Winning With the Schliemann (Maxwell Macmillan Chess Openings)

INNING WITH THE SCHLIEMANN

•

MAXWELL MA MILLAN CHESS

INNING WITH THE SCHLIEMANN

THE SCHLIEMANN, CDR JAENISCH GAMBIT, IS AN IDEAL OPENING WEAPON FOR THE ENTERPRISING CLUB PLAYER. AGAINST THE MIGHTY RUY LOP E Z BLACK DARES TO SACRIFICE A PAWN ON THE THIRD MOVE IN RETURN FOR A DANGEROUS INITIATIVE AND ATTACKING CHANCES. AFTER YEARS OF RESEARCH, GRANDMASTER MIKHAIL TSEITLIN, A GREAT SCHLIEMANN EXPERT, NOW PROVIDES A DEFINITIVE REFERENCE WORK- INCLUDING HIS OWN ORIGINAL ANALYSIS- WHICH WILL GIVE ENCOURAGEMENT TO ALL PLAYERS STRIVING TO WIN WITH THE BLACK PIECES.

ISBN 185744 017 X

9781857440171

MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS SERIES

Winning with the Schliemann

Maxwell Macmillan Chess Openings Executive Editor : PAUL LAMFORD Technical Editor: JIMMY ADAMS Russian Series Editor: KEN NEAT Some othe r books in this series:

ADORJAN, A. & HORVATH, T. Sicilian: Sveshnikov Variation ASSIAC & O'CONNELL, K. Opening Preparation BASMAN, M. Play the St. George The Killer Grab CAFFERTY, B. & HOOPER, D. A Complete Defence to 1 e4 GLIGORIC, S. Play the Nimzo-lndian Defence KEENE, A.D. The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory KOVACS, L.M. Sicilian: Poisoned Pawn Variation MAROVIC, D. Play the King's Indian Defence Play the Queen's Gambit NEISHTADT, I. Play the Catalan Volume 1 - Open Variation Volume 2 - Closed Variation PRZEWOZNIK, J. & PEIN, M. The Blumenfeld Gambit SHAMKOVICH, L. & SCHILLER, E. Play the Tarrasch SUETIN, A.S. Modern Chess Opening Theory TAULBUT, S. Play the Bogo-lndian VARNUSZ, E. Play the Caro-Kann Play Anti-Indian Systems WATSON, J.L. Play the French A full catal ogue is available from: Maxwell Macmilla n Chess, London Road, Wheatley, Oxford, OX9 1YR.

Winning with the Schliemann by

Mikhail Tseitlin International Grandmaster

MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS

MAXWELL MACMILLAN IN TERNATIONAL PUBLISHING GROUP EUROPE/ MIDDLE EAST I AFRICA

Maxwell Macmillan International, Nuffield Building, Hollow Way, Cowley, Oxford OX4 2YH, Englan d Tel: (0865) 748754 Fax: (0865) 748808

USA

Macmillan Publishin g Company, 866 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 702-2000 Fax: (212) 605-9341

CANADA

1200 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 200, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 3N1, Canada Tel: (416) 449-6030 Fax: (416) 449-0068

AUSTRALIA/ NEW ZEALAND

Lakes Business Park, Building A1, 2 Lord Street, Botany, NSW 2019, Australia Tel: (02) 316-9444 Fax: (02) 316-9485

ASIA/PACIFIC (Except Japan)

72 H illview Avenue, #03-00 Tacam House, Singapore Tel: (65) 769-6000 Fax: (65) 769-3731

LATIN AMERICA

28100 US Highway 19 North, Suite 200, Clearwater, FL 34621, USA Tel: (813) 725-4033 Fax: (813) 725-2185

JAPAN

Misuzu S Building 2F, 2-42-14 Matsubara Setag aya­ Tokyo 156, Japan Tel: (81) 3-5300-1618 Fax: (81) 3-5300-1615

Copyright © 1991 Murray Chandler

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, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise. without permission in writing from the publishe' First Edition 1991

Library of Congreas Cataloging-In-Publication Data Tseitlin, Mikhail. Winning wilh the Schliemann I by Mikhail Tseitlin. - 1st ed. p. em. - (Maxwell Macmillan chess openings) Includes index. 1. Chess - Openings. I. Title. II. Series. GV1450.2.T74 1991 91-20072 794.1'22-dc20

BrHiah Library Cataloguing In Publication Data Tseitlin, Mikhail Winning with the schliemann. 1. Title 794.12 ISBN 1 85744 017

X

Cover by Pintail Design Printed in Great Britain by BPCC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter

Contents

Symbols I ntroduction 1 4 exf5 a nd others 2 4 't!Je2 3 4 d3 4 4 d4 5 4 4jc3 4jf6 and 4 . . . 6 4 4jc3 4jd4 7 4 4jc3 fxe4 5 4jxe4 8 4 4jc3 fxe4 5 4jxe4 9 4 4jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 10 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4jxe4 Il l us trative Games Index of Variations

others without 5 ... d5 d5 d5 6 4Jxe5 d5 6 4Jxe5 dxe4 7 4Jxc6 't!Jg5

6 7 9 13 17 37 49 67 81 97 108 121 139 154

Symbol s

+

!! ? ?? !? ?! ( !) ± ; ± + +­ -+

1: 0 0: 1 lf.l:lf.l co

as t !:::. D

Ch. 01.

Check Good move Excellent move Bad move Blunder Interesting move Dubious move Best move i n difficul t circumstances Smal l advantage for White Smal l advantage for Black Clear advantage for White Clear advantage for Black Winning advantage for White Winning advantage for Black White wins Black wins Draw The position is equal The posi tion is unclear Wi th counterplay With attack With the idea of Only move Championship Olympiad

The jaenlsch Gambit Introduction In 1847, i n t he French magazine Le Palamede a well known Russian chess-pl ayer, Karl Andreyevich jaenisch pub­ lished the first analysis of the gambit i n the Spanish game that occurs after: 1 e4 eS 2 c[)f3 c[)c6 3 .Q.bS fS. Here he wrote: "This countergambit has not been men­ tioned by any author and has not been played anyw here. I t is a very i nteresting possibil ity, and i n many variations Black obtains excel lent counterchances. " Since then, this gambit h as been rig htful ly known as the jaenisch Gambit. It should be noted that in many pl aces the gambit is connected with the name of the Ger­ man chess-player A. Schl iemann . This is incorrect, as Schliemann used the move . . . fS only in conj unction with 3 . . . .Q.cS 4 0-0. The newly born gambit did not experience an i mme­ diate s uccess. I ndeed, the first blow to its credibil i ty was deal t by the author himself! In 1850, in the magazine Deu tsche Schachzeitung jaenisch wrote that White can s uccessful ly fight for the initiative with 4 �e2. Further analyses by I. Bannet ( 1899) and E. Dyckhoff (1902) also clai med easy advantages for White against the gambit and it seemed as though this method of defence would dis­ appear from view. However, the beginning of the twentieth century wit­ nessed a revival of i nterest in jaenisch's Gambit. It w as analysed by the World C hampion of the time, Emanuel Lasker and also by o ther leading p layers incl uding K. Bar­ deleben, F. Duz-Hotimirsky , R. Spielmann and especially F. Marshal l , w ho even risked the gambit in some games in

8

Introduction

his match against Capablanca (New York , 1909), and with some s uccess . This revival w a s not necessarily connected w i t h special innovations from the Black point of view , but more be­ cau se the Spanish game had begun to predominate in open games. For a long ti me adherents of t . . . eS were u nable to find an effective antidote against the 'Spanish torture' and the quest for counterplay was l eadi ng to research in al l directions. However, jaenisch's Gambit only real ly began to be played consi stently in tournament practice around thirty years ago, and even today there exists a certain scepti­ cis m about the overa l l viability of the gambit. The authors have col lated and researched a vast amount of theoretical and practical material in the pre­ sent monograph. If, as a resu lt, the gambit is demon­ strated as a perfectly feasible counter to the 'Spanish tortu re', then this effort w i l l have been worth w hile. Mikhai l Tseitlin, E. Glaskov .

1)

4 exfS and others

1 2 3

e4 4Jf3 �bS

eS 4Jc6 fS

4 exfS This simple capture does n't present Black with any difficu l ties and so is not often seen. However, it shou l d be noted that, by playing like this , White can force a draw at wi l l . In the event o f 4 Q-0, Black gets the advantage after 4 . . . fxe4 S .a_xc6 dxc6 6 4JxeS �d4 7 4Jg 4 (7 �hS+

g6 8 4Jxg6 hxg6) 7 . . . hS 8 4Je3 {)f6 as in Amateur van Vliet, London 1 899 Interesting compl ications can arise after 4 .a_xc6 . The game Schroder - Nimzo­ vitch, Berlin 1903 continued 4 . . . bxc6 S {)xeS �e7 6 �hS+ g6 7 4Jxg6 hxg6!? (Youthful fervour! Nimzo­ vitch w as only sixteen) 8 �xh 8 �xe4+ 9 �ft? (neces­ sary was 9 �d1 �xg2 10 �e1 + �f7 1 1 t/JeS t/Jxf2 with eq uality) 9 . . . t/Jxc2! 10 {)c3 No better is 10 t/JeS+ �f7 I t t/Je1 in view of I t . . . .a_a6+ 1 2 d 3 .a_xd3+ 13 �g 1 �e8) 10 . . . t/Jd3+ ! 1 1 �g1 'i:ftf7 12 h 3 .a_a6 13 'i:fth2 .a_d6+ 1 4 g3 {)f6! and Black won. Instead of S {)xeS correct is S exfS! and after S . . . e4 6 t/Je2 t/Je7 7 {)d4 �eS! 8 {)f3 �e7! leads to repetition, as 8 . . . �xfS 9 d3 {)f6 10 4Jbd2

10 4 exfS and Others d5 1 1 4Jd4 �g6 1 2 0-0 is i n Whi te's favour. Al terna­ tively 7 . . . 4Jf6 l eads to 8 0-0! c5 (or 8 . . . '«fe5 9 4Jf3 '«fe7 10 r!e1 ) 9 4Jb5! d5 1 0 f3! with a clear advantage. In response to the cap­ ture on c6 on move 4, Black usua l ly responds 4 . . . dxc6

with the fol lowing possib­ il ities: a) 5 exf5 e4 6 '«fe2 '«fe7 leads to the main contin­ uation. b) 5 '«f e2 fxe4 6 '«fxe4 will be examined i n the second chapter. c) 5 4Jxe5 '«fd4 6 4Jf3 (after 6 '«fh5+? g6 7 4Jxg6 hxg6 8 '«fxg6+ \tj)d8 9 d3 4Je7 Whi te has no com pensation for the piece, as jaenisch showed) 6 . . . '«fxe4+ 7 '«fe2 .Q.d6 with splendid play for Black. d) 5 4Jc3 4Jf6 6 '«fe2 fxe4 7 4Jxe4 .Q.g 4 8 h3 .a.h5

(simp ler is 8 . . . .a.xf3 9 '«fxf3 '«fd5 with ful l equality ) . Here t h e game Nicevsky Velimirovic, Y ugoslavia 1981 continued 9 d3 '«fd5 10 g 4 (if 1 0 0-0 then 10 . . . .a.xf3! 1 1 �xf3 0-0-0) 1 0 . . . .a.f7 1 1 4Jc3 .Q.b4 1 2 '«fxe5+ \tj)d7! 13 '«fxd5+ .Q.xd5 1 4 \tile2 .a.xc3 15 bxc3 r!hf8 16 c4 r!ae8+ 17 .Q.e3 .Q.xf3+ 18 1\tj)xfJ, and after 18 ... 4Jd5+ 19 \tile2 4Jf4+ 20 \tild2 4Jg2 21 !:taft �f3 chances were comp­ l etely equal . In the game Ryabchenok - Mik. Tseit­ lin, Kuibishev 1981, White tried 9 4Jg3 but after 9 4Jg3 .Q.xf3 10 '«fxf3 '«fd5 1 1 \tile2 e4 12 '«f f5 .a.d6 13 '«fxd5 cxd5 1 4 4Jf5 0-0-0 1 5 d 4 exd3+ 16 \tilxd3 4Je4 17 .Q.e3 .Q.c5 18 f3 4Jf2+ Black stood better. Now we return to the main variation after 4 exf5

4

e4

4 exfS and Others 1 t

The recom mendation of the old handbooks , 4 ... d6 5 d4 e4 is weak o n account of 6 4Jg5 .Q.xfS 7 f3. The best response to 4 ... .Q.c5 is 5 �e2! The altern­ ative 5 .Q.xc6 dxc6 6 c[)xeS .Q.xfS gives Black a good chance to develop an i nitiative, e.g. 7 0-0 7 ... c[)f6 8 �e1 0-0 9 c3 .Q.d3 10 �b3+ �h8 11 c[)f7+ �xf7 12 �xf7 c[)g 4! with a tremen­ dous attack, Kade - Schl ie­ mann, Berlin 1867. Or 7 �hS+ g6 8 4Jxg6 hxg6! 9 �xh8 �e7+ 10 �d1 ( 10 �f1 does n't help after 1 0 . .. .Q.xc2 11 �xg8+ �d7 12 �c4 �e8) tO . . . �xf2! 11 �xg8+ �7 12 �c4 �e8 0 : t S hlet­ ser - Tchigorin, Petersburg 1878. 5 �e2 The variation 5 .Q.xc6 dxc6 6 c[)eS (better 6 �e2 leading to the main contin­ uation) 6 . . . .Q.xfS is favour­ able for Black, e.g 7 �hS+ g6 8 4Jxg6 �xg6 9 �eS+ �e 7 tO �xh8 c[)f6 and the White q ueen is trapped, Ri ndin Glazkov , Tu la t954, or 7 0-0 �d4 8 c[)g 4 .Q.xfS 9 4Je3 .Q.g6 to c[)c3 0-0-0 11 c[)e2 �eS 12 c[Jc4 �fS+ Zarubin - Nest­ erenko, Moscow 1972. A l so u nsatisfactory is 5

4Jg14Jf6 6 4Je2 dS 7 4Jg3 hS 8 c4 h4 9 c[)e2 .Q.xfS with excellent play for B l ack, Berezhnoi - Nikonov, USSR 1971. �e7 5 6 .Q.xc6 dxc6 After 6 . . . bxc6 a position arises w hich was consider­ ed i n the note to White's fou rth. 7 4Jd4 �e5 The recommendation of jaenisch, 7 ... c5 is mistaken in view of 8 4Je6! c[Jf6 9 c[)c3 �xe6 10 fxe6 �xe6 11 d3 and Black l oses a paw n . 8 4Je6 The s trongest move for White is 8 c[Jf3! �e7 (but not 8 . . . �xfS because of 9 d3) leading to a repetition of moves. 8 4Jb3 is unsatisfactory after 8 . . . �d6 9 f3 (9 4Ja3 .Q.xa3 tO bxa3 �xfS tt �bt c[)f6 is good for Black) 9 . . . exf3 1 0 �xeS+ .Q.xeS t t 0-0 c[je7. .Q.xe6 8 9 fxe6 .Q.d6 9 ... �xe6? 10 d3! 4Jf6 10 c[)c3 o-o-o 11 b3 12 .Q.b2 12 h3 c[)dS t3 .Q.b2 e3! Borchardt - Grabczewski, Poland 1977.

12

4 exfS and Others

has the initiative in this position, e.g. 12 �de8 13 0-0-0 �xe6 14 �del t(1f5 15 �bl �he8 and Black's chances are preferable, C ue l l ar - Bis­ guier, Bogota 1958. 12 �he8 13 0-0-0 �xe6 14 f3 exf3 15 tbxf3 t(1f4 16 �hfl tbxf3 17 �xf3 .Q.xh2 and Black has won a pawn Bokuchava - Mik . Tsei tlin, Sukhumi 1974. ...

...

Tournament practice demonstrates that B lack

2)

4 �e2

1 2 3 4

e4 4Jf3 .a_bs tbe2

eS 4Jc6 fS

pawn . In the game Bogdan­ ovic - Ku rajica, Yugos lavia 1985, the original move 4 tbe7! l ed to compl ications following 5 d3 �b4+ 6 4Jc3 4Jd4 7 4Jxd4 exd 4 8 exf5+ liftd8 9 a3 tba5 10 -'lg5+ . After the text move there are two possibi li ties:

...

A) 5 .a_xc6 B) S �xe4 A) K. jaenisch considered this contin uation to be the best ( Deutsche Schach­ zeitung, 1850) , but in real i ty it can o n ly be worse for White. fxe4 4 The usual response. Acc­ ording to jaenisch , also possible is 4 ... 4Jd4 5 4Jxd4 exd4 6 exf5+ tbe7= as White cannot hold the

5 6

.a_xc6 tbxe4

dxc6

14

4 itte2

6 .Q.d6 Here attention s hould be given to the sacrifice 6 ciJf61? 7 �xeS+ (7 �e2 .Q.d6 leads to the main contin­ uation) 7 . . . .Q.e7. The game Gumruksnog l u - Ciocal tea, Balkaniada t980 went 8 d 4 o-o 9 �e2 .Q.g 4! tO �c4+ 4:)dS 1 1 4:)eS .Q.e6 t2 .Q.e3 (if 12 �e2 .Q.gS!) 12 . . . .Q.gS, and after t3 4:)f3 (13 �e2 .Q.xe3 t 4 fxe3 �h4+ tS g 3 �e4) t 3 . . . .Q.xe3 t 4 fxe3 �e7 1S �e2 .Q.g4 Black was fi ne. In the game Agapov Kislov , Leni ngrad t981, White took a different rou te: 8 4:)c3 0-0 9 �e2 4:)dS (9 . . . .Q.g4 10 �c4+ �h8 t t 4:)eS .Q.hS 1 2 0-0 �d6 t3 d 4 4:)g4 t 4 4:)xg4 .Q.xg4 = ) t o 4:)xdS, b u t after 1 0 �xdS!? tt �xe7 .Q.g4 1 2 0-0 .Q.xf3 13 �e1 .Q.xg2 14 �e6+ �xe6 1S �xe6 .Q.dS Black was doing very wel l . 7 4:)xe5 7 d3 4:)f6 8 �e2 0-0 9 .Q.gS �e8 tO .Q.xf6 gxf6 1 1 4:)bd2 �h8 12 0-0-0 �f7=F Petru­ shin - Lutikov , RSFSR 1986. Capturing the pawn does not advance White's cause. 4:)f6 7 8 �e2 o-o 9 d4 9 �c4+? 4:)dS to d4 �h4+

...

9 �e8 9 �e81? 10 f4 (10 0-0 is best met by 10 . . . cS 1 1 c3 cxd4 t2 cxd4 cS developing great activity for the pawn, e.g t3 �et cxd4 1 4 �c4+ .Q.e6 tS �xd4 �d8) 1 0 . . . cS 1 1 dxcS .Q.xeS 1 2 fxeS ( 12 �xeS �g6! ) t2 . . . 4:)g4 13 .Q.d2 �f2 14 �c4+ .Q.e6 1S �c3 �c6 16 �d1 �xg2+ Doroshkevich Bergin, M oscow 1963. 10 o-o The attempt to strength­ en the position of the knight, 10 f4 doesn't ad­ vance White's cause, e.g. to . . . cS 11 .Q.e3 4:)g4 12 c3 cxd4 13 cxd4 cS 14 0-0 4Jxe3 15 �xe3 �b6+ ( Chigori n ) . 10 .Q.e3 .Q.xeS 11 dxeS �xeS 12 4:)d2 .Q.g4 13 �c4+ �dS 1 4 0-0 �ae8 is also better for Black , Koz lov - Mik. Tseit­ lin, Moscow 1976. 10 .Q.xeS 11 dxeS �d4 12 �d1 ...

4 �e2 1S

Tchigorin here ends his analysis with 12 . . . �xeS which g ives Black f u l l eq­ uali ty. However, in Sur­ vil l a - Glazkov, Moscow 1978, Black decided to fig h t for more with 12 nxeSI 1 3 nxd4 nxe2 1 4 t:td8+ litilf7 1S .Qd2 �e4 16 f3! .Q h3 ! , but after 17 �xa8 nxg2+ 18 litilft nxh2+ 19 !ililet �xd2 the chances were equ al . Better would have been 1S . . . litile7! 16 �h8 b6 17 f3 cS and White has problems with his development. ...

B 5 6

�xe4 �e2

4:Jf6

6 .Q.d61 This is an original idea of V. Zak. M uch i n ferior i s 6 . . e4 7 d 3 d S 8 dxe4 dxe4 in view of 9 �eS! .Qd7 (9 . . . �dS t o .Q.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 �c4) 10 .Q.xc6 .Q.xc6 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 .

12 �c3 .Q.b4 13 .Qd2. 6 . . . d6 was tried i n Marco - Bernstein , Stock­ holm 1906, but after 7 d4 e4 8 dS �xdS 9 �d4 �de7 10 �xe4 .Q.d7 Black had a cramped position, but 9 . . . �db4! gives Black satis­ factory play . 7 d4 7 .Q.c4 .Q.e7 (7 . . . �e7!? is interesting, e.g. 8 0-0 e4 9 �gS .Q.xh2+) 8 d4 ( 8 �xeS �xeS 9 �xeS dS and 10 . . . 0-0 grants Black a danger­ ous i ni ti ative for the pawn) 8 . . . e4 9 �eS �xd4 to �d1 �e6 and White remains a pawn behind, Okh tman Shek htman, Leningrad 1964. 7 e4 �e7 8 �gS 8 . . . �xd4? is a b l under on account of 9 �c4! and Black loses, but deserving of attention is 8 ... 0-01? h6 9 c3 10 �h3 gS

16

4 �e2

I n practice, Black has had the better chances in this pos i tion, as the fol­ lowing examples show: a) 11 4Jd2 b6 12 4Jc4 .a,b7 13 4Jxd6+ t!Yxd6 1 4 f4 g4 15 4Jf2 0-0-0 Konstanti nov Zak, Leningrad 1 959 . b) 11 0-0 0-0 1 2 f3 (better is 12 .Q.e3 and then 4Jd2) 12 . . . exf3 13 t!Yc4+ ( 13 t!Yxe7

4Jxe7 14 gxf3:f) 13 . . . 'i;tjlg7 14 !!xf3 4Jg4 1 5 �xf8 t!Yxf8 16 g3 4Jxh2! with a dangerous attack, Bangiev - Agzamov, Tashkent 1964. c) 11 {)xgS hxg5 1 2 .a,xg5 e3! 13 f4 b6 1 4 4Ja3 .a,xa3 15 bxa3 .Q.b7 16 0-0 0-0-0 17 !!f3 !!deB 18 !!e1 t!Yf7 19 .a,c4 4JdS+ Vitolinsh - Lanka, Riga 1 978.

3)

4 d3

1 2 3 4

e4 {)f3 .Q.bS d3

eS 4Jc6 fS

bishop comes to cS, as it does in the modern varia­ tion, there is already a cer­ tain amount of pressure agai nst the f2 square. This can be aug mented by ma­ neouvres such as �dB - eB - g6 (or hS) , {)fo - hS f4 or even �f8 - f6 - go (or h6) . Many unsuspecting Whi tes have fou nd them­ sel ves chopped up on the kingside in short order in this l ine. Now Black has a choice between an i mmediate ex­ change in the centre or preparation for comp lex play -

This contin uation i s bet­ ter than the ones previou sly examined, but it cannot be claimed to be a refutation of jaenisch's Gambi t. In fact White must be carefu l not to play too passively, when Black can develop a swift ki ngside attack, in the manner of a King's Gambit Decli ned with col ­ ours reversed . If t h e black

A) 4 . . . fxe4 B) 4 . . . {)f6 A 4 fxe4 5 dxe4 4Jf6 Thi s move solves

the

18

4 d3

problem of the devel op­ ment of the k ing's bishop ( see At below ) . Also poss­ ible is 5 d6, w hich after 6 0-0 c[jf6 l eads to A2. In­ stead of 6 0-0 practice has also witnessed: a) 6 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 7 0-0 .Q.e7 8 t!Yd3 .Q.f6! is comfort­ able for Black , Fiebig Nyhol m , Hamburg 1910. b) 6 .Q.gS .Q.e7 7 .Q.xe7 c[Jgxe7 8 .Q.c4 c[Jg6 9 c3 t!Yf6 10 c[jbd2 .Q.d7 11 t!Yc2 c[jf4 Ilyi n-Zhenevsky - Nyho l m , Leningrad 1926. c) 6 c4 c[jf6 7 c[jc3 .Q.g4 8 �d3 .Q.e7 9 c[jdS 0-0 10 c[Jxe7+ t!Yxe7 1 1 .Q.a4 c[jd7+ Crepeaux - Lazard, Paris 1930. d) 6 c[jc3 c[jf6?! (6 . . . .Q.g4 7 c[jdS c[jf6 8 .Q.gS .Q.e7 9 c[jxe7 t!Yxe7 10 h3 .Q.e6 1 1 t!Ye2 h6 12 .Q.xf6 t!Yxf6 13 0-0 0-0 leads to equality, Bradvar­ evic - Marie, Sombor 19S7, and is preferable to the text) 7 .Q.gS .Q.e7 8 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 9 t!YdS .Q.d7 10 0-0-0 �e7 1 1 b!het 0-0-0 12 t!Yc4! gS 13 c[jdS t!Yg7 14 b!e3! and White stood well, Farah Merlo, V i l la Gesela 1968. An al ternative approach was seen in Forgacs Hebak, Prague 1973 - 8 .Q.c4 .Q.g 4 (8 . . . c[jaS 9 t!Ye2 .Q.g 4 1 0 ...

0-0-0 t!Yc8 1 1 h3 c[Jxc4 1 2 hxg4! c[jb6 13 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 1 4 g S .Q.e7 t S g 6 ± ) 9 t!Yd3 t!Yd7 10 0-0-0 0-0-0 ( better is to . . a6!?) and after 1 1 .Q.e3 .Q.e6 12 c[jdS 4Jg4 1 3 .Q.bS!;;!;. .

6 o-o This is the most common conti n uation, but the other possibi lities are i m portant: a) 6 c[jc3 .Q.b4! 7 t!Yd3 d6 8 .Q.d2 .Q.xc3 9 .Q.xc3 0-0 (9 . . . .Q.d7 10 0-0-0 t!Ye7 11 t!Ye3 0-0 12 h3 ijfth8 13 .Q.c4 aS 1 4 ijftbi .Q.e6 with good play for Black , Incu tto - Spassky , Mar del Plata 1960) 10 0-0-0 �e8 II h3 a6 12 .Q.c4+ .Q.e6 13 nhe1 .Q.xc4 14 t!Yxc4+ ijfth8 IS t!Ye2 c[jd7 16 ijftb1 bS with an active posi tion, Nezhmetdinov - Bronstei n, Tbilisi 19S9. b) 6 .Q.xc6 bxc6 7 t!Ye2 .Q.d6 8 c[jbd2 0-0 9 h3 ci)hS 1 0 4Jc4 thf6 It .Q.gS 'lhg6 12 g 4 c[jf4 1 3 .Q.xf4 nxf4+ Chis-

4 d3 19 tiakov - Ravi nsky, Moscow ( worthy of serious atte n­ 1961 . I n the correspondence tion is 9 . . . 'M'g6!? 10 0-0 0-0 game Ti l ler - Boey 1 972/7S, 11 4Jxc7 .Q.h3 12 4jh4 t/1gS 13 White played the risky 7 4JxaS t/1xh 4 14 gxh3 t/1xh3 with a stro n g attack ) to b4 {)xeS the 7 S .Q.f 4 ( S {)f3 tf1xe4+ 9 .Q.e3 .Q.a6) a decision ( 1 0 0-0 0-0 and with . . �4 he was to regret after S . . . coming, B l ack is fi ne) 10 . . . gS! 9 .Q.g 3 d6 10 {)d3 t/1xe4+ .Q.b6 1 1 a 4 a 6 1 2 4Jxb6 cxb6 11 lf}d2 t/1fS 12 4Jc3 .Q.h6 13 13 .Q.c4 4Jxb4 1 4 thd2 4jc6 1S t/1e2+ lf;f7 14 f3 ( 1 4 lf;ct g 4+ 4JgS ( Raina - Yudas i n , Buda­ 1S lf;b1 �eS , or 1 4 4jd1 g4+ pest 19S2) and now accord­ 1S {)e3 �eS 16 �hf1 t/1e4 ing to Y udas in, ei ther 1S with advantage to B lack i n t/1f6 16 4jf7 �fS 17 4Jxd6� both cases) 1 4 . . . g4+ 1S f 4 lf;e7 IS �dl 4jd4 or 1S . . . �fS c S 16 �ae1 �eS 1 7 t/1f2 .Q.b7 16 4:)xh7 �f4 17 0-0 t/1h4 1S 1S �xeS �xeS 19 �e1 �xe1 g3 thxh7 l eave Black wit h 20 thxe t + . the better prospects. c) 6 .Q.c4 .Q.cS 7 0-0 d6, e) 6 t/1d3 .Q.b4+ (6 . . . .Q.cS 7 reach i ng a position from {)c3 d6 S .Q.gS was examined t he King's Gambit Decl i ned i n the previous li ne) 7 c3 with colours reversed. Now .Q.cS S 0-0 (S .Q.xc6 bxc6 q after S 4Jc3 4JaS 9 .Q.b3 4JxeS t/1e7 10 f4 .Q.b? 11 4jd2 4Jxb3 1 0 axb3 a6! or S c3 d6 12 4Jef3 0-0 i ntending t/1e7! 9 b4 .Q.b6 10 4Jbd2 aS 1 1 �aeS, with sufficient com­ bS 4JdS 1 2 .Q.a3 .Q.g4 13 t/1c2 pensation for the pawn ) 8 {)d7! 1 4lf;h1 �fS 1S .Q.e2 .Q.e6 . . d6 9 a4 a6 10 .Q.c4 (10 16 �ad 1 gS! Black has the .Q.xc6+ bxc6 II thc4 twd?) 10 initiative. . . . twe? 1 1 t£)bd2 .Q.e6 12 b4 d) 6 .Q.gS .Q.cS! 7 4Jc3 d6 S .Q.a?=, Ki ndermann - lnkiov ' t/1d3 ( S 0-0 l eads to the Berlin 19S6. f) 6 twe2 .Q.cS 7 .Q.xco (7 c3 mai n contin uation) S . . . .Q.b4 9 0-0-0 .Q.xc3 10 t/1xc3 .Q.d7 d6 S 0-0 leads to the mai n 1 1 4jd2 4jd4 1 2 .Q.xd7+ t/1xd7= conti nuation, and if 8 4jbd 2 possible are 8 . . aS or 8 . . Marti novic - Vel imirovic, Arandzelovac 19SO. Inter­ a6) 7 . . . bxc6 S 4JxeS the? 9 esti ng compl ications can 4jd3 .Q.a6 10 .Qgs .Q.d 4 II 4jc3 arise from the alternative .Q.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 twxe4 13 .Q.xf6 S .Q.xf6 t/1xf6 9 {)dS t/1dS t/1xe2+ = Rozentalis - Glek, .

.

.

.

20 4 d3 Tal linn 1986. An alternative to 6 . . . .Q.cS is 6 . . . .Q.b4+ 7 c3 .Q.cS. Two examples from this position are: 8 c[:)bd2 t!Je7 9 c[:)c4 d6 10 b4 .Q.b6 It a4 a6 12 4Jxb6 cxb6 13 .Q.c4 = Ermenkov - Mik. Tsei tlin, Pamporovo 1977 and 8 0-0 d6 9 a4 a6 10 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 aS .Q.e6 1 2 b 4 .Q.a7 1 3 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 1 4 t/Jxe3 0-0= Short Hecht, England 1982. Returni ng to 6 0-0.

Now Black can choose between two conti nuations:

A1) The modern 6 .Q.cS. A2) The classical 6 d6. ...

...

A1 .Q.cS 6 This active posting for the bishop is currently the most popu lar choice.

7 c[:)c3 The usual response, but White has a nu mber of alternative possibi lities : a) 7 t!Je2 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 a4 (9 c[:)bd2 .Q.g4!? (9 . . . t(fth8!? is possible) 10 .Q.xc6 bxc6 11 t/Jc4+ t(fth8 12 c[:)xeS t/Je8 and Black has an excel lent posi tion, Yu sto - Lanni, Lucerne 1982. The contin­ uation was 13 c[:)ef3 t/JhS 1 4 t/Jd3 c[:)d7 1S h3 .Q.e6 16 c[:)d4 c[:)eS 1 7 t/Jg3 .Q.c8! 1 8 4j2f3 .Q.a6 19 c[:)e6 c[:)xf3+ 20 gxf3 �f7=F ) 9 . . . aS 10 c[:)bd2 t(fth8 11 c[:)b3 .Q.b6 1 2 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 13 t!Jxe3 t/Je8 14 4Jbd2 c[:)hS and Black has obtained the initiative, S hort - Nunn, Marbella 1982. In Martin - lnkiov, Gaus­ dal 1989, instead of 8 c3, 8 t/Jc4 was tried with the conti nuation 8 . . . t!Je7 9 4Jc3 (9 b4 .Q.e6 tO t/Jc3 c[:)xe4!? 11 t!Jd3 c[:)xf2 w ith s trong

4 d3 21 cou n terp lay) 9 . . . -'l.d7 10 .f)dS ( 10 .Q.gS a6!) 10 ... .f)xdS 11 exdS .f)d4 12 -'l.xd7+ �xd7 13 .f)xd4 -'l.xd4= . Martin mentions 13 .f)xeS ! ? �fS! 14 b4 bS IS �d3, b u t after I S . . . �xd3! 16 .f)xd3 ( 1 6 cxd3 .f)e2+ 17 l(t}h1 .Q.d4) 16 . . . .f)e2+ 17 l(t} h t -'l.d4 18 r!bt .f)c3 Black has the better prospects. b) 7 .f)bd2 �e7 (7 . . . 0-0 8 c3 d6 9 t/Je2 leads to a pos­ ition from the preceding example) 8 c3 a6 9 -'l.c4 d6 10 b4 -'l.a7 11 a4 .f)dB+ Kremenetsky - M i k . Tseit­ lin, Moscow 1 976. c) 7 �d3 d6 8 .f)bd2 (8 a4 a6! ) 8 . . . �e7 9 .f)c4 (9 c3 a6! ) 9 . . . 0-0 10 -'l.e3 -'l.xe3 11 .f)xe31(t}h8 12 c4 .f)hS 13 cS? ! Urzica - Hecht, Romania 1980. Better than White's 13th is 13 .f)dS �dB. Now Black could have got the advantage with 13 . . . r!xf3! 14 -'l.xc6 r!xe3! It should al so be noted that 8 ... a6 is possible: 9 -'l.c4 .f)aS 10 r!e1 �e7; 9 -'l.xc6+ bxc6 10 .f)b3 -'l.b6 11 -'l.e3 aS or 9 -'l.a4 �e7 10 c3 bS 1 1 -'l.b3 .f)d8 12 r!e1 -'l.e6 with equal p lay i n all cases. d) 7 -'l.xc6 bxc6 8 .f)xeS 0-0. This variation is of great i mportance for the

tactical j ustification of 6 . . . -'l.cS. Let's examine White's possibi lities:

di) 9 .QgS �e8 10 -'l.xf6 r!xf6 1 1 .f)d3 -'l.d4 12 c3 (Spassky attempted to im­ prove over this with 12 .f)d2 but could make little im­ pression on the black po­ sition after 12 . . . d6 13 �e2 �g6 14 l(t}hl -'l.a6 IS r!abl r!af8 16 f3 �gS 17 r!fdlt,&z--'.2 Spassky - Antunes , Thes­ saloniki ol 1988. Black's bishops and active position provide ample compensa­ tion for the pawn) 1 2 . . . -'l.b6 13 .f)d2 -'l.a6 1 4 c4 dS IS eS r!f8 16 �e2 �g6 and Black has excel lent counterplay for the pawn . Wol ff Kolev, K.iljava 1984. dii) 9 .f)c3 -'l.a6! 1 0 .f)d3 �e7 and now: if 1 1 eS then 1 1 . . . .f)dS; i f 1 1 .Q.gS -'l.d4 and fi nally after 1 1 r!el Black plays 11 . . . -'l.xd3 12 cxd3

22 4 d3 .Q.xf2+ 1 3 'i!;lxf2 4Jg 4+ 1 4 'i!;lg1 �h4 15 h 3 �g3! ! - + . diii) 9 �e2 �e7 1 0 4Jd3 .Q.a6 1 1 4Jc3 .Q.d4 12 �e1 �ae8 13 eS .Q.xd3 (good i s 13 . . . �f7) 1 4 �xd3 and after 1 4 . . . .Q.xeS 1 5 .Q.f4 4Jg 4 16 .Q.xeS 4Jxe5 Black wins a paw n with the better position, Schneider - Greenfeld, Be­ ersheva 1980. Maia de Alz­ ate - Butskinlhom, Lucerne 1982 saw i nstead 10 �c4+ 'i!;lh8 11 4Jd3 .Q.b6 ( 1 1 . . . 4Jxe4 is possible) 12 eS 4Jd5 13 4Jc3 .Q.b7 1 4 4Je4 �fS 15 4Jg3 �f7 16 �g4 �af8 1 7 .Q.gS �e6 with a double-edged pos­ ition w here Black has s uff­ icient compensation for the paw n . Returni ng t o t h e main conti nuation:

4Jd5 .Q.b6 1 1 .Q.e3 �g6 1 2 h 4 h 6 13 4Jxf6 �xf6 1 4 �dS �e8 15 .Q.xb6 axb6 16 f4 with a strong White ini tiative, Thipsay - Inkiov, Calcutta 1986 . 8 .Q.gS 8 .Q.e3 has been much tested recently . Now 8 . . . .Q.xe3? ! does not look im­ pressive for Black , e.g. 9 fxe3 0-0 (9 . . . .Q.g4 10 �d3) 10 .Q.c4+ 'i!;lh8 1 1 4Jg5 .Q.g4 12 �e1 ! with a very pleasant posi tion for White. There­ fore, practice has seen ex­ clusively 8 . . . .Q.b6 9 4Jd5 0-0 (9 . . . 4Jxe4!? is c l early a critical response, but no­ body has given it a practical test) 1 0 .Q.gS 'i!;lh8 11 a4 ( 1 1 .Q.xf6 gxf6 12 4Jh4 4Jd4 ( 1 2 . . . Z!g8 13 c 3 .Q.g4 1 4 �d2 �f8 15 .Q.c4 �gS 16 4Jxb6 axb6 17 f4 �hS 18 g3 �h6 19 'i!;lh1 exf4 20 �xf4 4Je5 21 .Q.dS �f8 22 �xh6 �xh6 23 4JfS �hS 24 4Jd4 c6 lf.L-If.L Sz napik - lnkiov, Stara Za­ gora Zonal 1990} 13 .Q.d3 c6) and now : see

d6 7 Risky i s 7 �0?1 i n view of 8 4Jg5 ! 'i!;lh8 9 .Q.c4 �e8 1 0 ...

follo wing diagram

i) 1 1 . . . .Q.cS! ? 12 c3 aS 13 .Q.c4 .Q.e6!? 1 4 4Jxf6 gxf6 15 .Q.xe6 fxgS 16 .Q.g4 �f6 17 �e2 4Je7 1 8 4Jd2? (Not w hat

4 d3 23

the position is ca l l ing for. Thi s loses time and al lows Black's ki ngside initiative to develop alarming pro­ portions. Better plans were 18 c[)e1 i n tending c[)d3, 1 8 g3! ? w i t h the follow-up i n mind of �g2, �h1 , h4 o r 1 8 h 3 ! ? w ith t h e idea of re­ groupi ng the knight with c[)h2) 18 . . . �f7 ! 19 -'l,hS �g7 20 h3 �ag8 21 g3 g 4! 22 hxg4 ( 22 -'l,xg 4 hS) 22 . . . c[)g6 23 c[)f3 c[)f4! 2 4 gxf4 �h6! 2S c[)gS exf4! 26 ltiJg2 ( Perovic's analysis refutes 26 c[)f7+ with 26 . . . !:!xf7 27 -'l,xf7 �h3! 28 -'l,xg8 f3 29 �xf3 �xf3 30 -'l,e6 �g3+ 31 �h 1 �h3+ 32 �g1 hS!-+ and 26 �h1 with 26 . . . !:!xgS 27 f3 �xhS+ 28 gxhS !:!gS -+) 26 ... �xgS 27 �h3 �xhS+! 28 gxhS �gS 29 �h 4 �f6 30 �h3 f3 0-1 Abramovic Perovic, Vienna 1989. ii) 1 1 . . . -'lg4 ? ! 12 -'l,e2 -'l,xf3

(Another method of trying to l i mit White's advantage to manageab le proportions is 12 . . . c[)e7 13 -'l,xf6 gxf6 14 c[)xe7 -'l,xf3! ( 1 4 . . . t/1xe7 15 c[)h4 -'l,e6 16 -'lg 4 l 1S .O,xf3 �xe7 16 -'lg4) 13 -'l,xf3 c[)e7 1 4 c[)xf6! gxf6 1S -'l,h6 !:!gB 16 aS -'l,cS 1 7 c3 a6 1 8 -'l,hS! c[)g6 19 �ht �e7 20 g3 c6 21 t/1f3 c[)f8? ! 22 !:!ad 1 c[)e6? ( Black had to try 22 . . . !:!dB. The move played a l l ows a pow­ erfu l tactical response) 23 b4! -'l,a7 24 !:!xd6! !Xad8 (Also hopeless are: 24 . . �xd6 2S t/1xf6+ +-, 24 . . . c[)gS 2S �xf6+ t/1xf6 26 !:!xf6 c[)xe4 27 !:!f7 +- and 24 . . . c[)f4 2 S !:!d2 + - as pointed out by Khali fman in his notes i n lnforma tor) 25 !:!fd1! c[)g7 26 �xd8 �xd8 27 !:!xd8+ �xd8 28 -'l,f7 +- t/Je7 29 -'l,c4 fS 30 exfS t/1f6 31 -'l,xg7+ltiJxg7 32ltiJg2 �f8 33 �d3 �e7 34 t/Jd2! �g7 35 �e2 e4 36 -'l,e6 �f6 37 t/Jg 4+ �h6 38 �xe4 t/Jxc3 39 t/1h4+ �g7 40 t!JgS+ �f8 41 f6 1-0 Khalifman - Inkiov, Moscow GMA 1 989. iii) 11 . . . c[)e7! 12 aS -'l,cS 13 !:!a4!? is an untested sug­ gestion of Khal ifman. 8 aJ is a loss of time. After 8 . . . 0-0 9 c[)a4 .O,b6 10 c[)xb6 axb6 11 c3 �h8 12 !:!e1 .

24 4 d3 �e8 was not i nspiring for White, Yudasin - Inkiov, Minsk 1 982. 8 h3 is a similar waste of time w hich White can i l l afford. Plaza - Schuermans, Thessa loniki 01. 1988 saw White punis hed drastical ly for this i ndu lgence: 8 . . . 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ � h 8 10 4Jg5 �e8 11 4Jd5 4Jxd5 1 2 �xd5 4jd8 13 .Q.e3 h6 14 .Q.xc5 dxc5 15 4jf3 �xf3 16 gxf3 .Q.xh3 17 �h2 .Q.xf 1 18 �xf1 �h5+ 19 �g2 4Jc6 20 c3 �f8 2 1 .Q.e2 �g5+ 0-1 . White also gets nowhere with 8 �d3 0-0 9 4Ja4. I n the game Vel ikov - Mele­ gehyi, Hu ngary 1979 there fol lowed 9 . . . .Q.bo 10 4Jxb6 axb6 1 1 .Q.xc6 bxc6 12 'Mtc4+ �h8 13 'Mtxc6 .Q.d7 with a Black i ni tiati ve. No better is 9 .Q.g5 �h8 10 4jd5. In the game Lhagva - Baumgart­ ner, Lucerne 1982, there fol lowed 10 . . . 4Je7 ( 1 0 . . . 4Jb4 i s possible) 1 1 4Jxf6 gxf6 12 .Q.h6 �g8 13 .Q.c4 �g6 14 �d2 d5! , and after 15 b4 .Q.b6 16 �h1 c6 1 7 .Q.d3 4Jg8 Black stood very wel l . 8 o-o 9 4Jd5 9 4Ja4 .Q.b6 10 4Jxb6 axb6 11 .Q.c4+ �h8 fai ls to pose any serious threats to

Black's b uild up on the ki ngside . Riefner - Bru ning, Bundesliga 1990 witnessed another fiasco for White, e.g. 1 2 c3 �e8 13 4jd2 'M'g6 14 .Q.xf6 �xfo 15 f3 4Je7 16 �f2 'M'g5 1 7 4jf1 4Jg6 1 8 'M'd2 4jf4 19 �h1 .Q.d7 20 4Je3 �h6 21 4Jd5 'M'g3 22 h3 .Q.xh3 23 �g 1 .Q.e6 0- 1 . White must be more di­ ligent i n this variation. It is essential to find a method of disrupting the easy flow of black pieces to the king­ side. 9 �h8 10 4Jh4 10 c3 4Je7 1 1 4Jxf6 ( 1 1 b4 4Jexd5 12 exd5 .a_bo 13 a4 ao 1 4 .Q.e2 �e8+ Rigo - Mele­ hegy i , Topolka 1981) 1 I . gxf6 12 .Q.h6 �g8 13 .Q.c4 �g 4 1 4 'M'b3 and now with 1 4 ... 4Jg8! Black obtained the better chances, C hel ush­ kina - Borod u l i na, Zhitomir 1986 4Jd4 10 c6 11 .Q.d3 .

see

.

follo wing diagram

In this position, White mus t al ready thi nk about tryi ng to obtain eq uality. For example 12 4Jxf6 is a mistake on "ccount of 12 . . .

4 d3 2S

gxf6 13 .a,h6 �g8 14 c3 � 4 and Black stands m u c h better. In Grunberg Parma, Buenos Aires 1978, Wh ite tried 12 .a,xf6 gxf6 13 4Je3 4Je6 14 4Jef5 4Jg7 15 �d2? (essential was 15 �h5 to keep chances for equal­ i ty) 15 . . . 4Jxf5 16 exf5 (on 16 4Jxf5 .a,xf5 17 exf5 there wou ld fol low 17 . . . dS) 16 . . . �e7 17 �h6 �g8 1 8 c 4 �g7 and B lack has an edge.

Previously, this move was considered essential , but compared with the variations we have already considered Black has great difficu lty in obtaining eq uality. 7 4Jc3 Other variations are not dangerous for Black, e.g. 7 .a,c4 {)aS 8 �d3 {)xc4 9 �xc4 �e7, 7 �S .a,e7 8 .a,xf6 .a,xf6 9 �dS .a,d7 10 {)c3 �c8 11 �ad 1 {)dB or 7 �e1 fle7 8 {)bd2 ( 8 b3 0-0) 8 . . 0-0 9 .a,c4+ �h8 Riz h­ kov - Mik. Tseitlin, Kohla­ Yarve 1983. C learly White is not goi ng to cause Black serious problems w ith var­ iations from the text. However 7 �d3 .

A2) 6

d6

deserves closer atten­ tion: a) 7 ... .a,e7 8 �c4 ( 8 .a,c4 {)aS 9 �d l ! ) 8 . . . �d7 On Schmidt - Mark Tseitlin,

26 4 d3 Leningrad 196S, Black pref­ erred 8 . . . a6, but after 9 ,C1.xc6+ bxc6 10 4Jc3 dS 1 1 '[t1a4 d4 12 {JdS ,C1.d7 13 4Jxe7 '[t1xe7 1 4 �aS cS 1S '[t1xc7 White was a paw n up) 9 4JgS ! l:tf8 10 ,C1.xc6 bxc6 I I f4! ;!;; Fischdick - Lau , Luc­ erne 1982. b) 7 ... .Q.d7 8 a3 '[t1e7 9 4Jc3 0-0-0 10 b4 h6 1 1 ,C1.e3 gS 1 2 l:tfb 1 preparing a strong attack agai nst the king . c ) The best contin uation for Black from the diagram is 7 .Q.g4! Now 8 .Q.gS ,C1.e7 9 4Jbd2 �d7 to h3 does not help White in view of to . . ,C1.hS 1 1 a3 h6 12 .Q.e3 gS with i n i tiative Wol f - Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1903. After 8 h3 best is 8 . . . .Q.xf3 ( 8 . . . ,C1.hS is also poss­ ible, e.g. 9 4JgS h6 to 4Je6 �e7 11 �c4 'i1;d7 12 4Jxf8+ l:thxf8 13 4Jc3 g S = ) 9 �xf3 ,C1.e7 with the fo l l ow i ng possibi l i ties: ci) t o '[t1d3 ( 1 0 4Jc3 leads to the mai n variation) to . . . 0-0 1 1 ,C1.xc6 bxc6 1 2 '[t1c4+ dS 13 '[t1xc6 4Jxe4=F cii ) to .Q.c4 �d7 11 .Q.gS 0-0-0 12 4Jc3 l:tdf8=F Wojt­ kiewicz - Yudasin, Panevez­ shis 1977. ciii) to l:tet 0-0 11 c3 ...

.

( Matanovic Prei ssman, Buenos Ai res 1978) I t . . 'i1;h8 ! , and, as i n the other lines, . . . h6, . . . 'i1;h8 and . . . .Q.g S with good cou nterplay . Therefore, in answer to 7 . . . .Q.g 4 theory recommends 8 4Jc3. However, as wel l as 8 . . . .Q.e7, leading to the main variation, Black has the interesting a lternative 8 . . . a6!? 9 .Q.a4 bS 10 .Q.b3 {)aS. The game lgnatiev Kuindzhi, 1964 Moscow continued 11 .Q.gS c6 12 r;!ad t h6 13 .Q.h4 gS 1 4 .Q.g3 4Jxb3 IS axb3 {JhS 16 �e3 t/Jc7 17 4Je2 4Jf4 18 c4 !J.e7 and Bl ack obtai ned the i nitia­ tive. Instead of 8 4Jc3, Tarr­ asch recom mended 8 a3!? intending .Q.c4. S. Tatai and S. Zi nser recommend 8 . . . �d7 9 ,C1.c4 .Q.e6? 1 0 4JgS ,C1.xc4 tl t/Jxc4 4Jd8 but this al low s the unpleasant rep ly 12 f4! Correct i nstead is 9 . . . .Q.e7! after which 10 {JgS is pointless i n view of 10 . . . h6! 1 1 4jf3 gS. Let's return to the main conti nuation after 7 4Jc3. ,C1.e7 7 Here the move 7 ... .Q.g4 has no poi nt, e.g 8 h3 ,C1.hS 9 g4 .Q.g6 to 4Jg5 �d7 l 1 {JdS 4Jxe4 12 4Je6± .

4 d3 27 I n the case of 7 . . . -'l,e6 8 4:Jg5 � 8 9 f4! gi ves White excel l ent play . Together with the text move worthy of interest is 7 ... a6!? 8 .Q.a4 b5 9 .Q.b3 4:Ja5. The game Petrenko Mik. Tsei tlin, Smolensk 1986 contin ued 1 0 �d3 c6 11 .Q.g5 h6 1 2 .Q.d2 g5 13 4Jd1 4Jxb3 1 4 axb3 4Jh5 15 c4 �b8 1 6 g3 �f6 17 4Je1 .Q.e7 1 8 \tilg2 0-0 with active play for Black.

8 �d3 Apart from this, the normal continuation , White has a number of al tern­ atives at his disposal : a) 8 .Q.e3 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ \f;ilh8 10 �e2 .Q.g 4 with good play for Black Consu l tants Levin, Kiev 1902. b) 8 a4 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ \f;il h 8 10 4Jg5 �e8 1 t .Q.eb h b 1 2 .Q.xc8 �xeS= Romanishi n ­ Lombardy, Mexico 1980.

c) 8 h3 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ (9 .Q.e3 \f;il h 8 10 �e1 .Q.e6 1 1 .Q.f1 theB 12 4Jd5 .Q.d8 13 4Jxf6 .Q.xf6 1 4 g 3 �h5 1 5 4jd2 �g6 was complex with chances for both sides , Padevsky Szymczak, Bulgaria 1975) 9 . . . \tilh8 10 4:Jg5 �e8 1 1 4Je6 (after 1 1 f4 exf4 12 .Q.xf4 �g6 13 �e2 4Je5 Bl ack has satisfactory play) 11 . . . .Q.xe6 12 .Q.xe6 4:]d4 13 .Q.c4 �g6 14 .Q.e3 4Jh5 15 4Jd5 .Q.d8 16 c3 4Jf3+ 17 \tilh1 �xe4 18 4Jxc7 .Q.xc7 19 .Q.d5 �xe3! ! and Black wins, Meski - Lelch­ uk, j urmala 1980. d) 8 .Q.c4 .Q.g4 (possi ble is 8 . . . 4Ja5), and now as 9 .Q.e3 �d7 10 a3 h6 11 .Q.e2 g5 12 4jd2 .Q.e6 13 .Q.c4 4Jd8 (Nez h­ metdinov - Hol mov , Mos­ cow 1961) and 9 h3 .Q.h5 10 �d3 4Jb4 11 �e2 .Q.xf3 12 gxf3 �d7 ( Mikenas - Tol­ ush, Moscow 1957) lead to good play for Black , best is 9 4Jd5!? when 9 . . . 4Jxd5 10 .Q.xd5 �f8 keeps it level. e) 8 4Jd5 4:Jxe4!? 9 4Jxe7 (9 �e1 deserves attention) <.1 . . . thxe7 10 �d5 4jf6 1 1 .Q.xc6+ \f;ilf8 ! 1 2 thb5 ( o r 1 2 �c4 .Q.e6 1 3 tha4 bxcb 1 4 �xc6 .Q.d5 1 5 �c3 h6) 12 . . . a 6 1 3 tha4 bxc6 14 thxcb �b8. The game Karak lajic Wi ttman, Kapfenburg 1976

28 4 d3 continued lS �a4 �g8 16 net h6 17 c4 �f7 18 �c2 .Q.b7 19 4Jd2 �f8=F Instead of 8 . . . 4Jxe4, possible i s 8 . . 0-0 9 4JgS �h8 ! ? , and after 10 .Q.c4 4JxdS 11 4Jxh7 �f4 12 .Q.xf4 4Jxf4, Black had a winning position, Mark Tseitli n - Arbakov , Gomel 1984. f) 8 a3 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ ( 9 �d3 �h8 to .Q.e3 .Q.g4 11 4Jd2 4JhS 12 f3 .Q.d7 13 g3 .Q.gS 1 4 .Q.xc6 bxc6 1S 4Jc4 aS 16 a4 .Q.e6 17 4jdl �f6+ S hish marev Yudasin, Leni ngrad 1 973) 9 . . . �h8 to 4JgS �e8 1 1 4Je6 ( 1 1 f4 exf4 12 .Q.xf4 .Q.d8 ) 11 . . . .Q.xe6 1 2 .Q.xe6 4Jd4 = , jasnikowsky - Lipsky, Pol­ and 1979. An a lternative to 8 . . 0-0 is 8 . . . .Q.g4 9 h3 .Q.xf3 to �xf3 0-0 11 �d3 �h8 12 .Q.e3 as in C hibur­ danidze - Gaprindashvili, Pi tsu nda 1978 . This game conitnued 12 . . . 4JhS 13 !:tad1 (13 4JdS 4jf4) 13 . . . .Q.gS 14 4JdS ( i f 14 4Je2, Black can reply 14 . . . .Q.xe3 or 14 .. . a6) 14 . . . .Q.xe3 1S fxe3! 4Jf6 16 �c4i Instead of 14 . . . .Q.xe3, possible are: 14 . . . 4Jf4 1S .Q.xf 4 exf 4 16 .Q.xc6 ( 16 �c3 f3!) 16 . .. bxc6 17 4Jc3 f3! and 14 . . . a6 lS .Q.c4 ( 1 S .Q.xgS �xgS 16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 17 4Jxc7? 4Jf4) lS . . . 4Jf4 16 .Q.xf4 exf4! .

.

8 .Q.g4 Insufficient is 8 .Q.d7?! 9 .Q.c4 4JaS 10 4JgS 4Jxc4 I I �xc4 �f8 1 2 f 4 exf 4 13 .Q.xf4 h6 14 4Jf3 4Jg4 IS .Q.d2± 9 h3 AI ternatively : a) 9 4Jd5 0-0 10 4JgS 4Jd4 ( to . . �h8 !?) 1 1 .Q.c4 4Jxd5 12 .Q.xdS+ �h8 13 4Jf7+ �xf7 14 .Q.xf7 .Q.e2 15 �d2 �f8 16 �e1 �xf7 17 �xe2 .Q.gS= Ledezer - Mal lee, Corres­ pondence 197 4. b) 9 4Jh4 �d7 10 4Jf5 .Q.xfS 11 exfS dS 12 .Q.gS a6 13 .Q.a4 0-0-0 with good play for Black, Krasnov - Mik. Tseitlin, Moscow 1976. c) 9 .Q.c4 �d7 to a3 h6 1 1 4Jh4 g S 1 2 4Jg6 �h7 13 4Jd5 .Q.d8 1 4 f4 gxf4=F Kaidanov Mik. Tseitlin, Bel tsi 1978. d) 9 a3 0-0 to 4Jg5 �e8 I I h 3 .Q.d7 1 2 4Jd5 .Q.d8 1 3 .Q.c4 �h8. The game Suchting ...

.

4 d3 29 Duz - Hoti mirski, Prague 1908 continued 14 .Q.d2 h6 1S c[)f3 c[)e7 16 c[)xe7 .Q.xe7 17 !:tae 1 c[)hS 18 !l1h2 c[)f 4 19 .Q.xf4 r!xf4 with the better position for Black. In Pi n­ kas - M al lee, Lublin 197S, Black preferred 9 . . . c[)d7 to c[)dS 0-0 1 1 .Q.c4 !l1h8 12 c[)xe7 t!Jxe7 13 c[)gS c[)d4 1 4 !:t e l h6 1S t!Jg3 c[)f6 1 6 h3 .Q.d7 17 c[)f3 c[)hS 18 t!Jg6 ( 1 8 c[)h4 t!Jf6) 1 8 . . . c[)xf3+ 19 gxf3 t!Jh4 20 .Q.xh6 !:txf3 with a winning position for Black . In answer to 9 a3, Black can also conti n ue in simi lar fashion to the main line, i .e . 9 . . . .Q.xf3 10 t!Jxf3 0-0 with the fo ll owing exam­ ples: di) 11 t!Jd3 !l1h8 12 -'le3 c[)hS 13 c[)dS (Kostro - Fran­ zen , Stary Smokovec 1972) and now 13 . . . c[)f4! 14 .a_xf4 exf4 tS t!Jc3 f3+ dii) 11 .Q.c4+ !l1h8 12 t!Jd3 c[)hS 13 c[)e2 c[)f4 14 .Q.xf4 exf4 1S f3 .Q.f6= Zatulovs­ kaya - _Gaprindashvili, Pet­ ukov Tribunalski 1979. diii) 11 t!Jdt (11 t!Jh31?) 11 . . . !l1 h 8 1 2 .Q.e3 h 6 1 3 !l1 h 1 c[) h7 14 f3 .Q.gS 1S .Q.g 1 hS 16 c[)dS c[)e7 17 .Q.e2 aS 18 c[)xe7 t!Jxe7 19 a4 h 4 20 .Q.c4 c[)f6 21 !:ta3 c[)hS=F Malinichev - Mik. Tseitlin, Sochi 1981.

e) 9 t!Jc4 .Q.xf3! and the correspondence game Prajn­ falk - Konstantinopolsky (197S/78) conti n ued to gxf3 t!Jd 7 11 c[)dS a6 12 -'lxc6 bxc6 13 c[)xe7 (or 13 c[)b4 cS 14 c[)dS c[)xdS 1 S t!Jxd5 c6, and Black begins the counter­ attack) 13 . . . !l1xe7 14 .Q.gS �hf8 15 !l1h1 t!Jh3 16 t!Je2 ( 16 t!Jc3 !l1d7 17 !:tfd1 t!Jh5) 16 . . . h 6 , with active Black play . Preferable to 1 0 gxf3 is 10 .a_xc6+ bxc6 11 t!Jxc6+ t!Jd7! 12 t!Jxd7+ (certainly not 12 t!Jxa8+? !l1f7 and White loses the queen) 12 . . . !l1 xd7 13 gxf3 . Here, how­ ever, after 13 . . . c[)h5, Black has su fficient compensa­ tion for the pawn, e.g. 14 �dt ( 1 4 c[)e2 �hf8) 14 . . . �hf8 15 �d3 �f6! Instead of 15 . . . �f6 ! , 15 . . . �f7 is in­ accurate as can be seen from the correspondence game Mik. Tseitlin - Ban­ falvi (1985/89) which con­ ti nued 16 c[)e2 !:taf8 17 !l1g2 !:tf6 18 c[)g3 g6 19 !:tb3 c£jf4+ 20 .Q.xf4 !:txf4 21 �dt h5 22 �dd3 �a8 23 c4 aS 24 c5 and White obtained the initiative. Returning to the position after 9 h3: .Q.xf3 9 10 t!Jxf3 o-o

30 4 d3

11 �d1 On 11 �d3 �h8 12 .Q.e3 can fol low 12 .. . 4:jh5 13 c£)d5 c£)f4 14 .Q.xf4 exf4 15 �c3 f3 or 12 . . . 4:Jb4 13 �d2 c6 1 4 .Q.e2 d5 i n both cases with good Black play. �h8 11 12 .Q.e3 h61 This continuation has been worked out by Mik. Tseitlin. The game Pil nik Rubinetti , Mar del Plata 1971 saw a weaker response from Black, 12 �e8?1 and after 13 4:Jd5! .Q.d8 1 4 c£) xf6 .Q.xf6 ( 1 4 . . . r!xf6 ! ?) 15 c3 �g6 16 �g4 �xg4 17 hxg4 h6 18 g3 Whi te had all the chances. Here, Black is threaten­ ing to take the i nitiative on ...

dxe5 1 9 �xd8 r!axd8 20 �xf8+ �xf8 21 �f1 �xf1+ 22 �xf1 4:jf6. In this res u l tant posi tion, the Black knight is stronger than the oppo­ sing bishop . Also good for Black w as Solovyev - Mik. Tsei tlin, 1980 w hich Cheliabinsk conti nued 13 a3 4:Jh7 14 c£)e2 .Q.g5 15 f4 exf4 16 c£)xf4 .Q.xf4 17 .Q.xf4 �h4 1 8 �d2 4:Je5 19 �ae1 4:Jg5 20 .Q.xg5 hxg5! 21 �xf8+ �xf8 22 �ft �f4! 23 �d5 �g3 with a winning position for Black .

B

Here, we have to con­ sider two main variations: the kingside. Grigorov Mik. Tsei tlin, Pernik 1977 conti nued 13 �d2 4:Jh7 1 4 4:Jd5 .Q.g5 1 5 f4 exf4 1 6 4:Jxf4 .Q.xf4 1 7 .Q.xf4 c£)e5 1 8 .Q.xe5

Bt> 5 o-o B2) 5 exf5

5 �c3 does not present Black with any problems,

4 d3 31 e.g. S . . . .Q.b4! 6 0-0 .Q.xc3 7 bxc3 fxe4 8 dxe4 d6 ( 8 . . . 0-0 9 �e2 �e8 10 4jel d6 l l f3 .Q.d7 1 2 .Q.c4+ �h8 1 3 .0.e3 4JaS also gives Black no cause for complaint) and now: a) 9 �el 0-0 10 �bl �h8 l l .a,g s �e8 1 2 �d2 .0.d7 Slivin - N adezhdin, Rostov 1960. b) 9 4Jd2 0-0 10 .O.d3 �e8 II 4jc4 4Jd8 12 4je3 4je6 13 4JdS 4jxdS 1 4 exdS 4jf 4 tS c4 b6 16 f3 �hS 17 .0.e3 .0.d7 18 �d2 �f6+ Po l ovodin Arbakov, "Zeni t" C h . 1981. c) 9 �d3 (note also 9 .a,gs .0.e6 tO 4jh4 h6!) 9 ... .0.d7 (also good are 9 . . . �e7 10 4jh4 0-0 and 9 . . . 0-0 to �c4+ �h8 II .O.xc6 bxco 12 �xc6 .a,g4 13 4jd2 4jhS 14 f3 .0.d7 tS �c4 4jf4 1 6 �f2 �b8 17 �ft �gS with a strong inti tiative for the pawn, Zolotonos - Korelov, Len­ i ngrad 1973. tO .a,gs ( 10 �b l 4jaS 1 1 .O.xd7+ �xd7 12 .a,gs �c6 13 .Q.xf6 gxf6 14 4jh4 0-0-0 IS 4jfS �d7 16 4Je3 �g8+ Teichmann - Marsh­ all, Monte Carlo 1902) 10 . . . h 6 1 1 .Q.xf6 �xf6 12 c 4 a 6 13 .Q.a4 0-0-0 14 �abl 4::)b 8 IS .Q.xd7+ 4jxd7 16 4jd2 4jcS and Black is better, Nash Li ublinsky, Correspondence 1963.

Bl s o-o .a_cs 6 4jc3 6 4Jxe5 4JxeS 7 d4 4Jxe4!? wi th sharp play. 6 .a_xc6 dxc6 7 4JxeS fxe4 8 dxe4 �xdl 9 �xdl 4Jxe4 10 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 I I fxe3 0-0+ ( Fleissig) . 6 .O.c4 leads to a position from the Ki ng's Gambit Declined with colours rev­ ersed. As we ll as 6 . . . fxe4 7 dxe4 d6, which leads to a position examined in part A ( note to Whi te's sixth move) , Black can play 6 . . . d 6 immediately.

And now : a ) 7 4Jg5 f 4 8 4jf7 �e7 9 4Jxh8 .a,g 4 10 �d2 4jd4 It �hi 4jf3! 1 2 �aS 4Jxe4! - a beautiful conclusion to Black's attack, Bal la - Reti, Budapest 1918. b) 7 .O.e3 .O.xe3 8 fxe3 4JaS 9 .O.b3 4jxb3 10 axb3 fxe4 l t

32 4 d3 dxe4 c[)xe4 1 2 c[)xeS c[)f6!:j: c) 7 �5 h 6 8 .Q.xf6 t!;Jxf6 9 c3 f4 1 0 c[)bd2 gS 1 1 c[)b3 .Q.b6 12 a4 aS 13 .Q.bS .Q.d7 1 4 d 4 g 4 with a strong attack, Minckwitz Anderssen , Berlin 1 866. d) 7 h3 c[)aS 8 .Q.gS c[)xc4 9 dxc4 h6 10 .Q.xf6 t!;Jxf6 1 1 c[)c3 a 6 12 c[)dS t!;Jf7 1 3 exfS .Q.xfS 1 4 c[)h4 .Q.h7 15 �h1 o-o; Breyer - Hromadka, Baden 1914. e) 7 c[)c3 f4! 8 h3 c[)d4! and Black's chances are preferab le, e.g. 9 c[)a4 9 . . . c[)xf3+ 10 t!;Jxf3 g S , 9 c[)dS c[)xdS 10 -'lxdS c[)xf3+ 1 1 t!;Jxf3 t!;Jh4, or finally, 9 c[)xd4 .Q.xd4 10 c[)dS ( 10 c[)a4? a6) 10 . . . c[)xdS 1 1 .Q.xdS t!;Jh 4 12 c3 .Q.b6 13 d 4 �f8. 6 o-o The natural move 6 ... d6 encountered an unexpected refu tation in the game Berger - Duz Hoti mirski, Carlsbad 1907, i.e. 7 exfS! 0-0 (or 7 . . . .Q.xfS 8 d4) 8 c[)e4 .Q.b6 9 c[)g3 c[)e7 10 .Q.c4+ dS 1 1 -'l.b3 �d6 1 2 t!;Je2 c[)d7 13 c[)e4! t!;Jc6 1 4 c[)c3 with a winni ng position for White . 7 .Q.gS 7 .Q.c4+ �h8 8 c[)gS d6 ( 8 . . . t!;Je7!?) 9 c[)f7+ �xf7 1 0 .Q.xf7 f4 1 1 .Q.hS gS 1 2 c[)dS

.Q.e6� Tarasov - Tsarev , Moscow 1 973. d6 7 Possible is 7 ... h6 to meet 8 .Q.xf6 t!;Jxf6 9 c[)dS t!;Jd8 10 c3 with 10 . . . fxe4 1 1 dxe4 a6, o r i mmediately 1 0 . . . a6 with approximately equal chances. j . Belavenets recomm­ ends the i mmediate 7 . .. a6. 8 .Q.c4+ The exchange 8 .Q.xc6 is illogical. The correspond­ ence game Schi ffers - Har­ di n, ( 1 897 /98) conti nued bxc6 9 d4 exd4 1 0 c[)xd4 t!;Jd7 (also w orth attention is 10 . . . t!;Je8! 1 1 �e1 t!;Jg6) 1 1 .Q.xf6 �xf6 1 2 exfS and after 12 . . . dS! 13 Z!e1 t!;Jf7 14 t!;Jd2 .Q.xfS 15 c[)xfS �xfS 16 !.!e2 �f8 17 Z!f1 t!;JhS Black had the advantage. A consu l tation game from 1 899 saw 8 c[)e2 but after 8 ... t!;Je8 9 exfS .Q.xfS 10 d4 exd4 1 I c[)exd4 .Q.g4 12 t!;Jd3 t!;JhS! 13 c[)xc6 .Q.xf3 the favoured compl ications Black. 8 c[)dS is met favourably by 8 . . . fxe4. �h8 8 c[)aSI 9 c[)dS

4 dJ 33 o-o c6 7 .Q.c4 d6 8 �e1 .Q.xfS

Black's chances are to be preferred here. On 10 4Jxf6 10 . . . gxf6 1 1 ..clh6 there fol lows 1 1 . . . 4Jxc4! 12 .Q.xf8 fxe4 13 dxc4 exf3 14 .Q.h6 .Q.g 4=i=, and i n the event of 10 exf5 4Jxc4 11 dxc4 .Q.xfS is also better for Black (Schiffers - Hardin, Corres­ pondence 1 894) .

9 .Q.gS �d7 10 4Jc3 h6 11 .Q.xf6 gxf6 12 d4 e4 13 4Jh 4 dS 1 4 .Q.e2 .Q.e6 in Ki nder­ mann - Geenen , Thessalo­ niki 1988. 6 4Jc3 B lack has no problems after 6 4Jxe5 0-0 ( possible is 6 . . . 4Jd4) 7 4Jxc6 because of 7 . . . �e8+ 8 cat f1 dxc6 9 .Q.c4+ cath8. After 6 0-0, Black should answer 6 ... 0-0 leading to the fo l l owing position: Here White has the fol l ­ owi ng possibi lities at his disposal : a) 7 .Q.xc6 dxc6 8 4Jxe5 (a

B2) 4Jf6 4 5 exf5 .Q.c5 The little known game Pavlov - A lekhine, Moscow 1920 i s worthy of attention: 5 . .. .Q.e7 6 .Q.xc6 dxc6 7 4Jxe5 .Q.xfS 8 0-0 0-0 9 f 4 �d4+ to cat h 1 �ad8 1 1 c[)d2 �dS 12 4jdf3 .Q.cS 13 �e1 !:tde8 14 �g3 !:te6 1 5 .Q.d2 c[)hS 1 6 �e1 .Q.g4 with s uff­ icient compensation for the pawn. The origi nal 5 ... 4Je717 led to equal chances after 6

very risky plan) 8 . . . .Q.xfS. The game Burba - Havuch­ ek, Prague 1 961 continued 9 4Jc3 �e8 ( 9 . . . .Q.d4 1 0 4Jc4 4Jg4 1 1 4je3 �h4 is recomm­ ended by ECO) 10 �e1 4Jg4 1 1 4Jxg4 .Q.xg 4 1 2 !:txe8 !:taxeS! and Black wins as a

34 4 d3 q ueen move is met by 13 . . . �xf2. In the game Goring Minckwitz, Leipzig 1S71 White chose 9 .a_e3 t!Je7 10 d4 �adS 1 1 c3 .a_d6 12 4Jc4 (better is 12 f 4) , and there fol l owed a standard sac­ rifice, 12 . . . .a_x h2+! 13 �xh2 4Jg4+ 1 4 �g l ( i f 1 4 �g3 b5 and . . . t/1d6+) 1 4 . . . t/1h4 15 .a_f4 .a_e4 16 .a,g3 �xf2 1 7 .a_xh 4 �xg2+ 1S �h1 �h2+ 1 9 �g 1 X!h1 + mate. A graceful miniature. b) 7 4Jxe5 (7 4Jc3 leads to the main variation ) 7 ... 4Jxe5 S d4 .a_xd4 9 t/1xd 4 d6 and the game Shiyanovsky - Gips lis, Riga 1 955 soon ended as a draw . c) 7 .a_e3 ( strongest acc­ ording to ECO) 7 . . . c[)d4! S c3 4Jxf3+ 9 t/1xf3 .a_e7. The correspondence game Itkin - Glazkov
o-o 7 7 4Je4 .a_e7 S 0-0 d5 9 4Jg3 .a_d6 10 X!el 4Jd4 1 1 .a_a4 4Jxf3+ 12 t/1xf3 e4 with a strong initiative, Chiburd­ anidze - Kantorovich, Mos­ cow 1965. In the event of 7 ..Q.gS c[)d4 S .Q.a4 c6 9 0-0 d5 10 4Jxe5 .a_xf5 Black also has good play. Instead of S .Q.a4, the correspondence game Kryukov - Estrin ( 1961) saw 8 .Q.c4+ �hS 9 0-0 c6 10 4Je4 4Jxf3+ 11 t/1xf3 .a_e7 12 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 13 4jd6 tte7 1 4 4JxcS �axeS 15 .Q.b3 .a,g5 with good chances. 4Jd4 7 see fol/owing diagram

7 dS is an interesting alternative. Padevsky Popov, Bulgaria 1959 con­ tinued S .Q.g5 �hS! 9 .Q.xc6 bxc6 10 4Jxe5 .Q.xf5 1t d 4 ...

4 d3 35

.Q.d6 (better is It . . the8, as White cou l d now play 12 4:Jxc6 �e8 13 4:JeS) 1 2 4:je2 �e8 13 .Q.xf6 gxf6, and after 14 4:jd3 �b8 IS �d2 �g6 16 4:Jg3 �g8 17 b3 hS Black had a good attacking pos­ ition. 8 4:jxe5 After 8 4:je4 Black can answer 8 . . . .Q.e7 . 8 dSI A natural continuation at first sight is 8 c6 9 .Q.a4 dS but this allows the u n­ pleasant reply 10 4:Je2! Kar­ pov - Bellon , Manti l la 1 976 went to . . . �aS ( somewhat better is to . �c7) 11 .Q.b3 �c7 1 2 4:Jxd4 �xeS 1 3 4:Je2! �xfS 1 4 4:Jg3 �g6 15 d4 .Q.d6 16 c3 4:Jg4 1 7 f4 �h6 1 8 h3 and Black had no compen­ sation for the pawn . 9 4:Jf3 .

...

. .

After 9 .Q.a4 .Q.xfS Black has good chances for an attack on the ki ng's wing. For example: a) 10 4:Je2 4:Jg4 with dan­ gerous play . b) 10 .Q.f4 c6 1 1 4:je2 .Q.g 4 ! 12 4:Jxg4 4:Jxg4 1 3 .Q.g 3 ( 13 4:Jxd4? �xf4 1 4 4:Je6 thh4) 13 ... 4:jf5 1 4 d4 4:Jxg3 1S fxg3 (15 4:Jxg3 �h4 16 h3 4:Jxf2) 1S . .. �gS with a strong attack Tringov - Gru n feld, Skara 1980. c) 10 ..Q.gS c6 1 I h3 (after 1 1 4:Je2 �e7 12 4:Jxd 4 there w i l l fol low 1 2 . . . .Q.xd4 13 4:jf3 .Q.xb2) 1 1 . . . �c7. In the game Kagan - Wedberg, Lucerne 1 979 White ans­ wered 12 4:jf3? but after 12 . . . .Q.g 4 ! soon had to capitu­ late. Instead of 12 4:jf3? better is 12 �e1 �ae8 13 .Q.f4! .Q.d6 1 4 4:Je2 4:Je6 IS d4 4:Jxf4 16 4:Jxf4 .Q.xeS 17 dxeS �xeS, but even here, Black's pas-

36 4 d3 ition is fine. 9 10 4Jxd4

c6 .O.xd4

Practical examples from

this position are: a) 11 .O.a4 .O.xfS 12 .Q.gS aS 13 a3 bS 14 .O.b3 !!a 7 15 �d2 �b6 16 !!ae1 b4 17 axb4 axb4 18 4Jdl 4Jg4 and Black's active piece play fu l ly com­ pensates for the missing paw n, Sudoplatov - Berezin, Moscow 1957 . b) 11 4Je2 .O.b6 12 .0.a4 .O.xfS 13 .0.f4 4Jh5 14 .Q.g3 .Q.g4 15 thd2 4Jxg3 16 4Jxg3 �h4 with a strong attack, Zhmarev - Kosterin, Kiev 1958.

4)

4 d4

1 e4 e5 4Jc6 2 4Jf3 3 -'l,b5 f5 4 d4 Whte p l ayers choosing this dou ble-edged contin­ uation must be prepared to sacrifice a piece. 4 fxe4 4 ... 4Jxd4 5 4Jxd 4 exd4 6 �xd4 fxe4 i s a weak al ter­ native. Kupfer - Gul brand­ sen , Denmark v Norway conti nued 7 0-0! 4Jf6 8 -'l.g5 c6 9 .Q.xf6 �xf6 10 �xe4+ .Q.e7 and now with the move 1 1 4jc3! White cou l d get the advantage. After 4 . . exd4 5 eS! there arises a position from Fa lkbeer the Counter­ gambi t with colours rever­ sed and an extra tempo for White. White now has two alter­ natives: .

A) 5 .Q.xc6 B) 5 4Jxe5 A)

5 .Q.xc6 dxc6 The usual reaction to White's captu re, but poss­ ible is 5 ... bxc6. The game Schiffers - Hardi n, Samara 1895 saw 6 4Jxe5 4Jf6 7 0-0 .Q.e7 (Tchi gorin recomm­ ended 7 . . . .Q.b7 8 4Jc3 dS 9 fJ exf3 1 0 �xf3 .Q.e7= ) 8 4Jc3 .Q.b7 9 -'l.gS 0-0 10 �e2

38 4 d4 and now the move to . . . d6 eq uali ses the p l ay. Instead of 7 0-0, 7 .Q.gS !J.e7 8 4Jd2 0-0 9 �e2 �e8 to 0-0, a l l owed Black good cou nterplay after 10 . . . aS 1 1 !!fe1 !J.a6 1 2 c4 d6 13 4Jd3 dS 14 b3 fld6 15 4JcS flc8 16 4Jf1 tt1g6 17 !J.xf6 tt1xf6 18 !!ad1 tt1h4 19 g3 tt1f6 in Savasky Banfa l v i , Budapest 198 1 . 6 4Jxe5

6 �h4 The most u s ual move, bu t also worthy of atten­ tio n is 6 4Jf6. White's most com mon response is 7 !J.gS with the fol l owing possibil ities: a) 7 !J.e7 8 4Jc3 0-0 9 0-0 !J.fS 10 �d2 h6= Kupper - Boey , Lugano 1968. b) 7 cS 8 4Jc3 !J.f5 9 f4 Lublinsky , (Shenmann Correspondence t 960) and now with 9 . . . �xd4 10 �xd4 cxd4 11 4:)b5 !J.b4+ 12 ...

...

...

�ft 0-0 Black cou ld get good counterplay. d 7 !J.fS 8 0-0 fld6 9 4Jc3 h6 to flh4 gS! 1 1 !J.g3 hS! 12 h4 4Jg4 ( 12 . . . .Q.g4! ?) t3 �e2 gxh4 14 !J.f4 �f6 IS 4Jxe4 !J.xe4 16 tt1xe4 0-0-0 wi th a dangerous Black attack, Zeitler - M i l ousov, Pu la t972. d) 7 !J.d6 8 4Jd2 0-0 9 0-0 Of 9 tt1e2 tt1e8 tO 0-0-0 then to . . . cS! ) 9 . . . tt1e8 tO f4 4JdS! tt �e2. Al ipov Chekhlov, Vi lnius 1982 now saw tt . . . h6 12 flh4 !!xf4 13 !!xf4 4:)xf4 14 �xe4 !J.xeS 1S dxeS ( I S �xeS �xeS 16 dxeS !J.fS 17 !!ft gS or 17 c3 4:)d3, in both cases w ith a Black advantage) 15 . . . 4Jg6 16 !J.g3 !J.e6 1 7 c4 !!d8 18 4:)ft !J.f7 19 !!e1 tt1e6 20 b3 4Je7 21 4Je3 !J.g6 22 tt1h4 !!d2 23 4Jg4 4jfS+ . Consideri ng the above material , a preferab le rep ly to 6 . . . 4Jf6 would appear to be 7 0-0 !J.d6 8 c£Jc3 (after 8 �e2, jaenisch recomm­ ended 8 . . . 0-0 9 �c4+ 4:)dS 10 4Jc3 !J.e6 with an excel l­ ent Black position ) . If now 8 . . . 0-0 then 9 !!e1 ! (worse is 9 �e2 �e8! to !J.f4 4:)d5!) 9 ... !J.b4 10 .Q.gS �e8 t t !J.xf6 gxf6 12 4:)d3! .Q.xc3 13 bxc3 �g6 14 4:)f4 �fS 15 �d2 bS ...

...

4 d4 39 16 f3 exf3 17 gxf3 .Q.d7 1 8 �h1 = Hecht - Hennings, Helsinki 1 972. Hasidovsky - Nadezhdin , Tashkent 1960, saw instead 8 . . . 't!Je7 9 .Q.g5 .O.f5 and after 10 .Q.xf6 �xf6 11 �h5+ go 12 t/Je2 .Q.xe5 13 dxe5 t/Jxe5 14 g4 .Q.e6 15 t!Jxe4 t/Jxe4 16 4Jxe4 0-0-0 17 f3 .Q.d5 the chances were equ a l . An inferior a l tern­ ative to 9 .Q.g5 is 9 f4?! 0-0 to !!et . Pav lov - Ivanov, 1 976 continued 10 . . . .Q.f5 11 g4 ( 1 1 h 3 i s more circumspect) 1 1 . . . .Q.xe5! 12 fxe5 ( 12 g xf5 .Q.d6) 12 . . . 4Jxg4 13 4Jxe4 t/Jh4 14 .Q.f4 .Q.xe4 15 .Q.g3 t/Jh3 16 nxe4 !!f2! and White resigned . 7 t!Je2 7 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 8 4Jc3 (weaker is 8 t/Jd2 .Q.e6 9 .Q.g5 t/JhS 1 0 4Jc3 4jf6 1 1 4Je2 0-0-0 with the better play for Black, Zuckerman - Lazard, Paris 1929) 8 . . . .Q.e6 9 t/Je2! 4Jf6 10 h3 0-0 11 g3 t/JhS 12 �xhS �xhS 13 4Jg4 !!ae8 1 4 0-0-0 .Q.dS 15 b3 bS t.2 : t.2 Estrin - Boey , 1979. After 7 o-o, Furman and Taimanov recommend 7 . . . .Q.d6 8 f 3 exf3 9 4Jxf3 t(1hS. Georgadze - M i k . Tseitlin, Simferopol 1975 contin ued 10 4Jc3 4Je7 11 4Je4 0-0 12 4jxd6 cxd6 13 t(1e1 �6

which was fi ne for Black . Instead of 7 . . . .Q.d6, 7 . . . 4Jf6 leads to the fol l owing position:

Here the fol lowing poss­ ibilities m ust be consid­ ered: a) 8 f4 .Q.fS 9 c4 0-0-0 10 .Q.e3 4Jg 4 11 4Jxg4 .Q.xg4 12 t(1e1 t(1hS 13 4Jc3 .Q.b4+ Vuk­ evic - Baretic, Belgrade 1963. b) 8 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 9 �d2 .Q.e6 10 4Jc3 0-0-0 and Black has comfortabl e play ( Bilguer) . c) 8 4Jc3 .Q.d6 9 t/Je2 .Q.e6 tO f4 .Q.fS 1 1 .Q.e3 0-0 12 �aet �ae8+ Durao - A lexander, Dublin 1957. d) 8 f3 .Q.d6 9 �e1 �hS 10 4Jc3 .Q.xeS 11 dxeS �xeS 12 4Jxe4- Rel ls tab - To lush, Vienna 1957. 7 4Jf6l P. Keres recommended 7 . . . .Q.e6 8 h3 0-0-0 9 g3 �e7, as the capture 10 �xe4 is

40 4 d4 very risky on account of 10 . . . c£jf6 11 �f4 �d6 and with 12 . . . cS and 12 . . . gS i n the air, White has great diff­ icu l ties. However, White shouldn't accept this pois­ oned paw n. The corres� ondence game Grabowsky Wittman, 1976/77 shows the correct pat h : 10 .Q.e3! (preventi ng . . . cS) 10 . . . c£jf6 11 c£jc3 �b4 12 0-0-0 cS 13 a3 �aS 14 dS! c£jxdS ( i f 14 . . . .Q.d7 then 1S c£jf7 and after 14 . . . .Q.g8 1S c£jxe4 fol lows) 1S c£jxdS �xdS 16 �xdS .Q.xdS 17 �g4+ with a wi nning posi tion for White, as 17 . . . fifthS is answered by 1 8 c£jd7+ 'ifta8 19 �hS! Taking this into account, 8 ... .Q.d6! (instead of 8 ... 0-0-0) deserves consider­ ation. Cardoso - Boey , Sko­ pje 1972 conti nued 9 c£jc3 c£jf6 10 g3 �hS 1 1 g4 (better is 11 �xhS+ c£jxhS 12 c£jg4 with equality) 11 . . . �h4 12 .Q.f4 and after 1 2 ... .Q.xg 4! 13 c£Jxg 4 .Q.xf4 14 c£jxf6+ �xf6 1S c£jxe4 �e7 16 c£JcS �xe2+ 17 'iftxe2 0-0-0 Black had all the chances. 8 h3 8 c£jc3 .Q.b4 (8 . . . .Q.e6 i n­ tendi ng . . . .Q.d6 is probably an i mprovement) 9 0-0 .Q.xc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 �b1 aS

12 c4 c£Jg4 13 c£jxg 4 .Q.xg 4 1 4 �e3 .Q.e6 1 S nxh 7 .Q.xc4 16 �e1 .Q.xa2 17 Z!xc7 .Q.dS 1 8 .Q.a3 Z!f7= Vasiliev - Mik. Tseitlin, Dubna 1981. 8 c£jd2 .Q.fS 9 c£jf1 .Q.e6 10 c£Jg3 0-0-0 11 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 12 .Q.d2 �he8 13 0-0-0 .Q.xeS=F Sudnitsin - Glazkov, Mos­ cow 1973.

Here Black doesn't stand worse and has many inter­ esting possibil i ties. For example: a) 8 . . . c£Jd5 9 g3 �f6 10 c4 c£jb6 11 a3 (11 c£jc3 .Q.b4 12 .Q.d2 .Q.xc3 13 .Q.xc3 is wel l met by 13 . . . 0-0! and i f 1 4 dS, then 14 . . . �fS with good play) 11 . . . cS 12 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 13 c£jd2 ( M arkov - Har­ din, Peterburg 1 89S) and now 13 . . . .Q.fS! would be strong as on 1 4 g 4? there fol l ow s 14 . . . cxd4! with the advantage. b) 8 ... .Q.d6 9 �c4 (better

4 d4 41 9 4Jc3 .Q.e6, leading to a position from Cardoso Boey , w hich is examined in the notes to Black's sev­ enth move) 9 . . . �hS! and the threat of 10 .. . .Q.eS means that White has diff­ icu l ties , e.g. 10 4Jxc6 .Q.d7 1 1 4:)b4 aS, 1 0 g 4 4Jxg4! or, final ly , 10 .Q.f4 4JdS 1 1 g4 .Q.xg4! - i n a l l cases with a Black advantage. c) 8 .Q.e6 9 g3 �hS 1 0 �xhS+ ( 1 0 g 4 � h 4 1 1 .Q.f4 4:)dS 1 2 �xe 4 4:)xf4 13 �xf4 0-0-0 with good compen­ sation for the pawn) 10 . . . 4:)xhS 1 1 0-0 .Q.xh3 12 t!el 4:)f6 13 .Q.gS .Q.e7+ Butichin Glazko v , Moscow 1986. d) 8 .Q.e7 9 4:)c3 0-0 10 �c4+ ( 10 g3 �hS 11 g4 �h4 12 .Q.f4 4:)dS! ) 10 . . . 4:)dS 11 g3 �f6 12 4Jxe4 �fS 13 �e2 cS 14 4:)xcS?! (better is 1 4 .Q.d2 cxd4 IS 4:)d3) 14 . . . ..Q.xcS 1S dxcS 4:)b4 16 4:)d3 ( 16 0-0 4Jxc2 17 tlbt 4:)d4) 16 . . . 4Jxc2+ and Black won quickly, Geissert - M ohring, GDR 1963.

ai lable, e.g. 5 4Jf6 6 0-0 .Q.e7 7 c3 (7 .Q.gS 0-0 8 4:)c3 leads now here in view of 8 . . . �e8! 9 tle1 ..Q.b4!) 7 . . . 4Jb8! 8 �b3 (8 .Q.gS co 9 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 10 �hS+ g6 1 1 4Jxg6 hxg6 1 2 �xg6+ �f8) 8 . . . �f8 9 .Q.gS c6 10 .Q.e2 d6 11 4:)c4 dS and White has nothing specia l . c6 6 dxe5 ...

...

...

B) 5 c[)xe5 4:)xe5 The main continuation leading to very double­ edged positions. However, a q ui eter a l ternative is av-

7 4:)c3 This piece sacrifice is more or less forced as the al ternatives are rather un­ palatable for White. The fol l owing are practical ex­ amples: a) 7 .Q.c4 �aS+ and now: ai) 8 4Jc3 �xeS 9 .Q.xg 8 Hxg8 1 0 .Q.e3 d S 11 �d2 ..Q.e6 12 0-0-0 .Q.b4 van den Bosch Spielmann, Noordwijk 1938. aii ) 8 4Jd2 �xeS 9 .Q.xg8 l:Ixg8 10 �e2 dS 1 1 f3 .Q.e6 12 fxe4 0-0-0 1 3 0-0 .Q.cS+ 14

42 4 d4 �h1 �gfB 1S 4jf3 �xe4! Hol mov - Bronstei n, Mos­ cow 1949 . aii i ) 8 .Q.d2 �xeS 9 .Q.xgB �xgB 10 4Jc3 dS 1 1 �e2 .Q.d6 12 0-0-0 .Q.d7 13 f3 0-0-0 1 4 fxe4 �deB Korn usevich Karpov Moscow 1967. b) 7 .Q.e2 �aS+ B 4jd2 ( 8 .Q.d2 tflxeS 9 .Q.hS+ lftdB to 0-0 4Jf6 11 .Q.e3 tf1e6!) 8 . . . tfJxeS 9 4Jc4 �e6 t O .Q.gS 4Jf6+ Ubi lava - Mik. Tseit­ l i n , Cheliabinsk 197S. c) 7 Q-0 (a l ess promi sing sacrifice than that of the text) 7 . cxbS B 4Jc3 dS 9 exd6 tf1xd6 tO tfJhS+ (in res­ ponse to tO 4JxbS Tchigorin recom mended to . �cS!) to . . g6 1 1 tfJxbS+ .Q.d7 12 �xb7 tf1c6 and White has m i ni mal compensation for the piece, Marco - Marshal l , Monte Carlo 1902. . .

.Q.b4 9 4Jxe4. Ki nnmark Baretic, Hasti ngs 1963/64 saw further 9 . . . tfJxbS tO c3 .Q.e7 11 �et tfJdS 12 tfJhS+ �dB 13 .Q.f4 h6 t 4 tfjg6 .Q.f8 1S 4Jd6! with a winni ng pos­ ition for White. After 7 dS B exd6 4Jf6 9 .Q.gS cxbS leads to a fav­ ourable variation of the text ( from Black's point of view) . Thu s White does better to resist the tempt­ ation to sacrifice a piece and p lay more q uietly with 9 .Q.c4 and after 9 ... .Q.xd6 to .Q.gS .Q.fS we arri ve at the fol l owing positio n : ...

..

.

7 If 7

...

cxbS �aS good is B 0-0!

Now : a ) 1 1 tf1d4 h6! 12 .Q.e3 �e7 13 0-0-0 .Q.eS 1 4 �cS �xeS 1S .Q.xcS 4Jd7 16 .Q.d4 0-0-0Belousov - Krikunov, 1977. b) 11 �e2 �e7 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 h3 �heB 14 �e3 .Q.cS 1S }';txdB+ nxdB 16 �f 4 .Q.g6- Belousov - Hermlin,

4 d4 43 1977. An alternative to 1 3 h3 i s 1 3 f3! ? Koifman - Krik­ unov, 1977 continued 13 ... !:the8! , as the follow-up 1 4 fxe4 .Q.g6! 1 5 !:thet �e5! yields sufficient compen­ sation for a pawn, and in the event of 14 �het h6 15 .Q.xf6 �xf6 16 ci)xe4 .Q.xe4 17 fxe4 �g5+ 18 ljf;jlbt .Q.xh2 the chances are equal. Of i nterest i s the recent development 7 �e71? 8 0-0 cxb5. I f White now tries 9 ci)xe4, then 9 . . . �e6 10 �et ljf;jld8! 1 1 �f3 ( 1 1 ci)d6 ljf;jlc7) 1 1 . . . ci)h6 and Black can hold the extra piece without too m uch trouble. Golubtsov - Anuhin, 1986 saw i ns tead 9 .Q.f4 �c5 10 ci)xe4 �c6 11 �et b6, and after 12 �f3 .Q.e7 13 ci)d6+ .Q.xd6 14 exd6+ ljf;jlf8 15 �e4 ci)f6 16 �aet .Q.b7 17 .Q.h6 �xd6 Black had repu lsed the attack, maintaining his extra piece. Preferable to 12 �f3 i s 12 �h5+! ljf;jld8 13 !:tadt! (not 1 3 �f7 ci)h6 1 4 .Q.xh6 gxh6 1 5 nadt .Q.e7 1 6 e6 �f8 17 �xh 7 �xe6 when there i s no effective con­ tinuation of the attack) 13 . . . g6 14 �h3 h6!? 15 e6 �h7 16 �g4! and Black's situa­ tion i s critical . variation w h o le This ...

deserves serious research . Returning t o the main con­ tinuation after the Black capture 7 . . . cxb5: 8 4jxe4 dS 9 exd6 c[)f6 Worthy of attention i s 9 .Q.fS 10 �d5 ( 10 �e2 ljf;jlf7 ) 10 ... �d7 1 1 o-o. I n Gudens - Schneider, Berlin 1902, B lack's response was stan­ dard: 11 . . . ci)f6?, and after 12 ci)xf6+ gxf6 13 !:tel+ ljf;jld8 14 .Q.f4 White had obtained an overw hel ming position for the sacrificed piece. I n-· stead 11 . . . .Q.xe4 12 �xe4+ �f7 13 �d5+ �g6 14 �e4+ �f7 leads to a draw by rep­ etition. However, Black has one further i nteresting poss­ ibil i ty, i.e. 1 1 . . . ci)e7!? 12 �e5 .Q.xe4. If now 1 3 !:let then 13 . . . . 0-0-0; if 1 3 dxe7 �xe7 1 4 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 15 !:let o-o-o 16 h3 �hf8!-+ and finally 13 �xe4 �xd6 14 .Q.f4 ( 1 4 �xb7 �c6) 1 4 . . . �c6 15 �e5 �d8 and Black has sufficient defensive resou­ rces. ...

see following diagram Here the fol lowing three alternatives deserve consideration:

44 4 d4 18 .Q.e5 tbf7 19 tbxb5 �8 20 c4 g5 21 b4 a6 22 tbc5 and White soon won. 11 tbhS+ g6 12 �eS+ '3;f7 13 tbxh8 13 �dS+ i s a mistake on account of 13 ... '3;g7! 1 4 �xe4 .Q.xd6 and i f 1 3 �xe4 then 13 . . . .Q.xd6 and Black beats off the attack, re­ mai ning with an extra piece.

Bt> 10 o-o B2) 10 tbd4 B3) 10 �5 If instead 10 tbe2, 10 . . . '3;f7 i s a good reply, e.g. 1 1 .Q.g5 tba5+ 1 2 .Q.d2 b4 1 3 0-0 ci:)xe4 14 �xe4 .Q.xd6 15 a3 tbf5 16 tbh4 bxa3 0 : 1 Ross­ mann - Mohring, GDR 1982.

B1 10 o-o ci:)xe 4 According to Keres , 10 . .. 'l/f7 11 .Q.g5 .Q.f5 deserves attention . However, doubt­ ful is 10 ... .Q.fS?I i n view of 11 ci:)xf6+ �xf6 12 !ie1+ '3;f7 (after 12 . . . '3;d8 13 .Q.f4 �c8 14 tbd5 h6 15 !iad1 .Q.d7 16 .Q.e5 tbg6 17 tbxb7 .Q.c6 18 tbc7+! Whi te wins) 13 tbd5+ '3;g6 14 .Q.f4! �dB 15 �ad1 !id7 16 lle3. The game Pinter - Sze l l , H ungary 1971 con­ tinued 16 ... h6 17 lld4! '3;h7

13 ... ci:)f61 This, the s uggestion of Kurt Bardeleben ensures Black the advantage in al l variations. Others are l ess i mpressive, e.g. a) 13 ... tbd6 14 tbxh7+ .Qg7 15 .Q.h6 tbfB (15 ... tbf6 16 llfe1 ci:)g5 and now Whi te gest the advantage with 17 �e7+! '3;xe7 18 .Q.xg5 tbxg5 19 tbxg7+) 16 �ad1 ci:)f6 ( noth­ ing else is satisfactory either, e.g. 16 . . . .Qg 4 17 f3;. 16 ... .Q.f5 17 g4!; 16 . . . .Q.e6 17

4 d4 4S �fet) 17 t/!lxg7+ t/!lxg7 1 B .Q.xg7 �xg7 1 9 �dB ! b6 20 �fd1 �f7 21 f3 +- Karlsson Jansson, Uppsala 1971. b) 13 t/!lf61? 14 t/!lxh7+ .a,g7 1 S .Q.h6 and White has reasonable c hances. 14 .Q.g5 14 .Q.h6 .Q.e6 IS t/!lxfB+ �xfB 16 .Q.xfB �xfB 17 �ad1 �dB and White loses a pawn . 14 . . . .Q.e6 Gipslis recom mends 14 ... ,O.f5 IS �adl .Q.g7. 15 �ad1 After 15 .Q.xf6 t/!lxf6 16 t/!lxh7+ .a,g7 and 1 7 . . . �hB, White loses the queen. 1S .Q.g7 16 t/!lxdB �xdB 17 �fe1 Mal l ee - Parma , Mannheim 197S. Now the simplest for Black w as 17 .. . .Q.fBI 18 .Q.f4 c£)d5 With a w i n ning position for B lack ( B . Parma) ...

B2 10 see

t/!ld4

follo wing diagram

1 1 .Q.f4 is weaker, e.g. 1 1 0-0 and now 1 2 0-0-0 ( 12 t/!leS �eB! 13 0-0-0 .Q.fB 14 c£)xf6+ gxf6+ Honos - Hor­ vath, Hu ngary 1976) 12 . . . c£)xe4 1 3 t/!lxe4 �xf4! 1 4 t/!lxe7 ( 1 4 dxe7 �xd1+ 1S �xd1 �xe4) 14 . . . .Q.d7 I S f3 �cB 16 �hel �fc4 17 c3 b4 1B �e4 �xe4 19 fxe4 bxc3 20 t/!lxdB+ �xdB 21 bxc3 �f7-+ Buiakovich - Mik. Ts­ eitlin, Moscow 1 989) w hen Black has two ways to play: a) 11 .Q.f5 12 0-0-0 ( 12 c£)g3? .Q.xc2 13 t/!ld2 .Q.xd6! 1 4 t/!Jxc2 .Q.b4+ + ) 12 . . . .Q.xe4 13 �hel t/!lxd6 (13 ... 0-0 1 4 dxe7 t/!lxe7 1S .Q.xf6 t/!lxf6 = ) 14 t/!lxd6 .Q.xd6 1S r;txd6 0-0 16 .Q.xf6 .Q.xg2 and a draw fol l owed q uick ly in Hal if­ man - Glek, Leni ngrad 19B5. b) 11 h6 12 .Q.h4 .Q.f5 (Gipsl is offers 12 . . . gS 13 .Q.g3 .Q.f5 1 4 c£)c3 �f7 15 0-0-0 .Q.fB as a double...

...

10 . . . c£)xe4 A l so seen here is 10 .Q.e7 11 .Q.gS! (the al ternative ...

46 4 d4 edged continuation) 13 0-0-0 < Diaz - Rodriguez, Havana 1 982) 13 . . . g5! 1 4 �he1 �f7 1 5 4:Jxg5+! (acc­ ording to Rodriguez, after 15 4:Jg3 .a_xd6! 16 4:)xf5 .a_f4+ 17 �b1 �xd4 18 �xd4 �ae8 White cannot avoid mater­ ial l osses) 15 . .. hxgS 16 �xe7+ �g6 ( not 16 . . . �xe?? 17 dxe7 gxh 4 1 8 �e5 ± ) 17 .a_xgS �xgS 18 �e3+ with an attack s u fficient for eq ual­ ity . 11 �xe4+ �f7 12 .a_f4 12 �dS+ .a_e6 (if 12 . . . �g6 13 g4 is unpleasant) 13 �xb7+ �g8 ( 13 . . . �g6 1 4 h 4 h S ! 15 .a_g5 �aS+ 16 .a_d2 �dB 17 .a_gs= > 1 4 .a_f4 �b8 15 �e4 �d7 16 0-0= Z uidema - van Sch u ur, Siegen 1970. 12 ... �e8 13 .a_es .a_xd6 Be lousov - Meshkov, 1978 saw 13 . . . �c6 1 4 �f4+ �g8 15 0-0 (better 15 0-0-0!) and after 15 . . . hS 16 �ad1 �h6 17 �gS .a_d7 Black had a comfortable extra piece. see

15 �xd6 �xd6 16 .a_xd6 �e8+ 17 �f1 .a_rs Gonzales - Montalvo, Cuba 1978. Despite the paw n deficit, the endgame is favourable for Black . B3 10 .a_gs This modern conti nuation is the strongest. 10 ... �aS+

follo wing diagram

14 �dS+ 14 �f3+ �e6! 15 0-0-0 .a_xeS 16 �he1 �fB=F 14 . . . �e6

Unimpressive is 10 ... .a_fS 11 .a_xf6 gxf6 12 �hS+ .a_g6 13 �xb5+ �f7 14 �xb7+ +- as

4 d4 47 mentioned by Bardeleben in 1904 and seen i n the game Contendini, Robatsch Leipzig 1960. 11 cf)c31 This move breathes new life i nto the variation. Weaker is 11 .Q.d2 b4 12 �e2 (12 cf)xf6+ gxf6 13 0-0, Gri mmens htein - Bardele­ ben, Berl in 1904 and now with 13 . . . .Q.d7 ! 14 �e1+ rtfjlf7 1S a3 .Q.c6 16 .Q.xb4 �gS Black wou l d get the advan­ tage) 12 . . . �eS 13 cf)xf6+ gxf6 14 �xeS+ fxeS IS .a.xb4 �g8 16 0-0-0 Wttle better is 16 �d1 �g 4! 17 .Q.a3 �e4+ 18 rtfjlf1 .Q.d7 -+ Barry - Mar­ s hal l , Cambridge Springs 1904) 16 . . . .Q.h6+ 17 .Q.d2 .Q.xd2+ 18 !!xd2 !!xg2 19 �e1 .Q.e6 20 f4 !!xd2 21 �xd2 e4! 22 �xe4 �d7 and Black soon won, Banas - Tatai, Stip 1979. 11 b4 11 . .Q.d7 12 .Q.xf6 gxf6 13 �hS+ �d8 1 4 '/!hf7 .Q.xd6 1S 0-0-0;!; 11 ... .Q.e6 12 �e2 �d7 13 0-0 b4 1 4 .Q.xf6! bxc3 1S .Q.xc3 '/!hfS 16 .Q.eSt In the l atter variation, 12 .Q.xf6!? was seen in Bush­ uiev - Chudakov , 1983. The continuation was 12 . . . gxf6 13 �hS+ �d7 ( 13 . . . .Q.f7 1 4 ..

d7+ �e7 1S '/!he2+ keeps the attack going) 14 0-0-0 nc8 IS �het �xc3 16 �xe6! .Q.h6+ 17 '/!hxh6! �xc2+ 18 rtfjlxc2 '/!ha4+ 19 �d2 �b4+ 20 �e2 +12 .Q.xf6 gxf6 13 cf)dS Not 13 0-0 bxc3 1 4 net+ rtfjld8 and Black is defendin g. 13 b3+

13 . . .Q.e6 1 4 '/!hhS+ (14 cf)c7+ rtfjlf7 1S 4Jxa8 �eS+ 16 '/!he2 .Q.xd6:f ) 14 . . . rtfjld8 IS o-o-o b3! ( m uch weaker is tS ... !!g8?! 16 d7!! .Q.d6 17 nhet .Q.eS 18 nxeS fxeS 19 �h4+ rtti'x d7 20 �e7+ �c6 21 �xe6+ �bS 22 cf)c3+ 1 : 0 Glek - jandemi rov , 1983) 16 cxb3 ( 16 axb3 .Q.xdS ( 16 . . . '/!hal+ 17 �d2 �xb2= o r 17 . . . �aS+- } 17 �xdS �at+ {not 17 ... .Q.h6+? 18 rtfjlb1 � 18 �d2 '/!hxht 19 �f7 !!c8 leads to a draw) 16 . . . �c8+ 17 �b1 ncs 18 �h4! ( 18 d7 .Q.e7 and 18 .

48 4 d4 b4 .Q.xdS 19 bxaS .Q.e4+ are u nacceptabl e for White) 1 8 . . . .Q.xdS 19 �xf6+ \ftd7 20 �xdS! �xdS 21 �xh8 = Returning t o the diagram position, Pi skov - jandem­ irov, 1984 now continued . . . .Q.e61 14 c3 15 0Jc7+ \ftd7 16 o-o .Q.xd6 17 0Jxe6 �eSI 18 g3 �xe6 19 !!e1?1 t!Jf7

20 a.xb3 !!he81? 21 �xe8 And now with 21 ... �xe81 22 �xa 7 \ftc? 23 b4 t/Je6 Black would have got a defi nite advantage. Instead of the inaccurate 19 !!e1 , 19 a.xb3 \ftc? (19 . . . !!he8!?) 20 �e1 (20 b4!?) 20 . . t!Jf7 21 t/Jd4 should have been tried when White sti l l preserves some counter­ chances . .

5) 4 �c3 �f6 and 4 . . . Others

1 2 3 4

e4 4:Jf3 -'l_bS 4:Jc3

eS 4:Jc6 fS

It shou l d not be difficu l t t o convince t h e reader that al l the prev ious variations presented few problems for Black i n obtaining good play . The move 4 4:Jc3 is the most common response to 3 .. . fS and the one that presents Black with the most di fficu l ties . The re­ mai ning chapters of this book are concerned with

play after this move. In this chapter, we spec­ ifical ly consider the reply 4 . . . 4:jf6. The sixth chapter dea ls with 4 . . . 4:jd4 and the final three with the most popular continuation, 4 . . . fxe4 5 4:Jxe4 . 4 . . . 4:jf6 is an interesting way for Black to try to steer clear of the heavy theory associated with some variations beginning with 4 . . . dxe4. Bl ack main­ tain s flexibility whi lst in­ creasing the pressure ag­ ainst White's cen tre. The drawback is that White can consider the capture exfS, either immediately or in the near future, attempting to play a 'King's Gambit Ac­ cepted' strategy . The 4 . . . 4:jf6 variation al most al­ ways invol ves the sacrifice of a paw n for the i nitiati ve, but if Black players were

SO 4 4)c3 4)f6 and 4 . Others . .

afraid to fol low s uch a strategy , they woul d be u n l i kely to be playing the Schl iemann in the first place! Other possibil ities for Black on the fourth move: 4 .Q.c5 proves unsatis­ factory fol lowing S 0-0 4:Jf6 6 4:JxeS! 0-0 7 -'l,c4+ dS 8 4:JxdS 4:Jxe5 9 4:Jxf6+ 'ifth8 10 4:Jxh7 4:Jxc4 1 1 �hS �e8 12 �h 4 'iftg8 13 4:JgS �g6 1 4 exfS �xfS 15 �xc4+ 'ifth8 16 d4+- Karajants - Dobro­ jev ic, Belgrade 1 956. Kaiser's move, 4 ... -'l,b41? is more deservi ng of atten­ tion, e.g. a) 5 4:Jd5? fxe4 6 4:Jxb4 exf3 7 .Q.xc6 bxc6 8 �xf3 4:Jf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 a4 as; Su ndstrom - Kaiser, Stock­ ho l m 1947. b) 5 d3 fxe4 6 dxe4 4:Jf6 is a position that was ex­ amined i n chapter three. c) 5 �e2 -'l,xc3 6 dxc3 d6 7 exfS -'l,xfS 8 .QgS 4:Jf6 9 0-0-0 �e7! 1 0 �c4 .Q.d7 1 1 �he1 h6! 1 2 -'l,h4 0-0-0 1 3 4:]d4 ( Skold - Kaiser, Stock­ hol m 1951) 13 . . . 4:Jb8! with a complex game. d) 5 exf51 4:Jge7!? 6 f6! ( not 6 d4? e4 7 4:Jg5 4:Jxf5 8 d5 e3! 9 dxc6 bxc6 10 -'l,xc6 ( 1 0 4:Je6 �f6!) 1 0 . . . �f6 1 1

-'l,xa8 -'l,xc3+ - + , Kaiser) 6 . . . gxf6 7 d4± 4 4:Jf6

...

Now we consider:

A) 5 �e2 B) 5 exf5 Others are harm less: a) 5 -'l,xc6 bxco 6 �e2 (6 4:JxeS -'l,a6) 6 . . . dS 7 exfS .Q.d6 8 4:JxeS 0-0 9 4:Jxc6 �d7 10 �e6+ 'ifth8 11 �xd7 -'l,xd7=F Lublinski - Stei n, Moscow 1 955. b) 5 d4 exd4 (5 . . . fxe4 6 4:Jxe5 -'l,b4 is also possible) 6 4:Jxd4 fxe4 7 0-0 4:Jxd4 8 �xd4 c6 9 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 10 �xe4+ �e7, and after the exchange of queens the chances will be about equal. Instead in Bilek - Barcza, Budapest 1954, Whi te de­ cided to sacrifice a piece with 11 �f3? but after 11 . . . cxb5 12 -'l,f4 d S 13 �fet .Q.e6

4 tf)c3 tf)£6 and 4 had i ns ufficient sation.

compen­

A

5

�e2

Here two responses are possible:

At) 5 ... 4Jd4 A2) 5 ... �c5 At 5 4Jd4 Mars ha l l 's pet variation, w hich he successfu l ly em­ ployed i n his match agai nst Capabl anca ( New York, 1909 ) . 6 c£)xd4 exd4

. . .

Others 51

- Mars hal J , Monte Carlo 1903 went 9 4Jbt (9 c£)dt �e7 (9 . . . �gS!?) 10 c3 c6 1 1 �d3 ( 1 1 �c4 also fai led to pose Black any prob lems in Gru nfeld - Rodriguez , New York Open 1987. Fol lowing 1 1 . . . dS 12 exd6 �xe2+ 13 �xe2 c£)f7 14 �et c£)xd6 tS �ft+ �e7 1 6 d3 4Jxc4 17 dxc4 lftf7 1 8 cxd4 �f6 19 d5 cxdS 20 cxdS �d8 21 c£)c3 bS 22 a3 �b7 23 �e3 the game was agreed drawn) tl . . . dxc3 ( 1 1 . . . dS!? 12 cxd4 t!Yb4 13 t!Ye3 gS!) 12 dxc3 4:Jf7 13 �xfS ( 1 3 0-0 d6) 13 . . . �xeS= Spassky - Bisgu ier, Gate­ borg 1955) 9 . . . �gS 10 0-0 c6 1 1 �c4 f4 12 d3 dS! 13 exd6+ lftd8! 14 4:jd2! �xh3 15 �f3 �f5 16 c£)e4 �xe4 17 dxe4 �xd6 18 c3 d3! with a balanced position . 7 �e7 a 4Je4! o-o 9 c£)xf6+ �xf6 d5 to o-o

see follo wing diagram

7 exf5+ 7 4Jd5 c£)xd5 8 exdS+ �e7 9 0-0 �xe2 tO �xe2 �e7 " = " ( ECO) 7 e5 leads to i nteresting compl ications after 7 . . . 4Jg4 8 h3 c£)h6. Teichmann

Thi s variation was tested out in the Capabl anca Mars hall match mentioned above. 11 �h5 11 �d3 is inferior to the text, e.g. 11 . . . cS 1 2 �hS

52 4 fjc3 fjf6 and 4

. . .

Others

t/Je7 13 c4! dxc4 1 4 .Q.xc4+ �h8 IS d3 t!JeS lo g4 .Q.d7 17 a4 was the second match game. Now with 17 . . . .Q.c6 or 17 . . . t!Je2, Marshal l could have obtai ned good play . 11 cS 11 .Q.eS 12 .Q.d3 �f6 in­ tendi ng to swing the rook is worth consideration. �e8 12 .Q.e2 12 .Q.eS 13 g4 d3! 1 4 .Q.xd3 �f6, and 1 2 . . . t!JeB 13 t!Jf3 t!JeS 14 g 4 .Q.d8 also offer good chances for Black . 13 !l.g4 d31 b6=F 14 cxd3 Capabl anca - Marshal l , also from their New York 1909 match ( 1 0th game). Black clearly has the more comfortable position. . . .

...

A2

6 exfS 6 d3 4jd 4 7 4Jxd4 .Q.xd 4 8 .Q.c4 f4 9 g3 f3! 10 t!Jxf3 dS I I exdS 0-0 1 2 t/Je2 !l.g 4 13 f3 4je4! with strong threats for Black , Wolf - Nimzo­ wi tsch , Berl in 1905. 6 t/Je7 7 d3 Tak ing the second paw n doesn't l ead anyw here for White , e . g . 7 ,O,xc6 dxco 8 t!Jxe5 .Q.xf2+ (8 . . . t!JxeS+ 9 4Jxe5 .Q.xf5 10 d3 0-0 I t 0-0 �ae8 12 4Jc4 4Jg4 and the active Bl ack pieces fu l ly compensate for the missing pawn , Bertok - Fuderer, Lj ubl iana 1951) 9 �e2 t/Jxe5+ 10 4Jxe5 .Q.d4 1 1 4Jf3 .Q.xc3 12 bxc3 .Q.xf5= Witkowski Barcza, Prague 1955. 7 4Je4 4Jxe4 8 t!Jxe4 0-0 9 0-0 d6! 10 .Q.xc6 bxc6 I I d4 ( 1 1 t!Jxc6 .Q.xfS 12 d3 �ab8 13 b3) II .Q.xfS 1 2 t!Je2 .Q.b6 13 dxe5 dS with an active pos. . .

5

t!Je2

.Q.cS

4 tf)c3 f)f6 and 4 . Others 53 . .

ition, Bag irov - Holmov, Moscow 1 961. 7 4Jd4 8 4Jxd4 .Q.xd4

Here Black has su fficient compensation for the paw n . 9 0-0 9 �e3 c6 10 !l,a4 !l,xc3+! 11 bxc3 d6 1 2 0-0 !l,xfS 13 �ab1 0-0 1 4 c4 ,O,g6+ Ravinsky Sol oviev , M oscow 1955. 9 c6 10 .Q.a4 d5 10 ... d6 1 1 �f3 .Q.d7 12 4Je2 �b6 13 4Jg3 0-0-0 1 4 .Q.gS h6! 15 �h4 �df8 16 �fet ( 16 4JhS �f7 17 4Jxf6 gxf6) 1 6 . . . g S ! 1 7 fxg6 �g7 with a dan­ gerous attack, Bardeleben - Duz- Hoti mirsky, Prague 1908. o-o 11 .Q.g5 .Q.xf5 12 .Q.b3 Black has a typical ly good attacking pos i tion, Chalkhasuren - Boey , Varna 1962

B 5

exf5

This is a position from the King's Gambit Declined with colours reversed. White hopes that the extra tempo (.Q_bS) wi I I lead to an advantage, but things are not so simple. Let us con­ sider Black's responses:

B1) 5 ... e4 B2) 5 ... .Q.c5 B3) 5 ... 4Jd4 Others: a) 5 . . . !l,e7 6 d4 (6 !l,xc6 dxc6 7 4JxeS 0-0 8 0-0 !l,xfS with an active position) 6 . . . exd4 7 4Jxd 4 4Jxd4 8 thxd4 o-o 9 o-o dS 10 .o,gs !l,xfS 1 1 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 12 �xdS+ thxdS 13 4JxdS !l,xb2= Leonhardt Marshal l , Cologne 191 1. b) 5 . . . !l,b4 6 0-0 (6 !l,xco dxc6 7 4JxeS!?) 6 . . . 0-0 7 d4 e4 8 4JeS ( 8 4Jh4 dS 9 g4

54 4 tfjc3 tfjf6 and 4 .

. .

Others

4:)xg4!? t o �xg4 4:)xd4 1 1 .Q.g S !J.e7 1 2 !J.xe7 �xe7 13 �ht c6 t4 !J.e2 4:)xc2 tS !!adt �eS t6 !!g1 !J.xfS! 17 c[)xfS !!xfS 1 8 c[)xdS !!xf2 Maist­ rov ich - Li ubli nski , Corres­ pondence t975) 8 . . . �e8! 9 �e2 !J.xc3 tO �c4+ dS t t �xc3 4:)xd4! t2 !J.xe8 4:)e2+ 13 �ht 4:)xc3 1 4 !J.f7+ !!xf7 tS 4:)xf7 �xf7 1 6 bxc3 !J.xfS t7 fJ.e3 b6 t8 !!fd t ( better is t8 h3) 18 . . . �e6 t9 a4 aS 20 !J.f4 !!c8 2t c4 dxc4 22 !!d4 c[)dS 23 !J.e3 c3 24 h3 hS 25 �h2 �eS + Ekstrom - Liub­ linski, Correspondence t975

Bl 5 e4 This o l d continuation is viewed by theory as being to White's advantage, al­ tho ugh i n our estimation there are insufficient gro­ unds for this assessment. 6 c[)gS Considered the strong­ est. In Pi l l sbury - Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1903 , Wh ite played weakly: 6 �e2 �e7 7 !J.xc6 bxc6 8 4:)h4 dS 9 d4 aS+ . 6 4:)h4 is an interesting possibi lity , i nsisting on holdi ng on to the gambit paw n in a most direct fas h­ ion. Some old analysis by

Lasker goes 6 . . . 4:)d4 7 !J.e2 (or 7 d3 c6! 8 !J.a4 dS 9 dxe4 dxe4 tO .Q.gS fJ.b4 I I 0-0 !J.xc3 t2 bxc3 c[)xfS= ) 7 . . . 4:)xe2 8 �xe2 d S 9 d 3 !J.b4 = . However, the only outing with 6 4:)h4 to date, resu lt­ ed in a singular success for Whi te after 7 !J.a4!? fJ.cS 8 d3 bS (Black is trying to exploit White's 7th move, bu t his aggressive play backfires when he over­ looks White's cunning tac­ tical ploy on move t2) 9 !J.b3 exd3 10 �xd3 �e7+ 11 !J.e3 4:)g4 t2 f6! gxf6 13 c[)dS c[)eS t4 �dt t-0 Georgiev - Rod­ riguez, Terrassa 1990. 7 fJ.a4!? is fertile territory for further research. 6 ... dS (after 6 4:)h4) is also possible

demonstrates Practice that Bl ack has su fficient compensation: a) 7 g4 4:)d7! 8 4:)g2 (8

4 fJcJ fjf6 and 4 . . Others SS .

4JxdS �xh 4 9 4Jxc7+ 'Jie7 10 4Jxa8 cijd4 t t .Q.e2 cijeS-+) 8 . . . cijd4 9 d3 c6 10 .Q.a4 exd3 11 �xd3 cijeS+ Suchting Teichmann , Vienna 1908. b) 7 d3 .Q.e7 (after 7 . . . d4 Lasker recommends 8 4Jxe4 {8 4Jb1 exd3 9 �xd3 �e7+ 10 �e2 [ 10 'Jid1 c[)e4 ] tO . . . .Q.d7 1 1 .a,gs o-o-o 12 {Jd2 �e8! + Janowski - Marshal l , match 190S } 8 . . . 4Jxe4 9 �hS+ g6 to {Jxg6 cijf6 t1 �e2+ 'Jif7 12 4Jxh8+ 'JigS with a double­ edged position) 8 dxe4 dxe4 9 �xd8+ .Q.xd8 10 .Q.gS 0-0= Capablanca - Marsh­ a l l , matc h , New York 1909 . c) 7 d4 .Q.e7 8 g4 0-0 (8 . . . gS!? 9 .Q.xgS �g 8) 9 !l,xc6? (9 !lg 1 as in the analogous King's Gambi t position) 9 . . . bxc6 10 cijg2 .Q.a6 1 1 .Q.gS �b8 12 �bt cS+ Rosenfeld Mars ha l l , New York 19to. Retu rni ng to the position after 6 c[)gS

6 dS 6 . .. 4Jd4 7 .a.a 4 c6 8 d3 and Black obtained no compensation in Aroni n Klaman , Leni ngrad 1947. 7 d3 .a_xfS 7 h6 8 4Je6 .a_xeo 9 fxe6 �d6 to dxe4 d4 ( no better is 10 . . . t/Jxe6 11 0-0! dxe4 12 .a.f4 .a.d6 13 .a.xd6! cxd6 1 4 t/Je2 ( 1 4 f3! ?) 14 . . . d S 1 S �adt;!;; Yudakov - Goliak­ berov , Talgari 1977) 11 .a.xc6+ bxc6 12 {Je2 0-0-0 13 �d3! cS 14 f3 �xe6 IS {Jf4 t/Jc6 16 b3 .a.d6 t 7 cije2 �de8 (better is 17 . . . �he8) 18 0-0 gS 19 c3! ± Yers hov - Glaz­ kov , Kuibyshev t9S3. 8 dxe4 dxe4 9 �e2 9 .a.xc6+ bxc6 tO �e2 .a.b4 11 .a.d2 ( 11 �c4 .a.xc3+) tt . . . .a.xc3 12 .a.xc3 0-0 1 3 0-0 t/JdS and with . . . �bS com­ ing up, Black is okay. 9 o-o h6! tO 4Jgxe4 4Jxe4 tt 4Jxe4 �xdt 12 �xd t .a.xe4 13 �et 0-0-0 14 �xe4 �d t+ I S .a.fl !l,cS-+ 9 �d71 F. M arshal l's forgotten recommendation. With this move Black can consol idate. 9 . . . !l,b4 to .a.d2 �e7 t t �c4 �d8 12 .a.xc6+ bxc6 13 0-0-0± was Leon hardt Spiel mann, Nuremburg 1906 . . .

56 4 .f)cJ .f)f6 and 4

...

Others

and also unsatisfactory was 9 �d6 1 0 �xc6+ bxc6 11 �c4 �d7 1 2 �e3 �g8 13 �a4 and Black has no com­ pensation for the n umerous weaknesses. 10 4:)gxe4 o-o-o ...

In this critical position Black has sati sfactory play. 11 �5 Probably better is 11 0-0 4:)xe4 1 2 4:)xe4 �e8 13 f3 �xe4 1 4 fxe4 �d4+ w hich is approxi mately eq u a l . 11 4:)xe41 12 4:)xe4 �xe4! 13 �xd8 �xg2 14 �g1 �b4++

B2) �c5 5 This was first u sed i n the game Bardeleben - Duz­ Hotimirsky, Prague 1908, and was then forgotten about for nearly fifty years!

6 o-o 6 �c6 is a mistake, e.g. 6 ... dxc6 7 4:)xeS (7 4:)a4 �xf2+ 8 �xf2 e4) 7 . . . �xf2+ 8 �xf2 �d4+ 9 �f3 �xfS 10 �e1 0-0-+ 6 4:)xe5 4:)d4 (6 . . . 0-0 7 4:)f3! dS (7 . . . �e8+ 8 �e2) 8 d4 �b6 9 0-0 �xfS 10 h3± , Euwe) 7 0-0 0-0 leads to the mai n conti nuation. 6 d3!? 0-0 7 4:)e4 �e7 8 4:)g3 4:)d4 9 4:)xd4 exd4 t o 0-0 c6 11 �a4 dS 12 �f4 �d6 13 �d2 �c7 14 �xd6 �xd6 15 �b3 �h8 16 !lae1 �d7 17 �e2 4:)g4 18 �gS 4:)h6 19 �e7 4:)f7 20 �h4 4:)h6 21 �fe1 4:)xfS 22 4:)xfS �xfS 23 �g3 1-0 (as after 23 . . . �xg3 24 hxg3, Black is i n a tangle on the back rank and must lose a piece) was v an Riemsdijk - Klip Dieren Open 1989. Black's 7 ... �e7 looks rather passive. 7 . . . �b6 maintai ning the s trong

4 f)c3 f)f6 and 4 . . . Others 57 diagonal for black bishop looks more to the point. 6 o-o 7 4:)xe5 Practice demonstrates that White has l ittle chance of an advantage with other moves : a) 7 .Q.xc6 dxc6 8 4:)xe5 .Q.xfS 9 4:)c4 (9 d3 t{ye8 10 t(ye2 .Q.d4 1 1 �et 4:)g4 l ed to a p romising endgame for B lack in Magem - Rodri­ guez , Terrassa 1990. Play contin ued 12 4:)xg 4 .Q.xg 4 13 t{yxe8 .Q.xf2+ 1 4 �ht �axeS 15 �xe8 !Ixe8 16 .Q.f4 .Q.d4 17 h3 .Q.hS 1 8 .Q.xc7 .Q.xc3 19 bxc3 �e2 20 �b1 bS 21 a 4 a6 22 axbS axbS 23 c4 bxc4 24 dxc4 .Q.g6 25 �g1 .Q.e4 26 g3 gS with a p l easant initiative for Black, a lthough he went on to l ose) 9 . . . 4:)g4 10 4:)e3 t(yh 4 1 1 h3 4:)xe3 12 dxe3 .Q.xh3 13 gxh3 !If6 14 �g2 !!g6+ 0 : 1 Kuznetsova Kantorovich, Moscow 1961 . b) 7 !Iet d6 8 4:)a4 (better is 8 d3) 8 . . . e4! 9 4:)xc5 dxcS tO .Q.xc6 bxc6 11 4:)h4 gS! 1 2 fxg6 4:)g4+ M atano­ vic - janosevic, Belgrade 1958. c) 7 4:)a4 .Q.e7 8 d4 4:)xd4 9 4:)xd4 exd4 10 t(yxd4 cS!? 11 4:)xc5 t(yb6 1 2 .Q.c4+ dS 13 .Q.xdS+ lif;lh8 1 4 .Q.e3 4:)xd5 15

t{yxdS �xfS 16 t(ye4 .Q.xcS 17 t(ye8+ �f8 1 8 t(yxf8+ .Q.xf8 19 .Q.xb6 axb6 20 �fet Zelevin­ sky - Seli vanovsky, Mos­ cow 1957, and now with 20 . . . .Q.d7, Black's bishop pair woul d give him excel lent prospects. 7 4:)d4 The continuation 7 . . . 4:)xe5 8 d 4 .Q.xd4 9 t(yxd4 d6 is dubious, e.g. 10 .Q.f4! .Q.xfS 1 1 .Q.xeS dxeS 12 t(yxeS .Q.xc2 13 .Q.c4+! �h8 14 4:)b5± Stein - Nadezhdin , 1962.

Now:

821) 8 .Q.a4 822) 8 4:)f3 Others: a) 8 4:)d3 .Q.b6 9 4:)f4 dS 10 d3 .Q.xfS 11 .Q.e3 c6 12 .Q.a4 4:)g4+ b) 8 .Q.e2 dS 9 4:)f3 .Q.xfS (9 . . . 4:)xe2+ 1 0 4:)xe2 .Q.xfS) 10

58 4 f]c3 .fJ£6 and 4

. . .

Others

4:)xd4 .Q.xd4 1 1 d3 .Q.eS 1 2 d4 .Q.d6 1 3 4:)bS .Q.e7a5

821 8 .Q.a4 This bishop retreat is a loss of time and a llows Black to develop a danger­ ous initiative. 8 dS Here there is a further dichotomy:

8211) 9 4:)e2 8212) 9 4:)f3 9 4:)b5?1 .Q.xfS 1 0 c3 4:)xbS 1 1 .Q.xbS d4 12 �b3+ �h8 13 .Q.d3 ( 13 4:)f7+ �xf7 1 4 �xf7 d3) 13 . .. 4:)g4 1 4 .Q.xfS 4:)xeS 15 .Q,h3 4:)d3 16 �c4 dxc3 1 7 dxc3 �xf2-+ Lukov - I nkiov, Pamporovo 1982. 8211 9 4:)e2 This move, which was considered the s trongest, has been re-assessed. see following diagram �d61 9 An exce llent reply, found by Rodriguez. Previously 9 . t/Je7 had been p l ayed w hen, al thoug h 10 4:)xd4 ..

�xeS 1 1 4:)e2 4:)g4 12 g3 4:)xf2! 13 �xf2 .Q.xfS gives B lack a very dangerous attack, White can i mprove with 1 1 4:)f3 ! , e.g. 1 1 . . . �xfS 12 d4 .Q.d6 13 c3 4:)e4 1 4 .Q.e3 Zurachov - Zaitsev, Lenin­ grad 1963. Now with 14 . . . �f6 Black might j us t about maintain the balance. 10 4:)xd4 10 4:)d3 .Q.b6 1 1 4:)xd4 ( tt 4:)g3 4:)xf5) t t . . . .Q.xd4a5 .Q.xd4 10 ... 11 4:)f3 11 4Jg47 fai ls to 1 1 4:)xg4 1 2 �xg4 �b4! Hul ak - Rodrig uez, Karlovec 1979. 4:)g4 11 12 c3 Other White tries : a ) 12 h3 .Q.xfS 1 3 d3 ( 1 3 c3 .Q.e4 1 4 hxg4 .Q.xf3) 13 . . . 4:)xf2 (also good i s 1 3 . . . .Q.e6 6 l:Ixf3) 1 4 !!xf2 .Q.xf2+ 15 �xf2 .Q.xh3!-+ b) 12 g3 .Q.xf2+ 1 3 nxf2

4 4)c3 f)f6 and 4 . . . Others 59 {)xf2 1 4 fi!ilxf2 �xf5 15 d4 ( 15 d3 .a,g 4 16 �f4 �xf4! 1 7 gxf4 thxf4) 15 . . . �e4 16 �f4 �xf4! 17 gxf4 thxf4 18 the2 �f8+ Marj anovic - Parma, Y ugosl avia 1979. c) 12 the2 -'l.xf5 13 thb5 .Q.e6 ! 14 thxb7 �xf3! 15 thxa8+ �f8 16 thxf8+ thxf8 0 : 1 Eme l i n - Roz u menko, Correspondence 1983. 12 ... �xfS 13 cxd4 13 g3 is no good i n view of 1 3 . . . -'l.xf2+ ! 1 4 �xf2 {)xf2 15 �xf2 �f6 16 d4 .a,g4 17 -'l.f4 �xf4 18 gxf4 thxf4. 13 h3 �xf3 14 hxg4 .Q.xg4 (also 1 4 . . . �h3 15 gxh3 thg3+ 16 �h1 thxh3+ is very good) 15 the1 I,!h3!! and Black won, Gonsher Freize, 1979. 13 ... �xf3 14 g3 {)xh2 Nikiti n s uggests 14 thh6 15 h4 �f6 or 15 . . . �d3 as being to Black's advan­ tage. Black can a l so try 1 4 . . . �xf2 1 5 �xf2 {)xf2 16 �xf2 -'l.h3! 17 d3 (17 �g1 thf6 { 1 7 . . . �f8 18 d3 thb4}) 17 . . . �f8+ 1 8 -'l.f4 thb4! 19 �g1 thxd4+ 20 �h1 thxb2 21 �g 1 .a,g2+ 22 �xg2 �xa1+ 23 thg1 �xa2-+ Tatai and Zinser. 15 �xh2 thh6+ 16 �g1

If 16 fi!ilg2 .Q.h3+ 1 7 �xf3 then 17 . . . �e6!-+ 16 ... .Q.g 4 17 the1 After 17 d3 thh3 1 8 �e1 the si mples t is 18 . . . �fS! 17 ... thh3 Also very good is 17 ... �fS, e.g. 1 8 -'l.d1 (18 d3 thh1+!) 18 . . . �h5! 19 .Q.xg4 �h1+ 20 �g2 thh2+ 21 �f3 �f8+ 22 -'l.fS ( 22 �e2 �e8+ 23 �d1 �xe1+ 24 �xet �xft+ 25 �xft thht + 26 �e2 the4+) 22 .. . �xfS+ 23 �e2 thhS+ 24 f3 ( 24 �d3 �f3+ 25 l{tjlc2 thfS+ 26 �d1 �xft 27 thxf1 �xf2) 24 . . . �f6! 25 d3 �h2+ 26 �d 1 thg6! 27 thc3 (27 -'l.d2 thxd3) 27 . . . thxg3 28 -'l.d2 thg2 29 �e1 thxf3+ 30 �c2 �c6 31 �e8+ �f7 32 �ae1 thf2 0 : 1 Polgar - Morvay, H ungary 1982. 18 -'l.d1 �afB 19 d3

19

h61

60 4 fjc3 fjf6 and 4 . . . Others

19 ... �xf2 a llows White the possibility of an i nter­ esti ng defence - 20 �xf2! �xf2 21 1if)xf2! �h2+ 22 lif)e1 ! �xg3+ 2 3 �f2 �g1 + and Black m ust take a draw ( 23 . . . �xdt 24 �f4Ci5 ) 20 �f4 �8xf41 Not 20 ... �fS? in view of 21 �e6+ lif)h7 22 �xf5+! 21 gxf4 �hS 22 �e3 �xe3 23 fxe3 �xe3+ 24 lif)h1 .Q.g6 25 �f3 �xd4 26 b3 �xd3 c6 27 �ad1 cS 28 .Q.g2 c4 29 lif)h2 30 bxc4 dxc4 0:1 Votea - Lukacs, Corres­ pondence 1 975/76. B212 9 4Jf3 10 4Jxd4

�xfS �xd4

11 4je2 By removing the danger­ ous knight on d4, White can hope for a successful defence. Too risky is 11 d3? 4:)g4! when Black develops a dangerous initiative, e.g. a) 12 g3 4Je5! 13 4Je2 � 4! 1 4 c3 �f3! ! and White is defenceless against the terrible threat of �dB - c8 - h3. b) 12 �f4 4Jxf2! 13 �xf2 �xf2+ 1 4 1if)xf2 �h4+ 15 .Q.g3 �d4+ 16 1if)e 1 .Q.g4 0 : 1 Lom­ bard - jansen, The Hague 1967. c) 12 �f3 �e6 13 �e2 �h4! 14 �xe6+ lif)h8 15 h3 �xf2 16 �e3 �xf1+ 17 �xf1 4Jxe3 18 �b1 �g3! 0 : 1 Gerhard ­ Nielson , Correspondence 1979. d) 12 �e2 �h4 13 �f4 4jxf2 with a very strong attack , Mazian - Afek , I s­ rael 1980. .Q.g4 11 12 c3 12 1if)h1 �xe2 (or 12 . . . 4Je4 13 f3 �h4) 13 �xe2 4:)e4 1 4 f3 �h4! 1 5 fxe4 �xf1+ 16 �xf1 �f8 -+ �e71 12 ... 13 �bS 13 �e1 �xe2 1 4 cxd4 1if)f7+ Buljovcic - Bojkovic, Novi Sad 1979.

4 .£jc3 4)f6 and 4

13 ... �ae8 In Karpov - Hermann, Bad Lauterberg 1977 Black got carried away with 13 ... .Q.xf2+? and after 14 �xf2 tf1c5 15 tf1b3 White held off the attack while main tai n­ ing the extra piece. 13 ... a6 14 cxd4 ( 1 4 .Q.d3 �ae8 is the mai n l ine) 1 4 . . . axb5 1 5 f3 !Xae8! ( Dorfman) and B lack gets the advan­ tage in al l variations , e.g 16 !Xe1 .Q.xf3! 17 gxf3 4jh5 or 16 !Xf2 c:£)e4! 17 4jg3 ( 1 7 c:£)c3 gets the same reply) 17 . . . tf1b4! 14 cxd4 14 .Q.xe8? .Q.xe2. 14 .Q.xe2 15 .Q.xe2 tf1xe2

In this critical position Black s tands okay despite the pawn deficit. 16 d3 4Jh51 Less i ncisive is 16 ... c6 17 h3 4jh5! 18 .Q.e3 tf1xd1 19

...

Others 61

�axd1 4Jg3! 20 �fe1 4jf5= Stoica - Ciocal tea, Bucha­ rest 1980. �xe31 17 .Q.e3 18 fxe3 tf1xe3+ 19 C{tlh1 4Jg3+1 20 hxg3 tf1h6+ 21 C{tlg1 tf1e3+ With a draw by perpetual.

B22 8

4Jf3

This i mmediate attack on the central ised knight red­ uces Black's attacking possibil i ties. 8 c6 The most common, but i n our opinion not the best, rep ly. Preferable is 8 ... 4Jxf51 9 d4 .Q.b6. The game Bobotsov - Kostov, Sofia 1960 contin ued thus: 10 .Q.g5 c6 11 .Q.d3 d5 12 c:£)e2 h6 13 .Q.xf6 tf1xf6 14 c3 .Q.c7 15 .Q.c2 4jh4 16 4Jxh4 ttlxh 4 17 c:£)g3 and now with 17 . . . .Q.g4! 1 8

62 4 cf)c3 cf)f6 and 4 . . Others .

�d3 ( 1 8 �b1? .a_e2 1 9 �e1 �ae8) 18 . . . .a_fs B lack would s tand excell ently . Other p l an s fai l to equal­ ise for Black: a) 8 4Jxf3+ 9 �xf3 dS. Ti mman - Lombardy, Am­ sterdam 1974 conti nued 10 .a_d3 c6 1 1 b3 4Jd7 12 �g3 t/1f6 13 .a_b2 .a_d4 1 4 �aet 4JcS tS �a3! 4Jxd3 16 cxd3 .a_xfS 17 �xf8! �xf8 18 4Je2 �b6 19 4Jf4 �c7 20 4JxdS;!;; b) 8 4JxbS 9 4JxbS dS 10 4Jbd4 . Smai lbegovic Marie, Y ugos lavia 1 9S7 fur­ ther saw 10 . . . 4Jg4 ( 10 . . . �d6 I t d 3 4Jg4 1 2 h3 4Jh2 13 4JbS 4Jxf3+ 14 �xf3 �d7 IS g4! .a_xf2+ 16 �xf2 �xbS 17 .a_f4 �d7 1 8 c3 d4 19 c4 �cS 20 �xb7+- Vasiukov - Eg­ orov, Moscow 19S9) 11 h3 4JeS 12 {)xeS �xd4 13 4Jf3 �b6 and now for some reason, White refrai ned from 1 4 g4! w hich would have maintained two extra pawns. White tried to improve over this with 10 d4 i n Velimirovic - Terzic, Zenica 1987. However, White failed to do j ustice to his idea, as fol lowing 10 . . . �b6 1 1 4JeS �xfS 1 2 �e3 4Jd7 13 �d2 �e8 he promptly b l u ndered a piece with 1 4 4Jc3?? B lack ...

...

was alert to the tactics in the position and after 1 4 . . . {)xeS 1S dxeS d 4 ! 1 6 �xd 4 �d8 17 4Je2 .a_xd4 1 8 4Jxd4 cS he went on to win easily. White shou ld, of course, have p layed 1 4 4Jxd7 �xd7 when Black has the typical compensation of the bishop pair and open lines for his pawn sacri fice. c) 8 dS 9 4Jxd 4 �xd4 10 4Je2 .a_b6 1 1 4Jg3 ( 1 1 d4) 1 1 ... 4Je4 12 4Jxe4 dxe4 13 �c4+ 'itlh8 14 .a_e6 .a_xe6 1S fxe6. Arseniev - Kovalenko, Mo­ scow 19S7 now saw 1S . . . �xf2!? 1 6 �xf2 t/1f6 1 7 t/1e1 �f8 18 d4! �xd4 19 e7! and after 19 . . . �e8 20 'itlf1 White hel d off the attack, with a big advantage. At first sight, Black cou ld have re­ solved the game in his fav­ our with 19 . . . �xf2, but White has a beauti ful re­ futation, e.g. 20 .a_e3! ! ( not 20 e�+? �f8+) 20 . . . �xe3 21 �xe3 .a_xe3 22 'itlh1 and the White pawn promotes. 19 . . . �xf2+ doesn't help Black - 20 �xf2 �xf2 21 .a_e3 with the same concl usion . 9 4Jxd4 In the correspondence game Shapovalov - Zhurav­ lev, 1 963 a recommendation ...

4 {Jc3 fjf6 and 4 . . . Others 63 of Suetin w as seen: 9 b41? �xf3+ 10 �xf3 .Q.xb4 1 1 .Q.d3 d5 12 .Q.b2 �e8 1 3 !,1ae 1 and now after the error 13 . . . �g5? White landed a n u n­ expected b low 1 4 4:)xd5! cxd5 15 �xd5+ \tilh8 16 �b5 .Q.e7 17 f4± 9 .Q.xd4

10 .Q.d3 10 .Q.a4 d5 1 1 4:)e2 .Q.b6 12 d4! .Q.xf5 13 .Q.f4! Unzicker - Nievergel t , Zurich 1 959 continued 13 . .. 4:)h5 ( no better is 1 3 . . . �e8 1 4 .Q.d6 c£)g4 1 5 f3 �e3+ 1 6 \tilh1 !;tfe8 17 c£)g3 .Q.d7 18 c3±) 1 4 .Q.eS �h4 1 5 c£)g3 .Q.g 4 16 �d2± 13 c£)g3 s ho u l d a l so be good for White. Agnos Erker, Lloyds ijank 1988 continued 1 3 .. . .Q.g6 14 .Q.f4 c£)e4 15 .Q.eS �gS 16 f 4 c£)xg3 and now w i th 1 7 fxgS White wou ld have obtain ed a small endgame advantage. In the game, his attempt to

play for more with 17 l:if3? backfired horribly to the tactical sequence 1 7 �xeS! 1 8 fxeS .Q.xd4+ 19 �xd4 c£)e2+ 20 \tilh 1 c£)xd4 21 �xf8+ �xf8 22 c3 4:)e6 0-1 . 10 .Q.e2 (perhaps more convincing than the text) 10 . . . dS 11 .Q.f3 (11 d3 .Q.xfS 12 .Q.f4 ! �d7 13 �d2± Gligoric Matu lovic, Y ugoslavia 1957) 11 . . . .Q.xfS 12 4:)e2! .Q.b6 13 d4± Vasi lchuk - Stei n, Moscow 1956. 10 dS 11 c£)e2 .Q.e51 c£)e41 12 4:)g3 13 .Q.xe4 dxe4 14 d3 exd3 15 �xd3 �xd3 16 cxd3 .Q.xg3 17 hxg3 .Q.xfS= Tal - Spassky, Moscow 1957.

B3 5

�d4

64 4 .fJcJ fjf6 and 4 . Others .

.

6 o-o 6 4Jxd4 exd4 7 4je2 c6 was Freize - Schuster, Neis htadt 1957, and Black obtai ned the advantage after 8 .Q.d3 .Q.c5 9 4Jg3 0-0 10 0-0 d5 11 �f3 �d6 12 c3 (12 b3 4jd7) 12 . . . .Q.b6 13 4Je2 4je4! =F 6 d3 is wel l met by 6 . . . c6! 7 .Q.a4 d5. 6 .Q.a4 .Q.c5 7 0-0 (if White chooses i ns tead 7 d3 then as wel l as 7 . . . 0-0 8 0-0 ( 8 4:)e4 4Jxe4 9 dxe4 d5} 8 . . . d5, which is fine, B lack can also consider 7 . . . 4jxf5!?, e.g. 8 4je4 .Q.b6 9 4Jxe5 0-0 10 0-0 d5 1 1 4Jxf6+ �xf6 12 4jd7 .Q.xd7 1 3 .Q.xd7 !!f7� Baikov - M i k . Tseitlin, Mos­ cow 1979) 7 . . . 0-0

.Q.f4 .Q.d6 { 1 1 . . . c6} 12 .Q.xd6 �xd6 13 4Jxd4 4Jg4 1 4 g3 �h6 15 h4 .Q.c8 16 �e2 c5!=F Chandler - Inkiov , Nis 1983) 11 . . . .Q.g4 12 �el c6 13 f3 ( 13 h3 !!e8 14 �d2 .Q.d6!? 15 hxg4 4Jxg4 and 16 . . . �h4) 13 . . . !!e8 1 4 �f2 !!f8 15 fxg 4 ? ! 4Jxg4 16 �e2 �h4 17 h3 �xg3! -+ Plani nc Mariotti , Correspondence 1976/77. b) 8 !!e1 4Jg 4! 9 4je4 !!xf5! 10 4jxd4 (10 4Jxc5? 4Jxf3+ 1 1 gxf3 4Jxh2!) 10 . . . .Q.xd4 1 1 �xg4 d 5 and Black has dangerous threats , Vit­ olinsh - Bojkovic, Rijeka 1963. c) 8 d3 d5 9 4Jxe5 .Q.xf5=F 6 4jxb5 If 6 . . . .Q.cS good is 7 4Jxd4! exd4 (7 . . . .Q.xd4 8 4je2 .Q.b6 9 d4 e4 (9 . .. exd4 10 4Jxd4 0-0 11 4Je2! } 10 4Jg3 c6 11 .Q.e2 0-0 12 f3± Zhi l i n - Chernov, Rostov 1960) 8 !:tel + .Q.e7 9 4je2 a6 (9 . . . 0-0 10 4jxd4 cS 1 1 4je2!) 10 .Q.d3 cS 1 1 b4! o-o 1 2 bxc5 .Q.xcS 13 4jf4! ± Matanovic janosevic, Sarajevo 1958. After 6 c6 unimpress­ ive is 7 .Q.e2 d6 8 �e1 ( 8 4Jxd4 exd4 9 .Q.hS+ �7- ) a llowing 8 . . . 4jxf3+! 9 .Q.xf3 .Q.xfS and now o n 1 0 d4 fol lows tO ... �c7! 1 1 dxeS ...

Now: a) 8 4jxd4 exd4 9 4je2 d5 10 d3 ( 10 b4 .Q.b6 11 .Q.b2 d3! 12 4Jg3 �d6 13 �f3 c6 6 1 4 . . . hSt) 10 . . . .Q.xfS 1 1 4Jg3 ( 1 1

4 fjc3 fjf6 and 4 . Others 65 . .

( 1 1 .Q,f4 0-0-0; 1 1 «Ye2 0-0-0) 11 . . . dxeS 12 «Ye2 ( 12 .Q.f4 .Q_d6) 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 and Black is fine. Far stronger ( after 6 . . . c6) is 7 .Q.a4! with the fol l ow i ng possibi l i ties: a) 7 ... bS 8 .Q.b3 {)xb3 9 axb3 d6 10 d4 e4 1 1 {)gS dS 12 f3± b) 7 ... dS 8 �e1 .Q.e7 9 {)xd 4 exd4 tO {)e2 d3 t t 4Jg3± c) 7 . d6 8 4Jxd4 exd4 9 4Je2 �aS 10 .Q.b3 d3 1 1 4Jd4 or 1 1 4Jg3;t d) 7 .Q.cS 8 4Jxe5 ( 8 4Jxd4 .Q.xd4 9 4Je2± a s i n Z h i l i n - C hernov) 8 0-0 9 4Jf3 dS to 4Jxd4 .Q.xd4 1 1 4Je2± as i n Unzicker - Niev­ ergelt in B2b. In Govart Brem, Reykjavik 1 982 9 . . . 4JxfS was tried leading to 10 d4 .Q.b4 ( to . .Q.b6 11 dS) 1 1 4Je2 dS 12 c3 .Q.d6 13 .Q.f4 4Je4 1 4 .Q.xd6;t 7 {)xbS e4 .

Worth a look are 7 ... c6 8 4Jc3 dS 9 4Jxe5 .Q.fS or 9 �e1 .Q.d6 (9 . . . e4) 10 4Jxe5 0-0 with compensation . 8 �e1 .Q.e7 c6 9 {)gS 10 4Jc3 dS

.

...

. . .

. .

11 4Je6 Preferab le is 11 d3 but after 11 ... exd3 12 �xd3 0-0 13 4Je6 .Q.xe6 !:::. 14 . . . .Q.cS Bl ack has su fficient coun­ terplay. .Q.xe6 11 o-o 12 fxe6 .Q.cSI 13 d3 14 d4 On 14 .Q.e3 d4! fol lows and if 14 dxe4 strong is 1 4 . . . .Q.xf2+ IS !ifjlxf2 4Jg4+ .Q.d6 14 15 .o.,gs �ea 16 h3 �g6 17 .Q.e3 l:Iae8 18 4Je2 {)hS 19 «Yd2 �f31 20 !ifjlh1 �xe6

66 4 f)c3 t£)f6 and 4 . . Others .

21

4Jg1

�g31

And Black's direct and forcefu l play has resu lted in him obtai ning a wi nning attack, Penson - Gudziev, Yugoslavia 1977. Black's play in this game is most instructi ve and wil l repay carefu l study. The bui l d up of forces on the kingside and the tactical moti fs involving the half­ open f-fiJe are particularly worthy of attention.

6)

4 �c3 �d4

1 2 3 4

e4 �f3 ,O,b5 �c3

eS �c6 f5 �d4

knight. White has n u merous pos­ sible responses, from which we shal l discuss the fol­ lowing in detai l:

A) B) C) D) E)

This eccentric looking move was suggested by Alek hi ne and l ater analysed i n detail by B u l garian mas­ ters . It looks very curious to move this piece tw ice in the opening , but by p l ay i ng 4 �c3, White has given u p the possibil ity o f c3 , and so it is no longer simple to deal w ith the centralised

5 exfS 5 �e5 5 ,O,c4 5 (}-0 5 ,O,a4

5 4Jxd4 exd4 i s too risky, as borne out by the game Karaklajic - Matulovic, Sar­ ajevo 1958, which continued 6 �e2 c6 (6 . . . fxe4 7 �xd4 t/Yf6 8 �e2 c6 9 ,O,a4 dS is possible) 7 ,O,d3 fxe4 8 ,O,xe4 dS 9 ,O,f3 w hen after 9 . . . d3! there fol lowed 10 cxd3 ,O,d6 I I d4 �h6 12 0-0 0-0 13 �g3 t/Yh4 and Black obtai ned strong attacking chances . 6 exfS is a tricky move, as Black discovered to his

68 4 fjc3 fjd4 cost in Kostakiev - Vazov , B u lgaria 1987, e.g. 6 . . . dxc3 7 �hS+ �e7 8 0-0 4Jf6 9 �e1 + �d6 1 0 �e2! �cS 1 1 a4! c6 12 �e3+ �b4 1 3 dxc3+ �aS 1 4 b4+ 1 -0. However, 6 . . . �gS! is a considerab le i mprovement, after w hich the onus is on White to demonstrate how the att­ ack can be continued . 6 4Jd5!? c6 7 exfS is inter­ esting. Kostakiev - Ko lev, Bulgaria 1986 conti nued 7 . . . cxdS ( 7 . . . �gS! may be preferab le, e.g. 8 4Jc7+ �dB 9 4Jxa8 �xg2 10 �f1 cxbS 1 1 d 3 4:jf6 12 c3 .Q.cS 1 3 .Q.f4 4Jd5 is good for Black) 8 �hS+ �e7 9 0-0 4:jf6 10 �e1+ �d6 1 1 �f3 �c7! and Whi te is strugg l i ng to find an effective contin uation of the attack .

A 5

exf5

5 c6 5 ... 4Jxb5 6 4Jxb5 d6 ( i f 6 . . . e4 good i s 7 4Je5 4Jf6 8 4Jg4) 7 d4 e4 8 4Jg5 .Q.xfS 9 �e2 �d7 (9 . . . 4Jf6 10 �c4). The game Parma - Baias­ kas, Athens 1980 conti nued 10 f3 0-0-0 11 fxe4 �e8 12 0-0 4:jf6 13 �xfS ! ? �xfS 1 4 4Jxc7 �e7 1 5 4Jb5 4Jxe4 16 4Jxe 4 �xe4 17 �c4+ and now with 17 . . . �cS! 18 �d3 �fS Bl ack cou ld force the repetition of moves . In­ stead of 10 f3, correct is 10 g4! .Q.g6 1 1 4Je6± 6 4Jxd41? This leads to puzzling compl ications, reminiscent of Steinitz"s Gambit in the Vienna Game. Al ternati vely, Wedberg Brem, Reykjavik 1982 saw 6 .Q.e2 �f6 ( 6 . . . 4:jf6 7 4Jxe5 �e7 8 4:jd3 dS 9 0-0 .Q.xfS 10 4Je1 0-0-0 11 d3 �c7 12 .Q.e3 4Jxe2+ 13 4Jxe2 .Q.d6Ci5 Sax Romero, Rome 1986) 7 4Jxd4 (7 0-0 dS 8 �e1 4Jxf3+ 9 .Q.xf3 .Q.xfS= ) 7 . . . exd4 8 cfje4 �xfS 9 cfjg3 �f7 10 0-0 dS 1 1 �e1 �dB 12 .Q.g4 d3! 13 cxd3 .Q.cSCC'i . After 6 .Q.a4 �f6! is a good reply 7 0-0 ( 7 4Jxd4 exd4 8 �hS+ �f7 9 �xf7+ �xf7 10 cfje2 .Q.cS and White cannot hold the extra

4 .f)c3 .f)d4 pawn) 7 . . . d6 8 �el (if 8 4Jd5 t/Jf7 or 8 4Jxd4 exd4 9 t/Jh5+ g6) 8 . . . c£)xf3+ 9 t/Jxf3 �d8 is approximately equal. 6 c[)xeS 4jf6? (6 . . . cxb5 7 t/Jh5+ ± ) 7 -'ld3!± was Nunn ­ de I a Vi l l a, Szirak 1987, but Nu nn's notes do not men­ tion 6 . . . t/Jg5! wi th total ly unexp lored compl ications. 6 -'l.d3!? is a radical at­ tempt to defend the f­ paw n . 6 . . . 4Jxf3+ 7 t/Jxf3 c£)f6 8 t/Je2 t/!Je 7 9 b3 d5 I 0 f3 -'l.d7 1 1 -'l.b2 0-0-0 12 0-0-0 �e8 13 t/Jf2 �b8 14 g4 was clearly better for White in Wedberg - de Ia Vil la, Lu­ gano 1988. 6 . . . c£)xf3+, de­ velopi ng al l of Whi te's position for h i m , looks to be the cu l pri t here. More to the point is 6 . . . c£)f6. exd4 6 7 t!JhS+ rJ;e7 dS!? 8 o-o A continuation suggested and analysed by the Ita l i an master Tatai w hose analy­ sis we now fol low . Gheorghiu - Bielick i . Mar del Pl ata 1 965 saw i nstead 8 dxc3 9 dxc3 c£)f6 (9 . . . d6? 10 -'l.c4 d5 11 Z!el + rJ)d7 12 t/if7+ 4Je7 13 -'ig5+-) 10 �e 1+ �d6 1 1 -'l.f4+ ltfc5 12 -'l.e3+ (not 12 b4+? rJ)b6) 12 . . . ltfd6 13 -'l.f4+ eventual ly draw n. ...

69

After 8 4Jf6 9 �e1 + rJ)d6 Tatai's analysis gives 10 c£)e4+ ( 1 0 t/Jh4 ltfc7 1 1 t/ixd4 cxb5 12 c£)xb5+ rJ)b8 13 d3 t/Jb6 1 4 t/Jxb6 axb6 15 -'l.f4+ d6 16 c£)xd6 ,O.xd6 17 -'l.xd6+ ltfa7 18 g4;t) 10 . . . 4Jxe4 I t �xe4 cxb5 1 2 d3! -'l.e7 13 f6 gxf6 14 t/Jxb5 rJ;c7 15 ,O_f 4+ d6 16 t/ic4+ ( 16 t/Jc5+ �d7 17 t/Jb5+ �c7 18 t/ic5+ leads only to perpetual check) 16 . . . rJ;d7 ( 16 . . . �b8 17 t/Jf7) 17 t/Je6+ rJ;c7 18 t/Jf7 Z!e8 19 �ael �d7 20 lde6! Let's return to the main conti nuation 8 dS!? ...

...

9 �et+ 9 b3 is well met by 9 . . . dxc3. Garcia - Tatai , Terre­ mol i nos 1983 went 10 -'l.a3+ �d7 I I t/Jf7+ 4Je7 12 f6 ( 12 �fel t/Je8! and White's att­ ack comes to a standsti I I ) 1 2 . . . gxf6 1 3 ldfe1 �g8! 1 4 ti!Jeb+ ( 1 4 �e6 �g7 ! ) 1 4 . . . ltfc7 1 5 t/Jxf6 4Jg6 1 6 t/Jf7+

70 4 .f)c3 .f)d4 .Q.d7 1 7 �xg8 .Q.xa3+ 9 'iftd6 10 �e8 After 10 d3, the Black king runs away - 10 . . . 4Jf6 11 .Q.f4+ �cS! 12 b4+ �b6! 13 4Ja4+ ( 13 a4 a6 ! 1 4 �f7 �d7) 13 . . . �xbS 14 c4+ dxc3 15 4Jxc3+ �a6 16 �d1 .Q.xb4 and White remains a piece down. 10 4Jxd51? is another try for White . 10 . . . cxdS 1 1 �e8 �f6 12 d3 4Je7 13 .Q.gS �xfS 14 �h4 4Jc6 15 b4! �c7 16 .Q.d8+ �d7 17 rtae1 gS 1 8 �xd4 �g8 19 �8e5 �xd8 20 �xdS+ �c7 21 rtxfS .Q.xfS 22 �xg8 �dB 23 .Q.xc6 bxc6 24 �xgS .Q.g6 25 �aS+ �c8 26 h4 .Q.d6 27 hS .Q.e8 28 c4 .Q.c7 29 �fS+ �b8 30 �xh7 1-0 Seibold - Bruning, Bundes­ liga 1990. 10 �f6 11 d3 4Je71 12 .Q.f4+ The attack 12 .Q.g5 �xfS 13 g4!? is rep u lsed by 13 . .. �f3! 1 4 .Q.xe7+ ( 1 4 �e1 .Q.xg4) 1 4 ... .Q.xe7 15 rtxh8 .Q.xg 4 16 �xh7 �xh8 17 �xh8 dxc3+ 12 �c51 13 b4+ �b6 14 .Q.g5 14 a4 a6 (simpler is 14 . . . dxc3) 1 5 aS+ �a7 1 6 .Q.a4 dxc3 1 7 .Q.c7 bS! and again ...

B lack keeps the extra piece having beaten off the attack. 14 ... �xf5

Here it i s di ffic u l t to see an effective White conti n­ uation, and Black threatens to consolidate the material advantage. The black king has obtained a curious sanctuary on b6 . 15 g4 15 .Q.xe7 .Q.xe7 16 �xfS .Q.xfS 17 �xe7 dxc3 18 .Q.a4 and White keeps the mater­ ial balance but the offside bishop gives Bl ack the chances after 18 . . . g6 or 1 8 . . . gS �f3 15 16 .Q.xe7 .Q.xe7 17 �xh8 .Q.xg4 18 �xh7 �xh8 19 �xh8 dxc3+

B) 5

4Jxe5

4 4)c3 4)d4

5 t!;f6 This certainly seems to be Black's bes t. Others lead to a Whi te advantage. For example: a) 5 ... tf1e7 6 t/Jh5+ g6 7 4:Jxg6 t!;f7 8 exf5 4:Jxc2+ (8 . . . hxg6 9 t!;xh8 4:Jxc2+ to \fidt 4:Jxa1 11 �et+) 9 \fidt 4:Jxa1 10 �c4 b) 5 ... 4:Jf6 6 d3! �c5 ( i f 6 . . . fxe4 7 dxe4 4:Jxb5 8 4:JxbS t!;e7, then Whi te has a material p l u s after 9 4:Jxc7+ \fid8 1 0 4:Jxa8) 7 0-0 c) 5 ... �g5 6 0-0 fxe4 7 f4 exf3 8 4:Jxf3 4:Jxf3+ ( 8 . . . �c5 9 c£)xd4 �xd 4+ 1 0 \fiht ) 9 �xf3 �c5+ to d4! 6 4:Jf3 Mechkarov analysed the continuation 6 f4 fxe4! 7 4:Jd5 ( 7 0-0 is a mistake because of 7 . . . c£)xb5 8 4:Jxb5 �b6+ , but Shamko­ vich's recom mendation 7 �c4!? deserves attention.

71

Another move here is 7 �a4 which l ed to interesting play i n Mi ner - Hagg lof, Correspondence 1983, e.g. 7 . . . t/Jh4+! 8 g3 �h3 9 4:Jxe4 �g2 to c£)f2 c£jf6 11 c3 4:Je4! 12 4:Jeg4! 4:Jf3+ 13 \fie2 h5t) 7 . . . t!;d6 and came to the concl usion that it is good for Black after 8 �c4 ( 8 t!;h5+ g6 9 4:Jxg6 hxg6 10 �xh 8 �xd5 11 c4 4:Jc2+ 12 \fidt �d3!) 8 . . . c6 9 t!;h5+ g6 10 4:Jxg6 hxg6 1 1 �xh8 4:Jxc2+ 12 \fid1 4:Jxa l . 6 4:Jxb5 6 . . . fxe4 7 4:Jxd4 ( 7 c£)xe4 4:Jxf3+ 8 �xf3 t/Jxf3 9 gxf3 c6 to .Q.e2 d5 11 c£)g3 .Q.h3 is better for B lack despite the pawn deficit) 7 . . . �xd4 8 0-0 c6 9 �a4 c£jf6 (9 . . . d5 10 d3 exd3 11 �e3 �g4 12 �xd3± ) 10 d3 exd3 11 �e1+ \fif7 12 �e3 �h4 13 thxd3 d5 14 �d4 �d6 15 g3 Frid Schmidt, Correspondence 1958. Now , instead of 15 . . . �g5? 1 6 .Q.xf6 t!;xf6 17 4:Jxd5! +- Black s hould have played 15 . . . �hS with eq ual chances. 7 c£)xb5 fxe4 8 t!;e2 �e7 9 c£)fd4 9 c£)xc7+? \fid8 10 4:Jxa8 exf3+ d6 9

72 4 fJc3 fJd4

10 o-o 11 d3 12 c£)c3

c£)f6 a6 �4

Here Black has eq ual play thanks to the poten­ tial acti vity of the bishop pair. 13 f3! 13 t;Ye3 exd3 14 �xd3 0-0-0 IS -'lgS �d7 t6 l:!fe t cS with the initiative, Zaharian - Nikiti n , Moscow 1963. 13 ... exf3 14 �f2! 14 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 simplifies Black's task of uti l isi ng the bi shops. 14 o-o-o 15 c£)xf3 �b8 16 �5 h6 17 �ae1 t/;Jf7= Black can hold his ow n here, Bobo lovich - Nikitin, Moscow 1 963. c

5

.a_c4

5 c6 The best response. If 5 ... d6 then 6 exfS! gives White excel lent chances. For ex­ ample 6 . . . c£)f6 ( 6 . . . .Q.xfS 7 c£)xd4 exd4 8 �f3! -'lg6 9 �xb7 dxc3 10 �c6+ �e7 1 1 0-0 �c8 12 ZXe t+ �d8 1 3 .Q.e6 c£)e7 1 4 �f3 �b8 IS dxc3 wi th a decisive attack for the sacrificed piece, Kir­ ianov - Remeni uk, Semi­ Final Ukraine Ch. 19S9) 7 0-0! .Q.xfS (7 . . . c£)xfS 8 �e1 6 ( d4) 8 c£)xd4 exd4 9 �e1+ .Q.e7 10 c£)e2 cS 1 1 c£)f4 dS 12 c£)xdS! c£)xdS 1 3 �f3± ( Euwe) 6 d3 (i nstead of 6 exfS!) 6 . . . c£)f6 can lead to inter­ esting play, e.g. 7 c£)xd4 (7 -'lgS h6 8 c£)xeS hxgS 9 c£)f7 �b6 10 c£)x h8 �xb2 11 0-0 �xc3 12 eS �xc2 13 exf6 �xd1 14 flf7+ �d8 IS �axd t gxf6 16 �del flcS 17 �h1 bS 18 f4 �c7 19 �e8 aS 20 -'lg6 b4 21 fxgS fxgS 22 c£)f7 a4

4 4Jc3 4Jd4 23 c[)xgS b3 and B l ack went on to win in Antunes - de Ia Vi l l a Garcia, Andorra Zonal 1987) 7 . . . exd4 8 c[)e2 fxe4 9 dxe4 4Jxe4 10 �xd4 4Jf6 1 1 .QgS c6 12 0-0-0 d5 1 3 4Jf4 fle7 1 4 c[)xd5! cxd5 1 5 Jlxf6 gxf6 1 6 flxd5 Jlf5 1 7 �f4 �c8 1 8 flb3 fle6 1 9 flxe6 �xe6 2 0 !!del �xa2 2 1 ti!Jc7 0 - 0 2 2 !!xe 7 t/1a1 + 23 �d2 !!adS+ 24 �e3 1-0 Ab­ ramovic - Kovacevic, Novi Sad 1985 . However, Black does better to take the chance for 6 . . . fle7 ! (6 . . . c[)xf3+ 7 �xf3 c[)f6 8 .Qg5 l B exf5 c6 then . . . d5 } 8 . . . c6 9 0-0-0 h6! 10 Jlxf6 t/1xf6= Halif­ man - Inkiov, Pl ovdiv 1 982) 7 c[)xd4 exd4 8 c[)e2 Jlf6 9 0-0 c6 t o c[)g3 c[)e7 Faibis­ ovich - Korolev, Leningrad 1962) . 6 o-o Al ternatives: a) 6 flxg8 !!xg8 7 0-0 d6 (7 . . . �f6 8 exf5 d5! 9 c[)xe5 4Jxc2CX5 ) 8 !!e1 4jxf3+ 9 �xf3 f4 to d4 ( 10 �h5+ g6 1 1 �xh7 !!g7Ci5 ) 1 0 . . . g5 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 12 c[)e2 (mistaken are 12 t/1h5+ !!g6 13 �xh7? !!h6 14 �g8 fle6 and 12 !!d1 �c7 13 t/1d3 fle6) 12 . . . fle6 13 �c3 fld6 1 4 b3 �b6 15 flb2 0-0-0=F

73

b) After 6 d3 c[)xf3+ 7 �xf3 �f6 8 �e2 (8 exfS c[)e7!; 8 0-0 fxe4 9 �xe4 c[)e7 or 8 flxg 8 !!xg8 9 exfS d5 a l l leave Black the better chances) 8 . . . f4! B lack has good play . For example 9 fld2 4Je7 1 0 0-0-0 d 6 1 1 f 3 fld7 1 2 �f2 g 5 13 h4 g4 and Black's pos­ ition is preferable, Wester­ inen - Lanka, j u rmala 1978. c) 6 c[)xeS

Now 6 . . . t/1f6 is ri sky as after 7 c[)f3! fxe4 8 4Jxd4 t/1xd4 9 d3 d5 10 fle3 �f6 l l flxd5 ! cxd5 12 4Jxd5 White obtai ns a very s trong attack for the piece. The rig ht continuation is 6 . . . t/1e7! when after 7 �h5+ ( 7 4Jf7 d 5 8 4Jxh8 dxc4 9 0-0 fle6 /::, . . . 0-0-0) 7 . . . g6 8 4Jxg6 4Jf6 9 c[)xe7+ (9 �h4 hxg6 10 t/1xh8 fxe4) 9 . . . 4Jxh5 10 4Jxc8 4Jxc2+ 1 1 �d1 4Jxa1 12 exf5 d5 13 fle2 c[)f4

7 4 4 .f)c3 .f)d4 Black stands wel l . 6 d6

In Bogolyubov - Reti, Stockhol m B lack 1919, played poorly 6 . . . 4Jxf3+? 7 �xf3 �f6 8 d4! exd4 9 eS! �h4 10 4Je2 -'l,cS 1 l b4!± A better al ternative i s 6 .. . 4Jf61? If White now tries 7 �e1 then with 7 . . . 4Jxf3+ 8 �xf3 fxe4! 9 4Jxe4 dS 10 4Jxf6+ �xf6 11 t!YhS+ lt?d8 Black gets good play. Better is 7 4Jxe5 fxe4 (7 . . . t/Je7? 8 exfS) 8 4Jf7 �c7! ( 8 . . . �e7 9 4Jxh 8 d S 10 -'l_e2 -'l,fS 1 1 d3 0-0-0 12 -'l_e3 4Jxe2+ 1 3 4Jxe2 ± Gel l er Rodriguez , Las Pal mas 1976) 9 4Jxh8 dS 10 -'l,xdS cxdS 1 1 4Jxd5 t/JeS! 1 2 4Jxf6+ gxf6� , and if i nstead 10 -'l,e2 -'l,d6 ( to . . . -'l,fS) 1 1 -'l,hS+ g6 12 4Jxg6 -'l,xh2+ 13 lt?h1 hxg6 1 4 -'l,xg6+ lt?e7 Black has a good attacki ng position for the exchange. -

7 �et Others : a) 7 4Jxd4 exd4 8 4Je2 fxe4 9 4Jxd4 �f6� b) 7 d3 4Jxf3+ 8 �xf3 and now after 8 . . . f4! 9 g3 �gS or 9 h3 �h4 Black gets good p l ay. Mechkarov's recom mendation 8 . . . �f6 is wel l met by 9 exfS dS 10 -'l,b3 -'l_xfS 1 1 �g3 -'l,d6 12 .Q.gS �g6 13 �ae1 and White has chances for the initiative, Zacharov - Nikitin, Moscow 1962. c) 7 exfS -'l,xfS ( 7 . . . dS 8 4Jxe5 4Jf6 9 �e1 -'l,e7 10 -'l,d3 4Jxf5 or 10 . . . 0-0 with compensation; 7 . . . 4Jxf5 8 �e1 -'l,e7 9 -'l,b3 4Jf6 to d3 ( 1 0 4Jg5 d S 1 1 �xeS 0-0 ) 1 0 . . . �b6 1 1 h 3 �f8! 12 g4 4Jxg4! 13 hxg4 4Jh4 with a strong attack, Novopashin - Bab­ enishev, Ukraine 1962) 8 4Jxd4 ( 8 d3 4Jf6) 8 . . . exd4 9 �e1+ lt?d7 with sharp play . 4Jxf3+ 7 8 �xf3 f4 9 d4 9 -'l,xgB �xg8� 9 g3 �f6 10 d 4 (better to gxf4 �xf4 11 �xf4 exf4 12 d4 gS= ) 10 . . . gS 11 dxeS ( 1 1 -'l,d2 hS 12 gxf4 gxf4 13 h3 t/Jh4 1 4 lt?h2 4Jf6 15 4Je2 -'l,h6! 16 -'l_c3 .Q.xh3-+ Kryu kov - Popov, Correspondence 1961/62) 1 1

4 .f)c3 .f)d4 . . . dxe5 1 2 �h5+ �g6 13 �xg6+ hxg6 1 4 .Q.d2 c[jf6 15 h4 cijg4 16 �g2 .Q.c5 1 7 �f1 gxh4=F Yoffie - Yudasin, Leni ngrad 1978. 9 �f6 10 b41 cije7 11 dS hS

D

s 6

o-o .Q.a4

� =�

Goldstein - Rozu menko, Correspondence 1983.

c6

6 d6 Black's alternatives: a) 6 ... cijf6 7 exf5± see Chapter 5, B3. b) 6 . . t!Jf6 7 d3 cijxf3+ 8 �xf3 f4 9 d 4 d6 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 4:jd5 thd6 12 �d1 cijf6 13 cijxf4 .Q.g4 1 4 �xd6 .Q.xf3 15 �xc6± Rivera - Santos, Lucerne 1 982. c) 6 ... bS 7 .Q.b3 cijxb3 8 axb3 b4 9 cije2 fxe4 to 4:Jxe5 cijf6 11 4:Jg3! �c? 12 4:Jg4 4:Jxg4 13 t!Jxg4 d5 14 �g5 �e? ( 1 4 . . . .Q.d6 15 d3! 0-0 16 dxe4± Black has no comp­ ensation for his nu merous weaknesses) 15 �e3 tf1c5 16 d4 the? 17 f3 exf3 18 thxf3± Nemet - Bojkovic, Skopje 1962. Whi te has a usefu l lead in development. d) 6 . thaS 7 exf5! d6 8 �b1 ! b5 ( 8 . . . .Q.d7 9 cijxd4 .

bxc6 12 d.xc6 13 bS .Q.e6 14 .Q.xe6 14 .Q.d31? 14 �xe6 15 �d1 cijg6 16 bxc6 4:Jh4 17 �e2 17 �d3 �g4 18 g3 cijf3+ 19 �g2 h 4 20 h3 hxg3 and, i f anybody, i t i s Black w ho is for preference . �c8 17 18 c7?1 �xc7 19 cijdS �c8 �f7 20 �b1

75

.

.

76 4 f)c3 f)d4 exd4 to b4 �a6 { 10 . . . �b6 1 1 �hS+ 't'd8 1 2 4je2} 1 1 �hS+ 't'd8 12 bS �aS 13 �h4+!+-) 9 4Jxd4! exd4 10 .Q.b3 4jf6 ( 10 .. . dxc3 1 1 �hS+ 't'd8 12 .Q.xg8 cxd2 1 3 �gS+ .Q.e7 1 4 �xg7 dxct� 1 5 �bxct +-) 1 1 �e2+ 't'd8 1 2 4je4± Anders­ son - Schmidt, Correspond­ ence 1959. 7 �e1 7 exfS is a serious alter­ native w hen Black can con­ sider: a) 7 �aS 8 �bt ! as i n Andersson - Schmidt above. b) 7 ... �f6 8 �e1 't'd8 9 d3 4jxf3+ 10 �xf3 �xfS= c) 7 ... .Q.xfS 8 4jxd 4 exd4 9 �e1 + (9 �f3 �d7 to �e1 + 4Je7 1 1 c£)e2 �e6±) 9 . . . 't'd7 10 �f3 g6 1 1 4je2 and now, not 11 . . . �f6 w hen 12 b4! (Tuk makov - Bojkovic, Vrn­ jacka Banja 1 965) is good for White, but 1 1 . . . .Q.g7! = �aS 7 7 . .. 4Jf6 8 4jxd4 exd4 9 4jd5 fxe4 10 d3 e3 ( t o . . . 4jxd5 1 1 �hS+) a:> Rubenchik - Goldenov , Vitebsk 1 960. 8 exfS 8 �bt bS 9 4jxd4 exd4 10 .Q.b3 doesn't su cceed on account of to . .. dxc3 1 1 �hS+ 't'd8 1 2 .Q.xg8 g6! 8 't'd81 Mis taken is 8 ... !J.e7? as .•.

after 9 4jxd4 exd4 10 4je4! �xa4 1 1 4jxd6+ 't'f8 12 �hS Whi te wins.

This position pro mises a sharp, uncompromisi ng st­ ruggle. 9 a3 Whi te can try to play more actively, viz 9 b41? �xb4 10 �b1 �aS 11 .Q.a3 but Black can then organise counterplay with 1 1 . . . 4jf6 12 4Jg5 't'c7 13 .Q.b4 �a6 14 f4 bS. Gurgenidze - Boyar­ i nov , M i nsk 1 964 contin ued 15 4jf7 bxa4! 16 4jxh8 .Q.xfS 17 d3 cS 18 .Q.a3 exf4 19 �d2 f3 20 4jf7 h6 21 �f 4 �c6 22 .Q.b2 �b8 23 4je4 4je2+ 24 �xe2 fxe2 25 �xfS �xb2 26 �e1 �d7-+ .Q.xfS 9 10 b4 �b6 11 d3 .Q.g4 12 .Q.e3 4jf61 exd4 13 .Q.xd4 4JdS 14 4je4

4 fJc3 f]d4 With equal chances, N i l ­ sson - O l s s o n , Stockho l m 1964.

E 5

�a4

This bishop retreat was for a long ti me considered the s trongest continuation, and gave Black many u n­ pleasant experiences. But ways have been fou nd for Black to obtai n fu l l cou n­ terplay . 5 c£)f6 The most promising l ine. After 5 ... c6, White has a strong reply i n 6 c£)xe5! If 6 . . . c£)f6 then 7 0-0 fxe4 8 c£)xe4 c£)xe4 9 !let ! dS t o d3! gives Whi te the advantage. Mechkarov suggests 6 . . . thf6 as an a l ternative to 6 . . . c£)f6, but Black sti l l has di fficu l ties fol lowi ng 7 f4. For example: a) 7 . b5 8 �b3 c£)xb3 9 .

.

77

axbJ b4 10 c£)e2 fxe4 1 1 c£)g3! dS 12 d4 exd3 13 tf1xd3 ± b) 7 c£)d3 fxe4 (7 . . . �d6 8 0-0 c£)e7 9 �et) 8 c£)xe4 �g6 9 c£)g3 dS to c£)f4 �f7 11 c3 c£)e6 12 c£)xe6 �xe6 13 d4 and Black has no compensation for the paw n. 6 o-o 6 c£)xe5 fxe4 7 0-0 and now 7 ... �cS is a mistake in view of 8 c£)g4! 0-0 9 c£)xf6+ �xf6 tO c£)xe4 �h4 1 1 c£)xc5 c£)f3+ 12 gxf3 !lfS 13 �e2± . Correct i s 7 . . . �d6! 8 c£)c4 �e7 9 c£)xe4 (9 d3 exd3 t o thxd3 c£)e6) 9 . . . c£)xe4 1 0 �g4 0-0 1 1 �xe4 c£)f3+ ! 1 2 gxf3 dS= 7 c£)g4 ( i nstead of 7 0-0) is possible. A possible con­ tinuation is 7 . . . �e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 c£)xf6+ �xf6 to c£)xe4 dS 11 c£)xf6+ �xf6 12 c3 bS! 13 �b3 c£)xb3 14 thxb3 c6 15 d4 tf1g6Ci5 �c5 6

78 4 tfjc3 tfjd4

6 fxe4 is not so good after 7 4Jxd4 exd4 8 4Jxe4! 4Jxe4 9 �h5+ 6 . . . c6 7 exf5! transposes to a good line for White from the fifth chapter (variation BJ) . 7 c[:)xeS 7 4Jxd4 exd4 8 4jd5 0-0 9 d3 fxe4 10 �5 c6 (10 . . . !J.e7) 1 1 4Jxf6+ gxf6 1 2 !J.h6 �f7 1 3 �g4+ �h8 1 4 �h5 �e7 15 dxe4 d6 16 !J.b3 !J.e6 17 !ladt !J.xb3 18 axb3 d5a::> Kochiev - Gutman, Baku 1977. 7 o-o 7 . bS? 8 4Jxb5 fxe4 9 c3 4Jxb5 t O !J.xb5 0-0 1 1 d4± Balanel - Korch noi , Ploesti 1957. 7 . . fxe4 8 d3 or 8 4Jg 4 are both good . 7 c6 8 b4!? !J.b6 9 4Jc4 !J.c7 10 e5± Kupreichik Bel lon, Barcelona 1984. 8 4Jd3 8 exfS d5! is excel lent for Black (again as i n Chapter five, B3) . 8 fxe41 An unexpected blow! This surpri sing and deep piece sacri fice generates excel lent play for Black. 8 !J.b6 9 e5 4Je4 tO 4Jd5:t is feebl e i n comparison. 9 4Jxc5 dS ...

..

.

...

...

10 d3 At first sight, Black piece sacrifice appears to be highly optimistic, but analysis serves to demon­ strate that it is by no means easy for White to defend himsel f. AI ternatives; a) 10 h3 �d6 11 4Jb3 4jf3+! 12 gxf3 !J.x h3-+ b) 10 f3 exf3 11 gxf3 !J.h3 12 !lf2 4Jg4! 1 3 fxg4 �h4! - + c) 10 4Jb5 � 4 1 1 �e1 4jf3+ ( 1 1 . . . 4Je2+ 12 �hi 4Jf4 is a lso good) 12 gxf3 !J.xf3 with the decisive threats of 13 . . . �c8 or 13 . . . 4Jg4. d) 10 4Jb3 !J.g4 1 1 f3 ( 1 1 {jxd4 !J.xd1 12 {jxd1 �d6! and Black won, Georgiev Inkiov, Bulgaria 1980/81 ) 1 1 . . . exf3 1 2 gxf3 4Jxf3+ 13 !lxf3 !J.xf3! 1 4 �xf3 4Je4 15 �g4 �f6 16 �g2 �h4 0 : 1 Tsvei fel - Glazkov , Gelend­ zik 1 977.

4 fJcJ 4)d4 e) 10 .Q.b3 �h8 1 1 .Q.xdS (only thus can White a l l e­ viate the im mediate danger) 1 1 . . . 4Jxd5 12 4:)5xe4 ( 12 4J3xe4 4jf4 1 3 d3 4Jxg2! 1 4 �xg2 �h4 15 f 4 .Q.g 4 1 6 tbe1 �f3+ 17 ijf}g1 4Je2+) 12 . . . 4Jb4 ! 13 d3 4Jbxc2 1 4 .Q.g5 tbd7 15 �cl 4:)b4. Lehmann Spassky, Vienna 1957 con­ tin ued 16 �a4? ( Tai manov and Furman recom mend 16 a3, �e3 anf f3) 16 . . . tbxa4 17 4Jxa4 4Je2+ 18 ijf;h 1 4Jxc1 and Black won. 10 ... 4Jg4 reco mmends Lehmann conti nuing the attack with 10 . . . �4 1 1 �d2 bo. 11 4:)Sxe4 White must return the piece , as 11 dxe4? �h4 12 h3 4Jxf2 and 1 1 h3? �h4 12 hxg4 4jf3+ are catastrophic. 11 dxe4 12 4Jxe4 �h4 13 h3

79

13 ... 4Je51 The reck less piece s ac­ rifice 13 . . . 4Jf3+? 1 4 gxf3 leaves Black u nable to jus­ tify hi s investment: a) 14 . tbxh3 15 fxg4 !l_xg4 1 6 4Jg5! tbh4 1 7 �e1 ! !l_f3 1 8 �e6+ b) 14 . . 4jh2 15 ijf;xh2 �xh3+ 16 ijf;g1 �xf3 17 !l_b3+ �h8 1 8 �d2 c) 14 . .. 4Je5 15 f4 tbxh3 16 f3 In a l l cases White has a wi nning advantage (Tai m­ anov and Furman) 14 f4 Vukcevic - Matu lovic, Sarajevo saw the weaker 14 !l_b3+ 'ifth8 15 4Jg5? ( 1 5 f4 .Q.g4 16 �d2 4Je2+ ! 17 'ifth2 �ae8! D. 18 . . . 4jf3+ with . . . �xe4 fol lowing and White has no satisfactory de­ fence) 15 . . . 4Jef3+ 16 gxf3 !l_xh3 and Black won. �4 14 ..

.

e

80 4 4)c3 4)d4

15 �d2 Of course not 15 �e1? 4Jef3+! 15 ... .Q.f311 An excel lent resource, discovered by Mechkarov. After 15 .. . 4Je2+ 16 �h2 Black's attack is stil lborn.

16 4Jc3 Mechkarov claims this is White's best chance. The alternative is 16 fxe5 .Q.xe4! 17 dxe4 �xfl + 18 �xfl �f8+ 19 �g1 4Jf3+ 20 gxf3 �xf3 res u l ting i n a highly u n­ clear position. White is best advised to take the safer course of the text conti nuation. 16 �f6 �g6 17 �f2 18 �xh4 �xg2+ 19 �ht �f2+= A very instructive var­ iation which emphatica l ly demonstrates the value of the in itiative.

7)

4 �c3 fxe4 5 �xe4 w-ithout 5 . . . d5

1 2 J 4 5

e4 4Jf3 .a_b5 4jc3 4jxe4

e5 4Jc6 f5 fxe4

5 a6 is weak. Gurgen­ idze - Lei n , Bak u 1961 con­ tinued 6 .a_xc6 bxc6 7 d4 dS 8 c[)xeS (8 4Jg3) 8 . . . dxe4 9 �hS+ g6 to 4Jxg6 4jf6 1 1 �eS+ �f? 1 2 4jxh8+ �g8 13 .a,gs .a,g? 1 4 .a_xf6 �xf6 15 �e8+ �f8 16 �xc6± ...

A)

5

.a_e7

Currently the most pop­ u l ar conti nuation . Here we concern oursel ves with the Black tries

A) 5 ... .a_e7 B) 5 ... 4Jf6 5 .. d5 i s considered i n the eighth a nd ninth chap­ ters. .

This should not be good for Black but White is forced to cou nter energ­ etical ly . 6 d4!

82 4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 t£Jxe4 without 5 . . . d5 Best. Other continua­ tions pose less problems : a) 6 .Q.xc6 dxc6 7 t/Je2 .Q.g4 8 h3 .Q.xf3 9 t/Jxf3 {)f6 10 {)xf6+ .Q.xf6 1 1 t/Jb3! t/JdS! 12 t!Jxb7 t/Jxg2 13 t!Jxa8+ (13 �f1 \tild7) 13 . . . \tild7 14 t/Jxh 8 t/Je 4 + IS \til f l t/Jxh 1 + 1 6 \tile2 t/Je4+ "-'l : "-'l Kel ler - Duck­ stei n, Bad Pyrmont 1 963. b) 6 o-o dS! 7 {)g3 .Q.g4 8 h3 .Q.xf3 9 t/Jxf3 {)f6 10 t/Jc3 (if to t!Je2, Kapengut re­ com mends 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .Q.xc6 bxc6 12 t/JxeS .Q.d6Ci3 ; to t!JfS is met by 10 . . . t/Jd7) . White wins a paw n , but Black gai ns sufficient counter­ chances with 10 . . . t/Jd7 (10 ... 0-0 II .Q.xc6 bxc6 1 2 t/Jxco .Q.d6! { 12 . . . t/Jc8? 13 c4± Kapengut - Marjas i n , 1976} 13 c4 e4 14 cxdS .Q.xg3 IS fxg3 t!JxdSco) II .Q.xc6 bxc6 12 t/JxeS 0-0 13 t/JfS .Q.cS 1 4 t!Jxd7 {)xd7 I S d3 �ae8 16 .Q.d2 hS 17 �ael �xel 18 .Q.xel h4 19 {)e2 �e8= Nezhmet­ di nov - Lei n, Vologda 1962. Black s ucceeded in holding the balance. c) 6 t!Je2 {)d4 ! (6 . . . {)f6 7 {)g3 ! - see below) 7 {)xd4 exd4 8 t/JhS+ \tilf8 9 .Q.c4 t/Je8 10 t!Jxe8+ \tilxe8 1 t 0-0 c6 12 .Q.e2 dS 13 {)g3 (Teschner - Duckstein, Salzburg 1 961) 13 ... go! with good play.

d) 6 4:)&3 {)f6?! ( correct is 6 . . . {)d4! as i n the prec­ eding example) 7 t/Je2 0-0 8 .Q.xc6 dxc6 9 0-0 .Q.d6 to {)xeS �e8 tt d4 cS t2 .Q.gS cxd4 13 f4± Ku porosov jandemirov , Kostroma 198S. 6 exd4 6 . . . dS 7 {)egS! h6 8 {)h3!± 7 o-o 7 {)xd4 {)f6 8 {)xf6+ ( 8 {)g3 0-0 9 {)dfS d S tO 0-0? {10 {)xe7+ t/Jxe7+ tt t/Je2= had to be played } tO . . . .Q.cS 1 1 c3 .Q.xfS 12 {)xfS {)e4 13 {)e3 {)eS 14 .Q.e2 c6 with a tremendous position for Black , Kay umov - Nadezh­ di n, Uzbekistan 1971) 8 . . . .Q.xf6 9 {)xc6 bxc6 to t/Je2+ .Q.e7= lvkov - Duckstei n, Zagreb 19SS. 7 dS 7 . . . {)f6 proves unsatis­ factory after 8 {)xf6+ .Q.xf6 9 �el + {)e7 (9 . . . \tilf8 tO .Q.f4 d6 ( Holaczek - Duckstei n, Vienna 1973 } is doubtfu l , e.g . I I .Q.xc6 bxc6 t2 {)xd4 cS 1 3 {)e6+ .Q.xe6 14 �xe6 ,!!b 8 tS t!Jf3 and Black is under great pressure and wi l l find i t difficu l t to re­ pu l se the attack) 10 {)gS 0-0 tt {)xh7! wi th a decisive attack as in the game Trif­ unovic - Kostic, Rogatska Zlatina 1939.

4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 without 5 . . . d5

8 �egS! Only this conti n uation, i n conju nction with the sacrifice of a piece, gives White chances for the ad­ vantage. Instead , 8 �g3 .!lg4 9 h3 .Q.xf3 10 �xf3 i s not so dan­ gerous for Black, as the game Voitsek - Nadezhdi n, Correspondence 1978, dem­ onstrates - 10 . . . �f6! 1 1 �fS 0-0 1 2 .Q.xc6 bxc6 13 �xd4 �e4 1 4 �g 4 �d6 1S .Q.e3 ( t S �fS �f6 16 .Q.h6 llf7 and Whi te's attack is peter­ ing out) 1S . . . g6 16 �ad1 �f6 17 c4 hS= 8 h6 8 �d6 9 �xd4 .Q.f6 1 0 �a4 �ge7 1 1 .Q.f4± 9 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 10 �f7! �xf7 11 �eS+ �f6 12 �xd4! After 12 �hS? .Q.fS 13 �f7+ �xeS Black can avoid

83

being mated while mai n­ tai ning the material p l u s , e . g . 14 .Q.f4+ ( 14 �e1+ �d6 I S �xfS �cS) 1 4 . . . �xf4 1 S �ae1 g6 16 g 3 + (Zaitsev Lisenko, 1964) and now with 16 . . . �gS! Black could have achieved a decisive advantage. 12 cS 13 �f 4+ .Q.fS 14 h41 14 g4 �c8 1S �e1 gS! 16 �f3 .Q.d6! 17 �xdS .Q.e6 1 8 �e4 �e7 1 9 b4 .Q.dS 2 0 �e3 �e6 21 .Q.b2 .Q.xeS! 22 .Q.xeS+ �f7+ Han - Nadezhdi n, Tashkent 197 1 . 14 �g4+ �g6 1S �eS+ �f6 16 g 4 �c8 17 �e 1 gS!+

...

Whi te's attack is very strong as is demonstrated by practice. 14 .Q.d6 Better than the text, but also i nsufficient for eq ual­ i ty i s 14 g6. The corres...

...

84 4 fjc3 fxe4 S fjxe4 without S . . . dS pondence game Voloshin - Nadezhdin 1 978 showed the way for Whi te 1 5 b4! 'it]g7 16 .Q.b2 4Jf6 17 g4 .Q.e6 ( B l ack has kept the extra piece but the White attack conti nues) 18 Hfe1 d4 19 4Jc6 �d7 20 4Jxe7 t/Jxe7 21 bxcS gS 22 �xd4! and White's advantage is not in doubt. 15 He1 4Je7 16 g4 .Q.xeS 17 �xeS+ 'tt]f7 18 gxfS �d6 19 �e6+ �xe6 20 fxe6+ 'it]g6 21 .Q.f4 HacB 22 Had1 Hhe8 23 c41± Black lost on time! Vol­ oshin - Savchenko , 1970.

B 5 4Jf6 This simple developing move w as not seen in ser­ ious tournaments for many decades, because it was ass u med that after 6 4Jxf6+ �xf6 7 �e2 Black was losing a paw n without However, compensation. times have changed and statistics show that many modern exponents of the jaenisch give preference to s . . . 4Jf6.

Now there are two White moves worthy of consider­ ation:

B1) 6 4Jxf6+ B2) 6 �e2 6 .Q.xc6 dxc6 7 �e2 was examined in the first chap­ ter. B1 6

4Jxf6+

· � · i� · �

� + r� + �.

��

�. +

� ..... � ..... � � ..... ·� .&\·� � �-� � �

� -'1 � w � � � � � � � �{J � � � �./'/- � � ·r''"'" � � . .·'//�� �� �� �� · · �·� m � §

6 t!Jxf61 Only thus. 6 ... gxf6 proves unsatisfactory after 7 d4. Bardeleben - Leon­ hardt, Vienna 1908 saw 7 . . . d6 ( 7 . . . e 4 8 {)gS! .Q.b4+ 9 c3 fxgS 10 �hS+ 'it]f8 11 .Q.xgS 4Je7 12 .Q.c4 dS 13 .Q.xdS! 1 : 0 Brinckmann - Kieni nger , Ludwigs hafen 1932) 8 dS! a6 9 .Q.e2 4Je7 10 4Jh4 c6 ( 1 0 . . . 4Jg6 1 1 .Q.hS Hg8 12 �d3 'it]f7 13 f4 exf4 1 4 0-0±) 11 .Q.hS+ 'it]d7 1 2 dxc6+ bxc6 13 c4!

4 f)c3 fxe4 S f)xe4 without S . . dS .

w i th a long term i niti ative. We now have the further dichotomy:

Btt> 7 0-0 B12) 7 �e2 Others do not test Black , e.g. 7 .Q.xc6 dxc6 8 �e2 .Q.g4! 9 �xeS+ .Q.e7 reaching a favourable position from the mai n line, or 7 d4 4Jxd4! 8 4Jxd4 exd 4 9 0-0 .Q.e7 1 0 �hS+ g6 t t �h6 c 6 t 2 �e1 \tlf7! 13 �xe7+? (13 .Q.c4+) 13 . . . �xe7 1 4 .Q.gS �eS-+ Neu­ ronov - Ivanov , Tbi lisi 1973.

Btl 7

o-o

7 4Jd4 7 .Q.e7 gi ves White var­ ious options: a) 8 �e2 4jd4 leads to the main line . b ) 8 �et 0-0 ( 8 . . . 4jd4 is the m ai n l ine) 9 .Q.xc6 dxc6 . . .

8S

10 d4 ( 10 d3 .Q.d6) 10 . . . .Q.g4= ( Belavenets) . c) 8 .Q.xc6 dxc6 (worse i s 8 . . . bxc6 9 �e1 ! d 6 1 0 d4± ) 9 �e1 0-0 ( 9 . . . e4 10 �xe4 .Q.fS) 10 d3 .Q.d6 11 4JgS �g6 12 4je4 .Q.h3 13 4Jg3 .Q.g4= 8 4Jxd4 exd4 9 �et+ Others: a) 9 �hS+ g6 tO �e1+ .Q,e7 leads to the mai n variation. b) 9 .Q.e2 .Q.e7 tO d3 0-0 t t .Q.f3 c6 12 .a,d2 dS= Liang Hjorth, Thessa loniki 1984. c) 9 d3 !J.e7 10 �hS+ g6 1 1 �h6 c6 1 2 .Q.a4 dS t 3 .Q.d2 \tlf7 1 4 �aet .a,fB 1S �f4 �xf4 16 .Q.xf4 .Q.g7= Kruppa - jandemirov , 198S. d) 9 b3 .Q.e7 (9 . . . c6 tO .Q.c4 (Tal recommends tO .a,d3 dS 1 1 c4 ( 1 1 �e2+ .Q.e6! t2 .Q.b2 \tlf7 ! } 1 1 . . . .a,e6! t2 cxdS .Q.xdS 13 �g4 ( 1 3 �e2+ �e6) 13 . . . hSco ) tO . . . bS! 11 �e1+ .a,e? t2 .a,d3 0-0 t 3 �e2 dS t4 �xe7 �xf2+ IS !it}h l .a,h3 t6 �g1 �ae8co Friedrich Schlesinger, Hu ngary 1988) . 10 .a,b2 c6 1 1 .a,d3 dS 12 �e2 'tflf7!? t3 �ael .a,d6 t 4 f4 !J.d7 IS �f2 cS 1 6 �f3 .a,c6 t7 fS .a,es 07 . . . �he8) t8 �hS+ \fie? t9 �f2 \tid? Thiemann Kitev, Correspondence t982. !J.e7 9 10 �e2

86 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 without 5 . . . d5 The manoeuvre 10 �h5+ g6 1 1 �h6 is not dangerous for Black after I I . . . c6 12 d3 lftf7 1 3 -'la4 ! (13 �xe7+? �xe7 14 -'lgS tfJeS and Black won in Plato nov - Ivanov , Riga 1 975) 1 3 . . . dS 1 4 -'lf4 -'lf8 15 �gS �xgS 1 6 .a_xgS -'lfS= 10 ... c6 10 . . . b6 1 1 f3 -'lb7 12 b3± 11 .a_d3 l 1 -'la4 came u nstuck i n Leminski - Ehrke, Bundes­ liga 1987. Black developed a strong initiative and after 1 1 . . . dS 12 �h5+ �f7 1 3 �e5 0-0 1 4 f3 -'lh4 15 �f1 !l_f6 16 thd6 -'lf5 17 d3 �ae8 18 -'lf4 �e6 19 thb4 -'ld8 20 -'lb3 .a_xd3 2 1 cxd3 �xf4 22 �xb7 nh6 23 g3 �e3+ 24 lftg2 �e2+ 25 �f2 �xh2+ he went on to w i n . 11 d5 11 ... d61? 12 b3 0-0! 13 thxe7 thxf2+ 14 ltth 1 -'lh3 15 �e4!? .a_xg2+ 1 6 �xg2 t!Jxe1+ 17 t!Jg 1 thf2!? 18 thxf2 �xf2 19 -'lb2 c5 20 lftgl ! �af8 21 �el �xd2 22 .a_ct �df2 23 �e7= Shatskes - Auzinch, 1984. 12 b3 12 c3 -'ld7 13 cxd4 ( 1 3 f3 lftf7!) 13 . . . 0-0! 12 f3 lftf7 13 b3 !l_d6 1 4 !l_b2 !l_e6=F Zauerman - Ivan-

ov , Correspondence 1979. 12 . . . o-o 12 . . lftf7 is bad , e.g 13 -'lb2 -'ld6 14 c4± 13 thxe7 thxf2+ -'lh3 14 ltth1 15 �g1! ? Here, White can, if he wishes, make a draw by 15 gxh3 �f3+ (Adorjan - Par­ ma, Moscow 1 977) . The text is a risky attempt to p l ay for the win. �ae8 15 ... 16 �xf8+ t!Jxf81 The correspondence game Yavorsky - Gartner, 1980/82 saw the weaker 16 ... �xf8? 17 !l_a3 �e8 18 �aft �xd2 19 gxh3 �aS 20 -'ld6 ± .a_xg2+ 17 �ft 18 lftxg2 .

This is a critical position for the variation. Rabi no­ vitch - Zauerman , Corres­ pondence 1981 186 saw the i nferior 18 ... �e7? and

4 f)cJ fxe4 S f)xe4 without S . . . dS after 19 .a_b2 �gS+ 20 ijf}lht cS 21 rJ:fS White had a winning position. I ns tead . . . 18 �d6! . . . is the right conti nua­ tio n, keeping co unterchan­ ces - see i l l ustrative game 6, Kalegin - Mik. Tsei t l i n . ...

B12 7

�e2

.a_e7

8 .a_xc6 8 o-o o-o (8 . . . 4:)d 4 is exami ned above) 9 .a_xc6 leads to the mai n variation. 8 d3 4:)d4 9 4:)xd4 exd4 10 h4 h6 It .a_d2 c6 12 .a_a4 ijf}ld8!? 13 0-0-0 aS 14 c4 dxc3=F Korneyev - Mik. Tsei tlin, Moscow 1 976. dxc6 8 Also worth attention is 8 bxc6. Penrose - Boey, Lugano 1968 developed 9 �xeS (9 d4 �g6! 1 0 dxeS 0-0 11 0-0 d6) 9 . . . �f7 10 ...

87

0-0 ( taking the second pawn is dangerous, viz 10 �xc7 0-0 11 d3 { 1 1 0-0 �g6 12 4:)eS �e6} I t . . . �e6+ { I I . . . .a_d8!? } 1 2 �eS .a_b4+ 1 3 ijf}lfl (13 c3 �g6) 13 . . . �f7 14 a3 .a_e7 IS .a,gs .a_xgS 16 �xgS �b8 17 b3 r!bS 18 �e3 �fS =F ) t O . . . d 6 1 1 �g3 0-0 1 2 d4? ( more to the poi nt are 12 d3 or 12 b3) 12 . . . �b8 13 b3 �bS! 14 �e1? ( after the text, White's posi tion becomes critica l , preferab le is 1 4 .a_d2 �hS I S �aet .a_d8 1 6 c4 �bfS 17 �e4= Palermo Arjala, Fin land t97S) t 4 . . . �fS 1 S .a_e3 �hS! with very dangerous threats . 9 4:)xe5 9 d4 .a,g4 tO dxeS �g6= 9 �xeS .a,g4 to �xf6 ( t O d4 .a_xf3 I t gxf3 �xf3 t2 �g 1 0-0-0 13 .a_e3 .a_f6 1 4 �e6+ ijf}lb8 1S �g4 �dS+ Orlov Ivanov , Leni ngrad 1973) 10 . . . .a_xf6

88 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 withou t 5 . . . d5 White's possibilities from this position: a) 11 ci:)g1 0-0-0 12 f3 �fS 13 d3 �heB+ 1 4 4:)e2 �e7 IS �f2 (1S �dt cS!) I S . . . �deB, and due to his lack of dev­ elopment White w i l l have trouble defnding himself. b) 11 o-o o-o-o 12 �et 02 d3 �xf3 13 gxf3 �he8) 12 . . . �he8 1 3 �xeB �xe8 1 4 �ft �xf3 1S gxf3 �eS 16 h3 �f8 17 �g2 �f6 18 d3 �g6+ 19 �ht �d4+ Yadul - Ross, Correspondence 197S) c) 11 d3 �xf3 ( or 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 and if 12 ci:)gS then 1 2 . . . �he8+ 1 3 4:)e4 �xe4+ !) 1 2 gxf3 0-0-0 1 3 �b1 �dS 1 4 �e3 �eB I S �d2 �aS 16 a3 �hS 17 h3 �h4+ Yusupov ­ M i k . Tsei t l i n , Rostov 1981) d) 11 c3 cS 12 d3 0-0-0 13 �e2 �dS ( 1 3 . . . c4 1 4 dxc4 { 1 4 d 4 cS! gives Black good co unterp lay, e . g . IS dxcS -'l_fS 16 -'l_e3 �d3+ 17 �e l �he8 1 8 �d4 �S 1 9 �d2 .a,xe3+ 20 fxe3 �f8 } 1 4 . . . �e6 I S �dl ( 1 S .a,e3 �xc4+ 16 �e1 �d3) 1S . . . �xc4+ 16 �el �xd1 + 1 7 �xdt �d8+ 18 lltel �dS 19 �d2 �aS 20 a3 �bS 21 b4 �dS and despite the extra w h i te paw n, Black's chances are better) 1 4 �e3 ( Here ECO states that White's position is better)

14 . . . �hd8 1S �ad1 -'l,fS! 16 d4 c 4 1 7 �d2 �d3+ 18 �dt �aSa5 M i k . Tseit l i n - Ar­ bakov , Moscow 1988. Retu rni ng to the main variation after 9 �xeS:

9 .a,fs Al so possible is 9 Q-01? 10 0-0 -'l_d6 1 1 4:)c4 ( 1 1 d 4 �fS! 1 2 f 4 �xeS 1 3 dxeS �g6 1 4 !!f2 �ad8 1S �e3 aS with good positional com­ pensation for the paw n, Morozov - Mik. Tseitlin, Correspondence 198S/87) 1 1 . . . �g6 12 �xd6 cxdo with good piece play . 10 d3 Weaker is 10 c3 0-0-0 1 1 0-0 cS 1 2 f4 !!he8 1 3 d3 �a6 14 �dt �f6. 10 d4 0-0! I eads to Morozov - Tsei tlin above, but in the correspondence Banfalvi game Levin ( 1 98S/89) Black chose i n­ stead 10 . . . 0-0-0 I I -'l_e3

4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 without 5 . . . d5 �d6 12 f4 �xeS 13 dxeS! ( 1 3 fxeS thg6 1 4 c 3 !:!he8) 1 3 . . . thh4+? (better 1 3 . . . thg6) and after 14 thf2! �xf2+ 1 S �xf2 �xc2 1 6 h 3 hS 17 g4 �e4 1 8 r!hd1 hxg4 19 r!xd8+ liftxd8 20 hxg4 Whi te had the adva ntage. 10 ... Q-0! Lyavdansky recom mends 10 . . . 0-0-0 b u t this seems weaker after 11 0-0! r!he8 ( 1 1 . . . �d6 12 c£)c4! !:!hf8 13 �e3! 2:. r!ab1 & b 4 1' ) 12 f4 (also good is 12 c£)c4 �cS 13 �e3 thg6 1 4 thf3) 12 . . . �d6 ( 1 2 . . . gS 1 3 thf2) 13 thf2 ( 1 3 thf3!?) 13 . . . �b8 14 .Q.e3 a6 1S �d4 thf8 16 4Jc4 �c8 17 a3! g6 18 b4 thh6 19 �cS �e6 20 .!l_xd6 cxd6 21 4:JaS± Glek - Arbakov, Sochi 1 98S. 11 o-o 11 ,!l.d2 .!l_d6 1 2 .!l_c3 !:!ae8 13 f4 thh4+ 14 thf2 ( 14 g3 thh3 1S liftd2 .!l_xeS 16 .!l_xeS .!l.g4 17 thft thhS+ ) 14 . . . thxf2+ 1 S liftxf2 �xeS 16 �xeS �xd3= !:!ae8 11

see follo wing diagram In this position, Black has definite compensation for the sacrificed paw n . 12 d4 12 4:Jc4 thg6 13 lifth1 �cS 1 4 �e3 bS 1 S thd2 �e7 1 6 c£)eS

89

thf6 17 f4 .!l_d6 ( 1 7 . . . cS) 18 d4 �xeS ( 18 . . . .Q.e4) 19 dxeS (after 19 fxeS! White would have the better chances) 19 ... thg6 20 c3 .!l_e4 21 r!ad1 thg 4+ Silva - Mik. Tsei t l i n , Odessa 1976. 12 �d6 13 f4 .!l_xe5 14 dxe5 thg6 15 !:!f2 h5 15 . �dB 16 .!l_e3 !XdS ( 16 . . . aS 17 �h 1 hS 18 h3 �dS 19 �cl !:!fd8 20 r!ff1 b6 21 �f2 cS 22 lifth2 �f8 23 r!fel .!l_e4 24 the2 �fS 2S �fl �fd8 26 thf2 �f8Ci5 Schlosser Outere l l o, European Team Ch, Haifa 1989) 17 a4 aS 1 8 r!aft hS 19 � h 1 h 4 2 0 h3 �fd8Ci5 Marjanovic - Vi lmas, Kavala 198S. 16 �e3 Kindermann - Kotronias, Dortmund 1989 offered fur­ ther evidence that Black has no need to be afraid of ..

90 4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 without 5 . . . d5 this position, e.g. 1 6 �h1 �d8 17 �e3 �dS 18 h3 �fd8 19 �e1 b6 20 �h2 �f7 21 �f3 h4 22 �f2 !!d2 23 �c4+ .a_e6 24 �xc6 !!xc2 25 fS �xc6 26 fxg6+ �xg6 27 !!e2 .a_xa2 28 .a_xh4 �e8 29 !!a3 t.24.l . 16 b6 17 b4 h4 �e6 18 !!e1 !!dB 19 �d4 20 c3 �e8 �g6 21 �f3 22 !!d2 �e6 23 �dt h3 24 g3 t/;Jf7 25 �b3 Unzicker - Mik. Tsei tlin, Moscow 1 982, and now . . . 25 . . . .a_e6! . . . keeps the bal ance.

B21) 6 ... �e7 B22) 6 . . . d5 In the event of 6 . . . .a_e7, 7 4Jg3! leads to a favourable variation from the game Ku purosov - j andemirov - see variation A, note to White's sixth.

B21 6

�e7

B2 6

�e2

Here we analyse the con­ sequences of Black's two responses:

o-o 7 Others are not dangerous for Black : a) 7 .a_xc6 bxc6 ( 7 . . . dxc6 8 dJ ,a.g4 9 hJ .a_hs to 4Jg3 .a_xf3 1 1 �xf3 0-0-0= Shish­ ov - Mik. Tseitlin, Moscow 1977) 8 d4 4Jxe4 9 �xe4 exd4 to �xe7+ .a_xe7 1 1 4Jxd4 .a_f6+ Ghitescu Letelier, Leipzig 1960. b) 7 c4 4jd4 8 4jxf6+ gxf6 9 4Jxd4 exd4 10 �xe7+ �xe7 1 1 0-0 �f7 12 �a4 d6 13 .a_d1 hS= Kirpichnikov - Lanka,

4 fjc3 fxe4 5 fjxe4 without 5 . . . d5 Riga 1 977. c) 7 c3 dS 8 4jxf6+ gxf6 9 d4 exd4 10 4jxd4 �xe2+ 11 4Jxe2 .Q.e6 12 4Jf4 .Q.f7 "12 : lf.l Balashov - Bronstei n , Mos­ cow 1978. d) 7 d3 d6 8 �s ( 8 0-0 .Q.d7 9 .Q.e3 a6 10 .Q.a4 bS 1 1 .Q.b3 4JaS 1 2 .Q.d2 4Jxb3 13 axb3 .Q.c6 14 c4 4Jxe4 IS dxe4 �d7 16 4:JgS .Q.e7 17 f4 .Q.xgS 18 fxgS !!f8� Tal Mik. Tsei t l i n , Moscow 1982) 8 . . . .Q.d7 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 10 �bt h6 11 4Jxf6 gxf6 12 .Q.h 4 !!g8� Fatalibekova - Mik. Tseitlin, Moscow 1 97S. 7 dS 4:Jg3 8 8 4:Jc3 � 4! 9 �xeS .Q.xf3 10 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 1 1 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 12 gxf3 o-oas On 8 4:Jxf6+ Black should answer 8 ... gxf6 9 d4 e4 with the fo l lowing possib­ i l ities: a) 10 4Jh4 fS! 11 g3 01 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 1 2 �hS+ �f7 13 �xf7+ �xf7 1 4 f3 �7 t S c3 .Q.f6 ! � ) 1 1 . . . �7 1 2 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 13 c3 0-0 14 4Jg2 aS!= b) 10 4Jd2 .Q.d7 (also poss­ ible is 10 . . . �7!? I t f3 { I t c 4 0-0 and 1 1 �hS+ �f7 are favourable for Black } 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 .Q.xc6 bxc6 13 fxe4 �e8 1 4 !!e1 .Q.fS tS �a6 and now Black can choose bet-

91

ween 1S . . . �d7, 1S . . . �d6 and 1 S . . . cS!? with good counterplay) 11 c4 0-0-0 12 4Jb3 �g8 13 .Q.f4 dxc4 1 4 .Q.xc4 !!g 4 1 S .Q.g 3 fS. Shash­ in - Ivanov, Leningrad 1963 now contin ued 16 f3 exf3 17 �x f3 4Jxd4 18 4:Jxd4 !!xd4 19 !!ac1 , and with 19 . . . .Q.c6! 20 �xfS+ �b8 Black cou ld get good cou nterplay . Retu rni ng to the mai n line after 8 4:Jg3

e4 8 Black's other possibility is 8 . . . ..Q.g4 w hich invol ves a pawn sacrifi ce. Tseshkov­ sky - Bronstein , V i l ni us 197S conti nued 9 �xeS ( 9 d3 0-0-0) 9 . . . .Q.xf3 10 �xe7+ < Bronstei n recommends 10 �c3! as White's bes t. After 10 . . . .Q.xg2 11 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 12 �xc6+ �f7 13 �xg2! !!b8 1 4 d 3 !!b6 tS �c3 �d7 1 6 .o_gs .Q.e7 Bl ack sti l l has to prove the correctness of the

92 4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 without 5 . . dS .

pawn sacrifice) 10 . . . fili!xe7! 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 gxf3 filjld? 13 d3 �d6 14 �d2 �hf8 1S f4 {)g8! 16 �c3 and now Black had the straightforward possibi l i ty of 16 . . . �f7! 17 fS {)e7 returning a paw n to get the better position. 9 {)d4 .Q.d7 10 �xc6 10 {)xc6 bxc6 I I �a4 hS 12 �el h4 13 {)ft filjlf7 (better is 13 . . . h3! at once) 14 d3 exd3 IS �dl �b4 16 cxd3 h3+ 10 bxc6 11 d3

cS! 11 11 . . . �eS 12 {)f3! �e7 13 dxe4 dxe4 (13 . . . {)xe4 14 {)xe 4) 14 {)gS and I S �c4± 11 ... exd3 12 �xd3 �b4 13 c3 �c4 14 �e1 + ltff7 IS �c2± Nicevsky - M i k . Tsei tlin, Nalencow 1 979 . 12 {)dfS 12 {)b3 exd3 13 �xe?+ �xe7 14 cxd3 (Alexandria

- Leviti na, Moscow 197S) and now Black has various methods of obtaining a good position: a) 14 ... aS IS �e3 d4 16 �s a4 17 {)d2 h6 b) 14 ... .Q.a4 IS .Q.e3 .Q.xb3 16 axb3 ltff7 17 d 4 ( 17 {)fS d4! 18 .!lgS �hb8) 17 . . . cxd 4 18 �xd4 cS c) 14 ... �bS! IS �d1 0-0-0. 12 .. �xfS Others : a) 12 . . . �eS 13 dxe4 {)xe4 ( 13 . . . dxe4 1 4 f4 { 1 4 �a6 ! ? } 1 4 . . . �dS I S {)e3 �b7 16 {)c4 C:. 17 {)eS± ) 1 4 f3! !,ixfS IS {)xfS �xfS 16 fxe 4 �xe4 17 �bS+± b) 12 . . . �e6 13 dxe4 {)xe4 ( 13 . . . dxe4 14 f3 exf3 IS �xf3 �c6 16 �c3) 14 {)xe4 �xe4 ( 1 4 . . . dxe4 IS {)g3 .Q.c6 16 f3 and Black loses a pawn without getting any counterp lay) IS �xe4+ dxe4 16 {)g3 !,ic6 17 �el 0-0-0 18 !,if4! !,id6 19 £l.xd6 �xd6 20 {)xe4 �xe4 21 �xe4 �d2 22 �c4± 13 {)xfS �e6 .

see follo wing diagram This position can be reasonably assessed as dy namically equal . We w i l l now fo l low t h e game Don-

4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 without 5 . d5 . .

chenko - Mik. Tsei tli n, Moscow 1 975 . 14 dxe4 The retreat of the knight with 14 {)g3 shou l d not concern Bl ack if he conti­ nues active l y , e . g . 14 . . . -'l_d6 15 dxe4 ..O.xg3 16 fxg3 ( 16 hxg3 0-0 1 7 e5 {)e4 + ) 16 . . . 0-0 1 7 ..O.f4 �f7 ( 1 7 . . . c6) 18 e5 {)e4 and the black initia­ tive gives su fficient com­ pensation for the paw n. �xe4 14 15 �bS+ rJ;f7 16 �b7 �xfS!? 16 . . �dB 16 . . . ..O.e7 1 7 {)xe7 �xe7 1 8 ..0.f4 �hb8= 17 �xa8 �g8 18 �xa7 ..O.d6 With a s trong attack i n ret u rn for the sacrificed exchange. .

B22

=

6

dS

93

This continuation gi ves Black good counterplay . 7 {)xf6+ There is no convenient retreat for the knight. For example: a) 7 {)egS ,O_d6 8 {)xeS 0-0 9 4Jxc6 bxc6 to ..O.xc6 !:!b8 1 1 4Je6 ( t t c3 �b6 12 ..O.a4 ..0.f4 13 d 4 4Jg4 ! 14 ..O.xf4 �xf4 15 �e8+ �xe8+ 16 ..O.xe8 h6-+ Shlekis - Norm­ antas , Vi lnius 1979) 11 . . . ..O.xe6 1 2 �xe6+ �h8 13 �h3 �b6 14 ,O_a4 �b4t Huld End, Stockholm 1972. b) 7 4Jg3 ..0.d6 (also very acceptab le for Black i s 7 . . . e 4 8 {Jd4 ..0.d7 9 .Q.xc6 bxc6 tO d3 .Q.c5 t t 4Jb3 ..0.d6 12 dxe4 0-0 13 exd5 4Jxd5 l v ­ anovic - Tatai , Stip 1979) 8 {')xeS 0-0 9 4Jxc6 (9 ..O.xc6 bxc6 10 4Jxc6? {preferab le is 10 d4 c5 t t c3 cxd4 12 cxd4 c5 but Black is de­ veloping a pleasant init-

94 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 without 5 . . . d5 iative) 1 0 . . . �d7 1 1 �b5 a6 12 �a4 .Q.b7 and White is left a piece dow n) 9 . . . bxc6 10 .Q.xc6 �b8 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 d3 �b6 12 .Q.a4 �b4 13 b3 �xa4! 14 bxa4 �e8 15 .Q.e3 d4 and White faces material loss) 1 1 . . . �b6 1 2 .Q.a4 4Jg 4! 13 d4 4Jxh2! 14 �xh2 �h4+ 1 5 �g 1 .Q.a6+ Shutt - Gunter, Corr­ espondence 1 970/71 . c) 7 4Jxe5 dxe4 8 �c4 �d5 9 �xd5 4Jxd5 10 4Jxc6 .Q.d7 1 1 4Jd4 c6 12 .Q.c4 .Q.c5! 13 .Q.xd5 ( 13 4Je2 �f8 1 4 0-0 0-0-0 15 d4 exd3 16 .Q.xd3 { 16 cxd3 -'lg4 } 16 . . . �xf2 £:. . . . �f8 and Black restores the material balance while keeping the i nitiative) 13 . . . cxd5 1 4 4Jb3 .Q.b6 1 5 0-0 0-0=F 7 gxf6 8 d4 .Q.g71 This acti ve defence was only discovered recently. The old continuation was in White's favour, e.g. 8 e4 9 4Jh4 (9 4Je5 fxeS 10 �hS+ �d7 1 1 �xeS co ) 9 . . . t/Je7 10 .Q.f4! .Q.e6 (weaker is 10 . . . fS 1 1 g3! .Q.g7 as after 12 t/JhS+ t/Jf7 13 t/Jxf7+ �xf7 14 c3 Black is left a paw n down) 11 0-0 ( 11 g3 a6 12 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 13 .Q.h6± Montice l l i Spielmann, Warsaw 1935) 1 1 . . . t/Jd7 1 2 f3 ! exf3 1 3 �xf3 ...

�dB ( 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 .Q.xc6 t/Jxc6? 1 5 �c3) 1 4 t/Jf2 .Q.g7 15 net �e8 16 c3 �c8 17 .Q.d3!± Persidsky - jorgenson , Cor­ respondence 1979/80. 9 dxeS 9 c4 a6 10 .Q.a4 .Q.g 4 1 1 dxe5 0-0 12 cxdS 4Jxe5 13 .Q.e3 ( 13 .Q.b3 �e8 14 .Q.e3 f5=F ) 1 3 . . . c 5 1 4 .Q.b3 �c8 15 �ct f5 16 0-0 ( 1 6 h3? .Q.xf3 1 7 gxf3 f4 and Bl ack is better as 18 .Q.xc5? runs i nto 18 . . . �aS+) 16 . . . �e8 !? 17 d6+ �h8 18 �fe1 (18 . . . f4 was threat­ ened) 1 8 . . . .Q.xf3 19 gxf3 thhS 20 .Q.d5 b6 21 �edt (21 .Q.f4 4Jg6 22 �d2 .Q.d4!?co) 21 . . . �cd8 22 .Q.f4 4Jg6 reach­ ing a sharp position with approximately eq ual chan­ ces, Mortensen - Wedberg, Copenhagen 1983. 9 o-o 10 exf6 10 .Q.xc6 bxc6 is not worryi ng for Black. Nen­ ashev - Arbakov, Moscow 1986 contin ued I I e6 �e8 12 0-0 cS! (del ayi ng the cap­ ture on e6 and maintaining flexibi l i ty is a very accurate way to play . 12 . . . .Q.xe6 proved to be less preci se, but q ui te playab le i n Ochoa Chiburdanidze, Bi lbao 1987 - 13 4Jd4 �d6 14 �f3 �d8 15 t/Je2 .Q.f7 16 �f3 .Q.g6

4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 without 5 . . . d5 17 c£)f5 � -lt:l) 13 �bS ( 13 c4 �d6! 1 4 �d t �xe6 15 �c2 d 4 1 6 b4 .a_b7=F > 13 . . . .a,rs 14 .a_e3 (14 .a_f4 .Q.xe6 15 �fe1 !J..l -!J..l Sax - Chandler, Has­ ti ngs 1990/91) 14 . . . d4 15 �fd1 .a_d6 16 .a_xd4 cxd4 17 c£)xd4 .a_xeb 18 c£)xe6 �xe6= 11 .a_f4 seems to be an i n­ ferior alternative to 11 e6, e.g. tt . . . �e8 ( 1 1 . . . fxeS 12 .a,gs t!Yd6 13 c3 �g6 14 h 4 .a,g 4 15 �d2 �e4+ - + Rosch Ebe ling, Argentina 1935) 12 0-0-0 fxeS 13 .a_e3 ( 13 .a_xeS .a,g4; 13 c£)xe5 �f6) 13 . . . �d6 14 c3 .a,g 4 IS h3 .a_xf3 16 �xf3 �ab8 17 �g3 �hB+ Huski - Vindenmann, Corr­ espondence 1980/82. 10 e6 is wel l met by 10 . . . c£)e5! There are many ex­ amples of this , al l of w hich bear out this assessment, e.g. a) 11 �dl .a_xe6 1 2 c£)d4 .a_cB 13 .a_e2 cS 1 4 c£)b3 b6 15 c3 fS 16 0-0 .a_b7 and Black's superiority is not in q ues­ tion, Mokry - M i k . Tseitlin, Prague 1985. b) 11 o-o c6 12 .a_a4 ( 12 .a_d3 si mply provided fur­ ther evidence of Black's s uperiority here, e.g. 12 . . . .a_xe6 1 3 c£)d4 .a,g 4 1 4 f3 .a_d7 15 c£)f5 c£)xd3 16 �xd3 �b6+ 17 �h1 �xfS 18 �xfS �ae8 19

95

�f4 �e2 20 b3 �feB 21 h 4 �b4 2 2 �fd1 �cS 2 3 �d2 �xd2 24 �xd2 �d4 25 �d 1 �xh4+ 26 �g1 �e2 27 �g 4 �f2+ 28 �h 1 fS 29 �gS h6 0-1 Renet - Mik. Tsei tlin, Pal ma Open 1989) 12 ... .Q.xe6 13 c£)d4 .a_d7 1 4 f4 �b6 15 c3 Popov ic - Kurajica, Sarajevo 1985. Ku raj ica now p l ayed t he i nferior 15 . . . .a,g4 ?! but after 16 �c2 c£)c4 17 fS �feB 18 thf2 �e2 19 �e1 .a_d3 20 �e6 �xe6 21 fxe6 �e8 22 b3 c£)e5 23 .a_f4 .a,g6 24 �h i �ab went on to win anyway . Much better wou ld have been 15 . . . �ae8 with a de­ cisive advantage. c) 11 .a_e3 c6 12 .a_d3 .Q.xeb 13 c£)d4 .a,g 4 14 f3 .a_d7 1S c£)b3 b6 1 6 .a_a6 �e8 17 0-0 .a_cB 18 �fe 1 .a_xa6 19 �xa6 �cB 20 �xc8 �axeS 21 �ad 1 c£)c4 22 �c l fS 23 �xeB+ �xe8 24 c3 aS and Black eventual ly tri umphed in the endgame Tseshkovsky Yil maz , Kusadasi Open 1990 d) 11 .a_f4 c£)g6 ( 1 1 . . . �d6 12 0-0 �xe6 13 �ae1 c6 14 .a_d3 c£)xd3 I S �xd3 �f7 16 .a_d6 �dB 1 7 �a3 .a_e6 1 8 c£)d4 �e8 19 �e3 �d7 20 �fe1 �f7 21 h3 �xe3 22 �xe3 �e8 lt:l-lt:l He llers - Antu nes, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990) 12 e7 c£)xe7 13 0-0-0 c£)g6 1 4 �e3

96 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 without 5 . . . d5 c6 15 -'l,d3 �aS 16 'if}bl cS 17 c4 d 4 18 -'l,d2 �c7 1 9 -'l,e4 4Jf4 20 -'l,xf4 �xf4 2 1 �d3 fS 22 -'l,dS+ fitlh8 23 !!del -'l,d7 24 g3 �h6 25 h 4 -'l,f6 26 4Je5 -'l,xeS 27 !!xeS !!ae8 and was drawn i n fifty moves , Wed­ berg - Hynes, Nov i Sad O l­ ympiad 1990. �xf6 10 ... 4Jd4 11 �d1 A l so very good is 11 .Q.g4!7 e.g. a) 12 -'l,e2 !!ae8 13 0-0 !!xe2! 14 �xe2 4Jd4 15 �d3 -'l,xf3 16 gxf3 4Jxf3+ 17 fitlg2 4Je1 + and the rest is a mop­ ping up operation . b ) 1 2 �xdS+ rift h 8 13 0-0 !!ad8! 14 �gS -'l,xf3 15 �xf6 !!xf6 16 gxf3 4Jd4 w i t h a cl ear advantage. 12 �xd4 �e7+

see follo wing diagram 13 4Je5 13 �e3 is we l l met by 13 . . . �b4+ 14 c3 �xbS. -'l,xeS 13 14 �xdS+ fitlh8 15 -'l,e2 .Q.g4

16 -'l,e3 16 �c4 -'l,xe2 17 �xe2 !!ae8 18 ..Q.e3 -'l,xb2. -'l,xe2 16 17 fitlxe2 ..Q.xb2 18 !!ad1 !!ae8 19 !!d3 . . . !!xf2+ was a threat. c6 19 ... 20 �c4 20 � d6 �g7. The text is fo l low ing Klovan - Arbakov, 1984. Here Black should have continued �gSI 20 ... 21 fitld1 21 g3 �hS+ �xg2 21 ..Q.xd4 22 -'l,d4+ 23 �xd4+ �g7=

8)

4 4:)c3 fxe 4 5 4:)xe 4 dS

eS e4 1 2 {Jf3 4:Jc6 3 .Q.bS fS fxe4 4 {Jc3 5 4Jxe4 dS This heav i ly analysed continuation l eads to sharp p l ay and demands good theoretical know ledge from both White and B l ack. During rece nt years, its reputation has su ffered and it has not been seen too freq uently, attention hav ­ i ng transferred to S . . . {jf6. This , in our opinion, is un­ j ust. In this chapter, we ex­ amine the knight retreat 6 4Jg3 . The more aggressive 6 {)xeS w i l l be the subject of chapter nine. 6 4:Jg3 does not mount an i mmediate chal lenge the Black centre, and also puts the k night s l ightly out of play . Nevertheless, White has a development advan-

tage and Bl ack must be carefu l not to let this turn into a fu l l scale assau lt agai nst his ce ntral insta l ­ lations. The other alternati ve, 6 4:Jc3 is harm less al lowing Black easy counterp lay , e.g. 6 . .. .Q.g4! 7 �e2 ,O.xf3 8 �xeS+ �f7 (also fi ne is 8 't!Je7 9 �xe7+ 4:Jgxe7 10 gxf3 0-0-0 I I 4:Je2 {JeS 12 4:Jd 4 4:J7g6C:O ) 9 .Q.xc6 bxc6 10 't!Jf4+ cfjf6 1 1 't!Jxf3 .Q.d6 12 0-0 �f8 13 d4 �g8 1 4 't!Jh3 �e855 6 4:Jg3 . . .

98 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS

6 .Qg 4 Of the other possible Black res ponses, only 6 ... {!Yd6!?, w hich Nikiti n offers without analysis, seems worthy of attention. Pract­ ical experience of the alter­ natives is not encouraging: a) 6 . . . t(;Jf6 7 d4 e4 8 4Je5 �d6 9 4Jxc6 .O,d7 10 {!Yh5+ g6 11 t(;Jxd5 bxc6 12 t(;Jxe4+
{!Yd4 �h7 1 5 .(,lf4 and Whi te won in the correspondence game Ekstrom - Strom­ berg, 1964. 7 h3

Black is not trou bled by the alternati ves : 7 0-0 {!Yf6! The pressure that this generates agai nst f3 should be sufficient to alJeviate any opening dif­ ficul ties. For example 8 �e1 4Jge7 9 d4 0-0-0 10 �5 �xf3 1 1 .(,lxf6 �xd 1 12 �xe7 4Jxe7 13 �axd1 a6= Morten­ sen - Tukmakov , Reykjavik 1990. 7 �e2 �d6 8 d4 e4! 9 h3 (9 c4
4 f)c3 fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS lalso perfect ly playable is 9 ... bxc6 10 4:Je5 4:Jf6 1 1 4:Jh5 g6 12 4:Jxf6+ �xf6 13 0-0 .Q.d6 1 4 .Q.e3 �e6 IS f4 0-0 16 c4 ktab8 1 7 �e2 �b4 1 8 cS .Q.e7 19 �h 1 .Q.f6 20 t!ab l !Xfb8 21 b 3 aS 22 �c2 .Q.cB 23 a3 kt4b5 and Bl ack went on to convert his advantage in Panchenko - Sekulic, Be l­ grade 1989) 10 4:Je5 4:Jf6= ) 9 hxg4 fxg2 and now : a ) 10 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 I I �e2+ �e7= b) 10 �e2+ �f7!? I 1 �f3+ �f6 12 �xg2 { 12 �xdS+ �e6+ 13 �xeo+ �xeb 14 tlg l 4:Jxd 4 + ) 12 . . . �xd4 13 �f3+ 4:Jf6! 14 .Q.xco bxc6 IS gS �g4+ Shusterman - Gusev, Moscow 1968) d 10 �g1 �do < tO . �e7+ It �e2 �xe2+ 12 �xe2 0-0-0 13 .Q.e3 4:Jfo 14 �f3 hS IS gxhS 4:Jxh5 16 4:Jxh5 !XxhS 17 !Xxg2 !Xdo = Ku preichik Barreras , Pl ovdiv 1980) 1 1 �e2+ 4:Jge7 12 -'lgS 0-0-0 1 3 0-0-0 h b (Shusterman Agzamov, Moscow 1966) and now after I 4 .Q.xc6 �xc6 IS .Q.xe7 !XeB 16 4:JfS g6 17 �f3 as recommended by Schwarz , the chances are approxi mate ly equ a l . .Q.xfJ 7 8 �xfJ 4:Jf6 In our opinion 8 �d617 . .

...

99

also solves Black's prob­ lems. This al ternati ve to the text has been the sub­ ject of some recent atten­ tion and practical resu lts bear out our assessment. Witness the fo llowing ma­ terial: a) 9 4:Jf5 �e6 10 �g4 �f7 11 4:Je3 4:Jf6 12 �xe6+ �xe6 13 0-0 4:Jd4 I 4 .Q.a4 bS IS .Q.b3 aS; Cam i l l eri - Boey, Nice 1974. b) 9 c3 0-0-0 {9 . . . e4 is perhaps sligh tly inferior to the text, bu t nevertheless left Black with no problems in Balas hov - Kuzmi n, Mos­ cow 1989, e.g. 10 �e2 0-0-0 11 0-0 a6 12 .Q.xc6 �xc6 13 d3 exd3 14 �xd3 4:Jf6 IS .Q.gS .Q.cS 16 b4 .Q.b6 17 4:JfS ktd7 18 a4 �c4 19 ktad l �xd3 20 �xd3 4:Je4 21 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 22 ktxe3 g6 23 4:Jd4 cS 24 4:Je6 cxb4 25 cxb4 �bB 26 f3 c£)g3 and was eventual ly

tOO 4 tfJc3 fxe4 5 tfJxe4 dS drawn after 6 t moves) 10 0-0 �b8 t1 d4 e4 12 �dt g6 13 SlgS fle7 t 4 fleJ hS 15 �d2 h4 16 cije2 cijf6=F Kurajica Tatai, Karlovac t979. c) 9 0-0 0-0-0 tO cijfS (Others also fai l to make an impression on the black posi tion, e.g. to flxc6 �xc6! 11 �fS+ �b8 12 �xeS �xc2 or to cJ cijf6 11 d4 exd4 12 cijfS �cS 13 flxc6 �xc6 1 4 cijxd4 �d7 15 SlgS flcS= Smirin - Tukmakov, Lvov 1990) to .. . �cS 11 flxc6 �xc6 12 d4 e4= Dj uric Tatai , Vrnjacka Banja t979. d) 9 c4 0-0-0 to flxc6 �xc6 1 1 cxdS �xdS 12 �xdS !XxdS 13 �e2 4:Je7 gives Black a perfectly accept­ ab le endgame. Akopian Kuzmin, Podol sk t990 con­ tinued t4 dJ c£)c6 tS fle3 flcS 16 !Xhdt !Xhd8 t 7 c£)e4 flb6 18 4:Jc3 !XSd6 t9 c£)e4 !XdS 20 c£)c3 �Sd7 21 a3 cijd4+ 22 flxd4 flxd4 23 !Xd2 a6 24 4:Je4 �dS and was eventual­ ly draw n. The abov e l ines serve to demonstrate that 8 . . . �d6 is a perfectly feasible al­ ternative to the main l ines with 8 . . . 4jf6. The Black play is a l so consistent with the themes of this v ariation and w i l l repay study.

In this position White has a wide choice. We shal l examine in detail the fol­ lowing:

A) 9 c4 B> 9 o-o C) 9 cijhS Others: a) 9 d3 �d6 (9 . . . fld6! t o cijhS 0-0 1 1 cijxf6+ �xf6 12 �xf6 { 12 �xdS+ �h8 13 0-0 cijd4 doesn't help) 12 . . . gxf6+ Mik. Tseitlin - Kup­ reichik, Minsk 1969) 10 0-0 0-0-0 11 flxc6 �xc6 12 SlgS h6 1 3 flxf6 gxf6 14 c4 dxc4 15 �xc6 bxc6 16 dxc4 �d4 with good play , Rav insky Bronstei n, Moscow 1954. b) 9 �c3 �d6 10 ..O.xc6+ �xc6 1 1 �xc6+ ( 1 1 �xeS+ �f7 12 �fS �e8+ is risky for White) 1 1 . . . bxc6 12 d3 fld6 13 fld2 0-0 1 4 0-0 4Jd7! = Fuchs - Liebert, Berli n 1966.

4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS c) 9 d4 e4 to �c3 ( 1 0 �fS .Q.d6 1 1 .Q.gS { 1 1 {)hS 0-0 12 4:Jxf6+ �xf6 13 �xdS+ \fth8} 1 1 . . 0-0 1 2 .Q.xf6 -'l,b 4+ 1 3 c3 �xf6 :J: ) 10 . . . �d? 11 a3 .Q.d6 12 .Q.gS 0-0 1 3 0-0 a6 1 4 !l,xc6 bxc6 and Bl ack's chances are preferable, Resnichek - Vanka, Brno 1982. d) 9 !l,xc6+ bxco 10 �c3 �d6 11 0-0 \ltd? ( 1 1 . . . �f? 12 d4 exd4 13 �f3 ( 13 �xd 4 �b4 1 13 . . . g6 or 13 . . . �e8 and Black has good chan­ ces) 12 d 4 �e8 13 .Q.e3 (Tseshkov sky - Menviel le, Las Pa l mas 1976) and now 13 . . . {!lb4! wou ld have been eq ual. A 9 c4 .

101

strange, but it is consistent with Black's policy of pro­ tecting the centre. It is instructive to compare this w i th variation C where Black also tolerates a cer­ tain amou nt of di scomfort w i th his king in return for securi ng the centre. However, there are other ways to play : a ) 9 . . . e 4 10 '{;he2 .Q.c5 1 1 d4 -'l,b 4+ 12 \tlf1 .Q.e?! 1 3 {)f5 g6 1 4 4Jxe7 rJ;xe? 15 !l,e3 a6 16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 17 �cl �d6 1 8 c 5 �e6= Nordstrom Geransson, correspondence 1965. I nstead of 10 . . . !l,c5, Euwe recommends 10 . . . .Q.e? with the fol l ow ing possibilities: 1 1 cxd5 '{;hxd5; 11 4Jf5 0-0 12 cxd5 4Jb4; 1 1 0-0 0-0 o r fi nal ly 1 1 d 4 -'l,b4+ ( 1 1 ... 0-0 or ( 1 t . exd3!? 12 �xd3 0-0 also come i nto consideration) with interesting complic­ ations. b) 9 a6 ( a suggestion of B. Nesterenko) w hen: tO .Q.xc6+ bxc6 I 1 0-0 .Q.d6 10 cxd5 �xd5 I I tbxd5 4Jxd5 and 10 .Q.a4 b5 11 cxb5 4:)d 4 12 bxa6+ c6 are a l l worthy of atten­ tion. . .

...

\ftf7 9 Black , by threatening to . 4:Jd4 forces the exchange of the 'Spanish' bishop. Thi s move may look . .

102 4 t£jc3 fxe4 5 t£jxe4 dS c) 9 ... .!l,c51? seeking to increase the press ure ag­ ainst f2. 10 .!l_xc6 bxc6 11 o-o .!l,d6 11 . . . .!l,c5 12 d3 �fB 13 .!l_e3 .!l,xe3 1 4 fxe3;!;; ( Keres ) . 12 d3 �b81 13 b3 �e8 14 .a_e3 aS 15 c5?!

B 9

o-o

9 .Q.d6 For 9 . . . .!l,e7 see chapter seven, part A. 9 . . tbd6 10 d4 e4 l1 thfS g6 12 tbeS+ l(!/f7 13 tbxd6 .!l,xd6 = Richardson - Boey, correspondence 1972/76. 10 c£)h5 We now have the further dichotomy: .

15 .!l,f81 15 ... e4? 16 dxe4 .!l_xg3 17 fxg3 �xe4 1 8 .!l.gS;!;; Beisser - Hajek, correspondence 1967. After the text. there is no reason for Black not to face the future with confidence. 16 c£)h5 16 .Qg 5 h6! 16 ... l(!/g8 17 .Qg 5 .!l,e7 With the prospect of ex­ changes looming up, B lack can count on excel lent chances .

B1) 10 ... c£)h5 B2) 10 ... e4! B1 10 c£)xh5 11 tbxh5+ g6 12 tbf3 see follo wing diagram

12 ... a6 12 ... e4 is weak , e.g. 13 tffc 3 1{!/d7 14 d3 t/1e7 15 dxe4 .!l,b4 16 t/1b3 dxe4 17 .!l.gS±

4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS 103

Kony ukov - Ivanov , Moscow 1963. 13 .Q_a4 The exchange 13 .Q,xc6+ bxc6 serves only to streng­ then Black's pawn centre. lgnatiev - Pismenny, Mos­ cow 1 964 continued 14 d4 ( 1 4 d3 thd7! 15 .Q.h6 thf5 16 the2 0-0-0 L. . . . g5=F , Euwe) 14 . . . e4 15 thc3 �d7 16 b4 thh 4 1 7 a4 �hf8 1 8 .Q.d2 g5 19 bS axbS 20 axbS cxbS 21 �xa8 �xa8 22 �e3 thf 4=F thh4 13 ... thxc4 14 c4 14 ... e4 15 �b3 0-0 ( 15 . . . 0-0-0) 1 6 c5! ± 15 �f6

see follo wing diagram

15 .Q.b3 the4 16 .Q.xdS (16 t/1f6? �f8 17 �e6+ �e7 + ) 16 . . . t/1xf3 17 .Q.xf3 0-0-0 1 8 d3 �d4 19 .a_e4 11-.l : 11-.l Privor­ otsky - Sel ivanovsky, Mos-

cow 1963. �fB 15 . . . Interesting is 15 �d71? Tatai and Zinser suggest 16 thg7+ 16 . . . �e6 17 .Q.d1 , but after 17 . . . 4:)d4 or 17 ... 4:)e7, Black l ooks fine. Black can also cope with 16 thf7+, e.g. 16 . . . �c8 1 7 .a_b3 thd4 18 thxdS and now 18 . . . nrs or 18 . . . 4:)b4. 16 the6+ �dB Here, Nikitin gives the variation 16 ... .Q.e7 1 7 b4! �xb4 18 .a_xc6+ bxc6 19 t/1xc6+ fitt f7 20 thxdS+ fittg 7 21 d3! ( not 21 �xeS+? because of 21 . . . .Q.f6 22 �xc7+ �f7 23 thc6 �b7!) 21 . . . thd6 and White is a little better. Not however, 21 . . . �adS? 22 thxeS+ .Q.f6 23 �xc7+ nr7 24 .Q.h6+! fittg 8 25 nabt± 17 b4 17 .Q.b3 4:)d4 1 8 .a_xc4 4:)xe6 19 .Q.xdS 4:)c5 20 b4 ( 20 d4 exd4 21 b4 4:)d3 22 .Q_h6 �e8 ...

104 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 23 .Q.xb7 �b8 + ( Euwe}; 20 �dt c6+ ) 20 . . . �d3 21 .Q.xb7 �b8 22 .Q.e4 �xct 23 �fxct �xb4 and Black obtai ned a favourable ending, Lepe­ shkin - Bebchuk, Moscow 1963.

20 �xc6 �b8 21 dxeS �d4 22 e61 �c8 23 �d7+ �b7 24 �b1+ 1:0 Bakhchevansky - Kayaski , correspondence 1969. This should serve as a warning to B lack not to let the posi­ tion become too 'spaced out'. B2 10

A critical position for the variation 17 ... �xb4 If 17 . . . �xb4 then 1 8 d3 but more interesting is 17 ... �e8 ! ? with the possible conti nuation 1 8 �f6+ (18 �f7 �xb4) 1 8 . . . .Q.e7 19 �f7 .Q.xb4 20 �xh7 �d3 l eadi ng to a very s harp position where Black has counter­ play . 18 .Q.xc6 bxc6 .Q.e7 19 d41 19 exd4 20 .Q.h6! �e8 21 .Q.g5+ .Q.e7 22 �aet! !Ib8 ( 22 . . . �d6 23 .Q.xe 7 + �xe 7 24 �xc6 +-) 23 �f7 d3 24 a3! �xa3 25 �xe7 �xe7 26 !:tel +...

.

..

e41

This energetic conti nua­ tion, associated with a pawn sacrifice, creates complex problems for White. U �fS 11 �xf6+ �xf6 12 �xf6! (12 �h5+ �f7 13 �xf7+ �xf7 14 f3 �g6 ! + Lei n - Gheor­ ghiu , Soc hi 1964) 12 . . . gxf6 13 d3 0-0-0 14 dxe4 dxe4 15 .Q.e3 ( Ugterink - Bohm , Wij k aan Zee 1980) and now 15 . . .

4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS {)eS! leads to an unclear p osition. 11 Q-01 11 . . . tf!Jd7? 12 t!Jxf6 gxf6 13 {)xf6+ 'l;e7 14 �xd7 'iftxd7 15 d3 left Black wi tho ut com­ pensation for the pawn, Nez hmetdi nov Bergin, Moscow 1963 . 11 . .. �xh5 12 tf!Jxh5+ g6 13 tf!Jh6 t!Jf6 ( 13 . . . tf!Jd7) 1 4 d3 0-0-0 15 tf!Jg5 t!/f5 16 dxe4 dxe4 17 �e3 h6 18 t!Jxf5+ gxf5 19 �ad 1 h5 ( 19 . . . f4 20 �d4 !Ihg8 21 �c4) 20 �c4± Dvoiris - S mi ri n , Polanica Zdroj 1989.

105

13 t!JxdS+ 'ifth8 14 �xc6 bxc6 15 t!Jxe4 15 tf!JaS tf!Jf4 16 g3 tf!Jh6 17 'iftg2 .Q.xg3+ 15 !Iae8 16 t!Jc4 !Ie1! 17 f4 !Ixf1+ 18 t!Jxf1 .Q.xf4 19 g3? .Q.e3+ 0:1 It shou l d be noted that after 19 tf!Je2 tf!JgS! 20 tf!Jg 4 tf!Je5! 21 tf!Jdt tf!Jd4+ 22 �hi .Q.d6! White's cause is hope­ less. c

9

B l ack is splendidly devel­ oped and i s already threat­ ening to lau nch an attack against the White king. Black's possibi l i ties are i l l ustrated by the game Zamanov - Agzamov , Youth Tou rnament 1965, w hich we now fol l ow. 12 �Xf6 + t!/xf6

{)h5

The most frequently seen conti nuation. White ai ms to exchange the enemy knight without wasting time castling . t!Jd6! 9 With this move, Black safely overcomes the open-

106 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS ing difficu l ties, b u t also worth consideration is the recom mendation of Schach - Archiv, 9 e4 10 4Jxf6+ ( t O �f5 �f7 11 4Jxf6 gxf6 12 �h5+ �gB! l eads nowhere for White) to . . . �xf6 1 1 �h5+ �f7 1 2 �e5+ ( Keres s uggested 12 �xf7+ �xf7 13 .Q.xc6 bxc6 14 f3 exf3 15 0-0 .Q.c5+ 16 �h 1 , but after 16 . . . �aeB! 17 �xf3+ �g6 1 B �g3+ �h5! Black's advantage is clear) 12 . . . .!l,e7 13 .!l,xc6+ bxc6 14 �xc7 0-0 15 0-0 �e6co On 9 a6 t here can fol­ low to .Q.xc6+ bxc6 11 0-0! . . .

... .Q.e7 13 g4; ( 12 . . . g6 13 4Jxf6 �xf6 14 �g4 �e6 15 �a4 .Q.g7 16 f4! t ) 13 .Q.g5 �fB 14 .Q.xf6 gxf6 15 4Jg3± 10 4Jxf6+ gxf6 11 �hS+ �d7 Worth consideration is 11 �e7 12 c3 .Q.g7 13 .Q.e2 ( 13 0-0 {)dB 1 4 d 4 4Je6co Kris­ tol - Ranniku, Moscow 1972) 13 . . . �afB 14 .Q.g4 e4 15 d4 �dB Olifer - Asaturian, Sochi 1965. ...

.••

And now: a) 11 4Jd7 1 2 d4 e4 13 �g4! �e7 14 .Q.g5 �f7 15 f3 g6 16 4Jg3± Westerinen Cami l l eri , Hal le 1 967. b) 11 �d6 12 �e1 0-0-0 13 �e2 4Jxh5 14 �xh5 e4 15 d3± c) 11 �f7 1 2 d3 .Q.d6 ( 12 ...

...

...

The strong paw n centre adequate ly compensates for the exposed position of B lack's king. 12 �g4+ 12 .Q.e2 {)d4 12 c3 �dB ( Kupreichik recommends 12 .. . �eB 13 0-0 �e6 14 d4 .Q.d6 15 .Q.e3 �e7! with good play) 13 �g4+ �e6= 12 0-0 �dB 13 d4 lf1cB ( 13 . . . exd4 is not as direct, e.g. 1 4 �g4+ tf1e6 15 tf1xd4 �gB

4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 dS 107 16 .Q.f4 'iftcB 17 .Q.xc6 �xc6 1 8 b 4 �b6 19 �xb6 axb6= Bel­ l i n - Becx Guernsey 1990) 1 4 dxeS! (not 1 4 c3? �e6! IS .Q.xc6 bxc6 16 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 17 �ael �d7=F Planinc - Parma, Lj ubliana - Portoroz 1975) 14 . . . fxeS 15 .Q.gS !J.e7 16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 17 t!ae1 .Q.xgS 18 �xgS �deB= M atulovic Gasic, Birmi ngham 1 975. 12 �e6 13 .Q,xc6+ bxc6 14 �xe6+ 'iftxe6

9)

4 �c3 fxe4 5 �xe4 dS 6 4:)xe5 1 2 3 4 5 6

e4 4Jf3 .Q.bS 4Jc3 4Jxe4 4JxeS

eS 4Jc6 fS fxe4 dS

10 t!YeS �f7 1 1 t!Yxe4 4Jf6 12 t!YeJ 4Jb4 13 .Q.a4 4Jbd5 1 4 t!Yd4 .Qg 7 15 d 3 4Jd7 with exce l l ent piece play.

A) 7 ... bxc6 B) 7 ... t!YdS 7 . t!YgS i s exami ned in the next chapter. ..

A

Thi s popu lar continua­ tion is accompanied by a temporary piece sacri fice which leads to a sharp and interes ting strugg le. 6 dxe4 7 4Jxc6 7 t!YhS+ g6 8 4Jxg6 h xg6 9 t!Yxh8 i s too risky as dem­ onstrated by Sol ntsev Sel ivanovsky, Moscow 1961 which conti nued 9 . . . .Q.e6!

bxc6 7 An interesti ng, but very risky choice. 8 .Q.xc6+ .Q.d7 �e7 9 t!YhS+ 10 t!YeS+ .Q.e6

4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS 11 .Q.xaBI The best. Others al low Black to escape t he worst and organise cou n terp lay : a ) 1 1 d4 �f7! 1 2 �S ( 12 .Q.xa8 �xa8 ( 12 . . . .Q.d6 13 �xe4 4Jf6 1 4 �f3 �xa8 } 13 �xc7+ �e7 1 4 c4 4Jf6 1S dS .Q.d7 16 �f4 gS 17 �e3 .Q.d6 1 8 .Q.d2 �c8 and Black's active piece play gave him t he advantage, Zurav l ev - Star­ kov, U lyanovsk 1 960) 12 . . . 4Jf6 13 .Q.xf6 ( 1 3 d S .Q.d7 14 .Q.xa8 .Q.d6!) 13 . . . gxf6 14 �hS+ �g7 1S 0-0-0 �b8 16 .Q.xe4 �d7 17 �d3 .Q.d6 18 �aS �he8 and the two bishops gave Black the edge , Ban n i k - Mikenas, Vil ni u s 1 9S7 b) 11 f4 and now Black can respond i n two ways: bi) 11 exf3 1 2 d 4 ( i f 1 2 0-0 �b8 13 d4 then 1 3 . . . �b6 or 1 3 . . . �d6 with sharp play) 12 . . . 4Jf6 13 dS f2+! 1 4 �e2 4JxdS 1 S �S+ 4Jf6 16 �hd1 �c8 17 �d?+ �xd7! 1 8 .Q.xd7 �xd7 1 9 �bS+ �e7 and Black has su fficient comp­ ensation for the queen, Kovalev sky - Lyubarsky, 1968. bii) 11 . . . 4Jh6 1 2 �xe4 nbs 13 d4 �f7 14 fS .Q.c4 15 b3 .Q.b4+ 16 lifid 1 .Q.c3 17 dS �f6 18 �e6+ �xe6 19 fxe6+ . • .

109

li:fig6 20 bxc4 .Q.xa1 � Moro­ zov - Starkov , U lyanovsk 1960. Liberzon A. Ge l l er, Moscow - Leningrad ( m) 1960 saw 12 fS (instead of 12 �xe4) 12 . . . 4JxfS 13 nft . Black now b l u ndered with 13 ... 4Jd4?? and got mated after 14 �cS+! �d6 1S �gS+. However, with 13 . . . �d6! 1 4 �xd6+ (on 1 4 �xe4 �b8 1S �xfS? there fo llows 1S . . . �b4) 1 4 . . . �xd6 I S .Q.xa8 c6 Black could be looking for the advantage. Fi na l ly , 13 0-0 (instead of 13 nf1 in the above varia­ tion) 13 . . . �d4+ (better is 13 . . . �d6!) 14 �xd4 4Jxd4 1S .Q.xa8 4Jxc2 16 -'l.xe4 4Jxa1 17 d4 1ifid7! 18 .Q.f4 4Jb3 19 axb3 .Q.d6 20 dS -'l.g4 21 h3 �xf4 22 �xf4 -'l.hS 23 g4 �6 li2 : li2 was S havernayev Starkov , U lyanovsk 1960. �xa8 11 -

12

�xc7 +

lifie8

1 1 0 4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS

12 �f6 13 0-0! �g6 ( 13 . . . !J.e7 1 4 f3! and 13 . . . �dS 1 4 b3 !J.e7 1 5 !J.b2 + �f7 16 d3! don't help Black) 14 d3 {:)f6 15 �e1 hS 16 �g3+ �h7 17 dxe4± Smejkal - Duckstein, 1969. 12 !J.d7 13 d3 {:)f6 1 4 0-0 h6 15 dxe4 �e8 16 �aS !J.e6 17 !J.e3 a6 1 8 �ae1 �f7 19 �a4 !J.e7 20 f4+- Adamski Nilsson , Skopje 1962. !J.e7 13 o-o 14 d3 ...

...

White has a rook and two paw ns for two minor pieces, and the exposed position of the b lack king gives him every hope for victory . Practical examples are: a) 14 {:)f6 15 .Q&S! �f7 16 dxe4 �c8 ( 16 . . . �xe4 17 �ae1 ) 17 �f4 �xc2 18 �act! Hennings - Lanka, Riga 1971 . b ) 14 �f7 15 !J.e3 {:)f6 16 dxe4 �c8 17 �xa7 �xe4 1 8 ...

...

c3 {:)dS 1 9 �fe1 �g6 20 �h 1 Evans - Duckstein , Lugano 1968. c) 14 exd3 15 cxd3 �dS. This ( recommended by B. Nes terenko) is probably Black's best try , but White sti l l stands we l l . ...

B �dS 7 This variation first ap­ peared in practice in 1950 and has successfu l ly s ur­ vived the test of time over 40 years . 8 c4 8 {:)xa7+ c6 9 c4 �cS! and White loses a piece. 8 �d61 The o l d move was 8 . . . �gS? w hich i s disastrous fol lowing 9 d4 �xg2 10 �h5+ . The text move brea­ thes life i nto the variation and was first u sed by Can­ didate Master Agri nsky against Krogiu s in Moscow 1950. We now examine the fol lowing possibi lities:

Bt> 9 cS B2) 9 �h5 B3) 9 {:)xa7+ Bt)

9

cS

�xeS

4 4)c3 fxe4 S 4)xe4 dS 6 tf]xeS 10 tha4

4)16 10 10 .Q.d7 is u nsatisfac­ tory . Beggi - Contendini , Rome 1962 contin ued 1 1 thxe4+ 4Je7 12 4Jxe7 .Q.xbS 1 3 4Jg6+ �d7 1 4 4JeS+ �c8 and after 1S a4! Black didn't have a decent reply as 1S ... .Q.xa4? 16 �xa4! �xc1 + 17 �e2 thxh t 18 thfS+ l eads to mate and 1S . . . .Q.e8 1 6 b4! thxb4 1 7 thfS+ �b8 18 0-0! gives White a decisive attack. 11 d4 Tempting but mis taken is 11 4Je5+? c6 12 4Jxc6 bxc6 13 .Q.xc6+ .Q.d7 14 .Q.xd7+ 4Jxd7 1S thxe4+ because of the prosaic answer· 1 5 . . . the5 a nd Bl ack must w i n . exd3 11 Others are also possible: a) 11 thd6 12 .Q.f4!? thxf4 13 4JeS+ c6! 14 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 15 thxc6+ 4Jd7! co ( Gi pslis) . ...

...

111

b) 11 �b6 12 4JeS+ c6 13 .Q.c4 .Q.b4++ Rantanen So llid, Gausdal 1981 . An example of further play from here is Hu nerkopf Seyffer, Bundes liga 1989 1 4 �ft �f8 IS .Q.e3 4Jg4 16 4Jxg 4 .Q.xg 4 17 �b3 0-0-0 1 8 .Q.e6+ .Q.xe6 19 �xe6+ �b8 20 �xe4 �b5+ 21 �g l .Q.d6 22 �c2 .Qf4 23 h4 h6 24 �h3 gS 2S hxgS hxgS 26 �f3 �h8 27 .Q.xf4+ gxf4 28 �d2 'i:t;la8 29 �e1 ndg8 30 �eS �c4 31 �el �dS 32 �xf 4 �hS 33 �f1 thbS+ 34 �g l thhS 3S �fl thbS+ 36 �g1 �hS 37 �f1 ...

ll:z-llz

12 o-o 12 .Q.e3 can be met by 12 . . . d2+ o r 1 2 . . . thd6 13 0-0-0 bxc6! with the advantage for Black in both cases.

.Q.d61 12 12 bxc6? 13 .Q.xc6+ .Qd7 14 .Q.xd7+ �dB IS .Q.c6 and White went on to win, ...

1 1 2 4 fjc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS 6 fjxeS Sukhanov - Shcharansky, Moscow 1 967. 13 4Je5+ 13 �e1+ lf}f8 1 4 .a_e3 �hS. c6 13 . . . 14 4Jxc6 Q-01 Black's chances are pre­ ferable, (S. Sinitsin) .

B2

9 �hS+ g6 10 �eS+ 10 4Je5+ c6 1 1 4Jxg6 �xg6 12 �eS+ 4Je7 ( 12 . . . lf}f7 13 �x h8 �7) 13 �xh8 �xg2 is tota l ly u nacceptable for White. 10 �xeS 11 4Jxe5+ c6 12 .a_a4 12 4Jxc6? a6 13 4:)d4+ ( 13 .a_a4 .a_d7) 1 3 . . . axbS 1 4 4Jxb5 lf}d8 and White has insuffici ent compensation for the missing piece. 12 ... !J.g 7 A l ternatively: a) 12 ... .a_d6 13 d4 exd3 1 4 .a_f 4 4Jf6 1 S 0-0-0 0-0 16 4Jxg6 d2+ 1 7 �xd2 .a_xf4 18 4Jxf4 4Je4 19 �d4 �xf4 20 .a_c2 .a_fs M aizhanov Bogomolov, Moscow 1964, further and fol lowi ng i nteresting complications, the game ended as a draw . b) 12 . . . .a_e6 13 b3 ( 1 3 d4 exd3 14 0-0 or 14 .a_d2 6

0-0-0 are both approx­ i m ately equal .) 13 . . . �7 14 .a_b2 a6 I S b4 ( IS cS 4Je7) IS . . . 4:)h6 1 6 0-0 0-0 I 7 .a_b3 aS 18 bxaS �xaS 19 d4 exd3 20 4Jxd3 .Q.xb2 21 4Jxb2 �dB with good compensation for the paw n, Ve li miriovic ­ - Vasyukov , Y ugos lavia USSR 1973.

13 d4 13 f4 exf3 1 4 4:)xf3 .a_fs (more rel iable is 1 4 . . . � 4! as i n Novopas hin - Nikitin, Yalta 1962 w here there fol l owed IS 0-0 0-0-0 16 .a_c2 4Je7 17 .a_e4 4:)f5 18 h3 4Jg3 19 hxg4 4Jxe4 20 �b1 4JcSa5 ) 1 S d4 0-0-0 16 .a_f4 .a_d3 17 .a_b3 with good play for W hite, as after 1 7 .Q.xd4? 18 0-0-0 fol lows. 13 ... exd3 14 .a_f4 14 4Jxd3 is met by 1 4 .a_fs and Bl ack develops considerable activity. Lach-

4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS ut - Mohring, 19S8 con­ tin ued IS ci:)cS 1S . . . 0-0-0 16 0-0 cijf6 17 �e1 ci:)d7 1 8 ci:)xd7 �xd7 19 �e3 �xb2 20 �ad1 �hd8 21 �xd7 �xd7 and fol lowing the rash capture 22 .O.,xa7? Black responded with the advance 22 . . . bS! and White real i sed that he had lost a piece. Passerotti - Tatai , Rome 1979 saw i ns tead the more sensible 1S ci:)f4 0-0-0 16 0-0 ci:)f6 17 £l.e3 ci:)g4 and the Black position is s light­ ly, b u t neverthe less cl early, better. 14 Q-0 is also w orthy of consideration . After 1 4 . . . �xeS? I S �e 1 �e6 1 6 �xeS \filf7 17 £l.b3 c£)f6 18 .o.,gs White gets the advantage, so a pre ferable a l ternative is 14 . . . .O.,fS ( 1 4 . . . .O.,e6!? is an al ternative w hich can be considered worthy of con­ sideration, one example of this contin uation is I S .O.,f4 0-0-0 16 r:!ad l ldd4 17 £l.g3 cijf6 1 8 l:Xfe1 d2 19 lde2 ci:)e4 20 ci:)f3 £l.g 4 21 ci:)xd4 4Jxg3 22 ldexd2 .O.,xd1 23 .O.,xd l ldd8 24 £l.g 4+ ci:)fS 25 ci:)xfS �xd2 26 ci:)xg7+ \tjlb8 27 b3 l:Xxa2co Mad l - Elstner, Balaton­ bereny 1988) 15 lde1 0-0-0! leading to the fol lowing position:

1 13

Now White has two w ays to play : a) 16 ci:)f7 d 2 17 .O.,xd2 ldxd2 18 lde8+ \tjld7 19 ldae1 .O.,d4 20 ci:)xh8 (20 \tilh 1 .O.,xf2 21 ldle2 ldxe2 22 ldxe2 .O.,h4 23 ci:)xh8 cijh6 :f ) 20 ... .O.,xf2+ 21 \tjlh I �xe1 22 �xe1 ldxb2:f b) 16 �5 d2 17 lde2 lde8 18 f4 ( 1 8 .O.,f4 gS 19 £l.g3 hS! or 19 . . . ci:)h6) 18 . . . h6 19 .O.,h4 gS 20 £l.g3 £l.d3 21 ldxd2 .O.,xeS 22 fxeS (22 ldxd3 gxf4 23 .O.,h4 .O.,xb2+ ) 22 . . . .O.,xc4= Better than 17 lde2 looks 17 lde3!? l:Xf8 but even then Black retains good chances, e.g. 18 f4 ( 1 8 !!d 1 h6 19 .O.,h 4 gS 20 £l.g3 hS) 18 . . . {Jf6 19 .O.,xf6 .O.,xf6 20 !!d1 !!dB. ci:)f6 14 ... 14 ... �e6 15 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 �hel !!d4 17 .O.,d2 .O.,xc4 1 8 .O.,c3 d2+ 19 !!xd2 !!xd2 20 \tilxd2 �dS 21 ci:)g 4!= Vol­ chok - O l i fer, 1961 . 14 .. gS?I 1s �3 .a_fs 16 .

1 1 4 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 6 4)xe5 0-0!1' Rodriguez - Barreras, Cienfu egos 1979. 15 4Jxd3 .a,fs 16 o-o-o o-o-o z:!d4 17 .a_c2

18 .a_es 18 .a_e3 z:!xc4 19 b3 t!xc2+! 20 �xc2 !:!dB 21 f3 4jd5 22 .a_d2 gS 23 t!het cS 24 t!e4 �d6 2S !:!del h6 26 4jf2 .a_d4 27 4jd3 4jf6+ Spasov Mo hri ng , Zinnowitz 196S. z:!xc4 18 19 .a_c3 I:Xxc31 20 bxc3 4Je4 21 z:!del 4Jxc3 22 a4 z:!d8 .a_h6+ 23 4jc5 24 �b2 z:!d2 and White soon resigned, Kristiansen - Mohri ng, Tel Aviv 1964. BJ

9 4Jxa7+ This conti n uation is certainly the stronges t!

9 .a_d7 Others are clearly in White's favour: a) 9 ... �d8 10 4JxcB �xcB 11 d4 exd3 12 0-0 b) 9 ... c6 10 4JxcB t!xcB I t .a_a4 4jf6 12 0-0 .a_e7 13 d4! exd3 14 cS! and now : bi ) 1 4 . . . �d7 IS .a_b3 !:!dB 16 .a,gs �d4 17 Z:Xe1 t!fB 1 B �hS+ �d7 19 �h3+± Thie­ mann - Harbers , Corres­ pondence 19B2. bi i) 14 . . . �xeS 1S �xd3 0-0 16 .a_e3 �hS 17 .a_d 1 �h4 1B .a_f3 �hB 19 �d4! Thiemann - Harbers , Corres­ pondence 1 9B2. 10 .a_xd7+ �xd7

Now White's two choices are:

B31) 11 4jb5 B32) 11 �hS+ B31

11

4Jb5

4Jf6

4 4)c3 fxe4 S 4)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS 12

o-o

115

Gl igoric - Heidenfeld, Mad­ rid 1960 wen t 15 . . . -'l_xe3 16 fxe3 0-0 17 �f4 �ad8 1 8 �f3 '/he6 1 9 4je4 4jxe4 20 �xe4± A l so of interest is 12 . . . -'l_e71? 13 d 4 exd3 1 4 ,O.e3 c6 15 4jc3 0-0

12 -'l_cS The text contin uation was worked out by Asatur­ yan. In the event of 12 c6 13 4jc3 -'l_cS (better 13 . . . .a_e7) 1 4 d4 exd3 Whi te has the s trong 15 -'l_e3! < I n Cui­ l i p - Becx, Guernsey 1988 White played the inferior 15 �et + and Black obtajned s u fficient counterplay for the sacri ficed paw n. The game res u l ted i n an i n­ structive draw - 15 . . . ifctlf7 16 -'l_e3 .O,xe3 17 �xe3 �ad8 18 �f3 �he8 19 4je4 �d4 20 4jxf6 �xe3 21 fxe3 �xf6 22 �d1 1fctle7 23 �d2 �eS 24 �f4 lfctle6 25 �f2 �d7 26 ifctle1 �xf4 27 exf4 �fS 28 �f2 �d4 29 �d2 �xc4 30 �xd3 �xf4 31 �xf4+ �xf4 32 �d4 b6 33 a4 �fS 34 b4 �e6 35 �c4 �d6 36 aS �c7 37 h 4 �b 7 38 hS �a 7 3 9 axb6+ �xb6 40 g4 l,Cz-lf.z) w hen . . .

when the fo l lowing are poss ible: a) 16 f3 -'l_d6! 17 �h1 �ad8 b) 16 4ja4 �fS! 17 �b3 4:Jg 4! Pri ns - Trapl , Corres­ pondence 1960. c) 16 �d2 4:Jg 4 17 4jd 1 �d6 18 f4 4:Jxe3 19 �xe3 .a_f6 20 �h1 �ae8 21 cS '/hdS Santa Mohri ng, Correspondence 1961 . In al l cases, Bl ack has good chances. 13 d4 13 b41? -'l_xb4? 1 4 �b1 -'l_cS 15 d 4 exd3 16 �b3 0-0 17 �xd3± Sznapik - Polaizer, Lj ubljana 198 1 . Black had to try 13 . . . -'l_d4 14 4:Jxd4

116 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS �xd4 15 �b1 �xc4a3 13 . . . exd3 14 �e1+ If 14 .Q.f4 Black has time to reply 14 . . . 0-0, as 15 .Q.xc?? c:£)e4 16 ..Q.g3 c:£)xg3 17 hxg3 �xf2! 1S �xf2 �fS is unacceptable for White. 14 . . . �f7 15 .Q.e3 15 .Q.f4 �heS 16 �e3! ? ( 16 c:£)xc7? �xe1+ 17 �xe1 4:Jg4 1S ..Q.g3 .Q.xf2+ ! Haag - Henn­ ings, 1 965) 16 . . . �xe3! ( 16 . . . .Q.xe3 17 fxe3) 1 7 fxe3 �eS 1 S �f3 c6 1 9 4Jc3 �f5 2 0 c:£)a4 g5!+ 15 .Q.xe3 16 �xe3 �ada

In spite of the paw n defici t Black's chances are not worse here as the fo l­ lowing games confirm. a) 17 �f3 �heS 1 S �d1 c6 19 c:£)c3 �d 4 20 �xeS (20 h3 �xe3 21 �xe3 �xc4) 20 . . . �xeS 21 h 3 d2! Kosenkov =

- Asaturyan, Moscow 1962. b) 17 �d2 �heS 1S �ae1 ( I S �d 1 �xe3! 19 fxe3 { 19 �xe3? �g 4 ! ) 19 . . . c:£)e4 + ) 1 S . . . �xe3 19 �xe3 c6 2 0 c:£)c3 �d4 21 b3 �xc3!! 22 �xc3 d2-+ Maresov - Shekhtman, loshkar - Ola 1 964. c) 17 �b3 !!heS 1S �d1 ( 1 S c5+ �fS 19 �d1 d2) 1S . . . c5 19 4Jc3 �xe3 20 fxe3 t/Je7 21 c:£jdS �xdS! 22 cxd5 �xe3+ 23 �h1 c:£)e4! 24 d6+ �f6! 25 �ft + �eS 26 tfjf7 �xd6-+ (Estrin)

B32 11 �hS+ g6 11 �d8 12 tfjaS �eS 13 0-0! 4Jf6 14 d4! exd3 15 .Q.e3± 12 �e5+ �f7 •••

13 4Jb5 It is dangerous for White to take the rook, e.g. 13 �xh8 4Jf6 1 4 4JbS c6! IS 4Jc3 �eS (Trapl's IS . . . �g 4! ) 16

4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS b3 ( 16 0-0 �d3! 17 r!e1 �cS 18 �xe8+ �xe8 19 4jd l 4jg 420 4je3 4Jxe3 2 1 fxe3 �b4 22 r!ft �xc4=i= ) 16 . . . �cS 17 �xe8+ �xe8 1 8 h3 ( 1 8 0-0 �d3 {also good is 18 . . . 4jg4 ! 19 4jd1 �d6 2 0 g 3 �eS 21 �b2 �hS 22 h4 gS l 19 .Q.b2 �xd2 20 4Ja4 .a_d4 21 �ad1 .a_xf2+ 22 \tilhl �f4 23 .Q.xf6 �xf6 24 �del �h4!-+ Hei l ­ emann - Florian , Corres­ pondence 1 97S/76) 18 . . . �d3 1 9 �fl 4jhS 2 0 g 3 .Q.d 421 �a3 .Q.xc3! 22 dxc3 �xc3+ 23 \tile2 �c2+ 24 \tile1 e3! 2S fxe3 4Jxg3-+ Ruban - Med­ ler, M i nsk 1 964. c6 13 14 �d4

a) 14 4Jc3 �e8! 1S �aS OS �xh8 4jf6) IS . . . 4jf6 16 h3 .a_d6 1 7 cS �eS ( 17 . . . �fS) 18 b4- .a_c7 19 �a4 !!dB 20 t(fb3+ �g7 21 0-0 tiffS ! + b ) 1 4 b 3 4jf6 ( 14 . . . �e8) 1S .a_b2 .a.,g7 16 4Jc3 4Jg4 with

117

a very active position for Black , Malmberg - Strom­ berg, Correspondence 1 964. �e7 14 Others: a) 14 . . . 4Jf6 IS �xd7+ 4jxd 7 16 4Jc3 4jcS 17 0-0 .a.,g7 18 f3± b) 14 ... �g4 IS 0-0! cxbS ( l S . . . .Q.g7 16 4jd6+) 16 f3 �h 4 ( 16 . . . �e6 17 fxe4+ 4jf6 18 eS; 16 . . . �hS a l so failed to help Black in jacobs Garcia, Benidorm 1989, e.g. 17 fxe4+ 'it'e6 18 b4-! { not 18 �xh8? .a_d6! intending 19 . . . .a_es . Meanwhile B l ack was threatening 18 . . . .a_cS } 18 . . . .Q.xb4 19 eS! �f8 { 19 . . . �xeS 20 �xeS+ and 21 .Q.b2+ } 20 r!xf8 .a_xf8 21 �dS+ 'it'e7 22 .Q.a3+ \tileS 23 �xbS+ 'ittd B 24 .Q.xf8 1-0) 17 �dS+! \tileS 18 �xbS+ �dB 19 fxe4 .a_d6 20 eS �d4+ 21 \tilh l t c) 14 . . . �fS I S 4jd6+ ( I S �x h8) I S . . . .Q.xd6 1 6 �xd6 4Je7 17 0-0 �hd8 18 �b4 �d3 19 �xb7 �ad8 20 b3 and White slowly realised his advantage in the game Ciocaltea - Malich, Sinaia 1964. d) 14 ... �xd4 IS 4jxd4 .Q.g7 16 4je2 �a4 17 b3! and Black has insufficient com­ pensation for the pawn sacrifice, e.g. 17 . . . .Q.xal ( 17 ...

l l S 4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS . . . �xc4 1 S bxc4 .Q.xa1 1 9 0-0 c[:)f6 20 .Q.a3 �aS { 20 . . . .Q.e5 21 �bt l 21 �xat �xa3 22 c[:)c3 Jansa - Vera, Bratis lava 19S3) 1S bxa4 c[:)f6 19 0-0 �aS 20 .Q.a3! :gxa4 (20 . . . .Q.e5 21 :gb1!) 2 1 :gxa1 :gxa3 22 c[:)c3 ( Despotov id . Know­ ledge of this analysis proved fruitful in Frolik Seyffer, Bundes liga 19SS, when White went on to win after 22 c[:)c3 '\t?e6 23 �b1 �a7 24 '\t?f1 '\t?e5 25 '\t?e2 '\t?d4 26 �b4 '\t?c5 27 a3 '\t?d4 2S h3 h5 29 c5+ '\t?xc5 30 c[:)xe4+ c[:)xe4 31 �xe 4 �xa3 32 �e6 b5 33 :gxg6 b4 34 :gg5+ '\t?c4 35 �xh5 b3 36 :gh4+ '\t?c5 37 '\t?d3 b2+ 3S '\t?c2 �b3 39 '\t?b1 '\t?d5 40 �f4 c5 4 1 h 4 c4 42 h5 '\t?c5 43 h6 �b4 44 g3 c3 45 dxc3 1-0 e) 14 :gdS 15 �xd7+ �xd7 16 c[:)c3 c[:)f6

entially unable to streng­ then his position , e.g. a) 17 b3 .Q.c5 18 c[:)a4 -'1.a7 19 -'1.b2 �hd8= Vogt - Moh­ ring, Leipzig 1975. b) 17 0-0 .a_c5 ts �bt :gas 19 b3 �e6 20 :get �f5 21 :gb2 g5 22 �c2 :gadS 23 �e2 h5 24 -'1.h2 g4 25 c[:)dt c[:)h7 and Black's chances are not worse, Augu stin - Mohring, Stary Smokovec 1976. c) 17 �f1 -'1.c5 1S f3 exf3 19 �xf3 �g7 20 b3 c[:)g4 21 -'1.b2 �eS+ 22 '\t?d1 '\t?g8 23 '\t?c2 c[:)xh2 24 :gg3 -'1.f2 25 !'td3 :gf7 26 a4 -'1.c5= and Black held the ba lance in Ivanov Rocha, M exico 1980. 15 c[:)c3

...

�

�

.

.. .

�i: � i � tr � i: � ..L +� � �

� +� � r.IU ..L

� � � � �:Jt � i: � � �

� �

� �

� � �' 4l> Y.!F/. 4l> �: Lb � � .�.� Lb � ����f -� �- 9!!9 �� � �� � £::! �

.

Here, in spite of the two extra pawns, White is ess-

After 15 �xh8 there can fol l ow 15 . . . c[:)f6 16 b3 :gds ( 16 . . . cxb5? 17 .Q.b2! or 16 . . . :ge8 1 7 .Q.b2 .(lg7 18 .Q.a3 c 5 1 9 �xeS+ 4Jxe8 2 0 :gd t .Q.e5 21 d4 exd3 22 0-0 c[:)f6 23 �xd3 .Q.xh2+ 24 '\t?x h2 �e2 25 �f3

4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 {)xeS �xft 26 .Q.b2 �e2 27 .Q.xf6 �g8 28 4Jc3 �c2 29 {)dS hS 30 .Q.c3 �xa2 31 4Je7+ �h7 32 �f7+ �h6 33 4Jg8+ �gS 34 f 4+ 1 -0 Watson - Cooper, Saint john 1 9BB) 17 .Q.b2 .Qg7 18 �xdB �xdB 19 4Ja3 (on 19 4:}d4 there fo l lows 19 . . . cS 20 {}bS �d3+ but deserving of attenti on is 19 4:}c3 4:}g4 20 0-0-0J and now Black can obtai n the advantage with the elegant 19 . . . 4Jg 4 20 0-0-0 4Jx f2! 21 �hft �xb2+ 22 �xb2 �g7. White can attempt to strengthen the above var­ iation with IB .Q.a3 �d7 19 4jdo+ �e6 20 �xdB (not 20 4Jxb7?? �xd2+) 20 . . . �xdB 21 4Jxb7. The correspond­ ence game Buresh - Sheshil, 19BO/Bt conti nued 21 �d 4? 22 0-0 4Jg4 23 �aet 1 : 0. Lawton - Fi nlayson, England 19BS saw instead 21 ... �b6? 22 4JcS+ lftf7 23 0-0 �aS 24 4Ja4 ± . In our opin­ ion the correct path is 21 . . . �c7! 22 4JcS+ �f7 and a satisfactory contin uation for White is not clear, e.g. 23 0-0 4Jg 4 ! It may be that 23 .Q.b2 , chal lenging on the long diagona l , is White's best. However, the pos ition remains high ly complex, e.g. 23 .Q.b2 hS!? 24 h3 e3 2S

1 19

0-0 ( not 2S dxe3? �aS+) 2S . . . e2 26 �fet 4Jg4!? 27 hxg4 .Q.xb2 28 �abt .Q.d4 29 4Je4 hxg 4 30 g3 �aS 31 a4 lftg7 32 �xe2 �fS 33 �bet �f3 34 tle3 .Q.xe3 3S tlxe3± and the coordinated White forces proved to be the more ef­ ficient and he went on to win in jacobs - ju lian, Be­ nidorm 19B9. 15 4Jf6 16 �e3 16 0-0 �dB 17 �e3 �d3 18 �e2 �eS 19 tiel ( 19 f4 �d4+ 20 �h 1 { Santo - Ma l l ee, Correspondence 19BO ) 20 . . . .Q.b4! 21 b 3 �dB and Black has very strong pressure) 19 . . . .Q.d6 20 g3 �eB 21 �xd3 exd3 22 tixeS �xeS 23 fitjlft (23 4jd1 .Q.d4 24 4Je3 4Je4+ Rudak - Klompus, Corres­ pondence 1972) 23 . . . .Q.d4 24 f3 gS 2S g4 hS 26 h3 �g6 27 �b l hxg 4 2B hxg4 4Jd7 with s ufficient compensation for the two paw ns, as in the correspondence game, Petrus hka - Wittman, play­ ed in 197B. 16 �d B exd3 17 d4 18 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 In order to ease the defensive task, Wh ite is ob ligated to return one paw n.

120 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 dS 6 t£)xe5

Black has enough com­ pensation for the paw n . 19 �d2 19 �e3 �b4 20 0-0-0 �xc3 21 bxc3 4Je4 22 �d4

�he8 23 �xd3 ( Kostro Witkowski, 1 966) and now Black should continue 23 . . . c5! 24 �f3+ 'iftg8 25 �e3 ( 25 �f6 �a8!) 25 . . . !!d3 26 'iftb2 4Jxf2! 27 �xf2 !!xf3 28 gxf3 �e2+ = 19 �d4 20 b3 4Je4 21 4Jxe4 !!xe4+ 22 �e3 �b4+ 23 fiftf1 bS cxbS 24 cxbS �c8= 25 g3 Sorokin - Kami nnik, USSR 1966.

10)

4 4:)c3 fxe4 5 4:)xe4 dS 6 4:)xe5 dxe 4 7 4:)xc6 tl;tgS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e4 4Jf3 .O,bS 4Jc3 �xe4 {)xeS 4Jxc6

eS 4Jc6 fS fxe4 dS dxe4 'fhgS

This heavily analysed conti nuation leads to a complex struggle. Although this co nti n uation has, of course, bee n k now n and researched for many years , it was given a new lease of life by Spee l man's adoption of it for a critical game

from his World Champion­ ship Semi-Final match ag­ ainst jan Ti mman . The resu l t was a crushing vic­ tory for Black w h ich hel ped to keep al ive Speel man's chances in the match . This high level expos ure was also a tremendou s ad­ vertisement for the Schl ie­ mann in genera l , which has thus been thrust i n to the forefront of theoretica l research . The mai n ad­ herents of this variation for Black are the grand­ masters ln kiov and K l i nger, who have both used it to score well agai nst high class opposition. 8 'fhe2 8 c4 {jf6 9 4Jxa7+ c6 10 4Jxc6 bxc6 II .Q.xc6+ ®f7 12 .Q.xa8 'fhxg2 13 r!,fl .a_h3 1 4 'fhe2 .Q.cS 15 .Q.dS+ {)xdS 16 cxdS r!,e8 17 a4 .a,g 4-+ Maz­ zoni - Boey, Correspond-

122 4 .fJc3 fxe4 5 .fJxe4 dS 6 .fJxeS dxe4 7 .fJxc6 �gS ence 1966. 8 4Jf6 8 . . �xg2? is a gross error on accou nt of 9 �h5+ 8 ... -'ld7 is poor after 9 �xe4+ 4Je7 10 4Jxe7 -'lxb5 ( 1 0 . . . �xb5 1 1 4Jg6+ �f7 12 4Jxh8+ �g8 13 a4! �a6 1 4 �d5+ -'leo 15 �b5± > 1 1 4Jg6+ �d7 12 d3! �xg6 13 �d5+ ± 9 f4

A 9 And now :

.

A1) 10 4Jxa7+ A2) 10 d4 A3) 10 4Je5+ A1 10 4Jxa7+ L. Svenonius proposed this move as a refu tation of 9 . . . �x f4. 10 ... -'ld7 10 c6 11 4Jxc8 10 . . . �dB 11 4Jxc8 �xc8 is bad after 12 d4, e.g 12 . . . �h4+ ( 1 2 . . . �fS 1 3 -'lc4 .Q.d6 1 4 �f1 �aS+ 1S -'ld2 �b6 16 0-0-0! ± Suchko - Myasn­ ikov , Kishinev 1962) 13 g3 �h3 14 -'lf4 4Jd5 15 �xe4! ± Gufeld - Myasni kov , Riga 1960. 11 .O,xd7+ �xd7 11 . . . 4Jxd7 12 4Jb5 0-0-0 13 d4 and Black has i n­ sufficient for the paw n , e . g . 13 . . . �f6 ( 13 . . . �f7 1 4 �f1 �dS 1 5 c 4 -'l.b 4+ 1 6 �f2) 14 �c4! c6 IS �ft 12 d4 Others : a) 12 4Jb5 �e8 ( 1 2 . . . c6 13 4Jc3 -'ld6) 13 b3 -'lb4 1 4 c3 -'lcS 1S -'la3 �eS 16 -'lxc5 �xeS 1 7 b4 �eS 18 0-0 hS 19 4Jd4 �c8 20 �fS �d6 21 ...

9 4Jxa7+ -'ld7 ! 10 -'lxd7+ 4Jxd7! gives Black excel lent chances . Thomas - Bos h­ kovi ch , USA 1 975 continued 1 1 �xe4+ ( 1 1 4JbS �xg2 12 �f1 0-0-0 with a very strong attack) 1 1 . . . �d8! 12 �xb7 ( 12 d3 �aS+) 12 ... �xa 7! 13 �xa 7 �xg2 1 4 �f1 -'lcS+ After 9 f4 Bl ack has two separate paths:

A) 9 ... �xf4 B) 9 . . �h4+ .

�xf4

123

4 .fjc3 fxe.J. 5 .fjxe4 dS 6 .fjxeS dxe4 7 .fjxc6 �gS 4:JbS �b6+= b) 12 �bS+ 'ifjle6 13 �c4+ 'ifjld7 ( 1 3 . . . 4:JdS 14 4:JbS -'ld6 IS 4:Jd4+ lfteS 16 �f1 and Black has to surrender the queen) 14 4:JbS ( 1 4 �bS+ 'ifjle6= ) 14 . . . c6 ( 1 4 . . . -'ld6) 1S �d4+ 'ifjlc8 16 g3 �fS 1 7 4:jd6+ -'lxd6 18 �xd6 �e8 1 9 �f4 �xf4 2 0 gxf4 4:JdS+ �h4+ 12 13 g3 �h3

Black won easily , Orlovsky - Lipsky, Warsaw 1976. 17 . . . e3+! -'lxc3 18 �ct 19 bxc3 bS Bel chuk - Lipsky, War­ saw 197S. Black has excel­ lent chances .

A2 10

d4

i �· �·�

� + f�

� ..L �

�'

�/.'\ � 't...J � �)

�

� �

��

� .�. +

� ..L

�

� -'l � � � � � 1: � � � � � � :fi: � 7.ft--� � � �Wffi � r·': ���

Black's positional ad­ vantages compensate for the missing pawn . 14 4:Jb5 14 �bS+ 'ifjle6 I S �eS+ \tld7 ( I S . . . 'ifjlf7!? 16 �xc7+ 'ifjlg6 17 �xb7 -'ld6) 16 �bS+ ( 16 4:jbS c6 17 4:Jc3 -'ld6) leads to repetition. c6 14 -'lb41 15 4:jc3 4:Jd5 16 -'lf4 17 \tld2 17 0-0-07 -'lxc3 18 bxc3 �xf4! 19 gxf4 �xc3 and

� 'l.;

�� �� a � 10 ... �d6! 10 �fS is bad after I t Z!ft ! as i s 1 0 . . . �h4+ I I g3 �h3 12 �S! - see game no. 7, Fi scher - Matu lovic. 11 4:Je5+ A fa u l ty path for White i s 11 4:Jxa7+7 which comes unstuck as demonstrated in two recent games: tt . . c6 12 4:Jxc8 �b4+! 13 c3 �xbS 14 �xbS cxbS 15 a4 ( 1S �bo !!a6 traps the knight) IS . . . �xc8 ( IS . . . bxa4? 1 6 �b6 would be a mi stake) 16 axbS -'ld6 17 �a7 ( Remarkably ...

.

124 4 .f)c3 fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 .f)xc6 �gS this en tire sequence was repeated in Bri nck - C l aus­ sen - Wel l i ng, Lyngby open 1989. Whi te now deviated with 17 0-0 but it didn't alter the ou tcome - 17 . . . 0-0 1 8 .a_f4 t[je8 19 .a_e3 .a_bs 20 !:'txf8+ 'i:tt x f8 2 1 !:'tf1+ �g8 22 !:'tfS t[jd6 23 !:XeS tjJ}f7 24 tjJ]f2 t[jc4 25 !:'txe4 t[jxb2 26 �S t[jd 1 + 27 tjJ}e1 t[jxc3 28 �e7+ tjJ}g6 29 h4 t[jxbS 30 dS t[jd6 31 -'l,f 4 t[jfS 32 !:'te6+ tjJ}f7 33 -'l,xb8 !:'txb8 34 hS !:XeS 0- 1 ) 17 . . . 0-0! 18 !:'txb7 t[jg4 19 !:1ft ( 1 9 h3 4jf2 20 �g 1 .Q.h2 21 �ft t[jd3+ 22 tjJ}e2 !:'txf1 23 �xf1 4jxc1-+) 19 . . . .a_x h2 2 0 !:'txf8+ !:'txf8 2 1 �e7 �f2!-+ (21 . . . �3+ 22 �e2 �f2+ 23 �d1 !:'txg2 24 b6 hS 25 b7) 22 �xe4 !:'txg2 23 �d2 �3+ 24 �fl �f2+ 25 �g 1 t[jh2 ! 0- 1 Georgiev Kir Inkiov, Bulgaria 1988. Notes based on l nkiov's in Jnfor­ mator. u c6 .a_e6 12 .a_c4 12 t!Yxd4 is doubtfu l after 13 .Q.f4 ( not 13 t[jf7? � 4) 13 . . . t[jdS ( 1 3 . . . .a_cs 1 4 c3! ) 1 4 !:'td1 ! .a_b4+ (or 1 4 . . . t[jxf4 15 �xd4 4jxe2 16 �xe4 .a_b4+ 17 �xe2) 15 c3 t[jxf 4 16 !:'txd4 t[jxe2 17 �xe2 �cS 18 �xe4 .a_fs 1 9 �f4± 13 .Q.f4 ...

ces .

13 ... �xc4 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 c3 .Q.xc4 IS t!Yxc4 t[jdS also looks per­ fectly okay for B l ack . Her­ nandez - Alzate, Ca l i Zonal 1990. 14 t!Yxc4 t!Yd5 15 thb3 .a_d61 7 15 ... thxb3 16 axb3 t[jdS! 17 0-0 .Q.d6! 18 �3 (worse is 18 �ael 0-0 19 �xe4 cS! 20 c3 cxd4 21 cxd4 �ac8 with good cou n terchances) 18 . . . t[jf6 19 .a_h 4 ( 19 t[jg6 .a_xg3 20 t[jxh8 .a_c7 2 1 g4 t[jxg4 t ) 19 ... 0-0 20 .Q.xf6 �xf6 21 �xf6 gxf6= Eslon Marie, Strasbourg 1972. 16 c4 16 thxb7 is ri sky because of 16 . . . 0-0! 17 thb3 ( 1 7

4 tf)c3 fxe4 S tf)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS dxe4 7 tf)xc6 �gS c£>xc6 �ab8 ! ) 1 7 . . . �ab8! 1 8 �xdS+ c£)xdS with a threatening i nitiati ve for the paw n . 16 0-0 gives White noth­ ing �xb3 ( 16 . . . 0-0) 17 axb3 c£)dS ! 16 0-0-0 0-0 1 7 c 4 �e6 C::. . . . cS = 16 ... �xd4 16 ... �aS+ 1 7 -'ld2 �c7 deserves atten tion.

17 cS 17 �d1 �cS 17 �xb7 0-0 18 c£)xc6 �cS! 19 .Q.xd6 �e3+ .Q.xeS 17 . . . 18 �e6+ �f8 19 .Q.xeS Not 19 �d1? �xd 1 + ! 20 �xd1 .Q.xf4� �e3+ 19 . . . With a draw by perpetual check . A3

10 c£)e5+

1 2S

This is the main line and the critica l test of Black's variation.

c6 10 ... 11 d4 �h4+! 11 ... exd3? 12 .Q.xd3 �b4+ 13 .a_d2 �e7 14 0-0-0 .a_e6 1S �he 1 ± �h3 12 g3 13 .a_c4 After 13 c£)xc6 Bl ack can play 13 . . . a6 14 .a_a4 .a_d7 and if IS .Q.gS then IS . . . �g4! 16 �xg 4 c£)xg4 17 dS h6!� Per­ kins - Thales, Correspond­ ence 1 962. .Q.e6 13 ... 13 . . . .a_d6 1 4 .a_f7+! �dB ( 1 4 . . . �e7 1 5 .Q.b3) 1 5 .a_f4 �c7 1 6 �d2± 14 .o,gs M. Euwe recommends 14 .a_xe6 �xe6 15 �c4. Never­ theless after 15 . . . c£)d5 the position is approximately equal. 14 .a,f4 .Q.d6 1 5 0-0-0

126 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 fM'gS

gives White nothi ng, e.g. 1S ... 0-0-0 ( I S ... �dB 1 6 lftb 1 0-0 1 7 .QgS .Q.xeS 18 dxeS �xd1+ 19 nxd1 .Q.xc4 20 �xc4+ c£)dS+ Kramer - Rap­ oport, Correspondence 1 973. The swift concl u sion to this game was 21 �xe4? �hS 0 : 1) 16 .Q.xe6+ ( 16 lftb1 �he8 17 �hf1 ( 1 7 nhel ! ? ) 17 ... .Q.xeS? (This is a bad m is­ take after w hich White ob­ tains a good posi tion. Sen­ sible al ternatives for Black were 1 7 . . . .Q.xc4 18 �xc4 and 17 . . . �e7!? 18 .Q.b3) 1 8 .Q.xe6+ ! �xe6 19 dxeS nxdt+ 20 �xd1 c£)g4 ?! 21 net ! ± Popovic - lnkiov, Pal rn a de Mal lorca 1 989) 16 . . . �xe6 17 lftbt �he8 1 8 c4 (18 h3 h6 19 g4 cS 20 c3 cxd4 21 cxd4 lftb8 22 .Q.h2 �c8 23 �cl lfta8 24 �e3 .Q.c7 2S �c4 .Q.b8 26 �eel a6 27 �hdl .Q.a7 and Black was better i n Hodg­ son - Klinger, San Bernar-

dino 1989, but he proceeded to overp l ay his hand and lost after 28 �xc8+ �xc8 29 .Qg1 �dS 30 h4 �xeS 31 dxeS .Q.xe3 32 exf6 .Q.xg1 33 �xgt gxf6 34 �e1 �e8 3S lftc2 �b8 36 lftd2 hS 37 gxhS fS 38 �fl �f8 39 h6 f4 40 h7 f3 41 �g 1 1-0) 18 . . . h6 19 h 4 .Q.xeS 20 dxeS 4Jg4! 21 �xd8+ �xd8 22 �dl �xd1+ 23 �xdl 4JxeS 24 �d 4 4Jd3 with fi ne play for Black, Puig - Boey, Varna 1962. o-o-o 14 After 14 .Q.d6 White has two ways to get a good game: a) IS �fl �f8 (or IS . . . 0-0 16 .Q.xf6 gxf6 1 7 .Q.xe6+ �xe6 18 �g4+) 16 .Q.xf6 gxf6 17 .Q.xe6 �xe6 18 �hS+ lftd8 19 4Jg4 Zaharov - Li psky , Lub­ lin 1978. b) 1 S .Q.xf6 gxf6 16 .Q.xe6 �xe6 17 �hS+! lfte7 1 8 4Jg 4 �ag8 ( 1 8 . . . fS 19 4Je3 naf8 20 dS! cxdS 21 0-0-0± ) 19 c£)e3 �gS 20 �h4! �hg8 21 �fl with a positional advan­ tage, Vogt - Kuzmin, Leni n­ grad 1977. Less i ncisive is 1S 0-0-0 which al l ows Black the opportu n i ty to transpose back to the main l i ne with 1S . . . 0-0-0. However in Sherzer - Byk hovsky , Man...

...

4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 �gS hattan 1990, Black l ooked for, and found, more after 15 . . . 0-0 16 g4 �xc4 17 4Jxc 4 �c7 18 �xf6 �xf6 19 �xe4 .a,f4+ 20 �b1 �xg4 21 dS �d7 22 d6 �e8 23 �d4 bS 24 �hf1 �ef8� 15 o-o-o

�d6 15 16 0Jf7 Fo l lowing Speelman's ex­ ample, the position after 15 . . . �d6 has been the subject of a great deal of recent attention . The material av­ ail ab l e suggests that Black can face the future with confidence. There are several other possibi l i ties in this critical position: a) 16 �xe6+ �xe6 17 4Jc4 �c7 1 8 �b1 h6 19 �xf6 g xf6 20 �hf1 fS 21 0Je3 �hf8 22 4Jg2 �d7 23 c3 �g7 = Bard­ eleben - Spielmann, Berl i n 1909.

127

b) 16 �xf6 g xf6 17 �xe6+ �xe6 18 4Jc4 �c7 19 �b1 fS 20 4Je3 �hf8 21 c4 f4 with eq ual chances, Lukov Inkiov, Bu l garia 1 982. c) 16 g4 is an interesting attempt to cut the black q ueen off from the theatre of acti on. However, the paw n can become some­ thing of a liabi l ity, e.g. 16 . . . �xc4 1 7 �xc4 �he8 1 8 4jf7 �d7 1 9 dS �xf7 20 dxc6 �xg4 21 ..Q.e3 �f4 22 �xf7 �xe3+ 23 �b1 bxc6 24 z:Id6 ( Malaniuk - Y u ferov , Sok­ ol sky Memorial 1 985) and now Black should have p l ayed 24 . . . �g6! with good play . Al ternatively 1 7 . . . �xeS 18 dxeS �xd1+ 19 �xd1 �xg4 20 �e3! li:Jd7 21 �f7!? (21 e6 4Jb6!) 21 . . . 4Jxe5 22 �e7 0Jg6 (22 . . . 4Jc4 23 �5!) 23 �xg7 �dB 2 4 �xd8+ �xd8 25 �xb7 li:Je7! mai ntains the balance Donchev - I nkiov, B u lgaria 1989. d) 16 �ft . As a conseq uence of Whi te's debacle i n Ti mman - Speel man, this move was recommended by various sources as the way to elim­ inate Bl ack's counterplay and gu arantee an advantage for White. However, it is

128 4 .f)c3 fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 .f)xc6 '/tgS

not clear i f this assessment is j u stified. The material here is very interesting and worthy of close attention. 16 . . . �he8 ( 1 6 .. . �hf8) 17 �xh3 (White m ust exercise great caution here. The care less 17 .Q.xf6? was s harply deal t with by 17 . . . �h6+ ! 1 8 !!d2 .Q.b4 1 9 c3 !!xd4! in Blatny - K l i nger, Bad Worishofen 1990. Black proceeded to tidy up with 20 �f4 �xf4 21 gxf4 !!xd2 22 .Q.h 4 .Q.xc3 23 bxc3 e3 24 �et !!xh2 25 4::)f3 �g2 26 !!xe3 .Q.f7 27 !!xeS+ .Q.xe8 28 .Q.et bS 29 .Q.g8 .Q.g6 30 .Q.e6+ �c7 31 fS .Q.e8 32 .Q.d2 .Q.d7 33 .Q.f 4+ �dB 34 .Q.d6 hS 35 4:Je5 .Q.xe6 36 fxe6 h4 37 4:Jxc6+ �e8 38 4:jd4 a6 39 e7 !!g6 40 4:jf5 h3 41 a4 bxa4 42 .Q.c7 !!g2 43 .Q.d8 �d7 44 4:jd6 !!e2 0-1 ) 17 . . . .Q.xh3 18 4:jf7 �d7 19 4:Jxd6+ !!xd6 20 .Q.f4 �d7 21 �he1 .Q.g 4 22 �d2

4:Jd5 23 .Q.eS .Q.f3 24 �f2 and with the plan of c3 and .Q.d3 White had a very pleasant position, Sax - Inkiov , Rome 1984. This served to put p l ayers off the bl ack side of this variation for some time. It is rather ironic that Speelman resu rrected a line that had put out of com­ mission by this game, as Sax was one of Timman's seconds in the match! Practice has witnessed two deviations from the above game: a) 20 �hel .Q.g4 2 1 �d2 4:jd5 (Thi s doesn't work out too wel l . 21 . . . bS( !) main­ taining tension is an alter­ native w h ich should be considered) 22 .Q.e2 .Q.xe2 23 !!dxe2 �de6 24 a3 bS 25 �d2 �c7 26 b3 h6 27 .Q.f4+ 4:Jxf4 28 gxf4 �d6 29 c4 bxc4 30 bxc4 !!b8 31 �c3 !!be8 32 fS !!f6 33 !!xe4 !!xe4 34 !!xe4 !!xfS 35 !!e8 !!f2 36 cS+ �c7 37 �e7+ �b8 38 !!xg7 �xh2 39 �b4 !!d2 40 �d7 hS 4 1 �aS h 4 4 2 �a6 !!a2 43 �b7+ �c8 44 �b3 �g2 45 �xa7 �g3 46 !!b8+ �d7 47 �b7+ �e6 48 �h7 !!xa3+ 49 �b6 �dS SO !!hS+ �xd 4 51 !!xh4+ 1-0 Zilberstein Tsarev, Kiev 1989. b) 23 . . . e3!? was I nk iov's

4 4)c3 fxe4 S .f)xe4 dS 6 4)xe5 dxe4 7 4)xc6 �gS own contribution - 24 nd3 4Jb6 2S .Q.b3 e2 26 ne3 (26 h3? .Q.xh3 27 nxe2 .Q.f1 ) 26 ... aS 27 a4 cS! 28 c3 (28 �c3 �xeS ! ! ) 28 . . . c4 29 .Q.c2 4jdS 30 �e4 .Q.f3 31 nh4? gS! 32 �xh7 4Je3 33 �xd7 �xd7 34 .Q.g6? �e6! 3S .Q.b1 4jg2 36 �xe2 .Q.xe2 37 .Q.fS .Q.d3 38 .Q.xe6+ �xe6-+ Ernst - l n­ kiov Gausdal 1989 . .Q.xf7 16 17 .Q.xf7 �hfB 1B .Q.c 4 18 .Q.b3 �deB 1 9 c4 twg4 20 twe3 4jhS 21 ndfl �xf1+ 22 �xf1 h6 23 cS .Q.xg3 24 h xg3 twxgS = was Velimirovic Klinger, Pal m a de M al lorca 1989 1B �deB 19 dS

19 nhf1 h6 ( 1 9 . . . �bs!?) 20 .Q.f4 .Q.xf4+ 21 �xf4 ( Yudovich - Boey , Corres­ pondence 1 972/76) . Here Black equalised with 21 . . .

1 29

I:le7! a s 2 2 dS would be met by 22 ... cxdS 23 .Q.xdS �fe8 with a reasonable position . cS 19 ... Black now stands very well and cond ucts the re­ mainder of the game with extreme accuracy. 20 !Ihft �bB 21 .Q.f4 �dB 22 .Q.gS a61 23 .Q.xf6 gxf6 24 twxe4 twxh2 White is very exposed on the dark squares and his bishop i s severely handi­ capped by the pawn on dS. In an attempt to simplify the situation he now i n­ augu rates a pawn exchange on the kingside while ad­ vancing his rook to the seventh rank . However, this weakens his own back rank , and Speel man swiftly pou nces. 25 �h1 twxg3 26 nxh7 J:IfeB 27 twfS bSI Suddenly i ts al l over. 28 .Q.d3 c4 i s no i mprovement for White. �e1 2B .Q.f1 twf4 + 29 twhS 0:1 Timman - Speelman, Can­ didates Semi-Final, London 1989.

130 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS dxe4 7 tfjxc6 (!tgS In this gambit contin ua­ tion, Black has definite posi tional compensation, due to the weaknesses in the White position. We now examine two possible res­ ponses:

B1) 11 4Jxa7+ B2) 11 4Je5+ Speel man psyched him­ self u p for the games in this match by looking at book contai ning pictures of wol ves. This plan had yielded l ittle success (one loss and five draws) prior to this demolition. When asked to explai n this, jon pointed out that this game was p l ayed on a day w hen there was a ful l moon!

B

9 10

g3

�h4+ �h3

B1 11 4Jxa7+ �d7 11 . �8 12 4Jxc8 1i:ttx c8 is worth a look. 12 �xd7+ �xd7 An interesting al terna­ tive w hich has not yet been seen in practice is 12 ... 4Jxd71 ? 13 t(yxe4+ �e7 14 t(yxb7 0-0 with a dangerous attack for the sacrificed pawns. 13 4Jb5 With the further dicho­ tomy: oo

B11) 13 0-0-0 812) 13 . c6 oo.

. .

B11 13

...

o-o-o

see follo wing diagram 14 b3 14 0-0 is dangerous after 14 . . . �cS+ 15 li:tth 1 hS!t

4 4)c3 fxe4 S 4)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS dxe4 7 4)xc6 tftgS

131

�xd1 19 nxd1 e3! 20 d 4 nhe8 getting a positional edge. 16 c6

The conti nuations 14 �c3 c6 and 1 4 �c4 c6 15 �c3 h5 lead to positions examined in C2ai i . 14 . . .a,cs 14 ... c6 is inaccurate, e.g. 15 �3! and now: a) 15 . . . .a_b4 16 �c4 'ifjlb8 17 .a_b2 and White w i l l con­ solida te the material ad­ vantage. b) 15 . . . b5 16 .a_b2 "fha7 17 �xb5! cxb5 18 "fhxb5 with more than sufficient comp­ ensation. c) 15 . . . �d4 - see game no. 8, Estrin - Neishtadt. 15 .a_b2 �4 16 nf1 Estrin considered that White s hould p l ay 16 o-o-o �f2 1 7 �c4 and if 1 7 . . . �xd1 18 nxd1 �d5 ( 1 8 . . . .a_b6 19 .a,eS) 19 tba4 'ifjlb8 20 .a_es .a_b6 2 1 �c3± Stronger, however, is 17 . . . .a_b6! 18 fthe1 (18 .Q.eS �xht> 18 ... .

In this position Black has dangerous threats in return for the two sacrificed pawns. 17 �c3 17 �a3 e3 18 d4 ( 18 0-0-0 exd2+ 19 ftxd2 .a_e3 20 �xe3 �xe3 21 ftxd7 nxd7 22 X!e1 X!hd8 23 .Q.xg7 r!d1 + 24 r!xd1 X!xd1+ 25 'ifjlb2 nht::j: ) 18 . . . .a_xa3 1 9 .a_xa3 �xd4 20 �xg4+ 'ifjlb8 21 'ifjle2 �d2+ 22 'ifjlf3 r!he8! 23 c4 nd3! with a decisive attack . 17 e3 18 d3 �f21 19 "fhf3 .a_b4 X!he8 20 �2 Black has an active po­ sition with s trong threats .

B12

13

...

c6

132 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 4)xc6 ijgS

14 �c3 On 14 �a3 Black can profitably reply 1 4 . . . bS. 14 o-o-o

15 b3 Others : a) 15 fhc4 hS 16 h 4 fhg4 17 �e2 �dS 18 fhxe4 (18 a3 was played i n Bikova Zvorikina, Moscow 1959, and now w ith 18 . . . �h6! 19 b4 (19 b3 bS} 19 . . . �hd6 20 .Q.b2 �b6 ! 21 fhc3 �a4) 18 . . . �h6 19 �f1 rle6 2 0 fhf3 �de8 (20 . . . fhfS 21 d3 4jb4!) 21 fhxg4 hxg4 22 �f2 .Q.cS 23 �g2 4jb4 and Whi te has diffic u l t problems to solve. b) 15 a4 .Q.b4 (15 . . . hS! at once may be better, e.g. 16 h4 .Q.b4 17 aS e3 18 dxe3 �e4=F Durao - Boey, Hague 1966) 16 �d1 hS 1 7 c3 .Q.d6 18 4Je3 h 4 19 4jc4 rt}c7 20 �xd6 fhxd6 21 rlg1 hxg3 22 h xg3 fhcSt Postnikov - Ergle, 1966.

15 ... .Q.b4 16 .Q.b2 16 a3 a llows Black ex­ cel l ent chances after 16 . . . .Q.xc3 17 dxc3 e3! For ex­ ample: 18 .Q.xe3 18 . . . �he8 19 0-0 �dS 20 �f3 fhg4 w ith the i nitiative, or 1 8 0-0 �he8 19 .Q.b2 fhg4 ! and it is not easy for Whi te to defend himself. 16 ... e3! 17 o-o-o exd2+ 18 rt;b1 18 �xd2 fhxd2+ 19 fhxd2 �xd2 20 rt)xd2 �e4+ 21 rt}d3 4jf2+- + 18 ... �he8 19 fhc4

In this position Black's advantage is not in doubt as can be seen from the fol lowing examples. 19 ... t!Je7 19 ... .Q.xc3 20 .Q.xc3 bS 21 Vhf1 �e4 22 .Q.aS fha7 23 .Q.xd8 �c3+ 24 rt}b2 fhd4-+

4 .f)c3 Fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 .f)xc6 �gS Romanov - Bebchuk, Mos­ cow 1962. {Jg4 20 4:)a4 21 .Q.d4 �xd4! 22 thxd4 �dB 23 thg1 4je3 24 4Jb2 �e4 25 4Jd3 �xd3! 0:1 Oliyane - Sanches , Corr­ espondence 1975/76.

B2 11 4:)e5+ c6 12 .Q.c4 .Q.cS 12 . . . .,Cte6 13 b3 (13 c3 !J.e7 !:::. 1 4 . . . 0-0) 13 . . . !J.cS 1 4 !J.b2 0-0-0?! ( 1 4 . . . 0-0 is worthy of attention, in order to answer 15 0-0-0 with 15 . . . bS) IS Q-0-0 nhe8 16 .Q.xe6+ thxe6 17 �he1 ! h5 18 thc4 �d5 19 �f1 �fS 20 d3± 12 . . . hSI? - see game no. 9 Ku ntse l ma n - Nesterenko.

White has an extra paw n,

133

but has weaknesses i n his position. Black h as good chances to organise active counterplay . Now two contin uations come into consideration:

B21) 13 c3 B22) 13 d3 Al ternatives give White little, e.g. 13 !J.f7+ !ifid8 1 4 d4 .Q.xd4 1 5 thd2 c 5 1 6 c3 e3! =F Chutger - Selivanov­ sky, Moscow 1956, or 13 d4 !J.xd4 14 !J.f7+ ( 1 4 !J.e3 !J.xe5! 15 fxe5 .Q.g4!) 14 . . . �e7 ( 1 4 . . . lifid8) 15 !J.e3 !J.xe5 1 6 fxe5 !ifixf7 17 exf6 nd8! 18 fxg7 .o,g4 19 thc4+ !ifixg7 20 �xe4 ne8 21 thf4 �ad8 22 thg5+ !ifih8 23 thf6+ with perpetual, Radev - Kirov, Sofia 197 4.

B21 13 c3 E uwe's recommendation.

134 4 fJc3 fxe4 5 fJxe4 dS 6 fJxeS dxe4 7 fJxc6 tl/gS

13 ... .a_f51 13 . . . 4Jg4? 14 d4 4Jxe5 15 fxe5 .a_e7 16 �f1! .a_f5 17 �f2! �f8 18 .a_e3 0-0-0 19 �f1! ± Bagirov - S hahtahtinsky, Correspondence 1966. 14 d4 On 14 b4 Black answers 1 4 . . . .a_bo . The correspond­ ence game Ko larov - Boey, 1971 contin ued 15 b5 (better looks 15 .a_a3 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 4Jg4 17 b5 as in the game Bak - Hebe l , Berlin 1975 but then with 17 . . . cxb5! 18 .a_xb5 4jf2! Black obtains good cou n terchances) 15 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 bxc6 4Jg4! 17 .a_a3 .a_f2+ 18 \tild1 4Jxe5 19 �xf2 e3! and Black has real threats. 14 ... exd3 15 4Jxd3+ 15 .a_xd3 0-0-0 16 .a_xf5+ (16 .a_e3? .a_xd3 17 4Jxd3 �xd3! 18 �xd3 .a_xe3 19 �ft �e6 0 : 1 Krasov - Lipsky, Slyupsk 1977) 16 . . . �xf5 17 .a_e3 �e4 18 \tilf2 �xe3+ 19 �xe3 �d2+ 20 \tilf3 .a_xe3 21 \tilxe3 �xb2 1f.l : 1f.l Leonidov - Shikirev , Moscow 1977. .a_e7 15 ... 16 4Je5 AI ternatives: a) 16 4Jf2 �g2 17 �f1 �f3 18 �e2 �g2 led to a draw in Browne - Kavalek, USA

1973. b) 16 .a_e3 0-0-0 17 0-0-0 .a,g4 18 �c2 .a_xd1 19 �xd1 b5 20 .a_b3 \tilb7 21 .a,g1 4Jd7 22 �e1 .a_d6 and Black cons­ olidated his extra paw n i n the correspondence game Nechesany - Boey, 1976. c) 16 .a_d2 b5! On Henn­ ings - Westerinen, 1965 the weak reply 16 . . . 0-0-0? led to a w hite advantage after 17 0-0-0 4Je4 ( 17 . . . �he8 18 4Jf2} 18 4Jf2 4Jxf2 19 �xf2 \tilb8 20 .a_e3) 17 .a_b3 .a_e4! 18 4Jf2 �g2 19 0-0-0 ( Mele­ geghyi suggests 19 �f1 however after 19 . . . .a_c5 20 �xg2 .a_xg2 21 �g t .a_f3 22 .a_d1 .a_d5 Black has a good game) 19 . . . .a_c5 20 .a_e3 (20 .a.et? �f3) 20 . . . .a,f3 21 �d3 .a.xd1 22 .a_xc5 ( 22 .a.xd1 �d8 23 �e2 .a.xe3+ 24 �xe3+ \tilf7 25 .a.b3+ 4Jd5 Black's po­ sition is preferable) 22 . . . .a_xb3 2 3 �et + (23 axb3 �d5 24 �e3+ \tilf7 25 �e7+ \tilg6) 23 . . . \tilf7 24 �e7+ \tilg8 25 axb3 �d5:f o-o-o 16 . 17 .a_e3 Others : 17 4Jf7? is a mistake, e.g. 17 . . . .a,g 4! 18 4Jxd8 �xd8! ( Florian). 17 .a_d2 .a_c5 ( 17 ... 4Jg4 18 o-o-o .a_c5!) 18 o-o-o 4Jg4! ..

4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 (!tgS ( 1 8 . . . nhe8 19 �f1 (19 .Q.f7! .Q.d3 20 �f3 .Q.e4 2 1 �f1 �fS 22 �c4 .Q.xh 1 23 �xeS �e4 24 �xa7 ne7 2S c4 nxd2 26 nxd2 {)d7 27 .Q.e8!± Sorokin - Spodny, correspondence 1977 /80) 19 . . . {)e4! 20 t!}xh3 .Q.xh3 21 nhel {)f2+ Cording Boey, correspondence 196S/66) 19 �f3 {)f2 20 nhel ( Hazai - Sze l l , Budapest 1973) 20 . . . {)xd l ! 21 .Q.a6 nds! 22 {)xc6 nd? and White has no compensation for the sacri ficed material ( Euwe) . {)g4 17 ... 18 {)xg4 18 flxa77 {)xeS 19 fxeS .Q.g 4 (a lso good is 19 . . . -'l.,gS 20 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 21 twxe3 twg2) 20 twe4 �hf8 21 !J.fl -'l.,gS! 22 .Q.d4 twhS 23 .Q.e2 �xd4! 24 cxd4 .Q.xe2 2S fhxe2 �f3 and Black went on to win in Gelensky - Boey, corres­ pondence 1965/66. 18 .Q.xg4 thhS 19 thf1 20 thf2 .Q.cSI see

follo wing diagram

21 o-0! Capturing with 21 .Q.xc5 is mistaken, e.g. 21 . . . nhe8+ 22 .Q.e3 (22 litlf1 .Q.h3+ 23 litJg1 ndt + 24 nxdl fhxdl + 2S .Q.ft

13S

net t) 22 . . . nxe3+ 23 �xe3 ne8 24 �xe8+ twxe8+ 2S iitlf2 twe4 -+ .Q.xe3 21 �he8 22 thxe3 .Q.e21 23 fhxa7 �xe2 24 .Q_xe2 25 �f2= Cordi ng - Boey , corres­ pondence 1974/7S.

B22 13 d3 This continu ation is re­ liable, and for a long time proved good for White.

136 4 fJc3 fxe4 5 fJxe4 dS 6 fJxeS dxe4 7 fJxc6 '/tlgS

4Jg4 13 13 . . . exd31? deserves attention, e.g. 1 4 4jxd3+ !J.e7 15 4Je5 !J.fS with defin­ ate compensation for the pawn. In Browne - M inic, Man n heim 1975, Black play­ ed 13 .. . !J.fS at once and after 14 !J.e3 exd3 15 !J.xd3 !J.xe3 16 �xe3 4jdS 1 7 !J.xfS �xfS 18 �d3 0-0 19 �xfS �xfS 20 4jd3 White had an extra paw n without any real compensation for Black . 14 4Jf71 A strong move. White gets nothing with 14 d4 !J.xd4 15 �xe4 4Jxe5 16 fxeS. Karpov - Parma, Ljubliana Portoroz 1975 saw 16 . . . �g4 17 �xg4 !J.xg 4 1 8 c3 !J.xeS 19 0-0 0-0-0= Black could have played more am­ bi tiously, e.g. 16 . . . !J.g4! 17 c3 ( 1 7 �xd4 �d8 18 �e4 �d1+ 19 �f2 �f8+t) 17 . . . !J.cS 1 8 b4 !J.b6 19 !J.f4 Gudim - Selivanovsky , Liepaya 1971. Now with Tal's suggestion of 19 ... �f8! 20 e6 gS! 2 1 e7 �xf4! 22 gxf4 �xc3+ Black could have obtai ned a win­ ning position. Zak has suggested 14 �xe4 as being good for White, with the fol lowing analysis - 1 4 . . . 4jf2 15 �e2

(15 !J.f7+ - see game no. 1 0 Heemsoth - Konstantino­ pol sky) 15 . . . 4Jxh 1 16 4Jg6+ �d7! 17 4Jxh8 !J.f2+ (17 . . . bS!? 1 8 !J.b3 a S l ooks prefer­ ab le) 18 �d2 bS 19 .Q.b3 �xh2 20 �e6+ (20 �c3 aS!) 20 ... �c7 21 �eS+ �b7 (21 . . . �b6! ? 2 2 'ifjlc3) 2 2 �e7+ �b8! 23 �d6+ and White has nothing better than repe­ tition , as 23 4Jf7 leads to better chances for Black after 23 . .. !J.d4+ 24 �e2 �xe2+ 25 'ifilxe2 !J.g4+. 14 ... !J.f2+ e3 15 'ifjld1 15 . . . 4Je3+ 16 !J.xe3 !J.g4 17 !J.xf2 is unsatisfactory. White has more than s uff­ icient compensation for the queen. 16 �f3 16 4Jxh8? is mistaken, e.g. 16 ... 4jh6! 17 !J.xe3 !J.g4 and Black wins the white queen in a favourable situa­ tion. 4Jf6 16 ... Others : a) 16 ... 4Jxh2 17 �e4+ 'ifjlf8 18 !J.xe3 !J.g4+ 19 �d2 l:!e8 20 4Je5 �xg3 21 !J.xf2 �xf2+ 22 �3 g6 23 �xh2! �xh2 24 �d4 ! + - proved decisive in Kavalek - Ljubojevic, Am­ sterdam 1975. b) 16 ... 4Jh61?

4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS 6 4Jxe5 dxe4 7 4Jxc6 �gS

and White has various possible responses : bi ) 1 7 4Jd6+ fiftd7 1 8 .Q.xe3 �g4 and White loses mat­ erial. bii) 17 4Jxh6 g x h6 1 8 �e4+ fiftf8 19 .Q.xe3 09 c3 bS) 19 . . . .Q.g 4+ 2 0 fiftd2 ne8 2 1 .Q.xf2 �xe4 22 dxe4 �g2 23 !!hf1 reaches a position w hich M arie assesses as unclear. Indeed , after 23 . . . �xe4 24 .Q.c5+ fiftg7 25 .Q.d3 �d5 26 .Q.b4 �e8 27 .Q.c3+ fiftf8 a situation of dynamic equal­ i ty arises. biii) 17 4Je5 can l ead to an i mmediate repetition by 17 ... 4Jg4 18 c£jf7, but Black can try 17 . . . c£jf5, e.g. 18 c3 h5 19 fiftc2 h4, 18 g4 �xf3+ 19 c£jxf3 c£jh4 20 4Je5 4Jg2 or 18 �e4 c£jd6 19 �f3 4Jxc4!? (19 . . . c£jf5) 20 dxc4 o-o 21 .Q.xe3 .Q.xe3 22 �xe3 �g2 - in all cases with s uffi­ cient compensation for the

137

sacrificed material . biv) 1 7 �e4+ fiftf8 18 .Q.xe3 .Q.xe3! ( 18 . . . .Q.g4+ 19 fiftd2 ne8 20 4Je5± ) 19 �xe3 c£jxf7 20 �c5+ (20 �e 1 �d7) 20 . . . fiftg8 21 !!e1 .Q.g 4 + 2 2 fiftd2 �xh2+ 23 fiftc3 ttfh5 24 �eS �g6 25 lie? �f6+! 26 fiftd2 (26 fiftb3 !!f8 27 �ae1 b5!) 26 . . . nf8 27 !!ae1 h6 28 �xb7 gS!+ 17 fS 17 c£jd6+ fiftd7 18 4Jxc8 �e8! led to Black's advan­ tage i n Sunye Neto - Boey, Nice 1974.

A critical position. 4Jd51 17 17 lif8 18 c£jd6+ (stro­ nger is 18 .Q.xe3! �g4 19 c£jd6+ fiftd7 20 fifte2 �xf3+ 21 �xf3 .Q.xe3 22 4Jxc8 .Q.cS 23 .Q.e6+ fiftc7 24 d 4 .Q.xd4 25 c3 which M arie suggests is very good for Whi te, but this assessment shou ld be chal lenged as after 25 . . . ...

...

138 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 r!ftgS 4Jd7 26 cxd 4 �axc8 27 .Q.xd7 lftxd7 Bl ack preserves chances for a draw) 18 lftd7 1 9 4Jxc8 4Jd5! 2 0 4Je7 (20 .Q.xdS �xfS 21 �e4 �eS ! ! - + ) 20 �ae8 21 .Q.xdS cxdS 22 .Q.xe3 .Q.xe3 23 �el �xe 7 24 �xe3 �xe3 25 �xdS+ and this position was shortly agreed draw n in Nunn - Ru mens, London 19770 18 .Q.xdS cxdS 19 4Jd6+ lftd7 20 4Jxc8 �e8 0 0 0

0 0 0

21 �xdS+ lftxc8 22 lfte2? Here it was necessary to beat a retreat and concl ude the game as a draw with 22 �eS+ lftd7 23 �d4+ lftc80 White's ambition proves to be immediately fatal . 22 �g4+ 23 �f3 �a4 24 b3 �d4 25 �b1 �c3 0:1 Balashov - Hramov, corr­ espondence 1986/89

11)

Illus trative Games

lllustratlve game 1

Teichmann - Marshall Monte Carlo 1903 1 e4 e5 2 4:)f3 4jc6 3 .Q.b5 f5 4jf6 4 4jc3 4jd4 5 �e2 6 4jxd4 exd4 7 e5 In the event of 7 exf5+ B lack must reply 7 . . . .Q.e7 8 4:)e4 0-0 with an initiative for the sacri ficed paw n. 7 . . . rJ;f?? is a mi stake after 8 �c4+, and 7 . . . �e7 also leads to a White advantage after 8 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 9 .£)e2. 4jg4 7 8 h3 4jh6 9 .£)b1 9 .£)d t ( Spassky - Bisguier, Goteborg 1955) was ex­ am ined in the theoretical section. �g5 9

10 o-o 11 .Q.c4 12 d3 13 exd6+

c6 f4 d5! rJ;d8!

This idea of the American player Atki ns, was seen for the first time in this game. Black gets an active pos­ ition for the paw n. 14 .£)d21 Necessary. Bri nging this knight to e4 is an integra l part of the White defence. .Q,xh3 14 ... .Q,f5 15 �f3 15 . . . .Q.g4 would obvious-

140 Illustra tive Games ly be met by 16 c[)e4 .Q.xf3 17 c[)xgS± .Q.xe4 16 4je4 17 dxe4 .Q.xd6 18 c3! Black has an extra paw n, bu t his king is held up in the centre. White hurries to exploit this by openi ng the central files. 18 ... d31 Forced. 1 8 . . . dxc3? leads to an i mmediate wi n for White after 19 !!dt rlic7 20 !!xd6! 19 !!d1 r�ic7 20 !!xd3 !!hf8 21 g3 �g6

rifices the exchange to maintai n the initiative. 22 !!xd6! rlixd6 The tempti ng 22 . . . �xd6 23 .Q.xf4 r�icB is refuted by 24 .Q.xd6 !!xf3 25 .Q.f4! !..:. 26 .Q.e2. 23 .Q.xf4+ r�ie7 24 �e3 White has a dangerous attack as compensation for the exchange. 24 ... 4Jg41 The only defence. Black commences a counterattack agai nst the central point eS. 25 �c5+ r�ie8 26 .Q.g5 �xe4 Again forced. 27 �b41 c[)xf2 Black threatens mate on h1 and at the same time defends the queen. 4Jg4+ 28 rlih2 c[)f2+ 29 rlih3 � =�

Black now threatens . . . !!ad8 consolidating the position, fol lowed by the regrou ping of the knight on h6 to a more relevant square. White must therefore take decisive measures and to this end Teichmann sac-

It is clear that White cannot avoid perpetu al check . Illustrative game 2

Boleslavsky - Tolush Moscow 1957 1 2 3

e4 4Jf3 .Q.b5

e5 4Jc6 f5

Illustrative Games

14 t

4 4Jc3 4Jf6 5 exfS 4Jd4 6 .a_a4 .a,cs Boleslavsky l ater ad­ mitted that the opening employed by Tol u s h came as a complete surprise to hi m. o-o d3 7 Black's seventh i s a flex­ ible conti n u atio n . Now if 8 4Je4 there may follow 8 . 4Jxe4 9 dxe4 dS! with a dangero us i ni tiative. a o-o ds 9 4Jxe5 .a_xfS 10 �5 �d6 c6 As seen earlier, tO is more preci se. c6 11 �e1 12 £,lh4 �ae8 �dB 13 �3 14 4Je2

i tiative. 14 �xeS! 15 .a_xeS .Qg 4 16 �d2 Feeling seriously threat­ ened by the danger to his k i ng , Boleslavsky returns the exchange intending to simplify . The attempt to hold on to the extra mat­ erial wou ld have been mis­ gu ided , e.g. 16 .Q.xd4 .O.xd4 17 c3 £.lb6 18 d4 4Je4! 19 �ft (19 f3 .Q.xf3 20 gxf3 �gS+ 21 4Jg3 c[Jxg3 22 hxg3 �xg3+ - +) 19 . . . .Q.c7 20 �d3 £,lxh2+ 21 �xh2 �h4+ 22 �gl c[Jxf2 23 �xf2 �xf2+ 24 �h t �f6 25 c[Jgt �h6+ 26 4Jh3 �xh3+ 27 gxh3 .Q.f3+ -+ 16 c[Jxe2+ 17 �xe2 £,lxe2 18 �xe2

The fol low i n g u nexpec­ ted , but wel l-founded ex­ change sacrifice, enables Black to deve lop the in-

White seems to have good chances to repulse the enemy threats and retai n an extra paw n, but

. .

142

Illustrative Games

B lack is better developed and i m mediate ly exploits this. 18 . . . �e41 19 �f11 Thi s is forced, as 19 dxe4 �xf2 20 �xf2 �xf2+ 21 fitjlxf2 �b6+ ! 22 fitjlf3 �b4 wins for Black and 19 d4 �xf2 20 �g4 �e? is also u nattrac­ tive. �xf2 19 20 �xf2 �xf2+ �fB I 21 fitjlf1 Now Whi te must capture the enemy k night res u l ting in an eq ual ending. 22 dxe4 �d4+ 23 �f3 �xeS 1.2 : 1.2

After 24 �xf8+ fitilxf8 25 exdS cxdS 26 �b3! the draw is obvious. Illustrative game 3

Dlaz Salkedo Correspondence 198S -

eS e4 1 �c6 2 4Jf3 3 �bS fS �f6 4 4Jc3 S exfS �cs o-o o-o 6 7 �xeS �d4 8 �a4 As seen earl ier, 8 �f3 at once is preferable.

8 dS 9 �f3 Too late. Now Black can develop the initiative with­ out hi ndrance. For 9 d3 �xfS see the prev ious game. �xfS 9 10 c£)xd4 �xd4 11 c£)e2 There is nothing better as after 11 c£)bS �4 12 �e1 �e8 White loses the queen, and i f 11 d3 �g 4! with a tremendous attack. How­ ever the move played al so fai ls to so lve all White's di fficu I ties . 11 �4 c6! 12 �e l With the aim of elimin­ ating the bis hop's infl uence on e8. If now 13 4Jxd4? then 13 . . . �e8, and on 13 h3? w i l l fol low 13 . . . �xe2 14 �xe2 c£)e4 threatening . . . c£)g3. !!e8 13 c3 14 �d1

Illustrative Games Bad is 1 4 cxd4 because of 14 . . . .Q.xe2 and White s uf­ fers materi al loss. 14 ... �e6 Thi s i s more exact than 1 4 . . . .Q.xe2 1S .Q.xe2 ti!Je7 16 cxd4 tt!Jxe2 17 ti!Jxe2 �xe2 18 d3. Black fo llows the wel l ­ known pri nciple that, w hen attacking, the q ueen should be placed behind the rook. 15 cxd4 .Q,xe2 16 �xe2 ti!Je7 17 d3 17 f3 cijhS! 17 �xe2 18 ti!Jc3 ti!Jd61 An improvement over 1 8 . . . �e8 19 .Q.f4! ( Grinberg - Szmetan, Argentinian C h . 1973) w hen White wil l fol­ low up with the usefu l bl ockading move .Q.eS. 19 g3 19 .Q.e3 l oses to 19 . . . �e8 20 �ae1 (20 h3 �8xe3! 21 fxe3 ti!Jg3) 20 ... 4Jg 4! 21 g3 �8xe3! 22 fxe3 �xh2 23 �f3 ti!Jh6 with an i nevi table mate. �ae8 19 20 �5? Losing, but after the comparatively better 20 .a,f4 ti!Je6 21 �eS 4Jg 4 22 �ae1 4JxeS! 23 dxeS �xeS 24 �xeS tfJxeS Black s tands very wel l .

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

�ae1 �xe2 !iftg2 !iftxh3 g4 �g1 0:1

1 43

4Jg41 4Jxf2! 4Jh3+ �xe2+ �e6+ h5! ti!Jf7!!

Illustrative game 4

Chlburdanidze Gaprlndashvlll Rostov 1980 e4 1 e5 4Jc6 2 4Jf3 3 �b5 f5 4 4Jc3 4Jd4 5 o-o 4Jxb5 The u sual move here i s S . . . c6. Black decided instead to remove the 'Spani sh' bis hop - a deci sion that led to di fficu l ties. 6 4Jxb5 fxe4 6 . . . d6 can be met by 7 exfS! �xfS 8 d4 e4 9 4JgS and if 9 . . . h6 then 10 4Jxe4 .Q.xe4 1 1 �et ± 7 4Jxe5 see follo wing diagram It is only necessary to gl ance at this position to real ise that with the White lead i n devel opment, Black will experience di fficu l ties

144 Illustra tive Games

here.

7 0,e7 7 . . . 0,f6 8 c£:)g4! fle7 (8 . . 4:Jxg 4 9 �xg4 dS tO �hS+) 9 c£:)xf6+ flxf6 tO �hS+ �f8 ( t O . . . g6 tt �dS) tt �cS+ d6 12 �xc7± Psakhis Koz lov, 1980. 8 �hS+ g6 9 �h4 flg7 10 �f4 Before capturi ng the paw n , White deprives her opponent of the righ t to castle. 10 �f8 11 �xe4 d6 12 c£:)f3 !J.fS c6 13 �c4 14 4Jbd4 dS �d7 15 �e2 �xfS 16 4Jxf5 !J.f6 17 t!e1 18 4Jd4 .

-

With an extra paw n and better position, White has a decisive advantage. The remai nder is a moppi ng u p operation. �d7 18 �f7 19 4:Je6 20 d4 t!cB b6 21 c3 cS 22 flgS �xf6 23 flxf6 1:0 24 �eS Illustrative game 5

Karpov - Mark Tseitlln Leningrad 1971 eS e4 1 4Jc6 2 c£:)f3 3 flbS fS 4 4jc3 4Jd4 4Jf6 5 fla4 fxe4 6 4Jxe5 o-o 7 flcS At the ti me of this game it was not yet known that Black can obtain good play

Illustrative Games with the .Q.d6! 8 9 10

un usual move 7 . . .

4jxe4 �h5+ 4Jxg6

4jxe4 g6

10 . . . 4Jf6? This i s already the dec­ isive mistake. Necessary was 10 . . . �gS! 11 �xgS 4JxgS 12 �e1 + 4Jge6! (com­ mentators had only con­ sidered 12 . . . 4jde6? here) 13 4Jxh8 bS 1 4 .Q.b3 'i:ttf B and Black w i l l get cou nterplay . 11 �e5+1 .Q_e7 12 4jxh8 b5 13 �xd4 bxa4 14 �e1 'i:ttfB 15 d3 Now that the knigh t on h8 i s i nv u l nerable, White has a material and pos­ itional advantage . 15 ... �bB 15 . . 'i:ttg 7 would be met by 16 .Q.f4! d6 ( 16 . . . �f8 17 �e3! ; 16 . . . .Q.d6 17 .Q_h6+! .

1 45

'i:ttx h8 18 !!e8+! �xeS 19 �xf6+ and mate next move) 17 !!e3 and Black cannot take the knight because of 18 !!aet .Q.d6 19 �e8. 16 �e5!

Now Black's king is tied to the defence of the bishop at e7 and his position is hopel ess . 4Jg8 16 ... There i s nothing better, e.g. 16 . . . �b6 17 �h6+ 'i:tte 8 18 �gS. 'i:ttg 7 17 �h5 �e8 18 4jf7 19 �h6+ 4Jxh6 20 �xh6+ 'i:ttxf7 Black at last captures the enemy knight, but finds his king exposed to a mating attack. 21 �xh7+ 'i:ttf8 !!b6 22 !!e3 23 !!g31 1:0

1 46 Illustra tive Games Illustrative game 6

Kalegin - Mik. Tseitlin Ryazan 1986 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

e4 4:)f3 �bS 4Jc3 4Jxe4 4jxf6+ tft1e2 o-o

eS ci)c6 fS fxe4 4:)f6 t!Jxf6 �e7 4Jd4 exd4 c6 dS

4Jxd4 r!e1 �d3 b3 o-o t!Jxe7 t!Jxf2+ C(lth1 .a_h3 r!g1 �ae 8 t/1xf8+

The psycho logical back­ ground to this game is interesti ng. On his fi fteen­ th move, White cou ld have forced a draw with 15 g xh3, but Kalegin knew the corr­ espondence game Yavorsky

- Gartner, 1980/82, where the contin uation 15 �g 1 �ae8 16 t/Jxf8+ �xf8 17 .a_a3 �e8 1 8 �aft t/Jxd2 19 gxh3 t!Ja5 20 .a_d6 led to a White victory . Obviously hoping to em ulate this success, he chose to repeat this var­ iation, but was met by an unpleasant surprise. 16 tt1xf8! Here is the val ue of home preparation! This i m provement significant was voted one of the best twelve theoretical nove l­ ties of Informa tor 41. Now White has to solve difficu l t problems at t h e board. 17 �f1 .a_xg2+ 18 C{ltxg2 t!Jd61 the right Precisely moment. In the as yet un­ published correspondence game Rabinovich - Sauer­ man 1981/86, Bl ack played the inferior 18 . . . tt1e7 and after 19 .a_b2 t/Jg5+ 20 C(lth1 c5 21 �f5 White was better. cS 19 .a_b2 20 �f2 E xchanging rooks by 20 �ae 1 �xe1 21 �xel t/Jf4 does not reduce Black's pressure . �f8! 20 . . . decision. difficult A After long thoug ht, Black

Illustra tive Games concluded that i t w as now neces sary to exchange one pair of rooks as after 20 . . . bS 2 1 .Q.xbS (or 2 1 �aft c4 22 .Q.fS g6) 21 . . . t!Yg6+ 22 lt/h 1 t!Ye4+ 23 �g2 the position is unclear, and 20 . . . c4 21 bxc4 t!Yb6 22 .Q.a3 t!Ya6 23 �e1 ! leads to good p lay for White. 21 �aft �xf2+ 22 �xf2 b5

23 b4 23 .Q.xbS? t!Yg6+ 24 lt;ft t5Yxc2 . c4 23 . . . 24 .Q.f5 g6 Not 24 . . . t/JeS? because of 25 .Q.xd4! t/Jxd4 26 .Q.e6+. t!Je5 25 .Q.g4 h51 26 .Q.f3 t!Yg5+ 27 �e2 t!Jf5 28 lt;h1 29 lt;g2 29 .Q.g2 t5Yxc2 30 .Q.xdS+ lt/h7 31 ,t!e7+ �h6 32 .Q.xd4 t!Yd1 + 33 .Q.gt cJ! also leads

1 47

to a decisive advantage for B lack. 29 �gS+ 30 lt;f1 30 lt,ilht t/JfS 31 lt/g2 gS! 30 . . . t!JfS 31 �f2 t!Jxc2! 32 d3 32 .Q.xdS+ lt/h7 33 .Q.xd4 �d3+ 32 ... �b1+! 33 lt;g2 c3! The bishop is stuck out of play . 3 4 .Q.a3 lt;g7 gS 35 .Q.xd5 t!Jxd3 36 X!f1 37 .Q.ct t!Je2+! t5Yg4+ 38 lt;g1 d3 39 lt;h1 t!Jf5 40 .Q.f3 t!Je5 41 .Q.e3 c2 42 .(l,c5 d2 43 .Q.xh5 0:1 The appearance of a new queen is inevitable. ...

Illustrative game 7

Fischer - Matulovlc Herzeg - Novl (International Blitz Tournament) 1970 1 2 3 4

e4 c£)£3 .Q.b5 c[Jc3

e5 4Jc6 f5 fxe4

148 Illustrative Games 5 4Jxe4 dS dxe4 6 4Jxe5 7 4Jxc6 �gS 8 �e2 4Jf6 9 f4 �xf4 10 d4 �h4+ 11 g3 �h3 12 .Q.gSI The strongest contin­ uation. Meeti ng this var­ iation for the first time, Fischer demons trates that after 12 �S! Bl ack is struggl i ng to eq uali se. 12 a6 13 .Q.a4 .Q.d7 14 .Q.xf6 gxf6 15 �xe4+ �f7 1S . . . '/fJe6 16 �xe6+ .Q.xe6 17 0-0! ±

Fischer now sacrifices a piece for a strong attack against the enemy k i ng. 16 4Je5+1 fxeS 17 �f1+ �e7 17 . . . � g?? lost at once i n view of 1 8 �xeS+ � h6 19

!!f6+ �g7 20 �gS+ 18 .Q.xd7 �xd7 19 !!f7+ �e8 A better chance appears to be 19 . . . .Q.e7 20 0-0-0 �e8. However, after 21 �fS! �f8 22 �xeS �f7 (worse is 22 . . . �h6+ 23 �b 1 �f7 {23 . . . ttJd6 2 4 '/fJxh7} because o f 24 �e6!) 23 �e1 '/fJh6+ 24 �b1 '/fJd6 2S '/fJxb7 �dB 26 ttJe4 White has a large advan­ tage. .Q.d6 20 �xc7 �c8 21 �xb7 22 o-o-o '/fJxh2 2J dxeS .Q.e7 ·

Wi th three paw ns for the piece and an enduring attack, White is winning. The fol l ow i ng exchange sacrifice is the quickest way to end the struggle. 24 �xe7+1 �xe7 25 ttJb7+ �6 26 �d7+ �xeS 27 �dS+ �f6

1//ustrative Games 28 29 30 31 32

�f1+ t(1e6+ .r;tf5+ .r;tf4+ t(1g4#

CitiJg6 CitiJg5 CitiJg4 Citilxg3

18 .Q.b2

1 49

h4

Illustrative game 8

Estrin - Nelshtadt Correspondence 1963/64 1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 f5 3 .a,b5 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS 6 4Jxe5 dxe4 7 4Jxc6 t(1g5 4Jf6 8 t(1e2 9 f4 t(1h4+ 10 g3 t(1h3 11 4Jxa7+ .Q.d7 12 .a,xd7+ t(1xd7 13 4JbS o-o-o Our earl ier analysis shows that 13 . . . c6 is not worse for Black. 14 b3 c6?1 A ques tionable move. The best here is 14 . . . .Q.cS 15 .Q.b2 4Jg4 2iS 15 4Ja31 t(1d4 t(1a7 16 c3 17 4Jc4 A l though Black has some play , the two paw n deficit means that White is for preference . h5 17 ...

19 o-o-o Best was 19 g4!± hxg3 19 ... 20 hxg3 .r;txh1 21 .r;txh1 b5 Not 21 . . . �xa2 22 !ittc 2 .:.:... X!at. 22 4Je5 t(1xa2 23 4Jxc6 23 !ittc 2 .Q.a3 24 �b 1 �h8! !::, �h 1 23 ... Citilc71 A very s trong and un­ expected move. 23 . . . .Q.a3 would have been answered by 24 4Ja7+! with a winning position 24 4Jxd8 .Q.a3 �d6 25 4Je6+ t(1a1+ 26 d3 27 Citild2 �xb2+ t(1xc3 28 Citile3 �e5 29 f5 30 �f21 ..•

150

Illustra tive Games

White plans to jettison some extra material to regain the initiative. 30 �xfS+ 31 4Jf4 gS 32 dxe4 �cS+ After 32 . . . 4Jxe4+ 33 �f3 4Jxg3 Whi te can get a winning position w ith 34 �d2+ �c6 35 �h6+ �b7 36 �xg3 gxf4+ 37 �xf4 33 �3 gxf4 34 gxf4 �c6 35 �d3+ �e7 36 �d4 !,ld6 37 �at !,lb8 38 b4 �e6 39 eS �h3+ t.2 : t.2 Illustrative game 9

Kuntselman - Nesterenko Correspondence 1975/76 1 2

e4 4Jf3

eS 4Jc6

3 !,lbS fS fxe4 4 4jc3 5 4Jxe4 dS 6 {)xeS dxe4 7 4Jxc6 �gS 8 �e2 4Jf6 9 f4 �h4+ 10 g3 �h3 11 4Je5+ c6 12 !,lc4 hSI? The main con tin uation. as analysed earl ier, is 12 . . . .Q.c5. With the aggressive text, Black i ntends to launch a fierce attack ag­ ai nst the enemy position, involving sacrifices if nec­ essary 13 4Jf7?1 The novelty already begi ns to take effect. This move al lows Black to carry out a bold and u nexpected rook sacri fice. Later it was discovered that now is the correct moment to remove the king from the danger zone, e.g. 13 d3! h4 14 !,le3! hxg3 1 5 0-0-0! gxh2 ( 15 . . . !.lg 4 16 dxe4 !,lhS 1 7 hxg3 �xh1 18 !!xh1 !,lxe2 19 !,lf7+ �dB 20 �xh8± Slyunt­ sevsky - Wi l l em , Hol l and 1980) 16 dxe4 !,le7 17 �d3± Liberzon - Wockenfuss, Bad Lauterberg 1977. 13 ... h41

Illustrative Games

151

15 4Jxh8 gxh2 16 �h1 .Q.cS 17 �xh2 17 �xh2 would run into 17 . . . t!Jg3+ 18 �f2 .Q.g4 19 �f1 .Q.h3 20 t!Je2 0-0-0 with decisive threats , e.g. 21 �f7 �g4 22 .Q.e6+ rJ;;c 7 23 .Q.xg 4 .Q.xg4 24 thfl e3! - + 14 �g1 Nesterenko's idea has received one further prac­ tical test i n Hangl i - Menne, Oslo 1978: 1 4 �xh8 h xg3 15 �g6 ( 15 �g 1 leads to the main vari ation) 15 . . . .Q.c5 16 d4 .Q.xd4 17 .Q.e3 .Q.g4 1 8 .Q.xd4 and now w i t h 1 8 . . . .Q.xe2 19 .Q.xe2 �dB ! Black cou l d play for the advan­ tage Better than 18 .Q.xd 4 is 1 8 �d2 when play can con­ tinue 18 . . . g2! ( 1 8 . . . .Q.xe3 19 �xe3 .Q.f3 20 �d2! ( 20 t!Jc5? 0-0-0 2 1 �e5 �g2! 22 .Q.e6+ l:Id7 23 .Q.xd7+ �xd7- + } 20 . . . .Q.xh 1 21 �xg3= ) 19 l:Ig1 .Q.xe3 20 �xg2 (the temp­ ting 20 �d6? loses immediately to 20 . . . .Q.f2+ 21 �xf2 t!Jf3+) 20 ... .Q.xg 1 21 t!Jxg1 0-0-0 22 �xa7 �xh2 23 t!Ja8+ �c7 24 t!JaS+ w ith perpetual check . hxg3 14 ...

17 ... .Q.f2+1 ! A bri l l iant move re­ gai ning material equal ity and preserving a dangerous initiative. 18 t!Jxf2 18 �xf2 �g4+ 18 �d1 -'1g4+ 19 .Q.e2 .Q.xe2+ 20 �xe2 thf3+ 21 �f1 -'1g3+ - + 18 �xh1+ 19 .Q.f1 t!Jxh8 20 d3 .Qg 4 o-o-o 21 .Q.e2 Black has succeeded in regaining the sacrificed material and now has a winning i ni tiative. �e8 22 .Q.d2

152

Illustra tive Games

23 .a_xg4+ c£)xg4 24 �g1 �h4+ 25 \tle2 25 \tldt c£)f2+ 26 \tid e3 27 .a_et �xf4-+ exd3+ 25 ... 0:1 A splendid game. Illustrative game 10

Heemsoth ­ Konstantlnopolsky Vidmar Memorial Correspondence Tourn81Dent 1976/78 e4 1 2 c£)f3 3 .a_b5 4 c£)c3 5 c£)xe4 6 c£)xe5 7 c£)xc6 8 �e2 9 f4 10 g3 11 c£)e5+ 12 .a_c4 13 d3 14 �xe4 15 .a_f7+ For IS �e2 see retical section .

e5 c£)c6 f5 fxe4 d5 dxe4 �g5 c£)f6 �h4+ �h3 c6 .a_c5 c£)g4 c£)f2

\tld8 15 ... 15 . . . \tle7 can lead to the fol l ow ing play: to �c4 .a_bo 17 �f1 �xh2! 18 �b4+ (18 .a,g 8 �xg3!; 1 8 .a_d2 �xg3!) 1 8 . . . cS 19 �d2 c£)g 4 20 �xh2 c£)xh2 21 �h1 c£)g 4 22 c£)xg4 \tlxf7 23 ciJeS+ \tlf6 and al though White has an extra paw n, Black has good chances for the draw . .a_b6 16 �c4 17 �f1

the theo­

see follo wing diagram \tld8 15 ... 15 . . . \tle7 can lead to the

B lack c learly has serious di fficul ties and it is not easy for him to fi nd a

Illustrative Games satisfactory defence. 17 4:)g4 The correspondence game Koni kow ski - Ross, 1977 saw 17 . .. �xh2 18 �b4 rJ;c7 ( 1 8 . . . cS would be met by 19 �d2 4:)g 4 20 �xh2 4:)xh2 21 �h1 4:)g4 22 4:)g6 ! +-) 19 .Q.e3! 4:)g4 (of course not 19 . . . .Q.xe3? 2 0 �e7+) 2 0 .Q.xb6+ axb6 21 �e7+ rJ)b8 22 �d6+ ! ( not 2 2 0-0-0 w hen 2 2 . . . �aS! eq uali ses the chances) 22 . . . rJ;a7 23 0-0-0 �xg3 24

153

4:)xg 4 .Q.xg 4 25 �del± The text move doesn't save Black either. 18 4:)xg4 �xg4 19 fSI �xc4 19 . . . .Q.x fS 20 �f4 �h3 21 �h 4 �g2 22 .Q.gS+ rJ)d7 23 0-0-0 with an easi ly win­ ning position for White. 20 .Q.gS+ rJ;c7 21 .Q.xc4 . . . and with two extra paw ns, White won easily. 1:0

Index of Variations

eS e4 4Jf3 4Jc6 .Q.bS fS 4Jc3 4 exf5 4 0-0 4 �� 4 �2 �4 4 . . . fxe4 5 .Q.xc6 5 ��4 4 d3 fxe4 5 dxe4 4Jf6 6 0-0 .Q.c5 6 . . . d6 4 . . . 4jf6 5 0-0 5 exffi 4 d4 fxe4 5 .Q.xc6 5 4Jxe5 others 5 4Jxe5 4Jxe5 6 dxe5 c6 7 4Jc3 cxb5 8 4Jxe4 d5 9 exd6 4jf6 10 0-0 tO �d4 tO .Qg5 4 fxe4 4 . . . .Q.c5 4 . . . .Q.b4 4 . . . 4jf6 5 �e2 4jd4 5 . . . .Q.c5 5 exf5 e4 5 ... .Q.c5 5 ... 4jd4

1 2 3 4

9 9 9 D

13 �

20 25 31 �

37 41 44 45 46 50 50 51 52 54 56 63

Index of Variations 4 . . . 4:)d4 5 exf5 5 4:Jxe5 5 �4 5 0-0

5 �4 dS 5 4:Jxe4 5 . . . fJ.e7 5 . . . 4:)f6 6 4:)xf6+ thxf6 7 0-0 7 the2 6 the2 the 7 6 . . . d5 6 4:Jxe5 6 4:Jg3 others 6 . . . !J.g4 7 h3 fJ.xf3 8 thxf3 4:Jf6 9 c4 9 0-0 9 4:)h5

dxe4 6 7 4:Jxc6 thgS 7 . . . bxc6 7 . . . thd5 8 c4 thd6 9 c5 9 thh5 9 4:Jxa7+ fJ.d7 tO fJ.xd7+ thxd7: tt 4:Jb5 tt thh5+ 4:Jf6 8 the2 9 f4 thh4+ 9 . . . thx f4 tO 4:Jxa7+ to d4 to 4:Je5+ thh3 10 g3 11 4:Je5+ t t 4:Jxa7+ c6 11 .Q.cS 12 .Q.c4

t55 68 70 n 75 n 81 85 87 90 93 98 101 102 105

108 110 112 114 116

122 123 125

130

...

D cl

m

13 d3

/35

�¥1�

Chess enthusiasts, MAKE A subscribe to

WINNING MOVE ­ Maxwell Macmillan Chess and

receive 12 issues packed with interesting, infonnative

and entertaining articles. Whatever

your level there will be something for you in

.

Maxwell Macmillan Chess.

!

Articles by International Grandmasters eg. KasfHlrov, Speelman and Mednis

! ! ! ! As

Opening Theory Tournament Reports How good is your chess? Book reviews and much more a

Subscriber your benefits include:

• •

S% Discount on all orders for Chess books and

•

Exclusive monthly offers

A FREE entry into the monthly £50 voucher draw products (.-.,..-;or.,_)

So MAKE YOUR WINNING MOVE and Sla't subscribing IOday. Simply send your name and address together wilh payment to: MuweU MacmUlan Chess, London Road, Wheatley, Ox ford, Oxon, OX9 1 YR, Engbnd. _

SUBSCRIPTION nATES For 12 i1111e1: UK .t. Ewupc

USA (Air .t. Slllfaa:) Canada (Air .t. Sutfaa:) Rat ol World (Air .t. Slllfaa:) Rat of World (SIIIfaa:)

£21.9S $44.9S

$64.SO

£36.9S £22.9S

Wc iiCIOOf' chajua, paotalllnancy onion or ACCESS/VISA/AIIIEX. For ....!it urd paymatla plcuc q"""' canl numbor utd upil)' date.