Winning With the Petroff - Karpov

IOPENINGSI

WINNINC WITH THE PETROFF

ANATOLY KARPOV

Winning With the Petroff ANATOL Y KARPOV

An Owl Book Henry Holt and Company New York

Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Publishers since 1866 115 West 18th Street New York, New York 10011 Henry Holt® is a registered trademark of Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright© 1993 by Anatoly Karpov All rights reserved. First published in the United States in 1993 by Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Originally published in Great Britain in 1993 by B. T. Batsford Ltd. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-56754 ISBN 0-8050- 2 633- 4 (An Owl Book: pbk.) First American Edition-1993 Printed in the United Kingdom All first editions are printed on acid-free paper.oo 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

!

Adviser: R. D. Keene, GM, OBE Technical Editor: Andrew Kinsman

Contents

7

Introduction

1

Main Line with 6 ... tt:lc6 and 7 ... il..e7

9

2

Main Line with 6 ... tt:lc6 and 7 ... ..tg4

48

3

Main Line with 6 ... il..e7 and 7 .. 0-0

64

4

Main Line with 6 ... ..td6

68

5

White Fourth Move Alternatives

81

6

3 d4

87

.

Index of Variations

112

Introduction

number of games won by Black is hardly less than the number of wins for White. Incidentally, in four of my five matches with Kasparov this com­ paratively rare opening was encountered, and the seven games played have made an appreciable contribution to its theory. It can be said without exaggeration that throughout its history the Petroff has never been studied with such intensity as after my duels with Kasparov. Although the reader is possibly familiar with all our games with the Petroff(except the one in New York) from my book The Open Game in Action, I have of course inc!uded them in a special book dedicated to this opening, all the more so because recently many important examples, Improve­ ments to variations, and new ideas have appeared. They are all reflected in this new book. As in my previous work Beating

The Petroff is defined as early as Black's second move: I e4 e5 2 lilf3 lilf6, and already the opening appears on the board. What distinguishing features does it have? Perhaps only one between two opponents of equal strength Black 'risks' finding him­ self with the safety of a draw straight away - 3 lilxe5 d6 4 lilf3 lilxe4 5 1!Ve2 1!Ve7 6 d3 and White exchanging queens almost guaran­ tees a half-point. But is this really a deficiency of the Petroff? I recall that in one of the current vari­ ations of the Ruy Lopez White can bring the game to an immedi­ ate end (. . . JH8-e8, lilf3-g5, . . . l!e8-f8, lilg5-f 3 etc.) as, in fact, many of my opponents have done when I have had Black. But in practice the player against whom the Petroff is played generally tries to take the initiative. In this case Black can fully expect an enthral­ ling struggle with equal chances. As a result, as statistics show, the 7

8

Introduction

the Griinfeld, I have included in this book 25 contemporary games as a foundation, the majority of which were played in the second half of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s(but the commentaries to them, as before, refer to many valuable examples from the past). According to the modern stan­ dard Informator classification of openiogs, the Petroff is divided into,two sections - C42 and C43. The first of these is characterised by the capture of the pawn - 3 lLlxe5 (and also by various rare continuations), and the second­ by refusing this capture with 3 d4. It is worth pointing out that in recent years the C42 system has been considerably more popular, and therefore it is given more attention and space in this book. One might recall that one of the variations beginning with the cap­ ture of the e5-pawn (3 lLlxe5 d6 4 lLlf3 lLlxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 lLlc6) was subjected to a thorough exam­ ination in my first three matches with Kasparov, and in the fifth match there was an interesting game played with 3 d4. The main line of the Petroff is divided into four basic variations, each of which is covered by a chapter of this book. Chapter one deals with the system 3 lLlxe5 d6 4 lLlf3 lLlxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 lLlc6

(6 . . . .i.e7) 7 0-0 .i.e7 (7 . . . l0c6) which has proved to be by far the most fashionable choice for Black in recent times. A sharper possi­ bility is discussed in chapter two, in which Black attacks the centre with 7 . . . .i.g4 without spending time developing his king's bishop first. Chapter three deals with the 6 . . . .i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 system which gives Black a solid, if rather unin­ spiring position, whilst chapter four i� concerned with the interest­ ing 6 . . . .i.d6 which has been very fashionable of late. In chapter five we look at White's alternatives on the fourth move, and the final chapter deals with 3 d4, which is also very much in vogue. Does the title of the book do justice to its contents? Of course, learning off by heart countless variations, which there are in this book, will be of some use. How­ ever, I believe that familiarity with the games included in this book and close study of them, will give the reader a contemporary under­ standing of the opening, and in this sense one can certainly think that the book will develop under­ standing of how to play, and win with, the Petroff. Finally I want to thank chess master and writer Evgeny Gik for his help in preparing the manu­ script.

1

Main Line with 6 ... CZJc6 and 7 il.e7

Game No. I

debate in the Petroff which unfolded m my battles with Kasparov. It is now quite clear why I included this game, played com­ paratively long ago - ten years - in the book. I hope that the reader familiar with it from other publications will not be offended, since this book is devoted to the Petroff. e4 eS 1 li:lf6 2 li:lf3 li:l xeS 3 As we have said already, here the Petroff branches into two main systems - 3 li:lxe5 and 3 d4, and the first (larger) part of the book is devoted to taking the pawn on e5. 3 d6 4 li:lf3 The continuations 41i:lxf7 and 4 li:lc4, to which chapter 5 is devoted, are comparatively rare.

Karpov-Portisch

Turin 1982 In 1982 I had an original theoreti­ cal duel with Lajos Portisch on the theme of the Petroff : Turin, Tilburg, Lucerne. Although the difference in points was mini­ mal - 2 :I in my favour, the opening battle, one can say, was won by White with a clean sheet. The following game opened the discussion and in the notes to it are the two other duels (that is, our opening 'triptych' collected together). Although the variation I played three times with Portisch was not subsequently encountered at the highest level, it should be mentioned that this was largely due to the results achieved in those games. I also think that this theor­ etical argument with Portisch pre­ pared the ground well for a new 9

Main Line with 6 ... CiJc6 and 7 . . . .1ie7

10

4 5

d4

lLl xe4

Possibly only Boris Spassky nowadays at the top level uses the old move 5 '*e2. As far back as 1 969 in his match for the chess crown, Tigran Petrosian demon­ strated a clear plan of arranging his pieces. In fact, at the same tournament in Turin in my game with Spassky I succeeded in equalising easily : 5 . . . '*e7 6 d3 lLlf6 7 ..tg5 • xe2+ 8 ..txe2 ..te7 9 lLJc3 c6 (I) (This is Petrosian's idea. Black avoids symmetry and the loss of tempo loses significance.) 1 w

10 0-0 lLJa6 I I .!:!: fe I lLl c7 1 2 il..f l lLJe6 1 3 ..te3 0-0 1 4 d4 .!:!: e8 1 5 d5 lLlxd5 1 6 lLlxd5 cd 17 ..tb5 .!:!: d8 18 .!:!: ad l ..tf6 19 c3 lLl c7 20 ..te2 .!:!: e8 2 1 lLld4 ..td 7 22 ..tf3 .t xd4 23 ..txd4 ..tc6 24 .te3

!-1.

Several months later against Yusupov (Toluca 1 982) Spassky preferred 1 2 d4 instead of 12 "tfl .

There followed : 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 ..td3 lLJ e 6 14 ..te3 0-0 1 5 .!:!: ad l ..td6 1 6 lLJe5 lLJe8! 1 7 lLJe2 f6 1 8 lLJf3 lLJ 8c7 1 9 b3 ..td7 (more accurate was at once 1 9 . . . b5! 20 c4 be 2 1 be ..ta6) 20 c4 .!:!: fe8 2 1 c 5 ..tf8 22 lLJc3 b5 23 lLJe2 a5 24 a3 g6 25 h3 lLJd8 26 g4 lLlf7 27 >t>g2 lLJe6 28 lLl f4 lLlxf4 29 ..txf4 .!:!: xe I 30 .!:!: xe l a4 31 b4 .!:!: e8 32 .!:!: xe8 ..t xe8 33 lLlg I lLJd8 34 lLJe2 g5! 35 ..tb8 .tg6 36 .t xg6 hg 37 '01t>f7 I 5 J.. g 5! 'it' xg5 I6 Wxd4 with advantage to White (Capablanca-Marshall, match I 909). Instead of the unsuc­ cessful move 8 . . . f5 he rec­ ommended 8 ..te7! and then 9 J.. xe4 de I O J::t xe4 .hf3! I I ..W xf3 tt:lxd4 I 2 Wd3 tt:le6 with an equal game. Decades have passed and theory has not stood still, but possibly .

.

.

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . iLe7

only in our time has it become so clear how important every tempo is in this opening system. The two moves by the black bishops - the black-squared one to e7 and the white-squared one to g4, it can be said, define the two separate channels in this branch of the Petroff. We shall look in more detail later at the bishop coming to g4, which was introduced in the last game. I have noticed that in recent years that side by side with Black's plan of action against the enemy centre the symmetrical variation has been widely used, in which the c6-square is not occu­ pied by the knight but by the pawn, with the bishop coming to d6 : 6 . . . .1t.d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6. Black's position is a little passive but solid enough. We shall also look at this system later. Now that we shall concentrate on my six games with Kasparov, I shall set out the opening of each of them (in brackets are the n u mber of the match and the num­ ber of the game). ( 1 , 28): 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 ..tg4 8 J:t e 1 .1t.e7 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 cd; (2, 1 5) and (3, 6) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.g4 8 c4 ti:Jf6; ( 1 , 30) : 6 . . . .1t.e7 7 0-0 ti:Jc6 8 J:t e l .1t.g4 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 ti:Jc3; ( 1 , 4 1 ) : 6 . . . .1t.e7 7 0-0 ti:Jc6 8 c4 ti:Jb4; ( 1 , 48) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.e7

19

8 c4 ti:Jf6 9 ti:Jc3 0-0. The two games of the first match (which are referred to a little later), where Kasparov played White probably convinced him that the variation was safe for Black, and the third time he chose to play with the opposite colo ur. H owever, I had laid a small surprise in store. 8

c4 (12)

12 B

White quickly attacks the cen­ tre. In our previous games with this opening, White had played J:t e l before moving the c-pawn and had achieved nothing. Here are those games. Kasparov-Karpov (1, 28): 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.g4 8 J:t e 1 .1t.e7 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 cd .1t.xf3 (this move was introd uced by Smyslov in his Can­ didates match with Hiibner, Velden 1 983. Earlier 1 0 . . . ti:Jxd5 had been preferred) 1 1 "ilt'xf3 "iit' x d5 (a more detailed commentary on this position can be found in the previous game) 12 "iit' h 3 ti:Jxd4 1 3 ti:Jc3 "iit' d 7 1 4 "iit' x d7 + 'it>xd7 1 5

20

Main Line with 6 . . . ti'Jc6 and 7 . . . .it..e 7

�e3 4Je6 1 6 l:lad 1 ..id6 1 7 ..if5 �e7 1 8 4Jb5 l:l, h d8 19 4Jxd6 cd 20 h3 b6 21 g4 h6 22 ..id4 l:lac8 23 ..ic3 g6 24 ..ic3 h5 2 5 f3 t-1. Kasparov-Karpov ( 1 , 30) : 6 . . . ..ie7 7 0-0 4Jc6 8 l:le l ..ig4 (after 8 . . . i.f5 9 c4 the game fol­ lows Karpov- Portisch which was featured earlier) 9 c4 4Jf6 10 4Jc3 (instead of 10 cd - 28th game) 1 0 . . . d e I I �xc4 0-0 1 2 �e3 �xf3 1 3 'ihf3 4Jxd4 14 ..bd4 'ihd4 1 5 1:1 xe7 'ihc4 1 6 'ihb7 c6 1 7 'ilt' b3 'ilt'xb3 1 8 ab l:lab8 1 9 l:la3 l:lfe8 20 l:lxe8 + l:lxe8 1-t. Much earlier, in game six of the Candidates final with Korchnoi (Moscow 1974) I played the more restrained 9 c3 f5 I 0 'ilt'b3 (13).

especially amusing incident once happened to the young chess star Vasily I vanchuk. In the game I vanchuk-Anand, Reggio Emilia 1 988/9, Black played 10 . . . 'l!t'd6 instead of castling short and events turned out rather unusually: I I 4Jfd2!? �-0 1 2 f3 ..i h4 1 3 l:lfl ..i h3 (the continuations 1 3 . . . ..if2+ 14 l:lxf2 4Jxf2 1 5 ..t>xf2 'ilt'xh2 1 6 tt:J fl and 1 3 . . . ..ih5 14 fe fe 1 5 ..ixe4 d e 16 4Jxe4 'ilt'g6 1 7 4Jc5 are joyless for Black) 1 4 'ilt'c2 (if 14 gh 'l!t'g6+ 1 5 h I then 1 5 . . . 4Jf2 + 1 6 l:lxf2 ..ixf2 1 7 'ilt'd I l:lhe8 decides) 14 . . . 'ilt'g6 1 5 4Jb3 J:t hf8 1 6 4Ja3 l:lde8 (14). 14 w

13 8

After 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I 4Jbd2 �h8 1 2 h3 �h5 13 'ilt'xb7 Black lost quickly, although the opening was not responsible. The position in the diagram is currently often encountered in grandmaster tour­ naments, and in general the game turns out in White's favour. An

In this unconventional struggle White has outplayed his opponent and could have obtained a decisive advantage here: 1 7 ..if4! ..ig5 1 8 ..ixg5 4Jxg5 1 9 g h 4Je6+ 20 � h i 4Jf4 2 1 l:lae l . But he unexpectedly moved the king - 1 7 � h I ?? 4Jf2 + ! 1 8 l:lxf2 .txg2 +, and White resigned (if 1 9 1:1 xg2 or 1 9 � g1 then 1 9 . . . l:le I + follows).

Main Line with 6 ... lbc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

Instead of I 0 . . . 1!fd6 and I 0 . . . 0-0 Black also has the move 10 . . . 'Wd7. However, in the recent game Rotterdam Ehlvest-Yusupov, 1989), White dictated the play: I I tilfd2 0-0-0 1 2 f 3 tilxd2 1 3 tilxd2 i.hS 14 1!fa4 J:!he8 I S tilb3 a6 16 i.d2 i.g6 !7 i.f4 tilb8 1 8 1!fxd7+ tilxd7 19 "'f2 i.f6 20 g3 lH8 21 a4 J:!f7 22 aS h6 23 tileS etc. Let us at last return to the 41st game. tilb4 (15) 8 In the 48th game, the last of the first match, Kasparov was appar­ ently ready to use my "prompting" (see the White bishop's next move) - this time Kasparov was playing White. I did not carry out the . . . tilc6-b4 manoeuvre of the 41st game and decided to play the old move with the other knight. Kasparov-Karpov (I, 48): 8 . til/6 9 tilc3 0-0 10 h3 Once and for all stopping i.g4. counterplay with Although the move h3 has fairly lofty principles, one can manage without it, for example Kudrin­ Wolff, USA Ch 198S: 10 cd tilxdS I I :tel i.e6 12 a3 i.f6 1 3 i.e4 tilde?? (the wrong knight goes to e7 - 13 .. . tilce 7! equalises) 14 i.gS! i.xgS IS tilxgS i.fS (and now I S . . . h6 is correct) 1 6 dS i.xe4 17 J:!xe4 tilb8 18 "l!fhS h6 19 llael tilxdS 20 tilxf 7 tilf6 21 .

.

21

tilxh6+ "'h7 22 1!fh3 and Black resigned. 10 ... de After 10 . . . tilb4 (following 1 0 . . . i.e6 good is II cS) I I i.e2 cS 12 a3 tilc6 1 3 de de 14 i.e3 White has a definite advantage (Velimirovic-Schiissler, Smeder­ evska Palanka 1979). 11 i.xc4 tila5 12 i.d3 i.e6 13 J:!e1 tilc6 Later the interesting try 1 3 . . . cS!? was discovered. After 14 i.e3 J:!c8 I S 1!fe2 cd 16 tilxd4 i.c4 1 7 J:!adl White i s better, but if 1 4 . . . c4 I S i.c2 tildS Black has equalised (Fedorowicz-Kogan, USA 198S). Possibly 14 i.gS h6 I S i.h4 offers White better chances. Now if I S . . . c4 i.xf6 i.xf6 17 i.e4 White dominates the centre of the board. 14 a3 a6 In the game Lobron- Handoko, Yugoslavia 1 98S, after 14 . . . J:!e8 I S i.bS 1!fd6 (White is also better after I S . . . a6 16 i.xc6 be 17 tileS) 16 i.gS! J:! ed8 17 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 8 tile4 White obtained a noticeable advantage and turned it into a Will.

15 i./4 1!f d7 A serious mistake. Correct was I S . . . tildS, for example: 16 i.g3 i.f 6 17 i.c2 tilce7 18 tile4 i.fS 19 tilxf6+ tilxf6 20 i.b3 c6 21 tileS tilfdS 22 1!ff3 i.e6 23 J:!adl tilfS 24 i.xdS t-t Gufeld-

Main Line with 6 . . . tuc6 and 7 . . . � e 7

22

Schussler, Havana 1 985. 16 lbe5! lbxe5 1 7 de lbd5 18 lbxd5 it..xd5 19 'ikc2 g6

16

B

On 1 9 . .. h6 play might continue 20 l:.ac l c6 2 1 l:.e3 with a strong attack. 20 :adl c6

This leads by force to a difficult position for Black. It was necessary to submit to a worse ending with 20 . . . '*c6 21 • xc6 if..x c6 22 if..c4. 21 it.. h6 :jd8 22 e6! fe

No better is either 22 . .. if..xe6 23 if.. xg6!, or 22 ... 'ike8 23 '*c3 f6 24 f4! 23 if..xg6 if../8 24 if.. x(8 :x(8 25 if.. e4 :j 7 26 :e3 :g7 27 :dd3 :j8 28 :g3 h8 ! deserves attention. In the game Mnatsakanian-Diez, Varna 1 98 5, after 1 3 tt:le5 f6 14 tt:Jf3 ..ig4 1 5 h3 ..ih5 1 6 ..ie6 ..ixf3 1 7 gf 'llt"e8 1 8 ..if4 f5 1 9 c;t;>h2 'llt"g6 20 ,i b3 ..ig5 Black had a senous initiative on the kingside. 13

de

tt:Je4

1 7 . . . tt:J xb2 1 8 �xb2 ..ixc3 doesn't work - 19 cd! ..i xb2 20 j.xf7 +! c;t;>xf7 21 W" d 5 + with an unstoppable attack. 18

17

w

h3

Later, in the game A. Sokolov­ Agzamov, 52nd USSR Ch 1 985, White played the even stronger 1 3 tt:Je5! and after 1 3 . . . tt:Jc6 (more accurate was 1 3 . . . c5 1 4 ..if4 c4 1 5 tt:lxc4 tt:lxc4 1 6 ..ixc4 ..ixd4 17 tt:Jb5, but bad is 1 3 . . . tt:Jf5 1 4 tt:Jxf7! �xf7 1 5 ..ixf7+ wxf7 1 6 1Wb3 + , o r 1 3 . . . ..ixe5 1 4 de tt:Jf5 1 5 ..ixf7 + ! ) 1 4 ..i f4 tt:Jf5 1 5 tt:lxc6 be 1 6 d5 c5 1 7 tt:Ja4 ..ia6 1 8 �e l j.e7 (better i s 1 8 . . . c4 1 9 ..ic2 tt:ld6) 1 9 �c l ..id6 20 ..ig3 achieved a large advantage. 13 ..if5 �e8 14 ..i e3 15 a3 tt:Jd3 ( 17) A pseudo-active move. More reliable was 1 5 . . . tt:Jc6. c5 �b1 16 17

23

..ic2!

tt:Jxb2

On 1 8 . . . tt:Jg3 strong is 1 9 fg l::tx e3 20 W"d2 ..id4 2 1 tt:Jxd4 W" xd4

22 c;t;>h2 ..ig6 23 tt:ld5! l:t axd8 19 1W xd8 ..i xc 3 20 �xb2 21 tt:Jxc5 l:t xb7 22 ..ixc5 ..i xc2 23

l:t xa7

As a result of the mass ex­ changes White has won a pawn, but this could have been done better in another way : 23 :te l �d l + (23 . . . ..ie4 24 �xa7) 24 �xd l ..i x d l 25 �xa7. 23 ..i d 1 24 25 26 27

l:t e7 ..ixe7

tt:lg5

�xe7 l:t d3 ..ib2

..ib4

The threat was 27 . . . ..ic2, winning the a3-pawn. Now 27 . . . ..ic2 is met by 28 �e l ! 27 28 29 30

tt:le4

h6 f5 �d5 f4?

tt:Jc5 �e 1 In time trouble Black makes the losing move. 30 . . . c;t;>f7 or 30 . . . ..ic2 was required.

24

Main Line with 6 . . . lt:Jc6 and 7 . . . iie7

31

a4!

J:td4

3 1 . . . ..te5 does not help : 3 2 a5 ..td6 33 a6 ..t xc5 34 ..t xc5 �xc5 35 J:t e 8 + wf7 36 a7. 32

a5

�xb4 (18)

18 w

This can be considered an his­ toric position. By moving the a­ pawn one square forward White wins : 33 a6! ..tb3 (33 . . . ..ta4 34 a7 ..tc6 35 J:t e6 ..t d5 36 �d6; 33 . . . J:t b8 34 l:t xd l ..t a 3 35 ttJb7!) 34 ttJxb3 l:t a4 (34 . . . l:t xb3 35 J:t e8 + and 36 a7) 35 ttJc5 l:ta5 36 �e4! wf7 37 �a4! �xa4 38 ttJxa4 ..td4 39 ttJc3 ! and Black loses the bishop. At this moment I had already secured five victories and winning this game would have secured vic­ tory in the match with a score of 6 : I . However, the game concluded in another fashion and chess h is­ tory took a completely different turn. 33 34 35

J:txd1? liJe6 nd7

..td4 ..ta7

35 ttJxg7 � b2 36 ttJf5 ..txf2+ 37 wfl is no better. 35 �bl + 36 37 38

wh2 ttJxf4 ttJe6

..txf2 l:t a I �xa5

Black makes life more compli­ cated for himself. As Josef Dorf­ man pointed out, an easier path to a draw was 38 . . . g5! 39 �g7 + (39 J:td5 .te l ) 3 9 . . . ..t> h8 40 J:t g6 ..t> h7 41 ttJf8 + ..t> h8 42 a6 (42 J:t xh6 + 'Wt>g7 43 l:t g6 + ..t> xf8 44 �f6+ ..t>g7 45 �xf2 J:txa5) 42 . . . ..tgl + ! 43 ..t>g3 J:t a 3 + 44 "'g4 l:ta4+! 39 J:t xg7 + whs 40 41

J:tf7

..te3

w g3 Here the game was adjourned and in my home analysis I con­ vinced myself that it is impossible to realise the extra pawn. For another thirty moves I tried to do it, but, alas, without success. 41 42 43 44 45 46

�d7 ..t>f3 ttJf4 ..t>e4 J:td8 +

..td2 ..tc3 ..t>g8 �f5 �f7!

There were more chances in the minor-piece ending: 46 � xf7 ..t>xf7 4 7 ..t>f5. I n fact my opponent's trainers, Dorfman and Vladimirov, shortly afterwards published some interesting analy­ sis showing Black's best method

Main Line with 6 . . . lllc6 and 7 . . . i. e 7

of defence in this ending. 46 . . . wh7 47 �d3 � e7 + 48 w f3 � b2 49 l:t b3 �c 1 50 tl:ld5 :te5 51 tl:lf6 + wg6 52 tl:le4 l:t f5 + 53 th l li:Jxc l Black retains a material advan­ tage. 17 18

.1i.xe4 nxc6

Better is 1 8 ti:Jxf7 >txf7 and only then 1 9 nxc6. 18 19

..We8! llccl

19 nfc l is no good because of 1 9 . . . ti:J xe3 20 ti:Jxf7 .1i.d5! 19 20 21

ti:Jxf7 llc6

.1i.d6 ..W xf7 lld8

There is formal equality on the board, but the tangle of black pieces holds together well. 22

.1i.g5

ti:Jf4!

This forcing move leads by a series of exchanges to a winning bishop ending. 23 24 25 26 27

..W xf7+ .1i.xd8 .1i.g5 d5 lld 1

.txf7 .1i.xc6 ti:Jxg2! .1i.xd5 �e6

28

Main Line with 6 . . . lUc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

28

J:!xdS

�xdS

29

�xg2

�e4

The difference in the activity of the two kings is too great and this decides matters. 30 a6 .i.e3 31

Game No. 5 Timman-Hjartarson

Rotterdam 1989 1

e4

2

lilf3

lilf6 d6

h3

.i.eS

3

lilxeS

eS

32

b3

.i.d4

4

lilf3

lilxe4

33

.i.gS

�d3

5

d4

d5

34

�f3

�c2

6

.i.d3

lilc6

35

.i.e3

.i.f6

7

0-0

.i.e7

36

�e4

�b2

8

c4

lilb4

37

�d3

�xa2

9

.i.e2

0-0

38

�c2

aS

10

lilc3

39

.i.b6

a4

40

b4

40 ba loses at once to 40 . . . b4. 40

�a3

41

.i.cS

42

.i.f8

hS g6

43

.i.cS

gS

44

f3

On 44 .i.d6 there follows the breakthrough 44 . . . g4! 45 hg h4, followed by . . . h4-h3 and . . . .i.e7 with capture of the b-pawn. 44 .i.eS 45 .i.e7 .i.g3 46

.i.xgS

�xb4

47

f4

�c4

48

fS

�dS!

49

.i.d8

.i.d6

50

.i.h4

�·4

51

f6

�fS

52

�c3

�.6

53

.i.gS

b4+

54

�c4

b3 0-1

The following recent game ts interesting, in which White tried a new approach, quickly playing a2-a3: Sznapik-Tischbierek, Warsaw 1 990, went I0 a3 lilc6 I I cd1!1'xd5 12 lilc3 lilxc3 1 3 be .i.f5 ( 1 3 . . . lila5 is good) 14 c41!1'e4 15 lla2 .i.f6 1 6 lld2 !ladS 17 .i.b2 lile7 IS !lei 1!1'f4 19 g3 1!1'd6 20 .i.fl .i.g4 2 1 h3 .i.xf3 22 1!1'xf3 c5 23 d5 . i_xb2 24 llxb2 b6 25 llbe2 IileS 26 lle5 1!1'd7 27 .i.d3 lild6 2S 1!1'h5 g6 29 1!1'h4 lldeS 30 lle71!1'dS 3 1 llxeS llxeS 321!1'xdS llxdS 33 lle7 b5 34 cb c4 35 .i.fl lilxb5 36 a4 lild6? (The game has flowed with a slight initiative to White, but now after 36 . . . lila31 37 lle3 lilc2 3S Jlc3 lild4! 39 .i.xc4 ll xd5! it must end in a draw. But now Black gets a lost ending.) 37 ll xa7 Jlc8 38 ll a6! c3 39 .i.d3 lilc4 40 llc6 llxc6 4 1 de lilb6 42 c7 �fS 43 a5 IileS 44

Main Line with 6

�fl ! and Black resigned (44 . . . �e7 45 r;t;>e2 'itd7 46 ..ia6 tt:Jd6 47 c8 (W')+ etc.). In the middle of that game the queen went from d5 to d6 in three moves, but . . . W' d5-d6 can be played at once : Hjartarson-Yusu­ pov, Barcelona 1 989, 14 W' d6 1 5 d5 tt:Je5 1 6 tt:Jd4 ..id7 1 7 .l:tb 1 b6 1 8 tt:J b5 ..ixb5 1 9 l hb5 1-1. 0

0

.

liJc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

29

last game. 13

..t xc4

a5

After 1 3 ttJ xc3 1 4 b e tt:Jc2 1 5 :ad 1 tt:J xe3 1 6 fe White has strong pressure on f 7. 0 0

•

a3 (23)

I4 23 B

..te6

IO

The bishop nearly always goes to f5 in two moves, but in Ljubo­ jevic-Yusupov, Barcelona 1 989, Black played the bishop straight to f5 and demonstrated a clear path to equality : 1 0 ..if5 11 a3 tt:lxc3 1 2 be tt:Jc6 1 3 l:t e 1 de 1 4 ..bc4 ..id6 1 5 ..ig5 W'd7 1 6 tt:J h4 tt:Ja5 1 7 ..ia2 ..ig4 1 8 W' c2 l:t ae8 1 9 h3 ..ie6 20 c4 ..ie7 2 1 ..i xe7 Wxe7 22 tt:Jf3 1 -1 . Several months later the players continued their theoretical dis­ cussion. In Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Belgrade 1 989, they repeated moves up to 1 3 l:t el. Then the black player, possibly fearing home preparation, played a different move - instead of exchanging on c4 he played 1 3 . . . ..if6. Again matters quickly ended peacefully : 1 4 ..if4 J:!.c8 1 5 W' a4 a6 1 6 W' b3 tt:Ja5 1 7 W' b4 c5 1 8 de tt:lc6 1 9 W' b 3 tt:Ja5 1-1. 0

II I2

...

..ie3 W' b3

0

•

..if5 de

1 2 . . . c6 was discussed in the

In the tournament where the move . . . ..ic8-e6 was first fully tested ( M oscow 1 985) Arkhipov used his idea three times. We have already talked about two games, in the third Tseshkovsky played 14 a3 against him and the position in the diagram arose. There fol­ lowed 14 tt:Jxc3 1 5 be a4 1 6 W'b2 tt:Jc2 17 l:t a2 tt:J xe3 1 8 fe ..id6. Now it was correct to play 1 9 tt:Je5! ..ie6 20 ..i xe6 fe with un­ doubtedly better chances for White. However, after two con­ secutive inaccurate moves -- 1 9 W' xb7? .l:tb8 20 W' d5? (if 20 W'a6 'W/d7 and Black's position is active enough) 20 ..i d 3!, White was losing - 2 1 W' c6 (21 ..id3 ..ixh2 + , 2 1 .!:!. d 1 c6! 22 'WI xc6 .l:tc8) 21 ..i xfl 22 'itxfl l:t b 1 + etc. 0

0

.

0

0

0

0

0

•

30

Main Line with 6 . . . !Uc6 and 7 . . . i.. e 7

In the game we are following Timman played a new move, answering 1 4 . . . tt:Jxc3 by taking the other knight - 1 5 ab. How­ ever, before we move on, we should note that a half-move earlier an important novelty for Black had been adopted in the game Efimenko-Vzdvizhkov tournament (correspondence 1 989). In the diagram position followed 14 . . . tt:Jd2!?. After 1 5 ..txd2 ..tc2 1 6 ..txf7 + l:t xf7 1 7 'jj'e 6 ..tf5 1 8 'jj' b 3 ( 1 8 'jj'e 5 �.d6) 18 . . . ..tc2 1 9 'jj'e 6 the game was agreed drawn -- neither player could avoid repeating moves. Evaluation of 1 4 . . . tt:ld2 of course, depends on the variation 1 5 tt:Jxd2 ..tc2 1 6 ab ..txb3 1 7 tt:Jxb3 ab 1 8 tt:Jd5. The sides are approximately equal on material, but I would prefer to play with the three minor pieces against the queen. If you don't like the white position, it is clear that 1 2 a3 or 1 2 l:t c 1 should be preferred to placing the queen on b3 (see the next game). 14 15 15 16

tt:Jxe3 a b (24) b5 ba!

Not so clear is 1 6 ..txf7+ l:t xf7 1 7 be a4, but the continuation 1 6 be be 1 7 'jj' xc4 ..ie6 1 8 ..-b5 ab 19 l:t xa8 'jj' x a8 20 cb ..td5 is in Black's favour.

24 B

16 17 18

'jj' xe3 l:t fe1

be ..td3

Now White has material superi­ ority and in the long term can march the a-pawn. Hjartarson offers desperate resistance. 18 19 20

l:t b8 e5 ..tf6 Insufficient is 20 . . . ..t xc5 2 1 ..td2 de

'jj'e 5! l:t b 5 2 2 ..te3 (22 'jj' g 3? l:t xb2 2 3 ..tc3? .�xf2+ !) 22 . . . l:t e8 23 'jj' x e8 + ! 'jj' x e8 24 ..txc5 'jj'a 8 25 ..id4 with the threat of ..ic3. 21 tt:Je5 'jj'd 5 22

..t f4 !

Premature is 2 2 b4? cb 23 'jj' x d3 'jj' x d3 24 tt:Jxd3 ..ixa 1 25 l:t xa 1 l:t bd8, and Black is winning. 22

l:tfe8 (25)

Neither 22 . . . l:t b3 23 ..-d2 l:t fb8 24 a6 l:t xb2 25 a7! nor 22 . . . 'jj' x c5 23 tt:Jxd3 work, but more practical chances were retained by 22 . . . g5, creating an opening for the king. In fact, it seems that Black doesn't

Main Line with 6 . . . ttJc6 and 7 . . . iLe 7

3I

26 B

:!5 w

stand so badly now. 23

b4!!

A brilliant reply! Three passed pawns are too much. cb Wxd3 Wxd3 ..txal tt:lxd3 b2 J::tx a l tt:l xb2! But not 27 n bl n b3 28 tt:l xb2 (28 tt:le5? n a3) 28 . n xb2. 27 J::t x b2 28 h3 J::t c2 29 a6! g5 23 24 25 26 27

.

.

29 . . . J::t xc5 doesn't help : 30 a7 J::t a8 (30 ". J::t cc8 31 n bl J::t a8 32 J::t b8 etc.) 31 J::t b l J::t cc8 32 J::t b8 g5 (32 . . . wf8 33 wh2!) 33 ..td6 (it's too early for 33 J::t xc8 + J::t xc8 34 �b8 .!:t e l + 35 wh2 .!:t a l ) 33 �g7 34 wh2. 30 31 32

33 34

..td6 a7 na6 c6 ..tb8 (26)

J::ta 8 f5 w f7 we6 1 -0

The final position is worth sav-

ouring. After 34 . . . >td5 35 c7 transferring the white rook to the eighth rank decides, and if 34 . . . h5 there follows 35 c7 + d7 36 J::t g6 c8 37 J::t xg5. Game No. 6 Hiibner-Tim man Sarajevo 1990 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

e4 tt:lf3 tt:l xe5 tt:l f3 d4 ..td3 0-0 c4 ..te2 tt:lc3 ..te3 .!:tel (27)

e5 tt:lf6 d6 tt:lxe4 d5 tt:l c6 ..te7 tt:l b4 0-0 ..t e6 ..tf5

The moves 1 2 a3 and 1 2 Wb3 have already been covered. Notice that the Dutch grandmaster will­ ingly chooses the Petroff with either colour. However, if in the previous game he played beauti-

32

Main Line with 6 . . . tuc6 and 7 . . . i.. e 7

�xe4 1 8 tt:Jxf7 .txf7 19 l:t xc6 .tg8 with advantage to Black.

27 B

14 1S 16

be 'Wf3

tt:Jxe3 tt:JdS

White's pieces are more active, but Black is gradually managing to consolidate. 16 � e6 17

fully with White, now matters don't turn out so well with Black - in this encounter Tim­ man struggled to draw. 12

de

The move 1 2 :t e l was first played by Short, again against Timman (Hilversum (6) 1 989). In it the tactical skirmish after 12 . . . tuxc3 1 3 be tuxa2 1 4 l:t c2 �xc2 1 5 'W xc2 tuxc3 1 6 'W xc3 c6 1 7 l:t b l a 5 1 8 l:t xb7 a4 1 9 tue5 �d6 20 tuxc6 'W c8 2 1 l:t b6 brought some advantage to White. After inaccur­ acies on both sides it eventually ended in a draw. In any case, Timman prepares for complica­ tions by postponing the exchange on c3 for a few moves. 13 14

� xe4 tZ:leS

e6

Nothing is gained from 1 4 'W b3?! with pressure on f7. Hubner gives the variation 14 . . . b5 1 5 �xf7 + ( 1 5 �e2 �e6 1 6 'W d l tt:Jxc3 1 7 be tt:J xa2 1 8 l:t c2 b4!) 1 5 . . . l:t xf7 1 6 tt:Je5 tt:Jd5 1 7 tt:Jxe4

�d3

If 1 7 l:t fe l, 1 7 . . . tt:Jxe3 18 l:t xe3 �xc4 equalises immediately. 17

�d6

Exchanging on e3 is to White's ad vantage - 1 7 . . . tt:Jxe3 1 8 fe �d6 1 9 tt:Jc4 �c7 20 e4. 18

�d2

'Wh4!?

Decisive measures are needed to reduce White's queenside press­ ure: 1 8 . . . �xe5 1 9 de tt:Je7 20 �g5! 20

19

l:tfe1 a4

21 22 23

�f4 �xeS 'WfS

tt:Jf6 tt:Jg4

With exchanges Black makes things easier for his pieces (20 . . . �d5 2 1 'Wg3 'Wxg3 22 hg with better prospects for White). tZ:lxeS �dS �xeS

White gets a slightly better ending from 23 . . . l:t ad8 24 l:te3 g6 25 'Wf6 'W xf6 26 �xf6 �f4 27 �xd8 l:t xd8 28 l:t b l � xe3 29 fe b6. 24

l:t xeS

g6

The retreat 24 �e6 covers the invasion squares to the eighth

Main Line with 6 . . . ti:Jc6 and 7 . . . 1t..e 7

r ank, although after 25 'ilt'f3 g6 26 J:tb l nab8 27 J:t a5 a6 28 J:t e5 Wh ite has the freer game. 25 26

'i!t"d7 nb1

nabS nfdS?!

.te6 27 'ilt' c7 And now 26 J:tfc 8 28 'ilt' a5 a6 deserves attention, dri ving the persistent queen away from the black cam p. 27 28 29 30

'ilt'c7 .tfl J:t e7 J:t xc7

'ilt'g4 'i!t"d7 'ilt'xc7 a5 (28)

33

J:t bd8 37 w c3 c5 (or 37 . . . .tf5 38 J:l: xc6 J:t e3 39 J:t d l ) 38 d5 .tf5 39 .txf5 gf 40 J:l: xb6 - brings the long-awaited prize (this game took place in the Candidates match, and had Hubner won the scores would have been levelled). 31

J:l: e8

Now if 32 f3 the rook can activate itself: 32 . . . J:t e 1 33 ..tf2 J:l: c l . 32 33 34 35

c4 J:l: bxb7 J:t xb7 d5

.te6 J:l: xb7 J:t d8

There is no danger for Black in 35 J:l: c7 J:!:xd4 36 J:l: xc6 J:!:d l .

28 w

35 36 37 38 39 40 41

An important moment. After the obvious 3 1 n bxb7 J:t xb7 32 J:txb7 c5 33 J:l: b6 (33 J:l: b5 cd 34 cd ..tc6 35 J:l: xa5 J:t xd4) 33 . . . cd 34 cd, there follows 34 . . . ..te4! 35 J:l: b5 J:t xd4 36 J:l: xa5 .,tc6 and with the a-pawn the last chance disa ppears. 31

J:t b6?

A fatal delay, letting go of the nrebird. Meanwhile, the inclusion of t he king in the hunt - 3 1 f3! b6 3 2 wf2 wg7 33 ..td3! h5 34 c4 ..te6 35 e3 J:t e8 36 w d2

c5 J:!:b5 ..td3 � xf5 wfl c6

cd J:t c8 d4 ..t£5 gf J:t e8

The continuation 4 1 J:l: xa5 d3 42 J:t b5 J:t e4! 43 a5 d2 44 J:t b l J:l: a4 immediately forces a draw. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

J:t d5 J:!:xd3 J:t d5 J:l: xa5 J:t a8 a5 a6

d3 J:l: c8 J:l: xc6 J:t c4! wg7 J:t b4 J:t a4

The king's 'dance' in front of his own pawns doesn't promise much : 48 w e2 J:l: a2 + 49 wf3 J:t a3 + 50 ..tf4 J:t a2 5 1 g3 J:t a3 + .

34

Main Line with 6 ... Ci"Jc6 and 7 . . . Ji.e7

48 49 50

g3 h4

.!:l:a2 h6

And if 50 g2 .!:l:a3 5 1 h4 h7 the king is unable to escape his incarceration. 50 51 52 53

gf a7 g2

f4 .!:l:a4 .!:l:a2

The king moves out, but the result of the game is already determined. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

f3 g3 f2 e3 d3 c4 d 4 c4

.!:l:a3 .!:l:a2+ .!:l:a3 .!:l:a2+ .!:l:a4 .!:l:a3 + .!:l:a l .!:l:a5

In the same tournament i n Brussels Lj ubojevic somew h at crudely played I I cd against Seira­ wan. After I I . . . li:lxc3 I 2 be 8xd5 13 '1Wc2 ( 1 3 � d 2 li:lb6 leads to equality) 1 3 . . . c5 14 c4 li:lb4 15 "t\t'e4 'llt' d7 1 6 de? .t£5 1 7 '1Wd4 'l!!t'e6 I 8 � b2 �f6 19 'tWd2 �xb2 20 'Wit' xb2 li:lc2 Black had the ad van­ tage, which he converted into a full point. When the game finished, the opinion was put forward that 16 J.. b2 was a better chance for White. f5!? (29)

11 :!9 w

1 1 r2

Game No. 7 Karpov-Seirawan

Br ussels 1986 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

e4 li:lf3 li:lxe5 li:lf3 d4 �d3 0-0 c4 �e2 li:lc3 �e3

e5 li:lf6 d6 li:lxe4 d5 �e7 li:lc6 li:lb4 �e6 0-0

A curious idea : thanks to the energetic movement of the f-pawn. Black obtains active counterplay on the kingside. Let us remind ourselves that the other main possibilities are I I . . };JS (games 4-6), I I . . . �f6 (game 9) and I I . . . li:lxc3 (note to game 4). In the game A. Sokolov-Smys)ov. Moscow I 987, yet another con­ tinuation was encountered II . . . li:lf6, but this knight retreat can -

.

--

Main Line with 6 . . . CZlc6 and 7 . . . .1u 7

hardly be recommended. There followed 1 2 a3 CZlc6 1 3 b3 tt'le4. Exchanging on c3 when the white pawn is on b2 is not favourable for Black as it strengthens the opponent's centre, but now, when the b-pawn has moved one square forward and the be capture is not pos sible, the black knight returns to e4 to attack c3. However, White takes the knight himself and the loss of two tempi does Black no favours at all : 14 tt'lxe4 de 1 5 d5 ef 1 6 �xf3 �d7 1 7 de �xc6 1 8 .�xc6 be 1 9 '!Wf3 '!Wd3 20 �ab l '!Wg6 2 1 a4 a5 2 2 �f4 �d6 23 i.xd6 "i!Wxd6 24 �bd I '!Wb4 25 J:I d7 �ab8 2 6 �xc7 W' xb3 27 'l!Hxc6. Although Smyslov saved himself in the ending, hardly anyone would want to repeat his opening experiment with Black . 12 13 14

a3 be ..Wa4

tt'lxe3 tt'le6

We shall look at 14 cd in the next game. 14 15

f4 ��.d2

It was later established that it is better for the bishop to return ho me: 1 5 �cl ! h8 1 6 �b l �b8 1 7 �e l ! (now 1 7 . . . de 1 8 t>h8 �b8 �abl de �fe l � xe4 � g4 �e2 (30)

30 B

An i mportant moment. Look­ ing ahead, one should note that after 1 9 . . . kd6 20 h3 �h5 the white rook carried out an unusual manoeuvre : 2 1 � b5! .lte8 22 '!Wc2 a6 23 �f5!. There took place an exchange of rooks, the light squares in the enemy camp were noticeably weakened, and in the end I made use of this situation. Shortly afterwards Seirawan found a way to improve Black's play, and the relevant game is worth giving in full (Rohde-Seira­ wan, USA Ch 1 986). In the diag­ rammed position Black replied 19 . . . a6! Not a complicated move, but now it is clear that the b5-square is not available to the white rook, which is not insignificant.

36

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:Jc6 and 7

20 h3 .fl.h5 21 li:Jg5' Meeting the unexpected, White becomes lost. After 21 J:! bdl (also interesting is 2 1 li:Jh2) he still has the initiative. 21 . . . .fl.xe21 Significantly stronger than 21 . . . ..bg5 22 ..bh5 f3 23 ..bg5 'l!fxg5 24 ..bf3! J:! xf3 (24 . . . li:Jxd4 25 'l!fxd4 J:! xf3 26 J:!xb7 J:! bf8 27 J:! xc7 J:! xh3 28 'l!fd6 J:!g8 29 'l!fe6 with the terrible threat of 'l!fxg8+) 25 'l!fxc6! and White has a clear advantage. 22 li:Je6 'lll d5 23 J:! xe2 f3' By sacrificing the exchange Black creates dangerous threats. 24 J:! ee1 fg' 25 ii:Jxf8 J:! xf8 26 'lll d1 '111/5' Black already has a won game, but it is interesting to watch the game to the end. 27 wxg2 'lllxf2+ 28 wh1 l:!/3 In order to avoid mate White must give up a piece. 29 J:!e3 J:! xe3 30 .fl.xe3 'lllxe3 31 'lllg4 g61 32 l:!/1 Of no help is 32 'l!fc8+ wg7 33 J:!xb7 .fl.d6 34 J:!xc7+ .fl.xc7 35 'l!fxc7+ li:Je7. 32 . . . fl �e2 �b3+ h4 e4

b5 'lWf8 .t>g8 .t>h8 lLlb7 'lWg8 (31)

31 w

44 45

45 46 47 48

'lWd3

43

'ii' h7

il.e7 ab .ta5

ab h5

�cl And here 48 'l\fxh7 + was correct with an easily won ending. For victory it was now necessary to create a small study. 48 49

'l\fe7+ .t>dl

After 49 .t>f3 g4+ ! Black can already count on victory : 50 .t>xg4 'lW g5 + 51 .t>f3 (5 1 .t>h3 'lWxh5 mate) 51 'lWxh5 + 52 g4 (52 .t>e4 W'g6+, 52 .t>xf4 'l\fg5 +) 52 'lW h 1 + . 0

0

0

.

0

49 50 51 52 53

43

g5

.t>e2 e5

It would have been better to exchange q ueens at once.

0

This retreat did not affect the res ult, but because of it the whole ev eni ng was wasted finishing the game. After 43 �c2! with the t:lrcat of ..tc3 d5 and '!Wxh6 mate it W o uld hav � been finished muc h quicke r.

37

.t>e2 .t> b l 'ii' xg3 .t>e2

'lWei + 'lW xf2+ 'lW g3 fg

At last the queens are exchanged; Black, it is true, has an extra pawn, but the minor­ piece ending holds no prospects for him. 53 54 55 56 57 58

d5 .tb2+ de .ta3 + �e6!

g7 lUxeS .t>f8 lLla6 e8

An elegant way of cutting off the king from the pawn.

Main Linc with 6

38

. . .

'Llc6

and 7 . . . J u 7

�b4

58

Of course, not 58 . . . li:lb4+ 59 �xb4 �xb4 60 c7. 59 60 61 62 63 64

�b2 �d7+ �e5 wd2 �e6 �f7

�f8 wds li:l b4+ li:ld5 li:lc7 li:le8 (32)

The last chance rested in 64 . . . li:la6. Now follows the study I promised. 32 w

65 66

�xe8! �f6!

wxe8

The other white bishop cuts the king off from the pawn. After 66 �c7 �cS! Black ts still holding on. 66 67 68 69 70 71 n

73

wc3 �g7 w b4 wxb5 wc5 wd5 �f8

g4 �d6 �f4 wd8 wc7 �e3 + �f4

Black is in complete

zugzwang.

73 74 75

�d6 �xg3

>t;>b6 �g5 1 -0

Game No. 8 Hiibner-Yusupov

Rotterdam 1988 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

e4 li:lf3 li:lxe5 li:lf3 d4 �d3 0-0 c4 �e2 li:lc3

e5 li:lf6 d6 li:lxe4 d5 li:lc6 �e7 li:lb4 0-0

The Petroff is one of grand­ master Artur Yusupov's favourite openings, and he achieves good results with it, often with great artistry. Three months later in the World Cup in Rotterdam, Nunn played a new move in this position against Yusupov - I 0 li:le5?! The knight's sudden attack caused Black no harm - 10 . . . cS I I �e3 �fS 1 2 a3 li:lc6 I 3 li:lxc6 be 14 cd cd 1 5 de �xeS 1 6 �xeS li:lxcS 1 7 li:ld2 d4. Black's posit ion is already preferable, i t's true, but after ten more moves it all ende d peacefully : 1 8 .:t e l J:t c8 1 9 0b3 li:lxb3 20 J:t xc8 'ilt' xc8 21 'iit' xb3 �c2 22 tt' f3 ..Wb8 23 b4 J:tc8 24 �a6 J:t c3 25 ..W dS J:t xa3 26 �e4 �g6 27 ..W xd4 ..W b6 1 - 1 .

Main Line with 6 10 11 12

�e3

�e6 f5

33 w

lt:lc6

and 7 .

_ _

Ji.. e 7

39

h3 c4 39 be �f7 40 tUgS �f6 4 1 l:l: xf8+ 1 -0.

a3

If 12 cd tUxd5 13 tUxe4 fe 14 cud2 cuxe3 1 S fe �g5 and Black has everything in order, but White can play the stronger 1 3 tUxd5 �xd5 14 Sl.f4 c6 (33) , obtaining a minimal positional advantage.

_ _ _

tUxc3

12

But not 1 2 . . . tUc6?! 1 3 tUxd5 with a strong initiative for White. 13 14

be cd

tUc6

A novelty. To 1 4 l:l: b 1 Black replies 1 4 . . . l:l: b8!, and then 1 5 cd .lt xd5 1 6 c4 �e4! with an unclear game ( 17 l:l: b5 a6). The previous game was devoted to 14 �a4. 14 15

�xd5 c4 (34)

34 B

In fact, in the game Dvoiris­ Sorokin, Chelyabinsk 1 990, this advantage was quickly increased : 1 5 1Le5 �b6 (here the queen is out of the action; another ma noeuvre, �d8--e8--g6, deserved attention) 1 6 �c2 l:l: ad8 17 b3 �a5 1 8 �c4 tUd6 19 tUd2 1Llf7 20 .IH4 �f6 2 1 l:l: ae1 �xd4 22 �xf5 �c3 23 �c2 tUd6 24 .hd6 l:l: xd6 25 tUe4 �xe 1 26 c8 (40) . 40 w

34 J:t d6!!. The death blow : 34 . . . J:t xd7 3 5 W"a8 mate; or 34 . . . cd 3 5 W" c6 mate. White won this game beauti­ fully, but not, of course, as a result of the opening. Now in our free narrative it's time to return to the main game. 12 tt:le5!? (41) The knight thrust has been well­ known in theory for a long time, though the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings only gives it a few lines. After 1 2 . . . f6 Paul Keres' recom­ mendation is given - 1 3 W"f3 'with a slightly better position for White' (and in brackets it is stated that if

45

41 B

1 2 . . . �h4? 1 3 g3 tt:lxg3 the move 14 't!ff3 decides the game, Zui­ dema-Barendregt, Amsterdam 1 966). However, the move 1 2 . . . f6 deserves closer investigation. In fact after 12 . . . f6 13 "1Wf3 Black replies 1 3 . . . g6! and when the knight on e5 retreats he has no particular problems, but in the variation 14 g4 fe 1 5 gf gf things are pretty bad for White ( 1 6 W"xf5 J:t g8 + 1 7 wfl 't!fc4+). What should one do against 1 2 . . . f6? I n the game Makropoulos­ Toth, Budva 1 9 8 1 , there followed 1 3 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 14 'it" xf5 tt:lb5 1 5 W" h 5+ g6 1 6 W"h3 fe 1 7 J:t xe5 W" xd4 1 8 't!fe6 't!f d 1 + 19 J:t e 1 W"d7 20 �g5 with equal chances. A novelty was introduced in the game de Firmian- Plaskett, Copenhagen 1 985: 1 5 'it" g4!?. After 1 5 . . . tt:lxd4 1 6 tt:ld3 Black went after the exchange -- 1 6 . . . tt:lc2? - and fell into a mating attack : 1 7 tt:lb4! tt:lxb4 1 8 W" xb4 c5 1 9 't!f g4 wf7 20 �h6! gh (20 . . . J:t hg8 2 1 J:t ad 1 gh 22 W" xg8 + )

46

Main Line with 6 . . . liJc6 and 7

21 l:tadl h5 (21 . . . 1!fc622 l:txe7+! wxe7 23 1!fg7+ we6 24 l:tel + with utter destruction) 22 1!fe2 1!ff5 23 1!fxe7+ wg6 24 J:td7 h4 25 h3 l:t ag8 26 l:te4 wh5 27 1!ff7+ l!g6 28 l:t d5 and Black resigned. Commenting on the game in Infor mator, de Firmian suggested 16 . . . wf7 17 l:txe7+ wxe7 1 8 1!1'xg7 + with a n unclear game. But it turned out that this position is extremely clear! A game between the young masters Ulybin and Serper (Sochi 1986) continued only another seven moves: 18 . . . 1!ff7 1 9 1!fg4 l:tad8 20 b3 1!fg6 2 1 1!fxg6 hg 22 -".a3+ wf7 23 lilel l:t h5 24 � b2 lile6 25 lilf3 l:t hd5 and White resigned. So, the sacrifice 17 lhe7 is unsound and, possibly, the whole variation is safe for Black. It could possibly be concluded that in response to 12 lile5 the move 12 . . . f6 is fully sufficient for equality. So what was Belyavsky thinking of when he put his knight on e5, and what did Smyslov fear when he avoided 12 . . . f6!? We shall probably find out in the future. 12

g6

It should be pointed out that there is not a big choice here. According to Arkhipov, 12 . . . 0-0-0 is insufficient, because of 1 3 1!ff3 ( 1 3 lilc3? 1!fxe5) 13 . . . g6 14 g4 -".h4 1 5 lilc3 (in Black's favour is 15 lild3 lilxf2 16 1!fxd5 lilh3+ 17 wg2 l:txd5 18 gf kxel 19

. . .

..tel

lilxel l:te8) 1 5 . . . lilxc3 1 6 be ke6 17 1!fxd5 l:txd5 18 g5 with advantage to White. Also after 12 . . . lild6 13 lilc3! 1!fa5 ( 1 3 . . . 1!fxe5 14 de kxd3 15 ed cd 16 lild5) 14 1!fe3 (or 14 1!ff3) Black comes under a powerful bind. Judging by the quick cessation of hostilities in the game, one can conclude that Smyslov's . . . g7-g6 novelty was a success. However. before achieving the draw, Black had to overcome a few hurdles, so moving the neighbouring pawn is nevertheless more reliable. 13 1!ff3 An important moment. 13 g4 is no good because of 13 . . . lilxf21 But why not 1 3 lilc3? At first sight the inclusion of the moves l£Je5 and . . . g6 compared with the games already looked at is in White's favour. Indeed, after 1 3 lilc3 lilxc3 14 1!fxc3 bad is 14 . -".e6 because of 15 .i.h6 0-0-0 16 lilxf7! �xf7 17 l:t xe7 with an extra pawn and a better position. 14 . . . c6 loses to 15 lilc4! with the threat of 16 lile3 and 17 d5. However, correct is 14 . . . 0-0-0 with a good game for Black, since 1 5 lilxg6 is ruled out because of 1 5 . . . hg 16 l:t xe7 1!fd6! with an attack on both the rook and the h2-pawn. It appears that after the queen manoeuvre chosen by Belyavsk y, White's initiative is very danger­ ous. But Smyslov calmly takes the

Main Line with 6 . . . li'lc6 and 7 . . . .1t.e 7 4 7

pawn .

13 14

tt:J c3

'it'xd4 'it'xe5

Black continues to pick up any­ thin g that comes to hand. The material will soon be won back, but meanwhile the board is being completely cleared. 15

(c) 18 . . . 0-0 19 gf gf ( 1 9 tt:Jf6 20 .lth6) 20 ..t> h l with an unstoppable attack. Nevertheless, Black finds the only, but well-deserved defence. 42 B

..tf4

If 1 5 tt:Jxe4 Black manages to slip away with 1 5 . . . 0-0. 15 16

'it'a5 b4 (42)

After 1 6 tt:Jxe4 there is again time for 16 . . . 0-0 - 1 7 tt:Jg3 .lte6. Belyavsky had probably calcu­ lated the b-pawn thrust when he played 1 3 'llr' f 3. If now 16 . . . 'l/ixb4 ( 1 6 . . . 'l/ib6), then 1 7 tt:Jd5! decides. This knight leap also follows the queen's retreat to a6. The vari­ ations that arise then are worthy of our attention : 1 6 . . . 1!Va6 1 7 l2:ld5! .ltd8! (there i s n o alterna­ tive) 1 8 g4! ( 1 8 .lhe4+ .txe4 1 9 'llr' xe4+ 'l/ie6 20 'llr' d4 0-0 2 1 .lth6 f6 22 ..txf8 ..t>xf8 23 'llr' d 2 'it>g7 24 :!:t e l 'llr' d 7 is in Black's favour). Now Black has three possibilities, but none of them hold good prospects : (a) 1 8 . . . c6. Closing the queen's route to the e6-sq uare, which White quickly makes use of. 1 9 l:t xe4+ .ltxe4 20 'l/i xe4+ ..t>d7 (20 . . . ..t>f8 21 ..th6+ g8 22 'iif e8 mate) 21 .l:t d l winning) : (b) 1 8 . . . .lte6 1 9 'llr' xe4 0-0 20 .i h 6 .!:!: e8 (20 . . . .ltxd5 2 1 'l/ixd5 wi nning the exchange) 21 'llr' e 5;

16 17

1!Va3! tt:Jd5

Alas, now this move involves exchanging queens, but 17 tt:J xe4 'l/ixf3 leads to a better ending for Black, as it's hardly worth counting on 1 8 tt:Jf6+ ..t>f8?? 1 9 .th6 mate. 17 18 19

1!Vxf3 ..td8!

gf fe

It remains for White to be proud that for five moves he carried out an attack a piece down. 19 20 21 22 23

l2:l xc7+ ..txc7 a3 .:t:t ac l

1 1 r2

..te6 ..txc7 f6 .:t:t c8 ..t>f7

A short skirmish, but you certainly couldn't call it a grand­ master draw!

2

Main Line with 6 ... 'Llc6 and 7 .. � g4 .

Game No.

fully interact in the centre. Here are two examples from the 1985 international tournament in Frunze: (a) 9 h3 J:!e8 10 �f4 (against 10 li:lc3 Makarychev had prepared 10 . . . li:lxd4! I I li:lxd4 .hd4 12 'i!l'xd4 li:lxc3 13 'lifxc3 J:! xe2) 10 . �[5 I I J:! el 'l!l'd7 1 2 li:la3 .il.xh3 13 gh 1!fxh3 14 �e3 li:lg3 with an attack for Black (Chiburdanidze­ Makarychev); (b) 9 �e3 (9 d5 li:le7 10 �d3 .il.f5 I I J:! el li:lc5 and 9 �d3 �f5 10 J:! el J:!e8 also lead to a good game for Black) 9 . . . J:!e8 10 li:lbd2 �[51 I I li:lb3 d5! 12 J:!el de 13 �xc4 li:ld6 14 �e2 li:lb4 and Black has the advantage (Kup­ reichik--Makarychev).

II

Kasparov-Karpov

World Championship Match (15) Moscow 1985 I

e4

e5

2

li:lf3

li:lf6

3

li:lxe5

d6

4

li:l f3

li:lxe4

5

d4

Sometimes another order of moves is encountered - 5 c4. The main reply was suggested by Makarychev - 5 . . . li:lc6L Now if 6 d4, 6 . . . d5 is good, for example: 7 li:lc3 .il.b4 8 1!fc2 1!fe7 9 .il.e3 .il.g4 10 'l!fcl li:lxc3 I I be .il.a3 12 1!fd2 li:lb4! with a decisive advan­ tage to Black (Kupreichik-Mik­ halchishin, Kuibyshev 1986). If 6 li:lc3 Black equalises easily with 6 . . . li:lxc3 7 de .il.f5 8 li:ld4 li:lxd4 9 1!fxd4 1!fe7 + 10 .il.e2 1!fe4 (Chibur­ danidze-Agzamov, Frunze 1985). Also after 6 �e2 �e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 �f6! Black's pieces success-

5 6

d5 .il.d3

li:lc6

(43) And so, we move on to look at another contemporary plan in the Petroff, connected with the quick 7

48

0-0

.il.g4

Main Line with 6 . . . ti'Jc6 and 7

43 w

development of the light-squared bishop on g4 and the black­ squared bishop staying at home for the moment. It would seem that the difference is not great, but nevertheless, at times the game takes on a completely different character. Saving a tempo by omitting . . . J.e7, Black puts seri­ ous pressure on the d4-pawn, but at the same time his king is stuck in the centre and can be subject to enemy attack. So there are both plusses and m inusses for Black in this variation. Curiously, the position in diagram 43 is not even mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings ( 1 98 1 ). tt:lf6 8 c4 Having retreated the knight to f6 (and expecting the reply tt:lc3) Black, as we shall see, will e xchange on f3 and take the cen­ tral d4-pawn. But isn't it possible to take on f3 and then straight­ away on d4, that is without re trea ting the knight beforehand?

. . .

"� g4

49

The following elegant game shows what can happen. Psakhis- Martinovsky ( Phila­ delphia 1 989) : 8 . . . Jixf3 9 l'i xf3 tt:lxd4 I 0 "l:\Ye3 tt:lf5 I I "l:\Ye2 tt:ld4 1 2 "!lr'e3 tt:lf5 1 3 � h 3 (of course, White is not happy just to repeat moves) 1 3 . . . "!Wd7 14 cd tt:led6 1 5 tt:lc3 0-0-0 1 6 J.f4 tt:le7 1 7 "!Wh5 tt:lg6 1 8 J.g3 wb8 1 9 a4 J.e7 20 a5 J.f6 21 tt:la4 ttJ b5 22 l:tfc I "!Wxd5 (44) . 44 w

23 .bb5! �xh5 24 .bc7+ '01 h I tt:lg3+ 19 hg W' xfl + 20 ..t>h2 with an unclear game, but recommends 1 7 . . . 0-0-0! with an extra pawn and excellent chances. 16

.il.. e7

Ma ny theoreticians have stud­ ied this game (Dlugy, Makary­ chev, Nunn, Timman etc.). but I t h ink that exhaustive analysis is Impossible without a computer. Interesting variations arise after 1 6 . . . .t c5 1 7 W'f3 c6 1 8 J:t d 7!? 150) .

T he rook sacrifice cannot be ac cepted : 1 8 . . . '01h8 (57)

Yusupov considers that this was the decisive mistake, and that 2 1 . . . .tg7! was correct. The game is very difficult, and in such a sharp struggle inaccuracies are unavoid­ able on both sides. 57 w

22

h4

J:t xe4

No better is 22 . . . Wh6 (g6) 23 J:t xg5, or 22 . . . .ixh4 23 tt:lxf6 J:t xe 1 + 24 .t h2. 23 24

J:t xe4 J:t g4

.if4 .ih6

24 . . . .id6 does not save him 25 J:t xd4! cd 26 .id3. Black has

many pieces, but, alas, they are all disconnected. tt:lc6 25 W xcS Wd6 26 W hS 27 .fi.xf7 Wd1 + Wd6+ 28 h2 29 f4 Wc7 Wd6 30 ..tb3 31 32 33

J:t e8 g3 ..t>h3

..txf4+ .i.xg3+

1-0 Black ran out of time, but there is no avoiding mate. For several years this game was regarded as the last word on the move 1 1 Wh3 - White has a dangerous initiative. But there recently took place a game between Howell and van Kemen­ ade, England 1 99 1 , in which Black played the valuable novelty 1 1 . . . tt:le6! There followed a series of exchanges - 1 2 cd tt:lxd5 1 3 J:!: e l tt:lxc3 1 4 b e Wf6 1 5 .fi.f5 .Yl,e7 (Howell suggests 1 5 . . . 0-0-0!? 1 6 .i.xe6+ fe 1 7 J:!: xe6 b8! with a good game for Black) 1 6 .ie3 h6 1 7 .ixe6 fe 1 8 .Yl,d4 Wf7 1 9 J:t xe6 0-0. Here 20 W g4 .Yl,g5 2 1 h4 ..txh4 22 .Yl,xg7 .Yl,xf2+ 23 ..t>hl h 5 2 4 Wg5 Wf5 2 5 J:t g6 W xg5 26 J:[ xg5 J:[ f7 led to equality, but Howell's move 20 Wg3? led to catastrophe - 20 . . . ..lth4! 2 1 W xh4 W xe6 and Black has a win­ ning position. At present this is the latest wo rd on this variation.

Main Line with 6 . . . !Uc6 and 7 . . . Jt..g4

J:t fe8 and Black wins.

Game No. 1 5 Timman-Yusupov Tilburg (2) 1 986 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

e4 tt:J f3 tt:Jxe5 tt:J f3 d4 �d3 0-0 c4 cd

e5 tt:Jf6 d6 tt:Jxe4 d5 tt:Jc6 �g4 tt:Jf6

9 tt:Jc3 .ltxf3 1 0 i!r' xf3 tt:Jxd4 leads, as we have seen, to a sharp tactical struggle, so taking on d5 can be considered a positional decision. 9 10 11

iir' xf3 iir'e2+

..txf3 iir' xd5

A novelty, prepared by Timman specially for the Candidates semi­ final rna tch. After 1 1 J:[ e 1 + �e 7 a position arises which we have already seen more than once from Kasparov-Karpov ( 1 , 28) - 1 2 'ilfh3 tt:Jxd4 1 3 tt:Jc3 iit'd7 1 4 iit' xd 7 + �xd7 with a quick draw. 11 12

..tb5

J..e 7 "iWd6!

Taking the pawn - 1 2 'ilfxd4 - i s too risky as White plays 1 3 tt:Jc3 with a considerable i niti ative. 13

tt:Jc3

Of course 1 3 J:[ e 1 0-0 14 �xc6 be 1 5 iir' xe7 is bad in view of 1 5

61

13 14

�xc6

15

..te3

0-0 be (58)

58 w

White strengthens his d4-pawn, hoping to then use the vulner­ ability of his opponent's doubled pawns along the c-file. We shall return to this position again at the end of this game. 15 16

J:t ac l

tt:Jd5 J:t fe8

Plaskett took the other half­ open file in two games : 1 6 . . . J:t ab8 1 7 b3 tt:Jxe3 1 8 iir' xe3 J:t fd8 19 J:Hd 1 c5 ( 1 9 . . . J.. f 8 20 g3 with strong pressure on Black's position, Mestel-Plaskett, Lon­ don 1 986) 20 d5 .tf8 21 tt:Je4 and White has a clear advantage (Short-Plaskett, London 1 986). 17

tt:Jxd5!

An unusual decision. Black now has an opportunity to undouble h is pawns, but after 1 7 . . . cd 1 8 iir'c2 and then 1 9 iir' c6 he has no counterplay at all. However, in

62

Main Line with 6 . . . Ci"Jc6 and 7

response to W hite's unexpected move, Black replies with one of his own . . . 17 18 19

'!i'c4 b3 (59)

'!i'xd5! ..t d6

59 B

...

�g4

After 2 1 'ii' x c6 l:!. ae8 22 d5 l:!. e4 23 ..tc5 h5 Black has sufficie n t compensation for the pawn. With an intermediary move. Timman drives the enemy queen away from the comfortable f5-square. 'ii' h5 21 22 23 24

After 1 9 '!i' xc6 comes the reply 1 9 . . . '!i'xa2. 19 20

l:!.e6 g3

The pawn is still untouchable: 20 '!i'xc6? j,xh2 + . 20 '!i' f5 Yusupov's trainer, international master M ark Dvoretsky, com­ pared this purely positional sacri­ fice to the pawn sacrifice in the M arshall Attack. The opponent's small material gain is fully com­ pensated for by the activity of Black's pieces. If 20 . . . l:!. ae8, White would have rather not taken the pawn, but limited him­ self to the quiet 21 '!i'xd5 cd 22 1:1. c6. The move 20 . . . 'iW h5 also deserved attention. 21

'!i'c2

'!i'xc6 '!i' g2 1:1. fe1

l:!. ae8 l:!. e4 'iWfS

f3 l:!. xe1 .lk.xe1 'iWf2

l:!. xe1 + l:!. xe1 + 'ii' d3 .b3!

24 . . . ..tb4 is useless because of 25 ..td2 ! , exploiting the weakness of the back rank. However, it was worth interfering with Timman's intended exchange of rooks with 24 . . . 'liaS! 25 a4 h5 or 2 5 I! e2 '!i'f5 with . . . h7-h5 to follow. I n this case White already needs to be accurate to avoid mishaps. h5 25 ..td2 26 27 28 29

White's extra pawn makes no difference. 30 31 32

wg2

'li ft

..tel '!i' xd4

'ii' e2

More dangerous for Black is 32 ..tf2 ..te3 (32 . . . 'ii' b 2 33 'ii' b5!) 33 '!i'e2 ..txf2 34 '!i' xf2, forcing the pawn ending - 34 . . . 'ii' b6 3 5 'ii' x b6 ab. But, as Timman's second, Grandmaster Ulf Anders­ son established, White has no chances for success in this ending: 36 wf2 wf8 37 we3 we7 38

Main Line with 6 . . . (/Jc6 and 7 . . . 1i.g4

M4

wd6! 32 33 34

63

60

'llt' x b2 g4

'llt' b2 �xb2 g6

w

But not 34 . . . hg 35 fg, and White gets a distant passed pawn. 35

gh

gh

In the bishop ending the weak­ ness of Black's queenside pawns gives White a definite advantage, although not enough to win. Exchanging another patr of pawns, Timman eases his opponent's task considerably. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

'.tg3 '.th4 '.txh5 '.tg5 '.tf5 �c3 �e5 �d4

�e5 + �xh2 �d6 '.tf8 '.te8 c6 �e7

t-t And so, White's interesting pos­ itional plan linked with the doubled enemy c-pawns and the exchange on d5, was not wholly successful in this game. However, Nigel Short later came up with a prepared improvement. Let's return to the position in the dia­ gram after Black's 1 4th move. Reykjavik Short-Olafsson, 1 987 : 1 5 l:t d l ! (clearly a more exact way of defending the d-pawn than 1 5 ..te3) 1 5 . . . l:t fe8 1 6 'llt' f3 li:l d5 1 7 t2lxd5 'llt' x d5 1 8 'llt' x d5 (this t im e White willingly exchanges queens) 1 8 . . . cd 19 ..tf4 c6? (60)

How surprising it is that this is the decisive mistake. One passive move puts Black in a critical pos­ ition. The active 1 9 . . . ..tf6 deserved attention - 20 ..t xc7 l:t e4. Now Short realises his pos­ itional advantage in a technical manner: 20 l:t ac l l:t ac8 21 '.tfl f6 22 :t d3 wf7 23 f3 ..tf8 24 :t b3 h5 25 h4 l:t e6 26 a4 '.t;>e8 27 :t e l l:t xe l + 2 8 '.txe l c 5 2 9 d e ..txc5 30 l:t b7 ..td4 31 r,t;>d2 ..tb6 32 b4! l:t c4 33 ..td6 g5 34 a5 ..tg l 34 hg fg 36 b5 l:t a4 37 a6 l:t a2 + 38 r,t;> d 3 r,t;>d8 3 9 ..t b8 l:t a3 + 40 '.tc2 l:t a5? 4 1 ..tc7 + 1 -0. Black quickly managed to improve his game as early as move 1 6 : 1 6 . . . l:t ab8! (instead of 1 6 . . . tLJd5) I 7 b3 'llt' d 7 1 8 d5 cd 1 9 tLJxd5 t2lxd5 20 l:t xd5 ..tf6 21 ..te3 'i¥ xd5 22 'llt' x d5 ..txa l 23 g3 a6 24 'llt' c 6 l:t e 6 25 'llt' x c7 ..te5 26 'llt' c4 h5 27 b4 ..td6 28 a3 ..tf8! and Black survived (Lobron-Georgiev, San Bernardino 1 987).

3

Main Line with 6 and 7 0-0 .

.

Game No. 16

I

aan

e4

e5

li:lf6

2

li:lf3 li:lxeS

d6

4

li:lf3

li:lxe4

5

d4

il..e7

Jie7

9

9

dS

0-0

0-0

8

c4

li:lf6

de

After 9 . . . li:lc6 I 0 li:lc3 a position from Kasparov-Karpov ( I , 48) arises by transposition. I took the pawn on c4 and White obtained a small advantage. Korchnoi prefers to exchange pawns immediately, but develops the knight on d7 , then on b6, to strengthen the blockade of the d5-square.

Once upon a time Black con­ tinued 6 . . . li:lf6, leaving the pawn on d6. In the fifth game of the Fischer-Petrosian match (Buenos Aires 1 971) after 7 h3 0-0 8 0-0 l!e8 9 c4 1i:lbd7 10 li:lc3 c6 I I l!el li:lf8 12 11..f4 a6 13 'l!fb3 li:le6 a complicated struggle developed with roughly equal chances, but later on it was established that 1 3 b4! gives White a clear advantage. 7

h3

A good prophylactic move. Other continuations allow Black to pin the knight on f3.

Usually 5 . . . d5 is played immediately. 11..d3

.

centre with 8 . . . li:lc6 and withdraws the knight from the centre.

Zee 1990

3

6

.

.

Sax-Korchnoi

Wijk

.

10

11.. xc4

li:lbd7

11

li:lc3

li:lb6

12

11.. b3

li:lbdS

13

l!e 1

c6

14 il.. gS 11..e6 (61) The strategies of opening vari­ ations are very interesting: on the board we have a position from the

Korchnoi avoids action in the 64

Main Line with 6

. . .

it.. e 7 and 7

. . .

0-0

65

become a good object of attack. But it's not as easy as that. White's pieces have a free game, his knights can take up wonderful outposts on e5 and c5. Undoubtedly, the initiative is on his side.

61 w

16

tt:le5

tt:ld7

Black tries to simplify. J:l: xe7 17 ..txe7 18

Queen's Gambit Accepted which arises after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 de 3 e3 e5 4 .bc4 ed 5 ed tt:lf6 6 tt:lf3 i,e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 h3 ttJ bd7 9 tt:lc3 ttJb6 1 0 ..tb3 tt:lbd5 1 1 J:l: e 1 c6 1 2 .tg5 ke6. But the players have taken two moves more to reach this position! In principle we could stop here and direct the reader to a monograph on the Queen's Gambit, but that is not our job. ( I have used some o fmaster Zlochev­ sky's notes). 15

tt:lf8

19

tt:lc5

'liteS

Better is 1 9 . . . J:l: c8 followed by 20 . . . 'i!!i' d 6 or 20 . . . 'llf a 5. On e8 the queen stands opposite the enemy rook. 20 'llf f3! J:l: d8? (62) 62 w

J:l: ac1

In the game Razuvayev-Bagi­ rov, Yaroslavl 1 982, a Queen's Gambit, there followed 1 5 tt:le5 l:i:Jc7 (or 1 5 . . . tt:lxc3 1 6 be ..bb3 17 'i'xb3 J:l: b8 1 8 ..tf4 with a small ad vantage) 1 6 ..tc2 J:l: e8 1 7 'llf d 3 g6 18 'llf f 3 w i th attacking pros­ pects. 15

tt:le4

After 1 8 . . . tt:lxe5 1 9 de White has been relieved of his isolated pawn and has an excellent outpost on d6 for a knight.

J:l: e8

At first sight Black has no prob­ lem s. All his minor pieces are developed, the d5-square is block­ aded and the pawn on d4 can soon

I t is hard to say whether this is an oversight or an incorrect evaluation of the position arising as a result of White's combination. But apparently, Black did not want to go back - 20 . . . 'llf d 8, admitting his mistake (which

66

Main Line with 6

...

_j_e7 and 7

would have been the best move). 21 22

l2lxb7! l2lxc6

J::t xb7

...

0-0

63 w

Now Black has to give up a rook and two pawns for two pieces, as 23 �xd5 J::t x d5 24 '1Wxd5 threatens. 22 23 24

"i!t' xb3 "i!t'a3

J::t xb3 J::t d7

It is possible that both players aimed for this position. Approxi­ mate material equality has been maintained, but all White's pieces are placed extremely actively, and his queenside pawns are ready to quickly rush forward. 24 25 26 27

b4 bS "i!t'f3

"i!t'a8 l2l g6 h6 "i!t' b7

27 . . . l2lf6 intending 28 . . . �d5 fails to 28 l2Je7 + . 28 29 30 31 32 33

J::t cS! a4 "i!t' g3! "i!t' b8 + l2Jxb8 J::t e8 + !

l2lf6 �dS l2Je4 "i!t' xb8 lLl xcS

An important intermediary move. If 33 de Black would have played 33 . . . J::t d8. 33 34

de

wh7 J::t e7 (63)

Sax has transformed his advan­ tage : White now has only two pawns for the piece, but his con­ nected passed pawns on the queen­ side are very threatening. The only

chance to stop the enemy 'in fan try' is to exchange rooks. l2lxe7 J::t xe7 35 36

aS

wg6

Black's king is too far away, and without him Black can't handle the pawns. 37

a6!

It is not easy to decide which pawn to queen. Sax plays the ending particularly accurately. l2Jc8

37

If 37 . . . wf5 38 b6 we6 39 b7 Black is in zugzwang. After the preliminary f2 -f3 the white king comes to the queenside with decis­ ive effect. 38 l2ld7 wrs 38 . . . �e6 is no help beca use of 39 b6! �xd7 40 b7. 39 40

b6 ba

40 41

l2Jb6

l2le7

If 40 b7?, then 40 . . . l2Jc6 4 1 b8(W) l2lxb8 4 2 l2lxb8 we6, and the knight is trapped in the co r ner. l2lc8 l2Jxa7

Main Line with 6 . . . ..tel and 7 . . . 0-0

42

lilxdS

We could draw a close here. 43

lile3

wes hS

44

wh2

g6

42

45

h l t2Ja6 19 t2Jg5 . US 20 t2Jc3 h6 21 t2Jge4 .tg6 22 j, e3 .!::!. f5 23 �g2 .!::!. af8 with compensation for the pawn, K ra­ mov-Raetsky, same correspon­ de nce tournament as above) 14 . . . ig4 1 5 a3 .t xf3 1 6 gf W h4 1 7 'ie6 + �h8 (65) . He re 1 8 "ilfg4 "1Wxg4+ 1 9 fg t2Jc2 20 .!::!. a2 t2Jxd4 leads to equality. White risked grabbing the piece

and came to grief: 1 8 ab ( 1 8 "iW xd6 .!::!. f6 19 "ii d 7 t2lc2 20 .!::!. a2 t2Jxd4) 1 8 . . . .!::!. f6 19 "1Wd7 .!::!. g6+ 20 � h i .!::!. d8 2 1 "1Wf5 .!::!. g5 2 2 "1W e 6 "iW h 5 23 t2ld2 .!::!. g6 24 "iW xg6 hg 25 .!::!. xa 7 .txb4 26 .!::!. xb7 .txd2 27 .t xd2 "1Wxf3+ 28 �gl .!::!. xd4 0- 1 (29 .tc3 "1Wg4 + 30 � h i f3 3 1 .!::!. g l "ii x g l + !). .tg4 (66) 10 Salov played this piece of home preparation (although not a novelty!) in game four of this Can­ didates match, but the second game had gone differently: 10 . . . f5 I I t2Jc3 t2Jc7 1 2 t2Je2 t2Je6 I 3 b4 �h8 1 4 .t b2 "ii e 8 1 5 .!::!. ae l "1Wh5 16 t2Je5 f4 17 f3 t2l4g5 1 8 cd (a hasty exchange as Black has no threats on the kingside { if . . . .!::!. f6 then t2lg4 } , so the immediate 1 8 .t e l i s better) 1 8 . . . cd 1 9 .t e l .txe5 2 0 d e .td7 2 1 ..t b2 a 6 22 "iid 2 (the consequences of the 1 8th move start to tell : now White has to contend with . . . .td7-b5) 22 . . . .!::!. ad8 23 .!::!. c l .te8! 24 .t d4

70

Main Line with 6 . . . �d6

..tg6 25 ..tb6 .r.:t d7 26 ..txg6 hg 27 ..tc5 .r.:t f5 28 ..td6 tt:lf7 29 .r.:t c 8 + h7 30 tt:ld4 l2l xd4 3 1 'ilr' xd4 l2lxe5 32 ..txe5 .r.:t xe5 33 'ilr' xf4 when Black had managed to gain equality and a draw was soon agreed. 66 w

11

c5

Tim man liked 1 0 . . . ..tg4, and a month after the end of the match he chose it himself against Ljubo­ jevic (Linares 1 988), after which a fascinating tactical struggle ensued : 1 1 ..txe4? de 1 2 tt:lg5 ..tf5 1 3 tt:lc3 .r.:t e8 14 .!:t e l ..tc7 1 5 'ilr' b3 W' xd4 1 6 ..te3 tt:lc5 1 7 W' b4 'ilr'd6 1 8 'ilr' xc5 'ilr'xh2+ 19 fl ..tg4 20 tt:lh3 .r.:t e5 21 tt:ld5 ..txh3 22 gh �b6 23 tt:lxb6 .r.:t xc5 24 tt:lxa8 'ilr'xh3+ 25 'it>e2 .r.:t xc4, and ten moves later White resigned. In the game Short-Hort, West Germany 1 988, there followed 1 1 l2l bd2 tt:lxd2 1 2 tt:lxd2 'ilt' h4 1 3 f4 .r.:t ae8 1 4 c5 ..tb8 1 5 tt:lb3 .r.:t e7 1 6 �d2 .r.:t fe8 1 7 .r.:t f2 tt:lc7 1 8 g3 'ilt'h5 1 9 f5 f6 20 a4 ..tf3? 2 1 .r.:t afl ..te4

22 tt:la5! tt:la6 23 ..txe4 de 24 'ilr'b3+ 'ilr'f7 25 'ilr' xf7+ 'it>xf7 26 .r.:t e2 and White obtained the advantage. Correct was 20 . . . tt:la6! 2 1 .r.:t afl ( 2 1 tt:la5? ..tf3 ! 22 .r.:t afl ..txg3! loses) 2 1 ..t h3 with an equal game. An active, although not very dangerous, continuation occurred in Ljubojevic-Hort, Amsterdam 1 988. After 1 1 tt:le5!? ..txe5 1 2 de tt:lac5 1 3 f3 ( 1 3 b4 l2lxd3 14 'i!fxd3 �f5 1 5 cd cd 1 6 'ilr'd4 .r.:t c8 and Black is better, Hazai-Vladimi­ rov, Rotterdam 1 988) 1 3 . . . l2lxd 3 1 4 'ilr'xd3 tt:lc5 1 5 'ilr'd4 tt:lb3 1 6 'ilr' xg4 tt:l x a l 1 7 ..th6 g6 1 8 ..txf8 'ilr' xf8 1 9 cd cd chances were equal, although, thanks to a mistake by his opponent Hort managed to win : 20 'ilr'd4 tt:lc2 2 1 'ilr'f2 .r.:t c8 22 'ilr' xa7? (correct was 22 .!:t e l 'l!l'c5 with equality) 22 . . . d4! 23 li:ld2 'i!fe7 24 f4? tt:le3 25 .r.:t b l 'ilr'd7! 26 tt:le4 'it>g7 27 'ilr' b6 .r.:t c6 28 'l!l' b3 'ilr'f5! and several moves later White resigned. After 1 1 c5 Salov, with accurate moves, also managed to equalise. 11 12 13

tt:le5 de

.tc7 �xe5 tt:lexc5

In the original game Shakarov ­ Rozentalis, USSR Corr 1 986) the other knight took on c5 and Black was quickly routed : 1 3 . . . tt:lax c5? 14 f3 'ilr' b6 1 5 �e3 d4 1 6 � xd4 .r.:t fd8 1 7 ..t xc4 .r.:t xd4 1 8 .,txh 7 +

Main Line with 6 . . . .1t.. d 6

�h 8 1 9 fg l2J b3 20 'it> h 1 l2lxa 1 2 1 'llf [5 c 5 2 2 *'xf7 'it>xh7 2 3 e6 .rt d5 �4 h4 �e6 40 'it>g5 �d7 41 'it>h6 �e6 42 �e5 �d7 43 �b6 �e8 44 �e3 �d7 45 �f2 �e8 46 �a7 �d7 47 �e5 �e8 48 �d4 �e6 49 �e3 �d7 50 �b2 �e8 51 � a t �d7 52 g5 �e6 53 �b2 �e8 54 �e3 �d7 55 �a 1 �e8 56 � b2 �e6 57 �e3 �e8 58 h4 �d7 59 �d4 �e6 60 �e3 �d7 61 �f2 �e8 62 �b6 �d7

72

Main Line with 6 . . . j_d6

63 ..te5 ..te6 64 ..tf2 ..td7 65 h5 gh 66 �xh5 ..tb5 67 �g5 �e6 68 g4 ..td3 69 gf+ ..t xf5 70 ..td4 ..te4 71 ..te3 ..td3 72 �g4 ..te2 73 �f3 ..tb1 74 �e3 ..th7 75 �d4 ..tg6 76 ..td2 ..tf5 77 ..te3 �e4 78 �e5 �b1 79 � b6 ..td3 80 �e6 ..te2 81 �e5 !- �

Game No. 1 8 A. Sokolov-011

Odessa 1989 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

e4 tLlf3 t/Jxe5 tLlf3 d4 ..td3 0-0 e4 t/Je3 (68)

e5 tLlf6 d6 t/Jxe4 d5 ..td6 0-0 e6

gets a draw. In fact, thanks to his discovery this game won t h e Jnformator award for the bes t novelty! 9 10

be

t/Jxe3 de

The position after I 0 . . ..t g4 I I cd cd will be looked at in detail in the following game. Of course, if White wants to avoid exchangin g pawns on c4, then instead of 9 t/Jc3 he should himself begin by exchanging in the centre - 9 cd cd and only then play I 0 t/Jc3. .

11 12

..t xe4 "Wd3

..tg4

If 1 2 J:t b l good is 1 2 . . . b5! , for example : 1 3 ..td3 tLld7 1 4 l:!: e l t/Jb6 1 5 ..t c 2 J:t e8! with equality (Short- Makarychev, Rotterdam 1 988).

68 B

12 13 14 15

t/Jg5 h3 f4

tLld7 tLlf6 ..th5 h6 (69)

16

g4

hg

69 w

Developing the knight on c3 was regarded as fairly dangerous for Black before this game, but here 011 manages to play a valu­ able theoretical novelty and easily

If 1 6 . . . b5 1 7 ..tb3 c5!? 1 8

Main Line with 6 . . . it.. d 6

_td5 !? ..t g6 1 9 'i!t' xg6 hg 20 'i!t' xg5 a nd White's chances are better. Als o in White's favour is 1 6 . . . _txg4 1 7 tt:lxf7! .!:! xf7 1 8 ..txf7 + -;; xf7 1 9 hg tt:lxg4 20 'i!t' f5 + . 17 18

fg

f2

.l:! ae8

If W hite had played 2 1 h2 t his move would have led to vic­ tory for Black. Now the threat is 22 . . . .l:! e2 + 23 'i!t'xe2 'i!t'g3 mate. 'i!t'h4+ 22 .!:! g1 23

70 B

bS

..tb3 1 8 gf be 1 9 'i!t'd2 ..tg6 20 fg -;; xg7 2 1 'i!t'h6+ 'itg8 22 ..tg5 _t e7 etc. loses. 18 tt:lxg4 This knight sacrifice was first seen in Short-Hiibner, Tilburg 1988, although the moves . . . b7b5 and ..tc4-b3 were played later. The finish of that game is given below. 'i!t'd7! 19 hg After 19 . . . ..txg4 there follows 20 g6 ..te6 2 1 .!:! xf7! with very strong threats. 20 gh In Nunn-Salov, Brussels 1 988, 20 'i!t'f5 ..txg4 21 'i!t' xd7 .bd7 22 l hf7 .l:! xf7 23 g6 ..te8 gave White nothing. 20 'i!t'g4 + 21

73

g2 (70)

At this point both games coin­ cide again. Here H iibner played 23 . . . c5 and after 24 .!:! h 1 resigned. I n deed, if 24 . . . 'i!t'g4+ 25 wfl (25

'1tf2? ..tg3 + ) 25 . . . c4 26 ..td l .!:t e l + 27 'it xe l 'i!t'g2 28 'i!t'e2! 'i!t' x h l + 29 d2 Black's attack is beaten off and he has nothing. 23 . . . .l:! e4 looks dangerous, but here also, by continuing with 24 'i!t'f3! W hite defuses any dangers, for example : 24 . . . ..th2 (24 . . . .l:! fe8? 25 ..txf7 + ) 25 ..td2! .l:! g4+ ( 2 5 . . . ..txgl 2 6 .l:! xg l ) 26 'i!t' xg4 'i!t' xg4+ 27 'itxh2 'i!t' h4+ (27 . . . 'i!t'xh5+ 28 g3) 28 'itg2 'i!t'e4+ (28 . . . .!:! e8 29 ..td 1 ) 29 '1tf2 'i!t'f5 + (29 . . . .!:! e8 3 0 .l:! g2!) 3 0 we2 .!:! e 8 + 3 1 'itd l . The checks have ended and White has a decisive material advantage. However, not so good is 25 .!:! h 1 .l:! g4+ 26 fl .l:! g3! 27 'i!t' xc6 'i!t' h 3+ 28 '1tf2 ..tf5 + 29 ..tel . This position arose i n Psakhis­ M ikhalchishin ( Klaipeda 1988). After 29 . . . ..tgl ! 30 ..td 1 'i!t'd3+ 31 ..td2 ..te3 Black would have gained the upper hand, but Black played 29 . . . .!:! c8? (71), believing that this also led easily to victory.

74

Main Line with 6 . . . il.. d 6

25 26 27 28

71 w

.t>xel 'it>e2 .ll xcl !

.!l e i + ! • xg l + .txcl

After 28 'it>d3 • xg5 Black simply remains a pawn up. 28 29 30 31

But here came the effective strike 30 .te6! and Black soon had to resign. So, it seems that the following conclusion might be made : the knight sacrifice is unsound. 011 got the award for refuting this conclusion : he proves that Black can easily draw a piece down. A n important improvement, which puts into doubt the future of the whole variation from 1 2 Wd3. 24

.t>fl

.tf4!

The whole point, threatening 1:1. e8-e 1 +, and after 25 ..ixf4 *' xf4+ 26 'it>g2 .ll e3 the question remains whether White can beat off the attack. •

•

•

25

•f3

The only move. 25 ..id 1 ? loses immediately to 25 . . . .ll e 1 + !. The same result comes from 25 g6? l:l. e 1 + 26 'it>xe 1 W xg l + 27 e2 l:l. e8 + . Now Black forces a draw, and this outcome also suits White.

•xcl .ll e8 + . bl +

Obviously not 3 1 .tc2? •xa2 and f7 is defended. 31 32 33

'it>d3 'it>d2

1 1 z--z-

Game No. 1 9 Dvoiris-Rozentalis

Lvov 1 990

•h2 + !

23

g6 'it>d3 .td2

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

e4 tt:Jf3 tt:Jxe5 tt:Jf3 d4 .t d3 0-0 c4 cd tt:Jc3

e5 tt:Jf6 d6 tt:Jxe4 d5 .td6 0-0 c6 cd

The most popular move order, which gives Black quite a few problems : White builds a stable centre and his opponent needs to play accurately. 10 11

be

tt:Jxc3 .tg4

Main Line with 6 . . . i.d6

12

J:t b1 (72)

72 B

12

b6

1 2 . . . tt:ld7 is also often played. Let's look at the most interesting examples of recent years : 13 h3

Of course not 1 3 J:t xb7 tt:lb6 with the threat of 1 4 . . . ..tc8. 13 . . . ..th5 (73)

Worse is 1 3 . . . ..txf3 1 4 • xf3 tt:lb6 1 5 g3 J:t c8 1 6 h4 J:t c7 1 7 h5 with a clear advantage to White (Dvoiris-Yakovich, Kiev 1 986). 73 w

Now the b-pawn can be taken. If 14 J:t xb7 tt:l b6 1 5 ..td2 then 1 5 . . . •c8 is bad because of 1 6 .txh7 + ! �xh7 ( 1 6 . . . �h8 1 7

75

J:t xb6 ab 1 8 ..t b l ) 1 7 tt:lg5+ �g6 18 g4 ..t xg4 ( 1 8 . . . •xb7 19 gh+ �f6 20 J:t e l ) 19 hg • xb7 20 J:t e l with the threat o f 2 1 'ilr'c2+. Also insufficient is 15 . . . ..tg6 1 6 ..txg6 hg 1 7 '*e2 and Black has difficulty in exploiting the 'isolation' of the rook on b7. However, by playing the preliminary 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 J:te I and only now 1 6 . . . •c8, Black gets an equal game, for example: 1 7 ..ta6 '*c6 18 tt:le5 •xb7 1 9 ..txb7 ..txd I 20 ..txa8 ..txe5 2 1 de (no better i s 2 1 J:t xd l ..txd4 22 ..txd5 tt:lxd5 23 cd J:t b8) 21 . . . ..ta4 22 ..tb7 ..tb5! 23 J:t b l ..tc4 with a quick draw (Serper-Akop­ yan, Tbilisi 1 989). In A. Sokolov- Rozentalis, Minsk 1 986, White played 1 5 ..ta6 immediately, but after 1 5 . . . '*e8 1 6 '*e2 '* c6 1 7 '* b 5 • xc3 1 8 ..tb2 '*c2 1 9 J:t c l '*e4! 20 .!:t e l .-g6 2 1 .-e2 tt:lc4 2 2 ..txc4 d e 2 3 g4 ..txg4 2 4 h g •xg4+ 2 5 �fl '* h 3 + the game ended in per­ petual check. 14 J:t b5! The strongest move in the dia­ gram position. Moving the rook to the fifth rank gives the opponent several problems. We shall look at the valuable theoretical game Belyavsky-Petursson, Reykjavik 1 988. 14 . . . ttJb6 15 c4! ..t xf3 Dangerous is 1 5 . . . de 1 6 ..txh7 + �xh7 1 7 J:t xh 5 + , but if

76

Main Line with 6 . . . .i.d6

1 5 . . . IL\xc4 there comes 1 6 I! xd5 �h2+ ( 1 6 . . . �xf3 1 7 'l!l'xf3 with advantage to White) 1 7 IL\xh2! 'l!l'xd5 1 8 �xc4 'l!l'xc4 19 'l!l'xh5, and Black is left with nothing. Interestingly, this position first occurred in Mahia-Pia (Mar del Plata 1988) and was repeated in Dvoiris·-Vladimirov (Barnaul 1988). 16 1!1' xf3 de 17 �c2! Having opened lines, White develops a dangerous initiative. 1 7 . . . a6 This naive move allows an effective finale. 18 �g5! ab Bad is 1 8 . . . f6 because of 1 9 1!1'h5 h 6 20 �xh6 ab 2 1 'l!l'g6, and if the queen retreats 19 �f6 is decisive. But, of course, without the queen Black has no chance either. 19 �xd8 '!J.fxd8 20 1Wh5 g6 21 'l!l'xb5 �c7 22 a4 '!J. xd4 23 'l!l'c5 I! d7 24 g3!, and White won shortly afterwards. The game Kudrin-Machago, Thessaloniki (ol) 1988, finished in a similar way: 1 7 . . . l!b8 1 8 a4 a6 19 �g5 'l!l'c7 ( 1 9 . . . f6 201!1'h5 h6 21 �xh6) 20 �xh7+ 'i!f5

42

l:tc4+

f4

49

l:ta4

'.t>e5

gf

gf

43

1 1 2-2

5

White Fourth Move Alternatives

Game No. 20 Vitolins-Raetsky

Naberezhnye Chelny 1988 1

e4

eS

2

lilf3

lilf6

3

lilxeS

This game is devoted to the rare, but fascinating knight sacrifice variation - 3 lilxe5 d6 4 lilxf7?! We are also using it to examine other rare continuations, which are almost never met in serious particular, tournaments. In instead of 3 lilxe5 the following moves are possible to avoid the main lines - 3 d3, 3 .i.c4 and 3 lilc3. (The 'correct' move 3 d4 will be given considerable attention later). (a) If White plays 3 d3 he is playing a Philidor's Defence with �H extra tempo. But in this open­ Ing, even having an extra tempo, it is hard to expect much. After 3 lilc6 4 .i.e2 Black has a choice . . ·

between 4 . . . .i.e7, 4 . . . d5, 4 . . . g6 and 4 . . . .i.c5. In each case the position is roughly level. (b) 3 .i.c4 lilc6 leads to the Two Knights Defence, but Black has the good reply 3 . . . lilxe4!. Looking in in opening books you will find that after 4 lilc3 (4 d3, 4 1!1'e2 and 4 lilxe5 give nothing at all) 4 . . . lilxc3 (the quiet 4 . . . lilf6 and 4 . . . lild6 are also possible) 5 de f6 White has some initiative for the sacrificed pawn, but hardly sufficient. (c) Finally, to 3 lilc3 Black's best reply is 3 . . . lilc6 giving a Four Knights Game, which is perfectly satisfactory. The con­ tinuations 3 . . . .i.c5 and 3 . . . .i. b4, once well regarded by theory, allow White to obtain a definite advantage, for example: 3 . . . .i. b4 4 lilxe5 0-0 5 .i.e2 J:te8 6 lild3 .i.xc3 7 de lilxe4 (78) . The critical position. After 8 81

White Fourth Move A lternatives

82

78 w

0-0 d5 9 lt:l f4 c6 1 0 ..ie3 lt:ld6! the game is level, but White can play the immediate 8 lt:lf4!, preventing . . . d7-d5. In Psakhis-Yusupov, V ilnius 1 980/8 1 , there followed 8 . . . c6 9 c4 d6 1 0 0-0 ..tf5 1 1 a4 a5 1 2 l:ta3 lt:ld7 1 3 l:t e3 lt:ldc5 1 4 g4 ..te6 1 5 f 3 lt:lf6 1 6 'iW d4 'iWc7 1 7 b3 h6 1 8 ..tb2 l:t ad8. Here White played 1 9 l:!. d 1 which led to equality. However, in Blum­ Pilinyan, Corr 1 98 2-83, White preferred 1 9 l:t f2! and won. 3

the long theoretical varia tio ns arising from 4 lt:lf3 - White h as two pawns for the knight an d a pawn roller in the offing. However before looking at the knight sac ri� fice variation, let us refer to one more possibility for White - 4 lt:lc4!? The idea behind retreating the knight to c4 is its future transfer to e3, from where it will exert pressure on the centre. Let us l ook at how events can develop. 4 . . . lt:lxe4 5 d4 (the old continuations 5 lt:lc3, 5 d3 and 5 'iWe2 lead to equality) 5 . . . d5 6 lt:le3 'iWf6 (the favourite move of Makarychev, the usual choice being 6 . . . �e6, as was played in the last century) 7 'iWe2 ..ie6 8 c3 lt:lc6 9 lt:ld2 0-0-0 (79) . 79 w

d6

I t is well known that taking the pawn straight away does not work : 3 . . . lt:lxe4? 4 'iWe2 'iWe7 5 'iWxe4 d6 6 d4 de 7 de lt:lc6 8 lt:lc3! (the simplest) 8 . . . 'iWxe5 9 'iWxe5 lt:lxe5 10 ..tf4 ..td6 1 1 ..ig3! and then lt:lb5 or lt:le4 with an exchange on d6, which leads to an unavoid­ able break up of Black's pawns. 4 lt:lxf7?! This knight sacrifice can be rec­ ommended to players with a sharp style who don't like remembering

After 1 0 g3 (but not 1 0 tt:lxe4 de 1 1 g3 1:1. xd4!) the positio n is roughly level. In Smagin-Makarychev, Mu r­ cia (rapid) 1 990, there followed th e reckless 10 lt:lxd5?! ..txd5 1 1 tt:lx e4

White Fourth Move A lternatives

1 2 tt:lg3 and in this position . 1 2 . . h 5! would have given Black ex ce llent chances. He played 1 2 . . . ,.td6? and White took the i nitia tive with 1 3 tv h5. xf7 4 'i' g 6

5

d4 (80)

This gambit bears the name of the Scottish master of the last century Cochrane. He himself chose only 5 .tc4+ in this pos­ ition, which invariably brought v ictory (after 5 . . . e8 6 0-0 or 5 . . . .te6 6 �xe6+ xe6 7 0-0). The correct reply to the bishop check is 5 . . . d5! and now 6 ed �d6 7 0-0 .!:!: f8 8 d4 g8 or 6 �b3 �e6! 7 e5 tt:le4 8 d4 c5 9 '1Wf3+ e8 with sorry reper­ cussions for White. 80 B

5

c5

Naturally the e4-pawn cannot be touched - 5 . . . tt:l xe4 6 tf h 5 + ¢h8 1 8 j_c5 J:t f6 1 9 J:t e I with a sharp game. 6 de The opening books only con­ sider 6 ..t c4+? d5 7 ed J.. d 6 8 0-0 l:t e8 9 de J.. x c5 1 0 tt:lc3 J.. g4 I I ..Wd3 tLl bd7 with advantage to (Yandemirov-Plisetsky, Black M oscow 1 983). tt:lc6 6 Recommended by Grodzensky and Grandmaster Makarychev. 6 . . . ..We8, 6 . . . d5, 6 . . . ..tg4 and 6

. . . ..Wa5+ have also been met i n practice, and in each case a lively game with chances on both sides has occurred. dS? (82) 7 ..tc4+ In this position this cou nter­ strike in the centre is not so good for Black. The corn�ct respo n se is 7 . . . J..e6 8 J.. x e6+ .t>xe6. Apparently, the three pawns do not compensate for the piece here, and moreover, Black brings all his force into the battle. Let us look at how the game Vitolins-Dautov, Minsk 1988, continued : 9 0-0 d5 (9 . . . de is dangerous because of I 0 'i!fe2 with the threat of advancing the e- and f-pawns combined with 'i!fc4+) 10 e5 (10 tt:lc3 deserves attention) 10 . . . tt:le4 I I '1Wg4+ c;t>f7 1 2 'lll' f5 + c;t>e8 (having wandered around the board, the king returns home, and Black is ready to reap his harvest) 1 3 tt:lc3 tt:ld4! 14 ..Wh3 'iWd7 1 5 e6 '1Wxe6 16 ..Wd3 tt:lxc3 17 be tt:le2+ 1 8 c;t> h l tt:lxc l 1 9 rt axc l c;t>f7 20 J:t fe l ..W c6 2 1 ..Wf5+ g8 22 J:t e6 ..Wd7 23 ..We5 ..txc5 . He re the centralisation of White's fo rces still doesn't sufficiently c om pen· sate his material losses. It seems that Black managed to use h is trumps in this game, and, o f course, the reader should n ot thi. n k that the piece sacrifice 4 ttJx.f? gives White a forced w i n . Nevertheless, to attract ]ove rs

White Fourth Move A lternatives

o f sharp play to the Cochrane

g a m bit, we have chosen a game in which Vitolins managed to gain a fin e victory. We should note by the way that the International Master from Riga, a fervent admirer of this gambit, has played scores of games with it and won the major­ ity of the m.

12 13 14

..t>f7 "tlr'c4+ tt:l dS

g 6 ..td6

Preventing tt:lf4+, but 14 . . . h6 was more tenacious, when W hite would still have a strong attacking position. 1S

..tf4

J::t ad8

Bad is 1 5 . . . ..txf4 1 6 tt:lxf4 + ..t> h6 because o f 1 7 "tie6. 16

82 w

85

J::t ad1

"ticS

If 1 6 . . . tt:lxd5 1 7 J::t xd5 "tlr'c7 then 18 J::t xd6! J::t xd6 19 "ticS decides. 17 18 19

"tib3 ..te3 "W xb7

20

b4!

tt:l xe4 "tWaS J::t c8 (83)

83 w

8

..t xdS+

Tak ing

with the pawn is weaker because of 8 . . . tt:la5 or 8 . . . tt:le5. 8

..te 6

After 8 . . . tt:lxd5 9 ed White has man y active pawns for the piece. 9 10 11

..txe6+ "tie2 tt:lc 3

..t>xe6 "tWa S+ ..txcS

Bla ck's king doesn't feel too com fort able in the centre and ' W h Ite · a l rea dy has three pawns for t he p ie ce .

12

tt:lxb4

20 0-0

1 2 -. c 4 + 'lt> e7 1 3 0-0 isn't bad ei t h e r g JVmg . . Black's king no h c a n ce to slip out of the dan ger l o ne . '

Diverting one of the m inor pieces out of position. If 20 . . . "tid8 or 20 . . . "ti xa2 there follows 21 b5. 20 . . . ..txb4 also loses: 2 1 tt:lf4 + ..t>f6 2 2 tt:l h 5 + g6 23 "tixg7 + ..t>xh5 24 "tlr'h6+ 'lt> g4 25 "tlr'h3 mate. 21

tt:lf4 +

..txf4

86

White Fourth Move Alternatives

22

1!1xe4+

1!1f5

23

1!1xb4

..US

24

�xa7!

�xa7

25

lld6+

26

1!1b7

26 27

White elegantly wraps up the game. 24

1!1 xa7 are threatened.

q,bS

A double blow! 27 lld5 and 27

ll xc2 lldS

White could still go amusingly wrong here: 27 1!1xg7?? 1!1xf2+' 27

llxf2

But this idea doesn't work now. 28

ll xfS+

llxf5+

29

1!1xa7

1-0

6

3 d4 Game No. 2 1

84

Kasparov-Anand

w

Linares 1991 1 2 3

e4

e5

tt:Jf3

tt:Jf6

d4

Finally, we come to look at White's other continuation at move three, which is connected with a system known as the Stein­ itz Attack. 3

White) 4 . . . de 5 tt:Jxe5 .lte7 (inferior is 5 . . . .ltd6 6 tt:Jc3 i!f e7? 7 tt:Jd5 iir'd8 8 �c4 �e6 9 tt:Jxf6+ gf 1 0 .ltxe6 .ltxe5 1 1 de iir'xd 1 + 1 2 .l:txd 1 fg 1 3 .ltc8 with a won position for White, Basanta­ Schwarzmann, St. John 1 988). 6 .ltc4 0-0 7 0-0 tt:Jfd7 8 .ltf4 tt:Jxe5 9 de iir'xd 1 10 iir'xd 1 �e6 1 1 .ltb3 .ltxb3 12 ab f5 1 3 tt:Jc3 �f7? (more accurate was 1 3 . . . c6 with approximate equality) 14 tt:J b5 (better was 14 tt:Jd5! .ltd8 1 5 e6+ � xe6 16 .lt xc7 tt:Jc6 17 b4) 14 . . . tt:Ja6 1 5 e6+ �f6 1 6 .ltd2 c5 1 7 �c3 + �xe6 with equal chances

tt:Jxe4

The other main possibility - 3 . . . ed will be looked at in detail in the last game of this book. The rare move 3 . . . d5 (84) , maintain­ ing full symmetry, is worthy of attention. White has to play accur­ ately to make use of the right to move first. 4 .ltg5 (after 4 tt:Jxe5 tt:Jxe4 5 i. d3 a position from our main game arises. Theory recommends 4 ed ed 5 .ltb5 + c6 6 ilfe2+ .lte7 7 de be 8 .ltc4 0-0 9 0-0 .ltg4 1 0 c3 w ith a minimal advantage for 87

88

3 d4

for both sides (Smirin-Akopyan, Vilnius 1 988). 4

5

J.. d 3

After 4 tt:lxe5 d6 5 tt:lf3 a position arises that we studied in detail earlier by transposition (3 tt:lxe5 d6 4 tt:lf3 tt:lxe4 5 d4). In the opening monographs there is evi­ dence that Black easily equalises after 4 "ilfe2 or 4 de. In the game Balashov- Mikhalchishin, Minsk 1 985, as a result of 4 de d5 5 tt:l bd2 J.. f5! 6 tt:lxe4 ..txe4 7 ..td3 tt:lc6 8 0-0 .i.e? 9 .!:t e l tt:l b4 ! 10 "ilfe2 tt:lxd3 I I cd .1Lxf3 12 "ilfxf3 Black obtained excellent chances. 4 5

"ilf xe5 ! - ! (Romanishin-Mak a ry. chev, Frunze 1 98 5).

d5 tt:lxe5

Here 5 de is not approved of by theory. Possibly only Grand­ master Romanishin plays this move today : 5 . . . tt:lc6 6 0-0 .1Lg4 7 tt:l bd2 (in Romanishin-Ehlvest, Yerevan 1 988, after 7 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 8 be .i.e? 9 .!:! e I Black made a series of inaccurate moves - 9 . . . "ilfd7 1 0 h3 ..th5 I I .!:! b l tt:ld8 1 2 �e2 c6 1 3 c4 dc 1 4 "ilfxd7 + ;t>xd7, having overlooked the thrust 1 5 e6 + ! . After only five more moves - 1 5 . . . wc7 { 1 5 . . . fe 1 6 tt:le5 + } 1 6 ef tt:lxf7 1 7 ..t xc4 ..td6 18 tt:ld4 .!:! he8 19 tt:le6+ ;t>d7 20 .!:! x b7 +, Black resigned) 7 . . . tt:lxd2 8 .i.xd2 tt:ld4 9 .1Le2 tt:lxe2+ 10 "ilfxe2 "ilfd7 I I h3 ..txf3 12 "ilfxf3 .i.c5 1 3 c4 0-0-0 1 4 .!:! ad I "ilfe6 1 5 J.. g 5 .!:! d 7 1 6 .!:! xd 5 .!:! xd5 1 7 cd

J..d6 (85)

85 w

The continuation 5 . . . it_ e 7 is somewhat passive, so therefore Black has a choice between the old 5 . . . ..td6 and the modern 5 . . tt:ld7. Games 22 -24 are devoted to the more popular knight move. .

6

0-0

An amusing novelty I prepared with Igor Zaitsev at one of our training sessions long ago was 6 "ilff3!?. This idea was tried out in Zaitsev-Yusupov, Yerevan 1 982, but it turned out that after 6 . . . "ilfe7 7 0-0 0-0 8 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 9 be ..t xe5 I 0 de "ilfxe5 I I ..tf4 'Wf6 1 2 "ilfg3 tt:lc6 White has nothing better than repeating moves - 1 3 �� g 5 "ilf d6 1 4 J.. f4 "ilff6. Efim Geller has played 6 .!Ll c3 several times in this position, fo r example: 6 . . . tt:lxc3 7 be 0-0 8 0-0 c5 9 "ilfh5 f5 1 0 J.. g 5 "ilf c7 1 1 "ilff3 J.. e 6 1 2 .!:! fe l c4 1 3 �f l � eS 14 tt:lxc4! ..txh2+ 1 5 wh l .!Lld7

3 d4

1 6 !2J e3 with a decisive advantage White (Geller-Yusupov, for US S R Ch 1 983). Yusupov later fo und Black's correct defence : 8 . . . !2ld7! 9 !2lxd7 "ilfxd7 1 0 "ilfh5 g6 1 1 "ilt' f3 J:t e8 1 2 ..lth6 ..tf8 1 3 _txf8 J:t xf8 1 4 J:t fe 1 "ilf c6 1 5 h4 twxc3 1 6 "ilf xd5 ..lte6 and here Short-Yusupov, Plovdiv 1 983, was agreed drawn. 6 7

0-0

12

� xdS

89

� rs

The last five moves, as was established long ago, are the best for both sides, and there is no sense in either White or Black deviating from them. 13

g4

� xg4 (86)

Worse is 1 3 . . . ..ltg6 1 4 f4 with a strong initiative for White. 86 w

c4

White knight moves to c3 or d2 promise little, as theory shows these variations to be fully accept­ able for Black. 7

..ltxeS

In recent years this capture has completely supplanted all other moves. Here are the basic vari­ ations given in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings : 7 . . . f6 8 cd! ; 7 . . . tt:lf6 8 ..ltg5 d e 9 ..ltxc4 ..txe5 10 de "iit' x d 1 1 1 J:t xd 1 ; 7 . . . !2l c6 8 cd !2lxd4 9 ..ltxe4 ..txe5 1 0 !2lc3 .ifS 1 1 ..lte3 ..ltxe4 12 ..ltxd4 .t xd4 1 3 "iit' x d4 ..tf5; 7 . . . c6 8 li:l c3 !2lxc3 9 be ..txe5 1 0 de de 1 1 hc4 "iit' x d 1 1 2 J:t xd 1 ..ltf5 1 3 .t a3 J:t e8 1 4 f4. White's advan­ tage is unquestionable. In fact, this last position occurred at the beginning of the century in Maroczy-M arshall, Paris 1 900. 8 9 10 11

de cd "ilfc2 ..ltxe4 ·

!2lc6 "iit' xdS !2l b4 !2J xc2

The critical position of the vari­ ation. 14

�e4

Bad is 14 !2la3 !2lxa 1 1 5 �e4 ..lte2! 1 6 J:t e 1 J:t ad8, and Black already has the upper hand. 1 4 ..ltf4 !2l xa 1 1 5 ..lte4 transposes, but Sveshnikov prefers 1 5 J:t c 1 . Sveshnikov-Belov, Moscow 1 987, continued 1 5 . . . J:t ad8 (worse is 1 5 . . . c6 1 6 ..lte4 f5 1 7 ef J:t xf6 1 8 ..lte3 ..te6 1 9 !2ld2 ..txa2 20 J:t xa 1 ..td5 2 1 ..txd5 cd 22 J:t xa7 J:t xa7 23 ..ltxa7 J:t f4 24 �fl with a difficult ending for Black) 1 6 !2lc3 b5 ( 1 6 . . . c6 1 7 ..lte4) 1 7 ..lte4 b4 1 8 !2ld5 J:t d7 19 f3 ..lte6 20 !2lxb4 J:t b8 2 1 !2ld3 ..td5 22 !2lc5 J:t dd8

90

3 d4

23 b3 ..be4 24 fe and White had slightly the better chances. 14 tL:lxal 15

.H4

Equality is reached after 1 5 tL:lc3 �h3 1 6 n e 1 f5 17 ef n ae8 1 8 �e3 n xe4 1 9 tL:lxe4 tL:lc2 2 0 n c I tL:lxe3 2 1 fe n c8 22 f7 + g3 'iWxe3 and Black had a clear advantage. (d) Malanyuk-M. Gurevich, Tallinn 198 7 : 6 tt:lxf7 'it>xf7 (long ago the game I. Zaitsev-Karpov, Leningrad 1 966, finished 6 . . . 'iWe7 7 tt:lxh8 { it was later established

94

3 d4

that White gets the advantage with 7 'l!l'e2!} 7 . . . lilc3+ 8 wd2 lilxdl 9 :tel lilxf2 1 0 .bh7 {the queen sacrifice cannot be accepted: 10 J:txe7+ 1Lxe7 I I 1Lxh7 iLgS+ and Black takes the upper hand} 10 . . . lile4 I I J:txe4! de 12 1Lg6+ wd8 1 3 lilf7+ we8 14 lild6+ wd8 I S lilf7+, with a draw by perpetual check. However, Black can calmly take the knight on f7 and White has nothing better than a draw) 7 'l!l'hS+ we7 (also poss­ ible is 7 . . . we6 8 1Lxe4 de 9 dS+ we7 1 0 iLgS+ lilf6 I I lilc3 'l!l'e8! 12 d6+! { 1 2 'l!l'h4? iLfS 13 0-0-0 Wf7 1 4 J:t hel 1Le7, and Black had a large plus in Dozorets­ Kishnev, Jurmala 197S} 12 . . . cd 13 lildS+ wd8 14 lilxf6 'l!l'xhS with approximate equality) 8 'l!l'e2 (if 8 'l!l'xdS the position resembles the Cochrane Gambit. In Demi­ dov-Makeyev, USSR Corr 198790, after 8 . . . lilef6 {more accurate than 8 . . . lildf6 9 'l!l'b3 1Le6 10 'l!l'xb7 iLdS 11 'l!l'a6 Wf7 1 2 f3 lild6 1 3 lilc3 1Lb7 14 'l!l'aS with an unclear position, Nenashev­ Baikov, Moscow 198S} 9 'l!l'f3 1ilb6 10 'l!l'e2+ Wf7 I I c3 1Ld6 12 0-0 J:te8 1 3 'l!l'c2 g8 White's initiat­ ive had dried up) 8 . . . wf7 9 'l!l'hS+ we7 10 'l!l'e2 with a draw. 6 7

1Lxd7 0-0

There is nothing to be gained from 7 'l!l'e2 'l!l'e7 8 0-0 0-0-0 9 1ild2

lilgS (9 . . . lilxd2 is also good) 10 'l!l'xe7 1Lxe7 I I f4 lile6 12 lilf3 J:[ df8 1 3 fS lild8 14 IileS 1Le8 1 5 lilg4 f6 1 6 1Lf4 1Lf7 with equality (Geller-Arkhipov, Moscow 1986). 7 'l!l'h4 The queen move to h4 is the most up-to-date continuation. But before we proceed let's look at two other moves - 7 . . . 1Ld6 and 7 . . . 'l!l'f6. (a) Sveshnikov-Mikhalchishin, Kuibyshev 1986: 7 . . . 1Ld6 8 c41 c6 9 lilc3 0-0 (weaker is 9 . . . lilxc3 10 be de I I :t e l + il..e7 12 .b3 1Le6 13 1Lxe7 1!t'xe7 14 1Lxc4 0-0 I S l!eS 'l!l'a3 1 6 1Lxe6 fe with a difficult ending for Black in Short­ Hiibner, Wijk aan Zee 1986) 10 'l!l'hS iilf6 I I 'l!l'h4 d e 12 1Lxc4 J:[e8 13 iLgS h6 14 1Lxf6 'l!l'xf6 I S 1!t'xf6 gf 1 6 J:t fe l 1Le6 1 7 lile4 il..e 7 1 8 1Lxe6 fe 1 9 IileS JLxcS 20 de J:tad8 21 :tad! Wf7 t + (b) Korolev-Glek, USSR Corr Ch 1986--88: 7 . . . 'l!l'f6 (involving a pawn sacrifice) 8 1Lxe4 de 9 lilc3 0-0-0 10 lilxe4 'l!l'g6 (bad is I 0 . 'l!l'b6 I I :tel h5 12 'l!l'd3 h4 13 h3 J:thS 1 4 c4 J:te8 1 S J:t e2, A . Jvanov­ Rozentalis, Klaipeda 198S) I I f3 fS (no better is 1 1 . . . hS 1 2 il..f4' h4 13 1!t'd3 h3 14 g4 'l!l'b6 IS a4' 1Le6 16 J:tfdl a6 1 7 a5 1!t'xb2° 1 8 lilc3 'l!l'b4 1 9 J:ta4 'l!l'e7 20 d5. A. Jvanov-Kochiev, Kostroma !985; more resistance was offered by 1 7 . . . 'l!l'c6 1 8 'l!l'c3 'l!l'xc3 19 lilxc3 and

3 d4

W hite goes into the ending with an ex tra pawn, but the two bishops mak e it hard to realise this advan­ tage) 12 tt:lf2 ..tb5 1 3 .!:t e l ..td6 1 4 tt::J h 3 .!:! de8 1 5 ..tf4 .!:! xe l + 1 6 't'f'xe l .!:! e8 1 7 'Wg3 'ili'f6 1 8 c3 .!:! e2 1 9 b3 .!:! c2 20 ..txd6 cd 2 1 'Wet and White had a distinct advantage. 8

c4

After 8 'W e t 0-0-0 9 f3 'ili'xel 1 0 J:t xe l tt:ld6 the game becomes level immediately, but 8 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 9 be 0-0-0 leads to a complicated position. 0-0-0 (91)

8

95

The reason behind this active move will become clear later. 9 . . . tt:lxf2 1 0 .!:! xf2 'Wxd4 doesn't work because of 1 1 c6 or 1 1 b4! 'Wxa 1 1 2 ..tb2 'W xa2 1 3 tt:lc3. 9 tt:lf6 is passive - 1 0 tt:lc3 g6 ( 1 0 'W xd4 1 1 c6!) 1 1 tt:le2 ..th6 1 2 ..txh6 'Wxh6 1 3 .!:t e l .!:! he8 1 4 b4 wb8 1 5 b5 ..tf5 1 6 .!:! c3 etc. (Prasad-Ravikumar, India 1 987). 9 . . . g6 leads to White's advan­ tage - 10 tt:lc3 ..tg7 1 1 tt:le2 tt:lf6 12 b4 tt:lh5 13 b5 (Timman­ H iibner, Til burg 1 983). 0

0

.

0

10

0

.

tt:lc3

The other possibility, driving the knight from the centre straight away with 10 f3, will be examined in game 24.

91 w

..t g 7

10

10 . tt:lf6, 10 f5 and 10 . .!:! g8 have also been tried : (a) Am. Rodriguez-Arkhipov, Belgrade 1 98 8: 10 tt:lf6 I t tt:le2 (if 1 1 g3 there follows not 1 1 . . . 'W xd4 1 2 c6!, but 1 1 . . . 'Wh3 and if 12 ..txg5, then 12 tt:l g4 ! ; unclear is 1 1 'Wf3 ..tg7 1 2 ..tf5 wb8 1 3 g3 'W xd4 1 4 ..txg5 'We5 1 5 ..txd7 .!:! xd7 1 6 h4 tt:le4 1 7 ..tf4 'We6 1 8 .!:! fe l f5 1 9 tt:lb5 a6 20 a4 ..te5 21 .!:! a3 d4 Griinfeld­ Mikhalchishin, Palma de Mal­ lorca 1 989) 1 1 tt:lg4 1 2 h3 tt:lh6 13 ..td2 .!:! g8 14 f3 f5 15 'Wet 'Wh5 16 b4 .!:! e8 17 "Wf2 g4? (correct was 1 7 . . . f4!) 1 8 tt:lf4 ! 'W f7 19 g3! with a clear advantage for White. 0

0

0

0

•

0

9

cS

•

0

A comparatively new idea : White avoids playing in the centre and intends to create dangerous threats on the queenside. If 9 cd strong is 9 . . . ..td6 10 g3 tt:lxg3 1 1 fg ..txg3 1 2 'Wd2? ..txh2+! 1 3 'i!fxh2 'W xd4+ and 1 4 . . . 'ili'xd3 with advantage to Black in view of the draughty position of the wh ite king. 9

0

0

g5

0

0

.

0

.

0

96

3 d4

(b) Wedberg-Schneider, Tor­ shavn 1 98 7 : 10 . . . f5 I I tt:Jxd5 tt:Jxf2!? 12 n xf2 "iW xd4 13 �xg5 �xc5 14 tt:Je3 f4! 1 5 �xf4 l:l: hf8 16 Wfl "i!fxe3! 1 7 �xe3 �xe3 1 8 "i!fe2 �xf2+ 1 9 whl l:l: de8, when Black has definite compensation for the queen. (c) Am. Rodriguez-Casafus, Buenos Aires 1 990: I 0 . . . 1:1: g8!? (a novelty which brings Black suc­ cess in this game) I I tt:Je2? (better is I I tt:Jxd5 l:l: g6 12 f3 l:l: h6 1 3 �xe4 Wxh2+ 1 4 wf2 Wh4+ 1 5 e3 { 1 5 we2 �b5+, 1 5 wgl Wh2+ with a draw} 1 5 . . . f5 with a complicated position - Casafus, Morgado. Now Black gets a strong attack) I I . . . 1:1: g6! 1 2 f3 l:l: h6 1 3 fe de 1 4 �c2 "i!fxh2+ 1 5 wf2 wh4+ 1 6 g3 ( 1 6 w g l w h l + 1 7 wf2 l:l: f6 + ; 1 6 we3 �g4 ! 1 7 �xe4 l:l: e6) 1 6 . . . "i!fg4 1 7 a4 l:l: h2 + 1 8 wei �e6! and White's position is hopeless. 11 tt:Je2 Recently g2-g3 has also been played, diverting the queen from the central squares. Geller-Howell, Reykjavik 1 990 : I I g3 Wh3 12 tt:Jxe4 (worse is 1 2 tt:Jxd5 l:l: he8 { 1 2 . . . �g4? 1 3 �xe4 �xd l 1 5 �f5 + } 1 3 Wf3 �f5 14 tt:Je3 �g6 1 5 c6? l:l: xd4 with advantage to Black, Smagin­ H. Olafsson, Sochi 1 988; correct is 1 5 d5 tt:Jd2 1 6 �xd2 �xd3 with an unclear position) 12 . . . de

1 3 �xe4 � b5 14 �xg5 1:1: X d 4 1 5 �g2! (more accurate than 1 5 Wb3 l:l: xe4 1 6 "i!fxb5 h 6 1 7 �e3 l:l: h4 18 l:l: fd l "i!fxh2+ 19 w f! Wh3 + 20 we i l:l: e4 2 1 c6! l:l: xe3+ 22 fe "i!fxg3+ 23 we2 "i!fg2 + 24 wei Wg3 + !-! Dolmatov­ A kopyan, Yerevan 1 988) 1 5 . . . Wf5 1 6 Wb3 c6 1 7 �e3 �xfl 1 8 l:l: xfl l:l: d7 (deserving attention is 1 8 . . . l:l: hd8 1 9 �xd4 �xd4 and the position is level) 1 9 "i!fa4! (in the game A. Ivanov-Makarychev, Reykjavik 1 990, where 1 5 �g2 was first played, after 19 "i!fa3 w b8 20 b4 Black could play 20 . . . l:l: hd8, preparing 2 1 . . . l:l: d l . Now, however, the d l -square is covered and Black has additional prob­ lems because of c6) 1 9 . . . w b8 20 b4 (92) (materially, the sides are roughly equal, but Geller attacks decisively on the queenside). 92

B

20 . . . Wd3 2 1 �f4+ wa8 22 �d6! l:l: xd6 (22 . . . Wb5 23 tvb3 a5 24 �h3; 22 . . . �f8 23 �xc6! ; 22 . . . l:l: hd8 23 l:l: d l do not hel p)

3 d4

23 cd 'iif x d6 24 b5 cb 25 'iif x b5

g b8 26 .!:!. b l 'iif c 7 27 a4 ..tc3 2 8 .!:!. c l ·'iif e 5 29 ..Wb3 ..td4 30 _t xb 7 + ! 1 -0. Black tried an interesting n ovelty in Arencibia-Vladimirov, Lyon 1 99 1 : after I I g3 there fol­ lowed I I . . . ..W h6!? and then 1 2 �xe4 de 1 3 ..txe4 f5 1 4 ..tg2 f4! 1 5 d5 .!:!. hf8 1 6 .!:!. e l wb8 1 7 d6 cd 18 c6 ( 1 8 'iif x d6+ ..Wxd6 1 9 cd _td4) 1 8 . . . be 1 9 .!:!. e4 d5 20 .!:!. a4 wa8 2 1 ..td2 ..th3 22 ..t h l ..Wf6 led to a clear advantage for Black . 11

f5

The next game is devoted to other moves, primarily I I .!:!he8. 12

f3 (93)

93 B

12

.!:!. hf8!?

Not an obvious sacrifice, this idea was devised by one of the leading Petroff specialists Grandmaster Makarychev. Previ­ ously the modest 1 2 . . . lLlf6 was encountered, and White obtained the advantage, for example : 1 3

97

..te3 f4 14 ..tf2 ..Wh6 15 ..Wd2 .!:!. he8 16 .!:!. ac l lLlg8 17 b4 t>xf2 White has better chances thanks to the advantage of the two bishops. 16 . . . CiJf4 1 7 i.x/4 gf 18 c6 1 So that, if 1 8 . . . be or 1 8 . . .

..txc6 White gives check with the bishop and defends the d4-pawn. 18 . . . ..te6! 19 cb + >t>b8 20 >t>hl i.xd4 21 .:t c2 i.e3 22 b4 >t>xh7

12 f3

After 1 2 a4 the rook manages to get to h6 - 1 2 . . . .:t e6 1 3 f3 .tt h6! 14 fe de 1 5 ..tc4 'i!t'xh2+ 1 6 f2 .lH6 + 1 7 ..t>e1 'i!t' xg2 1 8 .lhf6 ..txf6 1 9 ..te3 ..tg7. Again Black has three pawns for the piece and equal chances (Ioseliani-Gaprin­ dashvili, Borzhomi 1 990). 12 . . . CiJf6 13 ..td2 .:t xe2!

This move was also seen in our main game. The game Ulibin­ Akopyan was going to be included in the main contests of the book, but the later Makarychev game took its place because there Black manages to fully realise his plan. 14 'i!t'xe2 CiJh5 15 'i!t'f2 'i!t' xf2+ 16

For the exchange Black has a pawn and two active bishops which allow him to easily hold the position. 23 g3 fg 24 hg h5 25 .:t e l d4 26 .1Le4 + 'it> c8 2 7 .:t c5 .:t g8 28 .:t xh5 .:t xg3 29 .:t a5 >t>d7 30 ..t d5 d6 31 ..txe6 fe 32 :t a6 + >t>d5 33 .:t xa 7 .:t xf3 34 .:t xc 7 e5 35 b5 d3 36 .:t d7+ >t> c4 3 7 b6 .1Lxb6 38 .:t e l + ..t>b4 39 .:t b l + ..t>c5 40 .:t el + b4 41 .:t b l + i - f . 11 .:t he8 12

f3

There is an interesting game J. Nov i Polgar-Gaprindashvili, Sad (ol) 1 990, where White played 1 2 'i!t' e 1 , when 1 2 . . . CLJf6 (po or is 12 . . . ..txd4? 1 3 CiJxd4 CiJxc5 1 4 W"c3 CiJa4 1 5 CiJf5! and White get s

3 d4

101

the upper hand) 13 W'd2 tt:le4 ! 14 97 'llfe 1 tt:Jf6 would lead to repetition B of m oves. However, the youngest of the Polgar sisters shunned the 'grandmaster draw', replying 14 'llf a5!?. After 1 4 . . . ..t> b 8 15 f3 tt:Jf6 White re-evaluated her chances and played 1 6 g3?! ( 1 6 �d2 tt:Jg4 1 7 fg l he2 1 8 �xe2 �xd4 + 1 9 c;t> h 1 .te5 2 0 h 3 'i!t'g3 2 1 ..t>g1 led to a forced draw. Gaprindashvili recommends 16 . . . tt:Jg8!) 1 6 . . . even greater effect in this game. 'llf h 5 1 7 a4? (Gaprindashvili now Curiously, the assault on the for­ energetically carried out the finale) tress of the white king is only a 17 . . . tt:Jg4! 1 8 fg .bg4 19 tt:Jf4 sideline; the main idea is to loosen (White loses immediately after 1 9 the foundations in the centre, 12Jc3 .bd4 + 20 ..t>g2 W'h3 + 2 1 which is not particularly charac­ c;t> h 1 �f3 + 2 2 J::!. xf3 J::!. e 1 + with teristic of the variation. W'xe2 mate) 19 . . . .bd4+ 20 ..t>g2 gf 14 21 ..ixf4 ..ie5 (even stronger was In the case of 14 �xe2 there 21 . . . J::!. c8 22 c6 J::!. e2+ 23 �xe2 also arise beautiful and interesting .th3 + 24 ..t> h 1 lt'xe2 or 22 J::!. ae1 variations. Black's quintessential .! he1 23 ..W xe 1 ..ih3 + etc.) 22 c6 plan is the destruction of the d4i.c8 23 W' b4 �d6! (it IS pawn, not by the queen ( 1 4 . . . important to drive the queen from W'xd4+ is not good because of b4) 24 W'b3 .bf4 25 J::!. xf4 J::!. e3 1 5 h 1 h6 1 6 b4), but by the 26 ..Wc2 ..W h 3 + 27 ..t> h 1 (there is fianchettoed bishop after 1 4 . . . no salvation in 27 ..t>f2 lt'xh2+ tt:Jg4!!. Now after 1 5 fg the white 28 ..t>xe3 'lWxg3+ 29 J::!. f3 d4+ 30 king flies from his sanctuary to 'it> e2 �g4+) 27 . . . J::!. xg3 28 cb the centre of the board, where he hb7 29 J::!. xf7 J::!. c8 30 ..ib5 d4+ meets his end : 1 5 . . . ..ixd4+ 1 6 3 1 ..ic6 J::!. c3! 0- 1 . ..t> h 1 �e5 1 7 �f4 ( 1 7 g 3 �xg3 tt:Jf6 18 ..t>g2 'i!f xh2+ 19 ..t>f3 J::!. e8!; 1 7 12 13 �d2 (97) h3 lt'g3 1 8 w g 1 W'h2+ 1 9 lt>f2 After 1 3 ..W e 1 W'xe1 the chances �d4+ 20 ..t>f3 f5 !) 1 7 . . . �xf4 are roughly equal. 1 8 J::!. xf4 gf 1 9 ..W xd5 J::!. e8 ! , and 13 White's position is hopeless J::!. xe2! Ak opyan's idea is used with (Sherzer-Halasz, Budapest 1 990).

102

3 d4

Correct is 1 5 ..tf4 ! gf? 1 6 fg, closing the breach, or 1 5 . . . lLlxh2? 1 6 ..txh2 ..txd4+ 1 7 hl �e5 18 f4 �xf4 19 l hf4 and Black is in a bad way. Stronger, however, is 1 5 . . . lLlf2! with a wonderful game in all variations : 1 6 �xg5 lLlh3 + ! 1 7 gh "lhg5 + 18 h l "�Wf4; 1 6 g 3 "1W h 6 1 7 l hf2 gf 18 g4 "�Wf6; 1 6 ..tg3 lLlxd l 1 7 �xh4 ..txd4+ 18 h l lLle3 19 ..txg5 J:t e8 20 �xe3 J:t xe3 (Makary­ chev). lLl h5! 14 Of course, 14 . . . "tixd4+ fails to 1 5 �e3. 15

"1W f2

White has only one move. After 1 5 .tel "tixd4+ 1 6 �f2 lLlf4! he is already worse. 15 16

"1W xf2 + xf2

As we recall, Ulibin took with the rook against Akopyan - 1 6 J:t xf2 and to 1 6 . . . �xd4 would have answered 1 7 �c3. But now Black has no rook on h8, and after 1 6 J:t xf2 ..t xd4 1 7 ..tc3, before taking the exchange, he can take a pawn by 1 7 . . . ..txc5. 16 17

lLlf4! �xf4

gf (98)

In a fairly quiet position White has a material advantage and it is his turn to move, but has to look for a draw since he cannot avoid the loss of two pawns. 18

J:t fe1

..t xd4+

98

w

19

wn

..t xb2!

The bishop remains on the long diagonal and doesn't let the rook to e5 (as 19 . . . ..txc5 would give White counterplay). Besides, it is useful to leave the opponent with isolated pawns. 20

J:t ab l

More exact was 2 0 J:t a d I and Black has only a minimal advan­ tage. 20

..td4

If 20 . . . �a3 the rook gets to e5. 21 J:t e7? After 2 1 J:t bel ..te3 followed by . . . c7-c6 and . . . b7-b6 Black generates connected passed c­ and d-pawns, but White neverthe­ less would have had chances to save himself. Now his rook is ambushed. 21

J:t f8!

The immediate attempt to tra p the rook could cost Black dearly : 2 1 . . . ..te6? 22 c6! �c5? (bett er is 22 . . . � b6) 23 J:t xb7 _txe7 24

3 d4 103 wmnmg. Makarychev j.a6 defends his f7-pawn and keeps control of c6 with the bishop. 22

..bh7

Now the rook will certainly per­ ish in jail, but its release would involve losing the c5-pawn and soon Black would have had not two, but three connected passed pawns. Of course, White's passed h-pawn cannot compensate this Joss. 22

j.e6

l:t el j.e3! Preventing the double capture on e6. 23

24

g4

J:! h8!

There is no harm in first training his sights on the h-pawn. 25

j.f5

26

J:! xe6

�d8

If 26 j.xe6 Black forces the exchange of rooks with an easy win in the bishop ending - 26 . . . wxe7 27 j.xd5 l:t xh2 28 l:t e2 l! xe2 29 wxe2 c6 30 j.c4 j.xc5. Something similar happens in the game. 26

fe

27

j.xe6

J:!xh2

28

J:tdl

J:thl +

White resigned due to 29 we2 l!xdl 30 wxdl c6.

Game No. 24 Dolmatov-Makarychev

Reykjavik 1990

I

e4

e5

2

IL\f3

IL\f6

3

d4

IL\xe4

4

j.d3

d5

5

IL\xe5

IL\d7

6

IL\xd7

j.xd7

7

0-0

'l!fh4

8

c4

0-0-0

9

c5

g5

10

f3

In the two previous games 1 0 IL\c3 j.g7 I I IL\e2 and then I I . . . f5 or I I . . . J:the8 were played. Black, as we have seen, obtained sufficient counterchances. The aim of the move f2-f3 is essentially to counteract Akopyan's idea of . . . l:t xe2! and . . . IL\h5. Besides I 0 f3 and I 0 IL\c3 both 10 IL\d2 and 10 j.e3 have been encountered. Pinkas-Kuczinski, Wroclaw 1 987: 10 IL\d2 IL\xd2 I I j.xd2 J:tg8 12 l:t cl (a very sharp pawn sacrifice) 12 . . . 'l!fxd4 13 j.c3 'l!fh4 14 j.f6. Here Black replied 14 . . . l:t e8 and lost unexpectedly quickly: 1 5 f4 j.e7 1 6 c6 be 1 7 j.xe7 l:t xe7 1 8 'l!fb3 'l!fg4 1 9 h3 'l!fe6 20 l:tcel 1 -0. 14 . . . j.g7!? deserves attention, and after 1 5 j.xd8 l:t xd8 Black has the two bishops and a pawn for the exchange; the game is roughly level. As for 10 j.e3, it usually trans­ poses (f2-f3 and . . . IL\e4-f6 are put back a move). There are also

104

3 d4

the following independent vari­ ations: 1 0 ..lte3 f5 1 1 f3 tt:lf6 with an unclear position or 10 . . . l:t eS 1 1 tt:ld2 ( 1 1 tt:lc3 1:!: e6! with the standard threat of . . . 1:!: h6) 1 1 . . . ..ltg7 1 2 tt:lf3 ..Wh5 1 3 tt:lxg5 ..Wxd 1 1 4 l:t axd 1 tt:lxg5 1 5 ..ltxg5 ..ltxd4 1 6 c6! ..ltg4! 1 7 ..ltf5 + with approximately equal chances. tt:lf6 10 11 ..lte3 (99) 99 B

l:t e8 11 Interestingly, in a previo u s encounter between these two play­ ers the novelty 1 1 . . . l:t gS was played and Black won quick ly . Our main game took place th ree months later, and M akarychev decided not to wait for his opponent's improvement and played the other rook manoeuvre. Although Dolmatov gained rev­ enge in this sharp skirmish, this was not, as we shall see, due to the opening. First of all let us have a look at the previous game between the Moscow grandmasters. Dolmatov- M akarychev, Palma de Mallorca 1 9S9 : 11

0

0

0

l:!: g8 12 tt:lc3

After 1 2 ..ltf2 ..Wh6 Black threat­ ens . . . g5-g4- g3. 12

Now Black has a choice between 1 1 . . . l:t gS and 1 1 . . . l:t eS; however the novelty 1 1 . . . ..ltg7 was tried in van Riemsdijk­ Finegold, Dieren 1 990, although not very successfully. There fol­ lowed 12 tt:lc3 1:!: deS 13 ..ltf2 ..W h6 14 g3 ..W h3?! (more accurate was 14 . . . g4 or 14 . . . tt:lh5) 15 ..Wc2 h5 16 l:t fe 1 h4 17 c6! be 1S ..lta6+ '>t>dS 19 ..W b 3 ..lte6 20 ..ltfl ! ..Wf5 2 1 l:t e5! ..Wg6 22 ..W b7! tt:lh5 23 ..W xc6 hg 24 hg ..ltxe5 25 de ..Wc2 26 ..WaS+ 1 -0 (26 . . . ..ltcS 27 ..W xd5 + ..ltd7 2S ..WaS+ �cS 29 l:t d 1 +).

0

0

0

g4!

1 2 . . . l:t eS -- 1 3 ..ltf2 � h 6 1 4 ..Wd2 and White has a clear advantage. 13 ..Wei? (100) 100 B

An important moment; 1 3 g3

3 d4 'lW h3

1 4 f4 lLl h5 (better was 1 4 . . . .!:[ e8) was necessary and only now 1 5 'We1 !. This position arose sho rtly after in van Riemsdijk­ Casafus, Buenos Aires 1 990. There .!:te8 1 6 'Wf2 lLlf6 followed 1 5 1 7 .!:t fe 1 �g7 1 8 'W c2 .!:t e7 1 9 �f2 .!:[ ge8 20 .!:t e5 c6 and now, instead of 21 .!:[ ae l lLlg8 22 b4, 21 b4! wins at once. We can guess now why, in this second encounter with Dol­ matov, Makarychev rejected 1 1 . . . .!:t g8 in favour of 1 1 . . . .!:t e8. 0

13

0

0

0

0

•

and White resigned in view of 20 'We2 .!:t xg2 + 2 1 'Wxg2 'Wf2+ 22 '1tt hI 'lW xg2 mate. 1 2 'Wd2 (10 1 ) 101

B

g3!

Makarychev, commenting on the game, suggested that his opponent had expected 1 3 . . 'lW h5, considering the following beautiful variation after 1 3 . . . g3 : 1 4 hg .!:t xg3 1 5 lLle2! .!:t xg2 +? 1 6 '1t;>xg2 'iWh3 + 1 7 '1t>g1 �d6!? 18 cd .!:t g8 + 1 9 �g5!! and White wins by running away with the king �g l -f2-e3-d2. .

14 hg

A surprise, prepared b y Dolma­ tov especially for this game (the queen not only defends the bishop, but also sets the aS-square in its sights. Curiously, his opponent once played 1 2 �f2 with White in this position (Makarychev-Ye Rongguarg, Belgrade 1 988). After 12 'Wh6 ( 1 2 'Wh5 1 3 lLlc3 g4 1 4 fg lLlxg4 1 5 h3) 1 3 lLlc3 g4 1 4 f4 g 3 ! 1 5 �xg3 .!:t g8 1 6 'Wf3 �g4? 1 7 'lW f2 lLle4 1 8 �xe4 de 1 9 .!:[ fe 1 f5 20 d 5 'Wa6 2 1 'We3 'Wc4 22 �f2 �f3 23 g3 .!:t d8 24 .!:t ac l 'Wa6 25 d6 c6 24 b4 a fairly sharp struggle developed in which White had some initiative, but Black finally gained the upper hand. Makary­ chev gives the following variation : 16 lLlh5!? 1 7 'Wxd5 �c6 1 8 'iW f5 + '1ttb 8 1 9 �e4 lLlxg3 20 hg 'Wg7 21 �xc6 'Wxd4+ 22 '1t>h2 be 23 .!:t ad 1 'iWxc5 24 'iWxc5 with a 0

Or 1 4 h3 �xh3 1 5 gh 'Wxh3 1 6 'i'd2 g 2 1 7 .!:t fd 1 'W h l + 1 8 '1t>f2 g l ('ll¥)+ 19 .!:t xg 1 'Wh2+ 20 '1t>fl .!:tx g l + winning. 1 4 . . . .!:t xg3 15 'W d2 If 1 5 lLle2 then decisive is 1 5 . . . .td6! 1 6 cd .!:t xg2 + 1 7 wxg2 · .!:t g8+ 1 8 �g5 .!:t xg5 + 19 lLlg3 .1h3 + etc. 15 . Sixe5.1 16 de .!:t dg81 Of course, not 1 6 . . . d4 right a way - 1 7 �f4! and White is already better. .

105

.

1 7 .!:t.fd1 d4! 18 c6 de 19 ed+ wdB

0

.

0

0

0

.

0

.

106

3 d4

minimal advantage to White. 12

.!:!: xe3!?

102 w

White doesn't manage to catch his opponent unawares. Alterna­ tively, 1 2 . . . .!:t g8 1 3 �f2 'i!t'h6 1 4 'i!fa5 ..t>b8 1 5 �g3 .!:t c 8 1 6 tLlc3 g4? 1 7 �f5! �xf5 18 tLlb5 a6 1 9 �xc7 + ..t>a8 20 'i!t' b6 ab 2 1 'i!fa5 i s mate, but after 1 6 . . . lLlh5 1 7 �e5 �g7! a complicated position anses. 13

'i!f xe3

lLlh5

The only response, as after 1 3 . . . �g7? 1 4 g3 Black's counterplay comes to a dead end. 14

.!:t d1

An inaccuracy. M akarychev also showed that 14 �f5, 1 4 'i!t'f2, 14 tLla3 and 1 4 tLld2 hold no danger for Black, and that the correct move is 14 tLlc3 �g7 1 5 tLle2 .!:!: e8 1 6 'i!t'f2 and now two sharp variations arise: (a) 16 . . . lLlf4 17 .!:t ad ! 'i!fxf2+ 1 8 ..t>xf2 .!:t e6 19 .!:t fe l with the threat of b2-b4; (b) 1 6 . . . .!:!: xe2!? 1 7 'i!fxh4 gh 1 8 �xe2 �xd4+ 19 'it> h 1 lLlf4 ! 20 .!:t ad 1 �xb2 2 1 .!:t d2 �c3 22 .!:t c2 tLlxe2 23 .!:t xe2 �b5. � g7 14 15 �fl g4 ( 102) 1 6 'i!t'f2 was threatened, disper­ sing all danger. 16

c6

A reckless move. After 1 6 fg .!:t e8 1 7 'i!t'd3 �xg4 1 8 tLlc3! �xd l 1 9 .!:!: xd 1 a draw is in prospect.

This vanatton is played in the game, the only difference being that White has surrendered a pawn. 16 17 18 19

fg 'i!t' d3 tLl c3

be .!:t e8! � xg4

He cannot keep the exchange 1 9 .!:!: c 1 �h6 followed by 20 �e3+ 2 1 ..t> h l tLlg3 mate. 19 20

.!:t xd1

�xd1 'i!f g5

The dust has settled and Black ts a pawn up. 21 ..thl tLlf6 22

�e2

h5

A loss of time. Better was 22 . . . lLlg4 at once . 23

b4

White tries his only chance counterplay on the queenside which unexpectedly j ustifies itself. 23 24 25 26

� xg4 'i!t' a6 + b5

lLl g4 hg ..td7 'i!t' h6

3 d4

27 28 29

be + 'iir' d3 1:1 fl

'ilr' xc6 'ii e6

41

c6?

tt:la4 tt:lc5 'iir' bl 'ii f5 a4

d8 'ii e2 'iir' b5 l:! e7 'iir' b4??

In time trouble Black makes the decisive mistake. After 34 . . . 'ilr'e2 (threatening 34 . . . ..txd4 and not letting the rook on f1 out of his sights) 35 'iir' b l ..t>c8 36 'iir' f5 + d8 3 7 'iir' b l >t>c8 the game would have ended with a rep­ etition of moves. 35 36 37 38

� f4! 'iir' d 6+ 'ilr' xc6+ 'iir' c 8+

..txd4 'it>e8 >t>f8 l:! e8 (103)

38 . . . >t>g7 also loses to 39 "i'xg4+ ..t>h7 40 �h4+ and 'ilr'xe7. 103 w

1-0

Game No. 2 5

An unnecessary weakening of his own king. After 29 . . . a6 White stil l has to work for the draw. 30 31 32 33 34

'ilr' xf7+

107

Kasparov-Karpov

World Ch ( 10) New York 1990

This game is the last so far in my recent debate on the Petroff with Gary Kasparov. It is natural to end this book with it. I 2 3

e4 tt:l f3 d4

e5 tt:lf6

Until now our debate had begun with 3 tt:lxe5. This time Kasparov changes the direction of the game, but does not catch me unawares. ed

3

Theory gives the capture 3 . . . tt:lxe4 as preferable. In the previous four games we have examined that move quite closely. I chose 3 . . . ed especially for this match because we had prepared an inter­ esting novelty. Although the game wasn't particularly exciting its theoretical value is beyond doubt. 4 5

e5 'iir' xd4

tt:le4

At different times 5 'ilr'e2, 5 �d3 and 5 ..tb5 had all been popular here before it was discovered that centralising the queen was the most dangerous continuation. 39 40

tzle6 + ! 'ilr'c7+

>t>e7 'it>xe6

5 6 7

ed tt:lc3

d5 tt:lxd6

108

3 d4

The standard move, but 7 ..ltg5 and 7 ..ltd3 have also been thor­ oughly investigated. 7 tt:lc6 The bishop move 7 . . . ..ltf5 was rejected thirty years ago - 8 We5 + We7 9 tt:ld5 W xe5 1 0 tt:l xe5 f6 1 1 tt:lf3 �d7 1 2 Jtf4 with a clear advantage for White in Bronstein-Borisenko, USSR Ch 1 96 1 . 8 Wf4 (1 04) 104 B

9 . . . We7+

The defence 9 . . . ..lte7 10 ..ltxc6 + be 1 1 tt:le5 0-0 1 2 tt:l xc6 We8 1 3 tt:lxe7+ Wxe7 + 1 4 .i e3 ..ltxc2 1 5 .!:t e l ..ltd3 1 6 tt:ld5 't!t'd 8 1 7 Wd4! led to an advantage for White in Sax-Yusupov, Rotter­ dam 1 988. 10 ri;;f1

The forcing theoretical vari­ ation - 1 0 ..lte3 tt:lxb5 1 1 tt:lxb5 Wb4 + 1 2 W xb4 ..ltxb4+ 1 3 c3 ..ltd6 14 tt:lxd6+ cd 1 5 0-0-0 .ie6 16 .l:t xd6 ..ltxa2 gives White the better chances, but the position is rather simplified, which is not to everyone's liking. 10 . . . .1L e4 11 .1Lxc6+

I n this well-known position many m oves have been tried - 8 . . . We7 + , 8 . . . ..lte7, 8 . . . g6, 8 . . . Jtf5. They have all been studied inside-out, and it has been estab­ lished that White gets a tangible advantage in every variation. Limiting ourselves to one interest­ ing example, let's look at the most recent attempt for Black. K lovans-Harman, European Corr Ch 1 983-87 : 8 . . . ..li./5 9 ..li.b5 This bishop move also brings White the advantage after 8 . . . g6.

1 1 ..lta4 0-0-0 1 2 ..lte3 f6 1 3 tt:lxe4 W' xe4 1 4 .l:t d 1 is usually played, and W hite is better (an old recommendation of Paul Keres'). 11 . . . ..li.xc6 12 tt:le5 0-0-0 Black has to move the king to the weakened queenside. Other moves promise nothing : 12 . . . ..ltb5 + 1 3 tt:lxb5 tt:lxb5 1 4 tt:lxf7 W xf7 1 5 We5 + ; 1 2 . . . We6 1 3 tt:lxc6 be 1 4 Wf3 Wd7 1 5 tt:la4. 13 tt:lxc6 be 14 W'a4 tt:lb5 15 Wa6+ rt;; b 8 16 ..li.e3 Wb4

1 6 . . . tt:ld4 is poor - 1 7 .!:td 1 We5 ( 1 7 . . . c5 1 8 tt:lb5) 1 8 .ii. xd4 .l:t xd4 1 9 .!:t e l . 1 7 W'xc6 tt:ld4

This position has been known for a long time in theory and used to be thought pleasant for Black.

3 d4

In fact, after 1 8 ..txd4? J::!: xd4 or 18 ..We4 ..tc5 (with the threat of . . J::!: he8) 19 a3 ..Wc4+ 20 ..Wd3 ..Wxd 3 + 21 cd tt:lc2 Black's initiat­ i ve can even become dangerous. 18 ..W a6 ( 105)

•

109

problems?) It transpires that Black has a fifth possible move, invented by Igor Zaitsev! tt:lfS!? ( 106)

8 106 w

105 B

By playing this move Klovans radically altered the evaluation of the position. Here Black guessed his opponent's clever plan : 1 8 . . . J::t d6 1 9 ..Wd3! and 1 9 . . . ct:lb3 is bad because of 20 ..txa 7 + , and after 19 . . . ..te7 20 a3 Black has no compensation for the pawn. 18 . . . J.. c5 19 a3 � h 7 20 ..W xh7+ �xh7 21 l:l:cl

So, the opening contest is resolved in White's favour as he is simply a pawn up - although it took White almost five years to realise the extra pawn ( ! ), as the game was played by correspon­ de nce. Why did I choose a variation which gives Black serious prob­ lems? (Which of the alternatives on move 8 do not give serious

A completely logical, although, according to formal rules, para­ doxical move, which nobody had thought of before. 'What is logical is immediately apparent. And what is paradoxical . . .' It has long been well known that losing time by moving already developed pieces, especially in open pos­ itions, is not a good idea. Of the eight moves made, the black knight has made four of them, and it seems unbelievable that this cannot be dangerous for Black. 9

..tbS

After 9 ct:lb5 ..tb4+ 1 0 c3 ..ta5 1 1 g4 ct:lfe7 Black is in no danger. 9 ..td6 10 � e4 + ..We7 ( 107) 11 ..tg5 White doesn't hurry to disfigure Black's position with 1 1 ..txc6 + : in that case tt:lxd6+ will not be

110

3 d4

107 w

have the final position from t he main game, with the only differ­ ence that Black's f-pawn is stil l i n its initial position. Now, after 1 7 . . . tt:le7 o r 1 7 . . . �e7 the move 1 8 tt:le5 is possible, and Wh ite retains a small initiative. 11

threatened after the exchange on e4. I I 0-0 suggests itself, when after I I . . . 0-0 ( I I . . . �d7 1 2 � xc6 be is also fine for Black) 1 2 � xc6 be 1 3 'ilhc6 Black plays 1 3 . . . .!:!. b8, with good compensation for the pawn. White gets nothing from 1 2 W xe7 tt:lfxe7 ( 1 2 . . . tt:lcxe7) 1 3 tt:le4 �b4. I I �g5 f6 1 2 �d2 was played in our game, and the position of the pawn on f6 is possibly in Black's favour. Therefore, it was better to play I I �d2 straight away, and then I I . . . �d7 1 2 0-0-0 Wxe4 1 3 tt:lxe4 �e7 1 4 .!:!. he ! 0-0-0. Now 1 5 tt:leg5?! .!:!. df8! 1 6 g4 �xg5 1 7 �xg5 tt:ld6 1 8 �xc6 �xc6 19 tt:ld4 ( 19 tt:le5 f6 20 tt:lxc6 fg with equality) 19 . . . �d7 20 �e7 .!:!. e8 2 1 �xd6 cd 22 f3 with a likely draw, but after 1 5 �c4!? White's position is preferable. Incidentally, after 14 g4 (instead of 1 4 .!:!. he ! ) 14 . . . a6 1 5 � c4 tt:ld6 16 tt:lxd6+ �xd6 17 .!:!. de I+ we

f6

Of course not I I . . . Wxe4+ 1 2 tt:lxe4 �e7 13 �xc6+ be 1 4 �xe7 and 1 5 0-0-0 when the ending can hardly be saved. 12 13

�d2 0-0-0

�d7 W xe4!

The only move. 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 is bad because of 14 �xc6 and 1 3 . . . 0-0 because of 1 4 Wxe7 tt:lfxe7 ( 1 4 . . . �xe7 1 5 �f4!) 1 5 tt:le4. 14 tt:lxe4 �e7 The corresponding square! When the knight is on c3 the corresponding square for the bishop is d6, and when the knight is on e4 the bishop must move to e7. 14 . . . 0-0-0 is worse - 1 5 g4 tt:lfe7 1 6 tt:lxd6+ cd 1 7 g5 �g4 1 8 �e2. 15

g4

The last attempt to fight for the initiative. If 1 5 �f4 0-0-0 1 6 g4 then 1 6 . . . g5 doesn't look bad. 15

a6?!

Less clear was 1 5 . . . tt:lh6 1 6 tt:lxf6 + ! ( 1 6 �xh6 g h 1 7 h3 h 5! 18 gh f5 or 1 8 g5 fg 1 9 tt:lexg5 h 6, and Black has an excellent ga me) 1 6 . . . gf ( 1 6 . . . �xf6? 1 7 g5 i, g4 1 8 gf �xf3 1 9 fg .!:!. g8 20 j_xh 6

3 d4

_txh 1 2 1 l:t x h 1 with winning chances for White) 1 7 ..bh6 _txg4 1 8 .l:t d3 and White has the initiative. H owever, after the ste ady 1 5 . . . tt:ld6 1 6 tt:l xd6+ _txd6 17 .!:t de 1 + wf8 1 8 .l:t hg1 J::t e8 19 .l:t xe8 + wxe8 the position is completely level. 16 �c4?! (108) Here Kasparov could have played more accurately. After 1 6 .ta4 b 5 1 7 �b3 ( 1 7 gf b a 1 8 tt:lg3 0-0-0) 1 7 . . . tt:lfd4 Black has no problems either, but by continuing 16 �xc6 �xc6 1 7 .l:t he 1 �xe4 ( 1 7 . . . tt:ld6? 1 8 tt:lxd6+ cd 1 9 tt:ld4) 1 8 .l:t xe4 tt:ld6 1 9 .l:t e2 White obtains a positional plus in view of the threatened tt:lf3-d4-e6. 108 B

111

16 tt:ld6 1 7 tt:lxd6+ � xd6 1 8 .l:t de 1 + In this positiOn Kasparov of­ fered a draw which was accepted. A fair result, but all the same it was worth White waiting for the reply. The fact is, that of four possible continuations which at first glance appear of equal merit, only one is correct. After 1 8 . . . wf8? 1 9 .l:t hg 1 .l:t e8 20 g5 .l:t xe 1 + 2 1 .l:t xe 1 or the corresponding 1 8 . . . wd8 1 9 .l:t hg 1 .l:t e 8 20 g5 .l:t xe1 + 2 1 .l:t xe1 Black has trouble consolidating his forces. For example, in both variations 21 . . . tt:le5 is bad because of 22 tt:l xe5 �xeS 23 f4. White also has a clear initiative after 1 8 . . . tt:le7?! 1 9 .l:t hg1 0-0-0 20 tt:ld4. But I , of course, intended the bishop retreat 1 8 . . . �e7!, when 1 9 �d5 0-0-0 20 � xc6 �xc6 2 1 .l:t xe7 �xf3 22 .l:t g 1 .l:t d 7 leads to full equality. And so, the continuation of our discussion in the Petroff is post­ poned until our future battles.

Index of Variations 1 e4 e5 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6

A 3 li:Jxe5 B 3 d4 A

3 li:Jxe5

3 d3 81; 3 �c4 81; 3 li:Jc3 81 3 . . . d6

3 . . li:Jxe4 82 .

4 li:Jf3 4 li:Jc4 82; 4 li:Jxf7 xf7 83 4 . . . li:Jxe4 5 d4

5 'We2 10; 5 li:Jc3 41; 5 c4 48 5 . . . d5

5 . . . �e7 6 �d3 d5 �

see

A2

6 �d3

A l 6 . . . li:Jc6 A2 6 . . . �e7

A3 6 . . �d6 .

Al

6

• • •

li:Jc6 6 . . . li:Jf6 64

7 0�0 �e7 7 . . . �g4 8 .!:!. e l 18 8 c4 �xf3 49 8 . . �e7 49 8 . . . li:Jf6 9 .!:!. e l + 50 9 cd 61 9 li:Jc3 50�60 .

Index of Variations II3 8 c4

8 l:t e 1 .i.f5 I 1 8 . . . .i.g4 9 c3 20 9 c4 lt'lf6 1 0 lt'lc3 20 1 0 cd 15-19 8 . . . lbb4

8 . . . lt'lf6 21; 8 . . . .i.e6 43 9 .i.e2

9 cd 43 .i.e6 9 . . . de 22 9 . . . 0--0 1 0 a3 28 1 0 lt'lc3 .i.f5 29 10 . . . .i.e6 - see below 10 lt'le5 38 10 lt'lc3 0-0 1 1 .i.e3 1 1 cd 34 1 1 . . . .i. f5 1 1 . . . lt'lxc3 25 ] 1 . . . lt'lf6 34 1 1 . . . f5 1 2 cd 38 1 2 a3 35-40 1 1 . . . .i.f6 41

9

. • •

12 'Wb3

12 a3 26; 1 2 J:!.c1 3 1 12 . . . c6

1 2 . . . de 29 13 l:tac1 26

A2

6

.i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 lbf6 64

A3

6 .i.d6 7 0-0 0-0

• • •

. • .

8 c4 c6 9 'Wc2

9 lt'lc3 72; 9 cd 74

114 Index of Variations 9

. . •

!Oa6

9 . . . [5 68 10 a3

10 �xe4 69 10 . . . �g4

10 . . . [5 69 1 1 c5 70 B

3 d4 !Oxe4 3 . . . d5 87; 3 . . . ed 107 4 �d3

4 !Oxe5 - see A ; 4 'iie2 88; 4 de 88 4 . . . d5 5 !Oxe5

5 de 99 5

. • .

!Od7

5 . . . �d6 88 6 !Oxd7

6 !Oc3 92; 6 0-0 92; 6 'ii e2 92; 6 !Oxf7 93 6

. • •

R.xd7

7 0-0 7 'iie2 94 7 . . . 'ii h4 7 . . . �d6 94; 7 . . . 'ii f6 94 8 c4

8 'ii e 1 94; 8 !Oc3 94 8

. . .

0-0-0

9 c5

9 cd 95 9

• . •

g5

9 . . . !Oxf2 95; 9 . . . !Of6 95; 9 . . . g6 95 10 !Oc3

10 f3 103 10 . . . �g7

10 . . . !0[6 95; 10 . . . [5 95; 10 . . . .!:l.g8 95 1 1 !Oe2 96-103

An Owi Book

Botsford Chess Library

$1 6.95

i

WINNING WITH THE PETROFF Until recently, Petroff's Defence had always been regarded as a safe and solid way for Black to play for equality in the opening. Now, however, its reputation has been completely transformed and it features in the arsenal of some of the world's most attacking players who have introduced a wealth of aggressive new ideas for Black. • •

• •

Ideal opening for club and tournament players Regular choice of World Championship Candidates Jan Timman, Artur Yusupov, Boris Gelfand, and Anatoly Karpov himself Completely illustrative games explain all the new ideas Unique insights into Karpov's opening preparation

Now you can play to win with Petroff's Defence!

Anatoly Karpov is one of the greatest players of all time. During his time as World Champion between 1 975 and 1 985, his tournament record was unprecedented as he outclassed his contemporaries time and again. His fierce rivalry with Gary Kasparov endured for five matches for the world title and he must still be rated as one of the leading contenders.

Other Winning With . . . books from Henry Holt include: Winning With the Closed Sicilian Gary Lane

Winning With the King's Gambit Joe Ga llag her

Winning With the Nimzo-lndian Raymond Keene

Winning With the Philidor Tony Kosten

Winning With the English

Winning With the Bishop's Opening Gary Lane

Zoltan Ribli and Gabor Kallai

For a list of other titles in the Botsford Chess Library, write to: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1 1 5 West 1 8th Street, New York, New York 1 001 1 .

I S B N 0 - 80 5 0 - 2 6 3 3 - 9 90000>

Chess 9 780805 026337