Gueneau C. Piket I. Polugaevsky L. - Sicilian Love - Nic 1995 (Miroslav version).pdf

•

•

e aevsky

Sicilian Love Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tournament Buenos Aires 1 994

Lev Polugaevsky Jeroen Piket Christophe Gueneau

•

a NEW IN CH� publication

Jan Plooij DagobertKohlmeyer Harold Steiner Joris van Velzen Rosa de las Nievas Nigel Eddis Bas Beekhuizen Drawings:

Rupert van der Linden

Translations from Russian:

Ken Neat

Translations from French: Proof reading:

Glenn Flear Ken Neat Geurt Gijssen

Production:

H.A. Roest

Database Software: Opening Classification:

NiCBASE NiCKEY3.7

Production Software:

NiCPublish

Typeshop Processing: Printing:

lnterchess BV A-D Druk, Zeist

ISBN 90-71689-99-9 © INTERCHESS BV 1995 No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the publisher.

printed in the Netherlands

lnterchess BV is the publisher of:

rdc Magazine rdc Yearbook series NiCBASE ElectroNiC Chessbooks lnterchess BV

-

PO Box 3053 - 1 801 GB Alkmaar, The Netherlands

Preface

Without any doubt chess is one of the most fascinating games. Already at a tender age I came under its spell. I was reasonably successful in youth competitions and still cherish pleasant memories of my participation in theJ uniorWorldChampionship in 1955. O ccupied by professional dutiesI was unable to invest much energy in chess later on. N ow, more than thirty years on, I again have the possibility to dedicate more time to chess. For me the most attractive part of chess is the active middle-game. I prefer sharp positions, in which both players go to the brink of the abyss. Ex actly for that reason Lev Polugaevsky has always been one of my favourite players. A couple of years ago I met Lev in person. I t was he who opened my eyes again for the rich variety of possibilities that chess offers us. Partly through him I learned to enj oy chess even more. I am very grateful to Lev for this and wanted to show my gratitude by offering him something on the occasion of his six tieth birthday that would not only be a treat to the entire chess world, but also to Lev in particular: a chess tournament. It was completely clear to me that it should be a tournament centered around the most beautiful of chess openings, the Sicilian, an opening to whose development Lev has contributed a lot. In B uenos Aires we witnessed a historic tournament, a tournament worthy of my good friend Lev Polugaevsk y. Unfortunately Lev could not participate himself due to illness, but much to my j oy I could see that he intensely followed and enj oyed all the games. I t will be clear that this Sicilian tournament deserves to be recorded in a book . It is eq ually obvious that the history of the Sicilian opening deserves a place in this book, as does an introduction to the person of Lev Polugaevsky. All these ingredients are contained in this document. I am most happy that I nterchess, one of the most prominent institutes in the fi eld of chess reporting is publishing this book. I hope that this book will give you, the reader, a lot of Sicilian pleasure. J.J.

van

Oosterom.

Speech by Lev Polugaevsky during the closing ceremony

D ear M uriel andJ oop! I want to thank you very much on my part and in the name of all the other participants for this wonderful tournament. We will never forget this fantastic event. Your love of chess combines perfectly with the Argentinian chess temperament. M aybe this is why the tournament was such a success. I would lik e to thank all my colleagues for the wonderful games played here that brought all chess lovers so many happy moments. I want to say words of thank s to the organiz ers, both from H olland and Argentina, and to the chief arbiter, who contributed a lot to the tournament. I am very glad that every day we had the opportunity to see living legend M iguel N aj dorf, ever- creative grandmaster B ent Larsen, who gave ex cellent comments on all games, Argentinian grandmasters Panno, Guimard andQuinteros, and many other players. F inally I would lik e to say that maybe it' s a pity that nobody in the tournament took the risk of using the Polugaevsky variation. B ut on the other hand this also means that nobody could destroy the variation. The Polugaevsk y variation is still alive! To its health, my friends.

Contents

My Sicilian Love

11

Ten memorable Sicilians by Lev Polugaevsky 'I am almost a decathlete of the Sicilian'

An interview with Lev Polugaevsky by Christophe Gueneau A Certain History of the Sicilian Defence

49

by Christophe Gueneau Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tournament Buenos Aires 1994

87

Tournament report by Christophe Gueneau Round 1 Round 2 Round3 Round4 Round5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round9 Round 10 Round 1 1 Roo� 12 Round 13 Round 14

10 1 111 12 1 129 137 145 155 163 173 183 191 1� 207 2 17

Tournament Crosstable

229

Games index

229

Index of variations

230

Association Max Euwe

233

Fundacion Banco Patricios

234

List of illustrations

235

Solution to the chess problem from page 100

236

My Sicilian Love Ten memorable Sicilians

Lev Polugaevsky

Throughout my lengthy career I have tried out numerous opening ideas in a great variety of systems. But it has so happened,

that

I

have

become

firmly

established as a 'champion' of the Sicilian. It is to the Sicilian Defence that I have devoted the best 'pages' of my life, my 'eternal

love'

for

this

opening

being

determined by its uncompromising nature and the depth of its plans. I give here my ten most memorable 'Sicilians'. The majority of them are being published for the first time with detailed comments, and I hope that readers will enjoy analysing them.

11

51 47.2 D Yu khtman • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Tbilisi 1 959

In the 1950s the name ofYakov Yukhtman was

1 0...e6 1 1 .tLlc3 i..e7 1 2.d5 White is obliged to simplify the position, other­ wise after 12... l0b4 or 12..J%.d8 he himself would have to seek a way to equalise.

1 2...edS 1 3. tLldS tLldS 1 4. 'tli'dS

well known among us young players. He un­

On 14.i.d5 there would, of course, have fol­

doubted!y possessed a natural and rare talent, one

lowed 14 ... 0-0-0.

that particularly manifested itself in sharp posi­ tions, in which he was very resourceful and strong. But in simple, classical positions his ingenuity markedly waned, and his play was less strong.

1 4.. .'ifd5 1 5.�d5 0-0 1 6..ic6 beG 1 7 .tLld4 i..d7 1 8.£Lf4 White assumes that he needs to occupy the h2-b8 diagonal to prevent the black rook from using the

1 .e4 cs 2.c3

b-file. But in doing so, he loses control over another

Yukhtman had a poor knowledge of chess theory

diagonal, a1-h8, along which the black bishop gains

and he would often endeavour to avoid topical

good prospects. The sound 18.�e3 followed by

variations. But the narrow repertoire that he did

19Jbcl would have ensured him a quiet life.

play, he had studied well.

2 ... tLlf6 3.e5 tLldS 4.d4 cd4 S ..ic4 tLlb6 6 ..ib3 tLlc6 7.tLlf3 dS Understandably, I did not want to tempt fate in the continuation

7 ...dc3

8.tLlc3, and I chose in­

stead a reliable course.

8.ed6 After 8.cd4 �f5 or 8.....ig4 Black has no prob­ lems: all his pieces are ideally placed.

8 ... 'tli'd6 9.0-0 ilfS

1 8....if6 1 9..U.ad1 cS 20.tLlf3 Another inaccuracy. White's queenside is left without any defenders, unexpectedly his a- and b-pawns are left to the mercy of fate, and although he manages to exchange one of them, he is unable completely to rid himself of problems on this part of the board. The advantage of the two bishops is becoming a real factor, and already here the 'alarm' should have sounded for White. I think that the best solution was 20.l0b3 �a4 2U:f.d5, when gradually Black would have had to reconcile himself to an inevitable draw.

1 0.cd4 An inaccuracy, after which the position is equal.

20...i.e6 21 .b3 c4 22.tLld2 cb3 23.ab3

The only way to try for an advantage was by

White is afraid that after 23.l0b3 a5 24.1.1d2 .l::l.fc8

10.l0d4 l0d4 l l .cd4.

Black will tie him to the defence of the a-pawn.

12

My Sicilian Love

23 .. J:tfc8 24.h3 h6 25.lue4 ii.e7 26Jld3

White was evidently intending to play 26. �d6, but at the last moment he noticed that after 26 ... �d6 27. tDd6l:!.cb8! he would lose a pawn. There is nothing to be done - he has to live with the two enemy bishops. 26 ... l:!.c6 27.l:!.a1 a6 28.g4?

Black has regrouped his forces, and in many cases is preparing 28 . ..l:!.b6, or 28 ...g5 followed by 29 . ..f5 . White loses patience, and commits a serious mistake. 28 ... f5! gf5 �f5 30.l:!.e3

30J:!.e 1 was bad on account of 30... l:1e6 3 1 l:!. . de3 .ib4 32.l:!. le2l:!.ae8 33.tt:Jd6l:!.g6! 30 .. Jle6 31 J:la4 .:us 32...ih2 �dB! 33.tbd2 .tl.g6

Black could of course have played 33 ...J:le3, but he is dissatisfied with such a small gain, and he continues his combined attack. 34.l:!.g3 .l:I.c6 35.tbc4 �d7!

51 7.2 D Nezhmetdinov • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Baku 1 961

Rashid Nezhmetdinov, a representative of Tatar (Russia), was rightly called an attacking genius. When it was a matter of going for the king, he had no equals, and in combinational skirmishes he was totally in his element. The pairings gave him the white pieces against me. In rapid tempo the following initial moves were made: 1 .e4 c5 2.tbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbf6 5.tbc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 bS 8.e5 deS 9.fe5 'f/c7 1 0.ef6 'f/e5 1 1 .tbe4!?

An unusual idea, which belonged to Nezhrnetdi­ nov himself. He had tested it at a training session for Russian players at Solnechny, near Lenin­ grad, in a consultation game. The point of it is to retain the dark-squared bishop. 1 1 ... 'f/e4 1 2.tbe2 tbc6 1 3.'f/d2

It was in this position, for which both players had aimed, that the 'mine' was detonated 1 3 ... h6!

The threats rain in on White from all sides. He is unable to parry them all, and he quickly loses. 36. .tl.a1 �h4 37.l:!.d3 �f2 38.g8 2l. ti:Je41U5 22.ti:Jf6 l:tf6 23. 'iid 3, and White won quickly (Zhilin-Furman, Soviet Union 1 958). Why then, if I knew these games, did I not play IO.e5? In the first instance because most prob­ ably Osnos also knew them. What's more, not only knew them, but since the variation was part of his arsenal, he may have had some subtleties prepared. To refute these at the board would probably have required considerable effort, and I was not wanting to force matters. The more so, since after IO... de5 1 1 . 'iie5 .id7 1 2.h4 Uc8 1 3.Uh3 Black has the quiet reply 1 3 . .. 'ifc7. Now after 14. 'iic7 l:tc7 15. ti:Jb5 �b5 1 6. .ib5 l:tfc8 it is not at all easy to utilise the advantage of the two bishops, while 14.'ife3 .ic6 1 5.Ug3 l:.fd8 does not cause Black any particular difficulties.

rists bring in their verdicts (which, incidentally, are not always final) only on the basis of our general experience and practice... 1 2....-tcs

It is clear that 1 2. ..b5 is refuted by 1 3.e5 !, but the move played also deserves censure. The bishop moves away from the defence of e6, which may be attacked by the white f-pawn. Therefore 1 2. . JHd8 1 3.l:thfl Uac8 1 4.f5 'iic5 is more logi­ cal, although here too White retains a promising position. 1 3J:thf1

White consistently carries through his plan of playing f4-f5, provoking ...e6-e5, and seizing the d5 square. Possibly here too Black should have resorted to the manoeuvre 13 . . .h6 14 ..ih4 'ifh5, but my opponent very quickly made what seemed to be a highly energetic move. 1 3... b5

1 0 .. .'tti' a5 1 1 .f4 �d7

The position after 1 1 ...h6 1 2.�h4 e5 is well known to theory. Black's move in the game was the 'latest word' at that time. Leaving the white bishop at g5, Black parries the possible 1 2.e5 de5 1 3 .fe5 by 1 3 ...�c6, when his light-squared bishop occupies an excellent post. 1 2.i.b3!?

This was found at the board. I did not care for either 1 2. t;t>b l .ic6 1 3.Uhfl Uad8 14 ..ib3 h6 15.�h4 'ifh5 !, when the queen becomes an ac­ tive defender of her king, or 1 2.Uhfl b5 ! 1 3 ..ib3 b4, when Black seizes the initiative. The game Keres-Geller, Curacao Candidates 1 962, went 1 2.Uhel l:tfd8 13. �b3, and instead of the erro­ neous 1 3 ... b5?! as played, Black, by the same manoeuvre 1 3 . ..h6 ! 1 4. �4 'ifh5 !, could have obtained a perfectly satisfactory game. Later, theory pronounced the strongest in this position to be 1 2.e5 de5 13.fe5 �c6 14..id2! ti:Jd7 15. tt:Jd5 'iid8 1 6.ti:Je7 'iie7 1 7J:thel l:tfc8 18. 'iif4, as occurred in the games Tseshkovsky-Korensky, Soviet Union 1 973, and Karpov-Ungureanu at the 1 972 Olympiad in Skopje. But after all, theo16

I sensed that it was on the solution to this particu­ lar problem that if not everything, then a great deal, depended. I thought for almost an hour, and found a refutation . . . 1 4.-tfG! ..tf6

No better is 14 ... gf6 1 5.f5 ! b4 16. t2Je2, when Black cannot maintain his pawn at e6. 1 5.'iid6 �c3

If Black had attempted to repair the basic defect of his position, and had defended his light-squared bishop by 15 ... l:tac8, then White had prepared 16.e5! .!';lfd8 17. 'iic 5!, andif 17 ....ig2, then 18. 'iig l !

My Sicilian Love

il l 1 9.ef6, which concludes the game instantly. If 1 5 ... �b6 16.f5, and now after 1 6. . .J:Hd8 the queen retreats to g3, while on 1 6.....ic3 the piece sacrifice 1 7.fe6 ! is decisive, e.g. 1 7 .... .if6 1 8 .et7 c;t.>h8 1 9JH6! .l:.ad8 20. �d8, winning. It was on these and numerous other similar variation that I spent an hour in thought on my 14th move.

On 2 l ....l:.f8 White can play 22.a3, or 22 ..ie6 fe6 23.g3; 22.c3 ..ie5 23Jlt7, winning quickly. 22.a3 .rl.f8

1 6.'ifc6 llac8 1 7.'it'd7

23 ..ie6!

1 7... .rl.fd8?

This move has to be condemned. As is .soon apparent, this rook should have stayed where it was to defend t7. The lesser evil was 1 7 ....1:.cd8 1 8 . �b7 ! , with advantage to White after 1 8 . . Jlb8 1 9. �e7, or 18 .....id2 1 9.�b l i.f4 20..1:.d8 �d8 (or 20. .Jld8 2l .g3 �c7 22. �b5 .ie5, and White is a pawn up) 21 . �b5. And although White should probably be able gradually to realise his advantage, Osnos should have reconciled him­ self to this continuation. But he failed to foresee that which occurred in the game ... 1 8.'it'e7 �d2 1 9.'itb1 ..if4 20.l:ld8 .rl.d8

There is little pleasure in playing on a pawn down after 20 ...'it'd8 2 l . �a7, since 2 l . ... ih2 fails due to the weakness of t7. 21 .e5!

It was this move that escaped Black's attention. The immediate 21 .g3 is parried by 2l ... �c7, but now his forces are disunited, and he loses due to the weakness of t7 and the back rank. 21 ... 'it'd2

Also possible was the more spectacular 23.g3 .ig5 (mate follows after 23 ... .ie5 24.l:l.t7 l:l.t7 25. �e8) 24. �e6! fe6 25 ..ie6 .l:.t7 26..1:.t7 �d8 (if 26... �el 27.�a2 �e5, then 28 ..1:.f6 !) 27 . .1:.d7 �f8 28.l:l.d8 ..id8. But firstly, I did not want to play an ending (even though it was won) with opposite-colour bishops, and secondly, I am not an advocate of brilliance for brilliance's sake, if there exists a more rational possibility. 23 ... g5 24.g3 fe6

White also has a pretty win after 24 ... �e2 25 ..l:.f4 gf4 26.'ii'g5 'it>h8 27. �h6 ! l:l.g8 (if27. .. �g8, then 28 ..if5) 28. �f6 l:l.g7 29. �±7. when Black can­ not halt the advance of the e-pawn, e.g. 29 ... �d l 30.�a2 �d7 (or 30... �d4 3 1 ..ib3 !) 3 l .e6 �d5 32.b3 �d6 33.e7 !, and wins. 25.'it'e6 �g7 26.gf4 'ifg2

Black merely prolongs the resistance by 26 ... .l:.f4 27JH4 �f4 28. �d7 'it>g6 29. �b5 'ii'h2 30. �c6 'it>h5 3 l . �e4. 27.l:ld1 gf4 28.'it'd7 .l:l.f7

Nothing is changed by 28 ... 'it>g8 29.e6 �g6 30.e7 l:l.e8 3 1 . �e8 �e8 32 . .1:.d8 'it>t7 33 . .1:.e8 'it>e8 34.r&t>cl, when White has a won pawn ending. 29.e6

Black resigned. 17

51 23. 1 D Beliavsky • Po lugaevsky Soviet Championship, Moscow 1973

Alexander Beliavsky is perhaps one of the most 'obstinate' players in the world. This trait of his character is especially clearly apparent in the opening. Beliavsky has always attached enor­ mous importance to the initial stage of the game, and this has often caused difficulties for his op­ ponents. Understandably, the Sicilian Defence has been the topic of sharp disputes between us in various tournaments.

1 .e4 cS 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.a4 e6 7.�e2 t2Jc6 8.�e3 �e7 9.0-0 �d7 A little bit of cunning - the idea is to carry out the typical knight-exchanging operation before castling.

1 O.t2Jb3 tLlaS 1 1 .f4 An unfortunate idea. White hopes to gain posses­ sion of the c-file, but something else is much more important: he presents Black with a pawn

1 8.'ifd2 i.b4 1 9.�d4 t2Je4 20.'ife3 Ilfe8 21 .lbe4 White is unable to endure the opposition of queen and rook, and is forced to make this exchange, after which Black gains a powerful outpost in the centre. Although the black pawn is blockaded, the white queen, tied to it, becomes its 'prisoner'.

21 ... de4 22.�g4 J:tcd8 This reply is very unpleasant for White: on the planned 23...ib6 comes the deadly 23 .....id2!! 24.'iff2 e3.

23.�h1 J:tdS!

majority in the centre, and for the white rooks

Once again Black rises to the occasion: against

there is no real scope on the c-file. Therefore

24.�b6

ll.tt:Ja5 'ifa5 12.1\Vd2 was more in the spirit of

24.....id2! 25.1\Vgl

the position.

Now White should have displayed prudence and

1 1 ... tLlb3 1 2.cb3 �c6 1 3.'i!Wc2 Another inaccuracy: it is totally unclear whether White will need this move in the future. The natural l3...if3 would have maintained the posi­ tional balance.

1 3 .. Jlc8 1 4.�f3 'ifaS! Emphasising the lack of mobility of White's pawn structure, and ensuring favourable condi­ tions for a break in the centre.

1 5..:tfd1 o-o 1 6.'iff2 d5 1 7.ed5 edS! At first sight it appears that Black has given himself an isolated pawn in the centre, and that White will establish control over d4. But in fact

he

had

planned

the

same

stroke

'ifb4.

gone onto the defensive with 24...ie2. But he continues playing 'actively', and this finally ruins his position.

24.f5? ..icS 25. ..ic5 �cs 26.'i!Vc5 .l:tcS The exchange of queens has not eased the situ­ ation for White, since his pawn structure still contains irreparable weaknesses.

27.Ilac1 l:tc1 28.l:tc1 l::l.e S! Putting the final touch to Black's overall strategy. It only remains for him to bring up his king.

29.�g1 �f8 30.�f2 e3 31 .�g3 �e7 32Jle1 �f6 33.�f4 hS!

such a pawn, which attacks the very important e4

The concluding stroke. The white bishop has to

square, requires constant surveillance by White.

reconcile itself to the pitiful role of an 'observer',

18

My Sicilian Love

since 34.�d1 �g2 35.I:te3 I:tf5 leads to loss of material.

34.�h3 l:te4 35.cJilf3 l:tb4

And White resigned, to save himself further tor­ ment.

In this apparently risky line, to which theory has given the name of the 'Polugaevsky Variation', how many times has Black succeeded in finding additional resources. Opening guides, including the fundamental Encyclopaedia of Chess Open­ ings, give only two lines here: A) 1 3 ... i.. b4 1 4 .i..e 2 I:tb8 15.t2Je4 0-0 1 6.t2Jf6! t2Jf6 17 .i..f6 i..b7 18. 'it'h3 ! with a winning attack for White (Kelecevic-Bucan, Portoroz Yugoslav Championship 197 1 ). B) 1 3...i..c5 14.i..e2 'it'c7 1 5.t2Je4 0-0 (15...'f/e5 is bad because of 16.I:thfl with the threat of 17 .i..f4) 16.'it'g3 �h8 17 .�f4 and White has an obvious advantage (Tomson-Kovacevic, Soviet Union versus Yugoslavia 1961). In GrandmasterAchievement (Cadogan, 1994) I show that 13 .. .i..b7 14.i..e2 again gives White the advan­ tage. The idea ofBlack's move in the present game is that in some cases he has counterplay with ...g5. I hit upon this idea a long time ago, but the subtleties and certain details were only polished up before the tournament and ... during my night-time prepara­ tions for this game with my trainer Oleg Averkin. 1 4.�h4 �b7 1 5.�e2 'f/c7 1 6.l:the1

51 7.5 D Gruenfeld

• Polugaevsky lnterzonol Tou rnament, Riga 1 9 79

1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 lLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5 deS 9.fe5 'f/c7 1 0.'fie2 lLlfd7 1 1 .0-0-0 t2Jc6 1 2.tLlc6 'fic6 1 3.'fid3 h6!

White indirectly defends his e-pawn. The alter­ native was to try an immediate attack on f7 by 16.I:thfl or 1 6.i.h5. 1 6 t2Jc5 .••

1 6 ... t2Je5 is bad: 1 7 .'it'g3 g5 1 8.i..b5 ab5 1 9.t2Jb5 followed by capturing on e5. 1 7.'f/h3

1 7... b4!?

19

Perhaps it would have been more prudent to choose the less risky 1 7 .. Jlc8, but I felt an incli­ nation to go in for complications. Especially since at the board I had found a totally unex­ pected move, which would set White incredibly difficult problems. No, of course, my opponent's position cannot be considered bad or even infe­ rior: after all, White has not done anything ' un­ lawful' . It was simply that the resulting situation gave great scope to fantasy, demanded deep, exact and lengthy calculation, and I was hoping for success. 1 8.lt.Jb5!

White accepts the challenge, which, moreover, he is unable to decline. After 1 8.ttJbl the initia­ tive is with Black, while the ' attacking' 1 8.ttJa4 simply loses to 1 8 ... ttJa4 1 9.1i'e6 fe6 20..ih5 '*i'fl 2l ..if7 Wf7 22.l::td7 Wg6 23.l::tb7 i.c5, when for the piece White has no compensation. But now it appears that things are bad for Black, and that he must reconcile himself to an obvi­ ously inferior position after 1 8 ...1i'a5 19.ttJd6 £i.d6 20.ed6, since 1 8 ... ab5 19.�b5 �c6 20.'it'f3 ! leads to mate after 20 ...£i.b5 2 l .'it'a8, or 20. ..J:!.c8 2l .�c6 'it'c6 22.'it'c6 l::tc6 23J:ld8 mate. But after checking the variations once again, Black never­ theless followed the second 'ruinous' path. 1 8 ... ab5! lt.Jb3 ! !

1 9.�b5

i.c6

This loses and .. .leaves behind the scenes a mass of interesting variations, which I had been con­ sidering for roughly an hour. It stands to reason that neither 2l .'it'b3? i.b5, nor 2 l .cb3 .ib5 is playable. Therefore, by the method of elimina­ tion, White was bound to choose 2 l .ab3 ! , when my calculation continued 2L.l::tal 22.Wd2 'ir'd7 23.'lt>e3 ! (not 23.We2 i.b5) 23 ....ic5 24.'lt>f4 g5 25. Wg3 ! l:tdl! (if 25 . .. gh4? then 26. Wh3 ! tl.dl 27.i.c6 ! l::te l 28 .i.d7, and White has the advan­ tage wherever the king moves: 28 ... Wd7 29.'it'b7 and 30.'it'b8, or 28...We7 29.'it'f6, or 28 ... Wf8 29.'it'f6 J:!.h7 30.�e6), and since after 26.l::tdl? ! gh4 27.Wh3 i.f3 28.l::td7 i.e2! 29.J:!.b7 �b5 30.l::tb8 We7 3 1 .l::th8 i.d4 things are bad for White, he has to choose between capturing on c6 with queen or bishop:

20.'it'f3

This fine intermediate move into a triple attack was planned by Black when he made his 1 7th move. lt came as a complete surprise to Gri.infeld, who, in spite of prolonged thought, promptly committed the decisive mistake. 20

21 .wb1 ?

A) 26.'it'c6 l::td3 ! 27.cd3 gh4 28 .'lt>h4 'it'c6 29..ic6 We7 and White is two pawns up, but his pawn formation is irreparably spoiled, and the opposite-coloured bishops guarantee Black a draw. B) 26 . .ic6 J:[el 27.�d7 'lt>f8 (with the threat of28 ...l::te3) 28.'it'f6 l::te3 29.Wg4 (29.'lt>f2? loses to 29. ..l::te5 30.Wg3 l::te3 3l .Wf2 J:!.e4 32.'lt>g3 i.d6 33 .'lt>h3 l:th4 mate) 29 .. J:te4 30.Wh3 l::th4 3 1 . Wg3 l::lh7, and both players must be satisfied with a draw. It is dangerous for White to con­ tinue, e.g. 32.i.e6, in view of 32 .. JH4 33.'it'd8 Wg7 34.i.g4 (the only way of parrying simulta­ neously the two threats 34 . ..fe6 and 34 ...i.f2 35.Wh3 l::th4 mate) 34 ...l::th 8 ! 35 .'it'd7 (or to square d5, d3, d2, dl , c7, a5) 35 ...�f2 36.Wh3 h5, and Black wins. For Black in turn, after

My Sicilian Love

32.1i'd8 �g7 33.'ti'f6 �g8 34.'iWd8 the attempt by 34 ... �8 to avoid perpetual check is risky. Thus the complications provoked by Black, with 'correct play', could have led only to a draw. But what a mockery was made of this term many years ago by Mikhail Chigorin ! The resulting position was full oflife - and for this reason alone it had every right to exist. I need hardly remind the reader how difficult it was at the board to calculate all these - and many other - variations, and correctly weigh up the chances of the two sides. 21 ... tt::la5

Now Black keeps his extra piece, although the battle is not yet over. 22J1d4!

The best chance, threatening both .l:!.c4, and the doubling of rooks on the d-file. 22 ... .l:!.c8! 23.1:i.ed1 ! gS!

Both sides are accurate in exploiting their chances, simply Black has more of them. . . 24.i.c6

After 24. .l:!.d7 'iWd7 25 . .l:!.d7 Black wins both by 25 . .�d7 26.'iWf7 i.e7 27.fi.c6 t2Jc6, with the threats of 28 ... gh4 and 28 ... .l:!.f8, and by 25 ... .if3 26. .l:!.c7 i.c6 27 ..l:!.c8 �d7 28 ..l:!.a8 i.b5 .

trap in Black's time trouble. If now 29. . .t2Ja3 30.�b2 t2Jc2 (30 ... 'iWc2 3 l .�a3), then 3 1 .llc4. However, it is unlikely that White could have kept his e-pawn. A

29 ... tt::le5 30.'i¥e2 'i¥c3 31 .1:i.e4 tt::lc6

In time trouble I overlooked the elegant 3 1 .. JUd8 ! , which after 32 . .l:i.d8 .l:i.d8 33 . .l:i.e5 .l:i.d2 34 . .l:i.c5 ! 'iWd4 ! wins immediately by the threat of 35 ... J::i.d l and if 35.c3 'i!fgl . 32.1:i.d3 'iYaS 33.1:i.h3 tLlb4 34.c4 J::[fdB 35.a4

Forced, in view of the threat of 35 ....l:!.dl . 35... 'it'fS 36.1:i.f3 'i¥g6 37.�b2 'ifg7 38.�b1 l:i.c6?!

With his flag about to fall, Black carries out inexactly a correct plan. Immediately decisive was 38 ... .l:i.c7 and 39 ... llcd7, when the rooks invade. 39.c5!

Now d6 is inaccessible to the rook, and the knight is attacked... 39... ti:ld5 40Jlc4 tt::lf4 41.'i¥b2 l:i.d1

.

24 ... 'iYc6 25.'i¥d3 �e7 26.�e1 0-0 27 .�b4 �b4 28.1:i.b4 tt::lc4

4 L 'i!i'b2 42. �b2 t2Jd3 and 43. .. t2Je5 would have won easily, but I was vexed, and wanted without fail to conclude the game with an attack on the king. 42.�a2 'iYfB 43.1:i.fc3 'iYdB 44.1:i.c2 tt:ld3 45.'i¥c3 'iYdS 46.�a3 tt::leS

The black pieces have achieved maximum activ­ ity, and there is no longer any defence against the numerous threats. 47.1:i.b4 l:i.d3 48.1:i.b8 �g7 49.'i¥b4 l:i.d1 50.�a2 1:i.a6!

Threatening 5 l ... .l:!.d4 and 52 .. J:tda4. 51 .1:i.b6

Here we can stock, and it is depressing for White. In the rniddlegame his passed pawns will not go far. 29.b3

5 1 .c6, opening the way for the white queen to f8, would not have achieved anything, since the black king would have hidden from the checks at h5 or h4, while White's would have remained undefended. The game could have been pro­ longed slightly by 5 l .a5, but even then Black wins by 5L.t2Jc6 52.'ti'c3 e5 53 . .l:!.b5 t2Jd4 54 ..l:i.b6 l:tb6 55.cb6 t2Jc2. 21

White did not need to be in a hurry to occupy this square, but could have intensified the pressure with 1 7 .l::.afl, retaining all the advantages of his position. 1 7 ... ..id5 1 8.ed5 tLld7

51 ..J1d4! 52.'t\t'd4 'tlt'd4 53.l::.a6 'tlt'd3

White resigned.

51 24. 8 D Morovic • Polugaevsky Luzern Olympiad 1 982

1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 tbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 e6 5.tbc3 a6 6 ...ie2 d6 7.0-0 tbf6 8...ie3 .i.e7 9.f4 0-0 1 0.a4 l::.e8 1 1 .�h1 't\t'c7 1 2..i.d3

When this game was played, this move was new to me. At the board I played routinely and ended up in an inferior position. Later the correct 'prescription' was found for Black: 1 2. .. ..id7 1Hi'f3 tLlb4 ! and 14 .....ic6! 1 2... t2Jd4 1 3...id4 eS 1 4...ie3 ..ig4!

The only move to avoid ending up in a critical situation. Black deprives White of the d l -h5 diagonal, along which disaster could have struck: 14 . . .ef4? 15J:I.f4! ..ie6 1 6.tLld5 ..id5 1 7.ed5 g6 1 8 .'tlt'f3 tLld7 19.i.d4 f6 20.l::.h4! 1 5.'tlt'd2

This eases Black's problems. 1 5.'it'e l ! ef4 16.i..f4 i..e6 1 7 .e5 would have caused him the greatest difficulty. 1 5... ef4 1 6.l::.f4 ..ie6 1 7.tbd5

22

Now the worst for Black is over - the availabil­ ity of the e-file and the e5 square assure him of counterplay. 1 9...id4 tbe5

Avoiding the trap 19 . .. i.g5? 20JH7! i.d2 2 1 .l::.g7. 20JU5? !

B y continuing to play actively, White loses time and helps Black to coordinate his pieces. The correct 20JU2 would have maintained the bal­ ance. 20 ... g6 21 . ld.f2 .i.fB 22. ld.af1 23. ..ie2 ..ig7

f5

Black's pieces are harmoniously placed, and he is ready to double rooks on the e-file. White should have curbed his ambitions and played 24.h3, but he is thinking only about attack, and his recklessness rebounds in sorry fashion. 24.g4?! tbg4 25..ig4 ..id4 26.'t\t'd4 l:Z.e4!

An unpleasant pill for White to swallow ! His position is wrecked, and all he can hope for are tactical chances. 27.'tlt'f6 l::.g4

Black does not risk the alternative 27 .. JU8

My Sicilian Love

28.1i'g5 .l:tg4 29.'it'g4 fg4 30..l:tf8 r:bg7, although White can hardly hope to save the game in view of the powerful phalanx of black pawns. 28.h3 l:r.a4

Black has precisely worked out this and the following events. The subsequent play is unusu­ al ly absorbing.

35..l::!.d6 �e7 36 ..t:l.e6

Alas, the trap has already shut: 36.l:Ib6 J:f.b5 37 . .l:lb5 ab5 38.b3 �d6 39.c4 g5! 40.r:bg2 h5 4l.�f3 �e5 42.�e3 b4! ! and then the decisive 43 ... b5 ! An unusually pretty finish ! 36 �d7 37.l:r.e5 �d6 38.l:r.e6 �d5 39 .l:te7 b5! .••

•

29 .:tf5 l:r.e4! •

The secret of Black's plan lies in this subtle move. Otherwise after 29 ... .l:te8 30.J:f.g5 .l:tae4 3 1 .J:f.fg l the outcome would have been unclear.

Leaving White no hopes of saving the game. What tells is the decisive superiority of the black king over its opposite number. 40.l:th7 �c4 41 .l:th6 �b3 42.l:tg6 �b2 43.l:r.a6 l:r.c3! •

30....f7

On 30. .l:f.g5 B lack had prepared 30 .. J1e3 ! , when the sacrifice on g6 does not work. As a result he succeeds in bringing his forces together. White pins his hopes on the rook ending, which appears to promise him good drawing chances ...

The final finesse: the white king is cut off along the third rank. After 44.�g2 b4 45.h4 b3 46.h5 r:bcl 47.h6 b2 48.h7 b 1 'it' 49 .h8'i¥ 'it'c2 it is all over, and so White resigned, without waiting for this finish.

30 'iff7 31 .Uf7 l:r.c8! 32.c3 •..

•

Otherwise after 32 ..l:tb7 l:l.c2 the black rooks are much more 'terrible' than the white duo. 32

..•

l:r.e1 33.l:r.e1 �f7 34.l:r.e6

Both sides happily went in for this position. But the following strong manoeuvre by Black dem­ onstrates that his calculations have been far­ sighted and accurate. 34 .l::!.c5! ! •..

51 20.1 0 O S ax • Polugaevsky Honinge 1 989

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ti:ld4 l2Jf6 5.tt:lc3 e6 6.g4 tt:lc6 7.g5 ti:ld7 8..ie3 .ie7 9.h4 0-0 1 0.'ifh5!?

Only now i s the full depth of Black's plan re­ vealed: he achieves the exchange of his weak d-pawn and penetrates decisively into the enemy rear. 23

In the Keres Attack the storm begins from the very first moves. Here White has other ways of preparing queenside castling - 10.'it'd2 or 10.'it'e2. The moveplayed is the most aggressive. White's entire appearance declares: I am playing only for mate! But the queen move also has a significant drawback: it blocks the path of the h-pawn. The Hungarian grandmaster, however, is pinning his hopes on his f-pawn. 1 0..J:J.e8

A familiar motif. Before setting his sights on the queenside, Black takes prophylactic measures in anticipation of the coming storm. And yet the rook manoeuvre should have been put off until later, and 10 ... a6 1 1 .0-0-0 ltld4 12.i..d4 b5 in­ tending 1 3 ...b4, should have been played first. 1 1 .0-0-o a6 1 2.f4 tt:Jd4 1 3.�d4 bS 1 4.f5 �f8!

ing 19 ... ed5, he securely defends the b6 square, and he is ready to use the transit square b5 for his rook, where with gain of tempo, by attacking the queen, it will come into play in the quickest way. 1 9..l:!.hf1

White throws down the gauntlet, hoping to in­ vade on the f-file, but Black accepts the chal­ lenge, having accurately worked out the concrete complications. However, retreating the knight was unpromising for White: 19.ltle3 e5, or 19.ltlf4 e5 ! 20.ltle6 ltlf6! 21 .ltld8 ltlh5 22.lt:lc6 i..h 3, winning a piece. 1 9 ed5 20.'it'd5 ..t>h8 21 J:J.f7! ..•

The tempting 21 .'it'h5 would have been refuted by 21 ...ltlf6! ! (the only move; not 2 1 . ..ltle5 in view of 22..l:!.f8 ! .l:lf8 23.i.e5). In the event of 22. .l:lf6 gf6 Black continues 23 ...i.g7, firmly 'ce­ menting' his position.

The only move. Black reinforces his e6 pawn and his kingside. 14 ...b4? would have been wrong on account of 1 5.fe6 fe6 16.i..c 4! bc3 1 7.i..e6 ..t>h8 1 8 .i.g7! ..t>g7 19.'it'h6 \t>h8 20.g6 with decisive threats. 1 5.�h3 b4

Now the white bishop can no longer go to c4. 1 6.fe6 fe6 1 7.g6?

This direct play does not succeed, since Black's kingside is securely defended, and he acquires the additional square f6. The strongest move was the unhurried 17.ltle2!, aiming for f4, when White would have retained active possibilities. But Sax can be excused, since the continuation chosen looks very threatening: 1 7 ... h6 1 8.tt:Jd5!?

White's pieces are indeed menacingly placed, and it only remains for him to add 19J:I.hfl. But Black's reply came as a complete surprise to the Hungarian grandmaster. After the game he ad­ mitted that he had totally overlooked my modest rejoinder. 1 8... .l:!.b8!

Cool prophylaxis at such a critical moment! At one stroke Black solves three problems: he moves his rook to a safe place, thereby threaten24

21 ... lLle5!

Again Black finds the only move, but a sufficient one; such is the strict logic of chess ! In this very sharp struggle Black has nowhere disturbed the sensible course of events. White was very much hoping for 21 ....l:lb5?, which would have been met by the stunning 22. .l:lg7 ! ! i..g7 (or 22 ... .l:ld5 23 ..l:lh7 ..t>g8 24.J:Ih8 mate) 23 .�g7 \t>g7 24.'it'f7 \t>h8 25 .'ifh7 mate! 22.�e5 :es 23.'Wes ..ih3 24.'Wd5 'WeB!

Again Black is equal to the occasion. Exploiting the fact that f1 is covered by his bishop, he succeeds in blocking the a2-g8 diagonal.

My Sicilian Love

46 .l:tb7 l:l.a6! 47..l:!.f7 l:l.a3 48.Wc4 Wg6 49.ti.f8 l:l.g3!

25 .l:!.d2 'ife6

•

•

Only not 25 ...�e6? 26JU8.

The final finesse, before advancing his pawns.

26 ..l:!.df2 'ii'd5 27.ed5 Wg8

At last Black can stop to draw breath. He has the advantage, with two bishops for rook and pawn, but is still faced with considerable technical dif­ ficulties. 28.l:ta7 �g4

50..l:!.f2 .l:!.g4 51 .Wd3

After 5 1 .l:l2f6 gf6 52. .l:!.g8 f5 53 . .l:!.g4 Wg4 54.d4f5 ! 55.d5 h5 the pawn ending is won for Black. 51 h5 52.We2 h4 53.Wf3 wgs 54 .l:!.g2 .l:!.g2 55.Wg2 Wg4! .••

Intending to follow up with 29 ...�h5. White should have immediately taken the pawn by 29 .l:la6. His next move is a poor one, which makes things significantly easier for Black. 29.Wd2? �h5 30 .l::i.g2 .l::i.b5 31 .l:!.a6 .l:!.d5 32. We3 .l:!.e5 33. Wd4 .l:!.f5 34..l:!.b6 •

•

34.a4 would have offered more chances. 34... d5 35Jlb8 .l:!.f6 36.a4 ba3 37.ba3 �g6 38.a4 .l:!.a6?!

The only time in the game that Black should be criticized; he allows White to gain counter­ chances. The simple 38 ...�t7! 39.a5 J:!.f4 40. c3 l:!.a4 4 1 ..l:!.b5 d4 would have concluded the struggle.

•

White is in zugzwang: on 56 . .l:!.f7 Black has the decisive 56. . .f5 !, while 56.Wh2 loses to 56 ... �e5 57.g2 g5. The remainder is clear. 56. .l:!.e8 g5 57.l:t.g8 h3 58.Wg1 Wf5 59J:tf8 g4 60.Wf2 Wg5 61 . .l:!.g8 Wf4 62 ..l:!.f8 g3 63.Wg1 Wg5 64 .l:!.e8 Wg4 65J:tg8 �g5 •

White resigns. Many researchers immediately began analyzing the position after Black's 16th move, the most active being Sax himself. He suggested an inno­ vation of fearful strength: 1 7.li:Jd5 ! ! (inciden­ tally, this move has already been tried in practice)

39.a5 �f7 40..l:!.b5 �e7 41 .l:te2 �h4 42.Wc5 �f6 43.l:tb8 Wh7 44.Wb5 .l:!.a7 45.a6 d4!

Black again begins playing accurately. He gets rid of White's annoying passed pawn, and takes play across to the other wing, where he has an obvious advantage.

Indeed, after 17 ... ed5? 1 8.g6! or 1 7 ... g6 1 8 .'iff3 ! ed5 19.e5! de5 (19 ...�b7 20.e6 tt:le5 21 .�e5 de5 22:iff7 h8 23.'ifb7 d4 24.'ife4) 20.'ifd5 Wh8 2l..�e3 ! Black stands badly, while 17 ... .l:!.b8 is met by another strong blow: 1 8 .tt:lc7 ! g6 19.tt:Je6 ! . I t seemed that the fate of Black's experiment was sealed, and yet I would ask for just a little delay in drawing conclusions. 25

In the variation 1 7 ...g6 1 8."it'f3 ed5 1 9.e5 Black has another possibility, which may save him: 19 ...ttJc5 ! . Now on 20."ifd5 there follows 20...i.e6 2 l .i.e6 ttJe6 22.ed6 "ifd6, while by 20..ic8 �c8 2 l ."ifd5 ttJe6 White also does not achieve anything. 20Jihfl seems to be tbe most dangerous, but after 20...de5 2 l ."ift7 (2 1 ..ic5 i .c5 2U:td5 "ife7 23 .�c5 i.h3) 2l ...'lt>h8 22. .ie5 .!:r.e5 23. "iff8 "iff8 24JU8 rJ;;g7 25 . .!:r.c8 (25 . .!:r.dfl ? �el !) 25 .. Jk8 26.i.c8 h6 ! the ending does not cause Black any anxiety. So let us wait for new analyses ! One surprise after another! I, of course, was considering 1 2 ..ie3 .id7 1 3 ."ifd2 "ifc7 1 4.a5. However, White's move looks quite menacing and worthy of serious consideration. I can assume that it was prepared beforehand at home. Bravo, Gata! 1 2 tt::ld7 •..

51 1 9.3 D Kamsky • Polugaevsky Reggio Emilia 1 99 1

I find it difficult to explain why the Gata + papa family 'council' decided against me in particular to go in for the Sicilian Defence. Up till then Kamsky's repertoire had mainly featured the 'cautious' l .d4, and the decision of young Gata to begin a 'reckless' life was a welcome one. In the opening a slight surprise awaited me: 1 .e41 cS 2.tt::lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld4 tt::lf6 5.tt::lc3 a6 6.g3

Of course! Not the Polugaevsky Variation! How­ ever, sharp set-ups in the Sicilian Defence are inevitable, if both players want this. 6 e6 7.�g2 il..e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.a4 t2Jc6 1 O.t2Jb3

All the same the knight will have to retreat, so it is best to do this immediately. 1 3.il.. d2 W/c7 1 4.'1th1

Many players like this prophylactic move in the Sicilian Defence. But would not 14.f4 have been better? After all, 14 ..."ifb6 was hardly possible, on account of 1 5 .'lt>h l "ifb2 1 6.a5. 1 4 l:tb8 ••.

The slight loss of time by White suggested to me the idea of rejecting 14 ...b6 in favour of the more aggressive plan with ...b7-b5. Black does not fear 1 5.a5, in view of 1 5 ... ttJe5 (15 ... b5 1 6.ab6 ttJb6 is also good) 1 6.b3 ttJc6. 1 5.f4 bS 1 6.ab5 abS 1 7.g5 l:te81

This typical set-up, J:te8 + .if8, is essential in the event of a pawn offensive by White on the king­ side.

•..

To be honest, I expected the variation with 1 0..ie3. 10

•.•

tt::la5

The natural reaction - so as not to allow the cramping 1 1 a5. 1 1 .tt::la5 'it'a5 1 2.g41?

26

1 8.tt::le2 i.b7 1 9.tt::lg3 ..tf8 20.-tas W/c8 21 .il..c3

The obvious move is not always the correct one. The bishop at c3 appears to stand well, but it will constantly be threatened by ...b5-b4. Only the blockading 2 l .i.b4 ttJc5 22."ifd2 or even the immediate 22.f5 was correct. 21 ...tt::lc5 22.il..d4

My Sicilian Love

Now on 22.f5 White would have had to reckon with 22 ...l2J a4 23 ...id4 e5, but 22.�b4 was still the correct reaction. 22...e5 23.1i.e3?!

This places White's position on the verge of disaster. The only way to hold on was by 23.i.c5 1fc5 24.f5, when Black would probably have continued 24 .. J:ta8, with a slight advantage. 23...ef4 24JU4

Otherwise the e-pawn would have been lost, and with it the solidity of the white king's defences. 24.. .l::t e5!

Not allowing White a moment's respite. Now he loses after 35.l:!.f2 h4, or 35.J:lffl i.h3, while if 35.J::!.a6 Black had planned 35 ...i.f4 ! 36J:te6 fe6 37.'irf3 J::Lc l 38.'it>f2 �h2, when there is no de­ fence against the numerous threats. White de­ cides to return the exchange, but he remains two pawns down with a broken position. 35.'iff3 ..ie4 36.'ifg4 ..if4 37.'iff4 h6 38.gh6 'i!Vg6 39.'ifg3 'ifh6 40. .te3 �f6 41 . 'iff2 �f2

The simplest. Here White could have resigned with an easy conscience, but he prolonged his pointless resistance for nearly another 40 moves !

A 'painful ' manoeuvre for White - he cannot play either 25.l:U5 l2Je4, or 25 .h4 l2Je4 26.tl:Je4 i.e4 27.J::!.e4 J::!.e4 28.i.e4 'irh3. He should have chosen the lesser of two evils: 25 .J::!.h4 'ire6 26.'tWh5 'ir g6!, although Black remains with a clear advantage. After the move played, events take on a forcing aspect. 25Jlg4 'ii'e6 26.1i.d4 l2Je4! 27.l2Je4 J::!.e4 28.i.e4 ..ie4 29.'�g1 1i.c2

All this was accurately calculated by Black. He has consolidated his grip on the central squares, and his two rampant bishops are ready literally to tear White's position apart. 30.'iff3 d5 31 .llh4 ..ie4 32.'i!Vg4 �f5 33.'i!Vg2 J::l.c8

42.1i.f2 J:tc2 43.b4 J:tb2 44. .l:!.a8 b3 'it'b7 37.\it>c2 ! l:tc8 38.�d l 'it'b3 39.J:!c2 'it'b l 40.�d2. 35 ... 'it'c3 36.'ifb1 .l:rb8 37Jlb2 as

38.. .'ti'c6 39.c;t>a1

White steps out of the diagonal pin and at the same time sets a trap: on 39 ... 'it'c5 he had pre­ pared the unexpected 40.b4 ! ab4 4 1 . 'it'a4. 39....t:!.e8 40 . .t:!.c2! 'it'd6!

Brilliant play by both sides: on 40 ...'it'b5 White was intending 41 .J:!d2 ! i.b3 42.J:!d8 �b7 43. 'it'f3 ! But now two white pawns are simulta­ neously attacked. 41 .J:!d2 �a3 42 . .t:!.a2 'ii¥c5 43.'ifd2

The forced events have led to a drawn position. Now the simplest was 43 ...J:!e7 44.l:ta5 'it'aS (or 44. .. J:!a7) 45.'it'a5 J:!a7, but the game continu­ ation also quickly leads to a draw. 43... c;t>b7 44.J:!a5 �c6 46.g3 .l:l.e7

38.'it'd1 !

Gaining an important tempo by the attack on the bishop. If 38 ...i.f7 White can calmly play 39.a4, since he has 40.'it'f3 in reserve.

32

�g1

45.�b2

Here the players concluded peace negotiations, in view of 47.'it'b4 lit>c8 48. 'it'e7 'it'd4 49.�a3 'it'al 50. \it>b4 'it'd4. A fantastic battle! It is rare that one manages to play such an interesting game, and I think that both players can be proud of it.

7 am

almost a decathlete of the Sicilian '

An Interview with Lev Polugaevsky

Christophe Gueneau Speak to us a little about your childhood. I was born on the 20th of November 1934 in Mogilev, a middle-sized town in Belarus. I am the youngest in a family of four children. I had two brothers and a sister. My father was a craftsman who manufactured wooden dolls, my mother a librarian. When I think about it, the fact that I am still alive is a small miracle. Often, as a joke, I sometimes say that I was born against nature as my mother was far from enthusiastic about hav­ ing another child. Before my birth she often carried heavy objects almost to demonstrate to my father what she thought about her pregnancy ! In 1 941, the German troops attacked the USSR and Belarus was invaded. Mogilev fell prey to some violent bombardments. This led to the women and children being evacuated. Due to one of my uncles, who worked in an armaments factory, I was able to catch the last train leaving for Kuybishev. This large city situated on the banks of the Volga served as a convenient retreat for the civilian population and as a military base. Again I was very lucky as during thejourney the train was bombed by the German air force; of the fifteen or so wagons that comprised the train many were completely destroyed, the last two where I was travelling with one of my brothers were left unscathed. It was in Kuybishev that I passed the rest of my

childhood and continued my studies. It was equally there that I learned to play chess. Indeed, tell us how you came to know chess. I must have been about ten years old, and it was in the "Pioneer Palace" in Kuybishev. There it was possible to participate in many different activities. When I went the first time I didn't know what to choose, as at school I was inter­ ested in many subjects: mathematics and geog­ raphy for example. Nevertheless, I had to make a decision, so I said to myself "O.K. then, I'll open the door on the left and take a look!". You can imagine what particular activity was going on in that room. Did your parents encourage you to play chess ? Apart from me, no one in the family was inter­ ested in chess. My father had never played but soon began to read chess columns in the press. He always supported me because, early on, he understood that I had talent for the game. With hindsight, I ask myself how he could have under­ stood this as he didn't play himself, but it was so: he closely followed my results and progress throughout various competitions. When I started to win tournaments, people in Kuybishev started talking about me and that made him very proud. 33

mathematics never declined and I stayed with it. When it was time to enter univer­ sity, my choice was simple because if one loves maths there are only two possibili­ ties: either one goes in the direction of the mathematics faculty and studies only that subject, or one enters an engineering col­ lege where mathe­ matics is also taught at an advanced level. It's true to say that my choice was dic­ tated to a great extent by one particular fac­ tor. At that time, the engineering profes­ sion was considered a prestigious career, and in Kuybishev, the engineering college had an excellent reputation. It was there that I enrolled. The process of selec­ tion was very tough but the courses were of a remarkable qual­ ity. The lecturers gave us an excellent foundation in differ­ ent types of engineer­ Lev Polugaevsky during Hoogovens 1 9 79, a tournament he won ing, but equally so in other disciplines. But in tris eyes the most important was that I There was only one area which was deficient: continued my studies. foreign languages. Fortunately, things have changed, but at that time the study of foreign languages It was him who pushed you to become an engi­ was not taken so seriously. There were of course neer? some language schools in the country but they Yes, without any doubt, but I was totally in were few and far between. agreement with him. I was attracted to mathe­ matics at a very young age. I believe that I had When was it that you started to study chess the right character and a real aptitude for this seriously and who were your different trainers ? subject. Throughout my education my interest in In 1 948 I played a tournament in the Pioneer 34

Interview

Palace and it was there that Alexey Ivashin no­ ticed me. I was a first category player and he was only a candidate master but he had great experi­ ence as he had played many tournaments, not only in Russia but all over the USSR. At that time he was the Kuybishev champion and I remember that all the members of his family played chess, his brother but also his sister and mother! His house was almost a club and served as a meet­ ing-place for the city's players and others who were passing through. Ivashin was the first to give me any real lessons, not on a regular basis, only when he had time. Due to him I too became a candidate master at the age of 1 5 . Then it was Kulikov's turn, another candidate master, who was city champion before Ivashin. After him came the International master Lev Aronin, of whom I have the fondest memories and most owe for my success. Aronin was a truly strong player who had participated in the Soviet championship several times, and even finished equal second on one occasion. His main regret was never to have achieved the grandmaster title. This fact he sup­ ported badly, sometimes saying "Lev, if I don't merit the title, who else does, then?". He lived in Moscow, but he visited Kuybishev from time to time to see his brother, and it was then that I had the chance to work with him. Our collaboration lasted nearly ten years during the 1 950's. Then he left me to become Boris Spassky's trainer. From 1 950 to 1 953, as well as the sessions with Aronin, I participated in the group courses of Rashid Nezhmetdinov who was training the Rus­ sian junior team. He was someone very likeable but rather strange. I remember that no one had ever seen him eat( !); one really didn't know how he managed to nourish himself. All day he drank very strong tea that he had spent hours himself preparing. Rashid had his own philosophy about chess. For him the result wasn't of any impor­ tance, and the only worthwhile thing to him was the way that one had played. He loved the "beau­ tiful game" and was a master of sacrifices. He was a fantastic player, a particularly formidable opponent in complex positions and it wasn't by accident that he achieved some brilliant victories against Tal. His lessons were orientated towards tactics. He was very friendly, but unfortunately had poor health and he died whilst still fairly young.

Following that, when I came to Moscow I didn't have a trainer until the early seventies. It's then that I met someone who was equally to have a strong influence: Isaak Boleslavsky. Just as Aronin, he had had a brilliant career but his had been held back during the Petrosian era. It was well known that the two didn't get on. With him I began to realize that I could become one of the best play­ ers in the world. Was it then that you decided to become a profes­ sional player? Yes, in 1 973, but much later than most people think. During the 50's and 60's I had pursued two activities: my studies and then work as an engi­ neer and chess competitions. I must admit that being an engineer is an enthralling profession and I gave it much of my time. Looking back, I don't regret anything but not having given one hundred per cent of my time to chess, during that period, must have certainly slowed my progress. When one is young one learns better and above all quickly. However I must confess that even so I had the benefit of a favourable working arrange­ ment. When I was to play a tournament I needed to have two or three weeks in order to prepare and in such cases I obtained permission for time off from my director. On my return I plunged back totally into my role as an engineer. Frankly, these two careers weren't always simple to pur­ sue and I know of only two people in the USSR who were in this situation: Botvinnik and I. Nevertheless, putting things into perspective, there were many less tournaments then and I played rarely more than two or three a year, although they tended to be longer than those of today. So during twenty years I thus split my time, but progressively my passion took over from my profession. I had obtained excellent results in chess and it was beginning to become clear to me that it was time to make a choice. In 1 973, qualification for the Candidates' , follow­ ing my second place in the Petropolis Interzonal, was the decisive moment. It was then that I officially became a professional chess player. He was never your trainer but one feels that Botvinnik is someone who influenced you greatly. This is what you seem to express in your last book Grandmaster Achievement. 35

Yes, it's true. I've always had a strong admiration for Mikhail Botvinnik. He's someone who has meant a great deal to me, as he has given me much in both the chess and the human domains. We have become rather close as we have three points in common: we were of course highly ranked chess players and lived in Moscow (I moved there in 1 962); but what really brought us together was that we were both engineers, he in electricity, myself in thermodynamics. From the age of 1 5- 1 6 years old Botvinnik be­ came my idol. I liked his style of play and I believe that in a certain manner it has much influenced mine. In Grandmaster Achievement I recount faithfully my state of mind from that period: "Since my youth, Mikhail Botvinnik has been my idol and practically the first game that I studied seriously was his brilliant victory over Lilienthal from the 1 944 USSR championship. I was so delighted by that game that, for the first time in my life, instead of going to school I went to the park, and there on the bench I played through the game for perhaps the seventieth time on my chess board. From that time on I lived under the influence of Botvinnik's style. I had a book of his selected games that I kept under my pillow and I have always followed his advice, even after also becoming a grandmaster...". I met Botvinnik for the first time in Moscow in 1950 at the Russian championships that took place in Saratov. I didn't speak to him but in his chess column in the magazine 'Ogonyok' he published my best game with his comments. A decade or so later, when I came to live in Moscow we got to know each other. He was very attentive of both my chess and engineering careers, he gave me much sound advice, and due to him, I met many important people. One day he intro­ duced me to Dmitri Gemerin. One time he was the energy minister but, having had some prob­ lems with Khrushchev, became director of the Energy Institute in Moscow. It was there that I worked. Gemerin loved chess and never missed a chance to go and encourage his friend Botvin­ nik, our mutual friend. I always maintained a good relationship with Gemerin and it was due to him that I was able to sometimes have time off to go and play in tournaments. I owe Botvinnik my 'career' as an author, be­ cause let's not forget that it was him, on that 36

famous 1 7th of December 1969 in Belgrade, who pushed me into writing my first chess book by asking: ''Are you at present writing a chess book?". I replied in the negative and then he 'assassi­ nated' me with the remark: "Why don't you accept that you are lazy? You should be ashamed of yourself. It is the responsibility of all grand­ masters to write books". Do you remember your first USSR champion­ ship ? Yes, it was in 1 956 in Leningrad and I shared fifth place with 10.51 1 7. I remember that I was par­ ticular!y proud of having participated because at that time I still lived in Kuybishev, a very modest city in chess terms. It was the first time that a player from the city had succeeded in qualifying for the final of the USSR championships. My participation was a great surprise, not only for me but for my family and the chess world. In that period there were far fewer players than now and the elite were concentrated in the larger cities such as Moscow and Leningrad. In my personal case, the fact that I was so distanced from the 'chess capitals' manifested itself in a lack of informa­ tion. I didn't have many books at my disposition, and above all I didn't have access to many pub­ lished games, not only those from the USSR but also from elsewhere. Therefore, from the quality point of view, I couldn't compete equally with the nation's most prestigious players and perhaps didn't gain the full benefit of the experience. For all that, the championship was not all negative for me. True, I didn't have as much information on my opponents as I would have liked, but from their point of view they didn't have much on me. In a sense, I was a new member of a family and it probably took them some time to adapt. There was, without doubt, the benefit of surprise that worked in my favour, and don't forget that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain! I gained in confidence as the competition progressed. Do you like studies and problems ? All through my career I have been close to those for whom the creation or solution of problems is almost a profession. I must say that I have enor­ mous respect for them, even if in my heart I've always thought that composition is a totally dif­ ferent world from competition with a clock.

Interview

Frankly, problems have never really been a passion for me, without doubt because of their irrational nature; on the other hand studies are rather differ­ ent. When I was young, above all when I had free time, it has been known for me to immerse my­ self for hours into a collection of studies. After­ wards, I even composed some, but never wanted to show them to others. The spectacular nature of the solutions enthused me, but the most im­ portant feature was to find a solution to a set problem; in fact I believe this to be part of my nature: finding solutions to any particular prob­ lem that interests me, in chess of course, but also in other domains such as politics, economics and so on. When one chats with you there is one subject that comes up often and seems close to your heart: computers. Yes it's true that it's a subject that often occupies my thoughts, not only at a personal level but equally because it concerns the future of chess in general. Before explaining my point of view I would first like to say that I'm not at all against computers, on the contrary, because they are a godsend for humanity. Let's not forget that I am trained in engineering and therefore can hardly be opposed to scientific progress. Computers allow one to do an enormous number of things and, in particular, for everyone to have access to knowledge. My principle preoccupation, in chess terms and the rest, is to know how to integrate this new phe­ nomenon. How are we going to live with com­ puters and how are we going to manage their use? What are our objectives and how are we going to achieve them? From a chess angle, the replies to these questions have become of vital concern, as after only a few years, computers have taken on an important role, too important in my opinion. I think that the players but also organizers and different types of managers have yet to get to grips with the ques­ tion. Here and there, everybody knows that com­ puters have allowed the enlargement of the field of knowledge, notably in respect of games and opening databases, but practically nobody has sufficiently thought out the consequences for the game of chess. At the end of the 1 970's I myself suggested a round-table, a sort of think-tank, in

order to study what we should do and not do concerning computers. Basically I think that no clear reply has been worked out and I have the feeling that no one wants to really reflect on it. I think that there are different perverse effects linked to the use of the computer but in the main this depends on the operator. The main problem for the player to watch out for, and no doubt the worst, is a progressive decline in his under­ standing of the game. Chess is above all based on personal research and reflection, which neces­ sitates certain 'mental gymnastics' . Chess end­ lessly poses new problems and we must face up to them to find the appropriate solutions. The danger is to confine this responsibility uniquely to computers. You have a problem, you then turn on the computer, go to sleep, and on waking next morning the answer is before you. Of course, that rather over-simplifies matters but in reality it sometimes happens that way. If we repeat many times this process there are several consequences: the player becomes passive and his mind loses certain powers; in tournament play, facing new problems he would have less chance of finding the adequate solution, and in a general sense, the quality of his game will decline. Another danger: excessive confidence in the qualities of a com­ puter. When you need to calculate horribly com­ plicated multiplications, you are sure that the computer will obtain the right number because it's the only possible solution, but in chess it is not always the case and it happens that several moves are worthwhile. In some cases computers even commit errors of calculation. It is therefore appropriate to stay objective and be very critical towards its proposed solutions; in essence to use efficiently and intelligently the computer's re­ sources. All these shortcomings can fade the style of a player, at whatever standard, from a simple amateur to a GM. These days, we can discern perfectly the players whose style has been influenced by computer science, those who have the 'ChessBase' culture. Frankly, I am far off believing that these young grandmasters have a better understanding of the game than those of 1 964 for example; I even feel that the opposite is the case and we are indeed witnessing a regres­ sive phenomenon. To clarify what I have just expounded, it is sufficient to look at the results of certain veterans like Smyslov, Portisch, 37

In characteristic pose behind the board. Am sterdam 1 984

Kortchnoi or even Bronstein. Evidently, they aren't as strong as before, due to their age, but it doesn't stop them embarrassing the new generation on occa­ sions. Bronstein takes a certain pleasure in beat­ ing those programs which he is playing! It would be really interesting to bring together several representatives of each generation and confront them with some totally new problems. In the past we were more used to thinking by ourselves and it was precisely that what made us strong. In the field of openings, the influence of comput­ ers is more and more important. Without having arrived at the point of saturation, we have cer­ tainly come to a point of over-information and I'm convinced that it is to the detriment of crea­ tivity. In Buenos Aires I clearly observed what happened in several games. After several moves some positions were already virtually lost. The computer had had its effect. One of the players had simply deeper knowledge than the other and 38

that's what enabled him to win. The intrinsic strength of the winner had nothing to do with the result. Is there an answer to all this? Perhaps. In his time Capablanca proposed to include a new piece. Why not? But I think that Fischer's idea was more practical. Change the starting line-up, which would erase opening preparation and breathe new life into the game. This would be a good way to ge1 around the perverse effects of the computer. Another phenomenon that should be taken intc consideration is the association between man anc machine during tournaments. The fundamental question is whether it is better to lose alone or tc win with the help of a computer? A purely ethica question but a relevant one in terms of correspon· dence chess and adjourned games. Public opin· ion was tuned in to this issue when the famom 16th game from the 1 99 1 world championshii match Kasparov-Karpov was adjourned in Lyon

Interview

As a result of this particular case, many organizers have reacted well in doing away with adjourn­ ments altogether. This constitutes the only effec­ tive method of proceeding but unfortunately, it isn't entirely satisfactory, as from an educational point of view, I am strongly convinced that ad­ journed games enable players to enhance their powers of analysis and therefore to progress. The last point upon which I would like to draw attention is the participation of chess programs in certain competitions. Not long ago, in the London PCA-Intel Grand Prix, the Chess Genius program beat Kasparov. The media had a field day. This highly symbolic victory well illustrates the progress made these last few years by com­ puters but this raises some questions: Can we say that it is a great victory for the game and above all for the positive image of chess in the media? Do you believe that a father having seen these images would want his son to join a chess club? Do you think that a potential sponsor would be interested in financing world championship matches when he retains the image of the world champion beaten by a program, that one can find in the shops for less than 200 dollars? In conclusion, I would like to say that the appearance of computers raises many questions and that the answers are far from simple, but that I believe that it is in the power of each of us to face up to the problem and think seriously because no one knows what will be the case in ten or twenty year� time. If we don't pay attention now it may be too late. One has the feeling that there is almost a love affair between you and the Sicilian. When didyou decide to regularly play this defence ? In fact I didn't immediately play the Sicilian. Like many beginners and young players I started out with the Spanish game. After that I played the French. How did I come to adopt the Sicilian? At what precise moment? I don't remember exactly, but I believe that it is because, at that time, some of my friends were playing it. I started with the Dragon variation. My results weren't bad but at the end of the 1940's White had discovered a number of different strategies that were rather tiresome for Black. I liked the Sicilian but I had a rather amateurish approach. It was at the beginning of the 1950's that the 'thunderbolt struck' , when I metLev Aronin who

was to be my trainer for the next ten years. He was then one of the best players in the country and had participated in several USSR champion­ ships. He was only thirty years old at the time when we met but he was already very experi­ enced. He was an excellent trainer who was a specialist in the Sicilian, notably the Najdorf. We spent much time studying together and quite naturally I started to copy him. He exercised an enormous influence on me and after our collabo­ ration on the Sicilian I started to obtain good results. Afterwards I never looked to study another open­ ing and I have remained faithful all my life. Is there anything in particular that you remem­ berfrom your work together? I remember that at the time of our collaboration the fashionable move against the Najdorf was 6.�e2, against which Black almost always re­ plied 6 ...e6, transposing to a Scheveningen set­ up. But Aronin had his own ideas and for him the best move was 6 ...e5( !). I admit that at first I was not convinced, but Aronin gradually persuaded me that the mQve is actually quite logical. Talking about 6... e5, one could get the impres­ sion that after your match with Karpov in 1974 you stopped playing the move. Yes it's true, but Karpov was not the only one responsible. If one looks closely, I believe that I obtained good positions and that in no way was the move 6 ...e5 refuted, or unplayable, as a result of the match. I think that 6...e5 is a sound move and has many advantages. After the match with Karpov I continued to play the move for a while but I gradually switched to 6. ..e6, mainly to avoid my opponent's preparation but also as I had some new ideas and perhaps a desire to have other sensations. In playing 6 ...e6 my intention was not to transpose into the Scheveningen, which im­ plies an early development of the knight to c6. Conversely, I preferred to defer the development of the queen's knight aiming rather to play the advance ... b7-b5 quickly. Only when White plays the move a2-a4 should one bring the knight to c6. Therefore I played the preliminary moves . . .�e7 and ...'f/fc7 and then from time to time developed the knight to d7. When Kasparov started to play this type of set-up I had already prepared the ground! 39

opinion, this is not the case in the Sicilian, as between the Paulsen, the Scheveningen, the Najdorf and even the Dragon there is much in common. The next point is that it is an opening that suits my playing style as there is little room for compromise; but I want to add that at the same time it allows the possibility of the manoeuvring type of game, so one can use the opening to suit one's taste: mainly tactical or mainly posi­ tional . During my career I have resorted to almost all types of Sicilian, I am almost a 'decath­ lete' of the Sicilian !

New York 1 9 89

Why do you like the Sicilian so much ? Firstly because it is such a rich opening and far from being played out. I have always been a creative player and it has been through this open­ ing that I could best express myself. What I have to say will certainly shock players of the French defence but I find that the positions resulting from l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttJd2 to be too rigid, there is much less room for investigation; now if instead of 3 .ttJd2 White plays 3 .ttJc3 then it's a totally different game. The lack of a link between the different variations is an aspect that I dislike in certain openings such as the French defence. In my 40

Don 't you have thefeeling that you are taking all sorts of risks in only playing the Sicilian. Firstly because it's such a sharp opening and secondly because your opponents can prepare much more easily? I don't look at things from that angle. I have been playing the Sicilian for about forty years and I don' t see where is the risk. I have an absolute confidence in it and I think that I am in the position to confirm that, de­ spite lacking it's perfect mas­ tery, I have a good understanding of the defence. There is a complicity, a type of con­ nivance between us. In a way, I'd like to say that the Great Lady, that is the Sicilian, has opened to me the door to her secrets ! Further you know that I believe that all Sicilian players must recognize that the openil)g is complex and there is effec­ tively some danger, but this danger also threatens White. Most of the time I play aggressive sys­ tems with Black but on the few occasions that I have played l .e4 and that I have met the Sicilian I have applied the same strategy. In summarizing my advice is the following "dear opponent, I am ready to go to the edge of the precipice, but you will come with me".

lnteNiew

Once, you stated that you are ready to only play l.e4 if your opponent will always reply with l . .. c5. I have spent so many years studying the Sicilian with Black that inevitably I have a certain expe­ rience for the white side. Throughout the whole of my career I must have played twenty times or so against the Sicilian and my results are excellent, in that I have something like 80%. I have played this way against Kotov, Geller, Boleslavsky. . . And what happens when you are faced with the Najdoif? I don't ask myself too many questions. In general I play 6 ...ic4. Does that mean that it is the best move against the Najdoif? Perhaps ! You know that there is no really 'best' move. All depends on individual styles. Karpov is just as dangerous with 6.�e2 as Fischer is with 6. �c4. In spite of everything, have you never wanted to change opening after a string of defeats ? I have often been asked this question and quite frankly the reply is 'no'. I have sometimes changed variations switching from the Najdorf to the Scheveningen or to the Paulsen; at times I have even temporarily given up the Polugaevsky variation, but at no time since I included the Sicilian in my repertoire have I wanted to stop playing it. How can you explain such faith? Simply by the fact that the Sicilian is my open­ ing. It corresponds to my idea of chess and therefore to my style. I really have the impression that I was born for the Sicilian. I have spent so much time studying it and have won so many victories with it that I have not experienced the need to resort to another defence. Take my match against Mecking. My intuition told me that he was very well prepared to meet my favourite variations and that he had prepared some nasty surprises. I therefore decided to take the risk of playing a line that I had never played, but had much studied: l .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 a6 5.�d3 �c5. My plan worked admirably, much better than I could have hoped. You know that I am rather cunning ! I look at

things from my opponent's point of view and I try to guess what he will play against me, in order to better anticipate events. I don't like being in the position of the fish being baited by the fisherman. Without playing on words, it seems that at that particular game Fischer was your superior; bearing in mind the only game that you have played together at the Palma de Mallorca Inter­ zonal. Yes exactly. I believe that Fischer always had an innate sense of danger and an extraordinary abil­ ity to anticipate matters. He was able to some­ times surprise his opponents using techniques that we can call 'psychological' . It's true that in Palma de Mallorca the day that I arrived in the tournament hall and I realized that he had played l .c4, I couldn't believe my eyes; I even thought for a minute that I had the wrong table! I well remember that I was somewhat shaken and it took me a few minutes to settle down. Despite everything, what a nice surprise for me, and a magnificent present on Fischer's part, that by refusing to play his favourite move l .e4 he im­ plied that I was a useful Sicilian player and that I could have caused him some problems with that opening. One can therefore interpret his gesture as a mark of respect towards me. You have broached the subject of psychology. Have you too resorted to such techniques ? In chess, psychology is an extremely important factor. All through my life I have used it. Look, just taking into consideration the Sicilian I have used a number of schemes and move orders to counteract my opponent's preparation. I have a good recollection of my last meeting with Kasparov in the 1992 Paris Immopar trophy. By playing l .d4, Garry was certainly expecting to meet my favourite Queen's Indian defence, but that day I had prepared a small surprise in playing the Bogo-Indian. It was clear that he didn't ex­ pect it. That gave me a 'psychological edge' even if later I lost the game. Fair enough, but we can consider all that to be 'legal psychology '. I wanted to speak mainly of things, tricks, to upset one 's opponent which are sometimes at the limit of correctness, of which Fischer made his speciality. 41

As it concerns me, during a game I have never indulged in anything that could disturb my oppo­ nent and have never abused the rules. Very early on, I set myself a rule to be honest with myself and my opponent. As for Bobby Fischer I am still convinced that he never did anything illegal and that he never aimed to wittingly harm any of his opponents. He some­ times arrived late for the game but that was more to do with his own anxiety than a real desire to destabilize. I only played him once, but we ana­ lyzed together on a number of occasions and I can state that he was a player who was extremely honest with himself.

Some World Champions have deep within them­ selves a sort of 'destructive energy ' which en­ ables them to beat their opponents. In your case, you seem to be an extremely kind person, inca­ pable of any kind of maliciousness. Is this the reason why you have never been a serious can­ didate for the world championship title ? Yes it's true that in comparison to some other players I don't have a 'killer instinct' , that could have helped me to turn important matches and perhaps even for me to rise to the highest level. Without doubt I don't have the character of a champion. I don't have the belligerence of Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer but when we take a close look, Euwe, Smyslov and Petrosian didn't have this 'destructive energy' either. Many peo­ ple think that I am too meek but this doesn't mean that I am a lamb. In my games, I often have an aggressive style that disturbs my opponent from developing his normal game, he cannot do all that he wants to do to me. You know that, to achieve the level that I have during the past thirty years, all the same, one must have a certain character and I wouldn't have got here ifl was that tender! Those who have played against me know this well. Those who know me away from the chess board know that I can be intransigent, notably if I sense an injustice. In this case the person who is facing me has every chance of losing as I am uncompromising ! Tell me about the tournament in Buenos Aires. Oh, it's magnificent ! This tournament will stay one of the highlights of my life, an unforgettable memory and all my life I will be grateful to Joop 42

(van Oosterom). Imagine, a tournament organized solely in my honour, with the best players in the world and with the opening that I have always adored. What more can one ask? No living player has ever received such a gift from the gods, and sometimes whilst I was in Argentina I asked myself if I was dreaming with my eyes open. But I cannot hide the fact that in another sense Buenos Aires will remain my worst memory because in a way I was absent. It was the tourna­ ment of my life, it was made for me, tailored to fit, but I couldn't play. What misery ! I don't have strong enough words to express my suffering.

How did things progress in the beginning, when your own participation was not in doubt? I was to be the main actor in the Buenos Aires tournament and in this respect I was one of the first to be informed about how things were devel­ oping. When I had the confirmation that the tournament would go ahead I was happy like never before. I immediately understood that it was the tournament of my life, a unique oppor­ tunity not to miss. At the beginning of summer, 1 993, I set about preparing as if I was going to fight for the world championship. I had brought together all my Informants, all the necessary books and documents and got down to work. Nearly every day I spent several hours preparing for the tournament, summarizing the state ofplay in each variation, but above all I was searching for some good novelties. I knew very well that I would be facing the world's elite and I was far from starting out as favourite, but I felt that my profound knowledge of the Sicilian would en­ able me to cause a surprise and go and play the spoilsport ! With Black I was confident enough. Nothing too bad could happen to me. It was mainly playing with White that preoccupied me. For quite a while I hadn't been playing l . e4 and in a way I had to start again from scratch. Over time I became used to the idea, especially as I didn't have to face the Spanish or French; after all, hadn't I said that one day I would be ready to play l .e4, all the time, if my opponent would play the Sicilian? All that went well, but almost imperceptibly I felt a certain nervousness rising in me. I started to become more and more aware of the importance

Interview

of the tournament and what it represented to me. I especially didn't want to miss out on the great occasion and I wanted to be good enough.

Were you satisfied with the performance of the players in the tournament? It's a question which I find difficult to answer objectively. In this tournament, as things turned out, I had the role of a privileged observer and the fact that I have played the Sicilian for forty years means that I was able to pass a more critical eye than others who were present. Truthfully, I believe that I was rather frustrated by various things. I would have liked to see more commit­ ment from certain players, more fighting spirit, essentially that they would have taken more risks. The fact that nobody played my variation naturally saddened me, but I had anticipated it, firstly because it requires two (White must play 6.�g5) but also because Ljubojevic was the only one who had previously played it.

Some extracts from an interview which was made in 1992 that are still topical

Why did you choose to come and live in France ? I had several options, I could have gone to Israel, to the United States or to the Netherlands, but for various reasons France was the best choice. As you well know, I worked during 1 990 with the young GM Joel Lautier in his preparation for the zonal tournament in Lyon and then the Manila Interzonal. I thus created a bond between this country and myself. I equally chose France for practical reasons: my only daughter worked in Paris and my wife had for many years been a French teacher in Moscow. I was therefore surrounded by people who spoke the language fluently and for me this was a big advantage. I don't regret the decision because I am enjoying myself here. From the chess point of view it is a very interesting country with good prospects. In a way, it's a return to grass roots as we mustn't forget that France was the cradle of Philidor, La Bourdonnais, Saint-Amant and Deschapelles before being the adopted land of world champions Alekhine and Spassky.

What advice would you give to a young player who would like to become a professional? First of all, he must love chess and always play with pleasure. It must never be a burden. If he aspires only for medals without passion for the game, he will never succeed. I also think that a golden rule for success is to be strictly objective: one must have a good sense of self-criticism. I often hear young players saying: "I played really well, I had a fantastic game, I was the best player" but at the same time they don't realize that they have made many errors, some­ times even blunders. He who recognizes his mis­ takes and who judges them clearly and objec­ tively will go far. When we lose our sense of criticism we go backwards. This advice is appli­ cable in all walks of life at whatever age. How do you regard the present situation in the world of chess ? It is difficult to give an adequate answer to this question. From one aspect, there are more and more tournaments in the world and that is a fine thing. The average level of players has increased and tournaments are attractive despite present economic difficulties. In a sense this shows that chess is popular but we must keep our feet on the ground: chess will never generate the media in­ terest offootball or tennis. If Kasparov or Karpov think for forty minutes on a move, I can under­ stand why certain people fall asleep during a transmission( !), and this explains why television has never completely invested in the game. There is also a negative side to this proliferation: the vast number of strong tournaments provokes banality in the media. The infatuation of the ordinary public diminishes and there is less pas­ sion. In days gone by, we remember tournaments such as New York 1 924 or Botvinnik's victory in Nottingham 1936. Take for example the Candi­ dates' tournament in Zurich 1953, people still remember it today ! Actually there are too many tournaments and they follow on too soon after one another. Even chess magazines can no longer keep up ... Further, one notices that these tournaments con­ s.ist of practically the same players. The situation has evolved these last few years, with the arrival of new talent, but the transition is rather slow. Let's not forget that we have also lost some 43

With M iguel N ajdorf. Buenos Aires 1 994

tournaments; I am thinking particularly of the World Cup circuit organized by the GMA. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all against the GMA and its leaders. On the contrary, because I think that the idea is excellent, but I am against the false hopes generated and then left unfulfilled by abandoning the project en route. I sincerely hope that the idea will be reborn. One must equally think of those players who, from the start, were not qualified and who were prepared to battle in order to acquire selection. They were more than disappointed and I understand them.

Everywhere, people speak highly of your diplo­ matic talents but you don 't seem to be a member of any party nor to be anybody 's man. I am above all fascinated by chess and in this sense I like the battle of ideas and the clash of characters, but only in the context of the chess board. We chess players have the same worries, the same preoccupations, why should we be for­ ever quarreling? This doesn't mean that I am passive and that I 44

don't have any principles. I always have my own opinions and convictions and I react accordingly. I don't like to change my mind with each shift in the wind's direction. When I believe that some­ thing is good for me and for others I hold onto and stay with it.

You, who have contested a match with Judit Polgar, what is your opinion on women 's chess in general and Judit in particular? I have completely changed my opinion when it comes to women. Before, I didn't take them seriously but now I have understood my mistake. In my opinion women have made more progress then men. Compared to before, they now have better understanding, more complete knowledge and are better adapted to competition. Men have only progressed in terms of opening theory. These days women play like men, they are truly GM's. The big problem for men is that they can't prepare psychologically and find it difficult to admit that their feminine opponent is a real GM. Now women have an aim, a model . They are not

Interview

afraid of losing to men, but the opposite is not true. Coming to Judit, she is not a good example. She is extraordinary; at her age she does some incredible things. She has a strong character hav­ ing the advantage of not being nervous. Both in a sporting sense and a psychological one she has what it takes to become a great champion. When I played against her and lost the first game I understood that I absolutely had to change my approach. I therefore decided to prepare very seriously indeed. I didn't want to be the first ex-Candidate to lose a match against a woman. In the end I won the match but it was not at all easy.

You seem attentive to what is happening in the world of chess and you have your own opinion on the world championship cycle and on Elo ratings. Some years ago when I was a member of the FIDE commission I worked out a plan to reform the world championship cycle. This took much time and energy. For example, I re-read every­ thing concerning the history of chess. When I presented my report, nobody in FIDE was ready to take it seriously. I therefore ex­ plained my idea to each member of the commis­ sion individually. It was then decided to adopt the plan. I was very happy and proud. The moment had come to speak about it to my fellow GM's but then FIDE dropped the plan adopting instead Schultz's project. My idea fell through... I there­ fore decided to withdraw from the qualification stages of the world championship. I was disap­ pointed that my colleagues didn't support me enough, they were too passive, when I needed them. Fundamentally, I do not think that it is a good idea that qualification for the candidates should be uniquely from Swiss tournaments. It is some­ times impossible for top GM's to play under such conditions. lt is a lottery. One plays a tournament with a vast number of very strong players and then only ten are taken! That won't do. My project associated tournament and match play. It allows the top players a better opportunity to prove themselves and yet everyone has his chance. First of all it is necessary to organize a tourna­ ment with 1 00 players (the 64 highest ranked

players calculated by taking the average Elo rat­ ings over the last three years and 36 players qualifying from the zonals). From the tourna­ ment the first 36 (and not only 10!) go on to the next stage of knock-out matches. To the eighteen winners a further six players are added (the six finalists from the previous cycle, who qualify by right to this stage. Only on the first occasion will one take the previous quarter-finalists) leaving 24 players. At this stage of the cycle, all of the qualifiers compete in three tournaments, GMA style, which would allow us to obtain an overall ranking. The winner would be the world cham­ pion. From a general point of view, I am not in favour of the idea that a world championship cycle should serve only to find the challenger and champion. I think that it should allow us to establish a hierarchy as in other disciplines. Let's not forget that chess is an individual sport. We should be in a position to say who is the No.3, the No.7, the No.22 as the Elo is not enough. We should follow the example set by tennis. Concerning Elo ratings my opinion is clear: it's a total disaster. I can take many examples to demonstrate that the Elo does not reflect the true value of a player. Today it can happen that a player gains 230 points in six months. How is it possible? There again one must proceed as in tennis, recalculat­ ing Elo's after each tournament as is the case of the USSR with Edward Doubov. One must find conscientious people to do a good job. If FIDE doesn't change in this sense, chess-life will be corrupted in a few years. Then there are the organizers who 'forget' , on purpose or otherwise, to send in various results. I know what I'm talking about because I was on the Russian commission. I have the names of organizers, as well as those of players, who are involved. I believe that in order to avoid gallop­ ing inflation one must establish a separate rank­ ing for opens, this would be fairer.

What do you think of active chess ? This type of the game has made enormous pro­ gress. I think it has now become an acceptable way of attracting the media to our game. It's an excellent spectacle. But there is a negative side and I criticize certain people for the way that they 45

use it. 'Active' chess should remain a show, a spectacle, it shouldn't become concurrent with 'normal' chess of the '40-in-2' type. Why establish an official ranking at this time limit? If we follow this logic we should introduce titles, norms etc. When speed prevails over re­ flection we can no longer distinguish between IM's and GM's. What can we say about games where the flag falls when one has a queen or a rook more? Do you want such games to count for an active Elo rating? One should be serious, active chess should be as the Holiday on Ice shows are for ice-skating: an excellent spectacle for the public. All the same, these professionals have not ended their amateur career to receive marks from a jury! Take another example with music. People readily distinguish

between Tchaikovsky and pop music. Classical music is an art and it takes thousands of hours to master a sonata. Giving too much importance to active chess represents a danger for chess and is a poor educational tool for the young; one will be tempted to suggest easy solutions with instant rewards. In this case why should one spend many hours studying a precise variation of the King's Indian? Better to work on one's reflexes and to play speculative gambits. I often hear the following remark "if a player has a good understanding of the game, he should be as strong in normal chess as he is at 30-minute chess". I don't agree with this opinion as there are some players who only have a superficial vision, they see quickly but only in a limited sense; on the contrary, there are those who see deeply, but for that they need time.

Lev Abramovitch Polugaevsky - most important results Born the 20.1 1 .1 934 in Mogilev (Belarus) GM since 1 962 T EAM COMPETITIONS FOR USSR Team World Championship

1 985 Luzern

1 st

Olympiads

1 966 1 968 1 970 1 978 1 980 1 982 1 984

Havana Lugano Siegen Buenos-Aires Valetta Luzern Thessaloniki

1 st 1 st 1 st 2nd 1 st 1 st 1 st

European Team Championships

1 961 1 970 1 977 1 980 1 989

46

Oberhausen Kapfenberg Moscow Skara Haifa

1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st

lnteNiew

World University Team Championships

1 956 Uppsala 1 957 Reykjavik

1 st 1 st

Match: USSR v Rest of the World

1 970 Belgrade 1 984 London

4th board 3rd board

INDIVIDUAL COMPETITIONS USSR Championships

1 961 1 965 1 967 1 968 1 969 1 973 1 974 1 976 1 977 1 978 1 983

Baku Moscow Kharkov Alma Ata Moscow Moscow Leningrad Moscow Leningrad Tbilisi Moscow

2nd 2nd 1 st equal 1 st 1 st equal 2nd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal

Tournaments

1 959 1 962 1 962 1 963 1 963 1 964 1 965 1 966 1 966 1 966 1 967 1 968 1 969 1 971 1 971 1 972 1 972 1 973 1 974 1 974 1 975 1 975 1 975 1 976 1 976

Marianske Lazne Mar del Plata Havana Bad Liebenstein Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Sarajevo Budapest Beverwijk Le Havre Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Moscow Skopje BOsum Mar del Plata Skopje Amsterdam Kislovodsk Tallinn Solingen Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Budapest Mantilla Manila Vinkovci Sochi (Chigorin memorial)

1 st 1 st 2nd equal 1 st equal 1 st 1 st equal 1 st equal 1 st 2nd equal 2nd 1 st equal 3rd 2nd 1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st 2nd 1 st equal 1 st 1 st equal 1 st equal 2nd equal 3rd equal 1 st equal 47

1 978 1 979 1 981 1 982 1 982 1 982 1 986 1 987 1 987 1 988 1 988 1 989 1 990 1 991 1 991 1 991 1 992 1 992

Lone Pine Wijk aan Zee Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Mar del Plata Bugojno Manila Biel Sarajevo Termas de Rio Hondo Haninge Akureyri Biel Reykjavik open Reggio Emilia Aruba (match vs J.Polgar) Logrono (match Espagne v CIS) Reggio Emilia (category XVIII) Aruba (match veterans vs women)

2nd 1 st 2nd 3rd equal 2nd equal 1 st equal 1 st 2nd equal 3rd equal 1 st 2nd 2nd 1 st equal 2nd 5-3 2nd equal 5th equal 1 st

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP CYCLE Interzonal Tournaments

1 973 1 976 1 979 1 982 1 985

Petropolis Manila Riga Toluca Biel

2nd equal 2nd equal 2nd 4th equal 7th

Candidates

1 974 1 977 1 977 1 980 1 980

48

Moscow Luzern Evian Alma Ata Buenos Aires

1 /4-final: loss vs 1 /4-final: victory vs 1 /2-final: loss vs 1 /4-final: victory vs 1 /2-final: loss vs

Karpov Mecking Kortchnoi Tal Kortchnoi

2.5-5.5 6.5-5.5 4.5-8.5 5.5-2.5 6.5-7.5

Certain History of the Sicilian Defence

A

Christophe Gueneau The Sicilian defence has had a special reputation throughout the long history of chess. It is prob­ ably the defence that has been most analysed, studied and commentated upon. There has al­ ways been a certain fascination with it, from the top echelon as well as those of a more modest ability, and today at all levels, it remains the most widely used opening of all. How to explain such popularity which has rarely waned throughout the centuries? Fashions in chess openings change, a phenomenon of all human activity, but the Sicilian has never really been outmoded for long. Without doubt, the Sicilian represents the most mortal ofstruggles between two players, two human intellects, seeking to 'finish off' their opponent. It is well recognized that the Sicilian is one of the most 'violent' of systems. 'Vim vi repellere licet' goes the old dictum which can be loosely translated as 'violence repels violence' . The player who ven­ tures this defence must be conscious that he will be walking on the edge ofa precipice before accept­ ing the risk. One slip and the consequences can be fatal ! He should be aware that no imprecision will be permitted, each move must be chosen with great care and attention and the Sicilian player must have nerves of steel. It is true that his opponent, who has opened with l .e4 a move full of candour, must possess the same qualities and suffer the same constraints. This may explain why a sig-

nificant proportion of Sicilians go the full term, until defeat of one of the players is assured, and draws are less frequent than in all other openings. Naturally each innovation for the attack or defence provokes research for the appropriate rejoinder. It sometimes takes years, or even decades, to discover the refutation of a new vari­ ation. Certain have never been really refuted, as in the case of the Polugaevsky variation, for example. This has sometimes even led to the Sicilian being considered too dangerous and con­ sequently avoided at the top level. It's the development of the perpetual fight between sword and shield that is summarized in A Certain History of the Sicilian Defence which is neither exhaustive nor chronologically strict. The priority has been to follow logically the evolution of the philosophy of each variation, with particular refer­ ence to those players who have earned their place in the history of this opening. There is a certain bias towards the currently most popular lines: the Najdorf of course, but also the Scheveningen and the Lasker-Pelikan-Sveshnikov. First of all, why is ' l. e4 c5 ' called the Sicilian defence and where and when did it appear for the first time? Such questions rarely have surefrre answers. In essence, chess historians are divided and none have irrefutable proof of their theories. What is certain is that Spain reigned supreme in chess until the end of the sixteenth century where49

upon Italy became pre-eminent. Match victories in 1574 and 1 575 by Leonardo di Bona da Cutri (1527- 1 588) and Paolo Boi ( 1 528- 1 598) against the champion of the period, the Spanish priest Ruy Lopez de Segura (about 1530-1 580) marked the end of the Spanish hegemony. Italy became the chess 'superpower' and was to remain so for three centuries, coinciding with its cultural domination linked with the Renaissance. Many strong Italian players came from Sicily such as del Biscari, di Siculiana, Clariano Rosso, Salvatore Albino, and Girolamo Cascio; but the biggest and most charismatic was Paolo Boi (known as 'the Syracusan' as he came from the Sicilian capital). One can imagine that the name 'Sicilian' came from hereabouts. It seems that the ftrst player to have studied the continuation l .e4 c5 was Guilio Cesare Polerio ( 1 548- 1 61 2). In his works that appeared in 1 590 one ftnds some analyses of the opening but no mention of the ' Sicilian defence' . In 1 604, another illustrative figure, the 'king of the attack' , Alessandro Salvio ( 1 570- 1640) in his book Trattato dell'inventione e arte liberale del gioco di scacchi consecrated some analysis to 1 .e4 c5 2.�c4 tt:lc6 3.c3 e6 4.tt:lf3 dS

6 f5 7.�d3 'ir'e7 8..ie4 fe4 9.'ir'e4 .••

Eight years later, the talented Giochino Greco (1600- 1 634) put his brick in the wall in covering 1 .e4 c5 in The booke of the ordinary games of cheste published in London 1623. An anecdotal title, it brought to attention a game played in Naples in 1623 between an amateur and Aurelio Severino (1 580- 1 656). David Levy and Kevin O'Connell in their incomplete masterpiece Ox­ ford encyclopaedia of chess games, volume 1 1485-1866 present the following game but un­ fortunately don't state their source, casting doubt on its historical value; 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lc3 eS 3.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 4.tt:ld5 d6 5.c3 fS 6.ef5 �fS 7.�b5 'iid 7 8.d4 cd4 9.cd4 0-0-0

Here one should place the king on b8 and the rook on e8, as was the custom of the era. 1 O.deS tt:leS 1 1 ..id7 tt:lf3 1 2. fl f5 17.l:i.b 1 0-0-0 1 8.l:i.g1 l:i.hg8 19.l:i.g2 'iYc5 20."ife3 f4 2 1 .lt:le4 fe3 22.ltJc5 e2 23.'it>g1 lLlf3 24.�h1 J:!.g2 25.�g2 e1 'iV 0-1

9.�f6 gf6 1 O.lt:JdS fS Amongst the group of students, two players stood out, Gennadi Tlllloshchenko and especially Evgeny Sveshnikov ( 1950- ). Due to them the variation was rejuvenated and has stayed popular, indeed it figures in the repertoire of several of the world's leading players, as for example Vladimir Kramnik, Alexey Shirov and more recently Joel Lautier. Actually the last word consists of delay­ ing the development of the king's knight to remain flexible: 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 4.lt:Jd4 eS S.lt:JbS d6

cd4

1 0 .ta3 1 1 .ba3 .l:l.g8 1 2.'iYd2 �e6 1 3.g3 fS 1 4.�g2 fe4 1 5.�e4 lt:Jd4 1 6.tt:Je3 fS 17 ..tb7 .l:l.b8 1 8.c3 .l:l.b7 1 9.cd4 f4 20.0-0 fe3 21 .fe3 'tWdS 22.l:!.ac1 ed4 23.ed4 l:i.g4 24.'tWh6 l:i.bg7 •••

And Black had a strong attack that gave him victory on the 36th move. Some years later, in the middle of the 1960's, a group of young masters living in Cheliabinsk in Russia started their research on the continuation

During the 'Torneo Mundial Polugaevsky' in 61

Buenos Aires this new line that has been called the Kalashnikov (after the famous Russian automat­ ic gun because of its ferocity) was seen on s�veral occasions, particularly in the games of Shirov.

•

Now it is time to return to the nineteenth century. In the 1 860's, the Sicilian attracted new practitioners and entered a rich phase notable for wide­ spread research and creativity. This engendered the appearance of new variations, notably at the London 1 862 tournament. Here is a selection of the most interesting encounters from a theoreti­ cal point of view.

6.�d3 tbc6 7.tbc6 dc6 8.0-0 �c3 9.bc3 'ii'aS 1 0.c4 h6 1 1 .f4 eS 1 2.feS 'ii'eS 1 3...tf4 'ifd4 1 4.�h1 �e6 1 S.'i!fe2 tbg4 1 6.h3 tbeS 17 ..l:l.ab1 b6 1 8.�e3 'ifd7 1 9.cS bS 20Jlfd1 lLld3 21 . .I:td3 'ii'c8 22.'ii'h S �f8 23..l:l.bd1 �g8 24.l::ld 8 'ii'd 8 2SJ:td8 l:ld8 26.c3 ..ta2 27.�d4 �h7 28.'i!ffS g6 29.'i!ff2 �e6 30.�h8 .:th8 31 .'ii'f4 .:rea 32.�g1 aS 33.�f2 a4 34.'ii'c 1 l:td8 3S.�e3 �b3 36.h4 hS 37.�f4 l:td1 38.'ii'b2 .I:td3 39.�es �g7 40.'i!fc1 Draw.

51 4 1 . 1 D Steinitz • owen

The English player Thomas Bames ( 1 825-1874) introduced into practice the Accelerated Dragon variation (a line that is still in the news and was in fact played on several occasions in Buenos Aires).

London 1 862

1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbf6 S.tbc3 ..tb4

51 50. 1 2 D Blackburne • Barnes London 1 862

1 .e4 cs 2.d4 cd4 3.tbf3 g6 4.tbd4 �g7

A relatively aggressive move, but one that has dropped out of fashion as 6.e5 is considered to be too strong. Here is just one example: Pyhala­ Seppanen, Helsinki 1 992; 6.e5 lLld5 7:ifg4 0-0 8.�d2 lLlc3 9.bc3 .ia5 10.�d3 lLlc6 l l .lLlc6 bc6 12:ii'e4 g6 1 3 .h4 f5 14.'i!Yf4 .l:l.f7 1 5 .g4 fg4 16.'i!Yg4 'i!Yb6 1 7.h5 'i!Yf2 1 8 .'itJdl 'i!Yf3 19.'i!Yf3 .l:f3 20.hg6 hg6 21 .'itJe2 .l:f5 22.�f5 ef5 23 ..1:agl h1 i.e7 1 0.f4 0-0 1 1 .t2Jb3 b6 1 2.ii.f3 �b7 1 3."Vllid2 l:tab8 1 4.g4 dS

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 S.t2Jc3 d6 6.�e2 e6 7.0-0 �e7 8.�e3 0-0 9.f4 �d7 1 0.t2Jb3 a6 1 1 .a4 tZJaS 1 2.'ii'e1 t2Jb3 1 3.cb3 ii.c6 1 4.�f3 "Vllic7 1 S.l:f.c1 .t:rac8 1 6."Vllig3 fliaS 1 7.l:f.fd1 dS

As in the Capablanca game above, this vigorous central counter-punch illustrates perfectly the re­ sources and latent possibilities of the break-out from the restrained centre.

1 8.edS �dS 1 9.�dS edS 20.�d4 �CS 21 .flif2 t2Jg4 22."VJ/id2 l:f.fe8 23.�h1 'it'b4 24.t2JdS "VJ/id4 2S.t2Je7 �f8 26."Vllid4 �d4 27.t2Jc8 ttJf2 28.�g1 t2Jd1 0-1 In the hands of Tigran Petrosian, who was known for having a marked preference for 'calm' posi­ tions, the Scheveningen could become a formi­ dable 'killing machine' .

51 23.6 0 B hend

• Petrosian, Tigran Zurich 1 96 1

1 .e4 c S 2.t2Jf3 d 6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4

70

1 S.edS ttJb4 1 6.de6 �f3 1 7JU3 'tWb7 1 8.r.t>g2 t2Jg4 1 9.'ii'e2 fS 20.t2Jd1 l:f.f6 21 .c3 l:tg6 22.cb4 tZJeS 23.r.t>f2 �h4 24..l:.g3 t2Jg4 2S.r.t>g1 ..tg3 26.hg3 'ti'dS 27.l:f.a3 l:f.h6 28.ttJf2 t2Jf2 White resigned. Following on, the best ambassador of the Scheveningen variation is without doubt Garry Kasparov who has employed it for certain impor­ tant games, as for example against Karpov in the final of the world championship. Garry Kasparov, the 'spiritual son' of Fischer, has doubtlessly inherited from the American a formidable energy and almost perfect expertise that makes him almost invincible when playing the Sicilian. Due to him the defence has achieved a new degree of understanding, but also of popu­ larity amongst the amateurs of the whole world. It would be possible to show tens, even hundreds of games illustrating the genius of Kasparov in this opening but there is one that stands above the others. The following game is not only excep­ tional in its own right, but was decisive in decid­ ing the fate of the 1985 world title. Shortly later,

History

Karpov resumed perfectly this situation: "This game is probably one of the most complex and intense in all the history of chess. It is hardly surprising that Kasparov has consecrated tens of pages of analysis to it. Many analyses have been published but an exhaustive one is practically impossible".

51 24.8 D Kar p ov

It is praised for both its solidity and at the same time its flexibility, but even so, many players have been discouraged from playing the Scheveningen variation due to the strength of the Panov-Keres attack. Appearing in the 1940's, it became a strong weapon for attacking players, but its 'charm' also attracted those better known for their preference for positional play. As such Karpov has often resorted to this move when victory is imperative. The following game that he considers one of the most interesting of his ca­ reer, added much to the popularity of the Keres attack.

• Kasparov 24th match game, Moscow 1 985

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.�e2 e6 7.0-0 �e7 8.f4 0-0 9.�h1 'W/c7 1 0.a4 tLlc6 1 1 .�e3 �ea 1 2.il.f3 �b8 1 3.'ftd2 �d7 1 4.tLlb3 b6 1 5.g4 �ea 1 6.g5 tLld7 1 7.'fif2 �f8 1 8.�g2 �b7 1 9.l:Z.ad1 g6 20.�c1 .l:lbc8 21 . .1:ld3 tLlb4 22.l:!h3 �g7

51 20.1 D Kar pov • Dorfman Soviet Championship, Moscow 1 976

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 t2Jf6 5.tLlc3 e6 6.g4

23.�e3 .l:i.e7 24.�g1 .l:i.ce8 25..l:td1 f5 26.gf6 tLlf6 27..l:!.g3 �f7 28.�b6 'iWb8 29.�e3 tLlh5 30.l:!g4 tLlf6 31 . .l:I.h4 g5 32.fg5 lt:\g4 33.'iWd2 lt:\e3 34.'iVe3 lt:\c2 35.'Wib6 �as 36.l:!d6 .l:I.b7 37.'fta6 l:!b3 38..l:I.e6 .l:I.b2 39. 'W/c4 �h8 40.e5 Wia7 41 .�h1 �g2 42.�g2 tLld4 White resigned.

This move is considered so strong by certain players of the Scheveningen that they have aban­ doned the line altogether. Others, more faithful, have tried to work out a solution and in the last few years, due to a subtle move order, have found a way to avoid it by deferring the development of the king's knight; l.e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jc6 5.t2Jc3 d6 71

3S."fih7 'iff3 36.'ifha 'it>e7 37.'ifh4 'it>ea 3a.'ifc4 'ti'b7 39.b3 l:te6 40J:tg1 l::teS 41 .l::t ga 'it>e7 42.'ifh4 'it>d7 43.'iff6 l:[e7 44.'iffS 'it>d6 45.'ifaS .I:[eS 46.'flda 'it>e6 47.'it>b2 f6 4a.l:[ta 'ifg7 49.'ifca 'it>dS SO.'ifc4

Black resigned.

It happens sometimes that White stubbornly in­ sists on playing the same 6.g4 as was the case in the 1 4th matchgame Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow 1985; 6.g4 h6 7.h4 a6 8.�g2 �e7 9.�e3 t2Jd4 10 ...Wd4 e5 1 1 . ..Wd1 �e6 12.t2Jd5 J:tc8 1 3 .c3 tLlf6 14.t2Je7 ..We7 and after a complicated fight the game ended in a draw. This, alternative move-order, isn't to the taste of everyone, as in this case Black has to be prepared to meet 5.t2Jb5. 6 ... ..ie7 7.gS li.Jfd7 a.h4 li.Jc6 9.�e3 a6 1 0. ..We2 ..Wc7 1 1 .o-o-o b5 1 2.li.Jc6 'flc6 1 3.�d4 b4 1 4.li.JdS

1 4 ... edS 1 S.�g7 l:!.ga 1 6.edS "f/c7 1 7.�f6 li.Jes 1 a.�es deS 1 9.f4 �fS 20.�h3 �h3 21 .l:!.h3 .:rea 22.feS 'ifc4 23.J:tdd3 'iff4 24.'it>b1 l:!.c4 2S.d6 l:Z.e4 26.l:!.he3 l:!.e3 27 .l:!.e3 'flh4 2a."f/t3 'figS 29.l:!.e1 "f/g2 30."f/fS l:Z.g6 31 . .1:!.f1 'ifdS 32.de7 'it>e7 33."f/f4 as 34."f/h4 �ea •

72

At the end of the 1 930's the centre of gravity in the chess world moved progressively towards the Soviet Union. There was born the 'Scientific school' headed by Mikhail Botvinnik ( 191 1-1995). Russian masters, without doubt in­ fluenced by Jaenisch's publications, were espe­ cially attracted to the Sicilian defence. A group of young talented players adopted it and injected their own ideas. One of the best representatives of this school was certainly lsaac Boleslavsky (1919-1977). During all his career he remained faithful to the Sicilian and in his latter years he trained numerous players who were to become top grand masters. His name is associated with a system that is still in current use. 1 .e4 cS 2.li.Jf3 li.Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.li.Jd4 li.Jf6 s.lt.Jc3 d6 6.�e2 es

At the time, this move left many confused as the Scheveningen was very popular and it was typical to choose the 'less compromising' 6 ... e6. What­ ever, the strategic basis for the Boleslavsky system rests on two principles expressed by Tarrasch: 'a weakness is only one if it can be attacked' (here the d6-pawn) and 'the weakness of a square can be compensated by active-piece play' . A typical example:

History

51 2 5. 3.4 D Stoltz • Boles lavsky Groningen 1 94 6

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 S.t2Jc3 d6 6.�e2 eS 7.t2Jf3 h6 8.�c4 The game Levenfish-Boleslavsky, Kuybishev 1943 continued 8.0-0 Yt..e 7 9.Yt..e3 0-0 1 0.'iYd2 i.e6 1 l .Uad1 l:i.e8 1 2.h3 l:i.c8.

51 2 5.4 D Taimanov • Bole slavsky Soviet Championship, Moscow 1 949

1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 tt:Jf6 S.t2Jc3 d6 6 ...ie2 es 7.t2Jb3 ..ie7 a.�gs o-o 9.i.f6 i.t6 1 0.0-o i.e6 1 1 . t2Jd5 ..igS 1 2.'ifd3 ttJe7

8.....ie7 9Ji'e2 0-0 1 0.h3 �e6 1 1 .0-0 .l:1c8 1 2. ..ib3 t2Ja5 1 3.l:i.d1 W/c7 1 4.g4 t2Jb3 1 5.ab3 a6 1 6.'it>h1 bS 1 7.b4 W/c4 1 8.'ii'c4 l:i.c4 1 9. .1:1e1 �ea 20.g5 hgS 21 ..-igS ..ib7 22.'it>h2 .l:1b4 23.b3 l:Z.c8 24.l:le3 l:ld4 25.J::Z.g1 'it>f8 26...if6 .if& 27.J::Z.g4 b4 28.t2Ja4

The game was drawn in 3 1 moves. With the diagram position, one can clearly see the similar­ ity between this system and the Lasker-Pelikan­ Sveshnikov. With the passage of time, the Boleslavsky system, due to brilliant games from its originator, achieved its just recognition and found numerous follower. Amongst these the most renowned were Tigran Petrosian and Efim Geller. The following game earned the beauty prize at the Interzonal tournament

28 l:lc2 29.t2Jd4 ed4 30.l:le1 J:l.f2 31 . .1:1g2 l:Z.f3 32.J:I.c2 d3 33..1:1c7 ..ies 34.'it>g1 d2 35. .1:1d1 �d4 36.c;t;>h2 l:l.f2 37.'it>g3 .ie4 38.l:l.c4 l:l.f3 39.'it>h2 i.es 40.'it>g1 dS 41 .l:l.c8 'it>e7 42.l:l.d2 �f4 43.l:l.b2 i.e3 44.'it>h2 r:l.f1 45.'it>g3 .l:tg1 46.'it>h2 r:l.g6 .•.

51 2 5.4 D Pilnik • Geller Gi:iteborg lnterzonal 1 955

White resigned. One of the motivations behind 6 ... e5 is to restrain the push f2-f4.

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.t2Jc3 d6 6.i.e2 eS 7.t2Jb3 i.e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.i.e3 i.e6

73

1 o.�f3 as 1 1.l2:ldS �dS 1 2.edS ltJbB 1 3.c4 tt:Ja6 1 4. ..id2 b6 1 S.�c3 tL:lcS 1 6.tt:JcS bcS 1 7.'ii'e1 tt:Jd7 1 8. ..id1 a4 1 9...ic2 fS 20. .l:l.d1 g6 21 .'ii'e2 .ifS 22.f3 e4 23...if6 'ii'f6 24.fe4

51 40.2 D Lutikov • Taimanov Soviet Championship, Moscow 1 9 69

1 .e4 cs 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 e6 s.tt:Jc3 Viic7 6.�e3 aS 7...id3 bS 8.tt:Jc6 Viic6 9 ...id4 �b7 1 0.'ii'e2 tt:Je7 1 1 .f4 b4 1 2.tt:Jb1 tt:Jg6 1 3.Viif2 �d6

24...f4 2S..l:l.f2 tt:Jes 26. .l:l.df1 'ti'h4 27.�d1 .l:l.f7 28.'ii'c2 gS 29.'ii'c3 I:taf8 30.h3 hS 31 .�e2 g4 32Jlf4 .l:l.f4 33.l:Z.f4 .t!.f4 34.g3 tt:Jf3 3S.r.ftf2 'ii' h3 36.gf4 g3 37.r.ftf3 g2 38.r.ftf2 'ii' h2 0- 1 The Soviet school worked equally on other ideas such as the Taimanov variation, which is pro­ duced after the sequence:

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jc6

The following game is truly a work of art:

74

1 4.�e3 0-0 1 S.t2Jd2 .l:l.ac8 1 6.h4 'ii'c7 1 7.eS ..icS 1 8.hS �e3 1 9.Viie3 t2Je7 20.tt:Jc4 tt:JfS 21 .'ii'd2 ..idS 22.t2Je3 t2Je3 23.'ii'e3 'ii'cS 24.'ii'g3 h6 2S . .t!.h4 Viig 1 26.r.ftd2 'ti'd4 27.fS

27 .. J:!.c2 28.r.ftc2 b3 29.r.ftd1 'ii'g1 30.'ii'e1 'ii'g2 31 .'ii'f1 ..if3 32.r.fte1

History

'ii' b2 33.ttb1 'iWeS 34.g8 28 .!::td 1 l::tf7 29.b3 'ii'e7 30.'ii'd4 �-� tt:Jg6 31 .l::tf7 'ii'f7 32. 'ii'e3

tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 'ii'b6 8. 'ii'd2 'ii'b2

•

For many people, the name Fischer is unques­ tionably linked with the Najdorf variation. If certain players recognize that they started chess after the Fischer-Spassky match in 1 972, which received tremendous media coverage, how many of them have included the Najdorf in their reper­ toire, only because it was Fischer's favourite variation? Without doubt a great number. Throughout his career the Najdorf variation was his precious ally and accompanied him on all his campaigns for the world title. Their complicity was total and the synergy produced allowed Fischer to beat his rivals and attain the summit. To parody Bogoljubov one could say that 'Fischer won with Black because he played the Sicilian and he won with White because he was Fischer! ' . Fischer never flinched from taking risks when playing with the Black pieces. The best example is his adoption of the Poisoned Pawn variation. Due to him, this variation that was considered dubious by certain GMs and crazy by Bent Larsen, became respectable and attracted the attention of the top echelon. It is certainly not an accident that the two succeeding world champions Kasparov and even Karpov(!) have resorted to it from time to time. Fisc her sometimes obtained extremely tricky po­ sitions but his defensive talent (and perhaps his aura) made the difference. The following game represents a perfect illustration:

51 8 . 1 4 D B ilek • Fischer Stockholm lnterzonal 1 962

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4

9.l::tb1 'ii'a3 1 0.e5 de5 1 1 .fe5 tt:lfd7 1 2.�c4 �e7 1 3.�e6 0-0 1 4.0-0 �g5 1 5.'ii'g5 h6

A critical moment is reached. White, due to a lead in development and the concentration of pieces around the black king, has certainly the better position. By continuing 1 6.�h5 ! he would have posed enormous problems for Black.

1 6.'ii'h4 'ii'c3 1 7..!::tf7 l::tf7 1 8.'ii'd 8 t2Jf8 1 9.�f7 ..to>f7 20.l::t.f1 ..to>g6 21 J:!.f8 �d7 22.tt:lf3 'ii'e3 23...to>h1 'ii'c 1 24.tt:lg1 'ii'c2 25.l:!.g8 'ii'f2 26. .r!.f8 'ii'a2 27J:tf3 ..to>h7 At this point White lost on time. The moment has now come to see (or to see again) the famous seventh game from the 83

Reykjavik match, where the Poisoned Pawn made its debut in a World Championship final.

51 8.4 D Spassky • Fischer

sesses an 'internal reservoir of energy' that makes it a viable defence, endowed with multiple defensive resources that generate good counterplay. At the end of the 1950's, Lev Polugaevsky elabo­ rated his own method. Considered as even riskier than the Poisoned Pawn( !) few top players dared to employ it, but its author with the power of abnegation, managed to show that the move 7 b5 was well-founded. ...

7th match game, Reykjavik 1 9 72

1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 lt:Jf6 5.lt:Jc3 a6 6...ig5 e6 7.f4 'ti'b6 8.'ifd2 'ti'b2 9.lt:Jb3 'ifa3 1 0..id3 ..te7 1 1 .0-0 h6 1 2...ih4

51 7. 1 D Nikitin • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Tbilisi 1 9 59

1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.t2Jc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 b5

1 2 lt:Je4 1 3.lt:Je4 it.h4 1 4.f5 ef5 1 5.�b5 ab5 1 6.lt:Jd6 �f8 1 7.tt:lc8 lt:Jc6 1 8.lt:Jd6 .t:ld8 1 9.lt:Jb5 'ti'e7 20.'iff4 g6 21 .a4 �g5 22.'ti'c4 .ie3 23.�h1 f4 24.g3 g5 25..t:lae1 'it'b4 26.'it'b4 lt:lb4 27.l::J.e2 rJilg7 28.lt:Ja5 b6 29.lt:Jc4 lt:Jd5 30.lt:Jcd6 �c5 31 .lt:Jb7 .t:lc8 32.c4 lt:Je3 33..t:lf3 t2Jc4 34.gf4 g4 35..t:ld3 h5 36.h3 tt:Jas 37.t2J7d6 �d6 38.t2Jd6 .t:lc1 39.�g2 t2Jc4 40.t2Je8 �g6 41 .h4 f6 42.l::te6 l::!.c2 43.�g1 '1t>f5 44.t2Jg7 �f4 45 ..t:ld4 '1t>g3 46.t2Jf5 '1t>f3 47.l::tee4 .t:lc1 48.�h2 l::tc2 49.�g1 Y2-Y2 •••

These two games clearly demonstrate that even faced with the sharpest variations, the Sicilian pos84

Nowadays, this is without any doubt one of the most complex opening positions there is.

8.'ti'f3 i.b7 9.a3 t2Jbd7 1 0.f5 e5 1 1 .t2Jb3 ii.e7 1 2.0-0-0 l::tc 8 1 3.i.d3 0-0 1 4.�f6 t2Jf6 1 5.t2Jd5 .idS 1 6.ed5 Wic7 1 7.'1t>b1 .l:Ue8 1 8.t2Jd2 'ti'b7 1 9.t2Je4 b4 20.a4 b3 21 .c3 'ti'd7 22.t2Jf6 ii.f6 23.'it'e4 .t!.c5 24.'ti'b4 Wia7 25.Wie4 .l:i.a5 26.'iVb4 'it'c7 27.W/b3 .!lb8 28.'ti'c4 'ifb7 29.'it'b4 'ti'b4 30.cb4 l::t b4 31 ..ic2 0- 1 e4 32. �c1 .l:i.cS

History

At the beginning of the 1960's this system became the target of attack for certain players who thought that they had found a refutation. Research diver­ sified in different directions. Nezhmetdinov thought that he had found the solution but col­ lided head-on into a severe 'counter-refutation' .

The zenith of this variation came about during a Candidates match between Polugaevsky and Tal:

51 7.2 D Tal • Polugaevsky 51 7.2 D N ezhmetdinov • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Baku 1 96 1

2nd match game, Alma Ala 1 980

1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 tbt6 S.t2Jc3 a6 6.i.gS e6 7.f4 bS 8.es deS 9.feS 'fic7 1 0...tbS

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 tbf6 S.t2Jc3 a6 6..igS e6 7.f4 b5 8.es deS 9.feS 'flc7 1 0.ef6 'f/eS 1 1 .ttJe4

Nezhmetdinov's move.

1 1 ... 'f/e4 1 2.tbe2 White has problems after 1 2.�e2 'fig2 1 3.�f3 'figS 14.�a8 'fih4.

1 2 ... t2Jc6 1 3.'f/d2 h6 1 4.�e3 �b7 1 S.t2Jg3 'ifeS 1 6.fg7 �g7 1 7.�d3 t2Jb4 1 8.0-0 t2Jd3 1 9.'fld3 �d8 20. 'fle2 hS 21 J:tae1 h4 22. 'f/f2 l:!.d7 23.t2Je2 h3 24.gh3 l:!.h3 2S.t2Jg3 'fidS 26..ib6 ..tes 27.l:!.es 'ifeS 28J:te1 'figS 29.i.e3 'fig4 30.l:!.f1 fS 31 .�f4 l:!.d1 32.c3 .I:'Z.h4 33 ...tc7 f4 34.'it'f4 'it'f4 White resigned.

1 0...abS 1 1 .ef6 'fieS 1 2.'fle2 'figS 1 3.ttJdbS l:!.aS 1 4.fg7 �g7 1 S.t2Je4 'fieS 1 6.t2Jbd6 rJiJe7 1 7.0-0 fS 1 8.l:!.ad1 �dS 1 9.'fic4 l:td1 20.l:!.d1 fe4 21.t2Jc8 rrti;f7 22.t2Jd6 rJiJg6 23.t2Je4 t2Ja6 24.tbf2 ttJcS 2S.b4 tba4 26.t2Jg4 'fits 27.t2Je3 t2Jb2 28.'fih4 't!WeS 29.'fig4 rJiJh6 30.�e1 �f6 31 .bS l:tf8 32.b6 �gS 33.'fig3 'f/g3 34.hg3 And Black won in seventy moves. In Buenos Aires none of the participants played the Polugaevsky variation. One can without doubt regret it but as its creator remarked "that signifies that no one has refuted it !". In the con­ clusion of the first chapter of his last book Grandmaster Achievement, Polugaevsky appeared rather optimistic about its future: "Will it have a 85

long life? Will its health be robust enough to resist strong assaults in the future? Will its 'fans ' have enough optimism and courage to defend it? For the moment, after thirty-five proud years looking forward, its head held high along the road of chess, its life, already rich in adventure, continues! ".

As far as the Sicilian goes, the adventure has certainly continued throughout more than three centuries and one can say with certainty that it has some fine days ahead of it. This noble lady which is the Sicilian has not finished to surprise us !

Bibliography

Hooper & Whyld

The Oxford companion to chess Oxford university press 1984

Lutes

Sicilian defence - O 'Kelly variation Chess enterprises 1993

Kovacs

Sicilian Poisoned pawn variation Pergarnon press 1986

New in Chess

Rene Olthof's criticism on Daniel King's book

Winning with the Najdorf 1 993/5 Polugaevsky

Les secrets d'un grand maltre Armand Colin 1994

Polugaevsky

Grandmaster achievement Cadogan chess 1994

86

Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tournament Buenos Aires 1 994 participants

Viswanathan Anand Vasily lvanch u k Gata Kamsky Anatoly Karpov Lj ubomir Lj ubojevic J u dith Polgar Valery Salov Alexey S h i rov

tou rnament report by Christophe Gu€meau analyses by Jeroen Piket and the participants

87

Organizing Committee

chairman J.J. van O osterom, Association M ax E uwe vice chairman D r. A. Spolski, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios M. B ilik, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios P. Cordia, Cordia Consultancy I nternational BV G. Gij ssen, arbiter M. H ermes, Association M ax E uwe Contributors of the Organizing Committee

Grandmaster O.Panno, chief press center E. van der Schilden, Tasc BV C. Gueneau H. de J ong E. J unor, Association M ax E uwe A.M. M onti, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios G. Schraier, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios E. Tolsma, Association M ax E uwe Appeals Committee and Committee for the special prizes

J.J. van O osterom, chairman Grandmaster L. Polugaevsk y Grandmaster M . N aj dorf Grandmaster J. Pik et Commentators during the rounds

Grandmaster B . Larsen Int. M aster A. Sorin l nt. M aster H. Spangenberg I nt. M aster P. Z am ick i Obliged opening moves:

l . e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 t2J c6 3. d4 cd4 4.t2J d4 l . e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4.t2J d4 l . e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4.t2J d4 Time limit:

40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour, fi nally 1 hour per play er for the remaining moves, without adj ournments.

88

"When one loves one doesn't count the cost". The Dutch patron and President of the Max Euwe association, Joop van Oosterom, had certainly this expression in mind when he decided to offer to his great friend Lev Polugaevsky, on his sixti­ eth birthday, a sumptuous chess tournament on the theme of the Sicilian defence, the favourite opening of 'Polu' . It was decided that the tour­ nament should be a double-round affair with eight of the world's top players. The financial questions having been solved, there remained formalities : two just choosing the venue and selecting the players. When he was asked where he would like his diamond jubilee to be organized, the Russian GM replied almost without hesitation: Buenos Aires, Argentina. His reply may have seemed a surprise because the Argentine capital is as­ sociated with a tragic epi­ sode from the history of Soviet chess where 'Polu' was one of the main ac­ tors. In 1978, for the one and only time of its exist­ ence, the USSR failed to win the Olympiad. That year it could do no better than to finish second be­ hind the astonishing Hun­ garian team; however, 'Polu' could hardly be criticized scoring a mere eight out of eleven ! Two years later the same city saw his defeat in the semi-final of the world championship against the 'dissident' Viktor Kortch­ noi; the match that no So­ viet citizen had the right to lose and which essentially ended his hopes in the .._ _..__ quest for the supreme title. In fact, it is well known _

that we have a selective memory and the better moments gradually erase the painful ones. Giving the reasons for his choice, Polugaevsky explained "From the numerous journeys that I have made in this country I remember each moment. I won Mar del Plata twice, in 1962 and 1 97 1 , and they still remain happy memories for me. In Argentina, people live well and the people are marvellous; on top of that they really love chess. I'll never forget for example, when the police had to make

].J.

van Oosterom

89

a path for me through the masses in front of the San Martin theatre after I had just won a game in my match against Kortchnoi. People were grab­ bing hold in order to congratulate me, it was fantastic". His wife Irene added "After Lev was eliminated, I saw people who were in tears. I've never seen that in other countries". Personally I had never been to Argentina and no doubt like many people, I thought that Russia (let's say the USSR) was the only real home of chess. After three weeks spent in Buenos Aires I revised my judgement and would like to mention here some significant happenings. Almost every­ where in restaurants, the boss and staffrecognized the players and asked for their autographs; at the end of the meal it was typical that the house offered us a digestif; be it a bottle of wine or champagne. In the street, people became aware of Lev, they respectfully acknowledged him or even ap­ plauded shouting "Poluga, Poluga". Finally, for those who still remain unconvinced of the love that the Portinos (the inhabitants of Buenos Ai­ res) have for our game, it is sufficient to remem­ ber the rich chess history of the city: with Mos­ cow ( 1 956 and 1 994) and Thessaloniki (1 984 and 1988), it's the only city that has organized two Olympiads, firstly that of 1939 (then called the 'Tournament of Nations') when Germany won ahead of Poland and Estonia, then 1 978, with the surprise victory of Hungary ahead of the USSR and United States. Then one must of course add the two Candidates semi-finals with the matches Fischer - Petrosian (1971) and Kortchnoi Polugaevsky ( 1 980). Finally, and indeed mainly, the world championship final between Alekhine and Capablanca in 1927. The letter written by Alekhine, the 2nd of September 1 926, to the president of the Argentino club, who organized the encounter is also revealing: "... I add that I encountered an exceptional atmosphere, favour­ able from all points of view to the development of chess activity, and that it is with the greatest of satisfaction that I look forward to the prospect of taking part in a match for the world champi­ onship title under its auspices, in the case that Senor Capablanca accepts my challenge ... One could add to this already impressive list, other manifestations, that in their time, attracted attention such as the series of exhibition games between Najdorf and Reshevsky in 1 952, the ".

90

famous Argentina - USSR match that took place in 1 954 in the Cervantes theatre, or the tourna­ ments of: 1 93 1 , 1 946, 1 960, 1 964 and 1 970. Then one must not forget the various tourna­ ments organized in Najdorf's honour with the support of the great local newspaper, Clarin. Concerning the choice of participants, the prob­ lem became complicated because of the interven­ tion of some spectacular changes. Firstly ac­ cepted, Garry Kasparov's participation was later cancelled. To justify his decision, the PCA World Champion pointed out the length of the tourna­ ment and his full diary in order to excuse himself. To compensate for his absence, 'Polu' played with the idea, for a few days, of calling Bobby Fischer, but the project was quickly abandoned as unrealistic. A shame because the 'man from Reykjavik' , as well as a specialist 1 .e4 player and undeniable expert on the Sicilian, would have brought much to the tournament. His presence would equally have led to the first meeting be­ tween Karpov and Fischer! At the beginning of Spring in 1 994 it became clear that following his operation, 'Polu' would not be fit enough to take part, and with much emotion, he indicated to the organizers that he had to step down. The tournament was already at an advanced stage of preparation and there was no question of delaying, or cancelling, the tour­ nament. 'Polu' himself simplified things greatly by suggesting a replacement in the person of Valery Salov. Created in honour of the late World Champion, the Max Euwe Association is still very young as it was only created on the 4th of January 1 99 1 � in Monaco. Nevertheless, its proud record is already impressive. Each event caused a great stir throughout the world, due both to their original­ ity and the quality of the organization. Recently it has diversified its interests, as in honour of the second daughter of Joop van Oosterom, Crystal Kelly, a billiards tournament was created ! Until then, the Max Euwe Association had al­ ways organized and run its own events, but in Buenos Aires, more than 15,000 Kilometres from it's base, the need to involve some foreign partners was evident; not only to balance the budget (which was phenomenal) but also to en­ sure the logistics.

In order to draw their lots, the players were required to dance with a tango dancer. Gata Kamsky was one of the many that enthusiastically submitted to this ceremony.

One of the most prestigious was without doubt the Banco Patricios, one of the most prosperous banks in Argentina who, by the expedient of its foundation, never relaxed its efforts in working to give great impact and sparkle to the tournament. It is fitting therefore to thank Doctor Alberto Spolski, the president of the foundation, and also the architect Mariano Billic, the foundation's director, along with the members of his team. The success of this novel collaboration was partly due to the mammoth task performed by 'logistics organizer' Pieter Cordia. He spent, in effect, more than a year on this ambitious project and as things worked out, became a regular trav­ eller between Amsterdam and Buenos Aires. Un­ doubtedly for him, a method of mixing theory and practice as he used to work for a travel agency ! It is really a shame that there is no award

for the 'world champion organizer' , as for cer­ tain, Pieter Cordia would be a serious candidate. From my point of view everything was magnifi­ cently orchestrated and one had the feeling that he had truly calculated everything. It was diffi­ cult to find fault in his organization. Perhaps the only reproach that could be made was that the hotel swimming pool was closed, but can we really hold him responsible? From a media point of view the tournament knew a great success, notably because of the excellent work undertaken by the press officer, Ana Maria Monti . Not without a certain pride, GM Miguel Quinteros pointed out to me: "Here everyday there are newspaper articles, almost fifty journal­ ists have been accredited, the radio has news­ flashes and even the television is talking about it. It's even better than Linares!". 91

It is certainly difficult to fault him, as even the Argentinian state itself gave its support in declar­ ing that the Polugaevsky diamond jubilee was of national interest! Incredible. To my knowledge that has never been previously known in any other country.

The tournament, baptized 'Torneo Mundial de Ajedrez Lev Polugaevsky' took place at the head­ quarters of the Banco Patricios Fundaci6n. Situ­ ated at 3 1 2 Callao avenue, it is really near to the city centre and to the famous 9th of July avenue, considered as the largest in the world. Normally geared towards art, music or the theatre, the foundation opened wide its doors to chess as no less than four floors were devoted entirely to the tournament! On the ground floor, a room gave directly onto the street allowing spectators (but also casual passers-by) to follow the games on four giant electronic screens. This represented a big first in Argentina and I still remember the flabbergasted expressions on the faces of certain aficionados the first day of transmission. Comfortably seated, the spectators (sometimes noisily in this country) could at their leisure discuss the games and par­ take of one of the delicious pastries in the cafe­ teria. I have the names of certain players' wives who gained several kilos in this gastronomic paradise whilst their husbands lost a few from the nervous tension. At the back of the room, near the lifts, was the bookshop, which inevitably had a good number of specialized books in stock. On the first floor, a large area with a hundred or so chairs served as a commentary room. Hugo Spangenberg (Argentinian champion in 1994), Pablo Zarnicki and Ariel Sorin were regular com­ mentators. It is interesting to note that all three were picked for the Argentine team that partici­ pated in the Moscow Olympiad,. Zarnicki per­ forming in brilliant fashion to obtain the gold medal for the fourth board. It is appropriate here to acclaim their remarkable performance, each with their own style. However, he who merits the most praise was undoubtedly GM Bent Larsen, who now lives in Buenos Aires. A true enter­ tainer, he normally started his commentary around four o'clock in the afternoon, without doubt after a regenerative siesta, and after his three IM colleagues had 'warmed up' the audi92

ence. His analysis, interspersed with tremendous anecdotes, often very educational, were a real treat and it wasn't at all rare to hear a thunderous applause at the end of some spectacular vari­ ation. In Argentina one loves a good game and one lets it be known! The spectacle of the Dane's analysis alone, was worth the five Pesos ($5) entry fee. On the second floor was the press room, also equipped with electronic screens but with the added benefit of a television showing the faces of the players. There in charge was local celebrity GM Oscar Panno. Throughout the tournament, I had the distinguished honour and luck to work with him in editing the bulletin. Never tired, always in a good humour, Oscar inspires respect and everyone in Argentina seems to adore him. From the first day, I gave him the nickname 'the octopus' because it amused me to see him to bustle about in all directions and accomplish all sorts of tasks at the same time. I sometimes had the feeling that he had even fifteen arms. He would simultaneously prepare the bulletin, an­ swer the telephone, tap away at his computer, greet his friends who would never miss a chance to come and see him, anticipate the continuation in the games; finally, and certainly not the easi­ est, put up with me all afternoon. At first, I was rather surprised to see him with so much energy, but a little later I learned his secret: four sessions of tennis a day! In this domain too he had some good habits; Judit Polgar and I learned to our cost. It was equally on the second floor that the V.I.P lounge could be found, where the players came to analyse their game, replied to journalists ques­ tions and sometimes posed for the television. On the third floor was the actual playing hall which could seat a total of 250 spectators. What gave the Polugaevsky tournament its charm was above all the unique rule: all players must respect the imposed opening moves: 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 (or 2... e6, or 2. . .d6) 3.d4 cxd4 4.lt:Jxd4. Despite its originality this type of tour­ nament was far from being a novelty as at the beginning of the century in Vienna, the cele­ brated King's gambit was thus honoured. Nearer to our time, in Utrecht in the middle-eighties, a tournament took place where positions noted for their complexity were selected and 'imposed' .

Several top-flight grandmasters took part such as Ttmman and Miles. The Sicilian already had its place with the two following positions:

No.1 Najdorf - Poisoned Pawn

portunity to meet with some local, and even world-wide, celebrities. lt was true to say that all the creme of the profession and all the stars of chess-life in Buenos Aires passed before my eyes. One of the most diligent was of course Miguel Najdorf, nicknamed affectionately by his friends El viejo or Migue lito. At 84 years old, this living legend showed yet again that the years have not taken their toll on him and that his understanding of the game remains intact. Al­ ways alert, he still drives himself in his Renault R21 without glasses, (as he likes to tell everyone) trying no doubt to imitate another Argentinian idol: Juan-Manuel Fangio. There was also Fran­ sisco Benko, talented composer and keeper of one of the biggest collections of problems and studies in the world with about 30,000 works ! At the beginning of the tournament he attracted attention by exhibiting one of his problems that he considered the most accomplished. He was always proud to announce beforehand that it had kept Mikhail Tal occupied for several hours.

No. 2 Dragon - Main Line Of course, the Utrecht tournament was not in any way comparable to that of Buenos Aires which, with an average Elo rating of 2694, reached category XVIII. The games were played at the rate of 40 moves in two hours, then 20 moves in an hour, followed by one hour per player K.O., implying that no adjournments were possible. As for Elo rating, at the request of several players it was decided that the tournament would not be counted. A debatable decision as it could have, perhaps, added further spice to an already attrac­ tive competition. At the stroke of five o' clock in the afternoon (the games started at 2.30 p.m.) the building was generally jam-packed and the press room had an incredible atmosphere. This was for me an op-

British Chess Magazine 1 950 Mate in three moves Solution: l.lllc4 ( l .lllb7? 'i!Yg3 2.f8'i!Y 'i!Yg8 and the b3 pawn is protected) l. 'i!Yg3 2.f8'i!Y 'i!Yg8 3.'it;lb3 mate. Another notable visitor, Samuel Schweber, a very experienced player having taken part in six Olympiads. With his cigar glued to his lips, he blitzed away a good deal of his time and on this occasion everybody noticed that he hadn't lost any of his ability. Carlos Guimard, came along a few times to the press-room and during the tournament he cele.•

93

>rated, with great ceremony, his 8 1 th birthday to he 'Bolsa de Commercio' . Finally there was luan Sebastain Morgado, second in the world :orrespondence championship 1 978-1 984 and >wner of a famous chess bookshop. Resembling he old British Chess Magazine bookshop (with­ mt the sea salt!), it contained a few treasures and me of the most regular customers during the oumament was without any doubt, Geurt Gijs­ :en. A collector in spirit, the Dutchman took tome to the Netherlands a veritable library of :hess books ! \.s opposed to the closing ceremonies, always ather formal affairs, the opening functions or­ �anized by the Max Euwe Association are always plendid. Each time two factors predominate: the •riginality and quality of the spectacle, based ,!ways around the theme of the host's national lance. In Buenos Aires, this was of course the mgo, almost a religion in this country of more han 30 million inhabitants . :'he show started with some folk music, accom-

panied by a piano and an accordion; then fol !owed an exhibition of the tango with four cou pies. Next was to be the drawing of lots whicl would allow the calculation of the pairings. Th1 principle was as follows: each player had t< choose a dancer (of the opposite sex) then durin1 several minutes to dance a few steps of the tango at the end, as if to thank the partner, the dance would reveal the number previously hidden i1 the dancer's clothes. This provoked some sauCJ comments from the ineffable Ljubojevic. At thi1 game, Anatoly Karpov showed that he was m stranger to the dance. The next morning, th! Argentinian press did not miss the opportunity tc publish Judit Polgar, smiling radiantly, in th! arms of her partner. For her, who openly admittec her nerves on the prospect of performing thh task, the few steps seemed to last for ever... After a light cocktail, the players and organizen made their way to the bus that was to take us tc the Sheraton hotel, where we were all staying There, in one of the most sumptuous restauran�

Anatoly Karpov surrounded by tango dancers. Mrs. Polugaevsky is an interested spectator.

in the city, we dined in the company of the tournament officials. Having arrived somewhat in advance, I met the main arbiter, Geurt Gijssen, who was already occupied with the petits fours. To engage him in conversation I asked him how he was and if the tournament was going to run smoothly. He replied positively, making it be known that it couldn't be otherwise, especially when it came to tournaments organized by the Max Euwe Association! I continued by telling him about my recent visit to the Lloyds Bank open in London where apart from playing, I had witnessed some surprising events. I asked him how he would have acted if faced with the rather amusing incident that occurred in the ninth round. That day two strong English IM's, Gary Lane and Christopher Ward were paired together. At that stage, they both had five and a half points out of eight, the players still having realistic hopes of obtaining a qualification place for the PCA Grand Prix tournament (it required victories in both last games). The two players knew each other well and were indeed good friends, but that day they the two rivals launched into an unrelent­ ing battle. The tension was extreme as time drifted away, then in serious zeitnot, the two players blitzed out their remaining moves in order to attain the time control. A reconstruction was then required to see if they had indeed made the necessary 40 moves. The tension fell, Lane and Ward took their place to finish their critical game. Again they settled down to concentrate and after Black's 44th move the position was as follows:

Lane was thinking about his next move when

suddenly the Estonian GM Lembit Oll passed behind Lane, reached over his shoulder picked up the queen and placed it on e4 ! ! Completely dumbfounded, the two players explained that rather than analyzing they were in fact still play­ ing. Shocked by his mistake Oll blushed and immediately ran out of the playing hall. Coming back to their senses, the two Englishmen could not restrain themselves from bursting out laughing. Other players naturally (who had not seen the incident) asked them to be quiet, where­ upon Lane and Ward explained what had hap­ pened which led equally naturally to general uproar! The story doesn't end there; everyone then set­ tled back down to their games and Lane, after some thought, played the move suggested by Oll: 45.�g4-e4( !). Phlegmatically, Chris Ward wryly smiled to his opponent and coined the phrase: "The move recommended by the grandmaster!". Later, Lane won the game and Ward sportingly accepted his defeat. Lane and 011 then had the same number of points. It is well known that in England pair­ ings can be very flexible and some proposed slightly facetiously to the tournament director, the legendary Stewart Reuben, that it would be appropriate to pair the two players together. For­ tunately, this wasn't the case. Lane and 011 (zero­ eleven, as he is sometimes called) both lost against Yermolinsky and Norwood respectively. All the same, this tragi-comic incident raises the question: What would have happened if Ward had complained to the tournament arbiter? I posed this question to Gijssen. He explained that, unfortunately, there was nothing one could do (you cannot make the players replay the game) and that it was best to pray that this type of incident didn't happen too often. I followed up explaining that on several occasions during the same tournament the fire alarm sounded and on each occasion we were restricted from leaving the playing hall! Jokingly, I suggested that there was a case here for a new Informator symbol ! All the invitees had now arrived and as I was preparing to relate some amusing incidents that had occurred in France, he had to leave. His parting remark (I must admit that I can't remem­ ber it word for word), on raising his shoulders, was "Oh you French, you always have the best 95

incidents. Fires ! And why not an earthquake whilst we are here!". He probably didn't appreciate the truth of his words because apart from an earthquake we had to face every other imaginable upheaval. During the first round for example there was a demon­ stration in the street outside. The games had to be stopped for a few minutes. Then during the thirteenth (!) round a fire started. All the games had finished except the one between Ljubojevic and S alov. The tension was at its height as the Yugoslav took to heart the task of taking revenge for his sixth round defeat in their first meeting. The game had already been going for five hours when one of the lights in the playing hall over­ heated. The fire was quickly put out with fire extinguishers but the smoke that remained made the air unbreathable. Thus it became necessary to quickly evacuate the room. At that moment there was total confusion. Whilst 'Ljubo' was lament­ ing his thoughts: "Does that mean that I am not going to be able to continue the game under normal conditions?", Gijssen was actively work­ ing out the possibility of switching rooms. Calmly but energetically he immediately took the only reasonable decision: to finish the game in one of the small rooms next to the press office on the second floor. For the comfort of the play­ ers, the game was continued behind closed doors. Therefore the completion of the game was watched by only three pairs of eyes, finally 'Ljubo' won, opening up the tournament because Salov was only leading his closest challenger, Anand, by half a point. Next day it was a power cut that caused the problems, but fortunately this only lasted for five minutes. At the start of the last round the suspense reached fever pitch, as it was impossible to know with certainty who would finish first and take home the winner's purse of 35,000 dollars. Salov had almost outrageously dominated the tournament, but after his penultimate round loss, one could speculate that his morale would have taken a battering. 'Vishy ' , on the contrary, seemed very confident having shot up from the depths to be in a position to challenge the Russian. Further as the two were to meet in the last round the game promised to be exciting. One would have supposed that the spectators 96

would only have been following this particular game; the encounter between the leaders. How­ ever another duel immediately caught the atten­ tion, almost relegating the crucial game to sec­ ond fiddle: Kamsky - Ljubojevic. What was so interesting about that particular game? Simply the opening. As was his habit, 'Ljubo' chose the Najdorf variation and after a few quickly-played moves the following position appeared on the electronic screens:

'Ljubo' sank into deep thought and everyone held their breath. Was the Polugaevsky variation about to finally make an entrance? I remember that at that moment I found myself in the playing hall next to Lev. My eyes switched between the screen and his face, looking for the slightest reaction on his part; but there he remained, stand­ ing next to his wife Irene, expressionless and silent. What must he have been thinking, he who has given so many years to the move 7 ...b5, a move that until then had been conspicuously ignored by all of the participants, of 'his' tourna­ ment? Almost imperceptibly I felt that he was communicating telepathically with 'Ljubo' in saying to him: "Go on, play 7 ... b5, do it for me!". But 'Ljubo' thought on. What must he too have been thinking? Then after several minutes, that seemed an eternity for Lev, he picked up his queen and placed it on b6. Lev lowered his head. He was sad, slowly he left the playing hall, his dream was over. On my side, I couldn't help thinking about the sixth round. That day there, Miguel Najdorf, came with us to a tango show and then we were invited to his favourite restaurant. Naturally, there was his wife Rita, Lev, Irene, my wife Katia

The tournament room was situ ated in the impos ing building of the Banco Patricios.

and also Ljubojevic, who was demoralized after his defeat by Salov. During the meal the conversa­ tion concentrated on the Polugaevsky Variation. Miguel and Lev lamented together about the fact that it had yet to be played in the tournament. I added that it required collaboration in that White had first to play 6.�g5. It was at that moment that Ljubojevic intervened by declaring confidently : "In my case, if someone plays 6.�g5 against me, I will reply with the Polugaevsky variation". To come back to the game between Anand and Salov, the suspense didn't last for long, as the Indian, seeing that he couldn't play to win with­ out taking considerable risks, offered a draw that was of course accepted. Salov's victory was cer­ tainly a surprise to many people but equally so for himself. He summarized well the situation in his speech at the closing ceremony: "When the tournament was being organized. I soon under­ stood that it wasn't for me; I don't like big cities, nor big hotels such as the Sheraton, I was only the reserve and I don't even play l .e4 with White...". What the Russian (who lives in a small town near Madrid) forgot to add was that it was straight from his victory in the marathon Tilburg

tournament that he came here. He arrived tired out and it didn't help having influenza during the first few rounds. Many reasons to render his victory even more heroic. Reading the cross ta­ ble, one sees that he only won by the narrowest of margins, but in fact his domination was almost total . He took the lead in the third round and kept it until the end. He gradually increased the lead until at one mo­ ment he was even two points ahead. His opening choices, based on positional considerations im­ posed on the middle game. As he expressed later, his main problem was to avoid theoretical dis­ cussions in some sharp variations where he had no experience. This is why he frequently adopted a king's fianchetto with White and the Paulsen with Black. His two victories over Karpov cer­ tainly opened up the road to success, but they didn't change his behaviour in any way. I remem­ ber the evening after the first of these victories that we dined together and at no time did he show any external signs ofjoy. Discreet and respectful of his opponent, he savoured his win internally, but without doubt intensely. When certain jour­ nalists asked him if he felt that he was capable of 97

Lev Polugaevsky m ade the first move at Judit Polgar's board, u nder the watchful eye of chief arbiter G eurt G ijssen.

winning the world championship his reply was neat and clear: "Of course, before this tourna­ ment, I had only beaten Karpov once, in Rotter­ dam 1 989 in the GMA world cup. These victories here don't increase my potential to be a future world champion, as Karpov was not favoured by the fact that he hasn't played either the Sicilian, nor l .e4 with White, for a long time. It's a totally different story when one has to face his Queen's Indian. Naturally, these two games will give me confidence and comfort but one shouldn't jump to hasty conclusions". Finally, he dedicated this tournament victory to his wife Tania, adding that she was far more precious than any 'second' could be! Anand was as usual rapid, efficient, spectacular but also opportunistic. He took his time to score his points, as after five rounds he only had 50%. His second place was fully merited but it should be mentioned that he lived up to his nickname of 'Lucky Luke' as lady luck certainly offered him her favours, notably in his two games against 98

Ljubojevic. The second half saw him advance strongly with 4.5/7. Admirably, he never gave up hope of catching Salov, leading to the passionate finale. lvanchuk, on his first visit to South America, seemed out of touch and his major problem was his use of time. At the press conference, which took place on the evening of our arrival, a few days before the tournament he was still at the hotel dreaming in the arms of Morpheus (or was it Morphy?). When it was time to take the bus to the tournament hall he was generally last to turn up, which irritated Judit. Further, he lost to Salov on time in the eighth round, admittedly in a probably losing position. This didn't prevent him from winning three magnificent games, notably those against Anand (winner of the prize for the best attack) and Shirov (winner of the beauty prize) . Another satisfaction for 'Chukky' was that some days after his arrival on Argentine soil, he created his first crosswords puzzle. Judit Polgar was far from the best prepared in

theoretical terms, but with a little more realism she could have challenged the leaders. She suf­ fered from over-optimism (or a lack of objectiv­ ity), as in certain positions her desire to win at all costs led to her taking too many risks and hence exposing herself to strong counters. Gata Kamsky swung between the best and the worst. His best quality, tenacity, was this time lacking due to a certain weariness, resulting from his father's austere regime: bed at 22.30, up at 06.30! The mediocre performance of the FIDE world champion, Anatoly Karpov, could also be ex­ plained by fatigue accumulated over the preced­ ing months, but also by the fact that the thematic tournament didn't really suit him (he generally plays 1 .d4 and against 1 .e4 his usual replies are l . . .e5 or l . ..c6). On his arrival in Argentina he played a match of four quickplay games against Hugo Spangenberg (+3 - 1). Instead of resting he then flew the next day to the town of San Nicolas to play another exhibition match of two games against GM Daniel Campora (+1 = 1 ) . In the first half of the Buenos Aires tournament he managed 417, but the return games took their toll (2.517 with five draws and two losses) on his stamina. Against Anand in the twelfth round he was pun­ ished for his poor opening preparation, as the Indian GM later pointed out, the FIDE world champion's position was compromised as early as the twelfth move: Anand - Karpov (round 1 2) l .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jc6 5 .tt:Jc3 'fic7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 tLlf6 8.�e3 �b4 9.tLla4 d5?! 10.tt:Jc6 bc6 1 l .ed5 tt:Jd5 1 2.�d4 Alexey Shirov, despite his Latvian passport, was considered to be "the local hero"; since his mar­ riage to a young Argentinian, he shares his life between Buenos Aires and Riga. The best one can say is that he was not playing under ideal conditions as the imminent birth of his first child probably affected his concentration. As well as that, one should add bad luck and a theoretical preparation that was poorly rewarded. With White he set about aggressively pushing his g­ pawn at an early stage. His intention was to force the game down original tactical paths. Apart from one beautiful victory in the ninth round against Anand his strategy generally failed; worse, it gave the possibility to two of his oppo­ nents to distinguish themselves and obtain a re-

ward! Firstly, Judit, who obtained the prize for the best theoretical novelty after the sequence: l .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 e6 3 .d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tt:Jc6 5 .tt:Jc3 d6 6.g4 a6 7.�e3 tt:Jge7 8.tLlb3 b5 9.f4 �b7 1 0.'fif3 g5 !N. This move made Alexey jump out of his chair (an aesthetic move as it constitutes a sym­ metric blow). It was later Ivanchuk, who in the last round, obtained the Clarin cup for the beauty prize. Here again it was Black who broke new ground, but this time much more classically, as it is based on the principal: attack on the wing, counter in the centre. Shirov - lvanchuk (round 14). l .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5 .tt:Jc3 a6 6.�e3 e6 7.�e2 'fic7 8.g4 d5 !N 9.ed5 �b4 1 0.de6 �c3 l l .bc3 'fic3 12.r.tO'fl and Black won in 33 moves. Because of his legendary volubility and perfect mastery of the Spanish language, "Ljubo" very quickly had the Argentinian journalists and pub­ lic in his pocket. This often gave the impression that he was playing "at home". Downhearted after his unjust first round loss against Anand, he seemed almost to have adopted the principle of "all or nothing", an approach that sometimes turned against him but had the merit ofprovoking some spectacular games. This combativity was much appreciated by the organizers who re­ warded him with a prize for his "fighting spirit". A late series of three consecutive victories against Polgar, Shirov and Salov failed to lift him from last place but was a proud reaction against misfortune! Looking back, Polugaevsky, not fully recovered from his operation, was very disappointed in not being able to participate in this made-to-measure tournament. Commenting on the fact that his variation was never used he declared: "Sure, my variation was not played here but that means that no one could refute it!". When asked the reason for his devotion to the Sicilian, his face lights up and he becomes animated: "Very rapidly I under­ stood that the Sicilian suited my temperament and style. I have never felt the urge to change the opening; in fact I think that I was born for the Sicilian". As for the genesis of the variation that bears his name, his explanation sums up his philosophy: "With Black I am ready to take risks, to go to the edge of the precipice, but White must accompany me!". 99

is perhaps this lack of risk-taking, noticeable in some games from the tournament, that may have diminished the pleasure.

It

Before we sink into an analysis of the games, I invite you, dear readers, to take a break by solv­ ing this magnificent problem, which was espe­ cially created for the tournament by the Dutch GM Comelis Goldschmeding. Good luck! (for the solution, see page 236).

Mate in two moves.

1 00

Round 1 Lju bojevi c

- Anand

lvanch u k

- Salov

Karpov

- Kamsky

Polgar

- Shi rov

An and Polgar lvanchuk Kamsky Karpov Salov Ljubojevic Shirov

0- 1 lfz - lfz 1/z - 1/z 1 -0

1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0

9 ...tt:Ja5 would have been the logical continuation

51 26. 1 D Ljubojevic • Anand

of the course chosen. 1 0. 'iif3 ti:ld4

Notes by]eroen Piket The first round is always very important for the participants, as they find out whether they are in the right shape at the required moment. Some solve this problem by settling for a quick draw and playing themselves into the tournament by not losing. In this Sicilian tournament it soon became clear that nobody wanted or was able to go for a solid draw, but whether they were al­ ready in their best shape you, the readers, may decide for yourselves. 1 .e4 c5 2.ti:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ti:ld4 ti:lf6 5.tt:lc3 tt:lc6 6.�c4

The Fischer-Sozin Attack is usually preferred by Ljubojevic to the Rauzer Variation (6. .ig5). 6 ...e6 7.�e3 a6 8.�b3 'iic 7?!

An inaccuracy, as Black can do without this move. 8 ... �e7, to continue the development, or 8 ...�d7 to expand on the queenside with 9 .. b5, are the recommendations by the latest theoretical articles.

White gained a devastating attack in Istratescu­ Nevednichy, Bucharest 1994, after 1 0. ..tt:Ja5 l l .g4! h6 1 2.0-0-0 b5 1 3 .g5 tLlb3 1 4.ab3 hg5 15.hg5 t2Jd7 1 6.g6! 1 1 .�d4 b5 1 2.a3 0-0 1 3.o-o

Anand admitted during the post-mortem that he had feared 1 3.0-0-0, but according to Ljubo his treatment of the position was best. 1 3...�b7 1 4.:ae1 J:.ac8?!

Black should hurry with his counterplay because White is ready to fulfil his wishes on the kingside. Correct was 14 .. .'ti'd7 followed by 1 5 ... a5. 1 5.'iig3 hS

Anand really started a trend with this defensive move, as it was frequently seen later in the tour­ nament. 1 6.h1 'ifc6?

.

9.f4 �e7

Again 16 .. .'il'd7 was better, as the bishop on e7 needed protection. 1 7J:tf3

1 01

Somewhat primitive, but simply reinforcing his position.

1 7...a5 1 8.'ifg51

20...h6?1 Vishy clearly dislikes the precarious situation he has got into, and he gives his opponent a decisive opportunity. Black's task after 20 . . .'ifd7 2 l . tLlf2 (2l .J::f.d3 ! ? was suggested by Polugaevsky) was also unenviable.

21 . .l:f.h3 �h7 Everybody agreed this was the only move, as 2 l . ..e5 22.fe5 tLle4 23.J:lh6 'it>g8 24.'ifg4 ! would not have helped a lot.

22.lLlf2 The knight is heading for g4.

22.. J:lg8 23.tbg4 lLlg4 24.'ife7 A surpnsmg move which required a large amount of calculation.

1 8 ... b4 1 9.ab4 ab4 20.tLld1 1 The direct attempt to go for the kill by 20.. J:tg3 J::f.g8 2 l .e5 tLle4! would have rebounded ridiculously.

1 02

This was wrongly criticized, as it is not only sufficient to maintain a winning advantage, but also stronger than the modest 24.'ifg4 'ifd7 25. 'ifh5 or 25 .f5, when Black can still stubborn!y defend.

24...e5 25.fe5

Round 1

25.�g5 (25.�h4 f5 ! was what Anand was hop­ ing for) 25 . . . �d7 26.f5 ed4 27.�g4 was not bad either.

25 ... de5 26.�g1 tt:lf6 27.'tlfe5? The first mistake due to severe time shortage. From this point the standard of the game rapidly decreases. 27.�f7 tt:le4 (27 .. .l:Igf8 28 .i.g6 is lights out! ) 28 .�g8 l:i.g8 (28 . .. �g8 29.l:i.f3 ! ) 29.J:.e2 (29.l:i.f3 tt:lg5 30.l:i.f2 tt:lh3 and tt:lf4 ; 30.J:lg3) 2 9. . .�a6 30.J:lee3 would have given a nice material advantage.

27 ... tt:le4 28.'1Wf5 'lt>h8?

the most incredible blunders time after time. 30 ... tt:lc3 ! ! would have been a terrible shock for Ljubojevic.

31 .'tlfgS?? The game is taking a dramatic course, as every move completely turns the tables. 3 l .i.d5 ! l:i.d5 32.'ifd5 would have given another winner.

31 ... l:i.d4! Finally an excellent move and Anand seems to have recovered from his black-out.

32.cd4 tt:lb3 33.d5 l:.e8?

Anandcomplicates rnatters notforobjectivereasons, but purely because of the problems Ljubo has with the clock. 28 . .. 'fi'g6! 29.�f7 �f7 30.i.f7 J:lgf8 3 l .�b3 tt:lf2 32.i.f2 l:i.f2 33.l:i.g3 l:i.e8 would have been enough to escape with a draw.

29.�d4! Threatening 30J:re4 �e4 3 l .l:i.h6.

29...J:lcd8 The other rook to d8 would also lose after 30.�g7 'lt>g7 3 l .'iff7 'lt>h8 32 ..ie6!

Giving Ljubo a last opportunity to end the game with the proper result. 33 . .. 'if a6! would have left White empty-handed.

34.l:.e8? 34.'ifd8 ! was a brilliant save, as after 34 . . .l:.d8 35 .dc6 i.c6 36.J:I.b3 l:td2 37.l:i.gl l:i.d4 the game would have ended in a draw.

34... 'tlfe8 35.'tlfe3 'fi'a8! 36.l:l.h6 gh6 37.'fi'h6 'lt>g8 38.'tlfg5 'lt>f8 39. 'fi'h6 'lt>e8 30.c3??

And a very, very bad but exciting game ended when a disillusioned Ljubojevic resigned.

Allowing a petite combinaison which could have been prevented by the intermediate 30.i.a4 ! 'ifd6 and only then 3 l .c3. Anand was ready to meet 30.l:i.e4 with 30... l:i.d4 !

30... tt:ld2?? The players were definitely not mentally ready for such a time scramble, as they manage to make 1 03

51 29.2 0 Ivanchuk

• Salov

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.lLlf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 t2Jf6 5.tbc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.'ifd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 During the last few years this particular line of the Rauzer variation has enjoyed a huge revival and is one of the most frequently used Sicilian variations in general tournament practice. Many theoretically important games were played in this tournament too.

9.�e3 Vasily Ivanchuk has always been an adherent of this move, but this is really a matter of taste, as 9.�f4 is equally often seen.

9 ...�e7 1 0.f3 lLld4 According to Dolmatov in the Encyclopedia, IO . . .d5 gives Black an equal game. Interestingly Salov tried this two weeks earlier against the same opponent in the Interpolis tournament semi-final in the second rapid game, but he faced great difficulties after 1 1 .ed5 ttJd5 1 2.ltJd5 'it'd5 1 3 .ltJc6 'it'c6 14.�d3 'it'a4 1 5 .'it>b1 0-0 16.l:f.he1 l:f.d8 1 7.'it'f2 �d7 1 8.�b6 J:tdc8 19.l:f.e4 'it'c6 20.l:f.c4!

1 1 .'ifd4!

above-mentioned semi-final in Tilburg 1994 he chose 1 1 .�d4.

1 1 ...e5 After 1 l ...b5 Salov probably feared the central advance 12.e5 ( 1 2.'iti'b 1 �b7 1 3.h4 d5 14.ed5 ttJd5 1 5.ttJd5 'it'd5 16.c4 bc4 1 7.�4 'it'd4 1 8.�d4 0-0 Gipslis-Lerner, Yurmala 1983, is boring and completly equal) although after 1 2. .. de5 1 3 'it'e5 'it'a5 14.'it>b1 �b7 1 5.i.d3 0-0 1 6.'it'g3 'it>h8 1 7.'it'h3 b4 18.ltJe2 'it'h5 Black had no problems in Campora-Rodriguez, Amsterdam 1 987.

1 2.'ifd2 �e6 1 3.g4?! Typical kingside expansion, but I think there are better alternatives: 1 3.h4 ! ? 'it'aS 14.'it>b1 l:f.c8 1 5 .a3 ltJd7 1 6.g3 J:.c6 1 7.f4 i.g4 1 8 .�e2 �e2 19.'it'e2 ttJf6 20.ltJd5 'it'a4 21 .�c l ! was pleasant for White in Gufeld­ Vilela, Dortmund 1983, while 1 3.ltJd5 ! ? �d5? ! ( 1 3 . . .ttJd5 14.ed5 �f5 1 5.g4 is only slightly bet­ ter, according to Timman) 14.ed5 ltJd7 1 5.g3 ! gave Karpov a serious advantage against Tim­ man in Linares 1983.

1 3...'ifa5 1 4.'ii'f2 14.a3 b5 1 5.h4 b4 1 6.ttJd5 �d5 1 7.ed5 l:f.b8 1 8.'it>bl �d8 was very complicated in Shirov­ Lutz, Munich 1993.

14 ...t2Jd7 1 5.'itb1 llc8 With the hope of taking on c3.

1 6.tbd5 �gS! An excellent manoeuvre and the main reason why I was attracted by 13.h4 instead of the game move 1 3.g4.

1 7.h4 �e3 1 8."i:Ve3 'ifcS! Gaining an important tempo, as 1 9.'it'c5 can be answered satisfactorily with 19 ... ttJc5 .

1 9.'it'd2 �dS 20.ed5 llc7! Preparation for an original new way to castle queenside. After 20... ttJb6 21 .l:f.h2 (2l .c3) 2 1 . ..ltJc4 22.�c4 'i!Vc4 23Jie2 White would be better due to his space advantage. A very subtle nuance and a little psychological teasing by the grandmaster from Lvov, as in the 1 04

21 .llh2! �d8!

Round 1

A very difficult position to assess, and in the pressroom the two legends Najdorf and Polugaevsky did not agree with the other's judge­ ment

ble, but not 33.b5? ttJd2 and 34. . . 4Jc4) and the two connected pawns plus bishop should be stronger.

32.f4

22.a4! Both players were consuming a large amount of time but this has resulted in a high level middle­ game.

22 ... �c8 23.a5 �b8 24.c4 llhc8 25.b4?!

32 ... lt:Jf6? Who would not play this in severe time trouble, as attack is the best form of defence. 32. . .f6?, to play for 33 ... g5, loses to 33.h5 fS 34.g5 !

33.g5 lt:Jh5 34.gh6 gh6 35.f5 lt:Jf6 A little bit too energetic but 'Chukky' was pressed by the clock. 25.g5! was the right way to start some action, as the threat of 26.b4 only becomes stronger.

25 .. .'ii'd 4! 26.llc1 Not 26.li'd4 ed4 27.f4 (27Jid4 ttJeS) 27 .. J:tc4!? (27 .. J:te8) 28.�c4 l'k4 and Black has more than sufficient compensation for the material deficit.

26... b5? This must be based on a miscalculation as it leads by force to an inferior ending. The exchange sacrifice 26. .. llc4 27.�c4 .l::tc4 28.'ii!Yd4 (28Jk4 'ii!Yc4 followed by 29 ... 4Jf6) 28 . . .lld4 was neces­ sary and seems to give enough counterplay to maintain the balance.

27.'ti'd4 ed4 28.llhc2 bc4 28 . . .4Je5 29.cb5 would certainly not improve Salov's chances of survival.

29.llc4 .l:tc4 30..1:tc4 l:tc4 31 .�c4 �a7 3 1 .. .4Je5 32.�a6 ttJf3 33.r;tJc2! ? (33.h5 is possi-

35 ...f6 36.r;tJc2 ttJf4 (36 ... 4Jg7 37.�d3 would be a bit more stubborn, but would lead to a similar inferior position as in the game) 37.'it>d2! ttJg2 (37 ... r;tJb7 38.'it>el ttJg2 39.'it>f2 tt:lh4 40 . .id3 !) 38 ..id3 ! and 38 ... tt:lh4 simply fails to 39.�e4.

36. �c2 lt:Jd7 Again Black could opt for 37 . .. tt:le8 and 38 .. .f6 but objectively this is also insufficient to save the draw. After capturing the d4 pawn White moves his king to g4 after which the knight has to remain at g7. Then the bishop is transferred to the a4-e8 diagonal and after... r;tJb8 there follows �d7, and the white king moves back to the queenside where the break with bS will be deci­ sive.

37.�d3 lt:JeS 38.�d4 f6 39.�e2 b7 40.�c3 �a7 41 .b5?? For no reason Ivanchuk is suddenly in a hurry to finish the game. The slow 41. 'it>b3-a4 and only then bS would have been the right way to break Black's resistance, as Valery will be put in Zugzwang after ... tt:ld7 (before White plays bS) with �5. 1 05

41 ...ab5 42.�b4 �a6! 43..tb5 �b7

tt:Jf3 50...ie2 tt:Jd4 51 ..id3 tt:Jf3 52 . .te4 tt:Jd4 53.�c4 tt:Je2 54..tf3 tt:Jg3 55 ..ig4 tt:Je4 56.�b5 And because of 56. .. lbc3 Ivanchuk refrained from further winning attempts.

51 28.3 D Karpov • Kamsky Notes by]eroen Piket 44.h5? Nobody understood why Ivanchuk closed the kingside, as it was just an extra option to enter Black's fortress. However, it is difficult to see how to continue and to make use of the extra pawn. Honestly speaking, after quite a bit of intensive analysis I was no longer able to find a win for White as the following notes show: A) 44.�e2 lbd7 45.�b5 lbc5 46.�h5 lba6! 47.�f7 lbc7 (47. .. lbc5) 48.�c4 r.ti>a6 49.�b4 r.ti>b7 50.�e6 lba6 5 l .�c4 (5 1 .r.ti>a4 lbc7! (5 l ...lbc5? 52.�b5 lba6 53 ..tc8) and there is no penetration possible) 5 l ...lbc7 and White has to stop his efforts. B) 44.�a4 ! ? lbf3 ! 45.�d3 lbe5 46. .tc2 (46. .te2 lbd7 see A; 46.�b5 lbd3 47.a6 �a7 48.r.ti>c6 r.ti>a6 49.�d6 r.ti>b6 ! 50.�e7 �c5 5 1 .r.ti>f6 (5 1 .d6 lbe5 ! ) 5 l . . .�d5 52.c:tJg7 h5 is just a draw) 46 . . . lbd7 47.�b5 lbc5 48.�a4 lba6 49.r.ti>c4 lbc7 50.�c6 r.ti>a6 5 l .�b4 �a7 and again Black es­ capes. C) And finally 44 ..te8 should be met by 44 . . .lbf3 ! and 45.�d7 lbe5 leads nowhere.

44... tt:Jf3 45.�e2 tt:Jd4! Of course not 45 ... lbe5 46.�b5 and the game is over.

46..td3 �c7! An endgame expert like Salov is not going to spoil the draw any more.

47.�c3 lbf3 48.�f1 tt:Je5 49.�b4

1 06

Although in this field of eight excellent world class grandmasters all games are bound to be interesting, I guess we can honestly say that before the start of the first round this encounter was considered the highlight, as everybody was anxious to see what Karpov would do against one of the most successful players of 1 994.

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.tt:Jc3 tt:Jc6 Even though his choice is limited to the Sicilian Defence, Kamsky manages to come up with a variation he has never used before.

6...ig5 Karpov has always been a big fan of the white side of the Rauzer Variation.

6 ... e6 7.'ir'd2 ..ie7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.f4 tt:Jd4 One of the oldest theoretical lines of the Rauzer, recently very fashionable thanks to the efforts of the new generation of players like Kramnik and Anand. Kasparov in his early years preferred 9 ... h6 10.�h4 e5 1 l .lbf5 �f5 1 2.ef5 ef4 1 3 .r.ti>b1 d5, which he even used in his first World Cham­ pionship Match against Karpov, Moscow 1 984/85 .

1 0.�d4 'ir'a5 1 1 ...ic4 In the PCA-Qualifier, Groningen 1993, Kamsky tried the original 1 1 .�b5 against Kramnik.

1 1 .....id7 1 2.e5 de5 1 3:tlie5!?

Round 1

Unusual and therefore appreciated by the Fide champion. In the thirteenth round Ivanchuk tested Kamsky in the main line 1 3 .fe5 i.c6 14.i.d2 tt:ld7 1 5 .tt:ld5 'ir"d8 1 6.tt:le7 'ir"e7.

1 3 ... 'ilt'b6! In the well-known game Suetin-Glek, Moscow 1 983, Black opted for the alternative 1 3 ... 'it"b4. After 14J�d4! 'ir"b6 15.l::.hd1 l::. ad8 1 6.f5 i.c8 all authors agree that the position is balanced. This assessment is probably based on the result of that game, as it seems to me - and apparently also to Karpov - that White has some pressure. 14 ... �c5 is not an improvement, as according to my analysis 1 5 .a3 ! i.d4 1 6.'ir"d4 'ir"e7 ( 1 6 . . .'ir"b6 �f6) 17.tt:le4! gives White winning compensation for the exchange, but later I found another convincing refutation of the bishop move in my database: 1 5 . .l:.hd1 �d4 1 6. .l:!.d4 l:r.fd8 1 7.�f6 gf6 1 8.'ir"f6 'ir"b6 19.f5 �6 20..l:!.g4 �f8 2l .b3 and Black resigned, Ziatdinov-Ragozin, Antwerp Open 1994.

1 4.'ii'e2! .!:!.adS Losing a pawn and therefore criticized in the press room, but Gata had assessed the arising position very well. The obvious 14 ... �c6 did not appeal to him because after 1 5.f5 'ir"c5 ( 1 5 ... 1!fa5 ! ? is a better idea proposed by Sosonko) 1 6.i.f6 i.f6 1 7.fe6 fe6 1 8.tt:le4 ! he runs into trouble.

1 5.lt:Je4!

1 5... lt:Jd5! A pawn sacrifice to gain a lot of activity. 15 . . .i.c6 1 07

1 6.ltJf6 �f6 1 7.�f6 gf6 1 8 .�d3 ! and 15 ... 1i'c7 16 . .l:.hfl would not have solved the problems.

1 6.�d5 �g5 1 7.lt:Jg5 ed5 1 8. .l:.d5 �g4! The only justification for the material invest­ ment.

1 9. 'ii'e4 g6 20. .l::l.d 8 .l::l. dB 21 . 'ii'c4 Also after 2 1 .1i'e7 .l:.d7 22.1i'e8 �g7 the knight on g5 should be described as powerless instead of powerful.

21 ... 1i'f6 Defending f7 and meanwhile threatening 22... .l:.d4.

22.g3 'ii'e7! Occupying both open files leaving and White with no option but to repeat moves.

23.'ife4 'it'd7 24.'ifd3 'ife7 24 . . .'ii'd3 25 .cd3 .l:f.d3 would be equal, but the text forces the draw.

25.'ife4 'ifd7 26.'ifd3 'ife7 And the players complimented each other on their faultless play.

7.lt:J1 c3 For 7 .�d3 see Anand-Shirov in the next round.

7...a6 8.lt:Ja3 h6!? An expert's move as at first sight it is not so easy to understand what the big difference is with 8 ... �e6 9.�e2 or 9.ltJc2. 9 ...�g5, exchanging the dark-squared bishop, is one of the most important ideas in this line. But if we have a closer look we can conclude that after this exchange Black has not yet solved all his opening problems, as becomes clear from the following examples: A) 8 . . .�e6 9.�e2 �g5 IO.ii.g5 'ii'g5 1 1 .0-0 J:Id8 1 2.ltJd5 ltJf6 13.ltJc7 �f8 (13 ... �d7 !? Sveshnikov) 14.1i'd3 Anand-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1989. B) 8 ... �e6 9.ltJc2 �g5 1 0.�e2 �c l l l .'ii'c l ( l l ..l:f.c l ltJf6 12.0-0 0-0 1 3 .1i'd2 'ii'b 8 14.'ire3 'ii'a7 1 5.1i'a7 ltJa7 16.f3 Dolmatov-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 992) l l ...'ii'b6 1 2.0-0 ltJf6 1 3 . .l:f.dl 0-0 1 4.b3 .l:f.fd8 1 5 .J:Id2 Dolmatov-Van derWiel, Ma­ nila olympiad 1992.

9.lt:Jc2 �e6 1 o.�e2 �g5 1 1 .0-0 tt:Jge7!

51 32.9 D Polgar • Shirov Notes by]eroen Piket Shirov had already been beaten twice by Polgar and of course he was out for revenge.

1 .e4 cs 2.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 es 5.lt:Jb5 d6 6.c4 �e7 This uncommon version of the Sveshnikov Vari­ ation was popularized in the late eighties when Sveshnikov, Van der Wiel and later even Short started to investigate this line of the Sicilian Defence with at first excellent results. It was in those years that Johnny Van der Wiel came up with a fantastic name for it, referring to an old and famous Russian military weapon called the 1 08

Kalashnikov. Since then this name has been ac­ cepted but the theoretical value of this line has decreased. As with the weapon, the variation should not be used for more than a few years. Shirov, together with Salov, is one of the few elite grandmasters who is willing to lay his fate in the hands of this positionally unsound opening.

The Latvian grandmaster rightly prefers this square for the knight over the standard f6, as then 7 ...h6 would be just a loss of time, as play would transpose to positions comparable to the above examples.

1 2.b3 Forcing the opponent to make up his mind as 1 3.�a3 is threatened. In Geller-Lputian, Mos­ cow 1987, White had the better chances after 1 2.'ird3 ! ? ltJg6 1 3 .g3 �c l 14.J:Iac l 'ii'g5 15.ttJd5 �d5 1 6.cd5 ltJf4 1 7.1i'e3 !

1 2...�c1 1 3 . .l::l.c 1 0-0 1 4.'ifd2 'ifd7 A very modest approach. 14 ... ltJg6! was more in the line of expectation, with a complicated strug­ gle ahead.

Round 1

1 5.l2Jd5 .t:lad8 1 6.b4!

21 ...i.f5 was required as the white bishop is very powerful, being an important piece for both de­ fence and attack.

22.ttJce3 �d5? Positional capitulation! 22 ...'ilff7 would have maintained the tension, although there is no doubt that Black is worse.

23.�d5 c;i;>h8 Sticking to the wrong plan.

24.�e4! Now the bishop is the strongest piece on the board. Judith, relieved by the - for Alexey - unnatu­ rally passive treatment, does not hesitate and springs into action.

1 6... l2Jg6 Shirov's play seems rather lacking in confidence as he changes his strategy. 16 .. .f5 would have been more consistent.

1 7.a4 ttJce7 1 8.a5 Polgar has established a lasting plus on the queenside.

1 8 ...f5 1 8 . . .jldS 19.cd5 tl:Jf4, accepting slightly worse prospects, was suggested by Polgar after the game, but Ljubojevic thought that 19.ed5 was definitely the way to recapture, with a very com­ fortable position.

24... ttJe6 25. 'ilfdS l2Jd4 25 . . . tl:Jf4 26.'ifdl ! followed by f3 and l:tf2.

26. .l:!.ce1 .l:i.f7 27.f4! ef4 28.'i\fd4 fe3 29..l:!.f7 29.'ilfe3 J:te8! could be annoying.

29 .'iff7 30..l:!.e3 l:tf8 31 ..l:!.e1 'ilff4?! ..

Playing for the trick 32.g3 tl:Jf3 . 3 1 ...tl:Jf5 32.'iff2! would also lead to a hopeless ending.

32.'ii'e3 'iff6 32 ... 'iff7 33.�d5 ! makes it impossible to defend the b7 pawn as Black has to reckon with the invasion 34.'ii'e 7.

33.jLb7 'ii'b2 34.b5!

1 9.ef5 tZ:lfS 19 . . .�d5 ! ? 20.fg6 (20.cd5 tl:Jf4) 20 ...jle4, fight­ ing for equality, was an option.

20.�f3 Polgar refrained from 20.�d3 because of 20 . . .�5 2 l . .�f5 J:tfS 22.'ilfd5 ..tth 8 and Black is okay.

20... l2Jfh4?! A semi-active move as the knight has no future any more.

21 .�e4 tZ:lf4

Material is not important as long as White creates a passed pawn.

1 09

34 ... ab5 35.cb5 'ii'b5 36.a6 d5 37.l:[c1 ! 'ifa4 With the idea of 38.a7 'ii'a 2!

38. 'ifcS! Ild8 39.a7 tt:lg2

110

A last desperate attempt to confuse Polgar.

40.a8'tW Ila8 41 .�a8 And because 41 . . .'ii'g4 fails to 42.'ii'c 8 Shirov resigned.

Round 2 An and

- Shi rov

1/2 - 1fz

Kamsky

- Polgar

0- 1

Salov

- Karpov

1 -0

Lj u bojevi c

- lvanchuk

1 -0

51 32.9 D A nand • Shirov Notes by]eroen Piket Although in a double round event like this the players have an equal number of games with White and Black, Shirov was in the unfortunate situation of starting the tournament with two Blacks.

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 eS 5.tt:Jb5 d6 Shirov stubbornly sticks to the same defence he lost with the day before.

6.c4 �e7 7.�d3 Anand has his own rather unusual treatment of this system. Everybody else plays 7 .tt:l 1c3

Polgar An and Salov Lj ubojevic lvanch u k Kamsky Karpov Shirov

2 1 .5 1 .5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Until now most adherents of this line have gone in for the odd-looking 1 0. .. �g4 to provoke 1 l .f3, in order to continue 1 l ...�e6, 1 2 ... tt:lh5 and .ig5 . In the game Nijboer-Schmittdiel, Leeuwarden 1 993, White simply played 1 1 .£i.e2 and after the retreat 1 1. .. j(e6 secured an enduring plus with 1 2.£i.e3 Ik8 1 3 .'i!i'd2 'i!i'a5 1 4J:!.fd 1 l:!.fd8 1 5.f3 l:!.d7 16.tt:ld5 ! Anand considers 10 .. .�e6 with the idea of 1 1 . ..lLld7 and tt:lc5 as Black's best option.

1 1 .b3! Securing the pawn chain and at the same time making it possible to avoid the exchange of the dark-squared bishop.

1 1 ... �g5 1 2.�b2 Keeping an eye on the only weakness in his position, the d4 square.

1 2 �e6 1 3.tt:Jc2 l:!.c8 1 4.'it>h1 ! .•.

7

••.

tt:Jf6

The most common response, but in Ye-Salov, Tilburg 1994, Valery preferred 7 . .. a6 8.ttJ5c3 �g5 to exchange the dark-squared bishops im­ mediately, and after 9.tt:la3 .ic1 1 0.l:!.c1 lLlf6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.lLlc2 £i.e6 1 3.'i!i'd2 'i!i'b6 he easily managed to maintain the balance.

8.0-0 0-0 9.tt:J1c3 a6 1 0.tt:Ja3 tt:Je8

Clearly the Indian grandmaster has read the books of the world's best trainer Mark Dvoret­ sky, as this is a beautiful example of prophylaxis ! The general idea is to play g3 and f4 after which the king is well placed in the corner.

1 4 tt:Je7? .••

Too passive. Alexey should have given his oppo­ nent the same treatment with the useful 14 ... g6. 111

1 5.'i!fe2 Now after Shirov's concession, development can be completed.

1 5 ... g6 1 6.l:l.ad1 CiJg7 1 7.CiJe3 White's advantage is evident as 18.�bl and �a3 will increase the pressure on the weaknesses.

1 7 .. .'ifb6! Panic reactions like 1 7 .. .f5 1 8 .ef5 gf5 19.�bll would only make things worse.

1 8.l:l.fe1 CiJc6! Sometimes admitting mistakes is better than try­ ing to hide them, but I guess this also applies in normal life!

1 9.�b1 ! 19.lucd5 ifc5 20. .ibl would give Black a chance to improve on the game with 20 ...f5 !?.

21 ...f5! Ofcourse Shirov profits from this inaccuracy and becomes active right away.

22.'ifg3?! Anand does not want to change his mind and executes his plan, but 22.ef5 deserved more at­ tention as after 22 ... lt:Jf5 23.lLlf5 �f5 24.'ifg3 �h6 25.�f5 :tf5 26.f3 White would preserve his positional advantage, and even after Black's most precise defence 22 . . .�e3 23.'ife3 'ife3 24.lt:Je3 lt:Jf5 I prefer the white position.

22 ... �e3! 23.fe3 l:l.f7! Doubling on the f-file with a strong initiative. One could discuss whether 23 ... :td7 (with the same idea) was more exact.

24.ef5

1 9... l:l.cd8 19 .. .lud4?! 20.'ifd3 was no use as the unpleasant 21 .lt:Ja4 ! is hard to meet.

20.CiJcd5 'ifcS 21 .'iff3?

24...�f5! 24... lt:Jf5? 25 .�f5 �f5 26.e4 �e6 27.�c l ! was what Anand was hoping for.

25.�f5 lLJf5 26.'ifg5 l:tdf8 27.h3! Vishy chooses the wrong way to drive the bishop away from g5. Much better was 2 l .g3 ! with the idea 22.f4 as mentioned above. Both 2 l ...�e3 22.lLJf6 �h8 23.'ife3 and 2 1 ...f5 22.ef5 gf5 24.f4 ! would give White an overwhelming posi­ tion. The last desperate attempt by the Latvian grandmaster - during the post mortem 2 l . . .f5 22.ef5 �e3 was severely punished by 23.fe6 :tf2 24.'ife3 'ife3 25.:te3 l:tb2 26.e7 ! 112

The right moment to make this useful move, so that there will never be mate on the back rank.

27...b5 To strike against the base of the pawn structure.

28.e4 CiJfd4 29.cb5 ab5 30...tc1 ! There was no longer any future on the a l -h8 diagonal, but now the bishop is very much alive again as it is aiming for h6.

Round 2

30 ... 'f/a7 More direct was 30...'Wi'c2 as then 3 1 .�4 could be answered with 3 l ...'Wi'f2! The players therefore analyzed 3 1 .'Wi'g4 after which Black has many possibilities viz. 3 l .. .lLle7, 3 l ...h5 ! ?, 3 l ...'Wi'a2 and 3 1 . . .J::!.f2.

31 .'f/h4 3 1 .'Wi'g4 ! ? was interesting, because penetration via the light-squared diagonal is more likely and 3 1 .. .�g7 fails to 32.'Wi'h4!

31 ... tt:Jc21 32.Ug1 Otherwise the invasion on f1 would be decisive.

38.�e3 l:t8f7 39.'ii'c8 l:t1 f2?? A terrible blunder in time trouble. 39 ... lLldc2! would have continued the attack with the minor pieces.

40.�f2 l:tf2 41 .'it'd7? Surprised by the voluntary exchange sac by his opponent, Vishy overlooks a simple win with 4l .'Wi'c7! �h6 42.lLle3 ld.e2 43.lLlg4 �g5 44.'Wi'c l !

41 ...�h61 Now it is an open fight again.

42.lt:Je3 l:te2 43.lt:Jg4 �g5

32..:ti'f21 33.'f/g4 The ending would be in Black's favour as the white pawns are easy targets.

33 ... �g7

44.�g1 1

34.l:i.gf1 ? 1 Vishwanathan made this very risky move as a result of an erroneous assessment of the arising position. 34.'Wi'e6 is ineffective after 34 .. .'ifc5, but 34.a4!, as proposed by Shirov, was a very good move to divert attention from the kingside. Still, the bat­ tle would be as sharp as in the game after 34 ...ba4 35.ba4 lLl6d4 (35 ...h6!?) 36..tld2 h5 !

34 ... 'ti'f1 35.l:i.f1 l:tf1 36.�h2 tb6d4 37.�g5 lt:Je1 The white king is in much more danger than its opposite number.

A fine defence. The fact that material is not very important in these positions is illustrated by the variation 44.'Wi'd6 lLldf3 ! 45.�hl �f4 ! ! (45 .. .J:lg2 46.'Wi'f6 �h5 47.'Wi'f3 ! with a drawish knight ending) 46.gf3 (46.'Wi'f6 �g3 47.lLle5 J::!.f2! ) 46. ..lLlf3 47.'it'd3 J::!.a2 48.'Wi'fl �g3 ! fol­ lowed by 49 ...h5, when White is hopelessly lost. However, he could also have saved his skin by 44.'Wi'h7 ! J::!.g2 45.�hl �f4 ! 46.'Wi'f7! (46.'Wi'g6 lLldf3 and 46.lLle5 de5 47.'Wi'h4 �f3 48.'Wi'el lLle2! 49.'ifdl b4! 50.'Wi'd3 �f4 are insufficient defenses) 46... �g3 47.'Wi'g6 �h4 ! 48.'Wi'h6 �g3 49.'ti'g6.

44...f4 45.'ii'd6 l::tg2 46.�f1 lt:Jdf3 47.lt:Je5 l:i.g1 48.f2 l:tg2 Draw. This was perhaps the most complicated game of the tournament! Comments are based on the notes of Anand. 113

51 36.5 D Kamsky • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket Not only the clash between the two youngsters of the tournament but also a fight (despite their good relationship) between the genders, as Gata is supported by his father and Judith by her mother.

1 .e4 cS 2.tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.ttJd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 ttJc6 6.ttJdb5 Kamsky decides to transpose to the Sveshnikov Variation as most people do, because the alterna­ tive 6.ttJc6 bc6 7 .e5 ttJd5 8.ttJe4 leads to very complicated and - more importantly - very irregular positions which contain a lot of risk for both sides.

6 d6 .•.

6. . .�b4 7.a3 .ic3 8.ttJc3 d5 9.ed5 ed5 has quite a reasonable reputation nowadays and White

114

players should certainly take this line into ac­ count.

7.�f4 es 8.�g5 a6 9.ttJa3 �e6 Judith opts for the Bird!Larsen Variation and avoids the main line for an obvious reason, as Kasparov has recently started showing the way for White.

1 O.ttJc4 ttc8 1 1 ..if6 The most fashionable treatment.

1 1 .. .'iVf6 Rather unusual as l l . ..gf6 i s typical of the Svesh­ nikov.

1 2.ttJb6 All standard according to theory, but many famous grandmasters in the press room were wondering what was wrong with the greedy 12.ttJd6. Sveshnikov himself gives 12 . . . �d6 1 3.'*¥d6 .l:f.d8 ! 14.�c5 ttJd4 1 5.�d3 �g5 ! 1 6.\t>fl J:!.c8 ! with sufficient compensation, and who am I to disagree?

1 2...J:!.b8 1 3.ttJcd5

Round 2

1 3 ... 'ifg6? ! Again Polgar goes for the most dubious choice, clearly having made up her mind to surprise her opponent. 1 3 ... 'ii'd8 14.c3 �e7 (14... g6? 1 5.'ik'a4! and the threat 1 6.�a6 is impossible to parry) 1 5 ..ic4 0-0 16.0-0 �g5 1 7 .a4 as in Karpov­ Nunn, London 1 982, is known to be slightly better for White.

1 4.'ifd3 Defending the e4 pawn and at the same time making it possible to castle queenside.

1 4... ..ie7 1 5.g3?! 1 5.lt:Jc7 �d8 1 6.lt:Jcd5 f5 1 7.0-0-0 is an old rec­ ommendation by Karpov, but apparently both Kamsky and Polgar believe that Black is doing fine.

1 5 ... 0-0 1 6...ig2 ..id8 1 7.0-0 17.c3 f5 1 8 .ef5 �f5 19.'ii'c4 �h8 leaves White with a very weak point at d3 .

1 7...�h8?! Too slow and a very unfortunate move. Much more to the point were both 1 7 ... �b6 1 8 .ltJb6 l:!.bd8 followed by lt:Je7 and the immediate 17 ... lt:Je7 with an approximately equal position in either case.

1 8.t2Jc4! t2Je7 18 .. .f5 1 9.t2Jd6 f4 20.lt:Jf5 ! does not yield enough counterplay and 1 8 ... lt:Jd4 1 9.lt:Jde3 ! (19.lt:Jce3 'ik'h5 20.'ii'd 1 'ii'd 1 2 l .�ad1 �d5 22.ed5 g6=) 19 . . .�c7 20.c3 forces the knight to retreat.

1 9.'il'a3!

Highlighting the weaknesses in Black's strategy.

1 9... ..id5 20.ed5 ..ic7 20 ... lt:Jc8 fails to the obvious 2 1 .ltJe5, but 20. . .b5 was playable, as after 2 l .it'd6 (21.ltJd6 b4 22.'i'a6 �b6) 21 ...'i'd6 22.lt:Jd6 .tlb6 23.lt:Je4 lt:Jd5 24.�fd1 t2Jf6 the White advantage is mini­ mal.

21 .�ad1 ? This mistake is hard to explain, as all of Gata's previous moves were based on the idea of mak­ ing 2 1 .t2Je5! possible, and now he suddenly hesi­ tates. Judith intended to reply 2 1 . . .de5 22.'i'e7 �d6 and after both 24. 'i'h4 and 24. 'i'd7 to begin some action with 24 ... f5.

21 ... t2Jg8! Suddenly Black is ready to start a very strong initiative on the kingside.

22.t2Ja5? Affected by his previous mistake he produces another serious error after which his situation becomes very critical.

22 ... f5 23.c4 f4 24.c5 f3! White is far too slow to compensate for this terrifying attack.

25 ...ih1 Sad but true, as after 25.�h3 'i'h5 26.�e6 ..ia5 27.it'a5 .l:!.be8! 28.�h1 (28.h4 J:!.f4 ! ?) 28 . . . l:!.f6 29.cd6? l:!.ee6 30.de6 it'h3 3 l .�g 1 'i'h2 32.Wh2 l:th6 White gets mated.

25... ..ia5 26.'i!Va5 e4!

115

Burying the bishop. 27.l:l.fe1

Kamsky's only chance is to sac the exchange on e4 so that the f3 pawn might become vulnerable. 27.c6 lLJf6 followed by lLJh5 and lLlf4 would be complete torture. 27 tt:Jf6 28.cd6 't\Vg4 29J:td4 •••

The only way to prevent 29 . ..'i!Vh3 and 30. .. lLlg4. 29 l:l.be8 30. 'i!Vb4 'ifh3! •.•

Sharply calculated! 31 .l:l.de4 tt:Je4 32J:te4 'fitS!

Stressing that mate is the goal of the game. 33 .::1.e8 I:te8 34.h4 I:te2! 35.d7 •

There was nothing to be done against the inva­ sion on b1 and f2 as 35 .'i!fc5 I:te1 36.'1t>h2 I:th1 37.'it>h 1 'i!fh3 would also mean the end. 35 'ii'b1 36.'it>h2 .::l.f2 37.'it>h3 •..

51 40.6 D Salov • Karpov Notes by]eroen Piket Before the tournament there was a lot of specu­ lation about which variation Karpov would use as his main defence, as in the last two decades he has limited himself to the Petroff Defence, the Ruy Lopez and of course for several years the Caro-Kann. 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jc6 5.tt:Jc3 't\Vc7 6 ..ie2 tt:Jf6 7.it.e3 a6

Karpov has opted for a Taimanov-Paulsen hy­ brid, one he knew very well as he played it in his youth. 8.0-0 it.b4 9.tt:Ja4!

Thanks to this move the whole system came under a cloud, but the FIDE Champion obviously thinks it is still playable. 9 �e7!? .••

Karpov and many others used to play 9 ...0-0, but that runs into difficulties after 10.f4 ! , as I re­ cently witnessed during the Moscow Olympiad 1994 in the game Ye-Timrnan. 1 0.tt:Jc6

10.lLJb6 ! ? I:tb8 1 1 .lLJc8 I:tc8 1 2.lLlc6 'i!fc6 13 .e5 lLld5 14 ..id2 'f!/c7 1 5 .c4 was a once in a lifetime try by the Swiss player Franzoni against Pia Cramling. 1 o ... bc6 1 1 .tt:Jb6 37 h5! ! •••

The beautiful point of the combination started at move thirty. 38.'iff8

38 .d8'i!f 'it>h7 also loses despite the extra queen. 38 'it>h7 .••

And desperately searching for something that is not there, Kamsky overstepped the time limit. The comments on this game are based on the notes of Polgar. 116

1 1 . .ib6 is an alternative which appeals very much to me, as I am not convinced that Black has enough compensation after 1 l ...'i!Vb8 12.�d4 lLJe4 1 3 ..if3 lLJgS 14.lLlb6 0-0 1 5 .lLla8 lLJf3 16.'f!/f3 'ita8, Geller-Andersson, Linares 1983. 1 1 .. J:i.b8 1 2.tt:Jc8 't\Vc8 1 3.e5

13.�d4 dS 14.ed5 cdS 1 5.c4 ! ? is a completely independent variation which has to be tested in practice. 1 3 tt:Jd5 1 4.�c1 •••

Round 2

The almost forgotten 14.�d4!? c5 15.c4 cd4 16.cd5 �c5 17.�f3 �g5 1 8 .�d3 J:.b2 19J:tfb1 �c2 20.�c2 J:.c2 2 l .l:tb8 �d8 22.J:.a8 a5 23.d6 as in Mecking-Portisch, Sousse 1967, is ready for improvements. 1 4... �c5 1 5.�d3

In the sixth round Shirov tested Karpov with 1 5.c4. My suggestion is 1 5.a3 a5 1 6.�3 ! ? and I prefer White. 1 5 ... 0-0

Beliavsky-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1 984, saw 1 5 . . .�c7 1 6.�e4 aS 17.c4 Ci:Je7 1 8.�h1 0-0 1 9.i.d3 Ci:Jg6 20.f4 d6 with chances for both sides. 1 6.'ii'g3

16.b3 �c7 1 7.�b2 a5 1 8.a4 f6 19.ef6 Ci:Jf6 20.�f3 J:.f7 2 l .l:tae1 with a very unclear posi­ tion was seen in Hiibner-Andersson, Tilburg 1987.

1 8...a4! 1 9.�h6

19.a3 ab3 20.cb3 came into consideration . as it creates a passed pawn. 1 9... �f8 20.h4

20.J:.d4 is harmless because of 20 ... J:.b4 ! 20...'ii'c7 21 .�g5

Admitting that the attack does amount to much. 21 ... ab3 22.ab3 J:l.a8 23.c4 tt:lb4 24.'ii'c3 c5

After some regrouping of the pieces the position is balanced. 25 ..tf3 l:ta1 26.l:ta1 d6

26 ... d5 would have demanded a more critical reply by White. 27.�f4 J:l.d8 28.h5 h6 29.l:td1 ?!

29.ed6 would have taken all tension out of the game. 29... de5?!

In time pressure Karpov does not want to take a risk but 29 ... d5 ! was a good move, as after both 30.cd5 ed5 3 1 .g3 �d7 and 30.g3 d4 3 l .�d2 J:.b8 ! the black position is preferable. 30..I:i.d8 'ii'd B 31 .�e5 �d7 32.g3 tt:ld3 33..tc6! �dB!

It is typical of the fighting spirit of the players that neither offered a draw. 34.'ii'd2 .te7 35..tc3 .tg5 36.�d1 tt:lc1 ! 37.'ii'c2 1 6... J:I.e8!

A very subtle refinement over the previously played 16 ...Ci:Je7 and 1 6 ... �h8. It is evident that Karpov feels very much at ease in these kinds of positions. 1 7.l:td1 aS 1 8.b3?!

Lanka recommends 1 8.�d3 and the advance of the h-pawn as a better plan, and I am attracted by the little move 18 .a3 to be followed by 19.b3 so that B lack cannot exchange his weak a-pawn. Note that 1 8 . . .a4 would be answered by 19.�6 �f8 20.J:.d4 !

37 .�d8 �d8 would lose material because of the knight's many threats. 37...'ti'd3 38.'ti'd3 tt:ld3 39.�f1 tt:lc1

39 ... �f6 or 39 ...�f8 were the expected moves, drawing without any problem. 40.�a4 �f6??

The notorious mistake on move 40. 40... �f8 would still have kept everything under control. 41 . .tf6 gf6 42.b4!!

117

60...\iidG 61 .\iie4 \iic7 62.g4

Black resigns. A fortunate but very important victory by Salov.

51 1 9.6 D Lj uboj evic • Ivanchuk Notes by Ljubomir Ljubojevic Missed by Karpov when he offered the exchange of dark-squared bishops. Suddenly he is completely lost. 42...\iifS

42 ...cb4 43.c5 b3 44.c6 (44.�b3?? lLlb3 45.c6 lLld2 46.'itie2 lLlc4 47.c7 lLld6) and the white pawn is unstoppable. 43.b5!

Now the knight is locked in the cage and Karpov has to stand by and watch how his opponent will finish the job. 43 ... \iie7 44.�c2 fS 45.\iie1

45.f3 followed by 46.'itif2 and 47.'itie3 was also winning. 45 ... lba2 46.\iid2 lbb4 47.�b1 \iid6 48.\iie2 \tieS 49.\iie3 \iff6

It is an unfair fight as Black will always get into Zugzwang. 50.\iff4 \iie7 51 .\iieS f6 52.\iif4

Now he has provoked the final weakness and is ready to win by sacrificing the bishop for too many pawns. 52 \iff7 53.b6 lbc6 54.b7 \iie7 55.�f5! \iid6 •••

After 55 . . .ef5 56.Wf5 Wf7 57.f4 lLlb8 58.g4 lLlc6 59.g5 fg5 60.fg5 hg5 6l .'itig5 'itig7 62.fl 'iYcl 37.'it>e2 'iYc2 38.'it>e3 'iYc l 39.'it>d4 'iYb2 40.'it>c5 'i!Yf2 4 l .'it>c6 'i!Yf3 42.'it>c7 'i!Yf7 43. 'it>b8 'iYf8 44. 'it>a7 'iYb4 45.'iYd3 'it>h8 46.a6 e5 47.'iYd8 'it>h7 48.'iYb6 'iYe7 49.'it>b8 'iYe8 50.'it>c7 'iYe7 5 l .'it>c6 'i!Yf6 etc. with a draw. In view of this line White should reject 34.gf4 and instead try 34.b5 fg3 35.b6 gf2 36.'it>f2, hoping to get his king to a7 to promote his b-pawn, which would be the only chance of playing for a win. 32.b4 g5?

32. ..'it>h7 33.b5 f4 34.gf4 'iYbl 35.'it>h2 'iYe4 was still an excellent practical chance to save the game. The text move is the decisive mistake. 33.b5 f4 34.gf4 gf4 35.ba6 ba6 36.'ti'a6 f3 37.'ifc8 �f7 38.'ifc7 �f6 39.�h2

30...f5?!

By force we have entered a queen endgame where White keeps a slight edge due to his queenside pawn majority. Black's last move is probably his first mistake in the game. Piket was right when he showed that 30 ...e5 ! 3 1 . 'iYb6 'iYc4 32.'iYb7 e4 33.b4 e3 34.fe3 'iYc l 35.'it>f2 'iYc2 is a draw. White can still oblige Black play pre­ cisely by 33.'iYb6 'iYd3 34.b4 'iYdl 35 .'it>g2 'i!Yf3 36.'it>h2 'iYe2 37.b5 e3 ! (not 37 ... ab5 because 38.a6 wins) 38 .'iYe3 'iYb5 with a draw. It is nice to see that chess is a very precise game, even when it doesn't look too complicated. All of Black's moves up to this point were quite logical. Only his last move brings him into danger and a slightly worse queen endgame proves enough to lose the game. 31 .'ifb6 'ife4

31 .. .'iYb6? 32.ab6 'it>f7 33.c5 'it>e7 34.c6 was impossible for Black, but another possibility was 3 1 .. .'iYc4 32.'iYb7 'it>h7 33.b4 f4 34.gf4 'i!Yf4

1 20

Black resigned here but some people were asking why. After 39 ...e5 40.'iYd6 'it>g7 4 l .'ife7 �g6 42.'iYe6 'it>h7 43.'iYf7 'it>h8 44.a6 'iYe2 45.�g3 etc., or 40 ...'it>f5 4 l .'i!Yh6 'iYc4 42.'iYh5 'it>f6 43. 'iff3 White remains two pawns up. I was lucky to win, after playing without much ambi­ tion, but with the help of my opponent. It has happened many times to me, as well as to my opponents, that modesty has brought many more points than one would expect!

Round 3 lvanchuk

- Anand

1 -0

Karpov

- Lju bojevic

1 -0

Polgar

- Salov

0- 1

Shi rov

- Kamsky

Salov Polgar An and lvanchu k Karpov Kamsky Ljubojevic Shirov

1/2 - 1/2

51 33.7 D Ivanchuk • Anand Notes by Vasiry Ivanchuk 1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4

During the course of 1994 I twice had to play matches with Anand in quickplay events. The first occasion was in the semi-fmal of the Moscow stage of the Grand Prix, where I lost �-1 �. the outcome of the match being largely decided by the first game, which I lost as White in the Maroczy Variation. On the second occasion we met in the final of the London stage of the Grand Prix, and I managed to win that match with a score of 2�-2� (with the score standing at 2-2, I chose 5 minutes and the black pieces against my opponent's 6 minutes and the white pieces, and secured a draw.) It should be mentioned that in both of my white games from the London match I did not allow my opponent to play the Accelerated Dragon, by choosing 3 .ig_b5. To employ this same weapon in Buenos Aires was not possible (the tournament was a thematic one, and the moves 3 .d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 were obligatory). And then, literally the day before our game, Anand said to me: 'Vasily, it is to your advantage that with White on the 3rd move it is only permitted to play d2-d4', and he

2.5 2.0 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

reminded me of my game with Timman, which I lost as Black in the last round of the 1994 Am­ sterdam tournament, and as a result of which I had failed to share first place with Kasparov. I would remind you that this ill-starred game be­ gan 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 d6 3.ig_b5 ig_d7 4.'it'e2 etc. And then, after thinking a little, Anand continued: 'On the other hand, you can't now play 3 ..ib5 against me.' And he made a significant gesture with his index finger. On the basis of these words and gestures by Anand, I realised that, although my opponent employs various lines of the Sicilian Defence, I should first and foremost expect the Accelerated Dragon, and before the game I pre­ pared exclusively for this variation. 3 ... cd4 4.lt:Jd4 g6 5.c4

Avoiding the Maroczy Variation by 5.lt:Jc3 .ig7 6.�e3 lLlf6 7.i.c4 has, in my opinion, one sig­ nificant drawback. By continuing 7 ...0-0 8 .�b3 d6 9 .f3 ig_d7 Black transposes into the normal Dragon, at the same time avoiding 9.0-0-0, which is unpleasant for him in the alternative move order l .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 lLlf6 5.lt:Jc3 g6 6.i.e3 i.g7 7.f3 0-0 8.'it'd2 lt:Jc6. 5 lt:Jf6 6.lt:Jc3 d6 7.�e2 lt:Jd4 8.'it'd4 �g7 9.�e3 0-0 1 0.'it'd2 �e6 1 1 .0-0 'it'a5 1 2. .l:[ab1 ! ? .••

This new plan, which I prepared beforehand, con121

sists in placing one rook at b 1, and the other at cl, by which White seriously hinders the oppo­ nent's counterplay on the queenside with ...b7-b5. 1 2 .. Jlfc8 1 3.b3 lLld7

13 ...b5 looked tempting, but after 14.b4! 'fic7 15.e5 ! ( 1 5 .tt:Jb5? is weaker on account of 1 5 ...'fib7) 15 . . .de5 1 6.tt:Jb5 'fib7 1 7.c5 ( 1 7.ti.fcl is also possible, and if 17 ...a6 1 8.tba3) White's position is slightly better, in my opinion. If instead 1 3 ...a6, then White plays 14JHc l , and in the variation 14...b5 1 5 .b4 ! 'fid8 16.cb5 ab5 17.�b5 Black has insufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, since on 17 ....l:!.a3 White simply plays 1 8 .�fl , not fearing 1 8 ....l:!.cc3 19 J:tc3 tt:Je4 20Jla3 tt:Jd2 2l...i d2±. Instead of 14 ...b5, seri­ ous consideration should be given to 14 ... J:!.ab8. 1 4.ti.fc1 'it'd8?!

With this move Anand as though admits that on this occasion the theoretical duel has ended in my favour. 14 . .. a6 looks more logical, and if 1 5.f4 ti.ab8, but not 15 ... b5? 16.b4! 1 5.tLld5 tt:Jcs 1 6.�f3! 1 22

White has advantageously managed without f2f3, a move which invariably seems essential in this variation. 1 6...a5 1 7.h4!

The attack on the kingside begins. Now in the event of 1 7 ... h5 White could have continued either 18.�g5 �d5 19.ed5 �f6 20. .l:!.el , or im­ mediately 1 8.J:!.e l . 1 7...�d5 1 8.ed5 'ii'd7 1 9.'it'e2

Round 3

After the immediate 19.h5 B lack could have activated his queen by 19 .. .'irf5 . With the move in the game White prevents this possibility. 1 9..J:te8

19 ...h5 suggests itself; I was intending to play 20.g4 hg4 2 l..�g4 f5 22.�h3! (22.i.f3 is weaker on account of 22 ... �f6 23.Wg2 c;¥;>g7 ! , intending 24 .. ..1�h8) 22. ..�f6 (otherwise 23.h5) 23.h5 g5 24.f3 ! (of course, not 24.'it'c2 g4 25 .�g4 fg4 26.'ifg6 Wh8 ! 27.'irh6, which leads only to per­ petual check) 24 ... c;t>h8 (24... c;¥;>f7?! 25.'ifc2! g4 26.fg4 �g8 27.l:lfl ! fg4 28.�g2±) 25.wh l ! �g8 26.�gl with a strong position. Now 26...J:lg7 is prettily refuted by 27.J:lg2! (27.'ifc2?! g4 28.fg4 fg4 29.h6 J:lgg8 !) 27 ... J:lh7 (27 ...J:lag8 28.�bgl ±) 28 .i.g5 J:lh5

24.g5 looked tempting, in order to activate the light-square bishop, but after 24 ...'iff5 25 .�g4 "ire5 I did not see how White could exploit the rather awkward position of the black queen (26.f4 'ife4 27.i.f3 'iff5). 24... tt:ld7!?

In anticipation of White's attack on the h-file, Black brings his knight closer to the kingside and prepares ... a5-a4, beforehand moving his knight away from the tempo-gaining b3-b4. 25.hg6 hg6 26..l:l.h4 a4

26 . ..tt:Je5 was premature on account of 27.�e4, intending 28 f4. 27.�bh1 !?

Of course, I could have kept a positional advan­ tage by 27.b4 lbe5 28.g5, but, having already played 24.J::rh 1 , I was aiming for an attack on the h-file. 27 ... ab3 28.ab3 .l::la 1 ? !

It is quite possible that this seemingly natural move is in fact the decisive mistake, since in many variations the unfortunate position of the black rook at al affords White additional tactical possibilities. In my opinion, Black should have preferred 28 ... b5, and if 29.cb5 'ifc3 . 29 .J:lh2 ! ! Wg7 (29 ...�g5 loses to 30.�f5 ! 'iff5 3 1 .l:rh5 Wg7 32.J:lgl +-, or 30 ... 'ife8 3 l .f4 ! +-) 30.�f6 ef6 (30... Wf6 3 Ulgl J:lah8 32.'ifg2 c;t>f7 33 .'ifg6 c;t>f8 34.J::r g5+-) 3 1 .l:lgl wf7 32.�g4 ! ! �h2 33 .'ifh2 fg4 34.'ifh5 We7 35.J::rg4 with a decisive attack. 20.h5 'iff5 21 Jld1 �e5?!

Here Black should probably have played 2l . . .gh5 ! ? 22.�h5 lbe4 23.'ifd3! 'ifh5 24.'fVe4 �e5 (or 24. ..f5 25.'ife6 'iff7), somewhat simply­ ing the position. 22.g4! 'fic8

Forced, since after 22 .. .'it'f6? 23.g5 ! the black queen is driven back to h8 (23 ...'iff5?? 24.�g4 'ife4 25.f3, winning the queen). 23. wg2 �g7 24. .tr.h1

29. .!:1.1 h3!

Of course. Now it is doubtful whether White's attack can be parried. 29 ... 'fia8 30J:Z.h7! �a2?!

On 30 ...�e5 White would have replied 3 1 .�f4!, and if 3 l ...�f4 32.�h8 Wg7 33 .J:Bh7 wf6 34.'il'e4 �g5 35.l:!.f7 (35.J::re8 'ife8 36.'ifd4 lLle5 37.'it'al+- is also sufficient) 35 . .. c;t>f7 36.l:rh7 c;¥;>f8 37.'ii'g6 wins for White, but perhaps by playing 3 l .. .jl,g7 (instead of 3 l ...�f4) Black could still have somehow held on. 31 ..tr.g7 wg7 32.�d4 ts

32 ... lbe5 33.�e5 deS 34.'it'e5 f6 35 .'ifh2 is win­ ning for White, as well as 32 ...lLlf6 33.'it'a2 J:la2 34.g5. 33.'fie3 tt:'lf8 34..ie4! wf7

1 23

A very cautious move but not a bad one. ECO gives 1 2 ...bS 1 3 .a3 b4 as the main continuation. 1 3...if3 l::tac8 1 4Jiad1 b5 1 5.a3 lLld4?!

Helping Karpov to stay in control. As Black's future play is on the queenside, 1 S ...tt:Ja5 ! was much more logical, with the idea of keeping the tension in the center after 16.eS with 16 ...tLle8. 1 6...id4 j.,c6 1 7.l::td 3?!

34 .. Jid1 3S.it'h6 �fl 36 ..ig6 t2Jg6 37.it'h7+-. 35 ..l:th8!

The threat of 36.it'h6 cannot be parried, there­ fore B lack resigned.

51 22.5 D Kar p ov

• Ljubojevic Notes by]eroen Piket One can never tell what would have happened if Polugaevsky had been able to participate in his own tournament, but it is a fact that this struggle between Karpov and Ljubojevic would not have been between the two veterans of the event. 1 .e4 c5 2.l2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 l2Jf6 5.l2Jc3 a6

Ljubojevic is a born Najdorf player and who knows, when somebody will challenge him with 6. .igS, we might get to see the Polugaevsky Variation. 6 ..ie2 e6 7.0-0 j.,e7 8.f4 �c7 9.�h1 0-0 1 0. 'ii'e1 tt:Jc6 1 1 .j.,e3 j.,d7 1 2.'ii'g3

Via the Najdorf we have entered the main line of the Scheveningen (A seasidP: resort in the Neth­ erlands for those who did not know) Variation. 1 2...�h8!?

1 24

The immediate 17.eS deS 18 .feS tLld7 19.tt:Je4 .ie4 20. .ie4 enables White to get the pair of bishops but these can easily be neutralized with 20...tt:JcS (20 ...fS ! ?) 21 ..if3 fS. During the post­ mortem Karpov found the very strong 17 .l::tde1 ! as the advance e4-eS gains greatly in strength. Black's main problem is that 17 ...l::tg8 (or 17 ... it'b7 1 8.b4 l::tg8) has the drawback of leav­ ing the f7 pawn unprotected, which becomes unpleasant after 18.eS! 17 ...a5 is not advisable as it forces the opponent to start the excellent ma­ noeuvre 1 8.tLld1 ! ( 1 8.eS deS 19.feS tLld7 20.lLJe4 .ie4 21 ..ie4 ttJcS! is okay for Black). The best answer to 1 7.Ude1 might be 17 . .. it'd7. 1 7...'ifb7

There is nothing wrong with this move, but others might prefer 1 7 ... aS so that the queenside does not get fixed. A matter of taste! 1 8.b4! l::tg8 1 9.e5

To delay this action with 19.l::te l or 19.l::te3 was preferable. 19 ... l2Je4! 20.tt:Je4 .ie4 21 .c3

Round 3

21

•••

�f3?

A ridiculous mistake, according to Ljubo, which indeed spoils the game. The mutual analyses did not agree about the position after the more or less forced 2 l ...f6 ! 22.ed6 (22.ef6? gf6 23. 'ii'h3 (23. 'ifh4 e5) 23 . . .i.f3 24.J:ldf3 e5 25 .fe5 deS 26.�c5 (26.�e5 fe5 27.J:lf7 J:lg7 28.J:lg7 h8 30.J:lf7 J:lg8 ! and g2 needs protection) 26. ..i.c5 27.bc5 J:lc5 28.J:lf6 J:lc3 ! and Black has fully utilized the open g- file) 22...i.d6 23.'ii'h4 (23.i.e4 'ife4 24.J:le3 'it'f5 ! (24 ... 'ifd5 25.'it'g4!) 25 .'it'f3 J:lfe8 did not worry Ljubo one bit) 23 ...i.f3 24.J:ldf3 (24.J:lff3 ! ?) 24. . .e5 where Kar­ pov has to demonstrate whether he can achieve anything or should restrain himself to just mak­ ing a draw, as his queenside pawns can become targets. His best try would be 25 .fe5 ! (25 .f5 with the cheap trick 26.'ifh7 would yield nothing but trouble after 25 . .. g5 !) 25 . ..fe5 (25 ....ie5 26.J:lh3 ! is unpleasant) 26 ..ie3 (26.'ii'h7 is safest leading to perpetual check) 26 ... J:lc4 ! (26 ...J:lc3 27 .J:lh3 h6 28.i.h6 is clearly too dangerous) 27.'it'h5 'it'e4 ! with a very unbalanced position.

29 ... .t:ld4 30.cd4 'ifd4 31 .l:tgf3

Threatening to profit from the vulnerable back rank. 31 .. .'iVd6 32.l:tf7 .1i.e3 33.'iff3 .id4 34. .t:lf8

In exchange for activating his bishop Black had to allow this penetration and Karpov shows fault­ less technique. 34....1i.f6 35. .t:lg8 a2 l':ra3 48.'it>b l l':rgb3 49 . .l:l.b2 l::rb2 50.wb2 .!:!.a5 5 l .J:!.e5 �b6-+.

Round 3

44 .. J:tg2 45J:tg2

After 45.l:!.d1 b6 Black is also winning. 45 ... �d6 46.l:!.g7 b6

46 ...l:!.e3 47.'i£i'b4 b6 also wins. 47.�b4 ti:Jd3 48.'i£i'c3 tt:Jcs

White is mated after 49.�b4 :!.e3.

1 2.h4

51 28.3 D Shirov • Kamsky Notes byjeroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.ti:Jc3 tt:Jc6 6.i.g5 e6 7.'ifd2 �e7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.f4 ti:Jd4 1 0.'ifd4 'ifas

Obviously Kamsky prepared this line very thor­ oughly for this tournament, as it is the second time in a row that he defends with the Rauzer Variation. There might be a very good reason behind him getting to know all the details of this particular line, as his future opponent in the PCA matches will be Anand, who is also a big fan of this system. 1 1 .Wb1

Before this Shirov had created his own pet line with 1 l .�c4 �d7 12.l:!.d3 ! ?, which he had al­ ready played several times against Vladimir Kramnik. As both Alexey and Gata are very good in calculating complicated variations, a clash with this line would have been highly appreci­ ated, but Shirov decides to test Kamsky's knowl­ edge. 1 1 ... h6

Regarded as best, though the alternative 1 1 ... l:!.d8 is perfectly playable. 1 1 ...�d7 is not possible after White's previous king move because of 1 2.e5 !

1 2.�h4 e5 ! 13 .fe5 deS is definitely not a problem for Black, but the odd-looking 1 2.�f6 ! ?, as played by the late former World champion Mik­ hail Tal, is worth investigation, as after 1 2 ...i.f6 1 3.'ifd2 �c3 14. 'ifc3 'ifc3 1 5.bc3 :!.d8 16.e5 b6! (16 ...d5 1 7.c4 �d7 1 8 .cd5 ed5 19.l:!.d4! with a clear advantage, Liublinsky-Lyskov, Soviet Un­ ion 1949) 17.ed6�b7 1 8.l:!.g1 l:!.ac8 the endgame is very complex. 1 2 ...e5

It hardly needs to be said that accepting the piece sac with 12 ... hg5 is very dangerous due to 1 3 .hg5 tt::l g4 14.�e2 e5 1 5 .tt::ld5 ! 'i¥d8 1 6.'i¥g1 ! , Be­ liavsky-Tseshkovsky, Soviet Union 198 1 . Tai­ manov's 12 ...l:!.d8 leads to a position very diffi­ cult to assess after 1 3 .g4 e5 14.'i¥g1 ef4 15 .�f6 �f6 16.lLld5 �e5 17.g5 h5 1 8 .g6. 1 3.'ifd3 ef4! 1 4.�f4 �e6 1 5.tt:Jd5

1 5.�e2 l:!.ac8 1 6.lLld5 would give a similar type of position. 1 5 ... ti:Jd5 1 6.ed5 i.g4 1 7.i.e2 i.e2

17 ...�f6 would be too optimistic as Black faces a bleak future after 1 8.�d6 (18.�g4 'i!Vb4) 1 8 ...J:f.fd8 ( 1 8 ...'ik'b6 19.�a3 !) 19.�g4 l:!.d6 20.c3 ! 1 8. 'ife2 l;Ue8

Again 1 8 ...�f6 19.�d6 l:!.fd8 20.�e7 �e7 2 l .�e7 .l:ld5 22.�b7 simply leaves White a pawn up. 1 9Ji'g4

Shirov told me after the game that he believed 1 27

19.'iff3 was stronger, as now some weaknesses around his king can be provoked. 1 9... 'ifa4! 20.b3 'ii'b4 21 .'ii'g3 h5!

would have justified Kamsky's earlier decision to continue the battle. 29..tl.fe1 ! �g4?! 30.'ii'g4 31 ..td4! a6 32.�c2 g6 33.b4

hg4

33. d5. So Anand's best defence would have been 30. . .�g7. 30 �g7 31 ..l:tb1 .••

20.'ifh5

Forcing matters. One has to admite Karpov, who has calculated the past and future complications faultlessly.

Now Karpov refrained from 3 l .c5, as after 3 l . .Jle2 32 ..l:tf2 l:l.f2 ! 33.�f2 'it>t7 34.'it>f3 �e6 35. �e4 he realised that, despite being a pawn up, victory would be out of the question.

20 ... g6 21 .�g6 �g2 22.wg2 'it'd7 23.tt::lc 5!

31 ... lle3 32.Wf2 �d4 33.Wf1 .l:tf3 34.we2 l:r.c3!

This move was seen by Karpov in advance but missed by Anand. Luckily for Black he can es­ cape to an ending only a pawn down.

Anand defends like a tiger, and thanks to this and his opponent's time trouble he escapes with just a few scratches from this fight.

23

..•

'ifg7 24.�f8 'ifg6

24 .. J:I.f8 25.Ci:Je6 demands resignation on the spot. 25. 'ifg6 hg6 26.i..d6 .l:te8!

26... .l:td8 27.Ci:Je4 ! i.b2 28 ..l:tb l ..ie5 29 ...ie5 Ci:Je5 30 ..l:tb7 remains very problematic for Black. 1 38

35.c5 �e3 36.Wf1 tt::ld4 37.l:r.b2 gS

37...�t7 moving the king into play was even more logical. 38.Wg2 wf7 39.�g3

39...ie5 �e6 40.i.d4 ..id4 would also not have worried Black.

Round S

Polgar already knew before the start of the tour­ nament that she could expect this line and she opts for the Maroczy bind, where she could also have gone for S .tt:lc3, as she did a few rounds later against Kamsky.

39... tt:Je6

s ... tt:Jf6

s ....ig7 6 ..ie3 ttlf6 7.ttlc3 tt:lg4 8 .'ii'g4 ttld4 9.'ii'd l tt:le6 was popular ten years ago thanks to the efforts of Bent Larsen. 9 ... eS ! ? is an even older variation practised by Botvinnik, which gave me the courage to play it in my match against Polugaevsky, Aruba 1 994. 6.tt:Jc3 d6 7.�e2 tt:Jd4 8.'ii'd 4 �g7 9.�g5

In the third round, against Anand, Ivanchuk as White preferred the alternative 9 ...ie3.

40.tt:Jd6

40 ...ie5 ! ? was an interesting last attempt, as 40. . .tt:lf4 4 1 .�f3 i.d4 42.�e4 .ieS 43.�e5 ttld3 44 . ..t>d4 works out fine, but 40 .. J:tc l ! would have been the right answer. 40... �g6 41 J:tb6 �c5 42.l:la6 ..id6 43J�td6 �f6 44.a4 l:la3 45..l:l.a6 �fS 46.a5 tt:Jf4 47.�f2

The rook ending is obviously a dead draw. 47...We4 48.We1 .l:l.a2 49.Wd1 We3

And peace was signed.

9 ...0-o 1 0.'it'd2

10.'ii'e3 ! ? might be White's best option. 1 o ... �e6 1 1 .0-0 as 1 2.�d3?!

Making Vasily 's next move even more attractive. 1 2J:tac l is normally played. 1 2 ... tt:Jd7! 1 3.tt:Jd5 �dS

I always learned that exchanging pieces in these positions benefits Black. I guess Ivanchuk had the same teacher. 1 4.ed5 .ifS

And here Ivanchuk made it verbally clear that he was ready to split the point and enjoy an extra rest day.

51 33.7 D Polgar • Ivanchuk

1 5.�e3?! Judith shows her fighting spirit but cannot justify

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 4.tt:Jd4 g6

tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4

Many chess players do not have the Sicilian in their repertoire because they consider it too sharp. The system Ivanchuk opts for is quite an exception, as it is based on profound positional ideas. 5.c4

her refusal chess-wise. l S J:tfel was thought to be more useful but has the drawback of allowing l S ... eS ! 1 5 ...if6 ttlf6 16J:tfel was of course to Polgar's liking but 1 5 ... ef6! followed by 1 6...f5 and 1 7. . .'ii'f6 is pleasant for Black. There remains the option 1 5 .h4!? which would at least go well together with refusing the draw. 1 5 ... tt:Jc5 1 6. .ie2?!

Losing a lot of time as the bishop later returns. The immediate 16J:tabl was better. 1 39

1 6 85! 1 7.l:[ab1 '1Vb6 1 8.l:[fc1 '1Vb4! •••

51 33.2 0 Shirov • Ljubojevic Notes byjeroen Piket

Very well played by the Ukrainian grandmaster. 1 9.'1Vd1 l:[a6

Original, but 19 ....l:!.fc8 was more to the point. 20.i..d 3!

Here people were beginning to worry about Ju­ dith's position, as it seemed as though she had lost the thread of the position, but with her last move she admits her earlier mistakes and is ready to play 21 .a3. 20

•••

t2Jd3

A pity, but 20...a4 21 ..id2 ti'b6 22 ..ie3 ! leaves Black with nothing better than to repeat move with 22...ti'b4, as 22....ib2 is not possible due to 23.a3! 2 1 . 'fVd3 a4 22.b3 ab3 23.l:[b3 '�VaS 24.l:tb7 'fVa2 25.g3

Now there is very little going on and soon both players stop avoiding the inevitable. 25 l:[c8 26.g2 h5 27.h4 l:ta3 28.'1Vc2 'fVc2 29.l:tc2 Ud3

Before, during and after a thematic tournament one finds out whether or not the rules set for this special event were working okay, or what adjust­ ment would have to be made for the next similar event. Apart from the fact that, in my opinion, against the Najdorf 6 ..ic4 or 6 ..ig5 should have been obligatory, there was another remarkable point, as Karnsky and Ljubojevic found out at the press conference at the start of the tournament. Both players have 2 ... g6 in their repertoire, usu­ ally transposing to an Accelerated Dragon, but this move was not allowed, whereas all other versions of the Dragon were. 1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.t2Jc3 g6?!

This particular line can be considered the 'Black Sheep' of the Dragon Variation, as it is not very often used in practice due to its rightly inferior reputation. 6.t2Jc6 dc6

Most Black players prefer recapturing with the b-pawn, but Ljubojevic is notorious for doing the opposite of what people in general do. 6 ... bc6 7.e5 l2Jg8 (7 . . .l2Jd5? 8 .l2Jd5 cd5 9.ti'd5 .l:!.b8 10.e6! is a famous example of how one should not play, Grabek-Seifert, Harrachov 1966) 8.�c4 �g7 9.�f4! (9.ti'f3 f5 was played with reasonable success by Sosonko and Alburt in the late eighties) 9 ...ti'a5 10.0-0, giving a pawn for a strong initiative, as in Timman-Kortchnoi, Brussels 199 1 , is also problematic for Black.

•••

Threatening 30 ... .l:!.d5. 30.l:tc1 f8 31 .th6! g8! •

3 l ...e8 was asking for trouble, as after 32 ..l:!.e1 .l:!.c4 33 ..ig5 White has a strong initiative. 32 ..te3

Draw.

1 40

7.'1Vd8 d8 8 .tc4 •

Another possibility is 8 .�f4 l2Jd7 9.0-0-0 i.g7 I O.i.c4 e5 I I .i.e3 ri;;e7 12.f3, Vaisman-Spulber, Bucharest 1980. 8 •.•e8 9.e5!

Clearly the best approach. Shirov does not give Ljubojevic time to breathe. 9.a4 e5 10.f4 .ie6 ! 1 1 .�e6 fe6 12 . .l:!.fl i.h6! was no problem for Botvinnik in his 1958 match against Smyslov.

Round S

9 ... ttJd7

ECO only gives 9 ... tLlg4, which runs into prob­ lems after 10.f4 h5 1 l..�d2 h4 1 2.tLle4 .if'S 13 .tLlg5 e6 14.h3 tLlh6 1 5.0-0-0 .ic5 16.J:lhfl !, Kapengut-Shabanov, Vilnius 1977.

So Ljubo has done his best to cut off the white king and to get as active as possible, but still his problems are not solved. 23...wf7 24.g4

1 0.e6!

Securing an enduring plus thanks to the better pawn structure. 1 O.f4 b5 is not necessarily bad for Black. 1 0 fe6 1 1 .�e6 �g7 1 2.�e3!

More or less forcing Black to give up a pawn, but allowing his opponent to exchange one rook and gain some activity. Therefore I would suggest 24.g3 followed by little moves like 25.a3 and 26.a2, slowly but surely making Ljubo's de­ fensive task unbearable.

.•.

Preventing 1 2 ... tLlc5 and keeping an eye on the a7 pawn. 1 2... b6

12 . . .tLlb6 1 3 ..ic8 J:tc8 14.0-0-0 �c3 1 5 .bc3 .t!.f8 was another way of trying to fight back, though White is indisputably better. 1 3.0-0-0 �c3!

Black's only way to free himself is to exchange some pieces to relieve the pressure. 1 4.bc3 ttJcS 1 5.�c8 .l:lc8 1 6. ..ic5 bc5 1 7.l:l.he1

17 .h4 .t!.f8 1 8 .f3 J:tf5 is nothing special, but 17.f4 to gain space on the kingside was interesting. 1 7... l:lf8 1 8.f3 l:lf4

Ljubojevic stated afterwards that he should have exchanged one rook with 1 8 ...J:td8, but 19.J:td8 d8 20.J:le4! is also very unpleasant. 1 9Jle5 l:l.a4 20. .l:lde1 l:l.c7 21 .b2 l:l.b7 22.wa1 l:l.c4 23.l:l1e3

24... l:lf4! 25.l:lc5 l:lf6 26.l:l.ce5

26.J:Ic4, to have both J:tb4 and J:td4 at his dis­ posal, would be met by 26 ...g5 ! , and again Black will escape. 26 ... l:!.d6 27.l:!.d3 l:!.e6! 28..:te6 we6 29.f4 hS!

The less material on the board, the better the chances of drawing. 30.h3 hg4 31 .hg4 l:l.b8 32.c4 l:l.b4 33.l:l.d4 l:l.b8

Ljubojevic realizes very well that he cannot lose as long as Shirov cannot improve the position of his king. 34.l:!.e4 wd6 35.c5 Wd7 36Jla4 aS!

This pawn can be given up, as long as Black gets the kingside pawns in return. 37.l:l.a5 l:tb4 38.l:l.a7 WeB 39.f5 l:tg4 40.fg6 l:l.g6

White is left with a and c pawns which are quite powerless. 1 41

41 .�b2 .:gs 42.c4 .:cs 43.�c3 �dS 44.a4 .:es 45.�d4 l:l.h5 46.a5 �cS 47.a6 l:ra5 4S.c5 �bS 49..t[b7 �cs 50.l:re7 .:as 51 .�e5 l:ra1 52.�d6 .l:h1

18 ...tt:\g6 is not a good idea in view of 19."�e2 intending �c2 and 'ii'h 5, when Black's king is in danger. 1 9JU1 ? !

And Shirov stopped his efforts. Draw.

51 40.6 D Kamsky • Salov Notes by Gata Kamsky 1 .e4 c5 2.lbf3 lbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 e6 5.lbc3 "flc7 6.j_e2 lbf6 7.0-0 a6 s ..te3 ..tb4 9.lba4 ..te7!? 1 0.c4 0-0?!

Better is 10 ... tbe4, the move played by Karpov against me later in the tournament. 1 1 .lbc3 b6

1 1 ...d6 has been played a few times and after 12.:c 1 tt:\e5 is Todorovic-Ninov, 1992 (0- 1 ); 12 ...�d7 Wolff-Gobet, 1993 (1-0). 1 2.lbc6 dc6 1 3.f4 c5

Black has a slightly inferior but very solid posi­ tion, since there are no weaknesses. 1 4.e5 .:dS 1 5.'ifc2

15.�d3 was interesting, with the idea of devel­ oping the queen on the kingside, since the plan with a2-a4-a5 never takes place in the game. 15

.•.

lbd7 1 6.�d3 lbfS 1 7.l:rf3!

is necessary to provoke Black into playing g7-g6, in order to have the knight on e4 threaten­ ing to come to either f6 or d6 with maximum effect.

It

1 7... ..tb7 1 S . .I:h3 g6

1 42

White i s dreaming of f4-f5, but at this moment 19.a4 was interesting, forestalling B lack's future counterplay on the queenside and creating the positional threat of a4-a5. 1 9 l:rd7 ••.

Black has no particular plan, so he is trying to make useful moves ; the 19 .. .f6 break is to White's advantage, because the e6-pawn be­ comes exposed and the f6-g7-g5 complex of squares would also be weak. 20...te4 .:adS 21 ..tb7 22.lbe4 "flc6 23..tf2

'it'b7

With the idea of 'ii'e2 and �h4, trying to exploit the terrible knight at f8. Frankly, Black's defensive resources should be adequate to defend this posi­ tion. 23... �g7 24."fle2?!

A waste of time; White's optimal position would be with the bishop on c3, since only then can he launch a direct attack with g4 and f5. However this position is not easy to obtain; perhaps 24.b3 preparing �f2-e1-c3 was better. 24...b5!? 25.b3 bc4 26.bc4 l:l.b7 27J:tb3

It is not clear whether 24 ... b5 has helped White or Black. During the game I felt that Black would be okay if all rooks were to be exchanged.

Round S

27.. J:tdb8 28J:tfb1 ttJd7

Probably forced, since against passive play White should win without any problems, for example 40 ... tLld7 4 l .f5 ! ef5 42.tLld6 J:tb8 43.'it'g5 with the lethal threat of 44.tLlf5, winning instantly. 41 .'it'b3?

As pointed out in the bulletin, 41 .'it'c5! would have won almost by force: 4 l ...'it'c5 42.tLlc5 J:tc3 43 .l:lc8 with multiple threats such as tLle4-g5 or tLle4-d6 and J:tc7 winnning a pawn, for example 43 ... a5 44.tt:Je4 lle3 45.tt:Jd6 g5 46J:J.c7 gf4 47.J:tf7 �g8 48.c5 l:le5 49.c6 l:!.c5 50.c7 with the idea of lle7 and c8'it', winning. 41 ...'it'e4 42.'it'g3 aS?

29.�e1 !

After this move White's advantage becomes more threatening, since Black cannot play f6. 29... l:!.b3 30.ab3 h5 31 .'it'e3 �g8 32J:J.d1 lLlf8 33.�a5 tbd7 34J:J.d3 ttJf8 35.h3 �g7

At this moment we were short of time and I was unable to find a plan. It seems to me that the direct 35.g4 with the idea of g5 and tLlf6 is very unpleasant for Black. 36.ttJf6 tbh7 37.ttJe4 ttJf8 38.�h2 llb7

Threatening l:ld7, exchanging the rooks.

A mistake. It is not easy for White to claim an advantage after 42. ..'it'c4. 43.'it'h4 tbh7

Necessary, because 43 ...'it'c4 loses to 44.'it'f6 'itg8 45.I:k8 followed by 46.J:tc7, winning. 44.'it'f2 a4

44 ... g5 immediately was also interesting. 45J:J.c8 'it'c4

A sad necessity, as Black probably realised, that 45 ... a3 loses beautifully to 46.l:lc5 'it'a8 47.J:tc7 a2 48.'it'a7 ! ! al'it' 49.J:tf7, mating. Now Black will be lost if White manages to hem in the h7 knight with h3-h4. 46J:J.c5 'it'e4

39.�d8 �dB 40J:J.d8

40.. .l::J.b3

47J:J.a5?

The decisive mistake. 47.h4 should win without 1 43

difficulty, since 47 ... g5 is bad: 48.fg5 lLlf8 49.l:lc7 'it'e5 50.'it'g3. 47...g5! 48.fg5 h4! 49.'it'f3

49 .g3 is better. 49... 'it'd4 50.'i!t'g4 'it'g4 tt:lg5 52.J:I.a4 tt:lh7 53.�h3

75.�e8 �g8 76.l:l.e1 �g8 78.l:l.f2 tt:le5 80.l:l.h4 �96 81 .J:I.e4 �g5 83.l:l.e3 tt:lf4 85.�f7 e5 86.l:tg8

51 .hg4

Going into this endgame I thought it was winning for me. However, Black now manages to erect a blockade. It was necessary to play 53.l:la8, preventing 53 ...lLlf8 due to 54.l:lf8, and the pawn, endgame is won. However 52 ... lLlg5 still draws . 53 ... tt:lf8 54.J:I.e4 tt:lg6

The rest does not require any commentary. 55.g5 �g8 56.�g4 �h7 57.�f3 �g7 58.�e3 �f8 59.�d4 �e7 60.'1t>c5 �d7 61 .�b6 �e7 62.�c6 �f8 63.�d6 �g7 64.J:I.e2 �f8 65J:tf2 �g8 66.J:I.f6 �g7 67.J:I.f1 �f8 68.l:tf2 �98 69J:ta2 �g7 70.I:la4 �fa 71 .J:I.e4 �ea 72.�c6 �e7 73.�c7 �f8 74.�d7 �g7

1 44

86... tt:lg2 87.J:I.g2 e4

Draw.

�g7 n.J:I.e2 79.J:I.f4 �g7 tt:ld3 82.�e7 84J:tg3 �f5

Round 6 Polgar

- Anand

0- 1

Shi rov

- Karpov

1/2 - 1/2

Kamsky

- lvanchuk

1/2 - 1/2

Salov

- Ljubojevic

Salov An and Karpov Polgar lvanchuk Kamsky Shirov Lju bojevic

1 -0

51 1 2.5 D Polgar • A nand

4.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0

8.a4

Notes byjeroen Piket

One would expect this move as a preparation for 9.�c4 (8.�c4 bS 9. ..id5 J:tb8 ! Andersson) but Polgar plays this system the fashionable way. 8 .....ie7 9 .id3 0-0 1 0.0-0 lbcS .

1 .e4 cS 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 lbf6 S.lbc3 a6 6.f4

Polgar's favourite answer to the Najdorf, the opening system the grandmaster from Madras specially prepared for this tournament. Some­ how I have the feeling that the razor sharp posi­ tions arising after 6.�c4 or 6.�g5 would suit our female star much better.

Black can do this without protecting the pawn on eS, as there will always be a nasty check on d4 if White decides to be greedy. 1 1 .Wh1 ef4 1 2..tf4 .tg4 1 3.'ife1

6 ...e5

Of course B lack can play different moves and transpose to other lines, but this is a man's move and therefore belongs to the Najdorf Variation. 7.lbf3

7.ttJf5 and 7.ttJb3 are less to the point and thus less frequently seen. 7 ... lbbd7

Formerly it was held that Black should prevent the active development of White's bishop at c4 and so 7 ...f!ic7 was almost universal. Nowadays everybody sticks to the text move.

In the database of the press room there were no games with this move, but in the post-mortem the players were mumbling about an idea of the American player Sherzer. The former trainer of 1 45

the Polgars, Hazai, like many others preferred the theoretical 1 3 ...d2. 1 3 l:l.c8 1 4.ttJd4 .••

14 ..ic4 was obviously not advisable because of 14.. .l2:Jce4 but 14...g3 i.h5 15 ..ie3 (15.lL'ld4 seems worth investigation) 1 5....ig6 as in Sherzer-Wolff, New York 1994, looks a logical continuation. 1 4 'it'b6! 1 5 .ie2!? ••.

•

Objectively this move deserves to be marked as dubious, but as it demands very precise defence from Black we can regard it as an interesting attempt to confuse the opponent. Anand expected 15.a5 and after 1 5 . .. lL'ld3 ( 1 5 .....b2 16. ..td2!) 16.ab6 lL'le1 17.l:l.ae1 l:lc4 he judged the position to be more or less balanced. 1 5 �e2 1 6...e2 .l::J.fe8! •••

One would expect 1 6 .....b2 to lead to the game after 1 7 .lL'lf5 .l:lfe8, but both players were in­ trigued by the intermediate move 17 ...td2!

1 9.. .'ti'f6!

The black lady is needed to resist the attack. The impulsive 19 ...lL'le4 would have met its Waterloo after the pretty 20..ie5 ! ..e5 21 .lL'lh6. 20.ed5 �f8! 21.ttJh6?!

At first sight a very exciting position, but if one looks a little bit deeper (and that is something Vishy certainly did!) one sees that Judith's attack this time does not come to much. 21 .l:!.ab1 ! ? was her best chance to fight for survival. 21 �h8 22.�e3 �g8 24. 'ti'h3 .••

'ti'g6

23.lL'lf7

It is understandable that Polgar wants to keep the queens on, but a nice try to escape was 24 ...g6 hg6 25 . .ic5 (25.l::l.a3) 25 ....l:lc5 26 ..l:la3 .l:ld5 (26... .l:lc2? 27. .l:lh3 J:If2 28J:th8 'i.t>f7 29.l::l.f2) 27.g4 .l:le6? (27 ...fie7 ! and White has to face the facts) 28 . .l:lh3 .l:lf6 29.lL'lh6! 24 ttJe4! •.•

1 7.ttJf5 'ii b2

Now both players can pmctise their tactical abili­ ties, so let the show begin ! 1 8.tLld5 ttJdS 1 9.'iig4!

A beautiful move, but it was necessary to come up with something extraordinary, as 19.ed5 ..tf6 20 ... g4 (20 ...f3 ..c2) 20 ...lL'le4 ! 2 l .lLlh6 (2l ..l:lab1 and 21 ..l:lac1 both fail to 21 .. .lL'lf2!) 21 .. .f8 22..l:lae l ? lL'lf2 23.'i.t>g1 ..b6! ! (Not 23 ...lL'lg4?? as Black then gets mated by 24 ..id6 l:i.e7 25 ..ie7 ..te7 26.J:!.f7 'i.t>e8 27 ..l:lfe7 'it>f8 28.lLlf7!) would leave White helpless. 1 46

Suddenly Black has the initiative besides being a pawn up, and that is sufficient for Anand to finish the game convincingly. 25 ..l:U3 h5! !

With the strong and hard to parry threat of 26. . . 'it>h7 and 27 . . . �g4. 26 .l:taf1 •

The despemte 26.g4 (hoping for 26 .. .'iVg4? 27.lL'lh6 gh6 28.J:Ig1) would simply beansweredby 26...lL'lf6! 26...'il'g4 27.�d4

Round 6

Some players would throw in the towel but Judith postpones this for a while. 27... 'ii'h3 28.l:l.h3

Also 28.gh3 tt:Jd2 29.tt:Jh6 rJih7 would not have helped. 28 .. J:I.c7!

Winning the exchange and the game. 29..l:thf3 ti:Jd2 30.ti:Jg5 tLlf3 31 .gf3 .l::!.c 2 32.tLle6 .l::!.ec8 33.�e3 .l::!.e2 34.�f4 .l::!.a2 35..l:tg1 .l::!.a4 36..i.h6 �h8 37.tbg7 �h7

White resigned. The analysis of this game is based on notes by Anand.

Kamsky played twice in this tournament. The first time was in the fifth round against Salov, but apparently this did not impress the Latvian grandmaster enough to try it himself against Karpov, but afterwards he realized he should have trusted Gata's choice. 1 O ... bc6 1 Vbb6 l:tb8 1 2.tLlc8 'ii'c 8 1 3.e5 ti:JdS 1 4.�c1 �cS

So far nothing new on the horizon as the game Salov-Karpov from the second round is being copied, but now Shirov opts for the move recom­ mended by the Encyclopedia, where Valery Sa­ lov went for 1 5 .'it'd3. 1 5.c4 tbe7 1 6.b3 'ii'c7 1 7.�b2 0-0

17 ... d6 to open up the position is obviously too early, as it only benefits White: 18 .ed6 ( 1 8 .�h5 ! ? deS 19 . .1:tel �d4 20.�d4 ed4 2 l .'it'd4;;!; 011Abramovic, Tallinn 1983) 18 ...i.d6 19.'it'd4 ! tbf5 20.'it'e4 and White was clearly better in Matulovic-Portisch, Sousse 1967. 17 ...a5 ! ? has not yet been tested in practice. 1 8.�h1 .l:lfd8!

51 40.6 D Shirov • Karpov Notes byjeroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbc6 5.tbc3 'ii'c7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 tbf6 8.�e3 �b4 9.tba4

Both players are confident in their own prepara­ tion and are ready to face each other fully armed.

An improvement over 18 ...tt:Jg6 which was put into practice by two experts in this variation: 19.�d3 ! ( 1 9.f4 .l:tfd8 20.'ifc2 d6 !6-!6 Hellers­ Ribli, Tilburg 1993) 19 ....1:tbd8? ! 20.'it'h5 d6 2 l .ed6 �d6 22. .l:tad l c5 23.g3 .l:tfe8 24.f4 and White is to be preferred, Bouaziz-Andersson, Szirak 1987. 1 9. 'it'c2

19.�d3 d6 20.'it'e2 looks more active to me. 1 9...a5!

9 ... �e7

Towards the end of the tournament in the 12th round Karpov experimented with 9 ...d5 , but he chose the wrong opponent, as the Indian grand­ master Viswanathan Anand easily won that game. 1 0.tLlc6

In an excellent article about this event in the German magazine Schach Shirov and his second Lanka consider 10.c4! to be White's best, as 1 47

Black makes a useful move, as White was ready to answer 19 ...d6 with 20.ed6 �d6 21 .l:radl . 20.l:tad1 a4

As long as the centre is closed the two white bishops will not be all that useful. Meanwhile Karpov weakens his opponent's queenside. 21 .l:td3

It is always hard to take seriously but 21 .ba4 might have been considered, as after 2 l . ..�a7 22.J:rd3 White can start an initiative on the king­ side while the a4 pawn can always be protected by .idl . Shirov feared 21 ...d6 but after 22.ed6 .id6 23.c5 (I do not mind 23 ...�2 or 23 ...-icS) I believe White is better.

26....if8!

With the idea of fixing the queenside by c6-c5. 27.�c3 c5 28Jlf3 t2Je7 29.'ife5 'ifc8

Too passive and missing a small chance to get a slightly favourable position by 29 ... �a7. 30.J:rd3 tt::Jc6 31 . 'ife3!

Overprotecting b3 and keeping an eye on the cS pawn, so Black is not able to manoeuvre his bishop via e7 to f6.

21 ...ab3 22.ab3 t2Jg6 23.f4

31

..•

'ifa6

Shirov gives 3 1 ...�e7 32 ..if3 li:JaS 33 ..ie5 as unclear but 33.f5 ! would not appeal to most Black players. 32..if3 t2Jd4!? 23... d6!

Preventing White from starting an attack and trying to exchange the rook on d3, so that he can put pressure on the b3 pawn. Karpov at his best! 24.ed6 �d6

24 ....id6 25.g3 �f8 would allow White to keep his rook on the board with 26.�df3 ! 25.g3

I believe it would have been better to simplify by 25.f5, with an approximately equal position. 25 ..Jld3 26. �d3

26 ..id3 was more precise to threaten the advance f4-f5. Protecting the b3 pawn is never a problem, as White has �c3 and .ic2 at his disposal. 1 48

With time trouble imminent Karpov decides to content himself with a draw. 33. .id4 cd4 34.'ifd4 g6! 35.�g2 'ifa2 36.l:!.d2 'ifaS

Winning the pawn back with 36 ...�b3 was also possible, but White does get a strong trump on c6 after 37.c5 J:rb4 38."�f2 J:rc4 39.c6. 37..lld3

And both players were satisfied to split the point. Perhaps this was not the most exciting game, but it definitely was a very correct one.

Round 6

where Black was successful is Oll-Topalov, Moscow Olympiad 1994: 14 ...hg4 1 5.f4 tt:lc4 16.'ti'e2 'ti'c8 1 7.f5 tt:lb2! 18.�f6 tt:ld1 19.'ti'g4 ef6 20.J:!.g1 J:!.c4 21 .tt:ld1 d5-+ .

51 1 8. 1 4 D Kamsky • Ivanchuk Notes by]eroen Piket A few days after this game I met Vasily Ivanchuk at breakfast and after a while our conversation went into the direction of his game against Gata Kamsky. 'Chukky' immediately gave me his ex­ planation for playing the Dragon: 'When I was young (probably very young, as he is only 25 years old) I used to play the Dragon and I won my first five games with it, so I considered it a good opening and kept on playing it. Then sud­ denly I lost three games in a row and I stopped playing it until recently. When I remember the positive sides of this opening and the early vic­ tories as in Novgorod 1994 before my game against Short, I go for it! ' It is unnecessary to mention that Vasily again had these same dreams about the most romantic Sicilian on the morning of the sixth round. 1 .e4 c5 2.tbf3 4.t2Jd4 g6 5.t2Jc3

t2Jc6

3.d4

cd4

A wise choice, as Ivanchuk had already experi­ enced the Maroczy bind with White and Black in this tournament. 5 ... i.g7 6.�e3 t2Jf6 7.�c4 0-0

For 7 .. :ifa5 see Polgar-Kamsky round 9.

1 4... t2Jeg4! ?

Actually a very unusual move as most Black players prefer 14 ...tt:lc4, a variation I could write another book about. 1 5.l:the1

Centralization is always good. 1 5 ... 'tWa5

The only move! 1 5 . . .b5 16.e5 a5 17.e6! a4 18.ef7 r;i;>h8 20.�e6 gave White a decisive advantage in Gazik-Ferreira, Groningen 1979/80. 1 6.f5

More direct than, and an improvement over 1 6.r;i;>b 1 , as Kamsky played against Basin in Minsk 1988, when he was barely a teenager. Oll-Shabalov, Tbilisi 1989 ended in a quick draw after 16.tt:lf3 �c6 17.tt:ld5 'ti'd2 1 8.J:!.d2 J:!.e8 19.c3 b5. 16 gf5! 1 7.t2Jf5 �f5 1 8.ef5 l:l.e8 1 9.tbd5 .•.

Defending the f5 pawn and - in my opinion securing a slightly better ending. 1 9.. .'iYd2 20J:td2 'Ot>f8!

8.i.b3 d6

Black ignores the side lines (8 . ..a5; 8 ... 'ii'c7) and challenges his opponent in the main line of the Dragon. 9.f3 �d7 1 0.'ifd2 l:l.c8 1 1 .0-0-0 t2Je5 1 2.h4 h5

Constantly fashionable and probably the best option. I was taught the Dragon Variation by the expert Genna Sosonko who always preferred the alternative 12 . . . tt:lc4, and so I played this move against Kasparov in Tilburg 1989. 1 3.�g5 l:l.c5 1 4.f4

Quite a good move but the second hand choice. Clearly more knowledge is demanded for the uncompromising move 14.g4. A recent example

21 .a4!

The immediate 21 .c3 would have given B lack time to advance on the queenside with 2 l ...b5 ! 1 49

21 ... b6

Always useful, as after an exchange of knights on d5 the b-pawn is no longer hanging. 22.'itb1

A little too cautions. There was nothing wrong with the obvious and strong 2 l .c3, as piece sacrifices on c3 do not seem to work. 21 ... lbd5 23..l::l. d5 .ifS 24..l::l.c 5?!

31 ... e6!

Ivanchuk does not miss his chance. Kamsky probably only reckoned with the immediate 31 ...ll:Jd3 which would have been parried by 32.�e3. 32.fe6 fe6 33.l:te5!?

Gata is trying to rectify his earlier mistakes and starts to defend his precarious position with great skill. 33.�e6 �g5 34.hg5 tLld3! would have run into unsolvable problems.

Too eager. Again 24.c3 (I like the manoeuvre �b3-dl very much) was advisable and though Ivanchuk does not have many worries he would face a long afternoon. 24 ... bc5 25.c3 l:l.b8!

33....i.e5?

Quite a difference, as Black has improved his pawn structure and does have certain unpleasant threats thanks to the b-file. 26.'itc2 'itg7 27..id5 lbe5

Otherwise 28.i.f3 would follow. 28.l:te4 as

Stopping the push b2-b4 or not? 29.b4

Panic or just over-optimistic? 29.i.d2 or 29.�f4 would have maintained equality. 29 cb4 30.cb4 ab4 31 .'itb3 ..•

Gata's idea is to make the b-pawn harmless by blockading it with his king, and then his own passed pawn becomes powerful. 1 50

Logical, but throwing away the win. 33 ... de5 ! , following the rule of exchanging as many pieces as possible when one has a material advantage, leaves White praying for a miracle both after 34.� i.d8 ! (even more precise than 34 ... i.g5) 35.�d8 l:Z.d8 36.a5 l:Z.dl 37.a6 J::Z.a l 38.�b7 (38.�d3 l:ta3 and e4) 38 ...e4 and after 34.�e6 �g5 35.hg5 e4. 34..i.e6 �c3?!

As I am not sure whether this position can be won, I do not criticize this move too much, but 34...�d4 and 35 ... .ic5 could be better. 35..id5 .l::l.e8 36 ..ib7

36.a5 would be too hasty, as 36. . .J::Z.e5 37. '>t>c4 b3 puts the lights out for White. 36....l::l.e1

36. .. l:te5 37.�d8 l:te3 38.i.g5 1:1.el would lead to the same position as in the game. 37.a5 l:ta1

37...l:Z.bl 38.'>t>c4 J::Z.a l 39.�8 ! (39.a6 d5 ! 40.r,t>b3

Round 6

J:!.a3 4 l .'tt>c2 d4 is too much to handle) 39. ..�el 40.a6 d5 41 . 'it>d5 b3 42..ib6! also secures a draw. 38.a6 d5 39.i.e71

Perhaps it was this move that Ivanchuk underes­ timated.

50 ... J:!.a4 51 .Wf2 wgs 52.wg1 l:tb4 53.i.e2 l:th4 54.g3 lla4 55.wf2 lla2 56. c;i;>f3 llb2

Draw.

39... J:!.b1

39 .. J:ta3 40.\t>c2 d4 4l .'it>d3 ! and 42..ic5 is White's next. 40.Wa4 b3

40. . .d4 4 l .'it>b5 .!:tal 42.\t>c4 and Black cannot improve his position.

51 3.7 0 Salov • Ljuboj evic Notes by]eroen Piket

41 .i.a31

Not 4l .a7? b2 42.a8..- (42.� 'it>h7 43.a8..- l:tal 44...ia3 b l .., is no improvement) 42...J:!.a1 43.�a3 J:!.a3 ! 44.\t>a3 b l .., and White gets mated. 41 ... b2 42.Wb3

42.a7? loses for the same reason as on the pre­ vious move.

42 ... i.f6 43.a7 J:!.a1 44.i.b2 l:ta7 45.i.d5 l:ta61

45 .....ib2 46.'it>b2 J:!.a4 47.g3! 'it>h6 (47... l:tg4 48...if3 J:!.g3 49..ih5 is a theoretical draw) 48 ...if3 and Black cannot avoid his last pawn being exchanged. 46.i.f6 l:tf6 47.i.f3 Wh6 48.wc3 l:tf4 49.Wd3 l:th4 50.we3

White has lost his h4 pawn, but in return his king is back just in time to achieve a well-known blockade. The final position can be found in the endgame books.

After having visited rounds 1 to 5 from the beginning to the end I decided before the start of the sixth round to do some useful analytical work in my room, as enough material had been pro­ vided by the players in this first part of the tournament. I was actually joking to my wife that of course now, when I would not be present, something hilarious might happen which I then would not witness. And indeed it did. Valery Salov played against his former fellow Linares­ citizen 4 ...-d4 instead of the obligatory 4.ti:ld4. Ljubo protested and Arbiter Geurt Gijssen ex­ plained to Valery that it was in the rules of this tournament that 4.ti:ld4 should be played. The players continued their game and Salov over­ whelmed his opponent with an unusual line and scored an easy victory. After the game the players started a by now notorious argument, but as I was in Buenos Aires to analyse the games and not to report on events before and after the games, being just a chess grandmaster and not a chess journalist, I will concentrate on the game! 1 .e4 cs 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.f31

An exclamation mark for the effect this old and almost forgotten move had on the outcome of this game. s ...es

As it soon becomes clear that Ljubo does not really know or remember the theory, 5 ... e6 or 5 ...g6 might have been a better practical decision, to transpose to other Sicilian lines. 1 51

1 52

Round 6

6.�b5 �d7

In New in Chess Salov makes a very apt remark about his opponent's choice of this less precise move: 'Interestingly, he may have played this in analogy with his game against Judith Polgar (Black), in round 4' . 6 ... t2Jbd7 7.t2Jf5 d5 8.ed5 a6 (8 . . . 'i:Ya5 9.t2Jc3 �b4 10.�d2 0-0 was an attempt to solve Black's problems by Ljubo­ jevic and Najdorf, but later the Yugoslav grand­ master himself found the refutation, namely 10.t2Jg7 f8 1 I .t2Jf5 ! , as the bishop on b5 cannot be taken because of 12.�h6 and the black king has no good squares to go to) is supposed to be Black's best answer, and wher­ ever the bishop goes Black will have good counterplay for the pawn. 7.il..d7 'it'd7?

But this is really a terrible move. 7 ... t2Jbd7 8.t2Jf5 d5 9.ed5 'i:Ya5 10.t2Jc3 t2Jb6 1 1 .'i:Ye2 0-0-0 12.0-0 t2Jbd5 1 3 .t2Jd5 �d5 would give a very compli­ cated fight, according to Suetin. 8.tt:Jf5 dS 9.il..g5!

To keep on digging in ancient history: 10 . . . gf6 1 l .'i:Yd7 t2Jd7 12.fe4 �c8 13 .t2Jc3 �b4 14.0-0-0 �c3 1 5.t2Jd6 rtJe7 16.t2Jc8 l:.c8 17.bc3 �c3 with some - but insufficient - compensation for the exchange, Keres-Biumenoff, Tallinn 1938. I have to say that I - and probably many others - would opt for this kind of possibility to try and save my skin, as what happens in the game is quite hopeless. 1 1 .d1 gf6 1 2.fe4 tt:Jc6 13.c3! l:lg8

Ljubojevic told me a few days afterwards that Black's only chance to try to survive was 1 3 ... �d8 14.t2Jd2 h5 followed by t2Je7 and l:.g8. In Zhuravlev-Agrest, Podolsk 1990, 13 ... 0-0-0 14.t2Jd2 t2Je7 15 .t2Je7? �e7 16.rtJe2 �g8 17.g3 h5 ! was okay for Black, but 1 5 .rtJc2, similar to the game, was of course the correct way to play. 1 4.g3 l:ld8

Only here does the game deviate from earlier examples. 14 . . . �g4 15 .t2Jd2 �d8 16.rtJe2 t2Je7 17.t2Je3 �d2 1 8.rtJd2 �e4 19 .'1t>d3 �a4 20.b4 ! with a decisive advantage was seen in a 'classic' encounter of Alekhine versus Rellstab, Salzburg 1943. 1 5.t2Jd2 tt:Je7 1 6.c2

White certainly does not mind the exchange of knights, as the e4 square then becomes available with a technically easily won ending. 16 ... d7 1 7.l:lad1 ! cG

17 ...rtJe6 fails to 18.t2Jb3 �d1 19.t2Jc5 mate ! 1 8.tt:Jf3 l:ld1

Because ofthis very strong move Black is in deep trouble, as was already proved half a century ago. 9... de4

A matter of taste. Other players might prefer to be worse but keep the queens on the board with 9 ... d4 1 0.�f6 gf6 1 l .c3 t2Jc6 1 2.'i:Ya4 a6 1 3.0-0 �c5 14.b4 b5 1 5.'i:Yb3 �a7 1 6.c4 ! as happened in Koch-Meyer, correspondence game 1949 ! 1 o.�fG 'it'd1

1 53

1 9.lbe7

The last important move as 19J�:d l l2Jf5 20.ef5 �h6 ! would have spoiled everything. From now on it is a piece of cake for White especially if one is an endgame expert. 1 9 ... �e7 20J:td1 .l:ldB 21 ..l:ld8 �dB 22.lbh4 �e7 23.lbf5 �fa 24.b4

The plan is simply to create a passed pawn which will do the job. 24 ... 'it;ld7 25.'it;lb3 'it;lc6 26.'it;lc4 a6 27.a4 b6 28.g4 bS 29.'it;lb3 'it;ld7 30.lbe3

30.ab5 ab5 3 l .c4 would have given Valery a passed b-pawn but he prefers to improve on this. 30...�h6 31 .lbd5 �gS 32.c4 'it;lc6 33.lbc3 bc4 34.'it;lc4

The rest speaks for itself! 34...�h4 35.lbd5 �gS 36.h3

Zugzwang! 36 ... �h4 37.lbe7 'it;ld7 38.lbf5 �e1 39.b5 abS 40.'it;lb5 �d2 41.'it;lb6 �e1 42.a5 �f2 43.'it;lb7 'it;le6 44.'it;lc6

Black resigned.

Round 7 A nand

- Salov

Ljubojevic

- Kamsky

lvanchuk

- Shi rov

1f2 - 1h

Karpov

- Polgar

1f2 - 1f2

1f2 - 1f2 0- 1

51 39. 1 2 D A nand • Salov

5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3 .0 2 .0

6.i..g2 de4!

Notes by]eroen Piket The last round of the first cycle could not have had a better pairing than this game between the leader of the tournament and the runner-up. Un­ fortunately Anand was starting to develop a cold as it was only spring in Buenos Aires, and his state of mind was clearly affected. 1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 4.t2Jd4 e6

Salov An and Karpov Kamsky Polgar lvanchuk Shirov Lju bojevic

tt:Jc6

3.d4

cd4

This was the line the Indian grandmaster ex­ pected from his opponent and several hours be­ fore the game he had come up with an idea which might surprise Salov.

Valery made this decision after a half an hour's thought and rightly opted for this ending, as White is not able to profit from Black's weak­ ened pawn structure. 7.t2Jc6 't\Vd1 i.b7 1 0.b3

8.'�d1

beG 9.i..e4

White obviously likes to trade the dark squared bishops as it increases the vulnerability of Black's queenside. 1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 .'it>e2 i..e7!

To meet 12.�a3 with �f6. 1 2.i..b2 i..f6

S.g3

Not entirely new but seldom played, as 5 .tt:lc3 and 5.lLJb5 are generally preferred. s... ds!

In the game Makarichev-Popov, Soviet Union 1980, Black answered calmly with 5 . ..lLJf6 but after 6.�g2 d6 7.0-0 �d7 8.c4 a6 9.lLJc3 .C!.c8 10.lLJc6! .C!.c6 l l .�e2 �e7 12.l:.dl the white set-up was a success. 1 55

What is going on? I was just explaining where White is aiming for and at first sight it seems that Black is giving him a helping hand. But if we look more closely we can understand Salov's intention, as after 1 3 .�f6 tDf6 14.�g2 c5 Black is fully developed and has nothing to fear.

1 3.tt:lc3 cS Of course Black takes this opportunity to free himself while White's pieces are not very well organized.

White switches plans, since playing for f4 is dangerous one tempo behind. He is pursing strategical goals, preparing the bishop exchange on h6, or developing with .l:rfd I and �e3 with the idea of tbd5 and c4.

1 1 ... a6 1 2..l:!.fd1 bS 1 3."ii'f4 tt:Jes Black continues his plan of advancing the queenside pawns, gaining space as well as threatening to harass the knight with b5-b4. His position is preferable.

1 4.tt:ld4 �c4 1 5.a3 �e2 1 6.tt:lde2

1 4.�b7 \t?b7 1 5.tt:la4 ..ib2 1 6.tt:lb2 tt:le7 1 7.tt:ld3 The obvious 17.tDc4 is not very impressive either, as after 17 ... tDd5 ! ( 1 7 . .. tDc6 1 8 .c3 .l:.d5 19.tDe3 l:rd7 20 .l:.hdl is not very special but does give White the benefit of the doubt) 1 8.tDe5 tDc3 1 9.\t?e3 .l:.d5 ! I prefer Black.

1 7 \t?bG 1 8.tt:le5 •.•

And at this moment Anand quickly offered a draw, as he suddenly realized that 18 ... .l:.d5 ! is perfectly playable for Black, since 19.tDf7 l:!.f8 20.c4 .l:rf5 is not very pleasant. So White has to continue 1 9 .f4 after which 1 9 . . .f6 is possible and he has nothing to hope for. A very pleasant way for Salov to enter the rest day.

51 1 5. 1 1 D Ljubojevic • Kamsky Notes by Gata Kamsky 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 g6 5.tt:lc3 ..ig7 6.tt:lb3 tt:Jf6 7.�e2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9...ig5 The game has finally transposed into the Classi­ cal Dragon, Karpov's Variation.

9 ... �e6 1 O.l:.b1 A very strange move, even a novelty. The normal move is I O.�h1, preparing f4.

1 0 .l:!.c8 1 1 J!lfd2 •••

1 56

1 6 ..Jlc4?! A stupendous move. I thought that I would be able to exert some pressure on the e4-pawn by �a8, with the idea of doubling rooks on the c-file and playing for b5-b4. It was better to play 1 6... .l:re8 immediately with the idea of �d7-b7.

1 7.tt:lg3 The knight stands well here and is ready for the manoeuvre tbg3-fl-e3-d5. White's position is almost equal.

1 7.. Jle8 1 8.h3 "ii' bB?! Black is trying to transpose into the plan men­ tioned above. However 18 ...tDed7, preventing 1 9.�f6, was better.

1 9.�f6 �f6 20.tt:ld5 �g7 21 .c3 aS 22 .l:!.d2 .l:!.cS •

Finally admitting that the rook doesn't belong on c4, I was trying to play b4.

23..l:!.bd1 tDc4

Round 7

There was a possibility of setting a trap with 23 .....Wd8, intending e6 and g5, but it was easily refuted by tt:Jfl , thus helping White. 24 .l:i.e2 tt:lb6 25.tt:lf1 tt:ld7 •

Growing short of time, Black didn't want to play 25 ... tt:Jd5 26.ed5 ..Wb7 27.tt::le3 b4 28.ab4 ab4 29.c4 when White stands better. 26.tt:ld2 'tWa7 27.tt:lf3 h6

Black is trying to improve his position and only then to play e6 and tt:Je5. 28.'tWe3 'tWb8 29.'ifd2 tt:lb61

Now White is unable to support the knight on d5 with the other knight, so Black's chances of playing b4 have drastically improved.

With time trouble over, Black was able to assess the position as very favorable due to his superior bishop and more compact pawn structure. There­ fore it is logical to transpose into the endgame, where White is doomed to passive defense. 42. .l:i.b1 .l:i.dc8 43.tt:lb4 hS

With the idea of creating extra weaknesses on the dark squares, or of continuing with h5-h4, allow­ ing a later f5 . 44.h4 .1:1c3 45.l:ta2 ..td4

Another possibility was the immediate 45 .. .f5 right away, 46.ef5 gf5 with the potential threat of d5-d4-d3 and e6-e5-e4. 46.'iitf1 l:ta8

46 .. J�8c4 would have allowed White some coun­ terplay after 47.a4 i.c5 48.tt::la6.

30. 'ifd3 tt:lc4 31 .tt:ld4 e6

47.tt:lc2 ..tcs 48.'iite2 .1:1c4 49.f3 'iitg 7?! 50 .1:1b3? •

The decisive mistake. White would have kept his chances alive after 50. .U.b7, preventing the threat of f7-f5 for some time. Even so B lack should win with accurate play. 50 f5 51 .tt:le3 .l:i.ca4 52.ef5 gfS 53.g3 'i¥i>f6 54.f4 �a3 ..•

The simplest. 55.tt::Jd 1 �cs 56 . .1:1a4 .1:1a4 57.tt:lc3 l:ta1 58.'iitd3?1 l:tf1 1

Finally ! 32.tt:le3 .l:i.d8 33.tt:lb3?! 34.'ifb1 'tWb6 35.'ifd3 tt:leS

.l:i.cc8

It was also possible to improve the position even further by playing 35 ... h5 with the idea of 36 ... �h6, cramping White's pieces. 36.'ifb1 ? !

More resistance was offered by 36 ...Wd2. 36 ... b4 37.cb4 ab4 38.tt:ld4

38 .a4 is impossible, because 38 ... ..Wa6 wins a pawn. 38 ... tt:lc4 39.tt:lc4 .l:i.c4 40.tt:lc2 ba3 41 .ba3 'tWb1

Forcing the rook exchange, after which a pawn endgame arises on the board since the bishop dominates the knight. 1 57

59.tt::le2 l:f3 60.�c2 l:b3 61 .�b3 �f2 62.�c4 �e7 63.�b5 �d7 64.�b4 �c6 65.�c4 dS

White resigned since both 66/it.;•b4 .iel 67.'it>b3 c;t>c5 and 66.c;t>d3 c5 67.c3 d4 68.c;t>d3 rot>d5 lead to Zugzwang.

1 0.f4 �d7 1 1 .�e21? bS 1 2..if3 l:b81?

Probably a new move. Dvoiris-Yermolinsky, Simferopol 1988, saw 12 ...1:c8 and after 13.ttJb3 Black failed to equalise. 1 3.tt::lc6!?

Of course, 1 3 .g4 tt::Ja5 ! is in Black's favour. 1 3 .ic6 1 4..id41 eSI •••

51 29.3 D Ivanchuk • Shirov Notes by Alexey Shirov 1 .e4 cs 2.tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld4 tt::lf6 5.tt::lc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.'ti'd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.�e3 'ti'c7

More common here are 9....ie7 and 9....id7, but I think that the text move hasn't said its last word yet.

1 58

Round l

It wasn't exactly my idea to play the structure arising after 14 ... b4 1 5 ...if6 gf6 16.lLle2 h5i. 1 5 ...ie3

In the post-mortem lvanchuk suggested 15 .'ifel ! ? (with the idea of 15 ...ed4 1 6.e5 with an attack), but after 1 5 .. Jk8 ! Black is more than okay. 15 ...if2! ? would have been interesting. 1 5.....ie7

15 ...b4? ! was too early in view of 16.ttJd5 ..id5 17.ed5 e4 18 ...ie2 b3 19.ab3 l:tb3 20.'iti'bl l:tb8 21 .�a6±. 1 6.'itb1

16.g4 can now be met by 16 ... b4 1 7.lLld5 �d5 18 .ed5 b3 ! 19.ab3 ef4! 20 ...if4 l:tb3 with counterplay. I was a little bit afraid of 16.lLld5 �d5 17.ed5, but in fact Black may choose here between lvanchuk's suggestion 17 ...ef4 1 8 . .if4 0-0 19 . .C.hel .C.fe8 intending 20 ...�f8. or 17 ...lLld7 !? 18 ...ig4 lLlb6 19.�b6 .C.b6, in both cases with approximate equality. 1 6 0-0 1 7 .:!.he1 t2Jd7 •..

•

lvanchuk was slightly scared of 17 . .. b4!? 18 .lLld5 �d5 19.ed5 lLld7 with the idea of 20...ef4 21 ..if4 lLlb6 with an attack. In my opin­ ion, after 20.'ifd3 ! intending 20. . . l:tb5 2l..�g4 the position is rather unclear. 1 8.t2Je2

1 8 .ttJd5 .id5 19 .'ifd5 would lead to equality after 19 ...ef4 20 ..if4 lLlb6 2 l .'ifd4 ttJc4 ! 22.e5! deS 23.�e5 ttJe5 24.'ife5 'ife5 25 .l:te5 �f6. Interest­ ing was 1 8.f5 ! ? l:tfc8 19.l:te2 lLlb6 20.�b6 l:tb6oo. 1 8... t2Jb6 �h4!?

1 9.�b6

l:!.b6

20.t2Jg3

Trying to simplify matters in the approaching time-pressure. More complicated would be 20 .. J1d8 2 l .lLlf5 �f6 22.g3 (22.lLld6?? �b7-+) 22. . .b4 with un­ clear play. 21 .l:!.f1 �g3 22.hg3 i..b7

The position is equal. 23.'Wa5

Here lvanchuk offered a draw and I accepted, as I was not sure whether I could fight for an edge; for example 23 ... .C.c8 24 ..C.f2 'ifc5 25.l:tfd2 with the idea of 26.a3 followed by 27.'ifb4 is unclear.

51 20.2 D Karp ov • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket These players have met in several tournaments and Karpov has always opened with his queen's pawn to test Judith's King's Indian Defence. Only this year in Linares Anatoly preferred the king's pawn, to meet Polgar's Sicilian with the fashionable 2.c3, which indeed turned out to be a great success. This time he is forced to play one of the main lines. 1 .e4 cs 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 ttJf6 S.tt::lc3 e6 6.g4

Karpov shows his ambitions of today and goes for the Keres Attack, an opening he frequently used in the seventies and early eighties when his current opponent was still wearing diapers. 6 ...a6

Not the most common answer. 6 . . . ttJc6 and 6 . . .h6 (as in Polgar-Salov, 3rd round) are more often seen in practice. 7.g5 ttJfd7 8...ig2 g6?!

1 59

17.�e3 b4 18 .ab4 lLlb4 with active play was also satisfactory for Black. 1 6... b4

An over the board inspiration. Funnily enough the main continuation in the Encyclopedia (8 ... lLlc6 9.h4 �e7 10.a4 h6 1 l .gh6 g6 !) is based on a game Karpov-Hartmann, Hannover 1983, with the surprising result of 0- 1 . 9.h4

As later in the game White had some problems in putting his pieces on the right squares, Karpov proposed 9.�e3 as an alternative. 9 ... lt:Jc6 1 0.h5?!

This gives White control of the h-file, but again simple developing moves like 10.�e3 followed by 1 1 .1t'e2 and castling queenside were safe and sound. 1 o ... .:tga 1 1 .hg6 hgG 1 2.t4

It was too late for 12.�e3 as after 12. .. lLlde5 13.b3 ( 1 3.'ii'e2 is not possible because of 13 ...lLld4 14.�d4 'it'g5) 13. ..lLld4 14.'fi'd4 fi.g7 Black has nothing to complain of. 1 2 ... �b6 1 3.lt:Jb3

The FIDE world champion was not very enthu­ siastic about the further prospects of the knight in this game, and therefore 1 3.lLlf3 was a better try, to play for f4-f5-f6, paralysing the black kingside. 1 3 .. .'ii'c7 1 4.'iff3

14.�e3 b5 1 5.'it'd2 ( 1 5 .'it'e2 b4) 15 ... lLlb6 16.0-0-0 lLlc4 17 .'it'f2 �b7 1 8 .'tt>b l would also have given a hard struggle. 1 4 b5 1 5.e5 d5 1 6...ie3 •..

16.a3 would not change much as 16 . . . �b7 1 60

1 7.lt:Je2?

After a long think Karpov did not dare to con­ tinue with the intended sacrifice 17 .lLld5, be­ cause after 17 ... ed5 1 8.'fi'd5 fi.b7 (18 . . .lLldb8 19.lLlc5 !) 19.e6 fe6 20.'it'e6 lLle7 2l .�b7 'it'b7 22.0-0-0 'it'c6 23.lLld4 the queens get exchanged, and although White might have enough compen­ sation to ensure half a point it does not look very tempting. There remains the last alternative 17.lLla4 which was White's best attempt, though Polgar proved in the post-mortem that after 17. . .lLla5 18.lLld4 lLlc4 19.�f2 lLlc5 20.lLlc5 fi.c5 2l .b3 lLla3 22J:tc1 (22.0-0 ! ?) 22 ...lLlb5 ! Black is fine or even better than that. 1 7...lt:Jb6! 1 8.fi.f2

Interesting was 1 8.lLld2 aS (18 ... �b7 19.b3 ! and White will occupy the beautiful d4 square as the push d5-d4 is premature) 19. 'it'f2 lLla4 20.b3 lLlc3 with an unclear position. 1 8 ... a5 1 9.lt:Jbd4 �a6 20.lLlc6 fi.e2 ! 21 .'ife2 �c6 22J:th3!

Victor Kortchnoi once told me that Karpov is very good in positions were he can put his rooks on the 3rd and 4th rank. Here it is the only way to avoid becoming much worse. 22.....tc5 23.b3 'tt>e7 24.l:.c1 Uh8 25.Ud3 Uac8 26.fi.g3 i..d4?

Playing for tactics while it is completely unnec-

Round ?

essary. 26 .....igl ! looks like a good move to me to dominate the game and there can be no doubt about the fact that Black is beautiful. 27.�f1 �b2 28.l::tc d1

The c2 pawn is untouchable so Karpov improves his position. 28 ... tt:Jd7 29.�f2 'i!VbS 30.l:lb1 �c3 31 .l:i.f3 'ifc6 32.l::th3 l::t h3 33.�h3 a4 34.�g4 a3

In order to avoid severe time trouble both players have limited themselves to logical and solid moves. However, I don 't like Polgar's last move and I suggest 34 ... l:i.h8! as a better attempt. 35J:td1 �b2 36.�e1 ! 'ifcS 37. 'ifa6

Despite his time pressure or maybe thanks to it Karpov has clearly improved his position and is not worse any more.

sight does not seem to work as it allows the tactic 4l .l:i.d5, but after 4 1 . . .b1 was clearly better for White in De la Villa Garcia-Novikov, Pamplona 1990. According to Hiibner 13 ...hg5 should be replaced by 1 3 ...b4 or 1 3. .. t2Jfd7. 1 2.l2Jce2 d5 1 3.�h3

The players have had a rest day so they have recharged their batteries for the second cycle of this tournament. In general many players want to forget their bad results and in this event it is easy to do so, as today one can make a clean start. 1 .e4 cS 2.l2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 l2Jf6 5.l2Jc3 a6 6.�e3

This treatment against the Najdorf has become popular due to the hard work and good results of British players like Chandler, Nunn and Short. I guess this explains the unofficial name English Attack. Anand has become an adherent of this line since he studied it very thoroughly with his second Patrick Wolff. 6 ...e6 7.f3 bS 8.g4 h6 9.'QlVd2 lLlbd7 1 0.0-0-0 �b7 1 1 .h4

This was to be expected, rather than the alterna­ tive 1 1 .�d3. 1 1 ... b4

1 I .. .t2Je5 1 2.�e2 �a5 1 3 .g5 hg5 14.hg5 .a.h 1 15 . .a.h 1 t2Jfd7 1 6.a3 0-0-0 17.f4 t2Jc5 1 8 .t2Jb3

Again the most consistent move. The Spanish players Romero and Magem Badals are respon­ sible for this razor-sharp continuation. 1 3.ed5 and 13 .t2Jg3 are known side-lines but 1 3. t2Jf4! ? still needs to be tested in practice. 1 3 ... de4

The first time I became familiar with the compli­ cations of this variation was during the 1990 Olympiad in Novi Sad, where my team-mate 1 63

Brenninkrneijer was taken by surprise in his game against Magem Badals and lost after 1 3 . . .'iWa5 14.';tb l g6 1 5 .g5 ttJh5 16.f4 0-0-0 17.f5 gf5 18.ef5 e5 19.ttJe6! fe6 20.fe6 'it>b8 2l .ed7 d4 22.ttJd4 ed4 23.'ti'd4. I vaguely remember the Dutch team analyzing the move 14 . . .g5 ! ? 1 4.g5 hgS!

Ljubo needs to open the h-file for his idea. 1 5.hg5 ef3 1 6.lLlf4 lLle4 1 7.'it'e1

Of course, White would like to take on h3 with his rook, but Anand did not see what to do after 18 ...e5, and indeed 19.�h8 ed4 (19...ef4 20."ifb4 fe3 2 l .ttJf5 'ti'g5 22.�f8 'it>f8 23.'ti'a4 ttJd7 is not bad either) or 19.ttJf5 ef4 (19...'ti'g5 20Jlh5) 20.�h8 'ti'g5 does not seem to give White anything. Ljubo­ jevic was intending, incidentally, to play 18 ...tUg5 19.�h8 'ti'e7! followed by castling queenside. 1 8...e5! 1 9.lLlb3

A sad necessity as 19.ttJf3 'ti'a5 20.\t>bl tUc3 ! wins on the spot. 1 9... a5!

Black's attack plays itself. 20.lLld2

White's pieces have been completely pushed back, whereas Black's control all the key squares. 20 'it'c7 21 ..ib6 ..•

2 l .ttJe4 �e4 22.�h2 �c8 is also not very hopeful and after 21 .ttJf3 b3 22.ab3 a4 White will cer­ tainly get mated. So far this is all known and it makes you wonder what Nimzowitsch would think about it. 17 . . .tUgS was Black's first try but this has a clear drawback; 1 8 .tt:Jde6 ! as happened in Romero­ Thkmakov, Wijk aan Zee 1991 . A very important game was Anand-Beliavsky, Groningen PCA­ qualifier 1993, where the Black player followed the latest analysis of Kasparov, but even this did not save him in the most spectacular game of 1993: 1 7 . . .f2 1 8.�f2 'ti'g5 19.�e3 'ti'h4 20.ttJde6! 'ti'el ! 21 .lUg7 ! 'it>d8 (2 l ...�g7 is sup­ posed to be better but apparently Anand did not mind repeating this) 22J:thel �h3 23.tt:'lh3 �g7 24.ttJg5 ! 'it>e8? 25.ttJf7 ! and White won. The grandmaster from Madras admitted that it was only the fine memories of this game that per­ suaded him to play this line again.

21 ... lLlb6 22.lLle4 l:lc8 23.l:lh2 'it'c6 24.t2Jg3 'ti'e6 25.\tb1 lLlc4 26.tt:Jf2

White is completely outplayed and of course Vishy realized he needed a miracle to escape from this mess. 26...lLlb2!?

1 7... �h3!

A very good idea but not such a surprising one, since in Groningen Ljubojevic had already sug­ gested this move. Somehow it did not get pub­ lished and Anand simply forgot it. 1 8.lLlh3

1 64

This was an unpleasant surprise for Anand, as he had only seen that 26. .. tUa3 27.ba3 �c2 28.�d8 ! 'it>d8 29.'ti'dl did not work for Black.

Round B

27. .l:rc1 ?

Equivalent to resigning, which is what most players would do if they did not dare to take the knight. Anand took Ljubojevic at his word and so did most people, but let's see what could have happened if White had accepted the challenge with 27.'it;>b2. 27. . J:lc2 28.'it>c2 'ii'a2 29.'it>cl (29.'it>d3 'ii'b3 30.'it;>d2 'ifc3 checkmate) 29 ... 'ifal 30.'it>c2 b3 ! 3 I .'it;>b3 (3 I .'it;>d3 'ii'd4 is mate) is forced and now Black has a choice:

winning possibility: 28 ... lLlc3 29.lLlc3 J:ic3 followed by 30...e4 or 30. . . J:ia3. 29.Wa1

29 ... i.e4 30.lLle4 l:ie4 was threatened. 29 .'ifg4 30.Vi'f1 ! tt::l b6 31 .tt::ld2 •.

31

A) 3 l . . . a4 is what Lj ubojevic intended and what Anand feared, as during the game it smelled like mate to both players. Indeed 32.'it;>c4 'ifa2 33.'it>b5 'ife6 ! ! 34J:ld8 (the only way to parry 34 . . . 'ifa6 or 34 . . .'ifc6 mate and 34.'it;>a4 'ii'c4 35 .'it;>a5 i.b4 36.'ii'b4 'ifa6 is also the end) 34 . . . 'it>d8 35.'ii' a5 'it>e8 36.'ii'b6 'ii'd5 37 .'it;>a4 'ifc4 38.'it>a5 i.b4 39.'ii'b4 'ifa6 leads to a beautiful mate, but White can escape with 32.'it;>c2 'ifa2 33 .'it;>d3 'ii'd5 34.'it>c2 'ii'b3 35.'it>d2 i.b4 36.'it>c l and now 36 ... i.el is im­ possible as then B lack in turn gets mated: 37 .l:.h8 'it;>e7 38 .lLlf5 'it;>e6 39.lLlg7 'it>e7 40Jie8. So Black must be satisfied with perpetual check. B) 3 l ...i.d5 ! 32 . .l:rd5 'ifel 33.lLlfe4 ! (defi­ nitely the most stubborn) 33 ...'ii'b l 34.'it;>c4! (34.J:ib2 a4 33 .'it;>c3 'ifcl 34.l:.c2 'ifa3 ! (even better than 34. . .i.b4) 35 .'it>d2 i.b4 36.'it>dl 'ii'b3 ! ! 37.J:ie5 'it>d8 and the a-pawn decides White's fate) 34 . . . 'ii'b4 35.'it;>d3 'ifb3 36.lLlc3 f6 and Black maintains a big advantage. 27 .. .tt::Ja4 28.lLlfe4 .l:rc4

I will restrict myself and give only one other

•..

.l:rc5??

It was time to finish the game with 3 1 .. .'ii'g3 32.lLlc4 'ifh2 33 .lLlb6 'ife2 ! 34.'ifh3 'ii'd2 35.'it>b l 'ii'd4 as Granda Zuniga explained to everybody in the press room. 32. Vi'f2 tt::Jc4?

Overlooking White's next move. 32 ...'ii'd4 was still sufficient to win. 33.l:.h8! .l:rc8

33 .. Jic7 was more to the point, but in time trouble Ljubo is losing the thread of the game. 34.l:.e1 tt::Jd2?

Black completely collapses and now the tables are turned. However, both 34... lLld6 35 .J:ie5 'it>d7 36.'it;>b l ! and 34 ... f6 35.gf6 gf6 36.lLlh5 l:.c6 (36 ...'ii'g6 37.lLlc4 J:ic4 38.'ii'b 6!) 37.J:igl 'ii'd4 38.'ii'd4 ed4 39.lLlc4 .l:rc4 40.l:.g8 would also have given White the better prospects. 35 . .l:re5 'it;>d7 36. Vi'd2 wc7

36 ...i.d6 37 ..l:rc8 i.c8 38.lLlf5 'ii'g l 39.'it;>b2 'ii'b6 40.l:i.e7 would not have solved the problem either. 37 .l:rf8! •

1 65

6 ...g6

The Lvov grandmaster transpose into the Dragon. 6...e5 or 6 ...�g4 would have given an entirely different kind of game. 7.l2Jde2

As swapping the knights on d4 is known to be a relief for Black, White avoids this possibility. 7...�d7

Vishy does not miss the opportunity to annihilate his opponent. 37 ... l:r.f8 38.l:r.e7 wc6 39.l2Je4

And nobody, least of all the players, could be­ lieve what had happened. So instead of winning 2-0, Ljubojevic lost his mini-match against Anand by the same score.

In my opinion another developing plan, with .a.b8 and a6 after castling, equalizes more easily. 8.�g2 �g7 9.h3

The routine 9.0-0 would have allowed Black to carry out his idea of exchanging the light­ squared bishop with 9 ... ii'c8 and 10 ...�h3 . 9...'ii'c8

Black's first achievement is preventing White from castling. 1 0.b3?

10.�e3 is more natural and the results are clearly in White's favour: 10 . ..0-0 1 1 Jk1 b5 1 2.b3 l:r.b8 13.ii'd2 a5 14.t2Jd5 t2Jd5 1 5.ed5 t2Jb4 ( 1 5 ... t2Jd8?! 16.i.h6 f6 17.i.g7 IJ;;g7 1 8 .c4 b4 19.h4 gave White the better chances in Zhuravliov-Lanka, Germany Bundesliga 1994) 16.c3 t2Ja6 17.h4 h5 1 8.0-0 t2Jc5 19 .t2Jd4 and White obtained a lasting edge in Abramovic-Petursson, New York 1986.

51 1 5.3 D Salov • Ivanchuk

1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .�b2 a5!

Notes byjeroen Piket Valery Salov's main goal in the second cycle of this tournament is consolidating his one point lead, while Ivanchuk will desperately try reach to the upper half of the tournament table as soon as possible. 1 .e4 c5 2.l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3.d4 4.l2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.l2Jc3 d6 6.g3

cd4

Salov seems to have prepared all kinds of side­ lines and he uses them successfully. lvanchuk is recognized as one of the best theoreticians in the world and therefore during this event he had to face several g3 systems. 1 66

The start of an original strategic plan. 1 2.a3

12.t2Jd5 t2Jd5 13 .i.g7 fails tactically to 1 3 ... t2Je3 ! 1 2... J::i.a6 1 3.l:r.b1 l2Ja7 1 4.l2Jf4 l:r.e8

Sooner or later the e7 pawn needs protection. 1 5.l2Jcd5

White has to play for simplification, because 15.0-0 is not advisable due to 15 ... e5, when he loses material. 15 ...l2Jd5 1 6.l2Jd5 �b2 1 7.l:r.b2 a4!?

Round B

1 9.tt:Jb6 �c7

19 ...1id8 might be the most precise, but because of time shortage lvanchuk seems happy to repeat moves. 20.tt:Jd5 �ea 21 .�d2

To me it is unclear why Salov decided to refrain from repeating moves with 21 .lLib6, as White is certainly not better. 21

•..

tt:Je5 22 .t:lb4 �a4! 23.0-0 .

23 .lLib6 1ic2 24.lLia4 lLid3 and 25 ... lLib4 is good for Black. What could be more natural than breaking up the opponent's pawn structure? Nevertheless 17 ... b5 followed by �c6 and �e6 was worth considera­ tion, as the white rook on b2 remains completely misplaced and passive. 1 8.ba4!

Of course Salov takes this opportunity to activate his rook. 18

••.

tt:Jc6

The knight is heading for c4.

23 �c6 24. .t:la1 tt:Jd7 .••

Severe time trouble does not improve the standard of the game. 24 ... 1id8 ! with the follow-up 1ia5 and �d5 would have guaranteed lvanchuk a bright future. 25.a4 �dB 26. 'ifh6 e6?!

Unnecessarily weakening his position. Again 26 .. .'ii'a5 was to be preferred. 27.tt:Je3 �f6 28.l::. d 1

1 67

than the more usual 10.ttJc6. Kamsky already knew this from his own experience, as the Span­ ish grandmaster Illescas easily held his own with Black after the knight exchange in Madrid 1994. The text move had already been played in 1977 by Larsen against Karpov. It's a small world ! 1 0... tt:le4

Karpov accepts the challenge. 10 ...0-0?! gave White fine prospects in Kamsky-Salov in the 5th round. 1 1 .c5! 28 ... g5??

But this is clear panic. 28 ... .1:!.a4? fails to 29. e5 ! and 30.�c6, but 28 ...�a4 should be enough to keep the position more or less balanced. 29.'i!ff6 tt:Jf6 30.�d6 �ea8

30 ....l:!.c8 3 1 .e5 is similar to the game, but 30 ...ttJd7 was the most stubborn attempt to fight back. 31 .e5! .tg2 32.�a6 �a6 33:•tg2 tt:ld7 34.tt:lc4 �c6 35.f4 gf4 36.gf4 tt:JcS 37.tt:ld6

And in this lost position, while playing 37 .. .f5, Ivanchuk overstepped the limit. 38 ..1:!.c4 would have left Black without an answer.

51 40.6

1 1 ...tt:lf6

D Kamsky • Karpov Notes byjeroen Piket An interesting battle between two of the greatest fighters the chess world knows at this moment. Both players are determined to catch up with the leader of the pack! 1 .e4 cs V2:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 tt:lc6 5.tt:lc3 'JI//c7 6 ..te2 a6 7.0-0 tt:Jf6 a..te3 .tb4 9.tt:la4 .te7 1 0.c4!

This is clearly a better attempt at posing Black some problems in this Taimanov-Paulsen system 1 68

A new move and a good one. 1 I .ttJc6 bc6 12.�d4 ttJf6 1 3 .ttJb6 .l:!.b8 14.c5 d6 15 .cd6 �d6 16.ttJc4 �h2 17 .'it;>h1 c5 18 .�c5 �c5 19.�c5 with an unclear position was played in De la Riva-lllescas, Lleida 199 1 . 1 1 .�f3 with the idea of c5 and .l:!.c 1 is similar to Gata's plan and was played by Gutero against Sion, Sevilla 1989.

Aiming for the d5 square as 1 1 ...ttJc5 is not an option due to 12.ttJc6 �c6 13.ttJc5 �c5 14 . .1:!.c1 d6 15.b4. 1 2...tf3 0-0 1 3.�c1

Of course it is a matter of taste, but I imagine that most players would prefer to be on the white side. For the moment the players have the same goal, which is making useful moves to improve the coordination of the pieces. 1 3... 1d.b8

Making the jump to b6 less annoying. 1 4.g3

Round B

A multi-functional move, as it gives the bishop on f3 a lasting future on the h 1 -a8 diagonal, while the other bishop might one day threaten to go to f4. 1 4... g6

With his pawn majority in the centre it is to be expected that Black will be advancing both his d- and e-pawn, and then it will be useful to cover the f5 square. 1 5.tt:lb6 l:rd8 1 6.'ifa4

rial one, e.g. 23.'ifc2 (23.b4 'ifh3 24.tt'le5 �e6 or 23.l:.c2 l:.dl ) 23 ... �e8. 22 ...l:!.e6

22 ... 'ifh3 is best answered by 23.'ifh4. 23.:tfd1 'ife8 24.�e7 'ife7 25.tt:lc6 'ti'e8 26.'ifa6 �g7

After this forced sequence of moves (26. .. �c8? 27.tt'le7) we can conclude that Kamsky has done a good job as he is now a pawn up.

Increasing the pressure against c6 so it will not be easy for the opponent to free himself. 1 6 ...e5

Karpov is running out of space, so he decides to return the pawn for some activity. 1 7.tt:lb3 d5 1 8.cd6 l:ld6 1 9.tt:la5 �d7?!

19 ...e4 was sharper and probably more to the point as after 20 . .ig2 (20 ..ie4 tt'le4 21 .tt'lc6 �c6 22.'ife4 .ifS is no problem for Black) 20 ... .if5 21 .tt'lac4 l:.d3 22 ..if4 'it'd8 23 ..ib8 'ii'b8 24.tt'le3 (24J:tfdl ! ?) 24... 'ife5 25.tt'lbc4 'ife6 Black has good compensation for the exchange. 20.tt:ld7 'ti'd7 21 .�c6!?

21 .tt'lc6 bc6 22.�c6 'ife6 23.b3 looks more ob­ vious but 23 . ..h5 ! gave Karpov enough counter­ play in the post-mortem. 21 ... bc6 22.�c5!

27.tt:lb8?

But this allows Black too much active play. 27.b4! was much more resolute and after 27 ... l:lc8 (27 ... l:lb4 28.'ifa3 ! followed by 29 . .i:.d8) 28.b5 l:la8 29.'ifb6 e4 30.'ife3 ! (30.'ifd4 e3 3l .fe3 l:la2) Karpov would have had a lot more problems. 27 ... .l:.a6 28.tt:la6 'ifb2 30.a4 'ifa3

'it'b5

29.tt:lc5

Prevending 31 .�a 1 as in this endgame too the rook behind the pawn would be very powerful. 31 ..l:.c2

Missing the last opportunity to keep the initiative. 3 l .�c4 ! (3 l .tt'ld3 e4 32.l:la1 'ii'b3 33.tt'lf4 e3 ! 34.f3 e2 35.�e1 'iff3) 3l ...h5 32.h4 (32.h3? h4) 32 .. .tt:Jg4 (32 ...'ifa2 33.�dc1 tt'ld5 34.tt'le4 tt'lb6 35.l:lc7 !) 32.tt'le4! was still promising for White. 31 ... h5!

Karpov understands very well that now is the time to attack. 22.tt'lc6 .if8 and I do not see any way for White to convert his positional advantage into a mate-

32..l:.e1

1 69

Not an easy decision in mutual time trouble. 32.h4 e4 33J:te1 �b4 34 ..l:i.ee2 e3 ! 35 .fe3 l2Jd5 ! typifies the strength of Black's queen and knight. 32.'it>g2 �b4 33 .f3 e4 34.fe4 l2Je4 would have led to the same result as in the game.

32

•..

h4 33.'0t>g2 h3! 34.'0t>h3 �f3

Creating some serious threats against the white king.

35 .::Z.e5! •

51 39.4 D Shirov • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket This game was awarded the price for the best novelty of the tournament. Thejury consisting of correspondence grandmaster J.J. van Oosterom, grandmaster L. Polugaevsky, grandmaster M. Najdorf and yours truly were unanimous, as the idea was very original, specially prepared by Polgar for her game against Shirov, and an im­ provement over Kasparov's play.

1 .e4 cS 2.l2Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 l2Jc6 5.l2Jc3 d6 Again Judith plays a different move order, mak­ ing it difficult for future opponents to prepare against her.

6.g4! ?

The right choice. As White may be forced to give up material, it is sensible to be materialistic.

35

.•.

l2Jh5!

This is sufficient for a draw. 35 ... �d1 would have been an interesting but risky winning at­ tempt, as the following line shows: 36J1ce2 �fl 37.�h4 �g2 38.h3 (38.f4 �f3 is certainly not an improvement) 38 ... �f3 ! 39 . .1:12e3 (39.a5 'it>h6 40.a6 l2Jh7 ! 4 l .J:12e3 f5 ! ! and White gets mated) 39 . . .�f2 40.l2Jd3 !

36J:te4 36J1h5 �h5 37.�g2 �d1 38 . .l:i.c3 �d5 39.'it>fl �d1 would have drawn immediately.

36 ... g5 37J:td2 l2Jf4 38 ..l:i.f4 gf4 39.l2Jd3 �hS 40.�g2 f3 41 .�g1 �dS! •

By pinning the knight and rook Black prevents White from improving his position.

42.'0t>f1 'ti'd4 43.'0t>e1 �a1 44J1d1 �c3 45 .I:.d2 •

Draw. A very important game for theory. 1 70

A Keres Attack with Black's knight still on g8. Over the past two years this line has gained some popularity, and Shirov is partly responsible for that.

6 .•• a6 7.�e3 l2Jge7 8.tt:lb3 8.�e2 l2Jd4 9 . .id4 l2Jc6 I O ..ie3 .ie7 1 1 .0-0-0 b5 1 2.f4 �a5 1 3 .�f2 .l:lb8 14.'it>b1 0-0 1 5 .g5 �d7 1 6.h4 .l:lfc8 17.h5 lLlb4 18 ..id2 �b6 and White had to admit he had not achieved anything in Luther-Vogt, Altensteig 1992.

8 b5 9.f4 ..•

9.�e2 l2Ja5 ! 10.0-0-0 l2Jc4 1 l .f4 �c7 definitely gave Black no problems in Shirov-Salov, Linares 1993.

9 ..Q..b7 1 0. �f3 •.•

After this game the White players might start investigating IO.�d2.

1 0... g5! A very well known pawn push in the Sicilian but normally supported by a pawn on h6. Kasparov played 1 0 . . . l2Ja5 in this position but got into trouble after 1 1 .0-0-0 tLlb3 1 2.ab3 ld.c8 13 .h4 l2Jc6 14.g5 �a5 1 5.'it>b1 l2Jb4 1 6.i.d4 d5 1 7 .f5 ! in Shirov-Kasparov, Novgorod 1 994.

Round B

But let's see what induced Black to give away a pawn.

for Black to find counterplay on the kingside. 13. ..tal5 14.i.d2 .t:.c8 15.lLled4 or 13 ... lLlc4 14.i.d4 e5 15 .lLlg3 ! would have led to an inferior game. 1 4.gh5?

1 1 .fg5

1 1 .0-0-0, maintaining a clear lead in develop­ ment, was worth considering, but 1 l ...gf4 12.lbc5 (1 2.i.f4 lbg6 13.lt:\c5 'iVf6!) 12 ... lbe5 ! ( 1 2...�c8 13 .�f4 lbg6 14.e5 ! and Black has no grounds for optimism) 1 3.'iVf4 bc6 is okay for Black. 1 1 . ..tbe5 1 2.'iVg2

1 2.'iVe2 takes away the square for the knight, so after 12 ... b4 13. lba4 i.c6 ! (13 ... i.e4? 14.�b6) 14.lbb6 i.e4 Black regains the pawn. 1 2... b4 1 3.tLle2

13.lt:\a4 lbd5 ! 14.i.d2 .l:lc8 was not very tempting for White. 1 3 ... h5! !

This decision is more than the White position can handle and is based on an oversight. Dur­ ing the post-mortem the players spent a long time searching for the truth and this was the result: 14.gh6, the other way of capturing the pawn, is not so testing for B lack, as 14 . . .�h6 ( 1 4 . . . lLld5 1 5.ed5 i.d5 1 6.'iVg3 i.h1 1 7.g5 is hard to assess) 1 5 .i.h6 l:.h6 1 6.0-0-0 ( 1 6.h4? lLlg6 1 7.h5 lLlh4) 16 ... lLl7g6 gives excellent compensation for the small sacrifice: 17.'>t>b 1 tt:lc4 18.lLlg3 lLle3 19.'iVd2 lt:\d1 20.'iVh6 'iVf6 or 1 7.lbg3 'iVb6 ! Shirov finally suggested 14.0-0-0 ! as 14 ... lbg4 1 5.i.d4 e5 16.h3 is good for White. Shirov's intention was to continue after 14 ...hg4 with 15.lbf4 i.g7 ( 1 5 ...lbf5 is clearly not good: 1 6.ef5 ! �g2 17.�g2 ef5 1 8 .i.a8 'iVa8 19.tal5 'iVc8 20.lbf6 We7 21 ..1:lhe1 .l:lh2 22.�c5 !) 16.lbd4 'iVa5, with a sharp and unclear battle that awaits future tests. 1 4... tLlf5! 1 5 ..if2?

Although after 15 .ef5 i.g2 16.�g2 .l:lh5 Black is to be preferred, it was still White's best chance. 1 5 ... 'iVg5! 1 6.tLla5

Alexey sticks to his intended refutation. 16.'iVg5 lbf3 16.'0t>d1 lbg5 was not much of an option. 1 6 ... tLle3!

The point o f Polgar's lOth move and quite an amazing one, as it looked virtually impossible

This is the move he overlooked and it must have 1 71

come as a cold shower. 17.'irVg5 ttJf3 checkmates and 17 ..ie3 'i!Ve3 is not very rosy either. 1 7.'iYg3 'i!Vg3 1 8.ttJg3 t2Jc2 1 9.'it>d1 t2Ja1 20.tLlb7 b3

Black is a clear exchange up and White has nothing to show for it. 21 .ab3

2l .a3 �h6 followed by 22 .. .rtJe7 and 23 ....l::.ac8 would also not have saved the game.

21 ... t2Jb3 22.'it>c2 t2Jc5 23.t2Jc5 deS 24.�e1 tLlf3 25.�c3 t2Jd4 26.'it>d3 �d6 27.�g2

27.b4 rtJe7 28.bc5 .Q.c5 29 ..Q.d4 .l::.hd8 followed by ...e5 was another way to finish the game. 27....ie5 28.'it>c4 'it>e7 29J�a1 t2Jc6

And Shirov surrendered. The analyis is based on the notes by Polgar.

Round 9 Shi rov

- Anand

1 -0

Polgar

- Kamsky

1 -0

Karpov

- Salov

0- 1

lvanch u k

- Lju bojevic

1 -0

51 23.5 D Shirov • A nand

Salov Polgar A n and Karpov lvanchu k Kamsky Shirov Lju bojevic

7.0 5.5 5 .0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0

1 0... l:f.e8!

Notes byjeroen Piket Before this moment the games between the Lat­ vian and Indian grandmasters had always ended peacefully, which does not imply that the players had not tried to beat each other. 1 .e4 cS 2.lLJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 lLJfG 5.lLJc3 a6 6.�e3

In my opinion Shirov was the best prepared for this event and during the tournament he also worked very hard with his second and friend Lanka. The only disadvantage of their prepara­ tion was that Alexey ended up playing a lot of Lanka's systems, which made himratherpredictable. 6 ...e6 7.�e2

Normally one would expect Shirov to play a sharp system like the English Attack, but the day before Anand had been taught how to play the black side of this system in his game against Ljubojevic. 7...�e7 8.f4 'f/c7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.g4

Lanka's favourite continuation. l O.'f/el oc­ curred many times in this tournament.

White was very successful in Short-Ljubojevic, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990, after 10 ... tt:Jc6 l l .g5 tt:Jd7 12.f5 tt:Jd4? (12 .. .ti:Jde5 1 3.f6 �d8 is criti­ cal, according to the books) 13 .�d4 .i:ie8 14.fe6 fe6 1 5.�h5 .i:if8 16 ..i:if8 �f8 17 . .i:ifl . The centre break 10 ...d5 l l .ed5 tt:Jd5 1 2.ttJd5 edS 13 .�f3 .i:id8 14.�d2 does not equalize either. I O ... b5 is also quite risky for Black as White just pushes his pawns; l l .g5 ttJfd7 12.f5 tt:Je5 1 3 .f6 Prand­ stetter-Adorjan, Prague zonal 1985. 1 1 .g5 lLJfd7 1 2.�h5

Forcing weaknesses in the black defences. 1 2.f5 tt:Je5 1 3 .�el ttJbc6 14.�g3 b5 15 .f6 also looks 1 73

worthy of consideration, as the attack seems hard to parry. According to Shirov and Lanka, 12.h4 or the immediate 1 2..ig4 is better.

A novelty and an improvement over 20. "iff4, Pavlovic-Tringov, Podgorica 1992.

1 2 ... g6 1 3.�g4 �f8 1 4.f5

Burning all his boats. In Polgar-Polugaevsky, Aruba 199 1 , young Judith was wise enough to play more solidly, viz. 14.a4 lt:Jc6 1 5."i!lfe2 lt:Jd4 16 ..id4 b6 17."iff2 .ib7 1 8 J:tae1 .l::.e7 19.h4. 1 4... tt:Je5 1 5.fe6 fe6 1 6 . .l::.f6

The idea behind White's previous primitive play. The rook is a useful help for mating the black king and White has no hesitation about sacrific­ ing the exchange on f6. 16

•.•

tt:Jg4 1 7.'ili'g4 20...�g7

1 7. ..tbc6?

Anand was clearly in unknown territory and un­ fortunately for him he was not very impressed by his opponent's play. Otherwise he would have thought for a while and come up with the excel­ lent 17 . . . lt:Jd7 ! !, as 18Jie6 fails to 1 8 ... lt:Je5. This move had already been played by Andras Ador­ jan, an expert on black openings, in his game versus Women's Champion Xie, Budapest 1992. That game continued 18J.Iafl lt:JeS (this is ex­ actly what Anand had in mind) 19."ifh3 il.g7 20.lt:Je6 "i!lfd7 21 .lt:Jd5 l:te6 22."ife6 "i!lfe6 23 J.Ie6 .ie6 24.lt:Jc7 lt:Jc4! 25.il.f4 iJ...h3 26.lt:Ja8 .id4 27.l:tf2 lt:lb2 and Black won. Interesting is 19.l:tf8 l:[f8 20. .l::.f8 'it>f8 21 ."i!lfe6! "i!lfe7 22."i!lfb3 ! ? (22."i!lfe7 'it>e7 23.lt:Jd5 'it>d8). 1 8.tt:Jc6 bc6 1 9.e5! d5 20J:taf1 !

1 74

20. .. c5? 21 ."i!lff3 il.g7 22.lt:Jd5 edS 23 ."i!lfd5 'it>h8 24. .l::. t7 "i!lfb8 25Jig7 demonstrates how danger­ ous Black's situation is. During the post-mortem Anand was of the opinion that 20 ... "i!lfe5 was more stubborn, but White is doing fine after 2 l ."i!lff3 .ig7 22 . .l::.g 6! "i!lfc7 (22... hg6 23."iff7 �h7 24.l:tf3: 22 ... "iff5 23Jlg7 �g7 24."i!lfg3 "i!lfg6 25."i!lfe5 �g8 26.il.d4+-) 23 ..l::.f6! ilf6 24.gf6 "i!lft7 25.iJ...h6 followed by 26.�h l . Also 2 l .iJ...d4 "i!lfc7 (2 1 .. ."i!lfd6 22."i!lff3 !) 22. .l::. t7 eS (22 . . ."iff7 23.J::!.f7 'it>f7 24."iff4 �g8 25."iff6 eS 26.iJ...e5 l:teS 27."i!lfe5 with the threat of 28.lt:Jd5 seems to stress the drawbacks of Black's posi­ tion) 23."i!lff3 ! leads to an advantage; 23 ..."i!lfd6 can be met by 24.il.e5 ! . 21 .�c5! 'ife5

2 1 . ..ilf6 22.gf6 "i!lft7 23."i!lfg5 followed by lt:Jd 1f2-g4 is not a serious option. 22.1:117 l:lb8!

Generally expected and the toughest defence. 22... a5 loses to 23.lt:Je2 "i!lfe4 24."ifh3 ! , as 25J:tg7 follows and mate cannot be prevented. 23.'iff3 'ifg5

23 ...iJ... b7 24.h4 il.a8 25.lt:Je2 "i!lfe4 26."i!lfe4 de4 27.b4 would lead to a very unpleasant ending. 24.'it>h1 'ifd8?

After playing several only moves Anand col­ lapses. 24. ..iJ... b7 would have kept him alive,

though White is preferable after both 25.�d6 c5 26.�b8 1:tb8 27.lLla4 and 25.lLle2!? 25.1:tg7!

And Anand ceased the uneven fight. The analysis is based on notes by Shirov and Lanka.

Obviously ! 25 ... �g7 26.'iff7 �hB 27.�d6!

51 33.3 D Polgar • Kamsky Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cs 2.t2Jf3 4.t2Jd4 g6

The decisive blow ! 27...e5

Anand obviously saw what would happen after 27 ... 'ifd6 but for the audience it was less easy: 28.'ife8 e7) 20 ... e5 and the white king cannot escape. 1 6... .ic7!

A really annoying move; what to do with the queen? 1 7.f4

1 77

17.'ii'g7 obviously fails to 17 .. J�h7, as the lady is trapped. 17.e5 lLlh5 1 8 .'ii'g4 seems fine but 18 ...�e5 19.'ii'h5 'ii'f6 ! is simply better for Black. I expected Karpov to avoid real problems by 1 7 ..l:!.d4 �g3 1 8 ..l:!.d8 .l:!.d8 19.hg3 with an approximately balanced endgame. 1 7... tt:Jh5 1 8.'fig4 'ii'f6 1 9..l:!.d4?

I consider this a big mistake as White ends up in a worse ending. 19.e5 ! 'ii'g6 ( 1 9. .. 'ii'f5 20.'ii'f5 ef5 2 1 . l:ld4 �b6 22.lLle2! is quite comfortable for White) 20.'ii'g6 fg6 21 .l:.d4 �b6 22 . .I:.d3 �e3 23 . .l:!.e3 lLlf4 24. .l:!.gl and although Black has a very slight edge White should be able to draw the game easily. 1 9 ... �f4 20.�f4 'ii'f4 21 .'ii'f4 tt:Jf4 22.g3 tt:Jg6 23.'0td2 tt:Je5

I was always taught that if Black has an untouch­ able knight on e5 he is better. 24.�e2 'Ote7 25.'0te3 g5!

Using the kingside majority is the right way to squeeze the opponent.

28 ... .l:!.g3 29.'0tf4 .l:!.g1 ?

A difficult choice for Valery, but finally he chooses the wrong option. Much better was 29....l:!.g5 30.f.tg5 hg5 3 l .�g5 (3 l .�e5 f6 mate) 3 1 .. .lLlg6 32.�g4 l:.h4 33.'it>g3 f5 ! which would create a lot of threats. Now Karpov can show his great defending skills. 30.tt:Jd5!

30. .l:!.e5 and 30.c;t>e5 both fail to 30 ... f6 followed by 3 1 . . .e5. 30...�d5 31 .ed5 tt:Jg6 32.'0te3 l:lg3 33.'0tf2 l:.g5

In time pressure it is a very wise decision to exchange pieces. 33 ... e5 34J�b4 is unclear. 34.l:lb4 b5 35.a4 .I:.c8 36.ab5 ab5 37.de6

37.c3 should also be sufficient to draw the game. 37 ... .l:!.h5 38.�h5 l:lc2 39.'0te3 I:.c5 40.i.e2 l:le5

26.h4?

Not a good decision. It is clear that allowing h5-h4 would also run into trouble, but now White is opening the gate ! 26 .. J:lcg8!

41 .'0tf2?

After defending superbly Karpov seems to have spent all his energy for the day, as from now on he plays as poorly as we have rarely seen from him. 41 ..l:!.e4 ! was the obvious way to save the game. All the black pieces are ideally placed. 27.hg5 l:.g5 28 . .l:!.h5

Bravely deciding to sacrifice the g3 pawn for some counterplay. 1 78

41 ...fe6 42.�b5?

Again White should try to swap rooks, so 42.l:f.b5 was to be preferred. 42 ... '0tf6 43.�d3 h5 44.l:le4?!

Round 9

44.�g6 would give a rook ending very tough to defend and 44 ..!:1b5 tt:Jf4 45.�fl tt:Jd5 typifies White's problems. 44 . .!:1b8 was best in my view. 44.. J:!.c5 45.d3 'ii'e2 25:.t>e2 �aS 26.J:I.b l J:l.b8+. 1 8...�e2 1 9.ttJe2 l:l.b8 20.c3 �d8!

20. . .�e5 2l .J:I.fl with counterplay. 1 92

Round 1 1

defence against the advance of the black pawns in the centre.

21.l::lc 4 �b6!

The endgame is very unpleasant for White. His rook on c4 is cut off from the main forces and his pawn structure is far from ideal.

33. .l:l.b4!

At last White is able to free his rook. 33...�cs 34..l:l.bS b6 3S.aS!

22.'>t>c2 '>t>e7 23.g4 .l:l.h7?!

A rather abstract move; instead 23 ..J�h6 or 23 . . .e5 deserved serious attention.

35 .gf6 gf6 36.tLld4 ed4 37.cd4 .ta3 38.l:l.b3 l:l.hg8 ! 3S ... baS 36J:tas .l:f.a8?

24.tLld4!

I must admit that I completely overlooked this obvious reply. Evidently, maintaining concentra­ tion cost me considerable effort at this stage of the tournament.

36 ... l:l.b2 ! 37.gf6 gf6 38.h5 ! l:l.g2!+ might still cause serious problems for White. 37. .l:l.bS .l:l.hb8 38 ..l:f.hb1 .l:f.bS 39.l:[bS fS 40.efS '>t>fS 4Vt:ld4!

24... .l:l.h6!

Forcing White to weaken his pawn chain. 2S.gS

The only move, as 25.tLlf3 is answered by 25 .. J�f6-+ . 2S ... .l:l.hS 26.tLlf3 f6 27.a4! 28 . .l:l.h3?

eS!

Now it is White's turn to go astray. The text move will cost him two tempi; 28.b4! was correct. 28... '>t>e6 29.b4 aS ! 30.baS �as 31 ..l:l.h1 l:[hh8! 32.'>t>d3

This tactical resource saves the game. 41 ... ed4

4 l ...'i.ti'g6 42.tt:Je6 .tf2 43.l:l.d5 .tg3 44.'>t>e4=; 4 l ...'i.ti'g4 42.tLle6 'i.ti'f3 43.tLlc5 deS 44.11c5 e4 45 .'i.ti'c2 e3 46 ..l:l.f5 'i.ti'e2 47 .l:[f7 with counterplay. 42.cd4 .l:l.a3 43.'>t>e2 ..l:l.c3 44.dcS .l:l.cS 4S..l:l.b7 g6 46JU7 '>t>g4 47..l:l.f6

Draw.

32...�b6?

The natural 32 ....1:!.hc8 ! would have sufficed to win the game: 33.tLld2 (33 . .l:!.c8 l:l.c8 34.c4 f5 ! -+; 33.gf6 l:.c4 34.'>t>c4 l:.c8 35 .'i.ti'b5 J:!.c5 mate) 33 ...d5 ! 34.ed5 '>t>d5 and White has no 1 93

51 40.2 D Polgar • Ljubojevic Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cs 2.lbf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 lbc6 5.lbc3 W/c7 6.�e3 a6 7..itd3 lbf6 8.0-0 b5 9.W/e2

9.tt:lc6 'i!Vc6 10.a3 .tb7 1 l .'i!Ve2 .te7 (or 1 l ...'i!Vc7 12.f4 d6 1 3..id4 .te7 14.e5 Johansson-Kuijpers, Halle 1967) 12.f4 �e7 1 3 .e5 tt:ld5 1 4. tt:ld5 'i!Vd5 15 . .1:tad1 'i!Vc6 16.b4 Scholl-Janosevic, Amster­ dam 1970 are ancient references by modem standards. 9...�b7 1 0.a3 .ite7

In Kristinsson-Tal, Reykjavik 1964, the magi­ cian from Riga- as he did on so many occasions - sacrificed his queen: 10 . ..tt:le5 1 l .h3 .l:lc8 12.f4 tt:lc4 13.tt:ldb5 ! ab5 14.tt:lb5 'i!Vc6 1 5 .tt:Ja7 tt:Je3 1 6.tt:lc6 .tc5 1 7.�h2 tt:lf1 1 8.J:lfl .ic6. 1 1 .f4 d6 1 2.lbf3

With this and the next move Polgar gives a new turn to developments. 1 2.tt:lc6 is considered the normal continuation. 1 2...0-0 1 3 .l::tae1 b4! •

Of course Ljubojevic puts his opponent's new approach to the test by this push of the b-pawn. 1 4.lbd1 ?

A remarkable choice. Polgar's move is ambitious but involves a certain risk, as her queenside struc1 94

Round 1 1

ture remains shattered from now on. Ljubo thought that 14.ab4 should have been preferred. 14.t2Ja4 ba3 1 5 .ba3 d5 ! looks suspect for White. 1 4... ba3 1 S.ba3 eS!

Much more to the point than 15 . ..d5 1 6.e5 t2Je4 17.ttJf2 as 1 7 ... t2Ja5 1 8.ttJd2 and 1 7 ... t2Jc3 18 ."ird2 are not very impressive. 1 6.lLlf2

16.fe5 deS 17.ttJc3 is best answered by 17 ... ttJd4, as 17 ... �a3 1 8.tt:ld5 leads to unnecessary com­ plications. 1 6.h l d5 ! ? 1 7.ed5 e4 1 8.dc6 ed3 19.cd3 "irc6 deserved attention as the knight on f2 does not have such a great future anyway.

completely against his nature. Karpov's sugges­ tion of 22 .. Jbd8 ! was not considered by either player, but would have yielded a big advantage. 23.i.dS l:ta7 24.a4 'ifc3 2S.lZ:le3

Suddenly all White's pieces have found good squares and the game is roughly equal. 2S ... l:tc7 26.Wh1 as 27.i.b3 i.e6 28.lZ:ldS i..dS 29.i..dS

29.ed5? �d6 30.g4 e4 ! and the opposite-col­ oured bishops do not guarantee a draw. 29... 'ifc2 30. 'ifhS?

1 6...ef4 1 7.i.f4 lZ:leS!

Standard but powerful. 1 8.lZ:leS deS 1 9.i.gS?

Generally condemned, even by the White player herself. After the tournament Judith looked back and blamed the loss of this game and the first one against Anand on an off-day. However alterna­ tives to 19.�g5 are hard to find as the white position is clearly inferior. 1 9... h6

19 ...�c8 ! ? was also possible. 20.�f6 �f6 21 .lLlg4 il..e7

The more active 2 l ...�g5 should not have been rejected. 22.i.c4 .tea?

Illogical and badly misjudged. 30."irc2 �c2 3 l .�cl �c5 32J:rcs ..ic5 33.�cl or 3 1 ...�c l 32Jkl followed by 33.�c7 would easily have drawn the game. 30 ... il..gS 31 .l:tf3 WhB! !

This move took up most of Black's remaining time, but it was worth it. 32.l:tef1 ?!

32.�t7 was necessary (32J:rf7 .l:[f7 33.�t7 "iVf2) but then 32..."ire4 ! 33 . .l:[efl .!:!.c l is clearly better for Black. 32... 'i¥e2!

The position is very tricky, for example 33."iVg4 fails to 33 ...f5 ! 33.h4 il..f4

By now Judith really regretted not swapping queens.

Ljubojevic plays far too passively, which goes 1 95

---

34. 'it'g4 llc2 35.h5 l:.d2 36.l:i.f4

51 1 4.2

There was no other way to prevent 36... l:!.dl .

D Karpov • Ivanchuk

36...ef4 37.'it'e2 .I:.e2 3 8..I:.f4 f6 39.llf3 .I:.c8 40.%lb3 .I:!.a2!

For a change the last move before the time con­ trol is a winner. 41 . .I:.b7 lla4 42.l:i.a7 l:.d8 43..if7 l:i.e4

If you have a material advantage, exchanging pieces is generally a good idea. 44.lla5 lle7 45..tg6 �g8 46.�h2 �f8 47.�g3 l:i.c7 48 .ib1 l:i.d4 49.l:i.a8 �e7 SO.l:i.g8 llc3 51 .�f2 l:i.d2 •

White resigned.

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 lbt6 5.l2Jc3 a6 6.g3

Chess certainly is a psychological game, as Kar­ pov shows with his choice of the g3 system. He normally always plays 6.i.e2, but because Ivanchuk lost against this g3 line to Ljubojevic in the second round, he is testing whether 'Chukky' has done his homework. After the tour­ nament I read in New in Chess that Salov, the only participant who thoroughly studied the g3 systems and frequently used them, was of the opinion that against the Najdorf g3 was not worth playing. , s...es

In the aforementioned game Ivanchuk went for 6...e6.

1 96

Round 1 1

7.tt:lde2 �e7

The move prefered by the living legend Bobby Fischer, and more accurate than 7 ... i.e6 or 7 . ..tt:lbd7. 8.�g2 tt:lbd7 9.a4

i.e4 16.i.e4 fe4 17.tt:lc3 with good compensa­ tion for the pawn. The critical move was 14 ....l:l.c8 as 1 5.tt:lc3 'ifc4! causes some inconvenience for White. 1 6.0-0-0 l2Jc5 17.i.c5 .l:!.c5 1 8.�b1 h4! looks suspect and 16.f3 'it'b4 .l:!.a3 is complicated with chances for both sides. 1 5.0-0 tt:lf6 1 6.tt:lc3 �c6 1 7.l:r.fd1

White does not achieve anything with 17.i.g5 tt:lh7 ! 18 ..ie7 'i:Ve7 19JUd1 .l:!.fd8 20.'ife3 'it'c7. 17 ... b5 1 8.ab5 ab5 1 9.b4! 'Wib7! 20.'Wid3

On 20.i.g5?! Karpov was afraid of 20... J:!.a1 2 l ..l:!.al tt:le4 ! 20 .. J:i.fc8 21 ..tg5 'fibS! 22.l:r.a8

22.i.f6 i.f6 23 .�f3 'ifd4 ! is more than okay for Black. 22 ... l:r.a8 23. �f3 l:l.a3!

An interesting idea is 9.h3 allowing 9 ... b5, but White also has his trumps after 10.g4 b4 l l .tt:la4 i.b7 1 2.l2Jg3 i.c6 1 3 .c4 g6 14.a3 a5 1 5.i.e3 h5 16.g5 l2Jh7 17.h4 tt:lf8 1 8.i.h3 l2Je6. 9 ... b6 1 O.h3 h5!

For a little over a decade this is known to be the only way to counter White's plan of g3-g4 and l2Jg3. 1 1 .i.e3

1 1 .0-0 i.b7 1 2.l2Jd5 l2Jd5 1 3.ed5 .l::i.c8 14.i.e3 was seen in one of the stem games Kudrin-Lein, USA (eh) 198 1 . l l .tt:ld5 ! tt:ld5 12.'it'd5 J:!.b8 1 3.i.e3 was Karpov's post-mortem suggestion, after which Black has some problems, as after both l 3 ... i.b7 14.'i:Vd3 and 1 3 ... tt:lf6 14.'it'd3 b5 15 ab5 ab5 1 6.0-0 0-0 17 . .l::i.fd1 White seems to obtain a plus. 1 1 ... 'Wic7 1 2.tt:ld5

12.0-0 i.b7 1 3.l2Jcl 0-0 14.l2Jd3 �c4 ! is quite comfortable for Black. 1 2 ... tt:ld5 1 3.'Wid5 �b7 1 4.'f/id2 0-0

lvanchuk manages to temper his aggression. The most ambitious move is 14 .. .f5 after which 1 5.f3 is possible but not forced. If he is so inclined, White can ignore everything and continue 15.0-0

The only move not to lose material, but a strong one. 24..if6

After the game the FIDE Champion showed his opponent why he did not play the standard 24 . .l:!.d3: 24... tt:le4! ! 25.i.e7 tt:lc3 26.'ifc6 (26.'it'f5 would lead to perpetual check) 26 ... .l:!.al 27.'it>h2 'iff2 28.'it'c8 'it>h7 29.h4 tt:le2 ! and White gets mated as 30 ... J:!.h1 cannot be prevented. 24... �f6 25 . .l::i.d3

Not 25.h4? because of 25 ... .ie4 25... h4 26 . .l:!.d6 �e7! 27.l:r.d3 i.b4

1 97

27 ...hg3 28.'ii'g3 would only benefit White. 28.gh4 �e7

28... 'ii'a5 29.ttJdl .l:!.d3 30.'ii'd3 �c5 was also sufficient to secure the draw. 29.h5 b4 30.tt:ld5 �dS 31 .ed5 'f!Vh6 32.�f1 'ifc1 33. 'ifd1 'ii'd 1 34J:td1 �d6

Without the queens all the tension has disap­ peared. 35.�d3 e4 36...ie4 l::rh3 37.l::ra 1 �f8 38.J:I.a8 �e7 39.l:lh8 g6

Draw. The analysis of this game is based on notes of Karpov.

1 98

Round 12 Lju bojevic

- Shi rov

An and

- Karpov

1 -0

lvanch u k

- Polgar

Salov

- Kamsky

1/2 - 1/2 1/z - 1/2

1 -0

51 29.3 D Ljubojevic • Shirov

1 2... ltJa5 1 3.c;.t>b1 'it'c4 1 5.'i\fd3 :tea

Notes by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 1 .e4 c5 2.ltJf3 ltJc6 4.ltJd4 ltJf6 5.ltJc3 d6

Salov An and Polgar lvanchu k Karpov Shirov Kamsky Lju bojevic

3.d4

cd4

My opponent's choice of opening for today was quite predictable but that didn't stop me worry­ ing. Shirov is an excellent "connoisseur" of Si­ cilian positions with either colour. The Richter­ Rauzer Variation in particular is part of his broad opening repertoire. My thoughts also went in the direction of the Sozin, but the choice taken in this game was made intuitively, without any particu­ lar reason. Sometimes we get a sudden feeling about the kind of positions we should like to play today...

ltJc4

8.5 7.0 6.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.5

1 4...ic4

Black is trying to maintain occupation of the c4 square with a piece, not with a pawn. 1 5 ...'it'd3 16.cd3 clearly yields domination ofthe centre to White and the potential use of the c-file is also in his favour. 1 6.a3 .ie7 1 7.g4

6 ...ig5 e6 7.'i\fd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9 ..ie3 W/c7 1 O.f4 ..id7 1 1 ..id3 b5 1 2.h3

Up to this moment the game has taken the same course as Kamsky-Shirov, round 10, where White played 12.'it>b l . I have also had some experience playing this position against Short some years ago, and I was convinced that White has a slight positional edge.

1 7... b4

If 17 ...0-0 1 8.e5 deS 19.fe5 lLld5 20.'it'c4 J::!.c4 21 .lLld5 ed5 22.lLlf5 �f5 23.gf5 is slightly better for White. In this line the move 17 .g4 is justified, not - at least not at the moment - in order to 1 99

play gS, but in keeping control over the important eS square. 1 8.�c4

Forced. If l 8 .ab4 1li'b4 19.eS J:!.c3 20.1li'c3 1li'c3 2 l .bc3 deS 22.feS ltJdS 23 .�d2 0-0 Black has good positional compensation for the sacrificed exchange. 1 8 ... J:!.c4 1 9.ab4 J:!.b4 20.J:!.d3

After about a quarter of an hour's thought this move was 'cooked' in my not very fortunate head. Later I regretted not playing 20.eS ! deS 2 l .feS lt:Jh7 22.lt:Jb3 �c6 23.J:lh2 with still a slight edge, because the cS square will be occu­ pied in time without having to give up a pawn, as in the game. My fear that Black would get com­ fortable play after retreating his knight to prepare castling, was justified. Shirov thought for a long time and he understood the position ... 20... lLJh7!

that means losing the b2 pawn; Shirov's knight is still far away. 24... .tc6

During the game I thought that Black should have played 24 ...�e8 2S.�d4 lt:Jf8 26.lt:Je4 or 2S.�7 J:[c8 26.�d4 with more or less equal chances. It is risky to play 2S .�cS? ! �cS 26.ltJcS J:[b2 27.'it>cl or 2S ... J:[b3 26.�e7 J:[b2 27.'it>c l J:!.2b7 28.�a3 J:[c8 29 .J:[d8 J:[bb8 when White has difficulties. 25.�c5 J:!.b3

Probably better would have been 2S ...�cS 26.ltJcS J:[b2 27.'it>cl lt:JgS 28.lt:Jb3 J:l2b3 29.cb3 J:[b3 with good compensation or 28.lt:Ja6 J:[8b6 29.ltJcS with equality. 26..te7 J:!.b2 27.'it>c1 J:!.2b7

Perhaps 27 ... lt:JgS 28.�d6 J:[8b7 29.�a3 J:[2b6 30.�cS J:[b2 3 I .J:[e3 would have given more interesting play for both sides with some pres­ sure for White, but still with a pawn less! 28.J:!.d8 �e8

This was the reason I considered 24 ... �e8: to avoid J:[d8 with check! 29.�a3

I must give an exclamation mark to this wise decision. 20 ...0-0 2 l .eS was unpleasant for Black. 21 .J:!.hd1 0-0 22.e5 deS

22 .. JHb8 23 .ed6 J:!.b2 24.'lt>cl �d6 2S.ltJdbS �bS 26.J:!.d6 �e8 27 .�a7 wins for White. 23.fe5

23.lt:Jf3 �bS 24.ltJbS ef4 ! is better for Black. 23 .. JUb8 24.lLJb3

Another difficult decision. If he isn't to end up worse, it is vital for White to get to cS, even if 200

29...lbg5?

This is the first serious mistake in the game, leading to the loss of the piece on e8 . During the game I thought that after 29 ...tt:Jf8 30.J:!. ld4 (or 30JHd3) 30 ...f6 3 l .ef6 gf6 32.lt:Je4 White would have strong pressure, but after quiet analysis in

Round 12

my hotel room I found 32 ... \t>g7 ! after which Black should be able to hold the game, for exam­ ple 33 .�f8 'it>f8 34.li:Jf6 I:td8 35J:td8 '>t>e7 saving the rook endgame or 33.li:Jf6 'it>f6 34J:tf4 (34JH3) 34. .. 'it>g6! 35J�.b8 J:!.b8 36.J:!.f8 'it>g7, which looks okay, or 33.J:!.b8 J:!.b8 34.J:!.c4 �b5 35 .l:i.c7 'it>g6 36.lt:Jd6, trying to fish in very tur­ bulent waters. 30.J:!.1 d7!

It often happens that a game is decided by one bad move and a good reply. Shirov should have forestalled this possibility. His bishop on e8 is helpless. 30 ... J:!.d7 31 . .rl.b8 tt:Jh3 32.J:!.e8 'it>h7 33.�d6 4Jf2 34.4Ja4 .rl.b7 35.4Jc5 .rl.bS 36.4Jd7 'it>g6 37.c4

With some very accurate moves White succeeds in advancing his passed c-pawn, bringing more material gains. I thought the game was over, but some technical problems arise- not without my help ! 37 ... .rl.b3 38.'it>c2 .rl.f3 39.c5 tt:Jg4 40.c6 tt:Je3 41 . 'it>d2 tt:JdS 42.4Jb6

This move is characteristic of my tournament attitude. When matters are very simple I always succeed in making them more complicated! 42.c7 ! lt:Jc7 43 .�c7 would have led to an easier win because two minor pieces are stronger than a rook ! 42... 4Jb6 43.c7 l:!.f2 44.'it>e1 .:tc2 45. .rl.b8 tlJdS 46.c8'if .l:[c8 47.J:!.c8 tt:Je3 48. .rl.a8 hS 49.J:!.a6 tt:Jg4 50.J:!.a3 'it>fS 51 ..:tf3 'it>g6

I realized that Black was hoping for a kind of fortress set-up where he waits for my plan ... But after five hours of play it was not easy to find a clear win. I felt that the position had to be won, but how ! Slowly but surely the idea of zugzwang came into being. The pawn structure on the king­ side has to be broken up to gain more space for White's bishop and rook. 52.'it>e2 tt:Jh2 53. .l:f.f4 tt:Jg4 54.'it>d3 tt:Jh6 55J:tf1 'it>gS 56.�e7 'it>g6 57.'it>e4 tt:Jg4 58.'it>f4 tt:Jh2 59..:te1 tt:Jg4 60..l:[e2 tlJhG 61 .�d8 tt:Jg4 62.�g5 'it>h7 63.'it>e4 'it>g6 64.�f4 'it>h7 6S. .l:[g2 'it>g6 66. .l:[g1 'it>h7 67.'it>f3 'it>g6 68.J:!.h1 f6 69.ef6 gf6 70.'it>g3 eS 71 . .§i.d2 fS 72.'it>f3 f4 73.b5 'it>gS 74.�d8 'it>g6 75.l:Ih3 lt:Jh6 76.'it>e4 tt:Jf7 77.�e7 tt:JgS 78.�g5 'it>gS 79. .l:[h1

White had finally won, but what hard work it was to realize the win after reaching a winning posi­ tion as early as move 30! I was happy, but I thought how easy it is to lose and how hard to win in a tournament where the stars were not on my side.

51 40.6 D Anand • Karpov Notes by]eroen Piket Ever since their match in Brussels 199 1 it has been clear that for Karpov, Anand is not an easy opponent to handle. Actually the Indian grand­ master seems to understand the FIDE Champion and his play much better than most players of his generation. 1 .e4 cS 2.4Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.4Jd4 tt:Jc6 5.4Jc3 'ifc7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 tt:lf6 8.�e3 �b4 9.tt:la4

Nothing new so far. It was to be expected that Karpov would repeat this variation with which he is still undefeated. 201

9 ... d5

Apparently 9...�7 10.c4 is unpleasant for Black, as was shown in Kamsky-Salov in the fifth round and Kamsky-Karpov in the eighth round. Be­ sides the text move there were other options to deviate. ECO considers 9 .Jije7, 9 ...�d6 and 9. . . 0-0 as the main alternatives. At the beginning of this decade the Polgar sisters popularized 9 ...bS which shows some similarity to the text move. After 10.tt:Jc6 dc6 1 l .i.cS ba4 12.�b4 cS 13.i.c3 tt:Je4 14.�g7 �g8 the position is cer­ tainly not unfavourable for Black, but French GM Olivier Renet refuted this whole idea against his compatriot Lautier with 1 3 .i.a3 ! 1 0.tt.Jc6

10.tt:Jb6 shows a lot of courage but too little respect for Black's set-up, as 10 ...ifb6 1 1 .tt:Je6 d4 12.tt:Jg7 rJi;e7 13 .i.gS �g8 14.i.f6 rJi;f6 1S.tt:JhS rJi;e7 in Klovan-Shmit, Soviet Union 1970, gave Black a winning advantage. According to Taimanov 10.c3 is White's best, because 10... �d6 is an­ swered by 1 1 .tt:Jb6. 1t does indeed seem that now 1 1 . . . ifb6 1 2. tt:Je6 is good for White, as the reply 12...d4 has lost a lot of its strength. It would have been interesting to find out what Karpov had in mind against Taimanov's recommendation.

1 2.�d4 c5?!

12. ..eS 1 3.c3 i.d6 14.�cS gives White a small but lasting edge. 1 3.c3

Not 13.a3 cd4 14.ab4 0-0 and Black has solved his problems. 1 3 ... cd4 1 4.cb4 eS

Karpov spent an incredible amount of time here, despite the fact that this seems to be the only way to defend his d-pawn. 1 5.�13 �e6 1 6.tt.Jc5 'it'd6

The outcome of the battle will now depend on whether Black's centre pawns are vulnerable or strong. The immediate 16 ...0-0 was safer, as 17. tt:Je6 fe6 18.�1 �b8 19.a3 a5 shows. However, White shouldpreferthe more accurate 17.J:[e 1 ! as 17 ...ifd6 1 8.ife2 f6 19.tt:Je6 ife6 20.ifc4 �ad8 21 .ifd4 ed4 22.�e6 tt:Jb4 23.a3 tbd3 24.b4 is better for him. 1 7..I:.e1 l:lb8

17 ...0-0 1 8.ife2 leads to the previous note.

1 0 ... bc6 1 1 .ed5 tLldS? !

I still wonder what's wrong with 1 1 . ..cdS. Per­ haps 1 2 .tt:Jb6 �b8 1 3.tt:Jc8 ifc8 14.c4, but Black should be ready to play this sort of position. 12.c3 �d6 1 3 .tt:Jb6 �b8 14.tt:Jc8 ifc8 1S.ifa4 looks like the refutation, but after 1 S ...rJ;;e 7! 16.i.a6 ifc7 the question 'who is better and why?' comes to mind.

1 8.�d5! 'fidS

1 8 . ..i.d5 is answered by 19.ifd4. 1 9.tt.Ja6?

19.ifhS ! was simple and strong. 1 9 ... l:lc8 20.'fia4 rJ;;e7

20...i.d7 was necessary. Then after 2 1 . ifaS if aS 22.baS f6 23.f4 0-0 24.feS feS 2S.�eS �c2 Black 202

Round 12

would have had chances of survival. Keeping the king in the center is virtually suicidal. 21 .b5 trc4 22.'ii'a5 J::ta8

In the post-mortem the players thought that 22 ...f6 was a more stubborn defence (23.tbb4 'i!fa8 !) but after 23.b3 .U.c3 24 . .l:i.ad1 the outcome of the game would not have been different. 23. 'ii'b6 trd8 24.b3 J::tcc8 25.lbb4 'ii'd6 26.lbc6 fS 27.l:te5

Now Black's position collapses completely and his only excuse for playing on is his own time trouble. 27 d3 28.l:td1 J::ta8 30.tre2 l:tdb8 31 .l:ted2 .•.

29.h3

d2

Anand had also seen the win 3 l ..l:i.e6 'i!fe6 (3 l ...fe6 32.lLlb8 !) 32.ttJb8 'iife 1 33.h2 'ili'd1 34.'i!fd8 mate. 31 ... J::t b6

Of course, 3 1 . . .'i!fd2 would be answered by 32.'i!fb8. 32.l:td6 g5 33.l:td8 l:td8 34.trd8 �g7 35.l:tb8

gen Variation. A more direct equalizing attempt is 6 ...e5 to answer 7.tbb3 with 7 . ..�e6 8 ..ie3 d5 ! 7.�e3 e6 8J!fd2 W/c7 9.0-0-0 �e7 1 0.g4 b5

10 ... tbe5 is premature, as 1 l .g5 ttJfd7 1 2.f4 ltJc4 1 3.�c4 'i!fc4 14.f5 ttJeS 1 5 .f6 gf6 1 6.ef6 �f6 1 7 ..l:i.hfl i.e7 1 8.�g5 is excellent for White; in Ristoja-Nei, Helsinki 1989, 18 ...'i!t'b4 quickly led to disaster: 19.'i!ff4 �g5 20.'i!fg5 tbc4 2 l .tbb3 'iifb6 22 ..:ld4 'i!fc7 23 .'iiff6 .&:!.f8 24 . .t:!.fdl b5 25 .e5 d5 26..l:i.d5 1 -0. 1 1 .lLlc6

White can also increase his space advantage right away by 1 l .g5 ltJd7 1 2.h4 �b7 13.h5 tbce5 14.f4 tbc4 15.�c4 'i!fc4, which is slightly better for him, according to Robert Hiibner. 1 1 ... W/c6 1 2.h4 .ib7 1 3.�b1 lLld7

Remarkable! White delays playing g4-g5, and Black decides not to wait for it any more and to improve the prospects of the knight. Polgar thought that 13 ...0-0-0 was worth investigating. 1 4.lLle2 lLle5 1 5.lLld4 'ii'c7 1 6.h5

Black resigned.

51 25.9 D Ivanchuk • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 l2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 lLlf6 5.lbc3 d6 6.f3

An unusual choice by the grandmaster from Lvov, but one definitely not without venom. I have noticed a tendency for I vanchuk to leave the well-trodden theoretical paths when facing Ju­ dith Polgar. 6 ...a6

Polgar opts for a transposition to the Schevenin-

1 6... .!::!.d8

Now 16 ...0-0-0 is asking for trouble, as the piece sacrifice 17.�b5 ab5 1 8.ttJb5 'i!fd7 19.'iifc3 tbc6 20.�b6 looks promising. The tempting break in the centre, 16 ...d5, was not advisable, as 1 7.ed5 i.d5 1 8 .i.f4 ! �d6 19.lLlf5 l cannot be ignored. This leaves us with the natural 16 ....l:i.c8 and the battle can begin, for example; 17.'iifh2 ttJf3 1 8 .ttJf3 .ie4 19.tbe1 �hl 20.'ilfhl . 203

1 7..iif4 l:r.c8?

Just wasting a tempo, quite a risky business in the Sicilian. 1 8.l:r.h2 tbc4?!

18 ...0-0 1 9 .g5 tt:Jc4 was dangerous but playable. 1 9..ic4 bc4 20.'ifc3!

Very strong! 20.tt:le2 was pointless, as after 20 . . . 0-0 the pawn on d6 cannot be taken because of back-rank problems; 21..�.d6 �d6 22."ifd6 l:!.fd8 ! 20 ... l:r.g8?

What an ugly move ! But it was hard to find anything better. 20 ... i.f6 2 l .l:!.hd2 �d4 22.l:!.d4 e5 23J:td6 ef4 24."ifg7 ! (24.l:!.d7 should also suffice) does not pose White any problems. How­ ever, 2 1 . . .i.d4 is not forced. After 2 1 .. .0-0 22.�g3 there is no doubt who is better, but the game is not yet over. 21 ..iig3 g6 22.tbe2?!

Not bad, but 22.hg6 hg6 23 .l::t h7 gives White a decisive attack. 22... 'ifc5

Polgar had to close the position with 22 ... e5 or 22 ...g5, but both moves would have their draw­ backs.

23. "il'd2??

We all know how it feels when the clock is ticking and you do not want to spoil your advan­ tage, so you look for a second best move which 204

often turns out to be a grave error. Here this is the case. 23.hg6 hg6 24 . .1:1.h8! was still undefendable for Black as after 24 . .l:!.h8 25."ifh8 d7 26."ifg7 'tWe3 (26 ...1:!.£8 27.i.d6 !) 27."iYf7 "iYe2 28.l:!.d6! mate follows. Or 24 .. .c.ti>d7 25.l:!.h7 and it would only be a matter of time before Black would collapse. .

23 ... l:!.d8 24.�f2 'ifes 25 ..ig3 'ifcs 26.hg6 hg6 27.�f2 �es 28 ..iig3 'ifcs 29.�f2 �es 30.l:r.dh1

Just as he did against Karpov in the fourth round, Ivanchuk irresponsibly decides to avoid repeat­ ing moves with less time on the clock than his opponent. Of course, the organizers and the audi­ ence love this kind of mentality. 30...d5!

Black is simply better, as the absence of White's light-squared bishop makes itself felt. 31 J�·as "il'd6 32.'ifa4

Here Vasily realized his mistakes and offered a draw, but now Judith was merciless. 32....iic6 �d7

33.�a6

de4

34..iig3

Black avoids 34 ..."ifc5 35.i.f2. 35J:th8 ts 36.'ifc4 ef3 37.tbc1 f2

Tempting, especially in time trouble, but 37 ... J:!.h8 38.J:!.h8 r3;g7 39.l:!.d8 �d8 would have given Polgar a more or less winning endgame. 38."il'f4

Threatening a nasty check on h6.

Round 12

38 ... �d2 39.�12 �h1 40.l:Xh1 �f2 41 .�f2 l:Xd2

Unnecessarily active. 4 1 ...'it>g7 would have given Black every opportunity to try to bring the ending to a favourable conclusion.

51 24.3 D Salov • Kamsky Notes by]eroen Piket

After this inaccuracy Ivanchuk became a little more optimistic about surviving this miserable endgame. 42. . .e5 needed some calculation but 43.l:t.e1 e4 44.l:t.e4 .l:.d1 45.ttJc1 �g5 46.�e3 f5 ! was enough for the win.

In their first encounter in Buenos Aires Karnsky clearly had the upper hand, but Salov escaped with a defence that endgame lovers will enjoy. Now in the second game of their mini-match S alov will try to put his opponent under pressure, as this is the last time they meet before they play the FIDE semi-final.

43.a4 �e4 44.a5 �g4 45.tt::le5 l:ta4 46.l:th7 .Ug7 47Jlh8 l:tg8 48.l:th7

1 .e4 c5 2.tt::lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld 4 tt:Jf6 5.tt::lc3 a6 6.�e2

42.ti:Jd3 l:Xe2

Salov wisely refrains from the sharpest continu­ ation 6.�g5, as Kamsky has very often played this himself. 6... e6 7.0-0 �e7 8.f4 Wlc7 9.'iii'h 1 0-0 1 O .i.f3 tt:Jc6 1 1 .�e3 �d7 •

1 1 ...tLld4 1 2.'Wid4 e5 1 3.'ifd2 b5 is more aggres­ sive. 14.a3 i.b7 1 5J:tad1 J:!.fe8 1 6.'iff2 did not bring White anything in Kuzrnin-Novikov, Len­ ingrad (eh) 1990, but 14.a4 ! ? �d7 1 5 . .t:!.fc 1 b4 1 6.ttJd5 led to an interesting fight between Vasi­ ukov and Stohl, Stary Smokovec 1988. 1 2.a4 48... l:tg7

Due to tiredness Judith had completely missed 46.l:t.h7, and she therefore decided that it would be unwise to continue the battle. Objectively speaking Black is still on top, as 48 ... 'it>e8 49 . .1:.f7 g5 ! (found by Karpov; 49 ... l:t.e4 50.�g3 �d6 5 1.l'�b7 �e5 52.i.e5 l:t.e5 53.a6 .l:.a5 54.a7 is a draw) 50.b3 .t:!.e4 and the race was always de­ cided in Black's favour during the post-mortem. However, a draw is the correct result. Both play­ ers made too many mistakes to deserve more. 49.l:th8

Draw.

In a game Zakharov-Kortchnoi, back in the sixties, White played the immediate 1 2.'ife1 and after 1 2 ... .t:!.fd8 1 3.'iff2 I:!.b8 14 ..t:!.ad1 �e8 15.g4 ttJd4 16.�d4 b5 17.g5 ttJd7 1 8.a3 he had the better game. 1 2... l:tab8

This move was generally condemned. Everyone preferred the knight exchange 12 ... ttJd4 1 3 .'ifd4 and then 1 3 ... e5. The game Hracek-Stohl, War­ saw 1990, continued 14.'ifd2 b5 1 5. ab5 ab5 1 6.fe5 deS 1 7.ttJd5 ttJd5 1 8.'Wid5 with equality. 1 7 .�g5 might be an improvement. Every day Polugaevsky and Najdorf were analyzing to­ gether and it was very interesting to watch them suggesting all sorts of possibilities. Polu's move here was 12 ...ttJa5, as he did not see a future for the rook on b8. I guess this knight jump should be answered with 1 3.�g l . 1 3.'Wie1 tt::l d4 1 4.�d4 e5 1 5.fe5

205

Probably 99% of White players would have played the same move as Valery, but perhaps it was more to the point to maintain the tension with 1 5.i.e3 ! ?. 1 5 de5 1 6.'it'g3 Sii.d6 1 7.i.e3 Sii.e6 1 8.Sii.g5 •..

White has to build up some initiative against the black king, as he is in trouble on the other side due to 1 2.a4 and the bad bishop on f3 . White's main goal is to keep Black busy to prevent him from undertaking something. 1 8.i.e2 was a rea­ sonable alternative, to open the f-file and at the same time support the queenside.

Both 27...tt:le4 and 27...'i¥e4 28.tt:lel.

are

bad because of

28.'0t>h2

A useful move, especially in time trouble, as J:[fl will not be check any more. 28 h6 29.�h4 'it'e4 30.Sii.g3 'it'c2 31 ...te5 ••.

1 8 i.e7 1 9.i.h6 •••

This is not a loss of time. It was useful to force the bishop to e7, since this might be handy if the knight reaches the d5 square. 19

•..

tt:Je8 20.Sii.g4 �d8

If 20 ... 'it'c8 2 1 . tt:ld5 ! 21 .�e6 fe6 22.l:lf8 i.f8 23.�g5 .l:rd7 24.'it'g4 'it'c4 25.h3 tt:Jd6

Suddenly changing the game from difficult strategical chess to very complicated tricky chess. 25 .. J:!.f7 was a very logical alternative after which Black would be doing fine.

31

•••

'it'f5

3 1 ...'i¥e4 would be bad, as 32.J:[e l is possible and the pin would work like a boomerang. Neither does 3 l . ..J:[f2 work out very well. Admittedly it looks good after 32.'i¥h6? 'it>g8, since both 33 . .-e6 and 33 ..-gS fail to 33 ...tt:lf7. However, the problem after 3 1 .. . .t:!.f2 is the sober 32.tt:le3 ! 32.tt:Jf4

The only move! The greedy 32.'ifh6 'it>g8 33 . .-f4 would lose because of 33 ...tt:lc4 ! 34.1Vc4 .-es 35.'it>hl i.d6. 32 'it'e6 33.tt:Je6 tt:Jc4 34.tt:Jf8 tt:Je5 35..l:re1 ! tt:Jf3 36.gf3 .l:rf8 •••

From here on the players only continued to show their fighting spirit and because neither wanted to offer the draw. 37.'0t>g3 .l:rf6 38.b4 .l:rb6 39 .l:re4 'Ot>h7 40.h4 'Ot>g6 41 .'0t>g4 .l:rd6 42.a5 'Ot>f6 43J:tf4 'Ot>e7 44J:tc4 'Ot>f6 45J:I.f4 'Ot>e7 46. .l:re4 'Ot>f6 •

26.tt:Jd5!

Salov immediately grabs his chance to bring another piece near to the enemy king. 26 J:tf7 27.'it'e6 'Ot>h8 ••

206

Draw. Thank God for move repetitions !

Round 13 An and

- Polgar

1 -0

Karpov

- Shi rov

lfz - lfz

lvanch u k

- Kamsky

1f2 - 1f2

Lju bojev i c

- Salov

1

-

Salov An and Polgar lvanchuk Karpov Shirov Kamsky Lju bojevic

0

51 1 2.3 D A nand • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket The battle for second place! 1 .e4 c5 2.ttJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ltJd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 a6 6.f4

The best combative measure is to fight the enemy with his own weapons. 6... ttJbd7

8.5 8.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5

1S ...ih6 b4= Timoschenko-Rusakov, Soviet Union 1976, and 13 ...eS 14 . .-id2 (14.feS deS 1S.�h6 lt:JhS ! 16...ig7 �g7 17.lt:JgS tt:Jdf6 18.J:!.f3 h6 led to the sad retreat 19.lt:Jh3 in Kuporosov-Zakharevich, Soviet Union 1986) 14 ... tt:JcS 1SJ:I.ae1 l:l.ae8 1 6.feS deS 17.lt:JgS tt:Jcd7 Ljubojevic-Miles, Skara 1980, were very promising for B lack. 1 4.f5

In the 198S Soviet Championship Balashov gained the better position against Psakhis with 14.�e3 l:l.ae8 1S.J:!.ae1 tt:JcS 16.fS lt:Jd3 17.cd3 tt:Jd7 1 8.�6 but 1 S...lt:JcS should be replaced by 1S ...lt:JhS. 1 4... l:.ae8 1 5.�g5?1

6. ..eS see Polgar-Anand, sixth round. 7.ttJf3 Wic7 8.a4

8 ...id3 is more precise because 8 ... bS 9.0-0 b4 10.lt:Je2 ..ib7 1 l .tt:Jg3 e6 1 2."ii'e2 was good for White in Ciocaltea-Ribli, Baile Herculane 1982, while after 8 ... g6 postponing the move a2-a4 turns out useful. a . 9s 9 ..id3 ..ig7 1 1 .Wh1 b6 1 2.Wie1 ..

.

1 o.o-o

o-o

Clearly White's prospects are on the kingside. 1 2 .ib7 1 3.Wih4 e6 .••

There is nothing wrong with this move, but the results of the alternatives 1 3 ...tt:JcS 14.fS bS

A very risky decision. In the Spanish city 207

208

Round 13

Oviedo, against his countryman King, Mickey Adams played 1 5 ..ih6, which was also ex­ pected/feared by Judith Polgar. 15

•••

'ifc5

Not without reason Judith thinks that her play should be concentrated on the queenside and she now threatens 1 6 ... 'ifb4 or 1 6...b5. However, with his next move Vishy makes these options less attractive. Miguel Najdorf justly wondered why Polgar rejected the immediate 1 5 ...gf5; after 16.ef5 e5 the queen is much better placed on c7 to support the advance of the d-pawn. 1 6.l:tab1 1

Both players were spending a lot of time and were obviously unaware that only Anand's last move was new in practice. In Bangiev-Rash­ kovsky, Soviet Union 1975, White continued 16J:!.ad1 ? ! 'it'b4 17 ..id2 'it'b2 1 8.e5 i.f3 19J:[ae1 ltJe5 20.l:l.fb 1 'it'a1 21 .l:l.a1 .ib7 and despite the capture of the queen White is lost.

lt:le5 23.i.f6 ltJf3 24...ig7 �g7 25.f6 and mate follows. 22.l:t3e2?

A decision based on the tournament standing. 22 ..1:[1e2 looks like trouble for Black; I cannot find a plan. 22 ... 'it'c8 23.l:te3 'it'aS

23 ...'it'c6 would have been very strong psycho­ logically, as at this point Anand was not so sure how to assess the position and he might have contented himself with a repetition of moves. 24.l:t1 e2 �c6 25.h31?

The game is reaching its climax. 25 'it'b7 26.tt:lh2 d5 27.tt:lg4 tt:lg4 28.hg4 f61 ..•

1 6 ... gf5 1 7.ef5 e5 1 8..l:.be1 �h8

18 . . .d5 is impossible due to 19.lt:le5. 1 9..l:.e21

All forced, as h7 was becoming very vulnerable. 29.l:th3

29.'it'h7 h7 30.l:l.h3 i.h6 does not work. The king escapes. 29

The Indian grandmaster understands very well that if he fixes the black center pawns he will be better. 1 9... 'it'c7 20J:Ue1 J:tg8 21 .l:te31

A very nice manoeuvre. White has many more useful moves than his female opponent. 21 ... 'ifc6

To push d6-d5 is still no good because of 22.l:l.e5

..•

tt:lf8 30...tf6 e4

The point of sacrificing the f-pawn. The seventh rank is very well defended and it is time to collect some material. 31 ...tg7 'it'g7??

The pressure ofboth the clock and the knowledge that she is facing her bete noire (Judith's score against Viswanathan can be counted on one ... finger! ! !) is getting too much. A more or less even battle would have continued after 3 1 . . Jig7 32.g5 209

(Anand) 32...ed3 33.l:te8 ..ie8 34.l:td3. In my opin­ ion 32 ..a.be3 followed by sacrificing on e4 was also not bad, as White gets three pawns for the piece. 32.�a6 d4

Karpov's loss against Salov in this line stimu­ lated him even more. 9.�f4

Apparently Karpov has no faith in the 9.�e3 treatment. 9 �d7 1 0.tt::lc6 .i.c6 1 1 .'ife1 .•.

Deviating from Karpov-Salov from the 9th round, where the fashionable 1 l .f3 was played. 1 1 ...�e7

IfBlack fears 12.e5 he has the alternative 1 1...'iVa5. 1 2.e5 tt::lh5 1 3.�e3 'ilc7 1 4..i.e2 g6 1 5.�h5 gh5 1 6..i.f4

33.�c4!

33 .i.b5 was not bad either but Anand's move wins on the spot. 33 ... dc3 34.f6 'ifg6 36.fe8'il �ea 37.l:lc3

35.f7

l:lg7

As the Frank Sinatra song goes: 'And now the end is near'. 37... i.a4 38.�d5 �d7 'ifd6 40.l:1d3 'ilf4 41 .l:.f2

39 .i.e4 •

.

Black resigned. Quite a bloody game for two vegetarians.

51 29. 1 0 0 Kar p ov • Shirov Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld4 tt::lf6 5.tt::lc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.'ild2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6

This was to be expected. Alexey is a great expert in this opening, as he had already proved in several games in this tournament, and of course 21 0

At first glance the proceedings may seem very strange, but actually both sides are just being consistent. White has mutilated B lack's pawn structure for which he has given up the pair of bishops. In Makarichev-Szabo, Amsterdam 1976, peace was signed after 1 6.ed6 �d6 17 .f3 0-0-0 1 8.'ii'f2 �f4 19.g3. 1 6...0-0-0 1 7.f3

Again 1 7 .ed6 does not bring White much. In fact Black was much better in Matulovic-Ivanovic, Stip 1979, which saw 17 .....id6 18...id6 J:!.d6 19.f3 l:tg8 20.l:1d2 'iVd8 21 .l:1d6 'ii'd6 22."�f2 'ii'f4 23. �b 1 h4. 1 7...�g5

A novelty. The Encyclopedia only gives 17 ... mtg8, as occurred in Chandler-Ivanovic, Plovdiv 1983, where 1 8.ed6 �d6 19.l:td6 J:!.d6 20.g3 ! f6 (20 .....if3?! 21 .l:1fl) 2 l . ..id6 'iVd6 followed. The Encyclopedia considers this position to be equal,

Round 13

but who would want to play the black side here, especially against Karpov? 1 a ..tgs hgs 1 9.'it'g3

19.'ii'd2 would be careless, as 19 ...de5 20.'ii'g5 J:.hg8 2l .l:.d8 'ii'd8 hands the initiative to Black. 1 9... deS

19 ... d5? 20/L:le2 and 19 . .. h4?! 20.'ii'g5 .U.dg8 21 .'ii'f6 deS 22J�d2 are not advisable. 20J:ld8 'ii'd 8 21 .'it'eS l:l.g8

Ready to exchange queens with 22 ... 'ii'c7. 22.tt:Je4

The knight is certainly not stronger than the bishop, so it is better to trade them. 22 ... �e4 23.'ii'e4 'ii'd6

23 . . .'ii'a5 ! ? Karpov. 24.g3 l:ld8 2S.'it'e3 'ii'd S

confuse B lack. 30.h3 ! ? should be answered by 30 ... '0t>d6 3 l .'Ot>d2 'Ot>e5 32.c3 b5 33.a3 aS . 30 �d6 31 .c4 �cs 32.�c3 g4! ..•

32 ... a5? would not be so clever, in view of 33.h3! followed by 34.a3. 33.f4

33.b4 e5 36.b6 43.e2 'Ot>d7 3 l .'Ot>e3 eS 32.f4 'Ot>e6.

43.b6 e4 44.'0t>e4

With 44.c5?! 'Ot>b5 45.'0t>d6 e3 46.c6 'Ot>b6 47.c7 e2 White would only burn his own fingers. 44...�c4 45.�fS 'Ot>b6 47.'0t>hS �aS!

�CS

46.�gS

The only square for the king but both competitors knew exactly what they were doing. 48.�g4 bS 30.�d2

Despite the limited material, matters are not yet all that simple and White has some chances to

Drawn, as 49.h4 (49.'0t>f3?? b4 50.g2 .ilf6 35.a4 l:la8 36. .l:lb4 'i¥c7 37. .l:lb5 .id8 38.a5 'i¥e7 39.h4 h5 40.l:l.a3 •

In mutual time trouble the players have put their

46J:ta6 tba6 47.'ifa6 't!Vf6 48.'i¥a3 'it'd8 49.f!ic3 ..t>g8 50.f!ib2 't!Ve7 51 .'i¥b6 ..t>g7 52 ..ib5

Perhaps 52.flib8, to play for 53 .f!ie8, �d7 and �e6, was a quicker way to decide the game. 21 5

52... 0 "'@ VI

"'0

c "' c 0 a. .....

.....

219

7

Shirov

192

1 73

221

1 70

147

8

Lju bojevic

214

101

1 18

1 32

1 84

156

Numbers refer to pages. Rows represent White players, columns represent Black players. For example Polgar-Salov can be found on page 1 25, while Salov-Polgar starts on page 1 87.

229

Index of variations

key

moves

name

SI Sl 1 Sl 2 Sl 3 Sl 4 Sl 5 Sl 6 Sl 7 Sl 8 Sl 9 Sl 1 0 Sl 1 1 Sl 1 2

1 .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 d6 [3.�b5; 3.d4 lLlf6] 2.lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.'ird4 2.lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 lLlf6 [5.lLlc3 e5] 5 ... a6 6.�g5 5 ... a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 'ire? 6 ... e6 7.f4 lLlbd7 6 ...e6 7.f4 b5 6 ...e6 7.f4 'irb6 6 ...e6 7.f4 �e7 5 ...a6 6.�e2 5 ... a6 6 ..te2 e5 7.lLlb3 .te7 5 ... a6 6.f4

Sicilian

1 51 Najdorf Najdorf Najdorf Pol ugaevsky Poisoned Pawn Main Line Geller Geller Najdorf

Sl 1 3 5 ... a6 6.�c4 SI 1 4 5. . .a6 [6.g3; 6.a4; 6.�e3; 6.h3] Sl 1 5 5 ... g6

Fischer Najdorf Dragon

Sl Sl Sl Sl

Dragon Dragon Dragon Scheveningen

16 17 18 19

5 ... g6 6.�e3 [6 ...�g7] 7.f3 7.f3 lLlc6 8.'ird2 0-0 9.�c4 5 ...e6

Sl 20 5 ...e6 6.g4

Keres

Sl 21 5 ...e6 6.f4 Sl 22 5 ...e6 6.�e2 [6 ... lLlc6]

Scheveningen Scheveningen

Sl 23 5 ...e6 6.�e2 a6

Scheveningen

Sl 24 7.0-0 'ire? 8.f4 lLlc6 Sl 25 5 ...lLlc6

Scheveningen Sozin

230

page

219

1 37 1 45 207 1 96 1 56 1 66 217 1 29 1 49 118 1 30 1 63 1 25 1 32 1 59 1 92 1 24 1 34 1 91 1 73 1 84 221 205 203

81 26 5 ... ltlc6 6 ..tc4 e6 81 27 5 ... ltlc6 6 . .tg5 81 28 6 ...e6 7.'it'd2 .te7 8.0-0-0 0-0

Velimirovic Richter-Rauzer Richter-Rauzer

S I 2 9 6. . .e 6 7.'it'd2 a6 8.0-0-0

Richter-Rauzer

81 30 6 ...e6 7.'it'd2 a6 8.0-0-0 .td7 81 31 2.ltlf3 ltlc6 3 ..tb5 81 32 2.ltlf3 ltlc6 [3.d4 cd4 4.ltld4 e5]

Richter-Rauzer Rossolimo De la Bourdonnais

81 33 4 ... g6

Accelerated Dragon

81 34 81 35 81 36 81 37 81 38 81 39

4 ... ltlf6 5.ltlc3 [5 ... e6] 4 ...ltlf6 5.ltlc3 e5 6.ltldb5 d6 7 ..tg5 a6 8.ltla3 b5 9 . .tf6 [9 ... gf6 1 O.ltld5] 4 ...e6

Four Knights Lasker Pelikan/Bird 8veshnikov 8veshnikov Taimanov

81 40 4 ...e6 5.ltlc3 'it'c7

Taimanov

81 41 81 42 81 43 81 44 81 45 81 46 81 47 81 48 81 49 81 50

Paulsen Paulsen Nimzowitsch Closed Closed Alapin Alapin

2.ltlf3 e6 2.ltlf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.ltld4 a6 5 . .td3 2.ltlf3 [2 ... a6; 2 ... ltlf6] 2.ltlc3; 2.d3 2.ltlc3 ltlc6 3.g3 g6 4 ..tg2 .tg7 5.d3 d6 2.c3 2.c3 ltlf6 3.e5 ltld5 [4.d4 cd4] 2.b4; 2.b3; 2.ltle2; 2.�c4 2.f4 2.d4

1 01 1 06 1 27 212 1 04 1 58 1 77 1 88 1 99 21 0 224

1 08 111 21 4 1 21 1 39 1 40 1 75

1 14

1 55 1 70 1 16 1 42 1 47 1 68 1 79 1 83 1 94 201 1 87

Grand Prix Morra Gambit 231

Association M ax Euwe

T he association w as created on J anuary 4 th, 199 1 in M onaco. I t w as named aft er the D utch World Champion of Chess and former FIDE President, Professor D r. M ax E uw e. T he members of th e boardare: M r. J .M. Rapaire, President, M rs. M.V. van O osterom, T reasurer andM rs. E. B aas, General Secretary. It also employ sM r. M.L.H.J. H ermes, General M anager andM r. E. Tolsma, F inancial M anager. T he association is interested in chess and billia rds, and its obj ective is to promote these sports in general and to organise tournaments and matches. For this, th e association organises, together w ith the F ederation M onegasq ue des E checs, many international events in the Principality of M onaco and other countries. T he follow ing tournaments w ere organised: 1991 Aruba:

M atches J. Polgar - Polugaevsky and S. Polgar - Sosonk o.

1992 M onaco: Aruba: Aruba:

M elody Amber Tournament. T raining Tournament. Tumba Chess Tournament.

1993 M onaco:

F inal Candidates M atch for Women' s World Championship betw een Z. Polgar andI oseliani. Women' s Z onal Tournament ( in cooperation w ith I nterpolis). SecondAmber Tournament. M atch Kortchnoi - Pik et. Waltz er Chess Tournament. Women' s World Championship M atch X ie - I oseliani. M ini O ly mpiad. F inal E uropean Club Cup.

D elden (NED): M onaco: N ij megen (NED) Vienna: M onaco: M onaco: H ilversum (NED) 1994 Aruba: M onaco: M onaco: M onaco: M onaco: Tilburg (NED): B uenos Aires:

M atch Piket - Polugaevsk y. T hirdAmber Chess Tournament. Cry stal Kelly three Cushion B illiardTournament. M atch Piket - Lj uboj evic. Palladienne Chess Tournament. Women' s Candidates Chess Tournament ( in cooperation w ith I nterpolis). Lev Polugaevsk y Tournament ( in cooperation w ith F undaci6 n B anco Patricios).

233

Fundaci6n B anco Patricios

T he F oundati on B anco Patri ci os i s a pri vate, non profi t- maki ng organiz ati on dedi­ cated to the producti on and di ssemi nati on of soci al, cultural, sci entifi c and arti sti c acti vi ti es. The F oundati on i s i nvolved i n the creati on of a soci al, poli ti cal and cultural proj ect for the organiz ati on of Argenti ne soci ety. The B anco Patri ci os i n sponsori ng the acti vi ti es of the Foundati on fulfi ls i ts ethi cal and poli ti cal ob li gati ons to the communi ty deri vi ng from princi ples of soli dari ty, mutual assi stance and democracy i n i nsti tuti onal admi ni strati on. The specifi c ai ms of the Foundati on B anco Patri ci os are as follows: To sti mulate the sy stemati c development of research, analy si s and refl ecti on on prob lems relevant to the life of the nati on, with a vi ew to carryi ng out acti viti es req ui red to i mprove the q uali ty of life of the populati on. To contrib ute, b oth i nsi de the Foundati on and outsi de, to the creati on of adeq uate and responsible mechani sms for the di ssemi nati on and transmi ssi on of a k nowledge of the soci o- economi c reali ty of the country. To promote th e access of a wi de range of soci ety to arti sti c and cultural events.

Dr. Alberta Spolski

Presi dent F undaci6 n B anco Patri ci os

234

List of illustrations

page

Cover 11 34 38 40 44 89 91 94 97 98 102 107 1 14 122 152 158 167 185 194 196 208 2 12 2 18 223

subject

artist/source

Pol ugaevsky Pol ugaevsk y Pol ugaevsky Pol ugaevsk y Pol ugaevsky Pol ugaevsk y-N aj dorf Van O osterom K amsk y K arpov B an co Patricios Pol ugaevsky An an d K arpov Pol gar I van chuk Lj uboj evic Shirov Sal ov K arpov Lj uboj evic Piket Pol gar K amsk y Sal ov Pol ugaevsky

Van der Lin den Van der Lin den N iC Archives N iC Archives E ddis Stein er Stein er Kohl mey er Kohl mey er Kohl mey er Kohl mey er Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van Velz en Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van Velz en Van der Lin den Van der Lin den D e l as N ieves Van der Lin den B eek huiz en Van der Lin den

235

Solution to the chess problem from page 1 00

l.tt:Jd4 (..6. 2.tt:J c6) l.. .lt:J d4 2.'if d4 l ... tt:J e5 2.lt:Jf5 l.. .W d7 2.tt:J de6 l.. .W e5 2.tt:J df3

Mate in two moves

236