Semi-Slav Defense: Non-Meran Variations

Semi-Slav Defense

Non-Meran Variations by 1M John Donaldson

IM Jeremy Silman

SUMMIT PUBLISIDNG

Copyright 1988 SUMMIT PUBLISIDNG All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechani­ cal, including photocopying and recording, or by any informa­ tion storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1 976 copyright act or in writing from the publisher. First printing: February 1988 Request for permissions and republication rights should be addressed to

SUMMIT PUBLISIDNG P.O. B OX 67 A48 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 805 379-2272 typesetting by: Marianne Zaugg and Summit staff proofing by:

National Master John Hillery

The publisher would like to thank the following for their assistance: David Cook, David Gershenson, llene Haber, Marianne Zaugg, Daniel Doyne, Gwen Feldman, Mark Stem, S andra Darin, and Daniel Upton. RIP

Walden Robert Cassotto and Mary Douvan

dedicated to

Gwenn Feldman, my chess coach

Table Of Contents A. Table Of Contents B. Introduction Chapter: 1) 6.Bd3 Bd6 Plus 4.Nbd2 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 e5. 2) 6.Bd3 Bb4. 3) 6.Bd3 Be7 Plus 6 ... a6. 4) 6.Qc2 with a) 6...dxc4; b) 6 ... a6; c) 6 ...Be7; d) 6 ... Bb4. Also examined is 6 . . .Bd6 7 .Be2 0-0 8.0-0. 5) 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.Bd2-Taimanov System. 6) 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.b3. 7) 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.e4. 8) 6.Ne5; 6.a3; 6.b3; 6.Be2; Plus 5 ... a6. 9) 4.e4-Marshall Gambit. 10) 4.Nf3 dxc4- Noteboom/Abraham Def. 1 1 ) 5.Qb3, 5.Qd3, 5.g3 Plus Qc2 Variations. 1 2) Odds and Ends. Bibliography

Evaluation Key '+= ' equals a slight advantage for White. '=+' equals a slight advantage for Black. '+- ' equals a clear advantage for White. '-+' equals a clear advantage for Black. '++- ' equals a winning position for White. ' -++' equals a winning position for Black. ,_,

stands for an even position.

Introduction The subject of this book, the Semi-Slav, is characterized by the moves . . . d5, .... e6, and ... c6 versus the Queen' s Gambit. In­ side the reader will find complete coverage of all lines excepting the Meran [ l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4.] and the Botvinnik system ll .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 dxc4.] . The Semi-Slav is an opening complex which runs the gamut from tactical play [The Marshall Variation: l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4ch. 6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4ch.] to refined positional struggles [The Romih Variation: 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Bb4.]. In the past such players as Botvinnik, Kotov, Najdorf, Reshevsky, and Euwe, debated its finer points. Today G.M.'s Noguieras, Yusupov, Van der Wiel, Flear, and Bisguier all use it on a regular basis. One of the beauties of the Semi­ Slav is that it can provide Black

with a full time answer to 1 .d4. One interesting repertoire for the defender of 1 . d4 is the following: l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 ... Abraham's varation. 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4ch ... Mar­ shall variation. 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 . . . Keres-Minev variation. These three variations plus a sys­ tem against lines with Qb3/Qc2 would give Black a complete and interesting answer to 1 .d4 d5 2.c4. For the White player facing the Slav and Semi-Slav the task of obtaining an opening advantage without having to face an incred­ ible amount of analysis [Slav proper, Meran, and Anti-Meran.] is rather daunting. One interest­ ing idea favored by Larsen and Portisch is the move order 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 [2 . . . e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 comes to the same thing.] 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3. Now 4... Bf5 fails to 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 [An example of this is the game Farago­ Kuczynski, Polanica Zdroj 1985, which continued 6 ... Bc8 7 .f4 Nc6 8.Nf3 e6 9.Bd2 a6 10.Ne5 Nd7 l l .Bd3 Be7 1 2.0-0 with advan-

tage] . This leaves Black with ei­ ther 4 ... e6 heading into the Semi­ Slav or 4 . . . g6 steering into a Slav­ Grunfeld. In this way the entire Slav Defense is avoided. Thus with a line against 4... g6 and a system like 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 White has a way to handle the Slav/Semi-Slav which combines economy of learning with some punch. By now the reader will have no­ ticed that Black has continually answered with 1 .. .d5, 2 ... e6, and 3 ... c6. Actually the second and third moves are interchangeable. However 2 ... e6 has certain prac­ tical advantages. After 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 the move 3.cxd5 takes a lot of steam out of the game. The symmetrical pawn structure promises fewer winning possi­ bilities for either side. With 2 ...e6 Black can answer cxd5 with ... exd5-an asymmetrical posi­ tion. Since Black' s Knight is not yet committed to ... Nf6 the posi­ tion doesn ' t have to transpose into a regular Queen's Gambit Declined-exchange variation position. Instead Black can get a

very comfortable game by ex­ changing off his bad Queen Bishop. A model game for Black is Inkiov-Jusupov, Dubai (ol) 1986. l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.0c2 Be7 7.Bg5 g6 8.Bxf6 [On the theory that Knights are better than Bishop's in closed positions. Also the Bishop on f6 will now be out of play.] 8 ...Bxf6 9.e3 Bf5 10.Bd3 Bxd3 1 1 .0xd3 Nd7 1 2.00 Be7 [To hold up b4 and to bring the Bishop to d6 where it will work on both the Kingside and Queenside.] 1 3.Rab1 a5 14.a3 0-0 15.0c2 Bd6 1 6.b4 axb4 17.axb4 Nb6 1 8.b5 Nc4 19.Ra1 Oc7 20.bxc6 Oxc6! [For the 'c' line and the passed 'b' pawn. Now White' s position is very difficult.] 21.e4 Rxa 1 22.Rxa1 Nb6 23.Qb3 Rc8 winning a pawn and eventually the game.

J.Donaldson J. Silman

Semi-Slav Defense

CHAPTER 1

1

D46/SL8

6 ... Bd6 Semi-Slav .Ar. 7 0-0 This has long been considered imprecise in that it allows Black the option of answering a later e4 with ... dxc4 as well as ...dxe4. It would seem to be more a question of economy of learning since . . .dxc4 lines lead to a clear edge for White. 0-0 7 dxc4 8 e4 For 8 ... dxe4 see Variation B. e5 9 Bxc4 #U A system of development first This position has also been favored by Chigorin. Black' s reached via l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 idea i s to play for the advance Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 [A Capablanca . . . e6-e5. To counter this White Anti-Meran system] 5 . . . dxc4 usually advances in the center 6.Bxc4 Nbd7 7.0-0 Bd6 8.Nc3 0himself by e3-e4 which produces 0 9.e4 e5. However White could a certain amount of simplifica­ have advantageously avoided tion but also gives White this by 7.Nc3 Bd6 8.e4 when Kingside attacking chances due 8 ... e5 is forced and leads to a to his space advantage. To ac­ position favorable to White dis­ complish these aims White will cussed under B in the note to invariably play one of the follow­ Black's seventh move. A better move order (and one in which he ing two moves: can safely reach the text) for A. 7 0-0 B. 7 e4. Ill

6 . Bd6

2

.

Black is 5 ...Nbd7 and only on 6.0-0 does he play ... dxc4. 10 Bg5 The most active system of devel­ opment. Other tries are: 1) 10.h3 exd4 [10 ... b5?! 1 1 .Bd3 exd4 1 2.Nxd4 Ne5 13.Bc2 b4 14.Na4 c5 15.Ne2+=, Gheor­ ghiu-Bohm, Amsterdam 1975.] 1 1 .Qxd4 [ l l .Nxd4 Nc5 12.Re 1 Be5] 1 1 . . . Bc5 1 2. Qd3 Nb6 13.Qxd8 Rxd8=, Forintos-Paoli, Miskolc 1 963; 2) 10.Re 1 exd4 1 1 .Nxd4 Ne5 1 2.Be2 Bc5=. 10 Qe7 ...

# 1 .2 The alternative is 10 ... h6- 1 1 .Bh4 Qe7 [ 1 1 . . . Qc7 1 2. d5 ! cxd5 1 3.Bxd5 a6 14.Rc 1 Qb8 15.Bb3 b5 1 6.Nd5 leads to a clear advan­ tage for White, Loginov-An-

toshin, Yaroslavl 1982.] 12.Re1 Rd8 [Here 12 ... Nb6 would trans­ pose back to the main line. The text is an old suggestion of Euwe.] 1 3.Bg3 Nh5 [ 1 3 . . . b5 14.Bb3 Bb7 15.Nh4 with the idea of Nf5; 1 3 ... Nb6 14.dxe5 Bxe5 15.Bxf7ch.] 14.dxe5 Bb8 ! [Typi­ cally ingenious Mariotti. Again if 14 ... Bxe5 15.Bxf7ch.] 1 5.e6 fxe6 16.Bxb8 Rxb8 1 7.Qc 1 b5 1 8.Bfl e5 19.Nd1 Qf6 20.Ne3 Nf8 2 1 .Qc5 +=, Gligoric-Mariotti, Bled-Portoroz, 1 975. 11 Re1 The long established main line but probably not best. Harmless is 1 1 .d5- 1 1 ...Nb6 [White man­ aged to gain an edge after 1 1.. .h6 1 2.Bh4 (Better then 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 3.Nd2 Rd8 14.Qe2 Nf8 1 5.dxc6 bxc6 with equality, lnkiov-Granda, Zagreb 1987. White can also consider 1 2.dxc6 bxc6 13.Bh4 += but perhaps Black can play 1 2 . . . hxg5 ! ? 1 3.cxd7 Nxd7 1 4.Nd5 Qd8D.Gurevich.) 12 . . . Rd8 1 3.Re1 Nf8 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Qa4+=, Reshevsky-Bisguier, U.S. ch. 1966.] 1 2.Nd2 [ 1 2.Bb3 Bg4 1 3.h3 Bh5 1 4.dxc6 bxc6 15.g4

3

Semi-Slav Defense Bg6 1 6.Nh4, left White with some advantage in the old game J anowsky-Chigorin ,Budapest 1 896. 1 2 ... Bg4 seems to be the culprit here. As an improvement Nikitin suggested 1 2 ...h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.Bg3 Bg4 in his book on Chigorin.] 12 . . . h6 1 3.Bh4 g5 1 4. B g3 Kh7 1 5 .dxc6 bxc6 1 6. Qe2 Bc5 1 7 .Kh 1 Bd4=, J.Adamski-Kirov, Prague 1983. Quite interesting though is 1 1 .Bb3 !?.

:tt.L.l With this move White anticipates Black ' s p l an of . . . Nb6, . . . B g4 ,: . . . and . . . Nbd7 . In O.Rodriguez-Paoli, Cienfuegos 1973, White quickly obtained a clear advantage after 1 1 .Bb3 Rd8 1 2 . Qe2 exd4 1 3 .Nxd4 Nc5 [White has tremendous compen-

sation for the pawn after 1 3 ... Bxh2ch. 14.Kxh2 Qe5ch. 1 5.f4 Qxd4 1 6.Rad l .] 14.f4 Nxb3 15.Nxb3. 11 Nb6 ...

#1 .4 The time-honored scheme of development in this variation. Black prepares to develop his Bishop to g4 and then return his Knight to the center. Alternatives are: 1) 1 1 . ..Rd8 [Similar to Gligoric­ Mariotti discussed earlier. The exclusion of ... h6 and Bh4 makes for some difference. Now Bg3 is no longer available for White while Black has to live with his pinned King Knight.] 1 2.d5 [ 1 2.Bb3 looks better.] 12 ... h6 1 3 .dxc6 bxc6 1 4 . B h4 Rb8 1 5.Qd2 Nf8 1 6.Bg3 Ng6=,

4

6...Bd6

Denker-Bisguier, New York 1986; 2) 1 1 ...exd4! ? [Considered quite bad by theory but matters are not so simple.] 1 2.e5 [Here Suetin gives 12.Nxd4 Ne5 1 3.Nf5 ! Bxf5 1 4.exf5 +=.] 1 2 ... Nxe5 1 3.Ne4 Nxc4 1 4.Nxf6ch. gxf6 1 5.Rxe7 Bxe7 1 6.Bh6. This is considered to be clearly better for White by theory which cites van Schelt­ inga-Tarnovsky, Helsinki (ol) 1952, with no more moves given. I've been unable to locate this game score but judging from G.Szilagyi-Tamovsky, Warsaw 1 949, an evaluation of += seems closer to the mark. There Black got a playable game after 1 6 ...Rfd8 17.Qe2 Be6 1 8 .Rad 1 c5 19.b3 Nd6 20.Nh4 Kh8 2 1 .f4 Rd7. For similar play see Kozma­ Minev, Lyon 1 955 from Chapter 2, B4; 3) 1 1 ...Re8 1 2.Bb3 h6 13.Bh4 exd4 14.Nxd4 Nc5 15.e5 Bxe5 1 6.f4 Bxd4ch. 17.Qxd4 Nxb3 1 8.axb3 Qf8 1 9.Bxf6 Re1ch 20.Rxe1 gxf6 2 1 .Ne4 with a winning position for White, Zemgalis-Rellstab, Oldenburg 1 949.

12 Bb3 A new idea is 1 2.Be2. In Green­ feld - Pachman, Netanya 1986, White got a slight edge after 1 2 ... Rd8 13.dxe5 Bxe5 14.Qc2 Re8 15.Rad 1 Bd7 1 6.Nxe5 Qxe5 17.Bh4. Bg4 12 Here 12 ... exd4? is strongly answered by 13.e5 Bxe5 14.Ne4 but an important alternative is 1 2. . . h6. Then White's best is 13.Bh4 as 1 3.dxe5 Bxe5 1 4.Nxe5 Qxe5 1 5.Bh4 can be answered by 15 ... Nh5 ! [not 15 ... Bg4 1 6.Qc l ! +-, Pirc-van Scheltinga, London 195 1 .]. After 13.Bh4 Bg4 1 4.h3 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Gligoric-Pach­ man, Budapest 1948 continued 1 5 ... g5 1 6.Bg3 Nfd7 17.Qf5 Kg7 18.Rad1 f6=. According to Pach­ man White could have obtained the advantage by 1 8.dxe5 an­ swering 1 8 ... Nxe5 with 19.Rad1 and 1 8 ... Bxe5 by 19.f4. Instead after 15.Qxf3 Black should have played 1 5 ... Nbd7 and after 1 6.d5 a position would arise exactly similar to Gligoric-Pachman, Sarajevo 196 1 , [discussed be­ low] except that the White Bishop stands on h4 instead of e3. ...

Semi-Slav Defense 13 h3 14 Qxf3

Bxf3 Nbd7

#1.5 Here 14 ...exd4?! runs into 1 5.e5 ! I3xe5 1 6.Ne4 Qd8 17.Qf5 Nbd7 1 8.f4 (with the idea of Bc7 19.Bc2) and White has a clear advantage, Szabo-Honfi, Hun­ gary (ch.) 1950. h6 15 d5 Completely mi s taken is 1 5. . .Bb4?! - 1 6.Redl h6 17.Bh4 Rfe8 1 8.dxc6 bxc6 19.Ne2! Nc5 20.Ng3 and White is obviously better, Gutman- Petkevich , USSR 1973. 16 Be3 Offering only a microscopic ad­ vantage is 1 6.Bxf6 Nxf6 17 .dxc6 bxc6 18.Na4. The major alterna­ tive is 1 6.Bh4 which is fairly important since if Black played

5

... h6 a few moves earlier the Bishop would have undoubtedly retreated there. By transposition ECO reaches this position giving an evaluation of+=. Playing ... g5 is a very double-edged proposi­ tion in view ofNe2-g3-f5. Also to be avoided is the trap 1 6 ...Bc5 1 7 .dxc6 bxc6 1 8 .Rad 1 Bd4 19.Ne2! Bxb2 20.Ng3 +- [with the idea of Nf5] . ECO seems cor­ rect in its evaluation. An interesting new try i s 1 6.dxc6 ! ? . I n Smagin-Flear, Zenica 1987 White got a clear edge after 1 6 . . . bxc6 [Or 16 . . . hxg5 1 7.cxd7 Qxd7 1 8.Rad l with advantage to White.] 17 .Be3 Nc5 1 8.Bc4 Rab8 19.b3 Kh8 20.Rac 1 Rb7 2 1 .Red l . cxd5 16 ... Bc5 17 Bxd5 Rab8 18 Bxb7 Rxb2 19 Bc6 Bxe3 20 Bxd7 Qxd7 21 Qxe3 22 Rad1 Qb7 Nxd5? 23 Nd5 Here 23 ...Nh7 was better with only a tiny edge for White. Rd8 24 exd5!

6

6...Bd6

Rb5 25 Qxe5 26 Qf5! The point of White's preceding play as now 26... Rbxd5 27 .Rxd5 Qxd5 runs into 28.Re8ch. After 26.Qf5 ! White easily won the ending in Gligoric-Pachman, Sarajevo 196 1 . This was an inter­ esting game not only for theory but also for move order as well. It started out as a Nimzo-Indian­ l .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.a3 dxc4 7 .Bxc4and then transposed into the Chigorin system with 7 ...Bd6 8.Nf3 Nbd7 9.e4 e5 10.Bg5, the extra move a3 not playing any real role. dxe4 7 e4 ll Pretty much forced as 7 ...dxc4 8.Bxc4 e5 allows 9.dxe5 Nxe5 [9 . . . Bxe5 1 0 . Nxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Qxd8ch. Kxd8 12.Be2 +-] 1 0.Nxe5 Bxe5 1 1 .Qxd8ch. Kxd8 1 2.Bxt7 Rf8 1 3.Bb3 Bxc3ch. 1 4.bxc3 Nxe4 1 5 .0-0 Nxc3 1 6.Bb2 Nd5 [ 1 6. . .Ne2ch. 17.Kh 1 g6 1 8.Rad1ch. Kc7 19.Be5ch. Kb6 20.Bc4 Nf4 2 1 .Bd6 is ex­ tremely good for White-Grun­ feld] 17.Bxg7 +-.

Nxe4

8 Nxe4 9 Bxe4

#1.6 A critical juncture where Black­ has four major possibilities of which only the last two hold any promise. B.l. 9 Bb4cb.. B.2. 9 Nf6. B.3. 9 e5. B.4. 9 0-0. Experimental is 9 ...c5. In Sos­ onko-Smyslov, Tilburg 1982 White got a slight advantage with 10.0-0 Qc7 1 1 .Re 1 Nf6 1 2.Bc2 Bd7 13.Ne5 cxd4 14.Qxd4. ...

...

lL.L

...

...

9 .. Bb4ch. Bxd2ch. 10 Bd2 Or 1 0 . . . Qa5 1 1 . 0-0 B xd2 1 2 . Nxd2 0-0 1 3 . Re 1 Nf6 [ 1 3 . . . Rd8 1 4.Qc2 Nf6 1 5.Bf3 Qc7 16.Qc3 c5 17.dxc5 Qxc5 1 8.Rad1 +-, Najdorf-Evans,Cuba 1952.] 14.Bf3 Qc7 15.c5 with a .

Semi-Slav Defense

7

clear advantage for White, Najdorf-Reilly, Moscow 1956. 11 Qxd2 0-0 Perhaps better is 1 l ...c5 1 2.0-0 Nf6 1 3.Bc2 cxd4 14.Nxd4 0-0 1 5.Rfe 1 B d7 1 6.Rac 1 Qc7 17.h3 Rfd8 1 8.Qc3 Rac8 19.Bb1 with only a slight edge for White in Cvitan-Ivanovic, Budva 1986. cS 12 0-0 On 12 ...Nf6 White has 1 3.Rfe1 #1 .7 Qc7 14.c5 ! with a clear advan­ A recent and better try is 10 ... b6! ? tage in Hort-Mariotti, Manila with the idea of having the option 1 976. to castle on either wing. In Far­ 13 Rad1 Qf6 ago-Spiridonov, Polanica Zdroj 14 Ng5! 198 1 , White was only slightly g6 15 dxc5 Nxc5 better after 1 1 .0-0 Bb7 1 2.Bg5 Nxe4 16 b4 Qc7 13.Qe2. Qg7 17 Nxe4 Bxd2ch. 11 Bd2 b6 18 f4 Equally horrible for Black is Rd8 19 Nd6 1 1 . ..Qa5. In Barcza-Reicher, Rb8 20 Qe3 Bucharest 1953, the execution Qf6 21 NfS! was swift: 1 2.0-0 Bxd2 1 3.Nxd2 22 QeS 0-0 1 4.c5 ! [Not as precise is 1 -0 14.Nf3 which allows Black to Bertok-Natalucci, Reggio Emilia free himself with 14 . . . c5 1 5.Re1 1976n7. cxd4 16.Qxd4 Rd8 17.Qh4 h6 1 8.a3 Bd7 19.b4 Qc7, Lau­ Sehner, Bad Neyenahr 1 987.] 14... Rd8 15.Nc4 Qc7 1 6. Qd3 [Or Nf6 1 6. Nd6 +- as in D anner­ 9 ... Bb4ch. Weerakoon, Dubai (ol) 1 986.] 10 Bc2

6...Bd6

8

1 6... b6 17.Nd6 bxc5 1 8 .dxc5 a5 1 9 . Rfd 1 B a6 20. Qf3 Rab8 2 1 .Rd2 Nd5 22.Re1 Rb4 23.a3 Rh4 24.Bd1, 1 -0. 12 Qxd2 0-0 Qc7 13 NeS c5 14 0-0-0 15 g4! +Szabo-Bisguier, B uenos Aires 1955.

� 9 . eS A continuation that is better than its reputation. 10 0-0 The ending after 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5 Bxe5 1 2.Qxd8ch. Kxd8 is only equal. exd4 10 ... ..

The violent 1 1 .Bg5 f6 1 2.Nxd4 fails to 1 2 .... Ne5 1 3.Bh4 0-0 1 4 . Nf5 B c 5 1 5 . Qb3 B e 6 ! 1 6.Rad1 Qc8 =+, Taimanov-Tar­ novsky, Szcawno-Zdroj 1950. 11 Qf6 12 Qd1 On 1 2.Bg5 Black can just equal­ ize with 1 2 ... Qxd4 1 3.Nxd4 Nc5 [Not 1 3 ... h6? on account of 1 4. B h4 0-0 1 5 . Ra d 1 B e5 16.Nxc6! +-, Honfi-Paoli, Miskolc 1963 or 1 3 ... Be5? ! 14.Rad1 f6 15.Bc 1 Nc5? 1 6.Nxc6! +-, Langeweg-Marovic, Amsterdam 1 973.] 14.Bf5 0-0 1 5 .B xc 8 [ 1 5 .Rad 1 Re8 1 6.Be3 Bf8 17.Bxc8 Raxc8 1 8.Nb3 Na4 19.Rd2 Rcd8=, Ghitescu-Van Geet, B everwij k 1 9 67 .] 1 5 ... Rfxc8 ! [15 ...Raxc8? 1 6.Nf5 Ne4 17.Be7 ! , 1 -0, Tartakover­ Euwe, Budapest 192 1 .] 1 6.Nf5 Bf8=. Another try is 1 2.Be3 but again Black can hold with 1 2 ... Qxd4 1 3 .B xd4 0-0 1 4.Rad 1 B e7 1 5 .Rfe 1 B f6 1 6. B f5 B xd4 17 .Nxd4 Nb6 with equality, Szabo-Paoli, Salgotarjan 1967. NeS 12 ... •..

Semi-Slav Defense

#1.9 Not 1 2 ... Bf4 because of 13.Qe2! when 13 . . . 0-0 is answered by 14.Bxh7ch. In Sakharov-Sve­ shnikov, Lvov 1973, Black an­ swered 1 3.Qe2 with 1 3 ...Kf8 and was clearly worse after 14.Bxf4 Qxf4 1 5.Rad l . Besides 1 2...Ne5 Black also has Tarnovsky' s sug­ gestion of 12 ... h6! ?. 13 Rel Not as effective is 1 3.Bg51 3 ... Nxf3.ch. 14.Bxf3 Bxh2ch. 15. Kxh2 Qxg5 1 6.Qd6 Qh6ch. 17.Qxh6 gxh6 18.Rfe1ch. Kf8 19 .Kg3 Be6 20.b3 Rg8ch. 2 1 .Kf4 Rg5 =, Ornstein-Velikov, Pam­ porovo 198 1 . Nxf3ch. 13 ... On 13 .. Bg4 White keeps the advantage with 1 4.Bg5 Qe6

9

1 5.Qc2 f6 1 6.Nd4 Qfl, O'Kelly­ Yanofsky, Barcelona 1 947, and now 1 7.Bd2 ! . Note that 1 3 ...0-0 fail s to 1 4 . Nxe5 B xe5 15.Bxh7ch., Gudmundsson-Grz­ esik, Chicago 1983. Be7 14 Bxf3 ch. 0-0 15 Be3 Qd6 16 Bd4 Qd8 17 c5 Necessary as 17 ... Qd7 allows 18.Bxg7 while 17 .... Qc7 runs into 1 8.Be5 Qd8 19.Bd6. Bf6 18 Qa4 19 Rad1 In this position White has an edge in development and in fact threat­ ens to win with 20.Be5. But see­ ing that Black has no weaknesses perhaps it shouldn't mean that much. Instead of 19 ...Be6?, as was played in Reshevsky-How­ ard, New York 1955, Black should play 19 ...Bxd4 20.Rxd4 Qc7 with equality according to Horowitz. However White still looks better after 2 1 .Rd6 Be6 22.Rfd1 a6 23.Qd4.

.11.&

9 ... 10 0-0

0-0

10

6...Bd6 Bxc5 14.Be3 Bxe3 1 5.Rxe3 Qc7 1 6.Qd4 b6, D.Strauss-Reefsch­ lager, London 1984, and now 17.Rae l ! Ba6 1 8.b3 or 17 ... h6 1 8.Ne5 are both +- according to Kuijf. Qa5 12 Bg5!

B lLLlil The branching off point for Black with four possibilities: B.4.a. 10 f5: B.4.b. 10 Nf6: B.4.c. 10 c5: B.4.d. 10 h6. f5?! � 10 An active but suspect system that shouldn't quite work. e5 11 Bc2 The new try 1 1 ...c5 also favors White after 1 2.Re1 [Also good is 12.Qe2 Qf6 1 3.Bg5. The game Brenninkmeijer-S ehner, Am­ s terdam 1 9 8 6 , continued 1 3 . . . Qg6 1 4. dxc5 Nxc5 ? ! 15.Rad 1 Ne4 16.Rxd6! Nxd6 17.Be7 Nf7 1 8.Ba4! b5 19.Bxb5 Bb7 20.Bxf8 Rxf8 2 1 .c5 Be4 22.Bd3 B xf3 2 3 . Qxf3 Qf6 24.Qe2 f4 25.Be4 Qd4 26.Rc 1 Rd8? 27 .c6 Nd6 28.c7 Rc8 29.Bb7, 1 -0.] 12 ... Nf6 13.dxc5 ! ...

...

...

...

"'

#1. 1 1 Other tries also fall short: 1 ) 1 2 . . . Be7 1 3 .B xe7 Qxe7 1 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 5. Re 1 Qb4 1 6.Rxe5 Qxb2 17.Rb 1 Qxa2 1 8.Qd2 with great advantage to White, Benko-Donovan, U.S. Open 1960; 2) 1 2 ... Qe8 1 3.dxe5 Bc7 [Or 13 ... Bxe5 14.Re 1 Qh5 1 5.Nxe5 Qxg5 1 6.Nxd7 Rd8 17.f4 Qh4 1 8.Bxf5.] 14.Re 1 Nc5 1 5.b4 +-, Kotov-Cvetkov, Moscow 1 947. B b8 13 c5! Kh8 14 Bb3 ch.

Semi-Slav Defense Nxe5 15 dxe5 If 15 ... Nxc5 then 1 6.Be7 Re8 17.Bxc5 Qxc5 1 8.Ng5 g6 1 9.Rc l is much better for White.-Bole­ slavsky. Ng6 16 Re1 On 16 ... Qxc5 White has a beauti­ ful win with 17.Rc1 Qa5 1 8.Be7 Re8 1 9.Rc5 Nxf3 ch. 20.gxf3 B x h 2 c h . 2 1 . Kxh2 Qc7 c h . 22.Kg 1 Rxe7 23.Rxe7 Qxe7 24.Re5 Qf8 25.Qd6-Despotovic. 17 h4 Qxc5 The helplessness of Black' s posi­ tion is revealed in the line 17 . . . h6 1 8. h5 hxg5 19.hxg6 g4 20.g3 ! Rd8 2 1 .Kg2! Rxdl 22.Rh 1ch. Rxh l 2.Rxh 1mate.-Despotovic. Ne5 18 h5 19 Rc1 Qa5 Bxe5 20 Nxe5 21 Be7 1 -0 Despotovic-Marjan, corr. 1976. MJl,. Nf6 10 ... Another continuation that is de­ servedly out of favor. 11 Bc2 c5 Be7 12 Bg5 Even worse is 12 . . . cxd4 1 3.Qxd4

11

Be7 14.Qh4 h6 15.Bxh6! as in Geller-Papapavlou, Amsterdam 1954. 13 Qd3 g6 14 dxc5 Qa5 15 Qd4 White h a s a significant advantage ,Krogius­ Zeljandinov,USSR1959

lld& 10 ... c5 An old variation partly rehabili­ tated by Larsen. 11 Bc2 Also promising a small White advantage is 1 1 .dxc5 Nxc5 [or l l ...Bxc5 1 2.Qc2 Nf6 1 3.Bg5 h6 14.Rad1 Qc7 15.Bxf6 gxf6 1 6. Qc 3 , Antoshin- Gofman , USSR 198 1 .] 1 2.Bc2 a5 13.Qd4 Be7 14.Qg4 Bd6 1 5.Qd4 Be7 1 6.Qe5 ! , Keres-Havski, USSR 1974. In Groszpeter-Flear, Zenica 1987 White tried 1 1 .Be3 but the game was a rather uninteresting affair after 1 1 . . .Qc7 12.Qe2 cxd4 1 3.Bxd4 f5 14.Bc2 e5 15.c5 Nxc5 1 6.Bxe5 Bxe5 17.Nxe5 Be6 1 8.Rfe 1 Rac8, 1/2- 1/2. 11 ... Qc7

12

6...Bd6 BxcS 13 dxcS NfS 14 Qe2 15 Bd2 b6 16 Rad1 Bb7 17 Be4 Vaganian-Miles, Hastings 1974/ 75, White is slightly better. ll.&L h6 10 . ..

#1.1 2 Larsen ' s improvement over 1 1...b6 which led to a catastrophe in Rubinstein-Bogolyubov, Trib­ erg 1924... 12.Qd3 g6 1 3.Bh6 Re8 1 4.Rad1 Bf8 15.dxc5 ! Bxh6 1 6.c6 Qf6? 17 .cxd7 1 -0. Also offering poor prospects for Black is 1 1 . ..Nf6. White obtained a clear advantage in Csom-Bel­ lon, Malaga 198 1 with 12.B g5 h6 1 3 . B h 4 cxd4 1 4. Qxd4 g5 15.Rad1 Bxh2ch. 1 6.Kxh2 Qxd4 17.Rxd4 gxh4 1 8.Ne5. 12 Re1 On 12.Qd3 Black has 1 2 .. .f5. Portisch-Larsen, Teesside 1972 continued 1 3.b4 b6 1 4.dxc5 bxc5 1 5.Rd1 Be7 1 6.b5 Bf6 17.Rb l . Now best play would be 17 . . . Ne5 1 8.Qe2 with equal chances. Rd8 12 ...

#1 . 1 3. This multi-purpose move takes away g5 from the White pieces while preparing ....e5. Despite the first player' s lead in develop­ ment it's very hard for White to obtain a tangible advantage. 11 Bc2 The main line preparing for Qd3. Other tries are: 1) 1 1 .Bd2 e5 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 1 3.Bc3 Qf6=, Furman-Geller, Sverdlovsk 1947;

Semi-Slav Defense 2) 1 1 .Re1 e5 12.Bf5?! [ 1 2.Bc2 transposes back into the main line.] 1 2. . . exd4 13.Qxd4. Now instead of 1 3 . . . Qf6= B lack should have tried 13 ... Ne5 ! in Korchnoi-Bisguier, Lone Pine 198 1 . Then 14.Nxe5 [ 14.Rxe5 Bxe5 15.Qxe5 Re8 wins for Black.] 1 4... Bxf5 would leave Black slightly better-Acers; 3) 1 1 .b3 e5 1 2.dxe5 [White does no better with 1 2.Bb2 since after 1 2 . . . f5 ! 1 3.Bc2 e4 14.Ne5 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Bc5 Black has a slight edge, Tataev-Gorelov, USSR 1 985. However, by 1 2.Bc2! White can transpose into the promising lines gives in the Main Line note to move 12.] 1 2 ... Nxe5 1 3.Bb2 Qf6 1 4.Kh 1 Bg4 1 5.Qd4 Rfe8 1 6.Rae 1 Re6 =, Quinteros­ Andersson, Amsterdam 1 973. 11 eS 12 Rel Other attempts for advantage are: 1) 1 2.c5 Bc7 13.Re l exd4 14.b4 Re8 15.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 1 6.Qd3 Nf8 17.Bb2 Qd8 1 8 .Re 1 Be6=, Geller-Barcza, Zagreb 1 955; 2) 1 2.Be3 Re8 1 3 .Re 1 e4 [ 1 3 ... exd4 14.Qd3 ! Nf8 15.Bxd4 favors White.] 1 4.Nd2 Nf6! = ...

13

[and not 14 .. .f5 when 1 5.f3 ! Nf6 1 6.Bf2 Qc7 17.h3 Bh2ch. 1 8.Kh1 Bg3 19.Bxg3 Qxg3 20.fxe4 fxe4 2 1 .Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxe4 Bxh3 23.Qf3 ! led to a slightly better ending for White in Kotov-An­ toshin, USSR 1955]; 3) 1 2 . b4 ! ? Re8 [ 1 2 . . . B xb4 1 3.dxe5 Nc5 14.Qe2.] 1 3.c5 Bc7 [ 1 3 . . .Bf8 ! ? 1 4. Re 1 exd4 1 5.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 1 6.Bb2 Nf6 17.Qxd4 Be6 1 8.Re1 Qd7 19.Qf4 +-, Martynov-Sabanov, USSR 1986.] 14.Re l exd4 15.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 1 6.Bb2 and now 16 ... Nf8 left White with an edge in Mar­ tynov-S orokin , USSR 1 986. However in the game Karolyi­ Pekarek, Tbilisi 1 986 Black equalized with 1 6 ... Ne5 17.Qxd4 Nxf3ch. 1 8.gxf3 f6! ; 4) 12.Qd3 # 1 . 14

14

6 ...Bd6

[the most serious alternative to 1 2.Re l .] 1 2...f5 1 3.c5] The latest try for White in this position was seen in the game Ftacnik-Pekarek, Warsaw 1987 in w h ic h 1 3 . Qb3 ! ? w a s uncorked.The game continued 1 3 ... Kh8 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Bf4 Nxf3ch. 16.Qxf3 Bxf4 17.Qxf4 Qf6 1 8.Rad1 Qxb2 19.Rd6 Be6! 20.Rxe6 Qxc2 2 l .Rxh6ch gxh6 22.Qxh6ch Kg8 23.Qg6ch, l/2l/2] 13 ...Bc7 14.dxe5 [A danger­ ous try for White is Igor Zaitzev' s suggestion of 1 4.Bb3ch. Kh8 1 5.Bg5

!L.1.5. Now 15 ... Qe8 can be met with 1 6.Nh4 with the idea of 1 6... hxg5 17.Qh3. Critical is 15 ... hxg5 1 6.Nxe5 Qf6 when the following line appears forced for both sides:

17.Qh3ch. Qh6 1 8.Ng6ch. Kh7 1 9.Nxf8ch. Nxf8 20.Qxh6ch. Kxh6 2 1 .Rfe l . Here with 2 1 ...Bd7 Black appears fine since he can answer 22.Re7 with 22 . . . Bd8 23.Rf7 Bf6. In Cvitan-Arkhipov, Tbilisi 1986 White played 1 4.Qc4ch. but this only led to equality after 14 ... Kh8 1 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 6.dxe5 B xe5 17.Bf4 Qd4.] 14 ... Nxe5 1 5.Qb3. ch. Kh8 1 6.Rel

#1.16 1 6 . . . Be6! 17.Qxe6 Nxf3. ch. 1 8 .gxf3 Qh4 19.Bxf5 Rae8 20.Qxe8 Qxh2ch. 2 l .Kfl Qh 1ch. 22.Ke2 Rxe8ch. 23.Be3 Qh5 24.Bd3 Bf4, 0- 1 , Strauss-Frias, Lone Pine 198 1 ; 5) 12.a3 f5 1 3.c5 Bc7 1 4.Bb3ch Kh8 15.Ng5 Nxc5 1 6.dxc5 Qxd 1

Semi-Slav Defense 1 7 .Rxd 1 hxg5 1 8.Bxg5 was slightly better for White in Ga­ garin-Volodin, USSR 1987; 6) 1 2. b3 ! ? [This move has been having good results lately.] 12 . . . Re8 [In the game Buturin­ Sergeev, USSR 1986 Black tried 12. . . f5 ! ? when after 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Bb2 Qc7 15.Re 1 (Also quite reasonable is 1 5 . h3 Nxf3ch. 16.Qxf3 Be6 17.Rfe1 Rae8 1 8.Re2! Bc8 19.Rae1 Qf7? { 19 ... Rxe2 20.Rxe2 b6 keeps White down to a very small edge. } 20.c5 ! with a clear advan­ tage for White, Tukmakov­ Bareev, USSR 1987.) 15 ... Nxf3. ch. 1 6.Qxf3 Bxh2ch. 17.Kf l (17.Kh l ! ?.) 17. . .Bf4 1 8.Rad1 c5 19.Qd5ch. Kh8 20.Ba3 White had a significant advantage. However perhaps Black can improve by 17 ... Bd6! 1 8.Rad1 Bb4 1 9 .Re2 Qh2-S ilman . ] 13.Re1 [ Perhaps more promising is 1 3.Bb2 ! ? e4 14.Ne5 Qc7?! (14 ... Nf6 ! ?. 14... Bxe5 ! ? 15.dxe5 Nc5.) 15.f4 Nf6 1 6.Qe2 b5 17.c5 Bf8 1 8 .g4 +-, Yrjola-Binham, Helsi nki 1 9 8 6 . ] 1 3 . . . e xd4 14.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 15.Qxd4 Bc5 1 6.Qc3 [According to Kapengut

15

1 6.Qh4 ! ? Qe7 1 7 .Bg5 Qe2 1 8.Bd2 Qe7 19.Re l ! is a good alternative for White. In the game Slutsky-Antoshin, USSR 1973 White tried 16.Qd3 but Black equalized after 1 6... Nf8 17.Bb2 f6 1 8.Re1 Qf7 1 9.Nd4 Bd7 .] Qe7 17.Bb2 Nf6! [In the game Gel­ fand-Raisky, Minsk 1986 Black played 17 ... Qf6 but after 18.Re 1 ! Qxc3 19.Re8ch. Bf8 20.Bxc3 Nb6 2 1 .Bd4! Bd7 22.Rxa8 Nxa8 23.Bxa7 White had a winning game.] 18.Qd3 Qd6 19.Qxd6 Bxd6 20.Rd1 Be7=, Polgar-Bis­ guier, New York 1 987. At the moment 12. b3 ! ? is the rage and certain!y poses a threat to Black' s system. After 12.Rtl Black has the choice betwee n : B.4. d. l. 12...exd4 and B.4.d.2. 12...Bb4!. B.4.dl 12 ... exd4 13 Qxd4 Bc5 14 Qc3 Also played is 14.Qf4- 14 ...Nf6 15. h3 [Or 15.b3 Ng4 1 6.Rfl Re8 1 7 . B b2 Re2 1 8 . R ad 1 Qe7 19.Nd4 Bd6 20. Nxe2 Bxf4 2 1 .Nxf4 Be6 22.h3 Nf6 23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Rde1 Qf7 25.Re3 Rd8

6.. Bd6

16

26.Bc3 c5, 1/2- 1/2, Strauss­ Bisguier, U.S. Open 1 987.] 1 5 ... Bd6! Until this move was discovered Black had done rather poorly: 1 5 . . . B b4 1 6.Rd 1 Qe7 1 7.Be3 Nh5?! 1 8.Qd4 Be6 19.a3 Rad8 20.Qe5 Bd6 2 1 .Qxh5 f5 22.Re 1 c5 23.Bxh6, 1 -0, Tatai­ Fernandes, B udva 198 1 . Also strong for White is 15 ... Be6 1 6.b3 (Unsound is 1 6.Qh4 Re8 17.Bxh6? gxh6 18.Rad 1 Nd7 19.Qxh6 Qf6 20.Qh7ch. K£8 2 l .Qh5 Bxc4 22.Rxe8ch. Kxe8 23.Bf5 Nf8 -+, Toth-Campora, Biel 1 983) 1 6 . . . Bd6 17.Qh4 Nd7? 1 8.Bg5 ! Qa5 19.Bxh6 gxh6 20 . Qx h 6 , 1 -0, F. Olafsson­ O'Kelly, Varna 1962.] 1 6.Qh4 Nh7 ! 17.Qd4 [ 1 7.Qh5 Nf6 is nothing but 17 .Bd2 should keep a little something for White.] 1 7 . . . B b4 1 8 . Rd 1 , 1 /2- 1 /2 , Donaldson-Bisguier, Philadel­ phia 1 987. #1 . 1 7 aS 14 000

Played as much to stop b4 as to threaten . . . Bb4. Alternatives quickly give White the upper hand: 1) 14 . . . Qb6 15.Be3 a5 1 6.a3 a4 17.Bxc5 Nxc5 1 8.h3 Be6 1 9.Re5 Rfd8 20.Rae1 +-, Romanishin­ Vaganian, USSR ch. 1974; 2) 14 ... Re8 15.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 16.b4 Be7 1 7.Bb2 Bf6 1 8.Re 1 Qd8 19.Qd3 g 6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 2 l .Re8ch. +-, Euwe-Stumpers, Holland 1949. 15 a3 Offering nothing is 1 5.Be3 Bb4 1 6.Qd3 Nf6 1 7 .Qxd8 Rxd8 1 8.Red 1 =, Belov-Kaidanov, Moscow 1985 and Levin-Bis­ guier, USA 1986. Very interest­ ing is Euwe's analysis of 1 5.Rd1 which goes 15 ...Qb6 1 6.Rxd7 Bxf2ch. 17.Kf1 Bxd7 1 8.Qd3 Rfd8 19.Qh7ch. K£8 20.Qh8ch. Ke7 2 1 .Qxg7 unclear. White looks to be doing very well after 2 1 . . .Be6 22.b3 Bd4 23.Ba3ch Bc5 24.Bb2. 15 Nf6 Bxe3 16 Be3 ReS 17 Rxe3 18 Rd1 += Reshevsky-Bisguier, New York .. o

17

Semi-Slav Defense 1954/55. B.4.d.2. 12 ...

15 NxeS 16 Bf4

Bd6 Be6!

Bb4!

ttl.J..8. Causing some confusion in White's ranks. 13 Qd3!? An interesting sacrificial attempt which just seems to fall short. With 13.Bd2 White doesn' t risk anything but any chance of ob­ taining a meaningful advantage is slim. On 1 3.Bd2 B lack has 1 3 . . . B xd2 1 4 . Qxd2 exd4 1 5.Nxd4 Nf6 16.Rad 1 Qc7 when neither 1 7.h3 Bd7 1 8.Re3 nor 17.Qd3 Bg4 1 8.f3 Bd7 19.c5 R ae 8 20 . b 4 , , Z. Polgar­ Donaldson, San Francisco 1986, offers White anything. fS 13 ... NxeS 14 RxeS

#1 . 19 A clear improvement over 16 ... Qf6 when White had com­ pensation for his material deficit after 1 7.Re 1 Re8 1 8.Re3 in Razuvaev- Chernikov, U S S R 1970. 17 Rel? Already a mistake but if White has to take time out for a move like 17.a3 then Black doesn' t have much to fear. QaS! 17 ... Bb4 18 Bd2 bxc6 19 Nxc6 Qxb4 20 Bxb4 21 Rxe6 Qxb2 -+ Nenashev-Gorelov, USSR 1985.

18

6 . Bd6 ..

ANNEX d5 1 d4 c6 2 c4 e6 3 Nt3 Nf6 4 e3 Nbd7 5 Bd3 Bd6 6 0-0 With 6... dxc4 7 .Bxc4 Bd6 8.Nc3 0-0 9 .e4 e5 play has transposed into variation A discussed at the start of this chapter. 7 Nbd2

#1 .20 The position in the diagram can easily transpose into lines already considered- 7 ... 0-0 8.e4 dxe4 [8 . . . dxc4 9.Nxc4!.] 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 h6- but also has qualities all its own. With the White knight on d2 instead of c3 less pressure is exerted on d5 allowing for a

quick ...e5. 0-0 7 Here 7 ... e5 is premature- 8.cxd5 cxd5 [8 ... Nxd5 9.Nc4 Qe7 10.e4 N5b6 1 1 .Nxd6ch. Qxd6 1 2.a4! +-, Speelman-Pieterse, Holland 1984.] 9.dxe5 Nxe5 1 0.Nxe5 Bxe5 1 1 .Nf3 Bc7 1 2.Bb5ch. Bd7 1 3. B xd7ch. Qxd7 1 4.b3 +­ Bagirov-Utasi, Jurmala 1985. 8 e4 e5! ? ...

#1 .21 Here 8 ...dxe4 would transpose into lines already covered. The text is what gives this variation independent character. 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 exd5 exd4 11 Ne4 Another try for White is 1 1 .Nc4. In Ftacnik-P.Nikolic, Vrsac

Semi-Slav Defense 198 1 , a sharp position arose after 1 1 ...Nb6 12.Nxd4 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 Qc7 14.b3 Bxh2ch. 15.Kh l . Now instead of 15 ... Be5? ! Ftacnik suggests 15 . .. Ng4 with the se­ quence 1 6.Ne6 Bxe6 17.dxe6 Bg1 1 8.ext7ch. Kh8 19.f4 Nf2ch. 20.Rxf2 Bxf2 2 1 . Qf3 B d4 22.Rb1 with equality. Qb6!? 11 ... White was better in Botvinnik­ Ryumin, Moscow 193 1 , after 1 1...Nxe4 1 2.Bxe4 Nc5 1 3.Bc2 Bg4 1 4.Qxd4 Bxf3 1 5.gxf3 Re8 1 6.Rd1 Re2 17.Bf5. If l l ...Ne5 [ 1 1 . . .Nc5? 1 2.Nxf6ch . Qxf6 1 3.Bg5.] 1 2.Bg5 Bg4 1 3.Be2 is slightly better for White accord­ ing to Botvinnik. Qxd6 12 Nxd6 Qxd5 13 Nxd4 An improvement over 13 . . .Nxd5 which quickly landed Black in great trouble in Vidmar-Gilg, Semmering 1926. After 1 4.Nf5 Black realized that 14 ... Qb6 lost to the beautiful variation 15.Bh6 Ne5 1 6.Bxg7 Nxd3 17.Qxd3 Nb4 1 8.Bc3 ! . Instead 14 ...Qf6 was tried but after 1 5 . Qh5 h6 1 6.Nxh6ch. gxh6 17.Qxd5 the game was effectively over.

19

14 Be2 In his book, Slavenska Odbrana, Yugoslav GM Drazen Marovic suggests that 14.Nf5 gives White the advantage. After 14 ... Re8 Black holds equality on 1 5.Bf4 with 1 5 . . . Ne5 1 6.Bc2 Bxf5 17.Bxf5 Nf3 ch. 1 8.Qxf3 Qxf5. However with 15.Nd6! White' s clearly better. 14 ... NeS 15 BgS b6 16 Bxf6 Bb7 17 f3 gxf6 QcSch 18 NbS 1/2- 1/2 A. Mikhalchisin-Nogueiras, Ha­ vana 1982. Conclusion: Despite an old his­ tory Chigorin's 6 ... Bd6 is still changing. The long held conten­ tion that White should play 7 .e4 instead of 7.0-0 appears false. Against 7.0-0 the Black system 7 ... 0-0 8.e4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 e5 ap­ pears to have major difficulties with 10.Bg5 Qe7 1 1 .Bb3. As a result attention has focused on 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 1 O.Bxe4 h6 (other moves are dis­ tinctly inferior.). This seemingly

20

6.. Bd6

innocuous system, pioneered by Soviet GM Antoshin, is very difficult to crack. White has a slight lead in development but this is difficult to translate into anything meaningful against a Black posi-

tion devoid of weakness.Import­ ant for Black is the refinement 10 ... h6. l l.Bc2 e5 1 2.Re l Bb4! forcing important simplification, while White's most promising line seems to be l l .Bc2 e5 1 2.b3.

21

Semi-Slav Defense

CHAPTER 2

D46'SI.S

6 Bd3 Bb4 Lines 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Bb4

#2. 1 The move 6. . . Bb4, first played in Vidmar-M arsh all , Carlsbad 19 1 1 and later employed by the Italian Romih at San Remo 1930, seeks to delay e4 by White. It has been employed on a regu­ lar basis by such strong players as Botvinnik, Tal, Taimanov, Evans, and Bagirov. Besides the Slav move order it can also be reached from the Nimzo-Indian via l .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 c6 as occurred in Donner-

Pachman, Madrid 1960. Against 6 Bb4 White has: A. 7.a3 and B. 7.0-0. 7 a3 � Many opening authorities con­ sider 7 .a3 to be the most precise opening continuation. The rea­ soning is that it immediately forces Black to make a decision between ...Ba5 and ... Bd6. One of the ideas behind 6... Bb4 is to steer for favorable version s of Chigorin' s 6... Bd6 line. From that chapter we know that 6 ... Bd6 7.00 0-0 8.e4 allows Black the extra option of 8 ...dxc4 9.Bxc4 e5. What Black would like from 6...Bb4 is 7.0-0 0-0 8.a3 Bd6 9.e4 dxc4 10.Bxc4 e5. The extra move a3 would have little significance. By playing 7.a3 White hopes to cut across this. Bd6 7 For 7 ... Ba5 see ' B ' . Not at all in the spirit of this opening is 7 ... Bxc3ch?! 8 .bxc3 0-0 9.0-0 Qc7 10.Nd2 e5 1 1 .Bb2 e4 1 2.Be2 ...

...

22

6 Bd3 Bb4

Normally the extra move a3 has little significance but the diagram is an exception. In the late 1960's, the late Yugoslav G .M. Petar Trifunovich, the so-called "draw King' , came up with a very imaginative idea for Black to hold the game. 11 e5! ? 1 2 dxe5 It is also possible for White to decline the pawn sacrifice. With 1 2.Bc2!? a position very similar to that of B4 from the chapter on 6 ... Bd6 is reached-but with the inclusion of a3, the omission of . .. h6, and Black on the move. If Black can' t avoid ... h6 then a3 may be a useful tempo stopping . . . Bb4 in some lines. After 1 2 . Bc 2 K a sp arov-Huebner, Brussels 1986, went 1 2 ...Re8 13.Re1 exd4 14.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 15.Qxd4 Be7 [ 1 5 ...Bc5?! 1 6.Qd3 Nf8 17.b4 Be7 1 8 .Bb2 Be6 19.Re1 Rd8 20.Qe3 is clearly better for White. ] 1 6.Bg5 ! Bxg5? ! 17 .Nxg5 Nf6 [ 1 7 ...Nf8 1 8.Ne4 Be6 19.Nd6 Qd7 20.Rd1 #2.2 This position is identical to that of b6 21 .b4 Rd8 22.c5 ! is +- accord­ B4 in the chapter on 6 ... Bd6 but ing to Kasparov.] 1 8.Rd1 Be6? with one important distinction. 1 9 . Re 1 Qd8 20.Nxe6 fxe6

b5 13.cxb5 cxb5 14.a4 bxa4 1 5 . c 4 ! +-, E uwe-Alekhine, World Championship Match (game 3) 1 937. 8 e4 dxe4 As in the analagous lines with 6... Bd6 this is forced. If 8 . . . dxc4 then 9.Bxc4 e5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5 Bxe5 1 2.Qxd8ch. Kxd8 13.Bxf7 Bxc3ch. 14.bxc3 Nxe4 1 5.0-0 leaves White well on top. 9 Nxe4 Nxe4 10 Bxe4 0-0 Also possible is 10 ...e5 along the lines ofReshevsky-Howard from Variation B3 in the chapter on 6... Bd6. 11 0-0

...

Semi-Slav Defense 2 1 .Qe3 Kh8 22.h3 Qd7 23.g4! Re8 24.Qe5 ! Qd8 25.Kg2 Qb6? 26.Rd l ! c5 27.Ba4, 1 -0. Instead B lack should play 1 6 . . . Nf6 17.Rel Be6 18.Qh4 h6 with only a small disadvantage according to Pachman, or he may try Kasparov' s recommendation of 16 ... Nf8 17.Re l Be6 1 8.Qh4 Bxg5 19.Nxg5 h6 20.Nxe6 Nxe6 21 .Qe4 g6 22.Qe3 Kh7 23.h4 Ng7 and once again White is only slightly better. NxeS 12 ... BxeS 13 NxeS 14 Bxh7ch. Kxh7 Kg8 1S QhSch. 16 QxeS

#2.3 If the pawn were on a2 White would simply be winning but here the situation is markedly

23

different. Qd3! 16 ... The point of Black's preceding play . With the move b3 unavailable White is forced to play c5 ceding d5 to Black's Bishop. Despite his material advantage it had been thought that White has few winning chances. This does not seem to be the case however. Be6 17 c5 18 Be3 After 18.Bf4 Bd5 1 9.Rfe1 f6 20.Qh5 Bf7 2 1 .Qg4 Rfe8 22.h3 Qc4, The chances are even, Larsen-Bisguier, San Juan 1969. 18 ... Qg6 Rfe8 19 Rfe1 BdS 20 h4 QxgS 21 QgS Re6 22 hxgS Bb3 23 f3 aS 24 Rac1 a4 2S Rc3 Rae8 26 Rd3 ReS 27 Kf2 RdS 28 Rc1 29 RxdS BxdS 30 Rd1 Kf8 31 Rd4 Ra8 32 Rb4 Ra7

24

6 Bd3 Bb4

33 Bf4 White had a clear advantage and eventually won on the 66th move, Nikolic-Huebner, Tilburg 1 987. 0-0 B. 7 0-0

#2.4. Now White h a s several possiblities: B.l. 8.0e2: B.2. 8.0c2: B.3. 8.Bd2: B.4. 8.a3. On 8.Ne5 Black has ...Nxe5 9.dxe5 Nd7 1 0.f4 Nc5 1 1 .Be2 dxc4 1 2.Bxc4 Qxd1 1 3.Rxd1 Bd7 1 4.e4 h6 1 5.Be3 Rfd8 =. B.l. 8 Qe2 dxc4 Bd6 9 Bxc4 Black sacrifices a tempo to get in ... Bd6 when e4 is no longer espe­ cially effective. Qe7 10 Rd1 e5 11 e4 12 d5 cxd5

Nxd5 13 Nxd5 Nf6 14 Bxd5 h6 15 Bg5 16 Bxf6 Qxf6 =, Addison-Evans, U.S. ch. 1 965/ 66; JL.t. 8 Qc2 dxc4

#2.5 Not 8 ... Bd6? ! because of 9.b3 ! 9. . .dxc4 10.bxc4 e5 1 1 .Bb2 Re8 1 2.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 h6? ! [bet­ ter is 1 3 ... g6 though even then White is better after 14.Bd3 ! Qe7 15.c5 Be? 1 6.Bc4!.] 14.Rad 1 exd4 15.Bh7ch ! Kh8 1 6.Rxd4 with a big initiative for White in Petrosian-Taimanov, USSR ch. 1955. The nice finish ofthat game was: 1 6 . . . Bc5 1 7 . R f4 Qc7 1 8.Rh4 f6 1 9.Bg6 Re7 2 1 .Rh5 Bd6 22.Rd1 Be5 23.Ba3 ! c5

25

Semi-Slav Defense 24.Nh4, 1 -0. Also dubious for B l ack i s H . Qe7 ? ! . The game G.Stoltz­ van Scheltinga, Beverwijk 1946 continued 9.Ne5 ! dxc4 10.Nxc4 e5 1 l .a3 ! Bxc3 1 2.bxc3 e4 13.Be2 Rd8 1 4.a4 Nf8 15.Ba3 Qe6 1 6.Ne5 [Even better is 1 6.Bxf8 ! Rxf8 1 7.f3! or 17.f4 ! .] 1 6... Ng6 1 7.Nxg6 hxg6 1 8.Rb1 g5 19.c4 g4 20.a5 Nh7 21 .a6 bxa6 22.d5 ! cxd5 23.cxd5 Qf5 24.Be7 ! Re8 25.d6 and White went on to .

.

wm.

Bd6 9 Bxc4 10 e4 1\ quiet alternative is 1 0.b3 ! ?. The game Smyslov-Van der Wiel, Reggio Emilia 1986/87, showed that there is some sting to this plan: 10 ... Qe7 1 1 .Bb2 g6 12.Ne4 Nxe4 1 3.Qxe4 Nb6 14.Be2 Nd5 15.Ne5 Bd7 1 6.Bf3 R fd8 17.Qc2 Ba3 1 8.Bxa3 Qxa3 1 9.e4 Nc7 20.Rfd 1 Qf8 2 1 .Nc4 Be8 22.e5 Rd7 23.a4 Qb4 24.Nd6 R xd6 25 .exd6 Qxd6 26.Qc5 Qxc5 27.dxc5 and White' s mate­ rial advantage eventually led to a wm.

For 1 0.a3 e5 1 1 .B a2 see B.4. eS 10 ...

Black has lost a tempo with . .Bf8b4-d6 but the White Queen isn't particularly good on c2 when e4 has been played. 11 dxeS Other tries for White are: 1 ) 1 1 .h3 exd4 1 2.Nxd4 Ne5 1 3.Be2 [Diesen-Bisguier, New York 1977.] and now Black can gain equality by 1 3 ... Ng6 14.Be3 Bf4; 2) 1 1 .Be3 Qe7 1 2.Rae 1 exd4 1 3.Bxd4 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 1 5 .Bxe5 Qxe5 1 6.Kh 1 Nh5 17.Ne2 Be6 1 8 .Bd3 g5 with equality, Condie-Noguieras, Thessaloniki (ol) 1986; 3) 1 1 .Rd 1 Qe7 1 2.h3 exd4 1 3.Nxd4 Nb6 14.Bfl Re8 1 5.Be3 Bd7 1 6.a4 Nxe4! =, Cebalo­ Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1987. NxeS 11 BxeS 12 NxeS 13 h3 NbS 14 Ne2 Qh4 Bc7 15 f4 the positiOn is unclear, Doro­ shkevich-Antoshin, USSR 1969; ...

lL.l. 8 Bd2 Threatening Nxd5. 8 ...

Qe7

6 Bd3 Bb4

26

Possible is 8 ... Bd6 but after 9.e4 dxc4 10.Bxc4 e5 1 1 .Bg5 White has transposed into lines stem­ ming from the chapter on 6.Bd3 Bd6 .. .lines that tend to favor White. After 8 ...Bd6 other tries seem quite playable for Black: 9.b3 [9.h3 dxc4 1 0.Bxc4 e5 1 1 . Qc2 exd4 1 2.exd4 Nb6 13.Bb3 Nbd5 1 4.a3 Be6 15.Rfe1 Qc8 1 6.Bg5 Bf5 17.Qc1 Re8 1 8.Ne5 Bg6 is equal, Uhlmann­ Bisguier, Zagreb 1965.] 9 ...Qe7 10.Qc2 e5 1 l .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nd4 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Qe5 15.f4 Qe7 1 6.Rac 1 Rd8 17.Rc2 Bc5 1 8.Na4 B xd4 19.Qxd4 Bf5, Black has equalized, Kotov­ Botvinnik, USSR ch. 1955. Another try for B l ack i s 8. . .dxc4!? though in the game Larsen-Flear, London 1 986, White emerged with a slight advantage after 9.Bxc4 Bd6 10.Qc2 e5 1 1 .Rae1 Qe7 12.Ng5 h6 1 3.Nge4 Be? 14.d5.

9 Qb3!?

#2.6 Renewing the threat of Nxd5. Other possibilities for White in­ clude: 1 ) 9. Qc2 dxc4 1 0.Bxc4 e5 1 1 .Rad1 [A better plan might be 1 1 . a3 Bd6 1 2.Bd3 ! Re8 1 3.Ng5 h6 1 4.Nge4 Bb8 1 5.Ng3 Nb6 1 6.Rae 1 with some advantage for White , B on darevsky-Szabo, Sczawno Zdroj 1 950.] 1 l ...e4 1 2.Ne5 Nxe5 1 3 .dxe5 Ng4 14.Qxe4 Qxe5 =, Tukmakov­ Bagirov, USSR ch. 1 972; 2) 9.Ne5 c5 ! 10.cxd5 exd5 1 1 .a3 Bxc3 1 2.Bxc3 Nxe5 1 3.dxe5 Ne4 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Kh1 a5 1 6.Qa4 Bf5 17.Rad1 Ra6! with the idea of ... Rh6. The position is no� clear , Portisch-B otvinnik � 1 Leipzig (ol) 1960;

27

Semi-Slav Defense

3) 9.Qe l dxc4 10.Bxc4 Bd6 [The 14.Bxf3 Rd8 = of Szily-Simagin, right answer to White's some- Budapest-Moscow 1949, with what artificial ninth move is 1 0.c5 ! Bc7 l l .Rfel with the idea 1 0 . . . e5 meeting 1 1 .a3 with ... Bd6 of 1 2.e4 +-... Analysis by Sos1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 1 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 onko. with equality .] 1 1 . Bb3 e5 Bd6 10 Qxc4 Nxe4 1 2.Ng5 ! ? Bc7 [ 1 2 ... e4? 1 3.f3 ! .] 11 Ne4 1 3.Nge4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 a5 15.d5 e5 12 Bxe4 t =, lvkov-Kolarov, Wageningen 13 Qc2 g6 1 957; If 13 . . . Nf6 14.dxe5 is slightly 4. ) 9 . a 3 Bd6 1 0 . c 5 Bc7 better for White while 13 ... h6 1 1 0 . . .Bb8? was the game Korch- 14.Radl is also in favor of the noi-S . Agdestein, Jeru s alem first player. 1 986, which continued 1 1 .e4 e5? ReS 14 Bc3 1 2.exd5 exd4 1 3.d6 Qd8 14.Na4! f5 15 Rfel h5 15.b4! bxa4 1 6.Qxa4 Nb6 and now White could have gotten a So far Seirawan-Tal, Montpellier dear advantage with 17.Qxc6 1 985. Instead of Seirawan' s Bd7 1 8.Qb7 Bc8 19.Qe7-Korch- 16.dxe5=, Sosonko holds that noi.] l l .e4 dxe4 12.Bxe4 ! ? White should play 1 6.Qb3ch. 1 1 2.Nxe4 Nxe4 1 3 .Bxe4 e5 is Kf8 [ 1 6 . . . Qf7 1 7 . B c 2 +-.] equal.] 12 . . . Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Rd8 17.dxe5 Nxe5 1 8.Nxe5 fxe4 1 4 . Qc 1 Nf8 1 5 . B f4 B xf4 1 9.f4! with advantage. That 1 6.Qxf4 Ng6 17.Qg3 Rd5 ! ? seems true- 1 9 ... exf3 20.Nxf3 1 8.Rfe l b6 19.b4 Ba6 20.Rac 1 Be6 2 1 .Qa4 with the idea of Qd4; Bd3 2 1 .Nd6 bxc5 22.bxc5 +=, L.Portisch-Huebner, Tilburg M 8 a3 1 986. dxc4 By far the most commonly 9 On 9 ... Bd6 White can improve played move. upon 1 0.Rfe 1 dxc4 1 1 .Bxc4 e5 BaS 8 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Be2 Nxf3ch. ...

...

28

6 Bd3 Bb4

#2.7 Here 8 ... Bd6 would transpose into Larsen-Bisguier from 'A' after 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 1 1 .Bxe4 e5 . However Black might consider 9 . . . dxc4 ! ? 1 0.Bxc4 e5 which transposes into lines from Chapter One with the exception that White has gotten the 'free' move a3 in. One example of the resulting play [for the reader who is too lazy to turn to Chapter One] is the game Kozma-Minev, Lyon 1 9 55 which continued 1 1 .Bg5 Qe7 1 2.h3 Rd8 1 3.Rfe1 exd4! 14.e5 Nxe5 15.Ne4 Nxc4 1 6.Nxf6ch. gxf6 17.Rxe7 Bxe7 1 8.Bh6 Kh8 19.Qd3 Be6 20.Re1 b5 2 1 .b4 c5 22.bxc5 Bxc5 23.Nd2 Rd5 and Black was firmly in control.

After 8 ... Bd6 White can try to avoid all this [i.e. Trifunovich' s drawing line and the above Minev game.] by 9.Qc2. This was tried in Karpov-Tal, USSR ch. 1973 which continued 9 ... dxc4 10.Bxc4 Qe7 1 l .h3 e5 12.Ba2 a5 [In Gulko-Huebner, Biel 1987 Black tried to improve with 12 ... b6 but White still got an edge after 13.Re 1 Ba6 1 4.e4 exd4 1 5 . Nxd4 Qe5 1 6 . Nf3 Qh5 1 7 .Qd1 Be5 1 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Qxh5 Nxh5 20.Rdl .] 1 3.a4?! Bb4! = and 1/2- 1/2 in 2 1 moves. However according to Tal White could have improved with 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 1 4.Nd4+=. Harding and Whitely, in their book Q.G.D.-Semi-Slav, suggest that Black might do better by playing 10 ... e5. Their idea is to pick up a tempo over Doro­ shkevich-Antoshin of B.2. This assumes of course that White will play 1 1 .e4.1finstead the frrst player tries 1 1 .Ba2

Semi-Slav Defense

!til then 1 1 ...Qe7 would transpose back to the Karpov-Tal game. In Donner-Pachman, Madrid 1960, Black in answer to 1 2.h3 [played to answer the threat of 1 2 . . .e4 1 3.Ng5 Bxh2ch.] tried 1 2... Kh8 in p lace of Tal ' s 1 2 . . . a5 1 1 2 ...exd4 1 3.exd4 +-; 1 2... h6 1 3.Nh4 +-.] . After 1 3.Bd2 h6 l4.Ne4 [ 14.e4 Nh5 is unclear.] 14 ... Nxe4 1 5.Qxe4 Nf6 1 6.Qh4 e4 17.Ne5 Be6! 1 8.Nc4 Rfe8 1 9 . f4 exf3 20. R xf3 B xc4 2 1 .Bxc4 Ne4 Black was slightly better. An improvement after 12 ... Kh8 is 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nd4 +=.

As in many lines with 6 ...Bb4 the problem for Black is the Queen

29

on e7 which invites Nf3-d4-f5 and Nf3-h4-g6. Best after 1 1 .Ba2 seems to be 1 1 .. .h6! ? 1 2.h3 [ 1 2 . Rd l ! ? .] 1 2 . . . Re8 w hen 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nd4 isn' t so strong with the Black Queen still on d8. Another try to avoid Trifunovich's drawing line is 9.c5 !?. This ended in disaster in I.Ivanov-Rizzitano, New Haven 1984, after 9 ... Bc7 10.e4 dxe4 1 1 .Nxe4 Nxe4 1 2 .B xe4 e5 13.Bg5 f6 14.Bh4?! g5 ! 1 5.Qc2 gxh4 1 6.Bxh7ch Kh8 17.Nxh4 f5 ! -+. However Rizzitano sug­ gests White could have improved with 14.Be3 keeping a slight advantage. 9 Qc2 On 9.b4 Black equalizes with 9 ... Bc7 10.Bb2 dxc4 1 l .Bxc4 e5 [ 1 1 ...a5 1 2.Ne2 Qe7 1 3.Qb3 e5 14.Ng3 e4 1 5.Nd2 Nb6 1 6.Be2 Be6 is also equal, Vaganian-Van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1986.] 1 2. Qc2 Qe7 1 3 . Ne4 Nxe4 1 4.Qxe4 Nf6 15.Qh4 e4 1 6.Ne5 Be6, Polugaevsky-EYans, Siegen (ol) 1970. 9 ... dxc4 [Other ninth moves are:

30

6 Bd3 Bb4

1) 9 ... Qe7 10.cxd5 [or 10.Bd2 e5 1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 1 3 .cxd5 cxd5 1 4.Ne2 Bxd2 1 5 . Qxd2 Ng4 1 6.Ng3 Qg5 17 .Be2 with a clear advantage for White, Donner-Nikolac, Opatija 1 953.] 10 ...exd5 1 1 .Bd2 Qd8 [better is 1 1 . ..Bxc3 ! ? 1 2.Bxc3 Re8 1 3.Bb4 Qd8 14.Ng5 g6 1 5.h3 Nf8 1 6.Bxf8 Rxf8 1 7.b4 Ne8 1 8.Nf3 Nd6 19.Rfb1 a6 20.a4 Bd7 2 1 .Qc5 Be8 22.Nd2, 1/2- 1/2, Timman-Tal, Bugojno 1 978.] 1 2.Ne2 Bb6 1 3.Ng3 Re8 14.b4 a6 1 5.Bc3 Nf8 1 6.Rae1 +­ Korchnoi-Huebner, Bru s sels 1986; 2) 9 ... a6?! 10.Bd2 Bc7 1 1 .Rad1 Qe7 1 2.cxd5 exd5 13.Rfe1 Qd8 14.e4 dxe4 15.Nxe4 h6, Taima­ nov-Botvinnik, USSR ch. 1955, and now 1 6.Qc l ! Nxe4 17.Rxe4 Re8 1 8.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 19.Bxh6 is clearly better for White; 3) 9 ... h6 1 0.Bd2 [ 1 0.b4! ?-ECO] 10 ... Re8 1 l .e4! dxe4 12.Nxe4 Bxd2 1 3.Nxf6ch. Qxf6 14.Qxd2 b6 1 5.Qe3 Bb7 16.Qe4 Nf8 17.b4+=, Tal-Johansson, Havana 1 966; 4) 9 ... Bc7 1 0.b3 ! [ 10.e4 dxc4 1 1 .Bxc4 e5 1 2.Be3?! ( 12.d5 ! ?-

ECO) 1 2 ... Nb6 1 3.Nxe5 Ng4! 14.Nxg4 Nxc4 15.Ne2 Be6 1 6.h3 h5 17 .Nh2 Nxe3=, Ornstein­ Kupreichik, Dortmund 1 975.] 10... e5 1 1 .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.Nb5 Bb8 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Bb2 +=, Pachman. Bc7 10 Bxc4 Preparing ...e5 by playing ...Qe7 leaves the Bishop on a5 (or c7) exposed to attack- 10 . . . Qe7 1 1 .Bd2 e5 12.Ba2 Bc7 [ 1 2 ... Bd8 1 3.Rae1 aS 1 4.h3 b6 15.dxe5 Nxe5 1 6.Nxe5 Qxe5 1 7.f4, Va­ ganian-Shabanov, USSR 1 973; exd4 1 3 . B xc 3 12 . . . B xc 3 14.Nxd4 +-, Rogoff-Lombardy, US ch. 1978.] 13.Nb5 ! Bb6 1 4 . B b4 c5 1 5 . dxc5 B x c 5 1 6.Bxc5 Nxc5 17.Rfc 1 White has

31

Semi-Slav Defense Worth considering is 1 1 .Ba2 along the lines considered earlier when the Bishop stood on d6 instead of c7. One practical example i s Ligterink-R. Kuij f, Amsterdam 1982, which continued 1 1 . ..e5 1 2.Re1 [Probably stronger is 1 2.h3 ! ? h6( 1 2 ... Qe7 1 3 . Re l ! favors White , but 1 2. . .exd4 13.exd4 Nb6 14.Re1 Nbd5 1 5.Bg5 Qd6 with equality may be an improvement, Evans­ Minev, Varna (ol) 1962.) 13.e4 (Black is fine after 13.Nh4!?1 3 ... exd4 14.exd4 Nb6! 15.Bxh6 Nfd5 ! 1 6.Bb1 f5 -+ or 1 6.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 7.Bxd5 Qxh4 1 8.Be3 Bxh3.) 13 ... Re8 14.Be3 Nh5? (14 ...Qe7 is a better move when 15.Rfe 1 is slightly better for White. White can also consider 15.d5 ! ? cxd5 1 6.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 7 . B xd5 Nf6 1 8 . Bc5 Bd6 1 9.Bxd6 Qxd6 20.Rfd 1 when according to Tal White is very slightly better.) 15.Rad 1 +- exd4 (15 ...Qf6 1 6.Nd5 ! cxd5 17.Qxc7 dxe4 1 8.Nxe5 is manifestly bet­ ter for White.) 1 6.Bxd4 Qe7 1 7.e5 ! Nf8? (17 ...Nf4 1 8.Rfe1 +- . ) 1 8 . Nb5 ! Ne6 ( 1 8 . . . cxb5 1 9.Bc5.) 1 9.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Nxc7

Qxc7 2 1 .Qg6 Qfl 22.Qxflch. Kxfl 23.Be3 Rf8 24.Rd4 Kg8 25.Rfd1 b6 26.Rh4 Rf5 27.Nd4, 1-0, Kasparov-Van der Wiel, Brussels 1987. Untested but interesting is 1 2.Rdl ! ?.] 1 2 ... h6 1 3.Bd2 Re8 14.Qb3 Qe7 15.e4 exd4 1 6.Nxd4 Ne5 17.Rad1 Bb6 1 8.Bf4 Bxd4 19.Rxd4 Be6 and Black held the advantage. Another 1 1 th move possibility is 1 1 .Ne2 but this proved harmless in H.Olafsson-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1987: 1 1 ...e5 1 2.Ng3 exd4 1 3 .Nxd4 Ng4 14.Be2 Qh4 15.Nf3 Qf6 1 6.Bd2 Nde5 17.Nxe5 Qxe5 1 8.Bc3, 1/21/2. e5 11 Or 1 1 .. .Qe7 1 2.Ne4 [ 1 2.Ba2!?­ ECO] 12 ... a5 1 3.Ng3 e5 14.Nf5 Qe8 15.e4 exd4 16.Rfe 1 Nb6 1 7 .e5 B xf5 1 8 . Qxf5 Qc8 19.Qxc8 Rfxc8 20.Bb3 Nfd5 2 1 .Nxd4 +=, Furman-Taimanov, USSR ch. 1949. 12 Ba2 Alternatives for White at this stage are: 1) 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 1 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.h3 Re8 [The right answer to ...

6 Bd3 Bb4

32

White's plan is 14 ... Qe7 15.Rad 1 Be6 =.] 15.Rad1 Qe7 16.Bd3 h6 17.Rfe 1 Be6 1 8.Na4 Bd6 19.e4 b5 20.e5 ! +-, Forintos-Kolarov, Havana 1966; 2) 1 2.Rae1 exd4 13.exd4 Nb6 14.Be2 [on 14.Ba2 or 14.Bd3 the reply . . . Bg4 is good.] 14 ... h6! [better then 14 . . . Bg4 of Botvin­ nik-Taimanov, Match 1953, which was strongly countered by 15.Bg5 Qd6 ( 1 5 ...Bxf3 1 6.Bxf3 Qxd4 17 .g3 with the idea of Re7 and Rad l .) 1 6.Ne5 ! .] After 14 ... h6! Black has equalized. h6 12 Also not bad despite its reputa­ tion is 1 2 . . .exd4. This has been under a cloud since Szabo-Evans, Dallas 1 957, which continued 1 3 . exd4 Nb6 1 4 . B g5 Qd6 1 5.Rac l Nbd5 1 6.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Nb5 Qd8 1 8.Nxc7 Qxc7 19.Rfe 1 +-. An improvement for Black comes after 15 .Rae 1 #2. 1 0 ...

In Commons-Wockenfuss, Mex­ ico City 1 977, Black took time to stop the threat of Nb5. This worked out nicely- 1 5 . . . a6! ? 1 6.Nce4 Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Be6 1 8.Bb1 f5 19.Qh4 Nd5 20.Bd2 h6 2 1 . Rfe 1 Rae8 22.Re5 Qd7 23.Re2 f4 24.Ne5 Bxe5 25.Rxe5 Nf6 26.Rce1 Qf7 with equality. 13 dxe5 13.Rae1 was tried by David Bronstein against Larry Evans in the high pressure USSR-USA match of 1 955. Black came out quite well after 1 3 ... Re8 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Rxe5 1 6.f4 Bf5 17.e4 Bb6ch. 1 8 .Kh 1 Rxe4! 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Rxe4 Bxe4 2 1 .Qxe4 Qxd2 22.Bb 1 Rd8. Another try is 1 3.h3 ! ?. In the game Lukac s-Tischbierek, Polanica Zdroj 1986 White man­ aged to win: 1 3 . . .Re8 14.Nh4 Nf8 1 5 .dxe5 Rxe5 1 6. f4 Rh5? ! 17.Nf3 Bf5 1 8.e4 Bb6ch. 19.Kh 1 Be6 20.f5 Bxa2 2 1 .Rxa2 Ng4 22.Ne2 Nf2ch. 23.Kh2 Ng4ch. 24.Kh 1 Nf2ch. 25.Kh2 Ng4ch. 26.Kg3 Ne3 27 . B xe3 Bxe3 28.Kh2 Qc7ch. 29.g3 Nh7 30.Kg2 Ng5 3 1 .h4 Nxf3 32.Rxf3 Qb6 33.Qc3, 1 -0. However

Semi-Slav Defense Black's rather weak opening play can surely be improved. NxeS 13 BxeS 14 NxeS 15 f4 Bc7 16 h3 BfS! 17 Qd1 ReS Black has a comfortable position, B i s g u ier- R u k av i n a , S o mbor 1974. Conclusion: White does not seem to be able to gain a concrete advantage against 6... Bb4. However the usual small ' something' (+=) can be gotten with an accurate handling of the

33

opening. If he doesn ' t want to enter into Trifunovich' s drawing pawn sacrifice (7.a3 Bd6 8.0-0 00 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 l l .Bxe4 e5 ! ? 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 1 3Nxe5 B xe5 1 4 . B xh7 c h . ) which now looks dubious, he should simply refuse the pawn offer by 1 2.Bc2! which should secure at least a small edge for the first player. If White would like to dispense with 7 . a3 altogether then Seirawan's experimental 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Bd2 Qe7 9. Qb3 ! ? is an interesting try, certainly in need of more tests.

34

6 .. Be7 and 6 ...a6

CHAPTER 3

D46/SL8

6 ... Be7 and 6 ... a6 In this chapter we will discuss two inferior continuations for Black. The first one, 6... Be?, does little for Black in the achievement of an ...e5 advance and is nowadays considered too passive. The other move, 6... a6, is not nearly as flexible as the system with 5 ... a6, and White scores very well against it. After l.d4 d52.c4 c63.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 First we will look at A. 6...Be7. Next we will examine B. 6...a6. 6 Be7 A. ...

•

An old-fashioned continuation favored by Bogoljubov. Rather then strive for active counterplay via the Meran by 6 ...dxc4 or play for an eventual . . . e5 by 6 ... Bb4 or 6... Bd6, Black places his hope on a somewhat passive but solid position. Many lines where Black plays ... b6, ...Bb7, and ...c5 lead to position from the 4.e3 Q.I.D. but with a tempo less for Black because he has moved his c7 pawn twice ... flrst to c6 and then to c5. 7 0-0 The most natural continuation but other moves are also quite reasonable: 1 ) 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 b6 9.Qc2 Bb7 1 0.Ne5 g6? [10 ... c5 is only += according to the ECO.] 1 1 .f4 Ne8 1 2 . 0-0-0 +-, Naj dorf­ Gudmundsson, Amsterdam 1950; 2) 7.Qc2 fpoorl 7 . . . dxc4 8.Bxc4 b5 9.Bd3 a6 1 0 . 0-0 c5 =, Jost-

Semi-Slav Defense Madsen, Helsinki 1952; 3) 7.e4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 c5 [or 8 ... Nxe4 9.Bxe4 Nf6 10.Bc2 0-0 1 1 .Qd3 Qa5ch 12.Bd2 Bb4 1 3.00-0 Bxd2ch. 14.Rxd2 b5 15.c5 Qxa2 1 6.Ne5 g6 17.h4, +-, Ala­ tortsev-Zamikhovsky, USSR 193 1 .] 9 . Nxc5 [B lack was slightly better after 9.dxc5? Nxe4! 10.Bxe4 Nxc5, Makag­ onov-Levenfish, US S R ch. 1934.] 9 . . . Bxc5 [White is also better after 9 ... Nxc5 10.dxc5 Bxc5 1 1 .0-0] 1 0.dxc5 Nxc5 1 1 .Be2 Qxd1 ch. 1 2.Kxdl ! +­ according to Alatortsev. 7 0-0 Black can also try 7 . . . dxc4 8.Bxc4 when 8 ... Nb6 9.Bb3 0-0 1 0 . Qe2 Nbd5 1 1 .e4 Nxc3 12.bxc3 b6 1 3.e5 Nd5 14.c4 was clearly better for White in Gligo­ ric-Horvat, Yugoslav ch. 194849. Instead of 8 . . . Nb6, Black has given 8 . . . b5 some testing: 9.Bd3 b4 [9 ... a6 10.e4 b4 1 1 .Na4 c5 1 2.dxc5 +-, Danner-Lehmann, Beverwijk 1966.] 1 0.Na4 c5 1 1 .dxc5 Nxc5 12.Nxc5 Bxc5 1 3.e4. We have now transposed into the Lundin Variation of the Meran [See Donaldson ' s book on ...

35

the Meran, published by Chess Enterprises, Inc.] except that Black has lost a tempo by playing ... Be? before ... Bxc5. White has a good game: 1) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 .e5 Nd5 1 5.Bxh7ch! winning-ECO; 2) 13 . . . Bb7 14.e5 [14.Qe2 ! ? is recommended in ECO.] 14 . . . Nd7 15.Bf4 Be? 1 6.Bb5 ! a6 17.Ba4 Bd5 1 8 . Nd4 +=, Ivkov-Ro­ batsch, Maribor 1967; 3) 1 3 ... h6 14.a3 Qb6?! [ 1 4 ... bxa3 += according to ECO.] 1 5.axb4 Bxb4 1 6.Qe2 Bc5 17.Bd2 Nd7 1 8.b4 +-, Darga-Prins, Leysin 1967. After 7 0-0 White has a choice between an immediate and a de­ layed e4 advance: A. I. 8.e4; A.2. ...

HJll.. ll 8 e4 dxe4 b6 9 Nxe4 Alternatives are even less prom­ ising: 1 ) 9 . . . c 5 ? ! 1 0 . Nxc5 Nxc5 1 1 .dxc5 Bxc5 1 2.Qe2 is clearly better for White according to Bogoljubov; 2) 9 . . . Nxe4? ! 10.B xe4 Nf6 1 1 .Bc2 [ l l .Bd3 b6 1 2.Qe2 Bb7

6 .. .Be7 and 6 ... a6

38

1 9 . Re 3 Rad8 20. Qf4 +=, Donaldson-Dauvergne, Philadelphia 1986. 11 ... Rad8 12 Rfd1 Qb8 Nxe5 13 Ne5 Nd7 14 dxe5 15 cxd5 In the game Gligoric-Krzisnik, Yugoslav ch. 1952, White tried a highly interesting but somewhat u n sound i dea: 1 5 . f4 Rfe 8 1 6.Rfl ? ! [It is not logical for White to play for a Kingside at­ tack. He should play in the center and on the Queenside as Smyslov does in our main column.] 16 ... dxc4 17 .Bxc4 b5 1 8.Bd3 Nc5 19.Bb1 b4 20.Qc2! g6 2 1 . Ne2 Ba6 22.Nd4! ! Bxfl ? ! [22. . .Bd3 ! was better.] 23.Rxfl Qb6 24.f5 ! exf5 25.Nxf5 ! Bf8 2 6 . B d4 Qb5? [26 . . . R xd4 ! 27.exd4 Ne6 is strong.] 27.Qf2 Rd7 28.Nd6! , White has a power­ ful attacking position and went on to win the game. cxd5 15 16 f4 +-

A.2& 10 ReS 11 Rad1 White can also consider an e4 advance immediately via 1 1 .e4. In the game Chemin-Utasi, Stary Smokovec 1984 White achieved an excellent position after 1 1 ...dxe4 12.Nxe4 c5 13.Rad1 Qc7 14.dxc5 bxc5 1 5.Rfe l ! Rfd8 1 6.Neg5. 11 Qc7 12 Ne5 On 1 2.e4 Black can relieve some of his cramp with 1 2 . . .dxe4 13.Nxe4 c5. c5 12 .•.

•..

...

..•

S my s l ov- S zily, Budapest 1949;

Moscow-

Capturing on e5 also fails to solve Black's problems: 1) 12 . . . Nxe5 1 3.dxe5 Nd7 14.f4 Rfd8 1 5 . R I1 N f8 16.Rh3, +-,

Semi-Slav Defense

39

Landau-Feigen, Kemeri 1937; 2) 1 2 . . . dxc4 1 3 . bxc4 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Ne8 15.Qh5 g6 16.Qg4 Qxe5? 17.Nd5 ! Qd6 1 8.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Nf4 Qb4 20.Nxg6 and White is winning, Sanguinetti­ Donoso, Fortaleza 1 975. cxd4 13 cxdS If 13 ... exd5 then 14.f4 +-. NxeS 14 exd4 Not 1 4 . . . Nxd5 because of 1 5 .Nb5 ! Qd8 1 6.Nxa7 Nf4 � 17.Qe3 Nxd3 1 8.Nxc8 Nxb2 With this move Black enters the 19.Nxe7ch. Qxe7 20.Rd2-Uhlm- Queen' s Indian a tempo down but ann. it still remains his best continu­ NxdS 15 dxeS ation. Qb8 16 NbS! 11 cxdS g6 17 Qg4 Other attractive moves for White Rfd8 18 Qg3 are: Ba6 19 h4 1 ) 1 1 . Rad 1 Ne4 [ 1 1 . . . dxc4 Uhlmann-J anosevic, Sarajevo 1 2.Bxc4 a6 1 3.dxc5 b5 14.Bd3 1 969 . Now Uhlmann gives Bxc5 15.Ng5 Qb6 1 6.Nce4 is +-, 20. h 5 ! Nb4 2 1 . B c 4 B xb5 Kons tan tinopol sky- Arlasi n , 22.Bxb5 Nxa2 [Or 22 . . . Rc2 USSR 1966. Also strong for 23.Ba3 ! Rxa2 24.Bxb4 Bxb4 White is 1 1 . ..cxd4 1 2.exd4 Rc8 25.Qh4! Rxd 1 26.Rxd1 Bf8 1 3.Ne5 g6 14.f4 Re8 15.Qe3 27.Qf6 winning.] 23.hxg6 hxg6 dxc4 1 6.bxc4 Bf8 17. Kh 1 a6 24. B d7 Rc2 2 5 . B xe6 Kg7 1 8.Qh3 Qe7 19.a3 Red8 20.Rfe 1 , 26.Bxt7 g5 27 .Rd7 ! ! and White Zuckerman-Gliksman, New York Open 1985. For historical wins; interest 1 1 .. .Qc7 was played in � cS the game Bogolj ubov-Spiel10 ...

6.. .Be7 and 6 ...a6

40

12 Rfd1! mann, Semmering 1 932. The continuation was 12.Ne5 ! cxd4 Stronger then 1 2 . Ne5 cxd4 13.exd4 Rad8 14.f4 g6 15.Bb1 ! 1 3.exd4 Bb4 14.Nd 1 Ne4 when Rfe8 1 6.Rd3 Nf8 17 .Rg3 a6 White is just slightly better, 1 8.h4 N6d7 19.h5 Bf6 20.cxd5 Uhlmann-Botvinnik, Hastings exd5 2 1 .hxg6 fxg6 22.Nd1 ! Bg7 1966-67. ReS 23.Ne3 Nf6 24.f5 with a clear 12 advantage for White.] 1 2.dxc5 Or 1 2 ...Bd6 1 3.Ba6 Bc6 14.Rac 1 Nxc3 13.Bxc3 bxc5? ! [Accord­ Qe7 15.Bb5 +-, Trifunovic-Ger­ ing to SoultanbeieffBlack should mek, Bled 196 1 . ReS play 13 ... Nxc5.] 14.cxd5 exd5 13 Rac1 Bd6 1 5.Ba6 left White with strong 14 BbS pressure against Black's hanging 15 dxcS bxcS 16 Ba6 Qb6 pawns in Euwe-Winter, Notting­ 17 Bxb7 Qxb7 ham 1936; 2) 1 1 . Ne5 Qc7 1 2.f4 cxd4 1S Qd2 +Moscow­ 1 3.exd4 dxc4 1 4.bxc4 Rac8 Simagin -Tip ary , 1 5.Rad1 is very good for White Budapest 1949. Conclusion: There isn' t much according to Taimanov; 3) 1 l .Rfd1 cxd4 12.exd4 Re8 good one can say about 6 ... Be7. 13.Rac l a6 [Perhaps 1 3 ... Bf8 or With almost any reasonable con­ 1 3 ... Bc8 is a bit better.] 14.Ne5 tinuation White emerges with Bd6 1 5.Rc2! Qe7 1 6.Bc 1 Bc7 some advantage. 1 7 .Bf4 dxc4 1 8.bxc4 Nxe5 lL. 6 a6 #3.6 19.Bxe5 ! Red8 20.f4!, +-, Hort­ Biyiasas, Petropolis 1973. exdS 11 On 1 l . ..Nxd5 White has 1 2.Nxd5 Bxd5 1 3.Rfd 1 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Nc5 15.Bc2 Qe8 1 6.Nf5 f6 17.b4 with a clear advantage, Lilienthal­ Tipary, Moscow-Budapest 1949. 000

000

000

Semi-Slav Defense

41

Another continuation that makes game by countering in the center it easy for White to obtain the with 7 . . .g6! 8.b4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0 advantage. 1 0.Bb2 e5 ! . 7 7 b3 Bb4 This is the best move for White, Black has also gotten terrible though 7 .e4 is a reasonable alter­ results with other moves: native: 7 .e4 dxc4 [7 . . . dxe4 1) 7 ... b5 8.Qc2 dxc4 9.bxc4 b4 8.Nxe4 is simply good for 1 0. Ne4 c5 1 l .B b2 B b7 White.] 8.Bxc4 c5 [8 ... b5 9.Bb3 ! 12.Nxf6ch. Nxf6 1 3.Ne5, +-, transposes into a favorable line of Pachman-Gereben, B udapest the Meran.] 9.d5 [Or 9.e5 Ng4 1948; 10.Ng5 cxd4 1 1 .Nxf7 Qh4 1 2.g3 2) 7 ... Bd6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bb2 Re8 Qh5 1 3.Nxh8 dxc3 14.Be2 Bb4 10.Qc2 b5 1 1 .a3 Bb7 1 2.e4 dxc4 1 5.Kfl Qh3 ch. 1 6.Kg1 Ndxe5 1 3.bxc4 e5 14.Rad1 Qc7 15.Ne2 1 7.Bfl Qh5 1 8 .h3 Nf6 19.g4 Qh4 Rad8 1 6.h3 exd4 17 .Nexd4 bxc4 20.Bf4 +-, Ogaard-Karaklajic, 1 8.Bxc4 Nxe4 19.Nf5 ! Ndf6 Manila 1975.] 9 ... Nb6 [9. . . exd5 20.Nxd6 Rxd6 2 1 .Be5 and White 1 0.Nxd5 Be7 1 1 .Bf4 is clearly in is winning, Malich-Kort, Am­ White's favor.] 10.Bb3 exd5 sterdam 197 1 . 8 Bd2 1 1 .e5, Polugayevsky-Karaklajic, 0-0 Bd6 Manila 1975, and now instead of 9 0-0 1 1 ...Nfd7?! 1 2.Nxd5 which was 9 ... b5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 1 .cxd5 very strong for White, Black Bxd2 12.dxe6 is given in ECO as should play 1 1 ...c4! 1 2.Bc2 Ng4 being very good for White. 1 3 .0-0! when White is just Dr. Minev once tried 9 ... Qe7 here but after 10.Ne5 Bd6 1 1 .f4 c5 slightly better-Polugaevsky. Besides 7.b3 and 7.e4, White 1 2 . B e 1 dxc4 1 3 . bxc4 Qd8 could transpose into an old and 14.Qf3 Rb8 1 5.Rd1 Black had an rather harmless line of the Meran uncomfortable position, Uhlm­ by 7.0-0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b5 9.Bd3 c5 ann-Minev, Havana 1 966. dxc4 =. Or he can try to gain space by 10 e4 7 .c5 though Black can get a good Or 1 0. . . dxe4 1 1 .Nxe4 Nxe4 ...

42

6...Be7 and 6.. .a6

1 2 . B xe4 e5 1 3 .dxe5 Nxe5 1 4.Bc3 ! with a clear plus for White according to Saidy. e5 11 Bxc4 b5 12 Bg5 13 Be2 Bb7 c5 14 Rcl h6 15 d5 Nxf6 16 Bxf6

17 18 19 20 21 22

Nd2 a4 Ncb1 Bd3 Qe2 Nc4 +-

ReS b4 Be7 Ne8 aS

Pan no-Unzicker, Gothenburg 1955.

Semi-Slav Defense

CHAPTER 4

43

D45/SL8

6 Qc2 Lines After 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.0c2

White avoids losing a tempo by 6.Bd3 dxc4 and keeps many op­ tions open. He can play for a quick e3-e4 advance, he can play positionally with 7.b3, or he can mix 7 .Bd2 with Queenside cas­ tling for a very sharp struggle. In reply to 6.Qc2 Black usually plays 6 ... Bd6 with an eventual ... e6-e5 advance as his plan. This chap ter though deals with Black's less common moves, namely: A. 6,a6: B. 6,8e7: C.

6,Bh4: D. 6,dxc4. We will also examine an alterna­ tive for White after 6,8d6. namely 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0. This system has been rather popular recently and can be found at the end of this chapter. 6 ... a6 A, With this little move Black in­ tends to keep his position flex­ ible. However it is a little slow and White should be able to ob­ tain some advantage. 7 b3 This move is highly thought of. White may also consider the more forcing 7.e4!?: 7 ... dxe4 [7 ...dxc4 8.e5 ! Nd5 9.Bxc4 is good for White.] 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qxe4 Bb4ch. [9 ...Nf6 10.Qc2 c5 l l .dxc5 Bxc5 1 2.Bd3 b6 1 3.00, Hadzhipetrov-Klovan, Pri­ morsko 1976 is a small but com­ fortable edge for White.] 10.Bd2 Bxd2ch. l l .Nxd2

44

6 Qc2

#4.2 [We have entered the positions from 6. Qc2 Bd6 7 .e4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qxe4 Bb4ch. but with Black getting ... a6 thrown in for free.] 1 1 .. .c5 [In the game Danner-Velikov, Albena 1983, Black held off this advance for a moment and instead played 1 1 . . .0-0. After 1 2.0-0-0 c5 1 3 . Nf3 Nf6 1 4 . Qe5 c xd4 1 5 . Rxd4 Qe7 1 6.Bd3 B d7 17.Rh4 g6 1 8.Qg5 Bc6 19.Ne5 Rfe8 20.Rd4 Rad8 2 1 .Rxd8 Rxd8 22.Rd1 Kg7 23.h4 h6 24. Qe3 Nd7 2 5 . g3 Nxe5 26.Qxe5ch. Qf6 27 . Qxf6ch . Kxf6 Black had no problems at all.] 1 2.dxc5 Qc7 1 3.c6 [Interesting is 13.Qd4! ? when White seemed to obtain the more comfortable endgame after 1 3 . . . e5 14.Qd6 Qxc5 1 5.Ne4 Qxd6

1 6.Nxd6ch. Ke7 17 .Nf5ch. Kf8 1 8.0-0-0 g6 19.Nd6 Ke7 20.Be2 Rd8 2 1 .Rd5 f6 22.Rhd l . How­ ever Black soon demonstrated that this was more illusory then real and after the further 22 ... Nf8 23.b3 Be6 24.R5d2 Rd7 25.Kb2 b6 26.b4 Rc7 27.a3 Rb8 28.Rc l f5 Black was quite all right, Toth­ Velikov, Rome 1983.] 13 . . . bxc6 14.Be2 Rb8 15.b3 0-0 1 6.0-0 c5 [In the game Ahlander- Hoi, Malmo 1985/86, Black tried 16 ... e5 but his game became un­ tenable after 17 .Qe3 f5 1 8.c5 Nf6 19.Nc4 e4 20.Nd6 Nd5 2 1 .Qd4 Kh8 22.Bc4 Be6 23.f3 exf3 24.Rxf3.] 17.Qe3 Bb7 1 8.Bf3 Bxf3 19.Nxf3 Rfd8 20.Rad1 +=, Schussler-Kirov, Eksjo 1982. White went on to win after 20... Nf6 2 1 .Ne5 Rd6 22.Rd3 Rbd8 23.Rfd1 Rxd3 24.Rxd3 Rxd3 25.Nxd3 Nd7 26.h3 Qd6 27.Kfl e5 28.Ke2 f5 29.Qg5 Qf6 30.Qxf6 gxf6 3 1 . Kd2 Kf7 32.Kc3 a5 33.Kb2 Ke6 34.Ka3 Kd6 35.Ka4 e4 36.Nf4 Ne5 37.Kxa5 Nd3 3 8 .Ne2 Nxf2 39.Kb6 Nd3 40.a4 f4 41 .a5 f3 42.gxf3 exf3 43.Ng3 Nb4 44.a6 Nc6 45.Ne4ch. Ke5 46.Nd2 Kd6

Semi-Slav Defense 47 .Nxf3, 1 -0.

7 ... bS The only move that actively makes use of 6... a6. Other tries are: 1) 7 ... b6 8.Be2 Bb7 9.0-0 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0 l l .Rad l leaves White with a comfortable edge, Reshevsky - S h ainswit, New York 195 1 ; 2) 7 . . .Bb4 8.a3 Bd6 9.e4 [9.Be2! ? +=.] 9 ... dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 l l .Qxe4 e5 1 2.c5? Be7 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 4.dxe5 Bxc5 was slightly better for Black in Stoltz-Pach­ man, Prague 1 946. However White's 1 2th move was clearly an error. Simply 1 2.dxe5 is indi­ cated when 1 2... Nxe5? 1 3.c5 ! is strong as in the analogous posi­ tion from Chapter Seven; 3) 7 ... Bd6 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0 Qe7 10.Bb2 b5?! [10 ... e5 is better. Compare with Chapter Six.] l l .e4 dxe4 1 2.Nxe4 Nxe4 1 3.Qxe4 Nf6 14.Qh4 +=, van den Berg-van Scheltinga, Amster­ dam 1 950. Be7 8 Bd3 White is better after 8 ... Bb7 9.c5 a5 1 0.h3 g6 l l .a3 Bg7 1 2.Bb2

45

0-0 1 3.b4 Nh5 1 4.0-0-0 axb4 1 5.axb4 f5 16.Rdg l Nhf6 1 7.g4. Also poor for Black is 8 ... dxc4 9.bxc4 b4? 1 0.Ne4 c5 l l .Bb2 Bb7 1 2.Nxf6ch. Nxf6 1 3.Ne5, Pachman-Gereben, Budapest 1948. 9 0-0 0-0 Bb7 10 Bb2 11 c5! ? The simple l l .Rfd l also de­ serves consideration. 11 ... Qc7 Kh8 12 Ne2! The immediate 12 ... Re8 may be a little better. 13 Ng3 aS 14 a3 Rae8 15 Rae1 Bc8 16 b4 Bd8 Black's lack of space leaves him without any real hope of salvation. 17 a4! bxa4 Bb7 18 bS 1 8 ... cxb5 19.Bxb5 would leave Black without any good moves. 19 Qxa4 eS Qb8 20 b6 Nxe5 21 Nxe5 Nd7 22 dxe5 Nxe5 23 Qxa5

46

6 Qc2

Bf6 24 Be2 25 Bd4 Black's game is lost, Haritonov­ Barczay, Sochi 1 979. lL. 6 Be7 ..•

2) 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 b6 9.e4 dxe4 1 0.Nxe4 Bb7 1 l .Ne5 h6 1 2.Be3, Podgayets-Rashkovsky, Odessa 1 97 4 , and now 1 2 . . . Nxe5 1 3.dxe5 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Qc7 15.h4 c5 is equal according to Gufeld; 3) 7.Bd2 ! ? leads to sharp, unex­ plored play. 0-0 7 b6 8 Bb2 9 Be2 Also good i s 9 . B d3 B b7 10.Ne5[10.0-0! ?.] 10 ... g6 1 l .f4 Ne8 1 2.0-0-0 f6 1 3.Nxg6! hxg6 14.Bxg6 when White had a very s tron g attack, Naj dorf­ Gudmundson, Amsterdam 1 950. An improvement for Black is 10 . . . c5 ! though even then White could try 1 1 .0-0-0 Rc8 12.Kb1 with attacking c h ances­ J.Watson. Bb7 9 ReS 10 0-0 11 Rfd1 Orl l .Rad 1 Qc7 1 2.Bd3 B d6 1 3 .e4 +=, S toltz- Kottnauer, Groningen 1946. 11 Qc7 12 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 13 Nxc4 ...

#4.3 From this somewhat passive square the Bishop does not aid in the fight for the critical ...e6-e5 advance. This should give White excellent chances of obtaining some advantage. 7 b3 Other moves are interesting but less clear: 1) 7.e4? ! [Perhaps the greatest justification for 6 ... Be7-this ad­ vance is now an error.] 7 ...dxe4 8 . Nxe4 e5 ! 9 . dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxf6ch. Bxf6 1 l .Be2 Nxf3ch. 12.Bxf3 Qa5ch. ! -+, Forintos­ Smagin, USSR 1983;

...

...

Semi-Slav Defense 14 Qxe4 Bf6 15 Rd2 c5 16 Qg4 Rfd8 17 Rad1 cxd4 18 Nxd4 Ne5 19 Qg3 White has a significant edge. The game S ilman-Biyiasas, S an Francisco 1 9 8 3 continued 19 ... Nc6 20.Qxc7 Rxc7 2 1 .Nb5 Rxd2 22.Rxd2 Rc8 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Rd7 and White held a great advantage that eventually led to victory. .c.

Bb4 6 ... 7 a3 More complicated but perhaps also good i s 7 . B d2 of Polugaevsky-Szabo, Marianske Lazne 1 959. That game contin­ ued 7 ... 0-0 8.0-0-0 c5 9.Kb 1 cxd4 1 0. Nxd4 Ne5 ? ! and now 1 1 .Nxd5 ! was advantageous for White. White doesn't seem to get much from 7.Bd3: 7 ... 0-0 [7 ... dxc4 8.Bxc4 0-0 9.Bd2 Qe7 10.Ne5 was equal in Gligoric-Evans, Buenos Aires 1960.] 8.0-0 Re8 9.Bd2 e5 1 0.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5 Rxe5 1 2.cxd5 cxd5 1 3.Ne2 Bd6

47

1 4 . Ng3 Ng4 ! ? 1 5 . h 3 Qh4 16.Bf5? Nxf2 17.Rxf2 Qxg3 1 8.Bxc8 Re7 19.Rc 1 Qh2ch. 20.Kf1 d4! , Zaichik-Sveshnikov, USSR 1 979, and now 2 1 .Rf3 ! Rc7 22.Qf5 g6 23.Qf6 Raxc8 24.Rxc7 Rxc7 25.exd4 Bf8 offers equal chances. BaS 7 ... Harding in his excellent but dated book on the Semi-Slav gives 7 ... Bd6(! ) but then White can play 8.e4 when he enters the position from Chapter Seven with the extra, and very useful, move a3 thrown in for free. Bc7 8 b4 0-0 9 Bb2 10 Rd1 Qe7 11 Be2 Nb6 Nbd7 12 c5 13 e4 and White' s advantage in space gives him a clear plus, O'Kelly­ Flores, Moscow 1956. 11. 6 ... dxc4?! What's this? ! Black takes the pawn for no apparent reason and forces White to move his unde­ veloped Bishop. Has he gone mad or is there intelligence be­ hind this capture.

48

6 Qc2

seems +=.) and so he feels the simple 9.0-0-0 should be pre­ ferred.] 9.Ne4! Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Qe7 1 1 .Bc3 Nf6 12.Qh4, +-, Flohr-Tolush, USSR ch. 1948. 8 Bd3 The natural square for the Bishop but 8.Be2 also has its advantages: 8 ... Bb7 9.0-0 [9.a3 ! ? a6 10.b4 a5 l l .Rb 1 axb4 1 2. axb4 Nd5 #4.4 13.Na2! +-, Taimanov.] 9 ... a6 With this move Black is saying 10.e4 c5 1 l .e5 cxd4?! [ l l ...Nd5 that the White Queen stands no is equal according to Taimanov.] better on c2 than it did on d l . 12.Nxb5 axb5 1 3 .exf6 Qb6 However the fact that White now [ 1 3 . . . Qxf6 1 4. B g5 ( 1 4.Qc7controls the e4 square, has Youngworth. 14... Qg6 15.Bd3 cleared the back rank, and has Qh5 1 6.Bxb5 ! Bxf3 17.Qc7 ! is some pressure down the 'c' file winning for White-Taimanov.] must count for something ! 14.Rd1 e5 15.a4 [ 1 5.fxg7 Bxg7 b5 1 6.Qf5 b4 17.Bd2 is clearly bet­ 7 Bxc4 This leaves White a useful tempo ter for White-Taimanov . ] up on Meran lines. The alterna­ 15 . . . Rxa4 16.Rxa4 bxa4 17.fxg7 tive is 7 ... Bd6 but White comes Bxg7 1 8.Qxa4 Bc6 19.Qa3 e4 out on top here too: 8.Bd2! ? [8.0- 20.Nh4 d3 , Taimanov-Nei, 0 ! ? e5 9.e4 exd4 10.e5 is an un­ USSR 198 1 , and now 21 .Bg4 is tes ted recommend ation of +=: 2 1 . .. Bd4 22.Be3 ! Bxe3 J.Watson' s.] 8 . . . 0-0 [Harding 23.fxe3 Qxe3ch. 24.Kh 1 fol­ gives 8 ... e5 9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4 lowed by 25.Nf5-Youngworth. Bb7 Qe7 l l .Bc3 as +-. Watson how­ 8 ever points out that Black can 8 ... a6 is well met by 9.e4 or 9.a4! . 9 e4 improve with 10 ... Nf6 1 l .Qh4 b4 ReS exd4! (though 1 2.Nxd4 still 10 Na4 ••.

Semi-Slav Defense Ng4 1 1 Be3! 12 Bg5 Qa5 c5 13 0-0 h6 14 Racl 15 Bh4 g5 16 Bg3 h5 16 ...c4 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 1 8.Qxc4 Qxa4 1 9.d5 ! +-, Zaichik. gxh4 17 h4! Bc6 18 Bxh4 Nxc5 19 Nxc5 Bd7 20 dxc5 Rxc6 21 c6 Bxc6 22 Qxc6 Be7 23 Rxc6 23 ... Bg7 24.Rfc 1 threatens both Rc8ch. and Ra6. Kd7 24 ReSch. 25 Rxh8 Bxh4 26 Rh7 Bxf2ch. 27 Rxf2 Nxf2 28 Kxf2 Qxa2 29 Ne5ch. Kd6 30 Nc4ch. and White won without diffi­ culty, Zaichik-Bronstein, Tbilisi 1980. Conclusion: If Black wants real­ istic prospects of equalizing after 6.Qc2, he must try 6... Bd6.

49

The Modern White System With 6...Bd6 7.Be2 l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 White has recently been doing well with this setup. The idea is to hold off on an e4 advance and instead simply improve the posi­ tion while Black plays ... e5 and . . . exd4. White will then recapture by exd4 and in the resultant iso­ lated 'd' pawn position he hopes to have attacking chances.This all sounds good on paper but can this can really be effective? dxc4 8 ... Other tries are: 1 ) 8 . . . Qe7 9.e4! [9.h3 Re8 10.Bd2 dxc4 1 1 .Bxc4 b5 1 2.Bb3 a5, l/2- l/2, Nogueiras-Pinter, Zagreb (izt) 1 987.] 9 . . . dxe4 1 0. Nxe4 Nxe4 1 1 . Qxe4 f5 1 2.Qc2 e5 1 3.c5 Bc7 14.Bg5 led to a clear advantage to White in Garcia Palermo-Novikov, Cama­ guey 1987; 2) 8 ... e5 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nb5 Bb8 l l .dxe5 Nxe5 1 2.Bd2 [In Dlugy­ Flear, Clichy 1986 White got a

6 Qc2

50

small edge with 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 1 3.Bd2 Bd7 14.Bc3 Rc8 15.Qb3 Bb8 1 6.Nd4 Qc7 17.Nf3 Bg4 1 8 .B e5 Qe7 1 9 .B xb8 Rxb8 20.Nd4 Rfc8 2 1 .Rac l .] 12 ... Bg4 [Or 12 ... a6 1 3.Nbd4 Re8 1 4.Bc3 Ne4 15.Rad1 Qd6 1 6.Nxe5 1/21/2, Miles-Adianto, S an Fran­ cisco 1 987.] 1 3 . Nbd4 Qe7 1 4.Bc3 Rc8 1 5.Qb3 Bd6 1 6.Rfc 1 Nc4 17.Nb5 Bc5 1 8.Bd4 Ne4 19.Bxc5, 1/2- 1/2, Miles-Noguei­ ras, Zagreb (izt) 1987. e5 9 Bxc4 9 ... b5 1 0.Be2 Bb7 1 1 .Rd1 led to an edge for White in Halifman­ lvanchuk, USSR 1987. 10 h3 Or 10.Bb3 Qe7 1 1 .Bd2! e4?! 1 2. Ng5 Bxh2ch. 1 3 . Kxh2 Ng4ch. 14.Kg 1 Qg5 15.Qxe4 Ndf6 1 6.Qf4 with an edge for White, Polugaevsky-Pinter, Za­ greb (izt) 1 987. Lacking in ambition is 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5 Bxe5 12.h3 Qe7 13.a4 Rd8 1 4.Rd1 Be6 1 5.Bxe6 Qxe6 and Black doesn' t have a care in the world, Sygulski-Vera, Cuba 1985. Nb6 10 exd4 11 Bb3 •..

12 exd4 A critical position and one that has given White excellent results. h6? 12 This turns out poorly. Also bad is 1 2 ... Be6? 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Re 1 with obvious advantage for White in Glek-Andrianov, USSR 1986. A sane defense was seen in the game Dlugy-Bisguier, Phila­ delphia 1987: 1 2 ... Nfd5 1 3.Bg5 f6 =. gxh6 13 Bxh6! Kh8 14 Qg6ch. Nh7 15 Qxh6ch. Be7 16 Ne4 1 6... f6? 17.Nxd6 Qxd6 1 8 .Bc2 Rf7 19.Ng5 ! Qe7 20.Rae 1 ! . Bf5 17 Nf6! 1 7 ... Bxf6 loses immediately to 1 8.Bc2 Bf6 18 Nh5 Bxd4 19 Ng5! 20 Nxh7 Bxh7 21 Rad1 f5 White also wins on 2 1 . . .c5 22.Rxd4 Qxd4 23.Rd1 Qe5 24.f4 Qxb2 25.Nf6. Qf6 22 Rfe1 ! 23 Nxf6 and White won in a few moves, Smagin-Monin, Minsk1986. -·

51

Semi-Slav Defense

CHAPTER 5

D45/SL8

7 Bd2 Taimanov's Variation ...

l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6 1J!!IZ

•

up with a clear verdict on this dangerous but seldom-played variation. The other main systems for White that arise out of 6.Qc2 are covered in Chapters Six and Seven. A new system, namely 7.Bd3 (or 7.Be2) 7 ...0-0 8.0-0 dxc4 9.Bxc4 e5 10.h3 is covered at the end of Chapter Four. 7 0-0 It's logical to secure the King before commencing operations in the center. Two premature at­ tempts to break free are: 1 ) 7 ... Qe7 8.0-0-0 e5?! [8 . . .0-0 transposes into A1 considered below] 9.e4 [Here 9.cxd5 makes little sense as the Bishop on d6 is guarded-i.e. 9 . . . cxd5 1 0. Nb5 e4! .] 9 ... dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 1 1 .Qxe4 Nf6 [Here 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.Bg5 ! transposes directly into Taimanov-Gromek, Moscow Ill

1t5...l This move, which plans castling Queenside followed by e4 and/or a Kingside attack, was first seen in Taimanov-Botvinnik, USSR 1953. Castling Queenside is al­ most always risky in Queen's Gambit formations, but in this particular sequence it' s less so due to the inactiveness of ... c6 and ... e6. Theory has never come

52

7 Bd2 ..

(ol) 1956.] 1 2.Qh4 exd4 1 3.Bd3 Be6 14.Nxd4 0-0-0. So far R.Weinstein-Sherwin, St. Louis 1960, where instead of 15.Rhe 1 which allowed 15 ... Ng4! White should have played 15.Nxe6 Qxe6 1 6.Rhe 1 with a clear ad­ vantage; 2) 7 ... e5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 [8 ...cxd5 9.Nb5 Bb8 10.Bb4 (or 10.Rc 1 0-0 1 1 .Bb4 Re8 1 2.Nd6 +=) 1 0... e4 1 1 .Nd2.] 9.Nxd5 ! ? [9.e4] 9 ... cxd5 1 0.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5 Bxe5 12.Bb5ch. Bd7 13.Qf5 ! Bxb2 14.Rb1 Bxb5 15.Rxb2 with a clear advantage to WhiteJ.Watson. 8 0-0-0 The natural followup to 7 .Bd2. A tricky but harmless move is 8.h3. The idea is to be able to answer 8 . . . e5 with 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nb5 B b 8 1 1 . Rc 1 Re8 [ 1 l . . . e4 12.Bb4!.] 12.Nc7 +-, Partos-Ro­ tariu, Romania (ch.) 1972. Black can easily equalize with either 8 ... c5 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.Be2 b6, Cvetkovic-Lukac s , Belgrade 1984 or 8 ... a6 9.0-0-0 b5 1 0.c5 Bc7 1 1 .g4 b4 12.Na4 a5 1 3.Be1 Ne4 1 4 . N g 1 e 5 , Dj uric­ Petursson, Ljubljana 198 1 .

After 8 0-0-0

Black must choose between: � 8...0e7: B. 8 Ne4: C. 8 e5: D. 8...c5: E. 8 b5. ...

...

...

Aa. 8 Qe7 Two other inferior tries for Black are: 1) 8 . . .b6 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 1 1 . Qxe4 Bb7 1 2.Bd3 Nf6 13.Qe2 Qc7 14.Bc3 Be7 1 5.Rhe1 Rfe8 1 6.Ne5 Bf8 17 .g4 +-, Gheorghiu­ R.Anderson, USA 1980; 2) 8 . . .dxc4 9.e4! [9.Bxc4 c5 1 0.Nb5 Be7 1 1 .dxc5 a6 1 2.Nc3? Qc7 13.Kb1 Nxc5 -+, Djantar­ Trifunovic , Yugoslavia ch. 1 9 6 1 .] 9 . . . e5 1 0. B xc4 b5 [ 10 ... Qc7 1 1 .Kb 1 exd4 1 2.Nxd4 +-, Benko-Shipman, New York ...

Semi-Slav Defense 1960.] 1 1 .Bb3 [ 1 l .Be2? Qe7 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 1 3 . Nd4? b4 14.Na4 Neg4! -+, Matulovic­ Vospernik, Yugoslavia c h . 196 1 .] 1 1 ...Qe7 1 2.Rhel a5 1 3.a4 b4 14.Ne2 c5 1 5.Ng3 += accord­ ing to J.Watson. 9 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 10 Nxe4 e5 11 (lxe4 Alternatives fare no better: 1 ) 1 1 ...f5 1 2.Qe3 e5 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 1 4.c5 Bc7 15.Bc4ch. Kh8 1 6.Rhe l f4 1 7.Qd4 +-, Berliner­ S.Jones, Albuequerque 1960; 2) 1 1 .. .Nf6 1 2.Qh4 Ne8 1 3.Bg5 f6 14.Bd3 ! +-, Vaitonis-Angos, Munich (ol) 1958. f6 12 Bg5! Or 1 2 . . . Qe6 1 3 .dxe5 B xe5 [ 1 3 . . . Nxe5 1 4 . R xd6 Qxd6 15.Nxe5 f6 1 6.Bd3 ! .] 14.Bd3 f5 1 5.Qh4 when White has a dan­ gerous attack. g6 13 Bd3 ReS 14 Bh6 Bc7 15 c5 16 Bc4ch. Kh8 17 Rhel +Taimanov-Gromek, Moscow (ol) 1956. Ng4 8 ... B..

53

1tiJ. With this move Black plans to "stonewallize" the position with ... f5. However, the plan not only loses time but also weakens the Black Kingside. With a timely g4 break White will be able to crash through. 9 Bel f5 Nh6 10 h3 This artificial looking move is necessary to delay g4. On 10 ... Nf6 White has 1 1 .g4! imme­ diately. 11 Be2 Also good as John Watson points out is 1 1 .Bd3 meeting 1 1 . . . Nf6 with 1 2. Ne5 preparing g4 and f4. For example 1 1 .Bd3 Nf6 1 2.Ne5 Qc7 1 3.f4 Ne4 14.g4 +-. 11 ... Nf6

7. . Bd2

54

.

Nf7 12 Ne5 13 f4 Ne4 14 Nxe4 dxe4 15 g4 Bd7 Bxe5 16 c5 17 dxe5 Qe7 18 Rg1 White is clearly better, Taima­ nov-Karaklaic, USSR 1957. 8 .. e5 .C... .

#5.4 With this move Black accepts an isolated queen pawn in exchange for easy development. White has to play very carefully to obtain anything. cxd5 9 cxd5 White stands clearly better after 9 . . . exd4 with 10.dxc6 dxc3 1 1 .Bxc3 Nb6 1 2.Ng5 g6 1 3.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 4.Ne4 Qe7 15.Nxd6, Bilek-Neikirch, Leipzig 1 960. Interesting is 9 ... Nxd5 !?. After 1 0.Nxd5 cxd5 1 l .dxe5 Nxe5

1 2.Bc3 Black must try 1 2 . . . Qe7 [ 1 2 ...Nxf3 1 3.gxf3 Be6 1 4.Rg1 f6 15.Bd3 +-, Bischoff-Wester­ inen, Reykjavik 1982.] sacrific­ ing material to get some open lines to the White King. In Radev-Lukov, Bulgaria 1983 a very unclear position was reached after 1 3 . Rxd5 f6 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 1 5. Qe4 Be6 1 6.Bd3 Rfc8 17.Qxh7ch. Kf8 1 8.Rxe5 fxe5. Bb8 10 NbS 11 dxe5 Not 1 1 .Bb4 here because of . . . Re8 1 2.Nd6 Bxd6 13.Bxd6 e4 1 4.Ne5 Nxe5 1 5 . dxe5 B g4 threatening . . . Rc8. Petrosian­ Korchnoi, USSR ch. 1955, went instead 14.Bc7 Qe7 15.Ne5 Nxe5 1 6.dxe5 Ng4 17.Bd6 Qe6 with advantage to Black. 11 ... Nxe5 12 Bc3 Qe7 13 Bd4 An interesting try for White is 13.Qa4! ? though this does not lead to anything after 13 ... Bd7. The game Dahlberg-Hillery, Los Angeles 198 1 continued 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Bxe5 Qxe5 1 6.Qd4 Rfc8ch. 17.Kb1 Qxd4

Semi-Slav Defense 1 8.Rxd4 and now instead of the mistaken 1 8 ... Ne4? 19.f3 ! Nf2 20.Rg1 Bf5ch. 2 1 .e4! of the game, simply 1 8 ...Ng4! gives Black the advantage. The text move [ 1 3.Bd4] clears c3 for the Knight while threatening Bc5. If 1 3.Kb1 then Black has 13 ... a6 14.Nbd4 Ne4 with equality. Rd8 13 On 13 ... b6 White keeps a com­ fortable edge with 14.Nc3 Bb7 1 5.Kb l . If 1 5.Qf5 Black has 1 5 ... Neg4 1 6.Bd3 Nxf2 17.Bxf6 Nxd3ch. 1 8.Rxd3 Qxf6 19.Qxf6 gxf6 20.Nxd5 Be5 with only a very small disadvantage in the ending, Tal-Trifunovic, Munich (ol) 1 958. g6! ? 14 Nc3 Taimanov gives 1 4 . . . Nxf3 15.gxf3 Be5 as equal but Watson points out that after 16.Kb 1 in­ tending to pressure the d-pawn, White is still better. 15 NxeS BxeS 16 BxeS QxeS Be6 17 Rd4 18 Bd3 a6 19 Qd2 bS Black stands quite comfortably.

55

Akesson-Dlugy, Gausdal 1 982. 11 cS

•••

� This is Black's most natural move. 9 cxdS Other moves are also worth look­ ing at: 1) 9.e4!? cxd4 10.Nxd4 dxc4 [White is a bit better after 1 0 . . . Nxe4 1 1 .Nxe4 dxe4 12.Qxe4 Qe7 13.Bd3, Bergraser­ Borsony, 2nd World Corres. ch. 1956-59. Perhaps Black's best line is10 ... Be5 1 1 .Bg5 h6 1 2.Bh4 and now instead of 12 ... Bxd4 1 3.Rxd4 Qb6 14.Rd1 d4 15.Na4 Qa5 1 6.Rxd4 Qe lch. 17.Rdl Qxe4 1 8.Qxe4 Nxe4 19.Bd3 +=, as in Tal-Gipslis, Riga 1953, Black has a big improvement in

56

7. Bd2 .

1 2 ... Qb6! with a good position, game. Akesson-Andrianov, Groningen 9 exd5 198 1 .] 1 l .Bxc4 a6 [Euwe sug10 Bel gested 1 1 ...Nb6 12.Be2 Bd7 with the as sessment ' unclear ' .] 12.Be3 Qe7 1 3.Be2 Ne5 14.h3 Ng6 1 5.Kb1 Bf4 1 6.Qd2 e5 1 7 .Nf5 +-, Taimanov-Fichtl, European Teams ch. 1957; 2) 9.Kb1 [Smyslov' s move.] 9 ... cxd4 [9 ... Re8? ! 10.e4! cxd4 1 l .Nxd4 dxc4 1 2.Bxc4 Nb6 13.Bb3 favors White. In the game S ahovic-Pavlovic, Nis 1 985, Black played the logical 9 ... a6 Taimanov' s recommendation and got an excellent position after which has since become the main 10.cxd5 exd5 1 l .Ng5 h6 1 2.h4 line. Other moves don' t put many Re8 1 3 .Nh3 b5 1 4.f3 cxd4 difficulties in Black' s way: 1 5. exd4 Nb6 1 6. Bf4 Bxh3 1) 10.h3 a6 [10... c4 1 1 .g4 Re8 17.Bxd6 Qxd6 1 8.Rxh3 Rac8.] 12.Bg2 Rb8 1 3.Nh4 Bb4=, 1 0 . Nxd4 ! ? [ 1 0 . exd4 dxc4 Holmov-Serfc, Dresden 1 956] 1 l .Bxc4 a6 1 2.Bd3 b5 1 3.Ne4 1 l .g4 Re8 1 2.Bg2 b5 1 3.Ne5 Be7 1 4.Ne5 led to a complicated cxd4 14.Nc6 Qb6 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 game in Smyslov-Whiteley, 1 6.Bxd5 Bb7 1 7 .Ba5 Bxc6 Hastings 1 976n7.] 10 ... dxc4 1 8.Bxc6 Qxa5 19.Bxa8 Nb6 1 l .Bxc4 a6 12.g4!? unclear­ 20.Bc6 Rc8 2 l . Rxd4, +-, Saidy­ Watson. However 1 2 . . . Ne5 ! Weldon, New York 1987; looks like a good reply here so we 2) 10.Kb1 [The main alternative would like to recommend to lO.Be l .] 1 0...c4! ? [Black does 1 2.Be2 ! ? when 1 2 ... b5 runs into not have a lack of good moves. In 1 3.Bf3 and against quieter moves Taimanov-Botvinnik, M atch White has 1 3.g4 with a sharp 1 953, Black equalized with ...

Semi-Slav Defense 10 ... a6 1 1 .Bc 1 c4 13.g4 Nb6 1 3.h3 Re8 14.Bg2 Bb4, while in Karner-Vaganian, Tallinn 1968, Black got strong counterplay with 1 0 . . . Re8 1 1 .Nb5 B f8 1 2 . dxc5 Nxc5 1 3 . B b4 b6 1 4. Nbd4 B d7 1 5 . B b5 Rc8 1 6 . Qe2 Nfe4 . ] 1 1 . Ng5 ! ? [ l l .Bc l ! ? a6 1 2.g4 Nb6 1 3.h3 Re8 14.Bg2 Bb4! 15.Ne5 Bxc3 1 6. Qx c 3 Ne4= .] 1 1 . . .h6 [ 1 1 . . . Re8 ? 1 2 .Nxd5 ! Nxd5 13.Qxh7ch. Kf8 14.Qh8ch. Ke7 15.Qxg7 is strong for White.] 12.h4 g6 [On 12 . . . Re8 White would play 1 3.f3 followed by 14.e4.] 1 3.f3 !

#5.7 [If White retreats his Knight he loses the initiative: 1 3.Nh3 b5 ! 14.Nxb5 Nb6 followed by ... Bf5 with a strong attack.] 1 3 ... hxg5

57

14.hxg5 Nh7 ! [ 14... Nh5 15.Nxd5 Ng3 1 6.Rh3 Nxf1 17.Rxfl gives White a good attack against the Black King.] 15.Nxd5 b5 ! 1 6.e4, Averkin-A ndrianov, U S S R 1983, and now Black can gain the advantage with 1 6... Bb7 ! 17.Nf4 Bxf4! 1 8.Bxf4 Nxg5 19.d5 Re8. 10 c4 Not so good is 10... cxd4 1 1 .Nxd4 Nc5 1 2.Kb 1 Be6 1 3 . f3 a6 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.e4 b5 1 6.exd5 b4 17.Ne4 Ncxe4 1 8.fxe4 exd5 19.Bg3 ! Bxg3 20.hxg3 +-, An­ toshin-Bikhovsky , Moscow 1958. A major alternative to 1 0 ... c4 though, is 10 ... Nb6!?: 1 l .dxc5 Bxc5 1 2.e4?! Nxe4? ! [ 1 2... Be6! followed by ... Rc8 gives Black an edge.] 1 3.Nxe4 Bf5 14.Qxc5 Rc8 15.Qxc8 Qxc8ch. 1 6.Nc3 Qc5 17.Nd4 +=, Foigel-Andrianov, USSR 1979. 11 g4 Nb6! Black must avoid 1 1 ...Nxg4 12.Nxd5 b5 13.Qe4 +-, Zhdanov­ Kriukov, 4th USSR Corres ch. Also bad is 1 1 ...Re8? 1 2.g5 Ne4 1 3.Nxd5 b5 14.Ne5 ! +-. In the game Benko-Bisguier, US ch. 1960/6 1 , Black chose another ...

58

7 Bd2 ...

1S Rg1 good plan: 1 1 ...Bb4 1 2.Ne5 Re8 Nh7 13.Bg2 Nb6 14.f3? Nfd7 15.Bg3 19 Rh1 and after 1 5 ... Nf8 the e5 Knight If White captures on d5 Pinter had nowhere to run to. White gives the following variation: gave up a pawn by 1 6.g5 but after 19.Bxd5 Nxd5 20.Nxd5 Bxe 1 1 6 ... Qxg5 17.f4 Qd8 1 8.e4 Bxc3 2 1 . Rgxe 1 Bc6 22.Nf4 Bf3 19.Qxc3 f6 Black eventually 23.Rd2 Be4 24.Qd1 Ng5 ! with crashed through to victory. In­ compensation for the sacrificed stead of 14.f3? White should try pawn. Nf6 1 4.Bf3 ! Nfd7 15.Nxd7 Bxd7 19 ... Bxc3 1 6.h4 with an interesting battle 20 Rg1 ahead. 21 Nxc3 Ne4?! 12 h3 Better is 2 1 .. .Bc6 22.h4 Ne4 White has no choice. 1 2.g5? 23.Bxe4 dxe4 24.g5 += accord­ leads to a Black superiority after ing to Pinter. 1 2 ... Nh5 1 3.Rg1 g6 14.Ne5 Bf5, dxe4 22 Bxe4 Gerink-Serfc, Bratislava 1957. 23 d5! +­ ReS Bischoff-J.Pinter, Plovdiv 1983. 12 ... 13 Bg2 Bd7 E.. s ... b5! ? 14 Nd2 1 4.Ne5 Bxe5 1 5.dxe5 Rxe5 16.f4 ! ? Rxe3 17.Bf2 Rd3 ! is unclear-J.Pinter. Bb4! 14 ... 15 Ndb1 h6 Pinter gives 15 ... Bc6! 1 6.g5 Bxc3 17.Nxc3 Ne4! =+. How­ ever after 1 8.Bxe4 dxe4 19.d5 ! White seems to have excellent chances. BaS 16 a3 � ReS 17 Bf3 Black gambits a pawn so he can

Semi-Slav Defense open lines on the Queenside and thus take over the initiative. No definite verdict has been given on this plan however. cS! 9 cxbS Bb7 10 e4! 1 0 . . . dxe4 1 1 . Nxe4 Nxe4 1 2 . Qxe4 Rb8 1 3 .Bd3 Nf6 14.Qh4 should favor White. In the game Sahovic-Kosanovic, Yugoslavia 1986, Black played the new but bad idea 10 ... cxd4?. After 1 1 .Nxd4 Bb7 1 2.exd5 Nxd5 1 3.Nc6 Bxc6 14.bxc6 Nb4 15.Qe4 Nc5 1 6.Qc4 Qb6 17.Nb5 Nxc6 1 8.Nxd6 Ne5 19.Qc3 Ne4 20.Qxe5 Nxf2 2 1 .Bc3 Black gave up. 11 exdS If 1 1 .e5 Black gets good play with 1 l ...cxd4: 12.exd6 dxc3 1 3.Bxc3 Ne4-Euwe. NxdS! 11 Experience has shown that 1 l ...exd5 favors White: 1 2.Qf5 ! [In the game Trapl-Fichtl, Czechoslovakian ch. 1 95 3 , White got the better game after 1 2.dxc5 Nxc5 1 3.Nd4 Nce4 14.Be 1 ! Rc8?! 1 5 .f3 ! Nxc3 16.Bxc3 Qb6 1 7.Qb3 +-. How­ ever Black can improve with ...

59

14 ... Nxc3 ! 15.Bxc3 Ne4! with good play-Euwe. In the later game Beni-Plater, Leipzig (ol) 1 960 White tried a nother scheme: 1 2.Kb1 c4 1 3.Nh4 Re8 14.Nf5 Bf8 15.Be2 but after 1 5 ... a6! 1 6.b6! Qxb6 Black had a good game.] 1 2 ... Re8 1 3.Bd3 cxd4 1 4.Nxd4 Ne5 15.Bb1 g6 1 6.Qg5 Neg4 17.Qh4 Re5 1 8 .Bf4 +-, Vladimirov-Fuchs, Lenin­ grad 1967. Since the discovery of 1 2 . Qf5 ! nobody has tried 1 l . . .exd5. 12 Ne4 It is not at all clear what White's best move is. Here are a couple of untested possibilities: 1 ) 1 2 . Nxd5 B x d5 1 3 . B c 4 [ 1 3.Bc3 c4 i s unclear.] 1 3 ... Bxf3 ! 14.gxf3 cxd4, Black stands well­ Kupreichik; 2) 12.Ng5 ! ? g6 13.Nge4 Be7 [ 1 3 . . . cxd4 1 4 . Nxd6 dxc3 1 5 . bxc3 ! -Watson .] 1 4.dxc5 Nxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxc5 1 6.Bh6 Re8 and Black is okay according to DeFirmian and Donaldson. Black could also answer 1 2.Ng5 with 12 ... N7f6!? 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Bc3 g6 and now Watson notes that 1 6.Kb 1 or

60

7 .Bd2 . .

1 6.h4 are good, since 1 6 ... h6 is met by 1 7.Nxe6! . Be7 1 2 ... Nxc5 13 dxc5 Bxc5 14 Nxc5 15 Ng5 1 5.Kb1 Bxf2 1 6.Bb4? Nxb4! 17 .Rxd8 Rfxd8 is winning for Black-Kupreichik. g6 15 ... Bd4! 16 Ne4 ReS 17 Kb1 Nf6! 18 Qd3 Nxe4 19 f3

Qf6 20 fxe4 Rfd8 21 Bel Qe5 22 Qf3 23 Bd3 Rxclch. 24 Rxc1 Bxb2 Ba3 25 Rc2 26 Rfl f5 Rd4 27 Qe2 0- 1 , Marovic-Kupreichik, Med­ ina del Campo 1980. Conclusion: Black appears to get good play by both 8 ... c5 and 8 ... b5.

Semi-Slav Defense

CHAPTER 6

61

D45/SL8

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3 l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6 7.b3

tual ...c5 advance by . . . b6, ... Bb7, etc. 0-0 7 Black will usually play this with­ out any thought at all. On a few rare occasions Black has tried to start an immediate central attack without castling: 7 ... Qe7 8.Bd3 [8.Be2 is usual.] 8 ... e5?! [8 ... 0-0] 9.cxd5 cxd5 1 0.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 . Nxe5 B xe5 1 2 . B b 2 d4 1 3 . Nb5 ! dxe3 [ 1 3 . . . Qb4ch . 1 4.Kfl ! leaves Black in a bad way since both 1 5.exd4 and 15.Ba3 are threatened.] 14.Ba3 ! exf2ch. 15.Kf1 Nd5 [ 15 ... Qe6 runs into 1 6.Qe2! while 1 5 ... Ng4 1 6. Qe2 Qg5 i s killed by 1 7 .Nd6ch. Kd7 1 8.Bf5ch. Kc7 19.Rc l ! -Forintos.] 1 6.Qxf2 Qf6 1 7 .Re1 Be6 1 8 . Qxf6 gxf6 1 9.Nd6ch. Bxd6 20.Bxd6 0-0-0 2 1 .Rc 1 ch. Kd7 22.Bc5 ! a6 23.Kf2 Rc8 24.Rhd1 b6 25.Ba3 Rxc 1 26.Bxc 1 Kc6 27.Bb2 Kd6 28.Be4, +-, Forintos-O.Zak, Benidorm 1985. '"

#6. 1 With this move White prepares a long term build up for e4 [Bb2, Be2 (not Bd3 because of . .. e6-e5e4.), 0-0, Rad1 and then e4.]. To counter this plan Black has several options. The first is to play an early ... e5 and accept an isolated Queen pawn. The second is to give White hanging pawns by ... dxc4, ... e5, and . . .exd4. The third is ...dxc4 followed by establishing a wedge with . . .e5 and ... e4.The fourth is to calmly play for a solid position and an even-

62

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

8 Be2 As stated in the introduction to this chapter, d3 is a risky square for the Bishop because Black will later play ... e5 and threaten a fork on e4. The alternative to Be2 is 8.Bb2. Though this will usually trans­ pose back to 8.Be2 lines there are independent ideas: 8 ... Re8 [ Or 8 ... dxc4 9.Bxc4! ? e5 1 0.0-0-0!? Qe7 1 1 .Nb 1 aS with a sharp, unclear game , Bron stein­ Dvoretsky, Tiflis 1980.] 9.Bd3 e5 ! 1 0.cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .Nb5 ? ! [Bagirov gives 1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 1 2.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.0-0-0 with an unclear position.] 1 1 ...Bb4ch. 1 2.Nd2 e4 1 3.Be2 Re6! =+, Dydysko-Bagirov, USSR 1985. Perhaps the biggest argument against 8.Bb2 is that White' s King will be staying in the center longer than it might like. To take advantage of this fact Black should open the center, and the quickest way to do this is the immediate 8 ... e5 ! 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nb5 [ 1 1 .Be2 is better. ] 1 1 . . . B b4ch. 1 2.Bc3 Bxc3ch. 1 3.Qxc3 Ne4 14.Qc7 Nxf3ch. 15.gxf3 Qf6 1 6.Nd4

Ng5 17 .Be2 Ne6 and Black has the better chances, Nei-Antoshin, Zinnowitz 1966. After 8 Be2 ,_...,.,....,.,.,..---.,.,...�

#6.2 Black has the following choices of set-up: A. 8...b6!?: B. 8...a6!?: C. 8...e5: D. 8...dxc4. Aside from these moves Black can also play 8 ...Qe7 and 8 ... Re8, both of which will usually trans­ pose into positions from Line D. We will give one example where 8 . .. Re8 takes on independent sig­ nificance: 8 ... Re8 9.0-0 e5?! 10.cxd5 Nxd5 1 1 .Ne4! [ 1 1 .Nxd5 cxd5 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Bb2 also looks comfortable for White... +=.] 1 1 ...Bc7 1 2.Neg5 f5 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Bb2 Ng4 15.g3 Qe7 16.Bc4 Bb6? 17.Rae 1 h6 1 8 . e4 ! hxg5 1 9 .exd5 Qf8

Semi-Slav Defense 20.dxc6ch. Kh8 2 1 .Ba3 Bxf2ch. 22.Qxf2 Nxf2 23.Bxf8 Nh3ch. 24.Kg2 Rxf8 25.Ne5, 1 -0, Por­ tisch-Miolo, Indonesia 1983. 8 ... b6!? A, This move, a favorite of the Pol­ ish I.M. Kostro, is not seen very often but leads to a safe and solid position. It seems an excellent choice for those who don't wish to discuss the theoretical subtle­ ties of B lack's more common choices. Bb7 9 0-0 10 Bb2 10.e4 with a spatial advantage­ Archives 1950. c5 10 ... 11 cxd5 1 l .Rc 1 Rc8 1 2.Nb5 Bb8 13.dxc5 dxc4 14.cxb6 cxb3 1 5.Qxb3 Qxb6 was equal in Adamski­ Kostro, Poland 1970. 11 ... exd5 12 Rad1 1 2.Nb5?! Bb8 1 3.Ne5 a6 14.Na3 cxd4! 1 5.exd4 Bd6 1 6.Qd3 Re8 17 .Nxd7 Qxd7 was slightly in Black's favor, Pytel-Kostro, Po­ land 1972. Qe7 12 ... Also good is 1 2 ... Rc8 1 3.Qf5

63

Qe7 14.Rc 1 a6 with a comfort­ able posi tion for B l ack, Langeweg-Torre, Wijk aan Zee 198 1 . Rfd8 13 Bb5?! 14 Qe2 a6! Qxd7 15 Bxd7 Qb5! 16 Na4 17 Rfe1 c4 Qc6 18 Nc3 Qxc4! 19 bxc4 =+, Schauwecker-Kostro, Swit­ zerland-Poland 1974; 8 ... a6 llr.

•

#6.3 Another rare system that keeps many options open. Black can play for a Queenside advance by ... b5, or he can strike in the center with ... c5 or . . . e5. What makes 8 ... a6 desirable is that there is little experience with it and the

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

64

positions that arise tend to be quite sharp. 9 B b2 In the game L.Portisch-Kaspa­ rov, Dubai (ol) 1 986, White played 9.0-0 and Black decided to go with the tried and true ... e5 advance: 9 ...e5 10.cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 1 2.Bb2 Be6 [ 1 2 . . . Bg4 ! ?-Kasparov.] 1 3.Rac l Rc8 1 4.Qbl Nfg4! 15.Nxe5 [ 1 5 .g3 ? Qf6! 16.Nxe5 Bxe5 1 7 . Na4 Rxc l 1 8 . Qxc l Rc8 19.Qd2 b5 -+, analysis by Kaspa­ rov.] 15 ... Bxe5 1 6.Bxg4 Bxg4 17.Na4 Bb8 ! 1 8 . Rxc8 Bxc8 19.Bd4 and White has a small advantage. dxc4! ? 9 .. In the game Lombardy-Remlin­ ger, New York 1987, Black tried 9 . . . Qe7 lO.Rdl b5 but ended up with a terrible game after 1 1 .0-0 b4 1 2.Na4 Bb7 1 3.c5 Bc7 14.Bd3 g6 15.Rfe l Rad8 1 6.Bc1 Nb8 1 7 .e4 dxe4 1 8 .B xe4 Nxe4 1 9 .Qxe4 Rd5 20.Nb2 Nd7 2 1 . B f4 Nf6 22. Qe3 B x f4 23. Qxf4. 10 bxc4 c5 cxd4 11 0-0 b6 12 exd4 .

13 a4 1 3.Ne4 Nxe4 1 4.Qxe4 followed by 15.Bd3 may be a better plan. Bb7 13 ... Bxa3 14 Ba3 ReS 15 Rxa3 16 Nd2 Qe7 Qd6 17 Qb2 aS! 18 Nd1 Black has a comfortable position. The game Ree-Kupreichik, Hastings 1 9 8 1/82 continued 19.c5 Qc6 20.Ne3 [20.Bd3 Nd5.] 20. . .bxc5 2 1 .Bf3 Nd5 22.dxc5 Qa6! 23.Bxd5 Bxd5 24.Nxd5 exd5 25.Rg3 g6 26.Qd4 Nxc5 27.Qxd5 Rfd8 28.Qg5 Ne6! 29.Qe3 Nd4 30.Rh3 Ne2ch. 3 1 .Kh1 Rxd2 32. Qxd2 Nf4 33.Rc 1 Nxh3 34.gxh3 Rxc lch. 35.Qxc 1 Qd3 ! 36.Qc8ch. Kg7 37 .Kg2 Qe4ch. 38 .Kg3 h5 ! 39.Qc3ch. Kg8 40.f4 h4ch. , 0- 1 . .C... 8 ... e5 #6.4

Semi-Slav Defense Black allows White to saddle him with an isolated Queen pawn but he expects his active pieces to give him good counterchances. Nxd5 9 cxdS The alternative 9 ... cxd5 is more comfortable for White but proba­ bly tenable: 1 0.Nb5 Bb4ch. 1 1 .Bd2 Bxd2ch. 1 2.Nxd2 e4 [or 1 2 ... a6 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nd4 Qd6 1 5 .0-0 Bg4 1 6.Bxg4 Nexg4 1 7.N4f3 Rac8 1 8 . Qd3 Ne5 1 9 .Nxe5 Qxe5 20.Nf3 Qe4 2 1 .Qd4 Rc2 22.Qb6 Qe7 23.Nd4 +=, Groszpeter-Braga, Berlin 1984.] 1 3.Rc 1 += a6 14.Nd6 Nb6 1 5.Qc7? ! [ 1 5.Qc5 +=] 1 5 ... Qxc7 1 6.Rxc7 Rb8 17.f3 exf3 1 8.gxf3, Knezevic-Velikov, Athens 198 1 , and now 1 8 . . . Rd8 ! 1 9.Nxc8 [ 1 9.Nxt7? Ne8 20.Nxd8 Nxc7 wins for Black.] 19 . . . Rdxc8 20.Rxc8 Rxc8 21 .Kd1 equalizes for Black-Knezevic. 10 Nxd5 White gains no advantage from 1 0.Bb2 Bb4 [ 10 ...Nxc3 1 1 .Bxc3 Qe7 1 2.Bd3 prevents ...e4 and thus is +=, analysis by Archives 195 1 .] 1 1 .0-0 Bxc3 1 2.Bxc3 Nxc3 1 3.Qxc3 exd4 14.Nxd4 Qf6 15.b4 Rd8 1 6.Rfd1 h6 17.a4

65

a6 1 8.Qc2 Nb6 19.Bf3 Be6 20.Rab1 Bd5, Reshevsky-Euwe, New York 195 1 . 10 ... cxdS 11 dxe5 Nxe5

#6.5 A critical position for the theory of 8 ... e5. If White can complete his development and get his King to safety he will stand better due to the weakness of Black's iso­ lated Queen pawn. However at the moment Black's pieces are extremely active and some insidi­ ous traps exist in the position. For example at one time many years ago White used to play 1 2.0-0? and after 12 ... Nxf3ch! 1 3.Bxf3 Qh4 14.g3 [The game L.Portisch­ Ribli, Montpellier 1985 saw White suffer a terrible fate after 1 4.h3? Bxh3 ! 15.Rd 1 Bh2ch.

66

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

lona 1973. 12 Bb2! This move has been given a cer­ tain degree of attention during the early and mid 80's. The only other move that seems to be worth considering is 12.Nd4!?. Tim Harding then recommends 1 2 . . . Bd7 1 3 .0-0 Qh4 ! but J.Watson notes that 1 3.Bd2 Rc8 14.Qb2 is not so clear. In the game Tomashovsky-Hawelko, Polish ch. 1985, Black did not bother with 1 2... Bd7 and instead attacked White right away with 12 ... Qg5 and after 13.g3 Qf6 White' s Kingside was full of holes. White then tried to push Black back with 1 4.f4 but after 14... Nc6 15.Bb2 Qe7 1 6.Kf2 Re8 17.Qd3 Bc5 1 8.Bf3 Bh3 19.Rhe 1 Rac8 20.Re2 Bb6 2 l .a3 Qd7 he was under pressure. Bb4ch. #6.6 12 ... 13 Kfl and all of a sudden White is lost! 1 6.e4 [ 16.Qd2 Be5 was Minev­ Imprecise is 1 3.Bc3 because of Fichtl, Munich 1958.] 1 6 . . . Bh3 1 3 ... Nxf3ch. 14.Bxf3 Qc7 ! [Not 17.Rd 1 [To meet 17 ... Qf3?? with so clear is 1 4... Bf5 ! ? 15.Qd2 1 8.e5.] 17 . . . Be5 ! , 0- 1 since the Bxc3 1 6.Qxc3 Rc8] 17.Qd4 Be4 dual threats of 1 8 ... Bxa1 and 1 8.Bxe4 dxe4 19.Qxe4 Qa5ch. 1 8 ... Qf3 win a whole Rook for with compensation for the sacri­ Black, Lengyel-Hamann, Barce- ficed pawn-Foisor. Slightly infe-

1 6.Kf1 Qf6 17.Bxd5 Bf5 1 8.e4 Bg4 19.Ba3 Qa6ch., 0- 1 . A shocking result from such an opening expert as Portisch.] 14. . . Qf6 1 5.Bxd5? [Better is 1 5.Bg2 Bf5 1 6.e4 Rac8 17.Qb1 Bxe4 =+.] and now White would expect 1 5 ... Qxa1 ? 1 6.Bb2 Qxa2 17.Ra1 or 17.Qc3 with great advantage. However Black play­ ers soon discovered a 'slight' improvement: 1 5 ... Bf5!

Semi-Slav Defense rior is 14 ... Qf6 1 5.Rc 1 Bf5 16.Qd2 Bxc3 1 7.Rxc3 Rac8 1 8 .Rxc8 Rxc8 1 9 .0-0 B e4 20.Bxe4 dxe4 2 1 .h3 Qe7 22.Rd1 when White has a small edge, Foisor-Kajdanov, Thilisi 1986.] 1 5 . Rc 1 Ba3 1 6.Bb2 Qa5ch. [ 1 6 . . . Bb4ch. 17.Ke2! followed by Rhd1 +=.] 17.Bc3 Qc7 -. Analysis by Foisor. An even simpler antidote to 13.Bc3 is Huebner's suggestion of 1 3 ... Bf5 when 14.Qd2 Nxf3ch. 1 5.Bxf3 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Be4 pro­ duces dead equality. Nxf3 13 ... Bad is 1 3 ... Nc6? 14.h4! Be7 [ 1 4. . .h6 15.Ng5 g6 1 6.Rd l ! +-.] 1 5.Ng5 g6 1 6.Rd1 Bf6 17.Ne4! with a clear advantage for White, Portisch-Lukacs, Hungary 1986. 13 ... Ng4!? is interesting but un­ tested. After 14.h3 Nf6 15.Ng5 White forces ... g6 but Black has ... Bf5 and ... Rc8 coming up to compensate for his structural weaknesses. Be6 14 Bxf3 15 Qd3 In the game Silman-Minev, Port­ land 1 984, White played 15.h4 Be7 1 6.g3 but after 16 ... Rc8

67

Black's play on the 'c' file just held the balance: 17.Qd2 Rc6 1 8 .Kg2 Qd7 1 9 .Rac 1 Rfc8 20.Rhd1 Rxc 1 2 1 .Rxc 1 Rxc 1 22.Qxc 1 f6 23.Bd4 a6 24.Qd2 Bg4 25.Bxg4, 1/2- 1/2. On 15.g3 Black should also be okay. In Huebner-Westerinen, Solingen 1986 White stood better after 15 ... Bh3ch. 1 6.Ke2 Qg5 17.Qd3 Rfd8 1 8.Rhd1 B g4? 19.Rac l . However, Huebner points out Black could have im­ proved with 1 8 ... Rac8 when 19.Rac 1 Bc5 20.Bd4 b6 2 1 .Qd2 a5 22. Qb2 [22.B xc5 bxc5 23.Qxa5 d4 24.b4 Qf5 threaten­ ing ... d3 with an attack.] 22 ... h5 offers equal chances. Be7 15 ... On 15 ... Qa5 White has 1 6.Ke2 Bd7 17 .a4 intending Rhc 1 with a small advantage-Huebner. 16 Ke2! ? Black equalized easily after 1 6.g3 Qd7 17.h4 Rfd8 1 8.Kg2 Bf5 19.Qe2 Be4, Agdestein-Pin­ ter, Taxco 1985. One of the first games with this line was Lom­ bardy-Noguieras, Mexico 1 980 in which White gained a small edge with 1 6.h4 Bf6 17 .Bd4

68

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

B xd4 1 8 . Qxd4 Qa5 1 9 .h5h6 20.Rh4, however with accurate play Black can expect to secure equality. The game continued: 20 ... Rfc8 2 1 .Qb4 Qa6ch. 22.Kg 1 Rc2 23.a4 Qc6 24.a5 Rc8 25.Rd 1 Rb2 26.Rhd4 and now Black can equalize with 26 ... Qc2 27.R4d2 Rxb3 28.Rxc2 Rxb4 29.Rxc8ch. Bxc8 30.Rxd5 Be6. 16 ... QaS 17 Rhcl Rac8 18 a3 h6 19 Kfl Qb6 20 Kg1 Qd6 21 Bd1 White has a small but lasting edge, L.Portisch-Huebner, Brus­ sels 1 986. dxc4 8 ... It #6.7

Now Black can play for an e5 advance without ever having to worry about getting an isolated 'd' pawn. eS 9 bxc4 ReS 10 0-0 game Foi sorIn the Mnatsakanian, Tbilisi 1983, Black left his 'e' pawn on e5 and kept White in the dark as to his intentions: 1 0 . . . Qe7 1 l .Bb2 Bc7 ! ? 1 2.Bd3 [Perhaps 1 2.Rfe1 Re8 1 3.Rad l .] 1 2 ... Re8 1 3.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 h6 1 5. Rfe1 Nf6 1 6.dxe5 Ng4 17.Bh7ch. Kh8 1 8.Bf5 Nxe5 1 9.Nxe5 Bxe5 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 2 l .Bxc8 Raxc8, Black has no problems whatso­ ever. The game Huebner-Don­ oso, Buenos Aires 197 8 saw another waiting game: 10 ... Qe7 1 l .Bb2 Re8 12.Rfe 1 [Or 1 2.Rae1 Bc7 13.c5 h6 14.Ba3 e4 1 5.Nd2 Nf8 1 6.Nc4 B g4 17 .Nxe4 +=, Kuzmin-G.Agzamov, USSR ch. 198 1 .] 12 ... b6 1 3.a4 a5 14.Rab1 Ba6 1 5 . B a 1 Bc7 ? ! [ 1 5 . . . e4 1 6.Nd2 Bb4 gave Black better chances for equality.] 1 6.g3 Rab8 1 7 . B f l Qf8 1 8 . Ne2 c 5 ? [ 1 8 ...exd4 19.Nexd4 Qc5 20.Nd2 Ne5 2 1 .h3 with the idea of f4

Semi-Slav Defense would have only given White a small edge according to Hubner.] 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5 Bxe5 2 1 .Bxe5 Rxe5 22.Nc3 +- Qe8 23.e4 Qc6 24.f4 Ree8 25.Bg2, White is clearly in control of the game. Another plan that Black may choose is to keep the Rook on f8 for the moment and instead play for the exchange of dark squared Bishops: 10 ... Qe7 1 1 .Bb2 exd4 1 2.exd4 Ba3 1 3.Bxa3 Qxa3. However, White's position is a bit more comfortable after 14.Bd3 Rd8 1 5.Rfe 1 , Knezevic­ Dr. Troger, Porz 198 1 . ll.Bb2 Clearly White's only real try for advantage. Others are: 1 ) 1 1 .Rd1 Qe7 1 2.h3 e4 1 3.Nd2 Nf8 1 4.Nfl , 1/2- 1/2, Knezevic­ Mednis, Kragujevac 1977; 2) 1 1 . a4 Qe7 1 2.Rb1 e4 1 3.Nd2 Nf8 1 4.f3 exf3 1 5.Nxf3 c5 ! 1 6.Bd3 Ng6 17.Kh 1 a6 1 8.Bd2 Rb8 19.a5 Bd7 ! is equal, Rogoff­ Mednis, USA ch. 1978. After ll.Bb2 Black must choose between D.l. ll,exd4 or D.2. l l...e4.

I!r.L 11

...

exd4

12 exd4 13 Radl

69

Nf8

� The modern plan. Other moves are: 1 ) 1 3.d5? Ng6 14.Rad 1 cxd5 1 5 .Nxd5 Nxd5 1 6.cxd5 Bd7 17.Ba1 Nf4 18.Bc4 Rc8 19.Qb2 f6 20.Qb3 Qa5 2 1 .Rd4 b5 22.Bd3 Ne2ch. 23.Bxe2 Rxe2 24.a4 bxa4 25.Qd1 Rec2 with great advan­ tage to Black, Miles-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 198 1 ; 2) 1 3.Bd3 Bg4 14.Ne5 Bxe5 1 5.dxe5 N6d7 1 6.f4 Nc5 17.Be2 Qd4ch. 1 8.Kh 1 Bxe2 19.Qxe2 Qd3 20.Rad1 Qxe2 2 1 .Nxe2 Rad8 22.Kg1 Na4 23.Bd4 c5 24.Be3 Nd7 2 5 . Rb 1 Ndb6 26.Rfc 1 f6 and White was under considerable pressure, Drasko­ Sveshnikov, Sarajevo 1983;

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

70

3 ) 1 3 . Rfe 1 Bg4 [ 1 3 . . . Qc7 14.Rad1 Ng6 1 5.h3 Bd7 1 6.Bfl a6 1 7.c5 ! Bf8 1 8.Bc4 Rxe1 19.Rxe1 Re8 20.Re3 Re7 2 1 .Ng5 +=] 1 4.h3 Bh5 1 5 .d5 cxd5 1 6.cxd5 Rc8 1 7 . Qb3 N8d7 1 8.Nd4 Nc5 19.Qd1 Bg6 20.Nb3 Nfe4 2 1 .Nxe4 Nxe4, Black has a good game, Berg-Flear, Gausdal 1 98 1 ; 4) 1 3 .h3 [This was once consid­ ered the main line and was often awarded with an ' ! '.] 1 3 . . . Ng6 14.Rfe 1 Qa5 [Or 14 . . . Nh5 15.c5 Bc7 1 6.Bc4 Rxe1ch. 17.Rxe1 Nhf4 1 8.Qb3 Be6 1 9.Bxe6 Nxe6 20.Ne4 Ngf4 2 1 .g3 Nd5 22.Ne5 with an edge for White, Najdorf­ Horowitz, New York 195 1 .] 1 5.c5 Bf4 [ 15 ...Bf8 1 6.Bc4 is +=.] 16.Bc4 Be6 17.Bxe6 Rxe6 1 8.Rxe6 fxe6 19.g3 Bc7 20.Qb3 +-, Najdorf-Bisguier, New York 1 95 1 . Evidently the old 1 3.h3 is still one of White' s best choices. Qc7 13 Black has also tried 1 3 . . . Bg4 and 1 3 ... Ng6 here but White seems to emerge with some advantage against both: 1 ) 1 3 . . . B g4 1 4.Ne5 ! B xe2 1 5 .Nxe2 Qc7 [ Or 15 . . . Qa5 ...

16.Nf3 Qh5? ( 1 6 ...Ne4! +=.) 1 7 .Ng3 Bxg3 1 8 . hxg3 Ng4 19.Rfe 1 Rxe 1ch. 20.Rxe1 Ne6 2 1 . Qb3 b5 2 2 . c x b5 Qxb5 23. Qxb5 cxb5 24.d5 Nc5 25.Bd4 + - , Huebner- S i gurj on s son, Luzern 1979.] 1 6.c5 [ 1 6.Nf3 Ng6 17.Ng3 may be very slightly +=.] 16 . . . Bxe5 17.dxe5 Ng4 [White would have a clear advantage after 1 7 . . . Nd5 1 8 .Ng3 Ne6 1 9 .Nf5 followed by Nd6.] 1 8.Ng3 Nxe5 19.Nf5 f6 20.Nd6 Re7 2 1 .Bxe5 ! fxe5 22.f4 exf4 [22 . . . Ng6 2 3 . Qb 3 c h . Kh8 24. fxe5 Nxe5 25 .Rf5 ! Ng6 26.Nf7ch. Kg8 27.Ne5ch. Kh8 28.Nxg6ch. hxg6 29.Rd3 wins for White.] 23.Rxf4 h6 24.Rdfl Ne6 [24 . . . b6 runs into 25. Qb3ch. Ne6 26.Re4 ++-.], Ligterink­ Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1985, after 24 ... Ne6 White has 25.Qc4! b5 26.Qb3 Kh8 [26 ... Kh7 27.Rf7 Nxc5 28.Qc2ch.] 27.Rf7 [threat­ ening 28 . Qxe6 ! .] 27 . . . Nxc5 28.Rf8ch. Rxf8 29.Rxf8ch. Kh7 30.Qc2ch. winning; 2) 1 3 . . . Ng6 1 4 . Ne5 ! Nxe5 1 5.dxe5 Rxe5

Semi-Slav Defense

71

not experience any difficulties after 14 ...Ng6 1 5.g3 B g4 1 6.Ng5 Bxe2 17.Rxe2 Rxe2 1 8.Qxe2 Re8 19.Qd3 Qe7, Diesen-Dol­ matov, Mexico 1980. Be7 14 ... 14 ... Bf4 15.g3 Bh6 1 6.Ne5 += according to Taimanov. Be6 15 Ne5 15 ... Ng6?! 1 6.f4 is strong for White. #6.9 16 f4 Nd5 Black must be in trouble here! This is now accepted as the best However matters are not as move. Black has also tried: simple as they seem. Here the 1 ) 1 6... Rad8 17.f5 Bd5 1 8.Nxd5 often recommended 1 6.Nb5 Nxd5 19.Bh5 g6 20.fxg6 fxg6 loses to 16 ... Rxe2! 17.Qxe2 cxb5 2 1 . Rf7 gxh5 2 2 . Qc 1 Qxe5 1 8.Qd3 [ 1 8.c5 Qe7 ! ] 1 8 . . .Bg4 ! . 23.Rxf8ch. Rxf8 24.dxe5 and The Knight move to e4 runs into White won without difficulty, the same type of thing: 1 6.Ne4 Ligterink-Zuidema, Holland Rxe4! 17.Bxf6 Rxe2! 1 8.Qxe2 1985; gxf6 1 9.c5 Qe7 ! . After 1 5 ... Rxe5 2) 16 ... Bd5 17.f5 N8d7 1 8.Nxd5 White should simply play the Nxd5 19.Bh5 ! +- Rf8 20.Rde1 'quiet' 1 6. Qd2 when it becomes Bg5 2 1 .Qb3 N7f6?! 22.Bd 1 Rae8 clear that Black will meet with 23.Qg3 Bd2 24.Re2 Bf4 25.Qf3 disaster on the 'd' line because of h5 26.Bb3 B h6 27 .g3 Re7 the pin. 28.Rfe1 Rfe8 29.Bxd5 cxd5 14 c5! 30.Ba3 Qa5 3 1 .c6 Rc7 32.Bd6 Only this active move gives Rxc6 33.Nxc6 and White soon White any real hope for an advan­ won, Groszpeter-Pinter, Hun­ tage. Previously the quieter gary 1984. Nxc3 14.Rfe 1 was played but Black did 17 f5

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

72

According to Taimanov White gets excellent play after 17 ...Ne3 1 8.Qe4 Nxd1 1 9.fxe6 f6 20.Nxd1 fxe5 2 1 .Bc4. 18 Bxc3 In the game Taimanov-Chekov, USSR 1980, White continued to play very sharply with 1 8.fxe6!?. The game proved interesting but did not demonstrate that 1 8.fxe6 gives White any particular ad­ vantage: 1 8 ... Nxe2ch. 19.Qxe2 f6 [ 1 9 ... fxe6 20.Qg4 gives White good compensation for the sacri­ ficed pawn.] 20.Qg4 Bd8 ! ? [White gets a very strong attack after 20 . . . fxe5 2 1 . Rf7 g6 (2 l . . .Ng6 22.h4 followed by 23.h5.) 22.Rdfl Qc8 23.d5 ! . For example 23 ... Bxc5ch. 24.Kh 1 cxd5 25.Bxe5 Qxe6 26.Rg7ch. Qxe5 Kh8 27 .Rxg6ch. 2 8 . R g 8 m a te . - T a i m an o v . ] 2 1 .d5 ! ? cxd5 22.Rxd5 Qe7 ! [22 . . . Rxe6? 2 3 . Rd7 ! ++- . ] 23.Nf7 Qxe6 24.Nh6ch. Kh8 and now White should have played 25.Qxe6 Nxe6 26.Nf7ch. Kg8 27 .Nd6 Re7 28.Ba3 followed by 29.Rb 1 with pressure for the sac­ rificed pawn.-Taimanov. Bd5 18 ...

19 Bel Perhaps something like 19.Bf3 ! ? can be considered. b6! 19 20 cxb6 axb6 21 Bc4 Bd6 22 Bxd5 cxd5 23 Qb3 Nd7 24 Bg3 Nxe5 25 dxe5 ...

#6. 10 With this move Black reveals his disdain for mere equality and instead gains space in the center in the hopes of creating a Kingside attack. The negative side of the move is that White will put pressure on this advanced

Semi-Slav Defense

73

pawn and together with an f2-f3 give up ... 0- 1 . Instead of playing advance will force Black to cap­ the weak looking 15.Bd3? White ture by ... exf3, thereby losing his should try 1 5.f3 ! when 1 5 ... Qh4 valuable central pawn for a less 1 6.g3 Bxe4 [Simply bad is useful 'f' pawn. If White can then 1 6 . . . B xg 3 ? 1 7 . hx g 3 B xe4 advance his pawn on e3 to e4 he 1 8.gxh4 Bxc2 19.Kf2 B g6 20.e4 will gain a large central prepon­ Nd7 2 1 .Bd3 when White's posi­ derance and with it the advan­ tion is clearly superior, Co. tage. Ionescu-Hawelko, Naleczow 1985.] 17.fxe4 Bxg3 [Perhaps 12 Nd2 The most natural square for the it's better to play 17 ... Qxe4 Knight. An interesting alterna­ 1 8.Qxe4 Rxe4 19.c5 Bc7 20.Bc4 tive though is 1 2.Ng5 ! ?. The Ne6 when White's advantage is point of this move is that more manageable.] 1 8.Bf3 [Even 1 2. . . Qe7? is an error due to 13.c5 better is probably 1 8.Bd3 ! Re6 Bc7 14.Bc4 with advantage. In (Or 1 8 ... Bc7 1 9.e5 +-.) 19.Rf3 the game Sideif Zade-Akopov, when White had a clear advan­ U S S R 1 982, B lack played tage in the game Gelpke-R.Kuijf, 1 2 ... Nf8 and after 1 3.Ncxe4 Netherlands 1983.] 1 8 . . . Bc7 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Bf5 [ 1 4. . . Bxh2ch. 19.Qf2 [ 1 9.Kh l ! ?.] 1 9 . . . Ng6 15.Kxh2 Qh4ch. 16.Kg1 Rxe4 20.e5 seems to be better for 17.g3 Qe7 1 8.Bf3 favors White.] White-J.Watson. If these lines 1 5.Bd3? [ 1 5.Bf3?? is a blunder: don' t please Black as an answer 1 5 ... Qh4 1 6.g3 Bxe4.] 15 ... Bxe4 to 1 2.Ng5 he can do one of two 1 6 . B xe4 Bxh2ch. 1 7 .Kxh2 things: Qh4ch. 1 8.Kg1 Rxe4 1 9.g3 Rg4! 1) Black can try Chemin' s sug­ 20.Qf5?! [20.Kg2! Qg5 21 .Rh 1 gestion of 12 ... Ng4 ! ? 13.Bxg4 Re8 Keeps Black's advantage Qxg5 =; down to a minimum.] 20... Re8 2) He can play a different move 2 1 .Rae1 Re6 22.Kg2 Rf6 23.Qc8 order... namely 1 1 ... Qe7 when Rxg3ch. 24.fxg3 Qe4ch. 25.Kg1 1 2.Rfe 1 e4 transposes back into Rh6 26.Re2 Rh 1ch. White had to our main line.

74

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

12 ... Qe7 Black should really guard this pawn. 1 2 ... Nf8? goes back into the Gelpke-R.Kuijf game. 13 Rfe1 A bad experiment was 1 3.a4 Nf8 14.c5 Bc7 15.Nc4 Ng4 16.Bxg4 Bxg4 17.f4 exf3 1 8.gxf3 Be6 19.Ne4 Bd5 20.Ra3 Bxe4 and White was a pawn down and soon lost the game, Knezevic-Wester­ inen. White's major alternative to 13.Rfe 1 is 13.Rae1 ! ?. The game Co. Ionescu-Chemin, Soci 1986 continued 13 ... Nf8 14.Bd1

#6. 1 1 [This is a recent attempt. It's also possible to use the usual formula: 14.f3 Bf5?! (14 ... exf3 ! is correct and after 15.Bxf3 move s like 1 5 . . . Ng4 or 15 ... Qc7 ! ? should offer Black

good chances.) 15.fxe4 Nxe4 1 6.Ncxe4 Bxe4 17 .Nxe4 Qxe4 1 8.Bd3 Qh4 19.g3 Qe7 20.e4 Bb4 2 1 .Re2 Rad8 22.Ref2 +-, Nei-Mnatsakanian, USSR 1966. We should use this moment to illustrate what kind of disasters can befall White if he is not care­ ful: After 13.Rae1 Nf8 White chose the weak move 1 4.Kh 1 in the game L.Lengyel-J.Pogats, Budapest 1953. White died a horrible death after 14 ... Bc7 15.f3 Ng4! ! 16.Ndxe4 (lf 1 6.fxg4 Black wins by 1 6. . . Qh4 17.h3 Qg3 1 8 .Kg1 Qh2ch. 19.Kf2 Bg3 mate.) 16 . . . Qh4 1 7.h3 Nxe3 18.Qd2 Bxh3 ! , 0- 1 .] Now we are back to Diagram #6. 1 1 : 14 ... Bc7 ! [Better then 14 ... Ng6 1 5.f3 exf3 1 6.Nxf3 Be6, Azmajparasvili­ Kajdanov, USSR 1982, and now 17.Be2! Ng4 1 8.Bd3 is good for White-Azmajparasvili.] 1 5 . f3 exf3 1 6.Nxf3 Be6! 17.Be2 Bg4 1 8 .B d3 Rad8 1 9 . K h 1 Ng6 20.Nd1 Nh5 2 1 .Qf2 f5 ! ? 22.e4 Nhf4 23.Bc2 fxe4 24.Rxe4 Qd7. According to Chernin, Black has a slight advantage. Nf8 13 ... exf3 14 f3

75

Semi-Slav Defense In the game Barbero-H.Franke, Boblingen 1986, Black tried the new 14 ... Qc7 ! ? and equalized after 15.Nfl Bf5 [In Sakaev­ Sherbakov, USSR 1987 Black tried 1 5 ...exf3 but after 1 6.Bxf3 Ne6 1 7.c5 Bf8 1 8.Ne4 Nxe4 1 9.Bxe4 h6 20.Ng3 White held an edge.] 1 6.fxe4 Nxe4 17.c5 Nxc3 1 8.Qxf5 Nxe2ch. 19.Rxe2 Be7. However, according to Bar­ bero White should have played 1 5.f4! when he would hold a slight advantage. 15 Bxf3 Ng4 Perhaps 1 5 ... Ne6! ? deserves an­ other look. One source then gives 1 6.Nde4! as +- but this was not demonstrated in the game Barre­ ras-Frey, in which Black quickly built up a winning position after 1 6.Nce4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Qh4 1 8 . Nf3 Qh5 1 9 . Qe2 Ng5 20.Nxg5 Qxh2ch. 2 1 .Kf1 Qh 1 ch. 22.Kf2 Qh4ch. 23.Kg1 Qxg5. The same basic idea turned up once again in the game Adamski­ Chekov, Halle 198 1 : 15 ... Bd7 ! ? 1 6.Rad 1 Ne6 17.Nce4 Nxe4 1 8.Nxe4 f5 19.Ng3 Ng5, 1/2- 1/2. 16 Nfl This is the reason that 13.Rfe1 is

u sually preferred over 1 3.Rael ...White has freed the f1 square and can now quietly de­ fend his delicate h2 point with the Knight. 16 QgS B lack c an also consi der 16 . . . Qh4!? 1 7.g3 [ 1 7 .h3 Nf6 1 8.e4 Ne6 followed by ... Ng5 gives Black good attacking chances.] 17 . . . Qg5 1 8.Ne4? ! [ 1 8.Qd2 is just one of many moves that White may like to try here. 1 8.Ne4 doesn't seem to turn out too well.] 1 8 ... Qg6 19.Qg2 Bb4 20.Re2 Bf5 2 1 .Nf2 Nxf2 22.Rxf2 Be4 23.Rd 1 Nd7, =+, Taimanov-Barbero, Montpellier 1986. 17 Qd2 17.Qe2! ? with the idea of Ne4 is possible. Perhaps best of all is 17.c5 ! when 1 7 ... Bc7 1 8.e4 is probably somewhat in White's favor: 18 . . . Ne6, Agdestein-Tal, Taxco 1985, and now 1 9.Radl ! Nxd4 [White is much better after 19 ... Nxh2? 20.Nxh2 Bxh2ch. 2 1 .Kxh2 Nxd4 22.Qf2. Also good for the first player is 19 ... Nf4 20.Bcl ! Qg6 2 1 .Kh l .] 20. Rxd4 Nxh 2 ! 2 1 . Nxh2 ...

76

6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3

B xh2ch. [2 1 . . . Qh4! ?.] 22.Kf1 Bg3 gives Black some chances for the sacrificed material. Bf5 17 18 Rad1 Rad8 19 g3 Qg6 Bb4 20 Qg2 Bc8 21 e4 Nh6 22 h3 000

25.Bg2 loses a pawn to 25 ... Bxc3 26.Bxc3 Nxe4. After 25.Qg3 this same pawn grabbing line gives White a lot of activity: 25 ... Bxc3 26.Bxc3 Nxe4 27.Bxe4 Rxe4 28.Rxe4 Qxe4 29.Re 1 followed by 30.Qc7. f5! ! 25 Cracking White open. 26 e5 Loses quickly but 26.exf5 Nxf5 27 . Rxe8ch. Rxe8 2 8 . g x f5 N x f 3 c h . 2 9 . K f2 Q x g 3 c h . 30.Kxg3 still wins for Black after 30 ... Ngl ! 3 1 .Kg2 Ne2! -Ligter­ ink. 26 fxg4 27 Bxg4 Nxg4 Bxg4! 28 hxg4 0- 1 , Gelpke-Van der Wiel, Hil­ versum 1986. 000

000

#6. 1 2 A n interesting position. At first glance White' s strong central mass looks as if it must give him the advantage. However, it turns out that with White' s Kingside weakened, this same 'strong' center is actually rather difficult to defend. Ne6 23 g4 Ng5 24 Qf2 25 Qg3

Conclusion: The variations aris­ ing from 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.b3 are ex­ tremely rich in strategical and tactical possibilities. Lines like 7 ... 0-0 8.Be2 and now 8 . . . a6 or 8 . . . b6 have hardly been tested enough to give a definite assess­ ment but they seem to give White a free hand. The time tested 8 . . . e5 9.cxd5 Nxd5 1 0.Nxd5 cxd5

Semi-Slav Defense 1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 favors White slightly after 1 2.Bb2 Bb4ch. 1 3 .Kfl . Another variation also giving White a very small edge is that arising from 8 ...dxc4 9.bxc4 e5 1 0.0-0 Re8 1 1 .Bb2 exd4. At present the second player's best

77

chance for active play and win­ ning chances are the lines coming from 8 ... dxc4 9.bxc4 e5 1 0.0-0 Re8 1 1 .Bb2 e4. In playing this way Black grant s White a central pawn mass but gets lots of counterplay against it.

78

CHAPTER 7

7 e4 main line D45/SL8

7 e4 Main Line l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6 7.e4

#7. 1 Introduced by the Swedish GM Gosta Stoltz before the Second World War this line has recently become very popular. It might seem strange that White can ex­ pend an extra tempo (e3-e4) and still hope for an advantage. The first player' s justification for this is the freeing of the c 1 Bishop and the fact that the Black freeing move ... e5 isn't so easy to get in counts for a lot. dxe4 7 ... Almost invariably played. The one exception was the surprising

innovation seen in the 1 st. Kar­ pov-Kasparov match: 7 . . . e5 ! ? 8 . cxd5 cxd5 9 . exd5 exd4 1 0.Nxd4 0-0 1 1 .Be2 Nb6 1 2.0-0 [ 1 2 . B g5 ! ? Nbxd5 1 3 . Nxd5 Qa5ch. 14.Qc3 Qxd5 1 5.Bxf6 gxf6 is given as unclear by Gufeld.] 1 2... Nbxd5 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Rd 1 Qe7 15.Bf3 Re8 1 6.g3 Bh3 17 .Bd2 Be5 1 8 .Bxd5 Bxd4 19.Bc3 Bxc3 20.Qxc3, 1/21/2. Such an easy solution to Black's problems should have undoubtedly made 7 . . . e5 very popular. However this has by no means been the case! Since its debut nobody has cared to repeat Kasparov's 7 ... e5. Why? 8 Nxe4 Nxe4 9 Qxe4 #7.2

Semi- Slav Defense

79

The starting position for the 7 .e4 line. Black can try A. 9 e5. B. 9...c5. C. 9 Bb4ch . . D. 9...Nf6. E. 9 0-0?!. ...

...

...

9 . e5 Originally this was thought to be the 'complete' answer to White's system. However the lines that were thought to lead to 'easy :JtL3. (after 10 .dxe5) equality' were found to be bad The position after 10.dxe5 is a and new ideas for both sides have critical one and Black has played made the theoretical status of three moves here: A.l. 10,Nxe5. 9 .... e5 rather unclear. A.2. 10...0e7. A.3. 10...0-0! 10 dxe5 Nobody plays anything else A.l. 10 ... Nxe5 nowadays. The two other moves [both bad] that have been consid- This was once thought to lead to easy equality but today most ered are: 1) 1 0.Bd3? f5 1 1 .Qe2 [ 1 1 .Qxf5 people consider it to be a mistake. Nf6 12.Qg5 e4 13.Bxe4 Nxe4 However the truth may be some14.Qxg7 Qf6 is -+ according to where in between. 11 c5! van Scheltinga.] 1 1 . . .e4 1 2.Ng5 1 3 . K f l Nf6 =+, This is Mikhalchisin's improve­ B b4ch . Polugaevsky-Taimanov, USSR ment, which led to a revival of the whole variation. Before this most ch. 1956; sources only gave 1 1 .Nxe5? 2) 1 0 . c5 B e7 ! [ 1 0 . . . Bc7 ? which gives Black an easy game Nxe5 after 1 1 . . .Qa5ch. The game 1 1 . Nxe5 1 l . B c4 ! .] 12.Qxe5 0-0 and White has prob­ Zidkov-Mikhalchisin, USSR 1980 continued 1 2.Bd2 Qxe5 lems-Archives 1950. .

.

80

7 e4 main line

1 3.Bd3? ! [Correct is 1 3.Qxe5ch. Bxe5 1 4.0-0-0 with equality.] 1 3 ... Qxe4 14.Bxe4 Be6! 15.Bd3? [Equality can still be had by 1 5 . b 3 . ] 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 .0-0-0 Bxh2! 1 7.Bg5 f6 1 8.Bh6! Be5 1 9 .B xg7 Rhg8 and Black ' s chances were slightly superior. An alternative to both 1 1 .c5 and 1 1 .Nxe5 is Gufeld' s suggestion of 1 1 .Bf4 ! ?. He then gives 1 1 ...f6 1 2.0-0-0 Qe7 1 3 .Bxe5 fxe5 14.Bd3 g6 1 5.Rhe1 Bf5 1 6.Qh4! with a slight edge for White. In­ stead of this Black can consider l l . ..Bb4ch. when 1 2.Ke2! seems strong: 1 2 . . . f6 1 3 .Bxe5 0-0 1 4.c5 ! winning for White. Bc7! 11 ... Alternatives are: 1 ) 1 1 . . . Qa5ch?? 12.b4 wins; 2) 1 1 . . .f5? 1 2. Qe2! Qa5ch . 1 3.Bd2 Qxc5 14.Bc3 0-0 [Or 14 ... Be6 15.Nxe5 0-0-0, Mikhal­ chisin-Sveshnikov, USSR ch. 1 978, and now 1 6.f4! intending Qf2 would be strong according to Mikhalchisin.] 1 5 .Nxe5 Re8 1 6. Qc4ch., Watson-Shkolnikov, Berkeley 1 984, and now 1 6 ... Be6 1 7 . 0- 0 - 0 ! [ 1 7 . Qxc5 B xc 5 1 8 .Nd3 ! also looks good .]

17 . . . Bxc4 1 8 . B xc4ch. K h 8 19.Nt7ch. Kg8 20.Nxd6ch. Kf8 2 1 .Bd4! Qa5 22.Nxb7 is very strong for White according to Watson. 12 Nxe5 Qe7 f6 13 f4 14 Bd3!? John Watson points out that Mikhalchisin' s original sugges­ tion of 14.Be3 can be met by 14 . . . g6! 15.g4 fxe5 1 6.f5 Qh4ch! 17 .Bf2 gxf5. fxe5 14 ... g6 15 0-0! 1 5 . . . Qxc 5 c h . 1 6. B e 3 Qd5 17.Qxd5 cxd5 1 8.fxe5-J.Watson. Bf5 16 fxe5 B xd3 17 Qc4 Qxc5ch. 18 Qxd3 Qxe5 19 Be3 20 Bf4 Qc5ch. 21 Kh1 Analysis by J.Watson. Black's king is caught in the center and only heavy material loss will al­ low it to escape alive. One gets the impression that there are still many unanswered questions in the 10 ...Nxe5 variation.

u 10 ...

Qe7

Semi-Slav Defense

#7.4 By directly attacking the pawn and keeping ... B b4ch in reserve until White has moved his QB Black will usually be able to get his lost pawn back and reach the 'safety' of an endgame. How ' safe' this endgame really is turns out to be a major question though, as White's winning percentage is extremely high. 11 Bf4 Bb4ch. 12 Bd2 Nobody has had the 'courage' to try 1 2.Ke2. Bxd2ch. 12 ... 13 Nxd2 In Seirawan-Bellon, Las Palmas 198 1 , White won with 1 3.Kxd2?!

81

Nc5 14.Qh4 g5 15.Qh6 Bf5 1 6.Re1 Qd8ch. 17.Qd6 Qa5ch. 1 8.Ke3 Ne4 though Black has the better game at this point. 1 3.Kxd2 cannot be recom­ mended. 13 ... Qxe5 No better is 1 3 ... Nxe5 14.f4 Ng6 15.Qxe7ch. Kxe7 1 6.g3 Rd8 17.0-0-0 K:f8 1 8.Bg2 Rd4 19.b3 Bg4 20.Nf3 Bxf3 2 1 .Bxf3 Rad8 22.Rxd4 Rxd4 23.Kc2 Ne7 24.Kc3 Rd8 25.b4, +-, Garcia Padron-Bellon, Las Palmas 198 1 . 0-0 14 0-0-0 In Speelman-Kuligowski, Mari­ bor 1980, Black tried 14 ... Qxe4 but found himself in trouble after 1 5 .Nxe4 0-0 1 6.f4 ! Nb6? ! [ 1 6 . . .Nf6 17.Nxf6 gxf6 with the idea of ... f5 and . . . Be6 is only slightly better for White accord­ ing to Kovacevic.] 17.Be2 aS 1 8.b3 Nd7 19.Rhe1 Rb8 20.Bf3 h6 21 .g3 Nf6 22.Nxf6ch. gxf6 23.g4!. White had a won position after the further 23 .. a4 24.f5 axb3 2 5 . axb3 Ra8 2 6 . Kb2 Ra5 27.Rd6! Kg7 28.Kc3. g6 15 Bd3 16 Bc2!?

82

7 e4 main line

Other interesting moves that de­ serve consideration are 1 6.h4 ! ? and 1 6.Bb1 [guarding a2] . O n the other hand, completely harmless is 16.Qh4 Qf6! 17.Qxf6 Nxf6 1 8.Ne4 Nxe4 19.Bxe4 Bg4 20.f3 Be6 with equality, Mikhalchisin­ Beliavsky, USSR ch. 198 1 . ReS 16 ... 1 6 . . . Qa5 would allow White strong chances on the Kingside with 17.h4. 17 f4! Qxe4 Kg7 18 Nxe4 19 Nd6 Re7 Kf8 20 Rhe1 Nf6 21 g4! NeS 22 g5 Kxe7 23 Rxe7 24 Re1ch. Be6 A sad necessity since 24 ... Kxd6 2 5 . Rxe8 b6 26.Rh8 leaves Black's Kingside dying off. 25 Nxb7 Black has lost a pawn and since he has nothing whatsoever to show for it he eventually lost the game, M. Gurevic-I. Novikov, USSR 1982. The whole line with 10 ... Qe7 is rather difficult for Black;

0-0! � 10 ... Originally recommended by Pachman, this is one of Black ' s best lines vs. the 7 .e4 system. 11 exd6! ?

:!fl...2 This move has an interesting history. First the alternatives were all considered harmless: 1) 1 1 .Be2? Nxe5 1 2.Nxe5 Qa5ch is in Black's favor; 2) 1 1 .Ng5? Nf6! is good for Black who will chop on e5 after White moves his Queen; 3) 1 1 .Bd3 f5 once again leaves Black with a strong initiative; 4) 1 1 .Bf4!? [the best of the alter­ native c hoices.] 1 l . . . B b4ch 1 2.Ke2 ! ? [S afer is 1 2. B d2 Bxd2ch 1 3.Nxd2 Nxe5 14.0-00.] 12 ...Nc5 and Black has excel-

Semi-Slav Defense

83

lent compensation for the pawn [ 1 4 ... Ng4 15.Bd3 Nxe3 1 6.Rhe1 minus.Though the alternatives to is very strong for White-Mikhal­ 1 1 .exd6 were not highly thought chisin.] 15.gxf3 Bd7 1 6.Bd3 of, most books thought even less [Mikhalchisin gives 1 6.h4!? with of 1 1 .exd6 . . . usually adorning it the idea of 17 .Bh3 but this would with a ?? mark of disapproval. fail immediately to 17 . . . Bxh3 and Then in 1 980 Mikhalchisin won 1 8 . . . Qe6. The old addage still convincingly using 1 1 .exd6 and holds true: ' Play what the Master opinion switched over to consid­ does, not what he recommends.'] ering it clearly better for White! 16 ... Qe5 17.Rhg 1 g6 1 8.f4 Qf6 Evolution did not stop here how­ [Or 1 8 ... Qh5 19.f5 ! Bxf5 20.Rg5 ever. As time went by Black Qxd1ch. 21 .Kxd1 Bxd3 22.Re5 ! found better ways of defending Bxc4 23.Bg5 Be6 24.Rxe6 fxe6 his position and now we seem to 25.d7 with a win for White­ be back to stage one . . . nobody Mikhalchisin.] 19.f5 ! b6 20.Bc2 knows what the truth is! At any Qh4 2 1 .Kb1 c5 22.Bg5 ! Qxf2 rate the whole line seems to be an 23 .fxg6 hxg6 24.Rdfl Qd4 excellent way for Black to try to 25.Be7 a5 26.h4 Bg4 27.Bf6 win. Qxc4 and now Mikhalchisin ReS gives 28.d7 Bxd7 29.h5 as lead­ 11 ... ing to a quick win. 1 3 ... Ne5 does 12 Qxe8ch. Qxe8ch. Nf6 not seem to be the proper way for 13 Be3 The most popular defensive try Black to play! ; but by no means clearly best. 3 ) 1 3 ...Nb6!? 14.Bd3 Be6 15.00-0 Rd8 [ 1 5 ...Nxc4? 1 6.d7 Qd8 Black has also tried: 1 ) 1 3 . . . b5 ! ? is an untried sugges­ 17.Bg5 f6 1 8.Rhe1 wins for tion of Dorfman's when 14.0-0-0 White.] 1 6.Rhe1 h6 17.Ne5 Rxd6 Qe6 would transpose into line 4) 1 8.c5 Rxd3 19.Rxd3 Nd5 20.Bd4 Nb4 2 1 .Rg3 Nxa2ch. 22.Kb1 with 1 3 . . . Qe6; 2) 1 3 ... Ne5 was the reply in the Qd8 23.Rxg7ch. Kf8 24.Re4 Qd5 stem game Mikhalchisin-Flear, 25.Rgg4 Qb3 , 0- 1 , Legky­ Mexico 1 980: 14.0-0-0 Nxf3 Nekrasov, USSR 1980. White's

84

7 e4 main line

play can obviously be improved but 1 3 ...Nb6 could certainly use more tests; 4) 1 3 ... Qe6!? 14.0-0-0 b5 15.Bd3 Nf8 1 6.Rhe1 Bd7 17.h3 Qe8 1 8 .Bf4 Ne6 19.Ng5 h6 20.Nxe6 Bxe6 2 1 .Bf5 Rd8 22.Rd4 c5 23.Rde4 bxc4 24.Bxe6 fxe6 25.Rxe6 Qa4 26.Be5 c3 27.Bxc3 Qf4ch. 28.Bd2 Qc4ch. 29.Bc3 Qf4ch. 30.Bd2 Qc4ch. 3 1 .Bc3, 1/ Gorelov-V aiser, 2- 1 /2 , Sverdlovsk 1984. There can be no doubt that the plan of 1 3 ... Qe6 with ... b5 deserves serious con­ sideration. Be6 14 0-0-0 Bad is 14 ... Ng4? 15.Bd3 Nxe3 1 6.Rhe 1 , but a move that must be given sober thought is 14 ... Bf5. After 15.Bd3 Bxd3 1 6.Rxd3 Qe6 17.b3 we arrive at the critical moment. �

The position in the diagram is a good illustration of the fight be­ tween White's Rook, Bishop and pawn vs. Black's Queen. The passed pawn is very threatening but the somewhat loose position ofWhite's King gives Black defi­ nite counterplay. Black has tried the following ideas here: 1 ) 17 ... b5 ! ? 1 8 .c5 Qg4 1 9.Re l ! Re8 [Opening the 'g' file would be suicidal: 19 ... Qxg2 20.Bd4 Qg6 2 1 .Ne5.] 20.Bd2 Rxe1ch. 2 1 .Nxe1 Qf5 22.b4 a5 23.a3 a4 24.f3 Nd5 25.Rd4, White has a clear advantage, Rivas­ Noguieras, Seville 1 982; 2) 17 ... a5 1 8.Rhd1 a4 [J.Watson feels that 1 8 ...Nd7 may be better while Chekhov gives the text an exclamation mark.] 1 9.d7 ! Rd8 20.Bg5 ! Rxd7 2 1 .Rxd7 Nxd7 22.Re 1 Qg4 23.Re8ch. Nf8 h6 25.Rxf8ch. Kh7 24.Be7 26.Bc5 f6 and now White went wrong with 27.Be3? Qxg2 28.Nd4 Qxh2 29.Rf7? Qe5 ! 30.Rxb7 h5 ! and suddenly Black's pawns were quite strong in the game Schneider-Chekhov, USSR ch. 1982. Instead of this, Chekhov gives 27 .Kd2 Qxg2

Semi-Slav Defense 28.Ke2 Qg6! as best with the assessment of 'unclear'; 3) 1 7 ... Nd7 1 8.Rhd1 [ 1 8 .Rhe l ! ?.] 1 8 . . . Qg6 19.g3 Re8 20.Bd4! Qxd6, Andruet-Bryson, Lucerne 1982, and here instead of the weak 2 1 .Be5? Qh6ch. 22.Bf4 Qf6! of the game White should try V ilela' s 2 1 . Bxg7 ! Qg6 22.Bc3 with good attacking chances. All in all 14 . . .Bf5 seems to be quite reasonable, and if White is better it is not by much. In par­ ticular the line with 17 ... a5 should be studied. 15 Bd3 b5 A very logical move and one that goes along with Black' s best strategy ... to make use of his Queen he must create some ven­ tilation around the White King. The older move here was 15 ... Rd8 though White has al­ w ays enjoyed good results against it: 1 6.b3 Bg4 17.Bf4 [To stop the Queen from going to e5 as it would in the case of 17.Rhe 1 ? Bxf3 1 8.gxf3 Qe5 ! .] 17 ... Bxf3 1 8.gxf3 Nh5?! [Ac­ cording to Dorfman better was 1 8 ... c5 followed by ... Qc6. After

85

1 8 ... c5 Watson gives 1 9.Rhe1 Qc6 20.Be4 Nxe4 2 1 .fxe4 with some advantage for White.] 19.Rhe1 Qxe1 ch. 20.Rxe1 Nxf4 2 1 .Rd1 c5 22.a3 g6 23.Be4 b6 24.b4 f5 25.Bc6, White has a clear advantage, Dorfman-Sve­ shnikov, USSR ch. 1980. 16 c5! The game Naumkin-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1983 went 1 6.Ne5 bxc4 17 .Nxc4 Rd8 which most sources give as unclear but J. Watson feels is promising for White. Be that as it may 1 6.c5 ! seems to be the superior move. Bxa2 16 ... 17 Rhe1! An improvement on the game lvkov-Panchenko, Sochi 1983, which went 17.Bg5 Nd7 1 8. Rhe 1 Be6 19.Nd4! Nxc5 20.Bf5 Qd7 2 1 .b4! and now 2 1 . . . Qxd6 22.Nxe6 Nb3ch. 23.Kc2 Qb4 is quite nice for Black. Bb3 17 ... John Watson analyses the follow­ ing lines: 1) 17 ...Qe6 1 8.Bg5 Qg4 19.Bxf6 Qf4ch. 20.Rd2 Qxf6 2 1 .Ne5 Bd5 22.Bxb5 ! ; 2) 17 ... Nd7 1 8.Bd4! Be6 19.Ng5

86

7 e4 main line

h6 20.Nxe6 fxe6 2 1 .Re3 e5 22.Rde1 Qh5 23.Bxe5 Nxc5 24.Bb 1 ; 3 ) 17 . . . Be6 18.Bd4 [or 1 8.Nd4] 1 8 . . . Qd8 19.Ng5 is "at best diffi­ cult for Black", since 19 . . . Bg4 20.f3 Bh5 2 1 .Ne4! Nd7 22.g4 Bg6 23.f4. Qd8 18 Bg5 19 Nd4! and White is clearly better.It seems that if Black is going to have a chance for equality in the 1 3 ... Nf6 lines he should try 1 4... Bf5 since the positions arising from 14 . . . Be6 tend to favor White. For those who are not happy with Black' s chances after 1 3 . . .Nf6, very interesting alterna­ tives are provided by 1 3 ... Nb6! ? and 1 3 . . . Qe6! ?, both of which offer Black plenty of chances for creativity. c5 9 ... .IL.

A very logical move. White has yet to find a convincing answer to it. 10 BgS Another try here is 10.Bd2. Rec­ ommended several years ago by John Watson it has only recently received some practical tests. After 10 . . . Nf6 White has three queen moves: A ) 1 1 . Qh4 c xd4 1 2 . Qxd4 [ 12.Nxd4 Be5 intending 1 3.Bc3 g5 !] 12 . . . e5 ! 13.Nxe5 Qe7 14.f4 Bc5 and Black has good compen­ sation for the pawn according to Chernin and Dvoretsky; B) 1 1 .Qd3 0-0 1 2.Bc3 b6 1 3.0-00 cxd4 1 4.Qxd4 Be7 15.Qe5 Bd7 1 6.Bd3 Rc8 17 .Kb 1 led to a White advantage in Ionescu­ Holzl, Dubai (ol) 1986; C) 1 1 .Qc2 cxd4 1 2.Nxd4 Bc5 [ 1 2 . . . Bd7 ! ? intending . . . Qc7Chernin,Dvoretsky.] 1 3 .Nb3 Be7 14.Be2 Qc7 15.0-0 Bd7 16.Rac l Rc8 17.Nd4 0-0 = , Smyslov-Chernin, Subotica (izt) 1987. In the never-ending search for l Oth move alternatives White has also tried 1 0.dxc5? ! . While 1 O.Bd2 may be a move that is

Semi-Slav Defense

87

worth looking into, 10.dxc5 will 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Qxf6 Rg8 ! and certainly fade into obscurity. now White does not seem to have After 10.dxc5?! the game Ruder­ more then a draw by 2 1 .Rxe6ch.] fer-Timoschenko, USSR 1979 14 ... 0-0 15.Bxh6 gxh6 1 6.Qxh6 continued 10 ...Nxc5 1 1 .Qd4 e5 ! Re8 ! 17.Ng5 Be6! 1 8.Bh7ch. 1 2. Qc3 0-0 1 3.Be2 e4 14.Nd2 e3 Nxh7 [Bad is 18 . . . Kh8 19.Bf5ch. 1 5.fxe3 Qh4ch. 1 6.Kfl Re8 Kg8 20.Bxe6 Rxe6 2 1 .Nxe6 fxe6 Kf8 2 3 . Rd 3 . ] 17.Qd4 Qe7 1 8.Nb3 Ne4 19.Bf3 2 2 . Qg6c h . Bf5 20.Qd1 Qh4 2 1 .Bxe4 Bxe4 19.Qxh7ch. [ 19.Nxh7 Be7 holds 22. B d2 Bxh2 23.Bc3 Re6 for Black since 20.Rxe5? runs into 20. . . Qc7 ! and 20.Rd3 is an­ 24.Nd4 Bxg2ch., 0- 1 . 10 ... swered by 20 ... Bf5.] 19 ... Kf8 QaSch. This move may make things a bit 20.Qh6ch. Ke7 [20 . . . Kg8 2 1 .Re4 too easy for White. More chal­ is strong for White.] 2 1 .Nxe6 Rh8 ! 22.Nxd8 Rxh6 23.Nxb7 lenging tries are: 1) 10 ... Nf6 1 1 .Qh4 [Watson's Kd7 ! 24.Nxd6 Kxd6 25.f4 f6 recommendation of 1 1 .Bxf6 26.g4 Rxh2 27 .Rd2! Rh4 28.Re4 Qxf6 1 2.0-0-0 with the idea of Rg8 29.Rde2 Rgxg4 30.fxe5ch. 1 2 ... Qf4ch. 1 3 .Qxf4 Bxf4ch. fxe5 3 1 .Rxe5 d3 ! 32.Rd5ch. Kc6, 14.Kb1 followed by g3 and Bg2 1/2- 1/2, Dorfman-Dolmatov, has yet to be tried in practice.] USSR 1980. It is clear that 1 1 ...cxd4 12.0-0-0 e5 1 3.Bd3 h6 10 ... Nf6!? is still a critical reply 14.Rhe1 [John Watson gives the to 10.Bg5 and if White is to be following interesting analysis successful against it he must do demonstrating some of the inter­ his homework and come up with esting possibilities present in the some new ideas; 1 0 . . . B e7 ! ? 1 1 . Bxe7 position: 14.c5 ! ? Bxc5 15.Nxe5 2) Qc7 ( 1 5 ... 0-0 16.Bxh6! Qc7 [J.Watson' s 1 1 .h4! ? could use a 17.Bxg7 ! Be7ch. 1 8.Nc4 Kxg7 tryout.] 1 1 ...Qa5ch ! [In the game 19.Qg5ch. Kh8 20.Qh6ch. Kg8 Georgadze-Dolmatov, USSR 2 1 . Rhe l .) 1 6. Rhe l ! ? Bb4ch. 1980 Black played the natural 17.Nxc4 Bxe1 1 8.Rxe1ch. Be6 1 1 ...Qxe7 but after 1 2.0-0-0 cxd4

7 e4 main line

88

1 3.Qxd4 White was a little better. The text is a much more dynamic interpretation of the position.] 1 2.Nd2 Kxe7 1 3.0-0-0! ? [ 1 3.Bd3 or 1 3.Qh4ch. ! ? also come into con siderati on . ] 1 3 . . . Rd8 ! [ 1 3 . . . Qxa2 14.Bd3 is dangerous for Black.] 14.Qxh7 [This gives the initiative to B lack. More in the spirit of the position would be 1 4 . N b3 ! ? w h e n 1 4 . . . Q x a2 1 5 . Kc2 leaves White with vari­ ous promising possibilities. ] 1 4 . . . Nf6 1 5 . Qxg7 Rxd4 1 6.Qg5 Bd7 ! 1 7.Bd3 Rg8 [ 1 7 . . . Rxd3?? 1 8.Ne4 ! .] 1 8.Nb3 Rxg5 1 9.Nxa5 Rxg2 20.Nxb7 Ng4! 2 1 .Nxc5 Nxf2 22.Rd2 Bc6 [22 . . . Nxd3ch. 2 3 . N xd3 Rxc4c h . 2 4 . K d 1 Rxd2ch. also appears to be stro n g . ] 2 3 . Rf l N x d3 c h . 24.Nxd3 Rxc4ch. 25. Kd 1 Rd4, Gorelov-Kisnev, USSR 1 984. Black has an obvious advantage and won on the 43rd move. 1 1 B d2

Qc7

J.Watson quite rightly points out that 1 1 . .. Qb6? is met by 1 2. b4 ! . 12 0-0-0! Alternatives are not as crisp: 1 ) 1 2.Qg4 0-0! ? [ 1 2 . . . g6 1 3.0-0-0 is good for White.] 1 3.Bh6 g6

1 4.Bxf8 [ 1 4.0-0-0! ? Rd8 1 5.h4.] 14 ... Qa5ch. 1 5. Nd2 Bxf8 gives Black compensation according to Yusupov; 2) 12.Bc3 ! ? Nf6 1 3.Qh4 cxd4 1 4.Qxd4 [ 1 4.Nxd4 a6 looks fine for Black.] 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5.Rd 1 Rd8 1 6.Bd3 e5 ! 1 7 . Qh4 [Black is bet­ ter after 1 7.Nxe5? Re8 1 8.Qxd6 Qxd6 1 9.Bxh7ch. Kxh7 20.Rxd6 Ng4 2 1 .f4 f6.] 17 . . . h 6 ! ? 1 8.0-0 Bg4 19.Rfe 1 Re8? [Black could secure equality by 1 9 ... Bxf3.] 20.Re3 ! +=, Seirawan-Yusupov, Toluca 1 982. 12 ....

Nf6

13 Qh4

cxd4

1 3 . . . Bd7 1 4.dxc5 Bxc5 1 5 .Bc3 gives White control of the critical e5 square. 14 Nxd4

B d7

15 Kb1

a6

After 1 5 . . . e5 1 6. Nb5 B xb5 17 .cxb5 White would also enjoy a clear advantage. 16 B d3 0-0-0? 17 cS !

BeS

Black i s also busted on 1 7 . . . B xc5 1 8. Rc 1 or 1 7 . . . Be7 1 8 .c6 ! . 18 c6

Bxd4

Or 1 8 . . . B xc6 1 9.Nxc6 Rxd3 20.Nxe5 Qxe5 2 1 .Qc4ch.

Semi-Slav Defense 19 cxd7ch.

Qxd7

20 BaS!

gS?

21 Qg3

NdS?

22 Rclch.

1 -0, Silman-Pollard, San Fran­ cisco 1983. A horrible fate for Black and perhaps a condemna­ tion of the move 10 . . . Qa5ch. Black need not panic though since both 10 . . . Be7 and 10 . . . Nf6 seem to be quite playable.

89

for White ' . However the simple fact that nobody will try this idea as White speaks volumes about its soundness. 10 ...

Bxd2ch.

Also very interesting but most likely not sufficient for equality is 10 . . . Qa5 ! ? l l .Bd3 [Lame is l l .Qc2 e5 1 2.Bxb4 Qxb4ch. 1 3.Qd2 Qxd2ch. 1 4.Kxd2 exd4 1 5. Re l ch. Kf8 1 6.Nxd4 Nc5 9 ... B b4ch. 1 7 . Re5 Ne6 1 8.Nxe6ch. B xe6 C 1 9 . B e2 Ke7 2 0 . Kc 3 Rhd8 • 2 1 .Rd 1 Rxd 1 22. Bxd l Kd6, 1/2l/2, Van der Vliet-Ree, Dutch ch. 198 1 .] 1 1 .. .c5?! l l l . . .Bxd2ch! 1 2.Nxd2 c5 keeps White's ad­ vantage to a minimum. I 1 2.0-00 ! B xd2c h . 1 3 . R xd2 Qxa2 1 4.Re l ! h6 [White would have a strong attack after 1 4 . . . cxd4 1 5.Qxd4 0-0 1 6.Qh4! Nf6 1 7 .g4.] 1 5.Ne5 ! Nf6 1 6.Qf4 cxd4 1 7.g4! #7 . 8 With this move Black tries to ease Qa5 1 8 . h4 Qc7 1 9.g5 hxg5 his problems with the exchange 20.hxg5 Nd5 2 1 .Qxd4 b5 22.Kb1 of the dark squared Bishops and bxc4 23.Bxc4 Bb7 24.g6 ! f6 the temporary decentralization of 25 .Nf7 Rh5 26.Qg4! Kf8 ! the White Knight. 27 . Qx h 5 Qxc4c h . 2 8 . Rc2 ! , 10 B d2 Plachetka-Diesen, Odzaci 1 978, P a n c henko h as s u g g e s ted Black eventually got mated. 11 Nxd2 1 0.Ke2! with the idea of 1 1 .g3 0-0 and 1 2.Bg2 with some advantage

90

7 e4

main line

Worthy of consideration i s 1 1 ...Qa5 ! ? : 1 2.0-0-0! [ 1 2.Bd3 ! ? c5 ! 1 3 .a3 Qb6? ( 1 3 . . .cxd4 fol­ lowed by ... Qe5 i s correct.) 14.b4 ! cxd4 ( 1 4 ... cxb4 1 5.c5 Qc7 1 6. axb4 +-.) 1 5.c5 Qc7 1 6.Nc4 Nf6 1 7 . Qxd4 +- 0-0 1 8.Qd6! Qxd6 1 9 .Nxd6 Rd8 20.0-0-0 Kf8 2 1 .Be2 Ne8 22.Nc4 Ke7 23.Bf3 Rb8 24.Na5 ! Nc7 25.Rxd8 Kxd8 26.Rd l ch. Ke7 27 .Kb2 f5 28.Nc4 Bd7 29.Kb3 ! Be8 30.a4 b5 3 1 .cxb6 axb6 32.b5 Bf7 33.Kb4! g6 34.Rd6 Nd5 35.Bxd5 exd5 3 6. Rxb6, 1 -0, Horvath-Szab­ olcsy, Hungary 1 986.] 1 2 . . . Qxa2 1 3.Bd3 Nb6 ! ? [Perhaps the solid but passive 1 3 . . . Nf6 followed by 1 4 ... Bd7 is a better try.] 1 4.c5 ! Nd5 1 5.Nc4 B d7 1 6.Nd6ch. Kf8 1 7 . Qf3 Be8 1 8 .Rhe l Kg8 1 9.Bc4 Qa1 ch. 20.Kc2 Qa4ch. 2 1 .Kb l b6! 22.Bb3 Qb4 23 .Bxd5 cxd5 24.Nxe8 Rxe8 25.Qxd5 bxc5 26.dxc5, White's advantage is obvious, Cebalo-P.Nikolic, Yu­ goslavia 1982. Though these two examples don ' t speak well for 1 1 . .. Qa5, another possibility ex­ ists for Black, namely: 1 l . . .c5 ! ?.

The one example I have found with this move was rather boring but it was encouraging from Black' s point of view: 1 2.dxc5 Qa5 1 3.Be2 Qxc5 1 4.0-0 Nf6 1 5.Qc2 Bd7 1 6.a3 0-0 1 7.b4 Qc7 1 8. Rac l , 1 /2- 1 /2, KindermannTatai, Dortmund 1 98 1 . More tests will be needed before the real worth of 1 1 .. .c5 is known. 12 0-0-0

In the game Rubinetti-Torre, Toluca 1 982, White tried 1 2.Bd3 but Black equalized quickly after 1 2 . . . Nf6 1 3.Qh4 e5 ! 1 4.0-0-0 Qxd4 1 5.Qxd4 exd4 1 6.Nb3 Rd8 =

12 ...

e5

The main alternative to this is 12 ... Qa5 ! ? but White ' s game always seems more comfortable

Semi-Slav Defense after 1 3 .Bd3 Nf6 [Or 1 3 . . .g6 14.h4 h5 1 5.f3! e5 1 6.g4 exd4 1 7 . Qxd4 Qe5 1 8.Qf2 Nc5 1 9.Bc2 hxg4 20.fxg4 Bxg4 2 1 .Rdg 1 f5 22.h5 g5 ! 23.Re 1 Qd6 24.Qe3 Kh8 25.Qxg5 Rad8?! (25 . . .Rg8 ! 26.Qe3 Rad8 is a n improve­ ment.) 26.Re7 ! Rg8 27. Qe3 Ne4 2 8 . Rxe4 ! Qxd2ch . 29. Qxd2 Rxd2 30.Kxd2 fxe4 3 1 .Bxe4 and White won on the 48th move, G.Stoltz-Bogoljubov, Beograd 1 952.] 1 4.Qh4 Qh5 1 5.Qxh5 Nxh5 1 6. Rhe 1 Rd8 1 7 . Nf3 Nf4 1 8 .Bfl b6 1 9 . g3 , Sosonko-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1 979. White won on the 49th move. 13 dxe5

Qa5

14 B d3

g6

J. Watson recommends 1 4 . . . f5 ! ? and if 1 5.exf6 Nxf6 1 6.Qh4 Qxa2 1 7 . Rhe 1 B g4 ! . However, by 1 5.Qd4 Qxe5 1 6.Nf3 White can retain a small edge. 15 B b1

Qxe5 !

In the game Knezevic-Kupreic­ hik, Stary Smokovec 1 975, Black played 1 5 . . . Nxe5? but came un­ der heavy pressure after 1 6. Rhe 1 f6 1 7 .Qh4. The game concluded 1 7 . . . Qc5 1 8.f4! Ng4 1 9 . Re2 Kg7 20. Rde 1 R f7 2 l . R e 8 b5

91

22.Bxg6! ! Kxg6 23.Rxc8 Nf2 24.Rxa8 Nd3ch. 25.Kb 1 Qf5 26.g4 Qxf4 27.Rg8ch., 1 -0. 16 Rhe1

Qg7

17 Qf4

Nb6

18 Re7

Na4

19 Qe5

Qxe5

20 Rxe5

Rd8

21 Bc2

White has a very slight edge but B lack should be able to hold the position. The game Chandler­ Torre, Hastings 1 980/8 1 , contin­ ued 2 1 ...Nb6 22.c5 Nd5 23 .Ne4 B e 6 24.Ng5 Nc7 2 5 . Nxe6 Rxd 1 ch. 26.Bxd 1 fxe6 27 .Bb3 Kt7 28.Bc4 Nd5 29.g3 Kf6 30.f4 Rd8 3 1 .a3 Nc7 32.Kc2 Rd4 with an eventual draw. D.

#7. 1 0

9

...

Nf6

92

7 e4 main

Not as bad as its reputation. White will not get more then a very slight advantage. 10 Qc2 c5 A new idea is 1 0. . . Bb4ch! ?. In the game Donchev-Stefanov, Bul­ garia 1984, Black easily held the game after 1 1 .Bd2 Bxd2ch. 1 2. Qxd2 Ne4! 1 3.Qe3 Qa5ch. 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Qxd2ch. 1 6.Kxd2 Ke7 17 .Be2 Rd8. In­ stead of 1 3.Qe3 White has to try 13.Qb4 when Black does best with 1 3 ... c5 14.dxc5 Qc7. Bxc5 11 dxc5 12 Bd3 12.Be2 0-0 1 3.0-0 b6 14.Bd2 Bb7 was all right for Black in O ' Kelly-Lundin, Groningen 1946. 0-0 12 ... h6 13 0-0 14 Bd2! b6 Be7 15 b4 16 Bc3 += according to J.Watson.

E,. 0-0?! 9 ... The worst of the 9th. move possi­ bilities. Nf6 10 Bd3 11 Qe2

line

Or 1 1 .Qh4!? Bb4ch. 1 2.Ke2 Be7 1 3 . B g5 h6 1 4 . Rad 1 hxg5 1 5 . Nxg5 intending 15 ... g6? 1 6.Qh6! or 15 ... Re8 1 6.Bh7ch. Kf8 17.Bc2 with the idea of Rd3J.Watson. c5 11 ... Bxc5 12 dxc5 h6 13 0-0 14 Ne5 In the game Averbakh-Vaganian, USSR ch. 1970, White played the less accurate 14.Bf4 and had to be satisfied with a small edge after 14 ... b6 15.Rad1 Qe7 1 6.Ne5 Bb7 1 7 . B c 2 Rfd 8 1 8 . B a4 Rd4 19.Rxd4 B xd4 20.Bc6 Rd8 2 l .Bxb7 Qxb7 22.Rdl . 14 ... Qe7 15 Qf3 +- according to Gufeld. Conclusion: Aside from the unanswered questions concern­ ing 7 .e4 e5 ! ? Black has several good possibilities. For winning chances 9 ... e5 is the choice as it keeps the position unbalanced and complicated. For equality 9 . . . c5, 9 . . . Bb4ch . and even 9 ... Nf6 can all be considered.

Semi-Slav Defense

CHAPTER 8

93

D45/SL8

6 Ne5 ; 6 a3; etc. and 5 e3 a6 This chapter consists of a variety of lesser known systems in the Semi-Slav. Some of them like 6.a3, 6.b3, and 6.Be2 are essen­ tially harmless. However 6.Ne5 contains some poison. Discov­ ered and developed by the great Rubinstein as an antidote to his newly introduced Meran defense 6.Ne5 got a lot of tryouts in the 1930's and 40' s. After a forty year hiatus Argentine G.M. Car­ los Garcia Palermo has recently brought it back into the limelight. Another reasonable variation that has suffered unexplained neglect is l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6. This line, origi­ nally favored by Paul Keres and later championed by I.M.s Boris Kogan and Nikolay Minev, has many transpositional possibili­ ties. On 6.Bd3 Black has ... dxc4 7 .Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 c5 leading the game into a comfortable vari­ ation of the Q.G.A. On 6.Qc2

Black has 6... c5 ! ? when the op­ tion of placing the Knight on c6 more then offsets the loss of a tempo. The theoretical antidote of 6.c5 has never been clearly worked out. As the reader will discover, White has real trouble gaining an advantage against this little known system.

Rare but Solid System With 5 a6 ...

l.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 #8. 1 Nf6 5.e3 a6:

1).1

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6

Now White has A.6.Bd3: B.6.b3: C.6.a3: D. 6.a4: E. 6.Ne5: F. 6.0c2; G. 6.c5. A, 6 Bd3 This move completely falls in with Black's plan. 6 ... dxc4 Most logical. Also playable is 6 ... b5 ! ? 7.b3 Nbd7 8.0-0 Bb7 9.c5 ! Be7 [Euwe recommends 9 . . . g6 here.] 10.a3 a5 [ and here Euwe gives 10 . . . 0-0 as equal.] 1 1 .Bb2 0-0 1 2.Qc2 Qc7 ! [In the game B ron stei n-B otvinnik, Match 195 1 , Black played the inferior 1 2 . . . g6 and after 1 3.b4 White was better. The text ( 1 2 ... Qc7 ! ) is an ECO sugges­ tion.] 1 3.b4 axb4 14.axb4 Rxa1 1 5 . Rx a 1 Ra8 with mutual chances. 7 Bxc4 b5 8 Bd3 Naturally 8.Bb3 is also possible when play might easily transpose into one of the main lines of the Q.G.A. where Black has been doing well-8 . . . c5 9.0-0 Bb7 10.Qe2 Nbd7 1 1 .Rd1 Qb6 [a tempo behind the normal move order as White has played Bfl -

d3xc4 and Black c7-c6-c5.]. 8 ... c5 9 0-0 Black got an edge in Gofstein­ Vorotnikov, Spartak Club ch. 1976 after 9.e4 Bb7 1 0.d5? exd5 1 1 .e5 Ne4 1 2. Qc2 Nc6 13.a3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 c4 15.Bxh7 d4 1 6.Be4 d3. Bb7 9 . With 9 ... Nbd7 a position from the Meran has been reached where White has traded the active 9.e4 for the less precise 9.0-0 [see Meran Defense-Chess Enter­ prises 1987, Chapter 5.]. Black should have few problems after 9 ... Nbd7 but perhaps the simplest answer is 9 ...cxd4. This gave Black easy equality after 1 O.exd4 [ 1 0.Nxd4 is a safer move.] 10 ... Bb7 1 1 .Bg5 Be7 1 2.Qe2 0-0 1 3 . R ad 1 Nbd7 in Lasker­ Reshevsky, Nottingham 1 936. Bxc5 10 dxc5 Nbd7 11 e4 12 Qe2 Qb8 13 h3 0-0 b4 14 Be3 Bd6 15 Na4 Bc6 16 Nd2 17 b3 Ne5 .

.

Semi-Slav Defense 18 Nb6 Nxd3 19 Qxd3 BbS 20 Ndc4 Rd8 21 Qc2 Ra7 22 Rfd1 Be7 23 Rxd8ch Bxd8 24 Rd1 Rb7 25 Bf4 Bc7 26 Bxc7 Qxc7 27 Qd2 Rb8 28 Qd4 with an edge that eventually turned into victory, Peev-Kola­ rov, Primorsko 197 6; 1!, Bb4 6 b3

95

8 Bd3 0-0 9 0-0 Bd6 A blunder is 9 ...b5?? 1 0.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 l .cxd5 Bxd2 1 2.dxe6 ++­ ; Playable is 9 ... Qe7 when after 1 0 . Qc2 B lack m u s t avoid 10 ... e5?? because of 1 1 .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.Bxh7ch.; 9 ... c5 10.a3 is += according to S aidy. 10 Qc2 Black has no problems after 10.e4 dxc4! [ 1 0 ... dxe4 1 1 .Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 1 4.Bc3 ! +- according to Saidy.] 1 1 .bxc4 e5 12.d5 Nc5 1 3.Bg5 h6 14.Bh4 Bg4 1 5.h3 Bxf3 1 6.Qxf3 Be7 1 7.Bg3 Nfd7 1 8.Rfd1 g6 1 9 . B c 2 B g 5 20. Na4 Qe7 21 .Nxc5 Nxc5 22.Qa3 Rfd8 23.Rab 1 Rac8 24.Rb6 cxd5 25 . ex d 5 , 1 /2- 1 /2 , Farago­ Velikov, Baile Herculane 1 982. eS 10 10 . . . dxc4! ? 1 1 .bxc4 e5. cxdS 11 cxdS 12 dxeS NxeS 13 NxeS B xeS 14 f4 Bd6 14 ... Bb8 1 5.e4 Ba7ch. 1 6.Kh l Ng4 17.h3 dxe4 1 8.Bxe4 Nf2ch. 19.Rxf2 Bxf2 20.Bxh7ch. Kh8 2 1 .Ne4 gives White good com••.

#8.2

7 Bd2 Bad is 7.Bb2? Ne4 8.Qc2 Qa5 9.Rc 1 Qxa2 with a clear advantage for Black. 7 ... Nbd7

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6 pensation for the exchange­ Saidy. dxe4 15 e4 16 Nxe4 Nxe4 h6 17 Bxe4 Rb8 18 Kh1 19 Bc3 Qc7 f6 20 Qb2 Rd8 21 Qd2! 22 Racl! +-, Saidy-Minev, Sarajevo 197 1 ;

� Nbd7 6 a3 7 Bd3 White did not fare very well with 7.b4 in the game Averbach-Pet­ rosian, USSR 197 1 . The continu­ ation was 7 ... Bd6 8.c5 Bc7 9.Be2 0-0 lO.B b2 e5 with advantage to Black. 7 ... dxc4 8 Bxc4 b5 9 Be2 9.Ba2!? may be better. 9 ... c5 Bxc5 10 dxc5 =, Porreca-van Scheltinga, Dub­ rovnik 1950; .11. 6 a4

#8.3 A very ugly move that can't cause Black any problems. c5 6 ... Nc6 7 Bd3 Be7 8 0-0 N.Popov-Novopashin, USSR 1979 went 8 . . .dxc4 9.Bxc4 Bd6 10.Qe2 Qc7 1 l .dxc5 Bxc5 12.e4 Ng4 13.g3 0-0 14.Bf4 e5 15.Nd5 Qd6 1 6.Be3 Nxe3 17.fxe3 Bg4 18.Qd3 Rad8 19.Kg2 Qh6 20.h4 Kh8 2 1 .Qc3 Qg6 22.b4 Ba7 23.Nd2 aS 24.bxa5 f5 25.Rab 1 , 1 -0 in 32. 9 b3 0-0 b6 10 Bb2 11 cxd5 exd5 Nb4 12 Ne5 13 Bb1 Bd6 ReS 14 Ne2

Semi-Slav Defense Ra7 15 Nf4 Rc7 16 Nfd3 17 aS Nxd3 18 Nxd3 Bxh2 ch. 19 Kxh2 Ng4ch. 20 Kg3 h5 21 Ne5 Qg5 h4ch. 22 f4 23 Kf3 Nxe5ch. 24 dxe5 Qg3ch. 25 Ke2 Bg4ch. 0- 1 , Ivanov-Kogan, Tashkent 1977; E.. 6 Ne5

This does not offer White much of anything. c5 6 ... Nxd5 7 cxd5 8 Be2

97

Also unclear i s 8.Bd3 Nc6 9 . Nxc6 bxc6 1 0.0-0 cxd4 1 1 . Nxd5 Qxd5 1 2 . exd4 c5 13.Re1 Qxd4 1 4. Qf3 Rb8 1 5 .Rd 1 Bb7 1 6.Qe2 Qa4, Karsa-Vo­ rotnikov, Lvov 1983. Nc6 8 ... 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 0-0 cxd4 11 Qxd4 c5 12 Qg4 Qc7 13 Bf3 Bd6 14 Qxg7 Bxh2ch. 15 Kh1 Be5 16 Qg4 Rb8 17 Ne4 c4 both sides have chances in this very complicated position, Bogoljubov-Alekhine, B erne 1932; E 6 Qc2 :lt8_j_

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6 This is one of White' s most common replies to 5 . . . a6. c5 6 This is the move that N.Minev favors. Other moves are also per­ fectly playable: 1 ) 6... Nbd7-see Chapter 4; 2) 6 ... Bb4 7.a3 Ba5 8.Be2 Nbd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bd2 Bc7 1 1 .e4 e5 1 2.cxd5 cxd5 1 3 .B g5 dxe4 14.Nxe4 exd4 1 5.Nxd4 Bb6 1 6. Nf5 +=, Flohr-Lundi n , Saltsjobaden 1948; 3) 6 ... b5 7.c5 [7.b3 ! ?.] 7 ... Nbd7 8.Bd3 g6 9.a3 Bg7 1 0.e4 dxe4 1 1 .Nxe4 Nxe4 1 2.Bxe4 Qc7 1 3.0-0 0-0 1 4.Re 1 Nf6 1 5.Ne5 Nd5, Kolarov-Neikirkh, Bulgar­ ian ch. 1 962. The position is unclear; 4) 6 ... dxc4 [With 6 ... c5, this is Black' s most popular response to 6. Qc2. However examples tend to favor White and it now seems that 6... dxc4 does not quite equal­ ize.] 7.Bxc4 b5 [White had an edge in van Scheltinga-Wade, Amsterdam 1954 after 7 ... c5 8.00 b5 9.Be2 cxd4 1 0.Nxd4 Bb7 1 1 .Rd1 Qc7 1 2.Ne4. Euwe also mentions 7 ... Nbd7 8.a4 which he feels is slightly better for White.] ...

8.Bd3 [8.Be2! ?.] 8 ...Nbd7 [Black loses a pawn after 8 ... c5? 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Nxb5 ! .] 9.0-0 [9.a4 b4 10.Ne4 was mentioned by Ar­ chives magazine as needing ex­ amination way back in 195 1 .] 9 . . . c5 1 0.a4 c4? [ 1 0 . . . cxd4 1 1 .exd4 bxa4 keeps White's advantage to a bare minimum.] 1 1 .Be2 Rb8 1 2.axb5 axb5 1 3.e4 b4 14.Na4 b3?! [A little better was 14 ... Ba6 though 1 5.Nc5 would still be in White ' s favor.] 15.Qxc4 Nxe4 1 6.Qd3 ! Ndf6? [Black had to play 1 6... Bb7 ! 1 7 .Bf4 Bd6 1 8 .B xd6 Nxd6 19.Qxb3 when White is just slightly better according to Cia­ marra .] 17.Ne5 Bd7 1 8.Nxd7 Qxd7 19.Bf3 ! Rb4 20.Nc3 Qxd4 2 1 .Ra8ch. Kd7 22.Qa6 Nd6 23.Qc6ch. Ke7 24.Rd 1 Qb6 2 5 . Rxd6, 1 -0 , Kaufman­ Boskovic, USA 1979. 7 dxc5 White gained a microscopic ad­ vantage with 7 .cxd5 exd5 8.Be2 Nc6 9.0-0 cxd4 [Perhaps 9 ... Be6 is better: 1 0.Rd1 cxd4 1 l .Nxd4 Nxd4 12.exd4 ( 12.Rxd4 Bc5 1 3. Rd 1 Qc7 is nothing for White.) 1 2... Be7 1 3.Bg5 0-0

Semi-Slav Defense 14.Bf3 b5 1 5.Qb3 Qd6 ! , 1/2- 1/2, Horowitz-Euwe, New York 1 94 8/49 . ] 1 0. Nxd4 Nxd4 1 l .exd4 h6 1 2.Bf3 Be6 1 3.Bf4 Be7 1 4.Rac 1 0-0 15.Na4 Bd6 1 6.Bxd6 Qxd6 1 7 .Qc5 Qf4 l 8 .Nb6 Rad8 1 9 . Rc3 Rfe8 20.Re3 Nd7 2 1 .Nxd7 Rxd7 2 3 . Rfe 1 , Red8 22.Re5 Donaldson-Minev, Hamar 1983. BxcS 7 8 a3 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Be2 Nc6 1 0.0-0 00 is equal according to Minev. dxc4 8 0-0 9 Bxc4 Nbd7 10 0-0 1 O.. . Nc6! ? -Gheorghiu. 11 Bd3! White gets nowhere with 1 1 .b4 Be7 1 2.Bb2 b5 13.Bd3 Bb7 1 4.Rfd1 Qb6=. 11 Qc7 Bd6 12 b4 13 Bb2 bS 14 Ne4 1 4.e4 Ng4 ! . Qxc2 14 15 Bxc2 Be7 16 Nxf6cho Nxf6 17 NeS Bb7 Rfc8 18 Bd4

99

19 Bd3 aS axb4 20 BxbS Bxb4 21 axb4 Gheorghiu-Minev, Varna 1 97 1 . The game i s dead even; .G.. 6 cS

000

000

000

000

!1M This is White's sharpest try at 'punishing' 5 ... a6. White fixes a weakness on b6 and if Black plays . . . b6 or ... b5 White can capture by cxb6 and then gener­ ate play against the pawn on c6. However Black, by playing for an . . . e5 advance should be able to achieve a satisfactory position. Nbd7 6 A very logical move. White seems to keep an edge vs. 6 ... b6: 7.cxb6! [7.b4? a5 8.Na4 Nbd7 9.b5 Bb7 is slightly in Black's 000

1 00

6 Ne5; 6 a3 ; etc. and 5e3 a6

favor-Euwe.] 7 . . . Nbd7 8.Na4 Nxb6 [Inferior is 8 ...Ne4 9.Qb3 Rb8 1 0.Bd3 Nxb6 1 1 .Bxe4 dxe4 1 2.Ne5 +- according to Gligoric.] 9.Bd2 and now Black has: 1 ) 9 . . . Nxa4 1 0 . Qxa4 Bd7 [ 1 0 ... Qb6 1 1 .Rc 1 Bd7 1 2.Ne5 Qxb2 1 3.Nxd7 Nxd7 14.Bd3 Rb8 15.Ke2! Rb6 1 6.Rb1 +-, EuweAlekhine, Match 1935.] 1 1 .Ne5 c5 1 2.Nxd7 Qxd7 1 3.Qxd7ch. Kxd7 14.dxc5 Bxc5 15.b4 Bd6 1 6.Bd3 +=, Spielmann-van der Bosch, Match 1936; 2) 9 ... Nbd7 10.Rc 1 Bb7 1 1 .Bd3 [White also gained a slight advantage with 1 1 .a3 Bd6 1 2.Bb4 Bxb4 13.axb4 0-0 14.Be2 a5 1 5.b5 +=, Stumpers-van ScheltAmsterdam 1 950.] inga, 1 l ...Bd6 1 2.0-0 0-0 [ 1 2 ...Qe7 13.Qc2 Re8 1 4.b4! is good for White since 14 ... Bxb4 is not possible due to 1 5.Bxb4 Qxb4 1 6.Rb l . Analysis by Euwe.] 13.Qb3 [Euwe also mentions 13.Qc2 as being worthy of attention.] 13 ... Rb8 14.Bc3 Ne4?! [ 1 4 ... Qe7 intending ...c5 or ... e5 keeps White's advantage to a minimum.] 1 5 . B xe4 dxe4 1 6.Ne5 +-, Meyer-Shaposnikov,

corr. 1962. 7 b4 On 7.Na4 Black equalizes by 7 ... g6! [Also playable is 7 ... Ne4 e5 9 . Nd2 Nxd2 8 . Bd3 (Alekhine' s recommendation of 9 . . . Ng5 followed by . . . Ne6 should be looked at.) 10.Bxd2 e4 1 1 .Be2 Be7 1 2.0-0 0-0 13.f3, Botvinnik-Thomas, Nottingham 1936, and now 13 ...exf3 ! intend­ ing 14.gxf3 f5 ! is not completely clear-Euwe.] 8.Be2 B g7 9.0-0 00 10.Bd2, Kmoch-Mulder, Rotterdam 1 940, and now 10 ... Ne4! is equal. g6 7 Other moves: 1) 7 ...b6 8.Bd2 bxc5 9.bxc5 e5 10.dxe5 Ng4 1 1 .Qa4 Ngxe5 1 2 . Nxe5 Nxe5 1 3 . f4 Nd7 14.Qxc6 Ra7 1 5 . Qxd5 Bxc5 1 6.Ne4 +-, Vladimirov-Lutikov, RSFSR ch. 1960; 2) 7 ... Qc7 8.Bb2 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 1 0.Nxe5 Qxe5 1 1 .Na4 Qe6 1 2.Nb6 +-, Euwe-van Steenis, Beverwijk 1940; 3) 7 ... Ne4 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Nd2 f5 10.f3 exf3 1 1 .Qxf3 Nf6 1 2.Bc4 +-, Euwe-van Steenis, Amsterdam 195 1 ; ...

Semi-Slav Defense

101

4) 7 ... a5 ! ? [This may well be Yugoslavia 1949. stronger then 7 ... g6.] 8.b5 e5 ! Ne4 11 Na4 [8 ... Ne4? 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Nd2 f5 White i s better after both 1 l .f3 ! ++-, Euwe-Alekhine, 1 1 . ..Ng4 1 2.h3 Nh6 1 3.Ne5 ! f6 Match 1 935.] 9.Qa4 [Euwe men­ 14.Nxd7 Bxd7 1 5 . Nb6 and tions 9.Be2! ?.] 9 ... Qc7 10.Ba3 e4 1 1 . . . . e5? ! 1 2. Nxe5 ! Nxe5 1 1 .Nd2 Be7 12.Be2 h5 13.b6 1 3.dxe5 Nd7 14.f4 f6 1 5 .e4! ­ Qd8 1 4.h3 Nf8 1 5.0-0-0 Ne6? Pachman 16.Ndxe4! wins a pawn for fS ! 12 Bd3 White, Reshevsky-Keres, World An improvement on 1 2 ... e5? ! Championship 1948. However 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 Black can do better by 1 1 ... g6! 15.dxe5 Bxe5 1 6.Bxe5 Qxe5 when 1 2.Be2 Bh6 is equal ac­ 17.Qd6! . cording to Pachman. 1 3 NeS Bg7 8 Bb2 According to Pachman White has 9 Be2 0-0 a slight advantage. Qe7 10 0-0 Dubious System with 5...dxc4. Black has not equalized with al­ 1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 ternatives either: Nf6 5.e3 dxc4?! 1) 10 ... Qc7 1 l .h3 ! e5 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nd4 +-, Analysis by Euwe; 2) 10 ... Ne8 1 1 .e4 dxe4 1 2.Nxe4 Ndf6, Euwe-van Scheltinga, Amsterdam 1950, and now ac­ cording to Euwe White can gain a clear advantage with 1 3.Nxf6ch. Nxf6 1 4.Ne5; 3) 10 ... Re8 1 1 .a4 Qe7 12.b5 e5 1 3.bxc6 bxc6 14.a5 exd4 15.exd4 Rb8 1 6.Qc2 Ne4 17.Bd3 Qd8 1!U 1 8.Na4 ! , Matanovic-Simonovic, This loses a tempo over the main

1 02

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6

lines for no good reason and therefore cannot be recom­ mended. Be7 6 Bxc4 7 0-0 0-0 Nbd7 8 e4 9 e5 Nd5 ReS 10 Re1 11 Ne4 Nf8 12 h4 + Qb6 h6 13 h5 Bd7 14 Bd2 15 b4 Rad8 16 Rb1 Bc8 17 Qc2 Qc7 f6 18 g4 19 exf6 Bxf6 20 Rb3 Qt7 21 Ne5 1-0 in 42, Tukmakov-Mikhalchisin, USSR 1978. The Passive and Commital 5,Be7. Be7 tm,.8 5 ...

This passive and inflexible move is rightfully unpopular. 6 Bd3 Naturally, since Black's Bishop will no longer be going to its best square [d6] white has a nice choice of systems that will be a bit stronger then they normally might be. For example 6. b3 is an excellent choice: 6 ... Ne4 7 .Nxe4 dxe4 8.Nd2 f5 9.f3 exf3 10.Nxf3 0-0 1 1 .Bd3 Nd7 1 2.0-0 c5 13.Bb2 Bf6 14.Qc2 g6 1 5.Rae1 +=, Panno-Aloni, Amsterdam 1 954. dxc4 6 ... b5 7 Bxc4 8 Bd3 b4 8 ... a6 has also been tried: 9.0-0 [9.e4 Bb7 (9 ... c5 ! ?-ECO) 1 0.e5 Nd5 1 1 .Ne4 h6 1 2.0-0 Nd7 1 3 . Qe2 +=, Osnos-Kovacs, Budapest 1965.] 9 ...c5 [9 ... 0-0 10.e4 c5 1 1 .dxc5 b4 1 2.Na4 Qa5 1 3.Nb6 +=, Yanofsky-Beyen, Nice 1974.] 1 0.dxc5 Nc6 1 l .Qe2 Bxc5 1 2.e4 e5 13.Rd1 0-0 1 4.Be3 Nd4 15.Bxd4 Bxd4 1 6.Nxd4 Qxd4 17 .Nd5 Nxd5 1 8.exd5 Qf4 1 9 . R ae 1 +=, Polugaevsky­ Kozomara, Sarajevo 1 964. Ba6 9 Na4

Semi-Slav Defense 0-0 10 0-0 Qa5 11 Ne5 Alternatives: 1) 1 1 . . .B xd3 1 2.Nxd3 Nbd7 13.Bd2 a5 14.Rc 1 Rc8 15.f3 Nb6 1 6.Ne5 +-, Euwe-Szabo, Am­ sterdam 1950; 2) 1 1 . ..Qd5?! 12.Qe2! Bxd3 1 3 . Nxd3 Nbd7 1 4.b3 Qb5 1 5.Bb2 Rac8 1 6.Rac 1 c5 17.dxc5 Nxc5 1 8.Bxf6! gxf6 19.Qg4ch. Kh8 20.Ndxc5 Bxc5 2 1 .Nxc5 Rxc5 22.Qd4! Rfc8 23.Qxf6ch. +- ,Kotov-L. Steiner, Saltsjobaden 1 948. Nfd7 12 b3 Or 1 2 ... Nbd7 1 3.Bxa6 Qxa6 14.Nd3 Qb5 1 5.Qc2 +-, ECO. Qxa6 13 Bxa6 14 Nd3 Qb5 and now according to Taimanov White can get an edge by 15.Qc2. Black Plays 5 Bd6. .JtB..2. 5 ... Bd6

1 03

Of course this will usually trans­ pose into main line Semi-Slav positions. However on occasion Black will avoid ...Nbd7 and give the game some independent sig­ nificance. 6 Bd3 0-0 dxe4 7 e4 8 Nxe4 Nxe4 9 Bxe4 and now 9 . . .Nbd7 transposes back into Chapter One while 9 ... Bb4ch. 10.Bd2 can also go i nto known lines. After 9 ... Bb4ch. only 10.Ke2! ? gives matters an independent slant: 10 ...Nd7 1 1 .Bf4 Nf6 1 2.Bc2 Re8 1 3.Qd3 Bd6 14.Ne5 +-, Yudo­ vich-Gergely, USSR 1 970.

Harmless Sixth Moye Alterna­ tives For White.

...

Now we will look at positions arriving after J.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7: White can play A. 6.a3: B. 6.b3: C. 6.Be2. A,

6 a3

1 04

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6

ftUll This move is much too slow to cause Black any problems. Bd6 6 ... This is Black' s usual choice since it leaves him a solid tempo up on the Romih variation [ 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Bb4 7 .a3 Bd6.] . Also satis­ factory is 6 . . . g6 7.Bd3 Bg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.b4 e5 1 0.cxd5 [Or 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .dxe5 Ng4 1 2.f4 dxc4 1 3 .B e2 ( 1 3.Bxc4 Qh4 1 4.h3 Nxe5.) 13 ... Qh4 1 4.h3 Nxe5 1 5 .fxe5 B xe5 1 6.Rf4 B xf4 1 7 . ex f4 B x h 3 -Analysis by S my sl ov . ] 1 0 . . . exd4 1 l .exd4 Nxd5 1 2.Nxd5 cxd5 1 3 .Bg5 f6 14.Bf4 Nb6 1 5 .Rc 1 Rt7 1 6.Re 1 Bd7 17.b5 Rc8=, P.Littlewood­ Smyslov, Hastings 1 98 1/82.

7 B d3 Other tries for White are: 1 ) 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Qe7 9.Qc2 dxc4 10.Bxc4 e5 1 1 .h3 b5 1 2. B d3 B b7 1 3 . Ne4 Nxe4 1 4.Bxe4 Nf6 1 5. dxe5 Nxe4 1 6.exd6 Nxd6 17.Nd4 Qg5 1 8.e4 Qe5 19.Nxc6, Smejkal-Cvitan, Zagreb/Rijeka 1985, and now 19 ... Qe6 is slightly better for Black; 2) 7. Qc2 0-0 [Also quite adequate is 7 ...e5 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nb5 Bb8 1 0.Bd2 0-0 1 l .Bb4 Re8 1 2. Rc 1 exd4=, Ljubojevic-F.Silva, Praia da Rocha 1 978.] 8.Be2 dxc4 9.Bxc4 e5 1 0.0-0 Qe7 1 l .h3 h6 1 2. B a2 Re8 1 3 .dxe5 Nxe5 1 4 . Nd4 Bc5 1 5 . B d2 K h 8 1 6.Rae1 Ng6 17.b4 Bb6 1 8.Kh 1 Nh4 19.Bc4 Bxh3 20.gxh3 Qd7 2 l .Kh2 B xd4 22.exd4 Nf3ch. 23.Kg2 Nh4ch. 24.Kh2 Nf3ch. 25.Kg2 Nh4ch. 26.Kh2, 1/2- 1/2, Alburt-Mikhalchisin, U S S R 1 978. Qe7 7 ... Black is also safe after? ... 0-0 8 .00 dxc4 9.Bxc4 e5 10.e4 Qe7 1 1 .B g5 exd4 1 2. Qxd4 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Qe3 h6 1 5.Bf4 Ng4 1 6.Qg3 Bxf4 17.Qxf4 Qe5

Semi-Slav Defense 18.Qxe5 Nxe5 19.Be2 Be6, 1/21/2, Dr. Ostermeyer-Schmidt, Porz 1 98 1 . dxc4 8 b3 0-0 9 Bxc4 10 Bb2 e5 11 dxe5 Nxe5 12 Be2 Nxf3 ch. Bf5 13 Bxf3 Rad8 14 Ne2 Ne4 15 Qc1 Bg6 16 Nd4 17 b4 aS 18 bxa5 Nc5 19 Be2 Na4 Bb4ch. 20 Nf3 Vasiliev-Sveshnikov, USSR 1978; Black is better.

.IL. 6 b3

#8. 1 1 White intends to go into lines

1 05

from Chapter Six with Bb2, Qc2, etc. However this is a poor way of going into that system, 6.Qc2 being the accurate method. Bb4! 6 ... If it were not for this strong move 6. b3 would be fine. However White is now forced to play Bd2 and his original plan is disrupted. 7 Bd2 7.Bb2? loses a pawn to 7 ...Ne4 8.Qc2 Qa5 9.Rc1 Qxa2. 7 0-0 The immediate 7 ... Bd6 will usu­ ally transpose into the same posi­ tions arising from 7 . . . 0-0. Qe7 8 Be2 Bd6 9 0-0 10 Qc2 dxc4 There is no reason to allow White to give Black an isolated pawn after 1 0 . . . e5 1 l .dxe5 Nxe5 1 2.cxd5 cxd5 1 3.Nb5 etc. 11 Bxc4 It' s probably better to play 1 l .bxc4.After1 1 .. .e5 H.Muller' s suggestion of 1 2.Ng5 ! Re8 13.Bd3 reaches a position with chances for both sides. e5 11 ... h6 12 Rae1 13 dxe5 Nxe5 •.•

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6

1 06

Bxe5 14 Nxe5 Bc7 15 f4 16 e4 Ng4 17 g3 b5! 18 Bd3 Rd8! 19 e5 Bb6ch. Black has the superior position, Seirawan-Kuligowski, Philadel­ phia 1980. !:.. 6 Be2

#8. 1 2 This move has little independent significance since Black will usually play 6 . . . dxc4 which transposes into the Meran. In those instances where Black does not choose to go into the Meran and instead plays 6... Bd6, we will usually see a transposition to Chapter Six by 7.b3 0-0 8.Qc2.

Actually the only independent lines associated with 6.Be2 are those in which White plays b3 but avoids placing his Queen on c2. Bd6 6 ... 0-0 7 b3 dxc4 8 Bb2 9 bxc4 e5 exd4 10 0-0 ReS 11 exd4 NfS 12 a4 13 Re1 Bf5 Bb4 14 g3 aS 15 Qb3 Bxa3 16 Ba3 Bg4 17 Qxa3 cxd5 18 d5 Nxd5 19 cxd5 Black has no problems. The game Petrosi an-Taimanov, U S S R 1973 concluded: 20.Rad1 Qe7 2 1 .Qxe7 Nxe7 22.Nb5 Ne6 23.Nd6 Red8 24.Nxb7 Rxd1 25.Bxd 1 , 1/2-1/2.

Rubinstein's Anti-Meran Weapon : 6.Ne5!? 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Ne5!?

Semi-Slav Defense

1 07

0 Qc7 [Horowitz's suggestion of 9 ... Qb6 may be an improvement.] 10.cxd5 exd5 [ 1 0... Nxd5 1 1 .Qf3 N7f6 1 2.g4! is clearly better for White according to Spielmann. 1 1 .Qf3 cxd4 1 2 .exd4 Qb6 1 3.Be3 ! Qxb2 14.Rfc 1 Qa3 15.Rab1 Bd8? [ 1 5 ... a6 is best according to Gligoric though White would still retain excellent attacking chances.] 1 6.Bf2! Qd6 1 7 . Nb5 Qb8 1 8 . B g3 Ne4 19.Bxe4 dxe4 20.Qb3 ! Bb6 2 1 .Nxf7 Rxf7 22.f5 Ne5 23.Kh 1 ! !8...13. This move was introduced in Bxf5 24.Bxe5 Qe8 25.Nd6, ++-, 1930 by Rubinstein as a means of Spielmann-H.Muller, Ebensee avoiding the complications of the 1933; Meran. The idea found few fol­ 2) 6... dxc4 7.f4 ! ? [Dubious is lowers however, though Spiel­ 7.Bxc4?! Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qxd1ch. mann and a few others recog­ 9.Nxd1 Nd5 and White has nized its attacking potential and gained nothing from the opening. played it from time to time. To­ Also very poor is 7.Nxd7?! Bxd7 day, as in the past, the line is not 8.Bxc4 c5 (Or 8 . .. Be7 9.0-0 0-0 very popular, though it is a good 10.e4 b5 1 1 .Bd3 b4 1 2.Na4 Qc7 way to · avoid the well trodden 1 3.Be3 e5 14.dxe5 Ng4 1 5.Bf4 paths of the Meran and generate Nxe5 with equality in Conquest­ an attacking position with mini­ Piket, Mexico 198 1 .) 9.d5 exd5 1 0. Nxd5 B c 6 1 1 . e4 b5 ! mal book knowledge. Nxe5 12.Nxf6ch. Qxf6 1 3.Bd5 Bxd5 6 ... The most popular move. Other 1 4 . Qxd5 Rd8 1 5 . Qb7 Qb6 ( 1 5 . . . a6 ! ?-Tucker.) 1 6 .Qxb6 possibilities are: 1) 6 ... Be7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.f4 c5 9.0- axb6, Spielmann-Bogolyubov,

108

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6

Zandevoort 1936. It is clear that 7 .Nxd7 is a rather lame continu­ ation. lf7.f4 is not White' s cup of tea then he c an con sider 7.Nxc4!?.] 7 ... Nxe5 [Perhaps it is better to play 7 ... Be7. The game Ulvestad-Burge, Ventnor City 1939 saw Black reach equality after 8.Bxc4 0-0 9.0-0 c5 10.b3 cxd4 1 l .exd4 Nb6.] 8.fxe5 Nd7 and now not 9.Bxc4? Nxe5 ! 10.dxe5 Qh4ch. picking up the loose Bishop on c4, but rather 9.Be2 with very good attacking chances for the pawn according to Barden; 3) 6 ... Bd6 7.f4 0-0 8.Bd3 dxc4? [Much better is 8 ... c5 when the game Fang-Griego, Framingham 1987 saw Black achieve the supe­ rior position after 9.cxd5 Nxd5 1 0.0-0 N7f6 1 l .g4 cxd4 12.exd4 Nxc3 1 3.bxc3 b5 14.Qf3 Qb6 15.Qh3 g6 1 6.Rb1 a6 17.Be3 Nd5 1 8 .c4 Bxe5 1 9.fxe5 Nxe3 20. Qxe3 Bb7 2 1 .cxb5 axb5 22.Rxb5 Qc6.] 9.Nxc4 Bb4 10.a3 Bxc3 1 1 .bxc3 c5 12.0-0 b5 1 3 . Nd6 c4 [ 1 3 . . . a6 ! -Toth .] 1 4.Bc2 Qb6 1 5.Nxc8 Rfxc8 1 6.Qf3 Qc6 17.e4 Nb6 18.g4, White has a very strong attack in

the works, Rubinstein-Lafora, Hamburg Olympiad 1 930; 4) 6 ... Bb4 7.Bd2 Nxe5 8.dxe5 Nd7 9.f4 dxc4?! [More depend­ able moves are 9 ... 0-0 or 9 ... Qb6 as in the Rubinstein-Vidmar game.-see note to Black' s 8th move in the main line.] 1 0.Ne4 [And not 1 0 .B xc4? Nxe5 ! 1 1 .fxe5 Qh4ch.] 1 0... Bf8?! [Bet­ ter i s 1 O . . . B e7 or even 1 0 ... Bxd2ch.] 1 1 .Qg4 f5? [And here 1 l ...Nb6 followed by . . .Nd5 was preferable.] 1 2.Nd6ch. ! Bxd6 1 3.Qxg7 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Rf8 15.Qxh7 Nxe5 1 6.0-0-0 Qb6 17 .Bc3 Qxe3ch. 1 8.Kb 1 Qe4ch. 1 9.Ka l Qg4 20.Be2 ! ! Qxe2 2l .Rhe1 Qg4 22.Bxe5 Rt7. After this move White announced mate in five, thus ... 1 -0, Spielmann­ Apscheneek, Riga Match 1934; 5) 6 . . .c5 ! ?-An untried suggestion of Alekhine' s. Nd7 7 dxe5 Bc5 8 f4 Generally considered to be Black's easiest route to equality. However this assessment can still be questioned. Other moves for Black bear looking at: 1) 8 . . . Be7 9.Be2 (Not as good is

Semi-Slav Defense 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Bd3 Nc5 1 1 .Bc2 a5 12.0-0 g6 13.e4 d4 1 4.Na4 b6 15.Nxc5 bxc5 with chances for both sides, Tartakower-Maroczy, Nice 1930 )9 ... 0-0 1 0.0-0 b6 1 1 .Kh1 Bb7 1 2.e4 dxc4 1 3.Bxc4 b5 14.Be2 with an edge for White, Garcia Palermo­ Boehm, Dortmund 1 986; 2) 8 . . . a5 ! ? is an untried sugges­ tion of Panov and Estrin. 3) 8 ... dxc4! ? 9.Bxc4 Nb6 10.Bd3 Nd5 1 1 .0-0 [1 1 .e4! ?-Tucker.] 1 1 . ..Bc5 1 2.Qe2 0-0 13.Kh 1 f5 14.exf6 Nxf6 15.Bd2 Qe7 with an equal position, Tucker-Boyer, USA 1 979; 4) 8 ...f6 9.cxd5 [9.exf6 is a good alternative.] 9 ... cxd5 [9 ... exd5? 1 0 . e 6 ! Nc5 1 l . f5 B e7 ? ? 12.Qh5ch 1 -0, Tucker-Fierstein, 1 0 . Qh5ch. 1 97 5 . ] USA [ 10.Bd3 ! ?.] 10 ...g6 1 1 .Qh3 Qb6 1 2.Bd3 Bg7 1 3.exf6 with a slightly more comfortable posi­ tion for White, Duz Khotimirsky­ Kubbel, Leningrad 1925; 5) 8 ...f5 9.exf6 Qxf6 [9 ... Nxf6 is probably stronger.] 10.Be2 Bc5 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Kh1 a6 1 3.Qc2 b5 1 4 . cxb5 cxb5 1 5 .Bd3 Qh4 1 6.Bd2 Nf6 17.Be1 Qh6 1 8.Rf3 !

109

Ng4 19.Rh3 Nxe3 20.Qe2! Qf6 2 1 .Bxh7ch. Kf7 22.Bh4 ! , 1 -0, Tartakower-Ravn, Sou th sea 195 1 ; 6) 8 ...Bb4

[A common move that does not seem to equalize.] 9.Bd2 [Not so good is 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.Bd3 Nc5 1 1 .Bc2 (According to Botvinnik 1 1 .0-0 was somewhat better.) 1 1 ...Qh4ch. 1 2.g3 Qh3 1 3.Kf2 Bxc3! 14.bxc3 Bf5 15.Bxf5 Qxf5 1 6.g4 Qe6, Makogonov-Botvin­ nik, Sverdlovsk 1943, Black's control of the e4 square gives him a clear advantage. In the game Garc i a Palermo-Cifuente s , Dubai (ol) 1986 White tried 9.Be2 but his opening play proved to be a failure after 9 ...0-0 10.0-0 f6 1 1 .exf6 Nxf6 12.Qb3

1 10

6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6

Qe7 1 3.Bd2 Kh8 1 4.Rad 1 Bd6 1 5.Be1 e5 1 6.cxd5 exf4 1 7.dxc6 bxc6 1 8 . Qa4 Bc5.] 9 . . . Qb6 [Much better than 9 . . . dxc4 10.Ne4! with pressure on the d6 square as in the Spielmann-Ap­ scheneek game given above. Also dubious is 9 . . .f5 10.a3 Bc5 1 1 .b4 d4 1 2.Na2 (As Tucker points out, White is also better after 1 2.bxc5 dxc3 1 3.Bxc3 Nxc5 14.Qc2 Ne4 1 5.Rd1 Qc7 1 6.Bd3 Nxc3 17.Qxc3 0-0 1 8.0-0 b6 19.Be2 Bb7 20.Rd6.) 12 . . .dxe3 1 3.Bc1 Be7 14.Bxe3 c5 1 5.Be2 Qc7 1 6.0-0 b6 17.Nc3 ! a6 1 8.b5 a5 19.g4, White's advantage is clear, S pielmann- Pokorne y , Sliac 1 932.] 1 0.Be2 0-0 [Accord­ ing to Kmoch White is better after 1 0. . . d4 l l .exd4 Qxd4 1 2.Qc2 followed by 1 3.0-0-0.] 1 1 .0-0 Bxc3 1 2.bxc3 dxc4 1 3.Bxc4 Rd8 14.Qc2 Qc5 15.Be2 ! , White' s two Bishops give him the advan­ tage, Rubinstein-Vidmar, S an Remo 1 930. 9 a3 An excellent illu stration of White' s chances in this line is the game Garcia Palermo-Huerta, Bayamo 1985. In that game

White played the new move 9 . B d2: 9 . . . a6 1 0. c xd5 c xd5 1 1 .Bd3 B a7 12.0-0 Nc5 1 3.Bc2 d4 1 4.exd4 Qxd4ch. 1 5.Kh1 Bd7 1 6.Qe2 Bc6 1 7. Be3 Qd7 1 8 . b4 Na4 1 9. Bxa4 Bxa4 20.Bxa7 Rxa7 2 1 .f5 Bc6 22.Radl Qe7 23.b5 Bd7 24.Qe3 Ra8 25.f6 gxf6 26.Ne4, 1 -0. Also deserving of attention is Tucker' s recommendation of 9.Be2 when 9 . . . dxc4 i s met by 10.Ne4 ! . After 9.Be2 critical is 9 . . .f6 1 0.exf6 Nxf6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2. Kh 1 when White may be a bit better. Tucker also mentions some gambits White may try, i.e. 9.b3 ! ? 0-0 10.Bb2 B xe3 1 1 . Qf3 or 9.Bd3 ! ? dxc4 1 0.Bc2. It is quite clear that there is a lot of room for new ideas here. 9 Qe7 9 . . . a5 ! ? . B b6 1 0 b4 1 1 Be2 0-0 f6! 12 0-0 13 cS B c7 Nxf6 14 exf6 S pielmann-Lokvenc , Vienna 1 936. B oth sides have chances in this complicated position. ...

Semi-Slav Defense Conclusion: The defensive systern 5 . . . a6 is a tough nut to crack. White can obtain a very small edge with 6.Qc2 or 6.c5 but seemingly nothing more.

111

After 5 . Nbd7 alternatives to 6.Bd3 and 6.Qc2 offer White little though 6.Ne5 promises some surprise value. ..

1 12

CHAPTER 9

Marshall Gambit

D31/SL6

Marshall Gambit

#9. 1 This continuation, named after longtime U.S. champion Frank Marshall, leads to very sharp play. Unlike many other Semi­ Slav variations, which tend to­ ward closed positions and pro­ tracted positional struggles, the Marshall leads to a wide open board with lots of tactical possi­ bilities. After 4 ... dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4ch. White has two tries. Alekhine's old favorite of 6.Nc3 has recently been revived but still seems a little too quiet for an advantage.

The "gambit" in the Marshall comes about after 6.Bd2 Qxd4. The positions that arise after 7.Bxb4 Qxe4ch. 8.Be2 offer some of the most original and sharp play in chess. White has a lead in development, some extra space, the two bishops, and a lot of pressure on the dark squares. Black has an extra pawn and no real weaknesses. dxe4 4 ... Invariably played, but worth consideration is 4 ... Bb4!?. After 5.e5 [5.exd5 cxd5 6.Nf3 Nf6=, Panov - B otvin nik/Ni mzo-In­ dian.] 5 . . . Ne7 6.a3 Bxc3ch. 7.bxc3 b6 8.cxd5 Qxd5 9.Nf3 c5 1 0.c4 Qe4ch. 1 1 .Be2 Nbc6 12.dxc5 Nxe5 1 3.Bb2 Nxf3ch. 14.gxf3 Qc6 a wild position was reached in Borisenko-Korchnoi, USSR ch. 1955. Bb4ch. 5 Nxe4 Here 5 . . .e5? ! is clearly a loss of time-6.dxe5 Qa5ch. 7 .Bd2 Qxe5 8.Bd3 [with the point 8 . . .f5

Semi-Slav Defense 9.Qh5ch. g6 10.Qe2 fxe4 1 1 .Bc3 Qe7 12.Qxe4 winning.] 8 ... Na6 9.Nf3 Qc7 10.Qe2 Be6 1 1 .Neg5 with a clear advantage for White, Karpov-Ivanovic, Skopje 1976. In the game Ungureanu-Suba, Bucharest 1 976 Black tried 5 . . . Nf6 but got a bad game after 6.Nxf6ch. Qxf6 7.Nf3 Nd7 [Or 7 . . . Bb4ch. 8.Bd2 which also fa­ vors White. See the Boleslavsky­ Kotov,Budapest 1950 game un­ der the move order 5 ... Bb4ch. 6.Bd2 Bxd2ch. 7.Qxd2 Nf6.] 8.Bd3 Bb4ch. 9.Kf1 ! +- h6 10.Qe2 Qe7 1 1 .c5 ! e5 1 2. a3 ! BaS 13.b4. Also inadequate is the rather passive 5 ... Nd7 6.Nf3 Ngf6. A game between Vaiser­ Dejkalo, Tallinn 1986 continued 7 .Bd3 Nxe4 [7 ... Bb4ch. 8.Bd2 Qa5 9.Nc3 is quite good for White.] 8.Bxe4 Bb4ch. [Or 8 ... Nf6 9.Bc2 Bb4ch. 10.Bd2 Qa5 1 1 .a3 Bxd2ch. 1 2.Qxd2 Qxd2ch. 13.Kxd2 with a small but lasting edge for White, Kar­ pov-Korchnoi, Vienna 1986.] 9.Bd2 Qa5 10.0-0 Bxd2 1 1 .Nxd2 0-0 1 2. Qc2 h6? ! [Vaiser feels that 12 ...Nf6 is better.] 13.c5! e5 1 4.Nc4 Qc7 1 5 .dxe5 Nxe5

113

1 6.Nd6 Ng4? ! 17.Rfe l Nf6 1 8.Qc3 ! Nxe4 19.Rxe4 Be6 20.Rae1 b6 2 1 .R1e3 ! with a clear advantage for White. 6 Bd2 The most consistant course, gambiting a pawn to try to exploit Black's weaknesses on the dark squares brought on by . . . c6 and . . . e6. Frank Marshall ' s first choice when trying 4.e4 was to play 6.Nc3 [Marshall-Lasker, Paris 1900.] . In that game Lasker got a good game with 6 . . . c5 but later blundered and lost. Since then various attempts have been made to resurrect 6.Nc3, most notably by Hungarian GM Actor­ jan. After 6.Nc3 c5 White has a choice between 7 .Be3, 7 .Nf3 and 7 .a3. On 7 .Be3 Black got easy equality in Raicevic-Ciric, Tuzla 1979 by 7 ...cxd4 8.Bxd4 Nf6 9 .a3 Be? 10.Nf3 0-0. Now instead of finishing his development White dallied with the result that after 1 1 .Qc2 [ l l .Be2 looks equal.l l l ...Nc6 12.Be3 Ng4 13.Bf4 Qa5 1 4.h3 Nge5 1 5 . Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Be2 Ng6 17.Be3 Bd7 1 8.0-0 Bc6 1 9.b4 [ 1 9.c5 ! Qc7 20.f4 Nh4 also favors Black.] 19 ... Qe5 !

1 14

Marshall Gambit

20.Rfe 1 ? [20.g3 ! b6 ! -+.] 20 ... Bxg2 ! ! 2 1 . Kxg2 Nh4ch. Black had a winning attack. Against 7 .Nf3 the second player has 7 . . .Nf6 8.Be2 Nc6 9.a3 Bxc3ch. 10.bxc3 h6 1 1 .0-0 0-0=, Anikaev-Cernikov, Mongolia 1972. The most recent attempt to reha­ bilitate 6.Nc3 has been 7 .a3, but even here a well-prepared Black has nothing to fear.

#9.2 7 ... Bxc3ch. [Or 7 ... Ba5 ! ? 8.Be3 Nf6 9.Rc 1 (Gheorghiu-Sorm, Lugano 1986 went 9.Ne2 Ng4?! { A better move is 9 ...cxd4!. Conquest-South, England 1 986 con ti nued 1 0. Qxd4 Qxd4 1 1 .Bxd4 Nc6 1 2.Bxf6 gxf6 1 3.00-0 Bb6 14.b4 Bxf2 1 5.Kb2 Ke7 1 6.g3 Ne5 17.Nf4 Bd7 1 8.Be2 a6

19.Rhfl Ba7 20.g4 Bc6 2 1 . Nh5 Rad8 22.Kb3 Rxd1 23.Rxd 1 Rg8 24.h3 Rg5 25.c5 Nd7 26.h4 Re5 27.Bd3 h6 28.Ng3 Re3 29.Nge4 Ne5 30.Bc2 Bb8 3 1 .Ka2 Nxg4 32.Rd3 Rxe4, 0- 1 . } 1 O.dxc5 Nxe3 1 1 .Qxd8ch. Bxd8 1 2.fxe3 a5 1 3.Ne4 Ke7 14.Nd4 a4 1 5.Be2 f5 1 6.Nc3 Ba5 17.Bf3 Bxc3ch. 1 8 . bxc3 e5 1 9 . c 6 bxc6 20.Nxc6ch. Nxc6 2 1 .Bxc6 Ra7 22.Rb l Be6 23.Rb4 Rc8 24.Bb5 Rae? 25.Rxa4 Bxc4 26.Bxc4 Rxc4 27 .Rxc4 Rxc4 28.Kd2 Ra4 29.Ra1 Kd6 and Black should be able to hold onto the draw.However, it is clear that White was in control for a long time and that 9 ... cxd4! is Black's correct choice. Another interesting try for White is 9.dxc5 !?. :1!2..1

Semi-Slav Defense

1 15

Piskov-Dreev, USSR 1982 con­ should also be able to gain equal­ tinued 9 ... Qxd1ch. 10.Rxd1 Ne4 ity by 1 6... Bxe4 17 .fxe4 Nd4 l l .Ne2 Nxc3 12.Nxc3 Bxc3ch. 1 8 .g3 Nb3 ! 1 9.Bh3ch. Kc7 1 3.bxc3 Bd7 14.Be2 Bc6 15.0-0 20.Rc2 Na1 -Lukacs. } 17.Be2 Nd7 1 6.Rd2 0-0-0 17 .Rb2 e5 Bg6 1 8.g4! f6 19.Kf2! h5 20.h3 1 8.f4 Rhe8 19.fxe5 Nxe5 20.Bd4 hxg4 with equal chances.) cxd4 f6 2 1 .Rfb1 Be4 22.Rd1 Nc6 1 0.Qxd4, 1/2- 1/2, Adorj an-Pin­ 23.Kf2 Re7 24. Rbd2 Red7 ter, Hunarian ch. 1 984.] 8.bxc3 25.Bg4 f5 26.Re2 Bxg2 27.Bxf5 Nf6 [Here Adorjan gives 8 ... Qa5 Rf8 28.Bf6! Rxf6 29.Re8ch. and 9.Bd2 Nf6 10.Bd3 0-0 1 1 .Nf3 White went on to win. Black's with a small edge to White. The opening play was not the cause of game Romanishin-Sveshnikov, his defeat though and 9.dxc5 Frunze 1982 continued 1 1 . ..Nc6 should not prove to be a threat to 12.0-0 Rd8 1 3.Qc2 b6 14.Rfb1 cxd4 15.cxd4 Qh5 1 6.Rb5 Qxf3 Black players. Finally mention must be made of 17.gxf3 Nxd4 1 8.Qc3 e5 19.Rd5 9.Nf3 ! ?. The game Lerner­ Nxd5 20.cxd5 Bb7 2 1 .Kg2 Rac8 Lukacs, Polanica Zdroj 1986 22.Qb4 Bxd5 23.Rc 1 Bxf3ch. continued 9 ... Nc6 10.dxc5 ! ? { 24.Kg3 and White eventually On 1 0. Be2 Lukac s gives won.] 9.Nf3 0-0 [It would be in­ 10 ... Ng4! 1 1 .d5 Nxe3 1 2.fxe3 teresting to know what the al­ Ne7 13.e4 0-0 14.0-0 Ng6=. } ways well-prepared Adorjan had 10 . . . Qxd 1 ch . { 1 0 . . . B xc3ch. up his sleeve to use against 1 1 .bxc3 Qa5 12.Be2 Ne4 1 3.0-0 Euwe's suggestion of 9 ... Qa5 Nxc3 14.Qd2 Nxe2ch. 1 5.Qxe2 1 0.Bd2 Ne4 1 l . Qc2 Nxd2 is += according to Lukacs. } 12.Qxd2 cxd4 1 3.cxd4 Qxd2ch. 1 1 .Rxd1 Ne4 12.Rc 1 { Or 1 2.Bd2 14.Kxd2 Nc6.] 10.Bd3 b6 1 1 .0-0 Bxc3 1 3.Bxc3 Nxc3 1 4.bxc3 Bb7 12.Bg5 Nbd7 1 3.Ne5 Qc7 Bd7 ! 15.Nd4 Rc8 1 6.Nb5 Ke7 1 4.Re1 cxd4 1 5.Nxd7 Nxd7 with an equal game. } 12 ... Nxc3 1 6.cxd4 Rfe8 [A position has 13.bxc3 e5 14.Nd2! Bf5 ! 15.f3! been reached that is similar to that 0-0-0 1 6.Ne4 Bc7 ! ? { Black arising from Karpov' s Variation

1 16

Marshall Gambit

of the Nimzo-Indian ( 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 followed by a later ... Bxc3.), but with the important distinction that one extra p air of minor pieces (Nf3,Nf6) has been exchanged off. White tries to translate this difference into a kingside attack.] 1 7 . Qg 4 ! Rac 8 ? ! [ 1 7 . . . Nf8] 1 8.Bh6 g6 19.h4 Qd6 20.Rad l ! Qxa3, Admjan-Lukacs, Hungar­ ian ch. 1984. Now instead of 2 1 . Qg3? ! White could have ob­ tained a very strong attack with 2 1 .Re3. Qxd4 6 ... Black can sidestep the following complications by 6...Bxd2ch., but only by agreeing to take on a passive, slightly inferior posi­ tion. After 6... Bxd2ch. 7.Qxd2 Nf6 White has two ways to keep the better game: 1) 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Nf3 Nbd7 1 0.Be2 b6 1 1 .0-0 Qc7 1 2.Rfe 1 Bb7 1 3.Rad1 Rad8 14.b4 +=, Pfleger­ Wiemer, West Germany 1983/ 84; 2) 8.Nxf6ch. Qxf6 9.Nf3 0-0 [9 ... Nd7 10.0-0-0 0-0 1 1 . Qe3 ! c5 1 2. dxc5 Qf5 1 3 .B d3 Qxc5

14.Rhe 1 +-, Steinitz-Marco, Nurnberg 1 896.] 10.Be2 Nd7 [ 10...c5 1 1 .dxc5 Rd8 12.Qe3 Qxb2 1 3.0-0 Bd7 14.Rab1 Qxa2 15.Rxb7 Qa6 1 6.Rfb 1 +-, Bole­ slavsky-Kotov, B udapest 1950.] 1 1 .Qe3 b6 1 2.0-0 c5 [ 1 2 ...Bb7 1 3.c5 ! ?.] 1 3.Rad1 Bb7 1 4.dxc5 Nxc5 1 5.b4 Na6 1 6.a3 Rfd8 1 7 .Ne5+=, Bronstein-Kotov, USSR ch. 1948. 7 Bxb4 Qxe4ch. 8 Be2

!2.1 By far the most commonly played move in this position, but occasionally seen is 8.Ne2. It has the points that g2 is defended and the central squares a little better covered. This doesn't compen­ sate the artificial nature of the move, which causes develop-

1 17

Semi-Slav Defense ment problems for White on the Kingside. Black has more than one route to a playable game: 1 ) 8 . . .Ne7 9.Qb3 ! ? [8.Qd2 c5 ! ? 9.Bxc5 Nbc6 intending ...0-0 and ... e5 is unclear according to Sve­ shnikov.] 9 ... Nd7 1 0.0-0-0 c5 l l .Bc3 0-0 1 2. Ng3 Qf4ch. 1 3 . Rd2 Nf6 1 4. B d3 Nc6 1 5.Qb5? ! Ne5 ! -+, Antoshin­ Sveshnikov, Sochi 1979; 2) 8 ...Na6 9.Bf8 Ne7 ! [9 ... Qg6 1 0.Qd2 Qf6 1 l .Bd6 Ne7 12.0-00 0-0 1 3.Nc3 Rd8 14.Bd3 Ng6 1 5.Ne4 Qd4 1 6.Qg5 f6 17.Qg3 +­ Terp u gov- S my slov, USSR 1 949.] 1 0.Bxg7 Nb4! 1 1 .Qd6! [ l l .Bxh8? e5 ! with terrible threats.] 1 1 ...Nd3ch. 12.Kd2 Nf5 1 3 . Qxd3 Qxd3ch. 1 4. Kxd3 Nxg7=, Holmov-Novotelnov, USSR 1 95 1 ; 3) 8 ... Nd7 9.Qd6 [On 9.Qd2? ! Black has 9 ...c5 10.Bc3 Ngf6 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0 12.Ng3 Qh4 with a clear advantage. Interesting is Sveshnikov ' s suggestion of 9.Bd6! ?.] 9 ... c5 [Not 9 ... e5?! on account of 10.0-0-0 Qg6 l l .Qc7 Qe6 1 2.Ng3 f5 1 3.Rd6 Qf7 1 4 . Ba5 b6 1 5 . Qxc6 Rb8 1 6.Re6ch. with White's clear

advantage, Berliner-Steinmeyer, US ch. 1962.] 10.Bxc5 Nxc5 1 1 .Qxc5 Bd7=. Analysis by Euwe. After 8.Be2 Black has no less than five different moves to con­ sider. In order of value they are: A, 8 ...Nf6: B. 8...0x22: C. 8...Nd7: D.8...c5: E.8...Na6. A, 8 Nf6 This move has the drawback of weakening the e7 square. 9 Nf3 Nbd7 c5 10 Qd6 Qc6 11 Bc3 bxc6 12 Qxc6 13 Nd2 White is better, Flohr-Shamkov­ ich, USSR 1942. He has the ad­ vantage because of the Bishop pair and the pressure he can gen­ erate against the doubled c­ pawns with Bf3 and Nb3; .B... 8 Qxg2 A very risky continuation by which Black wins a second pawn but at a horrible cost in develop­ ment. A better way to capture on g2 is by first inserting 8 ... c5 9.Bxc5 as we will see later. 9 Qd6 ...

...

1 18

Marshall Gambit

Going straight for the throat. Also quite good is 9.Bf3 Qg6 1 0.Ne2 Na6 1 l .Ba3 Ne7 1 2.Rg1 Qf6 1 3 . N c 3 N f5 1 4 . Ne4 Qd8 1 5.Rxg7 with advantage, Wood­ Alexander, London 1 948. Nd7 9 ... Qxf2 10 0-0-0 A suggestion of Pachman. The earlier try, 1 0 ... Qg5ch., clearly favored White in Furman­ Kopaev, USSR 1949, after 1 1 .f4 Qe7 1 2.Qd2 c5 1 3.Bc3. One pos­ sible continuation might be 13 ... Ngf6 14.Qc2 0-0 1 5.Nf3 b6 1 6.Rhg1 and now normal devel­ opment with 1 6...Bb7 runs into 17.Rxd7. 11 BhS Qe3ch. QeS 12 Kb1 Kxf7 13 Bxf7ch. Ngf6 14 Rflch. Kg8 15 Qe7ch. 16 Qd8ch.? Instead, according to Sosonko and Pliester, White could have won with 1 6.Nf3 ! Qe4ch. 17.Ka 1 h6 1 8.Rhg 1 Rh7 19.Nd2++- or 1 6 ... Qh5 17.Rhg 1 Qf7 1 8.Qd8ch. Qe8 1 9.Rxg7ch. Kxg7 20.Rg1ch. Qg6 2 1 .Rxg6ch. hxg6 22.Qe7ch. ++-.

Kf7 16 ... 17 Qe7ch. 1/2- 1/2, Ree-Pliester, Amster­ dam 1982;

� Nd7 8 ... A logical continuation that has been more or less abandoned by theory as inferior. Black prepares ... c5 to close the a3-f8 diagonal while catching up in development. 9 Nf3 Black got good play in Roskin­ Karasev, USSR 1972 after 9.Qd6 c5 10.Bxc5 Qxg2 1 1 .Bf3 [Euwe gave 1 1 .0-0-0 an ! here. However that assessment is open to ques­ tion after 1 1 ...Qc6! 12.Qxc6 bxc6 1 3.Bf3. Gulko says that this posi­ tion is strong for White but 13 ... Bb7 14.Bd6 ( 1 4.Ba3 0-0-0 threatens to lock the Bishop out by ... c5.) 14 . . . 0-0-0 1 5.b4 Nh6 or 14 ... Ne7 15.Ne2 Nf5 seems to favor Black. In the game Haik­ Flear, Clichy 1986/87 Black played 1 1 ...Qg5ch. (Instead of the correct 1 1 ...Qc6!.) and got a lost game after 1 2.Be3 Qa5 1 3.Nf3 ! Ne7 1 4.Nd4 a6 15.Rhg 1 Qe5 1 6.Qa3 h6 17.Nb5 0-0

Semi-Slav Defense 1 8.Nd6 Qxh2 19.Rh l .] 1 1 ...Qg5 1 2.Ba3 Ne7. c5 9 ... 10 Bc3 Ngf6 11 Qd6 Too slow is 1 1 .0-0. After 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.Bd3 Qg4! 1 3.h3 Qh5 14.Qd2 b6 15.Qf4 Bb7 White had noth­ ing to show for the pawn in Schulz-Reefschlager, West Ger­ many 1983/84. Qc6 11 ... 12 Qg3 Here 12.Qxc6! bxc6 1 3.Nd2 transposes into the Flohr-Sham­ kovich game of variation A, 8 . . . Nf6. White would then stand better. 0-0 12 ... Ne8 13 Rd1 f6 14 0-0 Rf7 15 Bd3 16 Rfe1 Nf8 17 b4 Christiansen-Raicevic, Lone Pine 1980. White has compensation for the pawn in the form of greater piece activity and the two Bishops; 8 ... c5 .11. Black temporarily returns the pawn to gain the use of c6 for his

1 19

pieces and to attract the White dark-squared Bishop to a more exposed square. 9 Bxc5 The refusal gives Black the bet­ ter of it-9.Bc3 Ne7 10.Bxg7 Rg8 1 1 .Bf6 Nd7 1 2.Bxe7 Kxe7. 9 ... Qxg2 10 BfJ Here 10.Qd6 Nd7 l l .Bf3 leads to the game Roskin-Karasev, mentioned earlier in Variation C. Another possibility for the first player, and one some theory books consider best, is 1 0.Qd4. After 1 0 . . . Nd7 1 1 .Bf3 Qg5 1 2.Bb4 old theory concentrated on 12 ... Qe5ch. with the conclu­ sion that after 1 3.Ne2 Qxd4 14.Nxd4 Ne5 15.0-0-0 [ 15.Be2?! Bd7 1 6.Rg1 Ne7 17.Bd6 N5g6 1 8.Rd1 e5, Dalko-Honfi, Hun­ gary 1950.] 15 . . . Bd7 1 6.Bxb7 Rb8 17.Bd6 Rxb7 1 8 .Bxe5 f6 1 9 . B d6 Ne7 20.Rh e 1 e5 , Sapundziev-Popov, Bulgarian Ch. 1960/61 , White can gain pressure by 2 1 .Nb3. Instead of 20 . . . e5 Harding feels that Black can get equality by 20 .. Kf7 since 2 1 .B xe7 Kxe7 22.Nf5ch. Kf8 ! is satisfactory. .

1 20

Marshall Gambit

A new try for the second player is 1 2 ... Ne7. In Leontxo-Flear, Be­ nidorm 1985 a very sharp game arose after 1 3 .Rd l Qe5ch. 1 4.Ne2 Nc6 1 5 .Bxc6 Qxd4 1 6.Nxd4 bxc6 1 7 .Bd6 Bb7 1 8.Rg1 g6 19.Rg3 Nb6 20.c5 Nd5 2 1 .Rb3 0-0-0 22.Nf3 f6 23.Nd2 e5. 10 ... QgS The point of throwing in ... c5. Now the queen retreat picks up a tempo. 11 Bd6 Here 1 1 .Be3 gave Black the bet­ ter game in Kovacs-Van Schelt­ inga, Amsterdam Olympiad 1954 after 1 l . ..Qa5ch. 12.Bd2 Qc7 1 3.Ne2 Nc6 14.Bc3 (No better was 14.Nc3 Nge7 15.0-0 00 1 6.Nb5 Qb8 17.c5 b6 1 8 .Rc 1 Rd8 -+, Dawen-Berg, Ribe 1978.) Ne5 15.Nd4 Bd7. Ne7 11 ... Not l l ...Nc6 as White quickly gets the better of it with 1 2.Bxc6ch. bxc6 1 3.Nf3 . In Vaiser-Ermenkov, Odessa 1977 the first player had a clear advan­ tage i n the endin g after 13 ... Qa5ch. 14.b4 Qf5 15.Qe2 Nf6 1 6.Rg1 Ba6 17.Rxg7 Bxc4

1 8 .Qxc4 Qxf3 1 9.Be5 Nd7 20.Bb2 Rf8 2 1 .Rc 1 Nb6 22.Qxc6ch. Qxc6 23.Rxc6.] 12 Nh3! An improvement over the older 1 2.Ne2 Nf5 1 3.Rg1 Qd8 when Black consolidates. 12 ... Qf6 13 Rg1 NfS 14 Ba3 QeSch. 15 Kf1 Nc6 On 1 5 ... Qxh2 White has 1 6.Ng5 intending Ne4-d6. 16 Qd3 Qd4 17 Bxc6ch. bxc6 18 Qe2 Qh4 19 NgS Qxh2 20 Rd1 h6 21 Qf3 Qc7 B b7 22 Ne4 23 Rxg7 White has a winning attack, Vla­ dimirov-Monin , Leningrad 1980;

L 8 ... Na6 The classical continuation in this variation where Black develops with tempo. After 8 ... Na6 White has three major continuations: E.J. 9.Ba5; E.2. 9.Bc3; E.3. 9.Bd6. Bad is 9.Bf8? on account

Semi-Slav Defense o f 9 . . . Qxg2 10.Qd6 Bd7 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0-0 intending ... Nh6.

EaL 9 BaS

An old continuation that isn't seen anymore. Bd7 9 ... One of the points behind 9 .Ba5 is that 9 ...b6? can be strongly met by 10.Bc3 Nf6 1 1 .Qd6. 10 Nf3 Nf6 QfS 11 Qd6 Opening the game with ... c5 fa­ vors White- 12.Rd 1 b6 1 3.Ne5 Rd8 14.Bc3 Qa8 15.Bf3 with a clear advantage to White, Mike­ nas-Suetin, USSR ch. 1950 . 12 NeS Here 1 2.Bc3 favors Black on

121

account of the forcing variation 1 2. .. Ne4 1 3.Qd4 f6 1 4.Nh4 e5 ! . Qxf2ch. 1 2 ... 13 Kxf2 Ne4ch. Nxd6 14 Kf3 Ke7 15 Rad1 16 Rxd6 The attempt to build up pressure by 1 6.Rd2 fails to 1 6 . . . Be8 17.Rhd1 Nf5 1 8.Bd8ch. Rxd8 19.Rxd8 f6 20.Ng4 c5 and Black is clearly better according to an old analysis of Shamkovich. 16 ... Kxd6 17 Nxt7ch. Ke7 Rxh8 18 Nxh8 19 Bc3 With approximately equal chances according to Euwe;

� 9 Bc3 Ne7 Black's best answer to the threat against g7. On 9 ... f6 White emerges with a clear advantage with 10.Qd6 Bd7 [After 1 0... Nh6 1 1 .Bxf6 gxf6 1 2.0-0-0 the threats of Bh5ch. and Qd8ch. are hard to meet.] 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0-0 12.Qg3 e5 [ 1 2. . . Qg6 13.Qe3 b6 14.Nh3 also gives White a strong attack, Bronstein-Szily, Moscow 1949.] 13.Bd3 Qf4ch. 1 4.Qxf4 exf4

1 22

Marshall Gambit

1 5.Ne2 g5 1 6.h4. In Archipov­ Vera, Sochi 1985 Black tried to rehabilitate 9 ...Nf6. After 1 0.Nf3 Bd7 1 1 .Ne5 Rd8 White tried something new with 1 2.0-0. Ear­ lier games of Salo Flohr' s saw White get the advantage with 1 2.Qd2- 12 ... Bc8 1 3.Qg5 Rg8 14.f3 h6 1 5.Qc 1 Qh4ch. 1 6.g3 Qh3 1 7.Bfl Qf5 1 8.Qe3 c5 19.h4+-, Flohr-Turn, USSR 1945 or 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3.f3 Qh4ch. 1 4.g3 Qh3 1 5.Bfl Qh6 1 6.Qxh6 gxh6 1 7.0-0-0 again with clear advan­ tage, Flohr-Judovic, USSR 1944. On Arhipov ' s 1 2.0-0 Vera emerged slightly worse after 1 2 ... Nc5 1 3.Re l Bc8 1 4.Qc 1 0-0 1 5.Bf3 Qh4 1 6.g3 Qh3 17.Bb4 b6 1 8.Bxc5 bxc5 1 9.Nxc6 Rd7 20.Bg2. 10 Bxg7 White has two other options-one doubtful, the other quite promis­ ing. Black had no problems in Korzubov-Novikov, USSR 198 1 after 1 0.f3?! Qg6 1 1 .g4 f6 1 2.h4 e5 1 3.Qd2 Bd7 14.0-0-0 0-0-0. More promising for the first player is 10.Nf3. In Rudnev­ A.Mikenas, corr. 1 982 White had a strong initiative after 1 0...0-0

1 1 .0-0 Ng6 1 2.Re1 Qf4 [Or 1 2. ... Nh4 13.Qd6 Nxf3ch. 14.Bxf3 Qxc4 1 5.Be4 f6 1 6.Bxh7ch. Kf7 1 7 . Bg6ch. Kg8 1 8 . Qg3 e5 19.Re4 Qd5 20.Qh4+-, Bonsch­ Hamori, Hungary 1986.] 1 3.b4 Qc7 14.Bd3 f6 15.Qc2 Qf7 1 6.h4!. In view of these games Black's best answer to 1 O.Nf3 appears to be 1 0... 0-0 1 1 .0-0 Ng6 1 2.Re1 f6 trying to get in ... e5 to develop his queenside pieces. In Estevez­ Diaz, Bayamo 1 984, sharp play developed after 1 3.b4 Nf4 14.Bfl Qg6 1 5.g3 e5 1 6.Nh4 Qg5 17.b5. RgS 10 Bad is 10 ... Qxg2 l l .Bf6! Qxh 1 12.Qd6 0-0 1 3 .Qg3ch. Ng6 14.Bf3 and White picks up the Black Queen. 11 Bc3 The game Glek-Neferov, Tallinn 1986, raised many questions de­ spite its brevity. Glek played 1 1 .Bf6 which theory considers bad on account of 1 1 . ..Qf4. In­ stead Neferov tried 1 1 ...Rg6 which is also frowned upon by the authorities. After 1 2.Bc3 Qxg2 Glek played 13.Qd4? al­ lowing 1 3 ... e5 and soon went ...

Semi-Slav Defense under- 14.Qd2 Qxh 1 1 5.0-0-0 Bf5 with clear advantage to Black. It would be interesting to know what Neferov had planned against 13.Qd2. Now 1 3 ... Qxh 1 is answered by 14.0-0-0 Nd5 1 5 .Nf3 ! Qg2 [ 1 5 . . . Qxd 1 ch . 1 6.Bxd1 Nxc3 17.Qxc3 when Black stands well from a material standpoint, but White's develop­ ment edge tells] 1 6.cxd5 with a strong initiative. If 1 3 . . . Nd5 White doesn' t play 14.cxd5 al­ lowing 14 ... Qxh 1 but rather 14.00-0 when Black doesn't seem to have anything better than to transpose into the line just dis­ cussed. NdS 11

A rather startling move at frrst glance but a thematic move in this

1 23

line. Black would like to take on g2, but then would have problems along the d-file. With the text he hopes to close the d-file and then capture. On 1 1 ...Qxg2?! White has 13.Qd2! Qxh1 1 3.0-0-0 Nd5 1 4. Nf3 Qxd 1 ch . [ 1 4 . . . Qg2 1 5 .cxd5 cxd5 1 6. Qf4 Bd7 17.Bxa6 bxa6 1 8.Rg l .] 15.Bxd1 Nxc3 1 6.Qxc3 Ke7? [Black might be able to hold on after 1 6 . . . e5 ! . For examp le 17.Qxe5ch. Be6 1 8.Ng5 0-0-0 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Qxe6ch. Kb8 etc.] 17.Ne5 Bd7 1 8.Qa3ch. c5 19.Qf3 with a winning position in Bron s tein-Kotov , B udapest 1 950. Qxg2 12 cxd5 13 dxe6 Not 1 3.Bf3? on account of 1 3 . . . Qxh l . Or 1 3 .Bfl when 1 3 . . . Qxh 1 1 4.N f3 exd5 1 5.Qe2ch. Be6 1 6.0-0-0 0-0-0 leaves Black on top. Bxe6 13 ... Necessary, as 13 . . . Qxh 1 ? runs into 14.exf7ch. Kxf7 15.Bc4ch. Be6 1 6. Qh5ch. winning. 14 Bf6 A critical juncture for the theory of this variation. Now ' ECO'

1 24

Marshall Gambit

[Euwe] gives the game Dukic­ This discovery of the Russian Seslija, Yugoslavia 1967, which master Razmoglin seems to ren­ continued 14 . . . Qxh 1 1 5.Qd6 der this variation as better for Rx g 1 ch . 1 6.Kd2 Qd5 c h . Black. Strangely enough his 17.Qxd5 Bxd5 1 8 .Rxg1 Kd7 analysis [given in 1 97 3 in 1 9 . Rg7 Rh8 20.Bxa6 bxa6 Schachmatny Bulletin] was ig­ 2 1 .Rxf7ch. =. Much more inter­ nored by the ' Encyclopedia' [in esting for the second player is the both editions of volume D] . 17 Bxa6 text. Rg6 Other tries by White also seem to 14 ... Qxh1 fail: 15 B h4 16 Qd6 1) 17.Bf3 Qxg lch. 1 8.Ke2 Qxal Now old analysis by Roma­ 1 9 . B xg5 [ 1 9 . B xc6c h . bxc6 novsky runs 1 6 . . . Qxg 1 ch . 20.Qxc6ch. Kf8 2 1 .Qxa8ch. Kg7 17 .Kd2 Qg5ch. 1 8.Bxg5 Rxg5 22.Bxg5 Qxb2ch.] 1 9 ... Qxb2ch. 1 9.Kel Rd8 unclear. With 20.Kdl Qbl ch.; 16 ... Rxg1 ch. play would develop 2) 17.Bh5 Qe4ch. 1 8.Ne2 Rd8 similar to the lines arising from 19.Qxd8ch. Kxd8 20.Bxg5ch. 1 4 . . . Qxh 1 discussed earlier. Kc8; However, with the interpolation 3) 17.Bxg5? Qxg lch. 18.Kd2 of ... Rg6 and Bh4 Black has a Qxg5ch.; 4) 17 .0-0-0 Rc5ch. 1 8 .Kb l third possibility now available. [ 1 8.Qxc5 Nxc5 19.Nf3 Qg2 2.:1. 16 ... RgS! 20.Rgl Qxgl 2 1 .Nxgl Bxa2.] 1 8 . . . Qe4ch . 1 9 . Bd3 Qxh4 20.Bxa6 R d 8 - A naly si s by Razmoglin. Qxg1ch. 17 ... 18 Kd2 18.Bfl Rd8. 18 ... Qxa1 19 BxgS Qxb2ch.

Semi-Slav Defense 20 Ke1 20.Kdl Bg4ch. or 20.Kd3 Bf5ch. are both terrible for White. 20 ... Qc3ch. 21 Ke2 Bg4ch. Bh3ch. 22 Kfl 23 Ke2 Qc2ch. Qe4ch. 24 Ke1 25 Be2 Bg4 Rd8 26 Be3 and Black wins- Analysis by Razmoglin. � 9 Bd6

9 ... Qxg2 10 Qd2! With the point that lO ... Qxh l is answered by 1 1 .Qg5 threatening Qxg7 and Bf3. Bd7 10 ... 0-0-0 11 0-0-0 Be8 12 cS Qxh1 13 Bxa6 Rd7 14 QaS 15 Be2 Qe4 16 Qxa7 ++Rovner-Novotelnov, U S S R 1952;

9 10 11 12

ru The main line of 4.e4, to which Black has five replies: .E..J.Jb 2 0x22: E.3.b. 9...Bd7: E.3.c. 9 0(5: E.3.d. 9,e5: E.3.e. 2u.J& E.J.a ...

...

1 25

... Nf3 NeS Nxc6

Bd7 c5 Bc6 bxc6

Or 1 2 . . . Qxc6 1 3 . Bf3 Qd7 14.Bxb7 ! Qxb7 1 5.Qa4ch. Kd8 1 6.0-0-0 ++-, Taimanov. Ne7 13 0-0 14 Qa4 White is clearly better, Taima­ nov-H.Steiner, Stockholm Inter­ zonal 1 952; E....J.& 9 ...

QfS?!

1 26

Marshall Gambit Rxd6 17 Qxh7! 18 Qxg7 eS So far lvanchuk-Dreev, Lenin­ grad 1 985. Now instead of 19.Qxe5ch? White could have won immediately with 19.Rxd6 Qxd6 20.Rd1 Qg6 2 1 .Qh8 ! ; .E.JJL. 9 ...

# 9.9 A recent attempt to bring Black's Queen back to safety via a5. Unfortunately, the idea takes too much time. 10 Nf3 Less clear are 10.Qd2 Nf6 l l .Bd3 Ne4 1 2.Qe2 Qa5ch. 1 3.b4 Qd8 ( 1 3 ...Nxb4 14.Bxe4 Nc2ch. 1 5.Kf1 Nxa1 with White clearly on top.) 14.Be5 Nf6 and 10.Qd2 Nf6 1 1 .Bd3 Qg4 1 2.Ne2 Ne4 1 3.Bxe4 Qxe4 14.0-0-0 Qxc4ch. 1 5 .Nc3-Analysis by Bykhovsky. QaSch. 10 ... Ne7 11 Nd2 NfS 12 0-0 Nxd6 13 Ne4 14 Nxd6ch. Ke7 Rd8 15 Qd3 16 Rad1 Qc7

eS

lt2...lQ A modern treatment by which Black returns the pawn to de­ velop his pieces. 10 Nf3 Possible is 10.Qb3 ! ? with the idea of 10 ... Qxg2 1 1 .0-0-0 Qxh 1 1 2.Qg3. Instead of 1 0... Qxg2 Black tried 1 0...f6 in a postal game between Leoni-Flammin­ ger, 1 954-56. Even so, White had pressure after 1 l .Nf3 c5 1 2.0-0 Qc6 1 3.Rad l .

Semi-Slav Defense Bg4! 10 ... 10 ... Be6!? 1 1 .Bxe5 Rd8 is pos­ sible as well as 10... Bf5 ! ?. 11 0-0 Black obtained equality in Vaiser-Novikov, Volgodonsk 1 9 8 3 after l l . Nxe5 B xe2 12.Qxe2 Qxe2ch. 1 3.Kxe2 Nh6. 0-0-0 11 ... 12 Bd3 Qf4 13 Bxe5 Qxe5 Bxd1 14 Nxe5 Kc7 15 B fSch. Ne7? 16 Nxt7 According to Tal Black could have equalized with 16 ... Nh6! 17.Nxh6 [ 17.Nxh8 Nxf5 1 8.Nf7 Rd7 1 9.Ne5 Be2! 20.Nxd7 Bxfl 21 .Ne5 Be2 22.Re1 Nd4! and Black is clearly better; 17 .Nxd8 Rxd8 1 8.Bxh7 Be2 19.Rfc l Rd2=.] 1 7 ... Bh5 ! 1 8.Bg4 Bxg4 19.Nxg4 Rd2. 17 Bxh7! Bg4 Rxh8 18 Nxh8 19 Rfel White is superior, Tal-Dorfman, USSR 1 978;

9

.••

b6

1 27

#9. 1 1 Planning to complete develop­ ment with ... Bb7 and ...0-0-0. 10 Qd2 A new scheme of development for White in this line, planning 00-0. The stem game for this line, Ragozin-Schaposnikov, USSR corr 1953, went 1 0.Nf3 Bb7 1 1 .Ne5 [Trying to stop Black from castling long. Also playable is 1 1 .0-0 0-0-0 (Or 1 l ...Rd8 1 2.Ne5 Ne7 1 3.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qf6 1 5.Ng4, I.Sokolov-Vera, Portoroz-Ljubljana 1987. Now instead of 15 ... Qf5?! 1 6.Qd4! Black should have repeated with 15 ... Qg6 16.Ne5 Qf6 according to Sokolov.) 12.Ne5 ! Qf5 1 3.Bg4 Qf6 14.Bf3 ! Ne7 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 1 6. Qa4 Qc7 1 7.Nxc6 Bxc6 1 8.Qxa6ch. Kb8 with equality in

1 28

Marshall Gambit

Verduga-Vera, Havana 1986.] 1 1 ...f6 1 2.0-0!

25.Rbxb7ch. 10 Bb7 Rd8 11 Nf3 Most books give 1 1 . ..0-0-0 as Black's best move but matters are not so easy after 1 2.0-0-0 when Black can try the following moves: 1) 12 ... Ne7?? 13.Bd3; 2) 1 2 . . . Nb4 1 3 . Qxb4 Qxe2 14.Rhe 1 Qxf2 1 5.Rd2 winning for White; 3) 1 2... Nc5 1 3.b4 +-; 4) 1 2...c5 13.Ng5 ! [and not � 12 ... fxe5 1 3.Bh5ch. g6 14.Re1 1 3.Ne5? Nb4! and Black wins!] Qh4 [Both 14...Qd4 15.Bxe5 13 ... Qg6 14.Bd3 f5 [White wins Qxd1 1 6.Bxd1 Nf6 17.Bxf6 and after 14 ... Rxd6 15.Bxg6 Rxd2 1 4... Qxc4 15.Be2 Qd5 1 6.Qxd5 1 6.Rxd2 hxg6 17.Nxf7. Also cxd5 17.Bxe5 Nf6 1 8.Bxa6 Bxa6 note that 1 4... Qf6 1 5.Ne4! Qd4 19 .Bxf6 0-0 20.Rxe6 are in 1 6. Qe2 Rxd6 17 .Bc2 is strong for White's favor.] 15.Bg4 Rd8 White.] 15.Bf4! Nb4 [Or 15 ... h6 1 6. Rxe5. Now i n stead of 1 6.Nxe6! Qxe6 1 7.Bxf5 winning 1 6 ... Nc7?, which allowed a for White.] 1 6.Qe2! Rxd3 [White crushing Queen sacrifice after wins on 1 6... Nxd3ch. 1 7 .Rxd3 17.Bxe6 Ne7 1 8.Bxc7 ! , Black Rxd3 1 8.Qe5 ! , while a quiet had to try 1 6 ... Nc5. According to move like 1 6... Qf6 17.Bb1 sim­ analysis by Ragozin White has ply leaves White better.] nothing better than a perpetual 17.Qe5 ! ! Rxd1 ch 1 8.Rxd 1 Na6 with 17.b4 Nh6 18.bxc5 Qxg4 19.Nxe6! Ne7 [ 1 9 ... Nf6 runs into 19.Qxg4 Nxg4 20.Rxe6ch. Kd7 20.Nf8 ! ! .] 20.Qd6 Qe8 2 1 .Nxg7 2 1 .Re7ch. Kc8 22.Rae1 bxc5 Qc6 22.Qxe7 and White should 23.Rc7ch. Kb8 24.Rb1 Rxd6 win. Analysis by Donaldson and ...

Semi-Slav Defense Silman. 12 0-0-0 Qf5 1 2 . . . c5 1 3.Bd3 Qc6 14.Bc2 Ne7 1 5.Ne5 Qc8 1 6.Qf4 is also clearly better for White, while 1 2 ... Qg6 1 3.g4! Ne7? [ 1 3 ...c5 1 4 . Ne5 Qh6 1 5 . g5 Qh4 1 6.Rhg l !-Vera.] 14.Ne5 Qh6 1 5.Qxh6 gxh6 1 6.Ba3 ! was cer­ tainly no improvement for Black, Toskov-Vera, Varna 1986. 13 g4 Qa5 f6 14 Qf4 bS 15 Ba3 16 Rxd8ch. Qxd8 Qc8 17 Rd1 Ne7 18 Bd6 Ng6 19 Kb1 b4 20 Qe3 Kt7 21 Nd4 22 c5 ++Donchev-Semkov, Bulgarian ch. 1985.

1 29

Conclusion: The lines arising from 4.e4 sel­ dom feature boring chess. After l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4ch. 6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe7ch. 8.Be2 it' s quite clear that 8 ...Nf6, 8 ... Qxg2 and 8 ... Nd7 are bad. Of the two other possibilities 8 . . . c5 seems play­ able, but without a doubt 8 ... Na6 is the critical line. There 9.Ba5 and 9.Bd6 [9 ... e5 10.Nf3 Bg4!.] seem to offer White little. Critical is 9.Bc3 Ne7 10.Nf3 [In place of 10.Bxg7 which helps Black to develop.] preferring to gambit the pawn and rely on the Bishop pair, space and lead in develop­ ment for compensation. Critical tests are needed to judge the va­ lidity of 4.e4.

1 30

CHAPTER 10

Abraham's Defense D3 1/SL6

Abraham's Defense l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 �

!ll1.l Often called the Noteboom Vari­ ation after the Dutch Master Daniel Noteboom, this line was first analysed and tested by the English player Gerald Abrahams in the early 1 920's. Nowadays the champions of this uncompromis­ ing defense are Grandmasters Jesus Noguieras of Cuba and Glenn Flear of England. With 4...dxc4 Black immediately imbalances the position. In many variations White gets a big pawn

center while Black gets a pair of connected passed pawns on the Queen side. In such positions the key plans for both sides are clear. White tries to mobilize his center and cras h through with a Kingside attack. For Black the recipe is to blockade White's center pawns and activate his Queenside passers. After 4 ... dxc4 White usually plays one of following moves: A.. 5.e3: B. 5.e4: C. 5.a4. Aside from these main line tries White may occasionally experi­ ment with less analysed moves: 1) 5.g3 Bb4 6.a4 [6.Bg2! ?-Ghe­ orghiu.] 6...c5 ! = 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.Be3 Nf6 9 .dxc5 Qxd 1ch. 10.Rxd 1 , Gheorghiu-Czemiak, Vratsa 1975, and now 10 ... Ng4 1 1 .Bd4? e5 ! favors Black so White should play 1 1 .Bd2 with a complicated game; 2) 5.Bg5 ! ? Qc7 [5 ... Be7 6.Bxe7 Nxe7 7.e4 is in White's favor.] 6.e4 b5 7.a4 Bb4 8.Nd2 [Or

Semi-Slav Defense 8.Be2 Nf6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.0-0 Bb7 1 1 .axb5 Bxc3 12.bxc3 cxb5 13.d5 exd5 14.Nd4 a6 15.Bh5 dxe4 1 6.Ne6 Qd7 1 7.Qg4 Ke7 1 8.Qxg7 and White eventually won, lvanchuk-Sorokin, Sochi 1986.] 8 ... a6! 9.axb5?! [9.Qg4!?; 9.e5 ! ?.] 9 ... cxb5 1 0.Nxb5 axb5 l l .Rxa8 Bb7 1 2.Ra1 B xe4 13.Qg4 f5 14.Qg3 Bd6 1 5.Qh3 Bd5 1 6.Be2 Ne7, Bagirov­ Chekov, USSR 1982, and now 17.Bxe7 ! Bxe7 1 8.Bh5ch. Kd7 19 .Bf3 is slightly better for White according to Chekov. Since all this seemed good for White perhaps a better answer to 5.Bg5 is 5 ... Qa5 ! ?. The game Zuger-Antunes, Dubai 1986 con­ tinued 6.a4 Bb4 7.Bd2 Nd7 8.Ne4 Bxd2ch. 9.Qxd2 Qxd2ch. 10.Nfxd2 e5 1 l .Nd6ch. Kf8. For those who like to live danger­ ously Black can also consider 5 ... f6! ? : 6.Bd2 [Also critical is 6.Bf4 b5 7.e4 a6 8.Be2 Ne7 9.h4 Bb7 10.h5 Nd7 1 1 .0-0 c5?! (1 1 . . .g5 with the idea of ... h6 and ... Bg7 is better-Semkov.) 1 2.d5 with adv antage to White, Raj kovic-Semkov, Vrnj acka Banja 1987.] 6... b5 [6 ...Bb4 is

131

met by 7 .e3 b5 8.Ne4. A more important alternative is 6 ... a6! when the game Lukacs-Semkov, Vmjacka Banja 1987 continued 7.g3 b5 8.Bg2 Ne7 9.0-0 Nd5 and now instead of 1 0.b3? Nxc3 1 1 .Bxc3 b4 1 2.Be1 c3 when Black was clearly better White should have played 10.Ne4 in­ tending b3 with compensation­ Semkov.] 7.g3 [An important game is Psahis-Bareev, USSR (ch.) 1987 which went 7.a4 b4 8.Ne4 Ba6 9.Rc 1 Qa5 10.e3 c3 1 1 .bxc3 Bxfl 1 2.cxb4 Qd5 1 3 . Nc3 Qd7 14.Kxfl B xb4 15.Ne4 and White had a signifi­ cant advantage.] 7 ...Ne7 8.e4 Ng6 9.h4 e5 1 0.h5 exd4 1 1 .hxg6 dxc3 12.bxc3 h6 1 3.Nd4 Bc5, naturally both sides probably have many improvements along the way, but now White goes 1 4 . Rxh6 Rxh6 berserk. . . 1 5.Bxh6 Bxd4 1 6.cxd4 gxh6 17.Qh5 Be6 1 8.g7ch. Ke7 19.00-0 Qd6 and Black went on to win a crazed battle ! . .. Zuger-Klinger, Munich (zonal) 1987 . Finally if Black is still dissatis­ fied with his replies to 5.Bg5 he might consider the n atural

Abraham's Defense

1 32

5 ...Nf6 when 6.e4 [6.a4! ?.] 6...b5 7.e5 h6 is the Semi-Slav Botvinnik Variation ...a highly compli­ cated system not covered in this book. It is safe to say that 5.Bg5 ! ? cer­ tainly deserves more tests!

A,. 5 e3 6 a4

bS b4!?

'C' [5.a4] . 7 Ne4 7.Nb1 transposes into the Slav. Ba6 7 8 Qc2 QdS 9 Ned2 Others: 1 ) 9.Nfd2 Nf6 1 0.Nxf6ch. gxf6 1 1 .Nxc4 is unclear, Rauzer­ Moskolov, USSR 193 1 ; 2) 9.Be2? b3 10.Qb1 Nf6 1 1 .Nc3 [ l l .Nxf6ch. gxf6 1 2.0-0? c3 ! is winning for Black.] 1 l ...Bb4 1 2.Bd2 Bxc3 1 3.Bxc3 Ne4 is clearly better for Black-Gligoric. 9 c3 10 bxc3 bxc3 Bxfl 11 Qxc3 12 Nxfl aS 13 Ba3 Bxa3 14 Qxa3 Na6 15 Ng3 Nb4 16 Rc1 According to Grunfeld the game is even. 5 e4 IL. ...

...

#10.2 Not 6 ... Qb6? 7.axb5 cxb5 8.Ne5 ! Bb7 9.b3 Bb4 10.Bd2 Nf6 1 1 .bxc4 bxc4 1 2.Nxc4 Qd8 13.Qa4ch. Nc6 14.Ne5 Bxc3 1 5 .Bxc3 0-0! 1 6.Ba6! Bxa6 1 7 . Nxc6 Qc7 1 8 .d5 ! B b7 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Qg4ch. Kh8 2 1 . Qh4 with a marked advantage for White, Marshall-Rubinstein, Kissingen 1 92 8 . Note that 6 ... Bb4 would transpose to line

1 33

Semi-Slav Defense This vigorous response has less point here than in the Tolush­ Geller Gambit against the Slav [ l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 b5.] simply because there is no Knight on f6 to hit with an e4-e5 advance. b5 5 White has now tried the follow­ ing moves: B.l. 6.e5?! ; B.2. 6.a4; 8.3. 6.Be2. B.l. Bb7 6 e5? ! 7 Be2 Black is fine after 7 .Ng5 Nh6! or 7.Ne4 f6! -Litmanowicz. Ne7 7 Bobotsov-Popov, Bulgaria 1962 went 7 . .. a6 8.0-0 Bb4 9.Ne4 h6 10.Bd2 Be7 1 1 .Qc2 Nd7 1 2.b3 cxb3 1 3.axb3 Qb8 with an un­ clear position. Nd5 8 Ne4 Nd7 9 0-0 10 Nfg5 Be7 =+ White does not have sufficient compensation for his sacrificed pawn . S pielmann-Eli skases, match 1 932 continued 1 1 .f4 [ 1 1 .Bh5 g6 12.Qf3 Rf8 1 3.Nxh7 gxh5 14.Nxf8 Nxf8 -+.] 1 1 ...g6 1 2.f5 exf5 13.e6 fxe6 1 4.Nxe6 •••

Qb6 1 5 . a4 [ 1 5 . Rxf5 c 5 ! 1 6.Ng7ch. Kd8 1 7 .Rxd5 ! ?­ Grunfeld.] 15 .. .fxe4 16.a5 Qa6 17.Qc2 N7f6 1 8.Rxf6! Bxf6 1 9.Qxe4 Kf7 20.Nc5 Rae8 2 1 .Qf3 Rxe2! 22.Nxa6 Re 1ch. Black is much better.

lU. 6 a4

Bb4

•.•

#10.4 Not so good is 6 . ..b4?! 7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Qc2 Nf6 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 1 .Bxc4 Bxc4 1 2.Qxc4 when White has an edge, Rokhlin-llyin Genevsky, match 1926. Grunfeld's suggestion of 6 ... Qb6 7.Bd2 Nf6 [which he claims is clearly better for Black!] has never been tested. 7 Bd2 Other moves are plentiful: 1) 7.g3 Bb7 8.Bg2 Nf6 9.e5

1 34

Abraham's Defense

[9.Bg5 h6!] 9 ... Nd5 10.Qc2 Nd7 1 1 .0-0 a6 12.Ng5 [ 1 2.Bg5 Qc7 ! 1 3.Nxd5 cxd5 1 4.axb5 axb5 1 5.Rxa8 Bxa8 16.Ra1 Bc6 is heavily in Black' s favor-Martin.] 12 ... Qb6 13.Rd 1 Be7 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Nxh7 bxa4! 1 6.Ng5 [ 1 6.Rxa4 Rxh7 ! 17.Qxh7 Qb3 ! .] 1 6 ... Qb3 17.Qe2 Bc6 1 8.Be3 Rb8 19.Qg4 Bxg5 20.Qxg5 g6! 2 1 .Rd2 Qb4 2 2 . R a3 Qe7 23.Qxe7ch. ! Kxe7 24.Bg5ch. Kf8 25.Rc3 Rb4 -+, Gallagher­ Martin, England 1984; 2) 7.Qc2 Nf6 8.Bg5 Bxc3ch. 9 . bx c 3 , S p a s sky- S . S zabo, Bucharest 1953, and now 9 ... Qc7 is =+ according to Euwe; 3) 7.axb5 cxb5 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3 a6 1 0.g3 Nf6 l l .e5 Ne4 1 2.Bg2 Bb7 13.0-0 is unclear, D .Gurevich-Kaufman, US S R 1 974; 4) 7 .Be2 !1..Q...5.

[This is a major alternative to 7.Bd2.] 7 ... Nf6 [7 ... Bb7 ! ? 8.0-0 a6 9.Qc2 (9.e5 Ne7 1 0.Ne4 Nd5 1 1 .Bd2 Bf8 1 2.b3 cxb3 13.Qxb3 Nd7 14.Rfc 1 h6 15.Ne 1 Qb6 1 6. Nc2 Rc 8 1 7 .Rab1 Qa7 1 8.Qh3 Be7 19.Qg3 g6 20.Bg4 N7b6 2 1 .Nd6ch. Bxd6 22.exd6 Nc4 was far from clear in Coo­ per-Mestel, British ch. 1 978. However things turned out better for White in the game Hulak­ Barle, Pula 1986/87: 9.e5 Ne7 10.Ne4 Nd5 1 1 .Bg5 Qc7 12.Bd2 Be7 1 3.b3 cxb3 14.Qxb3 Nd7 1 5 . Nfg5 h 6 1 6. Qh 3 Nxe5 17.Nxe6! fxe6 1 8.dxe5 Qxe5 19.Bh5ch. Kd7 20.Rfe 1 Nf4 2 1 .Bxf4 Qxf4 22.Red1ch. Kc7 23.Qxe6 with a winning attack.) 9 . . . Nf6 10.Bg5 Qb6 1 1 .e5?! ( l l .Bxf6 gxf6 12.Rfd1 leads to a comp licated position with chances for both sides.-Taima­ nov.) 1 1 . ..Nd5 12.Ne4 Nd7 1 3.Bd2 Be7 14.Bg5 Bf8 ! 15.b3 h6 1 6.Bd2 cxb3 17.Qxb3 Be7 1 8.Bd3 0-0, Najdorf-Larsen, Havana 1966, and now 1 9.Bc2!? followed by Qd3 and Rfb 1 might give White some compensation for his pawn according to Euwe.]

Semi-Slav Defense 8.0-0 [Also leading to a complex game is 8.Bg5 Nbd7 9.e5 h6 10.exf6 hxg5 1 1 .fxg7 Rg8 12.h4 gxh4 1 3.Rxh4 Qf6 14.Qc2 Bb7 1 5.0-0-0, Spassky-Nei, USSR 1959.] 8 ... 0-0 [8 ... Bxc3 9.bxc3 Nxe4 left White with good com­ pensation for the pawn after 1 0. Qc2 Nf6 1 1 .B a3 Nbd7 1 2 . Nd2 Qc7 1 3 . B f3 Bb7 14.Rab 1 , Kuzin-Sedov, USSR 1958.] 9.Qc2 [9.axb5 ! ? Bxc3 1 0.bxc3 cxb5 1 1 .Bg5 h6 1 2.Bh4 gives White Kingside chances according to Kan.] 9 ... h6 10.axb5 Bxc3 1 1 .bxc3 cxb5 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nd2 Nc6 14.Ne4 a5 15.Rd 1 Rb8 1 6.Rb 1 Qe7 17 .f4 Rd8 1 8 .B d2 Qa7 1 9 .Nd6 Rxd6 20.exd6 Qd7 2 1 .Bf3 Qxd6 -+, Flohr-Kan, USSR ch. 1955. 7 ... aS Or: 1) 7 ... Bb7 8.axb5 [Or 8.b3 Nf6 9 . Q b 1 with complications, Biluov-Karasev, USSR 1972] 8 ... Bxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Qb 1 ! Bc6 1 1 .Ne5 a6 1 2.Be2 Ne7 1 3.Bc 1 ! ? 0-0 14.Ba3 is unclear, Dzandzgava-Gofstein, USSR 1987; 2) 7 ... Nf6 8.Qc2 a6 9.Be2 Bb7

1 35

1 0.0-0 Be7 1 l .e5 Nd5 1 2.Ne4 h6 1 3.b3 ! +=, Schlechter-Maroczy, Vienna 1902. 8 axb5 8.Be2 Nf6 9.Qc2 h6 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .e5 Nd5 12.axb5 Bxc3 13.bxc3 cxb5 14.Rfb1 ?! Ba6 1 5.Bc 1 Nc6 1 6.Nd2 f5 17.exf6 Qxf6 -+, Ma­ rovic-Nei, Zinnowitz 1 9 66. Taimanov gives 8.Qb 1 !? as interesting. Bxc3 8 ... 9 bxc3 Not 9.Bxc3? cxb5 1 0.b3 Nf6 1 l .Qb 1 Bb7 1 2.bxc4 Nxe4 1 3.Qxb5ch Bc6 14.Qb2 Nxc3 1 5.Qxc3 Bxf3 1 6.Qxf3 Qxd4 when Black had the advantage, Foisor-Dolmatov, Groningen 1 977. cxb5 9 ... 10 Rb1! Bd7 11 Qc2 Nf6 12 e5 Nd5 13 Ng5 with a complicated game, Haik­ Barle, World Jr. ch., Athens 197 1 . B.3. 6 Be2 Bb7 Here 6 ... a6 leads to play similar to that which arises after 6... Bb7.

1 36

Abraham's Defense

On a historical note we will men­ 1 4 .Nd6ch.B xd6 1 5 .exd6 f6 tion the first major game in this [ 1 5 ... c5 is probably more accu­ line. Ragozin-Abrahams, USSR­ rate.] 1 6.b4 with complications, Great B ritain 1 946 went Petrosian -Averb ach, U S S R 6... Nbd7? and after 7.0-0 Bb7 1950. Bxd6 8.d5 ! Nc5 9.dxc6 Bxc6 1 0.Nd4 14 Nd6ch. Qd7 1 1 .Nxc6 Qxc6 1 2.a4 Rd8 15 exd6 Qb6 Qxc5 13.axb5 Qb7 14.Qc2 Nb3 15.Ra6 16 dxc5 0-0 White had a clear plus. 17 Nd4 7 0-0 and 'Black stands completely Nf6 satisfactorily'-Tournament book 8 a4 8.e5 Nd5 is an unfavorable trans­ of the 1950 USSR ch. position to the Tolush-Geller !: 5 a4 Gambit. a6 8 ... Nbd7 9 Bg5 Not 9 ... Be7 1 0.e5 Nd5 1 1 .Ne4 and Black would have to play 1 1 . ..f6 because of the threatened Bxe7 followed by Nd6. h6 10 e5 g5 11 Bh4 Black stands better than in the Botvinnik system. #10.6 12 Bg3 Black is better after 1 2.exf6 gxh4 White' s best move. In this way he 1 3.Ne5 Nxf6 while 1 2.Nxg5 gets his pawn back. Bb4 5 ... hxg5 13.Bxg5 fails to 1 3 . . . Qc7 The most consistent move. 14.f4 b4! . 5 ... Nf6 transposes into a line of Nd5 1 2 ... the Slav [Soultanbeieff Vari­ 13 Ne4 cS! Also p layable i s 1 3 . . . Qb6 ation] that is favorable to White,

1 37

Semi-Slav Defense while 5 ... c5 6.d5 ! Nf6 7.e4 exd5 8.e5 ! leads to a popular QGA line [normally reached by l .d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.d5 e6 6.e4 exd5 7.e5] . 6 e3 Other moves are not as good: 1) 6.Bd2 c5 ! [6 ... a5 (6... b5 ! ? 7.axb5 Bxc3 8.Bxc3 cxb5 9.b3 cxb3 10.e3 { Clearly better for White according to Gligoric. } 1 0... Qd5 unclear-Euwe.) 7.Qb1 (A good illustration of Black' s chances can be seen in the following variation: 7 .e4 b5 8.Be2 Nf6 9.Qc2 h6 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .e5 Nd5 1 2.axb5 Bxc3 1 3.bxc3 cxb5 1 4.Rfb1 Ba6 15.Be1 Nc6 1 6.Nd2 f5 1 7 .exf6 Qxf6 1 8.Bf3 b4 1 9. Ne4 Qg6 20 . Qd 1 Rxf3 2 1 .Qxf3 Rf8 22.Qe2 Nf4 23.Qf3 Bb7 24.Nc5 Ba8 25.Qe4 Qxe4 26.Nxe4 Nxd4 27.Ng3 bxc3 28.Bxc3 Nde2ch. and Black wins.) 7 ... Nd7 (7 ... b5 8.cxb5 Bxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Qxb5ch favors White.) 8.e4 (Or 8.e3 Nb6 9 . Ne5 Nf6 1 0. Nxc4 Nxc4 1 1 .Bxc4 0-0 with the idea of . . . e5 leads to equality according to Backwinkel.) 8 ... Nb6 9.Be2 f5! 10.0-0 Nf6 1 1 .Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6

Qxf6 was equal in HertneckBackwinkel, W.Gennany 1986/ 87.] 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.e3 Nc6 9.Bxc4 0-0 10.0-0 Bxc5 1 1 .Qc2 Qe7 was slightly better for Black in Tikovsky-Pachman, Bmo 1944; 2) 6.g3 a5 [6... Nf6 'only' led to a level game after 7.Bg2 c5 8.0-0 Nc69.dxc5 Qxd1 (9 ... 0-0 1 0.Nd2 favors White: 10 ... Na5? 1 1 .Qc2 Qc7 1 2.Nce4 Nxe4 1 3.Nxe4 f5? 14.Bd2! +-, Rivas Pastor-Sehner, Amsterdam 1 986.) 1 0.Rxd 1 Bxc5, Minev-Popov, Bulgaria 1953. A good alternative to 6 ... a5 is 6...c5 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.Be3 Nge7 9 . dxc5 Nd5 1 0 . Bd2 Nxc3 1 1 .Bxc3 Bxc3ch. 1 2.bxc3 Qa5 13.0-0 Qxc5 when Black had the superior position, Saigin-Nei, USSR Teams ch. 1 955.] 7 .Ne5 Nf6 8.Bg2 Nd5 9.Bd2 Nb6! ? 10.e3 N8d7 1 1 .f4 0-0 1 2.Ne4?! [ 1 2 . Qe2 i s unclear] 12 . . . f6 1 3.Nxd7 Qxd7 14.0-0 Nd5 1 5.g4, Seirawan-Korchnoi, Bad Kissin­ gen 198 1 , and now 15 ... f5 ! with the idea of . . . b6 is clearly better for Black. 6 b5 Giving the pawn back without a fight makes things easy for .. .

138

Abraham's Defense

White: 6 ... Nf6 7.Bxc4 Nbd7 8.00 0-0 9.Qb3 ! Qe7 10.e4! +-. Analysis by Gufeld. 7 Bd2 The main line. White has experi­ mented with several other moves though: 1) 7.g3 Bb7 8.Bg2 Nd7 9.0-0 a6 10.Qc2 Ngf6 1 l .e4 h6 1 2.h3 0-0 1 3.g4!? leads to an obscure game, Hodos-Shashin, USSR 1963; 2) 7 .Ne5? Nf6 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 0-0! 10.axb5 cxb5 1 l .b3 Bb7 ! -+ accordin g to Bogoljubov; 3) 7 .Nd2 Qb6 [Interesting is 7 ... Ne7 !?. The game Djuric-Mar­ tin, Hastings 1984/85 saw White outplay his opponent after 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ba3 Nbc6 1 2 . B f3 a5 1 1 .Be2 Rb8 13.Bxc6ch. Nxc6 14.Qg4 g6 1 5.Bc5 f5 1 6.Qg3 Kt7 17.h4 h6 1 8.e4 Bd7 19.0-0 g5 20.exf5 exf5 2 1 .Rfe 1 Be6 22.hxg5 hxg5 23.Nf3 Rg8 24.Ne5ch. Nxe5 25.Qxe5 but Black should be able to improve.] 8.Qg4 Kf8 9.g3 [White must avoid the tempting 9 . axb5 cxb5 1 0.Nd5 exd5 1 1 .Qxc8ch. Ke7 12.Be2 Qc6! +.] 9 ... Nf6?! [9 . . . Bb7 is probably

better.] 1 0.Qf3 Bb7 1 1 .Bg2 a6 12.0-0 Nbd7 1 3.Na2 Bd6 14.b3 cxb3 1 5.Nxb3 Ke7? [Here Black could have gained a clear advan­ tage by 15 . . . Rb8 ! .] 1 6.Bd2 Rab8 1 7 . Na5 ! B a8 1 8 . Nb4 Nd5 19.Naxc6 Bxc6 20.Nxc6 Qxc6 2 1 .e4, Speelman-Flear, Lon­ don 1986, and now 2 l . ..N5b6 22.e5 [22.axb5 Qxb5 ! - +] 22 . . . Qxf3 23 . exd6ch. Kf6 24.Bxf3 Nc4 leads to a large plus for Black-Speelman; 4.) 7 .Be2 a6 8.0-0 Bb7 9.Qc2 Nf6 [Or 9 ... Nd7 10.e4 Ngf6 l l .Bg5 h6 1 2.Bh4 Be? 1 3.e5 Nd5 1 4.Bxe7 Qxe7 1 5 .Ne4 0-0 1 6.Nd6 N7b6 17.Nd2 f5 1 8.b3 c3 19 .Nf3 Nc8 20.Nxb7 Qxb7 2 1 .a5 Qe7 22.Rfd 1 Na7 23.Ne 1 c5 24.Bf3 cxd4 25.Bxd5 exd5 26.Nf3 Rac8 and Black went on to win in the game Uhlmann­ Skrobek, Halle 1978.] 1 0.e4 c5 [Not clear is 10 ... 0-0 1 1 .e5 fol­ lowed by Ng5 and Nce4-Hart­ ston.] l l .dxc5 [ 1 l .e5? cxd4 1 2.exf6 d3 -+] l l ...Bxc3 1 2.bxc3 [ 12.Qxc3 0-0! 1 3.Bg5? Nxe4.] 12 ...Nxe4 1 3.Nd4 Nxc5 14.axb5 Be4! 15.Qb2 Nd3 1 6.Bxd3 Bxd3 1 7.Re 1 0-0 =+ 1 8.b6 Qd5 !

1 39

Semi-Slav Defense 1 9.Bf4? Nd7 20.Bc7 Qb7 2l .Qb4 Nf6 22.Qd6? Be4 23.Ra5 Rfc8 24.Rg5 Ne8 25.Qe5, Hartston­ Czemiak, Beersheba 1 97 6, and now 25 ... Bd5 ! is much better for Black. After 7.Bd2 we reach another critical position.

10 ... Ne4! ?-Taimanov. bxc4 11 bxc4 12 Bb4 White was only a little better after 12.Bxc4 Qc7 13.Qd3 a5 14.0-0 Bb7 1 5.Rfc 1 , Bagirov-Kupreic­ hik, Lvov 1984. ReS 12 ... 13 Bxc4 Rajkovic-Nikolic, Vrbas 1982, White's game is clearly superior but Black nevertheless managed to eventually gain a draw;

� 7 8 9 10 !lli1l Black has tried many moves here: C.l. 7...Nf6?: C.2. 7..,a6; C.3. 7 ... B b7: C.4. 7 ...0e7: C.S. 7... Ob6: C.6. 7... a5. c.L Nf6? 7 ... Not to be recommended. 8 axb5 Bxc3 cxb5 9 Bxc3 0-0 10 b3 10 . . . Nd5 1 l .Ba5 ! Qe7 12.bxc4 bxc4 1 3.Bxc4 +-; 10 . . . a5 1 l .bxc4 1 2 . B xb4 ! -Gligoric; b4?

... axb5 Bxc3 b3 +=

a6 Bxc3 cxb5

!:aJ,. Bb7 7 ... 8 b3 White can transpose into C.6. [7 ... a5] by 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 a5 1 l .bxc4 b4 etc. If 8.Ne5?! Black has ...Nd7 ! while 8.Ne4 is adequately met by ... Be7. aS 8 ... 9 bxc4 9.axb5 would still go into C.6. 9 ... Bxc3 The best move may be 9 ... bxc4

Abraham's Defense

1 40

when White only had a tiny edge after 10.Bxc4 [ 1 0.Ne4? ! c5 1 1 .Nxc5 c3 ! .] 1 0...Nf6 1 1 .0-00-0 1 2. Qe2 c5 1 3.dxc5 Nbd7 14.c6 Bxc6 1 5.Nd4 Bb7 1 6.Rfc 1 Qe7 17.Bb5, Spraggett-Klinger, Vi­ enna 1 986. 10 Bxc3 b4 11 Bb2 Nf6 c5 12 Bd3 =+ according to Harding. Nbd7 13 0-0 ReS 14 Re1 15 Rcl Qc7? Better was 1 5 . . . 0-0 ! when White's chances are slightly pref­ erable according to Pytel! exd5 16 d5! Bxd5 17 cxd5 Be6 18 e4! Nd5 19 e5 20 Ng5 Nf4 h6 21 Bb5 Nxe6 22 Nxe6 g6 23 f4 Rb8 24 Qd3 24 ... Nxf4 25.e6 ! ! . Knaak-Karasev, Lublin 1 974, and now 25.Bc4!_is +-;

!:& 7

..•

Qe7?

#10.8 This move has been played many times ... usually with bad results. 8 Qc2 Other excellent possibilities are: 1) 8.Be2 Nf6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Qc2 Nb6 1 1 .Ne5 ! Bxc3 1 2.Bxc3 Nxa4 1 3.Ba5 Bb7 14.Nxc4 +=, Kottnauer-Christoffel, Gronin­ gen 1 946; 2) 8.Ne5 Nf6 9.axb5 ! ? Bxc3 10.bxc3 cxb5 1 1 .B c l ! Nd5 1 2.Ba3 +-, Negyesy-Florian, Hungary 1949; 3) 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5 1 0.d5 Nf6 [ 1 0...f6?! 1 1 .Nd4! ECO] 1 l .dxe6 [ l l .d6! is also promising.] 1 1 ...fxe6 [ l l . ..Bxe6 1 2.Nd4 0-0 1 3.Qf3 Bd5 14.Qg3 +-, analysis by Grunfeld. ] 12.Nd4 0-0! [ 1 2. . . Qb7 13. Be2 +-; 1 2 ...Ba6 1 3.b3+-; 1 2 ... Bd7

Semi-Slav Defense 1 3.Qf3 Nd5 14.Nf5 +-.] 1 3.Nxb5 Ne4 1 4.Bxc4 Nxf2 1 5.Qh5, Euwe-Koomen, Amsterdam 1 942, 1 5 . . . Ne4 [ 1 5 . . . Nxh 1 ? 1 6.Bd3 Rf5 ! 1 7 . B xf5 exf5 1 8.Nc7 ! +-.] 1 6.Rfl ! Rxfl ch. 17.Kxfl Nxc3 1 8.bxc3 +=, van Scheltinga-Alexander, Hilver­ sum 1947. Nf6 8 9 axbS BxcJ cxbS 10 Qxc3! Ne4 11 b3 Nxd2 12 QaS 0-0 13 Nxd2 14 QxbS cxb3 Bb7 15 Be2 Bc6 16 0-0 Nd7 17 Qxb3 Denker-Christoffel, Groningen 1946, and now 18.Ra5 is very strong for White; ••.

� Qb6?! 7 ... 8 Ne4 Perhaps 8.Ne5 ! ? is even stronger: 8 ... Nd7 [Both 8 ... Qb7?! 9.Ne4 Be7 10.Qg4 g6 1 1 . Qf4 f6 1 2.Ng4! g5 13.Nxg5 h5 14.Ne5 +- , Lac hm ann -Junge, B ad Oeynhausen 194 1 , and 8 ... Nf6 9.axb5 cxb5 1 0.b3 0-0 1 1 .bxc4

141

Bxc3 1 2.Bxc3 b4 1 3.Qb1 Na6, Tamasi- Sokolov, Yugoslavia 1952, 14.c5 +- (Euwe) are very good for White.] 9.axb5 Nxe5 [Not 9 ... cxb5? 10.Qf3 threaten­ ing 1 1 .Qxa8 and 1 1 .Qxf7 Becker.] 1 0.dxe5 cxb5 1 1 .Ne4 Be7 12.Qg4 +-, Consultation game Alekhine vs. Kashdan and H.Steiner, Manhattan Chess Club 1929. Be7 8 8 ... Bxd2ch. 9.Nfxd2 Nd7 10.Qg4 is much better for White-Taima­ nov. 9 b3 9.Ne5 ! ?-Pachman. cxb3 9 bxa4 10 Qxb3 Nf6 11 Qxa4 12 Nxf6ch. gxf6 Qc7 13 Bd3 1 3 ... Bd7 ! ?-Spasov. Nd7 14 0-0 Bb7 15 Rfcl 0-0 16 Be4 Nb6 17 Bxc6 18 Bxb7 += •..

-·

S p a ssov-P. Povov , B ulgaria 1985; aS !:&., 7 •••

142

Abraham's Defense

#1 0.9 Preparing to mobilize his Queenside pawns and enter the main lines of the Noteboom [Abraham] variation. 8 axbS On occasion White gives some­ thing else a try: 1) 8.Be2 Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Ne5 Bxc3 1 1 .Bxc3 Bb7 1 2.Bf3 Nd5 leads to a complicated position with chances for both sides, Ch­ eremi sin-Hramtsov, USSR 1975; 2) 8.Qc2 Bb7 9.axb5 Bxc3 10.Qxc3 cxb5 1 1 .Rxa5 Rxa5 1 2.Qxa5 Qxa5 1 3.Bxa5 Nc6 14.Bd2 [ += according to Pach­ man] 14 ... Nf6 = according to ECO; 3) 8.Ne5 [This is White's most

popular alternative to 8.axb5.] 8 ... Nf6 [8 ...Bb7 9.axb5 Bxc3 1 0.bxc3 cxb5 1 1 .Rb l ! (+-) 1 1 . ..Qd5 1 2.Qg4 Kf8 1 3 .e4 Qxe4ch. 14.Qxe4 Bxe4 1 5.Rxb5 +-.] 9.Qf3 [Or 9.axb5 ! ? Bxc3 10.Bxc3 cxb5 1 1 .b3 Bb7 1 2.bxc4 b4 1 3.Qa4ch. Nfd7 14.c5 0-0 1 5. Nxd7 Bc6 1 6.Bb5 Qxd7 17.Bxc6 Qxc6 1 8.Bxb4 Qxg2 19.Rfl Nc6 20.Bc3 Nb4 and White' s position does not inspire confidence though he later man­ aged to win anyway, Piket-Kuijf, Holland 1986.] 9 ... Bxc3 1 0.bxc3 Qd5 1 1 .Qg3 0-0 12.f3 Ne8 1 3.e4

#10. 10 [This position was felt to offer White adequate compensation. However the present game fails to bear this out.] 1 3 ... Qd8 1 4.Be2 f6 15.Ng4 Nd7 1 6.0-0 Nb6 17.f4

143

Semi-Slav Defense Nxa4 1 8.Qh4 Bd7 1 9.f5 exf5 20.exf5 Nd6 2 1 .Ne3 Nb6 22.Bh5 Be8 23.Rf4 Nd5 24.Nxd5 cxd5 25.Qh3 Bxh5 26.Qxh5 Qe8 27. Qh3 Qe2, 0- 1 , Panczyk­ Vilela, Polanica Zdroj 1982. Bxc3 8 9 Bxc3 Virtually always played nowa­ days. However 9.bxc3 ! ? can be given consideration if you are the type of player who does not mind a slight material disadvantage in exchange for nebulous attacking chances. One example of White being successful with 9.bxc3 is the game Boleslavsky-Randviir, USSR Team ch. 1955: 9 ...cxb5 10.Qb1 [Spraggett recommends 1 0.Ne5.] 1 0...Ba6 1 l .Be2 Nc6 1 2.0-0 Nf6 1 3.e4 b4 1 4.cxb4 Nxd4 1 5.Nxd4 Qxd4 1 6.Rxa5 Qxe4 17.Be3 0-0 1 8.Qxe4 Nxe4 1 9.Rfa 1 Bb7 20.Bxc4 +-. cxbS 9 10 b3 Regaining the pawn. A rather dubious experiment was seen in the game Donner-Pliester, Am­ sterdam 1 9 8 2 which went 1 0.d5?! Nf6 1 1 .dxe6 Qxd 1ch. 1 2.Kxd 1 Ne4 1 3.Be 1 Nc6 ! •••

...

14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.exf7ch. Kxf7 1 6.exd4 Rd8? 17.f3 Rxd4ch. 1 8 .Ke2 Nc5 1 9. Rxa5 Rxa5 20.Bxa5 Na4 21 .Ke3 Rd5 22.Bc3 Nxc3 23.bxc3 Bf5, l/2- l/2. It's true that White survived this game, but Black can improve with 1 6... a4! when Black has a significant advantage. Bb7 10 Naturally 10 . . . b4? 1 1 .Bxb4! must be avoided. After 10 Bb7 we reach the main line position of the Abraham Def. •••

.••

#10. 1 1 White now has two moves: � ll.bxc4 and C.6.b. l l.d5!?.

� 11 bxc4 b4 Creating the typical imbalance of the Abrahams/Noteboom. White will strive to mobilize his center

1 44

A braham's Defense

pawns while Black will seek to blockade them with a timely ... e5 and then crash through with his Queenside runners. 12 B b2 Not so popular is 12.Bd2 Nf6 and now: 1) 1 3.Ne5 Nbd7 14.Qa4 0-0 1 5 .Nc6 Bxc6 1 6. Qxc6 e5 ! 1 7.Be2 Re8 1 8.Bf3 Rc8 19.Qa6 exd4 20.Rxa5 Nc5 ! -+, Voisin­ Noteboom, Hamburg 1930; 2) 1 3.Bd3 Nbd7 [ 1 3 ... Ne4?! 14.Qc2 f5 1 5.Ne5 0-0 16.f3? Qh4ch. led to a quick win for Black in Allcock-Abrahams, London 1 925 but White has sev­ eral improvements such as 14.Qa4ch. Qd7 15.Qc2 with the threat ofNe5.] 14.0-0 0-0 15.Qc2 Qc7 1 6.e4 e5 ! 17.d5 Nc5 -+, Plater-Trifunovic, Hilversum 1947; 3) 13.Be2! ? Nbd7 14.Qa4 0-0 1 5.c5 Qc7 1 6.Bb5 Nb8 17.0-0 Nc6 1 8.Rfd1 Ne4 19.Bd3 Ne7 20.Ne5 f6 2 1 .Nc4 Bc6 22.Qc2 Nxd2 23.Rxd2 g6 24.Nb6 Ra7 25.Bc4 Nd5 26.Bxd5 Bxd5 27 .e4 Bc6 28.Qc4 Kg7 29.d5 Qe5 30.Rda2 Bb7 3 1 .c6 and White went on to win on move 46, Kra-

mer-Dlugy, New York 1982. Nf6 12 ... Nbd7 13 Bd3 Preparing to meet e4 with ...e5. The alternative plan is to try and stop e4 altogether. Clearly better for White is 1 3 ...Ne4? on account of 14.Qa4ch! Kf8 [ 1 4 . . . Bc6 1 5.Qc2 f5 1 6.Ne5 or 14 ... Qd7 1 5.Qc2 f5 1 6.Ne5 are both very much in White's favor.] 15.Qc2 f5 1 6.0-0 Nd7 17.d5 ! Ndc5 1 8.Nd4 exd5 19.f3 ! +-, Gligoric­ Abrahams, Hastings 195 1/52. Equally as popular as 1 3 ... Nbd7 is 1 3 ... Be4

#10.1 2 although recent experience has greatly favored White. After 1 3 . . . Be4 White does best with 14.Bxe4 [Bad is 14.Qc2? Bxd3 15.Qxd3 a4! with advantage for

Semi-Slav Defense Black-Gligoric, but 1 4. Ne5 seems quite reasonable: 14...0-0 1 5 .0-0 Nbd7 16.Bxe4 Nxe4 17.Nc6 Qc7 1 8 .d5 (+-) 1 8 ... Ndf6 19.f3 Nc5, Bisguier-Kohalmi, USA 1 979, and now 20.Be5 ! Qb6 2l.Qd4 is +- according to Cia­ marra.] 1 4... Nxe4 15.Qc2 Nf6 [Or 15 .. .f5 ! ? 1 6.0-0 (Also pos­ sible is 1 6.d5 0-0 17.Nd4 Nc5! which is at best just slightly better for White. Pachman's recom­ mendation of 1 6.Ne5 ! ? += should also be looked at.) 16 ...00 17.Rfd 1 Nd7 1 8 .d5 Ndc5 19.Nd4 Qb6 20.dxe6 b3 2 1 . Qb1 Nxe6 22.Nxf5 ! N6g5 ! 23.Rd7 Ra7 24.Ne7ch. Kh8 25.Nd5 Nf3 c h . 26. Kfl Rxd7 ? (26...Nfd2ch! is stronger with equality. ) 27 .Nxb6 Nfd2ch . 28.Kg1 Nxb 1 29.Nxd7 Rd8 30.Rxa5 h6, Ogaard-Mestel, Esbjerg 1 978, and now 3 1 .Ra7 ! is strong for White.] 1 6.e4 0-0 1 7.00 [The sharper 17.h4!? Nfd7 1 8.Ng5 e5 1 9.c5 ! Qc7 20.f4 h6 2 l .fxe5 hxg5 22.hxg5 Nxe5 23.dxe5 Rd8 24.Rd1 also led to a White advantage in Sterud­ Blednov, correspondence 1983.] 17 ... Nfd7 1 8.c5 Qc7 19.Rfc 1 Rc8

145

20.Qd2 Ra6 2 l .h4 Nf6 22.d5 ! Nxe4 23.Qd4 Nf6 24.d6 Qb7 25 .Ne5 Nc6 26.Nxc6 Qxc6 27.g4! Rd8 28.g5 Ne8 29.Re 1 , Knaak-Vera, Berlin 1982, White has a winning game. 14 Qc2 Usually transposing is 14.0-0 when 14 ... 0-0 1 5.Qc2 Qc7 1 6.e4! goes into our main line. Note that 1 6.Ne5? [an old suggestion of the Dutch master Barendregt in an analogous position.] fails to 1 6 . . . Nxe5 1 7 . dxe5 Nd7 1 8 . B xh7ch. K h 8 1 9 . Rfd 1 [ 1 9.Be4 Bxe4 20.Qxe4 Nc5 is clearly better for Black.] 19 ... g6 20.Bxg6 fxg6 21 .Qxg6 Nc5 22.Bd4! Nb3 23.Qxe6, S.Saeed­ Pliester, Amsterdam 1 982, now instead of 23 ... Rg8 Black could have obtained a decisive advan­ tage with 23 ... Qg7 ! 24.Qh3ch. Qh7 25.e6ch. Nxd4 26.Qxh7ch. Kxh7 27.Rxd4 Rfb8 ! -Analysis by Sosonko and Pliester. After 14.0-0 Black has an origi­ n al new option . . . namel y 14. . . Ra7 ! ? followed by 1 5 . . . Qa8. This invention of the Cincinanti master Dan Meinking deserves serious consideration. The ideas

146

Abraham's Defense

behind it are very logical: it makes an e3-e4 advance harder to achieve for White and it prepares the advance of his own Queen­ side pawns by ... a5-a4. 14 . 0-0 e5 15 e4 16 0-0 Others: 1 ) 1 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Nd7 followed by 1 8 ... Nc5-Taimanov; 2) 1 6.dxe5 Nc5 ! 17.Rd1 Nfxe4 1 8.Bxe4 Bxe4 19.Rxd8 Bxc2 is clearly in Black's favor-Abra­ hams; 3) 1 6.d5 ! ? when Abrahams and Taimanov recommend 16 ... Qc7 followed by ...Re8, ... Nc5 and eventually ... a4. Euwe suggested 1 6... Re8 17.c5 Bxd5! 1 8.c6 b3 ! ­ +. Qc7 16 ... 1 6... Re8 is also playable: 1 7.Rfel h6 1 8.h3 Nh5 19.c5 Rc8 20.Bb5 exd4 2 1 .Bxd4 Re7 22.c6 Re6 23.Qa2 Bxc6 24.Bxc6 Rexc6 25.Qxa5 Nf4 with chances for both sides. 17 c5 Or 17.Rfe1 Rfe8 1 8.c5 h6 with equal chances, Aratovsky-Stolyar, RSFSR ch. 1955. ..

Rfe8 17 ... An attempt to improve on this was seen in the game Shestop­ erov-Koifman, U S S R 1978, which went 17 ... exd4 1 8.Bxd4 Ba6, however after1 9.e5 Bxd3 20.Qxd3 Nh5 2 1 .Ng5 g6 22.e6 White had a winning attack. 18 Rfcl Rac8 Ng4 19 dxe5 Ndxe5 20 Bb5 Rxe5 21 Nxe5 Gaister-Kaufman, USSR 196 1 . Both sides have chances i n this complicated position. � 11 d5!?

#10. 1 3 White's sharpest move by which he tries to refute Black' s play. Nf6 11 ...

Semi-Slav Defense Necessary, as 1 1 ...f6 falls for 1 2. bxc4 b4 1 3 . B xb4 axb4 14.Rxa8 Bxa8 15.Qa4ch. Nd7 1 6.dxe6. 12 bxc4 White gains nothing by 1 2.dxe6 1 3 . Kx d 1 Qxd 1 ch . Ne4 14.ext7ch. Kxt7 1 5.Be1 Rd8ch. 16.Kc 1 Nc6 17.bxc4 b4! when Black has good compensation for the sacrificed pawn-Gligoric. b4 12 ... Not 1 2. . .0-0 13.dxe6 Qxd1 ch. 1 4. R x d 1 b4 1 5 . B xf6 gxf6 1 6.ext7 ch. Kxt7 1 7 .c5 B a6 1 8.Nd4! with a clear advantage for White-Argentinian analysis. 13 Bxf6 Qxf6 A recent new attempt that worked well in its debut was 1 3 ... gxf6?! . I n Ki.Georgiev-Pieterse, Lugano 1986 Black quickly got a very comfortable position after 14.e4? Nd7 15.Nd4 Nc5 1 6.Bd3 e5 17 .Nb3 Qb6. More challenging to 13 ... gxf6 is 14.Nd4 ! , planning 14 ...exd5 15.c5 with more then enough play for the pawn, Blees­ Pieterse, Amstelveen 1986. 14 Qa4ch. Nd7 Forced, as 14 . . . Kf8 allows 1 5.Nd4exd5 1 6.Qb5 Bc6 17.Qb6

1 47

#10.1 4 A key position for the 1 1 .d5 line of the Abrahams/Noteboom. Now 15 ...exd5 is a poor idea in view of 1 6.c5 Rc8 17.Bb5. Interesting is Karasev's attempt to rehabilitate 1 5 . . . Ke7 . In Gavrikov-Karasev, Severodon­ etsk 1982 White got the edge against 1 5 ... Ke7 with 1 6.d6ch. Kxd6 17.Rd 1 Ke7 [An improve­ ment over 1 7 . . . Rhd8 of Spanjaard-Cortlever, Holland 1950, where White was winning after 1 8.c5ch! Nxc5 19.Qb5.] 1 8.Nf5ch Kf8? 19.Rxd7. How­ ever, as Gavrikov points out, Black could have improved with 1 8 ... exf5 when 19.Qxd7ch. Kf8

1 48

Abraham's Defense

20.Qxb7 allows a perpetual by New attention has been laid upon 20 . . . Qc3ch. 2 l .Ke2 Qc4ch . this move. Other tries are also 22.Ke l . interesting: 1 5 ... e5 1) 17.Rd1 Qb6 1 8.Be2 [ 1 8.d6ch. The move responsible for a resur­ Kd8 threatening 19 ... Bc6 and gence of this line. However in the ... a5-a4-Taimanov .] 1 8 . . . Rhd8 game Pliester-Pieterse, Dieren 1 9.0-0 Kd6 20.c5ch. Nxc5 1 986, Black uncorked another 2 l .Nxc5 Qxc5 22.Rc 1 Qb6 idea- 1 5 . . . Qe7 ! ? . The further 23.Qc2 h6 is unclear but 1/2-1/2 course of the game gave a nice in Mayonov-Andrianov, USSR impression concerning Black's Junior ch. 1 980; chances: 1 6.c5 Bxd5 17 .B b5 Ra7 2) 17.Be2 Rhc8 1 8 .Bc6 0-0 1 9 . B xd5 Nxc5 2 0 . Qd 1 exd5 2 1 .Nc6 Qd7 22.Nxa7 a4 2 3 . Rc 1 Qxa7 . Black's Queenside pawns make life very unhappy for White. Only time will tell if 15 ... Qe7 ! ? has a future. Ke7 16 Nb3 Sooner or later Black must play this if he is going to complete his development. Inferior is 1 6... e4?: 1 7 . Nd4 [ 1 7 .Nc5? B c6 ! ! - Pi­ #10. 1 5 eterse.] 1 7 ... Qd6 1 8.c5 ! Qxc5 A critical position. Some ex­ 1 9.Bb5 Qc3ch. 20.Kd1 Rd8 amples: 21 .Rc 1 Qa3 22.Qxa3 bxa3, Van 2.a.) 1 8.Nxa5? Qb6! -+, Korelov­ der Sterren-Pieterse, Dieren Vorotnikov, Leningrad 1 964; 1 986, and now 23.d6! is nearly 2.b.) 1 8.Qb5 Ba6 1 9.Qxa5 Qd6 is winning for White according to obscure; 2.c.) 1 8 .0-0 Nc5 19.Nxc5 Rxc5 Pieterse. offers chances to both sides; 17 QbS!?

Semi-Slav Defense

1 49

2.d.) 1 8.Bg4 Qd6 is unclear since 19.0-0 is a mistake due to 1 9 . . . Rxc4 20.Qxd7ch. Qxd7 2 1 .Bxd7 Kxd7 22.Nxa5 Rc3 23.Nxb7 Rxa1 24.Rxa1 b3 -+. Ba6 17 ...

The main line, but still not com­ pletely resolved is 17 ... Rhb8. In Ionov- Hav ski, U S S R 1 98 4 White played 1 8.Rxa5 which should have been answered by 1 8 . . . e4 ! 19.Qxb4ch. [ 1 9.Nd4 b3 ! .] 1 9 . . . Ke8 20.Nd4 B a6 2 1 .Nb5 Bxb5 22.cxb5 Rxa5 23.Qxa5 Qb2 with equal chances according to Ionov and Livsic. Rhb8 18 Qxa5 19 d6ch. Behind in development, White returns the pawn to try to keep the Black king in the center. 19.Qc7 Rc8 is a draw since 20.d6ch? ! fails to 20 ... Qxd6 2 1 .Qxd6ch. Kxd6 22.c5ch. Nxc5 23.Nxc5 Bxfl 24.Ne4ch. Kd5-Taimanov. Qxd6 19 ... Most commonly seen b u t 1 9 . Ke8 ! may well be the best move here. .

.

#10. 1 6 The game Ionov-Moroz, USSR 1984 saw Black obtain a winning position with apparent ease after 20.Be2? [Kondratiev in his book on the Slav/Semi-Slav in the Russian Physical Culture series gives 20.c5 as an interesting way for White to play. However Ca­ nadian Master Gordon Taylor points out the move' s flaw with the following variation: 20...Bb7 2 1 .Qc7 Rxa1ch. 22.Nxa1 e4 23.Bb5 Qxa1ch. 24.Ke2 Qb2ch. 25.Ke1 Ra8 ! 26.Qxd7ch. Kf8 27 .Ba4 Qc3ch. 28.Kd 1 Bd5 and Black wins. ] 20 ... Bb7 2 1 .Qc7 Rxa1ch. 22.Nxa1 Bxg2 23.Rg1 e4! 24.Nb3 Qc3ch. 25.Nd2 Bf3 26.Bdl Bxdl 27.Kxd l Ra8. If

1 50

Abraham's Defense

White cannot find an improve­ ment then he must go back to his 1 9th move and play 19.Qc7 with a resultant draw. Qd5 20 c5 21 Bxa6 Qxb3 22 0-0 Qe6 23 Qc7! 23.Rfd l b3 ! favors Black. Rxa6 23 ... 23 ...Kf6 24.Bb7 ! Rxal 25.Rx a l b3 2 6 . c 6 b 2 2 7 . R f l Qc4 28.Qd6ch. Kg5 29.f4ch. wins for White according to the Armenian I.M. Mnatsakanian. Qxa6 24 Rxa6 25 Rd1 Qc8 White wins after 25 ... Rd8 26.c6 Qc8 27.Qd6ch. Ke8 28.c7. 26 Qd6ch! Better then 26.Rxd7ch. which also seems to be s tron g : 26 . . . Qxd7 2 7 . Qxe5c h . Qe6 28.Qxb8 Qd5? [28 ... b3 is a better try.] 29.Qc7ch. Ke8 30.h3 b3 3 l .c6 f6 32.Qb8ch. Kf7 33.c7 and White wins. Ke8 26 ... Nf8 27 c6

Ra8 28 c7 29 Qxe5ch Qe6 29 . . . Ne6 3 0 . Rd 8 c h . Qxd8 3 1 .cxd8=Q Rxd8 32.Qb5ch. Rd7 33.g3 ++-. Ke7 30 Qb5ch. 30 . . . Nd7 3 1 . Qb7 Nb6 32.Qxa8ch. Nxa8 33.Rd8ch. ++31 Qxb4ch. Kf6 3 1 . . . Ke 8 3 2 .R d 8 c h . Rxd8 33.Qxf8ch. ++-. Ke7 32 Qc3ch. 32. . .Kg6 33.Rd8 ++Kf6 33 Qc5ch. 34 h4 and White wins because of the deadly threats of Qg5 mate and Rd6. Analysis by Mnatsakanian. Conclusion: This variation is a lot better than its reputation. Black seems to have satisfactory re­ sources agai n s t l l . d5 [19 ... Ke8 ! .], long considered the main line. Completely unclear are the positions arising from l l .bxc4. Both lines promise an exciting and dynamic game in which pre-game preparation is of the utmost importance.

151

Semi-Slav Defense

CHAPTER 11

D43/SL6

5 Qb3; 5 Qd3; 5 g3 and Qc2 This Chapter is made up of lines in which White plays in a very restrained, positional manner. By moving his Queen to b3,d3, or c2 he guards his c4 pawn. This al­ lows him to develop comfortably and try to make his space advan­ tage tell. In these lines White will usually place his K-Bishop on g2, thus we get many similarities with (and often direct transposi­ tion to) the Catalan Opening. Since the ideas in this chapter tend to be very different from those in the rest of the book we have given a large amount of games...often amounting to notes within notes within notes. It is our hope that rather than confuse the reader, he will be able to play through this material and come to an understanding as to what both sides are trying to accomplish. Lines with Oc2. 1 d4 d5

2 c4 3 Nf3 4 Qc2

e6 c6

The immediate 4.g3 is also pos­ sible. We will give just one ex­ ample that demonstrates what can happen if Black gets greedy: 4 ...dxc4 5.Bg2 Nd7 6.0-0 Ngf6 7.a4 b5? 8.b3 ! cxb3 9.axb5 cxb5 1 0.Qxb3 Qb6 1 l .Nc3 a6 1 2.Ne5 Bb7 1 3.Nc4! bxc4 14.Qxb6 Nxb6 15.Bxb7 Ra7 1 6.Bc6ch., 1 -0, Alburt-Frey, USA 1987. 4 Nf6 ...

1 52

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

5 g3 bS This is one of Black's sharpest tries, but since White seems to score well against it Black may be well advised to try one of the alternatives: 1) 5 ... Be7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 Nbd7 [ A new idea that deserves futher tests is 7 ... Na6!?.

#1 1 .2 The game Lerner-Arkhipov, Moscow 1986 continued 8.Bg5 (8.Nbd2 b6 9.e4 Bb7 10.b3 c5 1 l .exd5 exd5 1 2. B b2 Nb4 1 3 . Qb 1 dxc4 1 4.bxc4 cxd4 1 5.Nxd4 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Re8 17.N2f3 Bf8 1 8 .Rd1 Qc8 19.Nf5 Qc6! 20.Qc 1 Ne4 2 1 .Qf4 f6 22. Qg4 Ng5 =+, Inkiov­ Arkhipov, Moscow 1986.) 8 ... b6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Ne5 Bb7 1 l .Nc3 Nb4 12.Qd2 Rc8 1 3.Rac1 Nc6

14.Rfd1 a6 1 5.Na4 h6 1 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qe3 Be7 1 8.a3 Nxe5 19.dxe5 Rxc 1 20.Rxc 1 (20.Qxc 1 Qd7 ! 2 1 .Nxb6 Qb5 22.Qc7 Bd8 23.Qxb7 Qxe2 24.Rfl Qxb2 25 .Qxa6 Bxb6=+.) 20 . . . d4! 2 l .Qb3 Bxg2 22.Kxg2 Qd7 23.Kg1 (23.f3 Bd8 ! followed by . .. Qb5.) 23 . . .Rc8 24.Rxc8ch.?! (24.Rd l ! Bd8 25.Nc3 Qc7 26.Rxd4 Qxe5=.) 24 . . . Qxc8 25.Qxb6 Qc4.] 8.b3 [Back in the early 60' s White was successful with the more straightforward 8.Bf4. The idea is to answer 8 ... b6 with 9.cxd5 when 9 ... cxd5 leaves White with pressure on the open 'c' file. In the game Benko­ Mednis, U.S. ch. 1963/64, Black equalized with 8 ... Nh5 ! 9.Bd2 Nhf6 10.Rc1 a5 ! 1 l .Bf4 Nh5 1 2.Be3 ( 1 2.c5 Nxf4 1 3.gxf4 b6! 14.cxb6 Qxb6 15.Qxc6 Qxb2Benko.) 1 2 . . .f5 1 3 .Bd2 Kh8 14.Bel Bd6 15.Nc3 g5 1 6.e3 Qf6 17. Qe2 and now Black erred with 17 ... Qh6? when White got an edge by 1 8.h4! gxh4 19.Nxh4 Be7 20.Nf3 Nhf6 2 1 .Qd3 Ne4 22.Ne2 Ng5 23.Nf4. Instead of the weak 17 ... Qh6? Black should

Semi-Slav Defense have played 17 ... Qg6 with a completely satisfactory game.] 8 ... b6 [Less flexible is 8 ... b5 9.c5 a5 10.a3 Ne4 1 1 .Bb2 Qe8 1 2.Ne 1 f5 1 3.Nd3 Qh5 14.f3 Nf6 15.Nd2 g5 1 6.Rae1 Bd8 17.e4 fxe4 18.fxe4 Ng4 19.Rxf8ch. Nxf8 20.h3 Nf6 2 1 .Ne5 Bc7 22.Rfl Bxe5 23.dxe5 Ne8 24.Nf3 b4 25 . axb4 B a6 26.Rf2 axb4 2 7 . exd5 cxd5 2 8 .g4 Qg6 29.Qxg6ch. Nxg6 30.Nxg5 Bc8 3 1 .Nt7 Bd7 32.Nh6ch. Kh8 3 3 . Bxd5 Ra5 34. Bd4 Nc7 35.Bb7 and White eventually won in Schmidt-Hurme, Helsinki 198 1 .] 9.Bb2 [White can also delay Bb2 for awhile: 9.Nc3 Bb7 l O.Rd l Rc8 l l .e4 dxe4 ( l l ...c5 1 2 .exd5 exd5 1 3 . B b2 Qc7 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 5.cxd5 Bxd5 16.dxc5 Bxf3 1 7 .Bxf3 Nxc5 1 8.Qf5 ! with a clear advantage for White.) 1 2.Nxe4 Nxe4 (Quite good is 1 2 ... c5 1 3.Nxf6ch. Bxf6 14.Ng5 Bxg5 15 .Bxb7 Rc7 ! 1 6 . B g2 B f6 1 7 . B b2 cxd4 18.Bxd4 b5 ! 19.Bfl Qe7 20.Qb2 e5 ! 2 1 .Be3 e4 22.Bd4 Ne5 23 .Be2 bxc4 24.bxc4 Nxc4 25.Bxc4 Rxc4 26.Bxf6 gxf6 27.Rac 1 Ra4 28.Rc6 Kg7 29.Rd5

1 53

e3 30.Rxf6,1/2- l /2, Pozharsky­ Codes, USSR 1979.) 13.Qxe4 Ba8 14.Qe2 Bf6 1 5.Bb2 Qc7 1 6.Ne5 Nxe5 1 7 . dxe5 B e7 1 8 . Rd3 c5 1 9 . B xa8 Rxa8 20.Rad l Rad8 21 .Qe4 Rxd3 22.Rxd3 Rd8 23.Kfl Rxd3 24.Qxd3 Qd8 25.Ke2 Qxd3ch. 26.Kxd3 h5, 1/2 in 46, SchneiderImanaliev, Frunze 1983.] 9 ... Bb7

!1.1...3. [ Also deserving of consideration is the more aggressive 9 ... Ba6 1 0.Nbd2 Rc8 l l .e4 c5 1 2.exd5 exd5 13.Qf5 (1 3.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Rad1 b5 1 5.Bh3 bxc4 1 6.bxc4 dxc4 17.Bc3 Qb6 1 8.Ng5 h6 19.Bxd7 hxg5 =, Stein-Keres, Parnu 1 97 1 ; 1 3 .Rfd 1 cxd4 14.Nxd4 dxc4 15.bxc4 Qc7 1 6.Nf5 Rfe8=, Voronkov-Antoshin, USSR 1 956.) 13 ... g6

1 54

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

1 4 . Qh 3 cxd4 1 5.Nxd4 Nc5 S ochi 1 9 8 5 , B lack tried 1 6 . R ad 1 , Lerner-Razuvaev, 6 ... Bb4ch! ? and got a reasonable Frunze 1979, and now 1 6... dxc4 game after 7 .Bd2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 1 7 .Nxc4 Qd7 is even according 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 1 l .e3 to Kotov.] 10.Nc3 Rc8 1 l .Rad 1 f5 12.Nc3 b6 1 3 . Rfc 1 Bb7 Qc7 [ 1 1 . . .c5 1 2.cxd5 Nxd5 14.cxd5 exd5 15.Qb3 Rae8. The 1 3.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.e4! is good for following moves though saw White.] 12.e4 dxe4 [ 1 2... Rfd8 Black ' s game deteriorate: 1 3.Rfe 1 Bb4 14.Nd2 Qb8 15.a3 1 6.Rel Kh8 17.Rad1 g5 1 8.Qc2 Bf8 1 6.e5 Ne8 17.Nf3 was in Qf6 19.Nd2 Re6 20.Nfl Rfe8 White ' s favor in B ukic­ 2 l .Qd3 Nf8 22.f3 Nd6 23.e4 fxe4 Janosevic , Skopj e 1 97 1 . ] 24.fxe4 dxe4 25 .Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 c5 1 5.d5 26.Rxe4 Rxe4 27.Bxe4 Ba6 Bf6 ! =; 28.Qf3 White has all the chances 2) 5 ... Nbd7 [This move has not in this position.] 7.0-0 Bd6 enjoyed good results.] 6.Bg2 Ne4 8.Nbd2 f5 9.Nxe4 fxe4 10.Ng5 [Good for White is 6 ... b5 7.cxb5 Nf6 1 l .f3 exf3 1 2.exf3 0-0 1 3.f4 (7.c5? ! e5 8.dxe5 Ng4 9.Bf4 Bd7 14.c5 Bc7 1 5.Bh3 Qe8 Bxc5 10.0-0 Qe7 favors Black.) 1 6.Qe2 Qg6 17.Nxe6 Bxe6 7 ... cxb5 8.Qc6 Rb8 9.Bf4 Rb6 1 8.Qxe6ch. Kh8 19.Qf5 Qh6 1 0.Qc2 Bb7 1 1 .0-0 Rc6 12.Qb3 20.Bg2 Rad8 2 1 .Qg5, Fine-Bis­ Qb6 1 3.Nc3 Ba6 (White is also guier, NY 195 1 ; better after 1 3 ... a6 14.a4 bxa4 3 ) 5. . .dxc4 [As was the case with 15.Qxa4 Qxb2 1 6.Rab1 Qxc3 5 ... Nbd7, this move does not 17.Rxb7.) 14.a4 b4 15.Nb5 Be7 seem to be entirely satisfactory.! 16.Rac l Bxb5 17.axb5 Qxb5 6.Qxc4 b5 7.Qb3 a5 8.Bg2 a4 1 8 . Rxc6 Qxc6 1 9. Rc 1 Qa6 9.Qc2 Bb7 10.0-0 Na6 1 l .Nc3 20.e3 ! 0-0 2 l .Bfl Qa5 22.Bc7 ! Be7 1 2.Bg5 0-0 1 3.Rad l Nd7 Nb6 23.Ne5 ! and White had a 14.Bc 1 Qb6 15.e4 c5 1 6.d5 e5 winning position in Ghitescu­ 1 7 . B h3 Rab8 1 8 . B e3 Bd6 19.Nh4 g6 20.f4 Kh8 2 l .f5, Haik, Bagneux 198 1 . In the game Barlov-Arhipov, White ' s advantage is clear,

Semi-Slav Defense Helmers-Kogan, Reykj avik 1982; 4) 5 ... Ne4 ! ? 6.Nfd2? ! f5 7.Bg2 Bd6 8.Nxe4 fxe4 9.f3 exf3 10.Bxf3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 e5 ! 12.dxe5 Bxe5 1 3.cxd5 Bh3 14.Rd 1 cxd5 1 5.Be3 Nc6 1 6.Nc3 [ 1 6.Rxd5 Nb4 ! .] 1 6 ... d4 17.Bf2 Rxf3 ! 1 8.exf3 Qf6 19.Qb3ch. Be6 20.Ne4 Qf7 2 1 .Qa3 h6 22.Kg2 Rf8 23.h4 Bd5 24.Rd2 b5 ! 25.Rc 1 Bc4, Black won on the 40th move, Shipman-Durao, New York 1986. More tests are needed of 5 . . . Ne4 to determine if it is of any value. White's play certainly did not inspire confi­ dence. 6 cS Also commonly seen is 6.cxb5 cxb5 7.Bf4 [7.Bg2 Bd7 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Bf4 Rc8 lO.Qd l Qb6 1 1 .Nc3 Be7 1 2.e3 0-0 1 3.Ne5 Na5 1 4.Bg5 Rfd8 1 5.Ng4 b4 1 6.Ne2 Nxg4, Gross-Vera, Rome 1985.] 7 . .. Bd7 8.e3 Be7 9.Nbd2 0-0 I O.Bxb8 Qxb8 1 1 .Bd3 Rc8 1 2.Qb1 a5 1 3.0-0 Ra7 14.Rc1 Rxc 1 ch. 1 5.Qxc 1 Rc7 16.Qfl a4 17.Rc 1 b4 1 8.Ne5 Bd6 19.Nxd7 Nxd7 20.Rxc7 Qxc7, 1/2- 1/2, Vilela-Vera, Bayamo 1983.

155

6 ... Nbd7 7 Bg2 A good alternative is 7 .Bf4 Nh5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Bd2 f5 10.a4 bxa4 1 1 .Qxa4 Qc7 12.b4 Be7 13.Nc3 0-0 14.Bf4 Nxf4 15.gxf4 a6 1 6.e3 Bb7 17.Bd3 Kh8 1 8.h4 Bf6 19.Ra3 Rfb8 20.Nd2 Qd8 2 1 .h5 Rc8 22.Nb3 Rc7 23.Na5 Nb8 24.Qd1 Ra7 25.Kd2 Bc8 26.Qe2 Bd7 27 .Na4 Be8 28.Nb6 Qe7 29.Nb3 Bf7 3 0 . B x a6 Qe8 3 1 .Ra5, 1 -0 in 38, Dlugy-Bis­ guier, NY 1986. 7 ... eS Or 7 ... Ne4 8.Nc3 Nxc3 9.bxc3 f5 10.a4 Ba6 1 1 .axb5 Bxb5 1 2.Nd2 Qf6 1 3.Bb2 e5 14.dxe5 Qe6 1 5 . Nf3 Bxc5 1 6.Nd4 Bxd4 17.cxd4 0-0 1 8.0-0 a5 19.Ba3 Rf7 20.Rfc 1 Nb6 2 1 .Bc5 Nc4 22.Bh3 a4 23.Rcb1 h6 24.Rb4 Re8 25.e4 Nxe5 26.dxe5 Qxe5 27.Qb2 Qxb2 28.Rxb2 Rxe4 29.Bg2 Rc4 30.Bb6, 1 -0 in 37, Smejkal-Vera, Bratislava 1983. # 1 1.4 r='l!ll!!!!lr":"-=--=-m�..,....--

1 56

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

8 Nxe5 NxeS 9 dxe5 Nd7 10 e4 d4 1 1 0-0 Nxe5 12 Nd2 Bg4 13 f4 d3 Nd7 14 Qc3 15 b4 aS Be2 16 a3 17 Rf2 axb4 Rxa1 18 axb4 19 Qxa1 Nxc5 20 e5 Qc8 21 bxc5 Bxc5 Bxf2ch. 22 Qc3 23 Kxf2 1 -0 in 4 1 , Velikov-Vera, Thessa­ loniki, 1984. Lines With 5.0d3: d5 1 d4 2 c4 e6 c6 3 Nc3 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Qd3 !l.L.5.

This continuation supports the 'c' pawn and prepares g3 or e2-e4. 5 ... Nbd7 Certainly not the only reply. For example: 1) 5 ...c5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 exd5 8.g3 c4 9.Qc2 Nc6 10.Bg2 g6 1 1 .0-0 Bf5 1 2.Qa4 Qd7 13.Bf4 a6 14.Rfe1 b5 15.Qd1 Bg7 [ 1 5 ... Be4 may be better.] 1 6.Ne5 Nxe5 1 7. dxe5 Rd8 1 8.Qd4 Qe7 [An unsound pawn s acrifice. He should try 1 8 ... Be6.] 19.Bxd5 g5 20.e4 Bh3 2 1 .Be3 Bxe5 22.Qd2 h6 23.Rad1 Rc8 24.Bd4 Bg4 25.f3! Bxf3 26.Bxe5 Qxe5 27.Bxt7ch. Kxt7 28.Qd7ch. Qe7 29.Qf5ch. 1 -0, Miles-Lombard, Biel 1977; 2) 5 ... b6! ? [Sveshnikov went as far as to give this move an excla­ mation point back in 1 977.] 6.e4 dxc4 [And here Sveshnikov gives this as dubious, preferring in­ stead 6 . . .Ba6 which he calls un­ clear.] 7.Qxc4 Ba6 8.Qb3 Bxft 9.Kxfl Be7 10.g3 Nbd7 1 1 .Kg2 0-0 1 2.Re l Re8 1 3.Bf4 Qc8 14.Rad l Qb7 15.h3 Rac8 1 6.g4 Bf8 17.Bg5 c5 ! =+ 1 8.d5?1 [ 1 8 . Qc2] 1 8 . . . exd5 1 9 . e5 [ 19.exd5 c4 20.Qc2 Rxe l -+]

Semi-Slav Defense 19 . . . d4! 20.exf6 gxf6 2 l .Bf4 [2l .Nd5 fxg5 22.Nxg5 Nf6!] 21...dxc3 22.Qxc3 Bg7 23.Kg3 f5 24.Qc2 fxg4 25.hxg4 Nf8 26.Ng5 Rxe1 27.Rxe 1 Rd8 -+, Alburt-Sveshnikov, USSR 1977. 6 g3 Be7 Or 6... Bd6 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0 Re8 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 1 l .e4 dxe4 1 2.Nxe4 Be7 13.Rad1 Qc7 1 4.Rfe 1 Rd8 15.Nxf6ch. Bxf6 1 6.c5 Bd7 17.Ne5 Be8 1 8.Qc3 Rac8 19.f4 h5 20.Be4 g6 2 l .Kg2 Bg7 22.Bd3 Qe7 23.a4 Kh7 24.b4 a6 25.Qc2 Rc7 26.Bc4 Qf6 27.Qf2, 1 -0 in 39, Beliavsky­ Bojkovic, Novi Sad 1 979. 7 Bg2 0-0 b6 8 0-0

IIlli l)uietly building up his position. I lther tries for White are:

1 57

1 ) 9.cxd5 cxd5 1 0.Bf4 Bb7 1 1 .Rac 1 , Camara-lvkov, Sao Paulo 1978. White has a very small edge; 2) 9.e4 Ba6 10.b3 dxc4!? [Black has also tried 1 0... Rc8 1 l .Rdl ! ( l l .Bf4 Re8? ! 1 2.Rfd 1 Nf8 13.a4 Bb4 14.e5 was slightly better for White in Korchnoi-Petrosian, Moscow 1 97 5 , but 1 l . .. c5 ! probably equalizes for Black.) 1 l ...c5 12.exd5 exd5 1 3.Bb2 dxc4 1 4.bxc4 cxd4 1 5.Nb5 ! +-, Romanishin-Ciric, Dortmund 1976.] 1 l .bxc4 e5 ! 1 2.Rd 1 [Mat­ ters are not clear after 12.dxe5 Ng4 1 3.Bf4 g5 when White can try 14.Bh3, 14.e6, 14.Bxg5, or 1 4.Nxg5.] 1 2 . . . Qc7 ! [White gained a clear advantage in the game lnkiov-Letzelter, Buenos Aires 1 978, after 1 2 . . . Bb4? 1 3.Bb2 exd4 1 4. Nxd4 Ne5 15.Qc2 Qc8 1 6.Nf5.] 1 3.dxe5 [And here 1 3.Bb2 Rad8 ! would be somewhat in Black' s favor.] 1 3 . . . Nxe5 1 4 . Nxe5 Qxe5 15.Bb2? [After this White is defi­ nitely worse. Correct was 1 5.Bf4 Qe6 1 6.Nd5 ! cxd5 17.exd5 with the idea of d6; or 1 5 ... Qc5 1 6.Bd6 Bxd6 17.Qxd6, in both cases with

158

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

an unclear position.] 1 5 ... Qe6 1 6.e5?! Ng4 17.Re 1 ? [White should just accept the loss of a pawn by 17.Ne4 Nxe5 1 8.Qc3 f6.] 17 ... Nxf2! 1 8.Kxf2 Bc5ch. 19.Re3 Rad8 20.Qc2 Bxe3ch. 2 1 .Kxe3 Qh6ch. 22.Ke2 Bxc4ch. 23.Ke1 Qe3ch. 24.Ne2 Bd3 ! , and Black won in a few more moves, Plaskett-Botterill, London 1980. 9 ... Ba6 ReS 10 Bb2 11 Racl! Qe7 White i s better after 1 1 . . .c5 1 2.Nb5 cxd4 1 3.Nfxd4. dxe4 12 e4 Nxe4 13 Nxe4 14 Qxe4 Nf6 Or 1 4... Bb7 15.c5 ! bxc5 1 6.dxc5 Nxc5 1 7.Rxc5 Bxc5 1 8.Ng5 g6 19.Qh4 h5 20.Ne4 Be7 2 1 .Nf6ch. ++-, Analysis by Donner. Nd7 15 Qe2 1 5 ... c5 comes into consideration. Bf6 16 Rfd1 17 Re2 RedS 1S Red2 QeS Bb7 19 Ne1 BaS 20 Nd3 RfeS?l 21 Ba3 Black must play 2 1 . . . B xd4 22.Bxf8 Rxf8 23.Ne1 c5 fol-

lowed by 24... e5 when things are not so clear. Qa6 22 Ne5 23 Bd6 White has the advantage, Don­ ner-Capelan, Berlin 1 97 1 . Ljnes wjtb 5.23: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 e6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.23

!1ll This gambit variation has close connections to the Slav (D 1 5) and the Catalan (E07). 5 g3 dxe4 In the game Ivanchuk-Dreev, Tallinn 1986 Black prepared this capture by 5 ...Nbd7 but White stood well after 6.B g2 dxc4 7.0-0 Be7 8.a4 0-0 9.e4 b6 10.Qe2 a5 [The immediate 10 ... Ba6 trans­ poses into Kopec-Bisguier given in the note to Black's sixth

1 59

Semi-Slav Defense

move.] 1 l .Rd1 Ba6 1 2.Bf4 Re8 Bb4 1 2.Ne5 Qe7 13.Be3 Bd7 [ 1 2 ... Ra7 1 3.d5 cxd5 1 4.Nd4 also 1 4.Nxc4 Nxc4 1 5 . Qxc4 e5 favors White.] 1 3.Nd2 Nf8 (15 ...b5?! 1 6.Qe2! +=, Botvin­ 14.Nxc4 Ng6 15.Be3 Nd5 1 6.e5 ! nik-Lasker, Moscow 1936.) Rc8 17.Rac 1 Nxe3 1 8.fxe3 b5?! 1 6.dxe5 Ng4 with equality. A 1 9.Na3 Qb6 20.Bfl Rb8 2 1 .axb5 recent game between Kopec-Bis­ cxb5 22.Naxb5 Bg5 23.h4 Bh6 guier, US Open 1 987 was further 24.Re 1 Ne7 25.g4 Nd5 26.Qf2 proof that Black is doing well Nxe3 27. Rxe3 Bxe3 28.Qxe3, 1 - here: 9 ... b6 10.Qe2 Ba6 1 1 .Rd1 0 in 4 1 . Rc8 1 2.Bf4 Re8 1 3.h3 Bb4 14.g4 6 Bg2 Bxc3 1 5.bxc3 Qe7 1 6.Bg5 h6 White got the better game in 17.Bc1 Nh7 and Black was Kopilov-Grigorian, Corr. 1969/ slightly better.] 10.dxe5 Ng4 1970, by playing the more force­ 1 1 .Bf4 Qa5 1 2.e6 fxe6 1 3.Bd6 ful 6.e4 b5 7.Be2 Ba6? 8.0-0 b4 Bxd6 1 4.Qxd6 Nde5 15.Nxe5 9.Na4 Qa5 10.Ne5 b3 1 1 .axb3 Nxe5 1 6.Rab1 Rd8 17.Qe7 Ng6 cxb3 12.Qxb3 ! . However Black 18.Qa3 e5 19.b4 Qc7 20.b5 Be6. can do better on his 7th tum by 7 0-0 Not so good is 7.Ne5 Nd5 8.e4 playing 7 ... Bb7. b5 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 6 Perhaps Black doesn't have to 1 1 .f4 f6 1 2.Nf3 Nd7 1 3.Be3 Nb6 weaken his Queenside with this 1 4. Qc2 Na4 1 5 . Rad 1 Qa5 advance. In the game Sosonko­ 1 6.Bd2 Bd7 17.Kh 1 Ba3 1 8.Rb 1 Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee Nb6 19.g4 Qa4 20.Qxa4 Nxa4 1987, Black achieved an excel­ 2 1 .d5 exd5 22.exd5 c5 23.g5 lent position after 6...Nbd7 7.0-0 Rae8 24.gxf6 gxf6 25.Ng 1 Bb2, Be7 8.e4 0-0 9.a4 [Bad is 9.Qe2? Marchenko-Sveshnikov, USSR b5 1 0.Rd1 Bb7 1 1 .Ne1 Re8 1978, 0- 1 in 34. Bb7 12.Nc2 Qb6 with clear advantage 7 for Black, Menchik-Pirc, Pode­ 8 a4 brady 1 936.] 9 ... e5 [Neishtadt By transposition from a Slav gave 9 ... a5 10.Qe2 Nb6 1 l .Rd 1 Gambit [4... dxc4 5.e4 b5 6.Qc2.] •••

•.•

1 60

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

Spassky-Bagirov, USSR (ch.) 1 960 went 8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.e4 Be7 10.h3 a6 1 1 .a4 Qb6 12.Rd 1 c5 1 3.d5 exd5 14.a5 Qa7 15.exd5 00 1 6.d6 Bd8 17.g4 Bc6 1 8.Re 1 Qb7 with a slight advantage for Black. 8 ... a6 9 Ne5 Nd5 axb5! 10 axb5 1 O . . . cb5 1 l . Nxd5 B xd5 [ 1 1 .. .exd5 runs into 1 2.e4.] 1 2.e4 Bb7 1 3.d5 ! . Bxa8 11 Rxa8 12 Bd2 Nd7 Interesting is 1 2 . . .Bd6!? 13.Qa1 Bxe5 1 4.dxe5 Nd7 15.b3 ! with complications. -Geller. 13 Nxd7 Qxd7 Nxc3 14 e4 Be7 15 Bxc3 0-0 16 d5! 17 Qg4 g6 18 Rd1 cxd5 f5 19 exd5 According to Geller White is slightly better after 19 ... Qb7 20.Qd4 f6 2 1 .Qe4 e5 22.d6 Qxe4 23.Bxe4 Bxe4 24.dxe7 Re8 25.Rd8. 20 Qe2 exd5 Bxd5 21 Rxd5

Qxd5 22 Bxd5ch. Rf7 23 Qxe7 1/2- 1/2, Geller-Dolmatov, USSR 1979. Lines with 5.0b3: l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3

� Other moves : 1) 5 . . . Qb6 6.c5 Qxb3 [Possibly better is 6... Qc7. The game Bel­ lon-Antunes, Thessalonika (ol) 1984 then continued 7 .g3 Nbd7 8.Bf4 Qd8 9.Qa4 Be7 10.Rc 1 0-0 1 1 . b4 Ne4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 1 3.Nd2 e5 14.dxe5 e3 15.Bxe3 Nxe5 16.Ne4 f5 17.Rd1 Qe8 1 8.Nd6 Bxd6 19.cxd6 f4 20.gxf4 Ng4 21 .Bc1 Be6 22.Bg2 Rd8 23.Qxa7 Rf7 24.Bf3 Nf6.] 7.axb3 Na6 8.Ne5 Nd7 9.Rxa6 bxa6 10.Nxc6 Nb8 1 1 .Na5 Be7 1 2.b4 Bd8 1 3.e4

Semi-Slav Defense Bxa5 14.bxa5 Nc6 1 5.exd5 Nxd4 1 6.Bf4 exd5 17 .Nxd5 0-0 1 8.Bd6 Re8 19.Kd2 Ne6 20.Ne7ch. Kh8 2 1 .Nxc8 Raxc8 22.b4 Red8 23.Bd3, 1 -0 in 33, Rogers­ Pavlovic, Nis 1985; 2) 5 ...Nbd7 6.Bg5 Qa5?! [6 ... Be7 leads play back into more normal positions.] 7 .Bd2 Qb6 8.e3 Qxb3 9.axb3 a6 [9 ... Bd6 10.c5 Bc7 1 1 .b4 with the idea of 1 2.b5 is +­ ;9 ...Bb4 1 0.Ra4 a5 1 1 .c5 +=.] 10.Bd3 Bd6 1 1 .e4 dxe4 [White also has a significant advantage after 1 1 . . .dxc4 1 2.bxc4 e5 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.f4 Bd4 1 6.e5 Ng4 17.Nd l .] 1 2.Nxe4 Nxe4 1 3 .B xe4 e5 1 4.Bc3 exd4 1 5 . Nxd4 Nf6 16.Bf3 +-, Portisch-Ljubojevic, Torino 1 982; 3) 5 ... Be7 [Very rare is 5 ... Bd6 6.g3 (White also failed to gain anything in particular in the game Portisch-Ljuboj evic, London 1982, which continued 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.e4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Be7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Be2 c5 1 1 .dxc5 Nxc5 1 2.Qc2 b6 1 3.Rd1 Qc7 14.Nb5 Qb8 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 6.b4 Nb7 1 7.0-0 a6 1/2- 1/2.) 6...0-0 7.Bg2 Nbd7 8.Bg5 b6 9.0-0 Ba6

161

1 0.cxd5 exd5 1 1 .Rad l Qc7 12.Rfe 1 Rfe8 13.Nh4 h6 14.Bc 1 Qb7 15.Nf5 Bf8 16.Qc2 Rac8 17.a3 Qa8 1 8.Bf4 Re6 19.Qa4 Bb7 20.b4 Kh7 2 1 .Bc l g6 22.Ne3 Ree8 23.Qb3 a6 24.Nfl , 1/2 in 50, Vilela-Vera, Cuba 1982.] 6.Bg5 [Similar play results from 6.Bf4 Nbd7 7 .e3 0-0 8.Be2 b6 (8 ... dxc4 9. Qxc4 Nd5 1 0 . B g3 N7b6 1 1 .Qb3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 c5 13.0-0 Bd7 14.a4 cxd4 1 5.Nxd4 Nd5 1 6.a5 Rc8 17 .c4 Nb4 1 8.Bf3 Bc6 19.Nxc6 bxc6 20.Rfd1 Qe8 21 .c5 Bxc5 22.Ra4 Nd5 23.Rc4 Qe7 24.e4 Nf6 25.Qc3 Rfd8 26.Rc 1 Nd7 27 .Rxc5, 1-0 in 40, Gui. Garcia-Frey, B ayamo 1 983.) 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.0-0 Bb7 1 1 .Rfd l Re8 1 2.Rac 1 Nf8 1 3.Ne5 Ng6 1 4.Qa4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Nd7 1 6.b4 Bf8 17.b5 c5 1 8.Nxd5 Nxe5 1 9.e4 Bd6 20.Bg3 g5 2 1 .Ne3 Qc7 22.Rd2 Rad8 23.Rcd 1 Be7 24. Qxa7 f6 2 5 . B xe5 fxe5 26.Bc4ch. Kh8 27.Nd5 Qb8 28.Qxb6, 1 -0 in 37, Donchev­ Radev, Bulgarian ch. 1984; Another idea is to go back into Catalan-like lines by 6.g3 0-0 (Also typical is 6. . . dxc4 7 .Qxc4

1 62

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

b5 8.Qb3 0-0 { Or 8 ... Bb7 9.Bg2 a6 1 0.0-0 c5 1 1 .dxc5 Nbd7 1 2.Be3 Nxc5 1 3.Bxc5 Bxc5 14.Nxb5 Bd5 1 5.Qc2 Bxf2ch. 1 6. Rxf2 axb5 1 7 . Qc5 Ne4 1 8.Qxb5, and White went on to win the game. } 9.Bg2 b4 10.Na4 Nbd7 1 1 .0-0 Ba6 1 2.Qc2 Qa5 1 3.b3 Rac8 14.a3 Qb5 15.Ra2 c5 1 6.Qb2 c4 1 7.bxc4 Rxc4 1 8.axb4 Rxb4 19.Qa3 Nd5 20.Nc3 Nxc3 2 1 . Qxc3 Ra4 22.Rb2 Qc4 23.Qxc4 Bxc4 24.Bf4, 1/2 in 35, G u r e v i c h - S i g u rj o n s s o n , Brighton 1 982.) 7.Bg2 Nbd7

!l.L2 (The main move here. Also seen is 7 ... b6 8.0-0 Ba6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Bf4 Nc6 1 1 .Qa4 { Not as ef­ fective is 1 1 .Rfc 1 Na5 1 2.Qd1 Rc8 1 3.Ne5 Bb4 14.Bg5 Be7 1 5.Rab 1 h6 1 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.b4

Nc4 1 8 .b5 Bb7 19.Nxc4 Rxc4 20.e3 Qc7 2 1 .Rb3 Qe7 22.Bfl Rc7, 1/2 in 37, Cebalo-Noguei­ ras, Reggio Emilia 1985/86. } 1 l ...Bb7 12.Rfc l Rc8 13.Qd 1 Na5 14.Nb5 Nc6 1 5.Ne5 a6 1 6.Nc3 Nxe5 1 7.dxe5 Nd7 1 8.e4 dxe4 19.Nxe4 Bxe4 20.Bxe4 Rxc 1 2 1 .Rxc 1 Nc5 22.Bb1 a5 23.Qe2 Qc7 24.a3 a4 25.Qc2 g6 26.Qxa4, 1 -0 in 78, Christiansen­ Ree, Lone Pine 1 98 1 . While 7 ... b6 may be seen from time to time 7 ... Qb6 is rather rare. The game Portisch-Larsen, Porec 1 968 continued 8 .0-0 Qxb3 9.axb3 Na6 1 0.Bd2 Rd8 1 1 .c5 Nd7 1 2.Na4 with advantage.) 8.0-0 b6 (Black got a good posi­ tion in Nickoloff-Ribli, Dubai (ol) 1986 by 8 . . . Nb6 9 .cxd5 exd5 10.Ne5 Re8 1 1 .Bg5 h6 12.Bf4 Be6 13.Rfd 1 Nfd7 1 4.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.Na4 Nxa4 1 6.Qxa4 Bf5 17.Rac 1 Bf6 1 8 .Re1 g5. Also quite reasonable is 8 . . . Qb6 9.Rd1 Qa6 10.cxd5 exd5 1 l .Bf4 Qb6 12.Qc2 Re8 1 3.a3 a5 1 4.Rab1 Nf8 15.b4 axb4 1 6.axb4 g6 17.Rb3 Bf5 1 8.Qb2 Ne4 19.Nxe4 Bxe4 20.b5 c5 2 1 .dxc5 Bxc5 22.e3 Ne6 23.Bh6 Be7 24.Ne5

Semi-Slav Defense Rad8, 1!2 in 47, Suba-Inkiov, Baille Herculane 1982.) 9.Rd 1 (White gets n o advantage with 9 .B g5 Ba6 1 O.cxd5 cxd5 1 1.Rac 1 b5 12.Nxb5 Rb8 1 3.a4 Bxb5 14.axb5 a6 15.Rc2 Rxb5 16.Qa2 Ra5 17.Qb1 Bd6 1 8.Rfc 1 Qb8, B ellon-Vera, Rome 1 98 5 . ) 9. . . Bb7 10.cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .Bf4 Nh5 (In Alburt-Kogan, US ch. 1984 Black eventually equalized with 1 1 .. .Rc8 1 2.Rac 1 Nh5 1 3.Be3 Nhf6 14.Rc2 Rc4 15.a3 Qa8 1 6.Bg5 h6 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 1 8.Ne5 Rfc8 1 9.Rdc l R4c7 20.Nb5 Rxc2 2 1 .Rxc2 a6 22.Nc3 b5 .) 1 2 . B d2 Nhf6 1 3 . a4 a6 14.Rac 1 Rac8 15.e3 Ne4 1 6.Be1 Nd6 1 7.Bfl Nc4 1 8.Qa2 Rc7 19.Ne2 Qb8 20.b3 Na5 2 1 .Rxc7 Qxc7 22.Rc 1 Qb8 23.Nf4 Rc8 24.Rxc8ch. Qxc8 25.Qb1 h6 26.Bh3 Nf8 27.Nd3 Nc6 28.b4 Nb8 29.Bfl Bc6 30.b5 axb5 3 1 . axb5 B e 8 3 2 . B b4 Ng6 33.Nde5 Nxe5 34.Nxe5 Bxb4 35.Qxb4 f6 36.Nd3 Qc7 37.Bh3 Kt7 38.Nf4 Bd7 39.Bxe6ch. 1 -0, Seirawan-Kogan, World Open 1986.] 6... 0-0

1 63

#1 1. 1 0 [ 6... dxc4 i s also very popular: 7.Qxc4 b5 (It is also possible to delay this by 7 ... 0-0 8.e4 b5 9.Qd3 { 9.Qb3 ! ?. } 9 ... b4 1 0.Na4 Ba6 1 1 .Qc2 Bxfl 1 2.Kxfl Nbd7 1 3.g3 c5! { 1 3 ... Rc8 14.Rd l ! c5 1 5.d5 favors White. } 14.dxc5 { 1 4 . B x f6 ! ? gxf6 1 5.d5. } 14 ... Nxc5 15.Rd1 { 1 5.Nxc5 Rc8 16.Be3 Ng4 17.Bd4 e5 1 8.h3 exd4 19.hxg4 Rxc5 20.Qd3 Qd7 =+. } 1 5 . . . Qe8 1 6.Bxf6 gxf6 1 7 .Nxc5 Rc8 1 8 .Kg2 Rxc5 1 9 . Qd2 ! , Seirawan-Yusupov, Linares 1983, and now 1 9 ... Qb8 ! 20.Qh6 Qb7 is =. Instead of 8.e4 white can try 8.g3. The game Chri s ti an sen­ Yusupov, Luzern 1982 contin­ ued 8 ... b5 9.Qb3 Nbd7 { 9 . . .b4 1 0. B xf6 gxf6 l l . Ne4+= . }

1 64

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

1 0.Bg2 b4 1 1 .Na4 { 1 1 ...Bxf6 gxf6! is not clear. } 1 1 ...Ba6 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 { 1 2 . . . gxf6! ? . } 1 3.Rc l ! { Black is better after 1 3 . Qc2 Qa5 1 4.0-0 B xe2 15.Qxe2 Qxa4 or 1 3.Qxb4? c5 ! 1 4.dxc5 Rb8 1 5.Qd2 Bb5 . } 1 3 ... Qa5 14.Nc5 Nxc5 15.Rxc5 Qb6 1 6 . Qc 2 Rac8 1 7 . Ne5 { Geller mentioned the line 17.00 Be7 1 8 .Rc1 Bxc5 19.Ng5 g6 20.dxc5 with compensation. } 1 7... Rfd8 ! 1 8.0-0! Bxe5 {Black could get equality by 1 8 ... Be7 or even 1 8 ... Rxd4. } 19.dxe5 Bxe2 20.Rc 1 Ba6 2 1 .h4, the game was drawn on move 27 .) 8.Qd3 b4 (8 ... 0-0 9.Qc2! b4 10.Na4 Ba6 1 1 .Bxf6 ! gxf6 12.Nc5 Bxc5 1 3.dxc5 Qa5 1 4.Nd4 ! b3ch. 1 5.Qd2 Qxc5 1 6.Nxb3 Qb6 17.Qd4 led to an advantage to White in Portisch-Yusupov, Toluca 1982.) 9.Na4 Ba6 10.Qc2 Qa5 1 1 .Nc5 Bxc5 12.Qxc5 Qxc5 1 3.dxc5 Ne4 1 4.Be3 Nd7 15.Rc 1 e5 1 6.g3 f5 17.Bg2 Bb5 1 8.Nh4 g6 19.g4 f4, 1/2 in 62, BrowneHenley, US ch. 1984.] 7.e3 Nbd7 [The modem solution is 7 ... a6 8.cxd5 (0r 8.Rd1 b5 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Ne5 Bb7 1 1 .Be2, 1/2- 1/2,

Kavalek-Ribli, Dubai (ol) 1986.) 8 ... cxd5 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 b5 1 1 .Rac 1 Bd7 1 2.Ne5 Nxe5 1 3 . dxe5 Ng4 1 4 . B f4 Qb8 15.Nxd5 exd5 1 6.e6 Bd6 17.exd7 Bxf4 1 8.exf4 Qxf4 19.g3 Qh6 20.h4 Qe6 2 1 .Rc5, 1/2- 1/2, Portisch-Nogueiras, Reggio Emilia 1985/86.] 8.Be2

#1 1 . 1 1 [Other tries are: 1) 8.Rdl a6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.a4 Nb8 1 1 .Bd3 Nc6 1 2.0-0 Bd7 1 3.Ne5 Nxe5 1 4. dxe5 Ng4 15.Bf4 Qb8 1 6.Nxd5 exd5 17.e6 Bd6 1 8.exd7 Bxf4 19.exf4 Qxf4 20.g3 Qh6 2 1 .h4 Qe6 22.Qxb7 Nf6 23.Rfe 1 Qxd7 24.Qxd7 Nxd7 25.Bfl Nf6 26.b4 Ra7 27.Rd4 h5 28.Rc 1 Rb8 29.a5 Kf8, Haritonov-Timoshenko,

Semi-Slav Defense Volgodonsk 198 1 , 1/2 in 53; 2) 8.Bd3 dxc4 (Or 8 ... b6 9.0-0 Bb7 1 0.Rfd1 Kh8 ! l l .Rac l Ne8 1 2 . B xe7 Qxe7 1 3 .cxd5 { 1 3.e4+=. } 1 3 ...exd5 14.Qa4 ! ? { 1 4.e4! +=. } 1 4 ...Nd6! = 1 5.Qa3 Rae8 ! 1 6.Re 1 fS 17.Ne5?! NxeS 1 8.dxe5 QxeS 19.Qxa7 d4! 20.f4 Qf6 2 1 .Nd1 Qd8 22.Re2 cS 23.exd4 c4 ! 24.Rxe8 Rxe8 25.Bfl Rel ! 26.Qa3 Ne4! 27.d5 Nd2 28.Kf2 Rxflch. 29.Ke2 BxdS 30.Qe3 c3 ! , 0- 1 , KorchnoiPetrosian, Moscow 1 97 1 . ) 9.Qxc4! (Better then 9.Bxc4 cS 1 0.Rd1 cxd4 1 1 . Nxd4 QaS 1 2.Qb5 Qc7 1 3.a4 NcS 1 4.Be2 Bd7 15.Qc4 Rac8 1 6.0-0 Qb8 17.Qa2 Rfd8 1 8.Bb5 a6 1 9.Bxd7 Ncxd7 20.Nb3 Bd6 2 1 .h3 h6 22.B xf6 Nxf6 23.Nd4 Bb4 24.Qb3 Bxc3 25.bxc3 Qc7 26.Rb1 Rd7 27.Rfc 1 Ne4 28.Qa3 Qc5 29.Qxc5 RxcS 30.c4 Rdc7 3 1 .Nb3 Rxc4 32.Rxc4 Rxc4 33.Na5 Rxa4 34.Nxb7 Ra2 35.f3 Nc3 36.Rb3 NdS 37.Nd6 aS 38.h4 a4 and Black went on to win, Commons-Mednis, US ch. 1978.) 9 ... a6 10.Bc2 bS 1 1 .Qd3 ( 1 1 .Qxc6? Ra7 threatens both ... Rc7 and ...Bb7.) 1 1 ...Bb7 1 2.e4

1 65

g6 ( 1 2 ...c5? 1 3 .e5 ! c4 1 4.exf6! cxd3 1 5.fxe7.) 1 3.Bh6? (Correct was 1 3 .e5 when 1 3 . . . Nd5 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 1 5.0-0 favors White. 1 4. . .Nxe7 has been recommended with the idea of . ..cS.) 1 3 ... Re8 14.e5 Ng4! 1 5 .Bf4 cS 1 6.Ne4 cxd4 1 7.h3 fS ! 1 8.Ned2 NcS ! 19.Qfl ? (He had to play 1 9.Qxd4.) 1 9 ...d3 ! 20.Bd1 gS (20... Rf8 ! .) 2 1 .hxg4 gxf4 22.Qg1 Rf8 23.Qh2 Rf7, 0- 1 in 35, Por­ tisch-Lombard, B iel 1 976.] 8 .... a6

#1 1. 1 2 [Black has also done well with plans based on ... b6. For example 8 ... b6 (Throwing in ... h6 is also fine: 8 ... h6 9.Bh4 b6 1 0.cxd5 exdS 1 1 .0-0 Bb7 1 2.Rad1 Rc8 13.Rfe 1 Re8 14.Bd3 cS 1 5 .Bxf6 Nxf6 1 6.dxc5 RxcS 1 7.Bb5 Rf8

166

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

1 8. e4 Qa8 1 9.exd5 Nxd5 20.Ne4 Rc7 2 1 .Ne5 Bb4 22.Nd2 Qd8 23.Bc4 Re8 24.Nef3 Rxe1ch. 25.Rxe l Bxd2 26.Nxd2 Nf4 27 .Ne4 Qd4 2 8 .Qg3 Rxc4 29.Qxf4 Bxe4 30.b3 Rc6 3 1 .h3 Re6 32.Kh2 Qb4 33.Re3 Qe7, 01 , Jakobsen-Hansen, Esbjerg 1 9 84.) 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.0-0 Bb7 1 1 . Rfd l Re8 1 2 . Rac 1 B d6 1 3 .Bd3 Qb8 14.Bf5 g6 1 5.Bh3 Kg7 1 6.Bxd7 Nxd7 1 7.Ne2 f6 1 8 .B f4 B x f4 1 9. Nx f4 Qd6 20.Qa4 Re7 2 1 .b4 b5 22.Qb3 a5 23.Nd3 Nb6 24.a3 Nc4 25.a4 axb4 26.axb5 Ra3 27.Qb 1 Bc8 2 8 . Nx b 4 B f5 2 9 . Nc2 Rb7 30.Nd2 Rc3 3 1 .Nxc4 Rxc4 32.b6 c5 33.dxc5 Rxc5 34.Qa2 Qc6 35.Qb2 Bxc2, 0- 1 , Frias-Noguei­ ras, Havana 1 983.] 9.0-0 b5 1 0 . c xd 5 cxd5 1 1 .Rfc 1 B b7 1 2.Qd l h6 1 3.Bf4 Rc8 14.Ne5 Nxe5 1 5.Bxe5 Qd7 1 6.f3 Bc6 1 7.Bd3 b4 1 8.Ne2 Bb5 19.Nf4 Qb7 20.Bxb5 Qxb5 2 1 .Nd3 Nd7 22.Bg3 a5 23.b3 Qa6 24.Qd2 h5 25.h3 Rfe 8 26.Bc7 Bd6 27 .Bxd6 Qxd6 28.Rc2 Rxc2 29.Qxc2 e5 30.dxe5 Nxe5 3 1 . Rd 1 Ng6 32.Qf2 Qe7, 0- 1 in 55, Portisch­ Larsen, Linares 198 1 .

6 Qxc4

bS

#1 1. 1 3 On rare occasions B lack does not play ... b5: 6... b6 7.g3 [Or 7.Bg5 Be7 8.e4 B a6 9.Qb3 B xfl l O.Rxfl 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 Nbd7 12.Ne5?! Nxe5 1 3.Bxf6 Nd7 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 1 5.f4 Rad8 1 6.e5 f5, Ahkmylovskaya-Alexandria, Kislovodsk 1980.] Be7 8.Bg2 [8.Bg5 ! ? has been recommended in some sources.] 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 b5 1 0. Qb3 b4 1 1 . Na4 B a6, F.Portisch-Nogueiras, Kecskemet 1 979, and now ac­ cording to Kavalek 12.Qc2! would give White a significant advantage. After Black plays 6 ... b5 White can retreat to Aa 7,0d3 and B. 7.0b3. Nbd7 A. 7 Qd3

Semi-Slav Defense

#1 1 . 14 Other moves are: 1 ) 7 ...b4?! 8.Ne4 Ba6 9.Nxf6ch. gxf6 1 0.Qc2 +=, Ioffe-Panch­ enko, USSR 1 982; 2) 7 ... a6! ? 8.e4 [Or 8.g3 c5 9.Bg2 Bb7 1 0.0-0 Nbd7 1 1 .Rd1 (White also got a clear advantage with l l . B g5 Qb6 1 2 . Rad 1 Rc 8 1 3 .Ne5 Bxg2 1 4.Kxg2 cxd4 1 5.Nxd7 Nxd7 1 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 17.Rxd4 Bc5 1 8 .Ne4 f6 1 9.Nxc5 Nxc5 20.Bd2 e5 2 1 .Rd5, Bara­ gar-Inkiov, Zagreb (izt) 1 987.) l l ...c4 1 2.Qc2 b4 1 3.Nb1 Rc8 1 4. B g5 B e7 1 5 . Ne5 B xg2 16.Kxg2 0-0 17.a3 c3 1 8.bxc3 bxc3 1 9.Nxc3 Qc7 20.Nxd7 Qxd7 2 1 .Bxf6 gxf6 22.Rd3 Rc7 23.Qd2 Rfc8 24.d5 f5 25.Rb 1 Bxa3 26.dxe6 Qxe6 27 .Nd5 B e 1

1 67

28.Rxc 1 Rxc1 29.Re3 Qc6 30.f3 Qc5 3 1 .Ne7ch. Kf8 32.Nxc8 Qxc8 33.Rd3 Qc6 34.Rd6 Qc3 35.Rd8ch. 1 -0, Sosonko-Kogan, Lone Pine 1 98 1 ] 8 ...c5 9.dxc5 Qxd3 1 0.Bxd3 Bxc5 1 l .e5 ! Nfd7 [ 1 1 . . . Ng4? 1 2 . Ne4 B b4ch 1 3.Ke2 Nd7 1 4.Bf4 +-.] 1 2.Be4 [ 12.Ne4? Nc6! 1 3 .Bf4 Nb4=+.] 1 2 ...Ra7 1 3.Bf4 Bb4! 1 4.Rc l Rc7 1 5.Bd2 Bxc3 1 6.Rxc3 Rxc3 1 7 . Bxc3 B ro wne­ Nc5 , S.A.Saeed, Taxco 1985, and now instead of 1 8.Bc2? Na4!= which was p layed, Browne gives 1 8.Nd2 Nxe4 1 9.Nxe4 Nc6! 20.b3+=; 3) 7 ...Bb7 8.e4 [Since this does not seem to offer White anything, better choices are 8.g3 or 8.Bg5.] 8 . . . b4 9.Na4 Nbd7 1 0 . Be3 [ 1 0.Be2 Qa5 1 1 .b3 c5 1 2.e5 Nd5 1 3 .0-0 cxd4 1 4. Qxd4 Be7 1 5 .Bg5 B xg5 1 6 .Nxg5 Bc6 1 7 . Rac 1 Bxa4 1 8 .bxa4 Rd8 1 9.Rc6 Nc3 20.Bh5 0-0 2 1 .Rd6 Nxe5 22.Re1 Ng6 23.h4 e5 24.Qd2 Rxd6 25 . Qxd6 Rd8 26.Qc6 Qd5 27. Qc7 e4 28.a3 f6 29.axb4 fxg5 30.Qxc3 Nf4, l/2 in 39, Horvath-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1 98 5 .] 1 0 . . . Qa5 1 1 .b3 B e7

1 68

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

[ 1 1 . ..c5? ! 1 2.dxc5 B xe4 13.Qb5+=.] 1 2.Rc 1 0-0 1 3.Be2 Rfd8 ! =+ 14.e5 Nd5 15.0-0 c5 1 6.dxc5 Rac8 17.Rfd1 Nxe3 1 8 . Qxe3 Bc6! -+, Romanishin­ Sveshnikov, Sochi 1983; 4) 7 ... Ba6 8.Qc2 [8.Ne4 Be? 9.Bd2 Nbd7 10.Nxf6ch. Bxf6 1 1 .e4 0-0 was equal in Baragar­ Pinter, Zagreb (izt) 1 987.] 8 ... Nbd7 [ Spasov-lnkiov, Bul­ garia 1983 went 8 ... Qa5 9.Nd2 b4 1 0. Nb3 Qc7 1 1 .Na4 B b5 12.Nac5 Nbd7 1 3.Bg5 Nxc5 1 4 . Nxc5 Nd7 1 5 . e4 B xfl 1 6.Kxfl Nxc5 17.dxc5 Qa5 1 8 .B e3 b3 1 9 . Qxb3 Bxc5 20.Bxc5 Qxc5 2 1 .g3 0-0 22.Kg2 Rab8 23.Qc3, l/2- 1/2.] 9.e4 Qa5 10.Nd2 Rc8 1 1 .Be2 c5 ! 12.Nb3 Qb6 1 3.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Be3 b4 1 5.Nxc5 Bxc5 1 6.Qa4ch. Ke7, Bellon Lopez-Flear, Graz 1984. Both sides have chances. #1 1. 1 5 8 g3

The main move here. White gains nothing from 8.e4 b4 9.Na4 c5=, while 8.a3 a5 [Perhaps an easier solution is 8 ... b4 9.axb4 Bxb4 with ... c5 to follow with equal­ ity.] 9.Qc2 Bb7 10.Bg5 Rc8 1 1 .e3 [ l l .e4 b4 1 2.Na4 c5.] 1 1 . ..Be7 12.Bd3 b4 1 3.axb4 axb4 14.Na4 c5= 15.Bxf6! [ 1 5.dxc5? Nxc5 1 6.Bb5ch. ( 16.Nxc5 Rxc5 with the idea of ...Bxf3 and ... Rxg5.) Kf8 -+ according to Sveshnikov.] 15 ...gxf6 1 6.dxc5 Nxc5 17.Nxc5 Rxc5 1 8.Qe2 B x f3 , 1/2- 1 /2 , Torre- S ve­ shnikov, Manila 1 982. Sve­ shnikov mentions that B lack could have also tried 1 8 . . .Rg8 when 19.0-0! is met by 19 ... Rh5 with complications. Bb7 8 a6 9 Bg2 Others: 1) 9 . . . Be7 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .Bg5 [ 1 l .e4? ! b4 12.Na4 c5 ! =+] 1 1 ...b4 1 2.Bxf6 Nxf6 1 3.Na4 Qa5 14.Qc2 Nd7 15.b3 Rfd8 1 6.Rac 1 , Kavalek-Kogan, New York 1984, and now instead of the mistaken 1 6 . . . c5? 17 .dxc5 Rac8 1 8.Ng5! which gave White the advantage, Black should be ...

Semi-Slav Defense all right after 1 6 ...Rac8 ! 17.Nd2 Ba6 1 8.Ne4 Nb6! ; 2) 9. . . b4 1 0.Ne4 c5 1 1 .Nfg5 Nxe4 1 2.Nxe4 Bd5 1 3 .0-0 c4 14.Qc2 Be7 1 5.h4 h6 1 6.Bh3 0-0 1 7.Nd2 Rc8 1 8.e4 Bb7 19.Rd 1 c3 20.bxc3 Rxc3 2 l .Qb1 Nf6 22.Bb2 Rc7 23.Bg2, +-, Skem­ bris-Passeratti, Rome 1 985. 10 Bg5 c5 Bxc5 11 dxc5 h6! 12 0-0 13 Bxf6 Nxf6 Bxg2 14 Ne5 15 Kxg2 0-0 16 Rfd1? 1 6.Qxd8 Rfxd8 1 7 . Rfd 1 or 1 6.Rac l ! ?. Qb6! 16 ... Rfd8 17 e3 Bd6! 18 Qe2 19 Ng4 Qc6ch.?! More accurate is 1 9 ... Nh7 20.h4 [20.e4 b4 2 1 .Na4 Qc6 22.b3 f5 23.Rac l Qb7-+.] 20 ... f5 2 1 .Nh2 b4-+. Qxf3ch. 20 Qf3 21 Kxf3 Nxg4 22 Kxg4 Be5 =+ Bellon-Chekov, Barcelona 1 984. Nbd7 B. 7 Qb3

1 69

#1 1 . 1 6 The alternatives are: 1 ) 7 ... a6 8.Bg5 [Or 8.g3 Bb7 9.Be3 Nbd7 1 0.Bg2 c5, Gheor­ ghiu-Inkiov, Dubai (ol) 1 986.] 8 ... c5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 1 0.e3 Nbd7 1 1 .Bd3 h6 1 2.Bh4 Bb7 1 3.0-0 Be7 1 4.Rad1 Nd5 15.Ne4 Qb6 16.Bxe7 Kxe7 1 7 .Bb1 Rac8 1 8.Ng3 Nc5 19.Qc2 Nf6 20.Nd4 h5 2 1 .Nh1 Bd5 22.f3 g6 23.Qf2 e5 24.Ne2 Bc4 25.Rfe 1 Rhd8 26.Nc 1 b4 27 .Rxd8 Rxd8, 1/2 in 89, Romanishin-Sveshnikov, Erevan 1 982; 2) 7 ... b4 8.Na4 Qa5 9.g3 Ba6 1 0.Bg2 Nbd7 1 1 . Qd 1 Rd8 1 2.0-0 c5 13.a3 bxa3 14.Rxa3 cxd4 1 5.Nc5 Qxc5 1 6.Rxa6 e5 17.Qa4 Be7 1 8 . B d2 0-0 1 9 .Rfc 1 , D.Gurevich-Adianto, San Fran­ cisco 1 987.

1 70

5

Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

8 BgS The alternatives are: 1) 8.Bf4 a6 9.e4 b4 1 0.Na4 Nxe4 1 1 .Bd3 Nef6 1 2.0-0 Be7 1 3.Rac 1 Bb7 14.Rfe1 0-0 1 5.Ng5 Nh5 1 6.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Qxe6ch. Kh8 1 8.Bd2 Bf6 19.Qg4 g6 20.Bxb4 Re8 2 1 .Rxe8ch. Qxe8 and Black went on to win in Antoshin­ Kaidanov, USSR 1985; 2) 8.g3 Be7 [8 ... a6! ? also seems to equalize: 9.Bg2 Bb7 10.0-0 c5 1 1 .Bg5 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bxg2 1 3 .Kxg2 Qb6 1 4.Rad1 Bc5 1 5.Nf3 0-0 1 6.Nd2 h6 17.Bxf6 Nxf6, Radulov-Gruenberg, Sofia 1986.] 9.Bg2 0-0 10.Nd2 e5 ! 1 1 .Bxc6 Rb8 12.dxe5 [ 12.e3 exd4 1 3.exd4 Qb6! is unclear as is 1 2.Bxd7 Nxd7 1 3.dxe5 Bb7 ! .] 12 ... Nxe5 1 3.Bg2 Be6 14.Qd 1 Qc8 ! [14 ... b4=+] 1 5.0-0 Rd8 1 6.Qe1 Bb4 17.Nde4 Nxe4 18.Bxe4 Bh3 1 9.Bf4, Kouatly­ Kuijf, Montpellier 1985, and now 19 ... Re8 favors Black; 3) 8.e4 ! ? b4 9.Na4 Nxe4 10.Bd3 Nef6 1 1 .Bg5 Be7 12.0-0 Qa5?! [S imply 12 ... 0-0 is better.] 1 3.Rfe l Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxa6 1 5.Ne5 Nxe5 1 6. dxe5 Nd5 1 7 .Bxe7 Kxe7 1 8.Nc5 Qb6

19.Rac1 Rhd8 20.Qf3, ++-, Va­ ganian-Chekov, USSR 198 1 . 8 Be7 8 ... a6 9.e3 c5 was equal in Bukic­ Bagirov, Banja Luka 1976. Black also seems to be able to equalize with 8 ... Qa5 9.e3 b4: the game Yudasin-011, USSR 1986 contin­ ued 10.Na4 c5 1 1 .Bxf6 Nxf6 •••

was eventually b4

#1 1.17 10 11 12 13 14 15

Bxf6 Na4 Rcl e3 BxbS NcS

Nxf6 Ba6 0-0 BbS cxbS aS

Semi-Slav Defense 16 17 18 19 20

NeS 0-0 dxc5 Qd3 Nxd3

ReS Bxc5 Ne4 Qxd3 Rfd8

17 1

f6 21 Rfd1 Kf8 = 22 c6 A . Petro sian - Georg adze, Tashkent 1 984.

172

Odds and Ends

CHAPTER 12 D30-3 1!SL1

Odds and Ends This chapter covers all the loose ends that didn't fit into any of the earlier chapters. By far the most important loose end is l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.e3 [4.Nbd2 can transpose.] 4... Nf6 5.Bd3. This line, a favorite anti-Meran system of Capablanca, circum­ vents a lot of complications by developing the QN at d2 to an­ swer . . .dxc4 with Nxc4. Black can, if he likes, head for a transpo­ sition to Chapter One by ...Nbd7 6.0-0 Bd6 or opt for independent lines. Another line covered in this chapter is the rather new idea of playing 4.Bf4. Used successfully by the US G.M. Larry Chris­ tiansen and the British G.M. Anthony Miles it has tended to score well for White. Perhaps this is more due to surprise than to true merit however, and it seems as though Black's correct defen­ sive ideas are finally being

worked out.

White Plays For A Quick e4 AdyanceYia Oc2 and Nbd2. l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nbd2 Nf6 5.0c2 Nbd7 6.a3!?

A new and interesting move. Note that the immediate 6.e4 dxe4 7 .Nxe4 Nxe4 8 . Qxe4 Bb4ch. is an exact transposition to 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.e4 dxe4 8 . Nxe4 Nxe4 9 . Qxe4 Bb4ch. but a move quicker [ e2-e4 as opposed to e2-e3 followed by e3-e4 and ...Bf8-b4ch. as op-

Semi-Slav Defense posed to ... Bf8-d6-b4ch.] .This can be found in Chapter Seven. Bd6? ! 6 Strangely enough this gets Black into trouble. It seems the correct move here may well be 6. . .Be7 ! ? when 7 .e4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 can be met by 8 ...e5 ! since the Bishop is no longer attacked on d6. dxe4 7 e4 8 Nxe4 Nxe4 9 Qxe4 eS This is no longer good with a3 in for White. 10 BgS f6 11 c5 Be7 0-0 12 Be3 Kh8 13 Nh4 Qe8 14 0-0-0 g6 15 NfS Qxe7 16 Nxe7 fS 17 dS Qg7 18 d6 Nf6 19 Qc2 NdS 20 BgS Be6 21 Bc4 Qt7 22 Bd2 23 Rhe1 •..

and White has a considerable adv antage, J. WhiteheadDonaldson, Reno 1 986.

173

Plans Based On An Early f4 Adyance ByWhite l .d4 dS 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 �

This rarely seen idea has the simple point that White wishes to dominate the e5 square as an outpost for his Knight. However the fact that this does nothing for his development and also creates some K-side and central weak­ nesses allows Black to get a sat­ isfactory game by a central counter-thrust, namely ... c6-c5. A similar plan for White was seen L.Karl sson-Don aldson, in Lugano 1983 which saw 5.Qc2 Nbd7 6.f4 c5 7 .b3 Be7 8.Nf3 b6 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.0-0 0-0 1 l .Bb2 Rc8 12.Rad1 cxd4 1 3.exd4 g6 [The position that has arisen

Odds and Ends

1 74

bears close affinity to the 4.e3 Queen' s Indian. Besides the dif­ ference of the pawn on f4 Black' s Knight i s on the inferior post of d7. Normally White would like to play Ne5 and Qe3 but there are tactical difficulties here on the a7-g1 diagonal. Perhaps most accurate is 14.Kh 1 in order to meet the relocation of the Nd7 with Ne5 since a Knight on c6 gives Black flexible counter chances against c4 and d4J.Tisdall.] 14.Qe2 Nb8 15.Kh 1 Nc6 1 6.cxd5 ? ! [ 1 6 . Rfe 1 =] 1 6... exd5 17.f5 Nb4! 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Bb1 Ba6 20.Nb5 Nxa2 2 l .Ne5 Qe8 22.Rf3 Bxb5 23.Qd2 Kg7 24.Bxa2 Ne4 25.Qe1 Rc2 26.Rb1 f6! 27.Ng4 Bd6 28.b4 Rxb2 29.Bxd5 Rxb 1 30.Qxb1 f5, 0- 1 . 5 ... c5 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 a3 Or 7.Be2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne5 dxc4 1 O.Nxc6 bxc6 1 1 .dxc5 Bxc5 12.Bxc4 Qxd1 13.Rxd1 Nd5 with equal chances, Rubin­ stein-Bogolubov, Prague 193 1 . a6 7 Be7 8 Ne5 •.•

Nxd5 9 cxd5 10 Be2 Nxe5 11 fxe5 b5 exd5 12 Nxd5 0-0 13 0-0 1/2- 1/2, Seirawan-Chernin, Wijk aan Zee 1986. Capablanca's Anti-Meran Sys­ tem Based On Nbd2. l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 and now we have two ways to play the system: A. 5.Nbd2. B. S.Bd3. A, 5 Nbd2

#12.3 In playing this line White allows Black [after playing ... c5] to place his QN on c6 where it will actively pressure the center. 5 ... c5!

Semi-Slav Defense Certainly the most critical move at Black ' s disposal. Other moves allow White to go about his plans unencumbered: 1) 5 ...Ne4 6.Bd3 f5 7.Ne5 fol­ lowed by 0-0 with an edge to White; 2) 5 ... g6 6.Bd3 Bg7 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 0-0 1 1 .Bd2 Qc7 1 2.Bc3 Nf6 1 3 .Bc2, Kmoch-Rubin stein , Semmering 1926, White has a plus; 3) 5 ... Bd6 6.b3 0-0 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8 . Bb2 dxc4? [B etter w a s 8 ... Qe7 ! ? followed b y . . .Ba3.] 9.Nxc4! Bb4ch. lO.Kfl b6 1 1 .h4! Be? 1 2.e4 h6 1 3.Qe2 c5 14.Rd1 Qc7 1 5.Bb1 cxd4 1 6.e5 Nd5 1 7.Nxd4 Nc5 1 8.Nb5 ! ! White has a winning position, Vaisman­ Borkowski, Sandomierz 1976. 6 Be2 White has tried several other moves: 1) 6.Bd3 Nc6 allows Black to generate some pressure on the White d4 pawn; 2) 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7 .a3 a5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bb5ch. Bd7 10.Bxd7ch. Nbxd7 only offers White equal chances, Donner-Nei, Beverwijk

175

1966; 3) 6.cxd5 exd5 [White seems to get an edge against 6... Nxd5: 7.Be2! (Less good is 7.Bc4 Nf6 Nc6=, B annik­ 8 . Bb3 Mnatsakanian, USSR ch. 1963.) 7 ...Nc6 8.Nb3 cxd4 9.Nfxd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 +=.] 7.Bb5ch. Bd7 8.Bxd7ch. Nbxd7 9.0-0 (9.dxc5 Bxc5 also offered White nothing in Golombek-Bogol­ yubov, Belgrade 1952.) 9 ... Bd6 10.b3 0-0 1 1 .Bb2 Re8 1 2.Rcl Rc8 1 3.dxc5 Nxc5 1 4.Nb 1 , 1/21/2, Kurajica-Inkiov, Bor 1983; 4) 6.b3 Nc6 [6...cxd4 7.exd4 Nc6 (7 ...Nbd7 ! ?.) 8.Bb2 Be7 9.Bd3 dxc4 10.bxc4 Nxd4 1 1 .Nxd4 e5 1 2 . Qa4ch. B d7 1 3 .Nb5 a6 14.Qb3 axb5 15.cxb5 0-0 is a good way to gain equality for Black, Pachman-Botvinnik, Munich 1958.] 7.Bb2 Bd6 8.Rc l [The ECO recommends 8.dxc5 saying that White would then have a slight edge.] 8 ... cxd4 9.exd4 Qe7 10.Ne5 Ba3 =, Kan­ Levenfish, Moscow 1 935. Nc6 6 ... cxd4 7 0-0 On 7 ... Bd6 Nei in Informant 15 says White can gain an edge by

176

Odds and Ends

8.cxd5 exd5 9.dxc5 or 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9 .a3. In the game AlekhineVidmar, Semmering 1 926, White replied to 7 ... Bd6 with 8.a3 but failed to get any real advantage: 8 . . cxd4 9.exd4 a5 10.Bd3 0-0 1 1 .Re1 b6 1 2.b3 Bb7 1 3.Bb2 Ne7 14.Ne5 Ng6 15.Ndf3 Ne4. 8 exd4 Be7 9 a3 0-0 White's game is preferable after 9 ... dxc4 1 0.Nxc4, but according to Keres 9 . . . a5 ! ? is possible. 10 c5! += Ne4 And now the game Keres-Nei, Tallinn 1 973 was drawn after 1 1 . Qc2 B f6 1 2. Rd 1 Nxd4 ! 13.Nxd4 Nxf2 14.N2f3 Nxd1 15.Qxd 1 e5 1 6.Nc2 e4, l/2- 1/2. However Keres felt that 1 1 .Qc2 was inaccurate and that 1 1 .Bd3 ! would grant White some advan­ tage. His analysis runs: 1 l ...Bf6 [ 1 1 .. .f5 1 2.b4 +=.] 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Bxe4 Nxd4 14.Rb1 +=. 5 Bd3 #1 2.4 .ll..

This move is a bit more subtle then the immediate Nbd2. White develops naturally and waits for Black to play the usual ...Nbd7. Only then, when his QN can no longer go to c6 [after a ... c5 advance.] will White play Nbd2. After 5.Bd3 Black has two plans: B.l. 5,dxc4: B.2. 5...Nbd7. U dxc4 5 ... Black makes this capture before White can reply with Nxc4. Now Black hopes to enter lines similar to, or transpose directly into, the Meran. 6 Bxc4 b5 6 ... Nbd7 transposes into lines that stem from 5 . . .Nbd7 6.0-0 dxc4. See B.2. a6 7 Bd3 8 a4 8.Nc3 Nbd7 transposes into nor­ mal Meran positions while 8.e4 c5 9 .e5 Nd5 1 O.dxc5 Bxc5 1 1 .0-0 Bb7 12.Qe2 Nd7 1 3.Re1 Be? 14.Bd2 b4 was about even in Sofrevski-Sveshnikov, Plovdiv 1973. Bb7 8 ... Nbd7 9 0-0 Be7 10 e4

Semi-Slav Defense

177

h6 11 BgS With Black's Knight unable to 1 1 ...0-0 ! ? should be looked at. eventually go to c6, this is quite 12 Bh4 0-0 an effective line and Black must ReS 13 Qe2 use great care if he is going to 14 Nbd2 NbS equalize. At times White may Nxg3 15 Bg3 wish to keep his options open and Nb6?! 16 hxg3 play 6.0-0. In reply to this Black Better was 1 6... b4 followed by has the following: ... c5 when White would only be 1) 6 . . . Ne4!? 7.b3 [A solid option slightly better. to this is 7.Nc3 f5 8.Nd2 Bd6 9.f4 B b4?! 17 b3 when White should have some 1S Rfc1 Nd7 advantage, Razuvayev-Karasev, Qb6 19 eS USSR ch. 1977.] 7 ...Bd6 8.Bb2 RedS 20 Ne4 0-0 9.Nbd2 f5 10.Ne5 Nxd2 cS? 21 Qe3! 1 1 .Qxd2 Nxe5 1 2.dxe5 Be7 Better is 2 1 ...Be7 though White l .Qc2 Bd7 14.c5 Kh8 1 5.f4 Rf7 would still be winning after 22.a5 1 6.Bd4 Qc7 17.Kh 1 Rg8 1 8.g4 Qa7 23.g4 c5 24.g5.-Georgadze. h6 19.Rg 1 , White is firmly in NxcS 22 dxcS control, Vyzmanavin-Zij atdi­ BxcS nov, Tashkent 1985; 23 NxcS bxa4 24 RxcS 2) 6... dxc4 7.Bxc4 Bd6 [Also 25 bxa4 common is 7 ... b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 1 -0, Lein-Raicevic, Hastings (White also got nothing with 9.a4 1979/80. b4 1 O.e4 c5 1 1 .B g5 Be7 12.Nbd2 cxd4 1 3.Nc4 h6 1 4.Bh4 0-0 U 5 ... Nbd7 #1 2.5 1 5 . Nxd4 B b7 1 6.e5 Ne4 6 Nbd2 ....----...,.,...-��,....-..., 17 .Bxe7, 1/2- 1/2, Frias-Salazar, Santiago 198 1 .) 9 ... c5 (9 . . . Bb7?! 1 0.e5 Nd5 1 1 .Ng5 ! is in White' s favor, Romanishin-Klov an, USSR ch. 1975.) 10.e5 (Ro­ manishin feels that White is

178

Odds and Ends

slightly better after 10.d5 e5 1 l .a4 c4 1 2.Bc2.) 1 0 . . . Nd5 1 1 .Ng5?! (Better is 1 1 .Nc3.) 1 1 ...Be7 ! 1 2.Qg4 cxd4 1 3.Nxe6? (White would only have a slight disadvantage after 13.Re 1 Nc5 14.Bxh7 Bxg5 ! 15.Bxg5 Qc7 1 6.Bc2 d3 17.Bd1 f5 ! 1 8.Qf3 Bb7.) 1 3 ...fxe6 14.Qxg7 Rf8 1 5 .Bxh7 Nc5 1 6. Qg4 Kd7 ! 1 7 . Qxd4 Rh8 1 8 .Nc3 B b7 19.Be4 Rh4 ! , Black is clearly better, Vadasz-Tompa, Hungary 1 977.] 8.Bd3 [It's not clear what White's best move is here. For example 8.Nc3 is possible and 8.Bb3 0-0 9.Nbd2 c5 (9 . . . Bc7 1 0.e4 += according to ECO.) 1 0 . Qe2 cxd4 1 l .exd4 Nb6 12.Ne4 Be7 1 3.Nxf6ch. Bxf6 14.Qe4 led to an edge for White in Keres-Nei, USSR 1960. In the recent game Djuric-Smagin, Tallinn 1986 White tried 8.Re 1 ? ! but after 8 ... 0-0 9.e4 e5 10.Bg5 Re8 1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 1 2.Nxe5 Bxe5 1 3. Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Nc3 h6 15.Bh4 b5 1 6.Bb3 a5 17.a4 b4 1 8.Rd 1 Rd7 Black had achieved equality.] 8 ... c5 9.Re1 cxd4 10.exd4 00 1 1 .Nc3 b6 12.Bg5 Bb7 13.Qe2 h6 14.Bh4 Be7 15.Rad1 Nd5?

1 6.Qe4, 1 -0, Lemer-Dolmatov, Kutaisi 1978. This whole line starting with 6.0-0 dxc4 is closely related to 5.Bd3 dxc4 (B. l .) and it doesn't take much for them to transpose into each other. 6 Be7 This is the most commonly seen reply but it has a poor theoretical reputation. His other choices are: 1) 6... dxc4 [Long thought to be dubious, but it is not easy to get a meaningful advantage against it.] 7.Nxc4 c5 8.0-0 Be7 [8 ...cxd4? 9.Nxd4 a6 10.Bd2 Be7? 1 1 .Nc6! is terrible for Black since 1 l ...bxc6 is met by 1 2.Ba5. Also good for White , though very complicated, was the game Dorfman-Karasev, U S S R 1 97 7 , which went 8 . . .b5? ! 9.Nce5 c4 1 0.Nxd7 Qxd7 1 1 .Ne5 Qd5 12.Be2 Bb7 1 3.f3! Nd7 1 4.e4 Qd6 15.Bf4 Nxe5 1 6.Bxe5 Qb6 17.a4 Rd8 ! 1 8 .Kh 1 f6 19.Bg3 Rxd4 20.Qc 1 a6! 2 1 .Bf2 Bc5 22. axb5 axb5 2 3 . b4 ! Be7 24.Qc3 ! and White went on to win.] 9.Qe2 0-0 10.Rd1 cxd4 1 1 .exd4 b6 12.Bf4 Bb7 1 3.Rac 1 Nd5 14.Bg3 N7f6 15.Nce5 and White' s game is no more then slightly preferable, Suetin-Dol...

Semi-Slav Defense matov, Daugavpilis 1978; 2) 6 ...Bd6 7.0-0 [7.e4 dxe4 trans­ poses into Chapter One.] 7 ... 0-0 8.e4 [On 8.b3 Black has the ex­ cellent move 8 . . . e5 ! , e.g. 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Be2 Qe7 1 2.Bb2 Bf5 with equality, Wal­ ter-Baumbach, East Germany 1973.] 8 ...e5? ! [This turns out poorly. Best is 8 ...dxe4 9.Nxe4 transposing into Chapter One.] 9.cxd5 cxd5 1 0 . exd5 exd4 1 1 .Nxd4 Nxd5 1 2.Bxh7ch. and White has won a pawn, Botvin­ nik-Riumin, USSR ch. 193 1 ; 3) 6 ... c5 !

B

......-�.....-...,

#12.6 [Theory gives this as Black' s best move. Indeed, if he has a way to equalize this is probably it.] 7.b3 [White's only real try for advan­ tage. The game Alekhine-Soul-

179

tanbeieff, Folkestone 1 933 con­ tinued 7.0-0 Be7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.b3 cxd4 1 0.exd4 0-0 1 1 .Bb2 Re8 1 2.Ne5 Bb4! 13.a3 Bxd2 14.Qxd2 Ne4 15.Qc2 Qb6! 1 6.a4 Nxe5 17.dxe5, and now Black could get complete equality by 17 ... Bd7 ! (to meet 1 8.a5 by ... Qb4 without fearing Ra4.) 1 8.Bxe4 dxe4 with a probable draw-Alekhine.] 7 ... cxd4 [Clear­ ing up the position somewhat. Dubious is 7 ... g6? 8.0-0 Bg7 9.Ba3 ! b6 10.cxd5 Nxd5 1 1 .Ne4! when White had a significant advantage, Petrosi an-Ivkov, Yugoslavia-USSR match 1979. Instead of 7 ... cxd4 a quite plau­ sible move is 7 ... Be7. An excel­ lent illustration of how the White side is handled was provided by the game Benko-Sigurjonsson, Caracas 1 97 0 : 8 . 0-0 (after 7 ... Be7) 8 ...0-0 9.Bb2 b6 10.Qe2 Bb7 1 1 .Rfd 1 Rc8 12.Rac 1 Rc7 1 3 .dxc5 Nxc5 1 4.Bc2 Qa8 15.Ng5 ! Ncd7 1 6.cxd5 Rfc8 1 7.dxe6! Rxc2 1 8.exd7 Nxd7 19.Rxc2 Rxc2 20.Qd3 Bxg5 2 1 .Qxc2 Bxg2 22.Qf5, 1 -0.] 8.exd4 b6 9.0-0 Bb7 10.Qe2 Be7 1 1 .Bb2 0-0 12.Rad1 [Black was

Odds and Ends

1 80

also all right after 1 2.Rac 1 Rc8 1 3.Ne5 Rc7 14.Qe3 Bd6 1 5.Qh3 Re8=, Lilienthal-Ebralidze, USSR ch. 1937.] 12 ... Re8 [Or 1 2. . . Nh5 1 3.g3 g6 14.Rfe1 Rc8=, Lutikov-Sakharov, USSR 1960.] 1 3.Ne5 Nf8 14.Ndf3 Bd6 15.Ng5 Re7 1 6. f4 h6=, B obotsov­ Mohrlok, Vrnjacka Banja 1967. 7 0-0 Also very good is 7.b3 b6 8.0-0 00 9.Bb2 Bb7 10.Qe2 c5 [or 1 0... a5 1 1 . a4 Bb4 1 2.e4 dxe4 1 3.Nxe4 with advantage for White, Alekhine-Bogolj ubov, Match 1 934.] 1 1 .Rad 1 Qc7 1 2.Ne5 ! [Stronger than the game Hort-Honfi, Kecskemet 1966, where Black equalized after 1 2 .e4 dxe4 1 3 .Nxe4 Rab8 14.Rfe 1 Rfe8.] 1 2 ...Rad8 1 3.f4 Ne4 14.cxd5 exd5 15.Nxe4 dxe4 1 6.Bc4 Nf6? [Better is 1 6 . . . Nxe5 though White is still better after 17.fxe5 Bd5 1 8.dxc5.] 17.dxc5 Bxc5 1 8.Nxt7 ! , +-, O'Kelly­ Kottnauer, Amsterdam 1950. 7 0-0 White is better after 7 ... dxc4 8.Nxc4 c5 9.e4, Balashov-Fichtl, Novi Sad 1 975. In the game Mikhalchisin-S chmidt, Porz.••

Avangard 1983 Black tried 7 ... c5 but he had a bad experience: 8.b3 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 1 0.Bb2 Bb7 1 1 .Qe2 0-0 1 2.Rad1 Rc8 1 3.Ne5 Nxe5? 14.dxe5 Nd7 15.cxd5 Bxd5 16.Ne4 Nc5? 17.Nf6ch. gxf6 1 8.Qg4ch., 1 -0. s b3! 8.e4 dxe4 is Chapter Three. s b6 9 e4 9.Bb2 would transpose into the note to White's 7th move. The text is a sharper attempt to crush Black. Ba6 9 g6 10 Qc2 ReS 11 Re1 12 Bb2 cS exdS 13 exdS 14 Rad1 cxd4 ReS .12.1 15 Nxd4 ...

..•

Semi-Slav Defense 16 Bxg6!! hxg6 fxe6 17 Ne6 18 Qxg6ch Kf8 19 Rxe6 Bc5 Rxe6 20 Bxf6 Kf7 21 Qh6ch Ke8 22 Qg7ch 23 Bxd8 and White soon won, Vyzmanavin-Gusinov, Tashkent 1985.

181

don't put much pressure on White: 1) 4... Bd6 5.Bxd6 Qxd6 6.e4 dxe4 7.c5 Qe7 8.Nxe4 Nf6 9.Nd6ch. Kd8 1 0. Nf3 Ne8 1 l .Nc4 b5 12.Na5 Qc7 1 3.Qd2 Nd7 14.Ne5 Nxe5 1 5.dxe5ch. Ke7 1 6.Qd6ch. Qxd6 1 7.cxd6ch. Kd7 1 8.Rc 1 , Miles-Or. Troger, Porz 198 1 . White scored a quick victory; 2) 4...Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.Nf3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nd5 9.0-0 0-0 Whiteplays 4.Bf4!?. l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bf4!? 1 0.Qe2 N7f6 1 l .Be5 Nxc3 1 2.bxc3 c5 13.Rfd 1 Bd7 14.dxc5 Bxc5 15.Ng5 Be7 1 6.Rab1 Qc8 1 7 . Qd3 Rd8 1 8 . Bxf6 B xf6 19.Qxh7ch. Kf8 20.Qh8ch. Ke7 2 1 .Qh5 g6 22.Qh4 Qc5 23.Nxe6 Qe5 24.Qh7 Rh8 25.Rxd7ch. 2 6 . Qxf7 c h . Kxd7 B e7 27.Rxb7ch. Kc6 and Black re­ signed, 1 -0, Garcia Palermo­ Bonsch, Havana 1 986. 5 e3 #12.8 White sacrifices a pawn [tempo­ 5.a4! ? may be more accurate: rarily! ?] with the usual aspira­ 5 ... Bb4 6.e3 Nf6 [6 ...b5 trans­ tions of quick development and poses into an inferior subvari­ ation of the main lines, i.e. 7 .axb5 pressure on the Black position. dxc4 axb5 8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qg3 etc.] 4 The only way to challenge 7.Bxc4 Nd5 8.Ne2 Nxf4 9.Nxf4 White ' s system. Other moves +=, Andrianov. ...

1 82

Odds and Ends

5 ... bS Nf6!? 6 a4 It is not yet clear what Black's best move is: here are his choices: 1 ) 6 ...Bb4? 7.axb5 cxb5 8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qg3 is embarrassing for Black; 2) 6 ... Bd7 can be met by 7 .Be2 or even 7.Nf3. However 7.Qf3? is well answered by 7 ... Qa5; 3) 6 ... b4 [The most commonly seen reply but probably a mis­ take.] 7.Ne4 [Christiansen is of the opinion that 7 .Nb 1 is stronger and definitely good for White. The game Miles-Dlugy, London 1982 seemed to bear this out: 7 ... Bd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.Nd2 Ba6 10.Qg4 Kf8 1 1 .Bxc4 Nf6 1 2.Qe2 Bxc4 1 3.Nxc4 Qd5 14.Nf3 Nbd7 1 5 . 0- 0 Qh5 1 6. Rac l Ke7 17.Nce5 Nxe5 1 8 .dxe5 Nd5 19.e4 Nb6 20.Qd2, 1 -0.] 7 ... Ba6 [Very complicated is 7 . . . Qd5 ! ? 8.Nd2 c 3 9.bxc3 bxc3 10.Ndf3 Bb4 1 1 .Qc2 Nf6 12.Bd3 Ba6 1 3.Ne2 Bxd3 14.Qxd3 0-0 15.0-0 Ne4 (Black seems to be doing all right but he gets slaughtered in the next few moves! ) 1 6.Be5 Nd2 17.Ng5 g6 1 8 .e4 Qd8 19.Nxh7 Nd7 20.Qh3 Nxe5 2 1 .dxe5 Kg?

22.Nxf8 Qxf8 23.Rfe1 and White went on to win, Groszpeter­ Hofmann, Lugano 1984.] 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Nxf6ch. gxf6 10.Rc 1 c3 1 1 .Bxa6 Nxa6 1 2.0-0 Bd6 1 3 .Bxd6 Qxd6 1 4.bxc3 Rb8 15.Nd2 Ke7 1 6.Qe2 Nc7 17.Nc4 Qd7 18.cxb4 Nd5 19.e4 Nxb4 20.Rfd 1 Rhg8 2 1 .g3 Kf8 22.Ne3 [White is obviously better but the way he finishes his opponent off is rather pleasing.] 22 ... Rg5 23.Ng4 Qe7 24.h4 Rg6 25.Qf3 Kg? 26.Rc5 Rd8 27 .h5 Rg5 28.h6ch. Kh8 29.Rxg5 fxg5 30.Nf6 a5 3 1 .Kg2 Qf8 32.e5 Nd5 33.Nxd5 cxd5 34.Qf6ch. Kg8 35.Rh 1 , 1 -0, Christiansen-Bis­ guier, Bermuda 1986; 4) 6 ... Qb6!? To our knowledge this very logical move has only been played in one game: 7.Qf3? bxa4! and Black already had a clear advantage since 8.Ra2 Qb3 9.Bxb8 Rxb8 1 0.Qxc6ch. Bd7 1 1 . Qxc4 a3 is winning for Black, Epishin-Boiman, Krasnodar 1982. If White can't find a good reply to 6... Qb6 then 5.a4 will have to be tried. cxbS 7 axbS Bb4ch. 8 NxbS

Semi-Slav Defense Nd5 9 Nc3 Bb7 10 Qc2 According to Nogueiras, even better is 1 0...Nxf4 1 1 . Qa4ch. Nc6 12.Qxc6ch. Bd7 1 3.Qxc4 Nd5 with good compensation for the sacrificed pawn. 11 Nh3 1 1 .Bg3 ! ? . Nxf4! 11 ... Bd6 12 Nxf4

1 83

13 Bxc4 Bxf4 14 Qa4ch? ! Better i s 14.exf4 Qxd4 15.Ne2 Qb6 with equality. Nd7! 14 ... 0-0 15 exf4 16 Bd3 Christiansen-Nogueiras, Du bai (ol) 1986, and now 1 6... Bxg2! 17.Rg1 Bd5 is clearly better for Black-Nogueiras.