf3 transposes to the following line with 5 tL'lf3.

d) 5 tL'lf3 .tg7 6 h3 (6 0-0 0-0 7 h3 is the same) 6 .. . 0-0 7 0-0:

d1 ) 7 . . . 1i'c7 ! ? transposes to the 4 . . . 1i'c7 lines of Game 65, and is a very common way to reach that vari­ation, while 7 . . . tL'lfd7 and 7 . . . a6 have been seen a number of times.

2 . . . d6 217

d2) The developing 7 ... tL'lbd7 is more logical: 8 l:e1 cxd4 9 cxd4 e5 10 .te3 exd4 1 1 .txd4! tL'lc5 12 tL'lc3 b6 13 .tc4 .tb7 14 .td5 ;I; Rausis­Bemard, Paris 1994.

d3) 7 . . . tL'lc6 8 d5 ! (8 l:e1 tL'ld7 9 d5 tL'lce5 10 tL'lxe5 dxe5 1 1 .tfl f5 12 exf5 gxf5 1 3 f4 e4 14 .te3 tL'lb6! 15 1i'b3 1i'xd5 16 .txc5 .te6 17 1i'xd5 tL'lxd5 ; Men-Fta�nik, Philadelphia 1991 shows how Black can also have chances in this variation) 8 . . . tL'la5 (8 . . . tL'lb8 but White has an edge, as in Torre-Sitanggang, Beijing 1992 and Schmittdiel-Amason, St Martin 1993) 9 c4 ! ("in such King's Indian structures the knight is almost al­ways misplaced on a5" - Nunn; 9 tL'la3 b6 10 .td2 e6 1 1 c4 l:e8?! 12 ll.e1 tL'ld7? ! 13 ll.b1 tL'le5 14 tL'lxe5 .txe5 15 f4 ± Yusupov-Speelman, Munich 1992) 9 ... a6 10 tL'lc3 ll.b8 1 1 a4 .td7 12 1i'c2 b5 13 cxb5 c4 14 .te2 axb5 15 axb5 .txb5 16 tL'lxb5 ll.xb5 17 tL'ld4 ;I; Sveshnikov-Tregu­bov, Ljubljana 1994 .

5 cxd4 g6 (D) 5 . . . ll)c6 6 ll)f3 (or 6 tL'le2 with

King's Indian transpositional possi­bilities - see later) 6 . . . .tg4 (after 6 . . . 1i'b6 !?, 7 d5 tL'lb4 8 0-0 ll)xd3 9 1i'xd3 g6 10 .te3 1i'd8 was not so clear in Sermek-Vescovi, Groningen 1993; 7 tL'lc3 .tg4 8 d5 is one possi­ble improvement) 7 d5 .txf3 (7 ... �5 8 ll)xe5 ! dxe5 9 1i'b3 ± Schmittdiel­Yrjola, Gausdal 1987) 8 1i'xf3 tL'le5 9 .tb5+ with an edge - this has hap­pened in several games.

Again 5 ... e5 ! ? is possible: a) 6 tL'le2 .te7 7 0-0 0-0 8 ll)bc3

ll)bd7 9 .tc4 1i'c7 10 .tb3 b6 1 1 l:e1

218 2 . . . d6

�b7 12 l0g3 g6 13 .*.h6 llfe8 14 h3 a6 15 'ifd2 .*.f8 1 6 �xf8 llxf8 17 llad1 ;!; Kengis-Kotliar, Philadelphia 1989.

b) 6 l0f3 exd4 (6 ... -*.g4!? 7 'it'a4+ lt:lfd7 8 l0bd2 l0c6 9 d5 l0c5 10 'ifa3 l0xd3+ 1 1 _.xd3 lt:lb8 12 h3 .*.d7 ao Schmittdiel-Minasian, Gron­ingen 1990) 7 l0xd4 l0c6 (7 . . . �e7 8 l0c3 0-0 9 0-0 l0c6 10 l0xc6 bxc6 1 1 .*.f4?! l0d7 12 'ifc2 l0e5 13 �xe5 dxe5 14 l0a4 'it'd6 15 llfd1 'it'g6 16 .*.e2 llb8 ao S.Arkell-Sadler, Cap­pelle Ia Grande 1993) 8 l0xc6 bxc6 9 0-0 .*.e7 10 'ifc2 .*.b7 1 1 lLlc3 (also 1 1 b3 0-0 12 .*.b2 ;!; Van Mil-Bos­boom, Dutch Ch 1991) 1 1 . . .0-0 12 lld1 _.a5 13 .*.f4 llad8 14 b4 'it'h5 15 l0e2 g6 16 h3 �7 17 �4 c5 18 lLlf3 g5 19 �g3 ;!; Godena-Cebalo, Geneva 1996.

c) 6 d5 ! ? -*.e7 7 l0e20-0 8 l0g3? ! ( 8 f3 l0e8 9 .*.e3 �g5 1 0 .*.f2 Yer-molinsky) 8 . . . l0bd7 9 0-0 l0e8 10 l0c3 g6?! (10 ... -*.g5 11 .*.xg5 _.xg5 12 'ifc1 !?; 10 . . . lt:lc5 1 1 .*.c2 a5) 1 1 �h6 l0g7 12 ... d2 lt:lf6 1 3 f3 ;!; Shaked-Yermolinsky, San Francisco 1995 .

w

6 lDc3

White can also play 6 h3 or 6 l0f3 first. Surprisingly 6 l0e2 !? can even­tually transpose into a King's Indian Defence: 6 . . . -*.g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 l0bc3 lLlc6 (8 . . . e5 9 d5 lLlbd7 10 f3 l0c5 1 1 �c2 a5 1 2 .*.e3, Rozentalis-Yrjola, Voronezh 1987, is a position nor­mally reached via a Siimisch, e.g. 1 d4 l0f6 2 c4 g6 3 l0c3 .*.g7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 .*.e3 c6 7 .*.d3 e5 8 d5 lt:lbd7 9 l0ge2 l0c5 10 .*.c2 cxd5 1 1 cxd5 a5 1 2 0-0 as in Petrosian-Gligoric, USSR v Yugoslavia 1973, and sev­eral other games) 9 f3 (9 a3 e5 10 d5 lLld4 ao Rozentalis-Gelfand, Uzhgo­rod 1987) 9 . . . e5 10 d5 l0e7 1 1 .*.e3 l0e8 (this less common King's In­dian position can be reached via 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lLlc3 .*.g7 4 e4 d6 5 �d3 lLlc6 6 lLlge2 e5 7 d5 l0e7 8 f3 c6 9 �e3 cxd5 10 cxd5 0-0 1 1 0-0 lLle8 as in the game Hort-Kljako, Lugano 1984) 12 'it'b3 Rozentalis­Smirin, Vilnius 1988. These transpo­sitions are quite promising for White, and the reader is referred to any of the many books on the King's Indian for further study.

6 .•. -*.g7 7 h3 Anticipating any thoughts Black

may have had of pinning with 7 l0f3 0-0 8 0-0 .*.g4 or 7 l0f3 .*.g4, al­though 8 Wa4+ !? worked out well for White after 8 . . . lLlfd7 9 lLlg5 l0c6 10 h3 �e6 1 1 l0xe6 in Manca-Ceb­alo, Reggio Emilia 1991 .

7 e5 dxe5 8 dxe5 l0fd7 9 f4 l0c6 (or 9 . . . l0c5 10 .*.b5+ .*.d7 1 1 �e3 �xb5 12 'W'xd8+ �xd8 13 lt:lxb5 �3+ 14 �e2 lLlxb2 15 lLlf3 lOc6 16 lOgS with excellent play for the pawn, Motwani-Chiong, Bern 1992)

10 .te3 l0b6 1 1 l0f3 0-0 12 0-0 .te6 1 3 b3 l0b4 14 .te4 l06d5 15 lOxdS .txdS 16 .. d4 .txe4 17 .. xe4 l0d5 18 .td4 e6 oo Motwani-Thorhalls­son, Iceland 1992.

For 7 l0ge2! 7 see the 6 l0e2 note at White's move six.

7 ... 0-0 Playing7 . . . e5 !? immediately gives

White the option of 8 dxeS dxeS 9 .tb5+ !7 (9 l0f3) 9 . . . .td7 10 .. d6, though 10 . . ... e7 1 1 .txd7+ l0bxd7 12 •xe7+ �xe7 13 .te3 l:r.hc8 14 f3 �e6 15 l0ge2 .tf8 did not seem much for White in Smagin-Smirin, Minsk 1986.

8 lbt'3 e5 (D) 8 . . . a6?! is now Torre-Barcenilla,

Bacolod 1991 : 9 0-0 bS 10 eS lOeB 1 1 .te4 l:r.a7 12 .te3 ±.

Instead 8 . . . l0c6 9 0-0 eS 10 d5 !7 ( 10 dxeS dxeS would be the main game) 1 l . . .l0d4 1 1 l0xd4 exd4 12 l0e2 l:r.e8 13 l0g3 l0d7 14 b3 •h4 (Black should probably try 14 . . . h5 !? 15 £b2 h4 1 6 liJe2 lbc5 oo) 15 £b2 lOeS 16 .txd4 fS 17 .txeS ! .txeS 18 exfS ! .txa1 19 .. xa1 ± Emms-Mes­tel, British Ch 1992.

9 dxe5

2 . . . d6 219

After 9 0-0 Black might very well try 9 . . . exd4 10 l0xd4 l0c6 transpos­ing to Haba-Gelfand, Halle 1987: 1 1 l0xc6 bxc6 1 2 .tf4 .te6 1 3 .. d2 dS 14 .:t'd1 .:es 15 exdS lOxdS 16 lOxdS •xdS =. Alternatively 9 ... l0c6 10 .te3 (10 dS or 10 dxeS) and Black equalises by means of 10 . . . exd4 1 1 l0xd4 dS ! , as in Hresc-Cebalo, Vrbas 1982.

9 ... dxe5 10 0-0 lOc6 11 .te3 After l l .tc4 •xd1 12 l:r.xd1 l0a5

1 3 .tdS lOxdS 14 lOxdS b6 15 b3 .te6 16 .ta3 l:r.fd8 17 l0c7 White was better in Khuzman-Minasian, Belgrade 1989, so Black could con­sider either 1 1 . . ... e7, or offering a slightly suspicious looking pawn sacrifice with 1 1 . ..l0a5, for example 12 •xd8 (12 .te2 .te6 13 .te3 l0c4 14 .tcS •xd1 15 l:r.fxd1 l0xb2 16 .txf8 lOxd 1 17 .txg7 l0xc3 18 .txf6 l0xe2+ 1 9 �h2 lbc3 20 lOgS l:r.e8 21 .:c 1 h6 22 l:r.xc3 hxgS 23 a3 l:r.c8 1f2.112 B.Andersson-Engqvist, Stockholm 1987) 12 . . . lbd8 13 l0xe5 l0xc4 14 l0xc4 bS 15 lOxbS l0xe4 J ahn-Choluskina, Debrecen wom Echt 1992.

u ... .te6 a) 1 1 . ..l:r.e8 12 .tc4 .te6 1 3

.txe6 fxe6 ( 13 . . . l:r.xe6 14 .tgS l:r.d6 15 lOdS ;I;) 14 .. b3 ;I; Luther-Gaug­litz, E.German Ch 1989.

b) 1 1 . . . �hS 12l0ds (also 12 .tc4 �d4 13 l0d5 l0e6 14 �3 ± Nun­Trap!, Namestovo 1987) 12 . . . l0!4 13 l0xf4 exf4 14 .txf4 .txb2 15 l:r.b1 .tg7 16 .tc4 h6 17 .,c l �h7 1 8 l:r.d1 .. f6 19 eS .. e7 20 e6! .txe6 21 .td6 +- Hort-Hodgson, San Bernardino 1992.

220 2 . . . d6

c) 1 1 . . .1Ve7 12 .:te l (12 lD<l5 o!bxd5 1 3 exd5 o!bb4 14 .i.c4 .i.f5 15 .:tel l:tac8 16 'it'd2 lbc2! :j: Rabiega­Milov, Budapest 1993; 12 .i.g5 .i.e6 13 o!bd5 .i.xd5 14 exd5 o!bd4 15 o!bxd4 exd4 16 .:tel 'it'c5 = Sermek­Velii!kovic, Portoroz 1994; 12 .i.c4 .i.e6 13 .i.xe6 1Wxe6 14 1We2 .:tfd8 15 l:tfdl h6 16 1Vb5 b6 17 00 .:tac8 18 o!bxf6+ 1Vxf6 19 1Wa4 ;!; Rosandic­Grguric, Pula 1994) 12 . . . .:td8 13 11i'e2 .i.e6 14 o!bg5 o!bh5 15 o!bxe6 fxe6 16 g3 'it'f6 17 .i.c4 o!bf4 18 gxf4 exf4 19 1Wg4 fxe3 20 fxe3 1We5 2 1 1Wxe6+ ± Lobron-Davies, Bundesliga 1986.

12 .i.bS! tDa5 Otherwise Black may be saddled

with a weak pawn on c6: 12 . . . 1Wb8 13 .i.xc6 bxc6 14 1Wc2 o!bh5 15 lba4 h6 16 o!bc5 'ii'e8 17 l:tadl 'ii'e7 18 o!bxe6 'it'xe6 19 b3 o!bf4 20 l:td2 ± Lo­bron-Christiansen, Germany 1994, or 12 . . . o!bh5 13 .i.xc6 bxc6 14 1Wxd8 l:tfxd8 15 l:tfdl l:tdb8 (1h- 1f2 Her­mann-Chandler, Bundesliga 1985) when 16 b3 gives White a clearly better endgame.

13 'it'e2 ;I; (D) White has a pleasant game, and

will gain time bringing a rook to the open d-file; if 13 .i.c5 Adams gives 13 . . . 'ii'xd l 14 l:tfxdl l:tfc8 15 .i.d6 o!bc4 16 .i.xc4 l:txc4 17 o!bxe5 l:txc3 18 bxc3 o!bxe4 ao.

13 •• .a6 14 .i.d3 ttx6?! (14 ... ltllis !? Adams) 15 .:tfdl 'ii'c8?! (15 . . . 'it'a5)

16 .:tact l:td8 17 o!ba4 o!bd7 18 .i.c4 .i.xc4 19 'it'xc4 lbd4 (Black is pas­sive after 19 . . . 'ilc7, but Gelfand will get little for his pawn sacrifice) 20 'it'xc8 .:taxeS 21 :XeS :XeS 22 lbxd4 exd4 23 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 24 l:txd4 l:.cl + 25 �h2 lbes 26 l:td5 lbc6 27 l:td2 gS 28 �g3 �g7 29 h4 gxh4+ 30 �4 o!beS 31 b3 l:.hl+ 32 �g3 hS 33 lbc5 h4+ 34 �4 o!bg6+ 35 �e3 .:tel+ 36 .:tel .:tel 37 o!bxb7 l:tc3+ 38 �d4 .:tel 39 �e3 l:tc3+ 40 �d2 l:tc7 41 o!bd6 l:td7 42 eS lbxeS 43 :xeS l:txd6+ 44 �e3 �g6 45 l:te4 �gS 46 �e2 rs 47 .:ta4 l:te6+ 48 � .:td6 49 �gl .:tdl+ so �h2 .:td6 51 :as �g4 52 .:ta4+ �gS 53 g3 h.xg3+ 54 <li>xg3 l:td3+ 55 f3 l:td6 56 :as l:tc6 57 b4 l:tb6 58 a3 l:td6 59 .:tcS l:td3 60 :as l:tb3 61 .:txa6 f4+ 62 �g2 <li>hS 63 l:ta7 �g5 64 .:as �5 65 l:ta5+ �6 66 a4 l:.xb4 67 �h3 �e6 68 �g4 l:.c4 69 :as l:tb4 70 �g5 l:tc4 71 aS l:ta4 72 l:.a6+ �f7 73 �rs �e7 74 :as � 75 .:ta7+ 1-0

23 Other 2nd Moves for Black

All four of these second move alter­natives (2 . . . 1Wa5, 2 . . . g6, 2 ... b6 and 2 . . . e5) are better than their reputa­tions, although objectively none clearly achieves full equality. 2 . . . b6 (as utilised by the fighting GM Tony Miles) is a good choice against a weaker player. Natural (but never­theless inaccurate) moves by White can result in Black successfully ex­changing his knight for bishop with the manoeuvre tlX6-b4xd3.

2 ... e5 !? has become a tenacious defence: after 3 ltlf3 tlX6 4 i..c4 the clever 4 . . . 1i'c7 !? means that White's ltlg5 attacks can be answered by . . . ltld8. White can choose between quiet Lopez-like manoeuvres (d3, a4, ltlbd2-fl-e3) or choosing the mo­ment to blast the game open with ltlg5 and f4 in some position. Fur­ther tests are needed.

Game 67 Sveshnikov - Kupreichik

USSR 1984

1 e4 c5 2 c3 1WaS (D) Black gambles that, in order to

hold up White's d4, it is worth break­ing the rule about not developing your queen early. There is certainly no outright refutation, and White must be content with a potential gain of time exploiting the misplaced queen at a later date.

3 ltlf3 3 ltla3 and 3 i..c4 are sidelines. 3 ... lbc6 The Hungarian grandmaster Ist­

van Csom has had a few games with 3 . . . d6!? (planning ... ltlf6), though not against fellow GMs, who might have given him a tougher time:

a) 4 i..c4 ltlc6 5 0-0 ltlf6 6 :e1 i..g4 7 ltla3 e6 8 h3 i..xf3 9 1i'xf3 i.e? 10 i..b3 0-0 1 1 d3 ltld4!? 12 1i'd1 ltlxb3 13 1Wxb3 1i'a6 = Wemer­Csom, Lenk 1994.

b) 4 i..e2 ltlf6 (4 . . . ltlc6 5 0-0 ltlf6 6 d3 i..g4 7 ltlbd2 e6 8 h3 i..h5 9 ltlh2 i..xe2 10 1i'xe2 i.e? 1 1 tlX4 1i'a6 12 i..g5 :d8 13 i..xf6 i..xf6 14 ltlg4 i.e? "" Eynard-Csom, Men­drisio 1989) 5 d3 (5 'ifc2) 5 . . . c4 !? 6 h3 cxd3 7 i..xd3 ltlbd7 8 0-0 g6 9 ltlbd2 'ifc7 = Sibarevic-Csom, Men­drisio 1989.

c) Perhaps White should play to harass the queen straight away with 4 ltla3 ltlf6 5 e5 dxe5 6 ltlc4, e.g.

222 Other 2nd Moves for Black

6 . . . We? 7 ltlcxe5 e6 8 d4 cxd4 9 Wxd4 J.c5 10 1i'h4 ltlbd7 1 1 .i.f4 Wb6 12 ltlc4 Wc6 13 i..d3 i.e? 14 J.g5 lLlc5 15 .tc2 Wa6 16 0-0 lLlce4 17 lL!ce5 ltld6 18 J.a4+ b5 19 i..c2 ;!; V.Ivanov-Odeev, Moscow 1991 .

4 a3!? Not strongest, but still dangerous

for Black. 4 i..d3 has been seen a few times, as has 4 i..c4, e.g. 4 . . . d6 5 0-0 lLlf6 6 l:.e1 ;!; b5 !? (6 . . . e5 !? 7 ltlg5 ltld8 8 Wb3 Wc7) 7 i..d5 i..d7 8 b4 cxb4 9 cxb4 Wb6 10 a4 (10 lLlc3) lO . . . lL!xdS 1 1 exd5 ltlxb4 12 lLlc3 g6 13 aS 1i'd8 oo Keitlinghaus-Movses­ian, Czechoslovakia 1996. After 4 ltla3 !? Black should prefer 4 . . . e6 5 ltlc4 We? 6 d4 cxd4 7 ltlxd4 a6 8 i..d3 b5 9 lL!e3 lLlf6 10 0-0 i..b7 1 1 ltlf3?! i..d6 12 l:.e1 ltle5 ; Alapin­Tarrasch, Vienna 1898 ( ! ) to 4 . . . d6 5 lLlc4 Wd8 6 d4 ltlf6 7 dS ltlb8 8 i..d3 g6 9 i..g5 i..g7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 a4 h6 1 2 i..h4 ltla6 13 lLlfd2 lL!c7 14 f4 ;!; Afek-Djuri�. Rishon le Zion 1992.

4 d4! is best: 4 . . . cxd4 5 b4 1i'c7 6 b5 ltle5 7 ltlxe5 1i'xe5 8 1Wxd4 ;!; 1Wc7 (8 . . . Wxd4 9 cxd4 d6 10 i..e3 lLlf6 1 1 f3 d5 12 ltld2 e6 13 i..d3 .tb4 14 �e2 0-0 15 e5 ltld7 16 l:.hc1 ;!; Hauchard-San Marco, French Cht 1 989) and here, instead of 9 a4? ! e5 10 1i'c4 1i'xc4 1 1 i..xc4 ltlf6 12 f3 d6 13 i..e3 J.e6 14 ltld2 d5 = Makro­poulos-Ljubojevic, Athens 198 1 , White has other tries to exploit his lead in development, e.g. 9 i..c4 e6 10 0-0 b6 1 1 l:.d1 i..b7 12 i..f4 ! d6 13 .i.xd6 i..xd6 14 1i'xd6 1Wxd6 15 l:.xd6 J.xe4 16 i..xe6 i..xb1 17 J.d5 �e7 18 i..xa8 �xd6 19 l:.xb1 lLlf6 20 i..c6 ± Blauert-Tataev, Cuxhaven

1993 or even 9 e5 !? Kopp-Gerber, Germany 1993.

4 •.. e6 On 4 . . . d6 Sveshnikov gives 5 b4 !

cxb4 6 cxb4 ltlxb4 7 axb4 1i'xa1 8 lLlc3 as unclear.

5 d4 ltlxd4! 6 ltlxd4 cxd4 7 b4 Wc7

7 . . . 1We5 8 cxd4!? (8 1i'xd4 1Wxd4 9 cxd4 d5 =) 8 . . . Wxe4+ 9 i..e3 Wc6 ! 10 dS! , again unclear, is more Svesh­nikov analysis.

8 cxd4 lill'6 9 .td3 d5 10 e5 ltld7 ll l:.al ;t ltlb6 12 :a Wd8 13 Wg4 g6 14 i..g5 i..e7 15 .th6 J.d7 16 0-0 i..a4? (16 . . . a6 17 lLld2 .i.b5) 17 l:.c3 a6 18 l:.fcl l:.c8 19 l:.xc8 ltlxc8 20 lL!dl lL!a7 21 ltlf3 .tf8 22 1Wf4 lL!c6 23 i..xf8 � 24 ft6+ �g8 25 h4 ± 1Wf8 26 1Wf4 h6 27 h5 g5 28 1Wf6 'ifg7 29 g4! Wxf6 30 exf6 �8 31 ltle5 �e8 32 .txa6 ltlxe5 33 dxe5 �d7 34 i..xb7 l:.b8 35 .ta6 i..b3 36 i..d3 :as 37 b5 l:.a4 38 b6 l:.xg4+ 39 �h2 i..c4 40 i..g6! i..e2 41 f4 .tc4 42 .txf7 l:.xf4 43 l:.b1 �c8 44 i..xe6+ �b8 45 l:.b4 �b7 46 f7 1·0

Game 68 Adams - Dzlndzlchashvili

New York PCA rpd 1994

l e4 c5 2 c3 g6 A related system, 2 . . . d5 3 exd5

Wxd5 4 d4 g6!?, has been developed over the past few years. Although Black has committed his queen to the d5-square, this system does cut out White's irritating option of trans­posing to a Caro-Kann as in the main line. Play usually continues 5 ltlf3 (5 ltla3 and 5 i..e3 are reasonable; after

5 dxc5 ! ? 'Wxc5 6 .te3 'fic7 either no­one has spotted or dares to play the startling 7 .txa7 !? !? suggested by Fritz - after 7 . . . :xa7, 8 'fid4 forks both black rooks !) 5 . . . .tg7 and now:

a) 6 dxc5 'fixc5 7 .te3 'Wc7 S h3 tik6 9 lba3 ttlf6 10 ttlb5 'fibS 1 1 g3 o-o 12 .tg2 .tf5 13 o-o :ds 14 'fib3 .te6 l!z.lh Rozentalis-Hulak, Debre­cen Echt 1992.

b) 6 .te2 cxd4 7 cxd4 ttlh6!? (7 . . . ttlf6 S ttlc3 'fidS 9 0-0 0-0 is un­clear, e.g. 10 .tg5 .te6 1 1 'ifd2 lbc6 12 :Cd1 tLld5 13 .th6 'fia5 14 .txg7 �xg7 15 a3 :adS Neyer-Wojtkie­wicz, Bern 1 996) S ttlc3 'fia5 9 0-0 0-0 10 'Wb3 ttlf5 1 1 d5 lba6 12 .tg5 :es 13 .tb5 ttlc5 14 'Wc4 ttld7 15 'fie2 a6 16 .td3 ttlf6 17 .tc4 ttld6 1S .tb3 .tf5 19 :ac1 ttld7 20 .i.d2 'fib4 !? with a good game for Black, Gufeld-Bronstein, USSR Ch 1960.

c) 6 .i.e3 cxd4 7 cxd4 ttlf6 (not 7 . . . ttlh6?? S 'ifc1 +- attacking cS and h6, as in T.Reich-Ma.Pavlovic, Munich 1992) S tik3 'Wa5 9 .i.c4 0-0 10 h3 (10 0-0 ttlbd7 1 1 a3 ttlb6 12 .ta2 ttlbd5 13 :c 1 ?! .i.e6 14 'ii'd2 ttlxe3 15 fxe3 .txa2 16 ttlxa2 'fixd2 17 ttlxd2 ttld5 :j: G.Mohr-Hulak, Portoroz 1993) 10 . . . ttlbd7 1 1 0-0 ttlb6 12 .tb3 ttlbd5 13 .td2 Wds 14 :e1 b6 15 .tg5 .tb7 16 ttle5 ttlxc3 17 bxc3 :cs 1 S c4 ttle4 19 .tf4 e6 20 'fid3 ;t Fedorowicz-Larsen, Bue­nos Aires 1991 .

d) 6 ttla3 cxd4 7 .tc4!? (also 7 ttlb5 ttla6 8 .te3 !? .i.g4 9 Wa4 �f8 10 ttlfxd4 ttlf6 1 1 h3 e5 12 hxg4 exd4 13 'fixd4! :es 14 .te2 'fixg2 15 0-0-0 ± Rausis-Permjakov, Lat­vian Ch 1 994) 7 . . . WdS (7 . . . We4+ S

Other 2nd Moves for Black 223

.te3 ! as on 8 . . . dxe3, 9 .txf7+!) S 'ifb3 e6 9 ttlxd4 ttle7 10 .tg5 h6 1 1 .te3 ttld5 1 2 .txd5 exd5 1 3 0-0 ! Sveshnikov-Cvitan, Tilburg 1993.

3 d4 3 ttlf3 !? is an interesting alternate

move-order which can stop Black getting either of the Caro-Kanns coming up. After 3 . . . .tg7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d5 6 exd5 ttlf6 the transposi­tion is actually to B27 (the Sicilian starting 1 e4 c5 2 ttlf3 g6), and after 7 .i.b5+ ECO considers White has a slight edge.

3 .•• cxd4 4 cxd4 dS (D) Otherwise ttlc3 will prevent this

break. For example, 4 . . . .tg7 5 ttlc3 d6 6 .i.e3 ttlf6 as in Rausis-Sokolov, Moscow 1992, is one transposition to the 2 . . . d6 systems examined last chapter.

5 e5 Here 5 exd5 !? ttlf6 will transpose

to the Caro Kann (either the Panov­Botvinnik attack variation, ECO code B 14, with 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 ttlf6 5 ltx:3 g6 6 cxd5, etc., or ECO code B10 starting 1 e4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 cxd5 ttlf6, etc.). This is a major branch of

224 Other 2nd Moves for Black

the Caro, and so regretfully must fall outside the scope of this book. How­ever it should be noted that White's move-order via the c3 Sicilian does rules out one of his most testing lines, 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 �f6 5 �3 g6 6 'ii'b3 i..g7 7 cxd5.

5 ••• tbc6 6 ll)c3 .tg7 1 h3 7 �f3 i..g4 is equal. After 7

i..e2 !? �h6 8 h3, 8 . . . f6 9 exf6 exf6 10 i..f3 ! i..e6 1 1 �ge2 0-0 12 �f4 i..n 13 i..xd5 favoured White in Groszpeter-Regan, Budapest 1978, but Black should delay . . .f6, e.g. 8 . . . 0-0 9 �f3 (9 i..f3 �f5 10 �ge2 e6) 9 . . . f6. However 7 i..b5 !? �h6 8 �ge2 is reasonable, e.g. 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 �h8 10 i..f4 f6 1 1 .i.xc6 bxc6 12 exf6 exf6 13 � 1 lieS 14 �b3 �f5 15 lle1 i..f8 16 'ii'd2 g5 17 i..g3 lbd6 18 h4 �c4 19 'ii'c2 ;!; Jonkman-Van Mil, Dutch Ch 1994.

7 ••• f6 8 exf6 8 f4? ! �h6 9 i..e3 fxe5 10 fxe5

0-0 1 1 �f3 �f5 12 i..f2 i..h6 13 'ii'e2 i..f4 + Yanovsky-Hoffmann, Biel 1991 .

8 .•• exf6 8 . . . �xf6 9 �f3 0-0 10 i..d3 �h5

"" Palkovi-Certek, Hungary 1995. 9 �f3 �ge7 10 i..e2 0·0 11 0-0

g5!? 12 lle1 .trs 13 i..e3 i..g6 14 llcl 'ii'd7 15 h4 h6 16 hxg5 fxg5

The position is unclear. As the rest of the game was a quickplay there is little point in annotating it, but cer­tainly Black looked a little unlucky to emerge into a worse endgame.

17 �h2 �h8 18 i..f3 :Sd8 19 �n �f5 20 i..g4 Wr7 21 .txrs i..xf5 22 �g3 i..g6 23 'ii'd2 'ii'f6 24

li)ce2 lld7 25 f4 g4 26 :n i..f5 27 �xr5 Wxrs 28 �g3 'ii'e6 29 llcel 'ii'd6 30 'ii'd1 lle7 31 �h1 h5 32 i..g1 llxel 33 'ii'xe1 �d4 34 i..xd4 .i.xd4 35 �xh5 'ii'h6 36 'ii'h4 llg8 37 lld1 i..tl 38 'ii'xfl 'ii'xh5+ 39 �g1 g3 40 'ii'd4+ �h7 41 'ii'xdS 'ii'xd5 42 :XdS lieS 43 llh5+ �g6 44 llg5+ �6 45 llxg3 �5 46 llg7 b6 47 :Xa7 �xf4 48 lla4+ �g3 49 lla3+ 1·0

Game 69 FeUer - Stean

Amsterdam 1978

1 e4 c5 2 c3 b6!? The ... b6 lines reached via 2 ... �f6

have already been covered in Chap­ter 14. Played on move two, the de­fence is also quite interesting. Black has the persistent theme of exchang­ing pawns on d4, followed, if al­lowed, by the manoeuvre .. . �6-b4.

3 d4 i..b7 4 i..d3 (D) Otherwise: a) 4 f3 is playable: a1) 4 . . . g6 5 i..e3 d6 6 i..d3 .i.g7 7

�e2 �f6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lbd2 ;!; Strik­ovic-Cebalo, Yugoslav Ch 1989.

a2) 4 ... d5 5 e5 �6 6 i..e3 e6 7 f4 �h6 8 �f3 �f5 9 i..f2 h5 10 i..d3 i.e? 1 1 0-0 g6 12 g3 �f8 13 h3 a5 14 �g2 c4 15 i..c2 b5 16 g4 hxg4 17 hxg4 �6 18 llh1 �g7 19 �g3 .i.c8 20 .i.e3 b4 21 �bd2 .i.d7 22 llh3 a4 23 'iVh 1 a3 24 f5 �xg4 25 fxg6 fxg6 26 �xg4 axb2 27 i..h6+ �g8 28 llg1 bxc3 29 i..xg6 cxd2 30 i..g5 �g7 31 llh7+ 1-0 Strikovic-Pauno­vic, La Corui'ia 1995 - an amazing game!

a3) 4 . . . e6 5 .te3 llk6 (5 . . . �f6 6 J.d3 .te7 7 �2 0-0 S 0-0 d6 9 �2 �bd7 10 g4 e5 1 1 d5 �S 12 a4 a6 1 3 b4 .tg5 14 .tf2 cxb4 1 5 cxb4 a5 16 bxa5 bxa5 17 llb1 .ta6 1S .txa6 llxa6 1 9 l0c4 ;!; Strikovic-Aleksic, Yugoslavia 1990) 6 a3 lbh6 (6 . . . d5 !? 7 e5 f6 S f4 �h6 with counterplay -Cherniaev) 7 .td3 f5 S lbh3 ! ;!; fxe4 9 fxe4 'ifh4+ 10 �f2 .td6 1 1 g3 'ife7 12 � ;!; Chemiaev-Arkhipov, Sochi 1993.

b) Instead unclear play results from 4 d5 �f6 5 f3 (5 .td3 is an­swered by 5 . . . c4 ! with counterplay, but not 5 . . . e6 6 c4 b5 7 �c3 exd5 S exd5 b4 9 �b1 .te7 10 �f3 0-0 1 1 0-0 lieS 12 b3 d6 13 a4 g6 14 lla2! ± and the rook swings over to e2, Ben­jamin-Fedorowicz, New York 1977) and then 5 ... e6 6 c4 d6 7 llk3 exd5 S cxd5 g6 9 .tc4 .tg7 10 �ge2 0-0 1 1 0-0 .ta6 12 'ifd3 .txc4 1 3 'ifxc4 a6 14 .te3 b5 Hresc-Johansen, Arn­hem/ Amsterdam 1 9S3 or 5 . . . g6 6 c4 d6 7 �c3 J.g7 S J.g5 �a6 9 'ifd2 h6 10 .te3 �7 1 1 �ge2 a6 12 �g3 h5 1 3 .td3 e6 14 0-0 h4 Yilmaz-Ce­balo, Kavala 19S5.

B

4 ••• lbt'6!?

Other 2nd Moves for Black 225

P.Littlewood-Speelman, London 197S went 4 . . . cxd4 5 cxd4 llk6 6 �f3 �b4 7 .tc4 (7 llk3) 7 . . . lieS S �5 e6 9 �3 f6 (9 . . . .td6!? 10 �b5 .tbS) 10 'ifh5+ g6 1 1 �xg6 hxg6 12 'ifxhS ±.

Instead 4 . . . e6 (now an Owen's Defence, ECO code BOO) and now White has tried several moves:

a) 5 �2!? �f6 6 �2 leading to a position examined in the note at White's fifth move.

b) 5 f4 �f6 6 'ife2 cxd4 7 cxd4 llk6 S �f3 �b4 9 llk3 �xd3+ 10 'ifxd3 .tb4 + Barnes-Owen, London 1 862.

c) 5 �2?! (now Black's knight speeds to b4) 5 . . . cxd4 6 cxd4 �6 7 �gf3 �b4 S .tb1 (S .te2 lieS 9 0-0 �f6 10 e5 �fd5 1 1 a3? �2 12 lla2 �f4 13 b3 �3! ! 14 fxe3 llxc1 won White's queen in Van der Sterren­�ahovic, Lone Pine 1979) S . . . d5 9 e5 .ta6 10 �fl 'ifd7 1 1 a3 �6 12 �3 �ge7 13 .td3 .txd3 14 'ifxd3 �g6 1 5 g3 and now not 15 . . . .te7? 16 h4 ! Lasker-S.Bemstein, New York 1977, but 15 ... f6 16 exf6 gxf6 and Black gets a good game by advancing in the centre.

d) 5 lbh3 cxd4 (5 . . . �f6 6 f3 ltk6 7 .te3 .te7 S 0-0 0-0 9 a3 lieS 10 �2 cxd4 11 cxd4 d6 12 f4 lieS 13 g4? ! g6 14 g5? ! �h5 + Suradiradja­Chandler, Wellington 1 97S) 6 0-0 dxc3 (after 6 . . . �f6 !? 7 e5 �5 S cxd4 �6 9 .te4 �e7 Sax-Basman, London 1975 continued 10 'iff3 .tc6 1 1 �g5 f5 12 exf6 �xf6 13 .txc6 �xc6 14 �e6! winning) 7 �xc3 �c6 S f4 .tc5+ 9 �h1 'ife7 10 a3 0-0-0 1 1 b4 .td4 12 .td2 �f6 13

226 Other 2nd Moves for Black

'ili'a4 e5 14 'ili'b3 �b8 112-112 Sax-Sa­hovic, Vrbas 1977.

e) 5 lLlf3 lLlf6 6 'ili'e2 (here this queen move is good, as Black cannot force his knight to b4; 6 .i.g5 !? h6 -6 . . . .i.e7 - 7 .i.xf6 'ili'xf6 8 0-0 cxd4 9 cxd4 lLlc6 10 .i.b5 ;!; Blackbume­Owen, London 1862) 6 . . . .i.e7 (6 . . . d5 7 e5 lLlfd7 8 .i.g5 'fic7 9 0-0 lLlc6 10 lLlbd2 h6 1 1 .i.e3 0-0-0 12 b4 c4 13 .i.c2 probably favours White, al­though after 13 . . . g5 14 b5 lLla5 1 5 h3 .i.a3 White discovered his queenside blocked in Konstantinopolsky-Mun­chik, Moscow 1966, and was duly slaughtered on the other wing; in­stead after 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4, 7 . . . lLlc6 meets 8 a3 ! , while 7 . . . .i.b4+ 8 lLlbd2 d5 9 e5 lLlfd7 10 0-0 a5 1 1 J:[d1 .i.a6 12 lLlfl .i.xd3 13 J:[xd3 lLlc6 14 lLlg5 ;!; was played in Hiibner-Larsen, Bu­gojno 1978) 7 0-0 (7 e5 lLld5 8 dxc5 .i.xc5 9 lLlg5 lLlc6 10 f4 .i.e7 1 1 lL!e4 :c8 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 lLlbd2 b5 !? 14 lLlf3 a6 � Van Mil-Rogers, Tilburg 1993) 7 . . . lLlc6 8 dxc5 bxc5 9 e5 lLld5 10 c4 lLldb4 1 1 .i.e4 J:[b8 12 a3 lLla6 I 3 lLlc3 ± Florian-I.Polgar, Hungary 1974.

Returning to the position after 4 .. . lL!f6 (D).

5 'fiel This queen move would be a

strong plan if it did not allow Black a tactical finesse to get his knight to b4 and exchange White's d3 bishop. Therefore a critical continuation is 5 lLlrl2!?:

a) 5 . . . e6 6 lLlgf3 lLlc6 is slow: af­ter 7 a3, 7 . . . d6 8 0-0 .i.e7 9 'fie2 'fic7 10 :e1 h6 1 1 b4 g5 12 bxc5 dxc5 13 lLlb3 0-0-0 14 dxc5 bxc5 15 .i.a6 ± was Vaganian-Regan, Mexico 1977 . Sometimes Black plays these posi­tions like a French Defence, e.g. 7 . . . d5 8 e5 c4 9 .i.c2 lLld7 10 lLlfl h6 1 1 lLlg3 b5 12 0-0 lLlb6 13 lLlh5 ;!; Borge-Conquest, Politiken Cup 1992. 7 0-0 !? .i.e7 8 J:[e1 'fic7 9 a3 d5 10 e5 lLld7 1 1 b4 c4 12 .i.c2 0-0-0 1 3 lLlfl J:[dg8? 14 lLlg5 ! .i.xg5 1 5 .i.xg5 lLlf8 16 f4 ± was Torre-Larsen, Ge­neva 1977.

b) 5 ... cxd4 6 cxd4 lLlc6 (D) and here:

b1) 7 lLlgf3 lLlb4! 8 .i.c4!? (8 .i.b1 .i.a6 ! is clearly fine for Black, e.g. 9 lLle5 e6 10 a3 lLlc6 1 1 lLldf3 'fic7 12 .i.d3 .i.xd3 13 11fxd3 d6 14 lLlxc6 11fxc6 15 lLld2 .i.e7 ; Coupet­Minasian, Cannes 1992) 8 . . . b5 ! (in

order to decoy the bishop; 8 ... lC!xe4?! 9 lC!xe4 .txe4 10 .txt7 + �xf7 1 1 lC!g5+ and 1 2 lC!xe4) 9 .txb5 1Wa5 (9 . . . lC!xe4 looks riskier, though after 10 0-0 lC!f6 1 1 1Wa4 e6 12 lC!e5 a6 13 .te2 .te7 14 lC!df3 0-0 15 .td2 a5 Black had a fine game in Mulder­Grooten, Leeuwarden 1995) 10 .tc4 lC!xe4 1 1 0-0 l2Jd6 12 a3 li:)xc4 13 li:)xc4 11fa6 = Handoko-Miles, Syd­ney 1991 and Sevillano-Wang Zili, Penang 1991 .

b2) 7 lt)e2!? (from here the knight can always leap to c3, cutting down Black's play on the c-file) and then:

b21) 7 . . . e6 transposes to Ermen­kov-Sabovi6, Jurmala 1978: 8 a3 .te7 9 0-0 0-0 10 b4 d6 1 1 .i.b2 :c8 12 li:)g3 li:)d7 13 f4 with a looming kingside attack.

b22) Instead 7 . . . g6 8 0-0 .tg7 9 a3 0-0 10 :e1 d6 1 1 :b1 e6 12 li:)f3 e5 13 d5 lt)e7 14 li:)g3 ; was Sma­gin-Miles, Arhus 1993.

b23) 7 ... lC!b4 8 .tb1 .ta6 de­serves more attention, although 9 li:)f3 1Wc7 10 li:)c3 e6 1 1 a3 lt)c6 12 .tg5 lC!h5 1 3 d5 li:)a5 14 e5 was clearly good for White in Schmitt­diel-Grooten, Wijk aan Zee 1993.

b24) 7 ... e5 8 d5 li:)b4 9 .tb1 .tc5 10 0-0 (10 lC!c3 !? 0-0 1 1 a3 lC!a6 12 0-0 li:)c7 13 .td3 li:)fe8? ! 14 lt:)f3 1We7 15 b4 .td6 16 .tg5 f6 17 .te3 g6 18 :e1 ! with advantage, Smagin­Milov, Iraklion 1993; Smagin gives 1 o . . . a5 1 1 li:)b3 lC!a6 12 0-0 intend­ing lC!xc5 and f4 ;!;) 10 . . . a5 1 1 li:)f3 ( 1 1 a3 li:)a6 12 li:)g3 h5 !? 13 lt)c4 li:)g4 14 li:)f5 1Wf6 15 h3 g6 led to great complications in Kharlov-Mi­nasian, USSR 1991) 1 1 . . .'ili'e7 12 a3

Other 2nd Moves for Black 227

li:)a6 13 li:)g3 g6 14 .td3 .td6 15 b3 li:)g8 16 :e 1 h5 17 h3 ; Rausis­Wang Zili, Copenhagen 1995.

5 ••• cxd4 6 cxd4 lDc6 (D)

7 lC!f3 Very complex is 7 d5 !? li:)b4

(7 . . . li:)e5 !? 8 .tb5 a6 9 .ta4 e6 10 f4 'ili'c7 1 1 li:)c3 �4 1 2 li:)f3 .tb4 13 0-0 0-0 14 dxe6 .txc3 15 bxc3 lC!xe4 16 .tc2 f5 =F Castellano-Kurajica, Las Palmas 1994 but White can im­prove) and here:

a) 8 �3?! li:)xd3+ (8 . . . e6 9 li:)f3 exd5 10 e5 lC!e4 1 1 lC!xd5 oo Sowray­Rogers, London 1988) 9 'ili'xd3 e6 10 d6 :c8 1 1 li:)ge2 b5 12 0-0 b4 13 lC!b5 .txe4 oo David-Murey, France 1993 .

b) 8 .i.b5 !? a6 9 .ta4 a5 10 �3 e5 (10 . . . .ta6 1 1 .tb5 .txb5 12 li:)xb5 'it'c8 13 li:)c3 e6 14 .tg5 .te7 15 :c1 1Wb7 16 li:)f3 0-0 17 d6 .td8 18 0-0 ; Novoselsky-Veli�kovi6, Yu­goslav Ch 1992 or 10 . . . e6 1 1 li:)b5 !? li:)a6 12 .tg5 .tb4+ 13 �fl e5 14 lC!f3 0-0 15 li:)xe5 :e8 16 li:)g4 .txd5 17 .txf6 Van Mil-Kiiser, Bun­desliga 1993) 1 1 li:)f3 1Wb8 12 0-0 lC!a6 13 .tg5 .te7 14 lC!d2 lC!c5 15 .tb5 0-0 16 �4 lC!xd5 17 exd5

228 Other 2nd Moves for Black

.ixg5 18 1i'xe5 i Van Mil-Johansen, Wijk aan 'ZeA! 1993. Food for thought.

7 •.• lbb4! 8 lbc3 lbxd3+ 9 1i'xd3 e6 10 .ig5 (D)

B

The position is roughly equal. An alternative was 10 0-0!? .ib4 1 1 l:le1 (1 1 e5 lbd5 12 .tg5 .te7 1 3 .txe7 'lfxe7 14 lbd2 0-0 15 f4 f6 16 lbce4 fxe5 17 fxe5 l:lf4 18 lbd6 .ic6 = Chandler-Speelman, British Ch 1976) 1 l . . .h6 ( 1 1 . . .l:lc8 12 .id2 .ixc3 13 .ixc3 0-0 14 .ib4 d6 15 lbd2 with a slight advantage for White, Van Wij­gerden-B.Ivanovic, Plovdiv 1983) 12 a3? ! ( 12 .id2 !?) 12 . . . .txc3 13 bxc3 'lfc7 14 e5 lbd5 15 c4 lbe7 16 .id2?! l:lc8 17 l:lac1 .ia6 and due to White's faulty play his c-pawn is falling, Hmadi-Romero, Novi Sad OL 1990.

10 •• .h6 10 . . . .te7 !? 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 l:lac1 d6

1 3 l:lfel a6 14 a4 h6 15 .id2? (15 .ih4) 15 . . . d5 16 e5 lbe4 17 .if4 l:lc8 18 lbd2 lbxc3 19 l:lxc3 1i'd7 =F L.Fernandez-Rubinetti, Buenos Ai­res 1993.

ll .ih4 1 1 .txf6?! 'li'xf6 12 0-0 .ib4 13

llJd2 0-0 14 a3 .ixc3 15 'li'xc3 l:lfc8

16 'ifd3 l:lc7 17 l:lac 1 l:lac8 + Tra­bert-Miles, lraldio 1993.

11 • . . g5? Once again the situation after

1 1 . . ..ie7 !? is not so clear. 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 l:lac1 d5 14 eS lbe4 15 .ixe7 ikxe7 16 lbd2 lbxc3 17 l:lxc3 l:lfc8 was marginally more comfortable for White in Engelbert-Schlager, Ger­many 1989, due to Black's bishop being restricted by his own pawns. However, after 18 l:tfc1 'li'b4 ! (gain­ing counterplay against the b-pawn) 19 l:lxc8+ ( 19 b3 !?) 19 . . . l:lxc8 20 l:lxc8+ .ixc8 21 ikc3 ikxc3 22 bxc3 Black should not have lost the ensu­ing endgame.

12 .ig3 .ib4 13 lbd2 lbh5 14 .teS? (14 a3 .tf8 15 d5 followed by 0-0-0 ± Stean) 14 ••• l:lg8 (preferable is 14 . . . f6 ! 15 ikf3 fxe5 16 ikxh5+ �e7 17 dxe5 ikc7 18 0-0 1Wxe5 + Htinerkopf-Schlemermeyer, Bundes­liga 1983) 15 0-0 lbf4 16 'li'b5? aS + 17 'li'a4 .ia6 18 l:lfe1 lbd3 19 l:le3 lbxe5 20 dxeS 'li'c7 21 a3 .icS 22 l:lh3 g4! 23 l:th5 .ixf'2+! 24 �h1 (24 cJtxf2 ikc5+) 24 ... l:lg5 25 l:lxh6 'li'xeS 26 g3 l:lc8 27 l:ld1 l:lc7 28 cJtg2 .id4 29 lbdb1 l:lc4 30 'li'c2 .ib7 31 lbd2 .ixc3! 32 lbxc4 .txe4+ 0-1

Game 70 Stripunsky - Maksimenko

Kherson 1990

1 e4 c5 2 c3 eS!? A number of Russian players have

experimented with this line. 2 . . . e5 is not as anti-positional as it first ap­pears, as positions often resemble those of a Lopez or Two Knight's

Defence, in which the move ... c5 is often played at some stage.

3 �3 lDc6 (D)

4 i.c4 Most natural, since 4 i.b5 gives a

Ruy Lopez type of position where Black's pawn is not badly placed on c5 very early: 4 . . . lLlf6 5 0-0 lLlxe4 6 l:.el lLld6 7 i.xc6?! dxc6 8 l:.xe5+?! i.e7 9 l:.xc5 f6 ! 10 l:.h5 i.g4 1 1 l:.h4 h5 12 h3 g5 1 3 hxg4 gxh4 14 lLlxh4 hxg4 15 'ii'xg4 'ii'd7 + Vorotnikov­Filipenko, USSR 1987 or better 4 . . . a6 !? 5 i.a4 (5 i.xc6 dxc6 6 lLlxe5 'ii'e7 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 lLlf3 'ii'xe4+ 10 i.e3 i.b4+ 1 1 lLlc3 lLle7 = Ardeleanu-Sandu, Romanian Ch 1 992) 5 . . . b5 6 i.c2 'ii'c7 7 0-0 d6 8 l:.e1 g6 9 a4 l:.b8 10 d3 i.g7 1 1 i.b3 lLlge7 = Smagin-Lorenz, NIEstved 1988.

Instead 4 d4 !? can be very sharp: 4 . . . exd4 (Filipenko prefers this to 4 . . . cxd4 when he feels 5 i.c4 !? is more dangerous - although this con­tradicts his view that after 4 i.c4, 4 . . . 'ii'c7 discourages 5 d4 on account of 5 . . . cxd4 - editor's note) 5 cxd4 (after 5 i.c4 lLlf6, 6 lLlg5 can be met by 6 . . . lLle5) 5 . . . cxd4 and here:

Other 2nd Moves for Black 229

a) 6 lLlxd4 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 (7 lLlxc6 dxc6 8 'ii'xd8+ �xd8 = has also been seen a few times) 7 . . . i.b4 8 lLlxc6 (8 i.c4 !? 0-0 9 0-0 i.xc3 10 bxc3 lLlxe4 1 1 i.a3 d6 12 l:.e1 Q) was an interesting pawn offer in D.Lawson­C.Duncan, Dublin Z 1 993) 8 . . . dxc6 (8 . . . bxc6 9 i.d3 0-0 10 0-0 is less clear) 9 'ii'xd8+ �xd8 10 i.g5 h6 1 1 0-0-0+ ( 1 1 i.xf6+ gxf6 is nothing) 1 l . . .�e7 12 i.h4 (l2i.d2 i.e6 with an equal position, Trabert-Gallia­mova, Adelaide worn jr W ch 1988) 1 2 . . . g5 1 3 i.g3 i.e6 with equality in the game Nemirovski-Chevallier, Val Thorens 1989.

b) 6 i.c4 lLlf6 (7 ... i.b4+! ?) 7 0-0 i.c5 (this line is very similar to the Max Lange Attack of the Two Knight's Defence, with the differ­ence being that here the pawns on c2 and c7 are absent; it is not clear that this necessarily favours Black -whilst his d-pawn is passed his king is more exposed if he castles queen­side) 8 e5 d5 9 exf6 dxc4 10 l:.e1+ (10 fxg7 l:.g8 and now 11 'ii'c2 !? l:.xg7 12 'ii'xc4 was an original idea in Lobianidze-Nadanian, Erevan 1 996, but it fell just short after 12 ... i.d6 13 l:.e 1 + i.e6 14 i.g5 'ii'a5 15 lLlbd2 l:.xg5 16 l:.xe6+ fxe6 17 'ii'xe6+ i.e?; instead after 11 .1g5 i.e7 12 i.xe7, 12 ... 'ii'xe7? 13 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 14 'ii'xd4, as in Sibarevic-Pav­lovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 992, is obvi­ously good for White, but 12 ... �xe7! is the right move by analogy with the Max Lange) lO . . . i.e6 1 1 lLlg5 'ii'd5 12 lLlc3 'iff5 13 lLlce4 0-0-0 14 fxg7 (14 lLlxe6 fxe6 1 5 g4 'ifd5 16 fxg7 l:.hg8 17 lLlf6 'ifd6 18 i.h6 d3 19

230 Other 2nd Moves for Black

li:ixg8 l:bg8 20 1i'f3 with a distinct advantage for White, Sivokho-Ono­prienko, USSR Cht 1988 but again 15 . . . 1Ve5 is correct by analogy with the Max Lange) 14 . . . l:r.hg8 15 li:ixc5 1Wxc5 1 6 l:r.xe6? ( 16 li:ixe6 fxe6 17 1Wg4 1i'f5 18 1Wxf5 exf5 favours Black, In.Meyer-Elsen, Germany 1 989) 16 . . . fxe6 17 li:ixe6 1i'd5 18 li:ixd8 l:r.xg7 ! 19 f3 �xd8 =!= Vorot­nikov-Filipenko, USSR 1987. More tests are needed.

4 ... 1Wc7!? This is Alexander Filipenko's in­

vention to discourage White from an early d4 (as the c4 bishop will come under potential attack from Black's queen). In addition the dB-square is freed for Black's knight to defend in case White should begin an assault on f7. Instead 4 ... i.e7 is too passive, and Black is asking for trouble after 4 . . . 1i'b6?1 5 0-0 li:if6 6 d4 (Svesh­nikov-Khenkin, Moscow 1989) or 4 . . . 1Wf6? ! 5 d4! (V.L.Ivanov-Iva­nets, Moscow 1995).

After the old move 4 ... li:if6 Black faces sacrificial dangers similar to some variations of the Two Knight's Defence: 5 li:ig5 ! d5 6 exd5 li:ixd5 (6 . . . li:ia5 7 i.b5+ i.d7 8 'ife2 and then 8 . . . i.xb5 9 1Wxb5+ lbd7 10 d3 a6 1 1 'ifa4 b5 12 'ife4 ± was Wolff­Andonov, St John 1988; Black can try 8 . . . i.d6, as in Martinenko-Luk­ovni.k:ov, Belovechensk 1988, but White is better) 7 d4 (7 1i'f3 1Wxg5 8 i.xd5 1Wg6!? is possible for Black, but simplest for White is the finesse 7 'ifh5 ! g6 8 'iff3 .te6 9 li:ixe6 fxe6 10 d3 i.e7 1 1 li:id2 ;!; Okhotnik­Kapetanovi6, Romania 1988 and 1 1

i.h6 ± Dolgov-Podbolotov, Corr 1991) 7 . . . cxd4 (7 ... i.e7!?) 8 lbxf7!? (or 8 1Wb3 .., when Black must choose between 8 ... f6 and 8 ... i.e6 9 li:ixe6 fxe6 10 1i'xb7 l:r.c8) 8 .. . �xf7 9 1i'f3+ �e6 10 0-0 lba5 (D) and here White can try:

a) 1 1 i.d3 1i'f6 12 1We4 li:if4 1 3 b4 li:ixd3 1 4 1Wxd3 lbc6 ( 1 4 . . . �f7!? 15 bxa5 i.d6?! 16 cxd4 exd4 17 lbd2 i.f5 1 8 li:ie4 i.xe4 19 1Wxe4 ± Shteinikov-Limarenko, USSR 1988, but 15 ... i.f5 !? aa) 15 b5 lbe7 16 1Wc4+ �d7 (16 . . . �f5?! 17 f4 e4 18 g4+! �xg4 19 f5 ± and Black's king should not escape White's attack, Shteini.k:ov-Isaev, USSR 1987) 17 cxd4 1i'e6 18 1Wa4 lbd5 19 l:r.el e4 20 lbd2 with a continuing attack for the sacrificed material, Nemtsev-Isaev, USSR 1987.

b) 1 1 i.g5 ! ? 1i'd6 12 g4 (?! -Burgess; 12 .td3 or 12 i.b5 are al­ternatives) 12 . . . 1Wd7? ( 12 ... 'ifc6 and if 13 i.d3, then 1 3 . . . li:if4 !? Nunn, e.g. 14 .te4 W+!) 13 i.d3 1i'f7 14 i.f5+ �d6 15 cxd4 i.xf5 16 dxe5+ �xe5 17 gxf5 lbc6 18 l:r.el+ �d6 19 l:r.e6+ �c5 20 i.e3+ lbxe3 21 1Wxe3+ �b5 22 1Wd3+ �b6 23 1i'b3+ �c7

24 l:lxc6+ and White wins, Evans­Saint Amant, 1 847 (note that the in­itial move-order was 1 e4 e5 2 c3 c5 3 llJf3 llJc6 4 i.c4 llJf6 5 d4 cxd4 6 llJg5 d5, etc.).

Even with the Captain Evans game the sacrifice on f7 looks murky, so 7 'ii'h5 ! is the safest route to a guaran­teed edge.

5 0-0 Sharpest. 5 llJg5 llJd8 6 'ti'b3 llJe6

is equal, while 5 'ii'b3 is also met by 5 . . . llJd8 (and not 5 . . . llJa5?! 6 i.xf7+ �e7 7 'ii'd5 llJf6 8 'ii'xe5+ 'ii'xe5 9 llJxe5 d6 10 llJc4 ! lvanchuk). The quiet alternative is 5 d3 llJf6 (D) and here:

w

a) 6 llJg5 llJd8 7 f4 (inaccurate in this position) 7 . . . exf4 8 0-0 i.d6 9 llJa3 a6 10 'ii'e1 llJe6 1 1 llJf3 llJg4 =!= Karaklajic-Krnic, Yugoslavia 1989. However reasonable was 7 'ti'b3 d6 8 f4 h6 9 llJf3.

b) 6 i.g5 i.e? 7 llJbd2 (7 i.xf6!? i.xf6 8 llJbd2 l:lb8 9 a4 d6 10 llJfl i.e6 1 1 llJe3 0-0 12 h4!? 'ii'd8 13 g4 a6 14 g5 i.e? 15 l2Jh2 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 i.d5 'ii'd7 18 l2Jhg4 gave kingside pressure in Schmittdiel­Lutz, Altensteig 199 1 but capturing

Other 2nd Moves for Black 231

on f6 without provocation gives an odd impression) 7 . . . d6 8 l2Jf1 i.e6 9 llJe3 0-0 10 0-0 �h8 1 1 a3 l:lab8 12 b4 b5 13 i.a2 l:lfc8 14 bxc5 dxc5 15 llJd5 'it'd8 16 llJxe7 'ti'xe7 17 i.d5 'ti'd6 18 i.xc6 l:lxc6 19 i.xf6 gxf6 20 d4 cxd4 21 cxd4 exd4 lf2. 1f2 Tiviakov-Krasenkov, Polanica Zdroj 1995.

c) 6 0-0 i.e? and now: c1) 7 llJg5 !? (playing for f4)

7 . . . 0-0 (after 7 . . . llJd8 8 f4 h6 White does not have to give up the f-pawn: 9 llJh3 exf4?! 10 llJxf4 d6 1 l l2Jh5 ! ± Sveshnikov-Grosar, Torey 1990) 8 f4 h6 9 llJxf7 !? l:lxf7 10 i.xf7+ �xf7 1 1 fxe5 'ti'xe5 12 i.f4 'ti'e6 13 llJa3 �g8 14 llJb5 "" as in Svesh­nikov-Sherbakov, Cheliabinsk 1989 and P.Stimpson-M.Johnson, Corr 1991 .

c2) A better try for an edge is the modest 7 a4, followed by 8 llJbd2 or 8 llJa3. Then White plays a standard strategy of manoeuvring his queen 's knight round to e3 to control the d5-square.

c3) 7 i.b3 is also common idea in these types of positions as a pro­phylactic measure against . . . llJa5.

s ••• tt:Jr6 On 5 . . . i.e7 possible is 6 llJg5 !?

i.xg5 7 'ti'h5 d5 8 exd5 i.f4 9 dxc6 tDf6 10 11t'e2 0-0 1 1 cxb7 i.xb7 12 d3 ;!; Smagin-Brendel, Dortmund 1993.

6 llJg5 6 l:lel i.e? (6 . . . d6 7 h3 i.e? 8 a4

0-0 9 tba3 llJa5 10 i.a2 i.d7 1 1 d4 a6 12 b4 cxb4 13 cxb4 llJc6 14 b5 ;!; Maciejewski-Levin, Polish Cht 1990) 7 d4!? (of course White can continue

232 Other 2nd Moves for Black

slowly with 7 d3 or 7 .i.b3; also 7 ll:la3 a6 8 lllc2 0-0 9 d4 d6 10 dxe5 dxe5 l l ll:le3 ll:la5 12 llld5 lllxd5 13 .i.xd5 .i.g4 14 h3 .i.h5 15 g4!? .i.g6 16 h4 h5 17 ll:lg5 .i.xg5 18 .i.xg5 hxg4 19 'ii'xg4 ;t; Berelovich-Beshu­kov, Azov 1993) 7 . . . d6 (7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 ll:lxd4 9 ll:lxd4 is risky for Black: 9 . . . 1i'xc4 10 lllf5 or 9 . . . exd4 10 e5 1i'xc4 1 1 exf6 gxf6 12 b3 ! 1i'c6 13 .i.a3 d6 14 llld2 l:g8 15 ll:le4 .i.e6 16 1i'xd4 with an attack, S .Arkell­Thorsson, Reykjavik 1990) 7 . . . d6 8 lLla3 0-0 9 dxc5? ! dxc5 10 .i.d5 .i.g4 1 1 h3 .i.h5 ; Blatny-Filipenko, Ka­towice 1992.

6 ll:lg5 lbd8 7 f4!? (D) 7 Wfb3 llle6 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4

ll:lxd4 10 .i.xf7+ �e7 1 1 'ii'b4+ d6 12 ll:lc3 h6 13 lLld.S+ ll:lxd5 14 .i.xd5 hxg5 15 .i.xg5+ �e8 + Ng-Fili­penko, Sydney 1988 or 7 d3 h6 8 ll:lf3 d6 = Sariego-Guerra, Cuban Ch 1991 .

7 ••• exf4 If 7 . . . ll:le6 then 8 .i.xe6 dxe6 9

fxe5 'ii'xe5 10 d4 ;t; M.Maric-Arak­hamia, Biel 1990. On 7 . . . h6 8 lllf3 exf4 9 e5 Black landed in trouble af­ter the continuation 9 . . . ll:lg8 10 'ii'e2 ll:le7 1 1 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 lllg6 13 ll:lc3 llle6 14 �h1 .i.b4 15 llld5 ± in

B

Kiik-Galliamova. St Petersburg 1996 but 9 ... lllh7 is less clear, for example 10 'ii'e2 lllg5 1 1 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 lllxf3+ 13 l:xf3 ll:le6 Angelov-Del­chev, Bankia 1991 .

8 e5 dS 9 .i.b5+ Also dangerous for Black is 9

exf6 dxc4 10 d4 cxd4?! 1 1 .i.xf4 .i.d6 12 fxg7 l:g8 13 .i.xd6 1i'xd6 14 ll:le4 1-0 de Armas-T.Hernandez, Cuba 1991 .

9 ... lbd7 10 d4 .i.e7 ll .i.xf4 1fb6 12 .i.a4 cxd4 13 cxd4 1fxb2 14 e6 fxe6 15 .i.e5 .i.xgS 16 1i'h5+ lllf7 17 1i'xf7+ �d8 18 1fxg7 .i.e3+ 19 �b1 l:e8 20 .i.f6+ �c7 21 Wfg3+ �b6 22 1fxe3 1fxa1 23 1i'b3+ 1-0.

Not totally clear by any means, but White has scored several quick victories in this aggressive 6 ll:lg5 line.

Index of Variations

1 e4 c5 2 c3 (D)

A: 2 . . . d5 B: 2 . . . lltl"6 C: 2.../l)f6 3 e5 00 4 d4 cxd4 5 00 D: 2 ... others

A) 2 ••. dS 3 exdS 'iVxdS

3 ... /l)f6 8 4 d4 (D)

B

4 .. . g6 222 4 .. . e5 9 4 .. . cxd4 14 5 cxd4 lbc6 (5 ... e5 9) 6 /l)f3 - see 4 .. . lbc6 5 /l)f3 cxd4 6 cxd4

Al: 4 .. . lbc6 A2: 4 ... /l)f6 A3: 4 . . . e6

Al) 4 ••• /l)c6 s 00

5 dxc5 37 S ... cxd4

5 . . . /l)f6 6 i.e3 e5 20 5 . . . e5 9 s ... i.g4 6 i.e2 37 6 ••• cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 M:

B

8 . . .'ii'd6 39 8 . . .'ii'a5 41 8 . . . 1i'd7 39 8 . . . i.b4 39

6 cxd4 (DJ

234 Index of Variations

6 ••. eS 6 . . . .i.g4 7 lbc3 .i.xf3 (7 . . . 'ifa5 16) 8 gxf3 'ifxd4 9 •xd4 lbxd4 10 lbb5 17 6 . . . e6 7 lbc3 15

7 lbc3 .i.b4 8 .i.d2

6 lbbd2 33 6 ••• e6 7 h3

7 0-0 3 1 7 ... .i.hS 8 0-0 29

8 .i.e2 10 A3) 8 •.• .i.xc3 9 .i.xc3 e4

9 . . . exd4 10 10 lbeS lbxeS 11 dxeS lbe7

12 .. e2 1 1 12 .i.e2 1 1 12 .. a4+ 1 1 1 2 .. c2 1 1

Al) 4 ••• ll)f6 S lbf3 (D)

5 ll)a3 20 5 .i.e3 20

B

s ... s ... lL)c(; 19:

6 dxc5 20 6 .i.e3 20 6 lba3 20

6 .i.e2 6 .. a4+ 26

.i.g4

4 •.• e6 s lbf3

5 .i.e3 44 5 ll)a3 44

S ••• ll)f6 (D) s ... lL)c(; 6 .i.e2 (6 ltla3 44; 6 .i.e3 cxd4 7 cxd4 ll)f6 8 lbc3 .. d6 80) 6 ••. ll)f6 7 0-0:

7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 .i.e7 9 ll)c3: 9 . . ... d8 49 9 . . ... a5 49 9 . . ... d6 50

7 . . . .i.e7: 8 c4 47 8 .i.e3 47

w

6 .i.d3 6 .i.e2 55 6 .i.e3 cxd4 (6 . . . lbc6 78) 7 cxd4 lbc6 8 lbc3 .. d6 80 (8 . . ... d8 79) 9 a3 .i.e7 10 .i.d3 82 6 lDa3 S7:

6 ..... d8 60

6 . . . J.e7 57 6 . . . a6 57 6 . . . cxd4 7 lClb5 58

6 ... lbc6 6 ... J.e7 7 0-0 (7 dxc5 62; 7 J.e3 63) 7 ... 0-0 8 c4 63

7 0-0 cxd4 7 . . . J.d7 65 7 ••• J.e7:

8 c4 65 8 1i'e2 67

8 cxd4 J.e7 9 lClc3 (D)

B

9 . . . 1i'd6 75 9 . . . 1i'd8 7 1

B)

4 g3 93

1 e4 2 c3 3 eS

Bl: 4 lClf3 B2: 4 d4

Bl) 4 lC!f3 S J.c4

5 M 85 s ...

c5 lClf6 lDd5

lC!c6

lClb6 (D)

Index of Variations 235

6 J.b3 6 J.e2 86

B2)

6 ••• 7 exd6 8 0-0 87

dS 1i'xd6

4 d4 cxd4 (D)

S cxd4 5 J.c4 91 s 1i'xd4 98 s ... e6 6 lClf3 (6 J.c4 98) 6 ••. �6 (6 . . . b6 101) 7 1i'e4:

7 . . . d6 101 7 .. . lC!de7 101 7 .. . 1i'c7 102 7 . . .f5 8 1i'e2 106

B21: 5 . . . e6 B22: 5 . . . d6

236 Index of Variations

B21) 5 .•• e6 6 lDf3 b6 (D)

6 ..• d6 109 7 a3 (7 i.c4 1 10): 7 ... .td7 1 1 3 7 . . . lDc6 1 10 7 .. . .te7 1 13 7 . . . lDd7 1 1 3

7 lDc3 7 .td3 1 17 7 lDbd2 1 17 7 a3 1 17

7 ... lDxc3 7 . . . .tb7 1 19

8 bxc3 'ikc7 8 . . . .ta6 120 8 . . . .te7 120 8 . . . .tb7 120

9 .td2 9 .te2 121

9 •.. d6 9 ... .tb7 10 .td3 d6 1 1 0-0 lDd7 123 9 . . . .te7 122

10 .td3 10 .tbS+ 122

10 ... lDd7 11 0-0

1 1 exd6 122 11 ... .tb7

1 1 . . . dxe5 122 After 1 I . ...tb7:

12 l:.e1 125 12 .tf4 123 12 lDg5 123

B22) 5 ••• d6 6 rn

6 .tc4 lDb6: 7 .tbS+ 88 7 .tb3 88

6 ••• lDc6 7 .tc4 (D)

7 lDc3 129 7 .te2 129 7 exd6 130

B

7 ..• lDb6 7 ... dxe5 133 7 ••• e6 135 8 0-0 .te7 9 'ike2 0-0:

10 lDc3 139 10 "ii'e4 137

8 .tb5 8 .tb3 143

8 . . . dxe5 9 lDxe5 .td7

10 lDc3 147 10 lDxd7 149 10 .txc6 149

C)

B

1 e4 c5 2 c3 lDf6 3 eS lDdS 4 d4 cxd4 s lbf3 (D)

s ... lDc6 5 . . . d6 6 i.c4 158 s ... e6 6 cxd4 d6 (6 . . . b6 1 16; 6 ... lbc6 154) 7 lbc3 (7 a3 109; 7 i.c4 154):

B

7 . . . dxe5 155 7 . . . lbc6 155 7 . . . lbxc3 8 bxc3 156

6 i.c4 lDb6 7 i.b3 (D)

7 ... dS 7 . .. d6 159

Index of Variations 237

7 .. . dxc3 159 7 . . . g6 161

8 exd6 8 . . . dxc3 159 8 ... e6 159

9 0-0 9 lba3 165

9 ••• 9 . . . i.f5 168 9 . . . g6 165 9 . . . e6 165

C1: 10 lba3 C2: 10 i.xe6

C1) 10 lDa3 (D)

10 ...

1Wxd6 (D)

i.e6

dxc3

238 Index of Variations

10 . . . a6 166 10 • • • i.xb3 181 11 1i'xb3:

1 1 . . .1i'd5 183 1 l. . .e6 182

After 10 ... dxc3:

C2)

1 1 1i'e2 187 1 1 ltlb5 185

10 i.xe6 1i'xe6 11 ltlxd4 (D)

11 ... ltlxd4 1 1 . . .1i'd7 171

12 1i'xd4 12 cxd4 172

12 ... :ds 13 1i'b4

Others 173 13 ... 1i'e2

14 ltld2 174 14 i.d2 176 14 i.e3 177 14 1i'g3 174 14 b3 174

D) 1 e4 2 c3

2 . . . 1i'a5 221 2 . . . g6 222

cS

2 . . . b6 224 2 .. . e5 228

Dl: 2 . . . d6 D2: 2 . . . e6

D1) 2 ... d6 3 d4 lLlr6 (D)

4 i.d3 4 f3 206 4 dxc5 lLlc6 209 After 4 i.d3 (D):

B

4 . . . lLlc6 213 4 . . . cxd4 216 4 . . . g6 216 4 . . . e5 214 4 . . . 1i'c7 214

D2) 2 .•• 3 d4 4 exd5

5 lDC3 5 .i.e3 201

5 .•.

e6 d5 exd5 (D)

Index of Variations 239

5 .. . .i.d6 192 5 . . . a6 192 5 ... c!Df6 192 After 5 ... lbc6 (D):

6 .i.b5 196 6 .i.e2 196 6 .i.e3 199