My One Hundred Best Games (Gnv64)

March 26, 2017 | Author: valy0017 | Category: N/A
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download My One Hundred Best Games (Gnv64)...

Description

5 CONTENTS

From First Steps to Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Competing at Top Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .

1

2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

011 - Dreev, Kiljava 1984 27 Dreev - Kaidanov, Moscow 1985..........................28 Dreev - Bareev, Tallinn 1986..........................30 Dreev - Gelfand, Tallinn 1986.......................... 34 Dreev - Kamsky, Pavlodar 1987..........................36 Dreev - Gelfand, Uzhgorod 1987 ..........................39 Dreey - Chekhov, Protvino 1988..........................40 Dreev - Sherbakov, Borzhomi 1988..........................42 Baburin - Dreev, Gorky 1989............................45 Dreev - Azmaiparashvili, Moscow 1989 ...................48 Pliester - Dreev, New York 1989............................52 Ruban - Dreev, Tbilisi 1989 ............................54 Dreev - E.Geller, Moscow 1989.......................... 57 Aseev - Dreev, Lviv 1990...............................60 I.Novikov - Dreev, Lviv 1990.............................63 Dreev - D.Bronstein, Reykjavik 1990 .......................66 Dreev - Wedberg, New York 1991 ..........................69 Dreev - Malaniuk, Moscow 1991 ..........................73 Anand - Dreev, Madras 1991 .............................76 Nadera - Dreev, Manila 1992 .......... ',' ................78 Dreev - Gleizerov, Moscow 1992 ..........................81 Dreev - Sakaev, Moscow 1992 ..........................82 Tiviakov - Dreev, Podolsk 1992 .............., ..............84 Rogers - Dreev, BieI 1993 ...............................86 Lerner - Dreev, Rostov-on-Don 1993 ......................91 Dreev - Muhutdinov, St Petersburg 1993 ..................94 Galdunts - Dreev, St Petersburg 1993 ......................97 Gelfand - Dreev, Tilburg 1993 .........................99 Dreev - Golubev, Alushta 1994 ......................... 102 Adams - Dreev, Dortmund 1994 ..........., .............105 Dreev - Leko, Dortmund 1994 ...........................108 Dreev - Cifuentes Parada, Wijk aan Zee 1995 ........ ... 110 Dreev - Seirawan, Wijk aan Zee 1995 ................... 112 Dreev - KhaIifman, Linares 1995 ..................... 115 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Dreev - Shirov, BieI 1995 ........... . . . . . ....... . . 116

6 36 37 38 39

Dreev - de Firmian, Biei1995 ........................117 Dreev - Milov, Biel 1995 .......................... 119 Dautov - Dreev, Yerevan 1996 .........................122 Dreev - Galkin, Elista 1996 ......................... 125 40 Dreev - Vaganian, Budapest 1996 ...................... 129 41 Dreev - Graf, Groningen 1997 ...................... 131 42 Sadler - Dreev, Groningen 1997 ...................... 134 43 Dreev - Kasparov, Linares 1997 ...................... 139 44 Dreev - Krasenkow, Kazan 1997 ...................... 142 45 Dreev - Svidler, Elista 1997 . . .................... 144 46 Dreev - Khalifrnan, Elista 1998 ...................... 147 47 Dreev - Rublevsky, Elista 1998 ......................149 48 Dreev - Sveshnikov, St Petersburg 1998 .................151 49 Balashov - Dreev, Samara 1998 ...................... 152 50 Timman - Dreev, Elista 1998 ...................... 154 51 Sasikiran - Dreev, Linares 1999 ...................... 157 Dreev - Svetushkin, Linares 1999 ...................... 159 52 53 Dreev - Grischuk, Ubeda 1999 ....................... 162 54 Tiviakov - Dreev, Ubeda 1999 ........ .. ................ 55 Semeniuk - Dreev, St Petersburg 1999 ..................167 Dreev - Khalifrnan, St Petersburg 1999 ................. 169 56 Wang Zili - Dreev, Shenyang 1999 ......................172 57 58 Dreev - Rublevsky, Las Vegas 1999 .......................176 59 Dreev - Chandler, Hastings 2000 ........................178 6 0 Dreev - B.Lalic, Hastings 2000 ........................ 180 Dreev - Huebner, Essen 2000 ...........................182 61 Dreev - Sax, Neum 2000 186 62 63 Dreev - Peng Xiaomin, Beijing 2000 ................. 187 64 Dreev - Zhang Zhong, Beijing 2000 ................... 191 van Wely - Dreev, New Delhi 2000 ......................193 65 66 I.Sokolov - Dreev, Dos Hermanas 2001 .................196 67 Dreev - Smirin, Dos Hermanas 2001 ................. 198 68 Atalik - Dreev, Sarajevo 2001 ...... ............... 200 69 Dreev - Tkachiev, Shanghai 2001 ......................202 70 Dreev - Zhang Zhong, Shanghai 2001 ................ 206 71 Dreev - Banikas, Panormo 2001 ...................... 209 72 T.Nadev - Dreev, Yerevan 2001 ..................... 214 Dreev - Pigusov, Moscow 2001 ...................... 216 73 ':.'4 Dreev - Jobava, Moscow 2002 ...................... 219 5 Dreev - Pelletier, Biel 2002 .......................... 223 -6 Dree\' - Vallejo Pons, Biel 2002 ...................... 226 Dree\' - Kishnev, Chalkidiki 2002 ..................... 229 .

-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

7 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Dreev - Svidler, Chalkidiki 2002 ..................... 230 Dreev - Zagrebelny, Moscow 2003 ...... .... ........ 232 Dreev - Tiviakov, Dos Hermanas 2003 ....... ........ 234 Dreev - Jakovenko, Togliatti 2003 .................. 237 Dreev - eu. Hansen, Esbjerg 2003 .................. 238 Dreev - Sasikiran, Esbjerg 2003 .................... 241 Dreev - Gallagher, Gibraltar 2004 ....................243 E.A1ekseev - Dreev, Moscow 2004 .................... 245 Dreev - J. Geller, Sochi 2004 ...................... 249 A.Kuzmin - Dreev, St Petersburg 2004 ................. 252 Volkov - Dreev, St Petersburg 2004 ................... 254 Dreev - Huzman, Calvia de Mallorca 2004 .............. 258 Morozevich - Dreev, Moscow 2004 .................... 261 Dreev - Kulaots, Moscow 2005 ...................... 265 Dreev - Karjakin, Dos Hermanas 2005 .................267 Dreev - Minasian, Warsaw 2005 ..................... 271 Dreev - M. Gurevich, Warsaw 2005 .................. 275 Dreev - Sakaev, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005 ................ 277 Dreev - van Wely, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005 ............... 280 Dreev - Bareev, Moscow 2005 ...................... 282 Dreev - Bareev, Poikovsky 2006 ......................284 Bologan - Dreev, PoJkovsky 2006 ..................... 288 Yevseev - Dreev, Mo scow 2006 ..................... 290

Tournament and Match Results Index of Opponents

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Index of Openings

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.294

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

298 299

From First Steps to Success I have chosen and commented on 100 games for this book and I have played them in a period of more than 20 years. These games are so different from each other that there will be some to everybody's liking - there are sacrifices, there are quiet moves, there are sharp tactical games as well as tough positional fights. You can also find instructive examples of how to play in the various stages of the game. In general, I have devoted a great attention to the openings and my comments about them are from the point of view of the contemporary theory. A chess professional's life is not only the games played over the board. You go to different countries, you visit various continents; you see picturesque places and ancient towns and you come into contact with chess-fans all over the world. In my notes to some of the games, I have shared with my readers (as much as the size of the book allows) my impressions of these journeys and encounters. While working on the story of my first steps in chess, it was as if I re-lived again everything I came through during all these times. Naturally, my memory is not perfect. I have had to omit many things also because this book is not an autobi­ ography, it is not memoirs, and it is supposed to be a collection of games. Still I

tried to tell in earnest about my development as a player, about my problems and

hardships (some of them due to the surroundings and some of them just personal). I have shared with my readers my joy about my victories in my first tournaments and I have told about people who have helped me and to whom lowe my deepest gratitude. I would like to begin my story with my early childhood. I was born 30.01.1969 in the city of Stavropol, but my family (my mother - Nina Michailovna, my father Sergey Sergeevich and my elder sister Tatyana) lived in Zheleznovodsk - a resort town, which seemed to me to be huge then (at present there are about 60,000 inha­ bitants there). My father (who is an engineering gradu­ ate) used to work in the town of Mineral Waters as the director of PTU (professional technical school in which people acquired high school special education). Later, he was given lodgment in the town of Zheleznovodsk and he had to quit his job as the director of the school, because it was too far from Mineral Waters town. My father (who was a strong first-grade player and he would have been at least a candidate-master if he had played competitive chess) loved chess very much

lamS

9 (Meanwhile,

he loves it now as well and he works as a coach in the Sports

School for children and juniors)

and

he read and stud­ ied He to

chess books. had decided introduce

his

children to chess. My sister Tatyana is older than me by two and a half

My mother and 1,1974

years and when she became eight

my father started teaching her chess. I was only five and a half then and my father had no intentions to start teaching me yet. My sister proved to be a very good chess student, though.

I (I had just become six years old). At some moment I sug­

My father recalls how one day when he was studying chess with my sister, was standing around

gested a move, which proved to be not so bad after all. My father was pleasantly surprised, because in fact I � d not been taught the rules by anybody. My sister had some doubtless successes by then, but she was not really interested in chess. Therefore my father reconsidered the situation and he decided to try with me. We began working together and he was convinced immediately that

I was improving

rapidly, so we started playing chess games regularly. There were just a few chess coaches in Zheleznovodsk then. Meanwhile, there were plenty of excellent books about chess (published in a huge print runs) in those Soviet times. Therefore my father was teaching me not only moves, but also the chess notation so that I could read and study books on my own. I remember vividly how he was teaching me the chess notation. We had a chess board, but without files and ranks marked by letters and numbers - just light and dark squares. My father had prepared 64 pieces of paper with the indexes of the squares (aI, bI, (:1 etc.) and he placed them on each

square. Strangely enough I grasped the notation immediately. In fact later, when I started going to school in my first grade and I had to learn a poem or a story, I was not studying them word by word or line by line, but I was remembering the words and the lines in their entirety, repeating the poem and the story altogether. My par­

ents used to be amazed and all that seems to be hardly believable even to me now, since my chess memory is too far from being perfect. Still, I am telling you this not to boast about my memory, but just to explain to you how that system with the 64

I remembered visually where every square was situ­ I understood the notation and if we present that sche­ matically then I was reasoning like this: the bishop goes from f1 to c4 and that was pieces of paper did the job

ated. Somehow gradually,

-

10 not because these squares were on the same diagonal. I learned the notation and I was already able to play games over from the books. I was very impressed then with the games of Alexander Alekhine and I recommend even now to the aspiring young players to study the chess inheritance of that outstanding Russian player. Later, my father decided to introduce me to some chess specialists who lived in Zheleznovodsk. We went at first to the home ofVasily TikhonovichVlasov who was an eminent chess functionary and who was the director then of the Chess Club of Sochi. That was not just a chess club - it was the Club which organized the famous Sochi International Tournaments (There were just a few International Tourna­ ments in the USSR at those times).Vasily Tikhonovich played a great role in the or­ ganization of these events and he was well-known in the chess world. He happened to be in Zheleznovodsk then and according to the whim of fate he became the direc­ tor of the Chess Club there, naturally it was much more humble than that in Sochi. So, we visited him at his home. He lived up the slopes of a mountain while we lived in the valley. I remembered how we were climbing roaming around. There was a huge Sanatorium in front of us (with more than 1000 beds) and my father pointed his hand in the direction of the Sanatorium and he said "Vasily Tikhonovich lives there... ". I was thinking then - the director of the club is supposed to inhabit a large house and that was certainly a big house. I was walking up there with delight and awe. It turned out however that

Vasily

Tikhonovich

lived much more modestly. So we met him and he tested me and gave me problems for homework. The he came to the conclusion that I was worth teaching. Accordingly, my father got me acquainted with all chess specialists re­ siding at those times in Zhe­ leznovodsk. After that .he

My father and I, 1976

worked with me intensely. Later, my father took me to the Chess Club. I remember how we went there, be­ cause I was reluctant to go and I resisted, but he took me there anyway. They were playing chess in that Club - practice, tournaments (at first without clocks, later with clocks). I was recording my games even when I was still six years old and I could not write regular sentences yet. I became a first grade player almost immediately and I was improving rapidly. I was noticed then and I made my debut in the Championship of the Stavropol region for adults, then I became the junior

11 champion of the region three times in a row and later I shared 1-3 places in the adult Championship of the region. Whenever I had nobody to play against, I went out to the park of Zhelezno­ vodsk. I used to sit on a bench in the park, I arranged the pieces on the board and I was waiting for some passer-by from among the tourists. In case somebody came around - my father asked him to play with me. Some people agreed, and I was accumulating practical experience. Later, they built a pavilion in the park and we could play with a clock there. My father co�sidered that experience useful and he kept finding sparring-partners for me - strong. players among the people conva. lescing in the Sanatorium. There soon happened something important for my chess-development. My fa­ ther got acquainted with a high-class chess player - master Vladimir Sergeevich Saigin - Byelorussian champion numerous times, since he lived there for years. He was also famous because of the fact that as a master he tested the then young Mikhail Tal and played a match with him. Those were the times when you could not become a master without beating another master in a match. Tal won that match after a tough fight, so Saigin could have asserted that he gave the green light to world-class chess to M. Tal himself. He did something like that for me too and I am tremendously grateful to him about that as well. I know that Vladimir Sergeevich and Mikhail Tal preserved an excellent attitude towards each other throughout the years. According to the whims of fate, Vladimir Sergeevich ended up at the Cauca­ sian Mineral Waters, in the town of Essentuki. My father asked him to work with me. They agreed on some financial conditions too. His work was paid indeed, but it soon became clear that he was teaching me not just for the money. In fact he told my father that money was money, but he would have never taken the job unless he had seen that it was worth it. It is a bit embarrassing for me to praise myself, but he had obviously detected something like talent in me and that had impressed him a lot. That seemed to motivate his enthusiasm while working with me; otherwise there was no other rational explanation.. I remember how I asked Vladimir Sergeevich a question when he came to us for the first time. I was really interested in the problem why in the position after 1.e4 eS 2.I2lf31t:lc6 3.d4 exd 4.lt:lxd4, Black was not playing 4... lt:lxd4 S:�xd4, followed by S...cS - ? It seemed to me that Black was winning a tempo like that. Now of course, I am a bit ashamed of a question like that, but back then I was really interested in that, since I was taught that it was essential to win tempi in the opening. Vladimir Sergeevich explained to me that not every win of a tempo was good and meanwhile in that position Black was not even winning a tempo, because he did not develop a piece, but he was just advancing a pawn. He gave me a lesson about weak squares and he told me that you should avoid compromising squares unnecessarily. I was really impressed and I understood that you were not supposed to push pawns just like that. I still remember well my sessions with Vladimir Sergeevich

-

they were tiring

not only for me - an eight year old boy, but also for him being an elderly man. They

were lasting sometimes for eight hours a day - at first in the morning, then we

�re having lunch and then we were working again in the afternoon. There was a riod (of about half a year) in which we were working quite often, like 5-6 times veek. He usually came to our place. Still, I remember once we went to his place rly in the morning and it was some holiday, or somebody's birthday. So, instead celebrating, Vladimir Sergeevich spent the whole day working with me, while ev­ {body around was having fun, drinking and eating. We were studying chess then ring the entire day and we went back home only late at night. I solved a colossal number of most interesting positions. V. Saigin helped me a . I felt that as a result of our work the quality of my chess improved considerably d I became a candidate master. We had competitions with a norm for a candi­ te master and I took part in a tournament like that when I was only 8 years old. I lyed there with quite serious adult opponents (first grade players and candidate lsters) and I fulfilled my first norm for a candidate master. I acquired the title er in the Championship of the region for men. I was playing often, numerous mes and I was also playing for the team of the Stavropol region in some zonal lrnaments - there was an entire system of tournaments then and if one wanted improve - there was never a shortage of tournaments. Our sessions with V. Saigin stopped at some moment. I do not remember why, t evidently something had changed in his life or mine-back then. The city of Zheleznovodsk was too far away from the actual chess centres and it came difficult to know how I was going to develop further. My father was won­ dering how to introduce me to the real "chess world". Fortunately for us, theAll-Union Chess School of Smyslov had some sessions in Kis­ lovodsk. That city was close to Zheleznovodsk and I went there with my father to join. The session was almost coming to an end, but still I was accepted and I was given some problems. I was asked to solve them and to send the solu­ tions by post. I solved the problems, of course some of them with mistakes, but in general it seemed that I had made a good impression on people and I became a member of the Smyslov School and I began to participate in every ses­ sion. I would like to say a few words about that school. It was organized with the all-union stu­ dents sporting club "Burevestnik". The Direc­ tor of the club was the eminent chess-function­

Russia Youth Championship Saberemye Chelny 1979

ary Boris Naumovich Postovsky, who was the leader of the Russian National Team for a while

13 and later also of Team USA. His experience has been appreciated everywhere. Vas­ ily Vasilievich Smyslov was of course present at the sessions, but the main coaching chess work was performed by other coaches and there were simply brilliant special­ ists selected to work there. At first there was Yuri Sergeevich Razuvaev (I remem­ ber how he came and he had some lectures with us at one of the sessions, a bit later in the city of Podolsk, immediately after the end of one of Karpov's matches and he was an aide to Karpov then). Yuri Balashov was also often present at some of our sessions. Berezin had some lectures with us. I also remember the names of S. Kishnev, B. Zlotnik, G. Nessis, V. Faibisovich - all of them strong masters. We had many a teacher to learn something from. It was far from easy to join that school and later many of the "graduates" of that school became famous grandmasters: A. Khalifman, E. Bareev, V. Salov, V. Akopian, K. Aseev, I. Glek, M. Krasenkow,

E.

Pigusov, Y. Piskov, G. Serper...We were solving problems and we were also playing against each other. All that no doubt proved to be quite purposeful. Then, something very important happened in my life. When I was 10 years old, Mark Izrailevich Dvoretzky (he was also a very good player then, surprisingly for all but obviously not for him, decided to start working as a coach, and he became a brilliant coach, famous all over the world) came to Kislovodsk as a second to Nana Alexandria in her candidates match against Levitina. I was introduced to him, we had a look at some positions together, he asked me some chess questions and he gave me some problems to solve. Later he gave me some homework, too, and he went back to Moscow. I solved my problems and I did my homework and I sent the solutions to him by post.

"-

With Mark Dvoretzky, Zheleznovodsk 1983

14 That is how Mark Izrailevich Dvoretzky came into my life. My sessions with Vladimir Sergeevich Saigin continued to be tremendously important for me as be­ fore, but my work together with M. Dvoretzky became essential for me as well. I have to acknowledge that these two people taught me to play top-class chess. My father and I went to Moscow to work with M. Dvoretzky and we lived there with relatives or in hotels. We worked for a fortnight - this was something like a session. Mark Dvoretzky was working then simultaneously with me and Sasha Budnikov from Vladivostok. He had noticed his talent somewhere too. Sasha was a bit older than me and he was a member of the Smyslov School as well. 1 even had the feeling that Dvoretzky was somehow choosing between me and him, because it was obviously too strenuous for him to work simultaneously with both of us then. We lived 1600 kilometers away from Dvoretzky and we met only from time to time, besides our sessions were too expensive for us. After he decided that our work together was quite fruitful, we began to meet more often and we had some training camps together too. We used different possibilities for me to join in the sessions. I remember how I went to the First League Championship of the USSR and while Dvoretzky was helping Sergey Dolmatov there he worked with me during his free time. 1 was getting tuned to the world of top-level chess. In fact, Dvoretzky had his

own methods and he worked according to them. He told me immediately: "1 began

working with you in order to make a World Champion out of you!" 1 thought that to be absolutely unbelievable then, but his confidence proved to be contagious. It was already evident that he was not fantasizing - by that time Dvoretzky's pupils

Valery Chekhov, Arthur Jussupov and Sergey Dolmatov had already become World Champions. Gradually, we began to meet and work with Mark Izrailevich more and more often. I fulfilled the master norm at a tournament in the city of Grozny. The problem was not so much to make the norm but that there were so few tournaments with a master norm then that the real problem was to participate in a tournament like that! My fa­ ther went together with V. T. Vlasov to Moscow and he asked for an audience with Vera Niko­ laevna Tikhomirova, who was then the official head-coach of the Russian Federation. Vera Tikhomirova was quite famous for her rather peculiar character, she was always principled in her work and she was reluctant to favour anybody about anything, including herself. (In fact, 1 do not know anybody in the chess-world who would talk about her except with great re­ spect and even reverence!). My father and Vla­ soy explained to her the situation - that there was a talented young player who had nowhere to show his skills. There were some arguments

15 against, but Vera Tikhomirova decided to take a risk and she presented me with "a wild card" and I was included in the tournament of the Russian Young Mas­ ters. I played quite successfully in that strong tournament and I fulfilled the master norm when I was only 13 years old. I got the title not immediately, but a bit later when I was 14. The process of awarding the title took some time but still the fact of somebody making the norm at the age of 13 was somewhat shocking. Nowadays no one will be even surprised, because there are 13 years old grandmasters, but those times were quite different. There were not so many possibilities to show your strength, there were not so many tournaments (particularly international), it was too problematic to even go abroad and of course there were no computers available for preparation. If we have to make a comparison, for example with Garry Kasp­ arov - he made the master norm when he was almost 15 years old. I had my chances to go to the World Championship a bit later - the qualification tournament for the World Championship for cadets (juniors under 16) was held in Sochi and I was the youngest participant (I was not even 14 yet). The tournament

was quite strong and included V. Ivanchuk, B. Gelfand, E. Bareev, Art. Minasian, A. Shabalov, S. Savchenko. I tied for 1-2 places with Zhenya Bareev and I won several

very good games, with good quality at a high level. I do not remember what exactly the additional criteria were but it was decided that we had to play a match. I can understand the desire of the governing body of the Chess Federation to send to the Championship a more experienced player, the elder...and that was the last chance for Zhenya to become Under-16 World Cham­ pion. In the end, no matter' what, our match with Bareev was played at "his ter­ ritory" - in Moscow. I do not want to say that there were some intrigues and evil intentions, but the organization of the match was just terrible. I was not even given a hotel room and I lived with Mark Izrailevich at his home in Strogino. I slept in one of the rooms and Mark Izrailevich and his family slept in the other room. He had by then a little baby, who was pretty calm (I can understand that now, being the father of two daughters myself), but it could have woken up and cried in the middle of the night. I was supposed to eat at the Hotel Sport, which was situated on the other side of the enormous city of Moscow and naturally there was no reason to waste half a day in order to have lunch or dinner there. In the end, we managed to get some money for the coupons that we received for food. We played in the Central Chess Club. Zhenya studied and he lived in the Sports School and his road to the Central Chess Club was much shorter than mine from Strogino. It took me more than an hour to get to the Club, while Zhenya was there in about half an hour. I was not paying attention then to such trifles (I learned about that only later), but naturally, all that did not help me obtain a good result. After all this, I lost that match with a result of "-2" and Zhenya Bareev went to the World Championship. He played quite well there and he won it. I was already too strong by the following year and I was chosen to represent my country at the World Championship even without preliminary qualifying. That was

{ first

travel abroad and it was to the faraway country Colombia - to a town with

exotic name of Bucaramanga. It was a competition at that Championship between me and the quite talented nerican player Patrick Wolff. (Patrick became a grandmaster soon after and we



�t again at the Interzonal Tournament in Biel, where I beat him. Still, later we �t in New York and he beat me, but I see his name only rarely now. He has prob­ ly quit chess altogether...) During those times it was a great rivalry between the o countries, the USSR and the USA in everything, and particularly in sports. . erefore our chess competition had a special meaning.

III CAMPEONATO Para

.......r••

MUNOIAL DE AJEDRE Z

de 16 alios.

Game Dreev

-

Wolff

I beat Patrick in our game in the first half of the tournament and later I built a mfortable cushion of a lead so he could not catch up with me. Still, when it looked e there were no more rivals anymore and nobody could catch me, when there nothing to be afraid of - there suddenly appeared a player from Indonesia

lS

[.Wahl), who started the tournament from the fourth round and then he began ating everybody (He was playing like a machine!). There were not so many play­ ; anyway, so he came closer to the top and he started playing the participants that .ad just played against. So I was thinking "If he goes on like that, how will all that d?" He won, I thought, six games in a row, when he came to play against me. If I d lost that game, the difference would have become very small and it could have ded either way. Instead, our game ended in a draw after a balanced fight, and he ) failed to catch up with me. It would be interesting what might have happened if had started the tournament right from the very beginning. I do not know what is

17 happening with that player these days either, but back then he was just absolutely fantastic. The journey was also quite interesting and beautiful. It was my first travel abroad and it was in such a picturesque country. I was filled with impressions and it was all in such a wonderful atmosphere. It was very important for me to take first place, because any other place back in the USSR was considered to be a disaster. At the end, I made 10 out of 11 and I was 2 1/2 points ahead of the runner-up. That was how I became World Champion. Mark Izrailevich made good his promise. I had serious problems with my studies in high school, because I was going to tournaments every month. The governing body of the school was furious, since at those times it was absolutely unbelievable that somebody might just not go to

With Mikhail Tal Newspaper "Evening Moscow" Blitz, Sokolniki (Moscow 1982) school. Higher education was something sacred during Soviet times. Parents could be deprived of custody if their kids did not attend school. There were no other forms of teaching except regular school attendance and I had to convince some of the teachers that I would study on my own and later I would pass individual examina­ tions. For example, when I went to the tournament in the city of Grozny, and even after I came back having fulfilled the master norm, my father was reproached that he was impeding my education. There were similar accusations from the school, from the city council and the city Party committee, and even, what was really amaz­ ing, from the sports committee. The moment I went to the World Championship my father was totally cornered. They were quite adept at maltreating people during those times - he was called and reproached in the city Party committee as well as in other governing bodies. He had numerous difficult conversations and I did not

18 know about all that then, because my father had kept me protected from all this. Still, when I came back as World Champion, the situation changed overnight and the same people who almost wanted to take me away from my parents now had an entirely different attitude. I was accepted in the regional committee of the Party and I was officially congratulated. My name was noted in the Official Book of the Pioneers. (every Soviet schoolboy was a pioneer then...) During the next year 1984, when I became 15, I had the personal right to par­ ticipate in the next World Championship as the acting World Champion, and I did not need to pass through qualifying. The tournament was organized in France, in the town of Champigny, near Paris. The competition was considerably stronger than the previous year, and there were more participants, too - 40 players. The distance was a bit shorter - it was an 11 round Swiss system tournament. At the start, the American player S. Rachels (once again the representative of the USA!) showed a 100% result, but then he lost to me and later he lost to Vasily Ivanchuk as well. (Grandmaster Alexey Stepanovich Suetin was our coach at that tournament.) The fight for the first place between me, Vasily as well as V. Anand and J. Piket was quite tough and only the last two rounds clarified the situation. I was the only one among the leaders to win my game in the last round. Thus I made 8 1/2 points and took the first place. (V. Anand, V. Ivanchuk and J. Piket all remained half a point behind me.) That was how I became Under-16 World Champion for a second time in a row. After my second World title among cadets, in August of the same year I took part in the Under-20 World Championship in Finland. It was the first time in the his­ tory of these championships that a 15 year-old chess player was challenging much more experienced and famous players who were almost all 3-4 years his elder. Still, I managed to show a good result (10 points out of 13) and I was a whole point in front of the World Champion for the previous year Kiril Georgiev (meanwhile my rating was 200 points (!) inferior to his) and K. Torsteins. Unfortunately, I only won the silver medal, because the 19 year old Curt Hansen had half a point more than me. V. Anand was also a participant in that tournament. We played in the penultimate round in which I failed to materialize my positional advantage and the game ended in a draw. In the year 1985, at the age of 16, I made my debut in the Championship of the USSR for Young Masters (there were not such young participants in similar tour­ naments up to then), which was by that time a real test for the young and promising players in the USSR. Many of the participants there became grandmasters later. Among the players in the year 1985 there were A. Khalifman, J. Ehlvest, G. Kaid­ anov, I. Glek, I. Novikov, K. Aseev, V. Neverov, Z. Sturua...I began the competition with two victories and during the first half of the tournament I was among the lead­ ers and I shared 5- f"h places with a final result of "+ I" with Alexey Vyzhmanavin and Andrey Kharitonov, just a point behind the winner - Eduardas Rozentalis.

19 Here, I would like to deal with another subject for a while. Naturally, I cannot talk about earlier times, but during my years the state was helping chess consider­ ably. "The Soviet Chess School" was an entire system for the support and devel­ opment of chess. That did not apply necessarily to everybody, but in my case the support was quite significant. I was a member of the sports club "Burevestnik" and it was assisting eminent sportsmen and helping them in their travels, in competi­ tions, in their work with coaches. (I was often traveling with my father, he was paid for that and I received coupons for food.) Our city was famous for its Sanatorium and the people, who were resting there, needed entertainment. There was a whole system for that and one of the things was a simultaneous display by a strong chess

player. I began to give simuls when I was 8 years old. If I had the free time, I could

have given up to 10 simuls per day. We were paid very well indeed. This was hon­ est money for real work and the state had no qualms about that. In fact, I could make as much money in a month as the first secretary of the city committee of the Party. We received our money at one and a same place and he was really amazed - how was that possible? He received 250 rubles, while a 9-10 year old boy received 300 rubl�s? I did not know all the details, but there were rumours, and even legends going around. I did go sometimes with my father to the accounting office, and I signed the invoices. (I did not even have a passport then) That had always been interesting for me, because the accountants and the tellers were looking at me so strangely. Later, they started recognizing me, of course so, in the USSR - in a country, which was considered to be a socialist

Simultaneous display, Budenovsk 1979

one, and where there was no capitalism, it was official that a 10 year old could receive money for individual work (a bit creative, though). So, on one hand, there was a total absence of freedom in the country, but on the other hand, the state was providing colossal support for chess and chess players and the possibility for them to work without any obstacles. There were simultaneous displays in Sanatoriums and in villages as well. The title was also very important: a grandmaster could receive up to 100 rubles per simul.

20 (the average salary of an engineer was about 150 rubles per month) Naturally, no one could have simuls every day and there was a special office in Moscow where the available simuls were to be distributed about equally among the grandmasters. We had candidate masters who also had simuls. There were numerous sanatori­ ums and the simuls were distributed by the Chess Club. There was no animosity between the players about that. I did not have so many simuls then, because I had many tournaments, and I also had to attend my lessons at school. After I became Master of Sports of the USSR, World Champion and FIDE master (for my win at the World Championship) I was invited to work for the Sports School for children and juniors. I was working there with children; I was even given some elder, so that my work could have been more interesting and more effective, too. I think I worked there for a period of about half a year, and I received some salary from there as well. In general, I lived quite well during those times. My sessions with Dvoretzky continued. Mark Izrailevich had an excellent system of preparation, but it had (and it still has) a certain drawback, which he admitted, too. He did not work with open­ ings. Naturally, he could show you some not so fashionable schemes, and of course, he dealt with opening principles; nevertheless he either could not make a concrete opening repertoire for you, even in the sense of understanding in the so-called pre­ computer era, moreover in the contemporary sense of the word, or he simply did not want to. Dvoretzky was not an expert in the opening stage indeed, but he was always trying to attract spe­ cialists in that field to our training camps. There was a coach among them - Alexander Vasilievich Fili­ penko - whom I met at the all-union junior games in Tashkent. I was playing for the team of the Russian Federation there, and he was one of the coaches of the team. Alexan­ der Panchenko was the chief-coach. That tournament was an important competition. I remember, they gave us special costumes (whenever they did that, that meant that the event was something special), and even sneakers. We did not have so many contacts with Filipenko, but there arose a chess problem at some mo­ ment - I needed to play for a win \\ith Black in the exchange variation

With daughter Diana and A. Filipenko

21 of the Slav Defence and I was advised to ask him for help. He recommended to me something, I did not agree with him and we started analyzing and he proved to me

quite convincingly that I had been wrong. (It is an amazing thing, but I have won so many points in that variation and mostly thanks to the concepts and ideas of A. V. Filipenko.). I very much liked the way he was showing and explaining things and

I was really impressed. Later, when Dvoretzky asked me with whom I would like

to study openings and maybe even go along to tournaments with (he had so many pupils and other work too that he could not always travel with me to tournaments), I named A. V. Filipenko. That was how our collaboration started and it has contin­

ued up to now. He came with me for the first time to a tournament at the Young

Masters Championship in Tallinn back in the year 1986.

After I turned 17 my good life was suddenly troubled and it was soon over. That

was the end of my junior chess years and there began a new period of my life. I was still not an adult, but I was not a kid or a junior either. My main coach at that mo­ ment - Dvoretzky told me that we had achieved a lot together, but it would be diffi­

cult for us to develop any further, because we saw each other so rarely that it would be better to live closer together. He was a member of the military club (AAD Anti­ -

Aircraft-Defence for the region of Moscow) and he worked there and he tried to make me a member there too. That was how I ended up in Moscow. Later, it turned out that some people had made some promises to M. I. Dvoretzky, but they failed to do what was necessary. So it happened that I was in Moscow, but I was like an illegal person there. There was a system acting in the USSR then and it was called

"propiska" and according to it every person had to be registered and to live at a certain address. (That system has remained almost similar even today, but it is now called "registration".) I took my leave from Zheleznovodsk with the idea to be regis­ tered in Moscow. I failed however to register in Moscow (that was something quite difficult in those times and not everybody could manage a registration in Moscow by himself). I could see Dvoretzky only on Saturdays and Sundays. I was already

having problems not so much chess wise, but I had purely everyday problems in life. Dvoretzky had tried to arrange a place for me to live in Moscow, but that failed

as well. I had no relatives there except an aunt, but she lived in a shared lodgment and I joined to stay with her for a while. My parents were far away; meanwhile they got divorced by that time and my father was absolutely incapable of devoting to me

so much time and care as before. I was faced with having to solve problems that I had never encountered before. Dvoretzky was also unable to solve all my problems

as well and we had to interrupt our collaboration. We kept our good relations and we have preserved them until now too. It was about during those times that I was being stopped from going abroad.

Every time I received an explanation like: "We have failed to prepare your docu­ ments", but in fact that usually meant that I was becoming something like a player for "domestic consumption". As a rule, somebody else was going to a tournament

instead of me. The really warning bell for me rang when I was not even allowed to

22 participate in a tournament in one of the socialist countries (naturally, somebody else went there too...). It looked like some loss to me then, but later I went with Alexander Filipenko (and V. Ivanchuk too) to a training camp in Estonia to prepare for the World Championship, which was going to be held in Australia. Then it was once again the same story with"We have failed to prepare your documents... This �

time however, the situation was completely different, since my place was from the reserve of FIDE and no one could have replaced me. In fact I learned later that our Federation did not even understand that at the moment and they were trying to prepare the documents of another player. So, after I was not allowed to go to Aus­ tralia, it became clear that the almighty authority KGB had something against me as they were responsible for all travels abroad. I had numerous theories and specu­ lation why it was like that. It was possible that it was somebody's libel to blame (every anonymous slander was paid attention to in those times and that was totally destructive for society), or some anonymous letter by some malevolent person. In fact, I did not have any serious political dissension with the government when I was

15-16 years old and I was simply playing chess. It might have been connected with something else - for example I could have praised Fischer or Korchnoi in a conver­ sation and that could have become like a "death sentence" for me. There was a pe­ riod when some strange people, working for the state, were talking to us during our

training camps and they kept asking questions. I used to an&..wer them with what I thought at the moment, as I was young then. After so many years have passed, I received some information by chance and I remember a situation in which I was re­ ally tested for reliability - they asked me a direct question about: what my attitude towards Victor Korchnoi was (in fact his family name was not mentioned in the USSR, not even in the news about his match against A. Karpov). I answered defi­ nitely that my attitude towards his chess legacy is quite positive (naturally, I could not even imagine that I would play in tournaments with him many years later!) It was possible that answer might have contributed to the fact that I was not allowed to go abroad at that time. That should not have been the main reason, though. I still have no idea what the real reason was, even up to this day. So, I was not permitted to play tournaments abroad and those were difficult times for me, financially too. There were many reasons that I could not go back to Zheleznovodsk either. I was in a semi-legal situation and I was not registered any­ where. I had a friend - Alik Ehevich, he was a student then (he lives in Israel now) and he did not understand many things, but he helped me a lot anyway. We spent plenty of time together and I visited him at his home in Odessa. I had to make some money for bread and butter by playing blitz for pretty serious stakes sometimes. I remember Alexey Vyzhmanavin too, we were often playing blitz at the same time, we were giving huge odds, at first he did, then I etc. - with great handicaps. We lost sometimes but still we were winning most of the time. We had to do that; you have to make your living somehow. �aturally, I continued to play in tournaments and I was often in the process of qu�ing for something, though I could not go abroad anyway. It is quite sufficient

23 to remember the qualification tournament in Borzhomi where I took first place, so I had qualified once again for the Under-20 World Championship . Just like before, I did not go anywhere (Volodya Akopian was sent there instead of me and he took second place). At my age, in that country, nobody could have given me a hint about what was going on or helped me at that moment. I was left entirely on my own. When I became 18 years old I understood that I had better join the Army. I was advised to try to enter a special sports regiment, where sports people were not only soldiers, but they took part in competitions too. It was essential for the Army sport bosses to collect capable sportsmen - in the USSR every establishment had its own sporting club and teams and there were special competitions between the different establishments and there were special points awarded for all that. Still, the entire system of sports in the Army (just like the Army system itself) was so huge and clumsy that I failed to enter a sports regiment outright. At first I went to the Taman Artillery Regiment and I passed through the "young soldiers' preparation course" in a period of one and a half months and then I gave my solemn Army oath. Later, I was transferred to a sports regiment indeed and right on the next day, in an Army uniform, I went to the city of Pavlodar to participate in the semi-final of the USSR Championship. Later I lived in the sports regiment and that life was semi-martial , semi-civilian. I was in Lefortovo then. It was as if I was periodically discharged from the Army - you go out at 9 o'clock in the morning (and you become a civilian) and then you have to be back by 9 o'clock in the evening and you are again a soldier. Naturally, it was not like that every day. There were periods that I had to stay for a week or two with the Army and I had some fatigue duties too - the usual Army life. I was in fact lucky to be together with Maxim Sorokin, since he was responsible for a while for the library in the sports regiment and he was holding all the necessary keys. That was quite comfortable, because at 6 o'clock in the morning the usual Army activity started (sometimes it started at 5 o'clock as well) and there were all kinds of marching for­ mations, some running around and sessions of studying something (I believe even today that all ofthem were utterly senseless; of course nobody cared about any real combat preparation). Instead we managed somehow to sneak into the library and we slept for an extra hour on the sofa. Denis Bilunov was also in our sports regi­ ment (he is one of the founders ofthe Internet site - kasparovchess, he is quite close to G. Kasparov and he has been collaborating with him for a long time). I played in numerous tournaments while I was in the Army and I had to be inside the barracks in between them. It was not easy at all to go out though. The system was so gigantic and difficult to fight against: the organization which was holding the tournament had to send a letter to the Army chiefs (the so-called invita­ tion) and then the soldier had to be issued permission to go out. You could not even talk about any real preparation for a tournament during that time, because you did not know at all what would happen to you on the next day. There were times when

24 you could only sleep for 4-5 hours and you had to be up at 4 o'clock in the morning for some marching formation (for example, because the chiefs were not in a good mood, or because somebody did something wrong and we all had to pay for that).

Sometimes we had to take care of the snow and clean it during a massive snowfall

(that was not a very sensible thing to do either!), so there was no time or strength

to prepare for chess. I worked on chess a bit together with Maks Sorokin though,

whenever the circumstances allowed us to do that. There were not so many tournaments around and we wanted to go away all the time, so we used to invent some non-existing tournaments to take part in, for ex­ ample - "Championship of the Central Chess Club". It is well-known that the Central

Chess Club is situated in Moscow, but these "Championships" were held either in

Kuibishev (now - Samara), or in Gorky (nowadays Nizhny Novgorod) - all of them

big cities close to Moscow. In fact Alik Ehevich had managed somehow to acquire some blank forms with stamps on them from the Central Chess Club in Moscow. He used to send me to different cities and places with them. Naturally, that was all very dangerous, because I could have been caught and that would have meant seri­

ous punishment and even imprisonment for me. It all ended well though, and often

when there were no real tournaments I had managed to stay away from the Army barracks thanks to those non-existing tournaments. After about half a year I was sent away from the sports regiment - there were some mishaps and all the sportsmen were sent to regular regiments. I was again

among common soldiers and I was not accepted so cordially. That was not "the

young soldiers' preparation course", where we were all of the same age; that was

the real Army where there were some very special relations between the different annual intakes of conscripts. There were numerous conflicts with the "old guys"

and some other rather unpleasant moments. Still, I managed to avoid somehow

the horrors that had been described in the media and they even seem to continue

now in the Russian Army. It all passed almost normally for me then, or maybe I was just lucky and I had been sent to a regular normal Army regiment. I did not harm

my health there and I acquired some useful life experience. Still, I wished at that

moment much more to play chess than to be in marching formations and to collect snow during a snowfall. The Soviet Army was not professional then and plenty of time was lost on all kinds of activities, which in principle had nothing to do with Army service. Later, things improved considerably and I was transferred to the sporting regi­

ment of the "Dzerzhinsky - Academy" and there the attitude towards me (and some other sportsmen too) was more personal. I had some difficulties there too, but the

second year of my service in the Army passed for me relatively comfortably. I had no problems going to tournaments; I had the possibility to participate in training camps too and to work on chess as well. My duties in the Army in the year 1989

were much easier and thus my service was soon over and done with.

Competing at Top Level In the year 1989 I had my debut in the final of the USSR Championship. It was a

round-robin event with 16 participants. I had a 50 % result and I managed to beat Sergey Dolmatov in particular who happened to share 2-5'h places.

I had lost some momentum in chess even not so much because of my Army ser­ vice, but because I was not allowed to play abroad, since these travels were quite essential. It was practically impossible then, if you played only in the USSR, where there were so few international tournaments, to fulfill any norms for international titles. Meanwhile, every journey abroad in those times (and not only for chess players) was important also for your well-being. You could not make a lot of money outright (suppose 300 or 500 dollars per travel, often thanks to savings from your food and pocket money), but you could live on that money comfortably in the USSR for half a year.

I somehow came out of the list of the players "for domestic consumption" only after the intervention of the member of the Academy - Leonid Ivanovich Abalkin, who was the Director of the I nstitute of Economy and a world renowned scientist. He was also a famous politiCian and social functionary, and besides all that, he was the president of the Russian Chess Federation for a long period of time. During that time, Karen Sergeevich Agadjanyan was the chief coach and he was a good, kind and considerate man, who had done so much for chess. I decided to address him about the subject. He understood the situation and intervened. He asked member of the Academy Abalkin to clarify what the situation was. Leonid 1vanovich had the opportunity to contact some really powerful people then and once at a reception in the Kremlin he approached the Chairman of the KGB Krjuchkov and he asked him "What was all that about and was all that so serious ... ?" Krjuchkov made a promise to have a look into it and it turned out that it was not so serious as "to stop the oxy­ gen" for me. So finally, after the intervention of Leonid 1vanovich Abalkin, I went to play in the European Championship. I had earned that right once again in a qualifi­ cation tournament. I was just 19 years old then (I was still in the Army) and I began traveling abroad again - possibly that was already an indication of the forthcoming liberty. Times were already changing and the Soviet Union was in a period of dis­ solution. I went to Arnhem, in Holland, and I became immediately the Champion

of Europe. So, at the age of 20, because of all of my results, I was awarded the title of International Grandmaster.

26

Later, I played my candidates match against V. Anand, but I lost it despite the fact that I was the favourite. My results went down for a while after that. Gradually, I had my ups again and I managed to win several tournaments and I improved my position in the ranking table. My subsequent biography can be followed according to my participation in tournaments and in the notes to the games, which I have chosen to include in this book. I believe that it would not be so original if I say that I would like to hope that I have not played my best game yet. Still, the 100 games which have been present­ ed in this book, will probably give the readers an idea about what kind of a chess player I am.

Alexey Dreev

Moscow

April 2 0 0 7

27

Oll-Dreev, KiIjava 1984 A07

1

Oll - Dreev World Ch U20, Kiljava 1984

This game was played in the World Championship u nder 20 in Finland and I had written about it in the preface of the book. USSR was represented there by two partici­ pants - the highly talented Estonian player Lembit Oll (who unfortunately passed away too young...) and 1. We had to face each other in the middle of the championship according to the whim of tournament pairing and that loss precluded Lembit from fig hting for the top-places in the event. l.�fJ �f6 2.g3 dS 3.ig2 c6 4. 0 - 0 ig4 S.d3 �bd7 6.h3 White plays much more often here 6.�bd2.

logical too. It has some drawbacks though, since Black will manage to push eS sooner or later and he will ob­ tain certain space for piece maneuver­ ing. Meanwhile, White's light squared bishop does not have too bright pros­ pects, since it is restricted by Black's pawns ...

7

••.

e6

It is a bit early for Black to play 7 ... eS, because of: 8.f4 id6 9.fxeS liJxeS 1O.d4, followed by lUgel.

S.f4 i.d6 9.�d2 0 - 0 1 O .�fJ White has problems to prevent e6eS. Black can counter 1O.d4 with 10 ... c5.

1 0 ...eS H.fxeS �xeS I2.�d4 geS That is a useful move and it pre­ pares the retreat of the bishop to the fB-square, in case of liJd4-fs.

13.a4 as 14.i.e3 �g6 Black is threatening lS . . .�g3.

IS.'�d2 h6

6 . . .h£1!? White cannot capture now with a knight and that move seems to be quite sensible. After 7.1xf3 eS, followed by �cS, Black completes his development rather quickly and his position is ac­ tive. The price that Black must pay for all that is the two-bishop advantage. . .

16.gael That was a very careless move. White had to consider the possibility c6-cS, followed by dS-d4. Therefore, the logical reaction for him seemed to be - 16.c3.

7.exf3

16 ... cS 17.�f5 i.f8

This move is possible and quite

The move 17 . . . d4 looked to me

Game 2

28 rather dangerous i n view of: 18.ixh6 gxh6 19.tLlxh6+ wf8 20.tLlf5 Wg8 and here White had at least a draw, but he could also try to play for a win, capturing Black's b7-pawn.

18.g4 White had better continue here with: 18.Wfd1 Wfd7 19.Wff3 l3a6, with a complicated position.

18 . .Wfd7 .

Suddenly, my opponent was faced with serious problems.

19.b3? Lembit is oblivious to the danger and he simply defends his pawn. The situation would have remained quite unclear after: 19.f4 ! ? Wfxa4 20.g5 Wfd7 21.tLlxh6+ (or 21.tLlxg7 ixg7 22.gxf6 ixf6 23.ixc5 tLlh4) 21...gxh6 22.gxf6 Wff5.

19 ... d4 2 0 .i.f4 l3xeI 2 1.l3xel

A43

2 Dreev - Kaidanov Moscow 1985

My encounter against Grigory Kaidanov was in a round-robin tournament of category 8, which was or­ ganized by the Moscow Region Chess Club. (There was also a main tourna­ ment of category 13 and it was won by O. Romanishin.). . We lived and played in the Hotel "Kosmos" (The Moscow Chess Olympiad was played later there.). J. Dorfman won this tournament. I was not so successful in the event and I shared 7-11 places (among 14 participants), but still I played several interesting games. l.d4 tLlf6 4.tLlc3

2.tLlf3 c5 3.d5 e6

Black should manage to equalize in that line after a correct play. White's usual move here is - 4.c4.

4 ... exd5 5.tLlxd5 tLlxd5 6.Wfxd5 tLlc6

21 ... c4! That is the point! Now, White is already beyond salvation .. .

22.Wfcl cxd3 23.i.d2 Or 23.cxd3 l3c8.

23 ... l3c8 24.M1. dxc2 25.i.c4 d3 26.ha5 l:'lc5 27.i.d2 tLle5 �ow, Black's knight joins the ac­ tiOD \\ith a decisive effect and White is helpless , so he resigned. 0-1

7.i.g5 It deserves attention for White to try now the line: 7.e4 ! ? d6 8.�c4 �e6 9.Wfd3 �e7 1O.c3 , with a slightly more pleasant position for him.

7... i.e7 8. 0 - 0 - 0 tLlb4

29

Dreev-Kaidanov, Moscow 1985 The game Shereshevsky - Gusev, USSR 1977, followed with: B ... O-O 9.a3 bS? 1O.e3 �bB 11.�d3 c4 12.ixh7+-, but instead it was possible for Black to

It was quite interesting for Black to try the active move 17. . . bS. Here after: IB.f4 Wie7 (IB ...Wif6 19.eS!) 19 ..bbS �bB 20.�d3 dS 21.WigS (21.exdS? Wif6 22.c3

continue with 9 ... h6 and after 1O.�e3

Wib6 23.�d2 �xdS) 2 1 ...f6 2 2 . Wig3 dxe4 23.�c4+ �e6 24.fudB+ fudB 2S.Wib3 .bc4 26.Wixc4+ 'it>g7, Black would have

White has an only minimal edge. 9 .be7 Wixe7 1 0 .Wib3 d6 1l.e4 .

0-0 I had intended to counter 1 1. . .�e6 with the check - 12.�bS+.

12.a3 �c6 13.'itld5 gd8 14.'itlh5

an excellent game thanks to his passed pawn. After 17 ... bS, the only way for me to maintain the tension would have been the move - IB.Wih4.

18.f4 'itlg7 19. 'itlxg7+

g6 It seemed good for Black to try 14 . . .�e6, without being afraid of the exchange of the bishop after: IS.�gS b6 16.�xe6 (or 16.M �eS) 16 ... Wixe6 (or 16 . . .fxe6 17.f4) 17.WidS Wif6. The endgame is only slightly better for White after: 14 ... Wixe4 IS.Wixf7+ 'it>xf7 16.�gS+ 'it>e7 17.liJxe4 �e6 18.�e2.

15.'itlh6 �e5 16.�xe5 Following 16.liJgS? achieves nothing much.

16

f6,

White

Wixe5

•.•

, It would have been a mistake for Black to play 16 ... dxeS?, because of: 17.�xdB+ WixdB 18.�c4 and he would not be able to answer with IB . . . Wid4?, due to 19.�dl+-

17.,id3

In case of 19 .Wih4, I did not like Black's possibility: 19 . . . c4 20.i.e2 c3. 19 'it>xg7 2 0 .f5 gxf5 •••

There would have arisen a compli­ cated, but still approximately equal endgame with four rooks present on the board after: 20 . . .�d7 21.�c4 (or 21.�hf1 gxfS 22.exfS 'it>f6 23.�e4 �c6 24.ixc6 bxc6 2S.�f3) 2l...gxfS 22.�xd6 �e6.

21.exf5 ,id5 22.,ib5 ,ie4 In case of: 22 . . .�c6 23 . .bc6 bxc6 24.�hel 'it>f6 2S.g4 h6 26.�e3 dS 27. �c3 c4 2B.b3 'it>gS, the position re­ mains balanced. It deserved attention for Black to follow with 2 2 ... a6!?

23.ghel J.xf5

Black should have possibly avoided letting White's rook to the seventh rank. It was simpler for him to have defended with: 23 . . . dS 24.�d3 ixd3 2S.fud3 'it>f6. After 26.�h3 the posi­ tion is unclear, but White should also consider the possibility - 26.c3 ! ?

24.ge7 'it>f8?! This is already a serious mistake. The correct defence for Black was: 24 . . .dS 2S.�xb7 �e6.

17

•••

,ie6

25.gxb7 ,ie4 26.l3C7 .bg2 27. gd2 ,ie4

r

Game 3

30 Or 27 ... �f3 28.�c4 dS 29.gf2 �S 30.gfS.

it is the best(!), and I usually prefer the more modest first move l.d4. Still, in this game I was almost 100 % sure that my opponent was going to choose the French Defence. Evgenij Bareev was playing almost entirely that par­ ticular opening at that time and I had a very good idea about it, because I was playing it myself regularly. Natu­ rally, it was not a problem for me to play the position which arose in that

28.�d3!± The exchange of the bishops is es­ sential for White. Now, Black has nothing to protect his pawn-weak­ nesses with. White has a great advan­ tage now, despite his opponent's extra pawn. Black's defence is extremely difficult and he loses the game rather quickly...

28

.•.

game, since I knew it rather well. At the end, the following game turned out to be quite interesting from the point of view of strategy as well as theory.

1... e6 2.d4 d5 3.otle3 otlf6 4.e5• otlfd7 5.f4 c5 6.otlf3 otle6 7.�e3 exd4 8 .otlxd4 �e5 9.§'d2 ixd4 IO .ixd4 otlxd4 11.§'xd4 §'b6

�f3

Or 28 ...�xd3 29.gxd3±

29.�e4 d5 3 0.lU2 gae8?! Or 30 ... �hS 3U'lf5±

31.gxa7 �h5 32J�f5 �g6 33. gxd5 ge8 34.b3 gel+ 35.mb2 ge3 In case of 3S . . . gh1, White plays 36.gd2, threatening gd2-f2.

36.a4 gf3 37.gd2 gf4 38.a5 gb8 39.�d5 e4 4 0 .ga8 gxa8 41.ixa8 exb3 42.exb3 1- 0 3

i

I

ell

The variation that we are playing is well-familiar. Contemporary theory considers White's prospects slightly preferable; however as practice indi­ cates in the main lines: 12.119xb6 otlxb6;

Dreev - Bareev

1VijbS §'xd4 13.liJxd4, or 12.0-0-0

USSR Ch Under 20, Tallinn 1986

Wl'xd4 13.Elxd4, White is practically forced to enter an endgame in which it is quite problematic for him to prove that he has any real advantage if at

1.e4!? WelL I play that move very seldom, despite the opinion of the famous the­ oretician of the past - V.Rauzer - that

all. In case White decides to avoid the endgame with 12.WI'd2 (G. Kasparov's

31

Dreev-Bareev, Tallinn 1986 idea... ) he should consider the possi­ bility 12 .. :�xb 2 ! ?, after which the po­ sition becomes rather unclear and in the game Shirov - Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2003, after 13J:!:bl 'lWa3 14.ttJbS 'lWxa2 IS.ttJd6+ �f8?! 16J�dl 'lWb2 17. �e2 \Wb6 18.c4 ! d4 19.�f3 as 20.0-0 d3+ 21.�hl, White had a powerful initiative. Still, in a later game against the same opponent - Shirov (Monaco 2003) Bareev chose IS ... �e7!? and Alexey failed to find anything better than : 16.'lWb4 as 17.ttJxc8+ �d8 18.'lWe7 �xc8 19J�xb7 �xb7 20.'lWxd7+ �b8, so that he forced a draw at the end.

12. 0-0- 0 !? This move seems to be quite logi­ cal, because castling long is an integral part of White's plan anyway.

12 'lWxd4 13.fucd4 �e7!? •.•

Presently, this move is regarded by theory as the most reliable for Black; nevertheless it was introduced into the tournament practice by Evgenij Bareev in this very game. According­ ly, I was faced with a novelty over the board, so I decided after some thought to follow with:

14.h4

White's possibilities at the same time and it is evidently the best. In case of 14 ... ttJb8, I was plan­ ning to continue with IS.hS!? myself, occupying additional space and seiz­ ing the initiative on the kingside. For example after: lS . . ttJc6 16.13d3 f6 17. 13g3 fxeS 18.13xg7+ �f6 19.h6 exf4 20. 13h4!? Black has a lot of problems to worry about. Now, after: 20 . . . ttJe7 21. M4+ g7 2S.ie4 a6 26.'Llc3 ig6 and the position was approximately equal in the game Piket - van der Srerren, Lyon 1990.

15.ie2 lLlg4 16.ixe7 Wfxe7 17. lLldS In a game, which was played a year later - (Dreev - Kruppa, Frunze 1988) I deciejed to capture the pawn - 17.'Llxd4, but following: 17 ... Wfh4 18.g3 Wfh3 19.Wfe4 id7, Black had an excellent compensation for it.

17 IDl4 •••

r

Game 7

40 We played subsequently i n the same year another game in this line with Boris and there he continued with 17 . . :�eS! and after 18.f4 �fS ! , he had the advantage and he won that game. The only correct solution for White would have been: 18.�d2 :1'1e8 19.ttJf4, with mutual chances.

Possibly, Black had simply over­ looked that move . . .

18.g3 �h3 19.1Llf4 �h6 2 0 . lLlxd4

Protvino 1988

26 ... �xa3 27.@xf2 �e3+ 28.@el �xg3+ 29.@tl g6 3 0 .�h3 1- 0 7

D27 Dreev - Chekhov

I fulfilled a grandmaster norm in that category B - tournament in the town ofProtuino, near Moscow, with 2 0 ... lLlxd4 2U'lxd4 �e8 22.h4 B points out ofll rounds andl tiedfor Here, I failed to find the best move first place with grandmaster Valerij - 22.ttJdS ! , after which my advantage Chekhov ... would have been considerable. 1.d4 d5 2.lLlf3 lLlf6 3.c4 dxc4 22 ... �b6 4.e3 e6 5.ixc4 a6 6. 0 - 0 c5 7.id3 That is totally wrong! Black had cxd4 8.exd4 lLlc6 Now, Black can hardly rely on ob­ taining any compensation for the pawn.

better continue with: 22 . . .�f6 23.:1'1d2 ifS 24. �b3 �e4 2S.0-0 �fS.

23.c5! �a5+ 24.�d2

Black plays much more often here 8 ...ie7, not determining the place­ ment of the knight for the time being. Now, after 9.ttJc3, Black can play 9 ... b5, but in that case he must consider White's active possibility 10. ttJeS.

9.lLlc3 ie7 1 0 .ig5 0 - 0 ll.�cl

24 if5? •..

This is an incorrect combination in an already difficult position. Follow­ ing: 24 . . .b6 2S.0-0 bxcs (or 25 . . .�xc5 26.�xcS bxcs 27.:1'1c1) 26.:1'1d5, I would have the task to press the advantage of an extra pawn home. No w, White wins easily.

25. �xf5 lLlxf2 26.b4

1l ...b6 My opponent took a long time to make up his mind here and that nov­ elty was 0 bviously not the result of any home-preparation.

41

Dreev-Chekhav, Fratvina 1988 In a game, which was played much later (Dreev - Karjakin, Dos Herma­ nas 2003) Black equalized without too much of an effort with: 1l ... lOd5 12.h4 (It is much more principled for White to follow here with: 12.lOxd5 hg5 13.lOxg5 'lWxg5 14.lOb6 ElbB 15.'lWc2.) 12 ... h6 13.he7 lOcxe7;::

12 ..bf6 It also deserved attention for me to try to avoid exchanges - 1 2.'lWd2 and gfdl. I went for a forced tactical op­ eration:

12

•••

.bf6 13.lOe4

At first it seemed to me that the move 13.ie4 would guarantee my ad­ vantage: 13 ...ib7 14.d5 exd5 15.�xd5 ixb2 16J''lb l. However, Black is not obliged to capture on b2, but he can play instead 15 ... ElcB and he can still hold that position: 16.�xf6+ 'lWxf6 17. IWd7 ia8; White's position is evidently more active, just like before, but what he can do to turn that into something real remains unclear.

13 J.b7 .•.

Naturally, Black cannot capture on d4 - 13 ... lOxd4 14.lOxf6+ 'lWxf6 15.�xd4 'lWxd4 16.ixh7+; and if 13 ... id7, then 14.lOxf6+ 'lWxf6 15.ie4 Elac8 16.'lWd3 lOb4 17.'lWb3 and after the un­ avoidable move a2-a3, Black's b-pawn becomes an easy prey. Therefore 13 ... ib7 - is a practically forced move.

14.�xf6+ gxf6 It was worth for Black to capture with the queen - 14...'lWxf6 15.ie4Elac8 16.�e5 tll xe5 17.ixb7 Elxc1 18.'lWxc1, because after the best defence for him 18 ... lOg6, White remains with only a slight advantage.

lS.J.e4 Elc8 16.i:lc3 f5

17.�gS! IWxgS It is too bad for Black to play 17... h6, due to 1B.hc6 gxc6 (In case Black captures with his bishop - there fol­ lows the same reaction anyway.) 19.'lWh5 and here either: 19 ...hxg5 20. Elh3, or 19...Elxc3 20.'lWxh6 and White checkmates.

18.hc6 IWe7 19.dS hc6 If 19 ... Elfd8, then 20.'lWh5.

2 0 .dxc6 White's powerful passed pawn pro­ vides him with an overwhelming ad­ vantage.

20

.•.

Elfd8 21.IWe2

This move is hardly the best. The correct decision would have been - the recommendation of Mark Dvoretzkij - 21.'lWc1! with the idea to trade a cou­ ple of rooks after Eldl. Now, Black pre­ vents that quite reasonably. He would like to exchange queens, though ...

21 IWd6 22.IWe3 .•.

In view of what I have already men­ tioned - it would have been better to follow with 22.'lWf3.

22

•••

IWd4 23 .IW£3 EldS

Valerij has made a good use of my indifferent play and he has improved his position considerably.

24.gfcl Elc7 Black must still try to exchange

Game B

42 queens - 24 ... VNg4, in order to fight for the draw. His king is so vulner­ able that he has no chances to attack White's c-pawn effectively.

2S.h3 mfS

... but still fortunately, writing the move did not mean that I played it... !

4l.VNc2! This move just shuns all possible temptations!

41. . .md8 26.'?NhS! me7 27.trgS+!

or 4l.. .Ela3 42.Elc3

Black can counter 27.VNxh7, with

42.a4 �a4 43.c7+ mc8 44.ElgS This is the ultimate necessary pre-

27 .. Jk5 equalizing.

27 VNf6

cision. Black resigned.

•••

After 27 ... mf8 28.a3, there arises a peculiar zugzwang situation - Black has no useful moves left. Now, he loses a pawn by force and that practically spells disaster for him.

28.%Yf4 md8 29 .'i!rb4 VNe7 3 0 . VNxb6 as 3 1.Elc5 VNd6 32.trxaS Eld1+ 33.Elxdl %Yxdl+ 34.mh2 trd6+ 3S. mgl

D2 0

8 Dreev - R.Sherbakov

Qualifer for World Junior (Under 20) Borzhomi 1988

I have already mentioned this tournament too in the Foreword to White wins some additional sec­ this book. It was a qualification event onds in the time-pressure. for the World Under-2 0 Champion­ 3S ...VNdl+ 36.mh2 %Yd6+ 37.g3 ship), and I tookfirst place, but I did f4 38.VNc3 fxg3+ 39.fxg3 me7 4 0 . not go anywhere... b4 Ela7 l.d4 dS 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 eS 4.�f3 (diagram) ib4+ The time-trouble is

How

It is much more fashionable here

should I continue? After 41.a3?, Black plays 41...Elxa3! with a draw. I was

over.

tempted to follow with the spectacular line: 41.c7? l':lxa2+ 42.VNc2, but after 4 2 ...VNxc5! Black again saves the day. I

for Black to follow with the captur­ ing 4 . . . exd4. Now, the transfer to an endgame after: 5.VNxd4 %Yxd4 6.tLlxd4, leads to an equal position. In case 0(: 5.tLlxd4 ic5!? 6.ie3 tLlf6, Black has a

wrote the move 41.c7 on my scoresheet

good game, because he can counter

43

Dreev-Sherbakov, Borzhomi 1988 7.tDc3 with 7 . . . tDg4!?, while against 7.f3 he has the powerful argument 7. . . tDc6!. Following 7.�a4+ tDbd7 8.tDc3 0-0, Black's prospects, having in mind the threats tDd7-b6 and tDf6g4 are evidently superior. Therefore, White's only way to fight for the open­ ing advantage is the variation: 5.hc4 ib4 + ! ? 6.tDbd2 tDc6, which is connect­ ed with a pawn-sacrifice. Well, as con­ temporary practice shows, even then White's compensation for the pawn is sufficient, but the arising positions are rather complex and double-edged.

After 6.�xd4 �xd4 7.tDxd4 tDf6, Black has nothing to worry about in the arising endgame.

6 �e7!? ..•

This is the principled reaction by Black. Ruslan practically forces me to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative. The more modest move 6 ... tDe7 is not good enough to save Black from his prob­ lems as the tournament practice shows in the last several years. For example, the abovementioned game Topalov Kharlov, continued with: 7.hc4 tDbc6 8 .�e3 tDxd4 9.�xd4 �xd4 10.hd4 0-0 1l.a3 hc3+ 12.hc3 �e6 13.�e2 �b3 14.h4! ? and White maintained a stable positional advantage, because in that purely technical endgame the material ratio of a couple of white bishops against a b ishop and a knight for Black is a very powerful argument in favour of White.

7.hc4 �xe4+ 8.�e3!? No doubt, that novelty must have

5.lOc3!? With this move I avoid the standard modem tabia: 5.tDbd2 exd4 6.hc4 tDc6; as well as the not less fashion­ able scheme - 5.�d2 hd2+ 6.tDbxd2 exd4. Of course, this became possible mostly because my opponent had cho­ sen the line 4 ... �b4, and not 4 ... exd4. The move 5.lOc3!? is quite promising for White in this position and that can be proven by the interesting fact that 16 years later than our game with Elus­ Ian - the same move was preferred by Vesselin Topalov in his game against GM A.Kharlov in the World Champi­ onship in Tripoli (2004).

5 exd4 6.lOxd4 .•.

been a surprise for my opponent, since he failed to find the best defen­ sive plan over the board. Naturally, I cannot tell what improvement Ruslan Sherbakov must have found against the main theoretical line: 8. f1 hc3 9 .bxc3, which used to be fashionable at that moment.

44

Game B

8 ixc3+?! •.•

This exchange i s hardly necessary and it seems to me to be anti-posi­ tional. He should have played instead the principled reaction 8 .. :�xg2!? and I had planned to counter that with 9.i>d2! . There arises a rather unclear position, in which White has a power­ ful initiative for two sacrificed pawns. It is quite understandable - why Rus­ Ian avoided that possibility. It is ex­ tremely difficult psychologically, par­ ticularly without any home-prepara­ tion to enter complications like that, while White's game would have been quite easy. His threats like �a4, �b3, Elg1 and �h5 are more than obvious; meanwhile the best defensive plan for Black is mildly speaking - rather un­ clear. Still, I believe that from the point ofview of theory, after 9 . . . tLlc6!?, or 9 ... i>f8!?, Black's prospects should not be inferior . . . . Similar intuitive pawn-sac­ rifices for initiative were often met in the games of the great Russian player - the World Champion number four - Alexander Alekhine and his chesslegacy is something I had studied quite thoroughly in my junior years ...

9.bxc3

In this very moment, the move 9 ... �xg2 is hardly any better that the line in the game, because in this case, besides 9.i>d'; (dnd White's initia­ tive compen' . . tes the two sacrificed pawns ... ) I would have had the even stronger argument - 1O.�h5!?, after which Black is practically forced to en­ ter the line: 1O ... �g6 (or 1O . . .�xh1+? 1l.i>d2+-) 11.�e5+ tLle7, but after 12. 0-0-0, White's initiative is very pow­ erful. For example, in case of 12 ... c6?, it is good for White to follow with: 13 ..tg5! f6 14.�d6! and Black has no satisfactory defence: if 14 . . . �xg5+, then 15.f4 �a5 16.Elhe1+-, while in case of 14 ...fxg5, there follows a spec­ tacular checkmate in five - 15.�d8+ ! ! i>xd8 16.tLle6+ i>e8 17.tilc7+ i>f8 18. Eld8+ �e8 19.Elxe8#. It is also too bad for Black to play: 12 ... .tg4? 13.Eldg1 tLld7 14.�f4+-. Therefore, he has probably nothing better than: 12... �f6 and after 13.�xc7, White regains his pawn and maintains his initiative. It is also possible for White to try here: 13.�xf6 !? gxf6 14 . .tf4 and his initia­ tive is quite dangerous notwithstand­ ing the absence of the queens on the board. 1 0 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 1Utel tLlg6?! My opponent is immediately in a very difficult position after that mis­ take. Even following: 1l...�h4 12.�d2, he would have had plenty of problems to worry about, but he could have offered some tenacious defence. Now, the developments are just forced: 12 .tcl! �g4 13 .ta3 gd8?! This move enables me to start a quite spectacular attack. Black could •



have tried to hold the position only

Dreev-Sherbakov, Borzhomi 1988 by entering a very difficult endgame after: 13 ... �xd1 14J3axdl l3d8 15.ttJb5.

45 sign outright, because of the unavoid­ able threat of the "quiet' move - \t>gl­ h2! ! , with the idea to follow with g2-g3. Black is totally helpless against that threat. For example, in case of: 20 ... �d6 21.l3f5 ! , or 20 ... �e5 21.l3f5 ixf5 22.g3+ White wins .on the spot. I think I played quite well until that moment, but here I made a serious imprecision and although I did not let the win slip away altogether, my opponent had a chance to resist quite resiliently for much longer. . .

14 .hf7+ ! c;!}xf7 •

In case of: 14 . . . c;!}h8 15.�xg4 .bg4 16. l::l a bl, or 16.f3, I would have main­ tained an overwhelming positional ad­ vantage with material equality present on the board. 15:�b3+ C;!}f6 16.h3 �d7 17 l3e3 ! Black is beyond salvation after that strong move. .

17 'I19d5 •••

He can save the day neither with: 17 ... ttJf4 18 .l3ae1 �d5 19 ..ie7+ c;!}g6 20. gg3+ \t>h6 21 ..ig5+-; nor with: 17... �e5 18.l3ael ttJbc6 19.f4+-

1S.lU'3+ \t>g5 19.Jtcl+ c;!}h4

2 O .�g3?! 'I19xb3 21.ttJf3+ c;!}h5 22. gg5+ c;!}h6 23.gf5+ ttJf4 24.hf4+ g5 25 .ixg5+ c;!}g7 26 .axb3 hf5 27 .ixdS c5 2S.Jte7 b6 •



Or 28 ... ttJc6 29 ..ig5 l3e8. This end­ game without a pawn is still hopeless for Black despite the opposite coloured bishops present on the board. White can easily advance his connected passed pawns on the kingside, just like it happened in the game, though . . . There still followed:

29.�dl ttJc6 3 0 .Jtg5 geS 31.gd6 ttJa5 32.Jtf6 + c;!}gS 33.g4 Jte6 34. �g5 JtcS 35.f4 ttJxb3 36.Jte5 ttJa5 37.ttJe4 gfS 3S.ttJf6 + c;!}f7 39.ttJxh7 ggS 4 0 .ttJg5+ �e7 41.gh6 Jtd7 42. f5 ttJc4 43. f6+ c;!}fS 44 .1f4 ttJe5 45.ttJh7+ c;!}f7 46 ..ixe5 .ixg4 47. hxg4 �xg4 + 4S.c;!}f2 a5 and Black •

resigned without waiting for the quite evident follow-up - 49.l3h5.

9

D13 Baburin - Dreev

Now, the most logical final touch of my attack would have been the move - 20.'I19dl! and Black should better re-

56th USSR Ch (lh-final), Gorky 1989

There were Championships in ev-

Game 9

46

ery republic constituting a part of the USSR. In the Russian Federation (which later turned into Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union) there were Championships as well, but they hardly ever attracted the strongest players. There were not enough international tournaments however and grandmasters partici­ pated often in the Championships of the different republics, which among everything else were qualification tournaments for the Championship of the USSR. In November 1989, in the city of Gorky (now that city is named Nizhny Novgorod) there was organized the Championship of the Russian Federation as a round-robin with 14 participan ts. I took the bronze medal with a result 8 112 points "+4", half a point behind Semen Dvoiris. Alexey Vizhmanavin playedjust bril­ liantly and he became the Champion with 10 points. 1.d4 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.cxds cxds 4.tOc3 tOf6 S.tOf3 In case of S . .if4, White must con­ sider S . . . �b6.

5

..•

tOc6 6 ..if4 e6 7.e3

We have played one of the lines of the exchange variation of the Slav De­ fence. It looks like White does not risk anything in that position and after the attractive moves 7. .id3, or 7.h3, his prospects seem to be superior. Things are far from simple, though ...

Botvinnik at those times ... He was a player with an active positional style and he was just brilliant in his capa­ bilities to complicate some quite sim­ ple positions with Black, right after the opening, in order to play them for a win. I am going to quote a magnifi­ cent classic example of his treatment of that variation in a training game T.Petrosian - Botvinnik, USSR 1952, which followed with: 8 . .igS �b6 9.a3 h6 1O .ih4 gS 11..ig3 tOg3 12.hg3 .ig7 13.id3 �d8! 14.tOh2?! hS 1S,Ek1 .id7 16.tObS 'tt> f8 ! 17.tOfl g4 18.tOd2 eS and Black seized the initiative. .

8 ..igS -

White's other possibility here is 8 ..ieS.

8 �b6 9 .ibS •••



This move is no doubt the best for White and he is trying to create maxi­ mal problems for his opponent with it. V.Kron is his game with White against me in the same tournament tried

(diagram) This interesting move leads to a complicated situation and it was played and quite successfully at that

here 9.�b1, but after 9 ... h6 1O ..ih4 gS 1l.tOd2 tOg7 12 . .ig3 tOfS, he did not achieve anything much and later, following the dubious line: 13 . .ieS?! tOxeS 14.dxeS .ig7 1S.e4 tOe7 16.exdS exdS 17 ..ibS+ 'tt>f8 18.0-0 .if5, I even managed to obtain the advantage with

by the sixth World Champion Mikhail

Black.

7... tOhS

47

Baburin-Dreev, Gorky 1989 In case of 9.�d2, Black can coun­ ter with the standard reaction: 9 ...h6 IO.Ah4 g5 1l.Ag3 ttJxg3 1 2.hxg3 Ag7 and his position is quite promising. 9...h6 1 0 .Ah4 Ad7 It would have been a serious im­ precision for Black to follow with 10 ... g5, due to 1l.ttJeS! and White main­ tains a dangerous initiative - 1l ... ttJf6 12.Ag3.

15.dxe5 ttJf4 16.Ag3 ttJe6 17. 'l'Hxd5 lUd8

11. 0 - 0 Ad6!? After ll ... gS 12.hc6 hc6 13.ttJe5, White is clearly better. I had some compensation for the pawn and even if it had not been quite sufficient objectively from the prac­ tical point of view, White's game is much more difficult here.

18.'l'He4 18.a4!?

18 ... liJed4 19.a4 Af5 2 0 .�h4?! It would have been more reliable for White to try: 20.�e3 a6 2 1.hc6 bxc6, with some compensation.

12.e4 That is White's most energetic pos­ sibility. His alternative is: 12.ttJe5 he5 13.dxe5 g6, but it leads to an approxi­ mately equal position, because in case of 14.g4, Black has the powerful argu­ ment - 14. . .g5! 12 ... 0 - 0 I had i n mind a positional pawn­ sacrifice, while I played that move. Of course, it was possible to follow with the less risky line 12 ... ttJf4, but not 12 ... de4, because of 13.dS!

13.exd5 exd5 14.ttJe5 Axe5

It is too bad for Black to continue with: 14 ... ttJxeS IS.dxeS hb5, due to: 16.ttJxdS! �a6 (or 16 ... �cS 17.exd6 ixfI 18.�xhS) 17J!el+-

2 0 ... a6 21.Ac4 After: 21.hc6 bxc6, my position would have been even slightly better.

21 ...'l'Hxb2 22.liJd5 My opponent gave back his extra pawn and he evidently intended to seize the initiative with that active ma­ neuver.

22 ...Ae6 This is a very solid move. It was also interesting for Black to follow with: 22 ... b5 23J�a2 ttJe2 + ! 24.whl ttJxg3+ 2S.�xg3 �xeS (2S ...�d4 26. ttJf6+ wh8 27.ttJhS g6 or 26.ttJe3 bxc4 27.ttJxfS �xeS 28.ttJxh6+ Wf8 29.�f3 �d5) 26.axbS axbS 27.�xeS ttJxeS 28. !3xa8 !3xa8 29.hbS.

23.gabl 'l'Ha3 24.liJe3 gab8 25.M4

Game 10

48

My opponent was in a terrible time-pressure here and he made a grave blunder. The correct defence for him would have been: 25.l"lal �c5, but Black would still preserve the edge.

and that was a real holiday for chess then. Chess fans could watch the play of the grandmasters there (there was no Internet transmission yet!) and they could also participate in simul­ 25 hc4 26 .!Llxc4 Yfxa4 taneous displays and they could at­ tend chess lectures. I remember that the exhibition of the chess-computer "Mephisto" attracted enormous inter­ est. Naturally, nobody suspected then what tremendous level of playing quality the computers would achieve later! As far as I remember from the publications in the media, the tour­ nament was visited by at least 3 0 thousand spectators. All that seems almost unbelievable now. After 9 Now, White is helpless against the rounds Sergey Dolmatov took first threat tiJe2 and he resigned. place alone with 7 points. I had 1 1/2 This game proved once again the points out of the first 2 rounds and tremendous importance of the psy­ in the third round I played against chological factor in the fight over the Zurab Azmaiparashvili. After my board. White had an extra pawn in­ win in that encounter, the rest of my deed, but he had great difficulties de­ games ended in draws and Ifinished fending, instead of being able to attack with "+2", sharing 11th to 4 0 th places. or develop some initiative. l.d4 g6 2.e4 d6 3 .!Llc3 i.g7 4.i.g5!? •••





10

B07 Dreev - Azmaiparashvili

The idea of this move was popular­ ized in the past by the outstanding Es­ tonian grandmaster Paul Keres.

GMA Qualifer for World Cup Moscow 1989

The qualification tournament of the GMAfor the World Cup 1991-1992 was acknowledged at that time to be the strongest open tournament in history. There were 128 participants and 85 grandmasters among them. It was played in the cinema-concert hall "Izmailovo". The conditions for the spectators were just wonderful

4 .!Llf6 ...

49

Dreev-Azmaiparashvili, Moscow 1989 Black transposes to the Pirc­ Ufimzev Defence with this move. He has tried in the tournament practice some other a bit awkward moves like: 4 . . . c6, 4... a6 and 4...h6. It is not good for Black to play here 4 ...c5, since White can counter that with the excel­ lent recommendation of Paul Petro­ vich - S.dxcS �aS 6.id2 �xcS 7.lOdS! , and Black loses after 7...e6? 8.ib4 �c6 9.ibS+Actually, the position that we are discussing arises usually after the fol­ lowing order of moves: l.e4 d6 2.d4 lOf6 3.lOc3 g6 4.igS. GM Azmaipara­ shvili used to be the world-renowned expert of that opening at the time when this game was played. Only a few might not remember his famous victory with Black against Anatolij Karpov in the SOeth jubilee Champi­ onship of the USSR in the year 1983. Meanwhile, in our home-preparation with my coach 1M Alexander Filipen­ ko, we noted that despite the fact that Zurab played that opening often and quite successfully at that, this particu­ lar system, including the active move of White's bishop, had been tested ex­ tremely rarely, both after: l.d4 g6 2.e4 d6 3.1Oc3 ig7, as well as after the other move-order: l.e4 d6 2.d4 lOf6 3.lOc3 g6. On the other hand my coach was and continues to be a real connoisseur of that super-aggressive system... Ac­ cordingly; our preparation lasted for not more than 40 minutes, despite the fact that I was going to play it for the first time in my life . . .

5.f4 ! This i s White's most active move. In general, he plays more often here

S.�d2, but the positions arising after: S ... h6 6.ih4 (or 6.if4 gS 7.ig3 lOhS) 6 ... gS 7.ig3 lOhS, or 6.ie3 lOg4 7.if4 eS are favourable for Black.

5 c6 ...

It is too dubious for Black to try the seemingly active move S ... cS, because after 6.eS! White's initiative is very dangerous. Forexample in the gameA.Filipenko - M.Gurevich, Moscow 19B3, there followed 6... lOhS (It is worse for Black to play: 6 ... cxd4?, because of 7.exf6 exf6 8.�xd4 �e7+ 9.lOce2 1Oc6 1O.�c3 and his compensation for the piece is insufficient; after 6 . . . de 7.de, White maintains a clear positional advan­ tage; in case of 6 ... 1tl bd7, Black has no suitable way to avoid the forced line: 7.ed f6 8.ih4 ed 9.�e2 \!lfB 10.ltlf3 Itlc6 11.0-0-0 and White's position is evidently superior.) 7.dxc5 dxeS B.�xdB+ \!lxdB 9.0-0-0+ id7 1O.fxeS h6 11.ie3 (11.ih4!?) l1 ...heS 12.ltldS Itlc6 13.ltlf3 ig7 14.ibS lOf6?! (This is a mistake by Black, but his position is difficult anyway.) IS.lOxf6 M6 16.fld2 \!leB 17.flhdl �S 18.id4! flc8 19.hf6 exf6 20 .lOd4 and White's positional edge was overwhelming. Black cannot solve his problems in the opening with the inclusion of the moves: S ... h6 6.ih4 - and only then 6 . . .cS: 7.eS ltlhS B.dxcS Itlxf4! (It is too dubious for Black to continue with: B . . . dxeS 9.�xd8+ \!lxdB 10.0-0-0+ id7 11.fxeS heS 12.lOdS, because White is once again clearly better, due to the vulnerability of Black's king.) 9.exd6 gS 10.if2 . Contemporary the­ ory evaluates the arising position as approximately equal, but I think that

50

Game 10

is not quite correct, since Black's com­ pensation is not sufficient. Finally, in case of 5 . . . 0-0, Black should consider the possibility 6.e5!?, but still I believe that the most precise move for White is - 6.�d 2 ! . But not 6.ttlf3 c5! - and Black obtains an excellent counterplay, because he can counter 7.dxc5 with 7 ... �a5, and 7.e5 - with 7 ... cxd4 8.exf6 (8.�xd4 ttlc6) 8 . . . exf6. Following 6.�d2,

considered the move 9.0-0. However, after 9 ... �b6, tournament practice has shown that Black has no problems whatsoever.

Black's relatively best line is - 6 ... c6 (6 ... c5 7.dxc5) 7.ttlf3 b5 8.id3 and there arises a well-familiar theoretical position. The same situation arose by a transposition of moves in our game too, though ...

9.e5! This move is not a novelty yet, but still it was quite seldom played at the times .. .

9...b4 1 0 .ttle2 .bf3 It is worse for Black to follow with 1O ... ttld5 11.0-0 and White dominates in the centre.

11.gxfJ ttld5 12 ..tc4

6.�d2 In case of 6.ttlf3, White should worry about 6 ... m6 and here he must practically sacrifice a pawn in order to fight for the opening advantage - 7.�d2 �xb2 8.gbl �a3, obtaining after 9 . .td3 a quite sufficient compen­ sation for it, indeed.

6 b5 7. .td3 0 - 0 8 .ttlf3 J.g4 •••

Following some mutual tricks - there arose a well known theoreti­

This is already a novelty. White had played before only 12.ed, or 12 . .th4, after which he never achieved any­ thing substantial. Black should not fear the move 12.0-0-0 either, at least because of 12 ...�a5!? The bishop­ move in fact opens a new page in the theory and that position is presently one of the most critical in this system of the Pirc-Ufimzev Defence.

12 ... a5 13. 0 - 0 - 0 (diagram)

13 ...�d7 GM

cal position on the board (it was a true

Azmaiparashvili was faced with a new idea i n the opening and he failed to find the best continuation. A

tabia in that opening then... ) and the

whole seven years (!) after our game,

main line for White here used to be

the talented 1M Igor Zakharevich,

51

Dreev-Azmaiparashvili, Moscow 1989

at the Russian Team Championship (Azov 1996), found against me the best plan for Black i.e. 13 .. .f6 ! 14.exf6 exf6 15.�h4 ih6 ! 16.M2 (White's at­ tempt at an improvement of the varia­ tion after the move 16.ig3, was in fact fruitless, because following: 16 ... ltJd7 17.h4 ltJ7b6 1B.id3 a4, in the game Kobalia - Zakharevich, Ekaterinburg 1999, Black had a very good game.) 16 ... ltJd7 17.h4 ltJ7b6 1B.id3 ltJa4. (M­ ter 1B .. JleB 19.wb1! White still has the initiative; later in the game Ulibin - Zakharevich Elista 1995, there fol­ lowed: 19 ... whB 20Jldg1 a4 21.h5 g5 22.fxg5 hg5 23.f4 ih6 24.Wa1 �d7? ! 25.c4! bxc3 26.bxc3 a3 27.c4 ltJe7 2B.d5 ltJa4 29.ltJc3 cxd5 30.id4! and White's threats were very dangerous. In case of 1 B ... a4 - when White's bish­ op is on the f2-square, that move is not so effective, while now it is possi­ ble - there follows: 19.h5 g5 20.ltJg3!.) In answer to 18 ... ltJa4, I played the at­ tractive move 19.h5?!, which suddenly proved to be a serious imprecision. After: 19 ... ltJac3! 20.hxg6 ltJxe2+, I al­ ready had to think about equalizing: 21.�xe2 ltJxf4 22.gxh7+ wh8; 22.�c4+ d5; 21.Wb1 ltJec3+ 22.bxc3 hf4 - and I was clearly worse. I managed some­ how to save that game, though, but

I am not so excited to think about it, mildly speaking... Still, I do not think that Zakharev­ ich's improvement has buried the whole system ... I believe that instead of 19.h5? ! , White can try 19.wb1!? with the threat h4-hS, while in case of 19 .. JlbB, White can proceed with his positional plan with the prophylactic move 20.wa1, removing his king to a safer place. White thus has once again the threat h4-h5 on his agenda and so he maintains somewhat better chanc­ es. By the way, I still think that the re­ ally important theoretical disputes in this system belong to the future. Now, let us go back to my game with Azmaiparashvili...

14.f5! This is an original plan - White ig­ nores the material losses and he begins attacking Black's king-shelter with his doubled f-pawns, which finally leads to success! 1 4 '?Nxf5 Black does not have much to hope for after 14 ... dxe5 - following 15.fxg6 hxg6 16.h4 e6 17.h5 ltJb6 1B.id3 �d5 19.wb1, White's attack is extremely powerful, as in the game Yakovich - Beim, Leeuwarden 1994. .•.

15.ltJg3!? White maintains his initiative with this strong move. Naturally, I saw the variation: 15 . .txd5 cxd5 16 . .txe7 �cB 17.hd6, but I did not like to surren­ der the initiative to my opponent...

15 '?Ne6 16.f4! .•.

I had sacrificed a pawn already... Now comes another one ...

16 dxe5 ••.

In case of16 ... h6 17.f5!? gxf5 18.if4,

Game 11

52 White's compensation for the two sac­ rificed pawns is more than sufficient.

17.f5! �d6 After 17... gxf5?! IB.ltJh5, White's attack is probably irresistible.

'ltlgB+-. His relatively best defence would have been the move - 19 .. .f5, but even then after 20.h4, White's at­ tack would have still been extremely dangerous ...

18.fxg6 bxg6

2 0 .ltJf5!

19.IMgl!

2 0 ...�e5 21.ltJxg7 ltJe3?!

That is a precise positional move, which helps White preserve all the ad­ vantages of his position. The straightforward attempt 19.h4, would have been much weaker, because of: 19 ... exd4 (or 19 ... ltJb6!? 2o.id3 'ltlxd4 21..te3 ltJc4) 20.gdg1 ltJe3 etc. . .

19

.••

exd4?!

This is evidently a miscalculation. My attack now is running unopposed, but it was hard from easy for Black to find the right move. He would not have saved the day, for example with: 19 ... ltJb6 20 . .td3 f5 21.ltJxf5! gxf5 2 2 . .th6 gf7 23.ixg7! (23 ..txf"5 'ltlxd4) 23 .. J!xg7 24.ixf5 ltJBd7 (Or 24... 'ltlf6 25.dxe5 'ltlxf5 26. 'ltldB+-; 24 . . . 'ltlxd4 25.gxg7+ Wxg7 26.'ltlg5+ WfB 27 . .te6 'ltlf4+ 2B.'ltlxf4+ exf4 29.!:�g1 and White checkmates unavoidably.) 25.fug7+ wxg7 26.'ltlg5+ wfB 27.!:!gl l!ieB 2B.dxe5 'ltld5 29.ixd7 + ltJxd7 (29 ... l!ixd7 30.gdl) 30.'ltlg6+ wd8 31.

It is quite possible that by playing 19 ... exd4, Azmaiparashvili had based all his hopes on that particular move. He could have prolonged his agony though, with the line: 21...�g7 22 . .th6. Now, his position crumbles like a pa­ per fortress ...

22 .,txe3 dxe3 23.'ltld3! �xg7 24 ..txf7! 'ltlh5 25.!:txg6 +. Black re­ signed. The move 25 ... Wxf7 will be coun­ tered by White with: 26.gf1+ weB 27.fuf8+ wxf8 2B.'ltldB+ wf7 29. �gB#

D47

11 Pliester - Dreev New York (open) 1989

l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.ltJc3 ltJf6 4.ltJf3 e6 5.e3 ltJbd7 6 .td3 dxc4 7.,txc4 b5 8 ..te2 ib7 9.e4 b4 10 .e5 bxc3 11.exf6 •

53

Pliester-Dreev, New York 1989 We are playing a well known varia­ tion ofthe Meran system.

and after it Black's position is at least equal. It was stronger for him to play

1l cxb2

14.ttJd2 ! and that would have led to a

I was in a fighting spiritthat day and

situation, which is practically impos­

making that move I decided to enter

sible to be eval uated properly. Black

a very complicated and double edged

has plenty of possibilities - 14 . . . c5,

•.•

12 .fxg7 bxal� 13 .gxh8�,

14 . . .ia6, 14 . . . 0-0-0, 14 . . . �5xa2 , but

although that was connected with a

I like most Garry Kasparov's recom­

variation:

great degree of risk. It was more solid

mendation 14 . . . �f5!?, although the

and reliable for Black to play: l1...iLlxf6

position remains quite unclear after

12 .bxc3 .td6, since he would have no

that as well . . .

problems concerning equality. Still, in

14 �xdl+ 15 .b::d l �f5 16. 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 17.d5?!

that case, (the position is rather sim­ ple) Black would have no chances to seize the initiative outright. . .

12.fxg7 bxal�! ? The calmer line : 12 . . . .txg7 13 ..txb2 , is not so good for Black at all, as con­ temporary tournament practice shows,

•..



My opponent sacrifices a pawn and that is risky. In case of: 17.�g8 .te7 18 .�g7 �g6, or 18 .�g3 iLl f6, Black has no problems at all. White has nothing to complain about either . . .

17...,td6!?

because his inferior pawn-structure guarantees White a slight positional advantage.

13.gxh8�

18.�d4? ! That is another quite important imprecision. Now, White cannot ob­ tain any sufficient compensation for That is an amazing position, since it is quite rare to see an opening varia­

the pawn. It was better fo r him to follow with:

tion with four queens on the board

18 .�b2 �xd5 19 . .te2 c5 2 0 .:8bl, with

and that only on move thirteen ! . . The situation is tremendously complicated

some compensation, nevertheless he had a long way to go to prove it was

and unclear.

sufficient.

13 ... �a5+ 14 .td2

18 ...c5 19.�a4 �xd5 2 0 .,te2

That is not the best move for White

After 20.�xa7?! :8g8, Black would



Game 12

54 have a crushing attack and White would probably be defenseless.

f5. Entering after: 7... 0-0 8.e3 ILlbd7 9.�d3 !le8 10.0-0 ILlf8, the Carlsbad

2 0 J��g8 2U�d1 �e4 22.�xe4

variation would be less purposeful,

The exchange of queens is forced .

because despite the fact that Black's

•.

22

.••

he4

position is solid enough, the long­

Now, the game enters the technical

term world-experience indicates that

stage of a realization of an extra pawn.

he would be still too far from equal­

My opponent had only negligent prac­

ity.

8.e4!?

tical chances to make a draw.

23.�g5 �d5 24.f3 f5 25.�xh7?

That is White's most active re­

White loses quickly after that move.

source in his fight for the opening ad­

Re had better defend with 25 .1Llt7, but

vantage. Black has no problems what­

even after that his chances to save the

soever after: 8.e3 �f5 9.�d3 (In case

game were quite minimal indeed.

of 9.'lWb3 'lWb6, I believe that Black's

25 �e7 26.�a6+ �c7 27.�f4+ �M8 28.h4?! 1xh4 29.g3? hg3 3 0 .�g5+ �c7 31.�g2 M4 and White

position is already a bit superior.) not permit even the slightest hint of

resigned.

White's initiative in the line: 10 . . . 0-0

••.

9 . . . hd3 10.'lWxd3 ILlbd7! (Black does

1l.hf6 ! ? hf6 12.b4.) and Black equal­ izes easily after 11.0-0 0-0, as well as

12

D36 Ruban

-

Dreev

USSR Ch Under 26, Thilisi 1989

after: 11.�h6 ILlg4 ! ? 12 .�g7 !lg8 13.�e5 ILlgxe5 14.lLlxeS (or 14.dxeS 'lWc7 and Black is even better) 14 . . . lLlxeS 1S.dxeS 'lWc7.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�f3 lLlf6 4.�c3 e6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.�c2 �e7 7.�g5

8 dxe4 •••

It is much worse here for Black to follow with 8 ... lLlxe4?!, due to 9.he7 �xe7 (but not 9 . . . 'lWxe7? 1O.lLlxdS+-) 10. lLlxe4 dxe4 1l.'lWxe4+ �f8 12.�c4 and White maintains a slight, but sta­ ble advantage.

9.hf6 hf6 1 0 .�xe4+ �e7 This is the most reliable answer. The move 1O . . . �f8 is more fashion­ able nowadays and it leads to compli­ cated, double-edges positions. Black has more chances to seize the initia­

7 g6! • . .

tive after that, in comparison to 10 ...

This is n o doubt Black's best move,

'lWe7, but the risk for him to end up in a

which provides him with excellent

worse position is considerably greater

chances to equalize without too much

too.

of an effort, because of the threat �c8-

11.�c4 O - O ! ?

55

Ruban-Dreev, Tbilisi 1989 Black's other possibility here is 11 . . . Af5 12.�xe7+ �xe7 13.0-0-0 gd8 14.ghe1+ �f8, with an approximately equal position.

12. 0 - 0 It is more precise for White t o play here: 12.�xe7 Axe7 13.0-0-0 tLld7, entering a complex and roughly equal endgame.

to save the game in a variation with a pawn down - 19.tLlf6+ (It is too bad for him to play 19.Ac4, because of 19... �xe5 20.�xe5 tLlxe5 21.tLlf6+ �g7 22. tLlhS+ gxh5 23.13xe5 �f6.) 19 . . .tLlxf6 20. exf6 �xf6 21.Ac2, or 21.Axa4 �xb2. White could have tried here the seemingly passive line: 16 J�ac1 a4 17.Ac2 Ae6 18.gb1, which was leading to an approximately equal position and it would have been his most reli­ able continuation, indeed.

16 ...,ie6

12 'M>4! .•.

Now, my chances are not worse to say the least.

13.,ib3 i.f5 14.ti'f4 �d7 15.!Uel .s! This is a good positional move, which improves my set-up. The threat as-a4 is rather unpleasant for White.

16.g4 My adversary opted for this sharp Ed somewhat risky advance, which compromises his pawn-structure on the kingside. In case of 16.tLle4?! a4, Black ob­ tains a very good counterplay. Now, .tler: 17.tLlxf6+, then 17...tLlxf6 18.,tc2 eelS; if 17.d5, then 17... �g7, while Wowing: 17.tLle5, Black's simplest 4efence is 17. . . Axe5 (The position is llightly better for Black too after: 17 . . . b,7 18.i.xf7+ �h8 19.tLlxd7 �d7.) 18. ms ti'e7 and White will have to try

17 .be6 •

White should not expect any­ thing promising out of the variation; 17.�e6 fxe6 18.Axe6+ �h8 19.Axd7, because of: 19 ... �xb2 !? 20.�c1 (or 20Jlc1?! Ag7 21.�d2 �xd2 22.tLlxd2 gad8 23.Ae6 gfe8) 20 ...�xc1+ 21.�c1 gad8 22.Ae6 Axd4 23.tLlxd4 gxd4 and despite White's minute material ad­ vantage (he has a knight and a bishop against a rook and a pawnO, this end­ game is preferable for Black, because of his superior piece-coordination and his pawn-majority on the queenside. In fact, what was most important - the initiative would have been definitely on my side in that case. Black's com­ pensation for the pawn would have

Game 12

56 been sufficient too in the line: 19 . . .

dark square and it might turn later

'fie7 2 0 . ltJe5 'it>g8 2 1.'fid2 Elad8 2 2 .Eldl

into a juicy target after a move like

Elxd7 23.ltJxd7 'fixd7.

�g7-f8.

17 fxe6 18.�e3 Elae8 19.�e4 ig7 2 0 .Eladl �b6 21.�e5 �d5 •..

Black's position is already slightly

2 8.d5 35.gf4 J.xe5 36.Elf7 cS and the victory would have been quite close in sight.

33.lLldS+ ! This is an excellent defensive re­ source!

33

•••

c;?;>d5 34.ge1 ixe5 35.gd1+?

Here, my opponent overlooked in his time-trouble the excellent oppor­ tunity to continue with 35.f4! and that would have provided him with a life­ line in the variation: 35 ... i.f6 (or 35 ... id6 36.Eldl+ c;?;>cS 37.Elc1+ c;?;>d5 38. gdl+ ) 36.Eldl + c;?;>e4(36... c;?;>c4 37.lLlxc6= ) 37.lLlxc6 Elc7 38.1Llh4 Elc3 39.Elel+. Presently, White's position is al­ ready lost, because he cannot bring into action his "roaming" knight.

35 ... c;?;>c5 36.gc1+ 36.Elel c;?;>d6 37.f4 if6 38.Elc1 c5-+, or 38.l'!xe7 J.xe7 39.1Llf7+ c;?;>d5-+

36... c;?;>d6 37.gxc6 +

Naturally, this position is winning for Black, since he has an extra piece for two pawns. I had to overcome some technical difficulties, indeed, mostly because I had to avoid the exchange of the rooks. In case I had allowed that - the position would have become im­ mediately drawish, despite my extra bishop. This is what my opponent had based his practical chances on. Still, generally speaking, what followed to the end of the game was in fact just a matter of endgame technique ...

46. c;?;>g2 h5 47.h4 c;?;>c6 4S.ge4 ic5 49.a4 id6 5 0 .ge6 ga5 51.gh6 c;?;>d7 52.c;?;>h3 ie7 53. c;?;>g3 c;?;>eS 54. ge6 gxa4 55.ge5 gg4+ 56. g3 C;?;>f8 5S.a4 if6 59.gf5 c;?;>g7 6 0 .a5 gg4+ 61.c;?;>h3 c;?;>g6 62.gc5 ga4 63.c;?;>g3 ga3+ 64.c;?;>g2 h4 65. c;?;>h2 ig5 66.gd5 if4+ 67.c;?;>h1 ga2!

Now, White is practically forced to give up a piece, since the line: 37.Eldl + c;?;>c7 38.h4 c5 39.Eld5 i.d4 is complete­ ly unacceptable for him.

37 c;?;>d7 3S.gc5 c;?;>xdS 39.gxb5 J.d6 40 .gd5 c;?;>c7 41.gd4 ic5 42. !xa4 gf7 43.f4 ie3 44.f5 •••

In case of 44. c;?;>e2, Black has the resource - 44 ... Elxf4 ! -+

44 ... gxf5 45.gxf5 gxf5+

But not 67 ... h3? 68.Eldl=.

6S.gb5 ic7 69.gc5 ixa5 7 0 .gb5 ic3 71.gc5 if6 72.gb5 ig5 73.gc5 c;?;>h5 74.gc4 J.f6 75.gb4 gd2 76.ga4 c;?;>g5 77.gb4 ie5 7S.gc4 J.f4 79.gb4 gd1+ S O .c;?;>g2 c;?;>g4 0-1 13

E97 Dreev - E.Geller Moscow 1989

This was a game with the legend­ ary grandmaster Efim Petrovich Geller in the Moscow International round-robin Tournament. I tookfirst place with 7 1/2 points out of11. Alexey Vizhmanavin remained half a point behind me. Efim Petrovich shared 34 places with V. Kotronias with 6 1/2 points out of11.

Game 13

58

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3 0 - 0 6.ie2 e5 7. 0 - 0 �c6 8.d5 �e7 9.�d2 The line 9.b4 is more fashionable, but 9.�d2 is also critical.

9 a5 1 0 .!!bl ••.

White has played more often here the move 1O.a3, but I prefer 1O.l3b1, since he enjoys greater variety of plans after that (naturally, it all depends on Black's choice of move), while after 1O.a3, White is more or less bound to proceed only with the plan with h4.

1 0 ...id7 That is a relatively seldom played line. It is much more popular for Black to continue here with 10 . . . �d7, but ev­ idently Efim Petrovic, who is a world­ renowned expert on the King's Indian Defence, had a different opinion on the subject...

1l.b3!? The variation: 1l.a3 a4 12.h4 axb3 13.�xb3 b6 has been tested quite fre­ quently in the tournament practice, but I was reluctant to play it. It did not suit my style, since it was too risky. The move 1l.b3 !?, seemed to me to be more flexible and solid.

1l ... �c8

that moment. Its idea is to counter the standard 12.a3 with 12 ... lt'lb6 and after the thematic 13.b4 to continue with: 13 ... axb4 14.axb4 It'la4, as it was played in the game Langeweg - E.Geller, Am­ sterdam 1974, in which after 15.'.Wc2 It'lxc3 16.'.Wxc3 ih6!? Black equalized easily. All that emphasizes the fact that my opponent was well-familiar with the scheme with 1l ... lt'lc8. In fact, he was one of the main exponents of the entire plan connected with that line. I have managed, however to find the drawbacks of the move 1l ... lt'lc8 - it discoordinates Black's pieces a bit (the knight on c8 is awkwardly placed indeed ... ) and most of all - Black does not control sufficiently the e5-square in the diagrammed position! He can­ not support it with �f6-d7, because the d7-square has been occupied by the bishop. Therefore I continued with:

12.ib2!? This powerful positional move is a novelty! White refrains from the sche­ matic idea a3 and b4 and he is threat­ ening to develop a powerful initiative on the kingside by playing f4.

12 ... ih6 Naturally, Black is trying to prevent radically the pawn-advance f2-f4.

13.�c2 �h5?! This activity is not justified, since it weakens Black's kingside. He had better opt for the more mod­ est line 13 ... lt'le8, but even then I would have retained after 14.l3be1 a slight but stable positional advantage thanks to my superior piece-coordina­ That move was quite fashionable at

tion. We have witnessed a similar idea

59

Dreev-E.Geller, Moscow 1989 with the move IiJh5 in the famous game Spassky - Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, in which after l.d4 IiJf6 2.c4 e6 3.1iJf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.liJc3 g6 7.liJd2 IiJbd7 B.e4 ig7 9.ie2 0-0 10.0-0 �eB 11.�c2, Fischer suddenly played 11. . . IiJh5!?, but his attempt had been much more justified in that position.

successfully, having neutralized the direct threats along the al-hB di­ agonal, but now he has new prob­ lems connected with the weakness of the e6-square. His position is clearly worse in a strategical aspect, despite the extra exchange.

24.i.c1 '§g7 25.tOd4

14 . .bh5 gxh5 15.f4!? That is the most active line for White; nevertheless it is connected with a positional exchange-sacrifice.

15 .bf'4 16.gxf4 exf4 17.tOe2 •••

25 tOg6?! .•.

My compensation for the exchange is no doubt quite sufficient, due to the vulnerability of the dark squares on Black's kingside. My bishop on b2 is extremely powerful, since it dominates the al-hB diagonal. White has seized the initiative completely and Black's defence, particularly in a tournament pme, is tremendously difficult.

17 �g5 18.tOf3 �h6 19.ic1 i.g4 ZO.tOxf4 '§f6 21.'§d2!? ..•

White protects his knight on f4 and be is threatening to deploy his bishop from cl to b2, in order to organize a dangerous attack along the al-hB di­ agonal. 2 1 liJe7 22.i.h2 Mt6 23.'§c3 f6 It looks like Black has defended •..

This is a serious mistake and it makes Black's situation quite difficult. It might look like blundering the ex­ change, but I believed Efim Petrovic had decided to give it back with the idea to simplify the position in the hope of equalizing after the transfer of his knight to the e5-square. Obviously, he had failed to notice that he would have serious problems connected with the vulnerability of his h5-pawn. He was understandably reluctant to de­ fend passively the position without any bright prospects after: 25 . . .�f7 26.ib 2 ! ? �h6 (It is too bad for Black to opt for 26 ... liJg6?, due to: 27.liJfe6 be6 2B.liJxe6 �h6 29.ic1 and White's position is easily winning.) 27.E1fl, but that would have been the least of evils, since his position would have re­ mained still defensible. 26.tOfe6 ixe6 27. tOxe6 �f7 28.

60

Game 14

�xfB l:'lxfB 29.J.b2 b6 3 0 .l:'lfl �e5 3t:�'h3 Now, the weak hS-pawn has be­ come the object of attack and White is threatening ElfS.

31

.•.

�g6

32.J.xe5 !?

That is the simplest way for White to press his great advantage home.

plest road to victory is : 39.�e6+ fl mg3

We are playing one of the sharp variations of the Meran system. This position is well-familiar in the con­ temporary theory. White has the ini­ tiative for the sacrificed pawn, but Black's position is solid enough and his chances are not worse at all.

17...ti'e7 That is in fact the old line. Pres-

79

Nadera-Dreev, Manila 1992 ently, the move 17 ... a6!? is much more popular and fashionable and it pro­ vides Black with a good counterplay. Still, the more modest approach - 17... Be7 is quite reliable and White has not found yet any convincing way to prove his opening advantage.

18.Ag5!?

holm 19B9. It is much worse for Black to con­ tinue with 2 2 ... Ac6?!, because after the forced line: 23.Elxe2 hb5 24.lDc7 + �dB 2S.lDxbS, White's great advan­ tage is obvious.

23.ixd7+ �f7 24.ixc8 ixc8 25.�xe2

That is the most energetic line for White. He would not achieve much with IB.Bg4. Alexey Vyzmanavin played like that with White against me (Moscow 19B9) and there followed: IB ... lD5f6 19.Bh3 Ad5 20.Aa6 ElaB 21.Ag5 Ag7 22.Eladl 0-0. I managed to obtain a solid and reliable posi­ tion and White had a long way to go to prove that his compensation for the pawn was sufficient.

18...Bxg5 19.hl lLIe4-+

18 ... %Ya5! But naturally not IS ... %Yc5?, in view of: 19.�3! \'9xd4 20.gfdl.

19.9dl! %Ye5 2 0 .g3?! This is already a very serious mis­ take. Sergey had better continue with 20.f4!? and although after 20 ... %YaS, (It was also interesting for Black to try: 20 . . . exf3!? 21.\'9xeS ixeS 22 ..b3 fxg2 23.ixf8 i>xf8 24.i>xg2 ILIhS and he would have a good compensa­ tion for the exchange.) my prospects would have been somewhat better, White could have preserved a quite defensible position. My advantage became considerable after the move in the game and I seized the initiative altogether.

2 0 ... lLIh5 14... e5! 15.�f3 e4 16.lLId4 I was planning to answer 16.lLIgs

with 16 ...�eS and if 17.�3, then 17... bS!-+

16 ...�d7 17.\'ge2 gae8 18.J.cl My opponent was practically forced to make that ugly unaesthetic move, since the positional threat - e4-e3 ! ?

Black cannot capture the h3-pawn due to: 20 . . . hl3? 21.if4 \'9c5 22.ixd6 \'9xd6 23.�e6!

21.\'9f1 J.c5! 22.c3 The move 22.�e3?, can be coun­ tered by Black with 22 ... �xg3-+

2 2... i>h8!? Now, capturing - 22 ... lLIxg3?! is

Game 24

86 far from clear: 23.fxg3 1Mfxg3+ 24.1Mfg2 1Mfxc3 25 . .ib2 1Mfxh3. I was considering the move 22 . . .b5!?, but then I decided to play with my king with the quite straightforward idea to try to break through White's position by advanc­ ing my f-pawn.

23.�g2 f5 24.�e2?! That is another grave mistake and White's position might be already beyond salvation after it. In case of 24.h4! ? , or 24.a5!?, White's position is evidently worse, but he can still hold on, because there is no decisive win­ ning line in sight for Black yet.

24 .ie6 25 ..if4

32.gd5 �xb3 33.lLld4 �c3 34. gel �d3 35.�xd3 exd3 36.M1 d2 37.�f3 J.xf4 38.gns gf6 39. gd5 h6! 4 0 .�xd2 ge2 4l.g;,gl .igS 42.f3 .ie3+ 43.g;,hl (if 43. b8, it

That is the most precise move. Fol­ lowing 11...gS, White can enter the variation (It is practically forced for Black.): 12.dS ! lLlxdS 13.lLlxdS �xdS 14.�c3 f6 IS. �e3! and his initiative is quite sufficient to compensate his two-pawn deficit.

12.�xd4 gxd4 13.b4! �d8 14. 1e3 gd7 15.1dl That is a mistake after which White must still prove that his compensation is worth a couple of pawns. He had better play IS . .b:a7! and that would

Rogers-Dreev, Biel 1993 have led to a very complicated posi­ tion in which I thought that after IS ... gS, or IS ... g6, Black's prospects would not have been worse.

15 a6 .•.

16.b5?! This is another imprecision and this time it is quite serious, because White already does not have enough compensation for the sacrificed mate­ rial for sure. It was stronger for him to continue with 16.lLla4! and he would have preserved good chances to main­ tain the balance. 16...axb5 17.gbl g5 1S. gxb5 1J.g7

19.�a4! My opponent creates maximal problems for me to materialize my ad­ vantage by playing that move.

19... �e4 2 0 .1J.b6!? WfbS 21.gel �d6? Here, it was my tum to make a mis­ take and my position becomes sud­ denly dangerous ... I had to continue instead with: 21...�f4! 2 2.ie3 �f6, preserving a considerable advantage. 22. gb4! gc 7? ! It i s not better for Black to play here 22 ... iik8?!, because of: 23.gxe6! fxe6 24.ihS+ \!;>f8 2S.�xc4 and his posi-

89 tion remains nearly hopeless... The best chance was 2 2 ...1J.fS!?, obtain­ ing after: 23.lLlc5 gc7 24.1J.a4+ �f8 a slightly worse, but still quite defen­ sible position.

23.�c5?! White returns the favour ... After: 23.gxe6 ! ! fxe6 24.1J.hS+ �f8 2S.�c5 gxcS 26.1J.xc5, my position would have been tremendously difficult ...

23 ...gxc5 24.ixc5 Now, the move 24.gxe6 is not so dangerous, because Black is not Obliged to enter the variation: 24 ... fxe6?! 2S.1J.hS+, in which his posi­ tion is clearly worse, but he can play instead: 24 ... geS ! ? with an approxi­ mately equal game. The variation: 2S.1J.a4+ \!;>f8 26.gxd6 �xd6 27.gxc4 1J.f6 28.1J.c7 is not dangerous, because of 28 ... �a3! and White has nothing better than: 29.1J.xeS �xcl+ 30.gxc1 1J.xeS 310gbl �g7 32.gxb7, transfer­ ring into an equal endgame.

24 ... 0 - 0 25.m Now, Black has two pawns for the exchange and they are a quite suf­ ficient compensation. The prospects are about equal.

25 .. ,!'kS

Game 24

90

positional advantage is doubtless.

32 ... Ela5 33.a4 �d4

26.ixd6?! Here, my opponent overestimated his position and he decided to play for a win relying on his extra exchange. He had obviously ignored the power of Black's c-pawn ... Instead, he had better give back the exchange with the move 26.l''l x e6, entering after: 26 ... fxe6 27.ixd6! 'lWxd6 (or 27... exd6? 2SJ!xb7+-) 2SJ!xc4 gxc4 29.'lWxc4 a drawish endgame.

26 ...'lWxd6 27.fucb7 c3 Now, my reliably protected and far­ advanced c3-pawn provides me with a stable positional advantage. White's extra exchange is practically immate­ rial in that position. In fact, his defence is already very difficult and addition­ ally he did not have enough time ... 28.'lWc2 1d4 29.g3 gc5 3 0 .1e4

rllg7 31.1d3 1f6 I am improving my position me­ thodically. My adversary had to ad­ here to a waiting strategy, since he had no active counterplay.

32 .1e4 It is not any better for White to try: 32.a4? ! , due to: 32 ... gdS 33.!"!e3 1d4 and he has no good lines in sight. Now, after: 34.!"!e2 ixf2 + ! 3S.!"!xf2 gxd3, as well as following: 34.gel 1xf2+ 3S.'lWxf2 gxd3, Black's considerable

34.1c6? GM Rogers was in a desperate time-trouble here and he made a de­ cisive mistake. He had to defend with 34.l''l a l, but after 34 ... 1d7, I would have preserved a great advantage; nevertheless he could have still resist­ ed. Now, the game is quickly over.

34 .ti5 35.�c1 ..

Or 3S.1e4 EleS-+ 35.. Elc5 36.Elb5 It is not better for White to con­ tinue with: 36J:ldl 'lWc4 37.1bS (or 37.1d7 c2-+; 37.1g2 'lWxa4-+) 37... 'lWe4 3S.!"!bS !"!xbS! 39.!"!xbS 1h3 and Black checkmates unavoidably. .

36 ... fucc6 37.E!xffi �xa4 38.gd5 c2 39.Eld2 �b3 4 0 . Ele3 �b2 41.Elel !"!c5

Rogers-Dreev, Biei 1993

91

and White resigned, since he had no useful moves at all. In case of 42.ltIg2, Black wins with 42 .. .'�'b7+, followed by 43 ...ib2, while after 42J�de2 or 42 Jlf1, Black's simplest win is 42 ... 'M>3. That was a quite interesting game, although with numerous mis­ takes ...

The idea of the move 6 ...a6 is simple enough: in case of the retreat 7.ie2, Black follows with 7 ... tbb6 (or 7... b5 with the idea ic8-b7) and later he regains easily the d5-pawn, obtain­ ing even a slightly better position, because White is left with an isolat­ ed pawn. He cannot change much in that case by continuing with 7.ic4 b5 8.ib3 tbb6 (or B .. ib7). The straightforward move 7.hd7+ .

BIO

25 Lerner - Dreev Rostov-on-Don (open) 1993

l.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.exd5 tbf6 5.1b5+

seems to me to be anti-positional. White exchanges his important light squared bishop for Black's knight and after 7 .. .'�xd7!?, in order to try to protect his d5-pawn, he is practi­ cally forced to play 8.'M>3 (It is too dubious for White to try B.'�'f3?! here, since after B ...b5 9.tbge2 ib7 10.tbf4 �f5, Black is clearly better.), but then after B .. �g4! ? 9.ltIf1 (It is worse for White to continue with 9.g3, because that move compromises the light squares and it presents Black after 9 ... b5 with a very danger­ ous initiative.) 9 ... g6, or 9 ...b5!?, Black's compensation for the pawn is more than sufficient and what is even more important - he has the initia­ tive, while White is deprived of cas­ tling rights and his pieces cannot be coordinated easily. It is less energetic .

5 ... tbbd7! This is the best counter argument against the opening line, chosen by White (5.ib5), based on the idea to hold on to the d5-pawn. The other possibility - 5. . . id7 presents him after 6.ic4 with more chances to preserve his extra d5-pawn and as a result of that, with better prospects to maintain an

opening advantage.

6.tbc3 a6! This simple and logical answer pro­ vides Black with a good counterplay, contrary to the line 6 . . . g6, which leads to more complicated positions.

for Black to try the line: B ...b5 9.tbf3 ib7 1O.tbe5 �d6 1l.tbc4 �c5 12.tbe3, although it is obviously good enough for equality. For example, in the game Formanek - Khenkin, Antwerp 1995, there followed: 12 .. JldB 13.d4 �xd4 14.0-0 �c5 15.gdl g6 16.id2 ig7 17. gac1 0-0 18.tbe4 �b6 19.tt:lxf6+ i.xf6 20.ic3 gd7 and Black had balanced the chances.

Game 25

92 Therefore, there is no sensible al­ ternative to the variation, chosen by my opponent in the game.

7.�a4 gb8 8.hd7+ That exchange is practically forced, since it is quite obvious that 8.ie2 b5 cannot be good for White at an. 8 . . .�xd7!

played most often the move 1O.d4 (Af­ ter 1O.�ge2 gd8 1l.d4 if5, Black is better.), but following: 1O . . . gd8 1l.ig5 it5 12.ix£6 exf6, he never achieved any opening advantage.

10

�f5 1l.�g5

••.

1l ... gd8! 9.�xd7+ Strangely enough, entering the end­ game here for White is his relatively best decision. His prospects are very poor in a middle game with queens present on the board. For example, in case of: 9.�b3 �g4!? Black's initiative is more than sufficient to compen­ sate the pawn. Following 9.�f4 ga8 ! White fails to hold on to the d5-pawn, because now, after the relatively best move 10.�f3 (It is worse for White to play 1O.�f3?!, because of: 10 ... b5 11.lLlge2 ib7 12.�f4 �f5, with an overwhelming advantage for Black.) in the game Kengis - A.Filipenko, USSR 1985 there followed: 10 ... �xd5 11.�xd5 �xd5 12.0-0 e6 and Black had a slight but stable advantage.

9 ...,bd7 1 0 .d3!? Having in mind that I play this line for Black, my opponent had prepared a novelty here. Until that game, White

This is Black's most precise de­ fence. In case of 1l ...ixd3 12.0-0-0, White's chances would have been su­ perior, thanks to his lead in develop­ ment.

12.1xf6 This is forced; otherwise White cannot hold on to his extra d5-pawn. Now however, Black remains with two bishops against a couple of knights and that is a good compensation for the pawn by itself.

12...exf6 13. 0 - 0 - 0 That is an imprecision, although only slight. It is better for White to play 13.'�d2 !?, planning the maneuver �gl-e2-g3, with a complicated and approximately equal position.

13 ...�c5 14.d4?! This is another mistake and that time it is much more essential. White weakens the important diagonal - bl­ h7. It was definitely better for him to have followed with 14.gd2, or 14.\!{d2

Lerner-Dreev, Rostov-on-Don 1993 and his position would have remained quite defendable.

14 .id6 15 . .!tJge2 gc8 16.c.t>d2 c.t>d7 17.gcl g c4! .•.

I have the edge after that move. It is worth mentioning that it becomes very difficult to defend a position like that with White. Meanwhile, it is rath­ er easy for me to improve my position, for example with moves like - b7-b5, ghc8, or h7-hS, White's best moves are far from obvious or easy to find and his every imprecision might have grave consequences for him. Konstan­ tin Lerner again chooses not the best defensive line:

18.h3?! He could have still held the posi­ tion with: 18.b3 �c7 19.12Ja4 ib4+ 20.l2Jec3, but it was quite understand­ able that it was far from easy for him to make up his mind to play like that. White's position seems rather precari­ ous, due to the pin of the knight on c3, despite the fact that I could hardly profit anything substantial out of it. Now, Black seizes the initiative alto­ gether:

93 It is dubious for White to follow with 20.f4?!, because of 20 . . . h4 and it would not work for him to play 21.g4 ixf4! 22.l2Jxf4 �xd4+ 23.l2Jd3 l"lxd3+ 24.c.t>c2 ig6 25.';tlb3 �ee3-+

2 0 ....1g4 21.a3 b5 22.c.t>d3 g5! Black's pieces are totally dominat­ ing the whole board. White has no ac­ ceptable defensive plan in sight. My opponent became a helpless spectator of my decisive actions to the end of the game.

23.gcel White loses after 23.ghel?, because of: 23 ...gxh4 24.gxh4 if5+ 25.c.t>d2 M4+ ! 26.l2Jxf4 �xd4+ 27.l2Jd3 gxd3+ 28.l!ic2 �xd5+ 29.c.t>b3 l"lxel 30.gxel �d2 31.�e2 �d4 and the loss of a sec­ ond pawn is unavoidable.

23 ....1£5+ 24.c.t>d2 b4 25.axb4 fucb4 26.lticl geb8 27 .!tJdl J.g6! •

Black emphasizes his overwhelm­ ing positional advantage.

28.hxg5 fxg5 White is beyond salvation now and he has no satisfactory defence at his disposal.

18 ...ge8! The threat is - if4+

19.93 h5 2 0 .h4

29 .!tJec3 •

My opponent was trying to coor­ dinate his forces somehow, but that could not save the game.

Game 26

94

29

•.•

fucd4 3 0 .lLle3 as 3l.lLlc2

White was losing too after: 3U�d1 gdb4 32.gd2 a4 and there was no ac­ ceptable defence against the threat a4-a3.

3l .. J3C4 32J3e3 a4 33.gdl J.c5 34.grn g4 3S.ge3 gb3! and White resigned, because of the numerous threats against which he was totally helpless.

This was a good positional game in which I managed to exploit the al­ most unnoticeable minute impreci­ sion of my adversary.

26

ESl Dreev - Muhutdinov St Petersburg (open) 1993

The games against Galdunz and Muhutdinov were played at the open tournament in Saint Petersburg. I started with 7 out of 7 and I had guaranteed the 1st placefor me with a round to spare.

l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 ,Ag7 4.e4 d6 s.rn 0 - 0 6.,AgS lLlc6 That is one of the possibilities for Black and it leads to a compli­ cated positional fight. Still, I think that after 6.,Ag5, the sharpest and no doubt the most fashionable lines for him are: 6 ... c5 7.d5 e6, or 6 ... a6! ? 7.Wd2 c5 B.d5 b5, in which it is much more difficult for White to fight for the opening advantage, than af­ ter the move 6 . . . lLlc6, played in this game.

7.lLlge2 a6 S.YlYd2 gbS

9.gcl! That is an interestind and new idea. White makes a useful waiting move and he prevents the thematic pawn-break b7-b5 in the process. He plays more often here either 9.d5 ttie5, or 9 ... ttia5, and that leads to compli­ cated positions with mutual chances, or 9.h4 with a very sharp and rather unclear game.

9 ...,Ad7 In case of: 9 ... e5 1O.d5, Black is slightly worse after: 1O ... ttie7 1l.ttig3, as well as following: 1O ... ttia5 1l.ttig3 - these positions are too passive for Black, since he has no active counter­ play in sight.

l O .dS This move is too straightforward. Some time later (see the game against Mikhail Golubev, played at the tour­ nament in Alushta in 1994) I played the more flexible move - 1O.b3 ! ?

lO ...lLleS Black's knight is rather unstable here. It would have been more reliable for Black to follow with 1O . . . ttia5 and in the game Mamedyarov - Cheparinov, Antalya 2004, there followed: 1l. ttig3 c5 12.,Ad3 b5 13.b3 bxc4 14.bxc4 !lb4 with a complicated, but quite accept­ able position for Black.

Dreev-Muhutdinov, St Petersburg 1993

1l.b3 ltJh5 That seemingly active move is an imprecision enabling me to seize the initiative. Black should have defended passively, having in mind the line: 11... ic8 12.f4 1C!ed7. The other active look­ ing move - 1l ... b5 is not any better, because after: 12.cxb5 axb5 13.ltJd4, White's initiative is quite danger­ ous. For example, in case of: 13 . . .b4?! 14.lC!cb5, he has an obvious advan­ tage.

95

13.ltJxh5 gxh5 14.�e2 ltJg6 15. exfS � 16. 0 - 0 �d7 17.ltJe4 h4 18.�d3 e5

19.94! This move consolidates White's great positional advantage.

19 .be4 .•.

12.ltJg3! White achieves nothing much with 12.f4, due to; 12 ... h6 13.�4 lC!xf4 14.lC!xf4 g5 and Black's chances are Dot worse.

12 f5 •.•

The desire of my opponent to play somewhat actively is easily under­ standable, but his last move seems to be anti-positional. He compromises his set-up considerably. Strangely enough, it would have been better for him to defend with 12 . . . lC!xg3, without being afraid of the attack along the h­ file after 13.hxg3. Well, after 13... !1e8 ! ? 14.�h6 �h8, or 14.�e2, White main­ tains the initiative indeed, but still Black's position would have remained quite defensible.

In case of: 19 ...hxg3 20 .hxg3, my opponent would be faced with seri­ ous problems. White would plan to regroup his forces according to the scheme - �h2, Wg2, !1hl with an at­ tack along the h-file.

2 0 ..be4 ltJf4 It is evident that Black's position is difficult from the strategical point of view, so my opponent is trying to com­ plicate things somehow. He hopes to have more practical chances to save the game by sharpening it.

21 .bh4 h5 22.�f5 gxfS •

Now, the exchange-sacrifice is in fact forced for Black; otherwis e after: 22 . . . 1We8 23.�g5 lC!h3+ 24.Wg2 lC!xg5 25.1Wxg5, he would remain a pawn down without any chances for active counterplay.

23.gxf5�xfS 24.g;.hl gf8 25.�c2 ltJd3 26.gcdl e4!? That is his best resource from the practical point of view. In case of 2 6...

Game 27

96 tOf4, he would have to enter an end­ game being an exchange down for nothing...

27.1g3! White is threatening now the sim­ ple move - fxe4, reducing the tension in the position considerably. Accord­ ingly, Black's next move is practically forced:

27 h4 28 .bh4 mt3 29.1g3 exf3 3 0 .Elgl f2 .••



That is Black's only possibility to regain the exchange. The position however, is simplified after that and that suits me just fine.

33.'ffe4 That is an unprecision for White. but it changes nothing in the evalua­ tion of the situation. It was better for me to play 33.a4!, preventing Black's counterplay on the queenside, con­ nected with b7-bS. Naturally, Black exploits the available opportunity to show some activity:

33 b5! 34.a4 bxa4 35.bxa4 mt5 36.EleU .c3 37.Elcl mt3 38.'ffg2 mt5? •••

Here, Black blundered in his time­ trouble, leaving his bishop en pris, since he overlooked White's spectac­ ular move 40. He could have played instead 38 ...\Wf5!?, with chances to offer some resistance. The move 39.�xc3?? would not work then for White, due to: 39 ... 'ffb l+ 40.\Wgl \We4+ 41.\Wg2 �fl#

31.'ffxd3 White is not falling into the trap: if 31.�gfl??, then 31...tOel! and Black wins, since White gets checkmated in the variations: 32 :�xf2 \Wxfl + ! 33. \wxfl l3xfl#, or 32J:ldxel fxel\W 33.Elxel Elfl+ 34.�xfl 'ffxfl# Now, Black loses by force: 31 fxgl'ff+ 32.E!xgl �h8 39.E!xc3! 'ffd l+ 4 0.\Wgl Elf! 41. The position has been simplified 1e5+t considerably and Black is a l>awn down Black resigned. He fails to cal>­ and his king's shelter is much less re­ ture White's queen, because in case of liable that that of its counterpart. It 41...dxe5, or 41... �h7, he gets check­ becomes quite difficult for Black to mated after 42. �h3. That was an in­ defend such a position, moreover in a teresting fighting game with an exqui­ time-trouble! site finish. ••.

Galdunts-Dreev, St Petersburg 1993

B3t

27 GaIdunts

-

Dreev

St Petersburg (open) 1993

l.e4 cS 2.�f3 �c6 3.ibS g6 4. 0 - 0 ig7 S.c3 �f6 6.!"lel 0 - 0 7.h3 Here, it is much more popular for White to play: 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 dS 9.eS tLle4? and that is presently quite fashionable; nevertheless the move in the game was also a frequent guest in the tournament practice and it was modern too.

7... eS!? That is the most logical and the most principled answer for Black. The other most often played lines (7. . . d6 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4; 7... %%6; 7... dS; and 7... a6) are, I believe, not so reasonable for Black and they all present White with more chances to fight for the opening advantage, than after 7... eS!?

97 has not achieved anything promising out of the opening. In case of: 8.d3 d6 9.tLlbd2 �c7!? lO.tLlfl a6 Il.ia4 bS, Black will have no problems in the near future and his plans are already preferable. In fact, the position resem­ bles a lot, in its pawn-structure, one of the Chigorin variations of the Ruy Lo­ pez, except that it is now under much more favourable circumstances for Black. White's most active line here is - 8.d4. After the practically semi­ forced variation: 8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 exd4 lO.eS (or lO.tLlxd4?! �b6 ! 1l.tLlxc6 dxc6+) lO ... tLldS 1l.igS! ? �c7!, there arises a familiar theoretical position, in which Black has no problems what­ soever, as contemporary tournament practice shows convincingly.

8 ... dxc6 9.�xeS Otherwise the move 8 ..ixc6 be­ comes senseless. After 9.d3, I could counter with 9 ... �c7, defending my eS-pawn and my position would have been clearly preferable due to my bishop pair.

9 ... ge8 1 0 .f4 It is worse for White to play lO.d4 in view of: lO ... cxd4 1l.cxd4 (or 11.�xd4?! tLld7 12.f4 �c7+) 1l ... tLlxe4 and Black is better. Now, in case of: 12.!"lxe4 fueS, Black maintains a huge positional advantage as well.

l O ... �hS! 8 ..b:c6?! I have always been quite skeptical about such possible exchanges of the bishop for the knight in similar posi­ tions, since they all seem to me to be somewhat anti-positional for White. I even think that after 7 ... eS, White

I also considered the possibil­ ity lO ... tLlxe4; after: 1l.!"lxe4 f6, there would have arisen a rather complex position, in which my chances seemed to be at least not worse. Still, the move 10 ... tLlhS was stronger.

1l.d4 �h4 12.!"lfl

Game 27

98

12 .bh3! 13.gxh3�g3+ 14.mhl tfxh3 + 15.mgl .!Llg3

and Black would have a much better endgame.

I have more than sufficient com­ pensation for the sacrificed piece in this position. The most important point here is - I have the initiative. It is far from easy for White to defend that position, because of the unsafe situation of his king. 16 .!Lld2 Following: 16J�e1?!, I could have played: 16.. .'�� h 1 + 17.mf2 .!Llxe4+ 18. l!i>e3 1Wh4 and Black's initiative would have been tremendously dangerous. For example: 19.1!i>xe4 (Or 19J1h1?! \wf2+ 20.l!i>xe4 c4! and White has no satisfactory defence against the threat f7-fS with a checkmate; 20.l!i>d3 20 ... cxd4 and Black's attack is so pow­ erful that White is practically defense­ less.) 19 ...he5 20. l!i>d3 (or 20.dxe5? gxe5+! 21.mxe5 1We7#) 20...hf4 and Black has already three pawns for the piece and his attack is still quite men­ acing.

18.mf3 tfh3 19.mf2 .!Llxfl 2 0 . .!Llxfl cxd4 21.cxd4 f6 22 .!Llf3 lhe4 23 .!Llg3 He7 24.f5!

.•.



16 ...§'hl+ 17.mf2 (diagram)

17... tfh2+ That was not the best. I had better play: 17 ... .!Llxf1! 18.1Wxf1 (or 18 ..!Llxfl?! tfxe4 19 ..!Llg3 1Wd5+) 18 ... 1Wxfl+ 19.1tIxfl cxd4 20.cxd4 f6 21..!Llf3 fue4 22.fS gd8





This is a very strong move after which the game becomes quite un­ clear and most probably White is not worse anymore to say the least.

24...g5 25.'Ml3+ mh8 26 .id2 gae8 •

27.tfd3? My opponent had a quite difficult defensive task during most of that game and as a result he was in a des­ perate time-trouble. That can easily explain his blunder, after which his position becomes immediately hope­ less. It was correct for him to follow with 27J3hl!, after which in case of: 27...ge2+ 28 . .!Llxe2 1Wxhl 29 . .!Llg3, as

99

Galdunts-Dreev, St Petersburg 1993 well as after: 27... 1Wg4!? we would have reached complex positions with mutual chances. Now, the game is practically over rather quickly.

27 g4 28.�h1 �e2 + ! 29.�xe2 'ttxh1 3 0 .�el h5 31.�f4 h4 32.�e6 g3+ 33.lt>e2 g2 34. b3 ..•

.

the Dutch city of Tilburg was orga­ nized like that in the year 1993. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�£J �f6 4.�c3 e6 5.e3 �bd7 6.1d3 dxc4 7..bc4 b5 8.1d3 1b7 9 . 0 - 0 a6 1 0 .e4 c5 n.dS c4 12.1c2 'ttc7 We have reached one of the basic positions of the main variations of the Meran sysrem.

34 .ih6! •.•

That is the fastest road for Black to victory. 35.lt>dl .be3 36.'ttxe3 gl'tt and White resigned. It might be interesting to mention

13.�d4!?

My opponent chose a very seldom played line at those times (it is not so popular nowadays either ... ), avoiding the famous opening tabia, arising af­ that after Our game the variation: 1.e4 ter: 13.dxe6 fxe6. c5 2. �j3 �c6 3. 1b5 g6 4. 0 - 0 197 Back at the times in which we 5.c3 �f6 6.'i'l.e1 0 - 0 7.h3 eSf? 8.hc6 played our game, Black's main argu­ dxc6 9. �xeS 'i'l.e8 1 0/4, became prac­ ment against the line 13.tiJd4, was tically extinct in the top-level tourna­ considered to be 13 ...tiJc5, but the ment practice. move 14.b4 !? was already beginning to become fashionable. It was lead­ ing to an extremely complicated and 28 D48 double-edged position after the prac­ Gelfand - Dreev tically forced line: 14 ... cxb3 15.axb3 Interpolis Ck. 0.), Tilburg 1993 b4 16.tiJa4. After my opponent made up his mind to follow with 13.tiJd4, I Nobody is surprised nowadays' understoo d that in case I answer with with knock-out tournaments. The idea the usual move 13 ... �c5, I risked fac­ of organizing chess events according ing some home-preparation novelty to that system had been tested long in this line and even if my position ago. For example, the tournament in turned out to be acceptable, I would

Game 28

100 have to solve difficult problems over the board in a very complex situa­ tion. Meanwhile, my opponent would have been armed with home-prepared analysis, so at the end, after a relative­ ly short hesitation, I decided to choose a very rare line:

13 eS!? •••

avoiding complications and steer­ ing the game into a semi-closed posi­ tional maneuvering scheme. It is interesting to mention that 12 years after our game, the same sel­ dom played variation with the move 13.t2)d4, happened in the game Anand - van Wely, Monaco (rapid) and small wonder, Loek decided not to take his chances with the move 13 ... t2)cS, evi­ dently afraid of the line 14.b4!?, but he chose instead, just like I did, the move 13 . . . eS. Later, after: 14.t2)fS g6 lS.t2)e3 �c5. he reached a reliable and approx­ imately equal position.

what was more important he had the initiative...

16.'lWf'3 �f4 17.�xf7!? This is White's most principled ar­ gument in his fight for the opening ad­ vantage. Following: 17.hf4 exf4 18.V;\Ih3 (18. t2)g4? hS-+) 18 . . .�g7, Black is better; after 17.t2)g4 �g7 there arises a compli­ cated position, but I believe that Black is not worse at all, to say the least ...

17... c;t>xf7 18.g3 gS 19.9xf4 gxf4 2 0 .'iWhS+ c;t>e7! 21.V;\Ih4+ It is inferior for White to play here 21. V;\IgS+?! t2)f6, because he will re­ main to be the only one with problems to worry about. ..

14.t2)f5 g6 ls.�h6

21... 1t>f7

lS ... �hS!? This is a new idea. Black had tested before that only the move lS ... t2)g8 and in the game Szmetan - Morovic Fernandez, Buenos Aires 1992, af­ ter: 16.�xg8 �xg8 17.V;\If3 �d6 18.b3, White had just a slight advantage, but

It is too bad for Black to play 21... t2)f6?, dueto 22.ixf4! �g8+ (22... exf4? 23.e5+-) 23.�g3 and White has a great advantage, but still it is quite possible for Black to follow with: 21... It>e8 22.V;\IhS+ It>d8 and the position is complicated enough with mutual chances.

22.�dl?! This move involves a great risk for White. I believe that my opponent had better comply with the fact that he had failed to obtain any advantage out of

101

Gelfand-Dreev, Tilburg 1993 the opening and after: 2 2.1WhS+ It;>e7 23.1Wh4+, he could have presented me with a choice - to either agree to a draw by a repetition of moves after: 23 ... 1t;>t7 24.1WhS+ It;>e7, or to continue the fight in the quite unclear position after: 23 ... lt;>eB 24.1WhS+ It;>dB . . . Evidently, GM B.Gelfand had over­ estimated his position a little bit ...

22

•••

ggS+ 23.cj;lhl �f6 24.J.h5+

Here, at first I of course calculated the line: 24 . . . tDxhS 2S.1WxhS+ It;>g7 26Jlg1+ It;>hB 27.fugB+ It;>xgB 2B.id2 It;>hB, evaluating the position as rough­ ly equal. Later, after some serious thought, I decided to sacrifice the ex­ change in order to reach a very sharp position in which I hoped to confuse my opponent and to manage to seize the initiative:

nevertheless my light squared bishop was going to become a real monster!

3 0 .exd5 Once again, White had to accept that sacrifice as well, because after: 30.id2 tDf6, my position woul d have been clearly better. I would have a pawn for the exchange and the perma­ nent threat - itJxe4.

3 0 ... hd5 31.gfl if6 Black is threatening ghB.

32.�h7+ gg7 33.�h3 ie6! 34. �g2?! This is an imprecision, after which my initiative becomes extremely dan­ gerous. White had better play 34.1WhB!, and later either: 34 .. .l':lgB 3S.1Wh7+ gg7 36.1WhB ggB with a draw, or: 3S ... ig7 36.1Wh4 ghB 37.1Wf2 itB!?, with a rather unclear position.

24 gg6!? 25.hg6+ •••

White is now forced to accept the sacrifice, because in case of: 2S.l':lg1 itJxhS 26.1WxhS It;>g7, Black's chances are at least equal.

25 ...hxg6 26.gg1 ie7 27.�h6 ggS 28.f3 b4 29. itJe2 (diagram)

29 ... �xd5! After that capture, I was going to have only two pawns for a whole rook;

34... g5

Game 29

102

35.a3!? This is White's only chance to ac­ tivate somehow his position. In case of 35.tiJg1, Black's strong initiative is running unopposed; after 35 ... g4 36.fxg4 �xg4, White has no good de­ fence in sight, while in case of: 37.%Ve4 Y;Yd7 38.tiJf3, it is possible for Black to follow with: 38 ... %Vd3! ? 39.%Vxd3 cxd3 with an overwhelming advantage for him, because Black's three connected passed pawns are a much more pow­ erful argument in that position than White's extra rook.

40 .tiJd5 hd5 41.Y;Yd2 ic6 42. Y;Yxd7+ The exchange of queens does not save White at all.

42

•••

hd7 43.gxa6 i.b3 44.gf2

Or 44.�a7+ �e6 45.fu:g7 ixfl-+

35 g4 36 .axb4 id5 37.tiJc3 gxf3! •••

44 i.b4! and White resigned. Af­ ••.

ter 45.�a7+, Black wins easily with: 45 ... M6 46.�xg7 ixf2 47.�g8 id4 .

E81

29 Dreev - Golubev Alushta 1994

38.%Yf2? Here, my opponent made the deci­ sive mistake in the time-trouble after which he lost quickly. It was relatively the best for him to try that practically forced line: 38.%Vxg7+ ! ? ixg7 39.tiJxd5 %Vc6 40.�a5! (40.�d1?%Vg641.�glf2-+) 40 ... %Vg6 !? 41.�xf3 %Ve4 42.�g2 %Vc2+ 43.�f2 %Vxc1 44.�a6 %Vd1 and despite the fact that White would have been clearly worse in that case too, there was no quick victory for Black in sight.

38

•••

ib7 39.ga5 Y;Yd7!-+

This i s the best line for Black with the deadly threat - ih4.

This game was played in a round­ robin tournament, which was held in the town of Alushta in the Crimean peninsula. l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0 - 0 6.ig5 tiJc6 7.tiJge2 a6 8.Y;Yd2 m,8 9.gcl! id7

103

Dreev-Golubev, Alushta 1994 That variation was played ayear ear­ lierin mygame against M .Muhutdinov, which was also a part of this book (see game 26). I played there the straifgt­ forward move - 10.dS.

1 0 .b3!? At the moment - that move as a novelty. 1O.b3! ? is a much more flex­ ible move than 1O.dS. Its idea is to respond n.d5, in answer to the seem­ ingly attractive 1O ... bS, after which Black is practically forced to enter the rather complicated and even risky for him position after 11...liJe5, since his knight is unstable there. The other retreats of that knight promise no good prospects for Black; for example: n ... liJa7 12.liJg3 c6 13. dxc6 .bc6 14.liJdS and White has a slight but stable positional advan­ tage. The pawn-structure resembles the Maroczy system in the Sicilian Defence, except that the situation is much worse for Black, since his knight is misplaced on a7. It is even worse for him to play 1l ... liJaS?!, because in that case after: 12.cxbS axbS 13.liJd4 �e8 (There is noth­ ing better for Black in sight; if 13 ... b4, then 14. liJcbS±) White can enter the following semi-forced variation: 14.liJcxbS! ? .bbS lS.liJxbS �bS 16.b4 gb7 (16 ... liJb7?! 17.a4 gb6 18.a5 �b5 19.9xc7+-) 17.bxaS with a great ad­ vantage for him.

1 0 ...bS ll.dS �eS After: n... b4 12.dxc6 bxc3 13.liJxc3 .b:c6 14.ie2, Black ends up in a pas­ sive position, without any good pros­ pects and he has no available plan to obtain an active counterplay.

12.f4 This move seems to be the most logical in White's fight to obtain an advantage in the opening. I would not have achieved much with: 12.cxbS axbS 13.liJd4, because of: 13 ... �e8 with a rather unclear position. Now, after 14.f4, Black can continue with 14 ... liJeg4 and he should not be afraid of15.h3, because of lS ... b4 with a good counterplay for him.

12 ... �eg4 13.�g3 h6 14..1b4 �h7 1S.h3 That obvious move is imprecise. Black's knight on g4 is not so well placed, so it is hardly worth for White to repel it. He should have simply con­ tinued his development with lS.ie2, preserving a slight positional advan­ tage thanks to his superior piece-coor­ dination. Now, the position becomes much sharper and quite unclear at that.

IS ... �gf6 16 ..id3 eS! My opponent obtains here an ex­ cellent counterplay after that strong move .

17.fxeS The position is complicated and double-edged after: 17.dxe6 fxe6 18.eS (White achieves nothing with 18.0-0,

Game 29

104 because of: 18 ... �xe4 19.he4 �xh4 with a better game for Black.} 18 ... dxeS 19.fxeS gS 20. exf6 �xf6 21.hgS hxgS 22.�xgS .tc6 and Black's compensa­ tion for the pawn is quite sufficient.

17 dxe5 18.�ge2 c6 . • .

It is too dubious for Black to play 18 ... �xe4?!, due to: 19.hd8 �xd2 20. hc7 flbc8 21..td6 bxc4 22 . .txf8 cxd3 (or 22 ... wxf8 23 . .tc2 cxb3 24.axb3+-) 23.hg7 wxg7 24.wxd2 dxe2 2S.wxe2 and he does not have a good compen­ sation for the exchange.

He is threatening now to sacrifice a piece on h3, under favourable circum­ stances.

22.ie3 gfS 23.dxc6 hc6 24. �d5 bxc4 25.bxc4 �e6 We were both in time-pressure at that moment.

19.if2 It is worse for White to play 19. O-O?! , in view of: 19 .. b4 20.�a4 (or 20 .�d1?! �xe4+) 20 ... �xe4 21.he4 �xh4 22.�cS flfd8 and Black is evi­ dently better. .

19 ... �h5

2 0 .ic5! This move forces Black to remove his rook away from the f-file. His plan is more than obvious: that is to push f7-fS and eventually also - f4, with the idea to follow with f3, so he needs his rook on the f-file. White's move - 2 0 . .tcS! impedes that plan. In case of: 20.0-0 f5 ! ? 21.ic5 flf7, Black has an excellent counterplay.

2 0 .. .l:�e8 21. 0 -0 �g5!?

26.g3 That is a good positional move. In principle, it might have been stron­ ger for me to have captured the pawn: 26.hh6, but I did not have enough time to evaluate correctly the position after: 26 . . .hdS! ? 27.exdS (In case of 27.hg7, Black can follow with: 27... he4 28.hf8 �xd3 and the position is approximately equal, while after: 27.cxdS ixh6 28.�xh6 �ef4, the su­ tuation is unclear.) 27 ... �cS, in which case Black has some compensation for the pawn. Having in mind the time­ trouble, it would be then much easier for Black to play that position, even if his compensation is insufficient, be­ cause his knight on cS has occupied the perfect blocking outpost. Addi­ tionally, he is threatening to advance his pawn-mass on the kingside with f7-fS.

26 ... �d4 27.�h2 �h7 28J:lf2 a5?!

105

Dreev-Golubev, Alushta 1994 This is an imprecision, since Black had better play 28 ...!"lb7with a compli­ cated position with mutual chances.

29J�cf1 !"lb7 3 0 .'?9c3

37.,ixg6+ ! That is the fastest way to victory.

37 �hS •..

Or 37. . . �xg6 38.'?9d3+ e4 39.'?9xe4+ It/g5 40.h4#

3S.'?9f3 �xg3 39.�xg3 !"lxa3 40 .id3, and Black resigned. He has no •

defence against White's numerous threats - 41.'?ge4, 41.'?9f5, or 41.!"lg7.

C07

30 Adams - Dreev Dortmund 1994

30

•..

V9bS

Now, Black makes a serious mistake in the time-pressure and his sutuation becomes desperate after that. He had to continue with 30 . . . lOe6, after which I would have preserved better chanc­ es anyway, because of the powerful placement of my knight on the d5outpost. Still, the position would have remained quite complicated with a lot of fight left.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�d2 c5 4.exd5 '?9xd5 5.�gf3 cxd4 6 ..ic4 '?9dS 7. 0-0

31.'?9xa5 !"lb2 ?! 32 . .ic1! !"lb7 33 . .ia3 !"la7 34.'?9c3 !"lcS 35.!"lxf'7 Black is already two pawns down without any active counterplay. His position is hopeless. There followed:

35 ...,ixd5 36.exd5 lOb5

This i s a well-known position i n a popular variation of the French De­ fence.

7... �e7N Now, that is already a novelty. I do not believe this move to be superior to the standard lines for Black (7... a6; 7... lOc6; 7 ... lOf6), but possibly it is not worse either. I chose that varia­ tion, (which was not yet analyzed at the moment the game was played), mostly because of some psychological

Game 30

106 reasons. I wished to introduce the ele­ ment of surprise and to force my op­ ponent to play an unknown position, avoiding his opening preparation in the well-familiar theoretical tabias. The development of the game proved that my experiment with the new idea - 7. ..tiJe7 was quite successful. Mi­ chael Adams lost his confidence in that unknown situation and his posi­ tion became quickly somewhat worse already in the opening stage.

8.�b3 Vlic7 9.Vlie2 tl:)fxd4

tl:)g6 1 0 .

It was more precise for White to play 10.tl:)bxd4, in order to counter 1O ... a6 with: 1l.iob3 ioe7 12.l::l el 0-0 13.iog5!? and to try to convert his lead in development into a slight opening advantage. My position would have remained solid enough in that case too, but I would still have some open­ ing problems to worry about.

1 0 ...a6 11.f4 1e7 12.f5 exfS 13. tl:)xfS 1xf'5 14.gxfS 0 - 0

on c4, the queen on c 2 and the rook on f5 are all placed rather unstably.

15.�d4 That is an imprecision. White had better continue with: 15.iod2 �d7!? 16.gafl tl:)f6 with an approximately equal position.

15... tl:)d7! This is a very good move, since this knight will be redeployed to f6 and it will be multi-functional there. It will cover the vulnerable spot - f7 and it will control the important e4 and g4squares.

16.1e3 That is another questionable move. n would have been more reliable for White to transfer the bishop to a more stable placement with 16.iob3.

16 ... tl:)f6 17.lfih1 This natural move is not the best either. It was stronger for White, just like on the previous move, to play 17.iob3. Now, I succeed in seizing the initiative.

17 gae8 18.Vlif1 .•.

My opponent has not obtained anything out of the opening. White's bishop pair is immaterial in this posi­ tion. The harmonious development of forces is much more important and some of White's pieces like the bishop

18... tl:)g4 Here, I played imprecisely too. It was much better to continue with 18 . . .ioa3 ! ? and White was practical­ ly forced after that to enter the line

107

Adams-Dreev, Dortmund 1994 19JbIT6 (White has great problems af­ ter 19.icl? ! , in view of: 19 .. Jle4 20.c3 13fe8 and Black has a clear advantage.) 19 ... gxf6 20.�f5 hb2 2U'lbl ie5 22.ih6 hh2, in which Black's posi­ tion would have been evidently supe­ rior.

19.J.gl J.f6 2 0 .c3 �e3 21.J.xe3 �e3 22.J.b3 �fe8 23.!U"3 �3e4 28 �ge4! .••

This move emphasizes the vulner­ ability of White's first rank.

29.�gl It would not work for White to de­ fend with 29.�f1, because of 29 . . . Elf4! and he would be completely defense­ less.

29 �e1 3 0 .ti'f2 fu:gl+ 3V;i;>xgl ti'e7 •.•

24.�f5? This seemingly active move is the decisive mistake for White. Michael bad to play 24.id5 !, with the idea to counter 24 .. J14e5, with 25.13f5!? and he would have good chances to equal­ ize. Now, my opponent ends up in a very difficult position by force.

24 . ..�e5! 25.�g3 It is not any better for White to play: 25.�h6+ gxh6 26JbIT6 �g4 27.ixf7+ xd7 13.0-0-0 'it>c6 14.lLlf3 !3hd8, creating maximal difficulties for White to materialize his extra pawn.

109

Dreev-Leko, Dortmund 1994

12.l;cl! This move consolidates White's considerable positional advantage. Now, Black's compensation for the pawn is clearly insufficent.

12 ... a6?! Black again makes a mistake. Peter weakens the b6-square without anyne­ cessity and he simply sends my bishop to a more comfortable square. After: 12 ... �b4!? 13.a3 �dS !? (Black should not expect anything promising out of the variation: 13 . . . �a2?! 14J'ib1 �b3 lS.�f3; White is threatening 16.�d2 and the move lS ... a6 can be countered by White with 16.�b6! with a decisive advantage.) 14.�f3 �c6 IS.axb4 i.xbS 16.�c3 �c6, my opponent could have still offered tenacious resistance, de­ spite being a pawn down. Now, his po­ sition deteriorates quickly.

13.ic4 �b4

have a winning position, because af­ ter 17 ...bS, he would win with: 18.cxb6 l;xc4 19J'lxc1 !ixc1 20.b7, while Black would be defenseless against the threat - b8�.

15.�e2 �xa2 16.l;c4 �b4

as

17.�f3

Or 17. . .h6 18.l;al �b4 19.�b6+-

Peter succeeded in restoring the material balance, but his e6-square was so weak and his pieces were badly coordinated that Black's position was strategically hopeless. Now, the game enters a purely technical stage.

18.�g5 e5 19.�b6 �e8 2 0 .gal �c6 21.l;ca4 if6 22.�e4 rJ1f7 23.�c4 Black is bound to lose his as-pawn.

23 ...lThc8 24.�xa5 b6 In case of: 2 4. . .�xaS 2S.fuaS b6 26.

!ia7! Black's position is again doomed.

25.�xc6 l;xc6 14.iLxe6! Black had obviously overlooked that move.

14 fxe6 ..•

Black would not have saved the day with: 14 ... �d3+ IS.wd2 �xcl (or 15 ... �xf2 16.�c4 �xhI 17.�h3+-; IS ...l;d8 16.ib3 li'lxf2+ 17. We2 li'lxhl 18.li'lf3+-) 16.�c4 �c8 17.�f3 and White would

Game 32

110

26J�a6! Now, White is threatening b2-b4 and the win is already close.

26 .. J�c7 27Jbb6 !bb6 28.cxb6 gc6 29.ga6 gc2+ 3 0 .�d3 fucb2 31.b7! That is the fastest road to victory, since Black has no useful moves.

31. h6 • .

After 3l...gxb7, White wins with: 32. gxf6+ exf6 33.tt:ld6+ we6 34.tt:lxb7. 32.tt:lc5 e4+ 33.�xe4 and Black resigned.

32

D45 Dreev - Cifuentes Parada

V.Ivanchuk, V.Anand, V.Akopian and plenty of other super grandmasters play like that with Black. I have also tried that line numerous times ...

9.gdl b6?!

Instead of the move in the game - 8 ... ge8, contemporary theory rec­ Hoogovens Ck. 0.), Wijk aan Zee 1995 ommends the solid and completely re­ 1.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 e6 3.ttlf3 d5 4.ttlc3 liable system with 8. . .b6, in which af­ ter 9.gd1 Black follows with the quite c6 5.e3 ttlbd7 6.�c2 1d6 This is the most popular position of natural move 9 ...�b7 with an approxi­ the so-called Anti-Meran system and mately equal position. Nobody has it has been played a zillion times in the tried here the seemingly unnecessary move 9 ... ge8, since the combination tournament practice... of the two systems (8 ... ge8 and 8 ... 7.�e2 That move is probably neither bet­ b6) looks a bit strange and completely ter, nor worse than 7.b3, 7.�d3 or awkward. In our game that position 7.�d2, which all lead Gust like the arose after a slightly different move move in the game) to a complicated order. Instead of 9 . . . b6?! it is better positional fight. The choice of moves for Black to play 9 .. :�e7 with a quite here is much rather a matter of style. satisfactory position as tournament After 7.g4, there arise sharp positions practice shows. with mutual chances.

7... 0 - 0 8. 0 - 0 (diagram)

8 ... ge8 This move is possible, indeed. Re­ cently, the more fashionable line is: 8 ... dxc4 9.hc4 a6 !? and it seems that Black has greater chances (in compar­ ison to 8 ... ge8) to equalize and even to seize the initiative. G.Kasparov,

Dreev-Cifuentes Parada, Wijk aan Zee 1995

1 0 .e4! That is the most energetic move for White. He emphasizes the fact that after the practically forced line: 10 .. . dxe4 11.�xe4 �xe4 12.Y;Vxe4, or 10 .. . �xe4 11.�xe4 dxe4 12.Y;Vxe4, the move gf8-e8 is evidently unnecessary and it is simply a waste of time. It is less energetic for White to continue with 1O.b3, because in that case after: 10 . . . ib7 1l.ib2 Y;Ve7 the chances of both sides would have been approximately equal.

111

17.ctg5 g6 Black saves the game neither with: 17. . .f5 18.ic4, nor with: 17 ...hh2+ 18.d8?!

Y.Seirawan is again beyond re­ proach - that is his only move to de­ fend successfully. It was too bad for him to try 17. . .ic4?, because after 18J!xb6! White would have a win­ ning position. Here, in case of: 18 ... 1f1xb6 19.1f1xd7+ 'it>f8 20.ttJc6, Black has no satisfactory defence in sight, for example: 20 ...hb4+ 21.axb4 g6, TO 22.1f1e7+ 'it>g7 23.ttJes+-

18.b5!

Following: 18.�xb6 1f1xb6 19.1f1xd7+ 'it>f8 20.ttJc6 1f1b7 21.1f1xe6, there arises a very unclear position, but I believe that Black's prospects (with an extra piece for three pawns) are not worse at all. 18 .. ..bb5 19.1f1xb5 fxeS 2 0 . 0 0 ! Black's defence is much easier af­ ter: 20.�xe6 exd4 21.0-0 'it>f7 22Jk6 -

My opponent had defended excel­ lently until his last move, but here he made a serious mistake and his posi­ tion became quite difficult. It might be already beyond salvation. His only possibility to continue the fight would have been the move 21...1d8. Indeed, in that case after: 22.�xe6+ 'it>f723 .�cc6 ttJf6 (or 23 ... ttJcS?! 24.�es) 24.e4! 1f1d7 (Black's situation is quite dangerous too in case of: 24 ...dxe4?! 2s.1f1c4 'it>f8 (or 2s ... 'it>g6? 26.1f1xd4 'it>f7 27.1f1c4 'it>g6 28.1f1xe4+ 'it>f7 29. �xf6!+-) 2s.exds, because White pre­ serves his initiative with a better game, but Black can still fight tena­ ciously. Now, he has nothing to counter White's dangerous onslaught with and his situation deteriorates rapidly.

115

Dreev-Seira wan, Wijk aan Zee 1995

Linares 1995

llJxc3 16.Wlxc3 Wlc7 17.llJd4 id7= I.Sokolov - Lobron, Debrecen 1992; 9... dxc4 1O.1xc4 llJh5 (Or 10 ... Wlxd1+ 1U'!xd1 b6 12.e4 �:1dB 13J;xdB+ llJxdB 14.e5 llJeB 15.�e2 ib7 16J;J:d1 h6 17. ie3 1xe3 1B. �xe3 �f8= Dreev - Va­ ganian, Tilburg 1993.) 11.1g5 ie7 12.1xe7 (12.WlxdB gxdB 13.ixe7 llJxe7 14.�e2 id7 15.llJe5 ie8 16.ghd1 llJf6= G.Agzamov - I.Zaitsev,Yerevan 1982.) 12 ... 'l!Nxe7 13.0-0 l'l:d8 14.Wle2 id7= P.Nikolic - Ki.Georgiev, Dubai 1986.

I have selected several interest­ ing games for this book which I have played againstAlexander Khalifman. We have played together in numerous tournaments. This game was played at the super-tournament in Linares.

Naturally, the exchange of knights is quite favourable for me. Sasha ad­ mitted after the game that he had un­ derestimated that move. Now, Black must prove that he has not compro­ mised his pawn-structure in vain.

1.d4 li)f6 2.c4 e6 3.li)f3 d5 4.li)c3 ie7 5.if4 0 - 0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 hc5 S.a3 llJc6 9.ie2

1l...VU6 12.li)xc6 bxc6 13.�c2

22.exd4! gfS 23.a4! ig5 24. glc2 gf4 25.a5 gxd4 26.g3 l'l:dl+ 27.�g2 ga1 2S.axb6 llJbS Black loses too after: 2B ...Wla6 29.Wlxa6 l'l:xa6 30.b7 l'l:xc6 31.l'l:xc6 if6 32.l'l:d6 and he is completely helpless. 29.gd6+ and Black resigned.

D37

34 Dreev - Khalifman

1 0 .li)xe4 dxe4 11.li)e5!

13... e5 9 ... li)e4?! I played this variation often at that time. With his last move Sasha decid­ ed to avoid the fashionable lines. He had obviously prepared that line be­ forehand. See some other possibilities: 9 ... l'l:e8 10.ig5 ie7 11 .Wlc2 h6 12.ih4 dxc4 13.1xc4 llJd5 14.1xe7 llJcxe7 15.0-0

This is a novelty. It is weaker for Black to play 13 ... a5. He stops the the­ matic pawn-advance b2-b4 with that move, but White can follow with: 14.Wlxe4 Wlxb2 15.ie5±, but not 14. O-O? e5 15.ig3, due to 15... l'l:eB! 16. Wlxe4 (16.b3 16 ...if5 17.Wfh2 Wle7 lB. l'l:tb1 f6, Muse - van der Sterren, Alten­ steig 1991.) 1£5 17.Wlf3? (17.Wlh4 Wle6) 17 ... e4 1B.Wlf4 g5 19.Wlc7 l'l:e7-+

116

Game 35

14..ig3 M5 15. 0 - 0± 'i!re7 Or lS . . . aS 16.Wc3 !"lfeB 17.h4±

28.!"ldl h6 29.!"ld6 'i!rg5 3 0 .!"le6 f3 31 .ifl fxg2 32 .,ixg2 'i!rf5 33.'i!ra2 'i!rg4 34.!"ld6 !"lf5 35.'i!re6 g;.h7 36.h3 'i!rg5 37.g;.f1! !"lf8 38.,ixe4+ g;.h8 39.'i!re8 .ie7 .

16.b4 .ib6 17.c5 .ic7 18.!"lfdl .ig6 My opponent is reluctant to wait passively here and he tries to advance his f-pawn. That plan gets refuted, though . . . In case of IB ... !"lfdB, White can continue with: 19.a4 .ig6 20.bS fS (or 20 ...cxbS 21.axbS fS 22.b6 axb6 23.!"lxaB !"lxaB 24.cxb6 .id6 2S.Wc6 !"ldB 26 ..ih4+-) 21.b6 axb6 22.cxb6 .id6 23.aS! f4 24.a6 fxg3 2S.hxg3±

Or 39 ... 'i!re7 40.'i!rg6.

4 0 .'i!rxf8+! 1- 0

35

E81 Dreev - Shirov Biel 199S

19.'i!ra4! 'i!re8 Or 19 ... !"ladB 20 .Wxc6 fS 21..ih4+-

2 0 .b5 f5 Or 20 ...cxbS 21.i.xbS We7 22 ..ic6.

21.bxc6 f4 22 ..ih4 .if5

This game was played in the tra­ ditionally strong round-robin in Biel - Switzerland, which I managed to win. In general, the year 1995 was quite successful for me, since I also managed to win in January the tour­ nament in Wijk aan Zee, which was played according to the knock-out system. l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0 - 0 6 .ig5 c5 7.d5 'i!ra5 8 . .id2 e6 9.�ge2 exd5 1 0 .�xd5 'i!rd8 1l .ig5 •



23.!"ld71 That is White's strongest move. Black's kingside initiative has been practically parried.

23 ...,ixd7 24.cxd7 'i!rg6 25 .ie7 g;.h8 •

Or 2S...!"ltbB 26.ic4+ @hB 27 ..idS.

26 ..ixf8 !"lxf8 27.Wb3+-

It is also good for White to continue here with 27.Wxa7.

27 ... .id8 Or 27 .. .f3 2B.ifl fxg2 29.i.xg2 WfS 30.';!ihl+-; 27. . .Wc6 28.WbS.

1l...'i!ra5+? Black was just having a black-out... The usual line for him here was: 11 ... ie6 12,c2Jec3 ItJc6 13.Wd2 ItJd4; it was

117

Dreev-Shirov, Biel 1995 also interesting for Black to try: 11... h 6 ! ? 12.iiJxf6+ ixf6 13.ixh6 ixb2 14.h4 itJc6, with a rather unclear posi­ tion.

12.b4! �dS 13.bxc5 �aS+

the beginning of a correct regrouping offorces.

IS ...f6 19.�c3 That move protects indirectly the d6-pawn.

19 ... a6

There is nothing better for Black here. If 13 ... dxc5, then 14.e5+-

Or 19... 'lWxd6 2 0.itJb5+-

14.,id2 �dS Or 14. . .'lWxc5? 15.ib4 �xc4 16. itJd4+It was understandable that Black was in dire straights, but I had to play precisely to make a good use of that. I thought that I had to sacrifice the ex­ change in order to achieve something real after Black's serious mistake on move eleven.

2 0 .ti'b4 bS 21.,ie3! 21.ie2 �b6!

21. . . ttJd7 22.,ie2 �eS 23. 0-0 ,id7 24.f4 ttJf7 2S.,ic5 ! Once again, White regroups his forces in the correct fashion.

2S ... gcS Or 25 ... a5 26.'lWd4 b4 27.itJb5.

26.�d4+Now, Black's pieces are a sorry sight. Alexey understood that only White could improve his position and he tried his last chance.

26 ... gxc5 27.�xcS ,icS 2S.a4! That is White's simplest and most precise road to victory.

2S ...�xd6 29.�xd6 �xd6 3 0 . axbS �xe4 Or 3 O axb5 31.ixb5 itJxbS 3 2. itJxb5 fu:e4 (32 ....ia6 33.itJc7) 33.itJd6. .••

31.�xe4 �e4 32.gcl ,ifS IS.cxd6! �xdS 16.cxdS hal Or 16.. f5 17.,ic3 ! and Black's ini­ tiative is easily parried.

Or 32 ...ib7 33.bxa6 ixd5 34 ..if3.

33.,id3 ga4 34 ..ixf5 gxf5 3S.b6

.

17.�xal geS Or 17...'lWxd6 18 . .th6 1Wh4+ 19.�f2 (19.�dl 'lWa4+) 19 ...'lWc5+ 20.�g3 'lWd6+ 21.e5 (21. itJf4 f6) 21 ...'lWxd5 22.itJf4+-

IS.'lWd4! I could have tried to keep the extra pawn with the move 18 ..if4, but it was much more important to develop my pieces and not to relin­ quish the initiative. My last move was

White's pawns are absolutely unstop­ pable. Black resigned.

A70

36 Dreev - de Firmian Biel 1995

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.�f3 c5 4.dS exdS S.cxdS d6 6.�c3 g6 7.e4 ,ig7 S.h3 0 - 0 9.,id3

Game 36

118

9 b5 .•.

This is the most principled line for Black. His other possibilities are - 9. . J:�e8 10.0-0 c4, or 9 ... a6, and White can counter that with a2-a4; meanwhile he can even allow his opponent to push b7-bs: 10.0-0 bS 11.if4 and the position remains complicated.

1 0 .ti)xb5 Recently, contemporary theory prefers capturing with the bishop: 10. ixbS lLlxe4 11.lLlxe4 �aS+ 12.lLlfd2 �xbS 13.lLlxd6 �a6 14.lLl2c4 and White maintains somewhat better chances.

1 0 ... �e8 11. 0-0 lLlxe4 12.�el a6 That is an important intermediate move.

13.lLla3 lLlf6 14.�xe8+ lLlxe8 15. ig5 if6 This is an imprecision for Black. Af­ ter the correct reaction lS ... �c7, tour­ nament practice has shown that White can hardly obtain any advantage. (diagram)

16.ti'd2 The idea of the subsequent maneu­ vers b�longs to GM Vladimir Epishin. His game against Vesselin Topalov (Las Palmas 1994) followed with: 16 ... ib7 17J'�e1 tLld7 18.ie4! (This is a very important move for White! ) 18 ... lLlb6

18.b3 igS 19.1LlgS lLlf6 20.lLlc4 and White has managed to solve his main problem - the defence of his dS-pawn and thanks to his extra space and the vulnerability of Black's dark squares he has the advantage.

16 ... lLld7 17.lLlc4 ib7 18.ie4 .ixg5 19.lLlxg5 lLldf6 2 0 .�el I did not intend to waste tempi for the retreat of my bishop and I brought my rook into the action. I had to consider my opponent's next move, though.. .

2 0 ...h6? This is the principled reaction for Black, but .. .it is a mistake. He has problems to find an acceptable alter­ native, for example in case of: 20 ... lLlc7, White has the powerful resource: 21.�f4! lLlcxds 2 2.�g3 and he has a dangerous initiative, for example: 22 ... lLlhS 23.'&b3 ic6 24.lLlxf7 1t>xf7 2S.lLlaS.

119

Dreev-de Firmian, Biel 1995

21.loxf7! This sacrifice is strong and quite correct too.

21 ... �xf7 22 .f!rxh6 ltlg7 Black loses the thread of the game ... In case of 22 ... iLlxe4, it is very good for White to continue with 23.�h7+! (but not 23.!"lxe4? .ixd5 24.�h7+-; 23 ... iLlf6 24.!"lf4 .ixd5 25.iLle3! �e6? 26.�xg6+-; 25. . ..te6? 26.�h7+ e2 �a2 54. \t>dl \t>c4 I and my opponent, we were both in a time-trouble at that moment.

55.\t>cl? 25 �cS! .•.

Now, Black has the straightforward threat - b7-b5. .

26.a4 �c7 27.g3 a6 2S.i.dl It is not any better for White to de­ fend with: 28.a5 gd7 29.gxd7 �xd7 and his position is just hopeless, be­ cause of the vulnerability of his pawns on b 2 and a5.

2S ...b5 29.!:Vb3 !:Ve6 3 0 .!:Vc2 c5 31.axb5 axb5 32.b3 c4 33.bxc4 bxc4 34.�a2 \t>f6 35.!:VaS �cS 36. !:Va5 c3 37.�a2 h5!? 3S.h4 !:Vd6 39. !:Va6 gbS 4 0 . �xd6+ .b:d6

That was another serious mistake for White. He had better play 55.gel! and my task to materialize my advan­ tage would have been far from easy then. Indeed, I could have continued with: 55 . . .f4 ! ? 56.gxf4 f5 and White's defence would have been extremely difficult in that case too.

55... i.a3+? Here, it was my turn to make a mis­ take. After 55 . . . ga5 ! ?, White had only some purely practical chances left to save the game.

56. \t>dl i.b4 57. \t>cl? Now, White had to play again 57.gel!, creating maximal difficulties for me to press my advantage home.

57... ga5!? White is probably beyond salvation after that move.

5S.i.b3+ \t>d3 59.i.c2+ \t>c4 I was reluctant to venture playing the move 59 . . . \t>e2! in my time-trouble.

6 0 .i.b3+ \t>d3 61.i.c2+

It is too complicated for White to save that endgame.

41.i.c2 \t>e5 42.\t>f1 \t>d5 43.\t>el \t>c4 44.ga7 f6 45.�a6 gdS! 46.gal White was losing rather quickly in case of: 46.gc6+?! i.c5 47.gxf6?! gd2 48.i.d1 gxd 1 + ! 49.\t>xd1 \t>d3 50J3a6

125

Dautov-Dreev, Yerevan 1996

Meran" variation, because in case of 6.b3, Black has the powerful argu­ 61 .';tie2! 62.fucb4 @xf2 63 .tdl ment 6 ... .tb4!, with a good game for him. White is then practically forced to @xe3! 64.@c2 In case of 64.ixh5, Black wins with: play 7 ..td2 (As a result of 7.Wfc2 lLle4, 64 ... @d3! 65.gb1 f4. Black's position is at least equal, while 64 @f2 65 ..hh5 @xg3 66 .tdl after: 7. .tb2?! Wfa5 8.Wfc2 lLle4 9.gcl e3 67. @xc3 f4 68.gb6 gd51 69. Wfxa2, White loses a pawn by force.) and after 7...Wfe7!? (It is also possible .te2 Or 69.@c2 f5 70.h5 f3-+ for Black to continue with 7... 0-0 and 69 £3 7 0 .ixf3 @xf3 71.fucf6+ he obtains an approximately equal @g2 72.ge6 position.) Black has no problems at Or 72.h5 e2 73.ge6 It>f2 74.gf6+ all . I can quote here a classical exam­ It>e1 75.h6 @d1-+ ple of how to play that position with 72 @f2 73.gf6+ @el 74.@c2 Black. It was demonstrated by my coach - the international master Al­ and White resigned. He was understandably reluctant exander Filipenko. The game B.Kogan to play to the end of the variation: - Filipenko, Tashkent 1977, followed 74.lt>c2 e2 75JU8 gc5+ 76.lt>b2 It>d2 later with: B . .te2 0-0 9.0-0 dxc4 77.gd8+ It>e3 78.ge8+ It>d3 79J�d8+ 1O.bxc4 b6!? 1l.Wfa4 c5 12.lLle5 .tb7+ @e4 80.ge8+ ge5, in which the ap­ 13.lLlc6 ixc6 14.Wfxc6 gac8 15.Wfb7?! pearance of the new black queen was (or 15.Wfa4 cxd4 16.exd4 lLlb8! ?) 15 ... unavoidable. cxd4 16.exd4 e5 17.d5? ixc3 18.ixc3 Wfa3 19.d6 (19.gfcl lLlc5 20.Wfe7 gfeB 21.Wfd6 lLlfe4!-+) 19 . . .Wfxc3 and White D31 resigned. 39 Here the time pressure was over and there followed: •.





•.•

..•



•.•

Dreev

-

Galkin

Russia Ch, Elista 1996

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 �f6 4.�c3 e6 5.b3 Grandmaster Artur Jussupow is the greatest specialist in that variation and it is still not analyzed so extensive­ ly. Its idea is to develop White's pieces according to the scheme .tb2, lLlf3, .td3 and to avoid the usual move Wfc2, which is hardly necessary for White in the plan with b2-b3 and .tcl-b2. After the habitual line - 5.lLlf3 lLlbd7 - White can only seldom manage to continue without the move 6.Wfc2, in the "Anti-

5 lLlbd7 ••.

This move is a bit passive and White manages to realize his idea in the opening after it and to avoid play­ ing the move - Wfc2.

Game 39

126 It is more active for Black to try: 5 ... ib4!? 6.�b2 �e4 7.Wc2 (In case of: 7.�ge2 c5 B.f3 �xc3 9.ixc3; or 7... Wh4 B.g3 Wf6, the position remains approximately equal.) 7... e5! ? and the situation is quite complex with mutual chances, Jussupow - Ivanchuk, Istan­ bu1 2000.

6.ib2 b6 7..id3 ib7 8.�:f.J ie7 9. 0 - 0 0 - 0

the game would have been approxi­ mately balanced. The move in the game is quite reliable too.

13.cxd5 exd5 In case of: 13 ... �xd5 14.�xd5, White has a long-lasting positional advantage after: 14... exd5 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.l'l:fdl, as well as following: 14 ... ixd5 15.dxc5 �xc5 16.b4 ixf3 17.gxf3 l'l:xd3 (or 17 . . . Wd6 IB.ib5 �b7 19.a3) IB.Wxd3 �xh2+ 19.f6 31.�e3 �b6 32.h4 1c6 33.�d4 �d5 34.�g4+ 'it>g6 35.h5+! and Black resigned. Peter decided not to prolong the purpose­ less resistance in an endgame with two pawns down after the practically forced line: 3S . . . 'it>xhS 36J:lxg7 gegS 37.gxgS gxgS 3S.�xc6 'it>xg4 (or 3S ... bxc6 39.�eS+-; 3S ... gxg4 39J::1 xb7+-) 39.fub7+-

46

D92 Dreev - Khalifman President's Cup, Elista 1995

This game was played in the semi­ fin al of the Presiden t's Cup. The first game ended in a draw. The winner of the second game would qualify for the Final.

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 d5 4.tLlf.l ig7 5.if4 0 - 0 6.gcl dxc4 7.e4 c5 8.dxc5 �a5 9.e5 l3d8

tLlgeS IS. 0-0 ifS 16.gcdl ic2 17.gc1 if5 IS.gcdl ic2, the opponents shared the point. The idea behind White's move 14 is that now it does not WOI;k for Black to play: 14 ... lUxf2 IS.ghfl �g4, because of: 16.tLlc7 gbS 17.e6 with an edge for White and the routine line: 14 ...ih6+ IS.ltie2 hc1 16.gxc1 tLlgxeS 17.lUxeS �xeS 18. idS is obviously in favour of White. The move that Black played in the game (14 . . . tLlgeS) has a quite essential drawback. It enables White to trade the knights and that is clearly in his favour, because of his extra ex­ change.

This is the official theory. In fact,

14 ... tLlgxe5 15.�xe5 1xe5! Back in the past, when I found

it is stronger for Black to play as

the move 14.ltixd2 - that was about

V.Z\jaginsev did against me some time later (Dreev - Z\jaginsev, Es­ sen 200 0): 9 ... tLlhS. After: 1O .ie3 gdS 11.�d2 .txeS 12 ..txc4 �c6 13.�b3 e6 14.tLlf3 if4 IS.0-0 .txe3 16.fxe3 �xc5 17.tLle4 �e7 IS.g4, we agreed to a

coach A.Filipenko analyzed mostly IS ... lUxeS. Before this game however, we decided to refresh our analysis and we paid due attention to the move IS... .txeS as well.

a year before this game - I and my

(diagram)

draw.

1 0 .id2 �g4 11 . .txc4 tLlc6 12.�b5 l3xd2 13.�xd2 �xd2 + (diagram)

14. ltixd2!N In the game van Wely - Khalifman, Ter Apel 1993, following: 14.tLlxd2

16.'it>e3! That is the only move for White; otherwise he would not achieve much!

16 ...ifS Black complies with his fate. In

Game 46

148

is which White is better indeed, but the material is still equal. That game however, confirmed the old rule that "All rook and pawn endgames are a draw... " (Z.Tarrasch) ! ... Meanwhile, after the cold-blooded move 31.�e4! Black (as A.Khalifman said after the game too ...) would have hardly man­ aged to survive ... case he had followed with: 16 ...hb2 17.�bl, I would not h ave put my mon­ ey on him entering the final...

31... �xh6 32.�xh3 gxh3 33. gxh3 1f?g6 34.gxh4 1f?fS 35.);c4 gcS 36.�d4 );dS+ 37.lf?e3 );cS 3S. lf?d4 gd8+ 39.1f?c3 gcS

17.�c3 .td4 lS.�e2 heS 19. ghdl .td4 2 0 .h3 h5 21 ..td3

Or 39 . . . �dl 40.�f4+ �e6 41.�e4+ �d6 42.�d4+; 41.. . �f6 42.�e2 !

That is the beginning of an inte­ resting plan for me, which is not the only one available at all. Instead, it was more solid to continue with: 21.idS eS and for example - 22.b3, with an overwhelming advantage for White.

40 .b4 If?e5 41.geS+ If?d6 42.gfS f6 43.);a5

21. .te6 22 ..te4 .te5 23.�e3 g5 24.g3 .ixh3 25.�hl g4 26.�e2 .tgJ 27.�f4 �6 2S.hc6 bxc6 29.);eS h4 3 0 .);h5 If?g7 ••

43 gaS .•.

That is the best move for Black.

44.�d4 e5+ 45.�e4 �e6 46. ga6 fS+ 47.lf?e3 If?d6 48.a3 ghS! 49.�xa7 Or 49.bS ! ? �c8!

49 );hl 5 0 .);aS );bl 51.);dS+ If?e6 52.gd3 );el+ 53.lf?d2 );al 54. If?e2 ga2 + 55.lf?e3 );a1 56.gc3 �d6 31.);xh6? 57.f4 ga2 58.fxe5+ �xe5 59.1f?f3 That move was played as a result of gal 6 0 .);e3+ If?f6 61.�c3 �e5 62. the oncoming time-trouble and also gc5+ If?d6 63.);c3 of my desire to simplify the position. I had already dissipated the lion's It leads to a rook and pawn endgame share of my advantage, but still I in.•.

Dreev-Khalifman, Elista 1998 tended to play some more. .. Still, my opponent A.Khalifman was on the alert and he pointed out that after the move 63. . . r;!}eS, the position had been repeated for the third time... Draw. In the additional games, with a rap­ id time-control, Alexander made a draw with Black (and that again in a slightly worse rook and pawn end­ game, by a triple repetition) and then he beat me with White to reach the final. There he encountered Vassily Ivanchuk who won that match and won the tournament as well.. .

47

D2 0 Dreev - Rublevsky President's Cup, Elista 1998

This game was played in the President's Cup too. Meanwhile, in Elista preparations for the World Chess Olympiad were running atfull swing. City-Chess (consisting of cot­ tages for the teams and the players and playing - halls) was being built. The Casino had already been opened and everything was done so that the chess-players could enjoy losing their money, because on the casino tokens, besides the sum in US dollars, you could also see a chess-piece.

1.d4 dS 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 eS 4.�fJ exd4 S.hc4 �c6 Sergey prefers recently the varia­ tion with 5 ...ih4+ for Black. 6 . 0 - 0 .te6 7.he6 fxe6 8.'Ml3 ed7 9.11*'xb7 gb8 1 0 .11*'a6 .td6 11. tlbd2 �f6 12.11*'d3 0 - 0 13.a3 My coach AFilipenko and I were

149 preparing for a long time an improve­ ment for White in this line and we thought that we had found the right path ...

13 ... aS In the first game of our match Ser­ gey replied here with: 13 ... �g4 and af­ ter 14.b3 �ce5 15.�xe5, he continued with 15 ...he5; following 16.g3 11*'f7 17.f4 �e3 18.�c4! �xc4 19.11*'xc4 (or 19.bxc4! ? id6 2 0.11*'xd4 !:lbd8 21.e5 ha3 22.11*'xa7±) 19...id6 20.e5 ie7 21. h4± I obtained some advantage (Dreev - Rublevsky, Elista 1998). It is therefore understandable why he avoids the move 13 ... tt:l g4 in this game and he goes for 13 ... a5. After some time, Sergey found an excellent counter measure against White's prophylactic plan, whose main idea is to restrict maximally Black's ac­ tive possibilities connected with some knight-maneuvers and then to exploit the advantages of White's position - 15... tt:lxe5! (This is a very important novelty!) 16.11*'xd4 tt:lg4 17.e5 (or 17.g3 tt:lxh2 18.e5 tt:lxfl 19.tt:lxf1 !:lxb3 20. exd6 cxd6 21.if4�; 18 ...11*'b5! 19.r;!}xh2 he5-+; 19.exd6 11*'xf1+ 20.tt:lxfl tt:lf3+ 21. r;!}g2 tt:lxd4 22.dxc7 !:lxb3 23.if4; 22 ...!:lb7 23.if4; 17...11*'e7! 18.11*'d3 tt:lxf2

Game 48

ISO and Black has the advantage) 17. . . ttJxeS lB.,ib2 !:'lbS! 19.ttJc4 (19.,ic3 !:'ldS 2 0.'?tIxa7 '?t1c6 21.ttJe4 !:'ld3 22 ..ixeS l"laB 23.ttJxd6 l"lxa7 24.ttJcB '?ticS; 19.!:'ladl !:'ldS 20.'?tIxa7 ttJg4-+) 19 ...!:'ldS 20 .'?tIe4 (20.'?tIh4 ttJd3 21.,ic3 !:'lf4 22.'?tIh3 ,ic5; 20.'?tIc3 ttJd3 21.ttJxd6 cxd6) 20 ... ttJd3 21.ttJxd6 (21.'?tIe2? ,icS 22.ttJe3 ttJxf2 ! ; 23.ttJxds '?tIxdS; 23.!:'lxf2 .ixe3 24.'?tIxe3 !:'ldl-+) 21.. .'?tIxd6 (2l...cxd6! ? 22.,ic3

bilities for an effective counterplay. I managed to exploit the advantages of my position rather quickly.

18 ...e5 Or IB . . . !:'lbS I9.eS l"lfbB 20.'?tIe4 '?tIdS 21.'?tIg4 g6 22.!:'lfdl.

l"lcB) 22.,ic3 '?tIb6 23.'?tIh4 ttJf4! 24.'?tIg4 (24.!:'lael '?tIxb3 2S.'?tIg3 !:'lf7) 24 ... !:'lf7 2S.l"ladl? (2S.!:'lael '?tIbS ! (or 2S ...'?tIxb3 26J:'lbl '?tIxc3 27J:lbB+ !:'lfB 2B.!:'lxf8+ \!txfB 29. '?tIxf4+) 26.a4 '?ticS) 2S . . . hS!-+ 26.'?tIf3 ttJh3 + ! Galliamova Rublevsky, St Petersburg 199B.

14.b3 d3 and i.b3 etc. White had to win the game easily. 53.cj;>d2 gd6 54.h5! gd5 55.lk6 gd6 56.gel gd5 57.l"le4 .•.

Thefollowing game was played in a very strong open tournament in the Spanish town of Ubeda. That tourna­ ment was played immedia tely after the Open in Linares and the great ma­ jority of the players had participated before that in Linares too. Some of them continued to live in the same ho­ tel in Linares and they used to arrive to the round in Ubeda by bus. Among the strongest players who partici­ pated in Linares, V.Bologan and A.Sokolov did not take part in Ubeda. Meanwhile, VAkopian had appeared and he became number one in rating at the tournament and he finished with 7 1/2 points out of1 0 . I made 8 1/2 points and I shared 1st-2nd place with grandmaster Konstantin Landa, who was the leader throughout the tour­ nament. I managed to catch up with him only at the end and before the

Dreev-Grischuk, Ubeda 1999 last round my tie-break coefficient (Bucholz) was better than his. There was a mishap though, almost all of my opponents lost in the last round. Meanwhile, K. Landa was almost losing his last round game against G.Giorgadze - he had less time on the clock, a difficult position and he was against a strong opponent a t that. Konstantin survived however and he won that Swiss Open event, thanks to his superior Bucholz. This was my first encounter with Alexander Grischuk, who was only 15 years old then and his talent was just striking (I had already written about that in the media). His play at that time was very impressive indeed.

l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.ltlf3 c6 4:�c2 id6 This is a seldom played move and as we are going to see soon it has quite serious drawbacks. My next move will emphasize them:

163

6.,ih4 Naturally, not 6.,id2, because of 6 ... f5. 6 ... ltle7 7.,ig3! After: 7.e3 liJf5 8.il.g3 liJxg3 9.hxg3 fS, it is possible that White is still slightly better, but I wanted to obtain much more out ofthat position. Black's king shelter has been weakened, while the bishops will be soon exchanged. 7 c5 !? In case of some calmer develop­ ments, Black's compromised pawn­ structure enables White to rely on ob­ taining a considerable opening advan­ tage, for example: 7 . 0-0 8.e3. 8.dxc5 This is the best for White. I would not have achieved anything with 8.cxd5, because of 8 ... cxd4. White has no advantage either after: 8.e3 cxd4 9.exd4 liJbc6. 8 il.xc5 9.cxd5 �a5 Or 9 .. ib4 1O.liJbd2 (lO.liJc3!?) 10 ... ed 1l.e3 and White is better. .•.

..

•.•

5.ig5! In case of 5.g3, Black can enter a 1 0 . liJbd2 position from the Stonewall Dutch It is amazing, but that same po­ system with 5 .. .f5. sition happened in my game with 5 ...f6 Artashes Minasian, several days ear­ It is less precise for Black to play: lier in another open tournament in 5... ltle7 6.e3 f6, due to 7.if4+. the neighbouring Spanish town of

Game 53

164 Linares. My opponent offered me a draw then. We had spent about an hour and fifteen minutes on the clock on seemingly simple moves. I took an­ other 15 minutes, but I failed to find any clear way of obtaining any advan­ tage, so I agreed to a draw, moreover that draw enabled me to preserve my leading spot in the tournament. After the game we spent a long time analyz­ ing the foUowing position: 1O.lLlbd2

ment - 16.lLlh4.

14.Ae2 If White manages to castle, Black position will become critical.

14.. J:kS Here, Black seemingly considered that he had prevented White from cas­ tling.

ed lUkl lLla6 12.e4! and Black has problems. Still, after the natural reac­ tion 1l ... Ab6 12.e4 (It is not advisable for White to try: 12.WEc8 lLlc8 13J%c8 Ad8.) 12 . . . lLlbc6, Black is perfectly OK. Of course, it never entered my mind that I was going to have that same po­ sition on the board again so soon and

I had not made up any decision about how White was supposed exactly to fight for the opening advantage. Still, the ideas, which we had found in our analysis with Minasian, helped me solve that problem over the board. I understood that the move 1l.l"lc1 was unnecessary, moreover it was even harmful. Instead, it is much better for White to follow with 1l.e4, as it hap­ pened in the game, emphasizing the drawbacks of Black's position. I suspected that my young op­ ponent, who had also played i n that tournament, must have studied thor­ oughly the final position of our game with Minasian.

10

•••

exd5 11.e4 lLlbc6

Nevertheless I played:

15. 0 - 0 ! ixf2?! Now, Alexander had to comply un­ willingly with entering the endgame after: Is... lLlbds 16.lLlb3 WEb6 17.lLlxc5 l"lxcs, but even then following 18.WEb3! with the idea 18 . . .WExb3 19.axb3 a6 20.Ac4, he would have to solve plenty of problems.

16.lIxf2 l"lxc4 17.lLlxc4 WEdS In case of 17 ... WExds, White plays 18.l"1dl and Black's queen has no good squares to retreat to.

lS.lLld6 'itlfS 19.1Lle5 l"lgS After 19 ... Ae8, it is possible for White to continue with: 20.lLlxe8 WExe8 21.d6 lLlec6 22 .d7 WEe7 23.l"1dl.

2 o .lLlxb7Y9cS 21.lLlc5 Af5 22.gc1 lLlbd5

In case of: 11...dxe4 12.WExe4 lLlbc6 13.Ac4, Black has nowhere to castle. 12.exd5 lLlb4 13.WEc4 Ad7! After: 13 ...ifs 14.lLlb3 lLld3 Is.'itle2

time to make up my mind. At first, of

WEb 6, White has the powerful argu-

course I was considering to give back

(diagram) Here, I had a choice and I took a long

Dreev-Grischuk, Ubeda 1999

the extra material with: 23.lLlcd7 ixd7 24J�xc8 hc8 - and I would have had a clear advantage. I studied too the line: 23.ia6 �e8 24.ic4 �hS, but I failed to find any­ thing decisive. Finally, it just struck me: 23.i.b5! This is the best move. 23 �a8 It is evident - that is Black's only move. This is an excellent illustration of the theme of "domination". 24J�xf5! That is the right decision! This is a rare sight to witness - four white pieces and even one black in the middle are arranged picturesquely along the fifth rank! 24 lt)xf5 25.i.c6 •••

165 This move loses immediately, but even after: 25 ...�c8 26.lt)ed7! (but not 26.ixdS fxeS 27.lLle6 1t>e7 28Jk8 �xc8 29.heS? lLle3) 26 ... lt>e7 27.hdS lLlxg3 28 .!!e1 It>d6 (or 28 ... lt>d8 29.ixg8) 29.ib7 �e8 (29 ...�d8 30J�e6 1t>c7 31. !!c6# - this is a very beautiful check­ mate, indeed!) 30.�xe8 !i:xe8 31.hxg3 !i:e2 32.b3 !i:xa2 33.g4! White should gradually win. 26.ha8 It)e2 27.1t>f2 It)xcl 28. hd5 fxe5 29.lt)d7 It>e7 3 0 .hg8 It>d7 31.lt>e3 1- 0

B18

54 Tiviakov Dreev Ubeda (open) 1999 -

l.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.lt)d2 dxe4 4.lt)xe4 if5 5.lt)g3 i.g6 6.i.c4 e6 7.lt)le2 It)f6 8.lt)f4 i.d6

•••

25 lt)xg3 •.•

I had played that position before and I had encountered: 9.c3 lLlbd7 10. �f3 lLlb6 1U.b3 It)bd5 12.lt)xg6 hxg6 13.igs ie7 14. 0-0-0 b5 with a rather unclear game, (Rublevsky - Dreev, Elista 1998), as well as: 14.0-0 It)d7 1S.he7 �xe7 16. !!fe1 It)Sf6 17.a4?! �d6, with a better position for Black, Pedzich - Dreev, Linares 1999.

Game 54

166

Naturally, Sergey Tiviakov knew 13.0-0-0, because of: 13 ... cxd4 14. about these games, so he tried to con­ lhd4 i.e5. 13.dxc5 �xc5 14 ..1xf6 tinue in another fashion: That is an admission that his pre­ 9.h4 �c7 1 0 .�xg6 hxg6 11.�f3 vious actions were wrong and it is in �bd7 12.�g5? fact another mistake. White's position becomes even worse after that. He is possibly beyond salvation already. He cannot play: 14.�xb7 �b8 15.�a6 �b6 16. �a4 E:b4. It is also too bad for White to follow with: 14.�e2 hg3 15.fxg3 �xg5 16.hxg5 E:xhl. He could have tried: 14.i.e2 �xc2 15.0-0 �xb2, or 14.i.b3 �e5 15.�e2 �xg5 16.hxg5 E:xh1 17.d2 �xa1 (18.c3 0-0-0) 18.�xb7 18 ... E:d8, but White's compensation is This position has also been tested insufficient after that too. into practice numerous times and His only correct defence could be: Black has always allowed White to 14.�b3!?, preserving some defen­ castle long. For example, back in the sible position. For example: 14 ...�c8 year 1953, at the tournament in Bu­ 15.i.d3 ! �e5 16.i.e2. charest, in his game against Isaak 14 �xf6 15.i.b3 0 - 0 - 0 Boleslavsky, the player with Black I was also considering here: 15 ... B.Sliwa chose: 12 . . .�a5+ 13.c3 0-0-0 �e5 16.�e2 �xb2 (if 17Jl:d1, then 14.0-0-0. Black has also tried here: 17.0-0-0 and Black is better) 17.�xb7 12 ... 0-0-0 13.0-0-0. �a1 18.d2 i.b4! and Black wins. The I found over the board a simple move in the game however is at least counterstrike after which White's po­ that strong too. sition became immediately critical: 16.c3?! 12 c5! Here, Sergey should have thought This concrete approach was quite about playing: 16.0-0-0 E:xh4! 17. surprising for my opponent and he E:xh4 �g5 Cif 18.�e3, then 18:�xh4 took a whole 40 minutes on the clock. 19.�xa7? i.f4) 18.bl �xh4 and I Possibly, he considered opening of the would have to work hard to material­ game as contrary to the spirit of the ize my advantage. position - he had the bishop pair after (diagram) all. Still, the tactical complications are 16 hg3! 17.�xg3 in favour of Black and he should al­ In case White had captured with ready think about how to save the the pawn 17.fxg3, I would have fol­ game; moreover it looks like it might lowed with: 17.. :�e5 18.f1 �e4. 17... E:h5 be even too late for that. For example, it would not work for him to play Black's position is totally winning. •..

•.•

•..

Tiviakov-Dreev, Ubeda 1999

167

The material is equal, but White has no useful moves whatsoever. The rest of the game does not require any com­ ments at all: 18. 0 - 0 �Mh8 19.Wif3 gxh4 2 0 . g3 gh2 21.i.c2 g5 22.i.e4 g4 23.Wif4 eh5. White resigned.

55

B13

Semeniuk - Dreev Russian Club Cup, 8t Petersburg 1999 We played this game in the Rus­ sian Club Cup, where the team of "Khimik" (from the city of Bjelorech­ ensk), for which I was playing, became the Champion ofR ussia and I managed to achieve the best result on board one. The battle between the leaders of the teams was very tough indeed. The level of opposition corre­ sponded to category 13 and there were players like A. Khalifman (you will see my victory against him later), V. Zvjaginsev and S.Rublevsky.

l.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4. i.d3 .!Qc6 5.c3 (diagram) 5 ... Wic7!? This move prevents the develop­ ment of White's bishop to f4 and I

believe that is Black's most active and logical alternative against the exchange variation of the Caro-Kann Defence chosen by White. In fact, Black plays much more of­ ten in the tournament practice the variation: 5 ... lLlf6 6.M4 ig4 7.eb3 Wid7 8.lLld2 e6 9.lLlgf3 .bf3!? 1O.lLlxf3 i.d6, in which he does not have any se­ rious problems, but I think that in­ stead of the standard move 7.Wib3, White should start his fight for the opening advantage with the rarely played move 7.lLlf3 !? Now, in case of 7... e6 8.eb3! Wic8 (or 8 . . .ixf3?! 9.Wixb7 ixg2 1O.Wixc6+ lLld7 lU'igl±; 8 ...Wid7? ! 9.lLle5±) 9.lLlbd2 i.e7 1O.0-0, or7... a6 8.lLlbd2 e6 9.0-0 i.d6 1O.,bd6 Wixd6 11.Wic2, his position is somewhat better. 6.lLle2 The idea of that move is easily un­ derstandable - he wishes to develop his bishop with tempo to the f4-square. It has a certain drawback though; the knight is much more passive on e2 than on the f3-square. It seems at first sight that the move 6.ig5 is more active and logical, but in that case after: 6 ....!Qf6!? 7. .!Qd2 i.g4 8.lLlgf3 e6 9 .i.h4 i.d6 1O.i.g3 i.hS, Black has no problems at all, IIlescas

168

Game 55

Cordoba - Anand, Linares 1994. Black should not be afraid either of the line: 8.�bl (instead of 8.l2Jgf3), because he can counter that with 8 ... eS, reaching a complicated and approximately equal position, as well as with 8 ... e6; here, after 9.l2Je2 i.d6 !? Black's chances are at least equal, while following 10.l2Jg3, it is good for him to continue with 10 ... l2JhS !? and after: 1O.ixf6 gxf6 11.l2Jg3, he can play: 11 . . . 0-0-0!? with a slight­ ly better game. 6 i.g4 7.£3 i.d7!? It is also possible for Black to try 7...i.hS with a complicated position, but the move in the game is stronger. Its idea is to counter White's thematic move 8.i.f4 with the active 8 ... eS!?, just like it happened in the game. S.i.f4 eS!? This was a powerful move, since I was not reluctant to opt for a position with an isolated d5-pawn. 9.dxeS l2JxeS l 0 . 0- 0 i.d6 ••.

My opponent has not achieved anything much out of the opening. The position resembles a lot one of the variations of the French Defence - the Tarrasch system (l.e4 e6 2 .d4 dS 3.l2Jd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5), but White's situation is clearly worse, since his

f3-pawn does not beautify his posi­ tion at all, mildly speaking ... Black is already slightly better, but not more than that. 1l.lt>hl ltle7 12.ltla3 a6 13.ltlc2 0 - 0 14.ltled4 �acS lS.ltle3? That is a serious mistake after which White loses a pawn by force and his position becomes very difficult. After lS.�d2 Black's situation would have remained slightly better thanks to his superior piece-coordination. lS ... ltlxd3 16.hd6 ltlxb2 17.�3 In case of: 17.ixc7? ! ltlxdl 18.�axdl �xc7 19.�d3 �fc8, Black's victory is just a matter of time. 17... �xd6 1S.y,yxb2 White is already a pawn down, meanwhile his c3-pawn is very weak and he can hardly save the game. The encounter enters the technical stage of the realization of Black's advan­ tage. lS ...bS 19.�fel �feS 2 0 .�adl h6 21.�e2 �c5 2 2.�d3 ltlg6 23.ltlb3 y,ye7 24.g3? After that mistake, White's posi­ tion becomes completely hopeless. He had better defend with 24.!!d4, but that would have hardly changed the outcome of the game...

Semeniuk-Dreev, St Petersburg 1999

169

24 ... tt)e5 It was even stronger for Black to play: 24 ... ig4! 25.2:f2 (or 25.tt)d4 hf3+ 26. tt)xf3 �e4-+; 2S.�g2 .bf3+ 26. �xf3 �e4-+) 25 ... tt)e5 26.tt)xd5 (or 26.2:d4 i.xf3+ 27. �g1 �g5-+) 26 ... �e6 and White would have no satis­ factory defence in sight.

25.tt)xd5 �d6 26.2:d4 ic6 Black was also winning with the following forced variation: 26 ... tt)xf3 27.tt)e7+ �xe7 28 .Elxe7 Elxe7 29.2:d1 2:ce8 and White would be defenseless against the threats ic6 and 2:e2. 27.tt)f4 .txm+ 28.�gl �b6 29. l3f2 ib7 3 0 .tt)d2 �c6 I had here two extra pawns and a crushing attack, There still followed:

31.tt)d5 tt)g4 32.l3f3 l3el+ 33.tt)f1 gce8 34.�d2 �c5 35.l3f5 gle5 36. l3xe5 tt)xe5 37.�g2 tt)c6 and White resigned.

D92

56 Dreev

Khalifman Russian Club Cup, 8t Petersburg 1999 -

l.d4 tt)f6 2.c4 g6 3.tt)c3 d5 4.tt)f3 ig7 5.,U4 0 - 0 6.2:cl dxc4 7.e3 Until this game, whenever I had played against Alexander, I had tried only the move 7. e4 in this position.

7...ie6 8.tt)g5 id5 9.e4 h6 1 0 . exd5 h:xg5 1 1..ixg5 tt)xd5 12.ixc4 tt)b6 13.ib3 tt)c6 White has two possibilities here in this variation: 14.d5 and what hap­ pened in the game:

14.tt)e2

14 ...�d6 The Encyclopedia of Chess Open­ ings recommends the move 14... tt)aS. For example, that was played against me by Michal Krasenkow in our game in (8henyang 1999). One other game, played on that theme, witnessed the move 14 ... aS (G.Giorgadze - Avrukh, Bugojno 1999). Alexander tried here a novelty.

15. 0 - 0 e6 It deserved attention for him to play 1S .. .1''l ad8! ? 16.�c2, which hap­ pened in the game Bareev - Huzman, Bugojno 1999. After the move in the text, I took a long time on the clock, because I had a choice between 16.�c2 and 16.h4. I would have been definitely bet­ ter after: 16.�c2 l3ac8 17.l3fdl, with the idea to counter 17 ... tt)xd4 with 18.tt)xd4 ,bd4 19.he6 ! . Now, the line: 19 ...fxe6 2 0.�xg6+ �h8 21.�hS+ �g8 2 2.�g4 loses for Black. But even in case of: 19 . . . 'iffxe6 20.gxd4, should Black defend in the best possible way 20 ... 2:fe8! I still have superior chanc­ es after 21.h4, while capturing on a2 is extremely dangerous for Black, for example: 2l...'iffxa2 22.hS and if 22 . . . �e6, then 23.hxg6. Following 23 ... fxg6, then I can continue with 24.1"1h4

170 and my attack would be very power­ ful, while in case of 23 ...Yffxg6, then - 24.%Yd2, with the idea - l3g4. Still, I had decided to play the move 16.M...

16.h4 ltlxd4 17.ltlxd4

That is the critical position of the game. The aggressive move 17. . .hd4, probably looked to Alexander as un­ necessarily risky. During the game I also considered that White's initia­ tive would be running smoothly and unopposed. That is not quite correct, though . . . After 17. . . hd4, White has several possibilities: IB.hS hb2 19.%Yg4 (It would be rather dubious for White to follow with: 19.hxg6?! %Yxdl! 20.l3cxdl cS.). Here, it is a mistake for Black to play: 19 ... %Yd4 20.%Yh3 ixcl? 21.hxg6 %Yg7 22.�f6 %Yh6 23.gxf7+ l3xf7 24.Yffxe6 l3afB 2S.%Yg4+ @h7 26.�c2+. In­ stead, he should follow with: 19... .b:el 20. .b:c1. Now, it deserves atten­ tion for him to continue with: 20 ... %YeS! ? 21.hxg6 ltldS. If 20 ... %Yd3, then 21..b:e6 and after: 21...fxe6 22.%Yxe6+ @h7 23.%Ye7+ White forces a draw. Still, Black can try instead 21...l3aeB and White's attack ebbs away...

Game 56 The second possibility for White is - IB.l3xc7!? As Khalifman told me after the game, he was afraid of that move most of all. Here, after: IB ... %Yxc7 19.%Yxd4, it seems reasonable for Black to play: 19 .. ,l'!ad8 20 ..b:d8 l3xdB 21.%Ye3! with the idea to follow with: 21.. .%Ye7 22.g3 %Yf6 23.l3el Yffxb2 24.hS. On the other hand, Black has at his disposal the line: IB ...hf2+ 19.fuf2 %Yxc7 20.hS %YeS! 2 1.%Yg4 ltld7! and if 22.hxg6, then 22 ... ltleS 23.%YhS? Yffxf2+! and Black wins. Naturally, all these lines do not ex­ haust the numerous possibilities for both sides after the move 17....b:d4. For example, White can try lB. %Yg4!? - and he most probably re­ mains with a good compensation for the pawn. Is White better is something that remains unclear? Nevertheless, the move 17....b:d4 is clearly better for Black than what Alexander Khalifman played in the game .. .

17...%Yxd4? He had evidently evaluated wrongly the consequences of the transfer into an endgame, thinking that it might have been approximately equaL

18.l3xc7 %Yxdl 19.lhdl l3ab8 2 0 . if4! if6 If 20. . .l3fcB, then 21.l3e7; while in case of 20 ...hb2, White plays 21.l3c2 eS 22.�h6 . (diagram) 21.l3d3! Just before I played my move in the game, I decided at the last mo­ ment to have a look at the line: 21. a4. It turned out, however that after: 21... l3fcB 22.aS ltldS 23..b:dS i!xc7 24 ..txc7

171

Dreev-Khalifman, St Petersburg 1999 �k8 2S.Ag3 exdS 26J!xdS l"ic1+ 27.li>h2 gb1 Black equalizes easily.

After the move 29.f4 (fixing Black's g-pawn) Black's position would have remained quite difficult, but I would This is by far not an obvious move not be quite convinced to assert that it and it came as a surprise to many would have been completely lost. Nat­ people, including my opponent. I had urally, I had a look at that line too, but planned it already when I had played it seemed to me slightly unprepared. 20.Af4. 29 l"ic6! Khalifman was in a severe time­ 21 l"ifc8 Blackloses after: 2l. ...bh4? 22.AeS! pressure here, but he found the best gfc8 23.gh3 gS 24.g3, as well as after: practical chance. I would not like to 21...l"ifd8 22.l"ixd8+ .bd8 23.l"ixt7 li>xf7 say that I had foreseen all the conse­ 24. .bb8 1i.xh4 2S . .ba7. quences of that brilliant maneuver by 22.hS l"ixc7 Black, but I had felt intuitively that I In case of: 22 ... gS 23Jlxc8+ gxc8 did not let the advantage slip out of 24. .bgS .bgS 2S.E:g3, White has a my hands altogether. clear advantage. 3 0 .AdS gf6 31.f3 Ac1 32.g3 gS 23.hc7 gc8 24.hb6 axb6 2S. bxg6 gcl+ 26.li>h2 hb2 27.gd7 It was possible to leave the e6-pawn to Black for a while after: 27.gxt7+ 1i>xt7 28.E:d7+, but I did not like the idea to let Black's king away from the eighth rank. 27 fxg6 28.he6+ Ii>h8 (diagram) •••

•••

•••

I decided here not to force the issue. Generally speaking, it was not easy at all to choose the right move. For ex­ ample, I did not like 29. li>g3, because of 29 ... l"ic7 and Black repels my rook.

That move had become possible only because of the placement of Black's rook along the sixth rank; oth­ erwise White's king goes to the g6-

172

Game 57

square and the checkmate becomes unavoidable. Now, it might seem to you that White cannot improve his position in a decisive fashion, but that is an illu­ sion! 33.@g4 �e3 34J;xb7 gd6?! In case Black continues to keep his bishop along the e3-c1 diagonal with the move 34 . . .�c1, then for example after: 3S.gd7 �e3 36.a4 �c1, I have the possibility to play: 37.f4! gxf4 38.@gS. If 38 . . ,lU8, then 39.@g6, therefore Black's only move is - 38 ... �b2. Ac­ cordingly, White plays - 39.gxf4, fol­ lowed by fS, �e6, gd6 and he must win the game. After the move in the game, I had no problems to press my advantage home. 35.ge7 �d4 If 3S . . .ic1, then 36.ie6! . 36.�b3 �f6 37,gf7 �e5 Or 37 .. ,lk6 and 38.ltifS. 38.gb7 gd4+? Following38 ... gf6, White continues with: 39.ge7 �d6 40.gd7 �eS 41.gdS. Therefore, Black's more resilient de­ fence would have been - 38 . . .gc6. 39.@xg5 hg3 4 0 .gxb6 Alexander Khalifman lost on time in this winning position for White. 1- 0

57

ell

Wang Zili - Dreev Tan Chin Nam Cup, Shenyang 1999

The Chess Federation of China, thanks to the sponsor Mr. Tan Ch in

Nam, who was residing in Malaysia, but who was of a Chinese origin, was organizing early regular round-rob­ in tournaments with high-level par­ ticipants in different cities of China. The main purpose of organizing these tournaments was formulated by Dato Tan Ch in Nam so as to en­ able the strongest Chinese players to encounter the best chess players of the West and to let them accumulate experience and to improve their rat­ ings. From what we see now - how impressive the results of the Chinese players are, both men and women, it looks like that purpose has been achieved! This was my first participation in the tournaments for the "Tan Chin Nam - Cup " and I shared 1st_2nd place with Ye Jiangchuan, but his tie-break coefficient proved to be better than mine. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lOc3 lOf6 4,�g5 dxe4 5.lOxe4 �e7 6 .hf'6 gxf6 I had tried that capturing with the pawn before, as early as in my candi­ dates match in 1991 against V.Anand. The "regular" move 6 ... �f6 had been tested in my tournament practice nu­ merous times. 7.lOf3 •

Wang Zili-Dreeu, Shenyang 1999

173

13.�d2! 7. . . a6 This variation became popular This is the correct maneuyer for thanks to the efforts of Alexander Mo­ White after which Black's position. rozevich. It is amazing, but when I first which is presently quite suspicious saw that move, it seemed to me quite anyway, becomes even more critical. interesting, but still dubious. The rea­ White is preparing f2-f3, followed by son that I decided to play it, despite i.d3. Black's main problem is that he the fact that I had considered it quite cannot complete his development, due questionable, was that I was relying to his weakness on f5. His only plus is on the effect of surprise. Meanwhile, that his dark squared bishop has been I had evidently become the victim of deployed to the important diagonal the effect of advertising, which often al-hB. It is not so easy to exploit that makes us buy things that we do not advantage though, but as we are go­ really need, indeed ... Black's usual de­ ing to see later, that was what helped fence here is - 7 . . . b6. me come out of my difficult situation later. 8.c4 That move (preventing the advance 13 . . .i.g7 The move 13 . . .b5 would have been b7-bS) made me happy, because I con­ sidered the move B.g3 as the most dan­ rather premature in that situation. 14.£3 �f6 IS.i.d3 gerous, as it was played in (Frankfurt White is now threatening g2-g4. (active) 1999) against A.Morozevich IS ...bS! at first by Peter Leko and then by Black cannot wait anymore, so he Christofer Lutz and White had been has no other chance. victorious in both games. 16.h3 S . . .f5 9.�c3 cS?! This move is a bit slow; neverthe­ It was much better for Black to play here 9 . . .�f6, with the idea to follow less it is correct from the point of view with c7-cS. I could have obtained a of strategy. White is not trying to force quite acceptable game in that case, for the issue with the move 16.g4, or with example: 1O .�d2 cS ll.dS e5. 16.cxb5 and I was planning to counter 1 0 .dS i.f6 11.�c2 eS I2 . 0 - 0 - 0 these with 16 . . . c4! (Pawns are not so 0-0 important in similar positions, it is es­ sential to open the c-file.) 17.il.xc4 (or 17.lZlxc4 axb5 IB.lZlxb5 Ei:xa2) and here either 17 . . . lZld7, or 17 . . . axb5 IB.il.xb5 i.a6 and Black has an excellent coun­ terplay for the sacrificed pawns. It is evident now (after 16.h3) that Black cannot wait anymore. If it had been White to move in that situation, he would have played g 2-g4 and his position would have become practi-

Game 57

174 cally winning. I managed to find the only plan to distract White from the pawn-advance g2-g4. 16 b4 •••

the resource - 2 0. . . e4 21.fxe4 fxe4 22.he4 �xe4! 23.�xe4 �d7 24.�hf1 (or 24.d6 �eB 25.�xeB heB 26.d7 hd7 27.�xd7 �c6) 24 ... �d6. 2 0 .�hfl i.f8 This is again Black's practically only move. He has protected his c5pawn and he is threatening i.d7.

17.ti:Ja4 That is the most attractive variation for White. The position would have been quite unclear in case of: 17. .!De2 ! ? a5 IB . .!Dg3 (Or IB.g4 e4! 19.fxe4 a4, 21.d6! The careless move 21.g4, would with the idea to follow with b4-b3. Black has sacrificed some material have lost material for White after: 21... indeed, but his counterattack seems i.d7 22.ttJxa5 b3! 21.. .i.d6 22 .g4 quite dangerous.) IB ... a4. Or 2 2.ttJb6 a4 23.ttJxaB axb3 17 . . . a5 1 1S.mhl After 18.g4, I had considered: lB ... 24.�xb3 (24.axb3 ! ?) 24 . . . i.fB with an e4 19.fxe4 i.d7 20 . .!Dc5 �cB (20 ... a4!?) unclear position. 21..!Dd7 ttJd7 with an unclear position. 22 . . . e4 The move IB . .!Dc5 can be countered This is the only move. with IB . . . a4. 23.fxe4 f4 24.e5 he5 25.i.xh7 IS ... .!Da6 1 9 .!Db3 mhS I did not like here 25 ...l!ig7, because In case of 19.94, Black can organize a powerful counterattack with: 19 . . . of the possibility - 26.g5. i.d7 (but not 1 9 ... e 4 20.fxe4 �d7 2 1.e5! 26.i.f5 �xe5 2 2 . .!Db6) 2o . bfS ha4 2 1.�xa4 White has decided to enter an end­ e4 22 .�c2 b3 23.axb3 a4!? (or 23 ... game, because he was obviously not ttJb4 24.ttJxe4 �b6 2S.�f2) 24 . .!Dxe4 happy with the lines: 26.ttJbxcS ttJxc5 �b6 25.bxa4 �fbB 26.�d2 hb2 . 27.ttJxc5 a4 and Black has a good com­ 19 . . . �eS pensation; or 26.ie4 �a7 27.ttJbxc5 That is the only move for Black. (27.ttJxa5? ttJbB) 2 7 . . . ttJcS 2B.ttJc5 and White cannot play here comfortably the game is quite unclear. 20 .g4 once again, because Black has 26 ...hf5 27.�xf5 �xf5 2S.gxf5 •

.

Wang Zili-Dreev, Shenyang 1999

175

White has an extra pawn indeed, but he cannot play for a win anymore. He should not have problems to make a draw either ... Still, my opponent, who was playing quite well in the pre­ vious part of the game, started to play rather unconvincingly. I began to ac­ cumulate gradually small advantages and I managed to win that game at the end. 43.IM3 It is quite evident that Black cannot It was better for White to play 43.a3 protect all his pawns simultaneously. Therefore he exchanges the rooks. As immediately. a result of all that the importance of 43 ... gd6 44.'it>e2 his passed pawn increases consider­ This is forced, because in case of ably. 44.\i1c4, Black will follow with: 44 ... 2S gadS! 29. �axc5 �xc5 3 0 . gd2 45.'it>b3 a4. 44 ... 'it>e5 45.a3 gc6 46.'it>d2 �xc5 gxdl 31.gxdl f3 That is a serious imprecision. White Or 31...\i1g7 32.�d7. 32.gfl iJ.d4 33.�d3 ge3 34.\i1c2 would have maintained the balance \i1g7 35.c5 \i1f6 36.c6 iJ.b6 37.\i1d2 with the move 46.\i1d3. ge2 3S.\i1dl ge3 39.�el ge2 46 ... 'it>e4 47.gb3 bxa3 4S.�xa3 I was in a time-trouble here, so I 'it>xfS 49.gf3 'it>e6 5 0 .b3 iJ.dS 51. did not mind the repetition of moves. ge3 It would have been weaker for me to Or 51.�c4? a4 52.\i1c3 a3. play: 39 . . .£2 40J'lxf2 Elxh3 41.Elc2 iJ.c7 51...'it>fS 52 .gf3 'it>g6 53.�c4 iJ.c7 42.Eld2! and here the move 4 2 . . . Elhl? 54.'it>d3 gc5 55.'it>d4 gb5 56.ge3 fS would not work (the correct move is 57.h4 - 42 ... Elh8) 43.Eld7 iJ.g3 44.c7 Elxel White does not wish to defend pas45.\i1d2 Ele8 46.Eld8+sively . . . 4 0 .�c2 ge7 41.gxf3 gc7 42.\i1d2 57... 'it>h5 5S.ge7 iJ.dS 59.gf7 �c6 'it>xh4 6 0 .�d6 iJ.b6 61.'it>c3 gc5 •••

176

Game 58

62.�b2?

That is the decisive mistake. White could have still made a draw possibly with the move 6Vi Jc4, with the idea to follow with b3-b4. 62 ... �g4 63.liJc4 gb5 64.�c2 �f2!

Now, Black's position is technically winning. 65.gg7 �f3 66.gf7 gd5 67.ge7 f4 68.ge8 �e3 69.ga8 �e2 7 0 . ge8 gd3 71.gg8 gd4 72.liJxa5

here the move 6.tiJbd2 ! ?, which leads to complex situations. It is no doubt Or 72.Ele8 Elc4 73.bc f3 74.lt>b3 f2 the critical one in White's fight for the 75.Elf8 f1� 76.Elf1 1t>f1 77.lt>a4 �b6 opening advantage. 78.c5 �d8-+ Still, the move 6.�d2 has its pluses not so much in theoretical aspect, but 72 ... f3 73.tiJc6 ge4 0 -1 for mainly practical reasons. The po­ sitions, arising after 6.�d2 are much 58 D2 0 simpler than those after 6.tiJbd2 and White can fight for a slight opening Dreev - Rublevsky edge, avoiding complicated develop­ FIDE World Chess Ch (k. 0.) ments. Black does not have in that Las Vegas 1999 case any practical chance of seizing This game was played in the FIDE the initiative and he is forced to play knock-out World Championship. I basically for a draw. 6 ... hd2+ 7.tiJbxd2 \wf6 was in the "waiting list" at that mo­ That is a seldom played line, but ment and Ijlew to Las Vegas without even knowing whether I would play stiII it is quite possible. Black plays or not. Literally at the last possible much more often in the tournament moment, it turned out that plenty of practice the move - 7. . . tiJc6. 8 . 0 - 0 liJe7 9.e5 \Wg6 1 0 .tiJxd4 the participants in the main scheme dropped from the competition and I tiJbc6 1l.liJ2f3 0 - 0 12.e6! joined in the action . . .! reached the 1/8 final though, but then I lost my match against Michael Adams. l.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.tiJf3 exd4 5.hc4 �b4+

(diagram) This is well-known theoretical po­ sition. 6.�d2

It is more popular for White to play

177

Dreev-Rublevsky. Las Vegas 1999 That is a very fashionable position in this variation of the Queen's Gam­ bit Accepted.

12 he6 .••

That is a novelty. Black's usual defence here is 12 ... fxe6. It is inter­ esting to mention that in his subse­ quent games, Sergey stopped play­ ing 12 ... �e6 and he preferred 12 ... fxe6. For example in the game Volkov - Rublevsky, Ekaterinburg 2002, af­ ter: 13J''le1 tiJxd4 14.tiJeS tiJf3+ lS.tiJxf3 tiJdS 16.ixdS exdS 17.�xdS+ �f7 18. �d4 ifS 19J1ac1 c6 20.a3 �f6, Black equalized.

13.tLlxe6 fxe6 14.l'�el @h8 I case of 14 ... E:ad8, I would have maintained better chances - in the mid­ dle game after lS.�e2, as well as in the endgame after: lS.E:xe6 E:xd1+ 16. E:xd1 �c2 17.ib3 �xd1+ 18.ixd1, since White's light-squared bishop has much better prospects in these positions than its opponent - the black knight.

lS.E:xe6 �g4 16.'!We2 tLlg6 Black cannot solve all his open­ ing problems with the move - 16 . . . E:xf3. After the practically forced line: 17.E:e4 tiJd4 18J:ixg4 tiJxe2+ 19.ixe2, there arises an endgame with better chances for White, because his bish­ op is stronger in that position than Black's knight. 17.h3 �f5 18.id3 tLlf4 19.hf5

tLlxe2+ 2 0 .E:xe2 E:xf5 21.E:dl (diagram) White has a leeway for his king now and his pieces are more active. All that guarantees him a slight, but stable positional advantage.

21. .. @g8 22.E:d7 E:f7 23.E:xf7 @xf7 24.tLlgS + @g8

That move seems to be somewhat passive, but even the more active lines for Black - 24 ... @g6 and 24 ... f6, do not solve all his problems. For exam­ ple: 24 ... @g6 2S.tiJe6 E:c8 (In case of: 2S . . . E:e8 26.tiJf4+ @f7 27.E:xe8 @xe8 28.lLle6, Black is faced with a long and difficult fight for a draw.) 26.E:e3! and White has a powerful initiative; or 24 . . .@f6 2S.lLle4+ @f7 26.lLlcS and he is again the active side.

2S.E:e3! That is an excellent move, which improves considerably my tactical chances. White is threatening lLle6 and later, depending on circumstanc­ es: E:g3 or !"lb3. Black must defend ex­ tremely precisely.

2S !"ld8 26.tLle6 E:dl+ .•.

This is a mistake. Black had better play here 26 . . . E:d7!?

27.@h2

17B

Game 59

27 gd7 He is still defending stubbornly. It was much worse for him to play the seemingly active line: 27 .. j�d2, be­ cause of: 2B.E:b3 lUaS 29.E:f3 h6 30.E:fB + It>h7 31.b4 lUc6 32.bS lUaS 33.a4; or 28. .. E:e2 29.c!Llxc7b6 30.E:c3!? lUd4 31.E:d3 lUfS 32.E:dB+ It>fl 33.E:d7+ It>f6 34.g4 lUe7 3S.lt>g3 and White would remain with a clear advantage in both cases. 2SJ'lf3 gf7 29.lt>g3! That powerful move creates great problems for Black now. I would not have achieved much with the line: 29.E:xfl \!;>xfl 30.c!Llxc7 lUb4 31.tDbS tDxa2 32.c!Llxa7 It>e6 and despite the fact that Black would be a pawn down, he would preserve good chances for a draw, because of the active position of his king. •••

3 0 J'lxf7 It>xf7 31.c!Llxc7 c!Lld3 32. c!Llb5! c!Llxb2 33. c!Llxa7 �e6 34.c!Llb5 �d5? That move only speeds up Black's demise. It was more tenacious for him to defend with 34 ... lUd3. Now, the game ends up rather quickly. 35.c!Llc7+ �c4 It is hardly any better for Black to play: 3S ... lt>eS 36,£4+ It>e4 37.lUeB, be­ cause White's position is easily win­ ning. 36.c!LleS b5 37. c!Llxg7 c!Lla4 3S.f4 c!Llc3 39.f5 �d5 4 0 .�f4 ! c!Llxa2 41.f6 It>d6 42.�f5 c!Llc3 In case of 42 . . . lt>d7, White wins without any problems after: 43. lUe6 It>eB 44.lUc7+, since he remains with a couple of extra pawns. 43.c!Lle6 c!Lld5 44.f7 c!Lle7+ 45.�e4 and Black resigned. I managed to outplay a very strong opponent in this game in an only slightly better endgame for me. I ex­ ploited rather well his almost insig­ nificant imprecision at some key-mo­ ments of the fight.

D37

59 Dreev - Chandler Hastings 2000 29 c!Lle5? ! This is a very serious mistake and Black's position becomes quite diffi­ cult after it. His only chance to fight for a draw was: 29 .. J'lxf3 + 30.lt>xf3 lUb4; but indeed after: 31.lUxc7 lUxa2 32.c!LlbS (or 32.lt>e4!?) 32 . . . a6 33.c!Lld6 b5 34.lt>e4, I would have stm main­ tained a considerable positional ad­ vantage. •..

I took partin the traditional round­ robin tournament in Hastings (which has a long and glorious history and impressive traditions) at the begin­ ning of January in the year 2 0 0 0 . It was a part of the 75th International Chess Congress in Hastings. The Pre­ mier tournament in which I partici­ pated was ofcategory 13. There were

Dreev-Chandler, Hastings 20 0 0 1 0 players in the tournament and the two youngest participants - 16-year old American Irina Krush and the English player McShane (who be­ came 16 just during the tournament) did not have high ratings at all and they diminished the category of the tourn ament considerably, but they proved to be very tough nuts to crack. Emil Sutovsky came first and he played quite convincingly throughout the tournament. I shared 2nd_3rd place with Jonathan Speelman. I did not start so well in that tournament and after round 5 I had only 50 %. I man­ aged tofinish successfully though and I collected 3 1/2 points out of the last four rounds. I consider that tourna­ ment to be quite satisfactory for me from the creative point of view and I played several good games. I have selected two games played in Hast­ ingsfor this book - the game against M.Chandler (which turned out to be almost exquisite - technically) as well as my game from the last round against B. Lalic.

179

- Ki.Georgiev, Biel 1992 and: 15J"1a2 d4 16.e4 .ic7, Seirawan - Ki.Georgiev, Dubai 1986.

15... d4 Now, it is already weaker for Black to play: 15 ... !"1e8 16.!"1a2! and he cannot follow with: 16 . . . d4 17.tOxd4.

16.exd4 Or 16.tOxd4? .ixd4.

16 hf3 .••

It also deserved attention for Black to try the move 16 ... lM'd5.

17..bf3 lM'xd4 18 ..ie3! But, of course not: 18.lM'xd4? tOxd4 19.�b7 tOe2 + .

18 . . .lM'xdl 19.9fxdl he3 2 0 . fxe3

l.d4 tOf6 2.c4 e6 3.tOf3 d5 4.tOc3 .ie7 5 ..if4 0 - 0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 .ixc5 8.a3 tOc6 9.cxd5 tOxd5 1 0 .tOxd5 exd5 11 ..id3 .ih6 12. 0 - 0 .ig4 13.h3 .ih5 14.h4 a6 Black plays much more often here 14 .. .Ele8. Of course, the move 14 ... lM'f6, does not work, due to 15.g4 and after the trade of the bishops Black loses his d5-pawn. (diagram)

15 ..ie2 ! This is an important improvement. Until now, there have been games with: 15J"1c1 d4 16.g4 �g6 17.e4, Beliavsky

2 0 ... !"1fe8? That is White's first serious im­ precision and it is going to have grave consequences for him. He had bet-

Game 6 0

180

ter continue with: 20 ... !3fd8 21.hc6 (Or 2l.'it>f2 !3xdl 22 .!3xdl !3d8 with a possible draw.) 2l...bxc6 22.!3xd8+ !3xd8 23.!3cl !3c8 (Or 23 ...!3d6 24.!3c5, threatening !ta5.) - and White has a slight edge. 21.'it>f2 !te7 Just like before, Black had to de­ ploy his rook on the d-file - 2l...!3ad8, irrelevant of the loss of a tempo. 22.ixc6 bxc6 23.!td6 Or 23.!3acl? !3e6.

Black again overlooks his best chance to save the game - 29 ... !3d7! 3 0 .lte4 g6

31.lMc3! Now, the game has been practically decided, because Black's king has been cut off from his vulnerable pawns. 31 lte6 32.!3xe5+ 'it>f6 33.!313+ Itg7 34.'it>d4 !td7+ 35.ltc4 !3b8 36. !tc5 !tb6 37.�b3 !3d6 38.'it>a4 h5 39.h4 !td7 4 0 .�a5 !tb8 41.!3xc6, and White soon won the game. •••

23 !tc8?! Murray admitted after the game that he had intended to continue with the move 2 3 ... a5 here, but he noticed that he would lose a pawn in case of: 24.!3xc6 axb5 25.axbS!. Black's best chance here was 23 ... !3ae8: since as M.Dvoretzkij had taught me - passivity in king and rook endgames never ends up well. There might have followed: 24.!3xc6 !3xe3 2S.!3xa6 !3e2 + 26.Kpfl !3b2 ! 27.!3el !3c8 28.!3e2 !3bl+ 29.Kpf2 hS, or 24.!3el !3e6 2S.!3xe6 !3xe6 26.!3c1 - and White would have serious problems to mate­ rialize his advantage in both cases. 24.!tc1 !tec7 25.!tc5 'it>f8 26.e4 'it>e7 27.e5 f6 28.!3d3 fe 29.'it>e3 Itf6? .••

E81

60 Dreev - B.Lalic Hastings 2000

t.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 i.g7 I was a bit surprised with that move, because the King's Indian Defence is not a part of GM Lalic's opening repertoire. I had expected 3 ... dS. He must have been quite well prepared, because my exclusive interest towards a certain line of the Zaemisch system - (6.llJge2) was very well known ... 4.e4 d6 5.13 0 - 0 6.�ge2 a6!? That is a smart move. Now, in case of: 7..tgS cS 8.dS, Black sacrifices a pawn favourably with - 8 . . .bS 9.cxbS

Dreev-B.Lalic, Hastings 20 0 0 �aS. Therefore . . .

181

14.ie3 �h5

7.ie3 c6 The move 7. . . �c6 leads to the "Yu­ goslavian" variation.

S.c5!? �bd7 Black plays much more often here 8 ... bS.

9.!'!cl This is possibly a novelty. White usually played before 9.�cl.

9 . b6 .

.

My opponent probably decided against the natural move 9 ... bS, be­ cause of 10.b4! ?

1 0 .cxd6 exd6 11.�f4 c5?! Here, Black had to play ll ... bs.

15.�e6! But not: lS.�xd6 �cS! (or IS... �h4+? 16.g3 �xg3 17.hxg3 �xhl 18. M2) 16.�xd8 �xd8 17.g3 �xf4 18 . .ixf4 M4 19.9xf4 �d7 and Black's position is quite acceptable.

15 ... fxe6 16.ixh6 �h4+ 17.g3 �xg3 18.hxg3 �xhI 19.ixf8 �xf8

12.a4! White prevents the possibility b6bS in a radical fashion and he main­ tains an opening advantage.

12

..•

cxd4

Black had better continue here with 12 ... ib7, complying with a slight­ ly inferior position after, for example 13.dS! ?

13.hd4 ih6? I believe - that one and the next move is what Black had in mind, while he played the anti-positional move 12 ... cxd4. Just like before, he had to follow with 13 ... ib7.

At this moment my opponent sur­ prisingly offered me a draw. Evident­ ly Lalic had relied only on the line: 2o.M2 Ela7! 21.�xd6 ElV (It is worse for Black to play: 2 l . . .Eld7 2 2.�xb6 �h2+ 23.ig2 Eld2+ 24.�e2 Elxe2+ 25.xe2 �xg2 + 26.�f2.) with some chances for Black to equalize. My next move deprived him of his illusions.

2 0 .�d5! exd5 Black was already beyond salva-

Game 61

182

the tournament Julian Borowski and strangely enough - Zvjaginzev was the best again. He practically never fell out of the car and he showed the 2V1:YxdS+ il.e6 22:�xaS lMrxf3 best result on the track. I drove over 23Jk3 V:Yhl 24.1tff2! V:Yh2+ 2S.il.g2 the series of ten laps, as I thought quite fast, but. .. I ended up only sec­ il.h3 26.eS dxeS 27.l3c7! ond at the end... But not: 27.lMrdS+? liJe6. I had encoun tered Dr. Huebner 27 hS Black could have prolonged a bit several times over the chess-board his capitulation with: 27... .bg2 28. until then, but I had never beaten this V:Yxg2 lMrhS 29.lMrdS+ 'it>h8 30 .lMrf3 V:Yh2+ outstanding experienced grandmas­ ter. 31.'it>e3 V:Yh6+ 32.'it>d3. tion: 20 . . . lMrg1 2U�xc8 (21.liJe7+!?) 21...l"lxc8 22.liJe7+ 'it>t7 23.liJxc8 lMre3+ 24.i.e2 lMrg1+ 2S.'it>d2, or 20 . . .i.b7 2l. liJe7+ 'it>t7 2 2 . l"lc7.

. • .

2S.V:YO il.f5 29.V:YdS+ liJe6 3 0 . lMraS+ liJfS 31.lMreS. Black resigned. 61

D12 Dreev - Huebner Julian Borowski, Essen 2000

1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.liJO liJf6 4.e3 il.f5 S.liJc3 e6 6.liJh4 il.g4 The other possible moves for Black here are - 6 ... il.g6 (see my game with S.Volkov, in which I was playing with White) and 6. . . il.e4.

7.lMrb3 lMrb6 This game with GM Robert Hueb­ ner was played in the second round of the all-play-all tournament, which was called "Julian Borowski Grand­ master Tournament" (after the name of the chess-sponsor and the owner of the company "Borowski GmbH - An­ tennen und Elektro-Technik'') and it was held there for the second time. Thefield was extremely strong, with­ out any obvious outsiders and my re­ sult of +2 proved to be good enough for sharing Ist-3rd place with Va dim Zvjaginzev and Klaus Bischoff Ac­ cording to the tie-break rules Va dim Zvjaginzev was declared the winner of the tournament and I took the sec­ ond place. It was quite amazing, but there was a carting - competition, which happened during the free day (after roundfive) in the carting - are­ na, which belonged to the orga nizer of

Black can also play now - 7 ... lMrc7.

S.h3 il.hS 9.g4 il.g6

1 0 .cS!? I was reluctant to play in the "stan­

dard" fashion - 1O .liJxg6 hxg6 1l.i.g2, because I had understood, having in mind my previous experience against Dr. Huebner, that in order to win against him I had to play definitely in a non-standard way, not anti-posi­ tionally, though . . .

183

Dreev-Huebner, Essen 20 0 0

1 0 'lMc7 H.g5 lOg8 •••

In the game Calderin - Rausis, Elista 1998, there fonowed : ll . . .lOfd7 12.lOxg6 hxg6 13.f4 b6 14.cxb6 axb6 IS.1I.d2 cS 16.1I.g2 ttJc6 17.ttJbS \!;\rb7 18.e4 and White had the initiative. It seems to me however, that the move lS ... cS is too risky and it is also incon­ ceivable why White must play 13.f4 in the first place. In case my opponent had played ll ... ttJfd7, then I had in mind the line: 12.ttJxg6 hxg6 13.e4 ! ? b6 14.cxb6 axb6 lS.!g2 and White would have slightly better prospects. Still, the best move for Black here is 1l ... ttJhS, without being afraid for the future of his knight, because White cannot capture it in any way. For ex­ ample after: 12.ttJxg6 (ar 12.1I.e2 ie7 13.\!;\rdl .hgS) 12 . . . hxg6 13.e4, there arises a complicated position with mutual chances.

12.ttJxg6 hxg6 13.e4 1"!h4?! Evidently, that was the line that Dr. Huebner had relied on, having played 1l ... ttJg8 before, but it turned out to be a mistake. It is equally bad for him to try: 13 . . . ttJe7 14.1I.f4 ! \!;\rxf4 lS.\!;\rxb7 dxe4 16.ttJe2 ! - and White wins. In­ stead, he had better continue with: 13 ...b6 (or 13 ... ttJd7) and White would have remained in a somewhat better position.

14.exd5 exd5 (diagram)

15.ttJe2! Following that natural and strong move, the position should be doubt­ lessly evaluated as very unpleasant for Black. For example after: lS ... ttJe7 16.\!;\rg3 \!;\rxg3 17.fxg3 1"!e4! 18.1I.g2 l"le6 19.94!?, White is clearly better.

15

••.

ttJa6 16. 'lMg3 l"lh8

In case of 16 ... l"le4, Black's rook will be attacked with tempo and it also stands in the way of his own pieces.

17.if4 \!;\ra5+ Or 17 ... \!;\rd7 18.h4 ttJe7 19.1I.h3 ttJfS 20. \!;\rd3 l"lxh4 21.0-0-0.

18.i.d2 'lMc7 19.h4 ttJe7 2 0 .ih3 It is much stronger here for White to follow with 20.\!;\rg4 !. For example: 20 ... ttJfS 21.ttJg3 - and White has the two bishop advantage.

20

• . •

ttJf5 21 .hf5

Or 21.\!;\rd3 !? l"lxh4 22.0- 0-0.

21. gxf5 22.if4 \!;\ra5+? ••

The right defence for Black here is 22 ...\!;\rd7. Naturally, my position would have been much better after that any­ way, but still that move was obviously preferable to the one he played in the game.

23.>!Ifl

184

Game 61

23 i.e7 In case of 23 . . . 0-0-0, White can follow with 24.g6 !, for example: 24 . . . !"ld7 2S.gxf7 !"lxf7 (or 2 S. . . �d8 26.i.gS i.e7 27.lLlf4 iLxgS 28.lLle6; 26 . . .�c7 27.�e3 i.e7 28.lLlg3 ,hgS 29 .hxgS !"lxh1+ 30.lLlxh1+-) 26.�g6 and it is too bad for Black to continue with 26 ... !"lf6, because of: 27.�e8+ �d8 28. �xd8+ li>xd8 29.i.gS. •••

24.g6

not: 34 ... li>g4? 3S.li>e2 �xf4 36.iLxf4 li>xhS 37.!"lh1+ li>g6 38.!"lh8+-) 3S.li>e2 lLlxcS! 36.!"lg1 lLle6, I would have to fight for the draw in an endgame, which could have arisen in case of: 37.1i>f1 !"lg8 38.lLlxe6 �xhS 39.!"lxgS+ �xgS 40. lLlxgS li>xgS 4 1.li>e2. Therefore, after long calculations and deliberations I played: 31.�xf7+ li>xf7 32.hg7 if6 33.

hf6 \toxf6 34.!"lel !"lah8

This move is even better than 24.hS. 24 �d8 25.h5 \!!Id 7 26.gxf7+ •..

li>xf7 27.�g6+ li>g8 28.h6 !"lh7 29. i.e5 �e8 White would have countered 29 ... i.f8?, with 30.�xh7+. 3 0 . �xf5 �f7 I saw here that Black was losing immediately after: 3 0... !"lxh6 31.!"lxh6 gxh6 H3-3a 32 .�g4+ i.gS 33.f4.

35. !"lh3? !

Frankly speaking, I had considered the move played by my opponent as impossible, because of the queensacrifice - 31.�xh7+ li>xh7 32.hxg7+ li>g6 33.lLlf4+ li>gS? 34.li>e2. Later, after I had lost plenty of time calculating variations, I understood that it would not work, because instead of 33 . . . li>gS?, Black could play 33 . . . li>fS and after: 34.!"lhS+ i.gS (But naturally

Now, I made a serious mistake, having lost a lot of time on calculating the possible queen-sacrifice on move 31. Instead of the move in the game, I had better play 3S.lLlf4 . For example: 3S ... !"lxh6 (Or 3S ... lLlc7 36.lLlhS+! li>f7 37.!"lh3 !"lxh6 38.!"lf3+ li>g6 39.!"lg3 + ! ; 3 6. . .li>g6 37.!"le3 and White's attack is victorious.) 36.!"le6+ \togS 37.!"lhxh6 !!xh6 38.l';xh6 \toxh6 39.lLle6 b6 (Or 39 ... li>g6 40.lLld8 li>fS 4l.f3 ! lLlb4 42. li>e2 ! - 42.lLlxb7? lLlc2 ! - 42 . . . lLlxa2 43.lLlxb7 and White must be winning.) 40.lLld8 lLlb8 (or 40 . . .bxcS 41.lLlxc6 cxd4 42.li>e2) 41.b4 bxcS (or 41 . . .li>gS 42.bS cxbS 43.c6 lLla6 44.lLle6+ - ; 4l...bS 4 2.lLlf7+ li>g6 43.lLleS+ li>fS 44.f3 +-) 42.dxcS li>gS 43.bS cxbS 44. c6 lLla6 4S.lLle6+-

Dreev-Huebner, Essen 20 0 0

35 .. J�xh6 36.m'3+ �g5 37.tilg3 l"lf6 38.l"le5+ �g6 39.l"lb3 l"lh2 4 0 . l"le2 l"lf7 It seems interesting, but it is hardly advisable for Black to try: 4 0 . . . tilc7 4U:'lxb7 lLle6 4 2.l"ld2! ? 1"lh4 43.l"lxa7 tilxd4 44.1"la4. Here, the time-trouble was over and I understood that I would have serious problems to materialize my extra pawn . . .

41.�gl l"lh4 42.l"le6+ �h7 43. tile2 l"lg7+ 44. l"lg3 l"lf7 45.l"lee3

185

52 ... l"lg6+?! It is better for Black to play: 52 ... lLlxa2 53.dxc5 (or 53.l"lxb6?! 1"lxb6 54.lLlxb6 cxd4 55.lLlxd5 �g5 56.f4+ �g4 ! ) 53 ...bxc5 54.lLlxc5, but White preserves good winning chances in that case too. 53. �f3 tilxa2 54.dxc5 bxc5 55.

lLlxc5 l"lc6 56.tild3?! The move 56.l"lb5 was much sim­ pler.

56 ... tilc1 57.tilxc1 l"lxc1 58.�e3

58 ... !k4? I was planning to exchange the rooks, so my opponent had to try to organize some active counterplay.

45 ... b6! 46.cxb6 axb6 47.l"le6 I:!h6 48.l"lxh6+ �xh6 49.�g2 c5 5 0 .l"lb3 Or 50.f4 ! ? and if 50 . . .cxd4 51.l"ld3.

50 ... l"lf6 51.lLlc3?! It is better for White to play 5l.f4.

51... lLlb4? 51...c4 !

52.tila4 Now, I had seen that after: 52.a3 cxd4 53.lLla4 lLlc2 54.lLlxb6 d3 55.lLlxd5 d2 56.lLlc3 l"ld6 57.lLldl l"le6 58. Elc3, it looked like I was winning, but I thought that was too risky, so I did not play like that ...

The right defence for Black here is 58 . . . l"lc2 ! , preventing the move �e3-d4. Now, White has the choice between 59.l"lb8, with the idea to ad­ vance the b-pawn - 59.l"lb5 'it>g6 60.b3 and the move 59.'it>d4; nevertheless Black had some practical chances to save the game in all these lines.

59.l"lb5 l"le4+ 6 0 .'it>d3 1"lf4 61. l"lxd5 l"lxf2 62.b4 �g6 63.l"le5 'it>f6 64.l"lel l- 0 I have remembered that tourna­ ment not only because I managed to share 1-3 place in it, having played rather well indeed and to take second place in the carting-competition, but also with something that happened on my way home ...

Game 62

186

The point was that the closing cer­ emony of the Essen tournament was quite unusual. There was a concert, as a part of the program, of a bass­ vocalist and that was grandmaster Emil Sutovsky. I had listened to his performances before (for example at the Hastings tournament that same year, but the audience there were quite minimal.. .). Here, having a wonderful piano-player to accompa­ ny his singing, Emil demonstrated his brilliant musical talent and the pub­ lic were just delirious with pleasure. I was so thrilled with his wonderful interpretation of a Don Quihote aria that on the morning of the next day, when we were supposed tofty to Mos­ cow with Vadim Zvjaginsev, I still had in my mind the motif" "That is why, senorita, that is why The heart of Don Quihote is closed for others, La�a-��a-��a�a-��a-��a-�­ la ... So, I made a "long multi-move com­ bination, sacrificing plenty of mate­ rial... " and that was - having only two hours left until theftight, Iforgot in the taxi, which of course went im­ mediately from the Dusseldorf air­ port back to Essen ... , my bag with my computer as well as my passport and airplane ticket too...lt all ended well, though ... "

62

.ib7 5.tDc3 d5 6. .ig5 .ie7 7. �a4+ c6 8.hf6 hf6 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0 .g3 I played like this for the first time in my practice.

1 0 ... 0 - 0 11.i.g2 c5?! I believe that move to be imprecise. Black clarifies his intentions too early. It was better for him to try 1l ... 4:ld7, or 1l ... .ie7, followed by f7-fS (V.Korchnoi played like that. . . ) .

1 2J�dl! This is the correct reaction! In case of: 12.0-0 .ic6 13.�dl, Black's posi­ tion is acceptable.

12

•..

tDc6?!

12 ... �e7.

13.dxc5 hc3+ 14.bxc3 bxc5 15. 0 - 0 �a5? Sax should have been relying on that particular move. On the other hand, I think Black cannot save the game af­ ter the move in the text. Instead, he should have tried 15 ... Ele8 and I would have faced a choice between: 16.c4 d4 17.e3, or the immediate move 16.e3. I would have maintained a clear advan­ tage in both cases. Possibly, I would have preferred 16.e3, though . . .

E12 Dreev - Sax

European Club Cup, Neum 2000

l.d4 tDf6 2.c4 e6 3.tDf3 b6 4.a3

16.�c2! That is a very powerful move. Now, Black has no satisfactory defence

Dreev-Sax, Neu m 20 0 0

against the threat 17.�g5; moreover that his d5-pawn is under attack.

16...h6 In case Black defends his d5-pawn with 16 . . . �e7, then after 17.�g5 g6, White has 18.c4! !"lad8 (following 18. .. h6 19.�h3, White's knight goes to the f4-square) 19.cxd5 (It is also very strong for White to play 19.�a2!±.) �xd5 (or 20 ... �xd5? ixd5 20 . bd5 . 21.�e4±) 2 1. �e4! , threatening !"lxd5 and attacking the c5-pawn. Sax could have attempted to give up a pawn and to try to survive in an endgame, but he obviously did not like that possibility and he preferred to fight in the middle game.

17.l'�xd5 �xa3 18.l'�h5! I admit, I did not see that move im­ mediately and instead I calculated the variations after: 18.�c1 �xc1 19.!"lxc1 �a5 and 18 .�d2 �a5 19.�bl �b3, but I came to the conclusion that Black can hold the position in both cases.

187 rj;je7 22. �xg7 !"lg8, with an unclear po­ sition, but then I noticed the impor­ tant intermediary move:

19.!"lbl! Now, the point is that after:

19 ...!"lab8 (that is Black's only move)

2 0 .�g5 hxg5 21.�h7+ rj;jf8 22. �h8+ rj;je7 23.�xg7 and i n case of 23 . . . !"lg8, White fol­ lows with: 24.!"lxb7+ ! !"lxb7 25.�xg8 !"lbl+ 26.ifl, winning the game af­ ter: 26 ... �c1 27.�xg5+ �xg5 28.!"lxgS rj;jd6 29 .e4, as well as after: 26 ... �a1 27.�xg5+ rj;jd7 28.�d5+ rj;jc7 29.�xt7+ rj;jb6 30.rj;jg2 !"lxf1 31.�b3+. My opponent chose to defend in another fashion:

23 . . .ia8 and after

24.�xg5+ rj;jd7 25.�d5+ rj;jc7 (if 25 ... rj;je7, then 26.�e4+) he resigned in view of the line 26.�xt7+ !"le7 27.�f4 + �e5 28.!"lxb8.

18 ... !"lfe8 Following: 18 ... � d8 19.�g5 f5 20. hb7 �xb7 2 1./tJe6 !U6 2 2 .�c7, White has the advantage.

63

A65 Dreev - Peng Xiaomin

Tan Chin Nam Cup, Beijing 2000 The Cup of Tan Chin Na m, a fa­ mous chess-sponsor, was played in the year 20 0 0 for the sixth time (and for the second time with my partici­ pation). The tournament was already a category

16

event and it was even

very close to be category 17 (only 7 points short). There was tremendous

I had in mind here to counter the move in the game with the line: 19.�g5 hxg5 20 .�h7+ rj;jf8 2 1.�h8+

attention in the Chinese media. Hon­ orary President of FIDE F. Campomanes visited the tournament after

Game 63

188

an official invitation by the organiz­ ers. The previous year the tournament was played in Shenjan (I have includ­ ed my game against Wang Zilijrom that tournament in the book) and there were seven Chinese players then. This time it was balanced - there were five hosts andfive guests. Nigel Short was quite confident at the open­ ing ceremony that the Chinese play­ ers would dominate in the chess world after not more than 20 years, but he also expressed his hope that it would not happen in the next 10 years. One of the organizers said in his turn that he hoped that after the tournament the rating of the best Chinese players would improve and the tournament might be of an even higher category in the next year's Cup. The development ofthefight in the tournament showed that N. Short's hopes were a bit more justified, since the European players (V.Bologan, A.Dreev, N.Short and Al.Onishchuk shared pt_4th place. It was amazing, but just like in the previous year in Shenja n, I came second according to the tie-break coefficient. Frankly speaking, the climate there is quite difficult for Europeans: it is hot and humid and in addition you have to endure one of the greatest problems in Beijing - the smog. It was in fact much easier in Shenjan the previous year. The wonderful attitude, howev­ er, of the organizers towards the par­ ticipants and their kind consideration compensatedfor all that amply.

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3. �c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0 - 0 6.�ge2 c5 7.d5

e6 8 .�g3 exd5 9.cxd5

9 ... �h5 This is a new and quite rare varia­ tion of the King's Indian Defence and I had played it twice in my practice be­ fore that game. Black compromises his kingside pawn-structure considerably in order to obtain some counterplay connected with the pawn-advance fl­ f5 .

1 0 . �xh5 gxh5 11.i.d3 f5 12. 0-0 Black has tried in that position the move 12 ... ttJa6 too.

12 ... �d7 This is a relatively new attempt, but it is not a novelty. GM Viorel Bologan had played that quite natural move against me in the second round of the same tournament and I had answered with 13.ttJe2. Following 13 . . . c4! 14.i c2 we agreed to a draw, because I did not have any opening advantage at all. Af­ ter that game I understood that the maneuver ttJe2 was correct, but it still needed some preparation. According­ ly, I was quite happy when that same position had arisen once again on the board, because I had the possibility to check the correctness of that idea again in practice. ,

Dreev-Peng Xiaomin, Beijing 20 0 0

13.�c2 �e5 Now, (just like on the previous move) it is not good for Black to follow with 13 .. .f4, due to: 14.tUe2 �eS 1S.g3± and White maintains a great advan­ tage. 14.�e2!

Here, my opponent took a long time contemplating his decision. Black's pawn-weaknesses are slowly becoming a factor, particularly if he tries the typical idea for similar posi­ tions - 14 ...fxe4 lS.�xe4 �fS 16 ..bfS l':ixfS 17.tUg3. The move played by Black is quite interesting and it deserves an excla­ mation mark. 14 ... ygh4! This is not only an attacking ma­ neuver by Black's queen, but he also protects his weak pawn in the process. Now, Black is planning fSxe4, followed by �cS-fS. Meanwhile, I am going to mention that had he played: 14 ... fxe4 lS. .be4 and now lS... YGh4, then White would have had the powerful argu­ ment - 16.ygc2. 15.f4! Here, White has another possibility to fight for the advantage. 15... �c4

189 In case of lS ... tUg6, White can play 16.exfS and after: 16 ... hf5 (or 16 ... tUe7 17.tUg3) 17 ..bfS l':ixfS 18.�g3 �d4+ 19.i>h1, Black cannot follow with 19 ... l':ixdS, due to: 20.YGb3 tUe7 21.tUfS. 16. �g3 �xb2 It is obviously in favour of White if Black continues with: 16 ...fxe4 17..be4. 17.yge2 YGg4 This is a quite attractive move for Black. His other interesting possibility was 17... �d3 and here lS.eS! dxeS 19.tUxhS would have preserved the initiative for White. ISJ'lf3

lS h4 Now, in case Black follows with lS ... tUd3, then after 19.ygxd3 .ba1, the line: 20.�xfS .bfS 21.l':ig3 l:'laeS 22.exfS l':ie1+ 23.i>f2 l:'lxc1 24.l':ixg4+ hxg4 2S.f6 l':ifl 26.YGd2!?, leads to a clear advantage for White. Black how­ ever, has a smart intermediate check - 19 ...�d4+ and after: 20.i>h1 .ba1 21. tUxfS .bfS 22.l':ig3 l':iaeS 23.l':ixg4+ hxg4, he even seizes the initiative, be­ cause now White cannot capture efS, because of the vulnerability of his first rank. It is equally bad for White to .•.

190

Game 63

try: 20 ..te3 kxa1 21.lLlxfS ixfS 22.E1g3 �xg3 23.hxg3 E1ae8 and Black can counter 24. exfS with 24 ... E1xe3. On the other hand, White has the cold-blood­ ed resource 2 0 . @f1, which n eutralizes Black's tricky check and he maintains his advantage after: 20 ... �a1 21.lLlxfS �S 22.E1g3. If Black checks immediately - 18 ... id4+, then 19.ie3 (but not: 19.@h1 lLld3 20.�xd3 and Black's abovemen­ tioned idea triumphs once again 20 ... �a1 etc.) 19 . . .fxe4 (or 19 . . . .be3+ 20.�xe3 lLlc4 21.�c3 and if 2l.. .�g7 - 22.eS) 20 . .bd4 exf3 21.gxf3 �xf4 22 . .bb2 and White has the edge.

19.e5 dxe5 2 0 .h3! But n aturally not 20.ixb2?, be­ cause of 20 . . . e4; or 20.fxeS?, due to 20 ... �d4+.

20

..•

�g6 2 1.fxe5

21..bb2 e4. I had expected here White's posi­ tion to have been completely winning. I had seen Black's next move before­ hand, but I could not even believe that it was possible . . .

ing: 23. �xh4 �xal 24.lLlhS, but it did not appease me at all. Finally, after I saw that Black had at his disposal the intermediate move 23 ... if6, I gave up that possibility altogether.

23J�bl hg3!? In case of 23 ... hxg3, I would have answered quite comfortably with 24.�f4.

24 ..tf4 It seemed attractive for White to play 24.ib2, but after: 24 ... �d7 2S.�c3 E1ae8, he had no advantage whatsoever, while following: 26.fug3 hxg3 27.idl (with the idea ihS) Black had the wonderful resource - 27 . . .f4.

24 ...b6? Until now my opponent had played extremely well, but here he made a se­ rious blunder. After: 24 ... �4 2S.E1xf4 �d6 !?, I would have had some com­ pensation, but the outcome of the game could have gone either way . . .

2 1. . . lLlc4! 22.�xc4 he5

25.E1xg3! Naturally, I did not hesitate too much .. .

25 ... hxg3 26J'lb3 �f6 27'!·'lxg3+ @f7 28.'�e2! �h4? Here, I understood that the posi­ tion had remained quite unclear just like before. I was seriously consider-

Now, Black loses immediately. But even after the only possible defence - 28 ... �d4+ 29.ie3 �h4 30.�f3 !?,

191

Dreev-Peng Xiaomin, Beijing 20 0 0 he would have great problems and his attempt to trade the rooks - 30 ... l"lg8, after: 31..hfS l"lxg3 32.�e6+ @e8 33.�f7+ @d8 34.M4 �e6 3S.dxe6 �e7 36.�c7!, leads to a victory for White. 29.�e5. Black resigned.

vance, but it proved to be quite effec­ tive. Here, my adversary was faced with a dilemma - where to go with his knight on d7? In case of 9 ... tLlb6, I would have played: 1O.h3 tLlh6 1 1.�c1 eS 12.cS and Black's position would have been rather uncomfortable.

9 ... c!iJdf6 1 0 .h3 64

A81 Dreev - Zhang Zhong

Tan Chin Nam Cup, Beijing 2000

1.d4 f5 2.g3 c!iJf6 3.�g2 g6 4.c!iJf3 .tg7 5. 0- 0 0 - 0 6.b3 d6 7.�b2 c!iJg4!? The idea behind that move is rather simple - Black wishes to prepare the pawn-advance e7-eS, preventing in the process White's possibility d4-dS. Zhang Zhong had played like that be­ fore and I did not mind entering a po­ sition of that type at all.

8.c4 c!iJd7 My opponent played rather quickly until that moment. I had to spend a lot of time in order to find the correct continuation.

9.c!iJg5!

Naturally, it is not good for White to follow with: 1O .dS? eS! 1 1 . dxe6 tLlxh2. 10 c!iJh6 H.d5 c!iJt7 12.c!iJxf7 l"lxf7 Now, we can conclude: Black has failed to push e7-eS; accordingly the opening stage has ended in favour of White. ..•

13.c!iJd2 �d7 14.c!iJf3 Black would have liked to advance c7-c6, but he could not do that imme­ diately, because of: IS.dxc6 bxc6 (It is not good for Black to play 15 ... bc6, due to 16.tLlgS! .) 16.cS! dS 17.b4 and White's advantage is obvious. There­ fore, Zhang Zhong preferred the pas­ sive defence: 14 ... l"lfS although he should have consid­ ered the possibility 14 ... aS, in order to impede White's pawn-advance b2-b4.

15.b4 c6?! That was an imprecision. We agreed after the game with my partner that Black's best chance had been: IS ... aS 16.a3 c6, but even then White would have been slightly better.

16.dxc6 bxc6 This is possibly not the best choice either. After: 16 ...�xc6 17.�b3 �e8 18.a4, Black is of course worse, but that was definitely the least of evils. This was the only way for me to prevent Black's thematic pawn-ad-

17.c5 1Wb8 Black has no more good moves; in

192

Game 65

case of 17 ... dS 18.ie5, followed by a2a4 and b4-bS, his position remains a sorry sight. It is only slightly better for him to defend with: 17. . . dxc5 18.bxc5 and after :gb8, White can always coun­ ter with .te5.

18.cxd6 exd6 Or 18 ... �xb4 19.dxe7 �xe7 20.tLle5 and Black has great problems.

gS and White's queen has no good square to retreat to. The following line would not work for White either: 22.ixf6 ixf6 23.�xd6 :gxe2 2Ulfl ig7 25.�xd7? :gd8 and his queen gets trapped.

22.e3 This solid stabilizing move annihi­ lates Black's hopes of organizing some counterplay.

22... d5? That is Black's decisive mistake. His last practical chance was to try 22 . . . tLle4, but the evaluation of the position after: 23.ixg7 li>xg7 24.a4 is crystal clear in favour of White.

23.tLle5 White is threatening 24.tLlxd7 and 25.:gxc6.

23 .. J�e6 19J�bl! This is a strong move. It seemed attractive for me to try 19.�b3+, but the queen had to keep under con­ trol Black's d6-pawn. Additionally, the move in the game is not a loss of time, because Black now must defend against the threat b4-bS.

19

•.•

Black loses too after: 23 ... :ge7 24. tLlxc6 ixc6 25.ixf6 ixf6 26.:gxc6. He could have only prolonged his resis­ tance with the move 23 . . . �ad8.

24.tLlxd7 tLlxd7

a6 2 0 .�d3 �e8?!

Black had better try 20 . . . tLle4.

21.�fc).! White is threatening now 22.tLld4.

21. .. �b6 Once again, Black had to consider: 21.. .tLle4 2 2 .ixg7 li>xg7 23.�d4+ li>g8, with some chances for a successful de­ fence. Black's move in the game conceals a trap : if now 2 2.�xd6, then not: 22 ... �xf2+ ? 23.li>xf2 tLle4+ 24.li>gl tLlxd6 25.ixg7 li>xg7 26.:gdl and White wins, but: 22 . . . tLle4! 23.id4 �d8 24.�f4

25J�xc6! �xc6 26.hd5 �d6 27. hg7 tLlb6 Or 27 ... li>xg7 28.�c3+ .

28.he6+ �xe6 29 .tal �xa2 30 .�dl �c4 31.�d6. Black re­ •

signed.

193

van Wely-Dreev, New Delhi 2 0 0 0

D46

65 van Wely - Dreev FIDE World Chess Ch (k. 0.) New Delhi 2000

Vlic7. This move was considered to be quite reliable, but after: 12.ltJe4 ItJxe4 13.Vlixe4 ItJf6 14.Vlih4 cxd4 lS.id3! , White sacrificed a pawn and he ob­ tained a powerful. initiative. I had all this in mind, while I was preparing for that game, but then I thought "Why not simply capture cxd4?"

This is the first game of the third round of the knock-out stage of the World Championship. l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.lLlc3 lLlf6 4.e3 1l ... cxd4 12.exd4 e6 5.lLlf3 lLlbd7 6.�c2 �d6 7.�d3 The move 12 .!1xd4 seems to be rather unnatural for White. 0 - 0 8 . 0 - 0 dxc4 9 ..b:c4 a6 12 ... �c7 13.�d3 b 6 14.�e3! �b7 This is the key-move for the entire variation and its purpose is to prepare 15.�e2 b7-bS and to follow that with c6-cS. The immediate move 9 . . . bS is also possible. There is some difference be­ tween these two lines, though; some­ times after 9 ... a6, Black plays c6-cS without the preliminary move b7-bS. That is exactly what happened in our game.

1 0 .a4 White prevents the move b7-bS. His other possibility is: 1O .!1dl bS 11. ie2 etc.

10

..•

c5 1 U'ldl

That is an interesting moment. My opponent had already tested that po­ sition before against Garry Kasparov in a game played on the Internet. Gar­ ry continued in that game with 11 ...

White has found an interesting possibility not to lose tempi for the defence of his h2-pawn. Now, if Black is too greedy: ls ... ixf3 16.Vlixf3 ixh2+ 17.q;,hl id6, then after 18.g3 (with the idea to follow with I!Ig2, !1hl etc.), it becomes evident that the dominance over the h-file, the two bishop ad­ vantage and the passive placement of Black's pieces more than compensate White's sacrificed pawn. Black's posi­ tion is cramped, so he cannot remove his rook away from the a8-square, because his a6-pawn would be hang­ ing. Therefore, I think my next move is quite logical.

15 ... lLld5!? 16.lLle4?! White surrenders the initiative to

194

Game 65

Black with his last move. The correct

24.itJd4 is in favour of White.) 22. itJd4

decision for him would have been

11*'g6 23.h5 ! , followed by 24.itJd6. It

16J'lacl! and Black can choose be­

would be bad for White to try: 20 .itJe5

tween: 16... itJxc3, 16 ... itJxe3, or 16... %Vb8.

lLlxe5 21.dxe5, due to 2 1 . . .!'ladS, with

16 tOf4! 17 .hf4 .hf4 18.g3 ih6 •••



White possibly thought that he can

the idea to follow with !'ld3.

20 ... 11*'d5!

somehow exploit the unusual place­

After that move, it becomes clear

ment of the bishop on the h 6-square.

that White should be on the defence

One of his bishops is already absent

from now on.

however, moreover his rook cannot

21 .ibl gac8 22.gel gfd8 23. tOeg5 hg5 24.hxg5 tOfS 25.ge3?!

go to cl and his d4-pawn is isolated.



All these factors might lead to serious

It is understandable that White

fu­

wishes to get rid of Black's pressure

problems for White in the nearest ture.

along the long as-hI diagonal and to

19.h4?!

preserve the queens on the board at

White does not even feel the dan­

the same time. He has no time for that,

ger. He should not have wasted time

however . Instead, he had to contin­

on scaring crows. He had instead to

ue with: 25 . .ie4 11*'xe4 26.11*'xe4 .be4

anticipate the move that Black played in the game, so it deserved attention

worse endgame.

27.!'lxe4, complying with a slightly

for him to try 19.!'la3.

25 ... 11*'c4! 19 �c6! .•.

This move emphasizes the vulner­

This move seems to be more reli­ able than:

25 . . . 11*'a5 ! ? 26 . .ie4 �xe4

ability of the as-hI diagonal, which

27.!'lxe4 11*'xa4 2S.d5; moreover that I

arose as a result of the move g2-g3.

had in mind that there were plenty of

Black is now threatening fl-f5 .

moves left to the first time-control.

2 0 .ga3 White prevents the immediate ad­ vance 20 .. .f5, because he can coun­ ter that with: 21. d5 ! exd5 (The line: 2l.. .�xd5 22 ..ic2 fxe4 23.!'lxd5 exd5

26.11*'xc4 Otherwise White loses one of his pawns.

26 gxc4 27.b3 gb4 28.id3! I have to admit that Loek was play.••

195

van Wely-Dreev, New Delhi 20 0 0 ing quite enterprisingly! He found an interesting possibility to continue the fight.

2S ... a5 But not 28 .. J':'lxb3?? 29 .. bh7+.

29.ie4 ixf3 3 0 .gxf3 gxd4 Now, Black has an extra pawn, but his rook is stalemated. Frankly speak­ ing, I entered that position quite de­ liberately, since I considered that I would easily manage to free my rook from its exile.

31.gf4! That is the only way to enable White to occupy the d-file.

31

••.

gd6 32.gee4 gdl+!

This i s an important fine point! Af­ ter: 32 . . . ltJg6 33.Eld4 Elxd4 34.1:'lxd4, White's king is better placed on g 1 than on the h2-square. That i s why the intermediate check is so essential, just like every minute detail in chess!

3S.gb7+?! The idea to capture the pawn with a check was basically incorrect. He had better continue with 38.ib5 and after: 38 ... ltJf3+ 39.Wg2 1tJxgS 40.Elxb6 Elxb3 4Ula6, it would be still far from clear, because White's a-pawn would have remained to be very powerful.

3S l!ld6 39.ib5 l'!xb3 4 0 .f4 .•.

Now, the line: 40.1:'lxb6+ wc5 4U'la6, loses for White, due to: 41... fub5 42.axb5 wxb5 43.Ela7 a4 44.f4 ItJc6.

40

.•.

lLlf3+

After: 40 ... Elxb5 41.axb5 ItJc4 42 . fuf7 a4 43.Elxg7 a3 44.Elg8! (or 44. Elxh 7 a2) the position would have been unclear.

41.l!lg2 lLld4 42.gd7+ l!le5 43. ge7+ I!ld5 44.ie4+ I!ld6 45.gxt7 ge3 46.ia6

33.l!lh2 It is too bad for White to play 33.®g2? ItJg6 and he cannot continue with 34.Eld4.

33 ltJg6 34.gd4 gxd4 35.gxd4 I!lfS 36.gdS+ l!le7 37.gbS •..

It is weaker for White to try here 37.l"lg8, because of: 37... h6! 38.gh gh 39. f4 wf6, followed by e6-e5, or ItJg6-e7.

37 lLle5 •••

46

•.•

lLlf5? !

The immediate move 46 . . . Elc7 was stronger for Black. Then White would have been forced to play 47.ElfS with some chances for a draw.

47.1!lf2 I had overlooked that move, when I played 46 . . . tLJf5; accordingly I had just lost two tempi ...

47 fu:7 4S.gxe7 •..

Game

196 The only advantage of the move 46 . . .llJf5 is that now White cannot avoid the trade of rooks, because after 48. �f8 �c2+ he loses outright.

48 ... lt>xc7 Now, the position is almost equal . . .

49.�d3 g6 5 0 .g4 IlJd6 51.lt>e3 b5 52 .axb5 a4 53.lt>d2 This is the precise defence. White avoids the line: 53.lt>d4 a3 54.lt>c3 It>b6 55.lt>b3 IlJxb5, since he cannot continue with: 56.£5 gxf5 57.gxf5 exfS 58.hf5, because of 58 . . . llJ d4 +

66

qualifiedfor the liB-final. Veselin To­ palov was my opponent there. I won the first game with White, but then I lost the second and my adversary was luckier in the tie-break. I would like to remind you that V. Anand won that World Championship.

D43

66 I .Sokolov - Dreev Dos Hermanas 2001

.

53 ... lt>b6 54.1t>c1 lt>c5 Or 54 . . .llJxb5 55.f5=

55.lt>b2 e5 That was my only chance to play for a win. After: 55 . . . lt>d4 56.�f1 lt>e3 57.b6 It>xf4 58.lt>a3 It>xg4 59.lt>xa4 It>xg5 60.wb4 1t>f5 61.It>c5 1t>e5 62.�d3, White holds the position.

This game was played in a round­ robin tournament in the Spanish city of Dos Hermanas. That was my first participation in this traditional tour­ nament. That was its eleventh edition and the event had plenty of strong players taking pa rt, with approxi­ ma tely equal strength. Meanwhile, the tournament was objectively much stronger than its "official" cat­ egory 16, because the ratings of the young grandmasters were consider­ ably lower than their actual strength (The World junior champion under 1B Francisco Va llejo was playing, as well as, this tournament was the grandmaster debut of the 14 year-old Teimur Radjabov.) Miguel Illeskas had a very low rating at that moment too, but everybody knew how strong he really was. At the end, I sharedfirst place with 5 1/2 out of 9 with grand­ master I.Smirin, but I was awarded the trophy for the winner, because of my better "Berger" coefficient. l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.1lJf3 llJf6 4.1lJc3 e6 5.�g5 h6 6.�h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.�g3 b5 -

56.lt>a3?? That is a blunder ... White could have made a draw in a problem-like fashion with: 56.fxe5 IlJxb5 57.e6 IlJc7 58.e7 h1 �xeS 32.�xa6 �xgS 33.�xaS �e3 and his position would have been objec­ tively winning, despite some possible difficulties in the realization of the ad­ vantage. 29 @f8 That is again an only move for Black. After 29 . . . i>g7, White wins with 30.f4 f6 3l.fxeS+...

3 0 .f4 hd5 31.exd5 I was here in a time-pressure, so I was reluctant to play the move 31.fxeS, although I was calculating thorough­ ly the variation: 31...ie6 and here not: 32.lLlxt7 i>g8! (32 ...ixt7 33.e6 �d4+ 34.�xd4 cxd4 3S.ext7+-; 32 ... i>g7 33.lLld6, with the idea to counter 33 ... gaa8 with 34.gt7+), but 32.�f2 ! ib3 - defending against �f6 (32 . . . �d4 33.ie3), 33.e6! 33 ... ixe6 (33 .. . �xe6 34.�b2; 33 ... l"1axe6 34.�xt7+; 33 ... l"1exe6 34.�xcS+ l"led6 3S.eS) 34. �xcS+ �d6 (or 34 ... ge7 3S.�c3 �a7+ 36.@h1 i>e8 37.gd1) 3S.�c3+31 . f5 (diagram) ..

32.gdl?! This i s a typical time-pressure mis­ take. White was winning easily after 32.�b3! and if 32 . . .l"1d6 - then 33.lLlg4.

32 ...�xa4

Now,

the

fight

becomes fierce

again.

33.�cl gd6 34.h4! �b3 3S.�al gxdS 36.gbl White has lost almost all his pawns, but his pieces are deployed in the clos­ est vicinity to Black's king, so he has a great advantage.

36 �e3+ •.•

Or 36 ... �d3 37.i>h2 ! ?

37.@hl! If 37.i>h2 l"1d2 38Jlb6 Elxg 2 + ! 39. i>xg2 �e2=

37...�d4 37...�d3! ?

38.�xaS exf4? This is Black's decisive mistake. GM Smirin admitted after the game that he had overlooked in the time-trouble the fact that White's queen controlled the e1-square. Meanwhile, he had an only move - 38 . . . Eld7, enabling him to prolong his resistance.

Game 68

200

39.l�b7! �d7 4 0 .�xd7 �xd7 41. �XCS+ �e7

ing that in Bosnia and Herzegovina chess is regarded as one of the solid Or 4l...'it>g7 42.�c3+ . connecting threads with the world society and by organizing this tradi­ 42.�g8 1-0 This endgame i s a n easy win for tional tournament the country wishes White, because the h8-square is dark, to show its desire to maintain stabil­ for example: 42 . . . 'it>xg8 43.�xe7 �xe7 ity and to be integrated into the Euro­ 44.�e7 h6 4S.'it>gl 'it>f7 46 . .id8 'it>e8 pean system. 1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.�f3 �f6 4.�c3 47.ic7 gS 48.hS 'it>f7 49 . .ieS. e6 S . .igS h6 6 ..ih4 dxc4 7.e4 gS 8.ig3 bs 9.ie2 .ib7 1 0 .h4 b4

D43

68 Atalik

-

Dreev

Sarajevo 2001

This game was played in the sev­ enth round of the traditional round­ robin tournament (It has been orga­ nized ever since the year 1957! ...J in Sarajevo. I had been already in Bos­ nia and Herzegovina in the autumn of the year 2 0 0 0 and I took part in a tournament in the town of Neum, situa ted at the Adriatic coast. Still, that was my first visit to the capital ofBosnia - Sa rajevo. It isjust amaz­ ing how popular chess is there. I was walking in the city and I often saw people playing with huge chess piec­ es directly in the streets. There were electronic billboards in the pedestri­ an zones of the city, informing people about the participants in the tourna­ ment. There were advertisements all over the city. There were numerous specta tors in the playing area in the Concert Hall of the Army Building. There was a n official reception for the pa rticipa nts in the tournament by the state government during the day­ off It was emphasized at that meet-

I mentioned already in my com­ ments to the game LSokolov - Dreev, Dos Hermanas 2001, that the usual reply for Black in that line of the "Anti­ Moscow" system is the move - 10 . . . g4.

1l.hxgS This is stronger for White than the move 11.ttJa4, against which Black has serious arguments at his disposal as my game against LSokolov showed. .iy playing the move 11.hxg5, White is aiming at a direct refutation of the variation with 1O . . . b4.

1l ... bxc3 12.gx:f6 The subsequent development of that variation showed that here it is much stronger for White to follow with: 12.bxc3 ttJxe4 13 . .ie5 �h7 (Black cannot solve his problems with the

201

Ata lik-Dreev, Sarajevo 2 0 0 1

move 13 . . . ltlxc3, which was played in the game Beliavsky - Sveshnikov, Metalska Trgovina 2002, 14.'lNc2 Itlxe2 lS.�xe2 Itld7 16.ixh8 hxgS 17J�h7 g4 18.ltleS ItlxeS 19.ixeS 'lNdS. Alexander Henrkovich played a wrong move with White here - 20J'lb 1 and after 20 ... cS, Black equalized. Beliavsky recom­ mended later, as the best for White, the line: 20.l'lah1! c5 21.l'lxf7 %Ye4+ 22.'lNxe4 ixe4 23.l'lf4; or 20 ... %Yxg2 2U'lxf7! 'lNxh1 22.'1�'g6+-) 14.'lNb1 'lNaS lS.ltld2 ! and after this move, which was played by grandmaster D.Rogozenko against A.Filipenko (Internet, 2001), it can be said that the entire variation with 10 ... b4 was doomed to oblivion. The game continued with: lS .. .fS (Or lS ... 'lNxc3 16.0-0; lS . . . ltlxd2 16.'lNxb7 %Yxc3 17.'lNc8+ �e7 18.�f6+ �d6 19. 'lNd8+ Itld7 20.ieS+ �dS 21.'lNxd7+ �e4 22.'lNxc6+ �fS 23JMl.) 16.gxf6 cS 17.ltlxe4 ixe4 18.ihS+ �d8 19.'lNxe4 'lNxc3+ 20.�e2+-

12

•.•

cxb2 13.l'lbl %Ya5+ 14.ltld2

Or 14.�f1 c3 lS.ltleS �a6!

14 c3 15. 0 - 0 .ia6 16.ltlb3 •••

In the game Yuferov - Sveshnikov, St Petersburg 2000, there followed: 16.ltlc4 'lNxa2 17.ltle3 - and the game was rather unclear.

16 ...%Yxa2 17.li)c5 ib5 18.%Yc2 %Ya3 That is the best reply for Black. It would not work for him to play the natural line: 18. .. ixcS 19.dxcS 'lNa4, because of: 20.'lNxc3 ixe2 2l.%Yd2! and White would capture Black's su­ per-important c3-pawn and later he would also regain his bishop thanks to the threat 'lNd6.

19.1'lfdl l'lg8!

This is an important resource for Black. Now, White must consider the possible exchange sacrifice - l'lxg3. It was not so easy for me to decide to play that move from the point of view of psychology, since I was losing my castling rights. Still, the rook was my only piece that I could have brought into action at that moment. I was far from sure that my king would be com­ fortable in the centre, but I knew that it would not be so easy for my oppo­ nent to exploit that effectively. For example, White would not be able to push d4-dS anytime soon, because of the placement of the knight on the cS­ square. In case of 20.ieS, Black can follow with 20 ... l'lgS. It seemed to me during the game that White's best possibility was - 20 .if4, but I was planning to counter that with 20 . . . l'lg6, provoking my opponent to play 21.eS, after which he would have problems to advance d4-d5 ever. Still, White captures:

2 0 .hb5 and he forces the issue. This move looks anti-positional, because Black now has in addition a passed pawn and his knight obtains access to the c6-square. Suat intended to rely en -

Game 69

202 tirely on dynamic factors, but he ig­ nored some specific nuances of the position.

2 0 ... cxb5 21.�e2 �b4 That move is much stronger than 21...a6, since now I have the addition­ al threat - �c4 .

22.c!oxe6 There is nothing else to recom­ mend to White.

22 ...�c4! This is the most precise reaction for Black. It was quite possible that the line: 22 ... fxe6 23.�hS+ �d8 24.dS eS, was also very good, but similar complications were more to the taste of the computer and much less to my liking...

23.tOc7+ �d8 24.�h5 Naturally, 24.�c2 was much bet­ ter here for White, but I had plenty of attractive possibilities in that case too. For example: 24 ... liJc6 2S.liJxbS (or 2S. liJxa8 liJb4) 2S . . . E:xg3!? 26.fxg3 �xbS 27.�xc3 E:b8; o r 24 . . . E:xg3 (This move looks even more powerful.) 2S.liJxa8 E:g6 and Black's knight goes to the b4-square.

24... E:g5 25.�3 E:xg3 26.�xg3 §xc7 27.�g8 tOd7 28.�xf7 §c4 Once again, this move with the

queen to the c4-square is the most ac­ curate for Black. 29.d5 �xe4. White resigned. In case of 30.E:el, Black plays 30 ... c2, while after 3 0. �e6, he wins with: 30 ... �xb1 31.E:xbl c2 3 2.�el E:c8.

We shared a place in the final standings in the tournament once again with I.Smirin, just like we did a month ago in Dos Hermanas. This time we had 5 1/2 points too, which proved to be sufficient to tie jor first place in Spain...Here, in Sa rajevo however, we only tied for 3rd - 4th place...Kiril Georgiev was the winner with 6 1/2 points, while Veselin To­ pa/ov was second, half a point behind him.

A65

69 Dreev - Tkachiev

Tan Chin Nam Cup, Shanghai 2001

l.d4 tOf6 2.c4 g6 3.tOc3 ,tg7 4. e4 d6 5.£3 0 - 0 6.tOge2 c5 7.d5 e6 8.tOg3 exd5 9.cxd5 h5 1 0 .,te2 h4 1l.tOfl tOh7 12.,te3 f5 13.exf5 We had almost the same position, except with the inclusion of the moves a2-a4 and a7-a6, in our second addi­ tional game with Topalov (New Delhi, 2 0 00). There followed: (Accordingly, the numbers of the moves are in­ creased by one... ) 14 . . . gxfS lS.,tf4 liJd7 16.ixd6 E:e8 17.�d2 and after some unbelievable developments I even managed to win that game ... GM Tka­ chiev however, has an exquisite feel­ ing for the nuances of the \!ling's In­ dian Defence and he finds a new idea,

Dreev-Tkachiev, Shanghai 20 01 based on the fact that both a-pawns have not been touched yet.

13 .bf5 14.if2 b5! .•.

Now, you can see the difference. This move would have been impossible with pawns on a4 and a6 and White would have then an indisputable ad­ vantage after the transfer of the knight to the e3-square. Black is threaten­ ing now bS-b4. In case of: IS.liJe3? ! b4 16.liJa4? ! (It is better for White to play here 16. liJxfS.) 16 ... id7 17.liJc4, it is good for Black to follow with 17 . . . \1;\re7!? (It i s quite dubious for him to try: 17 ... \1;\reB?! IB.liJxd6 ixa4 19.liJxeB ixdl 2 0 . liJxg7 ixe2 21.liJe6, but he can consider instead 17 .. J�eB!? ) and after 18.Wfl, White would be in a criti­ cal situation after: IB . . .h3 19.93 liJgS. The position following: IS.ixb5 \1;\ra5 16.ie2 ixc3+ (or 16 .. J''1eB 17. \1;\rd2) 17.bxc3 \1;\rxc3+ 1B.�d2 ic2 19. �c1 ixd1 20.�xc3 ixe2 21.Wxe2 liJa6, should be evaluated as rather unclear, because of the vulnerability of the d5pawn, therefore I chose:

15.a3 although that might look like a compromise on White's part.

15 a6 .••

It is not advisable for Black to

continue with: IS ... b4 16.a'Xb4 ab4 17.�a4.

16.liJe3 liJd7

Now, White can already push:

17.g4! and Black is forced to capture en passant:

17 ...hxg3 18.hxg3 c4 19.liJxf5 Of course not 19.94, due to 19 ... id3. 19 gxf5 In case of: 19 ... �xfS 20.f4, the vulnerability of the light squares in Black's camp becomes worrisome. ..•

2 0 .wfl \1;\rf6? ! This natural move leads to consid­ erable difficulties for Black, since now he has no access to the f6-square with his knights. He had better play 20 . . . \1;\re7!?, or 20 . . . \1;\ra5 !?

21.f4! That useful move fixes Black's fS­ pawn and it creates a threat, which is far from obvious and small wonder Vlad overlooked it. . .

21. . . �ac8? ! Black has already great problems. He prepares liJcS with his last move, because after the immediate 21...�c5, Tkachiev naturally would have never liked the line: 22 .ixc5 dxc5 23.d6. In

Game 69

204 case of 21..J''lfe8 (defending against ixc4) it is good for White to contin­ ue with 22.'?Nc2, threatening l"lhS. It seems more logical for Black to follow with: 2l...l"lab8, with the idea to play next a6-aS and bS-b4 and to create some action on the queenside.White however, can counter that plan suc­ cessfully too, for example: 22.'it>g2 as 23.'?Nc2 b4 24.axb4 axb4 2S.ltJa4 c3 26.bxc3 bxc3 27.l"lac1 l"lfc8 (or 27... l"lbc8 28.�bS; 27...'?Nfl 28.ltJxc3! l"lfc8 29.�hS '?Nf6 30.'?Ne2) 28.l"lhS and he maintains his advantage.

play.My opponent thought quite jus­ tifiably that after 24.cll e 2!? his posi­ tion would have been rather difficult, but the move that I played in the game was at least that strong too...

24... l"lxb2 25.'?Nxh7+ 'it>f7 Unfortunately, there was no checkmate in sight - 26.l"le6 '?Nxc3.

26.'?Nh5+ Or 26.l:l:e6 '?Nxc3.

26... 'it>gS Of course not: 26...'?Ng6? 27.l:l:e7+-

27.cll d l! This is a very important move for White, because now the knight joins This move enables Black to orga­ the action via the e3-square. nize some counterplay along the b­ It is too bad for Black to play 27... file; otherwise he would not have that l"lbl, because of 28.l"le6 (White can possibility after his other lines. also try here the simple move 28.'it>g2; 23.'?Nh5 l:l:bS. while in case of: 28..id4 '?Nxd4 29.'?Nh7+ Vlad admitted after the game that 'i!ifl 30.'?NxfS+ cll f6 31.'?Nxbl '?NxdS, he he had still hoped that his mistake would have lost all his advantage.) would not have such catastrophic con­ 28 ...'?Na1 29.'?Nh7+ 'it>fl 30.'?NxfS + 'it>g8 sequences.I managed to find a clear­ 31.'?Nh7+ 'it>fl 32.'it>g2+- and Black cut plan to obtain an overwhelming cannot capture White's knight: 32... advantage. l"lxdl 33.'?NhS+, while in case of 32 ... 24.l"lel cllf6, White wins with: 33.l"lxf6+ 'it>xf6 I could have won a second pawn 34. '?Ne4, as well as with: 33.l"le7+ 'it>xe7 with: 24.'?Nxh7+ 'i!ifl 2S.l:l:hS l"lh8 26. 34.'?Nxg7+ l"lfl 3S.l"lel+. '?NxfS '?NxfS 27J'MS+ 'it>g6 28.l"lgS+ 'it>fl, 27. . . l"ld2 2S.ltJe3 but Black would have some counterIt is also possible for White to play

22 .hc4! bxc4

205

Dreev-Tkachiev, Shanghai 20 01 2BJ�e6 and after: 2B ... �al 29.�h7+ 'it>f7 30.�xf5+ 'it>gB 31.�h7+ 'it>f7 32. 'it>g2 the position is winning for him. Black must also consider the possibil­ ity 2B ... c3 !, but after: 29.iel c2 (He can also try the queen-sacrifice: 29 . . . �xd5! ? 30.�xf6 /{Jxf6 31.�e2 i!eS.) 30. �d2 cxdl�+ 31.�xdl �d4 3 2.�xd6 /{Jf6. his position would have been hardly better than the one he had in the game.

30 ... !!b5 31.!!dl It was even stronger for White to play immediately 31.a4, followed by �d5.

31 d5 ..•

Or 3l...ifB?! 32 .id4.

32.a4 Naturally, it would not work for White to continue with 32 .�xd5?, be­ cause of 32 . . . �c6.

32 ... dxc4 Black is now forced to give up the exchange; otherwise the game would be over after he loses his d-pawn.

33.axb5 axb5 34.�b7! �e6

2S

•.•

l:U7?!

Black played that natural move, overlooking the possibility - 2 B ... c3 !, after which strangely enough White does not achieve anything with the straightforward approach: 29.�h7+ 'it>f7 30./{Jxf5 �hB 31.i!e7+ (31./{Jh6+ MB 32 .�e4 /{Je5 33.�h5 �xh6 34.�f5 �hl+) 31 ... MB 32.�eB+ 'it>xeB 33. /{Jxg7+ �xg7 34.�xhB+ �xhB 35. �xhB+ 'it>e7. He has however, the move 29.g4 and after: 29 . . .fxg4 30.�h7+ 'it>f7 31./{Jxg4 �xf2+ 32./{Jxf2 �hB 33.�e4 /{Jc5 34.�e3, White is still better, but of course it would be too early to talk about victory.

29. /{Jxc4 !!xd5 30 .�f3! Now, Black's rook is so misplaced that White wins tempi for an impor­ tant regrouping of his forces.

35.!!el! That is more precise than the im­ mediate move 35.�xb5. 35 �d6 36.�xb5 c3 37.�c4 .•.

/{Jf6 Black is trying to obtain some coun­ terplay at the price of a pawn.

38.�cS+ !!f8 39.�xf5 �a6+ 4 0 . 'it>gl !!cS 41.�c2 �c6. This move allows White to inflict a deadly blow. Black would have more practical chances if he had defended with 4l...�c4. but White would have countered that with 42.�h4! , followed by f4-f5.

42.id4 �d5 43.1xf6 1xf6 44.

Game 70

206

ffg6+ .ig7 45.13eS+ 13xeS 46.ffxeS+ .if8 47.ffg6+ .ig7 4S.tieS+ .if8 49. 13h5! Now, Black is already helpless. 49 ... ffd4+ 5 0 .'it?g2. Black re­ signed.

A46

70 Dreev - Zhang Zhong

Tan Chin Nam Cup, Shanghai 2 0 01

This game isfrom the 7'h Cup - Tan Chin Nam. l.d4 �f6 2.�fj e6 3 .ig5 •

I wanted that day to go away from the most fashionable opening lines . . . The Torre Attack is an infrequent guest of the contemporary tourna­ ments. Naturally, it possesses its own theory and fine points. It is interest­ ing to quote here the notes that Rich­ ard Reti made more than 70 years ago about the move 3 . .igS, which had been played by Carlos Torre - " ... this is not an attempt by White to take the advantage in the centre, but it is just a solid piece development...That set­ up by White does not guarantee him any real advantages . . . his excellent development provides him with the possibility to inflict a mortal strike, in case the opponent makes even a slight mistake . . . " (R. Reti "Ein Lehrbuch des Schachspiels")

3 c5 4.e3 �c6 5.�bd2 b6 •••

My opponent is playing in the opening a bit carelessly. As a result, I had the possibility to change radi­ cally the contours of the game, which was quite rare for that type of posi­ tions.

6.�e4!? As usual, the game develops in the

following fashion here: 6.td3 te7 7.0-0 .ib7 8.c3, or 6.c3 .ib7 7. .id3 cxd4 8.exd4.

6 ....ie7 Black had tried, in one of the quite rarely played games in this variation, the move - 6 . . . cxd4 (Xu Yang - Enh­ bat, Sofia 1994), but White could have answered with the logical capture - 7.exd4!?

7 .ixf6 gxf6 .

Taking with the bishop on f6 is in favour of White after: 7. . . .ixf6 8 .dS! �b4 (In case of 8 . . . exdS, White has the pleasant choice between: 9.ffxdS 0-0 10. 0 -0-0 and another line, which might be even better: 9.�d6+ 'it?e7 1O.ffxdS.) 9 . dxe6 fxe6 1O.c3 iLlc6 1l.iLld6 + . The other possible capture - 9 . . . dxe6 10.c3 iLldS (or lO . . . ffxdl+ lUlxdl iLlc6 12 . .ibS .id7 13.iLld6+ rtle7 14. iLlxf7) 1l.tbS+ td7 12.ffa4, leads to a superior position for White as well.

S.d5 �b4 I spent a lot of time on the clock here. The move 9.d6 seemed to me to be too optimistic! I considered also 9.iLlc3, but I understood that White would fail to establish a complete con­ trol over the dS-square, for example:

Dreev-Zhang Zhong, Shanghai 2 0 01

2 07

9 ...�b7 1O.�c4 (or 10.e4 fS) 1O ... bS. Therefore: 9.c4 f5

13 fxe4 14 .b:e4 f5 15.�d3 0-0 16.'fYc2 'fYd7 •.•



Or 16 ... exdS!? 17.liJxfS (17.cxdS �d7) 17 ...dxc4 18.�xc4+ mh8.

17.dxe6 'fYxe6+ 18.�f1 'fYf7 19. gel �d8 This move is practically forced.

Here, I had two probably equal in value possibilities to retreat with my knight - to c3, or to g3. In fact, it was far from obvious, which one was bet­ ter . . . After the retreat to the c3-square; the knight would have solidified my position, while coming to g3 would enable me to bring my knight into the attack later. The move 1O.liJg3 is a bit risky from the positional point of view, because the knight there has practical­ ly no free squares to go to; meanwhile Black has the bishop pair! On the oth­ er hand, I had already succeeded in compromising Black's pawn-structure on the kingside; while his knight on b4 is quite misplaced too . . . After some de­ liberations I played:

1 0 .liJg3 d6 11.a3 liJa6 12.�d3 liJc7 13.e4!? I had a difficult choice once again. It would have been a wrong deci­ sion to play primitively, by simply castling: 13.0-0 hS!? 14.dxe6 fxe6 lS.e4 f4 16.liJe2 eS; but I could have tried instead to capture on e6 at first: 13.dxe6!? fxe6 14.e4 f4 1S.liJhS eS 16.liJg7+.

2 0 .h4 That is an important resource for White! Now Black has to defend against the threat liJgS.

20

.•.

h6 21.h5

I already have the possibility to consider the maneuver liJf3-h4.

21 �d7 •••

It seemed to me that the line: 22.liJh4 hh4 23.l3xh4 l3ae8 24.l3xe8 liJxe8, was too primitive, so I contin­ ued with:

22.'fYd2! This move is rather unpleasant for my opponent now, because in case he tries to protect his h6-pawn, then my queen comes to the f4-square with tempo, attacking Black's d6-pawn. He is presently forced to continue with:

22

.•.

f4 23.liJe4 �e7

After 23 . . . liJe8, I had a simple move - 24.liJh4, but also I had the interest­ ing tactical possibility: 24.liJxcS ! ? bxc5

Game 70

208 2S.ie4 0,c7 (or 2S ... �xc4+ 26.c;tigl) 26.�xd6.

24.0,h4 .ixh4 2S.lW14 White's rook joins in the action now.

2S .. J�ad8 That is a logical try. Zhang Zhong is preparing the move d6-dS, which would not have worked immediately, because of: 2S . . . dS 26.cxdS �xdS (or 26 . . . 0,xdS 27.0,d6 �f6 28.i.c4 �xh4 29.i.xdS+ I!ih8 30.i.xa8 E:xa8 31.0,f7+ I!ig7 32.�xd7 �hl+ 33.c;tie2 �xhS+ 34.l!id2 �xf7 3Sj'le7+-) 27.0,d6 �gS 28.i.c4+.

26.g3! But not 26.0,xd6? �f6.

26 ... dS Now, White's rook has the possibil­ ity to act in its full force in the fight for the f4-square. After the capture 26 ... fxg3, I would have to choose between 27.�xh6 and 27J;!e3 �xf2+ 28.0,xf2 E:xf2+ 29.�xf2 gxf2 3 0 . 1"1g3+.

27.E:xf4 (diagram)

27... �xf4 My opponent decided here to give up his queen with the idea obviously to have some practical chances con­ nected with exploiting the X-ray d8-

d2 and the possibility to build up a fortress in the future. In fact, his move turned out to be a capitulation. After 27.:.�xhS, it would not have worked for him to play: 28.0,f6+? E:xf6 29.1"1xf6 �hl + 30. c;tie2 1"1e8+ 31.l!idl i.a4+! (but not: 3l.. .ig4+ 32.l!ic2 �xel 33.1"1g6 + ! ) . Capturing 28.cxdS, would have provided Black with at least a draw after: 28. . . �hl+ 29.l!ie2 �hS+ 30.l!ifl (White's attempt at avoiding sharing the point might have ended up in a disaster after: 30.f3 �h2+ 31.l!idl i.a4+! 32.c;ticl �xd2+ 33.l!ixd2 l"lxf4 34.gxf4 0,xdS). I would have however, the resource 28.!!h4! and following: 28 ... ih3+ 29.l!igl �f3 30.!!xh3 dxe4 31.!!xh6, thanks to the threat �gS, my position would have been winning. Instead, my opponent could have played 27. . . �xhS, having more tactical possibili­ ties at his disposal and my task to find the best moves would have been much more difficult. 28.gxf4 dxe4 29J3xe4 if5 3 0 . E:e3 �e6 31.!!g3+ 1!if7 32.�c3

hd3+ 33J�xd3 0,xf4 34J�xd8 13xd8 3S.�f3 13d4 36.l!igl I!if6 37. 1&b7 �xhS Black's attempt to obtain some counterplay with 37.. j!dl+ fails after:

Dreev-Zhang Zhong, Shanghai 2 0 0 1

209

sometimes even contradict each oth­ er. Still, it seems to me that most of the contents of my article remain up­ 38.�xa7 Eld6 39.�c7 Ele6 4 0 .b4 to-date even now. Frankly speaking, I cxb4 41.axb4 �g7 42.bS �e8 43. had no idea whether my opponent had �d8+ @eS 44.�dS+ @f6 4S.cS studied my theoretical work before our game or not . . . bxc5 46.b6 �d6 47.�xcS 1- 0 One o f th e basic plans for Black against the 5.b6 system is - d7-d6, AS7 g7-g6, �f8-g7 and depending on cir­ 71 cumstances - capturing on b6 with Dreev - Banikas the queen, or with the knight. It is in­ European Club Cup, Panormo 2001 teresting, but still somewhat slow for I was playing for the club ofBosna Black to play: 5 . . .a5 6.4Jc3 �a6 - with (from Bosnia and Herzegovina) in the idea to develop quickly the light squared bishop and to trade it for its that European Team Cup. 1.d4 �f6 2.c4 c5 3.dS bS 4.cxbS white counterpart, preventing White's a6 S.b6 castling in the process. Still, tourna­ ment practice has confirmed that after White's energetic reply 7.f4!, followed by 4Jf3 and e2-e4 - the position is in his favour. My opponent chose the sharpest line, in which Black opens up the cen­ tre immediately: 38.@h2 �d2 39.@g3 4JxhS+ (or 39 ... 4Je2+ 40.lt>g4) 40.@g4 4Jg7 41.�f3+ and he loses his rook.

S ... e6 6.�c3 �xdS 7.�xdS exdS 8.�xdS �c6 I play that line regularly against the Volga gambit - White does not accept the pawn sacrifice and that leads to quite different positions in compari­ son to the line 5.bxa6. Some two years before this game, I had written a spe­ cial article on that subject, which was published in the German magazine Schach. I had shared with my readers my understanding of that variation in details i n this article. Naturally, chess theory develops permanently; fashion changes and evaluations of positions

GM H.Banikas had not played the Volga Gambit in any game before our tournament; nevertheless I had ex­ pected that variation as an eventual

210

Game 71

possibility. The point was that in the previous round, in the game Portisch - Banikas, that position had already appeared on the board. The eminent Hungarian veteran chose an unfa­ vourable line for White - 9 .i.gS �xb6 1O.�e4+ i.e7 11.�e7 ttJxe7 12 .�c2 (In case of 12.�xa8, Black can at least force a draw with: 12 ... �xb2 13Jldl �c3+ 14J�d2 �cl+.) 12 . . . �b8 (It also seemed good for Black to continue with the simple move 12 ... dS! ?, with an advantage for him.) 13.b3 - and af­ ter: 13 . . . c4 14.ttJf3 cxb3 IS.axb3 �xb3 16.�xb3 �xb3, Black remained with an extra pawn. I decided to follow my own rec­ ommendation from the article, so I played:

9.ttJf3 This is the best for White and now Black is practically forced to reply with:

9 ilb8 .••

have tested the move 1O . .td2 in several games and quite successfully at that. Therefore, I recommended it in my article and I made a conclusion there that although the move 1O.e4 (Natu­ rally, I analyzed thoroughly that move too in my article . . . ) was also possible, Black, as a rule after it, could manage to solve his opening problems. During the game, it came to my mind that my opponent should have been familiar with this p ublication and he might have been specially prepared for our game, so I decided to play 1O.e4, moreover that during the period af­ ter the appearance of the article I had succeeded in finding some additional possibilities for White in this varia­ tion. I still consider the move 1O.id2 up to the point in this line, though . . . 10 i.e7 1l.i.c4 0 - 0 12 0 - 0 .••

.

ttJa5 Black avoids the main variation (12 . . . �xb6 13.�hS d6 etc., White has also tried here 13.b3) and he contin­ ues with a seldom played line. The idea behind 12 . . . ttJaS is quite obvious - he wishes to repel White's bishop away from the a2-g8 diagonal. The drawback of that move is evident too - Black's knight is decentralized.

13.i.d3 ilxb6 14.�h5 ib7 In the game Lautier - Koch, France 1999, Black played an interesting

1 0 .e4 White's other possibility to fight for the opening advantage is the move 1O.i.d2 and one of its ideas is to place the bishop quickly on the c3-square, from where it protects the b2-pawn and it is aimed at Black's kingside. I

move - 14 . . . dS and after: IS.exdS g6 16.�h6 �xdS I7.�el �e6 18.�xe6 �e6 19.ttJgS �gS 2 0.�gS �d4 2 1 .i.d2 �xd3 2 2.�aS �a2 2 3.�el �d6 24.h4 f6 2S.�c3 i.f7 26.�e4, the opponents agreed to a draw.

15 .td2 ild6 .

Black has tested in practice 15 . . .

211

Dreev-Banikas, Pan ormo 2 0 0 1 �e6. Following 16.�fel, White's posi­ tion is preferable.

16J3adlN This is a novelty. In the game Arake­ lian - Sumaneev, Briansk 1995, White went back with his bishop 16.i.c2. I did not like to lose a tempo for the re­ treat of the bishop and I played a use­ ful move protecting it indirectly.

16... llJc6 17.i.f4 The most natural try here is 17.i.c3, but I did not like Black's possible reply 17 ... llJd4.

17 J3g6! ••

would have been too optimistic. Black has two good possibilities after that: 18 ... llJd4 19.1lJel h6 20.i.e3 !3b6, or 18 ... �xg2+ 19.t>c6 54. gxb3 >t>d6 55.gb4 �c6 56.a3 �g5 57.gf4 �e6 5S.gfS �eS 59. gaS �c6 60 .ga7 �c7 61. >t>f4 �d5+ 62.>t>g3 �c7 63 .f4 �d7 64.gb7 �d5 65.a4 �f6 Or 65 . . . lLlc3 66.a5 lLle2+ 67.lflf2 ILlxf4 6S.a6 �cS 69.gbS+-

11.�d2 The other possibility for White is - 11.�f4.

1 1 �gf6 12. 0 - 0 - 0 �e7 13.�e4 •..

White obtains no advantage with that move. He had better try 13.lflbl.

66.a5 >t>c6

13 . . . lLlxe4 14.Wxe4 ILlf6 15.We2 Or 66 . . .hg4 67.gb6+, followed by Wd5! 16.c4 6S.gxf6+-

67.a6 �e4+ 6S.>t>h4 �c5 69.gbS �xa6 70 .!':-lgS �c5 71.gxg7 �e6 72. gf7 >t>d6 73 .>t>g3 �eS 74.!':-lh7 �b5 75.!':-lxh6 >t>e7 76.fS �g5 77.gg6 �e4+ 7s.lflf4 �f6 79.h6 1-0 72

B19 T.Nedev - Dreev World Ream Ch, Yerevan 2001

Now, in case of 16.lflbl, Black can continue with 16 ... Wie4, as well as with 16 . . . lLlxh5, with the idea - 17.g4 ILlf6 IS.g5 Wie4 19.�e3 ILlg4.

16 .. :�e4 17.�e3 Here, after some deliberations T.Nedev decided to preserve the queens. Meanwhile, he should have considered more seriously the ex­ change: 17.Wixe4 ILlxe4 IS.�e3. (diagram)

17. . .b5! This game wasplayed in the World Team Championship and I remem­ bered it, mostly because that was the first time I studied thoroughly one of the most important variations of the Caro-Kann Defence, which I had nev­ er played before.

This move has already been test­ ed in a game between not so famous players and White reacted there with IS.lLle5!? Capturing - 18. cxb5?! is rather dubious, because of IS ... gcS.

lS.gh4 Wh7 Black's queen has occupied the va-

2 15

Nadev-Dreev, Yerevan 20 01

23 ... �fd8 24.lLlc5 �b8 Now, White's task to save the game becomes too difficult.

25.lLlb3 In case of 25.�d2, Black can answer with 25 . . . lLlb6 26.Wc3 hc5, followed by lLla4.

cant place of the "Caro-Kann bishop"; nevertheless it feels there quite com­ fortably. . .

19.1Lle5 �c8 2 0 .g4? White overlooks now his last chance to block the centre with the move 20.c5; still after 20 ... lLld5, Black's po­ sition is quite acceptable. This was relatively White's best decision under the circumstances.

25... We4! Now, Black's queen is already not so happy to be acting only as a bishop and it comes back to the centre.

26.gg1 lLlb4 27.lLld2 lLld3+ 28. I!Ic2 �xb2+ 29.1!Ic3 Or 29.l!Id1 l"lbl! - +

29 ... �b4+ 3 0 .Wxb4

20

.••

lLld5!

Black prevents White's possible counterplay after 2 0 ...bxc4 21.g5.

2U "lh3 bxc4 22 .Wxc4 0 - 0 23. lLld7?! White is trying to impede the move c6-c5, but he loses too much time while doing that. His best chance would have been the line: 23.Wc2 Wxc2+ 24.l!Ixc2 c5, but Black's prospects would have been superior anyway.

3 0 ...�c2 + 31.l!Ixc2 After 31.I!Ib3, Black has the pleas­ ant choice between 31...Wd5+ and 3 1 . . . lLlc1+ 32 .�xc1 Wd3+ 33.ma4 !"lxa2+.

31... lLlxb4+ 32.mdl

Game 73

216 Or 32.lflb3 \!;Vc2+ 33.lflxb4 l3b8+ and Black checkmates.

32

•.•

\!;vd3 33 .g5 ll'lxa2 0 -1 D37

73 Dreev - Pigusov FIDE World Chess Ch (k.o.) Moscow 2001

This game was played in the third round of the knockout FIDE World Championship in Moscow. Before the event, I had "studied" the tourna­ ment scheme and I had expected my opponent at that moment (naturally, in case I had reached that stage ...) to be the ex-world champion Anatolij Evgenievich Karpov. Surprisingly, he was sensationally upset by the young Chinese chess-prodigy Zhang Pengx­ iang, who later succumbed to Ev­ genij Pugusov. Evgenij can be noted for his solid, even bulletproof style of playing . In fact he loses only very sel­ dom . . . In this game I managed to intro­ duce a novelty, which was specially preparedfor the occasion ... l.d4 ll'lf6 2.c4 e6 3.ll'lf3 d5 4.ll'lc3 �e7 5.ti.f4 c5 6.dxc5 ixc5 7.e3 0 - 0 8.cxd5 ll'lxd5 9.ll'lxd5 exd5 1 0 .a3 ll'lc6 1 1.�d3 �b6 12. 0 - 0 d4

We have played one of the popular lines of the Queen's gambit. The posi­ tion on the diagram is one ofthe most fashionable in this variation.

13.\!;Vc2!? This move was a novelty at the moment in which that game was played. White had usually tried be­ fore - 13. e4 �g4 14.h3 - and he was not achieving much, according to the state of theory in the year 2 001. White is hardly obtaining much in that position even nowadays, because after: 14 ... �h5 15.g4 �g6 16.l3c1 l3c8 17.l3e1 f6!? 18.�c4+ ti.f1 19.ixf1+ l3xf1, Black equalized comfortably in the game Navara - Kasimdzhanov, Calvi a 2 0 04.

13 h6 . . •

It seems dubious for Black to try here 13 . . . dxe3?!, because White can answer that simply with: 14.fxe3 h6 15.l3ad1, obtaining an overwhelming positional advantage, or even enter the sharper line: 14.ixh7+ !? Iflh8 15.fxe3 g6 16.ll'lg5 �f5 17.\!;vf2 Iflg7 18.\!;Vh4 \!;Ve7 (18 . . . l3h8? 19.94 �d7 20.lLle6! +-) 19J'l:f3 ! ? and his attack becomes ex­ tremely dangerous.

14.e4 ti.g4 15.�d2 Presently, after the theory of the variation 13.\!;Vc2 !? h6 14.e4 �g4, has developed considerably, the move 15.lLle5 is at the focus of attention.

15

•..

l3c8 16.\!;Va4 (diagram)

16 �e6 •.•

It is stronger for Black to play here 16 . . . \!;vf6 !? and that was tried for the first time in a later game - Dreev Short, Hyderabad 2002, in which af­ ter: 17.�g3 lLle5 18.ixe5 \!;Vxe5, I failed

217

Dreev-Pigusov, Moscow 2 0 01

Black would not have changed much with the line: 28 ... a6 29.1I;\Id2 ixf3 30. l"lxf3 l"lc1+ 31.l"lfl l"lxf1+ 32 .�xf1, be­ cause my two powerful bishops and my superior pawn-structure would have provided me with a long-lasting positional advantage.

29.11;\1xf3 §c1 3 0 .§dl 11;\1c6 31.1I;\Ifl �xd1 32.1I;\Ixdl to achieve anything real out of the opening.

17 .ig3 .!OaS •

This was an imprecIsIOn. It had been more reliable for Black to defend with 17 . . . 1I;\Ie7, after which my position would have been only slightly more attractive.

18.:aacl .id7 19.1I;\Ib4 �e8 2 0 .f4 .!Oc6 21.1I;\Ib3 .!OaS 22.1I;\Ib4 .!Oc6 23. 1I;\Id6

The game enters here a purely tech­ nical stage after the trade of the rooks. It is extremely difficult for Black to defend a position like that. I have two great positional pluses - a bishop pair and a mobile pawn-tandem e4 and f4. Black has nothing to brag about at all, but still his position is solid enough and my task is to try to shatter it.

32 ....ic7 33.1I;\Id2 gS? Now, I have a minimal, but stable advantage and my position is much more dynamic. My opponent has problems to organize any active coun­ terplay and he is doomed to a passive defence.

23 ...�e6 24.1I;\IdS .!Oe7 2S.�xc8 1I;\Ixc8 26.1I;\Ib3 �c6 27.1I;\Idl .ig4 28. .!Of3 .ixf3

This activity was absolutely un­ necessary. Black had better adhere to a strategy of waiting with 33 . . .1I;\Ie6. Still, a move like 33 ...g5 is easy to un­ derstand from a psychological point of view. My opponent wanted to clarify somehow the situation, because he was evidently reluctant to just sit down and wait how I was going to gradually improve my position in the long run . . .

34.fxgS .ixg3 3S.hxg3

218

Game 73 Evgenij defends quite tenaciously, creating plenty of technical difficulties for me.

47.�e2 'lWc5 48.'lWg5 + 1t>f8 49. 'lWd8+ It>g7 5 0 .'lWd5 'lWe7 51.b4 M6 52.1t>f2 'lWe7 53.'lWd2 It>g6 54.'lWd4 �f6

35 'lWg6?! •.•

Here it was much stronger for Black to follow with: 35... hxg5!? 36.'lWxg5+ �f8 and I would h ave great problems to realize my extra pawn. My task h ad become much easier after my oppo­ nents last move and the game entered a technical stage of the realization on my extra pawn.

36.gxh6 'lWxg3 37.�e4 q)e6

55.'lWb2?! At that moment, both of us were in a desperate time-trouble. It was much better for me to continue with 55. \Wd2, or 55.\We3.

55 'lWd6 56. lt>e3 It>e7! 57.'lWd4? • • •

This was a terrible blunder in the time-pressure.

57... 'lWe7

38.xh6 45. lt>g2 It>g7 46. 'lWf4 'lWe7 •.•

My opponent returned the favour. . . After: 57 ... \Wh6 + ! S8.�f2 \wh2 + 59.�f1 \Wxg3, Black's position would have been at least equal. Now, my chances have become once again preferable, but the realization of my advantage is connected with considerable technical difficulties.

58.lt>d2 q)e659.'lWd5q)e56 O. 'lWd4 q)e6 61.'lWe3 'lWd6+ 62.lt>el?! That is another mistake in the time­ trouble and my opponent thus ob­ tained quite good chances for a draw as a result.

62

••.

q)d4 63.�e4 'lWe5

Dreev-Pigusov, Moscow 2 0 0 1 One more imprecision i n the time­ pressure, because in case of: 63 ... %'fh6+ 64. %'fd2 %'fhl+ 6S.d4 'it>d6 71. 'it>e3 .tg6 ""!... .ill5 �e5 73.'it>f4 �c4 74.'tt>f5 i;e75.�e2 �d6+ Or 7S. . . �xa3 76.�d3 as 77.bS+-

76.'it>f4 �f7 77.g4 a5 78.b5 �e5 79 .'it>f5 �f7 8 0 .e5! �xe5 81.g5 �d7 82.g6 'it>f8 83.'it>e6 �c5+ 84.'it>xf6 �e4+ 85.'it>e5 �c3 86.�d3 'it>e7 87. �c4 'it>f8 88.'it>d6 �bl 89.a4 and Black resigned.

65 :�d4? ••

That was already the decisive blun­ der. Black could have offered a seri­ ous resistance only by preserving the queens on the board, for example in the variation: 6S ... %'fc7 66.idS �eS. Now, I exchange queens and the game is transferred into a technically win­ ning endgame " a bishop against a knight, with an extra pawn". I did not have too many problems to press my advantage home. The game still fol­ lowed with:

66. �xd4 �xd4

I believe that game was quite inter­ esting concerning the opening stage, as well as the great competitive ten­ sion involved... Later in the tournament I had to face VAnand...ln a match to enter the last 8, I succumbed 0 .5-1.5. That match was marked by a sad occa­ sion too...Just before it had started, my coach and invaluable assistant Alexander Filipenko received the sad news that has mother had passed away and he had to leave...

E81

74 Dreev - Jobava Aeroflot-open, Moscow 2002

Alexander Grigorievich Bakh (the director of the tournament) had an­ nounced several months before that in February 20 02 there would be a Chess Festival in Moscow with the huge prize-jund of us $150, 0 0 0 (very high top-prizes too) and many people were quite interested. Still, some journalists were doubtful that so many players might come to Mos­ cow in the winter (since it is really cold in Moscow then) and that the 67.'it>b2 �f3 68. 'it>c3 f6 69.�e2 tournament would be attractive for

Game 74

220

strong grandmasters. There were no special conditionsfor anybody - both grandmasters and amateurs were supposed to pay "a package-deal", which included an a irplane ticket with "Aeroflot", the hotel lodgment and the tournament entry-fee. Still, many strong gran dmasters were attracted by the big prizes, since Open tourna­ ments with similar high prizes were quite rare for Eastern Europe (and even for the entire "old world" too). I was absolutely convinced that the tournament would be organized on a top-level when after an absence from Russia of almost a month (Iplayed in a round-robin in Wijk aan Zee and then in the Team Championship of France) I came back to Moscow by plane from Paris. I saw then at the "Sheremetievo" airport an enormous bill-board with the sign - "Welcome to the Participants in the Interna­ tional Chess Tournament "Aeroflot - Open"!"... The tournament rules were tre­ mendously difficult - a time-control of } lh hoursfor the whole game with 3 0 seconds added per move. There were three days with 2 roundsper day and three days with Just one round per day. There were alsofour days in which the games were to begin quite early - that was at 1 0 o'clock in the morning. I h esitated a lot whether to participate or not because of these severe rules, but in the end I under­ stood that the role of a spectator at a tournament like that, organized in Moscow, would not be attractive for me. The temptation of the fight was too great to withstand. In the end I

made 6 points out of 9 and I shared to 2 0 th place, just half a point be­ hind the five winners - G.Kaidanov, A.Grischuk, A.Shabalov, V.Milov and AAlexandrov (according to the tie­ break coefficient the first place and the highest prize was awarded to Grigory Kaidanov). l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 S.f3 a6 6.Be3 c6 7.c5 6th

I like this variation particularly because White manages to reach a principally different pawn-structure, which is quite untypical for the King's Indian Defence.

7 ... 0 - 0 8.lLlge2 bS 9.cxd6 exd6 1 O .lLlf4 lLlbd7 11.�e2 �e7 There is no essential difference be­ tween this move and 1l . . .c5, as Loek van Wely played against me at New Delhi in the year 2001. I had the ad­ vantage there after: 12.0-0 �b7 13. �d2 �e7 lUladl �fe8 15.dxc5 dxc5 16.iLlfd5 iLlxd5 17.iLlxd5 %\Id6 18.iLlc3 �xd2 19J1xd2 Bc6 20.�fdl 13a7 2Uld6 13c8 22 .iLlxd5 �d5 23.136xd5, but a draw in that game was quite sufficient for me to win the match . . . (diagram)

12.�d2N The game Sakaev - Zemehman,

221

Dreev-Jobava, Moscow 20 02

15 lLlfd7 •••

It deserved a serious attention for Black to try 15 ... b4 - and after: 16.lLla4!? lLlxa4 17.Wxb4 lLlxe4 (or 17 . . . d5 18.Wxa4 dxe4 19.�h4 and the game is rather unclear) 18.fxe4 Wxe4, there arises an unclear situation. White has a positional alternative, though: 16.lLlbl c5 17.dxc5 dxc5 18.Wc2, with the idea to follow with lLlbl-d2. Duisburg, 1992 followed with: 12 .0-0 b4?! 13. lLl a4 lLldS 14.�cl lLlxf4 IS.ixf4 d5 16.e5 �b7 17.�d2 c5 18.lLlxc5 lLlxe5 19.ixb4 lLlc6 20.�c3 �c8 21.Wd2 �xd4+ 22.�xd4 lLlxd4 23 .Wxd4 Wxe2 24.Wd5 and White had an edge.

12 J.b7 13. 0 - 0 gfe8 14.gadl .•.

While playing that move, I had to consider also the line: 14...b4 (14... lLld5 15.�f2 ! and White's advantage was only minimal.) 15.lLla4 lLle4? 16. fxe4 Wxe4, but after 17.gf3, Black does not have a full compensation for the piece.

14

•••

16.gfel 16. Wc2! ?

16 gad8 • •.

H ere, once again it deserved a se­ rious attention for Black to play: 16... b4!? 17.lLlbl c5 18.a3! ? a5 19.�b5, with some initiative for White.

17.1Wc2 c5?! That natural move looks like a mis­ take to me. Black had better wait: 17... �c8! ?

18.dxc5

lLl b6 15.J.f2

This is a logical multi-purpose move for White. Its only drawback is that Black might play �h6 at some moment quite favourably. Meanwhile, that move is presently impossible due to lLlxg6.

18

•••

lLlxc5

In case Black captures with the pawn - 18 . . . dxc5, White follows with: 19.1Llcxd5 lLlxd5 20.lLlxd5ixd5 2l.�xd5 c4 and here his task is to destroy Black's pawn-chain on the queenside. The simplest way to do that is 22.a4, but it also deserves attention for White

Game 74

222 to try the immediate move: 22.b3 ! ? c3 23J'ledl f5 24.a4 fxe4 (or 24. . .bxa4 25.ic4 Ifih8 26.exf5) 25.axb5 and he maintains better prospects.

19.1iJfxd5 hd5 20 .liJxd5 liJxd5 2U:lxd5 liJa4 22.!':lb1! The attractive move 22 .�c6? ! , af­ ter: 22 ... ib2 23.�a6 liJc3, does not bring anything good to White.

22 .. .!':lc8 23.�d2 gc6 24 . .td1 White avoids the temptation again! Mer the spectacular variation: 24 ..Elxb5 axb5 25.ixb5 liJc3 26.bxc3 .Elb8 27.id4 id4+ 28.cxd4 d5 !, there arises a completely unclear position.

(after White attacks it with .Eldl) with if8, enables White to improve pa­ tiently his position, for example by ad­ vancing his h-pawn. It is equally bad for Black to try: 28 ... �d8 29 . .Eldl �f6 30 . .Eld6 .Elxd6 31.�xd6 �b2+ 32 .lfih3.

29.�d3 ! gb8 3 0 .a4 bxa4 31. .txa4 gc3! 32 .�d1 %Yb4 33.gxd6 gc4 34.b3 gd4 35.gxd4 hd4 36. �c2 That is the correct reaction for White! He must control the c and d­ files in order to prevent the activiza­ tion of Black's rook.

36 ...h7 37.gd1 %Yb6

24 ... gec8

38 .gd7! 25.g3 ! That is an important prophylactic move, since now White can capture on b6.

25 ...�c7 26.lfig2 liJb6 27.hb6 In case of 27. .Eld3?, White preserves his two bishop advantage, but after: 27 . . . liJc4 28.�e2 �e7, his pieces are forced to defend the b2-pawn losing their mobility.

27... �xb6 28 ..tb3 Now, W1lite is clearly better.

28 ... a5 Black loses a pawn after that move. The passive defence of the d6-pawn

Naturally, that move was quite at­ tractive, but I had already made up my mind to enter the variation with the march of the king. I had an extra pawn indeed, but it might not be enough to win the game at the end, so I had no more time to lose!

38 ... %Yg1+ Or 38 ... .Elf8 39.f4 �gl+ 40.lfih3 �f1+ 41.�g2 �a6 42.�f3± 39.lfih3 �f1+ 4 0 �g2 � a6 Or 40 . . . �c1 41.�d2 �f1+ 42.lfig4. 4UWd2 �f1+ Had Black known how all that might have ended, he would have preferred .

223

Dreev-Jobava, Moscow 2 0 02 the move 41...h5, but . . .then White has the resource: 42.f4 �fl+ 43.�g2 �a6 44.�f3.

42.�g4! h5+

Following 44 . . .�d8, Black loses after the exquisite line: 45.�h6 (45. �xg6?? !'!b6) 45 ... �f7 46.�d5+ �f8 47.�d6.

45.�d7+ �f8 46.�xg6! White's pieces are in perfect har­ mony: 46 ...�xf3 47.�g7 # . It is amaz­ ing, but even the bishop on a4 partici­ pates in the final attack. It was only a passive witness awhile ago; now it played a key decisive role in the attack, because it controlled the e8-square. Black resigned, since he had no de­ fence against the checkmate.

43.�g5! White must go forward! Black could have countered the tentative and humble move 43.�f4, with the immediate 43 ... �gl, with the decisive threat �a7-e3+.

43 . . .1b6 In case of 43 .1c5, White wins with: 44J'!t7! �f7 45.�f4. It would not work for Black to play: 43 ...�f3 44.!'!a7 �g4+ 45.�h6 b4, because White's queen comes to the rescue: 46.�g5! ..

Ell

75 Dreev - Pelletier Biel 2002

l.d4 lOf6 2.c4 e6 3.lOf3 1b4+ 4.1d2 a5

5.�c2!?

44Jhf7! That is the most precise line for White!

44 ... �xf7

This is an interesting line and con­ trary to the more popular moves 5.g3 and 5.lOc3, it is not so often played in tournament practice. I believe that it is not worse at all and it seems to be quite logical. In fact, White takes the e4square under control and he is threat-

Game 75

224 ening to occupy the centre with e2-e4 just in case, meanwhile the choice of his plans is quite flexible, concerning the possibility of fianchettoing of his light-squared bishop.For example, in case of S...dS, it looks good for White to follow with 6.g3!? with an excel­ lent position in a strategical aspect. It resembles one of the variations of the Catalan Opening, except that the situation is much more favourable for him, because Black's move a7-aS is not particularly useful in similar pawn­ structures ... Following S...O-O, White can play 6.e4!?, occupying the centre with clearly better chances.

S hd2+ 6,Fobxd2 dS ..•

That is a novelty, but it is hardly better than the usual move 6...d6, which is a frequent guest in the tour­ naments.

not very purposeful for Black either.

1 O . �eS �a6 11.l;fd1 I would not have achieved much

with Il.cS, because of: 11...bxcS I2.dxc5 �d7! and Black's chances are worse neither after: 13.c6 �xeS 14.cxb7 gb8, not in case of: 13.�df3 �xeS 14.�xeS �b4.

1l cS 12.cxd5 .•.

Following: I2.dxcS �xcS 13.cxd5 hdS, the prospects of both sides are about equal.

1 2. . .exd51? Capturing the pawn leads to a com­ plicated fight with a slightly better po­ sition for White.He would have main­ tained superior chances too in case of: 12...hdS 13.e4 1b7 14.dxc5 �xcS IS.gacl.

7.g3 1? I like this plan including the fian­ chettoing of the light-squared bishop and castling short subsequently.

7 . 0 - 0 8.ig2 b6 9 . 0 - 0 ib7 ..

13.b3 !? I was preparing the b2-square for my queen, in order to control the key d4-square.

13. . .'oMfe7 14. 'oMfb2 l3fd8 15J;ac1 �c7 16.�ec4 White has a slight positional advantage in that pawn-structure. It is a bit similar to some lines of the Queen's Indian Defence, but as I have mentioned before, the move a7-aS is

The calm move 16.e3, would have preserved a slight advantage for me.I decided to play that spectacular move, since I wanted to sharpen the game, although it was leading to a bit unclear position.

225

Dreev-Pelletier, Biel 20 02

16

•.•

1%a6?!

That awkward move enables me to improve my situation considerably. It deserved attention for Black to follow with: 16 ...dxc4 ! ? 17.ixb7 �ab8, with a complicated game with mutual chanc­ es.

17.�e3 g6 This is an impreclSlon, because my opponent compromises his dark squares on the kingside without any necessity. It was more reliable for him to defend with: 17 ... �e6 18.�f5 %Yd7, obtaining a slightly worse, but still quite acceptable position.

18.�f3 �e6 It is not better for Black to play: 18 ... a4, in view of: 19.bxa4 c4 20. �e5 with a considerable positional advan­ tage for White.

This move emphasizes the vul­ nerability of the dark squares on the kingside and it increases my pressure along the al-h8 diagonal.

22 ... �xg4 In case of 22 ... axb3, I was planning to continue with 2 3.dxc5!, after which my opponent would have very serious problems. For example, in case of: 23 ... �xg4 24.�xg4 h5 (White was threat­ ening a checkmate in two - 25.�h6 1Yf8 26.%Yh8 # ) 25.�f6+! 1Yf7 (25 ... lYf8 26.c6+-) 26.cxb6! my initiative would have been quite dangerous. Here, it is rather dubious for Black to play: 26 ... bxa2? ! , due to: 27.�c7 al%Y 28.�xe7+ IYxe7 29.�al 1::l x al+ 30.lYg2 d4+ 31. 'itlh3 and his position would be very difficult. White's knight is untouch­ able, after 3l...'itlxf6, White wins with 32.%Yxd4+ and Black loses unavoid­ ably his bishop. It is not any better for Black to defend with: 31.. .e5, since af­ ter 32.�h7! his position is hopeless.

23.�xg4 %Yg7?!

19.�h3!? a4 2 0 .ixe6 fxe6 21. �e5 1%da8 Simplifying the game with - 21... axb3 2 2 .axb3 �da8 23.�al �xal 24.�xal �xal+ 25.%Yxal - would have preserved for me a slight, but stable positional advantage thanks to the powerful knight on the e5-outpost. My opponent would be doomed to a pas­ sive defence then.

22.�5g4!?

This is a grave mistake. It was bet­ ter for Black to try: 23 ...h5 24.�e5 axb3 25. axb3 �a2 26.%Yc3. Indeed, in that case I would have preserved a slight positional advantage too, but Black would have at least activated his rooks.

226

Game 76

24.b4! That excellent positional move cuts off practically Black's queenside pieces away from the actions and White has a free hand to organize later a crushing kingside attack.

24 ... a3 2S.'fNd2 c4 26.�c3 My adversary's position is already close to hopeless from the point of view of strategy. His dark eS and f6squares are very weak and in addition his bishop on b7 is a sorry sight.

26 bS ..•

We were both in time-trouble here. Still, it is quite understandable that it is much easier to play that position with White under time-pressure, be­ cause I do not risk anything in that pawn-structure, while every mistake by my opponent would lead him to an immediate disaster.

27.�b1 That is a typical move for the time­ trouble and it is not the best, but it does not ch ange much in that posi­ tion.

My kingside attack is developing smoothly, while my adversary has no counterplay at all.

29 ...'fNe7?! That is another bad move for Black, played under a severe time-pressure. His position is strategically hopeless anyway, so White's victory is just a matter of time . . . The game still followed with:

3 0 .�£J �c8 31.c!l:ig4 'fNg7 32.�c1 hS 33.c!l:if6+ d>h8 34.�cc3 �ca8?! 3S.'fNf4 �c6 36.'fNeS �e8 37.�f4 �c8 38.d>h2 �ca8 39.g4 bxg4 4 0 .�xg4 �6a7 41.hS and Black resigned. 76

E12 Dreev - Vallejo Pons Biel 2002

1.d4 c!l:if6 2.c4 e6 3.c!l:i£J b6 4.a3 �a6

27. . . �c6?! This only speeds up Black's demise. It was better for him to try 27 .. .l'!fB.

28.c!l:ieS �e8

Pako plays the Meran variation quite often with Black, but obvious­ ly he had decided otherwise for this

29.h4

game . . . Meanwhile, he probably knew that I was playing one and the same line permanently against the Queen's Indian Defence. He must have thought that I had failed to repair that line af-

227

Dreev-Vallejo Pons, Biel 20 0 2 ter my game with V.Emelin (Aero­ flot-open 2002), in which I had not achieved any advantage with White whatsoever. Contemporary chess is becoming sometimes an exact science: to find a weak spot in the opening ar­ mour ofthe opponent, to analyze some opening line with "Fritz" and you can reach the desired result ... Still, it is far from easy to understand the essence of the opening strategy with such an approach, so that tactics might often turn out to be counterproductive... This is exactly what happened in our game...

5.'Mfc2 c5 6.d5 exd5 7.cxd5 g6 Here, Black can win a pawn with: 7 ... ib7 8.e4 'Mfe7 9.id3 tiJxdS 10.0-0 tiJc7, but that line is not popular for him at all.

S.if4

the line: lO ...bS 11.tiJxbS 0-0 12. tiJc3, but his compensation for the pawn was insufficient.

1 0 'Mfd7 1 1 .bd6 'Mfxa4 12.e7 18.�f5+ i>e8 19.�d6+ forcing a draw by a per­ petual check.

16,.."flfb6 That is a well-familiar and quite popular position in the Vienna varia­ tion of the Queen's gambit. The criti­ cal line for Black here is 14 ... a6, but he can also play 14 ... 'iI?e7.

14,..eS? My opponent chooses a quite rare and as our game shows rather dubious move. At the moment our game was played, White used to counter 14 ... e5, only with the line: 15.ixd7+ i.xd7 16.�fS i.xfS 17.exf5 gd8 and Black had no problems after that. Still, our game continued with:

IS.�f5! This excellent novelty puts the whole seldom played line with 14... e5

The other lines for Black are hardly any better. He has no satisfactory de­ fence, for example: 16 ... iWa5 (or 16 ... i>dB 17.�d6 �a6 IB.i>gl+-; 16 ... i>fB 17.lLid6 iWa6 IB.iWb3+-) 17.iWb3 lLic5 I B.lLid6+ i>dB 19."flfd5 and White's at­ tack should be victorious; or: 16 ..."flfa6 17.i>gl and the threat 1:l:cl is impos­ sible to parry.

17.l3bl "flfa6 18.i>gl! Black is in a zugzwang and he has no useful moves. Now, the game is quickly over.

18,. .�xa2 Or IB ... 1:l:gB 19.9c1! "flfxa2 20.gc7 "flfe6 2 1.iWc1+-

19.13cl! bS Or 19. . .i>f8 2 0.gdc3+-

230

Game 78

2 0 .13c7 'iWa4 21.'iWc1 'iWa6 22.13d6 'iWxd6 23A:lxd6+ 'i!?e7 24.13xc8 and

- against Loek van Wely and Peter Leko.

7... dxc4

Black resigned.

That was a good game with a cer­ tain theoretical importance. Under­ standably enough, after that game the move 14 . . e5 in that line of the Vi­ enna variation, disappearedjrom the tournament practice. .

The other possibility here for Black is - 7 ... tLle4.

8.hc4 0 - 0 9.tLlge2 The development of White's knight to f3 (9. tLlf3) leads to the classical po­ sitions.

9 'iWxc5 1 0 .'iWb3 tLlc6 1l.tLlb5 'iWh5 12A:lg3 •..

78

D82 Dreev - Svidler

European Club Cup, Chalkidiki 2002

J.Piket played 12.ill c 7 against Loek van Wely. After 12 ... ill a 5, Black had a very bad position. He had better try 12 . . J�b8.

12 My games with Petr Svidler have always been quite principled and in­ teresting. Asfor the result, things are fluctuating. I managed to win my game against Petr at the European Club Cup as he was playing there for the French super-club NAO. l.d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 d5 4.�f4 �g7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 'iWa5 7.13c1

..•

'iWh4 13.tLlc7 g5

This is one of the three possibili­ ties that Black had at his disposal. The others - 13 .. Jlb8 and 13 . . . e5 - lead to complex positions as well.

14.hg5 I had prepared that novelty for my

This order of moves enables White to develop his knight to the e2-square. I noticed it while I was playing through the games of the Dutch GM Jeroen Piket. He played like that twice in the year 2001 at the Amber-tournament

game against Peter. The game Gret­ arsson - Schandorff, Gentofte 1999, followed with: 14.ill f5 !xfS 1S.!g3 ill d 4!

14 'iWxg5 15.tLlxa8 !d7 16.'iWxb7 13b8 17.'iWc7 13xa8 .•.

This looked like the most natural move for Black, but it deserved at­ tention for him to try 17 . . J lc 8 ! ? and if

231

Dreev-Svidler, Chalkidiki 2 0 02 1B.liJe4 - not 1B ... liJxe4 19.%Vxd7 l:'ldB 2 0.%Vxc6 %Va5+ 2 1.�f1 %Vd2 22.�e2, but 1B . . . %VfS !?, or 1B . . . %VaS + ! ?

l S .ia6! •

This is a very strong move. Still, it would be fair to admit - that position was mentioned by GM KIasenkow in his comments and he had evalu­ ated it as unclear. It seems to me that Black's situation as almost critical, for example it is too bad for him to play: 1B ... IiJb4? 19.%Vb7+-. After: 1B ... liJdB 19.0-0 liJe6 20.%Vb7, Black is clearly worse.

lS ... liJeS Peter continues with the forced play. He could have tried instead lB . . . %VdS! ?

19.%Vxd7 %VaS+

IiJxg7 (or 23 ... �xg7 24.%Vd4+) 24.gc7 l:'lfB 2S.l:'lxa7.

23.!"!c6 %VaS I saw that following 23 . . .%VbS, the next spectacular line would not work for White: 24.liJh6+ �fB 2S.l:'lf6?, be­ cause of 25 ... %Vxf1+. but it is quite sufficient for him to play the simple: 24.liJxg7 IiJb4 2S.liJfS (or 2S.liJxeB %Vxc6 26.%Vxe7) 2S ... liJxc6 26.liJxe7+ �g7 27.liJxc6.

24.liJxe7+ After 24.liJxg7 �xg7, I failed to find anything decisive, while I was calcu­ lating variations; for example after: 2S.%Vb7 l:'ldB 26.l:'la6, Black had the re­ source 2 6 ...%Vd2. 24 .. lPfS 2S.liJc8 .

Here, my opponent made the deci­ sive blunder:

2S...%Vb4? This move defends simultaneously against the threat %Vd7-b7, as well as against %Vd7-e7.

2 0 .b4! My opponent had underestimated this important nuance.

20 ... liJxb4 21. 0 - 0 Yfixa6 After 2l. ..liJxa6 22.%Vxe7, White maintains a clear advantage.

22.1iJf5 IiJxa2 As Peter told me after the game, he had evaluated that position as quite acceptable for Black. In fact, White has a great advantage. In case of 2 2 ... e6, White practically wins with : 23.liJxg7

Still, after my reply: 26.!"!c4! Peter resigned in view of: 26 . . .%Vxc4 (or 26 ... %Va3 27.l:'le4) 27.%Ve7+ �gB 2 B.%VxeB+ ifB 29.liJe7+ �g7 30.liJfS+ �g6 31.%VxaB+Black had an only chance that could enable him to try to hold the game

232

Game 79

somehow - 25 . . .'?;l/e5 and if: 26.§b7 ElbB 27.§xa7 - 27. . . Elb2 (but not 27 ... itJb4, because of 2 B.Elc5). Well, even then after: 2 B .itJb6 §e7 (this i s once again a n only move for Black) 29 .itJd7+ Itg7 is very bad for Black due to: 23.l:!xf7+ ! l:!xf7 24.vtfg6+ @h8 2S.\';\Ixf7 Ii:ldf6 (or 2S ... li:ldxeS 26.�fS) 26.l:!f1 l:!f8 27.l:!xf6.

23 . .ltf5? That natural move turns out to be a mistake as well . The correct move for White would have been - 23.\';\Id1! and Black can hardly save the game. For example: 23 ... li:lh6 24.if5 Ii:lxeS 2S.\';\IhS @g7 26.li:lf3+-, or 23 ... @xh7 24.\';\Ixg4 Ii:lxeS 2S.\';\IhS+ @g7 26.1i:lf3 f6 27.li:ld4+-

23

•••

li:lxe3 24.\';\Id3 .ixc5

After: 24 . . . li:lxfS 25.l:!xfS, Black is practically helpless.

25 . .hd7

2 0 .f6! This sacrifice leads to the opening of important "arteries", so that I do not allow Black to close the position.

2 0 . . . li:lhxf6 21.dxe5 Ii:lg4? ! It was better for Black to play 21... Ii:lxe5, but then after: 2 2.l:!fS Ii:lfg4 23.li:lf1 ! , I would have a serious initia­ tive for the pawn, while in the varia­ tion: 23 ... li:lxd3 24.\';\Ixd3 Ii:lh6 2S.\';\Id4 f6 26.l:!xgS+ 1ttf7 27J'l:g2 l:!g8 28.li:lg3 l:!g4 29.e4, White would maintain his advantage.

22 .lth7+ ! •

25

•..

li:lc4+?

Black cannot save the game any­ more after that mistake. He had how­ ever a wonderful defensive resource, which I found only after the game - 2S .. .f6 ! ! Now, it is of course a mistake for White to play 26.l:!fc1?, due to: 26 ...

234

Game BO

�xd7 27.E1xcS �g4+. It is also terrible for him to continue with: 26.e6??, be­ cause of 26 ... lLlg4+. White has no ad­ vantage in the variation: 26.E1xf6 E1xf6 (or 26 ... lLlg4+? 27.lt>hl lLlxf6 28.�h3 + lLlh7 29.lLle4) 27.exf6 lLlg4+ 28 .id4 �xh2+ 29.Ml lLleS 30.f7 E1f8 31.�g6 ixd4 32.�f6+ It>h7 33.ifS+ lLlg6 34. ixg6+ It>h6 3S.�xd4 It>xg6. Following: 26J::lfel 26... �xd7 (or 26 . . . lLlc4+?! 2 7.lt>hl lLlxb2 28.�h3+ It>g7 29.ifS 13h8 30. �c3) 27.13xe3 ixe3+ 28.�xe3 E1ae8 (It is worse for Black to play here: 28 . . . �g4+ 29.lt>hl E1ae8 30.13gl±) 29.lt>hl! (or 29.�g3 fxeS 30.ixeS+ It>h7 31.13el �fS), White might be still slightly better, but the position would have remained complicated enough. For example: 29 . . . lt>g8 ! ? (or 29 . . .d4 30.hd4 �dS+ 31.It>g1 fxeS 32 .�h3+ It>g7 33.ie3) 30J:'lgl �fS 31.E1g2 with the idea to fol­ low with �e3-gl.

Karjakin was anticipated with great interest. I shared l't_2nd place with 6 points out 019 with Alexander Ruste­ mov, but according to the Berger co­ efficient he was declared the winner of the tournament. l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.lLlf3 b6 4.a3 .tb7 S.lLlc3 dS 6.cxdS lLlxdS 7 .td2 •

This flexible move was introduced into the 'top-level tournament practice by GM 5mbat Lputian.

7... lLld7 S.lLlxdS ixdS 9.�c2 cS 10 .e4 ib7

26.lt>h1+- lLlxb2 27.�h3 + It>g7 2S.E1f6 �xe5 29.�h6+ �gS 3 0 .tf5 I had reached that position three 1- 0 times in the several months preceding •

this game. In the first one, against Pe­ ter Leko, in the match "Russia against E12 The Rest of the World" after: 1l.13dl so cxd4 12.lLlxd4 a6 13.ie3 ie7 14.ie2 Dreev Tiviakov �c8 IS.�bl lLlcS 16.f3 0-0 17.0-0 Dos Hermanas 2 003 �b8 18.b4 lLla4 19.�c2 bS 2 0.E1cl id6 This was my second participation 21.g3, we agreed to a draw (Dreev in the traditional round-robin tour­ Leko, Moscow 2 002). nament. Just like in the year 20 aI, it In the second game, at the World was a category 16 event. I was only FIDE Cup, Vishy Anand played a dif­ number three with my rating of2690 ferent move - 13 ... bS, but the game at the start of the tournament. Alex­ also ended in a draw after: 14.f3 ie7 ey Shirov and Alexander Khalifman . IS.ie2 13c8 16.�d2 lLleS 17.0-0 0-0 were infront of me, because they both 18.b4 lLlc4 19.ixc4 bxc4 2 0.lLle2 had a rating of over 270 O . The par­ �xd2 21.13xd2 ic6 22 .lLlc3 1/2 (Dreev ticipation of the 12 year old Sergey - Anand, Hyderabad 2002). -

235

Dreev-Tiviakov, Dos Hermanas 2 0 03 In the previous game, against Ana­ tolij Karpov, (Dreev - Karpov, Cap d'Agde 2 0 02), I had decided to try a much sharper move - n.d5. After: n . . . exdS 12.exd5 id6 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.liJg5 liJf6 15.bl ie5 16.liJf3 id4, I had no opening advantage and the position had remained quite unclear. Later, I had studied that position quite thoroughly and I found an inter­ esting possibility, so when my oppo­ nent played 1O . . . ib7, I advanced my d4-pawn once again ...

n.d5 exd5 12.exd5 id6 13. 0 - 0- 0 0 - 0

Therefore, I started with the mo\-e

- 15.�c3

15 ... liJf6 16.�c6 gb8 In case of: 16 . . . ixc6 17.dxc6 ElcB IB.lMfa4, Black has certain problems to worry about.

17.h4 My opponent had evidently under­ estimated that move.

17. . liJg4 .

That was Black's only move, since White was threatening liJf3-g5.

18.bl This useful move helps White pre­ pare liJf3-gS.

14.�b5!? This is the possibility that I had mentioned ...

14. . .h6 This move seems to be too slow, but it is quite logical, since Black takes the g5-square under control. White can counter the immediate move 14 . . . liJf6 with the powerful - 15.ig5. After 14 ... h6, in case ofthe straight­ forward reaction 15.h4 (in order to play after 15 . . . liJf6 - 16. liJg5) Black must follow with 16 ... ie5 and White does not achieve anything. If White tries 16.ic3, then Black can simply capture on d5 - 16 ... 'Llxd5.

18 ... ic8? Sergey told me in our discussion after the game that he did not wish to allow the move liJf3-gS and he relied a lot on his subsequent move g7-g6. In fact, the move IB . . . icB turned out to be his decisive mistake. Meanwhile, after IB . . . lMfc7, it would have been quite premature to talk about any real advantage for White. For example, here the move 19. 1iJgS, leads possibly only to a draw by a perpetual after: 19 . . . hxg5 2 0 .hxgS fS 21.gxf6 liJxf6 22.hf6 Elxf6 23.lMfh7+ fB 24.lMfhB+ etc. Therefore, I would have to look for some other possibili-

236 ties in case he had tried - 18..:�c7 . . .

Game BO After 19 ... �c7, White wins again with the help of: 20.li:lgS - 20 ... hxgS 21.hxgS fS 22.gxf6 Ii:lxf6 23 . .ixf6 gxf6 24.gh6. Following 19 .. .f6, White should at first bring his queen into the attack 20.�g6 bS 21.Ii:lgS hxgS 22.hxgS li:leS 23.�h7+ I!;>o 24.gh6 and his advan­ tage becomes decisive.

19.!'Mel! This is an important preparatory move. I though that after: 19.1i:lgS hxgs 20.hxgS fS, White's attack was insufficient.

19. . .g6 Black can hardly save the game af­ ter his other possibilities either, for example if: 19 ... bS, then 2 0.li:lgS hxgS 21.hxgS fS 22.gxf6 Ii:lxf6 23.�g6 (23. gh6!?) and if 23 ... b4, then 24.axb4 cxb4 2S.�d4 and Black is complete­ ly helpless against the doubling of White's rooks along the h-file after ge4, or gh4. In case of 19 . . .�d7, White can again answer with - 20.li:lgS hxgS 21.hxgS fS 22.gxf6 Ii:lxf6 (22 . . . gxf6 23.�h7+ I!;>O 24.hd7 �xd7 2S.ge6) and 23.�g6. After: 23 ...�xc6 24.dxc6 ge8 (24 ... g0 2S.gh3; 24 ... �c7 2S.ge6 1i:le8 26.�h7+ I!;>o 27.ghel + .... ) 2S.gdl ge6 26.gh7 �c7 27.gdhl, White's position is win­ ning. Black's other possible defence is - 23 ... �c8 (threatening �d7-fS) - but after: 24.�xd7 �xd7 2S.ge6 (2S.hf6 gxf6 26.�h7+ I!;>o 27.�hS+) 2S ...�e7 26.1"le3 �e8 27.�fS �c8 28.�xc8 l!bxc8 29.1"lxe7 gO 30.gh8+, the endgame should be an easy win for White.

2 0 J�e6! he6 This is the only move for Black. 2 1.dxe6 f5 Once again an only move ...

22.h5 That is the necessary introduction to White's main idea. Now, it becomes clear that Black's hopes to consolidate his position with the help of the move �e7 are going to be in vain. The point is that in case of 22 ... gS, I had in mind the powerful argument - 23.e7! ! , opening the important a2g8 diagonal. After: 23 . . . .ixe7 24.gdl �c7 2s.�b3+ gO 26.�e6 �f6 27.gd7, Black loses. If Black captures the pawn with his queen - 23 . . . �xe7, I had the answer 24.�dS+ and followinge 24 ... I!;>h7 - 2S.gel, so that after every re­ treat of Black's queen, White plays 26.�e6 and Black cannot defend his fS-square and his position crumbles.

Dreev-Tiviakov, Dos Hermanas 20 03 Therefore, Sergey played

22

•••

-

gxhS

14 . . . 'i!Vc7 But after:

23.gxhS

my attack was impos­ sible to be parried: -

23 :�e7 24.li:lh4 'i!Vxe6 2S.li:lxfS ieS ••

Or 25 ... gxf5 26.fuf5 ie5 27.'�e4.

26.idS l- 0

This is an interesting novelty. Black is preparing li:ld7-f6. In a game, which was played several days earlier in an­ other tournament (Dreev - Tiviakov, Dos Hermanas 2003), Black followed with 14 ...h6 (I have chosen that game too as a part of this book. . . ). Information spreads in a flash in contemporary society and naturally my opponent must have known about that game. He made his next several moves rather quickly...

IS.ic3 gfd8 16.�bl li:lf8 81

E12 Dreev - Jakovenko

Russian Club Cup, TogliaUi 2 003

This game against young grand­ master Yakovenko was played at the Russian Club Cup. I competed there on board onefor the team "The Nickel of Norilsk". Our club had the highest . rating ofthe players, but we took only secon d place after the team "Ladja" (fro m the city of Kazan), which was headed by Sergey Ru blevsky. l.d4 li:lf6 2.c4 dS exdS 3.li:lf3 b6 4.a3 ib7 S.li:lc3 dS 6.cxdS li:lxdS 7.�d2 li:ld7 8. li:lxdS hdS 9.'i!Vc2 c5 1 0 .e4 ib7 11.dS exdS 12.exdS id6 13. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 14.ibS!?

After 16 . . . llJe5 17.llJg5 llJg6 18.h4, White has the initiative.

17.'i!Ve4 Or 17.'i!Vf5!? a6· 18.id3 b5 19.1lJg5 (19.'i!Vg5 llJg6) 19 ...b4 20.axb4.

17. . .a6 18.id3 18.ic6 ! ?

1 8 . . .bS I9.'i!Vg4 li:lg6 2 0 .llJgS

238 Here, my opponent made a blun­ der:

2 0 ... b4? The right move for him would have been 2 0... .if4, after which he should be afraid neither of 2 1.ixg6, nor of 21.ltJxh7: a) 2 1..ixg6 hxg6 22 . .ia5 �xa5 23.�xf4 f6 24.�e3 (or 24.ltJe6 �xd5 25.�xd5 .bd5 26.ltJxc5 (26.�d6 �d2) 26 . . .�e8 and Black is even slightly better) 24 ... fxg5 25.�e6+ M8 (25 ... l!ih8? 26.h4 g4 27.h5 g5 2B.h6+-) 2 6.h4 (26.�d3 g4) 26 . . .g4 27.h5 .icB 2 8.�xg6 (28.�e5 �eB) 2B ... �c7 29.h6 �f7 30. hxg7+ �xg7 31.�c2 l!igB! (or 31.. .c4 32 .�h5 .ie6 33.�h7 �gB 34.�d4 �xd5 35.�xd5 .ixd5 36.�f5+ .if7 37. �c5+ l!ieB 38.�e5+ l!id7 39.�d5=) and if 32.�h5, then Black plays 32 . . . .ie6; b) 21.ltJxh7 b4 (Or 2l...l!ixh7 22.h4 .icB 23.�f3 and White has some com­ pensation for the material deficit and a powerful initiative.) 2 2 . axb4 (or 22.ltJf6+ gxf6 23 ..bf6 �d6; 22 . .if6 �xd5) 22 ... cxb4 23 . .id4 (or 23 ..ixb4 .ixd5 24 ..ixg6 fxg6 25.�xg6 �c6 26.�xc6 .bc6 27.�xd8+ �dB 2 B.ltJfB .ixg2) 2 3 . . .b3! (In case of 23 ... l!ixh7, White can continue with 24.h4 and he again has compensation and the ini­ tiative.). After the capturing 24.ixg6 - Black can counter that with 24 . . . fxg6 25 .�xg6 (or 25.�cl �f7 26.ltJf6+ gxf6 27. �xf4 �xd5) 25 ... �c2 and he remains in a slightly better position. Following 24 ..ic3, it is good for Black to play: 24 . . .�d7! 25.�xd7 �xd7 26.h4 .bd5 and his position is again supe­ rior. Therefore, White obviously should

Game 82 better continue with 2 1 ..ie4, pro­ tecting his d5-pawn. After 2l...b4 (or 2l.. ..ixg5 22 .�xg5 �f4 23.�xf4 ltJxf4 24..ia5 �d7 (24 ... .bd5 25 ..if3 .bf3 (25... �d7? 26.�xd5) 26.�xdB+ �xdB 27..ixdB ixg2 2B.�el) 25.�hel) 22.axb4 cxb4 23.id2, the situation re­ mains completely unclear.

21.h:g6 hxg6 2 2.�h4 bxc3 23. �hel ie5 24.�h7+ l!if8 25.�h8+ l!ie7 2 6.�xg7

My opponent had obviously over­ looked that move. Now, his bishop on e5 is pinned.

26 ... l!id727.�xf7 + l!ic8 2 8.�e6+ !id7 29.�e8+ !id8 3 0 .�xe5 The rest is quite clear without any comments -

3 0 ... \?;\lxe5 3U'!xe5 cxb2 32. l!ixb2 l!id7 33.ltJe4 �f8 34. l!ic3 �ac8 35.!ibl ia8 36.!ib6 1- 0

82

E12 Dreev - eu.Hansen

IBth North Sea Cup, Esbjerg 2003

This game was played in the cat­ egory 15 round-robin tournament,

239

Dreev-Cu.Hansen, Esbjerg 2 0 03 "North Sea Cup" in Esberg Denmark. That year the Cup had its lS'h edition, but it was still an anniversary, since the local chess union had its 1 0 0 year jubilee. I was in Denmarkfor thefirst time in my life, but I will remember for a long time these ten days, which I spent on the North Sea coast. We were accommodated away from the noise of the city, next to a big park, maybe with the idea to be better acquainted with the local flora and fauna. That was a wonderful and picturesque place! There were deer grazing over thefence without being afraid ofpeo­ ple and there were ducks swimming in the creek. There were some other animals too among beautiful shady alleys with attractive bridges and nice benches. It was difficult to imag­ ine a better place to have a rest any­ where. Meanwhile, the a tmosphere at the tournament and around it was quite warm andfriendly and the con­ ditions were just magnificent for the players as well as for the spectators. I would like to say again some kind words for the Director of the tourna­ ment, Brian Isaksen. There were three winners with the very good result of "+4" for such a short distance - the young players Luke McShane, Krish nan Saskirian and 1. My rivals were collecting their points mostly against the players at the bottom of the tournament table, while I had to win against the favou­ rites, since there was a point at which I had nowhere to retreat. So, my wins came at the end of the tournament. I will remember that event also with the fact that just after it my rating

had passed over the 270 0 mark for thefirst time in my chess career. I encounter Kurt very seldom on the chess board. I would like to re­ mind you that the strong Danish player was once the World Champion under 20, while I was only second ... l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.lLlf3 b6 4.a3 .b6 5.1&c2 �b7 6.lLlc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.lLlxd4 �c5 9.lLlb3 lLlc6 1 0 .�g5 h6 11.�4 lLld4 12.lLlxd4 �xd4 13.�d3 �e5 14.�g3 1&b8 15. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 16.c4 llJd7 32.gdl It seemed that 32.a4!? might be a good move, but I was afraid that my advantage would disappear after it. Therefore I decided not to force the issue.

32 ...h4?! The move 32 .. J:lb6, does not solve Black's problems either: 33.a4 as (or 33 .. J3d6 34.l3xd6 �xd6 3S.aS) 34.bxa6 gxa6 3S.�b3 ga8 36.ibs llJb6 37 .lhe8 . �xe8 (37 ... gxe8 38.aS) 38.gd6 gb8 39.llJbS, and White maintains the ad­ vantage.

33.�f1 The move a2-a4!? deserves atten­ tion too.

33 ... f6?! 34.�e2 1'lb7 35.g3 hxg3 36.hxg3 1'lb8 37.g4 1'lb7 38.ghl I!?d6 39.1'lh8 1'lb8 40 .1'lh7 'it>c7 The time-trouble was over here and I finally decided to advance themati­ cally my pawn:

41.a4, This is the critical moment in this game. I did not see how I could im­ prove my position playing in a normal fashion. The most logical plan for me would have been to advance my a­ pawn, but in case of 29.a4, I did not

against which Black was complete­ ly helpless. His position was very difficult anyway and Kurt understood that his fate was doomed after passive defence, so he decided to fol­ low with

4l ... l!?b6

241

Dreev-Cu.Hansen, Esbjerg 2 0 03

following: 48 . . �X!)J -;').axb5 Iilb6 50. a7 c4+! 51.wa3 lilaB, Black makes a draw. .

48 �b6 •.•

Or 4B ... wb6 49.ib5 icB 50.wc4 Iilc7 51.a5+ and Black's kingside is de­ fenseless.

49.ib5 .b:b5 5 0 .�xb5 �a6 51. a5! Black resigned. 42.ge7! This move emphasizes the drawbacks of the move 33 . . .f6.

42 ... �a5 43.�b3 a6 44.ic4! That is the most precise move for White!

44... �b6 Here, I was reluctant to follow with the beautiful line: 45.bxa6 (or 45 ... Iild5+ 46J'1b7) and I played the much more reliable move -

45.ga7 ga8 That is Black's only defence.

46.gxa8 �xa8 47.bxa6 id7 In case of 47. . . wb6, or 47. . . lilc7, White wins with 4B.ib5.

48.a7 Fortunately for me, I avoided the trap. It looked like I was winning eas­ ily with 48.1b5 and if 48 . . .ic8, then 49..tc6, attacking Black's knight. But

83

E12 Dreev - Sasikiran

18th North Sea Cup, Esbjerg 2 003

This game was played in the pen­ ultimate round ofa round-robin tour­ nament. My opponent and L.McShane were leaders at that moment, while I was half a point behind... I.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.1ilf3 b6 4.a3 ia6 5.'l'!fc2 ib7 6. �c3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.�xd4 d6 9.ie2 �bd7 1 0 .ie3 a6 11. 0 - 0 ie7 12.gfdl 0 - 0 13.f3 gc8 14.�hl

This is a useful move, since White must watch about the possibility d6d5 all the time. Now, after 14 . . . d5, he has the line: 15.exd5 exd5 16.lilf5! and if 16 ... dxc4 - 17.ixb6!

14...'l'!fc7 15.gac1 'l'!fb8 16.ifJ.

Game 83

242 I had to prefer possibly the move 16.b4, but it seemed to me that the maneuver 11fic2 - f2 might turn out to be more important.

It was also possible for me to play 23.cxb6. The move in the game was the beginning of basically prophylac­ tic measures.

23 ih6 24.tLled4 g6

16 id8 17.b4 ic7 18.igl whS

•.•

.•.

This is with the idea to follow with gg8 and g5.

19.tLlb3 White should better prepare some active actions on the queenside.

2S.11fia2

19

dS? !

.•.

This move is a grave positional mis­ take. It would be logical for Black to continue with the active move 19 . . . g5; if he considered that move to be too risky, he had better wait for a while. . .

2 0 .exdS exdS 21.cS! if4 22. gbl Now, White controls firmly the d4-square and he has the possibility to create a passed pawn in the future, while Black cannot organize any seri­ ous threats on the kingside. Later in the game, I was trying to follow lines in which Black's possible counterplay was reduced to a minimum. My op­ ponent had obviously u nderstood that his position was terrible, so he started to play very qui ckly with the idea to exploit my time-pressure.

22

.!:lfeS 23.tLle2

.••

White wishes to capture on b6 with the idea to occupy later the c5-square. Of course, it would not work for him to play 25.c6 - after 25 ... tLle5 26.b5 axb5 27..b:b5 �a8, he would have problems with the c6-pawn.

2S . . . wgS 26.cxb6 ie3 That is practically a forced mea­ sure. . .

27.be3 .!:lxe3 2S.11fif2 gec3 29. bS Naturally, I could have postponed that move a bit, but I decided to force the issue, because I did not have so much time left on the clock ...

29. . .axbS 30 .tLlxbs .!:lc2 31.11fig3 That is the most reliable line. I could have also played 31.11fih4.

31 ... tLlxb6 32.tLl3d4 Here, I overlooked the possibility to win the exchange immediately with: 32.�d3! 11fixg3 33.hxg3 ga2 34.tLlcl, due to the time-trouble.

32 iaS

•••

.!:l2cS 33.tLld6 tLlhS 34.11fieS

Dreev-Sasikiran, Esbjerg 2 0 0 3 In case of 34 ... lOc4? !, White wins with: 3S ..bc4 dxc4 36.�e7 �Sc7 (or 36 .. J'!8c7 37.�xb7!) 37.lOc6!! and his material advantage is overwhelming.

.. , ..

a4 10eS 47.ib5 �c-

It is too bad for Black to � .p_ lLld6, because of 48.liJe6!

4S.�g2 It was high time I did that!

4S...lOxb5 49.axb5 �cS 5 0 .gd6 );e7 51.);dl );c4 52.�g3 J.b7 53.h4 �eS 54. �f4 � 55.h5 gxh5 56. gxh5 �eS 57.�g5 );cc7 5S.b6 );cd7 59.);xd7 gxd7 6 0 .gel+ �f7 61.);e6 gdS 62.gf6+ �gS 63.h6 J.aS 64. �f5

35.g4 I could have won a pawn here with 3S.IOxf7, but after: 3S . . .�xeS 36. lOxe5 IOc4, Black would have good chances to save the game. Therefore, I decided to repel at first Black's knight on hS. Still, it would have been the best for me to have played the simple move 3S.�el and after: 3S . . . �f8 36.lOxf7 �xeS 37.lOxeS, Black would not have the possibility 37 ... lOc4.

The further resistance of my op­ ponent could only be explained by the specific time-control.

35 ... lOg7 36.�f6 );fS 37.lOxf7 64 ...ib7 65. �e5 J.cS 66.f4 J.b7 39.�bS );cS 4 0 . 67.gd6 geS+ 6S.ge6 gbS 69.�d6 gfS 7 0 .f5 ia6 71.ge7 gbS 72.gg7+ �b4 �dS 41.J.a6. This move forces the exchange of �hS 73.�c5 gcS+ 74.);c7 );bS 75. queens. The time-trouble was over ga7 J.b7 76.lOc6 gfS 77.gxb7 d4 and my position was easily winning. 7S.�bS! 1- 0 );xf7 3S.�xb6 �fS

I had an extra pawn and a powerful knight on the d4-outpost. My opponent continued to play very quickly, while the time-control was "1 hour to the end of the game", after move 40. So, I did not have enough time; never­ theless I played quite well in the tech­ nical stage ...

41.. J'lcc7 42.�bS !''!f8 43.�xdS );xdS 44J!b6 �f7 45J!el );a7 46.

S4

ESt Dreev - Gallagher Gibraltar (open) 2004

My game against Joe Gallagher was played in an Open tournament with 90 participants. Nigel Short won solefirst place with 8 points out oflO

244

games. He had shared lSI_2nd place the previous year with V.Kotronias, but he had been second on the tie-break. Second place this time was taken by the Indian grandmaster Surya Ganguly (who had lost to Short in round 6). I finished the tournament without a loss with 7 out of 1 0 (that corresponded to my expected level of performance) and I shared 3,·d_5th place. I remember that journey with my lasting impressions at the sight of the Rock of Gibraltar and my ac­ quaintance with its famous inhabit­ ants - the tailless monkeys Barbary Macaques I Macaca Sylvanus, which were even depicted on the emblem of the tournament playing chess. l.d4 tZlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tZlc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0 - 0 6.tZlge2 c5 7.d5 e6 S.tZlg3 exd5 9.cxd5 h5 1 0 .J.e2 tZlh7 1 1.J.e3 a6 12.a4 h4 13.tZlfl

I had already played that position before - against Vesselin Topalov (the moves a7-a6 and a2-a4 had been included there) and against Teimur Radj abov (without the inclusion of the moves with the a-pawns) - I had won both games. My opponents played f7fS and after exfS, both of them cap­ tured with the pawn: gxfS.

Game 84 Grandmaster Joe Gallagher played a much more flexible move:

13... tZld7 14.J.f2 This move frees the e3-square for the knight and it prepares the move f7-fS at the same time. After the less flexible line 14.tLld2, White must wor­ ry about Black's possibility 14 ... id4 all the time.

14 f5 15.exfS gxf5 16.f4 l3eS 17. tZle3 J.d4 ..•

Black was obviously afraid not to be squeezed into a positional bind. Therefore, he was trying to change radically the type of the fight.

IS.tZlxfS This is the most principled move for White. He would not have achieved anything with 18.tLlc4, because of: 18 ... ixf2+ 19.Wxf2 tZlb6.

IS . .hf2+ 19.Wxf2 l3fB ..

Here, in case of 2o.ig4, it would be very strong for Black to follow with 20 ... tLleS; while the move 20.tLlxd6 would have led to a quite unclear po­ sition after: 2 0. . Jlxf4+ 21.if3 c4!?, or 21...tZleS!?

20 .g4!? hxg3+ 2 1.hxg3 It is understandable that I did not play g4, in order to capture on g3 with the knight...

Dreev-Gallagher, Gibraltar 20 04

21...E:xf5 22.E:xh7 I was also considering the following order of moves: 2 2 .id3 li.l df6 23. E:xh7 li.lxh7 (The line: 23 ... �xh7 24.g4 was just transposing to the game. . . ) 24.�g4+ �gS 2S.�xgS+ li.lxgS 26 ..bfS ixfS 27.fxgS, but I was afraid that it might all end in a draw. Objective­ ly speaking, that might have been White's best move order - you will understand why a bit later. . .

245 �e7, captures 32.E:xg8, then Black can make a draw with the move 32 ... �c3+.

22 ... �xh7 23.id3 28 ... E:g8? This is a mistake. Black could have saved the day only with the move - 28 ... �h 2!. After 29.�e7+ �g8 30.�xf6, Black forces a draw by a perpetual 30 ... �h3 + ; in case of: 29.�hl �xhl+ 30Jlxhl + �g7 3U';lbl bS 32.axbS axbS 33.li.lxbS E:a6, the draw is again the most likely outcome.

23 . . . li.lf6 Now, Black had a fantastic possibility at his disposal: 23 . . . �gS!? White can regain his material indeed, but only with the line: 24. �f3 �g7 2S.fxgS gxf3+ 26.�xf3 and there arises an endgame, which is already familiar to us, but in a slightly better situation for Black.

24.g4 c4! The move 24... �b6, would have been refuted by White with the line: 2S.gxfS c4+ (or 25 ... �xb2+ 26.li.le2 ) 26. �f3 cxd3 27.�hl+ �g7 28.�g2+ �f8 29.ggl.

25..bt'5+ .bt'5 2 6.gxf5 �b6+ 27.wf3 �xb2 28.�el In case White after: 28. li.le4 gg8 29.�hl+ �g7 30.gg1+ �f7 31.li.lxd6+

29.�e7+ gg7 3 0 .ghl+ �g8 31. �d8+ wf7 32.�c7+ Wf8 33:�c8+ 1- 0 B12

85 E.Alekseev - Dreev Aeroflot-open, Moscow 2004

It was again winter and I was again in Moscow at the "Aeroflot - Open ". That was the third tour­ nament in a row and it was becom­ ing increasingly popular and it was breaking more and more records. There were 370 players in the first tournament (in all the groups), while in the second tournament there were already 476 participants (including

Game 85

246

grandmasters). In 2 0 04, there were 650 players from 53 countries and some representatives of "The Guinness Book of Records" were in­ vited in order to note the official re­ cord - the participation of more than 160 grandmasters in a tournament. There were some grandmasters tak­ ing part at the drawing of lots con­ cerning the colour of the pieces in the first round in both the first and the secon d years. This time that task was assigned to the youngest grandmas­ ter, the 13 year old Magnus Carlsen. There were three ex-World Champi­ ons present at the opening ceremony - Vasily Vasilievich Smyslov, Bo­ ris Vasilievich Spassky and Anatoly Evgenievich Karpov as well as the multiple challengerfor the World title - Victor Kortchnoi and the widow of Mikhail Tal - Sally Landay with their son. With 7points out of9, 1st to 3rdplace was shared by Sergey Rublevsky (who won the tournament according to the tie-break coefficient), Rafael Vaganian and Valery Filipov. I had 6 1/2 points and I tied for 4th_16th place and I took 5th place on the tie-break. l.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 ifS 4.c3 e6 5.ie3 'Il\Ib6 6. 'Il\Ib3 154

This seldom played variation of the Caro-Kann Defence has been intro­ duced into the tournament practice relatively recently - at the very end of the 20th century. There are not so many games played in that line and the theory is still investigating the poss ibiii ti es . . .

6 lLld7 7.lLld2 f6 .•.

This is the main line and the most principled too.

8.f4 g5!? White's pawn-structure under­ goes some changes after that move and Black thus succeeds in getting rid of White's e5-pawn, which cramps Black's pieces.

9.lLlgf3 It is bad for White to play 9.g3 here, because of: 9 ... gxf4 1O.gxf4 tLlh6!? (or 1O . . . ih6 ! ?) - and Black obtains a very good game. Following: 9.exf6, 'Black has the powerful argument: 9 . . . g4! - he takes the f3-square under con­ trol and he solves al his opening prob­ lems.

9 . gxf4 1 0 . .bf4 ih6 1l.1xh6 lLlxh6 12.exf6 lLlxf6 13.ie2 ..

The move 13.tLle5 is harmless for Black, thanks to 13 . . . l'lg8! ? In the game Smirin - Dreev, Moscow 2 002, there followed later: 14. tLl df3 tLlhg4 lS.tLlxg4 tLlxg4 16.h3 tLlf6 17.'Il\Ixb6 axb6 18.lLleS hS 19.a3 We7 and Black's position was superior. (diagram)

13. . . lLle4 Peter Leko in his game against Al­ exander Grischuk (Linares, 2 0 01) con­ tinued with: 13 . . . l'lg8 14.'Il\Ixb6 14.axb6 15. 0-0 tLle4 and he obtained a good position. White did not need how-

Alekseev-Dreev, Moscow 2 0 0 4

247 been about equal.

20

•..

�e7 21.!3fel

In case of 2 Ulae1, Black has the powerful resource 2 1 . ..e5 - 22 .a3 (or 22 .d:xeS Elxa2) 22 . . . e4.

ever to exchange on b6. For example, in the game Yudasin - Furdzik, New York 2003, h e followed with: 14.0-0 tLle4 1S.tLlxe4 �e4 - and there arose by transposition a situation from our game. After 16.g3, Black made a mis­ take - 16 . . . tLlfS and following 17.tLleS, White had the advantage.

14.lZJxe4 he4 15. 0

0 In case of lS.tLlgS, I intended to -

continue with: lS . . .iMlxb3 16.axb3 ifS, with the idea to follow with gg8 and the position would have remained ap­ proximately equal.

15

•.•

21. e5! ? •.

M y opponent had obviously under­ estimated this positional pawn-sacri­ fice.

22.dxe5 h5 23.ih3 h4 24.l;e3 hxg3 2 5.hxg3 All these moves were quite correct for both sides.

!3g8 16.g3 ltlf7!?

That was a n ew idea, although the move seemed to be quite attractive. Black must take the eS-square under control, in order not to become clearly worse.

17.ltld2 if5 18.'f:lfxb6 It looked quite enticing for White to play 18.ihS, but then after 18 ... iMlc7! (threatening gxg3) White would fail to occupy the eS-square, for example: 19.�xf7+ �xf7 and here it was bad for him to continue with 20.ltlf3, because of: 20 ... gxg3+ ! 21.hxg3 iMlxg3+ 22 .�hl gg8-+

18

•.•

axb6 19.ih5 ig6 2 0 .ig4

White is playing too optimistically. After 20.�g6 the position would have

25

.•.

llJh6!

Now, all Black's pieces will be de­ ployed very comfortably. Naturally, the rather nalve move - 2S . . . llJgS would have been a mistake.

26.a3 White can hardly continue the

Game 85

248 game without that prophylactic move.

26

.•.

if5 2 7.ig2 .tg4!

Black has repelled White's bishop away from the h3-c8 diagonal and now he deploys his knight on the f5-square creating some pressure and squeezing White's pieces maximally.

2S.:Bael Here it is essential that White can­ not play 2 8J1fl, due to 2B . . . IUf5 29.13d3 ie2 .

After the correct reaction for White 37.lUg2, Black can follow with: 37. . . 13fg8 3B.IUh4 1e4 (or 3B . . . 13xg3? 39. 13e3), but he must consider the possi­ ble exchange-sacrifice 39.13xe4. Prob­ ably, I would have preferred: 37. . . IUg4+ 3 B.ixg4 hg4 39.lUf4 if3, with somewhat better chances for Black. My opponent made a crucial mistake however:

37.:Bf2? :BhS!

2S A:lf5 29.M3 .thS 3 0 .ttlfl ••

White had more possibilities for a successful defence after 30.lt>h 2 . Now, I was thinking of playing 3 0 . . . b5, but White could have countered that with - 31.lt>f2 13 afB 32.if3. Therefore I made up my mind on following with:

30 :Baf'S 31.lt>h2 :BhS 32. lt>gl :BhgS 33.lt>h2 ••.

Suddenly, White's position becomes hopeless. The attempt 3B.E:efl, would not work, because of the spectacular refutation : 3B . . . lUg4+! 39.lUxg4 13xh3 ! 40.lt>xh3 13hB+ 41.lUh6 l"lxh6#. In case of: 3B.g4 IUxg4+ 39. lUxg4 hg4, White is again lost. Therefore White decided to give up the exchange: 38.!�1xf3 13xf3 39. lt>g2 13f'S 4 0 .

33 ... bS! That is one more important and useful try. White has more and more problems to find any useful moves at all.

IUc2 1Uf7 41.e6 lUeS 42.lUd4 ttld3 43.:Be3 1Uf2 44.g4 13xh3 4S.:Bxh3 IUxh3 46. lt>xh3 (diagram)

Here, thanks to an essential tactical nuance, Black's bishop can occupy the

Here, I had the choice between 46 . . . c5 and 4 6 . . .l"lf2. In case o f 4 6 . . . 13£2, I was winning after: 46 ... 13f2 47.b4 13a2 4B.g5 13xa3 49.lt>g4 13xc3 50.M5 (or 50.g6 M6) 50 . . . 13g3 ! (or 50 . . . 13d3

e4-outpost.

51.g6!) 51.g6 13g2 5 2 .lt>eS (White is in

34.ih3 ttlh6 3S.M2 13gS 36.lUe3 if3!

Alekseev-Dreev, Moscow 2 0 04

249

7 ttlxg4 .••

My opponent accepts the pawn sac­ rifice. The other possibilities for Black are - 7 . . . h6, 7 ...!b4 and finally the line, which is attracting more adher­ ents in the latest tournaments - 7. .. dxc4! ? 8.ixc4 eS 9.gS /DdS.

8.l:�gl ttlxh2 a zugzwang here ... ) S 2 ... Elxg6 S3.ttJfS+ 'it>d8 S4.'it>d6 Elg4. I had calculated all that, but I pre­ ferred the move in the game, because I was winning much simpler after that.

46 ... c5 47.ttlxb5 g4, Black wins for example with: S3 . . .d3 S4.g6 d2 SS./Dc3 �f1 S6.g7 dlYlY+ S7./Dxdl �xdl S8.'it>gS Elgl + S9.'it>h6 M6.

GM P.H.Nielsen in his mini-match against Garry Kasparov (Reykja­ vik 2 004) preferred: 8 .. .fS 9.h3 /Df6 1O.�g7 /De4. H e equalized in the rapid chess game, but in the blitz-game he blundered in the opening and he lost.

9.ttlxh2 .hh2 1 0 .�xg7 YlYf6 11. gg2 It is more natural for White to play here 11.�h7, but the character of the game changes radically then - White regains his pawn, but he loses his ad­ vantage in development. For example, it is possible for Black to follow with: l1. . .a6, as it was played in the game

86

D45 Dreev - J.Geller Russian Club Cup, Sochi 2 004

Shirov - J.Piket, Monaco 1995, where after 12 .�h8 YlYh8, White played 13.e4, but he underestimated Black's re­ source 13 ... eS! and he lost quickly.

11 J.d6 ..•

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.ttlf3 ttlf6 4. ttlc3 c6 5.e3 ttlbd7 6.YlYc2 J.d6 7.g4 This active move is becoming more and more popular lately.

12 .!d2 I had considered the move 12 .e4 to be rather premature, because Black

25 0

Game 86

had the excellent resource 12 ... �f4! neutralizing White's initiative com­ pletely.

12

b6

•.•

This move (which had not been played before) should be qualified as rather dubious; Black had better play 12 . . . lOfB.

13.e4! Now, it is the right time for White!

13 .if4 •••

That is Black's best h ere. It will not work for him to try: 13 ... eS, due to 14.exdS exd4 IS.lOe4.

14.cxd5 exd5

with: 18.lOe4 �f3! (or 18 . . . �e7 19.�f4) 19.13g3 !? �xe4 20 .�g2 �fS 21.dxc6 ixc6 2 2 .ixc6 b8 23.Elf3.

18.l3el+ d8 19.Elg5!

White is coordinating h is pieces.

19 .l'l:c8 .•

It deserved attention for Black to try here: 19 . . . h6 20.l3hS �g6, but even then after the correct response for White: 2 1. l3h 3 ! (or 2 1.Elh4 hS 22.id3 �h6 23.Elf4 lOf6) 2 l. .. hS 22.Elhe3 (oc­ cupying the e-file, with the idea to fol­ low with ifl-h3) his position remains very powerful.

2 0 .ih3 •

Having played 14 . . . cxdS, my oppo­ nent had to seriously consider White's maneuver lObS, after the preliminary 15 eS. The piece-sacrifice is clearly in­ sufficient for Black, for example: 14 . . . cxdS lS.eS lOxeS l6.dxeS �xe5+ 17.lOe2.

15.exd5 hd2+ 16.�xd2 .ib7

2 0 . . .l'l:c7

17. 0 - 0 - 0 ! I understood that after 17.dxc6 ixc6, my position was slightly better, but not more . . . Therefore, I decided to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative.

17. . . cxd5 Black is practically forced to ac­ cept the gift, since after: 17 ... 0-0-0, it is very strong for White to follow

This might be the best defence for Black, but it is still too passive. He could have tried for example the much riskier line: 20 ... Elc4 21.�e3 (The ex­ change of queens after 2 1. Elf5, should be favourable for White, but I was far from sure during the game that it would be sufficient: 21...�xd4 22.�xd4 Elxd4 23. Elxf7 lOcs 24.Elee7.) 21.. .Elxd4. Now, it looks like that move is impossible for Black due to 2 2.ElfS, but he has the surprising resource 2 2 . . . �e6! and after: 23.�d4 �el 24.i>c2 Elf8, White has the powerful move 2S.�a4 indeed, but Black has great chances for a suc-

2.51

Dreev-J.Geiler, Sochi 20 04 cessful defence. It i s quite possible that the calm move - 2 2 .b1, might turn out to be the most unpleasant an­ swer for Black, since he has a problem to find a good move ...

21.Wfe3 I could have played at first 2 U3fs and if 21.. .�h4, then 2 2.�e3.

21. ..ic6 2 2.gfS Wfh4 23.gxf7 cS 24.ggl! This is the decisive penetration for White. Maybe, Black could have coped with one white rook having penetrated on the seventh rank somehow, but he has no defence against White's dou­ bled rooks ...

24 ... h6 2S.gg6 Wfhs

27 ... b5 That is the co rrect decisiv!:; :[.:­ Black, because it is his only ch2.!!Ct' : : avoid the positional bind. Here, to tell you frankly, I had a:­ most lost my mind. I understood that I was winning, but I was seeing noth­ ing and my last minutes were ticking on the clock. When I had only sec­ onds left (well, the time-control was with thirty second added after every move ... , so I could afford that . . . ), I found a move, which was hardly the best, but it seemed to be quite practi­ cal . . . :

2S.gfS WfeS 29.d2 b7 After: 29 . . . b4 30./UxdS hdS, I had seen the important intermediate move 31.)3e5!, which was leading to a clear win for White. I must also add that af­ ter the game, in my home analysis, I found out that the line: 31.)3xdS Wfe4 32.�b3! would have brought me an easy victory as well.

30 .Wfd6! gdc8 31.gff7 b4 32 . Wfxb4+ It also seemed quite effective for White to play: 32.hd7.

26.ggg7 I was short of time here and I never suspected that Black had made a ter­ rible mistake on his last move, losing control over the g3-square. Naturally, the correct decision for White would have been 26.�g3! and because of the threats )3c6 and )3f5, Black could have already resigned. In case of 26 ...ia4, White has the "cold-blooded" answer" 27.f3.

26 gdS 27.Wfg3 ..•

Here, I had already noticed that move. . . !

32 ... aS 33. Wfe7 This was the simplest and probably the best move in the time-pressure.

33...WfhS 34.Wfd6 /Ub6

252

Game 87

Now, White can finish the game off in a spectacular fashion -

35.Wlxc6+! 1- 0 87

D47 A.Kuzmin

-

Dreev

57th Russia Ch (lh-final) St Petersburg 2004

This game against Alexey Kusmin was played in the semi:final of the Russian Championship. There were two semi-finals held that year (the second was in the city of Tomsk) ac­ cording to the Swiss system and the first three players in both of them were to qualify for the Super-Final. There were also some players with ratings over 270 0 invited person­ ally to the Super-Final (including V. Kramnik and G. Kasparov) as well as Anatoly Karpov. There were the so-called "white nights" during the tournament in Saint Petersburg. I did not know then if they had helped me somehow, but I started the tourna­ ment with 4 out of 4 and then I made 5 draws in a row. There was a really tough one against A.Khalifman. So, in the end I took a solefirst place, half a point infront ofV. Tzeshkovsky and V. Epishin. I have chosen two out of myfour wins therefor this book. l.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.ltlc3 ltlf6 4.e3 e6 5.ltlf3 ltlbd7 6.id3 dxc4 7.ixc4 bs 8.id3 ib7 9.e4 b4 1 0 .ltla4 c5 n.e5 ltld5 12.ltlxc5 ltlxc5 13.dxc5 ixc5 14. 0 - 0 (diagram) I have played that position numer­ ous times before in my practice.

14. . .h6 15.ltld2 Wlc7 That move was not so favourably regarded by theory for a long time. Instead, Black had played: 15 .. 0-0 16.ltle4 .td4 17.ltld6, with slightly bet­ ter chances for White. .

16J�el ltle7 This move is a novelty. I used to play before - 16 .. Jlad8.

17.�g4 Here, my opponent took a long time on the clock and he avoided the main line - 17.ltle4 �xe5 18.�a4+ .tc6 (The move I S . . wfS seems to be too risky.) .

19 . .tb5. Now, Black has two possibili­ ties and it looks like they both lead to equality: 1) 19 .. J�cS ! ? (It does not work for Black to continue with: 19 . . ..txf2+? 20. wxf2 .txb5 2 1.�xb5+ �xb5 22. ltld6+)

20 .td2 .

0-0 21 . .txc6 It)xc6

A.Kuzmin-Dreev, St Petersburg 20 04

253

22 .Elacl �d6! 23.Elxc6 �xh2 + 24.'i!lfl �hl+ 2S.'i!le2 �xg2 26.ll'lf6+ gxf6 27.Elxd6 �e4+ 2B.Ml �hl+ 29.'i!le2 �hS+ 30. Wf1; 2) 19 ... 0-0! ? 2 0.iJec6 ll'lxc6 21. '8'xc6 ElacB 2 2.�a6 fS 23.�f4 '8'xf4 24.

that case with the line: 21.ll'lxcS '8'xcS 2 2.�e3 lilxe3 2 3.'8'xe3 '8'xe3 24.Elxe3 Eld2 2S.a3; therefore I preferred the move in the game.

�xe6+ wh7 2S.ll'lxcS ElxcS= Therefore, it looks like after: 17.ll'le4 '8'xeS, the game should practically end in a draw in case both sides play cor­ rectly throughout. Still, Black has an

I had some pressure here, but

additional possibility, which deserves attention - the positional solution - to counter 17.ll'le4, with: 17...�e4 18.�e4 Eld8 19.'8'a4 Ms.

17... gd8 ! This move just parries White's ac­ tive actions.

18.,ie4 That is a velY reasonable decision, but it would have been hardly bet­ ter for White to have followed with: IB.�bS+ MB 19.1l'lb3 iJef2+ 20.Wxf2

2 0 .bd5 gxd5 21.lilc4 '8'a6 22. b3 0 - 0 White's defence remained too solid.

23.�e3 be3 24. '8'xe3 lilf5 25. '8'e2 Elfd8 26.h3 Here, I had no real possibilities to improve my position. I could have tried only the transfer of my queen to gS, or of the knight to the c3-square. 26 �b7 27.Eled1 My opponent had decided here that the following set-up of his rooks would enable him to play a2-a3 at some moment, but he had overlooked some other factors .. Jt would have been more prudent for him to have defended with: 27.Eladl ll'ld4 2 B.'8'g4. ..•

27 ll'ld4 28.�g4 • • •

�b6+ 2 1.,ie3 '8'xb5 and here in case of 2 2 .ics, Black would have had the powerful argument 22 . . . Eld2 + !

18 '8'b6 19.'8'£3 • • .

28 f5! 29.exf6! •••

White accepts the challenge! This probably looked to him to be neces­

Now, the most natural line for Black

sary, mostly because after: 2 9.�hS Wh7, he could have had serious problems. Indeed, Black would have been

would have been: 19 . . .iJee4 20.ll'lxe4 lilfS, but White could make a draw in

better, for example: 30.Eld2 �c7, with the idea to follow with lilc6 and White's

19 ,id5 •.•

Game 88

254 e5-pawn would be very weak.

29 ggS 3 0 .gxd4 •.•

39.g 2 �xd2+ 40.f3 , the outcome would be the same all over again.

34 ge2 3S.gfl gxg7

This is White's only move.

30

•.•

.••

gxd4 3V�xe6+ h7 32.g3

Or 3 2 . liJe3? ge4.

32 ... �f3! Or 32 . . . gg6 33.�f5 gxf6 34.gel.

33.fxg7 Meanwhile the time-pressure was looming for both of us and I had al­ most complied with an eventual draw, by playing 33 . . . Elg3. Then, suddenly I saw the move -

33 ge4! ..•

36.liJaS That was something unbelievable ... It was evidently due to the time-trou­ ble. . . ! After the correct defence for White 36.h4, my position would have been slightly better indeed, but as our analysis with GM A.Kuzmin showed after the game - there was still a lot of fight left in that position. . .

36 gxa2 37.liJc6 ga6 38.Elc1 ga2 ••.

34.�d6? Alexey makes a serious mistake in the time-trouble! After the cor­ rect reply for h i m 34.liJe5!, I would have to be very careful and to force the draw immediately, otherwise I might have fallen into a big trouble. For example: 34 . . . �h5? 35.�c8 Elxg7 36.liJg4 �g6 37.Eldl+-. The only cor­ rect line for Black here is: 34 . . . Elxg3 ! ! 35.fxg3 �xg3+ 36.hl gel+ (or 36 . . . gxe5 37.g8�+) 37.Elxel �xel + 38. g2 �e2 + 39.g3 �e3+ 40. g4 �e4+ 4l. h5 �e2 + . Still, the move 34. liJe5, was not my only possibility to make a draw. After: 34.�c8 Elxg7 35.liJd2 Elxg3+ 36.fxg3 �xg3+ 37.hl Elel+ 38Jlxel �xel+

I was repeating moves here with the idea to reach safely the end of the time-control.

39.Elfl ga6 4 0 .gc1 Elf7 41.�cS gc7 42.�c2+ g7 43.�b2+ �f6 White resigned. After 44.1iJb4, Black's simplest winning line is: 44 . . !kl 45.�cl Elal. .

D12

88 Volkov

-

Dreev

57th Ch Russia (l12-final) St Petersburg 2004

l.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.1iJf3 tt'lf6 4.e3 �f5 S.tt'lc3 e6 6.liJh4

255

Volkov-Dreev, St Petersburg 2 0 0 4 This is the eternal question for Black - where to place his bishop, to g4, e4, or g6 . . . ? The move in game is the most popular for Black lately.

6 ig6 hxg6 .•.

7.1Wb3

1Wc7

8.ltlxg6

12.a4! That is the only way for White to create some problems for Black. My opponent would not have achieved anything with a calm development, since I could have always countered id2 with the move ltJc4.

9 g3 .

Sergey Volkov had played only the move 9.h3 in his previous games.

9

. ..

ltlbd7 1 0 .�g2

That was a surprise for me in a way.

I had expected either 1O.�d2, or the immediate move 10.cxd5.

1 0 ...ltlb6 The idea of that try is to clarify the pawn-structure and the plans of both sides.

1l.cxd5 But naturally not l1.c5 - because Black will counter that with Il..ltJbd7, followed by b7-b6.

1l... cxd5 I had a choice between that move and 11...exd5. I liked the move 11...

cxd5 much more, because first of all it simplified the position (sort of. .. ) and I thought at that moment that was in my favour, because of several rea­ sons. Meanwhile, after cxd5, White's bishop on g2 is not as effective as after exd5.

12 ...1Wc4!? I was also considering the simpler measure 12 . . . a6!?, which would have led to an equal position after: 13.e4 dxe4 14.ltJxe4 ltJxe4 15.�e4 ltJd5!. Still, after some deliberations I chose 12 ... 1Wc4.

13.1Wc2 White does not achieve anything good after: 13.1Wxc4 ltJxc4 14.'i!le2, due to 14. . . ltJa5.

13 ... a6 Or 13 . . . �b4 ? ! 14.a5 ltJbd7 15J:h4.

14.a5 ltlbd7 Frankly speaking, I liked the move 14 . . . ltJc8 much more during the game, since the knight had better prospects from that square. Finally, I chose ltJbd7 as the more reliable move, wjth­ out losing any tempi. The knight has some good prospects on the d7-square as weI! (although not so bright as on the c8-square ... ) and it can be rede­ ployed to the c6-square. 15.�d2 �e7

256

Game 88

Black's bishop has nothing to do on d6; moreover in some cases (in similar positions) the bishop is placed worse on d6 than on the e7-square, particu­ larly if White manages to advance e3e4 in the centre.

16.b3 Finally, my opponent has decided to castle.

16 %!Ic7 17. 0 - 0 0 - 0 18.YGb2 gfcS l9.b4 .••

This plan has some drawbacks too. It seemed more natural for White to try: 19J!fc1 %!IdS 20.tLla4 , with the idea to follow with b3-b4 and tLla4-c5; still after: 20 ...Elxcl + 2 1.Elxcl ElcS, Black manages to hold the position thanks to the numerous exchanges, for example: 2 2 .b4 1!xc1+ 23.%!Ixc1 tLleS 24.tLlc5 tLld6. This plan would have been much better for White, though . . .

21.tLlxe4 dxe4 22 .b:e4 ga7 •

Naturally not: �6 24J'lac1.

22 ... 1!abS 23.�f4

23.l:'lacl %!IdS 24. %l'b3 That is a witty possibility for White. The move 24.d5?, would have been very bad due to tLlf6.

24 tLlf6 •••

I could have also tried: 24. . .Elac7 25.1!xc7 1!xc7 26.hg6 tLlf6 (or 26 ... fxg6 27.ygxe6+ wh7 2S.Wh3+ wgS 29. We6+ wfS?! 3 0.%!Ixa6; 29 . . . wh7 30. Wh3=), transposing to the position that we played in the game.

25 . .bg6

In answer to 25.1!xcS WxcS 26J''lcl, I had planned: 26 ... 1!c7 27. 1!xc7 Wxc7 2S.�xg6 fxg6 29.Wxe6+ wh7 30.Wxa6 (or 30 .%!Ih3+ tLlh5 31.g4 %!Id7) 30 . . . Wc2.

25 J'lac7 . •

19 b5! .•.

Naturally, that was a quite attrac­ tive move, but I had to consider quite seriously the next reply of my oppo­ nent:

2 0 .e4 tLlxe4 Of course, I had seen that I could not play 2 0 ... %!Ic4?, because of: 21.exd5 exd5 22.tLlxd5! tLlxd5 23J;acl.

That is the correct decision. I had to admit that I wanted to play that move immediately. Then I decided to try to refute White's idea in a more radical fashion and I calculated for about 15 minutes the variations arising after: 25. . Jlxcl 26Jlxcl fxg6 27.Wxe6+ wh7 2S.%Vh3+ tLlh5 29 .g4 %Vd7 and here af­ ter 30.1!c3, Black had the possibility 30 .. ib4. Later, I understood that I -

.

257

Volkov-Dreev, St Petersburg 20 04 did not need to win material so much as to compromise my position and I gave up the whole idea, having come to the conclusion in the process that White's best reply would have been probably - 30J'lel with somewhat un­ clear position.

26.gxc7 gxc7 Now, White's game is much more difficult than if he had remained a pawn down and Sergey makes an im­ mediate mistake:

27..ibl

29 ... %!,g4!?

3 0 .%!'£3 hb4 31..id3 If 31..bb4 %!'xb4 32.%!'h5 %!'b2 33. �h7+ (or 33.�e4 l"lcl 34.�xd5 g6! 35. �f3 l"lxdl+ 36.%!'xdl exdS 37.�xd5 �al+ 3S.@g2 %!'xa5) 33. . .Ms 34.�e4 g6 35.�h6+ %!'g7 36.�d2 l"lcS.

31. %!'c5 32 .hb4 %!'xb4 33.%!'h5 �f6 34.%!'£3 �d5 35.%!'h5 �f6 36. %!'£3 %!'f8 37.h4 .•

Or 37.g4 �d5.

37... %!'c8 38.@h2 l'ld7 39.l'lcl %!'d8 4 0 .ibl •

White's problem is the vulnerabili­ ty of his b4-pawn and Black's potential to exploit that weakness. Therefore, it deserved attention for White to have tried to regroup his forces by rede­ ploying his bishop to g2, since it would have controlled the d5-square from there: 27.�d3 ! ? %!'xd4 2SJ'ldl t2)dS 29.�el (29.%!'bl!?) 29 . . .%!'g4 30.ifl and Black's chances would have been slightly better.

27 %!'xd4 28.gdl �d5 .••

4 0 . . . �d5 40 ... g6 ! ? That was my last move before the time-control and it was played in a mutual time-trouble. It would have been a real disgrace for me to have fall­ en into the trap: 40 . . .%!'xa5?? 41.�a8+ l"ld8 42.l"lc8.

41.h5

29 . .iel?! That was a serious imprecision. White did not have to retreat with his bishop and he had to try instead 29. %!'f3 .

29 ...%!'c4

This move was played after long deliberations. My opponent wanted to make my task of materializing my ex­ tra pawn really hard.

41 ... l'lc7 42.l'ldl %!'f6 I practically forced the exchange of queens with that move. Well, my pawns became doubled, but I had to trade queens, otherwise White's activ-

258

Game 89

ity would have compensated his one pawn deficit.

43.�xf6 gxf6 44.h6 It seemed at first sight that Black should not have any problems to turn his extra pawn into a full point. That might be possible indeed, but I had to play quite precisely, since White had some serious counterplay with his passed pawn.

to the end of the game with 30 seconds added after every move . . . ) in that case, than after S1. . . fxe6.

52.h7 + e 2 ! ? This i s a new idea. White's position seems preferable, because of his supe­ Black obtains more than sufficient counterplay.

rior pawn-structure on the kingside and his more active king. Still, I think

9 ... tilbd7 1 0 .tM3 .b6 11.tile3

that after some precise defence, Black

I had chosen that calm and solid

has good chances to equalize. 2 0 .. J:!fd8 2U�adl @f8?!

move, understanding that the best that I could hope for was just a slight opening advantage. On the other hand, thus I was almost eliminating the ele­ ment of risk, because the position was simplified considerably. It would have been more active for me to have played the move 1 l .b4, but then the game would have become much sharper. In the game Kasparov - Grischuk, Greece 20 03, there followed: l l . . . cs 12.bs �b7 13.lUc3 a6 14.f3 and the position was rather complicated.

It . . d5 12 .Y:!fe2 he4 13.he4 dxe4 14.Y:!fe2 e5 15.Y:!fxe4 h6 16. �h4 exd4 17.Y:!fxd4 til e5 .

This move was quite possible, but I

That is Black's first imprecision. It was better for him to have defended with 21.. .fS and I would have great problems to achieve even a slight ad­ vantage.

thought that it would have been more

22.g4!

flexible for Black to have tried 17 . . .

White fixes with that move Black's

Wc7!? For example, h e equalized the

somewhat compromised pawn-struc­

chances after: 1S.0-0 l"1fcS 19.1"1fdl

ture on the kingside.

Wc4 20 .e4 Wxd4 2U!xd4 lUeS 22 .f3

22 ... 'it>e7 23.h4 !:'lxdl 24.!lxdl !le8 25.f4 a6 26.h5

IUhs 2 3 .�e1 IUf4, Beliavsky - Grischuk, Tripoli 20 04.

I have improved my position con­

18.hf6 Wxf6 19.Y:!fxf6 gxf6

siderably and my opponent had to

This position was tested in the

play very precisely. Instead, he made

game Ivanchuk - Kasparov, Greece

in fact a decisive mistake on his next

2 0 03 and there after: 20 .0-0-0 l"1fcS

move:

267

Dreev-Kulaots, Moscow 20 05

This is a simple and reliable move on the road to victory.

33 ... ttJxa3 34.ttJc5+ ttJxa6

li>e7 35.

Black has no counterplay whatso­ ever.

35 ... e5 36.�b4 f5 37.�d5+ Black resigned. In case of 37 ... rJie6, White wins easily with 38.g5, while af­ ter 37 . . . rJif8, his most direct road to the

26 b5? •..

win is the line: 38.gxf5 exf4 39. exf4 .

This activity was absolutely unnec­ essary. It was better for him to have played 26 . . . lDd7 and he would have preserved some chances for a draw,

D27

92

despite the fact that my position would

Dreev - Karjakin

have been clearly superior.

Dos Hermanas 2005

27Jic1! This was my third participation in the tournament in Dos Hermanas and knight endgame turns out to be (the previous times I was there were just hopeless for him. in 2 0 0 1 and 20 03). The organiza­ 27 li>d7 2S.ttJdl ttJe4 29J1:xcS tion wasjust perfect as always. There li>xcS 3 0 .ttJf2 ttJd6 31.li>d3 li>d7 were some other tournaments be­ 32.ttJe4 ttJc4 sides the main event. Infact, this was Black cannot save the game in the not just a tournament - it was a real king and p awn endgame either, for Chess Festival with an excellent orga­ example: 32 . . . lDxe4 33.li>xe4 rJie7 34. nization. Mr. Joaquin Espejo was the rJid4 rJid6 35.g5 and I was winning Director of the tournament, just like easily. every time I have been in Dos Herma­ nas. This year it was again a category 16 event although the players were new, almost halfof them, in compari­ son to 20 03. There were four play­ ersfrom the previous year - Alexan­ der Rustemov and I, the "host" of the field - the super-experienced player Miguel Illescas as well as one of the youngest grandmasters in the world - Sergey Karjakin. Teimur Radjabov was among the other participants. In 33.b3! Now, Black cannot avoid the ex­

change of rooks and the arising king

•.•

Game 92

268

fact he had already played there too in 20 01. He beat S. Karjakin in the 5th round and then managed to preserve his lead until the very end, so T. Rad­ jabov won the tournament outright with the score of "+2". This game against Sergey Karja­ kin was played in the last round and my victory enabled me to share 2nd - 5th place in that quite strong tour­ nament. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.lZlf3 lZlf6 The Queen's Gambit Accepted is Sergey Karjakin's main opening weap­ on against the move l.d4.

4.e3 e6 5.hc4 a6 6. 0-0 c5 7.i.b3 This is one of the main lines for White. At the previous tournament in Dos Hermanas (2003), in the game against the same opponent, I had cho­ sen the not so popular move 7.i.d3, but I did not achieve anything out of the opening and the game ended in a draw.

bit different. Black takes greater risks here in that line, but his chances to seize the initiative are considerable too. Meanwhile, that variation has not been analyzed extensively yet.

8.a4 b4 9.lZlbd2 White can also play the immediate move 9.e4.

9 ... i.b7 The other possible line for Black here is the move: 9 ... i.e7, which is of­ ten played by GM Sergey Rublevsky - who is a renowned specialist of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. He played that variation twice at the tournament in Poikovsky (which was played a bit earlier during the same year 2 0 05), but he lost both games - after: 1O.e4 cxd4 11.e5 liJfd7 12.liJc4 liJc6 13.liJxd4 liJcxe5 14.i.f4 liJxc4 15.liJc6 iWb6 16. liJxe7 'it>xe7 17.i.xc4 i.b7, Alexander Grischuk played the move 18.iWb3 (White used to play before 18.iWd2.) and Black had suddenly serious prob­ lems to worry about.

1 0 .e4 i.e7 H.e5 lZlfd7 12.liJc4 0 - 0 13. .ic2

7 b5 .•.

One of the basic positions of the 7.i.b3 variation arises after: 7. . .liJc6 8.liJc3 cxd4 9.exd4 i.e7 1O.�e1 0-0 and here - 1l.i.f4, 11.i.g5, or 11.a3. In case of 7 ... b5, the game becomes a

I had reached that position in my game against Ruslan Ponomariov, who tried here 13 . . . liJc6. I continued with: 14.dxc5 liJxc5 15.liJd6, but after

Dreev-Karjakin, Dos Hermanas 20 05

269

lS ... b3 ! , Black had an excellent game

Sergey tries a novelty here. This

(Dreev - Ponomariov, Erevan 2001).

move is more logical than what Black

It is well-known that Sergey Karjakin

played earlier in the game: Banikas

worked together with Ruslan Pono­

- Moutousis, Athens 2004: 18 . . ..icS

mariov, including also in his match

19.We4 lLld4 20 . .id1 !'lab8 21..id2 Wa7

against V. Ivanchuk.

22 ..ic3 fS 23.Wd3 !'lfd8 24.b4 !'lxb4

At the previous tournament at Dos

2S . .ixb4 .ixb4 26.!'lb1 as 27. lLld6 .ixd6

Hermanas, Sergey played the move

28 .exd6 lLlf6 29 ..if3 !'lxd6 3 0.!'lb7 WcS

13 . . . lLlc6 in his game against M.Ileskas and after: 14.Wd3 g6 lS ..ih6 !'le8 16.

31.We3lLldS 32.!'lb8+ @f7 33 .!'lb7+ @g8 34.!'lb8+ @f7 3S. !'lb7+ @ g8 36 . .ihS g6

dxcS (It also deserved attention for

37.WeS 1-0.

White

to

try

16.lLld6 ! ? )

16 . . . lLlxcS

19



.i dl

17.Wxd8 !'laxd8 18. b3, the position

19 ..ic2 ! ?

was about equal (TIles cas - Karjakin,

19 ... gad8

Dos Hermanas 2 003).

We have to admit that move was

Therefore, my opponent's response

the cause of Black's further probl ems

proved to be a surprise for me in a

in this game. He had to play instead:

way:

13

19 . . . !'lfd8, so that he could counter .•.

cxd4 14.Ybd4

20.!'la3 with 20 . . . lLlb4 21..id2 !'lab8

14.lLlxd4.

and he would have had a quite suffi­

14 ...b3

cient compensation for the pawn.

This move is quite typical for this variation. It is bad for Black to capture immediately:

14 . . ..b:f3 lS.gxf3, be­

2 0 .ga3! lLld4? Possibly, Black should have played h ere 20 . . .f6, which was not exactly

cause he fails to complete his develop­

in the spirit of the position, but thus.

ment in a normal fashion, due to the

he would have somehow justified the

threat We4. It is too dubious for him to

move 19 . . . !'lad8. It would be weaker for

play 14 . . . lLlc6? ! , because of 1S.Wg4.

him to play 20 . . . lLlb4 (in comparison

15 .ixb3 .ixf3 16.gxf3 lLlc6 17. We3 Wc7 18.f4

to the line 19 . . . l'lfd8), because after:



21..id2 as 22 . .ie2! White maintains the advantage.

18 . . . lLlc5N

Game 92

270 2t.ttj d6! Sergey had obviously overlooked that move. 21 ttlf5 That was again not the best deci­ sion for Black. My young opponent continued to play too quickly even after he had made a serious mistake. So, he made another one as a result. It would have been more resilient for him to have defended with: 21... hd6 22.1Nxd4 fie7 23.1Nc4 as. 22.ttlxf5 exf5 23.�c3 a5 After 23 . . . 1NaS, White wins with 24.b4 1Nxb4 2S.fia3. It would have been the best for Black to have tried: 23 . . . 1Nb6 24.b4 1Ng6+ 2S.1Ng3. ••.

24.b3! The pin of Black's knight becomes deadly. My opponent had failed to anticipate the fact that he cannot unpin anymore. Therefore, now he is forced to only sit down and wait... 24 1Nb6 25 . .b3 l�k8 26.fif3 E:c7 27.gfcl gfc8 28 ..id5 �g6+ 29.i>hl �a6 That is also possible, indeed . 3 0 .h3 Now, the threat hcs is again on the agenda. I did not wish to play more solidly (for example 30.flg2, in order

to improve my position later. . . ), so that Black had the possibility to play 30 ... /tJe6, but then after: 31.he7 Elxc3 32.E:xc3 E:xc3 33.1Nxc3 1Nf1+ 34.i>h2 1Nxf2+ 3S.flg2 1Nxf4+ 36.i>hl hs 37.fla3, I would have won even quicklier, than if Black had just remained passive. 3 0 1Nb6 31.i>h2 The attractive move 31.e6 would have been a mistake. Naturally in case of: 31.. .f6 32.flxcS, followed by a dis­ covered check, White is winning eas­ ily, but after: 3l...fxe6 32.hcs fixeS 33 .1Nxe6+ i>h8 34.1NxfS (threatening fle4) Black has the defensive resource 34 ...!lf8. 3 1 . . i>f8 32.�c4 �a7 33.b4 axb4 34.,hb4 1Nb6 Black should not allow the move a4-aS, since he would not have the move 1NbS. 35JHc2 g6 36.1Nd4 i>e8 37.a5 1Nb5 Now, White has a winning combi­ nation: •.•

.

•••

..

38.a6! ttlxa6 39 .id6 I did not have enough time, so I played just like a "human player'. It would be much better and quicklier for me to have won the game with: 39.e6! f6 40 .fic6+ . •

Dreev-Karjakin, Dos Hermanas 2 0 05

39 ... �c5 In case of 39 .. J'1c5, besides the sim­ ple line: 40.�cS �xcS 4Ulb2, White also wins with: 40.�f7+ wxf7 41.e6+ WgB (or 4l...Wxe6 42.E:e2+) 42.l"lxcS.

4 0 .hc7 �c7 41.�b4 �a6 42. �b8+. Black resigned, because af­ ter 42 . . JkB, White has the resource - 43.�b7.

B07

93 Dreev

-

Minasian

6th European Chess Ch, Warsaw 20 0S

l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 g6 4.ig5 ig7 5.f4 c6 6.�f3 This poison has been reached in my practice several times and I have always treated Black's possibility �dB-b6 quite seriously. I used to play before 6.�d2, in order to be able to parry that maneuver by castling long. In that case h owever, Black switched to the plan with the move b7-bS and that led to very complicated positions in which I had managed to win sev­ eral games. The move 6.�f3, no doubt presents White with many more pos­ sibilities in case Black follows with b7-bS, since White should not be in a hurry to play �d2 at all.

6 . . .Wb6?! Black has numerous troubles to worry about in the line: 6 . . . 0-0 7.Wd2 bS 8.�d3, as you can see in my en­ counter against Zurab Azmaiparash­ viii (Moscow 19B9) see game 10 . (diagram)

7.�d2! Some half a century ago, in the

game Ravinsky - Shamkovich, Len­ ingrad 19S7, White was afraid to sac­ rifice his b2-pawn and he chose the rather humble move - 7.b3. I feel like including this interesting game in its entirety here: 7 ... �g4 B.Wd2 dS 9.�f6 exf6 1O.exdS 0-0 11.�e2 l'ldB 12.h3 ixf3 13.�xf3 fS 14.l'ld1 cxdS ls.�xds 'We6+ 16.M2 �c6 17.�c7 �d4+ 18. Wg3 'We7 19.�xaB �eS 20.�dS �bB 2 1 . Wh2 g5 2 2.g3 gxf4 23.gxf4 �xf4+ 24.'Wxf4 'We2+ 2S.Wg3 whB 2 6.�c6 !3gB+ 27.Wh4 'We7+ 2B. whS 'Wf6 29. !3hg1 E:g6 30.E1d6 1-0. Besides 7.b3, White has tried 7.l'lb1 in this position as well. The move 6. . . Wb6 i s thus justified i n both cases, since 7.E:b1 deprives White of the pos­ sibility to castle long, while 7.b3 com­ promises White's queenside. We had discussed the idea behind the move 7.'Wd2, some 15 years ago with my life-long coach Alexander Filipenko, who had advised me not to be afraid to sacrifice that pawn (and not only it. . . !) . . .Still, I had never managed to play that variation in practice, so this was my first game in that line. The reason possibly being that not many players answer my l.d4 with 1 . . .d6, transposing to the Pirc­ Ufimzev Defence. Meanwhile, the line

Game 93

272 6 . . . Wb6 is quite seldom played as well. During the game I thought that the move 7.Wd2 was a novelty, but it turned out that it had been played be­ fore in some games of not so famous chess-players.

7 1.Wxb2 • • •

In case Black refrains from accept­ ing the pawn-sacrifice, then White can castle long on his next move and the maneuver 6 ... Wb6 will turn out to be quite senseless. For example, in one of the abovementioned games (Valko - Thuroczy, Nyiregyhaza 2003), there followed: 7 ...�g4 8.�c4 ixf3 9.gxf3 ttJh5 10.0-0-0 ttJd7 11.f5 h6 12 .�h4 g5 13.�f2 Wa5 14.h4 and White had an overwhelming advantage. 8.l::lbl 1.Wa3 It became familiar to me, while I was commenting this game for the book that the same position had al­ ready been tested in the game Duck­ stein - Grabler, Austria 1972, where White followed with the immediate 9.e5. I did not consider that move to be the best for White during the game and I preferred to continue patiently with my development, without going for immediate active actions: 9.�d3

White's powerful pawn-centre and his huge lead in development is evi­ dently a more than sufficient compen­ sation for the sacrificed pawn. It is ex­ tremely difficult for Black to defend a position like that in a practical game. His main problem is that he can hard­ ly castle - White then follows with e4e5 and the e7-square is immediately in ruins. Black's queen does not seem to help in the solution of that prob­ lems at all, because of the line: 9 ... 0-0 lO.e5 dxe5 1Uxe5 ttJd5 12.Elb3 Wa5 13.ttJd5 and White regains his pawn quite comfortably. 9 1.WaS Black wishes to bring his queen back to c7, in order to protect his e7pawn. This idea seems to be quite reasonable, but still it consumes too much time . . . 1 0 . 0 - 0 Wc7 Black has won his opponent's b2pawn at the cost of several tempi in order to return with the queen to its own camp. I had managed meanwhile to mobilize all my forces in the pro­ cess ... H.eS! This is the beginning of the all-out offensive. White should absolutely not slow down even for a bit, because he has practically nothing more to develop . . . H ... ttJdS 12. ttJe4 Here, I had a serious alternative at my disposal - capturing 12. ttJxd5 and after 12 ... cxd5 - 13.f5 . I understood that seemed quite attractive, but still I decided not to continue like that. The main reason was I thought that Black's defence would be easier in that case, •••

Dreev-Minasian, Warsaw 2 0 05

273

since his choice would have been con­ siderably reduced and additionally he would have obtained the c6-square for his knight.

12

f5

...

This is the critical moment in the game: Black allows White to sacrifice a piece and it leads to an extremely powerful initiative for him. It is not so easy to give a good advice to Black, though ...His other possibilities are hardly any better. For example, in case of 12 . . . 0-0, it is good for White to follow with 13.c4. Now, it is terrible for Black to play 13 ... itJb6? !, because of 14.exd6 exd6 and after the strong move 15.itJf6+, Black's position becomes hopeless: 15 ... Axf6 (or 15 ... Wh8 16.f5!) 16.ixf6 1iJ8d7 17.Ae7 l'le8 18.l'lbe1 and White is threatening Ae7xd6 as well as f4-f5. After: 13.. .f6 14.cxd5 fxg5 15.itJexg5, White's initiative is tremendously dangerous - if 15 ... cxd5 (Black has nothing better in sight. ..) then White can follow with: 16.itJxh7 ! ? Wxh7 17. itJg5+ wg8 18 .hg6, with a crushing attack. I believe that the position after the move 12 . . .f6, deserves a separate dia­ gram:

13.�f6 ! ! (This tactical strike is much more effective than the position­ al line: 13.Ah4 0-0 - the move 13 .. .f5, leads after White's response to a posi­ tion from our game - 14.c4 itJb6 15.c5 dxc5 16.itJxc5 itJd5 17.f5 gxf5 18.Ag3.) 13 ... exf6 (Or 13 ...hf6 14.exf6 itJxf6 15.itJxf6 + exf6 16.l'lbe1 +-; 13 ... itJxf6 14.exf6 exf6 15.1i*'b4! 0-0 16.itJxd6 - the placement of White's rook on bl has turned out to be quite handy! 16... b5 17.f5 and Black has great diffi­ culties.) 14.itJxd6+ M8 15.c4 (15.f5!?) 15 ... itJe7 16.itJg5 ! (This is more spec­ tacular, but White can also continue with 16.f5.) 16 .. .fxg5 17.fxg5+ wg8 18. 1i*'f4 itJf5 19.itJxc8 1i*'xc8 2 0.g4 ! + Black can hardly expect anything good to happen to him after: 12 . . . dxe5 13.fxe5. Now, in case of 13 ... 0-0, it is excellent for White to continue with : 14.c4 itJb6 15.�f4 ! ? 1i*'d8 ! (It is too bad for Black to try 15 . . .Ae6? ! , due to 16.itJf6+ ! wh8 17.itJg5 and White's attack is overwhelming.) 16.�h6 f6 17.�xg7 wxg7 18.exf6+ exf6 19.1i*'f4 and White remains with a clear po­ sitional advantage. Following 13 .. .f5, White can play: 14.exf6 exf6 15.�h6 0-0 16.c4 and his initiative is quite dangerous after: 16 ... itJb6 17.�f4 1i*'d8 18.itJd6, as well as in case of: 16 . . .�xh6

274

Game 93

17.�xh6 Itlb6 (or 17 . . . �f4? IB.ltlfgS+-; 17... ltlf4? IB.Itlh4+-) IB.gfel. It is also a disaster for Black to try: 12 . . .ifS? 13.exd6 exd6 14.!'�xb7.

Black's defence is extremely dif­ ficult after his other possibilities too. For example: 13 ... fxe4 14.ixd6 e3 IS.�el �dB 16.ltlgS, or 13 ... dxeS 14 . .td6 �dB IS.fxeS fxe4 16.ixe4 - and White's initiative is decisive in both cases. 14.ltlxd6+ 'i!?f8 15.ltJg5 This is to bring some more wind into the fire. . .

15 . b6 ..

White was threatening 16.!'�xb7.

13 .be7! •

Now, White's bishop is again the sacrificial lamb! I can organize a pow­ erful attack thanks to the precarious placement of Black's king. I had some other possibilities too; for example after 13.ltlf2, my compensation for the pawn would have been more than sufficient, but Black's situation would have remained much safer then and I did not even wish to write about that ... Sometimes, if you do not play a move like that in a game of yours, you might regret that during all your subsequent (1 hope - long . . . ) creative chess-career. Meanwhile, I do not share the conviction that only young players can play chess wen, with good and stable results, during the present 21't century. . . Therefore, I am always glad when I hear about the outstand­ ing successes of such tireless fighters like Victor Korchnoi and Alexander Beliavsky, who have never betrayed their creative credo . . .

13 . . . ltlxe7

16.�b4! That is an important resource for White, because now his queen joins into the attack. He is threatening 17.�b3.

16 . . .h6 The other moves for Black were losing even quicklier.

17.�3 Itld5 18.1tlgf7 ie6 White's attack is quite powerful after: IB . . . E1h7 19.1tlxcB �xcB 20.ltld6 �d7 (or 20 . . . �e6 2l.g4!+-) 2 1 .ic4 �e6 2 2 .ixdS ! �xdS (or 2 2 . . . cxdS 23.c4!) 23.�g3 �e6 24.c4, with the threat d4-dS to fonow. Black's best defence was IB . . . !'!gB, but then after: 19.1tlxcB �xcB (or 19 . . . �xt7 20.�a3+ ltle7 2 l.ic4) 20.ltld6 (This is the return of the "ghost" - be-

275

Dreev-Minasian, Warsaw 2 0 05 cause now White's other knight comes to the d6-square ! ; in case of 2 0.�c4 @xf7 - 20 . . . �e6 2 1.Itld8 - 2 1 .obd5+ cxd5 22 .�xd5+ @e7 23.�xa8 Itlc6 24.�xc8 �xc8 25.�fdl ltla5, the posi­ tion would have remained unclear.) 20 . . .�e6 (After: 20 ... �d7 2 1.�c4 �e6

Or 22 ... �g8 23.!Lxi5 ! :::' xi5 24.gxf5 gxf5 25.�e7.

2 2 .�a3, White's attack is again very powerful.) 21.g4! and White has a dangerous initiative (It is weaker for him to play the naturally looking line: 2 1.c4 ltle7 (or 2 1...ltlc7 2 2 .g4! ltle8 23.gxf5 gxfS 24. .bf5 obe5+ (24 . . . �e7 25.ltlc8) 2 5 . @h l �xd6 2 6.fxe5 �xd4 27.�e6+-) 2 2 .d5 (or 2 2 .�a3 ! ? Itld7 23.�a6) 22 . . . �d7 and White has some compensation for the piece indeed, but the position is quite unclear, for

resigned.

example: 23.dxc6 (or 23.�a3 �c7) 23 ... �e6 24.�a3 Itlbxc6 25.c5.

19.1tlxhS �xhS 2 0 . c4 1tle7

23.d5 Itlxd5 In case of 23 . . . ltlxe5, White's most direct road to victory is the intermedi­ ate move - 24.ltlb5.

24.cxd5 hd5 25.l�bdl

and Black

94

D47 Dreev - M.Gurevich

6th European Chess Ch, Warsaw 2 005

l.d4 li:lf6 2.c4 e6 3.1tlf3 d5 4.ltlc3 c6 5.e3 li:lbd7 6.id3 dxc4 7.b:c4 b5 S.id3 b4 This variation of the Meran system is named after the Swedish player Erik Lundin and it is becoming recently more and more popular in competi­ tions at the highest possible level. The lines 8 . . . a6 and 8 ... �b7 are no doubt sharper and more fashionable, since Black often enters rather unclear posi­ tions and he tries to seize the initiative early in the game. Still, the move 8 . . . b 4 i s quite reliable too and Black usu­ ally obtains solid and relatively simple positions, in which it is sometimes quite difficult for White to fight even for a slight opening edge.

21.g4! This is a powerful p awn-break, af­ ter which Black's defence crumbles ir­ revocably.

21. ltld7 22.W1a3! • .

This quiet but extremely effec­ tive move renders Black helpless, so he opts for trying his last practical chance.

2 2 ... c5

276

Game 94

9.�e4!? Contemporary theory considers that move to be White's best chance to obtain some opening advantage. In case of9.lLla4 cS! Black's task to equal­ ize is much easier. Following: 1O.dxcS lLlxcS 11.lLlxcSbcS 12.0-0 (or 12.ibS+ id7=) 12 .../Lb7 13.ibS+ �e7, or 13. We2 0-0, he has no opening problems at all. In case White plays 1O.e4, in­ stead of 1O.dxcS, then after 10 ... cxd4 11.eS lLldS 12.0-0, Black is not forced to continue with 12 . . .ib7 (entering a very complicated and double edged variation, which arises much more of­ ten after another move order: l.d4 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.lLlc3 lLlf6 4.lLlf3 e6 S.e3 lLlbd7 6.id3 dxc4 7.bc4 bS 8.id3 ib7 9.e4 b4 1O.lLla4 cS 11.eS lLldS 12. 0-0), but he can opt instead for 12 . . . lLlcS, or 12 ... WaS!?, reaching relatively simple and reliable positions.

9 �xe4 1 0 .he4 ib7 11. 0 - 0 /Ld6 !? .•.

That line is quite fashionable lately and tournament practice has shown in the last several years that White has great problems to obtain even a slight edge in the opening. Great players like Grischuk, Bareev, Akopian and Lau­ tier play like that with Black . . .

13.id3 !? This is a novelty, which has never been tested before. Against Grischuk (rapid tournament, Mainz 2003) I continued with 13.a3, but after 13 .. .fS! 14.id3 cS, I did not obtain anything promising out of the opening and Black's position turned out to be even slightly better.

13 ... �f6 14.gdl It deserved attention for White here to play 14.e4 ! ? Now, after 14... ie7!?, there arises a complicated po­ sition in which I think White's pros­ pects should be slightly better.

14 ... c5 15.Wa4+ I would not have achieved much with: lS. dxcS gxcS 16.We2 O - O ! ?, or lS.We2 cxd4 16.exd4 (or 16.�bS+ �e7=) 16 ... h6. Black is not worse at all in both cases.

15 .../Lc6 16.ib5 hb5 17.Wxb5+ Wd7 18.Wxd7+ �xd7 19.a3 b3! That is the best for Black. Open­ ing of the position after: 19 . . .bxa3?! 2 0.gxa3, or 19 ... cxd4?! 2 0.axb4, IS obviously in favour of White.

2 0 .dxc5 gxc5 21 .id2

12 .Wc2 gc8

21 . . . lLle4?! This is a very serious mistake and White seizes the initiative completely

277

Dreev-M.Gurevich, Warsaw 2 0 05 after it. It seemed logical for Black to play here 21...a5 ! ?, not allowing White's bishop to come to the b4square and Black's position would have been quite acceptable after that.

22 .ib4 gdS •

In case of 22 . . . gc2, White has 23.ltld4! with an overwhelming ad­ vantage. It is too dubious for him to win a piece with the line: 23 . .bd6 Itlxd6 24.ltle5 + ? ! We7 25J'lxd6 @xd6 26.ltlxf7+ we7 27.ltlxh8, since after: 27 .. J'lxb2, he must already think about survivaL.

23.ltld4 .ieS 24.ltlxb3 hb2 2S. ElxdS+ exdS 26.Eldl Itlf6 27.ltlcS+ wc6 2S.ltld3 as 29.ltlxb2 axb4 3 0 . axb4 As a result of his mistake on move 2 1, my opponent has remained with­ out a pawn almost by force, but his king is much more active than its white counterpart and therefore the realization of my advantage is far from being effortless.

3 0 ... ElbS

We were both under time-pressure here. It was understandable that Black had some chances for a draw, despite being a pawn down. Sti1l, his defence (particularly in the time-trouble) was tremendously difficult. Therefore it was not surprising that he lost rather quickly.

34 ...We4 3S.h3 lab7 36.g4 hS 37.1tlf5 'it>f3?! This move only speeds up Black's demise. He could have still resisted with the move 37 ... !'lb4, but I thought that the variation: 38.ltld6+ @f3 39.g5, would not have left him too many chances to save the game.

3S.gS Itlh7 39. 'it>f1 g6 40 .ltlh4+ We4 41.Eld4+ 'it>eS 42.f4+ 'it>e6 43. wf'2 1tlf8 44.1tlf3 'it>e7 4S.ltleS Elc7 46.wf3 ltle6 47.Elb4 'it>d6 4S.Elb6+ 'it>dS 49.1tlxf7 and Black resigned. 9S

D31 Dreev - Sakaev

Word Cup, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005

It was more tenacious for Black to defend with 30 ... @b5 ! ?, hampering maximally White to press his advan­ tage home.

This game was played in the World Cup in the Siberian town of Khanty­ Mansyik and I managed to win there 31.ltld3 d4 32.ltleS+ 'it>dS 33.1tlf3 several matches in a row and to en­ ter the scheme of the last 16. At that Elxb4 34.ltlxd4 particular moment ofthe tournament however, we were both very tired as a result of our previou s marathon fights and that explains the numerous mutual mistakes in our encounter. 1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.ltlc3 e6 4.e4 dxe4 S.ltlxe4 .ib4+ 6 ..id2 �xd4 7.hb4 �xe4+ S .ie2 ltla6 9 ..iaS!? •

This move is presently quite fash­ ionable. It has become even more

27S

Game 95

popular and modern than the well-fa­ miliar lines like 9.id6 and 9.ic3.

ous.) lSJlxd6 fxes 19.�e3 hs 20.idS+ �t7 21.E1f1+ �gS 22.ie7 tiJc7 23.E1d2! E1cS 24.id3 g6 2s.l3df2 �h7 26.id6 tiJa6 27.hes and Black came under a crushing attack.

1 0 .lLlt3!

9 f6!? .•.

I believe - that is Black's most re­ liable defensive line in this variation of the Slav Gambit. Not so long ago, it was considered that Black's most solid defence here was the following practically semi-forced variation: 9 ... �d7 10.tiJf3 tiJf6 11.'lWd6 'lWfs 12.tiJes 'lWxf2+ 13.�xf2 tiJe4+ 14.�f3 tiJxd6 lsJ!hdl �e7 16.cs liJxcs 17.ib4 b6 1SJ!ac1 tiJce4 19.id3 fs 20.he4 fxe4+ 2 1.�e3 cs 22.E1xcs bxcS 23.ixcs ieS 24.hd6+ �dS and Black's position should not be worse. For example, the game Yakovich - Galkin, Dubai 2001, continued with: 2s.b4 as and the op­ ponents agreed to a draw. Recently, the entire line was dealt a heavy the­ oretical blow in the game Grischuk - Shulman, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005, where instead of 16.cs, White played: 16.E1d2 ! ieS 17J'lad1 f6?! (Black's rela­ tively best defence here would have been the move 17. . . tiJfs, but I still think that after lS.E1dS - or even lS.g4!? lS ... E1xdS 19.hdS+ MS 2 0 .g4, White has more than sufficient compensa­ tion for Black's two extra p awns and his initiative is tremendously danger-

This simple move is much stron­ ger than the seemingly more active line: 1O.'lWdS+ �t7, since in that case after: 11.0-0-0 b6 12.ic3 es, Black's prospects are at least equal, while af­ ter 11.tiJf3, it is good for Black to play: 11.. .b6 12.ic3 tiJcs! 13.liJd2 'lWg6 and he ends up with a better game. For example, if 14.b4?! , then the line: 14 ... tiJe7!? ls.'lWxhS tiJd3+ 16.�fl (or 16.hd3 'lWxd3 17.�b2 �b7 lS.'lWxaS ixaS+) 16 ... tiJf4 17.g3 liJxe2 lS.�xe2 �b7 19.'lWxaS haS is evidently in fa­ vour of Black.

1 0 ...h6 11.�c3 c!Lle7 12. 0 - 0 0-0 13.l'lel e5

14.h4!? White's compensation for the sac­ rificed pawn is quite sufficient in that position, because Black's queen is rather unstable on the e4-square and his pieces are not well coordinated at all. The most important point is that it is much easier to play that position with White mostly because he has the

Dreev-Sakaev, Khanty-Mansyisk 2 0 05 indisputable initiative.

14 ...if5 15.§'a4 �c7 16J3adl �e6 17J3d6!? l3fd8 18.�d2 §'h4 19. l3xd8+ �xd8 20 .if3 �e6 21. §'a6

279 been acceptable in view of the vulner­ able light squares on White's king­ side.

26.§'xb6 �xe2 27.l3xe2 §'h3 28. f3?! That was a serious imprecision on my part and I lost a great deal of my advantage with it. The correct move was 28.a4!, after which my opponent would have nothing really to coun­ ter the march forward of my a-pawn with.

28 ...h5 29.a4 h4 3 0 .§'f2 My opponent had defended pretty well until that moment. I have pre­ served some initiative for the pawn in­ deed, but I still think that the chances for both sides are approximately equal here.

21. . . �g5 This is an imprecision and Black begins to have some problems after it. It was more reliable for him to play 21 . . . ltJd4, or 2l...ltJf4 with a very com­ plicated game and mutual chances.

That was another mistake for White. It would have been better to continue with 30.Elg2, preserving the edge. Now, Black has good chances for a draw.

3 0 ...hxg3 31.hxg3 id3 32.l3el §'e6 33.b5 cxb5 34.cxb5 l3c8 35. ib4 �d5 36.ia5 l3c2 Black's pieces are so active in this position that he has a full compensa­ tion for White's extra pawn. The final part of this game was played in a des­ perate mutual time-trouble. . .

37.b6?! gb2 38.§'d4!?

22.§'b7 ge8 23.ie2 �e6 24.g3 §'h6 25.§'xa7 I have managed to regain my pawn and now White is already better.

25 ... �d4?! That is already a grave mistake and Black loses a pawn after it without suf­ ficient compensation. It would have been better for him to protect simply his pawn with the move 25 . . . ltJc8, pre­ serving a quite defensible position. Then, in case of: 26.1!h'd7 gd8 27.1!h'xc6 ItJd4 28.1!h'c7 (or 28 .hd4? 1!h'xd2-+) 28 . . . ltJxe2+ 29J�xe2 Eld3 30.ltJfl i.h3, Black's compensation would have

After that surprising move, my op­ ponent had only a few seconds left on the clock and he simply lost his cold­ bloodedness and following:

Game 96

280

38 ... 'tYh3?? 39.'tYxdS+

he

re­

h armless . . .

S... lLlbd7

signed. Still, in the diagrammed position

That is Loek's favo urite move in

Konstantin had the spectacular prob­

answer to S.lWa4. It seems to be active

lem-like move - 38 . . . 'tYb 6 ! ! , which

and quite logical too, but r think that

would h ave equalized, since in that

the more modest line - S . . . c6 is more

case White would have been forced to

reliable.

enter the line: 39.lWxb6 lLlxb6 with an

6.e4 a6 7.,bc4 gb8 8.'tYc2 bS 9.id3 ib7

equal endgame.

It is also interesting for Black to try the variation: 9 ... cS ! ? 1O.�f4 gb6,

96

D24 Dreev - van Wely

Word Cup, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005

which is very rarely played in tourna­ ment practice. r believe that White's prospects should be somewhat better, due to the not so natural placement of

A game from the World Cup, in a match/or the 13 th - 14 th place in the final. l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.lLlf3 dS 4.lt:lc3 dxc4

Black's rook on b6, but still the posi­ tion seems to be rather complex and quite acceptable for Black.

1 0 .if4 gc8 H.dS!? lLlc5 12. 0 - 0 - 0 exdS 13.lLlxdS lLlxdS 14. exdS lLlxd3+ All that has been played in the game Tregubov - van Wely, Warsaw 2 0 05, in which after:

lS.gxd3 �e7 16.M

0-0 17.liJgS g6 18 .lWd2 �d6 19.@b 1 �f4 20.lWxf4 �dS, Black maintained equ ality.

IS.lWxd3 ! ? This novely had been especially prepared by me for that game and it created certain problems for Black.

S.'tYa4+!? White's

most energetic and

IS ...�e7 16.h4 no

doubt critical line here is: S.e4!? �b4 6.�gS, but after 6 . . . cS there arises a quite complicated, double-edged po­ sition, which has been tested by my opponent numerous times in practice.

r understood in my preparation that he had played it quite well with Black. Therefore, r decided to choose a not so sharp line, which was far from being

Dreev-van Wely, Khanty-Mansyisk 20 05 My opponent took here about forty minutes on the clock, but he failed to make the right choice.

16 �d7? ! •.•

That is a serious mistake, after which Black's position becomes very difficult. Why did he not play the seem­ ingly obvious move - 16 ... 0-0? I had prepared against that the line: 17.CDgS g6 (It is too bad for Black to try 17. . . bgS? 18.hxgS g 6 (or 1 8. . .h 6 19.9xh6 g6 20.h7+ 'i!lh8 2 1.�h6 �e8 2 2 .�d4+ f6 23.�g4+-), because of 19.�xh7! and White would have a crushing at­ tack.) 18.CDxh7! ? 'i!lxh7 19.hS, with a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed piece. Evidently, van Wely had seen that variation and he did not find anything better than the move 16 ... �d7? ! , which did not seem to be so natural. Still, my opponent had a good chance to de­ fend successfully if he had found the move 16 .. .f6! in the diagrammed posi­ tion. My prospects would be still bet­ ter then, but not more. Black plans to castle and I cannot prevent that, since after 17.�b3, he can follow with: 17. . . �d6 1 8.�hel+ 'i!l f7 19.�e3 and White is only slightly better.

17.lt."le5 �d6 IS.�f5! It."ld7 g6

0-0

19.

That is probably the best for Black. Loek is trying to complicate the posi­ tion somehow. In case of: 19 . . . �b4 20.lt."lxf8 l"1xf8 21.�gS, Black remains an exchange down in a relatively sim­ ple position and his practical chances to save the game would not be so great at all.

2 0 ..b:d6 cxd6+ 21.�c2 l"1xc2+ 22.'i!lxc2 l"1cS+ 23.'it>bl

Now, it is clear that Black's com­ pensation for the exchange is insuffi­ cent, but his bishop pair should not be underestimated. I had to play precise­ ly in order to materialize my advan­ tage.

23 .. J'lc7 24.lt."lbS! l"1c5 In case of 24 . . . �c8, White's simplest line is: 2S.lt."lc6 bc6 26.dxc6 �xc6 27. l"1c1 and winning that endgame is just a matter of technique. Naturally, Black wishes to avoid simplification.

25.l"1del! That is the best move and my op­ ponent cannot avoid the trade of the rooks anymore, so my task to realize my advantage is facilitated consider­ ably.

25 ...�f8 Or 25 . . . �c7 26.CDc6+-

26.lt."ld7 l"1cS 27.l"1cl! l"1xcl+ Black has to exchange rooks now. After 27 .. J�d8, White wins easily with 28 .lt."lb6 and there is no satisfactory defence against the threat - �c7.

2S.l"1xcl �e7 29.l"1el .b:h4 3 0 .g3 �g5 31.f4 th6 (diagram)

32.l"1e7 That is the final touch. White is threatening It."lb6 and Black cannot save his bishop on a7. My opponent

282

Game 97

l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.iLlc3 iLlf6 4.e3 e6 5.iLlf3 iLlbd7 6.�d3 dxc4 7.h:c4 b5 8.�d3

could have resigned here, but he con­ tinued with:

32 ...g5 33.f5 �g7 34.iLlb6 g4 35. �c2 �f6 36.:Elxb7 �f4 37.gxf4 g3 38.iLld7+ �xf5 39.iLlf8 and finally

8 . . . a6

Black resigned .

That was a real surprise! Jenya had played i n our last game a somewhat passive, but reliable move 8 . . b4 and he managed to draw with Black without too much of an effort. In fact, I never understood why he chose this time a variation, which led to much more complicated positions. There were two possible reasons - he was ei­ ther afraid of my opening preparation, -

97

D49 Dreev - Bareev 58th Russia Ch, Moscow 2005

It can be said that our chess games with Jenya Bareev have always had something quite special about them... We are great rivals ever since we were kids. I had played a match with Bareev back in 1983 for the right to represent the USSR at the Under-16 World Championship. (I have writ­ ten about that in the Foreword to this book). Then, the elder and the more experienced Bareev won ...Presently, I do not feel anything extraordinary before our games with Ba reev, but still there are some shadows of the past hanging over our encounters on the board. . . This game was played at the Su­ per-Final of the Russian Champion­ ship which was held for the second time in 20 05.

.

or he wanted not only to equalize, but to play for a win at any rate. I was in­ clined much more to think that the second possibility was the right one, because his tournament situation was such as in case of his win against me, he would have had great chances to fight for winning the Championship.

9.e4 c5 1 0 .e5 cxd4 1l.iLlxb5 axb5 The other more "classical" line of the Sozin variation is the move

-

11...

iLle5.

12.exf6 gxf6 13. 0 - 0 �b6 14. �e2 It was still not too late for me to chicken out and to regain my pawn

Dreev-Bareev, Moscow 2 0 0 5 with the line: 14.�e4 �b7 1 5. .bb7 iWxb7 16.lLlxd4 �gS I7.iWf3, with equal­ ity. Naturally, all that was too far away from my plans . . . 14 ... �a6 15.a4 That is a seldom played move. White's main line here is - 15.�d1. It is amazing, but that position has been played by Bareev numerous times with White and Black as well . . .

2S3 that Black cannot castle, because of �h6, so he maneuvers with his queen discoordinating Black's pieces, more­ over White's bishop comes to the f4square with tempo. 18 ... �f8 19.,tf4 ttle5 2 o .1Wh5 Until now, my opponent had played almost instantly and he had an advan­ tage on the clock of about 50 minutes. Here he thought for about an hour and a quarter! Evidently, Jenya had real­ ized that things were far from simple and White's initiative was really seri­ ous.

15 ... ,tg7 That is a new move. Black's main line here is: 15 . . . lLlc5 16.axb5 �b7 17.�xaS+ .baS. In the older game of the two - Bareev - Shirov, Novgorod 2 0 ... 13c8 That move was a great surprise for 1994, there followed: IS.if4 id6 and Black had a wonderful position, but me; meanwhile White's initiative was later in the game Bareev - Karjakin, developing quite freely after Black's Beer-Sheva 2005, White reacted cor­ other possibilities as well, for exam­ rectly and that was: lS.lLlxd4. That ple: move was considered to be impos­ 20 ... lLlxf3+ 21 .1Wxf3 iWd5 (or 21... sible before, due to lS . . . iWd6, but af­ e5 22.�d2) 22.�e4 (Or 22 .iWxd5 �xd5 ter the brilliant computer discovery 23.�fcl �e7 24.�c6 �aS 25.�e4 �d7 - 19.b6 ! , Black managed to draw the 26.E!b6 �aa7 2 7.ibS ib7 28 .ixb7 game somehow, but White's position �axb7 29.�d6+ �dS 30 .�xb7 E!xb7 was clearly preferable. 31.a6 E!a7 32.ic5 E!a8 33 .i.xd4.) 22 ... 16.a5 iWd7 23.ic6 iWe7 24.iWd3 ! ? ; This seems to be the most princi­ 20 . . .b 4 2l..be5 fxeS 22 .ltJgS E!d7 pled move. 23J:lacl ! ; 16 ... 1Wd6 17.1We4 13d8 18.1Wg4 20 . . . iWd5 21.�e5 fxe5 2 2 . ltJg5 Eld7 White takes advantage of the fact 2 3.ie4 iWd6 24.�fcl.

Game 98

284 2IJ3ael It also seemed good for White to follow with the more positional ap­ proach 2U'1ac1, but I had decided to play for a direct attack. 21. .. gc5 2 2.b4 It seemed to me that the inclusion of that move was in my favour in case I had intended to continue as I did in the game. 22 gc3 23.,be5 fxe5 24.tLlg5 1!!e7 Or 24 ... Elc7 25.f4. ..•

25.f4! e4 White's attack remains very power­ ful, and Black can hardly parry it even after 25 .. .f5, for example: 26. hf5 exf5 2 7.fxe5 'f1 �dl+ 3 0 .�xdl gd8 31.�c2 �h5 32.lt>g2 �g6+ ! This is the simplest for Black. 33. �xg6 hxg6 34.gb4 gd7 35. liJb6 gc7 36.liJa8 ic3 0 - 1 .•.

100

D23 Yevseev - Dreev Moscow 2006

This game was played in the tra­ ditional match Moscow - Saint Pe­ tersburg. It was preceded by a blitz­ tournament for the participants of the main event and I won it. Unfor­ tunately, I could not play in the first round of the compeh·tion and accord-

291

Yevseev-Dreev, Moscow 20 0 6 ing to the rules, in the second day I could not play on boards one or two. I was faced with the choice - to play with Black on board three, or to be with White on some of the lower boards. I decided to choose board three, because I wanted to try to take my revenge against Denis, who had beaten me a short while before that with White, in the first round of the Russian team championship ... 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tLlf3 tLlf6 4.�c2 dxc4 5.�xc4 ifS I had played S . . . ig4 in the game I mentioned. 6.g3 e6 7.ig2 tLlhd7 8. 0 - 0 ie7 9.tLlc3 0 - 0

time ago .. 1 O . .h5! This move is relatively new. That was the reason I stopped playing lO.e3 altogether. The idea behind the advance of the b-pawn is to impede the occupation of the centre by White with e3-e4. 1 l.�e2 It is too dangerous for White to ac­ cept the pawn-sacrifice: 11.�xc6 b4, since Black has a very good compen­ sation. 1l ...h4 12.tLlhl This move is a bit surprising, but it is quite sensible. (I used to play here 12.lU a4.). White lags in development now, but in case Black postpones the pawn-advance c6-cS, his position might become inferior rather quickly. 12 . Jk8 It was also possible for Black to try the immediate move I2 ... cS and if I3.lUeS, then I3 ... lUxeS 14.dxeS id3. 13.a3 a5 It deserved attention for Bla�k to play here I3 ... �aS. 14.axh4 axh4 I felt that the move 14 ... ixh4 would have been good enough to equalize, but I wanted to enter a more compli­ cated position. .

.

.

That is a well-known tabia in that variation. White can continue here with lO .a4, or lO.igs. It is also popular for him to play the move lO.�el, for ex­ ample: lO.�el lUe4 11.�b3 �b6 12.lUh4 ixh4 I3.gxh4. White only should not forget the famous trap: lO .�dI ic2 and in case his rook retreats (11.�d2), Black wins his opponent's queen with the move 1l ... lUb6. 1 0 .e3 This is the main line here. The e2square is freed for White's queen. I used to play like that with White some

Game 1 0 0

292

15.�bd2 That move was not so accurate, since White had better start with 15.b3, although even then after lS. . . cS, Black would have an excellent game.

15 c5 •••

Now, it becomes clear that White has problems to complete his devel­ opment.

16.b3 It is quite understandable that White wishes to mobilize his forces as quickly as possible, but he weak­ ens the c3-square with his last move. Black's knight heads for that outpost immediately. The tension in the centre would have been quite advantageous for Black after: 16.e4 ig6, while the move 16J�dl would have been sense­ less in view of 16 . . .ic2

play 20J"lfc1, with the following even­ tual developments: 2o ... Elxb3 21.�aS Elb2 2 2.1�·el c2 23.ltJc6 'lWe8 24.e4 (or 2 4.'lWc3 Elbl) 24 . . .ig4 2S.'lWc3 1'lb6 26. ItJxe7+ 'lWxe7 27.Elxc2=

20 exd4

•••

�xe5 21. �xe5 cxd4! 22.

Or 22.ltJc6 d3.

22 EkS .••

Black's rook goes back to the c8square just in time. The routine line: 22 ... !ixb3, after: 23.ltJc6 'lWd6 24.'lWc4, led to complete equality.

23.�c6 'lWd6 24.:i;a6 if6 25.ie4 It is too bad for White to play: 2S.ltJa7 'lWxd4 26.ltJxc8 id3!

25 ixe4 26.'lWxe4 .•.

.

16 �d5 17.ib2 �c3 lS .ixc3 ••.

That forced.

.

decision

was

practically

lS bxc3 19.�c4 ..•

Now, it seems at first sight that White has no p roblems at all. He only . needs to play - Elc1...

26 'lWd7! ••.

This move disrupts the harmony of White's pieces. Black's queen is head­ ed for the b7-square.

19

.•.

:i;bS!

This reply is very powerlul. Black creates immediate threats - in this case against White's b3-pawn.

2 0 .�fe5?! That natural move is a mistake too. It was still not too late for White to

27.Elfal 'lWb7 2S.b4 :i;fdS! It is quite sensible for Black to bring some reserves, while White's pieces are pinned.

29.b5 Or 29.f3 Eld6.

29 J;xd4 3 0 .'lWe3 Eld5 .•

293

Yevseev-Dreev, Moscow 20 0 6 It was even stronger for Black to play here the immediate move - 30 ... c2. I was calculating during the game the variation: 31.ttJxd4 ixd4 32.IWcl, but I saw that in case of: 32 ... ixal 33J�xal IWxbS, White had the resource - 34.IWxc2, therefore I played 30 . . .l''i: dS. Still, after the simple move - 32 ... h6!, the combination ofthe threats IWf3 and �xal, would have rendered White's situation completely hopeless. 31.);b6 After that move, I played quite im­ precisely. I was planning to continue with the correct reply at first - 31 ... IWd7, but then the move in the game seemed to me to be preferable. 31 . . . IWc7 32.ttJb4 Or 32.l"i:a7 �xb6. 32 ... �d4 That move leads to an endgame by force. Black had better opt for: 32 ... l"i:dd8 33.l"i:c6 �b7. 33.�xd5 .be3

Now, it is quite evident that Black has complicated his task consid­ erably, although victory is still within reach. 37...
View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF