Kasparov's Fighting Chess 1993-1998

Kasparov's Fighting Chess

1993-1998 Tibor Karolyi and Nick Aplin

BATSFORD

Kasparov's Fighting Chess

1993-1998 Tibor Karolyi and Nick Aplin

BATSFORD

First published in the United Kingdom in 2006 by Batsford 151 Freston Road London WI06TH An imprint of Anova Books Company Ltd

Copyright © Batsford 2006 Text copyright © Tibor Karolyi and Nick Aplin The moral right of the authors has been asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. ISBN 0 7134 8994 4 ISBN (13) 9780 7134 8994 1 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed and bound by Creative Print and Design This book can be ordered direct from the publisher at the website: www.anovabooks.com Or try your local bookshop

Contents Introduction

5

Symbols

8

1993 Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5 Game 6 Game 7

[C88] [C88] [897] [C88] [E35] [035] [B87]

GK - Nigel Short GK - Nigel Short Nigel Short - GK GK - Nigel Short GK - Nigel Short GK - Nigel Short GK - Nigel Short

PCA World Ch (I) PCA World Ch (3) PCA World Ch (4) PCA World Ch (7) PCA World Ch (9) PCA World Ch (15) PCA World Ch (16)

9 II 19 28 35 40 45 50

[044] [BI7] [885] [000] [CII] [C42] [E97] [B33] [833] [DJ9] [882] [A41] [B92]

GK - Vassily Ivanchuk GK - Gata Kamsky GK - Viswanathan Anand Jan Timman - GK GK - Nigel Short GK - Jan Timman Gata Kamsky - GK GK - Vladimir Kramnik GK - Alexei Shirov GK - Vladimir Kramnik Zoltan Almasi - GK GK - Zurab Azmaiparashvili Lembit 011 - GK

Linares Linares Linares Moscow rapid Amsterdam Amsterdam New York rapid Novgorod Horgen Paris rapid EU-Cup fmal Moscow Olympiad Moscow Olympiad

62 62 68 74 79 80 85 96 101 110 117 118 118 121

[C51] [B47] [817] [B80] [A48] [037] [B92] [B85] [C80] [B78] [877] [BOl] [043] [B65]

GK - Viswanathan Anand G K - Edvins Kengis GK - Vladimir Epishin Veselin Topalov - GK Artur Yusupov - GK GK - Rafael Vaganian GK - Nick de Firmian Viswanathan Anand - GK GK - Viswanathan Anand Viswanathan Anand - GK Viswanathan Anand - GK GK - Viswanathan Anand GK - Viktor Korchnoi Viswanathan Anand - GK

Riga Riga Moscow rapid Amsterdam Novgorod Novgorod New York rapid PCA World Ch (9) PCA World Ch (10) PCA World Ch (11) PCA World Ch (13) PCA World Ch (14) Horgen Paris rapid

124 124 133 136 137 139 140 145 148 154 159 163 166 177 178

1994 Game 8 Game 9 Game 10 Game II Game 12 Game 13 Game 14 Game 15 Game 16 Game 17 Game 18 Game 19 Game 20

1995 Game 21 Game 22 Game 23 Game 24 Game 25 Game 26 Game 27 Game 28 Game 29 Game 30 Game 31 Game 32 Game 33 Game 34

3

Game 35 [E92] Game 36 [851]

Vladimir Kramnik - GK Leonid Yudasin - GK

Paris rapid EU-Cup final

184 185

1996 Game 37 Game 38 Game 39 Game 40 Game 41 Game 42 Game 43 Game 44 Game45 Game 46

[E89] [B"14] [892] [884] [882] [A43] [890] [852] [C45] [E32]

J eroen Piket - G K GK - Viswanathan Anand GK - Boris Gelfand GK - Viswanathan Anand Judit Polgar - GK GK - Alexander Graf Viswanathan Anand - GK Alexei Shirov - GK GK - Ivan Sokolov GK - Anatoly Karpov

Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam Moscow rapid Dos Hermanas Geneva rapid Geneva rapid Yerevan Olympiad Yerevan Olympiad Las Palmas

186 186 188 190 200 201 205 209 215 216 222

1997 Game 47 Game 48 Game 49 Game 50 Game 51 Game52 Game 53 Game 54 Game 55

[C45] [E59] [A25] [Cll] [CI8] [A25] [E25] [890] [D27]

GK - Predrag Nikolic GK - Vladimir Kramnik GK - 80ris Gelfand GK - Evgeny Bareev GK - Nigel Short Loek van Wely - GK GK - Judit Polgar Alexei Shirov - GK GK - Jeroen Piket

Linares Linares Novgorod Novgorod Novgorod Tilburg Tilburg Tilburg Tilburg

232 232 238 243 250 251 252 256 260 267

1998 Game 56 Game 57 Game 58 Game59 Game 60

[817] [D58] [885] [866] [DI5]

GK - Viswanathan Anand Veselin Topalov - GK Emil Sutovsky - GK GK - Vassily Ivanchuk Jan Tirnman - GK

Linares Sofia rapid match Tel-Aviv clock simul Frankfurt rapid EuroTel Trophy

275 275 287 290 298 305

Kasparov's Record: Statistics 1993-1998

309

Epilogue

314

Index of Openings

314

Index of Opponents

315

4

Introduction When (:hess pundits attempt the daunting task of naming the greatest players of all time, there are currently only two candidates who stand a chance of claiming the ultimate accolade. Garry Kasparov is one of them. In many sports, the greatest player is not necessarily the one with the best competitive record. Muhammad Ali lost a couple of fights and was floored on a few occasions, most notably by Henry Cooper. A few boxers have a better record than the former Cassius Clay, and yet Ali is considered the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time. There are many who think that Garry Kasparov was the greatest in chess. Others consider that Robert Fischer at his best was slightly the more dominant player. There will always be a debate as to which of these two was greater. What is indisputable is that Kasparov completed the most successful competitive career ever, as he was undoubtedly the best player in the world for the longest period of time, Garry gained the title of World Champion from Karpov in 1985. He was ranked world number one for two decades - a record that is probably unparalleled in any other sport. Moreover, not only was his level of performance impressive, his style of play too was as aggressive and entertaining as could be imagined. When this book was completed and only the editing remained, we heard the sad news that Kasparov had announced his retirement. There would be no more masterpieces over the board, at least in regular games. He had already produced such a rich collection of games that it was indeed a privilege and a challenge to review

them in detail. They are well known to the public, and many in fact have been analysed before. However, no anthology has yet been published dealing with the same period as the present book. There have been many books written about many great players, but this one attempts to go into a degree of detail that very few have attempted before. Collectively, the games provide a new and interesting picture of the Champion who becomes the successor to his 'Great Predecessors'. This book covers Garry's career from 1993 to 1998. These were some of his most inventive years. In the new millennium he still produced a number of astonishing games, but not with quite the same frequency as in the period marked by the matches against Short and Anand, and by supertournaments such as Linares and Wijk aan Zee. A second volume, covering 1999-2005, is also nearing completion. Whereas in 1993 computer chess programs were relatively weak, it is interesting now to place some of Garry's positions under the combined scrutiny of human and computer. Most of his own analyses, published at the time when the games were played, were documented with the aid of symbols and accepted conventions, but written text offers a more accessible elucidation of his art. The book is very much a chess book. Kasparov's political and chesspolitical activities are not discussed. Nor will there be any attempt to deal with his personal life, although those topics too would have been captivating. On the Internet you can discover Garry's opinions on the Roman Empire, but while such matters are 5

Introduction

decided to retire. Will anyone else become a beneficiary of this treasure trove? We hope to have avoided one pitfall. Kasparov is a chess giant, and the various elements of his play are very hard to judge objectively. Yet we have not tried to elevate his status gratuitously. We cannot make him into a larger figure than he is in reality.

enlightening, they are not relevant to this book. Incidentally, if you search for Garry's name on the Internet, most of the available sites relate to his computer matches. This is a little sad, as the chess community ought to remember him for his splendid games and results in human tournaments, not his less appealing computer chess activities. The gems he produced should be treasures on permanent display. In the process of compiling our analyses, many things came as a surprise. Here are two examples. First, Garry's predilection for play on the flanks, notably along the h-file, had not been recognized before. Secondly, while Fischer's amazing run of victories is well known, Kasparov's own best undefeated sequence of 63 games (from round 10 at Wijk aan Zee 1999, to the second game of the Kramnik match) has been less well documented! These and other surprises led to some fundamental changes in our approach to the material. After working on a shortish list of 40 games, we realized we had already written enough to fill one book. Batsford kindly agreed to extend their commitment to two volumes. I then altered the scope of the work by providing almost game-by-game descriptions of Garry's tournament performances during this phase of his career. This provides a more realistic impression of the environment and the sporting factors that are involved. One important topic emerged more clearly during the process of study and writing. It concerned the necessity for professional players to protect and even hide the fruits of long hours of opening preparation. Chess has its own vaults of highly confidential and secret material. One wonders what new surprises might have emerged from these vaults if Garry had not

The 'I' in this book refers to Tibor Karolyi, the chief author and also a junior chess trainer. Earlier I spent a dozen years as a professional player travelling to tournaments and spending considerable time with other chessplayers, but mainly with those from England and the Soviet Union. Garry was a participant in some of those early tournaments - indeed he was an opponent in one game played some twenty-five years ago. This contact with the chess world has made it possible to share some relevant experiences. The culture, including chess culture, of my native Hungary appears to lie somewhere in between its English and Russian counterparts. The co-author, Nick Aplin, has no such professional connections with chess, but as a long-standing enthusiast and periodically a manager of junior and senior chess teams travelling from Singapore, he feels a close attachment to the game. For him, the study of Kasparov's games was one thing that helped him in his efforts to stay on terms with a fast improving twelve-year-old son! It so happens that the twenty-year period of Garry's dominance coincides with the duration of Nick's permanent residence in Singapore. For a short while I was faced with a dilemma: whether or not to contact Garry personally about the book. Naturally a time will come when he documents his own perceptions of the 6

Introduction

explain and celebrate his magnificent play. Hopefully, as he loves chess, he will be happy about the result and agree that his games deserve searching and sometimes critical scrutiny. He must know that there is so much to learn from him. Our general attitude is that controversial opinions and even misjudgements in analysis can stimulate future commentators and make positive contributions to our understanding and enjoyment of chess. Significantly, Garry's games remind me of the work of the great Russian painter Surikov. In particular, Surikov's masterpiece The Boyarin Morozova creates the same intense impression of exceptional artistic value and power as Kasparov's magic art. His games reveal the touch of the chess genius and will remain in your consciousness for the rest of your life. Do not miss this experience - but remember, sometimes you may think you are dreaming!

games, and the resulting anthology will doubtless have a unique approach. In the end, no contact was made with him. It is clear from experience that it is not in the personal interest of the top players to have someone else analysing their games. From their viewpoint it is unfortunate that they have no copyright on their masterpieces like music composers. They no doubt feel that when it comes to analysing a chess career, it is better for the material to remain in their own domain. On a related note, it would be surprising to hear that all the living World Champions were delighted at Garry writing books about them. If a player is active, a highly detailed book might provide useful information and ammunition for his rivals, saving them energy in the discovery of ideas and tactical nuances. Garry may not fully appreciate some of the observations in our book, even though their purpopse is to

7

Symbols +

check

;l;

slight advantage for White

=+=

slight advantage for Black

±

clear advantage for White

+

clear advantage for Black

+-+

decisive advantage for White decisive advantage for Black equal game good move

!!

excellent move

!?

move deserving attention

?!

dubious move

?

weak move

??

blunder

8

1993 emphatically. In 1990 he lost just one game - to Gulko. In 1991 he lost only two 'regular' games - one to Ivanchuk and one to Anand - as well as one rapid game to Timman. In 1992, he lost 3 games in all: to Anand, Kamsky and HUbner. The loss to Anand was a rapid game in the Paris Immopar fmal, where Garry still managed to beat the Indian grandmaster 3:1. In 1993, up until the title match, he lost just one rapid game to Michael Adams; that was all. As the reigning champion from 1985 until the Short match, Garry played a total of 362 games and registered a plus score - in some cases a huge one - against all the top professionals. He lost only 19 regular games with Black and only 4 with White. Of the 23 losses, only nine were in round-robin tournaments. He won 99 games with White and 68 with Black. In rapid chess he won 10 with Black and lost only 4, while with the white pieces his record was even more impressive - he won 14 and lost only one out of 3 7 games. Kasparov holds many records, but perhaps his greatest achievement is that he has been the dominant player for the longest period of time - at least in the twentieth century. Emanuel Lasker was not active in competitions throughout his tenure of the World Championship. Jose Raoul Capablanca cannot be judged on his play during World War I. He held the world crown from 1921 to 1927. Alexander Alekhine was the best from 1927-28 until 1934, but from 1935 until he regained his title from Max Euwe two years later, he did not win a single major tournament. Nobody

Garry Kasparov had captured the world crown in 1985 at the age of 22. Since that victory he had been sole winner in ten of the eighteen major tournaments he had contested. He had shared fIrst place in another fIve of those events. When Vassily Ivanchuk won the 1991 Linares tournament, Garry's winning record stretched back 9 years and 9 months. His worst result came later in 1991 when he shared third and fourth places in the Euwe Memorial. It was there that Valery Salov and Nigel Short scored three wins each to Garry's two. We join Kasparov's career two years later, in 1993, as he was about to face the challenger Nigel Short. The Englishman was riding high on impressive victories in the Candidates series, and had the lUXury of home advantage. The World Champion was 30 years old at the time, maybe the best age for a man who has accumulated considerable competitive wisdom and energy. Incidentally, 1993 was to be the last year in which the chess world had only one reigning World Champion. Garry had been the dominant player since becoming the world's youngestever World Chess Champion by defeating Karpov. He not only defended his title against Karpov in three matches in a row but also achieved better results in round-robin tournaments than his illustrious predecessor. Garry's last match against the Russian ex-World Champion in 1990 had fInished with a score of 12:11, or4 wins to 3. Garry's record during the fIrst three years of the 1990s had been impressive. The inability of his rivals to beat him makes the point very 9

1993

established any form of domination in that period, and then the development of chess champions was held back by World War II. Mikhail Botvinnik was convincingly the best in 1948, but in the 1950s he was just one of the leading players along with Vassily Smyslov and David Bronstein. In the 1960s no one really dominated, although if you had to pick one player it would probably be Boris Spassky rather than Tigran Petrosian or Mikhail Tal. Bobby Fischer took over for a period, but withdrew mysteriously after 1972. Anatoly Karpov was demonstrably the best player from 1975 until 1985. In comparison with these eminent players Kasparov was the undisputed star from 1985 until 1998 - a period of nearly fourteen years. Viswanathan Anand achieved superior results in 1998, but it was just for a single year; Kasparov regained the mantle in 1999. In 2000 Garry lost the title, so it cannot be said that he produced the best results that year. Then he came back in 2001 as clearly the best. Nobody matched his results. His magic lasted until the end of 2002 with the annual Linares battle. Since then his results have been no worse than those of his rivals, and indeed few of them can come close to matching him. His performance in the Bled Olympiad in 2002, where he scored 71h. out of nine, was magical. That said, Kasparov now no longer shows himself to be indisputably the best individual player on a year-byyear basis. One other point needs to be made about his achievements: none of the previous World Champions played against such strong opposition. All Kasparov's games are against chess professionals, and the vast majority of them have been against the top 25 players. Nigel Short had surmounted many a

tough obstacle on his way to the title match. He qualified from the Interzonal in Manila when he had to beat Mikhail Gurevich with Black, then went on to win matches against the very strong grandmasters Jonathan Speelman and Boris Gelfand. After that he eliminated the still mighty Karpov, who was ranked number two in the world. His score with White in that match was outstanding: 41h. out of five. In the World Championship Candidates final, Nigel faced Jan Timman. Again his performances with White were generally incisive, and they provided him with the plus score that enabled him to meet Kasparov. Nigel had needed skill and toughness at critical moments in these matches, and gained valuable experience from them. Virtually nobody gave Short any chance at all against Kasparov, such was the latter's dominance. Nevertheless, most games in the match were extremely tense battles. The best of them were very exciting and entertaining.

Kasparov-Short: The PCA World Championship Final FIDE was unable to raise a good enough prize fund for the match. In response, the Champion and challenger broke away and established a new organization. They managed to raise one of the biggest sums that had ever been made available for a championship, though this still fell short of the FischerSpassky re-match of 1992. It seems that a prize fund to the Champion'S liking can only be found easily if a Western player is involved. Such is the sad reality. The match took place in London and attracted huge media attention. Kasparov was a very clear favourite, 10

1993

particularly as the draw gave him White in the first game. He began the match with what proved to be an exciting and memorable encounter.

obviously felt'that this opening would make all the difference for him. 2 ctJt3 ctJc6 3 it b5 The variation 3 d4 exd4 4 ctJxd4 itc5 5 ite3 ctJf6 6 c3 ctJge7 7 itc4 0-0 8 0-0 itb6 9 ctJc2 d6 had been played between the same opponents at Linares 1992. Garry went on to win that game as well. 3...a6 4 ita4 ctJf6 5 0-0 ~e7 6 l:el b5 7 .tb3 0-0 Nigel's main variation in the Ruy Lopez is usually the Zaitsev or else 7... d6 8 c3 0-0 9 d4 ctJd7. In 1991, however, he had started to play the Marshall Attack and used it with some success; he had drawn all his games against very strong grandmasters like Karpov, Anand and Timman. 8a4 Interestingly, Kasparov had not played this variation before the present match. Later he became very successful with it, conceding only two draws out of 8 games and even beating such a resolute player as Leko. The Marshall would have arisen after 8 c3 d5. It's quite remarkable that in Garry's career this opening had not occurred before in a game with either colour. Was this purely by chance, or by design? 8... b4 Avoiding the danger of a prepared variation. In Anand-Short, Amsterdam 1992, Nigel had played differently with 8 ...itb7. The continuation was 9 d3 d6 10 ctJc3 ctJa5 11 ~a2 b4 12 ctJe2l:tb8 13 ctJg3 c5 14 ctJf5 itc8 15 ctJe3 ~e6 16 Ji.d2 ctJe8 17 Ji.xe6 fxe6 18 c3 ctJc6 19 ctJc4 ctJc7 20 ite3 Ji. f6 21 lIc 1 bxc3 22 bxc3 d5 23 ctJcd2 ite7. This long game fmally ended in a draw. 9d3 In My Great Predecessors, Garry indicates that Yefim Geller helped him prepare this particular line. 9..•d6 10 a5 ~e6 This looks the most natural reply.

Game 1 G.Kasparov (2805) White N.Short (2655) Black PCA World Championship (151 game), London 1993 Ruy Lopez [C88] I e4 When facing an opponent who may play any of several alternative openings, you tend to rely on a narrow range of preferences. Deep down Nigel must have been uncertain about Kasparov's first move, even though he must have been well prepared for both 1 e4 and 1 d4. In his teenage years, Garry had opened more often than not with 1 d4 or 1 c4, and rarely with the king's pawn. By 1993, he was playing 1 e4 more often than the closed openings. In the Linares tournament just before the PCA World Championship in London, the last five opponents in his games with White were Bareev, Timman, Anand, Gelfand and Kamsky. Of this group, Anand did best - he lost in 65 moves! The only game Garry lost with White in the early 1990s was in the 1991192 Reggio Emilia tournament. He won far more often with White than he drew. Truly a remarkable performance. 1.•. e5 Nigel's main weapon up to this point in his career had been the French. He clejlfly felt that it might be too obvious a target - Kasparov would have prepared himself for it extremely well. In fact, Garry had had excellent results against the French, winning 5 games out of 5 in 1992. Preparing a new option in the Sicilian would have been a risky venture. Consequently, 1... e5 was no surprise. Nigel 11

1993

Black can also play 1O ....Jtg4 or 10 .. J:Ib8. 11 ttJbd2 11 i.c4 is possible; Nigel was to face that move 9 years later. There followed 1 L.~c8 12 ttJbd2 l::ie8 13 ttJfl ttJd8 14 i.g5 i.xc4 15 dxc4 ttJe6 16 i.xf6 i.xf6 17 ttJe3 l::ib8 18 ttJd5 i.d8 19 ~d2, and Black went on to lose a complicated game (Stefansson-Short, 2nd match game, Reykjavik 2002). 11 ...lIb8 12 i.c4! ~c8 It is natural to develop rather than help your opponent's development. The simpler 12 ... i.xc4 13 ttJxc4l:te8, followed by l:tb8-b5, should be all right too. 13 ttJn After 13 c3 i.xc4 14 ttJxc4 l::ib5 15 i.d2 bxc3 16 bxc3, Black has a number of playable options: primarily 16... ~d7 (also 16... ~e6, 16 ...l::te8). 13... l::te8 Ever since this game, opening theory has shifted to the main alternative: the prophylactic 13 ... h6. In Leko-Grischuk, Dubai rapid 2002, Black reached a pleasant position after 14 h3 J:Ie8 15 ttJe3 i.f8 16 i.d2 i.xc4 17 ttJxc4 ~e6 18 ttJh2 nb5 19 b3 g6 20 ttJg4 'it>h7 21 ttJxf6+ 'iVxf6 22 .Jte3 ii.g7 23 :tta4 'iVe6 14 ttJe3

Nigel wants to simplify the position and reduce the tension. Players no longer go in for this simplification, as it leads to a somewhat passive position. If Nigel had been playing the French, he would have been much less likely to make an incongruous move like this. A better line was 14 ...i.xc4 15 ttJxc4 ttJd8, when according to Garry the position is completely equal (I5 ...:ttb5 looks attractive too; or even 15 ... h6). 15 ttJxd4 exd4 16 ttJd5! An interesting situation arises after 16 .Jtxe6 ~xe6 (16 ... fxe6 17 ttJc4 d5 would create an unusual pawn structure, but Black is probably all right here) 17 ttJc4 c6 (after 17 ...d5 18 exd5 'iVxd5 19 i.f4, Black has to be careful; on 17 ...ttJd7 - trying to get rid of the knight on c4 - White plays 18 i.f4 and things aren't so simple, though the most he can claim is a slight edge) 18 i.f4 l::Ibd8 19 ~d2 ttJh5. 16...ttJxd5 If 16...i.xd5 (Black is certainly worse without his light-squared bishop), then 17 exd5 ttJd7 18 'iVg4! and White is better. 16 ... c5 looks like a sensible option, as it helps Black to build up his position but doesn't reveal his intentions. There can follow: (a) 17 ~f3 ttJxd5 18 exd5 .Jtg4 19 'iVf4 i.g5! (a neat back-rank combination) 20 l::txe8+ 'iVxe8 21 'iVe4 i.xcl 22 I:txcl 'iVxe4 23 dxe4 i.d7, and Black can neutralize the bishop on c4. (b) 17 ttJxe7+ l::txe7 18 i.f4 (or 18 i.g5 i.xc4 19 i.xf6 gxf6 20 dxc4 f5 21 ~d2 fxe4 22 'iVg5+ 'it>f8, and Black is doing alI right), and now after 18 ... ttJe8 Black gets rid of the enemy light-squared bishop and eases the pressure on his position. If instead 18 ... 'iVc6 19 i.xd6 i.g4 20 f3 'iVxd6 21 fxg4 tiJd7, the position of the knight on e5 will provide some com-

14...ttJd4? 12

1993

pensation, though it's hard to say whether this is enough. (c) However, thanks to some tactics, the immediate 17 iH4! works for White and keeps up the pressure: 17 ...~xd5 (or 17 .. .lllxd5 18 exd5 .tg4 19 .txa6 .txdl 20 .txc8 .txc2 21 ~xd6 and Black is in trouble) 18 exd5 ~f5 (the snag with this move is that Black can't afford to E~ck up the d5-pawn) 19 i.d2 Ma8 (l9 ...tllxd5 20 g4 wins for White) 20 f4 (intending ~dl-D) 20 ....i.d8 (if 20 .. .lllxd5, then 21 g4 again works) 21 l:txe8+ liJxe8 22 ~D, and White will keep pressing while Black has to wait passively. 17 exdSi.d7 17 ... ~ g4? would be a mistake. Black would like to unsettle White's pieces with this move or even force t2-D, but unfortunately for him there is a neat tactical riposte in 18 i.xa6!. Nigel admitted missing this at move 14. 18.i.d2 18 ~D looks like one option, keeping open the possibility of developing the queen's bishop on f4. However it does not prevent the same simplification that occurs in the game: 18 ...~f6 (18 ....i.b5 19 .i.d2) 19 :!::txe8+ i.xe8 20 i.f4 i.b5 21 :!::tel i.xc4 22 dxc4 d3 23 ~xd3 .i.xb2, and although Black is still a little worse, he should be able to hold out. 18•...i.f6 Black has to move this bishop sooner or later. If he opts for 18 ....i.b5, to exchange the lightsquared bishops at once, White has two ways of maintaining the pressure. After 19 'ti'D 'ti'b7, or 19 i.b3 .i.d7 20 ~D, he has the edge. 19 :!::txe8+ .axe8 20 ~e2 .abS 21l:tel The opening is over, and Garry has the better position since he controls the only open file. However Black has no evident weakness, and if he

manages to nullifY White's domination of the e-file he can easily hold the game. That said, he will need to play carefully over the next few moves. 21 ...~xc4 21...\t>f8? is not the answer; although it counteracts the pressure in the e-file, it loses to a direct tactical stroke: 22 .i.xb5 l:txb5 23 Vj'e4, and White invades. 22 dxc4 h6 Black must defend patiently, and sooner or later he has to rid himself of his back-rank problem. Opening the kingside with g7-g6 would allow ~d2-h6, and exchanging that bishop would weaken d4. As Fta~nik has pointed out, a drastic attempt to throw off the pressure with 22 ... d3? would fail to 23 Vj' xd3 i. xb2 24 :!::t b 1 i. c3 (after 24 ....i.a3 25 Vj'b3 Vj'e8 26 c3 Vj'e2 27 cxb4 Vj'xd2 28 ~xa3 I:te8 29 ~c1, Black is simply a pawn down) 25 i.xc3 bxc3 26 I:tb3! and White picks up a pawn. 23 b3

23 l{j'e4!? comes into consideration, as it stops c7-c5 and prepares a pawn onslaught on the kingside. Black still can't get at the b2-pawn under favourable conditions: after 23 ... d3 24 'iYxd3 i.xb2 25 lIbl etc., the fact that Black has gained the move h7-h6 doesn't improve matters enough to make his position attractive. 13

1993

pawn is gone. It seems this relatively simple tactic was overlooked at the board. You can sense that there was considerable tension during the first game of the match. Even these very strong players were missing tactical opportunities. (c2) 25 ... d5 26 'iVxd5 'iVxd5 27 cxd5 l:tc8 28 i.xb4 l:Ixc2 29 d6 and the passed pawn is dangerous. (c3) 25 ... ~c5 26 i.xh6 (26 ne2 ~xa5) 26 ... d5 27 cxd5 ~xc2, and Black is still breathing. (c4) 25 ...~xf3 26 gxf3 \iifS (26 ... l:Ic8 27 i.xb4; or 26 ... g5 27 f4!?) 27 \iifl (27 f4!?) 27 ... g5 (or 27 ....Jte5 28 f4 .Jtf6, and now not 29 \iie2 \iie7 30 \iid3+ \iid7 31 i.cl d5 32 cxd5 l:tb5, but 29 l:Ie4! - White first cuts off the black king, and only then approaches with his own: 29 ... g6 30 We2 i.g7 31 Wd3, and Black is in trouble) 28 \iie2 (28 l:Ie4 i.e5) 28 ... We7 29 \iid3+ \iid7 produces an endgame that is very difficult to judge. Black's position is better than it seems at first. If White plays 30 i.cl to go after the d4-pawn, Black has the resource 30... d5! 31 cxd5 l:tb5 with counterplay (c5) On 25 .. .'~c5, White is somewhat better. However, the position is not easy to break open. (d) 25 ~e4 (White's most important possibility) 25 ... llhe4 26 l:Ixe4 d5 (or 26 ... \iifS 27 \iifl, and White is g~tting closer to the d4-pawn) 27 cxd5 lIc8 28 i.xb4 l:Ixc2 29 \iifl, with decent winning chances.

23•••c5

After 23 ... ~d7 24 ~e4, the rook must defend the b4-pawn for some time to come. White has a free hand in preparing a pawn onslaught on the kingside, while Black's position remains rather passive. This is a pivotal moment in the game. By his own admission, Garry had thought 23 ... c5 unplayable. Possessing the more promising position, he now faces a difficult choice. He decides to keep the position closed. 241.f4!? The key alternative is 24 dxc6!? With 24 ... ~xc6, Black would hope to obtain counterplay against the c2pawn. There could follow: (a) 25 ~g4 d5 26 cxd5 ~xc2, and Black is still alive. (b) 25 ~h5 ~c5 (or 25 ...i.e5 26 'iVg4WfS, and it isn't easy to improve White's position), and now if 26 ~xc5 dxc5 27 \iifl t2 fxe5 31 'it'f3 'it'f6 32 g4 J:te7. In this variation Black escapes. 26 'ile4

It would be very risky for Black to pin any hopes on obtaining perpetual check in the difficult queen ending after 28 ... 'it'g7? 29 .th6+ \t>xh6 30 'iVxf6l:te8 31l:txe8 'iVxe8 32 f4 (if 32 'iYxd6 then 32 ... 'iYel+ 33 'it'h2 'iVxt2, and now 34 'iVe5 h4 35 d6 f6 and Black will have perpetual, or 34 'iVg3 'iYf5 and it is far from over) 32 ...'it'h7 33 'iYxd6 (after 33 \t>h2 'iVd7 34 Wg3 'iVf5 35 'iVxf5 gxf5 36 Wh4 White can't penetrate) 33 ... 'iVe3+ 34 'it'h2 h4 35 'iVe5 'iVg3+ 36 'it'gl d3 37 cxd3 'iVxd3. Black might escape, but even with Short's exceptional calculating ability it would have been unwise to risk this queen ending. So many variations, and in all of them Black is barely alive!

29l:te4 A nice move with which White gradually improves his position. 29 .....tf8 30 ~e2 ~c7 Nigel may well have been thinking about taking the a5-pawn.

26... h5! This prevents White from gaining space, though it also slightly weakens Black's own king. 27l:te2 g6 Tony Miles's recommendation was 27 ...h4. It isn't a move you would like to make voluntarily, but it was possibly better than the one played in the game. At this point both players were already short of time.

31..tg5

Tightening the screw. In Kasparov's opinion, he was already winning here. 31 •••~c8

Black mustn't give up the 8th rank with 3l...l:td7? 32 ~e8. A line with some tactical justification is 31...l:ta8; we shall see in the notes to move 33 that the rook would be better placed on this square. After 32 l:te8 :c8

28~f3..tg7

If 28 ... ~f5, then 29 ~e4! keeps up the pressure. 15

1993

White is better, but he still has some work to do to crack Black's defence.

has a move that would have been hard to see in advance ....

39 l:.el!! (defending and simultaneously creating a deadly threat) 40 'iYxd6 .ixal 39 ....tg7 41 'iYxa6! (this wouldn't have been possible if Black had played I:td8-a8 on move 31; to spot this point with limited thinking time, and with the huge pressure of the high stakes in this event, would be asking too much even from these marvellous players) 4l...l:lf8 42 'iYxal 'tWf4 43 ~dl, and White has excellent winning chances - as Fta(:!nik showed in his analysis. Now back to the game, where White has just played 33 .tf6. There followed: 33•••gxh3 34 ~g4

32 g4! Garry knows how to attack! Up to this point he has been gradually improving the placing of his pieces; now it is time to open up Nigel's king. 32••• hxg4 33 .i.f6? Here Garry uncharacteristically chooses an inferior attacking line, and actually lets Nigel of the hook. After 33 hxg4! ~xa5 34 .if6, there can follow: (a) 34 ....tg7 35 J:te8+ Wh7 36 J:txc8 .ixf6 37 ~e8 ~al + 38 Wg2 ~dl 39 ~xf7+ .ig7 40 ~f4 and White wins. (b) 34 .. :~c7 35 g5 (in his Informant commentary Garry gives this a question mark and analyses 35 f3; his conclusion is that White holds the advantage) 35 ... ~d7 36 ~f3 .ig7 (on 36...~f5 Garry misses 37 1:f4, which wins: 37 ... ~xc2 38 l:i.h4 .ig7 39 I!i'h3 +-) 37 l:.e7 'iYf5 38 'tj'xf5 gxf5 39 l:i.d7 .t f8 40 l:ta7 is a forlorn endgame for Black. (c) 34 ... ~al+ 35 ~g2 d3! (35 ... 'iYcl 36 g5 wins) 36 ~f3 (White also stands better after 36 .txal dxe2 37 J:txe2) 36... dxc2 37 .txal cl=~ 38 ~f6 'iYh6, and now it looks as if Black can survive, as 'iYh6-g7 will capitalize on the unprotected position of White's bishop on al. But White

34.. J:ta8? This is simply a bad move, but both players were short of time. The correct reply was 34 ....tg7!. In failing to play this, Nigel misses a splendid opportunity to set up a fortress - a 16

1993

36.. .'~xg7 37tIh4

possibility that Kasparov had seen. After 35 Ue7 kxf6 36 Mxc7 J:Ixc7 37 ~xh3, Black is probably able to hold the position by doing nothing. White has no access point for an invasion with his queen, and it is very hard to see how he could create one. 35~xh3?

Garry returns the favour - it is his now to go wrong. Instead 35 ~g5!, with its direct mating threat, would have prepared the knockout punch. After 35 ....i.g7 36 txh4 tIe8 (in The Times, Garry gives 36 ... ~d7 37 kxg7 Wxg7 38 ~h6+ Wf6 39 J:If4+, and now 39 ... We7 40 ~h4+ or 39... We5 40 ~g5+ f5 41 f3 and mate follows) 37 .i.xg7 Mel+ (37 ... Wxg7 38 ~h6+ Wf6 39 Uf4+ We7 40 Uxf7+ wins the queen) 38 Wh2 Wxg7 39 ~h6+ 'it'f6 (or 40 ... We7 40 Mf4+ We5 41 Mxf7+) 41 Wg3 l:.tgl+ 42 'it'f3 ~d8 43 ~g7+ f6 44 ~f7, there is nothing Black can do to avoid being checkmated. 35....t g7 36 .t xg7? This mistake in time trouble lets slip a simple win. After 36 l:e7! it is all over for Black, as 36 ... ~xa5 allows a spectacular sacrifice:

turn

37.. J:tg8!! A great defensive move, especially considering that it was played under severe time pressure. Black is preparing to march his king to safety on the queenside. 38 Mh7+ !fe6 51 ~b3+ Giving Black no chance. Garry first drives the enemy king back and then brings his knight to its best square. 51...'>ile7 52 tLld3 f6 53 tZlb4 f5 54..ta4 Mission accomplished. It is all over now. 54... fxe4 55 ..txc6 ..txc6 56 tZlxc6+

rj;;e6 57 ~e3 g5 57 ... ~d5 was also hopeless: 58 tZle7+ ~xc5 59 tZlxg6 ~d5 60 tZlh4. 58 ~xe4 h4 59 gxh4 1-0 In the opening Garry played intelligently and powerfully. Irrespective of how much had been prepared beforehand, it was an impressive performance. In the early middlegame he improved the placing of his pieces very effectively. Nigel was provoked into attacking rather than waiting passively. In the process he weakened his own position. Garry then went for a direct win, which was probably justified although not immediately necessary. Garry's error on move 27 allowed Nigel to play some fluent attacking moves. The chances he created may have given him better practical opportunities, but after one lapse the flow of his play was halted. From then on Garry gradually improved his position and never again lost his grip on the game. Once again, the opening was the crucial factor. Game 3 N.Short (2655) White G.Kasparov (2805) Black PCA World Championship (4 th game), London 1993 Sicilian Defence [B97]

Almost two and a half decades have passed since I competed against these two wonderful players at the World Junior Championships in Dortmund, but I still clearly remember Garry's comment on Nigel. He predicted that Nigel's somewhat narrow opening repertoire would eventually limit his progress. Incidentally, the principle behind this comment is one that I often applied after becoming a trainer. Nigel became strong enough to challenge Garry for the World 28

1993

Championship - but that same comment still held good, thirteen years down the line. Nigel continued to rely on I e4, and this made Garry's preparation for the match a good deal easier. He didn't have to divide his time by preparing replies to 1 c4 or I d4.

In previous games Garry had used three different lines: the Polugaevsky, the early ~d8-c7 with b7-b5, and the Poisoned Pawn variation which he chooses now. 8~d2

In Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2001, White didn't sacrifice his b-pawn but chose 8 lLl b3. Garry eventually drew the game although he was a pawn down after 8 ... ~e7 9 ~f3 ti'lbd7 10 0-0-0 ~c7 11 i.d3 b5 12 a3 l:'!b8 13 l:'!hel b4 14 axb4 l:rxb4 15 '.t>bl d7 26 ~g4+ '.t>c6 27 ~e2 I:td8 28 ~xa6+. Against Garry in the Brussels OHRA tournament in 1986, John Nunn tried sacrificing the pawn with 8 ~d3, but Garry virtually won the game in the opening. 8 .•. ~xb2

1 e4 c5 2 lLlo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4lLlf6 5lLlc3 a6 In his younger days Garry opened with the Caro-Kann (~f5 variation), but now he plays the Najdorf Sicilian. This opening has served him well throughout his career, especially when facing Karpov. In fact Garry's play forced Karpov to find an alternative to I e4, which he had favoured all his life! An interesting question is, did Kasparov have another opening in reserve in case things went wrong for him in the Najdorf? 6 i.g5 Refraining from 6 i.e3, the English Attack, which had brought Nigel a victory in 1987. He obviously felt it would be too easy a target for Garry's preparations, and opted for a different line which he had only used once before. Garry had played 6 Jtg5 a few times himself. Was he happy about facing it? Though Krum Georgiev beat him in a wild game in Malta 1980, he had done well against it. So Nigel is taking a risk. He will try to crack Garry with the aid of an unexpected continuation. 6..• e6 In his first game of the match with Black, which was drawn, Garry had answered with 6 ... lLlc6 and employed a new and risky variation to avoid possible preparation. That game was drawn. He now reverts to his normal line. He had adopted it against Nigel before, and· felt confident enough to use it a second time. 7 f4 ~b6

9lLlb3! A smart idea, though not without some risk against a player like Garry. Of course, anything Nigel tries will have risks attached. It's like boxing against a heavyweight champion, who could knock you out at almost any stage. In this variation there are fewer forced lines, and Black also has to defend for a while. Incidentally, 29

1993

winning advantage. 10 Jixf6 gxf6 11 iie2 tLlc6 Another game in the Poisoned Pawn variation between these two adversaries occurred in the Tal Memorial tournament, Riga 1995. In this position, however, Garry varied with I1...h5 120-0 tLld7 13 Whl h4 14 h3 iie7 15 l!t:adl b6 16 ~e3 Jib7 17 f5 l!t:c8 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 iig4 ~b2 20 l!t:d3 f5 21 l:bl ~xbl+ 22 tLlxbI fxg4 23 hxg4 h3, and the game ended in a draw. Garry's defensive strategy was to be 'cooked' in the game Luther-Quezada, Merida 2003, when White played 21 exf5 tLle5 22 f6 ~xc2 23 f7+ tLlxf7 24 l!t:f2 and soon won. 120-0 iid7 Garry employs the most orthodox moves, not revealing where he intends to put his bishop or, more importantly, his king. 13Whl White also tries to disclose as little as possible of his development plan. He retains the option of concentrating on either wing; 13 lih5 puts pressure on f7, but gets in the way of the attack if Black castles short. 13,..h5

players have been using this line with increasing frequency. The main line is 9 l!t:bl ~a3 10 f5. Nigel was to try this against Garry in a later game: 10 ... tLlc6 (Black does really well with the rarely played move 1O ... b5; a critical position sems to arise after 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 .Ii e2 lie7 13 lin ~a7) 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 tLlxc6 bxc6 13 lie2 (Garry's latest game with this line went 13 e5 dxe5 14 .lixf6 gxf6 15 tLle4 ~xa2 16 l!t:dl Jie7 17 lie2 0-0 180-0 l!t:a7 I9.l:.In Wh8 20 ~g3 l!t:d7 21 ~h6 l!t:f7 22 ~h5 l!t:xdl+ 23 JixdI ~a5 24 Wfl ~d8 25 ~xf7 ~xdl+, and Black achieved perpetual check; Vallejo-Kasparov, Moscow 2004) 13 ...lie7 14 0-0 0-0 15 ~b3 ~c5+ 16 lie3 ~e5 17 lid4 (17 lif4 was Ivanchuk's try against Garry in Linares 1990) I7 ... ~a5 18 i.b6, and a draw was agreed in Short-Kasparov, Novgorod 1995. Forcing a draw against Garry is no bad result. Ivanchuk tried going for the win, and eventually lost.

9..:"a3 As a regular contributor to the New

in Chess Yearbook, examining an important game in one of my recent reviews, I concluded that the older move 9 ...tLlc6 seemed playable. The position after 10 lixf6 (10 a3? tLla5 wins) 10 ... gxf6 11 tLla4 ~a3 12 tLlb6 ~b8 13 lllc4 ~a4 14 a3 b5 15 tLlxd6+ Jixd6 16 ~xd6 ~xe4+ 17 Jie2 Jib7 (on 17 ... ~d5 18 ~xd5 exd5 White has compensation, as the black pieces are somewhat passive) 18 0-0-0 ~xe2 19 tLlc5 ~e3+ 20 Wb2 was reached in GuseinovManakov, Baku 2001. If my analysis is correct, Black can hold the position with a surprising tactic and no longer has to play an extremely complicated middlegame. He continues with 20 ... .l:.Ic8!!, and if21 t'thel (Black has the same answer to 21 lId3 or 21 tLlxb7) then 2I...tLle5!! guarantees a

In Kasimdzhanov - Sadvakasov, Samba Cup 2003, the continuation was 13 ... ~c8 14 Jih5 (14 tLldl !?) 14 ....tg7 15 l!t:n 0-0 16l':tafl (instead of 16 ~d I!? as in Am. Rodriguez30

1993

Vera, Havana 1978) 16 ...LiJa5 17 5 LiJc4 18 ~f4 LiJe5 19 ~g3 ~h8 20 J::rxg7 ~xg7 21 ~g3+ ~h8 22 ~h4 J::rg8 23 !t.xf7 LiJxf7 24 ~xf6+ ~g7 25 fxe6 LiJe5 26 exd7 lLlxd7 27 ~d4 ~b2 28 lLld5 ~xc2 29 LiJe3 J::rcxg2 30 ~xd6 ~f2 O-\. The final position is quite remarkable. 14liJdl The famous 11 th game between Spassky and Fischer at Reykjavik in 1972 went 14 tLJbl ~b4 (l4 ... ~b2!? 15 a3 J::rc8!) 15 ~e3 d5? There followed 16 exd5 LiJe7 17 c4! tLJ5 18 ~d3 h4? 19 !t.g4 tLJd6 20 tLJld2 5? 21 a3! ~b6 22 c5! ~b5 23 ~c3 fxg4 24 a4! h3 25 axb5 hxg2+ 26 ~xg2 J::rh3 27 ~f6 LiJf5 28 c6 !t.c8 29 dxe6 fxe6 30 l':'Ifel !t.e7 31 1':txe6, and here the great American resigned. In Jingxuan - Karpov, Hanover 1983, Fischer's successor improved Black's play with 15 ...LiJe7 and went on to win after 16 c4 f5 17 a3 ~a4 18 tLJc3 ~c6. Another World Champion also had his say in this variation: at Leningrad 1973, Tal played 14 Yj'e3!? against Robert Byrne. The game was eventually drawn. 14••• l:te8

15 LiJe3 15 J::rf3 is Ftacnik's interesting recommendation. It keeps the e3square free for the queen. 15...~b4 16 c3 ~xe4 Garry takes the second pawn, which is potentially a significant material plus. In addition Black has the two bishops, so White will have to be careful when opening up the position. On the other hand Black's queen is under attack, his pieces are not well co-ordinated, and his king has yet to find shelter. After 16 ...~b6 17 liJc4 ~c7 18 ~adl, his position would be unpleasantly passive. 17 !t.d3 17 tLJc4 is also possible, though it provides Black with opportunities to rescue his queen from the danger zone. In reply to 17 ... LiJd8 (White has compensation after 17 ... ~ d5 18 it.d3), White can choose between: (a) 18liJb6 J::rc7 19 tLJa8 (if 19 it.f3 ~g6 20 nael, White again has compensation, but it's very hard to tell how it can be exploited) 19...l:c8 20 tLJ b6 and despite having 2 pawns for the exchange, Back's best choice is probably to repeat moves. (b) 18 liJd4 ~g6 19 ii.d3 5 20 l:fel, with immense pressure on the e- and d-files for the two pawns deficit. After 20 ... it.e7 21 LiJxd6+ !t.xd6 22 tLJxf5 e5 23 fxe5 !t.xf5 24 exd6+ 'it'd7 25 l:e7+ ~c6 26 !t.x5 ~x5 27 J::rdl, the attack becomes really dangerous. 17••• ~a418 tLJe4 IIe7 18 ... l::td8 is also possible, but the black king might want to escape to the the queenside and the rook would be blocking its way. 19liJb6 ~a3 20 J::rael?! Ever since this game, players of the White side have settled for a draw by constantly attacking the queen (which apparently can always evade an attempt to trap it). If White wants to obtain something more, the only way

Black is renouncing the possibility of castling for some time to come, but it is not at all easy to demolish the pawn chain in front of his king. White is well placed after 14 ... ~b4 15. Yj'e3. 31

1993

is to try to break through the strong pawn chain and attack the king. But that is not easy to achieve: (a) 20 'iVe3 lDe7 (on 20 ... i.e7, White can force a draw with 21 lDc4 or 21 lDa8, perpetually attacking the queen or rook; but he is unlikely to have more than that) 21 f5 (21 lDc4 lDd5 22 VJiia7 'iVa4 is good for Black, as Garry pointed out) 21...i.h6 22 ~e1 e5 23 lDc4 ~xc4 24 i.xc4 d5, and Black frees his position. (b) 20 ~fel!? (the rook achieves little on fl; despite this, putting the other rook Qn e 1 may be better) 20 ... lDe7, and now: (b I) 21 fS d5 (2l...e5 22 lDc4 l:txc4 23 i.xc4 i.h6 24 'iV12 leads to another complex position, where White might have somewhat better chances) 22 fxe6 fxe6 23 ~f4, with an attack. (b2) 21 lDc4 lhc4 22 ~xc4 h4 23 :l:.:tad1 (th~ rooks are now positioned more favourably than in the game) 23 ...i.c6 24 lDd4 h3 25 lDxc6, and the position is balanced.

follow: (a) 21 f5 lDe5 22 fxe6 fxe6 23l:txf6 i.e7 and according to Garry, Black is better. (b) 21 ~t2 d5 (2l...lDa5 22 f5 ~e7 23 fxe6 fxe6 24 lDxd7 xd7 25 lDd4 is dangerous) 22 f5 l:th6 (Black soon starts to prise away White's grip) 23 lDa8 lDe5 (23 ... l:tc8 24 ~b6+ ~e7 25 fxe6 fxe6 26 lDc5 is quite powerful) 24 lDxc7 xc7, and Black is doing all right. (c) 21 lDc4 ~a4 22l:te4?! (another case where White fails to trap the queen) 22 ... d5! 23 lDb6 ~a3 24 :a4 ~d6.

21 lDc4 Alternatively: (a) 21 fS ~h6! (better than 2l...e5 22 i.e4 i.h6 23 ~d3, when the white queen is well placed) 22 ~e2 e5, and Black is no longer in danger of losing the game. (b) 21 c4, and now: (b1) 21...f5 (2l...kg7 is Tisdall's suggestion, and it looks solid) 22 c5 (22 l:to kc6) 22 ...d5 (22 ...lDc8 23 lDd5) 23 i.xfS kg7 (after 23 ... lDxf5 24 lDxd5 ~d8 Black can try to cross to the queens ide, but he can't shake off the attack: 25 lDxc7 xc7 26 :l:.:td1 kc8 27 ~d8+ b8 28 :l:.:td7) 24 i.c2 ~b2 25 and maybe White's prospects are favourable. (b2) 2l...i.c6 22 ke4 ~xe4 23 :l:.:txe4 fS 24 lIe3 kg7, and Black will castle safely. The fact that this possibility exists shows how complex the position is. 21. .. l:txc4! This exchange is forced, but it comes as a relief as well. Not 2l...~a4 22 lDxd6+ and wins. 22 i.xc4 h4! Not an obvious move, but a very strong one. It is justified by the fact that White has no direct threat. Black has several options for bringing out his pieces, but virtually any move to

:0

20•••lDe7! Garry simply gives up the exchange

to loosen White's grip. He was behind on the clock, so it was a practical decision as well. Not 20 ...i.e7? 21 lDc4 ~a4 22 l:te4, and White at last catches the queen. A playable alternative, though not risk-free, was 20 ... d8. There could 32

1993

that end would 'reveal his hand' and inadvertently help the attacker. This way, it may be possible to open up White's king; in addition, the rook can come into play via h5.

these lines are not forced, but you can imagine how unpleasant they must have been to calculate for a player who himself was thinking about attacking a few moves earlier. 23 llJd4!? looks like a reasonable alternative to 23 Ad3, but here too Black shouldn't be worse. 23•.• f5! So Garry has survived the pressure and now slowly takes over. 24 Ae2 i.g7 25 c4 25 i.. f3 was not an attractive alternative because of25 ...b5. 25••• h3 26 g3 d5

It's remarkable how Black has now taken control of the centre.

23 i.d3? Black's cunning semi-waiting move has confused Nigel, who now loses a tempo. Maybe he wanted to stop an eventualllJe7-f5-g3+. It is pure speculation, but if Garry had had White in this position he might well have offered a draw. 23 l:':tf3?! h3 opens up the White king. Nigel in tum could have concealed his intentions by playing 23 Ae2!. Then 23 ... d5! looks quite attractive. (Black can follow up with b7-b5 forcing White to wait passively, as there is no open file to occupy. Don't forget that Black already has two pawns for the exchange! Other options include 23 ...i.g7, or 23 ...h3 24 g3 d5. Even 23 ... f5 would satisty many players.) Play could continue: 24 c4 (24 Ag4 f5 25 Af3 b5 is pleasant for Black) 24 ... llJf5 25 Ag4 Ab4 (25 ...llJh6 26 Af3) 26 v.wxd5 (or 26 'iYdl?! llJg3+ 27 hxg3 hxg3+ 28 i.h3 dxc4, and suddenly Black has become the aggressor) 26 ... 'iYxa2 (26 ...i.xel 27 I:txel ~b4 28 'iYa5 isn't so clear) 27 'iYxf5 i..xel 28 'iYd3 i.c6 29 i..f3 i.b4, and Black has decent winning chances. Of course

27 i.O? Short yawns. "What's this? The complications have driven the author crazy," you may be thinking. "And it's only the beginning of the book, so what kind of nonsense is going to emerge later?" But let me explain. In Russian chess slang, to yawn is another way of saying to blunder. The spectators were certainly not yawning from boredom. The games these players had produced in the match so far had been extremely exciting. Nigel makes a losing move, but all credit to Kasparov who turns defence into attack with great vigour. After 27 cxd5 llJxd5 28 Af3 0-0 White has a passive and joyless game, but it may 33

1993

written immediately after the game, just putting in what he had calculated over the board. 29 J:txc3 ..txc3 30 'it'xc3 0-0 31l:tgl Or 31 g4 fxg4 32 i..xg4 ~xa2 33 l:tgl tLlg6, and again Black wins. 31...l:tc8 32 ..tc6 33 ..txc6 l:txc6 34 g4111g6 According to Garry, 34 ... fxg4 was even better. 35 gxf5 exf5 36 ~ xf5 'iV xa2

not be over after 29 tLld4 (29 i..xd5 exd5). 27•••dxc4 28 J:[e3 Prompted by necessity, this move is imaginative but it falls short. After 28 l:tdl tLld5 29 Axd5 exd5, there could follow: (a) 30 tLld4 0-0, and White is lost. Remarkably, Black castles as late as move 30 and it gives him a winning position. (b) 30 J:tfel+ i..e6 (if 30 ... Wf8, then not 31111d4 .i.xd4 but 31 ~xd5! ~xa2 32 ~xb7) 31 ~xd5 0-0 (once Black shelters his king, White will be in dire trouble) 32 l:he6 fxe6 33 ~xe6+ ~h7 34 ~xc4 ~xa2 and White is in a hopeless situation. (c) 30 ~xd5 .i.c6 31l:tfel +

"'f6

37~xb3 ~c2!

Finally the queen returns to the centre, after behaving like a female counterpart to a bull in a china shop. 38 IS :&tc3! 39 'it'g4? 39 llld4 would have lasted longer, but without altering the result of the game: 39 ... 'iYe4+ 40 'iYg2 ~xg2+ wins. 39...lhb3 40 fxg6 "'c6+ 0-1 Another very exciting game. This time Nigel surprised Garry, who had a two-pawn advantage but a passive though defensible position. Nigel avoided a draw, but was not able to convert his pressure into a decisive advantage. Garry gradually neutralized the pressure, and when he sacrificed the exchange he left his troubles behind. He played this part of the game very powerfully. In the previous games he had allowed his opponent to get back into the game from an inferior position, but this time he was not so obliging. Garry may have made some slight inaccuracies, but it appears that in this game he moved into top gear. But then it also seems that nothing went Nigel's way in the first four games of the match; the luck favoured Garry. If fortune had smiled on Nigel, the match would have been a much closer contest, though one feels that Garry, as the stronger player, would still have come out on top. Sad for English hopes - yet the match

31...i.. e5 !!. Anyone could miss such a beautiful IIJ.ove; this is probably where Nigel 'yawned' (31... Wf8? would be a horrible mistake in view of 32 ~xc6 bxc6 33 J:td8 mate). After 321:he5+ Wf8, White is totally lost. 28••• c3 Garry takes a practical decision, and his move wins the game. He says 28 ... cxb3 would have been a mistake, but that move actually wins as well: 29 1:xb3 ~a4 30 l:txb7 i.c8 31 l:tdl O-O!! (Garry misses this very fine defensive resource in his Informant analysis; another example of a 'killer' Qastling move) 32 J:txe7 ~a3!' A lovely double attack! You get the feeling that Kasparov's published analysis was sometimes 34

1993

produced somq truly great games. In the fifth game Short introduced a novelty on the Black side of the 'tVc2 Nimzo-Indian. Kasparov decided to steer towards a draw. There was nothing left to play for by move 18. Facing the Najdorf again in the sixth game, Short switched to 6 1l.c4. He achieved a very promising position, but was unable to break down Garry's defences. Nigel sacrificed a bishop, but had to settle for perpetual check as his back rank was weak. In the seventh game, Garry's special strength brought him another victory.

So Nigel doesn't even choose a different line within the standard Ruy Lopez. 8 a4 ..ab7 9 d3 d6 Nigel is the first to deviate from the third game, in which he played 9.. J::i.e8. 10 llJbd2llJd7 Playing in a style that recalls his handling of the main variation with S... d6 9 c3 0-0 10 h3. Ever since this game, 10 ... tZ:ld7 has been gaining popularity compared with the more common 10... llJa5. The move helps to strengthen e5, but on the other hand it relinquishes some control over d5 and e4.

Game 4 G.Kasparov (2805) White N.Short (2655) Black PCA World Championship (7th game), London 1993

Ruy Lopez [CBB] I e4 In the 5th match game Kasparov had tried 1 d4, but Nigel surprised him and achieved an easy draw. After that game Kasparov's team tried to fmd a hole in Nigel's preparation for the 'iYc2 Nirnzo-Indian. Garry's first move here su~gests that they hadn't yet had any success. 1.•• e5 Either this is a sign of stubbornness, or else Nigel hadn't prepared an alternative opening for this title fight. If the latter was the case, was it the result of not having enough time for his preparations, or was it due to lack of experience? Whatever the explanation, Nigel's decision proves unfortunate. Of course he shouldn't have gone so far as to borrow one of Michael Basman's openings, but he should certainly have switched to an alternative defence. 2 llJo llJc6 3 ..a b5 a6 4 1I.a4 llJf6 50-0 ..ae7 6 l:tel b5 7 ..ab3 0-0

11 c3! Garry gives this move an exclamation mark. In a lengthy analysis of various lilies arising from the alternative 11 llJ f1, he concludes that the position is equal. 11 •..llJc5 11.. .'~:J b6!? is an interesting recommendation of Ftacnik's. It has yet to be put into practice. 12 axb5 axb5 13 l:t xa8 ..a xa8 Eleven years later (Linares 2004), Topalov hit back with 13 ... 'ihaS. In Russian as in English, the verb 'to take' is used to indicate capturing a pawn, but the Russians also often use 'to hit'; sometimes they even say 'to eat'. The Kasparov-Topalov game continued 14 .tc2 b4 (14 ....tf6 15 b4 35

1993

match, Garry stands a little better and has a slight initiative. Nigel has to be on his guard. Kasparov suggests that the attempt to occupy the centre with 19 ctJc2!? was more effective. Then after 19 ... ctJe7 (19 .. :iH6 20 ctJa3 is also unpleasant) 20 d4 exd4 21 cxd4, White is somewhat better.

ctJe6 16 ctJfl g6 17 ctJe3 Jl..g7 18 JI.. b3 fi d8 19 h4 would transpose, remarkably, into the present game) 15 d4 bxc3 16 bxc3 ctJ d7 17 ctJ fl JI.. f6 18 d5 ctJcb8 19 h4 ctJc5 20 ctJg3 Jl..c8 21 ctJg5 h6 22 ctJh5. Garry built up his attack very nicely, but later blundered and had to settle for a draw. 14 .te2 Af6?! A game between two FIDE World Champions went 14 ...ctJe6 15 ctJfl ctJg5 (the knight's journey from f6 to g5 is a remarkable manoeuvre) 16 ctJg3 (or 16 ctJe3 ctJxt3+ 17 'iYxt3 Jl..g5 and White is slightly better) 16 ... g6 17 b4 ctJxt3+ 18 'iYxt3 .tg5 19 Ab3 .i.xcl 20 ~xcl ~g5 21 ~al (Kasimdzhanov-Khalifman, Moscow rapid 2002). The game ended in a draw. 15 b4! ctJe6 16 ctJO Ab7?!

19.• ..i.e8 19... ctJe7 doesn't ease the pressure either: 20 ctJg4 .i.c8 21 ctJg5 ctJf4 22 .txf4 exf4 23 ~t3 .txg4 24 ~xg4 Jl..xc3 25 ~xf4 d5, OnischukTimman, Koop Tjuchem 1996. 20 h5 '.iJ h8?! It is easy to criticize this move, yet so hard to recommend anything better. White keeps some advantage in all lines, and choosing the best defensive configuration is very difficult: (a) 20 ... ctJe7 21 d4, and Black is worse. (b) 20 ... .i.h6 21 ctJd5 .txcl 22 ~xcl '.iJg7 23 ~e3 is a reasonable alternative, as Black has managed to exchange his passive bishop. Nevertheless he can do little more than wait and see how White can mount an attack. (c) 20 ....td7 may be best, though once again Black must simply watch while White builds up his position. 21 ctJd5! g5?! The consequence of putting the king on h8 is that 21../iJe7 is no longer available, for 22 h6 would win the

According to Garry this move deserves a question mark. Such a comment puts other annotators on the spot. To me, he seems to be judging the move too harshly. It doesn't look like a clear mistake, as the intention is to bring the bishop to a defensive position. Later, Garry omits to give a question mark to 20 ... '.iJh8. White is also better after 16... d5 17 exd5 ~xd5 18 ctJe3 'iYd8 19 ctJg4 e4 20 ctJxf6+ 'iYxf6 21 dxe4 'iYxc3 22 ~e3. 17 ctJe3 g618 .tb3 .tg719 h4!? Just as in the first game of the 36

1993

bishop. White answers 2l ... gxh5 with 22 g3 i.f6 (as Tisdall points out, after 22 ... f5 23 exf5 ~xf5 24 tLlh4 l:l:f8 25 ~xh5 White is clearly better) 23 'it' g2 h4 24 I:th I! (Black has attacking chances after 24 tLlxf6 h3+ 25 'it'xh3 tLlf4+ 26 'it'h2 ~xf6) 24 ...hxg3 25 tLlxe5!! (Garry analyses 25 fxg3 only), and if 25 ... tLlxe5 then 26 ~h5. The fact that Garry missed the winning shot suggests that in those days he didn't use a computer to assist him in his published analyses. Maybe Ian Rogers's 21...'it'g8!? was the best practical chance. It might allow Black a wider range of choices later.

ation, but White's bishop on b3 and the open h-file would make Black's life uncomfortable in the long run: 26 tLlxg5 (or 26 i.xg5 ~d7 27 tLlh4) 26 ...~d7 27 g4 d5 28 tLlh3, and White is somewhat better. As Tisdall mentions in his article in the British Chess Magazine, 25 ...i.f6!? was Michael Adams's suggestion in the analysis room. White has quite a few playable replies, and it is very hard to say which one is best. He certainly has pressure, and Black must be very cautious: (a) 26 'it'g2 (the line given by Tisdall) 26 ...tLlg7 27 J::thl tLlxf5 28 i.d5 tLlce7 29 tLlxg5 tLlxd5 30 I:txh7+ (after 30 ~h5 h6 31 tLle4 White has compensation for the pawn) 30 ... 'it'g8 31 ~h5. Here Tisdall and Adams both missed the remarkable move 3l ... tLlfe3+, winning for Black. (b) 26 i.d5 tLle7 27 tLlxg5 tLlxd5 28 ~xh5 i.xg5 29 i.xg5 f6 30 i.d2 with a complex position. (c) 26 tLlxg5 i.xg5 27 'ib'xh5 i.xcl 28 ~xcl ~f6 29 ~al (or 29 g4 ~g8 30 'it'fl l:g5 31 ~h3 and White is probably somewhat better) 29 ... tLle7 30 l:l:a7 c6 31 g4, and White's position is preferable. (d) 26 tLld2! tLlg7 27 tLle4 '.ii>g8 (or 27 ...tLlb8 28 \ttg2) 28 ~g4 h5 29 ~ f3 is better for White.

22 tLle3 tLlf4 22 ...h6 might have prolonged the game, but it is doubtful whether it represents a viable alternative in a contest at this level. 23 g3! tLl xh5 At least Black has gained a pawn in compensation for his ugly position. 24 tLlfS This time Oarry doesn't hide his intentions but shows his cards immediately; 24 'it'g2 looks like an interesting alternative. 24...i.xfS 25 exfS ~d7 25 ...h6 would not have worked in view of26 tLlxg5 +-. 25 ...tLlf6!? might well have been a better choice than the game continu-

26 i.xg5 h6?!

The alternatives are as follows: 37

1993

33 ~xh6+ 'Oiig8 34 Ji.e4) 30 Ji.xh6 (30 i.d5 tiJb8 31 Ji.xh6 Wilxd3 does look very risky, but it's impossible to see how White can deliver checkmate: 32 'i:Vg5 tiJxh6 33 J:txh6+ i.xh6 34 'iVxh6+ ~g8 only gives perpetual check) 30 ... tiJxh6 31 J:txh6+ gl! (after 32 .i.d5 tiJf4+!! 33 gxf4 tiJe7 34 fxe5 tiJx,d5 35 l:th4 l:th8, Black survives) 32 ... tiJf4 (or 32 ... l:ta8 33 i.d5 l:tal+ 34 ~h2 and White wins) 33 ~h4 tiJg6 34 i..d5 tiJce7 35 'iVh6+ ~f6 36 g4, and White fmally catches the black king. (b) 28 ... 'iVg6 29 i.d5 tiJd8 (29 ...hxg5 30 tiJxg5) 30 tiJxe5! dxe5 31 Wilxh5 and Black makes it to the ending, though White's domination is obvious. 27...tiJf6 28 .txf6 .txf6 29 ~b5

(a) 26 ...d5 27 tiJh2 tiJf6 28 Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 29 ~h5 e4 30 d4 (if 30 tiJg4, then 30... Ji.xc3 31 l:tc 1 Ji.d4 32 ~h6 i:tg8) 30...J:tg8 31 tiJg4 Ji.g5 32 Wg2 ~xf5 33 tiJe3, and White is clearly better. (b) As Fta~nik shows, after 26 ... ~xf5? 27 Ji.d5 tiJb8 (White has the same answer to 27 ... tiJd8, while 27 ...Wild7 loses a piece to 28 tiJh2) 28 i.e7 J::te8 29 tiJh4 Wild7 30 Wilxh5 i:txe7 31 tiJf5 l:te8 32 Wg2, White is winning. (c) 26 ... tiJf6! would have avoided a direct loss. (d) 26 ...i.f6! keeps Black in the game as well.

~h7

27 tiJh4!? 27 ~g2!? i& another way to attack in similar fashion, though the Black position doesn't collapse: 27 ... 'i:Vxf5 (27 ...hxg5 isn't a real option as Black is unable to hold the piece after 28 J::thl; if 27 ... Wg8, then 28 l:thl tiJf4+ 29 gxf4 hxg5 30 fxg5 Wilxf5 31 i.d5 and White is clearly better) 28 l:thl, and now: (a) 28 ...tiJf6 gives White these choices: (al) 29 Wilcl tiJg4 (putting up real resistance; the difference between this and 29 ...tiJg8 is that the knight isn't taking a square away from the king. According to Garry's analysis, White wins after 29 ... tiJg8? 30 i.d5 tiJce7 31 i.xe7 tiJxe7 32 I:txh6+ i.xh6

30 tiJg2?!

Right after the game Garry said 30 tiJf3! would have been decisive, yet in his Informant analysis he doesn't mention this possibility (nor 38

1993

does he append any sign to 30 LtJg2). After 30 ... LtJe7, there could follow: (a) 31 d4 exd4 32 LtJxd4 (32 cxd4 ttJg8) 32 ... LtJg8 33 .i.c2 and White is better, but it isn't easy to crack Black's position. (b) 31 g4 c:j;;g7 32 J:!.e3 (32 c:j;;g2 ~c6) and White holds the initiative; 32 .. :~e8 would condemn Black to a joyless defence. 30...LtJe7 31 LtJe3 LtJg8 Alternatively: (a) On 3l...d5, Ftatnik demonstrates an entertaining win with 32 ttJg4 LtJg8 33 ~xh6+!' (b) 3l....i.g5? 32 f4 exf4 33 gxf4 .i.xf4 (or 33 ...l:tg8 34 .i.xf7 J:Ig7 35 .i.g6+ LtJxg6 36 fxg5) 34 i.xf7 .i.g5 35 f6 .i.xf6 36 LtJg4 and wins. (b) 3l...~c6 32 .i.xf7 c:j;;g7 (32 ...~xc3 33 l:tdl cJJg7 34 LtJd5 is pretty) 33 .i.e6 ~xc3 34 :t:tdl and Black's king is desperately vulnerable.

32 g2 would indicate White's intention to play ~e I-h I later on. After 32 ... i.g7 (32 ... i.g5 33 llhl) 33 :!:Ihl (or 33 ~f3 c6 34 LtJg4 and White has some initiative) 33 ...LtJf6 34 ~f3, White's position looks somewhat better. 32... exd4 33 cxd4 i.xd4? Nigel has wandered into a minefield and immediately misses the hidden path to safety: 33 ... i.g5! is a very subtle defensive move, and according to Garry it equalizes. Black provokes 12-f4, which would weaken the white king's position. There can follow: 34 ~dl (after 34 f4 White is unlikely to trap the king: 34 ....i.f6 35 LtJg4 c:j;;g7 36 c:j;;h2 i.xd4 is safe for Black) 34 ... J:!.e8 35 ~d3 f8, his reaction to a different novelty was tested in his game against Anand at Linares 1995. That game went II...l::rg8 12 tild2 tilf6 13 ~f3 eS (13 ...b6 14 tilc4 Ab7, as in Spasov-Meduna, Budapest 2000, is interesting) 14 dxeS AxeS IS tilc4 Ae6 16 .i.d2 0-0-0 17 0-0-0 tild7 18 nhel nge8 19 hl was possible yet 70

1994

(b23) IS ~h5+ ~e7 19 "iVxh6 (or 19 ttJg3 ~e5) 19 ... ~e5 20 ttJc3 ~hS and the ending is harmless. (b24) IS ttJc3 ttJe5 (l8 ... ttJf6 19 ~ xh6 ~ e5 should be satisfactory for Black) 19 ~h5+ ~f7 20 ~xh6 ~g6 21 ~h3 .Jid7, and Black must be OK here too. (c) In the third place, there is no forced refutation of 16....txb2.

less convincing; after 16 ... i.e5 Black could offer more resistance than in the game. 16...i.e5 Garry's win was so convincing that there was no other game in which Black repeated Kamsky's play. Black does, however, have three other possibilities in this position: (a) First, 16 ....tg7 17 f4 gxf4 IS i.xf4 e5 19 i.e3, and White has no worries about obtaining enough for the pawn. (b) Secondly, 16 ....txe3 is given a question mark by Kasparov. And now: (b I) It is most likely that Garry would have taken back with 17 'iV xe3 in order to keep the e-file open. After 17 .. :~Ve5 (l7 ... ~f4 IS ~e2) IS ~h3, White has decent compensation for the pawn. (b2) Garry's own comment stops after 17 fxe3 with the evaluation "better for White", but after 17 ... f5! things are not that simple. The position is reminiscent of the ~b6 Najdorf, which Garry plays as Black. Here Black threatens to take the knight, and 'i'c7-e5 is a strong resource. It has not been possible to fmd a convincing way to break open Black's defence:

•.• ,. ... •.i.l...D..'i•f

.1 . . . . . . . .1. ~,

.,.,.

%

~

~

.••:=

_ • t::,-t::,.

U wt::,%

There are thre main possibilities: (c 1) 17 ~ae I!? (it is remarkable that neither Kasparov nor Kamsky mentioned this move) 17 ....Jie5 IS g3, and now: (cll) IS ... l::thS 19 f4 (White can also think of making the preparatory move 19 hl before unleashing f2f4) 19 ... gxf4 20 gxf4 (or 20 .Jixf4) 20 .. J::tg8+ 21 hl .Jig7 22 f5 (or 22 l::tgl !?) and White has nice compensation in the centre. (c12) IS ... b6 19~xh6 .tb7 (after 19 ... g4 20 ~h5 White's attack is dangerous) 20 ttJxg5 (after 20 f4 gxf4 21 .txf4 0-0-0, Black enjoys some safety at last) 20 .. JIhS 21 ttJxe6 and White has an overwhelming attack. (c2) 17 c3!? Garry gives this move an exclamation mark. It is an amazing idea; White is ready to sacrifice the exchange as well, just to get rid of the dark-squared bishop. After 17 ...J.xal ISl::txal, Black has these choices: (c21) 18... ~e5 19 I:tdl (or 19 .td4 ~f4, when White can continue 20 J:tel c5 21 ttJxc5 ttJxc5 22 .txc5; if instead 20 ~xh6 ~h4 21 ttJf6+

(b21) IS ttJg3 ttJe5, after which Black most probably castles long and isOK. (b22) IS "iVxh6 ~e5 19 ttJg3 ttJf6 20 e4 f4 21 ttJh5 ttJg4, and again Black does all right. 71

1994

CDxf6 22 ~xf6 ~f4 23 ~h6 ~h4, Black can at least draw by repetition) 19 ... f5 (I9 ... g4 20 ~h4 f5 21 i.d4 is dangerous) 20 .lid4 ~d5 21 ~h5+ e7 32 lildxe4 (32 'iYxf6+ i.xf6 33 l':th7+ \t>d8 34 l':txc7 \t>xc7 35 IiIxf6 l':td8 gives Black good chances of escaping) 32 ... i.xh3 (after 32 ...l::tffl 33 'iYh7 \t>d8 34 lIdl Axh3 35 IiIxd6+ \t>e8 36 ~xh3, White's attack is decisive) 33 lilxf6 ~a7+ 34 l:If2 .tf5 35 lilxe8+ xe8 36 'iYh7, and Black is in trouble. (b213) 28 ... f4 29 .tc4+ '.t'ffl. Now Black's position is hanging by a thread, though it is not easy to prove that he is necessarily lost: (b2131) 30 l':tdl Axh3 31 'ifxh3 l':te7 32 'iYh7 '.t'e8 33 i.f7+ l':txf7 34 gxf7+ '.t'xf7, and Black is far from dead.

31....te6 32lild5 'iYd7 (32 ... 'iVa7 is also unclear), and it is possible White can slowly build up pressure, though after 33 l::ta2 J::tb7 34 lild2 J::teb8 35 b3 ~e8 Black should be all right. It is a pity Garry did not examine this line. 76

1994

(b22) 25 ... ~xd4 26 .txg6 fxg6 (26 ...dxc3 27 ~h7+ 'itf8 28 f6 wins) 27 ~h7+ 'it'f8 28l::Ifl!! gxf5 29 exf5.

And now: (b221) 29 ... dxc3 30 f6 is decisive. (b222) On 29 ... I:te1, the Champion himself gives 30 J:txe 1 dxc3 31 J:tfl LLlxb3 32 f6 'iVc5+ 33 Whl kb7+

brilliant 29 th move; the rook has made room for the king to slip away). White can try: (b2231) 31 tllxd4 kxh3. (b2232) 31 Mg3. After this move an extremely complicated position arises. White has compensation, but Black should at least be able to hold, e.g.: (b22321) 31...tlle6 gives real chances of weathering the storm: 32 f7+ 'it'd8 33 ~xg7 tllxg7 34 f8=~+ tlle8 35 tllxd4 ~c5, and Black frees himself from the pressure. (b22322) 31 ... :!::tb7 32 lLlxd4 (32 fxg7 ~xg7) 32 ...i..f8 (or 32 ... lLle6 33 fxg7 Wiixg7 34 'iYh5+ Wd8 35 LLlf5, and it is very hard to judge the position accurately) 33 Wiixc7 l:txc7 34 g6 iL.g7, and Black's position is difficult to destroy. (b2233) 31 fxg7 l:txg5+ 32 l:tg3 'iYxg7 (Black escapes from the attack) 33 'iYxg7 J:txg7 34 J:txg7 dxc3 35 tlld4 (after 35 I:tg8+ 'it'd7 36 lLld4 Wc7, Black is safe) 35 ... cxb2 36 1:rg8+ b 1 l:t x5?

Chess history is written mainly by the winners. It would be fascinating to

16••• fxe517 Vliid6!

82

1994

know how far Nigel had analysed the opening at home, and what he had missed or misjudged. The complications and the probable effect of surprise have placed him under so much pressurti, with such difficult lines to calculate, that he loses his way immediately. A number of people searched for an improvement, and came up with 19 .. .cD f6 as a particularly strong candidate. There can follow: (a) 20 fxe6? lZle4 21 ~xd5 lZld2+ 22 l:Ixd2 (or 22 \t>al .txe6! -+) 22 ....txe6 23 ~d6 ~xd2 24 ~xd2 l:Ixfl + and Black wins. (b) 20 lZlb6lZle4 21 VJJIc7 (21 VJJIc6 :ab8) 2l...:t:i.t7 (2l...lZlf2 22 .te2!) 22 ~xe5 :axf5 23 ~d4 (it is doubtful whether Garry would have taken a draw by 23 ~c7 l:It7 24 ~d8+), and now: (bl) Wedberg-Brynell, Link{)ping 2001, went 23, ..:ab8 24 :aD! :af4 (or 24 ... g6 25 lZlxc8 :t:i.xc8 26 .txa6, and the bishop looks better than the knight) 25 .tc4!! (25 lZlxc8 :axc8 26 kxa6) 25, ..:axO 26 gxO lZlf6 27 lZlxc8 :t:i.xc8 28 kxa6; White is better, as he has the superior minor piece. (b2) 23 ... lZld2+ 24 l:Ixd2 'iYxd2 (after 24 ...:axfl+ 25 :ad! :axdl+ 26 ~xdl :ab8 27 :ac3 :axb6 28 :!:!'xc8+ h7 26 il.d8 ~xe6 27 dxe6 "iYxe6 28 .i.xa5 b6, and the position looks balanced. (f22233) 20 ... ~f6 21 g4 (after 21 il.g5 "iYfl 22 g4 Wh7 23 tZlxf8+ l::txf8 24 gxh5 cxd5 White has no more than a playable position) 21...l:.h8 (2l...l:He8! transposes into variation 'f22232') 22 .i.g5 o/iifl?? (22 ... tZlf4! 23 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 24 tZlxf4+ Wfl is unclear)

23 tZle4!! (a lovely shot indicated by Fta~nik) 23 ... .i.c7 24 tZlf6! wins. (f22234) 20 ...VoI;'d7!, and now: (f222341) 21 ttJxf8+ (reducing the material deficit, but the threat to the black king is greatly diminished) 2l...l:.xf8 22 il.e3 (too slow, as Black has a couple of ways of organizing his pieces) 22 ... ttJf6 (or 22 ... cxd5 23 ~xd5 b6 24 l::td1 ~d8 25 b4 tZlb7 26 tZlb5 tZlf6, and Black saves the piece) 23 l:!.dl c5 and White has no compensation for the piece deficit. (f222342) 21 g4 tZlf6 22 ~xf5+ Wfl 23 g5 Wg8 (or 23 ... cxd5 - here too, it looks as if Black even stands better) 24 gxf6 llxf6 25 ~h5 cxd5. Black's king is a bit open, but White should not have enough for the exchange.

After 20 CLle6 (20 g4 can be met by 20 ... ttJf4 21 gxf5+ ~xf5; this is simpler than taking the knight) Black's king is still vulnerable, even though White's forces are quite distant and he has no- more than a pawn for the piece. Let's see how Black can try to resist the attack: (f22231) 20 ...~b8!? 21 g4 ttJf4 22 il.xf4 il.J!:f4 23 CLlxf8+ ~xf8 24 b4!. White wins back the piece, and the king on g6 is still vulnerable, though after 24 ... il.e5 25 bxa5 ~d8 90

1994

So it remains a mystery what Kasparov wanted to do with his initiative. It looks as if the sacrifice does not deliver a win. Did he just chance his arm, and hope the ensuing complications would bring Timman down? That would be a risky plan against a world-class player. But then it is also possible that there is a hidden way to improve White's play, something missing from the above analysis. Still, with the rook on a I and the bishop on cl far away from the black king, the whole drama looks more like a mystery.

(c) 16 ... c5 may look like a good idea, as it keeps the position closed. However, after 17 i.xg6 bxg6, White has the following astonishing tactical blow which wins material:

18 d6!! ~xd6 (18 ... i.xd6 19 I:!d5!) 19 tZld5!! and White wins. I can't recall seeing this motif before. (d) 16... i.xd3 17 ~xd3 h6 (l7 ... cxd5 18 tZlxd5) 18 ~ael and White has a massive advantage in development. 17 I:!e2 i. b4 It is dangerous to make another move with this bishop, but now it is a necessity: 17 ... cxd5? 18 tZlxd5 i.h2+ 19 ~xh2 ~xd5 20 i.xg6 bxg6 21 ~xd5 tZlxd5 22 I:!e5, and Black loses a piece. 18 i.xf6!? Garry decides to alter the character of the position. He gives up his advantage in development in order to bring about doubled pawns on Black's kingside. Alternatives were: (a) 18 tZle4! cxd5 19 tZlxf6+ gxf6 20 i.h6 I:!e8 21 I:!xe8+ ~xe8 22 i.xg6 hxg6 23 a3, and White still has the upper hand. (b) 18 i.xg6! bxg6 19 dxc6 tZlxc6 (after 19 ... ~xdl+ 20 :t:txdl tZlxc6 21 i.xf6 gxf6 22 tZld5, Black either drops a pawn or allows a white rook to invade on the seventh) 20 ~b3! i.xc3 21 ~xc3, and White clearly has some pressure in the centre. 18... gxf6 As a junior player and as a young

16 i.g5 As Garry shows, 16 i.xg6! is even better: 16... hxg6 17 d6 .t xd6 18 I:!xa5 (now the Champion's own analysis stops after UL~xa5 19 ~xd6 ±) 18.Ji:Je4!? This is the critical move, discovered by Ftatnik who also came up with the antidote: 19 ~b3!! (White has several good-looking options, but this is the only one that guarantees a clear advantage) 19 ... ~xa5 20 tZlxe4, and White has a commanding plus. 16...i.d6 Black had no real choice but to play this. Other options surprisingly lead to his collapse: (a) 16 ... cxd510ses to 17 i.xg6 hxg6 18 tZlxd5. (b) After 16... tZlxd5 17 i.xe7 tZlxe7 18 i.xg6, Black drops a piece. 91

1994

(4th game), Moscow 1983: 20 .axd5 exd5 21 l:tc4 'iYd7 22 J:Ih4 ~f5 23 l'::txd5 'Lle5 24 h3 l:Ife8 25 qjd4 ~g6 26 'iYf4 l:tad8 27 'Llf5+ Wh8 28 l:txd8 !Ixd8 29 ~e4 l:Ic8 30 Wh2 ktc4 31 Vlb'a8+ ~g8 32 ~xa7 :!:txh4 33 qjxh4 ~g5 34 ~a8+ ~g7 35 ~e4 h5 36 qjf5+ \t>g6 37 'Lle7+ ~h6 38 f4 1-0. But let us return to our main game, where Black answered 18 .txf6 with 18 ... gxf6. He could also have played 18 ...~xf6:

candidate, Garry himself learned some remarkable lessons about taking on the weakness of doubled pawns. His teachers were two superb Soviet players, Tseshkovsky and Beliavsky. In the following very instructive examples, Garry was beaten yet managed to deepen his understanding.

This position arose in TseshkovskyKasparov, 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978. There followed 18 d5! exd5 19 'Lld4 ~a6 20 bl .td6 21 ~f3 .txf4 22 ~xf4 'Lle5 23 ~f5+ b8 24 f4 'Lld7 25 ~xd5 'Lle5 26 ~e4 'Llg4 27 Vlb'e2 'iYb6 28 c3 f5 29 J:Ihel ~c5 30 ~e7 ~xe7 31 J:txe7 l::the8 32 :!::tdel :!:txe7 33 J:Ixe7 'Llf6 34 l:txf7 'Llxh5 35 'Llxf5 J:Id3 36 l:tf8+ Wc7 37 l:tg8 'it'd7 38 l:tg6 b5 39 a3 J::1:dl + 40 a2 ~gl 41 l:Id6+ h8 26 ~e4 gxf6 27 ~xb4, Black will have serous problems with the shattered pawn structure in front of his king.

~b6, and Black escapes without any special effort. (b) With 22 ttJh4! Garry could have used the h-file again! This stormy move creates some extremely dangerous threats, not only against the g6pawn, which is obviously the main target, but also against the unprotected knight on a5. Black can try: (bI) 22 ... l:c8? 23 l:xc8 ~xc8 24 ttJxg6 fxg6 25 ~xd5+ and 26 ~xa5. (b2) 22 ... \t>g7? 23 ~d4! ttJc6 24 ttJf.5+ \t>g8 25 ~h4 (the invasion comes on the h-file time and again) 25 ... 'iYd7 26 rif3, and Black gets mated. (b3) 22 .. J::te8 23 l:xe8+ ~xe8 24 ttJxg6 fxg6 25 ~xd5+ \t>h8 26 ~xa5 ~eI+ 27 \t>h2 'iVxt2 28 ~b4. Garry estimated that this gave him 50% winning chances. (b4) 22 ... ttJc6! is an example of the wonder of chess. Black first needs to parry not the main threat but a secondary one, by bringing the knight back to the centre to protect his position. Of course, to discover this in advance in your calculations is an extremely difficult task, even for a world class player like Timman. This time in fact it was too much for him.

19 ~cl!

Bringing his last undeveloped piece into play, and making it possible to take back on c3 with the rook. This is an outstanding 'slow' move after 18 .txf6. Garry rightly awarded himself an exclamation mark for it. 19...~c8? This turns out to be a mistake. Black shouldn't have missed the opportunity to exchange his bishop and eliminate the enemy knight with 19....txc3!. However, it required very precise calculation: 20 ~xc3 cxd5 (after 20 ... ~xd5? 21 ~d2, development is sudd~nly Black's problem again - and the knight on a5 is also in danger) 21 J..xg6 (this was Kasparov's intention during the game. After 21 ttJd4 ~b6 White undoubtedly has good play for the pawn, but Black's position may be solid enough to hold) 21 ... hxg6

-and now: (a) After 22 ~d3 White is still slightly better, but Black is likely to catch up with his development and equalize, e.g. 22 ... ~c7 (or 22 ...ttJc6 23 l:xd5 'iVb6 and Black holds on) 23 l:txd5 )lad8 24 ried2 ttJc6 25 rid7

(b4I) 23 rid3 ~a5 (or 23 ... d4 24 ttJf.5 ~d5 25 ttJxd4 liJe5, and Black is safe) 24 ~xd5 l:ad8 and Black finally completes his development. (b42) 23 rig3 gives White no more 93

1994

with advantage. 22 a3 .t d6 23 ltJ xfS With 23 b4?! White can win the queen for a rook and a piece, but he would be relinquishing much of the pressure: 23 ... ltJb3 24 .tc4 lZJxcl! 25 'iVxcl (25 .txd5 tLlxe2+) 25 ... f4 26 .txd5 cxd5 27 ~dl fxg3 28 fxg3 .txg3, and Black is not worse. 23..•1:tcd8? Black doesn't stop White's threat, but the game is already decided. There were two alternatives: (a) 23 ....txf5 24 Ji.xf5 ~xdl+ 25 Ihdl 1:tcd8 26 ttd4, and White has a very clear plus. (b) 23 ... lZJb3 is the best try. However, the resulting fIreworks would still leave Black in trouble: 24 :!::te5! .txe5 (Black loses with 24 ... tLlxcl 25 l:txd5 cxd5 26 lZJxd6 lZJxd3 27 lZJxc8 ttxc8 28 ~b3) 25 ltJe7+ ~g7 26 lZJxd5 ltJxcl 27 .txg6 cxd5, and now, as Timman shows, the the most effective method is 28 ltJxe5! (28 Ji.f5 tiJb3! 29.txc8 l:txc8 30 ~ e2 is less convincing) 28 ... hxg6 29 ~xd5. Black's king will be a huge problem, even if he manages to save his queenside pawns.

than a balanced position: 23 ...tiJe7 24 lIge3 tiJc6 25 J:.g3 (if 25 'iVd2 then 25 .. :~a5, or if 25 tiJf5 then 25 .. :iVd7 or 25 ... tiJe5). After all these complications Black seems to have successfully repelled the onslaught. The annotator faces a dilemma concerning 18 .txf6. Objectively it may not be the best continuation, but it does show the attacking style of a great maestro. It created incredible complications and achieved its goal. How far did Garry actually calculate? It is possible he sawall the way to the last diagram position (after 22 ... ltJc6), but felt it was disadvantageous for Black. There was also a possibility he would have deviated earlier with 21 tiJd4, when he would have had compensation for the pawn.

20 ltJe4! White removes his knight, and suddenly the bishop on b4 becomes a target: it can no longer be swapped on c3. Ever since playing 13 ... c6 Black would have liked to insert c6xd5, as this exchange would have eased his position. Yet Garry's piece play has forced Black to refrain from it. This time 20 ... cxd5 doesn't work because of some simple tactics: 21 :!::txc8 'iVxc8 22 ltJxf6+ ~h8 23 .txg6 fxg6 24 ltJxd5 and wins. 20.•• 5 21ltJg3 ~xd5 21...cxd5 was no fun for Black either, because of22 a3 .i.d6 23 tLlxf5

24l:te5! A pretty shot, and a nice echo of the 15th move. The rook exploits the vulnerability of the knight on a5. 24•...txe5 This loses just like other moves, but 94

1994

at least Garry cannot play the same rook to eS again in this game! If 24 ... ~xd3 2S ~xd3 AxeS, then 26 ~c2 wins. 25 l"lle7+ Now it is all over for Black. 25.. .'~g7 26 l"llxd5 Axb2 27 l"llf4 .ixd3 Black is mated after 27 ...Axcl 28 ~xcl Axd3 29 l"llhS+. 28 l"llxd3 Axel Or 28 ... :!':!.xd3 29 ~xd3 Axel 30 ~c3+. 29 'til xci J:I xd3 30 'til g5+ 1-0 Timman finally loses the knight that moved to the edge of the board on move 12. White successfully combined threats on the h-file with threats against the loose knight on as. This is a remarkable game, yet something of an enigma. Has Garry prepared an improvement on the line he intended against Is ...Ad6 ? Did he make a mistake in his ):tome analysis? Did this analysis merely provide excellent practical winning chances? Whatever may be the answers to these mysteries, the game remains a great attacking display. While we were analysing it, Hurricane Ivan was devastating the islands of Grenada and Jamaica. On the day this game was played, Hurricane Garry hft Amsterdam. Unlike Ivan, Garry left joy in the wake of this game.

tournament suggests that Jan was right. It seems the Linares disappointment had stayed with Garry, and he was too intent on winning this contest. He probably did not train enough. Hence his performance included some fantastic games and some uncharacteristic mistakes. Still, he did win the tournament, demonstrating his class once again. I would not be surprised if it was this event that prompted the idea that Kasparov needed a full-time trainer perhaps 'helper' is a better word. To employ an assistant was a great idea, and a logical reaction to the huge explosion of information on chess openings. Kasparov said that he started to work with Yury Dokhoian in 1994; no other player adopted the same approach until later. Maybe this is one of the reasons why some players who reach a 2700 rating find it difficult to improve further. The difference between Ivanchuk and Anand is a case in point; maybe it has something to do with the role of Grandmaster Elibzar Ubilava, Anand's second. I know that Ivanchuk has never had this sort of constant helper. Elsewhere the story is similar: Topalov benefits from Danailov, whereas Adams and Shirov do not appear to have close support.

The last game of the tournament was against Short. It was a strange affair. In a complicated Sicilian, Short sacrificed a piece and then the exchange, so Kasparov was a rook up. By move 21 he could have won rather easily. On move 2S he let Short snatch perpetual check; he could have avoided this and preserved excellent winning chances. On the other board, Timman went on to beat Ivanchuk. Grandmaster Timman made the very interesting comment that Garry was not as solid as he used to b~. This

Yury Dokhoian As Kasparov once said in an interview, together they make a good team; he mentioned that Yury is able to work extensively and diligently. In a way the work was all the harder for Dokhoian as he gave up his own ambitions and stopped playing competitively. He played a few games in 1994, and one quick draw in the German League in 1995; there are no further games of his in the database. On the bright side, he has been able to 95

1994 work in close collaboration with a magnificent player. In addition he held a steady job with a regular salary, which is rare in chess. Dokhoian was a respectable grandmaster; his skill certainly impressed Kasparov. He is an Armenian - like Kasparov's mother. Garry has played for Armenia against the Rest of the World, and he often engages in activities in Israel; this shows his ties with his parental lands of origin. Chess involves highly confidential work, so a relationship of this type only functions well if the second is initiated into the opening secrets. Dokhoian is a I d4 player with his own systems from which he never strayed. His games show him to be a very knowledgeable player - he rarely lost games with White. Some lines that Kasparov played with White may have been used by Dokhoian as well, but they differed in their respective repertoires with Black against 1 e4. Yury played the French and the Rauzer, but not the Najdorf. He showed remarkable solidity with Black in the French - according to the database he lost only one game out of 27 against 3 liJc3, and only two against 3 liJd2 - although his Sicilian was less secure. Against 1 d4 he played the Nimzo-Indian with the remarkable score of 17 points out of 21, losing only one game. His Queen's Indian was safe, though less remarkable. He also employed the Slav. Garry once surprised Timman with the Slav with devastating effect; the preparation may have came from Dokhoian. Gojng randomly through the latter's games, you get the impression that he is a positional player. As Kasparov is a supreme tactician, they complemented each other. The fact that Dokhoian is not a I e4 player may have been a drawback, although no doubt he has a good understanding of the relevant

positions. Dokhoian often analyses Kasparov's games for magazines, and almost always gives the variations exactly the same evaluation that Garry has given them himself. They seem to have the seal of approval; only rarely is there a divergence. Hopefully there will one day be a book in which Dokhoian's experience with Kasparov is shared with the readers.

New York Rapid In the New York Intel Grand Prix, Kasparov's first opponent was Kamsky. The opening quickly transposed to an endgame. Interestingly, nobody analysed this game in print, at least according to the database. Yet it is a fantastic ending. Judge for yourselt1 Game 14 G.Kamsky (2655) White G.Kasparov (2805) Black PCAlIntel rapid, New York 1994

30•••Iraa2!

Doubling the black rooks on the second rank is a classic thematic approach. Normally, however, it occurs when the white king is on the back rank or the second, which is not the case here. 31 f3!? Should White give up the t2-pawn

96

1994 in order to exchange a pair of rooks and try to win the pawn on d6? Kamsky probably didn't see all the consequences of this policy, but he obviously felt he should hold on to his f-pawn - and ije was right. When the pawns are placed on one side of the board, the defender needs to avoid exchanging all the pieces, as the pawn ending would be lost. On the other hand, the more pieces there are on the board, the more chances it gives to the attacker. In principle, therefore, the best option for the defender is to retain the minor pieces only, but relatively few of them, so as to be less vulnerable. Simply knowing the principles does not ease the task of calculation, however. In this case it is more important for Black to eliminate the f2-pawn than to retain both his rooks. White has two ways of exchanging one of the attacking pieces: (a) 31 nal (not the more precise way) 3l...h8 22 ~dl) 22 fxe6+ 'it>h8 23 Vj'f5, and mate will arrive on the h-file. 21 J:Ig3!

1995

to qualify for the quarter-finals. In round-robin tournaments he always tries to win with Black, but in knockout competitions he goes for a draw when required. Chess is a sport in which the players' will to win should be stimulated as much as possible by the rules and the fonnat of the tournaments. Probably Fischer and Kasparov are the champions who tried the hardest to win, but even Fischer avoided unnecessary complications when he gained a three-point lead over Spassky - in their 1972 match, seven of the last eight games were drawn.

We have all learned this combination from the famous game between Carlos Torre and Emanuel Lasker, Moscow 1925. Incidentally, by hosting that tournament eighty years ago the Soviet Union made a significant contribution to chess culture. 21 ..•g6 21...'iVxd3 allows a forced mate by 22 I:txg7+ ~h8 23 l:tg5+ (in the Torrre-Lasker game the white rook used the discovered checks to clean up the seventh rank) 23 ... Wh7 24 l:txh5+ Wg8 25l:th8 mate. 22 'it'dl exfS Or 22 ... Wh7 23 l:tf4 Wh6 24 l:Ih4 l:tg8 25 fxg6 fxg6 26l:txg6+. 23l:txfSl:tb6 24 ~xhS Kengis resigned here (1-0). He was evidently playing below par. Nevertheless it was another attractive attacking game by Kasparov. In the last round Garry offered an early draw to Gulko, who had beaten him three times and was then the only player to have a plus score against Kasparov. Garry shared first prize with Anand, which suggested that their forthcoming match would be an exciting one.

30..•l:txg6 Epishin avoids the vicious threat. If 30 ... axb4?? then 31 ~xh7+! ~xh7 32 l:th3+ Wg8 33 l:th8+ Wfl 34 l:tfB mate. 31 ~xg6 il.xd3 32 'it'xg7+ Garry forces a draw with an unusual queen sacrifice. 32•.•l:txg7 33 l::txg7+ al ~xa3) 2l...d4 22liJd5 ~xd5 23 exd5 liJxb2 and Black wins. (b) 19 ~c3 e5 20 J..f2 d5 (20 ... a5 21 J..h3! d5 22 ~xc8 d4 23 liJxd4 exd4 24 J..xd4 1:txc8 25 l:g2 is unclear, as White has a rook and three pawns for two pieces) 21 exd5 J.. b4 22 ~xb4 liJa3+ 23 bxa3 ~xc2+ 24 'Ot>al ~xdl+ 25 ~bl ~xd5 and

There were four players in this double round-robin. In the first round Lautier exchanged otT his darksquared bishop against the King's Indian and gained space on the queenside. Garry held firm, and after an interesting sequence of exchanges the dust settled and the position was a dead draw. In round two, Garry again played the Evans Gambit. Piket declined the pawn with 4 ... ~b6. Soon another opportunity to win a pawn arose, and this time he could not resist. Garry sacrificed the exchange for faster development. It is difficult to tell what Piket missed, as after a further five natural moves by Kasparov, the Dutch grandmaster was already lost at move twenty. This game is another example of how difficult chess is. Confronted 137

1995

White's king is vulnerable. 18••.e5! 19.an as Kasparov effortlessly builds up his attack. 20.ag2? 20 .ah3 is better, since at least it gains a tempo. 20•••.aa6 21 I1el a4 Black is much faster, as White has misplaced his pieces on the kingside. 22 .ah3l:ic6 23 'iWdl This is an ugly move, but what else can be done? White can only wait and see how Black will carry out the attack. Waiting for a mistake from Garry is not a good policy, especially when he is in the attacking role.

23•••d5! The knockout blow comes from a thematic advance. 24 exd5 24 'iVxd5 l:d6 wins. 24•..I1d6 Suddenly White is caught on the dfile. 25 f4 l:xd5 26 l:d3 The rook hopes to defend, but it turns out to be a target. If instead 26 'iVcl, then 26 .. .'!iJd2+ 27 \t>al tlle4 wins. 26.•.tlla3+ 27 bxa3 .axd3 28 cxd3 :txd30-1 This game suggests that Topalov is better as an attacking player than as a defender. Once Garry seized the initiative he played very strongly, and

the finish was clinical. Game four was a cold shower for Garry. Against Lautier's Paulsen he sacrificed a piece at an early stage. This was most probably a result of his home preparation, and it led to a complicated position. There are two other games from 1995 featuring the same sacrifice, one of them won by White and the other by Black. Kasparov surprisingly gave up his strong knight on d6 for the undeveloped bishop on c8. In the complications he never had any chances, and went on to lose. In the next game he bounced back by beating Topalov in a Dragon. It looked like pre-game analysis all the way to a 'pawn-up' ending. Garry steadily converted his advantage into a win. The scenario which took place in the last round was the worst possible for Garry: he lost to Piket while Lautier beat Topalov, so the Frenchman won the tournament. Piket improved on one of the KarpovKasparov games in the 'ti'b3 GrUnfeld. Maybe Kasparov chose an excessively risky line because he wanted to win, or maybe there was a hole in his analysis. Whatever the case, he went on to lose without much resistance. Two losses in six games is an uncharacteristic performance for Garry. His thoughts may well have been on the fight ahead against Anand, and he may have been holding back some openings for that match.

Novgorod Kasparov started the tournament with a sweet victory; he beat Gulko for the very first time, having lost to him three times already. On this occasion Kasparov slowly outplayed his former countryman. Garry's next opponent was Ivanchuk, his rival for first place in the 138

1995

tournament, who played the CaroKann in an unusual fashion and reached an equal ending. Kasparov had to settle for a draw. The next game was a nice victory over Yusupov, who attempted to stop Garry from playing in his usual style. He exchanged queens very early on, but Garry was not really deterred. He gained space, and sacrificed a pawn for positional compensation. At one point Yusupov missed the best defence; when we join the game, Garry has already tightened the screw.

37 ... J:tgl+ 38 \te2 J:tc2 mate. (b) 36 exf4 l::tc3+! (not 36... e3 37 \tc2!), and now: (bl) 37 Wbl 1:h8 38 1:f5+ Wg6 39 l':I.g5+ \tf6 40 tta5 lLlxa5 41 bxa5 ttb8+ 42 Wa2

Game 25 A.Yusupov White G.Kasparov Black Novgorod 1995

42 ... l':I.c2 checkmate - a line pointed out by Kasparov. (b2) 37 Wdl I:th8 38 1:a2 nhl+ 39 We2 J:txg3 40 J:tc2 :tIggI (or 40 ...I:!.b3, and now 41 J:tf5+ \te6 or 41 ttxc4 lIb2+ 42 We3 :tel mate) 41 lhc4 J:tdl 42 f3 I:!.hel+ 43 Wt2 e3+ 44 Wg3 J:tgl+. This win too was demonstrated by the Champion himself. 36...Wg6 37 J:txf4 J:te8! A neat change of direction! The move deserves at least one exclamation mark. 38 J:tg4+ Or 38 Wbl lLld2+ 39 Wb2 J:tb3+ 40 Wa21:c2 mate. 38...Wh5 39 J::th4+ Wg6 Gaining time when short on the clock. 40 ttg4+ Wh5 41 J:th4+ Wg5! 42 f4+ 42 J:ta2 allows 42 ...lLlxa3+ 43 \tb2 l:Ic2+ 44 ~al lIdl mate. As before, 42 Wb I allows 42 ...ti:Jd2+ 43 Wb2 l':tb3+ 44 ~a2 J:tc2 mate. 42•• .'~g6! Keeping the d3-square protected. 43 f5+ Wg5 0-1

33...lLle4+ 34 \tel 34 \tc2 is answered by 34 ... ttaxa3! (but not 34 ... lLlxa3+? 35 Wcl ~g8 36 l:xa3 l::txa3 37 .Jig3 when White is still resisting). 34•.•l:I.g8 35 J..g3 f4!! This is the only way to keep up the pressure. It is not only beautiful but also very effective. After 35 ... l:h8?! 36 \tc2 lLlxa3+ 37 l:xa3 lha3 38 J:txf5+, White has slipped off the Ilpo~. SimHarly after 35 ... l':tc3+ 36 \tdl l:th8 37 J:ta2, White escapes. 36 J:tf5+ Alternatively: (a) 36 .Jixf4?? J:tc3+! 37 \tdl (37 \tb 1 J:tgl + 38 Wa2 ttxa3 mate)

In round four, Garry (Black) and Topalov repeated their Amsterdam

139

1995

game until move IS. At this point the Bulgarian grandmaster improved his play. Garry had a difficult position, but thanks to his opponent's mistakes, he soon took control and won an exciting battle. In the next game he faced Vaganian, producing a typically wonderful Kasparov win. Let us look at the storm!

victory against such a good player. 11 h4 This is Kasparov's novelty, and there is no denying that it is extremely hard to meet over the board. It is difficult to judge what this outright aggression actually offers White, although in practice it worked well for a couple of years.

Game 26 G.Kasparov White R.Vaganian Black Novgorod 1995 Queen's Gambit Declined {D37]

1 d4 Garry has never attempted 1 e4 against Vaganian - a sign of respect for the Armenian grandmaster's handling of the French Defence. 1...00 2 e4 dS 3 lllc3 .il..e7 4 lllfJ lllf6 S .il..f4 This is a bit of surprise. Garry avoids 4 .il..gS, a move he had used during the Karpov matches. s...o-o 6 e3 eS 7 dxeS .il..xeS 8 ~e2 This move is no longer in fashion. 8•.. llle6 9 a3 ~aS 100-0-0 A well-established line - but with the white pawn on a3, Black can reasonably hope to work up counterplay. 1O•••.i.e7 In their previous game (KasparovVaganian, Debrecen 1992) Rafael played 1O... llle4. There followed: 11 lllbS a6 12 lllc7 eS 13 ~xdS (at Linares earlier in the same year, the game Gelfand - Yusupov went 13 lllxdS lllxt2 14 lllgS .i.fS IS ~xt2 exf4 16 'tIixf4 llle7 17 lllxe7+ i.xe7 18 ttdS 'tIiel+ 19 ttdl 'tIiaS 20 l:dS with a draw by repetition) 13 ... fS (13 ... 'tIixc7 is better) 14 l:xeS lllxeS IS .il..xeS tta7 16 llldS b6 17 .il..d3 .il..d7 18 b4 'tIixa3+ 19 i.b2 'tIia4 20 bxcS bxcS 21 llleS 'tIixc2+ 22 i.xc2 i.e6 23 lllf4 1-0. A remarkably quick 140

11...dxe4?! Black helps White to develop his bishop. Sometimes illogical moves work well, but that is not the case here. Possibly Vaganian wanted to copy the plan he had used against the standard II g4. However, Kasparov's last move is not threatening to divert the knight from f6. Even such a talented player as the former Armenian number one can be embarrassed by a new move. (a) Two rounds after the present game, 11 ...l:td8 was played in Kasparov-Ehlvest. After 12 g4 .il..d7 (a game Najer-Korobov, Istanbul 2003, went 12 ... eS 13 gS exf4 14 gxf6 i.xf6 IS lllxdS .il..e6 16 lllxf6+ gxf6 17 .il..d3 gl il.g7 33 1::txg7+ r.tixg7 34 il.xf6+ r.tih7 35 il.xd8 1:txd8 36 liJe5. Black certainly has a good game; the question is whether or not he can take over with 36 ... lIc8 (not 36.. .'iha6? 37 f5, and White invades). (a2) 30 liJe3! and now: (a21)30 ...il.h3 31 %:tg1 r.tifl

36 lIfl+ ~xfl 37 liJxfl liJe3 and Black gets away. (b) 29 ... il.e7!. Kasparov provides the answer as to how to repel his own attack. This move blocks the diagonal of the bishop on h4 and puts White in a passive, defensive situation: (b I) 30 l:tc7? il.xg4 31 il.xg4 f5 32 1::txe7 l:txe7 33 il.xe7 'Wixe7 34 il.f3 liJe4. According to Garry Black has a clear advantage here. (b2) He considers that 30 liJh6+ r.tig7 31 liJxf5+ liJxf5 32 llel! ~d6 33 il.g3 l:th8 34 r.tigl was the lesser problem for White. 30 lIc7!

White is improving the placing of his pieces. It is unpleasant and sad news for Anand. 30•.•liJe4 After 30...il.xg4 31 il.xg4 f5, White has these choices: (a) 32 iLxd8 fxg4, and now: (al) Kasparov gives a very nice reason why 33 %:txg7+? doesn't work: 33 ... r.tixg7 34 il.c7 g3! 35 ~f3! ~h3 36 'iHg2 ~xg2+ 37 '.t>xg2 liJf5 38 lIhl (38 i.e5+ lIxe5) 38 ...lIe2+ 39 Wh3 g2 40 l:tgl %:tb2 41 i.b8 l:txb3+ 42 r.tixg2 l:ta3 and Black is much better. (a2) 33 il.h4 'WJe4+ 34 r.tigl liJf5 35 i.f2 i.xd4 36 ~c2! i.xf2+ 37 ~xf2 tZld4 38 ~g2liJf3+ 39 '.t>hl ~d3 40 lIfcl (not 40 ttd7? %:tc8! -+) 40 ...liJh4 41 'iHxg4 'WJe4+ leads to a

32 il.h5!! (quite an unusual location for a bishop on the h-file) 32 ... liJg5! (not 32 ...gxh5 33 'iHxh5+ r.tie7 34 'iHh7+ and wins. Now White has a very dangerous attack, but it isn't easy to fmd a clear way to secure an advantage) 33 fxg5 (33 liJg2 'iHe4) 33 ... 'ihe3 34lIc7+ lId7 35 il.xg6+!! r.tixg6 36 gxf6+ r.tih6 37 il.g5+ ~xg5 38 lIxg5 r.tixg5 39 'iHgl+, and Black is in trouble. (a22) 30... iLa3! (not an easy move to find) 31 lIc7 (alternatively 31 l:c2 lIc8 32liJxf5 'iHxf5, and now 33 il.g4 is met by 33 ... liJg3+, while after 33 ~xc8 'iHxc8 Black is in the game) 3l...iLd6 32 :xa7 tZlc3 33 liJxf5 liJxdl 34 tZlh6+ r.tif8 35 f5 gxf5

172

1995

draw, as the World Champion showed in his remarkable analysis. (b) Kasparov doesn't mention the intermediate move 32 l:te 1. There can follow: 32 .. .tiJe4 33 .Jixd8 l:txd8 (after 33 ... fxg4 34 .Jih4 White is better; he answers 34 ... g3 with 35 Wg2) 34 .Jif3 ~d6 (34 ... b5 35 ~al ~d6 36 ~xa7 ~xf4 37 .Jixe4 dxe4 38 ~c3, and at the end of it all, White seems to win: 38 ....Jixd4 39 l:tdl! WfS 40 ~b7 e3 41 ~c5+ ~g8 42 ~c6. White is evidently fIrst to achieve the knockout) 35 ~c2 'iVxf4 36 l:tfl .Jixd4 37 :txa7. This is hard to assess, but the a-pawn does look frightening. 31llJe3! This is another very unpleasant move to face, particularly as there was less time to calculate its implications. Wahls mentions 31l:txa7, when the position would be highly complicated: 3l...b5! 32 ~e2 (32 llJe3 llJc3), and now: (a) 32 ...l:tb8 33 :tb7 (after 33 :tgl ~b6 34 :txg7+ Wxg7 35 llJe3 White has dangerous threats against the king) 33 ...:txb7 34 axb7 .Jixg4 35 .Jixg4 ~b6 36 .Jic8 ti:lg3+ 37 .Jixg3 l:txe2 38 fS ~xd4 39 .Jie6+ Wh7 40 fxg6+ Wh6 41 .JifS l:te8. At the end of this tactical battle, Black holds the position. (b) 32 ... ~b6 33 l:tb7 ~xa6 34 ~xb5 ~xb5 (after 34 .. :~e6 35 ~a5 White is a pawn up and should be better, even though the complications have not subsided) 35 l:txb5 ti:ld2 36 ti:lxf6+ .Jixf6 37 .Jixf6 ti:lxf3, and White is struggling. 31....Jih3 Black has to be very careful, as he can no longer afford inaccuracies. Garry has demonstrated what would be wrong with some weaker moves: (a) 3l...l:td7? 32 l:txd7 ~xd7 33 ll'lxfS gxfS (33 .. :~xf5?? 34 .Jig4 traps the queen) 34 l:tgl and White

has a good attack on the kings ide. (b) 3l...ll'lg3+? 32 .ltxg3! ~xe3 33 :tel ~xf3+ 34 ~xf3 :txel+ 35 .Jixel .Jie4 36 ~xe4 dxe4 37 :txa7 wins. (c) 3l...~d6?!. Kasparov gives this move an exclamation mark, but it would not help Black, as we shall see: (cl) 32 l:txg7+? is pretty, but not the best: 32 ... Wxg7 33 lLlxf5+ gxfS, and now: (cll) On 34 :tgl +, Garry shows how Black can escape with his king and why he shouldn't go to the h-fIle: (clll) 34 ... Wh6? 35 .Jixe4 dxe4 (not 35 ... l:he4? 36 ~f3 ~xf4 37 ~xf4+ :txf4 38 .ltxf6 and wins one of the rooks - an unusual motif) 36 .Jig5+! fxg5 37l:txg5 'lVg6!. Black holds on because of the strong epawn, but at move 34 he could have done better: (cI12) 34 ... ~fS! 35 .Jixe4 ~xf4! 36 ~h5 "'xe4+ 37 :tg2 :td6, after which Black marches his king to the queenside and consolidates his material advantage. (cI2) 34 .Jixe4!

34 ...:th8! (a surprising Zwischenzug) 35 l:tgl+ ~fS. Kasparov says the position is clearly better for Black. In practice Black might indeed do well, but the computer fmds its way out of trouble by bringing about perpetual check: 36 .JixfS! lhh4 37 ~e2 ~xf4 (or 37...:th8 38 ~g2 ~e7 39 .Jie6 and Black is tied up) 38 :tg8+ (quite attractive; not 38 ~g2 ~g5) 173

1995

38 ... Wxg8 39 ~e6+. (c2) After the correct 32 llxa7! i(c8 (32 ... ~xf4 33 tiJxf5 gxf5 34 'iVel ~d6 35 l:tgl almost wins for White), the Champion terminates his analysis, indicating that the position is unclear. However, 33 ~c2! is a very powerful move that Karpov or Leko would fmd - it is a different kind of chess style that has its own beauty. If then 33 ...WfS (33 ....ih3 34 ttgl) 34 ~ g2, White has immensely improved the position of his queen, and Black is in deep trouble. 32l1g1 g5 On 32... f5? 33 .ih5! the decisive blow comes from the h-file. Garry considers 32 ... 'iVd6 33 %:txa7 'iixf4 (after 33 ...l::td7 34 J:hd7 i(xd7 35 .txe4 l1xe4 36 l1xg6 Black might defend his kin_g! but then the a-pawn decides) 34 IIxg6 lId7 35 lIxd7 J..xd7 36 tiJg2. He gives some more moves, and a long variation, the upshot of which is that the weak king position and the passed pawn on a6 are too much for Black to handle.

33.tg4?! Possibly Kasparov has started looking to safety. He makes sure he cannot lose this game, and confirms that he will remain World Champion. Wahls gives 33 fxg5 and adds the punctuation' !?', but perhaps it should be '!!' instead, for the move almost wins the game: 33 ... fxg5 (with 33 ... f5

Black avoids a collapse, but he is simply a pawn down) 34 J:::txa7 tiJc3 (or 34 ... b5 35 ~d3 J:td7 36 J:txd7 'iVxd7 37 .tg3, and again White is a pawn up) 35 l:txg5 (this is the 'poetic' solution, though the 'prosaic' 35 ~d3 wins as well: 35 ... ~xe3 36 ~xe3 ttxe3 37 .txg5) 35 ... tzlxdl 36 l1gxg7+ WfS 37 J..xd8 tzlxe3 (after 37 ...ttxd8 38 tiJxdl ~el+ 39 J::tgl ~h4 40 l:Iag? White is close to winning) 38 I:taf7+ ~xf7 39 J:hf7+ ~xf7 40 J..h5+ and the apawn is unstoppable. 33 ... .t xg4 34 \tV xg4 'iV xg4 3Sttxg4 Not the best. Garry is so happy to have survived a dangerous situation that it has affected his full concentration. In a normal tournament he would have found the coup de grace suggested by the grandmaster from Hamburg: 35 tiJxg4! ~h8 (White wins after either 35.J:lc8 36 Uxa7 %:ta8 37 I:td7 l1xa6 38 tzle3 or 35 .. .'JifS? 36 fxgS fxgS 37 ttfl+ ~g8 38 l1ft7) 36 J.. e 1 (36 tzle3 tzld6 37 fxg5 l1xe3 38 gxf6 J..fS 39 J:txa7 is also very strong) 36... gxf4 37 tiJe5!? (maybe even better than the move suggested by Wahls) 37 ... fxe5 38 l1gxg7 exd4 39 l:th7+ Wg8 40 Ucg7+ WfS 41 J..b4+ tiJc5 42 ttxa7 and Black is in trouble. 35... tzld6 If35 ... l:tc8, 36 J:ha7 wins. 36.ktn tiJb5 3711b7 tte4 38 f5 38 ~g2! was very promising as it simply improves the position of the king: 38 ...ttxf4 39 ttxf4 gxf4 40 tiJf5 J..fS 41 Wt3 l:tc8 42 ttd7 and White is better. 38...:ctxg4 Kasparov gives the variation 38 .. Jlxd4? 39 ttxd4 tzlxd4 40 llxa7 tiJxb3 41 ttb7 tzlc5 (or 4l...d4 42 a7) 42 J:ihb6 l:ta8 (again, 42 ... d4 43 a7 wins) 43 tzlxd5 tiJxa6 44 Wg2, and Black is unlikely to draw. 38 .. .l1c8 can be met by 39 tzlxd5 174

1995

(according to Kasparov this move deserves a question mark; he probably missed something later on) 39 .. J:!cl+ (39 ...l:txg4? loses to 40 CiJe7+ 'lJh8 41 CiJxc8) 40 l:tgll:Ic2 41 il.g3 l:txd4 42 CiJc7!, forcing the win of the a-pawn and finishing_ the g~me: 42 ... CiJxc7 43 Ji.xc7 lJd5 44 l:Ixa7 and White wins. 39 CiJxg4 l:tc8 40 l:td7

40 •• J:tc2?? This is an awful mistake, which loses on the spot. Anand was short of time, but he should not have done this even so. Time pressure, I believe, was only one of the factors. Psychologically the situation was too much for him; maybe he just wanted the game to finish, and was not inclined to defend. Interestingly, even the fastest players slow down as they get older. 40.J:tc3 was necessary, as it attacks b3 at once. Then the best reeJy is clearly 41 Ihd5 (41 CiJe3 Itxb3 42 CiJxd5 l:ta3 43 CiJe7+ 'lJh7 44 d5 l:txa6 45 d6l:ta1+ 46 'lJg2 l:Idl is not convincing) 41.J::txb3 42 J::[d8+ 'lJf7 43 l:Id7+ 'itfS 44 'lJg2!. This is a move recommended by the Champion, excellently demonstrating how you can only win with appropriate assistance from the king: (a) 44 ...l::tb4 45 h4 gxh4 46 'lJh3!, and now: (a1) 46 ...l:tc4 47 'lJxh4 l:tc7 (47 ...CiJc7 48 'lJh5 wins) 48 l:td8+

rJJe7 49 l:tb8!. How useful it was to push the pawn all the way to a6! (a2) 46 ... l:tb3+ 47 rJJxh4 l:tf3 48 il.e3 (48 Ji.g3l:txfS 49 il.b8 is also promising) 48 ... l:txfS

49 tLlh2!! (a most unusual way to trap a rook; 50 'lJ g4 is the deadly threat) 49 ... CiJa3 (to save his rook, Black gives up the a-pawn) 50 l:txa7 l:ta5 51 d5 CiJc4 (5L .. CiJb5 52 :a8+ 'lJf7 53 Ji.xb6 +-) 52 il.f4 and wins. (b) 44 ...l:ta3 45 h4! gxh4 46 il.xh4 l:txa6 leads to the following analysis: (b 1) 47 Ji. xf6 is the only move given by Kasparov, but he misses a study-like defence. After 47 ...Ji.xf6 48 CiJxf6, Black has two choices: (bll) 48 ...:a4 49 CiJh7+ and now: (bIll) 49 ... rJJg8 50 f6 l:txd4 51 l:tg7+ 'lJh8 52 CiJfS!!. Checkmate is now imminent: 52 ...l::td2+ 53 Wfl l:tdl+ 54 'lJt2 l:td2+ 55 'lJe3, and Black runs out of checks. (b1l2) 49 ... We8 50 f6! Wxd7 51 f7 l:ta2+ 52 Wg3 l:ta3+ 53 'lJg4. Here Kasparov says White wins, but that is far from the truth:

175

1995

53 .. J::tf3!! - the Champion misses this great move. (b12) 48 .. J::ta3 49 tZlh7+ ~e8 50 f6? (White can still press with 50 l:td5, but it is hard to prove that he can win) 50 ... ~xd7 51 fl i!tf3!! and Black escapes in the same way. (b2) 47 tZlxf6 l:ta2+ 48 ~g3 a5 (or 48 ... i..xf6 49 i..xf6 a5 50 i..g7+ ~g8, and now if 51 f6 then 51...tZlc3; but 51 i..h6 wins) 49 tZlh7+ ~g8 50 f6 ~xh7 (50 ... i..f8 loses to 51 tZlxf8 ~xf8 52 i..g5) 51 i::txg7+ ~h8 52 i::td7 l:ia3+ 53 ~g4 i::ta4 54 ~f5 i!txd4 55 fl, fmishing the game. 41 i::txd51-0 One possible conclusion is: 41...llJc7 42 l:td8+ fl 24 ttJxdl l:txg2 25 VliJh5+ 'it>e6 26 l:txf4 tIg5, and while White has some compensation, the position would not be easy to play in a rapid game. Objectively Black should do well. Now, back to the game.

to forget all about attacking. Now he can only defend. 22 ~h2..af3 The neat intermediate move 22 .....af4! is likely to win: 23 ttd7+ We8 24 V/iixg2 Wxd7 25 e5 (25 exf5 ..axf5) 25 ... l:tad8 26 Ii'xb7+ We6 27 'iVc6+ 'it>xe5 28 "iHc7+ Wf6 29 Vliixf4 l:tfe8 and Black wins, though he needs to be careful. 23~g3

Or 23 l:td7+ Wg6 24 Ii:d6+ ttf6 25 exf5+ 'it>fl 26ttd7+ Wg8 27 Vliig3

Ii:xf5 and again Black wins. 23 .••l:th8? 23 ... l:tad8!! would have led to a beautiful win; Black should exchange White's active rook before he starts hele.~ng the g-pawn to promote. After 241hd8 (24 ~xg5 l:txd6 25 a3 ..ag4 wins) 24 .....axd8 25 li:ld5 l:Ih8 White is hopelessly lost. 24 ~xg5l:thl+ 25 ttJdl 19 !ihxd6?? It is hard to know what punctuation

to attach to this move. It could be a single question mark, as the capture is not a blunder. However, it is still a losing mistake. With 19 ~ g6+ the Indian grandmaster could still have looked for a win, although after 19 ... 'it> g8 it would objectively be best to force a draw with 20 ~h7+. But then, a draw would mean elimination from the contest! 19... f3+! 19.. :~e7 is less practical, though it is also effective: 20 Wig6+ Wg8 21 li:ld5 (21 :hl l:tf6) 21..:~xe4 22 l:td7 ..ah6 23 li:le7+ 'it>h8 24 l:th I ..ah3!!. What a move! Garry knows how to defend on the h-file as well as attack there. After 25 l:txh3 VIii e 1+ 26 :tIdl Vliixe7 27 l:tdh 1 l:tfl, Black wins. 20 'it>bl ~xd6!! This capture dispels any thoughts Vishy had of giving checkmate. 21lhd6 fxg2 Suddenly the g2-pawn forces White 182

25.•• g1=~ The completion of a long journey from e7 . 261ld7+WfS After 26 ... Wg8 27 lhg7+ Wh8 28 ~xgl, an aesthetically pleasing move is 28 ...l:td8!. However it is not effective, as White holds on with 29 'tlixhl+ ..axhl 30 l'iIgl. 27 ~xf5+ Wg8 28 "'xf3? The intermediate move 28 Vliifl+ diverts the king and prevents l:ta8-fS. To win the resulting position would

1995

have required precise play from the Champion. If he was short of time, it would have been hard to find the right method: (a) 2S ... 'it'hS?! 29 ~xf3 l:teS (or 29 ... l:tcS 30 b3 'iVfl 31 ~ g3 l:tgl 32 ~h4+ WgS 33 ~h5, and because Black's king has no safe shelter, he can't win the position despite being the exchange up) 30 a3 l:th4 31 'iV f7 (31 Wa2 'iVg6 32 tLlc3 also keeps White in the game), and White has annoying play. (b) 2S .. St>h7 29 ~f5+ ~g6! (29 ... \t>hS 30 Vi'xf3) 30 ~xf3 ~h5! 31 ~xh5+ (after 31 Vj'd3 J:'tfS, the pin is lethal) 3l...tl:xh5 32 c4 b6, and Black has good chances to convert the extra exchange into a win. 28•••1118 Rooks belong on open files. 29 ~b3+ h7 0-1 Anand resigned, as he can't release the pin: 30 liWd3 (30 c3 l:tfl 31 ~cl ~e3+ 32 'it'bl ~xe4+ 33 Wcl Vj'f4+ 34 Wbl ~f5+ wins more material) 30... Ilfl 31 Wcl (31 e5+ ~g6 wins) 3l...l:txdl+ 32 ~xdl ~e3+.

versed - and this time Kasparov was victorious on the defending side. Vishy has an excellent sense of humour, and I am sure he can see the funny side of this. I remember one story he told me in 19S7. He found it very amusing that Tal kept beating a certain respectable grandmaster in one particular way. Tal had sacrificed a pawn in a sharp Sicilian and won fairly quickly. The loser analysed the game extensively in Informant. The next time Tal faced the same player, he sacrificed another pawn in another Sicilian and won again. Again his opponent published a long analysis in Informant .... When our own analysis was written at the end of 2004, Anand had proved that he was currently the best rapid player in the world. Incidentally, although Kramnik was the first to beat Kasparov in a match, he has yet to prove that he is the world's number one. Once Garry was no longer able to sustain his very special status, it was Anand who seized the top player's spot. However, the Indian superstar has not reached the level of Garry at his best. He might, but even if he can achieve that kind of domination he will almost certainly be unable to maintain it for as long as Kasparov did.

This was another great game between Kasparov and Anand. As it was in a rapid chess tournament, it contained more inaccuracies than would be likely in a normal game. Nevertheless it was extremely exciting and instructive. What do we conclude about White's bishop sacrifice to acquire the h-file? It looks as if White has no more than a draw. Years later, Vishy said his preparation in 1995 had not been of the same high standard that he was to achieve afterwards. He certainly benefited from his many games with Kasparov in that year. In Game lOin this book, we saw how Kasparov beat Anand with an attack in the h-file when playing the White side of a Scheveningen. We have now just seen Anand try to do something similar with colol!rs re-

In the final of the Paris tournament, Garry faced Kramnik who had been his second at the Anand match. In the first game Kasparov was pressing for a long time in the endgame. When Kramnik shook off the pressure, Kasparov blundered and lost. In the second encounter Kramnik played a normal game and actually obtained a clear edge. Almost anything has a good and a bad side - Kramnik's play against Kasparov was fearless, yet he allowed him to have chances. Garry capitalized on them in a most creative manner. Let us see how!

IS3

1995

Game 35 V.Kramnik White G.Kasparov Black PCAlIntel-GP, Paris 1995

From d6 the rook strikes hard at White's defences: 35•••l:dl!! A remarkable and highly imaginative move. It wins the queen - and yet it should only lead to a draw, as White can build a fortress. 35 ... ~xg4 would allow White an easier draw after 36 ~aI+ (or 36 hxg3 l:dl 37 ~t2 i.c5 38 ~xc5 l:.xe 1+ 39 ~h2, drawing without difficulty) 36 ...i.g7 37 '«+'a8+ ~h7 38 hxg} .i.d4+ 39 r,;t>fl. 36l:txdl 36 ~t2 i.c5! (after 36...l:.xeI+ 37 ~xel ~xg4 38 hxg3 i.c5+ 39 ~fl, White holds) 37 l:.xdl i.xt2+ 38 lllxt2 transposes to the game. 36•••..tc5+ 37 'iVf2 i.xf2+ 38lllxf2 llle2+ 39 ~hl This must be a draw, but in a rapid tournament Black can play on for a longtime. 39•.•lllc3 After 39... ~c5 40 lllh3 ~c2 41 l::tfl (41 l:el) 4l...~d3 42 l::tel (or 42 i.O lllg3+ 43 hxg3 ~xfl+ 44 ~h2, which recalls the adjournment of Beliavsky-Dolmatov, Minsk 1979; against excellent play from Dolmatov, Beliavsky missed the

chance to build fortress similar to this) 42 ... Vi'b3 43 ..to llld4 44 J:tfl ~b5 45 ..tgl, I am almost certain that White's fortress can't be breached. 40l:.d8+ The alternative 40 i. 0 (in rapid and blitz games you tend to put pieces on protected squares) 40 ... ~c5 41 J:tfl is preferable to the move in the game. 40.....tg7 41 i.o 'i¥b5 42 l::td3 A safer choice was 42 lllh3 followed by lllh3-gl, when it is hard to approach the king. 42 .•:it'b1+ 43 i.dl 1t'b2 44 'lo>gl ~cl45 h3?! 45 g3! 'ftif7 46 l::txc3 ~xc3 47 ~g2, followed by i.dl-0, should be an easy draw. Incidentally if there were no pawns, White could place the bishop on g2 and the knight on e4 to set up an impregnable fortress. 45••• h5 46 ..t h2 Better 46 g3!. 46••. h4 Black has improved his_position. 47 .i.o Wc2 48 l:td7+ ..tIS 49lll1l4 Wcl 50 ttd4lllb5 51 %:td5 51 JJe4 is playable. 51 ..•'iU4+ 52 ..thl llld4 53 llle5 ~c1+ 54 hl 'fiUe4, then 28 'fiUg2 nullifies the battery. 27Ag3 27 l1xd2? ~bl+ 28 'fiUfl lllf3+ 29 \t>f2 'fiUxfl + 30 ~xfl lllxd2+ 31 'It>e2llle4 is better for Black. Shirov now offered a draw. The reaction, as he tells us in his commentary, was: "But I've got perpetual, can I think a while?" After five minutes' thought, however, they shook hands and the draw was sealed (YZ-YZ). They had lived up to the expectations of drama. The game could have continued as follows: 27. ..iiJhj3+ 28 It'h1 4lJeJ+ 29 It'g1 4lJdj3+ 30 r;tj1 4lJc2 But after White's next precise move: 31 d6! - the black king is forced to occupy the seventh rank. If instead 31 A f4?, then 3l...'fiUxf4 32 'fiUxc2 lllxh2+ 33 ~glll:lxg4. 31 ... lt'd7 32 .itJ4 flxJ4 33 flxc2 4lJxg5+ 34 flj2 flxg435 fle2! In this position White is by no means worse. Evidently a game in which, as Shirov says himself in Fire on Board, both players had to keep finding the 'only move'. Against Topalov, Kasparov began a winning streak of four games. In a

1996

.lte2 Scheveningen, Topalov's play was brought to a halt. Garry gradually took over, and the Bulgarian firstboard player was ground down. In the next game, against Ivan Sokolov, Garry demonstrated his subtle handling of complicated openings. Game 45 G.Kasparov White I.Sokolov Black Yerevan Olympiad 1996 Scotch Game [C45] 1 e4 This was the first time Garry had played Ivan Sokolov. There are other Kasparov-Sokolov games, from the 1980s, but at that time he was facing Andrei Sokolov, not Ivan. Incidentally, Andrei had a career that was unique in the history of chess. He started like a superstar; he qualified for the fmal of the World Championship Candidates tournament, where he faced a formidable opponent Karpov. Anatoly whitewashed him, and from then on Andrei's level of play dropped to that of an ordinary grandmaster. Andrei moved abroad and had to adapt to a less stressful existence. Another top-level player who had a similar experience was Tony Miles, who never looked the same player after a 5Y:z:Y:z defeat at Garry's hands. l...e5 Ivan is a very strong grandmaster with a most entertaining style, although he has not achieved anything remarkable in the World Championships. It was similar, for example, with Andersson and Ljubojevic - they never made it to the Candidates. 2lLlolLlc63 d4!? Ivan Sokolov plays several variations of the main line Ruy Lopez. The earlier Garry deviates from those lines, the less chance Ivan has of

surpnsmg him. Garry first used the Scotch against Karpov in 1990, during their last World Championship match. He drew his very first game with this opening, but later it became a success story - 13 wins, 8 draws and no losses, against world-class players. Very impressive. 3 ••. exd4 4 lLl xd4 lLl (6 Garry himself faced the Scotch only once. He opted for this more complicated variation. His opponents have done better with 4 ... i..c5, losing just two out of seven games. 5 lLlxc6 bxc6 6 e5 ~e7 7 ~e2 lLld5 8 c4 i..a6 Garry has faced 8... lLlb6 five times. It is probably the weaker continuation, and he has a perfect score against it. Of his five opponents, Karpov did best - he managed to postpone resignation until move 102, though he was a pawn down at move 16. I think if that game had been played in an ordinary tournament, rather than the World Championship final, Kasparov would have finished him off much faster. 9g3 Garry usually starts by developing his queen' s bishop on the long diagonal by 9 b3, the more popular move. Another very strong Bosnian grandmaster, Predrag Nikolic, replied 9 ... g5. He did not last too long (see Game 47). 9... g6 10 b3 i..g7 II i..b2 0-0 12 i..g2 This is an intriguing line. There is no doubt that Black is better developed. On the other hand White's e5-pawn secures him space in the centre, and if White can catch up in development and consolidate this advantage, Black's two wings can be split and his d- and c-pawns can become vulnerable. The future of the bishop on a6 is an interesting question. If Black can free it, it becomes a powerhouse; if not, it is a piece of dead wood.

216

1996

12...ttfe8 This is a significant moment. Ivan must finalize a development plan and decide how he intends to open the position in his favour. Bringing the other rook to the e-file is more popular: 12 .. J:tae8 13 0-0, and now: (a) 13 ...ti:Jb6 follows the same plan as the game continuation, but with this arrangement of the rooks it is less effective: 14 :C:el d5 (14 ... f6 deserves some attention and may be good) 15 ~ c2, and White stands better than in the game. (b) 13 ...i.xe5 14 ~xe5 ~xe5 15 i.xe5 :C:xe5 16 cxd5 i.xfI 17 \t>xfI cxd5 18 liJc3 c6 has been tried quite a few times, with many decisive games - plenty of wins for both sides. 130-0 liJb6 With 13 ...ttab8 14 ttel tZlb6, Black can try to free the bishop by the power of his pieces alone. A game MessinaGinzburg, Verdun 1995, continued 15 'iVc2 ~b4 16 tZld2 tZla4. However, White is likely to handle this with 17 i.d4 c5 18 i.e3 i.xe5 19 bxa4 i.xal 20 thai, when his minor pieces will soon take over and dominate. With 13 ...i.xe5 Black can head for an ending with rook and pawn against bishop and knight (similar to variation 'b' in the last note). After 14 'iWxe5 'iWxe5 15 i.xe5 ttxe5 16 cxd5 .i.xfI 17 WxfI cxd5 18 f4 l:te3 19 i.xd5 J::tae8 20 liJd2 White is somewhat better. 14 ~el d5? Black plays dynamically in the hope of breaking White's grip on the centre and freeing the bishop on a6. It is so hard in chess to judge the value of a lead in development - it may be impossible to stop the opponent from catching up. In this game, Black was unable to do anything with his position; it seems that his whole set-up is wrong. In the event of 14 ... f6 15 e6 217

~xe6 16 ~xe6+ ttxe6 17 ttxe6 dxe6 18 i.xc6 ~d8 19liJa3 the ending can

conceivably be held, but it will certainy be no fun.

15 ~c2!? Garry chooses to step out of the pin. He even attached an exclamation mark to this move. After 15 tZld2 ttad8 16 l:tacl ~e6, White is tied to the defence ofc4. The accepted move nowadays is 15 'iWd2!?, which comes from Kasparov's own Informant analysis. It is based on a potential attack against the bishop on a6. There can follow: (a) 15 ... ttad8 16 ~a5 i.xc4 (or 16...i.c8 17 cxd5 cxd5 18 liJd2 i.e; 19l::tacl i.h6 20 i.d4, and White had a clear plus in Lastin - Shadrina, Nizhny Novgorod 1998) 17 tZld2 i.d3 18 ttacl, and White was somewhat better in Zawadzka - Chmielinska, Laczna 2002. (b) 15 ....i.xc4 16 bxc4 (after 16 ~c2 i.a6 17 ~xc6 ~e6, Black will be 'able to play c7-c5 and have a pleasant game) 16...tZlxc4 17 ~c2 tZlxb2 18 ~xb2 i.xe5 19 tZlc3, and in this position the three pawns are not enough for the piece; SchipmaKessler, 1997.

15...~c5 The main function of this move is not to put pressure on c4 but to defend the c6-pawn. It is already a gloomy outlook for Black if his queen has to

1996

move just to defend a pawn. With 15 ... l:tab8 Black can hang on to the pawn, but White finishes his development and gains control of the centre: 16 t'Lld2 dxc4 17 f4 ~e6 18 t'Lle4, with advantage. Black can also defend c6 by 15 .. .llad8 16 t'Lld2 ~b7, pinning his hopes on the strong d-pawn. Then after 17 l:tacl d4 18 c5 d3 19 ~c3 t'Lld5 Black might obtain some counterplay. White can, however, cause him real trouble with 17 cxd5 cxd5 18 ~acll:tc8 19 .i.h3. 16 t'Lld2 nad8 16 ... dxc4 would be a mistake, as White has more than one very promising option: 17 t'Lle4! (or 17 b4!? ~b5 18 a4 ~xb4 19 .i.xc6 and Black loses material) 17 ... ~b5 18 t'Llf6+ .i.xf6 19 exf6, and Black's king is in a vulnerable situation. After the further moves 19 ... t'Lld5 20 .i.fl l:txel 21 l:txe 1 ~b4 22 l:te4, he is in very big trouble. As Kasparov has shown, White is also much better after 16...t'Lld7 17 t'Llf3 dxc4 18 .i.d4 ~a5 (or 18 ... ~b5 19 e6!) 19 .i.c3 ~c5 20 b4 ~b6 21 e6 l:he6 22 l:txe6 fxe6 23 .i.xg7 'iilxg7 24 ~c3+ 'iilg8 25l:tdl t'LlfS 26 t'Lle5. 17 ~acl d4?! It is easy to criticize this push, as it leaves the knight on b6 and the bishop on a6 with very little play. However, Black is in difficulties anyway: (a) 17 ... dxc4 might give better practical chances than the game continuation. There could follow: (al) 18 bxc4, and now: (all) Shipov gives 18 ... l:te6 as unclear, but Black still appears to be in trouble: 19 t'Lle4! ~a5 (on 19 ... ~xc4 20 t'Llc5, White wins material) 20 .i.c3 ~a3 21 ~b3 and Black has a horrible position. (aI2) 18 ... .i.xe5 19 t'Llb3 looks like an outright win, but it isn't that simple - after 19... ~xc4 Black has counter-

chances against the first rank. Now 20 ~xe5! is the only way to kee.2 the advantage: 20 ... ~xc2 21 l:txc2 I:txe5 22l:txe5 l:td1+

23 Sl.fl!! As this is the only move, the double exclamation mark might be questioned. It is there nonetheless, because it is very hard to see in advance that this works. After 23 ...Sl.xfl 24 l:tcl White defuses the battery and wins. (a2) 18 t'Lle4 ~b5 (18 ... ~b4 19 ~c3 ~b5 20 t'Llf6+ ~xf6 21 exf6 cxb3 22 axb3 t'Lld5 23 ~d2 ~c5 24 Sl.xd5 cxd5 25 Sl.b4 and wins) 19 t'Llf6+ Sl.xf6 20 exf6 cxb3

21 ~ d2! !. This is an amazing move. I can't help thinking of adverts that say "buy one, get one free" - here Garry offers you two beautiful mating threats for the price of one! You receive a threat to the back rank, with a g7 -mate thrown in. (White also has excellent winning chances after 21 axb3 t'Lld5 22 l:txe8+ l:txe8 23 ~d2 ~b4 24 fUh6 ~fS 25 ~xfS+ 'iilxfS 26 Sl.xd5 cxd5 27 l:txc7.) But 218

1996

there is more still to come: 21...~h5 22 ~xeS+ l::IxeS 23 il.f3! ~h3 24 ..i.g4!' Dear customer, you receive a diversion sacrifice as well! (b) 17 ...'fJ.e7 - Kasparov's recommendation - provides the best chance to stay in the game. However, things have already gone wrong for Black. After IS 'fJ.edl 'fJ.deS (or IS ...'fJ.ed7 19 i.h3 J:[e7 20 llle4 and Black is in serious trouble) 19 cxd5, White is clearly better. Islllo d3

Not 18 ...i.xe5? 19 b4! and wins. If IS ... i.cs, then 19 ~d2! d3 transposes to the game continuation, but White can also win by 19 i. xd4 J:[xd4 20 b4 ~xc4 21 %Vb2 l::Ie4 22 l:Ixc4 lIxe 1+ 23 lllxe 1 lllxc4 24 ~d4. 19 'ild2 As Garry explains, 19 'iI c3! was even stronger: 19 ...i.cS 20 lIcdl i.f5 21 h3 h5 22 lllh4 i.cs 23 J:[xd3 and White is winning. 19...i.cS 20 h3! This stops 20 .....i.f5, but in addition White no longer has to worry about the outside chance that Black will get play on the first rank. 20... h5 If20 ...i.f5, then 21 g4. 21 J::tcdl White surrounds the d3-pawn. Chasing the queen away with 21 b4 was another way to gain an advantage:

21...~fS

22 ..i.d4 ..i.h6 23 ..i.e3 ..i.xe3 24 l::Ixe3 il.e6 25 ~e4. Garry's method is more convincing. 21...i.f5 Or 21...a5 22 i.c3.

22 e6!? This is a very ingenious, pretty and surpri8ing move, yet there were other ways to proceed. After 22 lllh4!? (22 ..i.c3 ..i.fS also gives White an advantage) 22 ... i.e6 23 il.c3 ltJcS 24 ~e3, White stands even better than in the g~e. 22...:&Ixe6 Or 22 ... fxe6 23 i.xg7 'liIxg7 24 llle5, and suddenly the bishop on f5 is in trouble. Black should have tried 22 ...i.xb2!, even if it is anything but attractive: 23 exf7+ 'liIxf7 24 ~xb2, and the black king is opened up. 23 'fJ.xe6 i.xe6 23 ... fxe6 loses to 24 i.xg7 'liIxg7 25 ~ g5, in view of the dual threat to capture the rook and win the bishop by g3-g4. 24 i. xg7 xg7 25 'iI c3+ gS 26 J:[xd3 White recovers his pawn. Black is not material behind, but his doubled pawns are a disadvantage. However, his biggest problem is not the c-pawns but the misplacement of his knight. 26...l::txd3 After 26 .. J::td6 27 llle5 (or 27 ltJd2 i.f5 2S llle4 i.xe4 29 ..i.xe4) 219

1996

27 .. J:,hd3 28 lllxd3 'iYf5 29 'iYd4, White is much better. 27 'iYxd3llld7 This saves the c7-pawn and activates the desperate knight. If 27 ... a5, then 28 'iYd8+ itg7 35 %Ve4 %Vf6 36 ~xh4 1-0

1996

Garry virtually refuted Black's opening. In Slavonic languages sokol means falcon, but this time Ivan was never allowed to fly. Garry's next opponent was Ilya Smirin of Israel. lIya is a very strong player, so it is hard to explain why he lost with White in the 6 i.e3 ll\g4 Najdorf with virtually no resistance. In the last round Garry faced Yermolinsky - another former compatriot, now representing the USA. Yermolinsky employed a passive opening and had to defend constantly. He successfully protected the weak c6-pawn which normally results from a minority attack, but the seventh and eighth ranks were open to invasion. Garry's score of 7 points out of 9 earned him the silver medal for the top board, which is very good for a team that won the event after leading all the way. The Sokolov game was a masterpiece and the Topalov game was a very good win, but in this contest the wins resulted not from Kasparov's spectacular play but from the form of his opposition. Most played below their best level, and were probably affected by the fact they were playing Garry.

Las Palmas Kasparov started the tournament by playing Topalov, who had enjoyed a marvellous year and was really breaking through. However, this game suggested that he was still behind Kasparov in the quality of his endgame play. In a Queen's Indian, Garry slowed the game down. They went into an ending, and Veselin missed an opportunity to exchange knights before Garry's king could reach the centre. Thereafter he had to struggle, and in the end he lost. 221

In the second round, Ivanchuk tried the 3 i.. b5+ Sicilian again. Kasparov replied 3 ... i..d7, in contrast to the game they had played 5 years earlier. He did not take any risks. Ivanchuk too opted for safety first, so the draw was almost inevitable. Kramnik surprisingly defended with the King's Indian. It was a strange choice, as Kasparov himself had played the Black side of that opening so many times before. Nevertheless it worked, as he was held to a draw in 19 moves. Next Kasparov faced another supertalent, Anand. Garry acquired a clear edge with a subtle pawn sacrifice. Gaining control over the light squares, he suddenly changed direction to go after Vishy's king. Anand gave up the exchange to dissipate the attack. Kasparov had a clear edge, and although he appeared to miss a simple tactic, he was not punished. After that mistake he still tried to win, but Anand held the position. Kasparov's last opponent in the first half of the tournament was his longstanding rival Karpov. In the New in Chess magazine these players announced that they would play a match against each other, but not under the auspices of FIDE or peA. This game was no help in raising money for the match, since Karpov played determinedly for a draw from the early stages by exchanging queens. Despite his passive play, a winning opportunity somehow emerged - but sadly for him, he missed it. Later they entered a pawn ending, and Karpov made a mistake. Kasparov returned the favour by moving his h-pawn one square to h6, giving up the chance to lose a tempo with it. Karpov finally reached the desired draw. My impression is that after the game Kasparov won at Linares 1993, Karpov was no longer concerned to play hard against him.

1996

Garry's second game against Topalov followed a similar pattern, with queens exchanged and an early ending. This time Veselin was more alert and drew the game with an unusual repetition. Ivanchuk played Alekhine's Defence, and Kasparov obtained little. Vassily was close to reaching a draw, but one careless move allowed Kasparov to seize the initiative. When Ivanchuk overstepped the time limit, he had a lost position. Against Kramnik, Kasparovdefended a Queen's Gambit Declined with ttJf6-e4. His opponent kept up the pressure skilfully, and according to Dolmatov missed a golden opportunity to gain a decisive advantage. Vladimir allowed Garry to reach a rook endgame with 3 pawns versus 2, all on the same side. Kramnik kept on playing, but made no progress. Garry's opponent in the penultimate round was Karpov.

Game 46 G.Kasparov White A.Karpov Black Las Palmas 1996 Nimzo-Indian Defence {E32]

1 d4 Garry is barely a dozen games short of playing White 100 times against his arch-rival, against whom he usually varies his approach. He has tried all four of the main moves available; I e4 occurs approximately 40 per cent of the time. 1...liJf6 With Garry's predecessor l...d5 is less popular. 2 c4 e6 3liJc3 In his games with this opponent Garry often allows the Nimzo-Indian, although 3 QJf3 is his favourite. He seldom uses the Catalan. 3 ....t b4 4 'iV c2

Garry's three main systems against the Nimzo-Indian are (a) 4 ttJf3 c5 4 g3, (b) the e3 main lines, and (c) the variation employed here. He has scored well with all of them. Nevertheless, this line has given him the highest percentage of the three. Significantly, Kasparov never used the ~c2 Nimzo-Indian against Karpov in a World Championship match. One reason is that he only started to play this line at the age of 25 when he was already Champion. 4•.. 0-0 Garry's opponents have done better with 4 ... d5. In that line he has won 5 games and drawn 9. 5 a3 .txc3+ 6 ~xc3 Garry has had this position 13 times in his career and has scored an unbelievable eleven points. Yet the Nimzo-Indian is considered one of the safest openings. All Garry's opponents were of world class. Karpov achieved a single draw from 3 games. 6••• b6 7 j" g5 j" b7 It was from this position that Garry conceded a single draw with White. Se3 The game Kasparov - Karpov, Siemens Giants rapid (4 th round) 1999, went 8 ttJf3 d6 9 ttJd2 ttJbd7 10 f3 d5 11 e3 ~e8 12 cxd5 exd5 13 .Jtb5 c6 14 .Jte2 ~e7 15 b4 h6 16 .Jtxf6 ttJxf6 17 \tt2 ~d6 18 ttJfl a5 19 liJg3 j"a6, and Black held the position. Garry has also utilized 8 f3, scoring 3/3 against World Championship Candidate grandmasters. S•.•d6 9 f3 According to Kramnik this is Botvinnik's idea. However, it is possible that the earliest game with this move was played by the ~c2 expert Forintos, against Filip at Reggio Emilia 1962. With 9 ttJe2 ttJbd7 10 ~d3 .Jta6 11 b4 c5 12 b5 Jib7 13 lLlc3 a6 14 f3 h6 15 .Jth4 Wie7 16 j"e2 cxd4 17 ~xd4 e5 18 ~dl g5 19 Jig3,

222

1996

Garry went on to beat Grischuk in Greece, 2003. 9.. .tiJbd7 Three years later Karpov inserted an initial 9 ...h6 in this position. There followed 10 i.h4 lLlbd7 11 lLlh3 c5 12 i.e2 d5 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 0-0 a5 15 l:tadl ~b6 16 l:Id2 i.c6 17 i.f2 i.a4 IS lLlf4 i.b3 19 cxd5 lLlxd5 20 lLlxd5 exd5 21 i.dl i.c4 22 l::tel ~e6 23 b3 i..a6 24 ~xa5, and Black never managed to create counterplay for the pawn; Kasparov - Karpov, Siemens Giants rapid (lOth round) 1999.

10 lLlh3!? This position had been known for nearly 30 years before the Icelandic grandmaster Petursson introduced this provocative development of the knight. Subsequently White very often takes on c5. The main line is 10 i.d3, and if 10 ... c5 then IllLle2l:tcS. 10... cS At this point 10 ... l::tcS!? was an acceptable alternative, enabling Black to take back on c5 with the rook: 11 lLlf2 h6 (lL..c5) 12 i.h4 c5 13 lLlg4 d5 14 cxd5 lLlxd5 15 i..xdS lLlxc3 16 i.xb6 lLlxb6 17 bxc3 cxd4 IS cxd4 :tc2, and Black obtained compensation for the pawn in LautierBologan, Poikovsky 2004. (In that game h7-h6 and i.g5-h4 were inserted one move earlier.) Karpov goes for the more natural set-up.

11 dxcS bxcS12 i.e2 White keeps the d-file open for a rook. 12•••~b6 130-0 dS 14 :tadl 14 l:tfdl allows the queen's rook to go to c 1. However, Garry intends to play against the king, or at least to have the option of doing so. 14...i.c6 Karpov tried his luck with the same variation one year later. At this point he deviated from the present game with 14 ... a5 15 l:td2 l:tfeS 16 l:tcl l:tacS 17 i.dl h6 IS i.h4 i.a6 19 i..a4 i..xc4 20 Axf6 ttJxf6 21 AxeS J::!.xeS, and after this very interesting exchange sacrifice Black eventually lost; Ljubojevic-Karpov, Monaco Rapid 1997. Karpov had also played the White side of this line against Andersson at Haninge 1990, where the continuation was 14...h6 15 i.f4 a5 16 i.g3 i.a6 17 l:tf2 :ta7 IS cxd5 lLlxd5 19 ~cl Axe2 20 l:txe2 ~b5 21 Itc2 and Karpov went on to win. IsliJa h6 16 i.h4 i.a4 Ftafuik recommended 16 ...l:tabS, to answer 17 l:Id2 with the provocative thrust I7 ... d4!? (according to Kramnik, 17 ... a5 is equal) ]S exd4 cxd4 19 'iVc2 a5. Kasparov says this is slightly better for White, though still playable for Black. 17l:td2 i.b3

IslLlg4!? 223

1996

An original idea - opening the ffile, White is preparing an attack on the kingside. After 18 lIcl J:1fc8, Black is ready for the pressure on the queenside. 18•..ltJxg4 18 ...ltJh7 avoids the opening of the f-file, but means that the hanging pawns in the centre will be even more vulnerable: (a) 19 cxd5 exd5 20 i..dl i..c4 21 l:1:el ~e6 22 i..g3, with pressure on Black's hanging pawns. (b) Another way to play against the centre pawns is 19 l:c1 f5?! 20 tLle5. FtaCnik shows that the immediate rescue operation 20 ... d4? fails against 21 exd4 cxd4 22 l:xd4 ltJxe5 23 c5 ~b7 241Ib4 and White wins. 19 fxg4l::tab8 You normally prefer to put a rook on an open file, and that is what Karpov does here. In these circumstances, however, the rook would be well positioned on e8 in case White takes on d5. After 19... l:1:ae8!? 20 g5 (or 20 cxd5 exd5 21 :f5 l:te6 with counterplay) 20 ... hxg5 21 i..xg5 f6 22 i..h4ltJe5 23 cxd5 exd5, Black has a healthy position. 20gS Garry gave an exclamation mark to 20 cxd5! - a testing move. There can follow: 20 ... exd5 (after 20 ...i..xd5 21 e4 i..c6 22 g5 hxg5 23 i..xg5 :b7 24 l:Ifdl f6 25 i.e3, White is better) 21 l:trs (on 21 i.g3, Kasparov gives 2l...l:1:b7! - then 22 Af3 ~e6, or 22 ttf5 g6 23 J:1f3 ~e6 and Black is very much in the game) 2l...:be8 (Kasparov states that after 21...:b7 22 i.f3 g6 23 I:Ifxd5 White has decent compensation for the exch~ge) 22 i.f3 g6 23 lIfxd5 i.xd5 24 I:txd5 ~e6 25 e4 ltJb6! 26 l:1:d2 ~e5 and Black is all r~ght. 20•.. hxgS 21 i..xg5l:i:b7! Such a natural and good move. It takes some time to appreciate Karpov's play; though not sparkling, 224

it is very strong. 22 i..e7? Maybe Garry didn't expect the black knight to occupy the square vacated by the rook. Both champions say that withdrawing at once with 22 i..h4 was better. 22...lIe8 23 ..th4ltJfS!

Again simple and strong, clearing the seventh rank and fortifying the kingside. The point behind 22 i.e7 is explained by Ftatnik: 23 ... a5 24 i.h5! ltJb8 25 ttdt2, with pressure against fl. Even Kasparov's mistake is imaginative! 24 i.g3l:Id8 24 ... l:d7!? was an interesting alternative. 2S ..t h4 Ildd7 Or 25 ... d4 26 i.xd8 dxc3 27 i..xb6 cxd2 28 i..xc5 l:1:d7 29 i.dl i.xc4 30 ttt2, and White is better. 26 cxdSl:1:xdS Dolmatov recommends 26 ... exd5!?, and now: (a) 27 l:1:cl 'iWh6 (or 27 ... ltJe6 28 ~e5 ttb8 29 i.g4 l:1:e8) 28 i.t2 ltJe6 and Black has nothing to worry about. (b) 27 i.g4 d4 (Karpov gives 27 .. .l::ld6; in reply, Kramnik's move 28 ~e5 would be somewhat unpleasant to meet when short of time) 28 exd4 l:Ixd4 29 nxd4 cxd4 30 ~d3 i..a4 is equal according to Dolmatov. 27 e4

1996

According to Garry, 27 ~f3 i:Ixd2 28 ~xd2 l:td7 gives a good game. 27•..l:Ixd2 28 ~xd2 ~a4 It is regrettable that neither Kasparov nor Kramnik mentioned 28 ... e5! in their analyses. Ten years earlier, Karpov would not have taken too long to fmd moves like this. After 29 ~g3 (or 29 ~12 t"LIe6 30 ~g4 t"LId4 31 ~ g5 ~ d6, and Black is starting to take over) 29 ... f6 30 ~g4 t"LIe6, White has no attack at all. This recalls a comment that Grandmaster Adianto once made about playing Karpov: by the time you understand the problem, it is often too late. This is only hypothesis, but in the 1980s, when Karpov was still at his peak, Garry would probably not have dared to play so riskily - or if he had done, Karpov might have punished him for it. In a position like this, Karpov was incredibly strong - possibly even stronger than Garry.

is whether White gets enough counterplay around the king in return for the pawn. His own king can easily suffer from problems on the back rank: (a) 30 ~f6 t"LId7 31 ~e7 ~xb2 (3l...e5 32 ~g4) 32 ~f4 (White doesn't have enough here) 32 ...~d4+ 33 \t>hl t"LIe5 34 .i.f6 t"LId3 35 'iVh4 (Black also wins after 35 ~f3 e5)

35 ... ~12!! and wins. (b) 30 ~h6 t"LIh7, and now: (bl) 31 e5 ~xb2 32 Jl.xg6 (32 ~f6? t"LIxf6 33 exf6 ~d4+ 34 '.i7hl ~xf6 and Black wins) 32 ... fxg6 33 ~xg6+ l:Ig7 34 ~xe6+ ilg7 24 f4 l"Llg6 25 l"Llf5+, 272

Black is in deep trouble. 20 i..e2 20 l"Llxb7 l"Llxb7 21 ~xd4 is also playable, but Kasparov scents blood and is looking for more than just a slight edge. 20... b3 21 i..bl ~b6 22 ~d3 g6 The only way to close the diagonal. 23l"LleS i..c8 If23 ... l"Llb4, then 24 'iYxd4. 24 h4! In such a situation you anticipate a quick Kasparov finish. After 24 'iYxd4 f5 Black would still fail to equalize, but Kasparov doesn't even want to give Piket that option. 24...l"Llc6 By attacking the e5-pawn, Black sets up some counterplay against the knight on d6. After 24 ...h5 25 'iYxd4 l"Llc6 (or 25 ... f5 26 ~d2 '>ilh7 27 Ilfdl, and Black's position is about to fall apart) 26 'iYe4, White's pieces dominate the board.

25 as! Garry diverts one of the pieces involved in the threat against d6. This gives him time to finish the attack. On 25 h5? l"Llxe5!, Black gets back into the game. 2S...~xaS Or 25 ... l"Llxa5 26 h5 i..xd6 (if 26... l"Llb4, White's simplest reply is 27 ~xd4), and now: (a) 27 exd6 l"Llb7 28 hxg6 l"Llxc5 (after 28 ... f5 29 l"Llxb3 White will

1997

A typically powerful and aggressive display by Kasparov. In this opening Black can conceivably achieve a playable game, but Garry judged the position after 18 .Jig3 very acutely. When Piket was close to creating counterplay, Garry produced an effective riposte and proceeded to demolish Black's kingside in no time at all.

eventually catch the black king) 29 gxt7+ lht7 30 '&¥g6+ \!lf8 31 ~xh6+ \!le8 32 .Jig6 and it is all over for Black. (b) With 27 hxg6 White can win by a direct attack: 27 ....Jixc5 (27 ... €Jb4 loses to 28 '&¥e4 i.xc5 29 g7) 28 g7 f5 29 exf6 €Jxf6 30 gxf8=~+ i.xf8 31 l:!.c7 and wins.

26 €Jxf7 Garry demolishes the kings ide. 26.••l:!.xf7 27 'iHxg6+ \!lf8 27 ... l:!.g7 would create more of an obstacle. There would follow: 28 'iHe8+ .lif8 29 ~xc6 I:tb8, and now: (a) 30 €Jxb3 ~b4 31 .ta2 d3 32l:Ifdl ~g4 33 ~c4 ~xc4 34l:!.xc4 .lid7 35 l:txd3 €Jb4! (after 35 ... i.b5 36 €Jd4! Black is in surprisingly big trouble on e6) 36 l:txb4l':txb4 37 l:td2 and Black can resist. (b) 30 €Je4 .lid7 31 ~c4 l:!.b4 32 ~e2 ..tb5 33 ..td3 .lixd3 34 ~xd3 ~b5 35 ~f3 and Black has a weak kingside. 28 €Jxe6+ .lixe6 29 :ctxc6! i.d7 Or 29 ... €Jc7 30 ~xh6+ \!le8 (White wins easily after 30 ... J::l:g7 31 l:!.xe6 €Jxe6 32 '&¥xe6) 31 llxc7 (not the only way to win) 3l...'&¥xc7 32 'iHxe6. 30 'tW xb6+ 1-0 Piket resigned because 30 ... \!le8 (30 ... \tg8 31 l':Ig6+) 31 e6 .lixc6 ~2 exf7+ wins. 273

In the following round, he took far too big a risk on the Black side of a Paulsen. His position was thoroughly bad when Adams missed a good chance to make it +-, and even at the end, when threefold repetition occurred, Kasparov was still a little worse. After the game he said, "I played like a 2200 today" - and so he did. The next game was crucial for the result of the tournament. Garry was half a point ahead of Kramnik, who surprisingly chose a passive line leading to a queen exchange on move twelve. Kramnik managed to defend, but Garry could have played more assertively. Maybe his half-point lead caused him to relax, and he was hoping deep down that he had enough in hand for fIrst place. The game ended in a draw . In the fInal round, he adopted the same approach. (Karpov in his best years did the same too - he just concentrated on winning the tournaments, and in this he was successful so many times.) Kasparov had Black against Lautier. The game was heading towards a draw, but Lautier's draw offer on move 20 was accompanied by a losing move. Kasparov accepted the offer, missing a neat back-rank trick which would have left him a pawn up in the endgame. Sometimes it is better to playas though a draw had no value - just play to win. The end of the tournament harked back to the 1950s - the fIrst three

1997

places were shared by the three Russian participants. In 1997 Kasparov had a. great year, winning two super-tournaments and sharing first prize in another. He gave up playing in rapid events, which meant he could concentrate more on his regular game. Maybe he was also engaging less often in chess politics. Nothing was heard about a Karpov

274

match. They did not even play a game, even though in 1996 Kasparov thought Karpov would be the best challenger. In fact, these two rivals were to play only two more regular games up until 2005. Garry's match with Deep Blue belongs more to his business activity than to his chess career. He played a different kind of chess in that context.

1998 Linares Garry started the year - and finished it! - in Linares. It was a tragic state of affairs. We had a fantastic number one player, who excelled even among World Champions; he played as exciting a brand of chess as anyone; and yet he managed to play in only one proper tournament. His first game was against Peter Svidler, who had had his best result in Tilburg. Kasparov had problems in the ke2 Scheveningen, but as the result of an oversight Svidler was left with 15 moves to make in only 20 minutes. Kasparov managed to take control, but once the time trouble was over he had to be content with an equal position. They agreed a draw on move 52. In round three, after a free day only seven players were taking part Garry scored his sole win of the tournament. It is another tremendous Kasparov game that stays in your mind for days once you have gone through it carefully. Game 56 G.Kasparov White V.Anand Black Linares 1998 Caro-Kann Defence [Bl7] I e4 c6 These two gladiators have played each other so many times that they have tried out every angle of attack. Significantly, Vishy's worst results with Black against Garry have been in games with the Caro-Kann. Yet still he plays it! A certain amount of pride is at stake - Anand wants to show that this is another opening he can play.

275

But one other point seems relevant. It is noticeable that in those openings which he had already tried in his matches against Karpov, Garry's play is even better than normal. Maybe Anand had not noticed this. As Kasparov was younger at the time of the Karpov matches, he had more energy to work on the openings. The tense nature of those matches drew the very best out of him. Also in Soviet times, it was easier to find trainers and helpers. Karpov, for example, had a huge delegation in Merano for his match with Korchnoi. The story is different now; the government no longer helps, and there are no cheap trainers around. 2 d4 dS 3 tZld2 As a junior player, Garry tended to play 3 tzlc3. Now older, he goes for the text move. Is there a logical explanation for this? The move 3 tzlc3 is somewhat sharper in the case of g7g6. Whatever the reason, Garry should not be worried about entering a sharp tactical line, as his ability to calculate is still excellent. The present game will supply striking proof of this resilience. 3... dxe4 4 tzlxe4 tzld7 In his youth Garry himself played 4 ... kfS here. S tzlgS White voluntarily makes another move with his knight. According to chess principles, this somewhat awkward-looking move ought not to give an edge, and yet it has become the main line. Principles in chess can clash with each other, and there are always new ideas to be considered and matters we still cannot explain. S...tZlgf6 5... ~a5+!? is a novelty evaluated

1998

in an article in the New in Chess Yearbook. Grandmaster Dizdarevic gave it a try against Illescas Cordoba at Plovdiv 2003. There followed: 6 Ad2 ~d5 7 Ad3llJgf6 8llJlf3 h6 9 c4 ~d6 10 llJxfl \!)xfl 11 0-0 g5 12 Ac3 Ag7 13 llJe5+ cbg8 14 I:lel llJf8 15 ~b3 YlHc7 16 d5 e6 17 dxc6 bxc6 18 Ag6 llJxg6 19 llJxg6 I:lh7 20 I:ladl llJg4, and the Spanish grandmaster managed to draw. 6 Ad3 e6 7llJlf3 it.d6 With Black in the famous last game of his match against the computer Deep Blue, in New York 1997, Garry played 7... h6, and after 8 llJxe6 ~e7 9 0-0 fxe6 10 ..Itg6+ \!id8 II ..It f4 White won. The match itself seemed to be more an advertisement than a chess contest. Playing against a computer produces a different type of chess from a tournament. The only real benefit of computer matches is that more money, albeit unevenly distributed, is attracted to the game. Actually these matches divert top players from playing competitive chess. This is sad. Maybe it is better to let one or two computers enter the best tournaments if the money they bring is really needed. 8~e2 h6

Naturally not 8.. YJlic7?? which asks for 9 llJxf7! cbxfl 10 llJg5+ and White wins. 9 llJe4 llJxe4 10 ~xe4 fJlc7 II fJlg4 I:lg8 Finding a novelty in such standard positions is not easy. Anand's move is much less committal than the known a1tematives. For 11 ... g5, see the earlier game Kasparov - Kamsky, Linares 1994 (number 9 in this book). Against Topalov, three rounds after the present game, Anand changed back to 11 ... cbf8, and the continuation was: 120-0 c5 13 I:lel b6 14 c3 Ab7 15 h4 I:le8 16 h5 AdS 17 Ad2 I:ld8. In the later stages of that game, which ended in a draw, Anand made some 276

remarkable king moves. 12llJd2!?

Garry goes into reverse! However, the move is not a defensive one. He is improving the position of his knight, and to achieve this he is ready to invest two tempi. It is possible that Garry had analysed 11 ...IIg8 in advance, but if he had not, finding this reply shows his immense strength in the opening. After 12 Axh6 llJf6 13 fJlg5 (13 ~h4 IIh8) 13 ...i.f8! 14 ~h4 gxh6 15 'iVxf6 I:lxg2, Black is doing all right. Nor was Garry satisfied with 12 'iVe4llJf6 13 'iVe2 b6, as Black has no weaknesses. He has to castle long, and White will be able to attack on the queenside. But to do so, White himself has to castle short, after which Black can start his own attack on that wing. 12..•llJf6 Interestingly, no one has tried any other move here. Great players sometimes dictate the development of theory. Alekhine once wrote that in the Grunfeld Exchange Variation (4 cxd5 llJxd5 5 e4 llJxc3 6 bxc3) if White develops his knight on f3, Black can equalize easily with c7-c5 and Ac8-g4. Maybe his misjudgement had something to do with the fact that players did not play such a dangerous line for decades. From that time on, books were written on the basis of

1998

Alekhine's assumption. In actual fact Garry has scored some nice wins with that line; a particularly impressive one was Kasparov-Pribyl, Skara 1980. In the present case, if Black tries 12 ... eS 13 ltJc4 ltJb6, then after 14 ltJxd6+ ~xd6 IS ~g3 ~xd4 16 c3 ~ g4 17 'i¥ xeS+ White is better because of the two bishops. With 12 ... cS!? Black can try to utilize his slight gain of time resulting from White's knight manoeuvre. This idea is worth a second look: 13 ltJc4 (what else?), and now: (a) 13 ... ltJf6 14 ~h4 cxd4 IS ltJxd6+ (or IS ~xd4 .i.cs 16 ~f4 ~xf4 17 .txf4 'i;;e7 and Black is safe) IS .. :iVxd6 160-0 .td7 17 .txh6 .tc6 18 .tgS (18 .tf4 gS) 18 ... 0-0-0 produces quite an interesting position. (b) 13 ... cxd4 14 .txh6 (14 ~xd4 .tcS IS ~h4 ltJeS is playable for Black) 14 ... ltJeS (14 ... eS is also exciting, though hard to evaluate given the unusual type of position) IS lLlxeS ~aS+ (1S ... .txeS 16 0-0-0 .td7) 16 .td2 ~xeS+. This too looks playable.

will castle long, and with his extra pawn he will be no worse. 14....i.xeS ISltJc4 The knight is now superbly placed. However, as compensation Black has fluent development. The only question is whether he can do something with it. IS..•.i.e6 If Black could castle long he would be OK, but in actual fact he has no time to achieve that aim. Now after 16 0-0 .i.g4 17 llel+ 'i;;d8 18 ~f4 ~xf4 19 .i.xf4 White remains with an advantage, as the black king is not safe despite the queen exchange.

13~f3

Or 13 ~e2 ltJdS!? (on 13 ... b6 14 lLlc4, White acquires the two bishops with a small edge) 14 ltJe4 .tf4 IS i.xf4ltJxf4 16 ~f3 b6 and if White is better, his advantage is only slight. 13...eS A very ambitious move, freeing the light-squared bishop at once. As an alternative, 13 ... b6 14 lLlc4 .i.b7 IS ltJxd6+ 'iVxd6 is a line that should be put into practice more often. So far it has only been seen in one game Spasov-Meduna, Budapest 2000 which continued with 16 .t f4 ~ dS 17 ~xdS ltJxdS 18 .td2 0-0-0 19 .te2ltJf6 20 c3 l:tge8 21 0-0-0 e5, and Black held the position. 14 dxeS In the event of 14 ltJc4 exd4 IS ltJxd6+ 'iVxd6 16 0-0 .te6 Black 277

16.i.d2!? Garry treats the opening in the same way as he did against Kamsky (Game 9). He maintains the flow of his play by means of a pawn sacrifice. Again he is taking risks in order to win. After 16 ltJxeS ~xeS+ 17 ~e2 (or 17 .i. e3 ltJ g4 18 0-0-0 ltJ xe3 and Black has equality) 17 ... 'ihe2+ 18 'i;;xe2 0-0-0 1911el11ge8 20 'i;;fl, White can build up lasting pressure on the Black position if he is given time. Can Black do anything with his minimal lead in development? One option is 20 ... ltJd7 21 a3 (21 .i.e3 ltJeS 22 .i.e2 ltJc4 equalizes) 2l...ltJcS 22 .i.e2 .i.fS 23 .i.e3 ltJa4, when Black is pretty active and certainly no worse. 16... 0-0-0?!

1998

Anand continues to develop his pieces. However, he could have suspended this plan temporarily in order to capture the pawn. Perhaps he recalled how Kamsky was taken apart, or how he had been unable to resist Garry's attack in his own Evans Gambit game. Whatever his reason for choosing the game continuation, it does not look like the most combative option. Black is still able to defend, but he must work hard and unearth a sequence of strong moves. Had Vishy won or drawn the game, he would have been praised for his freedom from preconceptions. In reality, taking the pawn was preferable. In addition to deciding whether to win material, Black must choose which bishop he wants to retain. (a) The first option is l6 ... ~xb2!? which keeps the light-squared bishop: (al) 17 ~f4? .ic3+ 18 'litfl VJ!ie7 19 ~d6 (19 li:ld6+ 'litfS) 19... VJ!id7 20 ~dl li:ld5 and Black is doing fine, as White has no compensation for the pawn. (a2) 17li:lxb2 VJ!ie5+, and now: (a2I) 18 ~e3 VJ!ic3+ 19.i.d2 VJ!ie5+ and Black at least has a draw by repetition. (a22) 18 'litfl VJ!ixb2 19 ~dl VJ!ixa2 (19 ...0-0-0!?) 20 ~gl 0-0-0. Black is not yet home and dry, but two pawns should be enough. (a23) After 18 VJ!ie2 i'i'xb2 19 0-0 0-0-0, the position is difficult to assess but probably balanced. Black has to be careful with his king, but his active piece play may force exchanges in the centre: 20 gtbl (alternatively 20 a4 li:ld5 21 l!Itbl 'iVd4 and Black controls the centre; or 20 ~ab 1 VJ!i d4 21 .i.e3 VJ!ie5 22 rLb4 li:ld5 23 J:te4 VliJc7 24 .i.d4 .i.f5 and he is safe) 20 ... VJ!id4 21 .i.e3 VliJe5 22 VJ!id2 (in the event of 22 h3 li:ld5 23 .i.xa7 'ii'xe2 24 .i.xe2 li:lc3, Black has an easy endgame) 22 ... li:lg4 23 .i.f4 VJ!ic5 24 .i.g3 (24 gb4 li:lxf2) 24 ... li:le5, 278

and Black's position maintains its equilibrium. (a24) 18 VJ!ie3! VJ!ixb2 19 0-0 ~a3!? (or 19... li:ld5, and now 20 ~g3 0-0-0 or 20 ~c5 ~b6 21 'iVa3 'iVc7, when White has compensation for the pawn) 20 ~d4 (alternatively 20 gtbl 0-0-0, or 20 ~e5li:lg4 21 ~d4 ~d8 22 ~e4 VJ!id6 and Black is still kicking) 20 ...:td8 (or 20 ...li:ld5, aiming to meet 21 l:.tbl with 21...VJ!ie7 or 21 c4 with 21...0-0-0!) 21'iWh4

2l...'litd7!? (if 2l...li:ld5, then 22 gabl or 22 .i.h7 :th8). Black can castle artificially, and the position remains unclear: 22 :t tb 1 (after 22 i.xh6 ~h8 23 'iWd4+ 'litc8 24 i.cl l!Ixd4 25 i.xa3 Black has a fine ending) 22 ... 'litc8, and Black is alive. (b) The second option is to keep the dark-squared bishop with 16 ... i.xc4!? After 17 i.xc4 i.xb2 there can follow: (bl) 18 l!tdl 0-0-0 19 0-0 i.e5 20 h3, and White is not without compensation because of the two bishops and the slight weakness of Black's king position. However, Black should not lose. (b2) If 18 ~e3+, then 18, .. ~e7 is the simplest way to extinguish White's initiative (18 ...VJ!ie5 is also playable; then 19 VJ!ixe5+ i.xe5 20 0-0-0 0-0-0 21 i.xf7 :tgfS 22 i.e6+ 'lite7 23 :thel i.d6 24 h3 is equal). After 19 VJ!ixe7+ (or 19 :tb I VJ!ixe3+ 20 fxe3 b5 and Black is slightly better) 19... 'litxe7 20 Itbl b5

1998

21 :xb2 bxc4 22 J::tb7+ 'Oite6 23 0-0 llld5, the knight on d5 guarantees Black a pleasant endgame. (b3) IS :bl, and now: (b31) IS .. .'tWe5+ 19 'Oitfl (or 19 ~e3 "ti'xe3+ 20 fxe3 b5 and Black is somewhat better) 19 ...0-0-0 and White has these choices: (b311) 20 i.e3 i.d4 (or 20 .. J::i:gfS 21 g3 ~c3 22 i.d3, and with the black bishop decentralized, White has full compensation for the pawn) 21 .i.a6 (or 21 J..xf7 J::tgfS 22 iH4 ~c5 and Black's pieces are in menacing positions) 2l...J::td7 22 ~xc6+ WdS 23 J..xb7 (not 23 .i.xd4? ~xd4 24 J..xb7 l:teS and suddenly White is lost) 23 ... J..xe3 24 fxe3 ~xe3 and the black king is the safer. (b312) 20 J..f4 ~c5 21 J..xf7 (21 ~b3 1:.d4) 2l...~xc2 22 i..e6+ llld7 23 l:tdl l:tgeS (Kasparov stops after 23.J::i:gfS, saying the position is -+. However, after 24 ~g4! it seems that White is not worse: 24 ...~xdl+ 25 ~xdl llxf4 looks equal) 24 J::td2 ~bl+ 25 :dl ~g6 26 .i.h3 J..e5. Black soon extricates himself from the pin, so he is not worse. (b32) IS ...J..e5 poses the question of how to continue the attack. The answer is not easy: (b321) 19 0-0 0-0-0 (19 ....i.xh2+ 20 Whl 0-0-0 is answered by 21 .i.e3 J..e5 22 J..xa7; it is probably better for Black not to swap the a-pawn for the h-pawn) 20 .i.e3 WbS 21 J..a6

21...b6 is now extremely hard to evaluate. My experience from certain Scandinavian lines and the Scotch Game (the variation 4...i.c5 5 i.e3 ~f6 6 c3 lllge7 7 g3) suggests that Black is not worse. Of course it is dangerous to have a position like this against Garry. (b322) 19 ~e3?! 0-0-0 20 ~xa7 J::tgeS 21 i.e3 i.d4! (but not 2l...lllg4?? 22 l:txb7!) and Black takes over. (b323) 19 h3 0-0-0 20 i..d3, and it is hard to choose the best continuation for Black: 20 ... g5, or 20 ... ~d6 21 0-0 ~d5, or 20 ...I.tgeS 21 0-0 llle4. All look reasonable alternatives; Black's active piece play in the centre makes it very hard for White to mount an attack. (b324) 19 g3 0-0-:-0 20 i.d3 h5!? 21 h4 g6 22 0-0 lllg4 23 1:b3 :d6 and Black's pieces are working well.

17 0-0-0 llld7 The Indian grandmaster follows the line that he planned earlier. Other moves were weaker. The position after 17 ...i.g4 18 i.f5+ i.xf5 19 ~xf5+ llld7 20 .i.e3 favours White. In the event of 17 ...I.td7 IS lllxe5 ~xe5 19 ~e3 (19 .i.f4 ~ as), White gains a tempo and consolidates the advantage of the bishop pair. It is lucky for him that after 19 .. :ihe3 20 i.xe3 the a7-pawn is hanging - otherwise Black could

As in all variations in this line, 279

1998

exchange one of the bishops by 20 ... lllg4. Playing against these bishops in the endgame would be decidedly unpleasant. 18l:thel This is a natural move, bringing the last undeveloped piece into the game. It sets up the threat of ~f3-e3 with a double attack on e5 and a7. Other options are as follows: (a) Black can answer ISlllxe5 with either IS ... lllxe5 (to capture on d3 next move and deprive White of his bishop pair) or ls ... 'ihe5, when 19 Jt f4 'iV a5 is equal (but not 19 ... 'iVf6?? 20 'iVxc6+! bxc6 21 .Jta6 mate). (b) Challenging the queenside with IS i.a5 b6 19 i.d2 allows Black's pieces to exert pressure in the centre; after 19 ...Jtd5 20 'iVg4 \t>b7 he has no problems. (c) IS \t>bl is Kasparov's recommendation; he evaluates it as slightly better for White. There can follow: IS ... Jtd5 (lS ...Jtf6 19 Jtf4 is dangerous. However, if IS ...g5, the reply 19 h4 would not work as well as in the actual game: after 19 ...Ad5 20 ~e3 \t>bS Black has freed his position) 19 'iVe3, and now: (cl) 19... \t>bS 20 :hel (or 20 III xe5 III xe5 21 A fI III g4 and Black remains active) 20 ...Af6 and Black must still be careful, though the position should be tenable. (c2) 19 ...~xg2 20 llhgl i.d5 21 f4 (21 'iVxa7 b5) 21...Jtxc4 22 Jtxc4 lllb6 23 Jtxf7 'iVxf7 24 fXe5 lllc4 is adequate for Black. 18.. J~ge8? Anand strengthens e5. This looks so natural, and yet it is a mistake. He had various other tries: (a) IS ... f6? defends e5 but leaves the other bishop unprotected. After 19 'iVe3 \t>bS 20 f4, White wins. (b) IS ... \t>bS?? protects a7, but loses to a simple tactic: 19 lllxe5 lllxe5 20 J::!.xe5! and wins because of 2S0

the threat of21 .ltf4. (c) lS .. Jj'bS 19 \t>bl .ltc7 20 Ac3, and Black can't start exchanging pieces. (d) lS ... g5 19 "iVe3 .ltxc4 20 .ltxc4 lllb6 21 Ae6+ fXe6 22 ~xe5 and the ending is better for White. (e) With lS ....ltf6!? Black intends llld7-e5 to exchange the powerful white knight. It looks as if he can just about hold on: (el) 19 \t>bl (or 19 'iVe3 \t>bS) 19 ...llle5 20 lllxe5 Axe5 and Black survives. If 21 .JtfS, then 2l...I:tgeS comes in time: 22 Ac3 Uxdl+ 23 I:txdl .li.xc3 24 .li.xe6+ lixe6 25 ~xc3 lid6 and Black has relieved the pressure. (e2) 19 .li.f4, and now:

(e21) 19 ... 'iVxf4+?! is not the best way to go about simplifying. After 20 %Vxf4 Jtg5 21 ~xg5 hxg5 22 llld6+ \t>c7 Black is only slightly behind in development, yet he is in some trouble: (e211) 23 llle4 g4 24 lllg5 lllc5 (or 24 ... lllf8 and Black can resist) 25 i..g6 (25 i..e2 tIxdl + 26 tIxdl lihS) 25 ...J:hdl+ 26 \t>xdl ~dS+ 27 cl I:thS and Black holds. (e212) 23 .li.fS!? i..d5 (or 23 ... i..xfS 24 lllxfS and Black is struggling, for example: 24 ... I:tdeS 25 l:hes llxeS 26 lllxg7 tte2 27 Ufl lLlf6 2S \t>dl when White expels the rook and keeps the extra pawn) 24 lllb5+ '>ilb6 25 lLlc3 g6 26 SiLxd7 I:txd7 27 lie5 and White is pressing.

1998

(e22) 19... i.gS is a better try: (e221) 20 i.e3 ~geS 21 i..xgS hxgS 22 jus ttJcS (or 22 ... ttJf8 23 i..xe6+ ttJxe6 and now 24 ~a3 is met by 24 .. :~f4+, but after 24 ~fS White is a fraction better) 23 iixe6+ (or 23 ~a3 ~f4+ 24 ttJe3 ~xdl+ 2S ~xdl ..IlxfS 26 'iVxcs ..Ild7 and Black can defend) 23 ...~xe6 24 ~xdS+ ~xdS 2S ~xe6 ttJxe6 26 g3 and White still has the better position, but only slightly. (e222) 20 i..xgS hxgS 21 h3 (after 21 ~e3 ttJb6 22 ttJxb6+ ~xb6 23 ~xgS ~xt2 24 ~fl ~dS, Kasparov evaluates the position as equal) 21..:iH4+ (after 2l...ttJb6 22 ttJxb6+ axb6 23 I:te4 Black's two pairs of doubled pawns are a liability) 22 ~xf4 gxf4 23 ttJd6+ ~c7 24 i. fS i.xfS (or 24 ... ttJcS 2S i..xe6 fxe6 26 ttJe4 and White has a small plus) 2S ttJxfS ItdeS 26 a3 (26 ~xeS?! ~xeS 27 ttJxg7 ~gS). White is better, as the knight on fS is well placed, but Black's position should be tenable.

19 ~bl! A good move that cleverly prevents a number of tactical tricks. The ball is now in Anand's court, and he does not find it easy to play constructively. The double attack 19 ~e3? loses to 19... i.xc4 20 i..xc4 i..xb2+. 19... g5? It is hard for an active player to do nothing. At this point Vishy loses 2SI

patience, or perhaps he has missed Garry's superb reply. More likely he has underestimated its strength. The black king would like to escape from the danger zone, but 19 ... WbS?? loses to the same tactic that was highlighted last move: 20 ttJxeSttJxeS 211IxeS!. If 19 ... ~bS (with the idea of preserving the dark-squared bishop by i..eS-c7), then 20 i..b4! i..c7 21 i.fS! and the d6-square becomes a fatal weakness. Once the light-squared bishops are exchanged, it is hard for Black to stop the invasion. White can answer 19... f6!? with 20 i..b4!? (stopping i..eS-d4 and ttJd7-eS) 20 ... 'itJbS (20 ... a6 21 h4 WbS 22 hS) 21 h4 i.dS 22 ~g4, with a slight edge. This would have been better for Black than the game continuation. 20 h4! A typically forceful Kasparov move that exposes weaknesses in Black's position. It undermines Anand's two flank pawns. The alternative 20 itaS was possible, but after 20 ...b6 21 i.d2 Black preserves his bishop with 2l...i.. g7 . After 20 ~e3 i..f4 21 ~xa7 i.xc4, White has to play 22 I:!xeS to guard against a back rank mate threat. Then 22 ... I:!xeS 23 i.aS! b6! (after 23 .....Ilxa2+ 24 Wxa2 ~bS 2S ~xbS+ White is somewhat better) 24 ~aS+ ~bS (now the bishop on c4 is defended in an extraordinary way; if instead 24 ... ttJbS, then 2S i.xc4 wins) 2S ~xc6+ ~c7 26 ~aS+ ttJbS is unclear. 20...i.f4? Other possibilities are: (a) 20 ... i.dS 21 ~e3, and the double attack wins a pawn. After 2l...'itJbS 22 hxgS hxgS 23 ~xgS I:!gS 24 ~e3, Black cannot recover it. (b) 20 ... g4 21 ~e3, and now: (bl) 2l...~bS 22 ~xh6 i..xc4 23 i.xc4 ~b6 24 i.cl ~xt2 2S ~gS ~gS (2S ... ~xg2 26 l:txeS! wins)

1998

26 ~h5, and Black's kingside has fallen apart. (b2) 2l...Axc4 22 .lixc4 liJb6 23 Ad3 h5 24 'iVg5 and Black loses material, as the reply 24 ...liJa4? doesn't work: 25 'iVxh5 liJxb2 261:txe5 liJxd3 27 'iVxg4+ and White wins. (c) 20 ... gxh4! was Black's only real chance. The more pawns disappear from the board, the easier it is for him. Now White would have difficulty choosing the best move from various candidates:

(cl) 21 AaS b6, and now: (cll) 22 Ab4 Wb8 23 'iVh5 Af4 24 'iVxh4 Ag5 25 'iVhl (Black's pawns are not great, and if the queen can rejoin the action, White is better) 25 ... liJf6! (creating sufficient play) 26 ~c3 (or 26 g3liJd5 27 ~d2 ~xd2 28 liJxd2 liJb4) 26 ...Axc4 27 Axc4 liJe4. The queen has yet to return to the fight. (cI2) 22 Ad2 .lid5 23 'iVh5 Af6 24 'iVxh6 :!:Ixe I 25 J::txe I ~h8 is playable for Black. (c2) 21 'iVe3 'it'b8!. Garry doesn't indicate how White can keep an edge against this king move. He could try: (c21) 22 ~xh6 (22liJxe5 liJxe5, or 22 Ab4 Af4) 22 ...Axc4 23 Axc4 ~b6 24 Acl ~xf2 25 'iVh5 f6 and the bishop on e5 is strong. (c22) 22 An i..g7 23 ~f4 Axc4 24 A xc4 J:txe 1 25 J:txe i liJ e5 26 A b3 liJg6 and Black holds on. (c3) 21 .i.xh6!? .i.d5 (after 2l...b5 282

22 liJd2 l:tg8 23 AfS AxfS 24 'iVxfS

lhg2 25 liJe4 Black is in trouble with

the pin) 22 ~h3 .i.f6 23 Acl and White is a little better. 21 Axf4 gxf4 22 i.f5! Garry exchanges Black's bestplaced defensive piece in order to invade. 22.•.liJf8? Throwing in the towel, but the options were few: (a) 22 ...Axc4 23 J:txe8 lhe8 24 .i.xd7+ wins. (b) 22 ...AxfS 23 l:txe8 (but not 23 liJd6+?? ~xd6 24 J:txd6 Ihel+ 25 J:tdl liJe5, winning for Black) 23 ... l:txe8 24 liJd6+ Wd8 25 liJxfS and Black's position falls apart. (c) 22 ...i.d5! 23 l:.xe8 J:txe8 24 ~g4 l:td8 25 b3 'it;b8 26 Axd7 lIxd7 27 liJe5 J:te7 28 tLld3 f3 29 gxf3. Black is clearly worse, but this was the only way to stay in the game - as Kasparov pointed out. 23 'it"h5! Not so much a bull, more like an elephant in a china shop! The queen destroys the already devastated kingside. 23 ...'it;b8 24 .i.xe6 tL\xe6

25a4! Another powerful pawn thrust. This one scotches the slightest counterchances Black might have had, although 25 "iYxh6 b5 26 liJd2 J:tg8 is also better for White.

1998

2S.• :~e7 26 -etIeS+ -etIc7 27 -etIhS -etIe7 28 b3! White still has to be vigilant: 28 ~xh6? nh8. or 28 l::i.xd8+ l::i.xd8 29 ~xh6? ~b4 and Black wins. 28•• Ji'f6 29 tLleS ne7 30 tLlg4 llxd1+ Fta~nik analyses 30 ... ~g6 to a nice checkmate: 31 ~e5+ nc7 (31 ... '.&'c8? 32 l:xd8+ '.&'xd8 33 ~b8+ 'it'd7 34 tLle5 mate) 32 l:xd8+ tLlxd8 33 tLlf6 '.&'c8 34 ~d6 tLle6

In this position it would be a mistake to aim for an ending in which White is only a pawn up. After 33 ~xh6 ~xh6 34 tLlxh6 l::i.h8 35 tLlxfl nXh4, White would still have to work for the point. 33•..'.&'a8 Or 33 ... VJ!ig6 34 ~e5+ '.&'a8 35 h5 ~g5 36 ~xg5 bxg5 37 ild7 and Black is lost. The outcome is the same after 33 ...h5 34 ~xh5 l:th8 35 ~a5 b6 36 ~el. 34 hSl::[fS

35 ~f8+! tLld8 36 ~xd8+ '.&'xd8 37l:e8 mate. 31 nxdl"'g7 On 3l...~g6. Fta~nik's analysis goes: 32 ~e5+ '.&'c8 (or 32 ... llc7 33 tLlf6 '.&'c8 34 tLle8 l:d7 35 tLld6+ and wins) 33 tLlf6 VJ!ig7

3Snd71-0 A typical Kasparov game in which he introduced elements of uncertainty into the position right from the opening. He handled the complications better than his opponent, and found one move that was very astute. Finally he brought Anand down with a string of very powerful moves. Anand, incidentally, went on to win the tournament. He said he had played well throughout the contest except in the Kasparov game. Of course such a great player has a bad day whenever he loses, but Kasparov's superb play had a lot to do with it. This was the first year since 1985 in which, overall, a rival achieved more impressive results than Garry. That rival was Anand. There is something very sad about this particular game. It was the only regular tournament game that Garry

34 l:d8+!! tLlxd8 (34 ... '.&'xd8 35 ~b8 mate) 35 flixe7 tLle6 36 tLle8 ~d4 37 tLld6+ '.&'b8 38 ~xb7 mate. 32D! Not 32 tLlxh6 - there is no need to allow the pin 32 ... ~h8. 32•.•l:te8 33 ~f5! 283

1998

won during the whole year. It was harmful for chess that the best player could not afford to play more often. One problem is that top players can earn more by engaging in other chess activities. In other sports, if the top professionals decide to take a lengthy break, they pay for it with a drop in their ranking. This does not happen in chess. The Elo system doesn't encourage players to play - this is regrettable and avoidable. Top professionals should play in at least one tournament every three months. Their very strong tendency to evade the challenge - something unparalleled in other sports - contributes to the belief that there is no proper World Championship and that there is chaos at the top. In round four Kasparov played the Grilnfeld with c7-c6 and d7-d5 against Ivanchuk's set-up with g2-g3. This time Kasparov didn't react too violently - he made sure of not losing. Eventually he took control, and had the chance to go into an endgame with an extra pawn - which however would have played no role, since the pawns were all on one side. Garry opted for a same-coloured bishop ending where he had the better bishop but Ivanchuk had the better king. It ended in a draw. In the next round Kasparov faced Topalov, who defended with the Najdorf. Garry played the 6 g3 line and looked well prepared. He probably took this idea from his clock simultaneous match against the Argentine team, where he lost with Black in 28 moves against Spangenberg. Please keep in mind that in 'simuls' Garry's play is at best around 2650 level. I can imagine that that particular game did not escape the attention of Topalov and his trainers. In the event Garry and Veselin settled for threefold repetition on move 22. For this Garry was fined 3500 dollars, as the Linares toum284

ament director wanted to oppose quick draws. This had an effect: Kasparov played a longer game in the next round - but not much longer, just four more moves. He was Black in the Grilnfeld Exchange Variation against Kramnik, who played the line with lL\gl-f3 and I:l:al-bl. A sharp position became simplified. Chess is like that sometimes openings lead straight into endings, and we have to live with it. Throughout his career Kasparov has invariably tried very hard with both White and Black. But that was not the end of the 'horror'. Garry continued the tournament with a 22-move draw against Shirov. In the contest as a whole there were 18 decisive games, and Shirov was involved in 8 of them. Alexei played the new Arkhangelsk variation. He sacrificed a pawn, and Garry was unable to obtain any advantage. There was nothing left to play for when the draw was agreed. Garry hoped that the second half of the tournament would be better. After the opening of his round 8 game against Peter Svidler - it was the antiMarshall system that had brought Kasparov many victories - this hope seemed justified. Gradually, however, Svidler took over. Kasparov said in an interview that in this tournament he seemed invincible. As the games went, however, it was a close thing. Objectively he was probably never in a lost position, but walking into the centre with his king was dangerous. Garry held on well nonetheless; when they concluded peace he was two pawns down, but the position was an easy draw. I asked some of today's very good players to say whose style most resembled Garry's. A common response was that among his predecessors, Alekhine was the closest. However, many believed thet Garry's chess was so distinctive that there were no valid

1998

comparisons. There was one name that did crop up - and that was Peter Svidler. One strong grandmaster also told me that in terms of powerful openings, the player closest to Kasparov was Topalov. The next game was with Black against Anand. Once again they played the Najdorf line with 6 .i.e3 liJg4, and the game was drawn in 24 moves. It seems to me that in the fmal position White had a small plus and could have played on for some time. Anand's personal results against Garry in regular games since their 1995 match had been disappointing, and this may have influenced his slightly early agreement to a draw. This was the time when Kasparov set up a new Championship Candidates tournament, and Anand did not take up the offer to play a match with Kramnik for the right to challenge Kasparov. In round eleven, Ivanchuk played the Zaitsev Variation of the closed Ruy Lopez. It was a dangerous decision, as Kasparov does incredibly well in those openings which he played and analysed so often during his matches with Karpov. Maybe there were holes in his analysis, which were excavated by the computer; Garry's world-class opponents never managed to unearth anything, which suggests that there may not have been that many anyway. Kasparov has an uncanny feel for these positions. Against Ivanchuk - according to Dokhoian's analysis, which hardly ever contradicts that of his boss Garry had an advantage in the endgame but let his opponent off the hook. Vassily sailed into a four-rook ending - a type which tends to be more drawish than positions with one pair of rooks only. As a junior trainer, let me share my impression of Kasparov's endgames during this period. I was Peter Leko' s

trainer when he was between the ages of 10 and 14, and I think this was when his formidable endgame technique was acquired. At 12 he was already capable of finding amazing endgame solutions in competition with my other pupil Gyimesi. A few years later, I noticed that some mistakes had crept into Leko's endgame play. Knowing his ability, it made me wonder why. Then I realized he had stopped working on them. If you go through the endgame encyclopaedia you can find numerous analyses by Karpov. This suggests that his exceptional level of endgame play is not only the result of talent, will-power and concentration, but comes from hard work. Going through Kasparov's games for this book, one has the feeling he was neglecting to cultivate this crucial aspect of the game. As a little boy, he had contributed to Botvinnik's analyses. In particular, he worked on analysing the famous BotvinnikFischer game. Later he was put to the test by the marvellous endgame specialist Karpov. He analysed his adjourned games extensively. The number of mistakes he appears to have committed in endgames during the period covered by this book (1993-8) suggests he should have made a more deliberate effort to polish his skill. It is hard to criticize a player who by then was already perhaps the greatest of all time. However, even Dokhoian attaches question marks to Garry's play in the endgame phase. The weakness in this department is relative to his skill in other areas of the game. In 1999 Garry showed an improvement in his endgame play. The impression is that he had neglected his practice for a while, then probably noticed this omission and worked to regain his touch. Let us return to the tournament. It 285

1998

was becoming a veritable tonnent for Mr Rentero the director, as Garry drew in 19 moves against Topalov. The Bulgarian went in for a sharp line with i. b5+ against the Griinfeld. Kasparov introduced a novelty, and the fight went all the way to a dead drawn position. Yet these two players are amongst the sharpest exponents of the game, and the draws they produce are of the highest quality. In the next round Garry faced Kramnik, the competitor with the second highest rating. This turned out to be a long contest. In the 'iV c2 Nirnzo-Indian Kasparov emerged from the opening with a small edge he managed to double the f-pawns in Vladimir's camp. Apart from that, Kramnik had no problems; according to his own account, he had an easier way to equalize. As the game developed, an endgame arose with bishops on the same colour. Kasparov's king was better centralized, and Kramnik had a weak pawn on the colour of Kasparov's bishop. But the key factor was that Kasparov had no point of entry, so after a while there was no reason to keep on playing and a draw was agreed. One round to go, and the shortest draw still to come. In a Sicilian with 6 .i.e3 e6 7 g4, Kasparov introduced a very important novelty. Shirov had started the tournament with two losses and then raised his standing to 'plus two'. He did not risk chasing Anand, who was leading, but took the opportunity to force Kasparov to resort to perpetual check. One wonders how Mr Rentero reacted after Kasparov produced stilI more short draws. We may presume he refrained from imposing repeated financial penalties. It shows Kasparov's level of influence at that time. Nobody questioned his number one status, even after this gr~ gerfonnance when he shared 3 -4 places 286

with Kramnik. His opponents looked happy to draw with White against him. Kasparov did not obtain the most favourable positions. With White he started with a tremendous win over Anand, then he acquired nothing out of the opening against Topalov and Shirov. In the remaining games he managed to create some pressure, but could not convert small advantages into wins.

Kasparov-Topalov: The Rapid Match in Sofia After World War II the Soviet Union managed to build a cushion of satellite countries. In the southern ones, Russians were more 'popular' than they were among some other nations. And in Bulgaria they were really liked. This was because of the role played by Russia in helping Bulgaria to gain independence during the second half of the nineteenth century. Practising the same religion and adopting the same alphabet brought these nations even closer together. The Bulgarians were hoping their local hero would do well in this rapid contest. However, Garry gave the locals even less to celebrate than he had given the British during the Short match. The contestants played four games. All four were decisive - and all went Kasparov's way. The first game was a Tartakower Defence to the Queen's Gambit, in which Garry, with Black, had hanging pawns. Complications quickly set in. It appears that there were inaccuracies on both sides, but Veselin must have made at least one serious mistake as he lost a piece. In the second game, Garry played the 6 i.e3 line against the Najdorf. This developed into another complicated encounter, albeit a little less wild than the first. Garry went on to win this game too.

1998

The third game featured a line which had already been tested in the Karpov matches - this is a bad omen for Kasparov's opponents. It was another highly tactical game, with mistakes by both players .... Game 57 V.Topalov White G.Kasparov Black Rapidplay match (25 minutes), Sofia 1998

Topalov has just played 39 'ife3 (from b3), which is a mistake. The exploitation is most effective: 39...CLlxd4! Black can take the d4-pawn all the same - the rook is immune. 40 CLlr4? Let's look at the alternatives: (a) 40 Wg2? (Black was threatening CLld4-D, followed by opening the long diagonal with d5-d4; that explains this move) 40 ... CLlxe2 41 ~xd2 d4+ 42 \t>h3 ~f5+ and mate in 2 more moves. (b) In their independent analyses, Kostakiev and Daniel King both recommended 40 CLlxd4!. Taking the knight, now or after a rook check, is the only way to stay in the game: (hI) 40 .. :it'xd4 41 %:tcl. White now manages to win the a-pawn and save himself: 41....lia4 42 l:tc7 ~xe3 43 fxe3 a5 441Ia7. (b2) 40 .. J:hd4 41 'iVh6 .lie8. 42 h5 287

~fS (or 42 .. J:te4 43 bxg6 'iVxg6 44 ~xg6+ fxg6 45 .Jig2 l:l:d4 46 l::tal and Black can't hold the extra pawn) 43 bxg6 ~xg6 44 ~xg6+ fxg6 45 %:tb8 \t>f] 46 l:l:b7+ Wf6 47 l'ha7 I:!.d2. Black is somewhat better, but there is so little material on the board that the game should end in a draw. (c) Similarly after 40 l:l:b8+! \t>g7 41 CLlxd4 ~xd4 (or 41...1:txd4 42 ~c3 i.d7 43 :a8 i.h3 44 ~al and White holds) 42 l:l:c8 'ifxe3 43 fxe3 i.d7 44 l:1:c7 .lifS 45 l:1:xa7, White can defend. 40•..~e5!! A fme tactical shot, based on the excellent placing of the knight on d4. Black's rook is left hanging, and the queen is centralized on an unprotected square. It all hinges on a knight fork on D. 41 'iVa3 After 41 i.g2 the endgame is not the same as before, as Black is able to hold on to the a-pawn: 41..:~xe3 42 fxe3 CLlf5 43 l:l:cl .Jib5 44 .lixd5 CLlxe3 and Black wins. 41. .• \t>g7?! Alternatives were as folows: (a) 41...~e4 42 l:l:b8+ .lie8 (not 42 ... Wh7?? 43 ~fS CLlf3+ 44 '.t>hl! CLlxh4+ 45 .t.g2 and White even wins) 43 .lig2! ~el+ (or 43 ...~e5 44 l:l:a8 '.t>g7 45 ~e3 tlle2+ 46 tllxe2 l:l:xe2 47 ~xe5+ and White reaches a safe ending) 44 '.t>h2, and now: (a1) 44 ... Wg7 45 ~c3 (45 CLld3 ~e2 46 CLlf4 also holds) 45 ... l:l:dl 46 ~xel l:l:xel 47 l:l:a8 is another drawish endgame. (a2) 44 ... '.t>h7 45 CLld3! 'iVe2 46 ~fS tllf3+ 47 .lixf3 'ilxf3 48 l:l:xe8 l:l:xf2+ 49 CLlxf2 'ifxf2+ with a perpetual. (a3) 44 ... CLlc6 45 l::ta8 l::txf2 46 CLlxd5 '.t>g7 47 CLlc7, and again Black merely has perpetual check with 47 ... l:l:xg2+ (or 47 ... tlle5 48 CLlxe8+ '.t>h7 49 CLlf6+ lhf6 50 'iYfS iLlg4+ 51 '.t>h3 CLlf2+).

1998

move allows White to retract his error. If Black pins the bishop with 43 ... t!.dl!, White has only a few checks: 44 ~f8+ (44 :tel ~el wins) 44 ... Wf6 45 ~d8+ Wf5 46 'iVg5+ ~e4 47 '@g4 ttJf3+ and White is lost. 44 ~c3?? Another error would be 44 Wixa7?

(a4) 44 ...t!.xt2 45 'iVa4 ttJf3+ 46 '.!1h3 ttJgJ+ (46 ... '.!1f8 47 'iVa3+) 47 '.!1h2 ttJf3+ draws. (b) With 4l...a5!! Black could consolidate the a-pawn for the endgame: 42 Ag2 (if White decides to do nothing with 42 Mcl, Black has an instructive way to penetrate to the white king: 42 ... a4 43 t!.b I '.!1g7 44 t!.cl .Jtd7 45 l:tbl .Jtf5 46 l:tcl - and now 46 ...Ae4, threatening 47 ... ttJf3+ with a battery, or 46 ...Ac2 and White is paralysed) 42 ... a4 43 'iVc5 '.!1g7 44 'iVc3 t!.c2 45 'iVd3 ttJe2+ 46 ttJxe2 t!.xe2 and wins. Garry seldom misses strong moves on the edge of the board! He probably felt he could force a win with his centralized pieces. 42 J:Icl After 42 St.g2 ttJe2+ 43 ttJxe2 'iVxe2 44 ~fl! (44 'iVxa7 d4 45 l:tfl .Jtxg2 46 '.!1xg2 'iVe4+ is a tough position for White) 44 ....ltb5 45 'iVxa7 d4, White is worse but still has some drawing chances. 42 •.•St.b5 42 ... a5 still merited consideration. 43 l:tcS?

44 ...iVe3!! (a fabulous way to exploit the weakness of t2; with 44 .. :~el 45 ttJd3 ~e4 Black could also win, but but more prosaically) 45 fxe3 (on 45 ttJd3, seemingly defending the t2-pawn, Black doesn't bother to win the queen with 45 ... ttJf3+ but plays 45 ...~xg3+! 46 ~h I ttJf3) 45 ...ttJf3+ 46 Wh 1 l'lh2 mate. Kostakiev's recommendation of 44 t!.c I prevents a direct invasion, but the reply 44 ... a5! (44 ....Jtb5 would repeat the position) consolidates the apawn: if45 iVxa5?then45 ... iVe3!!. 44...Jtd7? Garry misses a golden opportunity to win at once. He forgets about the tactical motif he has already set up. After 44 ..J::tc2! 45 t!.xe8 (or 45 'iYxc2 ttJxc2 46 t!.xc2 a5 and White cannot successfully resist) 45 ...l:hc3 46 J:Ixe5 ttJf3+ 47 '.!1g2 ttJxe5, White can resign. 45 .l:dSl:Idl?? Instead Black could have played: (a) 45 ....Jtb5?!, and now: (al) 46 J::txd5? loses to 46 .. :~el. If White tries the desperate trick 47 ttJe6+, Black wins with 47 ... Wf6,

Better 43 St.g2 ttJe2+ 44 ttJxe2 ~xe2 45 'iVxa7 d4 46 :!::Ifl- compare

the note to White's 42nd move. 43•••.lteS? With little time on the clock, Garry makes sure Veselin doesn't get any attacking opportunities. However, this 288

1998

but not 47 ... fxe6?? 48 "+lVc7+ when White has perpetual check. (a2) 46 .i.xb5? ~el+ 47 cj;>h2 l:!.xt2+ and the white queen is lost. (a3) 46 .i.g2, and Black has two tries: (a31) 46 ...%Vel+ is tempting, but after 47 cj;>h2 ~xt2 48 ~b4 0e6 (not 48 ....i.c4?? 49 ~f8+ cj;>f6 50 l:!.d6+ cj;>e5 51 ~e7+ and White even wins) 49 0xe6+ fxe6 50 %Ve7+ %Vf7 51 Vi'c5 .i.c4 52l:!.a8, Black's king is so insecure that he has nothing better than 52 ... l:!.xg2+ 53 cj;>xg2 'tIU fl + with

a perpetual. (a32) 46 ... l:!.dl+ 47 cj;>h2 0c6 forces simplification to a winning endgame with an extra pawn: 48 'tIUc2 (or 48 'tIUxe5+ 0xe5 49 l:txd5 0g4+ 50 cj;>h3 0xt2+ and wins) 48 ... 0xd8 49 ~xdl d4 and White is lost. (a4) 46 ~a3! l:!.dl (46 ....i.e8! can be played again) 47 ~f8+ cj;>h7 48 ~xf7+ ~g7 49 ~xg7+ cj;>xg7 50 l:Ixd5 0f3+ (or 50 ... l:!.xfl+ 51 '.tg2 l:tdl 52 l:!.xd4 - White too can play such tricks) 51 ~g2 0xh4+ 52 cj;>h3 .i.xfl + 53 cj;>xh4 l:txd5 54 0xd5 a5 (54 ... 'it7f7 55 'it7g5) 55 '.tg5 (55 0c3 cj;>f6) 55 ... a4 56 f4 a3 57 0c3 and White can hold the ending, as Donev pointed out. (b) 45 ....i.g4! is Black's best option, as it helps to encircle the white king: 46 Viic5 0f3+ 47 '.thl (or 47 cj;>g2 0xh4+ 48 gxh4 "i¥xf4 49 'tIUf8+ cj;>f6) 47 ...l:dl 48 Vj'f8+ ~h7 49 Vj'xf7+ "JiIg7 50 'tIUxg7+ 'it7xg7 51 '.itg2

5l...0d4!!. Remarkably, even after the queens have been exchanged, White can't withstand the assault: 52 f3 (52 l:!.a8 loses a piece to 52 ....i.f3+ 53 cj;>gl 0e2+) 52 ... l:td2+ and wins. 46l:txd7 ~e4! When playing his previous move Garry may have overlooked that 46 ... Vj'xf4 doesn't work here because the knight on d4 is pinned. With little time to readjust, he still finds the best practical chance - he sets up a wicked trick. 47l:lxd5?? Topalov misses the threat; he had 4 moves which would have parried it, but goes for a fifth alternative. (a) 47 f3! Vj'bl 48 0e6+ (48 ~g2 also wins) 48 ... cj;>f6 49 0xd4 Mxfl+ 50 cj;>g2 IIgl+ 51 '.itt2 'tIUfl+ 52 cj;>e3 and Black runs out of checks. (b) 47 cj;>h2! is Kostakiev's move. After 47 .. .l:hfl 48 ~xd4+ 'it'xd4 49 0e6+ White ends up with an extra piece. (c) 47 0e2l:!.xfl+ 48 ~xfl 'tIUxe2+ (48 ... 'tIUhl+ 49 0g1 wins) 49 '.itgl 'tIU e5 50 'tIU e3 and it is all over. (d) 47 0h3 also stops the threat.

47.•.l:!.xfl+! 0-1 A neat checkmate ends a fascinating fight. With more time Veselin would not have missed Black's coup. Both players were playing below their regular game level. With limited time 289

1998

they embroiled the position so much that they could not control the tactics. For all that, the game was very tense, exciting and highly entertaining. Game four started with a Paulsen. Veselin had several opportunities to take Garry's e4-pawn, but never did so. Maybe even such a tough costumer as Topalov can be intimidated by hard luck or affected by playing in front of his countrymen. He was left with a positionally difficult game, and Garry showed him no mercy. It seems rather unfortunate that whenever Kasparov is invited to a country to play against the local hero, he plays so well that the local supporters are disillusioned. Now with his retirement we cannot expect another Short-Kasparov or Adams-Kasparov match in England. One month later, Garry and Veselin played an advance chess match (with help from the computer) which resulted in a 4:4 draw. No doubt this raised Topalov's morale; at Linares he had finished in last place. Comments about top players' chessrelated activities like blindfold chess, Janus chess, computer chess or chess at odds against amateurs are not a priority in this book. However, their emergence reveals the sad financial state of chess. Real tournaments cannot afford the best stars. The other versions divert attention from regular chess, although the good thing is that they attract money. I have not seen Sampras playing games other than tennis. Maybe he did not get publicity. As a junior trainer, I believe that the play of the World Under-14 Champion ought to get more publicity than the blunder of a top player in blindfold chess. Sadly, chess society bestows more tangible rewards on the latter. Do you, dear reader, know who the current World Under-14 Champion is? It is a tremendous achievement even at that age. Kasparov gave an exhibition against 290

an Israeli team consisting of four experienced grandmasters - Alterman, Huzman, Smirin and Sutovsky - who had an average Elo of 2602·5 at the time. They faced him in two 'clock simuls'. The result of the first match was amazing - Kasparov beat them with a score of 3:1. His remarkable win over Sutovsky fully deserves its place here. Game 58 G.Kasp8rov White E. Sutovsky Black Israel v Kasparov Handicap, Tel-Aviv 1998 Sicilian Defence {B85] 1 e4 cS 2 lDo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4lDxd4lDf6 SlDc3 86 Kasparov remains faithful to the Najdorf - the defence which is also Sutovsky's main weapon when he faces 1 e4. 6.i.e2 Sutovsky treats the game like a normal contest. He doesn't play in a way that suggests he is participating in a'simul'. 6•.. e6 7 f4 .i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 84 lDc6 10 -'.e3 V/ilc7 11 ~hl %:te812-'.0 In this variation, it is this move that Garry had to contend with most of the time.

12•• ...tfS This reply

had

been

specially

1998

prepared for Sutovsky, who is a very dangerous and highly imaginative attacking player. The point of the bishop retreat is either to gain a tempo while organizing the defence round the king, or else to slow White down, which can be achieved by quickly carrying out e6-eS. Garry anticipated that Sutovsky· would play against his king. Later he had another chance to play the same line, but opted for 12 ....td7 instead. Did he temporarily overestimate the attack with g2-g4? More likely he did not want to face a ferocious attack with less time than in an ordinary game. The move itself was introduced by Magerramov in 1979. This novelty may well have been devised in collaboration with Garry near the Caspian Sea in Baku. I3~d2

This is one of the main options. White simply develops his queen. It is now less likely that he will go for a direct kings ide attack. Other possibilities are: (a) 13 .tt2 ttJxd4?! 14 ~xd4 eS IS Wd2 exf4 16 .td4 i.e7 17 Vixf4 .te6 18 Vig3 J:ad8 19 .te2 'it>h8 20 i..d3, and White had the better chances in Kaiumov-Magerramov, USSR 1979. (b) 13 g4, and now: (bl) 13 ... eS (13 ... ttJd7!?) 14 fxeS (14 ttJxc6 exf4) 14 ... ttJxeS IS gS ttJfg4 16 ttJdS Wd8 17 i..f4 ttJxf3 18 ~xf3 Wh8 19 as ttJeS, and Black held this slightly worse position in a computer-versus-computer game. (b2) Black can carry out e6-eS with gain of tempo: 13 ... ttJxd4 14 i..xd4 eS occurred in Grischuk-Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 2002. However, after IS i..gl exf4 16 gS ttJd7 17 ttJdS Wd8 18 i.g2 J::teS 19 ~d2 lhgS 20 Wxf4 f6 21 ttJeS 22 i.b6 Wd7 23 l:tg3l:tg6 24 J::tc3 White went on to win. (c) In a recent grandmaster game (Wijk aan Zee 2004) White played

13 ttJde2, and there followed 13 ... b6 14 ~el i..b7 IS ~t2 tiJd7 16 J::tadl :ti.ab8 17 tiJg3 g6 18 i..g4. Sadly, in this exciting position Adams and Anand agreed a draw. (d) The knight can go the other way with 13 tLlb3. Then 13 ...b6 (Grandmaster Sax twice played l3 ... dS. This is an unusual motif, exploiting the unprotected bishop on e3. After 14 eS ttJd7, the position was transformed into a French type of set-up) 14 eS (14 as leads to an interesting fight) 14... dxeS IS fxeS tiJd7 16 i..xc6 ~xc6 17 ttJd4 ~b7 18 ~hS g6 19 ~h4 ttJxeS 20 tiJe4 i.e7 21 ttJgS produced a complicated game in Rajlich-Antal, Budapest 2002. I3...ttJa5 With this move Garry goes for a complicated middlegame. Simplification by l3 ... tiJxd4 could also be considered. Another move leading to complex play is 13 ...ttJd7. I4~f2

On 14 b3, occupation of the c-fiIe with 14 ... i..d7 IS :ti.fdl J::tac8 looks best. I4•.. ttJc4 15 i.el White wants to put his bishop on b2, for on the long diagonal it would exert steady pressure. I5••.e5!

na3

291

Garry frees his position. In the Scheveningen Black must aim to challenge his opponent in this way. If

1998

This is a typical i.e2 Scheveningen position, in which White is better developed. Can Black catch up? If so, the White pawns on both wings can be targeted. 19••. tLld5 After 19 .. .'ihc2!?, the situation is hard to assess. In YagupovGalkin, Tomsk 1999, there followed: 20 tLlxf6+ gxf6 21 i.xe5 (or 21 ~g3+ ~g6 22 i.e4 ~xg3 23 tZ.\xg3 tZ.\g6 24 i.d2 f5 25 i.xf5 iig7, with a likely draw; ZapataBruzon, Capablanca Memorial 2002. Did Garry want to avoid an endgame like this one?) 21 ...:txe5 (21 ... fxe5 22 i.h5) 22 :tadl i.e7 23 tLlf4 ~xf2 24 Itxf2 :tb8 25 tLld5 i.d8 26 g3 i.f5 ~-~. The game Korotylev-Najer, Moscow 2002, went 19...tLlxe4!? 20 i.xe4 ~c5 21 i.e3 ~c4 22 i.d4 f5 23 i.d3 tLlxd3 24 cxd3 ~xd3 25 tLlf4 ~b3, and White managed to draw this position in which he has limited compensation for the pawn.

he stays on the sixth rank indefinitely, he can be pushed off the board. 16 tLlde2 d5! Freeing the position in this radical fashion is something that only happens once in a while. The move is not Kasparov's invention, unless we make the unlikely conjecture that he helped Samarin by telling him about it. It was frrst played in the game Bandar-Samarin,OreI1997. 17 fxe5 The d-pawn was poisoned: not 17 exd5? e4, or 17 tLlxd5? tLlxd5 18 exd5 e4 19 .i.h5 g6. In Timoshenko-Maksimenko, 2002, 17 b3 led to a draw after 17... dxe4 18 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 19 .i.xe4 tLld6 20 .i.d5 "iVxc2 (maybe Garry would seek complications with 20.JiJf5!? here) 21 fxe5 IIxe5 22 ~xf7+ Wh8 23 ~h5 iie6. I 7••• tLlxe5 The alternative capture, 17 ...tLlxe4 18 tZ.\xe4 dxe4 19 iixe4 tZ.\xe5 20 tLlc3 iie6, also looks playable. 18 iif4 Or 18 exd5 tLlxf3 (this is something White usually wants to avoid, as he needs his light-squared bishop), and now: (a) 19 gxf3 .i.h3 20 Itgl (or 20 l:Idl) 20 ....i.c5 21 "iVg3 Yj'xg3 22 ~xg3 ~f5, and White's position is unattractive despite the extra pawn. (b) 19 ~xf3 iig4 20 ~g3 (not 20 ~f2 iixe2 21 tLlxe2 ~xc2 and Black wins) 20 .. :~xg3 (Har Zvi's suggestion 20 ... IIac8!? is also playable) 21 tLlxg3 iib4 22 tZ.\a2 iiel 23 iig5 iixg3 24 iixffi iie2 25 Ittbl iif2 26 i.g5 lie5 27 i.f4 l:if5 28 tLlc3 i.c4 29 i.g3 ~xg3 30 hxg3 ~xd5, and after the lengthy phase of piece play, an equal ending was reached in Kuczynski-Ehlvest, Gawlikowski Memorial 1999. One other alternative is 18 tLlxd5 tLlxd5 19 exd5 l/jIxc2. 18...dxe4 19 tLlxe4

20..tg3?! It is understandable that Sutovsky

wants to retain his bishop in an open position, but this retreat is not ideal. Black's novelty (l6 ... d5) had been played one year before this game, in Russia. Sutovsky doesn't need an interpreter to understand the Russian language, but he may not have known about the novelty. It was difficult to 292

1998

react to it, especially when it was Kasparov who played it. White should build on his development with 20 ~ g3! rather than preserve his bishop. After 20 ....i.f5 (20 ...~e7 21 i.gS gives White dangerous piece play; it remains to be seen whether this activity can be neutralized) 21 ttadl (21 lLl2c3!, to remove the black knight from dS, is a challenging alternative) 2l....i.xe4 22 .i.xe4 lLlxf4 23 lLlxf4 Black is on the defending side. 20...¥JIe7? This is a mistake. Black defends his king by keeping his queen close to the kingside, but there is a hidden problem as we shall presently see. Did Garry simply forget his preparation, or did he lose confidence in it? Had he misjudged something in his analysis, in spite of being probably the best opening player ever? Chess is such a wonderfully complex game that even the giants commit errors. Here are two other possibilities: (a) Har Zvi recommended grabbing the pawn with 20 ... ~xc2. This is dangerous, but after 21 .i. hS Black seems able to get away with it: (al) 2l...g6 22 .i.xeS .i.f5 23 lLlf6+ lLlxf6 24 .i.xf6 gxhS 2S %:tacl! ~xe2 26 ~xf5 ~g4 27 ~dS. Black's king position is disrupted and White is better. (a2) 2l....i.g4! is an effective way of bringing this piece into play. After 22 i.xg4 lLlxg4 23 ~xf7+ 'it'h8, Black does all right. (b) With 20 ... ~b6! Black either exchanges queens or gains an important tempo. After 21lLld4, with all four knights placed squarely in the centre, it is important for him that a white knight can't reach dS. (Black is also safe after 21 lLl f6+ ~ xf6 22 i. xdS ~xfl 23 i.xfl i.g4 24 lLlc3 lLlc6.) The game Stefansson-Ehlvest, Elista 1998, continued 2l...lLlxf3 22 "'xf3 ~g6 23 lLlfl lLlb4 24 c3 lLlc6 293

2S l:tadl .i.d7 26lLle2 lLleS 27 "iVxb7 i.xa4 and Black took over. 21l:tadl? At this point Har Zvi recommended the excellent 21 lLl2c3!, threatening at some stage to bring a knight to dS with tempo. This suggestion highlights the drawback of putting the queen on e7. Black is now unable to finish his development without losing material. However, this can only be established by very precise calculation:

(a) 2l...lLlxf3 22 lLlxdS (occupying the strong square) 22 ... ~xe4 23 lLlc7, and Black comes out the exchange down after 23 ...i.g4 24 gxf3 "iVc6 2S lLlxa8 l:txa8. The resulting position is not easy for White to win, but it should be possible. (b) 21 ...lLlb4, and now: (bI) 22 ::tael lLlxf3 23 "iVxf3 i.e6 24 tLid6 lLlxc2 2S l:tcl tLid4 26 ~e3 and again White wins the exchange. (b2) 22 i.hS .i.g4 23 i.xeS il.xhS 24 i.d6 ~e6 2S i.xf8 l:txf8 26 'iVcs lLlxc2 27 Vi'xhS. Here too White wins material. (b3) 22 ::tadl lLlxf3 23 "iVxf3 i.e6 24 lLld6l:ted8 2S ~e4, and the knight on d6 is stifling Black. (c) 2l...lLlxc3 22lLlxc3 (threatening to jump to d5 with force) 22 ... lLlxf3, and now White still plays 23 lLld5! - a delightful intermediate move which the future European Champion missed. After 23 .. .'~·e2 Black can't avoid losing the exchange: 24 lLlc7

1998

'$'xt2 25 tixt2 lZ'lxh2 26 lZ'lxe8! lZ'lg4 27lZ'lc7! lZ'lxt2+ (or 27 ...tia7 28 :te2, which at this very high level is hopeless for Black) 28 .i.xt2 l:b8 29 .i.a7!. A remarkable way to punish Black for not moving his queen's bishop until move 29.

21.••lZ'lxf3 Black has time to break up White's kingside pawn structure. 22 gxfJ 22 ~xf3? would lose material to 22 ....i.g4! (an attractive way to develop) 23 ~xg4 lZ'le3 24 ~f3 (or 24 lZ'lf6+ ~xf6! 25 J:txf6 lZ'lxg4 26 :tf4 l::txe2 27 J:txg4 :txc2 and White is lost) 24 ... lZ'lxdl 25 lZ'ld6 lZ'lxb2 26 lZ'lc3 ~d7 27 lZ'lxe8 J:txe8 28 J:tbl ~d2!' This is such a typical Scheveningen move - it seizes the advantage by exposing the weakness of White's back rank. 22 •••lZ'lf6 Not 22 ....i.e6?? 23 .i.d6 'iUd7 24 .i.xf8 Wxf8 25 c4, winning the knight. 23lZ'l2c3 Not 23 .i.h4?? lZ'lxe4 24 .i.xe7 lZ'lxt2+. 23...lZ'lxe4 24 fxe4?! Sutovsky faces a dilemma. He is ahead in development, but the pawn shield in front of his king is not as solid as he would wish, and Black's pieces can take up menacing positions. White chooses to build on his

strength rather than reinforce his weakness. 24 lZ'lxe4!? keeps the position more compact. There can follow: (a) 24 ... 'iVb4 25 ~d4 .i.h3 (or 25 ....i.f5 26 ~ xb4 .li.xb4 27 c3 .li.e7 28 lZ'ld6, when White exchanges a bishop and holds the position) 26 ~xb4 .i.xb4, and now 27 :tgl Wf8 28 c3 is adequate for White. (b) 24 ....li.h3 25 l:fel 'iVb4 26 ~d4 'iYxd4 27 l:xd4 f5 28 lZ'lg5 l:xe 1+ 29 .li.xel .li.fl 30 .li.b4, again with a satisfactory position. 24•...li.h3 Maybe White can handle the task of defending his king, but the bishop on h3 is a major irritant. White must be really cautious. 25 l:tfel l:tac8 26 .td6 The alternative is 26 lZ'ld5 ~c5 27 ~xc5 .li.xc5, and it is hard to assess the power of the knight on d5. Black is certainly no worse. 26.•.'iUe6 27 .li.xf'S ttxf'8 28 l:td3

Emil is not satisfied with simply holding his position against Garry; he wants attack on the kingside. This shows the imagination and determination of a born attacker. He had an alternative approach in 28 lZ'ld5, followed by placing all his pieces in the centre and awaitin.8. events, e.g.: 28 ....li.g4 29 J:td4 (29 I:I:d3 no longer works well on account of 29 ... J:tc4) 29 ... 'iYe5 30 c3, and in view of his 294

1998

strong centralized pieces, White is not worse. 28... ~h6 Anything but a routine decision; Garry wants to withdraw the bishop to e6 rather than head for g6 with 28 ....tg4 29 l:tg3 .th5. 29 tLldS Wh8 30 ttg3 White builds up his attack. 30.....te6 31 ttegl ~h4 Garry is not worried; this is an extremely calm move.

R~tting his rook en prise!) 35 tLle3!!

IIxe7 36 tLlxf5

32~d4

Sutovsky gradually improves the placing of his pieces. 32... f6 At present it is clearly time to defend, but gradually Black will mount a counter-attack.

33c4 Some commentators said Sutovsky should have settled for a draw with 33 l:txg7. Maybe this does draw, but the task is anything but simple. The capture would just be the start of some breathtaking tactics - for example, 33 ...SU5!? (after 33 ... l:Ixc2 34 l:I7g2 ttxg2 35 ttxg2 both kings are in a weak position, so there could well be a perpetual), and now: (a) 34 l:Ie7, and Black has two plausible replies: (at) 34...ttn (for some reason the Beatles' song The Magical Mystery Tour comes to mind. Garry's tour would have started with this move, 295

36... l:Id7!! (this is no dream. If instead 36.. :iVxe4+ 37 ~xe4 l:Ixe4 38 llld6, the knight attacks both rooks and threatens checkmate!) 37 tLlh6! (what a riposte! The queen is under attack, yet White doesn't move it. Instead he places his knight on an undefended square.· On 37 'iWxd7, Black would draw with 37 .. :~Wxe4+) 37... ttdc7 38 tLlf5 ttd7, and the fairy tale ends in repetition. (a2) 34... .tg~! 35 J::txg4 (Black wins after 35 IIg3 l::txc2 or 35 ~d3 1::txc2 36 ~xc2 .tf3+) 35 .. JlVxg4 36 ~xf6+ (incredibly ingenious, but White still loses) 36 ... l:Ixf6 (36 ... Wg8 37 tLle3 ~f3+ also wins) 37 l:Ixh7+!! (mu~h ~do about nothing? Not really, for It IS a great joy to witness this duel) 37 ... Wxh7 38 tLlxf6+ Wg6 39 lllxg4 l:Ixc2. White has fired off some stunning shots in the course of his dream, but waking up now is a sobering experience - he is lost. (b) 34 tLlc3, and now:

1998

(hI) 34 .. .lHd8!? is not the best, but it leads to some more magical tactics: 35 ~b6! (White must attack the rook on d8 to stop 35 ...l::Ixc3) 35 ... i..g6 (35 ... l:td2 36 l::I7g2, or 35 ...i..xe4+ 36 ttJxe4 V&ixe4+ 37 l::I7g2, is satisfactory for White) 36 ~xb7! (now things become hair-raising. After 36 l::I lxg6 hxg6 37 l::Ixg6 l::Id2 38 ~xf6+ ~xf6 39 lhf6 l:txc2, White is worse) 36.. .'iVh3 (after 36 ... l::Ixc3 37 l::I7xg6 hxg6 38 bxc3 l::Id2 39 ~a8+ 'ifth7 40 ~a7+ White has perpetual check) 37 ~e7 ~f3+ (37 ...l::If8 38 e5 V&if3+ is still a draw) 38l:tg2

38 ... l:tg8 (of course Black can still give perpetual with 38 ...V&ifl+. He also has a chance to blow himself up with 38 ...l::Id2?? 39 l::Ixh7+!!) 39 l::Ixg8+ l::Ixg8 40 'iftgl ll!Ve3+ 41 'iftfl ~cl+ 42 'iftf2 ~xc2+ 43 'ifte3! ~xg2 44 ~xf6+. Now the roles are reversed and White has the same perpetual. (b2) 34.Jlxc3! 35 V&ixc3 i..xe4+ 36 l::Ilg2 ~f4! (after 36 ... ~h6 37 ~el f5 38 l::I7g3 White defends) 37 h3 l::Id8 38 ~el i..xg2+ (or 38 ... ~e5 39 V&ie2 i..xg2+ 40 l!txg2 V&ixb2 41 ~g4 and White can possibly draw) 39 l:txg2 ~xa4 40 ~ g3 and White can hold out in spite of the pawn deficit. Now back to the actual game. White has jus~_played 33 c4. 33.. Jlf7 This is a clever move. It prevents 296

various tactics and puts the ball in Sutovsky's court without revealing Black's plan. Garry knows when to punch and when to hold back. He could have played 33 ...i..f5!? but it doesn't force anything.: after 34 ttJc3 Jig6 35 Ug4 ~h5 36 l:t Ig3 White's position is not easy to crack.

34 ttJb6? An illogical move which decentralizes the knight and forces Black to improve the position of his rook on c8. When you achieve an advantage there can also be a downside - here Sutovsky finds himself under extra pressure both from himself and from Kasparov. Perhaps the best plan is 34l::tdl!? which keeps the ball in play and allows the Israeli grandmaster to wait and see what tactics will emerge. After 34 ... l::Ie8 35 l:e3 White has a solid though somewhat passive position. Another possibility is 34 a5. 34...l::Ie835l::Idl?! With 35 l::I 192 h6 36 ~d3 White avoids the direct problem by getting out of the pin. 35... h6! The product of experience. This move opens the back rank and encourages White to do something that is not easy in this position, especially for an attacking player like Sutovsky. 36:te3 Retreating with 36 ttJd5 would lose

1998

a pawn to the double attack 36 ... i.d7. 36...J:tfe7 Intending an unusual double pin. 37 e5 There is a hint of desperation about this. If37 a5 (or 37 :del), Black wins with 37 ... .Jlf5! - a remarkable conception, pinning White on both rank and file. Has Garry ever done this before? 37...i.g4! Suddenly White is lost. Five moves ago Emil had played a nice attacking move, 32 "'d4, having admittedly taken some questionable decisions earlier. Yet now it becomes apparent that Kasparov has played subtly to turn defence into attack. White would also be lost after 37 ... ~xd4 38 J:txd4 i.f.5, but that way he could last a little longer. 38 J:tg3 f5 39 tLld5 The knight returns too late. After 39l:Ie3 'tit2, White is hopelessly lost. 39.. J:txe5 40 tLlf4 For Emil this is a team event; he cannot consider resigning. 40..JWf6 41 J:tn

If 44 ~b6, then 44 ... l:te2+ 45 Wgl J:txc4 46 J:tc3 J:txa4 47 J:tc1 i.h3 wins. After 44 ~t7 J:te2+ 45 Wgl l:td4 46 J:t f3 i. xf3, White has no perpetual check: 47 ~f8+ ~h7 48 ~xf5+ ~g8 49 ~c8+ ~t7 50 ~f.5+ ~e7 51 ~c5+ J:td6 and again Black wins. 44•..J:te2+ 45 Wgl J:tfe4 This is not a routine move. Garry had to see it in advance. 46 h3 Or 46 Wfl .:txh2. 46...l:tel+ 47 Wh2 l:t4e2+ 48 J:tgl J:te3 A neat conclusion. The rest is trivial. 49 ~xel1hel 50 hxg4 fxg451 a5 h5 52 Wg3 g5 53l:th2l:te3+ 0-1 Nobody thought that the first day would be judged as a relative success for the Israeli team. In fact, a miracle happened: Kasparov won all 4 games in the second round two days later. He had defeated the Israeli team 7: 1 on aggregate - his best result in this kind of exhibition. Even Garry's exhibition games are of a very high quality, rich in ideas and entertaining.

Frankfurt Rapid

41 ...l::tel!! Simply beautiful and a pleasure for the spectators, but Black is winning anyway. A simple method is 4l...~c6+ 42 Wgl J:te4 43 "'d5 g5, and it is all over. 42 Wlxf6 .uxn+ 43 Wgl IIxf4 44~c3

297

In his first game in this event, Kasparov had Black against Krarnnik in a i. f4 GrOnfeld. He opted for an idea that came from his former second Adorjan, but something went wrong and he was left a pawn down. Kramnik, however, had doubled pawns. Kasparov could have tried doing nothing and seeing how his opponent would make progress in the little time available; instead he started an action of his own, and this hastened his death. In the second game Garry played Black in a Najdorfwith 6 i.e3 tZlg4. Vishy produced a fantastic idea, and Garry was soon left with no active plan at all. His loss was due to

1998

Anand's subtle play. In the next round Kasparov came up with a subtle concept himself, and scored a remarkable. win over Ivanchuk.

know how Garry's preparation developed. The point is that all three times he played against it, he captured on f6. White can also play 11 ~e2 and .i.e2-t3.

Game 59 G.Kasparov White V.lvancbuk Black Frankfurt Giants rapidplay 1998 Sicilian Defence [B66J

The typical Rauzer pawn formation arises and makes for an exciting position. To a certain extent the die is cast. (Kasparov is interested in history, so he will certainly know who this phrase comes from and when he said it.) White can no longer aim for a slightly better position - he has to start cracking Black's pawn formation. Why? Because with his two bishops, Black may gradually gain the upper hand. If he has time he will carry out .i.c8-b7, b5-b4 and d6-d5, and then White will be worse. In this fascinating line, anyone of Black's pawns is liable to be pushed. Teaching a variation like this to juniors can be fruitful for a while, yet trainers must make sure that their pupils move on, or there is a danger that while they learn specific lines well, their general understanding is raised only marginally.

11 ...gxC6

1 e4 c5 2 tLlfJ tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlC6 5 tLlc3 d6 6 ~g5 e6 7 'iVd2 a6 8 0-0-0 il..e7 9 C4 tLlxd4 10~xd4 b5

This line is a relatively recent theoretical discovery. It became known from a correspondence game 'Sowbinder-Kantcher, 1989'. Black in that game was a mysterious player no other games by him are available at all. In my first article on this line for the New in Chess Yearbook, I quipped that some players have worked on the openings for fifty years without ever establishing a line of their own, whereas here was a man who had just played a single game and did establish one. The New in Chess editor Rene Olthof somehow discovered that the mysterious individual was in fact a Bulgarian correspondence player named Kanchev. Incidentally there is no Kasparov Variation either, although 4 a3 against the Queen's Indian could be called the Petrosian-Kasparov line - just like some others that have double or even triple names, like the Caro-Kann, the Richter-Rauzer or the TartakowerMakogonov-Bondarevsky . This Sicilian line started to become popular when Krarnnik played it a few times in 1996. 11 ~xf6

Nowadays top players hardly ever understand variations right from the moment they appear. So it was with this line - it would very interesting to

12 e5!?

Garry tries to destroy the enemy aircraft before they get off the ground. This move was his novelty at that time. When he first played it he may just have wanted to avoid preparation, but it shows that he believes the line is

298

1998

fundamentally wrong for Black. Black is seriously underdeveloped, and opening the position is hazardous for him. On the other hand, White too is taking a considerable risk. If Black survives the onslaught, the two bishops will give him a clearly better endgame. He has one important resource: there are several things he can do with his king in response to White's plan. He may castle on either side, or in some cases the king may simply walk away from the danger. Originally Garry's move here had been 12 .i.d3, which brought him a pleasant victory over Kramnik: 12 .. :~i'c7 13 ~e3 (White wants to avoid exchanging queens, as the ending is problematic) 13 ... ~c5 14 ~g3 b4 15 llle2 a5 16 \tbl WfS 17 ~h3 h5 18 J:tcl d5 19 exd5 'iVxd5 205 a4 21 l:ihel l:ib8 22 lllf4 ~d6 23 ~f3, and White went on to win in Kasparov - Kramnik, Amsterdam 1996. The position was unclear all the way. 12••.d5 13 ~bl! Kasparov plays a waiting move at the outset of a ferocious attack. The king evades any checks, and Black has to show his hand. This move which Garry devised while pioneering the line is probably best and has become the main continuation. A game Farakhov - Itkis, Fakel Jamala 2003, went 13 5 fxe5 (also after 13 ... 0-0 14 .i.d3 fxe5 15 ~xe5 .i.f6 16 ~g3+ ~h8 17 ~h3 l:i.a7 Black has a nice position with a remarkable defensive configuration) 14 iVxe5 .i.f6 15 ~g3 (15 ..-el O-O!) 15 ....i.d7 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 .i.e2 ..-b8 18 .i.h5+ \td8!, and Black was comfortably placed. It is fascinating to observe how many different ways he can locate his king effectively. 13....i.b7 Ivanchuk has to reveal something of his intentions. With this continuation Black comes closer to castling long; 299

on the other hand the bishop is withdrawing its support from the kings ide and e6 in particular. Various other moves have been tried: (a) 13 ... fxe5? 14 fxe5 f6 (if 14 ... 5, then 15 g4 opens up the Black position) 15 ~g4! l:i.fS 16 exf6 .i.xf6 17 llle4 ~e7 18 'i¥h5+ and White is much better. (b) There was a time when 13 ...l:tg8 was the main line, for example: 14 f5 b4 (after 14 ... fxe5 15 ~xe5 .i.f6 16 ~e3 ~e7 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 .i.e2 l:i.g5 19 l:i.hfl .i. b7 20 llle4, White went on to win in Korneev-Lopez, Elgoibar 2000) 15llle2 fxe5 16 ~xe5 .i.f6 17 ~e3 e5 18 lllf4 d4 19 ~el .i.b7 20 lllh5 .i.h8 21 "'xb4 ~c7 22 .i.d3 l:txg2 23 l:ihgl l'iIxgl 24 l:.:txgl 0-0-0 25 lllg3 and White won in Van den Doel - Fernando, Cappelle 2002. (c) Interestingly, 13 ....i.d7 makes kingside castling unplayable for Black, as the rook can no longer defend along the seventh: 14 f5 fxe5 15 ~xe5 .i.f6 16 ~e3 0-0 (the recommendation l6 ...... e7!?, in the New in Chess Yearbook 68 article, is important for judging the variation. It may well give Black a satisfactory position - 17 lIel ~d6 seems adequate) 17 ~h3 J:tc8 18 .i.d3 file7 19 l::thel J::!.xc3 20 bxc3 e5 21 ~g4+ .i.g7

22 .i.e4!! ~a3 (after 22 ... dxe4 23 f6 .i.xg4 24 fxe7 .i.xdl 25 l:txdl e3 26 exfS=~+ \txfS 27 ]::tel .i.h6

1998

2S '.i1cl f5 29 '.i1dl, the white rook will soon be able to invade) 23 l:te3 '.i1hS 24 l:th3 VIIIe7 25 J::txh7+ 1-0, Galliamova - Iskusnyh, Novgorod 1999. This splendid attacking game was played by Vassily's fonner wife. (d) When Kasparov first introduced the 12 e5 novelty, his opponent Hra~ek played l3 ...h4? Twelve moves later he resigned: 14 lZle2 a5 15 lZlg3 f5 (the Czech grandmaster seems to have forgotten about development on that day) 16 lZlh5 J::tbS 17 g4 fxg4 IS f5 l:tgS 19lZlf6+ .i.xf6 20 exf6 ~d6 21 .i.g2 J::tg5 22 ~xd5! .i.d7 23 l:thel h6 24 fxe6 fxe6 25 ~a7 1-0. The game is a mixture of an off-day for a grandmaster and a brutal attack from a great player; Kasparov-Hra~ek, Yerevan 1996.

14 f5! Garry opens up the position before the enemy king can sail to a safe haven and Black can take control. 14... fxe5 15 ~xe5 .i.f6 16 ~g3 ~e7

Or 16 ...~bS 17 ~h3 (17 ~t3 allows 17 ... 0-0; in the event of 17 '{:Wg4 .i.xc3 IS bxc3, Black has the better pawn structure but White has the safer king) 17 ... b4 (17 ... ~d6 IS lZle4) IS lZla4 ~d6 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 ~d3 0-0-0 21 l:the1 l:tdeS 22lZlc5 and White is better. 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 .i. e2 The light-squared bishop aims for 300

g4, to put the e6-pawn under pressure. Naturally the bishop will first check at h5 if Black is foolish enough to allow it. 18...0-0-0 This is a tense situation. If Black can consolidate his king position, he may gain the initiative. However, the e6-pawn is still liable to be attacked. Here are the alternatives: (a) lS ... ~f7 19 .i.g4 allows Black no time to castle long. After 19 ... l:tgS (or 19... e5 20 ~h3) 20 ~h3, his king has to stay in the centre and is therefore an easy target. (b) lS ... ~g7 19 'WId6! (White is also better after 19 .i.g4 .i.e5 20 ~h3) 19.. :tWe7 20 .i.h5+ WfS 21 ~f4 and the black king has yet to find safety. (c) After the present game the trend shifted to IS ...h5, stopping the bishop from getting to g4. Two years later, other special players were following that path: (cl) 19 .i.t3 0-0-020 h4 b4 21lZle2 e5 22lZlci (22 .i.xh5 WbS) 22 ... WbS 23 lZlb3 'iic7 24 .i.xh5 l:txh5 25 'iJg6 J::txh4 26 ~xf6 J:!.f4 27 ~g6 d4 2S J;:th7 .i.e4 29 'WIxe4 J::txe4 30 1':txc7 '.i1xc7 31 lZlc5, and this fascinating tactic saved the game for the Indian grandmaster; Anand-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2000. (c2) 19 a4! is the testing move. After 19... d4 (19 ... b4 20 lZle4!) 20 axb5 h4 21 ~g4 dxc3 22 .i.c4 .i.cs (22 ... axb5! is playable) 23 l:thfl l:tfS 24 l:tfel e5 25 ~g6+ J:!.f7 26 :tfl, White was much better in Von Bahr-Barkhagen, Sweden 2002. Now back to the game, after IS ... O-O-O. 19.i.g4 Of course, applying pressure is exactly what Garry is going to do. Is there a way to relieve the pressure on the weak e-pawn? 19••. h5! This forces the bishop to occupy the

1998

square that the white queen would like to use to attack e6. 20i.h3

20.•• h4? This is a key position for the variation. Ivanchuk has to be very careful. One mistake. and he might be lost - that is a characteristic feature of the line. Alternatives are as follows: (a) 20 ... d4 21 l::tdel 'Wic7 22 l:txe6 (or 22 i.xe6+ b8 23 'tWxc7+ Wxc7 24 tlle4 l:thf8 25 i.h3 - Black has some compensation for the pawn, but he is nonetheless worse) 22 ...'Wixg3 23 bxg3 dxc3 24 l:txf6+ b8 25 bxc3 occurrred in Nguyen Ly Hong-Gupta, Khalkidiki 2003. Black may be able to defend, but the position is no fun to play. (b) Black can aim to remove his king from the critical pin with 20 ...l:thg8!? According to the New in Chess analysis, this gives him a playable position. There can follow: (bl) 21 ~f4, and now: (bll) 2l...ttgf8 22 l:thel i.xc3 23 ttxe6 l:txf4 24 l:txe7+ Wb8 25 bxc3 l:t12 26 l:th7 i.c8 27 Uxh5 i.xh3 28 gxh3 l:hh2 29 l:th7 and Black is struggling. (b12) 2l...i.xc3 22 bxc3 l::td6 23 l:thel l:tg6 24 l:te5 ~f6 25 ~d4, and White has the better bishop. (b 13) 2l...l:tg6. In this case the rook on the g-file is better placed than in the current game. After 22 tthel i.g7

(22 ... i.xc3 23 bxc3 ttd6 is possible here too) 23 a3 d4 24 tlle2 (24 tlle4 i.h6 25 ~e5 l:d5 26 ~h8+ l:d8 27 ~e5 l::td5 repeats the position) 24 ...i.xg2 (or 24 ...l:f8 25 ~d2 i.xg2 26 l:gl l:12 and the position is complicated) 25 i.xg2 Mxg2 26 ~e4 ~b7, Black holds out. (b2)21 ~e3 Wb8!, and now: (b21) If 22 l:he I, Black takes over with 22 ... e5. Therefore White must capture the pawn. (b22) 22 ~xe6 - this way of capturing sets Black less problems. He has more than one way to obtain good play for the pawn minus: (b221) 22 ... d4 23 l:xd4 (23 tZle2 ~xe6 24 i.xe6 l:xg2 is pleasant for Black because of the weak h2-pawn) 23 ... ~xe6 24 l:xd8+ :xd8 25 i.xe6 l:d2. Black is now two pawns down, but his active pieces ensure that he is in no danger of losing. (b222) 22 ... "ihe6 23 i.xe6 l::tg5!! (after 23 ... l:xg2 24 i.xd5 i.xd5 25 tZlxd5 i.e5 26 h3 White may have a small advantage even though the rook on hI is passive) 24 l:hfl (after 24 i.h3 d4 25 tlle2 i.e5 Black has a fine, free game) 24 ... i.xc3 25 bxc3 l:hg2, and again Black has no losing chances. (b23) 22 i.xe6, and now:

301

(b231) 22 ...i.xc3? 23 ~f4+ Wlc7 24 ~xc7+ Wxc7 25 i.xg8 and White wins the exchat:\:ge. (b232) 22 ...lId6 23 l:thel l:xg2 24 ~h3 i.xc3 (24 ...l:g5 is another

1998

possibility) 25 bxc3 ~ g5 and Black is all right. (b233) 22 ...:tg5!!' I think this beautiful move not only keeps Black in the game but gives him a good position: 23 ~f4+ (23 :thel or 23 :i:tdel would be met by 23 ...:i:te5) 23 ...il.e5 24 ~h4 (or 24 VJ/Ifl VJ/Ixfl 25 il.xfl d4 and Black takes over) 24 ...d4 25 lldel (25 :the I dxc3) 25 ... l::!.e8 26 lildl :tg6 (or 26 ... VJ/Ig7 27 il.h3 :tfS and Black has free play for the .Eawn) 27 ~xe7 :txe7 28 l:Xxe5 IiIgxe6 29 :txe6 :txe6 and Black is very active. 21 ~f4! White keeps the black king away from the b8-square. Again this is not a spectacular move, yet it is very strong. 21...il.g7 Or 21..J:thfS 22 :the I il.xc3 23 :i:txe6 :txf4 24 llxe7+ cJJb8 25 bxc3, and this time Black doesn't have enough for the pawn. 22 :thel Bringing his last piece into play. 22•••:th623 a3! This move may have a mundane appearance, but the whole conception is very powerful. You need very fme judgement to realize that Black is worse here, and White had to see it well in advance. Kasparov has such a good understanding of when to defend or prepare, and when to launch the attack. If White plays 23 il. xe6+ at once, then after 23 ...:txe6 24 ~g4 ~dd6 25 l:txe6 ~xe6 26 VJ/Ixg7 d4 the knight has no refuge. 23•••:tg6? Underestimating White's last move - it was not only designed to stop b5b4. Almost certainly Vassily did not fully understand Garry's idea in the opening. Here he could have tried: (a) 23 ...il.xc3 24 bxc3 :tf6 25 ~xh4, and White is a pawn up. (b) 23 ... ttd7 24 lile2! (preparing to bring another piece to bear on e6; 302

24 lld3 is also possible), and Black has three options: (bl) 24 ... e5 25 ~d2 '.tJb8 26 il.xd7 VJ/Ixd7. Black has a some play for the exchange, but White is nonetheless better. (b2) 24 .. .'~d6 25 ~g5! VJ/Ie5 (or 25 .. .'~e7 26 'Wixe7 :txe7 27 lilf4 and the pawn will fall) 26 ~xe5 il.xe5 27 lilgl and White wins the exchange. (b3) 24 .. .'~fl 25 ~xfl l:hfl 26 tLld4 il.xd4 27lhe6 and wins.

24 il.xOO+!! Garry is so good at seeing tactical opportunities in open positions. The grandmaster from Ukraine is dead by move twenty-five, and the undertaker Kasparov will be quick to bury him. 24•. Jhe6 25 ~g4 lldd6 26 l:txe6 'i¥xe6 Or 26 ...1he6 27llel cJJd7 281he6 'i¥xe6 29 ~xg7+ ~c6 30 ~d4 with a won position. 27~xg7

Suddenly Black is lost. He is not only a pawn down, he also has a bad bishop and isolated pawns to protect. 27... ~f6 28 'iVg4+ '.tJb8 29l:td4! Keeping the bishop passive. 29..•:too 30 ~xh4 "0+ 31 '.tJa2 ~xg2 32 llg4 tWo 33 I:tg8+ ~a7 34 ~d4+ l::tb6 35 tLlxd5 There is no point in trying to checkmate the king when a simple winning endgame is available.

1998

3S•...t xdS+ 36 ~ xdS ~ c4+ 37 ~xc4 bxc4 38l:(g7+ '.t>b8 39l:Ih7 1-0 Black resigns, as White has several winning plans. For example he can create a passed pawn on the c-file, advance his h-pawn to h7 and then push the c-pawn. Note that this plan would not work with a passed pawn on the a- or b-file! This game displayed a combination of very good home preparation with great attacking skill. Even if the preparation doesn't refute the line, it created enough pressure to bring down a world-class opponent. Garry's game with White against Kramnik was a solid English which ended in a draw. His game with Black against Ivanchuk was a ~c2 NimzoIndian. After some complications they reached an endgame in which Ivanchuk had three pawns for a piece. It looked as if the pawns would cause damage, but then he lost one of them. After that, however, Vassily eliminated his opponent's pawns on the queens ide, and the game was drawn. In his last game of the round robin, Kasparov had White against Anand, who played a Taimanov Sicilian. Kasparov responded with 5 ttJb5, leading to a Kalashnikov type of position. Anand sacrificed a pawn for active play, and the game was drawn in 23 moves. Kramnik made the best score in the round robin. A play-off for third place was held between Kasparov and Ivanchuk. In this tie-break match Garry won the first game and drew the remaining three. It was a big festival in Frankfurt. The regular chess event was won by Timman and Beliavsky. Many top grandmasters played other types of chess; Kasparov refused to play m anything other than the the rapid. 303

Kasparov-Shirov: World Championship Final Kasparov had stated earlier that he was under an obligation to defend his title regularly. He probably didn't anticipate that there would be insufficient sponsorship. Apparently there was an offer of 1 million US dollars from America, but this was rejected by Shirov. The financial problem is most regrettable. Sometimes there is a sponsor, sometimes there is not, and when a Candidates Tournament starts, nobody knows how much money there will be altogether. It might be an idea for the best eight players to agree in advance how they should share the money. The Champion is in a difficult situation. He knows that when a match fails to take place, it damages chess - but should he play for free? A doctor doesn't work for free either, and in chess the World Championship is the contest with the big money at stake. How should the challenger be selected? Some players play superbly in tournaments and badly in matches. Kramnik is an example; until 1998 he proved to be an exceptional tournament player, but in matches he was destroyed by Kamsky and Shirov and lost to Gelfand. Perhaps the challenger should be the one who has the best personal score against the Champion, but then he may have a less impressive score against the rest. Perhaps there should be a qualification tournament, but where would financial backing be found for it, and who would guarantee the money for the final? If the money comes two years later, the situation of the players can radically change. Another question that arises is how many contestants should be allowed to participate. It has been proved that grandmasters at the 2650 level can be

1998

inspired to perform like the very top players. Peter Svidler shared a fIrst prize with Kasparov and Kramnik. Khalifman, Bologan and Kasimdzhanov all proved how well they can perform in tournaments. Should these strong players get a chance? If they play, they should take a fair slice of the cake. FIDE surprisingly devalues it own Championship by not giving any ranking to the winner. In tennis, when Gaudio wins the Paris open, his ranking goes from thirty-something to number fIve or six - whereas winning the World Championship in chess does virtually nothing for a player's ranking. The world's number 5 or 6 player would think twice about not participating, if number 10 could overtake him by winning the title. As it is, top players can ignore the tournament unless the money is big, which can't be guaranteed. The Elo system is unrealistic, as results still count several years after they have been achieved. As a consequence of this chaotic situation, some fantastic talents hardly improve once they get to 2700, as they hardly ever meet better players than themselves. A few years ago, Grischuk's play was a revelation, but he has not improved since. Rublevsky and Sakaev (I deliberately mention Russian players, but it also concerns others at that level) cannot perform at their best, as they play exhibitions and blindfold chess amongst themselves. Missing this match was harmful to Shirov's chess. He kept up his level until 2000, but once the KasparovKramnik match took place he never looked the same again. I think Kasparov experiences a conflict of interest: often what is good for him is of less benefIt to the chess world as a whole. Incidentally - the Communist system was a dictatorship and its collapse was benefIcial to Russia, yet 304

it was not so good for chess. The chaos in chess has existed since 1993. Until top players undertake to play regularly and aim for a better ranking, the situation will remain the same. The most efficient societies are those where there is a gap between individuals, but one that is not too pronounced - and what is true of social relations may well also apply to sports. Agassi, Michael Jordan and Federer have to play for the privileges they receive. In chess, the privileges currently enjoyed by top players add a lot to the chaos, and because of the chaos, chess is losing ground against other sports. It was very sad for chess that the Kasparov-Shirov match never took place.

Kasparov-Timman: The EuroTel Trophy in Prague Thirteen years earlier, Kasparov the newly crowned World Champion - and Timman, one of the world's best grandmasters, had played a match in Holland. Kasparov won with a score of 4:2 (or 3:1 in terms of decisive games). In the year before that - 1984 - they had played four games against each other in the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the Rest of the World. The first three games were drawn, and Kasparov won the last one. In addition they played four times in an Amsterdam tournament of 1988; again Kasparov won the duel by 2 Y;z: 1Y;z with one decisive game. In the 1984 match they played conservatively; in 1985, they were almost wild. The 1988 games were solid again. This time (1998) they were playing for 100,000 euros. Timman had reached the top four in the World Championship Candidates tournament in 1992, before losing in the fmal to Short. Since then, some brilliant

1998

players had appeared on the stage and overtaken him. Timman was unable to keep pace with Anand, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Kamsky and Shirov, and the gap between him and Kasparov widened, but of course he remained very strong. As Hans Ree wrote in New in Chess, Timman prepared very hard for the EuroTel Trophy match and came up with some sharp lines. In the first game, with Black, he played a very complicated variation of the ~een's Gambit Accepted. Black's 24 move receives a question mark from Kasparov, while Timman asks what else could have been played. Timman reached an endgame a pawn up, but the pawns were all on one side. Interestingly, when he had the chance of playing on with rook and knight against rook, he agreed a draw instead. In the second game, Kasparov played the Slav! This is Dokhoian's opening; Garry probably consulted him about the variations.

S... b5 Ljubojevic once tried S... Ae6 against Timman but lost quite quickly. 6a4 b4 The position virtually guarantees an exciting contest. The question is whether Black can capitalize on his initiative before White regains the pawn. 7 liJbl The present game will not increase the popularity of this retreat. The other main line, 7 liJa2, is more popular. 7....i.a6 8 ~c2? Though this has been employed a number of times, Garry's powerful play casts serious doubt on its viability. It is quite impressive to destroy a theoretical move so early. Black has also scored well after 8 Ae2 e6 9 0-0 i.e7 10 lZJbd2 c3. 8... b3 9 ~dl e6 10 Ae2 After 10 liJbd2 ~dS II Ae2 liJbd7 12 0-0 llb8 13 liJbl tDe4 14 tDfd2 lZJdf6 IS lZJc3 tDxc3 16 bxc3 Ae7 White failed to obtain play for the pawn in Adorjan-Torre, Toluca 1982. And on 10 tDeS cS, according to the German grandmaster HUbner, Black already has an edge thanks to his rapid development.

Game 60 J.Timman White G.Kasparov Black EuroTel Trophy, Prague 1998 Slav Defence {D 15J 1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 Interestingly Garry has a high rate of draws with the Slav. 3 liJo liJf6 4 liJc3 dxc4 S e3 Timman has gained some good victories against the Slav but nonetheless has a minus score against it something unusual for a player of such high calibre. Garry may have chosen this opening because he was aware of Timman' s record. Initially Timman had employed the main line with S a4, but he was not particularly successful with it. Later, in the I 980s, he defeated Portisch with S liJeS, yet he dropped that move too. 30S

10...cS! Garry wastes no time in undermining the centre. 11 0-0 liJc6 12 tDeS .llc8! Simple and strong - the rook

1998

develops smoothly. Instead 12 ...lllxe5 would only strengthen White's centre. 13llla3? The Dutch grandmaster wants to avoid a passive position, but misses the best way. Black's pieces would also be working well after 13 i.xc4 i.xc4 14 lllxc4 cxd4 15 ~xb3 i.c5. On the other hand 13 lllxc4 cxd4 14 llld6+ i.xd6 15 i.xa6 l:tc7 16 ~xb3 0-0, though unattractive for White, is much better than the game continuation. 13••.cxd4 14lllaxc4 HUbner assesses 14 i.xc4 i.xc4 15lllaxc4 'iVd5 as better for Black.

14•. JWd5 14... lllxe5 was also very strong, since 15 lllxe5 i.xe2 16 ~xe2 l:tc5! 17 f4 d3! 18 'iVxd3 (18 lllxd3 Itc2) 18 ... 'iVxd3 19 tiJxd3 l:td5 leaves White struggling. 15 i.o Other tries were: (a) 15 llld6+ i.xd6 16 i.xa6, when Black has a choice: (al) 16...dxe3 17 'iVxd5 (17 i.xc8 ext2+ 18 'it'hl ~xe5) 17 ... ext2+ 18 l::txt2 exd5 19 i.xc8 i.xe5 20 i.b7 'it'd7 with advantage. (a2) 16 ... 'iVxe5 17 f4 ~c5 18 i.xc8 dxe3 19 'it'hl llle4 20 'i¥f.3 lllt2+ 21 l:txt2 ext2 22 i. e3 'iV c4 and White is clearly worse. (b) 15 lllb6 i.xe2 16 lllxd5 i.xdl 17 lllxf6+ gxf6 18 lllxc6 i.e2 306

19 lle 1 d3 and Black wins, as pointed out by HUbner. 15•••llle4 Garry has a strong position despite having played no spectacular moves. 16lllxc6 The best move available in a poor position. 16••.lhc6! White is alread.y. lost. 17llld2 f5 18 nel d3 It is highly unusual to find Black with a passed pawn on d3 so early in the game. 19lDxb3 e5 20 i.d2l::tb6 Perhaps Jan had already anticipated the outcome of the game. 21 i.xe4 fxe4 22 lDc1 l:txb2 23 i.c3 d2 The pawn has entered the fray remarkably early and wreaks remarkable havoc. 24l:tn i.xn 25 i.xb2

25•..i.c4 A prosaic way to win. Garry could have played to the gallery here with 25 ... dxcl=~ 26 ~xd5 i.c4+ 27 l:txc1 i.xd5. He could even have under-promoted with 25 ... dxc 1=l::t to make it even more spectacular. Timman is an excellent composer, and perhaps he saw the potential here. 26 lDe2 i.b3 27 lllc3 i.xdl 28lllxd5 i.b3 29lDc3 i.b4 Garry has only needed his queenside pieces to destroy such a good

1998

player as Timman. It is astonishing that up to this point, three of his pieces have remained unmoved: the king, king's bishop and king's rook. Juniors and average players should heed the warning: "This should not be attempted at home. Trying to imitate Kasparov can do you serious harm."

30 liJdl 0-0 0-1 Finally Black has time to castle. Top-level players rarely get a chance to play like this. But then, players seldom reply to a castling move by resigning!

The third game saw a Nirnzo-Indian with 4 ~ c2, a line in which both players are acknowledged experts, so a good fight was in prospect. However at move seven the lights went out, which forced a break in the play; this may have affected Timman, as on move 13 he made what was virtually a losing error. After that, Garry did not allow him back in the game. Tirnman had prepared hard for the match and wanted to do well, but two poor openings had resulted in two lost positions before the 15th move. This inevitably had a demoralizing effect on his play for the rest of the match. Kasparov went for safety in the fourth game. Timman had prepared an idea, but Kasparov looks invincible in the lines that were played against Karpov. The Dutch grandmaster

avoided any clear drawing lines, and later, in a queen and rook ending, he tried to win by pushing his h-pawn; but this did not have the same effect as Kasparov's own pushes with his rook's pawns often do. Jan claimed that he could have made Kasparov work harder for the draw if he had advanced his passed d-pawn further, but by that time there was little scope for dynamic play on the board. Then Kasparov missed a chance to go into a rook ending where he would have had excellent winning chances. This type of error suggests that since the match was virtually over, he had to some extent lost interest and concentration. After this moment Timman drew easily. In game five, Tirnman did what he has done a few times to both Kasparov and Karpov - steering the game into his opponent's familiar territory and proving that previous victims need not have lost the way they did. This time he showed how Panno ought to have reacted to the novelty Garry introduced when he took on the Argentine national team. As Dokhoian pointed out, White could have created more pressure with the subtle 26 g4 - a finesse removing a pawn from the second rank in case the enemy rook should invade. After Garry missed this, the Dutch grandmaster drew comfortably in 29 moves. In the last round Kasparov played the Cambridge Springs, and Tirnman sacrificed a pawn. He probably did not choose the best continuation, but in his assesment the position offered compensation; the queens were exchanged, and he obtained a space advantage and some pressure. However, it is easier to agree with Tsetsarsky that if Kasparov had first gradually improved his pieces and only then opened the game, he would have had decent winning chances. Instead he played a somewhat flashy

307

1998

early break - a typical, Kasparov-like, super-dynamic c6-c5. This weakened his pawns, and he actually lost one. Timman held the position with accurate play. Kasparov did not seem fully focused. Once again the impression was that, deep down, he had lost interest in the match when he took a two-point lead. Ree said that the match was disappointing. Incidentally, let me interpret Ree's remark in the context of national cultures. He was not expressing animosity towards either player but merely stating his opinion. If these players had produced wonderful games - something they are capable of doing - he would have been happy to say so. In some other countries, by contrast, critics tend to be motivated by personal loyalty or hostility. This is the case in Hungary, and it was also my impression when I

308

was in Russia. Kasparov did not display his usual magic in this match; he was somewhat dry, and in the second half he was lacking in his usual determination. Timman played two extremely unfortunate openings. In 1998 Garry had not played his best chess. He produced world-class results, and some splendid games such as his wins against Anand and Ivanchuk. Beating Topalov 4-0 at rapid chess is impressive, but Kasparov was below his previous level. If the world ranking had been based only on the single year's results, as is the case in tennis, he would have lost the number one spot. His title defence never took place, which is most regrettable. Nevertheless his genius came shining through. What he did to the Israeli national team was nothing short of a miracle.

Kasparov's Record: Statistics 1993-1998 In four cases he achieved a high placing even though he was not at his best:

(A) 'Regular' Contests Overview 9fTournament and Match Successes

Amsterdam 1995 (2 nd behind Lautier) Linares 1994 (2nd = with Shirov, behind Karpov)

Kasparov twice defended his World Championship title: v Short (London 1993) 12V,:7V, v Anand (New York 1995) 1OV,:7V,

He played one non-title match: v Timman (Prague 1998) 4:2

Playing on board one for Russia, he won the Olympic gold medal twice: Moscow 1994 Yerevan 1996

During this period Kasparov entered 16 individual tournaments and was the sole winner 8 times: Linares 1993 Amsterdam 1994 Horgen 1994 Riga 1995 Novgorod 1995 Las Palmas 1996 Linares 1997 Novgorod 1997

He was co-winner 3 times: Novgorod 1994 (= with Ivanchuk) Amsterdam 1996 (= with Topalov) Tilburg 1997 (= with Kramnik and Svidler)

Dos Hermanas 1996 (3rd = with Anand) Linares 1998 (3 rd = with Kramnik)

The only tournament where Kasparov failed to produce a world-class performance was Horgen 1995, where he finished 5th • These are most impressive results, yet during Kasparov's exceptional career there have been even more successful periods. Statistics of Individual Games The statistics of a competitive chessplayer can never paint a perfect picture. One important reason is that hardly any games are played under identical conditions. Sometimes the situation requires a draw with White then a perpetual check is a success. Furthermore some games are of greater significance than others. Nonetheless, statistics do help. They provide an impression, indicate certain trends, and highlight strong points and weaknesses. In this book we have not presented any games from the earlier part of 1993, before the Kasparov-Short match. However, statistics from those earlier months are incorporated in the present section. Kasparov played 232 regular games during this six-year period. There 309

Kasparov's Record: Statistics 1993-1998

were 8 more !fames with Black (120) than with White (112), so his overall score might have been even better, albeit marginally. In total, from the 232 games, Kasparov collected 155 points - a 66·8% score. There were 93 wins (40'1%), 124 draws (53'4%) and only 15 losses (6·5%). His very low losing percentage is especially striking since he chooses to play sharply and accept huge risks. He won 58 of his 112 games with White, i.e. over 51 %. The shortest win, in 22 moves, was against Timman in Riga 1995. The longest, lasting 73 moves, was against Bareev in Novgorod 1997. Garry won 35 games opening with 1 e4, and the other 23 with (dosed openings. Nigel Short is the leader amongst the victims - he lost 8 games. (But don't forget that only the best players get the chance to play Garry and lose to him so often!) In second place is Anand with 7 losses. Gelfand and Timman are third with 4 losses each. It is worth noting that Kramnik lost 3 times and TOPlllov only once. Results with White Garry's losing rate is barely 3% with White! He lost only 4 games with the advantage of the ftrst move. Remarkably, 2 of these were against Lautier - the only player who has plus score with Black against Garry during this period. He lost one each against Ivanchuk and Kramnik. Three of the losses came from 1 e4 and one from 1 d4. Garry drew 50 games. The shortest, lasting a mere 12 moves, was the last game of the 1995 Anand match. The longest draw, lasting 113 moves, was against Yusupov in Linares 1993. Garry played the greatest number of draws - 10 - with Anand, obviously because of the length of their title 310

match. The other challenger, Short, comes second on the list with 6 draws. Ivanchuk and Kramnik drew with Black 5 times each. Remarkably, Karpov and Kamsky each drew once. Garry played only two grandmaster draws with White. His overall score with White was approximately 74%, which is all the more notable bearing in mind that only 5 of his opponents were below 2600 when they played him. The lowest-rated opponent was Leko. Surprisingly, at one stage Timman was rated only 2595. Results with Black Kasparov's overall score was 72 points out of 120 games, which is 60%. He won 35 of these games, i.e. 29%. His fastest win was against Tal Shaked at Tilburg 1997, in 20 moves. The longest victory was in 90 moves against Judit Polgar at Dos Hermanas 1996. It is interesting that Garry faced 1 e4 exactly 60 times. With Black Garry played 10 opponents below 2600. The lowest rated, and the only one below 2500, was Chabanon (2425). The player who lost the most games (5) with White against Garry was Topalov. Anand and Yusupov lost 3 games each. Interestingly, Kramnik did not lose any. Garry lost 11 games with Black, which is only 9%. His lowest rated conqueror was A.Shneider in the 1994 EU-Cup. Ivanchuk, Kramnik and Topalov each beat him twice with White. The two challengers for the World Championship, Short and Anand, only managed to beat him once. Topalov recorded the fastest victory (29 moves) in Moscow 1994. and the longest as well - 66 moves in Amsterdam 1996. Of Garry's 11 losses, six were against 1 e4, four against 1 d4 and one against the

Kasparov 's Record: Statistics 1993-1998

English. Roughly 62% of his games with Black ended in a draw. The draw with Korchnoi at Horgen 1994 was the shortest, lasting only 13 moves. Garry took 114 moves to hold Pinter in the 1993 French team championship. It is not easy to evaluate just how hard-fought these games were, as opening theory can account for a major portion of some encounters. One of the reasons why Garry is such an attractive player is that he rarely shows peaceful intentions and invariably fights very hard - though

Opponent

Games

naturally, there are times when he only needs to draw to achieve a particular result. He was only infrequently forced into a drawing line by his opponent. Face to Face Twenty of the very best players of this period (1993-8) are included in the table below. Only Ivanchuk, Lautier, and Svidler have a plus score. This was Ivanchuk's best period against Kasparov.

Win as White

Win as Black

Draw as White

Draw as Black

Loss as White

Loss as Black

GK

2 3 0 0 5 2 2 0 2 3

6 8 5 5 4 4 1 2 2 2

14 9 6 6 3 3 5 5 1 1

0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

64'5 66·1 50·0 46·9 63·3 73-1 72·7 45·0 83·3 78·6

%

1-10

Short Anand Kramnik Ivanchuk Topalov Timman Shirov Lautier Gelfand Yusupov

31 28 17 16 15 13 11 10 7

8 7 3 2 1 4 3 1 4 1

Sub-total

157

34

19

39

53

4

8

63-1

Bareev Piket Karpov Kamsky Ehlvest Gulko Nikolic Svidler Vaganian Polgar

6 5 4

2

3 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0

2 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

83·3 70·0 75·0 83-3 50·0 66·7 83·3 33·3 83·3 100·0

Sub-total

35

Il

7

5

10

2

0

72-9

Total

192

45

26

44

63

10

4

648

9

1l-20

~

3 3 3 3

3

311

Kasparov's Recprd: Statistics /993-/998

(B) Rapid Play Statistics for rapid play are harder to compile. There has only been one World Championship. Even if any world ranking exists, it is insignificant and nobody really cares about it. There are records of games played in a Reykjavik TV rapid, but there is no other information about the competition. It was impossible to ascertain in what part of the year it was played, or the format of the tournament. Was the money distributed in advance, or did the players fight for prizes? Despite such perplexities, rapidplay games are worth examining for their chess content. When I worked for Leko from 1998 to 2000 - he was then already a top ten player - I noticed how well he was able to play even with very restricted thinking time. If you watch Kasparov analysing for five minutes, his incredible talent can be observed. If he puts all his effort into a 25-minute game, the result can be fantastic. He became very emotional about winning the Paris rapid in 1994 - it really meant a lot to him. In any tournament he entered, he tried hard. I agree with Tkachev that in order to retain their place in the chess hierarchy, top players like to play down the value of rapid chess. (Some of them, while praising the high value of 'regular' games, occupy themselves with blindfold chess. However, none of them have tried their luck playing blindfold in the New York Open. If they did, I seriously doubt whether they would win any prizes.) Admittedly rapid games represent a lower level of chess than regular games, and the quality of play can be badly affected by the time control. But then, excessively long regular games can be affected too. Now that all games are finished in one session there are no adjournments, even in World Championship final matches 312

the level of endgame play has dropped significantly, seeing that there is no time to analyse and the players are exhausted. Tired players miss simple wins; surprisingly, some players are unable to win an ending with an extra piece. The database contains 87 rapid games involving Kasparov in the period 1993-8. We are disregarding games against a computer. No distinction is drawn between games with sudden death or tie-breaks. Many of the games were played in elimination rounds, so in some cases a draw must have been one of the players' aims. There must have been a few more games that Garry played, but a general picture of his rapid play can be formed, and the statistics are interesting to examine. In 1993 in London, Kasparov defeated Nigel Short 4:0. This was a rapid match to replace the unnecessary fmal games of the World Championship match. In 1998 in Sofia, Kasparov defeated Veselin Topalov 4:0. Garry was the winner of three knockout rapid tournaments: Paris 1994 New York 1995 Paris 1995

He was the losing finalist in three others: New York 1994 Moscow 1996 Geneva 1996

To complete the picture, he was a quarter-fmalist in Moscow 1994 and a semi-fmalist at the same venue the following year. Garry played 43 games with White during this period. He won 24 of them, drew 15 and lost 4, for a percentage score of 73'3%, which is

Kasparov's Record: Statistics 1993-1998

higher than in regular games. Kramnik beat him twice with Black, Anand and Dreev once each. Garry played 44 games with Black, winning an astonishing 27 and drawing only 10, of which 5 were against Kramnik! Anand beat him three times, as did Kramnik, while Adams defeated him once. Garry's percentage with Black - 73·9% - is even higher than with White! In regular games he scores distinctly better with the white pieces. He played the highest number of games (20) against Kramnik. From these he scored 9 points - he won 3 games and lost 5. Garry's second most frequent opponent was Anand, against whom he scored 7Yz points from 14 games. He had White 7 times, winning 2 games (one by default) and losing one. When Anand had White, they gained 3 victories each, and only one game ended peacefully. These two super-grandmasters were on the same level as Kasparov or a very similar one, but the rest of his opponents were way behind - as the statistics show. Topalov achieved just one draw out of 6 games. Adams won a game but lost four. Of the players who played Garry 4 times, Ivanchuk did best: he managed to draw once. Nigel Short was less successful: he lost all 4 games, while Predrag Nikolic did neither better nor worse. Kasparov's chess in rapid events looks somewhat different from his

313

regular games. He is able to produce great concepts, as the Ivanchuk game from Frankfurt 1998 demonstrates, but he does it less often. Maybe he keeps back some of his novelties for use in regular contests. He creates baffling complications less frequently; this is something that can be brought off more easily with more time. In a way he has been unfortunate. There were fewer rapid tournaments in the 1980s when his period of dominance commenced. He did not participate in the 1988 World Championship. The quicker the game, the better the younger players adapt; during the early years of his reign as World Champion, Kasparov could probably have demolished the field. By 1994 two players had reached his level, though the rest were a long way behind. The demolitions achieved nowadays by Anand suggest that although Kasparov is clearly the superior player in regular games, Anand is more accomplished in rapid. Interestingly Garry rarely analyses rapid games. Of course it is very hard to judge how seriously he prepares for rapid events, and how much effect they have on his work on the openings. He would seem to modifY his style slightly, but on this point it is very hard for an outsider to form an opinion. Whatever approach he adopts, we can still enjoy his games in rapid. Garry has exceptional class in this department too.

Epilogue A note of appreciation must go to the commentators whose investigations have considerably helped us. Most notable are the masterful analyses of I\.asparov himself. The analysis in this book was completed with the aid of computer chess programs, with the result that some errors in earlier annotations were discovered. TPis doesn't mean that Garry is anything less than a wizard at analysing; it merely underlines how wonderful and complicated chess can be.

We would like to express our gratitude to all the people who knowingly or unwittingly provided the motivation for writing this book. We owe special thanks to Dmitry Oleynikov, my colleague at Intchess Asia in Singapore. He provided some factual information and corrected some inaccuracies. He also approved the little things we had to say about Russian culture. His was an important contribution, as most of the book was written in Singapore and not in my home country Hungary.

Index of Openings (Only complete games are listed; game numbers in bold indicate that Kasparov had White)

Caro-Kann Defence English Opening Evans Gambit French Defence Modem Defence Nirnzo-Indian Defence Petroff Defence Queen's Gambit Accepted Queen's Gambit Declined Queen's Indian Defence Ruy Lopez Scandinavian Defence Scotch Game Sicilian Defence Slav Defence Torre Attack

9,56 52 21 12 19 5,46,48,53 13 55 6,8,26 49 1,2,4,29 32 45,47 3,7,15,16,22,28,30,31,34,39,43,54,58,59 60 42

314

Index of Opponents (Gqme numbers in bold indicate that Kasparov had White)

Almasi Anand Azmaiparashvi\i Bareev De Firmian Epishin Gelfand Graf Ivanchuk Kamsky Karpov Kengis Korchnoi Kramnik Nikolic OIl Piket Polgar Shirov Short Sokolov Sutovsky Timman Topalov Vaganian Van Wely Yudasin Yusupov

18 10,21,28,29,30,31,32,34,38,40,43,56 19 50 27 23 39,49 42 8,59 9, 14 46 22 33 15,17,35,48 47 20 37,55 41,53 16,44,54 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,12,51 45 58 11,13,60 24,57 26 52 36 25

315