• Author / Uploaded
• ioangely

Citation preview

THE OPEN SPANISH

CADOGAN CHESS SERIES Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov Editor: Andrew Kinsman Russian Series Editor: Ken Neat Other openings titles for the competitive player include: Vl adimir Bagirov English Opening: Classical and Indian English Opening: Symmetrical Michael B asman The Killer Grob The New St George

Drazen Marovic Play the King's Indian Play the Queen's Gambit David Norwood The Modern Benoni Lyev Polugayevsky The Sicilian Labyrinth (2 volumes)

John Donaldson and Jeremy Silman Accelerated Dragons

Ivan Sokolov Nimzo-Indian: Classical Variation

Svetozar Gli goric The Nimzo-Indian Defence

Shaun Taulbut The New Bogo-Indian

For a complete catalogue of CADOGAN CHESS books (which in­ cludes the Pergamon Chess and Maxwell Macmillan Chess lists) please write to: Cadogan Books pIc, London House, Parkgate Road, London SWU 4NQ. Tel: (0 171) 738 1961 Fax: (0171) 924 549 1

THE OPEN SPANISH MIKHAIL KRASENKOV

CADOGAN CHESS LONDON, NEW YORK

Cadogan Books Distribution UK/EUROPE/AUSTRALASWASWAFRICA

Distribution: Grantham Book Services Ltd, Isaac Newton Way, Alma Park Industrial Estate, Grantham, Lincs NG3 1 9SD Tel: (01476) 67421 Fax: (01476) 590223 USA/CANADA/LATIN AMERICA/JAPAN Distribution: Paramount Distribution Center, Front and Brown Streets, Riverside, New Jersey 08075 USA Tel: (609) 461 6500 Fax (609) 764 9122

First edition published 1995 by Cadogan Books pic, London House, Parkgate Road, London SW114NQ Copyright @ 1995 Mikhail Krasenkov

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, me­ chanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing In Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 185744 141 9

Typesetting by ChessSetter. Printed at Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

Contents Symbols and Abbreviations

6

Bibliography

6

Introduction: The Basic Strategy' of the Open Spanish

7

1 Turning to One Side (early deviations)

11

2 So Many Ways... (9 a4, 9 .te3 etc.)

20

3 Made by Karpov (9 lDbd2)

25

4 In an Antique Shop (9 'ii'e2)

37

5 With Germanic Consistency (9 c3 lDc5)

50

6 The Discussion of Decades (9 c3 .tc5)

69

7 From Alekhine to Dolmatov (9 c3 .te710 .te3 etc.)

94

8 The Main Road (9 c3 .te710 lDbd2)

111

Theoretical Conclusions (and Index of Variations)

119

Play Like a Grandmaster!

122

Symbo ls and Abbreviations ! !! ? ?? !? ?! (D) corr

a good move an excellent move a bad move a serious error a move deserving attention a dubious move diagram follows correspondence game

Bibl i ography ChessBase Magazine, Hamburg, 1984-1995. Ekspress-shakhmaty, Moscow, 1991. Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (vol 2), Belgrade, 198 1. Keres P., Suetin A, Nei I. , Spanisch bis Franzosisch, 3 Aufl., Berlin, 1974.

Malchev A, Ispanskaya parliya (vol. 2), Sofia, Meditsina i Fizkul'tura, 1981. New In Chess Yearbook, Alkmaar, 1986-1995. Sahovski Informator (vols. 1-6 1 ) , Belgrade, 1966-1994. Shakhmaty v SSSR, Moscow, 1936-1991. Shakhmatnyj biulleten, Moscow, 1955-1990. Shakhmatnyj vestnik, Moscow, 1992-1993. Suetin AS., Ispanskaya partiya, Moscow, Fizkul'tura i sport, 1982. The Chess Herald, Moscow, 1994-1995.

Introduction: The Basi c Strategy of the Open Span ish Dear Reader, I am delighted that you have cho­ sen this book in preference to a number of monographs attrac­ tively named 'Winning with . . . ' . Perhaps you have been disap­ pointed by the strange fact that the openings described in them, instead of leading to victory, often bring rather the opposite result. So now you are searching for a solid (especially for Black) , posi­ tionally well-founded and at the same time active system, a good remedy for meeting both higher­ rated and lower-rated players . I hope this book will meet your ex­ pectations. A hundred years ago players had no doubt as to Black's best re­ ply to 1 e4. Everybody knew the basic principles of the opening strategy: develop pieces and fight for the centre! If somebody had asserted that the Sicilian, French or Caro-Kann Defence gave Black better chances to win than 1 . . .e5 (and had published a book about it) he would have been considered rather less than sane! Things have changed in the course of the 20th Century. The ideas of the hypermodern school gave proof of the ' diversionary'

strategy. Nowadays grandmas­ ters choose openings according to their tastes. However, even such a loyal adherent of the Sicilian as GM Sveshnikov has been forced to admit: 'Well, 1 . . .c5 is the second best reply to 1 e4, certainly best is 1 . . .e5. ' So, let us consider the following sequence, seen thousands of times at all levels of play: 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 These logical moves (both sides develop their pieces and actively apply pressure to the centre) have crystallised as the main road in the jungle of variations . How should Black respond if White plays otherwise? You can find the answer in different books, which will introduce you to the fascinat­ ing world of open games . . . where you can choose to explore the ro­ mantic or restrict yourself to the most simple and effective lines! But what should you do now? If you wish to cowardly potter about in your own camp for some 30 moves then, sorry, you have made a poor purchase - close this book and play 5 . . . .ie7. If you prefer ac­ tive counterplay then take the central pawn and hold on to your hats! tZ)xe41 5 •••

8 Introduction

� a�.�..t�.� � - - g .,-,.,-, ,... . . v� � �a� �a�� • • ii.B ••• • • • _ttJa RAR A��(AH ",,"'�

coc � �ttJ�.�.� � .: � � O� �OU

This was the choice of Wilhelm Steinitz when Bird and Gelbfuss played 5 0-0 for the first time against him in Vienna, 1873. Here is how those stem games went: a) Bird-Steinitz : 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 lDxe5 lDxe5 9 dxe5 c6 10 c3 i.c5 1 1 lDd2 lDxd2 12 .ixd2 'ii'h4 13 'iti>h l 0-0 14 f4 i.g4 15 'ii'e l 'ii'x e1 1 6 1:taxel .if5 17 .ie3 i.xe3 18 1:txe3 1:tad8. b) Gelbfuss-Steinitz : 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6

'ii'xe7 1 7 i.xd5 1:td8 18 'ii'e 3 .ixd5 19 'ii'x a7 i.xf3 20 gxf3 'ii'g5 + 2 1 'iti>hl 'ii'xe5 . As you can see, this maiden try was quite successful for Black. The position in the second dia­ gram has become the basic start­ ing-point for a whole system, which became known as the ' Open Spanish'. Immediately giv­ ing back the captured pawn, Black obtains substantial posi­ tional benefits, viz . a powerful knight on e4 and chances to com­ fortably develop his pieces. The price he pays for this is the slight weakening of his queen­ side, which, incidentally, was the reason Capablanca didn't like the Open Spanish. However, the list of outstanding players who have included it in their repertoires proves that this time the great Cuban was not necessarily right: Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky, Botvinnik, Keres, Kor­ chnoi, Yusupov etc. Even the lat­ est pretender to Garry Kasparov's throne, Vishwanathan Anand, has used it in several important games. Now look at the last diagram again. Which of his opponent's active possibilities should Black take into consideration in the basic position? 1) An attack on the queenside (a2-a4) . Usually Black can com­ fortably reply . . . b5-b4. Failing that, you can often simply leave

Introduction 9

your pawn on b5. The opening of the a-file in itself is rarely profit­ able for White since Black is bet­ ter prepared to seize it. 2) An attempt to expel Black's knight from the centre straight away by means of lbb1-d2, c2-c3, .tb3-c2 . Later White tries to acti­ vate his knight by lbd2-b3 or lU1e1, lbd2-fl -g3 (e3)-f5 . Black has five following possible counter­ plans: a) An exchange on d2. This is positionally justified when Black can immediately neutralise the white bishop by . . . i.e6-f5 . Other­ wise, after Black has castled, White plays 'ii'd 1-d3 making Black weaken his kingside (. .. g7-g6) and thereby obtains good attacking chances. b) The radical . . .f7 -f5. However, this somewhat weakens Black's kingside, creates a strong passed e5 pawn for White and restricts Black's active possibilities. c) The most common counter­ plan is . . . lbe4-c5 and . . . .te6-g4, af­ ter which Black's knight obtains a comfortable placement on e6, and the bishop can be transferred via h5 to g6. This plan can be com­ bined with a break in the centre . . . d5-d4 (see below) . Its drawback is slowness and a certain passiv­ ity. d) An attempt to strengthen Black's knight on e4 by means of . . . .te6-f5. This is usually a tempo­ rary measure, which requires ac­ tive tactical support.

e) A sacrifice of two pieces for a rook and a pawn: .. . i.f8-c5 and . . . lbe4xf2 followed by . . . f7-f6 . Of course, it depends on the spe­ cific position which plan should be chosen. 3) The plan of pressure on the d5 pawn: 'ii'd 1 -e2, l:tfl-d1 fol­ lowed by c2-c4 or lbb1-c3 . Black's reaction depends on the concrete position. It often includes the ex­ change of White's bishop by . . . lbe4c5 or . .. lbc6-a5. 4) The idea proposed by Capa­ blanca: c2-c3 followed by lbf3-d4, and if Black swaps knights on d4 then c3xd4, after which White attempts to fix Black's backward pawn on c7 (or c6) and attack it. Black should either avoid the ex­ change on d4 entirely or quickly push . . . c7 -c5 after the exchange. Meanwhile, what are Black's active possibilities? 1) A breakthrough in the cen­ tre: . . . d5-d4 or . . . c7-c5 followed by . . .d5-d4. 2) An attack on the e5 pawn by . . . f7-f6. 3) A queenside attack via . . . a6a5, . . .b5-b4 etc. Usually, White attempts to de­ velop his initiative on the king­ side, while Black leans towards the queenside (however, some­ times it happens just the other way round) and both fight for the control of the centre! Usually the exchange of queens rather suits Black as it nullifies a possible attack on his king.

10 Introduction These simple rules are not al­ ways valid but they will certainly help you to find your way in the mire of complex variations. Finally, I would like to draw your attention to a very important new principle concerning open­ ings that lead to semi-open posi­ tions with a tense fight in the centre (to which the subject of our research indisputably belongs). It has been recently discovered that quiet developing moves, including castling, are not always good in such positions and may turn out to be a loss of time. That ' s why recent years have brought a new concept in some variations of the Open Spanish : before castling Black tries to strengthen his position in the centre, e.g. . . . 'lVd8-d7, . . . :a8-d8 and possibly . . . .ie6-f5 . We shall examine these lines espe­ cially closely. So, welcome to the fascinating world of the Open Spanish! How to use this book The worst thing you can do is sit at a board worrying your head with the numerous variations cited in this book. Nobody can re­ member them all at once. So, first learn as much as it is necessary for playing the opening - the most important lines of play in each variation and, above all, the basic strategical ideas explained in the

introduction. Be sure to atten­ tively examine the games of the final chapter to remember typical plans, strategical and tactical methods of play in the Open Spanish. But the great thing is to play! Nobody and nothing instructs you like your own practice. So, play the Open Spanish as often as you can. Don't be afraid to experiment even if you have only a little knowledge - your opponent is un­ likely to be an expert either. This monograph will be of great help to you as a reference book: on play­ ing a game refer back to the ap­ propriate section to compare your play with the theoretical recom­ mendation. Don't take it to heart if you have played differently. At­ tentively analyse both your game and the theoretical interpreta­ tion - perhaps your plan is more appropriate : after all, there is justification for calling the theory 'a short-sighted lady'! As you pick up experience, you will better comprehend all the niceties of dif­ ferent lines. As you learn to love the Open Spanish, analysing and playing it regularly, success will soon come! The material provided covers the state of the theory to 1 April 1995. Mikhail Krasenkov April 1995

1

Turning to One Side

In general, attempts by one side or another to evade the basic posi­ tion are not approved of by theory. However, there are some interest­ ing and instructive traps and vari­ ations which are certainly worth acquainting yourself with.

Section 1 Lines without 6 d4 ( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .ta4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4)

9 .tc5?! 10 ':d1 "fIe7 1 1 tZ)c3 0-0 12 tZ)e4 .tb6 13 tZ)g3 f5 14 c3 .td7 15 'i'c2 led to an advantage for White in Walbrodt-von Bardele­ ben (Hastings 1895) . Black should continue 9 tZ)d4!, e.g. 10 tZ)xd4 "fIxd4 1 1 ':d1 .tg4 12 ':xd4 .txe2 13 tZ)c3 .th5 14 .tg5 h6 15 .tf4 ':d8 16 ':xd8 + 'at>xd8 1 7 .te3 .tg6 with an excellent endgame (Lian­ gov-Shekhtman, Albena 1989) . 1 1 . . :�g4 ! would probably have been even stronger. tZ)c5 6 7 .txc6 One must also be aware of the interesting move 7 tZ) c3 . The re­ ply 7 tZ)xa4? falls into a trap : 8 tZ)xe5! .te7 (8 . . . tZ)xc3? 9 tZ)xc6 + .te7 10 tZ)xe7 tZ)xd 1 1 1 tZ)g6 + "fIe7 12 tZ)xe7 and wins) 9 tZ)d5 0-0 10 tZ)xc6 dxc6 1 1 tZ)xe7 + 'at>h8 12 b3 tZ)b6 13 'ii'h 5 with a difficult game for Black. In Myers-Pena (Santa Domingo 1968) he quickly lost af­ ter 13 . . . "fId4 14 .ta3 "fIg4 15 'ii'e 5 .te6 16 h3 'ii' h4 17 'ii'c 7 etc. Instead of the inferior 7 . . . tZ)xa4, Black should play 7 .t e 7 8 tZ)d5 0-0, as in Tal-Yusupov (Montpel­ lier 1985) when after 9 .txc6 dxc6 10 tZ)xe7 + "fIxe7 1 1 d4 tZ)e6 12 tZ)xe5 f6 13 tZ)d3 'ii' f7 14 tZ)f4 .td7 he had no problems . Also play­ able is 8 e4!? 9 .txc6 dxc6 10 tZ)xe7 "fIxe7 1 1 d4 tZ)d7 12 .tg5 f6 13 tZ)d2 0-0 with equal chances •••

•••

•••

•••

6 ':el White sets out to recapture the pawn in the simplest way but Black obtains the opportunity to comfortably develop his pieces without making any positional concessions. However, a few accu­ rate moves are still required. Mter 6 "e2 tZ)c5 7 .txc6 dxc6 8 d4 (8 truce5 .te7) 8 tZ)e6 9 dxe5, Black must also play carefully, as •••

•••

•••

12 Turning to One Side (Schweber-Savon, Mar del Plata 197 1). dxc6 7 8 lDxe5 Now 8 d4 tDe6 9 dxe5 is even more fruitless than was the case with 6 'iVe2 . Black immediately liquidates to a favourable endgame (or queenless middlegame?). Here is an example: 9 ... 'iVxdl 10 1hd l i.e7 1 1 tDc3 i.d7 12 i.e3 0-0-0 13 nd2 i.e8 14 nxd8 + i.xd8 15 tDe4 h6 16 ndl i.d7 17 'itfl i.e7 18 'ite2 ne8 19 c4 c5 20 'itfl i.c6 21 tDc3 f5 and Black stood slightly better (McShane-Morris, London 1993). i. e 7 8 ... tDe6 9 d4 ...

10 i.e3

The alternative 10 c3 is rather passive, and leads to equality, though an interesting plan was demonstrated by Black in Izsak­ Z. Szabo (Hungary 199 1 ) : 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.e3 f6 12 tDd3 nf7 13 tDd2 tDf8 14 tDe4 tDg6 15 'iVd2 tDh4 followed by 16 . . . tDf5 with a good game. 10 11 c4?! 12 tDf3 .•.

0-0

f6

f5! (D) This attack (introduced by Chi­ gorin in similar positions) breaks up White's configuration. Both 13 i.d2 f4 ( 1 3 . . . i.f6!? 14 i.c3 tDf4 was suggested by Korchnoi) 14 i.c3lt'lg5 15 tDxg5 i.xg5 16 f3 i.f5 1 7 tDa3 'iVd7 18 'iVd2 nae8 (Gip­ slis-Averbakh, USSR champion­ ship, Riga 1958) and 13 tDc3 f4 14

Section 2 6 d4 without 6 b5 ...

(1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 .tb5 a6 4 i.a4 tDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4) 6 d4

Turning to One Side 13

after 7 :el d5 B trurd4 .id6 9 tDxc6 �xh2 + (this is the point) 10 'at>hl ! 'ii' h 4 1 1 :Xe4 + dxe4 12 'ii'dB +! 'ii'xdB 13 tDxdB + 'at>xdB 14 'at>xh2 the endgame is better for White. Here is an example: 14 . . . .ie6 15 .ie3 f5 16 tDc3 'at>e7 1 7 :dl (or 17 g4 g6 IB 'at>g3 , as in Capablanca­ Ed.Lasker, New York 1915) 17 . .. c6 IB �b3 �xb3 19 axb3 and White has a clear advantage (Krasnov­ Tarasevich, Moscow 1960) . The text, known as the Wal­ brodt variation, leads to positions favourable for White but strate­ gically complicated. It might be worth using against weaker play­ ers who will hardly understand its niceties. Moreover, even grand­ masters sometimes fail with it, as I saw with my own eyes when GM Smagin lost to Finnish 1M Pyhala (Odessa 19B9). 7 :el Neither 7 d5 nor 7 dxe5 are dan­ gerous, e.g. 7 d5 tDbB B trure5 tDc5 9 �b3 tDxb3 10 axb3 d6 1 1 tDd3 0-0 12 c4 i.f5 13 tDc3 tDd7 14 i.e3 .if6 15 'ii'd 2 tDe5 (Radev-Sydor, Varna 19 77) or 7 dxe5 0-0 B i.f4 tDc5 9 tDc3 tDxa4 10 tDxa4 f6 1 1 exf6 .ixf6 12 'ii'd 5 + 'at>hB 13 tDg5 �xg5 14 �xg5 'ii'eB 15 l:tael 'ii'g6 (Brustman-Litinskaya, Tskhal­ tubo 19BB) with a fine position for Black in both cases. 7 'ii'e2 is interesting but weaker than 7 :el . Black usually replies 7 f5 8 dxe5 0-0, when he in­ tends to create counterplay on the kingside by . . . 'ii'eB-g6, . . . f5-f4, •••

. .. b 7-b5 and . . . .icB-b7. If White takes on c6 then after d7xc6 all Black's problems are over. Here are some illustrative variations: a) Lasker-Walbrodt (Nurem­ berg IB96) : 9 :dl 'ii'e B 10 �b3 + 'at>hB 1 1 tDbd2 tDc5 12 tDc4 'ii' h 5 13 :el f4 14 i.d2 'ii'g6 15 �c3 b6 16 :adl �b7 1 7 'at>h l :aeB , and Black has carried out his plans. b) Romanishin-Smejkal (Len­ ingrad 1977): 9 .ieS! 'at>hB 10 tDbd2 tDc5 1 1 �xc5 .ixc5 12 c3 'ii'e 7 13 b4 �a7 14 :fel tDdB 15 tDfl b5 16 �b3 �b7 17 tDe3 and White is on top. However, instead of 7 ... f5, 7 b5! is stronger. Now 8 tDxe5 (B 'ii'xe4 is met by B d5) B . .. tDd6 9 tDxc6 dxc6 10 �b3 0-0 11 i.f4 tDf5 12 c3 �d6 (van Mil-Piket, Eindhoven 1993) is harmless, and after 8 d5 tDc5 9 .ib3 (9 dxc6 tZnra4 10 cxd7 + i.xd7 1 1 tDxe5 0-0) 9 . . . e4 10 dxc6 exf3 11 'ii'xf3 tDxb3 12 axb3 dxc6 13 'ii'xc6 + i.d7 14 'ii'f3 0-0 15 �f4 c5 16 tDc3 �e6 17 :Cdl 'ii'cS 18 tDd5 (Zapata-Litinskaya, Biel 1988) White's advantage is minimal. f5 7 7 d5 is barely playable as af­ ter B tDxe5 �d7 9 tDxd7 'ii'xd7 10 c4! tDf6 11 tDc3 ! Black faces huge problems of development. Another interesting possibility is 7 b5!? 8 :xe4 (or 8 d5 tDc5 9 �b3 tDa5 10 tDxe5 d6) 8 d5 9 tDxe5 tDxe5 10 :xe5 (10 �xb5 + axb5 1 1 :xe5 0-0, followed by . . . c7-c6 and . . . i.e7-d6, yields Black sufficient compensation for the •••

. . •

•••

•••

•••

•••

14 Turning to One Side pawn) 10 bxa4. For a long time the most topical line here was 1 1 tZ)c3 O-O !? 12 lhd5 .id6 1 3 .ig5 "iWe8 . Still, it turns out that after 14 "iWd3 Black's initiative is not worth a pawn, e.g. 14 . . . a3 15 b3 .ie6 16 .!:ta5 .ib4 17 .!:ta4 a5 18 tZ)b5 "iWb8 19 c4 .i d 7 20 .ic1 c6 21 tZ)xa3 (Kuczynski-Litinskaya, Katowice 1993 ) . GM Smirin once played in even simpler fashion with 1 1 c4 and also obtained an advantage: 1 1 . . . dxc4 12 "iWxa4 + .id7 13 "iWxc4 0-0 14 tZ)c3 .id6 15 .ig5 "iWb8 16 .!:te2 (Smirin-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1994). S dxe5 White prefers dull prose to the poetry of a beautiful line S d5 tZ)a5!! 9 tZ)xe5 0-0 10 d6!? .ixd6 1 1 "iWd5 + 'iti>hS 12 tM7 + (12 "iWxa5 b 5 ! ) 12 .!:txf7 13 "iWxf7 .ixh2 + 14 'iti>f1 (14 'iti>xh2 "iWh4 + ) 14 b5 ! (the justification for 8 . . . tZ)a5 ! ) which was popular in the 1970s. •.•

•.•

•••

axb3 .ib7 17 tZ)c3? ( 1 7 g3 !? .ixg3 ! ) 1 7 . . . "iWh4 18 "iWxf5 tZ)xf2 ! with a strong attack for Black (Planinc­ Parma, Banja Luka 19 76 illus­ trative game 1) or 15 "iWh5 .id6 16 "iWxf5 .i.b 7 17.!:txe4 .i.xe4 18 "iWxe4 bxa4 19 .ig5 "iWf8 with an unclear position (Salov-Krasenkov, Zhi­ tomir 1977). Instead of 10 d6, the quiet 10 c3 is probably better, e.g. 10 . . . .ic5 11 tZ)d3 ( 1 1.!:te2 d6 12 tZ)f3 tZ)c4 13 .ic2 .!:te8 14 b3 tZ)e5 15 tZ)d4 "iWh4 is less convincing, Karpov-Ni(!ev­ ski, Skopje 1976) 1 1 . . . .ia7 12 .ie3 .ixe3 13 .!:txe3 b5 14 .ib3 tZ)xb3 15 axb3 .ib7 16 f3 "g5 17 .!:tel tZ)f6 18 c4 (Lederman-Pytel, Le Havre 1977) or 13 . . . cG 14 .ib3 'iti>h8 15 tZ)d2 tZ)xb3 16 axb3 cxd5 1 7 tZ)f4 (UKaminski-Krasenkov, Odessa 1989). In both cases the f5 pawn slightly compromises Black's po­ sition and guarantees White, who controls the important e-file, a small edge. After 10 dxe5 Black also needs to justify the advance of his fpawn. S 0-0 Black's general plan of counter­ play is the same as after 7 'iVe2 f5 : . . . 'iti>h8, . . ...e8-g6 (h5), . . . b 7-b5 (b6), . . . .ib7 etc. White usually tries to increase his pressure in the centre. Less good is S tZ)c5 9 .i.b3 tZ)xb3 10 axb3 0-0 1 1 tZ)c3 b6 12 tZ)d5 .ib7 13 c3 h6 14 b4.!:tf7 15 .if4 g5 16 .i.c1, which yielded White an advantage in Dolmatov­ Bisguier (New York 1989) . -

•••

•••

It seems that Black obtains good counterplay for the material sacrificed, e.g. 15 .i.b3 tZ)xb3 16

Turning to One Side 15 9 .ib3 + Here is how White should not play: 9 li)bd2? li)c5 10 .ixc6? dxc6 11 li)b3 li)e6 12. li)bd4 c5 13 li)xe6 .ixe6 14 'lVxd8 lIaxd8 15 .ig5 �f7 16 b3 h6 17 .ixe7 �xe7, and Black is more than okay (Knoppert­ Piket, Dutch championship 1992). In the event of 9 .ie3 'lVe8 10 c3, instead of 10 . . .'lVg6 11 li)bd2 d5 12 exd6 .ixd6 13 li)c4 �h8 14 li)xd6 cxd6 15 .if4, and White won in Glek-Krasenkov, Moscow 1989, the usual plan of 10 . . . �h8 followed by . . . b7-b5 and . . . .ic8-b7 was preferable. Finally, 9 li)c3 li)xc3 10 bxc3 'ltt h 8 1 1 c4!? is not dangerous: af­ ter 1 1 . . .li)a5! 12 'lVd3 b6 13 .ie3 f4 14 i.d4 i.b 7 Black obtains coun­ terplay (Kristiansen-Smyslov, Co­ penhagen 1985). 9 �h8 10 li)c3!? Instead 10 .id5 li)c5 1 1 li)c3 b6 12 li)e2 .ib7 13 li)f4 "e8 14 h4 li)d8 15 li)g5 .ixg5 16 hxg5 .ixd5 17 li)xd5 li)ce6 results in a solid position for Black (Griinfeld-Sy­ dor, Gausdal 1978). 10 li)xc3 1 1 bxc3 (D) 'ii'e 8 11 But not 1 1 h6?! 12 a4 a5 13 lIb1 b6 14 i.d5 i.b 7 15 li)d4 lIb8 16 li)b5 .ic5 17 'ii' h 5 with a clear advantage (Geller-Kurajica, Wijk aan Zee 1977). The text move occurred in Roh­ de-Bisguier (New York 1976) when after 12 .ig5 f4 13 'ii'd3 .ixg5 14

li)xg5 'lVh5 15 h4 li)d8 16 g3 b6 1 7 lIad 1 li)e6 White ' s advantage soon slipped away.

Section 3 Deviations on move 7 ( 1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4) 6 b5

•••

•••

•••

7 .ib3 7 li)xe5 was condemned a long

time ago, because after 7 . . . li)xe5 8 dxe5 li)c5 9 i.b3 li)xb3 10 axb3 i.b7 1 1 li)c3 'ii'e 7 12 lIe1 0-0-0 13 i.f4 g5 the initiative belongs to

16 Turning to One Side Black (Meitner-Schlechter, Vienna 1899) . 7 d5 is dubious as well: the continuation 7.Ji::J e 7 8 :e1 bxa4 9 :xe4 d6 gives Black a slight ad­ vantage (Korchnoi) . 7 .ie7?! With this move Smyslov beat Tal in a famous game (USSR champi­ onship 1977). However, a refuta­ tion was soon found. 7,. .exd4 8 :e1 d5 is also insuf­ ficient due to 9 tbc3 ! , e.g. 9 . . . dxc3 10 .ixd5 i.b7 11 .ixe4 .ie7 12 'iVe2 �f8 13 bxc3 (Polaczek-Gunnars­ son, Reykjavik 1990) or 9 . . . .ie6 10 tbxe4 dxe4 1 1 :xe4 .ie7 12 .ixe6 fxe6 13 tbxd4 0-0 14 'iVg4 (Fischer­ Trifunovic, Bled 196 1). In both case White holds a clear edge. tbxe5 8 tbxe5! 9 dxe5 .i.b7 0-0 10 'iVg4 1 1 :el ! I n the aforementioned game, Tal continued 1 1 f3 tbg5 12 f4 tbe4 13 f5 �h8 14 :f3 but Black successfully parried the attack by 14 . . . .ic5 + 15 �f1 d6 16 f6 g6 1 7 'iVh4 dxe5. 11 ,.. .ig5 If 1 1 ,..tbg5 then either 12 f4 or 12 tbc3 . However, Gufeld's sug­ gestion 1 1 , . .d5!? also deserves at­ tention. 12 tbc3! N ow White is in pole position, for example 12 . . . i.xc1 13 tbxe4 i.xe4 14 :axc1 i.c6 15 :e3 �h8 16 :h3 gives him a decisive at­ tack (Mikh.Tseitlin-Pukshansky, USSR 1978) . •••

Section 4

Deviations on move 8

( 1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 .ia4 tbf6 5 0-0 tbxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3) 7 d5

8 tbxe5 This seems to be the only al­ ternative to the normal 8 dxe5 . However, human inventiveness is truly boundless, as the follow­ ing p.xamples show: a) 8 tbc3?! tbxc3 9 bxc3 e4 10 liJg5. Now the simplest way for Black is to give back the pawn by 10 . . . .if5 1 1 f3 e3 ! 12 f4 'iVd7! 13 'iVf3 :d8 14 'iVxe3 + .ie7 15 h3 0-0 1G. g4 .ixg5 1 7 fxg5 i.e6, and Black is practically a piece up (i.b3), as occurred in the game Shatskes-Zhuravlev (Riga 1962). b) 8 c4?! . eral different ways to play (but not 8 . . .bxc4? 9 i.a41): b1) 8,..i.g4!? 9 cxd5 tbxd4 10 :e1 f5 1 1 h3 leads to unclear com­ plications with 1 1 . . . .ic5 !? 12 hxg4

Turning to One Side 1 7

lbxb3, followed by 13 . . . i.x£2 + , de­ serving serious attention. b2) 8 i.e6 also leads to a com­ fortable position for Black after the continuation 9 cxd5 i.xd5 10 lbxe5 lbxe5 11 dxe5 c6 12 i.c2 i.c5 13 �e1 �h4 14 i.e3 0-0 (Vito­ linsh-Sideif-Zade, USSR 1979) . b3) Finally, 8 dxc4 9 i. c2 fS!? or 9 lbf6 10 dxe5 �xd 1 1 1 1:1xd 1 lbd7 (Levenfish) i s interest­ ing. c) 8 a4!? Now Black can play 8 b4 9 dxe5 i.e6 transposing to a line from the next chapter. How­ ever, Schlechter's move 8 lbxd4! is stronger. Mter 9 lbxd4 exd4 10 axbS ( 10 �xd4 i.e6) 10 . . . i.c5 11 c3 0-0 12 cxd4 i.b6 13 lbc3 i.b7 14 bxa6 1:1xa6 15 1:1xa6 i.xa6 16 1:1e1 i.b7 (Lasker-Schlechter, World Championship match, Vi­ enna 1910 illustrative game 2) or 10 lbc3!? lbxc3 11 bxc3 c5 12 axb5 i.e7 13 �f3 i.e6 14 cxd4 axb5 15 1:1xa8 �xa8 16 dxc5 0-0 (Mewig-Wagner, Cologne 1911) Black enjoys an excellent game. The main defect of the text, compared to 8 dxe5 , is that Black now has no problems with his c­ and d-pawns. lbxeS 8 9 dxeS c6 The most popular move. How­ ever, Black can develop his bishop at once: a) 9 ie6 10 c3 (10 lbd2 lbc5!?) 10 i. e 7 l l lbd2 (in my opinion, this is stronger than 1 1 i.e3 f5 12 exffi lbxffi 13 lbd2 0-0 14 �e2 •••

...

•••

...

...

-

...

.•

•••

'it>h8 15 i.g5 i.g8 with equal chan­ ces, as in the game Bondarevsky­ Gurgenidze, Moscow 1960). Now 1 1. fS is risky due to 12 lbxe4 fxe4 13 f3! but also after l l ...lbcs 12 i.c2 or 1l ...lbxd2 12 i.xd2 White's chances are preferable. That's why 9 . . . c6 is more accu­ rate: Black retains the possibility of developing his bishop to f5 in one move. b) 9 i.b7. Now the bishop doesn't control the diagonal c8h3. However, Black saves a tempo for development hoping to quickly create active counterplay. Now 10 i. e3 is met by 10 . . . i.c5 11 i.xc5 ( 1 1 �g4? i.xe3 12 �xg7 �g5 ! 13 �xh8 + 'it>e7 14 �xh7 i.xf2 + 1 5 'it> h 1 1:1g8 and Black was o n top in Rokhlin-A. Zaitsev, USSR 1954) 11 . . .lbxc5 12 lbd2 0-0 13 �h5 d4 14 f4 lbxb3 15 axb3 �d5 16 1:1£2 c5 with a good game for Black (Sa­ von-Shiyanovsky, USSR champi­ onship, Erevan 1962), so White should prefer 10 c3 i.c5 11 lbd2 (less effective is 11 �g4 �e7 ! 12 lbd2 �xe5 13 lbxe4 dxe4 14 i.f4 �f6 with equality, as in Cherep­ kov-Bronstein, USSR champion­ ship, Moscow 196 1 ) 1 1 . . .�h4 (the line 11 . . . 0-0 12 lbxe4 dxe4 13 �g4 �e7 14 i.f4 'it>h8 15 1:1ad 1 f5 16 �g3 h6 17 h4 yields White a mini­ mal plus, as in Vasiukov-Savon, USSR 1970) 12 lbxe4 dxe4 13 e6 fxe6 14 i.xe6 1:1d8 15 �e2 i.d5 16 g3 �e7 1 7 i.xd5 1:1xd5 18 c4 1:1f5 19 cxb5 0-0 20 i.e3 i.xe3 21 �xe3 axb5 with an equal position, ••

...

18 Turning to One Side Sanakoev-Karker, corr 1968. How­ ever, 18 b4 !? followed by 19 c4 yields White better chances, ac­ cording to Korchnoi. Returning to the main line (af­ ter 9 . . . c6) .

(Short-Timman, EI Escorial 1993 - illustrative game 3). 10 �e7 10 ...�e5 is inferior because of 11 liJd2 ! liJxd2 (not 11 . .. �xe3 12 liJxe4 nor 11 . . . 'ilt'b6 12 liJxe4 dxe4 13 'ilt'h5 ) 12 'ii'xd2 'ii'b 6 13 �xc5 'ii'xc5 14 c3 0-0 15 'iVd4 'ilt'e7 16 �c2 (Trifunovic-Karaklaic, Yugoslavia 1955). Exchanging dark-squared bishops is rather in White' s fa­ vour. However, 10 'ii'h 4!? deserves attention. In Plachetka-Brinck­ Claussen (Copenhagen 1987) an equal position arose after 11 c3 �e7 12 liJd2 liJxd2 13 'ii'xd2 �f5 14 .i.c2 'ii'h 5 . 1 1 liJd2 White can also choose a sharper plan which avoids simplification : 1 1 e3 0-0 12 f3 (12 liJd2 liJxd2 13 i.xd2 i.f5 14 �fe1 'ilt'd7 with equality, Trifunovic-Donner, Wag­ eningen 1957) 12 . . . liJc5 13 i.c2 f5 ( 1 3 . . . liJe6 14 f4) 14 exffi �xf6 15 �d4 �f7 16 liJd2 liJe6 1 7 �e5 i.d6 which led to an equal position in the game Barle-Tukmakov (Yu­ goslavia-USSR match 1976). Tuk­ makov indicates that White could have maintained an edge by 15 f4! Therefore 1 1. f5!? 12 exf6 liJxf6 or 1 1 liJe5!? (instead of 1 1 . . .0-0) would probably be better. liJxd2 11 Mter 1 l i.f5 White 's knight becomes dangerous: 12 liJf3 .i.g4 13 h3 �h5 14 g4 �g6 15 liJd4 ! with an unpleasant initiative. Now 15 . . . 'ii'c 8 doesn't work due to 16 •••

.••

Black's plan now consists of taking the light squares under control. 10 �e 3 The most common line. Other possibilities are: a) 10 e3 �c5 1 1 liJd2 (or 1 1 'ilt'e2 0-0 12 �e3 �f5 1 3 liJd2 'ilt'b6 14 liJxe4 �xe4 15 �fe1 �ad8 with no problems for Black in Keres­ Korchnoi, USSR championship, Moscow 1973) 11 . . . liJxd2 12 i.xd2 �f5 ! ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 13 'ilt'h5 ! is slightly better for White, Spassky-Keres, Kiev 1965 ) 13 �e1 0-0 14 i.e3 i.e7 15 a4 'ilt'd7 with equality (Hort­ Karpov, Bugojno 1980). b) 10 liJd2!? liJxd2 1 1 i.xd2 �e7 ( 1 1 . . . �c5 !?) 12 'ilt'h5 i.e6 13 c3 'ilt'd7 14 �g5 �f5 15 �fe1 ( 1 5 .i.xe7 �g6 ! ) 15 . . . .i.g6 16 'ilt'h4 i.xg5 1 7 'ilt'xg5 0-0 with equal chances

..

...

...

••.

Turning to One Side 19

lDxc6! 'ii'xc6 1 7 .ixd5 'ii'c8 18 'ii'f3 (Ciocaltea-Sydor, Bucharest 1971). The interesting 1l lDc5!? has not yet been tested. 0-0 12 'ii'xd2 •••

This was played in the game Fischer-Addison (New York 1967). Black controlled the light squares and White's attempt to seize dark squares by 13 'ii'c3 (13 f4 .if5 is not dangerous either) was unsuc­ cessful due to the terrible posi­ tion of his b3 bishop; 13 . . . .ib 7 14 f4 (14 .ic5 ! ? lUe8 was equal in Gligoric-Matanovic, Monte Carlo 1967) 14 . .. a5 15 a3 b4 16 'ii'd 2 a4 17 .ia2 bxa3 and the great Ameri­ can had to fight for a draw. So, neither side can derive any real advantage by avoiding the ba­ sic position. However, the above lines might be worth exploring against unprepared opponents.

So Many Ways...

2

( 1 e4 e5 2 lL\f3 lL\c6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 lL\f6 5 0-0 lL\xe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b 3 d5) 8 dxe5 i.e6

x. �._ _ • • _. _ • ••• 1.. • •.•. �� . -

•••

.�. .lb. �" � U�.

.

"�" �4

U

"lb�1i'.':� � _ d �

In this chapter we deal with less popular continuations from the basic starting-position, which still require exact play for Black.

Section 1 9 a4 and the rest 9 a4 9 lL\c3 was refuted in Bogol­ yubow-Tarrasch (Vienna 1922) : 9 ...lL\xc3 10 bxc3 lL\e7 1 1 a4 c5 12 i.a3 c4 13 i.a2lL\f5 14 i.xfB c;t>xfB and Black stood clearly better. 9 :el was played in the game Kupreichik-Yusupov (USSR cham­ pionship, Frunze 1981). Mter the moves 9 ...lL\c5 10 i.g5 (if 10 lL\g5 'ii'd 7; for 10 lL\bd2 see Chapter 3) 10...i.e7 1 1 i.xe7lL\xe7 12 c3lL\xb3

13 'ii'xb3 ( 1 3 axb3 c5 14 b4 cxb4 15 cxb4 0-0 is equal) 13 ...c5 14 a4 O-O! 15 axb5 'ii'b6 Black obtained a good position. White's early queenside attack is somewhat premature and also allows Black sufficient counter­ play. Specifically, he can make use of the b-file after b5-b4xc3. 9 b4 9 lL\a5 is worse: 10 axb5 axb5 1 1 lL\d4! i.c5 12 c3 i.b6 13 i.c2 lL\c4 14 :xa8 'ii'xa8 15 f3 lL\c5 16 f4 with a strong attack for White (I.Zaitsev-Savon, Moscow 1969) or 1 2 ...0-0 13 i.c2 'ii' h4 14 b4 i.xd4 1 5 cxd4 and again White is on top (Grigorov). 10 a5 This is the idea behind 9 a4. However, the threat of 11 i.a4 is easily parried, and then White's a5-pawn can be more vulnerable to attack than Black's pawn on a6. In case of 10 c3 Black can transpose to the line described in Chapter 7 by means of 10...i.e7. However, 10 i.c5!? is an inter­ esting move. In Rigo-Conquest (Vienna 1989) after UlL\d4 'ii' h4!? 12 i.e3?lL\xe5 13 cxb4 i.d6 14 h3 i.xh3 Black won easily; instead 12 g3! 'ii' h3 13lL\xc6 lL\xf2 14 :xrn i.xf2 + 15 c;t>xf2 'ii'x h2 + leads to a position which is difficult to as­ sess. .••

•.•

•••

So Many Ways. . . 2 1 lbc5 10 1 1 i.g5 Or 1 1 i.e3 lbxb3 12 cxb3 d4! 13 lbxd4 lbxd4 14 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 15 i.xd4 0-0-0 16 i.e3 i.xb3 1 7 lbd2 i.e6 with equal chances (Campora­ Murey, Moscow 1989). 11 'ii'd7 h6 12 lbbd2 13 i.h4 (D) If 1 3 i.f4 then not 1 3 ... g5?! 14 i.e3 d4 15 i.xe6 fxe6 16 lbxd4! lbxd4 1 7 'ii' h 5 + 'itt d8 18 �ad1, as in LZaitsev-Honfi, Moscow 1971, but simply 13 i.e7 equalising. •••

•••

i.e7 13 Besides this move, Black used to play: a) 13 �b8 14 c3 bxc3! 15 bxc3 i.g4 16 i.c2 g5 17 i.g3 i.e7 18 ne1 0-0 19 lbb3 lbe4 with unclear play (King-Kaidanov, Budapest 1989). b) 13 g5 14 i.g3 iLg7 (another possibility is 14 ... i.e7!? with the idea of ...h7-h5) 15 c3 0-0 16 i.c2 bxc3 17 bxc3 iLf5 18 i.xf5 'ii'xf5 19 lbb3 (Kindermann-Marin, Novi

Sad 1990) . Now, according to Kindermann, 19...lbxb3 20 'ii'xb3 �fd8 was the most solid, with equal chances. 14 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 14 ... lbxe7 is also possible, for example 15 lbd4 0-0 16 c3 bxc3 1 7 bxc3 i.g4 18 'ii'b 1? (Yusupov sug­ gests 18 'ii'e 1!?) 18...nab8 19 f3 i.f5 20 'ii'a 2 lbd3 ! , and Black seized the initiative in the game Kris­ tiansen-Yusupov, Esbjerg 1980) or 17 ... �ab8 18 i.c2 i.g4 19 'ii'e 1 nb2 20 'ii'e 3 i.f5 ! , with a balanced po­ sition (Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Lina­ res 1991). 15 c3

•..

•••

•••

15 ... bxc3 Or 15 ... 0-0 16 i.c2 iLg4 1 7 h3, as in Kindermann-Tukmakov, Biel 1988, when White obtained an edge after 17 ... i.h5?! 18 'ii'e 1! bxc3 19 bxc3 f6 20 lbd4 iLe8 2 1 lb2b3; however, 17 ...iLxf3 18 lbxf3 bxc3 19 bxc3 lbxe5 20 'ii'x d5 lbxf3 + 2 1 'ii'xf3 �fe8 leads t o equality (Kin­ dermann). liJxb3 ! 16 bxc3

22 So Many Ways ...

0-0 17 li)xb3 Black has sufficient counterplay along the b-file, for example 18 :el :ab8 19 li)fd4 li)a7! , prepar­ ing . . . c7-c5 with a good position (Ljubojevic-Hjartarson, Amster­ dam 1991 illustrative game 4). -

Section 2 9 .ie3 (1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .i a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6) 9 .ie3

This developing move, enabling White 's bishop to take the stra­ tegically important dark squares d4 and c5 under control, usually leads to the line described in Chapter 7 after 9 . . . .ie7 10 c3. In this section we deal with side variations. 9 li)c5 Black has several other alterna­ tives: a) 9 li)a5 is dubious due to 10 li)d4 'iVd7 1 1 'iVel li)xb3 12 axb3 •••

•••

.ie7 13 b4 c5 14 li)xe6 fxe6 15 f3 d4 16 .ic1 li)g5 1 7 bxc5 (Kuprei­ chik-Slutsky, Moscow 1979) . b) 9 .i e7 10 li)bd2?! li)c5 leads to a variation described below. c) After 9 .ic5!? White has the following possibilities: c1) 10 .ixc5 li)xc5 11 li)d4 li)xd4 (the alternative 11 . . . 'iVd7!? deserves attention) 12 'iVxd4 li)b 7 13 c3 c5 14 'iVf4 0-0 15 li)d2 (Im­ analiev-Mamadzhoev, Azov 199 1 ) and now Black should probably play 15 . . . f6. c2 ) 10 'iVd3 0-0 1 1 li)c3 ( 1 1 li)bd2 .ixe3 1 2 'iVxe3 leads t o a position examined in Chapter 4, variation 9 'iVe2 .ic5) 1 1. . .li)b4 12 'iVe2 li)xc3 13 bxc3 .ixe3 14 'iVxe3 li)c6 15 a4 with an edge (Khol­ mov-Antoshin, USSR champion­ ship, Kharkov 1967). c3) 10 :e l!? 0-0 1 1 c3 .ixe3 12 :xe3 li)e7 ( 1 2 . . . li)a5 !?, Glek) 13 li)bd2 .if5 14 li)h4! li)xd2 15 'iVxd2 .ie6 16 :d1 ! c5 17 f4 d4 18 cxd4 c4 19 .ic2 li)d5 20 li)f3! with an in­ itiative for White (Glek-Gorelov, Katowice 1992). Therefore the early exchange of Black's important bishop does not provide him with sufficient activ­ ity to compensate for the weaken­ ing of the dark squares. The text move (with the obvi­ ous idea of exchanging White's light-squared bishop) was consid­ ered a very solid reply to 9 .ie3 until White found a way to make use of its main defect, Black's lag in development. •••

...

So Many Ways. . . 23 10 tZ)c3! Besides this (undoubtedly best) move White can also play: a) 10 tZ)bd2 �e7, and now: al) 11 tZ)g5?! 0-0 12 'ii'h 5 i.xg5 13 �xg5 'ii'd 7 14 Aae1 Afe8 15 'ii'f3 h6 ( 1 5 . . . d4 ! is even stronger) 16 �f4 Aad8 1 7 'ii'g3 c,th7 18 c3 (Dvoirys-Kaidanov, USSR 1984). Now Black could have continued 18 . . . d4! with good counter-play. a2) 1 1 i.xc5 �xc5 12 c3 0-0 13 i.c2 �b6 14 tZ)b3 i.g4 1 5 Ae1 f6 16 'ii'd 3 g6 1 7 exf6 �xf3 18 'ii'xf3 'ii'd 6 yields Black good counter­ chances (Marjanovic-Stean, Sme­ derevska Palanka 1980) . a3) 1 1 tZ)d4 tZ)xd4 12 �xd4 'ii'd 7 13 c3 tZ)a4 14 Ab1 c5 15 �e3 0-0 16 tZ)f3 Aad8 17 'ii'e2 �f5 with equality (Tseshkovsky-Balashov, USSR 1980) . a4) 1 1 c3 tZ)d3 (this was once considered to be the refutation of 1 1 c3 but this conclusion proved premature) 12 'ii'b 1 (the continu­ ation 12 'ii'c2 tZ)dxe5 13 tZ)xe5 tZ)xe5 14 i.d4 f6 15 Afe1 �f7 leaves Black slightly better, but not 15 . . . 'ii'd6 Tseshkovsky-Kaidanov, Moscow 1985 illustrative game 5) 12 . . . tZ)dxe5 13 tZ)xe5 tZ)xe5 14 �d4 f6 ( 14 . . . tZ)g6!?) 15 f4 tZ)c6 16 �c2 (Kosak-Daniliuk, Karvina 1993/94), and the position is un­ clear. b) 10 c3 tZ)xb3 ( 1 0 . . . �e7 1 1 �c2 �g4 leads to a variation from Chapter 7) 1 1 axb3 i.e7 (the im­ mediate 11 . . . i.g4 is less common but hardly worse, e.g. 12 h3 .th5 -

13 'ii'e 2 �e7 14 Ad1 tZ)xe5 15 g4 tZ)xf3 + 16 'ii'xf3 �g6 17 Axd5 �d6 18 c4 bxc4 19 bxc4 'ii'e 7 with suffi­ cient counterplay in Zaichik-Tuk­ makov, Tallinn 1988 or 12 �f4 �c5 13. tZ)bd2 0-0 14 h3 �h5 15 Ae1 d4 etc., as in J.lvanov-Kra­ senkov, Pazardzhik 1988) 12 tLlbd2 (or 12 h3 0-0 13 b4 'ii'd 7 14 tZ)bd2 d4 15 tZ)xd4 tZ)xe5 16 tZ)xe6 'ii'xe6 with equal chances in A.Kuzmin­ Sorokin, Blagoveshchensk 1988; while the correct antidote to 12 tZ)d4 was demonstrated by Yusu­ pov: 12 . . . tZ)xd4 13 cxd4 0-0 14 tZ)c3 f6! 15 f4 fxe5 16 fxe5 Axfl + 1 7 c,txfl i.b4! 18 c,tg1 �xc3 19 bxc3 a5 201M3 'ii'd 7 2 1 �c1 �f5 ! , and Black seized the initiative in Ghinda-Yusupov, Dubai 1986 il­ lustrative game 6; White should have preferred 14 f4 with a more or less equal position according to Yusupov) 12 . . . �g4 ( 12 . . . 0-0 is also possible: 13 b4 d4! 14 tZ)xd4 tZ)xd4 15 �xd4 �xb4 16 tZ)e4 'ii'd 5 17 .f3 Afd8 18 Afd1 �f8 with equality in A.N.Panchenko-Soro­ kin, Chelyabinsk 199 1) 13 'ii'c2 'ii'd 7 14 �g5 �f5 15 'ii'd 1 �xg5 16 tZ)xg5 0-0 17 Ae1 Afd8 18 tZ)gf3 d4, and Black had no problems in the game Timman-Yusupov, Tilburg 1987. Besides these variations, White can continue 10 'ii'e 2 �e7 11 Ad1 , transposing t o the Keres variation (Chapter 4) . Now we return to the main line after 10 tZ)c3! tZ)xb3 10 ... -

24 So Many Ways . . . 1 1 cxb3 !

'lVd7 12 Ac l 13 lbe2 Clearing the c-file. White can also maintain a slight edge by 13 h3 0-0 14 lbe2 Afc8 15 lbf4 a5 16 a3 lbd8 17 lbd3 (Groszpeter-Brun­ ner, Biel 1990) or 13 'lVd2 0-0 14 Afdl Aad8 15 i.g5 d4 16 lbe4 i.d5 17 "f4, as in Winsnes-Krasenkov, Stockholm 1989/90. i. g4 13 13 Ac8 was tried in Smagin­ Mikhalchishin (Moscow, 1989), but White had slightly better chances after the continuation 14 lbf4 0-0 15 i.c5 Afd8 16 i.xe7 lbxe7 1 7 'ii'd4 i.g4 1 8 lbel. The text leads to interesting variations indicated by Smagin : 14 lbf4 0-0-0 15 'lVxd5 'lVxd5 16 lbxd5 Axd5 1 7 Axc6 i.xf3 18 gxf3 Axe5 19 Afcl or the more interest­ ing 14 d4 15 h3 ! ! dxe3 16 hxg4 exf2 + 17 �xf2 ! , with a favourable endgame for White in both cases. The conclusion is that both sides have nothing better than the transposition to the line examined in Chapter 7, i.e. 9 . . . i.e7 10 c3. •••

•••

In all probability, the author­ ship of this idea belongs to Sos­ onko. White plans to occupy the central c- and d-files and the c5 square. Black's backward c7 pawn soon becomes weak. In any case 1 1 axb3 is harm­ less, for example 1 l . . . i.e7 12 h3 0-0 13 lbe2 'lVd7 14 lbf4 f6 15 exf6 i.xf6 with no problems for Black (Lanka-Tukmakov, Riga 1988). i.e7 11 If 1 1 'lVd7 12 Acl Ad8 then simply 13 i.g5 i.e7 14 i.xe7 lbxe7 15 'lVd4 leaves White on top. •••

•••

•••

3

Made by Karpov

( 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .i b5 a6 4 .i.a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe 4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .i.e6) 9 ll)bd2

Section 1 9 J..e7 and others ••.

The most common answer to 9 ll)bd2 is 9... ll)c5. Here we examine other possibilities, which are, in my opinion, undeservedly under­ rated. 9 .i e7 The alternatives are: a) 9 ll)xd2 (this rare move is probably better than its reputa­ tion) 10 .i.xd2 (10 'i'xd2 appears artificial; true, after 10 ... .i.e7 1 1 :dl 0-0 12 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 13 'i'xd5 'i'xd5 14 :xd5 :ad8 15 l:ld2 f6 16 exf6 .ixf6 17 c3, Romanishin-Kai­ danov, Lvov 1987, Black has in­ sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but 10...'i'd7 fol­ lowed by ... :a8-d8 is quite solid) 10....i.e7 ( 10....i.c5 looks too bold; in Smirin-Kaidanov, Norllsk 1987, White did not discover a refuta­ tion: 1 1 'i'e2 0-0 12 :adl :e8 13 .i.e3 i.xe3 14 'i'xe3 ll)a5 15 ll)d4 'i'e7 16 c3 c5 with good counter­ chances for Black, but by means of 15 h3 White could have main­ tained the better prospects) 1 1 'i'e2 ( 1 1 c 3 i s more precise - see Chapter 8) 1 1... 0-0 12 :adl 'i'd7 13 c3 ll)a5 14 .i.c2 c5 15 :fel ll)c6 (15... .i.f5 16 e6 !?) 16 .i.cl :fe8 , and White's advantage is minimal if it exists at all (Geller-Kaidanov, Belgrade 1988). •••

•••

This move was drawn out of the backwaters of opening theory by Anatoly Karpov and his coach Igor Zaitsev during their titanic bat­ tles with Viktor Korchnoi in 1978 and 1981. Korchnoi failed to with­ stand the deep preparation of his opponent ' s team and even now, in spite of players and theorists having found good counter-argu­ ments for Black, this line is still a formidable weapon for White. The main point is that White im­ mediately pressurises Black's well-centralised knight. Accord­ ing to Black' s reaction (Korch­ noi preferred 9... Nc5, but other moves are certainly possible) , White can continue with a vari­ ety of diffrerent plans.

26 Made by Karpov b) 9 i.c5!? is an aggressive move which invites White into the sharp line described in Chapter 6, which arises after 10 c3. However, White can liquidate into a pleas­ ant endgame instead by 10 li)xe4 ( 1 0 'ii'e 2 yields Black sufficient counterplay: 10 . . . i.f5 1 1 a4 l:tb8 12 axb5 axb5 13 li)xe4 dxe4 13 . . . i.xe4 deserves attention - 14 l:td1 exf3 !? 15 l:txd8 + l:txd8 16 'iVel 0-0 1 7 i.g5 li)d4 18 i.xd8 l:txd8 with compensation for the sacrificed material in the game Wahls-A.Mikhalevsky, Biel 1992 , but 10 'iVe1 ! ? is more crafty as 10 . . . i.f5?! now fails due to 1 1 li)xe4 i.xe4 1 2 li)g5 which would not work with White's queen on e2 in view of 12 . . . li)d4, so Black should prefer 10 . . . li)xd2 1 1 i.xd2 0-0 - 11 . . . i.g4? ! 12 i.e3 ! , Luther­ Flear, Lenk 1992 - as in variation a) 10 dxe4 11 i.xe6 'iVxdl (after 1 1 . . . fxe6 White has the additional possibility of 12 li)d2, e.g. 12 . . .'i'd5 13 'i'h5 + g6 14 'i'h4 e3 15 li)e4 i.e7 16 li)fG + i.xfG 1 7 exfG e2 18 l:te1 li)d4 19 f7 + �xf7 20 'i'f4 + c,tgB 2 1 'i'xc7 with a distinct advantage to White, Marj anovic-Torre, Novi Sad 1985) 12 l:txdl (White gains nothing after 12 i.xf7 + �xf7 13 li)g5 + c,tg6 14 l:tfxdl e3! 15 li)e6 exf2 + 16 c,tfl i.b6 with equal chances) 12 fxe6 13 li)g5 0-0 (Black intends to compensate for his pawn weaknesses by active piece placement) (D) 14 li)xe4 (the exchange of Black's threatening bishop is a healthy •••

•••

•••

positional idea for White in this line . That' s why an immediate 14 i.e3 ! ? deserves serious attention, e.g. 14 . . . i.xe3 15 fxe3 li)xe5 16 li)xe6 l:tf7 17 b3 li)g4 18 l:te1 with a slight advantage for White in Prasad-Krasenkov, Gausdal 1991) 14 ... i.b6 15 i.e3 (the most solid continuation in this position, too : 15 g3 l:tf5 ! 16 c3 li)xe5 1 7 c,tg2 l:tafB 18 f4 li)g6 19 li)g5 l:t5fG, as in Glek-Korneev, Krumbach 1991, or 15 b3 li)xe5 16 c,tfl - not 16 i.b2 l:tf4! as in Vogt-Haba, Halle 1987 16 . . . li)g4 17 f3 li)fG 18 li)g3 li)d5 19 c4 bxc4 20 bxc4 li)fG 2 1 i.b2 l:tad8 of Topalov-Leko, Etoiles 1994, or 15 a4 li)xe5 16 h3 - 16 �fl ! ? was suggested by V.Mikhalevsky 16 . . . li)c4 1 7 l:te1 l:tac8 ! , as played in Y. Griinfeld-V.Mikhalevsky, Tel­ Aviv 1994 are all unconvincing and allow Black sufficient counter­ chances) 15 . . . i.xe3 16 fxe3 l:tf5 ! (a remarkable manoeuvre with the aim of activating this rook; it is important that the rook has the strong d5 point at its disposal) 1 7 l:td7 (or 1 7 a 4 l:txe5 1 8 axb5 l:txe4

Made by Karpov 27

19 bxc6 l:tc4 with an equal posi­ tion, Wahls-Haba, Germany 199 1). Mter the text move, instead of 1 7 . . . l:txe5 18 l:txc7 l:txe4 19 l:txc6 :Xe3 20 l:t£1 with a slight edge for White, as in Avshalumov-Kra­ senkov, Nimes 1991 , Black should play 17 . . . l:tc8 ! with equal chances (Haba) . So it seems 14 .ie3, with a small edge for White, is probably more accurate (see above). Now we move on to 9 . . . .ie7 . With this move Black invites his opponent to the main line from Chapter 7, which would arise af­ ter 10 c3 . But again White has the option of destroying Black's pawn structure. Black must rely on his temporarily better development and the possibility of centralising his pieces. dxe4 10 ll)xe4 fxe6 1 1 .ixe6 .i xgS 12 ll)gS! The endgame after 12 :1i'xd l 13 l:txdl .i.xg5 14 .ixg5 l:tf8 15 .ih4 e3 16 fxe3 l:tf5 1 7 a4 b4 18 .ig3 is slightly better for White (Sax-Tarj an, Hastings 1977/78), while 12 'ifdS!? is interesting, though after 13 'ifh5 + g6 14 'ifh4 .ixg5 15 .ixg5 ll)xe5 16 'ifg3 ll)f7 17 .iffi 0-0 18 l:tadl White has suf­ ficient compensation for the pawn (Geller-Unzicker, Bern 198 7) . 13 'ii'h S + g6 14 'ifxgS (D) A critical position, to which no­ body has paid much attention yet! 0-0 14 ••

•••

•••

,� �.� ?� .• .� � ",,,,,v

.

. _

� ?� . _,

.,. mf� •

" iiQ'f.

�W� ��

. �

,.�.,.,.

. .,. . • • • • �9�.

D�D

" A • � � .:� �

This move looks quite natural and is in fact the most common. However, 14 'ifdS!? is an inter­ esting alternative, depriving White of the most comfortable way of arranging his pieces. In the corre­ spondence game Betker-Tronhjem ( 1990) Black obtained a comfort­ able position after 15 .if4 l:td8 16 a4 0-0 17 axb5 axb5 18 l:tfel ll)d4 19 l:tacl 'ifc4. The onus is on White to come up with something. IS 'ifg4 'ifdS 16 l:tel! This is better than 16 .if4 l:tad8 1 7 h4 ll)xe5 18 'ifg3 l:tf5 19 l:tfel l:td7 20 l:te2 ll)c4 21 l:tael! e5 with sufficient counterplay for Black (Subit-A. Rodriguez, Cuban championship 1990) . l:tfS 16 Or 16 ll)xeS 1 7 'ifxe4 and now White is slightly better. 17 .ih6! But not 17 l:txe4 l:taf8 ! when Black was already slightly better in Hazai-Chekhov, 1985. White should deprive Black's rook of the key f8 square. •••

•••

•••

28 Made by Karpov lillte 5 17 After 17 'ii'c5 18 l:te2 l:td8 19 h4 ! l:td5 20 l:tfl 'ii'c4 21 b3 (Geller­ Krasenkov, Cappelle la Grande 1992 - illustrative game 7) or 17 'ii'd4 18 'ii'e 2 'ii'xb2 19 'ii'xe4 'ii'c 3 (Naumkin-Krasenkov, Novo­ gorsk 1982) 20 f4 White's chances are preferable. 18 'ii'xe4 The endgame structure after 18 l:td8 19 .i.f4 'ii'xe4 20 l:txe4 is in principle slightly better for White, but here Black slips away by tactical means : 20 . . . li)c4! 2 1 .i.xc7 l:tc8 22 .i.g3 li)xb2 2 3 l:txe6 a5, and White cannot maintain his material advantage (Chand­ ler-Beckemeyer, Germany 1990) . Still 14 . . . 'ii'd 5 (see above) looks more promising for Black. •••

•••

•••

•••

Section 2 9

•..

li)c5

-

sidelines

(1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 .i.e6 9 li)bd2 ) li)c5 (D) 9 This move contains two differ­ ent ideas: - an attempt to immediately break loose by . . . d5-d4; - the standard plan of . . . .i.e6-g4. In this section we deal mainly with the second concept. The plan with . . . d5-d4 will be examined in the next section. 10 c3 10 l:tel is not dangerous, for ex­ ample 10 . . . .i.e7 11 c3 d4 12 .i.xe6 •••

K_ 5i.. • �.� •.•. . - � � �""� • • 4&\ • .t. _ ••� _ .� U

. �

,,�

• • • • ai.. .lD. �� U �� !tU

p�� U U

a miVB:=

li)xe6 13 cxd4 li)cxd4 14 a4 0-0 15 axb5 axb5 16 haB lDxf3 + 17 'ii'xf3 'ii'xaB and Black was already bet­ ter placed in Timoschenko-Kra­ senkov, Moscow 1989. .i. g4 10 The exchange 10 lilltb3 only improves White's development: af­ ter 1 1 li)xb3 .i.e7 (if 1 1 . .. .i.g4, 1 2 h3 l ) 12 li)fd4! li)xe5 13 l:tel li)g6 14 li)xe6 fxe6 15 li)d4 li)f8 16 'ii'g4 White is on top (G.Kuzmin-Beli­ avsky, USSR 1977) . The same can b e said about 10 li)d3 1 1 'ii'e2 li)xcl: 12 l:taxcl li)a5 13 li)d4 li)xb3 14 axb3 c5 15 li)xe6 fxe6 16 'ii'g4 with an identi­ cal conclusion (Kir.Georgiev-Uva­ nov, Montreal 1986) . Korchnoi's experiment 1 0 g6 resulted in a disaster in one of the games of his match against Kar­ pov (World Championship match, Baguio 1978): 11 'ii'e2 .i.g7 12 li)d4! li)xe5 13 f4 li)c4 14 f5 gxf5 15 li)xf5 l:tg8 16 li)xc4 dxc4 1 7 .i.c2 with a strong attack. In Fishbein­ Murey (Moscow 1989) Black im­ proved with 12 . . . li)xd4 13 cxd4 li)b7 •••

•••

•••

•••

Made by Karpov 29

but still after 14 �c2 c5 15 f4 cxd4 16 ttJb3 �b6 1 7 �f2 0-0 18 ttJxd4 White's chances proved to be su­ perior. After 10 . . . �g4 White usually replies 1 1 �c2 ! moving on to lines described in Chapter 5. Here we deal only with side variations. Alas! It's probably inevitable that similar positions must be exam­ ined in different parts of the book because move transpositions are very common in the Open Span­ ish. 1 1 h3 After 1 1 �el Black can play 11 ... �d7 or 1 1...�e7, which trans­ poses into lines from Chapter 5 . 1 1 ttJxb3 is also possible, e.g. 12 ttJxb3 �e7 13 �d3 ! �d7 14 ttJfd4, as in Kosashvili-Haba, Haifa 1989, and now instead of 14...ttJd8?! 15 h3 ! �h5 16 ttJf5 Haba recommends 14...ttJxd4 15 cxd4 a5 with equality. �h5 11 12 g4?! This move dangerously weak­ ens White's kingside. However, 12 � c2 ttJe6 13 �el �d7 14 ttJn i.c5 15 b4 �b6 16 a4 �d8 (Madl-I.Sok­ olov, Palma de Mallorca 1989) and 12 �el i.e7 13 a4 b4 14 �a2 �d7 15 ttJn �d8 1 6 ttJg3 �g6 (Pola­ czek-G.Garcia, St John 1988) are also quite satisfactory for Black. i. g6 12 tiJxd4 13 ttJd4 14 cxd4 ttJe6 � d3 (D) 15 f4 In this sharp position Black stands better, e.g. 16 �f31 (16 �f3 ••.

..•

�c4!) 16 ... �xn 1 7 �xd5 (Perez­ Grivas, Dubai 1986), and now the continuation 1 7... �b8 ! 18 i.c6 + cJ;;e 7 gives Black a clear plus.

Section 3 1 0 d4 ...

( 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 �a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7 �b3 d5 8 dxe5 �e6 9 ttJbd2 ttJc5 10 c3) d4 10 •..

For many decades this reply was considered an easy means of equalising. It is thanks to Karpov

30 Made by Karpov and his analysis team that a num­ ber of new active possibilities for White were found. 1 1 .ixe6 White has an interesting alter­ native, viz. a brilliant piece sacri­ fice 1 1 tDg5!? invented by Igor Zaitsev and first tried by Karpov against Korchnoi in their 1978 match in Baguio. Despite the time that has passed, theory has still not drawn a final conclusion about this idea. Black's quiet replies yield a minimal edge for White: a) 1 l tDxb3 12 tDxe6 fxe6 13 'ii'xb3 'lVd5 14 'lVxd5 exd5 15 tDf3 dxc3 16 bxc3 .ie7 17 :dl (Angan­ tysson-Pokojowczyk, Copenhagen 1980). b) 1 l dxc3 12 tDxe6 fxe6 13 bxc3 'lVd3 14 tDf3 'lVxdl 15 .ixd l .ie7 16 .ie3 tDd3 17 .i.b3 cJ;f7, and Black gradually equalised (Kar­ pov-Korchnoi, World Champion­ ship match, Baguio 1978). 16 . . . 0-0!? also deserves attention. This is probably the most solid line for Black. If Black takes the knight the variations are very complicated indeed: c) 1 l 'lVxg5 12 'lVf3 and now: c l ) If 12 cJ;d7 13 .id5 ! .ixd5 14 'lVxd5 + .i.d6 then not 15 tDc4 'lVg6 16 exd6 'lVe6 ! 17 'lVxc5 'lVxc4 when White is only slightly better (Pujols-Gonzalez , Havana 1993) but simply 15 cxd4, e.g. 15 . . . tDxd4 16 tDc4 tDe2 + 17 cJ;hl 'lVf5 18 tDxd6 'ii'd 3 19 fflxf7 + is good for White •••

(Brondum-Brinck-Claussen, Den­ mark 1979). c2) 12 .id7 was left under a cloud by the game Wolff-G. Flear (London 1990) : 13 .ixf7 + cJ;e7 14 .id5 tDxe5 15 'lVe2 d3 16 'lVel c6 1 7 f4 'lVh6 1 8 .if3! cJ;d8 1 9 fxe5 .ie7 20 tDb3 'lVg6 21 tDd4 with a strong attack for White. c3) Mter 12 0-0-0 Black not only gives back his extra piece but also sacrifices another one to liq­ uidate into a sharp endgame with strong passed pawns: 13 .ixe6 + (or 13 'lVxc6 'lVxe5 14 tDf3 'lVd5 ! with equality) 13 . . . fxe6 14 'lVxc6 'lVxe5! 15 b4 'lVd5 16 'lVxd5 exd5 1 7 bxc5 dxc3 18 tDb3 d4 •••

•••

•.•

•••

•••

19 .i.a3 (White should prepare the opening of the a-file as 19 :d l .i.e7 20 tDxd4 does not work in view of 20 . . . c2 21 :d3 :xd4! 22 :xd4 .if6 with the idea of 23 .ie3 .ixd4 24 .ixd4 :d8 - Smyslov) 19 . . . .i.e7 20 .ib4 .i.f6 21 a4 cJ;d7! 22 axb5 axb5 and now 23 :a6 (Timman-Smyslov, Germany 1979) can be met by 23 . . . :a8 ! . However,

Made by Karpov 3 1

White can block Black's pawns and thereby maintain an edge by 23 lUd 1 'it>e6 24 l:tac1 l:td5 25 l:td3 c6 26 l:ta1 rJitf7 2 7 'it>f1 (Harley-Ernst, London 199 1). d) 11 � d5 !? (a new idea from Ivan Sokolov) 12 i.xd5 'ii'xd5 13 ttJb3 ttJxb3 14 axb3 i.e7 15 ttJf3, and now, instead of 15 . . . ttJxe5 16 ttJxd4 ttJg6 1 7 'ii'f3 ! with a small plus for White (Anand-I.Sokolov, Lyon 1994), 15 . . . d3 leads to a dou­ ble-edged position (Dorfman). N ow we return to the main line with 11 i.xe6. ttJxe6 1 1 ... 12 cxd4 12 ttJb3?! dxc3 13 'ii'c 2 is poor: 13 . . . 'ii'd5 14 l:td 1 ttJb4 ! 15 'ii'e 2 'ii'c4 16 'ii'xc4 bxc4 1 7 ttJa5 ttJc2 18 l:tb1 ttJa3 19 l:ta1 ttJc2 20 l:tb1 l:tb8 and Black was already clearly better (Sax-Tal, Tallinn 1979 illustra­ tive game 8). 12 a4 dxc3 13 bxc3 b4 14 'ii'c2 'ii'd5 15 c4 'ii'd 7 16 ttJb3 l:td8 17 'ii'e4 �e7 (G.Kuzmin-Dorfman, USSR championship, Tbilisi 19 78) or 14 cxb4 ttJxb4 1 5 � a3 'ii'd 5 16 l:tb1 a5 17 ttJb3 �e7 18 'ii'd 2 'ii'c6 ! 19 ttJxa5 l:txa5 20 l:txb4 'ii'a8 ! (Ro­ manishin-Marin, Dresden 1988) presents no problems to Black. ttJcxd4 (D) 12 N ow White is slightly ahead in development and should try to make use of this. 13 ttJe4 This move was introduced by Karpov in his 14th match game against Korchnoi (Merano 1981). ..•

-

••.

After 13 ttJxd4 'ii'xd4! Black i s out o f danger, for example 14 'ii'f3 l:td8 15 'ii'c6 + 'ii'd 7 16 'ii'xa6 'ii'd5 ! with strong counterplay (Anand) , or 14 a4 l:td8 15 'ii'f3 i.b4 16 ttJb3 'ii'c4 17 axb5 axb5 18 l:ta8 0-0 with an equal position (Luther-Haba, Germany 1993), or 14 'ii'e 2 l:td8 15 a4 'ii'd5 16 axb5 axb5 17 'ii'e4? ! (17 ttJf3 is equal) 1 7 . . . i.c5 18 'ii'xd5 l:txd5 19 ttJe4 i.d4, and the initia­ tive had passed to Black (Adams­ Anand, Linares 1994). However, there is a stronger al­ ternative, viz . 13 a4, also intro­ duced by Karpov in Merano (the 18th game) , with the following possibilities: a) 13 �c5 is too optimistic, as it takes the bishop away from the defence of the kingside: 14 ttJe4 (after 14 ttJb3 ttJxb3 15 'ii'xb3 0-0 16 axb5 axb5 17 l:txa8 'ii'xa8 18 'ii'xb5 h6 19 'ii'c4 l:td8 White failed to make use of his extra pawn due to the active position of Black's pieces in Adams-I.Sokolov, Mos­ cow 1994) 14 . . . �b6 15 ttJfg5! (pre­ cise, though 15 ttJxd4 is possible ...

32 Made by Karpov as well, e.g. 15 .. . i.xd4 16 ttJg5! 0-0 1 7 axb5 ttJxg5 18 i.xg5 i.xf2 + 19 �xf2 'ikxg5 20 bxa6 with a slight edge for White in the game Tisch­ bierek-Chekhov, Potsdam 1985) 15... tLlxg5 (15 . ..0-0 16 'ikh5 is obvi­ ously better for White) 16 i.xg5 'ikd7 17 �e1 ! (a move that was rec­ ommended by Am.Rodriguez be­ cause 1 7 axb5 'ikxb5 18 ttJc3 'ikd7 19 'ika4 allowed Black to equalise by 19 . . .'ikxa4 20 ttJxa4 h6! 21 tLlxb6 cxb6 in Am. Rodriguez-Korneev, Barbera del Valles 1994) 1 7 . . .0-0 18 �a3 ! , transferring the rook to the kingside and obtaining good attacking chances (Am. Rodriguez). b) l3 i.e7 and now: ...

1 7 i.e3 'ikb6 18 �a4 �fb8 19 ttJa5 �c8 equalising, Sax-Yusupov, Sofia 1984) yield White any advantage after 15 ... 0-0 16 i.e3 c5 1 7 �a4 'ikb8 18 'ika1 ttJbd4! (Hiibner-Yusu­ pov, Tilburg 1987). b3) 14 ttJxd4! (this interesting idea lies at the centre of White's plan : he lures Black's knight to the centre where its position will be less solid and less harmoni­ ous) 14 . . . ttJxd4 (after 14 ...'ikxd4?! 15 axb5 'ikxe5 16 bxa6 0-0 17 'ika4 ! Black cannot easily regain the a6pawn, e.g. 17 . .. �fb8 18 a7 �b7 19 ttJf3 'ikd5 20 i.e3 i.c5 2 1 �ad1 'ikb3 22 'ikxb3 �xb3 23 i.xc5 tLlxc5 24 ttJd4, as in the game Ehlvest­ Marin, Tallinn 1989 or even 18 ttJf3 'ikb5 19 a7 �b7 20 'ikxb5 �xb5 2 1 .te3 i.f6 22 �a2, Hjartarson­ Smejkal, Germany 1990) 15 ttJe4 ( 1 5 axb5 ttJxb5 16 'ikc2 0-0 1 7 ttJf3 ttJd4! 18 ttJxd4 'ikxd4 19 'ikxc7 .tb4! led to equality in Kindermann­ Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 1993) 15 ...0-0 (in the stem game Karpov­ Korchnoi, World Championship match, Merano 1981 illustrative game 9 White obtained an edge after 15 . . . ttJe6 16 .te3 0-0 1 7 f4 'ikxd1 18 �fxd1 �fb8 19 �d7 i.f8 20 f5 ttJd8 2 1 a5 ! ; the text move is stronger but Black is slightly worse anyway: White obtains a better pawn structure while main­ taining a space advantage) 16 axb5 ttJxb5 1 7 i.e3 'ikc8 18 'ikd5 (if 18 'ikc2 'ike6 19 f4 f6 20 exf6 i.xf6 21 f5 'ike5 22 .tc5 ttJd6, and Black de­ fended successfully in Ivanchuk-

-

b1) 14 ttJe4 is harmless due to 14 . . . 0-0 15 axb5 (15 tLlxd4 'ikxd4! ; or 1 5 i.e3 c5 1 6 i.xd4 cxd4, As­ trom-Krasenkov, Stockholm 1989) 15 ... axb5 16 llxa8 ttJxf3 + 17 gxf3 'ikxa8 18 'ikd7 'ike8 with an equal position in Dutreeuw-Ernst, Vi­ enna 199 1 . b 2 ) neither does 1 4 axb5 tLlxb5 1 5 ttJe4 (or 15 'ikc2 0-0 16 ttJb3 c5

Made by Karpov 33

Yusupov, Linares 1989) 18 . . J:td8?! 19 'ilt'c6 'ilt'f5?! 20 f4 h5 21 h3 and White was on top in Chandler­ Yusupov, Hastings 1989/90. Black should have played 18 . . .'ilt'f5 19 ltJg3 'ilt'g6 with some counterplay (Yusupov). c) 13 l:tbS! (Black cedes his op­ ponent the a-file - with no objects of attack on it - but maintains the interaction of his pieces. Besides, the rook is safer placed on b8 for tactical considerations; this line has been less investigated than the 'natural' 13 . . . .te7, but is prob­ ably more solid) 14 axb5 axb5 15 ltJe4 (15 ltJxd4 'ilt'xd4) 15 .te7, and now: •••

..•

c1) 16 .te3 is not dangerous due to 16 . . . ltJf5 ( 1 7 'ilt'c2 ltJxe3 18 fxe3 'ilt'd5). In this variation the po­ sition of Black's rook on b8 proves provident since 18 'ilt'c6 + can be met by 18 . . . 'ilt'd7. c2) 1 6 ltJxd4 promises nothing in view of 16 . . . 'ilt'xd4. c3) 16 ltJd6 + cxd6 17 ltJxd4 ltJxd4 18 'ilt'xd4 dxe5 19 'ilt'xe5 0-0

leads to equality (Nunn-Timman, Amsterdam 1985). The main variation (13 ltJe4 with the idea of quick development) is more popular than 13 a4, so let's return to this. 13 .t e7 Development first! If 13 ... 'ilt'd5 then 14 ltJxd4 ! ltJxd4 15 ltJc3 'ilt'd7 16 .te3 .tc5 1 7 'ilt'h5 ( 1 7 ltJe4 i.a7 18 l:tc 1 0-0 19 ltJc5 i.xc5 20 l:txc5 l:tfd8 is less dangerous for Black, Beliavsky-Dorfman, USSR cham­ pionship, Frunze 1981), for exam­ ple 1 7 . . . 'ilt'e6 18 l:tad1 l:td8 19 l:td3 i.b6 20 l:tfd 1 c5 2 1 ltJe4 with an overwhelming attack for White, Thipsay-Bhave, Calcutta 1991. ltJf5! 14 .te3 14 ... ltJxf3 + 15 'ilt'xf3 0-0 16 l:tfd1 'ilt'e8?! (16 . . . 'ilt'c8 is better but still clearly worse for Black) led to a crushing defeat for Black in Kar­ pov-Korchnoi (World Champion­ ship match, Merano 198 1 ) : 1 7 ltJf6 + ! .txf6 18 exf6 'ilt'c8 1 9 fxg7 l:td8 20 h4 etc. 15 'ilt'c2! 0-0 15 ... ltJxe3? is poor due to an in­ termediate check 16 'ilt'c6 + ! . 1 6 l:tadl Other moves are not dangerous: a) 1 6 ltJeg5 i.xg5 1 7 ltJxg5 g6 ( 1 7 . . . ltJxg5 18 'ilt'xf5 ltJe6 19 'ilt'e4 c5 20 f4 f5 2 1 exf6 'ilt'xf6 22 f5 ltJd4 23 'ilt'd5 + 'ilt'f7 is also satisfactory for Black, according to Larsen) 18 ltJxe6 fxe6 19 l:tae1 'ilt'd5 20 b3 l:tac8 with equality (Karpov-Kor­ chnoi, World Championship match, Merano 1981). •.•

34 Made by Karpov b) 16 lDf6 + i.xf6 17 'ii'xf5 i.e7 18 l:tfdl (18 l:tadl 'ii'c8 19 lDd2 l:td8 20 f4 c5 with an unclear position is Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Sara­ jevo 1984) 18 . . . 'ii'c8 19 l:tacl l:td8 20 l:txd8 + 'ii'xd8 2 1 'ii'e 4 c5 equal­ ising (R.Bellin-Botterill, England 1987). 16 l:tadl allows Black to destroy White's pawn structure. However, White completes the development of his pieces and obtains a formi­ dable attacking position. Which is more important? lDxe3 16 'ii'c8 17 fxe3 17 'ii'e8 is less exact, e.g. 18 lDd4 l:td8 19 lDxe6 (19 lDf5 ! ? l:txd l 20 'ii'x dl i.d8 2 1 'ii'g4 �h8 22 lDd4 is also unpleasant, Andrijevic-Mi­ i!ic, Belgrade 1988) 19 . . . l:txdl (Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1987) when, according to Van der Wiel, instead of 20 l:txdl?! White could have obtained a slight ad­ vantage by 20 li)xf8 l:txfl + 21 � i.xfB 22 lDg5 g6 23 'ii'xc7. Black should prefer 19 . . . fxe6 20 l:txfB + i.xfB 2 1 l:t£1 , although White still holds a slight edge here. The position after 1 7 . . . 'ii'c8 (D) is the most popular of the whole 9 lDbd2 system. White attempts to make use of his better development, space ad­ vantage and the d- and f-files. Black hopes to simplify the game so that his trumps come into play, viz . the weakness of White's dou­ bled pawns and Black's pawn ad­ vantage on the queenside. White's •••

•••

knight on f3 is still passive; but Black has some problems with ac­ tivating his rooks. 18 lDd4 The most natural move but there are also other possibilities: a) 18 lDg3!? is an idea of Sax's which deserves serious attention. However, in the game Sax-Hellers (Haninge 1989) Black's position after 18 . . . l:td8 19 lDd4 lDxd4 20 exd4 c6 2 1 lDf5 i.fB 22 l:td3 'ii'e 6 23 'ii'd2 l:td7 proved very solid. b) 18 l:td3 (with the intention of doubling rooks along the d-file) 18 . . . c5 (18 . . . l:td8!? is worth consid­ ering) 19 lDd6 'ii'c 7 (if 19 . . . 'ii'b 8 20 b3 l:ta7 21 l:tfdl l:td8 - planning . . . i.e7-fB and . . . l:ta7-d7 - then 22 lDxf7!? �xf7 23 l:txd8 is possible, as in Stoica-Marin, Eforie-Nord 1988, though, according to Stoica, the complications after 23 . . . i.xd8 ! lead to a draw) 20 l:tfd l l:tfd8! 2 1 l:td5 .i. fB ! 22 b 3 l:ta7 2 3 'ii'£2 ?! (23 l:tld2!? followed by 'ii'c 2-dl was suggested by Beliavsky) 23 . . . 'ii'c 6 24 e4 l:tad7 with good counterplay for Black, as in Short-Beliavsky,

Made by Karpov 35

Barcelona 1989 - illustrativegame 10. A remarkable plan for Black! c) 18 h3 !? (this is one of Kar­ pov's typically 'mysterious' moves; White prepares the manoeuvre �f3-h2-g4, so Black, without los­ ing time, starts to simplify the position) 18 J!d8 (after 18 . . . a5, Klovans-Levin, Groningen 1991, 19 �h2 !? should be considered) 19 �h2 (19 .l:r.c1 c5 20 'ii'f2 'ii'b 7 2 1 �h2 'ii'xe4 2 2 'ii'xf7 + 'iti>h8 2 3 'ii'xe6 �g5 ! was equal in Karpov-Yusu­ pov, Linares 1983) 19 .l:r.xdl 20 'ii'xd l 'ii'e8 ! (this square is now a very comfortable place for Black's queen; 2 1 . . . �c5 is poor due to 22 'ii'd5!) 2 1 �g3 (21 'ii'h5 is harmless due to 2 1 . . .�c5 22 �g3 a5 ! 23 �f5 - 23 'ii'f3 !? is a suggestion of Tal's - 23 . . . .l:r.a6 24 �g4 .l:r.g6 25 b3 i.d8 26 �f2 'ii'c 6 with enough counter­ play for Black in Tal-Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1987 - illustrative game 1 1 while 2 1 �g4 .l:r.d8 22 'ii'c2 c5 23 �g3 c4 - 23 . . . .l:r.d7 24 �f5 was slightly favourable for White in Mokry-Ernst, Gausdal 1989 - 24 'ii'e4 .l:r.c8 25 �f5 b4 26 �fh6 + ! ? gxh6 2 7 �xh6 + 'iti>h8 28 �xf7 + 'it?g8 29 'ii'g4 + �g7 30 e6 �c5 ! led to a draw in Prasad-Ernst, Gaus­ dal 199 1 ; in this last variation 2 1 . . .a5 !? was even better) (D) 2 1 . . .a5! (this is the same idea as in Tal-Korchnoi: Black's rook is activated along the sixth rank; instead 2 1 . . . .l:r.d8 22 'ii'c2 c5 23 �g4 leads to the last variation) 22 �g4 (or 22 �f5 .l:r.a6 23 'ii'd 5 �d8 24 �g4 h 5 ! , and Black equalised in ••

•••

-

the game Watson-Flear, London 1990) 22 . . . .l:r.a6 23 �h5 �f8 24 'ii'f3 �g6 25 'ii'b 7 'ii'c6 26 'ii'c8 + i.f8, and White had to force a draw by 27 .l:r.f6 gxf6 28 �h6 + in Mokry­ Haba, Germany 1992 . By means of 18 �d4 White man­ ages to straighten out his pawn structure. However, the exchange of knights gives Black more room for manoeuvres. 18 �xd4 19 exd4 'ii'e 6!

20 �g3 Taking the c7 pawn is risky for White: 20 'ii'xc7 .l:r.ac8 (20 . . . .l:r.fc8 !?)

36 Made by Karpov 21 'lVa5 �c2 22 �f2 (22 �d2? �c4 23 a3 .td8) 22 . . . �fc8! (22 . . . 'lVg4 is less exact: 23 'lVe1 ! i.b4 2 4 .!Dc3 :xf2 25 �xf2 to 26 exf'6 �+ 2 7 �gl and White was slightly better in de Firmian-Hellers, Bie1 1989) 23 'lVel (Hiibner-Ljubojevic, Til­ burg 1985), and now instead of 23 . . .'lVxa2? 24 .!Dd6 ! Hiibner rec­ ommends 23 . . . �xf2 24 'lVxf2 'lVxa2 2 5 d5 'lVb3 ! with good counterplay. Also satisfactory for Black are 20 �d3 to 2 1 'lVxc7 fxe5 2 2 'lVxe5 �xf1 + 23 �xf1 �f8 + 24 m3 'lVc4 + 25 �f2 i.h4 + (Chandler-Yusupov, Minsk 1982) and 20 �f3 c6 2 1 �dn (2 1 a3 to ) 2 1 . . .�ad8 22 .!DtO + i.xf6 23 exf6 �xd4 (de Firmian­ Hiibner, Oslo 1984). c6 20 The trap 20 f6? 21 .!Df5 ! fxe5? 22 'lVb3 ! proved to be fatal for two •••

•••

grandmasters : Yusupov (against Tseshkovsky, Erevan 1982) and Nunn (against Chandler, Nrestved 1985). 20 . . . c5 2 1 dxc5 �fc8 22 b4 a5 23 a3 axb4 24 axb4 'lVxe5 2 5 �fe1 gave White a slight edge in Wed­ berg-Morovic (New York, 1988) . After the text move Black's po­ sition is very solid. In Smirin­ Mikhalchishin (Klaipeda 1988) 2 1 tM5 �fe8 2 2 .!Dxe7 + �xe7 2 3 �f3 �d7 24 �c3 'lVxa2 25 �xc6 �ad8 26 �c8 'lVd5 led to equality. We have examined one of the most topical lines of the Open Spanish, which has been devel­ oped quite deeply. However, as we saw in Section 1, Black has good possibilities to avoid a theoretical discussion and still obtain good counter-chances.

4

In an Antique Shop

( 1 e4 e 5 2 tM3 lDe6 3 .ib5 a6 4 J.a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 J.b3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6) 9 'lVe2

White's basic idea is clear and simple: l:tfl-d1 followed by c2-c4 or lDb1-c3 attacking the d5 pawn.

Section 1 Different ways for Black Black usually plays 9 . . . J.e7 here, but in this section we deal with other possibilities. 9 J.e5 Black's other alternatives are: a) 9 g5? is refuted by 10 c4! bxc4 1 1 .ia4 .id7 12 e6! fxe6 13 .ixc6 .ixc6 14 lDe5 with a clear advantage for White, as in Boles­ lavsky-Stoltz, Saltsjobaden 1948 or 10 . . . g4 1 1 cxd5 .ixd5 12 lDg5 lDd4 13 'lVe3 J.c5 14 i.xd5 ! lDf3 + 15 'lVxf3 gxf3 16 lDxe4 again with a clear advantage (Nikitin-Sav­ eliev, USSR 1962). As it has been said in the intro­ duction, it is useful for Black to exchange White 's light-squared bishop. However, in this position it is apparently somewhat prema­ ture: b) 9 lDa5 led to an edge for White in the game Hort-Grey (USA 1974) : 10 c3 lDxb3 1 1 axb3 lDc5 12 lDd4 'lVc8 13 b4 lDd7 14 f4, while 10 lDd4!? c5 1 1 lDxe6 fxe6 12 c3 (Euwe) is also better for White. c) 9 lDe5 leads to a line exam­ ined in Section 2 (after 10 l:td1 .ie7), which is not considered to ...

...

The first time this line ap­ peared in top-level practice was in Keres-Euwe (World Champion­ ship, Hague/Moscow 1948) ; it was then named after the great Esto­ nian grandmaster. It remained popular until the seventies, when it quite suddenly went out of fash­ ion. These days the Keres vari­ ation is a rare visitor to top-level tournaments. Incidentally, the fact that its popularity peaked before the period of the chess informa­ tion explosion means that it has not been developed as deeply as other lines, so there are still many relatively unexplored avenues. Who can predict whether one day this system will not rise from the ashes like a Phoenix?

•••

•••

38 In an Antique Shop be quite satisfactory for Black. Instead of 10 ltdl, 10 .ig5 is harm­ less due to 10 . . . .ie7 1 1 .ixe7 iDxe7 12 iDd4 0-0 13 iDd2 iDd7 14 c3 c5 CMinic-Karaklaic, Yugoslav cham­ pionship 1957). After 10 ltdl Black has the following possibilities, besides 10 . . . .ie7: cl) 10 iDa5 11 .ig5 ..d7 12 iDc3 c6 13 ltd4 .ie7 14 ltad l 0-0 15 "d2 with a slight advantage CS.Nikolic-Gyozos, Hungary 1969). c2) 10 b4 11 .ie3 iDxb3 12 axb3 "c8 13 c4 dxc4 14 bxc4 h6 15 iDbd2 .ie7 16 iDb3 again with a slight advantage for White (Smys­ lov-Reshevsky, World Champion­ ship, Hague/Moscow 1948). c3) 10 iDxb3!? 11 axb3 ( 1 1 cxb3 "d7 12 h3?! i s dubious be­ cause of 12 . . . .ic5 13 iDc3 .ib6 14 .ie3 d4 and Black already had the better game in Matulovic-Ujtumen, Palma de Mallorca 1970) 1 1 . . ...c8 C 1 1 . . . .ie7 12 c4! leads to a position from Section 2) •••

•••

•••

Smyslov. White 's attack is based on his advantage in development) 12 . . . dxc4 C I 2 . . . bxc4 13 bxc4 iDb4 14 iDc3 dxc4 15 .ig5 iDd3 16 b3, as given by Keres or 12 . . . iDh4 13 cxb5 axb5 14 ltxa8 "xa8 15 .id2 c6 16 iDd4, as in the game Pisek-Rato­ listka, Czechoslovakia 1957, are promising for White) 13 bxc4 .ixc4 14 "e4 'ii'b 7 C14 . . . iDe7? is poor due to 15 iDa3, as in Smyslov-Euwe, World Championship, Hague/Mos­ cow 1948 illustrative game 12) 15 iDc3 .ib3 16 ltd2 ltb8 1 7 e6 ! fxe6 18 iDg5 with a strong initia­ tive for White. 9 . . . .ic5, with the exchange of dark-squared bishops, turns out rather favourable for White as well. 10 .ie3 Of course! 10 iDbd2 iDxd2 1 1 .ixd2 0-0 1 2 ltadl lte8 1 3 a4 ltb8 14 axb5 axb5 15 .ie3 .ixe3 16 'it'xe3 iDe7 17 c3 c6 18 .ic2 'iib 6 did not yield White any advantage in the game Ljubojevic-Larsen (Li­ nares 198 1). 0-0 10 The capture on e3 leads to lines considered below. The other possi­ bilities are: a) 10 iDa5 1 1 iDbd2 .ixe3 12 "xe3 iDxd2 13 iDxd2 0-0 14 ltadl 'it'e7 15 f4 f5 16 iDf3 and White is slightly better (Lobron-Cladouras, Germany 1984) . b) 10 iDe7 1 1 .ixc5 tbxc5 1 2 iDd4 0-0 13 iDd2 iD d 7 14 f4 c 5 15 iDxe6 fxe6 16 c3 'it'b6 1 7 .ic2 iDf5 18 �h l again with a slight edge -

•••

•••

•••

12 c4! (a strong pawn sacrifice that was introduced by Vassily

In an Antique Shop 39

(N evostruev-Petelin, Vladivostok 1990). c) 10 'fIe7 1 1 :dl :d8 12 lDbd2 ( 1 2 a4 .ixe3 13 'fIxe3 lDc5 is equal) 12 . . . .ixe3 ( 1 2 . . . lDxd2 13 :xd2 h6 14 :adl yields White a clear plus, Parma-Korchnoi, Rome 198 1 ) 13 'fIxe3 lDc5 14 c3 .ig4 15 :el 0-0 16 lDd4 lDxd4 1 7 cxd4 lDe6 18 f4 again with a clear plus (Ros­ setto-Schweber, Argentina 1970). d) 10 .i g4 11 :dl ( 1 1 a4 !?) 11 . . . lDe7. Now instead of 1 2 c3 c6 13 .ic2 'fIc7, as in A.Ivanov-Aseev, USSR 1983, 12 h3! .ih5 13 g4 .ig6 14 lDbd2 was very strong. 1 1 :dl 11 c3 is weaker - see Chapter 6 (9 c3 .ic5 10 'fIe2 etc.). 11 lDbd2 is another natural move, to which Black has reacted in different ways: a) 1 1 :e8?! yields White an edge after the straightforward 12 lDxe4 dxe4 13 .ixe6 fxe6 (13 . . . exf3 14 iLxf7 + ! ) 14 lDg5 iLxe3 15 'fIxe3 lDxe5 16 :ad l 'fIe7 1 7 lDxe4 (Tal­ Korchnoi, Brussels 1987). b) 11 .ixe3 12 'fIxe3 lDxd2 13 'fIxd2 lDe7 (D) and now: bl) The attempt to seize dark squares on the queenside at once does not succeed: 14 'fIc3 a5 15 a4 b4 16 'fIc5 'fId7 followed by . . . c7-c6 and . . . 'fId7-a7 with an equal posi­ tion, as in Lobron-Yusupov, Sara­ jevo 1984. b2) Against 14 'fIe3!?, which yielded White a small plus after 14 . . . c6 15 c3 'fIc 7 16 a4 (Grigorov­ Vukic, Shumen 1988), Yusupov •••

•••

•.•

•••

recommends the continuation 14 . . . lDf5 15 'fIc5 'fIe7 16 'fIc6 :fd8 followed by 17 . . . 'fId7. b3) White should activate his bishop with 14 c3 c5 and now not 15 h3 a5 16 :adl b4 17 .ia4 bxc3 18 bxc3 'fIc7 with equal chances Katowice (Balashov-Korneev, 1992) , but 15 .ic2, with the idea of b2-b4, which promises White a slight edge according to Yusupov. However, Black has a stronger reply to l 1 lDbd2 : c) 1 l lDxd2! 12 'fIxd2 d4 (Black must avoid the exchange of dark­ squared bishops ! ) 13 .ig5 'fId7 14 h3 :fe8 15 :fel iLb4 16 c3 dxc3 1 7 bxc3 'ii'xd2 18 iLxd2 .ia3 19 iLcl iLfB with a good endgame for Black (Schmid-Korchnoi, Lucerne 1982) . This explains why 1 1 :dl, taking the d4 square under con­ trol, is more accurate. lDe7 11 Or: a) 1l lDa5 12 lDbd2 .ixe3 13 'ii'xe3 lDxd2 14 :xd2 c6 15 c3 'fIc7 16 lDd4 with a slight plus (Minic­ Honfi, Vrnja�ka Banja 1966). •••

•••

•••

40 In an Antique Shop

b) 1 l d4!? 12 lZ)c3 ! lZ)xc3 13 bxc3 dxe3 14 l:txd8 exf2 + 15 ..t>f1 ltaxd8 (Antunes-Flear, Pau 1988). Now instead of 16 'lVe4 White could have maintained an edge by means of 16 .ixe6 fxe6 1 7 lZ)g5 (Antunes). c) 11 .ixe3 12 'lVxe3 lZ)e7 13 lZ)bd2 lZ)f5 14 'lVe2 lZ)xd2 15 'lVxd2 c6 16 a4 'lVb6 1 7 axb5 axb5 18 c3 with a minimal edge for White (Balashov-Smyslov, Tilburg 1977 illustrative game 13) . 13 c3 fol­ lowed by .ic2 was probably even stronger, by analogy with the fol­ lowing game. 12 c3! •••

strategically complicated and be­ cause of this quite playable. N ow we move on to the main line of the Keres variation.

Section 2 9 .i.e7 ...

•••

( 1 e4 e5 2 lZ)f3 lZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 lZ)f6 5 0-0 lZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 'lVe2) 9 .ie7 ...

-

Preparing both lZ)f3-d4 and .ib3-c2 , e.g. 12 c6 13 lZ)d4 .i.b6 14 .ic2 'lVc7 15 f3 lZ)c5 16 f4 lZ)e4 17 lZ)d2 lZ)xd2 18 l:txd2 c5 19 lZ)f3 and White was slightly better (A Sokolov-Korneev, Bad Woris­ hofen 1992). Generally, the lines examined in this section yield White a mini­ mal advantage. However, the posi­ tions appearing are little-studied, •••

10 l:tdl For 10 c3 see Chapter 7. 10 c4?! is dubious: 10 ... bxc4 1 1 .ia4 .id7 1 2 e6 fxe6 1 3 .i.xc6 .ixc6 14 lZ)e5 ..tb7 15 'lVh5 + g6 16 lZ)xg6 lZ)f6 1 7 'lVh4 l:tg8 18 lZ)e5 d4 and Black held the advantage (Keres­ Bronstein, Moscow 1946) or 1 2 lZ)c3 lZ)c5 13 e 6 fxe6 1 4 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 15 lZ)e5 'lVd6 16 'lVh5 + g6 17 lZ)xg6 hxg6 18 'lVxh8 + ..t>d7 with an in­ itiative for Black (Abroshin-Rad­ chenko, corr 1954). Black's most common reply to 10 l:tdl is 10 ... 0-0, which we shall deal with in the following section.

In an Antique Shop 41

Here we examine another natural move. .!Dc5 10 Preparing to immediately get rid of White's b3 bishop . Still, White maintains better chances due to his lead in development. 1 1 c4! Consistently following the gen­ eral plan. However, there are many other options : a) 1 1 c3?! .!Dxb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 .!Dbd2 d4 14 b4 d3 15 'ii'e3 'ii'd5 16 h3 l:tfd8 is favourable for Black (Abramovic-Agzamov, Belgrade 1982 - illustrative game 14). b) 11 i.xd5!? i.xd5 12 .!Dc3 (this temporary piece sacrifice was worked through to almost a forced draw back in the fifties) 12 i.c4! (not 12 . . ..!Db4? 13 .!Del 'ii'd 7 14 a3 'ii'c 6 15 axb4 i.c4 16 'ii'g4 .!De6 1 7 .!De4 and White was on top in Kotkov-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi 1956) 13 l:txdS + l:txdS 14 'ii'e 3 b4 15 b3 i.e6 (15 . . . bxc3 16 i.a3 ! ) 16 .!De4 ( 1 6 .!Da4?! .!Dxa4 17 bxa4 is met by 17 . . . .!Dxe5 ! ! 18 h3 18 'ii'xe5 i.ill - 18 . . . lDc4 19 'ii'e2 h6 and Black stood slightly better in Eriksson-Altshuler, corr 1968) 16 l:td l + 1 7 .!Del .!Dd4 IS i.b2 (18 i.d2 is bad due to 18 . . . l:txal 19 'ii'xd4 lDxe4 20 'ii'xa1 lDxd2, e.g. 2 1 f3 i.f5! 2 2 �f2 0-0 23 �e2 l:td8 24 .!Dd3 i.g5 25 g3 i.h6 26 .!Dxb4 i.h3 ! , Harrison-Sasek, corr 1961) IS lDxc2 19 'ii'e2 ]hal 20 i.xal .!Dxal 2 1 .!Dxc5 i.xc5 22 lDd3 (this and the following moves are considered to be practically forced)

22 i.b6 23 lLlxb4 0-0 24 .!Dc6 f6! 25 h4 !xe5! 26 'ii'xe5 :f6 27 .!DdS •.•

•••

•••

•••

•••

This endgame position (which is nothing special for an opening monograph! ) appeared in Timman­ Yusupov (Montpellier 1985) . Now Suetin recommends 2 7 . . . i.c8, but Yusupov preferred 27 . . . i.f7 28 lDxf7 �xf7 29 'ii'xa1 l:txf2 30 �h2 a5 31 'ii'e 5 h6 32 a4 g6 with an un­ assailable fortress. c) 11 .!Dc3 (a logical move re­ quiring exact play from Black, be­ cause otherwise White's pressure along the central files can become unpleasant; this and the following line often occur when White starts with 9 i.e3) 1 1 .!Dxb3 12 cxb3 (opening the c-file for the white rook; 12 axb3 is insipid: 12 . . . 0-0 13 i.e3 .!Db4 14 lDa2 .!Dxa2 15 l:txa2 c5 etc., as in the game Aronin­ Keres, USSR championship, Mos­ cow 1949) 12 0-0 13 i.e3 (13 i.f4 is not dangerous for Black, e.g . 13 . . . 'ii'd 7 14 l:tac1 l:tad8 15 i.g3 .!Da5 16 .!De4 .!Db7, as in Barczay­ Stoica, Moscow 1977, but 13 h3!? is •••

•••

42 In an Antique Shop an interesting alternative. White tries to win a tempo after 13 . . . 'iVd7 14 .ig5 ! , as in Tatai-Cortlever, Am­ sterdam 1970, when Black should have played 14 . . J!ad8 . Pay atten­ tion to this typical way of exchang­ ing dark-squared bishops! Only slightly more accurate for Black is 13 . . . ll)b8 14 'iVd3?! c6 15 .if4 ll)d7 with good counterplay in the game Tatai-Ornstein, Le Havre 1977, as 14 ll)d4 was obviously bet­ ter, while 13 . . . ll)a5 also fails due to 14 ll)d4 c5 15 ll)xe6 fxe6 16 'iVg4 'iVc8 1 7 .ih6 1!f7 18 ll)xd5 ! exd5 19 e6, when in Matulovic-Todorovic, Vrnja�ka Banja 1990, White held a distinct advantage. 13 . . . h6 !? 14 .ie3 'iVd7 is probably the best op­ tion for Black) 13 'iVd7 (Black intends to strengthen his position in the centre and prepare . . . f7-f6 or . . . d5-d4) •••

tempo! - 14 . . . 1!ad8 15 1!ac 1 1!fe8 16 .ixe7 1!xe7 17 h3 d4 18 ll)e4 .id5 as in Matulovic-Savon, Skop­ je 1968) 14 . . . f6 (just in time, as af­ ter 14 . . . 1!ad8 15 1!ad1 1!fe8 16 h3 f6 1 7 ll)xd5 .ixd5 18 1!xd5 'iVxd5 19 1!xd5 1!xd5 20 exf6 .ixf6 2 1 'iVc2 White was slightly better in A. Sokolov-Marin, Manila 1990) 15 exf6 .ixf6 16 1!ad1 .ixc3 17 bxc3 1!ad8 18 ll)d4 ll)xd4 19 .ixd4 (19 cxd4!?) 19 ... .ig4, and Black has equalised (Ivkov-Suetin, Yugosla­ via-USSR 1963). d) 11 .ie3. This important po­ sition often appears from another move order: 9 .ie3 ll)c5 10 'iVe2 .ie7 11 1!dl . Black now has two op­ tions: d1) 11 0-0 12 c4 (12 ll)c3 �b3 13 cxb3 leads to the 1 1 ll)c3 line) 12 bxc4 13 .ixc4 ll)a5 ! (the only move since 14 ll)c3 was threat­ ened; however, White obtains a new tactical possibility) 14 .ixd5! ( 14 .ixc5? ! .ixc5 15 .ixa6 f6! 16 ll)c3 fxe5 1 7 .ib5 c6 18 'iVxe5 'iVd7 yielded Black an excellent position in Krasenkov-Sorokin, Kemerovo 1985) 14 .ixd5 (D) 15 ll)c3 (15 b4 is less dangerous: 15 ... .ixf3 16 gxf3 - or 16 'iVxf3 ll)d 7 1 7 'iVh3 .i.xb4 18 a3 ll)b3 19 1!a2 .i.c5 20 1!xd7 'iVc8 with good coun­ terplay in Shevechek-Sapundziev, corr 1971 - 16 . . ...e8 1 7 .i.xc5 .ixc5 18 bxc5 "c6 equalising according to Euwe) 15 . . . .ixf3 (15 . . . c6 is insuf­ ficient: 16 b4 ll)e6 17 �d5 cxd5 18 bxa5 "xa5 19 l1)d4 with a clear ad­ vantage in Schmidt-Sydor, Poland •••

•••

•••

14 1!d2 (Black equalises after 14 1!ac1 1!ad8 15 a3 ll)a5 16 b4 ll)c4 1 7 .ig5 .i.xg5 18 ll)xg5 "fIe7, as in Shamkovich-Radashkovich, Netanya 1975, or 14 .i.g5 - losing a

In an Antique Shop 43

1966) 16 'ikxf3 'ike8 17 b4 lbd7 (not 1 7 . . . lba4? 18 lbd5 ! lbc4 19 lbxc7 'ikb8 20 lbxa8 'ikxa8 2 1 'ikf4, as in Jansa-Sydor, Bucharest 1971) 18 bxa5 lbxe5 19 'ikf5 lbg6 20 �ac1 .ta3 2 1 �b1, and White retained a certain amount of pressure (Hiib­ ner-Korchnoi, Solingen 1973). d2) 11 lbxb3! (this is appar­ ently more accurate) 12 axb3 (12 cxb3 ! 0-0 13 lbc3 transposes to the l 1 lbc3 line ; the text move is less dangerous) 12 . . . 'ikc8 ( 1 2 . . . 'ikb8 13 lbc3 lbb4 14 .tg5 c5 15 .txe7 f1 l:tfb8 and Black's position was slightly bet­ ter in Kr. Georgiev-Ekstrom, Ber­ lin 1988. b) 16 .tg5

. a a •• a a _iVa _ . . a�a.t.. • • a•• aiLa a a � .lD. �a

�� �"

a'iV� � �

. d:. d

� �

This move looks formidable, but Black can obtain good counter­ play by a typical regrouping ma­ noeuvre : 16 . . . 'it>h8 ! (16 . . . ttJa5? 1 7 'ilt'xe6 + 'iVxe6 18 .txd5 'iVxd5?! 1 9 l:txd5 .txc3 2 0 l:tc1, Fischer-Ree, N etanya 1968 illustrative game 15 16 . . . 'iVd6? 17 'iVxe6 + 'iVxe6 18 i.xd5 'ilt'xd5 19 l:txd5 i.xc3 20 l:tc1 , Zhidkov-Yuferov, USSR 1974, and 16 . . . l:tae8? 1 7 .txf6 l:txffi 18 i.xd5 .txd5 19 l:txd5, Grefe-Estrin, Al­ bena 1974, are all inferior, while 16 . . . .txc3 1 7 l:tac1 .tf6 18 .txf6 l:txf6 19 ttJg5 ttJe7 20 l:te1 dxc4 2 1 ttJxe6 also allows White an initia­ tive, according to Euwe) 17 .txf6 -

-

(17 'iVe3 ttJa5 18 .tb3 .txg5 19 ttJxg5 .tg8 is also unclear, accord­ ing to Szmetan) 17 . . . l:txf6 18 ttJg5 ( 1 8 l:td2? is met by 18 . . . l:txf3 ! 19 gxf3 'ilt'f7 20 l:te1 .th3 with a dan­ gerous attack, Young-G. Garcia, New York 1989) 18 . . . .tg8 (18 . . . ttJa5 is also possible, e.g. 19 .txa6 .tg4 20 f3 l:tfxa6 2 1 fxg4 h6 22 ttJf3 ttJb3, Sigurjonsson-F.Olafsson, Ge­ neva 1977, or 19 'iVd3 .tg8 20 ttJe4 .tg6 with equal chances according to Korchnoi) 19 .txa6 (or 19 .txd5 .txd5 20 c4 i.xc4 2 1 'iVxc4 'iVf5 2 2 ttJf3 ttJe5 with equality, Morovic Fernandez-Milos, Buenos Aires 1992 ; after 19 . . . l:te8 20 1M2 ttJe5 2 1 .te2 l:tef8 22 f3 l:tg6 23 'it>h1 h6 24 ttJh3 l:tgf6 Black obtained a sufficient initiative for the sacri­ ficed pawn (Laisaari-Iversen, corr 1980) . .txg5 16 h6 17 .txg5 17 l:tae8 18 'ilt'd2 ttJe5 19 .txd5 .txd5 20 'iVxd5 + 'ilt'xd5 21 l:txd5 l:tf5 22 l:td8 yielded White an edge in the game Geller-Larsen (Co­ penhagen 1966) . ttJe5 18 .te3 Centralisation! 18 'ilt'd6 leads to transposition of moves after 19 .tb3 ttJe5, but 19 .txa6? (instead of 19 i.b3) is bad due to 19 . . . ttJe5 20 .td3 i.g4 21 f3 ttJxf3 + ! and so on. 19 i.b3 'iVd6 (D) The critical position of the Ek­ strom variation. Does the activity of Black's pieces compensate for White's bishop pair? •••

..•

...

In an Antique Shop 47

The text move leads to a dou­ ble-edged position after 23 'ii'd2 tZ)ffi 24 lIh4 lIa 7 (Korchnoi) . Black seems to have sufficient counter­ play.

Section 4 Main line with 1 2 .i.c5 ...

20 lId4! Black's rooks are very active on the e- and f-files, so White tries to exchange one pair of rooks. 20 b3 lIae8 2 1 'ii'h 5 .i.f7 22 'ii'h4 c5 23 'ii'g3 c4 24 i.c2 .i.h5 yielded Black good counter-chances in Iv­ kov-Addison, Maribor 1967. c5 20 tZ)d7 21 lIf4 For 2 1 ..ti>bS?! 22 lId 1 tZ)d7 see below. Instead 2 1 . g5 22 lIxfB + lIxfB 23 f3 .i.f5 24 lIdl! c4 25 i.xc4 tZ)xc4 26 'ii'xc4 'ii'x h2 + 2 7 ..ti>xh2 dxc4 yields White a slightly better endgame (Sydor) . 22 lIdl Or 22 lIel .i.f7 23 lIdl tZ)f6 24 i.c2 lIac8 25 'ii'd3 lIfe8 26 lIa4 lIc6 with an equal game (Jansa-Mar­ tens, Gothenburg 1968). 'ii'c6 22 Now 22 ..ti>bS is useless. Both 23 'ii'd 2 tZ)f6 24 lIh4 lIa 7 25 .i.f4 'ii'd8 26 .i.e5 ( Sevei:ek-Karker, corr 1968) and 23 'ii'f3 tZ)f6 24 c4 lIac8 25 cxd5 i.g8 26 i.c4 (Schmid­ Kritinsson, Siegen 1970) are un­ pleasant for Black.

( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .i.b3 d5 S dxe5 .i.e6 9 'ii'e2 .i.e7 10 lIdl 0-0 1 1 c4 bxc4 12 .i.xc4) 12 .i.c5 .i.xe3 13 .i.e3 14 'ii'xe3 'ii'bs

•••

•••

••

•••

•••

By means of this manoeuvre Black gets rid of the unpleasant pin, and this is considered his most solid retort to the Keres variation. Incidentally, 14 tZ)b4 is prema­ ture, e.g. 15 .i.b3 c5 16 tZ)c3 c4 1 7 tZ)xe4 cxb3 1 8 'ii'xb3 , and White wins a pawn (van Scheltinga-Cua­ drado, corr 1950). tZ)a5 15 .i.b3 The idea of swapping the 'Span­ ish' bishop now works perfectly! •••

48 In an Antique Shop Besides this move, Black has the following possibilities: a) 15 'iVa7!? 16 'iVxa7 &iJxa7 (16 . . . lha7 is risky due to 17 �xd5, e.g. 17 ... �xd5 18 lhd5 �b4 19 l:td4 �c2 20 lhe4 �xal 2 1 lDa3 l:tb7 22 l:tel l:txb2 23 l:txal l:td8 24 h3) 1 7 �bd2 ( 1 7 �xd5? l:tad8) 17 . . . �c5 18 �c2 l:tab8 with counterplay for Black (Turner-Mohrmann, Krum­ bach 1991) . b) 15 �e 7!? 16 �c3 �xc3 17 'iVxc3 a5 18 :acl (18 'iVc5!?) 18 . . . a4 19 �c2 'iVb6 20 l:td4 with a slight plus for White (Winterstein-Wag­ man, Forli 1991). These two lines require further examination. c) 15 'iVb6 16 'iVe2 (exchanging queens is quite pleasant for Black: after 16 'iVxb6 cxb6 1 7 �a3 l:tfd8 18 �c2 �a5 neither 19 �cd4 �c4 20 llabl lIac8 2 1 h3 h6 22 l:tel �c5 , Ivanovic-Timman, Belgrade 1987, nor 19 �b4 �c4 20 �xc4 dxc4 2 1 �xa6 lIxd l + 22 lIxdl h6 23 �b4 l:ta4 24 a3 c3, Tukmakov­ Korchnoi, USSR championship, Moscow 1973 yields White a plus) 16 . . . lIad8 1 7 �c3 �xc3 18 bxc3 'iVc5 (or 18 . . . �e7 19 lIabl 'iVa5 20 c4 dxc4 21 �xc4 with a slight edge for White in Vogt-Strobel, Vraca 1975) 19 h3 i.. c 8 20 'iVd3 lIfe8 2 1 lIel g6 2 2 lIadl (Hubner-Korch­ noi, Solingen 1973) . Now, accord­ ing to Suetin, Black should have played 22 . . . �e7, when White's edge is minimal. Coming back to 15 . . . �5. 16 lLIel •••

•••

White threatens 17 f3 and pre­ pares �el-d3 . Another possibility is 16 �bd2. Now both 16 liJx:d2 17 l:txd2 �xb3 18 axb3 lIc8 19 l:tcl c5 20 lhc5 lhc5 21 'iVxc5 'iVxb3 22 �d4 (Keres-Euwe, World champi­ onship, HaguelMoscow 1948) and 16 'iVb6 17 'iVxb6 cxb6 18 �d4 �c5 19 �c2 �c4 20 b4 (Wegner­ Hegeler, Hamburg 1988) yield White an edge. Black should play 16 'iVa7! (to exchange queens see the introduction! - without isolating his d5 pawn) with the following possibilities: •••

•••

•••

•••

a) 17 lIac l 'iVxe3 18 fxe3 c5 with equality (Kr.Georgiev-Lalic, Berlin 1988). b) 1 7 liJx:e4 'iVxe3 18 fxe3 �b3 19 axb3 dxe4 20 �d4 :tb8 21 lIdcl (2 1 lIa3 c5 ! 22 �xe6 fxe6 23 lId6 �f7 with equality) 2 1 . . .i.. xb3 22 lIxc7 �e6 23 lIdl lIb6 24 b4 h6, equalising in Tal-Sturua, Erevan 1982. c) 17 'iVxa7 lIxa7 18 lIacl (18 lLIxe4 �xb3 19 axb3 dxe4 20 � 4 c5 is equal, Chekhov) 18 . . . c5 19

In an Antique Shop 49

�xe4 �xb3 20 axb3 dxe4 2 1 �d2 e3! 22 fxe3 ltb7 23 �e4 ltxb3 24 �xc5 ltxe3 with balanced chances (Matanovic-Korchnoi,Yugoslavia­ USSR 1966). d} 17 �d4 �xd2 18 'ii'x d2 (18 ltxd2 c5 19 �f3 �xb3 20 'ii'xb3 ltab8 2 1 'ii'a3 ltb5, with equality Ivanovic-Beckemeyer, Berlin 1988) 18 . . . 'ii'b 6 19 i.c2 c5 (19 . . . �4!? 20 'ii'e 2 c5 was suggested by Geller) 20 �f5 i.xf5 2 1 .ixf5 ltad8, again with equal chances, Kavalek-Kar­ pov, Montreal 1979 illustrative game 1 6. �b3 16 16 'ii'b6 1 7 'ii'xb6 cxb6 is pos­ sible as well, for example 18 f3 (18 i.c2?! �c4 19 f3 �c5 20 b4 �d 7 2 1 f4 ltac8 and Black had the ad­ vantage in the game Lenz-Kolev, Vienna 1990) 18 . . . �xb3 19 axb3 �c5 20 b4 �d7 2 1 �d3 (Karpov­ Korchnoi, World Championship match, Baguio 1978) . Now either 2 1 . . .a5 (Smyslov) or 2 1 . . . .if5 (Sue­ tin) would have lead to equality. f5 17 axb3 First of all, to prevent 18 f3 (18 . . . f4!). 18 ex:f6 18 �d 3? is poor due to 18 . . . d4! 19 'ii'xd4 ltd8 20 'ii'e3 'ii'b 6 2 1 lta3

ltd4, and Black seizes the initia­ tive (Ude-Kuuskmaa, corr 1978) . If 18 �d2 then 18 . . . c5. lbf6 18 �d6 19 f3 20 �d2 lth6

-

•••

•••

Black's pieces are now well placed, and his counterplay is suf­ ficient, e.g. 2 1 ltdcl c5 ! 22 M c4 (Sakharov-Oim, corr 1977), or 2 1 �1 i. d7 2 2 �d3 �f5 2 3 'ii'c 5 'iWb6 with equal chances (Kuuskmaa), or 21 �d3 (Oechslein-Lanka, corr 1986) 2 1 . . .c5! etc. We have now completed our ex­ amination of the Keres variation. It seems Black has nothing to fear from it. But will our conclusions stand the test if the system be­ comes popular again?

5

With German i c Consistency

( 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i. a4 lbf6 5 0-0 lbxe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6) 9 c3 The great diversity of lines ex­ amined in the first four chapters is nothing compared to the jungle we are entering now. The simple text move clears the way of retreat for the 'Spanish' bishop and takes the central d4 square under con­ trol so that the positional threat lbf3-d4 becomes concrete. Black has an extensive choice of plans. He can directly start to re­ group his pieces (9 . . . lbc5 followed by . . . i.e6-g4) or prefer develop­ ment, either aggressive (9 i.c5) or reserved (9 i.e7) . In this chap­ ter we deal with the first of these plans. 9 g6?! looks too slow. After 10 lbbd2 (10 a4 i.g7 11 axb5 lbxe5 12 lbxe5 i.xe5 13 lbd2 is double­ edged, Karasev-Shamkovich, USSR 1968) 10 . . . lbc5 ( 10 . . . lbxd2 !?) we reach a position from a game be­ tween Karpov and Korchnoi that is favourable for White (see Chap­ ter 3). 9 lbc5 (D) This idea of regrouping pieces goes back to the beginning of the century and suited the taste of the German international mas­ ters H. Lehmann and R. Teschner. Its clarity and logic are indeed .••

•••

..•

...

a . .. � �

;;;.�. . ...'� ?�� 1fiJ ;� ' ;.� .. _ . _••• ' _ � _.i._ _ ,�.

� s

�;

• ,. . " �" _•�

�"

,�

. W�

- - - .i.. � _ltJ. " � �"

. .

�� � �" " �"

�ltJ�'tW_ : �

quite 'Germanic' . A result of their research 9 . . . lbc5 is often called 'the Berlin variation'. At the end of the seventies, the Berlin variation started to come into its own, when a solid retort to the Karpov system (9 lbbd2 lbc5 10 c3 - see Chapter 3) was being searched for. A lot of players be­ gan to investigate the manoeuvre 10 . . . i.g4, which leads to the Ber­ lin variation after 11 i.c2 . So, as long as the Karpov system is in fashion, the Berlin variation is sure to remain topical! It turns out that it is not so easy for White to take advantage of Black's delay in development since the position remains quite closed, and Black's pieces are suf­ ficiently active. Therefore White usually exploits his extra tempi for activating his pieces, espe­ cially his queen's knight (lbb1-d2fl-g3 or e3 or else lbb1-d2-b3) .

With Germanic Consistency 51

Black should consider the break­ through in the centre (. . . d5-d4 or . . . f7-f6) and the transfer . . . i.g4h5-g6 . The strategically complex positions which usually arise are quite suited to a positional style of player. However, the Berlin vari­ ation has a certain defect: it is somewhat passive and gives White greater board room. If White plays 9 c3 , Black can start with 9 . . . i.e7 and transpose to the Berlin variation after 10 lDbd2 (10 . . . lDc5 11 i.c2 i.g4) to eliminate some side lines. How­ ever, he gains nothing this way as White has many possibilities be­ sides 10 lDbd2 (see Chapter 7), so 9 . . . lDc5 is the best way of reaching the desired position.

Section 1 Step by step (deviations) In this section we examine differ­ ent ways for both sides. 10 i.c2 10 lDbd2 yields Black a wider choice of possibilities (see Chap­ ter 3). Other moves are not dan­ gerous : a) 10 lDg5 lDxb3 l 1 lDxe6?! ( 1 1 axb3!?) 1 1 . . . fxe6 1 2 axb3 'lVh4 13 lDd2? lDxe5 14 'ii'e 2 i.d6 15 f4 'lVg4 and Black was clearly better (Pil­ nik-Szabo, Mar del Plata 1948). b) 10 :el lDxb3 11 axb3 i.e7 12 b4 0-0 13 lDd4 lDxd4 14 'lVxd4 a5 ! with a slight edge (Goldenov­ Makogonov, USSR champion­ ship, Leningrad 1947).

c) 10 i.g5 'lVd7 11 i.c2 (also not dangerous for Black is l 1 lDa3 b4 12 lDc2 bxc3 13 bxc3 lDa5 14 lDcd4 lDaxb3 15 axb3 h6 16 i.h4 g5 1 7 i.g3 i.g7, a s i n Schmittdiel-Flear, Luxembourg 1988, or l 1 lDbd2 h6 12 i.h4 lDd3 13 'ii'e2 lDxb2 14 a4, Mortensen-Pokojowczyk, Malta 1980, and now 14 . . .:b8, gives Black an excellent game) 1 1 . . . i.g4 (or 11 . . . h6 12 i..h4 g5 13 i.g3 i.. g4! 14 h3 i.h5 15 lDbd2 i.g7 16 'lVbl 0-0 with an unclear position, Byrne­ Wedberg, New York 1987) 12 :el lDe6 13 i.h4 i..e 7 14 i.xe7 lDxe7 14 lDbd2 :d8 with equal chances (Aronin-Smyslov, USSR champi­ onship, Leningrad 1947). d) 10 lDd4. A typical pawn sac­ rifice. In this position, however, Black manages to maintain good counter-chances after 10 lDxe 5 (1O . . . lDxd4 1 1 cxd4 lDxb3 12 'lVxb3 c5 is insufficient due to 13 dxc5 i.xc5 14 'lVg3!, for example 14 ...'lVc7 15 lDd2 ! 0-0 16 lDb3 i..b 6 1 7 i.e3 :ac8 18 :adl with a slight edge, Ivkov-Lehmann, Yugoslavia-West Germany 1954) 1 1 f4 ( 1 1 'lVe2?! lDc4 12 i.c2 'lVf6 13 a4 bxa4 14 :el i.. d 6 15 'lVh5 g6 16 'ii'h 6 i.. f8 1 7 'lVh3 i..e 7 yielded Black an edge in the game Tal-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1968) (D) 1 1 . . . lDed3 (but not 1 1 . . .lDc4 in view of 12 f5 i..d 7 13 'lVh5! lDe4 14 lDd2 ! lDf6 15 'lVg5 , e.g. 15 . . . i..e 7 16 'lVxg7 :gs 17 'ii'h6 c5 18 lD4f3 i..xf5 19 lDh4 with a strong attack for White in the game M.Mukhin-Ru­ derfer, USSR 1972) 12 f5 i..c 8 13 •••

52 With Germanic Consistency

i.. c 2 ( 1 3 lbc6! ? 'lVd6 14 'lVe2 + �d7 1 5 lbd4 leads to an double-edged position, according to Korchnoi) 13 . . . lbxc 1 14 lIe1 + lbe4 15 i..xe4 dxe4 16 lIxe4 + i.. e 7 17 f6 gxf6 18 'lVxc 1 i..b 7 19 lIe2 'lVd5 with good counter-chances for Black (Hatt­ lebakk-Petterson, Ybbs 1968). i.. g4 10 1 1 lbbd2 White begins his general plan (lIfl-e1, lbd2-fl or b3 etc. ) . Natu­ rally, he can first play 1 1 lIel . Other plans are harmless: a) 11 h3. This is somewhat pre­ mature. White just helps Black's bishop to reach the g6 square and restricts his own possibilities. Gen­ erally, Black must almost always reply . . . i..g4-h5 to h2-h3 ; so White should look for the most favour­ able moment for this inclusion. 1 1 i..h S. Now White has no way in which to cause Black any prob­ lems: al) 12 'lVe2 'YWd7 13 lId1 lId8 14 b4 lbe6 15 a4 i..e 7 16 axb5 axb5 1 7 i.. d 3 i..xf3 18 gxf3 i.. g5 when Black holds a slight advantage ...

•••

(Klovan-Ruderfer, USSR 1970) or 13 i.. f4 i.. e 7 14 lId1 0-0 15 lbbd2 lIadB 16 lbb3 lbe6 17 'lVe3?! to and Black is clearly better (Lyavdan­ sky-Bukhman, Leningrad 1969). a2) 12 b4 lbe6 13 i..b 3 d4 14 g4 i..g6 15 a3 h5 16 lIe1 hxg4 17 hxg4 i.. e 7 with an initiative for Black, as in the game Westerinen-Ujtu­ men, Lugano 1968. a3) 12 lbbd2 i.. e 7 - see 1 1 lbbd2. a4) 12 i.. f4 i.. e 7 (12 . . . d4! ? was suggested by Korchnoi) 13 lbbd2 d4 ! 14 lbe4 d3 15 lbxc5 dxc2 16 'lVxd8 + lbxd8 (Pilnik-Spassky, Am­ sterdam 1956). Now instead of 1 7 i..e3? lbc6 when Black was on top, White should have played 1 7 lbb3 lbe6 with an unclear position (Korchnoi) . b) 1 1 'lVe2. The arrangement of pieces 'according to the Keres variation' does not really fit in with the idea of c2 -c3 and i.. b 3c2 . Black's d5 pawn can easily be protected. Besides, Black can try to make use of the pin along the d1-h5 diagonal: 1 1 . . .'lVd7 ( 1 1 . . . i..e 7 12 lId1 0-0 is less exact, e.g. 13 lDbd2 'lVd7 14 lbfl lIad8 15 .!De3 lDxe5 16 lIxd5 i..xf3 17 gxf3 'lVe6 18 i.. f5 'lVf6 19 lDg4 and White was slightly better, Shamkovich­ McLaughlin, Chicago 1988) 12 lId1 lId8 13 lbbd2 (or 13 b4 .!De6 14 a4 i.. e 7 15 axb5 axb5 16 i.. d 3 i.. xf3 17 gxf3 i..g5 ! 18 i..xb5 i.. xc1 19 lIxc1 0-0 with good counter­ play for Black, Liberzon-Y.Gure­ vich, USSR 1964) 13 . . . i..e 7 14 lbfl

With Germanic Consistency 53

d4! 15 .!Dg3 d3 16 "e3 .ixf3 1 7 gxf3 "e6 with equality (Shamko­ vich-Radashkovich, Israel 1974). c) l l l:tel

Now Black has a choice: c1) 1 l g6 12 .!Dbd2 .ig7 13 h3 with a clear advantage (Simagin­ Makogonov, USSR champion­ ship, Leningrad 1947). c2) 1 1 lbe6 12 a4 .!Da5 13 axb5 axb5 14 "d3 c6 15 .!Dd4 and again White is clearly better (Bronstein­ Alatortsev, USSR championship, Leningrad 1947). c3) 1 1 "d7 12 .!Dbd2 (also 12 i.e3 !? deserves attention, for ex­ ample 12 . . . .!De6 13 .ib3 l:td8 14 .!Dbd2 .ie7 15 "bl .!Da5 16 .!Dd4 with a slight edge in Agzamov-Ru­ derfer, USSR 1974) . After the text move both 12 .ihS 13 .!Db3 .!De6 14 .if5 .ig6 (Levenfish-Alatortsev, USSR championship, Leningrad 1947) 15 g4 and 12 d4 13 .!De4 .!Dxe4 14 .ixe4 dxc3 15 "c2 ! (Sue­ tin) are unsatisfactory for Black. 12 l:td8 13 .!Db3 ! is also unfavour­ able (see below) . Instead, Black •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

should transpose to the main line by means of 12 .ie7!. c4) 1 1 d4. This break looks clearly premature. However, it re­ quires precise play by White to demonstrate this: 1 2 h3 .ih5 13 e6! (13 .ig5? does not work due to 13 . . ...xg5 14 .!Dxg5 .ixd1 15 .ixdl .!Dd3 16 .if3 O-O-O! 1 7 .ixc6 lbxel 18 .!Dxf7 .!Dc2 , Vasiukov-Kliavins, USSR 1956; while 13 .if4 d3 14 .ib3 .!Dxb3 1 5 axb3 .ie7 is com­ fortable for Black, as in the game Matanovic-Teschner, Oberhausen 1961) 13 . . . fxe6 (13 . . . lbxe6 is worse due to 14 i.e4! ..d7 15 cxd4 0-0-0 16 i.xc6 "xc6 1 7 .!De5 with a dis­ tinct edge, Gutkin-Kliavins, USSR 1968) 14 cxd4 .ixf3 15 "xf3 .!Dxd4 16 'ii'h 5 + g6 17 .ixg6 + hxg6 18 "xh8 .!Dc2 19 .ih6 with a slight advantage (Unzicker-Lehmann, Berlin 1953). c5) 1 1 .ie7 12 h3 (neither 12 .ie3 .!De6 13 .ib3 .!Dxe5 14 "xd5 "xd5 15 .ixd5 .ixf3 16 .ixf3 .!Dxf3 + 1 7 gxf3 f5, Tseshkovsky­ Tal, USSR championship, Tbilisi 1978, nor 14 i.xd5 c6 15 .!Dxe5 .ixd1 16 .ixc6 + 'it>fB 17 .!Dd7 + ..to>g8 18 l:txdl .ig5, Shmit-Kliavins, Riga 1969, nor 12 .if4 0-0 13 .!Dbd2 .!De6 14 .ig3 h5!? 15 h3 h4 16 .ih2 .ih5, Scholz-Mephisto Almeria, Porz 1989, create any problems for Black) 12 .ihS 13 b4 (13 .if4 is harmless, e.g. 13 . . ...d7 14 .!Dbd2 0-0 15 "bl .ig6 16 .!Dd4 .ixc2 1 7 "xc2 .!De6, Chan Peng Kong-Torre, Jakarta 1987) 13 .!De6 14 a4 (this typical attack looks somewhat •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

54 With Germanic Consistency premature here) 14 :b8 15 axb5 axb5 16 :a6 (a rook intrusion without enough support) 16 "d7 •••

•••

Black has good counter-chances here : 1 7 tZ)bd2 ( 1 7 tZ)a3 tZ)cd8? ! 18 .if5 0-0 19 tZ)c2 .ig6 20 tZ)fd4 :e8, Kupreichik-Haba, Prague 1990, would yield White a slight edge after 2 1 g4 ; but 1 7 . . . 0-0, not fear­ ing 18 tZ)xb5 in view of 18 . . . tZ)xb4! , was better, according t o Haba) 17 . . . 0-0 (or 17 . . . tZ)g5 18 "e2 0-0 19 .id3 tZ)d8 20 'lVe3 tZ)de6 21 tZ)d4 tZ)xd4 22 cxd4 f5 with unclear com­ plications in Beliavsky-Dorfman, USSR championship, Tbilisi 1978) 18 tZ)£1 :a8 19 :xa8 :xa8 20 .id3 :b8 21 tZ)g3 i.g6 22 tZ)f5 d4 with an equal position (Short-Yusupov, Reykjavik 1990). As has been already said, White can (and probably should) prefer 12 tZ)bd2, transposing to the main plan. 11 .ie7 There have been some cunning attempts to do without this natu­ ral move: •••

a) 1 1 tZ)e6 ( 1 l . . . d4? ! is clearly premature due to 12 tZ)b3 ! d3 13 .ibl) 12 :e l .ic5 and now: al) 13 tZ)f1 .ih5 14 tZ)g3 .ig6 15 .ib3! tZ)e7 16 h4 h6 17 h5 .ih7 18 tZ)d4 ! .ixd4 ( 18 . . ...d7!? was sug­ gested by Kovalev) 19 cxd4 0-0 20 'lVg4 'at>h8 2 1 .ie3 "d7, preparing . . . c7 -c5 with counterplay (Kovalev­ Kaidanov, Blagoveschensk 1988) . a2) 13 tZ)b3 .ia7 ( 13 . . . .ib6 14 a4) 14 .ie3 ( 14 a4 !?) 14 . . . .ixe3 15 :xe3 tZ)e7 16 h3 .if5 17 tZ)fd4 .ixc2 18 'lVxc2 0-0 19 :£1 with a slight advantage (Wahls-Rhodin, Ham­ burg 1987). 16 . . . .ih5 was clearly better, however. a3) 13 a4!? tZ)e7 ( 13 . . . :b8!?) 14 tZ)b3 .ib6 (14 . . . i.a7!?) 15 axb5 axb5 16 :xa8 'lVxa8 17 'lVd3! c6 18 tZ)fd4 'lVc8 19 'lVg3! tZ)xd4 20 tZ)xd4 i.xd4 2 1 cxd4 with a strong attack for White (Am . Rodriguez-Sorin, Ma­ tanzas 1993 ). The whole plan with . . . .ifB-c5 does not really look appropriate. The activity of this bishop does not fit in with the rest of Black's pieces. b) 11 .....d7 12 :el :d8 (D) Pay attention to this typical ma­ noeuvre by Black. You should be very careful with it because the d8 square may prove useful for the c6 knight! That's why 12 . . . :d8 is somewhat premature here. White is now presented with a typical di­ lemma: which route should his knight take? tZ)d2-b3 is usually connected with queenside activity (a2-a4, "dl-d3, tZ)f3-d4) , while if •••

With Germanic Consistency 55

the knight goes to f1 moving to­ wards f5, then White looks to the kingside, which is often more at­ tractive for him . . . but not in this position! b1) 13 lDn d4! . This is now very opportune! 13 . . . i.h5 is worse, e.g. 14 lDg3 i.g6 15 lDd4 lDe6 16 .i.e3 lDcxd4 17 cxd4 i.b4 18 lle2 c5 19 lDf5 0-0 20 a3 cxd4 2 1 lDxd4 with a clear pull (Kotronias-I.Sokolov, Dortmund 1989). 14 h3 i.h5 15 lDg3 i.g6 16 i.xg6 (or 16 cxd4 lDxd4 1 7 lDxd4 'ii'xd4 18 'ii'xd4 llxd4 19 i.e3 11d7 20 lDf5 lDd3 2 1 i.xd3 llxd3 2 2 g4 h 5 with equality, Shulman-Sagalchik, USSR 1988) 16 . . . hxg6 17 cxd4 lDxd4 18 i.g5 i.e7 19 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 20 lDxd4 lDe6 2 1 lDge2 c5 recapturing the piece and solving all his problems (Kve­ inys-Sagalchik, Minsk 1988); b2) 13 lDb3! Why is this better than 13 lDf1? First, White needs to prevent . . . d5-d4. Second, the departure of Black's rook prompts White to turn his attention to the queenside (a2-a4 etc . ) . Last (but not least), after 13 . . . lDe6 White

has a typical plan: h2-h3 . . . i.g4h5, then i.c2-f5 and lDb3-d4 pres­ surising Black's e6 knight, which Black cannot support by . . . lDc6d8 ! . 13 . . . lDe6 ( 1 3 . . . i.e7 14 lDxc5 i.xc5 15 a4 is obviously not good for Black) 14 a4 (as has already been said, White can also play 14 h3 .i.h5 15 i.f5 , e.g. 15 . . . i.e7 16 lDbd4 0-0 17 i.xh 7 + 'it>xh 7 18 lDg5 + i.xg5 19 'ii'x h5 + i.h6 20 lDf5 with a strong attack, as in V.lvanov-Sagalchik, Kramatorsk 1989) 14 . . . i.e7 15 axb5 axb5 16 'ii'd 3! llb8? ! 17 lDfd4 lDcxd4 18 cxd4! c5 19 'ii'g3 i.h5 20 lDxc5 i.xc5 2 1 dxc5 with a distinct in­ itiative (Am. Rodriguez-Kharito­ nov, Bayamo 1989). According to Am. Rodriguez , even after the su­ perior 16 . . . i.h5 17 'ii'xb5 i.xf3 18 gxf3 lDxe5 19 'ii'x d7 lDxd7 White maintains a plus in the endgame. Now we come back to 1l . . . i.e7.

56 With Germanic Consistency Jl.e7 1 7 1Iad l c6 with an equal po­ sition (Kestler-Hort, Baden-Baden 198 1). b) 12 "e2 ..d7 13 lIel 0-0 14 lDb3 lDe6 15 h3 .ih5 16 g4 .ig6 1 7 Jl.f5 lDcd8 18 Jl.e3 lDb7 ! 19 h 4 c5 with sufficient counterplay for Black CY.Griinfeld-Korchnoi, Brus­ sels 1986) . Pay attention to this typical manoeuvre! c) 12 "el 0-0 13 lDd4 lDxd4 ( 14 . . . lDxe5?! , with the idea of 14 "xe5 Jl.d6 15 "e3 lIe8, is refuted by 14 h3! lDed3 15 Jl.xd3 lDxd3 16 "e3 lDxc l 17 hxg4 .ig5 18 f4 c5 19 lDc6 with a clear edge in Ak­ opian-Todorovic, Ni�ic 199 1) 14 cxd4 lDe6 15 lDb3 a5 with a level position (Gligoric-Miagmasuren, Tel Aviv 1964) . 12 . . . lDe6! 13 h3 Jl.h5 is probably even better (see below). d) 12 h3 (this is still prema­ ture) 12 Jl.h5 and now: d1) 13 g4 Jl.g6 14 lDb3 "d7 15 lDbd4 Jl.xc2 16 "xc2 lDxd4 17 lDxd4 h5 18 f3 lDe6 19 �g2 c5 20 lDxe6 "xe6, and Black has no problems (Ioseliani-Hort, Monaco 1994). d2) 13 "e2 lDe6 14 1Iel (Szna­ pik-Pinkas, Polish championship 1987) 14 . . ... d7 with a good posi­ tion for Black. d3) 13 "el lDe6 14 lDh2 (or 14 Jl.f5 Jl.g6 15 Jl.xg6 fxg6 16 lDb3 0-0 1 7 lDbd4 lDcxd4 18 lDxd4 "d7 with a slight advantage for Black in Y. Griinfeld-Stean, Skara 1980) 14 .Jl.g6 15 hg6 (15 .ib1, Fahrni­ Kostic, Karlsbad 19 11, can be met by 15 . . . lDf4!?) •••

••

15 . . . fxg6 ! (a typical recapture, clearing the f-file !) 16 lDb3 0-0 (or 16 . . . g5 17 Jl.e3 0-0 18 lDf3 "d7 etc., Alekhine-Rubinstein, Vilno 1912 illustrative game 1 7) 17 f4 a5 18 .ie3 a4 19 lDd4 lDcxd4 20 cxd4 c5 , and Black seized the initiative in the game Prasad-R.Rodriguez, Dubai 1986. d4) 13 1Iel "d7!? (after 13 . . . 0-0 play transposes to lines analysed below) 14 lDfl 0-0 15 lDg3 .ig6 16 .ie3 lIad8 17 .ixc5 .ixc5 18 a4 (Borngasser-Behrmann, Germany 1985), and now 18 . . . b4 is equal. After 12 1Iel Black usually plays 12 0-0 (see Section 2) or 12 "d7 (see Section 3). The lines 12 Jl.h5 13 lDb3 lDe6 14 .if5 "d7 15 "d3 .ig6 16 lDfd4 .ixf5 17 lDxf5 0-0 18 a4 (Hellers-Fishbein, New York 1987) and 12 lDe6 13 lDfl .ih5 14 lDg3 .ig6 15 .ib3 d4 16 .ixe6 fxe6 17 lDxd4 (Daniliuk-Kislov, Vor­ onez 199 1) are unsatisfactory for him. To finish the present section we consider one other possible move. d4 12 -

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

With Germanic Consistency 57

instead? lS lDxb3 (15 . . . .ig6?! is condemned on the basis of an old game Chajes-Wolf, Karlsbad 1923 , which saw 16 tl)bd4 tl)xd4 17 cxd4 tl)e6 18 i.xd3 'lVd5 19 .ixg6 fxg6 20 'Wb3 with a clear edge) 16 axb3 i.g6 17 i.e3 0-0 18 .id4! tl)xd4 19 cxd4 .ib4 20 :e3. Now after both 20 d2 2 1 .ixg6 hxg6 22 :d3 'lVd5 23 tl)xd2 :fd8 24 tl)f3 (Liber­ zon-Radashkovich, Israel 1974) and 20 cS 21 :xd3 cxd4 22 :e2 (Klovans-Ruderfer, USSR 1971) White maintains a secure edge. The latter game continued 22 . . . i.h5?! 23 g4! (justifying 13 h3 l ) 23 . . . .ig6 24 i.xg6 fxg6 25 :e4 i.c5 26 'lVd3 :a7 27 e6 ! , and White obtained a clear advantage. However, by refraining from 13 h3 White obtains some additional possibilities which are even more advantageous for him. d3 13 Mter 13 dxc3 14 tl)xc5 i.xc5 15 i.e4 'lVxdl 16 :Xd1 i.d7 17 bxc3 0-0-0 18 .ig5 tl)e7 19 tl)d4 White obtained the better position in Liberzon-Korchnoi, Buenos Aires 1979. 14 .ib1 14 lDxcS?! dxc2 15 'lVxd8 + lhd8 16 tl)xa6 :dl 17 i.e3 :Xal 18 :xa1 'at>d7 is a distinctly risky continu­ ation for White (Chandler-Wiss­ kirchen, Germany 1985). lDxb3 14 .ifS IS axb3 0-0 16 .ie3 16 'lVdS 17 tl)d4 tl)xd4 18 cxd4 .ib4 19 :f1 'ii'e4 20 "c1 ! followed •••

•••

•••

This early break in the centre doesn't succeed if White plays precisely. 13 tl)b3 ! More accurate than: a) 13 tl)e4?! is poor in view of 13 . . . d3 ! , forcing 14 tl)xc5 (see be­ low) . The same reply works in case of 13 b4 : 13 . . . d3 ! 14 bxc5 dxc2 1 5 'lVxc2 'lVd5 16 .ia3 :d8 17 h3 i.h5 18 'lVf5 .ig6 1 9 'lVf4 0-0 20 tl)b3 a5 with enough compensation for the pawn (Geo.Timoschenko­ Sorokin, Cheliabinsk 1989). b) The main alternative to the text move is 13 h3 .ihS, and now 14 tl)b3 (the sense of such an or­ der of moves will be seen below) 14 d3 IS i.b1 (15 tl)xc5 is still bad, e.g. 15 . . . dxc2 16 'lVxd8 + :xd8 17 tl)b3 i.xf3 18 gxf3 a5 with a slight advantage to Black, Euwe). Mter the text move it seems that Black has managed to squeeze White's pieces out. However, he has no means to hold his gains. His pawn on d3 will soon be encir­ cled and captured. The question is: what will Black manage to get •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

58 With Germanic Consistency by �f1-d1 gives White an edge ac­ cording to Larsen. 17 �d4! Preparing �e1-e3. 17 lbd4 lDxd4 18 cxd4 i.b4 19 �f1 c5 leads only to equality (Larsen). 17 lbxd4 (D) 1 7 . . .'ikd5 is insufficient because of 18 �e3, e.g. 18 . . . �ad8 19 i.xd3 lbxd4 20 cxd4 �g4 2 1 �e4 with a clear edge (Geller-Anand, New Delhi 1987), while 18 . . . �e4 is an­ swered by 19 c4 ! i.xf3 20 "xd3 �e4 2 1 �xe4 with the same assess­ ment (Oll-Sorokin, Norilsk 1987).

i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 �e6 9 c3 lbc5 10 i.c2 i.g4 l l lbbd2 �e7 12 �el ) 0-0 12 •••

.••

Black plans to define his plan later, depending on White's inten­ tions. It is difficult to say whether it is better or worse than the im­ mediate consolidation of the cen­ tre with 12 . . ...d7. 13 lbfl Except this natural move, White has the following options: a) 13 h3 (this is still too early! ) 13 �h5 and now: a1) 14 lbfl ..d7 15 lbg3 �g6 16 �e3 �ad8 17 �xg6 fxg6 ! 18 i.xc5 �xc5 19 "d3 �b6 20 lbd4 �de8 yielded Black strong coun­ terplay in Yurtaev-Anand, Frunze 1987. a2) To 14 lbb3 Black can re­ spond with: a21 ) 14 lbe6 15 g4 (or 15 .i.f5 �g6 16 "d3 "d7 17 �e3 �xf5 18 'i¥xf5 �ad8 19 �ad1 f6 with equal chances, OIl-G. Garcia, Zaragoza 1992) 15 . . . �g6 16 �f5 "d7 17 �e3 ( 1 7 h4? ! h5 ! ) 17 . . . �fd8? ! 18 'ifc2 •.•

18 cxd4? now leads to rough equality: 18 . . . i.b4 19 �e3 c5 20 �xd3 cxd4 (Jansa-Boudre, Paris 1989), and 2 1 �e2 can be met by 2 1 . . . i.g4. But 18 lbxd4! brings White an extra pawn after 18 . . . i.g6 19 �xd3! �xd3 20 lbc6 etc.

Section 2 1 2 . . . 0-0 ( 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 �b5 a6 4 � a4 lbf6 5 0-0 lbxe4 6 d4 b5 7

•••

With Germanic Consistency 59

'i'e8 19 �ad1 id8 20 'itg2 'ith8 2 1 h4 !, and White obtained a danger­ ous attack (de Firmian-Agzamov, Stara Paz ova 1983). Black should have played 17 . . . ttJcd8 transposing to a line from Section 3 ( 1 2 . . . 'i'd7 13 ttJb3, variation c2 ). a22 ) 14...ttJe4!? 15 i.f4 (or 15 i.xe4 dxe4 16 'i'xd8 �axd8 17 he4 �d1 + 18 'ith2 f6 ! with good coun­ terplay for Black, Mikhalchishin­ Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986). The text move was played in Kotro­ nias-Kaidanov, Moscow 1987. Af­ ter 15 . . . f5 16 exf6 ttJxf6 1 7 g4 i.f7 18 ttJbd4 White maintained some pressure. However, 15 . . . i.g6 looks quite sufficient for equality. b) 13 ttJb3!. A good move which poses serious problems to Black. The idea is, after removing Black's c5 knight, to weaken his kingside by means of 'i'd1-d3 . b 1 ) 13 'i'd7 14 ttJxc5 i.xc5 1 5 h 3 i.e6 1 6 ttJd4 ttJxd4 17 cxd4 i.e7 18 i.e3 with a slight pull (Ivan­ chuk-Haba, Debrecen 1988) . b2) 13 �e8 14 h3 ttJxb3 (but not 14 . . . i.h5? 15 i.xh7 + ! ) . Now instead of 15 'i'd3 (Sax-Hiibner, Budapest 199 1 ) , to which Black replied with 15 . . . i.f5 ! 16 'i'xf5 g6, White could have maintained a slight edge by 15 axb3 i.h5 16 b4 'i'd7 1 7 i.b3 (Korchnoi). b3) 13 ttJe6 14 'i'd3 g6 15 ttJfd4 (15 i.h6 �e8 16 �ad1 i.f5 1 7 'i'd2 i.xc2 18 'i'xc2 'i'd7, as in Geller­ Unzicker, Bad W6rishofen 1991, is less convincing) 15 . . . ttJcxd4 16 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 17 cxd4 c5 18 'i'g3 'i'd7 •••

.••

.••

19 dxc5 i.xc5 20 i.g5, again with a slight edge (Chandler-Wedberg, Haninge 1988) . b4) 13 ttJe4 ...

The Romanian 1M Marin has recently managed to combine this old reply with a positional pawn sacrifice: 14 i.f4 �e8 !? (14 . . . f5 15 exf6 ttJxf6 16 'i'd3 'i'd7 1 7 ttJg5 h6 18 ttJh7 �f7, Large-G. Flear, East­ bourne 1990, is risky due to 19 ltJxf6+ hf6 20 'i'h7 + 'itf7 21 i.g3) 15 i.xe4 dxe4 16 �xe4 'i'xd 1 + (16 . . . 'i'c8!? was proposed by Marin) 1 7 l:1xd1 i.xf3 18 gxf3 �ad8 19 �ee1 g5 20 i.g3 'itg7, and White failed to make use of his extra pawn (Kuczynski-Marin, Budapest 1993). However, after 19 �xd8, followed by 20 ttJd4, Black's com­ pensation for the sacrificed pawn is in some doubt (Murshed). Most White players prefer 13 ttJf1 to 13 ttJb3, by analogy with the 12 . . . 'i'd7 line where 13 ttJf1 is White's strongest reply (see Sec­ tion 3). 13 i.h5 ••.

60 With Germanic Consistency Black's bishop retreats 'with­ out invitation' . At the very least this represents a psychological suc­ cess for White! But how should Black parry the positional threat of 14 lLle3? If, say, 13 f6 then 14 lLle3 ! lLlxe5? (although 14 . . . .ixf3 is obviously not very attractive either) 15 lLlxg4 lLlxg4 16 lLld4 lLle5 1 7 f4 with material gains, as in the game Siichting-Cohn (Berlin 1897) . Still, Black has some de­ gree of choice: a) 13 .. :lVd7 14 lLle3 i.. xf3 (if 14 . . . :d8, then 15 lLlxg4 'ii'xg4 16 .ie3 lLle6 1 7 a4 followed by 'ii'd l­ d3 is slightly in White's favour, Filip) 15 'ii'xf3 lLlxe5 16 'ii'h5 (even better than 16 'ii'xd5 'ii'xd5 17 lLlxd5 .id6 18 .if4 :fe8 19 b4 lLlcd7 20 .if5 :ad8 2 1 :ad1 as in G.Garcia­ Haba, Thessaloniki 1988) 16 . . . tZ)g6 1 7 tZ)xd5 i.. d 6 18 .ie3 with a clear edge for White (Ingerslev-Guld­ berg, corr 1985). b) 13 ...d4. This typical break now meets with a beautiful refu­ tation: 14 h3 .ih5 15 lLlg3 (15 g4 d3 16 gxh5 dxc2 1 7 'ii'xc2 f6 18 exf6 :xf6 19 :d1 'ii'e 8 is favour­ able for Black, Mortensen-Wed­ berg, 1987) 15 .ixf3 ! 16 'ii'xf3 d3 (Black now seems to have weath­ ered the storm, e.g. 17 "xc6 dxc2 18 'ii'f3 tZ)d3 19 :e2 .ig5 20 .ixg5 'ii'xg5 2 1 :xc2 tZ)xe5 with equal chances (Vehi Bach-Wedberg, Biel 1990). However, Am. Rodriguez found a brilliant retort (D) : 1 7 b4! ! dxc2 18 bxc5 'ii'd 7 19 lDffi ..ti>h8 20 'ii'g4 g6 2 1 lLlxe7 "xg4 22 •••

•••

hxg4 tZ)xe7 23 .ig5 tZ)d5 24 :ac l with a distinct plus for White in the game Am.Rodriguez-Wedberg, New York 1988. c) 13 ...:e8!? One of numerous ideas from Artur Yusupov. Black plans to pressurise the e5 pawn . Now White can play: cl) 14 tZ)g3?! looks dubious in view of 14 . . . i..fB . c2) Also not very promising is 14 .if4?! .if8 15 tZ)e3 .ixf3 16 'ii'xf3 tZ)xe5 1 7 'ii'g3 f6 18 b4 tZ)e4 with a slight plus for Black, Za­ pata-G. Garcia, Bogota 199 1 . c3) 1 4 h 3 i..h 5 15 lLlg3 (both 15 b4 tZ)e4! 16 tZ)e3 .ixf3 1 7 gxf3 tZ)xf2 18 ..ti>xf2 .ih4 + 19 ..to>fl i..xel 20 'ii'x el tZ)xe5 , Sznapik-G. Garcia, Salamanca 1988, and 15 g4!? i.. g6 16 i.. xg6 hxg6 1 7 tZ)e3 'ii'd 7 18 'ii'xd5 :ad8 19 :d1 'ii'e6 20 'ii'xe6 fxe6, Wahls-Hiibner, Munich 1991, yield Black good compensation for the sacrificed material ) 15 . . . i.. g6 16 .ie3 (16 tZ)f5 .ifB 17 .if4 tZ)e6 18 .ih2 tZ)a5 19 tZ)e3 c6 20 tZ)d4 lLlxd4 2 1 cxd4 tZ)c4 is equal, Wahls-Hiib­ ner, Germany 1991) 16 . . . 'ii'd 7 1 7

With Germanic Consistency 61

.i.xg6 (Sznapik-Marin, Budapest 1993) . Now, according to Marin, 17 . . . fxg6! leads to equality. c4) 14 tl)e3 tl)xe5! (this works now!) 15 i..xh 7 + ! c.fi>xh 7 1 6 'lVc2 + �g8 17 lDxe5 i..e6 and now 18 � 'lVd6 19 tl)xe7 + :xe7 20 b3 tl)d7! (Wang Zili-Yusupov, Novi Sad 1990 illustrative game 18) leads to an equal position. 18 tl)f5!? is inter­ esting. In Daly-Glodeanu (Bucha­ rest 1993) White had a minimal edge after 18 . . . i.. xf5 (18 . . . i.. f8 !?) 19 'lVxf5 .i.f6 20 i.. f4 .i.xe5 2 1 .txe5 c6 22 :e3 . 13 . . . .i.h5 is more common but is it more comfortable for Black? 14 tl)g3 Mter 14 .te3 Black can reply with 14 . . . tl)xe5! (14 . . . i..g 6?! 15 tl)g3 transposes back to the main line) 15 .i.xc5 tl)xfa + 16 'lVxf3 ! .txf3 1 7 .i.xe7 'lVd7 18 .i.xf8 .txg2 ! 19 .tc5 ! (19 �xg2?! :xf8) 19 . . . .i.xf1 ! 20 �xf1 'lVh3 +, forcing a draw (lvan­ chuk) . .i. g6 14 -

•••

15 .i.e3

The alternatives are less attrac­ tive: a) 15 tl)d4 tl)xd4 16 cxd4 tl)e6 17 .i.b3 a5 18 a3 c5! 19 dxc5 .i.xc5 20 'ii' x d5 'lVb6, and the initiative had passed to Black (Wahls-Renet, Altensteig 1987). b) 15 tl)f5 'lVd7 16 g4 :ad8 (16 . . . :fd8 !? 17 tl)3d4? ! tl)xd4 18 cxd4 tl)e6 19 .te3 c5! yielded Black a good position position in Thip­ say-Agzamov, Frunze 1985; how­ ever, 17 h4 was better) 17 h4 tl)e4! (the complications after 1 7 . . . h5 18 tl)3d4 tl)xd4 19 cxd4 tl)e4 20 f3 end in White's favour, as in Arnason­ Wedberg, 1987) 18 tl)xe7 + tl)xe7 19 tl)h2 tl)c5 20 .i.e3 (Kupreichik­ Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986) , and now, instead of 20 ... �?! 21 .i.b3! , Black could have played 2 0 . . . .i.xc2 21 'lVxc2 tl)e6 with good counter­ chances. .d7 15 ... 15 ... :e8 is worse, since Black cannot hurt the e5 pawn, and after the eventual . . . tl)c5-e6 the rook will be placed in a disharmonious position. White has the following possibilities: a) 16 :cl i.. f8 (16 . . ..d7!? was a suggestion by Matanovic) 17 b4 i.. xc2 18 .xc2 tl)e6 19 :cd1 .d7 20 tl)e4 tl)e7 21 h4! .c6 22 tl)c5 with a small pull for White (Ljubo­ jevic-Torre, Brussels 1987). b) 16 h4 .i.f8 (16 . . . .txc2 1 7 'lVxc2 tl)d7 1 8 .i.f4! tl)f8 1 9 h5 � 20 .te3 tl)a5 2 1 :ad1 tl)c4 22 .i.c1 is slightly better for White, Ivan­ chuk-Tukmakov, New York 1988 -

62 With Germanic Consistency illustrative game 19) 17 i.g5 'i'd7 18 h5 ( 18 i.xg6!? hxg6 19 h5 was recommended by Henao) 18 . . . i.xc2 19 'i'xc2 h6 20 :ad1! 'i'g4 2 1 i.c1 with some pressure (Henao-Milos, Bogota 1991). 15 ... 'i'd7 Ieads to a position that often appears when Black starts with 1 2 . . . 'i'd7 ( 1 3 tDfl i.h5 etc. see Section 3 ) . This way he elimi­ nates the line 12 . . . 0-0 13 tDb3 (see above) but yields White some new possibilities (see below) . 16 h4 (D) 16 b4 is also possible, for exam­ ple 16 tDa4 1 7 i.xa4 bxa4 18 a3 ! :fd8 19 i.g5 :e8 20 i.xe7 :xe7 2 1 :a2 with a slightly better posi­ tion for White (Geller-Agzamov, USSR championship, Riga 1985). 16 tDe6!?, with the idea . . . f7-fS, deserves more attention. The plan with b2-b4 is more formidable if Black's rook has gone to d8 (see Section 3). •••

•••

of Black's king by h4-h5-h6, so Black's counterplay should be connected with . . . tDc5-e6 and . . . f7fS. Here are some possible lines of play: a) 16 1U'e8 (this is too passive) 17 h5 i.xc2 18 'i'xc2 h6 19 :ad 1 i.fB (19 . . . :ad8 !? was proposed by Short) 20 i.xc5 i.xc5 21 'ii'd2 :ad8 22 'i'f4 with a dangerous attack (Short-Torre, Brussels 198 7). b) 16 :ad8 1 7 h5 i.xc2 18 'i'xc2 tDe6 19 :ad1 fS 20 exf6 i.xf6 2 1 h6! (inferior is 2 1 tDe4 h6 22 tDc5 tDxc5 23 i.xc5 :fe8 with an equal game, Psakhis-Kharitonov, Sochi 1987) 2 1 . . .g6 22 tDe4 'i'f7 23 tDxf6 + (23 tDeg5 i.xg5 24 tDxg5 tDxg5 25 i.xg5 :d7 with a slight edge, Anand-Torre, Thessaloniki 1988) 23 . . . 'i'xfS 24 a4 bxa4 25 'ii'xa4 :d6 26 c4! d4 27 c5! with a clear pull (Vitomskis-Palmo, corr 1989) . c) 16 i.xc2 1 7 'i'xc2 tDe6 18 :ad1 fS 19 exfS i.xfS 20 tDe4 and White obtained a slight advantage (Emms-Krasenkov, Cappelle la Grande 1990). d) 16 tDe6!. This move-order looks most exact. After 17 h5 i.xc2 18 'i'xc2 fS! (18 . . .:fe8 is slightly better for White : 19 :ad1 h6 20 tDf5 i.g5 21 'i'd2 ! i.xe3 2 2 tDxe3 , Am.Rodriguez-Xu Jun, Subotica 1987, or 20 . . . i.fB 2 1 tDh2 ! with the idea 22 tDg4, Am. Rodriguez) 19 exfS :xfS we arrive at a posi­ tion from the game Mokry-Yusu­ pov, which is quite satisfactory for Black (see next section). • ••

•••

•••

•••

It is not so easy for Black to neu­ tralise his adversary's initiative. White plans to cripple the position

With Germanic Consistency 63

So it seems White's most seri­ ous argument in this line is 13 ll)b3 .

Section 3 1 2 'ii'd7 ...

( 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .t a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 c3 ll)c5 10 .tc2 .tg4 l l ll)bd2 .te7 12 :el) 'ii'd7 12

Black does not allow the ma­ noeuvre ll)d2-b3 and 'ii'd 1-d3 and at the same time prepares to play . . . :a8-d8 in the event of 13 ll)f1 . Unfortunately, Black's position remains constricted, and White manages to maintain his initia­ tive with a series of precise moves. 13 ll)f1 ! 13 b4 is not yet dangerous, for example 13 . . . ll)e6 14 a4 0-0 15 'ii'e2 i.h5 16 axb5 axb5 17 :xa8 :xa8 18 ll)b3 i.g6 19 i.xg6 bxg6 20 :d1 ll)cd8 21 g3 c5 with a balanced po­ sition (Chandler-Morris, London 199 1).

As usual, the main alternative to the text move is 13 ll)b3 (13 h3 .th5 14 ll)b3 ll)e6 leads to line c below) . However, unlike the 12 . . . 0-0 line, this is not so worth­ while here . After 13 ll)e6 White has the following possibilities: a) 14 a4 b4! 1 5 'ii'd 3 .th5 16 ll)fd4 ll)cxd4 1 7 ll)xd4 .tg6 18 ll)f5 c6 19 'ii'f3 0-0 with a solid position for Black (Boleslavsky-Konstanti­ nopolsky, Sverdlovsk 1943). b) 14 'ii'd3 .th5 15 ll)fd4 ll)cxd4 ( 1 5 . . . .tg6 is less exact due to 16 ll)f5, e.g. 16 . . . 0-0 1 7 'ii' h 3 :fe8 18 i.d1 i.f8 19 ll)h4 :ad8 20 f4 i.e4 21 .te3 with an initiative for White, Zso. Polgar-Hral!ek, Brno 1991) 16 ll)xd4 i.g6 1 7 ll)f5 (or 1 7 'ii'e 2 ll)xd4 1 8 cxd4 c 5 1 9 dxc5 .txc5 20 .txg6 hxg6 2 1 e6 'ii'c6 with equality in Schmid-Korchnoi, London 1979) 1 7 . . . c6 18 f4 .tc5 + 19 ..t>h 1 0-0 20 'ii' h 3 :ad8 2 1 i.b1 b4 with good counterplay for Black in the game Zso. Polgar-Grivas, Corfu 1990. c) 14 h3 .th5 15 .tf5 (White pins Black's strong knight, first of all, to press on the important d4 and c5 squares) and now: c1) 15 ll)cd8 This is a typical manoeuvre. Black additionally pro­ tects his strong e6 knight and in­ tends to prepare . . . c7-c5 either by means of . . . ll)d8-b7 or by pushing White's knight from b3 ( . . . a6-a5a4). The latter plan is generally preferable since Black thus keeps the possibility, in case White ex­ changes knights on e6 , to capture •••

•••

64 With Germanic Consistency with the other knight maintain­ ing the blockade. 16 Jte3 (for 16 g4 i.g6 see variation c2) 16 . . . a5 (after 16 . . . 0-0 17 g4 i.g6 18 'lVe2 ! see c2 - or 16 . . . tl)b7 1 7 'lVe2 c5 18 l:tadl l:td8 19 tl)bd2 'lVc6 - the al­ ternative 19 . . ti)a5!? was suggested by Korchnoi - 20 g4 .tg6 2 1 tl)n 0-0 22 tl)g3 , Sigurjonsson-Stean, Munich 1979, White maintains a slight edge as well, but 16 . . . .tg6 ! 1 7 g4 a5! i s probably the best op­ tion for Black - see variation c2 ) 1 7 .tc5 (or 1 7 tl)c5 'lVc6 18 tl)d3 i.xf3 19 'lVxf3 g6 20 .tg4 h5 2 1 i.xe6 tl)xe6 22 l:tadl with a slight plus for White, Ehlvest-Hjartar­ son, Belfort 1988) 17 . . . a4 18 .txe7 'lVxe7 19 tl)bd4 (19 tl)bd2 is harm­ less, e.g. 19 . . c6 20 b4 tl)g5 21 'lVe2 g6 22 i.g4 .txg4 23 hxg4 tl)de6 with equal chances, Karpov-Kor­ chnoi, 28th matchgame, Baguio City 1978 - illustrative game 20) 19 . . c6 20 'lVc2 .txf3 2 1 liJxf3 g6 22 .txe6 followed by 23 tl)h2, and White maintains a some pressure, as in Astrom-Wedberg, Stockholm 1990/9 l . c2} 1 5 .t g6 !. This move looks more precise. It is important for Black to have the possibility to ex­ change White's bishop at any mo­ ment. 16 g4 ( 1 6 tl)fd4, Nunn-Tal, Nrestved 1985, is not dangerous due to 16 . . . tl)cxd4 17 tl)xd4 0-0 and then ... c7-c5) 16 lOOd8 17 .te3 (D) 1 7 . . . a5 ! . An important improvement suggested by Haba. (17 . . . 0-0 yielded Black a good position in the game Tseshkovsky-Agzamov, .

.

.

•••

•••

- B _.. • B _ikB . _ . • • • •• .t.. B B ' . ' Di.. B B • B�. Bl2)B ml2)B � �" . � � � . � u d U � .'ti'� � � . � �

USSR championship, Frunze 1981, after 18 'at>h1?! a5 19 'lVe2 a4 20 tl)bd4 l:tb8 2 1 i.d3 .txd3 22 'ii'xd3 tl)c5; however, 18 'lVe2! causes some trouble, for example 18 . . . tl)b 7 19 tl)bd4 ! c5 20 tl)xe6 fxe6 21 .txg6 hxg6 22 l:tad 1 ti)a5 23 h4 with a slight advantage, Dimitrov-Marin, France 1991, or 18 . . . a5 19 l:tad 1 a4 20 tl)bd4 c6, Popovic-Marin, Manila 1990, 2 1 'lVd3 ! again with a slight pull according to Marin) . After 17 . . . a5 White has not enough time for this arrangement, and Black manages to push . . . c7 -c5 keeping his knight on d8. So you see how important the order of moves is in this line. 18 'lVe2 (18 'lVd3?! c5 !) 1 8 . . . a4 19 tl)bd4 l:tb8 20 tl)xe6 tl)xe6 2 1 tl)d4 c5 22 tl)c2 0-0, and Black is not worse (Zielinski­ Haba, Cappelle la Grande 1989). c3} 15 0-01? deserves atten­ tion, e.g. 16 'lVd3 (16 i.xh7 + 'at>xh7 1 7 tl)g5 + .txg5 18. 'lVxh5 + .th6 19 .txh6 gxh6 20 'lVf5 + 'at>h8 2 1 'lVf6 + 'at>h7 2 2 'lVf5 + with an equal game, Ilincic-Lalic, Yugoslav cham­ pionship 1989) 16 . . . .txf3 1 7 'lVxf3 •••

With Germanic Consistency 65

g6 18 ii.c2 ffi 19 exffi ii.xffi 20 'it'g4 ttJe5 2 1 'it'g3 ttJc4 22 ii.f5 .l:i.fe8 ! with equality (Przewoznik-Kotliar, Netanya 1987). Returning to 13 ttJf1 . .l:i.d8 13 13 ii.h5 leads to a transposi­ tion of moves after 14 ttJ e3 .l:i.d8 . White can also proceed to vari­ ations examined in Section 2 : 14 ttJg3 ii.g6 15 h4 0-0 16 ii.e3! and so on. 15 ttJd4 (instead of 15 h4) 15 . . . ttJxd4 16 cxd4 ttJe6 is satisfac­ tory for Black, for example 17 ii.e3 c5 18 ttJf5 0-0 19 dxc5 ii.xc5 20 ii.xc5 ttJxc5 2 1 .l:i.c1 ii.xf5 22 ii.xf5 ttJe6 (Short-G. Garcia, Dubai 1986). If White plays 16 h5 (after 15 h4 0-0) then Black can answer with 16 . . . ii.xc2 17 'it'xc2 f5 !, e.g. 18 exffi ii.xffi 19 ii.e3 ttJe6 20 .l:i.ad1 .l:i.ad8 21 ttJe4 'it'f7 with equality (Mokry­ Yusupov, Dubai 1986). Still, ac­ cording to Yusupov, in the event of 19 h6! (instead of 19 ii.e3) 19 . . . g6 20 ii.g5 White maintains a slight edge. 14 ttJe3 14 ttJg3 is met by 14 . . . d4! 15 h3 d3, for example 16 hxg4 dxc2 1 7 'it'xc2 'it'xg4 18 'it'f5 'it'xf5 19 ttJxf5 ttJe6 20 ii.e3 (Heinatz-Stark, Kec­ skemet 1989), and now 20 . . . g6 with a solid position. If 14 h3 ii.h5 15 ttJg3 ( 1 5 ttJe3 ii.g6 ! ) 15 . . . ii.g6 16 ttJd4 ( 16 ii.e3 ttJe6 17 'iVe2 0-0 18 . .l:i.ad 1 ii.xc2 19 'it'xc2 ffi is equal, Sznapik-Flear, Dortmund 1989) then Black can play both 16 . . . ttJxd4 17 cxd4 ttJe6 18 ttJf5 c5 19 i.e3 'iVa 7! 20 .l:i.c1 ...

...

ii.xf5 21 ii.xf5 cxd4 22 ii.d2 'iVb6!? (de Firmian-Agzamov, Vrsac 1983) and 16 . . . 0-0 17 ii.f5 ( 1 7 ttJgf5!? was suggested by Korchnoi) 1 7 . . . ttJe6 18 ii.g4 ttJcxd4 19 cxd4 c5 20 ttJf5 'iVa7 (Hiibner-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1986), with a good position in both cases. ii.h5 (D) 14 Not 14 ii.xf3? 15 'iVxf3 ttJxe5 16 'iVg3 ttJg6 1 7 ttJf5 ttJe6 18 h4 with a clear pull. •••

•..

15 b4! A relatively new strong plan in this position. 15 ii.f5 is not very formidable, for example 15 . . . ttJe6 16 g4 ii.g6 17 a4 b4 18 'iVe2 bxc3 19 bxc3 ii.c5 20 ii.a3 i.xa3 21 .l:i.xa3 a5 with equality (Salai-Priehoda, Czechoslovakian championship, Brno 1990) or 16 ttJc2 0-0 17 a4 .l:i.fe8 18 axb5 axb5 19 'iVd3 ii.g6 20 ii.xg6 hxg6 21 ii.e3 b4, again with balanced chances (Chandler-Hjar­ tarson, Novi Sad 1990) . The main alternative to the text move is 15 ttJf5. White intends to swap his opponent's dark-squared

66 With Germanic Consistency bishop and thus weaken the dark squares in Black's camp. Black usually replies 15 . . . 0-0. However, 15 tZ)e6 deserves attention, too, for example 16 a4 (16 b4!?; 16 h3!?) 16 . . . b4 ! 17 a5 tZ)a7 18 'ifd3 tZ)b5 19 tZ)3d4 .ig6 with sharp play (Woda­ Hrai!ek, Poznan 1987). Mter 15 0-0 the following vari­ ations are possible: a) 16 b4 tZ)e6 leads to the main line with 15 b4; however, the move 16 . . . tZ)e4!? is probably stronger. b) 16 h3 is too slow. In the game Brodsky-Marin (Bucharest 1994) an equal position arose after 16 . . . tZ)e6 1 7 .ie3 lIfe8 18 g4 .ig6 19 a4 .ic5 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 .tZ)5d4 .ixd4 22 cxd4 .ie4 23 tZ)g5 tZ)cxd4 24 tZ)xe4 dxe4 25 .ixe4 tZ)c5. c) 16 h4!? .ig4 17 tZ)xe7 + tZ)xe7 18 'ifd4 .ixf3 19 gxf3 tZ)e6 20 'ifg4 d4 led to a position with balanced chances in Ady-G.Flear, Barnsdale 1989. d) 16 tZ)xe7 + tZ)xe7 (but not 16 . . . 'ifxe7? 17 .i.g5 ! 'ifxg5 18 tZ)xg5 .ixd1 19 .i.xh 7 + �h8 20 lIaxdl, and White wins a pawn, Am.Ro­ driguez-G. Garcia, Bayamo 1987, as 20 . . . £'6 fails to 21 exf6 gxf6 22 tZ)e6! ) 17 .i.e3 (17 'ifd4 is harmless, for example 17 . . . .ixf3 18 gxf3 tZ)e6 19 'ifh4 tZ)g6 20 'ifg4 d4 2 1 .i.e4 lIfe8 22 'ii'g3 dxc3 23 bxc3 tZ)c5 etc., Y. Griinfeld-Korchnoi, Zagreb 1987, and if 17 b4 then 17 . . . tZ)e4! ­ not 17 . . . tZ)a4?? 18 .i.xh7 + ! �7 19 e6 ! , winning, Hiibner-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987 - 18 .i.xe4 dxe4 19 'ifxd7 llxd7 20 tZ)g5 .ig6 21 e6 lId3 •••

•••

22 exf7 + .ixf7 23 tZ)xe4 tZ)d5 24 f3 - 24 a3 tZ)xc3 25 tZ)xc3 llxc3 26 .ie3 lIe8 27 lIed 1 .ie6 with chances for both sides, Hiibner-Zak, Lugano 1989 - 24 . . . .ig6 25 �f2 lIe8 recap­ turing the pawn and equalising, as in A. Sokolov-Korchnoi, Til­ burg 1987 - illustrative game 21 ) 17 tZ)a4 ( 1 7 . . . tZ)e6? ! yields White a strong attack after 18 .ixh7 + ! �xh7 19 tZ)g5 + �g6 20 g4, for ex­ ample 20 . . . .ixg4 2 1 'ifxg4 tZ)xg5 22 'ifxg5 + �h7 23 'ifh5 + �g8 24 .ig5! 'iVf5 25 lIe3 , Geller-Hazai, Sochi 1982 , but 17 . . . tZ)e4!? worked in Mestel-Korchnoi, Beer-Sheva 1988, after 18 'ifd3 tZ)g6 19 .icl lIde8 20 tZ)d4 tZ)c5 2 1 'ifg3 tZ)e4 with sufficient counterplay) •.•

Practice has proved that this position is satisfactory for Black. 18 .ixh7 + ? does not work now: 18 . . .'ihh7 19 e6 .i.xf3 20 'ifc2 + .i.e4 and Black wins. To 18 'ifd3 Black replies 18 . . . tZ)g6 (this is bet­ ter than 18 . . . .i.g6 19 'iVd2) 19 b3 (19 e6?! fxe6 20 tZ)e5 tZ)xb2 21 tZ)xd7 tZ)xd3 22 trud'8 tZ)xel 23 .ixg6 .ixg6

With Germanic Consistency 67

24 lDxg6?! lDc2 , Marjanovic-Kor­ chnoi , Belgrade 1987, or 24 lDxe6 :d6 ! , Korchnoi, is favourable for Black) 19 . . . .ixf3 20 gxf3 'ii' h 3! 2 1 � d2 �c5 22 'ii'f5 'ii'xf5 23 .ixf5 :fe8, and the initiative passes to Black (van der Wiel-Hjartarson, Rotterdam 1989) . White should probably play 18 .ixa4 bxa4 19 .ic5 but after 19 . . . :fe8 Black has nothing to be displeased with. So, the continuation 15 lDf5 does not promise White any advantage. Therefore 15 b4 is more popular at present, a move with which White badly restricts Black's pieces. 15 lDe6 16 g4 1 6 lDf5 is another good move, e.g. 16 . . . 0-0 (16 . . . d4? is poor due to 17 �e4!, e.g. 17 . . . .ig6 18 g4! h5 19 h3 'at>f8 20 a4 ! hxg4 2 1 hxg4 'ii'e 8 22 axb5 axb5 23 :a6 ! and wins, Hjartarson-Korchnoi, Saint John 1988; also unsatisfactory for Black is 16 . . . ltJxb4? 17 cxb4 �xb4 18 :£1 .ic3 19 :bl d4 20 .ia3 d3 2 1 :b3 ! , Ivanchuk-Chekhov,Frunze 1988) 17 a4 :fe8 18 axb5 axb5 19 'ii'd3 �g6 20 'ii'xb5 ! (but not 20 :dl �fB 21 .ie3 :a8 22 h3 :xal 23 :xal d4 with equal chances, Balashov­ Portisch, Moscow 198 1 ) 20 . . . lDxe5 21 'ii'x d7 lDxd7 2 2 lDxe7+ l'Xxe7 23 .ixg6 ! (an important improvement over the game C.Horvath-Kuczyn­ ski, Dresden 1988, in which 23 �b3 was played, and Black ob­ tained a good counterplay after 23 . . . �e4 24 lDd4 lDxd4 25 cxd4 :e6 26 .if4 :g6) 23 . . .hxg6 24 lDd4 •••

:ee8 2 5 lDc6, and White kept a small but clear advantage in the endgame (Am. Rodriguez-Marin, Novi Sad 1990 illustrativegame 22). 16 .i g6 0-0 17 lDf5 17 h5!? looks risky but in Abramovic-Flear, Val Maubuee 1989, Black managed to defend after 18 h3 hxg4 19 hxg4 'at>fB ! 20 'at>g2 ill 21 lDg3 .ixc2 22 'ii'xc2 fxe5 23 'ii'f5 + 'at>g8 24 lDxe5 lDxe5 2 5 'ii'xe5 'at>f7 . This line deserves fur­ ther examination. 18 a4 (D) This queenside action is now well-prepared. 18 'ii'e 2, with the idea of pressing on the d5 pawn by l:t£1-dl, is also interesting. In Pavlovic-M. Trifunovic (Vrnja�ka Banja 1988) White obtained a strong attack after the continu­ ation 18 . . . :fe8 19 :dl h5?! 20 h3 hxg4 2 1 hxg4 lDfB 22.lD3d4 lDxd4 23 cxd4 �xb4 24 'at>g2 . Of course, 19 . . . .ifB or 19 . . . lDf8 was better but Black has very little space. -

•••

•••

68 With Germanic Consistency Black' s position is extremely constricted. An attempt to break loose by 18 d4 leads after 19 axb5 axb5 20 i.e4 lUe8 21 "d3 (after 2 1 i.e3 i.f8 22 "d2 h5 23 h3 ll)xb4 24 cxb4 dxe3 25 "xd 7 exf2 + 26 'it?xf2 l:!xd 7 27 i.c6 l:!dd8 the winning of an exchange yields White no advanatge, Palkovi-Ma­ rin, Stara Zagora 1990) 2 1 . . .ll)b8 (2 1 . . . ll)xb4!?, Marin) 22 cxd4! (not 22 i.d2 c5 23 cxd4 ll)xd4 24 ll)3xd4 i.xf5 25 ll)xf5 "xd3 26 i.xd3 l:!xd3 with a probable draw, Haba­ Marin, Budapest 1993) 22 . . . i.xb4 23 l:!dl c6 24 i.e3 to a position that is slightly better for White, according to Marin. 18 l:!fe8 is considered insuffi­ cient due to 19 axb5 axb5 20 i. d3 l:!b8 2 1 "e2 ll)cd8 22 l:!a7, e.g. : 22 . . . i.f8 23 i.e3 ll)c6? 24 i.xb5 with a clear edge for White, as in the game Zagrebelny-Neve­ roY, Barnaul 1988; or 22 . . . d4 23 cxd4 i.xb4 24 l:!dl "c6 25 i.e3 •••

•••

i.c3 26 h3 "d5 27 i.g5 ll)xg5 28 ll)xg5 with a dangerous attack for White in the game Shabalov­ Vukic, USA 1993. In the latter variation, if 23 . . . i.xf5 (instead of 23 . . . i.xb4) then 24 gxf5 ll)xd4 2 5 ll)xd4 "xd4 26 l:!xc7 i.xb4 27 i.b2 "f4 28 i.c3 i.xc3 29 l:!xc3 , and White maintains an edge thanks to Black's awkward d8 knight (Shabalov-Sorin, BieI 1992). Instead of 20 . . . l:!b8, 20 ll)b8 deserves attention. In Pavlovic­ Sorokin (Moscow, 1988) Black managed to release himself after 2 1 "e2 d4! 22 l:!a7 "d5 23 i.e4 "c4 24 "xc4 bxc4 25 i.d2 dxc3 26 i.xc3 i.f8. 1f 2 1 l:!a7 then 2 1 . . .d4!? is possible, too. •••

The conclusion of this chapter is: when playing the Berlin vari­ ation, you must be ready to accu­ rately defend in a slightly worse position, looking for a chance to seize the initiative.

The Discussion of Decades

6

( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .i a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3) .ic5 9 •••

B �.. .. � ,W�

. .

�

.. � ... ... • •. .

� -

• • a.1. .

. ... � ... �� ,,� -· '� fif� .

. •

•

• .aR • .i." Bl2). ,0;i% w� � u A R g o

• •

R A R U o ��

��lD '�'��'iV. � � ", . ': �

When reading the last chapter, you probably felt that something was wrong with Black's concept. Does seizing territory (5 . . . lDxe4, 6 . . . b5, 7 . . . d5), especially at the cost of weakening Black's queen­ side, make any sense if he imme­ diately gives up his gains ( . . . lDe4 -c5-e6 etc.) and finds himself in a constricted position? Black has taken positional risks to achieve easy development; so why not go the whole hog and play actively? Active development with 9 . . . .ic5 looks more suitable for the Open Spanish. Indeed, it has always been one of the most topical lines of this opening. At least, it is hardly less popular than 'the main vari­ ation' which starts with 9 . . . .ie7

(Chapters 5-7), and it was in this variation that the first deep open­ ing analysis of the Open Spanish (ending up on moves 25-30) ap­ peared back in the forties. The drawback of the text move is that the c7 pawn loses the pos­ sibility to advance to c5. Besides, the e4 knight is now deprived of its only retreat square (c5), and therefore badly needs active sup­ port. Black usually renders this by means of . . . f7-f5 or the break . . . f7-f6. His additional possibility is the sacrifice of two pieces for a rook and a pawn on f2. White tries to oust Black's pieces by means of lDb1-d2, .ib3-c2 , possibly lDd2-b3 , lDf3-d4 and f2-f3 . Both sides have been playing their trumps for many decades already, and their packs seem to be endless . . .

Section 1 Side lines Usually White automatically plays 10 lDbd2. However, in this section we examine some alternatives. 10 'ii'd3 Other moves are rarely seen in practice: a) 10 a4 b4 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 is less ex­ act: n lDbd2 b4 12 .i.c2 ! bxc3 13 lDxe4 dxe4 1 4 .i.xe4 'ii'xd 1 1 5 l:txd1 l:tfd8 16 l:te1 cxb2 1 7 .ixb2 l:tab8 18 .i.a3 with a minimal edge,

70 The Discussion of Decades Kupreichik-Mikhalchishin, Lvov 1988) 1 1 tZ)d4 ( 1 1 .tc2!?) 1l . . . tZ)xe5 12 cxb4 .txd4 13 'ifxd4 'ifto 14 .te3 tZ)c6 15 'ifxffi tZ)xffi 16 :cl tZ)xb4 1 7 :xc7 0-0, and the endgame is pleasant for Black (Castro-Wed­ berg, Manila 1992). b) 10 .tf4. This continuation was brought back into practice by the late B.Perenyi. 10 g5 (an en­ ergetic reply that enables Black to win a pawn at a price of weaken­ ing his kingside; 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 tZ)d4! i.xd4 12 cxd4 ffi 13 exffi 'ifxffi 14 .te3 yielded White a small advan­ tage in Szalanczy-Krasenkov, Bala­ tonbereny 1989, but 10 . . . tZ)e7! ? deserves serious attention, for ex­ ample 1 1 tZ)d4 tZ)g6 12 .te3 tZ)xe5 13 'ife2 tZ)d7 14 f3 tZ)effi 15 tZ)c6 'ifc8 16 f4 'ifb 7 17 tZ)d4 g6, and White 's compensation for the sac­ rificed pawn is in some doubt, as in Tolnai-Babu, Novi Sad 1990) 11 .te3 ! .txe3 12 fxe3 •••

bl) 14 tZ)c5 led to a complex game in Perenyi-Mikhalchishin, Lenz 1988: 15 'ii'e l 'ifd6! 16 e4 0-0-0 17 exd5 .txd5 18 tZ)f5 ; besides, 15 e4 deserves attention, for example 15 . . . tZ)xb3 16 axb3 0-0, and now, instead of 17 'ifel tZ)g6 18 'ife3 :e8! 19 :ael c5 ! 20 tZ)xe6 :xe6 21 'ifxc5 d4! with a slight plus for Black, as in Gofstein-Y.Mikhalevsky, Beer­ Sheva 1994, White should have continued with 17 'ife2 to meet 17 . . . tZ)g6 with 18 tZ)xe6 fxe6 19 'ifxg4 CY.Mikhalevsky). Mikhalchi­ shin also suggests another possi­ bility for White, viz. 15 a4!? b2) 14 tZ)xd2 15 'ii'xd2 'ii'g5 ( 1 5 . . . 0-0 16 e4 ! ) 16 a4 (or 16 'iff2 g3 !? 17 hxg3 :g8 18 tZ)f3 tZ)xf3 + 19 'ifxf3 0-0-0 with equal chances, Szalanczy-Haba, Debrecen 1988) 16 . . . tZ)c4 17 .txc4 bxc4 18 tZ)xe6 fxe6 19 'ifd4 :f8 20 :xf8 + 'iti>xf8 21 'iVh8 + 'ifg8 22 :n + 'iti>e7 23 'ife5 'iti>d7 with mutual chances (Per­ enyi-G.Garcia, Saint John 1988) . c) 10 'ife2 . White intends to exchange the dark-squared bish­ ops in similar fashion to the Keres variation. However, the early c2c3 is not the most useful move there, and Black has enough time to create counterplay. 10 0-0 1 1 .te3 ( 1 1 i.c2 is harmless, for ex­ ample 1 1 . . .ffi 12 exffi 'ifxffi 13 tZ)bd2 tZ)xd2 14 .txd2 :ae8 15 'ifd3 i.f5 with an equal game, Usak­ ovsky-Kogan, USSR 1963 ; while 11 tZ)bd2 transposes to a line from the next section) 11 16 (the most active move; 11 . . . i.xe3 12 'ii'x e3 •••

•••

•••

12 g4 (12 . . . 0-0!? was proposed by Mikhalchishin) 13 tZ)d4 tZ)xe5 14 tZ)d2 and now: •••

•••

The Discussion of Decades 71

will be examined later - in the 10 'ii'd 3 variation ; 11 . . . 'ii'e 7 12 .ixc5 'ii'xc5 13 lLlbd2 .ig4 14 lLlxe4 dxe4 15 'ii'xe4 .ixf3 16 'ii'xf3 lLlxe5 1 7 'ii'e 4 l:tad8 leads t o equality, Mata­ novic-(,xeller, Zagreb 1958 ; also af­ ter 12 l:tdl l:tad8 13 .ixc5 'ii'xc5 14 lLld4 'ii'b 6 15 f3 lLlc5 16 �hl l:tfe8 Black's advantage in development compensates the weakness of his dark squares, Kamsky-Anand, Las Palm as 1995 ; however, White can simply play 12 lLlbd2 to maintain a slight advantage after 12 . . . .ixe3 13 'ii'x e3 - see 10 'ii'd 3) 12 exf6 ( 1 2 lLld4 .ixd4 13 cxd4 fxe5 14 dxe5 'ii'e 7 15 lLlc3 lLlxc3 16 bxc3 lLlxe5 is promising for Black, Gligoric-Unzicker, Oberhausen 196 1) 12 'ii'xf6 13 lLlbd2 .id6 ( 13 . . . .ixe3 14 'ii'xe3 leads to a line considered, which is also satisfac­ tory for Black - see 10 'ii'd3) •••

against Mikhalevsky, Beer-Sheva 1992) 14 . . . l:tae8 15 a4 lLle5 16 axb5 lLlxd2 17 lLlxd2 lLlg4! 18 lLlfl axb5 19 .id4 'ii' h 4 20 g3 'ii' h 3 2 1 'ii'xb5! and the complications ended in White's favour. 14 . . . lLle5 !? looks stronger. Now we come back to 10 'ii'd3 . With this move White maintains both possibilities, viz . .ic1-e3 and lLlbl-d2 . In the last case the white queen's position on d3 prevents . . . .ie6-f5. 0-0 10 The most accurate. Alterna­ tives are: a) 10 'ii'd7 is hardly good in view of 11 lLlbd2 ! , e.g. 11 . . . lLlxd2 12 .ixd2 d4? ! ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 !?) 13 �xe6 fxe6 14 l:tac1 0-0 1 5 lLlg5 l:tf5? 16 cxd4 .ixd4 17 'ii'e4 with a winning position (R. Rodriguez-Baquero, Thessaloniki 1988) . b) 10 .ib6 is also insufficient: 1 1 .ie3 lLlc5 12 .ixc5 .ixc5 13 a4 b4 14 lLlbd2 0-0 15 l:tfel l:te8 16 lLld4 with a clear edge (Olland-Spiel­ mann, Stockholm 1912). c) 10 f6 1 1 exf6 'ii'xf6 12 .ie3 leads to a line considered below af­ ter 12 . . . 0-0 ; in the latter variation 12 . . . 0-0-0? ! is risky due to 13 a4 lLla5 14 .id4! 'ii'h 6 15 .ic2 .id6 16 .ie5! (Korchnoi) . d) Finally, 10 lLle 7 is possible. After 1 1 .i e3 ( l 1 lLld4 ! ? was sug­ gested by Keres) 1 1 . . . �f5 ( 1 1 . . . lLlf5 12 �d4 �xd4 13 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 14 'ii'xd4 is slightly better for White, according to Korchnoi) 12 'ii'e 2 .ixe3 13 'ii'xe3 c5 14 l:tdl 0-0 15 •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

14 l:tfel (in the game Bertok­ Geller, Stockholm 1962, a draw was agreed after 14 a4 lLlxd2 15 'ii'xd2 lLle5 16 lLlxe5 'ii'xe5 17 f4 'ii' h 5; the text move was played by Yudasin

72 The Discussion of Decades li)h4 (Trifunovic-Karaklaic, Bel­ grade 1954) or 1 1 li)bd2 i.f5 12 'ii'e 2 'ii'd 7 13 li)xe4 i.xe4 14 li)g5 i.f5 15 i.e3 i.xe3 16 'ii'xe3 h6 1 7 li)f3 0-0 18 'ii'c 5 (A. Sokolov-Yusu­ pov, Belfort 1988) White main­ tains a small edge. 1 1 i.e3 1 1 li)bd2 is another possible plan. Now both 1 1 lDxf2?! 12 :xf2 f6 13 li)e4! and 1 1 li)xd2 12 i.xd2 li)e7 13 li)d4 i.b6 14 a4! (Yur­ taev-Thipsay, Frunze 1985) are preferable for White; so Black usu­ ally plays 1 1 f5 12 exf6 (or 12 i.c2 'ii'd 7 13 li)b3 .i.a7 14 i.e3 i.xe3 15 'ii'xe3 li)d8 16 li)c5 'ii'e 7 with equal chances, Pilnik-Euwe, Buenos Aires 1947) 12 li)xf6. The position opens up and Black ob­ tains the f-file for his rook and a comfortable d6 square for his queen. On the other hand, his king­ side defences arouse some appre­ hension. White has the following possibilities : •••

•••

•••

•••

a) 13 .i.c2?! i.f7 14 li)h4 li)e5 15 'ii' h 3 'ii'd 7 16 i.f5 'ii'd 6 and

Black is okay (Puc-Trifunovic, Yu­ goslav championship 1946). b) 13 li)g5 li)e5! (centralisation in reply to a flank attack; 13 . . . i.f7?! is inferior, for example 14 li)xf7 :Xf7 15 li)f3 'ii'd 6 16 i.g5 :d7 1 7 :ael with a clear edge for White Gonzales-G. Garcia, Colombian championship 1988) 14 'ii'g3 'li'd6 15 i.c2 ( 1 5 :fel?! li)fg4 16 li)de4 dxe4 17 i.xe6 + c,th8 18 i.e3 li)xf2, Zagorovsky-Taimanov, USSR 1947, is favourable for Black; while 1 5 li)df3 li)xf3 + 16 fuf3 'ii'xg3 1 7 hxg3 li)e4 18 li)d4 i.xd4 1 9 cxd4 c5, Blau -Trifunovic, Hilversum 1947, leads to equality) 15 . . . i.d7 16 li)b3 i.b6. Now the attempt 1 7 li)d4 ( 1 7 i.f4 :ae8 i s unclear according to Korchnoi) 17 . . . :ae8 18 i.f4 is met by 18 . . . li)h5 ! , e.g. 19 i.xe5 :xe5 20 i.xh 7 + c,th8 2 1 'ii' h4 g6 22 f4 .i.xd4 + 23 cxd4 :ef5 24 g3 c,tg7, and White was relieved to find a nice draw: 25 :ael! li)xf4! 26 gxf4 :xf4 2 7 :xf4 :xf4 28 :e7 + c,tf8 29 :e8 + ! etc. (Khalifman-Y�ida­ nov, Kuibyshev 1986). c) 13 a4 :b8 (13 . . .i.f7 was tried in two games between Andrei So­ kolov and Artur Yusupov; in their matchgame - Riga 1986 - after 14 li)g5 li)e5 15 'ii'g3 'ii'd6 16 .i.c2 h6 16 . . . .i.g6 was obviously stronger 17 li)xf7 li)xf7 18 li)b3 'ii'xg3 19 hxg3 .i.b6 20 li)d4 White obtained a better endgame; and in Tilburg 1987 Sokolov preferred 16 li)xf7 li)xf7 1 7 li)f3 with a slight edge for White after 1 7 . . . 'ii'xg3 18 hxg3 c6 19 li)d4 i.xd4 20 cxd4; 13 . . . :b8

The Discussion of Decades 73

enables Black to avoid simplifi­ cations) 14 axb5 axb5 15 liJg5 (15 -ic2 is again harmless due to 15 . . . -if7, for example 16 liJb3 i.d6 17 liJbd4 liJxd4 18 'iVxd4 c5 19 'iVh4 liJe4 with chances for both sides, Puc-Milie, Yugoslav championship 1946) 15 liJe5 16 'iVg3 'iVd6 1 7 i. c2 -id7! (this i s the same ar­ rangement of pieces as after 13 liJg5 ; the open a-file does not yield White any profit) 18 liJb3 -ib6 19 -i f4 l:tbe8 . •..

draw after 28 . . ...e5 29 gxf5 -ixd4 + 30 cxd4 'iVxd4 + (Timman). 1 1 -ie3 leads to quieter lines of play. f61 11 This is the principal difference from the Keres variation. Black makes use of his small develop­ ment advantage to break loose. 1 1...f5 leads to the same line after 12 exf6 but is this capture forced then? The other options are less fa­ vourable: a) 11 liJe 7 12 liJd4! i.xd4 13 cxd4 .i.f5 14 'iVdl h6 15 f3 liJg5 16 liJc3 with a clear edge (S. Garcia­ Cordova, Cienfuegos 1984). b) 11 -ixe3 12 'iVxe3 liJe7 (the lines 12 . . ...d7 13 1:1dl l:tad8 14 liJbd2 f5 15 liJxe4 fxe4 16 liJg5 l:tf5 1 7 f4 exf3 18 liJxf3 'iVe7 19 liJd4, Solozhenkin-Kislov, Leningrad 1989, and 12 . . . f6 13 liJd4 ! liJxd4 14 cxd4 fxe5 15 dxe5 'iVe7 16 f3 liJc5 17 l:tcl liJb 7 18 liJc3 , SchOneberg­ Briickner, Germany 1992, yield White the better prospects, while after 12 . . . liJa5 13 liJbd2 liJxd2 14 liJxd2 'iVd7 15 l:tadl -if5 16 liJe4 c6 1 7 liJc5 White maintained a small edge in Hecht-NeunhOffer, Ger­ many 1987) 13 ltdl (Short's im­ provement; however, 13 .i.c2 liJg6 14 l:tel f5 15 exf6 'iVxf6 16 -ixe4 dxe4 1 7 liJg5, Gligorie-Trifunovie, London 1951, or 13 liJbd2 liJf5 14 'iVe2 liJxd2 15 'iVxd2 c5 16 1:1adl "e7 1 7 'iVf4, Kupreichik-Karsa, Copenhagen 1988, provide White with a more pleasant position as •••

•••

.••

This sharp position was the sub­ ject of a subsequent discussion be­ tween Sokolov and Jan Timman in 1988. In Belfort after 20 liJd4 liJh5 2 1 -ixe5 l:txe5 22 -ixh7 + �h8 23 ft4 'iVh6? 24 liJdf3 l:tee8 2 5 l:tfel White obtained a danger­ ous attack, but in Reykjavik (1988) Timman unveiled an important improvement: 23 g6! (see the 13 liJg5 line above) 24 f4 l:txg5 25 'iVxg5 �xh7 when, instead of 26 l:tael? liJg7! illustrative game 23 White should have played 26 f5 ! l:txf5 27 l:txf5 .i.xf5 28 g4 forcing a ..•

-

-

74 The Discussion of Decades well) 13 . . . h6 14 ll)bd2 .if5 15 a4 c6 16 ll)d4 .igS 1 7 ll)xe4 .ixe4 18 e6? ! c5! 19 exf7 + l:hf7 20 ll)e6 'ii'c 8 ! , and Black successfully de­ fended (Short-Yusupov, Linares 1990). According to Yusupov, White could have obtained the better chances by means of 18 .ic2 ! ' c ) 1 l Ji'e7 1 2 ll)bd2 .ixe3 1 3 'ii'x e3 ll)xd2 14 'ii'xd2 also offers White good prospects, for example 14 J�ad8 15 :fel ll)a5 16 .ic2 ll)c4 17 'ii'c l c5 18 b3 ll)b6 19 ll)g5 g6 20 f4 with a clear edge (Sigur­ jonsson-Honfi, Cienfuegos 1976) or 14 ll)a5 15 .ic2 ll)c4 ( 1 5 . . . c5? 16 ll)g5 h6 1 7 ll)h7 :fd8 18 f4 is good for White, S. Garcia-Antoshin, La Habana 1968) 16 'ii'c l (R.Byrne­ Martinowski, USA 1968). d) 1 l 'iVd7!? 12 ll)bd2 .ixe3 13 'ii'x e3 ll)xd2 14 'ii'x d2 ll)a5 15 .ic2 c5 16 'ii'f4 ( 1 6 ll)g5 .if5 - the point! ) 16 . . . h6 17 h3 ll)c6 18 :ad l f5 with equal chances (Prasad-Ag­ zamov, Calcutta 1986). In this line 12 :dl looks stronger. 12 exf6 12 ll)bd2 ll)xd2 13 'ii'xd2 .ixe3 14 'ii'xe3 ll)xe5 15 ll)xe5 fxe5 16 'ii'x e5 'ii'd 7 led to equality in the game Bolbochan-Teschner, Stock­ holm 1962. 'ii'xf6 12 13 ll)bd2 The capture of the pawn is risky: 13 .ixd5 :ad8 14 i.xe6 + ( 1 4 .ixc5? ll)xc5 15 .ixe6 + "xe6 16 'ii'e 3 'ii'x e3 17 fxe3 ll)d3 and Black is better, Korchnoi) 14 . . ...xe6 15 'ii'e 2 (15 ll)d4?! ll)xd4 16 cxd4 • .

••

•••

.ixd4 17 .ixd4 c5 with a slight ad­ vantage, Medina-Karaklaic, Casa­ blanca 1974) 15 . . .ll)xf2 16 'at>xf2 :de8 17 :el 'ii'd6 18 'ii'd2 :xf3 + ! , and White should settle for 19 gxf3 'ii'xh2 + with perpetual check (Kor­ chnoi). .ixe3 13 But not 13 ll)e5 14 ll)xe5 'ii'xe5 15 .td4 .ixd4 16 cxd4 'ii'd6 17 :acl with slightly better chances (Tal­ Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee 1968). ll)xd2 14 'ii'xe3 15 'ii'xd2 Or 15 ll)xd2 :ad8 16 'ii'c 5 .if7 17 :adl 'ii'd6 18 ll)e4 'ii'xc5 19 l1)xc5 a5 with an equal position (Zago­ rovsky-Estrin, corr 1968) . :ad8 15 •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

16 :fel In the game I vkov-Geller (Za­ greb 1955) 16 ll)d4 .if7 1 7 .ic2 ll)a5 led to equality. �h8! 16 16 .ig4 1 7 :e3 'at>h8 18 ll)d4 ll)a5 19 h3 i.c8 20 :ael yielded White a small edge in Rittner-de Carbonnel (corr 1968) . •••

•••

The Discussion of Decades 75

The text move (a typical ma­ noeuvre, preparing . . . .ie6-gS) was played in the 4th match game be­ tween Kamsky and Anand (Las Palmas 1995). Mer 17 :e3 .ig8 18 :dl d4! 19 :eel ( 1 9 cxd4? ll)xd4! 20 ll)xd4 :xd4) 19 . . . dxc3 20 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 2 1 bxc3 ll)a5 Black ob­ tained an excellent position.

Section 2 1 0 ll)bd2: deviations on moves 10 and 1 1 ( 1 e 4 e 5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .i a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5) 10 ll)bd2

In this small section we exam­ ine various side lines after 10 ll)bd2. 10 0-0 Concrete actions are still pre­ mature: 10 ll)xd2 1 1 .ixd2 0-0 12 .i.g5 'ii'd 7 13 'ii'd3 .ie7 14 :adl :ad8 15 :fel ll)a5 16 .ic2 g6 1 7 'ii'd4 (Muchnik-Lashmanov, USSR 1 9 5 1 ) and 10 ll)xf2 1 1 :xf2 ffi •••

•••

•••

12 'ii'e 2 0-0 13 exffi 'ii'xffi 14 ll)n .ixf2 + 15 'ii'xf2 ll)e5 16 .ie3 ttJxf3 + 17 'ii'xf3 'ii'xf3 18 gxf3 :Xf3 19 .ic5 (Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1987) both give White the better chances. Surprisingly, nobody yet has tried 10 'ii'd 7!? in this position. 1 1 .ic2 (D) Another possibility is 1 1 'ii'e2 . After 1 1 . . . .if5 12 ll)xe4 ( 1 2 e6? ! fxe6 13 ll)xe4 dxe4 14 ll)g5 'ii'ffi 15 ll)xe4 'ii'e5 16 .ic2, Angelov-Lorenz, corr 1971, could have been fol­ lowed by 16 . . . :ad8 ! 17 �h l .ixe4 18 f4 .ixg2 + and Black is on top, Sapundzhiev) 12 . . . dxe4 13 ll)g5 ll)xe5 14 ll)xe4 .ig4 (or 14 . . . 'ii'd 3 15 'ii'xd3 ll)xd3 16 ll)xc5 ll)xc5 with equal chances, Boleslavsky-Botvin­ nik, LeningradIMoscow 1941) 15 'ii'd2 ( 1 5 'ii'c 2 .ib6 16 .if4 ll)d3 17 .ig5 'ii'd 7 and Black is slightly better, Leow-Milos, Manila 1992) 15 . . . 'ii'x d2 ! 16 .ixd2 .ib6 1 7 .ie3 .ixe3 18 fxe3 :ad8 19 l1)c5 .ic8 an equal position arose in the game Horowitz-Pilnik (Hollywood 1945). •••

76 The Discussion of Decades This position is a starting-point for three deeply developed sys­ tems of counterplay. We shall ex­ amine them as follows : Section 3 ( 1 1 f5), Section 4 ( 1 1 i.f5) and Section 5 ( 1 1 ... lbxf2 ) . Here we deal with a fourth possible move, which is considered to be some­ what weaker. ll)xd2 1 1 ... 12 'it'xd2 But not 12 i.xd2 d4! equalis­ ing, Keres. f6 12 ... 12 ... ll)e7 13 b4 i.b6 14 ll)g5 i.f5 1 5 i.xf5 ll)xf5 16 'it'd3 g6 17 'it'h3 (Smyslov-Ragozin, USSR champi­ onship, Moscow 1944) and also 12 ... i.e7 13 'it'd3 g6 14 i.h6 l:te8 15 'it'd2 f6 16 exf6 i.xf6 17 l:tadl ll)a5 18 ll)d4 (Pillsbury-Albin, Nur­ emberg 1896) can hardly be satis­ factory for Black. 12 ... l:te8!? deserves further ex­ amination since the most recent example is from the game Fliam­ berg-Bernstein (Vilno 1912 1 ) : 13 l:tel 'it'd7 14 ll)d4 i.f8 15 a4 g6 16 axb5 axb5 17 l:txa8 l:txa8 18 'it'e2 b4 with a satisfactory position for Black. Still, this line looks some­ what passive. 12 . . . f6 (brought back into prac­ tice by Antoshin) seems not to provide Black with sufficient coun­ terplay either. 13 exf6 To 13 'it'd3 Black should not re­ spond 13 ... f5 in view of 14 a4 b4 15 a5 with a clear advantage (Si­ magin-Langeweg, Sochi 1967). The •••

•••

best reply is 13 ... g6 14 exf6 i.f5 15 'it'dl i.xc2 16 'it'xc2 'it'xf6 1 7 i.h6 'it'f5 1 8 'it'd2 l:tf7 1 9 l:tadl l:td8 and now Black has good equalis­ ing chances (Janowski-Englisch, Berlin 189 7) . l:txf6 13 ... 14 ll)g5 14 ll)d4 is too stereotyped : 14 . . . ll)xd4 15 cxd4 i.d6! 16 'iVe2 'it'd7 17 a4 l:te8 18 i.g5 i.f5 19 'it'd2 i.g6, and the initiative has passed to Black (Juckert-Friedch, corr 1957). 14 b4!? is more promising. Mter 14 . . . i.b6 15 a4 l:tb8 16 'it'e2 h6 (16 . . . 'it'd7 17 i.g5 l:tf7 18 l:tadl i.g4 19 i.b3 i.xf3 20 gxf3 ll)e7 2 1 a 5 i. a 7 22 i.xe7 'it'xe7 23 'it'xe7 l:txe7 24 l:txd5 with a clear edge, Klovan-Shereshevsky, USSR 1974) 1 7 i.f4 i.g4 18 i.g3 d4 19 axb5 axb5 20 'it'xb5 White's position is preferable. i.f5 14 ... 15 a4 The alternatives 15 i.xf5 l:txf5 16 ll)e6 'ii'd6 1 7 ll)xc5 'it'xc5 18 'it'e2 d4 CA. Rodriguez-Antoshin, Cien­ fuegos 1977) and 1 5 b4 i.b6 16 i.b3 ll)e7 1 7 a4 c6 18 l:tel i.g6 19 ll)f3 ll)f5 20 ll)e5 i.e8 (Karpov-An­ toshin, USSR championship, Riga 1970) do not promise White any advantage. The text move yielded White an overwhelming position in Sue­ tin-Antoshin (Sochi 1974) after 15 ...ll)e7 16 i.xf5 ll)xf5 1 7 'iVd3 h6 18 axb5! axb5 19 l:txa8 'it'xa8 20 'it'xb5. However, 1 5 ... l:tb8!? looks more accurate (Korchnoi).

The Discussion of Decades 77

Section 3 11

...

f5

( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 �b5 a6 4 i. a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b 5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.c5 10 tZ)bd2 0-0 11 i.c2) f5 11

This system was topical a cou­ ple of decades ago, but is now a rare guest in tournament prac­ tice. Later on I'll try to explain why. 12 tZ)b3 12 en6 just clears files for Black's pieces: 12 . . . tZ)xfG 13 tZ)b3 (13 tZ)g5? i.g4! 14 i.xh7 + tZ)xh7 15 'lVxg4 trurg5 16 tZ)b3 does not work due to 16 . . Jbf2 ! 17 tZ)xc5 �xf1 + 18 �xf1 'ii'fB + 19 i.f4 'lVxc5 20 'lVxg5 �fB with a dangerous attack for Black, according to Levenfish) 13 . . . i.b6 14 tZ)g5 (14 a4? is poor in view of 14 . . . i.g4! 15 axb5 tZ)e5, as in Bannik-Estrin, USSR 1945 ; while 14 tZ)fd4 tZ)xd4 15 cxd4 'lVd6 16 'lVd3 c6 1 7 'lVg3 'ii'd 7 18 tZ)c5 i.xc5 19 dxc5 i.f5 20 i.b3 �ae8

yielded Black an edge in Lilien­ thal-Botvinnik, LeningradIMos­ cow 194 1 ; and 14 tZ)bd4 tZ)xd4 15 tZ)xd4 i.g4 16 'lVd3 c5 1 7 tZ)f5 'ii'd 7 brings the same outcome, Gre­ chkin-Radchenko, USSR 195 1 ; fi­ nally, 14 i.g5 'lVd6 15 tZ)fd4 tZ)xd4 16 tZ)xd4 i.g4 17 f3 i.d7 18 �h1 c5 19 tZ)e2 tZ)h5 proved quite sat­ isfactory for Black in Siichting­ Marco, Berlin 1897) 14 . . . 'lVd7 (or 14 . . . i.g4, e.g. 15 i.xh 7 + �h8 16 'lVc2 'lVd6 1 7 i.f5 tZ)e5 18 tZ)d4 c5 19 tZ)de6 tZ)e4 with unclear com­ plications, Derenkov-Radchenko, USSR 1963) 15 trure6 'lVxe6 16 tZ)d4 tZ)xd4 1 7 cxd4 �ae8 18 i.e3 'ii'd 6 19 'ii'd3 c6 20 g3 'lVe6, and Black is not worse (Nicht-Einax, corr 1989). 12 tZ)b3 is connected with the idea tZ)f3-d4 and £2-f3 . Black must now resort to tactical measures to maintain the balance. 12 �b6 12 i.a7 makes no difference : 13 tZ)fd4 tZ)cxd4 14 tZ)xd4 i.xd4 etc. If White plays 14 cxd4 f4 1 5 f3 tZ)g3 16 hxg3 fxg3 1 7 'lVd3 i.f5 18 'ii'xf5 �xf5 19 i.xf5 'lVh4 20 i.e6 + �h8 2 1 i.h3 �xd4 + 22 �h1?! (22 tZ)xd4 leads to the main line with 15 cxd4) then Black ob­ tains a splendid position: 22 . . . �xe5 23 f4 �fB 24 tZ)c5 g5 ! 25 tZ)d7 i.g7 26 tZ)xfB g4 with a strong attack (Boey-Estrin, corr 1972) . 13 tZ)fd4 13 a4 is not dangerous due to 13 . . .'lVd7 (but not 13 . . .b4 14 a5 �a7 15 tZ)bd4 tZ)xd4 16 tZ)xd4 �xd4 1 7 cxd4 f4 1 8 f3 tZ)g3 19 � £2 'lVh4 2 0 •••

•••

78 The Discussion of Decades 1:.a4! with a clear plus for White, as in Boleslavsky-Szabo, Gronin­ gen 1946) 14 lDbd4 lDxd4 15 lDxd4 c5 16 lDe2 d4 (Suetin-Nei, USSR championship, Tbilisi 1966/6 7) or 14 axb5 axb5 15 1:.xa8 1:.xa8 16 i.e3 (Suetin-Faibisovich, USSR 1975), and now Korchnoi recom­ mends 16 . . . b4 with equal chances. lDxd4 13 i.xd4 14 lDxd4 The quiet 14 .'i'd7 is insuffi­ cient for equality: 15 f3 lDc5 16 'it?hl (or 16 i.e3 f4 1 7 i.12 i.f7 18 'i'd2 lDe6 19 i.f5 with a slight edge, Rantanen-Ornstein, Hel­ sinki 1979, although the prophy­ lactic text move is more flexible) •••

••

16 . . . 1:.ae8 ( 1 6 . . . lDb 7?! 1 7 i.e3 c5 18 lDxe6 'i'xe6 is refuted by an overwhelming 19 a4 ! ! , for exam­ ple 19 . . . lDa5 - 19 . . . 'i'xe5 20 1:.e1 i.c7 21 .tg1 - 20 .t12 'it>h8 21 1:.e1 1:.a7 22 'i'e2 ! , which gave White a clear edge in the famous game Stein-Keres, Moscow 1967 - illus­ trative game 24) 17 b4 lDa4 18 'i'd3 c5 19 lDxe6 :Xe6 20 .txa4 bxa4 2 1

bxc5 with a slight advantage (Kie­ ninger-Bogolyubow, Krakow 1941). 15 'i'xd4! Decades of investigation and discussions have finally proved that this move is stronger than the more natural 15 cxd4. This pawn capture leads to an interest­ ing forced variation : 15 f4! (nec­ essary; if White manages to calm down the position he will have a huge positional plus) 16 f3 lDg3! 17 hxg3 (in the event of 1 7 1:.12 Black can create counterplay by means of 1 7 . . . 'i'h4; now 18 'i'd3? ! 1:.f5! - 1 8 . . . .tf5?! 19 'i'c3 - 1 9 i.xf4 .l:r.xf4 ! 20 hxg3 'i'xg3 21 'i'xh7 + cM7 forces White to fight for equality, e.g. 22 1:.d 1 ! 1:.h4 23 'i'd3 c5 24 dxc5 1:.ah8 25 'it>f1 1:.h1 + 26 'it>e2 .l:r.xd1 27 i.xd1 'i'xe5 + with a good position for Black, Napolitano-Sa­ pundzhiev, corr 1973; so 18 i.d2 ! is probably better, when after 18 . . . 1:.ae8 19 .tb4 1:.f7 20 a4 i.c8 21 axb5 1:.e6, Geller-G. Garcia, Bo­ gota 1978, White could have ob­ tained an edge by 22 h3; however, 20 . . . i.d7! , recommended by Filip, would have lead to an unclear po­ sition. It was Boleslavsky who dis­ covered that Black's knight can safely be taken, thanks to White's 18th move) 17 fxg3 18 'i'd3! i.f5 19 'i'xf5 1:.xf5 20 i.xf5 'i'h4 2 1 .th3 'i'xd4 + 22 'it>hl "xe5 (D) For several decades this position was a real object of pride for chess theorists. This position was the first to be subject to a theoretical debate of such length. Which are •••

•••

The Discussion of Decades 79

stronger: White's pieces or Black's queen and passed pawns? N owa­ days a novelty on move 25 is noth­ ing special, but at that time, in the forties, analysing this position during one's opening preparation was a fantastic concept! However, for many players it was a kind of bogey. To start play­ ing on move 25? Heaven forbid! That's why, in my opinion, this position has never been analysed up to the final conclusion, and the whole 11 . . . f5 line has lost its popu­ larity. It even seems to me that Black players simply did not want to search for an adequate defence to the strongest 15 'ii'xd4! . 23 .id2 (Suetin 's recommenda­ tion 23 l:tb1 ! ? is very interesting but no-one has ever plucked up the courage to play it) 23 . . :ii'xb2 (23 . . . c5 is inferior; true, 24 l:tae1 'it'xb2 25 i.f4 'it'f6 - 25 . . . d4 26 i.e6 + 'it>h8 27 i.d5 followed by 28 l:te7 is favourable for White - 26 i.xg3 d4 2 7 l:te6 'it'g5 28 i.e5 d3 , Teschner-Honfi, Monte Carlo 1969, or 28 'it>h2 d3 ! leads to an unclear

position, but 24 .ic3 ! - Pachman 24 . . . d4 25 l:tae1 'it'f4 26 l:te4 'it'h6 27 .ia5 or 27 .ie1 is quite convinc­ ing) 24 .if4 d4 ! (but not 24 . . . c5? 25 .ie6 + 'it?h8 26 i.xd5 l:td8 2 7 l:tad1 and White i s winning, Smys­ lov-Reshevsky, USSR-USA 1945; Black should quickly push his d­ pawn, as first played by Yacob Estrin) 25 .ixg3 (25 .ixc7 d3 26 .ie6 + 'it>h8 27 l:tad1 l:te8 28 .id7 l:te2 29 .ixg3 d2 ,Tseshkovsky-Tal, USSR championship, Leningrad 1974 - illustrative game 24 is clearly in Black's favour, but here 26 .ixg3 is stronger, e.g. 26 . . . d2 2 7 i.e6 + 'it>h8 2 8 f4 l:td8 29 l:tad1 l:td3 30 l:tf2 'ii'b4 with equality, Batu­ rinsky-Estrin, corr 1946; while 25 l:tfe1 c5 26 l:tad1 c4 2 7 .ie6 + 'it>h8 28 .ie5 l:td8 also yields Black suf­ ficient counter-chances, Unzicker­ Schmid, Munich 1947) 25 . . . c5 (the line 25 . . . d3 26 l:tad1 d2 27 .ie6 + 'it>f8 28 .ixc7 'it>e7 29 .id5 l:tf8 30 .ia5 l:tf5 - 30 . . . b4 is met by 3 1 l:tf2, Suetin - 3 1 l:txd2 led to a win­ ning position for White in Pelitov­ Estrin, Albena 1973 ; 27 . . . 'it>h8 28 .ixc7 l:te8 should be considered) 26 l:tae1 d3 2 7 l:te7 (Beliavsky-Orn­ stein, Le Havre 1977). Now in­ stead of 2 7 . . . 'it'f6 28 l:td7! Black should have played 27 . . . d2 28 i.e6 + 'it>h8 29 l:td7 c4 with an un­ clear position (recommended by MaIjanovic). Now we move on to the alterna­ tive 15 'it'xd4. c5 15 16 'it'dl f4?! -

80 The Discussion of Decades This 'theoretical ' move is not the best option for Black. Tim­ man's experiment 16 h6 deserves attention. After 17 f3 tZ)g5 18 .ie3 :c8 19 'i'd2 a5 20 :adl 'i'e7 2 1 .ibl 'iii> h 8 2 2 :fel :c7 23 .if2 b4 (Short-Timman, EI Escorial 1993) Knaak recommends 24 'i'd3, main­ taining a slight edge thanks to the awful position of Black's knight. However, Speelman's suggestion 19 . . . d4! ? is waiting for tests. For his part, White can try 18 a4!? Suetin considers that Black can also reply with 16 'i'e7 , 16 a5 or 16 c4. A wide choice but . . . no practical tests! 17 f3 tZ)g5 Now 17 tZ)g3 18 hxg3 fxg3 19 'i'd3 is clearly in White's favour. 18 a4! Undermining Black's queenside pawn structure. 18 b4 is harm­ less: 18 . . . 'i'b6 19 bxc5 'i'xc5 + 20 'i'd4 'i'xd4 + 21 cxd4 .ic8 22 a4 .ib 7 with equal chances, Aarseth­ de Carbonnel, corr 1968 . 18 b4 (D) 18 bxa4 19 :xa4 c4 20 b3 'i'b6 + 21 'iii>h l :ad8 22 'i'd4 'i'xd4 23 cxd4 .id7 24 :b4 also yields White an edge (Haag-Estrin, COIT 1979). 19 cxb4! After 19 h4 tZ)h3 + 20 gxh3 'i'xh4 2 1 :f2 .ixh3 22 :h2 :ae8 23 'i'xd5 + 'iii> h 8 24 .id2 :xe5 25 'i'xe5 'i'g3 + Black forces a draw as in the game Averbakh-Szabo, NeuhausenlZurich 1953. c4 19 •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

�ill� ��

x.

�.• �

_ _ ", _ . ' B _1.8 _ . _

�11 _

. �;; �

. � ",. "''' . " fQ?

� _

. ��

�. . " � '� i.. - � �� " � ,�iV. � )� : � � ;." " �

19 cxb4 20 'i'd4 .if5 2 1 .ib3 tZ)e6 22 'i'xd5 'i'b6 + 23 'it>hl :ad8 is insufficient in view of 24 a5 ! 'i'c7 25 'i'c4! (Nokso Koivisto-Kau­ nonen, COIT 1986). 19 . . . c4 was rec­ ommended by Bronstein back in the fifties. However. . . 20 b3! 20 'i'd4 .if5 ! (Bronstein) is fa­ vourable for Black, but the strong text move clarifies the situation. After 20 d4 21 bxc4 .ixc4 22 .ib3 ! (Rantanen-Ornstein, Reyk­ javik 1981) or 20 'i'b6 + 2 1 'iii> h l d4 2 2 a5! White has a clear plus. Radical ways to improve this variation for Black should be searched for on move 16. •••

•••

•••

Section 4 1 1 ... .ifS

( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10 tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2) .if5 11 ... This defence has been popular in recent years. Black intends to

The Discussion of Decades 81

.a. � ••• �% �-* • k l � ' � • • E . �;:; �j:. ,,, " " �

/" ,, &

z" " ,�

. _4&\. _ _ .,_ � , � '/tt. _ W" � • .4&\. • • �� -ttJ. � �;; x ,,�

;%{@

A fi ?>. � ' ''�

O U£� :

w%;%

fi A � � �� o �,, �

��. " M � _:� �

keep his centralised knight by tac­ tical means such as the break . . . f7-f6 etc. Still, White manages to carry out Capablanca's idea, i.e. to force the exchange of pieces on d4 with Black's c-pawn delayed on its initial square. Despite the fact that Black also obtains some counterplay, White maintains a minimal edge (on condition of pre­ cise play, of course ! ) . 12 ll)b3 White's plan is the same as in the 11 . . . f5 line: ll)f3-d4 and f2-f3 . i. g6! 12 12 i.b6 13 ll)fd4 is clearly in White 's favour. However, there are two more moves: a) 12 i.g4 A subject of debate in the seventies. White mostly played 13 ll)xc5 ll)xc5 14 :el (or 14 i.e3 ll)e4 15 h3 i.h5 16 g4 i.g6 17 i.b3 "fie7 with unclear play, as in the game Tseshkovsky-Geller, USSR championship, Moscow 1976). The 1978 World Champi­ onship match in Baguio eventu­ ally proved that Black could equalise by means of 14 . . . i.h5! 1 5 •••

•••

•.•

h3 :e8 16 i.f4 ll)e6 (Karpov-Kor­ chnoi, Baguio City 1978) . However, just a few days after the latter game Karpov refuted the whole line: 13 h3! i.h5 (13 . . . i.xf3 14 gxf3 �xf2 + 15 :xf2 ll)xf2 16 �xf2 'ii' h 4 + 17 �g2 ll)xe5 18 ll)d4 is favourable for White, according to Filip) 14 g4 i.g6 15 i.xe4 dxe4 16 ll)xc5 exf3 17 i.f4! 'ii'x dl 18 :axdl ll)d8 19 :d7 ll)e6 20 ll)xe6 fxe6 2 1 i.e3 :ac8 22 :fdl (or 2 2 i.c5 :fe8 23 :el h5, a s i n Timo­ schenko-Sideif-Zade, Frunze 1979, and now 24 gxh5 ! i s slightly bet­ ter for White) 22 . . . i.e4 23 i.c5 :fe8 24:7d4 i.d5 25 b3, and White's chances in this endgame are clearly preferable (Karpov­ Korchnoi, Baguio City 1978 il­ lustrative game 26) . b) 12 i.xf2 + !? One of the numerous opening inventions by Yacob Murey. Its idea is similar to that of the Dilworth variation de­ scribed below in Section 5 : to cre­ ate an attack on White 's king by means of . . . f7-f6 . The exchange of light-squared bishops is quite sat­ isfactory for Black. However, in comparison to the Dilworth vari­ ation, White's pieces are placed somewhat better; besides, he can avoid the opening of the f-file: 13 :xf2 ll)xf2 14 �xf2 i.xc2 15 "fixc2 f6 16 e6 (the most solid way for White; 16 "fif5 ll)xe5 1 7 i.e3 :e8 18 :dl c6 19 i.c5 ll)c4 20 "fibl "fic7 2 1 ll)bd2 ll)a5 22 "fid3 ll)b 7 led to a position with chances for both sides in the game Ljubojevic-

•••

82 The Discussion ofDecades Piket, Monaco 1994; and 16 exf6 allows Black counterplay as well after 16 . . .'ilVxffi 17 'it>gl ttJe5 . Now 18 'ilt'f2 �ae8 19 �e3 ttJxf3 + 20 gxf3 'ilt'xf3 21 �xf3 �xf3 22 �c5 �e6 leads to a good endgame for Black, Arnason-Murey, Brighton 1982, and 18 'ilt'd1 �ae8 19 'ilt'xd5 + 'it>h8 20 �d2 ttJxf3 + 2 1 gxf3 �e2 22 �e1 �xb2 to an unclear posi­ tion, Seirawan-Zak, Lugano 1989 . In Korchnoi ' s opinion, 18 ttJbd4 ! h6 19 �e3 is good enough to main­ tain a small edge) 16 . . . 'ilt'd6 1 7 �e3 'ilt'xe6 18 ttJbd4 (18 ttJc5 -v.fie7 19 'ilt'b3 'ilt'f7 20 �d1 proved harm­ less in view of 20 . . . ttJe5 ! , Apicella­ Murey, Paris 1989) 18 . . . ttJxd4 19 ttJxd4 -v.fie5 ( 19 . . . -v.fid6 20 ttJf5 'ife5 2 1 'it>gl �fe8 22 �f1 'ife4 23 'iff2 yielded White better chances in the game Morovic-Murey, Thessa­ loniki 1984) 20 ttJf3 (20 ttJf5!? was suggested by Piket) 20 . . . 'ifh5 2 1 a4 c 6 22 b 4 �fe8 23 'ifd3 �ad8 24 h3 �e4 25 axb5 axb5 26 i.d4 �de8, and Black managed to hold his ground (Leko-Piket, Dortmund 1994). The whole variation re­ quires further analysis. N ow we come back to the main line (after 12 . . . �g6) (D). 13 ttJfd4 13 �xe4 dxe4 14 ttJxc5 'ilt'xd1 15 �xd1 exf3 is clearly harmless for Black. The same can be said about the other alternatives: a) 13 �f4 i.b6 14 a4 (14 ttJfd4 ttJe7 15 f3 c5) 14 . . . -v.fid7 (14 . . . b4!?) 15 axb5 axb5 16 �xa8 �xa8 1 7 ttJfd4 b 4 ( 1 7 . . . ttJd8!? 18 f3 c5) 18

�d3 bxc3 19 �b5 ttJxf2 ! 20 �xf2 ttJxd4! 2 1 �xd7 ttJxb3 22 bxc3 �a1, and White had to fight for a draw in Short-Timman, Tilburg 1988; remarks by Kovacevic. b) 13 e6!? f5 ! ? ( 13 . . .fxe6 14 �xe4 dxe4 15 ttJxc5 exf3 16 ttJxe6 is slightly better for White) 14 �xe4 fxe4 15 ttJxc5 exf3 16 e7 ttJxe7 17 ttJe6 'ilt'd7 18 ttJxf8 �xf8 19 h3 �e4 with enough compensa­ tion for the exchange (Loshakov­ Abloukhov, corr 1987). Abloukhov suggests that 14 ttJxc5 !? ttJxc5 15 �g5 'ilt'd6 16 e7! �fe8 1 7 �e1 ttJe4 18 �b3 yields White a slight edge. However, isn't 13 . . . �b6 (instead of 13 . . . f5) the simplest reply for Black? (Typesetter 's note - per­ haps then 14 ttJfd4. ) c ) 13 'ife2 �e8 ! 14 ttJxc5 (14 ttJfd4 doesn't work: 14 ... ttJxe5 15 �xe4 �xd4 16 �xg6 ttJxg6 or 15 f3 ttJd6 16 ttJxc5 ttJd7 17 'ilt'f2 ttJxc5 18 �xg6 hxg6 19 ttJc6 'ilt'd7 20 -v.fixc5 ttJb7, and Black wins a pawn in both cases - Timman) 14 . . . tDxc5 15 �xg6 hxg6 16 �g5 'ifd7 1 7 �ad1 ttJe6 18 'ifd2 ttJxg5 19 -v.fixg5

The Discussion of Decades 83

'iIIe 7 with equality in Ljubojevic­ Timman, Hilversum 1987. d) 13 a4 i.b6 14 ttJbd4 (14 axb5 axb5 15 �xa8 'iIIxa8 16 'iIIxd5 ttJxc3 1 7 bxc3 i.xc2 proves to be in Black's favour, Tukmakov-Sa­ von, USSR championship, Mos­ cow 1969) 14 . . . ttJxd4 (or 14 . . . 'illd 7 15 i.e3 ttJa5 16 axb5 axb5 17 ttJh4 ttJc4 with equal play, Ivanovic-To­ dorovic, Yugoslav championship 1990) 15 ttJxd4 'iIId 7 ( 1 5 . . . c5 does not work owing to 16 ttJc6 ! ttJxc3 1 7 ttJxd8 ttJxd 1 18 i.xg6 �axd8 19 i.f5, and White wins a piece, Tim­ man-Geller, Moscow 1981) 16 i.e3 ttJc5 17 a5 i.a7 18 f4 i.xc2 19 ttJxc2 f6 20 exf6 l:1xf6 with equality (Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1983) . e) 13 ttJbd4. This is less logical than 13 ttJfd4 since f2-f3 is not threatened. 13 . . . ttJxd4 (13 . . . i.xd4 is equally good, for example 14 cxd4 f6 15 i.e3 i.h5 16 'iIIc l 'iIId 7 17 i.dl i.xf3 18 gxf3 ttJg5 19 f4 ttJe6 with a fine position for Black, Ziegler-Ernst, Swedish Champi­ onship 1989; concerning 14 ttJxd4, see 13 ttJfd4 i.xd4 14 ttJxd4) 14 cxd4 (if 14 ttJxd4 then 14 . . .i.b6 15 i.e3, and now Zsofia Polgar recommends 15 . . . 'illd 7 or 15 . . . 'ille 8 !? instead of 15 ... l:1e8?! 16 a4 'iIId 7 1 7 axb5 axb5 18 l:1xa8 �xa8 19 i.d3 c6 20 f4 with a slight plus, Zso.Pol­ gar-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1990) 14 . . . i.b6 15 i.e3 l:1c8 16 b4 'iIIe 7 17 a3 a5 with chances for both sides (Apicella-Korneev, Paris 1991).

Returning to 13 ttJfd4. i.xd4 13 Black is forced to exchange his bishop since 13 ttJxd4? is now poor: 14 cxd4 i.b6 15 f3 ttJg5 16 i.xg5 'iIIxg5 17 f4 'iII h4 18 f5 with a clear edge (Kostro-Pioch, Poland 1973) . 14 cxd4 To 14 ttJxd4 Black should reply 14 'illd 7! , after which White can play: .•.

•••

.••

a) 15 f4 ttJxd4 16 cxd4 f6 (or 16 . . . f5 1 7 i.e3 i. f7 18 �c l i.e6 19 i.d3 c6 20 �c2 �ac8 with a very solid position, Popovic-Ernst, Tilburg 1992) 17 i.e3 l:1ad8 18 'iIIe 2 'it>h8 19 l:1acl c6 (Klovan-Dorf­ man, USSR 198 1 ) or 17 fxe5 18 fxe5 l:1xfl + 19 'iIIxfl l:1f8 20 'iIIe 2 'iIIe 6 (Leko-Korchnoi, Leon 1994) with easy equality in both cases. b) 15 a4 ttJxe5 16 f4 ttJc6 1 7 ttJxc6 'iIIxc6 18 f5 (J. Polgar-Hel­ lers, Wijk aan Zee 1990), and now instead of 1 8 'illb6 + ?! 19 'iIId4 'iIIxd4 + 20 cxd4 i.h5 2 1 i.f4 etc. Judit Polgar suggests 18 'illc5 + ! ••.

•••

•••

84 The Discussion of Decades 19 'ii'd4 i.h5 20 i.f4 'ii'c6 main­ taining an extra pawn. Therefore White should play first 16 axb5 axb5 1 7 1:!xa8 l:txa8 and only now 18 f4. However, the positions after 18 . . . tZ)c6 19 tZ)xb5 or 18 . . . c5 19 fxe5 cxd4 20 cxd4 are hardly in White's favour. c) 15 �c6 'ii'xc6 16 i.e3 MeS. Now both 1 7 f3? tZ)xc3 ! 18 'ii'd 2 ( 18 bxc3 'ii'xc3) 18 . . .i.xc2 19 'ii'xc2 l:txe5 20 l:tael tZ)e2 + 21 l:txe2 'ii'xc2 22 l:txc2 l:txe3 (Speelman-Timman, London 1989) and 1 7 f4? tZ)xc3 18 bxc3 'ii'xc3 19 i.d4 'ii'xc2 (Pop­ ovic-Ernst, Tilburg 1992) are in Black's favour. White should play 17 i.d4 tZ)c5 with equal chances. After the move 14 cxd4, in view of White's unmistakable threat 15 f3 , Black should urgently create counterplay on the queenside. a5l 14 14 f5 15 f3 tZ)g5 is poor due to 16 i.xg5 'ii'xg5 17 f4 with a clear plus. The text move enables Black to strongly meet 15 f3?! with the reply 15 . . . a4! . 1 5 i.e3 15 f4?l f5 16 a4 tZ)b4 17 axb5 'ii'b 8 18 tZ)c5 tZ)xc5 19 dxc5 i.h5 ! 20 'ii'd 2 'ii'xb5 yielded an edge for Black in the game Kapengut­ Sideif-Zade, USSR 1980. 15 i.d3 (with the idea of 15 . . . a4 16 i.xb5) has not yet been tried in practice. Sideif-Zade recommends 15 . . . 'ii'b 8 16 i.f4 'ii'b 6 17 l:tcl tZ)b4 18 i.bl a4 19 tZ)c5 tZ)xc5 20 dxc5 'ii'e6 with a slight plus for Black but 16 i.e3 looks more natural.

15 a4 (D) 15 tZ)b4? is wrong as after 16 i.bl a4 1 7 tZ)d2 a3 White has the strong move 18 'ii'c l ! (Karpov-Sa­ von, Moscow 1971) when even the best line 18 . . . c5 19 bxa3 cxd4 20 axb4 dxe3 21 tZ)xe4 followed by 22 'ii'xe3 yields White an extra pawn (Karpov) . Mter 15 . . . a4 White finds him­ self at the cross-roads. •••

•••

•••

•••

16 tZ)d2 A quiet continuation. 16 tZ) c l looks less natural a s i t temporar­ ily disturbs the co-ordination of White 's pieces. However, it has some merits, too. White avoids simplification and maintains the {2-f3 threat. The knight can later come back to the game via e2 or d3 . Generally, 16 tZ)cl gives the game a sharper character. Black can reply to it in different ways: a) 16 tZ)b4 is still premature: 17 i.bl a3 18 b3 c5 19 dxc5 tZ)c6 20 tZ)e2 'ii'e8 21 f4 with a clear plus (Tseshkovsky-Geller, USSR cham­ pionship, Vilnius 1980/81). •••

The Discussion of Decades 85

b) 16 f6 is possible, with the idea of a double-edged piece sacri­ fice. In Wojtkiewicz-Sideif-Zade (USSR 1981) Black obtained a clear edge after 17 f3 fxe5 18 dxe5? d4! 19 .txd4 tDxd4 20 .txe4 .txe4 21 fxe4 l:txfl + 22 "ii'xfl tDc2 . Sideif-Zade analysed the variation 18 fxe4 l:txfl + 19 "ii'xfl ( 19 gl ii.xh3 (Cuasnicu-Rossetto, Buenos Aires 1968) Black's advantage is obvi­ ous. c) 15 liJb3!? liJe5. Now 16 liJbd4 ii.g4 1 7 b4 l:tae8 (Weir-Dil­ worth, corr 1941), 16 'iVd4 l:tae8 17 ii.e3 ii.g4 18 liJbd2 'iVf7! (Kon­ dov-Sapundzhiev, corr 1966/67), or 16 ii.e3 l:tae8 1 7 ii.d4 'iVh4 + 18 'it>gl lbxf3 + 19 gxf3 l:tf4 (Ardbring­ Losa, 1948) yield Black a strong attack. A move deserving atten­ tion is 16 'it>g3!? (introduced by Hort) . At least, after 16 liJxf3 1 7 gxf3 g5 18 liJd4 ii.d7 19 b 4 'iVh6 20 'iVg1 'iVh4 + 21 'it>g2 White success­ fully defended and shortly won (Hort-Niermann, Neuenkirchen 1987) . Black should rather prefer 16 l:tae8!? or even 15 ... l:tae8!? with unclear consequences. d) 15 'it>gl l:tae8 (15 . . . ii.g4 is fa­ vourable for White: 16 liJf1 ! ii.xf3 17 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 18 gxf3 lhf3 19 ii.e3, Korchnoi ; but 15 . . . g5 !? deserves attention, e.g. 16 'iVe1 - 16 liJb3 g4 1 7 'iVd3 l:f.f7 18. ii.g5 'iVg7 19 liJfd4 liJxd4 20 liJxd4 'iVxg5 2 1 liJxe6 'iVf6 yields Black better chances, Walther-Dilworth, corr 19 79 - 16 . . . g4 ! 1 7 'iVh4 - 1 7 liJg5 i.f5 - 1 7 . . . i.f5 18 'iVxf6 l:f.xf6 19 i.xf5 l:f.xf5 20 liJh4 l:f.e5 with a good endgame for Black, Radoslavic-Dilworth, corr 1979) and now: d1) 16 h3?! liJe5 is bad for White, for example 1 7 liJxe5 'iVxe5 18 liJf3 'iVg3 19 'iVd3 ii.f5 20 'iVxd5 + 'it>h8 21 ii.xf5 l:f.e2 with a ••.

..•

won game, Miranbell-Encenarro, corr 1969. d2) 16 liJb3 llJe5 is pleasant for Black, too, for example 1 7 ii.d3 ii.g4 1 8 ii.e2 l:f.f7 19 ii. d 2 liJc4 20 h3 liJxb2, Michel-Medina, Mar del Plata 1948, or 1 7 i.e3 liJxf3 + 18 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 19 gxf3 l:f.xf3 20 ii.f2 ii.h3, Gebhardt-Leonardo Maestro, Porz 1987. d3) To 16 'iVf1 Black responds 16 ii.f5 , e.g. 17 ii.b3 'iVd6 18 'iVf2 ii.d3 19 'it>h 1 liJe5 20 'iVg3 c6 with a clear plus (Medina-Wade, Palma de Mallorca 1966) or 17 ii.xf5 'iVxf5 18 b3 d4 19 ii.a3 ( 1 9 cxd4?! liJxd4 ! 20 liJxd4 'iVc5 is better for Black, Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Tilburg 1987 - illustrative game 30) 19 . . . dxc3 ! 20 i.xf8 l:f.xf8 2 1 ttJc4! 'iVc5 + 22 'iVf2 'iVxf2 + 23 'it>xf2 bxc4, and Black has the better endgame (analysis by Yusupov) . d4) 16 liJf1 liJe5 . Now 1 7 ii.e3 liJxf3 + 18 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 19 gxf3 l:f.xf3 leads to one of the main lines aris­ ing after 15 liJf1 - the move we proceed to analyse. liJe5 (D) 15 Black can first activate his rook and then the knight ( 1 5 . . . l:f.ae8 16 ii.e3 liJe5 ) . The break 15 d4 is a little-explored but dubious alter­ native: 16 'it>gl (16 i.e4? ! dxc3 1 7 bxc3 'iVxc3 18 ii.e3 l:f.ad8 19 'iVc1 'iVxc1 20 l:f.xc1 liJe5 was better for Black in the game Monsalvo-Roth, corr 1977) 16 . . . liJe5 ( 1 6 . . . dxc3 1 7 ii.g5 'iVf7 18 bxc3 o r 16 . . . ii.g4 1 7 'iVd3 g6 18 ii.g5 'iVd6 19 liJxd4 also lead to an edge for White) 17 cxd4 •••

..•

.••

90 The Discussion of Decades lbxf3 + 18 gxf3 �ad8 19 i.e3 c5 20 �d 3 ! g6 2 1 lbd2 with a clear plus for White (Short-Popovic, Belgrade 1987).

--

-

•• -

A ?:Q,, W� £ !}, . .

An � � Q ��

_ _ _ _i i _ _.t� _ _i_i. _ - - - _ rJj _ttJ _ Q

�'iW.ttJ. . .

�� �,

�

Now we return to 15 . . . lbe5. 16 i.e3 16 ..t>gl is less exact because af­ ter 16 lbxf3 + 1 7 gxf3 'ii'xf3 18 'iVxf3 �xf3 19 i.e3 Black can con­ tinue 19 . . . .th3 20 .td4 (20 .tc5 �e8 leads to a position from the main variation, favourable for Black see 1 7 ..t>gl and later 20 .tc5) 20 . . . �af8!?, for example 21 lbg3 h5 22 .tc5 �8f6 23 �el g6 with good counter-chances (Fischvoigt­ Rohland, Michigan 1986) or 2 1 lbe3 �8f4 2 2 .te5 �f8 2 3 .td4 �8f4, with an equal position (Noor­ da-Sprenger, corr 19 76). 19 i.dl (instead of 19 i.e3 ) is harmless as well, e.g. 19 ... �f7 20 .th5 g6 21 .te2 �e8 22 i.h6 i.h3 (Vujevic-Estrin, Strasbourg l975) or 20 lbg3 .th3 2 1 i.e2 �e8 22 .td2 c5 23 i. fl .txfl 24 �xfl �xf1 + 25 ..t>xf1 ..t>f7 (Morovic-Yusupov, Tunis 1985 - illustrative game 31 ) , with .•.

better prospects for Black in both variations. �ae 8 16 ... 16 'iVh4 + proves insufficient for equality: 17 ..t>gl lbxf3 + 18 gxf3 �f6 19 .td4 'iVg5 + 20 ..t>hl .th3 21 lbe3 �f7 22 'iVgl (Kupreichik-Stoi­ ca, Kirovakan 1978) or 18 . . . c6 19 .tc5 �f7 20 'iVe2 .td7 2 1 �el �xf3 22 'iVxf3 'iVxel 23 'iVh5 h6 24 'iVg6 (Richardson-Estrin, corr 1978). In each example White is clearly bet­ ter. 16 lbxf3 is not quite suffi­ cient either, e.g. 17 gxf3 �ae8 18 f4 'iVh4 + 19 ..t>gl c6 20 'iVd2 .th3 2 1 lbg3 (Liebert-Haag, Zinnowitz 1966) or 1 7 . . . c6 18 .tc5 �f7 19 'iVe2 .tg4 20 lbd2 a5 21 �el .td7 22 'iVe5 (Rogulj-Ekstrom, Mendrisio 1988), with better prospects for White in both cases. ••.

•••

The Discussion of Decades 9 1

other alternatives are less danger­ ous: a) 1 7 i.d4 .ig4 ( 1 7 . . . 'lVh4 + is also possible, for example after 18 'at>gl lDxf3 + 19 gxf3 'lVg5 + 20 lDg3 .ih3 2 1 a4 ! Black can continue 2 1 . . .g6 - 2 1 . . .h5? 22 f4! - 22 axb5 axb5 23 .if2 .ie6 - not 23 . . . h5? 24 l:ta6 with a clear edge, Tseshkov­ sky-Chekhov, Rostock 1984 - 24 'ii'c 1 'lVxc1 + 2 5 l:txc1 l:txf3 or even better 2 1 . . .l:te6 22 axb5 axb5 23 f4 l:txf4 24 'lVh5 'lVxh5 25 lDxh5 l:tf3 26 .ixg7 'at>f7 2 7 .id4 l:te2 with a good endgame for Black, Enders­ Chekhov, Dresden 1985) 18 lDd2 'lVf4 ( 1 8 . . . 'lVh4 + is not bad either: 19 'at>g1 lDxf3 + 20 lDxf3 - 20 gxf3 .ih3 2 1 lDfl 'lVg5 + 2 2 . lDg3 g6 23 �h1 'lVf4! - 20 ... 'lVh5 2 1 'lVd2 i.xf3 22 gxf3 'lVxf3 23 'lVd3 'lVg4 + 24 'at>h 1 g6 25 l:tg1 'lVh5 26 .id1 'lVf5 with equality, Ertl-Widenmann, corr 1988 ; besides, 18 . . . 'lVg5 de­ serves attention, as in Greig-Dil­ worth, corr 1945, Black obtained a strong attack after 19 .ixe5 l:txe5 20 lDfl?! - 20 'at>g1 'lVe3 + is also good for Black - 20 . . . 'lVh5 21 'lVd3 .ixf3 22 gxf3 l:tef5 ) 19 'at>g1 .ixf3 20 lDxf3 lDxf3 + 2 1 gxf3 'lVxf3 22 'lVxf3 l:txf3 23 a4 l:te2 24 i.b3 l:tf5, and it is White who must fight for a draw (Berggreen-Steinwender, COIT 1990) . b) 1 7 �gl. White liquidates to an endgame and thus parries the threat of an attack. However, in the process he gives up another pawn: 17 lDxf3 + 18 'lVxf3 'lVxf3 19 gxf3 lbf3 •••

This is the typical 'Dilworth endgame' . Black's chances are not worse, though he has to be wary of White's trump, the bishop pair, which can become formidable, es­ pecially if supported by the other pieces remaining on the board. That's why Black should aim for further sim plifications, especially the exchange of light-squared bishops. The following continu­ ations have been tried in practice: b1) 20 .idl l:tf7 2 1 .ib3 c6 22 .id4 .ih3 23 lDg3 (23 lDe3? l:tf4 24 l:te1 l:te6 25 .ic2, Arnason-Peturs­ son, Reykjavik 1980, could have led to a defeat after 25 . . . l:txe3 ! ! ) 2 3 . . . g6 (23 . . . h5 ! i s even stronger, according to Chekhov) 24 .ic2 l:te6 25 i.d3 h5 followed by . . . h5h4, with better chances for Black (Geller-Chekhov, USSR champi­ onship, Vilnius 1980/81). b2) 20 i.c5 .ih3 2 1 lDg3 h5 !? (or 21.. .g6 22 l:td1 l:te5 23 .id3 i.g4 24 l:td2 h5 25 i.f2 h4 with equal­ ity, Richter-Samarian, corr 1962) 22 i.g6 l:te5 23 .ixh5 l:txg3 + 24 hxg3 l:txh5 and Black holds a small

92 The Discussion of Decades advantage (Dekker-Van der Zijpp, Beverwijk 1984). b3) 20 .id4 .ih3 21 ll)g3 g6 ( 2 1 . . J�e6!?) 22 a4 c8 19 b3 i.e6 with a

From Alekhine to Dolmatov 97

good endgame for Black (London­ Wedberg, New York 1987). e) 10 :el 0-0 ( l0 . . . 'ii'd 7!?) 1 1 ll)d4 (this so-called Breslau vari­ ation is one of the oldest and well­ forgotten analyses in the Open Spanish, leading to sharp play, in which Black's counter-attack guarantees him good chances; 1 1 ll)bd2 i s examined i n the next chapter - 10 ll)bd2 etc.) 1 l ll)xe5! (not just grabbing a pawn but pre­ paring to sacrifice a piece! Black intends to make use of his advan­ tage in development, and in any case 1 1 . . . ll)xd4 - equally ineffec­ tive is 1 1 . . . ll)a5 12 .ic2 - is insuffi­ cient for equality: 12 cxd4 .ih4 13 :£1 f5 14 f3 ll)g3 15 hxg3 .ixg3 16 f4 'ii' h 4 1 7 :f3 with a clear edge for White, Maroczy-Weenink, Sch­ eveningen 1923, or 12 . . . h6 13 f3 ll)g5 14 ll)c3 c5 15 f4 cxd4 16 ll)e2 d3 17 'ii'xd3 i.c5 + 18 ll)d4 i.f5 19 'ii'xf5 ll)e6 20 .ie3 ll)xd4, Hiibner­ Piket, Dortmund 1992, and now, according to Hiibner, he could have obtained a strong attack by 2 1 .ixd4 .ixd4 + 22 �hl .ixb2 23 :adl d4 24 :d3 ! ) 12 f3 .i d6! (but not 12 . . . c5? 13 fxe4 cxd4 14 exd5 .ig4 15 'ii'xd4 with a clear advan­ tage, Kramer-E. Griinfeld, 1919) 13 fxe4 (after 13 i.f4 ll)c4 14 i.xd6 ll)exd6 15 :Xe6 fxe6 16 ll)xe6 'ii'f6 1 7 ll)xf8 :xrs 18 'ii'xd5 + �h8 19 ll)d2 ll)e3 Black obtains enough compensation for the pawn - analy­ sis by E.Griinfeld) 13 .i g4 (D) 14 'ii'c2 ( 14 ll)f3? �3 + 15 gxf3 'ii' h4 16 fxg4 'ii'xh2 + 1 7 �£1 'iVh3 + •••

•••

18 'itt e 2 dxe4 19 'ii'd4 loses after 19 . . . .ic5 ! - Keres - and 14 "YWd2 'ii' h4 15 h3 - 15 g3 'ii' h 5 16 'ii'g5 'ii'xg5 1 7 .ixg5 c5 ! is also good for Black - 15 . . . c5 ! 16 hxg4 - 16 'ii'f2 'ii'x f2 + 1 7 �xf2 .id 7 and Black already has an edge, Kollijn 16 . . . cxd4 17 'ii'f2 'ii'xg4 18 .idl 'ii'g6 19 'ii'xd4 i.c7 20 .ie3 dxe4 yields Black a strong attack, Wolf­ Tarrasch, Karlsbad 1923) 14 . . . c5 (14 . . . 'ii' h 4!? 15 g3 'ii' h 3 deserves attention) 15 .ixd5 cxd4 16 .ixa8 'ii'h4 17 :£1 d3 18 'ii'f2 'ii'xf2 + 19 :xf2 :xa8 20 .if4 :e8 with suffi­ cient compensation for the ex­ change (John-Teichmann, Breslau 1913) . Now we move on to 10 .ic2. 0-0 10 10 ll)c5 was played in a match game Karpov-Korchnoi (Baguio City 1978) . White preferred the quiet 1 1 h3 and obtained an edge after 1 1 . . .0-0 12 :el 'ii'd 7 13 ll)d4 ll)xd4 14 cxd4 ll)b7 15 ll)d2 c5 16 dxc5 ll)xc5 1 7 ll)f3 i.f5 18 .ie3 :ac8 19 :cl. Suetin indicates that White can play more dynamically: •••

•••

98 From Alekhine to Dolmatov 1 1 lDd4! lDxe5 12 "h5 preparing to push f2-f4, with a strong at­ tack. 10 i.g4!? is interesting. In the game Bannik-Shiyanovsky (USSR championship, Erevan 1962) White obtained an edge after 1 1 h3 i.xf3 ( 1 1 . . .i.h5 12 g4 i.g6 13 i.b3 lDa5 14 i.xd5 c6 15 i.xe4 i.xe4 16 "xd8 + lIxd8 1 7 lDbd2 i.d5 18 1Iel with a clear plus, Fischer-F. Olafs­ son, Havana 1966) 12 gxf3 lDc5 13 f4 "d7 14 "f3 g6 15 lIdl lId8 16 i.e3 lDe6 1 7 a4 0-0 18 axb5 axb5 19 lIa6 . However, Black's play was improved in J.Polgar-Hiibner, Munich 199 1 - illustrative game 33: 14 . . . lId8 ( 1 4 . . . f5 !? is probably more exact as now White could have prevented this move by 15 i.e3 - Judit Polgar) 15 lId 1 f5 ! 16 i.e3 (if 16 exf6 then 16 . . . i.xf6 followed by . . . lDc6-e7) 16 . . ...e6 1 7 lDd2 0-0 1 8 lDb3, and now, instead of 18 . . . lDa4? 19 lIabl lId7? ! 20 �hl g6 21 i.d3! followed by i.d3fl -g2, with better chances for White, Black should have contin­ ued 18 . . . lDe4! 19 "g2 (19 "e2 g5! ) 19 . . . lIf7! (preparing . . . g7-g5 and . . . lIf7 -g7) 20 f3 lDf6 with a good position (analysis by Judit Pol­ gar). 10 .....d7!? has not yet been tried in this position. All these side lines need serious consideration as castling is not necessarily Black's best option. The point is that after 10 . . . 0-0 White can transpose to the main line (Chapter 8) by means of 1 1 •••

lDbd2 !, which seems t o yield him a slight edge. Here we examine another pos­ sibility for White after 10 . . . 0-0. 1 1 'ii'e2 (D) Not just to take a pawn on e4 but to prepare lDf3-d4! . Mter 1 1 lIel f5 12 exf6 llxf'6 13 lDbd2 Black can sacrifice a piece: 13 . . . lDxf2 14 �xf2 i.c5 + 15 �fl "d6. The cor­ respondence game Tomizov-Hun­ ter ( 1 9 70) ended in a draw after 16 lIxe6 "xh2 ( 16 . . ...xe6 !?) 1 7 llxf'6 ftl + 1 8 �e2 "xg2 + 1 9 �d3 gxf6 20 lDfl ! lDe5 + 21 lDxe5 "e4 + .

"d7 11 1 1 f5 is possible. If White now plays 12 exf6 1Ixf6 (12 . . . i.xf6? 13 lDbd2 is obviously better for White, Bronstein-Korchnoi, USSR 1962) 13 lDg5 then Black replies 13 ... i.c5! 14 lDxe4 (14 lDxe6 lIxe6 15 lDd2 lDg5 ! , Suetin) 14 . . . dxe4 15 lDd2 (15 i.xe4 i.c4 16 "h5 does not work due to 16 . . . i.xf2 + ! 1 7 1Ixf2 g6 18 "g4 h5, Korchnoi) 15 ... e3 ! with an initiative (Steiner-Bogolyubow, •••

•••

From Alekhine to Dolmatov 99

1939). 12 ll)d4! "d7 leads to a line considered below. As this is not quite satisfactory for Black, he might instead try 12 . . . ll)xd4! ? 13 cxd4 c5. 1 l ll)c5 also leads to a trans­ position of moves after 12 ll)d4 (or 12 :dl) 12 . . ... d7. In the event of 12 b4 ll)a4 13 "d3 g6 14 .ixa4 bxa4 15 .ih6 :e8 16 ll)bd2 f6 1 7 :fel .if5 the position i s unclear (Aronin-Kots, USSR champion­ ship, Erevan 1962 ). 12 ll)d4 12 .ixe4 dxe4 13 "xe4 .id5 14 'ii'e 3 "e6 yields Black sufficient compensation for the pawn, while 12 :d l f5 13 ll)bd2 �h8 14 ll)b3 .if7 15 ll)bd4 .ih5 (Tal-Keres, Mos­ cow 1967) or 12 ll)c5 13 .ie3 :ad8 14 ll)bd2 .if5 15 ll)b3 .ixc2 16 "xc2 ll)e6 (Shamkovich-Korchnoi, USSR 1966) leads to a good position for Black, too. 12 ll)c5 (D) Preparing . . . f7-f6 . Mter 12 f5 13 f3 ll)g5 14 .ixg5 .ixg5 15 ll)xe6 "xe6 1 6 f4 .i e 7 1 7 ll)d2 (Sham­ kovich-Vera, La Valetta 1980) or 13 ll)c5 14 .ie3 f4 15 .if2 iof7 16 :el ll)e6 17 ll)d2 (Shamkovich-Tar­ jan, Hastings 1977) White main­ tains a minimal edge since Black has no active counterplay. 13 ll)d2 ! 13 ll)xc6 "xc6 14 ll)d2 "d7 1 5 ll)b3 ll)xb3 16 axb3 c 5 (Sakharov­ Shiyanovsky, USSR champion­ ship, Leningrad 1963) or 13 f4 ll)xd4 14 cxd4 ll)e4 1 5 ll)d2 f5 16 ll)f3 h6 (Sakharov-Gufeld, from •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

the same event) yields Black the better prospects. Mter 13 :dl ll)xd4? ! 14 cxd4 ll)b7 15 ll)c3 f6 16 "h5 f5 17 .ig5 White stood better in the game Tringov-Korchnoi (Havana 1966) . However, after 13 . . . f6! the posi­ tion would have remained equal. The text move yields White a sure edge as he is now well-pre­ pared to meet the . . . f7-f6 break. f6 13 Or 13 f5 14 ll)xe6 ll)xe6 15 ll)f3 ll)a5 16 :d l c5 1 7 a4, and the initiative belongs to White due to his pair of bishops and passed pawn on e5 (Yudovich-Shiyanov­ sky, USSR 1971). 14 b4! This move, which drives Black's knight to the edge of the board, is most accurate. 14 exf6 ioxf6 15 ll)xe6 ll)xe6 16 ll)f3 ll)c5 17 :dl :ae8 18 .ie3 "d6 leads to equal­ ity (Stein-Savon, USSR champi­ onship, Leningrad 1963). The text move (14 b4) was used by Short against Unzicker (Ger­ many 1987) and yielded White an •••

•••

100 From Alekhine to Dolmatov edge after 14 . . . lDa4 15 lD2f3 lDxd4 16 lDxd4 c5 1 7 exf6 lIxf6 18 lDxe6 'it'xe6 19 'it'd3 lIg6 20 .if4. This variation (with 10 ... .ig4 or possibly 10 . . . 'it'd 7 instead of cas­ tling) needs further theoretical ex­ amination.

Section 2 1 0 .ie3 0-0 ( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 � a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 �b3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .i e7) 10 .i e3

�.. �'*l � . . " -. ��.. :W. • •• • 1.. • .'.'D • • ••• • • • • .ll � '� �+�1Ll � "�" �� ";, . • U u �lLl.�. � � . .:m ••

.

�,

;,;",,1'-' �

"

I'-'

" ,, '

;,;",,1'-' .. �

, ,, '

This system (played by a num­ ber of famous players over the years including Alekhine) has lately become extremely popular and nowadays mostly arises by an­ other move-order: 9 �e3 .ie7 1O c3. White plans to quickly develop his pieces, keeping the central squares under control. The interpretation of this line has undergone serious changes during the last five years, after the Candidates match Dol­ matov-Yusupov (1991).

In this section we examine the old continuation 10 0-0, and in Sections 3 and 4 we cover the mod­ em lines 10 lDc5 and 10 'it'd7 0-0 10 10 lDa5 1 1 lDd4 0-0 12 lDd2 lDxd2 13 'it'xd2 is favourable for White - see below. 'it'd7 1 1 lDbd2 Black has a wide choice of alter­ natives but not all of them are quite satisfactory: a) 1 1 ... lDa5 12 lDd4 lDxd2 13 'it'xd2 - see below. b) 1 1 ....if5 12 lDd4 lDxd4 13 cxd4 a5 14 lIc1 a4 15 .ic2 f6 16 lDxe4 dxe4 1 7 .ib1 'YWd7 18 'it'c2 with a clear advantage (A.Soko­ lov-G.Garcia, Thessaloniki 1984). c) 11 ...f5 12 exf6 lDxf6 13 lDg5 'YWd7 14 lDde4! lIad8 15 lDc5 �xc5 16 .ixc5 lIfe8 17 lDxe6 lIxe6 18 lIe1 and again White stands bet­ ter (A.Rabinovich-Alekhine, Mos­ cow 1918); d) 1l ... lDc5 12 .ic2. At this point 12 ... .ig4 makes no sense owing to 13 'it'b1, and if 12 ...lDd7 then 13 .if4 is possible, but after 12 ...'it'd7 13 'it'b1 is not so effec­ tive : 13 . . . g6 14 lIe1 lIfb8 15 a3 a5 16 lDg5 b4, with equality (Ab.Kha­ sin-Jensen, corr 1986) . 1 3 lDb3!? deserves attention. The line is still awaiting further tests. e) l 1 ... lDxd2 12 'it'xd2 'it'd7 (if 12 . . . lDa5 then White can play both 13 lDd4 lDc4 - 13 . . . lDxb3 14 lDxb3 f6 15 exf6 lIxf6 16 .ig5 lIg6 1 7 i.xe7 'it'xe7 1 8 f4 with a clear ad­ vantage, Pilnik-Najdorf, Mar del •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

.

From Alekhine to Dolmatov 101

Plata 1945 - 14 .ixc4 dxc4 15 f4 .id5 - 15 . . . .id7 16 f5 - 16 l:tad1 with a clear edge, as in the game Unzicker-Euwe, Dubrovnik 1950, and 13 .ic2 tZ)c4 14 'lVd3 - a typi­ cal plan in this kind of position 14 . . . g6 15 .ih6 tZ)xb2 - 15 . . . l:te8 16 'lVd4 aiming to go to f4 - 16 'lVe3 preparing tZ)f3-d4 and £2-f4 with a strong attack - 16 . . . tZ)c4 1 7 'lVf4 f6 ! - the best chance - 18 .ixf8 'lVxfB 19 tZ)d4 'lVf7 20 exffi .ixf6 2 1 a4, and Black's compensation for the exchange is insufficient, Psak­ his-I.Zaitsev, Erevan 1982) 13 'lVd3 (preparing 14 .ic2 ; 13 l:tad1 l:tad8 14 'lVd3 is less precise in view of 14 . . . �f5 ! 15 'lVe2 .ie4, with equal chances, Keres-Unzicker, Zurich 1956, but 13 .ig5 l:tad8 14 l:tfe1 l:tfe8 15 .ic2 .if5 16 .ixf5 'lVxf5 1 7 .ixe7 l:txe7 18 tZ)d4 'lVg6 19 f4 is good enough for an edge, Cornu­ Schuller, corr 1989) 13 . . . tZ)a5 14 .ic2 g6 15 .ih6 .if5 16 'lVe2 Rte8 1 7 tZ)d4 with better chances for White as Black's kingside is weak (Keres-Dyckhoff, corr 1936). o 1 l .ig4 This continuation looks timely but White has an un­ pleasant tactical retort (D) : 12 tlme4 (but not 12 h3?! tZ)xd2 13 'lVxd2 .ixf3 14 gxf3 tZ)xe5 15 'lVxd5 .id6 with a good position for Black, Reti-Spielmann, 192 1 ) 12 dxe4 13 'lVd5! (Here i t i s ! 1 3 .i d 5 i s harmless due t o 13 . . . tZ)xe5 with balanced chances) 13 'lVxd5 ( 1 3 . . . exf3 14 'lVxc6 fxg2 15 "xg2 'lVd7 - 15 . . . .if5? 16 �d5 �h3 1 7 �xf7 + - i s met b y a nice trick 1 6 •••

•••

•••

.ih6! gxh6 1 7 f3, and White re­ captures the bishop maintaining an advantage in the arrangement of pieces and obtaining pressure along the open f-file, e.g. 1 7 . . . h5 17 . . . l:tae8 18 l:tae1 h5 19 'iii> h 1 'lVc6 20 l:te4 with a clear plus, Nunn­ Heidrich, Germany 1984 - 18 l:tad1 'lVf5 19 fxg4 'ii'xe5 20 l:tde1 ! 'lVc5 + 2 1 'iii>h 1 with a clear advantage, Kasparov-Yusupov, USSR cham­ pionship, Minsk 1979 - illustra­ tive game 34 - or 18 . . . 'lVc6 19 fxg4 'lVxg2 + 20 'iii>xg2 l:tad8 2 1 l:txd8 .ixd8 22 gxh5 with a clear edge, C. Horvath-Zlatoglavek, Gausdal 1986; after 15 . . . 'lVc8!? 16 .ih6 gxh6 17 f3 h5 18 l:tad l White's chances are preferable as well) 14 .ixd5 exf3 15 .ixc6 fxg2 16 'iii>xg2 l:tad8 1 7 a4 (D) White's pieces are clearly more active. 17 f6 yields him a posi­ tional edge after 18 axb5 axb5 19 .ixb5 fxe5 20 �c4 + 'iii>h8 21 f3, as in Alekhine-Teichmann, Berlin 192 1 . However, after 17 h4 18 cxb4 .ixb4 19 a5 .ie6 20 l:tfc1 f6 21 �b7 .id5 + 22 .ixd5 + l:txd5 23 •••

•••

102 From Alekhine to Dolmatov

. 'I � '�.�

•. � ,J •

,, , " "

• �•.

_ & � & �•••

' _�B a B a.a D B � B B B-*-a · " . • u � � . ��� � 0 '�d � '� ,.o... D % n B B:a o

1',

_

�

r,::

v

�

0 I'"

�W0 "",

,,�

'0

�

,,�

:xc7 fxe5 24 .ib6 :f7! Black man­ aged to hold his ground (Mitchell­ Malmgren, corr 1950). Now we examine 1 1 . . .'ii'd 7. 12 .ic2 12 lDd4? is a poor sacrifice: 12 . . . lDxd2 13 'iVxd2 lDxe5 14 f4 lDc4 15 .ixc4 dxc4 16 f5 .id5 17 f6 .ixf6 18 :xf6 gxf6 19 .ig5 'ii'g4! , and Black won in Tal-Korchnoi, Curac;ao 1962. 12 lDxe4 leads to an equal posi­ tion : 12 . . . dxe4 13 "xd7 .ixd7 14 e6 exf3 15 exd7 :ad8 (O'Kelly-Po­ mar, Varna 1962). Mter 12 :el f5 ( 1 2 . . . :ad8! ? transposes t o a line from Section 4) 13 exf6 lDxf6 14 .ic2 .if5 15 lDd4 lDxd4 16 cxd4 i.d6 17 f3 :ae8 a level position arises (Golu­ bovic-Popov, Cetinje 1991). f5 12 The exchange 12 lDxd2 13 "xd2 , followed by 14 'iVd3, is fa­ vourable for White. lDxf6 13 en6 14 'iVbl 14 .if4?! lDh5 15 .ig3 .ig4 16 :el lDf4 1 7 "bl h6 yields Black •••

•••

excellent counter-chances (Morten­ sen-I.Sokolov, Thessaloniki 1988). The text move is a typical ma­ noeuvre which prevents the plan . . . .ie6-f5 . Black's reply will also come as no surprise to you. �h8! 14 15 lDg5

. a a • II _• • _if •a -*-. • • • a a � a a • a

. " � . d fQ;; . _ A R � � % '� A n � ��� � . � � � "'tW. .:� - � �

Until recently White's chances in this complicated position were considered preferable, for exam­ ple 15 .ig8 16 .if5 "e8 1 7 lDdf3 .id6 18 :el lDe7 19 .ie6 "h5 20 h3, as in Sherzer-V.Mikhalevsky, Mamaia 199 1 . However, in Szie­ bert-Karsa, Hungary 1993, Black played 16 .....d6!, not disturbing the co-ordination of his rooks, and after 1 7 lDb3?! ( 1 7 :el is unclear) 1 7 . . . g6 18 .ih3 lDh5 19 lDd4 lDf4 20 .ixf4 :xf4 Black seized the initiative. Besides the automatic 15 . . . i.g8, Ivan Sokolov recently found a much stronger reply: 15 lDg4!, e.g. 16 lDxh7 ..d6 1 7 g3 lDxe3 18 fxe3 "e5 or 16 lDgf3 "d6 (Almasi-I . Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 1995) with an obvious advantage •••

•••

From Alekhine to Dolmatov 103

for Black. The onus is on White to find an imprvement. So, 10 . . . 0-0 is quite a solid con­ tinuation. It will undoubtedly be­ come popular again.

Section 3 1 0 ttJc5 ...

( 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i. a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.e7 10 i.e3) ttJc5 10

1 1 l:te1 is harmless because of 1l . . . ttJxb3 12 axb3 i.g4, and 11 h3 ttJxb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 ttJa3 (Mago­ medov-Sagalchik, Frunze 1989) 13 . . . f6 ! is also satisfactory for Black. ttJd7 11 Mter 1 1. .. i.g4 12 ttJbd2 ttJe6 ( 1 2 . . . ttJxe5? 13 i.xc5 i.xc5 14 'iVe1 or 12 . . . 0-0 13 h3 i.h5 14 i.xh7 + ! is bad for Black) White's queen runs away from Black's bishop : 13 'iVb1, and the latter has noth­ ing to do but to set off to g6 : 13 i.h5 . By comparison to the Berlin variation, White has more room to manoeuvre - that's why his chances are preferable. Here are some of the variations seen in the tournament practice: a) 14 i.f5 i.g6 15 l:td1 (or 1 5 ttJb3 !? i.xf5 16 'iVxf5 'iVd7 1 7 l:tad1 with an edge; Klinger-Opl, Vienna 1984) 15 . . . 'iVd7 (after 15 . . . 0-0 16 a4 - 16 g4 !? - 16 . . . 'iVd7 1 7 axb5 axb5 18 l:txa8 l:txa8 19 ttJf1 l:td8 20 ttJg3 b4 2 1 h4 White maintains a slight edge as well, Jansa-Bernal, Thessaloniki 1984) 16 g4 (16 'iVc2 0-0 17 ttJf1 ttJa5 18 ttJg3 c5 19 h4 ttJc4 20 i.c1 l:tfe8 leads to an un­ clear position, Dolmatov-Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee 199 1 ) 16 . . . 0-0 1 7 ttJe4 l:tad8 1 8 h3?! ttJa5 1 9 b 3 c 5 20 ttJg3 'iVb7 21 i.d2 d4, and Black obtained counterplay in Malan­ iuk-Agzamov, USSR champion­ ship, Moscow 1983. Instead of 18 h3?! White should have immedi­ ately played 18 ttJg3 and then h2h4 (Agzamov) . •••

•..

In former times this move was usually connected with an arrange­ ment of pieces similar to the Ber­ lin variation (Chapter 5): . . . i.e6-g4, . . . ttJc5-e6 etc. This plan proved in­ sufficient for equality but another one was devised ( 1 l . . . ttJd7) . 1 1 i.c2 1 1 ttJd4?! is poor here: 1l . . . ttJxe5 12 ttJxe6 fxe6 13 i.d4 ttJxb3 14 axb3 ttJf7 15 'iVe2, as in Leow­ Torre, Thessaloniki 1984, and af­ ter 15 . . .'iVd6 16 i.xg7 l:tg8 Black would have stood clearly better.

104 From Alekhine to Dolmatov b) 14 l:tdl ll)g5 15 i.xg5 ! i.xg5 16 l:te1 i.xd2 17 ll)xd2 'ii'g5 18 ll)e4 'ii' h 6 19 ll)g3 i.g6 20 i.xg6 hxg6 2 1 h3 was clearly preferable for White in Chandler-Grzesik, Ger­ many 1984. Black should play 14 . . . 'ii'd 7 15 i.f5 i.g6 - see 14 i.f5 . c) 14 b4 'ii'd 7 (14 . . . i.g6 15 ll)b3 0-0 16 a4 'ii'd 7 17 axb5 axb5, Stoica­ Staller, Val Thorens 1980, and now 18 .txg6 hxg6 19 'ii'd3 yields White a small edge - Korchnoi) 15 a4 l:tb8 16 axb5 axb5 1 7 l:td1 i.g6 18 i.f5 0-0 19 ll)b3 i.xf5 20 'ii'xf5 l:ta8 2 1 'ii'd3 l:txa1 22 l:txa1 f6! equalises (Wolff-Torre, San Fran­ cisco 1991). d) 14 a4 b4 15 a5 (threatening 16 i. a4 ; 15 c4 d4 16 i.e4 'ii'd7 1 7 i.xc6 'ii'xc6 18 ll)xd4 ll)xd4 1 9 i.xd4 i.g6 yields Black good coun­ terplay - Keres - but 15 i.f5 i.g6 16 l:td1 0-0 17 'ii'c 2 'ii'b 8 18 i.xg6 hxg6 19 ll)b3 yielded White an edge in the game Chiburdanidze­ Chekhova, USSR 1980) 15 i.g6 •••

16 c4! (now this is very strong; 16 ll)b3 'ii'b 8! - 16 . . . bxc3 17 bxc3

'ii'b 8 18 'ii'a 2 0-0 19 i.xg6 hxg6, Gligoric-Szabo, N euhausen/Zurich 1953, would have given White an edge after 20 l:tfb1 ! , as proposed by Euwe - 17 l:td1 bxc3 18 bxc3 'ii'b5 19 i.xg6 hxg6 20 'ii'c2 'ii'c4 2 1 ll)bd4 ll)exd4 22 i.xd4 ll)d8 - Kar­ ker-Nyman, corr 1968 - or 16 i.xg6 hxg6 1 7 'ii'd3 l:th5 18 l:tfd 1 ll)xe5 19 ll)xe5 l:txe5 20 ll)f3 l:te4, Zakharov-Chekhov, USSR 1980, leads to equality. After 16 c4 ! Black is in trouble. Both 16 d4 1 7 i.xg6 dxe3 ( 1 7 . . . hxg6 18 'ii'e 4! ) 1 8 i.e4! exf2 + 19 l:txi2 'ii'd7 2 0 ll)b3 and 16 0-0 17 l:td1 dxc4 18 i.xg6 hxg6 19 'ii'e4 ll)a7 20 ll)xc4 (Jansa­ Kelei!evic, Sarajevo 198 1) yield White a big advantage. 1 l . . . ll)d7 was introduced into practice by Grigory Kaidanov, He noticed that it was not so conven­ ient for White to protect his cen­ tral pawn. 12 l:tel 12 i.f4?! is bad due to 12 . . . g5 ! 13 i.e3 ll)dxe5 14 ll)xe5 ll)xe5 15 i.d4 f6 16 ll)d2 i.d6 1 7 l:te1 0-0 18 h4 c5, with a clear edge (A.Soko­ lov-Kaidanov, Vilnius 1984) . 12 i.d4 is little-investigated. In Kholmov-Kaidanov (Smolensk 1986) Black continued 12 . . ..tg4 13 l:te1 ll)c5 14 ll)bd2 ll)e6 (14 . . . ll)xd4!? 15 cxd4 ll)e6) 15 h3 i.h5 16 'ii'b 1 'ii'd7 17 i.f5 .tg6 18 i.e3 0-0. Com­ pared to the 1l . . . i.g4 line, White's pieces stand worse, which allows Black counterplay. 12 ll)d4 ll)dxe5 ( 1 2 . . . ll)cxe5 13 f4 ll)c4 14 .tf2 ll)b8 15 l:te1 with a •••

•••

From Alekhine to Dolmatov

clear plus, Imanaliev-Sagalchik, Frunze 1989) 13 f4 li)c4 14 li)xc6 li)xe3 15 li)xd8 li)xdI 16 li)xe6 li)e3 1 7 li)xc 7 + �d7 18 li)xa8 li)xc2 19 li)d2 i.c5 + 20 �hl li)xaI 2 1 l:txal l:txa8 leads to an equal endgame (Tal-Timman, Montpellier 1985). li)dxe5 12 12 0-0 is illogical. After 13 i.f4 li)b6 14 li)d4 (14 li)bd2!?) 14 . . . li)xd4 1 5 cxd4 c5 16 li)d2 ( 16 dxc5 i.xc5 17 i.xh7 + �xh7 18 'ii'c2 + �g8 19 'ii'xc5 d4 yields Black some com­ pensation for the pawn sacrificed) 16 . . . li)c4 1 7 li)b3 !? li)xb2!? 18 'ii'b l c4 19 i.xh 7 + �h8 20 l:te3 ! White obtained a strong attack (Dolma­ tov-Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee 199 1). 13 li)xe5 li)xe5 14 i.d4! (D) 14 f4 was played in two games by M.Novik: 14 . . . li)c4 (14 . . . li)g4!? deserves attention ; according to Novik, 15 i.d4 c5 16 i.xg7 l:tg8 1 7 l:txe6 l:txg7 18 l:te2 c 4 19 'ii'd4 �f8 20 i.f5 ! leads to a double-edged position) 15 i.d4 c5 (after 15 . . . 0-0 16 b3! c5 - 16 . . .li)d6 17 'ii'h 5 g6 18 'ii'e 5 wins for White - 1 7 i.xg7 �xg7 18 bxc4 dxc4 19 'ii' h 5 l:th8 20 f5 i.d7 2 1 li)d2 White obtains a strong attack according to N ovik, and 15 . . . 'it?fB 16 f5 i.d7 1 7 b3 li)d6 18 'ii'f3 i.f6 19 'ii'x d5 i.xd4 + 20 cxd4 h5 2 1 li)d2 yields White a slight advantage, Novik-Sokolin, USSR 199 1) 16 i.xg7 l:tg8 17 f5 i.xf5 18 i.xf5 l:txg7 19 b3 li)b6 20 li)d2 . White has compensation for the pawn but hardly more (N ovik­ Sagalchik, Chorzow 1991).

105

•••

•••

14 li) g6 14 li)c6 Ieads to sharper play: 15 i.xg7 l:tg8 16 'ii' h 5! (16 i.d4 is harmless: 16 . . . li)xd4 17 cxd4 i.d6 18 li)d2 'ii'f6 19 li)f3 0-0-0 20 'ii'd 3 l:tg4 with an equal game, Watson­ Kaidanov, Moscow 1985) 16 ... �d7 (16 . . . 'ii'd 7!? and 16 . . . 'ii'd 6!? deserve attention) 17 i.h6 ( 1 7 'ii'xh7? i.f6) 1 7 . . . i.g5 ! ( 1 7 . . . i.d6?! is inferior due to 18 f4! �c8 19 li)d2 �b 7 20 f5 i.d7, and now, instead of 2 1 li)f3? f6 22 l:tadl li)e5 ! with an un­ clear position, as in Dolmatov-Lev­ in, Dortmund 1992 - illustrative game 35, White could have ob­ tained a slight advantage by 2 1 i.b3 li)e7 22 f6 li)f5 23 i.xd5 + Dolmatov) 18 f4 ! i.xh6 19 'ii'xh6 �c8 20 f5? ! i.d7 2 1 li)d2 l:tb8 ! 2 2 li)f3 l:tb6! 23 'ii'xh 7 'ii'fB 2 4 'ii'h4 b4! with good counterplay for Black (Miranovic-Mikhalchishin, Yugo­ slavia 1992 ) . However, after 20 li)d2 (indicated by Mikhalchishin) White's chances would have been preferable. Coming back to 14 . . . li)g6. 15 i.xg7 •••

•••

106 From Alekhine to Dolmatov 15 i.xg6 hxg6 16 i.xg7 prom­ ises White no edge : 16 . . J!h7 1 7 i. e 5 i.d6 18 .!Dd2 i.xe5 19 lIxe5 "d6 20 "e1 'at>d7 21 .!Dfl lIah8 with a good position (A Kuzmin­ Egin, Kishinev 1987). lIg8 15 lIxg7 16 i.xg6 bIgS 17 lIxe6

B B

.B • •

i. iB B:BiB BiBi. B B B • •

. � . . " � rQ/, � � '� � . � " � U ��lb . � H • �. • � " ", ,!i:'

This simplified position is ap­ parently crucial for the whole line. Black must organise the co-ordi­ nation of his pieces but how? a) 18 lIe5 This move is com­ mon but hardly best, as sooner or later, Black will have to play . . . c7c6 anyway: 18 c6 19 .!Dd2 'at>f8 20 .!Df3. Now inaccurate play can be fatal, e.g. 20 i.f6 2 1 lIe2 lIh7 22 "d2 "d6 23 g4 ! lId8 (alterna­ tively, 23 . . . g5 24 'at>h2 followed by h2-h3, ASokolov) 24 g5 i.g7 25 lIael c5 26 h4 with a considerable advantage for White, as Black's rook on h7 is out of play (A Sok­ olov-Flear, Clichy 1993). Instead of 22 . . ...d6, 22 'at>g7 was better with the idea of 23 g4 •••

•••

•••

"c8 24 "f4 "b8 ! . An interesting plan was attempted by Gyimesi: 21 lIg8 !? (instead of 2 1 . . .lIh7) . Mter 22 .!De5 "d6 23 .!Dg4 'at>g7 24 "d2 lIh8 25 lIae1 lIh4 26 h3 lIah8 a complicated position arose (Sti­ sis-Gyimesi, Saanen 1993). Still, White, with his centralised pieces, has slightly better chances. But the best option is probably an immediate 20 lIh7. If now 2 1 "d2 then 21...i.d6 22 lIe2 i.xh2 + ! Therefore White must play 2 1 'ii'd3, when 2 1 . . .i.f6! (2 1 . . .i.d6?! 22 lIe2 "f6 23 g3) 2 2 lIe2 "d6 23 lIael (Ernst-Todorovic, Vienna 199 1) 23 . . ...f4 ! leads to a solid po­ sition for Black. b) 18 lIe2 ! This was played in the game Tolnai-Gyimesi (Kec­ skemet 1993 ) . Mter the standard reply 18 . . . 'at>f8 19 .!Dd2 i.f6 20 .!Df3 "d6 2 1 a4 White obtained a tiny advantage. 19 . . . d4!? deserves at­ tention. •.•

•••

Section 4 1 0 ..d7 ...

( 1 e4 e5 2 .!Df3 .!Dc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 .!Df6 5 0-0 .!Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.e7 10 i.e3) 10 "d7 (D) This is the modern interpreta­ tion of the 10 i.e3 system, which we are going to examine especially closely. Black postpones castling to strengthen his centre. In com­ parison with the line 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .!Dbd2 "d7, White cannot seize the •••

From Alekhine to Dolmatov 107

c) 1l i.f5!? 1 2 lDxe4 (per­ haps 1 2 lDd4!?) 12 . . . i.xe4 13 lDg5 i.xg5 14 i.xg5 lDa5 15 i.c2 lDc4 16 b3 lDxe5 17 l:tel 0-0 18 i.xe4 dxe4 19 'ii'x d7 lDxd7 20 l:txe4 with a small plus (Stefansson-Hra�ek, Manila 1992). 12 l:tel White's other attempts are: a) 12 lDd4?! (a dubious pawn sacrifice) 12 . . . lDxd2 13 'ii'xd2 lDxe5 14 f4 lDc4 15 i.xc4 dxc4 16 f5 i.d5 17 f6 ( 1 7 l:tael f6 ! ) 17 . . . i.xf6 18 l:tael i.e6 19 'ii'f2 0-0 20 'ii'g3 'ii'd 6 and Black is on top (Zapata-Korch­ noi, Wijk aan Zee 1987). b) 12 i.c2 i.f5 (12 . . . lDxd2 !? 13 'ii'xd2 i.f5) 13 lDb3 ( 1 3 lDd4 i.g6) 13 ... i.g4 14 lDbd4 lDxd4 15 cxd4 0-0 16 'ii'c l ( 16 'ii'd3 !?) 16 . . . c5 1 7 dxc5 i.xf3 18 gxf3 lDxc5 with a good position for Black (Zetocha­ Glodeanu, Homorod 1993 ) . This line needs practical tests. c) 12 lDxe4 dxe4 13 lDd4 ( 1 3 'ii'xd7 + causes Black little trouble, for example 13 . . . i.xd7 14 lDg5 - 14 e6 i.xe6 15 lDg5 i.xb3 16 axb3 i.xg5 17 i.xg5 l:td5 18 i.f4 �d7 19 l:txa6 l:te8 20 l:tcl lDe5 2 1 c4, Dvoi­ rys-Krasenkov, Katowice 1992, or 15 i.xe6 exf3 16 i.h3 lDe5 leads to equality - 14 . . . lDxe5 15 i.d4 - 15 lDxe4 lDd3 16 l:tabl c5 is equal 15 ... i.xg5 16 i.xe5 0-0 17 i.xc7 l:tc8 18 i.b6 l:tfe8 19 l:tfel - 19 l:tadl i.e6 20 l:td6 i.f4! equalising, Korchnoi - 19 . . . h5 20 i.d4 - 20 l:tadl i.c6 with equality - 20 . . . i.c6 21 l:te2 l:tcd8 22 h3 h4 23 a4 b4 24 i.c4 i.b7 with an equal position, Timman•••

diagonal bl-h7 since i.b3-c2 can now be always met by . . . i.e6-f5. l:td8 1 1 lDbd2 This is the point! Other moves are weaker: a) 1 l lDxd2 12 'ii'x d2 lDa5 13 i.g5! c5 14 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 15 i.c2 (15 lDg5 lDxb3 16 axb3 0-0 1 7 f4 g6 18 h3 l:tfd8 19 'ii'f2 h6 20 lDf3 i.f5 21 b4! yields White an initiative as well, A.Sokolov-Yusupov, Mont­ pellier 1985) 15 . . . l:td8 16 a4 lDc6 17 axb5 axb5 18 l:ta6 'ifb7 19 l:tfal 0-0 20 h3 d4 2 1 i.e4 i.d5 22 'ii'f4 with a clear plus (Dvoirys-Beikert, Cappelle la Grande 1994) . b) 1 l lDc5 12 i.c2 i.g4 (not 12 . . . i.f5? 13 i.xf5 'ii'xf5 14 i.xc5 i.xc5 15 lDb3) 13 'iibl i.h5 (13 . . . h6 14 lDd4 lDxe5 15 f4 lDc4 16 lDxc4 dxc4 1 7 f5 i.h5 18 b4 with a clear edge, Hulak-Hort, Wijk aan Zee 1983) 14 i.xc5 ! i.xc5 15 l:tel 'ii'e 7 16 b4 i.b6 1 7 a4 l:td8 18 axb5 axb5 19 i.d3 i.g6 20 i.xg6 hxg6 2 1 'ii'd3 lDa7 22 lDb3 0-0 23 l:ta6 with a clear advantage (T.Horvath­ Karsa, Hungarian championship 1982). •••

•••

108 From Alekhine to Dolmatov Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1987). Keep­ ing the queens on after opening the position on his previous move, White hopes to make use of his advantage in development. By 13 lDd4 he forces the opening of the a-file for his rook: 13 . . . .ixb3 14 axb3 lDxe5 15 'ii' h 5 lDc6 16 �:txa6 lDxd4 17 .ixd4 0-0 18 'ii'e 5 f6 19 'ii'xe4 c5 20 .ie3 with a doubled but extra pawn for White (Tim­ man-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987). Instead of 15 ... lDc6, the continu­ ation 15 . . . .id6!? deserved more at­ tention. This variation requires further tests, too. d) 12 h3!? 0-0 ( 1 2 . . . lDxd2 13 'ii'x d2 lDa5 yields White a slight edge after 14 .ig5 ! , e.g. 14 . . . c5 15 �Ue1 - 15 .ixe7!? 'ii'xe7 16 lDg5, Kova�evic - 15 . . . lDc6 16 l:tad 1 h6 1 7 .ixe7 'ii'x e7 - 1 7 . . . lDxe7 18 lDh4 ! ? - 18 .ic2 0-0 19 'ii'd 3 g6 20 'ii'e 3 rj;;g7 21 a3 , as in Short-Ljubo­ jevic, Linares 1989) 13 l:tel. Now 13 lDxd2 14 'ii'x d2 lDa5 15 .ig5 c5 16 .ic2 .ixg5 17 lDxg5 .if5 18 e6 (or 18 g4 lDc4 19 'ii'c 1 �e4 20 lDxe4 dxe4 2 1 �xe4 l:tfe8 22 'ii'c2 g6 23 f4 with a clear advantage, Short-Yusupov, Thessaloniki 1984) 18 . . . fxe6 19 .ixf5 l:txf5 20 lDxe6 l:tc8 2 1 b4! lDb7 22 l:te3 !? cxb4 23 cxb4 lDd6 24 'ii'd3 'ii'f7 25 g4 yields White a clear edge (Levit-Shich­ irev, corr 1989). Black should pre­ fer 13 JUe8!, and after 14 .ic2 lDxd2 15 'ii'x d2 .if5 16 l:tad1 the main line arises. Now we return to the main line with 12 l:te1 (D). 0-0 12 •••

••

•••

Mter 12 lDxd2 13 'ii'xd2 0-0 14 l:tad1 lDa5 15 .ic2 .if5 16 lDd4 .ig6 17 .ixg6 fxg6 18 e6 'ii'd6 19 .ig5 c5 20 lDf3 lDc6 Black held his ground in Kotronias-Stefansson (Reykjavik 1992 ) . However, the typical 14 .ig5 promises White bet­ ter prospects. 13 .ic2 13 a4 b4 14 lDxe4 dxe4 15 'ii'xd7 .ixd7 16 lDd2 lDxe5 17 lDxe4 lDd3 18 l:te2 .if5 19 lDg3 .ig6 yielded Black a good position in Timo­ schenko-Marin (Bucharest 1993). lDxd2 13 Black can also play: a) 13 .if5 14 lDxe4 ( 14 lDb3 hardly promises more: 14 . . . .ig6 15 lDbd4 lDa5 16 e6!? 'ii'd6 ! 1 7 exf7 + l:txf7 18 a4 lDc4! 1 9 axb5 lDxe3 20 l:txe3 axb5 2 1 lDxb5 'ii'b 6 22 lDbd4 c5 23 lDb3 .if6 with ex­ cellent counterchances for Black, Fedorowicz-Kamsky, USA cham­ pionship 1991). The text move en­ ables White to upset Black's pawn structure : 14 . . . .ixe4 (or 14 . . . dxe4 15 'ii'x d7 l:txd7 16 lDd4 lDxd4 1 7 cxd4 with a slight pull, Dvoretsky) •••

•••

...

From Alekhine to Dolmatov 109

15 �xe4 dxe4 16 'ii'x d7 l:txd7 1 7 e 6 ! fxe6 18 lbd2 lbe5 19 lbxe4 lbd3 20 l:te2 c5 2 1 g3, and the endgame is slightly better for White, as in Dolmatov-Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee 199 1 . b) 1 3 f5!? 14 exf6 lbxf6 al­ lows 15 'ii'b 1! (15 lbb3 �g4 16 .ic5 � d6 17 h3 �h5 18 'ii'd 3 �g6 19 'ii'd 2 .ixc2 20 'ii'xc2 lbe4, Khalif­ man-Hubner, Manila 1990, or 15 lbg5 �f5 16 �f4 �c5 1 7 lbb3 ! - 1 7 .ixf5 'ii'xf5 18 lbe6 .ixf2 + ! 1 9 � lbe4 + - 17 . . . �xf2 + 18 �xf2 �xc2 19 'ii'xc2 lbe4 + 20 lbxe4 l:txf4 + 2 1 �gl dxe4 22 l:txe4, Khalifman­ Hj artarson, Lucerne 1993 leads to equality) 15 . . . h6 ( 1 5 . . . �h8 16 lbg5 lbg4!? deserves attention, Ivanchuk) 16 lbh4 lbe5 !? 17 lbb3 lbfg4 18 lbc5 'ii'c 8 19 lbxe6 'ii'xe6 20 .ih7 + �h8 (Kir.Georgiev-Ivan­ chuk, Manila 1992). Now instead of 2 1 �f5? 'ii'f7 22 lbg6 + lbxg6 23 �xg4 lbe5 24 �e2?! c5 25 l:td1 lbc6, with an initiative for Black, White could have continued 2 1 �g5 ! ! ' According to some analysis by Kiril Georgiev, after 2 1 . . .�c5 ! (2 1 . . .'ii'b 6? 22 �xe7 and 2 1 . . .l:tf6 !? 22 �f5 ! is favourable for White) 22 lbg6 + 'ii'xg6 23 �xg6 .ixf2 + 24 �h1 .ixe1 25 'ii'x e1 lbf2 + ! 26 �gl lbh3 + ! the game would have ended in a draw. This line shows the margin of safety of Black's po­ sition. N ow we return to the main line after 13 . . . lbxd2. 14 'ii'xd2 �f5 15 l:tad1 ..•

15 �xf5?! 'ii'xf5 16 lbd4 is some­ what favourable for Black in view of 16 ...lbxd4 17 cxd4 c5 18 dxc5 (af­ ter 18 'ii'a 5 c4 19 'ii'xa6 b4 Black's initiative is undoubtedly worth his sacrificed pawn) 18 . . . d4 19 �f4 .ixc5 20 l:tac1 l:tc8 with a slight plus (Kharlov-Krasenkov, Rostov on Don 1993 illustrative game 37) . White should not let Black's queen to an active position. l:tfe8 15 15 lba5 is somewhat prema­ ture: 16 lbd4! .ie4 17 �xe4 dxe4 18 'ii'c2 lbc4 (Chernyaev-Krasenkov, Dolgoprudny 1992), and now, in­ stead of 19 .if4? ! c5, 19 'ii'xe4 lbxb2 20 l:ta1 ! would have yielded White better prospects. 16 h3 (D) After 16 �f4 �xc2 1 7 'ii'xc2 f6 18 e6? ! 'ii'c 8 the e6 pawn is rather weak, according to Dvoretsky. -

..•

•••

This position arose in two match games between Dolmatov and Yusupov (Wijk aan Zee 1991). In the earlier of them Yusupov played 16 h6?! 17 �f4 �f8 (now •••

1 10 From Alekhine to Dolmatov 1 7 . . . .ixc2 18 'lVxc2 to? 19 e6 'lVc8 is poor due to 20 'iVg6) 18 .ig3 ! (preparing 19 .ixf5 'lVxf5 2 0 lbh4 followed by f2-f4) 18 . . . .ixc2 19 'iVxc2 'lVe6. Now the simplest way for an edge for White was 20 .ih4! (the game saw 20 lbd4 lbxd4 2 1 cxd4 lIc8! 2 2 f4 c 5 2 3 f5 cxd4! with a slight edge) 20 . . . lId7 (20 . . . .ie7 21 .ixe7 followed by 22 lbd4 with a clear edge) 2 1 lbd4 lbxd4 22 cxd4 with the inevitable f2-f4-f5 (recommended by Dvoretsky) . The weakening of Black's king­ side does not go unpunished. 16 .ixc2 1 7 'lVxc2 to was not quite sufficient either, as after 18 extO .ixto 19 .i.g5 ! lIxe1 + 20 llxe1 •••

'lVf7 2 1 .ixto 'lVxto 22 'lVd3 White maintains some pressure along the e-file (Dvoretsky) . In the later game Black pre­ ferred to play 16 'lVe6 . Mter 17 .ig5 .ixc2 18 'iVxc2 'lVg6! 19 'lVxg6 hxg6 20 .if4 .i.c5 2 1 lbd4 lbxd4 22 cxd4 .ib6 23 lIe2 lIe6 24 lIc2 to the endgame proved equal. Dvor­ etsky recommends 17 .if4. Then 17 .ixc2 18 'lVxc2 'lVg6 is risky in view of 19 'lVxg6 followed by 20 e6. However, after 17 'lVg6 Black has little to worry about. So, all the three ways after 10 .ie3 yield Black counter-chances. Which one should you choose? Follow your taste! •••

•••

•••

8

The Mai n Road

( 1 e 4 e 5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 �b 5 a6 4 � a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7 �b3 d5 8 dxe5 �e6 9 c3 �e7) 10 ttJbd2

Section 1 B lack's 1 0th move alternatives The lines examined in this section deserve serious attention. The gen­ eral idea of consolidating Black's centre before castling (like 10 . . .'iVd7 in the previous chapter) has only just started to develop in the main variation. The results are quite sat­ isfactory so far. ttJc5 10 10 ... ttJa5?! is dubious in view of 1 1 ttJd4 ! . The alternative reply 10 ...ttJxd2 also yields White bet­ ter chances, e.g. 11 'iVxd2 ttJa5 12 �c2 c5 13 'iVf4 0-0 14 'iVg3 g6 15 �h6 ne8 16 nadl (Nijboer-Grant, Groningen 1983 ). 10...'iVd7!? is the most impor­ tant alternative. Then 11 ne1 ttJc5 12 ttJd4 (for 12 �c2, see 10 . . . ttJc5) is not dangerous due to 12 . . . ttJxb3 13 ttJ2xb3 ttJd8, for example 14 f4 c5 15 f5 cxd4 16 fxe6 ttJxe6 17 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 18 'iVxd4 0-0 19 i.e3 nac8 20 nadl nfd8 with equal chances in Plaskett-Krasenkov, Hastings 1992/93. In the stem game J.Pol­ gar-Anand, Munich 1991, White played 1 1 �c2, to which Black re­ plied unsuccessfully 1 1 ... ttJxd2?! 12 'iVxd2 .i.g4? ! , and after 13 'iVf4 �xf3 (13 . . . 0-0 14 ttJg5) 14 .i.f5 'iVd8 15 'iVxf3 (15 gxf3 !?) 15 . . . ttJxe5 16 'iVe2 'iVd6 17 nel ttJc6 18 �g5 f8 •••

This is the so-called ' main' or 'classical ' variation of the Open Spanish, which has been in wide use since the last century. White intends to oust Black's knight from the centre and simultane­ ously continue with the develop­ ment of his queenside. However, nowadays it occurs fairly rarely in practice. Modern Black players pre­ fer other lines such as 9 c3 .i.c5 or 9 ttJbd2 ttJc5 . The most common move in the diagram position is 10 . . . 0-0. In this section we deal with Black's other possibilities, section 2 considers 10 . . . 0-0 11 'iVe2 and other unusual White 11th moves, while section 3 concentrates on the main line 10 . . . 0-0 11 �c2.

1 12 The Main Road 19 .ie3 White obtained a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn illustrative game 38. 1 1 .if5! was much stronger, for example 12 ll)b3 .ig6 or 12 :el ll)xd2 (or sim­ ply 12 . . . ll)c5 transposing to the 10 . . . ll)c5 line). This variation is waiting for your games and analy­ ses, dear Reader! 1 1 .ic2 1 1 'lVe2 is completely harmless due to 11 . . . d4 ! , e.g. 12 .ixe6 fxe6 13 cxd4 ll)xd4 14 ll)xd4 'lVxd4 15 ll)b3 ll)xb3 16 axb3 0-0 with equal­ ity (Bemstein-Tarrasch, St Peters­ burg 1914) . The pawn sacrifice 1 1 ll)d4 is interesting but hardly promising, for example 1 1 . . .ll)xe5 12 f4 ll)c4 (not 12 . . ..i.g4? 13 'ii'el ll)ed3 14 'ii'g3 with a clear edge) 13 'lVe2 (or 13 f5 .id7 14 'lVh5 c6 15 ll)2f3 ll)e4 16 .ic2 ll)f6 with a solid defence, Lo­ bron-Hort, Biel 1981) 13 . . . .id7 14 :el (Bryson-Flear, Dundee 199 1), and now Black should have played 14 . . . ll)xb3 15 axb3 ll)xd2 16 .ixd2 c5 or 15 ll)2xb3 'itt fB , when his ex­ tra pawn compensates for White's initiative. d4 11 1 1 .ig4 transposes to the Ber­ lin variation (Chapter 5 ) . 1 1 0-0 yields White a certain edge after the line 12 ll)b3 'lVd7 13 ll)bd4 ll)xd4 14 cxd4 ll)e4 15 ll)el f6 16 f3 ll)g5 1 7 ll)d3 (Am.Rodriguez-To­ dorovic, Pan(!evo 1987). 11 'lVd7 12 :el (12 b4 ll)a4 ! ) 12 .i.f5 gave Black a satisfactory position in Boleslavsky-Korchnoi -

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

(USSR 1966) after 13 .ixf5 'ii'xf5 14 ll)f1 'lVd3 15 .ie3 0-0-0 16 'ii'c l 'iti>b 7. However, White' s play was improved in the game Zapata­ Am. Rodriguez (Bogota 199 1 ) : 13 ll)fl . Mter 1 3 .ixc2 14 'lVxc2 0-0 15 .ie3 ll)e6 16 :adl f6 17 exf6 .i.xf6 18 ll)g3 :ad8 19 ll)e4 White obtained a minimal edge. How­ ever, by means of 1 3 :d8 14 ll)g3 .ig6 Black could have obtained the Berlin variation with an extra tempo! 14 .ixf5 'lVxf5 looks quite solid for him, too. Instead of 12 :el , 12 ll)b3!? is probably stronger. However, this move has not yet been tested in practice. The break 11 . . . d4 was casti­ gated by none other than Capa­ blanca! It took a couple of decades to find an improvement for Black. Still, White manages to obtain some edge in the endgame. 12 ll)b3 12 ll)e4 d3 doesn't change any­ thing. d3!? 12 This is the point! 12 dxc3? 13 ll)xc5 .ixc5 14 .ie4 'lVd7 1 5 'lVc2 .i.d5 16 bxc3 :d8 17 .ig5 is clearly in White's favour (Capablanca­ Chajes, New York 1916). 13 ll)xc5 13 .ibl ll)xb3 14 axb3 .i.f5 1 5 .i.e3 0-0 16 .id4 (16 ll)d4 ll)xd4 1 7 cxd4 c 5 ) 16 . . . 'lVd5 1 7 .ixd3 .ixd3 18 'lVxd3 'lVxb3 leads to a position with chances for both sides (Maus­ Pieper-Emden, Germany 1989). 13 dxc2 .••

•••

•••

•••

•••

The Main Road 1 13 14 'ii'xdS + 15 lDxe6

l:bdS fxe6

. . . :fB-a8, . . . b5xc4, . . . :d5-b5, . . . a6a5-a4 etc. Still, there is a long way to go to obtain equality. The most promising of all the lines in this section is probably 10 . . . 'ii'd 7.

Section 2 1 0 ... 0-0

-

side lines

( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .ta4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .tb3 d5 S dxe5 .te6 9 c3 .te7 10 lDbd2) 0-0 10 •••

White can hope for a small edge in this endgame due to his better pawn structure. However, he needs to play extremely carefully. 16 .te3 16 .tf4?! is risky: 16 .. JU8 1 7 .tg3 g5 ! 18 h 3 ( 1 8 lD e l h5 19 h3 :d2 with the threat . . . h5-h4 and . . . :fBxf2 ) 18 . . . :xf3 ! 19 gxf3 b4 20 :fc1 :d2 2 1 'iti>f1 bxc3 22 bxc3 .ta3 with an edge for Black (Cuijpers­ Pieper-Emden, Germany 1990) . :d5 16 17 :ac l ! After 1 7 :fc l lDxe5 18 lDxe5 :Xe5 19 :Xc2 0-0 20 c4 i.c5 21 cxb5 i.xe3 22 fxe3 axb5 Black equal­ ised in Luther-Beckemeyer, Ger­ many 1990). The text move yielded White an edge in Akopian-Daniliuk (St Pe­ tersburg 1993 ) after 17 lDxe5 18 lDxe5 :Xe5 19 :Xc2 'iti>f7 (19 ... 0-0 20 c4, etc . , now favours White) 20 c4 :c8 21 :fcl i.d6 22 g3 . Daniliuk recommends 20 . . . i.d6 followed by •••

•••

1 1 'ii'e 2 The most frequently seen move in this position is 1 1 .tc2 . We'll examine this in the next section. 1 1 lDxe4 dxe4 12 .txe6 fxe6 13 lDd4 'ii'd 5 is clearly harmless. 1 1 lDd4 lDxd4 1 2 cxd4 lDxd2 1 3 .txd2 c5 14 dxc5 .txc5 15 :c1 :c8 16 :Xc5 :xc5 17 i.b4 'ii'c7 18 'ii'd4 :cl 19 i.xfB 'iti>xfB led to a draw in Keres-Fine (Amsterdam 1938). Af­ ter 1 1 :el lDc 5 White has nothing to show either:

1 14 The Main Road a) 12 .ic2 d4 13 cxd4 ( 1 3 ll)e4 is now bad for White because of 13 . . . dxc3 14 ll)xc5 .ixc5 15 .ie4 "xdl 16 l:txd l l:tad8, as given by Keres) 13 . . . ll)xd4 14 ll)xd4 "xd4 15 "e2 (15 ll)b3 ll)xb3 16 axb3 "xd1 1 7 l:txdl c5 is in Black's fa­ vour, Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, St Pe­ tersburg 19 14) 15 . . . l:tad8 16 ll)f3 "c4 17 .ie3 "xe2 18 l:txe2 .ic4 19 l:td2 ll)e6 with a good position for Black (Kir.Georgiev-Piket, Biel 1993). b) 12 ll) d4 ll)xd4 13 cxd4 ll)d3 14 l:te3 ll)f4 ( 14 . . . ll)xcI 15 l:txc1 c5 16 dxc5 l:tc8 also gives Black good counterplay, Geller-Suetin, USSR championship, Moscow 195 1) 15 ll)f3 ( 1 5 i.c2 c5 16 l:tel - for 16 ll)b3? ! , see illustrative game 39 16 . . . c4 1 7 ll)n ll)g6 18 "h5 "d7 19 h3 f5 is pleasant for Black, Va­ siukov-Suetin, USSR champion­ ship, Kiev 1964/65) 15 . . . .ig4 16 h3 .ih5 1 7 .ic2 ll)e6 18 .if5 c5 19 dxc5 .ixc5 20 l:td3 "b6, and Black has no problems, Ye Jiangchuan­ Norri, Helsinki 1992 . Coming back to 1 1 "e2. With this move White prepares ll)f3-d4, not allowing . . . ll)e4-c5-d3 . ll)c5 n 1 1 ll)xd2 12 .ixd2 ll)a5 13 .ic2 ll)c4 14 "d3 g6 15 i.h6 Ieads, strangely enough, to a position from Chapter 7 ( 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 ll)bd2 ll)xd2 12 "xd2 ll)a5 13 i.c2 ll)c4 14 "d3 g6 15 i.h6), favourable for White. After 13 . . . c5 14 "d3 g6 15 i.h6 l:te8 16 l:tadl ll)c4 1 7 i.cl f6 18 exf6 .ixf6 19 l:tfel (Vasiukov-

...

•••

Lukic, Reykjavik 1956) White's chances are better as well. n .if5 12 l:tdl ll)c5 13 ll)d4 ll)xd4 14 cxd4 .i d3 ( 14 . . . ll)e6 is risky for Black: 15 ll)n i.g6 16 ll)g3 c5 1 7 dxc5 d4 18 f4 ! with a clear edge, Arakhamia-Boog, Bie1 1990) 15 "g4 ll)xb3 16 ll)xb3 .ic2 (Gli­ goric-Bozic, Yugoslav champion­ ship, Ljubljana 1947) could have yielded White a slight edge after 1 7 .ih6! .ig6 18 .ie3 (Korchnoi). 12 ll)d4! Again 12 .ic2 d4 ! is good for Black. ll)xb3 12 12 ll)xd4 13 cxd4 ll)xb3 14 ll)xb3 l:tc8 15 .id2 ! l:tfc8 16 l:tfcl .if5 1 7 a3 c6 18 .ib4 (Sakharov­ Olifer, USSR 1960) with a favour­ able position for White. In this line 13 ....!tJa4!? deserves attention. If 12 ..d7 then 13 i.c2 ! , and White maintains the initiative (see Chapter 7, Section 1). The text move simplifies the position. 13 ll)xc6! 13 ll)2xb3 leads to equality: 13 .....d7 14 lDxc6 "xc6 15 i.e3 i.f5 (15 . . ...c4 16 "c2 "g4 is worse due to 1 7 f3 , Korchnoi) 16 l:tfdl 'fj'g6 1 7 ll)d4 (or 1 7 f3 c6 18 "f2 l:tfe8 19 l:tel f6 with equal play, Keres­ Averbakh, USSR championship, Moscow 1951) 17 . . . .id7 18 b4 "e4 19 i.d2 "xe2 20 ll)xe2 l:tfe8 2 1 i.f4 c6 2 2 ll)d4 a5 (Mecking-Korch­ noi, Augusta 1974). ll)xc l 13 14 l:taxcl "d7 15 ll)xe7 + "xe7 ...

.0.

•••

...

The Main Road 1 15

In this position White main­ tains a small advantage since the dark squares in Black's camp are weakened. The game Jano§evic­ Lukic (Yugoslavia, 1955) saw 16 f4 f5 1 7 exf6 'YWxf6 18 'YWe3 .if5 19 'YWd4 with some pressure for White. So, after 1 1 'YWe2 Black goes through certain difficulties. The strangest thing is that it has been practically abandoned nowadays ! 1 1 .ic2 is usually played, which is hardly stronger. We have met a similar case in Section 3 (Zaitsev's piece sacrifice is correct but un­ popular). The capricious nature of fashion?

Section 3 1 1 .ic2 ( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .i a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ie7 10 lDbd2 0-0) 11 .ic2 (D) White manoeuvres his bishop to an active position, attacks Black's

knight, and clears a square for his own. f5 11 The other possibilities for Black are: a) 11 .if5 12 lDd4! lDxd4 13 cxd4 f6 ( 1 3 . . . c5 is insufficient due to 14 lDxe4 .ixe4 15 .ixe4 dxe4 16 d5 l:te8, Geller-Korchnoi, Budva 1967, when instead of 1 7 l:tel White should have played 17 f4 ! with a clear advantage, as recom­ mended by Korchnoi) 14 lDxe4 .ixe4 15 .ixe4 dxe4 16 'YWb3 + �h8 17 .ie3 fxe5 18 dxe5 'YWc8 19 'YWc2 'ii'b 7 20 l:tfd l l:tad8 2 1 'YWc3 with a small edge for White CWalker-Pich­ ler, COIT 1990) . b) 1 l lDxd2 12 'lVxd2 f6 13 'lVd3 (or 13 exf6 .ixf6 14 lDg5 with a small pull, Korchnoi) 13 . . . g6 14 exf6 .ixf6 15 i.h6 l:te8 16 l:tfel �h8 1 7 'lVd2 'lVd6 18 .if4 (Suetin­ Korchnoi, Moscow 1966) . White maintains better prospects in this line. c) 1 l lDc5 12 lDd4!? lDxe5 13 b4 lDa4 14 'YWh5 lDg6 15 f4 lDxc3 16 f5 i.xb4 1 7 fxe6 fxe6 18 lD2f3 •••

•••

•••

•••

1 16 The Main Road with an initiative for White (Iva­ novic-Cvetkovic, Yugoslav cham­ pionship 1974). White can also play more simply: 12 li)b3!? li)xb3 13 axb3 'lVd7 14 'lVd3 g6 15 .ih6 .if5 16 'iVd2 l:Hd8 17 l:Hel with a small advantage (Am. Rodriguez-Karl, Chiasso 1993). Black strengthens his central knight by means of 1 1 . . .f5. How­ ever, it turns out to be a temporary measure as White can eventually prepare f2-f3 . On the other hand, Black is now deprived of some ac­ tive possibilities like the break . . . f7-f6 or the activation of his light-squared bishop via f5 or g4. White's passed e5 pawn becomes quite formidable as Black's bishop and later his queen are not good blockaders. These considerations explain why Black can hardly attain full equality in this variation. 12 li)b3 Besides this positional move, White has two other possibilities: a) 12 exf6 has no positional basis and doesn't yield White any edge: 12 lDxf6, and now: al) 13 li)g5?! .ig4 14 f3 .ic8 15 l:tel 'lVd6 16 'lVe2 .id7 is favour­ able for Black (Kotov-Averbakh, USSR 1952). a2) 13 l:tel .ig4 14 M 'lVd7 15 li)e3 .ic5 16 li)xg4 li)xg4 1 7 .ie3 .i.xe3 18 fxe3 l:tad8 with a good position for Black (Godena-Brun­ ner, Novi Sad 1990) . a3) 13 li)d4!? li)xd4 14 cxd4. Now 14 c5 is doubtful, e.g. 15

dxc5 .ixc5 16 li)b3 .ia7 1 7 li)d4 .ig4!? 18 f3 'lVb6 19 .ie3 l:tae8 20 .if2 li)e4 !? 21 .ixe4 dxe4 22 fxg4 l:txf2 23 'iti>xf2 'lVxd4 + 24 'iVxd4 .ixd4 + 25 'ltte 2 .ixb2 26 l:tadl with a clear plus for White (Gar­ mendez-Gunderman, Los Angeles 1991). Black should probably play 14 'lVd7 or at once 13 'lVd7. This line needs more tests. a4) 13 li)b3 .ig4! 14 'lVd3 li)e4 (Black can also continue quietly: 14 . . . .ih5 1 5 li)bd4 li)xd4 16 li)xd4 .ig6, Boleslavsky-Euwe, Gronin­ gen 1946, or 14 . . . 'lVd7 15 li)bd4 li)xd4 16 cxd4 .ixf3 17 'lVxf3 g6 18 .ih6 l:tf7 19 l:tael li)g4 20 'lVh3 .if6, Rohde-Korchnoi, Beer-Sheva 1987, with equal chances in both cases) 15 li)bd4 li)xd4 16 li)xd4 .id6 •••

•••

1. - _ _ . _ _ . _ ..

•••

.- . . _._.. . . • �411 • � - .t.. -

•••

1 7 h3 ( 1 7 li)c6? is bad due to 1 7 . . . 'lVh4. 1 7 li)xb5? yields Black a strong attack: 17 ... .i.xh2 + 18 gl l:tf5 20 .ib3 'iti>h8, as in Arseniev-Zhukhovitsky, Lenin­ grad 1967, and 17 .i.b3?! is risky as well: 17 . . . 'iti>h8 18 h3 'lVh4 19 f4

• �"iV. • � " 8u " 8u � i.. . u _ � . � � �:� �

The Main Road 117

liJc5 20 'iVe3 �ae8 with an initia­ tive for Black, Gipslis-Suetin, Tal­ linn 1959) 17 . . . 'iVh4 18 liJxb5 liJx£2 19 �g5 ! liJxd3 20 �xh4 axb5 2 1 �xd3 � d 7 with equality (Rago­ zin-Ravinsky, Moscow 1947) . b) 1 2 liJd4 prematurely simpli­ fies the game: 12 . . . liJxd4 13 cxd4 c5 14 dxc5 liJxd2 (14 . . . �xc5 is pos­ sible as well, e.g. 15 liJb3 �a7 16 �e3 - 16 liJd4 'iVb6! - 16 . . . �xe3 1 7 fxe3 'iVc7 18 �xe4 dxe4 19 'iVd6 'iVxd6 20 exd6 �fd8, when a draw was agreed in Lein-Lutikov, USSR championship, Kiev 1964/65) 15 �xd2 �xc5 16 �b3 ( 16 �c1 'iVd7) 16 . . . 'iVb6 (alternatively, 16 . . . 'iVd7 17 �c1 �fc8 18 �c3 a5 19 a3 �b6 20 �c2 a4 21 �a2 d4 22 �xd4 �xa2 23 �xb6 'iVxd 1 24 �xc8 + l:f.xc8 25 �xd1 �b3 led to a draw­ ish endgame, Ivanchuk-Hjartar­ son, Tilburg 1989) 17 'iVf3 l:f.ad8 18 �ac 1 b4 19 �c2 'itt h 8 20 �fcl �c8 2 1 i.f4 �fd8 with equality (Short-Prasad, Subotica 1987). 12 liJb3 is connected with a fa­ miliar plan: liJf3-d4 and £2-f3. 'iVd7 12 13 liJfd4 13 liJbd4 yields Black an addi­ tional possibility 13 . . . liJa5 !?, e.g. 14 liJxe6 'iVxe6 15 liJd4 'iVxe5 16 f3 �d6 1 7 g3 f4! 18 fxe4 fxg3 19 liJf3 g2 ! 20 'itt xg2 �xf3 , forcing a draw by perpetual check (Boleslavsky­ Zagorovsky, USSR 1954) . 13 �el is not dangerous, for ex­ ample 13 . . . a5 ( 1 3 . . . �ad8 14 'iVe2 �fe8 15 liJfd4 liJxd4 16 liJxd4 c5 1 7 liJxe6 'iVxe6 18 f3 liJg5 19 a 4 gave •••

White an edge in the game Nunn­ Wedberg, Novi Sad 1990) 14 i.d3 �ab8 15 'iVe2 a4 16 liJbd4 liJxd4 1 7 liJxd4 c6 1 8 f3 liJc5 with a solid po­ sition for Black (Akopian-Krasen­ kov, Vilnius 1988). liJxd4 13 ... 13 liJxe5 is hardly possible owing to 14 f3. 14 liJxd4 14 cxd4 doesn't succeed due to 14 . . . a5! 15 f3 a4 16 fxe4 axb3 1 7 �xb3 fxe4 1 8 i.e3 �xf1 + 1 9 'iVxfl c6 20 �c1 'iVb 7 with equal play, Bogolyubow-Rubinstein, Gothen­ burg 1920. After 14 liJxd4 White is ready to play both on the queen 's (a2-a4) and kingside (£2-f3-f4, g2-g4). c5 14 14 �ad8 15 f3 tZX:5 16 �e1 liJb7 17 b4, followed by a2-a4, is fa­ vourable for White, according to Boleslavsky and Suetin. 15 liJxe6 15 liJe2 is weaker: 16 . . . �ad8 16 liJf4 'iVc6 17 a4 iLc8 18 axb5 axb5 19 'iVh5 g6 20 'iVh6 �f7 2 1 f3 �f8 22 'iVh3 liJg5 (Fischer-Unzicker, Santa Monica 1966) or even 16 . . . 'itt h 8! ? 17 a4 d4 1 8 cxd4 cxd4 1 9 axb5 axb5 20 'iVh5 �f7 (Anand-Prasad, In­ dian championship 1988), with good play for Black in both cases. 'iVxe6 15 liJg5 16 f3 17 a4 (D) 17 � xg5 is somewhat prema­ ture: 17 . . . iLxg5 18 f4 �e7 19 'iVf3 c4 20 �fd1 �ad8 etc. (R. Korsun­ sky-Chekhov, USSR 1979). .••

•••

.••

1 18 The Main Road (Beliavsky-Tarjan, Bogota 1979 illustrative game 40). c) 17 c4 18 axb5. Now the re­ ply 18 . . . axb5? is a blunder: 19 :xas l::txa8 20 .ixg5 .ixg5 2 1 f4 .ie7 22 �xf5 ! (Gheorghiu-Korchnoi, Ro­ mania 1968). The position after 18 . . . 'lVb6 + 19 'it>h1 'lVxb5 (O' Con­ nell) is slightly better for White. Now we come back to 17 . . . g6. 18 .ixgS! White radically deprives Black's knight of a possibility to block the e5 pawn by exchanging it! Other­ wise Black obtains a strong coun­ terplay, e.g. 18 'lVe2 c4 19 l::te 1 "b6 + 20 'it>h1 liJe6 21 l::td 1 l::t ad8, preparing . . . d5-d4 (Nunn-Korch­ noi, Cologne 1989). .ixgS 18 . . . .ie7 19 f4 Now both after 20 'lVf3 b4 2 1 l::tfe1 l::tfd8 22 cxb4 c4 (Balashov­ Korchnoi, Germany 1980) and 20 axbS axb5 21 l::txa8 l::txa8 22 g4 fxg4 23 f5 gxf5 24 l::txf5 l::t a6 2 5 'it>h l 'it> h 8 (Hiibner-Korchnoi, Co­ logne Cup 1989) Black held his ground. So, the classical interpretation of the main line ( 10 . . . 0-0) yields White slightly better chances af­ ter both 1 1 'lVe2 and 1 1 .ic2 . Fu­ ture debate will probably concern 10 . . . 'lVd7!? •••

White stands slightly better as he holds the initiative on both flanks. However, Black's position is very solid. 17 g6 Black protects his weak pawn on f5. Here are some other lines of play: a) 17 b4?! 18 cxb4 c4 19 b3! c3 20 'lVd3 l:bc8 (Geller-Savon, Skopje 1968) . Now, according to Korchnoi, White could have ob­ tained a slight advantage by means of 2 1 .ixg5 .ixg5 22 f4 .ie7 23 l::ta d1 ! ' b) 17 l::tad8 18 axb5 axb5 1 9 'lVe2 ( 1 9 'it>h 1 l::t d 7 2 0 'lVe2 "c6 2 1 �xg5 .ixg5 22 f4 .ie7 2 3 "f3 c4 is not so convincing, Haba-Unzicker, Germany 1990) 19 . . . c4 ( 19 . . :ii'c6!?, Beliavsky) 20 .ie3 b4 21 'lVd2 b3 22 .id1 h6 23 h4 liJf7 24 f4 g5 25 .id4, and White started an attack •••

•••

•••

Theoreti cal Conclusions We have now finished examining the theory of the Open Spanish. What are your initial reactions? There can hardly be any doubt - it's just a muddle in your head! All those variations and move transposi­ tions would drive anyone mad. In order to help you better understand the ideas of the Open Spanish, forty illustrative games are included in the next chapter, and here I'd like to offer you a consolidated table re­ flecting the interrelation of all the important lines of the Open Span­ ish and their current theoretical state. In this table we use the following symbols: 5.2 ;1; ±

OK ? *

**

chapter and section numbers where the line is examined; a slight advantage for White; a clear advantage for White; the line is satisfactory and yields Black at least equal chances; the assessment is not completely reliable; a deeply developed line in which a final reliable assessment has not yet been found; a new line with insufficient practical material; a line of great theoretical importance; transposes to

Assessments are given to the lines containing no further branches. THE OPEN SPANISH

1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 tDfS 5 0-0 tDxe4 C hapter 1 1 . 1 : 6 'iVe2, 6 lIel etc. - OK 1 . 2 : 6 d 4 i.e7 ;1; 1.3: 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 i.e7 (or 7 . . . exd4 ± ) ± 1 .4: 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 tDxe5 (8 c4 and 8 a4 - OK) 8 . lDxe5 9 dxe5 c6 (9 . . . i.e6 ;1;; 9 . i.b7 ;1;) - OK

11 12 15

. .

..

16

The rest of the book deals with the position arising after 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6

120 Theoretical Conclusions C hapter 2 2 . 1 : 9 a4 - OK 2 . 2 : 9 i.e3 tbc5 (9 . . . i.c5 ;1;; 9 . . . i.e7 10 c3 - Chapter 7) 10 tbc3 ! ( 10 'iVe2 i.e7 1 1 nd1 - OK) ;I; C hapter 3 3 . 1 : 9 tbbd2 i.e7 (9 . . . tbxd2 ;1; ?* * ! or 9 . . . ii.c5 ;1; ) 10 tbxe4 ( 10 c3 - Chapter 7) - OK ?**! 3 . 2 : 9 tbbd2 tbc5 10 c3 ii.g4 11 h3 ( 1 1 ne1 - OK; 1 1 ii.c2 - Chapter 5) - OK 3 . 3 : 9 tbbd2 tbc5 10 c3 d4 11 ii.xe6 ( 1 1 tbg5 !? OK?*) 1 L . tbxe6 12 cxd4 tbcxd4 13 a4 (13 tbe4 - OK) 13 ... nb8!? (13 ... ii.e7 ;I; ) OK ?** C hapter 4 4. 1 : 9 'iVe2 tbc5 (9 . . . ii.c5 etc. ;1;) 10 nd1 tbxb3 (10 . . . i.e7 - Section 4.2) ;I; 4.2: 9 'iVe2 iLe7 ( 10 c3 - Chapter 7) 10 nd1 tbc5 1 1 i.e3 ( 1 1 ii.xd5 - OK ; 11 tbc3 tbxb3 12 cxb3 0-0 13 ii.e3 'iVd7 - OK; 11 c4! ;1;) 1 L .tbxb3! ( 1 1 . . . 0-0 ;1;) - OK 4.3: 9 'iVe2 ii.e7 10 nd 1 0-0 11 c4 bxc4 12 ii.xc4 'iVd7 - OK 4.4: 9 'iVe2 i.e7 10 nd 1 0-0 11 c4 bxc4 12 ii.xc4 i.c5 - OK Chapter 5 5 . 1 : 9 c3 tbc5 10 i.c2 (10 tbbd2 - OK?) ii.g4 and now: A) 11 tbbd2 ii.e7 ( 1 1 . . . tbe6 ;1;; 1 L .'iVd7 ;1;) 12 ne1 d4 ;I; B) 1 1 ne1 iLe7 12 h3 (12 tbbd2 - line A and 5.2) - OK C) Other White 1 1th moves ( 1 1 'iVe2, 1 1 h3, etc.) - OK 5 . 2 : 9 c3 tbc5 10 ii.c2 ii.g4 1 1 tbbd2 i.e7 12 ne1 0-0 13 tbb3! ( 13 tbf1 i.h5 14 tbg3 i.g6 - OK) ;I; 5.3: 9 c3 tbc5 10 iLc2 ii.g4 1 1 tbbd2 ii.e7 12 ne1 'iVd7 13 tbf1! (13 tbb3 tbe6 - OK) ;I; C hapter 6 9 c3 ii.c5 and now: 6 . 1 : 10 'iVd3 and other White 11th moves - OK 6 . 2 : 10 tbbd2 0-0 11 'iVe2 tbxd2 ;I; 6.3: 10 tbbd2 0-0 11 iLc2 f5 12 tbb3 iLb6 13 tbfd4 tbxd4 14 tbxd4 ii.xd4 15 'iVxd4 (15 cxd4 - OK?* ) ;I; ?* 6.4: 10 tbbd2 0-0 1 1 ii.c2 ii.f5 12 tbb3 i.g6 (12 ... i.xf2!? * *;1; ?) 13 tbfd4 ii.xd4 14 cxd4 a5 15 ii.e3 a4 16 tbc1 (16 tbd2 ;1;) ;I; ?*

20 22

25 28

29

37 40

44

47

51

58 63

69 75 77 80

Theoretical Conclusions 121

6.5: 10 lbbd2 0-0 1 1 .tc2 lbxf2 12 l:txf2 to 13 exf6 .txf2 + 14 �xf2 'ii'xtO 15 lbfl lbe5 16 .te3 l:taeB 17 .tc5 ( 1 7 �gl - OK) - OK ? * ! C hapter 7 9 c3 .te7 and now: 7 . 1 : 10 .tc2 (10 'ii'e 2 lbc5 ! - OK; 10 l:te1 0-0 - OK) 10 . . . 0-0 (l0 . . . .tg4 - OK ? * * I ) 1 1 'ii'e 2 ( l 1 lbbd2 - Chapter B) ;!; ?* 7 . 2 : 10 .te3 0-0 l 1 lbbd2 ;!; 7.3: 10 .te3 lbc5 1 1 .tc2 lbd7 ( 1 1 . . ..tg4 ;!;J±) OK?;!; ?*! 7.4: 10 .te3 'ii'd 7 l 1 lbbd2 l:tdB ( 1 1 . . . lbxd2 ±; 11 . . . lbc5 ±; 1 1 ... .tf5!? ;!; ?**) 12 l:te1 0-0 13 .tc2 f5 !? (13 ... lbxd2 - OK) - OK ? * * ! C hapter S 9 c3 .te7 10 lbbd2 and now: B . 1 : 10 . . . lbc5 (10 . . . 'ii'd 7!? OK? * * I ) 11 .tc2 d4 ( 1 1 . . . .tg4 - Chapter 5 ; 11 . . . 'ii'd 7 ;!; ? * * I ) 12 lbb3 =/;!; B . 2 : 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 'ii'e2 ( 1 1 l:te1 - OK) ;!; ? * B.3: 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .tc2 ;!;

B7

94 100 103

106

111 1 13 1 16

Play Like a Grandmaster! This chapter contains 40 grand­ master games which illustrate nearly all of the most important lines of the Open Spanish. It was far from easy to choose the cream of the many thousands of Open Spanish games played at the top level during more than a century. However, I hope you will find this selection instructive; it will ac­ quaint you with many of the key ideas and with the players who have made the most valuable con­ tribution to the theory of the opening.

Black has obtained a develop­ ment advantage and an initiative on the kingside. Now 1 7 g3 i.xg3 ! 18 l:txe4 i.xe4 19 fxg3 i.xc2 or 18 fxg3 lDxg3 + 19 �gl i.e4 would have left him a good position. How­ ever, after the text move Black simply obtains a decisive attack. 17 'Yi'h4 18 'Yi'xf5 •••

Game 1

Planinc - Parma 8anja Luka 1976 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 i.e7?! 7 l:tel f5 8 d5 lDa5! 9 lDxe5 0-0 10 d6?! 10 c3 ! yields White better pros­ pects - see Chapter 1, Section 2 . The outcome o f the complications that follow the text move is quite satisfactory for Black. 10 i.xd6 1 1 'Yi'd5 + �h8 12 lDf7 + l:txf7 13 'Yi'xf7 i.xh2 + 14 h7 36 ..ti>el 'lVbl + 37 'lVdl 'lVf5 Black's knight is placed quite passively - that's why Black has no winning chances. 38 'lVe2 'lVc2 38 . . . ll)f4 does not work due to 39 'lVe4! (Neishtadt). 39 'lVdl 'lVf5 40 'lVe2 'lVbl + 4 1 'lVd l 'lVf5 4 2 'lVe2 'lVb l + 4 3 'lVdl 'lVf5 Draw agreed. Game 3

Short

-

Ti mman

8th match game, EI Escorial 1993

1 5 .ig6 1 6 'lVh4 .ixg5 1 7 'lVxg5 0 - 0 18 �ad l �fe8 19 �e3 'iVf5! As usually, the exchange of queens is favourable for Black. 20 'lVxf5 .ixf5 • • •

I. . . 1. .*. • • •••• •••• • • • • • • D .t.. .

• • • • . £0 � a � � �' " � ��% ,. _ � . �_ ?f:l� . ' A� � � A P!iD� ,

;(. " ", ,"�

� mra � �,� '� N

Jan Timman is one of the most devoted adherents of the Open Spanish. His most important con­ tribution to its theory concern the system 9 c3 .ic5 . Nigel Short used to try different ways against the Open Spanish, including some rare lines. That's why their match (Can­ didates' final) was quite signifi­ cant for theory. 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 ll)xe5 ll)xe5 9 dxe5 c6 10 ll)d2 !? The main theoretical line is 10 .ie3 (Chapter 1, Section 4). 10 ll)xd2 11 .ixd2 .ie7 12 'ii'h5 .ie6 13 c3 'iVd7 Black is preparing to occupy the light squares ( . . . .ie6-f5). White has no time for 14 .ic2 as 14 . . . .ig4 is threatened. 14 .ig5 .if5! 15 lUel 1 5 .ixe7 yields nothing due to 15 . . . �g6! . •••

0 0 v"

• d

� Vt

,, �,@�

B:. • d

W,$

�""

� 0 ",0 !/I

� �

,,

"d !/;'

Black has carried out his strategical idea. His bishop is no weaker than its white opponent, and his pawns enjoy better mobil­ ity. White must play carefully to avoid running into trouble. 2 1 h3 h5 22 �de l An inaccuracy. The most pre­ cise course was to exchange the bishops by means of 22 �d2 ! �e7 23 .tc2 (Timman). 22 �ad8 Intending to push Black's cen­ tral pawns. 23 .idl g6 24 b4! Well played! White plans to re­ duce the number of pawns on the queenside. 24 c5 After 24 . . . d4 25 cxd4 �xd4 26 a3 or 24 . . . a5 25 bxa5 �a8 26 a4 White also equalises, Timman. •••

•••

Play Like a Grandmaster! 125 25 bxc5 l:tc8 26 a4 l:txc5 2 7 axb5 axb5 28 g4 By means of 28 . . . hxg4 29 i.xg4 i.e6 Black could now have main­ tained a minimal edge, which was hardly sufficient for the victory. Therefore Timman decided to agree a draw. Game 4

Lj ubojevic - Hjartarson Amsterdam 199 1 Ljubomir Ljubojevic i s not always lucky when contesting the Open Spanish. He often tries rare sys­ tems and not always success­ fully. . . As for Johann Hjartarson, he has produced a number of good games in the Open Spanish both as Black and White. 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i. a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 a4 b4 10 a5 ll)c5 11 i. g5 'ii'd 7 12 ll)bd2 h6 13 i.h4 i.e7 14 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 15 c3 bxc3 16 bxc3 ll)xb3! 1 7 ll)xb3 0-0 18 l:te 1 l:tab8 19 ll)fd4 Black has obtained an excellent game after the opening (see Chap­ ter 2, Section 1) (DJ. 19 ll)a7! A remarkable manoeuvre in or­ der to avoid the exchange on d4 and prepare . . . c7-c5. 20 ll)e2? White could have kept the bal­ ance by means of 20 ll)xe6 fxe6 2 1 'ii'd4 ll)b5 22 'ii'c 5 (Hjartarson). •••

Now Black's central pawns become dangerous. 20 c5 2 1 ll)f4 l:tfd8 22 'ii'c 2 ll)c6 23 ll)xe6 !xe6 24 f4 l:tb5 25 c4? Now White 's position becomes lost but after 25 ll)d2 c4! (Hjartar­ son) it was clearly worse in any case. 25 ll)b4 26 'ii'e 2 dxc4 2 7 'ii'xc4 ll)d3 28 l:tebl l:tb4 29 'ii'xa6 c4 30 ll)d4 'ii'c5 3 1 'ii'xe6 + �h8 32 h3 'ii'xd4 + 33 �h1 � + 3 4 �h2 'ii'xf4 + 3 5 �gl 'ii'd4 36 �h2 l:txb1 37 l:txb1 c3 38 l:tb7 'ii'f4 + 39 g3 ll)g4 + 40 hxg4 l:td2 + 41 �h3 'ii'fl + 42 �h4 l:th2 mate. •••

•••

Game S

Tseshkovsky - Kaidanov Moscow 1985 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 i.e3 i.e7 10 ll)bd2 ll)c5 11 c3 ll)d3 12 'ii'c 2?! ll)dxe5 13 fue5 fue5 14 i.d4 f6 15 Me l 'ii'd6?

126 Play Like a Grandmaster! As was pointed out in the theo­ retical part (Chapter 2, Section 2), 1 5 . . . .t f7! 16 .txe5 fxe5 1 7 �xe5 0-0 yields Black an excellent posi­ tion. Mter the text move White obtains a strong attack. 16 �adl �d8 17 .txe5 fxe5

22 'ife2 .tf6 23 lbf3 'it'f8 24 g4! Tseshkovsky plays brilliantly. 24 . . . 'it'g7 is now impossible due to 25 g5 .te7 26 lbxe5 .txg5 2 7 lbf7 . 24 . . . h6 is too slow, e.g. 25 'ife4 'it'g7 26 .tc2 etc. 24 . . . g5 was prob­ ably the only way to continue Black's resistance. 24 e4?! 25 'ifxe4 'it'g7 26 g5 .txb2 27 'ife2 ! A final accord. Black resigned. ..•

Game 6

G h i nda

-

Yusupov

Dubai 1986

18 e4! This break razes Black's posi­ tion to the ground. 18 ... .tg4 Mter 18 . . . c6 19 lbe4 'ilt'd7 20 cxd5 cxd5 21 lbc5 .txc5 22 'ilt'xc5 Black's position is equally poor. 19 exd5! Of course, White sacrifices the exchange to gain an important tempo. 19 .txdl 20 'iVxdl e5? The threat 2 1 lbe4 looked terri­ ble but the alternatives 20 . . . g6 (Kaidanov) or 20 . . . 'it'f8 were more tenacious. Mter the move played White obtains a dangerous passed pawn. 2 1 dxe6! g6 2 1 . . .'iVxd2 Ioses due to 22 'iVh5 + g6 23 'ifxe5. •••

The contribution of Artur Yusupov to the Open Spanish is enormous, both in terms of conceptual inno­ vations and theoretical discover­ ies. Almost every variation has been touched by his mind. 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbe6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .ta4 lbf6 5 0-0 lbxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 .te3 lbe5 10 e3 10 lbc3! is much stronger (Chap­ ter 2, Section 2). 10 liJxb3 1 1 axb3 .te7 12 lbd4 lbxd4 13 exd4 0-0 14 lbe3 (D) 14 f4 'ifd7 15 lbc3 was better. A top player's strength often lies in keen strategical vision. He sees which position he should aim towards and how it can be achieved. The deep plan which Yusupov now starts is indeed the canvas of a genius! ••.

Play Like a Grandmaster! 127

14 f6! Black wants to provoke 15 f4 to weaken the e4 square. 15 f4 fxe5 16 fxe5 l:txf1 + 1 7 �1 .tb4! A protector of light squares should be exchanged! 18 'at>gl .txe3 19 bxe3 as Not just preparing . . . a5-a4 . . . 20 'it'd3 According to Yusupov, White should have preferred an immedi­ ate 20 .tel! to block Black's a­ pawn. 20 'it'd7 2 1 .tel .tf5 22 'it'd2 h6 23 .ta3 l:ta6!! This is th e point! After . . . .tf5e4 an d . . . l:ta 6-g6 Black achieves a strong attacking position. This is the idea of th e wh o l e p l an started with 14 . . . f6 1 . 24 l:tfl l:tg6?! This is a regrettable inaccuracy. 24 . . . .te4! was much stronger. Af­ ter the text move White manages to exchange rooks and almost equalises the game. 25 l:tf3 .te4 26 l:tg3 l:txg3 2 7 bIg3 a4 28 bxa4 bxa4 2 9 .tb4 •••

•••

'it'g4 30 'at>h2 'it'f5 31 'at>gl 'at>h7 32 .te5 'it'g4 33 'at>h2 .tf5 34 'it'a2 'it'h5 + 35 'at>gl 'it'd1 + 36 'at>h2 'it'b3 The only chance to play for a win. 37 'it'xb3 axb3 38 .ta3 'at>g6 39 'at>gl .te4 40 e6? It is not easy to define over the board which pawn arrangement is better. According to analysis by Yusupov, after 40 'at>f2 White could have made a draw, e.g. 40 . . . 'at>f5 41 'at>fl h5 42 'at>f2 'at>e6 43 'at>f1 'at>d 7 44 �f2 g6 45 'at>f1 �c6 46 e6 .tf5 47 e7 'at>d7 48 'at>e2 ! .te4 49 'at>e3 g5 50 'at>f2! c5 5 1 dxc5 'at>xe7 52 c6 + 'at>d8 53 'at>e3 ! 'at>c7 54 'at>d2 'at>xc6 55 'at>cl .txg2 56 .te7 h4 57 gxh4 g4 58 h5. 40 'at>f6? 40 . . . .tf5 ! was more exact. Now the victory has slipped away again. 4 1 e7 'at>f7 42 'at>f2? (42 g4! ) 42 'at>e8? (42 . . . .tf5! ) 43 g4! g5 44 g3?? A fatal error. After 44 'iWl. c5 45 dxc5 'at>xe7 46 c6 + 'at>d8 4 7 �e2 .txg2 48 'at>d2 'at>c7 49 .tfB a draw was not far off (Yusupov). Now Black's bishop comes to e6, and White's pawn on g4 falls due to a zugzwang. 44 .t g6 45 �e3 .tf7! 46 'at>d2 (despair) 46 .te6 47 'at>d3 e6 48 'at>d2 .txg4 49 'at>e 1 h5 50 'at>b2 .td1 51 .td6 h4 52 gxh4 gxh4 53 'at>a3 �d7 54 'at>b2 .te2 55 'at>a3 h3 56 �b2 .tg6! 57 .te5 'at>xe7 58 'at>xb3 .td3 59 �b2 'at>e6 60 �e1 'at>f5 61 'at>d2 'at>e4 62 'at>e1 �f3 White resigned. •••

•••

•••

•••

128 Play Like a Grandmaster!

Game 7

Geller - Krasen kov Cappelle la Grande 1992 Efim Geller was Karpov's assistant during his matches against Korch­ noi, so he must have explored many interesting ideas in the Open Span­ ish during their pre-game prepa­ ration, especially in the 9 ll)bd2 system. 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .i a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 ll)bd2 .ie7 10 ll)xe4 dxe4 1 1 .ixe6 fxe6 12 ll)g5 .ixg5 13 'lVh5 + g6 14 'lVxg5 0-0 14 . . . 'lVd5 is probably more pre­ cise (Chapter 3, Section 1). 15 'lVg4 'lVd5 16 lIel lIf5 17 .ih6! This had undoubtedly been pre­ pared against Korchnoi. 17 lIxe4?! lIaf8! is fine for Black. 1 7 'lVc5 From this moment Black tries to avoid simplifications such as 17 . . . ll)xe5 18 'lVxe4 but fails to achieve anything better. 18 lIe2!? lId8 ( 1 8 . . . ll)d4? ! 19 lId2 ) 19 h4! lId5 20 lIft 'lVc4 2 1 b 3 'lVc3 2 2 h5! ll)xe5 2 3 'lVxe4 l!xh5 24 .if4 (D) White has sacrificed a pawn, obtaining a strong centralised po­ sition. Besides, the pawn will soon be taken back on e6. Black should now have played 24 . . . lIf5 to or­ ganise the co-operation of his pieces. Instead he tries to break

••• ,W$; . • • • •• •• ••••• • • • 1. _ . 1. • _

p

@" � .

• �\ii1BiYm • • W�

. � �� . . �B�.�D�. . �f;§

. d

.�� d �

loose by tactical means and . . . blunders! 24 lId4? 25 'lVa8 + 'if;f7 26 .ixe5! At this point Black noticed that 26 . . . lIdh4 didn't work in view of 27 'lVf3 + ! 'if;e8 28 'lVxh 5 ! and had to resign. •••

Game 8

Sax - Tal Tallinn 1979

•••

Mikhail Tal often played the Open Spanish since positions with ac­ tive counterplay suited his taste. 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 ll)bd2 ll)c5 10 c3 d4 1 1 .ixe6 ll)xe6 12 ll)b3? A risky experiment. 12 cxd4 is normal (Chapter 3, Section 3). 12 dxc3 13 'lVc2?! 'lVd5! Centralisation! 14 lId 1 14 'lVxc3 .ib4 is in Black's favour. 14 ll)b4! 15 'lVe2 'lVc4 16 'lVxc4 •••

•••

Play Like a Grandmaster! 129 bxc4 1 7 ttJa5 ttJc2 18 l:tb1 ttJa3 19 l:ta1 ttJc2 20 l:tb1 l:tb8! Of course, Black evades the repetition of moves. 2 1 ttJxc4 ttJa3! 22 ttJxa3 ii.xa3 23 ttJe1 cxb2 24 ttJc2 bxc1'ii' 25 l:txb8 + xh7 16 'ii'c2 + 'at>gS 17 tZ)xe5 .ie6 IS tZ)c6 (for 18 tZ)f5 - see the theo­ retical part) IS 'ifd6 19 tZ)xe 7 + :Xe7 •••

line. White 's plan now loses any sense, and the initiative passes to Black, due to his strong pressure along the f-file. 16 tZ)b3 g5 17 .ie3 0-0 IS lM:i?! Black now could have immedi­ ately captured on f3. IS 'ifd7?! 19 'ifd2? 19 'ife2 was necessary, to sup­ port the knight on f3. 19 J:txf3! A typical exchange sacrifice, de­ stroying white king's defence. 20 gxf3 tZ)xe5 2 1 'ife2 �US 22 tZ)d2 tZ)g6 With the irresistible threat of . . . tZ)e6-f4. 23 :fel .id6 24 f4 tZ)exf4 25 'iff1 tZ)xh3 + 26 'at>h l g4 2 7 'ife2 'iff5 White resigned. •••

••

Game 1 8

Wang Zi l i

-

Yusupov

Nov; Sad 1990 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4 .i a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 S dxe5 .ie6 9 tZ)bd2 �

The opening battle has led to a roughly equal but strategically complicated position. Black's plan is now clear - to make use of his extra pawn in the centre. White should try to create counterplay by means of a2-a4. The game shows Black consequently mak­ ing use of his trumps and White. . . passively waiting! 20 b3 tZ)d7 2 1 .ib2?! 2 1 a4 was clearly better. 2 1 . :aeS 22 :adl c5 23 f3?! (this is an unnecessary weaken­ ing) 23 tZ)e5! 24 'iff2 c4! (creat­ ing an outpost on d3) 25 'ii'g3 According to Yusupov, it was al­ ready time to give up an exchange: 25 tZ)c2 ! ? tZ)d3 26 .ia3 tZ)xf2 2 7 ••

•••

Play Like a Grandmaster! 139 .txd6 lDxd 1 2B lIxd 1 lId7 29 .tb4, and it would have been difficult for Black to make use of his material advantage. After the text move Black soon crushes his op­ ponent. 25 f6! 26 lId4 (26 lDc2 ! would still have been clearly better for Black) 26 ... 'iVc5 27 bxc4 dxc4 28 lDc2 a5! (threatening 29 . . . lDd3) 29 .ia3 b4 30 cxb4 'iVa7 31 b5 lId7 32 lIee4 Or 32 lId 1 lDd3 33 .td6 lIedB. 32 ... .if5 33 'iVf2 .txe4 34 l!xd7 'iVxd7 35 fxe4 'iVd1 + 36 lDe1 lDd3 White resigned. •••

choice for Black. His rook has nothing to do on eB. 16 h4! .txc2 17 'iVxc2 lDd7 18 .tf4! lDf8 It was risky to grab a pawn by 1B . . . .txh4? ! 19 lDf5 .te7 20 e6 ! , giving White a strong attack.

Game 1 9

Ivanch u k - Tu kmakov New York 1988 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .t a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 lDbd2 lDc5 10 c3 .te7 1 1 .tc2 .t g4 12 lIel 0-0 1 3 lDfl 13 lDb3 is an important alter­ native (Chapter 5, Section 2). 13 ....th5 14 .te3?! After this inexact move Black could have immediately forced a draw: 14 . . . lDxe5! 15 .txc5 lDxf3 + 16 'iVxf3 ! .ixf3 1 7 .ixe7 'iVd7 1B .txfB .txg2 ! 19 .tc5 ! .txf1 ! 20 'iti>xf1 'iVh3 + 21 'iti>gl 'iVg4 + 22 'iti>h1 'iVf3 + (Ivanchuk) . However, Tukmakov decides to proceed to usual lines. 14 ... .ig6?! 15 lDg3 lIe8 The plan of . . . 'iVdB-d7, . . . lDc5-e6 and . . . f7-f6 was probably a better

Now it turns out that 15 . . . lIeB has been useless. White can com­ fortably create threats on the kingside and at the same time put pressure on the d-pawn. 19 h5 lDe6 20 .te3 lDa5 2 1 lIadl lDc4 2 2 .tc1 c5 2 3 'iVf5 lIa7?! According to Ivanchuk, 23 . . . 'iVd7 was a better defence, e.g. 24 lIe4 lIadB 25 lIg4 'iti>hB ! . 2 4 lDe4! lDb6 25 lDeg5 .txg5 26 .txg5! 'ii'c8 27 .te3 White has managed to exchange Black's dark-squared bishop, pre­ serving one of his own knights. Now he is ready to transfer it to d6. 27...h6? (D) A careless slip. 2 7 . . . lId7 was es­ sential to meet 2B lDh4 by 2B . . . d4!

140 Play Like a Grandmaster! Black tries to simplify the game and simultaneously clears a square for his second knight. 2 1 'ii'e2 g6 22 .tg4?! 22 .td3 ttJde6 23 'ii'e3 (Filip) was clearly better but would hardly have given White any edge. 22 .txg4 23 hxg4 ttJde6 24 'ii'e3 h5 25 ttJxg5?! White assesses the endgame er­ roneously. 25 ttJh2 ! was a better option. 25 'ii'xg5 26 'ii'xg5 ttJxg5 2 7 gxh5 27 f4 ttJe6 28 f5 ttJg7 29 fxg6 hxg4! yields Black better pros­ pects. However, the text move doesn't guarantee White equal chances either. Black's pieces are better positioned, and his pawn structure is more elastic. These factors are typical for an Open Spanish endgame. 27 l:txh5 28 ttJf1 l:th4 29 l:tadl f2? does not work due to 33 . . . ttJe4 + ! 34 fxe4 l:txg4 35 exd5 l:txd5 with advantage to Black. 33 ttJe6 34 ttJg4 ttJg7 35 ttJe3?! This time 35 'it>f2! was possible and much better than the text. 35 ttJf5! ..•

28 ttJh4! l:tc7? This loses at once. 28 . . . 'it>h8! (Ivanchuk) was the only chance to play on. 29 'ii' g4 ttJg5 30 ttJf5! l:txe5 3 1 .tf4! (this i s the point!) 3 1 'ii'xf5 32 'ii'xf5 l:txf5 33 .txc7 ttJd7 34 f4 ttJe6 35 g4 ttJxc7 36 gxf5 'it>f8 37 l:te2 ttJb8 38 l:te5 Black re­ signed. .••

Game 20

Karpov - Korch noi World Championship, 28th match game, 8aguio 1978 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .t a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 c3 ttJc5 10 .tc2 .tg4 11 l:te l .te7 12 ttJbd2 'ii'd7 13 ttJb3 The reply 13 ttJf1 is more promis­ ing in this position (Chapter 5, Section 3). 13 ...ttJe6 14 h3 .th5 15 .tf5 ttJcd8 16 .te3 a5 17 .tc5 a4 18 .txe7 'ii'xe7 19 ttJbd2 c6 20 b4 ttJg5

••.

•••

.••

..•

Play Like a Grandmaster! 141 What now? 36 tDxf5 + gxf5 3 7 :d4 f4 leads to a pleasant endgame for Black. White should probably have admitted his inaccuracy by playing 36 tDg4 ! , e.g. 36 . . . tDg3 3 7 tDe3 etc. However, Karpov eventu­ ally succumbs to his opponent 's pressure. 36 tDc2?! :c4 37 :d3

•

•

• • . . _•• ••• ••• • • • • �f�� • •OK. • • • O:.�. � .ltJ. . � .

. � � � . � � � � �

37 d4! At last! Black now obtains a fa­ vourable rook ending. 38 g4 tDg7 39 tDxd4 tDe6 (re­ gaining the pawn) 40 :edl tDxd4 4 1 cxd4 :xb4 42 ..t>f2 c5! 43 d5 43 dxc5 :xd3 44 :xd3 :b2 + is hopeless for White. 43 :b2 + 44 ..t>g3 lha2 44 . . . g5 ! (Filip) was more exact, e.g. 45 f4 gxf4 + 46 ..t>xf4 :xa2 47 :e3 :£2 + 48 ..t>g3 :b2 ! . 4 5 :e3 ! b 4 4 6 e 6 :a3 47 :e2?! 47 :Xa3 bxa3 48 exf7 would have yielded White good drawing chances, according to Filip. 47 fxe6 48 :xe6 + ..t>f7 49 :del (or 49 g5 :d7!) 49 :d7! 50 •••

•••

•••

•••

:b6 :d3 51 :ee6 :3xd5 52 :xgs a3 White's counterplay proves in­ sufficient to oppose Black's pawn avalanche. 53 :bf6 + ..t>e7 54 :e6 + ..t>i8 55 :ef6 + ..t>e7 56 :e6 + ..t>d8 57 :a6 :b7 58 :g8 + ..t>c7 59 :g7 + :d7 60 :g5 b3 6 1 :xc5 + ..t>b8 White resigned . Game 2 1

A . Sokolov - Korchnoi Tilburg 1987 Despite the fact that Andrei Sok­ olov is one of the leading exponents of the continuation 9 i.e3, his con­ tribution to the t�eory of the Open Spanish is not confined to that system only. Unfortunately, in the present game the young grandmas­ ter is outplayed by 'an old lion'. 1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 tDf6 5 0-0 tDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 tDc5 10 i.c2 i.g4 11 :el i.e7 12 tDbd2 'ii'd7 13 tDfl :d8 14 tDe3 i.h5 15 tDf5 0-0 16 tDxe7 + tDxe7 It is known that 16 . . . 'ii'xe7? loses due to 17 i.g5 ! 'ii'xg5 18 tDxg5 i.xdl 19 i.xh7 + ..t>h8 20 :axdl. 17 b4 tDe4! (the alternatives are worse - see the theoretical part) 18 i.xe4 dxe4 19 'ii'xd7 :Xd7 20 tDg5 i.g6 2 1 e6 :d3!? Black prefers this pawn sacri­ fice to a quiet 2 1 . . .fxe6 22 tDxe6 :f7. 22 exf7 + i.xf7 23 tDxe4 tDd5

142 Play Like a Grandmaster!

24 f3 Mter this move Black has abso­ lutely no problems . 24 a3 was bet­ ter. In the endgame with bishops of opposite colour White would have maintained a better pawn structure. 24 .ig6 25 ..w2 :e8 26 a4 White should have preserved his strong knight (26 lDc5 ! ) . 26 .ixe4 2 7 :xe4 :xe4 28 fxe4 lDxc3 29 axb5 axb5 Unexpectedly White is in a cer­ tain amount of trouble. His pawn structure is in danger, and his bishop is clearly less active than Black's knight. However, a draw was still possible : 30 :a7! lDxe4 + 3 1 �e2 :c3 32 .if4 (Kovai!evic) . White misses this opportunity and ends up in a difficult position. 30 e5?! �f7 3 1 :a6 lDe4 + 32 �e2 :c3 33 .ie3 �e7? 34 .id4? An exchange of mistakes. White could now have obtained sufficient counterplay by 34 :a8 ! followed by 35 :g8. Black could have elimi­ nated this possibility by 33 . . . :c4! (indicated by Kovai!evic) . After the text move Black stands clearly better. His plan includes the activation of his king. 34 :c4 35 �d3 lDg5 36 .ic5 + �d7 37 :a5 �c6 3 8 :a6 + �d5 39 :a5 lDe6 40 :xb5 tl)xc5 + 4 1 bxc5 :Xc5 (D) 42 :xc5 + ? The pawn endgame proves hope­ less for White. He should have agreed to play a rook endgame a pawn down. •••

•••

•••

- - - · -. �""� . . . . - . - • : �� �� . �' B�

•

- - . - -�- . • _ . LS D · - - -

42 ...�xc5 43 �e4 �c6! 44 h4 According to Kovai!evic, 44 �d4 is losing as well: 44 . . . �d7 45 �d5 c6 + ! 46 �c5 g5 ! 47 e6 + �xe6 48 �xc6 h5 49 �c7 h4 50 �d8 g4 5 1 �e8 �f5 5 2 �f7 �f4 5 3 �g6 (or 53 �e6 g3 ! ) 53 . . . h3! 54 gxh3 gxh3 55 �f6 �3 and wins. 44 �d 7! 45 �d5 h5! 46 e6 + �e7 47 �c6 �xe6 48 �xc7 �5 49 �d6 �g4 50 �e5 'itxh4 5 1 M4 Or 51 �f5 g5 52 � �g4 53 �g6 h4 54 �h6 �f4 5 5 �h5 �f5 , win­ ning (Kovai!evic). 51 g6! 52 �f3 g5 White re­ signed. •••

•••

Game 22

Am . Rodrig uez - Mari n Novi Sad 1990 The participants of this game are probably the most prolific players today in the field of the Open Span­ ish. Amador Rodriguez is one of its principal opponents, specialis­ ing in the 9 lDbd2 system, while Mihai Marin is a loyal supporter

Play Like a Grandmaster! 143 of the Open Spanish as Black. The numerous novelties and improve­ ments invented by both of them form a considerable part of the modern theory of the opening. 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i. a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7 i. b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 ttJbd2 ttJc5 10 c3 i.e7 1 1 i.c2 i.g4 12 �el 'ikd7 13 ttJf1 �d8 14 ttJe3 i.h5 15 b4 ttJe6 16 ttJf5 0-0 17 a4 For more information on this line - see Chapter 5, Section 3. 1 7 �fe8 18 axb5 axb5 19 'ikd3 i.g6 20 'ikxb5! ttJxe5 2 1 'ikxd 7 ttJxd 7 2 2 ttJxe7 + �xe7 23 i.xg6 hxg6 24 ttJd4! Ai; a result of simplifications, White has obtained a pleasant end­ game. His pieces are more active, and his bishop is very strong. 24 ... �ee8 25 ttJc6 ttJd4! (not 25 . . . �a8? 26 ttJe7 + ) 26 ttJe7 + cJi>f8 2 7 cxd4 �xe7 28 i.f4! �xel + 28 . . . �c8 29 �ec1 ttJb6 30 �c6 was equally unpleasant for Black. 29 �xel c6 30 �c l �e8 If Black now had time to play 3 1 . . .�e6, his position would not have been so bad. However, this is not possible. Therefore 30 . . . ttJb8 looks more tenacious. 3 1 i.d6 + ! cJi>g8 32 f3 ttJb8 Black's pieces are now com­ pletely passive, and White can un­ hurriedly improve his position. 33 cJi>f2 �d8 34 i.c7! �c8 35 i.f4 (threatening 36 b5) 35 ... �e8 Black does not let White's king move to the queenside. 36 h4! ••.

White 's pressure on the queen­ side is insufficient for a win. He should create new active possibili­ ties (a so-called 'second weakness' in Black's camp) . 36 ttJa6 37 i.d6 ttJb8 38 g4 �d8 39 i.c7 �c8 40 i.f4 �d8 Mter 40 . . . �e8 White would have continued 41 h5 etc. 41 cJi>e3! ttJa6 42 �bl! �d7 43 b5 cxb5 44 �xb5 White has transformed his ad­ vantage. Black's weak pawn on c6 has been exchanged but now he is in trouble due to his terrible a6 knight. 44 cJi>f8 45 �b6 �a7 The endgame after 45 . . . ttJc7 46 i.d6 + cJi>g8 47 �b8 + cJi>h7 48 i.xc7 �xc7 49 �d8 is apparently lost for Black. 46 i.d6 + cJi>e8 47 cJi>f4! f6 48 g5! cJi>f7 49 �c6 �a8 50 �b6 �a7 5 1 �c6 �a8 .•.

•..

144 Play Like a Grandmaster!

52 �e8 53 l:tb6 l:ta7 54 gxf6 gxf6 55 h5 gxh5 + Or 55 . . . �f7 56 hxg6 + �xg6 5 7 i.e5 and wins (Rodriguez) . 56 �h5 �f7 57 l:tc6! l:ta8 5 8 �g4 �e8 5 9 �f5 �d7 60 l:tb6 iDc7 6 1 �xf6! l:te8 62 i.c5 l:te3 63 f4 iDe8 + 64 �g5 l:tg3 + 65 hS 27 :adl :eS 2S .td7 (not 28 :xd3?? 'ii'e 2) 2S :e2 29 .txg3 d2 •••

•••

Game 26

Karpov - Korchnoi World Championship, 14th match game, 8aguio 1978 1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .ta4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .tb3 d5 S dxe5 .te6 9 c3 .tc5 10 li)bd2 0-0 11 .tc2 .tf5 12 li)b3 .tg4 13 h3! This move starts a plan which refutes the whole 12 . . . .tg4 line. 13 .th5 13 . . . .txf3 14 gxf3 ! is in White' s favour (see Chapter 6, Section 4) . 14 g4 .tg6 15 .txe4 dxe4 16 li)xc5 exf3 1 7 .tf4! N ow Black must swap queens as 17 .. :iie 7 18 'iVd5! is clearly poor. 17 'iVxdl IS :axdl li)dS! 19 :d7 li)e6 20 li)xe6 !xe6 2 1 .te3 Despite the bishops of opposite colours, White's active pieces and better pawn structure yield him good winning chances. 2 1 :acS 2 1 . . .:f7 did not help due to 2 2 :fdl. 22 :fd l (22 .tc5 !?) 22 .te4 23 .tc5 :feS 24.:7d4 White's rook is forced to retreat but Black's rooks are now awk­ wardly placed. 24 ... .td5 25 b3 a5 26 'iti>h2 White's idea is to sacrifice an exchange by :d4xd5 . First he im­ proves the position of his pieces. Strangely enough, Korchnoi under­ estimates his opponent's active possibilities. •••

•••

Black's d-pawn proves to be the decisive factor in this position. 30 f4 h5! 31 .tc6 'ii'xa2 32 .tta :e3 33 'iti>h2 "c2 34 :£2 :d3 But not 34 . . . :xf3?? 35 :fxd2 with advantage to White. 35 :e2 :dS 36 :e5 The tactical 'blow' 36 :dxd2 results in a hopeless endgame: 36 . . . 'ii'xd2 (but not 36 . . . :xd2? 37 :e8 + 'iti>h7 38 .te4 + and White wins) 37 :xd2 :xd2 38 .tel :d4 etc. But after the text move the advance of the b-pawn decides. 36 b4 37 .th4 :d4 3S .txh5 b3 39 .t£2 :xf4 40 .tg3 :f6 4 1 .te2 b 2 4 2 :eS + 'iti>h7 43. :bS 'it'e4! White resigned. •••

•••

•••

Play Like a Grandmaster! 147 26 :a8 2 7 �g3 :a6 A wrong plan. According to Karpov, 27 . . . a4! 28 c4 .ic6 was bet­ ter. 28 h4 :c6?

52 :d8 + �xc7 53 e 7 . Therefore Black resigned.

• B • ••• • • • •• . �""� . �""� • • B� '� . _• % " _ . �,, + � .L � � • • a tfl'� • ;", j � •�D

World Championship, 6th match game, Merano 198 1

•••

� &. ?ai '''0' lI.

7" , , , 1&

,

" ,

" , , , 1&

i;:7}:i({:i

. • � �h � � '� •.� �. . � . z , I&

B B Il . •

29 ltxdS! exdS 30 :xdS This is not even a sacrifice as White can easily capture Black's pawn on f3 . Now it turns out that Black's rook on c6 stands badly, and his queenside pawns are weak. 30 :ce6 3 1 .id4 c6 32 :cS! ltf8 33 a4! bxa4 34 bxa4 The a5 pawn now falls. 34 g6 3S :xaS :ee8 36 :a 7! Precisely played. 36 . . . :a8 is now hopeless due to 37 a5 ! (Karpov) . 36 :f7 37 :a6! :c7 38 .icS! :cc8 39 .id6 :a8 40 :xc6 :xa4 4 1 �3 The rest is a matter of tech­ nique, which Karpov hardly lacks. 4 1 hS 42 gxhS gxhS 43 c4 :a2 44 :b6 �7 4S cS :a4 46 c6 �e6 47 c7 �d7 48 :b8 :c8 49 �e3 :xh4 SO e6 + ! 50 . . . �xe6 is now met by 5 1 .ig3 ! . 50 . . . �xd6 10ses after 5 1 :xc8 :c4 •••

•••

•••

•••

Game 27

Karpov - Korchnoi

1 e 4 e S 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib S a6 4 .ia4 tZ)f6 S 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 bS 7 .ib3 dS 8 dxeS .ie6 9 c3 .icS 10 tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 .ifS 12 tZ)b3 .i g6 13 tZ)fd4 .ixd4 14 cxd4 as IS .ie3 a4 16 tZ)cl a3 17 b3 f6 18 exf6 'ii'xf6 19 tZ)e2 tZ)b4 20 .ibl 'ii'e 7 For more on this variation, see Chapter 6, Section 4. White now has a better pawn structure but the activity of Black's pieces is ex­ tremely unpleasant. White should try to neutralise this before Black can convert his initiative into something permanent. 2 1 'ii'e l! :fe8 22 tZ)f4 .if7 23 'ii'c l?! (D) Too slow. According to Nunn, Karpov could have solved his stra­ tegic problems by 23 tZ)d3! 23 cS! This is a correct pawn sacrifice. 24 i.xe4 'ii'xe4 25 'ii'xc5 tZ)c2! (Tal) is now in Black's favour, so White has to allow his opponent a passed pawn and the initiative. 24 dxcS 'ii'f6 2S .ixe4 ltxe4 26 tZ)e2?! This natural move proves inac­ curate. Black's passed pawn now becomes extremely dangerous. •••

148 Play Like a Grandmaster!

• •� . 1. ••• W;_ � i!m. ",0 %1 ", . .tl % '�%1 i • • • • .i.i. • � rQ;; "411 � _ � • . �

'�

z. " " ,, �

��. -

�,. n

� !;;::

'" " . ,"

� -

"Nn�

. -

. " �. " _ _ u�u �. i J� . : � � R • �

Nunn recommends 26 'ii'd 2! with mutual chances. 26 d4 27 ll)g3 :ee8 28 'ii'd2 ll)c6 29 .ig5 'ii'e 5 30 :ac 1 d3 3 1 :fd 1 .ig6 3 2 �e3 :e6 3 3 .if4 'ii'f6 34 :e1 :ae8 35 :xe6 :xe6 36 :b1 h5 37 h3 h4 38 .ig5 'ii'd4 39 �e3 'ii'd5?? Korchnoi had already been in serious time-trouble for a couple of moves. Therefore this blunder was not surprising. Mter the con­ tinuation 39 . . . 'ii'e 5 40 ll)f1 'ii'd 5 Black would have maintained a clear edge, with White's extra pawn being of no importance at all. 40 ll)f1?? Unbelievable! White, who was not even in time-trouble, misses his chance! Mter 40 ll)e2 ! :e8 4 1 ll)f4 the advantage would have passed to him! Now the game ends in Black's favour. 40 ... .ie4! 4 1 .if4 (41 f3 �xf3 42 gxf3 ll)e5 ! ) 4 1 ... .ixg2 The sealed move. The variation 42 ll)e3 'ii'f3 43 ll)xg2 :e2 is quite convincing so White resigned. •••

Game 28

Karpov - Yusupov USSR championship, Moscow 1983 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10 ll)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 �f5 12 ll)b3 .i g6 13 ll)fd4 .ixd4 14 cxd4 a5 15 .ie3 a4 16 ll)d2 a3 17 ll)xe4 axb2 18 :b1 .ixe4 19 :Xb2 'ii'd7 20 .id3 .ixd3 2 1 'ii'xd3 :fb8 22 :fbI b4 A quiet position with a minimal advantage for White has arisen (see Chapter 6, Section 3 ) . For Karpov it is quite enough to play for a win! 23 h3 h6 24 :c 1 :b6 25 'ii'b 1 :ab8 26 :c5 ll)d8 2 7 :cc2 ll)c6 28 'ii'c 1 :8b7 29 :c5 ll)e7 30 'at>h2 What typical Karpov-like ma­ noeuvres! It is not so easy to bear such a play. Most of his opponents usually try to break away and . . . get killed at once! This game is no exception. 30...ll)f5? An incorrect pawn sacrifice. 30 ... :b5 was the best option. 31 :bc2 :g6 32 :Xc7 :Xc7 33 :xc7 'ii'b 5 34 g4! ll)h4 35 :c8 + 'at>h7 36 'ii'd 1 'ii'a 6 37 :c2 f5? (D) According to Karpov, 3 7 . . . 'ii'a3 38 'ii'e 2 b3 was the only chance to play on. Now White wins a piece. 38 'at>g3! fxg4 39 'at>xh4 gxh3 40 f4 'ii'e6

Play Like a Grandmaster! 149

White 's king seems to be in trouble . . . 4 1 'lVh5! "lie7 + 4 2 �xh3 'lVf7 43 :h2 ! "lid7 + 44 f5 Black re­ signed.

threats and maintains his mater­ ial advantage. 19 h3! .ih5 20 .i c2 li)f4 2 1 li)gl! c5 2 2 li)df3 li)e2 2 3 li)xe2 :Xe2 24 .idl :e6 After 24 . . . .ixf3 26 gxf3 :e6 26 .id2, followed by f4 and .if3, White clears the way for his rook to swing over to the kingside. 25 .id2 h6 26 'ifi>h2 :e4? This allows White to exchange Black's bishop and destroy his pawn structure, after which the po­ sition becomes winning for White. According to Smyslov, 26 . . . .ig6 ! was necessary.

Game 29

Smyslov - Botvi nnik Moscow 1943 1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .i b5 a6 4 .ia4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10 li)bd2 0-0 1 1 .ic2 li)xf2 12 :xf2 f6 13 exfG 'lVxfG?! 13 . . . .ixf2 + ! is more exact (see Chapter 6, Section 5). 14 'fj'fl .ig4 15 'ifi>h l ( 1 5 h3 or 15 "lid3 was better) 15 .ixf2 16 'lVxf2 :ae8 1 7 'lVg3?! An inaccuracy, which Black does not exploit. 17 h3 should have been played. 17 li)e5 18 .id1 li)d3?! This is premature. 18 . . . h5! 19 h4 li)d3 would have yielded Black better chances. Now White accu­ rately fends off his opponent's •••

•••

27 li)g5! hxg5 28 .ixh5 :e5 29 .if3 'lVe7 30 a4! 'ifi>h7 31 axb5 axb5 32 :a7 "lid6 33 .ig4 (threat­ ening 34 .ixg5) 33 :d8 34 'ifi>h l (34 .if4 ! ) 34 d4 35 cxd4 cxd4 36 .if4! (at last! ) 36 :el + 37 'ii'xel 'lVxf4 38 :d7 :xd7 39 .ixd7 d3 40 .ig4 d2 4 1 'lVe2 b4 42 'lVd3 + g6 43 'ifi>gl 'ifi>h6 44 b3 'ifi>g7 45 .if3 'lVf7 46 'ifi>f2 'lVe6 47 'ii'e 3 'lVd6 48 .idl "lid5 49 g4 'ifi>h7 50 'ifi>e2 Black resigned. •••

•••

•••

150 Play Like a Grandmaster!

Game 30

Lj ubojevic - Yusupov Tilburg 1987 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10 tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 tZ)xf2 12 :xf2 f6 13 exfG i.xf2 + 14 �xf2 'ii'xfG 15 �gl �ae8 16 'ii'f l 16 tZ)f1 is both more natural and more exact (Chapter 6, Section 4). After the text move the arrange­ ment of White 's pieces becomes somewhat disharmonious. 16 .if5 17 .ixf5 'ii'xf5 18 b3 d4 19 cxd4?! 19 .ia3 dxc3! 20 .ixf8 �xf8 2 1 tZ)c4! (Yusupov) was best. •••

A blunder. 25 tZ)2f3 was the last chance. 25 'ii'e5 + White resigned due to 26 . . . c5. •••

Game 3 1

Morovic - Yusupov Tunis 1985 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10 tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 tZ)xf2 12 :xf2 f6 13 exfG .ixf2 + 14 '1ttxf2 'ii'xf6 15 tZ)fl tZ)e5 16 �gl tZ)xf3 + 1 7 gxf3 'ii'xf3 18 'ii'xf3 �xf3 19 .id1?! This is somewhat premature. Theory recommends 19 .ie3 (see Chapter 6, Section 4) . 19 �f7 20 tZ)g3 i.h3 2 1 .ie2 �e8 22 .id2 c5 Black's edge is now clear as his opponent has no counterplay. White decides to liquidate into an ending but it is in Black's favour as his rook and two pawns prove stronger than his opponent's two minor pieces. 23 .ifl i.xf1 24 �xf1 �xf1 + 25 �1 Black should now improve the position of his pieces and create passed pawns. 25 �f7 26 �f2 �e6 2 7 .ie3 �f8 + 28 �e2 �d6 29 tZ)h5 �f7 30 tZ)f4 d4 31 cxd4 cxd4 32 .id2 g5 33 tZ)d3 g4 Yusupov considers that the move 33 . . . h6 was more precise. Instead •••

19 tZ)xd4! 20 tZ)xd4 This leads to a favourable end­ game for Black. After 20 .ib2 or 20 i.a3 Black would have main­ tained a strong initiative, too. 20 'ii'c5 2 1 .ib2 �xf1 + 22 �xf1 �e2 23 �f2 �xf2 24 �xf2 "d5 25 �e3?? •••

•••

•••

Play Like a Grandmaster! 151 of White's next move he could have effectively blocked Black's pawns by means of 34 .iel. 34 .ih6 �e6 35 lt)c5 + (35 .if4!) 35 �f5 36 It)d3 l:tc7 37 �d2 l:tc6 38 .ig7? This was the last possibility for Morovic to play 38 .if4! �e4 39 .ig3.

Game 32

Short - Yusupov Be/grade 1989

•••

• • • 8 . . . �;� . • • 1. 8 • • • • • ••• B • ••• B alba • A rtt% o u

� �

• _

"' g

B • • •

38 h5! This pawn is much more impor­ tant than that on d4 ! . 3 9 .ixd4 �e4 4 0 .ic5 h 4 4 1 �e2 a5 4 2 It)f2 + �d5 4 3 b 4 g3 44 hxg3 hxg3 45 It)d3 The continuation 45 It)g4 �e4 46 It)e3 was hopeless, too: 46 . . . axb4 47 .ixb4 l:th6 48 It)g2 l:th2 49 �f1 l:th 1 + 50 'i!i>e2 l:ta1 51 a3 .l:.a2 + 52 . 'i!i>f1 'i!i>f3 53 It)e1 + 'i!i>g4 followed by 54 . . . �h3. 45 axb4 46 .ie3 (or 46 .ixb4 l:tc2 + 47 .id2 �d4 48 lt)e1 l:txa2) 46 l:tc2 + 47 �dl l:tc3 48 �e2 �e4 49 �c5 + 'i!i>f5 50 It)d3 �e4 5 1 lt)c5 + 'i!i>d5 52 It)d3 l:tc2 + 53 'i!i>dl l:th2 54 .igl l:thl 55 It)f4 + 'i!i>e4 56 It)e2 �3 White resigned. •••

•••

•••

1 e4 e5 2 It)f3 It)c6 3 .i b5 a6 4 .ia4 It)f6 5 0-0 It)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10 It)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 It)xf2 12 l:txf2 f6 13 exf6 .ixf2 + 14 'i!i>xf2 'ii'xf6 15 lt)f1 lt)e5 16 .ie3 l:tae8 17 .ic5 �3 18 gxf3 M7 19 .id3 This is 'too subtle' . 19 �g2 looks stronger - see Chapter 6, Section 4. 19 .ih3! White's king is now in danger. Say, 20 i.e2? leads to a striking defeat: 20 . . . 'ii'g5 2 1 lt)g3 d4! ! (indi­ cated by Yusupov) . Now 22 'ii'xd4 l:tf4, 22 .ixd4 c5 and 22 cxd4 l:txf3 + ! 23 'i!i>e1 l:txe2 + ! 24 'ii'xe2 l:te3 are equally unsatisfactory. 20 It)g3 h5! (starting an attack) 2 1 .ifl ! If 2 1 It)xh5?! then 2 1 . . .'ii'g5 22 It)g3 d4! 23 .ixd4 c5 and Black is better. 2 1. .ig4!? 22 .ig2 h4 23 It)f1 h3?! This is premature and should have been prepared by means of 23 . . . 'iVg6 ! . Now White's knight ob­ tains a perfect square on g3 . 24 .ihl l:te4 Black now intends to concen­ trate his pressure on the f3 pawn. 25 It)g3 M4 26 �gl?! According to Yusupov, White should have preferred 26 'iVxd5 i.xf3 27 i.xf3 l:txf3 + 28 'i!i>gl. Now he simply loses a pawn. •••

••

152 Play Like a Grandmaster!

26 'lVc6! 27 i.e3 i.xf3 28 'lVf1 :e4?! An inaccuracy in reply. 28 . . . :4ffi was stronger. Now, according to Yusupov, White could have simply taken the exchange: 29 li)xe4 i.xe4 30 'lVxh3 i.xh l 3 1 :£1 with good drawing chances. Short misses this opportunity. 29 'lVd3? :g4 30 i. d4?? 30 i.xf3 was the only move. Now Black could have won imme­ diately by means of 30 . . . :xg3 + ! 3 1 hxg3 h2 + ! . Both players over­ looked this tactical blow. 30 i.e4?? 3 1 'lVe2 'ii'g6 32 i.xe4 dxe4 33 a4?! Underestimating his opponent's threats. 33 :£1 ! was necessary. 33 1U3 34 axb5 axb5 35 b4? This is losing. 35 'iti>h l ! was the only chance to play on. •••

•••

•••

35 :gxg3 + ! 36 bIg3 :xg3 + 37 'iti>hl e3 White resigned. Yusupov indi­ cates a nice variation: 38 'ifa2 + 'iti>h8 ! 39 'lVd5 'iti>h7 ! , for example 40 :el (40 'iti>h2 e2 is also winning) •••

40 . . . c6 4 1 'ife5 'lVg4 42 :el e2 and wins. Game 33

J . Polgar - H ubner Munich 199 1 D r Robert Hubner gladly plays the Open Spanish both as Black and White. However, in this game he was completely outplayed by the famous Hungarian girl, who is es­ pecially strong in sharp, compli­ cated positions. 1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.e7 10 i.c2 i. g4 11 h3 i.xf3 12 gxf3 li)c5 13 f4 'ifd7 14 'lVf3 :d8 As was mentioned in the theo­ retical part (Chapter 7, Section 1), an immediate 14 . . . f5! was stronger, as now White could have played 15 i.e3 0-0 16 :dl, and Black can­ not push . . . f7-f5 (indicated by Ju­ dit Polgar). 15 :dl f5! Making use of the fact that 16 exffi i.xffi is not dangerous for Black, he obtains a solid, blocked position, even retaining some ac­ tive possibilities such as . . . g7-g5 . However, he must be very careful with his d5 pawn, which is still in­ sufficiently defended. 16 i.e3 'lVe6 17 li)d2 0-0 18 li)b3 li)a4? Black didn't wish to risk playing 18 . . . li)e4 and was wrong! True, 19 'lVg2 (otherwise 19 . . . g5) 19 . . . g5?

Play Like a Grandmaster! 153 20 f3 was in White's favour but Hubner probably underestimated 19 . . JH7! (preparing 20 . . . g5) 20 f3 lDf6 followed by 2 1 . . .lDh5, with sufficient counterplay (Judit Pol­ gar). Mter the text move Black's knight is offside. 19 lIabl lId7 20 �hl g6

26 g5 26 lIgl c5 27 lDf3 lDg6 28 fxg5 f4 29 .id2 'iff5 30 b3 lDb6 31 lIbel lIfe 8 32 i.f1 d4 33 cxd4 cxd4 34 .ia5 'ife6 35 lIg4 lId5 36 'ifd2 lDd7 37 lDxh4 lDdxe5 38 .ig2 Black resigned. •••

Game 34

Kasparov - Yusupov USSR championship, Minsk 1979

Now White begins a strong plan of attack against Black's d5 pawn. 2 1 .id3! White's bishop aims for g2! 2 1 i.h4?! Black could have protected the d 5 pawn at the cost of raising the blockade: 2 1 . . .'iff7 22 .ifl lDd8 23 .ig2 c6 24 lDd4! i.c5 25 e6 lDxe6 26 lDxc6 with a clear edge (J.Pol­ gar). After the text move his bishop •••

finds itself in danger. 22 i.f1 lIdd8 (otherwise .ifl­ g2, lIdl-d2, lIbl-dl etc.) 23 .ig2 liJe7 24 lDd4 flf7 25 'ife2! The 26 lDf3 threat is irresist­ ible as 25 . . . lDc8 26 lDc6 lId7 27 lDb8 is completely hopeless. The rest is agony.

Strangely enough, Garry Kasparov has almost never had to play against the Open Spanish. This game between two young players took place in a tournament where each of them attained one of his first outstanding successes (19year-old Yusupov was second, 16year-old Kasparov shared third place). 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7 .ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 .ie3 .ie7 10 lDbd2 0-0 11 c3 .ig4 12 lDxe4 dxe4 13 'ifd5 exf3 14 'ifxc6 fxg2 15 'ifxg2 'ifd7 16 .ih6! This is the point of the whole manoeuvre started with 12 lDxe4 (see Chapter 7, Section 2). 16 ph6 1 7 f3 White recaptures the bishop and obtains better chances due to a more active position of his pieces and strong pressure along the f­ file. 17 h5 17 . . . i.c5 + 18 �h l lIae8 was re­ latively better, according to Kas­ parov. •••

•••

154 Play Like a Grandmaster!

18 l:tadl 'lVfS 19 fxg4 'lVxeS ( 19 . . . 'lVxg4 20 l:td7 leads to a diffi­ cult ending)

Game 35

Dol matov - Levi n Dortmund 1992

20 l:tdel! White's general plan consists of doubling rooks along the f-file to exert pressure on the f7 point. So, what's the idea behind the text move? To force the black pieces into inferior positions! 20 'lVcS + 21 'at>hl l:tad8? 2 1 . . .l:tae8 22 l:tf5 'lVd6 23 gxh5 + 'at>h8 24 l:txf7 is also very good for White. Black's only chance to play on was 2 1 . . . .th4! However, after 22 l:tf5 'lVd6 23 l:tefl (Kasparov) his position remained difficult. After the move played he simply loses a piece. 22 l:tfS 'lVd6 23 l:tdS 'lVg6 24 l:txe7 l:txdS 2S i.xdS hxg4 26 'lVe4 'lVxe4 + 27 .txe4 l:td8 28 l:txc7 hS 29 .tc2 l:tdS 30 .tb3 l:tfS 3 1 'at>g2 as 32 l:txf7 l:txf7 33 'at>g3 a4 34 .txf7 + 'at>xf7 3S 'at>h4 'at>g6 36 b3 a3 37 c4 bxc4 38 bxc4 'at>fs 39 'at>xhS 'at>e4 40 'at>xg4 'at>d4 4 1 h4 Black resigned. •••

Sergey Dolmatov's name is in­ separable from the 9 .te3 system. 1 e4 eS 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .tbS a6 4 .ta4 li)f6 S 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 bS 7 .tb3 dS 8 dxeS .te6 9 .te3 .te7 10 c3 li)cS 11 .tc2 li)d7 12 l:tel li)dxeS 13 li)xeS li)xeS 14 .td4 li)c6?! 14 . . . li)g6 is more solid (Chapter 7, Section 3). IS .txg7 l:tg8 16 'lVhS 'at>d7 17 .th6 White should now combine his attack of Black's destroyed king­ side with making use of the un­ safe position of Black's king. 17 i.d6?! Black underestimates his oppo­ nent's threats. He should have simplified by 17 . . . .tg5 ! (see the theoretical part) . 18 f4! 'at>c8 19 li)d2 'at>b7 20 fS .td7 2 1 li)f3? White misses the possibility of 21 .tb3 li)e7 22 f6 with an over­ whelming position (indicated by Dolmatov) . Now Black manages to activate his pieces. 21 f6 22 l:tadl li)eS ! 23 ll)xeS .txeS 24 l:txdS l:txg2 + 2S 'at>xg2 .tc6 26 .te4 .txdS 27 'lVf3 c6? A grave error. After 27 . . . 'lVg8 + 28 'at>f2 l:td8 Black could have suc­ cessfully defended, for example 29 l:tgl 11f7 30 l:tg7 .txe4 3 1 l:txf7 i.xf3 32 'at>xf3 l:td3 + 33 i.e3 h5 •••

•••

Play Like a Grandmaster! 155 with chances for both sides (Dol­ matov). 28 ii.xd5 'ikxd5 29 'ikxd5 cxd5

text move White obtains strong pressure on the kingside. 18 i.c2 0-0 19 'ikd3 g6 20 'ike3