Accelerated Dragons (J. Donaldson & J. Silman).pdf

Accelerated Dragons Jeremy Silman and John Donaldson

CADOGAN

CΟΡΥήght

© 1998 leremy Silman and lohn Dona1dson

First publίshed 1998 by Cadogan Books plc. 27-29 Berwick St.. London WIV 3RF Distήbuted ίη ρ.ο. Βοχ 833.

North Ameήca by The Globe Pequot Press. 6 Business Park Rd. Old Saybrook, Connectίcut 06475-0833, USA.

ΑΙΙ ήghts reserved. Νο part of thίs publicatίon may be reproduced, stored ίη a retήeva1 system or transmitted ίη any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatίc, magnetίc tape, mechanica1, photocopying. recording or otherwise, without Ρήοr permission ίη WΉtίng from the publishers. Βήtίsh

Library Cataloguing ίη Pυblίcatίon Data CIP catalogυe record for thί~ bq*_i~,.available from the Βήtίsh Library Α

ISBN 1 85744 208 3

Edited by Graham Burgess aήdJOhiί-Emms and typeset by Petra Νυηη for Gambit Pυblicatίons Lώ, London. Pήnted ίη

Great Bήtaίη by BPC Wheatons Lώ, Exeter

CADOGAN CHESS SERIFS

Chief Advisor: Garry ΚaspMoν Series Editor: Κeη Neat Editor: ΜuπaΥ Chandler

Russiαn

For a complete cata10gυe of CADOGAN CHESS books (which includes the Pergamon Chess and Maxwell Macmillan Chess lίsts) please WΉte Ιο: Cadogan Books plc, 27-29 Berwick Street, London Wl V 3R Tel: (0171) 287 6555 Fax: (0171) 7341733

Contents Symbols Foreword by Jeremy Silman Acknowledgement Bibliography lntroductίon:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ιο

11 12 13 14 15 16

Typical Plans for Both Sides Classical Lines: White plays J.e2 Weekend Variatίon: White mixes f3 and .ic4 Uogele Variatίon: Main Line with 7 ...0-0 and 8 .ib3 a5 The Aηtί- Yugoslav Variatίon: Main Line with 7 .. :.a5 The Death of a Variatίon: 7 ... ω refuted An Unimpressive Variatίon: 5 J.c4 Attempts at Refutatίon: Lines with lί)xc6 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variatίon Maroczy Bind: Κnight retreats to b3 and c2 Maroczy Bind: Lines with ...lί)h6 Maroczy Bind: The tricky ... b6 systems Maroczy Bind: Fightίng for the dark squares Maroczy Bind: 7 ...lί)g4 Semi-Accelerated Dragon (5 ... g6) Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6) The Chameleon Sicilian (6lί)de2 with g3)

Index of Variatίons

4 5 6 6 7 13 31 37 65 103 106 108 137 191 207 212 233 255 283 294 317 319

Symbols + #

check double check checkmate

!!

bήΙΙίant moνe

!? ?! ? ??

interesting moνe dubious moνe

++

goodmoνe

± ;t

= =F

+ Ch Cht Wch Ct

badmoνe

blunder White is much better White is slίghtly better equal position Black is slίghtly better Black is much better championshίp

team championshίp world championshίp candidates eνent ΙΖ interzonal eνent Ζ zonal eνent OL olympiad jr junior eνent wom women's eνent mem memοήal eνent rpd rapidplay game cοπ cοπeSΡοndeηce game 1-0 the game ends ίη a win for Whίte 1/2-1/2 the game ends ίη a draw 0-1 the game ends ίη a win for Black (n) nth match game (D) diagram follows

Foreword by Jeremy Silman "Many chess players do ηοΙ have the Sicilίan ίη their repertoire because they consider ίι ιοο sharp. The system Ivanchuk opts for is quite an exception, as ίι is based οη profound positional ideas." (Piket explaining why Ivanchuk used the Accelerated Dragon). Back ίη 1981 Ι met a young chess fanatic named 10hn Donaldson. After a bήef mutual fascination: we both had a deep love for the Accelerated Dragon. After analysing for several hours, we decided that someday we would get together and write the ultimate book οη this opening. Ιι took nine years, but we finally ρυι fingers Ιο keyboard and started to act οη our dream. Now, several years after the appearance of the first edition, both 10hn and Ι are ccstatic Ιο see world-class players such as Anand, Kamsky, Ivanchuk and PίkeΙ making use of Όαι' system. This new interest ίη the Accelerated Dragon, and all the thousands of games that form the result, made a complete rewrite of our earlier work a necessity. This book is ηοΙ a 'winning repertoire for Black' tome. Ιι is an honest appraisal of an entire opening system. We admit Ιο having emotional ties to the black pieces, but we made a poinΙ of oνeπidίnB our baser desires and giving an impartial view ο! each and every variation. Though ηο book has ever given so much mateήal οη this line, we must admit that we could easily have filled several hundred extra pages with the games that eventually got cut. Nevertheless, the variations are still covered with such thoroughness that the sheer mass ο! information may actually become rather daunting! This type of depth will serve the 1Μ and GM very well. However, the average tournament player also has a 10Ι Ιο gain from this book; this opening is a perfect weapon for the Swiss-system waπior. It's full of traps and is positίonally wellfounded. Ιι was with the average player ίη mind that we added the section οη plans and we went ουΙ of our way to intersperse explanation ο! the relevant ideas with the actual moves in each variation. Α quick word οη the Semi-Accelerated and Hyper-Accelerated Dragons. These systems are attempts by Black to avoid the Maroczy Bind. Though they succeed ίη doing this, new problems arise that give the game a completely ditIercnt slant. There is a lοt of room for οήgίnal thought here and Ι hope that a few readers give these lines a try. Any questions, new ideas, or CΉticisms should be addressed to the publisher; these will then be forwarded Ιο us. For those of you hooked υρ Ιο cyber-based realities, feel free Ιο e-mail [email protected]). ιalk Ι discovered that we shared a

Acknowledgement The authors would like 10 thank the staff οί the John G. White collection οί the Cleveland Pυblic Library for their assistance. ίη particular Dr Loranth and Dr Reese.

Bibliography ECO Volume Β (1st, 2nd and 3rd Edίtions) 1-69 NIC Yearbooks 1-43 Shαkhmαtny Bulletin 1960 to 1990 inclusive SiciliαnAccelerαted Drαgon by D. Levy (Batsford 1975) Sizilianisch-Iby R. Schwarz (Kurt Rattmann 1975) ΤΜ Hyper-Accelerαted Fiαnchetto by R. Κeene (Chessman Pυblications 1971) Accelerαted Drαgon by J. Sίlman (Chess Digest) ICON: Accelerαted Dragon by J. Donaldson (Intemational Chess Enterprises) In/ormαtors

Introduction: Typical plans for both sides Aπived at by the move-order

1 e4 c5 2

lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 g6, the

Accelerated Dragon is essentίally an attempt Ιο improve οη the regular Dragon (1 e4 c5 2lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6) by aίming for the break ...d7-d5 ίη one move instead οί two ( ... d7-d6 and later ... d6-d5). Whίte can try Ιο restraίn thίs advance either by using hίs pieces (lDc3 and ~c4) or by settίng υρ the Maroczy Bind with c4. After 5 lDc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 lDf6, if Whίte plays 7 ~e2 0-0 8 0-0- Black realίzes hίs aίm with 8 ... d5! and gaίns instant equalίty. For thίs reason Whίte must ρυι hίs bishop οη c4, i.e. 7 ~c4 (ίη place of 7 ~e2), controlling d5, if he wishes Ιο fight for an advantage. Thίs allows Black the optίoη of transposing ίnto the heavίly analysed Yugoslav Attack of the Dragon with ...d6, but Accelerated Dragon players have two interesting alternatives ίη the positίonal 7 ...•a5 and the tactίcally promίsing 7...0-0 8 ~b3 a5. The ΜΙ, 7 ...•a5, forces Whίte Ιο castle kίngside due to the fact that 8 f3 (and certaίnly ηοΙ 8 .d2? lDxe4! 9 lDxc6 .xc3!) can be met by the neat tactίcal refutatίon 8...Wb4 9 ~b3 lDxe4 10 lDxc6 ~xc3+ 11 bxc3 .xc3+ 12 ~e2 dxc6 13 .td4 e5 !. With both sides castlίng short, play becomes much more positίonal than ίη the Yugoslav

Attack. Whίte aίms for kίngside play and the thematίc lDd5.

DiagramA Diagram Α shows the type of posithat Black must strίve to avoid. Whίte has played lDd5 and exchanges οη that square have led to the opening of the e-file and subsequent pressure agaίnst Black's pawn οη e7. Το make matters worse foι Black, Whίte is about to launch a kίngside attack with h4-h5 followed by either h6 or :h3. Το obtaίn a good game Black must play energetically οη the queenside (see Diagram Β). Ιη thίs position Whίte is about Ιο attack Black's knίght with f2-f4. Αη­ other problem Black has ιο address is Whίte's eventuallDd5, when a situatίoη akίη Ιο Diagram Α mίght evolve. tίoη

Accelerated Dragons

8

against the Maroczy Bind) 17 exd5 .txd418 "xd4 .c5 19 :dl :ab820 c3 :b7!. Black's plan is clear: he ΜΗ play ...:fb8 and force White to advance hίs b-pawn and then he wi1l train hίs sights οη the c-pawn and force ίι to advance as we1l. When this is done he wi1l once again double rooks οη the b-file and play ... ~5 and ... a4, disrupting White's pawn-chain. Αη οριίαιuαι situation is i1lustrated ίη DiagramC. DiagramB Realizing that he must begin a counterattack οη the queenside, Black plays 1.....a6! 2 "xa6 bxa6, when the c4square has become available Ιο the black knight and the open b- and cfiles will give Black pressure against White's queenside pawns. Mter 3 .!lXl5 ~xd5 4 exd5 ~4 5 .txc4 :xc4 Black had two strong bishops and active play against White's pawns οη b2, c2, and d5. The idea of doubling one's a-pawns Ιο achieve open files οη the queenside is a typical one ίη this opening. After 1 e4 c5 2 00 ~6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 ~3 .tg7 6 .te3 lί)f6 7 .tc4 "a5 8 ο-ο ο-ο 9 ~b3 "c7 10 f4 d6 11 .te2 b6 12 .tf3 .tb7 13 :rι Black can offer White the chance Ιο 'weaken' his pawns: 13 ...~a5! 14lί)xa5 (otherwise Black's knight wi1l jump into c4) 14... bxa5 15 .td4.!lXl7 16.!lXl5 .txd5 (Black is very happy to make this exchange and also intends to trade darksquared bishops; this ΜΗ leave him with a strong knight vs a bad white bishop, another important strategy ίη this opening, which can also crop υρ

DiagramC After Black plays ... a5-a4 White's whole pawn-chain wi1l co1lapse. Note that the rook οη b7 and later his lάng οη f8 wi1l guard his οηlΥ weakness, the e7-pawn. Our last example of Black's chances οη the queenside comes about after 7 .....a5 8 0-00-09 .tb3 d6 10 h3 .td7 11 .!lXle2 b5! 12 a3 ~5 13.!lXl5 ~d5 14 exd5 ~4 15 .txc4 bxc4 16 :bl :ab8 and Black's queenside pressure already forces White to shed a pawn. Black has something completely dίfferent ίη mind when he chooses the tactical sequence with 1 e4 c5 2 ~f3

Introduction: Typical ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltlxd4 g6 5 ltlc3 j.g7 6 j.e3ltlf6 7 j.c4 ο-ο 8 j.b3 aS. Devised by the Lithuanian coπespon­ dence player Uogele, 8 ...aS aims at softening υρ the al-h8 diagonal for Black's fire-breathίng 'Dragon' bishop. If permitted, the black a-pawn will advance Ιο a3 and undermine White's knight οη c3. Το stop thίs, White usually plays 9 f3, bοlsteήηg his e-pawn. lι was Uogele who first appreciated Ιhat after thίs move, whίch leaves Whίte's bishop οη e3 unprotected and weakens his king-positίon, Black has ιhe strong rejoinder 9...dS!. Αι first glance, thίs move seems outrageous since ίι leaves the pawn open ΙΟ capture ίη ηο fewer than three different ways. Ιη fact, ίι is deeply thought-out and entίrely logical. Ahead ίη development (White is stίll ηοΙ casΙled), Black sacrifices a pawn for acιίνe play. Theory has yet Ιο discover a way for White Ιο obtain more than a microscopic plus against the Uogele. Some memοήzatίοn is involved but if Whίte is even slightly unfamiliar with Ihe analysis he can get brutally crushed ίη just a handful ofmoves. When confronted with the Acceler"Ιcd Dragon, most GMs ορι Ιο avoid ιhe tactίcal play arising from 5 ltlc3 tlnd instead choose a positίonal course with 5 c4. Named after the great Ηυη­ gaήan master, Geza Maroczy, the !\ιructure characteήzed by pawns οη e4 ;Ind c4 effectίvely eliminates Black's ι:hances of achieving ... d7-d5. PlanIcss play against the Bind can be fatal !όίnce automatίc moves by White can ιluίcklΥ lead Ιο a winning game: 1 e4 ι:5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltlxd4 g6 5 ι:4 j.g7 6 j.e3 ltlf6 7 ltlc3 ο-ο 8 j.e2

plαns

for both sides

9

b6 9 0-0 j.b7 10 f3 (White's positίon is now as solίd as a rock) 10... d6 11 'ild2 'ild7 12 a4! (White has bUΊlt υρ an ίmpressive positίon with sίmple developing moves but Black's passive play now makes White seek a breakthrough; White's aim is ΙΟ play a4-aS and create a weaknesses ίη Black's queenside) 12 ... e6 13 :'fdl :'fd8 14 lΩxc6 'ifxc6 15 aS bxaS 16lΩb5 (now the pawns οη d6, a7, and aS are a11 weak) 16 ... a6 17 lΩxd6 ltle8 18 c5 :'d719'i1xaSj.xb220:'abllΩxd621

:'xd6 Ld6 22 cxd6 j.f6 23 'fIc7! 1-0 Gheorghiu-Bellon, Las Palmas 1976. Thίs example should ηοΙ create panic among the ranks of Accelerated Dragon adherents. The Maroczy does have its dark side. The c4 advance leaνes White with a potentially bad lίght-squared bishop and weaknesses οη the central dark squares. Black h!iS three major ways Ιο battle the Bind. One possibίlity is the break ... f7-f5, another is the ... b7-b5 advance, and the final remedy is to play for domination of the dark squares with hopes of steeήηg the game ίηto a good knίght vs bad bishop situatίon. Let's address each of these plans:

Τhe

...f7-f5 Break

Ιη Dίagram D overleafBlack has managed ιο create a nice knight οη c5 and he now stήves ιο actίvate the rest ofhίs pieces with 12...f5! 13 exf5 j.xf5 14 ltle3lΩd4 15ltlxf5 lΩxf5 16 :'bl e6. Black's plan is ιο play ...d6-d5 and create a strong passed d-pawn. Portίsch- Tukmakov, Madήd 1973 illustrated thίs nicely: 17 b3 Wh8 18lΩb5 dS 19 cxdS exd5 20 :'cl b6 21 B4lΩd6

10

Accelerated Dragons

DiagramD

ίη whίch ΙΟ manoeuvre. Since ίι is δΟ difficult for White to stop, ίι enjoys a good reputation as an equalίzing weapon: 1 e4 c5 2lbf3lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 fΔxd4 g6 5 c4lbf6 6lbc3 d6 7 .i.e2 fΔxd48 'it'xd4 .i.g7 9 .i.g5 0-0 10 1i'd2 a6! (Black declares hίs intentίon of playing for ...b7-b5) 11 f3 .i.e6 12 IΣcI :Ιc8 13 b3 b5!? (a temporary sacrίfice that gίves Black actίve play and equa1 chances) 14 cxb5 axb5 15 fΔxb5 (15 .txb5 'W'a5 is very dangerous for Whίte) 15 ...:Xcl+ 16 1i'xcl 1i'a5+ 17 1i'd2 lIa8! 18 a3 .i.xb3 and Black has a goodgame.

22 .i.c3 lbxb5 23 .i.xg7+ Φχg7 24 .i.xb5 d4 25 IIc4 IIf4! 26 a3 1i'd5 27 b4 axb4 28 axb4 lbe6 29 1i'e2 d3 30 1i'b2+ Φh6 31 .i.c6 1i'xc4 32 .i.xa8 d2! 33 1i'bl IId40-1. Very impressive but thίs plan does have its drawbacks: ... f7-f5 actίvates the black army bιιι ίι a1so creates weaknesses οη d5, e6, and a11 around the black kίng: 1 e4 c5 2lbf3 fΔc6 3 d4 cxd4 4lbxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lbh6 (Black plays dίrectly for an ...f7-f5 advance) 7lbc3 d6 8 .i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 f5 10 exf5 gxf5 11 f4.i.d7 121i'd2 fΔg4·13 .i.xg4 fxg4 (now watch as Whίte goes dίrectly for the weaknesses οη d5 and e6) 14lbd5 1If7 15 f5 Φh8 16lbe6, Szabo-Larsen, Vinkovci 1970. Black's positίon is obviously bad.

Τhe

... b7-b5 Break

The ...b7-b5 plan ίδ considerably safer than the ... f7-f5 break. Thίδ advance enables Black ιο chίp away at the whίte pawn οη c4, opens lίnes οη the queenside, and gίves Black more space

DiagramE Ιη thίs positίon Whίte has a bit more terrίtory but Black has been helped by the fact that there have been severa1 exchanges (trades a1ways help the side with less space). Black now plays for the lίberatίng ...b7-b5 advance: 15 .td4 .te6 16 .i.xg7 Φχg7 17 1i'b2 f6 18lbd5 'ifd8 19 a411ac8 20 IIcdl IIc5 21 fΔf4 .i.f7 22 l'Δd3 115c6 23 lbb4 IIc5 24 IIfel 1Ia5! 25 lbd3 b5 (it took a whίle Ιο achίeve thίs but Whίte's positίon now becomes a

Introduction:

Typicαl plαns

litιle uncomfortable) 26 axb5 axb5 27 c5 (27 b4 :aa8 28 cxb5 .b6 is a bit heιter for Black) 27.. .•c7 28:Cl 'fIa7 29 cxd6 :xcl 30 :xcl exd631lΩb4 :a3! 32 lΩc6 .a8 33 b4 :b3 with a vcry comfortable poSΊtίoη for Black ίη I).PopoVΊc-Abramovic, Νονί Sad 1985.

Dark square domination and/or good knight νs bad bishop BIack's final plan Ιο 'unbind' the 'hind' is to play οη the dark squares. This strategy serves as the cornerιόΙοne of two major systems: 1) 1 e4 c5 2 lΩf3 lΩc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lίJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lΩf6 71Ωc3 li)g4. 2) 1 e4 c5 2lΩf3lΩc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lΩf6 7lΩc3 ο-ο 8 ~e2 d6 9 ο-ο ~d7. Ιη both lίnes Black strives Ιο trade "11 Ιhe minor pieces except White's lίght-squared bishop and a blackknίght 10 cnd up with the classic 'good knight Υιό bad bishop' advanιage.

for both sides

11

Thίs positίon is typical of the type of thing that Whίte must avoid at all costs, and Black should play for ίι from the begίnning. It's qUΊte obVΊous that the nίmble knίght (whίch is happy where ίι stands, though ίι can also go Ιο b4 or, after ... e7-e5, Ιο d4 via e6) domίnates the sickly bishop!

Τactical Τhemes ίn

the Accelerated Dragon Ιη the Accelerated, Black's main tactί­ cal ideas are based οη hίs potentίal pressure against the d4-square. Thίs square often plays a major role ίη Accelerated Dragon skίrmίshes. Many tίmes Black's fianchettoed bishop, c6-knίght, and queen wreck havoc οη Whίte 's position. For example: 1 e4 c5 2 lΩf3 lΩc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lΔxd4 g6 5 1Ωc3 ~g7 6 ~e3lΩf6 7 ~c4 0-0 8 f3? .b6! 9 ~b3 lΩxe4! (diagram G) 10 fxe4 .txd4 and Black has won a pawn.

DiagramG DίagramF

Lots of fun ίf you 're Black, but the d4-square is ηοΙ all Whίte has ΙΟ worry

Accelerαted

12

about. as the following line demonstrates: 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 g6 5 lbc3 J..g7 6 J..e3 lbf6 7 J..e2 ο-ο 8 .d2 d5 9lbxc6 bxc6 10 e5 lbd7 11 f4 e6 (preparίng ...f6 and ...c5) 12lba4?? lbxe5! (dίagram Η) 13fxe5 .h4+ followed by ...•xa4.

Dragons

11.txd4 e5! 12 J..xe5lbxe4 13lbxe4 .txe5 and Black has the advantage. Whίte's best move is 10 f3 but trίcks are stίlllurkίng, for example 10...lbh5 11 f4?? lbxf4! 12 :xf4 lbxd4 13 .txd4 e5 and Black regaίns hίs piece and emerges with a clear advantage) 10...lbxd4 11.txd4. Now 11 ...lbxe4?? 12 .txg7 Φχg7 13 lbxe4 .txe4 14 .d4+ WΊns a piece for Whίte. However, Black can avoid thίs pitfall and stίll devour the e4-pawn by 11 ....th6! (dίagram Ι), when the rook and the e4-pawn are both attacked.

w

DίagramH

Though tactίcal play is not a promί­ nent feature of the Maroczy Bind, it can arίse if Whίω is not pa)'ing close attentίon: 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 l&6 3 d4 cxd4 4lbxd4 g6 5 c4 J..g7 6 J..e3lbf6 7 lbc3 ο-ο 8 .te2 b6 9 0-0 .tb7 10 :Cl? (another error is 10 .d2? lbxd4

DίagramI

1 Classical Lines: White plays iιe2 Quite often White will aνoid the ίηαι­ ofthe maίn lίnes ofthe Acceler,Itcd Dragon by trying ιο transpose ίπto the CΙassical Dragon (usually rcached by 1 e4 c5 2lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .te2) with a ιιuίck .te2. Black, of course, can allow this, but he can also attempt Ιο proνe that the Accelerated moνe-order (putting off ... d7-d6) makes Black's Iifc easy due ιο the possibίlity of pushing his d-pawn two squares instead of one. ι:;ιcίes

Ι e4 c5 2 tbf3lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4lbxd4 ιt65lbc3

The usual moνe. Note that 5 .te3, trying Ιο trίck Black ίηΙο a lίne of the Maroczy Bind that he may ηοΙ haνe intended Ιο play (by 5 .te3 .tg7 6 c4)
in mίnd.

White can also consider 5lbb3 with Lhe intention of only playing lbc3 after Black has played ... lbf6, blockίng the g7-bishop and stopping an eνentual ... .txc3+. After 5 ... .tg7 6 .te2 (D) Black can try two moνes: Ι) 6 ... d6 7 0-0 .te6 (7 ... .td7 8lbc3 .txc3 9 bxc3 lbf6 10 .td3 'iic7 11 ί4 0-0-0 12 'iie2 h6 13 c4 g5 I/Ζ _I/2 J.S~r­ cnsen-Sloth, Heming 1991) 8 lbc3

Β

(ηοι Ιο be recommended is 8 ί4 'iic8 9 c4 {9.tf3 must be better} 9...a5, when Black already has the more comfortable position; Tone-Mίles, Biel1977 continued 1Ο a4? lbb4 l1lb3d2 ί5! 12 ~hllbf6 13 tbc3 ο-ο 14lbd5 .txd5 15 exd5 e6! 16 dxe6 'ili'xe6 17 .tf3 b 8 18 .txb7lbg4 19 .td5lbxd5 20 cxd5 'iixd5 21 'iib3 'iif7 22 'iixf7+ :xf7 23 Μ :b7 and Black soon conνerted his adνantage into a win) and now: la) 8 ...:c8 9 f4lbf6 giνes us a rare sidelίne οί the normal CΙassical; a sample: 10 ~hl a6 11 .te3 ο-ο 12 .tf3lba5 (12 ... tbd7 13 .tg4 .txg4 14 'iWxg4 tumed ουΙ badly for Black ίη Kupreichik-Larsen, Esbjerg 1988: 14... lbb6 15 'ili'e2lbd7 16 :adllba5 17 lbxa5 'iixa5 18 e5 :fe8 19 'ili'g4 lbb6 20 exd6 exd6 21 .txb6 'ili'xb6 22

14

Accelerated Dragons

~d5 'ikc5 23 c3 ±) 13 lΩd4 J.d7 14 J.gl e5 15 lΩde2 'ike7 16 a4 ':fe8 17 'ikel exf4 18 ~xf4 ~4 19 ~d5 'ikd8 20 b3 ~xd5 1/2-1/2 Zapata-Petursson, St Martin 1992. lb) 8 ... J.xc3 9 bxc3 ~f6 10 J.d3 'ikc7 I1lΩd4 ~5 led Ιο an interesting position ίη the game Caposciutti-Brodsk:y, Cannes-Martinez 1992. Α draw resulted after 12 f4 ~xd3 13 cxd3 'ikxc314~xe6fxe615':bl b616J.b2 'ikc6 17 'ikb3 'ikd7 18 ':bcl ':c8 19 ':xc8+ 'ikxc8 20 ':c 1 'ikd7 21 e5 dxe5 22 J.xe5 ο-ο 23 ':c7 'ikd5 24 'ikxd5 ~xd5 25 ':xa7. 2) 6 ... ~f6 7 ~c3 ο-ο 8 ο-ο and now Black has: 2a) 8...d6 enters the Classical vaήa­ ιίοη of the Dragon after 9 J.e3 or 9 J.g5 (both these lines are outside the scope of this book). 2b) 8 ... b6!? is a Skembήs idea: 9 J.g5 J.b7 10 f4 (10 'ikd2 ':c8! 11 f4 b5! gives Black active play) 1Ο...d6 11 J.f3 lΩd7 12 ':bl ~c5 13 ~d5 f6 14 J.h4 e6 15 ~c3 g5 16 J.g3 gxf4 17 J.xf4 ~5 18 J.g4 'ikc7 19 ~4 ~xg4 20 'ikxg4 ~h8 gives Black reasonable play since 21 ':bdl runs ίηΙο 21 ... f5!, Κοtrοnias-Skembήs, Karditsa 1994. 2c) 8 ... a5! (this tήes Ιο make the most of the Accelerated move-order: Black is still dreaming of a ... d7 -d5 advance) 9 a4 (less challenging is 9 J.g5 a4 10 ~d2 a3 11 b3 'ika5 12 ~b5 d5 with good play for Black, SchlickBrendel, Bundesliga 1993/4) 9 ... ~b4 (D), when White has tήed the following moves: 2cl) 10 J.f3 d6 11 ~5 (also possible is 11 ~4; then Tompa-Hodgson, Copenhagen 1983 saw White get a slight plus after 11 ...J.g4!? 12 J.xg4

{interesting is 12 ~5 ~bxd5 13 J.xg4 ~xe4 14 ~e6 fxe6 15 J.xe6+ ~h8 16 J.xd5 ~xf2! 17 ':xf2 'ikb6 18 J.f3 J.d4 19 'ike2 e5} 12... ~xg4 13 ~db5 ~5 14 ~d5! ':c8?! 15 c3! ;1;; however, as Black Ι wouldn't stay awake nights worrying about 10 J.f3) 11 ... ~fxd5 12 exd5 J.f5 13 c3 ~3 14 J.e3 'ikc8 15 'ikd2 ~5 16 J.e2 ~c4 17 J.xc4 'ikxc4 18 ':a3 ':a6 19 ':dl':b8 20 ~1 b5 21 axb5 ':xb5 22 f3 ':a8 23 J.g5 ':ab8 24 J.xe7 ':xb2 25 'ike3 ':e8 26 g4 ':xe7 27 'ikxe7 'ikc5+ 28 ~hl 'ikf2 0-1 G.GurevichMaήasin, Israel 1992. 2c2) 10 f4?! 'ikb6+! 11 ~hl. Now the simple 11. .. d6 is very comfortable for Black, while 11 ... d5!? 12 e5 ~4 13 ~d4 f6 14 exf6 J.xf6 15 J.e3 ~xc3 16 bxc3 ~c6 17 ':bl 'ikc5 18 ':b5 'ikd6 19 J.f3 e6 20 g3 'ika3 21 ':b3 'ikxa4 22 ~b5 J.d7 23 J.c5 ~e7 24 ~d4 'ikc4 led Ιο enormous complications ίη B.Lengyel-Silman, Budapest 1994 (eventually 0-1). 2c3) 10 ~hl d5 11 e5 ~412 f4 f6 13 exf6 exf6 14 ~b5 f5 15 c31ίX6 16 J.e3 J.e6 led Ιο a game with even chances ίη Zapata-La Flair, New York 1993.

Classicαl

Unes: White plαys .i.e2

2c4) 10 .*.g5 h6 (10...d6 transposes Karpov's Varίation of the Classical Dragon) 11 .*.Μ g5 12 .*.g3 d5 13 cx.d5 (White also fails to get anything after 13 e5 tDe4 14 ΙOxe4 dxe4, when 15 ΙOc5 is answered by the obvious 15 ....*.f5 and 15lOd4 Wb6 16 c3 :'d8 ίι; a bit better for Black) 13 ... ΙOfxd5 (it might be even better to play 13 ....tf5! 14lOd4 .tg6; Fishbein-Hodgson, Stavanger 1989 led to a pawn-up endgame for BIack after 15 .tc4 :'c8 16 .i.b3 ΙOfxd5 17 ΙOxd5 lbxd5 18 :'el ΙOb4 19 .te5 lbxc2! 20 .txc2 .txc2 21 ΙOxc2 "xd122 :'axdl :'xc2 23 g3 c6) 14lbxd5lbxd5 15 c3 (15 "d2 e6! 16 c3 "b6 17lOd4 .td7 18lbb5 :'ad8 ίι; equal) 15 ...lbf4 (more accurate than 15 ...e5 16.i.f3 ΙOb6 17 "xd8 :'xd8 18 :'fdl :'xdl+ 19 :'xdl f5 20 :'d8+ Φf7 21 .th5+ ~e7 22 :'e8+ ~d6 23 :'g8, which favoured White ίη Balashov-Winants, Eupen 1994) 16 .txf4 (or 16 .tb5 "b6 17 .txf4 gxf4 18 "h5 e5, ΟnΟΡήenkο-Silman, Parduhice 1994) 16... gxf4 17 "xd8 :'xd8 18 :'fdl.te6 19 :'xd8+ :'xd8 20 :'dl :'xdl+ 21.txdl b6 and the two bishops give Black a slight ρυΙΙ, PinskiSίlman, Pardubice 1994. 5•••.*.g7 (D)

15

ίηΙο

Now we will explore: 6 ΙOb3 15 11: 6 .*.e3 17 Λ:

Α)

6 ΙOb3 .*.xc3+!? The only problem with the 6 lbb3 Inove-order is that Black has the ορ­ ιίση of the double-edged continuation 6....*.xc3+!? After 7 bxc3 ΙOC6 Black

w

has compromised White's pawn strυc­ ture but has 10st his important darksquared bishop. Practice has hinted that White's chances are sυpeήοr but Grandmaster Suba has published some analysis ίη which he tήes ιο show that Black has good chances. Α completely different idea was seen ίη Toπe-N.Nikolic, Lugano 1989, where Black came υρ with 6 ... ΙOf6 7 .*.e2 ο-ο 8 ο-ο e6!? (we prefer 8 ... a5!, as examined in the note ΙΟ White's 5th move). Though it succeeded ίη its οήginal outing, we doubt if Black can achieve equality against accurate play: 1) Black gets a satisfactory game after 9 .*.g5 h6 10.*.h4 g5 11 .*.g3 d5 12 exd5 ΙOxd5 13 ΙOxd5 exd5 14 :'bl a5 15 a4.i.f5 16 .*.d3 .*.xd3 17 "xd3 ΙOb4 18 "d2 d4 followed by .....d5. 2) 9 "d61De8 10 "g3 (10 "d3 a5 - N.Nikolic) 10...lbb4 11 .*.g5?! (Velickovic gives 11 .tdl!? d5 12 a3 ΙOC6 13 exd5 exd5 14.tf3 followed by :'dl ~) 11 ... f6 12 .*.f4 ΙOxc2 13 :'acl ΙOb4 14 :'fdl ΙOC6 15lbb5 ~h8 16lOd6 e5 17 .*.e3 ΙOxd6 18 :'xd6 "e8 19 "h4 lbd8 20 .*.c4 b6! 21 :'cdl :'b8 22 .*.d2 :'b7 23 .*.a6 :'c7 24 .*.xc8 :'xc8 25 .*.c3 :'c7 26 lbd2 1De6 27 ΙOf1 ΙOf4

16

Accelerated Dragons

28:6d2"e6 29 ια3 "xa2 and Whίte was not able to generate suffιcient compensation for the sacήficed mate-

Β

ήal.

3) 9 .i.e3! d5 1Ο exd5 lt3xd5 11 lt3xd5 followed by c3 and domination of d4 gives White a sma11 but lasting edge. 7 bxc3lM6 8 .i.d3 Altemative moves also deserve attention: 1) 8 .i.c4 and now: la) 8...0-09 .i.h6 and now 9... lί)xe4 10 .i.xf8 'W'xf8 gives Black full compensation for the sacήficed exchange. lb) 8 ...1t3xe4!? 9 .i.xf7+ ΦΧf7 10 'W'd5+ e6 11 "xe4 d5 can also be considered. lc) 8...lί)e59.i.e2d51O.i.h6dxe4 11 "xd8+ ΦΧd8 12 :dl+ Φe8 13 lί)c5 ~ed7 14 .i.b5 a6 15 .i.xd7+ ~xd7 16lί)xe4 f6 17 ο-ο Φf7 led to a better ending for Black ίη RaasteWedberg, Helsinki 1983. 2) 8 "e2 (an ugly move that hopes Ιο answer 8... d5 with 9 e5) 8...'W'c7 9 f4 d6 and the white pawns soon become targets - Suba. 3) 8 c4!? (a very interesting gambit) 8...~xe4 9 .i.h6 d6 10.i.d3lί)c5 11 ο-ο .i.e6 12 'W'd2 'W'c7 13 ~xc5 dxc5 14 'W'e3lί)b4 IS .i.g71t3xd3 16 .i.xh8lί)b4 17 :adl :d8 18 .i.e5 'W'c6 19 'W'h6 .i.xc4 20 'W'f8+ Φχf8 21 :xd8+ "e8 22 .i.g7+ Φχg7 23 :xe8 .i.xf1 24 ΦΧf1 Φf6 =Imanaliev- Yυr­ taev, Frυnze 1987. 8 •••dS 9 exdS "xdS 100-0 (D) 10•••0-0 The usual move, but results have been qώte good for Whίte. Because of this, Black should give seήουs consideration to the following ideas:

1) 10....i.g4!? and now 11 f3 .i.f5 12 c4 "d7 13 ~5 fails to 13 .....d4+, so Whίte should play 11 c4!. 2) 10....i.f5!? (a straightforward recommendation by Grandmaster Suba) 11 c4 "d7 12 ~c5 "c8 (ίη PetersSilman, Los Angeles 1992, Black tήed 12.....c7 and after 13 .i.b2 responded very aggressively with 13...1t3g4 14 g3 ~eS?; unfortυnately, this rebounded after 1S .i.xf5 gxf5 16 lt3d3 0-0-0 17 "e2 lt3xc4 18 .i.xh8, when Black didn't have enough for the lost exchange) 13 .i.h6 (οτ 13 .i.xf5 "xf5 14 lt3xb7 ο-ο with good play and not 14...:b8 15 :bl "c8 16 lt3d6+! Suba) 13 ...1t3g4 14 .i.g7 :g8 15 .i.c3 "c7 16 g3 0-0-0 17 :bl b6 18 ~6 "b719c5~e5::Ι:Sυba.

11 :el White's οήgίna1 move here was 11 c4, when 11 .....h5 12 "xh5 ~xh5 13 :el :e8 14lt3c5! f5!? (14 ...1t3g7 has been suggested by Razuvaev) 15 .i.e2! leaves Black under pressure, VogtGarcia Martinez, Leipzig 1983. Ιι seems better to answer 11 c4 with 11 .....d6!. The continuation of Bokυchava-Rash­ kovsky, USSR 1971 didn't demonstrate any difficulties for Black: 12

Classical Lines: White plαys .te2 .i.b2 ~g4 13 g3 ~ge5 14 .e2 ~xd3 15 cxd3 .i.h3 16 .IIfel e5 =. Α quiet move deSΊgned to take away ιhe g4-square from the black pieces is II h3!? Tolnai-Chernikov, Debrecen Ι 988 continued 11 ...lbe5 12 .ιe2.χdΙ Ι 3 'IIxd 1 ~4 14 .i.h6 ~xc3 15 .i.xf8 ~xdl 16 .i.xe7llE3 17 .i.f1 (Whίte's two bishops will torment Black for a long time) 17...Wg7 18.i.b4 ~d5 19 .i.d2 .ιf5 20 .IIel f6 21 c4 ~b6 22 .i.c3 .IId8 23 f4 ~xc4 24 g4 .ιd3 25 g5 ΦίΒ 26 .ιΧf6 :d5 27 .ιg2 :b5 28 .i.xb7 ~a5 29 J..a6 :xb3 30 axb3 .txa6 31 .IIal and White won οη the 39thmove. 11••• .ιι4 12 c4! Α strong reply. However, Whίte can also consider the sίmple 12.d2, when Zapata-Garcia Martinez, Sagua la Grande 1984 showed that Black stil1 has dίfficulties to overcome: 12...:008 (l2 ....IIfd8!?) 13 'iff4! ~ 'it'h5 14 h3 .tc8 15 c4! ~e8 16 .ιb2 f6 (bad is 16...~g7 17 'IIxe7 ~xe718 'it'f6.h6 19 g4 Wh8 20 g5 ~B8 21 gxh6 ~xf6 22 .ιΧf6 - Zapata) 17 .te4 e5 18 We3 ~d6?! (18 ... ~c7, with the idea of 19 .txc6?! bxc6 20 "xa7 ~6, is betterZapata) 19 .td5+ Wh8 20 f4. Black is suffeήng ίη this position. 12•••"d6 13 'it'd2 'IIad8 14 "g5! J..c8! 15 .ιΙ4 White is clearly better due Ιο the acιίνίΙΥ of his bishop paίr. LjubojevicKi.Georgiev, Thessaloniki OL 1988 continued 15 ...•d7 16 h3! ~h5! 17 ~5 .d4 18 .ιc7 ::r.de8 and now Georgiev gives 19 .llabl! b6! (19 ...h6?? 20 "xh6 .xc5 21 :b5 .d4 22 :xh5 is winning for Whίte) 20 ~b3 'it'd7 21 .th2 followed by c5 with a very unpleasant position for Black.

17

Β) 6.ιe3 ~Ι6 (D)

w

7.te2 Altematives that lead Ιο οήgίnal play: 1) 7 ~b3 a5!? (7 ...0-0 is also good, with a likely transpoSΊtion ίηto section Β5 of this chapter) 8 .i.b5 0-0 9 ο-ο a4 10 ~xa4 (Whίte avoided 10 .ιχa4 because of 10...~xe4 11 .i.xc6 ~xc3) 1O...~xe4 11 ~b6 .IIb8 12 c3 f5 13 f4 e6 14 a4 d5 15 a5 g5 16 .ιχc6 bxc6 17 fxg5 e5 with good compensation for ιhe sacήficed pawn, Sisov-Kotkov, USSR 1954. 2) 7 f4 and now: 2a) 7... d6 8 ~xc6 (the start of a self-destructive tirade; the sane 8 .ιe2 leads ιο normal main lines of the C1assical) 8...bxc6 9 e5 ~g4 10.ιΒΙ dxe5 11 Wxd8+ Wxd8 120-0-0+ Wc7 13 h3 ~6 14 'IIel ~f5 15 fxe5 ~B3 and Whίte wil1 have ηο compensation for the mateήal he is about ιο lose, Vooremaa-Pohla, USSR 1967. 2b) NaturaIIy, 7...0-0 is also fully playable. Now the thrust 8 e5 should ηοι lead ιο anything after 8... ~8 9

18

Accelerated Dragons

"f3 d6! (a little too accommodating is 9 ... ~xd4? 10 J.xd4 d6 11 0-0-0"a5 12 "d5 "c7 13 exd6 ~xd6 14 J.xg7 Φχg7 15 "d4+ f6 16 ~d5 ;t PilnikCasas, Mar del Plata 1958) 10 ~xc6 bxc6 11 "xc6 J.d7, when Black's lead ίη development and active pieces fully compensate him for the lost pawn. Instead of 8 e5, White can play the more restrained 8 J.e2, when 8 ... d6 will usua11y lead to some main lines of the Classica1. Το avoid this transposition, Black can answer 8 J.e2 with 8... d5!? This can be found ίη secNow White has severa1 moves that ιίοη Β4 of thίs chapter. he can choose from: 3) 7 h3 0-0 8 "d2 d5 9 exd5 ~xd5 ΒΙ: 8 h4? 18 10 ~xc6 bxc6 11 J.d4 J.xd4 12 "xd4 Β2: 8"<12? 18 19 "a5 13 "a4 "b6 14 ~dl J.f5 15 c3 Β3: 80-0 25 e5 16 J.a6 :ad8 17 ο-ο ~f4 =F Sa1- 84: 8Ι4 taev-Serper, Tashkent 1987. BS: 8~b3 28 4) 7 f3 0-0 8 J.c4 "b6 transposes into variatrions that arise after 1 e4 c5 .Β1) 2 ~f3 ~6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 8h4? lbc3 J.g7 6 J.e3 ~6 7 J.c4 0-0 8 f3 With Black ready Ιο strike ίη the 1Vb6, and can be found ίη Chapter 2 of centre, White has neither positiona1 thίs book. nor tactica1 justification for thίδ ag7•••0-0 (D) 7 ... d5? ίδ a mίstake at thίδ point: 8 gressive sa11y. 8...d5! 9lDxc6 bxc6 10 exd5lDxd5 J.b5! J.d7 9 exd5 ~b4 10 J.c4 :c8 (even worse is 10.....a5 11 ~b3 "c7 11 ~d5 cxd5 12 c3 e5 Black already has an excellent 12 J.e2 J.f5 13 ~4:d8 14 d6 "xd6 15 ~xf5 "xdl+ 16 J.xdl gxf5 17 game, Lepikhίn-Zaίtsev, USSR 1958. J.xa7, Filipowicz-Gasiorowski, Wro- After 13 "d2 d4 14 :dl :e8 15 J.h6 claw 1967) 11 J.b3 "a5 12 "d2 J.xh6 16 "xh6 :b8 17 h5 g5, Black's :Xc3!? 13 bxc3~xd514J.xd5~d5 threats of 18...:xb2 and 18...:b6 made 15 c4, Black has some, but ηο! enough, ίι clear that White's opening play was compensation for the exchange, Ρίιiρ­ a disaster. owicz-Borkowski, Polish Ch 1976. The continuation was 15 .....xd2+ 16 Β2) ΦΧd2 ~b617 c5 ~a418 :abl ~xc5 19 f3 ο-ο 20 ~b3 ~a4 21 ~5! ±. Ιη 8"d2? Α commonly played mίstake. genera1, Black should play ... d5 only 8...d5gexd5 after he hιis castled!

Classicαl

Unes: White plαy! ~e2

9lΩxc6 bxc6 10 e5lΩd1 (also good is 1O...lΩg4 ll.i.xg4 .i.xg4 12f4 f6 13 exf6 .i.xf6 14 .i.d4 e5) 11 f4 e6 12 lΩa4? lΩxe5! 13 fxe51Wh4+ is a tήck that's wel1 worth remembeήng. 9...lΩxd5 10 lΩxdS White might be wel1 advised to keep his disadvantage down to a minimum by 10 lΩxc6 bxc6 11 :dl .i.e6! 12 .i.d4 .i.xd413 Wxd4 Wa5! 14 Wa4 .b6 15 Wa3 :fb8!, when Black was just a little better ίη Barczay-Adorjan, Budapest 1918. 10•••lΩxd4 This wins mateήal. Black also has a lot of fun with 1O...•xd5 11 .t.f3 Wc4 (οι 11 ...We5! 12 lΩxc6 bxc6 13 ο-ο ~a6 14 :fdl Wxb2 15 ~xc6 :ac8 16 ~e4 We5 with advantage Ιο Black ίη Sampouw-Rogers, Manila 1919) 12 ~e2 (better is 12 lΩxc6 bxc6 13 b3 .a6 14 :dl ~f5 =F Vaskan-Faibisovich, USSR 1961) 12...Wd5 13 ~o .e5 14lΩxc6 bxc6 15 ~xc6 ~a6! 16 c3 (16 ~xa8 Wxb2 threatens to win the rook by 11 ...•xal and the queen by 11 ... ~c3) 16...:fd8 11 Wcl :ac8 18 f4 Wa5 19 .t.f3 ~xc3+! 20 bxc3 %:ιχc3 21 Φf2 :dd3 22 Wb2 %:ιχe3 23 :hel _c5 24 Φg3 e5 25 Wb8+ Φg1 26 fxe5 ~e2! 21 e6 :xf3+ 28 gxf3 :xf3+ 29 Φg2 :f2+ 30 Φh3 .h5+ 0-1 Ekstrom-Cvitan, Bem 1988. l1~xd4

More suicidal than greedy is 11 lΩxe1+? .xe1 12 ~xd4 ~xd4 13 • xd4 :e8 14 .e3 _b4+ 15 Wc3 (15 c3 Wa4 16 Wd4 Wa6 11 'ΙΜ2 .t.g4 gives Black a winning attack) 15.....e4! 16 We3 Wc6, and Black's attack shοώd prove decisive. 11•••"xd5 12 .t.xg7 "xg2! 13 0-0-0

19

13 Wd4 e5! 14 Wxe5 Wxhl+ 15 for Black. 13•••ΦΧι' 14 (D) Οι 14 h4 .t.f5 15 h5 :ac8 16.t.d3 (16 c3 "e4) 16...~xd3 11 Wxd3 Wxf2 18 :d2 Wf4 19 ΦbΙ :fd8 20 Wxd8 :xd8 21 :xd8 g5 22 h6+ Φf6 23 :h8 .f3 24 :el Φg6 25 a3 e6 26 :f8 g4 21 :gl ΦΧh6 and Black's kingside pawns did a victory march down the board ίη Fuller-Miles, London 1915. Φd2 :d8+ wins

"e3

Β

14.....c6 15 ~d3 "e6! Also possible is 15....t.e6 16 h4 h5 11 :hgl ~g4 with a large black plus, Crepeaux-Glatmann, Vama 1912. 16 "d4+ "r6 17 "e3 .i.e6 with a clear advantage for Black ίη IgnacioDonaldson, Anaheim 1985. The contίnuatίon was 18 ΦbΙ :ad8 19 f4 Wd4 20 Wcl .c5 21 :del :d4 22 f5 ~xa2+ 23 Φχa2 :a4+ 24 ΦbΙ .a5 and Black won quickly.

83) 80-0 Very often played but ίι leads nothing since Black is allowed equalize with 8...d1-d5.

Ιο Ιο

20

Accelerαted Drαgons

8...d5! (D) The most straightforward way ιο soIve Black's 'problems'. 8 ... d6Ieads Ιο main Iines ίη the Classical Dragon, which are aIso compIeteIy acceptabIe forBlack.

gexd5 We get the folIowing possibilities after 9 ~xc6 bxc6: 1) 10 e5 and now: la) 10 ...lOe8 11 f4 f6 12 exf6 exf6 13 ~a4 ~d6 is uncIear. lb) 10...~e4 11 lOxe4 dxe4 12 "xd8 :Xd8 13 :fdl .i.e6 14 .i.d4.11d7 (14 ... c5!?) 15 a4;t Short-YrjoIίi, Manίla OL 1992. lc) ΙO...lDd7 11 f4 e6 12 ~a4 (ιοο loosenίng is 12 b4 f6 {12 ... a5 13 a3 .i.a6 14 b5 cxb5 15lOxb5 :b8 16 :bl ~xb517 ~xb5"c718c4~b619c5 ~c8 20 c6lOa7 21 a4 :fc8 22 'ifc2 obVΊousIy

favours White, Dietze-BalE.German Ch 1976} 13 b5 fxe5 14 bxc6 exf4 15 .i.xf4 "b6+ 16 hl "xc6 17 ~b5 .i.xa118 "xal e5 19 -*.xe5 :xf1 + 20 .i.xf1 ~xe5 21 "xe5 "e6 22 "g5 .i.b7 23lDd4:f8 24 gl .i.a6! 0-1 Felix-Polak, cοπ 1968) 12 ...f6 (12 .....e7 13 c4 f6 14 orίkowskί.

exf6.i.xf6 15 "d2 :d8 16 :fdl -*.b7 17 :acl d4 ;: Zhukhoviιsky-A.Zait­ sev, USSR 1962) 13 exf6 (13 ~5 "e7 14 ~xd7 -*.xd7 15 "d4 :tb8 16 b3 a5 17 c4 a4 ;: Desch-Donaldson, Portland 1979) 13 .....xf6 14 c3 (14 c4!?) 14.....e7 Fechner-Donaldson, Heidelberg 1979. 2) 10 .i.f3 e6 11 "d2 a5 12 :adl a4 13 :fel 'if'a5 14 e5 ~d7 15 .i.h6 .i.xh6 16 'if'xh6 :b8 17 :d4 :b4 ± Reffer-Donaldson, USA Today Sporιs Simultaneous 1990. 3) 10 exd5 cxd5 (10... lOxd5 transposes Ιο lines that arίse from 9 exd5 lOxd5 10 lOxc6) 11 -*.d4 e6 12 a4 a5 13lOb5 .i.a6 14 c3l[)e4! 15 .i.e3 :e8 16 :el "b8 17 .i.d3 ~d618 'if'e2 e5 and Black has the SUΡeήοr position, Pίlnik-T.Petrosian, Saltsjobaden ΙΖ 1952.

=

After 9 exd5 Black has: B3a: 9•••~b4 20 B3b: 9•.. ~xd5 22

83a) 9..•lOb4!? (D)

Classical Unes: White p1ays .*.e2 Though 9 ...lDxd5 gives Black an casier game, the complίcatίons that arise after 9 ...lDb4 should appeal Ιο the player ίη search of a tactίcal fight. lOd6 The accepted 'antίdote', but Whίte does have other choices: Ι) 10 ltlb3!? and then: la) 10...ltlfxd5 11 ltlxd5 ltlxd5 ('/2-!f2 Garcia Martίnez-Antunes, BayίΙΜΟ 1990) 12 .td4ltlf6 (12 ... ltlf4 13 i.f3 .txd4 14 "xd4 ;t Korchnoi) 13 i.f3 'fIc7 14 :el i.f5 15 c3 :ac8 16 'it'e2 :fe8 17 i.e5 ;t Hoen-Soos, Luccrne 1979. lb) Ιι may be preferable Ιο try 10 ... i.f5!? 11 :cl ltlbxd5 12 ltlxd5 lΔxd5 13 i.d4 i.h6, Anceschi-Makropoulous, Groningen 1972. Whίte now played 14 c3?! and after 14....txcI15 1Wxc 1 Black could have got a clear advantage with 15 ... f6! 16 :dl (even worse is 16 .tc4? :c8 17 ltld2 :xc4 18lDxc4.td3) 16.....c7. 2) 10 .tf3ltlfxd5 11lDxd5ltlxd5 12 i.g5 h6 (12 ... ltlf6 was PostlerBaumbach, Germany 1983) 13 .th4 ltlf4 14 c3 (14 .tg3 e5 15 .txf4 exf4 16 c3 "b6 17 "b3 i.xd4 18 cxd4 1Wxd419 :acl.te6 20:fdl.txb3 21 :xd4 .txa2 22 .txb7 :ab8 23 :c7 :fd8 24 :xd8+ :xd8 25 .tf3 :d2 26 :xa7 :xb2 was eventually drawn ίη Ηan-Skembήs, Balkan 1994) 14 ... g5 Ι 5 i.g3 e5 16 .txf4 gxf4 17lDb5 1Wb6 Ι 8 c4 .tf5 19 J.d5 :ad8 20 "b3 e4 21 :ael "g61ed to a VΊctory for Black ίn Bachmayr-Apicel1a, Munίch 1992. 3) 10 1Wd2ltlbxd5 11 lDxd5ltlxd5 12 i.h6 J.xh6 (also good is 12...e5 13 J.xg7 ~xg7 14ltlf3ltlf4 15 "e3 f6) 13 _xh6 'iVb614lDb3 Thίele-Baum­ bach, cοπ 1983-8.

=

21

4) 1Ο lDf3 ltlfxd5 11 ltlxd5 ltlxd5 12 J.d4 ~f4 13 J.xg7 ~xg7 14 :el J.g4 15 h3 ltlxe2+ 16 "xe2.txf3 17 _xf3 "c7 18 :e2 e6 S.Nikolίc­ Abramovic, Cacak 1991. lO.....xd6 11 tαb5 Ιnfeήοrίs 11lDdb5?! "b812.tc5 (12 J.f3 a6 {12 ...1Dc6} 13 J.c5 1Dc6 14 ltld4lDxd4 15 .txd4 :d8 16lDd5 ltlxd5 17 J.xg7 ~xg7 18 c4 J.e6 19 cxd5 .txd5 20 "e2 J.xf3 was Βοη­ ham-Freeman, cοπ 1964-5) 12 ...1Dc6 13 .tf3 a6 14ltld4? lDxd4 15 J.xd4 (15 "xd4? ~g4) 15 ...:d8 16 :el ~g4! 17 ~d5 "xh2+ 18 ~f1 "h4! 19 J.e3? (also bad is 19lDxe7+ ~h8 20 c3 :xd4 with a quick win for Black; White should try 19 ~gl! but after 19... h5! he should stίlllose: 20 ~xe7+ ~h7 21 c3 :xd4 22 cxd4 "xf2+ 23 ~hl J.xd4 - analysis by Tsouros) 19... ~xe3+ 20 :xe3 e6 21 g3 "c4+ 22 ~gl exd5 and Whίte suffered for a few more moves before resignίng ίη Bouaziz-Balaskas, Caorle 1975. 11...-.ιιs (D) 11 .....d7 doesn't have a good reputatίon: 12 c4 a6 13 "a4 (the οηlΥ good move; much worse is 13 1Dc3 e5 14 ~b3 "c7 15 lDd5 ~bxd5 16 cxd5 :d8 17 :cl "d6 18 "c2 ~xd5 19 :fdl .tf5 20 "d2 "e7 21 J.g5 J.f6 22 J.xf6 "xf6 23 "a5 lDf4, Seπas­ Frois, Oviedo rapid 1991) 13 ... ltlc6 14 :adl :b8, Bartίs-YudoVΊch, cοπ 1971 and now 151Dc3 (better than the actual game contίnuatίon of 15 ~f3 axb5 16 cxb5 "e8 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 J.d4 J.e6 19 J.c4 c5 20 "xe8 :fxe8 21 .txe6 cxd4) 15 ...lDxd4 16 J.xd4 with a slίght advantage for Whίte.

=

12c4

22

Accelerated Dragons

12 "cl a6 13 lbc3lCιbd5 14lCιxd5 = Minev-Keres, Munich OL 1958.

12•••fΔc6 Also reasonable is 12... a6 13lCιc3 (13 "b3 axb5 14 "xb4 bxc4 15 "xc4 e5 16lCιb3 .i.e6 17 'iVb5 .i.d7 18 "d3 .i.c6 19 :fdl 00 20 .i.c5 :e8 21 f3 e4 22 fxe4 lCιί4 tumed out well for Black ίη Binder-Felegyhazi, Debrecen 1995) and here: 1) 13 ...e514lCιf3 .i.f515 .i.c5 :d8 16 "b3 seems to give White some advantage: 16...a5 (16...lCιd317 .i.e7:C8 18 .i.xf6 lCιc5 19 .i.xg7! lCιxb3 20 .i.xe5 "a7 21 axb3 :d8 22lCιd5 is bad for Black, Litvinov-Mukhin, USSR 1962) 17 :adl! .i.c218 J:Σxd8+ "xd8 19 "a3lbc6 20:cl.i.f5 21 :dllCιd7 22.i.e3;tRadulov-Defe, Vdac 1971. lb) 13 .....c7 14 "b3 (14 :cl Ι?) 14...lCιc6 15 lCιxc6 bxc6 (Black has equalized) 16 "a3 :e8 17 .i.c5 :b8 18 .i.f3 .i.e6 19 "xa6? lCιd7! 20.i.a3 lCιe5 21 .i.e4 :a8 22 lCιb5 "d7 23 "'b6 :ab8 24 .i.xc6 ι!LJxc6 and Black went οη to win ίη Gounder-Balaskas, Caorle 1975. 13 lαι:c6 Quiet moves such as 13 h3 allow Black to develop easily with 13....i.d7.

Also lame is 13 "b3lCιxd4 14.i.xd4 a6 15 ι!LJc3 lCιg4! ; (analysis by Αη­ dres). 13•••bxc614lCιd4 Estevez-Andres, Cuban Ch 1984/5, and now instead οί 14 ......xb2?! 15 lCιxc6 .i.e6 which allows 16lCιxe7+! ~h8 17 .i.d4 'iVb7 18lCιd5! lCιxd5 19 .i.xg7+~xg720.i.f3! J:Σad8 21 "d4+ ~g8 22 :fdl :d6 23 cxd5 :fd8 24 "h4! .i.xd5 25 .i.xd5 :xd5 26 "xd8+!, Black should play 14.....c7! with equality according to Estevez. Is this assessment true? 14 ....i.d7 was played ίη Yanofsky-Benko, Stockholm ΙΖ 1962. After 15.i.f3 "c7 (this position could also have occuπed via 14......c7 15 .i.f3 .i.d7) 16 ι!LJb3 :fd8 17lbc5 .i.f5 18 "e2 e5 19 g4 .i.d7 20 :adl h6 21 b4 .i.e8 22 b5 :xdl 23 :xdl :c8 24 a4 White enjoyed a clear advantage.

B3b) 9•••lαι:d5 (D)

w

10lαι:d5 1Ο ι!LJxc6 bxc6 11 .i.d4 (better is 11 lCιxd5 cxd5 12.i.f3 e6 13 .i.d4 .i.a6 14

Classical Lines: White plays .te2 IΣel

with about an even position; ίη Djura§evic-Matanovic, Zagreb 1953 Black had to use some care to hold the balance after 14...IΣc8 15 ~xg7 ~xg7 16 'ifd4+ 'iff617 'ifa4 ~b718 'ifxa7 ~a8 19 c3 e5 20 'ife3 d4 21 'ifxe5 "xe5 22 IΣxe5 ~xf3 23 gxf3 dxc3 24 IΣe2 IIfd8 25 IΣc2 cxb2 26 IIxb2 1Id3 =) 11 ...tDxc3 12 bxc3 ~e6 13 ~xg7 ~xg7 14 'ifd4+ 'ifxd4 15 cxd411ab8 is qώte unpleasant for White, Stubenrauch-Donaldson, Grants Pass 1989. 10.....xdS! Probably best. The uninspiring (but solid) 10...tDxd4 strives for (and usually achieves) ηο more than a draw: 1) 11 c4 e5 and Black is completely equal. 2) 11 .ι.c4 (Black now finds himself under some pressure and he must defend carefully) 11 ...tDc6'? (natural but bad; coπect is 1l ...e5! 12 c3 ~e6! =) 12 ~g5 ~e6 13 IΣel1le8 14 c3 h6 15 ~h4 g516~g3 tDa5 (this turnsout badly but 16...lIc8 17 IΣxe6! fxe6 18 tDc7 is also very much ίη White's favour) 17 ~c7 tDxc4 18 ~xd8 lIaxd8 19 tDxe7+ ~ίB 20 1t'b3 IIxe7 (the altemative 20 ...ti)e5!'? 21 "xb7 lIxe7 might warrant a look) 21 IIxe6 tDd2 22 IIxe7 tDxb3 23 IΣael ti)c5 2411c7 tDd3 25 IIdl b5 26 IΣxa7 b4 27 cxb4 ~d4 28 IIc7 lIe8 29 IId7 lIe4 30 g3 ~xt2+ 31 ~ tDxb2 32 IIld2 and, ίη London-T.Taylor, Manhattan 1985, White went οη to wίo. 3) 11 ~xd4 (White aims for an ending ίη which his queenside pawn majοήtΥ gives him ώΙ the chances ίο a position that should be drawn with bestplay) 11 .....xd512~xg7 ..xdI13 IΣfxdl ~xg7. In this bοήng position White has tried:

23

3a) 14 c4 .ι.e6 15 c5 a5 (a1so possible is 15 ...lIad8!'? 16.ι.f3 IΣxdl+ 17 IIxdl IIc8) 16~f3 IΣac81711ac1 IIc7 18 IIc3 IΣfc8 19 IΣdc 1 IΣd8 20 a3 a4 21 IΣdl IIdc8 221Σdcl IΣd8 23 IIdl1Σdc8 24l1dcllΣd8 1/2 _lh M.Brooks-Donaldson, Columbus 1990. 3b) 14 IΣd2 .ι.f5 15 lIadl lIac8 16 c4 .ι.e6 17 b3 IIc7 18 f4 a5 19 ~t2 lIa8 is equa1, Zso.Polgar-Moldovan, Budapest-Bucharest 1990. 3c) 14 ~f3 ~e6 (14 ....ι.f5! is more active: 15 c4 IΣac8 16 b3 IIc7 171Σd5 ~e6 18 IΣd411fc8 19 IΣadl a6 20 ~d5 ~xd5 21 IIxd5 e6 22 IId6 b5 =Wedberg-Donaldson, Athens 1980) 15 b3 1lac8 16 c4 IΣc7 (16...b6 17 1Id2 IIfd8 18 lIadl IΣxd2 19 IIxd2 IIc7 20 ~f1 left White with a small edge, which he managed to convert Ιο victory ίη Radu1ov-Neumann, Κie11978) 17 h3 (17~f1 IIb818~el b519cxb511xb5 20 llacl IΣbc5 =Rantanen-Miilά, ΙΜ­ venpaa 1982) 17 ...~d7 18 IΙd2.ι.c6 19 .ι.χc6 bxc6 20 lIadl h5 21 ~f1 ~f6 22 ~e2 ~e6 23 IΣd8 IIxd8 24 1Ixd8 ~f5 25 ~d3 e5 =Radulov-Rajkovic, Vdac 1973. 11.ι.f3 (D)

The usual move, though 11 tDxc6 can also be considered: 11 .....xc6 12 c3 .i.e6 13 .i.f3 1t'b5 14 "c2 IIfd8 (14...~d5 gives Black easy equa1ity) 15 a4 "c4 16 a5 (better is 16.ι.χb7 .ι.f5 17 'ifcl lIab8 18 .ι.f3 a5 with compensation for the sacήficed pawn) 16....ι.d5 17 .ι.Χd5 IIxd5 and Black has a slight advantage, Leonard-Donaldson, West Chester 1983. 11.....a5! This nice idea has been know since the game Ravinsky-Lisitsyn, USSR Ch 1944 (1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4

24

Accelerated Dragons

Β

Not to be recommended is the passive 1 1......d7, which leads to a supeήοr endgame for White after 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 c3 ':b8 14 "'xd7 .t.xd7 15 ':fdl .t.e6 16 ':d2, Raduloν-Firnha­ ber, Κiel 1978. 12lί)xOO Altematiνes:

4 ~xd4 ~f6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .t.e2 .t.g7 7 .t.e3 0-0 8 0-0 ~c6 9 h3 d5 10 exd5 ~xd5 11 ~xd5 "xd5 12.t.f3 "a5! with _play as ίη our main line). With 11 ...Wa5 Black gets his queen out of harιn's way and dares White to capture οη c6. If White tries to win a pawn, Black is confident that he wi11 get lots of compensation in the form of actiνe pieces and pressure against the white pawns. For those players who like to explore relatiνely new ideas, 11 ......c4!? deserνes a seήοus look: 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 c3 (13 "d3.t.e614 "xc4.t.xc415 ':fdl .t.xb2 16 ':abl .t.f6 17 .t.xc6 .t.xa2 18 .t.xa8 .t.xbl 19 .t.e4 1/2-1/2 Deli-Aronin, Moscow Central Chess CΙub 1962) 13 ....t.e6 14 :el (14 "c2 a5 15 .t.e2 .t.f5 16 .t.xc4 .t.xc2 17 ':acl .t.f5 18 ':fel .llfe8 19 .t.c5 e5 20 ':cdl ':ab8 21 b4 axb4 22 cxb4.t.f8 1/1 _1h Thomsen-Weemaes, Νονί Sad 1990) 14....llfd815"'e2"xe216':xe2 .t.d5 17 ':cl a5 18 c4?? (Black had a good game ίη any case, but this just tosses a pawn away) 18....t.xc4 19 .llec2 .t.d5 20 b3 e5 and Black won in 35 moνes ίη Short-Chήstiansen, Μοη­ aco Amber rpd 1993.

1) 12 .t.xc6 bxc6 and now: la) 13 ~xc6 "'c7 (already η 14 ~d4 .t.a6 15 ':el ':ad8 16 "g4 .t.c8 17"e4 .t.b7 18 "g4 h5 19 ~b5 "c6 20 "g5 f6 21 "xg6 "xb5 22 .t.h6 ':f7 and Black won ίη Muller-Donaldson, Vancouver 1980. lb) 13 ~b3 (trying to make use of the c5-square) 13 .....c7 14 c3 .t.a6 (also good is 14...a5 15 lbc5 a4 16 ~xa4 ':d8 with the idea of ....t.e6 or ....t.f5 =/;) 15 ':el .llad8 16 "g4':d5 17 "'a4 .t.b5 18 "xa7 "xa7 19.t.xa7 e5 20 ':edl ':a8 21 ':xd5 cxd5 22.t.c5 .t.c4 23 ~ 1 d4 24 b3 .t.e6 and Black won ίη a few moνes ίη Casey-Donaldson, Seaώe 1979. 2) 12 ~b3 "c7 13 c3 .t.f5 14 "'e2 ':ad8 15 ':fdl ~e5 16 ~d4 .t.d7 17 .t.f4 ~xf3+ 18 "xf3 e5 19 .t.g3 "c4 20 "e2 b5 21 "xc4 bxc4 22 ~2 .t.e6 23 f3 a5 gaνe Black a clear adνantage in Rol1-Donaldson, Philadelphia 1983. 3) 12 c3!? (perhaps this is White's safest moνe) 12...~xd4 13 .t.xd4 ':d8 14 "'e2 .t.xd4 15 cxd4 e6 16 ':fdl is equal after 16...'Wb6 17 d5. Notice that 16...':b8 is strongly answered by 17 "e5!. 12••• bxc6 13 "'cl Accepting the sacήfice with 13 .t.xc6? ':b8 giνes Black too much actiνity:

1) 14 b4?! was an οήginal idea that came υρ ίη Mattern-Si1man, North

Clαssical

Lines: White plays .te2

Ameήcan

Open 1991. Unfortunately for White, the cold-bl00ded 14...:Xb4! gives Black the advantage after 15 .i.d2 .txal 16 .xal .c5 17 .txb4 .xb4. 2) 14 .d5 .c7 15 .ta4 :xb2 16 .c5.b7 17 .tb3 .tf5 18 :acl :c8 19 "xa7 .xa7 20 .txa7 .txc2 21 g4 :c3 22 .txc2 :bxc2 23 :xc2 :xc2 led Ιο Black's advantage ίη BasantaDonaldson, Bellingham 1987. 3) 14 .tf4 .ta6 15 :el .txb2 16 Axe7 :fd8 17 .bl.tf6 18 .tc7 .c3 with advantage Ιο Black, SherzerDonaldson, New York 1985. 13•••:b8 14 c3 cS Avoiding 14.....c7 15 .tc5, but 15...:d8 16 :el e5 seems fine for Black. 15.td5 According Ιο Andres, 15 :dl c4! 16 :d5 .a6 17 b4 cxb3 18 axb3 .e6 is unclear. Αη interestίng baώe occurred after 15:el ίη the game Βeceπa-Dίaz, Havana 1992: 15 ...c4 16 .tg5 f6 17 .th6 .txh6 18 .xh6 e5 19 b4 .b6 20 .te4 .tf5 21.txf5 gxf5 22 :adl :bd8 and the threat of ...:d3 made White scramble for the draw. 15•••.tf5 15 ...•b5!? also deserves consid-

25

22 h3 a5 23 "c5!, when Black's pawns have become weaklίngs. 19 .tc4 :cd8 20 hd7 hd7 21 h3 h5 22.te5 Black should be able Ιο achίeve full equality with careful play. EstevezAndres, Sagua la Grande 1987 contίn­ ued 22 ....txe5 23 .xe5 "b6 24 b3 .d6 25 :el (25 .xd6 exd6! {so that :e l-e5 won 'ι be avaίlable Ιο the whίte rook} 26 :dl .te6! =- analysis by Andres) 25 ...•d2 26 a4 (26 :e2 .cl+ 27 ~h2 h4! 28 Ael =) 26....td3! = 27 .txd3 :xd3 28 .xe7 "xc3 and Black had solved all hίs problems.

84) 8Ι4

(D)

eratίon.

16 :dl Afd8 17 .tf4 :bc8 18 .e3! 18 .tc4 poses ηο problems for Black after 18 ...•a4! 19 .tb3 (19 b3 "a5! tums c3 ίηΙο a target) 19.....c6 intendίng 20 ... c4 :; - analysis by Αη­ dres. 18••':d7 Black must avoid 18...c4 19 .tb7! :xdl+ 20 hdl :d8 21 :xd8+ "xd8

8...d6 The simplest way Ιο meet Whίte's advance. With 8 ... d6 Black forces While ίηΙο a main lίne of the Accelerated Dragon (see note after Whίte's ninth move) or ίηΙο a Maίη line of the CΙassical whίch is known as being completely innocuous for Whίte. Less dependable is 8...d5?! 9 e5 l&4 10 1Oxe4 dxe4 l1lOxc6 bxc6 12

26

Accelerαted Drαgons

Wxd8 ':'xd8 13 J.c4, when White has Ιο stand better, a1though TamowskiGheorghiu, Bucharest 1961 proved entertaining: 13 ...':'b8 (13 ... Φf8 14 ο-ο a5 15 J.b6 ;t; 0Iafsson-Larsen, Wageningen 1957) 14 b3 g5 15 J.xa7 ':'a8 16 J.e3 gxf4 17 J.xf4 J.a6 18 J.xa6 ':'xa6 19 Φe2 f6 20 a4 fxe5 21 J.e3 Φf7 22 ':'adl ':'d5 23 ':'hfl + Φe6 24 c4 ':'d4 25 J.xd4 exd4 26 ':'f4 Φe5 27 ':'h4 c5 28 ':'h5+ Φd6 29 ':'xh7 J.f6 30 ':'h5 ':'b6 31 ':'bl ':'b8 32 g3 J.e5 33 ':'h4 e3 34 Φd3 ':'f8 35 b4':'f2 and Black won ίη 57. For those who are loolάng for something different, 8 ... e5!1 might prove interesting: 9 ~b5 exf4 10 J.xf4 lOe8 11 ο-ο lOe5 12 ~5 a6 13 /t)bc3 /t)c7 14 /t)xc7 Wxc7 15 ιαJ5 "d8 16 J.e3 b5 17 J.b6 Wg5 18 J.c5 ':'e8 19 J.e3 Wd8 20 J.b6 Wg5 21 /t)c7 J.b7 22 J.f3 f5! 23 /t)xe8 ':'xe8 with plenty of compensation for the sacrificed exchange. A.Grosar-Zsu.Polgar, PortoroZ/Nova Gοήca 1991 continued 24 Wc 1 (better is 24 exf5 /t)xf3+ 25 ':'xf3 =) 24 ... /t)xf3+ 25 ':'xf3 "f6 26 J.a5 ':'xe4 27 ':'f2 Wh4 28 J.c3 J.h6 29 J.d2 J.f8! 30 J.e3 J.d6 31 g3 J.xg3! 32 ':'g2 (32 hxg3 "hl+!) 32... J.xh2+ 33 Φη Wh3 34 "d2 ':'xe3 0-1. 90-0 The a1temative is 9 /t)b3 (note that the aggressive-looking 9 g41 fails Ιο 9 ... J.xg4 10 J.xg4 /t)xg4 11 "xg4 /t)xd4) but then Black can try the interesting 9... b6!1 (9 ... J.e6 10 ο-ο /t)a5 is the main-line Classical; fully pIayable, of course, but why ηοΙ transpose ίηΙο Accelerated positions that we are a1ready familiar with1) 100-0 (White's sharpest try is 10 g4 J.b7 11 g5/t)d7 12 h4, when 12...ια:51eads to unexplored

play) 10.....c7, when we have transposed ίηΙο the main-line Accelerated (usually coming about by 1 e4 c5 2 /t)f3 ια:6 3 d4 cxd4 4 /t)xd4 g6 5 /t)c3 J.g7 6 J.e3 /t)f6 7 J.c4 Wa5 8 ο-ο ο-ο 9 ~b3 Wc7 1Ο f4 d6 11 J.e2 b6 reaching the same position with an extra number thrown ίη due Ιο .....d8-a5-c7 and J.f1-c4-e2). For those who don't trust 9 /t)b3 b6 for Black ίη this particuIar position, and for those who don't wish Ιο go ίηΙο the main lines of the Classica1 with 10 /t)b3 J.e6, the interesting 9 /t)b3 e5!1 (D) (trying Ιο turn the e5square ίηΙο a home for Black's pieces) might be worth looking ίηΙο:

w

1) 10 "d2 a5! 11 a4 exf4 12 J.xf4 ':'e8 13 J.f3lOe5 is equa1 according Ιο Pachman. 2) 10 ο-ο exf4 11 J.xf4 ':'e8 12 J.f3 (a1so possible is 12 Wxd6 "b6+ 13 Wc5 /t)xe4, Kolpakov-Tukmakov, USSR Spartakiad 1979, when Geller gives 14 /t)xe4 ':'xe4 15 J.d3 as υη­ clear) 12... /t)e5 13 ΦhΙ (13 J.g5!1 might a1so be considered, although 13 ... Wb6+ 14 ΦhΙ J.e6 seems comfortable for Black) 13 ...h6 14 ~4 a6

Clαssicαl

Lines: White plays .te2

15 .i.e2 (15 a4 =) 15 ...b5 16 a4 b4 17 ltld5 (17lba2 .i.b7 18 lbxb4lbxe4 is ηοΙ cIear, but 17 ...Wb6 shouId give BIack an edge according Ιο GoIubev) 17 ... lDxd5 18 exd5 .i.b7 19lbb3 (19 'ifd2 is met by 19 ... Wa5!, when both 20 .i.xe5 dxe5 21 lbc6 .i.xc6 22 dxc6 'iί'c5 and 20 .i.xh6 'ii'xd5! are better ΙΌr BIack) 19 ... :'c8 20 Wd2lDc4! 21 i.xc4 :'xc4 and BIack's two bishops und pressure οη the d5- and b2-pawns give him a cIear advantage, StavichGolubev, USSR 1988. 9.•:'i'b6! (D)

This move is quite strong. The Ihreats of 1O... lDxe4 11 lDxe4 .i.xd4 und 1O... Wxb2 force Whίte Ιο react ίη ways that he didn 't intend to. 10 eS!? Known as the Zollner Gambit, this pawn sacήfice probably isn't compIetely sound. White has quite a few iIItematives: 1) 10 Wd2?? lbxe4!. 2) 10 lbf5? Wxb2 I1lba4 "a3 12 c3lbxe4! 13.i.cllbxc314.i.xa3lbxdl 15 lDxg7 lbe3 and once Black wins the trapped knight οη g7 he will be ιhree pawns up.

27

3) 10 ΦhΙ lbxe4 11 lDxc6 "xc6 12 ltld5, Romanishin-Sosonko, Tilburg 1979, 12...:'e8! 13.i.f3 f51eaves Black with a clear advantage. 4) 10 lba4 gίves BIack a good position after 10... 'ii'b4 (if Black is satisfied with a draw, then ίι is useful Ιο know that 1O... Wa5 11lbc3 Wb6 is a repetition) 11 c3 Wa5 (forcing White Ιο make weaknesses ίη his queenside pawn structure) 12 b4 Wc7 13 .i.f3 .i.d7 14 :'cl :'ab8, Pospi~il-Alster, Venice 1949. 5) 10 Wd3 (this is probably Whίte's best choice) 1O...lbg4 (the surpήsίng 10... .i.g4!? 11 lbe6 Wxb2 12 :abl .i.xe2 13lbxe2 Wxa2 14lbxf8 :'xf8 15 :'xb7 We6 gave Black some compensation ίη Podlesnik-Velimirovic, Yugoslav Ch 1988) I1lbd5 (Black is comfortable after 11 .i.xg4 .i.xd4 12 .i.xd4 Wxd4+ 13 Wxd4 lDxd4 14 .i.xc8 :'axc8 15:'Ω Φg716 :'dl :'c4 17 :'fd2 e5 18 :.n f5 = Me~trovic­ Hartston, Orebro 1966) 11 ... .i.xd4 12 .i.xg4 (forced; 12lbxb6 is just good for Black: 12....i.xe3+ 13 Φh 1 .i.xb6 14 .i.xg4.i.xg4 15 f5 gxf5 16 exf5lbe5 17 Wg3 Φh8 18 'ifh4 ~d8, BoschLandau, Amsterdam 1939) 12....i.xe3+ 13 "xe3 Wxe3+ 14 lDxe3 .i.xg4 15 lDxg4=. 10•••dxeS 11 fxe5 lbxeS 12 lDrs "xb2! 13lDxe7+ Φb8 14.i.d4 The only good move. 14 Wd2? .i.e6 15 :'abl Wa3 16 :'xb7 :'fd8 17 Wel lbe4 18 lDdl lbc4 is bad for White, Sanguinetti-Maήni, Mar del Plata 1954. Another poor choice is 14 lbxc8? "xc3 15 .td4 'ifxc8 16 .txe5 :'d8 17 .td4 lbe4 18 .i.xg7+ Φχg7 19 "el 'ifc5+ 20 ΦhΙ 'ifxc2, when Whίte has

28

Accelerαted

insυfficient compensation for the two lostpawns. 14...Wb4! 15 J.xe5 Other moves are clearly worse: 1) 15 ltled5? lets Black win after 15 ...ltlxd516ltlxd5"xd4+! 17"xd4

Dragons

Β

00+.

2) 15 ~xc8?! :axc8 (15 ...:d8 may be even stronger: 16 ~b5 :axc8 17 c3 We7 18 ~xa7 :xc3! 19 "el :c220 J.dl :xd4 21 J.xc2 "c5 22 ΦhΙ ~B8 23 J.b3? "xa7 24 J.xf7 ~e7! and Black is οη his way to victory, PaldaGalia, Vienna 1947) 16 J.xe5 :fd8 17 J.xf6 (or 17 "el Wc5+ picking υρ the e5-bishop) 17...J.xf6 with a considerable advantage. 3) 15 :Xf6? .i.xf6 16 ~ ~f3+! 17 .i.xf3 "xd4+. 15•••Wxe716 .d4 ~b5 17 J.xg7+ fΔxκ? 18 .ιd3 AIso ίη Black's favoυr is 18 ~ .d6 19 :adl J.e6. 18.••J.e6 White has some, bυt ηοΙ qώte sυffi­ cient, compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

85) 8~b3(D) WΊth this move White stops Black's planned ...d7-d5 advance andprepares to go into the main lines of the CΙassi­ cal. 8...&5! Trying to take advantage of the Accelerated move-order. ΒΥ threatening to play ...a5-a4, Black forces White to advance his a-pawn to a4 and give Black's knight access to the b4-sqυare. Once οη b4, Black will be threatening to advance his pawn to d5.

Rarely seen is 8...b6!? 9 f4 J.b7 10 .i.f3 e5?! (lO...d6!? is a calmer move) 11 0-0 "e7 12 g3 :ad8 13 "d2 d5, Milner-Baπy -

Wade, Βήtish Οι (Aber-

ystwyth) 1955, and now simply 14 ltlxd5 ~xd5 15 exd5 is clearly better forWhite. 9a4 The only real challenge to Black's idea. Altematives give Black an easy game: 1) 9 0-0 a4 10 ~d4 d5! 11 exd5 ~xd5 12 ~xd5 "xd5 13 .i.f3 .c4 (sacrificing a pawn with 13...•a5!? is also possible) 14 c3 ~xd4 15 cxd4 :d8 16 .cl Wxcl 17 :fxcl J.xd4 18 .ιΧd4 :xd4 19 :C7 :d7 20 :acl :xc7 21 :xc7 .ιe6 22 :xe7 :c8 23 h3 b5 24 :b7 :c5 25 a3 ΦΒ7 26 :b6 :cl+ 27 Φh2 J.c4 28 .ιc6 :c2 29 b4 axb3 30 .ιΧb5 .i.e6 31 ΦΒ3 b2 32 .i.a4 :c3+ 0-1 Ravinsky- Vasiυkov, Moscow Ch 1958. Black promotes his pawn after 33 f3 .ιb3!. 2) 9 ιαΙ5 (taking aim at the b6sqυare) 9 ...d6! 10 ~M (10 J.b6 "d7 gives Black a good position dυe to the threats of ... a4 and ...~xe4) 10...:b8 11 f3 .ιe6 12 c4ltld7 13 ~a4 J.xc4! 14 J.xc4 b5 15 J.xf7+ :xf7 16 ~3

Classical Lines: White plαys .i.e2 ~de5 17 ~4 ~xd4 18 J.xd4 e6 19 0-0 ~c4 20 :bl?! J.h6 21 :el J.f4 22 b3 ~d2 23 :b2 .g5 and Black went οη to win ίη Schutt-H.Schmid, cοπ 1976. 3) 9 a3 a4 10 ~1 (both 10 ~d2 d5! and 10 ~c5 d6 11 ~5xa4 ~xe4 are qώte nice for Black) 10...d6 11 ί4 J.e6 (11 ...J.d7 a1so deserves consideration) 12 J.f3 ω! 13 :bl ~4 14 J.d4.a5 150-0 :ac8 16 ~1a2 J.d7! 17 Whl e5! with advantage to Black, Zhukhovitsky-Suetin, Vilnius 1953. 9...~M Continuing with the plan οί a quick ...d7-d5. Though there is limited expeήeηce with this position, practice so far has not been kind to White. An a1temative is 9...d6 (transposing to a Dragon) 10 ο-ο J.e6 11 ~4 ~xd4 12 J.xd4 .c7 13 J:tel:ac8 14 J.d3 J.c4 15 e5 dxe5 16 J.xe5 .c6 17 J.c4 .xc4 18 .f3 ~ 19 h3 J:tfd8 20 We2 e6 21 :a3 ~ 22 :b3 ~3 23 J.c3 .a4 24 J.g7 Φg7 and Ih-Ih ίη 33, Tolush-Κitaev, cοπ 1967. 10 J.f3?! (D) This is certainly not the answer to White's problems. However, other moves haven't given White any joy either: 1) 10 ο-ο d5! with an equa1 position, since 11 e5 ~ is qώte nice for Black. 2) 10 e5?! ~8 11 J.f4 d6 12 exd6 (12 ~b5 J.f5 13 ~3d4 dxe5 favours Black) 12...~xd6 13 :cl -*.ί5 (Black could win a pawn by 13 ...-*.xc3+ 14 bxc3 ~a2 but he .prefers to keep his Dragon bishop) 14 ~d4 e5 15 ~xί5 ~xί5 16 -*.d2 Wb6 favoured Black ίη Karpov-Hodgson, London (clock simώtaneοus) 1976.

29

3) 10 ί4 d5 11 e5 ~ 12 J.f3 (12 ~xe4 dxe4 13 .xd8 :xd8 14 :cl ~d5! is annoying since 15 -*.12 or 15 J.c5 a1lows 15 ...~xί4) 12...J.f5 13 1αι4 :c8 led to sharp play ίη Ga1kinKochiev, St Petersburg 1993: 14 ~b5 ί6 15 c3 fxe5! 16 ~xί5 gxf5 17 cxb4 exf4 18 -*.xf4 e5 19 -*.cl Wh8 20.e2 axb4 21 0-0 ~5 22 J.d2 e4 23 J.xb4 exf3 24 :xf3 :e8 25 .d 1 ~e4 26 J:txf5 .b6+ 27 Φfl .h6 28 ΦgΙ .e3+ 29 Φfl :f8! 30 :f3 (hopeless, but after 30 -*.xf8 Black can continue 30...~+) 30...:xf3+ 31 gxf3 (οη 31 .xf3, Black has 31 ...:f8! 32 J.xf8? ~#)31 ...•12#. 4) 10.d2 d5 11 :dl -*.e6 12 ~5 ~e413~xe4dxe414~6.xd2+ 15 :xd2 fxe6 16 c3 1αι5 17 J.g4 ~xe3 18 -*.xe6+ Φh8 19 fxe3 -*.h6 20

:d4 (White didn't lίke the looks of 20 Φe2 :f6 followed by 21 ...:af8) 20 ....txe3 21 J:txe4 .tcl 22 ΦdΙ .txb2 23 Φc2 J.a3, Gί.Garcίa-Antu­ nes, Seville 1994. The game was drawn ίη 35moves.

10•••d6 Black's ...d7-d5 advance has been contained, but White has paid a heavy

30 pήce: hίs

Accelerαted

bishop is very poorly placed onf3. 11 ο-ο .t.e6 12 ιαt4 Νο better is 12 .l:tel .t.xb3 13 cxb3 ll)d7 14 .t.e2 .l:tc8 15 .l:tc 1 Ι&:S 16 .t.b5 e6 17 .l:te2 'ile7 18 .l:td2 .l:tfd8 19.t.c4 f5 20 .t.f4 .t.e5 21 .t.xe5 dxeS 22 exf5 gxf5 23 .l:txd8+ .l:txd8 24 'iVh5 ~h8 25 'iVh6 e4 26 ~2 .g7 27 'iVh4 .l:tg8 28 g3lΩbd3, when Black's pieces ruled

Dragons

the board in Bastrikov-Vasiυkov, Erevan 1955. 12.••.t.c4 Lemrye-Dona1dson, Phίladelphίa 1979. Black's position is very pleasant. After 13 .l:tel .c8 14lΩdb5 .l:td8 15 .t.d4 .l:ta6 16 b3 e5 17 .t.e3 .t.e6 18 'ile2 d5 19 exd5 .t.f5! White's game was falling apart due to the dua1 threats of20...lΩxc2 and 20...e4.

2 Weekend Variation: White mixes Ι3 and ~c4 We call this the 'Weekend Variation' since ίι appears ίη one weekend Swiss system toumament after another. The lίne arises when Whίte makes logical moves that attempt to steer the game ίηto the Yugoslav Attack of the Dragon. However, the Accelerated move-order leaves Whίte facing some surprises, and his goal of a Yugoslav Attack never mateήalizes. Ι e4 c5 2 ffi ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 IίD::d4 g6 sll)c3 J.g7 6 J.e3 ~ 7 f3 Rare but interesting is 7 f4. Three mίniatures explore the possibilities: 1) 7 ...1iD6 8 ttlf5 1Ixb2 9 ttlxg7+ ~f8 10 J.d2 ttlb4 11 :bl ttlxc2+ 12 ~12 ttlxe4+ (ίη for a penny, ίη for a pound!) 13 ttlxe4 Wd4+ 14 ΦΟ d5 15 Wxc2 dxe4+ 16 Φg3 e5 17 :b4 exf4+ 18 ΦΧf4 1112+ 19 ~e5 e3 20 :f4 Wxd2 21 Wb3 .J..f5 22 :d4 f6+ 0-1 Smaldone-Scrocacarello, cοπ 1985. We have ηο ίotention of condoning either side's moves, but it was entertaίn­ ing, don't you agree? 2) 7 ...0-0 8 e5 ttle8 9 .J..c4 ttlxd4 10 Wxd4 d6 11 0-0-01la5 1211d5 Wxd5 13 ttlxd5 dxe5 14 ttlxe7+ ~h8 15 fxe5 J.xe5 16 :d8 b5 17 .J..d5 :b8 18 .J..h6 .J..g7 19 J.xg7+ Φχg7 20 :xc8 :xc8 21 ttlxc8 1-0 Lanka-Mίca­ IiΖΖί, Groningen 1991. 3) 7 ...d6 (the most sensible reply) 8 ttlxc6 (8 J.e2 ο-ο transposes ίηto

CΙassical Dragon positions that are explored ίη Chapter 1, Vaήation Β4) 8...bxc6 9 e5 ttlg4 10 .J..gl dxe5 11 Wxd8+ ΦΧd8 120-0-0+ Φc7 13 h3 ttlh6 14 :el ttlf5 15 fxe5 ttlg3 16 .J..h2 ttlxhl 17 e6+ ~d8 18 J:ιdl + ~e8 19 exf7+ ΦΧf7 20 J.c4+ .J..e6 0-1 Vooremaa-Pohla, USSR 1967.

7•••0-0 (D)

The tempting 7 ...d5? is premature due to 8 J.b5!.

w

8.J..c4 Though 8 .J..c4 is the key move ίο this chapter, ίι is also worth takίng a qUΊck glance at other possibί1ities: 1) 8 g4? Wb6! 9 ttlcb5 a6 10 ttlf5 Wd8 11 ttlxg7 axb5 12 g5 ttlxe4! is very good for Black, Szepaniec-Gawlίkowskί, Poland 1954. 2) 8 ttlb3 a5! (also possible is 8... d5 9 exd5 ttlb4 101ld2 ttlfxd5 11

32

Accelerated Dragons

ΙΙΙχd5 ΙΙΙχd5 12 0-0-0 .te6 13 .tc4

ΙΙΙc7 14 "xd8 IΣfxd8 15 .txe6 ΙΙΙXe6

=

Hort-Don~eVΊc, Bundesliga 1983/4) 9 .*.b5 dS! 10 exd5 ΙΙΙΜ 11 d6.tf5 12

IΣcl a413~4.χd614ΙΙΙχf5"ΧdΙ+ 15 IΣxdl gxf5 16.*.c5 ΙΙΙχc2+ 17 ~f2 IΣfc8 18 .*.xe7 a3 19 IΣd2 axb2 20 ~a4

.*.h6 was winning for Black ίη RubelAronson, Lenίngrad 1957. 3) 8 "d2 is cornrnonly seen but 8...dS! gives Black excellent play: 3a) 9 lL1xc6 bxc6 10 exd5 (10 e5 ΙΙΙd7 11 f4 e6 12 ΙΙΙa4? loses to the ίη­ structίve tactίc 12...lL1xe5! 13 fxe5 "h4+, whίle 10 0-0-0 .c7 11 exd5 ΙΙΙχdS 12 ΙΙΙΧd5 cxdS 13 .xdS .*.f5 14 'ilc4 .e5 15 "d4 "b8 is also embarrassing for White, Whiteacre-Donaldson, Columbus 1975) 10... ΙΙΙΧd5 11 .*.d4 e5 12 .*.c5 lL1xc3! (Black is a full tempo ahead of a well-known line ίη the Dragon) 13 .*.xf8 "xf8 14 bxc3 (14 "xc3 e4 15 "xc6 .*.f5 gίves Black excellent play for the sacrίficed mateήal) 14.....c5 15 IΣdl .*.e6 16 c4 e4! 17 fxe4 IΣe8 18 .*.d3 .tg4 19 h3 (19 IΣbl .*.c3! 20 "xc3 "e3+ finίshes White's eXΊstence) 19....*.c3! 20 "xc3 .e3+ 21 ~f1 ':xe4! 22 'iff6 (22 .txe4 .te2+ 23 ~el .td3#) 22....txdl 23 g3, Κrnic-Velirnίrovic, Yugoslav Cht 1971, and now 23 ....tf3 would have won ίrnmediately. 3b) Νο better is 9 exd5lL1xd5 (another temptίng possibility is 9 ... ΙΙΙb4, when both 10 d6 'ifxd6 11 ΙΙΙcb5 "e5 12 ~f2 ΙΙΙbdS, Zaίtsev-Bielczyk, cοπ 1978, and 10 .tc4 ΙΙΙbΧd5 11 .tf2 lL1xc3 12 "xc3 e5 13 lL1b3 e4, Hugues-Boshku, NoVΊ Sad OL 1990, favour Black) 10 ~ "xdS 11 ΙΙΙXc6 "xc6 120-0-0, wheo both 12....te6 and 12....tf5 favour Black.

3c) Also nίce for Black is 9 0-0-0 ΙΙΙχd4 10 .txd4 dxe4 11 fxe4 .te6

with a slίght advantage, Belarbi-Foriotos, Siegen OL 1970. After 8 .tc4 (D) Whίte is ready to play 9 "d2 and 100-0-0 with a Yugoslav Attack. Ιη order to prevent thίs, Black must try either 8 ....b6 or the less well-known 8...e6!?:

Α: 8•••'tWb6 Β:

8•••e6!?

32 35

Α)

8.......6 Thίs

excellent move attacks b2 and also intensifies the pressure 00 the d4-knight. 9 .*.b3 (D) After settling ίηΙο the shock of mίssing 8 ... 'W'b6, players with White the world over have tήed alrnost every imaginable rnove ίο a desperate effort to escape their fate (not realiZΊng that 9 .tb3 gives them a perfectly playable game!): 1) 9 a3 allows 9 ... d6 10 lbce2 "aS+ 11 c3 ιιιe5 12.ta2 "a6 130-0

Weekend Vαriαtion: White mixes f3 αnd ~c4 .i.ιI7 with a slight advantage for Black.

Kcrcs-Larsen, Beverwijk 1964. 2) Οη 9 "d2 Black emerges a pawn lιp after 9 ... ~xe4, when the following ιIIrce moves have been tried: 2a) ΙO~xc6~xd211 ~xe7+~h8 12 .txb6 ~xc4 13 .tc7 .txc3+ 14 h",c3 :e8 and Black won quickly ίη I'ictre-Donaldson, Seattle 1978. 2b) 10 ~xe4 .txd4 11 .txd4 "xd4 12 "xd4 ~xd4 13 0-0-0 ~c6, Jons'IOn-Thorsteins, Reykjavik 1982. 2c) 10 fxe4 (best) 10....txd4 11 .1",d4 "xd4 12 "xd4 ~xd4 130-0-0

33

6) 9 ~b5 a6 10 ~f5 "a5+ 11 .td2 "d8 12 ~xg7 axb5 and Whίte 10ses a decisive amount of mateήal.

~614~5:b815.tb5:e816:d2

11617 .te2 d6 18 h4 h6 19 g4 ~g7 20 ~5 :h8 21 :gl hxg5 22 hxg5:h4 23 .111 .te6 24l&3 ~e5 25 :α :f4 26 1:g3 .tg4 0-1 M.Babar-Rind, London ι.IΟΥds Bank 1991. 3) 9 "d3 ~5 10 "e2 "xb2 11 ~d2 'ifb4 12 .tb5 d5 13 :abl "a5 14 ii)b3 ~xf3+ 15 gxf3 ~xe4+ 16 fxe4 .txc3+ 17~dl"xa218:Cldxe40-1 Almeida-Garcia Padron, Mesa 1992. 4) 9 ο-ο "xb2 10 "d2 (10 ~cb5 .b4 11 "e2 "a5 12 :fdl d6 13 'i'f2 .1d7 and Black is a pawn uρ for nothing, N.-P.Nielsen-Yakovich, Aalborg 1993) 10.....b4 11 ~xc6 dxc6 12 e5 .xc4 13 exf6 .txf6 14 ~ .txal 15 1:xal.tf5 16 ~g3 :fd8 17"a5:d5 18 "c7 "c3 0-1 Baraat-Kablί, Moscow 1994. 5) 9 ~f5 "xb2 10 ~d5 ~xd5 11 cxd5 "xal 12 ~h6+ ~h8 13 "xal .1xal 14 dxc6 e6 15 .tc5 ~g7 16 .1xf8+ ~xf8 17 cxd7 .txd7 18 ~e2 .tg7 19 ~g4 :c8 and Black's extra pawn, two bishops and supeήοr pawn structure should give hίm an easy win, Isaksen-Rasmussen, Copenhagen 1995.

9••. ιfu:e4! Α typical tactίcal motίf. Black opens υρ hίs g7-bishop and piles οη the pressure against d4. Also possible is 9 ... ~g4 10 fxg4 (10 ~4?! is well met by 10...'ifb4+!, and ηοΙ 10...~xe3 11 ~xb6 ~xdl 12 ~xa8 ~xb2 13 ~xc6 bxc6 14 :bl .tb7 15 ~d2 .th6+ 16 ~e2 .ta6+ 17 ~Ω ~c4 18 ~c7 .tb5 19 ~xb5 ± Lester-Donaldson, Cincinnatί 1975) 10....txd4 11 .txd4 (White can also consider 11 ~5, even though Black's chances should be Ρrefeπed after 11 .....a5+ 12 c3 .txe3 13 ~xe3 "g5 {or 13 ... d6 14 "d2 .te6 15 ~d5 .txd5 16 exd5 ~5 17 g5 "b5! 18 Ο­ ο-ο a5 19 :dgl f6 20.tdl fxg5 21 a4 "d3, S.Owen-Donnelly, cοπ 1983-4} 14 "d2 d6 150-0-0 .txg4 16 h4 'iVhs 17 ~xg4 "xg4 18 h5 g5 19 h6 ~h8 20 :dfl f6 and Black is a healthy pawn up, Kovacs-Petursson, Copenhagen 1981) 11 ... ~xd4! (also playable is 11 .....xd4, whίch leads ιο a balanced endgame after 12 .xd4

Accelerated Dragons

34

lί)xd4 13 0-0-0 {13 lί)d5 ια6 14 .*.a4 Φg7 Sakharov-Stein, Κiev 1965} 13 ...lί)xb3+ 14 axb3 d6) 12lί)d5 'iVa5+ 13 c3 lί)c6 (Korchnoi ίη ECO gives οηlΥ 13 ... lί)xb3 14 axb3 'iVd8 15 g5 i;). After 13 ... ια6, which was played ίη

=

Lugo-R.Hemandez, Cuba 1988, Black is doing fine. His plan should be Ιο follow with ... d6, ... .*.e6, and then exchange off the dangerous knight οη d5 while puttίng his own horse οη e5. 10~ 1Ο fxe4? .*.xd4 11lί)d5 'iVa5+ 12 c3 .*.xe3 13lί)xe3 d6 doesn't give White

any compensatίon at all for Black's extrapawn. 10.....aS+ 11 c3lί)cS A1so possible is 11 ... lί)f6, which led Ιο equa1 chances ίη Wa1der-Donaldson, Los Angeles 1984, and Stefansson-Dona1dson, Reykjavik 1986, after 12lί)xc6 dxc6 (Dzindzichashvili recommends 12...bxc6 13lί)xe7+ Φh8 14lί)xc8 :axc8 150-0 d5) 13lί)xe7+ Φh8 14lί)xc8 1hxc8 150-0 :cd8 16 'iVc200. Lately, Black has been trying Ιο mίlk the positίon for as much as possible wίth 11 ....*.xd4!? 12 .*.xd4lί)c5: 1) 13 .*.c4lbe6 14 b4 'iVd8 15 .*.e3 d6 with an unbalanced positίon, Ozsvath-Honfi, Budapest 1963. 2) 13 .*.c2 lί)d3+ 14 .*.xd3 "xd5 15 .*.e3 d6 16 'iVe2lί)e5 17 .*.c2 'iVc4 18 'iVxc4 lί)xc4 doesn't give White enough for the pawn, Sluka-Ska~el­ ova, Pardubice 1992. 3) 13 ο-ο lί)xb3 14 'iVxb3 d6 15 .*.f2 .*.e6 16 c4 :ab8 17 :fdl :fc8 and White doesn't have enough for the pawn, Pulίdo-Spangenberg, Seville 1994. The rest ofthe game went as follows: 18 "e3 "d8 19 :acl b620

"f8

.*.h4 :b7 21 f4 22 a3 ω 23 b3 .*.xd5 24 :xd5 :bc7 25 :el f6 26 g4 'iVf7 27 :d3 lί)c6 28 'iVe4 a6 29 :d5 lί)a5 30 'iVe3 :b7 31 :d4 b5 32 cxb5 axb5 33 :e4lί)c6 34 :cl :bc7 35 b4 e5 36 fxe5 fxe5 37 'iVd3lί)xb4 0-1. 12lί)xc6 Οη 12 .*.c4,

threatening b2-b4, Black has a pleasant choice between Kapengut's 12.....d8 13 lί)xc6 dxc6 14 .*.xc5 cxd5 15 .*.xd5 "c7 and Κorchnoi's 12...e6 13 lί)xc6 dxc6 14 lί)e7+ Φh8 15 0-0 lί)a6 16 .*.xa6 'iVxa6 17 "d6 e5 18 f4.*.e6 19 .ι::r.adl "a5 20 b4 "d8. Ιη both cases Black is a little better. 12.••dxc613lί)xe7+ Φh814lί)xcS

(D)

14•••:e8!? This is an interesting attempt Ιο ίη­ ject some energy ίηΙο what would otherwise be a pretty lifeless positίon. After the pedestrian 14...:axc8 the game quickly fizzles out Ιο a draw wίth 15 0-0:008 16 "c2 and now: 1) 16...:fe817.*.f2lί)xb318axb3 'ii'b5 19 :fel :xel+ 20 :xel .*.f6 21 b4 b6 22 "e2 "xe2 lh- 1h W.WatsonChandler, London 1984.

Weekend Varίation: White mΊXes f3 αnd ~c4 2) 16...•b5 17 :t"dl Φg8 18 IΣxd8 Ixd8 19 IΣdl IΣe8 20J.f2 a5 21 J.xc5 1/'.1/2 Fischer-Panno, Portoroz ΙΖ 1958. 150-0(D) Also interesting is 15lΩd6 IΣxe3+ 16 Φf2 IΣe7 17 IΣel! (οη 17 lΩxf7+ IIluck has 17...IΣxf7 18 J.xf7 and then Ι Η.. :i6'b6 19 Φη 'ii'xb2 20 IΣbl Wxc3 21 :cl Wb4 or 18 ...:d8!? 19 'ii'e2 ~'ιJ3+ 20 Φη lΩxb2! with the ροίηι 111αΙ 21 'ii'xb2 is met by 21 ... J.xc3 22 • c2 IΣd2 - analysis by Andres) 17 ... Wb6! 18 Φη (as 18 IΣxe7 walks Il1ιο a mating net after 18 ... lΩe4+ 19 Φc2 Wf2+ 20 Φd311Χ5+) 18 ... IΣxel + 19'ii'xellΩxb320lΩxf7+?(according \ι) Andres, 20 axb3 IΣf8 21 We7 Wxb3 12 Wxb7 .d5 23 lΩe4 J.h6! is υη­ Ι'lcar) 20... Φg8 21 We6 Wb5+ 22 ΦΩ .ιJ5 23 ~6+ Φf8 24 Wxd5 cxd5 25

IIxh3 J.xh6 0-1 Lugo-Andres, Havana 1988.

I1

15•••IΣaxc8 Here 15 ...IΣxe3 doesn't work ουΙ well as after 16lΩd6 IΣe7 17lΩxf7+ :xf7 18 J.xf7 Wb6 White can just play 19 ΦhΙ and he doesn't have the IJfOblems with his king's rook that he lιad ίη the note starting with 15 lΩd6.

35

16J.d4 Νοι 16 IΣel? because of 16... IΣcd8

and then 17 We2 IΣd3 18 Wf2lΩxb3 19 axb3 IΣdxe3!, or 17 Wc2lΩd3 18 IΣe2 IΣxe3! 19 IΣxe3 Wb6. Black is winning ίη both cases. 16•••:cd8 17 J.xf7 Black immediately obtained a winning position ίη Wesιeήηeη-Βaυm­ bach, 1961 after 17 J.xg7+? Φχg7 18 'ii'c2lΩd3! 19ΦhΙ Wc520h3Wg521 IΣadllΩf4 . 17•••IΣe7 More ambitious than 17 ... J.xd4+, which led Ιο a draw ίη Espig-Dueball, Raach 1969, after 18 cxd4 IΣe7 19 J.c4 Wb4 20 IΣel IΣxel+ 21 Wxel Wxel+ 22 IΣxel IΣxd4 23 b3 a5. 18J.c4 And ηοΙ 18 b4 J.xd4+ 19 Wxd4+ IΣxd4 20 bxa5 IΣd3 with a clear advantage for Black - analysis by Andres. 18••• bS! 19 J.b3 J.xd4+ 20 cxd4 'ii'b421dS The best try as 21 IΣel? loses immediately Ιο 21 ...lΩd3!, while 21 Wc2 Wxd4+ 22 Φh 1 lΩd3 intending ... c5c4 clearly favours Black. 21 ••• lΩxb3 21 ... a5!? can also be considered. 22 'ii'xb3 'ii'xb3 23 axb3 1Σxd5 Analysis by the Cuban 1Μ Andres. White's weakened queenside pawns give Black all the chances ίη thίs endgame. Β)

8...e6!? (D) This move, which prepares a rapid ...d7-d5, has apparently οηlΥ been tested ίη one game, P.SZΊlagyi-Ador­ jan, Hungary 1972. In his notes to the

36

Accelerated Dragons

encounter, the young Hungaήan 1Μ (soon to be GM) gave his 8... e6 an exclamation mark. Ιη actual fact it looks to be of equal value to 8 ..."b6 and a good dynamic alternative. Note that 9 lί)db5 is met by 9...d5 !.

Black an excellent game) 17....:b4! 18 j,xb4 "xb4 19 e5 "b6+ 20 ΦhΙ c5 21 c3 j,b7! and Black stands betterana1ysis by Adorjan. 11 j,xf8 "xf8 12 .ι.d3 12 j,b3 .ι.a6 gives Black good compensation. 12..':b8 13 ο-ο 13 ':bl "c5 14 lί)a4 (or 14 "d2 lί)xe4!) 14.....e3+ 15 "e2 "d4 16 b3 "xa417bxa4':xbl+ 18ΦΩ':xhΙ is bad for White. 13•••.:xb2 14 lί)a4 ':b7! with an unclear position - analysis by Adorjan.

82) After 8...e6 White can play: 36 36

ΒΙ: 9lί)xc6 Β2: 9j,b3

Β1) 9lί)xc6 bxc6 10 j,cS dS The sharpest but ηοΙ necessarily the best move. Simpler is 10... .:e8 11 j,d6lί)d5! 12 "d2! (12 exd5? "h4+ followed by 13 .....xc4 is a bad idea 14 for White) 12 ...lί)xc3 13 bxc3 ο-ο j,xc3 15 "d3 .ι.χaΙ 16 ':xal ':b8! (a pretty way to get the rook ίοto the game) 17 f4 (17 .ι.Χb8 followed by 18 .....xb8 and 19 ...d5 gives

"a5

"b6+

9 j,b3 dS 10 ο-ο!? Here 1Ο exd5 lί)xd5! 11lί)xd5 exd5 120-0 ':e8 13 j,fl (13lί)xc6 bxc6 14 .ι.d4 .ι.a6! 15 ':Π .ι.Χd4 16 "xd4 "b6~) 13 .. :"g5 intending 14... j,h3 or 14...lί)a5 gives Black a slight advantage according to Adorjan. 10••':e8! Maintaining the tension is the ήght way Ιο go because 10...dxe4 favours White. l1lί)xc6?

Cοπect is 11 exd5 lί)xd5 12 lί)xd5

with equa1ity. 11.•• bxc6 12 "el .ι.a6! 13':f2 d4 14 ':d2 cS IS j,f2 161De2 eS! Black has a clear advantage, P.Szilagyi-Adorjan, Hungary 1972.

"aS

3 Uogele Variation: Main Ιίηθ with 7 ... 0-0 and 8 ..ιb3 a5 Ι e4 c5 2 ffi 1Dc6 3 d4 cxd44lbxd4 "6 5 ι!L1c3 j.g7 6 j.e3 ι!L1f6 7 j.c4 (D)

The common 8 f3 was given ίη dein Chapter 2.

ωι

ΑΙ 80-0 Κorchnoi, ίη ECO, claims that 8 0-0 gives White slightly better chances, but we don't believe that White can make any ιangible gains ίί Black plays carefully.

After 8 0-0 Black's two choices are: 8•••d6 37 Α2: 8•••lbxe4 39 ΑΙ:

This positίon reρresents the meat οί the Accelerated Dragon. Black is playing a Dragon set-up without the move ...d7-d6. ΒΥ leaving thίs ουΙ for a while Black will gain a tempo ίη development. He can ρυι thίs tempo Ιο use by either starting a tactical sequence (the Uogele) or by forcing White Ιο castle kingside, thereby avoiding the dreaded Yugoslav Attack.

7•••0-0 The other main line, 7 ...Wa5, will be thoroughly examined in Chapter 4. After 7 ...0-0 White can play: Α: 80-0 37 Β: 8.*.b3 40

Α1Ι 8••.d6 This simple but good move transposes ίηto a line οί the Dragon that is known to be innocuous for White. 9 h3 ι!L1xe4 Ιί 9 ... ι!L1xe4 isn't Ιο your taste, then 9 ....*.d7 is a perfectly acceptable alternatίve since 10 .*.b3 Wa5 (10...:c8 is a Dragon line that is also known to be satίsfactory for Black) transposes ίηιο the main lines studied in Chapter 4. ΙΟ j.xf7+ (D) The positίons arising from 1Ο ι!L1xe4 d5 11 ι!L1xc6 bxc6 12 j.d3 dxe4 13

38

Accelerated Dragons

.i.xe4 can be looked at ίη greater detail ίη section Α2 (8 ... lbxe4).

10...]bf7 The usual move, though Wojtkiewicz's 10... Φχf7!? (keeping the rook οη f8 so ίι defends the black queen) is also cήtical: 11lbxe4lbxd4 12 .i.xd4 e5 13 .i.e3 d5 14lbg3 (14 .i.g5 "d715 lbc3 h6 16.i.h4 d4 17lbe4 was played ίη Jansa-Hellers, Herning 1991, when Shirov claims an edge for Black with 17...Φg8) 14...Φg8 (also possible is 14...d4) 15 c3 .i.e6 16lbe2! g5!? 17 "d2 h6 18 h4! gxh4 19 .i.xh6 "f6! 20 .i.g5 (according ιο Shirov, 20.i.xg7 "xg7 21 f4 h3 also leads to mutual chances) 20.....g6 21 .i.xh4:t'5! with compensation for the sacήficed pawn, Adams-Shirov, Bie11991. The game ended as fol1ows: 22 f4 "g4! 23 .i.g5? (23 .i.e7 is best, when 23 ...Φf7 24 .i.d6! :g8! and 23 ...:e8 24 .i.d6 d4 both lead to unclear play according to Shirov) 23 ...:af8! 24:t'2 d4 25 cxd4 exf4 26 .i.xf4 .i.c4 27 .i.e3 :xf'l 28 .i.xf'l .i.xe2 0-1. l1lbxe4 h6! This move, controlling g5, is Black's most solid choice.

Other possibilities are: 1) 11 ... lbxd4 12 .i.xd4 e5 13 .i.c5 d5 14lbd6 .i.e6 15 lbxf7 ± Tal-Pekarek, Tbilisi 1986. 2) 11 ....i.xd4 12 .i.xd4 e5 (Kaidanov's suggestion of 12...:f4 is interesting; then 13 f3 seems forced, when 13 ... d5 can be met by 14 .i.e3, while the endgame after 13 ... lbxd4 14 "xd4 "b6 15 "xb6 axb6 16 c4100ks a little better for White; another possibility is 12... d5 13 lbg3 e5 14 .i.e3 .i.e6 15 Wd2 Wc7 16 :fel :e8 17 c3 a6 18 .i.g5 ~) 13 .i.e3 d5 14 .i.g5 "a5 15 lbf6+ Φg7 16lbxd5 tumed out badly for Black ίη W. Watson-Chiburdanidze, Brussels 1987 (this game featured an Accelerated move-order so ... d6 and h3 were never played; thus White's h-pawn actually stood οη h2).

12c3 White also fails to get anything with 12 "d2 Φh7 13 :adl "a5 14 lbc3 .i.d7 15 a3 :af8 16 "e2 .i.xd4 17 .i.xd4lbxd4 18 :xd4 .i.c6 with equality, W.Watson-Ward, Βήtish Ch (ΡΙΥ­ mouth) 1989. According to Dlugy, 12 c4 "a5! is also fine for Black. 12.••Φh7 Another satisfactory choice is 14 'irb3 "a6 15 12... .i.d7 13 :el a4l[}a5 16 "a2l[}c4 17lΩd2 :c8 18 l[}xc4 "xc4 19 "xc4 :xc4 =JansaW.Watson, Os10 1991 .

"a5

13Wb3 Two altematives Ιο consider are 13 f4!? and 13 "d2, intending:adl and :fel .

13•••dS 14 :ad1?! This is Ιοο provocative, though even οη the sυΡeήοr 14 lbc5 Black has 14...l[}a5 intending ...:f6 and ...e5.

Uogele Vαriαtion: Mαin Lίne with 7... 0-0 αnd 8 jJ,3 α5 14...~aS! IS Wb4 b616 ~b3 ~a6 17 J:Σfel ~c4 ; Kupreichik-Pigusov, MO!lcow GMA 1989. Α2)

8•••lbxe4! Α no-nonsense approach Ιο the ροΝίιίοη.

9~xe4

See sectίon ΑΙ (8 ...d6) for lίnes 9 ~xf7+ (with the moves ... d6 IInd h3 thrown ίη). 9•••dS lO~xc6 Here 1Ο ~xd5 has nothίng Ιο recIImmend ίι: 10...Wxd5 11 ~3 Wc4 12 lf)de2 ~f5 13 ~g3 ~e6 14 ~ge4 J:Σfd8 was a1ready better for Black ίη Allen-Petursson, Phίladelphia 1986. lO••• bxc6 11 ~d3 dxe4 12 ~xe4 wίιh

(Ι»

11

Ι2••• ~B6 Better than the passive 12...Wc7, which gives Whίte the structurally sounder game after 13 c3 J:Σb8 14 "e2. Instead οί 12....i.a6, Black can a1so consider the reasonable 12 ...J:Σb8!?, whίch dίd well ίη Vasilev-Rausis, Ρή­ morsko 1989 after 13 b3!? (or 13

39

.i.xc6 J:Σxb2 14 "xd8 :xd8 15 :adl :f8 =) 13 .....a5! 14 ~f4 ~a6 15 c4 :bd8 16 Wcl. Now 16....i.xal 17 "xal f6 18 .i.xc6 "b6 19 ~f3 ~b7 would have been slίghtly ίη Black's favour. 13Wxd8 Ιη Stanciu-Pavlov, Bucharest 1976, Whίte immedίately blundered with 13 ~xc6? and after 13 ...:c8! 14 ~e4 (ηο better is 14 "xd8, whίch is answered by 14...:fxd8!, when 15 :fdl :xdl+ 16 :xdl :xc6 17 :d8+.i.f8 18 .i.h6 :c8 0-1 was Kwatschewskί-Zsu.Pol­ gar, Vienna 1986) 14 ...~xf115 ~xf1 .i.xb216 "xd8 :Cxd817 :bl.i.d418 :b7.i.xe3 19 fxe3 f5 Black was winnίng.

13•••:txd814 ΒΙ! Thίs slίghtly odd-lookίng

move of Commons is actually very well motίvated. Possessing the longterm advantage of a hea1thίer pawn structure, Whίte intends to neutra1ize Black's actίvity with c3 and then return hίs rook Ιο the d-fίle when the weaknesses οη c6 and a7 WΊll give him a clear edge. Black must play actίvely 10 counter thίs plan. 14•••.i.d4! (D) So the rook can gaίn access Ιο the d2-square. Νοι 14... :ab8 15 c3 f5, when both 16 .i.c2, intendίng .i.b3, and 16 .i.xc6 .i.d3 17 :cl :xb2 18 J..xa7 favour Whίte. 1Μ Κίm

Mter 14....i.d4 Whίte can try three possible moves: 1) 15 .i.xd4 :xd4 16 .i.xc6 :c8 17 c3 gives Black adequate compensatίoη with 17 ...:d2 18.i.f3 e5 19 g3 f5 intendίng ... e4 and ....i.d3 - ana1ysis by Strauss.

40

Accelerαted Drαgons

2) 15.txc6':ac816.ta4.txe317 fxe3':d2 18 ':dl ':cd8 19 c3 .tb7 20 Φf1 .ta6+ 21 ΦgΙ with a draw by repetίtίon - analysis by Strauss. 3) 15 .tf4! (this idea of Silman's is the hardest for Black to meet) 15 ... e5 16 .tg5 f6 17 .txf6 .txt'2+ and now 18 φχt'2! (18 ΦhΙ? ':d6 {18 ...':d4!?} 19 .te7 ':e6 20 .tg5 ':b8 leads to an unclear positίon) 18 ...':f8 19 Φe3 ':xf6 20 ':dl and White's well-placed king and superior pawn-structure guarantee him an advantage. Β) 8.tb3 (D)

White's only real chance for an advantage. 8..•&5 This is the startίng ροίηι for one of Black's sharpest tries against 1 e4. Much of the theory of this line has been developed by the Lithuanian correspondence player Uogele. Presentday adherents include Grandmasters Pίgusov, Petursson and Ro.Hemandez. Other possibilities are: 1) 8 ...~a5? 9 e5! ~8 10.txf7+! is very bad for Black (see Chapter 5). 2) 8 ... d5?! (tricky but inadequate) 9 exd5 (Black gets good compensation for the pawn after 9 .txd5 ~xd5 10 ~xd5 {10 exd5 ~b4 11 ~2 .tf5 12 ':cl "a5 13 a3 ~a2 +} 10... e6 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12 ~c3 :b8) 9 ... ~a5 and now: 2a) 10 ο-ο?! b6 11 ~de2 (11 ~6 ~xc6 12 dxc6 _c7 '+= Platonov-Cherepkov, USSR 1962) 11 ....tb7 12 ~4 _c8 13 d6 ~xb3 14 dxe7 ~xal 15 exf8_+ .txf8 gives Black actίve play. 2b) Α sane altemative for White is 1Ο "d2 followed by 0-0-0, which should be good enough for some advantage. 2c) 10 h3 b6 11 ~6 ~xc6 12 .ta6 140-0-0 ':ac8 dxc6 _c7 13 15 .ta4 ± Zhidkov-Kondratίev, USSR 1964. 3) 8 ... e6!? is an interestίng change of pace, favoured by the young Argentine αΜ Hugo Spangenberg. Black tries for a quick ...d5 and often accepts an isolated d-pawn ίη return for piece

_f3

actίvity:

3a) 9 ~c6 dxc6! 10 e5 (10 "e2!?) 10... 00! (Gufeld and Lazarev only give the ίnfeήοr 10.....xdl+ 11 ':xdl ~g4 12 .tc5 :eS 13 f4 ±) and then:

Uogele νατίαΙίοπ: Μαίπ Line with 7... 0-0 αnd 8 .J.b3 α5 3al) After 11 Wd4, 11 ...ΙOxe3 12 Wxe3 is slightly better for White, so Black should play 11 ...f6! with an 00clear position. It's a bit of a surpήse Ihal nobody has given 11 "d4 a try. 3a2) 11 .ι.d4 is another οριίοη, hut Black has an excellent answer ίη 11. ....g5 12 g3 .ι.χe5 13 f4 ΙOxf4. 3a3) 11 ΙOxd5 exd5 12 f4 f6 13 cxf6 (Black is also fine after 13 c4 fxe5 14 cxd5 exf4 15 dxc6+ ~h8 16 "xd8 :Σχd8 17 .ι.Χf4 .ι.Χb2) 13 .....xf6 14 c3 Wh4+ (14 ...:Σe8!? 15 ~Ω .ι.f5 η 15 83 "h3 16 ~d2 b6 (16... .ι.f5 17"f1 Wh5 18 :ΣeΙ is unclear) 17 "f1 "f5

41

f6 26 Wxf6+ "xf6 27 gxf6+ ~xf6 28 and White wins. 3d) 9 0-0 d5 1Ο exd5 exd5 (D) and now:

:Σχb8

w

18:ΣeΙ c519~cι.ι.b720h4~h81ed

good play for Black ίη Borys-Sek, 1990-1. 3b) 9 ΙOdb5 forces Black 10 play Ihe very move he wanted Ιο: 9... d5! 10 i-c5 :Σe8 and now 11 iOd6? d4! 12 lί)xe8 ΙOxe8 is very bad for White. White should instead play 11 0-0 lί)xe4 12 ΙOxe4 dxe4 13 ΙOd6 :Σe7 14 ΙOxc8 :Σd7 15 iOd6 .ι.e5 16 "e2 .ι.Χd6 17 .!.xd6 1:ιχd6 18 "xe4 with an equal position. 3c) 9"f3 is recommended by Zek. The following is his analysis: 9...d5 1Ο 0-0-0 (or 10 exd5ll)e5 11 "e2lί)xd5 12 lί)xd5 exd5 13 h3 :Σe8 14 0-0-0 i-e615 ΙOxe6 fxe616 :ΣheΙ iOc6 with chances for both sides) 10... lί)xd4 11 .!.xd4lί)xe4 12ll)xe4 (12 .ι.χg7 "g5+) l2 ... dxe4 13 Wxe4 .ι.Χd4 14 :Σχd4 Wf6 15 f4 (15 :ΣhdΙ?! "ΧΩ! 16 :Σd8 :Σχd8 17 :Σχd8+ ~g7 18 We5+ ~h6 19 c3 f6 20"c7 "el+ 21.ι.dΙ We3+ 22 ~bl "e4+ 23 ~al? e5! is winning for Black) 15 ... b6 16 1:ιhdΙ :Σb8 17 We3.ι.b7 18 g4 :Σfd8 19 :Σd7 :Σχd7 20 :Σχd7 a6 21 f5 .ι.c8 22 g5 "xf5 23 :Σd8+ ~g7 24 .ι.χe6 .ι.χe6 25 Wc3+ 10

cοπ

3dl) 11 h3 1:ιe8 (White is slightly better but Black has active pieces and plenty of chances) 12"d2 (12 :ΣeΙ a6 13 ΙOa4ll)e4 14 c3 :Σb8 15ll)e2 .ι.e6 16 ll)f4 "h4 17 lί)xe6 fxe6 18 iOc5 lί)xc5 19 .ι.χc5 ~h8 20 "g4 "f6 21 :Σe3 ;t Berzinsh-Spangenberg, Bratislava U-18 Wch 1993) 12...ΙOa5 13 :ΣadΙ a6 14 .ι.g5 .ι.e6 (14 ... iOc4 15 "cl "a5 16 iOde2 .ι.e6 17 iOd4 1:ιac8 18 .ι.χc4 :Σχc4 19 a3 "c7 20.ι.χf6 .ι.Χf6 21 iOce2 b5 22 c3 "b6 23 "f4 .ι.g7 24 "f3 "d6 25 :ΣfeΙ .ι.e5 11'1.-1/'1. Landenbergue-Wells, Harkany 1993) 15 :ΣfeΙ lί)xb3 16 axb3 1:ιc8 17 1:ιe2 "d7 18 :ΣdeΙ b5 19 .ι.h6 .ι.h8 20 Wd3 Wd6 21 :ΣaΙ iOd7 22 lί)xe6 fxe6 23 lί)e4 Wc6 24 ΙOg5 ll)e5 25 "e3 lί)f7 26lί)xf7 ~xf7 27 "a7+ :Σc7 28 "xa6 .ι.Χb2 29 Wxc6 :Σχc6 = G.GarciaSpangenberg, Buenos Aires 1994. 3d2) Alsocommonis 11 f3:Σe812 .ι.Ω a6 (Yudasin prefers 12 ... .ι.e6) 13 lί)xc6 (or 13 1:ιeι.ι.e614 Wd2 ΙOa515 :Σad 1 1:ιc8 16 iOce2 .ι.d7 17 c3 iOc4 18

42

Accelerαted Drαgons

"cl "a5 19lCιc2 ~e6 was equal ίη Gaponenko-Spangenberg, Groningen 1994) 13 ...bxc6 14lCιa4 ~ί5 15 "d2 (Yudasin feels that 15 :el is more accurate, with a small plus for Whίte) 15 ... lCιd7 16 :fellCιe5 17 :adl "f6 18lCιc5 h5 19 c3 g5 20 ~d4 "g6 21 :e7 22 ~hl :ae8 with a very active position for Black, YudasinSpangenberg, Moscow OL 1994. 3e) 9 ί4 should ΩΟΙ be answered by 9...d5 10 e5, which is good for Whίte, but with 9 ... e5!? 10 lCιdb5 d5!?, with sharp play. 4) 8...lCιg4 (D).

"f2

Popular ίη the early 19608 but now considered ίnfeήοr, this line should be closely compared with 8... a5 9 a4lCιg4. The insertion οί the a-pawn moves seems Ιο favour Black as ίι forces Whίte ιο recapture cxb3 instead οί the natural axb3. After 9 "xg4lCιxd4 there is: 4a) 10 'iWh4?! "a5 11 0-0 .tf6 with the fol1owing moves for Whίte: 4al) 12 "h6 ~g7 13 "h4 ~ί6 = is hardly exciting for either side. 4a2) 12 "xf6!? lCιe2+ 13 lCιxe2 exf6 14 lCιc3 d5 15 lCιxd5 and now

Blackcanplayeither 15 ...:d816 .td4 :xd5 17 exd5 ~g7 18 :ael ~ί5 with equality, Szewinsky-Grabczewski, Ρο­ land 1963, or 15 ... .te616lCιxf6+~g7 17 .td4 leading Ιο a sharp struggle, Pietzsch-Modler, E.Germany 1963. 4b) 10 "dl lCιxb3 (bad is 10... e5 11 h4 d6 12 h5 .te6 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 lCιd5 ± Mukhin-Voronkov, USSR 1969; ίη a recent attempt Ιο rehabilitate this vaήation, Black tήed 10... lCιe6 but after 11 "d2 d6 120-0-0 b6 13 h4lCιc5 14 f3 ~e6 15 h5 ~xb3 16 axb3lCιe6 17 :h3 "c8 18 ~bl :e8 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 :dhl Whίte had a strong ίηί­ tiative οη the kingside ίη ThesingIoVΊc, Dortmund 1989) 11 axb3 b6(no better is 11. ...txc3+ 12 bxc3 a6 13 "d4 d6, Browne-Huguet, Malaga 1970, when 14 .th6 e5 15 "d3 :e8 16 ο-ο .te6 17 :fd 1 is ± according Ιο Kurajica; worthy οί attention is 11 ... a5!?, a favoUΉte οί the postal player Ojanen: 12 .td4 :a6 13 .txg7 ~xg7 140-0 {14 lCιd5 :e6 15 "d4+ ί6 was Morosov-Ojanen, coa 1982} 14... f6 15 "d3 d6 16 :adl .te6 17lCιd5 "d7 18 c4 :c6 19 :fel :c5 20 lCιc3 "c8 21 ί4 b5 22 lCιxb5 a4 23 lCιa3 axb3 24 "xb3 ~xc4 25 lCιxc4 :xc4 26 "e3 "c5 and Black went οη Ιο win this endgame ίη Bartis-Ojanen, coa 1982) 12 ~d4 (trying to get ήd οί Black's best piece; less effective is 12 "d5 .txc3+ 13 bxc3 "c7 140-0-0 "xc3 15 ~d4 "c6 16 "e5 ί6 17 "xe7 .tb7 with equality, Fischer-Reshevsky, New York (4) 1961). After 12 .td4 Black can try: 4bl) 12...e513~e3~b7140-Of5 15 f3 fxe4 16 fxe4 :xf1+ 17 "xfl ~h8 18 "d3 ± ShamkoVΊch-Wade, Moscow 1962.

Uogele Variation: Main Line with 7... 0-0 4b2) 12....tb7 13 h4 (13 .txg7 ιJJxg7 14 Wd4+ f6 150-0-0 d6 16 h4

:c8 17 f4 Wc7 18 h5 .c5 19 Wd3 g5 20 g3 ~h8 was a11 ήght for Black ίη Mocthgen-Maier, cοπ 1966) 13 ...Wc7 14 h5 g5 15 h6.txd4 16 Wxd4 f6 17 :h3 ~h8 18 JΣe3 d6 190-0-0 :ac8 20 :d2 1i'c5 21lΩd5 :fe8 22 1i'd3 .tc6 11 ΦbΙ .td7 24 1i'e2 1i'a5 25 e5 dxe5 ](, :ι.χe5 with a winning position for White, Estrin-de Carbonnel, cοπ 1971. 4b3) 12 ... f6 (D) with yet another Ilrcukdown:

4b3a) 13 .txf6? .txf6 14 1i'd5+ e6 I.~ .xa8 .txc3+ 16 bxc3 1i'c7 17 .κ07 (17 ο-ο a5 18 :a4 d5 19 exd5

.111720 Wa7 exd5 and Black is winIIllIg, Kotlcoν-A.Zaitseν, USSR 1962) 1'l ...•xc3+ 18 ~f1 d5 - ana1ysis by Iιlllcslaνsky.

4b3b) 13 h4.tb7 14 h5 ~f7 (this work ουΙ νery well; a1so poor I~ 14 ...Wc7 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 .g4 ~f7 Ι Ι 0-0-0 ± Nadezhdin-Listengarten, Ι JSSR 1962; Black's best try appears 11Ι IIC 14...d5 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 exd5 ΙΙιιιJ5 17 .g4 .txg218 .xg2 1i'xd4 Ι 'ι .xg6 1i'e5+ 20 ~f1 .g5 and, ίη %IIhaloν-Rausis, Riga 1989, Black

IllIι~ι;η'ι

αnd 8

.t.b3

α5

43

won injust ten more moνes) 15 f4 e6 16 Wd3 d5 17 e5 :h8 18 h6.*.f8 19 exf6 .*.c5 20.te5 and White enjoys a clear plus, Martin Gonzalez-Garcia Blanco, Candas 1992. . 4b3c) 13 1i'd3 .*.b7 140-0-0 .tc6 (a1so ίη White's faνour is 14...We8 15 h4 1i'f7 16 h5 :fd8 17 hxg6 hxg6 18 f4 d5 19 e5, Veresoν-A.Zaitseν, USSR 1962) 15 h4 Wc716h5 .*.h6+ 17 ~bl g5 18 :hel ± Tukmakoν-Faibisoνich, Leningrad 1962. 5) Mter 8 ...d6 9 h3 two ideas deserνe attention: 5a) 9 ... a5!? 10 a4lΩxd4 11 .*.xd4 .*.e6 12 .txe6 (12 .td5!?) 12... fxe613 0-0(13Wd2?:c8140-0J:[c415J:[fel, Mestel-Larsen, Hastings 198617, and now 15...Wc8! is a bit better for Black according Ιο Larsen) 13...:c8 14 :el lΩd7 with equa1ity, Ta1-Larsen, Brussels 1987. 5b) 9 ...lΩa5100-0(thesharp 10f4 appears to be a11 ήght for Black after 1O... b6 11 e5 lΩh5 12 .*.d5 dxe5! 13 fxe5, Sigurjonsson-Joa.Diaz, Cienfuegos 1975, 13 ...:b8 14 e6 {14 b4 e6} 14 ... fxe6! with mutual chances according Ιο Sigurjonsson) 10... b6 11 1i'd3 (11 .*.g5lΩxb3 {11 ... .*.a6!?} 12 axb3 .tb7 13 :el h6 14 .th4 a6 was equa1 in Ciήc-Neulinger, Wiener Neustadt 1991) 11 ....*.b7 (a1so playable is 11 ... lΩxb3 12 axb3 .tb7 13 :fdl a6, Ljubojeνic-Adorjan, Amsterdam 1978) 12 f4 (White went nowhere fast with 12 .*.d5 Wd7 13 .*.xb7 1i'xb7 14 :adl :ac8 ;: ίη Moldoνan-Maήn, Bucharest 1994; howeνer, Marin's 12 :fel!? deserνes a look) 12... lΩxb3 13 axb3 lΩd7 14 .td2lΩc5 15 We3 e5!? and Black had good play ίη FedorowiczChristiansen, USA Ch 1977.

Accelerated Dragons

44

After 8... a5 White can try the following moves: 81: 90-0 44 82: 983 44 83: 9a4 45 84: 913 51

82) 9a3(D)

For those who enjoy cuήοsίties, witness the following minίature: 9 h4 a4 10 lDxa4 lDxe4 11 h5 :xa4 12 lDxc6 bxc6 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 J.xa4 J.xb2 15 J.d4 1IFa5+ 16 ΦnlDd2+ 17 1IFxd2 1-0 Baljon-Westerveld, Netherlands 1987. Β1)

90-0a4! Black trades a wing pawn for a centre pawn. 10lDxa4 1Ο J.xa4 lDxe4 11 lDxe4 :xa4 12 c3:aS 13lDxc6 bxc6 14 1IFb3 :b5 15 1IFc2 d5 16lDc5 J.f5 17 "d2 e5 was fine for Black ίη Gallίnnis-Guempges, cοπ 1981. 10•••lDxe4 l1lDxcfί bxc6 12 lt!b6 12 J.b6 "e8 13 :el d5 14 c4 J.f5 15 f3 lDd6 16 J.c5 J.e6 17lt!b6 dxc4! was better for Black ίη ChesnaiskasUogele, USSR 1970. 12••':b813lDxc8 1i'xc814 13 ι!Μ6 14...lDd615 c3lbf5 16 J.f2 d5 gives Black a strong centre and the advantage, Bezzi-Denny, Moscow OL 1994. IS"e2 Νο better is 15 :el d6 16 a4 c5 Gild.Garcia-Thmer, London Lloyds Bank 1994. IS.....c716 1:Iadl :fe817 :fel d6 18 ΦhΙ eS 19 J.gS dS 20 ..r.zlt!d7 21 c3 fS Mokry-Antunes, Strasbourg 1994.

=

=

This line can be compared with the more popular 9 a4. The text-move retains control ofb4 but doesn't stake a claim to b5. 9...lt!g4 10 "xg4 Harmless is 10 lt!xc6lt!xe3 (the altemative 10...dxc6 11 1IFxd8 :xd8 12 J.b6 :e8 13 f3lDe5 140-0-0 lDd7 15 J.d4 J.h6+ 16 ΦbΙ b5 was fine for Black ίη Gϋnther-ΑΡίcella, Munich 1992) IllDxd8lt!xdI12lt!xdl :xd8 13 c3 b5 14lDe3 :b8 151Dc2 J.b7 16 f3 d5 17 exd5 J.xd5 18 J.xd5 1:Ixd5 I.Rogers-Hoeksema, Dieren 1988. 10...lt!xd4 11 1i'dllDxb3 12 cxb3 d6 13 J.d4 J.e6 13 ...J.xd4 14 1IFxd4 J.e6 15 b4 axb4 1611Fxb4 1IFd7 17 0-0 :fc8 18 f4 :a6 19 1IFd4 :c5 20 :ael b5 21 :f3 :c4 22 1IFf2 b4 Kogan-Zίlberman, Israeli Ch 1992. 14 J.xg7 ΦΧι7 1! "d4+ Φι8 16 b4 axb4 17 "xb4 "d7 18 ο-ο :fc8 19 :fdl :c4 20 "b6 "00 21 "xOO bxOO posed ΩΟ problems for Black ίη Barlov-Abramovic, Palιna ΟΜΑ 1989.

=

=

Uogele Vαriαtion: Μαω Line with 7...0-0 αnd 8 .t.b3 α5

83) 9a4(D)

Recently this has become very popular. Though the double advance ofthe a-pawns is ίη Black's favour (as axb3 is ηο longer possible), White is demonstrating that things are ηοΙ as easy for Black as theory had once supposed. One of the biggest changes since the publication of the first edition of this book is the reaρpraisal of 9 a4. Formerly, Black was considered to be doing extremely well after 9...~g4 1Ο "xg4 ~xd4 followed by capturing οη b3 mixed with a quick ... d6 and ....te6. However, 11 "'h4! has changed the picture completely. Instead of the passive retreat Ιο dl, the queen puts tremendous pressure οη Black's kingside and the e7-square. 9···~ι4 Other moves: 1) 9 ...dS (the inclusion of a4 ίη place of f3 makes this advance exιremely unlikely Ιο succeed) 10 exd5 ~M 11 ~dbS .tfS 12 ο-ο :a6 (or I2 .....d713 :el :ac814.tb6:a815 ~7 ± Palac-Apicella, Vinkovci 1989)

45

13:el 'ifb8 14 .tc5 ~ι4 15 g3lDeS 16 ~4 .tg4 17 f3 :c8 18 .txe7 ± Mossin-Thorsson, Reykjavik 1994. 2) 9... d6 (this transposes ίηιο the Dragon; we give one game so the reader will have an idea of what Black is up 10) 10 f3 ~d411.txd4.te6 12 ~ .txd5 13 .txdS ~xd5 14 exdS e5 15 dxe6 "'h4+ 16.tf2 'ifb4+ 17 "d2 .txb2 18 "xb4 axb4 19 exf7+ ΦΧf7 20 :a2 .tc3+ 21 ΦdΙ d5 22 .tel d4 23 .txc3 dxc3 24 :el :fd8+ 25 Φe2 :d2+ 26 Φf1 b3 27 :a3 bxc2 28 :xc3 :e8 29 :c7+ Φf8 30 :xe8+ Φχe8 0-1 Szecsenyi-Zsu.Polgar, Hungary 1984. 10"xg4 Promising little for White is 10 0-0 ~xe3 11 fxe3 d6 12 ~5 .td7 13 c3 e6 14 ~f4 e5 15 ~c6 bxc6 16lDe2 :b8, Tabor-Donaldson, Rhodes 1980. Interesting is 10 ~xc6 ~xe3 (also adequate is 10...dxc6 11 "xd8 :xd8 12.tb6 :e8 13 h3 ~6 140-0 e5 15 :adl.th6 16 Φh2 ~d7 = ApicellaRenet, Belgrade ΟΜΑ 1988) 11 ~d8 ~xdl 12 ~d5 (12 :xdl .txc3+ 13 bxc3 :xd8 14 e5 d6 {even stronger is 14...:a6 intending 15 ...d6 or 14...Φg7 with 15 ... f6 Ιο follow; ίη each case Black is a little better} 15 exd6 exd6 = Sziebert-Molnar, Harkany 1994), when Black can play: 1) 12...:xd8 13 :xdl (White can also sacήfice the exchange and get some compensation with 13 ~e7+ Φf8 14 ~xc8 ~xb2 15 ~d6 ~d3+ {15...:a6!? may be stronger} 16 cxd3 .txa117 Φe2 .tf6 18 ~xf7 ± Ioakί­ midis-Makropoulos, Greece 1980) 13 ...Φf8 (for 13 ... e6, see line '2a') 14 ~b6 :a6! (14 ...:b8 15 c3 d6 16 ο-ο {16 :d5 .te6 17 :b5 ±} 16....td7 17

46

Accelerαted Drαgons

f4.i.c6 18 ':del ± Murey-Brendel, νί­ enna 1991) 15 lαι.c8 ':xc8 16 ':xd7 ':b6 (16... .i.xb2 17 ':xb7 .i.c3+ 18 ~e2J:.d619J:.dl;1;) 17 h4(betteris 17 ~e2 .i.xb2 18 ':hdl ':b4 19 ':d8+ ':xd8 20 ':xd8+ ~B7 21 ~d3 with a very smaU advantage, Mololkin-Yakovich, Volgograd 1995) 17 ....i.xb2 18 h5 ~e8 19 J:.d3 ':b4 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 ~d2 .i.f6 22 ':h7 e6 23 .:f3 ~e7 24 e5 ,ιΒ5+ 25 ~d3 ':d8+ was S.Marjanovic-Cebalo, Titograd 1984; Black won thίs game in 119 moves. 2) 12... e6 and now: 2a) 13l1Jc7 ':b8 14 ':xdl ':xd8 15 lbb5 b6 16 f4.i.a6 17 e5 is gίven as slίghtly better for White by the Russian master Mololkin, but 17 ... .1xb5 18 axb5 .i.f8, intending ... d6, seems fine for Black; note that thίs is doubly important as this variatίon can also come about after 12 ....:xd8 13 ':xdl e6 (instead οί 13 ...~f8) 14 lbc7 (14 lbb6 ':a6 15lbxc8 ':xc8 16 ':xd7 ':b6 17 ~e2 .i.xb2 =) 14...':b8 15lbb5 b6 16 ί4 .i.a6 17 e5 ,ιΧb5 18 axb5 ,ιf8 with ...d6 to follow. 2b) 13 lbe7+ ~h8 14 ':xdl (14 lbxe6 dxe6 15 ':xdl ,ιΧb2 16 ~e2 b6 17 lbxc8 :Σaxc8 Ih-Ih Κreiman-Shi­ but, New York 1991) 14...J:.xd8 15 c3 d6 16lbxc8 ':axc8 was equal ίη Ioakimidis-Donaldson, Athens 1980. lo••.lbxd4 (D) Now White has tried: Β3.: 11 "dl

46

B3b: 11 .i.xd4 B3c: 11 '8'h4!

47 48

Lacking ίη bite is 11 ':dl d6 12 'tIfg3lbxb3 13 cxb3 .te6 1400 ':c8 15 ,ιb6 "d7 16 ,ιχa5 .i.xd5 17 exd5

b5 18 .1c3 .1xc3+ 19 bxc3 bxa4 20 bxa4 'tIfxa4 21 ο-ο :Σc7 22 ':d3 ':b8 and Black was clearly better ίη GafikPetursson, Groningen 1978/9.

83a) 11 "dllbxb3 12 cxb3 d6 12...:a67! 13 0-0 d6 14 "d2 .i.e6

15lbd5 "d7 16 :ΣacΙ .i.xd5 17 exd5 ± M.Markovic-Nik~evic,

Yugoslav Ch

(Banja Vrucica) 1991.

130-0 Other moves are also harmless: 1) 13,ιd4.1χd4(13 ....tg4!714f3 .i.xd4 15 'tIfxd4 e5 16 "e3 ,ιe6 17 lbb5 d5 18 exd5 '8'h4+ 19 g3 "b4+ 20 l1Jc3 .i.xd5 21 ο-ο .i.c6 favoured Black in Beshukov-Utemov, Moscow 1991) 14 "xd4 ,ιe6 15 b4 ':c8 16 lbd5 .i.xd5 17 exd5 axb4 18 "xb4 "d7 190-0 ':c5 20 J:.fdl J:.fc8,lanokvic-Todorovic, Belgrade GMA 1988. 2) 13"d2 (preparing 00 by giving b2 some support) 13 ... .i.e6 14 lbd5.i.xd5 15 exd5 "d716 0-0 (iί 16 b4 then 16.....g4!) 16... b5!. The consistent follow-up to Black's previous play. The weakness of White's queenside pawns gives Black a decided

Uogele Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7... 0-0 αΜ 8 ~3 α5 edge: 17 ~b6 (if 17 b4 Black has 17 ...bxa4 18 bxa5 'iWb5! +Lind-Jensen, Hamar 1979; also ίη Black's favour is 17 ~d4 ~xd4 18 'ifxd4 :fb8 19 'ifc3 :c8 20 "d2 :c5 + Jano§evic-Damjanovic, Sarajevo 1969) 17 ...bxa4 18 ':xa4 (or 18 bxa4 ':fb8 19 "e3 'ifb7 and again Black has the advantage) 18... 'ifb5 19 ~xa5 'ifxb3 20 :b4 'ifa2 21 ~c7 (if 21 ~b6 then 21 ...:fc8 22 .ie3 :ab8 and Black is οη ιορ) 21. .. J:ιfc8 22 :cl :a4 23 ':xa4 "xa4 24 b4 ~h6! 25 "xh6 :xc7 26 :bl "'a2 and Black is winning, GamarroPetursson, Buenos Aires OL 1978. 13••• ~e6 14Ι4 Three other possibilities: Ι) 14 ~5 ~xb2 (also good is 14 ...~xd5 15 exd5 "'d7 with the idea ()f ... b5) 15 :bl ~g7 16 ~b6 "d7 17 ':cl .ixd5 18 "xd5 e6 1/2-1/2 PrasadHemandez, Calcutta 1988. 2) 14 :bl is best met by 14 .....d7 intending Ιο answer 15 /t)d5 with 15 ... ~xd5 16 exd5 b5. 3) 14':a3 :a6 15 "d2 f5 16 exf5 ':xf5 17 :e1 .if7 18 .ig5 'ifb6 19 ':xe7 d5 :j: Adams-Shabalov, London Lloyds Bank 1991. 14••.f5 Black could strongly consider the nltemative 14 .....d7 15:f2 :ac8 16 lί)b5 f5 17 exf5 :xf5 18 ~b6 :cf8 19 g3 g5!, J.Szabo-Neamtu, Romania 1969. 15 exf5 .lb:f5 16 g4 16 :f2 :c8 17 g4 18 /t)d5 :c6 19 h3 cRh8 20 "d3 .ixd5 21 "xd5 gnve White some adνantage in Κislov­ Kulikov, Podolsk 1993. 16••• J:ιf7 17/t)e4 .ih6 18 h3 1Id7 19 1Id2 1Ic61eadsto equality, OrakKarlsson, νmj~ka Banja 1981.

:f8

47

B3b) 11 .ixd4 .ixd4 (D)

w

1211g3 12 Ο-Ο-ο?! .ixc3 13 bxc3 b5! 14 axb5 a4 15.ia2"a5 is clearly advantageous for Black, Jaulin-Nik~evic, Paris Ch 1993. 12•.•d6 Also good is 12 ... e6 13 ο-ο-ο?! (13 :dl 1If6 14 ':d3 b6 15 ο-ο .ia6 16 :f3 We5 17 1Ixe5 .ixe5 18 :dl :fd8 and Black has a slight advantage, Bokan-Kochiev, Tallinn 1989) 13 ... Wf6 14 f4?! (14 :d3 transposes ίηΙο the Bokan-Kochiev game cited above) 14....ixc3 15 bxc3 d5! 16 exd5 exd5 17 :xd5 .if5 18 :hd 1 :fc8 19 :d611e7 20 cRb2 b5! 21 axb5 a422 .ia2 We2 with a clear advantage for Black, Zapata-Hurme, Buenos Aires OL 1978. 130-0-0 Two other possibi1ities: 1) 13 h4 .ie6 14 .ixe6 fxe6 15 /t)dl11b616c3~e517Wh3d518h5

:f4 19 exd5 :e4+ 20 /t)e3 exd5 21 0-0 e6 is level, Renum-Palacios, con 1985.

48

Accelerαted

2) 13 :dl ~e5 14 f4 ~xc3+ 15 .xc3 1Wb6 with equality, Ιvanοviό­ Vallifuoco, Telese 1988. 13••.-*.g7 Black's best move is probably 13 ...~xc3 (this move saves time and simplifies the position; also possible is 13 ...~e5 14 f4 ~xc3 15 "'xc3 .b6 16 "d4 "xd4 17 :xd4 ~e6 18 ~d5 ~xd5 19 :xd5 :fc8 20 b3 :c621 :hdl 1/2-1/2 Rowley-D.Benjamin, Philadelphia 1992) 14 "xc3 ~e6 with equality, Ιvanοviό-Cebalο, Yugoslav Ch 1983. 14 h4 ~e6 15lM5 Α critical alternative is 15lDb5!? This led to a clear advantage for White ίη Mukhutdinov-Yakovich, St Petersburg 1993 after 15....b6 16 f4 :ac8 17 ~xe6 fxe6 181Wb3. 15••• ~xd5 16 :Xd5 e6 17 :xd6 "f6 18 c3 b5 19 h5 b4 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 "h4 "xh4 22:ΧΜ bxc3 23 bxc3 ~xc3 24 :h3 :fc8 =+= lakel-Mohr, Wϋrzburg 1991.

B3c) 11 "h4! (D)

Dragons

This has become White's only serious choice. Ιη fact, results with 11 "h4 have been so one-sided that some players have switched to 7.....a5. With the text-move White plans to use piece-play (lDd5, ~g5 or ~h6, :adl and :fel or doubling οη the dor e-file) and possibly fl-f4 to storm the black position. This treatment demands accurate play by Black, who can easily drift into a difficult position. He would like to get ίη ...d6 and ...~e6 as soon as possible, but this is often easier said than done. ll...lDxb3 Several other moves have been tried: 1) 11 ...:a6 12 ο-ο d6 13 lDd5 e6 14 "xd8 :xd8 15 ~g5 16lDe7+ Φh8 17 ~c4 :b6 18 c3 lDc6 19lDxc8 :xc8 20 ~b5! is slightly better for White according Ιο llijin. 2) 11 ...e6 12 ~g5!? (inferior is 12 "xd8 J:ιxd8 13 0-0-0 lDxb3+ 14 cxb3 d5 15 ~d4 dxe4 16 ~xg7 :xdl+ 17 :xdl Φχg7 18lDxe4 b6 19lDd6 ~a6 :; Ρerenyi-Radοsavljevίό, Balatonbereny 1988) 12...~?! {probably better is 12...f6!? 13 ~e3 f5 14 "xd8 :xd8 15 ~xd4 ~xd4 16 0-0-0 ~f6 17 e5!;t Pupo-Andres, Cuban Ch (Sancti Spiή­ tus) 1989) 13 ο-ο! lDxc2 14 ~xc2 "xb21S~f6! "xc216:acl ~xf617 "xf6.d218eS! dS 1gexd6"xd620 :fdl "b4 21 Μ! ± Estevez-Andres, Cuban Ch (Sancti Spiήtus) 1989. 3) 11 ...d612lDds and now: 3a) 12...e6 13 "xd8 J:ιxd8 14lDc7 :b8 150-0-0 lDxb3+ 16 cxb3 ~d7 17 ~b6 led ιο victories for White ίη Tolnai-Seres, Hungaήan Cht 1991 and Apicella-Palacios, Parana 1993, but Black could probably have improved his play here. Unfortunately for Black.

:f8

Uogele Variation:

Μaίπ

White has a big improvement

ίο

Une with 7... 0-0 and 8 13

~e7+ Φh8 14 Ο-Ο-ο! ~xb3+ 15 cxb3

with the following possibilities: 3al) 15...b5 16e5dS 17ΦbΙ gives White a clear edge according Ιο Seirawan. 3a2) 15 ... g5 16 j.xg5 f6 17 ~g6+ ~g8 18 ~xf8 fxg5 19 "'xh7+ Φχf8 20 J:[d3 g4 21 .g6! "'f6 22 "'xf6+ J.xf6 23 J:[xd6 ± (analysis by Seirawan). 3b) Black's last chance Ιο improve ίη the 11 ... d6 line is 12... J:[e8!? 13 J.g5 ~f8 (an idea of Hungarian αΜ ΚaIIai) 140-0 j.e6 15 J:[adl ~xb3 16 cxb3 j.xdS 17 exd5 J:[a6 18 J:[d3 and now 18 ...J:[b6 (intending Ιο meet 19 J:[h3 with 19...h5 20 g4 J:[b4 21 f4 .b6+ followed by 22 ...J:[xb3) is answered by the annoying 19 j.d2. 12 cxb3 (D)

Now Black has: 83c1: 12••• j.f6 49 83c2: 12•••J:ιa6 49 Here 12...d6 fails miserably

a5

49

B3c1) 12.•• j.f6 13 j.gS?! The idea behind 12... j.f6 is ιο take care of the exposed black e-pawn as quickly as possible. Αι one time this appeared to be an easy route ΙΟ equality, but then the pawn sacήfice 13 'ifg3 ! d6 14 ~d5! (and οοΙ 14 J:[bl j.e6 15 ~dS j.xdS 16 exd5 "'d7, which gives Black exactly what he wants, ReigAlvarez Ibarra, Caiiete 1994) was discovered, when 14...j.xb2 15 J:[bl j.g7 16 j.b6 "'d7 17 ':cl leaves Black with big problems Ιο solve. 13••• j.xg5 14 .xg5 d6 15 ~ e6 16 .xd8 :Xd8 171Δc7 J:ιa7 17...':b8 may be even better: 18 ':dl (18 ~b5 allows 18... Φf8 19 ':dl Φe7 with ... b6 and ... .i.a6 ιο follow) 18 ....i.d7! 19 Φe2 (Black also does well after 19 ':xd6 .i.c6 20 J:[xd8+ J:[xd8 21 f3 ':d7 22 ~b5 .i.xb5 23 axb5 J:[d4 with the idea of ...':b4) 19...':bc8 20 .z:[cl .i.c6 21 ~b5 j.xe4 22 ':xc8 :Xc8 23 ~xd6 J:[c2+ 24 Φe3 .i.xg2 25 J:[dl J:[xb2 led ιο a quick victory for Black ίο Borocz-Deak, Kobanya 1992. 1sΦe2 b5!? Black is fine: 19 ~xb5 J.a6 20 Φe3 ':b7 21 b4 .i.xb5 22 axb5 1/1_1/1 Szalanczy-Κochiev, Balatonbereny 1988. Thίs example may suggest that all is rosy for Black, but he desperately needs an answer ΙΟ the liώe-knοwn but highlyeffective 13 "'g3! d614~5!.

B3c2) Ιο

13

~d5 j.e6 14 ~xe7+ Φh8 15 j.g5 .d7 16 ο-ο ± Zso.Polgar-Sιrating,

Amsterdam Donner mem 1995.

~b3

12.••':a6(D) Thίs

rook-lift is very popular but ίι remains ιο be seen if Black can equalize with it.

50

Accelerαted Drαgons

130-0 Ineffective is 13 ':'cl ':'e6 14lDd5 .tf6 15lDxf6+ exf6 160-0 d5 17 exd5 'ii'xd5 18 ':'c4 b6 19 'ii'd4 1/2-1/2 Pedzich-Kuczynski, Katowice 1992.

13...':'e6 13 ...d6 14 lDd5 ':'e8 (both 14...e6 15 'ii'xd8 ':'xd8 16 .tg5 exd5 17.txd8 and 14... .txb2? 15 lDxe7+ Φh8 16 ':'adl are very good for White) 15 ':'acl (15 b4 axb4 16 a5 ':'c6 17lDxb4 ':'c4 is fine for Black, Borkowski-Pokojowczyk, Polanica Zdroj 1979) 15 ...':'c6 16 .tg5 f6 17 .te3! ;t llijin- Κaίdanov, Bled 1989.

14':'fel White also has several other interesting moves: 1) 14 ':'adl b6 15 ':'d2 (15 .td4 .tb7 16 .txg7 Φχg7 17 ':'d4 f5 {17 ....tc618.:.fdlf5 19f3 'ii'e8 20b4 fxe4 21lDxe4 .txe4 22:Xe4 ':'xe4 23 'W'xe4 d6 24 b5 ± Szalanczy-Leko, Balatonbereny 1992} 18 ':'fdl d6 19 b4 h6 20 exf5 ':'xf5 21 f3 ':'ef6 22 lDe4 ':'f8 23 'W'el 9b8 1/2-1/2 Danailov-Moreno, Madrid 1993) 15....tb7?! (15 ....tf6 16 .tg5 .txg5 17 'W'xg5 .tb7 is equal according Ιο Pigusov) 16 ':'fdl .tf6 17 'ii'g3 ;t Sax-Pigusov,

Moscow αΜΑ 1990. The continuaιίοη was 17 ... .tc6 (17 ... .te5!?) 18 lDd5 .te5 19 'ii'h4 .td6 20 .txb6 'ii'b8 21 .td4 f6 22 ':'d3 ':'f7 23 .tc3 'ii'xb3 24lDxf6+ exf6 25 ':'xd6 ':'xe4 26 'ii'g3 'ii'xa4 27 h3 and Black was just barely holding his own. 2) 14 ':'fdl b6 15 ':'d2 .tb7 (15 ....tf6!?) 16lDd5 f5 17 exf5 ':'xf5 18 .txb6 'ii'f8 (18 ...':'xb6 loses Ιο 19 lDxe7+ and 20 lDxf5) 19 'ii'c4 'ii'f7 20 .te3 ':'xd5 21 ':'xd5 ':'xe3 22 ':'b5 .txb2 23 'ii'xf7+ ΦΧf7 24 fxe3 1-0 Hector-Kuczynski, Haifa Echt 1989. 3) 14 .tg5 b6 15 lDd5 f6 16 .te3 .tb7 17 ':'adl Φh8 18 'ii'h3 f5 19 exf5 ':'xf5 led Ιο an interesting tactical batt1e that eventually tumed ουΙ in Black's favour after 20 lDc3 ':'ef6 21 'ii'g4 d5 22 lDe2 ':'f7 23 lDd4 ':'hS 24 ':'c 1 .txd4 25 'W'xd4+ e5 26 'ii'xb6 'ii'h4 27 h3 d4 28 ':'c7 'W'e4 29 ':'xb7 'ii'xb7 ίη Madl-Laird, Sydney 1990. 4) 14 ':'acl b6 15 f4 f5 16 e5 d617 ':'fdl .td7 18 .td4 dxe5 19 .txe5 ':'xe5 20 fxe5 .txe5 21 lDd5 .td6 22 'ii'd4 ± Rogers-Bauert, Biel1992.

14...b6 14...d6 15 ':'adl .td7 16lDd5 .tc6 17 .th6 .txd5 18 exd5 ':'xel+ 19 ':'xel .txh6 20 'ii'xh6 'ii'b6 21 ':'xe7 'iixb3 22 'it'd2 'it'xa4 23 g3 b6 24 h4 h5 25 ':'b7 'it'b5 1/2-1/2 Enuns-Hutters, Copenhagen 1994. 15 .th6 .tb7 16.txg7 Two other possibilities: 1) 16 ':'e3 .txh6 17 'it'xh6 f6 18 ':'dl ':'e5 19 ':'g3 ':'f7 20 f4 ':'xe4 21 lDxe4 .txe4 22 ':'c3 f5 23 'it'h3 didn't give Black enough for the exchange in Κoch-Apicella, French Ch 1991. 2) 16 ':'adl .txh6 17 'it'xh6 'ii'c7 18 ':'e3 f6 19 lDd5 .txd5 20 exd5

Uogele Variation: Main Line with 7...0-0 and 8 j.b3 a5 J:ιxe3 21 Wxe3 Wc5 22 .I:Icl Wxd5 23 'fIxe7 Wxb3 24 "xd7 "xb2 and Whίte Ι,ud to fight for a draw ίη Eιnms­ Yakovich, Copenhagen 1993. l6•••~g717 .I:Ie3 fS Or 17...J:ιe518 f4J:ιc519.1:1dl e620 'fIfΊ .tc6 21 .I:Ih3 h5 22 .I:Ig3 'fIf6 23 1,4 d5 24 e5 "e7 25 'I:Ig5 b5 26 axb5 .txb5 27 f5! ± Hebden-Κristensen, Ifustings Masters 1990. 18 .I:Iael fxe4 19 ιαιe4 h6 20 ~d2 J:ιxe3 21 "d4+ eS 22 "xe3 favoured White ίη Topa1ov-Larsen, Mesa 1992: 22 ... d6 23 ~c4 .I:If4 24 .I:Idl 'I:Ie4 25 'fIc3 Wg5 26 g3 .I:Id4 27 'I:Ixd4 exd4 28 "'xd4+ ~h7 29lDe3 "e7 30 f4 h5 31 oJ..I'2 and BIack went οη to Iose. Conclusion: After 8... a5 9 a4 ~g4 Ι Ο "xg4 ~xd4 BIack does fine foIIlIwing 11 "dl or 11 .txd4, but 11 'fIh4 is another matter. At the time of Ihίs wήtiηg BIack has not found a reliIlhlc way Ιο equalize.

84) 9f3dS(D) Bad is 9 ... e6? 10 0-0 (10 ~b5 d5 Ι Ι .tc5 a4 12 .txf8 "'xf8 is probably IIlso good for Whίte but might prove a hit messy) 10......e7 11 ~b5lDe8 12 li)u4 d6 13 ~b6 ± 1-0 Langhein-PanIcn, cοπ 1982. After 9 ...d5 White has two major ι'hοίces:

114a: 10.txdS I14b: 10 exdS

51 61

Other moves are Iess ίmportant: Ι) 10 ~xc6 is completely innocuIIUS: 1O... bxc6 11 exd5 (11 0-0 e6 12 .tc5:es 13 .ta4 ~7 {13 ....ta6!?} 14

51

w

.tf2, Dobrovolsky-Pekarek, Czechoslovak Ch 1988, and now 14.....c7 offers chances for both sides) 11 ... ~xd5 12 ~xd5 cxd5 (12 ... a4!?) 13 c3 e6 14 0-0 .td7 15 .ta4 "'c7 :j: Besztercsenyi-IGss, Hungary 1993. 2) 10 ~xd5 ~xd5 11 exd5 (as 11 .txd5? ~xd4 12 .txd4 .txd4 13 Wxd4 e6 drops a piece) 11 ...~b412 c4 a4 13 .tc2 (13 a3 axb3 14 axb4 'I:Ixal 15 "'xal e5 +Rubin-UogeIe, Tartu 1978) 13 ...e6 (13 ...a3 14 b3 e5 15 ~b5 e4 is more energetic) 140-0 exd5 15 c5 = AIvarez-Shure, New York 1993. 84β)

10 .txdS ιαιdS 10... ~xd4 (Shaba1ov has played this move severa1 times ίη his native LatVΊa but, ιο our knowledge, this is the οηlΥ published game with his idea, which is to get ίη ... a4, .....a5 and ....l:ld8 as quickly as possible) 11 .txd4 a4 12 a3 .a5 13 "d2 e6 14 .ta2 .l:ld8 15 e5 ~g4 160-0-0 .txe5 17 lDe2 .txd4 18 ~xd4 "xd2+ 19 .I:Ixd2 ~3 20 g3 'I:Ia6 21 'I:Iel ~d5 22 ~b5 ~g7 23 ~7 .I:Ia5 24 .l:ledl h5 25 ~xd5 exd5 26 'I:Ixd5 'I:Iaxd5 27 .txd5 h4 28

52

Accelerαted Drαgons

~e4 :h8

29 :d4 hxg3 30 hxg3 b5 31 g4 .i.e6 32 Φd2 :h3 33 .i.c6 .1c4 34 g5 Φf8 35 Φc3 and White won οη move 49 ίη de Firmian-Shabalov, Chicago 1994.

W

Now we have another major parting of the ways. White has: Β481: 11lt}xdS 52 B4a2: 11 exdS 54

8481) 11lt}xdS rs Black's most dynamic choice. Other tries don't offer as much: 1) 11 ...:a6!? 12lt}xc6 :xc6 13 c3 e6 14lt}b6 'fIc7 15lt}xc8 :xc8 160-0 b5, Povah-Petursson, London 1979. After 17 :c 1 Black doesn 't quite have enough for the pawn. 2) 11 ... e6 12lt}xc6 bxc6 13 lt}b6 :b8 14 'fIxd8 :xd8 15 :bl! .i.a6 16 lt}a4 .i. b5 17 lt}c5 .1f8 18 b3! and White was clearly οη Ιορ ίη A.Rodriguez-Hemandez, Cuba 1984.

12c3

Α cήtical vaήation is 12lt}xc6 bxc6 13 lt}b6 :b8 14 'fIxd8 (14 ο-ο .1a6

{14 ...fxe4!?} 15 c4 .1xb2 16 :bl.i.g7 17 exf5 gxf5 18 :b3 'fIc7 19 'fId7 is clearly better for White, Finnie-Garside, coπ 1990-1) 14...:xd8 (D), when White has three tries: 1) 15 c3 and now Black has two good replies: la) 15 ...:d3 16 .1c5 (16 lt}xc8? :xe3+ 17 Φf2 f4 18 lt}xe7+ Φf7 19 lt}xc6 :xb2+ wins for Black) 16....i.a6 17 ο-ο :d2 18 :f2 :bd8 19 ~5!? :xf2 20 lt}xe7+ Φf7 21 Φxf2 :d2+ 22 Φg3 fxe4 23 lt}xc6 exf3 24 gxf3 :xb2 25 .1d4 .1xd4 26 cxd4 a4 27 a3

.1b5 28lt}b4 g5 29 h4 gxh4+ 30 Φxh4 :d2 31 d5 1/2-1/2 Gladyshev-Panshin, cοπ 1978. lb) 15 ... fxe4 16 fxe4 (16 lt}xc8 :dxc8 170-0-0 exf3 18 gxf3 Κorch­ ηοί) 16.. ..:d317 .1f2.te618 ~.i.c4 19 ο-ο :d2 20 :fdl :bd8 21 :xd2 :xd2 and Black has good compensaιίοη for the pawn, Lepeshkin-Pinal, Managua 1984. 2) 15 lt}xc8 :dxc8 16 :bl :xb2 (16 ... fxe4!?) 17 :xb2 .i.xb2 18 Φe2 (18 exf5 gxf5 19 Φe2100ks more exact) 18 ... a4?! (18 ... fxe4 19 fxe4 .i.e5 prepaήng ...:b8 and ... .i.c7 seems fine for Black) 19 :bl .i.a3 20 e5 c5 21 Φd3 Φf7 22 Φc4 Φe6 23 :b6+ Φχe5 24 f4+ 1-0 Zeziulkin-Janicki, Polanica Zdroj 1993. 3) 15 :dl! (rather than concentrating οη mateήal gain, White focuses οη simplifying ίηΙο a better ending where all ofBlack's pawns will be targets; however, with best play ίι appears that Black can equalize and draw) 15 ...:xdl+ 16 ΦΧdΙ and now: 3a) 16 ... .i.xb2 17 lt}xc8 :xc8 18 exf5 gxf5 19 Φe2 .i.e5 20 :bl Φf7! (White gets an edge after 20... .1xh2 21 g3 e5 22 .1f2 f4 23 g4 .i.g3 24 .i.c5

=

Uogele Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7... 0-0 αnd 8 J..b3 α5 :e8 25 :b6 :e6 26 :a6;t Κi.Geor­ giev-Van der Wiel, Wιjk aan Zee 1989) 21 :b6 (21 f4 J.d6 22 a4 ]:Σg8 23 g3 :g6 24 J.d2 :h6 25 J.xa5 ]:Σxh2+ 26 Wdl :hl+ 27 J.el J.c7 28 We2 J.a5 29 :dl ]:Σh2+ 30 Wd3 ]:ΣhΙ 31 We2 :h2+ 1/2_1/2 Diaz-Hemandez, Cuba 1990) 21 ... J.xh2! 22 :a6 J.d6 23 :xa5 We6 24 a4 :g8! =Estevez-Hernandez, Holguin 1989: 25 Wf1 :b8 26 :a6 Wd5 27 J.b6 c5 28 a5 :g8 29 :a7 Wc6, etc. 3b) 16... fxe4 may be the most accurate: 3bl) 17lbxc8 ]:Σχc8 18 b3 exf3 19 gxf3 a4 20 Wd2 Wf7 21 Wd3 ]:Σa8 22 b4 ]:Σd8+ 23 Wc4 ]:Σd5 24 ]:Ση :h5 25 :f2 J.e5 26 f4 J.d6 27 a3 We6 28 Wd3 Wd7 29 c4 :h3 1/2-1/2 LancMichenka, Bratίslava 1991. Ιη this lίne, as well as those comίng from 16 ... J.xb2, there are certaίn simίlaή­ ties. Both lίnes requίre Black Ιο play actίvely with his rook. Also common Ιο both is the manoeuvre ... J.g7-e5d6/c7. Black's bishop does good work provoking the weakening f4 while redeploying Ιο the other wing Ιο cover his vulnerable queenside. 3b2) 17 fxe4 J.xb218lbxc8 :xc8 19 We2 J.e5. This positίon should be compared Ιο that aήsing from 16 ... J.xb2 17 lbxc8 :xc8 18 exf5 gxf5 19 We2 J.e5 20 :bl. Αι fιrst glance they 100k identίca1, but οη closer inspectίon important differences are revealed. Black's pawn is οη g6 and ηοΙ f5, while White's pawn is οη e4 instead of f3. The former is perhaps more significant as ίι means ... J.xh2 can be played with impunity. The pawn οη g6 means that attempts Ιο trap the bishop with g3, which were

53

ίη the aίr with an open g-file, ηο longer come ίηΙο consideratίon. Also, the pawn οη e4 means that f3-f4 isn't avaίlable Ιο guard the h-pawn with tempo. 20 ]:ΣbΙ J.xh2 21 a4 J.c7 22 ]:Σb7 Wf7 23 :a7 We6 24 J.d2 We5 25 J.xa5 J.xa5 26 ]:Σχa5+ Wxe4 27 ]:Σa7 e5 28 :xh7 :a8 29 :h4+ Wd5 30 Wd3 :a7 31 :g4 :a8 32 :h4 1/2-1/2 Ivanchuk-Zsu.Polgar, Monaco Amber Blίndfold 1994. Νow we return Ιο the maίn lίne after 12 c3 (D):

12..•fxe4 13 lbxc6 The recapture 13 fxe4 exposes the white king, but exploitίng this can be tricky. For instance after 13 ... lbe5?! White has the very strong answer 14 J.g5!:f7 15:f1 (ηοι 15 'ίi'b3lbd3+ 16 We2 lbc5 17 'ίi'c4 J.g4+ 18 We3 J.xd4+ 19 cxd4lbe6 20 lbxe7+ :xe7 21 J.xe7 'ίi'xe7 22 h3 b5 23 'ίi'xb5 'ifh4 24 'ίi'e5 'ίi'h6+ 25 Wf2 :f8+ 26 Wg3 'ίi'e3+ 27 Wh2lbxd4 and Black is winning, Fullbrook-Dona1dson, Vancouver 1982) 15 ...J.f6 16lbf3lbxf3+ 17'ίi'xf3:a618J.xf6exf6190-0-0±

Omelchenko-Widera, cοπ 1985. Two better moves after 13 fxe4 are:

54

Accelerated Dragons

1) 13 ... e6 14 ~f4 (ηοι 14 ~xc6?? because of 14....h4+, when 15 g3 .xe4 leaves alΙ of White's pieces hanging and 15 d2 bxc6 is also curtains, Fullbrook-Donaldson, Vancouver 1989) 14...~d415cxd4j,xd416 .xd4.xd4 17 j,xd4 ':xf4 18 0-0-0 j,d7! (ηοι 18...ltxe419 j,c3! andBlack is ίη trouble) 19 j,e3 (or 19 j,e5) 19...':xe41eaves a drawn double-rook endgame looιning. 2) 13 ... j,xd4!? 14 cxd4 e5 15 j,fl exd4 16 ο-ο j,e6 17 .b3 ~b4 18 j,xd4 ':xfl + 19 ':xf1lbxd5 20 exd5 .xd5 21 .e3 22 ':dl ':f7 23 h3 j,d7 24 ':d2 .f5 25 j,c3 j,c6 26 ':d8+ (26 "g3!?) 26 ... ':f8 27 ':xf8+ Φxf8 28 "d4 1/2-1/2 Tsaturίan-Uogele, cou 1992. Easy ιο handle is 13 .b3 ~d4 14 j,xd4 j,e6 15 fxe4 j,xd4 16 cxd4 j,xd5 17 exd5 e6! 180-0-0 .xd5 (analysis by Korchnoi).

:rs =

=

13•••bxc6 14 lbb6 ':b8 IS .xd8 ':xd816 ~xc8 :dxc817 0·0·0 exf3 18gxf3':bS Now: 1) Κlundt-Tielemann, W.Gerιnany 1984 saw 19 ':d7? ':cb8 20 ':d2? (20 b3 a4 21 c4 ':f5 favours Black but allows White Ιο resist) 20 ... j,xc3! and Black scored a qώck victory. 2) 19 ':hfl ':cb8 20':Ω intending j,d4 leads Ιο a position with equal chances.

(12...j,f5 13:Cl ':c8 140-0 "d7 15 a4 j,xc3 16 ~xc3 ':xc3 17 bxc3 ~xd5 18 j,h6 ± Poleshchuk-Arustamian, Leningrad 1989) 13 ~a3 (13 a3 j,xb5 14 axb4 j,c4 15 bxa5 {as 15 j,d4 axb4 16 ':xa8 "xa8 17 j,xg7 Φχg7 18 .d4+ g8 19 .xc4 bxc3 and 15 ':xa5':xa516bxa5.xa517 j,d4':d8 are both fine for Black} 15 ...':xa5 16 ':ω j,xc3+ 17 bxc3 "xa5 18 d6:d8 19 Φf2 ':xd6 20.al "xal 21 ':xal ':d8 and Black is doing well, Westeήnen-ΗemandeΖ, Alicante 1989) 13 ... e6! 14 d6?! (14 dxe6 is better, though 14... j,xe61eaves Black with a powerful initiative) 14 ... lbd5! 15.d3 .h4+! 16 g3 'ifb4 17 j,d2 j,xc3! 18 j,xc3 lbxc3 19 "xc3 ':fc8! 20 .xb4 axb4 21 ~bl ':xc2 22 0-0 j,c6 23':Ω ':c 1+ 24 ':f1 ':xf1 + 25 xf1 ':d8 26 lbd2 Itxd6 and Black won WΊthout dίf­ ficulty.

12.•.j,fS

8482) 11 exdS ~b4 (D) 12lbde2 Α new but doubtful try for White is 12lbdb5?!. Seιnionov-Uogele, USSR cou Cht 1989 continued 12... j,d7

Εnteήng

the maίn highway of the Uogele. Those who wish to avoid 10ng theoretical dίsputes may wish to consider the more modest 12 ...e6!? (D). White'has tried several moves but has yet Ιο find a clear path Ιο an advantage:

Uogele Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7... 0-0 αnd 8 j.b3 α5

1) 13 dxe6 J..xe6 gives Black good for the pawn. This was borne ουΙ by Borge-Oblίtas, Manίla OL 1992: 14a3lDd515J..d4lDxc316 bxc3 :e8 17 ~ .c7 18 :bl J..xd4+ 19 cxd4 :ac8 20 c3 J..c4 21lDg3 J..d5 22 :cl .e7 23 .d2 .xa3 24 h4 b5 25 h5 .e7 26 lDf1 :c6 27 lDe3 :e6 with a clear advantage for Black. 2) 13 J..c5 :e8 14 d6 :a6 is assessed by Cuban GM Hernandez as unclear. 3) 13 .d2exd5 (13 ...'ilh4+ 14J..t2 .c4 15 a3 lDxd5 16lDxd5 exd5 17 J..d4 :e8 18 J..xg7 ~xg7 19 ~Ω was better for White ίη Westeήnen-Ηecht, Raach 1969) 14 a3? (14 J..d4 J..xd415 lLJxd4 .h4+ is unclear) 14... d4! 15 0-0-0 lDxc2! 16 .xc2 (also bad is 16 J..f2 lDal! 17 ~bl lDb3 18 .c2 dxc3 19 :xd8 :xd8 20 lDxc3 J..f5 21lDe4 lDd2+ 22 ~al :ac8 23 .a4 b5 24 .xb5 :b8 25 J..b6 J..xe4 26 fxe4 J..d4 0-1 Sammalvuo-Wedberg, Sweden 1994; the best try seems 10 be 16 lDxd4lDxe3 17 .xe3, though 17...J..d7 is fine for Black) 16...J..f5 17 Wd2 (17 .b3 dxc3!) 17...dxc3 led Ιο an advantage for Black ίη Hennings-Szilagyi, Varna 1970. compensatίon

55

4) 130-0exd5(13...:e814d6:a6 15 lDb5! J..xb2 16 :bl J..e5 17 c4! :c6 18 c5 ± Poleschuk-Mintchev, cοπ 1994) 14 J..d4 (14 a3 d4! is unclear) 14...J..xd4+ 15lDxd4.b6 (15 ...a4!?) 16lDa4.a7 17 ~hl J..d7 181Dc3 a4! is equal, Estevez-Hernandez, Camaguey 1988. 5) 13 d6 is strongIy answered by 13 ...:a6!. 6) 13 a3 lLJxd5 14 lLJxd5 exd5 15 J..d4 and now Black has: 6a) 15...J..xd4 16 .xd4 :e8 17 ~Ω. was deemed Ιο be better for White because of Black's isolated d-pawn and White's .+lD combinatίon against Black's .+J... This may be the case, but it's ηοΙ all that easy after 1Μ Tim Taylor's 17...:a6!? (also interestίng is 17...J..f5 18 c3 :c8 19 :bel b5 20 b4 :c4 21 Wd2 22 lDd4 :ec8 23 :e3 J..d7, as seen ίη Lanka-Zilberman, Manίla OL 1992). This worked well ίη its debut ίη Grϋnfeld-Taylor, New York 1985, which contίnued 18 lDc3 :c6 19 :adl J..f5 20 :d2 :c4! 21 Wxd5 Wb6+ 22 ~g3 We3 23 h3 .f4+ 24 ~f2 =. Α later test ίη Ρορο­ vych-DonaIdson, Philadelphia 1987 saw 18 :hel :ae6 19lLJg3 (19lDc3! ;t) 19 ....c7 20 c3 J..d7 with unclear play. 6b) 15 ...J..h6!? makes good positίonal sense: 16 ο-ο :e8 (or 16...:a6 17 ~hl {17 :el!?} 17...:e8 18 J..f2 a4 19 :el :ae6 20 1Dc3 :xel + 21 J..xel d4 22 lDxa4 J..e3 23 lDc5 J..f5! =Hector-R.Hernandez, Thessalonikί OL 1988) 17lDg3 :a6! 18 f4 'ilh4! 19 :el :ae6 20 :Xe6 J..xe6 21 f5 J..xf5! 22lDxf5 gxf5 23 J..f2 J..e3! 24 J..xe3 :xe3 25 g3 + ReaI-Estevez, cοπ 1989.

.b6+

.e4

56

Accelerated

13:c1 (D)

13...bS This is mυch better than 13 ...:c8, which hopes for 14 ο-ο b5 transposing back Ιο the main line while avoiding 13 ...b5 14 a3. However, after 13 ...:c8 White can retain a clear edge with 14 a3 ~xc2+ 15 :xc2 ~xc2 16 "xc2 "xd5 17 ~f2 (ηοι so good is 17 ~xd5?! :xc2 18 ~xe7+ ~h8 19 ~f2 :xb2 :j:; a1so fine for Black is 17 ο-ο b518:dl"e619"e4 "xe420fxe4 :c4!? =M.Marinkovi~-Rogers, Sokobanja 1989, bυt White may have an even stronger move ίη 17 a4!, when Rogers ana1yses 17 .....e6 18 ~f2 ;Ι; and 17... b5?! 18 .cl "b3 19 axb5 a4 20~d2±) 17.....c418:dl b5,Grϋn­ feld-Karlsson, Randers Ζ 1982, and now 19"d2!. Alsodυbioυsis 13...:a6?! 14a3:d6 15 axb4 (ίη the firstedition we gave 15 ~c5 ~xd5 16 ~xd6 ~3 17 "d2 ~4 18 "d5, when Black doesn't have qυite enoυgh for the sacήficed exchange, Kυcera-Je!ek, cοπ 1984; however, 15 axb4 appears to be even stronger) 15 ... axb4 and now White has sυccessfully tήed:

υταΒΟαι

1) 160-0bxc317~xc3b518"el :e8 19 .i.c5 .i.xc3 20 "xc3 :xd5 21 :fel and White has a clear advantage, Gallagher-Wolff, London Lloyds Bank 1994. 2) 16 ~ :xd5 17 ~d2 .i.xb2 18 :bl.i.c3 19 'iWcl :e5 20 ~c3 :Xe3+ 21 ~e2 "b6 22 ~f1 left Black with insυfficient compensation for the piece in Olivier-Beck, Geneva 1997. 3) 16 .i.d4 bxc3 17 ~xc3 .i.h6 18 :al ~e6 19 .i.c5 :Ιd7 20 "e2 .i.xd5 21 ~xd5 :Ιχd5 22 ~xe7 "e8 23 ο-ο .i.f4 24 "c4 ~e3+ 25 ~hl :Ιd4 26 "c5 :d7 27 "xe3 :Ιχe7 28 "c3 and White has an enormoυs advantage, Hector-Gallagher, Geneva 1995. 140-0 Αη important alternatίve is 14 a3. After 14...~xc2+ 15 :xc2 ~xc2 16 'iWxc2 b4 White has two pieces for a rook bυt Black's excellent development compensates; play now becomes qώte sharp: 17lba4 (οη 17 ~ Black gained the advantage ίη PlachetkaFοήntos, Dυbna 1979 by 17.....xd5 18 ~ί4 "a2 19 axb4 axb4 20 ~d3 :Ιfc8 21 ~5 "al+ 22 "dl "xdl+ 23 ~xdl :a1+ 24 ~cl .i.xb2 25 ~c2 ~xcl 26 :xcl :a2+ 27 ~d3 :xg2) 17.....xd518~b6 ..e619~f2 (ίί 19 ~xa8 Black has a forcing contίnυatίon which leads to a draw accordingtoBagίrov: 19.....xe320~7 :c8 21 ~5 :xc2 22 ~xe3 :xb2 23 axb4 :bl + 24 ~dl a4 25 0-0 a3 26 ~c3 :xb4 27 :ΙdΙ h5 28 :d8+ ~h7 29 :a8 :b3 30 :c8 :b2 31 :a8) 19...:ab8 (it's necessary to attack b6; οη 19 ...:008 White is able to consolidate: 20 ~ί4 {20 axb4 axb4 21 b3:d6 22 ~ί4 "e5 23 ~c4 lh-lh AllenT.Taylor, Philadelphia 1992) 20.....a2

Uogele Vαriαtion: Mαin Une with 7... 0-0 αnd 8 j,},3 α5 21 axb4 axb4 22 .bl .b3 23 lIel .*.d4 24 .*.xd4 IIxd4 25 .cl IId6?? 26 lL!c8 IId4 27 lL!xe7+Wh8 28 .c5 IIdd8 {Black has completely fallen apart} 29lL!e6! IId2+ 30 Wg3 .b2 31 lL!xg6+ 1-0 Popovych-D.Benjamin, Philadelphia 1991) 20 lL!f4 .a2 21 axb4 axb4 and now: 1) 22 lL!fd5 b3 23 .e2 IIb7 24 lL!b4 .aS 25 lL!c6.a2 26 IIdl .xb2 27 .xb2 .*.xb2 28 IIbl and KlovansDorfman, USSR Ch 1975 was ultimately drawn. 2) 2211dl b3 (22 ...lIb7!?) 23 .e2 IIfd8 24 lL!fd5 e6 25 lL!e7+ Wh8 26 lL!d7 IIb7 27 lL!e5 1If8 28 lL!xf7+! IIxf7 29 IId8+ 1If8 30 IIxf8+ .i.xf8 31 .*.d4+ .i.g7 32 .e5 1-0 Mίlenkovic­ Ujhazi, Yugoslav Ch (Κladovo) 1992. This example shows why 12...e6!? has attracted followers, as it's not exactly certain how Black can equalize in some of the lines that come from 14 a3. 3) After 22 .bl (D) we reach a hotly contested position:

57

cοπ

1986) 23 ...bxa2 24 lIal and after 24 ....i.xb2? 25 IIxa2 .i.cl? 26 .i.xcl IIxb6 27lL!d5 IIb7 28 lIe2 e6 29lL!f6+ Wg7 30 lL!g4 White ultimately won the ending ίη Lanka-Priedniek, USSR 1980. However, Blackcan improve by 24...lIb7, when 2S IIxa2 IIfb81eads to an equal ending after 26lL!a4 .i.xb2 27 lL!c5I1b5. 3b) 22 .. :i'xbI23 IIxbl IIb7 (worse is 23 ... lIfd8 24lL!fdS IIb7 25 b3 e6 26 lL!f4 lIa7 27 lL!a4 IIc7 28lL!e2 IIc2 29 IIcl 1Ia2 30 IIc4.i.f8 31 IId4 IIc8 32 IId2 IIcc2 33 IIxc2 IIxc2 34 Wel e5 35 Wdl IIc6 36lL!cl f6 37lL!d3 IIc7 38 .*.c5 .i.xc5 39 lL!axc5 ± ZapataVΊlela, Havana Capablanca mem 1993) 24 b3 IItb8 25 lL!c411d8 26 We211bd7 27 .*.b6 lIa8 28 .i.c5 1Ia2+ 29 Wf1 .i.c3 30 IIcl e6 31 j,b6 Wg7 32lL!e2 f6 33 lL!xc3 bxc3 34 .i.aS c2 35 We2 e5 36 b4 IId 1 0-1 Spaans-Janssens, cοπ 1988. 3c) 22...•a7 23 .al.b7 24.aS b3 25 9b4 .*.h6 26 IIdl IIfc8 27lL!fd5 ;t Κristjansson-Brendel, ReykjaVΊk

Β

3a) 22 ...b3 23 .xa2 (23 lL!d7 .*.xb2 24 lL!xb8 IIxb8 25 Wg3 .i.e5 26 Wh3 .a4 27 lL!d3 .*.f6 28 g3 .c4 29lL!c5 b2 0-1 Van der Tak-Widera,

1990. 14•••lIca Untested is 14... lL!xc2 15 IIxc2 .*.xc2 16 .xc2 b4 17lL!a4 .xd5 18 lL!b6 .xa2 (18 ...•e6 19 .e4.xe4 20 fxe4 .*.xb2!?) 19 lL!xa8 IIxa8, which is unclear. 15 lL!d4 Usual, but in Busquets-Donaldson, New York 1991, White played the new 15 .d2!? After 15 ... lL!xc2 16 .i.f2 lL!b4 17lL!d4 Black has several moves to consider: 1) 17....i.xd4 18 j,xd4 lL!xdS 19 lL!xb5 favours White. 2) 17....i.d318I1fdl.i.c419lL!dxbS .i.xb5 20 lL!xb5 .xdS 21 .xd5 lL!xd5

58

Accelerαted Drαgons

22 :xc8 :Xc8 23 :xd5 :c 1+ 24 -*.el :xel+ 25 Φf2 :bl 26 :d2 with a draw - analysis by Donaldson. 3) 17 ... lDxd5 18 lDxf5 lDxc3 19 "xd8lDe2+ 20 ΦhΙ :cxd8 21lDxe7+ Φh8 and now after 22 :c2?! lDd423 -*.xd4 :xd4 24 lDc6 :a4 25 b3 :a3 (the actual game continuation) Black won a long, hard struggle. More cήti­ cal is 22 :c5, whereupon Black can play 22...-*.d4 (22...lDd4!? and 22...b4!? are also playable) 23 -*.xd4+ lDxd4 with equality since 24 :dl :fe825 lDd5 loses to 25 ...:e5 - analysis by Donaldson. After 15lDd4 Black has two ρopu­ lar tήes: B4a2a: lS•••-*.xd4!? 58 B4a2b: lS•••:xc3 60 Of these other possibilities, the first is interesting and the second ίδ hοπeη­ dous: 1) 15 .....d7!? ίδ ΙΜ Bruce Rind's untested idea. Now 16 a3 -*.xd4 works very well for Black (a3 for .....d7) δΟ 16 g4 is cήtical, when he ρroposes 16...-*.xc2 17 :xc2lbxc2 18 "xc2 b4 19 "a4 "d8 20 lDe4 1fxd5 with unclearplay. 2) 15 ...lDxd5?? 16lDxf5 -*.xc3 (or 16...~xc3 17 "xd8 :fxd8 18 ~xe7+ Φf8 19 ~xc8lDe2+ 20 Φf2 ~xcl 21 -*.c5+!) 17 "xd5! -*.f6 18 ~6+ Φg7 19 'iWxd8 :fxd8 20 c3 :d3 21 lDg4 1-0 Gallagher-Soltis, London 1990.

game de Fίrmian-Fοήηtοs, Reykjavik 1982. However, now 15... -*.xd4 enjoys a good deal of resρect. 16 Ίrxd4 ~xα 17 :Χα -*.xc2! Ιnfeήοrίs 17...e5?! 18 "xe5 (suρe­ ήοr to both 18 dxe6 -*.xc2 19 "xd8 :fxd8 20 e7 :d6 and 18 Ίrd2 -*.xc2 19 Ίrxc2 b4 20 "d3 bxc3 21 bxc3 "c7 22 :cl "c4) 18 ...:e8 19 "d4 (not 191ff4?, whenafter 19 ...-*.xc220 -*.d4 gS! 21 'ifd2 b4! 22 ~ -*.xe4 23 fxe4 :Xe4 Black was clearly οη top ίη Perman-Uogele, cοπ 1981) 19...:c4 20 "d2 -*.xc2 21 ~xb5 :b4 22 ~c3 :xb2 23 -*.c5 "f6 24 :c 1 :c8 25 -*.d4 -*.fS 26 Ίre3 'iWd8 27 :el :b4 28 g4 -*.c2 29 ~e2 -*.bl 30 'iWe5 f631 "xf6 "xf6 32 -*.xf6 and White is winning the ending, de Firmian-Fοήη­ tos, Reykjavik 1982. 18 -*.h6 e5 19 Ίrxe5 f6 Οη 19... 'ifb6+ Sakharov gives 20 ΦhΙ f6 21 'iWe2! :fe8 22 "xc2 b4 23 "b3 winning. 20Ίre6+

84a2a) lS•••-*.xd4!? (D) Not δΟ long ago theory held this move ίη disfavour οη account of the

Another possibility for White ίδ 20 'ife2, when 1Μ Andrianov analyses 20... (20...:e8?! 21 'ifxc2 b4 22 'iWb3) 21 Ίrxc2 b4 with good counterplay for Black.

:f7

Uogele Variation: Main Line with 7...0-0 and 8 j"b3 a5 The main a1temative to 20 .e6+ is Estonian GM Lembit 011's suggestion of20 .d4!?, when 20....J:Σtϊ appears to he the best reply (Black should avoid 20... .J:Σe8 due to 21 d6!, when 21 ....i.f5 led to a quick finish ίη Ηectοr-Ρίποt, Metz 1988: 22 lΩe4! -*.xe4 23 .a7! Ι-Ο). After 20 ... .J:Σtϊ White can try: 1) 21 d6 b4 22 ~e4 -*.xe4 23 fxe4 .l:c6 24 e5 fxe5 25 .d5 'iWb6+ 26 ιiιhl 'ίWb7 27 .J:Σdl .d7 28 .xa5 .J:Σc8 29 .xe5 .J:Σe8 30.d5 .f5 31 h3.xd5 32 .J:Σxd5 .J:Σd7 33 -*.d2 .J:Σe4 = KonticStanojoski, Κladovo 1990. 2) 21.J:Σf2 .J:Σc4 22 .d2 -*.f5 23 g4 -*.d7 24 ~ -*.xg4 25 b3 .J:ΣM 26 a3 -*.xf3 27 axb4 -*.xe4 28 bxa5 .xd5 29 .xd5 -*.xd5 ; Pantaleoni-Jaloszyinski, cοπ 1988. 3) 21 ~xb5 .J:Σb7 22 a4 (cήtical is 22 ~c3!? .b6 {22 ....l:b4 23 .d2 .l:xb2 24 lΩe4 .b6+ is a better try analysis by S.Brandwein} 23 .xb6 .l:xb6 24 .J:Σf2 -*.f5 25 -*.e3 .J:Σb4 26 g4 -*.d7 27 ~ ± Prandstetter-Dory, Dortmund 1987) 22....b6 23 .xb6 .l:xb6 24 -*.e3 .J:Σbb8 25 -*.f4 .J:Σa8 (this is clearly supeήοr to 25 ... .l:b6? 26 .J:Σcl -*.f5 27 -*.c7 .J:Σb7 28 d6 -*.d7 29 ιiιf2 ιiιtϊ 30 .J:Σdl -*.xb5 31 axb5 .J:Σbxc7 32 dxc7 .J:Σxc7 33 b4 axb4 34 .l:bl, when Black was sιruggling to survive ίο Hector-Petursson, Belfort 1988) 26lΔc7 .l:ab8 27 ~b5 .J:Σa8 28lΔc7 .J:Σa7 (playing for the win; obviously 28 ....J:Σab8 is dead equal) 29 d6 -*.π4 30.J:Σel g531 -*.e3 .J:Σb7 32l'Δd5 .J:Σc2! 33 lί)xf6+ φtϊ is unclear, Hector-Dorfman, QermontFeπand 1989. 20••.:t7 21 ~ (D) If 21 ~xb5 Black has 21 ...-*.f5 22 .e3 .xd5 23 ~d4 .J:Σd7 equalizing, Gavήkov-Kuksov, Κaluga 1977.

59

Β

21••ixe4 22 fxe4 Theory once considered this posiιίοη to be better for White. However, ίη practice Black has done quite well. 22.....d7 23 "xd7 After 23 .J:Σxf6 .J:Σe8, 24 .xd7 .J:Σxd7 leads to the same thing, but 24 .J:Σxg6+ was tήed ίη Kuindzhi-Κlovans, Minsk 1980: 24 ... hxg6 25 .xg6+ Wh8 26 .i.e3 .J:Σef8 27 -*.d4+ .J:Σg7 28 h3 ιiιg8 29 -*.xg7 .xg7 30 .e6+ .tϊ 31 .g4+ Wh7 32 .h4+ ιiιg7 33 .g3+ .g6 34 .c3+ .f6 35 e5 "f1+ 36 ιiιh2 .f4+ 37 Whl b4 38 .c7+ .J:Σtϊ 39 .xa5 .xe5 40.xb4 .g3 41 .d2 .l:f40-1. 23••• .J:Σxd7 24 .J:Σxf6 .l:e8! 25 d6 25 ιiιf2 1/2-1/2 de Firmian-Pigusov, Moscow GMA 1989. Pigusov claims that after 25 ....J:Σde7 he would have had a slίght advantage. Andήanov continues with 26 .J:Σb6 b4 (26... .J:Σxe4 27 .l:xb5) 27 .J:Σb5 :lxe4 28 .J:Σώ .J:Σe2+ 29 ιiιf3 :lxb2 ;.

25•••.J:Σdd8 Andήanov gives 25 ... ZΙtϊ 26 -*.g5 ZΙd7 27 -*.h6 as equal. 26 -*.g5 a4! 27 Wf2 .J:Σxe4 28.J:ΣxιM hxg6 29 -*.xd8 ιiιΙ7 30 -*.a5 We6 31 a3 Wxd6 32 Wf3 .J:ΣM 33 -*.el .J:Σc4 34

60

Accelerated Dragons

h4 ~e6 35 g4 :c2 36 .i.c3 Μ! 37 .i.xb4 (37 axb4? a3) 37•• .:xb2 38 .i.f8 :b8 39 .i.c5 ~d5 and Black won shortly ίη Kuksov-Pigusov, Nikolaev 1978. The game De Boer-Strauss, 1.οη­ don 1983 proceeded almost move for move with this example with a similar result.

B4a2b) 15".:Xc3 The exchange sacήfice initiated by the text-move is a suggestion of Korchnoi, who did the analysis for this section of ECO Β (2nd edition). Ιι actually was tήed as early as 1979 ίη a game between Zapata and Rind ίη Philadelphia, but Black had a different idea in mind from that of Korchnoi. 16 bxc3 (D)

16".lίm2

16...lbxd5!? is also worth consideration. After 17 lbxf5 gxf5 18 J.d4 lbxc3 19 .i.xc3 Wb6+ 20 ~hl .i.xc3 Black has adequate compensation for the exchange, Sieiro Gonzales-Pazos, Camaguey 1986. 17 :a1!

Here Korchnoi analyses 17lbc6 as leading Ιο equality after 17.....d6 18 :allbxc3 19 Wd2.i.f6 20.i.d4lbxd5 21 .i.xf6 Wxc6. Νοι as good is 17lbxf5, which 100t qώcklΥ ίη Κell-Donaldson, 1.os Angeles 1984 after 17...gxf5 18 :allbxc3 19 Wd3 a4! (more exact than 19 ... b4, which allows 20 d6!) 20.i.f2 "xd5 21 Wxd5 lbxd5 22 :adllbc3 23 :d3 a3 24 .tel:c8 25 .txc3 .txc3 0-1. 17".lbxc3 Also possible is 17..."xd5 18 lbxf5 Wxf5 19 :xa2 We6 20 :xa5 Wxe3+ 21 ~hl Wb6 22:a2 .txc3 23 We2 e6 =Kupreichik-Malishauskas, Miedzybrodzie 1991. 18 'ii'd2 .txd4 Here are the alternatives, with only the fourth being of any value: 1) 18...lbxd5?? 19lbc6. 2) 18 ... b4? 19lbc6. 3) 18 ...lba4?! 19 lbxb5 lbb6 20 Wxa5lbxd5 21 .td4 .th6 22 :f2lbe3 23 Wc3 ± 011-Κochiev, Tallinn 1987. 4) 18.....c7!? 19 d6 exd6 20 lbxf5 gxf5 21 .i.h6 f4 22 .txg7 ~xg7 23 :fel d5 24 g3 b4 25 ~hl ~h8 26 "d4+ f6 27 gxf4 Wc4 28 We3 "c7 29 :gl a4 30 Wd4lbe2 31 Wxb4 :b8 32 Wxa4 lQxgl 33 :xgl Wc3 Ih-Ih Ivanovic-Cebalo, Yugoslav Ch 1989. Ιι appears that 18 .....c7!? could use some more tests. 19 .txd4lbxd5 20 011 proposes 20 g4!? here. 2Ο....ι.χα 21 :xbS J.d3 22 "xd3 lbf4 23 "xd4+ 24 "xd4ι!Ωe2+

:xas

"e4

2S~f2lbxd4

ΟΗ stops his analysis here with an assessment of equality. 26:b7 Here White has a slight advantage,

Uogele

Vαriαtion: Mαin

Une with 7... 0-0

Donchev-Fauland, Graz 1987. Even though the ending should certainly be a draw, White has practical chances.

B4b) 10exd5 (D)

αnd

8 j),3

α5

61

20 0-0 J.g7 is better for Black, CiritRee, Beverwijk 1968) 12...~fxd5 (the altemative 12...~bxd5 is also interesting) 13 J.f2 J.d7 14 ~bc3 J.xa4 15 ~xa4 b5 16 ~b6 ~xb6 17 "xd8 IΣfxd8 18 J.xb6 IΣdc8 19 0-0 J.xb2 20 IΣabl J.c3 (the immediate 20...J.f6 is more exact) 21 f4 J.f6 22 g4 IΣa6 23 J.f2 ~xa2 24 IΣbel e6 25 f5 with an unclear game, Ivanovit-Edberg, EksjQ 1980. 3) 11 "d2 ~fxd5 12 ~xd5 (12 0-0-0 ~xe3 13 "xe3 "b6 14 ~f5 'iVxe3+ is nothing for Black Ιο woπy about, E.Rodriguez-Barria, General Pico City 1996) 12 ... ~xd5 13 J.h6 J.xh614 "xh6 a415 J.xd5 "xd5 16 c3 e5 and Black is slίghtly better, Semina-Pinchuk, Moscow 1983. 11•••a4

With this recapture White preserves his bishop but must now deal with threats of ...a5-a4 by Black. 10.••~M l1lMe2 The best move ίη the position. The altematives promise little for White: 1) 11 d6 "xd6 12 0-0 (12 ~db5 'iVe5 13 'iVd4 "f5 14 0-0-0 J.d7! 15 "c5a4??{15 ...J.h6!) 16J.xf7+:xt7 17"xb4:t'f818IΣhel IΣfc819 g41-0 Peters-Donaldson, Los Angeles 1995) 12...~fd513 ~d5 ~xd514J.f2~4 15 c3 J.d7 16 a4 IΣfd8 17 J.c4 "f6 and Black is already better, Matu1ovit-Damjanovit, Sarajevo 1969. 2) 11 ~db5 runs ίηΙο 11 ...a4 12 ~xa4(ifI2J.c4then 12...a3! 13 bxa3 {13 ~xa3 ~bxd5 14 ~xd5 ~xd5 15 J.xd5 J.xb2 16 ~4 J.xal is much betterforBlack} 13 ...~bxd514J.xd5 ~xd515~xd5J.xaI16J.b6"d717 ~bc7 IΣa618 ~xa6 bxa619 J.c5 IΣe8

11 ...J.f5!? 12 a4 IΣa6 13 ~g3 IΣd6 14 ~xf5 gxf5 15 J.c5 IΣd7 16 "e2 ~fxd5 17 ~xd5 ~xd5 18 0-0-0 IΣe8 19 g3 e6 = Gullaksen-Leko, Debrecen Echt 1992. 12lillιa4

Bad is 12 J.c4 a3 13 bxa3 ~fxd5 14 axb4 ~xe3 15 "xd8 IΣxd8 16 J.b3 J.f5 17 IΣcl IΣac8 18 ~e4 J.h6 19 IΣbl ~c2+ and Black is winning, West-Donaldson, New York 1988. Also rarely seen is 12 J.xa4 ~fxd5 13 J.d2 1i'b6 14 a3 ~xc3 15 ~xc3 ~c6 16 J.b3 ~4 17 1i'cl IΣa5 18 ~:es 19J.e3J.fS200-0J.xe421 fxe4 IΣxe4 22 IΣel?? IΣxe3! 23 "xe3 ~e2+ 24 lΣxe2 J.d4 and Black went οη Ιο win ίη Kogan-Mek, Israelί Ch 1992. 12.•• ~fxd5 (D) Worse is 12...~bxdS 13 J.b6 "d6 14 J.d4 with a slίght advanιage for White, Lepszen-Uogele, 1976.

62

Accelerated Dragons

w

Now Whίte has two major choices: B4bl: 13 J.d4 62 B4b2: 13 J.f'2 63 Otherwise: 1) 13.td2 cannot be recommended. Black has replied: la) 13 ....:xa4?! 14 .txa4 .a5 15 a3! (15 .tb3 .txb2! 16 ':bllt)e3! 17 .txe3lt)xc2+ 18 Φf2lt)χe3 19 "d3 .ta3! +) 15....xa4 16 axb4 .c6 17 0-0(17 c3!?1Wb618 .cl':d819':a5 .tf5 with compensation) 17 ....txb2 18 :a5!? (18 ':bl ~) 18...lt)xb4! 19 "'bl!! "'b6+ 20 ΦhΙ ~6 21 :a8 .td4 22lt)xd4 .xbl? 23 ':xbllt)xd4 24.th6 1-0 Rogers-Laird, Βήsbane 1994. lb) 13 ....te6 14 ~5!? .txb2 15 ':bl-*.e5 16lt)xe6 fxe6 17 o-o~. lc) 13...b514-*.xb4~b415.xd8 ':xd8 16lt)ac3 .tf5 17 1 .th6 18 ί4 e5 19 a3 ~6 gave Black some compensation ίοι the pawn ίη Vass-Donka, Debrecen 1991. ld) 13 ....tf5! and now the following three variations give some indication ofWhίte's difficulties: ldl) 14 g4 .txc2 15 .txc2 ':xa4 16J.xa4lt)d3+ 17Φfl.b6wίnning.

:c

ld2) 14 a3 ~6 150-0 (l5lt)ac3?! lt)xc3 16 .txc3 "b6! 17 .txg7 :fd8 18 .cl Φχg7 19 g4lt)d4! 20 lt)xd4 "xd4 21 gxf5 ':a5 22 Φfl :xf5 23 Φg2 .h4 24 .e3 ':g5+ 25 Φf1 .h3+ 26 ΦeΙ .h4+ 27 Φfl .h3+ 28 ΦeΙ "h4+ 29 "'f2 "f4 30 :gl .J:Σd2 and 0-1 shortly, Meister-Levchenkov, USSR 1985) 15 ... b5 16 lt)ac3 1Wb6+ 17 ΦhΙ ~3 18 .txe3 .xe3 19 ~5 (19 lt)xb5 ':fd8) 19.. :tWc5 with excellent play ίοι the pawn. ld3) 14 ο-ο b5 15lt)ac3 'lfb6+ 16 ΦhΙ lDe3 17 .txe3 "xe3 18 ~b5 ':fd8, again with tremendous compensation ίοι the mateήal deficit. 2) Another ροοι move is 13 .tc5, which runs into 13 ....:xa4 14 .txa4 .a5 15 .txb4 lt)xb4 16 c3 ':d8 17 cxb4 (οι 17 "b3lt)d3+ 18 Φfl "'a7 19lt)d4 J.xd4 20 cxd4 .xd4 21 .c2 lt)xb2 22 .tb3 ~4 winning ίοι Black) 17......xb4+ and Black is clearly better (analysis by Korchnoi).

B4b1) 13 .td4 .txd4 (D) Probably Black's mostreliable move, although the alternative 13 ....tf5 has its points: Ι) 14 c3 00+ 15 Φfl :xa4 16 .txd5 :xd4 0-1 Roose-Uogele, coπ. 2) Η 14lt)ac3 Black has 14....txc2! 15 .txc2 .txd4 16 lt)xd4 ~3 0-1 Sachs-Uogele, coπ 1967. 3) 14 .txg7 Φχg7 15 ΦΩ is CΉti­ cal. Now Black should probably try 15 ...e5!? intending to meet 16 a3 by 16...:xa4 17 .txa4 1IFb6+ 18 Φg3 ~3 with interesting complications. Instead, two games from the 1980 Berkeley-Seattle National Telephone

Uogele Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7... 0-0 αnd 8 j),3 α5 '-cague continued 15 ... b5 16 ~ac3 ~xc3 17 bxc3 .xdl 18 IΣaxdl ~xa2 19 IΣal J.e6 20 J.xe6 fxe6 21 IΣhbl IΣa4 and now White gained a slίght ad-

vantage in Burkett-Franett by 22 ~4 Iand ίη de Firmian-Dona1dson with 22 IΣxb5, a1though both games were cventua11y drawn, enablίng Seattle to win the match 31/2-21/2.

w

63

IΣa5 18 J.e4 J.xe4 19 fxe4. Now ίη­ stead οί 19...e6, which led to an equa1

endgame in Iano§evic-Rind, Lone Pine 1979, Κorchnoi suggests 19...•b6 as clearly better for Black. 15."~ 16 ha ~ 17.xd8

IΣfxd8 18 J.xf5 ~e2 19 ~xe2 μf5 20IΣhel

e5 with equa1 chances ίη the ending, as ίη the game Petrushin-Κhasin, USSR 1976.

B4b2) 13 J.n .ιΙ5 (D) Prematυre is 13...1Σxa4, which loses 10 14J.xa4 Wa5150-01Σd8 (15 ...•xa4 16 c3 wins) 16 a3 ~a6 17 J.b3 .ιΧb2 18 .el!, Sax-Haϊk, Smederevska Pa1-

anka 1982. Α litde-tested but interesting a1ternative is 13...b5. Mter 14 ~b6 (14 ~3~c315~c3Wxdl+ 16~xdl

14.xd4J.fS 14...e515.d2IΣxa416J.xa4 Ά'b6 17 a3! ~318 Wxb4~g2+ 19~dl .e3 20 Wd2 Wxf3 21 ~cl! ± IensenΚήstiansen, Copenhagen 1982. 15l2)ac3 Here 150-0-0 is too ήsk:y: 15 ... e5! 16.d2 (16 .xe5 IΣe8 171Σxd5 ~xd5 Ι Κ .xd5 .xd5 19 J.xd5 IΣxe2 wins Ι'ΟΓ Black) 16 ... IΣxa4! 17 J.xa4 Wa5 Ι Κ J.b3 IΣc8 19 ~3 (19 a3 J.xc2 20 .txd5 ~d3+ 0-1 Glauser-Karlsson, I.ugano 1982) 19... ~xc3 20 bxc3 lί)xa2+ (a1so winning is 20...Wa3+ 21 oJ.>bl J.xc2+Chesney-Dona1dson, San Jose 1988) 21 ~b2 IΣa8 0-1 Perecz( iy.Honfi, Budapest 1981. 15 .d2 a1so causes Black ηο diffiι'ulιies, owing to 15...J.xc2! 16.ιχd5 (16 .ιχc2 ~3!) 16...IΣxa4 17 ~3

IΣd8+ 17 ~e2 J.a6 =) 14... ~xb6 15 Wχd8lΣχd816.ιχb61Σd717~31Σa6 18 J.e3 .ιχc3+ 19 bxc3 00 20 J.d4 b4 21 cxb4 ~xb4 22 .ιb2 ~c2+!

Black equa1ized in Zhelnin-Petrushin, USSR 1984 as 23 .ιχc2 could be met by 23 ... IΣe6+ recoveήng the piece.

w

64

Accelerated Dragons

140-0 mistake is 14 g4, which runs into 14 ... ll:Ixc2+! 15 ~xc2 "'a5+ 16 'ikd2 ~xc2 17 ll:Iac3 ll:Ixc3 18 ll:Ixc3 ~a4 (also good is Minev's suggestion of 18 ...~b3 19 ο-ο ~e6; ίη view of his bishop paίr and White's weaknesses, Black wou1d have a considerable advantage) 19 0-0 ~c6 20 "'e3 'ifb4 21 1:tabl 1:tfd8 and Black had a winning initiative ίn Bednarskί-Petursson, Hamar 1979. 14 a3 also gives White ηο hope for the advantage, and quickly leads to a drawn endgame after 14... ll:Ixc2+ 15 ~xc2 "'a5+ 16 b4 (a draw was agreed herein Vogt-Barczay, Budapest 1987) 16 ... ll:Ixb4 (16 ... 'ifb5!? - Barczay) 17 axb4 "'xb4+ 18 'ifd2 "'xd2+ 19 Φχd2 ~xal 20 1:txal 1:tfd8+ 21 Φcι 1:tdc8 22ll:1d4 b5, Tseshkovsky-Tukmakov, Vίlnius 1975. 14••• b5 15ll:1ac3 Α mistaken idea is 15ll:1c5?, which lost quickly ίη Enright-Donaldson, Berkeley 1980 after 15 ... ~xb2 16 ll:Ig3? ~xc2 17 ~xc2 ~xal. 15•.•ll:Ixc3 16ll:1xc3 Not 16 bxc3, which loses mateήa1 to 16......xdl 17 1:tfxdl (17 1:taxdl ll:Ixa2 18 g4 ~c8 19 1:tal ~e6 20 ~xe6 fxe6 21 ~d4 1:tfc8 22 ~xg7 Φχg7 23 1:tfbl ll:Ixc3 24 1:txa8ll:1xe2+ 25 Φf2 1:txa8 26 Φχe2 1:tc8 =Γ+ LairdΚarlsson, Copenhagen 1981) 17... ~xc2 18 ~xc2ll:1xc2 19 1:tac 1 1:txa2 201:td2 ll:Ib4 21 1:txa2ll:1xa2 22 1:tc2ll:1xc3 and Black soon won ίη the game Ambrazaitis-Uogele, Κaunas 1972. 16......xdl 171:f'xdl Α

Or 17 1:taxdl ~xc2 18 ~xc2ll:1xc2 19 1:td2 ~xc3 20 1:txc2 ~f6 with an equa1 game, Forgacs-Dona1dson, Κecs­ kemet 1980. 17•.•~xc2 18 ~xc2ll:1xc2 (D) Απ a1ternative is 18 ... ~xc3 19 ~xg6 hxg6 (19 ... ~xb2!?) 20 bxc3ll:1xa2 21 ~d4 b4 1/2-1/2 Pantaleoni-Wittmann, cοπ 1989.

19 1:tacl ~xc3 20 :Xc2 ~f6 21 b3 1:tfd8 AIso reasonable is 21 ... h5 with an equa1 endgame, G.Kuzmin-Tukmakov, Κίshinev 1975. Α third possibility is 21 ...1:ta6 22 Φη 1:tfa8 23 1:tdd2 b4 24 1:te2 e6 25 ~c5 ~c3 26 Φf2 1:ta5 27 ~e3 1:td5 WΊth equa1ity, Βοήk-Trauth, West Germany 1984. 22 1:txd8+ 1:txd8 23 Φrι 1:tdl+ 24 ~el :al The ending is equa1. Ιη Matulovic-Ristoja, Helsίnkί 1981, White won from this position, but that was only because of severa1 blunders by Black later ίη the game.

4 The Anti-Yugoslav Variation: Main Ιίnθ with 7 ...• a5 Ι e4 c5 2 lΔΙ3lΔc6 3 d4 cxd4 4lΔxd4 16 5lΔc3 i.g7 6 i.e3lΔf6 7 i.c4 (Ι))

"&5

w

We ca11 this system the Aηtί- YugoNluv because 7 ...Wa5 more or less Iorces Whίte ΙΟ castle kίngside and 111U8 avoids the dangers of the YugoΝI"ν Attack ίη the Dragon. Compared Ιο the Uogele (Chapter Ι). which is largely tactίcal ίη nature, Il1ίs line leads play ίηΙο positionaI Ι·IΙilnηeΙs.

8 ο-ο Clearly best. Other moves either μίve Black easy equality or actua11y lose: Ι) 8 ΙΜ2? lΔxe4! 9lΔxc6 (9lΔxe4 "'xd2+ 10 ΦΧd2 lΔxd4 leaves Black

with a solid extra pawn) 9 ...Wxc3! and White is 10st. 2) 8 lΔb3?!. The late Argentίnean Grandmaster Herman Pίlnik once argued 10ng and hard ίη defence of this move. He insisted that White would get adequate compensatίon for the sacή­ ficed pawn. However, Ι (Silman) maintaίη now, as Ι dίd then, that 8 lΔb3 just doesn't hold υρ against close scrutίny. Black replίes 8 .....b4! 9 lΔd2! (the best chance; 9 i.d3? lΔxe4! 1Ο i.xe4 i.xc3+ 11 bxc3 "xe4 leaves Black with both a mateήal and structural advantage; even worse is 9 "e2? lΔxe4 10 a3 lΔxc3 11 i.xf7+ Φf8 12 bxc3 "xc3+ 13 J.d2 "e5, Calvo-Toran, Palma de Ma110rca 1968) 9 .....xb2 10 lΔb5! (10lΔa4?"e5! {10...Wb411 c3 is also good for Black} 11 f4 threatens 12...lΔxe4, 12.....xa4 and 12...b5) 10...We5 (10...~? 11 c31eaves the black queen hanging ουΙ Ιο αιΥ) 11 f4 "b8 12 e5 (D). After 12 e5 Black has three interesting ideas ιο choose from: 2a) 12 ... lΔg8 followed by ... lΔh6 and a break ίη the centre is possible but has never been trίed. 2b) 12...lΔg413 Wxg4 d5 14 "e2 dxc4 15lΔxc4 0-0 followed by ...J.e6 and ... f6 seems adequate for Black.

"a5

"a5

66

Accelerαted Drαgons

13...lLJf6 14 .id4 .b4 (Dzίndzίchash­ νίlί recommends 14....a5 15 .e3 c5! 16 .i.xc5 .ie617 .i.xe6 .a6+) 15 .e3 ο-ο 16 .ic5 .a5 17 j.,xe7 (the dangerous-lookίng 17 .xe7 is met by 17....ie6!, when 18 .ixe6 :ae8 19 .xf6.xc5 is hopeless for White) 17 ...:e8 18 Φf2 .f5! and the threat οί ... lLJg4+ gives Black a winning ροsitίon.

2c) 12 ... lLJxe5! must be the strongest: 13 fxe5 .xe5 14 Φf2 (14 .f3 .xa1+ 15 Φα .e5 16 .id4 .g5 17 Φe 1 0-0 led Ιο an easy win for Black ίη Kupreichίk-Veremeichίk, Belorussia 1981) 14...d5 (14 ....xal 15.xal lLJg4+ 16 Φf3 .ixal 17 :XallLJxe3 is also possible) 15 .ie2 a6 16lLJd4 .c7 fol1owed by the central push ... e5, when Black's three very strong pawns and Whίte's misplaced kίng gίve Black all the chances. 3) 8 f3? (a common eποr) 8....b4 9 .ib3? (cοπect is 9 lLJxc6, when 9 ... bxc6 gίves Black f1Πll control over the d5-square and full equality; Black can also consider 9 ....xc4 10 lLJe5 .c7 lllLJd3 d6 12 .d2 0-0 13 0-0, Twardam-Van der Sterren, Gronίngen 1975, and now 13 ....ie6 gίves Black a slίght plus) 9 ... lLJxe4! 10 lLJxc6 (10 fxe4 .ixd4 ll.ixd4 .xd4 12.f3 e6! 13 a4 a6 14 h4 h5 15 :dl .e5 was clearly better for Black ίη Matulovίό-Τοran, Palma de Mallorca 1967) 10... .ixc3+ 11 bxc3 .xc3+ 12 Φe2 dxc6! (so 13 fχe4ΊΊ can be answered by 13 ....ig4+) 13 .gl (13 .i.d410ses Ιο 13 ... e5! 14 .i.xc3 lLJxc3+, when Black reaches a winning endgame)

8•••0-0 (D) Black avoids any adventures. The altematίves turn ουΙ poorly: 1) 8 ...'iVb4 (greed~) 9.ib3lLJxe4? 1Ο lLJxc6 (bad is 1Ο lLJxe4 Ί lLJxd4 11 .ixf7+ ΦΧf7 12 lLJg5+ Φg8 13 c3 {13 ....xb2? 14 j.,xd4 .i.xd4 15 .xd4 with the threat οί 16 lLJf7 is goodforWhίte} 14cxd4.d515:cl b6 16 b3 .ib7 + Kostίuchenko-Shί­ yanovsky, Κiev 1961) 10... bxc611 a3! lLJxc3 12 .f3. Whίte is WΊnning. 2) 8 ...d6 9 .ib5 .id7 10 lLJb3 .d8 11 j.,e2!. 3) 8 ...lLJg4 Ί! had a bήef moment ίn the sun ίη the early Ιο mίd-1960s but has since been completely abandoned. Whίte has trίed several replίes: 3a) 9 lLJxc6 dxc6 10 .id4 .i.xd4 (simple and good; 10...e5 ιι .i.e3 lLJxe3 12 fxe3 favours Whίte since 12...0-0ΊίsmetbΥ 13:xf7!) ll.xd4 .e5 12 .xe5 lLJxe5 13 .ib3 g5 Usov-A.Geller, USSR 1962. 3b) 9 lLJd5 lLJxe3 10 fxe3 lLJe5 (1O...e6 11 'it'f3 ο-ο 12lLJf6+ is more comfortable for Whίte) 11lbb5lLJxc4 12lbbc7+ Φf8 13 c3 :b8 14 b4 'it'a3 15 'it'g4 ί6 16.g5 Φf7 17 e5 and Whίte has a strong attack, LitvinovRotov, cοπ 1964. 3c) 9 .xg4lLJxd4 10 ΟΟ! (Boleslavsky recommends 10 .h4! lLJxc2

.a5

=

The Anti-Yugoslαv Varίation: Main Line with 7.....a5 11 tαt5 with a strong attack) 10...Wd8 (IO ... ~xc2? 11 Wg5 Wd8 12 :acl /t)xe3 13 ~7+! Wxc7 14 ~xf7+ is winning for White) 11 c3 ~6 12 Wh4 ιl6 Ι 3 Wg3 0-0 14 ~f4 ~d7 15 :adl ± ('irit-Ilijevski, YugosIavia 1965. 3d) 9 ~b3 Wh5 (9 ...~xe3? 10 .txn+) 10 ~f4 ~e5 and now: 3dl) 11"f3 (inferίor) 11 ... ~6 (or 11 ... g5 12 ~g3 ~f6 13 We3 ~g4 14 "11 ~f6 15 Wd3 a6, when ECO rlaims it's cIearly better for White IInd Levy cIaims there are chances for t,oth sides, Ivkov-Lehmann, Beverwijk 1965) 12 Wxh5 ~xh5, Bradvarcvit-Ilijevski, Yugoslav Ch 1965. Now I.cvy cIaims that Black has the better rndgame while ECO gives 13 ~d2!? i. However, the assessment of 11 Wf3 ί~ not particularly important since 11 .txe5 is just good for White. 3d2) 11 ~xe5! (Boleslavsky's move) 11 ... tί)cxe5 12 h3 ~c4 13 hxg4 We5 14 f4 Wd6 15 ~d5 ~b6 16 "d4 ο-ο 17 c4 ~xd5 18 cxd5 b6 19 e5 and Black's position is very unappetίzίng.

Now White has four serίous trίes: 9h3 67 ΙΙ: 9 tαls 68

Λ:

C: 9~b3 Ο: 9~b3

67

70 81

Α)

9h3 Thίs move can be used as a transpositional device or as a way to head for orίgίnal, unexpIored positions. 9.....b4!? The attempt to transpose to varίa­ tion D (9 ~b3) with the natural 9 ...d6 allows the following interesting plan: 10 :el ~d7 11 ~b3 1i'd8 12 ~g5 :e8 13 ~d5 ~xd5 14 exd5 ~5 15 ~f1 with advantage to White, Kυdrίη­ Donaldson, Philadelphia 1997. Black's play can probably be improved after 9... d6, but 9 .....b4 is clearly the critical response to 9 h3. 10 ~b3 lillιe4 11 eαιs Not falIing for 11 tί)xe4? ~xd4 12 c3 ~2+! 13 Wxe2 Wxe4. 11.....d6! Κeeping an eye οο the e7-pawn. White can claim an advantage after 11. ..Wa5: 1) 12~xc6!?dxc613 ~xe7+~h8 14 :el! ~5 (14...~xb2? loses outrίght to 15 ~d4+) 15 1i'd6 ~xb3 16 axb3 "d8 17 Wxd8! :xd8 18 ~b6 is good for White, Hector-Andersson, Haninge 1990. 2) 12 Wg4 ffi (perhaps 12...00!? is a better idea but 13 Wg5 ~xb3 14 axb3 Wd8 15 ~xc6 dxc6 16 ~xe7+ ~h8 17 :fdl Wc7 18 ~f4 stillleaves Black experiencing some discomfort) 13 tί)xc6 bxc614 ~e7+ ~h8 15 "f4 ~a6 16 :fel ~ 17 Wd6 and Whίte is clearly better, Lepeshkin-Demirkhanian, Erevan 1964.

12~bS

68

Accelerated Dragons

Tempting but inadequate is 12 .t.f4 WcS!. 12•••'8'b8 Also ίnteresting is 12...We5!? 13 f4 Wh5 14 Wxh5 gxh5 15 ιαιc7 :b8 16 lΔxa7.t.xb2. 13 lΔbc7 .t.xb2 Accordίng to Seirawan and Οοη­ aldson, Black's two solίd pawns should give him more than enough compensation for the exchange.

Β) 9lΔd5 (D)

.t.xg7+ ~xg7 19 .t.b3 .t.f5 20 :del ± - analysis by Adorjan) 13 e6 f5 14 .t.d5 and Whίte has a lasting bind, J.Rodriguez-Κagan, Skopje OL 1972. 2} 9 ...lΔxe4 (Adorjan thinks this deserves further attentίon) 10 lΔxc6 dxc6 IllΔxe7+ ~h8 12lΔxc8 :axc8 13 c3 :Cd8 (T.Georgadze gives 13...f5 as unclear) 14 Wc2lΔf6 (14 ... ιαι6 15 .t.b3 lΔf5 16 .t.f4 .t.e5 17 We4 is clearly better for Whίte according to Adorjan) 15 :fel Wc7?! (15 ...lΔg4!? 16 .t.f4 Wc5 is a suggestion of Adorjan's) 16 h3 b6 17 'IIadl ~g8 18 a4, Adorjan-Visier, Lanzarote 1975, and now 18 ...:fe8 19 .t.g5 is best, when Whίte's two bishops make lίfe dίffi­ cult for Black.

10exdS (D)

Β

Α very positίonal treatment. White places hίs knίght οη a strong central outpost, hoping to force Black to capture ίι After the recapture with the epawn, White wiH place a rook οη the open e-file and try to generate some pressure against Black's pawn οη e7.

Now Black must choose between:

81: 10•.•lΔeS 68 82: lo.•.lΔxd4! 69

9•••lΔxdS! Best. Black's other choices seem to favour White: 1) 9...Wd8 10 lΔxf6+ .t.xf6 11 f4 d6 12 e5! .t.g7 (12 ...dxe5 13 lΔxc6 Wxdl 14 :axdl bxc6 15 fxe5 .t.xe5 16 .i.h6 .t.g7 17 .t.xf7+! ~h8 18

Β1)

lo••. lΔe5?! Thίs

move was considered satisfactory for many years, but a closer look has exposed an unfortunate t1aw.

The Anti-Yugoslαv Variαtion: Main Line with 7....α5

69

ιι J.b3 Leνy has suggested 11 J.e2!? .xd5

12 lL1f5 .e6 13 lL1xg7, when White has some compensation for the pawn. Il•••d612 h3 Νοι 12 f4lL1g4. 12......a6! This is the cήtical position. 13 J.g5?! Instead 13 .e2.xe214lL1xe2may IΊιrce a reassessment οί 10...lL1e5. TheIIry has always stated that 14...J.d7 15 1'4 J.b5! gίves Black equal play, but 111iS is clearly ηοΙ the case after 16 fxe5 .A.xe2 17 :tel J.b5 18 J.f4. 13...:e8 14 :el .*.d7 15 c3 :ac8 16"'d2 J.f6! 17 J.b6 Ι 7 J.xf6 exf6 18 .h6 lL1c4 is fine ΙΊΙΓ BIack. 17...b5 18:e4 'ii'b7 The position is unclear, BrowneNi1man, Sunnyvale 1974. The conIlnuation was 19 J.g5 J.g7 20 :ael (20 f4lL1c4 21 J.xc4 :xc41eaves the white d5-pawn under attack) 20...a5 21 f 4 a4! 22 fxe5 dxe5! 23 lL1f3 (23 ~\c6 axb3 24 lL1xe7+ :xe7 25 J.xe7 hxa2 gives Black Ιοο much compensalΙιιη for the exchange) 23 ... axb3 24 IIxh3 ί625 j,h6 j,xh6 26.xh6 .xd5 1.7 IΣxe5!, and now ίnstead οί allowing 11 perpetual check with 27 ...fxe5? B1IIck should have played 27....f7! wilh a clear advantage.

82) IO...lL1xd4! 'I'his appears to be a clean equalizer. 11 j,xd4 eS (D) The culmίnation οί a seήes οί IIIIIves that renders White's 9l[)ιf5 ίη­ IIIIι·uous.

w

12dxe6 12 j,c3 .c5 13 j,b3 d6 is good for Black. 12.••dxe613 j,x'g7 Φx.g714 "'d4+ Adorjangίves 14:el (intendίng 15 .d4+ followed by J:Σe5) 14...:d8 15 1Wf3 .c716 j,b3 j,d717 h4 as being clearly better for White. Thίs seems Ιο be a bίΙ extreme. After 17...h5 we woώd rate ίι as;l;. However, ίmprovements for Black seem Ιο be possible earlίer. For example, instead οί 14...:d8 Black could play 14......c5!?, when 15 1Wd3 b6 16 "'c3+ ~g8 17 :e5 "'c6 is fine. Also, instead οί the passive 15....c7 Black shοώd consider 15....c5! 16 j,b3 a5! 17 a4 IΣa6 followed by 18... IΣad6 with goodplay. 14•••e5 15"'e3 T.Georgadze gίves 15 .d6 IΣd8 16 .e7 :d7 17 .e8 1Wc7 18 :adl :e7 19 "'d8 J.g4 201Wxc7 :xc7 21 f3 j,f5 as being clearly better for Black. Ιη thίs lίne, 20 "'xa8 appears Ιο be adequately answered by 20... j,xdl 21 j,b3 (21 j,d3 j,xc2 22 :cl 1Wd6! 23 J.xc2 1Wd2 leads to the same poSΊtioη as 21 J.b3) 21 ... j,xc2! 22 :cl 1Wa5! 23 j,xc2 "'d2.

70

Accelerated Dragons

15•••.i.f5 16 .i.b3 :Sc8 17 :adl .i.xc2 18 :d5 .a6 19 .xe5+ .16 20 'ife3:fe8 20 ... b6!? suggests itself. 21 .xa7 .i.xb3 22 axb3 :c2 and the game Beliavsky-Georgadze, USSR 1973 was short1y drawn.

C) 9lbb3 With 9 lbb3 White hopes Ιο trade tempi (.i.c4-e2 vs ...•a5-d8) and reach a favourable version of the Classical Dragon. This plan would become a reality after 9 ...Wd8? 10 .i.e2 d6 11 f4, when White is a tempo ahead of the main line ίη the Classical Dragon. 9••••c7 (D)

w

We now have an odd position: White's knight is ηοΙ very well placed οη b3 and his bishop οη c4 is undefended. Ιη return, Black's queen may tum οuΙ Ιο be a bit vulnerable οη c7. 10Ι4

The usual move, but White has also tried a few other ideas: 1) 10 .d2 b6 11 :adl .i.b7 12 .i.e2lbe5 13 f3 :fd8 14 .i.d4 d5 and

Black was better ίη G.Hoffman-Dzindzichashvili, Philadelphia 1993. 2) 10 .i.gS!? is a dangerous alternative. Black could then play: 2a) 10... b6 11 ί4 lba5 (called a mistake by most sources but perhaps it's not so bad) 12 .i.d5! lbxb3? (Black has to try 12....i.a6, when 13 -*.xa8 .i.xf1 14 e5 {14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 15 lbd5 Wb8} 14...:xa8 15 ciιxf1 .c4+ 16 ciιgl lbxb3 17 axb3 .c5+ with the idea of ... lbhS and ... f6 is unclear according to Banas) 13 axb3 lbxd5 14 lbxd5 Wc5+ 15 ciιhl ί616 Μ! Wd617 e5! .e6 18 exf6 exf6 19 :el Wf7 20 :e7 fxg5 21 :xf7 :xf7 22lbxb6 and White won without difficulty ίη Κuρ­ reichik-Privara, Stary Smokovec 1975. 2b) 10... a6!? (a recommendation οί Silman's that has been tried successful1y οη a couple of occasions), when White has tried the following moves: 2bl) 11 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 12lbd5 We5 13lbb6 :b8 is fine for Black. 2b2) 11 a4 lbb4. Now BusquetsDavies, New York 1991 continued 12 We2 d6 13 a5 lbg4! (threatening 14...d5!) 14 ί4 b5 15 axb6 Wxb6+ 16 ciιhllbe3 17 .i.xe7 .i.g4 0-1. 2b3) 11 f4 b5 12 .i.e2 b4 13 lbd5 Wa7+ 14 ciιhllbxe4. GudmundssonTangbom, Reykjavik 1990 continued 15 -*.xe7 lbxe7 16 lbxe7+ ciιh8 17 .i.f3 f5 18 .i.xe4 fxe4 19 Wd6 a5 20 lbcs Wb8 21 lbxe4 Wxd6 22 lbxd6 .i.a6 23 -*.xb2 and Black's two bishops gave him a clear advantage and an eventual victory. 2c) 10...a5 (commonly seen, but theory does not think highly of Black's chances) 11 a4 (also good is 11 a3 a4 12lbd2 Wa5 13lbd5 d6 14 c3 :e8 15 lbxf6+ exf6 16 -*.e3 lbe5 17 .i.dS ί5

:f2

The Anti-Yugoslav Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7...•α5 ΙΗ

h3 with a dismal position for Black, USSR 1976) 11 ... lDb4 12 .i.e2 :d8 (or 12... d6 13 liΚl4.i.d7 14 Wd2 :fe8 15 .i.h6;1;) 13 l;ί)d4 We5 (13 ...d5 14 lDdb5 is ;Ι; acωrdίηg to Gufeld) 14lDf3 We6 15 e5 Icn Whίte with the inίtiative ίη G.KuzIDin-Κapengut, USSR Ch (Baku) 1972. Thc continuatίon was 15 ... lDg4 16 li)h5! .i.xe517h3lDf618:ellDc619 .i.fl lDe8 20 lDxe5 lDxe5 21 .i.h4 f6 22 (4 g5 23 fxg5 d5 24 ~hl .i.d725 gxf6 exf6 26 Wd4 Wf7 27 :adl .i.f5 2Η Wf2 .i.e4 291Dc3 .i.g6 30 .i.b5 and Black had too many weaknesses. 2d) 10...e6!? is very interestίng: 11 1'4 (thίs doesn't give Whίte anythίng; I.ΙΙπΥ Evans mentions IllDb5!? "e5 12 (4 Wxe413lDd6We3+) 11 ...d5! 12 cxd5lDb4 13 h2lDbxd5, PopovychAltschuler, Contίnental Open 1991. 3) 10 .te2 wiH usually transpose ίηΙΟ our maίn column after 10...d6 11 1'4 but independent play is possible: Ι O...d6 (10... a6 11 00 lDxd5 12 exd5 ~5 13 .td4 .i.h6 14 f41Dc4 15 .txc4 .xc4 16 Wel! ;!;; DjurdeVΊt-Marsza­ Ick, Marianske Lazne 1962) 11 "d2 (11 f3 b6?! {1l ... .i.e6!? and 11 ... a6!? Ilre better choices} 12lDb5 "b7 13 c4 .i.d7 141Dc3 :ac8 15 :cl ± Κlovans­ Kapengut) 11 ... lDe5 (1l ... lDg4!? and 11 ... .i.d7 deserve consideratίon) 12 .ih6 1Dc4 13 .txc4 "xc4 14.i.xg7 oJ;xg7 15 f4 b6 16 e5! dxe5 17 fxe5 ~8 18 :f4 with dangerous attacking Ι'hances for Whίte, Liublinsky-Shabaιιον, USSR 1961. Kupreichίk-Veremeichίk,

71

ll.i.e2 (Ο) After 11 .te2 White has spent two tempi moving his bishop from f1 10 e2 (via c4) and Black has spent two tempi gettίng his queen from d8 to c7 (via a5). Thus we have a positίon from the CΙassical Dragon where Black has played ... Wc7 instead of the more usual ....te6•... lDa5 or ... a5. Though most people would tend to avoid ... Wc7 ίη an actual CΙassical Dragon. it is remarkably difficult for Whίte to demonstrate any kind of advantage. Other possibilities are: 1) 11 ~hl a6 (11 ... b6!?) 12 a4 lDa5 13lDxa5 "xa5 14 "d3 .td7 15 f5 :ac8 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 .td4 ~ 18 h3 :xc4! 19 .i.xf6 .txf6 20 "xc4 .txh3 21 ~gl, Belov-Utiatsky, USSR 1960, 21 ....te6 followed by ...~g7 and ...:h8 gives Black very good play. 2) 11 h3 .td7 (11 ... b6!?) 12 .i.e2 a5 13 a4 lDb4 14 .i.f3 .tc6 15 :12 lDd7 16 lDd4 :ad8 17 :d2 :fe8 18 We2 ;!;; Timoshchen1co-Andreev, USSR 1973.

Β

10•••d6 Here DZΊndzίchashVΊli recommends IO ... b6!? He feels that ...d7-d6 isn't Ilccessary since 11 e5 lDe8 followed hy ...d6 gives Black good play.

Black can try four dίstίnct1y different ideas after 11 .te2:

Accelerαted

72 Cl: C2: C3: C4:

11._a6 11••.I[d8 11••.85 11••• b6!

72 72

Dragons

C2) 11••.lιd8!? (D)

74

77

Rare but playable is 11 ....i.d7 12 'iFd2 (for those οί Υου 100kiog for somethiog ιο pooder, we preseot the fol1owiog oddity: 12 h3 ~a5 {Black dido't have ιο do this, οί course, but theo we would οοΙ have beeo able to eojoy this game} 13 e5 ~e8 14 ~5 'iFd8 15 ~xa5 'iFxa5 16 ~xe7+ ~h8 17 exd6 :d8 18 c4 ~xd6 19 ~d4 ~ί5 20 .i.xg7+ ~xg7 21 ~xί5+ ~xί5 22 ~3 Ih- I/2 Bednarski-Liebert, Po1anica Zdroj 1966) 12...ω 13 ~xa5 'iFxa5 14 ~o :fd8 15 ~d4 ~c6 16 :adl e5 17 ~e3 exf4 18 ~xί4 ~6+ 19 'iFe3 'ii'xb2 20 .i.g5 :e8 led ΙΟ a black wio ίο Heί1emano-Napolitano, cοπ 1974.

C1)

w

Very ioteresting! Black prepares Ιο force through his ...d6-d5 advance ίο a tactical, brute-force manoer. This line is perfect for those players who hunger for violeoce or are simply ίο a bad mood and want to take ίι ουΙ 00 the ορ­ pooeot.

11...a6

12~σ

Α

Α

rather unimportant move.

12~σ

White cao also try 12 g4 (12 a4 ~a5 12 ~xa5 'iFxa5 14 ~f3 .i.d7 15 ~hl :ac8 16 h3 :c4 was Schol1-SosοΜο,

Dutch Ch 1974) 12...b5 (12...h6!? 13 ~o b5 14 a3 .i.e6 15:f2 :ac8 16 :g2lDd7 17 ί5 ~xb3 18 cxb3 ~xc3 19 bxc31Dce5 20 :cl g5 21 h4 ί6 22 :h2 ~g7 23 ~g2 'ii'c6 24 ~g3 lDc5 was Novgorodski-Ad.Horvath, Budapest 1996; Black woo ίο 62 moves) 13 g5 ~7 14 ί5 lDce5 15 ~d5 'ii'd8 16 f6! exf6 17 gxf6 ~xί6 18 ~b6 1-0 Staeoder-Schieweck, cοπ 1975. 12••• b5 13:n ~b7 14ltlds! ιfu:dS 15 exdS lDas 16~d4lOOι 17 ~xg7;t Ghizdavu-Ribli, Bucharest 1971.

critical altemative is 12 g4 d5 13 e5 d4 14 ~b5 'iFb6 15 .i.xd4 fud4 16 ~5xd4lDd5 17 'iFd2 a5! (Levy claims that Black has iosufficieot play for the pawo; after 17 ... g5? he's ήght: 18 fxg5 ~xe5 19 c3 a5 20.i.d3 a4 21 'iFel! .i.g7 22 'iFh4 axb3 23 'ii'xh7+ ~f8 24 :xf7+! with a crushiog attack; the cootiouatioo of Sergievsky-Zurakhov, USSR 1963 was 24... ~xf7 25 :f1+ ~e8 26 ~b5+ 'iFxb5 27lDxb5 ~e6 28 axb3 and Black could resign) 18 a4 g5 19 fxg5 ~xe5. Oήgioally analysis by Boleslavsky, this extremely complicated positioo was handed an 'υο­ clear' label. Α game was fioally played from this ροίοι, aod uoclear still seems a fair appraisal: 20 :f2

The Anti-Yugoslaν νατίαtίoη: Μαίη Line with 7...•α5 ~b421c3~622.e3~623~3 .ι.Χb3 24 ~d3 ~xd4 25 .xh7+ cRf8 26 cxd4 .xd4 27 ~5 cRe8 28 J.f5 e6 29 ~c2 1i'xf2+ 30 cRxf2 J.xc2 31

.h8+ cRd7 32 .f6 ':f8 lh-lh Feszling-Schurer, cοπ 1981. Harmless is 12 .el d5!, when Black is guaranteed good play. Herνir­ I)ubinin, coπ 1989 was quite exciting: 13lDb5'1Vb8 14 e5lDg4 15 J.d2f6 16 113lDh6 17 c4 d4 18 J.f3 fxe5 19 fxe5 lί)f5 20 ~a5 lDxa5 21 1i'xa5 b6 22 .b4 J.xe5! 23 J.xa8? ~h2+ 24 cRhl lDg3+ 25 cRxh2lDxf1 + 26 cRgl'1Vh2+ 27 cRxfl ':f8+ 28 J.f3 ':xf3+ 29 gxf3 .ι.Χh3+ 30 cRel .gl+ 31 cRd2.e3+ 32cRdl.xf3+33cRcl.f1+34cRd2 .f4+ 35 cRdl J.g4+ 36 cRc2 J.f5+ 37 ~dl .f3+ 38 ~cl .f1+ 39 cRd2 .d3+ 40 ~el 1i'e3+ 41 cRdl d30-1. Mter 12 ~f3 Black must choose between: C2a: 12.•.J.OO 73 C2b: 12•••eS 73 The latter choice seems to be more ίη the spirit of 11 ... .J:ιd8.

C2a) 12•••J.oo 13 .:α necessarily best. Two other possibilities are: 1) 13 .d2?! J.c414':fel andnow instead of 14...d5?!, which favoured White after 15 e5lDe4 16 J.xe4 dxe4 17.f2 f5 18 exf6 exf6 19lDd2lDb4 20 lDdxe4 f5 21lDg5 ίη KupreichikΚotkov, USSR 1973, Black should play 14...e5! with good chances. 2) 13lDd5 (a very sensible move) 13...J.xd5 14 exd5lDb4 15 c3lDa6 16 ~hl ~5 17 .J:ιel was good for White Νοι

73

ίη Ν. Weinstein-Wilkerson,

Las Vegas 1974. 13••.J.c4 Levy recommends 13 ... a5! and stakes a claim for equa1ίty. 14 lDd5 J.xdS 15 exd5 lDaS 16 J.d4 lDe8 17 c3 ;t Ostojil:-Musil, Yugoslav Ch 1968.

C2b) 12.••e5 (D)

w

This move leads ιο very interesting play. 13Ι5

White got absolutely ηο advantage after 13 ':f2 J.e6 14 lDd5 ~xd5 15 exd5 exf4 16 J.xf4lDe5 17 ':c IlDfd7 ίη Prandstetter-Znamena~ek, Prague 1992. The conclusion of this game is worth noting: 18 c4 1Dc5 19 lDxc5 .xc5 20 'lVb3lDxf3+ 21 .xf3 J.d4 22 J.e3 ~xe3 23 .xf7+ cRh8 24 .f6+ lh- l/2. 13•••dS! 14lDb5 1i'b8 Worse is 14...•e7 15 J.c5 dxe416 J.xe7 ':xdl 17 J.xdl lDxe7 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 J.e2 followed by 20 J.c4, with an obvious advantage for White.

74

Accelerαted Drαgons

15 exd5 It must be better to throw ίη 15 fxg6. Black can't take advantage οί this move by 15 ... dxe4? because 16 gχt7+Φh817WcΙ exf318.th6e419 Wg5 is much Ιοο strong, Κosenkov­ Kubinίn, cοπ 1977. That leaves 15 ...hxg6 16 exdS .tf5! (Black must avoid 16... e4? 17 dxc6! ':'xdl 18 c7), when play is similar Ιο the Dobrovolsky-Karlik game (main column) except that White would be a pawn Ιο the good. However, even WΊth the pawn deficit, Black would still reωη an active game and good compensation.

15....txf5 Οοη'ι

fall for 15 ...e4? 16 dxc6! ':'xd117 c7.

16c4 Dobrovolsky-Κarlίk, Κarvina

1989. Now Black should play 16... a6!? (ίη­ stead οί 16...lΩb4? 17 .tg5 h6 18 .txf6 .txf6 19 .tg4 .txg4 20 Wxg4 .tg7?? 21 ':'xt7! Φh7 22lΩc7 ':'f8 23 ':'xf8 1-0) 17lΩc3 b5 18 cxb5 axb5 19 We2 (19 .tg5 'Ωd4! :;) 19... lΩM!, when Langner (whose analysis we are following) claims a clear advantage for Black.

C3) 11...&5 (D) Once thought to be best, but the weak b5-square often comes back Ιο haunt Black.

1284 Stopping the enemy a-pawn ίη its tracks and laying claim Ιο the b5square. Other moves have also been tried but they are clearly far less effective:

w

1) 12lΩdS lΩxdS 13 exd5 a4 gives Black good counterplay. 2) 12 a3 a4 13'Ωd4 (13 ΟΟ!?, ίη­ tending Ιο bήηg the knight Ιο c4 and perhaps b6, also deserves attention) andnow: 2a) 13 ...1Vb6?, trying to play as ίο a similar Classical Dragon line, is bad because the moves ... a4 for Black and a3 for White are good for the first player: 14 e5! (also reasonable is 14 Wd3 lΩg4 15 'Ωd5 .txd4 16 lΩxb6 .txe3+ 17 Wxe3lΩxe3 18lΩxa8lΩxf1 19 .txf1 .tf5 20 exf5 ':'xa8 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 ':'dl and White is a little better because the pawn οη a4 can become weak) 14...dxe5 15 fxe5 lΩxe5 16lΩί5 We6 (16 ...Wxb2?? 17lΩxe7+ Φh8 18 .td4 would lose for Black) 17 lΩxg7 Φχg7 18 Wd2 Φg8 19 ':'ael lΩc6 20 .tb5 and here Boleslavsky claimed that White was a little better while Levy claims that White stands much better; here's a case where we WΊll have to agree WΊth Mr Levy. 2b) 13 ...lΩxd4! 14 .txd4 e5 15 fxe5 (15.te3 exf4 16.txf4 {16 ':'xf4 .th6 17 ':xf6 .txe3+ 18 ΦhΙ .te6 leads Ιο a slight advantage for Black} 16...Wb6+ 17 ΦhΙ ':'e8 gives Black

The Anti-Yugoslαv Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7...'fIa5 sufficient counterplay according Ιο Levy) 15...dxe5 16.i.e3 (16lΔb5? .e7 17 -*.c3 .c5+ 18
"d2

:af8

13 :f2! Thίs move ofFischer's

gets the rook off the f1-a6 diagonal (so that after the black bishop plays to c4 White's bishop can move to Ο) and also defends the pawn οο c2. Other plans are also important:

75

w

1) 13 :cl -*.d7 14 ~d4 "c8 15 .el (15 h3 -*.c6 16 -*.d3 lΔd7 17 lΔde21Δc5 18 b3 b6 19 f5 'fIb71ed to an excellent position for Black ίο Heinrich-Mohaupt, coπ 1972) 15 ...e5 (15 ...d5?! 16 e5 ~e4 17 ~cb5! 1Δc5 18 .dl ~619 c3 ~6 20 f51eads to a difficult position for Black, SzilagyiΚotkov, Hungary 1964) 16 ~b5 -*.xb5 17 -*.xb5 (17 axb5 exf4 18 -*.xf4 :e8 is a little better for Black) 17 ... exf4 18 -*.xf4 .c5+ 19
76

Accelerαted

should guarantee White some advantage. 3) 13 J.f3 J.g4! (an excellent idea; in Zlotnik-Vaisman, Moscow 1964, Black did ηοΙ play ... J.g4 but White found a way Ιο get Black Ιο do it with even greater effect: 13 ... J.d7 14 g4? J.xg4! 15 J.χg4lι1χg4 16 'iVχg4lι1χc2 17 'iVe2 Iι1xal 18 .J:[xal J.xc3 19 .J:[c 1 'iVc6 20 J.f2 'iVxa4 21 .J:[xc3 .J:[ac8 22 .J:[h3 .J:[c4 and Black was οη his way Ιο victory) 14 .J:[f2 (bad is 14 J.xg4?! Iι1xg4 15 'iVxg4 J.xc3 16 bχc31ι1χc2 17 J.d4 Iι1xal 18 .J:[xal e5 19 fxe5 dxe5 20 'iVg3, Makarychev-Zlotnik, USSR 1978, and now 20 ... .J:[fe8 with the idea of ...'iVc4 is strong for Black) 14 ... J.xf3 15 "xf3 "c4 =- analysis by Razuvaev. 13_.eS Other tries: 1) 13 ... J.e6 14 Iι1d4 J.c4 15 J.f3 .J:[fd8 16 .J:[d2 'iVc8 (or 16 .....b8 17 b3 J.a6 181ι1db5 J.xb5 191ι1xb5 ± JansaPetersen, Kapfenberg Echt 1970) 17 Iι1db51ι1d7 18 J.g4 (Boleslavsky recommended 18 .J:[bl! with the idea of 19 b3 or 191ι1d5) 18 ... f5! (18 ...J.xb5? 19axb5f5 {alsohopelessis 19...J.xc3 20 bxc3 'iVxc3 21 J.d4 "c4 22 c3 e5 23 cxb4 exd4 24 .J:[xd4} 20 exf5 Iι1f6 21 J.f3 gxf5 22 lι1a4! 1ι1e4 23 c3 Iι1xd2 24 'iVxd2 lι1a6 25 1ι1b6 "b8 26 Iι1xa8 1-0 Westeήnen-Janssοn, Finland 1969) 19 exf5 Iι1f6 20 J.b6 gxf5 21 J.xd8 'iVc5+ 22 ΦhΙ Iι1xg4 with good compensation for the sacήficed mateήal, A.Smith-Petersen, corr 1978. 2) 13 ...J.d7 14 J.f3 J.c6 with three games: 2a) 15 1ι1d5 J.xd5 16 exd5 'iVc4 17 .J:[d21ι1e4 18 c31ι1χd2 191ι1χd2 'iVd3 20 J.f2 Iι1xd5 21 J.e4 Iι1xc3 22 bxc3

Dragons

'iVxc3 23 .J:[cl 'iVf6 24 J.xb7 was better for White in Ermenkov-Popov, Sofia 1989. 2b) 15 ΦhΙ 1ι1d7 16 h4 1ι1b6 17 J.xb6 'iVxb6 18 .J:[d2 'iVe3 19 f5 gxf5 20 exf5 'iVf4 21 Iι1d4 'iVxh4+ and Black won quickly in Pineiro-P.Garcia, corr 1987. 2c) 15 .J:[d2! (putting an end Ιο Black's dreams of a ... d6-d5 advance) 15 ... 1ι1d7 161ι1d41ι1c5 171ι1cb5! 'iVc8 18 c3 Iι1ba6 19 'iVc2 'iVe8 (with the idea of 20 ... lι1xa4!?) 20 b3 f5?! 21 exf5 J.xf3 22 gxf3! gxf5 23 .J:[g2! Φh8! 24 Iι1xf5 J.f6 25 Iι1h6! 'iVh5 (25 ... J.g7 26 J.d4! e5 271ι1χd6 'iVh5 28 .J:[xg7 Φχg7 29 Iι1df5+) 26 f5! 'iVxf3 27 .J:[g3 'iVe4 28 'iVχe4lι1χe4 29 .J:[g4! d5 30 .J:[a2!, and the threat of .J:[ag2, .J:[g8+, and Iι1f7# gives White a winning position, Heemsoth-Baumbach, corr 1982 . 14 J.f3 J.d7 15 .J:[d2 ]Ud8 16 ΦhΙ J.c617"gl! Forcing Black Ιο deal with the b6square. 17••• 1ι1d718 (5 (D)

Β

This position first arose in FischerF.Olafsson, Bled 1961. Most sources

The Anti-Yugoslαv Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7...•α5 say that Whίte has a clear advantage; recent practice has confirmed this assessment: 1) 18...b6 19 1:ιadιlί:1χc2 20 1:ιχc2 .i.xa4 21 lί:Ial .i.xc2 22 lί:Ixc2 b5 23 "'12 1:ιdc8 24lί:1el b4 25lί:1d5 "d8 26 g4 1:ιab8 27 g5 1:ιc4 28 b3 1:ιcc8 29 .i.g4 1:ιc6 30 lί:Id3 1:ιb5 31 f6 .i.f8 32 .i.xd7 1i'xd7 33 lί:Ixe5 1-0 Van den Bosch-Druon, cοπ 1975. 2) 18 ...lί:Ic5 is Black's most common move. Whίte has tried: 2a) 19 lί:Ib5 1i'e7 20 lί:Ixc5 .ι.Χb5 21 axb5 dxc5 22 .ι.χc5 1i'e8 23 Ld8 1:ιχd8 24 c3 lί:Id3 25 1:ιχa5 lί:Ixb2 26 fxg6 fxg6 27 .ι.e2 led to a win for White in Hunoldt-Flechsίg, coπ 1989. 2b) 19lί:1xc5 dxc5 20 Ld8+ 1i'xd8 21 1:ιdΙ 1i'e8 22 .ι.χc5 lί:Ixc2 gives Black sufficient chances according to Boleslavsky. 2c) 19 1:ιadΙ b6 20 lί:Ib5 1i'e7 21 lί:Ixd6 lί:Ixa4 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 .ι.Χb6 1:ιdb8 24 .ι.c5 lί:Ixc2 25 lί:Ic8 "e6 26 1:ιd8+ Φh7 27 1:ιΙd6 "xb3 28 "12 Lc8 29 'ifh4+ .ι.h6 30 Lg6 fxg6 31 .ι.f8 'ilfΊ 32 "xh6+ Φg8 33 .ι.g7+ 'ile8 34 1:ιχe8+ 1:ιχe8 35 "xg6 1-0 Grϋner-Berger, Ε. German cοπ Ch 1972.

C4) H ••• b6! (D) Black intends to put pressure οη the white e4-pawn by ....ι.b7 and then play his knight to a5. If Whίte takes this knight, Black wiH have fine play ίη the form of open lines οη the queenside. In that case, White must play for a quick kingside attack and avoid an exchange of queens, which would give Black exceHent winning chances ίη

11

the endgame. The doubled a-pawns are useful as they act as battering rams; if White plays b3 Black can answer ...a4. If White doesn't take the knight οη a5 it will find a nice home οη c4.

After 11 ...b6 Whίte's best choices are: C4a: 12g4 78 C4b: 12.ι.f3 79 Other ideas are ηοΙ as threatening: 1) 12 ΦhΙ .ι.b7 13 .ι.f3 lί:Ia5 14 lί:Ixa5 bxa5 15 a4 is an interesting idea. Whίte hopes to clamp down οη the queenside before proceeding with his usual kingside plans. Βήttoη-Sil­ man, England 1978 continued 15.. ..i.c6 161i'd3 (16 'ild2lί:1d7 17 1:ιadΙ 1:ιfd8 18 b3 a6 19lί:1e2?! :ac8 20 .ι.d4 .ι.a8 21 .ι.χg7 Φχg7 22 c4 lί:Ic5 23 lί:Ig3 1:ιb8 and the weakness of b3 gave Black a clear advantage ίη BreiderSilman, New York 1991) 16...lί:Id7 17 1:ιadllί:1b6 18 b3:ac8 19lί:1e2 .ι.b7 20 c4lί:1d7 (Black now intends 21 ... lί:Ic5 with pressure against e4 and b3) 21 e5? (hoping to take advantage of the ρίη οη the d-file; unfortunately, White has missed a tactical tήck) 21 ....ι.χf3

78

Accelerαted Drαgons

22 gxf3 (22 exd6? .i.xe2 wins for Black, while the natural 22 :xf3 is met by 22 ... dxe5! 23 _xd7? :fd8!, etc.; hence White must play the ugly text-move) 22 ... ~c5 23 exd6 exd6 24 _xd6 ~xb3 25 _xc7 :xc7 26 :bl ~5 27 :b5 ~xa4 28 :xa5 :xc4 29 <;Pg2 :e8 30 <;Pf2 .i.f6 31 :dl ~b2! 32 :d7 .i.h4+ 33 ~g3 :c2+ 34 .i.d2 tα4 35 :ad5 ~b6 0-1. The busy knight bags arook! 2) 12 _d2 .i.b7 13 ~d5!? ~xd5 14 exd5lDa5 15 ~xa5 bxa5 16 c4, Litvinov-Roizman, Minsk 1973, and now 16... e6! has been called equal by some commentators. After 17 :ac 1 :fe8! Black will be able to generate counterplay οη the soon-to-be-opened e-file.

:abl :ab8 17 b3 :fc8, when Black was clearly better ίη KNelson-Silman, USA 1975. 13••.lOd7 14 lOds Τοο slow is 14 :f2?! :fe8 15 h4 ~a5 16 ~4 a6 17 ~5 _c8 18 f5 .i.xd5 19 exd5 iίk4 20 .i.c 1 b5 21 h5 _c5 22 ~b3 _a7 23 hxg6 fxg6 with a slight advantage for Black, Ma.Tseitlin-T.Georgadze, Barnaull969. 14..•'ίWd8 (D)

C4a) 12g4 The sharpest move. However, if Black doesn't panic then things should turn out well for him. 12•• ..i.b7 Calmly completing his development. Illogical is 12 ... ~e8?! 13 _d2 .i.b7 14 g5 ~a5 15 ~5!? (perhaps this is premature), Osnos-Sakharov, USSR 1967. Now Black had to play 15 ....i.xd5 16 'ίWxd5 (16 exd5 .i.xb2 +) 16...'ίWxc2! with unclear complications. 13gS 13 .i.f3lDa5! is good for Black, who, if White plays ~5, would prefer to take οη d5 with his bishop rather than his knight. Also lame is 13 'ίWd2?! ~a5 14 ~xa5 bxa5 15.i.f3 .i.c6 (this prevents White from playing ~b5, and ίη some lines Blackmay play ... _b7, threatening both white pawns οη b2 and e4) 16

This position may look good for White οη the surface but a deeper examination tells quite a different story: White has over-reached and will have real trouble holding his own.

IS:bl This move is a recommendation of Korchnoi's. Other ideas give Black at least equa1ity: 1) 15 f5?! has met three different answers: la) 15 ...:e8? 16 f6! exf6 (perhaps it's better to try 16 ... e6 17 fxg7 exd5 18 _xd5 lOde5 19 :adl ;1;) 17 gxf6 .i.f8 18 _d2! ± Bednarski-T.Georgadze, Tbilisi 1971. lb) 15 ... ~ce5!? 16 c4?! (both 16 ~d4 and 16 _el are preferable Ιο

The Anti-Yugoslαv Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7...•α5 this) 16...:e8 17 :el e6! 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 lΩc3 1Ωc5 + Κrίstiansson-Toran, Lugano 1968. lc) 15....*.xb2! 16 :bl .*.e5 17 Wel e6 18 1Wh4 exd5 19 f6, Ma.Tseit1inT.Georgadze, 19...dxe4! 20 .*.g4 (20 Wh6 lΩxf6 is also bad for Whίte) 20 ... ~h8 is winnίng for Black. 2) 15 lΩd4 e6! (the prelude Ιο a forced seήes of exchanges that Sίlman and John Grefe discovered ίη late 1973) 16lΩc3lΩxd4 17 .*.xd4 e5! 18 .*.e3 (not 18 fxe5 "xg5+) 18...exf419 .*.xf4 .*.xc3! 20 bxc3lΩc5 21 Wxd6 lΩxe4 22 "xd8 :axd8 23 .*.f3 1Ωc5 and Black's supeήοr pawn structure gave him a clear plus ίη both Savereide-Silman, USA 1974 and p.smίth­ Sί1man, USA 1974.

Is...lΩcs

Baumbach's move. Also deserving consideration is 15 ...e6!? 16 1Ωc3 .*.xc3! 17 bxc3lΩe7!. Thίs seήes of strange moves (one of Silman's old discoveήes) gives Black good chances. Now 18 Wxd6 .*.xe4 19 :bdllΩf5 is great for Black. Also 18 .*.d3 (οι 18 .*.f3) 18 ... d5! will give Black control over hίs f5-square. Finally 18 f5 exf5 19 "xd6 .*.xe4 20 :bdl lΩcs also seems quite adequate for Black. 16 .*.Ι3 e6 17 ια3 "e7 18 'ifd2

79

22 .*.d4 is equal according to Van derTak. 22.••.*.c6 23 :del Baumbach claίms that 23 :fel is better. 23••:1")7 Zagorovsky-Baumbach, cοπ 1986. Black has taken over the initiative. The conclusion was 24 b3 "b6 25 "f2 (bad is 25 ~hl?! .*.xc3 26 .*.xc3 lΩxe4) 25 ... d5! 26 exd5 exd5 (Black now has a clear advantage) 27 lΩe2 .*.b5! 28 :Cl.*.xe2! 29 .*.xe2lΩe4 30 "xb6 axb6 31 .*.e3 d4 32 .*.f21Ωc3 33 .*.g4 :c7 34 :allΩd5 35 :fdl :Xc2 36 f5lΩf4 37 ~ gxf5 38 .*.xf5 :b2! 39 :dcl d3! 4O:dl .*.d40-1.

C4b) 12.*.f3 (D)

seήοus

Β

:Ιd819:bdΙ Οι 19 :bel

:ac8 20 h4 lΩa5 21 lΩxa5 bxa5 22 "g2 .*.c6 23 .*.xc5

=

.*.xc3 24 bxc3 dxc5 Moller-Baumbach, cοπ 1986. 19•••lΩas 20 lΩxaS bxaS 21 "g2 Also possible is 21 .*.d4 .*.xd4+ 22 "xd4 e5 23 exf4 24 "xf4, when Van der ΤΚ gives 24 ...lΩe6 =, and Baumbach gives 24 ...:ac8. 21••• 22 .*.d2

"d2

:aca

The most common reply to Black's system. 12.••.*.b7 The illogical 12....*.a6?! 13 :f2 :ab8 14lΩd5lΩxd5 15 exd5 ω 16 .*.d4 leads to a clear advantage for Whίte, Jansa-Toran, Siegen OL 1970. 13lΩds

Accelerαted

80

White can also consider: 1) 13 .d2!? (theory feels that this is one ofWhite's very best plans - he intends Ιο torment Black with threats of e4-e5; however, we can't believe that this idea should be a real problem for Black) 13 ...1ba5 14 ~a5 bxa5 15 :adl. Now 15 ...lbd7 is met by 16 e5 so Black should play 15...:fd8! 16 .f2lbd7, when 17 J.xa7? J.a6 is annoying and 17 lbb5? is also nice for Black. 2) 13 g4 lbd7 (13 ... lba5!? seems sensible) 14.d2 :ac8 15 :adllbc5 16 .f2 J.xc3 17 bxc3 lba4, Mysliwiec-Pahtz, East Germany 1977. Ιη this baώe of White's hopelessly weak queenside vs Black's vulnerable king position, we prefer Black. 3) 13 J.f2 :fe8 (13 ... lba5! seems better) 14 "d2 :ad8 15 00 "c8 16 J.h4lbb8 17 c3lbbd7 18:adl e6 19 lbxf6+ J.xf6 20 "f2, DementievΚapengut, USSR 1975, and now Κap­ engut gives 20 ...J.a6 21 :fel J.xh4 22 "xh4lbc5 as equal. 4) 13 lbb5?! "c8 14 c4 lbb4 15 lbd2lbd7 16 a3 (or 16 :bl a6 17lbc3 J.xc3! 18 bxc3 lbd3 19 "e2 lb3c5 with equality, Κlovans-Litvinov, USSR 1979) 16...lbc6 17 :bl a6 18 lbc3 lbd4 and Black has the supeήοr posiιίοη, Mukhin-Baumbach, Pήmorsko 1973. 5) 13:f2 lba5 14 lbxa5 bxa5 15 J.d4 lbd7 16 lbd5 J.xd5 17 exd5 J.xd4 18 .xd4 "c5 19 :dl :ab820 c3 :b7!, Hammie-Silman, USA 1975. Black has achieved his dream posiιίοη: he wiH force White ιο advance his b-pawn Ιο b3 and then he will train his sights οη the c-pawn and force ίι to advance also (ιο c4). When this is

.c4

Dragons

done, he will once again double rooks οη the b-file and play ...lbc5 and ... a5-a4, disrupting White's chain of pawns. 13•••lbxcιs 14 exCΙSlbaS (D)

w

15 ιαι:as 1Μ ΕΙιiοιι

Winslow has always favoured 15 J.d4. The game WinslowRind, Philadelphia 1977 demonstrates some ofWhite's attacking potential: 15 J.d4 J.xd4+?! 16lbxd4lbc4 17 "cl b5 (and ηο! 17...•c518 c3 J.xd5?? 19 b4) 18~hl a619f5lbe5 201i'h6.c4 21 :adl lbxf3 22 f6! exf6 23 lbf5 Ι gxf5 24 gxf3 J.xd5 25 :gl+ "g4 26 :Xg4+ fxg4 27 :xd5 and White easily won. Black does much better Ιο answer 15 J.d4 with 15 ...:Cc8 (Winslow recommends 15 ... lbxb3 16 axb3 J.xd4+ 17 .xd4 .c5) 16 c3 lbxb3 17 axb3 J.xd4+ 18 "xd4.c5 with good drawing chances according ιο Baumbach and Schwarz. 15•••bxa5 16 J.d4 Black is also fine after 16 c3 "c4 (another way is 16...J.a6 17 :f2 :ab8 18 J.d4 J.xd4 19 Wxd4 "b6 20 :dl :fc8 21 J.e2 J.xe2 22 :xe2 :c4 =

The Anti-Yugoslαν Variation: Main Line with 7......α5 Lundqvist-Baumbach, cοπ 1976) 17 "b3 -*.a6 = Vasiukov-T.Georgadze, USSR 1973. 16•••-*.xd4+ 17 .xd4 'ihι6 Zhidkov-Roizman, USSR 1973. The cnding is comfortably equal for Black. Ο) Ι)

-*.b3 (D)

Η

White keeps his bishop οη its nice and retains the option of two vcry different plans: either a quick ~5 and positional pressure along the Iιpcned e-file, or else f2-f4 and a slow kingside build-up. 1)•••d6 ΒΥ far the most sensible move. Howrvcr, οη occasion Black will desire Nllmething different and venture into IIIc world of the unexplored: Ι) 9 ... ~g4 10 "xg4 ~xd4 11 .txd4?! (the simple 11 "dl is best; IIIcn 11 ...~b3 12 axb3 is quite poor for IIluck, so Black should play 11 ...~c6 1) 1l ... -*.xd4 12 ι!Od5 .d8? (Black l'IIuld have secured equality with the .,φeήοr 12...e6! 13 c3 -*.g7 14 ~e7+ ·J.oh8 15 :adl .c7) 13 c3 -*.g7 14 f4 ιlίugοnal

81

d615'iWh4e616~7+~h817f5! led Ιο a strong attack for White in I.Zaitsev-Pavlovichev, USSR Central Chess Club Ch 1965: 17... g5 18 .xg5 f6 19 ~g6+ hxg6 20 .h4+ ~g8 21 fxg6 :e8 22 1t'h7+ ~f8 23 :f3 with overwhelming threats. 2) 9 ...b5?! 10~!"d8 11 ω6+ ~xf612 f4 -*.b7 13 e5 ~xd4 14 -*.xd4 -*.g7, Μinic-Fοήntοs, Pula 1971, and now 15 f5 is very strong, intending Ιο push οη Ιο f6. IOh3 Κeeping Black's pieces ουΙ of g4 (10 f4? ~g4!). White's other two choices are also seen οη occasion: 1) 1Ο f3 is solid but passive and should give White ηο chances of an advantage: la) 10...~xd4 11 -*.xd4 -*.e6 12 ~5 (12 .d2 :fc8 13 :fdl ~7 14 -*.xg7 ~xg7 15 1t'd4+ ~6 16 h3 1t'c5 =Damjanovic-Gufeld, Sarajevo 1964) 12...~xd513exd5f&J714hg7~xg7 15 .d4+ f616 ~hl1t'b617 1t'e4:n 18 f4 ~5 19 "e3 a5 with a slight advantage for Black, Pope-Silman, San Francisco 1974. lb) Also good is 10...-*.d7 11 "d2 (11 1t'el :ac8 12 :dl :fd8 is equal, Spassky-Gurgenidze, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1960) 11 ...:fc8 12 :adl "a6 (12 ...:ab8 13 "12 a6 14 ~de2 b5 15 ~f4 1t'd8 16 ~d5 ~xd5 17 ~xd5 -*.e6 18 f4 ~xd5 19 ~xd5 e6 20 -*.b3 ~a5 21 f5 ~xb3 22 cxb3 exf5 23 exf5 -*.e5 24 ~d4 "f6 25 fxg6 "xf2+ 26 :xf2 hxg6 27 -*.xe5 dxe5 28 :e2 :e8 29 :d5 e4 30 :d4 f5 31 :d6 ~f7 32 :xa6 1/2-112 Sax-Andersson, Szirak (4) 1990) 13"12 ~5 14 ~d5 ~xd5 15 -*.xd5 ~4 =Kosenkov-Osnos, USSR 1964.

82

Accelerated Dragons

2) 10 οο!? (D) is a promising a1temative Ιο 10 h3. We willlook at four replies:

2a) 1O...fue4? simply drops a pawn after I1lbxc6 bxc6 12lbxe7+ cRh8 13 lbxc6. 2b) 10...1Wd8 (too passive) 11 f3 (a1so reasonable is 11lbxf6+ J.xf6 12 f4 ;t) 11 ... lba5 121Wd2lbxb3 13 axb3 J.d7 14 c3 a6 15 b4:e8 16 J:[fdllbxd5 17 exd5 :c8 18lbb3 e5 19 dxe6 :xe6 20 J.d4 and the weak pawn οη d6 gives White a considerable advantage, Suetin-T.Georgadze, Lublin 1976. 2c) 10... lbxd5 (ίη the previous ediιίοη we felt this was best, but now we think that White can get an edge with correct play) 11 exd5lbe5 12 c4!? (ίη­ teresting, but 12 h3! transposes ίηΙο the favourable section Β 1 of this chapter) 12 ... lbg4 13 J.d2 1Wc5 14 J.c3 lbe5 15 :cl (15 "'e2? J.g4! 16 f3 lbxf3+) 15 ...lbxc4 16 J.xc4 "'xc4 17 lbe6!? (17lbc6!? J.xc3 18 :xc31i'h4 19 g31Wg5 20 h4 "'f6 21 :f31Wxb2 22 lbxe7+ cRg7 23 "'cl! gives White strong compensation for the pawn according Ιο G.Taylor) 17 ... J.xe6 18 J.xg71Wxd5 19 J.xf81Wxdl 20 :fxdl

cRxf8 21 :c7 :b8! 22 b4 cRe8 23 f4?! (according Ιο G.Taylor, 23 a4, preventing Black's plan of ... b5 and ...J.c4, is preferable) 23 ... cRd8 24 :c3 b5 25 :dcl :b7 (avoiding 25 ... J.c4 due Ιο 26 g4! with the idea of :h3) 26 a3 h5! 27 cRf2 J.c4 28 :gl d5! 29 cRe3 :b6 30 cRd4 :f6 31 g3 cRd7 ~ Patterson-G.Taylor, Canadίan Open 1990. 2d) 10...:e8 is probably Black's best reply. Theory usually claims that 11 f3 J.d7 12 c3 is ;t but we can't accept that such a passive set-up will prove threatening Ιο Black. Ιη EstrinBaumbach, cοπ 1972, White tried 11 J.d21Wd8 12lbb5lbxd5? (the simple 12...:b8 13 :el a6 14lbbc3 b5 gives Black adequate play) 13 exd5lba5 14 J.c3 J.d7 15lbd4? (White is better after 15 J.xg7 cRxg7 16lbd4) 15 ......c7 16 h41Wc5 171Wd3lbxb3 18 axb3 a5 (the immedίate 18...1Wxd5 is met by 19 :a5) 19 :xa5 :xa5 20 b4 1Wxd5 21 bxa51Wh5 22 "'e4 d5 23 1Wf3 J.g4 24 1Wg3 e5 and Black's advantage is obvious. Νow we return Ιο the main line after 10 h3 (D):

The Anti-Yugoslav Υαπαιίοη: Μαίη Line with 7.....α5 lO•••-*.d7 Clearly the coπect square for the bishop. This move supports an eventual ... b7-b5 advance, connects the rooks and prepares to pressυre the white pawn οο e4 with ...-*.c6 at some Ροίοι. Three rare alternatives are: 1) 10...lαιd4 11-*.xd4 h6 (11 ...b5 12 -*.xf6 ,j.xf6 13 lbd5 -*.xb2 14 lLιxe7+ ~g7 15 :bl "c3 {better is 15 ...-*.e5 16 f4"b6+} 16 "xd61ed Ιο a clear plus for White ίο Parma-Pirc, Beverwijk 1963) 12 f4 a6 13 "h5 14 ..n :ac8 15 :ael .i.c4 16 e5 dxe5 17 :xe5, Tal-Stefanov, Κislovodsk 1966. White will win a pawn since 17...~618.i.xc4:xc419:Xe7lbg4? fails Ιο 20 .i.xg7. 2) 10...lbb5!? 11lίΚt5 (or I1lbde2 .i.e6 12 g4lbf6, Ciocaltea-Bίlek, Βυ­ charest 1968; now 13lbf4 is slightly better for White) 11 .....d8 12 lbf5 gxf5 13 e6 (deserving serίous attention is 13 ... fxe4, when 14 .i.h6 can be met by 14...-*.xh6 15 "xh6.i.f5 16 lbf4 ~h8 17 lbh5 :g8 18 -*.xf7 "f8!) 14 lbc3 fxe4 15 ~xe4 d5 16 :adl f5 17lbg5 h6 18 c4!? leads to 00clear complications, Grϋnfeld-Κagan, Tel-Aviv 1986. 3) 10... ~!? 11 "xhS?! (11lίΚt5 "xd112 Jhxdllbxd4 13 -*.xd4lbxd5 14 exd5 -*.d7 15 :fel :fe8 is equal but Gufeld claims a clear advantage for White with 11 .d2! -*.d7 12llX1e2; natυrally, this untested assessment is still very much open Ιο question) 11 ... lbxh5 12 :adl lbxd4 13 .i.xd4 lLιf4 14 :fel .i.e6 15 lίΚt5 ,j.xd5 16 exdS -*.f6 lh_lh Jonasson-Frey, Reykjavίk 1982. Retυming to the position after 10...-*.d7 (D):

"f3

"xhS

83

w

White must choose between: 11 :el 84 Ο2: 11 Ι4 88 ΟΙ:

Inferior tries are: 1) 11llX1e2?! b5 12 a3 ω 13lbd5 lbxdS 14 exd5 lbc4 15 -*.xc4 bxc4 16 :bl :ab8 and Black already had a signίficant advantage ίο VillanuevaSilman, North Amerίcan Open 1991. 2) 11 "d3 :ac8 12 ι&ιs? (12 f4 lbb4 13 "e2 lba6 14 "f3 lbc5 15 :adllbxb316lαιb3 =) 12... lαιd5 13 exd5 lbxd4 14 -*.xd4 -*.f5 15 "e3 .i.xd4 16 "xd4 .i.xc2 17 :fel :fe8 18 :acl -*.xb3 19 axb3 a6 led Ιο an unfortunate situation for White ίο Baczynski-Donaldson, New York 1982. 3) IIlίΚt5lbxe4 12lbxc6 bxc6 13 lbxe7+ ~h8 14 -*.d4 :ae8! (a big improvement over 14...lbd2 15 .i.xg7+ ~xg7 16 :ellLιxb3 17 axb3 "c5 18 "d2! a5 19 :a4 d5 20 :h4 h5 21 :xhS :h8 22 :he5 f6 23lbxg6 ~xg6 24 :e7 "d6 25 "d3+ .i.f5 26 :h4 27 g4 -*.d7 28 "d3+ f5 29 gxf5+ ~f6 30 :le6+ .i.xe6 31 :xe6+ "xe6 32 fxe6 :g8+ 33 ~h2 and White went οο Ιο win ίο Bachler-Szpisjak, con 1991) 15 :el f5 16 -*.xg7+ (16 f3 has

"f3

Accelerαted

84

to be tried) 16 ... Φχg7 17 "'d4+ We5 18 "'xe5+ dxe5 19 f3 ια5 20 ':xe5 ~xb3 21 axb3 ':f7 22 ~xf5+ gxf5 23 ':c5 ':e2! 24 ':xa7 ':d2! 25 Φf1 Φf6 26 b4 ':e7 and Black won ίη 44 moves ίη Lagua-Silman, Pasadena 1992. 4) 11 Wel "'h5 12 ':dl ~a5 13 ~d5 ~xb3 14 ~xb3 .*.b5 15 ~xf6+ .*.xf6 16 ':d5 "'e2 and Black is slίghtly better, Nisipeanu-V.Georgiev, Balkaniad jr 1993.

D1) 11 ':el (D)

Β

White foregoes any wild excursions the kingside and instead aims for central play. After 11 ':el Black has tried several different moves, though only two have any real foHowing. Thus we will concentrate οη: Dla: 11... 85 Dlb: 11....:fe8(!) 86 οη

.:ac8

Most of the other moves have tumed out very nicely for White: 1) 11 ......h5 12 "'d2 b5 13 ~xc6 .*.xc6 14 ~d5 ':fe8? (taking οη d5 is oblίgatory) 15 ~xe7+ ':xe7 16 "'xd6

Dragons

':ae8 17 Wxc6 and Black was busted ίη Mariasin-Κapengut, USSR 1983. 2) 11 ....:fc8 and now White has: 2a) 12 f4 "'h5?! 13 ~f3 ':d8 14 "'e2 e6 15 ':adl .*.e8 16"'f1 "'a5 17 ':d2b518a3 b419axb4 "'xb420f5! ± Pietzsch-Damjanovic, Sarajevo 1966. 2b) 12 ~d5 "'d8 13 ~xc6 bxc614 ~xf6+ .*.xf6 15 c3 c5 16 .*.c4 ':ab8 with equality, Κhalίfman-Andrianov, Budapest 1989. 2c) 12 "'e2 "'c7 13 ':adl ~a5 14 f4 ~xb3 15 axb3 .*.c6 16 ~xc6 "'xc6 17 "'d3 b5 18 e5! ± Lanka-Κivlan, USSR 1978. 3) 11 ... ':ad8 12 "'d3! (Black gets good play after 12 "'e2 ~xd4 13 .*.xd4.*.c6 14 .:adl e5! since ...d6-d5 wiH foHow) 12....:fe8 (or 12...~5 13 "'e2!, when after f2-f4 the knight will have Ιο return home) 13 ':adl ~xd4 14 .*.xd4 .*.c6 15 Wf3 b5 16 a3 ':b8 17 ~d5 .*.xd5 18 exd5 "'c7 19 ':e3 lOd7 20 .*.xg7 Φχg7 21 c3 a5 22 ':d4! ± Κlovans-Veremeichik, USSR 1979. 4) 11 ....:ab8 12 f4 (12 "'e2 or 12 "'d3 seems more ίη the spiήt of the 11 ':el variation) 12 ... ~xd4 13 "'xd4 lt)b5 14 Wxa7 .*.xc3 15 bxc3 "'xc3 16 .:adl .*.c6 17 "'d4 "'xd4 18 ':xd4 e5 19 ':xd6 exf4 20 .*.cl ':fe8 21 e5 ':bd8 22 .*.a3 ':xd6 23 .*.xd6 ;t Grϋη­ feld-Kagan, Randers Ζ 1982. 5) 11. ..~d4 12 .*.xd4 .*.c6 13 ~ .*.xd5 (13 ... e5 14 .*.c3 "'d8 15 "'d2 .*.xd5 16 .*.xd5 ~xd5 17 Wxd5 is also very much ίη White's favour, Todorovic-Kunovac, Zlatibor 1989) 14 exd5 ':fe8 15 c3 (15 "'f3 ~d7 16 .*.xg7 Φχg7 17 ':e3 ~c5 18 .:ael ~xb3 19 axb3 ':ac8 20 "'dl ':c7 21 c3 is also miserable for Black, SigurjonssonBokhosian, Tbilisi 1974) 15 ... a6 16

The Anti-Yugoslαv Variαtion: Main Line with 7...•α5 "d3 ~7 17 ~xg7 Φχg7 18 lIe3 ± '-anka-Lehmann, Plovdiv 1985. This ίι; the type of position White enviHioned when he played 11 lIel. 6) 11 ... b5!? tumed ουΙ surpήsίngΙΥ welI ίο Patterson-G.Taylor, Toronto 1995 after 12lbd5 ~xdS 13 exdS ~5 14 ~g5 IIfe8 15 c3 lIac8 16 f4 ~c4 17 ~xc4 bxc4 18 ~xe7 "xdS. The ι:οntίnuatiοn was qώte interesting: 19 ..t;ιhl ~xh3 20 ~f3 "b7 21 "xd6 1Ic6 22 "d2 lIxe7 23 "d8+ .tf8 24 IIxe7 "xb2 25 gm3 "xal+ 26 Φg2 "xa2+ Ilnd Black is obviously better but White eventually managed ιο hold the ιlraw.

D1a) ll...llac8 (D)

w

This used ιο be Black's main deIence against 11 lIel before 1l ...1Ife8! hecame popular.

12"d3 It's notclearwhatWhite's best 12th move is. The a1tematives deserve seή­ ous consideration: 1) 12 "e2 (Black has never demonstrated a clear equalizing method

85

against this move) 12...~d4 (after 12... ~? 13 ~xc6! .txc6 14 ~e4 .txb2 {grabbing whatever he can; Black finally notices that 14....txe4 15 ~d2 costs him a piece} 15 lIabl .tg7 16.td2 Black is lost, Sigurjonsson-L.Garcia, Bogota 1978) 13 .txd4 ~c6 14 lIadl IIfe8?! (l4... b5!?) 15 "e3! b6 (l5 ... lbd7 16 ~5 .txd5 17 exd5 ΙOC5 18 ~xg7 Φχg7 19 "d4+ Φg8 20 lle2 b5 21 c3 IIc7 2211del1ed Ιο a typical advantage for White ίο H.Olafsson-Κagan, Randers Ζ 1982) 16~~dS 17exdS.tb718c311c7 19 .txg7 Φχg7 20 IId4!, LankaVeremeichik, USSR 1979. Black has nothing but suffeήng ιο 100k forward 10.

2) 12 ~d5 "d8 (trying Ιο avoid the joyless positions tbat aήse after 12...lIfe8 13 .td2 {ίο his taρes, Οziο­ dzichashvili mentions 13 Ο? ~xd5 14 exd5 ~xd4 15 .txd4 "xel+! 16 "xel ~xd4+ 17 ΦhΙ .txb2 18 IIbl .tc3 19 "e2 b5 with advantage ιο Black} 13.....c5 14~f3~xdS 15exdS ω 16 .te3 "c7 17 c3 b5 18 .td4 ;Ι; L.Bronstein-Κagan, Rio de Janeiro ΙΖ 1979) 13 ~b5 ~xdS (l3 ...~e4? loses Ιο 14 ~xa7 ~xa7 IS .tb6 "e8 16 .txa7; ίο Vasiukov-Roizman, Moscow 1972, Black tried 13.....a5 but after 14 a4! .te6 {14... ~xe410ses ιο 15 ~xa7 ~xa7 16 .tb6 "a6 17 IIxe4} 15 .tg5 .txd5 16 exd5 ~5 17.td2 "a6 18 "e2 IIfe8 19 .te3 b6 20 a5 White was having a wonderful time) 14 exdS ω 15 ~4 (after 15 ~xa7 lIa8, both 16 c4 .txb2 17 IIbl .tg7 and 16 c3 b6 17 ~c6 ~xc6 18 dxc6 .txc6 are ίο Black's favour) 15 ...b5 16 c3 lle8 17 "d2 (17 ΙOC2"c7 18 ~d4 .th6 ;Ι; Hennings-Κaρengut, Lublίn

86

Accelerated Dragons

1973) 17 ... ~418.1xc4':'xc419~2 "a8 (19 ... a5 20 .1d4 b4 21 .1xg7 rtιxg7 22 cxb4 'ilc7 23 ':'e2 ':'c8 24 lΩa3 ':'c 1+ is a recommendation of T.Georgadze's that fails Ιο 25 ':'xcl 'ilxcl+ 26 'ilxcl ':'xcl+ 27 rtιh2 axb4 28 lΩc2 .1b5 29 ':'d2 and White will win a pawn) 20 .1g5 .1f8 21 .J:r.adl :C5 22 .1e3 ':'c7 23 .1h6 .1f5! 24 .1xf8 (24 lΩb4 a5 25 ~6 e5) 24 ....1xc2 25 'ilxc2 ':'xf8 26 "d2 ':'b8 1/2-1/2 VogtT.Georgadze, Lublin 1974. Georgadze claims that Black will continue with ... ':'bb7 and ...'ilf8-g7. 3) 12 f4 doesn't make much sense with the rook οη el but Dzindzichashvilί mentions the move ίη his tapes οη the Accelerated Dragon. He gives 12 .....h5 13 "d3 lΩa5 14 .112 (14 lΩd5? lΩxd5 15 exd5lΩxb3 16 'ilxb3 b5! favours Black) 14... e5. 12•••ΙΑS Black accepts White's offer of a tempo and tries to prove that the knight stands well οη e5. Easy for White is 12 ... lΩxd4 13 .1xd4 ':'fe8?! (13 ....1c6 followed by ...lΩd7 is;t) 14 f4 .1c6 15 e5lΩh5 16 "e3 .1h617 e6 f5 18.:.n ':'f8 19 .J:r.adl ± Ligterink-Κagan, Haifa OL 1976. Worthy of a second glance is Sosonko's suggested 12... a6!? 13 a4 (13 ':'adllΩe5 14 'ile2 b5) 13 ...'ilc7 with the idea of ... lΩa5. 13"e2 Now White threatens 14 f4, and 13 ... b5 is known Ιο favour White after 14 a4! b4 15 lΩd5 ':'fe8 16lΩb5! lΩc6 17 ':'ad 1 lΩxe4 18 lLJxa7 !, when 18 ...lLJxa719.1b6 wins Black's queen. 13.....a6!1 With this queen move (an idea of Silman's) Black grabs hold of c4 and

hopes Ιο gain active play οη the queenside Ιο compensate for his damaged pawn structure. Bad is 13 ... ':'xc3? 14 .1d2. Also good for White is 13 ... b5? 14 a4 b415 00 ':'fe8 161LJb5 ~617 ':'adl! lLJxe4 181LJxa7!, when Black is embaπassed by the threat of .1b6, LjubοjevίΙ:-Sοsοnkο, Wijk aan Zee 1976. 14 "xa6bxa6 Αη interesting and largely unexplored position. The ultimate value of 13 ... 'ila6 depends οη the assessment of the position after 15 ':'adllΩc4 16 .1cl. Ιη Povah-Silman, England 1978, White played the mistaken 15lΩd5?! and after 15 ... lLJxd5 16 .1xd5 ~4 17 .1xc4 ':'xc4 18 c3 ':'b8 19 ':'e2 e5! 20 1LJf3 ':'c7 21 ':'dl .1f8 22 ':'cl .1b5 23 ':'d2 .1c6 24 ':'el f5 Black had a clear adνantage.

D1b) 11•••.J:r.fe8 (D)

w

Black defends his e-pawn before undertaking any active plan. Some annotators go so far as Ιο adom this popular move with a '!'.

The Anti-Yugoslαv Variation: Main Line with 7.....a5 12"d3 Other trίes are also interestίng: 1) 12M:ac8 13 'iFd2 and then: la) 13...1&514:abltΔe515~e5 J.xe5 16 tΔe2 'it'xd2 17 J.xd2 J.b5 = Koch-Tal, Marseίlles 1989. lb) 13 ... a6 14 :adl b5 15 J.h6 andnow: lbl) 15...~8!? 16 ~4 IΣc5 17 a3 J.xh6 18 'iFxh6 :h5 19 'it'f4 tbe6 (safer is 19 ...
87


Β

3a) Blackmustavoid 12...lbxe4??, turns out to be a gross blunder: 13 lbxc6 .*.xc6 14 lbxe4 .i.xe4 15 .*.d2 and Black can resign. 3b) 12 ... :ac8 13 :adl a6 14 f4 lbxd4 15 .*.xd4 .*.c6 16 "f2lbd7 17 .*.xg7
88

Accelerαted

Dragons

for White in 41 moves after 12...Wb5

13"xh5αι5 14~llΔxd415.txd4

.tc6 16lΩd5 .txd4 17 :xd4 :ac8 18 e5 .*.xd5 19 :xd5 dxe5 20 :d7 :b8 21 :xe5 e6 22 :b5 ~f8 23 :bxb7 ίη Μarkovίό-Jeιίό, Belgrade 1989. 12.•• Also possible is 12...lΔxd4 13 .*.xd4 .tc6 14 :adl .l:ad8 (accordίng Ιο Tal, 14...:ac8 15 f4 e5 16 .*.e3 exf4 17 .txf4 favours Whίω) 15 "e3, Tal-Seibold, Bundeslίga 1992. Now 15 ...lΩd7 is best, but Tal mentίoned the following varίatίon, whίch is worth repeatίng here: 15...e5 16 .txa7 lbd7 17 ~d5 .txd5 18 :xd5 'ifa6 19 :edl .*.f8 20 'iff3! 'ifxa7 21 :a5! and White wίns. 13:adl Ιη Sorolcίn-Baumbach, coa 1980, White tried 13 f4, and a very interesting game developed after 13 ...a6 14 ~f3 'fIc7 15 :adl ~a5 16 e5 ~b3 17 exf6 ~5 18 _d2 exf6 19 "xd6 .te6 20 'ifxc7 :xc7 21 .*.d4 :ec8 22 g4 f5 23 gxf5 gxf5 24 .*.xg7 ~xg7 25 lΩd4 ~f6. The finish saw White's ρο­

:ac8

sitίon ίmplode ίη surpήsίηg fashίon:

26 :e5 :d8 27 ~f2 :cd7 28 ~e3 b6 29 ~e2 :g8 30 :gl :xgl 31 ~xgl :d8 32 ~xe6 fxe6 33 ~f2 .l:d4 34 ~e2 :xf4+ 35 ~xf4 ~xe5 36 ~e3 ~d60-1.

13••• ~xd4 14 .txd4 .*.c6 15 "13 a616 ~ 1&1717 .*.xg7 ~g718 a3 e6 19 ~b4 "e5 20 c3 .tb5 21 'ife3 "c5 22 ε4 1/2-1/2 Bryson-Baumbach, coa 1989.

D2) 11 f4(D) With 11 f4 Whίte hopes Ιο get somethίng going οη the kingside. The

play tends to get very complicated and Black has ηο fewer than six responses: D2a: ll...b5 88 D2b: ll...e5 88 D2c: ll...:act8 89 D2d: 11.•• 89 D2e: 11.....h5 94 D2f: 11•••~d4 96

:ac8

D2a) 11•••b5?! Thίs temporaήly

breaks off the queen's communίcatίons wίth the centre and allows White Ιο inίtίate play there. 12e5 Ιη Schoneberg-Baumbach, E.Germany 1966, Black got a playable game after 12lΩd5 ~xd5 13 exd5 ~xd4 14 .txd4 'fIb4 15 .txg7 ~xg7 16 c3 "c5+. 12•••dxe5 13 ~c6 .*.xc6 14 fxe5 Now Euwe analyses 14... ~8 15 00.*.xdS 16.txd5 J:d8 17 .*.xe5 18 .*.xtί+ ±.

_f3

D2b) 11...e5?!

The Anti-Yugoslαv Υατίαιίοη: Μαίη Line with 7...•α5 Τήed only once (some say once Ιοο often). 12 tOxc6 .i.xc6 13 IS! White is already better. Ιη ShortWagman, Lugano 1986, Black played the mίstaken 13 ....i.xe4? and after 14 ~xe4 ~xe4 15 fxg6 hxg6 16 :xt7! :ΙΧΠ 17 .i.xt7+ ΦχΠ 18 "f3+, he was losίng.

89

the t7-square: 13lDf3 "c7 14 g4 ω 15 f5.i.c6 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 .i.xt7+! ΦχΠ 18 e5! left White with a strong attack ίη Neikίrkh-Baumbach, E.German Ch 1967) 13 "e2 (13 'W'd2lDa6 followed by ...lDc5 gives Black good counterplay) 13 ...e5 14 ω lDhs! and Black has an excellent positίon.

12.••b5 13 a3 86 14 "el "c7 15

1i'h4 "b816 g4 a5 17 ΙS gxf5 18 exf5

D2c) 11...:ad8 12 οο! Best. White ηο longer allows Black free himself by exchanging knights οη d4. White's other choices have tumed ουΙ well for Black: 1) 12 f5 (White plays for an immediate attack but he also gives Black use of the e5-square) 12...~e5 13 "el .tc6 14 ~xc6 (Gipslis recommends 14ιαIs!;I;;) 14... bxc615g41i'b416a3 1i'b7 17 "h4 d5 and both sides have chances, Damjanoviό-Baumbach, Bad Liebensteίn 1963. 2) 12 "f3 (Black appears to develop good play after this) 12...~xd4 13 .i.xd4 .i.c6 14 "f2!? ~7! (ηοΙ 14...ιαι.e4? losing a piece Ιο 15 ~xe4 .txe4 16 .i.xg7 Φχg7 17 "d4+; Ιοο passive is 14 ... b6 15 f5 "a6 16 :ael 'iWb7 17 fxg6 ± Bobotsov-Roizman, Minsk 1964) 15 .i.xa7? (ιοο adventurous; the simple 15 .i.xg7 was called for, with equal chances) 15 ...b6 16 .i.d5 .i.xc3! (ηοι 16....txd5? 17 ~xd5 'iWxa7 18lDxe7+ Φh8 191Dc6 with an unclear positίon) 17 .txc6 .tb4 and Black wins a free piece. 3) 121fd3 (this allows the queen to get kίcked around and cannot be recommended) 12 ...lDb4! (the defensive 12...:te8?! is poor because ίι weakens

8419.t&2 b4 Κurajίca-Ηϋbner, Barcelonajr Wch 1965. Now 20 axb4lDxb4 21 g5 gives White a strong attack.

Ιο

D2d) 11...:ac8 (D)

At one tίme this logical move was very popular. Ιι stίll seems to be playable. White's two main tήes are now:

D2dl: 12"13 D2d2: 1200

90 92

are ηοι so dangerous: 1) 12 "d3 lDb4 13 "e2 lDa6 14 "f3 (also poor is 14 .i.c4 "b4 15 .txa6 "xb2 16 e5 'W'xc3! 17.i.xb7 :C7 18 .i.f3 dxe5 19 fxe5lDe8 20 .tf2 A1tematίves

90

Accelerαted Drαgons

':'c5! ::ι: Verber-Smejkal, Haπachov 1967) 14 ... llk5 15 ':'adl ~xb3 16 ~xb3 = Parma-Stein, Yugoslavia vs USSR 1965. 2) 12 f51! ~5 (according Ιο Larry Evans, 12... ~xe41isbadforBlack: 13 ~xe4 We5 14 Wd3 ~b4 {ηο better is 14 ... ~xd4 15 f6! ~xb3 16 fxg7 ~xal 17 gxf8W+ ':'xf8 18 ~d4} 15 Wd2 Wxe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 ':'ael) 13 Wel ~c4 14 ~xc4 ':'xc4 15 ~b3 Wc7 16 ~d4 ':'xd4 17 ~xd4 Wb6 18 ':'dl Wxb2 with a complicated game, Jano§evi~-Stein, Sarajevo 1967.

D2d1) 12"f3 (D)

Β

12.....hS! Black gets his queen ουΙ of the way of his queenside pawns and simultaneously gains time with threats of an equalizing exchange. Other moves don't turn ουΙ so well: 1) 12 ... ~xd4 13 ~xd4 ~c6 14 ':'adl b5 15 "e3 b4 16 00 .txd5 17 exd5 leading Ιο a slight advantage for White, Jano§evi~-Κagan, Netanya 1971.

2) 12... ~h5 13 ιαJe2 ~f6 14 g4 with a strong attack, Littleton-Yanofsky, Lugano OL 1968. "h5 14 ιαJe2 b5 3) 12... a6 13 15 a3 ~h8 16 ':'adl ~, PietzschSzabo, Kecskemet 1966, and now 17 f5! is strong according Ιο Gipslis. 13'ii'f2 Very weak is 13 g4 1 ~xg4! 14 hxg4 ~xg4 15 ':'fdl Wh2+ 16 ~f1 ~xe3+ 17 "xe3 lL1xd4 18 ':'xd4 Whl + and Black wins, Messing-Karev, Yugoslavia 1966. Ιη some games White favoured 13 ':'adl but this doesn't seem Ιο present Black with any real problems. Black has two answers Ιο this rook move: 1) 13 ... ~a5 14 g41! (14 Wf2! may give White some advantage) 14...~xg4 15 hxg4 .txg4 16 'ii'hl ~xdl ('equal' according ΙΟ ECO) 17 ':'xdl Wxhl+ 18 ~xhl ~xb3 and according Ιο Levy the rook and two pawns are better than White's two minor pieces, Mnatsakanian-Stein, Erevan 1965. 2) 13 ... ~xd4! 14 "xh5 (14 ~xd4 Wxf3 15 ':'xf3 .tc6 16 ιαJs ~xd5 17 exd5 .td7 18 ':'e3 ':'fe8 19 c3 a5 =) 14 ... ~xh5 15 .txd4 ~xd4+ 16 ':'xd4 .te6 (16 ... .tc6 17 ':'d2 ~f6 18 e5! ~4 19 ~xe4 .txe4 20 exd6 exd6 21 c3 ;!;Teufel-Toran, Bamberg 1968) 17 ':'Ω a6 (the immediate 17 ... ~xf4 18 ':'b4 .txb3 19 axb3 ~e6 is also good for Black) 18 g4 1 ~xf4 19 ':'xf4 .txb3 ::ι: Teufel-Κestler, Bamberg 1968. White's latest try against Black's system is the surpήsing 13 ~xc6. The fact that Kamsky used this line as White gives ίι real credibility since Dzindzichashvili, one of the great experts οη the Accelerated, was Kamsky's second at that time. 13 ... .txc6

"f2

The Anti-Yugoslαv Variation: Main Line with 7.....α5 14 g4 (14 .i.xa7 was ιried ίη ReverbyA.Ansell, New York 1993: 14...•xf3 15 μΟ ~ 16.i.e3 and now instead of 16... .i.xc3 17 bxc3 .i.b5 18 :fel :xc3 19 ;;Ιf2, as was played ίη the gaιne, Black could have got an excellent positίon with 16....i.h6 17 lbe2 .i.b5) 14...•a5 15 :adl b5 16 g5lbd7 17f5 .i.xc3 (17... b4?! 18 fxg6 bxc3 19 .i.xf7+:xf7 20 .xf7+ ;;Ιh8 21 .xe7 is ΙΟΟ ήsky for Black) 18 bxc3lbe5 19 .f4 lCJc4 20 .i.d4 (according ΙΟ Peters, 20 f6 e5 21 'ifh4 ;;Ιh8 ends White's attack) 20...e5 21 fxe6 fxe6 22 .i.f6 'ifc7 23 .i.xc4 bxc4 24 :xd6 .i.xe4 25 :xe6 'ii'xf4 26 :xf4 .i.f5 27 :a6:n 28 h4 .i.xc2 29:d4 .i.f5 30 a4 :b7 31 ;;Ιf2 :e8 32 ;;Ιο, Kaιnsky­ Anand, Sanghi Nagar Ct (6) 1994, and now Peters claims tbat 32...:c7 would have kept Black ίη the gaιne.

13•••b5! (D) This discovery of Stein's seems to be the only satίsfactory move. The altematίves have allled Ιο dίsappointing results: 1) 13 ...1CJa5? (intending ΙΟ sacή­ fice the exchange with 14 ...:xc3) 14 lCJde2 b6 15 f5! (Black's queen is now cut off from the rest of the board) 15...g516.g3h617'ifh2!,andBlack has ηο defence Ιο g2-g4. Tal-GaSi~, Sarajevo 1966 contίnued 17...lCιc4 18 .i.d4 lCJxb2 19 :ael lCJc4 20 lCJd5 lCJxd5 21 g4 and Black dίd not get sufficient compensatίon for his trapped queen (21 ...•h4 22 .i.f2). 2) 13 ...lCJb4?! (stίll hoping Ιο sacήfice with 14...:xc3 and also intending Ιο bήng the knight to c5 via a6; unfortunately for Black, the offside knight οη a6 enables White to make a breakthrough ίη the centre with a

91

tίmelye4-e5) 14lCJde2 a5 15 a3lCJa6

16 e5 dxe5 17 lCJg3 'ifh4 18 fxe5 lCJh5 19lCJxh5.xh5 2O.i.xf7+ ciιh8 21 'ifd2 ± Sakharov-Stein, USSR Ch 1965. 3) 13 ... a6 14lCJde2 transposes ίηΙο the Pietzsch-Szabo game (see note to Black's 12th move) .

w

14lbdxb5 There doesn't seem ΙΟ be anything better: 1) 14 lCJxc6 .i.xc6 15 .i.d4 b4 16 e5 (16 lCJd5 .i.xd5 17 exd5 lCJe4!) 16... bxc3 17 exf6 .i.xf6 18 bxc3 .i.xd4 19 cxd4 .i.e4 and Black is slightly better, Tsarenkov-Κapengut, USSR Ch 1968. 2) 14 lCJde2 b4 15 lCJg3 .h4 16 lCJd5 (neither 16lCιce21CJa5 17 lCJd4 ~ 181CJxh5 'ifxh5 19 J:[adllCιc4 20 1CJf3 lCJxe3 21 .xe3 'ifc5 22 'ifxc5 :xc5 23 e5 .i.b5, Thormann-Piίhtz, E.German Ch 1976, ηοι 16 lCJa4 e5 worήes Black much) 16... lCJxd5 17 exd5 ω 18 :abl .i.b5 19 :fdllCJc4 20 .i.xa7 lCJxb2 + CΊoca1tea-Panno, Lugano OL 1968. 3) 14 a3 a5 (14 ... lCJa5!?) 151CJde2 a4 16 lCJg3 .h4 17 .i.a2 b4 18 axb4 lCJxb4 19 .i.bl ~ 20 lCJxh5.xh5 21

Accelerated Dragons

92

:a3 .a5 22 .*.d2 (Tseshkovsky-Κap­ engut, 1968) 22 ...•a8!:;:. 14•••cιιxe4 15 .ιιxe4 .xb5 16 CΙΙι3 Deciding Ιο play for a kίngside attack. Also possible is 16 :adl with the idea of central pressure by c4-c5, isolating the d-pawn. Α good example of thίs move is Pietzsch-Kapengut, Belorussia-E.Germany 1968: 16 :adl a5 17 c4 Wb4 18 .*.d2! 'iWb7 (ηοι 18 ....*.d4? 19.xd4CΙΙxd4 {19...•xb3 is met by 20 .d5! followed by ~c3 and 'iWb5-a6 with advantage} 20 .*.xb4 CΙΙxb3 21 .*.xd6 exd6 22 axb3) 19 .*.c3 CΙΙb4 20 .*.xg7 Wxg7 21 .d4+ f6 22 c5! d5! (completely mistaken is 22....*.c6? 23 cxd6 .*.xe4 24 :fel) 23 ~xdS CΙΙxd5 24 .xdS .xd5 (once again 24 ... ~c6? is an euor: 25 .e6 ~xe4 26 :d7) 25 :xd5 ~c6 26 :d4 e5! 27 fxe5 fxe5 28 lΙ'J.-lh. 16••.&5 Even better is 16...Wh8!, when 17 f5 10ses a _pawn Ιο 17....*.xf5 18 CΙΙxf5 .xf5 19 Wxf5 gxf5 20 :xf5 e6. 17 a4 1hι4 18 Ι5 Wh8 18...•h4!? deserves attention since 19 fxg6 hxg6 20 Axf7+ Wh7 leaves Black with lots of threats. 19 :adl ....4 20 :d3 :b8 Stronger is 20 ... Ae5! 21 .*.f4 (perhaps White's best reply is 21 .*.d2 but even then Black gets the advantage after 21 ... gxf5 22 CΙΙxf5 'ifxt2+ 23:ΧΩ .*.xf5) 21 ... gxf5 22 Axe5+ CΙΙxe5 23 :d4 'iff6, Popovych-Sherwin, USA 1968, when 24 CΙΙxf5 .*.xf5 25 'ifxf5 is ηο good because of25 ... cιιf3+, and οη 24 :d5 Black wins by 24 ...:g8 25 :xa5 'ifg5 26 CΙΙe2 .*.c6. 21 .el .*.ΧΙ5 22 :f4 .ΧΙ4 Also possible is 22 ...•f6 23 CΙΙxf5 gxf5 24 'iffl (or 24 .xb2 25

:xf5 .ιιe5 with chances for both sides) 24 ... e6 25 :xd6 'ife5! - analysis by Ivkov. 23 '*'xf4 .*.xd3 24 .d2 .*.a6 25 .*.h6 ~6 26 .xh6 Byrne-Stein, Sarajevo 1967. The chances are about even. Black should now continue 26...~4 27 'ife3 CΙΙxb3 28 'ffxe7 CΙΙc5 29 ~f5 gxf5 30 'iff6+ with an iιnmediate draw. Instead Stein played 26 ...f6 and the advance of White's h-pawn proved extremely effective .

D2d2) 12 CΙΙo (D)

:xrs

.12

After 12 'iff3 fell ουΙ offavour (long before ίι was revived ίη the 1990s by Κamsky!), attention turned Ιο thίs move. Over time 12 Μ scared away a 10Ι of players of the black side, but analysts have yet to prove a definite advantage for White. 12••••h5 Preparing Ιο advance his queenside pawns (the iιnmediate 12...b5? fails to 13 e5). The altematives have not fared so well:

The Anti-Yugoslαν Variαtion: Main Line with 7...•a5 1) 12...J:r.fd8 13 1Ifel .te8 (13 ...e6 14 J:r.dl .te8 15 lbg5 h6? 16 lbxe6! fxe6 17 .txe6+.tf7 18 .txc8 :Xc8 19 .lΣxd6 .tc4 was played ίn ZuckermanToran, Malaga 1968, and now 20 e5! .txf1 {20...lbe8 21 J:r.xg6 .txfl 22 1Ifxf1} 21 exf6.tf8 22 J:r.d5 would have been crushing) 14 f5 b5 (14 ... gxf5 15 exf5 1Ifxf5 16 lbh4 followed by 17 lbf5 gives White a very strong attack) 15 fxg6 hxg6 16 1Ifh4 lbe5 17 lbg5 lbc4 18 lbd5! lbxe3 19 lbxe7+ f8 20 lbxg6+ fxg6 21 J:r.xf6+ and White's attack crashes through, I.ZaitsevDietze, Polanica Zdroj 1970. 2) 12...:008 13 1Ifel (another possibility is 1311fe2 e5 14 fxe5lbxe5 15 lbxe5 1Ifxe516.txa7 .tc617 J:r.ael and Black has ηο compensation for the 10st pawn, G.Garcia-Jimenez, Haνana 1969) 13 ....tc8 14 J:r.dl (14 g4!? can also be considered) 14...e615 1Ifh4 Wh5 (too passive is 15 ...lbe8? 16 ί5 exf5 17 .lΣd511fc7 18 .tg5 with a winnίng position for White, Kurajica-Kuijpers, Wijk aan Zee 1970) 16 g411fxh4 17lbxh4

t. 13 1Ifel b5 14 a3 Bad ίδ 14 f5 b4 15 lbe2 lbxe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 ~f4 1Ifh7! :; GliksmanRajkοviό, Yugoslavia 1973. Also poor ίδ 14 e5?! dxe5 15 fxe5 lbxe5 16 lbxe5 1Ifxe5 17 .txa7 and White has ηο more than equa1ity. ECO (Korchnoi) gives 14 .lΣdl! a5 15 a4 as best and claims that White would then have a clear advantage. This appears Ιο be true since 15 ... b4 16 lbd5 lbxe4 is mashed by 17 lbb6 followed by lbxd7 and .td5. However, Black can surely do better than this! How about the immediate 14... b4!? 15 lbd5 lbxe4. Now lbb6 is ηο 10nger

93

possibleand 16f5!?gxf517lbf4 1Ifh6 18 lbe6 1Ifg6 19 lbxf8 ':xf8 gives Black more than enough for the exchange. 14•••aS 15 J:r.dl (D)

..- -

8.8 _._ Β ~.~

~.~.t.~.~.

~~8·~ -.~~ ~

_'8 8 8" 8 8ΔD _

B.ι~ ~ ~.

ΟΔ8

_l2J8Δ

8Δ8

~ _ W ~.:wu:~

15•••a4 Bad is 15 ...b4? 16 lbd5 bxa3 (ηοι 16...lbxe4? 17 lbb6 J:r.cd8 18 lbxd7 J:r.xd7 19 .td5) 17 lbxf6+ .txf6 18 J:r.d5±. According Ιο analysis by Boleslavsky, 15 ....te6 is also poor: 16.txe6 fxe6 17 lbg5 lbd8 18 e5 b4 (or 18 ... lbd5 19 lbxd5 exd5 20 J:r.xd5 ± ΚIein-Dueball, W.Germany 1968) 19 axb4 axb4 20 exf6 exf6 21lbce4 fxg5 22 fxg5 J:r.xc2 23 J:r.xf8+ xf8 24 1Iff1 + e7 25 1Ifd3 :C6 26 lbxd6 and White wins. However, before 15 ....te6 is thrown ίη the garbage heap, Levy's suggestion of 17 ... b4 must be addressed. He calls the position after this move unclear. As much as we would like ιο believe him, ίι appears that 18 axb4 lbxb4 (after 18 ... axb4, 19 lba2 must be good for White and 19lbe2 with the threat of 20 lbg3 is also a pain) 19 J:r.d21eaves Black ίη real difficulties.

94

Accelerated Dragons

16 .t.a2 b4 17lbdS bxa3 now the reader knows that 17 ... ~xe4? 10ses Ιο 18 ~b6 ':c7 19 ~xd7 ':xd7 20 .i.d5. 18 ~XΙ6+ .t.xf6 19 ':CΙS Οη 19 e5 dxe5! 20 ':xd7 exf4 21 .t.xf4 axb2 Black would get sufficient compensation for the piece. 19... eS 20 ':xd6 20 bxa3 is possibly better, but Black would still be doing well after 20....t.e6 21 ':xd6 exf4 22 .t.xf4 'iVc5+ 23 'iVe3 ΒΥ

w

~8.

20•••exf4 Black must avoid the losing line 20 ....t.e6?? 21 ':xe6 fxe6 22 .t.xe6+ cRh8 23 .t.g4. 21 ':ΧΙ6 The natural 2 Ι .t.xf4? turns out to be an eπor: 21 .....c5+ 22 cRhl .t.e623 :Ιχe6 fxe6 24 .t.xe6+ Κlundt-Kapen­ gut, Ybbs 1968. Now ίη the game Black went wrong with 24 ...cRg7? and after 25 .t.xc8 he was unable Ιο play 25 ....t.xb2 due Ιο 26 ~g5!. Coπect was 24...cRh8! 25 .t.xc8 (25 e5 .t.g7 26 .t.xc8 axb2 27 .t.e3 Wxc2) 25 ....t.xb2 26 .t.e3 Wd6 27 e5 Wd5, when Black's powerful threat of ... a3-a2-al gives him a clear advantage. 21 •••fxe3 22 'iVxe3 axb2 23 ~ι! Boleslavsky had claimed a clear advantage for White ίη this position but further analysis does ηο! bear this out. 23••• ~b4 24 .t.xf7+ 24 .t.bl a3! is unclear. 24•••Φι7 2S 'iVd4 cRh6 The position is exιremely messy but Black appears Ιο be doing quite well.

D2e) 11.....hS (D)

Originally played by Κapengut and given a good deal of attention by Dzindzichashvili and Kamsky ίη the 1990s. The idea is logical enough why bother moving the a8-rook at all? Instead Black prepares for immediate queenside expansion. 12"d3 It's ηοι clear what White's best move is. This means that other ideas deserve seήοus attention: 1) 12 ~o (one of White's best choices) 12... b5 with two possibilities: la) 13 a3 a5 14 Wel a4 15 .t.a2 b4 16 axb4 ~b4 17 .t.bl (Black's chances are already supeήοr) 17...Wa5 (also worth consideration is 17 ...':fc8 threatening ...:Xc3) 18 g4 Wc719:t2 Wb7 20 g5 ~h5 (and ηοΙ 20...~xe4?? 21 ~xe4 Wxe422c3)21 ~1 ~622 c3 .t.c6 (22 ...':fc8 followed by ...lί)c5 is a good altemative) 23 ~ tDg3 24 f5, Tsarenkov-Roizman. Now Boleslavsky and Kapengut claim a clear advantage for Black with 24 ....t.xe4! 25 ~xe4 ~e4 26 .t.xe4 Wxe4 27 .:tf4 We5 28 ':fxa4 lί)c7 29 ':xa8 ~a8! 30 fxg6 fxg6!. lb) 13 Wd3! a5 14 a3 and here Black has tήed two moves:

The Anti-Yugoslav Variation: Main Line with 7...'ika5 lbl) 14... b4 15 ~e2 (piket recommends 15 axb4 axb4 16 :xa8 :xa8 17 ~d5) 15 ... bxa3 16 ~g3 (16 bxa3 a4 frees a5 for the queen) 16 ... axb2 17 :a4 (17 :abl ~b4 18 ~xh5 ~xd3 19 ~xf6+ ~xf6 20 cxd3 a4 leads Ιο a ρο­ sition where the two pawns are better than the piece; Dzindzichashvili also thinks Black is better after 17 ~xh5 bxal" 18 :xal ~xh5) 17 .....h6 18 f5 g5 19 ~xg5 ~5 20 .txh6 (20 "e3 ~xf3+ 21 gxf3 "xh3) 20 ... ~xd3 21 .txg7 Φχg7 22 cxd3 .txa4 =F - ana1ysis by Dzindzichashvili. lb2) 14... a4 15 ~d5! (Black stands well after both 15 ~2? .txh3! 16 gxh3 axb3 17 Φg2 b4 18 f5 gxf5 19 exf5 ~5! =F Maήasin-Roizman, Minsk 1970 and 15 .ta2 b4 16 ~2 {after 16 ~d5, 16 ... bxa3 seems fine for Black; worse is 16...J:ab8? 171ίW'6+ ~xf6 18 e5 ~g7 19 exd6 exd6 20 "xd6 :fd8 21 ~xf7+!, MacArthur-Levitan, US Women's Ch 1992} 16.....a5 17 :ael :ab8, Dabetif-Novoselski, Yugoslavia 1993) and now: lb2a) After 15 ...:ab8, 16 ~2 ~xd5 17 exd5 .tf5 18 "dl ~a5 19 g4 .txg4 20 hxg4 "xg4+ is unclear but T.Georgadze points ουΙ that 16 .txc6! .txc6 17 iί)d4 :fc8 18 f5 leads Ιο a clear advantage for White. lb2b) Piket's recommendation of 15 ... e6 16 .txc6 .txc6 17 iί)d4 .tb7 turned ουΙ well for White after 18 f5 gxf5 19 exf5 e5 20 iί)dxb5 d5 21 .tc5 ίη G.Garcia-Zamora, New York Open 1994. lb2c) 15 ... ~xd5 16 ~xd5 (16 exd5 ~a5 17 .td4 "h6 18 :ael :fe8 19 ~xb5 :ac8? {Piket mentions 19 ...:ab8 20 fΔc7 :ec8 21 "c3!} 20 b3 .tf5 21 "d2 :xc2 22 "xa5 .txh3

95

23 :α axb3 24 .txg7 Φχg7 25 :xc2 bxc2 26 "c3+ and White went οη Ιο win ίη the game J.Polgar-Kamsky, Buenos Aires 1994) 16...:ab8 17 c3! .te6 (17 ...:fe8!?) 18 :ael .txd5 19 exd5 ~a5 20 ~g5 ~c4 21 g4! "h6 22 .tc 1 .tf6, Gerasimov-T.Georgadze, and now 23 ~e4! is very strong for White. 12...&5 Απ important a1temative is 12... b5!? (D), after which White can play:

w

1) 13 ~cxb5 is met by 13 ... e5 according Ιο Kapengut. However, 14 ~xc6 .txc6 15 ~c3 leaves Black searching for compensation. Black should probably answer 13 fΔcxb5 with 13 ... ~b4 14 "c4 a5, when 15 fΔc3 transposes ίηιο 13 ~xb5. 2) 13 ~xb5 ~b4 14 "c4 a5! 15 lί)d4 (Dzindzichashvili eoints ουΙ that 15 ~c7 :ac8 16 .tb6 ~8 17 :abl ~xc7 18 .txc7 .te61eaves White ίη trouble) 15 ...:ac8 16 "e2 "xe2 17 lί)dxe2 a4! with a clear advantage for Black. 3) 13 :ael a5 14 a3 b4 15 axb4 axb4 16 ~xc6 (16lί)d5 ~xd5 17 exd5 ~xd4 18 .txd4 .tb5!) 16 ....txc6 17

96

Accelerαted

lίXιs ~xdS 18 exdS with two possibilities: 3a) 18...,j.a4! 19 ,j.xa4 (19 .t.c4 ,j.xb2 20 ,j.d2 has been given as an improvement) 19...:xa4 20 fS "h4 21 ,j.f2 "f6 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 24 .xb4, Tseshkovsky-Κapen­ gut, Lvov 1973, 24 ...:tb8 and Black has a slίght advanιage. 3b) Short-Kamsky, Linares PCA Ct (2) 1994 saw Black play dίfferently with 18...,j.d7. He still managed Ιο gain a plus after 19,j.f2 (19 ,j.d4,j.b5! 20 "xb5 ,j.xd4+ 21 ΦhΙ ~) 19...:fe8 20 :bl .fS! 21 (or 21 "xf5 .t.xfS 22 g4 ,j.e4 23 :fel fS =F) 21 ...,j.a4. 4) 13 a3!? is probably Whίte's best choice: 13 ... b4 (13 ... a6 14 ιtJf3 :ac8 15 :adllt!as 16 e5 dxeS 17 fxe5 .t.f5 18 .d4lίXι7 also led Ιο great complί­ cations ίη de Firmian-J.Whίtehead, SanFrancisco 1977) 14ιtJxc6 bxc3 IS ιtJxe7+
"b3

:aa8

"d2"h4

:a2

"cU

Dragons

Also interesting is 19 fxg6 with chances for both sides, Κlovans-Κap­ engut, Grozny 1969. 19.....xrs 20 ~ "xn+ 21 "xn fxe6 Black's active pieces give him plenty of compensation for the saCΉficed queen: 22 "e2 ιtJxb3 23 cxb3 ιtJxc3 24 "d3 ιtJe2+ 25 "xe2 ,j.xal 26 "el ,j.e5 27 "xaS ,j.c6 with a good game.

D2f) 11•••ιtJxd4

This is Black's soundest continuation. 12 .t.xd4 ,j.c6 (D) This is about the only. move ever seen, but 12 ... eS!? may deserve some attention: 13 .t.e3 exf4 14 ,j.xf4 .t.c6 15"f3 :ad8 16 :adl
w

The Anti-Yugoslav Vαriαtion: Mαin Line with 7.....α5

97

Now Black has tιied five moves:

02fi: 13 "13

97

02f2: 13 "el 0213: 13 "e2

97 97

0214: 131MS

98

0215: 13"d3

99

Β

02Ι1)

13"'3? Thίs commonly seen eποr falls

vicLim Ιο a tactic based οη the 100se d4bishop. 13.....b4! 14 ~xf6 Νοι what Whίte wanted Ιο do, but 14 :adl10ses Ιο 14...ltlxe4. 14•••~xI6 15 :Iel "c5+ 16 ΦhΙ ~xc3 17 "xc3 "xc3 18 bxc3 :ac8 Ciocaltea-Furman, Haπachov 1966. Black's SUΡeήοr pawn structure will leave Whίte sufferίng for a 10ng time.

02Ι2) 13"el Α favooήte

move for players who have agreed Ιο a preaπanged draw. 13•••"b4 14 :dlltlxe4! 15 ~xr:r Φxg7 16ltld5 Or 16ltlxe4 Wxe4 17 "c3+ Φg8 18:t'2 e619 :xd6 :ad8 = JacobsenΚapengut, Ybbs 1968. 16.....CS+ 17 Φh2ltl16 Belίeve ίι or ηοΙ, the game now ends ίη a forced perpetual check! Νοι 17...e618 Wxe4exd519Wd4+ 'iVxd4 20 :xd4 :ae8 21 f5 ± Jano§evic-Parma, Yugoslav Ch 1964. 18ltlc7 (D) Bad is 18ltlxe7?? :ae8, when the ρίη οη the e-file is hίghly unpleasant. 18••• ~xι2! 19 "xe7 ~xh3! 20

ΦΧh3

Just accepting the draw. Suicidal is 20 f5? .*.xf5 21 :del ltlg8, with a winning position for Black, Janokvic-Soos, Skopje 1967. 2O•••'ifh5+ 21 Φι2 "g4+ 22 Φf2

'ifh4+ Black's queen wants to make sure ίι defends the f6-knight. Now 23 Φg2 Wg4+ 24 Φf2 Wh4+ 25 Φg2 lh- l/2 was Ostojic-Κaplan. Hastings 1968. White has Ιο accept the draw since 23 Φe2 :ae8 24ltle6+ (worse is 24ltlxe8+ :xe8) 24...Φg8 25 Wxb7 fxe6 is dangerous due to the vulnerable whίte king.

02Ι3) 13"e2

Thίs is worse than 13 "el due Ιο

the possibilίty of a knight fork οη g3. 13•••'i1b4 14 :tdl Νοι 14 :adlltlxe4! 15 ~xg7 Φχg7 16 ltlxe4 Wxe4 17 Wd2 Wf5 18 c3, Hulusija-Gasil, Yugoslavia 1967, and now 18 ... b6 19 ~c2 'ilf6 20 f5 g5 leaves White with insufficient compensation for the pawn. The difference between thίs positiοη and the one arising after 13 'ilel is

98

Accelerαted Drαgons

that with White's king's rook still οη fl, the move 16lΩd5 fails to 16....i.xd5 and 17...ltlg3 forking queen and rook. 14•••ltlxe4 15 .i.xg7 ~g7 16ltld5 .i.xd5 16.. :tWc5+ 17 ~h2 ltlf6 18 ltlc7 .i.xg2! 19 'fIxe7 is the same type of thing that was seen ίη section D2f2. 17 :xd5 White avoids 17 .i.xd5 ltlf6 18 'fIxe7?? 'fIc5+, when the bishop is 10st. 17.....b6+ 18 Φh2lDt'6 White has nothing Ιο show for his lostpawn.

Ο2Ι4) 13ltld5 (D)

2) 13 ... l[)xd5 14 exd5 .i.xd4+ 15 'fIxd4.i.d7 16 :ael :fe8 ;t leads Ιο the same type of comfortable position for White. Black must avoid these ρο­ sitions where White has easy play due Ιο his pressure οη the e7-pawn. 3) 13 ...J:fe8 is one ofBlack's most popular moves. Its one flaw (as compared ιο 13 ...:ae8!) is that ίι leaves fΊ a little loose. White has tried several different replies: 3a) 14 ltlxf6+? exf6 15 f5 (15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 f5) 15 ... .t.xe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 .i.xf6 'fIc5+ 18 ~hl d5 19 'fIg4 'fId6 '#+ Κarker-Yudovich, cοπ 1968. 3b) 14 .t.xf6 'fIc5+ (a simple solution is 14... exf6 15 f5 :xe4 16 fxg6 hxg617l[)xf6+ .i.xf6 18 :xf6 'W'c5+ 19 ΦhΙ d5 20 'fIf3 'fIe7 HectorDonaldson, Malmo 1985/6) 15 Φh2 .t.xd5 (Κapengut suggests 15 ....i.xf6 16ltlc7 .ιΧe4!?, when the two bishops and extra pawn should give plenty of compensation for the exchange) 16 .ιχg7 .ιΧb3 17 .ιc3 (mistaken is 17 .ιd4? .ιχc2! 18 'fId2 'fIc4 19 :acl 'fId3 +) 17....ιc4 18:f3;t. The ρres­ ence of opposite-coloured bishops helps White's kingside attack. 3c) 14 c4 .t.xd5 15 exd5 ltld7 16 Φhι.t.χd417 'fIxd4 "c5 (or 17...ltlc5 ;) and Black's knight is better than White's bishop. 3d) 14 .i.c3 "c5+ 15 Φh2 ltlxd5 16 exd5 .i.b5 17:f3 :ac8 3e) 14 'W'd3 :ac815 ΦhΙl[)χd516 eΧd5.ιχd4 17 "χd4.ιd7 18:f3 "c5 19 "d2 a5 20 c3 'W'b5 21 :el a422 .ιdΙ e6! Shmit-Murei, USSR 1967. 3!) 14 f5! (playing to open the ffile and take advantage of the delicate nature of n) 14....ιχd5 (14...ltlxe4 is

=

Α popular move. White immediately puts pressure οη e7 and f6. 13•••J:ae8! Most accurate. The altematives are: 1) 13 ....i.xd5 14 exd5lΔJ715 .t.xg7 Φχg7 16 "d4+ Φg8 17 :ae1 :ae8 18 Φh2 ;t Vasiukov-Ciocaltea, Bucharest 1967. White's pressure οη the e7pawn is annoying. Black should now play 18 .....c5 19 "d3 b5 with a solid position.

=.

=

The Anti-Yugoslαv Variation: Main Line with 7.. :ila5 ηοΙ possible because οί 15 fxg6, when something bad will happen οη f7) 15 cxd5 lbd7 (better is 15 ... b5) 16 <ίPhl! ( Ι 6 c3 .i.xd4+ 17 "xd4 "c5 is comfortable for BIack) 16 ....txd4 17 "xd4 "c5 (17 ... lbe5 is answered by 18 ί6; ίί Black trίes Ιο prevent thίs with Ι 7 ... f6 hoping ιο contίnue with ... g5, ... lbe5 and .. .f~g7 White will play 18 h4! followed by g4-g5 and a kίngside attack) 18 "f4lbf6 (ηοι 18 ...lbe5 19 :ael :f8 20 "h6! with the threat οί :e4-h4) 19 :ael a5 20 c4 ± Kelecevic-RajkoVΊc, Yugoslav Ch 1968. The continuatίon was 20... a4 21.tc2 b5 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 .txg6! fxg6 24 'iih6 'iixc4 25 "xg6+ Φί8 26 :f5 "h4 27 :ef1 'iih8 28 :xf6+ exf6 29 :xf6+ 'iixf6 30 'iixf6+ Φg8 31 'iixd6 and White's extra pawns should make the win a simple matter. 14"d3 White's other trίes have also failed ιο dent the black positίon: 1) 14 .txf6 'iic5+ 15 <ίPhl .txf6 and a further exchange οη ί6 leaves White's e4-pawn dead. 2) 14lbxf6+? exf6 15 f5 .txe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 .txf6 "c5+ 18 ΦhΙ .txf6 19 :xf6 .txg2+!. 3) 14 "el!? "xel 15 :axellbd7 (Black should avoid 15 ... lbxd5 16 .txg7 <ίPxg7 17 exd5 .td7 18 :f3, when White is a lίtt1e better, Ivanovic-Davies, Vr~ac 1989) 16 .txg7 Φχg7 17 :e3lbc5 18 :dllbxb3 1/2-1/2 Skovgaard-Svensson, cοπ 1984. 14•••lbxd5 15 exdS .tb5! Α very ίnstructive manoeuvre! Black forces White Ιο place his pawn οη c4, where it will block the b3-bishop, makίng the ... e7-e6 central break easier for Black to achieve.

99

16c4 Whίte 10ses mateήal

after 16 .i.c4? .txc4 17 "xc4 :c8. 16•••.txd4+ 17.χd4.td718Φh2 White also gains nothίng with 18 :ael "c5 19 "xc5 dxc5 20 :e3 e6. 18••••CS 19 .d2 e6! The positίon is equal . Ο2Ι5) 13.d3(D)

Β

This is the toughest test of Black's set-up but he should be able Ιο hold the balance . 13•••:ad8! (D) Αη actίve move that prepares a central break with ...e7-e5. The passive 13 ...lbd7?! has led Ιο some good results for White after the exchange 14 .txg7 Φχg7: 1) 15 Φhιlbc5 (15 ...:ac8 is better) 16 "d4+ f6 17 :ael (17 .td5 {threatening 18 b4} 17.....b618 :abl ;t Zhίdkov-Pavlenko, USSR Ch 1967 is also reasonable) 17...lbxb3 18 axb3 "c5 19 "d2 e6 20:f3 :fe8 21 :d3 ;t!± Matanovic-Simagin, Yugoslavia vs USSR 1963.

100

Accelerαted Drαgons

2) Another possibilίty is 15 :ael, when 15 ...:ac8 16 lId4+ ~g8 17 lDd5 is slίghtly better for Whίte, whί1e 15 .....c5+ 16~h2 b5 17 -*.d5 k818 -*.xc6 :xc6 19lt!xb5 "xc2 20 "d4+ e5 21 "xa7 ± was ΜatuΙοviό-Rajkο­ νίό, Vmj~kaBanja 1974. Perhaps it's better to meet 15 :ael with 15...f6 16 lDd5lt!c5 17 "e3 e6 18lt!c3lt!xb3 19 axb3 "c5 = Neishtadt-Ekberg, corr.

14:adl Clamping down οη the d5-square. White has many altematίves but none of them have Ιώ to any kind of opening advantage: 1) 14 ~hl e5 15 -*.gl d5! 16 fxe5 dxe4 17 lIe3 "xe5 is bad for White, Οstojίό-Forίntos, BeIgrade 1967. 2) 14 :ael e5 (14 ...lDd7 15 -*.xg7 ~xg7 16lDd5 -*.xd517 exd5 :fe8 18 :e3 is the kind of passive positίon that Black must strίve to avoid!) 15 -*.e3 exf4 16 .txf4 d5 17 e5 ltle4 =/;. 3) 14 f5?! lDd7 (immediateIy grabbing hold of the e5-square) 15 .t.xg7 (Black was also successful after 15 lt!d5 .t.xd5 16 .t.xg7 ~xg7 17 .t.xd5 lt!f618 :t2l1c5 19 c3 e6! 20 b411b6 21 -*.b3 d5 22 exd5 lt!xd5 23 .t.xd5

:xd5 24 f6+ ~g8, when the threat of ...:f5 gave Black a clear adνantage ίn Ιanο§eviό-Furman, Harrachov 1966) 15 ... ~xg7 16 "d4+ (16 "g3 "e5 17 1i'h4lt!f6 is equal, Tυkmakov-Κapeo­ gυt, Rostov-on-Don 1967) 16.....e5 17 :001?! (White shοώd take the offered pawn by 17 "xa7, although Black would then have more than enough compensatίon for the mateήal after 17...lt!c5 18:ael e6!) 17 .....xd4+ 18 :xd4 lt!f6 (Black already has the more promising positίoo) 19 g4? g5! 20 :fdllDd7 21lt!d5 .t.xd5 22 :xd5 :c8 23 c3 ~f6 24 ~f2 lt!e5 25 ~g3 h5 with a decisive advantage for Black, Ekblom-Pytel, cοπ 1969. 4) 14 "e3 lDd7 (l4 ... b6? is way too passive: 15 f5! lt!d7 16.t.d5! .t.xd4 17 "xd4lt!e5 18 b4 "a619 a4 "b7 20 b5 -*.xd5 21lt!xd5 f6 22 a5 ± Κloν­ sky-Averbakh, USSR Cht 1966) 15 .txg7 ~xg716 ~h2 "c5 17 "d3 b5 18 a4 (18lί)d5!? =) 18... b4 19lt!bl e5 20 f5 lt!f6 21lDd2 d5! and Black has the ίnitίatίve, Μatanονiό-ΒίΙek, Havana OL 1966. 5) 14lDd5 e5!? (the most ίnterest­ ing move but oot the only possibility by any means; aside from the calm 14...J:ιfe8!?, Black can also coosider 14... lt!xd5 15 exd5 -*.xd4+ {Ι prefer 15 ...-*.b5! 16 "e3 -*.xd4 17 "xd4 .t.d7} 16 "xd4 -*.d7 17 :ael :fe8 18 ~hl "c5 19"d2 a5 = Κlovans-Kap­ eogut, USSR 1965) 15lt!xf6+ (or 15 fxe5? lt!xd5 16 exd5 dxe5 17 dxc6 :xd4 18 -*.xf7+? {Black is also winning after 18 :f4 19 "d51i'b6+} 18...:xf7 191i'b311d5 20 :xf7 "xf7 21 cxb7 "xb3 22 axb3 :b4 and Black went οη to wio ίο Gilden-Chήstίan­ sen, Lone Pine 1972) 15 ....txf6 16

"f3

The Anti-Yugoslaν Variαtion: Main Line with 7.....α5

.i.c3 "c5+ 17 Whl .i.g7 (17 ....*.b5!? 18 ..Ο .i.xf1 19 IΣxfl is ηοΙ clear since Whίte has compensation ίο the Ι'οπη of a strong bind οη the lίght squares and pressure agaίnst f7) 18 f5 .th6!? (both 18 ...d5 and 18 ....*.b5 deιιcrve seήοus consideratίon) 19 fxg6?! (better is 19 .*.d2!? .i.xd2 20 "xd2 .i.xe4 21 f6 Wh8 22 "h6 IΣg8 23 .i.xf7 "xc2 24 IΣgl "f2 25 .*.xg8 IΣxg8 26 "g5 "f4! with an unclear position accordίng to Ivkov; Whίte could also try 19 IΣael οι 19 IΣadl) 19 ... hxg6 20 "g3 Wg7 21 .i.xf7?! (ηοΙ quite sound; better is 21 IΣadl, when 21 ....i.xe4? is met by 22 IΣxd6!) 21 ...IΣxf7 22 IΣxf7+ Wxf7 23 "h4 IΣh8 24 IΣf1+ We8 (24 ...Wg7?? 25 'ii'e7+ mates, as does 24 ...Wg8?? 25 "d8+ Wh7 26 1Σf7+ .i.g7 27 "e7 IΣg8 28 "h4#) 25 "g4 (25 "f6:t8 is just a transposition) 25 ...1Σf8 26 "xg6+ We7 271Σxf8 .i.xf8 28 "g5+? (a much better try is 28 .i.el! d5 29 .*.h4+ Wd7 30 "f5+ Wc7 31 "xe5+ Wb6, though Black still has a clear advanιage) 28 ...We8 29 "g6+ Wd8 30 "g8"f2 31 "c4 .i.h6 32 .i.a5+ Wd7 0-1 Yilrnaz-Ivkov, Praίa da Rocha 1978. Now we return to the maίn lίne after 14IΣadl (D):

14•••1Dd7 sane move has held υρ quite nicely. Black's other tήes do ηοΙ enjoy such a good repuιation: 1) 14... e6?! 15 f5 gxf5 16 exf5 e5 17 .i.e3 d5 18 .*.g5 e4 19 "g31eaves Whίte with more threats than Black can handle. 2) 14... e5 15 .*.e3 exf4 16 .i.xf4 (Liberzon claims that 16 IΣxf4 is clearly better for Whίte) 16 ...ltlh5 17 .i.cl .*.xc3 18 bxc3 "c5+ 19 .i.e3 Thίs

101

"e5 20 .i.h6 ΙOg3 21 .i.xf8 IΣxf8 (21 .....c5+? 22 "d4!! lDe2+ 23 Wh2 ΙOXd4 24 cxd4 1Wb6 25 .i.e7 was wίη­ ning foι Whίte ίη Lederman-Kagan, Netanya 1975) 22 lΣfel ΙOxe4 23 "d4 a6 and Black has adequate compensation for the exchange. 3) 14...b5 15 a3?! (15lΩd5 Ίs Whίte's best chance for a slίght edge) 15 ...b4 16 axb4 "xb417 e5!? (17lΩd5 ΙOxd5 18.i.xd5 {and ηοΙ 18 exd5? .i.b5} is equal) 17...dxe5 18 fxe5lDd5 19lDe4 ΙOC4?? (correct Ίs 19...a5 with the idea of ...a4, wίth an edge to Black according Ιο Short) 20 IΣxf4 .i.xe5 21 .i.xe5 IΣxd3 22 IΣxd3 and Black went down ίη flames ίη Short-Hellers, Wijk aan 'άe 1986. IS .*.xg7 Wxg7 16 Whl Whίte has nothίng after 16 ιαΙ5 e6 (16 ....i.xd5 17 exd5 ΙOf6 18 IΣdel1Σd7 19 IΣe3 ! TiVΊakov-Gogoladze, Rίga 1987) 17 "d4+ e5! 18 fxe5 dxe5 19 "d3 ΙOc5 20 "e3 ΙOxb3 21 "xb3 "c5+, Matanovic-Tal, Pa1ma de Mallorca 1966. Deservίng of more attention is 16 "d4+!? Wg8 17 Wh2 "c5 18 "d2, when 18 ...b5 19lDd5 .i.xd5 20 exd5 ΙOf6 21 f5 gave Whίte a clear plus ίη

Accelerated Dragons

102

YiImaz-Tangbom, Budapest 1992. One possible improvement is 18...~f6, answering 19 ~d5 by 19... ~xe4!? 20 ~xe7+ Φg7 21 "'e2 f5. 16•••lαs Also playable is 16.....c5 17 :d2 (untried but interestίng is 17 ~d5 e6 18 c4!?) 17 ...b5 18 :el ~b6 with equalίty, Buljovl!it-Bulάt, Yugoslavia 1967. 17 .d4+ e5 18 fxe5 Harmless is 18 "e3 ~xb3 19 axb3 exf4 20 :xf4 "e5! 21 :dfl a6 (Black has a good game) 22 "f2 (or 22 :h4 Φg8! 23 "h6 1/2-1/2 Cirit-Gheorghiu, Wijk aan Zee 1968; Black is fine after 23 .....g7) 22 ... f6 23 h4 :f7 24 ΦgΙ 1:Σdf8 with a slight advantage for Black, Jansa-Furman, Haπachoν 1966. 18•••lbxb3 19 axb3 dxe5 20.12 (5 (D)

This position seems to favour Black. Νοι so good is 20...:xdl 21 "'f6+ Φg8

22 :xdl and White is slightly better. 21 Μ!? White's idea is Ιο draw Black's queen away from control of the d8square. The immediate 21 :xd8 is met by 21 ......xd8 22 "'xa7 fxe4 23 :xf8 "'xf8 24 "'e3 (worse is 24 ~1 ? e3, when both 25 ~xe3 "'f2! and 25 "'xe3 + 26 "'gl .txg2+ will ροι a smίle οη Black's face) 24...•f4 25

.fl

w

~dl "f1+ 26 .gl "e2 27 ~e3 h5 with advantage for Black. 21 ••••xb4 22 1:Σxd8 :xd8 23 exf5 g5! This move is an improvement over 23 .....f4? 24 "'el! with a clear advantage for White, Sagalovich-Baumbach, Belorussia-E.Germany 1968. After 23 ...g5! Black's powerful bishop gives hίm the advantage. Marιίη Gonzalez-Bellon, Olot 1974 continued 24 f6+ Φf7 25 "e3 1Wh4 26 Φh2 (26 "'xe5?? "'xh3+) 26... g4 27 "'xe5 g3+ 28 "'xg3 (28 ΦΒΙ "'d4+ is a WΊηηίηB ending for Black) 28 ......xg3+ 29 ΦΧΒ3 :g8+ 30 Φf4 :xg2 31 Φe5 :g3 (31 ...:xc2? 32 :gl gives White couωterplay) 32 h4 :e3+ 33 Φf4 :h3 34 :α :xh4+ 35 ΦΒ5 :hl 36 ~2 h6+ 37 Φf5 :h5+ 38 ΦΒ4 :g5+ 39 Φh4 :g2 and Black won easily.

5 The Death οΙ a Variation: 7 ... ttJa5 refuted After 1 e4 c5 2 1Cιf3 lCιφ 3 d4 cxd44 ICιxd4 g6 5 1Cιc3 J.g7 6 J.e3 ICιΙ6 7 J.c4 our main focus ίη this chapter wiIl centre around: 7••• lCιaS? (D) Two other bad possibilities are: 1) 7 ... lCιxe4?? (Black tήes ιο be tήcky but ίη the end he traps himself!) 8 ICιxe4 d5 9 J.b5 and White wins. 2) 7... Wc7?! (far Ιοο passive) 8 J.b3 a69 f31Cιe5 10 We2 d6 11 g4 h6 120-0-0 b5 13 g5 hxg5 14 J.xg5 J.b7 15 f4 ICιed7 16 1Cιd5 J.xd5 17 exd5 1Cιc5 18 f5 ± Stein-Aronin, USSR Ch 1962.

w

Αι one tίme 7 ... 1Cιa5 was extremely popular and Black won many nice games using ίι. Then a stunning refutation appeared and wiped the line from the face of the toumament map. 8 J.xf7+!

Before this surpήsίηg move was White had tήed: 1) 8 J.b3 and now: la) 8 ... 0-0? tums out to be a big mistake! After 9 e5! lCιe8? (9 ... lCιxb3 10 exf6 ICιxal 11 fxg7 ICιxc2+ 12 Wxc2 Φχg7 13 f4, as ίη Bastήkov­ Shamkovich, USSR Ch 1958, is better, but a1so bad for Black) 10 J.xf7+! ':xf7 (10...ΦΧf7 11 1Cιe6! Φχe6 12 Wd5+ Φf5 13 g4+ Φχg4 14 ':gl+ Φh4 15 J.g5+ Φh5 16 Wdl +':f3 17 Wxf3#) 11 1Cιe6 White won Black's queen and easily achίeved a VΊctory ίη Fischer-Reshevsky, USA Ch (New York) 1958/9. lb) 8 ...lCιxb3 9 axb3 (9 ICιxb3 d6 10 f3 J.e6 11 Wd2 J.c4 120-0-0 Wc7 13 ΦbΙ b5 ; Suetin-Kotkov, USSR 1962) 9 ...0-0 (9 ...d610 f3 J.d7 a1lows White to go after Black ίη typica1 Yugoslav Attack style: 11 g4 a6 12 h4 h6 13 Wd2 ':c8 14 h5 ± FischerLeopoldί, Bay Cίιy 1963) 100-0 (10 f3!? d5! 11 e51Cιe8 12 f41Cιc7 13 1Id2 f6led ιο mutua1 chances in Minίό-Pirc, Yugoslav Ch 1961; Whίte has use of the d4-square but Black has the two bishops and a solid position) 10... d5 11 ICιdb5 .td7 12 exd5 J.xb5 13 ICιxb51Cιxd5 14 J.xa7 J.xb2 Va1voBenko, USA 1962. 2) 8 J.d3 ο-ο 9 1Cιd5 1Cιc6 10 ICιxf6+ J.xf6 11 c3 d5! 121Cιxc6 bxc6 13 ο-ο e5 14 f4 exf4 15 J.xf4 Wb6+ dίscovered

=

104

Accelerated Dragons

=

16 'it>hl J.g7 Ciήc-Pirc, Yugoslav Ch 1963. 3) 8 J.e2 and now: 3a) 8 ...d6 is possible but ίι takes away an ίmportant idea from Black, namely that of playing ... d7-d5 ίη one move; Estrin-Adler, USSR 1963 continued 9 g4 h6 10 f3 (White switches to a set-up sίmilar ιο the Yugoslav Αι­ tack) 10...J.d7 11 .d2 ':'c8 12 0-0-0 lίk413J.xc41:r.xc414h4 W'a515'it>bl a6 16 /ί)b3 'ilc7 17 g5 hxg5 18 hxg5 ':'ώ119 ':'ώΙ

±.

3b) 8 ...0-09 ο-ο (now berserker attacks like 9 g4? may be met by 9 ...d5! with counterplay ίη the centre) 9 ... d6 (9 ...d5?! 10 exd5 /ί)xd5 11 /ί)xd5 .xd5 12 /ί)b5! .xd113 ':'axdl /ί)c6 14 c3 a6 15 /ί)c7 ':'b8 16 J.c5 leaves White with the better ending, FischerBertok, Bled 1961) 10f4J.d711 /ί)b3 J.c6. According ιο Levy, Black has now reached a satisfactory CΙassical Dragon position and there is 00 way for White Ιο obtain any advantage: 12 J.d4 (or 12 .d3 /ί)d7 13 J.f3 /ί)xb3 14 cxb3 /Oc5 15 .c2 'ild7 16 e5 ':'ac8 with equality, Keres-Benko, Cura~ao Ct 1962) 12... a6 13 e5?! (a little Ιοο gung-ho; better is 13 .d3 with equalίΙΥ) 13 ...1Oe8 14 .d3 b5 15 /ί)xa5 .xa5 16 J.f3 J.xf3 17 .xf3 dxe5 18 fxe5 /Oc7 19 .e3 b4 with a slight advantage for Black, Stein-A.Zaitsev, USSR Ch 1962. 8•••Φxf'7 9 e5 (D) 9...dS There's ηο good way ουΙ for Black: 1) 9 ... /ί)e8? 10 /ί)e6! 'it>xe6 11 .d5+ 'it>f5 12 g4+ leads to mate. 2) 9 .../ί)g8? 10 /ί)e6 .e8 11 .f3+ followed by 12 /Oc7 wins mateήal for White.

Β

3) After9...ω!?, 10.f3+?!'it>e8 11 g4:t8 12 'ile4 d5 13 /ί)xd5 J.xg4 14 /ί)b5 J.f3 is ηοΙ clear. However, the immediate 10 g4 should prove advantageous for White. 4) 9 ... lίX:4!? 10exf6J.xf611.e2! (also reasonable is 11 ο-ο /ί)xb2 12 .f3 'it>g7 13 .d5 .g8 14.b5 /Oc4 15 /ί)d5 with a strong initiative, Govbinder-Goliak, USSR 1963; less good is 11 'ild3 d5 12 0-0-0 e5! 13 /ί)b3 J.e6 14 /ί)xd5 IOxb2! 15 .b5 /ί)xdl 16 ':'xdl b6 17 f4 exf4 18 /ί)xf6 .xf6 19 J.d4 .f5 and Black is better, Shaposhnikov-A.Zaitsev, 6th USSR con Ch) 11 ... d5 (Black would 10se crucial time with his knight after 11 .../ί)xb2 12 ο-ο!) 12 0-0-0 'it>g7? (better is 12....b6! 13 /ί)db5 lOxe3 14 fxe3 a6 15 /ί)d4 e6, when it's a battle between Black's two bishops and White's attacking chances; after 16 h4! Black's king will ηοΙ be happy for a 10ng time) 13 h4 h5 14 J.g5 J.xg5+ 15hxg5J.g4161Oe6+'it>g817.xc4! J.xe6 18 /ί)xd5 ':'c8 19 'ifb3 .d6 20 ':'hel 'it>f7 21 .f3+ J.f5 22 ':'xe7+ 1-0 Honfi-A.Zaitsev, Huogary 1963. It's all over since 22....xe7 23 /ί)xe7 ':'xc2+ 24 'it>bl ':'xf2+ 25 /ί)xf5 ':'xf3

The Death ο/ α Variation: 7... &Δa5 refuted 26lbd6+ followed by 27 gxf3 is completely hopeless for Black. 10 exf6 ~xf6 11 "olίX6 Queήed by Levy but everything else also seems to be bad: 1) 11 ...e5? 12 ~xd5 exd4 13 ~xd4 :e8+ 14 ~f1 :e6 15 ~xf6 :xf6 16 ~xf6 Wxf6 17 Wd5+ is a lost cause. 2) 1l ... e6 12 0-0-0 ~g7 13 h4 (weak is 13 Wh3 e5 14t'Δe6+ ~xe6 15 Wxe6 d4 16t'Δe4 We7 =i= Gragger-Pirc, Reggio Emilia 196112) 13 ...lΔc6 (perhaps 13 ...h5 is a tougher defence) 14 h5e515h6+~ 16lbdb5d417~ ~f518~bd6+~e619~xb7'W'b620

105

~bc5+ ~e7 21 g4 and White has a

winning attack, though in Shaposhnikov-Altschuler, 6th USSR corr Ch 1963 he somehow failed to win. 12 0-0-0 e6 13 :hel 13 h4 h5 14 ~g5 was recommended by Boleslavsky. 13.. ..J:Σe8 14 ~g5 :ΙS 15 "f4 ~g8 16 ~xΙ6 "xf6 17 "ΧΙ6 :ΧΙ6 18 ~xc6 bxc6 19 f3 Ivlrov-Soos, Varna OL 1%2. White's better minor piece (good knight vs bad bishop) and Black's backward pawn οη e6 equal a supeήοr endgame for White.

6

Απ

Unimpressive Variation: 5 .ιc4

Ι e4 c5 2 Μ lί)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lαιd4 g6 Mιeι Black shows hίs inιention of playίng the Acceleraιed Dragon, Whίιe usually responds with either 5 lΩc3 οι 5 c4. Ιn thίs short chapιer we will examίne a third, rather unusual alιemative.

5~c4(D)

Β

Black's best responses are: 106

Α: 5•••~ι? Β: 5••••85+

107

Α)

5•••~g7 Giving Whίte the option of transposing ίηΙο normal Accelerated lines with 6 ~e3 lΩf6 71Ωc3. 6ll)xc6 Whίιe has also tried:

1) 6 ~f3lΩf6 71Ωc3 0-0 8 ο-ο d6 Pimenov-Bastrikov, Erevan 1955. Whίte went οη Ιο win thίs game but his whole set-up seems pretty lame tous. 2) 6 lΩe2 lΩf6 7 lΩbc3 is also unimpressive but Whίιe has managed to buίld uρ a large plus score ποω thίs position! Afιer 7 ...0-0 Whίιe has tried: 2a) 8 ο-ο a6 9 a4 d6 10 ~hl ~d7 11 ~g5 ':c8 12 'ii'd2 lΩe5 13 ~b3, W.Rahman-Pazos, Νονί Sad OL 1990, and now insιead of 13 ...~e6, Black could have secured a good game with the obvious 13...lΩc4. 2b) 8f3'ii'b69~b3a510a4d511 exd5 J:[d8 12 ~g5lΩb4 13 .d4 'ii'xd4 14 lΩxd4lΩfxd5 15 lΩxd5 lΩxd5 16 0-0-0 h6 17lΩb5 hxg5 18 ~xd5 J:[d7 19 c3, and Black found hίmself ίη a bind ίη Landa-Haϊk, Cannes 1992. One gets the impression that Black was so ίηιeηΙ οη punίshίng Whίιe (οι hίs 'hoπible' openίng play that he ended υρ pushing hίmself over a cliff! 3) 6 c3lΩf6 7lΩxc6 bxc6 8 e5lΩg8 9 'ii'e2 f6 10 ~xg8 .:xg8 11 exf6 ~xί6 120-0.a5 13 ':el ~a6 14 ~f7 15lΩd2.f5 led Ιο a reasonable game {οι Black ίη Aleksandrov-Κorchnoi, Rίga 1955, though he laιer employed an incοπect plan and 10st. 6 ••• bxc6 Whίιe's capture οη c6 has on1y led to a strengthening of Black's centre. οccuπed ίη

"e4

An Unimpressive Vαriαtion: 5 Ji.c4 70-0"c7 7 ... e6 8 lbc3 is also interesting. Then Korchnoi recommends 8.....c7 intending9 ...lbge7, 1O...0-0and 11. ..d5. Instead ίη Lyskov-Liberzon, USSR 1956, Black rushed his centra1 activity with 8... d5? but 9 exd5 cxd5 10 lbxd5! exd5 11 .i.xd5 .i.e6 12 .i.xa8 "xa8 13 "d6 left White with the advantage. S :el d6 9 ttJc3lbf6 10 h3 ο-ο 11 .i.g5 h6 12 .i.e3 .i.b7 13 ~h7 14 :adl:adS Van tΉοf-Pigusοv, Dordrecht 1988. Black's preparations for his ... d6-d5 advance ensure him good chances.

"d2

Β)

5..:iVa5+ (D)

w

6c3 Or:

1) 6 .i.d2?? "c5! wins mateήa1 since 7 ttJxc6 "xc4 lays claim Ιο the e4-pawn and 7 ttJb5 "xc4 8 lΔc7+ ~d8 9 lbxa8 "xe4+ is hopeless for White because the knight οη a8 will eventua1ly be scooped υρ by Black's pieces. 2) 6lbc3 .i.g7 (6 .....c5!?) 7 ttJde2 lbf6 8 0-0 ο-ο 9 .i.e3?! (Rajkovic recommends 9 a3 b5 10 .i.a2) 9 ... b5! 10 .i.b3 (10 .i.xb5lbxe4 11 .i.xc6lbxc3 12 ttJxc3 dxc6 favours Black) 10... b4 11 ttJd5 lbxe4 12 a3 .i.xb2 13 .i.h6 .i.a6 and White is 10st, Ivanovic-Rajkovic, Yugoslav Ch 1981. 6...lbf6 7 ο-ο .i.g7 7 ... lbxe4 is ήsky. Mter 8 :el Black has opened υρ the centre while his king is still residing there. S:el ο-ο Black has a1ready achieved equalίΙΥ. Sa1taev-Serper, Uzbekistan 1992 continued 9 .i.f1 d6 1Ο lbd2 .i.d7 11 lb2b3 "b6 12 a4 ttJxd4!? 13 cxd4 :ac8 14 a5 "c7 15 .i.d3 a6 16 "e2 e5 17 d5lbh5 18 g3 f5 19 f3 fxe4 20 fxe4 .i.b5! 21 .i.xb5 axb5 22 "xb5 "c4!? (22 .....c2 is also possible) 23 "xc4 :xc4 24 .i.g5 :c2 25 :f1 :xb2 26 :xf8+ .i.xf8 27 lbd2 h6 28 .i.e3 lbf6 29 h3 h5 30 :cl 31 :bl :xa5 32 :xb7 :a4 33 :b8 ~ϊ7 34 :b7+ ~g8 35 :b8 ~ϊ7 36 :b7+ ~g8 37 :b8

:a2

Though 5....i.g7 is completely adequate, this queen check is very appea1ing.

107

1/2- 1/2.

7 Attempts at Refutation: Lines with liJxc6 rn

1 e4 cS 2 lίk6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tαι:d4 g6 Ιη this chapter we will analyse lines where White chooses Ιο make an early capture οη c6. The two ways for him Ιο go about this are: Α: S~xc6 108 Β: 5 ltk3 J.g7 6 J.e3 ~ 7~xc6 112 Α)

5 tαι:c6 (D)

Β

White begins an instant assault οη the black position, an assault that must fail since White has virtually ηο pieces developed! The exchange οη c6 is usually wrong since Black, by recapturing towards the centre, gains a secure hold οη the d5-square and thus makes ίι ίη­ accessible Ιο White's pieces.

S••• bxc6 5 ... dxc6 6 'iVxd8+ cRxd8 is probably good enough for equality. 6'it'd4 The ΡοίηΙ of 5 ~xc6. Altematives are completely ineffective: 1) 6 J.e3 J.g7 (6 ... ~f6!?) 7 J.d4 ~f6 8 e5 ~5 9 c4 ~f4 followed by ... ~6 with a good game. 2) 6 J.d3 J.g7 7 ο-ο ~f6 8 c4 0-0 9 ~c3 d5 10 h3 :b8 11 'iVe2 dxe4 12 ~xe4 ~xe4 13 J.xe4 'iVc7 14 :bl f5 15 J.c2 c5 16 J.g5 e5 17 'it'd2 J.e6 favoured Black ίη Steiner-Stoltz, Groningen 1946. 3) 6 J.c4 J.g7 7 'iVf3 ~f6 8 ο-ο d6 9 e5? dxe5 10 'iVxc6+ J.d7 11 'iVa60-0 is bad for White. 4) 6 J.e2 J.g7 7 ο-ο 'iVb6 8 ~a3 ~f6 9 J.e3 'iVxb2 10 ~4 'iVb8 11 :bl 'iVc7 12 e5 ~ gave White insufficient compensation for a pawn ίη Denker-Stoltz, Groningen 1946. 6..•~ Best, though 6 ... f6 is also seen οη occasion. White then has: 1) 7 h4 ~h6 8 h5 J.a6 9 J.xa6 'iVa5+ 10 ~3 'it'xa6 is slightly better forBlack. 2) 7 J.c4 is the most popular move: 2a) 7 ... e5? (the worst of Black's possibilities) 8 'iVd3 ~7 9 ~3 J.b7 10 f4! exf4 11 J.xf4 d5 12 exd5 cxd5 13 J.b3 'it'a5 140-0-00-0-0 15 ~4! ~f5 16 ~xf6 J.d6 17 J.d2 'iVc5 18

Attempts αt Refutation: Unes with lΩxc6 .t.xd5 leaves Black hopelessly 10st, Dolginίn-Antoshin, USSR 1976. 2b) 7...e68 0-0 ~6 91&3lί:}t7 10 .t.e3.t.g7 11 :adl ο-ο 1211Fd2 f5 13 exf5 gxf5:;: Schlechter-Lasker, Hastings 1895. 2c) 7 ... ~6 8 0-0 lί:}t7 9 .t.xt7+ ~xt7 10 e5 .-ι,6 11 .c4+ d5! 12 exd6+ .t.e6 13 .c3 exd6 :;: Κapυ­ Barcza, Hungary 1951. 2d) 7....t.g7 8 ο-ο (8 ~3 ~6 9 h4 .b6 10 .d3 lί:}g4 11 .g3 f5 12 ο-ο .t.a6:;: Aleman-Koch, Helsinkί 1952) 8...~6 9 ~3 .b6! 10.xb6 (White didn't want to exchange but both 10 lΜ3? lί:}g4! and 10 .dl? .t.a6! are very nice for Black) 10...axb611.t.e3 .t.a6 (Black can also consider 11 ...b5!? 12 .t.d3 b4 13 ~1 d6!) 12 .t.e2 f5 (a1so good are 12 ... d6 13 .t.xb6 .t.xe2 14 lC!xe2 :b8 and 12....t.xe2!? 13lC!xe2 b5 fol1owed by 14...d6, ... ~d7 and ...f5) 13 :fel .t.xe2 :;: Pίlnίk-Barcza, Budapest 1952. 3) 7 c4! (this gives Whίte some chances for a sma11 advantage) 7... ~6 8 .t.e2 .t.g7 9 ο-ο ο-ο 10 c5 f5 11 .a4 (Black seems to be able to handle the cramping 11 e5: 11 ...Μ 12 .t.c4 .c7 13 .t.xf7+:xf7 14 :el .t.a6 15 1&3 :b8 16 :bl d6 17 cxd6 exd6 18 exd6 .a5 19 'iWh4, Polίak-Simagin, Thla 1950, and now 19....t.xc3 20 bxc3 :Xbl 21 :e8+ is a draw) 11 ...aS (worse is 11 ...fxe4 121&3lC!f5 13 lC!xe4lbd4 14.t.c4+~h815.t.g5 ±) 12~3 :b8 13 a3 .c7 14 .c4+;t. 7 e5lC!cIS The other two knίght moves also appear Ιο be satίsfactory: 1) 7 ...~5 (D) has led Ιο good results for Black. White has severaI possible replίes:

Ι 09

w

la) 8 .t.c4lC!g7 9 0-0 is untrίed. lb) 8 g41! lί:}g7 9 .t.c4 a5 gίves Black good play. lc) 8 e6 .t.g7 9 ext7+ ~xt71eaves Black with a big lead ίο development. Note that Black's kίng is perfectly safe, since any check by .t.c4 or .c4 can be met by ...d5. Αι any rate, Black will play ...:f8 and ...~g8 reaching a castled positίon. ld) 8 ~3 and then: ldl) 8 ...•b6 9 .e4 f5 10 .c4 .t.g7 11 f4 dS 12 1i'b3 :b8 13 .t.e2 0-0 14.xb6 axb6 15 g3 :d8 16.t.1'3 .t.f8 17 b4 e6 18 a3 .t.a6 19 .t.d2lC!g7 20 ~f2lCJe8 21 :hbll&7 =Belίavsky­ Κarlsson, Luceme OL 1982. ld2) 8...lί:}g7 is also playable: 9.t.c4 lί:}f5 10 .d3 (10 e6 .t.g7 11 ext7+ ~f8 12.d3 dS :;:) 10... d5 11 exd6 (11 ~d5!1 cxdS 12 .t.xd5 .t.d7! 13 .t.xa8 .xa8 140-0 .t.c6 151'3 .t.g7 16 .t.f4 0-0 shou1d be fine for Black) 11 ...•xd6 120-0.xd3 13 .t.xd3 .t.g7 Chistίa­ kov-Κhasin, USSR 1962. le) 8 .t.e2 lί:}g7 9 lί:}c3 (9 lC!d2!? ~6 10 .h4! is gίven by Korchnoi as unclear, while an old game Leonhardt-R~tί, Berlίn 1920 saw Black gain the upper hand after 9 0-0 ~6 10

=

110

Accelerated Dragons

"h4 J.g7 11 ί4 "b6+ 12 ~hl lί)d4 13 J.d3 J.a6~) 9 ...ltle6 10 "e3 J.g7 11 ί4 (11 0-0 "a5 12 ί4 d6! wins a pawn since 13 exd6?? loses the queen after 13 ...J.d4) 11 ...0-0 12 J.d2? (12 ο-ο is better, but 12 ... d6! still gives Black excellent play since the 13 exd6?? J.d4 trick is still οη; perhaps best is 12 "f2 d6 13 exd6 exd6 14 0-0 J.d4 15 J.e3, though 15 .....b6 still leaves Black with a slight initiative) 12...d613 exd6 exd614 0-0-0 ltld4 15 J.d3 :b8 16 ltla4 c5 17 b3 J.d7 18 ltlb2 "f6! 19 c3 :fe8 20 'ii'f2ltlxb3+! 21 axb3 :xb3 22 J.c2 :xc3! 23 J.xc3 "xc3 0-1 W.Adams-Bisguier, USA Ch 1954. 2) 7 ...ltlg8 (this a1so enjoys a good reputation) 8 J.c4 (8 e6 ltlf6 transposes 10 the note 10 Black's 8th move) 8... J.g7 9 ο-ο ί6 10 exf6 (10 J.f4 "b6 is very comfortable for Black, while 10 J.xg8 is a1so easy 10 handle: 10...:xg8 11 "h4 fxe5 12 "xh7 Φr7 13 J.h6 e6 14 J.xg7 :xg7 15 "h6 "f6 16 "e3 "f4 ~ Akopian-Faibisovich, USSR 1971) 10... ltlxf6 11 J.b3 d5 12 J.f4 (12 c4!? is an untried recommendation by Korchnoi) 12 ... 0-0 13 J.e5 e6 14ltlc3 c5 15 "xc5lί)d7 16 "c6 J.xe5 17 "xa8 J.xc3 18 bxc3 "c7 19 J.xd5 exd5 20 "xd5+ is at least equal for Black. 8e6 White continues his macho display, but this only helps Black gain a significant lead ίη development. However, the a1tematives are a1so useless: 1) 8 J.c4 J.g7 (8 ...'tWb6 is a1so good: 9 c3 J.g7 10 J.xd5 cxd5 11 "xb6 axb612 ί4 g5! 13 fxg5 J.xe5 14 J.e3 ί6 15 gxf6 J.xf6 YanofskyS1oItz, Groningen 1946) 9 0-0 (9 J.xd5

=

cxd510"xd5:b811 0-00-0 12f4d6 13 :el J.e614"e4 dxe515 fxe5 :b5 is good for Black) 9.....b6 10"e4 0-0 l1ltld2 d6 12ltlf3 J.f5 13 "e2 J.g4 14 exd6 exd6 15 h3 :fe8 16 "dl J.e6 17 J.b3 a5 18 c4ltlb4led 10 an excellent game for Black ίη Sipaila-Silman, Reno 1993. The finish is instructive: 19 "xd6? :ad8 20 "g3 a4 21 J.xa4 J.xc4 22 J.e3 "a6 23 J.b3 J.xf1 24 :xf1lί)d5 25 J.d4 J.xd4 26ltlxd4 c5 27ltlf5 c4 28 J.c2 "f6 29ltlh6+ ~g7 30 ltlg4 "xb2 31 J.a4ltlc3 0-1. 2) 8 c4 (D). This common move should ηοΙ trouble Black. Two answers:

2a) 8...'ii'b6 9 "e4 (9 "xb6ltlxb6 10 b3 J.g7 11 J.b2 d6 was clearly better for Black ίη K.Poh1-Donaldson, Wins10n Salem 1993) 9 ...ltlc7 10 ltlc3 J.g7 11 ί4 ο-ο 12 J.d2 d5 (12 ...d6!? a1so deserves attention) 13 J.f5 ~ Chistiakov-Veresov, USSR 1953. 2b) 8 ... ltlb4 9 "c3 c5 10 J.e3 (10 e6 ί6 11 a3ltlc6 12 exd7+ "xd7 13 J.e3 ltld4 14 ltld2 J.b7 15 ltlb3 e5 a1so favoured Black ίη VartapetianOvseevich, Nikolaev Ζ 1995) 10...J.g7 11 J.xc5ltlc6 12 ί4 d6 13 J.d4 dxe5

"f3

Anempts αt Refutαtion: Unes with lΩxoo 14 ~xe5 ~xe5 15 fxe5 Wc7 and Black's two bishops gίve hίm a clear advantage. Now we retum to the maίη lίne after 8e6 (D):

111

2d) 10 ~e2 .i.g7 11 h4 Wb6 12 Wa4, Bzuska-Gurgenίdze, Sofia 1958, 12... e5 and Black has a slίght advantage. 9exd7+ Or 9 c4 ~7 10 exd7+ ~xd7 11 ~e2 e5 12 "d2 ~e6 13 ο-ο Wc7 14 ~3 :d8 15 ~4 ~e7 16 Wh6 ~4 17 .i.d3 ~5 18 Wh3 ο-ο 19 c5 .i.e6 20 .i.h6? :xd3 WΊth a winnίng game for Black ίη M.Brooks-Donaldson, Vancouver 1982. 9•.~xd7 10 ~e2 Three other possibilίtίes for Whίte ίη thίs positίon:

8 •••Ι6 Also good is 8...~6: 1) 9 exd7+ ~xd7 10 ~e2 ~g7 11 0-00-0 12 ~a3 .i.f5! 13 "a4 "c714 ~f3? (better is 14 ~4 WΊth equa1ίty) 14...~d5 15 :el?! (15 ~4 is stίll correct) 15...:ab8 16 c3 :fd8 17 ~4 ~b6! 18 ~b6 :xb6 19"a5 D.d7 20 g3?c5! 21 Wa3 c422h3:b523 D.acl :a5 24 Wb4 e5 25 b3 .i.e6 + WolffSerper, Baguίo CΊιy jr Wch 1987. 2) 9 exΠ+ ~xf7 and now: 2a) 10 c4 .i.g7 11 Wh4 d5 12 ~e2 e5 13 0-0 ~ and Black has the advantage, Mikenas-E.Andersen, Μu­ nich OL 1936. 2b) 10 ~d3 .i.g7 11 ο-ο :f8 12 Wh4 d5 13 :el ~g8 14 ~3 :f7 15 ~g5"f8 16 D.e2 :b8 17 ~4 e5! 18 c3 e4 is better for Black, LawrenceHodges, Cambrίdge Sprίngs 1904. 2c) 10 ~3, Fluder-Gawlίkowskί, Poland 1953, leads to an inίtίatίve for Black after 10...d5!.

1) Whίte can try to prevent Black from playing ...e5 by 10 f4 but thίs ultίmately helps Black open lίnes of attack: 10....i.g7 11 ~d3 ο-ο 120-0 e5! and Black's lead in development gίves hίm a clear advantage, Little-Silman, USA 1974. 2) 10 .i.c4 e5 11 "dl (Korchnoi's suggestίon of 11 We4.followed by ~c3 is better) 11 ....i.e6 12 "e2 .i.c5 130-00-0 14 ~3 We7 15 ~h6 :fd8 16 ~ ~b6 and Black had the advantage ίη Motamedi-Donaldson, Portland 1985. 3) 10 .i.d3 e5 11 Wh4 ~g7 120-0 0-0 13 D.dl Wc7 14 ~c4 ~e6 15 ~3 :ad8 16 ~h6?? g5! 17 Wh5 ~f7 18 ~xd5 (18 "h3 ~f4 drops the bishop οη h6) 18...cxd5 19 Wh3 .i.xh6 20 Wxh6 d4 21 ~b5 Wb6 22 a4 .i.g6! and Black went οη to WΊη ίη Ba1ίnas­ Donaldson, Reno 1994. 10.••e5 11 "dl Νο better is 11 "a4 :b8 12 c3 ~g7 13 0-0 0-014 :dl "c7 15 ~a3 f5 16 ~4 ~h8 17 "c2 ~e6 18 ~hl e4 19 ~d2 :fe8 20 f3 .i.g8 21 "cl e3 22 .i.el g5 23 g3 f4 and Black has an

Accelerαted Drαgons

112

overwheImίng position, J.Ctuz LimaGarcia Martinez, Cuba 1979. 11•••.t.g7 12 c3 0-0 13 ~3 rs 14 .t.c4 ~e6 IS "84 "c7 Black stands better, Westol-Botvinnik, Moscow OL 1956. The rest οί the gaιne was rather one-sided but still worth checking out: 16 .t.e3 Wh8 17 -*.c5 ':tb8 18 "c2 19 .t.d6 ':d8 20 -*.e7 ':e8 21 -*.h4 ί4 22 ο-ο -*.ί5 23 "e2 h6 24 f3 e4 25 .t.xd5 "xd5 26 fxe4 ':xe4 27 "dl ':b8 28 "cl ':e2 29 .t.f2 30 b3 f3 31 gxf3 "d3 32 "f4 ':be8 33 .t.d4 .t.xd4+ 34 "xd4+ "xd4+ 35 cxd4 .t.h3 36 :fcl ':g2+ 37 Whl :ee2 0-1.

"a5

"e4

Β)

S ~ -*.g7 6 -*.e3 ~6 7 ~c6 (D)

Β

This capture has much more justification here. White hopes to push the black knight back and try for a quick assault based οη his advantage in space and development. After 7 ΙOxc6 Black has two ways to recapture: ΒΙ: 7 •••dxc6 112 Β2: 7 •••bxc6 113

Β1)

7•••dxc6 Black agrees Ιο a slίghtly ίnfeήοr position in the hopes ofholdίng οη and makίng a draw. 8 "xd8+ Φxd8 9 0-0-0+ The sensible move. After 9 :dl+ Blackmanaged toequaIize with 9 ...We8 10 {4 -*.e6 11 -*.e2 h5 12 ο-ο ΙOg4 13 -*.xg4 hxg4 14 .t.d4 .t.xd4+ 15 :xd4 ί5 16 :el φί7 17 exf5 gxf5 ίη the gaιne Lukic-Puc, Yugoslav Ch 1958. However, White can improve οη his play here by ηοΙ allowing ...ΙOg4. 9•••We8 Bad is 9 ....t.d7? 10 .t.e2 e5 11 .t.g5 Wc7 12 ί4! -*.e6 13 ί5! gxf5 14 exf5 -*.d7 15 g4 with a strong bind for White. Although this is unpleasant, Black does have a playable altemative ίη 9 ... /Od7!? The only exaιnple ofthis that we could find saw Black holding οη comfortably: 10 ~c4 ί6 11 ί4 Wc7 12 :d2 e5 13 g3 ΙOb6 14 .t.b3 .t.h3 15 ΙOdl :ad8 16 ΙOf2 ':xd2 17 .t.xd2 .t.c8 18 :f1 ΙOd7 19 /Od3 exf4 20 .t.xf4+ Wb6 21 -*.e3+ Wc7 22 ΙΟί4 /Oe5 23 .t.e6 :e8 1/2-1/2 Granda-Pinal, Havana 1985. 10h3! Α simple move that stops ... ΙOg4 and keeps the possibility οί f2-f4 open. For this reason 1Ο f3 is ηοΙ as good: 10....t.e6 11 a3 (11 Wbl ΙOd7 12 ΙOa4.t.e5 13 /Oc5 ΙOxc5 14 .t.xc5 h5 15 .t.e2 ί6 16 h4 φί7 17 g4 .t.f4 was comfortably equal in Mardle-Fazekas, Βήtish Ch 1959) 11 ... ΙOd7 12 ΙOd5 ':c8 13 ΙOf4 -*.h6 14 .t.d2 ΙOf8 15 ΙOxe6.t.xd2+ 16 :xd2 ΙOxe6 17 .t.c4 :d8 18 .t.xe6 fxe6 ShiyanovskyGufeld, Ukrainian Ch 1960.

=

Attempts aΙ Refutation: Lines with ltlxc6 It's worth mentioning that the eyeraising 10 e5? lbg4 I1lbb5 tums ουΙ Ιο be a bad eποr due to 11 ....t.xe5 12 .id4 cxb5 13 .t.xb5+ ~f8 14.t.xe5 lbxe5 and White is aIready 1081, OliferBannik, Ukrainian Ch 1960. 10•••.t.oo 11 Ι4 hS 12 g3 White's advantage ίη space gives him a slight advantage, Ralάc-Nedelj­ kovic, Belgrade 1959.

82) 7•••bxc68eS Black now has two good continuatίons, each leading Ιο different types of play: B2a: 8•••lbd5 113 B2b: 8 •••lbg8 122 Naturally 8...lbh5?? loses a piece ιο 9g4.

Now White choices: B2al: 11 .t.c4 B2a2: 11 0-0-0 B2a3: 11.t.xa7

113

has the following 113 117 118

B2a1) 11.ic4 Black only has two possible replies but both seem adequate: B2ala: 11•••e6 113 B2alb: 11 ••.0-0 114

B2a 1a) 11•••00 12 'it'cS .t.b7 (D)

W

B2a) 8•••lbdS This forcing move offers υρ a pawn for active piece-play and a lead in development. 9lbxdS cxd510 'it'xdS :b8 (D)

W

130-0-0 13 ο-ο is less threatening. 13 ...:c8 14 'it'b4 and now: 1) 14....t.xe5? allows 15 .ι.χe6! (15 :adl? .ι.xh2+ 16 ~xh2 'it'h4+ 17 ~BI "e4! 18 f3 "xe3+ 19:f2 'it'b6 is very good foι Black, Dϋcksteίn­ Karlsson, Luceme 1979) 15 ...dxe6 (both 15... fxe6 16 "xb7 :b8 17 'ii'xa7 .t.xb2 18 :adl and 15 .....c7 16 .t.b3 .t.xh2+ 17 ~hl .t.d6 18 'it'h4 0-019 .t.h6 are also good ίοι White) 16

114

Accelerαted

"xb7 (16 "b5+!?) 16...0-0 17 c3 ± is analysis by Wedberg. 2) 14.....c7 15 ~b5 (Black gets the advantage after 15 ~g5? ~f8 and 15 f4 aS! 16 "b5 ~xg2 17 Φχg2 "xc4, Skuja-Gipslis, Riga 1959, 18 "xc4 :xc4 19 :f2!? d6! 20 exd6 Φd7) 15 ...~xe5 16 :fdl ~c6 = Smit-Gipslis, USSR 1959. 13_.:c8 14 Wb4 (D) 14 "xa7 ~xg2 15 :hgl :xc4 16 :xg2 ~xe5 17 f4 ~xf4 18 ~xί4 :xf4 19 "c5 :a4 20 ΦbΙ "a8 21 a3 "c6 22 "xc6 dxc6 23 :d6 :a6 24 :gd2 ο-ο led Ιο an interesting pawn-up endgame for Black that he eventυally managed Ιο lose ίη Galdunts-Kupreichik, Bad Wδήshοfen 1994.

Dragons

16 ~b5 ~c6 is safe for Black. 16.•.f6 17 ~xe6!? Since 17 exf6 ~xf6 is nothing for Black Ιο fear, White does everything he can to sharpen the strυggle. 17•••~xdI18 :xdl :c7 Black's defences are holding. Now 19 "f4:f8 and 19 ~h4 g5 20 "g4 "e7 both seem defensible and give Black good chances of bήngίng his mateήal advantage Ιο bear.

B2a1b) 11•••0·0 (D)

w

Β

14_.~xg2

Blackmυstavoid 14.....c7? 15 ~g5! ~f8 16 "d2 ~xg2 17 :hgl ~e4 18 :g3 ~g7 19 Wb4 "c5 20 1Wxc5 :Xc5 21 ~d3 ~dS 22 f4 with advantage ιο

White, Mυratov-Veresov, Novgorod 1961. IS:hgl 15 :hel is answered by the simple 15...~xe5. IS•••~f3 16 ~p

It's nice for Black to get hίs king to safety but the non-forcing nature of this move gives White many possibilities. 120-0 Others: 1) Τοο slow and greedy is 12 ~xa7? ~b7 13 "d2 (13 "b5 ~xg2 14 "xb8 "aS+ 15 b4 is ηο better) 13 .....c7! 14 ~xb8 (14 ~b3 ~xg2 15 ~xb8 :xb8 16 0-0-0 ~xh117 :xhl "xe5 +) 14.....xc4 15 ~a7 ~xg2 16 :gl ~xe5! 17 c3 (17 :xg2 loses ιο 17...~xb2) 17 ... ~c6, when Black's

"a3

Attempts αΙ Refutαtion: Lines with ltlxc6 two bishops and actίve pieces combined with Whίte's insecure kίng give Black the advantage, e.g. 18 ,j.d4 .i.xh2 19 IΣ.g5 (or 1911hι6 e5 20"xh2 exd4 with a wίnning attack for Black) 19 ....i.b5 20 0-0-0 "xa2 21 IΣ.xb5 "al + 22 Φc2 "a4+ 23 IΣ.b3 IΣ.b8 24 ,j.b6 IΣ.xb6 25 "d5 IΣ.xb3 26 "xb3 "e4+ and Black wins (analysis by Adorjan). 2) An important altematίve for Whίte is 12 f4. After 12... d6 13 .i.b3 (D) (bad is 13 0-0-0 "c7 14 ,j.b3 dxe5 15 fxe5 ,j.f5 16 "c5 "xc5 17 ,j.xc5 IΣ.fc8 18 g4 ,j.xg4 + Lopes-Sίlva, Portuguese Ch 1978) Black has tήed several moves:

115

1972, Whίte came ουΙ οη Ιορ after 14....i.xg215IΣ.gl.i.h3160-0-0a517 exd6 exd618 .a6! .f6 19 c3 IΣ.fc8 20 "xa5 .i.f5? (the 10SΊng move) 21.i.d4! 1Ihι4 22 .xf5! gxf5 23 ,j.xg7! 1-0. 2c2) 14 .d2 dxe5 15 0-0-0 exf4 (another ίnterestίng lίne is 15...•c7!? 16.d7 {16 ,j.xa7 IΣ.bd8 17.f2 exf4} 16...•xd7 17 IΣ.xd7 .i.xg2 18 IΣ.gl IΣ.b7!) 16 ,j.xf4 offers chances for both sides, Hebden-Gerber, London 1987. The contίnuatίon was 16...1Σ.a8 171rb4 1Ifb6 18 .xb6 axb6 191Σ.d7 ,j.xg2 20 IΣ.gl e5 21 ,j.e3 ,j.c6 22 :C7 .i.f3 23 .i.xb6 e4 24 IΣ.e7 .i.h6+ 25 ΦbΙ .i.f4 26 h3 .i.d6 27 IΣ.d7 .i.h2 28 IΣ.fI h5 29 a4 g5 30 IΣ.d5 g4 and 0-1 ίη 54. 2d) 13 ... a5 (Baumbach considers thίs to be best) 14 ο-ο .i.b7 (14 ....i.a6 15 ΙΣ.Ω dxe5 16 .xd8 IΣ.bxd8 17 fxe5 ,j.xe5 18 c3 IΣ.d7 19 ,j.b6 ,j.c7 20 ,j.xc7 IΣ.xc7 21 IΣ.eI IΣ.a7 22 IΣ.e5 ,j.c8, Κrystall-Freeman, US Open 1973, and now 23 1Σ.f4 wίns a pawn) 15 "c4 IΣ.c8 16 .d3 dxe5 (after 16...•c7 17 e6 f5, 18 ,j.d4? allowed the equalίzίng 18....i.a6 ίη Gheorghiu-Forίntos, Ljubljana 1969, but Baυmbach's suggestίon 18 c3 19 .c21eaves Whίte a comfortable pawn ahead) 17 "xd8 :Cxd8 18 f5 (Κrystall prefers Whίte after 18 fxe5 ,j.xe519c3) 18...e419c3 ,j.d5 20 ,j.b6 IΣ.b8 21 .i.c7 ,j.xb3 22 ,j.xb8 ,j.c4 23 ,j.c7 ,j.xf1 24 IΣ.xf1 a4 is equal since 25 IΣ.f4 is met by 25 ...IΣ.c8 26 .i.a5 gxf5 27 IΣ.xf5 a3!. Leavίng 12 f4 behίnd, we now wίll take a 100k at two other sharp tήes for

.c6

2a) 13 .....c7? 14 exd6 exd6 15 0-0-0 gives Black insufficient compensatίon for the pawn. 2b) 13...dxe5 14.xd8 IΣ.xd8 15 fxe5 ,j.xe5 16 0-0 is better for Whίte accordίng to Baumbach but Donaldson's 16...,j.e6! gives Whίte very lίt­ tle. 2c) 13...,j.b7 and then: 2cl) 14 "c4!? leads Ιο great complίcatίons whίch have not really been explored yet. Ιη Muίr-Stem, cοπ Wch

Whίte:

3) 12IΣ.dl!? (a move that was successfully played once but has ηοΙ been heard from again) 12.....c7 (12...lΣ.xb2 13 ,j.b3 traps the enemy rook) 13 ,j.b3

116

Accelerated Dragons

.*.b7? (13 ....*.xe5 seems fine for Black) 14 "c5 (not 14 "xd7? W'xe5 15 ο-ο "e4!) 14.. :iWxe5 15 "xe5 .*.xe5 16 ο-ο i.a6 17 :fel i.xb2 18 .*.h6! and Black is losing this endgaιne, HolujPogorevici, Bucharest 1959. 4) 12 0-0-0 d6 13 i.xa7 :b4 14 i.b3?! (Frolov claims a sma11 plus for White with 14 i.c5! i.e6 {14...e6 15 "xd6 "xd6 16 i.xd6 :xc4 17 .*.xf8 .*.xf8 18 :hel ;t} 15 "xe6 fxe6 16 i.xe6+ Φh8 17 .*.xb4 .*.xe5 18 Ο) 14.....c7 15 exd6 "xa7 16 d7 :xb3 17 dxc8" .*.xb2+ 18 ΦbΙ :b8 19 "h3 i.g7+ 20 ΦcΙ i.b2+ 21 ΦbΙ i.g7+ 1/2_lh Frolov-Shabalov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991. Retuming to the position after 12 ο-ο

(D):

12.....c7 12....*.b7!? has been considered an eποr for many years, but now some players (most notably Shabalov) are questioning that view: 13 "d3 (Black gets the advantage after both 13 'ifd2? "c7 14 i.b3 i.xe5 15 f4 i.xb2 16 :adl d6 ~ Ζvοήkina-Volpert, Plovdiv 1959 and 13 "d4? "c7 14 f4 d6 15 i.b3 dxe5 16 "c5 :bc8 17 "xc7

:xc7, which is slightly better for Black, Shiyanovsky-Savon, Baku 1961) 13 ... i.xe5 (13 ...•c7 14 f4 :fd8 15 i.b3 :bc8 16 "e2 d6 17 f5 gxf5 18 :xf5 ± Κostro-Κraidman, Budapest 1959) 14 .*.xa7 (14 i.h6 :e8 15 f4 'ifb6+ 16Φhιi.χb217 :abl"c618 :ο i.f6 19 :g3 .*.a6 0-1 MargulisShabalov, Los Angeles 1997) 14...:C8 15 .*.d4 i.xh2+ (15 ...i.xd4 16 'ifxd4 e517"g4d518'*'b3d419:fel"f6 20 :adl h5 21 1Wh3 :fd8 22 c3 ± Langeweg-Geller, Beverwijk 1965) 16 Φxh2 "c7+ 17 ΦgΙ "xc4 18 'ifxc4 :xc4 19 c3 f6 20.*.e3 :a8 21 :fdl :g4 22 :xd7 :xg2+ 23 Φf1 i.f3 24 i.f4 :g4 25 i.g3 :e4 26 b3 :a5 27 :el :h5 0-1 LhagvasurenBerend, Νονί Sad OL 1990. 13.u4 The alternatives are: 1) 13 f4 d6 14 exd6 exd6 15 i.b3 and now Black can play: la) 15 ... i.b7 16 "g5 (16 "d2!? lοοks better) 16....*.e417 c3 a5 18:f2 a4, Handrani-Antunes, Moscow OL 1994, and now, seeing that 19 i.xa4 is met by 19...:xb2! 20 J:xb2 "xc3, White panicked and dropped a piece with 19 i.d5?? h6 20 "g4 i.xd5. lb) 15...i.e6 16 "d2 .*.xb2 17 :001 J:fe8 (Ih- I/2 Ivkov-Adorjan, Wίjk aan Zee 1972) 18 h3 i.c3 191i'f2 a5 20 .*.d4 i.xb3 21 cxb3 a4 22 f5 i.xd4 23 ':xd4 axb3 24 axb3 ':xb3 25 fxg6 hxg6 26 ':xd6 1/2-1/2 Evans-Eliskases, Buenos Aires 1960. lc) 15 ...i.xb2 16 ':adl i.a6 17 :fel i.c3 18 i.d2 i.xd2 19 "xd2 ':fe8 20 "d4 'ifa5 21 "d2 "c5+ 22 W'f2 ':xel + 23 ':xel ':b4 Μαι equality, Κrystall-C.Barnes, Santa Monica 1972.

Attempts at Refutαtion: Unes with ~6 2) 13 .c5!? .xe5 14 .xe5 (14 .xa7 :b7 15 .a3 .xb2 16 .xb2 .txb2 17 :abl.ta3 Yepez-Verduga, Quito 1975) 14....txe5 15 .txa7 :Σχb2 (after 15...:a8, 16 .tc5 d6 17 .ta3 .tf5 18 -*.d3 -*.xd3 19 cxd3 :xa3 20 bxa3 .txal was Abdulghafour-Gonza1ez, Moscow OL 1994, while 16.tb6 .ta6 17 -*.xa6 :Σχa6 18 -*.e3 -*.xb2 19 :ΣadΙ d6 20 c4 :c8 21 .ta3 22 :c2 :Σac6 =1= was Gdanslά-Grigore, Santiago jr Wch 1990) 16 .tb3 d6 17 a4.te6 18 :abl :xbl 19 :ΣχbΙ :Σa8 20.tb6 .tc3 21 a5 .txa5 22 :ΣaΙ -*.xb6 23 :xa8+ Wg7 =(analysis by Adorjan). 13•••-*.b7 14 .d4 d6! 15 exd6 15 :Cel is a1so reasonable: 1) 15...dxe5?! was once thought to be adequate due to 16 -*.xe5 .txe5 17 :xe5 :fd8 and now after 18 .f4-*.d5 19 .tb3 .txb3 20 cxb3 :b5 21 :e4 "xf4 22 Jbf4 :d2 23 :ΣbΙ :C5, when Black doubles οη the seventh with ... :Σcc2 he will have nothing to fear, while 18 .c3 :bc8 19 b3 -*.d5 20 "e3 .txc4 leads to a likely draw. However, ECO gives 18 .c5 ±and we have to agree. 2) 15 ...•c6!? should be investigated if Black wants an altemative to 15...:fd8. 3) 15...:Cd8 16 .c3 :bc8 17 -*.b3 .xc3 18 bxc3 dxe5 19 -*.xe5 e6 20 .txg7 Wxg7 21 :Σe3 :Σc7 =. 15•••exd6 And not 15 .....c6? 16 .d5! .xd5 17 .txd5 .txd5 18 dxe7 :Σfe8 19.txb8 :Σxb8 20 :adl, when White wins. 16.d3 16 .txd6? 'ii'c6! is bad for White. 16•••.txb2 17 ]hdl .te5 18 -*.g3 :Σfc8 19 -*.b3 Black has a slight advantage.

117

82a2)

=

11 0-0-0 (D)

Β

:d2

.c6

This was never considered to be particularly dangerous for Black, but now a couple οί new ideas are forcing Black to take 11 0-0-0 more seriously. 11•••-*.b7 Black's best bet. Two other possibilities: 1) 11 .....c7 12 f4 ο-ο 13 "c5 "b7 14 b3 d6 15 "xa7 .c6 (οι 15 ...dxe5 16 .xb7 -*.xb7 17 :ΣgΙ exf4 18 -*.xf4 ± Zadrima-Anceschi, Ροιιi 1991) 16 .xb8 -*.f5 17.xf8+ ± Colon-Camara, Mar del Plata 1962. 2) 11 ...0-0 and then: 2a) 12 .td4 d6 13 exd6 -*.e6 14 .c6 (14 .c5'] exd615 .c3 -*.xd416 .xd4 .a5 17 a3 :Σb6 followed by ...:fb8 gives Black good attacking chances) 14...-*.xd4 15 :Σxd4 exd6 16 .xd6.a5 17 .a3 .e1+ (worse is 17...•xa3? 18 bxa3 .txa2 19 Wd2 :Σb120g3) 18:Σd1.χf219.f3W'b6

20b3 a5 +. 2b) 12 .txa7!? deserves seήοus consideration and may cause Black to think twice before employing 11 ...0-0.

118

Accelerated Dragons

Then 12...e613 "d4:b714~c5"a5 15 ~c4 d5 16 ~xf8 ~xf8 17 ~b3 didn't give Black enough for the exchange ίη M.Hoffman-Cording, Germany 1982, while 12 ...~b7 13 "b5 ~xg2 14 "xb8 "xb8 15 ~xb8 ~xhl 16 ~c7 led Ιο a victory for White ίη Handoko-Bellon, Surakarta 1982. 12"'d4 RaduΙ0v-Fοήntοs, Hungary 1969 saw Black get a big advantage after the weak 12 "d2? ~xe5 13 ~d4 ~xd4 14 "xd4 ο-ο 15 "xd7 "a5 16 ~c4 ~xg2 17 :hgl ~f3 18 :d3 ~e4 19 ':c3 (19 1:Σe3? ~xc2! 20 ~xc2 :fd8 wins for Black) 19.....b6! 20 b3 "f6 21 :gg3 :fd8 22 "xa7 :a8 23 "c7 ~xc2! and Black went οη Ιο win. 12•..0-013 Ι4 13 "xd7? "a5! gives Black Ιοο muchplay. 13.••d614~c4 Chopping οη a7 deserves a seήοus look: 14 "xa7 "c8 15 'ifd4 'iff5 16 ~d3 dxe5 17 "c5 "e6 18 ~c4 "g4 19 "xe7 ~xg2 20 :d7 "f5 21 :hdl exf4 22 ~d4 ~xd4 23 :lxd4 f3 24 'ifd6 f2 25 :f4 :b6 26 "xf8+ ~xf8 27 :xf5 1-0 Potzschmann-Rau, CΟΠ 1987. 14......c7 Black has a good game. Stein-Nei, USSR 1960 continued 15 ~b3 dxe5 16 fxe5 ~xg217 :hgl :bd818 "xa7 "xe5 19 ~d4 "f4+ 20 ~e3 "e5 =.

82a3) 11 i.xa7 (D) by Euwe. The play now becomes extremely sharp with a draw (naturally!) being the usual result. Recomιnended

11•.•:xb2 12 ~d4 is important Ιο bήng thίs bishop back ίηto play. Ιnfeήοr is 12 i.c4? e6 13 "c5 ~f8 14 "e3 (14 "d4? "a5+ 15 c3 :b7 wins the white bishop) 14.....a5+ 15 c3 ~a6 16 ~xa6 'ifxa6 Ιι

+. 12,..hc2 Ιnfeήοr is

:b4

12... (threatening Ιο play 13 ...:xd4) 13 c3 :b2 14 c4! (ηοΙ as strong is 14 ~c4 ο-ο 15 ο-ο i.b7 16 "c5 "a8! intending ...:c8 and ...i.xg2) 14...e6 (14 ...i.b7 15 'ifc5 d6 16 wins for White) 15 'ifa8 :b7 16 i.e2 ± - analysis by Rachels. Α good altemative is 12 ...:b8 13 i.c40-0 14 0-0 ~b7 (14...d6 15 :abl ~e6 16 :xb8 'ifxb8 17 "b5 "xb5 18 ~xb5 dxe5 19 ~e3 i.xa2 20 c4 e4 21 :d 1 i.e5 22 g3 e6 23 :d7 :c8 24 i.h6 f5 25 :d2 :a8 26 i.c6 :a7 27 :d8+ ~f7 28 :f8+ ~e7 29 :e8+ ~f7 30 :f8+ ~e7 Ι/Ζ-Ι/Ζ DelanoyPίgusov, Mendrisio 1989) 15 "c5 and now: 1) 15 ... d6 16 "a3 (16 exd6 exd6 17 "a7 ~xg2 18 ~xg2 :a8 19 'ifb6 "d7! forces a draw due Ιο the twin threats of ...:fb8 and ......g4+ - analysis by Strauss) 16.....c8 (hitting the

"a3

Attempts

αt Refutαtion:

c4-bishop and also threatening Ιο take οη g2 following υρ with ...•g4+ with perpetual) 17 .t.e2 dxe5 18 .t.e3 .xc2 19 :fel .c6 20 .t.f1 .e6 21 .a7 .t.d5 + Mitkov-Velimirovic, Yugoslav Ch (Κladovo) 1991. (16 "b5!?) 2) 15 ...:c8 16 16....c7 17 .t.d3 e6 18 :tbl .td5 19 .t.xe5 20 .xc7 .t.xc7 21 a4 :b8 22.t.b5 1/2-1/2 Κleywegt-Brockmann, Groningen 1994. 13.td3e6 Korchnoi claims that White is a little better after 13 ...:c6 14 ο-ο because οί his passed a-pawn and the fact that his light-squared bishop is supeήor to Black's. Rachels continues the analysis with 14....t.a6 (14 ... 0-0 15 a4.tb7 16 "b3 ~) 15 .t.xa6 :xa6 16 "b5 (Soltis-Cvitan, Moscow 1989 went 16 a40-0 17 :fdl:a5 18 "b7 "a8 19 .txe5 20 .txe5 :xe5 21 :xd7 1/2_1/2) 16 ...:c6 (16....a8? 17 e6! wins for White) 17 a4 ~. This vindicates Κorchnoi's judgement.

.b6

Lines with

lΔxc6

119

w

.b4

.b4

14.a8 Equality results from 14 .b5 :c6 15 ο-ο .ta6 16 "b3 .txd3 17 "xd3 ο-ο 18 a4 .a5! 19 :tbl d6 20 :b5 .a6 21 "b3 :fc8, Stein-Nei, USSR 1960. 14•••:00 (D)

king ίη an unhappy situation, Lϋcke­ Sander, Germany 1995) 16.....e4+ 17 Φd2.i.h6+ 18 ΦdΙ 0-0 19 :el .g4+ 20 f3 "xg2 21 :e2 .f1+ 22 :el .xf3+ is winning for Black, P.LarsenHartung Nielsen, Copenhagen 1995. 3) 15....c7 160-0 .txe5 (16...0-0 17 .t.b5~) 17 .tb5 .t.xd4 18 .xd4 e5 19 :fel :c5 (ίη the previous edition we gave 19...:e6 20 Wb4 .d6 21 .xd6 :xd6 22 :xe5+ :e6 with a likely draw, but 19...:c5 is stronger) 20 a4 ο-ο 21 .b4 d6 + Loffler-Claveήe, Cannes 1996.

82838) 15 .tb5!? :Σa6! fun move to play, though Black has been successful with 15 ...:c2 lately: 1) 16 0-0 0-0 17 (17 :acl "c7 18 :xc2 "xc2 19 ί4 d6 20 "a7 "e4 + M.Ionescu-Teodorescu, Βυ­ charest 1994) 17....c7 18 a4.tb7 19 .e3 :c8 20 :fdl .td5 with equality, G.Garcia-L.Garcia, Bogota 1980. 2) 16.a3 Wh4 (16....g5 is probably stronger: 17 0-0 .txe5 18 .txe5 .xe5 19 :acl :Xcl 20 :xcl .tb721 Α

"e4

Now White has: B2a3a: 15.tb5!? 119 B2a3b: 15 0-0 121 15 .a4?! is ίnfeήοr. Black then has three good moves: 1) 15 .....g5 160-0 .txe5 17.tb5 :Σd6 18 .t.xe5 .xe5 19 :fel .d4 2) 15....h4 16 .tb5 (16 g3 .g4 17 f4.f3 18 Φd2 0-0 leaves the white

=.

Accelerαted Drαgons

120

"b4 "g5 22 .*.xd7+ Φd8 23 "b6+ Φe7 24 "b4+ Φd8 25 ~6+ 1/2 _lh Marin Ionescu-Popovici, Romanian wom Ch, Bucharest 1994) 17 "d3 :C7 180-00-0 19 f4 .*.b7 20 .*.b6:C6 21 .*.xc6 .*.xc6 (White has some chances, but Black has enough compensation to hold life and limb together) 22 a4 f6 23 .*.c5 :a8 24 .td6 "g4 25 :f2 :xa4 26 :xa4 .*.xa4 27 "a6 "dl+ 28:f1 "d4+ 29 ΦhΙ h5 30 "a8+ Φh7 31 exf6 .*.c6 32 "b8 "d2 33 :gl .*.xg2+ 34 :xg2 1/2-1f2 Doghή-Bojczulc, Moscow 1991. 16 .*.xa6 "aS+ 17 Φη.! This gives Black some problems to solve. Funnily enough, 17 Φe2 leads by force to a perpetual check after 17...0-0: 1) Black gets a winning attack after 18 .*.xa6+ 19 Φf3 (19 Φe3 "a3+ 20 Φd2 .*.h6+ 21 .*.e3 'W'b2+ 22 "c2 "d4+ wins for Black) 19... f6! 20 exf6 .*.xf6 21 .*.xf6 IΣxf6+ 22 Φg3 "c7+ 23 Φh3 (ηο better is 23 f4 g5 24 :hfl .*.b7 25 "e3 gxf4+ 26 :xf4 :g6+) 23 ....*.b7 24 "e3 g5 and the threat of ...:h6+ is decisive. 2) 18 .*.b7! 'W'b5+ 19 Φe3 .*.xb7 20 :hbl .*.h6+ 21 f4 .*.xf4+ 22 ΦΧf4 "d3 23 "xb7 f6! 24 :dl?? (also bad is 24 "f3? "xd4+ 25 Φg3 fxe5 26 "xf8+ {if 26 "e2, then 26... g5!} 26...ΦΧf8; White's correct move is 24 exf6 "xd4+ 25 Φg3 "e3+ 26 "f3 "g5+ 27 Φh3 'W'h6+ 28 Φg3 "g5+ with a perpetual check - analysis by Pokojowczyk) 24... g5+ 25 Φg4 h5+! 26 Φxh5 Wh7+ 27 Φg4 fxe5 28 g3 "f5+ 29 Φh5 'W'h3+ 30 Φg6 "h7+ 0-1 Barczay-Pokojowczyk, Subotica 1981. 17•••0-018

"e4

"e4

18 "xc8? :xc8 19 .*.xc8 'W'b5+ 20 is good for Black. White's best move, 18 "a7!, was discovered by Ameήcan Master Duffy Hepworth. After 18 ....*.xa6+ 19 ΦgΙ (D) the cήtical position has been reached. ΦgΙ

"c4

White is an exchange ahead, but Black is better developed and can pick υρ the e-pawn quite easily. Who is better? Ιο our pre-game preparation for the Rachels-Petursson game at the Manila Interzonal, 1Μ Vince McCambήdge, Stuart and Ι (John Donaldson) liked White, using Hepworth's idea of h4 and either h5 or :h3 to consolidate. We focused οη 19....*.xe5 and 19...:C8, but couldn't find any clear route to equality for Black. Towards the end of our session, GM John Fedorowicz stepped into the room and tossed 19 .....d2 onto the board, but even then White seemed to be doing well after 20 h4 .*.b5 21 "c5 .*.c6 22 "c3 "e2 23 "e3. Thus armed, Stuart went off to the toumament: 19...:c8? 20 h4 h5 (20....*.xe5 is answered by 21 h5! since 21 ....*.b8? 22 "xd7 :d8 23 hxg6! is strong) 21 1[b3 .*.xe5 22 l[f3

Attempts αt Refutαtion: Lines with ~c6

"f6

.i.xd423 .xd4 d5 24 "c7 25 :el (premature is 25 g4? hxg4 26 h5?? gxf3 27 h6 "c3 winning) 25 .....d7 26 1:e5 (26 g4? is still premature: 26...hxg4 27 hS gxh5 28 1:e5 1:c 1+ 29
"h2

19~9ld6!

121

Τοο slow is 19...1:c8? 20 h4:C4 21 hS d6 22 hxg6 hxg6 23 .h4 dxe5 24 "h7+ ~f8 25 .i.e3 with mateήal and an attack, Shiyanovsky-Zimin, Avangard Ch 1960. 201:el The altematives are worse: 1) 20 exd610ses to 20.....a4. 2) 20 ί4 dxe5 21 fxe5 "a4 gives Black a strong attack. 3) 20 h4 dxe5 21 J.b2 1:b8 gives Black a winning game. 2O....i.b7 21 .e3 .i.h6 22 .d5 23 f3 1:c8 24 .b2 1:c4 2! .i.n J.g7 Black has a slight advantage analysis by Volchok from Shαkhmαtny Bulletin number 9, 1961.

.c3

B2a3b) 1! 0-0 (D)

White wisely gets his king to safety before starting οη any adventures. 15•••0-0 15 ...J.a6!? was once thought to be adequate but is now under some fire: 16 .xd8+ ~xd8 17 .i.xa6 1:xa6 18 a4 d6 (interesting is 18 ...~c7 19 1:fcl+

122

Accelerated Dragons

:c6 20 a5 :a8 21 .tb6+ ~b7 22 :xc6 dxc6 23 f4 .tf8 24 :dl c5 25 :d7+ Φc6 26 :c7+ ~b5 ; Ribeiro-Silva, PortugueseCh 1993) 19 f4!?(l9:fdl leads to a draw after 19 ...~d7 20 exd6 .txd4 21 :xd4 :ha8 22 ~fl :xd6 analysis by Boleslavsky) 19...~d7 20 a5 :ba8?! (better is 20...:C8 but Κ1om­ pus claims that White still gets a clear advantage after 21 :fd 1 :c4 22 .te3 d5 23 :dbl .tf8 24 :b7+ :c7 25 :xc7+ ~xc7 26 .tb6+ followed by 27 :c 1 ±) 21 .tb6 dxe5? 22 :acl ~e8 23 :fdl! :xa5 24 .txa5 :xa5 25 :c8+ ~e7 26 :C7+ led to a victory for White ίη Κ1ompus-Rettenbacher, cοπ 1983. 16 .tbS .ta6! Ιnfeήοr is 16...:c2?! 17 1IVe4 .c7 18 a4 .tb7 19 1IVe3 :c8 20 :fdl ± Sakharov-Veresov, USSR 1960. 17 1IVxd8 hd8 18 .txc6 Also possible is 18 a4 but Black appears Ιο have sufficient resources: 18 ....txb5 19 axb5:C4 20 :adl :b8 21 b6 d6 22 f4 dxe5 23 fxe5 :b7 24 Φf2 .tf8 25 Φe3 .tc5 26 .txc5 :xc5 27 :d8+ ~g7 28 :bl :Xe5+ 29 Φd4 :e2 30 ~c5 :c2+ 31 ~b5 :xg2 32 Φc6 :xb6+ 33 ΦΧb6 :xh2, RajnaMarosi, Budapest 1982. The game was eventually drawn. 18•••.txn 19 φχη 19 .tb6!? :b8 20 .ta7 :c8 21 .txd7 :C7 22 .tb8 :b7 23 .td6 .tc4 24:Cl .txe5! 25 .tc8 :b5 26 a4:d5 27 .txe5 :xe5 28 f4 :e4 29 .tb7 .td5 30 .txd5 exd5 31 :al d4 32 a5 d3 33 g3 1/2-1/2 Gelbmann-Ugezinski, Vienna Cht 1997. 19•••dxc6 20 .tc3:d3 Black skilfully uses his rook to stop the white a-pawn from advancing. 21 :cl :dS 22 :el

Korchnoi gives 22 f4 g5! as equal. He was proven cοπect after 23 fxg5 .txe5 24 .txe5 :xe5 1/2-1/2 in RibeiroLopez, Cuba 1996. 22•••:cS 23:e3 :c4 24 .tb2 bS 25 Φel Φh7 with equality, KupreichikPetursson, Reykjavik 1980. After 26 ΦdΙ g5 27 f3 :a428 a3 c5 29 ~c2 c4 30 Φc3 Φg6 31 :e4 Φf5 Black had ηο problems and a draw was sooo agreed. Ιι appears

that 8... ι!Ωd5 is alive and

well.

B2b) 8•••lDg8 (D)

w

Whereas 8...00 sacήficed a pawo for the initiative, 8 ... lDg8 accepts a loss of time ίο the hope that he can eveotually make use of his ceotral prepooderance of pawns. Black will attack the crampiog pawo 00 e5 with ...d6 or ...f6 and the knight will ofteo be recycled Ιο f5 via h6. After 8...lDg8 White has two ways to defend his important e5-pawn: B2bl: 9 Ι4 123 B2b2: 9 .td4 133

Attempts at Refutation: Lines with ~c6

B2b1) 9Ι4

Now Black usually plays: B2bla: 9••• Ι6 123 B2blb: 9••• ~h6 129 Less common are: 1) 9... d5 10 exd6 (if 10 'ii'd2 then 10... h5!? 11 0-0-0 ~h6 with the idea of ...~5 and ...0-0 is a1l ήght for Black according 10 Strauss) 10...exd6 11 .t.c4 (11 'tIId2 ~7) 11 ... ~f6 120-00-013 'tIId2 d5 14 :adl 'tIIc7 = Kupka-Stefanov, Leningrad 1960. It's clear that 9... d5 deserves more attention. 2) 9 ... h5!? followed by ... ~h6 and ... ~f5 is an untήed suggestion that pops υρ ίη a magazine or book οη occasion.

B2b1a) 9.••f6 Black immediately takes aim at the white pawn οη e5. White has now tήed ηο fewer than six moves: B2blal: 1000 123 B2bla2: 10.t.d3 124 B2bla3: 10 ΙS 124 B2bla4: 10.t.c4 125 B2blaS: 10 exf6 126 B2bla6: 10.t.d4 127

123

1) 10... dxe6? allows White to build υρ a strong initiative with 11 'tIIf3 'tIIc7 (l1 ... .t.d7 120-0-0 'tIIc8 13 .t.c4 ~h6 14 ~a4 ~f7 15 :xd7! led Ιο a bad

end for Black ίη Fichtl-Sajtar, Czechoslovak Ch (Prague) 1953) 12 .t.b5! (stronger than 12 ~b5 'ii'b7 13 ~d4 ~h6 14 'tIIxc6+ ~f7 150-0-0 :d8? {15 ... ~f5! keeps White's advantage to a minimum} 16 ~xe6! :xdl+ 17 ~xdl't11xc618~8+~e819~xc6±

Chernikov-Sosonko, Leningrad 1965) 12 ... .t.d7 (or 12 ....t.b7 13 .t.c4 with a clear advantage for White) 13 0-0-0 :c8 (13 ... ~h61oses to 14 :xd7!) 14 .t.c4 ~h6 15 :hel ~f7 16 .t.c5 .t.h6 17 :xd7!, as ίη Kurkin-Estήn, USSR 1962. 2) 10... ~h6? 11 exd7+ 'tIIxd7 12 'tIIxd7+~xd713.t.c4~c7140-0~f5 15 .t.c5 ~6 16 :fel e5 17 .t.b3 :e8 18 :adl ~b719 .t.e3 and White's ad-

vantage is obvious, Boleslavsky-Szilagyi, Debrecen 1961. 11 Ι5 'ii'd6(D)

w

B2b1a1) 10001 Τήcky

but bad. 10•••dS The refutation. Black builds a nice centre and plays to surround the e6pawn. Other moves are ηοΙ nearly so effective:

This position was tested οη several occasions before White's poor results led him to abandon the line. 12'ii'f3

124

Accelerated Dragons

Ιη RalάΙ:-Tsarev, Yugoslavia 1966, White αιοο to maintain his pawn-chain by 12 g4 but after 12...We5 13 Wd3 h5 14 0-0-0 Wxe3+! 15 Wxe3 J..h6 16 Wxh6 I.Ωxh6 17 fxg6 I.Ωxg4 Black was winning. 12......e5 (D)

w

13....xe3+ 13...Wxf5? leads Ιο a hopeless position after 14 Wxf5 gxf5 15 J..b5! ,ιb7 16 I.Ωxd5 0-0-0 17 1.Ωb6+ axb6 18 IIxd8+ Wxd8 19 J..xb6+ Wc8 20lldl J..h6+ 21 ~bι,ιd2 22 IIxd2 I.Ωh6 23 ,ιc4.

14 .xe3 ,ιh6 15 "'xh6 l.Ωή6 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 lIel I.Ωg4 18 h3 l.Oe5 White willlose a pawn and the game should go with ίι

B2b1a2) 10,ιd3?

130-0-0 Altematives have not proved any better: 1) 13 J..d3 J..h614 Φt2 J..xe3+ 15 Wxe3 gxf5 16 Wxe5 fxe5 17 J..xf5 I.Ωh6 18 ,ιh3 1If8+ 19 Wel l.Ωί5 ~ Samolewicz-Pzorevi1i, Poland vs Romania 1959. 2) 13 1&2 J..h6 14 J..f2 gxf5 15 'iib5+ Wd8 16 J..d4 We4 17 c4 ,ιχe6 18 IIdl J..e3! ~ Geissert-Baumbach, E.Germany 1961. 3) 13 g4 h5 14 0-0-0 (14 /.[}e2 ,ιh6! 15 ,ιd4 hxg4! 16 Wxg4 "'xf5 is clearly better for Black) is very interesting and trappy but ίι should hardly prove successful: 14...hxg415 Wxg4? "'xc3+ 16 Wbl ΙΙΜ! (Black must avoid the cute 16......g5? 17 I.Ωxd5! cxd5 18 _a4+ Wf8 19 .c6 and White wins) 17 I.Ωxd5 cxd5 18 .a4+ Φf8 19 .c6 IIb8 20 Wc7 Wb6 and Black wins.

Another sharp attempt by White that falls very short οί the mark. 10...fxe5 11 Ι5 d5! 12 fxg6 /.[}f6 13 gxh7 e4 14 J..e2 IIxh7 Black's huge centre gίves him a clear advantage, Sapunov-Milev, ΒυΙ­ garia 1959.

B2b1a3) 10Ι5?

(D)

Β

One more mad attempt by White to blast Black ουΙ οί the water. 10....&5

Anempts αΙ Refutαtion: Lines with ~6 Α suggestion of Simagίn. 10...fxe5 11 fxg6 dS (11 ...lΩf612 J.d3 dS - Acers) 12 gxh7lΩf6 also favoυrs Black. 11 exf6lΩxf6 12 !xg6 1IeS Acers feels that 12...ΟΟ! WΊns easily. After 12.....e5 Black has a clear advantage: 13 "d4lL1g414 "xe5 .ι.χe5 15 .ι.ιΙ hxg6 16 .ι.d3 ~f7 170-0-0 ~ι7 18 g3 d6 19.ι.e4 d5 and Black's strong pawn centre puts hίm ίη control, Zakharov-Antoshίn, USSR 1964.

B2b1a4) 10 J.c4! (D)

125

2) ΙO...lDh6 11 0-0 and Black can try: 2a) 11 ...llli512.ι.c5! d5 (12...fxe5 13 fxe5 1Z.f8 14 g4 lL1h6 15 1Z.xf8+ .ι.Χf8 16 "f3 .ι.a6 17 1Z.f1 .ι.Β7 18 .ι.χa6 "a5 19 J.e3 "xa6 20.ι.xh6 and White is winning, Κrystall-Sιrauss, Los Angeles 1972) 13 exd6lL1xd6 14 1Z.el gave White tremendous pressure ίη Κrystall-Batchelder, Los Angeles 1974. 2b) 11 .....c712exf6.txf6131Ωe4 d5 (13 .. ..tg714f5! lbxf515:xr5 gxf5 16 "h5+ ~d8 17 lL1g5) 14 lL1xf6+ exf6 15 .tb3 0-0 16 c4 ± (analysis by Κrystall).

Β

2c) 11 .....a5 12 e6! (stronger than 12 exf6 .txf6 13lL1e4 d5 14 ~xf6+, Κrystall-Roy, Reseda 1974) 12 ...d5 (according to Κrystall, both 12...d613 "f3 "c7 14 b4 dS 15 .tb3 .txe6 16 b5 and 12...dxe6 13 "f3 "c7 14 :tel are very good for White) 13 Μ! "xb4 (13 .....c7 14 .tb3 .txe6 15 b5 ±) 14 lL1xdS "d6 15 ~3 ± (analysis by Κrystall). 11 Ο..()

Thίs little-known bυΙ dangerous line was first played by the Ameήcan Master Danny Κrystall ίη 1972. 10•••fxeS Taking the pawn is very ήsky but it's the only way Ιο test White's move. Black might consider 10...d5 but then 11 exd6 exd6 12 "d2 followed by 13 0-0-0 is very promising for White. Ί\vo other possibilities are: 1) 10.....a5 11 0-0 ιransposes ίηΙο Κrystall-Bυrstow, Lone Pine 1974. See the main line note Ιο White's 11th move.

Κrystall preferred 11 fxe5 ίη a game he played against Bυrstow, Lone Pίne 1976: 11 .....a5 (Κrystall eventually rejected thίs move-order because of 11 ... J.xe5 12 0-0 ~f6 13 J.h6 d5 14 .tg7:f8! 15J.xf8~f816.tb3"d6 17 h3 J.a6 18 1Z.f3 ~ι7 and Black is winning) 120-0! "xeS 13 J.f7+! ~d8 14 "d2llli6 15 b l 'iWhS (Gheorghίu suggested 15.....a5, bravely attachίng an assessment of 'unclear' after ίι) 16 1Z.xf6!! exf6 (White would proceed ίη a similar fashίon after 16....txf6) 17 00 cxd5 18 "a5+ ~e7 19 J.g5+! 1-0 since 19...~xf7 20 "xd5+ ~f8 21 "d6+ ~ 22 1Z.e7+ leads to mate.

126

Accelerαted

11•••exf4 We will look at three other possibilities. The final one (1l ...d5!) is probably Black's best choice: 1) 11 ...e6? 12fxe5Axe513Axe6! with a clear advantage for White. 2) 1l ...e4 12 f5! d5 13 fxg6 dxc4 14 .h5llli6 15 :xf6 exf6 16 gxh7+ ~e7 17 .t.c5+ ~e6 18 :dl "xdl+ (18 ...•c7 runs into 19 ~xe4!, when Black is unable Ιο meet the threat of20 Ad6 followed by 21 ~c5+ οι simply 20:d6+) 19'it'xdl Af820.g4+~f7 21 'it'h5+ ~g7 22 Ad4 Ae7 23 ~xe4 and Black is busted - analysis by Κrys­ ta11. 3) 1l ...d5! 12 fxe5! (12 ~d5 cxd5 13 Axd5 Ag4! 14 Ac6+ Ad7 is good for Black, as pointed ουΙ by the Aιneήcan master WΊlliam Baιchelder) 12...Ae6 (trying to stop any sacήfices οη d5) 13 . 0 ~6! (Black must avoid 13 ....t.xe5? 14 ~xd5!) 14 .t.xh6 Axh6 15 .t.d3 .b6+ 16 ~hl .e3 - analysis by Κrysta11, who considers the game equal. However, it seems to us that Black's pawn-centre, two bishops and the potential weakness of the e5-pawn give him all the chances (17 ~a4 :f8 18 .xe3 .t.xe3 19 :xf8+ ~xf8 20 :el .t.b6 21 ~xb6 axb6 and the vulnerabIe e5-pawn will remain a concem forWhite). 12.t.xf4~6

Other moves also leave Black under pressure: 1) 12...'iWb6+ 13 ~hl .xb2 14

00. 2) 12...d5? 13 .t.xd5! cxd5 14 ~xdS.

3) 12... .t.a6!? 13 .t.xa6 .b6+ 14 ~hl .xa6 15 .el! ~f6 16 .t.h6 .t.xh6 17 :xf6 .aS 18 :Ο, when

Dragons

Κrysta11 claims that White has adequate compensation for the pawn. 13 .t.d6! .t.a6 Black peήshes after 13 ...exd6 14 :el+. If 13 ...•b6+ 14 ~hl .xb2 (l4 ...~d8 was Κrysta11-BaΙChelder, NewportBeach 1974, and now 15Aa3 favours White according to Κrysta11), 15 .el e6 16 .t.e5! is decisive. 14 .t.xa6 'iWb6+ 15 ~hl .xa6 16

:el! e6 Black should retum the pawn with 16... 0-0, when White's advantage would still be manageable. 17 ~! ~xe4 18 he4 .b5 19 .el! ± Zajic-Adamski, Tfebi~ 1959.

B2b1a5) 10exf6 This wimpy move makes Black's life easy. 10•••~xf6 11 Ae2 Even worse is 11 Ac4 d5 12 .t.e2 :b8 13 b3, after which Black played very sharply and eamed a winning advantage with 13 ... ~g4 14 .t.d4 e5! 15 fxe5 ο-ο! 16 .t.xg4 'iWh4+ 17 g3 .xg4 18 .xg4 .t.xg4 19:n :xtl + 20~f1 c5! 21 .t.f2 Axe5 22 .t.e 1 :f8+ 23 ~g2 24 h3 :xc3 25 .t.xc3 Axc3 26:f1 .t.f5 in Computer-Fischer, USA 1977. 11•••0-0 12 0-0 d5 Or 12...•aS 13 14:abl d6 15 a3 ~g4 16 Ad4 .t.xd4+ 17 .xd4 .b6 18 .xb6 axb6 A.FemandesAndersson, Νονί Sad OL 1990. 13 .t.d4 ΑΙ5 14 Af3 :b8 =I"f. Aronin-Geller, Moscow 1950. The finish is worth seeing: 15 g4 .t.c8 16 :bl :b4 17 a3 :xd4 18 .xd4 ~g4 19 .xa7 e5 20 Axg4 Axg4 21

:f3

.d2:b8 =

Attempts αt Refutation: Lines with ltlxc6 fxe5 .*.f3 22 .e3 d4 23 .d2 .*.xe5 24 :xf3 :xf3 25 :el :f5 26 lί:)e4 .h4 27 :e2 .*.f4 28 'ii'el .*.xh2+ 29 ~hl .*.g3+ 0-1.

B2b1a6) 10.*.d4(D)

Β

This is White's most common reply. 10••••aS The alternatives are: 1) 1O... fxe5? 11 fxe5 e6 led to a bloody demise for Black after 12 .*.d3 .h4+ 13 g3 .e7 14 ~4 15 .*.c3'ii'b6 16 ~6+ ~e7 17 .f3 ~6 18 .f4 Φd8 19 ~ .c5 20 .*.a5+ in Wade-Bilek, Teesside 1972. 2) 10...d5? 11 exd6.xd6 (11 ...exd6 12 .f3lί:)e7 130-0-0 ο-ο 14 .*.c5 d5 15 .*.c4 :b8 16 :hel ± Κrogius­ Buslaev, USSR 1956) 12 .f3 .e6+ 13 -*.e2 -*.a6 14 ο-ο -*.xe2 15 lί:)xe2 ~6 16 :fel 0-0 17 lί:)g3 .d7 18 :adl .c7 19 -*.c5 ± Ivkov-Pirc, Zagreb 1955. 3) 10...~6. Thisreasonablemove was recommended by Boleslavsky. Whitehas:

.b4+

127

3a) 11 ~4? fxe5 12 fxe5 ~5 13 .*.c3 .b6! +. 3b) 11 .*.d3 ο-ο 12 0-O'd6 =. 3c) 11 .*.c4 (best; ίι is ηο easy matter for Black Ιο equalize against this) 11 ...lί:)f5 12 exf6 .*.xf6 (worse is 12...exf6 13 .*.c5! d6 {13 ...d5? begs for disaster: 14lί:)xd5 cxd5 15 .*.xd5 :b8 16 .e2+ lί:)e7 170-0-0 .c7 18 .*.c6+Φf719.*.d6} 14 .e2+ .e715 .xe7+ Φχe7 16 0-0-0 ± Puhm- Van Wijgerden, Strasbourg 1973) 13 .*.xf6 exf6 14.f3 (this is stronger than 14 .e2+ .e7 15 .xe7+ ~xe7 16 0-0-0 d5 with equality, Tseitlin-Kapengut, Minsk 1969) 14....e7+ 15 Φd2 .d6+ 16 ΦcΙ and White has a clear advantage, Dϋcksteίn-Janssοn, Lugano OL 1968. 3d) 11 exf6 exf6? (Black can probably equalize with 11 ....*.xf6! 12.*.xf6 exf6) 12 .e2+! (12 .*.c5 is ΩΟΙ successful: 12...d5! 13 .d2 ~f7 140-0-0 :ι: Malachi-Kagan, ISrael 1970) 12....e7 (White also controls the game after 12...Φf7 130-0-0 d5 14 .f2 :e8 15 .*.e2 -*.g4 16 -*.xg4lί:)xg4 17 'ii'h4 lί:)h6 18 g4 ± Κaplan-Juhnke, Stockholm 1969) 13 ~ ~d8 14 .i.c5 .e6 15 ~6 .d5 16 .c4 .xc4 17 j,xc4 .*.f8 18 0-0-0, Ostojic-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1969. This position is a disaster for Black. 4) 10...:b8 11 :bl .c7 12 exf6 (12 .e2 :b4!) 12...lί:)xf6 13 'ifd2 d6 (13 ...0-0! is more precise) 14.*.d3 (14 .*.c4!) 14...0-0 15 ο-ο .*.f5 16 .*.xf5 gxf5 17 :fel 'ifd7 18.*.f2:b4 19 a3 ~! 20 lί:)xe4:xe4 21 %Σxe4 fxe4 22 :el .f5 23 .*.xa7 c5! 24 g3 :a8 25 j,b6 .*.xb2 with advantage Ιο Black, Fήtz-ΗenΙeΥ, Training Game 1993. 1l'ife2

.a5

128

Accelerated Dragons

White has not discovered any way to claim an advantage: 1) 11 Wd2 (D) is a logica1 move, which leads to sharp, unclear play:

Β

la) 11 ... ltJh6 12 exf6 exf6 13 ~c4 (13 0-0-0 ο-ο 14 ~c4+ Φh8 15 ~b3 appears to be stronger) 13 ...d5 140-0-0 and now, ίη Κova1ev-Roizman, Sokolsky mem 1981, Black played 14...~e6? and got wasted after 15 :hel Φϊ7 16 :xe6 Φχe6 17 'it'e2+ Φd7 18ltJxd5 cxd5 19 ~c3 :ae8 20 ~b5+ Φd6 21 :xd5+ 1-0. Instead of 14...~e6?, it appears that Black can actually take the bishop and live: 14... dxc4 15 :he1+ Φϊ7 16 'it'e2 'ifb4. 1b) 11 ...fxe5 12 fxe5 c5 (12...~xe5 is very ήsky, since White gains a powerful attack after 13 0-0-0 ltJf6 14 :e1 ~xd4 15 Wxd4 Φϊ7 16 ~c4+ d5 17 :hfl) 13 ~e3 (13 ~f2 ~xe5 14 ~c4 :b8 15 ~g3 ~xg3+ 16 hxg3ltJf6 17 ο-ο ~a6 18 'it'f4 :b4 19 :ael Φd8 20 :xe7 was Mansurov-Ponomaήov, Yalta 1995) 13 ...~xe5 (ίη PavmonRoizman, USSR 1982, Black tήed 13 ...:b8 14 ~c4 ~a6 but he got hacked to death after 15 Ο-Ο-Ο!! ~xc4 16 'it'xd7+ Φϊ7 17 :hf1+ .ixf1 18

:xf1 + ltJf6 19 exf6 ~xf6 20 :xf6+ ΦΧf6 21ltJd5+ Φe5 22 ~f4+ Φe4 23 _e6+ Φd4 24 ~e3+ 1-0) 14 ~c4ltJf6 15 ο-ο ~b7 and now: lbl) 16 ~f4 ~d4+ 17 ΦhΙ ~a6 18 ~xa6 _xa6 and though Black is better White managed to draw ίη Haag-Hennings, Zinnowitz 1966. lb2) Much sharper is 16 :ael Wb4 (16 ...0-0-0 17 ltJd5 'it'xd2 18 ltJxe7+ Φb8 19 ~xd2 ltJe4 20 ~f4 ~xf4 21 :xf4 ltJd6 22 ~d5 :de8 23 ~xb7 ΦΧb7 24 :α ltJf5 25 :fe2 and White went οη to win ίη J.SikoraKutynec, Prerov 1995) 17 'it'e2 0-0-0 18 a3 Wb6 19 ΦhΙ with an unclear ρο­ sition. 2) 11 ~c4?! fxe5 12 fxe5 ~xe5 13 Wd3ltJf6 14 0-0-0 ~xd4 15 _xd4 d5 16 We5 (according to Baumbach, after 16 :hel ο-ο! both 17 ~b3 ~g4 and 17 :xe7 dxc4 18ltJe4 'it'f5 19 'it'xc4+ ltJd5 are bad for White) 16... 0-0 17 ltJxd5 cxd5 18 :xd5 'ifb4 19 :d4+ Φh8 20 h4 (ηο better is 20 ~d5 Wc5 21 b4 _c3 22 ~xa8 ~f5 23 ~e4 _al+) 20 ...:b8 21 ~b3 :b5! and White went down to defeat ίη Masieev-Baumbach, cοπ 1972. 3) 11 exf6 ltJxf6 (11 ... ~xf6 12 ~xf6 ltJxf6 is equal according to Baumbach; the game Ushakov-Kapengut, Minsk 1969 tested this out: 13 'it'd4 0-0 140-0-0 :b8 and Black had good chances οη the queenside) 12 ~c4 (12 'it'd2 turned out badly ίη Vrebek-Romanishin, Teesside 1974: 12... 0-0 13 ~c4+? d5 14 ~b3 ltJe4! 15ltJxe4 'it'xd2+ 16ltJxd2 ~xd4 17 c3 ~e3 18 g3 e5 19 fxe5 ~f2+) 12 ... ~a6 (a1so good is 12... d5!? 13 ~e2 0-014 ο-ο :b8, Dϋcksteίn-Βenkο, Vama OL 1962) 13 b4 _a3 14 'it'd3 ~xc4 15

Anempts αΙ Refutαtion: lines with lΔxc6 "xc4 a5 16 bxa5 1fxa5 170-0 e6 18 g4 0-0 19 ί5, Me§trovi~- Pirc, YugosIavia 1964, and now 19... tαι5! gives Black good play. Now we retum 10 the maίn lίne after 11 1ie2 (D):

129

(14...d5 15exd6exd6160-0-0dS 17 ~e2lΔf618 :d4 ο-ο 19 ~f3 ~f5 20

:el gave Whίte the better endίng ίη Smrcka-Baumbach, con 1968) 15 Ο­ ο-ο lΔg4 (worse is 15 ...:f8 16 :el :f5 17 ~d3 :h5 18 ~e4 ± Puc-Pirc, Sarajevo 1960) 16 :el ο-ο 17 ~c4+ ~g7 18 h3 :f4 19 b3 lΔh6 20 :hf1 :xf1 21 :xf1 ~b7 22 :dl :d8 23 lΔe4. Thίs endgame is ηοΙ pIeasant for Black.

13 'ifc4! "b6 14 0-0-0 dS The mistaken 14... d6?! led Ιο a lot ofpaίn for Black after 15 ~d4 c5? 16 ΟΟ! ίn Ulybin-Malίutίn, USSR 1988.

15 "a4 0-0 16 ~d4 "c7

11•••fxe5 Also possible is 11 ...c5 12 exf6 lΔxί6 13 ~e5 0-0 14 1fb5 1fxb5 15 lΔxb5 ~b7 16lΔc7 :ac8 170-0-0 d6 18 ~c4+ ~h8 19 ~xί6 :xc7 20 ~xg7+ ~xg7 21 :hel ~xg2 22 :d2 :xf4 23 :xg2 :xc4 and Black won ίη a few moves ίη Stodola-Chemikov, Pardubice 1994. 12~xe5

Best. Black gets the inίtίatίve after 12 fxe5 :b8 (12...lΔh6 is Serper's recommendatίon) 130-0-0 c5 followed by ...'ifb4. 12.••lΔf6!? At one tίme there was a small debate concernίng the meήts οί 12 ... ~xe5 13 "xe5 "xe5+ 14 fxe5. Boleslavsky claίmed the positίon was a lίttle better for Whίte whίle Romanίshίn claimed equality for Black after 14...lΔh6. Anstock-Stein, con 1983 seemed to veήfy Boleslavsky's views: 14... lΔh6

Both sides have chances. UlybinSerper, Tbilisi 1989 contίnued 17 ~e5 1ib618~d4"c719g3~g4! 20:d2 (20 :el ~f3 21 :gl c5 gives Black actίve play) 20... ~f3 21 ~g2 ~xg2 22 :xg2 e6 23 "a3?! (correct is 23 :el c5 24 ~e5 1ib6 25 :ge2 :ac8 followed by 26 ...:c6 with mutual chances) 23 ...:ac8! 24:el (241fxa7? 1ixa7 25 ~xa7 c5 is good for Black accordίng to Serper) 24 ... c5 25 ~e5 "b6 26 :ge2 :c6 27lΔbl! 1/2-1/2. The idea is lΔd2-f3. Serper feels that Black would do best to try 27 ...:d8! threatenίng ...d4 and ...c4.

B2b1b) 9.•.lΔh6 (D) Black decides Ιο keep the centre closed for the moment; he is also trying to get hίs knight into play (οη the f5-square) as quickly as possible. Thίs system is easier to leam than the lίnes coming from 9...f6. Note that both the authors have chosen to play ίη this manner and Kasparov's adoptίon

130

Accelerated Dragons

w

of 9... ~6 gives it quite a 10t of credibility.

10.cU White's other choices have given Black some nice moments: 1) 10 lOe4 0-011 .d2 d6 12 exd6 tΩf5 gives Black lots of play. Once the bishop οη g7 breaks free, Black ΜΗ general1y end υρ with a very dynamic position (sacήficing a pawn to achieve this should be second nature to a true Accelerated Dragon player!). 2) 10.f3 0-0 is often seen. White's results have been rather dismal: 2a) 11 J.d3 f6 12 exf6 J.xf6 13 0-0 d5 14 J.c5 .aS :; Witt-Malich, Haνana OL 1966. 2b) 11 0-0-0 d6! 12 .xc6?! (greedy and ήsky! 12 h3 makes more sense, but Black should get ample play with 12 .....c7, while 12 .....aS!? also deserves a look) 12... J.d7 13 .dS tΩg4 14.f3 (14 exd6 tΩxe3 15 dxe7.xe7 16 .xd71i'b4 favours Black; also good for Black is 14 J.d4 J.h6! 15 .f3 dxe5!, when the ρίη along the h6-cl diagonal wiH prove highly annoying) 14...tΩxe3 15 .xe3 J.e6 (if White ever takes οη d6 and lets the g7-bishop into play, Black ΜΗ instantly have a

very strong attack οη the white king) 16 tΩdS :c8 17 J.a6 :c5 18 c4 (the tempting 18 tΩxe7+ .xe7 19 exd6 fails to 19...:xc2+! 20 *xc2 J.f5+ 21 *d2 .xd6+ 22 J.d3 .b4+ 23 *e2 J.g4+) 18 ...J.xd5 19 :xdS :xd5 20 cxdS"aS 21 J.c4:C8 22 b3 .xa2 23 :el dxe5 24 fxe5 J.h6! (the bishop strikes the decisive blow!) 25 "xh6 .xb3 26:e4 :xc4+ 27 :Xc4 'ifxc4+ 28 *bl 'ife4+ 29 *cl .xd5 30.e3 .xg2 31 .xa7 .hl+ 0-1 KelsonSilman, Reno 1993. 2c) 11 .tc4 d5! 12 exd6 (12 .tb3 allows 12...d4 since 13 0-0-0 runs into 13 ...J.g4!) 12...exd6 13 .xc6 loses too much time. Black gained a powerful attack after 13 ...J.d7 14 'iff3 :c8 15 .td3 J.g4 16 'ifdS (16 'iff2 :Xc3!) 16...:e8 17 ~d2 :Xe3 18 ~xe3 1fb6+ ίο Fichtl-Gereben, Warsaw 1956. 3) 10 J.d3 d6 11 _f3 0-0 12 ο-ο dxe5 (12.....c7 also gives Black a good position) 13 _xc6 tΩg4 14 .tc5 J.d7 15 .a6 exf4 16 tΩd5 'ifb8 17 h3 "e5 18 tΩxe7+ *h8 19 b4 tΩe3 20 "b7 J.e6 21 :ael 'ifg5 22 m :ae8 23 Whl J.f6 24 tΩc6 J.d5 25 J.xe3 fxe3 26 :fe2 'ifg3 27 c4 .txc6 28 .xc6 J.e5 0-1 Rohde-Tarjan, Lone Pίne 1975. 4) 10 J.e2 0-0 11 ο-ο tΩf5 (also good is 11 ...f6 12 exf6 J.xf6 13 g4 dS 14 .tc5 "aS 15 b4 .d8 16 g5 J.xc3 17 gxh6 J.xal, when White had insufficient compensation for the exchange ίο Rohde- Wateπnan, Lone Pine 1975) 12 J.f2 h5 13 tΩe4 d6 14 exd6 exd6 15 c3 :e8 16 'ifd3 aS 17 :fel J.a6 18 "c2 J.xe2 19 :xe2 dS left Black with an edge ίη Nuπnamedov-Gurgenidze, USSR Ch 1960. 5) 10 J.c4 0-0 (D) and now:

Attempts at Refutation: Lines with lίm:6

w

5a) 11 ο-ο d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 i.d4 i.xd4+ (perhaps it's better to play 13 ...1ill5 14 i.xg7 Φχg7 15 1i'd3 'W'b6+ 16 ΦhΙ d5! :; Pίlszyk - Bήnck­ Claussen, Marianske Lazne 1962) 14 1IIxd4111b6 15 1IIxb6 axb6 16..td3 i.f5 17 :fdl d5 left Black comfortably placed ίη Smirin-Davies, Gausdal 1990. 5b) 11 "d2 d612 exd6 exd6 13 0-0-0..tg4 14 /t}e2 /t}f5 (more enterΡήsίn& than 14...d5 15 h3 dxc4 16 hxg4 ll!xg4 17 "xd8 :axd8 = Seidman-Reshevsky, New York 1960/1) 15 i.f2 :b8 16 i.b3 a5 17 c3 a4 18 ..tc2 "a5 gave BIack a strong attack in Rubezov-Sokolsky, USSR cοπ Ch 1962. The continuation was 19 .td3 :b7 20 Φc2 :tb8 21 :bl d5 22 :hdl c5 23 h3 ..txe2 24 .txe2 d4 25 cxd4 1i'c7 26 ..tg4 cxd4+ 27 Φd3 1i'c6 28 1i'c21i'xg2 29 :gl 1i'd5 0-1. 6) 10 ..tc5?! ο-ο 11 /t}e4?! d6! 12 exd6 exd6 13 ..txd6 ..tg4 14 ..te2 :e8 15 /t}g3 1i'b6 16 c4 :ad8 17 "d2 c5 18 0-0-0 :xd6 0-1 Mariano-Donaldson, Philadelphia 1997. 10•••0-0 (D) Levy recommends the untήed line 10...1ill5 11 ..tf2 h5 12 h3 h4.

131

w

11 0-0-0 (D) This is the only way for White ιο try for an advanιage. 11 h3 is way toο slow: 11 ...d6! 120-0-01ill513J.f2c5 14 g4 (Κrystall recommends 14 exd6 exd615 ..txc5 1i'a5 16..tf2) 14.../t}d4 (a nice manoeuvre; Black should always be ready ιο sacήfice a pawn to get White's dark-squared bishop and queenside chances) 15 ..tg2 :b8 16 ..txd4 cxd4 17 "xd4 "a5 18 :hel ..te6 and the threat of ...:b4 followed by ...:tb8 gives Black a very strong attack. Dϋckstein-Waller, Austήa 1969 continued 19 ΦbΙ ?! :b4 20 "e3 dxe5 21 fxe5 :tb8 22 b3 :c4! (a surpήse; White has ηο good square for his knight since 23 /t}d5 :xc2! 24 Φχc2 1i'xa2+ gives BIack a winning attack) 23 :d3 :c5! (now the white e-pawn falIs and the Dragon bishop bursts ίηιο the game) 24 :edl ..txe5 25 :d8+ ':xd8 26 ':xd8+ ΦΒ7 27 ':d5! (a great try! Note that 27 /t}d5? would have lost immediately ιο 27 ...•xa2+! 28 ΦΧa2 ':a5+ 29 ΦbΙ ':al#) 27 .....td6 28 .d4+ Φg8 29 ':xc5 (29 ':xd6 exd6 30 b4 1i'b6 31 /t}a4 :d5! wins for Black) 29 ... ..txc5 30 "e5 "b4! 31 /t}e2 ..td6 32 "e3 1i'el+. White's

132

Accelerαted Drαgons

insecure king and Black's powerful bishops give Black a decisive advantage.

Β

ll •••d6! White is prepaήng to shut down the h6-knight with h3 and g4, so Black creates an immediate central diveιsion. As usua1, once the h8-al diagonaI opens uρ for the g7-bishop, Black will get very good chances οη the queenside. Other moves have not worked out well for Black: 1) 11 ... f6? 12 .tc4+ Wh8 13 h4 fxe5 14 h5 gives White a very strong attack: 14...exf4 15 .txf4 g5 16.txg5 lt1g4 17 "'e2 ~5 18 h6 .tf6 19 .txf6+ exf6 20 Ad6! with a winning position, Shiyanovsky-Furman, USSR 1960. 2) 11 ...d5 12 h4"'a5 13 h5 Ad8 14 hxg6hxg615"'d4~5 16"'c5"'xc5 17 .txc5 lt1g3 18 Ah2 ~ EstrinA.Zaitsev, corr 1965. 3) 11 ......a5 12 .tc4 (the cήtica1 test is 12 h3! ~5 13 .tf2, when Levy recommends a high1y dubious piece sacήfice: 13 ...d6 14 g4 dxe5 15 gxf5 .txf5) 12...Ab8 13 h4 (13 h3 ~5 14 .tf2 d5 is fine for Black; a1so dubious

is 13 '8'd4?! d6 14 '8'xa7 '8'xa7 15 .txa7:as 16.td4lt1f5 17 Ahel.th6! 18 g3 lt1xd4 19 Axd4 dxe5 20 Ade4 exf4 21 gxf4 e5! =J: Akaba-B.Boop, USA 1991) 13 ...d614h5lt1f5 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 g4lt1xe3 17 '8'xe3 .txg4 18 JΣdBl .tf5. Black, with an extra pawn and a queenside counterattack ready to begin, has every chance ίοι a successful result. Ravinsky-Zilbershtein, Leningrad 1963 continued 19 Ag5 '8'b6 20 lt1dl dxe5 21 Axf5 gxf5 22 "'h3 Afd8 23 .xf5 :xdl+ 24 Wxdl .d4+ 25 .td3 exf4 26 Αη .xb2 27 '8'h7+ Wf8 28 :xf4 .al+ 29 We2 .e5+ and Black was winning easίly. 12exd6 Boleslavsky once claimed an advantage ίοι White with 12 h3, but 12...Μ 13.tf2c5! 14.tc4(14.txc5 "'a5 gives Black a strong initiative while 14 g4 ~4 transposes into the very comfortable Dϋckstein-Wa11er, Austria 1969-seep.131) 14....tb715 .td5.txd5 16 "'xd5?! (16lt1xd5 e6 17 ~6+ .txf6 18 exf6"'xf6 19 g4 lt1d4 20 .txd4 cxd4 21 "'xd4 "'xd4 22:xd4d5=) 16...:b817 B4~418 .txd4 cxd4 19 :xd4 dxe5 20 fxe5 "'b6 21 lt1a4 "'c7 22 :el :fc8 =J: Faulks-Dona1dson, Bermuda 1995. 12.••exd6 Also interesting is 12... lt1f5!? 13 .tf2 (White gets nothing out οί 13 d7 lt1xe3 14 dxc8'" "'xd2+ 15 Wxd2 lt1xfl+) and now both 13...lt1xd6 and 13... exd6 14 g4 ~7 15 h3 d5 need testing. 13"'xd6?! Α typica11y greedy computer move. Morelogica1is 13.td4.txd414 .xd4 lt1f5 with unclear play. Ρίeή-SΟΥΙu, Forli 1990 continued 15 "'d2 d5 16 g4

Attempts αt Refutαtion: Lines with ~ ~6 17 f5!? (going for the gusto)

17... gxf5 18 -.ιι6 fxg4 19 b3lΩf5 20 "xc6 .i.e6 21 hxg4 .g5+ 22 Wbl lΩe3 23 J:ιel -*.xg4 24 .i.d3 bS 25 J:ιxe3 "xe3 26 lΩxdS .e6 27 .c5 J:ιfe8 28 a3 "e5 29 "c6 Wg7 30 J:ιη J:ιab8 31 b3 :ec8 32 :xf7+ (White's attack has run out of steam so he throws everything he has ίηΙο one more desperate assault) 32... Wxf7 33 "g6+ Wf8 34 .h6+ We8 35 .g6+ Wd8 36 .g8+ Wd7 37 "f7+ Wd6 38 ~f6 .i.e6 39 "g7 J:ιxb3+ 40 cxb3 "e1+0-1. 13••••xd6 14 J:ιxd6 lM5 15 J:ιd3 .i.a616 -*.eS .i.xd317 .hf8 .i.:xf118 -*.χ,;ι .i.xg2 19 J:ιιl WxrJ Black bad a comfortable endgame ίη Fήtz2-ΚasΡarov, Germany 1994. The tinish was rather instructive: 20 J:ιxB2 J:ιb8 21 J:ιe2 J:ιh8! 22 b3 h5 23 Wb2 h4 (threatening 24...b3 foUowed by 25 ...J:ιh4) 24 b3 J:ιd8 2S lΩe4 ~B3! 26lΩxB3 hxg3 27 :g2 J:ιd4 28 J:ιxB3 :xf4 29 J:ιc3 J:ιh4 30 J:ιxc6? J:ιxb3 31 J:a6 g5 32 J:ιxa7 g4 33 J:ιh60-1.

:as

82b2) 9 .i.d4 (D)

Β

133

This rather unpopular method of defending e5 usuaUy transposes back into B2bla6 (9 f4 f6 10 .i.d4) after 9 ...f6 (Black's best move!) 10 f4. However, Black can choose Ιο try another set-up, though it's by ΩΟ means clear if he is wise Ιο do so. After 9 -*.d4 Black has several good methods of defence: BZb2a: 9 •••1Ωh6 134 BZbZb: 9 ...eS 134 BZbZc: 9••••aS 135 We shοώd mention that after 9 ...f6, 10 exf6100ks pretty lame: 10...lΩxf6 11lΩe4 ο-ο 12 ~xf6+ -*.xf6 13 -*.e2 (13 .i.xf6 J:ιxf6 14 .i.c4+ dS 15 0-0 was recommended ίο one Italian source, but 15 •.•eS seems rather nice for Black, who will continue with 16....i.e6, 17.....d6 and 18 ...J:af8) 13 .....aS+ (this leads to very interesting complications, but 13 .•.dS followed by 14...e5 should give Black an easy game withουΙ the worry) 14 c3 J:ιb8 15 b4 J:ιxb4! (the point of Black's play: a storm breaks οη White's uncastled king) 16 -*.xf6 (16 cxb4 .xb4+ 17 .d2 .xd2+ 18 Wxd2 .i.xd4 19 :afl.i.xf2 is very good for Black) 16...:b2 and now: 1) 17 .i.c4+ dS 18 "cl J:ιxΩ! is a bad line for White. 2) 17.i.h4 .xc3+ 18 Wfl J:ιxe2! is alSO ηο good for White. 3) Another defence that seems to give Black good chances is 17 .i.d4 e5 18 .i.c4+ dS 19 .cl J:ιb7 20.i.xe5 dxc4 (worse is 20...J:ιe7 21 f4) and White is having trouble getting his king ουΙ of the cenue: 21 "e3 (21 f4 .c5) 21 ...J:ιe7 22 f4 J:ιxf4! (Black wants more than the draw offered by 22...Wb6) 23 .xf4 (better is 23 .i.xf4

134

Accelerαted Drαgons

'ii'xc3+ 24 ~Ω IΣxe3 25 J.xe3 'ii'b2+ 26 ~g3 J.f5, when the vulnerable ρο­ sition of the white monarch gives Black a11 the chances) 23 ... IΣxe5+ (and ηοΙ 23 ...'ii'xc3+ 24 ~Ω IΣxe5 25 IΣhcl 'ii'b2+ 26 ~gl and the king is finally safe) with a very strong attack for Black. 4) 17 'ii'cl IΣxe2+! 18 ~xe2 J.a6+ 19 c41Σxf6 20 ~ 'ii'c5 21 'ii'b2 J.xc4+ and White was suffeήηg ίη Trajkovic-Baumbach, cοπ 1968. 22 ~gl IΣe6 23 h4 IΣe2 24 "b8+ ~g7 25 'ii'g3 'ii'e5 26 'ii'xe5+ IΣxe5 27 IΣh3 IΣa5 28 IΣc3 IΣa4 29 a3 J.d5 30 IΣel ~f6 31 g3 e5 32 f3 e4 33 fxe4 J.xe4 34 IΣf1+ ~e5 and Black went οη Ιο win the endgame.

11 J.xg7 ~g7 12 "d4+ Ι6 13 exd7 J.xd7 14 0-0-0 J.g4 ECO claims that White is slίght1y better.

IS f3 "xd416 ':'xd4 J.c8 17 J.d3 Troianescu-Ghitescu, Romanian Ch 1957 continued 17 ... ltJf5 18 J.xf5 gxf5 19 IΣhdl J.e6 20 ltJa4 ':'g8 21 lΔc5 ~f7 22 IΣel J.c8 23 g3 with a clear advantage for White.

B2b2b) 9•••cS (D)

w

B2b2a) 9...ltJh6 This move is ηοΙ taken seήοuslΥ in most books. 10e6 0-0 Other moves also favour White: 1) 1O...J.xd4? 11 'ii'xd40-0 12 exd7 "xd7 13 "xd7 J.xd7 14 J.c4 IΣad8 150-0-0 ltJg4 16 IΣd2 J.c8 17 IΣhdl ± Bisguier-Geller, Helsinki OL 1952. 2) 10 ... f6 11 exd7+ J.xd7 (or 11 .....xd7 12 J.c4ltJf5 13 J.c5ltJd6 14 J.b3 J.a6 15 'ii'd4 IΣd8 16 0-0-0 ~f8 17 "a4 'ii'c8 18 ltJe4 J.h6+ 19 ~bl J.b5 20 ltJxd6 exd6 21 IΣxd61-0 Varavin-Myrvold, Gausdal 1993) 12 J.c4 J.f5 13 'ii'f3 'ii'd6 14 h3 i.e6 15 ltJb5! 'ii'b4+ 16 c3 "xc4 17 ltJc7+ ~d7 18 b3, Diez del Coπal-Velimiro­ vic, The Hague 1966. Black's queen is trapped but he can get good value with 18 .....xd4 19 cxd4 ~xc7. However, White retains the initiative after 20 IΣcl J.d7 21 d5.

Ιι seems that White can maintain some advantage after this. 10 J.xcS 10 'ii'f3? obviously fails against 10... cxd4 11 'ii'xa8 dxc3 but White has an interesting alternative ίη 10 J.e3!? 'ii'c7 (10 ... J.xe5? 11 'ii'd5 J.xc3+ 12 bxc3 IΣb8 13 "e5 simI'ly loses for Black) 11 J.c4 J.b7 12 Wd2 'ii'xe5 13 0-0-0 ltJf6 14 IΣhel with good compensation, Thkmakov-Weichert, Graz 1972. The continuation was 14... 0-0 15 J.g5 "xh2 16 f3! 'ii'c7 17 IΣxe7 'ii'b6 18 "d6! IΣac8 19 J.xf6 J.xf6 20 IΣxf7! IΣxf7 21 'ii'xb6 J.g5+ 22 ~bl

Attempts

αt Refutαtion:

axb6 23 :xd7 and Whίte was winning. 10••••c7 10... j,xe5?! is infeήor after 11 .d5 j,xc3+ 12 bxc3 .a5 (l2...:b8? 13 "e5) 13 .xa8 "xc3+ 14~dl "xc5 (14 .....xal+? loses Ιο 15 ~d2) 15 j,a6 "d6+ 16 j,d3 ±. 11 j,d4 j,xe5 12 Ι4 The alternatives don't pose Black any particυlar problems: 1) 12 j,e2 and now: la) 12...j,b7 13 j,xe5 (13 lbb5 'ifb8 14 j,f3 j,xf3 15 "xf3 j,xd4 16 lbxd4, Radulov-Lahti, Raach 1969, 16.....e5+ 17 lbe2:b8=) 13 .....xe5 140-olbf615j,f3j,xf316"xf30-0 17 :fel "c5 18 :adl :ab8 with equality, Βradvarevίό-Ρirc, Yugoslav Ch 1957. lb) 12...lbf6 13 j,xe5 .xe5 14 0-0 Ο-Ο?! (14 ...j,b7! = transposes ίηΙο the Βradvareviό-Pirc game above; also fine ίοι Black is 14 ...d5! 15 j,b5+ ~f8! 16 j,c6 :b8) 15 j,f3 :b8 16 J:[el "c5? 17lba4 "a518 b3 :e8 19 c4 ± Ivkov-Pachman, Buenos Aires 1955. 2) 12lbb511fb8 13 ί4 (worse is 13 j,c4lbf6 140-0 ο-ο 15 :el j,xh2+ 16 ~hl j,b7 +Matsukevich-Livanin, USSR 1962) 13 ...j,xd4 14.xd4lbf6 15 0-0-00-0 16 :el :e8 17 g4 j,b7 18 :gl j,c6 = Estrin-Averbakh, Moscow 1968. 12.•• j,xd4 13 .xd4lbf6 14 g4 AIso possible is 14 0-0-0 ο-ο 15 j,c4 j,b7 16 :d2 d5 (16...d6!?) 17 j,b3 :fd8 18 :hdl ;t Τήngοv-Dam­ janοvίό, Ljubljana 1969. 14••.J.b7 15 :gl 0-0 16 0-0-0 JU'cS 16...d5 17 "e5 (very bad is 17 h4? lbe4 18 j,g2 .xf4+ 19 ~bllbxc3+

Lines with lbxc6

135

20 "xc3 :Cc8, Cebalο-Οstοjίό, Yugoslav Ch 1968) 17.....c5 18 :g3 :fc8 19 j,g2;t. 17 :d2 ':ab8 18 ':g3 a5 19 ':e3 Another choice is 19 j,b5, again with a slίght advantage ίοι Whίte. 19•••d5 20 Ι5 ;t Dϋcksteίn-Steίn, Sarajevo 1967.

B2b2c) 9••••&5 (D)

w

Thίs is considered Ιο be one οί Black's most reliable continuations, though neither οί the authors really trusts thίs move. 10j,c4 'l\vo other possibilities: 1) 10 ί4 ':b8! 11 e6? (11 .d2! ':xb2 12lbe4 gives Whίte compensaιίοη ίοι the pawn) 11 ...lbf6 12 exf7+ ~xf7 13 j,c4+ d5 14 j,b3 :d8 15

j,eSlbg416j,xg7~xg717.d4+e5!

18 fxe5 c5 19 .a4 .c7 200-0-0 d4 + Kovacs-A.Zaitsev, Debrecen 1970. 2) 10e6?! lbf611 exf7+(l1 exd7+ j,xd7 12 j,c4 ':d8 13 .e2 j,g4 14 .e5 .xe5+ 15 j,xe5 0-016 f3 j,f5 17 j,b3 h5 18 lba4? lbd5 19 j,xg7

136

Accelerαted Drαgons

Wxg7, Van Perlo-Baumbach, corr 1958-9) 11 ...Wxt7 12 J.c4+ (12 f4 d5 13 .d2 c5 14.te5:d8 15 J.e2 d4 16 ~ .xd2+ 17lDxd2 ιΑιs =F UΙybin­ Garcia Martίnez, Santa Clara 1991) 12...d513J.b3:e814f4c5(14...J.a6 15.f3 e6 160-0-0 :ad8 17 g4 Wg8 18 h4 c5 19 J.xf6 J.xf6 20 lDxd5 exd5 21 J.xd5+ Wg7 22 :h2 c4 23 g5 J.xb2+ 24 Wxb2 :b8+ 25 Wal :el 26 :hl ~ 27 J.b7 c3 0-1 Thorha1lsson-Tieleman, Reykjavik 1984) 15 J.e5 e6 16 Wd2 J.b7 17 ο-ο J.c6 18 a3 :ad8 19 Whl .a6 20 .e2 .xe2 21 lDxe2lDg4! WΊth a clear advantage for Black, Plater-Vasiukov, Poland-USSR 1955. 10••..A.xeS 11 0-0 lDf6! Black wisely develops the rest of hίs forces. 11 ...f6? is played οη occasion but ίι has a suicidal feel Ιο ίι: 12 :el Wb4 (12 ...J.xd4 13 .xd4 d5 14 J.b3 e615lDxd5 cxd5 16 J.xd5 :b8 17 J.xe6 J.xe6 18 :Xe6+ is also more than Black can handle, ΚhυdίKoν­ AIterman, USSR 1973) 13 J.xe5 Wxc4 14J.d6Wt715~.d516Wf3.f5

17 .b3+ Wg7 18 J.xe7 We6 19 lDxf6! .xb3 20 lDe8+ Wt7 21lDd6+

Wg7 22 axb3 was hopeless for Black in Haag-Forintos, Hungary 1965. 12:eld6 Bad ΊS 12...J.xd4? 13 .xd4 0-014 :xe7 lDh5 15 :ael d5 (15 ...lDg7 16 .f6lDe6 17 J.xe6 dxe6 18 :e5 Wb4 19 h4 gives Whίte a winnίng attack) 16 lDxd5! cxd5 17 J.xd5 J.e6 18 :lxe6 :ad8 19:e5 lDf6 20 c4 Wxa2 21 J.xt7+ :xt7 22 .xd8+ :f8 23 Wd4 1-0 Τήfuηοvίc-Κοrt, Noordwijk 1965. 13 J.xeS 13 We2?? lDg4 14 J.b3 J.xh2+ 15 Whl e5 wins for Black, Me§troVΊc­ Stein, Sarajevo 1967. 13•••dxe5 14 We2 J.f5 15 J.b3 e4 16 Wc4 0-0 17 Wxc6 :ad8 18 : ' 1 WeS Τήηgοv-Steίη, Sarajevo 1967. ΑΙΙ sources label thίs position as equal but we belieνe that Whίte's superior structure gίves him the advantage. The continuation ofthίs game was 19 h3 :Xdl 20 lDxdl :c8 21 Wa6:C7 22 We2 a5 231Dc3:C524We3Wc725:dlWg7 26 Wd4 :e5 27 lDd5 lh-lh, though Whίte is still better ίη the final posiιίοη.

8 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze System The Maroczy Bind, once considered to be a refutation of the Accelerated Dragon move-order, is one of White's very best set-ups. ΒΥ gaining space and clamping down οη the dS- and b5-squares, White makes ίι hard for Black to find active counterpIay. There are several ways to meet the Maroczy, but the Gurgenidze has turned ίηΙο Black's most popular and highly respected system. Favoured by active players such as Anand, Tiviakov and Petursson, the once dreaded bind has been shom of most of its terrors. White has to play very accurately if he is Ιο claim even the smallest of edges. Ι e4 c5 2 ω t'Δc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 g6Sc4(D)

S•••~66ια3 Α:

We will now examίne: 6•••lbxd4?! 137

Β:

6...d6

140

Α)

6.••lbxd4?! Perhaps 90% of all games ίη this see the move 6 ...d6 before the exchange οη d4. Why? For one thίn! ίι avoids the lίne 6 ... lbxd4 7 "xd4 d6 8 cS, though that has never really been too fearsome. More to the point is that ίι makes White choose between J.e2 and f3 to cover g4. Ideally White would lίke Ιο play .td3 and f4. ΒΥ playing 6 ... d6 Black can avoid this. lίne

'.xd4d6 Now White has two main continuations: ΑΙ: 8c5 138 Α2: 8 J.gS! 139 Others are ηοΙ hard for Black to meet: 1) 8 b3 J.g7 9 J.b2 0-0 1Ο J.e2 and now: la) 10.....a5 11 ο-ο .te6 12 :acl :Cc8 13 .d3 a6 14 J.al .J:r.ab8 =Korchnoi-Benko, Buenos Aίres 1960. lb) 10...b5!? is an exciting altemative: 11 ~xbS (11 cxb5!? J.b7 12 ~S mίght be considered) 11 ....tb7 12 f3 a6 13 ~a3 .a5+ 14 .c3 "gS

Accelerαted Drαgons

138

15 g3 ~h5 16 'ikc2 'ika5+, Honfi-Forintos, Hungary 1968, and after 17 ~Ω f5 Black will haνe some compensation for the sacήficed pawn. 2) 8 f3 ~g7 9 'ikf2 0-0 10 ~e2 ~e6 11 ~d2 ~d7 12 ο-ο 'ikb6 13 'ikxb6 ~xb6 14 b3 a5 with equa1ity, Κlaνin­ Bannik, USSR 1963. 3) 8 'ikd2 ~g7 9 ~d3 ο-ο 10 ο-ο ~7 11 b3 ~5 12 ~c2 ~d7 13 ~b2

be playable: 9 "xd8+ (9 "xc5 ~g7 10 ~g5 0-011 J:.dl 'ikb6 is equal according to Boleslaνsky) 9 ... ~xd8 10 ~f4 ~e6 11 0-0-0+ ~e8 12 ~e3 c4 13 J:.d4 ~g4 14 ~xc4 ~xe3 with an equa1 position, O'Κelly-Toran, Ma1aga 1967. 9~bS+

~c6=.

Gufeld mentions the lame 9 cxd6? 0-0 10 e5 ~g4 11 ~f4 exd6 12 'ikxd6 ~xe5. Black is better.

11 ~b5 (a1so good for White is 11 a3, intending 12 b4) 11 ......xd2+ 12 ~xd2 b6 13 a4 ~d7 14 J:.a2 ~b7 15 ~e2 J:.fc8 16 a5 ± Richardson-Estήn, cοπ 1972-6.

The a1tematiνe is 10 ~xd7+ 'ikxd7 11 cxd6 0-0, when White has ηο way Ιο get anything worthwhile: 1) 12 0-0 ~8 13 "d5 e6 14 "b5 =Κeres-Gurgenidze, USSR Ch 1959. 2) 12 J.g5 ~8 13 'it'd5 (13 'ii'b4?!

4) 8 ~e3 ~g7 9 f3 0-0 10 'ikd2 (we haνe transposed into B2b) 10.....a5?

Α1) 8ό

(D)

9....i.d7 10 cxd6

~xd6 :j: Κeres-Petrosian, Curaς;aο Ct 1962) 13 ... J.xc3+ 14 bxc3 ~xd6 15 e5 'it'f5 16 ~xe7 ~4 17 0-0 J:.fe8 18 "xb7 'it'xe5 (ana1ysis by Boleslaν­

=

sky). 3) 12 'it'b4 a5 13 'it'b5 'it'xb5 14 ~xb5 exd6 15 f3 d5 16 e5 ~7 17 f4 f6 18 e6 J:.ae8 19 ~7 J:.e7 20 f5 gxf5 21 0-0 ~5 22 ~xd5 J:.xe6 =(ana1ysis by Boleslaνsky).

Β

10.••0-0 11 0-0 11 dxe7 'it'xe7 12 ~d3 ~xe4 is nothing for White.

11•...i.xbS 12 ~bS 86

This continuation was seen from time to time ίη the early Ιο mid-1960s but White's results were neνer νery positiνe and it faded into obscUΉty.

8....i.g7 Most natura1. 8 ... a6? 9 cxd6 is stupid for Black but 8 ... dxc5!? appears to

Also reasonable is 12...exd6 13 ~3 J:.e8 14 'it'd3 'it'a5 15 J.d2 "b4! 16 J:.fel 'it'xb2 17 J:.abl with approximately equa1 chances, Ba1ashoν-Kup­ reichik, USSR 1967. 13~

Or 13 dxe7 "xe7 14 ~c3 J:.fe8 15 J:.el J:.ad8 16 'ika4? (16 'it'c4 is leνel) 16... ~xe4 :j: Cioca1tea-Parma, Athens 1968.

13...ΙΑS 14 "b4 ~d6

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Gurgenidze System

139

Chances are even. Boleslavsky analysed 15 :dl :c8 16 ,ιf4 :c4 17 Wb3 b5 18 a4 (1800 ιfue419 tlli6+ ,ιΧf6 20 :xd8 :xd8 is also even) 18 ...,ιχc3 19 bxc3 :xe4 20 ,ιΧd6 exd6 21 axb5 axb5, when the game will be drawn.

lt1g4 14 ,ιf4 g5 15 ,ιg3lt1e5 is given as equal by Bagirov) 12... h6 13 ,ιe3 0-014 ,ιd3 (ηοι fallίng for 14 ,ιxh6? ,ιxh6 15 W'xh6 b5;:) 14... ~h7 150-0 a616h3~717f4f5 18exf5,ιxf5 19 ,ιe2 ;t Po1ugaevsky-Belίavsky, USSR Ch 1975.

Α2)

There is ηο 10nger any need for Whίte Ιο p1ay 10 f3. Indeed, he may prefer Ιο p1ay thίs pawn to f4 ίη some variatίons. After 10 f3 B1ack has comfortab1y managed Ιο ho1d his own: 10...,ιe6 (also good Ίs 10...a6 11 :cl ,ιd7 12 b3 :c8 13 ,ιe2 b5 14 ο-ο b4 15 ~5 lt1xd5 16 cxdS 1Wb6+ 17 ~hl :fe8 =Pav10v-Sikora, Moscow 1977) 11 :cl 12 b3 (12 ,ιe2 a6 13 ~5 Wxa2 141t1xe7+ ~h8 15 lt1d5 ,ιΧd5 16cxdS :fc8170-0~718 :bl :c7 19 .tf4lt1e5 =Suba-Spίridonov, Baί1e Hercu1ane 1982) 12...a6?! (12...:fc8 is correct: 13 ,ιe2 J:ιab8 14 ~5 .xd2+ 15 ~xd2, Lutz-P.Sch1osser, Dresden 1995, 15 ...lt1xd5 16 exd5 .td7 17 :hdl ~ =) 13 ~5 .d8! (avoidίng the miserab1e endίng that arίses after 13....xd2+ 14 ~xd2 ,ιχdS 15 cxd5 :fc8 16 :xc8+ :xc8 17 g3 ~f8 18 ,ιh3 :c7 19 :Cl :xcl 20 ~xcl ~e8 21.tc8, R.Byme-GarciaPadron, Toπe­ molίnos 1977) 14 lt1xf6+ ,ιΧf6 15 ,ιΧf6 exf6 16 J:ιdl b5 17 cxb5 axb5 18 .txb5 .b6 19 .ta4 :fc8 20 :fl f5 and B1ack has actίve play for the sacrificed pawn, Dvoirys-Pigusov, Sochi 1983. lO....te6 The altematίves are ηο better: 1) 10....td7 11 0-0 a6 12 :fel :b8 (12 ...,ιc6 13 :acl e6? 14 b4 b6 15 :edl .e7 16 .f4 is also bad for Black, Petrosίan-Beliavsky, USSR Ch

10,ιd3

8,ιρ1 (D)

Β

.aS

Thίs

move guarantees Whίte some

adνantage.

8...,ιg7 , .d2 0-0 Α sane move. There is

00 advantage back οη thίs: 9...,ιe6 10 :Cl (and not 10 ,ιd3?! h6 11 ,ιf4 g5 12.ιe3 lt1g4 ;: Szymczak-Georgadze, Lublίn 1976) 10...:c8 (10....aS 11 ,ιd30-0 120-0:fc813 b3a614:fel b5 15 lίXιS .xd2 16 ,ιΧd2 ,ιχdS 17 exd5 is the type of miserab1e endgame that B1ack must strive to avoid, Geller-L.Garcia, Bogota 1978) 11 b3 .a5 (unsound is 11 ... b5?! 12 ,ιΧf6 ,ιχί6 131t1xb5.b6 14 ,ιe2 .c5 15 :c2 0-0 16 ο-ο a6 17 ~3 ± KarpovGurgenίdze, USSR Spartakίad (Rίga) 1975) 12 f3 (12 ,ιd3?! h6 13 ,ιe3 ίη ho1dίng

140

Accelerαted

(Ereνan) 1975) 13 ΙΑΙS ~xd5 14 exd5 f6 15 .t.f4 ± Κhasin-Makarov, Νονο­ sibίrsk 1976. 2) 10...a5 11 0-0 a4?! (11 ....t.e6!?) 12 :acl.t.e6 (12 .....a5 13 ΙΑΙS ~d5 14 "xas:xaS 15 cxd5 e6 16.t.e7 :eg 17 .t.xd6 exd5 18 .t.b4 ;Ι; - analysis by Csom) 13 "c2! ;Ι; Portίsch-Reshev­ sky, Petropolis ΙΖ 1973.

l1:cl Νυηη

feels that 11 ο-ο is White's most accurate move since 11 .....a5 would now be met by 12 1Ωd5. After 110-0, Psakhίs-Κagan, Tel-Aviv 1992 continued 11 ...:C8 (11 ...a6 12 Lel :e8 13 ΙΑΙS .t.xd5 14 exd5 "d7 15 f4 e6 16 dxe6 :xe6? 17 f5 :xel 18 "xel! ~g4 19 ~4 ~5 20 .t.e4 ± Richardson-Baumbach, con) 12 b3 a6 13 :acl ~7 (Νυηο mentions the poυίbίliιy of 13...:e8!? with the idea of meeting 14 f4 { 14
11.....85 In Morgado-Baυιnbach, corr 1984-9, Black tried 11 ...a6!? but after 12 ο-ο :e8 13 ΙΑΙS!? .t.xd5?! (l3 ...~d5 ;1;) 14 cxd5 1Ωd7 (14...:C8 15 :xc8 "xc8 16:c 1 "d7 17 "c2 gίves White command of the c-file) 15 b4! :c8 16 :xc8 "xc8 17 :cl "b8 18 .t.e2, Black underwent hίs usual sufferίng.

120-0 86 13 b3 :fcS 14 :tel 14 :c2!? ΊS also possible.

Dragons 14.••
The immedί­ ate 14...b5 is met by 15 ~. 1584Ι Κilling Black's counterplay. ever, Whίte can probably get

Howsome advantage even if he allows Black's queenside pawn advance: 15:C2 b5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 :ecl b4 18 ~b5 :Xc2 19 :xc2 J.d7 20 ~c7! ;Ι; Polugaevsky-Jansa, Sochί 1974. The untrίed 15 f4!? can also be considered.

15•••:8b8 16 :c2 'ifb4 18 "cl .t.xc3

~ιB

17 :bl

Otherwίse J.d2 would follow.

19 hc3 b5 20 axb5 axb5 21 J.d2 bxc422 bxc4 22 :xc4? J.xc4 23 .t.xb4 .t.xd3 !. 22.....c5? Natural but bad. Better is 22.....a4 23 :b5 ~6 (the idea is ...1Ωd7-c5) 24 .t.h6+
6•••d6 (D) Α subtle move that forces White to choose between 7 J.e2, 7 f3 (ίη order to keep the black knίght ουΙ of g4) or a retreat of the central d4-knίght. ΑΙΙ these moves have dίsadvantages: 7 f3 prevents White from utilizing aggressive plans based οη f2-f4-f5. 7 J.e2 stops White placing hίs bishop οη d3. Α knίght retreat wastes time and places the horse οη a less active post. White can now defend the g4square ίη two ways:

Maτoczy ΒίΜ: Gurgenίdze

System

141

.*.h6 2611d4 e3 27 .*.aS! e2 28 llel .*.g7 (28...lIxd5 29 .*.xd8 IIxd4 30 .*.f6+ .*.g7 31 .*.xd4 .*.xd4 32 IIxe2 doesn't give Black any real chances) 29 IIc411xd5 30 .*.xd8 IIxd8 3111xe2 IIdl + 32 ciιh2 IId7 33 IIc8+ ciιh7 34 f3 h4 35 IIce8 .*.f6 36 (4 IIdl 37 lIel 1Id2 38 118e2 1/1-1/2. 7 lΩxc6 needs more tests!

w

Β1)

7 .*.e2 lΩxd4 8 Wxd4 .*.g7 (D) ΒΙ:

7.*.e2

Β2: 7Ο

141 182

Other moves such as 7 lΩb3 or 7 transpose into lines foυnd ίη Chapter 9, while 7 .*.e3?! ~g4! is fine for Black: 8 ~xc6 ~xe3 9 ~xd8 ~xdl 10 IIxdl ciιxd8 11 e5 .*.g7 12 exd6 .*.xc3+ 13 bxc3 .*.e6 = Silman. 7 lΩxc6 bxc6 8 c5 is unexplored. Gray-Donnel1y, corr 1992-3 saw interestίng complicatίon aήse after 8....*.g7 (after 8...d5 9 exd5, 9...cxd5?? 10 .*.b5+ is jυst what White was hoping for, but 9 ...lΩxd5 10 lΩxd5 Wxd5 11 "xd5 cxd5 12 .*.b5+ .*.d7 looks possible) 9 cxd6 0-0 (9 ...exd6 10 .*.ί4 0-0 11 .*.xd6l1e8 12 e5lΩg4 13 f4leaves the onus οη Black to find compensation ίor the pawn) 10 dxe7 Wxe7 11 "c2 (11 .*.d3 lDd5! 12 .*.d2lΩb4 13 We2 IId8 14 .*.bl .*.a6 gives more than enough play for the pawn) 1l ...~xe4 12 ~xe4 {5 13 .*.c4+ ciιh8 14 ο-ο fxe4 15 .*.e3 .*.f5 16 lIac 1 Ilab8 17 b3 c5 18 IIfdl IIfd8 19.*.d5 IIbc8 20 .*.xc5 "g5 21 "d2 (21 "e2 IIxd5!; 21 .*.e3 IIxc2 22 .*.xg5 IIxcl 23 .*.xcl .*.e6) 21 ...Wxd2 22 IIxd2 IId7 23 h31lcd8 2411cdl h5! 25.*.b4

w

lΩc2

Here we have another important fork ίη the road. White must decide what his scheme οί development WΊlI be. He can choose between .*.g5 + We3, .*.g5 + Wd2, .*.e3 + "d2, We3 + .*.d2 and Wd3 + .*.e3. Specifically: ΒΙ.: 9.*.15 141 Blb: 9.*.e3 160 Blc: 9 0-0 170 9 .*.d2 ο-ο 10 "e3, delaying castling, is discussed in Blc.

B1a) 9.*.gS

142

Accelerated Dragons

Thίs Ίs White's most aggressive setup. The bishop οη g5 puts more pressure οη Black's position than .*.d2 or .*.e3. However, there is a slίghtly negative side Ιο the move. The bishop οη g5, especially ίη conjunction with "d2, can be a target. Black can try for ... b5, planning ideas lίke ...:xc3 and ... .!L!xe4. 9...0·0 (D) Holdίng back οη castling is ΩΟΙ a good idea: 9 ....*.e6 10 :cl "a5 11 "d2 :c8? 12 f3! .*.xc4 (now it's Ιοο late Ιο castle since 12... 0-0 13 .!L!d5 is strong for White) 13 Ibds! "xa2 14 0-0 .!L!xd5 15 :xc4! :xc4 16 "xd5 :a4 17 .*.b5+
=

:ddl .!L!a6 25 e5 d5 with equality, UhImann-Andersson, Hastings 197112) 17.....xd218 .*.xd2 .*.b219 :cel'ίX5 20 .*.e3 .*.xd5 21 exd5 b6 22 .*.dl .*.c3 23 :e2 :c7 24 .*.c2 :b8 25 .*.xc5 bxc5 Karasev-Tal, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1971. 2) 13 :acl "a5 14 f4 :ac8 15 b3 a6 16 f5 .*.d7 17 h3 (17 c5 .*.b5 is unclear, Vera-Marasescu, Tιmisoara 1982) 17....*.c6 18 .*.d3.!L!d7 19.!L!d5 "xd2 20 ~xd2 :fe8 21 .*.bl .*.d4+ 22
=

=

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

after 9 .tg5 ο-ο 1Ο 'it'd2 .te6 11 :z.c 1 'iVaS 12 f3 :z.fc8 13 b3 a6. Το summarize: 9 ...'it'aS is a good choice if you want Ιο side-step systems with .tg5 and 'it'e3 but note ίι precludes lίnes based οη an early ...a6 and ...b5.

Gurgenidze System

143

2) Whίte goes for kίngside play with qώck castling and f2-f4-f5. 3) Whίte seeks central play with ideas lίke .txf6 and .ιxt5, or :z.adl and trίcks WΊth e4-e5.

81818) 10•••.te6 (D)

w

Now White must decide between: Blal: 10"-cU 143 ΒΙ&2: 10"-e3 156

ll:Cl rook move is almost certaίnly best. However, 11 0-0 is also commonly seen (though White loses hίs chances for a better endgame by playίng ίη thίs manner). Black has: 1) 11 ...:c8 12 b3 (12 :001 "-aS {12....txc4? 13 e5 lί)e8 14 .txc4 :xc4 15 'it'e2 :c7 16 exd6lί)xd6 17 .ιxt5 is very strong for White} 13 b3 a6 14 lί)d5 'it'xd2 15 lί)xe7+ Φh8 16 .txd2 :ce8 17 .tb4 :z.xe7 18 .txd6 :ee8 19 e5 lί)g4 20 .txf8 :xf8 21 .tf3 :b8 22 h3lί)xe5 23 .txb7 aS 24 .tdS ±].Polgar-Dzindzichashvili, New York 1992) and now: la) 12... b5?! meets with a refutaιίοη: 13 e5! (13 cxb5 :z.xc3 14 "-xc3 lί)xe4 15 "-e3lί)xg5 16 'W'xg5 .txal 17 :xal d5 {17 ... "-aS!?} gίves Black an Thίs

8181) 10"-cU The most common. Black can now play the usual plan with 10....te6 followed by l1 ..."-aS or he can play for a pawn sacήfίce WΊth 10...a6. Blala: 10•••.te6 143 Blalb: 10•••a6 155 The following mateήal can easίly feel overwhelming as transpositions abound. Το get a gήp οη thίngs, it's useful to keep White's plans ίn mind: 1) White plays for a favourable endίng by not castling, playίng a qώck :cl and later throwίng ίη a well-timed

lDa4.

144

Accelerated

excellent game, Brodsky-Tiviakov, USSRjr Ch (Κherson) 1991) 13 ...b4? (Black has to play 13 ...dxe5, though 14 Wxd8 followed by ~xb5 is very much in White's favour) 14 exf6 bxc3 15 'if'xc3 exf6 16 J.e3 f5 17 J.d4 J.xd4 18 'if'xd4 and Black's positίon is very bad, Uhlmann-Balogh, Budapest 1990. lb) Betteris 12 ... a613':'acl b514 J.xf6 J.xf6 15 cxb5 axb5 16 ~xb5 "b6 17 ~a3 ':'c5 18 ':'xc5 "xc5 19 ι'ίΧ4 J.g5 20 'if'c3 f5 21 exf5 J.xf5 22 b4 "c7 23 Wb3 J.e6 24 b5 d5 25 ~3 "e5 26 "d3, Chίburdanidze-Gufeld, Kuala Lumpur 1994, 26 ... d4 27 ltk4 "xb5 28 'if'xd4 ':'c8 29 ~6 "d7 = (Gufeld). 2) 11 .....a5 121:.adl (12 .J:.abl 1:.fc8 13 b4 "d8 14 J.xf6 J.xf6 15 ~5 J.xd5 16 exd5 a5 17 a3 αΜ 18 υΜ "b6 19 ':'fdl.J:.a3 20 'if'f4 Φg7 21 c5 dxc5 22 d6 e6 23 d7 ± E.GellerZsu.Polgar, Arυba 1992) 12 ...':'fc8 13 b3 a614J.xf6J.xf615 ~ 'if'xd216 ~xf6+ Φg7 17 ~h5+ gxh5 18 ':'xd2 ':'c5 19 f4 f6 20 ':'el (20 a4 a5 21':'0 ':'g8 22 f5 J.il = Prί~- Trauth, Cannes 1992) 20...1:.87 21 e5 dxe5 22 J.xh5 b5 23 cxb5 axb5 24 fxe5 ':'xe5 25 ':'xe5 fxe5 26 J.O ;t Reeh-Vatter, Bundesliga 1993/4. 3) 11 ... a6 is a clever move-order for Black. ΒΥ dispensing with .....a5 and aiming for a quick ... b5, he heads for the gambit play ofB lalb (10... a6), but with the important distίnctίon of Whίte being committed Ιο early castling. After 11 ... a6 (D) Whίte has tried: 3a) 12.J:.acl b5! 13 cxb5 axb5 takes advantage of the loosely guarded e4pawn. So far, Whίte has ηοΙ been able Ιο demonstrate any real advantage:

Drαgons

w

3al) 14 a3 ':'b8 (Andres claims that Black can also eventually equalize with 14.....a5 15 J.xb5 ~xe4 16 ~xe4 "xb5 17 J.xe7 ':'fb8!, but this has yet 10 be proven ίη practίce) 15 b4 "d7 16 ':'fdl ':'fc8 17 e5 ~8 18 ~ J.xd5 19 ':'xc8 "xc8 20 "xd5 e621 "d4 J.xe5 22 "a7 J.b2 23 h4 "b7 24 "a5 d5 25 J.f4 e5 and Black went οη Ιο win in Κlinger-Brendel, Bem 1988. 3a2) 14 J.xb5 J.xa2 15 .tc6 ':'a6 16 ~xa2 ':'xa2 17 e5 (or 17 ':'c2 "b8 with equality, Ortega-Andres, Holguin 1984) 17... dxe5 18 'if'xd8 ':'xd8 19 b4 h6 20 J.e3 (20 .txf6 exf6 is a comfortable draw for Black: 21 b5 ':'b2 22 ':'bl ':'xbl 23 ':'xbl .tf8 24 b6 .td6 25 g3 Φf8 26 ':'al ':'b8 27 b7 Φe7 with a firm blockade οη b8) 20 ... ~d5 21 ':'fdl e6 22 b5 .tf6! 23 .txh6 (also drawn is 23 b6 ~xe3 24 ':'xd8+ J.xd8 25 b7 ':'b2 26 fxe3 Φg7 27 J.e4 J.e7 28 ':'c8 .td6 29 ':'d8 J.c7 30 ':'d7 .tb8 and White can't improve since Black threatens ... ':'b4 followed by ... e4) 23 ... Φh7 24 J.xd5 (24 J.e3 ~xe3 25 fxe3':'xdl+26.J:.xdl ':'b2=) 24 ....J:.xd5 25 .te3 ':'xdl + 26 ':'xdl ':'b2 27 g4 (27 b6 .td8!) 27 ... ':'xb5 28 g5 J.g7 112-1/2 Shirov-Brendel, Bundesliga 1995/6.

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Black can't do anything after 29 :d7 30 :d8+ ~h7 31 :d7 =. 3b) 12 f3 "a5 and now: 3bl) 13 :fdl :fc8 14 ~5 "xd2 15 :xd2 J.xd5 (15 ...lDxd5? 16 exd5 J.d717 J.xe7 J.h618:adl! J.xd219 :xd2 :es 20 J.xd6 ± Βήtton-Donald­ son, Rhodes 1980) 16 cxd5 ciιf8 with a νery slight plυs for White. Νυηη pυts things ίηto perspectίνe: 'Ίη general these endίngs with an open c-file are νery drawish υnless Black has weakcned his qυeenside by playing ... b7b5, which both allows a4 and gives White an entry ροίηι at c6." 3b2) 13lίXι5"xd214lDxe7+~h8 15 J.xd2 :te8 16lίXι5lDxd5 17 cxd5 J.xd5 18 J.c3 1/2_lh Short-Andersson, Νονί Sad OL 1990. This little game is instrυctίνe becaυse ίι demonstrates a usefυl tactίcal idea for Black. 3c) 12 b3 (D) can be met by: ~B8

3cl) 12.....a513 :acl (13:adl b5 14 J.xf6 was agreed drawn ίη Κram­ nik-Anand, Moscow rpd 1994 due Ιο 14 ... J.xf6 15 lDd5 "xd2 16 lDxf6+, when both 16 ...exf6 17 :xd2 bxc4 18 J.xc4J.xc419bxc4:tc8and 16...~g7 17lDh5+ μΜ 18 :Xd2 bxc4 19 bxc4

Gurgenid1.e System

145

:fc8 giνe Black fυlly eqυal play) 13...b5 14lDd5 "xd2 15lDxe7+ ~h8 16 J.xd2 :fe8 17 lDd5 J.xd5 (Black is also fine after 17...lDxd5 18 cxd5 J.xd5 19 J.xb5 axb5 20 exd5 :xa2) 18 cxd5lDxe4 19 J.a5lDc3 20 J.g4 lDe2+ 21 J.xe2 :xe2 = Κaminskί­ Bosch, Groningen 1993. 3c2) A1s0 qυite reasonable is 12...b5 13 e5 (13 cxb5 axb5 14 J.xb5 "a5 followed by ...:fc8 giνes Black excellent coυnterplay) 13 ...dxe5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 "xd8 :fxd8 16 J.xb5 h6 17 J.e3lDg4 18 J.c5 :dc8 19 b4 e4 20 :acl J.xc3 21 :xc3 :xa2 22 :fcl lDf6 23 J.c4 J.xc4 24 :xc4 lDd5 25 :xe4 lDxb4 26 :xb4 :xc5 = Κeke­ lidge-Tυmer, Vejen jr Ech 1993. 3d) 12 J.d3lDd7 13lDd5 J.xd5 14 exd5 J.f6 15 J.e3?! (Piket prefers 15 h4!?; υseless is 15 :fel e5!, while 15 J.xf6 exf6! is also fine for Black) 15 ...1Dc5 16 J.e2?! (already ;) 16... a5 17 :abl Wb6 18 :fcl Wb4 19 "dl :a6 (19 ...:fc8 is better - Piket) 20 J.d3lDxd3 21 "xd3 a4 22 b3 axb3 23 :xb3 "a5 24 :xb7 "xa2 25 g3 :c8 26 ~B2 h5 27 h4 :a3 28 "c2 "xc2 29 :xc2 :d3 30 :c 1 ~f8 31 J.h6+ ~B8 32 J.e3 Ih-1h J.Polgar-Iνanchυk, Sicilian theme, Bυenos Aίres 1994. 3e) 12 :adl "a5 (12 ... b5 13 e5 dxe5 14 "xd8 :fxd8 15 :xd8+ :xd8 16 cxb5 axb5 17 J.xb5 shoυld be better for White - Νυηη) 13 J.xf6 J.xf6 (13 ...exf6 14 "xd6 f5 is an υntήed sυggestίon ofNυnn's) 14lDd5 "xd2 (14 .....xa2? 15 lDxf6+ exf6 16 "c3 "a4 17 :xd6 :ac8 18 b3 "a3 19 :fdl :c7 20 h4 ~g7 21 h5 gxh5? 22 :xe6 1-0 Tiνiakoν-Polak, Oakham 1992) 15lDxf6+ ~B7 (οι 15 ...exf6 16 :xd2 b5 17 cxb5 axb5 18 a3 b4 19

146

Accelerαted Drαgons

axb4 :a4 20 b5 :xe4 21 ~f3 :b4 22 ~c6:d8 23 :fdl Wf8 24 :xd6 :xd6 25 :xd6 :xb2 with a draw imminent - analysis by Donaldson) 16 lΩh5+ gxh5 17 :xd2 :fc8 18 b3 h4 transposes ίηΙο the two Alterman games (see the next variation with 12 :fdl). 3!) 12 :fdl Wa5 13 b l (13 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 14 ιtJd5 Wxd2 15 ιtJxf6+ <ίzg7 {15 ...exf6 16 :xd2 :fc8 17 :xd6 .i.xc4 18 .i.f3 <ίzg7 19 e5 fxe5 20 b3 .i.b5 21.i.xb7 :d8 22 :adl :xd623 :xd6 gave White a small but lasting edge ίη de Firmian-Finegold, USA Ch (Key West) 1994} 16lΩh5+ gxh5 17 :xd2 :Cc8 18 b3 and now both 18 ...h4 and 18...b5 appear fine for Black) 13...:tc8 14.i.xf6 .i.xf615 ιtJds .xd2 16 lΩxf6+ and now both captures

:b4 22 Wf2 :ab8 23 :d8+ :xd8 24 :xd8+ Wg7 25 :d2 :a4 Νυηη­ Petursson, Reykjavik ιι 1990) 18 ... f5! 19 f3 fxe4 20 fxe4 <ίzf8 21 cxb5 :xc2 22 :xc2 axb5 23 a3 b4! 24 axb4 :a4 25 Wf2 :xb4 and Black drew comfortably in Sιangl-Sandor, Bundesliga 1993/4. 11••••aS Black can also play more actively with 11 ...a6 (D), when White can try:

=

w

equalίze:

3Π) 16... <ίzg7 17lΩh5+ gxh5 (thίs position, and ones like ίΙ, are fine for Black; the h-pawn is hard to attack and there is clear queenside play) 18:Xd2 h4! (also playable is 18 ...b5 19 :dc2 h4 20 f4 f5 21 cxb5 :xc2 22 :xc2 axb5 23 .i.xb5 :xa2 24 exf5 .i.xf5 Biolek-Michenka, Ostrava 1993) 19 b3 (19 :dc2 a5! 20 f4 f5 21 ~f3 :C7 =Shmuter-Alterman, Rίshon-le-Zion 1994) 19...:c5 20 f4 :ac8 21 :η f5 =Hamdouchi-Alterman, Cap d' Agde 1994. Α later capture οη e4 mixed with ... b7-b5 will give Black a passed d-pawn. 3f2) 16...exf6 17 :Xd2 b5! (strong and necessary; note that lines where Black plays ... exf6 almost always requίre an ίmmediate follow-up with ...b5, since Black needs very concrete play to compensate for his structural weaknesses) 18 :dc2 (18 :xd6 bxc4 19 f4 :d8 20 :cdl :db8 21 :ld2

=

1) 12 f3 b5 13 cxb5 axb5 14 a3 (harmless is 14 b4 d5 15.i.xf6.i.xf6 16 exd5 .i.xc3 17 :xc3 Wxd5 18 Wxd5 .i.xd5 19 a3 :fc8 20 :Xc8+ :xc8 21 Wd2 :a8 22 :al .i.c6 23 :cl .i.d7 24 :c7 .i.e6 25 :c3 Hellers-Piket, Thessaloniki OL 1988) 14...lίXι7! (this knight quickly heads for the hole οη b3; also possible is 14...d5!? 15 .i.xb5 d4 16lίXιl Wb6 17 ~c4 :fd8 180-0 :ab8 19 ~f4 :b7 20 .i.xe6 Wxe6 21 ιtJf2 d3 22 .i.c7 :d7 23.i.a5 h5 112-1/2 Berndt-Naumann, 2nd Bundesliga 1995) and now: la) 15 b4 :xa3 16 ιtJxb5 :a2 17 .e3 h6 18 .i.h4 g5 19.i.f2 Wb8 20 ο-ο :c8 21 h4 .i.f6 23 :xc8+ .xc8 24 .i.d3 ιtJe5 and Black had the better

=

Maroczy positίon ίη

ΒίΜ:

Topalov-Antunes, Candas 1992. lb) The real test of Black's plan comes about after 15 .t.xb5 lQc5 16 ':dl.a5 17 .t.e2 fΔb3 18 .e3. Now Donaldsongίves 18...fΔd4190-0.t.b3 20 ':d2 fΔc2 21 ':xc2 .t.xc2 22 ':c Ι! .t.b3 23 .t.xe7 with advantage for Whίte, but Black should play instead 18 ....t.xc3+! 19 bxc3 f6 20 .t.h6 ':fc8, when he will regaίn the pawn with an excellent positίon. 2) 12 b3! is Whίte's best reply, forcing Black Ιο retum Ιο the maίn column with 12....aS 13 f3 ':fc8. Note that whίle Whίte can stop the ... a6 and ...b5 plan, Black should really consider the 10... a6 move-order for a couple of reasons. Fίrstly: Whίte has Ιο walk a very naπow move-order tίghtrope to stop ίι (11 ':cl .t.e6 12 b3). Secondly: by doing so, Whίte forces 12....aS 13 f3 ':fc8 butnow he has 10st the dangerous possibilίty of castling short and playing f2-f4-f5 without tempo 10ss. Instead of 12....aS, Black can try ιο sharpen thίngs υρ with two other moves, but neither appears to give Black a sure road ιο equalίty: 2a) 12... ':c8 and now: 2al) 13 ο-ο b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 .t.xf6 (15 .t.xb5 .aS 16 fΔd5! {16 .t.d3 :Xc3 17 ':xc3 fΔxe4! is good for Black} 16....xb5 17 fΔxe7+ Φh8 18 .t.xf6 .t.xf6 19 fΔxc8 ':xc8 20 :Xc8+ .t.xc8 21 .xd6 Φg7 22 .d2! ;t) 15 ....t.xf6 16 fΔxb5 Wb6 17 b4 (17 1i'b4 dS! gίves Black play, as does 17 • e3.xe3 18 fxe3 .t.g5 19 Φf2 ':xcl 20 ':xcl f5! 21 e5 f4 22 exd6 fxe3+ 23 ΦeΙ exd6 24 fΔxd6, Emst-Bem, Gausdal 1993, and now 24 ....t.e7! 25

Gurgenidze System

147

.t.c4 .t.xc4 26 fΔxc4 .t.b4+ 27 Φe2 :f2+ 28 Φχe3 ':xa2 gives compensatίoη) 17 ....b7 18 a4.xe4 19 fΔc7 ':b8 20 fΔxe6 fxe6 21.J:r.c4 .dS 22.c2 ± Gufeld-Κonguvel, Calcutta 1994. 2a2) 13 f3 is also good, transposίng ιο sectίon Blalb. 2b) 12...b5 13 cxb5 axb5 14.t.xb5 .aS (Ο) and then:

w

2bl) 15 .t.d3 ':fc8 160-0 ':xc3 17 ':xc3 fΔxe4 18 .t.xe4 .t.xc3 19.e3 ':a7 20 .t.bl dS 21 .g3 ':d7 22 h4 .t.b4 23 hS d4:j: Formanek-Rίnd, Lone Pίne 1979. 2b2) 15 ο-ο ':ac8 (also fίne is 15 ...':fc8 16 a4.t.xb3 17 .d3 .t.c418 J.xc4 .xg5 19 .t.b5 .e5 20 fΔd5 fΔxd5 21 exd5 ':c3 1/2-1/2 Tseshkovsky-Pίgusov, Podolsk 1990) 16 J.d3 ':xc3 17 ':xc3 fΔxe4 18 .t.xe4 .t.xc3 19 .e3 d5 20 J.xe7 dxe4 21 .t.xf8 ΦΧf8 22 .xe4 .xa2 23 .e3 .xb3 24 ':cl.t.f6 and Black's two bishops give hίm excellent chances to WΊη the game, Lukov-Brendel, Κroιnbach 1991 . 2b3) 15 .t.c6! (thίs is the refutatίon) 15 ...':a6 16 fΔa4! (16 .t.xf6? .t.xf6 17 J.a4 ':c8 0-1 Hararί-Brendel, Dortmund 1993) 16... ':c8 17 .xa5 ':xa5

148

Accelerαted Drαgons

18 .a.d2 (18 .a.xf6 .a.xf6 19 ο-ο .a.g5 20 f4 .a.xf4 21 ':xf4 ':a6 22 ':Ο ':axc6 23 ':xc6 ':xc6 24 ':c3 ':a6 25 ':c7 Φf8 26 ΦΩ f5 27 Φe3 fxe4 28 ια:3 d5 29 Φd4 e3) 18 ... ':a6 19 .a.b5 ':xcl+ 20 .a.xcl':a5 21.a.d3 ~7 22 .a.d2 ':a8 23 .a.bl! (23 ο-ο? ~5 24 ll1xc5 dxc5 25 .a.bl c4) 23 ... ll1c5 24 ll1b6 ':a7 25 Φe2! f5 26 exf5 .a.xf5 27 b4! and White had a winning endgame ίη Serper-Dona1dson, Las Vegas 1997. This means that 11 ... a6 is still an excellent move. True, White can force the variation ίηΙο the main line of this section, but by choosing this moveorder, Black cuts down White's ορ­ tions and gives himself the chance Ιο play a strong ... b7-b5 ifWhite doesn't find the accurate 12 b3. Retuming Ιο the position after 11 .....a5 (D):

.a.g5! was the correct move) 12 ...:Cc8 (perhaps the most straightforward plan for Black is 12... a6 13 b3 b5 14 ll1d5 "xd2 15ll1xe7+ Φh8 16 .a.xd2 ll1xe4 {16...':fe8 17 ια:6 ll1xe4 18 .a.b4 .a.d7 19 cxb5 axb5 20 .a.xb5 ':xa2 21 ':fel h5 22 ':e2 ':xe2 23 .a.xe2 ~5 24 .a.b5ll1xb3 25 ':dl .a.f8 26 h3 Φg8 27 .a.xd6 .a.xc6 28 .a.xc6 ':d8 29 .a.a4 ':xd6 1/2-1/2 ShirovIvanchuk, Monaco Amber rpd 1997} 17 .a.a5 ':ae8 18 ~5 .a.xd5 19 cxd5 ια:3 20 .a.f3ll1e2+, and Black is a tiny bit better, Uhlmann-Marosi, Budapest 1981; the system with 12 ... a6 deserves more tests, but Ivanchuk's endorsement is a very good sign) 13 b3 a6 14 f4andnow: 1) 14.....d8 15 ':cdl! Φh8 16 f5 gxf517 exf5 .a.d7, Shirov-Panno, Buenos Aires 1993, and now Shirov ana1yses 18 .a.xf6 .a.xf6 19 ll1d5 .a.e5 20 "h6! "f8 21 "xf8+ ':xf8 22ll1xe7

±.

w

1213 system that has quite a few advocates is 12 ο-ο (12 b3 ':fc8 13 ο-ο a6 14 ':fel and now 14... Φf8! is equal; note that 14...b5? gives White the advantage after 15ll1d5 "xd2 16 .a.xd2 ll1xd5 17 exd5 .a.d7, Dutreeuw-Donaldson, Liechtenstein 1994, and now 18 Α

2) White is better after 14... b5 15 f5 b4 (after 15 ... .a.d7?, 16 e5 b4 17 exf6 bxc3 18 "xc3 "xc3 19 ':xc3 exf6 20 .a.f4 .a.xf5 21 .a.f3 ':a7 22 .a.xd6 ± is analysis by Uh1mann, whi1e Shirov gives 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 e5ll1g4 18 "f4ll1xe5 19l11d5 ':e8 20 ll1xe7+ ':xe7 21 .a.xe7 "xa2 22 ':Ω "xb3 23 .a.xd6, winning) 16 fxe6 bxc3 17 exf7+ though the game still remains complicated. Ιη Levy-Silman, Lone Pine 1975, Black managed Ιο turn ίι around after 17 ... Φf8 (17 ... Φh8 18 "e3 with the idea of e5 is winning; 17 ... Φχf7 18 ':xc3 Φg8 19 .a.f3 ':ab8 20 ':d3 "xd2 21 .a.xd2 ':c5 22 .a.e3 ± Uhlmann-Spiridonov, ~ίo 1977) 18 "f4 (cοπect is 18 "e3 ll1xe419 .a.xe7+ Φχe7 20 f8"+ ':xf8

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze System 21 "xe4+) 18 .....xa2 19 e5 dxe5 20 "xe5 "a3 21 ..tf3 :ab8 22 :al "xb3 23 :xa61Wb4 24 :c6 :Xc6 25 ..txc6 c2 26 c5 :c8 27 :el :c7 28 "e3 cl" 29 :xcl :Xc60-1. 3) Black's best is 14...:c5! (D), preparing to double rooks οη the c-file and also stopping f4-f5. Whίte has tried severa1 dίtJerent moves from thίs position:

w

3a) 15..tf3 (understandable, since wants to stop ...b5 and give his e-pawn extra protection; Black would love to be able to play ...:xg5 ίη a ρο­ sition where he could take twίce οη g5 - due Ιο thίs, Whίte usually keeps his queen οη d2 or e3) 15 ...:ac8 16 "e3 (or 16 :cdl b5 1700 "d8 18 cxb5 ..txd5 19 exd5 axb5 :j: Κaίszaurί-Spίri­ donov, Skara Echt 1980) 16...b5! 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5 ~7 19..td5 (worse is 19 lDd5 ..txd5 20 ..txd5 e6 with a clear advantage for Black, PsakhisPίgusov, USSR 1979) 19... bxc4 20 b4 "xb4 21 ..txe7 "a5 22 ..txe6 fxe6 23 ..txc5 lWxc5 24 "xc5 lDxc5 25 :c2 ~3 26 g3 ..txe5 27 a3 ..td4+ 28 ~B2 e5 1/2-1/2 Wojtkίewicz-Dona1d­ SOD, Hamburg rapid 1994. Whίte

149

3b) 15 ..td3 (thίs forcing move, playing for a quick f4-f5, makes a lot of sense but for some reason ίι has been abandoned) 15 ...b5 16 f5 bxc4 17 fxe6 cxd3 18 exf7+ ~xf7 19 ..te3 :c6 20 "xd3 :ac8 21 ..td2 "c5+ 22 ~hl, Orlov-Petrienko, Podolsk 1989, 22 .....e5 leads ιο a reasonable position for Black. 3c) 15 a3 "xa316..txf6..txf617 f5 gxf5 18 exf5 :xf5 19 :xf5 ..txf5 20 ~5 ..tg6 21 ΙOxf6+ exf6 is ίη Black's favour. D.Adla-L.Palacίos, Parana 1993 continued 22 b4 :e8 23 ..tf3 b6 24 h4 "d3 25 "f4 "e3+ 26 "xe3 :xe3 27 :al :b3 28 :xa6 :xb4 29 h5 ..tf5 and Whίte, who is begging for the ha1f-point, managed to get hίs wίsh in 48 moves. 3d) 15 "e3 :ac8 and now Whίte has tried two moves: 3d1) 16lDa4 :5c6 17 f5 ..td7 18 ~hl :e8 (Black intends Ιο occupy the e5-square by defending the e7-pawn WΊth 18...:e8 fol1owed by 19...:Cc8, .....tc6, ...~7 and ..1Oe5) 19 lDc3 :cc8 20 ..txf6 ..txf6 21lDd5 ..tc6 22 23 lDb6 :008 24 b5 ..td7 25 _b4 ..tg4 g5 26 :cdl "b2 27 h4 gxh4 28 lDxd7 and Black's flag fell ίη Korchnoi- Wojtkίewicz, Antwerp 1994. After 28 ...:xd7 he would have had an excellent position. 3d2) 16:bl"d817a4a518~h1 19 :bel :xg5!? (a positiona1 exchange sacrίtίce to get the e5-square) 20 fxg5 ~7 21 lDd5 ..te5 22 lDf4 ..txf4 23 :xf4 h6 24 h4lDe5 25 :ffl :c5 26 gxh6 ~h7 27 h5 "xh6 28 "xh6+ ~xh6 29 hxg6 ~xB6 30 :f4 lDc6 31 :h4 :g5 and Κruppa-Tivίa­ kov, St Petersburg 1993 was drawn ίη 58 moves. This sort of play isn't for

"xa2

"f8

150

Accelerated Dragons

everyone, which is why we advise side-steppίng this line with 10...a6 11 :cl -*.e6 or Ivanchuk's·12...a6 (after 10...-*.e6 11 :cl Wa5 120-0). One other idea is 12 -*.d3!1, though Whίte dίdn't get anything ίη Peng XΊaomίn-Alterm.an, Beijing 1995 after 12... a613 00 (130-0 b5 14 cxb5 axb515 -*.xb5 .i.xa2=) 13 ...•xa2! 14 .i.bl Wb3!1 (even strongeris 14...Wa4! 15 .i.xf6 {15 IΩb6 W'c6 16 IΩxa8 IΩxe4 17 .i.xe4 Wxe4+ +; 15 IΩxe7+ ~h8 16 0-0 :fe8 17 Wxd6 :ad8 18 .a3 .xa3 19 bxa3 h6 20 .i.xf6 -*.xf6 21 1Ωd5 .i.b2 ;} 15 ... -*.xf6 16 IΩb6 "b3 17lΩxa8 :xa8 180-0 .i.xc4;) 15 :c3 Wa4 16 lΩxe7+ ~h8 17 0-0 :fe8 181Ωf5! 1Ωxe4 19 -*.xe4 .i.xf5 20 .i.xb7 :ab8 21 -*.d5 -*.e6 (21 .....b4 22 -*.xf7 "xb2 =) 22 :a3 .b4 23 :xa6.xd2=. 12.••:tc8 Black must be careful Ιο avoid 12... a61 13 1Ωd5! "xa2 14 IΩxe7+ ~h8 15 1Ωd5 -*.xd5 16 cxd5 ± SubaSpίrίdonov, Bai1e Herculane 1982. 13b3 Harm.less is 1300 .d8 141Ωxf6+ exf6 15 -*.e3 f5 16 exf5 .i.xf5 17 ο-ο We7 18 -*.Ω :e8 with an equal positίoη, Tukmakov-Estevez, Leningrad ΙΖ 1973. 13•••a6 (D) Thίs positίon is very sίmίlar Ιο that arising ίη sectίon Β 1b4 except that White's dark-squared bishop is at g5 instead of e3. This small alteratίon gives Whίte the extra optίoη of .i.xe7 ίη some positίons, but ίι can also gίve Black tactίcal possibilitίes due to the somewhat loose positίon of the g5bishop. 14lΩa4

w

The modem choice and certaίnly the most annoying move. White has also trίed: 1) 140-0 (White's king wants Ιο be ίη the centre for the endgame! This fact renders 14 ο-ο quite harm.less) 14... b5 (14 ...J:ιab8 15 1Ωd5 Wxd2 16 -*.xd2lΩxd5 17 cxd5 -*.d4+ 18 ~hl -*.d7 19 :xc8+ :xc8 20 :cl :xcl+ 21 -*.xcl f5 22 g4 ~fΊ 23 -*.g5 b5 24 ~g2 e6 25 dxe6+ .i.xe6 26 gxf5 gxf5 27 -*.d3 ~g6 28 .i.f4 -*.e5 29 ~g3 ~f6 30 h4 h6 31 -*.e2 -*.d7 32 .i.d3 a5 33 exf5 b4 34 -*.xe5+ ~xe5 35 ~g4 d5 led to a VΊctory for Black ίη MannionDzindzichashVΊlί, Chicago 1992) 15 IΩd5 .xd2 16 .i.xd2 IΩxd5 17 cxd5 -*.d4+ 18 ~hl -*.d719 :xc8 :xc8 20 :cl :xcl 21 -*.xcl e6 22 dxe6 fxe6 23 g3 ~fΊ is level, Renet-Andersson, Clerm.οnt-Feπand 1989. 2) 14 a4 can be met by: 2a) 14.....d81! (passive) 15 g41Ωd7 16 h41Ωc5 17 -*.dl .f8 18 h5 h6 19 -*.e3 g5 20 a5 J:ιab8 21 00 -*.xd5 22 exd5 -*.b2 23 :c2 -*.e5 24 b4 with a clear advantage for Whίte, PanequeAndres, Manzanίllo 1989. 2b) 14...~f8 (agaίn passive) 15 h4 h5 16 -*.dl -*.d7 17 g4 b5 18 gxh5

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

gxh5 19 "'h6 ;t!± Kasparov-Merkulον, Tbilisi 1976. 2c) 14...lίXι7! deserves seήοus consideration, e.g. 15 "'xe7l&5 16"'dl b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 ~xb5 ~d3+ 0-1 Heπera-Andres, Cuba 1990. 2d) The annoying 14...Wb4 is an entirely adequate reply, when 15 lίXι5 ~xd5! 16 exd5 (and not 16 cxd5?? :xcl+) 16...Wxd2+ 17~xd2"'d718 "'xe7? runs into 18 ......h6+. 3) 14 ΙΑΙS Wxd2+ 15 ~xd2 ~xd5 (15 ...J.xd5 16 cxd5 ~f8 17 :xc8+ :xc8 18 :cl :xcl 19 ~xcl ~d7 20 "'e3 e6 21 dxe6 fxe6 22 ~c2 d5 ;t Geller-Browne, WΊjk aan Zee 1975) 16 cxd5 (also harmless is 16 exd5 "'d7 17 a4 {17 :cel e618 dxe6 "'xe6 19 :cl b5 20 "'f4, Kacheishvili-Suran, Mlada Boleslav 1994, 20... bxc4 21 bxc4:c6=} 17 ...e618dxe6"'xe619 "'e3 d5 20 cxd5 "'xd5 with equa1ity, Dolmatov-Lautier, CΙermont-Fenand 1989) 16......d7 17 :Xc8+ (going for the pawn ίη true computer-like fashίοη; the immediate 17 "'xe7??, οί course, loses the cl-rook to 17...J.h6+; while οη 17 h4, Black easily equalizes with 17...f6 18 J.e3 ί5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 g4 fxg4 21 fxg4 "'b2 22 :Xc8+ :xc8 23 :gl "'c3+ 24 ~dl a5 25 "'d3 a4 =) 17...:xc8 18 "'xe7 "'h6+ 19 ~el (D) has not been properly explored: 3a) 19...:cl+?, while tempting, isn't nearly as good as placing the rook οη the seventhrank (as in line '3c'): 20 "'dl :al (20 ......b5 21 J.xd6 "'e3 22 "'e5 ±; 20 ...... f4 21 g3 "'e5 22 ί4 "'c3+ 23 ~α "'g4 24 "'xg4 :xhl 25 "'xd6 :xh2+ 26 ~e3 ί5 27 exf5 h5 28 gxf5 29 "'c7 ~f7 30 d6 ~e6 31 "'xb7 ~d7 32 "'xa6 :xa2 33 "'b5+ ~c8 34 "'b6 ±) 21 a4 ί5 22 J.f6 :bl

"'f3

Gurgenidze System

151

Β

23 e5 dxe5 24 "'xe5 b5 25 a5 J.e3 26 ί4 g5 27 g3 gxf428 gxf4 J.e8 29 ~e2 J.h5+ 30 ~xe3 :xdl 31 :xdl J.xdl 32 b4 ± G.Horvath-Groszpeter, Zalaegerszeg 1991. 3b) 19 ...... f4? 20 g3 "'e5 21 ί4 :e8 22 fxe5 :xe7 23 exd6 :xe4 24 ~α ~ 25 :cl ±. 3c) 19 ...:c2! 20 "'xd6 (20 a3 ί5! 21 exf5 "'xf5 22 "'xd6 :cl+ 23 "'dl J.c2 24 ~e2 "'xb3 25 "'xb3 :xhl 26 "'e7 :bl {26...~} 27 d6+ :xb3 28 d7 :b2+ 29 ~el :d2 30 d8"+ :Xd8 =f:f.) and now 20...:Xa2 21 J.e5 :c2! (Silman) gives Black plenty οί compensati.on for the sacrificed pawn, while other 20th moves, such as 20......e3!? or 20......b5!? 21 "'xb5 :Cl + 22 ~e2 :Xhl (Black's rook is out οί play and the white d-pawn is dangerous), also deserve a seήous look. 4) 14 h4!? (D) is an interesting but little-used move οί Serper's, which gives the g5-square more support. 4a) Thus lines like 14...h5? 1500 "xd2+ 16 ~xd2 ~xd5 17 cxd5 "'d7 are ηο longer playable due to 18 J.xe7 J.h6+ 19 "'g5. 4b) Black's best reply has not yet become clear due to the scarcity οί

152

Accelerαted

Dragons

IΣa8 17 .i.b6 "f8 18 .i.e3 IΣab8 19 ~b6 1Σc7 20 0-0 ~7 21 00, Νυηη­ Β

examples, but Silman's suggestion of 14...~f8!?, defending the sensitive e7-pawn, makes a good deal of sense. Then after 15 h5 Black must avoid playίng 15... ~xh5?? 16 .i.xe7+! ~xe7 17 ~5+, picking υρ the poor queen. However, both 15 ... b5!? and 15 ...IΣc5 appear Ιο be fully νiable. 4c) 14...~!? (with the idea of meeting 15 .i.xe7 by 15...~B3 16 IΣgl "c5) 15 ~5 "xd2+ 16 ~xd2 .i.xd5 17 exd5 .i.e5, Serper-A.Iνanov, and Black intends Ιο meet 18 g4 with 18 ....i.f4+. 4d) 14... b5 15 ~5 "d8 16 ~f4 .i.d7 17 h5 ~xh5 18 ~xh5 gxh5 19 IΣxh5 IΣc5 20 1Σh4 bxc4 21 .i.xc4.i.e6 22 .i.e3 IΣc6 23 .i.d4 .i.xd4 24 "xd4 "a5+ 25 ~Ω "c5 26 "xc5 IΣxc5 27 IΣchl .i.xc4 28 IΣxh7 IΣac8 29 bxc4 IΣxc4 30 g4 IΣcl 31 IΣh8+ ~B7 32 IΣlh7+ ~f61ed Ιο a draw in 40 moves ίη the game Seιper-Perelshteyn, New YorkOpen 1996. 14.....xd2+ Almost automatic, but with the bishop οη g5 instead of e3 Black can also consider 14.....d8!?: 1) 15 .i.e3 promises White an edge according to Nunn: 15.. .lΣab8?! 16.i.a7

Blum, London 1979. 2) Also possible is 150-0 .i.d7 16 ~c3 b5 17 IΣfdl .i.e8 18 e5 dxe5 19 "xd8 IΣxd8 20 IΣxd8 IΣxd8 21 cxb5 axb5 22 ~xb5 h6 23 .i.e3 00 24.i.f2 ~f4 25 .i.c4 IΣd2 26 a4 .i.c6 27 ~f1 IΣb2 28 lDc3 e4! 29 ~xe4 ~h7 30 a5 f5 31 lDc3 e5 32 ~dl IΣd2 33 .i.e3 IΣxg2! 34 .i.xf4 .i.xf3 35 .i.e3 f4 36 .i.gl e4 37lDc3 IΣd2 38 .i.e2 .i.hl 39 a6 e3 40 a7 IΣb2 41 ~1 IΣxb3 42 IΣc7 IΣa3 43 h4 g5 44 .i.g4 h5 45 .i.f5+ ~h6 46 IΣe7 gxh4 47 ~e3 .i.f6 48 IΣh7+ ~B5 49 lDc2 IΣc3 50 .i.d4 IΣxc2! 51 .i.xc2 .i.xd4 and 0-1 ίη 61, Belίaνsky-Shabalov, Manίla OL 1992. This fantastic game should have been a big candidate for the best game pήze of the 01ympiad but wasn't even considered. 3) 15 c5!? IΣc6 (l5 ...~7 16 cxd6 IΣxcl+ 17 "xcl "a5+ 18 .i.d2;1;) 16 ~f2!"f8 17"b4 ~7 (17....i.h618 h4 IΣac8 19 cxd6 IΣxc120 dxe7"e8 21 IΣxcl IΣxcl 22 .txf6 ± is analysis by Hemandez) 18 cxd6 and now rather than 18 ...IΣxd6 19 "xb7 .i.d4+ 20 h3 IΣb8 21 "c7 ± Κrasenkov-Hernan­ dez, Palmade Mallorca 1989, Hemandez suggests 18 ... exd6!?, BίνiηB 19 "xb7 .i.d4+ 20 ~B3 ~f6!! 21 .i.xf6 (21 IΣxc6 ~h5+ 22 ~h4 f6 wins for Black) 21 ...IΣxc 1 22:Xc 1 .i.xf6 as unclear. 15 ~xd2lbd7! (D) This has tumed into the main line. The older 15...1Σc6 ηο 10nger has many followers: 16 ~c3 (Black equalized after 16 .i.e3 ~7 17 lDc3 IΣac8 18 ~5 .i.xd5 19 cxd5 .i.c3+ ίη Reshevsky-Browne, US Ch 1974; however,

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze System White has an excellent altemative ίη the space-gaining 16 h4, when Pigusov-Makarov, USSR 1982 continued 16...~ 17 j,e3~5 18lΔb6:d819 g4lΔg3 20 :hgllΔxe2 21 ~xe2 .i.b2 22 :cdl .i.a3 23 f4 ;t/±) 16...:ac8 (16 ...:cc8!? is a recommendation of ECO) 17t'Δd5 ;t Κarpov-Κavalek, Nice OL 1974.

w

16g4! White's sharpest line (he needs Ιο be able to coυnter Black's plan of ...f5 and ...dS). Other moves are: 1) 16h4f6(tooslowis 16...~f817 hS :c6 {17 ...h6 18 j,e3 g5 19 g3 :cb8 20 t'Δc3 b5 21 t'ΔdS!, PsakhisPigusov, USSR 1980} 18t'Δc3 :c5 19 .i.e3 :c7 20 lΔd5 .i.xd5 21 exd5 aS 22 g4t'Δc5 23 j,d3 ± Sarov-Stepanov, corr 1980-2) 17.i.e3 f5 with the possibilities: la) 18 exf5 gxf5 19 .i.d3 :ab8 (worse is 19...:c6 20 t'Δc3 ~f7 21 t'Δe2t'Δc5 22.i.bl %Σac8 23t'Δd4 .i.xd4 24 .i.xd4 aS 25 g4! fxg4 26 j,xh7 gxf3 27 hS :g8 28 j,xg8+ ~xg8 29 :cgl + ~h7 30 h6 1-0 Hellers-Helgason, Sweden 1988) 20 :hel ~f7 21t'Δc3lΔf6 22t'Δe2 j,d7 23t'Δd4 e6 24 :e2? (24

153

a4? d5! with the idea of 25 c5 j,f8 26 t'Δe2 e5 is better for Black according Ιο Petυrsson; best was 24 g3 .i.f8 =)

24... b5! 25:cel (25:g1 h5isslightly better for Black) 25 ...:e8 26 g3 .i.f8! and Black is better, Amason-Petυrs­ son, Icelandίc Ch 1990. lb) 18 .i.d3 :ab8 (threatening ...b5) 19t'Δc3 (19 hS b5 20 cxb5 :xcl 21 :Xcl axb5 22 t'Δc3 t'Δc5 112-112 SaxAndersson, Haninge 1990) 19...t'Δc5 20 lΔdS .i.xd5 21 cxdS fxe4 22 .i.xe4 lΔxe4+ 23 fxe4 = Nijboer-bu.Polgar, Groningen PCA qual1993. 2) 16 :c2 ~f8 (16...f6 17 .i.e3 f5 is the accυrate way for Black Ιο proceed) 17 :hcl f518 j,d3 ~ 19 .i.e3 %Σc6 20 t'Δc3t'Δc5 and Black has a reasonable position, though White ουΙ­ played his opponent after 21 lΩdS aS 22 exf5 .i.xf5 23 .i.xf5 gxf5 24 g4! fxg425 fxg4 ~e6 26:Cl .*.e5 27 j,xc5 :xc5 28 lΔf4+ ~f6 29 lΔd3 :c6 30 :e4 .i.xh2 31 ~dl .i.gl 32 :g2 .i.a7 33 :h2 :h8 34 :h6+ ~f7 35 :he6 :e8 36 lΔf4 j,b6 37 :h6 ~g7 38 g5 e5 39 ~5+ and 1-0 ίη 66, BrodskySandor, Berlin 1993. 16•••16 The slower 16...~?! doesn't have a very good reputation, though it's ηοΙ as bad as some players make ουΙ White must then choose between the following possibilities: 1) 17 h3 f618 .i.e3 f519 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 leadίng to a slight advantage for White. 2) 17 h4 :c6! (17...f6?! 18 .i.e3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 g5 d5 21 cxd5 j,xdS 22 :hdl ;t Wang Zili-Alterman, Beijing 1995) 18 j,e3 (18 :c2 t'Δc5 19 lΔc3 a5 20 lΔdS :e8 21 .i.e3 .i.c8 22 hS e6 23t'Δc3 f5 24 hxg6 hxg6 25 exf5

154

Accelerαted Drαgons

exf5 26 gxf5 J.xf5 27 :ccl, Averbakh-Popov, PolanicaZdroj 1976, and now Averbakh recommends 27 ...:c7 28 ~5:t7) 18... f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 g5 d5 21 cxd5 J.xd5 is equal according to Alterman. 3) 17 J.e3 :ab8 18 g5 f5 19 exf5 J.xf5 20 f4 b5 21 cxb5 axb5 22lOc3 1Oc5 23 J.xc5 :xc5 24 b4 :c6 25 J.d3 J.xd3 26 ~xd3 :c4 27 a3 :xf4 28 :hf1 :xf1 29 :xf1 + ~e8 30 :f4 J.xc3 31 ~xc3 :c8+ 32 ~b3 e5 33 :h4 :c7 34 a4 bxa4+ 35 ~xa4 :e7 36 :e4 d5 37 :el ~d7 and 0-1 ίη 42, Zso.Polgar-Leko, Budapest 1993. 16...:c6 is also possible, but very few players have taken it seriously: 17 h4 :e8 18 1Oc3 J.d4 19 lbd5 f6 20 J.f4 J.f7 21 g5 ~g7 22 J.e3 J.xe3+ 23 ~xe3 e6 24 lOxf6lOxf6 25 gxf6+ ~xf6 26 :hdl ~e7 27 f4 :ec8 28 :d2 b5 29 :cdl bxc4 30 J.xc4 J.e8 31 :gl :b6 32 f5 exf5 33 exf5 :c5 and Ih-Ih ίη 50, Emst-Τίviκον, Haninge 1992. 17 J.e3 Ι5 (D)

1Oc3 fxe4 21lOxe4 d5 22lOg5 J.g8 23 cxd5 J.xd5 24 :g3 :Xcl 25 ~cl ffi, Lau-Zsu.Polgar, New York 1985. 18.••g:xf5 19 h3

Black also gets adequate play after 19 g5 d5. 19•••:t8 Intending ...f5-f4, which gains control over the e5-square. Less convincing is 19...:c7 20 :hgl :f8 21 f4 1Oc5 221Oc3 fxg4 23 hxg4 b5 24 f5 b4 25lOdl J.c8 26lOf2 a5 27 J.d3 a428 J.c2 axb3 29 axb3 J.b7 30 lOd3 J.c3+ 31 ~e2 :a8 32 lOxc5 dxc5 33 :cdl J.c6 34 g5 :a2 35 :d8+ ~g7 36 ~d3 :xc2 37 f6+ exf6 38 gxf6+ ~xf6 39 :f1+ ~g7 40 ~xc2 and 1-0 ίη 62, Razuvaev-Mantovani, Reggio Emilia 1996Π.

2ΟΙ4

20 :hdl!? fxg4! (here 20...f4 is well met by 21 J.f2 d5 22 cxd5 J.xd5 23 ~el! hitting the bishop οη d5 for an important tempo; White has a better ending as Black has ΩΟ time to organize an attack οη f3 with ... lOe5) 21 fxg4 (21 hxg4lOe5 22 :f1 :t7 23 g5 24 f4lOg6 25 J.h5 J.d7 26lOb6 J.c6 with ...e5 ιο follow) 21 ...:ab8 22 1Oc3lOe5 =Liss-Donaldson, Port Εήη 1997. 2O••.:ad8! Αη improvement over 20 ... d5 21 cxd5 J.xd5 22 :hdl :ac8 23 gxf5 b5 24 :xc8 :xc8 25 ~e 1 J.c6 26 1Oc5 lOxc5 27 J.xc5 J.f6 28 b4 J.h4+ 29 ~d2 J.e4?! 30 ~e3 J.xf5?! 31 J.g4 :f8 32 :gl ~h8 33 J.xf5 :xf5 34 ~e4 :h5 35 J.d4+ and Black was ίη trouble ίη Belίavsky-Tiviakov, Groningen PCA qual1993.

:af8

w

18 e:xf5 After 18 gxf5, Black equalizes eas-

ily with 18...gxf5 19 :hgl ~h8 20

21ω

Two altematives:

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

a) 21 ~f3 fxg4 22 hxg4 d5 23 cxd5 24 ~e4 ~xd5 25 ~xh7+ Φf7 26:h5 ~xb3+ 27 Φe2 ~c4+ 28 ΦeΙ tDxg4 29 ~b6 :d5 30 :f5+ :xf5 31 ~xf5 ~e6 32 ~xe6+ Φχe6 33 tDc5+ Φf5 34lbd7 ΦΧf4 =F Riemersma-Van der Weide, Enschede 1996. b) 21 :hdl d5 (21 ... fxg4 22 hxg4 b5!? {Κinsman} 23 cxb5 axb5 24 tDc3 b4 25 ~:as 26 :C2lDf6! =) 22 cxd5 tDf6 23 lbb6 lbxd5?! (23 ... fxg4!) 24 lbxd5 ~xd5 25 ΦeΙ fxg4? (25 ... ~g2 ;1;) 26 :xd5! (26 hxg4 e6 =) 26 ...:xd5 27 ~c4 e6 28 ~xd5 exd5 29 hxg4 ~b2 30 :c2? (30 :dl ±) 30 ... d4 31 ~d2 ~c3 32 ~xc3 1/2-1/2 Lane-Dona1dson, Wrexham 1997. 21••.d5! 22 gxfS 22 cxd5lbf6 23 ~f3 fxg4! 24 hxg4 ~xg4 is a bit better for Black according to Am.Rodriguez. 22. •• ~xfS 22 ...:xf5!? 23 cxd5 (and not 23 ~g4 d4) 23 ...lbf6 is unclear according to Am.Rodήguez. 23 cxdS lbr6 24 ~b6 :d7 2S Φe3 :c8! The game is equa1. Am.Rodήguez­ Antunes, Matanzas Capablanca mem 1994 continued 26 ~f3 (26 ~c4 :d6 27 ~d4 b5 28 ~e2 :xc3+! is very strong for Black) 26 ... e6! 27 ~d4 exd5 28 :cgl :e8+ 29 Φd2lΔe4+ 30 ~xe4 dxe4 31 :xg7+ :xg7 32 ~xg7 :d8+ 33 Φe2 Φχg7 34lbdl :d3 35 lbe3 ~d7 36 :gl + Φf7 37 :g5 ~b5 38 :f5+ Φg6 39 :g5+ Φf7 40 :f5+ and now 40...Φg6 would have led to a draw.

Gurgenidze System

155

lΔe5!

B1a1b) 10...a6 (D)

This was once a highly recommended continuation, but a startling discovery by ΙΜ David Strauss has relegated the whole idea to the junkheap. Note that while some ideas behind 1O... a6 have not held up, it can still be used as a very useful move-order tool. 11 f3 Giving firm support to the e4-pawn. Other moves allow Black to lash out with ... b7-b5. Examples can be found ίη line '3' ίη the note to ii :cl ίη section Β lala (ί.e. II ο-ο a6) and (ίη the same section) in the note to 11 ...Wa5. 11••• ~e6 12 :cl Also interesting is 12... b5!?, a move that is examined (by transposition) ίη note 'Ι' to 1l ...Wa5 ίη section Blala. 13 b3 bS!? Αη idea οί Armenian GM Rafael Vaganian ίη place of the standard 13...Wa5. 14cxbS Tukmakov suggested 14 lbd5 ίη some Informator notes, and it was fina11y tested in the following interesting cοπeSΡοndence game: 14... ~xd5 15 exd5 bxc4 16 ~xc4 a5 170-0 Wb6+ 18ΦhΙ :c719:fel :b820:e2Φf8

:c8

Accelerαted

156

21 J:cel a4 22.th6 axb3 23 axb31Wb7 24 h4 :a8 25 g4 e5! 26 dxe6 "xf3+ 27 :g2 (27 ~gl d5 28 e7+ :xe7 29 :xe7 "xg4+ gives suf:ficient play according to Donnelly) 27 ...d5 28 e7+ :xe7 29 .txg7+ ~xg7 30 :xe7 dxc4 + Garside-Donnelly, cοπ 1989-90. 14".axb5 15lDxb5 Best. White has tried 15 ο-ο (15 .txb5? leaves the white amιy ίο danger) but hasn't got anything worthwhile: 15 ...b4 16 ΙΙΙb5 (16 ΙΙΙa4 17 .te3 ΙΙΙd7 18 :xc8 :xc8 19 :cl ΙΙΙC5 20 a3 "d8 21 ΙΙΙχc5 dxc5 22 axb4 cxb4 I/2_Ih Marciano-Mi.Pavlovit, Ubeda 1997) 16.....a5 17 .te3 ΙΙΙd7 18 ΙΙΙd4 ΙΙΙC5 19 J:[fd 1 :fd8 20 .tf1 .td7 21 .tc4 ΙΙΙC6 22 ΙΙΙe2 :c6 23 .td5 :xc 1 24 :xc 1 W'a3 25 :c2 :c8 26 :xc8+ .txc8 27 h3 .td7 28 .tc4 Ih-Ih Szekely-Tangbom, Budapest 1992. 15_.:xcl+ 16 "xcl "85+ 17"d2

"a5

"a5

Dragons

2) 20 ~f2 .ta4 21 :bl .txb5! (21 ...h6 22.td2 J:ιa8 23 ΙΙΙC7! :a724 ΙΙΙa6! gives White a slight advantage, Tukmakov-Vaganian, USSR 1984) 22 :xb5 :xa3 23 :b8+ .tf8 and now both 24 .txf6 and 24 .th6 ΙΙΙd7 are equal. 20•••.ta4 21 :bl .txb5 22 J:ιxb5 :xa3 23 :b8+ .trs 24 .th6 .ιιc:ι7 25 :d81hl+ 26 WD:&2 27 g4 Ι6 Now Mokry-Κallai, Trnava 1985 coocluded 28 ~e3 :c2 29 .td3 Ih-Ih. However, 1Μ David Strauss shattered this whole line with his discovery of 28 e5!! fxe5 (one very pretty Ροίηι is that 28 ... dxe5 29 .te3 forces the win of the black knight) 29 g5 and Black is doomed since 29...:a7 falls victim to 30.tc4+.

8182) 10"e3(D)

1h818a3 Also possible is 18 ΙΙΙC3!? h6 (the line 18 ...:c8 19 ΙΙΙa4 :cl+ 20.tdl "xd2+ 21 ~xd2 :al 22 ΙΙΙC3 h623 .te3 ~7 24 :gl! is also good for White - aoalysis by Νυηη) 19 .te3 ΙΙΙg4 20 .td4 .txd4 21 "xd4 :c8 22 ~d2 :xc3 23 "xc3 "xa2+ 24 ~el ΙΙΙC5 25 ~f2 "a7+ 26 "e3 (Black doesn't have enough compensation) 26 .....a2 27 "c3 "a7+ 28 ~g3 g5 29 h4 and 1-0 ίη 39, Frolov-Tangborn, Κobanya 1992. :xaS 20 0-0 18•••.txb3 19 The alternatives areo't nearly as good: 1) 20.td2 J:ιa8 21 ~f2 .ιιd7! 22 :cl ΙΙΙC5 23 .te3 .ta4 24 .txc5 dxc5 25 :xc5 .txb5 26 :xb5 .td4+ Ih-Ih A.Κuzmin-Zhachev, Moscow Ch 1988.

"xa5

Β

This became very popular a few years back, but oow it's lost some of its lustre. The idea is that the line-up with "e3 + .tg5 is more solid than "d2 + .tg5. White doesn't have to worry

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze System about fork tricks such as ...IΣxc3 followed by ...lbxe4.

10•••Ae6

10... a6 11 0-0 Ad7 12 IΣfdl IΣc8 13

h31Σe8 14lΣacl ;t Murey-Gelfer, TelΑνίν

1980.

110-0 Αη important altemative is 11 IΣcl

(D). Black can then play:

Β

1) 11 ...a6 120-0 b5!1 13 cxb5 axb5 14 a3! 1i'b81 (14...IΣa5!1 - Amason) 15 Axb51eft White a healthy pawn υρ ίη Amason-Petursson, Reykjavik (8) 1989. 2) 11 .....a5120-0IΣfe8(12 ...IΣfc8 13 b3 a6 14 f4 "'c5 15 "'xc5 :Xc5 16 Af3 IΣb8 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5 t'Δe8 19 Axe7 1Σxe5 20 .*.h4 ± Ciocaltea-Spiή­ donov, Timisoara 1982) 13 b3 ιαι7 14 Ah6 "'c5 15 "d2 "'d4 16lbb5! (16 "xd4 Axd4 17 IΣfdl Ac5 18 lbd5 Axd5 19 exd5 a5 20 Ad2 Ab4 is equal, Stang1-Espig, Dortmund 1991) 16......xd2 17 Axd21Σec8 18 Ae3 is;t according to Νuηη. 3) After 11 ...'8'b6! White has tried twomoves: 3a) 12 b3 "'xe3 13 Axe3 ιαι7 14 0-0 IΣfc8 (Black isn't ίη a rush to move

157

his a-pawn and give White access to the b6-square) 15 ιαι5 Wf8 16 f4 a5 (Black can safely play this move now that both e7 and b6 have been covered) Ι7 f5 Axd5 18 exd5 j,b2 19 IΣc2 Aa3 (an instructive manoeuvre: Black ίη­ tends to trade dark-squared bishops with ...Ac5, when White wou1d be left with one bad bishop versus an excelIentblackknight) 20Ah6+Wg8 21 h4 lbf6 22 h5 gxh5 23 1Σc3 Wh8 24 IΣh3 b5 25 Axh5 lbxh5 26 IΣxh5 bxc4 27 bxc4 Ab2 28 IΣh4 j,f6 29 IΣe4 IΣab8 30 g4 IΣb4 31 g5 Axg5 Ih-Ih Dolmatov-Tiviakov, Rostov-on-Don 1993. 3b) 12"d2~!(12..."'a5,ιrans­ posing into Blala, is also excellent) 13 f3lΣfc8 (13 ... Axc4 14 a3 1i'b3 15 Axc4 "xc4 16 lbdS 1i'b3 17 lbxe7+ Wh8 is unclear according to Petυrs­ son, though Νuηη claims an advantage for White after 18 0-0 ~ 19 IΣf2 IΣfe8 20 Axf6 Axf6 21lbdS "d4 22 IΣc7) 14 b3 a6 15 lba4 "xd2+ 16 Wxd2 ιαι7 (we have transposed into the same endgame that arose ίο Blala) 17 h4 f6 18 Ae3 fS 19 Ad3 (οι 19 hS bS Sax-Andersson, Haninge 1990) 19 ...:ab8 20 exfS gxfS 21 IΣhel Wf7 22 lbc3 lbf6 23 lbe2 Ad7 24 ιαι4 e6 25 IΣe21 (25 a41 d5! with the idea of 26 c5 Af8 27 t'Δe2 e5 is better for Black according to Petursson; best is 25 g3 Af8 =) 25 ...b5! 26 IΣcel (26 IΣgl h5 ~) 26 ... IΣe8 27 g3 Af8! and Black was better ίη Amason-Petursson, Icelandic Ch 1990. 11•••1ib6 (D) The altemative is 11 ......a5 12 IΣacl (White gets nothing from either 12 a3 IΣfc8 13lbd5 Axd5 14 exd5 "c5 15 IΣacl "xe3 16 Axe3 a5 = Mίkhailov­ Baumbach, corr Wch 1983-7 οι 12

=

158

Accelerated Dragons

~5 J.xd5 13 exd5 'fIc7 14 J.h6 a6 15 J.xg7 ~xg7 16 ':fel ':ac8 17 ':acl

':fe8 18 Wd4 Wc5 19 'fIxc5 ':xc5 20 J.f1 1/'J.-1f'J. Evans-Donnelly, Coventry 1990) 12 ... ':fc8 13 b3 a6 and now White has tried: 1) 14 ~4.1:ab8 15 c5 ;!; Dah1bergDona1dson, Lone Pine 1981. 2) 14 a4 "b4 15 J.dl Wc5 (οι 15 ... ':ab8 16 "el ;!; Kava1ek-Visier, Lanzarote 1973) 16 'fIxc5 ':xc5 17 J.e3 ':cc8 18 J.f3 ':ab8 19 a5 ~7 20 ~4 ~5 I/'J.-Ih Κava1ek-Browne, Las Pa1mas 1974. 3) 14 f4 'fIc5 15 "xc5 :Xc5 16 J.f3 ':b8 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5 ~8 19 J.xe7 ':xe5 20 J.h4 b5 21 cxb5 ':c5 22 bxa6! and Black is busted, CiocalteaSpiridonov, Timisoara 1982.

w

12':abl This became very popular for a few years but is now ουΙ of fashion. White has tried severa1 other moves in this position: 1) 12 b3 takes us to the DolmatovTiviakov, Rostov-on-Don 1993 game given above (in the note Ιο White's 11th move) after 12 .....xe3 13 J.xe3 ~d7 (Black is a1so fine after both

13 ... ~g4 14 J.d2 J.e5 15 g3 ~f6 16 f3 ':fc8 17 ':acl a6 18 ':c2 ~7 19 ~g2 J.d4 20 ':dl J.g7 21 J.el ':c7 22 ~d5 1/2-1/2 Svidler-Tiviakov, Groningen 1995 and 13 ... a6 14 .1:acl ':fc8 15 ~a4 ~d7 16 f4 f5 17 exf5 gxf5 18 J.f3 ':c7 19 ':fel J.f7 20 ~b6 ~xb6 21 J.xb6 ':d7 22 g4 e6 23 gxf5 exf5 24 ~f2 ~f8 25 ':cdl ':e8 26 ':xe8+ ~xe8 27 J.g2 J.e6 28 ':el ~f7 29 J.f3 J.f6, 1/2-1/2 in 41, Wolff-Dzindzichashvili, Las Vegas 1992) 14 ':acl ':fc8 15 ~5 (15 f4!? ~5 16 ~d5 ~f8 17 J.f3 ;!; Dolmatov) 15 ... ~f8 16 f4 a5 (l6 ...J.b2 17 ':cdl a5 18 ':Ω J.xd5 {18 ...J.a3 19 ιt:)c3! with the idea of f5} 19 ':xd5 ~f6, DolmatovAlterman, Haifa 1995, 20 ':b5! ~xe4 21 J.g4 ~xΩ 22 J.xc8 ':xc8 23 ~xΩ ':c7 24:Xa5 ± Dolmatov) 17 f5 J.xd5 18 exd5 J.b2 19 ':c2 J.a3 =. 2) 12 Wd3 ':fc8 13 b3 a6 14 J.e3 Wb4 15 ':acl ':ab8 16 J.a7 ':a8 17 J.d4 b5 = Chandler-Pigusov, Sochi 1983. 3) 12 'fIxb6 axb6 13 ':acl (οι 13 b3 ~7 14 ':fcl ':fe8 15 J.d2 ~5 16 f3':ec817~f1 b5 {17 ... f5:j:} 18cxb5 J.xb3 19 axb3 ':xal 20 ':xal J.xc3?? {20 ... ~xb3 is equa1} 21 J.xc3 ~xb3 22 ':a3 ':xc3 23 ~Ω 1-0 Christiansen-Dona1dson, Los Angeles 1989) 13 ... ':fc8 14 b3 b5!, when Black has tried: 3a) 15 cxb5 ':xc3 16 ':xc3 ~xe4 17 ':e3 ~xg5 18 h4 J.d4! 19 ':d3 J.c5 20 hxg5 ':xa2 21 J.f3 b6 gives Black good compensation for the sacήficed mateήa1 according Ιο Alzugaray and Herrera. 3b) 15 ~xb5?! ':xa2 16 J.d3 h6 17 J.e3 ~d7 18 J.d4 ~5 1= ToothillDonnelly, corr 1994.

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

3c) 15 lίXι5 .ιΧd5 16 cxd5 lΩxe4 17 .ιχe7 :xcl 18 :xcl .ιd4 19 Φf1 :xa2 20 .ιΩlίXι2+ 21 ΦeΙ .ιc522 :xc5lί)xf3+ 23 gxf3 dxc5 24 d6 c4 25 d7 :a8 26 b4 :al+ 27 Φe2 :a2+ 28 Φe3 J:ιa3+ 29 Φe4 f5+ 30 Φe5 :d3 31 d811+ and 1-0 ίο 37, WΊnslow-Gross, New York 1994. 3d) 15 .ιΩ bxc4 16 e5 lίXι7 17 .ιχb7lΩxe5 18 .ιχa8 :xa8 19 .ιχe7 cxb3 (also good is 19... lίXι3 20 bxc4 .ιχc4 21 .ιχd6lΩχcΙ 22 :xcl =) 20 axb300 21 :cdllΩb2 22 :cllίXι3 23 :cdllΩb2 lh_ 1/" Herrera-Andres, Havana 1990. 4) 12 1Id2 and now: 4a) 12 ...:fc8 13 b3 11a5 14 :acl a615 .ιΩ! (15 f3 b5 1600 "xd217 .ιΧd2lΩΧd5 18 cxd5 .ιd4+ 19 ΦhΙ .ιd7 20 :xc8+ :xc8 21 :cl :xcl + 22 .ιχcΙ f5 23 g4 ΦΠ 24 .ιf4 Φf6 25 g5+ ΦΠ 26 Φg2 .ιc5 27 .ιd2 e6 28 exf5 gxf5 29 dxe6+ Φχe6 30 h4 d5 31 f4 .ιd4 32 h5 .ιe8 33 .ιf3.ιb6 1/"_1/,, Belottί-TiVΊakoν, Forlί 1992) 15 ...:ab8 16 :fel b5 17 00 "xd2 18 .ιχd2 Φf8 19 cxb5 axb5 20 lΩM ;t Sigυr­ jonsson-Petursson, Reykjavίk 1985. 4b) 12.....a5! (more accurate) 13 :acl a6! 14 .ιd3 (14 b3 b5! 15 cxb5 axb5 16 .ιΧb5 :fc8 17 e5 dxe5 is unclear) 14...:fc8 15 b3 b5 1600 "xd2 17 .ιΧd2lΩχd5 18 cxd5 .ιd7 = Arnason-Petursson, Reykjavίk (2) 1989. 12.....xe313 .ιΧe3 ]Uc814 b3 (D) 14.••lΩι4!? Actually, it's not clear what Black's best moνe is. Other promίsing choices are: 1) 14... lίXι715lΩd5.ιχd516eχd5 lΩc5 17 :001 aS 18 :c2lΩa6! 19 a3 b5 20 :ΙcΙ b4 lh- 1h Anand-TiVΊakoν, Gronίngen PCA qual1993.

Gurgenidze System

159

2) 14...Φf8 15 Ω? lΩg4 16 fxg4 17 :bcl .ιb2 18 :c2.ιa3 19 g5 b5 20 h4 bxc4 21 .ιχc4 .ιχc4 22 bxc4 ΦΒ8 23 :cf2 :Xc4 24:xf7 :Xe4 25 .ιχa7 :xh4 26 g3 (aνoidίog 26 :Xe7 :xa7! 27 :xa7 .ιc5+) 26...:e4 27 :7f3 .ιb4 28 :3f2 .ιeΙ 0-1 Rodin-Pigusoν, USSR Cht (Podolsk) 1992. Α horrible game by White. 3) 14... a6 15 lΩa4 (15 .ιΩlΩd7 16 :fcllΩc5 17lΩd5 .txd5 18 exd5 a5 19 .ιχc5 :xc5 20 a4 :c7 21 g3 .ιd4 22 :dl .ιc5 23 .ιg4 Φg7 24 ΦΒ2 h5 25 .ιe2 e6 26.ιΩ e5! 27 :b2 f5 28 .ιe2 Φf6 29 h3 :h8 30 :hl g5 and Black went οη to WΊo ίο Paίge­ Dzίndzίchashνίli, Phίladelphίa 1993) 15...:ab8! (15 ... lίXι7 16 f4 f5 17 exf5 .ιχf5 18 :bcl :ab8 19lΩc3 Φf8 20 g4 led to a clear adνantage for White ίn Chrίstiansen-DZΊndzίchashvίlί, USA Ch 1990) 16lΩb6:c717 .ιΩlίXι718 a4 (or 18lίXι5!? .ιΧd5 19 cxd5lΩe5, when both 20 .ιe2 :c2 and 20 :bcl :bc821 :xc7 :xc722:cl :xcl+23 .ιχcΙ lΩxf3+ are fine for Black) 18 ....ιc3 19 :fdl lΩxb6 lh- 1h A.Iνa­ noν-Petursson, NewYorkOpen 1991. 4) 14....ιd7 15 :fdl .ιc6 16 f3 a5 17 :bcllΩd7 18 g3 Φf8 19 h4 h5 20 .ιχc3

160

Acceleτated

ιi>f2 .1e5 21 .1n e6 22 :d2 ΙΙΧ5 23 .1g2 ιi>e7 24 ~e2 b6 25 :cdl :d8 26 .1g5+ .1f6 27 .1xf6+ ιi>xί6 28 e5+ ± Κarpov-Petursson, Reggio Emilia 1989190. IS.1d2 The cήtίcal response. In A.Iνanoν­ Donaldson, Reno 1990, Black had ηο problems after 15 .1xg4 ..t.xc3 16 .1xe6 fxe6 17 f4 a6 18 f5 exf5 19 exf5 b5 20 :bcl..t.f6 21 c5 dxc5 22 :xc5 :xc5 23 .1xc5 JZc8 24 b4 :d8 25 fxg6 hxg6 26 :el ιi>π 27 :e2 :d3 28 ιi>Ω

:a3 1/2-1/2.

IS....te5! The temptίng 15 ....1xc3 16 ..t.xc3 b5 leaves Black under pressure after Christίansen's 17 f4! (17 h3 ~6 18 .txf6 exf6 19 cxb5 JZc2 20..t.f3 :xa2 21 e5 d5 22 exf6 :b8 23 :al :xal 24 JZxal :xb5 25 JZxa7 h5 leads to a lilcely draw). Hίs analySΊs (after 17 f4) follows: 1) 17... bxc4 18 f5 gxf5 19 exf5 cxb3 20 fxe6 :xc3 21 exf7+ ιi>f8 22 .1xg4 bxa2 23 :b2 and wίns. 2) 17...~3? 18 :f3 ~2 19 f5 .1d7 20 :cl ω 21 .1b4 and Whίte wins. 3) 17... f5 18 exf5 .1xf5 19 :bcl WΊth a clear advantage for Whίte. Our main line (15 ... ..t.e5) is a recommendatίon of ΟΜ Κochίev. 16~

Another Christίansen recommendatίon. He now claίms an advantage for Whίte but thίs assessment seems way over the top. Note that both 16 h3 and 16 g3 are met by 16...~f6, when Black has managed to place hίs bίshop ahead ofhίs knίght and, as a resώt, get quite a comfortable positίon. 16...ιi>fS!

Dragons Thίs

calmly talces care of the threat

agaίnst e7. Now 17 .1h6+ ιi>e8 is noth-

ing for Whίte. 17b3lΩι6

Black has a perfectly

satίsfactory

positίon.

B1b) 9.1e3(D)

Β

Thίs used to be the most popular move until 9 .1g5 came into vogue. Lately, thanks to Ivanchuk, it is once agaίn at the forefront of theory. 9...0-0 10 "d2 .te6 The usual move. Other tήes: 1) 10.....aS is also playable and wίIl usually transpose after 11 f3 .1e6. Attempts to punish it faίl: 11 a3 .1e6 12 b4 ~xe4! 13 bxaS .1xc3 or 11 :cl .1e6 12 b3 a6 130-0 b5 1400 "xd2 15 ~xe7+ ιi>h8 and we have transposed to UhImann-Marosi, Budapest 1981, whίch is fine for Black - see the first paragraph of the note to Whίte's 12th move in sectίon Blala. 2) 10...a6 WΊth two alternatίves: 2a) 11 IIcl .1e6 12 b3 (12 f3 :c8 13 b3 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 150-0 b4 16

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

lila4 :b8 17 lilb2 tαl7 18 .ιd4 .ιΧd4+ 19 "xd4 "b6 20 "xb6 :xb6 21 lila4 :b7 22 :fdl 23 :d2 Ι/Ζ-Ι/Ζ Adaιnson-Burtman, Los Angeles 1993) 12...:C8 13 f3 b5!? 14 cxb5 axb5 15lilxb5 :xcl+ 16 "xcl "a5+ 17 "d2 :a8 and now: 2al) 18 "xa5 :xa5 19lilc3 lild7 20 lila4 lilc5 21 .ιd2 :a8 (21 ...:a7 22 .ιe3 :aS 23 .ιχc5 dxc5 24 ~d2 c4 25 ~c2 ί5 26 :cl ~f7 27lilc3 cxb3+ 28 axb3 :c5 29 .ιc4 .ιχc4 30 bxc4 :xc4 31 ~d3 :C8 =Chuiko-Starodovorsky, Simferopol 1989) 22 .ιdΙ lilxa4 23 bxa4 .ιΧ81 24 a5 .ιd4 25 .ιe2 :b8 26 .ιd3 :b2 27 :η .ιb3 lh-1J2 Shaked-Burtman, Las Vegas 1993. 281) 18lilc3lilg4 19 .ιd4 .ιΧd4 20 .xd4 :c8 is Frolov-Tangbom (note

:a8

Gurgenidze System

161

tαl7 14 .i.e3 - see Chapter 12, sectίon Β2) 14 :abllilcS 15 :Icl e6 16lilb5

.i.e5 17 :dl? 'irh4 18 g3 .i.xg3! 19 hxg3 .xg3+ 20
toWhίte's 18thmoveinsectίonBlalb)

without ...h6. 2a3) BestΊS probably 18 a3!, when 18....ιχb3 19 "xa5:Xa5 200-0 .ιa4 21 :bι.ιχb5 22 :xb5 :xa3 23 :b8+ .ιf8 24 .ιh6 tαl7 25 :d8 :al + 26 ~f2 :81 27 g4 ί6 28 e5!! wins for

w

Whίte.

2b) 11 0-0 .a5 12 a3 .i.e6 13 b4 .d8 14 :abl b5 15 cxb5 axb5 16 .i.xb5 :Xa3 17 .ιd4 "a8 18 .ιd3 :c8 19 :Icllild7 20 .i.xg7 ~xg7 21.i.n ~g8 22 "d4lileS 23 b5 "a5 2400 :xcl 25 :xcl .i.xd5 26 exd5 and Whίte's passed b-pawn tumed out to be too strong ίη Yudasin-Antunes, SeVΊlle 1993. 3) 10....ιd7 11 0-0 a5 12 b3 .i.c6 13 f3 lild7 (editoτ's note: note that Whίte is a full temρo υρ compared with the line 5 c4lilf6 6lilc3 d6 7 .i.e2 .ιg7 8 .i.e3 0-0 9 0-0.ιd7 10.d2 lilxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 f3 a5 13 b3

Now we will explore: B1b1: 11 0-0 162 B1b2: 11 f3 165 Α trίcky move-order that deserves a bit οί attentίon is 11 :Cl. Then: 1) 11 ...•a5 12 .i.d3 :Ic8 13 b3 a6 14lile2.xd2+ IS~tαl7! 16lilf4 lilcs 17 .i.e2 a5 18 tαlS?! (18lilxe6

162

Accelerαted Drαgons

fxe619:C2~20a3tDc5) 18 ....hdS

19 cxd5 (19 exd5 .i.b2 20 :c2 .i.a3) 19... a4! 20 b4? (20 .txc5 dxc5 :j:) 20 ...lΩb3+! 21 axb3 :xcl 22 :xcl a3 + J.Polgar-Antunes, Erevan OL 1996. 2) After 11 ... a6 12 f3, Black must avoid 12.....a5?! because of 13lΩd5! "xd2+ 14 ~xd2 .txd5 15 cxd5 with some advantage ιο White, who went οη to win ίη both Adams-Hodgson, Hastings 1991/2 and Dvoirys-Tiviakov, Podolsk 1993.

B1b1) 110-0 move marks the start of perhaps the most dangerous treatment against this system of the Maroczy. Ukrainian sυper-GM Vasily Ivanchυk was the tίrsΙ Ιο figυre ουΙ the set-υp of f3, :fcl and :abl.1t may look a bit odd to see the f-rook move Ιο cl, bυt Ivanchυk's idea is clear: he wants Ιο restrain Black's play οη the qυeenside completely. The key qυestions Ιο be answered are: what precise move-order White shoυld employ Ιο reach his dream set-υp and how Black should react to get concrete coυnterplay. 11.....aS (D) Also possible is 11 ... a6 12 f3 "a5 13 :fcl :Ιc8 14 :abl.i.xc4 15 lΩd5 ..xd216~xe7+~f817 .i.xd2. Some soυrces seem to think that White is jυst better here, bυΙ ίι actually doesn't look like mυch: 17... Φχe7 18 .txc4 :c6 19 .td3 :ac8 20 :xc6 :xc6 21 :c 1 :xc 1+ 22 .i.xc 1 a5 23 a4 lΩd7 24 .tc4 ~b6 25 .tb5 .td4+ 26 Φf1 dS 27 Φe2 dxe4 28 fxe4lΩd7 29 b3 tDc5 30 .i.c4 b6 31 h3 hS 32 .i.d5 Ι/2-ΙΙ2 Am.Rodrigυez-Minzer, Ubeda 1997. Thίs

12:abl! White has two other ways Ιο get ίηιο the same system: 1) 12f3:tc813:tcl fαJ714:abl (14 b3 allows 14... b5!) 14....i.xc4 (or 14.....d8 15 lΩds a5 16 .i.g5 .txd5 17 cxd5 a4 18 :c2 .tf6 19 .te3 "a5 20 "dl1Ωc5 21 .tf1lΩa6 22 a31Ωc5 Am.Rodήgυez-Barria, Cascave11995) 15 lΩd5 "xd2 16 lΩxe7+ ~f8 17 .i.xd2 .i.d4+ 18 ~hl ~xe7 19.i.xc4 lΩb6 20.i.b3 :xcl+ 21 :Xcl :c822 :xc8 lΩxc8 23 .td5 .i.xb2 24 .i.xb7 lΩb6 with jυst a slight edge to White, Aseev-Vokarev, Rυssian Ch (Elista) 1996. 2) 12 :fcl :fc8 (with this order, Black has the option of 12...~xe4!? 13 ~xe4 "xd2 14 ~xd2 .i.xb2, which was seen ίη Psakhis-Alterman, Israeli Cht 1996: 15.tf3 .txc1? {15 ...:tb8! 16 lΩb3 .txal 17 lΩxal .td7 18 c5 with an υnclear position} 16 :Xcl :ac8 17 .txb7:c718.tf3:b819.tdl! ±) 13 b3 a6 14 :abl with a transposition ίηΙο 12 :abl. 3) It's important to note that theory recommends avoiding ...:fc8 (which forces b3) when White can still play f2-f4-f5. Following 12 :acl:

=

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

3a) After the geηeήc 12...:fc8 (considered dubious) 13 b3 a6 Whίte has the supposedly strong 14 f4 b5 15 f5! .*.d7 (D) (Whίte is ίη control after both 15 ...gxf5 16 exf5 .*.d7 17 .*.d4! bxc4 18 .*.xc4 ± Lengyel-Matanovit, Budapest 1964, and 15 ... b4 16 fxe6 bxc3 17 exf7+ ~f8 18 "c2 "e5 19 .*.f3 ± Shamkovich-Kagan, Netanya 1975) and now we consider five possibilities for Whίte:

3al) 16 Μ!? tumed ουΙ well for Black ίη Beliavsky-Stean, Hastings 1974/5 after 16.....xb4 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxg6 .*.e6! 19 gxf7+ ~xf7 (19 ....*.xf7 20 .*.h6 .*.xh6 21 "xh6 .*.xc4 22 "g5+ ~h8 23 :xf6 :g8! 24 "xe5 exf6 25 "'xf6+ :g7 26 "'d4 :c8 27 ~e4 "e7 28 .txc4 "a7! 29 "'xa7 :Xa730:el:xc431~~232~5

:a8 33 a3 :c3 0-1 Ivanchuk-Anand, Moscow PCA rpd 1994) 20.tf3 :d8 21"f2:ac8. 3a2) 16.*.d4?~e417"e3~xc3 18 :xc3 .txd4 19 "xd4 e5 20 "d2 "d8 I/2-Ih Bobotsov-Hort, Κapfenberg Echt 1970. 3a3) 16 .*.g5? :c5 17 .te3 :c7 18 c5:ac819:C2:xc5! andBlackwent

Gurgenidze System

163

οη to win ίη de Firιnian-Strauss, Long Beach 1992. 3a4) 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 c5 (17 e5? b4! 18 exf6 bxc3 19 :xc3 .*.xf6 20 :xf6 exf6 21.tf3 .*.c6 22 .td4.txf3 23 "f4 "g5 24 "'xf3 :e8 is better for Black, Spassky-Panno, Palma de MaIlorca 1969) 17 ....*.e6 (Donaldson likes 17...b41800~xd51gexd5dxc520 .*.c4.*.e8) 18.*.f3 dxc5 19 e5 ~B4 20 .*.xa8 -*.xe5 21 -*.d5, TaI-Parma, Bled 1961, is often cited as the refutation of Black's play, but ηοΙ many people seem Ιο believe ίι. 3a5) 16 g4! is a Shamkovich recommendation. He gives 16...b4 1700 ~xe4? 18 "c2 and 16... bxc4 17 g5. So it's ηοΙ completely clear that the position after 14 f4 is really bad for Black. Nevertbeless, a good way Ιο avoid this whole mess (after 12 :acl) is... 3b) 12... a6!, and now 13 f4 ηο longer has much effect: 13 ...b5! (now 14 f5 can be met by 14....*.xc4) 14 cxb5 axb5 15 b4? (better is 15 f5 b4 {15 ... .*.c4!?} 16 fxe6 bxc3 17 exf7+ ~h8 18 "xc3 "xc3 19 bxc3 ~xe4 20 .*.d4 =) 15 .....xb4 16 :bl "a3 17 :xb5 :fc8 18 .td4 :xc3 19 "xc3 ~e4 20 :b8+ :xb8! 21 "xa3 -*.xd4+ 22 ΦhΙ 00+ 23 :Xf2 (23 ΦΒΙ :b2!) 23 ....txf2, and Black converted his advantage ίηΙο an eventual win ίη Cardoso-Adorjan, Lanzarote 1975. 12.••:ΙcS Alsopossibleis 12...~B4!? 1300 (13 -*.d4 .*.xd4 14 "xd4 "e5 15 "xe5 ~xe5 is equal according Ιο Ιν­ anchuk, who also gives 13 b4 -*.xc3! 14 "'xc3 "'e5 15 "'xe5 ~xe5 as υη­ clear) 13......xd2 14 .*.xd2 .txd5 15 cxd5 ~f6 16 f3 :Cc8 17 :fcl ;t.

164

Accelerated Dragons

13 b3(D)

Β

13•••a6 Ivanchuk mentions three alternatives (all analysis by Ivanchuk): 1) 13...lΩg414lCιdS (Whίte can also play 14 ~d4 ~xd4 15 "xd4 "e5?! {15 ...lΩf6!?;t} 16 "xe5 lΩxe5 17 f4 lΩc6 18 f5 ~d7 19 f6 ±) 14.....xd2 15 ~xd2 Φf8 16 ~xg4 ~xg4 17 ~g5 e6 18 lΩf6 h6 19 .i.xh6 .i.e2 20 :fel .i.xc4 21 lΩd7+ Φg8 22 .i.xg7 Φχg7 23 :bdl .i.b5 24 :Xd6 .i.xd7 25 :xd7 ;t Enders-Brendel, Bundesliga 1995/6. 2) 13...b5 14 b4! "c7 15 e5! dxe5 16lΩb5 ~7 17 c5;t. 3) 13 ...lΩd714:fcl"d8? 1500 lΩc5 16 ~f3 aS 17 h4 ± IvanchukAnand, Buenos Aίres 1994.

a slight advantage for White, Ζοο­ takh-Velimirovic, Yugoslavia 1995. 2) 15 a3 "aS 16 b4 "xa3 17 :al "xb4 18 :a4lΩxe4 19 :xb4lΩxd2 20 .i.xd2 :c7 21 lΩa4 .i.d4 22 ~f3 :b8 23 c5 ~xc5 24 lΩxc5 dxc5 25 :bbl ± David-Antunes, Erevan OL 1996. Passive but playable is 14... lΩd7 15 f4 :ab8 16 b4 "d8 17 lΩd5 lΩf6 18 .i.f3 b6, when White has to have some advantage, though Black eventually equalized ίο Zarnicki-Spangenberg, Argentine Ch 1995 after 19 "f2lΩxd5 20 exdS .i.d7 211Σb3 e6 221Σd3 exdS 23 ~xdS ~ 24 c5 bxcS 2S bxc5 :b226 :d2 :xd2 27 "xd2 .i.xdS 28 "xd5 "e7 29 ~Ω dxc5 30 :xc5 :d8. 15 f3 Φt'8 (D) Α useful waiting move that gives e7 some much-needed support. Also possible is 15 ... lΩd7 16 b4 "d8 17lΩdS ~xd5 18 "xd5 "c7 19 "d1 aS 20 a3 axb4 21 axb4 b6 with on1y a small advantage for White, Kudrin-Dzindzichashvili, Modesto 1995.

w

14:fcl1Σab8

Several games have also seen the active 14...1fb4, though Black must be careful about the safety of his queen: 1) 15 f3 lΩd7 16 lΩd5 "xd2 17 .i.xd2 .i.xdS 18 cxdS .i.d4+ 19 Φf1 hS (19 ... lΩb6 20 f4 e6 21 dxe6 fxe6 22 .i.f3 1Σc6 23 :Xc6 bxc6 24 .i.aS lΩd7 25 :dl1ed to an eventual victory for White ίο Morovic-Spangenberg, Buenos Aίres 1997) 20 g3 Φf8 21 a4 with

16.i.n It's not clear what White's best move is. Two other possibilities:

Maroczy

ΒίΜ: Gurgenίdze

1) 16 b4 (Psakhis makes this out to be good for White but de Fmnian dίdn't agree with hίs assessment) 16...•d8 17 ~! (Psakhίs mentίons 17 c5 dxc5 18 .xd8+ ':xd8 19 bxc5 as being a bit better for Whίte; maybe, but it's not really clear to us if White has anything at all after 19 ... 1Ωd7 20 ιαι5 lL1e5) 17... b5 18 a3 (the only try for advantage; 18 a4?! bxa4 19 .a2lL1xd5 20 cxd5 .:xcl + 22 ':xcl .ι.d7 is a bit better for Black whίle 18 cxb5 axb5 19 .:xc8 hc8 20 ltlxf6.i.xf6 21 .JΣc l.i.d7 is on1y equal), Psakhίs-Am.Rodriguez, Andorra 1996, and now 18...lL1xd5 19 exd5 .ι.f5 20 ':b3 is a bit better for Whίte accordίng to Psakhίs (and not 20 .ι.d3?1 bxc4 21.ι.χί5 gxf5 with the idea 22 .ι.d4 .ι.Χd4+ 23 .xd4 .b6!) but 18....ι.d7!? seems to be completely acceptable for Black. 2) 16 .el and then: 2a) 16...1Ωd7 17 b4 .d8 18 lL1d5 .ι.Χd5 19 cxd5 b6 20 a4 a5 21 bxa5 bxa5 22 ':b5 ± Morovit-Kudrin, New York 1997: 22 ...lL1c5 23 .dl ':a824 g4 ci>g8 25 ci>g2 and Black resigned without waiting for a reply. 2b) 16...•b4 17 a3 may be better, when after 17...•a5 18 b4 .d8 19 lL1d5, we have something similar to lines from 16 b4 with the difference that Whίte has the extra move a3 and the whίte queen stands οη el instead of d2. However, 17...•xa3!? isn't completely clear. For example 18.:al 'iFb4 19 ':a4 .xb3 20 ':bl .c2 21 .ι.dΙ .xc3 22 .xc3lL1xe4 with 23 ...lL1c3 to follow gives Black lots of pawns and real chances to draw.

.f8

16.••1hι4! 17 ':c2 Not 17 a3?! .xa3! 18 ':al .b4 19 ':a4 .xb3 20 ':bl (after 20 e5,

System

165

20...lL1e4 was played ίη Peng-Antunes, Macau 1996, but Black dίdn 't get sufficient compensation for the piece after 21 fxe4 .i.xe5 22 .i.d4 b5 23 ':xa6 bxc4 24':bl .xbl 25 lL1xbl ':xbl 26 .i.xe5 dxe5 27 .c3; instead, Black has to try 20... b5 21 exf6.ι.xf6 22 ':xa6, when he gets three pawns for the piece) 20...lL1xe4 21 ':xb3 lL1xd2 22 .ι.Χd2 b5 23 ':π6 bxc4 24 ':xb8 .ι.d4+ 25 ci>hl ':xb8, when Black's three pawns outweigh Whίte's extra piece.

.xa2.xa3

17••• bS! 18 83 19 lL1xbS! axbS 20 .JΣa2 21 .xa2 bxc4 The game is equal. de Firmίan­ Donaldson, Phίladelphίa 1997 concluded 22 bxc4 ':a8 (22 ....:xbl 23 .xbl .i.xc4 24 .ι.χc4 ':xc4 is completely secure for Black) 23 .c2 ιαι7 24 .cllL1e5 25 .ι.h6 .ι.χc4 26 .ι.χc4 .:xc4 (26... lL1xc4!?) 27 .ι.χg7+ ci>xg7 28 .b2 g5 29 h4 h6 30 hxg5 Ih-Ih. I'm sure that in the next couple of years, lots of new dίscoveήes will be made ίο lvanchuk's system. However, at the moment thiogs appear to be fairly safe for the black side.

B1b2) 11 f3(D) 11••••&5 Black may also play the immedίate 11 ...a6: Ι) After 12 .JΣcl: la) 12...•a5 transρoses back into the main column. lb) 12...b5!? 13 ~ (the on1y way to test 12... b5 is by takiog the pawn: 13 cxb5 axb5 14 a3 ιαι7 15 lL1xb5 lL1c5 16 .i.xc5 dxc5; Black has some compensation, but is it sufficieot?)

166

Accelerated Dragons Φe2 ΦΠ 22 :dl a6 23 ~d4 ~xd4+ 24 ~xd4 b5 25 .i.xg7 Φχg7 26 :dcl Ih- I/2 Botvinnίk-Matu1ovit, USSR vs Rest ofWorld (Belgrade) 1970, though 26...:C5 is a shade better ίοι Black. 12.••:ΙcS Bad is 12... a6? 13 ~5 "'xd2+ 14 ΦΧd2 ~xd5 15 cxdS :Cc8 16 b4 ~7 17 a4 Φf8 18 a5 ~b2 19 :c2 :xc2+ 20 Φχc2 ±Dvoίrys-ΊίvίKoν, Podolsk 1993. 13 b3a6(D)

13 ... bxc4 14 ~xί6+ ~xί6 15 ~xc4 :c8 (15 ...~xc4 16 :xc4 :c8 17 :xc8 'iνxc8 18 ο-ο 'iνb7 19 b3 :c8 20 :cl :c6 21 :xc6 "'xc6 22 "'cl "'b7 23 'iνc4 e6 24 Φf2 h5 25 a4 d5 =BragaTsuboi, Sao Paul0 1991) 16 ~xe6 :Xcl+ 17'iνxcl fxe618'iνd2d519b3 'iνd6 20 0-0 d4 21 .i.h6 :c8 22 :cl :xcl+ 23 'iνxcl ΦΠ 24 .i.f4 .i.e5 25 ~xe5 'iνxe5 26 'iνc4 'iνd6 27 Φf2 d3 28 e5 "'b6+ 29 Φf1 "'e3 30 'iνe4 "'cl+ 31 Φf2 d2 0-1 Pίmenta-Κhenkίn, Geneva 1994. 2) In Garma-R.Hemandez, Νονί Sad OL 1990, Whίte answered with 120-0 'iνa5 13 b4?! (better is 13 :acl :fc8 14 b3 b5 WΊth mutual chances) 13 ......xb4 14 :abl and after 14......a5 15 .i.b6 "'e5 16 :fcl :ac8 17 ί4 ~xe418 'iνe3 "'xc3 19 :xc3 ~xc3 20 :cl ~xc4 21 ~g4 ~5 22 "'f2 e6 Black was on hίs way to victory. 12:cl Harmless is 12 ~b5 "'xd2+ 13 Φχd2 ~7! 14 :abl (after 14 ~7 :ac8 15 ~e6 fxe6 16 :abl, 16...ω 17 :hcl lα6playίngforcontrol0fd4 gives Black a good game) 14... ~5 15 :hcl :fc8 16 b3 ~617 ί4 ί5 18.i.f3 fxe4 19 .i.xe4 .i.f5 20 .i.xf5 gxf5 21

Now Whίte has: Blb2a: 14 ~5 166 Blb2b: 14 a4 167 Blb2c: 140-0 168 Blb2d: 14 ~4 169 Note that 14 ~bl is answered by 14......d8 with the threat οί ...b5.

B1b2a) 14ΙΑΙS

As Black has already cha1lenged on the c-file, thίs move only leads Ιο a draw. 14......xd2+ 15 ΦΧd2 ~d5 16 cxd5

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

IfWhite wants to play for a win, the unbalancing 16 exd5 has Ιο be trίed. Black should seek to restore the balance ίη the centre with ...e6 and ...d5 as soon as possible: 16....i.d7 17 a4 e6 (17 ....i.b2 18 I:ιc2 .i.a3 19 .i.d4 aS 20 h4 .i.c5 21 .i.c3 e5 22 dxe6 .i.xe6 23 hS ± Zhuravlίov-Pίesina, Vιlnius 1993) 18 dxe6 .i.xe6 19 I:ιhdl d5 20 cxdS .i.xdS Zhuravlίov-Lemer, St Petersburg 1992, though Black later got outplayed and 10st. 16•••.i.d7 17 1Ixc8+ 17 I:ιc4 is met by 17...b5. 17•• .llxc818 I:ιcl11xcl19 Φxcl Thίs positίon, or ones very similar, can arise with either .i.e3 or .i.g5 and with or without ...b5. Το have real winning chances there needs Ιο be a difference of at least 200 ratίng points. Neither side has much to work with. 19•••Wf8 20 Φα Other moves also leadίng Ιο nothing: 1) 20.i.b6 e6 21 .i.c4 Φe7 22 Φc2 .i.e5 23 h3 exd5 24 .i.xdS .i.c6 25 .i.xc6 bxc6, Dorfman-Gdanslά, Polanica Zdroj 1993. The finish was anything but excitίng: 26 Φd3 .i.g3 27 .i.d4 Φe6 28 Φc4 f5 29 .i.c3 fxe4 30 fxe4 .i.f2 31 g4 hS 32 gxh5 gxhS 33 Φd3 .i.h4 34 Φe3 .i.g5+ 35 Φο .i.d8 36 Φf4 .i.r.7 37 .i.d4 .i.d8 38 .i.c3

=

Ih-Ih.

2) 20 Φd2 e6 21 .tc4 Φe7 22 -*.g5+ -*.f6 23 -*.xf6+ ΦΧf6 24 dxe6 fxe62S Φe3 aS 26 f4 b5 27 -*.e2 e5 28 g3 h6 29 a3 b4 30 axb4 axb4 31 .i.c4 .th3 32 Φd2 exf4 33 gxf4 g5 34 Φe3 gxf4+ 35 ΦΧf4 h5 36 .tdS h4 37 .tc4 .td7 38 .td5 .tc8 39 .tc4 Ih-lh Xie Jun-Κamsky, Monte Carl0 Amber rpd 1996.

Gurgenidze System

167

2O•••e6 I/z-Ih Petrosian-Fischer, Buenos Aires Ct (4) 1971. The game Αηί­ kaev-Vasiukov, Volgodonsk 1981, saw five more moves played before the draw was agreed: 21 g4 (21 -*.c4 Φe7 22 dxe6 fxe6 23 -*.b6 -*.c6 24 Φd2 Φd7 25 Φe3 .i.h6+ 26 Φe2 d5 27 exd5 .i.xd5 28 .txd5 exdS 29 -*.d4 Φe6 30 Φd3 .tf8 31 h3 1/-Ι- Ι/2 Yakovich-Pίgusov, Κharkov 1985; editor's note: 21 a4 also led to a draw ίη Spassky-Petrosian, Moscow Wch (3) 1969) 21 ...exdS 22 exdS Φe7 23 a4 f5 24 g5 .i.e8 25 f4.i.f7 1/2-1/2.

B1b2b) 14 a4 (D)

White clamps down οη Black's ... b7-b5 advance. 14•••'ifb4 Black can also try 14... ~d7 15 ~dS .xd2+ (deserving of attentίon is 15.....d8!? 16aS {160-0!?} 16....i.xdS 17 exdS b618 axb6 ~xb619 b4 aS 20 bxaS ~7 with the idea of ...~5 and "xaS ~ - analysis by A1zugaray and Herrera) 16 ΦΧd2 .txd5 17 cxd5 (17

168

Accelerαted Drαgons

exd5 a5 18 :ΙheΙ lDc5 19 .*.dl .*.b2 with an equal position, AlzugarayAndres, Cuba 1989/90) 17 ... ~f8 18 b4 .*.b2 19:C2 :Ιχc2+ 20 ~xc2 .*.g7 21 ~b3:C8 22:Cl ~ VuIreevic-Dή­ mer, Leningrad 1960. 15 ~ lΩxdS 16 exdS 16 cxd5 leads to the same type of play as found ίη Β 1b2a. The inclusion of a4 does ηοΙ change the assessmentίι will still be a draw. 16.....xd2+ 17 ~xd2 .i.d7 18 :ΙbdΙ

The space-gainίng 18 a5 also comes consideration: 18 ... e6 (playable, but 18 ....*.b2! 19 :Ιc2 .*.a3 seems Ιο offer easy equality) 19 dxe6 .*.xe6 20 b4 :Ιc7 21 :Ιc2 :Ιac8 22 :ΙhcΙ h5 23 g3 .*.e5 24 f4 .*.g7 25 .*.d3 ~f8 26 .i.b6 with a small advantage for White, Reeh-Tal, Cologne 1989. 18....*.b2! 19 :Ιc2 .*.&3 20 .id4 .*.b4+ 21 ~cl aS 21 ...b5!? also deserves consideration. 22 ~bl eS! 23 dxe6 23 .*.e3 .*.c5! is good for Black. 23...fxe6 24 .*.d3 ~Ι7 HortMecking, Petropolis ΙΖ 1973. ίηΙο

=

B1b2c) 140-0 Puttiog the king 00 the side kills a lοι ofWhite's eodgame poteotial and is ηοΙ considered dangerous Ιο Black. 14...b5 (D) 15 It1bl The only try for an advantage but, objectively, 151t1d5 steeήng for a draw is White's besL Though the position is totally balanced, the following examples, featυήng large rating differences,

serve as testimony that there are some chances ίf you are determined and get some help: 15 ~5 'ii'xd2 16 .i.xd2 It1xd5 17 cxd5 .id4+ (Ih-1f2 ArmasΟδτΥ, Wijk aan Zee 1987) 18 ~hl .id7 19 :Ιχc8+ (19 .*.d3 .i.b2 20 :ΙbΙ .ic3 21.*.g5 ~f8 22 a3 a5 23 :Ccl b4 24 a4 .id4 25 .id2 h5 26 :Ιχc8+ :Xc8 27 :ΙcΙ :ΙχcΙ+ 28 .*.xcl ~e8 29 h4 .if2 30 .*.g5 ~d8 31 ~h2 f6 32.i.d2 .*.xh4 33 e5 dxe5 34 .*.xg6 .*.g5 35 .*.xg5 fxg5 36 ~BI .*.e8 and 0-1 ίο 46, Marcus-Silman, Philadelphia 1991) 19...:Xc820:Cl:C5 (20...:ΙχcΙ+21 .i.xc 1 a5 22 g3 b4 23 a3 .i.h3 24 axb4 axb4 25 .*.h6 f6 26 .i.d2 .*.c5 27 .*.h6 ~f7 28 .*.b5 e5 29 .*.a6 ~e7 30 .*.b5 ~d8 31 g4 ~e7 32 .*.d3 g5 33 .*.a6 ~f7 34 .*.b5 .*.b6 35 .*.a6 .*.d4 36 .i.b5 .*.c5 37 .*.a6 ~B6 38 .*.f8 h5 39 .*.e2 bxg4 40 fxg4 ~f7 41 .i.h6.*.b6 42 .*.dl .*.f1 and 0-1 ίο 62, GίυIίo­ Bellin, Montecatini Terme 1995) 21 .*.d3 ~B7 (21 ...f5 22 g3 fxe4 23 fxe4 :Xcl+ 24 .*.xcl.*.h3 25.*.d2.*.b6 26 .*.c3 ~f7 27 a4 bxa4 28 bxa4 a5 29 .*.b5 g5 30 .*.d3 .*.g4 31 ~B2 .*.dl 32 e5 .i.b3 33 .*.xh7 .*.xd5+ 34 ~h3 .*.e6+ 35 g4 dxe5 and 0-1 ίη 51, Porter-Finegold, US Open 1994) 22

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

g4 f5 23 :xc5 dxc5 24 exf5 gxf5 25 gxf5 r.Pf6 26 h4 .ιΧf5 27 .ιι5+ r.Pg6 28 .ιχf5+ r.Pxf5 29 .ιχe7 c4 30 bxc4 bxc4 31 .ιa3 c3 32 .ιcΙ .ιe5 33 r.Pg2 c2 0-1 Ott-Κochίev, Dortmund 1990. Poor is 15 cxb5?! axb5 16 :c2? :Xc3! 17Wxc3 Wxc318:xc3La2! 19 .ιΧb5lDg4 20 fxg4 .ιχc3 21 :cl .ιd2 22 .ιΧd2 :xd2 23 :bl .*.xg4 24 b4 :c2 25 .ιf1 .ιc8 26 bS .ιb7 and Whίte is οη the verge of defeat, Sherzer-Honfi, Hungary 1988. 15•••b4! Staking a claim to the c5-square. 15 ...Wxd2 plays into Whίte's hands: 16lDxd2.*.d7 17 r.Pf2lDe8 18 :c2 :c6 19 :fcl :ac8 20 .ιd3 r.Pf8 21 cxb5! :xc2 22 :xc2 :xc2 23 .ιχc2 axb5 24 .*.b6 e6 25 lDbl! ~ Τήηιον­ Tήfunovit, Munich OL 1958. 16JΣfdl Τήηgοv's

suggestion of 16 a4 is easily met by 16...lDd7 followOO by ... lDc5. Also fine for Black is 16 a3 :ab8 17 .ιf2 lDd7 18 r.Phl lDes 19 .ιeι1Dc6:f - analysis by Boleslavsky. If Whίte trίes 16 r.Phl Black should play 16...lDd7 (16...:ab8 17 .ιd4 lDd7 18 .*.xg7 r.Pxg7 19 f4 is better for Whίte) 17 f4 (17 .ιd4 .ιΧd418 Wxd4 Wxa2) 17...1Dc518.*.f3(18"'c2.ιd7 followOO by 19....ιc6 ΊS fine for Black) 18...:ab8=. 16•••JΣab817 h3lDd718.ιn 'fIc7 19 'fIn lDcs 20 lDd2 aS:f Buza-Marasescu, Romania 1988.

81b2d) 14lDa4 Whίte's

only real try for an advantage. 14•••"'xd2+ 15 hd2lDd7 (D)

Gurgenidze System

169

w

16:hdl has also tήoo several other moves: Ι) 161Dc3 100 to a quick draw ίη Spassky-Sosonko, Tilburg 1981 after 16 ...lDf6 (16... r.Pf8 17lDd5 .*.xd5 18 exd5 :cb8 19 a4 a5 20 f4! .*.b2 21 :cdl .ιa3 22 r.Pc2 .ιc5 23 .*.cl! lDf6 24 .ιf3 eS 25 dxe6 fxe6 26 g4 favoured Whίte ίn Lesi~ge-Spangen­ berg, Havana 1993) 17lDd5 ~xd5 18 cxdS .ιd7 19 :xc8+ :xc8 20 :c 1 :xcl 21 r.Pxcl f5 Ih-1f2 • 2) 16 :c2 :c6 (also good is 16...f5) 171Dc3 (17 :hcl1Dc5 181Dc3 f5 is also equal) 17... a5 18 :hc11Dc5 Ih- I/2 Panno-Reshevsky, Siegen OL 1970. The sharpest moves, 16 g4 and 16 h4, are dίscussOO at length ίη Blala (the same position is reachOO by 1ransposition). 16••':cb8 Odd-loolάng but efIective. The threat of ...b7-b5 is annoying to Whίte. Black can also consider 16...:ab8 17 r.Pel (171Dc3 f5 18lDdS .ιΧd5 19 exd5 a5 20 JΣc21Dc5 21 :bl.ιe5 22 g3 JΣf8 23 f4 .ιf6 24.ιf3 :Cc8 25 a3 b5 26.ιχc5 :xc5 27 .*.e2 r.Pf8 28 :bcl Μ1ΟΟ to Whίte

170

Accelerαted

an eventual draw ίη Kurajica-Brendel, Pardubice 1994) 17 ... f5 (17 ... ':c6 18 lίk3 .i.xc3+ 19 ':xc3 b5 with the idea of ... b4 and ... lLJc5 is also equal) 18 exf5 gxf5 19 c5 dxc5 20 lLJxc5 lLJxc5 21 ':xc5 .i.c3+ 22 Φf1 .i.b4 23 ':e5 ':c6 24 ':xe6 ':xe6 25 .i.c4 cRf7 26 ':d7 b5 27 .i.d5 ':c8 28 ':a7 ':cc6 1/2-1/2 Korchnoi-Oliff, England simul 1972. 17 cS dxcS 18lLJxcS lLJxcS 19.J:ΣxcS ':d8+ 20 cRe1.J:Σxd1+ 21 cRxd1':c8 = Hort-Vasiukov, Wijk aan Zee 1973.

81c) 90-0 Α flexible and popular move. Also possible is 9 .*.d2 0-0 10 We3, when White preserves some extra options by delaying cast1ing. If 10...lLJd7 (10...e6?! 11 ο-ο d5 12 cxd5 exd5 13 exd5 ':e8 14 Wg3 lLJxd5 15 .*.b5 ;t Κeres-Bar­ czay, Budapest 1970) then 11 h4 f5 12 exf5 gxf5 13 lLJd5 e5 14 Wa3lίk5 15 .i.g5 Wd7 16 0-0-0 lLJe4 17 We3 ;!; Keres-Dely, Kapfenberg Echt 1970. Instead Black should play 10....*.e6 or 10....*.d7, when White has nothing better than 11 ο-ο with transposition back Ιο the main lines. 9•.,0-0 Now White has two interesting places Ιο stash his queen: B1c1: 10 We3 170 B1c2: 10 Wd3 176 Two other possibilities: 1) 10 .i.d2 lLJg4 11 Wd3 lLJe5 12 Wg3lίk6 (Black was successful with 12... f5 13 ':adl fxe4 14lLJxe4 .*.f5 15 lίk3 ':c8 16 lLJd5':f7 17 Wh4 Wf8 18 .*.c3 h6 19 h3 g5 in Vasiukov-Gufeld,

Dragons

USSRCh(Thilisi) 1967) 13 ':adl lLJd4 14 .*.d3 a6 15 cRhl f5 16 lLJd5':f7 17 .*.g5 Wf8 18 Wh4lLJc6 19 exf5 gxf5 20 c5 h6 21 .*.c IlLJe5 22 cxd6 exd6 23 .i.c2 b5 24 .*.b3 lLJc4 25 .*.e3 .*.f6 26 Wh5 1-0 Serper-Ilinsky, USSR Cht (ΑΖον) 1991. 2) 10 Wdl?! .i.e6 11 .i.e3 Wa5 12 ':cl ':fc8?! (12 ... a6 13 f4 b5 must be stronger) 13 b3 a6 14 f4lLJg4? 15 .*.d4 lLJe3 16 .*.xe3 .*.xc3 17 f5 .*.d7 18 c5! was much better for White ίη TalVasiukov, Riga ιι 1955. Things didn't get any better for Black after 18....:xc5 19 .i.xc5 Wxc5+ 20 cRhl Wa5 21 .*.c4 ':f8 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 Wd5 b5 24 ':xf7 bxc4 25 ':cf1 ':c8 26 ':f8+ cRh7 27 Wg8+, and White went οη Ιο wiD.

81c1) 10 We3 (D)

Β

Α modest piece development (the cl-bishop is headed for d2) that is designed Ιο reduce Black's counterplay. The bishop οη d2 and queen οη e3 give support ιο the knight οη c3, stopping many typical ...b5 tricks. The bishop οη d2 also discourages ...Wa5 by Black.

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Το combat this set-up Black has three main choices: 81cla: 10•••~7 171 81clb: 10•••J.d7 171 81clc: 10•••J.e6 173

Note that 10...OΙΙg4 11 .g3 is ~.

81c1a) 10•••~7(D)

w

Gurgenidze System

171

11•••.ιιcs

11 ...1Fb61200.d813:bl.ιιc5 14 J.b2 e5 15 f4 J.h6 16 J.xe5 dxe5 17 .xc5 exf4 18 :bdl ;t!± BenkoPanno, Palma de Mallorca 1971. 12 J.b2 aS 13 :adl White has the better game. Black creates more weaknesses after 13... f5?! 14 exf5 J.xf5 15 J.f3 :c8 16 :fel ± Uhlmann-Matulovic, Skopje 1969, whi1e the passive 13... b6 gives White a free hand: 14 f4 .tb7 15 e5 .b8 16 exd6 exd6 17 J.f3 :e8 18 .d2 .txf3 19 :xf3 1Fb7 20 f5! ± Tatai-Cosulich, Baή 1972.

B1c1b) 10••..td7 (D)

This isn't as effective as after 10 .d3 since the knight doesn't come 10 c5 with tempo. 11 b3 Other moves have also led Ιο some good moments for White: Ι) 11 Φhl .ιιc5 12 f4 J.xc3 13 bxc3 f5 14 exf5 J.xf5 15 J.a3 :c8 16 J.f3 ~ Smyslov-Furman, USSR 1967. White's advantage grew after 16....d7 17 :adl b6 18 :tel:fe8 19 h3 .a4 20 J.xc5 bxc5 21 g4 J.d7 22 f51. 2) 11 J.d2 .ιιc5 12 :adl J.d7 13 J.el!? b6 (13 ....ιιa4 14 b3 OΙΙxc3 15 J.xc3 J.xc3 16 .xc3 ~) 14 f4 .ιιa4 15 b3.ιιxc3 16 J.xc3 J.xc3 17 .xc3 .c7 18 .g3 ~ Geller-Ostojic, Belgrade 1969.

Νοι as popular as 10... J.e6 but we feel that this is Black's most trustworthy way of handling this position. Its use by Maroczy experts Dzindzichashvili and Leko confirms our view.

11J.d2 White has also failed Ιο get anything with other moves: 1) 11 :bl .b6 12 .g3 (12 .xb6 axb6 13 J.e3 J.c6 is fine for Black, as

Accelerαted

172

is 12b3.xe3! {12 ..ic613 .d3! gave Whίte a slίght edge ίη Stohl-Leko, Bmo 1993} 13 .*.xe3 .*.c6 14 1Dd5 .*.xd5 15 exd5 lί:)e4 16 :οο 1 llX:3 17 :C2lί:)xe2+ 18 :Xe2.*.f6 analysis by Stohl) 12...:fc8 13 .*.e3 1i'b4 14 :.ccl .i.e6 15 .h4! (avoiding 15 b3 .xc3! 16 :xc3 lΩxe4) 15 ... a6 16 a3 • a5 17 b4 .d8 18 c5 dxc5 19 bxc5 .a5! = Smyslov-Glίgori~, Moscow Alekhίne mem 1971. 2) l11:dl and now: 2a) 11 ...•a512.i.d2:fc813lί:)b5 (13 :acl) 13 ...1rb6 14 .xb6 axb6 15 llX:3 .i.e6 16 b3 b5 17 e5 (17 cxb5 lί:)xe4 18lί:)xe4 .*.xal 19 :xal .i.xb3 20 1Ωc3 .*.xa2!) 17...1Dd7 18 lΩxb5 lΩxe5 19 .i.c3 .*.g4 20 .*.xg4lΩxg4 21 .*.xg7 Φxg7 22 a4lί:)f6 '/'1._'/'1. SmyslovBrowne, Amsterdam 1971. 2b) 11 ...a6 12 c5.a5 13 cxd6 exd6 14 .*.d2 .*.c6 Boleslavsky. 2c) 11 ...•b6 12 .xb6 (12 c5? dxc5 13 e5lί:)g4 14 ...g5lΩxe5 15'Ωd5 .d8 =1=) 12... axb6 13 .*.e3 .*.c6 14 f3 'Ωd7 and then: 2cl) 15:dcl1Ωc516:C2:.cc817 'Ωd5 j,xd5 18 cxd5 :a3!? (18 ... lί:)a4 19 :ac 1 :xc2 20 :xc2 .*.xb2 is fine forBlack) 19.*.a:Ca820j,c4 b5! 21 :acl :3a4 22 j,xb5, Dlescas-Leko, Leon 1993, and now instead ofLeko's mίstaken 22...:xa2 23 b4 :xc2 24 ':xc2lΩa6 25 .*.el, whίch was better for Whίte, 22 ...:b4! 23 j,c4 b5 24 j,b3 lΩxb3 is equal. 2c2) 15 j,d4 j,xd4+?! (15 ...1Ωc5! 16 j,xg7 Φχg7 17 Φa'Ωa4 equalίzes for Black) 16 :'xd41Ωc5 17 .*.dl :.rd8 181:d2 e5? 19 b4lΩe6 20 b5 j,e8 21 lί:)d5 ± Lemer-Vasiukov, Bela Crkva 1988. 11 •••86 (D)

=-

=

Dragons

Whίte gets some advantage after 11 ...1rb6121:.abl .xe3 13 j,xe3 :.cc8 14 :'fcl a6?! (l4....*.c6 15 o'Ωd7 ;1;) 15 f3 .i.e6 16 b3 Φf8 17 a4 a5 18 lΩd5! lί:)d7 19 :'dl j,xd5 20 cxd5 .*.c3 21 .*.b5 1Ωc5 22 :'dcl .*.b4 23 g4! f6 24 h4 ± Κeres-Lengyel, Tallίηη 1975 . Α rarely seen but interestίng move is 11 ... a5!? intendίng ....*.c6 foUowed by ... lΩd7-c5 as ίη simίlar lίnes of the Maroczy (ίη those lίnes Whίte's best set-up is .d2 + j,e3 WΊth a quick b2b4; here he can't achίeve this). Here are a couple of examples: 1) 12:acl j,c613lΩd5lΩxe4! 14 .xe4 e6 15 .d3 exd5 16 cxd5 j,d7 17 j,c3 .*.f5 18 .d2 :e8 19 .*.b5 .*.xc3 20 :'xc3 :e5 21 :el :'xel+ 22 .xel :C8 23 h3 :Xc3 24 .xc3 1rb6 25 a4 h5 26 b4 axb4 27 .xb4 j,d7 'h-'h Κaίumov-Tangbom, Budapest 1992. 2) 12 :'fdl .*.c6 (the actual moveorder of this game was 11 ....*.c6 12 :'fdl a5 but Whίte could have answered 11 ...j,c6 WΊth 12 b4~) 13lΩd5 'Ωd7 14 j,c3 .*.xc3 15 lΩxc3 1rb6 16 .xb6 lί:)xb6 17 b3 :'fc8 = BarczaDamjanoVΊ~, Vιiac 1967.

w

Mαroczy ΒίΜ: Gurgeniιke

12IΣrdl

Other moves: 1) 12 a4 a5! 131Σa3 (13 b3 J.c6 14 lΣael ιαΙ7 15 J.dl ~5 16 J.c2 b6 17 f4 e6 18 ~2 f5 = Ivkov-Adoιjan, Amsterdam 1971) 13...J.c6 14 f4 e6 15 IΣdl fle7 16 J.f3 liJd7 is equa1, Van der Weide-Adoιjan, Amsterdam 1970. 2) 12 ~d5?! ~xd5 13 cxd5 IΣc8 14 flb3?! (14J.d3 =) 14...b5! + Lombardy-Browoe, US Opeo 1972. 12.......! Aoother idea is 12...J.c6 13 b4 b6 14lΣablliJd7 15 h4 b5 16 a3 bxc4 17 J.xc4 ~5 18 J.b3 (18 J.e2 f5! 19 exf5 gxf5 20 flg3 Φh8) 18 ... J.b7 19 h5? (19 fle2 is ;t accordiog ιο Sa1ov) 19... gxh5 20 flh3 J.c8! 21 "g3 J.g4 22 f3 J.e6 23 ιαΙ5 J.xd5! 24 J.xd5 "b6+ 25 Φh2 lΣac8 26 IΣbcl e6 27 J.b3 Φh8 28 J.g51Σg8 with good play for Black, Sa1ov-Dzindzichashvili, New York 1996. 1384 Black a1so equa1izes after l3lΣacl b5 14 b3 bxc4 15 J.xc4 ~g4 16 "g3 J.d4 17 IΣfl "a7 18 ~2 J.e5 19 J.f4 J.g7 20 h3 ~f6 21 "d3 J.b5 = Y.Sakharov-Κapeogut, Moscow 1967. 13•••&5 14lΣacl Other samples of Black's chances are: 1) 14 h3 J.c6 15 ιαIslΣe8 16 J.c3 ιαΙ7 17 J.xg7 Φχg7 18 b3 e5 = Uhlmano-Kapeogut, E.Germany vs Byelorussia 1969. 2) 14 b3 J.c6 15 J.el ιαΙ7 16 lΣabl ~5 17 ιαIs lΣe8 18 f3 b6 = Boleslavsky-Averbakh, USSR 1966. 3) 14 lΣa3 J.c6 15 liJd5 lΣe8 16 J.c3liJd7 17 J.xg7 ΦΧρ'7 18 "g5 h6 19 "h4 ~f6 20 1Σh3 ~g8 21 IΣdd3 "d8! 22 e5 dxe5 23 ~f6 exf6 24

System

173

IΣxd8 lΣexd8

is uoclear, Ni~evski­ 1969. 14••• J.c615 b3liJd7 Ivkov-Browoe, Wijk aan Zee 1972. Black has a perfectly satisfactory positioo. He was oever ίο danger as the game progressed: 16 liJd5 J.xd5 17 exd5 ~5 18IΣel "c7 19 h4lΣae8!? 20 J.dl Wb6 21 J.c2 e5 22 h5 e4! 23 IΣbl flc7 24 hxg6 hxg6 25 b4 axb4 26 J.xb4t&6=. Κapeogut, Vιlnius

B1c1c) 10•••J.e6 (D)

w

Extremely popular.

llJ.d2 The usua1 move, though others are a1so seeo 00 occasioo: 1) lllΣdl "c7 (1l ...Wb6 12 "xb6 axb6 13 J.e31Σfc8 14 b3 b5 15 ~b5 ~xe4 = Panno-Ree, Las Palmas 1973) 12 ~b5 "c6 13 ~xa7 "xe4 14 ~b5 IΣfc8 15 b3 d5 16 liJd4 J.d7 = Uhlmann-Hecht, Raach 1969. 2) l1IΣbl with another branch: 2a) 11 ... Wb6 and theo: 2al) 12 fld3 IΣfc8 13 b3 a6 14 J.d2 "d8 15IΣbc 1 J.d7 16 a4 J.c6 17

174

Accelerated Dragons

ll)d5 ~7 18 .J.g5 f6 19 .J.e3 e6 20 ll)c3 ll)c5 21 "c2 aS 22 :fdl "e7 seems all ήght for Black, though ίη Tulαnakov-Yrjolii, Κateήnί

1992 Whίte

went οη to WΊη the game. 2a2) 12 "g3!? with the idea of ς;ιhΙ and f4 is a threatening altematίve.

2a3) 12 b3 :fc8 13 "xb6 axb6 14 a4 ~7 15 ~5 .J.xd5 16 exd5 ll)c5 17 .*.e3 was just a tίηy bit better for White ίη Stean-Adorjan, Hastίngs 1973/4. 2b) 11 ... a612.*.d2 (12 a4! ~7 13 ~5 ΙOC5 14 b3 J:ιe8 15 .*.a3! :c8 16 :fdl aS 17 f4 .*.xd5, Eingom-Κrasen­ kov, Metz 1993, 18 cxd5! ± Κrasen­ kov) 12...b5!? 13 cxb5 axb5 14.J.xb5 .J.xa2 15ll)xa2 :xa2 16 .J.c4 :a8 17 Μ, Κorchnoi-Benko, C~ao Ct 1962. One source calls this ;t, Schwarz claims it's equal, and Levy claims that White has a clear advantage! White's two bishops and passed b-pawn must give him all the chances. 2c) 11 ...~7 12 .*.d2 Vb613 ~5 .J.xd5 14 exd5 .J.d4 15 "g3 aS 16 b3 1Oc5 17 "g4 .J.g7 18 ς;ιhΙ f5 19"f3 ΙΙ2- 1/2 Wojtkiewicz-Gdanski, Buenos Aires 1993. ll •••W'b6(D) The usual recipe against a queen οη e3. Altematίves: 1) 11 ... ll)g4 12 "g3 (12 .J.xg4 .J.xg4 13 b3 b6 14 :acl .J.d7 15 a4 Vb8 16 f4 e6 17"d3 a618 .*.e3 :c8 19 :tdl .J.c6 20 .J.d4 .J.xd4+ 21 "xd4 b5 22 axb5 axb5 23 cxb5 .*.xb5 24 f5 .J.e8 25 fxe6 1/2-1/2 Ionov-Andreev, St Petersburg 1992) 12...~5 13 b3 ~6 14h4:c815 f4~416f5 ll)xe2+ 17 ll)xe2.J.xaI18:xal.J.d719hS~

20 .J.e3 "aS 21 hxg6 fxg6 22 fxg6 h6

23 c5 ± Κhenkin-Neverov, Moscow 1989. 2) 11 ... ~7andhere: 2a) 12 b3 Vb6 13 :acl .J.d4 (Black should play 13 .....xe3) 14 "g3 ΙOC5 15 ~4 .J.f616 "f4 aS 17 ~5 .J.xdS 18 exd5 .J.e5 19 Vh6 .J.g7 20 "f4 .J.e5 21 "e3 e6 22 dxe6 fxe6 23 g3 :ae8 24 h4 and Black's weakened kingside mixed with White's two bishops paved the way for a victory for White ίη WojtkieWΊcz-Gdanski, Warsaw 1993. 2b) 12 f4 "b6 13 "xb6ll)xb6 14 b3.*.d7 15 J:ιacl.J.c6 1600 ;t Smyslov-Sanguinetti, Mar del Plata 1966. 3) 11 ... a612 b3 ~713 f4 "b614 "xb6 ~b6 15 J:ιacl.J.d4+ (15 ...:tc8 1600 ltJxdS 17 cxdS .J.d7 18 :xc8+ :xc8 19 :cl 1/2- Ih Κharitonov-Yur­ taev, Simferopol 1989) 16 ς;ιhΙ .J.d7 17 .J.f3 .J.c6 18 1ΣcdΙltJd7 19 .J.el Uhlmann-Browne, Amsterdam 1971.

=

w

12b3 Or: 1) Black obtains good play after 12 "xb6 axb6 13 f4 (neither 13 a4 ιαJ7 = ηοι 13 .J.e3 :fc8 14 b3 ~7 15 :fcl b5 16 lί)xb5 .J.xal 17 :xal ΙOC5 18

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

.i.xc5 dxc5 19 Wf1 .i.d7 20 l2k3 .i.c6 21.i.d3 :d8 22 We2 Wg7, Dragomaretsky-Neverov, Moscow 1990, holds any teποrs for Black) 13 ...:fc8 14 b3 b5! 15 cxb5 lbxe4!? (15 ... lbd7) 16 lbxe4 .i.d4+ 17 Whl .i.xal 18 :xal, Μatuιοviό-Jansa, Vdac 1979, and now Jansa gives 18 ...-*.xb3 19l2k3 d5 20 -*.ο .i.xa2!? Whίte might also allow the capture οη b2: 2) 12.d3 .xb2 13 :abl .a3 14 :xb7 lDd7 15 :b3 .a5 is unclear since 16lbd5 ίs answered by 16...•d8 followed by 17 ...l2k5. 3) 12 :adl!? .xb2 (12...•xe3 13 -*.xe3 lbd7 is safer) 13 :bl .a3 14 :xb7 :fb8 15 :fbl :xb7 16 :xb7, Baumbach-Mohrίng, East Germany 1975, and now instead of 16...•a6?, whίch lost a pawn after 17 Le7 -*.xc4 18-*.xc4.xc419:xa7,Blackshould have played 16...lbd7 wίth a satisfactory position. 4) 12:acl.xe313-*.xe3a614f3 :fc8 15 ιαt5lbxd5 16 cxd5 -*.d7 17 b3 -*.b5 K.Larsen-Donaldson, Long Beach 1993. 12.•••xe3 12...lbd7 13 :acl would transpose back into the maίn line after 13 ...•xe3. It's dangerous to leave the queens οη: 13 ...:Cc8?! 14.g5 -*.f6 15 Wh6 -*.g7 16 .h4 -*.f6 17 -*.g5 .a5 18 -*.xf6 lbxf6 19 f4 .c5+ 20 Whl .e3 21 -*.ο :c5 22 :fel .d2 23 .g3lbh5 24 -*.xh5 :xh5 25 :cdl .b2 26 f5 -*.d7 27 :e2 .a3 28 lbd5 :e8 29 f6 e5 30 fΔe7+ Wf8 31 :ed2 and Black is busted, Dely-Dδry, Hungary 1986. 13 -*.xe3 (D) Thίs position is also reached via 1 e4 c5 2lbf3l2k6 3 d4 cxd4 4lbxd4 g6

=

Gurgenidze System

175

5 c4 lbf6 6 l2k3 d6 7 -*.e2 lbxd4 8 .xd4 .i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 .i.g5 .i.e6 11 .e3 Wb6 12 b3 .xe3 13 -*.xe3 (found ίη Bla2). 13••• lbd7

The most popular move, unmaskίηΒ the dark-squared bishop, preparίηΒ to brίηB the knight to c5 and allowίng the possίbilίty of ...f5. Also interesting are: 1) 13 ....i.d714 :acl :Cc8 15 :fdl -*.c616f3a517
176

Accelerated Dragons

2) 13 ...ιDg4!? 14 .*.d2 .*.e5 15 .*.xg4 (15 g3lbf6 16 .*.d3 a6 17 :ac 1 :fc8 18 f4 .*.d4+ 19 ~g2 b5 is fine for Black - analysis by Silman and Donaldson) 15 ....*.xc3 16 .*.xc3 .*.xg4 = Enders-Kochiev, Balatonbereny 1988. 3) 13 ...:fc8 14 :acl (14 :abl is examined in detail in Bla2) and then: 3a) 14 ... a6 15 f3 ~7 16 f4 (16 ~5?! .*.xd5 17 cxd51 .*.b2! 18 :bl .*.a3 + Martinovic-Korholz, Dieren 1984) 16... f5? (better is 16...ιDc5 but 17 f5 .*.xc3 18 :Xc3 .*.d7 19 .*.ο .*.c6 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 .*.xc5 dxc5 22 e5! is still very strong for White) 17 exf5 gxf5 18.*.Ο :c7 19 :fel (19 .*.d5!1) 19...ιDf8 20 .*.b6 ± Κeres-Hug, Petropolis ΙΖ 1973. 3b) 14... ~7 15 ~5 (or 15 :c2 ~f8 16 f4 ιDc5 17 .*.ο :ab8 {intending ...f7-f5} 18 g4 .*.d7 19 g5 a5 {19....*.xc3! 20 :xc3 .*.c6 is equal according 10 Ivkov} 20 ~g2?! a4 is level, Ivkov-Webb, Moscow Echt 1977) 15 ...~f8 16 ιDf4 ιDc5 17 ιDxe6+ fxe6 18 f3 a5 19 :bl .*.c3 20 :fdl e521 .*.xc5 :xc5 = Savon-Tukmakov, Moscow 1973.

15••..txdS 16 exdS aS Unfortunately for Black, 16....tb2 doesn't work here ίη view of 17 :bl and 18 b4. 17:c2! Stopping ....*.b2-a3. 17••.15 On 17...:fc8 18 g4! intends f4, .*.f3, :g2, .*.f3-dl-c2 followed by a kingside press. Gelfand suggests 17...h5! 18 f4 f5 Ιο restrain g2-g4. 18 g3 .*.e5?! 18...h5 should have been tήed. 19 f4.*.f6 Gelfand-Malishauskas, Moscow GMA 1989. Now 20 g4! is ± accordίηι Ιο Gelfand.

B1c2) 101td3(D)

Β

14:κιω WΊth

14...:fc8 Black could (and should) transpose back ίη1ο SavonThkmakov and Ivkov-Webb.

15lMs! Now that ...Φt'8 isn't possible, White is able Ιο collect the bishop pair. The older 15 f3 gives Black an excellent game: 15... a5 16 :fel1! (both 16 :C2 f5!? and 16 ~ .*.xd5 17 exd5 .*.b2 18 :c2 .*.a3 are all ήght for Black) 16...:fc8 17 00 .*.xd5 18 cxd5 (18 exd5 .tb2 19:C2 .ta3) 18...a4 19 b4 ιDb3!! 20 :xc8+ :xc8 21 .tb5 a3 + Matulovic-lansa, Νί! 1977.

This line is also arήved at by 9 .te3 ο-ο 10 1td3. Like 10 _e3, one of the

ideas behind 10 _d3 is to make ...b5 difficult to achieve by giving the knight οη c3 extra protection. The other plan behind it is 10 play for a quick exchange of dark-squared bishops (by kl-e3-d4) followed by rapid kingside

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

action with f2-f4-f5. The fact that it has a strong following among Czech GMs Smejkal and Jansa, who have both played 7...ltlxd4 against the Maroczy many times, indicates it is a line to be taken seήοuslΥ. ECO (Υοl. Β, 2nd edition) gives it as a slίght plus for Whίte with best play. After 10 "d3 Black can choose between: 81c2a: 10••..t.d7!? 177 81c2b: 10••• ltlcι7 178 Blc2c: 10•••.te6 179 81c2d: 10•••86 181 AIso possible is 10... ltlg4!? See scction Blc2d for a comparison.

B1c2a) 10•••.td7!? (D)

Gurgenidze System

177

would arise here from the continuaιίοη 10... .td7 11 .1e3 a5 12 .1d4 .tc6 13 :acl (or 13 Ι4). 11.te3.tc6 Ιι seems ιο us that 11 ... a5 is more accurate. The only try Ιο exploit this move-order is 12 c5 but then 12....tc6 13 cxd6 (13 f3 d5 14 e5ltld7 15 f4 e6 16 :acl f6 17 exf6 1Wxf6 was Bojkovίό-Van der Weide, Groningen 1995) 13 ...exd6 14 :adl :e8 15 f3 d5 is equal. Ιη Kudήn-Donaldson, Reno 1992, Whίte answered 11 ... a5 with 12 b3 .1c6 13 f3 but Black easily held his own after 13 ...ltld7 14 :acl ltlc5 15 "d2.te5 16 :fdl b6 17 .tf1 :a7 18 :bl :d7 19ltle2 e6 20 .1g5 .tf6 21 .tf4 .te5 22 .1g5 .1Ι6 23 .tf4 .te5 Ih- I/2. For Iίnes with 11 ... a6, see Blc2d (10... a6).

12 Μ! Whίte's

Thίs is rarely employed but it makes some sensc. Black would like to steer play into the line 1 e4 c5 2 00 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 g6 5 c4 .tg7 6 .te3 ltlf6 7ltlc3 0-0 8 .te2 d6 9 0-0 .td7 1Ο :clltlxd4 11 .txd4.tc6 12 "d3 a5 13 f4 a4, which offers him a reasonable game. Compare that with what

advantage ίη space gives him a small ρυΙΙ, but nevertheless Petursson enjoys these posίtions as Black and handles them with great skilI. Hellers-Petursson, San Bemardino 1990 confirmed this assessment after 12...b6 13 .td4 a5 14 a3ltld7 15 .txg7 rl;xg7 16 "d4+ rl;g8 17 :adl axb4 18 axb4 :a3 19 Ι4 "c7 20 .tg4ltlf6 21 .1f3 ;1;. LΙ is interesting to note that in a later game Petursson ooce again happily went ίηΙο this, though here his ορρο­ oent varied with 12 f3. After 12...a613 :fdlltld7 14 "d2ltlc5 15 :aclltla4 16ltlxa4.txa4 17 b3 .tc6 18 "el b6 19"f2 :b8 20 :c2 "c7 21.td3 "b7 22 "h4 :fd8 23 :dcl :d7 24 "f2 a draw was agreed ίο Wedberg-Petursson, New York Open 1991.

Accelerαted Drαgons

178

=

B1c2b) 10...tM7 (D)

Αι one time this was thoυght Ιο be Black's best ίη view of the threat of ...1Dc5 followed by ....txc3. Then 10... ~7 was more or less abandoned when White's cοπect ideas (beginηίηΒ with 11 .tg5!) were discovered. Today, 10... lOd7 is once again being looked at thanks Ιο the postal game

.te3 .te5 20 :c2 :ac8 AnderssonThkmakov, Madrid 1973. 11•••eαs 12.e3 .txc3!? Will White's doυbled c-pawns be a factor or will the 10ss οί his darksqυared bishop come back Ιο haυnt Black? Parma gives 12...lDe6 13 .th6 and 12....td7 1300 as both favoυr­ ίηΒ White slightly, even thoυgh the following game didn't confirm this assessment: 12....td7 13 .th6 .txh6 14 Wxh6 .tc615.tf3 Wb6 16 Wd2 Wb4 17 We2 e5 18 .tg4 a5 19 :adl a420 a3 Wa5 21 :xd6lt)b3 22 :d3 .c5 23 :h3 :ad8 24lOd5 b5 25 :c3 bxc4 26 .e3 Wxe3 27 fxe3 .tb5 28 :c2 Wg7 1/2-1/2 Pυpo-Hemandez, Havana 1992. 13 bxc3(D)

Mohrlok-Κamenets.

11 .tgS! Other moves are qυite comfortable forBlack: 1) 11 .te3l&5 12.c2 .txc3;. 2) 11 .g3 ια:5 12 Wh4 .txc3 13 bxc3 ί5 14 .tg5:tϊ; Schmidt-Parma, Belgrade 1961. 3) 11.td2 ια:5 12 .e3 .td7 (also good is 12 ... a5 13 b3 .td7 14 ί4 .tc6 15 .tf3 lbe6! 16 Whl lOd4 17 .tdl b5! 18 cxb5lt)xb5 Honfi-Pirc, Κecs­ kemet 1962) 13 :acl.tc614 f3 a5 15 b3 (15 :fdl ί5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 b3 f4 18 .f2 e6 19 .tel:n 20 Whl 21 .tf1 Wh8 22 .d2 .te5 ; Gυfeld­ Forintos, Debrecen 1969) 15 ... e6 16 :tdl.e7 17.tf1 :fd8 18.f2 b619

=

.f8

13...:e8! Improving οη 13 ...b6 14 .th6 :e8 15 f4.tb7 16 ί5! e6? (16 ...lt)xe4? 17 .tf3 1Dc5 18 .txb7lt)xb7 19 fxg6 is winning for White; best is 16 ....txe4 17 :f4 bυt the prognosis is still grim for Black) 17 fxg6 fxg6 18 e5, when White had a strong attack ίη SmejkalJansa, Hradec Κralove 1981. This tυrned into a win after 18... d5 19 :f4 lt)e4 20 cxd5 exd5 21 :xe4 dxe4 22

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

~c4+ ~d5 (22 ...~h8 23 ~g5 is immediately wiηning for White) 23 ~e6 24 .b7 :e7 25 ~xe6+.

.xe4

14Ι4

14:adl"b615eS~f5 16g4~c2

17 :d2 ~a4 is unclear according Ιο Mohrlok. who also points οuΙ that 14 ~h6 can be met both by 14...e5!? and by 14....i.e6 15 f4 f6 with mutual chances. 14...'iFb615 :abl .c616 e5 16 .i.f3 "a6 annoys the c4-pawn. 16.•••e4 Also possible is 16....i.f5 17 .i.f3 ~e4 18 .i.xe4ltlxe4 19 .i.h6 "c5 :j: analysis by Mohrlok. 17 .12 .<:2 18 .i.f3 .xf2+ 19 1bf2.i.f5 The game is equal. Mohrlok-Κam­ enets, corr 1992-4 contίnued 20 :dl dxe5 21 fxe5 :ac8 22 .i.d5 and now 22... b623 g4ltle6 24 gxf5 ltlxg5 with the idea of ... ltlh3+ and ... e6 is m whίle 22 ...ltle4!? 23 .i.xe4 ~xe4 is solidly :j: according to Mohrlok.

B1c2c) 10•••.i.e6 (D)

Gurgenidze System

179

Α natural move that has recently become very popular. Mter 10....i.e6 White usually chooses between: Blc2cl: ll.i.d2 179 Blc2c2: 11 .i.e3 180

The rare 11 .i.g5!? was trίed ίη Strauss-Donaldson, con 1981-3. The contίnuatίon favoured Black after 11 ...ltld7 12 .d2 ltlc5 13 f3 aS 14 ~hl :e8 15 :abl 'ifb6 1600 .i.xd5 17 cxd5 .i.f6 18 .i.xf6 exf6 19 .i.c4 "b4 20 "xb4 axb4 21 ~gl :ec8 22 :fc 1 :c7 23 ~f1ltlxe4! 24 fxe4 :ac8 :j:. However, this is hardly the final word concerning the merits of l1.i.g5.

B1c2c1) 11 .i.d2ltld7 Also possible is 11 ... a6 12 b3ltld7 (12...:b8!? is an untrίed recommendatίon of Fedorowicz) 13 :acl "b6 14 ~hl "d4 15 "c2 :fc8 16 f4 f5? (Black's game goes downhίll after this; better is 16 ... ltlf6 17 f5 .i.d7 18 .i.g5 !) 17 exf5 .i.xf5 18 "dl ltlf6 19 .i.f3 :ab8 20 "el ± FedorowiczZsu.Polgar, Amsterdam 1990. 11 .....b6?! is ηοΙ Ιο be recommended after 12 b3 :fc8 13 :ac 1 a6 14 ~hl "d8 15 f4 :ab8 16.i.e3 "aS 17.i.a7:as 18 .i.d4 ± Am.RodriguezHemandez, Cuban Ch 1991. 12 b3(D) 12.••&5 Coπectly heading for the wellknown ... ltlxd4, ....i.d7-c6 set-up. Altematίves are not as effectίve: 1) 12...ltle5 13 "g3 ltlc6 14 ~hl ltld4 15 .i.d3 :c8 16 :adl a6 17 f4 ± Smyslov-Κorchnoi, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1961.

180

Accelerated Dragons

"xd5 "c7 24 "d2 .:r.d8 25 "e3 .:r.ab8 26 .:r.d5 e6 27 .:r.d2 e5 28 .:r.ddllDe6 29 "d2 1Dd4 30 .i.d3 "e7 31 .:r.fl .i.f6 1/2-1/2 Leko-TιVΊakov, Groningeo 1995. 13 .:r.acllDcs 14 "e3 J.d7! Black takes tίme ουΙ to bήοg hίs bishop to a better square. 15 f4 .i.c6 16 .i.f3 e6 17 ιi>hl "e7 181Db5 1/2-1/2 Z.Almasi-Τίνίκον, C~ak 1996. White got absolutely nothίog ίο thίs game.

Β

2) 12... f5?! 13 exf5 lDc5 14 "g3 .i.xf5 15 :001 ± Savon-Shvedchikov, USSR 1973. 3) 12...a6 and here White has trίed: 3a) 13 .:r.acl 1De5 (13 ... b5!?) 14 "g3 (14 "e3 lDc6 15 1Dd5 1Dd4 16 .i.d3 .i.d7 17 .i.c3 e5 18 ί4 .A.c6 19 ί5 .i.xd5 20 exd5 21 .:r.cel .i.h6 22 ;t Am.Rodriguez-Antυnes, Malaga 1991) 14...1Dc6 15 ί4 1Dd4 16 .i.d3 ί5! 17 exf5 .i.xf5 18 J.xf5 .:r.xf5 19 "d3! ;t Z.Alιnasί-1ίνίKoν, Buenos Aires 1996. 3b) 13 ί4 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 ί5 .A.xb3! 16 "xb5 (16 axb3 .:r.xal 17 :Xal b4) 16....:r.b8 17 "d3 1De5 18 "e3lDc4 19 J.xc4 .i.xc4 20.:r.o ~ :ι: Zviagίntsev-Sorokio, Russian Ch (Elίsta) 1996. 3c) 13 "e3 1i'b6 14 "xb6 lDxb6 15 :acl .:r.ac8 16 J.e3 lDd7 17 tα15 .:r.fe8 18 .:r.fdl ιi>f8 19 Ο .A.b2 20 :c2 .i.a3 21 J.h6+ ιi>g8 22 ιi>fl 1De5 23 .:r.dd21Dc6 24 f41Db4 25 1Dxb4 J.xb4 26 :dl b5 Enklaar-Makarychev, Amsterdam 1974. 4) 12...1Dc5 13 "e3 .i.d7 14 :abl .A.c6 15 f3 a5 = 16 ιi>hl .:r.e8 17 :fdl b6 18 .i.el "b8 19.i.f2 "b7 20.i.fl .:r.eb8 211Dd5 "d7 22 "g5 .i.xd5 23

"fl

"h4

=

B1c2c2) 11 J.e3 (D)

Β

Thίs move (with the idea οί .i.d4) has a good theoretίcal reputatίon but few modem players make use of ίι any more . 11•••a6 It's οοΙ clear what plan Black shou1d use: 1) 1l .....a512J.d4(12.:r.acl:tc8 13 b3 1Dd7 14 "d21Dc5 15 f3 a6 16 .i.g5.:r.c7 17 :tdl ;t Omsteίn-Velikov, Skara Echt 1980) 12....:r.fc8 13 b3 a6 (13 ...1Dd7 14 .i.xg7 ιi>xg7 15 f41Df6?! 16 .:r.ael a6 17 f5 J.d7 18 fxg6 hxg6

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

19 lOd5! ± Jansa-Spffidonov, Budapest 1976) 14 ί4 b5 15 cxb5 axb5 16 lΩxb51i'b4 (16...lIab8 17 f5.*.d7 18 a4111b4 19 fxg6 hxg6 20 e5 lΩh7 21 lIIe3 dxe5 22 .*.xe5 .*.xe5 23 lIIxe5 favoured White ίο Hardicsay-Alterman, Hartberg 1991; also poor is 16...d5 17 e5.*.f5 18 lIIe3lΩg4 19 .*.xg4 .*.xg4 20 a4 .*.d7 21 .*.c3 ± Gipslis-Damjanovic, Tallinn 1969) 17 IIfdl:as 18 1Ωc3lΩxe4 19 lIIxe4 :Xc3 20.*.c4 d5 21 lIIel dxc4 22 a3 .*.xd4+ 23 IIxd4 lIIxb3 24 IId8+ ~g7 25 IIb8 lIe3 0-1 Messa-Antunes, Reggio Eιnilia 1986. 2) 11 ...lΩd7 12 .*.d4 .*.xd4 13 lIIxd4 111a5 (ίι seems Ιο us that 13 ...1Ifb6!? is worth a try) 14 ί4 ;t Adorjan-Jansa, L~ovice 1973. 12 .*.d4lΩd7 12...1Ic8 13 b3lΩd7 14 .*.xg7 ~xg7 15f4f616lΩd51Ωc517111d4.*.g818

lIadl was Adamslά-Weiss, Tastrup 1990. Now 18...e5! would give Black agoodgame. 13 .*.x.g7 ~x.ι7 14 b3 111&5 15 Ι4 lIIcS+ 16 ~hllΩf6 17 .*.f3 ;t Smejkal-Browne, Milan 1975. White eventually obtained a winning position after 17...lIab8 18 llael IIfd8 (malάng the e4-e5 advance less appealing; 18...b5 19 cxb5 axb5 20 e5! is ίο White's favour) 19 a4 ~g8 20lle3 111b4? (20... b5!? has been suggested as an ίmprovement) 21 f5! .*.d7 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 lΩd5 lΩxd5 24 exd5 b5 25 IIxe7.

B1c2d) 10•••a6 (D) move has an excellent reputa-

Thίs tiοη.

11.*.e3

Gurgenidze System

181

Νοι as threatenίog is 11 .*.d2 .*.d7 12 lIIe3 IIb8 (12 ...•b8 is also tempting) 13 b4 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 f4.*.c6 16 a4 d5! 17 exd5 lΩxd5 18 lΩxd5 lIIxd5 19.*.f3 lIId6 20.*.c3 .*.xc3 21 lIIxc3 .*.xf3 22 lIIxf3 bxa4 23 IIxa4 IIxb4 24 IIxb4 lIIxb4 and Black enjoyed an extta pawn ίη FedorowiczRee, Cannes tt rpd 1992. 11•••lΩg4 11 ... .*.d7 is a favourite of Huogarian GM Peter Leko: 1) 12 IIfdl .*.c6 13 lIIc2 'ifa5 14 lIacl11fc8 15 lIIbl met with an unusual response ίο P.Schlosser-Leko, Bmo 1993: 15...h516b4 lIIe5 17.*.d4 lIIg5 18 .*.f3 b5 19 lOd5 .*.xd5 20 .*.e3 l11Μ 21 cxd5lΩg4 22 .*.xg4 hxg4 23 IIxc8+ IIxc8 24 IIC 1 IIxcl + 25 lIIxcl lIIf6 26 h3 lIIc3 27 hxg4111xb4 28 lIIc8+ lh- l/2. 2) 12 a4! a5 (l2 ...•a5 13 b4! lIIxb4 14 a5 is ± accordίog to Almasi) 13 c5 dxc5 14 .*.xc5 .*.c6 15 lIIe3 lIId7 16 f3 lIIe617lΩb5.*.xb5 18 .*.xb5lΩd7 19 .*.a3lΩe5 20 lIacl IIfd8 21 ~hl1Ωc6 22 lIIb6! ± Z.Almasi-Κhalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1995. 3) 12 .*.d4 .*.c6 13 b4 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 f3 1Ia3 16111d2 lIId7 1711fdl

=

Accelerαted

182

:fa8 18 :acl ""7 and Black had an excellent position ίη Tolnai-Leko, Hungarian Ch 1993. The finish wasn't particularly interesting: 19 :c2 h5 20 lt!bl :3a6 21 ΙOC3:a3 22lt!bl :3a6 23 ΙOC3 1/2_1h. 12 .t.xg4 .i.xg4 13 .i.d4 .i.xd4 14 "'xd4.t.e6 This position can also arise from 1 e4 c5 2lt!f3 ΙOC6 3 d4 cxd4 4lt!xd4 g6 5 c4 lt!f6 6 lt!c3 d6 7 .*.e2 lt!xd4 8 "'xd4 .i.g7 9 .*.e3 0-0 1Ο "'d2lt!g4 11 .*.xg4.*.xg4120-0(or 12.i.d4) 12... a6 (12 ...:c8 is more common) 13 .i.d4 .*.xd4 14 "'xd4 .i.e6. 15b3 The altematives are: 1) 15 f4!?b516 b3 bxc417 f5.i.d7 18 bxc4 is unclear. 2) 15 :fel J:ιe8 16 b3 17lt!d5 :ac8 18lt!f4 .i.xc4 (18 ......c5 is a sane altemative) 19 e5! .i.b5 20 lt!d5 .i.c6 21 exd6 "'xd5?! (21 ...:cd8 22lt!xe7+ :xe7 23 :xe7 "'g5 24 f3 "'xe7 25 dxe7 :xd4 26 :cl f5 27 :xc6 ΦfΊ is drawable according to Κeene) 22 "'xd5 .t.xd5 23 d7 ± Κeene-Schmίd, Bath Echt 1973. 15......8516f4 Black is fine after 16 ΦhΙ :ac8 17 18 :abl :C5 Jansa-Sίkora. a4 Czechoslovak Ch 1976. The continuation was 19 f4?! (19"'d3 first was better) 19 ... b5! 20 axb5 axb5 21 f5 gxf5 22 exf5 .i.xf5 23 ':bel e6 24 ':e3 .i.g6 25 ':g3 ':e5! 26 lt!e4 f5 27 "'xd6 "'xd6 28 lt!xd6 bxc4 29 lt!xc4 ':e2 and Black is slightly better. 16••.16 White would have the advantage after 16......c5? 17 "'xc5 dxc5 18 f5 .i.d7 19 ιαt5. 17 :ael!

"'a5

"'b4

=

Dragons

17 f5 .i.fΊ 18 lt!d5 .i.xd5 19 exd5 "'c5 20 "'xc5 dxc5 21 ':ael ΦfΊ followed by ...:fd8 is equal according to Smejkal. 17•••.:.c8 18 Ι5 .i.f7 19 lt!d5 .i.xd5? Panίc. According to Smejkal Black should play 19...:fe8! 20 Whl "'xa2 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 :e3 with an unclear position. 20 exd5 .:n 21 "'14 ± Smejkal-Jansa. Amsterdam mM 1975.

82) 7f3(D)

Β

This move has come ίη and out of fashion many times. At first it was all the rage due Ιο the endgame that results after 7 ...lt!xd4 8 "'xd4 .i.g7 9 .i.e30-0 10"'d2 .i.e6 11 ':cl 12 lt!dS "'xd2+ 13 ΦΧd2 .*.xd5 14 cxd5, when Black is very uncomfortable thanks to White's two powerful bishops. Players of the Accelerated Dragon rejoiced when 12......xa2! was discovered and, after several months of

"'a5

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

testίng.

White more or less gave uρ οη whole plan. Unfortυnately. some recent games by Tal Shaked haνe hinted that Black's chances after 12.. :.xa2 are not as good as was once thought. Once again mired ίη depression. my twin brother ΙΜ John Donaldson and that master οί the black side of the Maroczy. GM Margeίr Petursson. pulled us all uρ by the bootstraps when they realized that 7 f3 gίves uρ some key optίons for White and. as a result, a completely new method οί dealing with 7 f3 was bom. Now Black can play: B2a: 7•••~g7! 183 B2b: 7._lαι::d4 185 thίs

Gurgenidze System

183

c5 7lbge2 f:Δc6 8 .d2 cxd4) whίch is known to offer White very lίttle. ίί anythίng. The majοήtΥ οί the games cited ίη thίs sectίon are from that ΚID move-order.

8 ~e3 ο-ο 9 .d2 If 9 ~e2. Black would use the same plan (9 ...lbxd4) that he uses ίη the maίn column. 9•••lαι::d410 ~xd4 ~e6 (D)

w

.a3

ΒΟΟ ΊS 7...1Wb6? 8 ~e3! ~B7 (White 10 wins after 8 .. :.xb2 9 lba4 ~cl! .b4+ 11 ~d2 .a3 12lbb5) 9 lbf5 .xb2 10 lbxg7+ ~ 11 lba4 (both 11 ....e5 12 ~h6lbg8 13 ι!Ωe6+ *e8 14 ~B7 .a5+ 15 ~c3 and 11 ...'ii'b4+ 12 ~d2 13 ~h6 are also bad) 12 ~h6lbg8 13lbe6+ *e8 14 ~cl 15 ~d2 16 f:Δc7+ *d8 17 lbb5!.

.a3

.a3 .b4+ .a3

828) 7•••~g7! Thίs move-order intends. at the ήght moment. to draw White's darksquared bishop to d4 where it will ηο longer defend its queen οη d2. Thίs WΊll allow Black to use the normal plan οί ....a5.... a6....:fc8 and ...b7b5 ίη improved form. Amazingly enough. Black will be able Ιο transpose into a lίne οί the Siίmίsch Κing's Indίan (1 d4lbf6 2 c4 g6 3 f:Δc3 ~B7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 .h3

Black intends to follow uρ WΊth for a quick ... b7-b5 advance. Moves like ....a5 ....:fc8 and ...a6 WΊll be automatίc.

preparatίons

11~e2

Many other ideas have also been tried. but White hasn't recorded much success WΊth any οί them: 1) 11 :cl Wa5 12 ~5? .xd2+ 13 *xd2 lbxe4+! 14 fxe4 ~xd4 15 lbxe7+ *g7 16 ~5 ~xb2 17 :bl ~e5 18 :xb7 :ab8 19 :b3 a5 and Black had a huge advantage ίη Zaltsman-Gelfand. New York Open 1989. 2) 11 ~5 is a favourite οί DanΊSh master Carsten H~ί. but 11 ... ~xd5 should give Black adequate chances. Mter 12 exd5 (12 cxd5 ~7 is nothίηΒ for White) Black has two moves:

184

Accelerαted Drαgons

2a) 12 ... lM7 13 .txg7 Wxg7 14 0-0-0 aS 15 h4 h5 16 .c3+ (16 .te2 :h8! stops Whίte's attack cold, HιιJί­ Antonsen, Lyngby 1991) 16...Wg8 17 g4 ~f6 leads to a very sharp game where both sides have chances οη theίr respectίve wίngs.

2b) 12.....c713.te2a514h4:te8 (14 ...:fc8!? is a recommendatίon of Gallagher's) 150-0-0 b5 16 Wbl bxc4 17 :cl 'jfb7 18 .txc4, HιιJi-Morten­ sen, Danish Ch (λrhus) 1992, and now 18 ...:eb8 places pressure against b2 and gives Black adequate play. 3) 11 .td3 .aS 12lDe2 "xd2+ 13 Wxd2lbd7 is Ιοο easy for Black. Nenashev-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1994 saw Black gettίng an edge after 14 .txg7 Wxg7 15lbd4~516:hel.td717e5:fd8

18 exd6 .ta4 19 .tf1 :xd6 20 Wc3

:ad8. 11••••&5 (D)

12:cl Other moves are: 1) 12 b3 :fc8 (also possible is 12...a6 13 :cl :fb8, transposίng ίnto Timman-Ivanchuk from the 12 :cl lίnes) 13 :bl! a6 14 a4 Wb4! (threatening ...b7-b5) 15 lbd5 "xd2+ 16

~xd2 .txd5 (Black can more or less forceadrawwith 16...~d517 .txg7 ~f4) 17 exd5 (ηοΙ 17 cxd5? ~xe4+) 17...aS! (creatίng a nice home οη c5 for the black knight) 18 .te3lbd7 19 :bel ~5 20 .tdl e5 21 dxe6IΩxe6, Haba-Glek, Bundeslίga 1992. Α qώck ...d6-d5 will equalίze: 22 :e2 d5 23 cxd5 ':d8 24 .tc2 ':xd5+ 25 ~el :ad8 26 Wf'2 lbd4 27 .te4 :5d7 28 .txd4 .txd4+ 29 Wg3 .tc5 30 :cl b6 31 Wh3 :d2 32 :xd2 hd2 33 :c3 1/2-1/2.

2) 12 ο-ο :fc8 13 b3 b5! (takίng advantage of the undefended white queen) 14 b4 (White avoids 14 cxb5? ~xe4! 15fxe4.txd4+ 16"xd4 "xc3 with a huge positίonal advantage) 14.....xb415:abl ..aS 16:xb5"d8 and Black's superior pawn strυcture gives him a slίght edge, Noνίkov-Glek, USSR 1984. 3) 12 g4!? :fc8 13 g5 %5! (according to Gallagher, 13 ...lbd7 14 .txg7 ~xg7 15lM5 .xd2+ 16 Wxd2 .txd5 17 cxd5 is a bit better for Whίte because Black's knight lacks a secure outpost) 14 .txg7 ~xg7 15 00 "xd2+ 16 ~xd2 .txd5 17 cxd5 ~f4 with a comfortable game for Black. 12.••:ΙcS Also worth cοηsίdeήηg is 12...a6 13 b3 :fb8 14 ο-ο b5 15 c5!? ~! (threatenίng ...lΩxe4) 16:fdl dxc517 .te3 :a7 (also leading to a draw is 17...:b7 18 lbd5 "xd2 19 ~f6+ .txf6 20 :xd2 c4 21 bxc4 bxc4 22 .txc4 :c8 23 :dc2 - analysis by Gallagher) 18lbd5"xd219~xf6+.txf6 20 :xd2 .td4 21 .txd4 cxd4 22 hd4 aS 23 ':c5 a4 24 ':xb5 1/2- 1h TimmanIvanchuk, Reykjaνίk 1991. 13 b3 .6 14 .te3

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

Gurgenidze System

185

We've now reached the main positίoη from vaήatίon Β lb but with Black

to move instead of Whίte! Natυrally, Black doesn't eΧΡeήeηce any probleιns at all here. 'l\vo other moves: 1) 14 a4 ι[)d7 15 .txg7 ~xg7 16 ι[)d5 "'xd2+ 17 ~xd2 ι[)c5 18 1:c3 .txd5 19 exd5 a5 20 ~c2 1:e8 21 1:e3 ~6 22 ~c3 1:a6 23 .tdl 1:b6 24 .tc2 1:c8 25 :dl e5 26 f4 ι[)d7 27 1:n ~g7 28 f5 ι[)f6 = Stefansson-Τίνίκον, Mamaiajr Wch 1991. 2) 14 'iVb2 ι[)b5 15 .txg7 ~xg7 16 0-0 "'e5 17 :fdl b5 18 cxb5 axb5? (accordίng to Seίrawan, Black should have played 18...ι[)f4! 19.tn axb520 .txb5 :c5! with a good game) 19 "'d2 :ab8 20 ι[)Χb5 :xcl 21 1:xcl 1:xb5 22 f4 ± Lautίer-Topalov, Cap dΆgde rapid 1994. 14••• b5 15 ΙΑΙS And not 15 cxb5?? ι[)χe4!, when 16 ι[)Χe4 :xc 1+ takes advantage of the pinned whίte queen. 15.....xd2+ 16 ~xd2 lbxdS 17 cxdS 17 exd5 .td718 .td3 Μ19 ~e2 a5 20 1:c2 h5 21 .tcl 1:c7 22 .tb2 a4 23 .txg7 axb3 24 axb3 ~xg7 25 ~e3 1:a3 gave Whίte nothίng ίη DolmatovCifυentes, Buenos Aίres 1991. 17....td718 :XcS+ :xcS 19 :cl :Xcl 20 ~cl ~f8 Ih-Ih

Emst-Petυrsson, ReykjaVΊk

1994.

B2b) 7•••lbxd4 8 "xd4.tg7 (D) 9.te3 9 .tg5 achίeved some good resυlts but Black should be able to equalize:

w

9...0-0 (9 ...h6 10 .*.e3 0-0 11 "d2

~h712:Cl.te613 b3 ι[)d714.te2;t

Vaisman-Balogh, Budapest 1975) 10 "'d2 .te6 (too passive is 10...:e8 11 :Cl.td712 .*.d3 .*.c613 b4 b6140-0 ι[)d7 15 :fdl ± Sangυίnettί-Wahlbom, Haίfa OL 1976) 11 :cl (11.te2 :c8 12lbd5.txd5 13 exd5 b5 is unclear accordίng to Averbakh) 11 ......a5 (also interesting is 11 ...:C8 12 b3 a6!? with the intentίon of sacήficing a pawn by 13 ... b5 as ίη vaήatίon Blalb) 12 b3 1:fc8 (12 ...:fe8 13 .te2 a6 14 lba4 "'xd2+ {14 ......d8!?} 15 ~xd2lbd7 16 h4 ~f8 17 h5 ± Psakhίs-Pigusov, USSR 1980) 1300"'xd2+ 14~xd2 ι[)Χd5 15 exd5 and now 15...f6 is just a bit better foι Whίte according ιο R.Byme. However, 15....td7 should equalize since 16 .txe7? .th6+ 17 ΦdΙ .txcl 18 ~xcl 1:e8 19 .txd6 1:el+ is good foι Black. Compare these lίnes ιο vaήatίons Blala and Blalb for a better undersιandίng of both sides' possibilίtίes in these positίons. 9•••0-0 10 "d2 .te6 Thecorrectmove-order.l0.....a5?! allows Whίte to expand οη the queenside: 11 a3 .te6 12 b4 "d8 13 :cl :C8 14lbb5 a6 15lbd4 .td7 16 .te2

Accelerated Dragons

186

.c7 17 ο-ο ± Savon-Tal, Sukhumi 1972. Αι the time before the discovery of 12...•xa2! BIack had alI but given υρ οη 10....i.e6 since the resultant endgame was scoring so heavily in White's favour. Due to this he started ιο develop his bishop οη d7 so that ίι could help Ιο achieve a quick ... b7-b5 advance. However, BIack was still unable to demonstrate equality: 10....i.d7 11 :cl and now: 1) 12 .i.e2 :fc8 (12 ... a6 13 ο-ο :fd8?! 14 a3:ac8 15 b4 ± Ivkov-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1970 was an example of uninspired play by Black) 13 ο-ο a6 (worse is 13 ....i.e6 14 b3 a6 15 f4.i.d7 16.i.f3 .i.c6 17 :c2 b5 18 cxb5 axb5 19 :fcl .a6 20 e5 ± ShamkovichBrummer, Lone Pine 1976) 14 b3 .i.c6 (14 ... b5 15 c5! :c6 16 cxd6 exd6 17 :C2 :ac8 18 00 was good for White ίη Polugaevsky-Bednarski, Siegen OL 1970) 15 .i.d41t1d7 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17 ~hl ~g8 18 f4 b5 19 .b2 bxc4 20 .i.xc4 ~ Suetin-Forintos, Budapest 1970. 2) 12 .i.d3 was also seen a 10Ι but ίι doesn't seem Ιο be quite as goOO: 12...a6 13 ο-ο :fc8 14 b3 b5 15 :c2 b4 (more trustworthy than 15 ....i.e6 16 cxb5 axb5 17 :fcl b4 18 lt1a4 :xc2 19 :xc2 :b8 and now 20 :c6 1t1d7 21 .i.f1 f5! = was A1burt-Georgadze, USSR 1971, but 20 f4!? might be an improvement) 16 1t1e2 .i.e8 17 :fcllt1d7 = Ghitescu-De!e, Kecskemet 1972. 11 :cl (D)

w

.a5

.&5

12ΙΑΙS

The only try for advantage. Also seen from time ιο time is 12 b3 but White rarely achieves anything ΠΟΜ

the opening: 12 b3 :fc8 13 .i.d3 (13 It1b5 .xd2+ 14 ~xd2 1t1d7 15 It1d4 1t1c516h4a517h5.i.d718.i.e2a419 b41t1e6 20 It1xe6 .i.xe6 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 a3 :c7 23 :c2 f5 24 b5 :cc8 25 :bl ~f7 26 ~d3 :h8 27.i.f1:h4 28 .i.f2 fxe4+ and BIack went οη ιο win in Κorchnoi-Anand, London PCA rpd 1994) 13...a6 (13 ...1t1d7!?) 141t1a4 with play similar Ιο Variation Β 1b2d. After 14...•xd2+ 15 ~xd21t1d7 (15 ...:ΟΟ!1) 16 f4 f5 17 :hel ~f8 18 exf5 White had very litt1e ίη Polugaevsky-Timman, Hilversum 1973: 18 ....i.xf5 19 .i.e2 h5 20.i.f3:C7 211t1c3 e6 Ι/Ζ_Ι/Ζ. BIack intended ιο meet 22 :ed 1 with 22...:d8 23 ~e2 d5. 12••••xa2! This move gave new life to Black's whole system. The ending after 12...•xd2+ 13 ~xd2 .i.xd5 (forced since 13 ...lt1xd5 14 cxd5 .i.d7 is met by 15 :c7 ±) 14 cxd5 is very uncomfortable for Black: 14...:fc8 15 :xc8+ (15 .i.e2 e5! 16 dxe6 fxe6 is unclear according Ιο ΚholMoν) 15 ...:xc8 16 g3 :c7 (16 ... b6 17 .i.h3 :c7 18 :cl ω 19b4:XcI20~xclIt1c7 21.i.d7 is horrible for Black, Gheorghiu-Szilagyi, Varna 1971) 17 .i.h3 It1d7 (or

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

17 ... b6 18 b4 f8 19 d3 ~e8 20 :cl ± Barczay-Ftatnik, Zalaegerszeg 1979) 18 :cl :xcl 19 xcl ~5 (worse is 19...~b6? 20 c2 f8 21 b3 e8 22 a4 d8 23 a5 and Black has lost a pawn, Polugaevsky-Ostojic, Belgrade 1969) 20 c2 ± KurajicaHuguet, Malaga 1970. 13 ιfu::e7+ h8 White now has two choices: B2bl: 14.td4 187 B2b2: 14.te2! 188

82b1) 14.td4(D)

Gurgenidze System

187

{16 ....txg4 17 ~d5 .txf3 18 .txg7+ ~xg7 19 "xf3 "xb2 20 dl is un-

clear} 17 gxh5 .txd4 18 "xd4+ g8 and now 19 h6 is met by 19.....a5+) 16...~xg7 17 b3 (17 b4 a5 18 b5 a4 19 .te2 a3 20 fΊ Wb2 21 00 .txd5 22 cxd5 f5 :j: Vaisman-Volchok, con 1973) 17.....a618oo.txd519cxd5 Wb6 with an unclear position according to Timman. 15••..txd5 16 cxd5 :ac8 Here 16...~xd5 is met by 17 .tc4 and 16...Wxd5 by 17 .tc4 "h5 18 'ii'c3 Wg5 19 0-0 ~h5 20 .txg7+ ~xg7 21 .txf7. 17 .te2 :ΙχcΙ+ Black could also consider ΡΙaΥίήg 17 ... g8!? 180-0 Wa4 19 .tc3 Wb3 =, as ίη Bednarski-Ree, Skopje OL 1972. 18"xcl~7

Now Black must make an important decision as to which rook to place οη e8: B2bla: 14•••.:ιe8 187 B2blb: 14•••:aeS! 188

82b1a) 14•••.:ιe8 This appears playable for Black. 15~

m

White gains nothing by 15 "c3 16 .txg7+ (ηο better is 16 g4 :Ιχe7

Coming up short is 18...Wa5+ 19 Wc3 (19.tc3 :C8) 19.....xc3+ 20 bxc3 ~d7 21 d2 :c8 (not 21 ... .txd4?! 22 cxd4 ~b6 23 :al ;!; DonaldsonBradlow, Philadelphia 1985) 22 :ΙbΙ (more accurate is 22 :ΙaΙ! a6 23 :ΙbΙ :Ιc7 {now 23 ... ~5 is answered by 24 :Ιb6} 24 f4;!; Polugaevsky-Bednarski, Varna 1972) 22 ...~5 23 .txc5? (an enor; the quiet 23 e3 gives White the advantage) 23 ...:Ιχc5 24 :Ιχb7 .txc3+ 25 e3 a5! 26 Lf7 a4 :j: Panchenko-Gufeld, Κishnev 1975. 19 .txg7+ hg7 20 "c3+ g8 21 f2 ~b6 22 :Ιc8 23 h4 Now ίη Panchenko-T.Georgadze, USSR 1975, Black played 23 ... :Ιc2?! and after 24 h5 ~7 25 Wd8+ ~f8 26 hxg6 fxg6 27 'ii'xd6? :Ιχe2+! 28 xe2 Wxb2+ the game ended in an eventυal draw. However, White can improve with 27 :ΙeΙ ! ;Ι±. Does this mean that

"f6

188

Accelerated Dragons

this lίne is good for White? Νο; ίη­ stead of 23 ...:c2?! Black has the supeήοr 23 ... ~a4!. M.Pavlov-Adorjan, Bath Echt 1973 conιinued 24 h5? "xb2 25 .xb2 ~xb2 26 :al a6 27 Φe3 :c2! =F.

B2b1b) 14.•.J:Σae8! (D)

w

"xb4 axb4 24 :xd6 with a clear advantage Ιο White. However, Black can improve with Rolf Schwarz's suggesιίοο of 20... ~b5! meeting 21 b3 with 21 .....a6.

16cxd5:ca With this move Black transposes ίηΙο the vaήation with 14 ...:fe8 (B2bla); the sole differeoce is that his kiog's rook stands 00 f8 and οοΙ 00 e8. Ooe way to try to exploit the protecιίοο of fΊ is by means of the eχpeή­ mental 16...•xd5!? ΟΜ Georgadze gives 17 ~c4 "h5 18 .c3 "g5 19 ο-ο ~5 20 ~xg7+ ~xg7 21 ~d5 "e7 22 "c7 ~6 23 .xb7 "xb7 24 ~xb7 :b8 25 ~d5 ~f4 with a slίght advantage Ιο Black. Actually a draw looks lίkely after 26 :c7 :xb2 27 ha7 J:Σxg2+ 28 ci>hl Φg7 29 J:Σd7.

17 .te2 :xcl+ 18 "xcl t'bd7 19

~xg7+ ΦΧι? 20 "c3+ Φg8 21 0-0

~M Ih- I/2 Gheorghiu-Hug, Las Palmas

ΒΥ playing this rook ιο the e-file Black keeps his fΊ-square better defended.

15lM5

Worse is 15 "c3 ~ 16 ~xg7+ (16 g4?! hg4!) 16...ΙOXg7 17 b3 .a6! 18lίX15 ~xd5 19 cxd5 "b6 20 ci>dl f5 21 ~d3 ci>g8 22 :c2 fxe4 23 fxe4 ~h5 + Sveshnikov-Beliavsky, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1973.

15•••~xd5

Theory frowns οη 15...~xd5 but ίι may be playable: 16 cxd5 ~xd5 17 ~b5 ~c6 18 ~c4 "a4 19 ~xg7+ (19 b3 20 J:Σal "xal + 21 ~xal ~xal 22 0-0 ~e5 is unclear accordiog Ιο Tιmιnan) 19...Φxg7 20 0-0. Now Ίim­ man-Anderssoo, Helsinki 1972 weot 20...a521"c3+Φg822:fdΙ W'b423

"a3

1973.

B2b2) 14~e2! (D)

Β

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze System This move (ίο conjunctίon with 15 lL1d5!) mak:es it difficult for Black to equalize. 14••• lL1g8! Gaining cήtίcal tίme by the double attack οη the e7-knight and the b2pawn. Altematίves are too slow: 1) 14.. .:te8 1500 .i.xd5 16 cxd5 (16...k8 has favours White: 16... also been played) 17 ο-ο a6? (much better is 17 ...lL1d7 18 .i.d4 "b3) 18 'ifb4 :xcl 19 :Xcl b5 20 .i.d4 h5 21 "c3 b4 22 "c6 :e7 23 .tc4 b3 24 "xd6 lL1xe4 25 "b6 lL1d6 26 .i.xb3 "xb3 27 .txg7+ 1-0 Shak:ed-D.Benjamin, US Cadet Ch 1992. 2) 14 ... lL1d7 15 .td4 :fe8 16 0-0 (threatening to win Black's queen) 16...'ilb317 .tdl"a218 "c3.txd4+ 19 "xd4+ f6 20 00 ;t AnderssonReshevsk:y, Palma de Mallorca 1971.

:aes

lStΩxg8

White's best move is 15 οο! (D):

Β

1) 15 ....txd5 (not best) 16 cxd5 :fc8 (16 .....xb2 17 "xb2 .txb2 18 :C7;t) 170-0"a4?(betteris 17...a518 .td4 and now, rather than 18 .....b3?! 19 f4 "b4 20 "xb4 axb4 21 .txg7+ Φχg7 22 e5 Φf8 23 .tg4 :xcl 24

189

:xcl dxe5 25 fxe5 lL1e7 26 .tf3 ± Shaked-Donaldson, Reno 1993, Black should try 18.....a419 .tc3 'ifb3. when White stίll should have an edge, but it's far from easy to prove: 20 .txg7+ Φχg7 21 f4lL1f6 22 .tf3lL1d7 23 :xc8 JΣxc8 24 .tg4 f5! 25 exf5 JΣc2 26 "d4+ lL1f6 - analysis by Silman and Donaldson) 18 b4 a6 19 .td4 "d7 20 'ilb2 f5?! 21 exf5 gxf5 22 .td3 ± Ghitescu-Bednarski, Wijk aan Zee 1973. 2) Black can struggle for equality with 15 .....xb2! 16 Wxb2 .txb2 17 :bl .tg7 18lL1c7! (after 18 :Xb7 a5 Black's a-pawn becomes a threat) 18 ... JΣac8 19 JΣxb7 JΣb8! 20 JΣb5! (a new and bothersome move; previous analysis only considered 2O:Xb8 :Xb8 21lL1xe6 fxe6 22 .txa7, though Black managed to survive in Schmidt-Andersson, Warsaw 1973 after 22...:b1+ 23 .tdl lL1e7! 24 0-0 lL1c6 25 .tf2 .td4 26 .ta4 .txf2+ 27 ΦΧf2 JΣb2+ 28 Φg3 lL1d4 =) 20....td7 (Black cou1d also consider 20...a6 21lL1xa6:aβ 22 JΣb6 .tc8 23 c5 dxc5 24 .txc5 JΣd8 with good chances ιο draw) 21 :d5 :bl+ 22 :dl :xdl+ 23 .txdl (23 ΦχdΙ :b8 24lL1b5 a6 25lL1xd6 :bl + 26 Φc2 JΣb2+ 27 ΦcΙ .te6 allows the black a-pawn to become threatening) 23 ...:b8 24 Φd2! JΣb2+ 25 .tc2 .ta4 26 JΣcl .tb3?? (Black had Ιο try 26 ...lL1e7! 27 ΦdΙ .txc2+ 28 :xc2 :b3 29 .txa7lL1c6 30 lL1bS lL1xa7 31 lL1xa7 .td4, when Black's actίve pίeces give him good chances Ιο survive) 27 lL1e8! .te5 28 f4 .txc2 29 ':'xc2 :xc2+ 30 Φχc2lL1f6 31lL1xf6 .txf6 32 .txa7 Φg7 33 Φd3 Φf8 34 .tb8 .i.e7 35 Φd4 Φe8 36 ~dS ~d7 37 e5 dxe5 38 fxe5 .tg5 39 c5 .tf4 40 h3 h5

=

190

Accelerαted Drαgons

41 c6+ ~c8 42 .*.d6 1-0 ShakedStrauss, Riverside Hanley Iovitational 1993. IS•••~xg8 16 .*.d4 .*.xd417 "xd4

"aS+18~(D)

18 "c3 "e5 19 ο-ο :fc8 is fine for Black.

play 24...h6! with near equality according 10 Florian. 2Ob3 20 g3!'! :c6 (20 ... a6!'! 21 ί4 "c5 22 "xc5 :xc5 23 b3 b5 24 :xd6 bxc4 25 bxc4 .*.xc4 26 :c 1 :ac8 27 .*.g4 :8c6 28 :xc6 :xc6 29 .*.d7 :d6 1/2_lh Τήngοv-Mi§ta, Varna 1973) 21 f4 "xd4+ 22 :xd4:b6 23 g4 ί6 24 b3 :xb3 25 :xd6 =Timman-Ree, Amsterdam ΙΒΜ 1972. 20••• Α good altemative is 20 ... a5 21 "xd6 "xd6 22 :xd6 a4 23 bxa4 :xa4 24 :bl 25 ~e3 .*.xc4 26 .*.xc4 :xc4 = Andersson-Hug, Las Palmas 1973. 21"e3 Black also does well after 21 :d2 :b6 22 "e3Ί! f5! 23 exf5 "xe3+ 24 ~xe3 :xb3+ 25 ~f2 .*.xf5 26 g4 Ί! .*.e6 +Pytel-Bednarski, Lublin 1972. 21•••:b6 Black might also consider 21 ...a5 22 :d4 a4, Andooovski-Baumbach, cοπ 1984, and now 23 ί4 "f6 24 bxa4 is equal. 22:d3"cS Ιncοπect is 22 ...h5 23 ί4 "c5 24 h3 "xe3+ 25 :xe3 f6 26 :dl! a5 27 :g3 and White has a clear advantage, Anderssoo-Ree, Teesside 1972. 23:.1aS According ιο Ghizdavu Black has a good game. His analysis runs 24 :a4 :b4 25 :xb4 axb4 26 f4:a2 27 "xc5 dxc5 28 ~e3 ~g7 29 g4 b5 +.

:c6

:a2

18.....eS This move and 18 .....c5 can easily transpose, especially ίί Black captυres 00 d4. Independeot play arises from 18 .....c5 19 :cdl (19 :hdl :fd8 20 :d2 "xd4+ 21 :xd4 ~f8 with the idea οί ...~e7 is all ήght for Black according to Browne) 19...:fc8 20 b3Ί! a5!21"xc5dxc522:al b5!23:hbl a4! 24 bxa4 bxa4 25 :b7 :a5! :; Commons-Browne, USA 1973. 19:cdl :fc8 Less active but playable is 19...:fd8 201:r.d2 "xd4+ 21 :xd4 ~f8 22 f4 a5 23 g4 f6 24 h4, Ribli-Ghitescu, Κecs­ kemet 1972, and oow Black should

9 Maroczy Bind: Knight retreats to b3 and c2 1 e4 c5 2 ffi llk6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~d4 g65 c4~g7 Ιη this section of the book we wil1 explore systems based οη knight retreats. Thυs: Α: 6lDb3 191 Β: 6 iίX2 195 Α qυick mention shoυId be made of Bronstein's 6 lDb5, a move that has ηοΙ foυnd favoυr with any other player. We give two examples: 1) 6 ... d6 7 ~e2lbf6 8lblc3 0-09 ~e3 a6 10 ιαι4lbxd4 11 ~xd4 b5 12 cxb5 axb5 13 ~xb5 ~b7 14 ο-ο e5 :j: Bronstein-Simagin, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1951. 2) 6 ...~6 7 lD5c3 0-0 8 ~e2 b6 9 ~g5 ~b7 100-0 ':c8 11 ~2 ~4 12 ~d3 ~5 13 ':cl ι!L)e6 14 ~e3lDhf4 15 ~bl f5 16 f3 'fIc7 :ι: BronsteinRantanen, Ta1linn 1979. Note that these knight-retreat systems can a1so be reached by a different move-order: 1 e4 c5 2 00 ~6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 g6 5 c4 lDf6 6 l&3 d6 and now 7lDb3 or 7l&2 (instead of 7 ~e2 or 7 f3, as explored ίο Chapter 8).

Α)

6lDb3(D)

Β

This seldom-seen move has similar motivations Ιο l&2, though οη b3 the knight is wlnerable to a tiιne-gainiog ...a7-a5-a4. Nevertheless, Korchnoi has ιnade υse of this move for many years and the retired Ameήcan σΜ James Tarjan was a1s0 fond of ίι. 6_.1ΟΟί

BIack can a1so play 6 ...d6, which υsυa11y transρoses ίηΙο 6...lDf6. How-

ever, independent play can occυr: 1) 7 ~3 a5 (7 ....txc3+!?) 8lDa4 lDf6 9 f3 ~e6 10 ~e3 0-0 11 ~e2 lbd7 12:Cl :C8 13 ΙΙX3lDb6 14 ~ lbd4 15 b3 f5 = Ljυbojevit-Short, London 1980. 2) 7 .te2 and now: 2a) 7 ... a5 8 ω?! (8 a4 lDf6 9 l&3 transρoses back ίηΙο oυr main

192

Accelerαted Drαgons

column) 8 ... a4 9 ~ llli6 10 ο-ο 0-0 11 ~2 ιαΙ7 :f Κieninger-Gereben, Zoήch 1960. 2b) 7 ...ltlli6!? 8 0-0 ο-ο 9 ilk3 ί5 10 j,g5? (10 ί4 ΊS unclear) 10...~ 11 j,e3 b6 12 f3 e5 13 exf5 gxf5 14111d2 j,e6 left Black wίth an excellent positίoη ίη Radulov-Partos, Bulgaήa vs Romanίa 1960. 3) 7 ... f5!? was bied ίη some lowquality postal games and is certaίnly worthy οί further tests. 7lbc3d68j,e2(D) 8 f3 has a1so been seen, but it's rather infleXΊble. After 8... 0-0, Whίte doesn 't have any chance for an advantage: 1) 9 j,e3 h6 and then: la) 10 1:tcl 1:tc8 11 ιαΙ2 a6 12 j,e2?! (12lDd5) 12 ... ~5 13 b3 lIIaS 14 a4 ~fd7! 15 ιαIbl b5! 16 ί4 bxc4! 17b4 lIIxb418fxe5j,xe5 190-0~5 WΊth plenty οί compensatίon for the piece, Murey-Mek, Montpellier 1985. lb) 10 ~5!? ~d7 11 .d2 aS 12 1:tcl a4 13 ιαΙ4 j,xdS 14 exdS 1&d4 15 j,xd4 j,xd416 "xd4 e5!? (16.....aS+ is simple and good) 17 dxe6 1:te8 18 j,e2 1:txe6 19 Wf2 = Κorchnoi-Van der Steπen, Leeuwarden 1977. 2) 9 j,e2 111Μ!? 10 j,g5 j,e6 11 .d2 1:tfc8 12 ~ (12 j,e3!? .d8) 12... j,xdS 13 h3! (both 13 cxdS ~b4 14 j,dl ~fxd5!? 15 exdS j,xb2! and 13 exd5 ~b4 are unclear) 13... j,h6! 14 j,xh6 j,e6 15 .c3 "b4 16 1:tcl .xc3+ 17 1:txc3 lDe5 18 ~d2 a6 Κorchnoi-lansa, Hastings 1975/6. 8•••0-0 As natural a move as you 're ever lίkely to find. Ιη Alekhine-Siimίsch, VΊenna 1922, Black played very badly: 8 ... j,e6 9 0-0 h5? 10 c5 dxc5 11 ~c5

=

Β

j,c8 12 'it'xd8+ Wxd8 13 1:td1+ lDd7 14 j,c4 j,xc3 15 j,xf7! Wc7 16lDe6+ Wb8 17 bxc3 ~de5 18 j,f4 j,xe6 19 j,xe6 :rs 20 j,g3 1-0. Dr Saίdy's treatment, from Korchnoi-Saίdy, Las Vegas 1993, is more ίη­ teresting: 8 ... ια!7 9 j,e3 j,xc3+ (gίν­ ίnB uρ the dark squares for a long-term strυctura1 advantage) 10 bxc3 b6 11 j,h6 j,b7 12 h4 "c7 131:th3 0-0-0 14 ιαΙ4 ilk5 15 j,g4+ e6 16 j,g51:td7 17 j,f61:te8 18 ~b5 1IIb8 19 1:te3 a620 ~a3 lDe5 and Black was doing well and eventually won. 9 j,e3 j,d7 Natura11y, Black can choose from other plans too: 1) 9 ...b6 100-0 j,b7 11 f41:tc8 12 j,f3 ~7 13 1:tcl ~5 14 1:tf2 1:te8 15 1:td2.c7 1600 1IIb8 17 j,f2 e6! 18 lDe3 ~M 19 ~xc5 bxc5 20 b3 "a8! 21 a3 ~6 22 1:txd6 ~d4 23 ~B4 1:ted8 (23 ... f5!?) 24 1:txd8+ 1:txd8 25 j,h4 ί5 26 lDe5 fxe4 27 j,xd8 .xd8 28 j,g4 j,xe5 29 fxe5 1fg5 and Black has more than enough for the exchange, Κorchnoi-Andersson, Ubeda 1997. 2) 9 ...aS 10 a4 ιαΙ7 11 .d2 (.. ..txc3 isn't really a threat with a4 and ...aS

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Knight retreats to b3

thrown ίη, so 11 0-0 b6 12 ιαΙ4 J.b7 13IΩxc6 J.xc6 14 'lFc2 is coπect) 11 ... b6 12 ιαΙ4 J.b7 13 J.dllΩc5 14 IΩxc6 J.xc6 15 J.c2 'iWd7 160-0 'iWe6 17 ιαΙ5 IΩxe4 18 'lFd3 1Ωc5 19 J.xc5 bxc5 20 llael J.e5 21 f4 J.xd5 22 cxd5 J.d4+ 23 ~hl 'iWd7 and Black went 00 to win ίο Schmίd-Larseo, Havana 1967. 3) 9 ...J.e6 10 f3 IIc8 11 IIclIΩd7 120-0 IΩb6 l3lΩd2 ιαΙ4 14 b3IΩd7 15 IΩdbl IΩxe2+ 16 IΩxe2 'iWa5 17 IΩbc3 a618 1I'd2 IIfe8 19 ιαΙ5 'if'xd2 20 J.xd2 f5 led ιο a good position for Black ίη ΜϋΙΙer- Yates, Kecskemet 1927. 100-0a5 (D) Thίs is the most coιnmon respoose, tryiog ιο take advantage of the b3knight's locatίon. 10 Κorchnoi-Soos, Rome 1982, Black expeήmeoted WΊth 10...1Ωa5 but got a poor game after 11 f3lΩxb3 (11 ...lIc8 12 ιαΙ2) 12 axb3 a613 b4 J.e6 14 'if'd2 IIc8 IS b3 ιαΙ7 16 1Ia2 f5 17 exf5 gxf5 18 ιαΙ5 lΩί6 19 J.b6 "d7 20 J.d4 J.xd5 21 cxd5

αnd

c2

193

=

1Ωe82211el.

10 Panno-LjubojeVΊc, VΊna del Mar 1988, Black gave 10...11c8 a try. He was rewarded WΊth a comfortable game after 11 cS J.e6 12 cxd6 exd6 13 ιαΙ4 IΩxd4 14 J.xd4 "a5 15 a3 a6 16 f3 1Ic617"d2l1fc818'IFe3 b51911adl b4 20 axb4 "xb4 21 1Id2 ιαΙ7.

lllΩd2

Whίte has a few

ways to handle thίs

positίoo:

1) 11 a4 1Ωb4 12 f3 J.c6 13 'lFd2 1Ic8?! (thίs rook move is just a waste οί tίme; the ίιnmedίate 13 ... lΩd7 is much more to the Ροίοι) 14 ~hl ιαΙ7 15 00 J.xd5 16 exd5 b6? (Whίte's advantage coυ1d be kept to a minimυm

by 16 ... 1Ωc5 17 IΩxc5 dxc5 18 ί4 e6 {18 ... f5!?}, when 19 dxe6is bestsίoce 19 J.f3 exd5 20 cxd5 c4 gives Black actίve play) 17 f41Ωc5 181Ωxc5 bxc5 19 f51Ωa6 20 J.h6 1Ib8 21 J.xg7 ~g7 2211a3 ί6 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 IIg3 IIh8 25 J.d31Ωc7 26 J.xg6 ~f8 27 "gS IIxb2 28 J.b5 1-0 Tarjan-Straυss, USA 1982. 2) 11 IIcl a4 12lΩal 'if'a5 13 1Ωc2 lIac8 14 J.d2 'lFd8 15 1Ωe3 ιαΙ4 16 J.d3 J.c6 17 lIe 1 ιαΙ7 and Black stood well ίη Hort-P.Meister, Bundesliga 1993/4. The rest οί the game is great drama: Black plays for an aggressίve dark-sqυare strategy and kίng­ side expansion, mutυal enors allow the chances ιο go back and forth, and finally a very nίce queen sacrifice resoπects Black's positίoo and forces a draw: 18 lΩed5 e6 19 J.e3 1Ωc5 20 J.f1 e5 21 f3 f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 ~hl ~h8 24IΩb5 J.xb5 25 cxbS f4 26 J.f2 "a5 27 J.xd4 exd4 28 lIe7 d3 29 b4 axb3 30 axb3 d2 31 IIbl 11'a2 321Ωb4 "xbl !! 33 "xbl IΩxb3 341Ωc2 lΩc 1 35 J.e2 IIfe8 36 1Ie4 IIxe4 37 fxe4 lΩxe2 38 "dl IIxc2 39 'if'xc2 J.c3 40 'lFd3IΩd4 41 h4 ~g8 42 Φh2 h5 43 'lFxc3 dl'IF 44 'lFc8+ ~f1lh-lh.

194

Accelerαted Drαgons

3) 11 a3 a4 12lOd2 .a5 13 lOd5 ttlxdS 14 cxdS ιαΙ4 15 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 16 ttlb3 .i.xf2+ 17 ':xf2 axb3 18 .xb3 .a7 19 ':afl ':ac8 = ΜureΥ-Ηaϊk, Marseilles 1987. l l...ttlb4 Malάng way for the bishop to move Ιο c6 and preparing Ιο swing the knight around Ιο c5 via ...ttlb4-a6-c5. Also possible is 11 ...-*.c8!? (with the idea οί ...ttld7): 12 ':cllOd7 13 ttlb3 (Anand felt that Κorchnoi was dissatisfied with his position; 13 ttldbl-a3b5 was worth cοnsίdeήng) 13 ... b6 14 ttld4 ttlxd4 15 .*.xd4.i.h6 16 ί4 (16 ':c2 e5 17 .i.e3 .i.xe3 18 fxe3 ttlc5 19 ':d2 .g5 20 ':xd6 {20 :f3 .*.g4 21 ':g3 .i.xe2 22 .xe2 .e7 is unclear} 20 ...•xe3+ 21 ΦhΙ .i.e6 22 :t3 .g5 is all ήght for Black according to Κor­ chnoi) 16....i.b7 17 .i.e3 ω 18 b3 (18 .i.f3?! e5;) 18...ttlxe4 19 ttlxe4 -*.xe4 20.d4.i.c621 f5!?(D)(21.xb6.d7 22 .d4 a4 is good for Black because 23 b4 fails to 23 ...1Ifb7) and now:

Β

tempting) 23 ... hxg6 24 .h6 .te8 25 .i.d3 ί5 :j: - analysis by Anand. 2) 21. ...tg7 22 .xb6 .d7 23 fxg6! hxg6 24 .tg5 a4 25 .e3 (25 b4? ':ab8 26 .e3 ':xb4 =F) 25 ... axb3 26 axb3 ':a2 27 ':Ω (27 -*.f3 .g4 28 .txg4 ':xg2+ 29 ΦhΙ ':xg4+ 30 :f3 -*.d4! 31 .d3 ':xg5 32 ':cf1 e5 gives Black some winnίng chances) 27...•e6?! (27 ...:ta8 is :j: according to Κorchnoi) 28 .*.f3 Ih-Ih Korchnoi-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1990. 12Ι4

This may be a bit too loosenίng. Other moves have turned out better: 1) 12 f3 ttla6 13 ΦhΙ .tc6 14 ttlb3 ttld7 15 ιαΙ4 ttldc5 16.d2 ttle6 17 ttldb5 ttlac5 18 ':abl Φh8 19 .tdl .e8 20.tc2 ί5 21 exf5 gxf5 22 ':bel 23 00 ':ab8 24 .i.bl .txb5 25 cxb5 b6 26 a3 ί4 27 .txc5 bxc5 28 .ta2 ':b7 29 ttlc3 .te5 30 .d5 ttld8 31 ':xe5 dxe5 32 .xd8 1-0 Korchnoi-Gi.Hemandez, Meήda (7) 1996. 2) 12 a3 ttla6 13 ':bl!? and now Tukmakov recommends 13 ... b6! (ίη­ stead ofthe mistaken 13 ...ttlc5? 14 e5 ttle8 15 exd6 exd6 16 ttlb3 ttlxb3 17 .xb3 .tc6 18 :tdl ± TukmakovCebalo, Bled 1997) 14 .c2 (14 Μ?! axb4 15 axb4 ttlg4! 16 .txg4 .txc3 :j:) 14 ...ttlc5 15 b3 with an unclear posi-

.n

tiοη.

12•••.i.c6 13 ':cl ΙΜ7 14 a3 ttla6 IS.i.d3 ttlacS 16.tc2 a417 .el Gofshtein-Smejkal, Prague 1993. Black has won the strategic battle οη the queenside so White throws everything he has at the black king: 18 e5 dxe5 19 ί5 ttlf6 (this covers the e4square and gives the king some muchneeded support) 20 ω .txf3 (this seems to work, but 20...ttlce4!? also

.&5

1) After 21 ....i.xe3+ 22 .xe3, 22...•c723 .td3.i.e8 24 ΦhΙ favours White but a good altemative is 22...f6 23 fxg6 (23 h4 and 23 .h6!? are both

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

Knight

leads to interestίng play) 21 ':'xf3 e4 22 ':'h3 ~3! 23 J.xd3 exd3 24 fxg6 fxg6 25 J.d4 and now Black could have claίmed a clear advantage WΊth 25 ... e5!. Α possible follow-up might be: 26 "xe5 "xe5 27 J.xe5 ':'ae8 28 J.d6 (28 J.xf6? d2! is very strong) 28 ... d2 29':'f1 tL1e4! 30 J.xf8 J.d4+ and Black WΊns. Β)

6tL1c2 (D)

Β

This move has a certain following. The knight is much safer here than οο b3, covers the b4-square, and, if necessary, can rush to d5 via e3. However, the 10ss of time involved ίο moving the knight a third time should enable Black to generate sufficient counterplay. 6•.,d6

Three experimental, highly interestίng systems are: 1) 6 ...tL1f6 7 tL1c3 b6 8 J.e2 J.b7 9 ο-ο 0-0 and now White has: la) 10 J.g5 ':'c8 11 tL1e3 (11 b3 a6 12:Cl d6 13 tL1e3 h6 14 J.h4 tL1e5 is unclear, Taimanov-Tseshkovsky, USSR 1975) 11 ...~4 (l1 ...d6 12.d2

retreαts 10

b3

αnd

c2

195

a6 13 ':'acl tL1e5 14 f3 J.c6 15 cRhl tL1ed7 16 ':'fdl ':'e8 17 J.f1 .c7 18 tL1ed5 'ifb8 19 J.f4 tL1e5 20 c5! dxc5 21 J.xa6 ± Zel~ic-Cebalo, Nova 00ήca 1997) 12 J.d3 tL1e6 13 J.h4 tL1c5 14 e5;t Gήgοήan-ΡeresίΡkin, USSR 1976. lb) 10 ':'bl?! lets Black equalize afterl0... tL1e8! 11.d2~612f3f5= Tseshkovsky-Gufeld, USSR 1975. lc) 10 b3 tL1e8 11 "d2 tL1d6 12 J.a3! J.xc3 13 .xc3 tL1xe4 14.e3 f5?! (14... tL1f6 15 ':'adl with the idea of f4, J.f3 and ':'fel gives plenty of compensatίon) 15 ':'adl':'f7 16 ':'fel 'ifc7 17 J.b2 gives White more than enough compensatίon for the pawn, Chήstίansen-Mowsziszian, Germany team Cup 1994. 2) 6 ... a6!? 7 tL1c3 (7 J.e2 b5 8 cxb5 axb5 90-0b410f4d611 J.f3 J.b712 cRhl Wb8 1300 tL1f6 was LendwaiRossi, Ζuήch 1988) 7 ... tL1f6 8 f3 (8 J.e2?! b5 9 0-0 {9 cxb5 axb5 10 J.xb5 tL1xe4!} 9 ...bxc410J.xc40-0 11 tL1e3 d6 12 tL1cd5 tL1xd5 13 tL1xd5 ':'b8 :; Voitkevics-Geller, Latvian Ch 1962) 8...d6 9 J.e2 J.e6 10 J.e3 :C8 11 0-0 tL1a5 12 b3 b5 13 tL1d5 1017 14 ':'cl bxc4 15 b4! ;t Soloviev-Geller, Trud 1963. 3) 6 ...b6 7 J.e2 J.a6 8 0-0 ':'c8 9 00 tL1f6 10 b3 .c7! 11 f4 (11 J.b2? tL1g4) 11 ...0-0 12 J.b2 b5 13 e5 tL1e8 14 cxb5 J.xb5 15 J.xb5 .b6+ 16 tL1e3! .xe3+ 17 cRhl tL1c7 18 J.a4 tL1e6 19 tL1c4 .e4 20 'ifxd7 tL1b4 21 :rel .xf4 22.:.n .g5 23 ':'xf7 tL1f4 24 g3 cRxf7 25 ~6+ cRg8 26 gxf4 .xf4 27 tL1xc8 .f3+ and Black went οο to win ίο 37 moves ίο Tal-Aronin, USSR Ch (Erevan) 1962. 7 J.e2 (D)

196

Accelerated

7 ια:3 ~xc3+! (7...~6 8 h4! ί5 9 b5 fxe4 10 bxg6 bxg6 11 ιαιe4 ~ί5, Szabo-Botvinnilc, Am.sterdam 1966, 12 ~d3! ±) 8 bxc3lΩf6 9 f3 1i'a5 gives Blackalotofpressureon White's weakened pawns, Polugaevsky-Averbakh, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1960.

Β

Drαgons

~d3 :ae8 14 :bllbe5 15 b3 ιαιd3 16lbxd3 d5 17 cxd5 exd5 18 ~e3 d4 19lbxd4 ~xd4 20 ~xh6:Π 21 :el

:d8 22 :e2 :fd7 0-1 Hauert-de Heer, corr 1989. lb) 10 iOd2 ο-ο 11 lbf3 ~h8 (a recommendation οί Botvinnik's; ίη Alexander-Botvinnilc, Am.sterdam OL 1954, he tried 11 ...1i'd7 but {accordίηΒ to ECO third edition} White obtained a tiny edge after 12 lbe3 ~h8 13 lbxf5 lbxf5 14 :bl e6 15 b3; ίο Borsony-Endzelins, corr 1960, Black tried 11 ....t.xc2 and came away with a playable game after 12 1i'xc2lΩf5 13 .e4lbfd4 14 lbxd4lbxd4 15 ~d3 .d7 16 ~d2m 17 b l when ...e7-e5 willlock the knight ίο οη d4) 12lbfd4 ~d7 13 ~f3lΩf5 =. It should be pointed out that the move-order 5....1g7 6 ια:2 is rather rare. The majοήty of games ίη this section came via 5...lbf6 6 lbc3 d6 7 ια:2. This precludes aπ early ...f5 equalizer. Though 7...lOf6 is our main line and 7... f5! guarantees Black good play, other moves don't make such a good impression: 2) 7...~6? 8 g4! (8 ~d2 ί5 91i'cl fili:7 is great for ΒΙά) 8...•a5+ (8...f6 9 h4 0-010 h5 g5 11 ια:3 e6 12 :gl ~Π13 ~e3 b6 14 .d2 ~b7 150-0-0 'if'e7 16 f4! ± Suetin-Simagin, USSR 1951) 9 ~d2 (both 9lbd2? ο-ο Μαι the idea of ...ί5, and 9 ια:3? lbxg4! 10 ~xB4 ~xB4 11 .xg4 ~xc3+ 12 bxc3 1i'xc3+ 13 ~dl iOd4!, Suetin-SimaΒίη, USSR 1951, should be avoided) 9...•e5 10 ια:3 ί5 11 f4 'if'e6 12 exf5 (12 gxf5 gxf5 13 ~h5+ ~d8 14 'if'e2 fxe4 gives Black couωterplay, NeiVasiukov, USSR 1957) 12... gxf5 13

:ars,

7•••tbf6 Otherwise: 1) The move-order given allows Black to play 7...f5! 8 exf5 ~xf5 90-0 lbh6 (9 ...lΩf6 isn't as log1cal, but it may also be playable: 10 l&3 ο-ο 11 lbe3 {11 lbd5 ~h8 12 ltlce3 iOd4 13 lbxf5lbxf5 14 ~d3 e6 15lbc3 :c8 Teschner-Smiltiner, Moscow OL 1956} 11 ...~h812lbxf5gxf513~g5 1i'b6 14 :bl 1i'd4 15 .b3 b6 =Szilagyi-Gastonyi, Hungarian Ch 1963) andnow: la) 10 ια:3 0-0 11 lbd5 (11 lbe3 :c8 12 ~hl ~h8 13 ~d2 ~d7 14 :cl lbd4 15 ~d3 ~c6 16 ί4 .d7 gave Black active play ίη CiocalteaHaag, Debrecen 1961, while 11 ~e3 ~xc2 12 .xc2lbf5 13 'it'd2 ~xe3 14 fxe3 .a5 15 1i'd5+ ~h8 16 'if'xa5 lbxa5 was equal ίη Dfickstein-Filip, Zagreb 1955) 11 ...e6 12lbf4 Wb6 13

=

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Knight

retreαts

to b3

αnd

c2

197

g5 00 14 ιαts 0-0 15 0-0 Wd7 16 ~c3 .txc3 17 bxc3 b618.tf3 ~b7 19 :el leaves Black ίη bad shape. 3) 7 ....te6 8 0-0:C8 (8 ...a6 9 ια3 ~f6 10 ια3 ~d7 11 ιαd5 ο-ο 12 ~g5 ια5 13 :cl a5 14 :el ;!; Κeres­ Letelier, Buenos Aires 1964) 9 ια3 lDd4 10 ~d3 1Dh6 11 ~c3 0-0 12 ~ .td7 13 .tg5 favoured White ίη Aronson-Mikenas, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1957.

Β

sωlM7

Black's counterplay is based οη placing this knight οη the nice c5square, placing pressure οη e4, threatening to double White's pawns with ....txc3+, and striking out ίο the centre with ... f7-f5. Note that Black creates a threat of ... ~xc3+ before White can defend it ίη comfortable fashion with .te3 followed by .d2. Also possible is 8...0-0 9 0-0 with the following rarely played but ίoter­ esting optίons: 1) 9 ....td7 10 .te3 (D) (10 .tg5 _a5 11 _d2 :Cc8 12 :adl .te6 13 Whl a6 14 a3 J:ab8 15 b4 favoured Whίte slightly ίο Κorchnoi-Lepesh­ kin, USSR Ch (Tallinn) 1965), when we have reached a position that usually comes about after 1 e4 c5 2 ~o ια6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 .tg7 6 .te3 ~f6 7 ~3 ο-ο 8 .te2 d6 9 ο-ο .t.d7 10 ια2. Now Black can try: la) 10...:b8 11 _d2 a6 12 f3 ια5 gives Black an equal game according to Dzindzichashvίli. lb) 10....a5 11 (4 (more dynamic than either 11 f3 :Cc8 12 ω ~g4 13 fxg4.t.xc3 14 c5 .t.g7 15 ια4 _d8 16 cxd6 .te6 17 a4 ~5 18 ~xe5 .txe5 19 dxe7 _xe7 20 :bl .ta2 21 :al .t.e6 22 :bl ~a2 23 :al .te6 lh_ l/2

Κharίtonov- Yudasin, Sίmferopoll988,

οι

.f8

11 :Cl :Cc8 12 f3 Wd8 13 _d2

14 b3 h6 15 :fdl Wh7 16 .t.f1 .t.e6 17 ~5 ~8 18 ~1 .td7 19 Whl :d8 20 Wf2 Wh8 21 ~3 e622 lt35b4lt3xb4 23 lt3xb4 a5 24 ια2 .tc6 25 ~4 .tf6 26 h4 _g7 lh- l/2 SerperSitanggang, Jakarta 1994) 11 ...:ac8 12 :bl a6 13 b4 (Whίte is buyίng υρ as much land as possible) 13 ....d8 14 _d3 .t.g4 (14...~ι4 15 .t.xg4 .t.xg4 1600 ±) 15 Whl .txe2 16.xe2 e6 17 c5! dS 18 :fdl :eβ 19 a4 _e7 20 bS! axb5 21 e5lt3d7 22lt3xb5:b8 23 lt3d6 24lt3d4 ± Short-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1990. lc) 10...a6 11 f3 :c8 12 a4 J.e6 13 ιαts lt3d7 14 :bl a5 IS b4 axb4 16 ιαχΜω 17 .td4.txd4+ 18 Wxd4 ια6 19 _e3 :a8 20 lt3d3 :xa4 21 J:ιxb7 22 _d2 .t.xd5 23 cxd5 ~4 24 :tbl lh-lh Short-Petursson, Tίlburg 1992. ld) 10...:C8 and now: ldl) 11 f3 a6 (11 ....te6 12 _d2 lt3d7 13 :acl a5 14 :fdl ια5 15 b3 :a8 16 ~5 :e8 17 :bl (5 18lt3f4 _c8 19lt3xe6 _xe6 20 exf5 Wxf5 21 .t.f2 :ad8 22 ~3 _f7 23 lt3g4 24 .tf1 Wh8 25 :el e6 26 :bdl b6

:rs

:a3

_f8

Accelerated Dragons

198

"f7

27 ~e3 e5 28 ~d3lίXι4 29 .*.e4 a4 30 b4 lbxe4 31 fxe4 lh_l/z SerperHra~ek. Jakarta 1994) 12 a4.*.e6 13 lbdS lbd7 14 :bl lbc5 15 b3 aS 16 lbd4 .*.xdS 17 exd5 lbxd4 18 ~xd4 ~xd4+ 19 "xd4 "b6 ; P.CramlingPetursson, Reykjavik Open 1984. ld2) 11 :cllbe5 12lba3 (White mυst avoid 12 b3?! b5! 13 f4lbeg4 14 ~xa7 bxc415 .*.xc4"aS 16 .*.d4 e5) 12...~c6?! 13 f3 a6 14 "d2 ~7 15 :fdl :e8 16 ~f1 "c7 17lbc2! (17 lbd5 "b8) 17 ...1t'b8 18lbd4lbe5 19 lbxc6 :xc6 20 b3 :cc8 21 h3lbed7 22 "f2 ~ 23 g4 lbhf6 24 f4 ± Ηϋbner-Ιvkοv, Bυndesliga 1983/4. ld3) 11 f4a612J:r.cl (a1sopossible is 12 ω; then Hardarson-Petυrsson, Neskaυpsstadυr 1984 continυed in ίη­ strυctive fashion: 12.....c7 13 :cl lbb4 14 lbabl aS 15 lba3 ~c6 16 lbab5"b8 17 ~f3 b6 18 "e2.11fe8 19 :fdllba6 20 lbd4 ~a8 21.*.f2lbc5 22 b3 ~h6! 23 g3 e5 +) 12...lba5 13 ω (13 b3 is met by 13 ... b5) 13... b5! and Black takes over the inίtiative WΊth thίs pawn sacrίfi.ce. Bjδmsson-T.Bergmann, Reykjavik Open 1984 continυed 14 cxb5 axb5 15 lbaxb5 lbc4 16 ~d4 "aS 17 ~xc4 :xc4 18lba3 :b4 19 e5 lbg4 20 h3 dxe5 21 fxe5 lbxe5 22 ~xe5 "a7+ +. 2) 9... ~e6 10 ~e3 lbd7 11 "d2 :c8 12 .*.h6 ~xh6 13 "xh6 "b6 14 b3lίXι415 lbxd4 "xd416:acl aS 17 .llfdl "g7 18 "d2lbc5 gave BIack a reasonable position ίη Nijboer-Piket, Dυtch Ch 1993. 3) 9... a6 with the following possi-

lίXι7 16 :fdl :ab8 17 :d2lbce5 18 lba3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 :cdl faνoυred White ίη Conqυest-Naυmann, Hastings Challengers 1990. 3b) 10~hl :b811 f3.*.d712~e3 "aS 13 lίXι5 b5 14 c5 ~e6 15 cxd6 exd6 16 ~d2 "d8 17lίXιb4lbxb4 18 ~xM Μ 19 ~c3 ~xc3 20 bxc3 "c7 21 f4 "xc3 22 lίXι4 ~c4 led to an eventυal VΊctory for Black in d' AmoreZso.Polgar, Rome 1989. 3c) 10 :el :b8 11 ~d2 ~d7 12 :bllbe8! 13 b4lbc7 14 a4? aS! 15 b5 lίXι4 16lbxd4 ~xd4 17 :b3 e5!? 18 ~f1 lbe6 19 lbd5 lbc5 20 :g3 ~e6! 21 ~c3 (21 ~h6 ~xd5! 22 .*.xf8 lbxe4! 23 :f3 lbc3) 21 ...~xd5 22 ~xd4 lbxe4 23 :a3? (accordίng to Wedberg, 23 .*.b2!? lbxg3 24 hxg3 ~e6 25 ~a3 woυld have given White some coυnterpIay) 23 ...exd4 24 "xd4 lbf6! 25 cxdS lίXι7, Sρraggett-Anders­ son, NoVΊ Sad OL 1990. The knίght, once it reaches c5, WΊll be vastly sυpe­ ήοr to White's bishop. Retυming Ιο the position after

8... lίXι7 (D):

bilίties:

3a) 10 ~d2 e6 (10...:b8 seems more consistent) 11 ~e3 "c7 12 J:r.cl b6 13 f3 .*.b7 14 "el :fe8 15

"f2

We have come to a fork in the road, WΊth White haVΊng to choose between:

Maroczy ΒΙ: 9.*.e3

ΒίΜ:

Knight retreats to b3 and c2

199

The hyper-aggressive move 9 h4!? is another idea for White. However, ίη T.Taylor-Silman, Lone Pίne 1976 White did ηοΙ manage Ιο prove the plan's validity: 9 ... lίXs 10 hS fS 11 hxg6 hxg6 12 :xh8+ -*.xh8 13 exf5 -*.xf5 14 b3 Wd7 15 ι!tlxf5 Wxf5 16 -*.e3 ι!tlb4 17 Wd2 lίX2+ 18 ΦdΙ ι!tlxal 19 g4 -*.xc3 20 Wxc3 Wbl+ 21 Wcl Wxa2 0-1.

Wb2 b6 17 c5! bxc5 18 .ι.b5. However, a playable altemative is 12... .ι.e6 130-0 f6 14 ι!tld4.ι.f7 15 ι!tlb3!? Wa3 16:abl b617~4:c818.ι.h6lDe5 19 :b4 ι!tla6?! (19 ...lίX6 is equal) 20 ι!tlb5 "a5 21 .tg7! ± TukmakovStean, Hastίngs 1972/3. 13 0-0 ι!tla4 13 ...0-0 14 :fbl :d8 15 a4.te6 16 ι!tlb4 :d7 17 ~5 "d8 is unclear, I.Ροlgar-Fοήntos, Κecskemet 1972. 14 ι!tlM ι!tlxc3 Analysis by Flοήan, who claims an advantage for Black.

Β1)

82)

Β2:

90-0 Β3: 9 -*.cIZ

199 199 201

9 -*.e3 Calling Black's bluff Ιο double his pawns. 9•••-*.xc3+ The consistent move, but 9 ... lίX5 is a decent altemative: 10 ι!tld4 (10 Wd2 Wa5 11 f3 .ι.e6 12 ο-ο 0-0 13 :abl -*.xc3 14 bxc3lDe5 15 .ι.h6 :fe8 16 b3 f6:; Uhlmann-Ivlcov, Amsterdam 1972) 10...0-0 11 0-0.ι.d7 (thίs position should be all ήght for Black) 12 .d2 ~xd4 (12 ...lDe6!? and 12... a5!? both deserve seήous consideration) 13 -*.xd4 -*.xd4 (l3 ... a5 14 .ι.χg7 Φχg7 15 :001 ;t Portisch-Reshevsky, Palma de Mallorca 1971) 14 .xd4 ι!tla4! (14... a5 15 :fdl ι!tla4 16 e5 ι!tlxc3 17 .xc3 dxe5 18 .xc5 ;t Maήotti-Raj­ kοviό, Budva 1981) 15 ~ ~b6. According ΙΟ ECO thίs equalizes, but 16 b3 is still a bit more comfortable for White. 10bxc3 .a511.cιZω 12016 12...•a4? led ιο a disaster ίη Portisch-De!e, Vnac 1971 after 13 ο-ο .ι.e6 14 ι!tlb4 :c8 15 ι!tld5 ι!tld7 16

90-O(D)

Β

Now Black has two entirely different ways of playing, depending οη whether he wants to take οη c3 or ηοΙ: B2a: 9 •••0-0 199 B2b: 9 •••ι!tlc5 201

Β28)

9•••0-0 10 .cIZ?! This clogs υρ White's pieces and leads to an excel1ent position for Black.

200

Accelerated Dragons

Best ΊS 10 .*.d2, transposing into VariationB3. Other possibilities also deserve some consideration: 1) 1Ο :el (oot feariog a capture 00 c3) 10...lί)cS 11.*.f1 fS (both 11 ....*.xc3 and 11 ... a5 can also be considered, but 11 ....te6?! should be avoided: 121tXt5 a5 13 :bl ί5 14 exf5 .txf5 15.tg5 :n 16ltXte3 .*.d7 171tXt5 .*.ί5 18 a3 a4 19 ιαIb4lbe6 20 .*.h4 g5 21 .td3 .*.e5 22 .tg3 lbed4 23 lbe3 .txd3 24 ll:}xd3 .*.g7 25 c5 d5 26 ll:}g4 "d7 27 ll:}de5 "f5 28 ll:}xl1 "xl1 29 .te5 .txe5 30 ll)h6+ φί8 and 1-0 without waitiog for a reply, Shabalov-Chow, New York Opeo 1993) 12 exf5 .*.xf5 13ll:}e3 "d7 14ll:}xf5 "xf5 15 .te3 16 .te2 Wh8 17 :f1ll:}b4! 18 :cl ll:}bd3 19 .tg4 (19 g4 "d7 20 .*.xd3 ll:}xd3 21 "xd3 .xg4+ is a draw) 19.....e5 20 .*.xc5ll)xc5 21 b4ll)a6 22 lDd5 e6 23 :el "d4 24 .xd4 .*.xd4 25 :xe6 :xf2 26 Whl 27 .*.f3 :c8 28 h4? (accordίng to Gheorghiu, White should play 28 h3) 28 ....*.b2! 29 :cel :xc4 and Black has a clear advantage, Portisch-Gheorghiu, Βυ­ dapest 1970. 2) 10 ll)ds ll)c5 11 f3ll:}a4?! (both 11 ... f5 and 11 ... a5 make more sense) 12 :bl e6 13 ll:}f4 'ii'b6+? (13 .....e7 with the idea οί 14...:d8, 15....td7 and 16....te8 was recommeoded by Κο­ tov) 14 .te3 "d8 15 "cl ± Shekhtman-Κremeoetsky, USSR 1972.

:11

:af8

lo...lDc5

Α

safe altemative is 10... a5 11 b3 (11lbe3ll)c5 12 f3 a413 :bl 'ii'a5 14 ll)cd5 e6 15 'ii'xa5 :ω 16ll:}b6 .*.d4 17 ll:}xc8 :xc8 18 :dl :a6 19 φί1 :b6 20 ll:}c2 e5 21ll:}xd4ll:}xd4 led Ιο ao excelleot positioo for Black ίο

Ljubojevίό-Ρetursson, Reylςjavik

1987) 11 ... ll)c5 12 f3 ί5 13 exf5 gxf5 14 .tb2 ί4 15 :abl .*.ί5 16 ll:}d5 e5 ; Sioo-T.Georgadze, Salamanca 1989. The fiώsh was instructive: 17 :bdl :e818ω:e619:feΙ ~420.tί1

:h6 (00 subtlety here!) 21 h3 :g6 22 Whl "g3 23 Wgl .xf3 24 "f2 'ii'xf2+ 25 Wxt'2 .tfS 26 ll:}b5 ll:}b4 0-1.

1113 The pawo sacήfice with 11 b4!? deserves seήοus coosideratίoo. Theo Black can either accept the gίίΙ or play 11 ...lbe6!? AIso possible is 11 b3!?, wheo Black can try: 1) 11 ... .*.xc3 12 "xc3 ll:}xe4 13 'ii'e3 gίves White compeosatίoo for the pawn but oothing more. 2) 11 .....a5? 12 b4! (οοι 12 .tb2? ~! winnίng for Black) 12...ll)xb4 13 lDd5 .*.xal 14 ll:}xal ll)c6 15 ll:}xe7+ leaves Black cήtίcalΙΥ weak 00 the dark squares. 3) 11 ... f5 12 exf5 .txf5 13 lbe3 ll:}d4 (13 ...lbe4 14 ll:}xe4 .txal 15 ll:}xf5 gxf5 16 'ii'd5+ Wh8 17 .th6 .tg7 18 .*.xg7+ Wxg7 19 ι!ΩΒ5 ;t Ivkov) 14ll:}xf5ll)xf5 with play similar to the maio column (at least equal forBlack). 11•••Ι5 12 exf5 Black is also 00 toρ after 12 b4lbe6 13 exf5ll)f4! (a surprisiog and stl'Oog move) 1400 (or 14 .*.b2ll:}xe2+ 15 "xe2 .txf5 ; Beoko-Barcza, Budapest 1955) 14 ...ll:}xe2+ 15 'ii'xe2 .txf5 16 .tg5 .txc2 17 'ii'xc2 :f5 18 'ii'd2 :xg5 19 "xg5 e6, when White's loose rook 00 al (attacked by the g7bishop), hangiog kώght and shaky b4-pawo combioe Ιο give Black the

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

Knight

advantage, Pogats-Barcza, Budapest 1955. 12•••~XΙ5 13 lί)e3 13 b3?? loses a piece to 13 ... ~xc2 14 "xc2lί)d4. 13.••lί)d4 14lί)xΙ5 lDxf5 151:ιbΙ e6 16"el Karpov-Kaplan, SanAntonio 1972. Now Black should have played 16...a5! 17 ~d2 d5!, when his passed d-pawn gives him a clear advantage.

B2b) 9 ••• lί)cS (D)

retreαts Ιο

b3

αnd

c2

201

2) 11 ... f5 12 exf5 gxf5 13 'ifd2 .t.e6 14 1:ιadl ;!;; Stein-Jano§evic, Vmjatka Banja 1971. 12 bXc3 b6 Also playable is 12 .....a5 13 'ifel .t.e6 (13 ... lί)a4 14 .t.d2 "c5+ 15
w

The game is unclear, AdamskiJansa, Budapest 1970. Β3)

9.t.d2 (D)

Β

10 f3 0-0 11 ~e3 Here 11 ~d2 transposes to Variatίoη Β3 while 11 ~g5 led Ιο equal chances ίη Cvetkovic-Sahovic, Yugoslav Ch 1974 after 11 ... a5 12 'ifd2 a4 131:ιabl"a5.

11..•~xc3 More or less forced as other moves aIlow Whίte to play "d2 with a harmonious development. Two examples: 1) 11 ... a5 12 'ifd2 a4 13
The maίn lίne. Whίte avoids the doubled c-pawns and transposes into a popular system for Black (1 c4 c5 2 lΔc3 lί)f6 3 g3 d5 4 cxd5 lί)xd5 5 .t.g2 ltlc7 6lί)f3ltlc6 7 d3 e5 8lDd2 .t.d7), where he enjoys an extra tempo.

Accelerαted Drαgons

202

9•••0-0 Most accurate. The immediate 9 ... ι!l)c5 runs into 10 b4!, whίle 9 ... aS 10 .i.e3! makes 10....i.xc3+ less desirable than usual due to the weaknesses along the b-file created by ... a7-aS. After 10 .i.e3, Sveshnikov-Hemandez, Caracas 1976 continued 10... ι!Ωc5 11 IΙΜ2 a4 12 .i.h6 0-0 13 h4 .i.xh6 14 Wxh6 f615 Wd2 :f716 f4 f5 17 h5! fxe4 (better is 17... ι!Ωxe4 18 ι!l)xe4 fxe4 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 0-0-0, though White still has a clear advantage) 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 ί5! and the upcoming Wh6 gave White a winning attack.

100-0 The berserker 10 h4 shoυ1d not pose much of a threat: 10...ι!Ωc5 11 hS ί5 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 .i.h6 .i.xh6 14 :xh6 ~g7 15 Wd2 :h8 16 :xh8 Wxh8 17 exf5 .i.xf5 18 0-0-0 WΊth an equal position, Stean-Smejkal, Skara Echt 1980. 10•••&5 Is thίs a necessary precaυtion? The immediate 10...1Ωc5 is a very important altemative, and players have recently been doing everything they can to make it work. Then White has: 1) II:Σcl .i.xc3 (Black coυ1d also consider safer moves such as 11 ... aS or 11 ...f5) 12 .i.xc3 ι!l)xe4 13 .i.el .i.e6 14 f3 ι!l)ί6 15 .i.c3 d5? 16 c5 d4 17 ι!l)xd4 ι!l)xd4 18 .i.xd4 WaS 19 a3 :fd8 20 Wd3! ± Nijboer-Vanheste, Dυtch Ch 1991. 2) 11 b3 (D) and now Black has tried: 2a) 11 ....i.xc3 (ιisky) 12bc3 ι!Ωxe4 13 .i.b2 WaS 14.i.f3 ί5 15 We2 ι!l)e5 16 :fd 1 ι!l)ί6 17 .i.d5+ e6 18 .i.xe6+ .i.xe6 19 :xd6 :ae8 20 Wxe5 Wxe5 21 .i.xe5 lΩe4 22 :ddl .i.xc4 23 .i.d4

:rs

Β

left Black struggling for a draw ίη the game Dvoirys-Zilberman, Leeuwarden 1994. 2b) 11 ... .i.d7 12 f3 aS 13 ~hl b6?! (Miles recomιnends 13 ...ι!l)b4) 14 .i.el Wb8 15 :cl Wb7 16 ι!Ωds ;t Timιnan-Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1978. 2c) 11 ...f5 12 exf5 .i.xf5 13 1Ωe3 ι!Ωe4 14 ι!Ωxe4 .i.xe4 15 .i.g4 .i.f5 16 :Σcl .i.xg4 17 Wxg4 Wc8 18 We4 19 ~hl Wd7 20 .i.c3:af8 21 .i.xg7 ~xB7 22 Wc21Ωe5 23 :cdl ι!l)B424 Wc3+ ~B8 25 ι!l)XB4 Wxg4 was eventually drawn ίη Hodgson-Espig, Bad Wooshofen 1994. 2d) 11 ...aS! 12 :bl f5 (12... ι!l)b4!? is tempting) 13 exf5 .i.xf5 14 .i.g4 .i.d3 15 h2 .i.fS was equal ίη Κorch­ ηoί-Matυloνίc, Sarajevo 1969. 3) 11 b4! (D) is the main threatto 1O••. ι!Ωc5. Black can now play: 3a) 11 ....i.xc3!? 12 .i.xc3 ι!Ωxe4 13 .i.b2 e5 (according to Soltis, 13....i.e6 followed by playing for pressυre οη the c4-pawn is the correct way to go, whίleMίlos feels that 13...aS!? is worth a look) 14 Wel! (14 .i.f3 ι!l)ί6 15 bS ι!l)aS 16 ι!Ωe3 .i.e6 17 c5 dxc5 18 .i.xe5 ι!Ωd7 19 .i.c3:b8 20 Wd2 b6 21 :adl ± I.Ivanov-Strauss, Los Angeles

:n

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

Knight

Β

1982) 14...Wg5 15 ':dl .te6 16 ~hl (Mίlos gives 16 f4 exf4 17 .tf3 ι!Og3! as unclear) 16...•h4 17 .tf3 f5 18 b5 ι!Od8 19 g3 1i'f6?! (19 ...•e7 is better) 20 ι!Oe3 ι!OfΊ 21 .tg2:ac8 22 f3 ι!Oc5 23 f4 ± Milos-Spangenberg, San Luis 1995. 3b) 11 ...ι!Oe6 is the popular way to handle this position. White has trίed several different moves here: 3bl) 12 ':cl a5 (best; White is clearly better after both 12...f5 13 exf5 gxf5 14 f4 ι!Oed4 15 ι!Oxd4 ι!Oxd4 16 .te3 ± Nunn-Rind, Manchester 1980 and 12....td7 13 ι!Ods ':c8 14 .te3 ι!Oe5 15 ι!Oal b6 16 f4 ι!Oc6 17 ι!Ob3 ± Ananchenlco-Tseshkovsky, Russia Cup (Κrasnodar) 1997) 13 a3 axb4 (or 13 ....td7 14 ι!Od5 axb4 15 axb4 ι!Ocd4 16 ι!Oxd4 ι!Oxd4 17 .tg5 :e8 18.te3 e5 19 .tg4 .te6 20 h3':a3 21 ':el.txd5 22 exd5 b6 de la VΊlla-T.Georgadze, Salamanca 1989) 14 axb4 ι!Ocd4 15 ι!Oxd4 ι!Oxd4 16 .te3 e5 (16 ... ι!Oxe2+ 17 .xe2 .te6 18 ':fdl ;t SpeelmanPigυsoν, Sochi 1982) 17 ι!Ob5 ι!Oxb5 18 cxb5 .te6 19 .tc4 .d7 20 .d3 :Cc8 IΙ'1.- lh Geller-Pigusov, Sochi 1989. 3b2) 12 ':bl a5 13 b5 (13 a3 axb4 14 axb4 ι!Oed4 {14 ...ι!Ocd4 15 .td3

=

retreαts

to b3

αnd

c2

203

.td7 16 ι!Oxd4 ι!Oxd4 17 1i'cl?! e6! 18 .th6.txh6191i'xh61i'f620't!fcl.g7 21 ':dl ':fc8 22 .tf1 .ta4 23 ι!Oxa4 ':xa4 24 Wb2 e5 ; Illescas-Ljubojeνίό, Linares (4) 1993} 15 ι!Oxd4 ι!Oxd4 16.td3.td7 {16...:83; Il1escas} 17 ':el':a3 18.tf1 ':e8 19 J:e3 .tc620 b5 .td7 21 ι!Od5 ± Kaidanov-Κhasin, Belgrade 1988; this game only lasted a few more moves: 21 ...':a2 22 .tc3 e5 23 ι!Ob4':a3 24.txd4 1-0) 13...ι!Ocd4 and White has trίed two moves: 3b2a) 14 ι!Oxd4 ι!Oxd4 (Mίlos recommends 14 ... .txd4!? with the idea of 15 ι!Od5 b6) 15 b6 e6 16 .te3 ι!Oxe2+ 17 ι!Oxe2 .td7! 18 't!fd3 (Black gets more than enough activity for the pawn after 18 .xd6 .tc6 19 1i'xd8 :Cxd8 20 f3 ':d3;) 18 ....tc6 19 ':fdl 't!fh4 20 f3 ':fd8 and Black enjoyed a comfortable position in Mίlos-Spang­ enberg, Villa Gese111996. 3b2b) 14 b6! ι!Oxc2 15 .xc2 .td7 16 ι!Od5 .tc6 17 .tg4 ι!Oc5 18 .tg5 .txd5 19 cxd5 h5! 20 .te2 (20 .th3 ':a6 21 .te3 ':xb6 22 .txc5 ':xbl 23 ':xbl .c7 is a line given by Adams) 20...:C8 21 .te3 a4 22 ':b4 (22.txc5 :Xc5 23 .xa4 Wa8 gίves Black plenty of compensation for the sacήficed pawn) 22...a3 23 ':tbl 1i'd7 24 .tb5 .d8 25 .te2 't!fd7 26 ':c4? (better is 26 .tb5 =) 26 ...e6 27 ':dl exd5 28 ':xd5 .e6 29 .tf4 ':c6 and Black had the better game ίη Salov-Adams, Dos Hermanas 1995. 3b3) 12 ~hl ι!Oed4 13 ι!Oxd4 ι!Oxd4 14 .td3 a5 15 b5 ι!Oe6 16 ':cl ι!Oc5 17 .tbl b6 18 .tg5 .tb7 19 1i'd2 ':c8 20 ι!Od5 f6 21 .te3 e6 22 ι!Of4 .e7 23 f3 :Ce8 24.:001 .:008 2S.f2 .tf8 26 ':d2 d5 27 ι!Od3 .c7 28 cxd5 exd5 29 ι!Oxc5 .txc5 30 .txc5 .xc5

204

Accelerαted Drαgons

31 "xc5 bxc5 32 :fdl ~f7 33 exd5 hd5 34 hd5 .t.xd5 35 ~BI ~e6 36 :d2 :b8 37 a4 I/2-Ih (a strange decision by Black since 37 ....t.b3 38 .i.c2 .t.xc2 39 :xc2 ~d5 is very bad for White) Ivanchuk-Andersson, Tίlbυrg 1990. It seems that the immedίate 10...llXs has a lot to recommend it! Retυrning to the positίon after 10...a5 (D):

1113 The altematίves have tυrned out wel1 for Black: 1) 11 :cl tDc5 12 f3 (after 12 b3 l[)b4! 13 :al .t.d7 14 l[)e3 tDc6 15 :bl l[)d4 16l[)ed5 e6 17l[)f4 .i.c6 Black has a very nice positίon, de la Vil1a- VelίmiroVΊc, Szirak ΙΖ 1987) 12... f5 13 exf5 .i.xf5 14l[)e3l[)d4 15 l[)xf5l[)xf5 16 b3 e6 17l[)b5 "fIe7 18 :el 1rh4 19 :fl b6 20 "fIel "fIe721 .t.c3 :008 22 .t.xg7 "xg7 23 ί4 d5 24 .t.g4 d4 25 .t.xf5 exf5 26 :dl :fe827 "h4 d3 =J= Fang-Kudrίn. 2) 11 :ell&5 12 .i.fl ί5 13 exf5 J.xf5 14 l[)e3 (or 14 J.e3 l[)b4! 15 l[)a3 l[)bd3 16 J.xd3 l[)xd3 17 :e2 l[)xb2 18 "fIb3l[)a4 19 "xa4 .t.xc3 20

:dl.t.f6 21 c5 "fId7! 22 "xd7 .t.xd7 23 cxd6 exd6 24 :xd6 .t.c6 25 .t.b6 :te8 and Black's two bishops gave hίm a clear advantage ίο Peters-Sίlman, Santa Monica, Sυmmίt Match 1989) 14...l[)d4 15 tDcd5.t.e4 16 .t.c3 e5 17 "d2 "g5 and Black was better ίο Tangborn-Donaldson, cοπ 1983-4. The contίnuatίon was 18 ~hl "fIh4 19 f3 :xt3! 20.t.xd4 :t2 21 "xf2 "xf2 and Black was winning. 3) 11 "fIcl!? (a new idea οί Nijboer's) 11. ..:e8! (preserving the darksquared bishop; 11 ...lbc5 12 .t.h6 was a bit better for White ίο NijboerPetυrsson, Reykjavίk 1990: 12... b613 .t.xg7 ~xB7 14 "fIe3 :a7 15 ί4 ί6 16 b3 :d7 17 :abl e5 18 ί5) 12 .t.h6 J.h8 13 "d2 a4 14l[)a3 l[)d4!? (Petursson prefers 14.....a5 15 ω5 tDc5 followed by ... J.d7 and ...:ec8) 15 ω5l[)χe2+ 16 "xe2l[)f6! 17 :adl 1rb6 (according to Donaldson, also possible is 17...J.d7 18 c5 dxc5 19 e5 l[)bS) 18 .te3 "a5 19 .t.d4 .*.e6 20 e5 dxe5 21 .*.xe5 :ac8 22 :d4 :c5 23 :fdl :ec8 24 b3 axb3 25 axb3 :xe5 26 "xe5, Petυrsson-Donaldson, New York Open 1991, and now Black should play 26 ...l[)d5 27 "el .*.xd4! 28 l[)xd5 "xel + 29 :xel .t.c5 30 l[)bc7 .*.xd5 31l[)xd5 e6 =.

11•••ω (D) 12~hl

Black gets good play after 12 .t.e3 a4 (12...ί5 13 exf5 .t.xf5 14l[)d4l[)xd4 15 .t.xd4 .t.h6 16 :el l[)e6 17 .t.f2 l[)f418.*.fl:n 19"f1b3 .i.d3 20.:001 .*.xfl 21 ~xfl 'ild7 22 c5 ± LautierSolozhenkin, French Cht 1996) 13 "d2 1ra5. Ί\vo examples: 1) 14 :abl ί5 15 exf5 .t.xf5 16 :bcl .*.xc2 17 :xc2l[)b4 (l7 ...a3 18

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Knight retreats

Ιο

b3

αnd

c2

205

Thίs is not ίmmediately necessary Whίte has ηο threats and he is

since

w

runnίng

out of useful waί1ing moves. Here are some other ideas that can be

trίed ίη thίs positίon:

=

bxa3 Wxa3 Yermolinsky-Donaldson. Reno 1996) 18 :Ccl a3 19 bxa3 J.xc3 20 :Xc3 ~a2 21 :C2 Wxd2 22:Xd2 lίX3 23 J.xc5 dxc5 24 lIal :fc8 25 IIc2 ~2+ 26 b 2 Wf7 l/z_lh StohlMalishauskas, Manίla OL 1992. 2) 14 lIacl J.d7 Sanz-Zsu.Polgar, Leon 1989. The con1inua1ion saw Black dithering endlessly around and s1ill doing well: 15 Whl IIfd8 1611fdl J.e8 17 1&3 Wh8 18 J.f1 J.d7 19 lbab5 J.e6 20 Wf2 :ac8 21 00 1If8 22 lbbc7 J.xd5 23 lbxdS e6 24 J.d2 Wd8 25 lbc3 J.d4 and Black went οη to WΊη a long struggle. Another idea for Whίte is 12 b3 (5 (also possible is 12...b6!? with the idea of ...:a7-d7 followed by ...e6 and ... -*.b7) 13 exf5 -*.xf5 14lbe3 a4? (the usual recipe is 14 ...lbd4 15 lbxf5 lbxf5 followed by preparatίons for a ...d6-d5 advance WΊth ...e6) 15 lbxf5 gxf5 16 IIbl axb317axb3lbd418b4lbd719 J.e3 lbxe2+ 20 lbxe2 We8 21 c5 (Black's openίng has been a disaster) 21 ...dxc5 22 bxc5 IIc8 23 IIb5 IIc7 24 lbf4 J.h6 2S -.ι,3+ e6 26 ~e6 J.xe3+ 27 Wxe3 1-0 Magem-Romero, Leon 1991.

=

12.••f5

1) 12...b6 13 IIcl :a7 14 b3 IId7 15 Wel e6 16 IIdl J.b7 17 Wf2lbe7 with good play, Conquest-Petursson, Palma de Mallorca ΟΜΑ 1989. It's somewhat surpήsίng that nobody has copied Black's play. 2) 12 ... lbe6 13 IIbl -*.d7 14 fΔd5 lbed4 15 lbxd4lt)xd4 16 J.g5 lIe8 17 J.d3 J.c6 18 f4lt)e6 19 J.h4 ~5 20 -*.c2 IIb8 21 f5 lbd7 22 Wd2 J.xdS 23 exdS lbe5 was all ήght for Black ίη Sax-Antunes, Benasque 1993. 3) 12...J.d7 13 IIbl lbb4 14 lbe3 a4 15 lbb5 ~a2 (l5...lbc6 16 b4 axb3 17 axb3lbe5?! 18 fΔd5 ± Damljanovίό-Μ.ΡavΙοvίό, Yugoslav Ch 1997) 1611al a3 17 IIxa2 axb2 gives Black compensa1ion for the sacήficed piece accordίng to Damιjanοvίό. 4) 12...a4!? 13 IIcl (13 IIbl f5) 13 ...J.e6 14 -*.e3 Wb6 15 IIbl Ι5 16 00 Wd8 17 exfS (17lbf4!?) 17..ixfS 18 -*.g5! lbe6 19 -*.h4 g5 20 J.f2lbf4 21 lt)xf4 gxf4 22 -*.d3 Wd7 23 lIel, Ρ.ΡΟΡονίό-VeΙimirοvίό, Yugoslav Ch playoff(Belgrade) 1997, 23 ...-*.xd3 (ίη the actual game, Black got into trouble after 23 ...lΩe5?! 24 -*.e4! Wh8 25 b3 axb3 26 axb311a2?! 27 -*.d4!) 24 Wxd3 ~5. Accordίng Ιο PopoVΊό, Black has an acceptable positίon. 13 ώ5 -*.xfS (D) 14J.e3 14lbe3fΔd415lt)xf5 lbxf5 1611bl e6, Portίsch-Tukmakov, Madήd 1973, leads to a structure that is known to favour Black. Black plans to play ...dS and create a powerful passed pawn.

206

Accelerαted

w

The continuation ο! this game is an ίη­ structive example of how Black should play this variation: 17 b3 ~h8 18 ~b5 (18 a3 d5 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 d4! 21 ~b5 d3 22 bxc5 dxe2 23 "xe2:a2 24 :bdl 'iWh425 "el "xc4 is veιy strong

Dragons

for Black - ana1ysis by Tukmakov) 18... d5 19 cxd5 exd5 20 :cl b6 21 g4? (better is 21 -*.f4, though Black would still retain a clear advanιage) 21 ...~d6 22 .i.c3 ~xb5 23 -*.xg7+ ~xg7 24 -*.xb5 d4 25 :c4 :f4! 26 a3 "d5 27 b4 axb4 28 axb4 ~6 29 "e2 d3 30 "b2+ ~h6 31 .i.c6? "xc4 32 .i.xa8 d2! 33 "bl :d40-1. 14•••a4!? According Ιο Filip, 14...~b4 15 tLJd4, 14....i.xc2 15 "xc2 tLJd4 16 "d2, and 14 ... ~h8 15 ~d4 are a11 a little better for White, though this has ηοΙ yet been confmned by practice. After 14...a4!? 1Μ David Strauss feels that Black has adequate play but this a1so needs testing before any definite assessment can be given.

1Ο Maroczy Bind: Lines with 6 ... tΔh6 1 e4 cS 2 ~Ι3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g65 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 6 ~e3 is Whίte's best move. This chapter concentrates οη lίnes with 6 ...~6, though we wil1 aIso take a quick glance at some rare aIternatίves:

1) 6.....b6? (Gipslίs trίed this twίce and then gave ίι υρ; ίι is actuaIly just a waste oftίme since after7 ~b3 Black's queen has ηο useful square Ιο go Ιο) 7 ~b3 "c7 (the first tίme Gipslίs trίed 6 ... he fol1owed υρ with 7 .....d8 but after 8 ~c3 ~f6 9 ~e2 b6 10 ο-ο ο-ο he had 10st tίme compared Ιο lίne Α of Chapter 9) 8lίk3 ~f6 9 h2 0-0 10 ο-ο b6 11 ~d4 ~b7 12 ~db5 "b8 13 :Cl :d8 14 f4 and Whίte has a dίstίnct advantage, Reshko-Gipslίs, USSR 1966. 2) 6 ... e6? (with this move, ίηΙΙο­ duced by Shaposhnίkov ίη 1959, Black intends ... ~ge7 and ...d5; though he achieves his aίm, the early opening of the positίon tums ουΙ Ιο favour Whίte) 7 lίk3 lΔge7 and now: 2a) 8 "d2 (the most naturaI move) 8...d5 9 cxd5 exd5 1Ο ~xc6 bxc6 11 exd5 cxd5 12 .*.b5+! ~d7 13 .*.e2 ~e6 14 :dl ο-ο 15 0-0 ~f5 16 ~c5 d4 (16 ...:e8 17 .*.b5) 17 .*.xf8 ~xf8 18 ~b5 ~c5 19 ~d3 ~d6 20 ~xd6 'ifxd6 21 a3 and Black is without compensatίon for the lost exchange, Estrίn-Shaposhnίkov, cοπ 1959.

2b) 8lΔdb5 (aIso interestίng) 8...0-0 9 .te2 (Leνy lίkes 9 ~d6) 9 ... f5! 10 f3 fxe4 (1O... f4 11 .tf2 b6 12 "d2 .*.a6 13 0-0-0 lΔe5 14 g3! ± Dubinίn-Shap­ oshnίkov, cοπ 1959) 11 fxe4 b6 12 'ifd2 .ta6 13 0-0-0 lΔe5 and Black has an actίve positίon, Kunz-Honfi, cοπ. 3) 6 ...d6 7 ~c3 a6?! 8 ~e2 e6 9 "d2 ~e5 10 :dl and White has a clear advantage, Uhlmann-Ljubojevic, Nilclic 1978.

6...~M (D)

"b6.

w

A10ng with ...b5 and ...d5, Black has a third break ίη ... f5. ΒΥ playing his knight Ιο h6 Black can easί1y get ίο the move ...f5 but ίι doesn't aIways work ουΙ so well. Unless Black has tremendous piece actίvity, White's pressure agaίnst the d- and e-pawns and control of d5 and e6 usual1y give hίm the advantage.

Accelerαted

208

Though ηο top player supports this line (ίι must be admίtted that GM Αbramοvίό and 1Μ I.Ivanov have a fondness for this set-up), the Egyptian 1Μ Afifi has come υρ with some new ideas that may appeal Ιο those who enjoy sharp and unusual positions. 7tα3

7 .t.e2 ο-ο 8 .d2 ~xd4 9 .t.xd4 f61! (9 ... .t.xd4 10 .xd4 f5 11 .d2 q;g712~3;t) 10~3d611 0-0~g4 12 ~5 .t.h6 13 f4 e5 14 .t.xg4 .t.xg4

Dragons

10.t.xb6! Cutting across Black's plan, wbίch is realίzed after 1Ο .t.xd4 ~xί5 11 .t.c5 d6 12.t.a3 ~fd4 13 ο-ο .t.f5 14 :cl.d715~d5:f716b3:af817

.t.b2 e5 18 b4 .t.e6 19 .t.d3 (19 ~3

~e2+20.xe2 ~b421:OO1 ω + Stolίar-Κotkov, USSR 1957) 19....t.g4! 20 f3 .t.xf3! 21 gxf3 ~xf3+ 22 q;hl 1Wh3 23:f2 ~1 0-1 Furman-Spassky, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1957. 10•••]bfS (D)

15 .t.e3 .t.g7 16 f5! ± Seirawan-Shirazi, USA Ch 1992. Α: Β:

w

Black now has: 7•••0-0 208 7•••d6 209

Α) 7•••0-0 8 .t.e2 fS 9 exfS Black obtained a slight advantage ίη Martin-Gurgenidze, Munich 1958, after 9 .d2? f4 10 .t.xf4 .t.xd4 11 .t.xh6 .t.xf2+ 12 q;dl 13 .t.f3 .t.d4 (and ηοΙ 13...•b6 14 :cl d6 15 00 .d4 16:n ;t Bagirov-Roizman, USSR 1961). 9••..t.xd4 The altematives don 'ι work ουΙ very well: 1) 9... ~xd4 10 .t.xd4 .t.xd4 11 .xd4 ω5 12 .d2 d6. Now White has the pleasant choice between 13 ο-ο, transposing ίηιο Tal-Kupreichίk ίη the note Ιο Black's 19th move ίη section Β of this chapter, or castling long and playing h2-h4-h5. 2) 9...gxf5100-0f411 ~c6 bxc6 12 .t.d4 d6 13 .t.xg7 q;xg7 14 .t.f3 'i'b6 15 ~5 16ω:π 17 'i'h5 ± Μϋller-Μδhrίng, E.Germany 196415.

:n

:el

110-0 Black gets away with hίs ήsky play after 11 .t.e3?! .t.xe3 12 fxe3 d6 13 .d2 = Pachman-Sanguinetti, PortoroHZ 1958. 11...d6 The crude 11 ...'i'b6? is strongly answered by 12 ~5 .t.xf2+ (editor's note: 12 ...•xb2 13 :bl .a3 is a better try, as ίη Marusenko-Turner, London Lloyds Bank 1994) 13q;hl.d414 .t.g4.xdl 15 :axdl 16 ~e7+! ~xe7 (16...:xe7 17 :xf2 :f7 18 :dfl ~5 19.t.f3) 17 .t.e6! ~5 18 .t.xf7+ q;xf7 19:ΧΩ ± Grυshevsky­ Veresov, Moscow 1959. 12.i.f3

:n

Mαroczy ΒίΜ: Lίnes with 6... l'Δh6

In Shamkovich-Vasiukov, USSR Ch 196415, White gained a clear advantage with 12 1fd2"a5 13 Whl :Π 14 f4 .te6 15 :acl :d8 16 "el 'ii'b4 17 b3 Wh8 18 .tf3. This stoOO taH as one of the official 'lines of refutation' uηtiι Hakkί-Afifi, Bahrain 1990 showed that Black's gam.e was not so bad after all: 12....tg7 (instead of 12.....a5) 13 .txg7 Wxg7 14 Whl 'ii'b6 15 .tg4:n 16 .txc8 :xc8 17 :adl :cf8 18 f3 "c5 19 b3 'iWh5 20 lL1e4 :f4 21lL1g3 "h6 22lL1e2 :4f5 23 'ii'xh6+ Wxh6 24 lL1c3 Wg7 25 :fel Wn 26 Wgl g5 and the game was soon called a draw. l2.•..tg7 If Black wants to expeήment with this variation, then Afifi's 12....txc3!? should be given a shot: 13 bxc3lL1e5 14 .te4 :h5 and now: 1) 15 .tf4 'ii'c7 16 :el 00 17 "e2 e6 18 .lΣadl Wg7 19 'iWd2 e5 20 .te3 'iWxc4 21 f3 'ii'c7 22 g4 .ιΣΜ 23 .td5 h5 24 .txn Wxn 25 .tg5 :h3 26 'iWxd6 'iWxd6 27 J:ιxd6:XO 28 .lΣd8 We6 29 J:ιe8+ Wd6 30 :d8+ Ih-Ih Smyslov-Afifi, Manila ΙΖ 1990. 2) 15 .te3. Rachels-Afifi, Manila ΙΖ 1990,andnow 15 .....c7wouldhave been υnclear. The actual game went 15 ....te6 16 .txb7 .txc4 17 .txa8 "xa8 18 :el .td5 19 f4 .txg2 20 fxe5 .th3 21 .lΣe2 'iWf3 22:f2 "xe3 23 "d5+ Wg7 24 νπ+ Wh6 25 'iWf8+ Wg5 26 "xe7+ and White went οη to win. l3.te3 White can also consider 13 .txg7 Wxg7 14 .te4 :f8 (White obtained a positionally won game after 14...:Π 15 'iWd2 "b6 16 .td5 e6 17 .txc6 'iWxc6 18 .lΣadl "xc4 19 'iWxd6 ίη (Κiev)

209

Ηϋbner-Afifi, Manila ΙΖ 1990) 15 c5! dxc5 16 .txc6 bxc617 "e2. l3....td7l4 :el ΜΙ! .te4 .lΣf7Ι6 .tg5! White is clearly better. The game Kudrin-I.Ivanov, New York 1983 continued 16....tf617 .txf6.ΙΣxf618"d2 "f8 19 :adl :d8 20 lL1d5 :Π 21 lL1c7!. This last move is very strong and will soon cause great unpleasantness for Black. White wiH park his knight οη e6 and follow uρ with doubling οη the e-file and h2-h4-h5. Black has ηο real counterpIay and weaknesses all over the place.

Β)

7•••d6 (D)

w

This is a much steadier continuathan 7... 0-0 as Black will now have the ορtiοη of capturing οη f5 with the bishop. Nonetheless, the resulting positions are ηοΙ easy ΙΟ play for Black. ιίοη

8.te2 Here 8 h3 has been seen οη occasion, but ίι seems a ιiώe Ιοο slow ιο give White any real chance for an

210

Accelerated Dragons

advantage: 8... f5 9 exf5 (9 .*.xh6 .*.xd4 10 .*.d3 .b6 11 .e2 lCJe5 12 ο-ο .*.xc3 13 bxc3 .c6 1/2-1/2 Ηϋbner­ Ljubojevic, Brussels 1987) 9 ...lCJxf5 1Ο ICJxf5 .*.xf5 and now: 1) 11 :cl 0-0 12 .d2 (12 .*.e2 ~h8130-0:c814b3.aS 15.d2a6 16 :fdllC!e5 17 .*.d41CJc6 18 .*.xg7+ ~xg7 19 :el .*.d7 20 .b2 .g5 21 ICJd5+ e5 22 :c31C!d4 23 :g3 .h4 24 .*.g4 .*.f5 25 .*.xf5 ICJxr5 26 :g4 .d8 27 f4 1CJh6 28 fxe5 ICJxg4 29 exd6+ ~h6 30 hxg4 Wxd6 31 :e3 .c5 32 b4 :f1+ 33 ~xf1 .xc4+ 34 ~gl .xd5 35 g5+ ~h5 36 .e2+ 1-0 Timoshenko-Afifi, Cairo 1997) 12 ...•aS 13 b3 :ac8 14 .*.e2 ~h8 150-0:f7 16 :fdl :cf8 17ICJb5 .xd2 18 :xd2;t Marjanovic-Cuartas, Dortmund 1982. 2) 11.d2.aS 12:cl 0-0 13.*.e2 :ac8 = Qi Jingxuan-Larsen, BledlPortoroz 1979. 8•••0-0 (D) Also possible is the immediate advance 8 ... f5, which can easily transpose 10 the text. White's best is then 9 exf5 ICJxf5 10 ICJxf5 .*.xf5 11 0-0 0-0 (11 ...•aS!? 12.d2 0-013 :acl:C8 14 f4 e5 15.*.f3;t Savon-Sikora, Tmava 1989) 12.d2 (12 c5 is also a reasonable idea, when 12...dxc5 13 .*.xc5 favoured White ίη Kovat!evic-Barczay, Zagreb 1972) 12...:c8 13 :acl ~h8 141C!d5 Wd7 15 :fdl ;t LiebertR.Byrne, Lugano OL 1968. 90-0 Here 9 Wd2 ICJg4 is similar 10 the variation that arises after 1 e4 c5 2 1CJf3 ICJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ICJxd4 g6 5 c4 .*.g7 6 .*.e31CJf6 71CJc3 0-0 8 .*.e2 d6 9 0-0.*.d7 10 .d21CJg4 11 .*.xg4.*.xg4 except that ίη this case Black has moved his queen's bishop only once.

w

Due to this, Black is ίη possession of an extra tempo and his chances of gaining equality are greatly enhanced: 10 .*.xg4 .*.xg4 11 ο-ο and now: 1) 11 ...:c8 is too passive: 12 b3 a6 13 h3 .*.d7 14 :adllCJxd4 15 .*.xd4 .*.c6 16 .*.xg7 ~xg7 17 .d4+ ~g8 (17...f6 is better but White still has an edge) 18 a4! f5 19 e5! dxe5 20.xe5 .c7 21 We6+ ~g7 22 :fel :ce8 23 ICJd5! .*.xd5 24 :xd5, GheorghiuBalaskas, BaIkanίad 1977. 2) 11 ...•aS 12 :acl (12 f4ICJxd4 13 .*.xd4 e5 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 .*.e3 with a slight advantage for White, Petrosian-Heinicke, Vienna 1957) 12...:tc8 13 b3 a6 (also playable is 13 ...lCJxd4 14 .*.xd4 .*.xd4 15 .xd4 .*.e6 16 f4 .c5 17 .xc5 :xc5 18 a4 :ac8 19 :fel a6 20:al b6 21 :e3 ~f8 22 Φf2 f6 23 ~f3 :b8 and Black eventually drew ίη Ivkov-Popov, Smederevska Palanka 1981) and here: 2a) 14 f4!? is worthy of attention. 2b) White preferred 14 :c2 ίη Geller-Larsen, Monaco 1967, when Black got in the freeing 14...b5! and acquired good play after 151C!d5 (after 15 cxb5, 15....*.xd4 is equal according to Larsen while 15... axb5 161C!dxb5

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

ltlb4 17 :l.b2 .i.d7 18ltld4 "a6 gives Black some initiative for the pawn analysis by Larsen) 15.....xd2 16:Σ.xd2 .i.xd4 17 .i.xd4 :l.ab8! 18 :l.cl (18 c5 .i.e6! 19 cxd6 .i.xd5 20 exd5 fud421 :'xd4 exd6 ~ - analysis by Larsen) 18 ... Φf8 19 .i.b2 (19 .i.e3 bxc4 20 ltlb6 :l.d8 21 :l.xc4lΔe5 22 :Σ.c7ltld7 = - analysis by Larsen) 19 ...bxc4 20 :l.xc4 Φe8 21 :l.dc2 Φd7 22 f3 .i.e6 23 :l.d2 a5 24 h4 :l.b5 25 :l.a4 f6! ~. 2c) 14ltlxc6 :l.xc6! (14 ... bxc6 15 c5! is good for Whίte) 15 .i.d4 .i.e6 16 .i.xg7 Φχg7 17 'ilb2 f6 18 ltld5 "d8 with equality, Popovic-Abramovic, Νονί Sad 1985. 9•••f5 10 exf5 ρΙ5 Worseis 10...fud411.i.xd4.i.xd4 12 "xd4ltlxf5 13 "d2 .i.d7 14.i.f3 .i.c6 15 .i.d5+ Φg7 16 :l.fel e5 17 c5! and Whίte was οη his way to victory ίη Tal-Kupreichik, Sochί 1970. 11 Ι4 (D)

Lines with 6... lΔh6

211

11•••'ilb6 WΊth several

structural weaknesses, Black looks Ιο active play Ιο bail hίm ουι.Οη 11 ....i.d7 White has 12 "d2 ltlg4 13 .i.xg4 fxg4 14ltld5 (14 :l.adl "e8 15ltlde2 :l.d8 16 b3 "g6 17ltlb5 a6 18ltlbc3 .i.f5 19ltlg3 e6 20.i.b6 :l.d7 21ltlxf5 :Σ.xf5 22lΔe4 d5 23 "e2 d4 24 ltlg3 :l.ff7 25 "e4 "xe4 26 ltlxe4 ± Illescas-Abramovic, Biel ΙΖ 1993) 14...:l.f7 15 f5 Φh8 16 ltle6 ± Szabo-Larsen, Vinkovci 1970. 12ltlxr5 Α good altemative is 12ltlcb5ltlxd4 13 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 14 "xd4 "xd4+ 15 ltlxd4.i.d7 16 :l.adl :l.ac8 17 :l.fel Φf7 18 .i.f3 Φf6 19 b3 :l.c7 20 :l.d2 Μ 21 .i.d5 e5 22 .i.xf7 :l.xf7 23ltlc2 and Whίte is slightly better, SteanBellin, England 1972. Ιι should be noted that 12ltld5? is an enor since 12....i.xd4! 13 ltlxb6 .i.xe3+ 14 ΦhΙ.i.Χb6 is favourable to Black. 12•••"xb2 13 ltlxh6+ .i.xh6 14

ltlds Β

Weaker is 14 :l.cl .i.g7 15 :l.c2 (15

ltld5 "xa216 c5 Φh8 17.i.f3 .i.e618

cxd6 exd6 19ltlc7 .i.b3 ~ Yermolinsky-I.lvanov, USSR 1980) 15 .....a3 16"d2 .i.e6 17 ΦhΙ :ac8 with an 00clear position ίη Spassov-Ni~evski, Sofia 1976. 14•••.i.f5 15 .i.d3 "g7 16 ΦhΙ ± Yermolinsky-Chepukaitis, USSR 1980.

11 Maroczy Bind: The tricky ... b6 systems 1 e4 c5 2lΩf3lίX6 3 d4 cxd4 4lίD:d4 g6 5 c4 ~ι' 6 ~e3lΩf6 7 ια3 0-0

If7 ...lΩg4 (Chapter 13) is oot your cup of tea, then you are stuck with the very logical text-move. Attempts to avoid this move don't make a lot of sense: 7 ... d6 8 ~e2 ~d7 9 ο-ο lΩe5?! (9 ...0-0 would transpose back into main lines) 10 f3 (Black's 'big idea' comes after 10 h3 "c8! 11 b3 ~xh3! =) 10...:c8 11 b3 h5 12 (a1so good is 12 h3 h4 13 f41Dc6 14 ί5 ±) 12...h4 13 :acllΩhs 14 :fdl :C5 15 lΩd5! .c8 16 Μ! :c6 17 ~xc6 (17 c5! dxc5 18 lΩxc6 ίδ even stronger) 17...bxc6 18 lΩf4! and Black could have safely given υρ ίο GheorghiuLutterby, Va1 Thorens 1977. 8.h2 (D) White develops, stops ...lΩg4 tricks and prepares to castle. Νο other move does as much. For example: 8 h3 d6 9 ~e2 (9 :cllΩxd4 10 ~xd4 .a5 11 ~d3 ~e6 12 ο-ο :fc8 13 b3 a6 ίδ equa1) 9 ... ~d7 100-0 a6 11 'ifd2 b5 (11 ...:c8 12 :acl lΩxd4 13 ~xd4 ~c6 14 "e3 led to a slight edge for White ίη Yanofsky-H~bert, Canadian Ch 1975) 12cxb5~xd413~xd4axb5 14 :fdl (14 ~xf6 ~xί6 15 ~b5 'ifa5 16lΩc3 :fc8 17 :fcl ~xc3 18 :xc3 :xc3 19 .xc3 "xc3 20 bxc3 21 c4 ~a4 leads to an equa1 eoding according to Larseo) 14...~c615 ~xb5lΩxe4 16 ~e4 ~xb5 17 ~xg7

Wxg7, Larsen-Κava1ek, Soliogen (3) 1970. Both sides have chances.

Β

.d2

:a3

8•••b6 When 8 ...b6 first became popu1ar ίο the 1970s the oew problems that it posed led to good results for Black. Then the game Gheorghiu-Bellon, Las Palmas 1976 acted like a cold shower aod the lioe was laid to rest. As a1ways, theory never rests and it seems that ηο opening ever truly dies (ίι just goes go sleep for a while). The 1980s saw the resurgence of 8 ... b6, then ίι died again before becoming a Romanian craze ίη the 1990s! Other moves (aside from 8...d6, as seen ίη Chapter 12) are not nearly as sensible: 1) 8 ...lΩe8 9 Μ! (an attempt to punish Black; the more restrained 9 'ifd2 ίδ a1so very good: 9 ... f5 10 exf5

Maroczy Bind: The tricky ... b6 systems gxf5 11 f4 lΔc7 120-0-0 d6 13 .ι.Ω ± Aronin-Bronstein, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1951) 9 ...f5 10 exf5 gxf5 11 f4! e6 12 Wd2 Wf6 130-0-0 lΔxd4 14 .ι.Χd4 Wxd4 15 Wxd4 .ι.Χd4 16 :xd4 ± Shamkovich-Udov~ic, Leningrad 1967. 2) 8 ...a5 9 0-0 a4 10 c5!? (trying 10 make Black pay for his unusual moveorder; 10 Wd2 d6 transposes ίη1ο lines that we ΜΙΙ look at ίη Chapter 12) 10...d5 11 cxd6 "xd6 (11 ...lOxd4 12 .ι.Χd4 exd6 13 lOxa4 lΔxe4 14 .ι.χg7 ~xg7 15 Wd4+ lLIf6 16 lΔb6 is good for White) 12 lLIdb5 (after 12 lΔxc6, 12......xc6? 13 e5 followed by .ι.f3 and lΔd5 is very strong for White; however, Black can improve with 12... bxc6! =) 12.....b4 13 a3 Wa5 14 f4 (14 f3 .ι.e6 15 "el .ι.b3! 16 "f2lΔd7 =) 14...e5 (14...:d815 "'el e5 16 "f2! lΔd717 f5 is ηοΙ what Black wants 10 happen) 15 fxe5 (15 f5 :d8 16 "el lΔd4 and 15 "el exf4 161:ιxf4 .ι.h6 both lead Ιο unclear positions) 15 ...lΔxe5 16 1:ιxf6! (or else Black will consolidate with ....ι.e6) 16....ι.χf6 1700 .ι.d8? (according to Νυηη, Black had 10 play 17...:a6! 18 :cl! .ι.d719 :c5 "d8, with unclear complications) 18 .ι.d4! f6 19 .ι.c3 .a6 20 lΔbc7 "'a7+ 21 .ι.d4 "'b8 22 lOxa8 with a clear advantage for White, Nυηη-HBίΊC, Paris 1983. .ι.d7 14 h3

90-0 The most common move but, οη occasion, White has varied. Ιη the game Lussault-Donaldson, Monaco 1977, White showed a high degree of respect for his opponent by playing 9 g4? Play continued 9 ....ι.b710lOxc6 .ι.χc6 (10... dxc6 is a good altemative) 11 .d3 d6 12 :gl lΔd7 13 f3 and now

213

13 ... a6! intending ...b5 offers Black excellent play. Some other ninth moves for White: 1) 9 f3 .ι.b7 10 "'d2 e6?! (10...:C8, 10... lΔh5!?, and even 10... d6 all come ίηΙο consideration and will probably transpose ίηιο known lines) 11 :dl lΔe5 12 lΔdb5 d5 13 exd5 exd5 14 lΔxd5 lLIxd5 15 cxd5 a6 16 lΔc3 lΔc4 17 .ι.χc4 "'h4+ 18 g3 "'xc4 19 .ι.d4 and Blaclc, who is a solid pawn down, can consider the opening a disaster, Muco-Rantanen, Luceme OL 1982. 2) 9 "'c2 .ι.b7 10 :dl lLIxd4 11 .ι.Χd4 d6 12 h4 "'d7 13 lΔd5 :ac8 14 :h3 :fe8 15 h5 b5 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 b3 bxc4 18 bxc4 .ι.χd5 19 exd5 e5 20 dxe6 :xe6 21 ~f1 Ih-Ih SpeelmanCebalo, Taxco ΙΖ 1985. 3) 9 lΔxc6 dxc6 10 "'c2 lΔg4 11 .ι.g5 "'d4 12 .ι.h4 "'c5 13 h3lΔe5 14 0-0 g5! (a very interesting pawn sacrifice) 15 .ι.χg5 Μ+ 16.ι.xf3 .xg5 17 Wcl .g6 18 ~hl ~h8 19 "'e3 .ι.e5 20.ι.e2 :g8 21 g4 c5 22 f4.ι.d4 23 .f3 .ι.b7 24 00 1Wh6 25 g5 .d6 261:ιadι.ι.χb2 27 e5 .d7 28 .ι.d3 e6 29 .ι.Μ7 :g7 30.ι.e4 exd5 and Black went οη Ιο win ίη Zso.Polgar-Edelman, MUnster 1994. 4) 9 f4!? (D) has become a very popular move and its theory has ίη­ creased by leaps and bounds. We ΜΙΙ look at three replies: 4a) 9 ... lLIxd4 (rare) 10 .ι.Χd4 .ι.b7 11 e5 ω 12.ι.f3.ι.xf3 13 "'xf3lΔd6 14 exd6 .ι.Χd4 15 0-0-0 .ι.χc3 16 "'xc3 :c8 seems fine for Black, though he later went wrong and 10st in Zso.Polgar-F.Olafsson, Vιenna Women vs Veterans 1993. 4b) 9 ....ι.b7 is logical and popu1ar. White can then try:

214

Accelerated Dragons with the idea of 15...d6) 15 e6 f5 16 b4 19 ~b5 ~d8 20 ~xa7 :a8 21 ~b5 ~xe6 22 .txb6 and White is winnίng, Mortensen-Β.Κήstensen, Gladsaxe 1983. 4b2b) We prefer 10... e5 11 ~db5 exf4 (interesting is 11 ... lOe8!? 12 f5 a6 13 ~6 ~xd6 14 9xd6 ~4 15 0-0 :c8) 12 .txf4 ~8 13 e5 "b8 14 9xd7.txe5 15 .txe5 9xe5+ 16 Φcι J:ιb8 17 .txc6 9f6+ =18 .tf3 .txf3 19 gxf3 9xf3+ 20 ΦgΙ "e3+ 21 Φcι "f3+ 22 ΦgΙ "e3+ 1/2-1/2 Nevednichy-Moldovan, Eforie 1992. 4c) 9... e5!? (D) is a VΊolent reply that attempts ΙΟ wrest the e5-square from White, albeit at the expense of various weaknesses along the d-file.

llli6 17 00 ~g4 18 J:ιacl

4bl) 10 e5 ω 11 .tf3 :b8!? has appeared ίη several games. White has a sma11 plus but Black's chances should ηοΙ be underestimated: 12 ~xc6 .txc6 13 ο-ο .txf3 (13 ...:c8 14 b3 e6 15 .txc6 :xc6 16 "f3 a6 17 :adl "c7 18lOe4 d6 19 exd6 fud6 20 ~xd6 :Xd6 21 :xd6 "xd6 22 :dl "c7 23 b5 24 .tb6 'ilb7 25 c5 .tc3 26 J:ιd6 "e4! 27 c6 .tb4 28 :d4 "xc6 29 :xb4 aS 30 .txaS 9cl+ 31 ge3+ 32 lh- 1h NavrotescuBadea, Romanian Ch 1991) 14 "xf3 d6 15 :adl 9c8 16 ~d5 :b7! 17 .td49xc4 18 ~6+ exf6 19 9xb7 fxe5 20 fxe5 dxe5 21 .tc3 "c5+ 22 ΦhΙ ~f6! (Black has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed exchange) 23 h3 aS 24 J:ιf3 :e8 25 J:ιdfl :e7 26 9b8+ J:ιe8 27 'ilb7 :e7 28 :e8 29 "b7 :e7 1/2-1/2 C.Ionescu-Badea, Bucharest 1992. 4b2) 10.tf3 and now: 4b2a) 10...:c8 11 e5 ~8 12 0-0 ~aS 13 .txb7 ~xb7 14 "e2 (οι 14 9f3 ~aS 15 b3 d6 16 e6 ~7 17 exf7+ :xf7, Vasiesiu-Ceteras, Bucharest 1992, and now Stoica claims that 18 :adl "d7 19 ~d5 is ;t) 14 ... d6 (according to Stoica, better is 14...e6!

"f2

"fl

"e8

w

"f2

"a8+

10 ~b5 and now: 4cl) The unexplored line 10... ~8 might be considered: 11 f5 (11 0-0 a6 12 ~a3 exf4 13 .txf4 .tb7 with the idea of ...~e5 is unclear) 11 ...a6 12 ~a3 (after 12 ~6, 12 ... ~xd6 13 "xd6 ~4 14 ο-ο is good for White, so Black does best Ιο reply 12...~4 13 fuc8 :Xc8 14 0-0 ~ with counterplay) 12 ... gxf5 13 exf5 ~4 14 .td3 b5! 15 cxb5 d5 16 .txd4 exd4 17

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

The tricky ... b6 systems

ια2 ι!bd6 180-0 .g5 with compensaιίοη

for the sacήficed mateήal. 4c2) 1O...exf4 (most natura1) 11 i.xf4 ια8 120-0 and now Black has: 4c2a) 12...d6 and then: 4c2al) 13lQxd6?? .i.d4+ wins for Black. 4c2a2) 13 .i.xd6 lQxd6 14.xd6 i.d4+ 15 ~hl i.e5 16 .xd8 .z:ιxd8 gives Black sufficient compensation for the saCΉficed pawn. 4c2a3) 13 ~hl .i.e5 14 .d2 a6 15 .i.g5 "d7 16 ω ι!bd4 17 i.dl (S1oica mentions 17lQds ltJxe2 18 "xe2 .g4 19 .xg4 .i.xg4 20 .z:ιabl f6 21 lQxb6 .z:ιb8 22 .i.e3 .z:ιf7 23 b3 i.e2 24 .z:ιfel .i.d3 25 :bdl i.xe4 =) 17 ...ια6 18 .i.h6lQ8g7 1910:2 9d8 20 ιαι f521 exf5 :xf5 22 .i.f3 Wh4 23 g4 .z:ιf7 24 :gl ι!bd4 25 .i.d5 .i.e6 26 .i.g5 .i.xd5+ 27ltJxd5 :t"Ί 28 .i.xh4 :xd2 29 :g2 :xg2 30 ~xg2 b5 31 :cl ltJge6 1/z_I/Z Navrotescu-Moldovan, Bucharest 1992. 4c2a4) White's best is probably 13 9d2 a6 14 .i.g5!. White woυld then have a small plus, though Black fought his way ου! of the forest ίο C.IonescuMoldovan, Bucharest 1994: 14.....d7 15 lQa3 ι!bd4 16 ι!bd5! lt1xe2+ 17 "xe29g4 18 9xg4 .i.xg4 1910:2 f5 20 h3 .i.e2 21 :f'2 .i.d3 22 exf5 .i.xb2 23 .z:ιdl.i.xf5 24lQce3 .i.g7 25ltJxf5 gxf5 26lQxb6 :a7 2710:8 :c7 with an eventυa1 draw. 4c2b) 12....i.b7 with another αιvί­ sion: 4c2bl) 13 ι!bd6 lt1xd6 14 .i.xd6 :e8 15 c5lt1eS (15 ....i.d4+!? 16 ~hl bxc5 17 .i.c4 :e6 18 .i.xe6 dxe6 19 9f3 f5 is good for Black) 16 i.xe5 i.xe5 17 i.c4 "h4 18 h3 "g3 19 :xf7 "h2+ 20 ~f'2 "g3+ 21 ~f1

215

.i.a622 9d5 .i.xc4+ 23 "xc4 .z:ιe6 24 .z:ιf3 .z:ιf8 25 :xf8+ ~xf8 26lQds ~g7 gives Black plenty of compensation ana1ysis by Stoica. 4c2b2) 13 9d2lQe5 14:adl a6 15 ι!bd6.i.c6 16 i.g5 f6 17 i.e3lt1xd6 18 9xd6 :b8 19 ι!bd5 Φh8 20 lt1xf6 (this only leads 10 equalίty, so White shoυld consider 20 .i.d4!, when matters are not so easy for Black) 20...:xf6 21 :xf6 .i.xf6 22 .i.d4 .f8! 23 .i.xe5 9xd6 24 i.xd6 :e8 25 e5 i.xe5 1/2-1/2 Frey-Rantanen, Luceme OL 1982. 9•••.i.b7 (D)

10Ι3!

This firm defence of the e4-pawn is considered best. Others: 1) White has also achieved good resυlts with 10 lt1xc6!?: la) 10...dxc6 (this seems not 10 be best) 11 e5 ι!bd7 (11 ...lQe8 12 f49c7 13 c5 b5 14 a4 b41S lQe4 gives White a distinct advantage, Κaίdanοv-Β.Κήs­ tensen, Hastings Masters 1990) and then: lal) White can even try 12 e6 fxe6 13 .i.g4, when Black shoυld probably sacήfice the exchange by 13 ... .z:ιfS 14 .i.xf5 exfS with some compensation.

216

Accelerαted

la2) 12 f4 is oot comfortable for Black either: 12...•c7 13 .c2 J:ιfe8 (or 13...e614J:ιadl f615 .*.g4J:ιfe816 J:ιd6 ~f8 17 exf6 .xd6 18 fxg7 Wxg7 19 ~4 .c7 20 .c3+ e5 21 fxe5 J:ιxe5 22 .i.d4 J:ιae8 23 c5 h5 24 ~d6 1-0 Suoye-Sioo, Salamanca 1990) 14 Μ! (14J:ιadl f615e6~f816f5! gxf5 17 .*.h5 ~B6 18 .*.xg6 hxg6 19 .i.f4 .c8 20 J:ιd7 is also terrible for Black, Ghitescu-Kouatly, Bagoeux 1982) 14...Μ 15 h5 f6? (15 ...J:ιad8) 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 c5! (threateniog 18 .b3+) 17 ... b5 18 'irb3+ e6 19 exf6 .*.xf6 20 ~4 .g721 f5! J:ιed8 22fxe6.i.e7 23 ~6 .*.c8 24 .*.g4 .e5 25 00.e4 26 ~6+ 1-0 Wahls-Pigusov, Bie11989. lb) 10....i.xc6 11 f3 and oow: lbl) 11 ...e6 is the dyoamic optioo: 12 .c2 .e7 (12 ....b8!?) 13 J:ιadl J:ιac8 14 f4 (14 J:ιfel d6 15 .i.f1 J:ιfd8 leaves White with ooly a minimal edge: 16.f2 ~7 17 .i.d4 .i.xd4 18 J:ιxd4 e5 19 J:ιd2 a5 20 b3 ~5 21 g3 J:ιf8 22 .i.h3 :008 23 .e3 Wg7 24 f4 exf4 25 gxf4 J:ιfe8 26 .i.g2 f5 27 .d4+ Wg8 28 J:ιde2 fxe4 29 ~xe4 .i.xe4 30 .i.xe4 ~xe4 31 J:ιxe4 .d7 32 .d5+ Wg7 33 J:ιe6 J:ιxe6 34 J:ιxe6 J:ιe8 = Magem-Hergott, Canada 1993) 14...d6 15 .i.f2 with a small advantage for White. Here Black bluodered with 15 ... b5?? 16 cxb5 .i.xe4 17 .a4 aod found himself losing material ίη Fedorowicz-Donaldson, Gausdall979. lb2) 1l ... d6 12 .d2 (D) and here Black has the following ideas: lb2a) 12...J:ιc8 13 J:ιfdl J:ιe8 14 J:ιacl .d7 15 .i.f1 .b7 16 .*.g5 ~7 17~~518J:ιc2a519b3J:ιcd820

.cl J:ιd7 21 Whl ~6 22 .*.e3 ~5 23 .i.g5 ~e6 24 h3 ~5 Ih-Ih M.Schlosser-Pigusov, Sochi 1989.

Dragons

Β

lb2b) 12 ... ~d7 13 ~d5 J:ιc8 14 :acl.i.b715 b3 ~5 16J:ιfdl J:ιe817 Whl ~6 18.i.f1 .d7 19.f2 J:ιed8 201l'h4 ± Κiodermann-Apicella, Μυ­ nich 1992/3. lb2c) 12...•b8!? 13 J:ιfdl J:ιd8 14 a4 e6 with the idea of ...d5. lb2d) 12....d7 13 J:ιfdl J:ιad8 14 a4 e6 15 a511b7 16 axb6 axb6 17 b4 .b8 18 .i.d4 d5 19 cxd5 exd5 20 e5 ~8 21 .e3 ~7 22 b5 .*.a8 23 .i.xb6 :de8 24 f4 f6 25 J:ιa7 J:ιf7 26 .i.xc7 and White is wioning, Chekhov-Martio, Barcelooa 1984. Νο clear route ιο equality has beeo fouod against 10 ~xc6, but Black's game is solid, and plans based οη ...e6 with ... d5 Ιο follow deserve further study. Other tenth moves that deserve some consideration are: 2) 10 f4!? should be compared ιο the more accurate 9 f4. Advancing the f-pawo 00 move 10 gives Black ορ­ tioos that he did οοΙ have earlier. Now Black has tried several moves: 18) 10... e5 11 ~b5 exf4 (and oot 11 ...~8?! 12 f5 J:ιc8 13 ~5 f6?? 14 ~xa7 ~xa7 15 .i.xb6 when Black is losing, Badea-Ceteras, Romanίan Ch

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

The tricky ... b6 ηstems

217

1994) 12 .i.xf4 ~ 13.d2 (13 1Od6 lDxd6 14 .i.xd6 :e8 15 c5 is also possible) 13...1De5!? is unclear accordίng Ιο Stoica: 14lDd5 .i.xd5 15 "xd5 (15 exd5 a6 16 lDd4 lDd6 17 :ac 1 :e8 18 .i.h6 f5 19 .i.xg7 ~xB7 20 b3 .f6 21 :cdl, Badea-Moldovan, Romanίa 1994, 21 ... h5 is all ήght for Black) 15 ...1Dc7 16 "d6 (161Dxc7 "xc7 17 :adl) 16...lDxb5 17 cxb5 "f6! =. 2b) 10...:c8 led Ιο an unenvίable positίon after 11 e5 lDe8 12 lDcb5 lDxd4 13 .i.xd4 :a8 14 "d31Dc7 15 f51Dxb5 16 cxb5 :c8 17 f6.i.h8 18 .i.g4:C7 19 :ael ίο Muπay-Barbeau, Montreall981. 2c) 10...lDxd4 l1.i.xd4 d6 12 "d3! 1Od7 13 .i.xg7 ~xB7 14 :adl is good

lDxe7+) 19 "b3 :h6 20.i.d3 d621 .i.e4, Wegner-Raaste, Berlίn 1990, and now Wegner claims that Black could get a very strong attack wίth 21 ...e6 22 lDxf4 :xf4 23 .i.xb7"h4 24 h3 "g3. What ιnakes 9....i.b7 so popular οη the open tournament circώt is the existence of some nίce traps. Even extremely strong GMs have been known to fall ίοΙο these pitfalls: 5) 10 "d2? lDxd4 11 .i.xd4 e5! (Black has got a 10Ι of mίleage ουΙ of thίs lίttle tήck) 12 .i.xe5 lDxe4 13 lDxe4 (two ways for White Ιο lose quicklyare 13 .f4? .i.xe5 14 "xe5 :e8 and 13 "d4? lDxc3 14 1Ifxc3 .i.xe5 {l4.....g5 also does the job} 15 "xe5 :e8) 13 ....i.xe5 (D) and now

forWhίte.

Whίtehas:

2d) 10...d6 11 :Cl (l1lDxc6 .i.xc6 12 .i.f3 "c7 13 .e2 .b7 14 .i.f2 :ac8 15 .i.h4 ~h8 16 :adl lDg8 17 1Dd5 ± Κorchnoi-Stolίar, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1957) 11 ...:c8 (Black can equalίze wίth 11 ...lDxd4 12 .i.xd4 e5! 13 fxe51Dxe4) 12 b31Dd7 13 .i.f31Dc5 14 "d2?! lDxd4 15 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 16 "xd4 e5 17.d2 exf4 18 :cdl .g5 191De2 .i.xe4 20 "xf4 "xf4 21lDxf4 :cd8 and Black eventually won ίη Wallace-Silman, Phoenίx 1990. 3) 10 lDb3 d6 11 :cl :c8 12 f3 1De5 13 1Od5 e6 141Dxf6+ .i.xf6 15 :c2 .i.a6 16 1Ifcl d5 17 .i.h6 :e8 18 f41Dxc4 19 e5 .i.e7 20 ~hl b5 21 :ο W'b6 22 .i.d3 d4 23 'ifbl1De3 24 :e2 lDf5 25 .i.g5 .i.b7 and Black went οη Ιο win ίη Hertneck-Hickl, Munich 1988. 4) 10 1Dc2:C8 11 f31De8 1211fd2 f5! 13 .i.h6 .i.xh6 14 1Ifxh61De5 15 exf5 gxf5 16 :fel :C6 17 1Ife3 :e6 18 lDd5 f4 (18 ...lDxc4? 19 "g5+:g6 20

w

5a) 141Dg3 1Iff6 followed by ...h5 =J=.

5b) 14 .i.f3? faίls Ιο 14....i.xe4 15 .i.xe4 .i.xh2+ 16 ~xh2 "h4+ 17 ~BI 1Ifxe4. 5c) 14 lDd6 .i.c6 (also good is 14....i.xd6 15 1Ifxd6 "g5 16 g3? {16 f3! is probably about equal} 16...:ae8 17 :fel :e6! 18 1Ifc7? .i.c6 19 .i.fl "d2! =J= Fernandez-Hernandez, spaίn

218

Accelerαted Drαgons

1976) 151:ιadΙ 'fie7161:ιfeΙ?(16.i.g4 .i.xd6 17 'fixd6 "e4 18 .i.h3 'fixc4 19 b3 'fic2 20 1:ιd2 'fic3 21 1:ιd3 'fia5 22 a4 1:ιad8 23 1:ιal 1:ιfe8 24 1:ιddΙ "c3 25 'fig3 "xg3 26 hxg3 1:ιe41ed Ιο a win for Black ίη Eήksson-Rogers, Malmo 1993) 16 ...'fif6! 17 b3 .i.c3 18 'fid3 .i.xel 19 1:ιχeΙ "e5! and Black won οη the 56th move ίη Eingorn-Rogers, London Lloyds Bank 1989. 5d) 14 1Δc3 1:ιe8 (D) (Black's powerful dark-squared bishop gives him an edge) and now:

5dl) 15 1:ιaeΙ?! 1:ιc8 (15 ...'fif6 is also very good, when Tal-R.Hemandez, Las Palmas 1977 was a complete disaster for White: 16 "xd7 1:ιe7 17 'fid2 1:ιae8 18 lbd5? {18 .i.d3 is better} 18 ... .i.xd5 19 cxd5 'fif4 20 "xf4 .i.xf4 21 d6 1:ιχe2 0-1) 1600 (16 f4 .i.xc3 17 'fixc3 b5 +) 16 ... .i.xd5! 17 cxd5 "c7 (17 .....f6!?) 18 .i.a6! (better than either 18 g3 "c2 ::ι: or 18 f4 'fic5+ 19 ~hl .i.d4 +) 18 ... 1:ιb8 (after 18 ... .i.xh2+ 19 ~hl .i.f4, 20 d6 'fic4 21 .i.xc4 .i.xd2 22 1:ιe7 1:ιχe7 23 dxe7 .i.b4 is winning for Black but White can improve with 20 .i.xc8 .i.xd2 21 1:ιχe8+ ~g7 22 1:ιdΙ, with an unclear

position according Ιο Zsu.Polgar) 19 f4 .i.f6 20 a4 'fic5+ 21 ~hl h5! 22 .i.b5 (22 f5 is answered by 22 ... g5 23 .i.e2 h4) 22 ... 'fid6 23 1:ιe2 1:ιbc8! 24 g3?! (weakening his king position; however, 24 1:ιfeΙ 1:ιχe2 25 .i.xe2 {25 1:ιχe2? "xd5!} 25 ... 1:ιe8 is also good for Black) 24 ... ~g7 25 1:ιfeΙ 1:ιχe2 26 1:ιχe2? (he had Ιο try 26 .i.xe2 1:ιe8 +) 26 ... 1:ιc5! 27 1:ιe3 1:ιχd5 and Black secured the win οη the 43rd move ίη Sion-Zsu.Polgar, Salamanca 1989. 5d2) The 'active' 15 ~5? led Ιο an advantage for Black in Atalik-Panczyk, Graz 1981 after 15 ... .i.xd5 16 cxd5 "f6!, when the dual threat of 17 ... .i.xb2 and 17 ... .i.xh2+ 18 ~xh2 'fie5+ forced White ΙΟ shed a pawn. 5d3) 15 1:ιacΙ (this could be best) 15 .....f6 16 1:ιc2 1:ιac8 17 1:ιdΙ with a tough fight ίη store, Geller-Bellon, Las Palmas 1976. 6) 10 1:ιcΙ? (another natural move that walks ήght ίηΙΟ a hammer-blow!) 1O... lbxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.h6! (naιurally 11. .. lbxe4?? 12 .i.xg7 ~xg7 13 lbxe4 .i.xe4 14 "d4+ must be avoided) and now White loses mateήal: 6a) Ιη Κruszynski-R.Hemandez, Polanica Zdroj 1983, White tήed 12 f4 lbxe4 13lbxe4 .i.xe4 14 .i.c3 "c7 15 "d2e5161:ιcdΙ.i.xf417"χd7"χd7

18 1:ιχd7 1:ιfd8 19 1:ιfdΙ .i.e3+ and he somehow managed Ιο hang οη and draw ίη 31 moves. 6b) 12 1:ιc2lbχe413 .i.f3lbxc3 14 1:ιχc3.i.χf3 15 "xf3 1:ιc8 and White is without any compensation for his pawn as Bellon (who has certain1y got good mileage ουΙ ofthese traps!) demonstrated vs Smejkal at Palma de Mallorca 1972 and Tseshkovsky at Las Palmas 1976.

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

T1u! tricky ... b6 systems

6c) Rather than submit to this misery, White decided to sacrifice the exchange ίη Lichtenstein-Petursson, Stockholm Rilton Cup 1980: 12 Ad3 Axcl 13 .xcl d6 14 f3 ι&ι7 15 "h6 ί6 16 h4 ~e5 17 Ac2 ':c8 18 Axe5 dxe5 and though White does not have enough compensation he somehow managed to win ίη the end! 6d) White tried 12 Af3 ίη Το§ίό­ Κarlsson, Νί§ 1981, but Black eventually managed to consolidate and win after 12 ...Axcl 13 .xcl d6 14 ':dl ~8 15 Wh6 e6 16 ':d3 "e7 17 .tg4 e5 18.te3 ':d8 19 ι&ι5 .txd5 20 cxd5 ~6 21 .tf3 ι&ι7 22 h4 f6 23 b4 ':c8 24 Ag4 ':c7 25 .td2 "g7 26 Ae6+ Φh8 27 "e3 f5 28 exf5 gxf5 29 "h3 ί4 30h5 e4 31.tc3 ~5 32h6 .f6 33 1I.d4 e3 34.tel ':cl 35 Φfl f3 0-1. Retuming to the position after 10 f3! (D), Black has seven choices:

Β

Α: Β:

C: Ο: Ε:

F: G:

10•••e6?! 10•••d6 10••.:ιcS 10•••~ 10•••ω 10•••l2)xd4 10.......

219 222 223 226 229 229 230

219

Α)

10•••e6?! Black hopes to solve all his problems with ...d7-d5. This had a good reputation for a while, was considered to be completely refuted ίη the mid1980s, flared υρ again ίη the early to mid-1990s, and is once again under a cloud. White now has two counters that are highly thought οί: ΑΙ: 11"d2 219 Α2: 11 ~bS 221 Though 11 .d2 and 11 ιαIb5 are almost always played, other moves should not be ignored. Two promising altematives are: 1) 11 ':cl ~xd4 (l1 ...d5? fails badly: 12 ~xc6 .txc6 13 cxd5 {also tasty is 13 e5 ι&ι7 14 cxd5 exd5 15 f4 ί6 16 ~b5 ~c5 17 b4 and White is winning, Tukmakoν-Zeιiό, Portoroz 1995} 13 ...exd514e5.e715f4':ad8 16 .td4 ± Varga-Szalanczy, Budapest 1993) 12 .txd4 .th6 (l2 ...d5 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e5lZk8 15 ~b5 ± DorfmanBellon, Logroii.o 1991) 13 ':c2 ω 14 ':el d6 15 Arι CΔc7 16 .te3 .i.xe3+ 17 ':xe3 "g5 18 ':d3 with the better game for White, Polugaevsky-Bellon, Logroiio 1991. 2) 11 ~c6 .txc6 12 Wb3 (12 "d2 d5 13 cxd5 transposes into 11 .d2 lines) 12...d5? (too early) 13 ':adl .e7 14 e5 ι&ι7 15 cxd5 exd5 16 f4 ~6 17 Ad4 ~8 18 ~xd5 is winning for White, Illescas-Bellon, Linares 1991. Α1)

11"d2dS

220

Accelerated Dragons

This is the move that Black would lίke to play, but ίι doesn 't seem Ιο work. Recently, Bellon switched Ιο the more

sedate ll .....e7 and managed to get reasonable results: 12 IΣfel IΣfd8 13 .tfl ~xd4 14 .txd4 ~8 15.tf2 (15 .tχg7Φχg716ΦhΙ d617 IΣacl fik7 18 "e3 eS 191Ωd5 ~dS 20 cxdS 1Σdc8 21 .tb5 IΣc5 22.ta4 ΙΙ2.- 1/2. Wojtkiewicz-Bellon, Iraklion 1993) 15 ...~7 16 IΣadl d6 17 a4 (Νυηη claims an edge for White) 17....tc6 18 IΣal%Σab8 19 aS bxaS 20 IΣxaS a6 21 IΣeal IΣb3 22 IΣIa2 IΣdb8 23 ~1 .te5 and Black was all ήght ίη Panno-Bellon, Buenos Aίres 1994. 12lίΠc6 .txc6 13 cxdS exdS 14 e5 ιΩd715 Ι4 (D)

Β

This position has been tested in several games, with Black getting υni­ formly miserable results. 15•••ΙOCS Other tήes have ηοΙ fared any better: 1) 15... f6? 16.tb5! (Chiburdanidze claίms that 16 e6 is also good) 16....tb7 (also horήble is 16....txb5 17 "xdS+ Φh8 18 "xb5! fxe5 19 IΣadl) 17 e6 ~5 18 f5 a619 .txc5 bxc5 20.td7

"aS 21 "d3 d4 22 ~4 IΣad8 23 "c4 Φh8 1-0 Chiburdanidze-Pinal, Havana 1985. 2) 15 ...g5 16 ~dS ~e5 17 IΣadl gxf4 18 .txf4 ~g6 19 .tc4 "h4 20 .tb3 .txd5 21 .txdS IΣac8 22.td6 IΣfd8 23 .tg3 "e7 24 .txtί+ Φh8 2S .td6 and Black went down ίη t1ames ίη Panchenko-Telman, USSR Cht (Naberezhnye Chelny) 1988. 16IΣadl!

Best. White can also get a small advantage with 16 .txc5 bxc5 17 .tf3 f6 18 e6! f5 19 ~dS .td4+ 20 ΦhΙ but 20.....d6! (but ηοΙ 20....txd5?? 21 e7 "xe7 22 .txdS+ and White wins the exchange) keeps things under control: 21 ~7+ "xe7 22 .txc6 IΣab8 23 IΣaellΣxb2 24 'i'aS IΣtb8 25 .tdS Φg7 26 "a6 IΣd8 27 .tb3 .tf6 28 IΣdl IΣbd2 29 IΣxd21Σxd2 30 "c6 'i'd6 31 'i'xd6 IΣxd6 with a draw resulting οη the 44th move in Anka-Dekker, Balatonbereny 1993. 16•••f6 Another failed attempt at holding Black's position together is 16...~4 17 ~xe4 dxe4: 1) 18'i'xd8IΣfxd819IΣxd8+lΣxd8 20 1Σc1 .te8 211Σc7 .tf8 22 IΣxa7 and Black finds himself suffeήng, JansaVelimirovit, Bor 1985. 2) Kuporosov claims that it's even better ΙΟ continue 18 "d6! .tb7 19

.tc4±. 3) Another possibility is 18 'i'c2 'i'e8 19 IΣd41Σc8 20 IΣcl .tb7 21%Σc4 g5 22 IΣxc8 'i'xc8 23 "a4, when the complications favour White. Dgebuadze-Znamen~k, Pardubice 1993 continued 23 .....f5 24 fxg5 "xe5 25 IΣc2 .td5 26 'i'xa7 IΣa8 27 "xb6 .txa2 28 IΣd2 "e8 29 .tb5 "c8 30

Maroczy Bind: The tricky ... b6 systems .c6 .t.bl 31 b4 .t.c3 32 J:ιdl and White won οη the 43rd move. 17lbxd5 fxeS 18.t.c4 Φh819 fxeS

:xn+

Even worse is 19....i.xe5? 20 .i.d4 .d6 21 .i.xe5+ .xe5 22 J:ιfel iDe423 J:ιxe,4! 1..() Kuporosov-Yakovich, USSR 1984.

2O:xn

± Kuporosov-Malishauskas, USSR 1985. The continuation left ηο doubt about White's supeήoήty: 20...1i'h4 21 J:ιf4'ifhs 22 iDe7 ,ιb7 23 b4 was iDe4 24.d7 J:ιb8 25 1Dc8! :Xc8 261Vxb7 J:ιd8 27 .xe4 ,ιχe5 28 .t.e2 1-0. Α2)

11 tαlb5 (D)

Β

This has been high1y regarded for many years, but now we are ηοΙ so confident about the move's true worth. 11•••d5 The 10gical follow-up. 11 ...iDe8 12 .d2 a6 13 lΩa3 leaves Black with a very unattractive position. 12 cxd5 exd5 13 exd5 'Δe7 Α much stemer test of White's 11 lΩdb5 is 13 ... lΩM 14 d6lΩfd5, when

221

Black's active pieces aren't easy to contain: 1) 15,ιf2 a6 (υ even better move is 15....g5! 16lΩxd5 lbxd5 171Dc7 iDe3 18 .i.xe3 .xe3+ 19 Φhl J:ιad8 + Bramkamp-Znamena<:!ek, Dortmund 1990) 161Ωc7lΩxc717 ,ιΧb6.i.e5 18 dxc71ih4 19 f4 .i.xf4 20 J:ιxf4 .xf4 21 a3 1if6 22 ,ιf21Ωc6 23 .i.f3 J:ιac8 24 .i.g3 lΩe7 25 .d6 .xd6 26 .t.xd6 .i.xf3 27 gxf3 112-112 Ivkov-Martin Gonzalez, Malaga Ι 98 Ι . 2) 15 lΩxdS lΩxd5 16 .i.d4 .i.h6! (much stronger than Ι 6 ... a6 17 ,ιχg7 Φχg7 18 .t.c4! ±) 17 ,ιc4 iDe3 18 ,ιχe3,ιxe3+ 19 ΦhΙ1i'h4 20 g4 ,ιf4 21 1ie2 a6 and Black is in complete control, Kamyshov-Simagin, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1947. 14d6M? 14...iDedS! is a much better try. 15 .i.a fΔe8 16 d7 White also seems to get some advantage with 16 Wb3. Svenn-Woller, Dortmund 1981 continued 16...lΩfxd6 17]1adl 1if618 00 .i.xdS 191ixdS lΩxb5 20.xa8 iDec7 21 lVb7 1ixb2 22 ,ιc4 1ib4 23 ,ιb3 and Black did ηοΙ have enough compensation for the 10st mateήal. 16.••lΩι617 g4! 'Δe718 .t.h4! The discovery of White's last two moves placed BIack's whole system under a cloud. 18•••• The 10gical altemative is 18...h6 19 .d6 g5 but after 20 .t.g3 lt)xd7 21 ]ladl 1Ωc5 22 ,ιc4 Black finds himself at a Ioss for a good move. 19 1id6 axb5 20 ,ιxf6 .t.xf6 21 1ixf6 b4 lΩe4 Another οριϊοη is 22 lΩb5 .xd7 23 .xb6 lΩd5 24 1id4 .e7 25 ,ιc4

n

222

Accelerαted

.e3+ 26 :t'2 .g5 27lαι6 and B1ack is suffeήng honib1y, B.Thipsay-Tsifanskaya, Erevan wom OL 1996. 22••••xd7 B1ack is also ίη bad shape after 22 ...lαι5 23 .d4 .xd7 24 j,c4 οι 22...j,xe4 23 fxe4 .xd7 24:001 25 .xe6 fxe6 26 ..t.c4. 23 :fdl 24 :d6! .xf6 25 /ί)ΧΙ6+ ~ι7 26 :ΧΜ j,c6 27 /ί)e4 :ιbB 28 :Xb8 :Xb8 29 j,c4 Whίte won in 49 moves in Am.RodήgueΖ-Pinal, Sagua 1a Grande 1984.

.e6

.e6

Β)

10...d6 (D)

w

Α solid move that used to be B1ack's most popular choice. However, its passive nature shou1d al10w Whίte Ιο retain a slight advantage without Ιοο much trouble. 11.d2.d7 AIso seen is 11 .../ί)χd4 12 j,xd4

lαι7:

1) 13 j,xg7 (since Black's queen can't get Ιο b6 or a5, thίs seems very logical) 13 ... ~xg7 14 f4 (altematives are 14 b4!? and 14 00 ~g8 15 :adl

Dragons

a5 16 f4 :c8 17 /ί)c3 ;t) 14...:c8 15 J:ad 1 /ί)f6 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 /ί)g8 18 'ίi'e3 ± Cvetkοvίό-Cebalο, Yugos1avia 1985. 2) Natura11y 13 j,e3 is also possib1e. Sax-Cebalo, Rome 1985 continued 13 ...a5 14:acl /ί)c5 15 'ίi'el .d7 16 b3 ~h8 17 .d2 j,c618 :bl ~g8 19 a3 :fb8 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 /ί)a4 22 /ί)χa4 :xa4 23 b5 j,a8 24 c5 bxc5 27 .e3 d5 25 ..t.xc5 .e6 26 j,f2 and Black stood well. 12:fdl This natural and solid move should bήng White some advantage. However, Whίte has also tried several other moves: 1) 12 :adl :ad8 13 :tel /ί)e8 14 j,f1 .c8 15 /ί)d5:d7 16 /ί)xc6 j,xc6 17 j,g5 .b7 18 b4 and Whίte stands better, Thkmakov-Bellon,Madήd 1973. 2) 12 lαιb5 :fc8 13 :acl a6 14 /ί)a3 .d8 15 :fdl :ab8 16 f4 j,a8 17 j,f3 .e8 18 .e2..t.f8 19lαι5lαι7 20 j,f2 e6 21 /ί)e3 .e7 with equalίty, Portisch-Garcia Gonzalez, Luceme OL 1982. 3) 12 /ί)d5 /ί)Χd5 13 cxd5 /ί)Χd4 14 j,xd4 .a4. The exchange of pieces has allowed Black to equalize. 4) 12 :fel :fd8 13 j,f1 /ί)e8 14 /ί)χc6 j,xc6 15 j,g5 :ac8 16 :acl .b7 17 b4 f6 18 j,e3 /ί)c7 19 .f2 ..t.e8 20 :edl /ί)a6 21 a3 j,f7 22 /ί)d5 e6 23 /ί)c3 /ί)c7 24 :c2 j,f8 25 :cd2 j,e7 26 f4 d5 and Csom-Bellon, Indonesia 1982 was eventually drawn. 5) 12 a4! (a strong plan whose aim is ΙΟ create weaknesses ίη B1ack's queenside) 12...e6 13 :tdl :td8 14 /ί)χc6 .xc6?! (14 ... j,xc6 is better but Black wou1d still eχpeήence dίfficu1ties) 15 a5 bxa5 16lΩb5 a6 17 /ί)Χd6

:az

Maroczy Bind: The tricky ... b6 systems lbe8 18 c5 ':d7 19 "xa5 ~xb2 20 ':abl lbxd6 21 ':xd6 ':xd6 22 cxd6 ~f6 23 lIc7! 1-0 Gheorghiu-Bellon, Las Pa1mas 1976. 12.•.1:Σfd8 Or 12 ... lbe8 13 f4?! lbf6 14 ~f3 ':ad8 15 e5? lbxd4 16 ~xd4 dxe5 17 fxe5 ~xf3 18 gxf3 (18 exf6 .i.xf6! wins for Black) 18...lbh5 19 lIe3 lIf5! 20 lbe2 ':d7 21lbg3lbxg3 22 hxg3 .:td8 23 f4 e6! 241:Σd2 .i.f8, BrowneBellon, Madήd 1973. This led to a bad result for White but he played poorly and improvements are easy to find. 13 .i.n lOxd4 14 .i.xd4 e6 15 a4! Ciocaltea-Fοήηtοs, Titograd 1982. White's play οη the queenside gives him the advantage. The contίnuatίon was 15 .....c7 16 a5 bxa5 17lbb5 lIe7 18 'ilxa5 ':d7 19 'ila3lbe8 20.i.xg7 ~xg7 21 lIe3 a5? (better was 21 ...a6 though after 22lbc3 followed by lba4 and b4 White obνiously has an edge) 22 'ilc3+ e5 23 ':xa5 "d8 24 ':xa8 .i.xa8 25 c5 and Black was 10s1.

C) 10....:CS (D)

223

This move has enjoyed rather good results. Black avoids playing ...d6 and instead keeps his optίons open for an ...f5 or ...d5 break. 11 "d2! (D) ΒΥ cονeήηg the cl-h6 diagonal White puts an end to Black's tactίcal possibίlitίes based οη a later ...lbxd4 followed by ....i.h6. Other moves have ηοΙ proved troublesome for Black: 1) 11 lbxc6 .i.xc6 12 'ifb3 e6 13 ':adl 'ilc7 14 lbb5 .i.xb5 15 lIxb5 ':fd8 16 ':d2? d5 ~ Mokry-Κristen­ sen, Belgrade 1985. 2) 11':cllbxd4 (takίng his chance to mix it υρ; the passive 1l ...lbe8 12 f4 lbxd4 13 .i.xd4lbd6 14 .i.xg7 ~xg7 15 lId4+ Wg8 1600 .i.xd5 17 cxd5 ':c7 18 g4 'ilc8 19 'ile3lbb7 20 f5 was better for White ίη Rigo-H.Waller, νί­ enna 1986) 12 .i.xd4 .i.h6! 13 ':c2 lbh5 14 g3 (both 14 .i.d3lbf4 15lbd5 lbe6 16 .i.c3 a6 17 Whl .i.g7 1/2_1/2 Skembήs-ΚarΙssοη, Vmja~ka Banja 1981, and 14 b3 ':c6 15 g3 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 f4 lbxf4 18 ':xf4.i.xf4 19 gxf4 ':g6+ 20 Wf1 'flc7 21 'fld2 e6 22 'fle3 'ilc6 23 ~el d6 24 ~d2 'flg2 25 'flf2 e5 26 'flxg2 ':xg2, which led 10 a victory for Black ίη A.Kova~eνit­ V.Georgiev, Varna 1994, are quite harmless) 14... lbg7 15 f4 f5 16 ':d2 .i.c6 17 e5lbe6 18 h4 (an earlier game contίnued 18 .i.e3 but Black got active play by 18 ... g5! 19.i.f3 'ile8 20.i.h5 'fld8 21 .i.f3 lIe8 22 .i.h5 'fld8 23 lbb5 gxf4 24 gxf4 ~h8! 25 .:tf'2? ':g8+ 26 ~f1 ':g7! 27lbxa7 'ilg8 28 ~e2lbxf4+! 29 .i.xf4 'ilxc4+ 30 ':d3 .i.xf4 31lbxc6 lIe4+ 32 ~f1 ':cg8! and won easily ίη Browne-J.Benjamin, Lone Pine 1980) 18 ... lbxd4 19 ':xd4 .i.g7 20 'ilb3 ~h8 21 ':d2 'flc7

Accelerαted

224

(Pytel has recommended 21 ...d6 22 :fdl .e8) 22 :tdl, Sznapik-Pytel, Polanica Zdroj 1982, and now 22...d6! 23 exd6 exd6 24 :xd6 :008! 25 :xd8 :xd8 26 :xd8+ .xd8 27 "dl .e7 gίves Black an edge becaυse of the ίο­ secure position of the white lάnB. White's 11 .d2! avoids all this nonsense.

Η •..ω

Sίoce 11 .d2 has reduced Black's

possibilities for active play, he WΊll find that it's ΩΟΙ easy ΙΟ come uρ with a plan. 11 ...:e8 is Κarlsson's favourite move, BυardinB the e7-pawn ίο anticipation of an eventual ~5. Other ideas for Black are worth looking ίοΙο: 1) 11 ...ια8!? (trying torecycle the king's knight ίο anticipation of an early ...f7-f5 advance; however, even if Black's pieces find their hoped-for activity, the newly created weaknesses ίο the centre {after ... f7-f5} and the loose nature of Black's king should give White good chances) 12 :fdl ιαt6 13 b3 f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15 ~xc6 .txc6 16 :acl ~h8 1700 :g8 18 .tg5 .txd5 19 .xd5 2O.tf4)k5 21 .d2 .te5 22 .txe5+ :xe5 23 f4

.f8

Dragons

"a8 24 .tf1 :e6 25 b4 ± Liang-Qί, China 1981. 2) 11 ...d6 (basically the same thing as 10...d6, which was discussed as Variation Β) 12 :fdl (οι 12 ~xc6 .txc6 13 a4 a5 14 .td3 ιαt7 15 .tc2 ~c5 16 :adl.td7 17 .th6 .txh6 18 "xh6 f6 19 h3 :n 20 b3 21 'ii'h4 f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 00 :b8 24 "g3+ lh-l/z de Fίrmian-Benjamin, USA Ch (Estes Park) 1985) 12...~7 (12..:tWd7 13 ~xc6 .txc6 14 a4! ;t AdamskiDizdar, Rzeszow 1979) 13 ~xc6 .txc6 14 b4 .tb7 15 :acl ~e5 16 ~b5 a6 17 ~d4 :c7 18 ~b3 "c8 19 .txb6 ~c4 20 .txc4 :xc4 21 ω :Xcl 22 :xcl "b8 23 .td4 .txd4+ 24 "xd4 )k8 25 :c4 :Xc4 26 ~c4 .tc6 27 a3 .b5 and Black was able Ιο hold οο for an eventual draw ίο Vilela-Velez, Havana 1985. 3) 11 ...~5!? (a preview of lίoes Ιο be found ίο Variation D, 10... ~) andnow: 3a) 12 :acl?! ~Ι4! is fine Ιοι Black. 3b) 12 Μ5 is ίoteresting: 12...~5 13 c5 (13 g4!? lbf6 14 b3 ;t) 13...a6 14 ~7 :Xc5! 15 .txc5 bxc5 16 f4.th6 17 .txh5 gxhS 18 "1'2 ~B6 WΊth compensation for the sacrificed exchange. Ghinda-M.Pavlov, Romanian Ch 1988 continued 19 f5 ~5 20 Ι6 exf6 21 .xc5 ~h8 22 ~hl :g8 23 h3 :g6 24 lbd5 .tf8 25 .d4 "iWb8 26 :xf6 .tg7 27 :xg6 hxg6 28.1'2 .d6 29 :dl ~h7 30 b3 .e6 31 b4 ~4!;:. 3c) 12 :fdl ~5 (this move, tryίηΒ Ιο take the initiative, is a big favourite of Ameήcan 1Μ T.Taylor; the quiet 12... ~f4Ieads Ιο a different type of game: 13.tfl ~ 14 ~b5 ΙΑXd4 15 ~xd4 ~xd4 16 .txd4 .txd4+ 17

.f8

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

The tricky ... b6 systems

.xd4 d6 18 e5 dxe5 19.xe5 .c7 20 .xc7 :Xc7 21 J:d2 .t.c8 22lΣadl Wg7 23 b3 .t.e6 24 Wt2 g5 I/2-Ih TataiMakropoulos, Budva 1981) 13 b3 f5 14 exf5 gxf5 (D) and now:

3cl) 15 .c2.e8 16lt1xf5lt1xf3+ 17 .t.xf3 .t.xf3 18 lt1xg7 .t.xdl 19 lt1xe8 .t.xc2 was winning for Black in Κreiman-T.Taylor, Philadelphίa 1992. 3c2) 15 a4 .e8 16 a5 .g6 17 lt1cb5 a6 18 lt1c3 e6 19 axb6 Wh8 20 c5 f4 21.*.12 :g8 22 c6 .*.ί6 23 .*.f1 .t.xc6 24 ~4lt1xf3+ 25 lt1xf3 .t.xe4 led to a quick victory for Black ίη Chow-T.Taylor, Chicago 1992. 3c3) 15 f4lt1g4 16lt1xf5lt1xe3 17 lt1xg7lt1xdI18lt1xh5lt1xc3 19.xc3 :π left Black with an extra exchange in S.Mayer-T.Taylor, Philadelphia 1992. 3c4) 15 00 and now: 3c4a) 15....e8 16lt1b5? (Georgiev gives 16 ί4! .*.xd5 17 cxd5 lt1g4 18 lfuf5! .*.xa119 .t.xg4lt1f6 {19....t.f6 20 d6! ±} 20 lt1h6+ Wg7 21 :xal Wxh6 22 ί5+ Wg7 23 .*.h6+ Wh8 24 .t.xf8 as winning for White) 16...:C6 17 ί4? (17lt1xa7 :g6 18lt1b5 Wh8 19 .*.g5! ± - analysis by Georgiev) 17...lt1g4 18 .t.d4 :g6 19 h3?! (19

225

.t.xg7 :Xg7 20.t.f3 Wh8 21 .d4! is ~ according to Georgiev) 19...lt1gf6 20 .t.f3 .t.xd5! 21 cxd5 .t.h6! 22.J.xf6?? lt1xf4 23 .el :t'xf6 and Black won in Κi.Geοrgίev-Β.Κήstensen, Saint 10Μ Π 1988. 3c4b) Αη interesting attempt at improvement is 15 ....t.xd5!? 16 cxd5 f4 17 .t.t2 .e8 18 .i.d3? (Νuηη gives 18 d6, when both 18...exd6 19lt1b5 .g6 20 :acl and 18 ...e6 19lt1b5 .g6 20 :ac 1 are, according to the Doctor, good for White) 18... lt1xd3 19.xd3 .g6 20 .xg6 hxg6 21 :acl :Xcl 22 :xcl .t.xd4 23 .t.xd4 :f5led to a win for Black ίη Sherzer-Edelman, New York 1993. 4) 11 ...e6?! 12 :fdl (Matulovit recommends 12lt1db5 ~8 13 :fdl ±) 12...lt1e5 13 b3 d5 14 ί4! lt1c6 15 lt1xc6 .t.xc6 16 e5lt1e4 17lt1xe4 dxe4 18 .xd8 :fxd8 19 :xd8+ :xd8 20 :dl :xdl+ 21 .t.xdl ~ MatulovitΚne:revit, Yugoslavia 1996. Returning to the position after 1l ...:e8(D):

W

12 lt1db5 Othermoves: 1) 12 :acl .c7 and now:

226

Accelerated Dragons

la) 13 ~ 1Wb8 14 I.Ob3 d6 15 :t'dll.Od7 161.Od4 e6 17 tαι.c6.!.xc6 18 I.Ob4 .*.f8 19 ~xc6 :xc6 20 b3 l/2-lh Jansa-Κarlsson, VmjιΚ!ka Banja 1981. lb) 13 b4 %5 141.Oxc6 .txc6 15 1.Od51Fb8 16 ί4 1.Of6 17 .tf3 d6 18 .*.d4 b5 19 e51.Oxd5 20 cxd5 .td7 21 • e3 ±Nunn-Κarlsson, Helsinki 1981. lc) 13 I.Odb5 .b8 14 1.Od5 d6 15 .*.h6 .*.h8 16 b3 I.Od7 17 :fdl a6 18 I.Obc3 e6 191.Oe3lΔd4 20 .tf11.Oe5 21 • xd4I.Oxf3+ 22 gxf3 .*.xd4 23 ':xd4 was winning for White ίη SerperTumurhuyag, Bishkek Ζ 1993. 2) 12 :fdl .c7 13 :acl .b8 (or 13...d6141.Ods1Wb8 15 tαι.c6.txc616 .tg5 I.Oxd5 17 cxd5 ;!; Gufeld-Pinal, Havana 1985) and now: 2a) 14 I.Oc2 d6 15 1.Od4 :cd8 16 tαι.c6 .txc617 b4lΔd7 18 a3 Μ 19 .a2 h6 20 .tf11.Od7 21 I.Ob5 ':c8 22 a4 a6 23lΔd4 .*.b7 241.Ob3 .ta8 25 a5 bxa5 26 .xa5 1.Oe5 27 1.Od4 I.Oc6 28 I.Oxc6 :xc6 29 b5 axb5 30 cxb5 ':xc 1 31 :Xcl:CS 32.a7 ± AMartin-Haϊk, Manchester 1981. Black has managed Ιο transpose from a passive, miserable middlegame ίηΙο a passive, miserable endgame. 2b) 14 b31.Ohs 15.tf1 .!.e5 16 g3 '*'g717.tg21.Of618.f2h5(18...d619 I.Oxc6 lh- l/2 Adorjan-Κarlsson, Thessaloniki OL 1983) 19 lΔde21.Oe5 20 h3 d6 211.Od41.Oed7 22 g4 a6 23 g5 ~h7 24 h4 ~hf8 25 .!.f1 e6 261.Ode2 .*.a8 27 .td4 .txd4 28 :xd41.Oe5 29 ':cdl :ed8 30 .th31.Oc6 31:4d2 b5 32 cxb5 axb5 with chances for both sides, Borik-Κarlsson, Randers Ζ 1982. 2c) 14 .tf11.Ohs 15lΔde21.Oe5 16 I'of41'oxf4 17 .txf4 d6 18 b3 .!.c6 19 1.Od5 :cd8 20 .tg5 f6 21 .!.e3 e6 22

~3 f5 23 .c2 fxe4 24 I.Oxe4 d5 25 cxd5 exd5 26 ~g5 h6 27 f4 I.Og4 28 .xg6 ':xe3 29 1.Oe6 :xe6 30 .xe6+ Wh8 31 .xg4 and Black resigned οη the 40th move ίη Sznapik-Ristoja, Helsinki 1981. It's clear that these lines with 11 ...:e8 are rather passive for Black. Ιη effect, he is settίng υρ a solid position and saying 'Come and get me!' 12.••86 131.Oa4!? Creating an immediate cήsis .

13•••axbS 14 cxbS

14 .txb6? bxa415 .txd8 ':exd8 is very nice for Black. 14•••dS!

Both sides have chances ίη a very unclear situation. Kudrin-Κarlsson, Hastings 1983/4 continued ίη an entertaining manner: 15 bxc6.txc6 16 I.Oxb6 :b8 17 e5! (both 17 I.Oxd5? I.Oxd5 18 exd5 :xb2 and 17 exd5? I.Oxd5 18 ~xd5 :xb2 favour Black) 17 ...1.Ohs18 .d4f6! 19.c5 .th6! 20 .*.xh6 .xb6 21 .xb6 :xb6 22 :fcl ':xb2 23 ':xc6 :xe2 and now 24 exf6 is equal.

D)

1o...lDbs (D) One of Black's sharper attempts. lll.Oxc6 It's ηοΙ yet clear what White's best move is. The altematives are: 1) 11 f4?? (a lοt of amateurs seem tofallforthistrap) 1l ...l.Oxf4! 12.tg4 (12 :xf4l.Oxd4 13 .txd4 e5 14:f3 exd4 15 1.Od5 .txd5 16 exd5 .g5 17 :g3 .e5 18 .d2 :ae8led to an eventual win ίor Black in Raaste-Ranιanen, Jirvenpaa 1985) 12...1.Oe6 (12 ...l.Oxd4 is also strong) 131.Of5 (seeing that he

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

The tricky ... b6 systems

227

(26 hxg3 "'xg3+ 27 .i.g2lΔe3 28 :e2 lΔxg2 29 ':'xg2 "'e3+ followed by

has nothing Ιο lose, White goes for broke; of course, such an attack is doomed Ιο failure) 13 ... gxf5 14 exf5 lίX5 15 f6.i.xf6 16':'f3 ~5 17:b3 e6 18 .i.f5 exf5 19 "'h5 ':'e8 20 "'xh7+ Φf8 21 .i.h6+ Φe7 22 "'xf5 ':'g8 23 ':'e3 ':'xg2+ 24 Φf1 "'g8 25 ':'xe5+ .i.xe5 26 "'xe5+ llJe6 and White went down ίη a few more moves ίη KostenPytel, England 1981. 2) 11 :el lΔf4 12 .i.f1 llJe6 13 lΔde2 (l3lΔce2 is harmless: 13 ...':'c8 14 "'d2 "'c7 15 ':'adl .i.e5 {trying Ιο inject some life into the position} 16 tLJxc6 dxc6 17 f4 ':'cd8 18 "'cl .i.g7 19 tLJc3 :xdl 20 ':'xdl ':'d8 = Uhlmann-Zsu.Polgar, Aruba 1992) 13 ...f5 14 exf5 :xf5 15 "'d2llJe5 16 lΔd4 lΔxd4 17 .i.xd4 "'c7 18lΔd5 ixd5 19 cxd5 and Black pieces are very active, Ekabson-Terentiev, USSR 1983. The continuation was 20 "'c3 "'d6 21 f4 lΔg4 (to meet 22 .i.xg7 with 22 ......xf4) 22 g3 and now 22 ...':'xf4!! 23 .i.xg7 (23 gxf4 "'xf4) 23 ...:f3 24 .i.xf8 (24 .i.e5 tLJxe5 25 "'xe5 :xf1 +! wins for Black, while 24 "'d4 :xg3+ 25 ΦhιlΔf2+ is a1so fatal) 24... ':'xc3 25 .i.xe7 (25 bxc3 ΦΧf8 obviously favours Black) 25 ... ':'xg3+ 26 .i.g2

:af8

30... 'ii'xe7 and Black should win) 26 ...':'xg2+ (26 ...'ii'xd5 27 hxg3 Wd4+ 28 ΦhιlΔf2+ 29 Φh2 tLJg4+ is just a draw) 27 Φχg2 "'xd5+ puts White ίη seήοus trouble - ana1ysis by Silman. 3) 11 lΔdb5 (the threat of 12 f4 forcesareactionfromBlack) 11 ...a612 lΔa3 e5 (12 ...:b8 13 f4.i.xc3 14 bxc3 lΔf6 15 e5lΔe4 16 "'el, Timman-Yusupov, Linares Ct (10) 1992, and now Yusupov claims that Black should have played 16... f5 i;, instead of 16...d6 17 .i.f3 tLJa5 18 f5! gxf5 19 .i.h6 Φh8 20.i.xf8 Wxf8 21 exd6 tLJxd6 22 ':'bl! with a winning advantage for White) 13 g3lΔd414 lίX2 tLJxe2+? (14 ...'ii'c7! seems much stronger, putting pressure οη c4 and intending Ιο meet 15lΔxd4 exd4 16 .i.xd4 with 16 ... lΔxg3!; we believe that Black is all ήght after 14......c7) 15 "'xe2 f5 16.i.f2 'ii'g5 17 ΦhΙ b5 18 cxb5lΔf6 19lΔb4 fxe4 20 fxe4 axb5 21 Wxb5 ':'ab8 22 "'d3 and Black does ηοΙ have sufficient compensation for the sacήficed mateήa1, Wirthensohn-R.Hemandez, Luceme OL 1982. 4) 11 tLJb3 and then: 4a) 11 ...f5 12 "'d2 (this allows Black Ιο dominate the e5-square; ίο ουι ορίηίοη 12 exf5 is a more testing move) 12 ... f4 13 .i.f2 .i.e5 14 c5 ':'b8 15 :tdl lΔf6 16 lΔd5 e6 17 lΔxf6+ Wxf6 18 cxb6 axb6 19 :abl .i.a8 20 lΔd4 tLJxd4 21 .i.xd4 .i.c6 22 Wc3 .i.xd4+ 23 "'xd4 'ii'xd4+ = PigusovHaϊk, Sochi 1985. 4b) AIso cήtica1 is 11 ....i.xc3!? 12 bxc3 d6 13 .i.h6 tLJg7 14 f4 ':'c8 15 ':'f3lΔb8 16 Wd4 f6 17 ':'dllΔd7 18 :g3.:.n 19 .i.g4 ':'c7 20 .i.xg7 ':'xg7

228

Accelerated Dragons

21 e5 itlc5 22 exd6 exd6 23 lL1xc5 :xc5 24 .*.e6+ Wf8 25 ί5 gxf5 26 'ii'h4 ί4 27 1i'xf4 :xg3 28 hxg3 :e5 29 1i'h6+ We7 30 1i'xh7+ Wxe6 31 'ilxb7 and White won οη the 55th move ίη Simίf-Κurtenkov, Vmj~ka Banja 1985. Though White came out ahead ίη thίs encounter, it's clear that 11 ....*.xc3 can use more tests. 5) 11 .d2 (D) and now Black has trίed:

Β

5a) 11 ...lL1f4 12 .*.xf4 lΩxd4 13 .*.d3 ί5 14 :aellL1e6 15 .*.h6 .*.xh6 16 .xh6 ί417 e5!:C8 18.*.e4 wίth a slight advantage for White, DizdareVΊf-Gallego, Vigo 1985. 5b) 11 ...f5 12 exf5 gxf5 13 :adl f4 14 .*.f2lDe5 15 :fel 16.*.d3 lL1xd3 17 'ilxd3 1i'f7 18 b3 :ad8 19 lL1db5 ± Dίnαf-HaiΊc, Vmj~ka Banja 1986. 5c) 11 ...lΩxd412.*.χd4.ι.χd4+ 13 1i'xd4 lL1f4 14 :fdl d6 (14 ... lL1xe2+ 15 lL1xe2 d6 is better; then White would just have a very small edge due to his extra space) 15.*.f1 .c7 16 b4 :ac8 17 .e3 W 18 a4lL1f619lL1b5 W'b8 20 a5 .*.c6 21 axb6 axb6 22lL1a7 :c7 23 lL1xc6 :xc6 24 :a6 .c7 25

.e8

:dal :b8 26 .g5! W'd8 271i'b5! and Whίte is clearly better, Panno-Milos. Vιlla Gese111985. 11•••dxc6 11 ....*.xc6 12 :c 1 f5 13 exf5 gxf5 14 f4lL1f6 15.*.f3 :c8 16 b3 .e8 17 lL1d5 .f7 18 lL1xf6+ .xf6 19 :c2 .*.xf3?! 20 :xf3 d6 21 :d2 Wh8 22 .*.d4 was better for White ίη Νυηη­ Ristoja, Malta OL 1980. 12c5 Other moves seem to be all ήght for Black: 1) 12 ί4 W'xdl (12....*.xc3 13 bxc3 .xd114 :fxdl c5 =Saltaev-Pigusov. Κateήni 1993) 13 :axdl .*.xc3 14 bxc3 c5 15 .*.f3 lL1f6 16 e5 .*.xf3 17 gxf3 lL1h5 18 :d7 :fd8 gives Black goodplay. 2) 12 .b3 .*.d4! 13 .*.xd4.xd4+ 14 Whl lL1f4 15 :fdl W'e5 16 .*.f1 :fd8 17 a4lDe6 18lDe2 itlc5 19 1i'c2 a5 20 :abl .c7 21 itlc3 :xdl 22 :xdl :d8 23 :d2 e5 and Black is clearly better. Κuznecov-Silman, Oregon Open 1986. 12••• b5 Κίήlov-Ekabson, USSR 1983. Terentίev now gives Whίte an edge after 13 f4 (13 g4!? lL1f614 .c2 {14 e5!?Nunn} 14...e5 and Whίte only has a small plus, Κhuzman-Hergott, Biel 1993). In the first editίon ofthίs book we felt that Black was all ήght after 13 ... b4! 14 lL1a4 lL1f6, when 15 .*.f3 .*.a6 16:f2 .*.b5 is goOO. Now it appears that we were mistaken. First Νυηη claimed an edge for White wίth 15 .c2, and then 15 1i'b3! :b8 16 .c4.*.c8 17 :adl 1i'a5 18 b3 .*.g419 .*.d4 was played ίη Razuvaev-Dunnington, Cappel1e la Grande 1995. wίth an advantage for White.

Mαrocry ΒίΜ:

The tricky ... b6 systems

Ε) 10•••tbe8!? (D)

229

2) 15 b4!? g5! 16 ~xg5 ltJxg5 17 "xg5 e6! tums out rather well for Black. 15•••lbc5 16 ~f3 86 17ltld4 17 ltJa3 e6 18 lbc3 ltJb4 19 "xd6 ltJbd3 gives Black reasonable value for the sacrificed pawn. 17••• ltJxd4 18 -*.xd4 ~xd4+ 19 "xd4b5 Agapov-Κimelfeld, USSR 1985. Now Κimelfeld claίms that 20 e5!? ~xd5 21 cxd5 "b6 22 ΦhΙ gives White a slίght advantage.

F)

lo...lbxd4 (D) This knίght is heading for e6, where it wiH eye both the d4- and c5-squares. 11 "d2ltk7 As usual, 11 ... f5 just creates weaknesses in the black camp. After 12 exf5 gxf5 13 ':'adl White would be considerably better. 12 .J:.adl lDe6 13ltldb5 13lbxe6 would allow Black to take control of the d4-square by 13 ...dxe6 followed by ...e5 and ...lbd4. 13•••d6 Also worth investigation is 13 ...a6!? 14lba3lbed4 15lίX:2ltJxe2+ 16 "xe2 ':'b8 foHowed by ...-*.a8. 14lbd5 ':'b8 15 Ι4 Also interesting are: 1) 15lbxa7!?ltJxa716-*.xb6"d7! (16 .....xb6+!? 17 ltJxb6 -*.d4+ 18 "xd4 {18 ΦhΙ -*.xb6 19 b4lίX:6 20 a4 g5 is not clear} 18...lbxd4 19 ':'xd4 ~c6 20 lbd5 ~xd5 21 cxd5 ':'xb2 22 -*.c4 ':'c8 23 ':'fdl ':'c5 24 a4 ;t) 17 ~xa7 ~xd5 18 -*.xb8 ~a8 19 -*.xd6 -*.d4+ 20 ΦhΙ exd6 21 b4 g5 is unclear.

Black intends to bήng hίs remaίn­ ing knίght around to d7 and c5. Thίs plan doesn't have a good reputation. 11 ~xd4 d6 12 "d2ltld7 13 ~xι' Φxg7 14 Ι4 ':'cS?! Better is 14... a5 but then 15 ':'adl lbc5 16 "e3 is sti,H much better for White. 15.J:.adl! Threatening to play 16 e5. 15 ••• ltJf6 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 ltJg8 18"e3!

Accelerated Dragons

230

18 'ifd7 'ifc7 19 'ilxc7 ':'xc7 20 lί)b5 ':'c5 with counterplay. 18•••'ilc7 19 e6 Threatening ':'d7. Less good is 19 lί)b5 since 19 ...'ilc5 20 'ifxc5 ':'xc5 would give Black counterplay. 19•••fxe6 20 lί)bS! 'ilcS 21 'ilxcS .:.xcS 22 Φxf8 23 ':'d7 Black is busted, Cvetkovil:-Ceba1o, Yugoslavia 1985. The continuation was 23 ...J.a6 24 a4 (a1so strong is 24 lί)a3!? followed by ':'xa7) 24 ... J..xb5 25 axb5 ':'e5 26 J.fl! lί)f6 27 ':'xa7 lί)e4 28 b4! and White's queenside majοήty proved decisive.

:xrs

G) 10•.•'ilb8!? (D)

w

This plan, a Romanian speciality, became popular in the early 199Os. The idea is Ιο prepare for a ... d5 advance with ...':'d8, ... d6, ... ':'d7, ...'ilf8, ...:ad8, and ... e6. 11 'ild2 Other moves: 1) 11 ':'cllί)xd4 12 J.xd4 J.h6! = 13 ':'c2 J.f4 14 g3 J.xg3 15 hxg3 'ifxg3+ 16 ΦhΙ 'ilh3+ 17 ΦgΙ 'ilg3+

1/2 -1J7. Nadyrkhanov-Poluliakhov, Sochi 1996. 2) 11 lί)c2 ':'d8 12 'ifd2 d6 13 ~hl?! ':'d7 14 ':'acl 'ilf8 15 b3 ':'ad8 16 f4?! e6 17 f5 exf5 18 exf5 d5 19 J.g5 dxc4 20 'iff4 cxb3 21 axb3 h6 22 J.xf6 J..xf6 23 lί)e4 J.e5 =+= Timoshenko-Moldovan, Ca1imanesti 1992. 11•••':'d8 12lί)dbS White has tήed severa1 moves here, with varying degrees of success: 1) 12 ':'fdl d6 and now White has tήed a1most every reasonable idea: la) 13 ':'acl ':'d7 14 lί)d5 (14lί)c2 'iff8 15 b3 ':'ad8 16lί)b5 e6 17lί)bd4 lί)e5! 18 lί)b4 d5 19 cxd5 exd5 20 J..b5 dxe4 21 J.xd7 ':'xd7 gives Black compensation for the exchange, while 14 b3 'ilf8 15 lί)cb5 ':'ad8 16 lί)xc6 J..xc6 17lί)xa7 ':'xa7 18 J..xb6 ':'da8 19 J.xa7 ':'xa7 is unclear) 14...'iff8 (14 ...e6 15lί)xf6+ J.xf6 16 b4 'iff8 17 lί)xc6 J..xc6 18 b5 J..b7 19 a4 d5 20 exd5 :ad8 21 a5 exd5 22 c5 ':'e7 23 a6 ± C.Hansen-Bellon, Ma1mQ 1996) 15 ':'c3 ':'ad8 16 ':'a3lί)b5 17lί)b5 e6 18 lί)dc3 J..a8 19 'ifcllί)f6 20 lί)d4 'ile7 led Ιο an unclear position ίη M.Grίiη­ berg-Ceteras, Romanian Cht 1992. Black outplayed his opponent and emerged with the advantage after 21 lί)cb5lί)e5 22 h3 d5! 23 cxd5 exd5 24 f4 lί)c4 25 e5 lί)e4 26 J.xc4 ':'c8 27 ':'a4 dxc4 28 ':'xc4 ':'cd8. lb) 13 'ilel ':'d7 and then: lbl) 14 ':'acl 'ilf8 15lί)xc6 J.xc6 16 b4 J.h6! =. lb2) 14 :abl!? 'ilf8 15 ΦhΙ (15 b4 lί)e5!? intending 16 ... ':'c8) 15 ... ':'ad8 16lί)cb5 (16 b4 e6 17 a3 d5 18lί)xc6 J..xc6 19 e5lί)h5 20 J.g5 f6 21 exf6 J.xf6 22 J.xf6 'ifxf6 23 c5 bxc5 24 bxc5 with the idea of J.b5 is unclear)

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

The tricky ... b6 systems

16... ~xd4 17 ~xd4 (17 J.xd4 J.c618 ~xa7 :xa7 19 J.xb6 :xa2 20 J.xd8 "xd8 21 e5 ~7 22 exd6 :xb2 23 :xb2 J.xb2 24 dxe7 "xe7 25 J.d3 "f6 26 J.e4 J.a4 leads to an unclear position) 17...~ 18 J.f1 e6 19 :d2 (οη 19 b4 Black intended 19...J.e5 with the idea οί .....g7) 19...d5! 20 cxd5 exd5 21 J.b5 :c7 22 J.g5 :dc8 23 exd5 J.xd5 24 ~5 "c5 25 ~xg7 J.xa2! led to interesting complications that were ίη Black's favour ίη Heine Nielsen-Moldovan, Mamaίajr Wch 1991. lb3) 14 'ilh4 'ii'f8 15 ~b5!?;t (15 :d2 ~xd4 16 J.xd4 ~8!) 15...~8! 16:acl J.f617'ii't2e618 f4:ad819 :d2 ~c7 20 :cdl ~xb5 21 ~xb5 "e7 22 J.f3 J.g7 23 "e2 J.h6 24 g3 οccuπed ίη Brodsky-Moldovan, Bucharest Ciocaltea mem 1994. Then, rather than 24 ... e5? 25 J.g4, whίch gave Whίte a clear advantage ίη the actua1 game, 24...g5! 25 ΦhΙ (25 fxg5? J.xg5 26 J.xg5 'ii'xg5 27 e5 'ii'xe5 28 "xe5 ~xe5 29 J.xb7 :xb7 30 :xd6 :xd6 31 ~xd6 :d7 ;) 25 ... gxf4 26 gxf4 e5 27lίX:3 ~4 28 :xd4 exd4 29 J.xd4 ί5 30 :gl + Φf8 yields a complicated mess - analysis by Stoica. lc) 13 ~b3 (D) and here: lcl) 13 ...:d7 14 a4! 'ii'd8? (Stoica gives 14... ~a5 15 ~xa5 bxa5 16 ~b5 a6 17 ~4 'ii'c7 18 ~b3 19 ~ώ {19 'ii'xa5 J.c6 also gives Black compensation} 19...J.xe4! 20 fxe4 ~xe4 21 "el J.xb2 22 :abl ~c3 23 :xb2 :xb2 24 "xc3 :xe2 as unclear) 15 a5 bxa5 16 ~b5! J.a6 17 ~xa5 J.xb5 18 cxb5 ~xa5 19 "xa5 "xa5 20 :xa5 with a winning endgame for Whίte, Arakhamia-Canela, Νοvί Sad wom OL 1990.

:b8

231

Β

lc2) Also interesting is 13 ...e6 14 a4 ω!? (14 ...~e5!? 15 a5 J.a6!?) 15 ~xa5 bxa5 16 ~b5 (Whίte's best may be 16 J.f4 ~8 17 c5 a618 cxd6 e5 19 J.e3 :xd6 20 ~5 J.xd5 21 exd5 'ii'd8 22 J.c4;t) 16 ... d5! 17 cxd5 a6! 18 lίX:3 exd5 19 J.f4 'ii'a7+ 20 J.e3 "b8 21 J.f4 "a7+ 22 J.e3 1/2.-1/2. Moldovan-Milu, Bucharest 1991. ld) 13 ~xc6 J.xc6 14 ~5 :d7 15 :acl e6 16 ~xί6+ J.xf6 17 J.f4 J.e5 18 J.xe5 dxe5 19 "c3 "c7 20 :Xd7 J.xd7 21 :dl ;t Heπera-Y.Georgiev, Erevan OL 1996. le) 13 J.f1 :d7 14 :acl 'ii'f8 15 g3!? (15 ~db5 :ad8 16 'ii'n e6 17 tΔd4 ~e5 18 h3 "e7 offers chances for both SΊdes whίle 15 00 ~d4 16 J.xd4 ~xd5 17 exd5 e5! is equal) 15...e6 16 J.g2:ad8 17 b3? (both 17 J.h3!? and 17 ~xc6 J.xc6 18 "t2 are better) 17...d5! 18 cxd5 exd5 19 ~c6 J.xc6 20 e5 d4!::Ι: Doroschenko-Moldovan, Tusnad 1993. 2) 12 :acl d6 13 ~d5 :d7 14 ~xc6 J.xc6 15 J.g5 'ii'f8! 16 ~xί6+ J.xf6 17 J.xf6 exf6 18 :c3 :ad8 19 J.dl 'ii'e7 20 J.c2 'ii'e5! (Black has an acceptable position) 21 b4 a5 22 a3 axb4 23 axb4 :a8 24 ί4 'ii'e7 25 'ii'd4

232

Accelerated Dragons

JΣa2 26 .td3 f5 27 :C2 :xc2 28 .txc2 .txe4 29 :el 1rd8! 30 .txe4 fxe4 31 1rdS 1rf6 32 1rxe4 :a7 33 1re3 :al! :j: Miulescu-Moldovan, Bucharest 1991. 3) 12:001 d6 13 1rel :d7 141rh4 1rf8 15 ΦhΙ (other moves include 15 lLIdb5!?, whίch is untested, 15 :d2 lLIxd4 16 .txd4 lLIe8!, whίch should prove satίsfactory for Black, and 15 b3 :ad8 16lL1d5 lLIxd4 17 .txd4lL1xd5 18 exdS e5 19 dxe6 fxe6 20 f4 .te4 = 21 1rel d5 22 .tg4 .tf5 23 .txg7 ΦΧΒ7 24 h2?! 1rf6 25 cxdS exdS 26 .tf3 d427 g4.te6 28:d3:e7 291rb4 :π 30 :el .tc8 with a clear plus for Black ίη David-Ceteras, Bucharest 1991) 15 ...:ad8 16 :d2 lLIxd4 17 .txd4lL1e8 18 .txg7 (18 .te3?! gives Black a slight edge after 18 ....txc3 19 bxc3lL1g7 20 :fdl .tc6 with the idea of ...lLIe6-c5) 18...lLIxg7 19 f4 f5 20 .tf3 e5! 21 :df2?!:f7 22 fxe5 dxe5 23 exf5 lLIxf5 24 1rg5 .txf3 25 :xf3 :d4! 26 lLId5 e4 27 :f4 e3 28 :xd4 e2 29 :df4 exfl1r+ 30 :xf1lL1g3+ =1= Κramnίk-Moldovan, Arnhem 1991. 12.••d6(D) 13JU'dl 13lL1d5 :d7 14 .tg5 is probably a bit better for Whίte, though Black is not without chances: 14... lLIe8 15 f4 e6 16lL1e3 (16 .tg4!? 1Wc8 17 b l h6 18 .th4 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20.thS ± is a suggestion by Psakhis) 16...h617 .th4 a6 18 lLIc3 lLId4 19 .td3 J.c6 20 f5 g5

w

21 lLIg4 1rd8 22 f6 lLIxf6 23 lLIxh6+! .txh6 24 .txg5 lLIxe4 25 lLIxe4 .txg5 26lL1xg5 f5! 27 :ael :g7 28 lLIxe6 lLIxe6 29 :xe6 .txg2 30 1rxg2 :aa7! 31 .txf5 Psakhis-V.Georgiev, Benasque 1996. 13•••:d7 14 :'cl _ιs IS .tn :'d8 16 1Wf2 e6 16....th617.txh61rxh618lL1d5is a tad better for Whίte. 17 lLId4lL1es Avoidίng 17 .••dS? 18 cxd5 exd5 19 lLIxc6 J.xc6 20 e5, when Whίte has a dίstinct advantage. 18h3'iWe7 with interesting complicatίons, IG.Georgiev-Morovif, Νοvi Sad OL 1990: 19 b3 d5! 20 f4 (20 cxd5 exdS 21 exdS lLIxd5:j:) 20... lLIeg4! 21 hxg4 lLIxg4 22 'iWg3lL1xe3 23 'iWxe3 dxe424 lLIc2 f5 25 b4 e5 with compensation for the sacήficed piece.

=

12 Maroczy Bind: Fighting for the dark squares 1 e4 cS 2 ~ lί)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4lΩxd4 g6 5 ε4 j"g7 6 j"e3 ~Ι6 7 ω ο-ο 8 j"e2d6(D)

w

One good way to cut down Whίte's options ίη this line is to play the move-order recommended ίη Chapter 8: 5 ...~6 6 1α3 d6 and now both 7 f3 and 7 j"e2 transpose into the main lines about to be given, though ίη each case Whίte has lost a bit of flexibίlity: the former move stops White trying any f2-f4 plans while the latter takes away J.d3 ideas. 90-0 The slow 9 h3 is ηο threat to Black. R.Anderson-Donaldson, Berkeley 1990 was instructive: 9... j"d7 10 ο-ο lbxd4 11 J.xd4 J.c6 12 "d3 a5 13 b3 ~7

14 J.xg7 Wxg7 15 "d4+ f6 16 ~5 e5 17 "e3 1α5 18 1α3 ~619 :fdl f5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 J.f1 :f6 22 "d2 ~4 23 ~2lbxe2+ 24 "xe2"b6 25 "e3 "xe3 26 fxe3 Wf7 with a slight plus for Black. 9_.J.d7 Black intends to play ...~d4, ...J.c6, and ...~7-c5. If Black wishes to avoid 10 ~b3 or 10 1α2 he can consider exchanging οη d4 before playing ...J.d7. 1) Thus9 ...~xd410J.xd4(D)can be used as a transpositional tool, while Black can also try independent ideas, though they haven't turned ουΙ very well for him. The specific analysis is as follows:

234

Accelerαted Drαgons

la) 10...J.d7 transposes into the main lines (sectίons Α and Β) after 11 "d20r 11 ':dl. However, White can play 11 "d3, leading to independent lines: lal) 11 ... J.c6 is not too goOO: lala) 12 b4 b6 13 a3 aS 14 "e3 ~715J.xg7~xg716':adl axb417 axb4':a3 18 "d4+ ~g8 19 J:[al ':xal 20 ':xal "c7 21 ~d5 J.xd5 22 cxd5 (22 exd5 was correct, but White didn't see Black's plan) 22 .....c2! 23 J.b5 ~ί6 24 f3 %5! 25 J.f1 ':c8 26 ':a7 ~f4! 27 ':xe7 ~e2+ 28 J.xe2 "xe2 29 h3 "el+ 30 ~h2 "h4 31 ':a7 "f4+ 32 ~gl ':cl + 33 ~Ω ':c2+ 34 ~gl ':cl+ 35 ~Ω 'ifh4+ 36 g3 ':c2+ 37 ~el "xg3+ 38 ~dl ':c8 39 ':a3 "xh3 40 ':e3 ':a8 0-1 Stean-Petursson, Middlesborough 1982. latb) 12 ':acllM7? (12 ... aS has Ιο be played) 13 .txg7 ~xg7 14 b4 llli6 15 ~hl a5 16 b5 ± Smyslov-Golz, Polanica Zdroj 1969. la2) 11 ...a671 (a1so dubious; editor'$ note: Black is now a full tempo behind the game Tolnai-Leko ίη the note to Black's 11th move ίη sectίon Blc2d ofChapter 8) 12 "e3! .tc6 13 b4 'ifb8 14 b5 axb5 15 cxb5 J.d716 a4

J.e617a5~718.txg7~xg719b6! ~c5 20 ~b5 ~a6 21 ί4 ± Lautίer­ Κoch,

Lyons Ζ 1990. la3) 11 ... a5 (it's wise Ιο hold back White's queenside pawns) 12 f4.tc6 13 .tf3 ~7 14 .te3 ~5 15 "c2 'ifb6 16 ':abl 'ifb4 17 ~d5 .txd5 18 exd5 ':ac8 19 ':fel b5 20 b3 bxc4 21 bxc4 "a3 22 .tf2 .tf6 23 ':b5 "d3 24 ':c 1 .td4 25 ':xaS ':a8 26 ':xa8 ':xa8 27 g3 ':b8 28 .txd4 "xd4+ 29 ~f1 ':b2 and Black won ίη a few more moves in Bjarnason-Ίielemann, ReyIqavik Open

1984. Α thematίc ΡοίηΙ οί view.

game from Black's

lb) 10... ~d7 11 .txg7 ~xg7 12 "d4+f613':adl"a514~':f715 b4 ± Petrosian-Tatai, Venice 1967. lc) 10...J.e6 (D) and now:

lcl) 11 ':cl "aS 12 b3 a6 13 f4 :fe814f5J.d715fxg6fxg616c5! ± H.Olafsson-Wang Zili, Thessa10niki OL 1988. lc2) 11 "d3 a6 12 b3 (12 f4!?) 12 ...lM7 13 .txg7 ~xg7 14 f4 f6 15 ~hl ~ Vιlela-Estevez, Cuba 1978. lc3) 11 ~hl "aS 12 "d3 :fc8 13 b3 a6 14 ί4 b5 15 cxb5 axb5 16 ~xb5 "b4 17 e5 .tf5 18 "dl dxe5 19 J.xe5 .te4 20 a3 "c5 21 ~3 and Black has nothing Ιο show for the pawn, Smyslov-Gheorghiu, Moscow 1967. 'lc4) 11 "d2 "a5 12 ':adl ':fc8 13 b3 a6 14 ί4 b5 15 f5.td7 16 J.xf6 J.xf6 17lM5 "xd2 18 ~xί6+ exf6 19 hd2 bxc4 20 hd6 ':a7 21 J.xc4 ± F~nik-Haba, Prague 1986. lc5) 11 f4 "c8 (also good for White are 11 ...':c812 b3 .td713 e5 dxe514 fχe5ω 15"d2J.c616"e3,A.Sokolov-Nemet, Bem 1992 and 11 .....d7 12 "d3 ':fc8 13 b3 J.g4 14 ':adl

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Fighting for

.*.xe2 15 "xe2 "e6 16 f5 ± Gheorghiu-Benko, Orense 1973) 12 b3 :Ιd8 13 :ΙcΙ (13 "d3 .*.g4 14 .*.xg4 "xg4 15 f5 "h4 was easy for Black ίο Panno-Najdod, Buenos Aires 1968; 13 h3!?, keeping the black pieces ουΙ of g4, deserves serious consideration) 13 ....*.g4 14 J.xf6 J.xe2 15 .xe2 .*.xf6 16.!ίχ1s:Ιe8 17 1Wf2 and White is slight1y better, Benko-Honfi, Majdanpek 1976. 2) 9...a5!1 10 f3lbd7 11lbdb5lα:5 is an idea that Larsen devised after his eχpeήments, following 9... .*.d7, with holding off οο a ... ~xd4 capture and instead playing ... a5-a4 followed by .....a5 (considered οο ρ.238). His new idea of οοΙ playing ....*.d7 and instead pushing the a-pawn immediately, keeps options of ....*.e6 open. 12 .d2 a4 (12... f5!? is an untested idea that suggests itselt) 13 :ΙfdΙ "a5 14:acl .*.e6 15 ~d5 "xd2 16 :Ιχd2 .*.xd5? (Andersson claims that Black should have played 16 ...:Ιfd8 followed by ...Φf8, when White wouldjust be a lίι­ tle better) 17 cxd5 ~b4 18 :Ιχc5! dxc5 19 .*.xc5 ± Andersson-Larsen, Linares 1983. Thecontinuation was 19...~a2 20 J.xe7 :Ιfc8 21 f4 J.f8 22 d6 ~b4 23 J.h4 :ΙcΙ + 24 ~1'2lα:6 25 ~7 a3 26 bxa3 :Ιχa3 27 e5 h6 28 .*.f6 .*.g7 29 j.e7 j.f8 30 ~5 :Ιa8 31 h4 :Ιc5? 32 ~f6+ ~g7 33 .*.xf8+ :Ιχf8 34 ~7 1-0. 3) Another Larsen idea is the waiting move 9 ...:Ιe8!? (D). White has now tήed: 3a) 10 f4 has not been played since 10...e5 is too good an answer. 3b) 10 a3?! j.d7 11 f3 (after 11 b41!, 11 ...~5!?followedby 12 ...:Ιc8 deserves co.nsideration, while 1l ...~g4

ιΜ dαrk squαres

235

w

12 j.xg4 j.xg4 13 f3 j.d7 is all ήght for Black) 11 ... a6 12 b4?! :Ιc8 (according to Larsen, 12...~d4 13 j.xd4 :Ιc8 14 "d21eads to equality) 13 :ΙcΙ ~d414j.xd4j.h6! 15 :Ιc2 (according Ιο F~nik, both 15 :ΙbΙ b5 16 J.xf6 {16 c5 e5 17 j.1'2 j.f8!} 16... exf6 17 1Wxd6 bxc4 18 "xa6 :Ιe6 and 15 f4 e5 16 J.e3 j.c6 17 j.d3 ~h5! 18 g3 exf4 19 gxf4 f5! are good for Black) 15... j.e6 16 ~ (16 ~bl is best met by 16...~d7 17 f4 ~b618 ~d2 .*.d7 19 J:ιcl .*.a4 20 "e2lbd7 followed by ... b5 and ...e5 - analysis by F~nik) 16... ~xd5 17 exd5 (17 cxd5 .*.d7 18 f4 :Ιχc2 19 .xc2 .b8 20 g3 :Ιc8 21 .b2 .c7 22 .*.d3 .*.b5! 23 .*.xb5 axb5 + - analysis by Fta~nik) 17....*.d7 18 :Ιc3 e6! 19 dxe6 :Ιχe6 20 c5?! (20 j.d311'h4 21 j.1'2 j.e3 22 j.e4 j.x1'2+ 23 :Ιχ1'2 .*.c6 +) 20... j.a4! 21 "xa4 dxc5! 22 bxc5 :Ιχe2 23 "c41? b5! 0-1 Short-Larsen, Nιestved 1985. 3c) 10 "d2 j.d7 (the CΉtical test is 10...~g4 11 .*.xg4 j.xg4, when I.Ivaοον insists that 12 ~ is;t) 11 :ΙabΙ a6 12 f3 :Ιc8 13 ~xc6 j.xc6 14 b4 .*.d7 15 :ΙfcΙ h5 16.*.f1 j.e6 17 ~a4 :Ιc6 18 "1'2 ± Kosten-Larsen, London 1990.

236

Accelerated Dragons

3d) 10 :c1 ~xd4 11 ~xd4 ~h6! 12 :c2 (12 (4 e5!) 12...b6 (12...e5!? is a1so interestίng: 13 h3 ~xe3 14 fxe3 ~ι7 15 :d2 "a5 16 :xd6 -*.e6 17 "d2 :ad8 18 b41Wb6 19 :d5 ~xd5 20 ι!bxd5 -*.xd5 21 exd5 {5 22 c5 "'f6 23 d6 :f8 24 :d1 e425 b5 :c8 26 d7 :cd8 27 :c1 (4 28 exf4 e3 29.d3 and White went οη ιο win ίη Veingold-Hergott, Manίla OL 1992; there are several points where Black's play could have been improved) 13 f3 ~b7 14 "e1ltlh5 15 g3 e5; Pyhiila-Rantanen, Ροή 1986. 3e) 10 f3 ~d7 11 .d2 ~c5 (simplestis 11 ...ι!bxd412~xd4~xd4+ 13 "xd4 "b6 =) 12 :fdl "a5 13 :abl ~xd4 14 ~xd4 .1xd4+ 15 .xd4 ~6 16.f2 -*.d7 17 (4 "c5 = AnderssonLarsen, Nrestved 1985. 3!) 10 :bl a6 11 f3 (11 "d2.1d7 12 :fd1 :c8 13 f3 ~xd4 14 .1xd4 .1e6 15 ΙΑΙS fud5 16 cxd5 .1xd4+ 17 "xd4 .1d7 18 1 .a5 19 a3 -*.b5 20 -*.xb5 "xb5 21 ~f2 "b3 22 :el h5 23 h4 :c2+ lh_ l/2 Speelman-Larsen, Hastings 1988J9) 11 ...-*.d712~2 ~5 13 a4 .c7 14 ~a3 e6 15 (4 ;t Wolff-Larsen, New York WFW 1990. 3g) 10 IOb3 .1e6 11 f3 ~5 12 ~d5 .A.d7 13 "d2 ~xd5 14 cxd5 b5 15:fcl a516~41Wb817f4l2X418 -*.xc4 bxc4 19 :xc4 and Black has ηο compensatίon for the lost pawn, Wahls-Vanscura, Budapest 1988. Before we finaUy get ίηto the main lines coming from 9 ....1d7, two other systems mυst a1so be addressed: 4) 9 ... a6 (Black intends to play for a qώck ...b5 advance) and now: 4a) After 10 :cl a surprisingly sharp battle broke ου! ίη Ceba1oKobas, Yugoslav Ch 1985: 10... ~xd4

11 .1xd4 .1e6 12 .d2 .a5 13 .e3 :fc8 14 b3 b5 15 {4 bxc4 16 (5 gxf5 17 exf5 .1xf5 18 b4 "'a3 19 :xf5 ~ι4 20 "g5 f6 21 .d2 -*.h6 22 :f4.1xf4 23 "xf4 and White scored a qυick victory. 4b) 10 f4 (aggressive) a1so comes ίηΙο consideratίon. Black did well after 1O....1d7 11 :cl :c8 (11 ... b5 12 cxb5 ~xd4 13 .1xd4 axb5 14 a3 is a little better for White according ΙΟ Hartmann) 12 b3 "a5 13 a4 :fe8 14 ~hl e5 15 fxe5 "xe5 16 W.a5 17 lOd2 1Ob4! + ίη I.Ivanov-Hartmann, Edmonton 1985. 4c) 10"d2 (D) and now Black has tried:

:bc

4cl) 10... ~ι4 11 -*.xg4.1xg4 12 {4 (sharper than 12 f3 .1d7 13 :fdl lOe5 14 b3 f5 15 exf5 gxf5 1600 ~ι6 17 :acl (4 18 -*.f2 :π 19 c5 dxc5 20 :xc5 e5 21 12X2 -*.f5 22 12X3 :d7 23 :d5 :xd5 24 IOxd5 :c8 25 ~1.1e626~b6.xd227:Xd2:cl

28 ~ .1f8 29 ~e2 .1f5 30 :d1 :C6 31lOc4 e4 32 fxe4 .1xe4 ; Zυk-Pelts, Canadian Ch 1984) 12...-*.d7 13 {5 :c8 14lOd5 ~5 15 b3 .1c6 16.t.h6 .1xd5 17 exd5 b5 18 cxb5 axb5 19

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Fighting for the

ΦhΙ :C5 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 J.xg7 Φxg7 22 Jhf7+! Φxf7 23 ~6 tΩd7 24 Wh6 "c8 25 :f1 + ~f6 26 Jhf6+ 1-0 Κaί­ szaUΉ-T.Horvath, Denmark 1983. 4c2) 10...J.d7 is considered ίη note '3' Ιο Black's 10th move ίη secιίοη ΑΙ, via the move-order 9 ...J.d7 10"d2a6. 4c3) 1O...:b8 11 f3 J.d7 is note '3b' Ιο Black's 10th move ίη sectίon ΑΙ.

4c4) lO...~d411 J.xd4J.e6(thίs would be a great set-up if White had taken the tίme to play f'l-f3; however, White must stand better if the pawn can move Ιο f4 ίη one go) 12 f4 J.d7 13 :adl J.c6 14 "e3 ~d7 15 J.xg7 ΦΧΒ7 16 b4 "b6 17 "xb6 ~xb6 18 e5 dxe5 19 fxe5 :fd8 20 Φf2 :ac8 21 g3 h5 22 :xd8 :xd8 23 Φe3 f6 24 exf6+ exf6 25 :dl :e8+ 26 Φf'l :c8 27 c5 ~7 28 a4 ~5 29 b5 axb5 30 axb5 J.d7 and Black managed to hold οη for the draw ίο Brunner-Petursson, Luceme Wcht 1993. 5) 9 ...tΩd7 (D) and now: ... _--_ .. -~-

-

w

5a) 10 "d2 ~5 and now: 5al) 11 :fdl J.d7 (11 ...•a5'?! is worse after 12 ~b311Fb4 13 .cl J.e6

dαrk squαres

237

14 ~ ~xb3 15 axb3 .xb3 16:d2 J.xd5 17 exd5 ~5 18 :a3 "b4 19 "c2 ± Κarpoν-Visier, Las Palmas 1977) 12 f3 a5 13 b3 ~xd414 J.xd4 J.e6 15 J.xg7 ΦΧΒ7 16 1t'e31t'b6 = Parma-Ve1ίmirovi~, Vdac 1973. 5a2) ll:adl J.d7 12 f4 (12 f3 a5 13 b3 ~xd4 14 J.xd4, Ηecht-Fοήη1os, Vdac 1973, and now 14...J.xd4+ 15 "xd4 J.c6 is equal) 12...~4 13 tΩdb5 a6 14 ~a4 axb5 15 ~b6 Jha2 16 e5 b4 is unclear, Kuligowskί-Vel­ imirovi~, Smederevska Pa1anka 1979. 5b) 10 :el! ~c5 11 J.f1 J.d7 12 ':cl ~4 (equally gήm is 12... ~xd4 13 J.xd4 a5 14 J.xg7 ΦΧΒ7 15 e5 J.c6 16 "d4 f6 17 exd6 .xd6 18 ':cdl ± Adorjan- Velimίrovi~, Vrbas 1980) 13~xa4~d414~3(thereis ηothίηB ίο 14 J.xd4 J.xa4 15 b3 J.c6 16 J.xg7 ΦΧΒ7 17 "d4+ f6 Ih-Ih Ivkov-Velimίro~, Vrbas 1982) 14...e5 (14...~6!?) 15 ΦhΙ J.c6 16 .d2 f5 17 exf5 :xf5 18 tΩd5 19 J.xd4 exd4 20 g3 21 f4 ± Portίsch­ Velimίrovi~, Nik§j~ 1978. 5c) 10:bl ~5111t'd2~xd4.12 J.xd4 a5 13 b3 J.xd4 14 1t'xd4 b6 15 :fel J.b7 16 :bdl f6 17 J.g4 J.c6 18 h4!;t Anand-Morovi~, Νοvi Sad OL 1990. Retuming Ιο the positίon after 9 ...J.d7 (D): This positίon is a great favourίte of GMs Margeίr Petursson and Βοήslav Ivkov. Its present popularίty can be attήbuted Ιο theίr fine results with ίι We will structure thίs analysis ίη the following way (note that ίο both cases, the main plans start WΊth either 10:Cl or 10.d2): Α: Llnes ίο which White aUows the trade οΙ dark-squared bishops 239

"f8

:n

238

Accelerαted Drαgons

w

Β: The big squeeze: White keeps the dark-squared bishops οη the board 246

Before discussiog the maio pl8Os, we should coosider 80 ioteresting pl80 that was popularized by Beot Larseo and Lars Karlssoo, which coosists of holdiog off 00 a ... lDxd4 capture and iostead playiog ...aS-a4 followed by ......a5. As ίο sectioos Α and Β, we must coosider this idea agaiost 1Ο :c 1 80d 1O"'d2: 1) 10 :cl aS 11 f3 a4 12lDdb5"'aS 13 "'el! (threateniog to play"'f2 80d lDd5 with good effect) 13 ... lDe5 (this timely couoterattack 00 the c-pawn preveots White from carryiog ουΙ his pl8O; ίο Eiogorn-Haϊk, Sochi 1985, Black played 13 ...:fc8? 14 1It'f2 :a6 15lDd5! lDxd516cxd5~xb217dxc6 :axc6, but oow 18 :cdl would have beeo very good ίοι White) 14 c5 (14 lDa3 :fc8 15 h3 "'b4 was reasonable for Black ίο Murey-Κarlsson, Lucerne OL 1982) 14...~xb515lDxb5 1It'xe116 :fxel d5 17 ~d4lDed7 lh- l/2 Κava­ lek-Κarlssoo, Thessaloniki OL 1984. 2) 10 "'d2 aS 80d theo: 2a) 11 f3 a4 (D).

This positioo was once quite ρορυ­ lar for Black. Some examples: 2al) 12 Whl 1It'aS 13 :acl :fc8 14 J:ιfdllDxd4 15 ~xd4 .i.c6 16lDbl 1It'xd2 17lDxd2 h5 :f Κarlssoo-Larseo, Las Palmas ΙΖ 1982. 2a2) 12lDd5lDxd5 13 cxd5lDxd4 14 .i.xd4 "'aS 15 "'e3 ~xd4 16 "xd4 :fc8 17 :acl :c7 18 :c3 :xc3 19 bxc3 :c8 20 c4 b5 21 :bl b4 22 Wfl :b8 +Leogyel-Κarlsson, EksjQ 1982. 2a3) 12lDdb5"'aS 13 :acl :fc8 14 :fdl lDe5 15 lDa3 ~e6 16 lDd5 "'xd2 17 ~xd2lDxd5 18 cxd5 ~d7 = Grϋnfeld-Miles, Lucerne OL 1982. ΑΙι very nice. Unfortunately the line was ρυΙ Ιο the test when White came υρ with the followiog accurate treatmeot: 2a4) 12 :abl! "a5 13 :fdl :fc8 14 lDdb5! ~e8 15 ~fl lDe5 16 b3 axb3 17 axb3"b4 18"f2 h5!? 19 h3 lDed7 20 lDd5! lDxd5 21 :xd5lDf6 22 ~d2 lDxd5 23 .i.xb4 lDxb4, Cvetkovi~-Mestel, Belgrade 1982, and now 24 "'d2 is clearly good for White. 2b) Το make matters eveo worse, Timman found that if White instead plays l1lDdb5 a4 12 f4!"aS 13 c5! Black would immediately be faciog

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Fighting for the dark

squαres

239

difficulties. Timman-Larsen, Las Palmas ΙΖ 1982 continued 13 ...dxc5 14 ~xc5 ~g4 15 ~xg4 ~xg4 16 _e2 ~xc3 17 bxc3 ~f6 18 1%abl 1%fd8 19 ~hl 1%ac8 20 ~a3 ~8 21 f5 ~7 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 'iVf2 f6 24 1i'g3 ~f7 25 c4 ~xb5 26 cxb5 ~d4 and now Timman claims that 27 .ixe7! ~xe7 28 1i'xg6 1%f8 29 e5 would have led to a winning attack. These setbacks put this line under a cloud but it didn't take Larsen 10ng to come up with a slightly different version of the same plan. This comes about by not playing 9 ....id7 and instead pushing the a-pawn immediately, and is discussed οη ρ.235 under 9... a5. Α)

White allows the trade οΙ dark-squared bishops He can do this with: 10 'iVd2 239 Α2: 10 1%cl 243 ΑΙ:

Less effective set-ups are: 1) 10 1%bl ~xd4 11 .ixd4.ic6 12 'iVd3 a5 13 f4 a4 14 b4 axb3 15 axb3 1%a3 16 c5 e5 17 fxe5 dxe5 18 .ixe5 1i'xd3 19 ~xd3 ~d7 20 .ixg7 ~xg7 21 .ic4 ~xc5 22 e5 1/2-1/2 ArnasonPetursson, Reykjavik 1984. 2) 10:el?! a6(10...fud411.ixd4 .ic6 12 .if1? e5 13 .ie3 ~xe4 14 ~xe4 .ixe4 151i'd2, Casafus-R.Garcia, ViHa Ballester 1986, 15 ....ic6! 16 1%adl e417 ~f4.ie5 +) 11 1%cl ~xd4 12 ixd4 ~c6 13 .if3 ~d7 14.ixg7 ~xg7 151i'd4+ ~g8 16lbd5 a5 17 b3 e5:j: Thorhallsson-Petursson, Akureyrί 1994.

If you intend to trade dark-squared bishops then this seems a tad inaccurate; White ΜΗ often 10se a tempo by checking or recapturing οη d4.

10...~d4 Other moves don't have such a good reputation and are not really part of the plan that we are cοveήηg ίη this chapter: 1) 1O... ~g4 (Black seems to lose too much dynamic potential with this move) 11 ~xg4 ~xg4 12 :acl (ίΙ10gίcal is 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 ~h6 .ixh6 14 'iVxh6 ~e6 15 b3 'iVa5 16 1%acl 1i'e5 17 f4 1i'd4+ = Sax-Miles, Linares 1983) 12...~xd4 (or 12 ....id7 13 ~ ~xd4 14 .ixd4 .ic6 15 .ixg7 ~xg7 16 1%c3 f6 17 IΣh3 ± De Roode-Hartoch, Wijk aan Zee 1986) 13 .ixd4 .ie6 14 f4 ~xd4+ 15 'iVxd4 1i'c8 16 b3 f6 17 ~d5 ~xd5 18 1i'xd5+ ~g7 19 c5! dxc5 20 1%xc5 e6 21 1i'c41i'e8 22 e5 f5 23 IΣdl IΣf7 24 :d6 IΣd8 25 1%c7 1%fd7 26 IΣdxd7+ IΣxd7 27 1i'b5 1-0 Pachman-Gunnarsson, Vrnj~ka Banja 1967.

240

Accelerated Dragons

2) 10...•a5 11 f3 :fc8 12 :acl ± Smejka1Barczay, Τrenι!ίanske Teplice 1979. 3) 10... a6 11 f3 and now: 3a) 11 ...•a512~b3.d813:fdl b6 14 J:[acl :b8 15
6) 10... a5 is the Larsen idea, discussed above. 11 .txd4 .tc6 (D) Makίng way for the knight, whicb intends to go Ιο c5 via d7. Νοι nearly so good is 11 ...•a5 12 :fdl :Cc8 13 .txf6.txf6 14 ~dS .xd2 15 ~xf6+
w

~4~16~3~717:abl~6 18 ~e6 .txe6 1900 and Black was

a pawn down for nothing ίη StoblSygulski, Potsdam 1985. 3c) 11 ...:c8 12 :acl ~xd4 13 .txd4.te6 14 b3 .a5 15:C2 ~7 16 .txg7 ;!; Smejka1-Diez del Corral, Skopje OL 1972. 3d) 11 ...:e8 12 :Cdl :b8 13 :acl ~xd414.txd4.a5 (14...b5 15c5! b4 16 .txf6 .txf6 1700 ±) 15 a3! .te6 16 b4 .d8 17 ~4 b5 18 cxb5 .tb3 (18 ...axb5 19 ~3 .d7 20 e5 dxe5 21 .txe5 .a7+ 22 .d4 ±) 19 ~3 .txdl 20 "xdl axb5 21 .txb5 ~7 22.txg7
1213 Black was threatening Ιο snatcb the e4-pawn with 12...e5. Another way to guard e4 is 12 .td3!? and now: 1) 12... a6 13 :fel :b8 14 a4 (Rogoff suggests 1400 .txdS {14...~7 15 .txg7
Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Fighting for

ιΜ

dark squares

241

3) Η Black is afraίd that Whίte will 3) 12... a5 13 :fel (Mikhalchishin suggests 13 :ael!? lbd7 14 J.xg7 play b2-b4, then he can place his pawn rtJxg7 15 ί4 followed by ί5) 13 ...lbd7 οο a5 immediately. This will usually (a very good alternative is 13 ...:e8 14 transpose into the main lines but it :adl a4 15 lbd5 lbd7 16 J.xg7 rtJxg7 may also retaίn a flavour οί its own. 17 b4 axb3 18 axb3 e5 19 J.c2lbc5 20 . After 12...a5 (D) Whίte has: b4 lbe6 21 lbc3 lbd4 :; MortensenLarsen, Aalborg (2) 1989) 14 J.xg7 rtJxg7 15 :e3?! (Whίte has greater chances οί obtaining an advantage ίί w he chooses a slower build-up with 15 J.f1lbc5 16 b3 followed by :abl, a3, and b4) 15 ...lbf6?! (better is 15 ... lbc5 16 J.f1 {16 :h3 h5 17:xh5 gxh5 18 'iVg5+ is a draw} 16...f6 17 b3 :f7 18 :bl e5 19 a3 ί5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 b4 ί4 with an unclear positίon - analysis by Beliavsky) 16 :d11Wb6 1700 J.xd5 18exd5:fe819J.f1!'iVb420'iVd4a4 21 b3 ;t Belίavsky-Hjartarson, Barce1008 1989. 3a) 1300 J.xd5 14 cxd5lbd7 15 Even though Geller has tried the :ac 1 J.xd4+ 16 'iVxd4 :c8 17 J.b5 artίficial-loolάng 12 J.f3!? ίι is οοΙ :xcl 18 :xcllbc5 19 rtJhl 'iVb620 lίkely to find many followers: 12...a5 a4 :c8 21 h3 'iVd8 22 'iVe3, Reshev13 :felll}d7 14 J.xg7 rtJxg7 15 :e3 sky-HfIJi, Reykjavik 1984, and now lbc5 16 :ael ί6 17 J.dl e5 18 :h3 22 ...lbd7 would have been equal. 3b) 13 rtJhllbd7 (13 ...a411 14 b4! 'iVe7 19 b3 rtJh8 20 a3 b6 21 ll}d5 J.xd5 22 cxd5 ί5 23 exf5 gxf5 24 axb3 15 axb3 .c7 16 b4 b6171i'b2;t J.c2, GeΙΙer-Αbramοviό, New York Torre-Κagan, Rio de Janeiro ΙΖ 1979) 1990, and now Αbraιnοviό claims that 14 J.xg7 rtJxg7 with the following 24...:ae8 leads to an equal positίon. possibilities: 12•••lM7 3bl) 15 b3 'iVb6 16 ιαΙ5 J.xd5 17 exd5 :ae8 18 f4lbf6 19 J.f3 e6! 20 Other trίes are: 1) 12... a6 (this and the next are rare dxe6 :xe6 Hansen-HfIJi, Nιestved 1985. and ίnfeήοr) 13 b4! lbe8 14 :acl 3b2) 15 :ael .b6 16 J.d3 lbe5 J.xd4+ 15 .xd4 ± Lengyel-Wade, 17 J.e2.c5 18 b3lbd7 19 ί4 rtJh8 20 Solngen 1969. 2) 12...lbh5?! 13 J.xg7 ll}xg7 14 J.g4 e6! 21 :e3 a4! 22 ί5 axb3 23 axb31lli6 24 J.dl and now instead οί ί4 ί5 15 J.d3 'iVa5 16:ael e6 17 :t'2 24....e5?, which allows the trick 25 :ad8 18 a3 .c7 19 .e3 b6 20 J.f1 with a distίnct advantage for Whίte, ll}dS!, Polugaevsky-Ivkov, Vinkovci Ivkov-Velez, Havana Capablanca meιn 1976, Black should play 24...:al with a slίght edge. 1985.

=

242

Accelerated Dragons

3b3) 15 f4 a4! (more accurate than 15 ... liX5 16 ~f3 {or 16 ~g4 e5?! 17 f5 f6 18 "'e2 ± Chandler-Petursson, Chicago 1983} 16... a417bl ;tΚarls­ son-Wedberg, EksjQ 1980 and 15 ... f6 16 1:tadl liX5 17 "'d4 b6 18 ~f3 "'b8 19 1:td2 1:ta7 20 ~g4 h5 21 ~f3 1:td7 22 "'e3! "'b7 23 h4! ± Sa1ov-Velimirovic, Szirak ΙΖ 1987) 16 1:tf3?! "a5 17 1:th3 Φg8 (intending Ιο meet 18 f5 with 18......e5 19 'ii'h6 "g7:f) 18 "el? (Hertneck recommends 18 ~f3! "c5 19 "el! "xc4 20 "h4lbf6 21 ~e2 "c5 22 ~b5 "h5 23 "f2) 18 ... f5 19 ~f3 1:tae8! :f Α.SοkοI0ν-Ηaϊk, Luceme Wcht 1985. 13~xg7

Either move with the b-pawn al10ws Black Ιο trade queens and equa1ize immediately: 1) 13 b4 ~xd4+ 14 "xd4 "b6 15 "xb6 lbxb6 16 1:tfcl 1:tfc8 with an equa1 positίon, Vaganian-Mariottί, Leningrad 1977. 2) 13 b3 ~xd4+ 14 "xd4 'ίIt'b6 15 "xb6lbxb6 16 1:tacl a5 17 1:tfdllί)d7 18 a3 1:tfc8 1/2-1/2 Rukavina-Ivkov, Yugoslav Ch (Subotίca) 1984. 13•.• Φxg7 (D)

14tα15 Whίte

has a1so tried: 1) 14 ΦhΙ a5 15 f4 "b6 (the correct way Ιο handle this positίon is 15 ... a4! followed by .....a5; see the note Ιο Black's main lίne 12th move ίη which he varies with 12... a5) 16 1:tael 'iWb417:O 1:tad8?!, Dolmatov-Gufeld, USSR 1985, and now 18 a3 "c5 19 lbd5 ~xd5 20 exd5 is ± according Ιο Dolmatov. 2) 14 f4 "b6+! 15 ΦhΙ "c5 (15 ... lbf6! 16 ~f3 "c5 is more accurate) 16 lbd5! ~xd5 (according Ιο Adorjan, Black's best is 16 ... a5! 17 lbxe7 ~xe4 18 "c3+ lbf6 19 ~f3 "b4! =) 17 b4! "b6 18 cxd5 a5 19 1:tabl Φg8! 20 bxa5, Adorjan-Velίm­ irovic, Budapest 1973, and now Adorjan indicates that Black can draw with 20 .....xa5 21 "xa5 1:txa5 22 1:txb7 1:txa2. 3) 14 "d4+ Φg8 (a1so adequate is 14... f6 15 1:tfdl "a5 16 1:tacl "c5 17 lί)d5 "xd4+ 18 1:txd4 Φf7 19 Φf2 a5 20 Φe3 liX5 21 1:tcdl 1:tfd8 22 1:t4d2 1/2-1/2 Velikov-Popov, Bulgarίan Ch 1984) 15 b4 "b6 16 "xb6lbxb6 17 e5?! (17 1:tfcl 1:tfc8 =) 17 ... dxe5 18 b5 ~e8 19 c5lί)d7 20 lba4lbf6~. 14.••&515 Ι4 ECO prefers the immediate 15 1:tadl. ~15 •••e5 16 1:tadl ~xd5 17 "xd5 'ίIt'b6+ 18 ΦhΙ "xb2 19 1:td2 'ίIt'b4 Black has a satίsfactory positίon. After 20 "'xd6lbf6 21 "xb4 axb4 22 fxe5 lbxe4 23 1:tb2 1:tfe8 24 ~f3 1:txe5 25 ~xe4 1:txe4 26 1:txb4 1:txa2 27 1:txb7 1:tf2 28 ΦgΙ 1:txf1+ 29 ΦΧf1 1:txc4, Gufeld-Honfi, Vmja~ka Banja 1976, Black played οη for a while but the draw was inevitable.

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

Fighting for the

Α2)

10llcl (D)

dαrk squαres

243

"d2 b6 15 lΩd4 lΩxd4 16 .*.xd4 ± Bukίc-Doda, Tuzla 1979. 10...a5 is the Larsen idea, dίscussed οηρ.238.

11 .*.xd4 .t.c6 _. Ι .." 11 ....i.h6!? deserves seήοus con. sideratίon: 12 :c2 e5 13 .*.e3 .*.xe3 14 fxe3 .t.c615 .i.d3 a5 16 IIct2lΩd7 17 "g4 lΩc5 18 R.c2 R.d7 19 "dl .i.e6 ~ Merenyi- Wίnants, Belgian ίη­ terteam Ch 1996.

120

If White intends to trade the darksquared bishops, then thίs is more accurate than 10 "d2. 10...lDxd4 Angantysson-Petursson, Reykjavik Open 1984 saw Black try the unusual 10...~5?! wίth the contίnuatίon 11 f3 IIc8 12 'ii'b3 (12 b3 is also very good) 12....i.c6 13 IIfdl b6 14 .i.g5?! h6 15 .i.h4 g5 16 .*.g3 ~ 17lΩf5lΩg6 and now White got carήed away WΊth 18 c5?? bxc5 19 .*.xd6?? exd6 20 IIxd6 "b6 21 IIxg6 Wxb3 22 IIxh6 "b7 and of course Black won. We don't feel there is much danger of 10...~5 becoming popular. Playing for a ...b5 advance doesn't work very well either: 10... a6 11 f3 :b8 (11 ... b5!?{ 11 .....b6 12 'ii'b3! Wxb3 13 fub3;t} 12 a3 bxc413 .*.xc4 "b6 {better is 13 ...lΩxd4 14 .t.xd4 a5 ;t} 14 lΩa4! 'ii'b7 15 lΩxc6 .i.xc6 16 lΩb6, ΚΜοlΥί Honfi-Dely, Budapest 1983 and now 16....t.h6! 17 .*.xh6 "xb6+ 18 ΦhΙ is ;t accordίng to Honfi) 12lΩb3 .*.e6 13 lΩd5 lΩd7 14

12 R.f3 is harmless: 12...lΩd7 13 lIel a514.*.χg7Φχg715Wd4+f616 R.g4 'h-'h Pavlov-Kagan, Netanya 1983. 12 "d3 is an excellent altematίve: 1) Ιη Smyslov-Karlsson, Las Palmas ΙΖ 1982, Black trίed to annoy hίs opponent wίth 12....i.h6 13 IIcdl.i.g7 but after 14 b4 b6 15 f4 e6 16 R.f3 Whίte's advantage ίη territory guaranteed hίm the better chances. 2) The same lack ofbreathίng room befalls Black after 12 ...lΩd7 13 R.xg7 Φχg7 14 b4lΩf6 (14 ...Φg8 15 "e3 b6 16 a3 a5 17lΩd5 lIa7 18 IIfdl11e8 19 h4 axb4 20 axb4 e6 21 lΩc3 d5 22 exd5 exd5 23 "d4 dxc4 24 .t.xc4 1If8 25lΩb5 1-0 Rukavina-Barlov, Vrbas 1982) 15 ΦhΙ a5 16 b5 .*.d7 17 f4 .t.e6 18 "d4 Φg8 19 f5 .t.c8 20 IIcdl ± Smyslov-Golz, Po1anίcaZdroj 1968. 3) 12...a5 (D) (it's a good idea to .stake out some space οη the queenSΊde before White claίms it all for hίmself with b2-b4) and now White has trίed several dίfferent piece set-ups: 3a) 13 IIfdl lΩd7 (13 ... a4 allows Whίte to ήρ open the centre to hίs advantage wίth 14 c5! dxc5 15 .t.xc5 lΩd7 16 We3! lIe8 17 R.a3 Wb8 18 lΩd5 .i.xd5 19 IIxd5 lΩe5 20 h3 ±

244

Accelerated

Levy-Kagan, Tel-Aνiv 1973) 14.i.xg7 ~xg7 15 'ifd4+ ~g8 16 .i.g4 (Leνy gives 16 ί4 'ifb6 17 'iVxb6ltlxb6 18 00 .ιΧd519CΧd5 ±) 16...llli617h3! with an edge for White since 17... a4 18 lbd5 .i.xd5 19 cxd5 'iVv 20 J:.c3 leaves White ίη control of the open cfίle, Greenfeld-Κagan, Netanya 1983. 3b) 13 c5 dxc5 14 .i.xc5 'iVxd3 15 .i.xd3 :Cd8 16 J:.fdl ~f8 17 f3 .ιh6 18 J:.bl ~7 =Byme-Petursson, Reykjaνik 1980. 3c) 13 f4 a4 (13 ...lί)d7 14 .ιχg7 ~xg7 15 ~hl ί6 16 J:.cdl 'iVe8 17 'iVd4 is a little better for White though Black eventually managed to equalίze in T"ιmman-Wedberg, Amsterdaιn 1984, after 17...'ffn 18 b3 J:.fd8 19 J:.d2lί)c5 20'ffe3 {20.ιg4!?} 20...'ffe6! 21.i.f3 J:.dc8 22 'ffe2 J:.f8 23 J:.el J:.ab8 24 'ffe3 b6) 14 ~hl 'ffv 15 "e3lί)d7 16 .ιχg7 ~xg7 17 .ιg4 "c5! 18 "e2 lί)ί6 19 .i.h3 e5 20 f5 (20 lί)d5 exf4! 21 lί)xί6 ~xf6 22 J:.xf4+ ~g7 η 20 ... g5 21 .ιg4 h6 22 h4 J:.h8 23 .ιh5 ~f8 24lί)d5 .ιΧd5 25 cxd5 "a5 26 J:.c4 b5 27 J:.c3 ~e7 28 J:.fcl J:.a7 29.ιf3 J:.d7 30 a3 J:.b8 31 J:.c6 "d8! 32 "el "g8 33 ~ :bd8 34 .ιe2 gxh4 35 :6c3 "g5 36 .ιχb5 :g8 and

Drαgons

Black is winning, P.Cramling-Petursson, Reykjaνίk 1984. 3d) 13lί)d5 e6 (this favours White, so Black should try either 13 ... .ιχd5 14 exd5 lί)d7 or 13 ... lί)d7 14 .ιχg7 ~xg7 15 "d4+ e5 16 'ffe3 .ιχd5 17 cxd5lί)c5 18 J:.c2 9b619 :fcl f6 20 h4 ~ 21 .ιd3:n 22 'ffe2 :af8, when White is a little better but Black has a very solid position, Ηϋbner-ΙΠΙ­ ήch, Bundesliga 1982/3) 14lί)c3 a4 15J:.fdl"a516a3!J:.fd817"e3J:.d7 18 J:.c2 (18 .ιb6 .ιh6!) 18...'ffd8 19 .ιb6 "f8 20 'iVf4 '!J± RomanishinG.Kuzιnin, USSR 1980. Eνidently 12 'ffd3 is a good choice forWhite. 12.••&5 (D)

One reason why 10 J:.c 1 is more accurate than 10 "d2 is that 12...lbd7? is now an enor due to 13 b4! .ιΧd4+ 14 "xd4 9b6? (14...b6 keeps Black ίη the game) 15 'ffxb6 lί)xb6 16 e5! dxe5 17 b5 .ιe8 18 c5lί)d7 19 00 e6 20 lί)e7+ ~g7 21 c6 bxc6 22 bxc6 lί)b6 23 c7 .ιd7 24 J:.fdl .ιa4 25 :d6 ~f6 26 J:.xb6 ~xe7 27 J:.b7 ~ί6 28 :cbl .ιc6 29 J:.b8 J:.c8 30 :cl! and White won ίη Razuvaev-Honfi, Cienfuegos 1976. Α rare sideline is 12.....a5 13 a3 :Cc8 (13 ....ιh6!? 14 :bl eS 15 .ιf2 'ffc7 16 b4 b617 g3lί)bS 1800 was also ίη White's favour in Cebalo-Afίfi, Budva 1981) 14 "d2 lί)e8 15 h3 lί)c7 16 :c2lί)e6 17 J:.dl '!J± Balashov-Panno, Lone Pine 1977. 13b3 Other moves: 1) 13 "d2 is easy for Black to handle: 13 ...lί)d7 (13 ... a4!? intending ...'ffv and meeting 14 b4 by 14... axb3 15 axb3 'ffa5 seems better) 14 .ιχg7

Mαroczy Bίrιιl:

Fighting for the

w

q;xg7 15 "d4+ q;g8 16 :c2 (16 f4 'it'b617'ifχb6ι'lJχb618~,ι,χd519

cxd5 :fc8 is also nothίng for Whίte, though Black pressed too hard ίη Campora-Larsen, Buenos Aίres 1993 and ended uρ losing) 16 .....b6 = IvkovVelίmίrovi6, Vrbas 1980. 2) Also harmless is 13 q;hl a4 14 "d2"a5 15 :fdl :fc8 16 :c2 ι'lJd7 17 ,ι,χg7 q;xg7 18 :dcl ι'lJf6 19 "d4 "g5 20 :f1 :a5 21 ,ι,d3 "c5 22 "xc5 :xc5 23 :fcl g5 + WedbergΚagan, Randers Ζ 1982. 3) For those lookίng for somethίng with a bit more punch, the surpήsίng 13 c5!?, wίth whίch Whίte stιikes at the centre before Black can play ...ι'lJd7, comes ίηΙο consideratίon: 3a) 13 ...d5?! 14 e5 is good for Whίte.

3b) 13 ... dxc5?! 14

,ι,χc5

favours

Whίtetoo.

3c) 13 ... ,ι,h6 is an interestίng idea: 14 cxd6!? (14 :c2 e5 =) 14 ...,ι,χcI15 dxe7 "xe7 16 "xcl with good compensatίon accordίng Ιο Damljanovί6.

3d) 13 ... e5!? 14 ,ι,e3 (better than 14 .ι.f2, whίch allows Black instant equalίty with 14... ,ι,h6! 15 :c2 d5 16 ,ι,h4 d4; Shίrov-Damljanovi6, Manίla

dαrk

squares

245

ΙΖ 1990 contίnued 17 ι'lJb5 ,ι,e3+ 18 q;hl g5 19.ι.f2,ι,xf2 20 :xf2 ι'lJe8 21 a4 "e7 22 ,ι,c4 q;h8 23 1i'd2 'ifxc5 24 "xg5 f6 25 1i'h6 1i'e7 26 f4 ι'lJg7 27 ,ι,d5 :ad8 28 .ι.χc6 d3 and Black had an excellent positίon) 14... d5 15 ,ι,g5! (15 exd5 .ι.Χd5! {15 ... ι'lJxd5 16 ι'lJxd5 .ι.Χd5 17 ,ι,c4 ,ι,χc4 18 "xd8 :fxd8 19 :xc4 :d3 20 q;f2 is a tίηy bit better for Whίte accordίng Ιο Damljanovic} 16 1i'el! .ι.c6 17 :dl 1i'e7 18 1i'h4 ι'lJd5 = - analysis by Damljanovi6) 15 ... dxe4?! (15 ...d4 16 ι'lJb5 is a lίttle better for Whίte accordίng Ιο Fίli­ penko) 16 1i'xd8 :Cxd8 17 fxe4 ι'lJxe4 18 ι'lJxe4 ,ι,Χe419 ,ι,Χd8 :xd8 20.ι.c4 :d7 21 :cdl (21 a3!?) 21 ...:xdl 22 :Xdl .ι.f8 23 :d8+ q;g7 24 :c8 .ι.c6 25 :c7 .ι.χc5+ 26 q;f1 g5 27 :xt7+ q;g6 28 :c7 ;!; Fίlipenko-Rausis, Albena 1989. 13••• ι'lJcι7 Deserving of seήοus attentίon is 13....ι.h6!? 14:c2(theotherrookmove also appears satίsfactory for Black: 14 :bl ι'lJd7 15 a3 ι'lJc5 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 ι'lJe6 18 ,ι,f2 :a3 19 :b3 .ι.a4 20 ι'lJxa4 :xa4 21 c5 :a2 22 .ι.c4 :d2 23 1i'bl 1i'c8 24 :d3 :Xd3 25 "xd3 dxc5 26 .ι.χe6 fxe6 27 bxc5 :dβ 28 "b3 .ι.g7 29 :dl 1/2-1/2 Zelί6-Velίmίrovί6, Belgrade GMA 1988) 14 ... ι'lJd7 15 q;hl ι'lJc5 16 ι'lJd5 ,ι,g7 17 ,ι,χg7 (17 ,ι,gl!?- Velί~kovi6) 17...q;xg718:d2 ,ι,χd5 19 :xd5 1i'b6 :j: Nunn- Velίm­ ίroνί6, Szirak ΙΖ 1987. 14,ι,Χg7

14 a3 ,ι,Χd4+ 15 "xd4 ι'lJc5 16 :bl e5 17 1i'e3 ι'lJe6 18 ι'lJb5 ,ι,Χb5 19 cxb5 ι'lJd4 20,ι,c4 a4 21 f4 q;g7 22 f5 f623 bxa4 :xa4 24 ,ι,d5 "a5 is the type of thίng that Whίte wants Ιο avoid, Liveήοs-Donaldsοn, Athens 1980.

Accelerαted Drαgons

246

14•••Wxg7 15 ciιbl Usually 15 "d4+ is given as a better move but after 15 ...ciιg8 (another interestingplanis 15 ...f616:fdl iOc5 17 :bl "b8 18 ~f1 :d8 19 "e3 e5 20:d2ια621 :bdl b622g3:a7 23 ~h3 ltlg5 24 ~g2 ια6 lh- 1h Dokhoian-Glek, Bad Godesberg 1994) 16 :fdl ~6 (ηοι 16 ...ltlc5? 17 e5 "b6 18 exd6 exd6 19 :bl with a clear advantage Ιο White, Andersson-Christίansen, Hastίngs 1978/9) 17 "xb6 ltlxb6 18 f4ltld7followed by 19...ltlc5 White has nothing significant, Είη­ gom-Vaisman, USSR 1978. 15•••'ifb6 16 :bl White is better after 16.....b4 17 _cl! followed by a3. 17 "cl (5 18 exf5 :xf5 The game is even. In ArnasonGarcia Martίnez, Buenos Aires OL 1978, the continuatίon was 19 f4?! (19 a3 gives equal play) 19 ... ltlf6 20 ~f3 :f8 21 ~xc6 bxc6 22 "el e523ltla4 (Black wins after 23 fxe5 :xf1 + 24 _xf1ltlg4, etc.) 23 .....a7 24 c5 d5 25 fxe5 :xfl+ 26 "xflltle4 27 "el "e7 28 "e3 "xe5 29 ciιgl d4 30 "d300 31 _g3 "e2 and Black was wίnning.

"cS

Β)

White keeps the dark-squared bishops οη the board He can do this with: 10 :cl 246 Β2: 10"d2 248 ΒΙ:

10 ciιhl is ηοΙ very fearsome after 10... ltlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 a5 13 ltld5 ltld7 14 f4 e5 15 ~e3 1/2_1/2 Sosonko-Seirawan, Ζuήch 1984.

Β1) 10:cl If the intentίon is Ιο retain darksquared bishops then this is ηοΙ considered Ιο be the most accurate treatment. Nevertheless, Black still has several problems to solve. 10•••ltlxd4 11 ~xd4 .t.c6 12 f3 aS 13b3 After 13 c5, 13 ...e5 14 ~3! d5 15 ~g5 d4 16ltlb5 h6 17 .t.h4;1; was Το­ doroVΊc-Abramovic, Yugoslavia 1992. One possible imρrovement is 13 ...dxc5 14 ~xc5 ltld7 15 ~e3 a4. 13.••ltld7 (D)

w

14~e3!

Since the exchange of dark-squared bishops can leave Whίte weak οη the dark squares, this move is recognized as White's most dangerous plan. Anotherideais 14~f2ltlc515"d2 though ίη Emst-Petυrsson, Debrecen Echt 1992, Whίte failed Ιο get anything significant: 15 .....b6 16 ltlb5 :fc8 17 :fdl W'd8 18 ltld4 W'f8 19 :bl ~d7 20 .i.e3 ~e5 21 ciιhl "g7 22 ~h6 Wh8 23 ~e3 "g7 24 ~h6 "h8 25 ~e3 1/2_1/2.

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

Fighting for the

14••• lίX:s 14... .i.e5!? 15 "'d2 e6 16lbb51Dc5 17 .i.g5 1/2-1/2 Adorjan-Haϊk, Cannes 1986. IS a3! (D) Most forcing. Black must now take measures against White's b3-b4 advance. The quieter 15 ~hl ίδ too slow to cause Black any seήοus problems. Μartinοvίό-Velimirοvίό, Yugoslavia 1976continued 15 ...1i'b616 ~b5 :fc8 17 "'d2 "'d8 18 :fdl b6 19 ~3 "'d7 20 .i.d4 "'b7 21 .i.xg7 ~xg7 22 :el :d8 23 "'e3 e5 24 :cdl ~6 25 :d2 lbd4 26 :xd4 exd4 27 'ii'xd4+ f6 =. For 15 "'d2 see vaήation Β2.

dαrk squαres

Α new idea from the ever-creative Larsenis 15 ...h5!? 16~hl ~h717b4 axb4 18 axb4 :a3 19 bxc5 .i.xc3 20 cxd6 exd6 21 .i.d2 .i.g7 22 .i.b4 :a2 23 c5 :a4 24 'ii'el dxc5 25 .i.xc5 :e8 26 .i.c4 f5 27 .i.f7 :e5 28 Wg3 'ii'f6 29 .i.b3 :xc5! 30 :xc5 :al! +EmstLarsen, Ostersund Ζ 1992. 16'ii'c2 White can a1so advance immediately with 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4: 1) 17...:a3 18 bxc5 .i.xc3 19.i.h6! bxc5 20 :xc3 :xc3 21 'ii'al is winning for White. 2) 17 ...~418~xa4.i.xa419Wd3 is minima11y better for White. 3) 17 ...lbd7 18 Wb3. 16•••'ii'b8 16 ...:a7 is a slightly different defensive set-up: 17 :bl 'ii'a8 18 :fcl :b8 19.i.f1 h5 20 ...rι ~h7 21 ~b5 .i.xb5 22 cxb5 .i.h6 23 .i.xh6 ~xh6 24 .i.c4 :f8 25 .i.d5 Wd8 26 b4 axb4 27 axb4 ± Dona1dson-G.Taylor, Vancouver 1981. 18lbds 17 :cdl White is a little better since Black ίδ unable Ιο undertake anything active. Black is forced to scιt υρ a defensive ba11 and wait for White to commit hίmself. Natura11y this leaves Black with very few winning chances; a draw will satisfy hίm. Van der Wiel-Petursson, Biel ΙΖ 1985 continued 18 ...:a7 (dreaming of ...:d7 and ... b5) 19 a4 .i.xd5?! (better is 19...:d7 20 .i.g5 .i.xd5 21 exd5 :cc7 followed by ... Wf8 with a defensible position) 20 :xd5 e6 21 :d2 e5 22 :d5 :d7 23 .i.dl :e8 24 'ii'd2 'ii'd8 25 .i.c2 ~6 26 b4! axb4 27 'ii'xb4 (27 a5 bxa5 28 .i.a4 might be preferable) 27 ... ~4 28 .i.d3 'ii'a8 29 J:[al h5 30 .i.xd4 exd4 31

:c8

IS•.. b6 Black accepts that he ίδ unable to provent b3-b4 δΟ he sets υρ a barή­ cade, planning οη taking over the afile when White advances. Less satisfactory ίδ 15 ......b6?! 16 ~b5 .i.xb5 17 cxb5 "'d8 18 .i.c4lbd7 (18 ....i.b2 19 :c2 .i.xa3 20 .i.h6 ίδ terήble for Black) 19:rι ~5 20 .i.d5 'ii'd7 21 b6 :fc8 22 :fc2 :xc2 23 Wxc2 :f8 24 Wd2 a4 25 :c7, with a winning Ροδί­ ιίοη for Whίte, Μarjanοvίό-Κagan, Skara Echt 1980.

247

248

Accelerated Dragons

1%b5 'ii'd8 32 1%xb6 "g5 33 'ii'el "e3+ 34 'ii'xe3 dxe3 35 1%el ~c3 36 1%e2 1%c8 and Black held οη Ιο the halfροίηι.

82) 10"d2 If White intends Ιο avoid a trade of dark-squared bishops, then this is the most accurate move.

10...~d411 ~xd4 ~c612 f3lDd7 12 ... a5!? is also possible and usually just transposes ίηΙο the main line of this section. Sometimes though, the play can become distinctive from the main lines: 1) 13 b3 and now: la) 13 ...lM7 14 ~f2!? liJc5 15 1%abl (D) is interesting.

The idea is that after the typical move 15 ...'ii'b6 White can now play the immediate 16 a3! since 16... ~xb3 17 "dl! wins for White. This forces Black Ιο retreat (after 16 a3!) but, even so, his position still turns ουΙ Ιο be quite playable, while other 15th moves have ηοΙ achieved especially good results for Black. Thus we consider:

lal) 15 ... f5 (loosening) 16 exf5 gxf517 a3 (17 ~dl e518~c2 'ii'e719 1%bdl 1%ad8 20 lM5 ~xd5 21 "xd5+ Wh8 22 ~xί5! b6 23 ~c2 led Ιο a quick win for White ίη R.ScherbakovHaϊk, Metz 1994) 17... Wh8 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 ~a4 20 ~xa4 1/2_1/2 BagirovYudasin, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991. However, Νυηη feels that this final ρο­ sition is ίη White's favour: 20 ...1%xa4 21 b5 ~d7 22 c5 dxc5 23 ~xc5. la2) 15 .....c716:tcl :tc817 ~dl 'ii'd8 18 a3 b6 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 ~7 21 ~b3 'ii'f8 22 ~e3 ;!; RenetSpangenberg, Buenos Aires 1994. la3) 15 ... e6 16lbb5 ~e5 17 ~d4 'ii'f6, Hellers-Cebalo, Debrecen Echt 1992, 18 g3! favours White because 18... ~xe4 19 fxe4 ~xe4 20 'ii'e3lbxf2 fails Ιο 21liJc2! - analysis by Nunn. la4) 15 ...'ii'b616a3! "d8 with the following possibilities: la4a) 17 1%fcl a4! would make Black happy. la4b) 17 ~dl b6 (17 ...'ii'b8 18 ~c2 1%c8 19 a4 1%c7 20 1%bel "f8 21 f4 e6 22 ~xc5 dxc5 23 e5 f6 24 'ii'd6 "e7 25 ~b5 ~xb5 26 "xe7 1%xe7 27 exf6 ~xc4 28 fxe7 ~xf1 29 1%xe6 Wf7 30 e8'ii'+ 1%xe8 31 1%xe8 Wxe8 32 Wxf1 1/2-1/2 Gi.Hemandez-Petursson, Linares 1994) 18 b4 lbd7 19 ~b3 ;!; WellsMcElligott, Dublin Ζ 1993. la4c) 17 :tdl 1%e818 ~fl ~e5 19 lbe2lbe6 20 1%bcl 'ii'b8 21 ~b6lbc5 22 1%bl 1%a6 23 ~xc5 dxc5 24 g3 ~g7 25 "e3 b6 26 .i.g2 'ii'b7 27 a4 1%aa8 28 1%d3 1%ad8 29 1%bdl 1%xd3 30 1%xd3 e6 31 e5 h5 32lbc3 1/2-1/2 I'GurevichPetursson, St Martin 1993. la4d) 17 b4 axb4 18 axb4 1%a3 (18 ... lba4 19 lbxa4 1%xa4 20 1%fcl "a8 gave Black a very comfortable

Mαroczy ΒίΜ: Fightίng

game ίη Arnason-Larsen, Ostersund Ζ 1992) 19lt)b5 j.xb5 20 bxc5 j.c6 21 cxd6 exd6 22 :t"dl j.e5 23 c5 j.a4 24 cxd6 j.xdl 25 ':xdl 'ti'f6 = SavonLarsen, Pa1ma de Ma110rca 1989. lb) 13 ... lt)h5?! 14 j.e3 f5 15 exf5 gxf5 16 f4 lt)f6 (16 ... j.xc3 17 'ti'xc3 lt)f6 18 j.d41α4 19 'ti'e3 ±) 17 ':adl ':f7 18 j.f3 'ti'f8?! 19lt)d5! j.xd5 20 j.xd5! lt)xd5 21 'ti'xd5 'ti'c8? (21 ... a4! 22 b4 'ti'c8 23 c5;t) 22 a4! ± Kava1ekLarsen, Reykjavik 1986. lc) 13 ...':e8 14 ':fdllt)d7 15 j.e3 lt)c5 16 ':acl 'tIkb6 17 lt)b5 ':ec8 18 'ti'el j.xb5 19 cxb5 j.h6 20 j.c4 j.xe3+ 21 'ti'xe3 e6 22 ':c2 a4 23 ':cd2 ':d8 24 h4 axb3 25 axb3 ':a3 1/2-1/2 Arnason-Karlsson, Helsinki 1986. 2) 13 JΣacl a4 14 lt)b5? lt)d7 15 j.e3 'ti'a5 16 'ti'c2 :t"c8 17 1&14 1α:5 18 ':fd 1 j.d7 19 .ιf1lt)e6 20 'ti'f2 lt)xd4 21.ιχd4 .ιe6 22 ':c3 j.xd4 23 'ti'xd4 'ti'b4 24 a3 'ilc5 25 'ilxc5 ':xc5 and Black has a11 the chances ίη this endgame, Horvath-Haϊk. Pan~evo 1985. 13 j.e3 aS 14 b3 The accurate move since White can now meet an ... a5-a4 advance with b3-b4 and ηοΙ have Ιο worry about an en passant capture. White has also played: 1) 14 ':acl and now: la) 14... lt)c5 15 ':c2 (15 b3!) 15 ... a4! 16 JΣbl (16 ':fcl?? drops the exchange to 16... lt)b3!, as ίη tabήlo­ Ivkov, YugoslavCh 1976) 16...':e817 .ιf1 b6 18 'ilf2 (18lt)e2!? intending lt)d4 and b4 is a serious a1temative) 18 ... JΣa7 19 ':dl ':d7 20 lt)d5?! (20 lt)e2!? may give White a small ρuΙΙ) 20...e6! 21 lt)b4 (both 21 1α:3 f5 22 exf5 gxf5 and 21lt)f4 .ιh6!? followed by ... e5 are unclear) 21 ....ιb7 22 ':cd2

for

ιΜ dαrk squαres

249

a3 23 bxa3 .ιc3! 24 ':c2 .ιf6 with good play for Black, Gavrikov-Serper, Irkutsk 1986. lb) 14... a4! (seizing his chance) 15 lt)d5 (15 b4 axb3 16 axb3 'ti'a5 is all ήght for Black according Ιο Fta~nik) 15 ... ':e8 16 ':c2lt)c5 17 ':dl (17 "el e6!?) 17.....a518.ιg5 ..χd219.:dxd2 .ιχd5 20 cxd5 .ιf6 21 j.xf6 exf6 22 ':d4 ':e5 (22 .. .r~f8!?) 23 ':b4 f5 24 ':b6 ':d8 25 exf5 ':xf5 26 .ιc4 ':e5 27 ~Ω ':e7 28 b4 axb3 29 axb3 ':c7 30 ':a2 ~f8 = Κristiansen-Larsen, Copenhagen 1985. 2) 14 ':fdl lt)c5 15 ':acl a4 16 ':c2 ':e8 17lt)d5"a5 18 ':bl ~f8 19 ~Ω ':ec8 20 "xa5 ':xa5 is comfortable for Black, Pekarek-Spiήdonov, Prague 1985. 14...lt)cs (D)

w

IS:abl! In our ορίηίοη, this is White's most

accurate treatment of the position. White intends a quick a3 and b4. Previously 15 ':acl was played: 1) 15 .. :ifb6 and now: la) 16lt)d5 .ιΧd5 17 cxd5 'iIb4 18 ':c2 'ilxd2 19 .ιΧd2 e6 20 dxe6 .ιd4+ 21 ~hl fxe6 22 .ιc4 ~g7 23 JΣdl e5

250

Accelerated Dragons

gave Black a playable game in FedoroCannes 1987. lb) 16 :c2 :c8 17 :bl .d8 18 :ccl .*.e5 19 .*.dl e6 20 a3 .h4 21 g3 .e7 22 b4 axb4 23 axb4 lΩa4 24 lΔxa4 .txa4 25 .te2 j,e8 26 :b3 :a4 = Vilela-Ivkov, Havana Capablanca mem 1985. lc) 16:bl Wb4!? 17:fcl a4with the intention of answeήηg 18 bxa4 with 18 ....txc3 is an untested idea of wίCΖ-Ηaϊk,

F~nik's.

ld) 16lΩb5! (astrongmove: Whίte clogs υρ the queenside and then qώ­ etly prepares an advance there; with ...1t'b6-b4 ruled out, Black must find hίs counterplay elsewhere) 16...:fc8 (16 ....*.xb5 17 cxb5 followed by .*.c4 anda3is;t) 17:fdl Wd8(D)andnow:

ldl) 18.*.fl .f8 19 1Ωc3 b6 20 :ab8 21 :bl .*.e5 (or 21 ...:b7 22 b4 axb4 23 :xb4 .*.xd5 24 cxd5 :as 25 :dbl Wd8 26 .*.b5 :a3 27 U4 .*.xd4+ 28 1t'xd4 .c7 29 :lb2 :ba7 30 :c4 :7a5 31 h3 1/2.-1/2. de FirmianPetursson, Reggίo Emilia 1989/90) 22 .*.h6 .*.g7 23 .*.g5 :b7 24 JΣell&6 25 .*.e3 1Ωc5! was equal ίη Sax-Petursson, Reykjavik 1988. lΩd5

ld2) 18 :c2 b6 19 .*.fl 1t'd7 20 21 1t'f2 ~a6 22 :ccl a4 is also adequate for Black, Κarpov-Mar­ iotti, Milan 1975. The continuation was 23 ~d5 .*.xd5 24 cxd5 axb3 25 axb3 b5 26 f4 b4 27 :c4 :xc4 28 .*.xc41Ωc7 29 .e2 :a5 30 .*.f2lΩb5 31:Cl 1Ωc3 32 Wd3 .a8 33 g3 1/2-1/2. ld3) 18 ια!4 Wf8'!! (other ways of playing the position are 18....*.d7 19 :bllΩe6 20 ~xe6 .*.xe6 {Νυηη feels it's equal} 21 f4, and 18 ...b6 followed by ...1t'd7; in both cases White is just a little better) 19 :bl .tf6 20 a3 Wg7 (not good; F~nik gives 20....*.d7 21 b4 axb4 22 axb4 ~6 23 c5 dxc5 24 ~xe6 .*.xe6 25 bxc5 :a2 though Whίte is sti11 better due to his pressure agaίnst the b7-pawn) 21 b4 axb4 22 axb4lΩe6 (22 ... ~a4 is plausible, but after 23 :b3 intending :al Black might find that his knίght has gone too far) 23 lΩxe6 fxe6 24 b5 .*.e8 25 f4 .*.f7 26 e5! dxe5 27 fxe5 .*.xe5 28 c5 .*.c3 29 1t'd3 1t'e5 30 .*.f3 g5 31 :b3 :xc5 32 .*.xc5 1t'xc5+ 33 ΦhΙ .*.f6 34 .*.xb7 and Whίte is clearly winning, Νunη-Velimirovi~, Dubaί OL 1986. 2) 15 ...1Wb8 16 .*.dl :c8 17 :el b6 18lΩe2 b5 19 cxb5 .*.xb5 20 lΩf4 .b7 21 .*.e2 .*.xe2 22 :xe2 :c6 23 :c4 e6 24 .dl :ac8 25:d2.*.f8 = Milos-Velimirovi~, Szirak ΙΖ 1987. 3) 15...f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17lΩd5 (17 f4!'! .*.xc3!'! 18 1t'xc3 e6 gives Black play οη e4) 17...:f7 18 :fdl b6! 19 .*.g5 :a7 (Νυηη calls it unclear) 20 .*.h4'!! (better is 20.e3 :b7 21 f4 h6 22.th4.*.f8 23 .th5 ;t) 20...Wb8! 21 .*.fl '! (21.*.g3! =) 21 ...e6 221Ωc3 (22 lΩf4? .*.h6 =F) 22 ...:ad7 23 :bl? .*.e5 ;: 24 ΦhΙ .a8! 251Oe2 f4 26lΩgl ~c31t'b7

Maroczy Bind: Fighting for the dark squares .IIf5 27 "el 'IIg7 28 a3 .IIh5 29 .t.d3 ~f7 30 .t.c2 .g8 and Black has a very strong attaclc, Vaganian-Yudasin, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1988. 4) 15...b6 and then: 4a) 16 .t.dl (rather lame) 16...e6 17 .i.e2 .e7 18 .t.g5 f6 19 .t.f4 .IIfd8 20 .lΣfdl .IId7 21 .t.f1 .IIad8 22 "c2 f5 =Vera-Sieiro, Cuban Ch 1984. 18 4b) 16 .lΣfdl .IIa7 17 .IIbl a3 .IIb8 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 ιt1a4 21 ιt1π4 'IIxa4 22 .i.d4 .IIa2 23 .IIb2?! (going easy οη Black; after 23 .e3! retains a small edge) 23 ....i.xd4+ 24 "xd4.1Σxb2 25 "xb2 b5 26 cxb5 .i.xb5 27 .t.xb5 'IIxb5 lh- 1h Gheorghiu-Smejkal, Moscow 1981. 4c) 16 'IIc2 .IIa7 17.11bl "a8 18 .t.f1! (the start of a very effective plan) 18....IIb8 19 "1'2! (the point is that now White will play for a b4 advance which wiH expose the weakness οη b6; White's game is a bit better but Black's solid position is not easy to break down) 19...e6 20 a3 .lΣab7 21 b4 ιt1a4 22 ιt1xa4 .i.xa4 23 .IId2 .t.f8 24 b5 and Black's trapped bishop οη a4 wiH leave him with a hopeless position, Am.Rodrigυez-Estevez, Cuban Ch 1984. Retυming to the position after 15 'IIabl (D):

251

.a8

15•••'ifb6 As was the case against 15 .IIacl, theplan of 15...1Wb6, 16.. ..IΣfc8, 17...•d8 and f8 ...•f8 is qυite stυrdy. Also possible: 1) 15...b6 is the 'old standby': la) 16 .t.dl "b8 17 a3 'IIc8 18 ιt1d5 .t.xd5 19 exd5 a4 20 b4 ιt1b3 21 "e2 b5 22 cxb5 'IIc3 23 .i.xb3 'IIxb3 24 'IIxb3 axb3 25 "d3 b2 26 b6 ± Anand-Larsen, Cannes 1989.

lb) 16 'IIfcl 'IIa7 17 .t.f1 .a8 18 ιt1d5 .i.xd5 19 cxd5 'IIc8 20.t.b5 .IIac7 21 'IIc4~h8 22.11bcl.11f8 23 "c2.11a7

24 a3 ± P.Cramling-Ramon, Thessaloniki wom OL 1984.

So much for the 'old standby'. The plan with ...b6 is just too passive. .2) 15...e6 is an ίoteresting possibility, though Τήηgοv-Ηaϊk, Vmj~ka Banja 1986, didn't do much to instil confidence ίη it. The continuation was 16 .t.dl! (intending to play ιt1e2-d4, a3, and b4 with a considerable advantage ίη space; other moves, such as 16 .lΣfdl .t.e5! and 16 a3? a4 17 b4 ιt1b3 18.d3 .f6, are not nearly as good) 16... f5 (16 ...•f6? 17 ιt1e2 is ± but 16....i.e5!? deserves consideration) 17 exf5 .lΣxf5?! (betteris 17...gxf5 18 .i.c2, with a slight advantage for White) 18 ιt1e2! b5?! 19 .i.c2.11f7 20.llfdl .IId7 21 cxb5! .t.xb5 22 ιt1d4 .i.xd4 23 .xd4!. 16.1Σf'cl

The logical foHow-up. Both rooks aid ίο the expansion ofWhite's queenside. Altematives: 1) 16 ιt1d5 .t.xd5 17 exd51Wb4 18 1 .c3 19 "xc3 .t.xc3 20 a3 .lΣfc8 21 .IIfcl .t.f6 22 'IIc2 h5 23 b4 ιt1a4 24

"C

252

Accelerated Dragons

:b3 b6 25 Wfl :c7 26 f4 :ac8 = Mestel-Petursson, Hastings 1986Π. 2) 16 :fdl "iIb4 17lίXιS .txd5 18 exdS :fe8 19 .tfl e6 20 .f2 W'b6 21 a3 W'c7 22 dxe6 JΣxe6 23 W'd2 .te5 24 g3 W'e7 = Damljanovi~-Velίmirovί~, Vdac 1987. 3) 16 tΩb5 :fc8 17 JΣfdl .d8 and then: 3a) 18 tΩd4.f8 (Black easίly held the draw ίη Κrasenkov-Κίrov, Palma de Mallorca 1989, after 18 ....td7 19 a3 W'f8 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 tΩe6 22 tΩb3 :a3 23 W'c 1 :a2 24 .tfl .ta4 25 :d2 1/2-1/2) 19 a3 (better is 19 .tfl, though Νunn doesn't thίnk Whίte has more than a small edge) 19....td7! 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 tΩe6 22 :al :xal 23 JΣxal :a8 24 :xa8 W'xa8 25 tΩxe6 .txe6 26 .td4 .txd4+ 27 .xd4 .a2 WΊth an equal posί1ion, lansa-Petυrsson, Nεestved 1988. 3b) 18 ~hl (worth noting) 18.....f8 19 tΩc3 b6 20 a3 JΣab8 21 .tfl h5 22 tΩd5 :b7 23 b4 axb4 24 axb4 tΩd7 25 c5 gave Whίte a plus ίη GreenfeldBruk, Israel 1992. 3c) 18 tΩc3 .c7 19 .tfl b6 20 tΩd51Wb7 21 .tg5 .txdS 22 exd5 ':e8 23 JΣel .c7 24 h4 e5 25 dxe6 ':xe6 26 :bdl JΣae8 27 ':xe6 :xe6 28.dS "c8 29 g3 "e8 30 ~ .tc3 31 .td2 .tg7 32 .tf4 .te5 33 .txe5 dxe5 34 .th3 JΣe7 35 .d6 :b7 36 .f6 :b8 37 ~e3!"f8 38':d5 ± Kudrίn-Ve1ίmiro­ νί~, Thessalonikί OL 1988. 4) It's interesting to note that 16 a3 faίls to 16... tΩxb3! 17 .d3 .td4!. 16•••:tcS (D) Gets the rook into play and prepares Ιο recycle the queen to the kίng­ side. Less effective is 16.....b4? 17 :c2! (17 ~hl? a4! 18lίXιS "xd2 19

tΩxe7+ ~h8 20 .txd2 axb3 21 axb3

':a2 22 :dl .txe4! =i=) 17 ... ':fc8 18 "cl W'b6 (it's now clear that Black's trίp to b4 was just a waste of time) 19 a3 "d8 20.d2 (also good is 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 tΩa4 22 tΩdl e6 23 .d2 tΩb6 24 .td4 .ta4 25 ':c3 .txdl 26 :xdl ± Dimitrov-Moldovan, Stara Zagora Ζ 1990) 20 ... e6 (or 20 ...h5 21 b4 axb4 22 axb4 tΩa4 23 tΩd5 e6 24 tΩf4 "e7 25 .tfl ~h7 26 ~hl ':d827 tΩe2 .tf6 28 tΩd4 ± Pytel-Sokolowskί,ladwisin 1985) 21.tfl.te5 22 b4 axb4 23 axb4 tΩa4 24 tΩe2 W'h4 25 g3 "e7 26 tΩd4 .te8 27 :bcl tΩb6? (Black should just patiently sit back and waίt; Gelfand gives 27 ...:c7 28 tΩb3 :ac8 29 c5!?;I;) 28 tΩxe6 "xe6 29 .txb6 and now, ίnstead of29...:r.a3?, Ge1fand-Anand, Manίla ΙΖ 1990, when 30 W'f2 wou1d have been ±, Black should play 29 ... dS! 30 .tf2 dxe4 31 fxe4 :d8 keeping Whίte's advantage down to a mίnίmum.

w

17':c2 Preparίng a3 and b4. Now Black won't be able to meet 18 a3 by 18 ... tΩxb3 because of 19 tΩdl! tΩxd2 20 :xb6, winnίng material.

Maroczy

ΒίΜ:

Fighting for the

Whίte has tried 17 .i.fl in a few recent gaιnes, but Black never seemed to be ίη any real danger: 17 ...1rb4 18 Wb2 (18 ι&Ι5 .i.xd5 19 cxd5 ':cb8 20 cRhl Wxd2 21.i.xd2 b5 22 .i.e31&6 23 .i.d2 1&5 24 .i.e3 ιruι6 = de la VillaSpangenberg, Seville 1994) 18...Wb6 19 .d2 .d8 20 ~1 Wf8 21 ~Ω h5 22 ~d3 cRh7 23 ':el J.h6 = de la Villa-Andersson, San Sebastian 1994. 17••• Wd8 Now 17...Wb4 runs into 18 .cl! intending to meet 18... a4 with 19 a3. If Black is ίη the mood for an ex-"' periment, then Larsen's 17 ... h5!? 18 " .i.fl (ίη Deep Blue-Larsen, Copenhagen 1993, Whίte tried the straightforward 18 ι&Ι5 .i.xd5 19 cxd5 ,1i'b4 20 .xb4 axb4 21 J.d2 ~a6 22 ':bcl J.d4+ 23 Φfl ':xc2 24 ':xc2 .i.c5 25 J.d3 cRf8 26 .i.b5 1&7 27 .i.h6+ cRg8 28 .i.d3 ΙΑS 29 .i.d2 ~ 30 cRe2 cRg7 31 .i.b5 h4, and Black managed to draw the gaιne ίη 59 moves) 18 ...cRh7 19 .Ω 'ifd8 20 a3 Wh8 can be considered. 18.i.n It's also possible to play the immediate 18 lαiΙ .f8 19 Μ. Fta~nik­ Moldovan, Stara Zagora Ζ 1990 continued 19 ...h5 20 ~3 ~6 21 ~Ω .i.f(j 22 ':dl g5 23 J.fl Wg7 24 g3 Wg6 25.i.h3 g4 26 fxg4 hxg4 27 .i.xg4 J.xe4 28 ~xe4 .xe4 29 J.h3 ':c7 30 .Ω a4 31 ':e2 Wg6 32 J.xe6 fxe6 33 .i.b6 ':c6 34 ':xe6 axb3 35 axb3 ':a3 36 J.d4 Wg4 37 ':eel J.xd4 38 ':xd4 Wg7 39':de4 ':c7 40 Wf5 1-0. Ιη Ivanchuk-Larsen, Roquebrune Amber rpd 1992, Whίte played 18 a3, when Larsen replied with his patented 18 ...h5 (the passive l8 ...b6l9 b4 axb4 20 axb4 ιruι4 21 ι&Ι5 e6 22 ~f4 gave

dαrk

squares

253

Whίte

an edge ίη DimitrQv-Abraιno­ vic, Pήlep 1992). Α sharp, highly ίη­ teresting battle ensured: 19 J.fl .i.d7 20 ~5 e6 21 1&3 We7 22 .i.g5 .f8 23 J.f4 e5 24 J.e3 a4 25 b4 Ibb3 26 .dl .i.h6 27 J.xh6 .xh6 28 .xd6 .i.e6 29 ~b5 lαi4 30 ~xd4 .e3+ 31 cRhl exd4 32 b5 ':d8 33 .b4 d3 34 ':c3 h4 35 ':dl h3 36 .b2 ':ac8 37 ':cxd3 ':xd3 38 ':xd3 .el. The gaιne was agreed drawn οη the 45th move. 18...J.eS (D)

w

Black is playing as dynamically as possible. He intends ... e6, ... f5 and

...'ii'h4.

19 lαΙι Heading to g4 via Ω. This manoeuvre was highly praised at the time ίι was first played, but the fact that several very strong grandmasters are avoiding ίι for White suggests that Black shouldn't panic. Whίte can also try the more traditional 19 a3 .f8 20 ~5 J.xd5 21 exd5 .g7 22 b4. Κha1ifman-Hr~ek, Pardubice 1994 saw the following interesting fight: 22 ... axb4 23 axb4 ~a4 24 ':b3 b6 25 ':a3 Wf8 26 .i.d4 J.xd4+ 27 .xd4 .g7 28 _xg7+

254

Accelerated Dragons

Φχg7 29 ':ca2 b5 30 c5 ':ab8 31

c6 e6 32 ':xa4 bxa4 33 ':xa4 ':c7 34 b5 Φf6 35 ':a6 exd5 36 Φf2 Φe5 37 Φe3 d4+ 38 Φd2 Φd5 and Black went οη Ιο win. 19.....e8 Switching plans and trying for ... b5. His οήgίnal intention of 19 ... e6 is answered by 20 ~f2 h5 21 ':dl, when an f4 advance is looming, though ίη that case the e4-pawn would be weakened. Like ίι or ηοι, Black had Ιο give this a go. 20Μ

Now Black should play 20 ...~g7, when 21 ~g4 h5 22 ~ b51eads Ιο an unclear position. White can do better

with 21 ιαJ3! ;t. Instead, the continuaιίοη ofVaganian-Ivkov, Moscow 1985 was 20 ... b5?! 21 ~g4 ~g7 22 ~h6+ ~f8 23 cxb5 ~xb5 24 ~xb5 "xb5 25 "d5 "e8 (25 ... ~xh6 26 ~xh6+ Φg8 27 ':bcl! is ηο better for Black) 26 e5! ':d8 (perhaps Black could consider 26...~6!? 27 :Xc8 ':xc8 28 exd6 exd6 29 "xd6+ {29 ~g4!?} 29 .....e7 30 "xe7+ {keeping queens οη with 30 "d5 is supeήοr} 30... Φχe7 with some compensation) 27 exd6 exd6 (according Ιο Tukmakov, Black's last chance was 27 ... ~6! 28 dxe7+ {28 ':c6 is stronger} 28 .....xe7) 28 ':el ':ac8? 29 ':xc5! ':xc5 30 "xc5! 1-0.

13 Maroczy Bind: 7 ...lί)g4 1 e4 cS 2 ffi ια6 3 d4 cxd44 ΙOXd4

Α)

g6S c4 ~ι' 6 ~e3lbf6 7 ω

7 Ο? ίΒ inferior due to 7 ...1i'b6 8 lDf5 "xb2 9lDxg7+ ~f8 +. 7...lDg4 (D) Thίs ίΒ Black's sharpest possibίlity.

w

8"xg4 Completely lame ίΒ 8lDxc6? ΙOXe3 9 lDxd8 lDxdl 10 lDxdl (10 :xdl!? ~xc3+ 11 bxc3 ~xd8 12 c5 ίΒ s1ightly better for Black) 10...Φχd8 11 g3 (11 :cl b6 12 ~d3 ~b7 :j: Cardoso-Ta1, Moscow 1956) 11 ... b6 12 ~g2 ~a6 13 :cl 1:c8 14 b3 b5 15 J.n ~b7 16 f3 f5 17 ~d3 bxc4 18 bxc4 fxe4 19 fxe4 :c5 20 :c2 e6 21 ~d4 22 lDc3 :e5 23 ~d2 Φe7 24 lDb5 ~c5 and Black went οη to win ίη PovseMohr, Bled 1992. Now Black has two ways to recapture 00 d4: Α: 8.••hd4 255 Β: 8 •••ΙOXd4 257

:f1

8...J.xd4 ThίB odd-lookίng

move, whίch appears Ιο have been Μι played ίο the 1950s, achίeved a brief vogue of popularity ίο the early 1980s, but ίΒ seldom seen today. The motίvation for 8 ...J.xd4 ίΒ that often ίη the Maroczy Biod the exchange of dark-squared bishops favours Black, who gaίos severa1 positiona1 advantages from the trade. WΊth pawns οη c4 and e4 Whίte has Ιο beware of weaknesses οη the ceotral dark squares, the possibίlity of Black planting a knίght οη d4, and the spectre of being left with a bad light-squared bishop against a powerful knίght. ΑΙΙ those factors being taken ίηιο consideration, the move still fails ίη that dynamic considerations take precedence. Black loses va1uable time and weakens hίs kingside by 8 ...~xd4. ΒΥ castling queenside and openiog the position with moves like h2-h4-h5, f2-f4-f5, or c4-c5, Whίte can easily obtain the advantage. 9 J.xd4 ΙOXd4 10 ο-ο-ο! Thίs is the refutation of 8 ... ~xd4. The quiet 10 "dl a110ws Black comfortable play after 10...e5 11 ~d3 d6 120-00-0 (12 .....h4?! 13 lDe2lDe6 14 .ιc2 ± Tartakower-Pirc, London 1951) 13 "d2 and now Black has more than one good move: 1) 13 ....ιe6 14 lDe2 1Dc6 15 b l "b6 16 ΦhΙ (Whίte needs to get f2-f4

256

Accelerαted Drαgons

2) 13 .td3 (against the spirit ofthe ίη to generate some play) 16...a5 = Lehav-Pein, Israe11988. position, which demands the game 2) 13 ...g5!? (an extravagant way to be opened up as soon as possible) restrain f2-f4 but, with the position 13 ....te6 14 f5.tf7 15 fxg6 hxg6 16 rather closed, there is litt1e White can :hfl g5 17 ZΣf2 :h618 :dfl .e7 19 do to try to exploit this move) 14:adl .e3 0-0-0 =Helmers-Κarlsson, Rand.i.e615 tα2 ~xe2+ 16 .i.xe2:C8 17 ersZ 1982. b3 :c6 18 .e3 b6 19:d2 .f6 20 g3 3) 13 ~2 ~6 (13 ...~xe2+ Ιοοο Φh8 =I.Zaitsev-Estevez, Havana 1983. necessary: 14 .txe2 .e7 15 f5 gxf5 3) 13 ....td714f4exf415:xt'4 Wg5 16 .thS+ ~f8 17 exf5 .txf5 18 :hfl 16ZΣafl ~ 17 :4f2.tc6(17....xd2 .te6) 14 f5 ~c5 15 ~3 ~f7 16 b4 18 :xd2 :fd8 19 .tc2 ;t Malich- ~6 17 a3 ± D.GureVΊch-D.Cramlίng, Bonsch, Halle 1981) 18 Wxg5 ~g5 Eksjo 1982. 19 ZΣd2 l/z_lh Adamskί-Bonsch, Halle 4) 13 h4 (the main alternative to 13 1981. f5) 13....te614h5(14~bl a615tα2 10...e5 lίk:6?! {Gufeldmentίons 15... ~216 Here 10...d6 11 .g3 e5 wil1 almost .txe2.e7 17 h5 g5 18 fxg5 fxg5 19 always transpose back to the text.. :hfl 0-0-020 .i.g4;t} 16.a3 .txc4 11Wg3 17 :xd6 .e7 18 ~3.i.f7 19 .tb5! ± The experimentall1 h4 d6 12 .g5 Gufeld-Turner, London 1995) 14...g5 on1y led Ιο equality ίο Byme-Wedberg, (l4 ...~f7!? 15 .td3 :c8 16 hxg6+ Reykjavik 1982, after 12 ....te6 13 hxg6 17 f5 gxf5 18 exf5 ~xf5 19 .f3 ~4 20 Wxb7+ I/Ζ_I/2 Razuvaev.xd8+ :xd8 14 b3 a615 .td3 Φe7. 11•••d612 Ι4 f6 (D) Bonsch, Κeszthely 1981) 15 fxg5 fxg5 andthen: 4a) 16 h6 Wf6 (Gufeld gave 16...0-0 as equal) 17 ~bl 0-0-0 18 .td3 :df8 w 19:dfl.e720.e3ZΣf621 :el ~b8 22 .xg5 :g8 23 .d2 :fg6 24 .tf1 Wf7 25 ~5 .txdS 26 cxd5 :f6 27 .c3 :f2 left White tied υρ ίη Conquest-Pein, Brίtίsh Ch (Plymouth) 1989. 4b) 16 c5 and now: 4bl) 16....a5? 17 ZΣxd4 exd4 18 .tb5+ .td7 19 .txd7+ ~xd7 20 Wxd6+ ~c8 21 .e6+ ~d8 22.f6+ ~d7 23 .xd4+ is analysis by Νίηον and Κostakίev. 13Ι5 Considered to be White's best, but 4b2) 16...h6?! 17 .tb5+ Φe7 18 there are reasonable alternatives: ~+ .txd5 19 :xd4 exd4 20 exdS 1) 13 c5 0-0 14 .tc4+ ~B7 is .c7 21 ΦbΙ ± Ninov-Meister, con equal. 1994-5.

Maroczy Bind: 7... l'ΔB4 4b3) Keene and Mestel suggest 16...0-017 cxd6 .f6! and assess the positίon as unclear. 4b4) 16...:c8 17 cxd6 (17 :xd4 exd4 18 .*.b5+ Wf7 19 cxd6!! :Σc520 e5 Wg8 21 :xe5 22 .xd4 :f5 23 :el .f6 24 .xf6 :xf6 25 .*.e8 Wg7 26 d7 .*.xd7 27 .*.xd7 :d8 28 :Σe7+ is ± accordίng Ιο Νίηον) 17....a5 18 Wbl :xc3 19 .xc3 .xa2+ 20 Wcl 0-021 .a3 :c8+ 22 Wd2 ± BonchOsmolovsky - Shashin, USSR 1964. 5) 13 fxe5 fxe5 14 c5 .*.e6 15 h4 ο-ο 16Μ g5 17cxd6:t'418Wbl :Σc8, Merkulov-Lysenko, USSR 1982. 13•••Wf7 Here 13 ...gxf5?! leads to tricky play but shοώd be good for White: 14 "g7 :f8 15 lΩd5 :f7 16 "g8+ :f8 17 .xh7 .d7!? (with the idea that 18 &&7+?! wins the exchange but leads to unclearplayafter 18...Wd8 19.xd7+ .*.xd7 20 ~xa8 fxe4) 18 .g6+?! (the refutatίon of 13 ... gxf5?! is held to be 18 .h6!.f7 19 :xd4 exd4 20 h2 Wd8 21 .*.h5 "g8 22 ~xf6 :xf6 23 .xf6+ Wc7 24 exf5 .xg2 25 :dl 26 :Σxd4) 18...Wd8 19 'iWh6.f7 20 .*.d3 lh,_Ih, Samarin-Lysenko, Βή­ ansk 1984.

.f2

.xh2

14~bS

This is a key move for White which trades off Black's powerful knight οη d4, allows White's bishop ιο c4, and opens the c-file. The slower 14 .*.d3 gave Black ηο problems in FilipenkoChernikov, coπ 1986-7 after 14....*.d7 15:hf1 g5. 14•••~xbS 15 cxbS .c7+ 16 Wbl .*.d717 :cl Mestel-Κarlsson, Las Palmas ΙΖ 1982 went 17 b3?! :ad8 18 .*.c4+ Wg7 19 h4.*.e8 20 h5 g5 21 h6+ with

257

White winning comfortably ίη 39 moves. Βυι as Κeene and Mestel point ου1, Black cοώd have played 17...a6!, when 18 .*.c4+ Wg7 19 bxa6 b5 20 .*.d5 :Σxa6 leads ΙΟ a murky positίon. 17•••'iWb6 18 .*.«:4+ Wg7 19 .d3 ± Analysis by Mestel and Κeene. Β)

8•••~d4(D)

w

This positίon can lead ιο great complicatίons, but the vast majοήty of players have Ρrefeπed the sound and solid Gurgenidze systems duήng the last decade. In fac1, with the exceptίon of some interest ίη 9 ...e5, thίs once popular set-up has almost disappeared from grandmaster practίce. 9.dl With dark-squared bishops stίll οη the board, 9 0-0-0 is much Ιοο ήsky. Black would have a pleasant choice between 9 ...&&6 threatening ....*.xc3, and 9 ...e5 10 h4 (10 .g3 seems more realίstίc) 10... d5 11 "g3 dxe4 12 h5 .*.f5 + Cherepkov-Gufeld, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1961. Black can now try:

Accelerated Dragons

258 ΒΙ:

9•••e5

Β2: 9••• lbe6

258 267

Besides these two moves Black has a third, albeit very passive choice ίη 9 ...ιtx6. With natιual developing moves White easily obtains the advantage: 10 :cl ο-ο 11 .i.e2 121i'd2 d6 13 ο-ο .i.e6 (13 ... f51 14 exf5 .i.xf5 15 f4! ± Pachman-Gawlikowski, Warsaw 1956) 14 b3 f51 15 exf5 .i.xf516:tdl :008 17 .i.h6 ± Ίiifuηoνί~-Κozomara, Sarajevo 1962. Black's position doesn't generate enough counterplay to compensate for the weaknesses created by ...f5 and his Iack of space.

"a5

Β1)

9•••e5 (D)

w

Botvinnik and Kasparov have both employed it as Black. White's two main repIies are: Bla: 10.i.d3 259 Blb: 10 ~b5 261 Lesser altematives are: 1) 10 .i.xd4 exd4 11 ~b5 (11 ~ ο-ο 12 .i.d3 d6 130-0 .i.e6 =) 11 ... 0-0 (11 ...1Wb6 and 11 ... a6 are also possible) 12 ~xd4 +. 2) 10 g3 d6 11 .i.g2 .i.e6 12 b3 13 .i.d2 "c5 140-00-0 15 :Cl a6 16 .i.e3 17 "d3 :fc8 18 .i.xd4 exd4 19 ~2 b5! 20 cxb5 "xb5 Κeres-Benko, Moscow OL 1956. 3) 10 .i.e2 0-011 0-0 (11 h4 d6 12 h5.t.e6 =) 11 ...b6 (11 ...a612 "d2 d6 13 :fdl .i.e6 14.i.f1 :c8 15 b3 .i.g4 16 .i.e2 .i.e6 17 :acl 18.i.f1 :c7 19 ~2 ± Geller-Uh1mann, Havana 1963) 12 "d3 (12 "d2 .i.b7 13 :adl :C8 14 :tel f5 15 exf5 J:[xf5 16 .i.g4:n 17 b3 a6 18 .i.g5"f8 is unclear, Κom-Vasiukov, USSR 1954) 12....i.b7 13 .i.xd4 exd4 14 ~b5 "e7 = Lein-Novopasmn, USSR 1960. 4) 10 1i'd2 0-0 (10 ... a6 11 .i.d3 :b8 12 0-0 ο-ο 13 :adl 14 b3 b5! 15 cxb5 axb5 16 .txd4 exd4 17 ~2 "b6 18 .i.bl d5 Ih-Ih ProkhovPartos, Bulgaria vs Romania 1960; 19 exd5 is met by 19....tg4!) and here: 4a) 11 .txd41 exd4 12 ~b5 (12

"f6

"aS "aS

=

"a5

"aS

With 9 ...e5, Black estabIishes his knight at d4 but creates a gaping hole at d5 and a backward d-pawn. White's goal is to dislodge the knight, while Black's is to drum up counterplay as quickly as possible. Theory and practical play have favoured White (though many of the lines are not as clear as was once thought), but World Champions

~2:e813f3d514cxd5f5! 15~g3

"xd5! +) 12... a613 ~xd4:e8 14 Ο­ ο-ο :xe4 15 ~b3 b5 16 "d5 "f6! favours Black - Nilsson. 4b) 11 0-0-01! a6! 12 h4 b5 13 h5 .tb7 14 f4 d6 15 g4 b4 16 ~ .txd5 17 exd5 b3 18 .txd4 bxa2'19 ~c2 exd4 with a clear plus for Black. ΚΟΙΟ­ bov-Egorov, Moscow 1961.

Maroczy ΒίΜ: 7...!Δg4 4c) 11 lt:!b5! is best, transposing into 10 lt:!b5! 0-0 11 "d2.

818) 10.*.d3 Νοι so ΙοηΒ ago 10 lt:!b5 was con-

sidered Ιο be a virtual refutation of Black's system and 1O.i.d3 was thought ιο be relatively harmless. How times and opinions have changed! Now 10 lt:!b5 has lost much of its lustre while 10 .*.d3 has become the move that most players with Black hate Ιο see. 10•••0-011 0-0 (D)

Β

Now Black must decide whether his queen's bishop belongs οη b7 or along the c8-h3 diagonal. Each has ίι advantages and drawbacks. 11•••d6 This was Botvinnik's choice. The other try, 11 ...b6, is ηοΙ as bad as its reputation. White can then play: 1) 12 a4 d6?! (Black should play 12...a6=) 13lt:!b5 a614lt:!xd4exd415 .*.d2 ,ιb7 16 a5 ;!; lIe8 1711el bxa5 18 IIxa5 "d7 19 "a4 .*.c6 20"a3 "b7 21 f3 .*.f6 22 .*.g5 .*.xg5 23 IIxg5 lIab8 24 lIe2 "b3 25 1Id2 lIe5 26

259

1fxb3l1xb3 27 h4 h6 2811g4 ciιf8 and Black's active pieces led him Ιο an eventual victory ίη Byvshev-Divitsky, USSRCh 1954. 2) 1211cl ,ιb7 13 "d2 d6 14lt:!e2 lt:!e6= Gipslis-Vasiυkov, USSR 1953. 3) 1200 .*.b7 13 f4 exf4 14,ιxf4 d6 15 "d2 lt:!e6 16 .*.h6 .*.xh6 17 1fxh6 .i.xd5 18 exd5 lt:!c5 19 ':f3 f5 20 ':el "f6 21 ':h3 ':f7 22 b3 f423 .i.bl a5 24 1fh4 1fxh4 25 ':xh4 ':af8 +Byvshev-Simagin, USSR Ch 1952. 4) 12 1fd2 .*.b7 and now: 4a) 13 ,ιΒ5 f6 14 ,ιh6 ,ιΧh6 15 1fxh6, Dudas-Todor, Austrian Regional Ch 1996, 15 ...d6seems alΙήght forBlack. 4b) 13 ':ael lt:!e6 (13 ... f5!? 14 ,ιΧd4 exd4 15lt:!d5 f4! is unclear) 14 lt:!d5, Schumi-Todor, Vienna 1996, 14...d6 = is a1s0 acceptable for Black. 4c) 13 ':adl f5! (13 ... lt:!e6 is also playable: 14 ,ιbΙ ,ιc6 15 b4 ':c8 16 a3 .z:Σc7 17 ,ιa2 ciιh8 18 c5lt:!d4 19 f4 bxc5 20 bxc5 IIb7 21 fxe5 lt:!e6 22 ,ιχe6 fxe6 23 ,ιΒ5 "a5 24 "d6 ':bb8 25 ,ιe7 ':xf1 + 26 ':xf1 ':e8 27 1If3 "xa3 28 h4 ~2 Μαι an eventual draw ίη Smyslov-Bagirov, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1960) 14 exf5 1fh4 (threatenίηΒ ... lt:!f3+ mating) 15 f3 gxf5 16 1fh5 17 ,ιΧd4 exd4 18 lt:!e211f6 19 lt:!xd4l1h6 20 h3':f8 21lt:!e2 "g5 = Lein-Flesch, USSR vs Hungary 1963.

"f2

12"d2 Altematives are commonly employed: 1) 12lt:!e2lt:!c6 (12 ... lt:!e6!? is possible, as is 12... ,ιe6 13 "d2 a6 14 b3 b5 15 ,ιΧd4? {15 ':acl "d7 is equal} 15 ...exd4 16 cxb5 axb5 17 .*.xb5 d3! 18lt:!c3? "a5, Benk.o-Schmid, Lugano OL 1968) 13 1fd2 f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15

260

Accelerated Dragons

f3 .te6 16 :adl :tϊ 17 b3 .f6 18 .tbl :d7 19 ~3 ιRh8 20 iOd5 .g6 21 ιRhl .h5 22 a3 :g8 23 b4 b6 24 :fel .f7 25 .tc2 :c8 26 .ta4 :dd8 27 :cl iOd4 28 .txd4 exd4 29.tb5 .txdS 30 cxd5 :xcl 31 .xcl ί432 %le6 .f5 33 .el .te5 and the game was soon drawn ίη Averbakh-Stein, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1961. 2) 12 %lcl.te6 (12...a6 13 ~.te6 14 .d2 .txd5 15 cxdS Ih- I/2 IvkovVeιimirοvίό, Rio de Janeiro ΙΖ 1979) 13 b3 (13 ~2 %lc8 14 b3 .a5 15 .tbl ~e2+ 16 .xe2 %lc6 with counterplay ίη Gufeld-Stein, USSR 1960) 13...a6! (13 ... f5 14 f3 ~6 15 exf5 gxf5 16 .tbl .d7 17.d2 :ad8 18 %lfdl .f7 19 .el :d7 20 ιRhl a621 %ld2 ιRh8 22 ~ ! Κondratiev-Aron­ son,Leningrad 1957) 14.tb1 andnow: 2a) Schwarz's recommendation οί 14...•d7 15 ~2 llJxe2+ 16 .xe2 %lfc8 should be mentioned. 2b) 14...:b8 15 ιRhl (15 .txd4 exd4 161&2 .tg4 17 f3 .td7 18 ιRhl .f6 is unclear according ιο Botvinnik, while 15 1&2llJxe2+ 16 "xe2 ί5 = and 15 .d2 b5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 %lfdl.tg4 =Κostro-Myhre, Leipzig OL 1960 are a1so thought to offer equa1 chances) 15 ...b5! = 16 cxb5 axb5 17 "d3 (17 .txd4 exd4 18 1&2 .b6 19 "d2dS 2OexdS.txdS 21 %lfdl %lfd8! =i=) 17... b4 (Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow Alekhine mem 1956) 18ll!e2 dS 19 ~d4 exd4 20 .tf4! dxe4 21 'it'xe4 %la8 is nice for Black. 2c) Even better is 14...b5! 15 cxb5 ~xb5 16 ~xb5 axb5 17 %lc6 dS 18 exdS I/2-Ih Gulko-Seirawan, USA Ch 1994. 3) 12 a4!? is one ofWhίte's most effective ideas:

3a) 12...lα:6!? is a logical move that deserves seήοus attention: 13 lM5 .te6 14 "d2lM4 15 :a3 aS 16 b4 .txdS 17 exdS axb4 18 "xb4 .d7 19 :bl :a7 20 aS %lfa8 =Vera-Matamoros, Havana 1997. 3b) Less impressive is 12...a6 13 aS .te614 ~ .txd5 (and ηοΙ 14...%lc8? 15 llJb6 :c7 16 .txd4 exd4 17 ί4 ± H6bed-Sermek, Cannes 1995) 15 exdS

!. 3c) 12 ....te6 13 llJb5 a6 14 ~xd4 exd4 15 .td2 %lc8 16 b3! SmyslovFabiano, Rome 1990 and SpraggettGarcia llundain, Candas 1992. 12.•..te6(D) More dependable than 12...f5 13 exf5 gxf5 14 f4llJc6?! (14....te6) 15 %ladl 'it'e7 16 .te2 ~4 17 .txd4 exd4 18 llJdS ± Andersson-Rogers, Malta OL 1980.

w

13 :actl plans to suπound d4 by b3, .tbl, .txd4 and 1&2. Other set-ups are: • 1) 13:acl a6 (13 ...%lc8 14 b3 a615 f3.aS 16%1fdl ί5?! {16...%lc617.tf1 !} 17 exf5 ~xί5 18 .te4:f7 19.e2 ±Tal-Partos, NiceOL 1974) and now: Whίte

Maroczy Bind: 7... ~4 la) 14 :fdl .a5 15 b3 (15 Afl b5! 16 cxb5 axb5 17 ltlxb5ltlxb5 18 .xa5:xa5 19 b4:xa2 20 Axb5 :b8 = Polugaevsky-Bagirov, USSR Ch (Lenίngrad) 1963) 15... b5 16ltle2 is ;!; according ιο Ρίιiρ. lb) 14 b3 .a5 (l4...:c8 15 f3 Ι5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 Ι4 18ltle2 :cd8 19 ltlxd4 exd4 20 Af2 ± GhitescuRadovici, Romanian Ch 1977) 15ltle2 • xd2 16 Axd2ltlxe2+ 17 Axe2 :Cc8 18 a4;!; T.Georgadze-Muratov, USSR 1976. 2) 13 b3 a6 14 :adl "c7 15 Axd4 exd416ltle2Ag4! 17f3Ad718Abl b5! 19 cxb5 .i.xb5 20 Ad3 .b6 21 :fc8 22 g3 :a7 23 Wg2 d5 24 exd5 :d7 favoured Black ίη Lesi~ge­ Dzίndzίchashvili, New York 1993. 3) 13 Ι4 exf4 14 :xf4ltlc6 15.i.e2 ltle5 16 b3 a6 17 :dl .a5 18 ltla4 • xd2 19 Axd2 ;!; Dvoirys-Stanec, Oberwart 1992. 4) 13:Cdl.h414ltle2ltlxe2+ 15 .xe2 b6 16 .d2 .e7 17 a4 gave Whίte all the chances ίη Geller-Barczay, Sousse ΙΖ 1967. 13••.a6! Ιnfeήor is 13....a5 14 Axd4 exd4 15 ltlb5 1Wb6 16 .i.e2 d3 17 .xd3 .i.xb2 18 Whl a6 19 ltlxd6 ± Uhlmann-Espig, East Berlin 1982. 14b3 Bad is 14ltle2?! b5! 15 cxb5 axb5 16 a3 'iVb8 17 f4ltlb3 18 .elltlc5 19 Abl .i.b3 + Abdullah-Skembris, Νοvi SadOL 1990. 14••• 15 ltle2 15 .i.bl? b5 16 cxb5?? :xc3! is an important trick ίη thίs line. IS•••ltlc6 15 ... f5? is too loosenίng: 16Axd4 exd4 17 exf5 gxf5 18 Abl d5 19 cxd5

.f6

:f2

261

.xd5 20 ltlxd4 :fd8 21 .g5! h6 22 ,ι,χΙ5! hxg5 23 Axe6+ .xe6 24ltlxe6 and Whίte won ίη Chrίst-H.SfIIrensen, Bie11992. 16 Abl bS 17 cxbS axbS 18 ω 18 .xd6?? loses a piece after 18...ltld4. 18••••&5 19ltldS b4 Black has an excellent position, Polugaevsky-Piket, Aruba (5) 1994. The game concluded as follows: 20 Ag5 Ι6 21 Ae3 Ι5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 ltle7+? (better is 23 a4!? bxa3 24 ltle7+ Wf7 25 ltlxc8 :xc8 26 .xa5 ltlxa5 27 :xd6 ltlxb3 28 :a6 Af8 though Black has plenty ο! compensation for the sacήficed exchange) 23 ... ltlxe7 24 .xd6 Wf7 25 Ag5ltlg6 26 g4 e4 27 h4 Ae5 28 .d2 h6 29 gxf5 ,ι,χΙ5 30 h5 hxg5 31 hxg6+ ~xg6 32 .e2 0-1 .

B1b) 10ltlb5 (D)

Β

:c8

Since Black's whole game is devoted to holding the point οη d4, Whίte takes immediate measures to destroy it.

262

Accelerated Dragons

10•.,0-0 best. Infeόor tries are: 1) 10... a6? 11lbxd4exd412.*.xd4 .a5+ 13 ~e2 0-014 .*.xg7 ~xB7 15 .d4+ ~B8 16 f3 d6 (16 ... b5 17 c5!) 17 ~Ω ±#:. Stohl-Plachetka, Trnava 1984. 2) 10...'iWb6 11 c5! .xc5 12 :cl 'iWb4+ 13 .*.d2 with a clear advantage forWhite. 3) 10.....a5+? 11 .*.d2 'iWb6 12 c5! .xc513:Cl. 4) 10... lCJxb5 11 cxb5 d6 12 .tc4! .*.e6 13 .txe6 fxe6 140-00-015 .b3 ~ - analysis by Euwe. CΙear

1l"d2 The consistent course. Now White is really threatening ιο take οη d4. The immediate 11 lCJxd4? has 10ng been known Ιο be bad. One recent example is Βrunner-Εkstrδm, Swiss Grand Prix 1990, which continued 11 ...exd4 12 .*.xd4 "a5+ 13 ~e2 :e8 14 f3 d5! 15 .*.xg7 16 ~d3 (16 fxe4 .*.g4+ picks uρ the white queen and 16 ~Ω "c5+ 17 ~g3 .e3 threatens the strong ...:g4+) 16...:xc4 17 ~e3 "c5+ 18 ~d2 ~xg7 19 .*.xc4 dxc4 20 "el "g5+ 21 ~c3 "f6+ 22 ~c2 .*.f5+ 23 ~cl c3! 24 bxc3 :c8 25 ~b2 .b6+ 26 ~cl "a5 27 ~b2 "b5+ 28 ~cl 'iWb4 0-1. 11 .te2 (D) is an important altemative. This was given some good press when Iνanchuk used it Ιο beat Korchηοί ίη 1994. Now it doesn't 100k so fearsome. Black has a few replies: 1) 11 ...•h4? runs into a refutation: 12 lCJxd4 exd4 13 .*.xd4 "xe4? 14 bg7.xg2? 15.d4!"xhl+ 16~d2 (l6...•xal?? 17 "f6!! 1-0 Gapόndashνίιi-SerνatΥ, Dortmund 1974) 17 .*.xf8 ~xf8 18 .*.f3 d5 19.*.xd5

:xe4+

.xh2

:b8 20 :el .*.e6 21 :xe6 1-0 TalΡΜιΖ, HaUe 1974. 2) 11 .....a5+ 12 .*.d2 .b6 13 ο-ο (cόtical is 13 .*.b4 lCJxb5 14 .*.xf8 .*.xf8 15 cxb5 .a5+, when Ivanchuk and Κorchnoi claim that Black has enough compensation for the exchange) 13 ... lΔxb5 14 cxb5 "d4 15 .*.f3 "xb216 .e2d617:tbl "d418 .te3.c319.*.d2.c720:cl.e721 .tb4 .*.e6 + Zelenika-Afek, Cannes 1997. 3) 11 ...lCJxb5 12 cxb5 d6 13 0-0 (13 .*.c4.*.e6 14 'iWb3!? "e7 15 :dl :fc8 16 .*.d5 a6 17 bxa6 .*.xd5 18 :xd5 bxa6 19 ο-ο :ab8 20 :c6 21 J:ιfdl.*.f81ed to a playable position for Black ίη Sandhu-Ligezinski, Austrian Cht 1996) 13 ....te6 14 .a4 .d7 15 :fdl (stopping the black pawn moving to d5; 15 :acl d5! 16 exd5 .*.xd5 17 :fdl "e6 18 .*.c4.txc4 19 .xc4 .xc4 20 :xc4 b6 is all όght for Black) 15 ...:fc8 16 :d2 .*.f8 17 .dl f5 (17 ....*.c4 is safer) 18 exf5 gxf5 19 f4 e4 20 a4 d5 21 .*.d4 .*.c5 22 . ~fl "d6? (22 ....*.xd4 23 hd4:C5 is perfectly playable; another οριίοη is 22.....d8 23 "el .*.xd4 24 :xd4 "f6) 23 .*.e5 "d7 24 "el h6 25 :001 ~h7

"a3

Maroczy Bind: 7... fΔg4 26 "g3 :g8 27 "h3 :ac8 28 :xd5! .txdS 29 :XdS "e6 30.tc4 and Whίte went οη to WΊη ίn Ivanchuk-Κorchnoi, Monaco Amber rpd 1994. Retuming Ιο the position after 11 "d2(D):

Β

263

1) 12 f3 f5 (12 ... ι!L)xb5 13 cxb5 dS !? is also possible, when both 14 "xd5 .te6 and 14 exd5 :d8 need to be tested) 13 .td3 d6? (correct is 13 ... ι!L)xb5 14 cxb5 d6 15 j,c4+ .te6 =) 14 .tg5! .tf6 15 .txf6 "xf6 16 ι!L)xd4 exd4 17 ο-ο ± Emelin-Si1man, Budapest 1994. 2) 12.td3 b6 (also good is 12...d6 13 0-0 ι!L)xb5 14 cxb5.te6 15 :fcl f5 16 f3"f7 17 a4 d5 =1= Κeene-Mestel, British Ch 1973) 13 0-0 ~b5 14 cxb5 .tb7 15 f3 d5 16 exd5 .txdS 17.txg6 :t'd818.tc2.tc419.txh7+??Φxh7

Black has two interesting set-ups to choose from: Blbl: 11•••"e7 263 Blb2: 11•••Wb4 265 It's well worth mentioning Kuzmin's forgotten recommendation of 11 ... d6, when 12 .td3 .te6 is equal and 12 ~d4 exd4 13 .txd4 runs ίηto 13...Wh4 14 "e3 .th6 15"f3 :e8 16 .td3 f5 - analysis by Kuzmin.

B1b1) 11.....e7!? This had a very poor reputation until a recommendation of English ΟΜ Peter Wells revitalized the line.

120-0-0 The official 'refutation'. However, when Wells's idea came to light, Whίte began ιιΥίηΒ all the other legal ορ­ tions:

20 "c2+ .td3 0-1 Rouchouse-Afek, Cannes 1997. 3) 12lΔc7 :b8 13 j,d3 b6 14lίX15 "d6 150-0 .tb7 16 f4 .txd5 17 exd5 b5 18 fxe5 .txe5 19.te4 :t'e8 20 ΦhΙ f5 21 c5 "xc5 22 :acl "e7 23 .tbl "h4 24 .tgl ~2 25 "xe2 .txh2 26 "xe8+ :xe8 27 .txh2 :e2 with an unclear position, Z.AImasi-Seres, Hungarian Cht 1994. 4) 12.te2 ι!L)xb5 13 cxb5 d5 (this sacrificial advance is not a panacea for every white configuration! Much more sensible is 13 ... d6 and 14....te6) 14 exdS:d8150-0b616a4.tb717.tc4 :d618 aS :ad8 19 :fdl and Whίte is clearly better, Pri6-Feher, Paris open Ch 1995. 12.••lΔxb5 13 cxb5 This position was 10ng considered to be good for Whίte, WΊth the exception of the mysterious game RibliΚaspMoν, Belfort 1988, where the players agreed to a draw! Most players took ίι for granted that Κasparov had prepared some improvement, and this 10gical deduction made Peter Wells (and, I'm sure, many others) search 10ng and hard for Κasparov's idea.

264

Accelerαted

Wben Dzindzίchashvili asked the World Chaιnpίon about this game, Kasparov shattered all the myths by explaining that he didn 't know the line at all and went into it by accident! The qώck draw was hίs way out οί a bad situatίon.

13•••dS 14 exdS:ct8! (D) Thίs

is the move that revitalized 11 ...We7. 14....tf5 15.1d3 k8+ 16 Wbl Wd7 17 .txf5 .xf5+ 18 .d3, Smyslov-Jίmenez, Haνana Capablanca mem 1963, was known to be very much in Whίte's favour.

Dragons

Wxd4 .xf3 gives Black plenty οί com.pensatίon for the sacήficed exchange - analysis by Silman.

15••••e616Wbl 16 b3 has not yet been explored: 16....1f8 (l6...e4 isn't good due to 17 .1c4 We5 18 .1d4 Wxd6 19.1xg7 Wxd2+ 20::Σxd2::Σxd2 21 Wxd2 Wxg7 22 .td5, when 22 ...f5 23 ::ΙcΙ is awful for Black) 17 .1c4 .xd6? (better is 17...Wf5 18 .tc5 b6 19.1a3 .tb7 20 f3 a6 with compensatίon) 18 .xd6 ::Σxd6 19 Wb2 b6 20 :xd6 .1xd6 21 ::ΙdΙ .te7 22 f3 and Black was tίed υρ ίη Sommerbauer-Todor, VΊenna Cht 1996. 16.••.118 (D)

w w

15d6 The crίtίcal response. 15 Wbl .1f5+ 16 Wal :ac8 gίves Black a powerful inίtίatίve (for example, 17 :c 1 :xc 1+ 18 .xcl :c8! +) and, οί course, has been avoided, but 15 .tc4!? deserves a look: 15 ....1f516b3 a617b6(17bxa6 b5! 18.1xb5.a3+ 19Wb2:ac8+20 .1c4 Wxa6 21 ::Ιd2 ::Ιχd5!) 17 ...::Ιd7 18 Wb2 (18 d6 Wd8) 18...::Σad8 19 f3 (19 Wa5 .1e4 20 f3 .txd5 21 .txd5 e4+ 22 Wbl exf3 was Renet-Βήcard, Belfort 1995) 19...e4+ 20 .1d4 ::Ιχd5 21 .1xd5 ::Σxd5 22 .c3 ::Σxd4 23 ::Ιχd4 exf3 24 gxf3 .e2+ 25 Wa3 .txd4 26

17.c3! Serper's annoying move. Black gets too much play after 17 .tc5 b6 18 .1Μ

.1b7: 1) After 19 f3, 19...::Ιd7 20.1e2 ::Σad8 21 .c2 .txd6 22 .tc4 Wf6 23 .tc3 .tc51ed to a great game for Black in Wtrthensohn-Zuger, Luceme 1994, whίle the shockίng 19....1xd6, an idea οί Zuger's, also works after 20 .1xd6 ::Ιd7 21 Wb4 and now 21 ... ::Ιad8 22 .1c4 .f6 23 .1e7 Wf5+ (but not

Maroczy ΒίΜ: 7... &Δκ4

265

23...Jbdl+?? 24 Jbdl Jbdl+ 2S ~2) 24 Wc 1 "f4+ is a perpetual check. However, Black seems Ιο win with 21 ...-*.dSl.

2) 19h4:&:8 (19...-*.xd6! stillappears to be playable) 20 hS?! -*.xd621 -*.c3 -*.e7 22 "el "f5+ 23 ciιal :xdl+ 24 "xdl :d8 25 'if'b3 -*.d5! 26 -*.c4 -*.xc4 27 "xc4 "xhS! 28 "f5 29 a3 J.c5 (29 ... J.f6 was aπ easy win) 30 f3 -*.d4 aπd Black went οη Ιο win in Anka-Silman, Budapest 1994. 17••..i.x:d6 Much worse is 17...:xd6? 18 -*.c4 Jbdl+ 19 :xdl "g4?! 20'ifb3 J.f5+ 21 ciιal :c8 22 -*.xf7+ Wg7 23 f3 "xg2 24 -*.e6!, Serper-Sermek, Τίl­ burg 1994. 18-*.c4 "15+ Serper points out that both 18.....e7 19 h4! (with the double threat of 20 -*.g5 and 20 h5) and 18 .....g4 19 -*.dS -*.f5+ 20 Wal :&:821 "aS! are clearly better for White. 19 -*.d3 e4 20 -*.c4 20 g4 "xg4 21 "f6 -*.e6 22 J.d4 ciιf8 23 -*.c2 "f5 24 "g7+ ciιe7 25 "xh7 :ac8 261fh4+ g5 27 "xe4 Jbc2 28 "xc2 -*.xa2+ 29 ciιcl -*.f4+ 0-1 Dizdarevic-Sermek, Makarska 1995. 20••..i.e6 21 g4! This strong move of Serper's places Black ίη a cήtical situation. Since 21 .....xg4 22 Jbd6 :xd6 23 J.h6 :dl+ 24 ciιc2 has Ιο be avoίded, Black is left only with a bad endgame after 21 .....e5 22 "xe5 -*.xe5 23 -*.xe6. It's clear that 11 .....e7 is ίη need of

"fl

repaίr!

B1b2) 11.....h4 (D)

Supposedly, thίs has been 'refuted' for a 10ng time. However, Espίg keeps employing the move and ίι turns out that a key position that has been labelled '±' is, ίη fact, quite acceptable forBlack. 12-*.d3 This obVΊous move is invaήably played but ίη Vaganίan-Espig, Bundeslίga 199011, White came up with the new 12 ιαι6!? After 12.....e7 (the cήtical aπswer is 12...b6 13 -*.g5 "g4 14 -*.e7 -*.a6 15 -*.xf8 -*.xf8 16 c5 -*.xfl 17 ciιxίl bxc5 ;) 13 ιDxc8 :fxc8 14 -*.d3 aS 15 ο-ο "b4 16 "c3 "d6 17 :acl :c5 18 "d2:c719 f3 b6 20 :f8 21 :fdl "e7 22 f4 d6 23 f5 -*.f6 24:f1 g5 25 "g3 Whίte managed Ιο squeeze out a victory οη the 64thmove. 12 -*.xd4!? exd413 -*.d3 a6 14 ιDc7 :b8 15 0-0 is untήed. 12.••d5! Other moves have ηο! turned out well: Ι) 12... ιDe6?! 130-0 (13 ιDxa7!?) 13...b614b4 'fIe715:abl d616:fdl -*.a6 17 ιDc3 :&:8 18 ιDd5 "d8 19 1 and White has a distinct plus, Fink-Dubinin, C01T 1958.

"f2

:bc

266

Accelerated Dragons

2) 12...lί»tb5 13 cxb5 d5 14 exd5 f5 and then 15 ο-ο f4 16 .tc5 f3 17 :fel .th6 followed by ... fxg2 is a Dzindzί­ chashvilί idea. However, 15 .tg5 .g4 16 ο-ο f4 17 .te7 f3 18 .g5 fxg2 19 :Ccl refutes it. 13 cxdS! (D) Whίte's only attempt to get an advantage from. the opening. Other moves are ηοΙ nearly as effective: 1) 13lί»td4dxe4! 14.te2(14.tg5 .g4 15 f3 exf3 16 ιαι.t'3 e4 170-0 exd3 18 .xd3 .te6:j:) 14...exd415 .tg5 e3 16 .txh4 exd2+ 17 ΦΧd2 .th6+ 18 Φc2b5!

17 .th6? .txh6 18 "xh6 "e6! +} 17 .xd4 exd4 18 b3 a5 190-0 =BarczaSzabo, Hungarian Ch (Budapest) 1959) 16 .txc4 exd4 17 .td5? (17 ο-ο b5 18 .td5 .tb7 =) 17 ...'iWbS! 18 a4 "a6 19 .te6 20 .txe6 fxe6 + BisguierSteίn, Tel-Aviv OL 1964.

.b4

+.

2) 13 fΔc7? dxe4 14 fΔxa8 exd3 is terrible for Whίte. 3) 13 exd5 (thίs move leads to a forced draw) 13 ....th3! and now: 3a) 14 0-0 .txg2 15 Φχg2 "g4+ 16 ΦhΙ .f3+ 17 ΦgΙ 1/2-112 Szymczak-Espig, Lublίn 1975, is a good way to splίt the poίnt ahead of time. 3b) 14 .tg5? .g415 lί»td4.txg2 16 f3 "xd4 17 "xg2 "xd3 18 "e2 .f5 +Zhuravlίov-Kapengut, LatVΊan Ch 1965. 3c) 14 .txd4 exd4 15 gxh3 a6 16 fΔa3 .th617 .c2 :ae8+ 18 ΦdΙ! (18 .te2? d3! 19 "xd3 :e3 20 .dl :fe8 21 ο-ο :xe2 22 'iWb3 .te3 23 fΔc2 .txf2+ 0-1 Zhelίandίnov-Shakhov, USSR 1959) 18 ...•xh3 19 .te2 :xe2 20 "xe2 d3 21 .e4 f5 22 .e6+:n = - analysis by Boleslavsky. 4) 13 .tg5 .g4 (13 ...•h5?? 14 fΔxd4 exd4 15 .te2 traps the queen) 14 f3 .d7 15 fΔxd4 (15 fΔc3 dxc4 16 .txc4 b5 17 .td5 :b8 18 b4 "d6 19 :bl .te6 20 0-0 :Cc8 21 :Ccl :C7 22 ΦhΙ :bc8 =Gyurkovics-Espig, Βυdapest 1989) 15 ...dxc4! (15 ...dxe4 16 .txe4.xd4 {16... exd4:j: is stronger:

13•••fΔxb5 14 .t:xb5 ":xe4 15 0-0 15 f3 "h4+ 16.tf2 "f6 17 ο-ο is often recomιnended. Its true wόrth can be seen by the fact that players with Whίte refuse to employ ίι and those with Black simply ignore its existence! IS.••:d8 Less accurate is 15 ...•f5 16 :acl e4 17 :fdl .e5 (17 ... a6 18 .te2 :d8 19 d6 .te5 20 :c5 b6 21 :xeS "xeS 22 .txb6 :d7 23 .tc7 ± EdwardsSavage, cοπ 1987) 18 b3 :d8 19 .tf4 "h5 20 h3 .te6 21 .tc4 bS 22 .te2 "fS 23 d6 and again Whίte has a clear advantage, Gufeld-Listengarten, Baku 1964. 16:rdl (D) After 16d6, 16....te617 :adl.tf8 18 f3 "h4 19 .tgS "hS 20 .txd8 :xd8 21 "aS gave Whίte a clear advantage ίη Diez de Cοπal-JίmeneΖ,

Mαroczy ΒίΜ:

7... fΔB4

Palma de Mallorca 1967. However, Black can improve with 16....t.d7.

267

This threateos 19 g4. 18•••e4 19 :c7 .tc6 20 ύΟΟ! ]hcU

21 hcU bxc6 22.tc4 Β

16••:.f5! It is very hard for Whίte to prove ao advantage after this subtle move. 16....t.e6? is far less effective: 1) 17 dxe61eads to interesting play: 17...hd2 18 exf7+ Wxϊl 19 :xd2 a6 20 :d7+ Wg8 (20...We6? 21 :adl!, Κavalek-Holas, Prague 1958) 21.t.f1! :c8 22 :adl.tf8 23 g3 .tc5 24 .tg2 ;t Schwarz. However, this is aIl of academic ίη­ terest since 17 f3! (a move discovered 25 years ago by the English 1Μ Jooathan Penrose) leads to a winning positioo for Whίte. 2) 17 f3! "f5 (the point of 17 f3 is that 17 .....xd5?? 18 "e2 leaves the queen trapped mid-board; if 17.....h4 theo 18 .tg5 "h5 19 .txd8 hd8 20 'it'a5! {and oot 20 dxe6? :xd2 21 e7 :xg2+!} 1-0 JokSic-Wemer, Biell975) 18 .td3 :xd5 19 .txf5 :xd2 20 :xd2 .txf5 21 :Cl, Penrose-Lees, Βήtish Ch 1965 and Gunnarsoo-Mossin, Reykjavik 1994. Black should eventυally lose this endgame. 17 :'cl .td7 18 .te2

Most theoretical works claim a clear advantage for White at this stage. However, it tums out that Black is actυally quite comfortable! 22....te5 23 :ΧΙ7 Whίte tried to wio ίο Quist-Espig, Gennany 1993, but thiogs tυmOO sour after23 :b7:f8 24:xa7 .t.f4 25:a3 .txe3 26 :xe3 Wg7 27 :de2 :d8 28 .tb3 :d4 29 .tc2 "c5 30 .txe4?? :dl+ 31 :el "xe3! 32 fxe3 :xe1+ 33 Wf2 :al 34 a3 c5 35 .td5 :dl 36 e4:d2+0-1. 23.....xf7 24.txf7+ Wxf7 25 :d7+ We6 26 ]hh7 aS Gufeld-Espig, Sukhumi 1972. The active black pieces fully compensate for the mateήal deficit and a draw was agreed after 27 b3 a4 28 bxa4 :xa4 29 :a7:b4 30 Wf1 :bl+ 31 We2.tc3 32 f3 :b2+ 33 Wf1 exf3 34 gxf3 35 a4:a2.

:xh2

82) 9...~(D)

w

268

Accelerαted

With ... lΩB4 Black has managed to relieve some of the cramp ίη his positίoη and to centra1ize his knight. White οη the other hand stίll has his space advantage and can play with either f4 or b4 depending οη inclinatίon. Now White usually plays one of the following moves: B2a: 10 :c:l 269 B2b: 10 • .u 280 White can also play: 1) 1Ο ,ι,e2 (D) (this allows Black to double White's c-pawns) and then:

Dragons

f6+ exf6 17 .xd6 lΩe6 18 /ί)d5 ;t analysis by Averbakh. lb) 10....txc3+ 11 bxc3 .aS (Ρίιiρ recommends 11 ...b6, when both 12 f4? .t.b7 13 ,ι,f3 .c7 and 12 ο-ο ,ι,b7 13 f3 'ilfc7 14 :bl ο-ο 15 'ilfd2 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 are favoυrable Ιο Black, but 12 .d5! .ta6 {12 ...:b8?? loses to 13 .e5} 13 f4 :c8 14 f5 leaves White WΊαι a strong initiatίve) 120-0 'ilfxc3 (both 12...d613 .d5! 'ilfxc314 .b5+ Φf8 15 :acl .g7 16 :fdl, Dzindzichashvili-Kapengut, USSR 1961, and 12... b6 13 .d5! .xd5 14 cxd5 1Ωc5 15 e5 .tb7 16 c4 d6 17 f40-0 18 a4! are better for White) 13 c5 with two possibilitίes:

Β

la) 10... 0-0 (less testίng, but perhaps safer, than the capture οη c3 examined next) 11 0-0 d6 12 f4 ,ι,d7 (12 ...1Ωc5 13 .tf3 .te6 14 ,ι,d4 .txd4+ 15 'ilfxd4.b6 16 :adl is a litt1e better for White according to Κapengut; a complicated game results from 12... f5 13 exf5 gxf5 14.d2 .td7 15 g4 fxg4 16 f5 lΩc5 17 b4lΩa6 18 b5 fiJc7 19 .txg4 e6 20 :acl exf5 21 .tf3lΩe6 22 .txb7 f4, Skripchenko-Giterman, Μοl­ davia 1959) 13 f5 lΩc5 14 .td4 aS 15 .txg7 (15 00 .txd4+ led Ιο equalίty ίπ Κ.Grigοήan-Steίn, USSR Spartakiad (Moscow) 1972) 15 .. .'iιxB7 16

lbl) 13 ...0-0 14 :cl .e5 15 .d5 (15 ,ι,d3 lΩf4 16 ,ι,bΙ f5?! 17 exf5 gxf518:el :f719.d2lΩe620,ι,g5 .g7 21 :xe6! dxe6 22 :c3 'ilfe5 23 :g31-07J1ilin-Bastrikov, USSR 1960) 15....xd5? (better is 15 ...d6 16 cxd6 exd6 17 .tc4, though White then has more than enough compensatίon for the pawn according Ιο Campora) 16 exd5lΩg7 17 .tg5 f6 18 .t.h6 :e8 19 g4! b6 20 :rel bxc5 21 :xc5 .tb7 22 :bl :ac8 23 :xc8 ,ι,χc8 24 ,ι,e3 a6 25 :b6 and White's bind gives him a clear advantage, Campora-Birmingham, Royan 1988. lb2) 13 ....e5 14 .a4 (an important alternative is 14 'ilfd5!?, when Fήas claims that the ending after 14....xd5 is bad for Black, and due to this, he feels that 14...f6 may be the only reasonable reJ>ly) 14...0-0 15 :acl (15 f4!?) 15...~f4 16.tf3 d6 17 :fdl hS! (now Black is alίve and well) 18 cxd6 exd6 19 ,ι,d4 .g5 20,ι,b2 (ίntending Ιο meet 20... lΩxB2 WΊαι 21 :d5) 20...,ι,Β4 21 .d4 f6 22 .e3

Marocl:Y Bind: 7... l:Δg4

lbh3+ (22 ...:ad8 is also possible) 23 ~1 "xe3 24 fxe3 lbg5 25 Φ12 :ad8

with a clear advantage for Black, Vaganian-Fήas, Saint ]ohn 1988. 2) 10 .i.d3 (this defends e4 but removes "d5 possibilities) 1O....i.xc3+ 11 bxc3 12 0-0 g5 13 .d2 b6 14 :abl .i.a6 15 c5lbxc5 16.i.xa6lbxa6 17 .i.xg5 :g8 18 .i.h4 .h5 19 .i.g3 lbc5 20 f3 :c8 21 c4 "g6 22 :fdl 'ίi'e6 23 "c2 "c6 24 :d5 lbe6 25 :bdl lbf8 26 :cl :g6 27 f4 and White went οη Ιο win ίη BologanGarcia Padron, Las Palmas 1993.

.a5

828) 10:cl (D)

Stoppίng ....i.xc3+ and threatening 11 b4. This move is more exact than 10 'ίi'd2, which can sometimes allow Black possibilities of .....a5, ... lbc5, ....i.d7, and ...lba4. Addίtionally, ίη the event of ...Π-β White wίll have 10st control of the d l-h5 dίagonal (assumίng .i.d3), which can be ίmportant ίη some lίnes. After 10 :cl Black has three different schemes of development:

269

B2al: 10...b6 269 B2a2: 10•.••aS 271 B2a3: 10•••d6 278

8281) 10...b6 This move prepares ... .i.b7, pressuήng White's e-pawn and hoping Ιο provoke 12-f3, which would weaken White's dark squares οη the h2-b8 dί­ agonal. Black, if allowed this, would then continue with ....i.e5 and ...~8, forcing White Ιο weaken his kίng ρο­ sition further. Sadly enough, against such a solίd, centre-οήented opening as the Maroczy Bind, such a plan cannot be fully cοπecΙ However, against somewhat inaccurate play ίι can succeed (see 11 .i.e2 ίη the next note!). ll.i.d3! (D) The best move, protecting the epawn and thus making 12-f3 unneces-

sary. In Levchenkov-Kapengut, USSR 1971, Whίte tήed ll.i.e2 whίch, while ηοΙ a bad move, isn 't the most exact, as after ....i.b7 the e-pawn needs protection. The real problems for Whίte came after 12 f3 .i.e5 (and not 12 ... 0-0?!, when 13 ο-ο f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15 f4! gives White the advantage, DamjanoVΊc-Szίlagyi, Varna 1971) 13"d2 ~8 14 g3?! (a second inaccuracy, throwing away all hopes of obtaining an opening advantage; best is 14 :dl, seekίng to encourage ...d6 whίch wοώd make ....*.e5 and ....b8 look silly thenafter 14.....d615.cl ~ {Black has nothing better than to repeat} 16 g3 f6 17lbd5 Whίte would have some advantage, Simagin-Bannik, USSR

270

Accelerαted

Ch 1961) 14...h515 Ι4? (aseήous mistake; the 10ss οΙ Black's dark-squared bishop isn 't as seήουs as the weakness οΙ White's e-pawn and light squares, so 15 ιαt5 is cοπect, with equality) 15 ....*-xc3 16 .xc3 f6! 17 .*-ο .*-c6 18 ~Ω Wb7 19 :cel h4 20 b4 .*-xe4 21 .*-xe4 .xe4 22 .*-xb6 .c6 23 .*-a5 hxg3+ 24 .xg3 .xc4 25 .xg6+ ~f8 26 We4 :c8 27 Ι5 Wd4+ 28 :e3 :h4 0-1. Another set-up is 11 .d2.*-b7 12 .*-e2 0-0 13 f3, when 13 ... f5 leads Ιο an advantage for White: 14 exf5 gxf5 15 ιαt5 .e8 16 O-O.tϊ 17 b4 Ι4 18 .*-Ω ~g5 19 h4! ± Β.Laιiό-Cοnqυest, Hastings 1995/6.

ll....*-b7 11 ...~5?! just loses time: 12.*-bl d6 13 b4 ιαt7 14 .*-d4 .*-xd4 15 .xd4 ο-ο 16 ο-ο .*-a6 17 ~d5 ;t ChandlerLarsen, Hastings 1987/8. 120-00-0 ΙΙ Black attempts Ιο follow his play (vs 10 .*-e2) in the note to White's 10th move he gets squashed: 12...Wb8? 13 Wd2 Wd6 14 ~d5 g5 15 b4 h5 16 :fdl.*-e5 17 h3 j,f4 18 j,f1 j,c6 19 j,xf4 ~xΙ4 20 Wb2! and White is

Dragons

clearly better, Mochalov-Κapengut, USSR 1975/6. 13b4 Plans based οη f2-f4 are also possible, but the text is more thematic, gaining space οη the queenside and shutting Black's knight ουΙ οΙ the game. Οη 13 Wd2, Cuban GM Roman Hemandez got equality against Frey at Bayamo 1983 WΊth 13 ...:e8 14 Ι4 ~5 15 Ι5 d6 16 :f4 j,e5 17 :h4 e6 18 :h3 ~xd3 19 .xd3 .c7 20 .td4 exf5 21 exf5 .txd4+ 22 .xd4 Wc5 . Α good altemative, though, is 13 j,bl!? (D), when Black has:

1) 13 ... f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15 Wh5 .e8 16 Wxe8 :axe8 17 Ι4 d6 18 b3 j,d4 19 j,xd4 ~xd4 20 :cel Φtϊ 21 :e3 :g8 lh_l/'l Marciano-Apicella, Wildbad 1990. 2) 13 ...:c8 14 b3 d615 .d2 (15 f4

~516Ι5! ;ta617~~718.d2 j,xd5 19 exd5 ~f6 20 j,d4 b5 21 j,d3 ~g4 22 j,e2! ± Espig-R.Hernandez, Tallinn 1975) 15 ... a5 16 ~5 (16:fdl ~517 .*-h6.*-xh618 .xh6 We8 19 :d4 Ι6 20 iΩd5 e5 21 :d2 j,xd5 22 :xd5 We7 23 :cdl iΩe624 :xd6 iΩf4 led ιο unclear play ίο

Mαroczy ΒίΜ: 7... l'Δg4

Tseshkovsky-R.Hemandez, Las Palmas 1976) 16...lbc517 .i.g5f618.i.e3 ;t Ηϋbner-R.ΗemandeΖ, Las Palmas 1976. Retuming to the maίn line after 13 b4(D).

13...85 Trying to gaίn some play οη the queenside, but also creatίng a weakness οη b6. But what else is Black Ιο do? Altemate plans are: 1) 13 ... f5?! is an understandable reactίon: Black wants to break one of the two pillars of the Bind, but ίη doing so he just creates more weaknesses ίη hίs positίon. 14 exf5 gxf5 15 f4! (with the idea of 'i!fh5) 15 ... 'i!fe8 16 00 ':c8 17 .i.e2! lbc7 18.i.h5 'i!fd8 19 .i.d4 tOxd5 20 .i.xg7! Φχg7 21 cxd5 ':xc 1 22 'i!fd4+ ':f6 23 ':xc 1 'i!fb8 24 .i.f3 "d6 25 a3 e6 26 'i!fe5! exd5 27 b5! ± Lemer-Sίlva, Odessa 1976. 2) 13 ...tOd4 takes advantage ofthe fact that with .i.d3 Whίte has lost some control of d4 as a resu1t of blocking the d-file. Unfortunately for Black, after 14 .i.bl! he must retreat, because the attempt to anchor the knight with 14...e5 allows 15 f4 d6 16 f5 with a

271

strong attack. Οη 14... tOc6 Whίte has 15 a3 ':c8 16 f4 d6 17 'i!fd3 'i!fd7 18 ':fdl with a clear edge, Suba-Taίma­ nov, Bucharest 1979. 3) 13 ...':c8 14 'i!fd2 .i.a6 15 tOd5 tOc7 16 c5 .i.xd3 17 "xd3 bxc5 18 .i.xc5 tOxd5 19 'i!fxd5 ;t Nunn-Larsen, Hastίngs 1987/8. 4) 13 ... 'i!fe8 14 f4 f5 15 tOd5 Φh8 16 exf5 gxf5 17 .i.e2 ':g8 18 .i.h5 'i!ff8 19':f2 ':c8 20.i.f3 tOc7 21 ':fc2 with the better game for Whίte ίη RenetApicella, French Ch 1991. 14a3axb4 The attempt to ease the pressure by exchanging pieces ίη Bukίc-Jolclic, Yugoslav Ch 1974 faίled after 14...d6 15 .i.bl axb4 16 axb4 .i.xc3 17 ':xc3 ':al 18 'i!fd2 'i!fa8 19 f3 'i!fa7 20 .i.d3 ':xf1+ 21 .i.xf1 ±. 15 axb4 ':a3 16 "d2 Ι5? Ιη ECO, αΜ Ρίιiρ recommends 16... .i.d4 as a better try, claίming that Whίte only ends υρ with a slight advantage. One possible contίnuatίon is 17lΩb5.i.xe3 18 'i!fxe3 ':a4 19 ':bl .i.c6 20 1Ωc3 ':a3 21 lΩd5 .i.xd5 22 exd5lΩf4 23 'i!fxf4 ':xd3 24 ':a3 25 c5 t. 17 tOd5! .i.xdS 18 exd5 Ι4 19 dxe6 fxe3 20 "xe3:r6 21 exd7 ':d6 22 cS! ':dxd3 So far Csom-Planίnc, Banja Luka 1974. Now 23 "e6+ Φf8 24 cxb6! :Xd7 (24.....xd7 25 :C8+) 25 b7 :Xb7 26 ':c8 would have won for Whίte.

"e4

8282) 10.....85 (D) move makes more sense than 10... b6. Black prevents 11 b4 and, as a result, keeps c5 open for hίs knight. Thίs

272

Accelerated Dragons necessarily the most exact and can often be dίspensed with entirely. 11•••d6 Once thought to be ίnfeήοr, 1I. ..b6! (D) became popular when Larsen used it to make an easy draw against Kar-

w

ρον:

w Unfortunately, however, White can exploit the exposed position of the queen Ιο pick υρ tempi. White now has: B2a2a: 11.d2 272 B2aZb: 11 J.e2 276 B2a2e: 11 J.d3! 277 One other possibility for White is 11 WdS!? J.xc3+(I1 ....xdS?! 12cxdS tαι4 13lί)b5 {13 J.xd4 J.xd4 14lί)b5 is ;t} 13 ...lί)xb5 14 J.xb5 J.xb2 15 :c2 J.g7 16 J.xa7 0-017 J.b6 d618 a4 ± - analysis by M.Iνanoν) 12 :xc3 .xa2 13 J.cl! Wa4 14 J.e2 d6 150-0 Wc6 16 b4 aS Ι/Ζ_Ι/Ζ M.lvanov-Heine Nielsen, λrs 1995, 17 :a3 a4 18 .xc6+ bxc6 19 J.dl c5 20 J.xa4+ J.d7 21 b5 lί)d4 is unclear according to M.Ivanov.

82828) 11.d2 Meeting the threat Ιο the a-pawn, but possibly ηοΙ the best Moνe, as play now transposes ίηto lines usually οήgίnating ΠΟΜ the move-order 10 .d2 .aS 11 :Cl. The point is that while.d2 is ηοΙ a bad move, ίι isn't

1) 12 J.e2 J.b7 13 f3 and now Black must choose a kingside pawn to push: la) 13...h5 (an idea ofLarsen's) 14 0-0 (14 b3 h4 15 lί)dS .xd2+ 16 xd2 J.h6 17 :bdl J.xe3+ 18 xe3 g5 19 b4 d6led to good play for Black ίη Κramnίk-Ljubojeνic, Monaco Am.berrpd 1994) 14... g5 15 :fdl (Black also does well after 15 a3 .e5 16 :fdl d6 17 b4 h4 18lί)dS f8 19 J.fl J.c6 20 .d3 lί)f4 21 lί)xf4 gxf4 22 J.d4 .xd4+ 23 .xd4 J.xd4+ 24 hd4 :h5 25 c5?! dxc5 26 bxc5 b5 27 e5 h3! 28 :el hxg2 29 J.xg2 :c8 30 :xf4 J.d5 ; Short-Larsen, Brussels 1987) 15 ...d6 and now: lal) 16 a3 f8 17lί)d5 .xd2 18 :xd2 :c8 (the immedίate 18 ...h4 19 b4 J.e5 is also possible) 19 b4 J.e5 20 a4 J.xd5 21 exd5 J.f4 22 f2 J.xe3+ 23 xe3 lί)f4 24 J.fl h4 25

Maroczy ΒίΜ: 7...lΔg4 a5, Campora-Cebalo, San Bemardino 1988, and now Black can equalize WΊth 25 ...Φg7 26 axb6 axb6 27 %l.al lDg6 28 %l.a6lDe5 29 %l.c2 %l.b8 30 %l.a7 Φf6 =- analysis by Cebalo. la2) 16lDd5.xd2 17 %l.xd2 j,e5 (οι 17... h418 b4 j,e5 19 a4 f6 20 %l.a2 Φϊl 21 %l.dl lDf4 22 j,f1 j,xd5 23 cxd5 %l.ac8 24 a5 ':'c3 25 j,f2 ':'b8! = Schmidt-Kuczynski, Slupsk 1988) 18 b4 ':'c8 19 a4 h4 20 j,f1 f6 21 ':'a2 j,d4 22 φα Φϊl 23 a5 j,xd5 24 exd5 j,xe3+ 25 Φχe3 lDf4 with equality, Κarpov-Larsen, Brussels 1987. lb) 13 ...f5(thisdoesn'thaveagood reputation) 14 exf5 gxf5 15 ο-ο %l.g8 16 :tdl d6 and now: lbl) 17 a3?! allows Black to initiate sharp play with 17 ... f4!? Ιη Kasparov-Yurtaev, Vilnius 1975, Black had a winning position after 18 j,xf4 j,d4+ 19 ΦhΙ 'iff5 20 lDd5? (20 j,e3! is unclear) 20... j,xd5 21 cxd5 lDxf4 22 j,b5+ Φf8 23 'ifxd4 %l.xg2 24 j,d7? %l.xh2+ 25 Φxh2 'ifh5+ 26 Φg3 lDe2+ 27 Φf2lDxd4 28 %l.xd41Wh2+. lb2) 17lDd5.xd2 18 %l.xd2 %l.c8 19 b4 j,e5 20 f4 j,xd5 21 j,h5+ Φd7 22 fxe5 j,xc4 23 exd6 exd6 24 ':'cdl ± Kochiev-Mukhin, USSR 1976. 2) 12 .d5 and here: 2a) 12....xd5 13 exd5! (13 cxd5 lDc5 14 f3 1/2-1/2 Szekely-Marjanovic, Moscow 1989; Black would continue with 14... a5 =) 13 ...lDd4 14 j,d3 j,b7 15 ο-ο ο-ο 16 %l.fdl t G.MorrisonW.Watson, Βήtish Ch (Blackpool) 1988. That game continued 16 ...lDf5 17 j,xf5 gxf5 18 f4 e6 19 j,d4 %l.fc8 20 j,xg7 Φχg7 21 lDb5 a6 22 lDd6 ':'c7 23 ':'c3 ':'b8 24 ':'b3 b5 25 dxe6 fxe6 26 cxb5 j,d5 27 ':'g3+ Φf6 28 bxa6 %l.a7 29 lDb7 j,xb7 30 axb7

273

%l.bxb7 31 ':'b3 ':'xb3 32 axb3 ':'b7 33 %l.d3 d5 and Black made a draw in 53 moves. 2b) 12...%l.b8! 13 .xa5 bxa5 14 b3 j,d4 (14 ... j,xc3+ 15 %l.xc3 %l.b7 16 j,e2 a4 17 0-0 0-0 18 c5 ± LangewegTomov, Plovdiv 1974) 15 j,d2 (Van der Steπen-Rοgers, Prague 1992 was drawn at this point) 15 ... d6 16 lDd5 lDc5 17 lDc7+?! Φd7 18 lDb5 j,e5 19 j,xa5 lDxe4 20 j,d3 lDc5 21 j,c2 a6 22 lDa7 j,b7 23 ο-ο j,e4 24 b4 j,xc2 25 ':'xc2 %l.b7! 26 bxc5 dxc5 27 %l.ccl %l.hb8 28 ':'fel j,d6 29 g3 %l.xa7 and Black went οη to win ίη Sion-Garcia ΡΟΟιοn. Spanish Cht 1994. 3) 12 j,d3 j,b7 130-0 g5 (D) and now:

3a) 14 f3 j,e5 15 ':'fdl ':'c8 16 b3 j,f4 17 j,bl d6 18 lDd5 .xd2 19 j,xd2 j,xd2 20 ':'xd2 b5 21 lDe3 b4 22 %l.cdl lDc5 23 j,c2 a5 with excellent play for Black, Voroniatov-Vokarev, Russia 1993. 3b) 14 b3 h5 15 j,bl h4 16 %l.fdl d617 f3 j,c6 18 'ifb2 ο-ο 19 b4 .e5 20 'ifd2 ':'fc8 21 lDd5 Φf8 and again Black has very good play, BraginVokarev, Russian club Ch 1993.

274

Accelerαted Drαgons

3c) 14 :fdl d6 15 a3 (15 f3 .te5 16
"f2

immediate 11 ... g5 not nearly so clear: 12.i.e2 (the aggressive-looking 12 h4 is not so effective: 12...h6 13 'i'dS 'iFb4 14 :c2 {14 hxg5 hxg5 15 :xh8+ .i.xh8 16 e5!?} 14...d6 15 hxg5 hxgS 16 :xh8+ .i.xh8 17 "b5+ 'iFxb5 18 lDxb5 .td7 = Portisch-Reshevsky, Amsterdam ΙΖ playoff 1964) 12....te5 (12 ... lDf4 13 ο-ο .i.e5 14 :fdl d6 15 lDb5lDxe2+ 16 'i'xe2 .i.d7 17 b4 "d8 18 .i.xg5 led to an eventua1 wίn for White ίο Uhlmann-Piri§i, Dieren 1990) 13 g3 :g8 14 ο-ο g4? (the calm 14...d6 15
w

12.i.e2 Also playable is 12 .td3. though Black is ΟΚ after 12....td7 (12... g5 13 ο-ο .i.d7 14 .tbl 'i'e5 15 b4 h5 16 lDd5
Maroczy ΒίΜ: 7... ~g4 WοjtkίewίCΖ-Μaheπamzade, Linares Open 1997) 130-0 (after 13 b3 .tc6 14.tbl 1i'h5 15 ~dS g5! 161i'e2 {16 ο-ο :g8 intendίng ...llli4 is fine for Black} 16.....xe2+ 17 cRxe2 b618 h4 h6 19 hxg5 hxg5 20 :xh8+ .txh8 the positίon is equal, Κeene-Levy, Camaguey 1974) and now: 1) 13 ... ~5 14 .tbl 0-0 15 .th6 .tc616 b3 :fe817 .txg7 cRxg7 18 f4 'ifb4 19 :cel aS 20 :e3 a4 21 f5 f6 = Podgaets-Taborov, USSR 1976. 2) 13... 0-014 b3 :fc8 15 f4?! ~5 16.tbl .tc6 17 ί5 lbd7 18 cRhl a6 19 1i'el b5 20 .td2 bxc4 21lί)d5 1i'd8 22 .taS 1i'f8 23 fxg6 hxg6 with an υη­ clear positίon, Kudrίn-Larsen, Hastings 1986/7. 3) Naturally, the standard 13 ... g5 14 :fdl We5 also deserves consideratίoη.

4) 13....tc6 14 :fel (14 .tbl 1i'hS 15 lbd5 g5 16 f3 .te5 17 g3 :g8 18 1i'f2 .tf4 19 cRhl .txe3 20 "xe3 f621 f4 favoured White ίη Browne-Waterman, Sunnyvale 1974) 14...0-015 .th6 "e5! 16.txg7cRxg717 :cdl1Ωc5 18 .tf1 aS =Nogueiras-Korchnoi, Montpellίer α 1985. 12.••.td7 (D)

w

275

13 0.0 ω 13 ....tc6 is an important alternatίve. After 14 f3 we have: 1) 14... g5!? (playίng for control of e5) 15 :fdl (after 15 b3, 15 ....te5 16 'ilt'b2! lί)d4 17 .td3 b5 18 'ilt'd2 bxc4 19 .txc4lΩe6 20 .txe6 fxe6 21 .txg5 ± Ma.Tseitlin-Bukhman, Lenίngrad Ch 1970, but according to Κapengut Black can improve with 15 ...:g8! 16 "b2llli4 17 J:[f2 ~xe2+ 18 :xe2 g4) 15...h5 16lbd5 "xd2 17 :xd2 b6 18 b4 :c8 19 a4 and after Black took a tainted pawn by 19....txa4 20 b5 21 cxb5 :xc1+ 22 .txcl, White went οη 10 WΊη ίη Fήas-Αverbakh, New YorkWFW 1990. 2) 14...f5 15 exf5 gxf5 and then: 2a) 16 :fdl? f4! 17 .txf4 :g8 18 .tg3 .td4+ 19 .tf2 (19 cRhl :xg3 =F) 19....txf2+ 20 Φxf2 "c5+ gave Black a strong attack ίη Utίatsky-Mukhίn, Tashkent 1963. 2b) 16 f41Ωc5 17 .thS+ cRd7 18 .td4 (18 "c2 .txc3 19 "xf5+ lΩe6 20 "h3 .td2 21 .txd2 "xd2 is υη­ clear, Schmίdt-Eliskases, Leipzίg OL 1960) 18 ...~e4 is equal accordίng to Levy. 14.tb6! The best try for an advantage. If 14 f3, Black has 14... ~a4 forcing simplificatίon: 15 ~xa4 (15 .td4 .txd4+ 16 "xd4 "c5 17 "xc5 dxc5 18 lί)d5 :c8 19 :c2 lί)b6 20 :fc 1 .tc6 = Damjanovi~- Velimirovic, Yugoslavia 1977) 15 .....xd2 16 .txd2 .td4+ 17 cRbl.txa418 .tc3 .txc3 19 :xc3 b6 20 cRgl =Dra§ko-Velimirovic, Budva 1986. Α similar motίf was seen ίη Κhol­ mov-Averbakh, Moscow 1970 after 14 .tf3 .tc6 15 .td4 ο-ο 16 .txg7

:a2

276

Accelerαted

~xg7 17 We3 :ad8 18 :t"dl Wb619 :d2~4!=.

14•••0-0 Necessary, as 14....*.xc3 15 :xc3 lLJxe4 16 Wd4 We5 17 Wxe5 dxe5 18 :e3 lLJf6 (18 ... lLJd6 19 .*.g7 :g8 20 .*.xe5) 19 h3 leaves White οη top. 15 .*."g7 ~ι' 16 b3 j,e6 17 :fel ~?! Α better plan is ...:ad8 intending ...e7-e5 and ... lΩe6-d4. Ιη ECO, Ρilίρ

gives 17 ...:ad8 18 Wb2 e5 19 b4 Wb6 20 j,f1 f5 21 ~ .*.xd5 22 exd5 :c8 with an unclear positίon. 18.*.g4;1; Κorchnoi-Petrosian, Odessa Ct (5) 1974.

Dragons

2) 12 Wd5!? Wxd5 13 cxd5lLJd4! 15 .*.c4 (15 .txd4?! .*.xd4 15 lLJb5 .*.xb2 16lLJc7+ ~d8 17 :c2 :b8 =F) 15....*.b7 15 ~d2 (15 0-0 :c8 16 b3 ~ Rogers) 15 ... e6! 16 :hdl :c8 17 b3 ο-ο 18 Φd3 exd5 19 lLJxd5 lLJc6 Ribli-Rogers, Bundesliga 1995/6. 120-O.*.d7 (D)

=

w

B2a2b) 11 .*.e2d6 11 ....*.xc3+!? deserνes attentίon. Another possibility is 11 ...b6: 1) 12 0-0 .*.b7 13 f3 g5 (note that this idea is ηοΙ so good if the queen hasn't gone to d2) 14:α h5 15 .*.f1 We5 (White also gains the advantage after 15 ....*.xc3 16 :xc3 g4 17 f4! .*.xe4 18 f5 g3 19 hxg3 lLJc5 20 :a3 Wb4 21 Wd4 :g8 22.td2 ιrapping the black queen, Chandler-Larsen, Hastings 199011) 16 :d2 d6 (16....*.c6 17 b4 :d8 18 lLJd5 Wb8 19 c5 bxc5 20 bxc5 .te5 21 h3 :g8 22 Wb3 g4 23 Wxb8 .*.xb8 24 hxg4 hxg4 25 f4! .*.xd5 26 exd5 .*.xf4 27 .*.xf4 lLJxf4 28 :d4 lLJh5 29 :a4 and White has a clear advantage, even though he's a pawn down, Stangl-Becker, Bundesliga 199112) 17lLJd5 ~f8 18 b4 .*.h6 19 Wb3 g4 20 .*.xh6+ :xh6 21 We3 Wg7 22 f4 ± Short-Larsen, Hastίngs 1987/8.

13ιαts!?

Sharpest, but perhaps ηοι best. Zek recommends 13 f3 .*.c6 14 :n!? foUowed by '*'f1 and J:ld2, whi1e after 13 f4 lLJc5 (according ιο Yakovich, 13....*.c6 14 f5 lLJc5 15 f6 .*.xf6 16 :xf6 exf6 17 Wxd6lDe6 18 ι&ι5 Wd8 19 Wa3 is ±) 14 e5 (Yakovich also mentίons 14 .*.d4!?) 14....*.c6 15 exd6 :d8 16lbd5 .*.xd5 17 dxe7 ~xe7 18 cxd5 Black lost quickly ίη YakovichSedina, Volgograd 1995. 13•••.*."b2 14 :bl .*.g7 15 %lxb7 Αη extremely sharp positίon has been reached. For a long tίme Black was thought ιο be ίη cήtίcal conditίon, but now ίι seems that there are defensive resources. 15•••ιαtB! Thίs is the only way that Black can ρυι υρ resistance. 15 ....*.c6? loses

Mαroczy ΒίΜ: 7... fΔB4

bήlliantly to 16 :xe7+ ~f8 17 c5!! ιαιc5 (17 ....*.xd5 18 .xd5 ~xe7? 19

cxd6+ wίns for Whίte, as does 17...dxc5 18 :Σxe6! fxe6 19l1li4 ~e7 20 ιαιe6! - analysis by Shamkovich) 18 .*.c4! .*.xd5 19 1fxd5 ~xe7 20 1fxf7+ ~d8 21 1fxg7 :e8 22 .*.d5 :b8 23 1fxh7 lLιxe4 24 .*.c6 1fc7 25 .xc7+ ~xc7 26 :c 1 ! lLιc5 27 .*.xe8 :xe8 28 -*.xc5 dxc5 29 :xc5+ and Whίte won οη the 47th move ίn ShamkoVΊch-Waterman, Lone Pine 1975. 1611fb3 Instead: 1) Shamkovich gίves 16.*.d2 1fxa2 17 :b3 as beίng ;1;, but thίs needs to be tested. 2) 16 .*.d4 -*.xd4! 17 1fxd4 f6! WΊth an unclear positίon (Zek). 3) 16 :bllLιe6 17 f4 .*.a4! 18 .cl ~c6 19 f5lLιc5 is also unclear (Zek). 4) 16 :c7!? lLιe6 17 -*.d2!? .xa2 181fbl.xd219:Σxd70-0withZek's

usual unclear verdίct. 16••• lLιxb7 17 .xb7 :d8 Zek claίms that Black can equalίze WΊthI7 ...:Σc8! 18-*.xa71fa4! 19lLιc7+ :xc7 201fxc7 0-0. The text leads to a new burst of coιnplίcatίons. 18 c5!? Black can hold the draw after 18 ~xa7 1fxa2 19 .*.b6 1fb2!? 201fa7 0-0 21 ~xd8 :xd8 22 1fc711fb8 23 "xb8 :xb8 24 lLιxe7+ ~f8 25 lLιd5 .tc6 followed by ...~xd5. 18...d.xc5 19 .tb5! Black defends οη both 19 .tg5 ~5! (threatening to snare Whίte's queen with ...:b8)20:bl Ο-ο! and 19~f4!? 0-0 20 ~c7 1fxa2 ;. 19....*.e5 20 84 e6 The game is equal. Ιη VoormaasZek, cοπ 1988-9, the conclusion was

277

21 f4 exd5 22 fxe5 1fb6 23 .xd5 .e6 24 .xc5 ~xb5 25 axb5 :c8 26 "xa7 ο-ο 27 b6 .g4! 28 b7 :Σc2 29 g3 .e2 30 :t2 .el+ Ih-Ih.

B2a2c) 11-*.d3! (D)

Β

Α lίttle-played but quίte strong move. Whίte prepares to gambit hίs a-pawn ίη retum for the two bishops, pressure οη the dark squares and space. Now plans based οη ... f5 and ...g5, ...~5, ...-*.f4 and ...•e5 have to consider the fact that the whίte queen is stίll ίn contact with the dl-h5 dίago­ nal. 11....*.xc3+ Since this is promίsing for Whίte, Black must look to the lίst of altematίves for salvatίon: 1) 11 ...d6 12 ο-ο (12 .d2 transposes to the note {12 .*.d3 } to Whίte's 12th move ίη sectίon B2a2a) 12...0-0 13 .*.bl .*.d7 14 ί4 ~c6?! (better is 14 ... lLιc5 15 lLιd5, though Whίte stίll retaίns an edge, Mednis-D.Byrne, USA Ch 1973) 15 ί5lLιc5 16 ί6! .*.xf6 17 :xf6! exf6 18 b4 1fxb4 19 1fxd6

278

.a5

Accelerαted Drαgons

~a6 20 .xf6 :fe8 21 .*.d4 Φf8 22 23 :η Wc7 24 Wg7+ 1-0

a3

Filipenko-Κ1iulάn,

Bie11993. 2) 11 ... g5 120-0 We5 13 c5 0-0 14 lbd5 ~f4 15 ~xf4 gxf4 16 .*.d2;t FedοrοwίCΖ-Αbramοvίό, New York 1988. 3) 11 ... b6 120-0 and now: 3a) 12....*.b7 (not best) 13 f4! ο-ο (l3 ...~5 14 .*.bl .*.xc3 15 :xc31tb4 16a3 Wa417We2 Wc618.*.d40-0 19 f5 ~xe4 20 :e3 ιαJ6 21 :xe7 :ae8 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 J:Σf3 and White scored the point ίη another ten moves ίη Gofshtein-Sedioa, Nova Goήca 1997) 14.*.bl (14 a3!?) 14... d615:t2 :ac8 16 ιαJ5 J.xd5 17 exd5 ~5 18 a3 ± Am.Rodrίguez-R.Hemandez, Cuban Ch 1988. 3b) 12... g5 (thίs blockade οη the dark squares is Black's best plan) 13 .*.bl (ίη Marin-Birίescu, Romanian Ch 1988, a sharp, even struggle ensued after 13 a3 .e5 14 b4 .*.b7 15 ~d5 J:Σc8 16 g3 .d6 17 f4 gxf4 18 gxf4.*.d4 19 Wf3 :g8+ 20 ΦhΙ .*.xe3 21 Wxe3 f5 22 :cel 1/2- 1/2) 13 ...J.a6 14 ιαJ5 .*.xb2 15 .*.d2 Wc5 16 .*.Μ Wd4 17 Wa4 .*.b7 18 :cdl J.xd5 19 :xd4 .*.c6 20 Wc2 .*.xd4 21 :dl .*.c5 22 Wb2 0-0-0 23 .*.c2 Φb7 24 a4 Φa8 25 e5 :b8 = G.Mohr-Greenfeld, Ljubljana VΊdmar mem 1989. 12 Jbc3 Wxa213 Wcl W.s 14 c5! In hίs notes to hίs game with Byme, Mednis reaches thίs positίon and gives 140-0 b6 (14...Wc7 15 c5 0-0 16 f4 f5 17 exf5 gxf5 18 :ο d5 19 cxd6 Wxd6 20 :g3+ Φf7 21 Wdl Φe8 22.*.b5+ .*.d7 23 :d3 ± Eingom-Dorfιnan, USSR Ch 1984) 15 f4.*.b7 as dynamically equal. However, Lombardy, ίη hίs comments to the game in Chαmpi­ onship Chess, a book about the U.S.

Championshίp

and the 1973 event in

Ρarticώar, contίnues with 16 :a3 Wh5

17 b4 0-0 18 :ο and the black queen is in 1rouble. He suggests 14...d6 15 f4 ~c5 16 .*.bl f5 as a better plan for Black. Thίs all seems irrelevant ίη the face of 14 c5!. Το develop, Black WΊll be forced to open lines for hίs ορρο­ nent. 14•••d6 Or 14...b6 15 cxb6 axb6 16 ο-ο threatening :a3 and :c8. 15 cxd6 exd6 16 0-0 We are following the game HonfiSzilagyi, Κecskemet 1970, whίch continued 16...0-0 17 :a3 Wb4 18 J.c4 J.d7 19 :b3 Wa5 20 :xb7 .*.c6 21 :e7±.

8283) 10...d6 (D)

w

Black's most flexible move, but it seems to land short of equality. llb4 Also good is 11 .*.d3, when Black can try: 1) 11 ...a5 12 .*.bl .*.d7 13 b3.tc6 140-00-015 {4 b616lbd5?! ~517 stίll

Mαroczy ΒίΜ: 7... fΔg4

279

=

-*.d4 e6 18ltlc3 e5 Deu-Velimirovic, Yugoslavia 1977. 2) 11 ...-*.d7 120-0 (or 12 'ii'd2 a5 130-0 ltlc5 14 -*.bl -*.c6 15 f4 ο-ο 16 e5! ~ Polugaevsky-Kapengut, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1971) and now: 2a) 12...a5 13 'ii'd2 (13 ί4 -*.c6 14 -*.blltlc5 15 'ii'e2 0-0 16 e5 ~a4 17 ~xa4 -*.xa4 18 b3 ± Portisch-Larsen, Lugano OL 1968) 13 ...0-0 14 f4ltlc5 15 -*.bl b6 16 'ii'f2 (16 f5!?) 16...-*.c6 17 :fdl 'ii'b8 18 ~d5 :a7 19 -*.d4 -*.xd4 20 :xd4? e5! :j: Ghitescu-Veliιniroνίc, Moscow 1977. 2b) 12... 0-0 13 -*.bl (Beliavsky gives 13 b4!? a5 14 a3 axb4 15 axb4 :a3 16 ~5 as !) 13 ...a5 14 'ii'e2 (ίη Kosten-Larsen, Esbjerg 1988, Black equa1ized and eventually drew after 14 f4 -*.c6 15 'ii'd2 a4 16 ~5ια5 17 e5 b6 18 ~b4 -*.b7 19 exd6 'ii'xd6 20 'ii'xd6 exd6 21 :cdl-*.xb2) 14...-*.c6 15 :fdl b6 16 ί4 (sharper than 16 tιxιs ltlc5 17 -*.g5 :a7 Beliavsky-Veliιn­ irovic, Reggio EmiIia 198617) 16...'ii'b8 17 ~5 :a7 18 ί5 ~ WΊlder-Larsen, Nrestved 1988. 3) 11 ...0-0120-0 and then: 3a) 12 ...ltlc5 13 -*.b1 a5 14 'ii'd2 -*.d7 15 -*.d4 ,ιΧd4 16 'ii'xd4 -*.c6 17 'ilfd2 ± Portisch-Petrosian, Palma de Ma1lorca Ct (2) 1974. Later ίη that same match, Petrosian improved his play... 3b) 12... a5 13 ,ιbΙ -*.d7 14 f4 -*.c6 15 'ii'e2 b6 16 f5ltlc5 17 'ii'f2 ~7 = Portisch-Petrosian, Palma de Mallorca Ct(8) 1974. 3c) 12...,ιd7 13 'ii'd2 'ii'a5! 14 b3 :fc8 15 ί4 ltlc5 16 ,ιbΙ ,ιc6 is υη­ clear, Κudrin-Larsen, Hastings 1986Π. 11•••0-0 (D)

=

12,ιe2

Somewhat less accurate is 12 -*.d3, losing control of d4. Black got good play ίη Ortega-R.Hemandez, Havana 1985, with 12... ,ιd7 and then 13 'ii'd2?! a5 14 a3 ~d4! 15 -*.c2 (15 :bl axb416 axb4 :a3!) 15 ...~xc2+ 16 :xc2 axb4 17 axb4 b5. However, White does better to play 13 0-0, when 13...b6? led to Black's strangulation ίη Csom-Short, Dortmund 1983 after 14 'ii'd2 (or 14 f4 a5 15 a3 axb4 16 axb4 17 ~b5 :a2 18 :c2 :al 19 'ii'e2 Lf1+ 20 ~xf1-*.c6 21 'ii'f2! JansaHemandez, Sombor 1976) 14...:b8 15 f4 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 -*.e2,ιc6 18 00 :c8 19,ιf3 'ii'd7 20,ιf2 ~h8 21 :fel -*.xd5 22 cxd5 :xcl 23 :xcl ~8 24 :c4, and 1-0 ίη 34. Οη 12 'ii'd2 Black can take advantage of the 10ss οί control of b3 by 12... a5 (12 ...b6 13 ,ιe2,ιb7 14 ~d5 ~c7 15 ο-ο e6 16 ~xc7 'ii'xc7 17 f3 and White is slight1y better, RogersR.Hemandez, Calcutta 1988) 13 a3 axb4 14 axb4 :a3 15 ,ιe2 :b3 16 tιxιs :b217 'ii'd3 :e8 180-0 ltlc719 :bl (19 ,ιb6? ~xd5!) 19 ... ~xd5 20 cxd5 :a2 Vukic-Velimirovic, Banja Luka 1983. 12.••85

:a3

=

280

Accelerαted

The altematives also favour White: 1) 12 ... f51! 13 exf5 gxf5 14 f4 aS 15 a3 axb4 16 axb4:a3 17 "d2 J.d7 180-0 J.c6 19 J.f3 ± Vaisman-Szilagyi, Budapest 1975. 2) 12... b6 130-0 J.b7 14lίXιS (14 "d2 :c8 15 lίXιS ~7 16 J.g5 ~xdS 17 exd5 J.f6 18 J.h6 J.g7 19 J.xg7 Φχg7 20 "d4+ Φg8 21 :fel e522 dxe6 fxe6 23 J.g4 ± Bagίrov-Tereotiev, Daugavpils 1990) 14.....d7 (14...~7 15 J.g5 f6 16 J.e3 Φh8 17 "b3 "d7 18 :fdl ~ C.Hansen-Larseo, Esbjerg 1988) 15 J.g4 f5 16 J.h3! ~7 17 ~xc7 "xc7 18 exf5 gxf5 19 c5! ± Adorjan-Larseo, Hastings 1986Π.

13 a3 axb4 14 axb4 J.d7 15 0-0 J.c616"d2 16 f3, as ίο Szymczak-R.Hemandez, Polanica Zdroj 1983, is unnecessary sioce after 16 "d2 Black can't take the e-pawo because of 16...J.xc3 17"xc3J.xe418J.h6:e819:fel!.

16.•.:.317 ~:es Velimirovi~'s

improvement over 17...Φh81! 18 J.b6 "d7 19 f4 f5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 J.f3 :fa8 22 :cel :al 23 b5 J.xd5 24 "xd5 ~8 25 :xal :xal 26 :xal J.xal 27 c5 e6 28 c6 and Black had a 10st eodiog ίο Portisch-Pfleger, Manila 1974. With the text Velimirovi~ prepares a way to bring his knight ioto play. 18 :fdl ~f8 19 h3 ~7 The game is equal. Marjanovi~­ Velimirovi~, Sarajevo 1984 cootioued 20 c5 J.a4 21 cxd6 exd6 22 :el J.c6 23 J.g5 ~6 24 ~f6+ J.xf6 25 J.xf6 "xf6 26 f3 :ea8 27 J.c4 lh_1h.

B2b) 10"d2(D)

Dragons

Β

Though this is more committal than 10 :Cl, it is still οοΙ easy for Black to prove equality.

10...d6 Notrecommendedis 10...b611 J.e2 J.b7 12 ο-ο 0-0 (12.....b8 13 :adl J.c6 14 ~dS ~7 15 J.h6 d6 16 J.xg7lί:1xg7 17 ~6 ~6 18 b4 0-0-0 19 a4! ± Perez-Wexler, Mar del Plata 1961) 13 f3 (13 ~5 ~5 14 f3 aS 15 :adl J.xdS 16 cxdS:C8 17 J.b5 "c7 18 d6 exd6 19 "xd6 J.xb2 20 "xc7 :xc7 21 :d6 :b7 22 a4 J.e5 23 :dS d6 24 f4 J.c3 25 :Xd6 ~ 26:Xb6 and White's two bishops gave him a clear endgame advantage ίη Κrogius­ Anastasian, St Petersburg 1994) 13...d6 14 :acl :c8 15 ~dS :e8 16 :fdl ~5 17 b4 ± Iserman-Roizman, USSR 1972. Black's best cootiouatioo may be 10.....aS!, with the idea of transposίηΒ, via 11 :cl b6, ioto sectioo B2a2a. Of course, White doesn't have Ιο aoswer 10.....aS with 11 :Cl. Insteadhe can dare Black to capture 00 c3: 1) 11 J.e2 d6 (11 ...b6 120-0 J.b7 13 :fdl d6 14 ~5! "xd2 15 :xd2 :c8 16 :cl ~5 17 f3 f5 18 b4 ~7 19 c5! ± Kovacs-Nikitio, Leniograd

Maroczy ΒίΜ: 7... &Δg4 1960) 120-0 J.xc3 (12...J.d7) 13 bxc3 J.d7 14 {4 1Ωc5 (Κapengut recommends 14...J.c615 J.d4 f616 e5 fxe5 17 fxe5 ~xd4 18 .xd4 .xe5) 15 • d4 (6 16 e5! ± Steiner-Landgraff, cοπ 1966-7. 2) 11 J.d3 J.xc3 (11 ...0-0 12 ο-ο ~h8 13 {4 d6 14 a3 .d8 15 ιαΙ5 1Ωc5 16:abl (517 .txc5 dxc5 18 e5 e619 1Ωc3 g5 20 ~b5 ± Orev-Mikenas, Sofia 1962) 12 bxc3 b6 13 0-0 J.a6 14 {4 f5 (14...:c8!? 15 f5 1Ωc5 is ηοΙ clear) 15 :adl 0-0-0 16 exf5 gxf5 17 g4 WΊth a distinct advantage for White, Zitman-Steinmeyer, cοπ 1959. 11 J.e2 11 g3, as played ίη F.Olafsson-Simagin, Moscow 1959, is very strange. Though White managed Ιο keep a sma11 edge after 1l ...J.d7 12 :cl 85 13 J.g2 J.c6 140-00-0 15 f4:C8 16 :fdl 1Ωc5 17 .f2, it's doubtful that anyone wΊπ be quick to repeat the lίne. 11 :CI transposes ίηΙο lines from B2a (10 :CI). 11•••J.d7 11 ... 1Ωc5 12 :dl J.d7 13 b4 ~4 14 ~xa4 J.xa4 15 :bl is clearly better (or White according to Kapengut. Playable is 11 ... 0-0 12 0-0 ~5 13 f38514:adl J.e615b3"'616~b5 :Cc8 17 ~hl, when 17...•d8 foUowed by 18.....f8 left White with only a minimal advantage ίη Makarov-Velimirovic, Arandjelovac 1993. 120-00-0 (D) Ί\νο other possibilities: Ι) 12.....85 13 :fcl ~5 14 J.f3 ~a4 15 J.d4 J.xd4 16 .xd4 "e5 17 _xe5 ;Ι; Gufeld-Georgadze, USSR 1973. 2) 12... 851300~514J.d40-0 15 J.xg7 ~g7 16.e3 J.c6 17:ad1

281

and White has an edge, RobatschΚagan, Skopje OL 1972. White's advantage is very sma11 ίη both these cases.

w

13J:adl Other moves have ηοΙ proved effective: Ι) 13 {4 J.c6 14 J.f3 (14 {5 1Ωc5 15 J.f3 85 16 J.h6 "b6 17 J.xg7 ~xg7 18 ~hl {6 1900 {19 b l retains equality} 19....txd5 20 exd5 ιαΙ7 and Black is slightly better, SpasskySavon, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1973) 14... _85! 15:tac 1 ~5 is given as unclear by Κapengut. 2) 13 :acl a5! 14 :fdl J.c6 15 f3 ~c5 16 b3 and now 16.....b6 is approximately equal (Keres-Petrosian, BledlZagrebIBelgrade Ct 1959) while 16...b6 ispassive but solid: 17 J.d4 (17 J.f1 Wb8 18 ~2 :d8 19 ~d4 J.e8 20 "f2 :a7 21 :bl :c8 22 a3 _a8 23 b4 axb4 24 axb4 ~d7 25 ~b5 26 :d2 :al 27 :ddl 28 :d2 th-th Κorneev-Utemov, SmolenskCup 1991) 17....txd4+ 18"xd4 "b8 19 {4 "b7 20 00 and White is slightly better, Cvetkovic-Velimirovic, Yugoslavia 1992. This kind of position

:a2

:a2

282

Accelerated Dragons

is explored ίο more detail ίο Chapter 12. 13•••.*.c614~ The space-gainiog 14 b4!? is a good idea here: 14 ... b6 15 lΩd5 lΩc7 16 b6 ~ Baιιas-Szilagyi, Stary Smokovec 1976. 14•••lΩc5 Τοο passive is 14...J:e8? 15 f411Jc7 16 f5 lΩa6, Larsen-Petrosian, Santa Monica 1966, and now 17 b4! leaves Black with a miserable position. 1513 Lame is 15 "c2 a5! (15 ... lΩxe4 16 "xe4 e6 a1so suffices for equa1ity) 16 .*.xc5 dxc5 17 lΩf6+ .*.xf6 18 :xd8 :axd8 with good compensatioo for Black - ana1ysis by Boleslavsky. 15•••a5 16 .*.g5 And not 16 .*.d4? .*.xd4+ 17 "xd4 e5 18 "d2lΩe6 19lΩe3 "b6 when Black has a clear advantage, PorathLarsen, Amsterdam ΙΖ 1964. 16•••:e8 17 b3 (D)

White has a minima1 edge. Ιη conclusion it can be seen that 10 :cl puts the most pressure οη Black. He should then continue with either 10...d6 11 b4 0-0 12 .*.e2 a5 13 a3 .*.d7 14 0-0 axb4 15 axb4 .*.c6 16 17lΩd5 :e8, when White is just a little better, or try sharper systems iovolving ... g5 and subsequent control of the dark squares.

"d2:a3

14 Semi-Accelerated Dragon (5 ... g6) Ι e4 c5 2/ί)Ο ια6 3 d4 cxd4 4/ί):χd4 /ί)f6 5 ω g6 (D)

w

The idea behind this move-order is force White's knight Ιο c3 and thus avoid the Maroczy Bind. Unfortunately Ιοι Black, White is able to gain a dangerous initiative by a couple οΙ forcing moves. Ιο

6lί):xc6

Altematives that don't transpose ίηΙο normal Accelerated Dragon οι Dragon lines are: 1) 6f41Wb6!?(6 ...d6isaLevenfish Dragon) 7 /ί)f3 (7 /ί)b3!? d6 8 /ί)d5 also deserves attention) 7 ... d6 8 ~c4 ~g7 9 'ii'd3 ο-ο 10 ~b3 ~g4 11 .1e3 "a5 12 ο-ο .1xf3 13 gxf3 (13 :xf3 /ί)g4 is good Ιοι Black), LjubojevicBilek, Teesside 1972, and now the continuation 13 ...:ad8 (Levy gives 13...lί)d7 followed by 14...lί)c5 as best)

14 00 e6 15 .1d2 "c5+ 16 .1e3 leads to equality. 2) 6 .1c4 and now: 2a) 6 ...d6? 7 /ί)χc6 bxc6 8 e5 and now Black has ΩΟ choice but Ιο move his knight (since 8...dxe5?? Ioses to 9 .1xf7+) and allow White a supeήοr position. Α full stυdy does ηοΙ belong here since ίι usually comes from the Sozin via 1 e4 c5 2 /ί)f3 /ί)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ιQxd4 ιQΙ6 5 lί)c3 d6 6 .1c4 g6? 7 /ί)xc6 bxc6 8 e5, etc. 2b) 6 .....a5 (Black has ηοΙ been successful with this move) 7 0-0 (οι 7 /ί)b3 "c7 8 Ι4! /ί)b4?! 9 J.d3/ί)χd3+ 10 cxd3 d6 11 .te3 J.d7 12:Cl 'lrb8 13 J.d4! e5 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 'ii'f3! .1g7 16 .1c5 with a miserable position Ιοι Black, Ljubojevic-Balinas, Manila 1976) 7....1g7 (7 .....c5 8 ιQxc6 'ii'xc4 9 ιQe5 'ii'c7 10 /ί)d3 is probably Black's best choice here) 8 ιQb3 "c7 9 J.g5 ο-ο 10 Ι4 (10 J.xf6 ~xΙ6 11 ιQd5 'ii'd6 is nothing) 10... ιQb4 (White also comes ουΙ οη ιορ after 10...b5!? 11 ~xΙ6 bxc4 12 00 "b8 13 .1xg7 Q;xg7 14 ιQd4 e6 15 /ί)χc6 dxc6 16 "d4+ Ι6 17/ί)e3 ± Tal-Benko, Ροι­ ιοιοΖ ΙΖ 1958) 11 ~e2 d5?! 12 a3! /ί)χc2 13 J.xf6 'ii'b6+ 14 Q;hl /ί)χaΙ 15 /ί)χd5 "xb3 16 /ί)χe7+ Q;h8 17 "d4! and White is winning, Van den Berg-Stumpers, Eindhoven 1959. 2c) 6....1g7 7/ί)χc6 bxc6 8 e5/ί)g8 transposes directly to section Β2.

284

Α: Β:

Accelerated Dragons

After 6 ~xc6 Black can play either: 6.••dxc6 284 6•••bxc6 285

Α)

6•••dxc6 7 "xd8+ ~d8 (D)

w

This position is unpleasant for Black. His main goal is to hold οη and draw the game. 8.t.c4 Also possible are: 1) 8 .t.f4 ~7 (also sufficient is 8 ....t.e6 9 0-0-0+ Φe8 10 a4 h5 11 .t.e2 .t.h6 12 .t.xh6 J:ιxh6 13 f4 J:ιh8 14 .t.f3 ΙOg4 = ΜatuΙοviό-D.Βyrne, Vdac 1969) 9 0-0-0 .t.g7 10 .t.c4 e5 11 .t.e3 Φe7 12 f3, Vaίsman-Spulber, Bucharest 1980, and now Black could equalize WΊth 12... b6! 13 J:ιd3 lDf8 14 J:ιhdllOe6 15 J:ιd6 :d8! 2) 8 h3!? .t.g7 9 g4e5 10.t.e3 .t.e6 11 0-0-0+ Φc8 12 a4.t.f8 13 f4 ;!; Gheorghiu-Reicher, Romanian Ch 1961. 8 •••ciιe8 8 ... b5? 9 .t.xf7 e6 10.t.g5 .t.e7 11 0-0-0+ is a disaster for Black. However, 8 ....t.g7 is playable, when Whίte has tried the folloWΊng moves:

=.

1) 9 .t.xf7?? e6 and the bishop wί1l ΩΟΙ make ίι ουΙ alive.

2) 9 e5 ~5 allows Black immediate equa1ity. 3) 9 .t.f4 ciιe8 (9 ...~7 is better since 10 .t.xf7?? J:ιf8 picks υρ a bishop) 1Ο 0-0-0 ~7 11 .t.c7 .t.xc3 (11 ...e5? 12 .t.d6 is ΩΟ longer palatable for Black) 12 bxc3 Φf8 13 J:ιd2 ΦΒ7 14 J:ιhdl ΙOC5 15 .t.e5+ f6 16 .t.d4 ~6 17 .t.e3 and Whίte's two bishops and control of the d-file give him a clear advantage, Gιίgοήό-Κris­ tinsson, Re~kjavik 1964. 4) 9 a4lDg4 10 f4.t.xc3+ 11 bxc3 ~f6 is fine for Black. 5) 9 f3 ciιe8 10 a4 a5 11 .t.e3 ~7 12 ιRf2 (12 0-0-0 h5 13 ~2 .t.h6 14 .t.xh6 J:ιxh6 15 J:ιd2 ΙOC5 16 J:ιhdl .t.e6 17 J:ιd4 g5 18 .t.xe6 ~xe6 19 J:ι4d2 h4 20 ~4 ΙOC5 21 1Of5 J:ιh8 22 b3 f6 23 Φb2 Φf7 24 Φc3 b5 25 J:ιd4 J:ιa7 26 J:ιel favoured Whίte ίη Mukhutdίnov-Κarasev, St Petersburg 1993) 12... e5 13 J:ιadl".t.f8 Aseev-Karasev, Leningrad 1985. 6) 9 f4!? b5 10.t.d3 e5 11 Ο-Ο! (far better than 11 J:ιf1 .t.e6 12 f5 gxf5 13 exf5 .t.d5 14 ~xd5 ~xd5 with unclear play; it's important for Whίte to connect his rooks) and then: 6a) 11 ...exf4? 12.t.xf4~g4(Whίte gains a slrong ίnitiative after 12...~7 13 J:ιadl f6 14 e5!) 13 J:ιadl .t.d4+ 14 ΦhΙ ω+ 15 J:ιxtΊ .t.xf2 16.t.xb5+ is bad for Black. 6b) If 11 ....t.e6 then 12 f5 gxf5 13 exf5 .t.d5 14 ~xd5 ~xd5 15 f6! is now good for Whίte because his rooks are connected, e.g. 15.. ixf6? 16 J:ιxf6! ΙOXf6 17 .t.g5 ciιe7 18 J:ιf1, etc. 6c) 11 ...lDd7 12 f5 f6 13 .t.e3 ;!; .t.f8 14 fxg6 (14 a4 b4 15 ~bl g5!? -

=

Semi-Accelerαted Drαgon

A.Ivanov) 14...hxg6 15 a4 b4 16 ~bl .t.h6 17 .t.xh6 :xh6 18 lDd2 We7 19 ~b3 a5 20 :fcl c5?! (20 ... ~ί8 21 c3 bxc3 22 :xc3 .t.e6 23 .t.c4!? A.Ivanov) 21 c3 bxc3 22 :xc3 .t.a6 23 .t.xa6 :xa6 24 :dl :a7 25 ~:ιtc5 ~xc5 26 :xc5 and White went οη to win ίη A.Ivanov-Shabanov, USSR 1986. 9e5 White grabs some teπitory. Less efficient ίΒ 9 a4 e5 10 ί4 .t.e6! 11 .t.xe6 fxe6 12 :f1 (ίf 12 0-0, then 12....t.c5+ 13 ι;tιhl ~B4) 12 ....t.h6! 13 f5.t.xcl 14 :xcl We7 =Smyslov-BotVΊnnik, Moscow Wch (21) 1958. White can also consider stopping ...e7-e5 WΊαι pieces rather than pawns: 9 .t.f4 .t.g7 (9...b5 10 .t.d3 allows White Ιο play οη Black's newly weakened queenside) transposes to lίne '3' ίη the note to Black's 8αι move above.

(5...g6)

285

Boleslavsky gave 11 ....t.f5 12 h3

~6 130-0-0 .t.g7 14 :hel

±.

12ltle4 Κapengut-Shabanov, Vιlnίus 1977. After 12 ....t.f5 (l2 ...~6 13 .t.c3 h3 14 e6 :g8 15 exf7+ ~xf7 16 0-0-0 didn't give Black any pleasure ίη Maus-Sch1ick, Bundeslίga 1987/8) 13 ~ι5 e6 14 h3 ~h6 15 0-0-0 .t.c5 16 :hfl! ~ι817 :B~718 b4.t.b619 .t.e2, White had a clear advantage.

Β) 6•••bxc6 (D)

w

9·.·~ι4

Black tried to improve with 9...lDd7 ίη a couple games, but he had troubles ίη both: 10 f4 (10 e6 fxe6 11 .t.xe6 .t.g7 12 .t.e3 b6 13 0-0-0 .t.xc3 14 bxc3 ~5 15 .t.xc5 bxc5 16 .t.xc8 :xc8 17 :hel :f8 18 f3:f4 19 :e5;t Shίrov-Ljubojevίό, Buenos Aires Sicilίan theme 1994) 10... lα5 11 .t.e3 .*.e6 12 .t.xe6 ~xe6 130-0-0 .t.g7 14 g3 b6 15 :d3 :d8 16 :hdl :xd3 17 :xd3 ± Hellers-Karlsson, Ostersund Ζ 1992. 10Ι4Μ

Laying claίm to the f5-square. Far worse is 10....t.f5 11 h3 ~6 12 g4 .t.xc2? (12....*.d7 ίΒ the on1y move) 13 :h2 .t.a4 14 ~xa4 b5 15 .t.b3 bxa4 16 .t.xa4 :c8 17 :C2 Wd7 18 .t.e3 and White can look forward to aquick wίn. 11 .t.d2 b4

Though this leads to a very sharp and dangerous situation ίor Black, it ίΒ the on1y way he can hope to justify his move-order. 7e5~g8

Other moves are very rare: 1) 7...lDd5? (White can refute this pawn sacrifice) 8 ~xdS cxdS 9 Wxd5 :b8 10 e6! (this ίΒ the refutation; now 10... fxe6?? allows 11 We5! forking both black rooks) 1O... f6 (10 ....t.g7 11 exf7+ Wf8 12 .t.h6! .t.xh6 13 1i'e5 WΊηB, A.Sokolov-Lutskan, LatVΊan Ch 1994) 11 .t.f4 and now:

286

Accelerated Dragons

la) 11 ...:Xb212~:b413.tb5 resignable for Black. lb) 11 ...:b4 faίls to 12 .td2 (12 Ο-Ο-ο!? :Χί4 13 .i.b5 ΊS also veιy good, Zo.Varga-Barletta, Budapest Schneidermem 1991) 12...:b613 .tb5 :d6 14 "c4, when Black can't find a useful move, Grabek-Seifert, Harrachov 1966. lc) 11 ...:b6 12 .tb5 (12 0-0-0 :xe6 13 .tb5 ~f7 14 "c4 .b6 15 :xd7! .i.a6 16 a4 .txb5 17 axb5 was clearly better for Whίte in the game Stefansson-Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1988) 12...:Xe6+ 13 "xe6 "a5+ 14 c3 "xb5 15 "e2 "a4 16 c4 'ifb4.t 17 .td2 "xb2 18 ο-ο and Whίte's mateήal advantage proved decisive in Mίkenas­ Uogele, Uthuanian Ch 1965. 2) 7 ...tDιι5!? may deserve a second look. The greedy 8 .te2 .a5 9 .txh5 (9 ί4 may be better) 9 ... gxh5 gives Black good counterplay after 10"xh5 .i.g7 11 f4 ο-ο 120-0 ί6 13lbe4 d5!, so Whίte should play 8 .tc4, with the following possibilities: 2a) 8...ll~g7 9 0-0.a5 10 "e2lbe6 11 f4.i.g7 121Ωe4 :b8 13 .i.d2 "c7 14 ..tc3 a5 15 ί5 IΩd8 16 f6.tf8 17 1Ωd6+ 1-0 Yap-Mohd Asnawi, 1983. 2b) 8 .....a5 9 ο-ο "xe5 10 :el "c7 11 ..tg5 gίves Whίte a strong attack. 2c) 8 ...d5! 9 exd6 "xd6 10 "f3 (10 Ο-ο!?) 1O.....te6 11 .tb5 :c8 12 .ta6 :d8 130-0 .c7! gives Black a playable position, Petrυshin-Vizek, Czechoslovakia 1985. 8..tc4 8 .f3 will usually transpose into lines resulting from 8 .tc4. Attempts by Black Ιο avoid this don't turn out well. For example, 8 "f3 .a5 9 .tf4 ΊS

.tg7 10 ..tc4 is the maίn line οί secιίοη Blc. After 8 .i.c4 (D) Black's main tήes

are:

Β

81: 8••••85 82: 8.•..tg7

287 289

Or: 1) 8 ...d5?! is not recommended since Black's weakened pawn strυc­ ture and lack οί developmentgives him a bad endgame after 9 exd6 Wxd6 (9...exd6? leads ιο a disaster: 10.f3 d5 11 IΩxd5 cxd5 12 .txd5 "e7+ 13 ..te3 :b8 140-0 .i.g7 15 .tf4, ]ohn]anowskί, Mannheim 1914) 10 ο-ο "xdl 11 :xdl ..th6 12 ..txh6 IΩxh6 13 :d2lΩf5 14lbe4 a5 15 a4.i.a6 16 .txa6 :xa6 17 :adl ± Geller-Stein, USSR Ch (Tbilisi) 1966Π. 2) 8 ...f5!? (an interesting expeή­ ment) 9 ..tf4 e6 10"d2 :b8 11 ..tb3 :b4 12 0-0 .c7 13 :fel :xf4!? 14 "xf4 tDιι6 15 :adllΩf7 16 "e3 ..tg7 17 ί4 g5 18 fxg5 ..txe5 19 "h3 :g8 20 ~hl h6 21 g6 :xg6 with more than enough compensation for the sacή­ ficed exchange, Ρ.ΡΟΡονίό- Velimiroνίό, Yugoslav Ch (Banja Vrucica) 1991.

Semi-Accelerαted Drαgon

Β1)

8.....a5 (D)

w

Νοι

a very popular choice. Now Whitehas: Bla: 9 "e2 287 Blb: 9 0-0 287 Blc: 9 .ιΙ4 288 Αl1 three οί these moves should guarantee White some advantage. 81β)

"e2

9 .ι,;ι 10 Ι41D1ι6 11 .ιcU 0-0 120-0-0 Now the game Shiyanovsky-Sherbak, USSR 1960 continued 12.....c7 13 g4 d5 14 exd6 exd6 15 ί5 gxf5 16 gxf5.ιΧf5 17 :dgl .1g618 h4. Black wil1 have difficulty surviving White's attack.

81b) 90-0 Very sensible. White gets his kiog Ιο safety so he cao jump οη Black as qώcklΥ as possible. 9 ....117

(5 ...g6)

287

9 .....xe5? is ήsky (suicidal may be a better word) after 10 :el: 1) 10.....c5? loses ιο 11 ~4. 2) 10.....c7 11 "d4 ί6 12 .i.f4 is also rather awful. 3) Black tήed 10.....b8 ίη TiVΊa­ kov-Mugerman, Piosk 1989 but got routed after 11 "d4 ί6 12 /l)e4 .ιg7 13 .ιί4 "b6 14 /l)d6+ ~f8 15 "d3 .ιb7 16 .i.xg8 :Σxg8 17 "c4 1-0. 4) 10.....a5 11 b4 "d8 (certaioly ηοΙ 11 .. :ti'xb4? 12 "d4) 12 /l)e4 e6 13 .ιb2 ί6 14 .ιχe6 dxe6 15 /l)xf6+ "xf6 (15 .../l)xf6? 16 "xd8+ ~xd8 17 .ιχί6+ ~e8 18 .ιΧh8 .ιΧb4 19 c3 is winniog for White) 16 .ιχί6 /l)xf6 17 /l)d5 18 c4 /l)e7 19 :adl, Κara­ klajic-B.IvanoVΊc, Yugoslavia 1974. White has a clear advantage but one suspects that improvemeots are possible and he can do eveo better! 10"f'3! More forcing than 10 :el .ιχe5 11 .ιί4 f6 (οοι 11 ....ιχί4? 12 "d4 ±) 12 .ιχί4 13 "xf4 d5: 1) 14 "d6? is bad due to 14.....td7 15 ..txdS ~d8!. 2) 14 /l)b5?! ~π 15 :adl was Matulovic-Bilelc, Pecs 1968, and oow 15 ...dxc4! 16 /l)c7 :b8 17 "xc4+ ~g7 18 "xc6 .ιg4 is good for Black. 3) White should play 14 ..tb3 with good compensation for the sacήficed pawn. 10...e6 White also retains a clear advantage after 10... f5 11 .ιί4 :b8 12 IΣfel e6 13 a3 /l)e7 14 b4 "c7 15 h4 0-0 16 "e3 ± Maeder-P'Ostojic, Amsterdam ωΜ 1969. 11 /l)e4 .ιχe5 12 .ιf4 "c7 Or 12... f5 13 /l)d6+ ..txd6 14 ..txd6 and White threateos 15 ..txe6!.

"f3 "f3

288

Accelerated Dragons

13 .*.xe5 "xe514 :tel dS 15 :actl

Wf8 15 ...dxe4 16 :xe4 "c7 17 "c3 f6 18 .t.xe6 gίves White a Μηηίηι attack. 16 "a3+ ~7 17 lί)d6 "f6 18

:d3! Black is οη the ropes, Barvik-Terentiev, USSR 1961. After 18 ...Wg7 19 :t"3lί)f5 20.*.d3 :d8 21 .*.xf5 gxf5, White could have forced an immediate Μη Μαι 22 :g3+ Wh8 23 "c3!.

B1c) 9.*.f4(D)

1) 12.....c7? is very bad: 13 lί)e4 Φf8 14 "d4 f6 15 .*.xg8 Φχι8 16 lί)xf6+ 1-0 Κotkov-Tatarintsev, USSR 1964. 2) The often-recommended move 12..."f4 was gίνen a try ίη TimmanΚorchnoi, Brussels Ct (5) 1991, but White gained a clear adνantage after 13 :e4 (13 lί)e4 Φf8! 14 :e3 d5 15 .*.xd5 .*.g4! 16 "d4 cxd5 17 "xh8 dxe4 + Miliceνi~-Rajkoνi~, Yugoslaν Cht (Κrk) 1976) 13 .....f6 14 :e3 d5 15 .t.xd5! .*.f5 16.t.f3 h5 17 "e2 :b8 18lί)a4 Wf8 19 1tel:b4 20 b3. 3) 12.....g7 13 "d6 (Leνy claimed that White could obtain a clear adνan­ tage with 13 lί)e4 since 13 ... d5 14 .*.xd5! cxd5 15 "xd5 16:001 is trouble) 13...Wf8 14 "c7 "d4 15 .t.b3 Wb6 16 "f4 e6 17lί)e4 "d8 18 lί)d6 "f6 19 "b4 "e7 (one of the busiest queens we haνe eνer seen!) 20 1tadl and White had a strong initiative in Κrakops-Ponomarioν, Siofokjr Ech 1996. 10•••e6 10...f6 11 .t.g3 (11 e6! gives White a strong initiatiνe; editor's note: e.g. 11 ...d5? 12 .*.b5! is winning for White, Macieja-Ponomariov, Zaganjr Wch 1997, while 1l ...lί)h6 120-0-0 "c5 13 exd7+ .*.xd7 14 "e2 leaνes Black ίη desperate trouble. Post-Swiderski.Ostend 1906) 1l ....t.a6 12 b4 (editor's note: 12 e6!? is still interestίΟΒ) 12.....b6 13 b5 .t.b7 140-0 :c8 (editor's note: Tsesarsky mentions 14...cxb5! as a significant improνe­ ment, e.g. 15 .*.d5 .*.c6 16 e6 1tc8) 15 lί)a4 16lί)c5 .t.a8 17 Wb3 lί)h6 18lί)xd7 cxb5 19 .t.xb5 .*.c6 20 ιαιt6+ .*.xf6 21 .*.xc6+ :xc6 22 exf6 1-0 Unzicker-Rausis, Daugaνpίls 1990.

:b8

Β

Α simple but good idea. White develops and defends his pawn. 9....t.g7 10 "f3! Also reasonable is 10 ο-ο .*.xe5 11 .t.xe5 (theory recommends 11 b4 "c7 12 lί)dS!? cxd5 13 "xd5 lί)f6 14 "Χ17+ Φd8 15 :fel d6 16 .t.xe5 dxe5 17 :adl+ with a promising attack, Kurajica-P.Ostoji~, Skopje 1969; however, several good players have dared White Ιο play ίη this way while the white side tends to avoid ίι in favour of II.t.xe5) 11 .....xe5 12 1tel and then:

"a5

Semi-Accelerαted

Editor's note: Black survived after 10....i.xe5 11 .i.xt7+ ~xt7 12 .i.xe5+ lt!f6 13 .i.xf6 exf6 14 ο-ο d5 15 :fel .i.f5 in Magem-Ponomarίov, Pamplona 1996Π.

11 ο-ο .i.xeS 12 b4 "c7 12 ...•xb4 13 .i.xe5 f6 14 .i.xe6! wins for White. 13 lbb5 'fIb8 13 ... cxb5 14 .i.xe5 .xe5 15 .xa8 was winning for White ίο PietzschBaumbach, E.Gerιnan Ch 1959. 14 .i.xeS "xeS 15 hdl 15:tel!?W'b816:adl isalsopossible, when 16...cxb5 loses after 17 .i.d5. 15•••d5 16 :fel 17 "c3! Or 17 .i.xd5 cxd5 18 .xd5 ~f8 andnow: 1) 19 .d8+? ~g7 20 lt!c7lt!f6 21 .e7 was once thought to be winning for White but Gy. Varadi discovered 21 ...:f8!, when the position is not at all clear: 22 c4 (22 :xe6? lbg8! 23 lt!e8+ :Σxe8! and 22lt!xe6+? .i.xe6 23 :xe6lt!g8! both win for Black) 22...a6 23 lbxa8 "xa8 is unclear - analysis by Bottlik. It turns out that White indeed has a win, but it had to be found a bit earlier. Instead of 19 "d8+?... 2) 19 "c5+! does thejob: 19...~g7 (19 ...lt!e7 20 :d8+ ~g7 21 :xh8 ~xh8 22 "xe7) 20 :d8 W'b7 21 .f8+ ~f6 22 lbd6 'fIe7 23 ~+ ~f5 24 .xe7 1-0 Geenen-Miranda, Νοvί Sad OL 1990. 17••.16 17 ...e5 18 .i.xd5 cxd5 19 :xe5+ ~f8 20 :exd5 is winning for White. 18 J.xd5! cxd5 Ι, :Σxd5 ιΜ7 19 ...lt!e7!? is possible but White still crashes through with 20 lt!d6+!

"b8

Dragon (5...g6)

289

~d7! 21 :d3 lt!d5 22 lt!e4 J.a6 23 :xd5+ exd5 24 lbc5+ - analysis by Bottlik. 20 :d8! "xb5 21 "c7+ lbe7 22 :xιιs "xb4 23 c3 "h4 24 "d8 eS 25 :t8+ ~e6 26 :e8 1-0 Varadi-Sabjan, corr 1985. Black had οο wish to eΧΡeήence 26 ... f5 27 :Xe5+ ~xe5 28 :xe7+ ~f4 29 "d2+ ~g430h3+.

82) 8_.J.g7 (D)

w

Black's best results come from this move.

'''(3

This is the most natural, and the sharpest move. Others: 1) If White wants to be different he might try 9 'fIe2!?, when TarasevichKaragoiz, USSR 1959 is of interest: 9 ...lt!h6 10 J.f4 ο-ο 11 0-0-0"b6 12 h4 lbf5 13 g4 lt!d4 14 "e4 lt!e6 15 .i.e3 .c716f4d517 J.xd5!?cxd518 lbxd5 J.b7 19 lt!xc7 J.xe4 20 lbxe6 J.xhl 21lbxf8.i.f3 22 :d7 J.xf8 23 :xa7 :xa7 24 J.xa7 J.xg4 and the game eventually ended ίο a draw.

Accelerated Dragons

290

2) 9 .i.f4 is also possible, when 9 .....aS is Blc above. 3) 9 ο-ο!? is also cήtical, but ίι seeιns that Black might be able to get away with chopping Whίte's pawn: 9 ....i.xe5!? (9 ...lDh6!? - Shamkovich) 10 :el .i.g7 (lO...d6?? loses after 11 :xe5!, whίle 10....i.xc3?! 11 bxc3 d5 12 "d4 f6 13 .i.b3 leaves the dark squares too weak) l1.i.f4! d5 (1l. ..lbf6 12 .i.d6 and 11 ...~f8 12 lDd5! are both ίη Whίte's favour) 12 ~xd5! cxd5 13 .i.xd5?! (better is 13 "xd5 "xd5 {13 ... .i.e6? 14 :xe6! fxe6 15 "xe6 must be avoided} 14.i.xd5 g5! 15 .i.c7 ~d7 16 .i.g3 f5! 17 :adl f4 18 .i.xa8+ ~c7 with an unclear position) 13 ... .i.e6! 14 :xe6? (according ιο Shamkovich, Whίte should keep the damage to a minίmum with 14 .i.c6+ .i.d7 15 .i.xa8 "xa8 16 c3 ~f6 ;) 14... fxe6 15 .i.c6+ ~f7 16 ~f6 17 :dl "c8 18 .i.b7? "xc2 19 :cl "f5! 20 .i.xa8 :xa8 21 "xa8 .xf4 22 :dl .a4 23 "xa2 and Black soon won ίη D.Baker-Shamkovich, New York Open 1985.

"f3

"f3

9••.f5 Or 9 ...e6 10 .i.f4 "aS: 1) 11 0-0-0 deserves seήοus consideration. Then 11 ....i.xe5 is met by 12 ~e4!, whίle 1l ... ~7 also leaves Black with that '11m going Ιο die at any moment' feeling after 12 ~ 0-013 ~f6+ ~h8 (so far Doroshkevich-Balitinov, USSR 1963 whίch went 14 .h3 .i.xf6 15 exf6 ~g8 16 .i.h6 ~xh6 17 "xh6 :g8 18 g4.e5 19 g5 :b8 WΊth counterplay for Black) when Νυηη gίves 14 h4! as being at least ±. 2) 11 0-0 .i.xe5 transposes ιο Β lc. Badis9...f6? 100-0!e611 ~±. 10 .i.f4 (D)

Β

Now Black has: B2a: 10••••85?! 290 B2b: 10•••:b8 290 B2c: 10•••e6!? 291

82a) 10••••851! greedy move that huηgήΙΥ eyes the e5-pawn. However, the loss of time involved ίπ its capture should prove painful. Α

11 ο-ο! Also strong is 11 0-0-0 "c5 12 .i.b3 e6 13 h4 h5 14 ~bl ~7 15 ~a4 .aS 16 .i.d2 .c7 17 :hel aS 18 .i.e3 ο-ο 19 .i.c5 :π 20 .i.d6 .a7 21 c4 and Black is hopelessly tied down, Tseshkovsky-Donchenko, USSR 1976. 1l....i.xeS 12 Μ! .c7 13 ~b5 'ifb8 14 .i.xeS .xeS 15 :tel 'ifb8 16

.c3

1-0 Κarakas-polihroniade, Bever1966.

WΊjk

82b) 10•• ':b8(D) Black places the rook οη an open file. More importandy, 10...:b8 avoids

Semi-Accelerαted Drαgon

(5... g6)

291

~a4 "d8 20 .i.xd5 cxd5 21 h5 as a possib1e improvement) 19...cxd5 20 .i.d3 .i.a6 21 h5 gxh5 22 .i.xa6 "xa6 23 :d3 and now 23 ....i.f8! 24 :g3+ :g7 25 :xg7+ .i.xg7 is unc1ear according to Andersson.

w

B2c) 10•••e6!? (D)

a 10t οί tacticaI tricks by getting the rook offthe hl-a8 diagonaI. This setυρ 1eads to a solίd but somewhat passive position.

w

110-0 B1ack is aIso veιy much ίη the game after 11 .i.b3 "c7 120-0 (12 e6 d6 is aUήghtforΒιack) 12...e613:tel'Ωe7 14 .i.g5! lDd5! (bad is 14....i.xe5?? 15 :'xe5! "xe5 16 .i.f4 but 14...h6!? 15 .i.xe7 Φχe7 deserves a 1ook) 15 :adl 0-0 16~d5cxd517"f4:n 18.i.h6 .i.xh6 19 "xh6 .i.a6?! (19 ...:b4! is equaI) 20 :'d4 (White has a tiny pull but B1ack is ab1e to neutraIize it) 20....i.b5! 21 "f4 a5 22 a4 .i.c6 23 h4 "d8 24 :e3 Φg7! 25 J:.c3 h6 26 "b6 lh-lh Suetin-Bi1ek, Κecskemet 1972. 11•••e6 12:aιtl "c7 13 :ΙeΙ fΔe7 B1ack might consider 13... ~6!?, when White wou1d p1ay 14 "g3 Μ 15 h4!. 14 b3 ο-ο 15 "e3 16 h4 :r7

"d2

17ύ

"&5

B1ack is a bit bound υρ but he is and has good chances to equaIize, Andersson-Bilek, Teesside 1972. The continuation is 17.....b6 18 "cl .!ί)d5 19 ~xd5 (Andersson gives 19 solίd

Black blocks the centre and tries to surround White's e-pawn with moves lίke .....c7 and ... ~h6-f7. This is a more active p1an than lo. ..:b8.

11 0-0-0 Threatening .i.xe6, though this move is now thought to give B1ack active counterplay. Ί\νο aIternatives: 1) 11 g4!? fxg4 12 "xg4 "a5 13 0-0-0.t.xe5 14 .t.xe5 "xe5 15 :'hel with excellent compensation for the sacήficed pawn, Suetin-Korchnoi, USSR 1954. Since nobody has repeated this for White, we must assume that improvements exist. 2) 11 Ο-Ο! (White's best move) 11 ...~h6 (continuing his 10ng-range plans against the e5-pawn; aIso possible is 11 ...'Ωe7 12 "g3 "c7 {12...~

292

Accelerαted Drαgons

13 lOxd5 cxd5 14 J.d3 ;t} 13 :fel :b8 with play as ίο sectίoo B2b) 12 :adl 'fIc7 13 :fel 00 14 'fIg3 0-0 (14...g5!? is unclear according to Shamkovich) 15 h4 (oow White is a bit better) 15 ...
w

:hel11Vb6 14lOa4 'fIxe3+ 15 J.xe3 J.xe5 16 J.xa7 J.f4+ 17
:a8

:es

12h4 Altematives are: 1) 12 "e3 :b8 (12... g5?! 13 J.xg5 "xe5 {13 ...J.xe5 14 J.xe6! ±} 14 'fIf31ooks bad for Black) 13 J.b3 (13

Semi-Accelerαted Drαgon

13Wfg3 White might also try: 1) 13 h5 g5! 14 .t.xg5 tΔϊ115 .t.f4 .t.xe5 16 .t.xe5 tΔxe5 17 "g3 d5 18 1Ihel f4!. 2) 13 "ife2!? tΔϊ1 14 1Idel followed by 1Ih3 and 1Ig3 is an untested idea by Shamkovich. 13••• tΔr714 :'hel 1Ib8 (D)

w

IS~bl

Black also gets good counterplay after 15 a3: 15 .....b6 16 .t.b3 c5 17 tΔd5 (17 h5 c4 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 Wfxg6 cxb3 20 "xg7 bxc2 is winning for Black, but perhaps White should try 17 tΔa4 "ifc6 18 c4 0-0 with an unclear

(5 ... g6)

293

position) 17...exd5 18 e6 dxe6 19 .t.xb8 0-0 +. IS...:'b4! 16 .t.b3 16 b3 Wfa5!. 16...0-017 a3 Trying Ιο step ουΙ of the way of 17 h5 g5! 18 .t.xg5? 1Ig4. 17...Jbf4! 18 WfXΙ4 .t.xeS 19 Wfd2 dS Black has more than enough compensation for the exchange. Two convincing examples: 1) 20 tΔe2 .t.d7 21 f4 .t.f6 22 h5 1Ib8 23 hxg6 hxg6 24 tΔd4 "ifd6 25 "ife3 c5 26 tΔxe6 c4! 27 tΔd4 cxb3 28 cxb3 "ifb6 29 'ifd3 a5 30 1Ie3 tΔd6 31 g4 tΔe4 32 tΔc2 :'d8 33 g5 .t.b5 0-1 Ravinsky-Shamkovich, Vilnius 1953. 2) 20 g3 .td7 21 h5 g5! 22 :'e2 .t.f6 23 "ife3 tΔd6 24 'ifc5? (24 tΔa4 tΔe4 25 tΔc5 f4 26 gxf4 gxf4 27 'ifxe4 dxe4 28 tΔxd7 e3! 29 tΔxf8 'ife5 30 c3 ~xf8 31 fxe3 f3 +is analysis by Sosonko) 24 ..."ifb8 25 g4 tΔb7 26 'ife3 f4 27 'ifd2 tΔc5 28 ~a2 'ifb6 29 'ifel 1Ib8 30 tΔa4 tΔxa4 31 1Ixe6 "ifd8! 32 1Ixc6 .t.xc6 33 "ife6+ ~g7 34 'ifxc6 tΔb6! 35 h6+ ~xh6 36 c3 ~g7 37 f3 :'c8 38 "ifb5 'ife7 39 .t.c2 'ifc5 0-1 de Firmian-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1986.

15 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6) le4c5200g6(D)

w

Thίs vaήation is played by those who lίke the Accelerated Dragon but wish Ιο avoid main Iίnes of the Maroczy Bίnd. Thίs system, a favourίte of Donaldson's, is very tricky and emί­ nently playable. After 2 ...g6 White has five possi-

biIίties:

Α: 3J.c4 Β:

3d4

C: 3c3 D: 3c4 Ε: 3Μ

294 295

306 312 316

Α)

3J.c4 Not considered partίcularly dangerous. 3 ••..1g7 4 0-0

The immedίate 4 c3 is also reasonable: 1) 4 ...d6! intendίng 5 ...~f6 is the most accurate way for Black to play: la) 5 d4 cxd4 6 cxd4 ~f6 7 ~3 ο-ο 8 0-0 ~xe4 9 ~xe4 d5 10 J.d3 dxe4 11 J.xe4 ~d7 12 J.f4 ~f6 13 J.c2 J.g4 14 J.e5 "d5 with equalίty, Wheeler-Donaldson, Jackson Hole 1992. lb) 5 ο-ο lDf6 6 :el 0-07 h3 ~6 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 d5 10 exd5 ~a5 11 J.f1 ~xd5 12 ~c3 ~xc3 13 bxc3 J.e6 14 ~g5 J.d5 15 J.a3 J.f6 16 ~J.xe417:xe4 'iWd518'iWel :fe8 19 J.xe7 :ac8 20 J.d3 :xe7 21 1:.xe7 J.xe7 22 "xe7 :xc3 23 "e4 'iWxe4 24 J.xe4 ~f8 25 :dl ~e7 26 J.d5 b6 27 g3 :c7 28 ~g2 ~d6 29 J.e4 :c3 and Black went οη to score the full point ίο R.Anderson-Donaldson, Berkeley 1991. 2) 4 ...e6 5 d4 cxd4 and now: 2a) With 6 0-0 Whίte can try to get into somethίng akίη to the Smίth­ Moπa Gambit. Then the most prudent course is 6 ... ~7 (naturally 6... dxc3 is possible but it gives Whίte sufficient compensatίon for the pawn and just the type of game he was hoping for) 7 cxd4 d5 8 exd5 (8 J.b5+ is probably a better idea) 8...~xd5 9 J.g5 J.f6 10 J.xf6 ~xf6 11 ~3 0-0 12 "d2 ~c6 13 :adl ~g7 = Fuchs-Sakharov, Sochί 1966.

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6)

295

2b) HarmIess is 6 ~xd4 a6 7 ο-ο lΔe7 8 a4 d5 9 exd5 ~xd5 10 ~2 0-0

11 ~ ~c6 12 ~c6 bxc6 13 _e2 a5 14 :dl _e7 15 .i.g5 f6 16 .i.e3 _c7 17 .i.c5 :d8 18 g3 e5 19 f4 f5 20 ~g5 h6 21 00 exf4 22 .i.e7 :e8 23 %Σxd5 cxd5 24 .i.xd5+ ~h7 and BIack won ίη Seπas-Zsο.ΡοΙgar, San Sebastίan 1991. 2c) 6 cxd4 d5 7 .i.b5+ .i.d7 8 .i.xd7+ _xd7 9 e5 1&6 10 0-0 ~ge7 11 1&3 ;t Ciocaltea-Vaisman, Romania 1972.

4•••lDc6 We feel that Black should deIay this and instead try 4 ...d6 5 c3 ~f6, when one example is 6 :el 0-0 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 ~xe4! 9 :xe4 d5.

5c3d6 5 ...e6!? deserves consideratίon. 6d4~7e5 Ί\νο untried ideas are 7 d5!? ω 8 .i.d3 c4 9 .i.c2 ο-ο 1Ο b4! ;t and 7

Β

ΒΙ: Β2:

3•••.i.g7 3•••cxd4

295

300

Β1) 3 ••..*.g7 Black's sharpest move. Now we will address only: Bla: 4JW:S- 296 Blb: 4ω 299

:el!?

7.•.dxe5 8 ~xe5 White gets compensatίon for the pawn but nothing more after 8 dxe5 _xdl 9 :xdl ~g4 10 e6 .i.xe6 11 .i.xe6 txe612 ~a3.

8••.lbxe5 CompleteIy unsatίsfactory is 8 ...0-0 9 ~xc6 bxc6 10 dxc5 _c7 11 ~2 .i.f5 12 We2 and White obtains a distinct advantage, Dυnhaupt-Behnke, coπ 1969.

9 dxe5 Wxdll0 %Σxdl ~7 11 f4 White has a small advantage. Β)

3d4(D) And now BIack must choose between:

Other moves are either looked at later (such as 4 c3, which transposes ίnιο Variatίon C, 3 c3) or transpose ίηto dίfferent openings entίreIy, for exampIe: 1) 4 c4 cxd4 transposes ίηιο the Maroczy Bind. 2) 4 d5 is a Benoni - though it's ηοι cIear exactly which type. Black could then try 4 ... ~6, trying to keep White from placing a pawn οη c4. One of the ideas behind 2 ...g6 is ιο reach positίons that offer more dynamic possibilitίes than that normally afforded by the bIack side of the Maroczy Bind. Allowing a Benoni strυcture where ...exd5 is answered by exd5 is hardly a stίmulatίng improvement. Such positίons are known to offer White a small

296

Accelerαted Drαgons

but long-lasting advantage. while Black has few aggressive possibilities. The idea behind 4... lbf6 is Ιο force White

Ιο block his c-pawn with 5 lbc3 and head the game ίηιο a Schmid Benoni, which is ηοΙ necessarily a picnic for Blaclc, but offers more opportunities for unbalancing the position. We are ηοΙ saying that playίng the black side οΙ the Schmid Benoni is fantastic, but GM Julian Hodgson has had some success playing with ...e6 instead οΙ the normal ... lba6-c7. The question remains, can Black stop White from putting a pawn οη c4? The critical line, which seems never Ιο have been tested, is 4...lbf6 5 e5lbg4 6 .i.f4 d6, which leads to a wild position after 7 exd6 J.xb2 8 lbbd2.

81a) 4dxe5 (D)

Β

Thίs is probably White's most testingmove. 4.....&5+ The only reasonable move. Worse is 4... lba6? 5 J.xa6 .a5+ (5 ... bxa6?? 6 .d5 :b8 7.e5 and Black resigned in

a few moves ίο Braley-Pupols, Match 1970) 6 c3 .xa6 7 .e2 .c6 8 J.e3 .xe4 9lbbd2 "c6 100-0 lbf6 I1lίXι4 .c7 12lbb5 "d8 13 J.f4 ± RajnaNagy, Hungary 1960. sω

Most dangerous, though other moves are also possible: 1) 5lbbd2!? (a rarely seen suggestion by Pirc) 5.....xc5 and now: la) 6 J.e2 (our example reached this position by a different moveorder) 6 ...d6 7 0-0 lbf6 8 c3 0-0 9 ltlb3 .c7 10 .c2 ltlbd7 ; 11 h3?! b6 12 :el J.b7 13 J.f1 e5 14 J.g5 d5 15 exd5ltlxd5 16 :adl h6 17 J.cl :ad8 18 ltlbd2, Pt1eger-Tal, Tallinn 1973, 18...f5 +. lb) 6 .i.d3 d6 7 0-0 lbf6 8 h3 0-09 c4lbbd7 10 :bl b6 11 b3.i.b7 12:el :fd8 13 .e2:ac8 14lbfl e6 15ltlg3 a6 16 J.b2 .c7 is a very comfortable Hedgehog for Black A.Stein-Donaldson, San Francisco 1997. 2) 5 .i.d2 .xc5 6.i.c3 (6lbc3 b67 J.d3 J.b7 8 0-0 ltlf6 9.e2 d6 10 a4 0-0 11 b4 .c8 12 a5 bxa5 13 :Xa5 lbc614:a4 a5 =Νίkoιit-Fοήntοs, Τί­ Ιονο Ufice 1966) 6 ...ltlf6 7 .i.d3 lbc6 8 0-0 and now: 2a) 8 ...d6 (this is all ήght, but οοΙ the most flexible) 9lbbd2 ο-ο 10 .e2 (10ltlb3 .b611 a4e512:el .c713 .i.c4 .i.e6 = Jano~evit-Szabo, Budapest 1965) 1O... a6 11 a4 J.g4 12 h3 J.e6 13ltlb3 .i.xb3 14 cxb3 ltlh5 with chances for both sides, Diez del Coπal­ Bilelc, Siegen OL 1970. 2b) 8... 0-0 is more flexible since ίι keeps possibilities οΙ ...d5 open: 9 ltlbd2 d5! 1Ο ltlb3 (1 Ο e5ltlg4 11 .e2 d4 obviously favours Black) 10...•b6 11 exd5 (according Ιο Pirc, 11 .i.xf6

m,

Hyper-Accelerαted Drαgon

.i.xf6 12 exd5 is ηο! dangerous for Black due to 12...~b4 13 c3 ~xd5 14 .i.xg6 ':d8!) 11 ...~xd5 12 .i.xg7
(2 ... g6)

297

White has a clear advantage, Νυηη­ E.Sakhatova, ΡortEriη 1994. 3c3) 8...~g4 9 e6 (Νυηη claims an advantage for White after 9 ~a3!, but 9 ...~6 is far from clear) 9 ... f6 10 h3 ~6 11 .i.b5 ~6 12 exd7+ .i.xd7 13 0-0, Drimer-Haag, Budapest 1961, and now Archives gives 13 ...~c5 14 ~3 4) 5 ~fd2 .xc5 6 c4 d6 7 .i.e2 b6 (7 ...~6 8 0-0 ~4 9 .i.d3 ~6 10 ~b3 ~xb3 11 axb3 ~g4 12 h3 h5 13 .d2 "e5 14 f4 "c5+ 15
298

Accelerαted Drαgons

2b) 6...lDf6 ΊS playable: 7 ~d3 αι 8 ο-ο "xc5 9 :bl a6 10 ~e31i'h5 11 e5 lΩd5 12 ~d2! lΩxe5 13 lΩxe5 "xe5 14 :el "f6 15 "cl and White has more than enough compensatίon for the pawn, Κlovsky-Veresov, USSR 1967. 2c) 6.....xc3+ and here: 2cl) 7 "d2!? is Ghizdavu's speculatίve attempt at refutation: 7..."xal 8 c3 b5 9 ~e2 (9 ~d3 is more accurate as the e4-pawn will need a defender) 9 ...b4? (9 ...lΩf6 exploits White's inaccuracy) 10 cxb4 .t.b7 11 0-0 "g7 12 .t.b2 f6 (12 ...lΩf6 is better: 13 e5lΩe4 14 "c20-0 15e6lΩf616exd7lΩbxd7 17 c6:ac8 18 b5lΩb6 and Black holds the advantage) 13 b5 a6? (13 ...lΩh6 wοώd have saved an important tempo) 14 c6! lΩxc6 15 bxc6 ~xc6 16lΩd4? (16 e5 keeps some initiatίve) 16....t.xe4 and Black went οη ιο win ίη Ghizdavu-Kaplan, JerusalemjrWch 1967. 2c2) 7 ~d2 "xc5 (D).

w

So far practίce has shown that this interestίng positίon is a ιίώe better for White: 2c2a) 8 .t.e2lΩf6 9 e5lΩg4 100-0 lΩxe5 11 .t.e3 lΩxf3+ 12 J.xf3 "c7

13 "d4 ;!; Petrov-Lίmonnίkov, USSR 1974. 2c2b) 8 :bl d6 9 J.b5+ .t.d7 10 ~d3 "c7 11 "cl .t.c6 12 .t.c3 e5 13 and White has a promising game for the sacήficed pawn, Robatsch-Van Scheltίnga, Beverwijk 1963. 2c2c) 8 .t.d3 lΩf6 (8 ... d6 9 ο-ο J.g4 10 :bl "c7 11 :b3 lΩd7 {11 ...lΩc6!?} 12:c3lΩc513h3;!;Am­ bro!-Petran, Czechoslovakίa 1979) 9 ο-ο ο-ο 10 e5 lΩg4 11 :bllΩxe5 12 :b5 lΩxf3+ 13 "xf3 "c7 14 .t.h6 :e8 15 :f5 :f8 (15 ... f6 16 :el is crushing: 16.....c317 ~c4+ "xc418 :xf6 - analysis by Νυηη) 16 .t.xf8 gxf5 17 .t.xe7 d5 18 :el ~e6 19 ~f6 lί)d7 20 .t.d4 "d6 21 ~xf5 ~xf5 22 "xf5 lΩf8 23 "g5+ lΩg6 24 h4 :f8 25 h5 1-0 Fήvaldszky-Μοnοstorί, corr 1986. Ιι seems, at the time of WΉting, that 5 ... J.xc3 may be more or less forced ίη view of the lίne 6 e5 ίη the next note. 6.t.d3 Α dangerous alternatίve is 6 lΩd2 "xc5 7 lΩc4 "c6! (inadequate is 7 ... 0-08 e5lΩg4 9 "xg4 d5 10 .t.e3 "b4 {10....t.xg4 11 ~xc5 dxc4 12 f4 loses a pawn} 11 "h4 dxc4 120-0-0 lΩc6 13 :d5 e6 14 :c5 f5 15 f4 "b6 16 "g3 a6 17 h4 and Black got maώed ίο Lutίkov-Larsen, Beverwijk 1967) 8 lΩd5 (8 e5lΩe4 9lΩd5 e6!) 8 ... lΩxd5 9 exd5 "f6 10 .t.d2 0-0 11 ~c3 "f4 12 .t.xg7 ~xg7 13 .t.d3, VeΙίmirοvίό­ Fοήntοs, Budapest 1973, and now 13...d6! 14 "d2 "f6 is unclear according to Velίmiroviό. However, 6 e5! is a strong new move: 6 ... lΩe47 "d4lΩxc3 8 .t.d2lΩb5 9 "c4 "c7 10 "xb5lΩc6 11 0-0-00-0

"a3

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6) 12 .*.e2 ~xe5 13 .*.c3 ~xO 14.*.xg7 andnow: a) 14...•f4+ 15 ςtιbl ~d2+ 16 :xd2 .xd2 (16...ςtιxg7! is a better try) 17 .txf8 ςtιxίB 18 .c4 (keeping the black queen off f4 and preparίng a later.d4or.c3) 18...b619:dl.g5 20.tf3 :b8 21 c6 ±. b) 14...~g715.txf3:b816:ιιel :e8 17 h4!? (17 g3 and 17 h3 are also good for Whίte) planning 17 ...•f4+ 18 Wbl .xh4 19 c6 WΊth .e5+ ίη the air.

6••••xCS 6 ...0-0 7 ο-ο ~6 8 .te3 ~g4 9 .d2 ~xe3 1Ο .xe3 b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12 ~1 d6 13 c3;!; Ubίlava-Roman­ ishίn, USSR 1974. 7.te3.aS 7...'lFh5!? is a suggestion by Nunn. 8 .d2 0-0 9 0-0 /ί)c6 10 b3 d6 11 a3 .*.e6 12 ~p d5 13 exd5 .*.xd5 14 b4 .d8 15 :adl ;!; Sveshnikov-Romanishίn, USSR 1977.

B1b) 4lίX3.aS 4...~c6 5 d5 ~d4 6 ~xd4 cxd4 7 ~b5 .b6 8 c3 dxc3 9 ~xc3 ;!; Arakelov-Κarasev,

USSR 1969. Black's best is 4 ...cxd4! 5 ~xd4 ~6, with transposition into the main lines of the Accelerated found ίη Chapters 1-7 of thίs book. 5.*.e3 The altematives also appear to be promίsing (οι White: 1) 5 d5 .*.xc3+ (5 ...d6 6 ~d2! .txc3 7 bxc3 .xc3 8 :bl .a5 9.*.d3 gives White adequate compensation (οι the pawn accordίng to Gufeld and

299

Lazarev) 6 bxc3 ~f6 (6 ....xc3+ 7 .*.d2.a3 8 e5 ± Mortensen) 7 ~d2! .xc3 8 :bl ~xe4 9 :b3 .d4 10 ~xe4 .xe4+ 11 :e3 .d4 12 .e2 e6 (12 ...0-0!?) 13 c4 .al 14 .c2 and Black has lots of holes οη the dark squares and is far behind ίη development, Mortensen-Κeene, Gausdal1983. 2) 5.te2~66d5~470-0a68 :el d6 9 .*.f4 ;!; Kostro-Filipowicz, Wisla 1963. 5...c!M6 5... ~6 6 d5 ~5 7 ~2 d6 8 .*.e2 a6 9 0-0 ~6 10 h3 0-0 11 (4 ~d7 12 ~4 .c7 13 a4 :b8 14 a5 ± GermanBilek, Stockholm ΙΖ 1962. 6.d2 Also good is 6 ~d2 cxd4 7 ~b3 .c7 8 .txd4 0-0 9 e5 ~e8 10 ~b5 .d8 11 ~xa7 ~7 12 ~b5 ~xb5 13 .txb5 ± Bobotsov-Bilelc, Sarajevo 1962.

6•../ί)c6 6 ...~g4? 7 ~5 .d8 8 .tf4 d6 9 dxc5 .*.xb2 (9 ...e6 10 .txd6! exd5 11 exd5 (6 12 .*.b5+ ςtιf7 13 ο-ο and Whίte has more than enough (οι the sacήficed piece, Κovacs-Avner, Κra­ kow 1964) 10 cxd6 exd6 11 :dl ο-ο 12 c3 .ta3 13 h3 ~f6 14 .tg5 ± Alexander-Kotov, Hastings 1963. 7dxcS Asking Black how he intends to regain his pawn. Other moves: 1) 7 h3? cxd4 8 ~xd4 ~xe4 9 ~xc6 .xc3! WΊns a pawn, PogatsBilek, Budapest 1961. 2) 7 d5!? ~b4 8 .te2 (8 e5 ~g4 9 .tf4 (6 10 exf6 ;!; de Greiff-Haag, Havana 1962) 8...0-0 (preferable is 8...~xe4!? 9 ~xe4 ~xc2+ 10 ςtιdl .xd2+ 11 ςtιxd2 ~xa112 :xal d6 13

300

Accelerated Dragons

lDc3.td7 14 a4 0-0 = Κostro-Bίlek, Warsaw vs Budapest 1962) 9 0-0 d6 10 a3lΩa6 11 b4! cxb4 12 axb4 .d8 13 :tbl .tg4 14 .txa6 bxa6 15lΩd4 .tc8 16 f3 ± Bokuchava-Nanavovsky, Tbilisi 1965.

7..•lΩι4

7 ...'irb4 is insufficient: 8.td3lΩg4 90-0lΩxe310 ..xe3.xb2?(10.. ..txc3) 11lΩb5 0-0 12 c3! and the threat of 13

:rbl wins mateήa1, Matanovit-Bίlek, Vama OL 1962. 8.tc4 Nothing is gained by 8 lΩd5lΩxe3 9 "xa5lΩxc2+ 10 ~d2lΩxa5 11 ~xc2 :b8 12 :dl e6 = Gheorghiu-Bίlek, Vama OL 1962. 8••••b4? This turns out poorIy. Black should play either 8 ...b6!? 9 cxb6 lΩxe3 10 "xe3 axb6 with some compensation, or8 ...lΩxe3! 9 .xe3lΩb410.tb3 (10 0-0-0 is better) 10...lΩa6, when he wiII regain his pawn.

Αι Ieast, this was our feeling when we wrote the tϊrsι edition, but things have changed a bit since then. Α better way to Iook at this question is 'what do you want Ιο pIay against, 4 "xd4 or the Rossolimo?' ΒΥ pIaying 2 ... g6, BIack side-steps the very fashionabIe and cuπentΙΥ successfuI2 ... lΩc63 .tb5. One other possibIe reason why BIack might preferthe move-order of2...g6 and 3...cxd4 is how he wants to handle his transpositions against 2 c3. Many pIayers like to pIay 1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5.xd5 4 d4lΩf65 00 .tg4. But cunning pIayers with White can avoid this by pIaying 2lΩf3 lΩc6 3 c3, when BIack has prematureIy deveIoped his knight οη c6 (as far as the c3lines go!). One line that has recently started ιο become popuIar is 1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 "xd5 4 d4lΩf6 5 00 g6 - anothet system ίη which an earIy ...lDc6 is ηοΙ part of the set-up.

9.tb3fΔxe3 Νο better is 9 ...0-0100-0 .txc3 11

4.xd4(D)

bxc3 "xe4 12 .td4 and White is clearly better.

10.xe3 tM4 11 e5lΩf5 12.e4 .xc5 13.d5 .xd5 14lΩxd5:b8 15

Β

0-0-0

± Damjanovic-Fίlipowicz,

Polan-

ica Zdroj 1966.

82) 3.•.ad4 Ιη a way

this is illogica1 since BIack for nothing more than a transposition back into normal AcceIerated lines - Maroczy and a11. Why do this and give White the added possibility of4.xd4? tήes

We feIt that this Ied Ιο an edge for White in the first edition of this book. Now things are ηοΙ so cIear. 4•••lΩf6

Hyper-Accelerαted Drαgon

Logίcal. Black develops and threatens ...1Dc6. 4 ...f6 is Ιοο fatalistic: 5 c4 llX6 6 "dl d6 7 .ιe2l&6 8 0-0 lΔf7 9 llX3.ιg710.ιe3 b611 :cl 0-0 12a3 e6 13 b4 "e7 14 W'b3 ± Vogt-Bellon, Cienfυegos 1976. After 4 ...~f6 White has: B2a: 5 ια3 301 B2b: Se5 302 B2c: 5 J.bS 304

82a) Sια3

301

1) If Black trίes to sacήfice a pawn for development with 8 ... J.g7, then 9 .ιb5 favours Whίte according ιο Vydeslaver and Faerman. 2) 8 ....ιd7 is also insufficient for equalίty accordίng ιο Pίket: 9 ~d7 (9 ~xc6 ;t) 9 .....xd7 10 J.e3 ;t. 3) 8 .....d4 9 ~c6 "xa4 10 ~a4 bxc6 11.ιe3 J.g7 120-0-0 and Black's pawn weaknesses οη the queenside gίve Whίte a clear advantage ίη the endgame, Bonch Osmolovsky-Κhasin, USSR 1957.

8exd6

This move is rarely seen even thoυgh White has had good results with ίι

S•••ltk6 6

(2 ... g6)

"&4 d6

6 .. :flc7? is an eπor that almost loses by force: 7 .ιg5 ~g4 (7 ....ιΒ7 8 0-0-0 W'b8 9 ~ ~xdS 10 exd5 lΩe5 11 d6 ± Sabinίn-Gurov, Novosibirsk 1949) 8 ~d5 'irb8 9 .ιf4 d6 10 .ιb5 J.d7 11 0-0 J.g7 12 :adl e5 13 J.g5 f6 14 J.d2 ο-ο 15 ~7+ ~h8 16 J.b4 and Whίte eventually won ίη Gaban-Bogorad, USSR 1970. 7 e5 (D)

Β

Other moves: 1) 8 J.b5 ~xe5 (8 ....ιg7! looks good) 9 ~xe5 dxe5 10 ο-ο .ιd7 11 :dl gives Whίte some inίtiative for the sacήficed pawn, but is ίι enough? After 11 ...J.g7 it's ΩΟΙ easy ιο break down Black's position. For example 12 ~e4 a6 13 J.xc6 J.xc6 14 :xd8+ hd8 is winning for Black. 2) 8 .ιf4 J.g7 9 exd6 "b6 10 0Ο-ο! ~xΩ 11 :el ~xhl 12 :xe7+ ~f8 13 J.c4 (13 ~g5!?.ιe6 14 he6 fxe6 15~xe6+~g816"c4~5 17 "d5 "c6 18 "b3 "b6 = is analysis by Vydeslaver and Faerman) 13...J.e6 14 J.xe6 fxe6 15 J.g5, VydeslaverFlash, Beersheba 1993, and now both 15 .....c5 16 J:ιxb7! "xd617 αι 'irdS 18 "a3+ ~g8 19 ~f6+ .ιΧf6 20 .ιΧf6 and 15 ... ~xe7 16 'ird7 ~5 17 .ιe7+ ~xe7 18 dxe7+ ~g8 19 ~g5!! J.f8! 20 e8" "e3+ 21 ~bl "el+ 22 ~1 "xdl+ 23 "xdl :xe8 24 "xhl favour Whίte according ΙΟ Vydeslaver and Faerman.

8.....xd6 (D)

7...~ι4

7 ...dxe5 8 ~e5 and then:

Pίket mentions 8 .....b6? 9 ~ "xf2+ 10~dl"c5 11 ~7+~d812 ~xa8 ~Ω+ 13 ~e2 ~xhl 14.ιe3.

302

Accelerated Dragons 13...bxc6 14 .i.xc6 is Van der Wiel-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1995. After 14...~xf3+!? 15 .i.xf3 e5, both 16 .i.cl e4! and 16 .i.e3 .i.b7! 17 ':bl!? (Ηu1κ) 17....i.xf31ead Ιο unclear, interestίng play. The cήtί­ cal move is, οί course, 16 j,xa8, when the positίon after 16...exf4 17 .i.e4 -*.xb2 18 ':dl .i.c3+ 19 Φf1 .i.e6 is οοΙ easy ιο assess. Both Pίket and Van der Wiel call it ~. . Thίs

w

9~bS!? 1fb8 Accordίng to Piket, 9...•b4+ fails to 10 "xb4 ~xb4 11 h3 ~xc2+ 12 ΦdΙ ~xΩ+ 13 Φχc2 -*.f5+ 14 Φb3 ':c8 15 ~bd4!. 10 ~bd4 -*'ι' Both 10...-*.d7 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12 -*.e2 and 10... ~ge5 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12 -*.e2 are~. 11 -*.bS ~ge5

11 ...0-0 12 fuc6 bxc6 13 -*.xc6 -*.xb2 14 -*.xb2 "xb2 150-0 ':b8 16 "xa7 ;!; (analysis by Pίket). 12-*.f4! Better than 12 ~xc6 bxc6. 12•••0-0 After 12...ιtw3+ 13 gxf3! (13 ~xf3 e5 is unclear) 13 ...•xf4 14 -*.xc6+ bxc6 15 "xc6+ Φf8 16 "xa8 .i.xd4 17 "xc8+ Φg7 18 .g4 "f6 19 ο-ο (19 c3 -*.xc3+ 20 bxc3 .xc3+ 21 Φe2 "b2+ 22 Φe3 "c3+ 23 Φf4 "c7+ 24 Φg5 ':d8! is unclear accordίng to Piket) 19....i.xb2 Black doesn't have qώte enough compensatίon for the exchange. 13lDxc6 An unclear positίon results from 13 j,xc6 ~xf3+ 14 ~xf3 e5 15 .i.dS exf4 160-0-0 "c7.

B2b) 5 e5(D)

Β

Most natural. Whίte starts to torment the black knight. S...~6.a4 Other queen moves have οοι turned out well at al1: 1) 6"h4 ~xe5! 7 ~xe5 "aS+ 8 ~c3 "xe5+ 9 .i.e2 j,g7 100-00-0 11 ':e 1 d6 12 -*.g5 "c5 13 j,f3 .i.e6! :f Sturua-Lukίn, Moscow 1979. 2) 6 .e3 ~g4! 7 "e4 ~gxe5 8 ~e5 "aS+ wίns a pawn for Black. 3) 6 "c3 ~ led Ιο a good game for Black ίο Pirc-Honfi, Gyula 1965 after 7 "e3 .aS+! 8 ~bd2 d5 9.i.d3

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6) j.g7 10 (Μ) (Μ) 11lilxe4 dxe412 j.xe4 lbxe5 13lbxe5 "'xe5 14 c3 'fIc7. 6•••lbcιs 7 The most popular choice, but the altematίves are probably ηο worse: 1) 7 a3 "'b6 8 'fIe4 lbc7 9 lbc3 j.g710.i.c4lbas 11 j.a2 "'c612 'fIb4 b6 is υnclear, Ηώaιc-Βarlοv, Yugoslavia 1975. 2) 7 c4? lbc7! 8 lbc3 lbe6! (this accurate move keeps White's bishop out off4; if 8... j.g7 White plays 9 j.f4 lbe6 10 j.g3 but Black is stίll doing fine: 10...0-0 11 lbd5 d6 12 0-0-0 dxe5! 13 lbf6+ exf6 14 :Ιχd8 :Ιχd8 gave Black good compensatίon for his queen ίη Jano§evi~-Nikoli~, Titovo Ufice 1966) 9 j.d2 j.g7 10 lbds 0-0 11 j.c3 lbc5 12 9c2 d6 ; UnzickerEisinger, Germany 1949. 3) 7 j.b5 j.g7 8 0-0 Ο-Ο?! (the alternative 8...lbc7!? is better and offers chances for both sides) 9 'ii'h4! lbc7 10 j.xc6 dxc6 11 j.h6 j.f5 12lbc3! j.xc2 13 j.xg7
"'e4

303

7 ...lbc7 8lbc3 j.g7 is a playable altemative: 1) 9 j.c4 b5! (9 ...d5 is infeήor: 10 exd6! "'xd6 11 0-0 j.f5 12 9b4lbd4 13lbg5 e6 14lbge4 j.xe4 15lbxe4 9c616i0f6+j.xf6179xf6andWhite has won the exchange) 10 j.xb5lbxb5 11lbxb59a5+ 12lbc3 j.a6 13 j.d2 e6 14 a4 "'c5 15 j.e3 9a5 16 j.d2 9c5 17 j.e3 with a repetition of moves - analysis by Archives. 2) 9 j.f4 lbe6 (a strategic eποr; also bad is 9...0-0 100-0-0 b6 11 h4 h5 12 j.c4; according to Archives, correct is 9 ...b6! 10 j.c4 j.b7 11 ge2 lba5 12 j.d3lbe6 13 j.g3lbc5 140-0 0-015 :ΙadΙ 9c8 and Black has ηο problems) 10 j.g3 b6 11 h4! h5 12 j.c4 j.b7 13 j.d5 9c8 140-0-0 lί)aS 15lbg5 j.h6 16 f4 j.xg5 17 fxg5lbc7 18 j.xf7+!
n

w

7•••lbcιb4 (D)

Not so strong is 7......a5+, when 8 j.d2 9c5 9 lbc3lbxc3 10 j.xc3 j.g7 11 0-0-00-0 is a suggestίon ofPanov's which offers chances to both sides. However, according 10 Archives White can gain an advantage with 8 c3lbc7 9 j.c4 b5 10 j.b3 j.g7 11 ο-ο j.b7 12 :Σel "'a6 13 "'h4 IΩa5 14 j.dl lbc4 15lbbd2.

Sj.bS Ί\νο lame alternatives: 1) 8 a3? d5! 9 "'e2 lba6 10 b4 lbc7 11 j.b2 j.g7 12 g3 (12lbbd2;) 12...j.g4 13lbbd2lbe614 0-0-0j.h6

304

Accelerated Dragons

15 "d3 'irb6 16 h3 .i.f5 17 "e2 Ac8 + USSR 1968. 2) 8c3d59"e2~610lΔd4.i.g7 11 f4 0-0 with good prospects, RyzHonfi, Κislovodsk 1968. 8.....aS Also possible is 8 ....i.g7 9 c3 l.ba6 100-00-0 11 .i.f41! 1.bc7 12 a41.be6 13.i.g3"c714I.bbd2a615.i.c4b616 Afel .i.b7 17 "h4 h6 18 Aadl Aad8 19 h3 Afe8 = Schoisswoh1-Uoge1e, corr 1981. 91.bc3 dS This aggressive move keeps White off baJance. The quieter 9 ....i.g7 10 Ο-ΟΟ-ΟIΟΟ to White's advantage ίη the game Jasnίkowski-Honfi, EksjQ 1980, after 11 a3 d5 12 exd6 .i.f5 13 "h4 lί)xc2 14 .i.xc6 exd6 15 b4 "d8 16 .i.g5 f6 17 .i.d5+ ~h8 18 .i.e3 lί)xal 19 Axal ±. 10"e2 Avoiding 10 exd6 .i.f5 11 "e5 lί)xc2+ 12 ~e2 0-0-013 "xh8lί)xal and B1ack has a distinct advantage. 10•••.i.g411 ο-ο d4! Also good is 11 ...0-0-0 12 a31.bd4 (bad is 12....i.xf3 13 "xf3 lί)xe5 14 "h3+ e6 15 axb4 "xal 16 .i.f4 and White should win, Romanishin-Kupreichik, USSR 1971) 131.bxd4 .i.xe2 14 axb4 "xa115 .i.xe2 .i.h6 16 .i.xh6 "xb2 17 .i.d2 "xb4 with a rather strange materiaJ count. Black is, of course, better. 12 ~ .i.xf313 gxf3 d3! 14.bd3 lί)xd3 15 .i.d2 "a6 16 "xd3 "xd3 17 cxd3 lί)xe5 ; Κrnic-Sax, Vmjaι:!ka Banja 1974. Shteinberg-Zhίdkov,

B2c) 5 .i.bS (D)

Β

This strange-looking move is an ίη­ vention of David Bronstein. Since its inception (and the initiaJ laughs) ίι has gained a 10t of respect and was considered to be White's best move for many years. Now interest has tumed Ιο 5 lί)c3 because some new ideas have shown that B1ack's position is more promising than was at first thought.

s._lDc6

Ιη the initial game Black p1ayed 5 .....a5+1! and was surprised by 6 "c3!, after which he swaJlowed his pride and retreated with 6 ..."d8. There followed 7 .i.c4 e6 8 e5lΩe4 9 "d3 f5 10 1.bc3 lί)xc3 11 bxc3! (already ±) 11 ...lί)c6 12 ο-ο .i.g7 13 Ael "a5 14 .i.b50-0 15 a4 "c7 16 .i.xc6 "xc6 17 1.bd4 "d5 181.bb5 "xd3 19 cxd3 d5 20 exd6 a6 21 1.bc7 .i.xc3 22 I.bxa8 .i.xal 23 .i.g5 .i.d4 24 .i.e7 Af7 25 Ac 1 .i.d7 26 Ac7 .i.xa4 27 Ac4 .i.c6 28 Axd4 1-0 Brσnstein-Zhidkov, USSR Ch 1972. Of course, 6 .....d8 was not a very attractive move, but even 6 ... "xc3+ 7 lί)xc3 leaves B1ack ίη difficulties. Κa­ vaJek anaJyses 7 ...a6 8 e5! axb5 9 exf6 exf6 10 lί)d5, when Black's position will soon collapse.

Hyper-Accelerαted Drαgon

Aside from 5...1Ωc6 and 5....aS+, the only other 5th move that comes Ιο ιnind is 5 ... a6, when 6 e5 (6.i.a4 b5 7 -*.b3 ι!tX:6 8 .d3 -*.g7 9 ο-ο ο-ο 10 1Ωc3 d6 11 -*.g5 lbaS 12 :t"dl-*.b7 13 e5 lbxb3 14 axb3 dxe5 15 lbxe5 .c7 16 .i.xf6 exf6 17lbd7 IΣfd8 18 .d6 .xd6 19 IΣxd6 -*.c8 20 IΣadl -*.xd7 21 IΣxd7 ':xd7 22 ':xd7 ':c8 23 g4 -*.f8 24lbd5 ':xc2 25 lbxf6+ Wg7 26 lbe8+ Wg8 27 lbf6+ Wg7 with equalίιΥ, Curdo-Perelshteyn, Marlborough 1997) 6 ...axb5 7 exf6 was supposed Ιο be simply good for White. This assessment has changed with the discovery of 7 ...e6! (D) (much worse is 7 ...lbc6 8 fxe7 .xe7+ 9 .e3 with a clearly better pawn structure for White; Κavalek theo continues with 9 ...lbb4 10 lbd4! ':xa2 11 ':xa2lbxa2 12 Ο-ο! ±).

This was first brought to ΟΜ atteowheo Fedorowicz (as Black) used it against Psakhis ίη a World Open ίο the late 19808. Black quickly obtaίoed an overwhelmiog position but the game score is not available. However, the games we do have suggest that 7 ...e6 has a real future: 8 lbc3 (8 ο-ο tiοη

(2 ... g6)

305

1Ωc6 9 Wh4 1Σa4 10.g5:aS I1lbbd2 h6 12 .e3 .xf61eft Black a pawo υρ for ηothίoB ίο Stillger-Piveoy, Budapest 1994) 8... lbc6 9 .h4 IΣaS! (the obvious 9 ... b4 10 lbb5 ':a5 11 c4! bxc3 12 a4! cxb2? 13 -*.xb2 -*.b4+ 14 We2 b6 15lbe5 -*.a6 16lbxc6 IΣxb5 17 axb5 .i.xb5+ 18 We3 dxc6 19 ':hdl led to a winniog positioo for White ίο Rϋhrig-Sterteobrίnk, Germany 1984) 10 a4 bxa4 (lΟ... Μ Illbb5) 11 IΣxa4 b5 (11 ...IΣxa4 12 .xa4! .xf6? 13 -*.g5 .f5 14.a8) 12 IΣxaS .xaS 13 ο-ο b4 14 lbe4 d5 15 lbeg5 h6 16 lbxf7 Wxf7 17lbg5+ hxg5 18 .xh8 d4 with complications that should oot be bad for Black - analysis by Fedorowicz, Donaldsoo and ΜcCambήdge. 6-*.xc6 Also good is 6 .a4, wheo Black has tried: 1) 6 ....aS+ 7 lbc3 .xa4 8 -*.xa4 followed by e5 and lL1dS favours White. 2) 6 ... a6 7 0-0 IΣb8 8 -*.xc6 bxc6 9 e5lbd5 10 .h4! -*.g7 11 c4 lbc7 12 -*.h6lbe6 (12...-*.xh6 13 .xh6 ':xb2 14 .g7 ':f8 15 e6 is unpleasant analysis by Κavalek) 13 -*.xg7lbxg7 14 b3lbf5 15 .f4.i.b7 16 lbc3 c5 17 IΣadl-*.xf3 18 .xf3 0-019 IΣd3 d6 20 IΣel! lbd4 21 .dl IΣb7 22 exd6 exd6 23 lbd5 ± ΚavaΙek-S.Fήedman, Netanya 1973. 3) 6 ... -*.g7 7 0-0 (7 lbc3 0-0 8 e5 lbe8 9 -*.xc6 dxc6 10.h4 followed by -*.h6 is also better for White according Ιο Kavalek) 7....c7 8 1Ωc3 a6 9 -*.g5 ο-ο 10 IΣfel lbe5!? 11 lbxe5 .xe5 12 -*.h4 ;t Κmic-Kupreichik, Wijk aan Zee 1977: 12...lbg4 13 -*.g3 .c5 14 -*.e2 lbe5 15 ':adl b5! 16 -*.xb5 IΣb8 17 IΣd5 .c7!. 6•••bxc6

306

Accelerαted Drαgons

6 ...dxc6 7 "xd8+ ~xd8 is a seήοus altemative: 1) 8 e5 llXL5 9 .i.d2 .i.g7 10 c4 lDb6 11 b3 .i.g4 12 .i.c3.i.xf3 13 gxf3 lΩd7 14 f4lΩc5 15 ~e2 ~c7 16lDd2 IIhd8 17 .i.b4lDd3 18 .i.xe7lΩxf4+ 19 ~e3 .i.xe5 20 .i.xd8+ IIxd8 21 ΙΟο .i.xal 22 IIxal lΩe6 23 h4 lDg7 24 ~e2 f6 25 IIgl a5 26 IIg4lDe6 27 lIe4 ~d6 and somehow Black blundered and ended uρ losίog ίο J.PolgarLarsen, Roquebrone Amberrpd 1992. 2) 8 lΩB5?! ~e8 91Dc3 h6 10 eS? hxg5 11 exf6 exf6 12 .i.d2 .i.e7 13 0-0-0 f5! :ι: Peretjatkowicz-Uogele, cοπ 1981. 3) 8 lΩc3 with three different tήes byBlack: 3a) 8 ... ~e8 9 .i.e3 lΩg4 10 .i.f4 .i.g7 11 e5 g5 12 .i.g3 h5 13 h4! gxh4 14 IIxh4 ~ Pfibyl-Sikora, CzechoslovakCh 1980. 3b) 8 ....i.g4 9 lΩe5 .i.e6 10 lΩd3 .i.g7 11 1Dc5 .i.c8 12 .i.f4 b6 13 0-0-0+ ~e8 14 lDd3 lDd7 15 IId2 e5 16 .i.g5 f617 .i.e3 .i.b718 IIhdl IId8 19 a4 .i.f8 20 a5 .i.d6 21 axb6 axb6 22 f4 .i.c7 23 fxe5 lΩxe5 24lΩxe5 IIxd2 25 IIxd2 .i.xeS and Black made a draw οη the 58th move ίο Zarnίcki-Larsen, Buenos Aires 1992. 3c) 8 ... .1g7 9 .i.f4 ~e8 10 0-0-0 lDd7 11 h3 e5 12 .i.e3 lΩf8 13 lΩd2 lΩe6 141Dc4 ~e7 15 1Id2 b5 16lDa5 .i.d717 IIhdllDd418lΩb3lΩxb3+ 19 axb3 IIhd8 20 .1g5+ f6 21 .i.e3 ~e8 22 b4 .i.f8 23 .1c5 .i.xc5 24 bxc5 ~e7 25 IId6 .i.e8 26 IIxd8 IIxd8 TalDzindzίchashvili, New York 1990. 7 eS lΩd5 8 0-0 8 e6 lΩf6 9 exf7+ ~xf7 is ηothίηB forWhite. 8....i.g7 91Wh4 0-0

9... h6!? is a possible improvement, White from trading bishops with .i.h6 but οη the other hand makίng it difficult for Black to castle. Κengis-Levchenkov, Riga 1984 continued 10 c4?! (White should have played 10 a3 first and only then c4) 10... lΩb4 11lΩc3lΩd3! 12.i.d2 "c7 13lDe4 gS 14 .g3lΩxb2 15 %lael ~ 16lDexg5?! hxg5 17 .i.xg5 .1a6! 18 .i.xe7+ ~xe7 19 "xg7 lIag8 20 "f6+ ~e8 21 lΩB5 .i.xc4 22 lDe4 .i.d5! 23 lΩd6+ ~f8 and Black won οη the 40th move. 10 .i.h6 Ι6 11 .i.xg7 ~ι7 12 c4 lΩc7 13 ω lDe6 14 lΩd4 lΩxd4 15 "xd4 fxeS 16 "xe5+ ~ι8 17 lIfel 18 lIadl d6 19 cS! ± Bokuchava-Gavashelishvili, USSR 1974. preventίng

:n C)

3c3(D)

Β

=

White wants to create a full pawn centre. Players who want Ιο reach the position after 3 c3 .i.g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 dS as White mίght want Ιο consider the move-order 3 d4 .i.g7 4 c3.

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6) Granted, this allows 3... cxd4, but the move-order after 3 c3 allows Black the possibίlity οί playίng 3...d5 and transposing ίηΙο a cuπently popular system agaίnst the Alapin Sicilian. 3••ig7 Two altematives: 1) 3... ~f6 4 e5 ~5 5 ~g5!? e6 (5 .....c7 is doubtful, when Archives considers the sacήfice after 6 ~xfϊ Wxfϊ 7 "f3+ We6 Ιο be unconvincίηΒ; however, 6 d4 cxd4 7 cxd4 ~B7 8 ~a3! 0-0 9 .tc4 is good for Whίte) 6 d4 cxd4 7~! .te7 8 cxd4 ί5 9 ~3 d6 10 ~xd5 exd5 11 "ιb5+ "ιd7 and Whίte could now maintaίn hίs advantage WΊth 12 ~3, Van den Berg-Bobotsov, Noordwijk 1965. 2) 3...d5!? 4 exd5 "xd5 is interestίηΒ. Black wants Ιο transpose ίηΙο a new and popular line ο! the Alapin: 2a) 5 ~a3 "ιΒ7 6 "ιc4 "e4+ 7 "ιe2 ~ί6 8 ~b5 ~a6 9 0-0 0-010:el Wd5 11 d4 cxd4 12 c4 "d8 13 ~bxd4 ~5 14 h3 b615 h3 "ιb7 16 b4 ~ 17 "b3 a618 a4 aS 19 bxaS ~5 20 "xb6 :xa5 21 "xd8 :xd8 22 :abl :xa4 23 :b5 ~fd7 24 :dl ~e4 25 ~B5 :c8 26 ~B4 f5 27 ~xe4 fxg4 28 ~c3 :xc4 29 ~ "ιf8 30 hxg4 e6 31 ~b6 ~b6 32 :xb6 :d8 33 :bbl e5 34 ~f3 J:ιxdl + 35 J:ιxdl :xg4, and Short-Andersson, Tilburg 1990 was drawn ίη 49 moves. 2b) 5 d4 ~f6 (5 ... "ιΒ7 6 "ιe3 cxd4 7 cxd4 1IIaS+ 8 ~3 ~6 9 "ιc4 0-0 10 ο-ο ~bd7 11 a3 ~b6 12 "ιa2 ~bd5 13 :cl "ιe6 = 14 "d2 ~xe3 15 fxe3 "ιΧa2 16 ~xa2 "xd2 17 ~xd2 ~5 18 :fel e5! 19 ~f3 e4 20 ~2 f5 21 ~f1 f4 22 :cdl fxe3 23 ~xe3 ~ί4 24 ~f1 ~3 0-1 Mohr-Hulak, Portoro! 1993) and now:

307

2al) 6 dxc5 "xc5 7 .te3 "c7 8

~a3 a6 9 ιtk4 (9 "a4+ ~d7 10 ~b5 "c8 11 "aS .txb5 12 "ιΧb5+ ~c6

13 "ιχc6+ Wxc6 14 0-0-0 "ιΒ7 =) 9 ...~bd7 10 a4 b6 (10...~B7 11 aS 0-0 12 "ιe2 :d8 13 1IId4 ~5! 14 "d5, 1/2-1/2 Sermek-Sakaev, Budapest 1996, 14 ... ~f4! 15 "ιΧί4 "xf4 16 ~b6 e6 17 "d3 :b8 18 ο-ο ~ί6 19 ~xc8 :bxc8 =) 11 aS (Black is also fine ώ­ ter 11 Wd4 "ιΒ7 12 ~xb6 ~xb6 13 "xb6 Wxb6 14 .txb6 :b8 15 aS ~) l1 ... bxaS! with equalίty accordίηΒ to Sakaev. 2a2) 6 ω "ιΒ7 and here: 2a2a) 7 ~b5 ~a6 8 ~e2 (8 dxc5? 1IIxdl+ 9 Wxdl 0-0;) 8...cxd4 (Black doesn't want Ιο allow lines like 8...0-0 9 0-0 cxd4 10 ~fxd4 with the idea οί "ιf3 ;1;) 9 1IIxd4 and then: 2a2al) 9 ...0-0 10 "ιe3 1ΙΙί5 11 "dl ~d5 12 "ιd4 ~f4 13 ο-ο "g4 14 g3 e5 15 ~e3 ~xe2+ 16 Wxe2 'ilh5 0-1 Κelleher-A.lvanov, Boston 1997. 2a2a2) 9.....xd4 10 ~fxd4 0-0 11 ο-ο (11 "ιf3 ~5 12 0-0 a6 13 ~7 :b814"ιf4~315"ιg3e5~Υermο­

linsky) 1l ... "ιd7 (11 ...~c5!?) 12 ~b3! :Ic8 13 :dl ~5 14 ~xc5 (14 "ιe3! b6 15 ~xc5 bxc5 is unclearYermolinsky) 14...:xc5 15 a4 a6 16 ~4e5 17~b3:d5 18:xd5~xd5=

Shaked-Yermolinsky, USA Ch 1996. 2a2b) 7 "ιc4 (a dangerous altemative) 7 .....e4+ 8 "ιe3 ο-ο 9 ο-ο cxd4 10 "ιΧd4 ιtk6 11 :el "f5 12 J.e5 :d8 13 'ii'b3 ~B4 14 "ιΧΒ7! (stronger than the 14 "ιΒ3 ofBenjamin-D.Gurevich, USA Ch 1996) 14... Wxg7 15 :adl Wc5!? 16 Wc2 "ιf5 17 We2 aS (Black must avoid 17...:xdl? 18 :xdl :d8 19 :xd8 ~xd8 20 h3 ~f6 21 b4 "c7 22 ~b5 Wf4 23 ~xa7,

Accelerαted Drαgons

308

Palkovi-Cs.Horvath, Hungarian Ch 1996; however, 17...lbce5! 18 lDd4 lDxc4 19 lDxc4 lDf6 20 ιtJxf5+ gxf5 only gives White a minimal edge according to Palkovi) 18 h3 ιtJf6 19 g4! ;;1;;.

4d4 4 -*.b5 a6 5 -*.a4lDf6 6 "e2 0-0 7 ο-ο d6 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 -*.d7 10 -*.xd7 lDfxd7 11 :dl1Dc6 12 d5 lDce5 13 lDd4 :c8 14 b3 ιtJo+ 15 "xf3 -*.xd4 16 :Xd4 :Xcl + 17 J:[dl "c7 ~ WahlsDay, Manila OL 1992. 4•••cxd4 4 .....aS is also seen οη occasion: 1) 5 -*.c4 cxd4 6 0-0 lDf6 (6...dxc3?! just helps White add Ιο his lead ίη development; possible, though is 6 ...d3 7 "xd3 lDc6 8 "d5 "xdS 9 exd5 ιtJe5 10 lDxe5 -*.xe5 11 :el d6 12 lDd2 Φf8! 13 a4, when White is just a bit better, Dvoretsky-Romanishin, USSR 1975) 7 e5 lDe4 8 cxd4 d5 9 -*.b3lDc6 10 lDel is unclear, Jansa-Sikora, ~in 1974. 2) 5 -*.e2!? cxd4 6 b41eads to wild complications: 6 ...1Wb6 7 cxd4lDc6 8 lDc3 lDxd4 9 lDd5 lDxf3+ 10 -*.xf3 "d4 11 "c21tχaI120-0Φf813-*.f4 is unclear, Miles-Quinteros, Buenos Aires 1979. 3) 5 lDbd2 cxd4 and now: 3a) 6 b4 1td8 (6 ...1Wb6?! 7 cxd4 dS 8exdS lDf69-*.c4 1txb410a4! 0-011 -*.a3 12 Wb3! ;;Ι;; Bronstein-Romanishin, USSR 1975) 7 cxd4 dS! is equal according Ιο Romanishin. 3b) 6 cxd4lDf6 7 -*.d3 d6 80-00-0 9 :ellDc6 10 a3 -*.d7 11 b4 "d8 12 -*.b2 e5 was mildly ;;Ι;; ίη AnderssonRibli, Sombor 1970. 3c) 6lDb3 "d8 7 cxd4lDf6 8 -*.d3 ο-ο 9 ο-ο lDc6 10 e5 lDe8 11 -*.f4 with

"aS

a slight plus for White, KemazitskyTaborov, USSR 1978. 4) 5 d5 d6 6 -*.d3lDf6 7 ο-ο 0-0 8 h3 e6 9 c4 led to a Benoni ίη Martinovic-Pavlovic, Yugoslavia 1993. 5cxd4 Α transpositon Ιο a line of the Smith-Μοπa Gambit occurs after 5 -*.c4!? dxc3 6 ιtJxc3 ιtJc6. Editor's note: Then 7 e5 can be met by 7 ...'ifaS 80-0 ιtJxe5 9 ιtJxe5 -*.xe5 10 lDd5 (10 :el d6!) 10...d6 11 :el e6!, while after 7 0-0, Black should choose between 7...lDh6 8 -*.f4 ο-ο 9 e5 lDaS 10 -*.d5 e6 11 -*.e4 d5 12 exd6 f5 and 7 ... d6, e.g. 8 "b3 lDaS 9 "a4+ -*.d7 10 -*.b5 lDc6 11 :dl ιtJh6 ~. 5.••d5 (D) Striking ουΙ at the white centre. Other moves: 1) 5...lDf6 6 e5 lDe4 7 -*.d3 (7 "a4 is a bit too fanciful: 7...0-0 8 d5 1Dc5 9 1th4 d6 10 -*.h6 dxe5 11 ιtJg5 f6! :f Plachetka-Sikora, Stary Smokovec 1977) 7 ... d5 8 lDc3 lDxc3 9 bxc3 ιtJc6 10 ο-ο 0-0 11 h3 -*.f5 (11 ...lDaS!?) 12 -*.xf5 gxf5 13 :el ;;Ι;; Adorjan-Sikora, Warsaw 1979. 2) 5 ... d6 6 h3 ιtJf6 7 lDc3 ο-ο 8 -*.g5 lDc6 9 -*.e2 h6 10 -*.e3 d5 11 e5 lDe4 12:Cl h6 13 -*.d3 -*.f5, F.Olafsson-Szabo, Lugano 1970. After 5 ... dS White has two moves that lead Ιο very different positions. 6 exd5 creates a wide open centre while 6 e5 leads to a closed centre.

Cl: 6 exd5

309

C2: 6e5

310

Far less troublesome is 6lDc3 dxe4 7 ιtJxe4lDh6! 8 -*.b5+ lDd7 9 0-0 ο-ο 10 -*.g5 lDb6 11 "d2 lDf5, Van den Berg-Bilek, Hamburg 1965.

Hyper-Accelerαted Drαgon

(2 ... g6)

309

:e8 23 .!.e5 ± J.Horvath-Barczay, Hungary 1989) 9 .!.b3 0-0 10 0-0 .!.f5 (10....!.c8! ;t) 11lΔe5 .*.xbl 12 :xbl lQxd5 13 "e2! a6 14 lQxf7! and Black's game came tumbling down ίη Tukmakov-Sikora, De(!in 1977.

w

C1) 6exd5~6

6 .....xd5 loses tίme and is not a good idea. Ιη Suetίn-Amaudov, ΑΙ­ bena 1970, Black had a bad tίme after 7 ι!2Χ3 "d8 8 -*.e3 ΙOC6 9 -*.b5 ..ιd7 (better is 9 ...e6 100-0 lΔe7;t) 10 ο-ο a6 11 J.e2! -*.g4 (11 ...e6 12 d5! ±) 12 d5 -*.xf3 13 .*.xf3 lΔe5 14 d6! ιαιt'3+ 15 "xf3 1i'xd6 16 "xb7 and White was winning. 7 -*.b5+ Α positίon that can a1so come from the Grϋnfeld arises after 7 -*.c4 ~xd5 8 ~c3 ~b6 9 -*.b3 ~c6 10 d5 ~a5 11 0-0. Ιη Jansa-Commons, Sombor 1976, Black got a clear advantage with 11 ...-*.g4! 12 h3 ~xb3 13 axb3 -*.xf3 14 "xf3 -*.xc3 15 1i'xc3 f6 16 :dl ~xd5 17 "c5 e6 +. 7._~M7

White has the better chances after 7 ...-*.d7 8 -*.c4 b5 (ηο better is 8 ...0-0 9 ΙOC3 .*.g4 10 0-0 ~bd7 11 d6 exd6 12 h3 -*.xf3 13 1i'xf3 ~b614 -*.b3 d5? {14.....d7 15 -*.g5 "f5!? gives drawing chances} 15 -*.g5! h616.!.h4 :c8 17 :Iel :c6 18 :e2 :e6? 19 :xe6 fxe6 20 "e2 "e8 21 .!.g3 1i'f7 22:el

8d6 If Black is a110wed to play ...0-0, ...lQb6 and ... lQbxd5 he will obtain an excel1ent positίon. The text-move admίts that the d5-pawn ΜΗ be lost and hopes to leave Black with a slight weakness οη d6. Quiet development with 8 ι!2Χ3 ΜI1 give White nothing: 8 ...0-0 9 -*.g5 (9 d6 exd6 10 ο-ο ~b6 =) 9 ...~b6 10 .!.xf6 -*.xf6 (ίnfeήοr is 10... exf6 11 'irb3 .!.g4 12 -*.e2 1i'd6 13 ο-ο :fd8 14 h3 ..ιf5 15 :fel ~xd5 16 -*.c4 .!.e6 17 lΔe4 fol1owed by ι!2Χ5 with some advantage to White) 11 1i'b3, Κhol­ mov-Navarovsky, Tbilisi 1965, and now after 11 ...e6 12 dxe6 -*.xe6, either 13 1i'dl .!.g4 or 13 "c2 ~5 140-0 1i'b6 gives Black actίve pieces and equa1 chances. 8_.0-0 We don't think this shatp pawn sacήfice is best. The altematίves deserve specia1 attentίon: 1) 8 .....a5+ 9 ~c3 'Ωe4 10 0-0 ~d6 11 .!.a40-0 12:el ~6 13 .!.b3 e6 14 .!.f4 ~ Tukmakov-Semίonov, USSR 1971. 2) 8 ...~!? and then: 2a) 9 ο-ο?! ~xd6 10 -*.d3 0-0 11 ι!2X3llli6 12 h3 .!.f5 13 :el .!.xd3 14 1i'xd3 :C8 15 .!.f4 ι!2Χ4 Kuzmίη­ Ma1akhov, Moscow rapid 1994. 2b) 9 -*.xd7+ .!.xd7 10 dxe7 (such attempts Ιο win a pawn give Black compensatίon) 10..."a5+ 11 .!.d2 (11 ~bd2 -*.b5 and 11 ~f1 1i'b4! both

=

310

Accelerated Dragons

give Black lots ofplay) 11 ... ~xd2 12 "xd2 "xd2+ 13 ~bxd2 Φχe7 analysis by Malakhov and Vaisman. 2c) 9 dxe7 "a5+ 10 ~3 ~xc3 11 .txd7+ .txd7 12 bxc3 .tb5 13 "b3 :c8 14 .td2 "a6 15 :bl .tc4 16 "xb7 "e6+ 17 ΦdΙ .td5 18 "xa7 "g4 19 :el "xg2 20 :b8 "xf3+ 21 ΦcΙ .tb7 22 "a4+ 1-0 FormanekSoltίs, Reoo 1994. An unhappy resu1t for Black, but Soltίs was of the ορίο­ ίοο that he stood well at some poίot. 3) 8...exd6! is the easiest way for Black to secure equality: 9 "e2+ "e7 10.tf4 (10 "xe7+ Φχe7 11 ~3 ~b6 120-0 :d8 13 :el + Φf8 14 h3 .te6 15 lDg5 .tc4 16 .tf4 h6 17 ~f3 a6 18 .txc4 ~xc4 19 b3 ~b6 20 :acl ~fd5 21 .td2 lDxc3 22 .txc3 ~5 with a slight advantage for Black, Christίanseo-Larseo, Roquebruoe rpd 1992) 10.....xe2+ 11 Φχe2 Φe7 Levi-Κeeoe, Adelaide 1983. Black wil1 fol1ow υρ with ...lDb6 and ....te6 with a finn hold 00 the d5-square. It is ioterestίog to compare this with a similar positίoo that comes ουι of the Caro-Κann: 1 e4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 cxd5 cxd5 4 exd5 lDf6 5 .tb5+ lDbd7 6 ~c3 g6 7 d4 .tg7 8 d6 exd6 9 "e2+ "e7 10 .tf4 "xe2+ and oow White can fight for d5 with 11 .txe2! followed by .tf3 and ~ge2. This is impossible ίο this Sicilian move-order because White's knight is already 00 the ioeffectίve f3-square. 9dxe7 9 0-0 exd6 10 ~3 a6 11 .td3 :e8 12 h3 h6 13 .tf4 ~b6 14 "d2 g5 15 .th2.te616:tel "d717lDe4~xe4 18 .txe4 .td5 19 .txd5 lDxd5 with equality, Fedorowicz-Κlovsky, New York 1994.

=

"e2

9.••"xe7+ 10 Beiog a pawo υρ, White would be happy to trade queeos. Less effectίve is 10.te2 :e8 111Dc3 ~4 12 .te3?! (better is 12lDxe4 "xe4 13 .te3 with about equal chances) 12 ...lDdf6 13 ~xe4 (eveo worse is 13 .tb5? ~xΩ! and White was finished ίο Malcropou10s-Bi1ek, Atheos 1977) 13 ...~xe4 14 ο-ο ~xΩ! :ι: Balogh-Bakooyi, Budapest 1949. 10.....b4+ 11 ω Gufeld's suggestioo οί 11 ...~5 12 ο-ο lDxc3 13 bxc3 "xc3 14 .td2 "c7 keeps White's advantage to a minimum. 12.te3 a6?! 13 a3 "d6 14.td3 b5 150-0 ± Cs.Horvath-Barczay, Huogary 1989. The cootίnuatίoo was 15....tb7 16"d2.txf3 17 gxf300?! 18lDe4 "d5 19lDg3lDxg3 20 hxg3 "xf3 21 a4! bxa4 22 :xa4 ~b6 23 :xa6 :xa6 24 .txa6 ΙΑΙS 25 .tb7 :xe3? 26.txd5 :e2 27 "dl "g4 28 Φg2 1-0.

:e8

C2) 6e5 (D)

o

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 .. ~B6) Black must now play for pressure the d4-pawn. 6•••.t.g4 (D) Very logical. Black gets his bishop outside the pawn-chaίn and also prepares Ιο chop off a defender of d4. The natural6...llX6 is alSO playable but ιhis gives Whίte the opportunity ιο stop ....t.g4 once and for all WΊαι 7 h3. Of course, as the folloWΊng examples show, ιhis doesn't mean that Whίte gets an auιomatίc advantage: 1) 7 ....t.f5 8 lbc3 e6 9 .t.g5 'A'b6 10 j,b5 .t.e4 11 ο-ο j,xf3 12 "xf3 ;t Sanz-Gurgenίdze, Tbίlisi 1980. 2) 7 ...lbh6! and then: 2a) 8 j,e2 0-0 9lbc3 j,e6 100-0 lbf5 11 :el a6 12 b3 :Σc8 13 j,b2 b5 14 a4 b4 15 lba2 "b6 16 j,f1 h5 17 llXl:c718lbe2lbas 19 lbf4j,h620 lbxe61 (according to Κeene, Whίte should have played 20 lbd3! lbc6 21 lbcs! lbcxd4 22lbxd4 "xc5 23 j,xa6) 20.....xe6 21 .i.d3 :fc8 22 Whllbg7 23 lbgl W'b6 24 lbe2 lbe6 25 j,bl :c3 26 j,xc3 bxc3 27 f4 lbxb3 28 lbbxd4 29 lbxd4lbxd4 30 e6 c2 31 exf7+ Wf8 32 j,xc2 lbxc2 33 :f1 lbxa3 0-1 Gallego-Keene, Madrίd 1982. λο instructίve game that clearly shows how Black should play agaίnst d4. 2b) 8lbc3 0-09 j,b5 (9 j,f4 f6 10 "d2 ω 11 exf6 exf6 12 j,e2 .i.e6 13 0-0 :c8 {13 ...lbd6 ίotendίng 14...lbe4 was also possible} 14 :fel :Σe8 15 :acl lbd6 16 j,d3 j,f'T 17 :Σxe8+ lbxe8 =Song-Donaldson, Los Angeles 1990) 9 ... Wh8 10 ο-ο f6 11 :el fxe51! (11 ...lbf'T!1 - Andersson) 12 j,xc6 exd4 13 j,xh6 j,xh6 14 "xd4+ j,g7 15 "xd5 bxc6, AnderssonDueball, Berlίn 1971, and now 16 agaίnst

:a3

311

"xc6 is slίghtly better for Whίte accordίng ιο Andersson.

w

7ω

The altematίves are: 1) 7 ltJbd2 lbc6 8 j,d3 f6!1 (8 ... e6, 8...lbh6 and 8 .....b6 are also possible) 9 "a4 a6 10 O-O"aS 11 1fxa5 lbxaS 12 :elllX6 13 h3 is lίghtly ;t, Westerίnen-FilίpoWΊcz, Esbjerg 1977. 2) 7 j,b5+ lbc6 (also reasonable is 7 ... lbd7 8 lbbd2 e6 9 0-0 lbe7 10 h3 j,xf3 Illbxf3 0-0 12 :el a6 13 j,d3 ltJb8 14 j,g5 h6 15 .i.e3lbf5 =MatuloVΊ~-Parιna, Skopje/Ohrίd 1968) and now: 2a) 8 lbbd2 1fb6 9 .i.xc6+ 1fxc6 100-0:c811 :el"c212 1fe2 a613 h3 j,f5 14 ltJf1 1fxe2 15 :xe2 j,d3 wίth equalίιy, Matulovί~-BeUon, Skopje OL 1972. 2b) 8 0-0 lbh6 9 j,xh6 (9lbbd2 f6 10 h3 j,d7 11 exf6 j,xf6 12lbb3 ω 13 lbc5 favoured Whίte ίο Smyslovbo.Polgar, Vienna 1993) 9 ... j,xh6 10 h3 j,xf3 11 j,xc6+ bxc6 12 "xf3 0-0 13 1fc3 "b6 14lbd2:fb8 15 lbb3 aS 16 :abl a4 17 lbc5 1fb4 18 lbd7 1fxc3 19 bxc3 :d8 20 e6 fxe6 21lbe5 :dc8 22 :b7 j,g5 lοο to an eventual

312

Accelerated Dragons

Μη for Black ίη Iskov-Donaldson, Gausdal1986. 2c) 8 t[}c3 ~6 9 0-0 (Black is also comfortable after 9 .i.e3 0-0 1Ο h3 .i.xf3 11 .xf3 ~f5 12 :dl e6 13 0-0 f6 14 exf6 1fxf6, Glueck-Donaldson, Berkeley 1990) 9...0-010 .i.xc6 bxc6 11 h3 (11 .i.xh6.i.xh6 12 ~a4 f6! :j:) 11 ....i.xf3 12 1fxf3 ~5 =Olsen-Filipowicz, Gausdal 1977. 3) 7 .b3 .d7 8 t[}c3 ~6 9 .i.e3 ~h6 10 ~2 ~5 11 .i.b5 0-0 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 13 ~4 :ab8 14 1fc3 f6

15~5.c816h3fxe5 17dxe5~xe3

18 .xe3 .i.f5 19 g4 and now, ίη Zagrebelny-Vorontsov, St Peιersbυrg 1993, 19...:xb2 20 gxf5 1Ixf5 21 f4.i.h6 led Ιο an exciting battIe ίη which Black had more than enough compensation for the sacrificed piece. 7•••lΔe6 8 .i.e21ί)Jι6 8....i.xf3 9 .i.xf3 e6 10 .i.e3 ~ge7 11 0-00-0 12.d2 ~5 13 ~2 f614 exf6 'ifxf6 15 :adl :ae8 =BelaskaBarbero, Mlada Boleslav 1994. 98-0 Νοι Ιο be recommended is 9 1Ib3 .i.xf3 (ίη L.Harmon-Donaldson, Portland 1984, Black varied with 9...0-0 and got a winning position after 10 .i.e3 ~5 11 :dl e6 12 0-0 ~a5 13 .b4:c8 14 ιαι2 ~e3 15 fxe3 :Xc3) 10 .i.xf3 e6?! (better is 10...~f5! 11 'ifxb7 ~fxd4 12 .i.xd5 ~2+ 13 ciιdl {13 ciιfl 0-0 14 :bl ~2b4} 13 ...~b4 14 .i.d2 0-0 15 .i.xc6 :b8 1611d7 11b6! Μαι a powerfυl attack) 11 1Ixb7 ~xd4 12 .i.g5 :b8 13 'ifxa7 ~6 14 'ifc5? (14 'ifa4 1fd7 =) 14... ~xe5! + Lυkin-Kupreichίk, USSR 1974. Also fine for Black is 9 h3 .i.xf3 10 .i.xf3 ~f5 11 .i.xd5 ~fxd4 12 f4 0-0 130-0 e6 14 .i.xc6 ~c6 15 .i.e3 .a5

16 'iFb3 b617 ~ :fd8 18 :fdl1f'b4 19 :xd8+ :xd8 20 'ifxb4 ~b4 21 :c 1 ~5 22 ciιΩ .i.f8 =LjubojevicLarsen, Roquebrυne 1992. 9••• 10.i.e3 0-0 11 b3 .i.xf3 12 .i.xf3 e6 13 .i.g4 Now Shevelev-Ageichenko, USSR 1979 saw White gain a slight advanιage Μαι 13... f6? 14 .i.xf5 gxf5 15 f4. However, Black can get a good POSj! tiοη Μαι 13 ... ~xe3 14 fxe3 .g5 (οι 14... f5 15 exf6 :xf6 =) 15 11d3 h5 16 .i.e2 ~b4 (16... f6 17 exf6 :xf6 18 :xf6 .i.xf6 19 :Π :f8 20 h4! 'ifh6 21 g3 .i.d8 22 :xf8+ ciιxf8 23 ciιg2 1/2-1/2 Panchenko-Ardeleanu, Bucharest 1993) 17 'ifd2 ~2!? 18 'ifxc2 1Ixe3+ 19 ciιhl .xd4 20 :ael 'ifxe5 Μαι a slight advanιage for Black analysis by Ardeleanu.

m

Ο) 3c4 (D)

Β

White hopes ΙΟ transpose ίηΙο the Maroczy Bind. 3....i.g7 This allows Black Ιο take the game ίηto the Maroczy Bind, the Benoni, οι

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6) ίηΙο lines of the Modem Defence! The only other choices are: Ι) 3...l2X64 d4 cxd4 5 ~xd4 ~6 6 ~3 d6 with a transposition Ιο the Gurgenidze System against the Maroczy Bind (Chapter 8). 2) 3... ~h6!? (this recommendation of Keene's gives the game an independent character; the idea is that a trade of dark-squared bishops would, theoretically, leave White weak οη the dark squares) 4 h4 (since this position is eχpeήmentaι, White's conect plan has ηοΙ yet been determined; other tries include 4 l2X3 l2X6 5 ~e2 e5 =, 4 d4 ~xcl 5 'ffxcl cxd4 6 ~xd4 l2X6 7 'ffc3 ~f6 8 ~2 'ffb6! and 4 l2X3 l2X6 5 d4 so as Ιο be able Ιο recapture οη c Ι with the rook; Κeene feels that this last attempt may be White's best line) 4 ...d65 h5 ~g4! 6 hxg6 hxg6 7 d4 .txf3 (7 ....td2+? 8 ~fxd2! .txdl 9 ':xh8 ~f8 10 ~xdl leaves White with Ιοο much for the queen) 8 'ffxf3 .td2+! wins the exchange - analysis by Κeene. 4d4 Now Black has three interesting attempts: ΟΙ: 4 •• :"&5+ 313 Ο2: 4 •••d6 314 Ο3: 4 •••• b6 315

Naturally, main lines of the Maroczy Bind can be reached by 4 ... cxd4 5 ~xd4, though Black has lost the ορ­ ιίοη of playing the Gurgenidze System.

D1) 4 ••:"&5+ (D)

We have now reached a Modem Defence. This position usually arises

313

w

after Ι e4 g6 2 d4 .tg7 3 c4 c5 4 ~f3 'ffa5+. Since this is really a different opening, οαι treatment will give the reader a taste of thematic play but, sadly, will be less than encyclopaedic. S.td2.b6 Attacking both b2 and d4. 6.tc3 Guarding the tender points but taking the c3-square away from the white knight. 6 •••cxd4 7 .txd4 .txd4 8 .xd4 .xd49~d4

Black avoided the Maroczy Bind so that he could try Ιο get some winning chances. It's clear that the position here is ηοΙ what he had ίη mind! Black's position is fully playable, of course, but it's also rather dull. 9.•• ~c6 10 ~bS ':b8 Or 1O... ~f8 11 ~lc3 ~f6 120-0-0 d613~7 ':b814.te2.te615f4~g7 16 c5 .tg4 17 .txg4 ~xg4 18 cxd6 ~Ω 19 dxe7 ~xe7 20 ':d7 ~xhl 21 .:xe7 ':hd8 22 ~3d5 ~f8 23 ~d2 ~Ω 24 h3 ':bc8 25 ~e2 ~xe4 26 ':xe4 ':d7 27 ':c4 ':xd5 28 ~e6+ Ι/Ζ-ΙΙΖ Polugaevsky-Iνkoν,

France 1993. 11 ~1c3 ~Ι6 12 .te2 ο-ο 13 0-0-0 d614 b3

314

Accelerαted

Black got a very comfortable game after 14 Wbl .td7 15 :d2 :fc8 16 :cl Wf8 17 f4 a6 18 ~a3 ~b4 19 h3 h5 20 b3 :c5 =ίη Nesterov-Veselovsky, Moscow 1994. 14•••.too 14....td7 is also possible. ISWb2:t'c8 The position is equal. However, the finish ίη Eingorn-Groszpeter, Berlίn 1990 was rather sad: 16 f3 a6 17 ~4 ~xd4 18 :xd4 Wg7 19 f4 :c5 20 :hdl .tg4?? 21 e5 1-0.

D2) 4•••d6 (D)

w

slDcl Sharpest. The meek continuation 5 dxc5 gives Black reasonable chances after 5.....a5+: 6.td2 (Black gets good play after 6 ~3 .xc5 7 .te2 .txc3+ 8 bxc3 ~f6 9 .te3 .c7 10 ~2 b6 11 0-0.tb7 12 f4 ~bd7, A.Stein-Donaldson, Concord 1993) 6 ...•xc5 7 ~c3 ~f6andnow:

1) 8 .*.e2 .*.g4 9 :cl ο-ο 10 ο-ο

~6 11 ~5 .*.xf3 12 .*.xf3 .d4 13 .c2~xd514exd5~515.*.e2:fc8

Dragons

16.te3 Wh417 g3 "h318.dl h519 f3 h4 20.*.f2 hxg3 21 .txg3 ~d7 22 f4 ~f6 23 :el :c7 and Black went οη Ιο WΊη ίη R.Anderson-Donaldson, San Jose 1984. 2) 8 .td3 .tg4 9 h3.txf3 10 "xf3 ~6 11 0-00-0 12 :fcl ~7 13 "dl a6 14 :abl :ac8 Lestinsky-Donaldson, Boulder 1984. Of course, 5 d5 is a Benoni, thougb eχpeήmentaι ideas for Black like A.lvanov's ...e6 followed by ... ~7 are interesting. 5..••&5 This has given Black some nice vic-

=

toήes.

6:bl! Unfortunately, this discovery of Paronian's takes all the fun ουΙ of Black's position. Other moves have turned ουΙ well for Black: 1) 6 d5 .txc3+ 7 bxc3 ~f6! (capturing the pawn οη c3 just increases the activity of White's dark-squared bishop) 8 .c2 (8 ~2 "xc3 9 :bl ~xe4 gets two pawns!) 8... ~e4 9 .td3 ~f6 10 0-0 0-0 11 ~4 (11 :el "d8 12 .tg5 Wg7 13 "d2 ~g8 14 :e4 f6 15 .te3 ~7 16 .z:Σh4.z:Σf7 was unclear ίο Vaganian-Chekhov, USSR Ch(Moscow) 1991) 11 ...~bd712f4?! b5! 13 cxb5 c4 14 hc4 .*.b7 and Black stood well ίη Tal-Chekhov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991. 2) 6 .te2 .tg4 7 dxc5 dxc5 8 .td2 ~6! 9lDa4?! "c7 10 ~xc5 ~6 11 h3?! .*.xf3 12 .*.xf3 0-0 13 ~b3 ~5· 140-0 "xc4 15 .tc3 .z:Σfd8 16 ~d2 .e6 =F Bauer-A.lvanov, Massachusetts 1989. 6...c:xd4 Black mustn't get carήed away. 6 ...~6 7 .*.d2 cxd4 8 ~xd4 ~xe4?

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (2 ... g6) may look tempting, but 9 lbxe4 .e5 1Ο .*.d3 f5 11lbf3 .e6 12lbg5 is winning for White (analysis by Serper). Note that 6 ....*.g4 7 d5 .*.xc3+ 8 bxc3 immediately bήngs that bl-rook into play agaίnst b7. 7 lbxd4 lbc6 8 .*.e3 lbf6 9 lbb3 .d8 10.*.e2 0-0 11 0-0 b6 Serper claίms that Black should have played 11 ...h6 with the idea of 12 c5?! d5!. 12 Ι3 lbd7 13 .d2 lbcs 14 lbal! with a clear advantage for White, Serper-Ruban, Novosibirsk 1993.

D3) 4....b6!? (D)

w

This move, which has been played off and οη by the Austrian ΟΜ Karl Robatsch and later championed by the English ΟΜ Nigel Davies, has the virtue of directing the play along a narrowpath. 5dxc5 White's on1y other choice here is 5 lbc3 cxd4 6lbd5 .a5+ 7 .*.d2 .d8 8 .*.f4 (reaching another Modern Defence position) 8...d6 9lbxd4 and now

315

Black can choose between 9 ... e5 1Ο lbb5 exf4 11 lbbc7+ ~f8 12 lbxa8 lba6 13 .d2lbf6 14lbxf6 .*.xf6 15 .*.e2 .*.e6 with sharp complications, not unfavourable for Black, Christiansen-Beliavsky, Teesside jr Wch 1973, the interesting 9 ...e6, and the solid 9...lbf6. Το be qUΊte honest, all of these 9th move options seem to be more than adequate for Black. 5••••xc5 Α very interesting position. Π Black

fol1ows υρ with qUΊet moves like ...lbf6 and ...0-0, he will surely be worse, as he will find himself ίη a passive form of the Maroczy Bind. Το utilίze his trumps ίη the position, he wants to delay developing his knight to f6 so he retaίns the οριίοη of giving White doubled c-pawn with ....*.xc3 at some Ροίηι Black also has the possibilίty of putting pressure οη White's e-pawn with a quick ... b6 and ....*.b7. 6.*.e2 White has two other choices: 1) 6 .*.d3 d6 7 0-0 .*.g4 8 .*.e3 (8 h3 .*.xf3 9 .xf3lbc6 1Ο lba3 lbe5 11 .e2 lbxd3 12 .xd3 lbf6 = VukicRobatsch, Thzla 1983) 8 .....c7 9lbc3 .*.xc3 10 bxc3 lbd7 11 h3 .*.xf3 12 .xf3 lbgf6 13 c5 lbxc5 14 .*.b5+ ~f8 15 .*.h6+ ~g8 16 :fel with a strong initiative for White, Cvetkovic-Robatsch, Stary Smokovec 1988. 2) 6 lbfd2 (White's idea is that if Black plays passίvely he wίll continue with .*.e2, ο-ο, lbb3, lbc3, lbd5 and achieve a very favourable Maroczy formation) 6 ...d6 7 .*.e2 Μ!? 8 ο-ο .*.b7 9 a3 (9lbc3 .*.xc3 10 bxc3lbf6 ~) 9 ...lbd7 (9 ... a5!? 10 "c2 lbc6 11 lbf3 lbd4 is unclear - analysis by Yermolinsky and Goldin) 10 b4 .c8

316

Accelerαted Drαgons

11 :a2 a5 (11 ...lΩgf6 12 1Ωc3 0-0 = YermoJinsky and Goldin) 12 'ilrb3lΩgf6 13 1Ωc3 0-0 14 :c2 axb4 15 axb4 e6 16 :dl ;t Yermolίnsky-Daνies, New York 1991.

6•••d6 6... 1Ωc61 0-0 d6 8 a3 ,ι,g4 9 ,ι,e3 "a5 10 :a2 "c1 11 lΩfd2 ,ι,χe2 12

Β

'ifxe2 :c8 13 :cl lΩί6 14 ~c3 ο-ο l/2-lh Gulko-Yudasin, Beersheba 1993. 70-0 1 h3 ,ι,e6 8 Wb31Ωc6 9 0-0 lΩί6 10 .i.e3 'ifb4 I1lΩc3 0-0 12 'ifxb4lΩxb4 13lΩd4 ;t lΩc6 14lΩxe6 fxe6 15 :acl Κeene mentioned (tongue ίο cheek?) the possibilίty οί 3 ... .i.h6!?, but it is ~1 16 .i.g4 ~f1 11 :fdl lΩc5 18 .i.f3 :fd8 19 g3 e5 20 h4lΩd4 21 .i.g4 hard Ιο take thίs move seήοuslΥ ίη the a5 22 b3 and, ίη Dϋr-Robatsch, Aus- . present positίon. tria 1989, Whίte went οη to wίn ίη 31 Deserνing consideratίon is 3 ... h5 4 1Ωc3 (4 d4 ,ι,g1 5 d5 d6 6lΩc3 is a mumoves. tant Benoni WΊth the h-pawns ad7••..*.g4 8 ,ι,e3 vanced) 4 ...,ι,g1 5 a3lΩf6 6 .i.c4lΩc6 8 h3 .i.xf3 9 ,ι,Χf3 lΩc6 10 ,ι,e2 :c8 IllΩd2lΩf61ed to a comfortable 1 d3 d6 8lΩg5 0-0 9 ,ι,ί4 e6 1Ο .i.a2 d5 game for Black ίη Baumgartner-Ro11 0-Od4 12lΩbllΩh113 ~ e5 14 batsch, Austrίa 1988. lΩxh1 ~xh115 ,ι,g3 "e1 lh- I /'1. Kura8.....c7 9lΩd4 .i.xe210 "xe2lΩc6 jica-Sosonko, WΊjk aan Zee 1911. 11 :dl lΩxd4 12 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 13 Α good example for that Ί must avoid it at any cost feelίng' is 3 ...~6 ]bd4 'ifb6 14 "d2lbf6 15 tα3 0-0 WΊth equality, Emms-Daνies, Tel4 e5 ~g4 5 d4 .i.g1 6 c3 lΩc6 1 d5 Ανίν 1990. Yes, we realize that Whίte lΩcxe5 8lΩxe5 ~xe5 9 ί4 "c110 ~g3 succeeded ίη bluntίng all οί Black's ± Bednarskί-Moe, Copenhagen 1980. attempts to achίeve dynamίc play. 4 MlΩc6 5 tα3 e6 6 d3 d5 7 .i.g5 We're afraid that even 4 ...'ifb6 faίls to 'itb6 8 .i.d2! guarantee Black the possibility οί Spassky-Stein, USSR 1965. The reachίng a double-edged poSΊtίoη. positίon is a bit strange but it is probably somewhat better for Whίte. After the further 8 ... ~ge1 9 ~a4 "c1 10 Ε) lΩχc5,ι,Χb2 11 :bl .i.g112 .i.e2 b6 3 h4!? (D) 13lΩb3e514c4dxe415dxe4.i.g416 Rather Ρήmίtίve, but it's ηοΙ easy lΩh2 .i.xe2 11 "xe2 ί5 18 lΩf3 .i.f6, for Black to equalίze. White could now have played 19 c5 3••..*.g7 with a clear advantage.

16 The Chameleon Sicilian (6 tlJde2 with g3) 1 e4 cS 2 ffi lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4lΩxd4 g6 S/ί)c3 ~ι' 6lί)de2 (D)

Β

This system can have a 10Ι of sting if Black doesn't react energetically. White intends to fianchetto his kίng's bishop, castle, and then restrict Black's pieces with moves lίke h2-h3 and a2a4. Once this is accomplίshed he WΊll continue WΊth /ί)d5 and, ίf Black takes the beast, then exd5 wίll enable Whίte Ιο generate pressure down the open efile agaίnst Black's e7-pawn. Though 6 ...d6 is the most common reply, we wίll only look at 6 ... 1ί)f6 because that allows Black Ιο make the most of the Accelerated Dragon move-order (the positions after 6 ...d6 usually come about from a Dragon move-order and are thus outside the scope of this book). 6•••1ί)f6 7 g3 bS!

TakίηB the bώΙ by the horns. Black immediately stakes ουΙ some queenside space and guarantees himself plenty of play οη that side of the board. Though 7 ...d5 doesn't quite work ουΙ due to 8 eχd5/ί)b4 9 ~B2 ~f5 10 /ί)d4 ~B4 11 Wd2 /ί)bχd5 12 /ί)χd5 /ί)χd5 13 h3 ~c8 14 /ί)b3 ;t FuchsLίtvinov, USSR 1968, Black might consider 7 ... b6: 8 ~B2 ~a6 9 ο-ο :c8 10 lIel ο-ο 11 h3 d6 12 a4 Wd7 13 f4 :fd8 14 ~e3 /ί)a5 15 ~Ω 1ί)h5 16 :a2 ~c4 17 b3 ~e6 18 /ί)ds :c6 19 c4 ~xh3 20 :d2 ~xB2 21 ΦΧΒ2 e6 22 /ί)dc3 We7 23/ί)b5 ~f8 24 Β4/ί)Β7 25 :hl ~e8 26 :d3 h6 27 ~M f6 28 ~bc3 ~B7 29 ~Ω Wf7 30 fS g5 1/1_1/1 Saltaev-Petυrsson, ΚoMoιίnί 1993.

8~g2 8 /ί)χbS /ί)χe4 would please Black. 8•..:b8 9 0-0 0-0 10 ~Ι4 Α bit odd. Its purpose is Ιο force Black Ιο play ... d7-d6 so that the c6sqυare is weakened. Then a later captυre οη d5 (after /ί)d5) will ηοΙ only give Whίte play down the open e-fi1e. bυΙ ίι will also gίve White possibilίties of occupying c6 VΊa /ί)e2-d4-c6. More thematic is 1000 but Black gets ample play with 10... d6 (oυr next example shows that this is ηοΙ necessary) 11 h3 /ί)d7. This is the ΡοίηΙ of Black's play: by consciously omίώηB the natural ... ~d7, he is Ιο be able Ιο meet/ί)d5 WΊth .../ί)d7. The goal ofthe

318

Accelerated Dragons

g3 variation is to ρΙορ a knight οη d5, have Black capture it, then apply pressure down the e-file. ΒΥ being able to play ... ~d7, Black takes the sting out οί this idea. Moves like ...e6, ...J.b7 and ...~6-d7-c5 are qώte common in Black's set-up here. 12 c3 e6 13 ~b4 lαιb4 14 cxb4 ~b6 15 1Ib1 J.b7, Zso.Polgar-Vl.Georgiev, Matinhos 1994. The other thematic move is 10 h3 b4 11 ~ J.a6 (Black avoids ...d7-d6 and, by doing so, refuses to create a weak point οη c6) 12 lIel ~xd5 13 exd5 ~aS 14 .t.f4 1Σc8 15 d6 e6 16 a3 b317cxb3 1i'b618b4iα419b3~b2 20 iVd2 ~3 21 J.e3 iVxd6 22 lIadl 1i'b8 23 1If1 d5 24 J.h6? J.xh6 25 1i'xh6 ~xb4 and Black is winning, Perovit-N.Nikolit, Pula 1991. 10•••d611 iVcU Μ!? 12 ~ (D)

12...ιαιd5!? 12...~hS! is stronger, and much safer: 13J.h6.t.xb2! 14.t.xf8J.xa115 .t.xe7 ~xe7 16 ~xe7+ 1i'xe7, when White's two weak pawns οη a2 and c2 give Black an excellent position. 13exd5~

The point οί Black's play. Now 14 ~4 is strongly met by 14...iα4, while

passive defence by 14 lIabl ~c4 15 iVcl1eaves White very poorly placed. 14 b3! Απ excellent reply! Now 14....t.xal 15 IIxal gives White strong compensation ίη the form of chances against Black's king and threats οί ~4-c6. 14.••.t..6! Intending to ήd himself of the ρο­ tentially bothersome knight. Now 15 IΣael .c7 followed by 16...lΣfc8Ieaves the initiative fmnly ίη Black's hands. After 14 ....t.a6, A.Ivanov-Silman, NewYorkOpen 1991 continued 15 a3! J.xe216 .xe2.t.xaI17 llxal bxa318 IIxa3, and now 18 ...lIe8 would have been unclear.

Index of Variations Accelerated Dragon 1 e4 cS 2lΩr3lDc6 3 d4 ad4 4 lt!xd4 g6 A:5lt!c3 B:5c4

Other moves: a) 5 ltJb3 13 b) 5 lt!xc6 108 c) 5 .i.c4106: 5....i.g7 106; 5...•aS+ 106 Α)

5 lt!c3.i.,;t 6 .i.e3 6ltJb315 6ltJde2ltJf6 7 g3 317 6 ... ltJf6 7 .i.c4 Η431

7 f3 0-0 8.i.c4 31 8.•.e6 35 (8...'irb6 32): 9 tαι.c6 36; 9 .i.b3 36 7 .i.e2 0.0 17 80.0 19 (8 h47 18; 8 .d2'118; 8 Ι425; 8ltJb3 28) 8...dS 9 exd5 20: 9...ltJb4 20; 9...tαι.d5 22 7 lt!xc6112 7...bxc6113 (7 ... dxc6 112) 8 eS 113: a) 8...ltJd5 1139 IOι:d5 ad5 10 .xdS ZΙb8 113 al) 11.t.c4113: Ι 1...e6 113; 11 ...0-0114 a2) 11 0.0.0 117 a3) 11.ha7 118 11•..Axb2 12 .i.d4 :Χα 13 ZΙc6119: .i.d3 e614 15.i.b5 119; 150-0121 b) 8...ltJg8 122 bl) 9 Ι4123 9...f6 123 (9 ...ltJh6129): 10 e6123; 10.i.d3 124; 10 Ι5 124; 10

.a8

.i.c4125; 10 exf6 126; 10 .i.d4 127 b2) 9.i.d4 133: 9 ...ltJh6 134; 9...c5 134; 9...•aS 135 After 7 .i.c4: ΑΙ: 7...0.0 Α2:7....85

9 .i.b3 81 9 b3 67 9ltJds 68 9•••lt!xd5 10 exdS 68: 10...ltJe568; 10...lt!xd4 69 9ltJb3 709....c7 10 Ι4 d6 ll.i.e2 71: a) 11...a672 Others: b) llNJΣd8 7212.i.f3 72: 7 ... ω7103 12....i.e6 73; 12... e5 73 7... tαι.e477103 c) 11...85 74 7 ...•c7103 d) 11...b6 77: 12 g4 78; 12.i.f3 79 ΑΙ) d6 9 'Ν 7 ... 0-037 10 b3 .i.d783 8 .i.b3 40 11 Ι488 8 0.0 37: 8...d6 37; 11 AeI84: 11 ...k8 85; 8...tαι.e4 39 11 ...ZΙfe886 8 ... 8540 After 11 Ι4: 9 β4 45 a) 11... b588 9 0-0 44 b) llN'eS 88 c) 11..JΣad889 9a344 9 f3 519...d5 51: d) 11...'irhs 94 a) 10 .i.xd5 5110...lt!xdS e) 11•..Aac889: 12.13 90; 12ltJf3 92 51 11 exd5 54 (11 tαι.dS 52) l1 ...ltJb4 12ltJde2 .i." f) 11...ltJxd4 96 12 .hd4 13 Acl b514 ο.οω 15 ..tc6 96: 13 .13 97; 13 .el 97; 13 .e2 97; 13ltJd5 98; ltJd457: 15....i.xd458; 15...Lc36O 13.d399 b) 10 exd5 6110...ltJb4 l1ltJde2 β4 12 ltJxa4 Β) ltJfxd561: 13 .i.d462; 13 5c4 .i.f2 63 Now: 9 ... lΩg4 ΒΙ: 5...ltJf6 10 .xg4 ltJxd4 46 Β2: 5....i.g7 11 .dl 46 ΒΙ) 11.hd447 5 ... ltJf6 ll1hι4 48 11...lt!xb3 12 ab3 49: 12....i.f649; 6 lt!c3137 d6140 12.. ':'649 6...lOι:d41377 .xd4 d6 137: 8 c5 138; 8 .i.g5 139 Α2) 7 .i.e2141 7 σ182 7...lt!xd4185 7 Ν. .a565 (7 ... .i.g7 183) 8 .xd4 .i.,;ι 80.0 0-066

320

Accelerated Dragons

9 .d1257 lOe6 267 9...e5 25810 ΙΩΜ 261 (10 Β21) .td3259) 10•••0-011 .d2 7 ••• 0-0 262: Ι 1...•e7 263; 8 .te2 Ι 1...'irb4 265 10 :C1269 8 b3 212 8 _ d6 233 10 .d2 280 8...b6 212 9 0-0 .tb710 13 After 10:CI: 21510...e6 219 (10... d6 a) 10... b6 269 222; 10...:C8 223; 10... lC!h5 b) 10....&5 271: Ι Ι .d2 226; 10...lC!e8 229; 272; Ι Ι .te2276; Ι Ι .td3 10. .. ~xd4 229; 10... 'irb8 277 230): 1Ι 1td2219; Ι Ι lC!db5 c) 10...d6278 221 9 0-0 Semi-AcceIerated 9 b3 233 Dragon 9 ... .td7233 9...lDxd4 233; 9...&5 235; 1 e4cS 2~ lC!c63d4 9...:eB 235; 9...86 236; cxd4 4lC!xd4lC!f6 5 ω 9...lC!d7237 g6 283 6lDxc6 283 6...bxc6 After9....td7: 285 (6...dxc6 284) 7 e5lC!g8 a) 10 ':bl 239 8.i.c4286: a) 8....&5 287: 9.e2 b) 10.:e1239 c) 10 ci>b1248 287; 9 0-0 287; 9 .tf4 288 d) 10 :CllDxd4 (10...a5 b) 8....tg7 289 9 .13 ΙS 238; 10...lC!e5 243; 10...a6 10.tr4290: 10'...a5?! 290; Β2) 243) 11 .hd4 .tc6 243 IO....:b8290; 10...e6 291 .tg7 191 (1 1....th6 243): 5 ... 6.te3 dl) White allows the trade Hyper-AcceIerated 6lC!b3191 of dark-squared bishops 243 Dragon d2) White avoids the trade 6 ω 195 6...d6 7 .te2 lC!ι6 8 ω lC!d7 19790-0 of dark-squared bishops 246 1 e4 cS 2 ~ g6 294: 199 (9 .te3 199; 9 .td2 e) 10 .d2lDxd4 (10... a5 a) 3.tc4 294 238; 10... ~g4 239; b) 3 d4 295: 201): 9... 0-0 199; 9... lC!c5 10.. :"a5 240; 10...a6240; bl) 3....tg7 295: 4 dxc5 201 6 ... 10...lC!e8240; 10...:C8 240) 296; 4lC!c3 299 11 .txd4.tc6 240: b2) 3...cxd4 300 4 .xd4 6...'irb6207 el) White allows the trade lC!f6 300: 5lC!c3 301; 5 e5 6...e6207 of dark-squared bishops 239 302; 5 .tb5 304 6...d6207 e2) White avoids the trade c) 3 c3 306 3....tg7 4 d4 6...lC!b6 207 7 ιΩc3 208: of dark-squared bishops 248 cxd4 5 cxd4 dS 308: 6 exd5 7 ...0-0208; 7...d6 209 9.te3 0-010.d2.b611 :Cl .85 121Δd5 Ίrxa2! 13 lDxe7+ ci>b818714 .td4 187 (14 .te2188): 14...:re8 187; 14...JZae8 188 7 ... lDxd4 8 .xd4 .tg7 141 9 0-0170 9.tgS 141 9...0-0 14210 .d2143 (10 1te3 156): 10....te6143; 10... a6155 9.te3 160 9_0-0 10.d2 .b6 160 11 13 165 (Ι Ι 0-0 162) 11....&5 12 :Cl AιCΒ 13 b3 86 166: 14lC!d5 166; 14 a4 167; 140-0168; 14 lC!a4169 9 ... 0-0 170 10.e3 170: 1O...lDd7 171; 10....td7171; 10....te6173 10.d3 176 10....te6 179 (10....td7 177; 10...lDd7 178; 10... a6181): Ι Ι .td2 179; 11 .te3 180

7...d6212

7ω

713255 After 7lC!c3: Β21: 7...0-0 Β22: 7...lC!g4

309; 6e5310

d) 3 c4 312 3•...tg7 4 d4 7 lC!c3 lC!g4 255 313: 4 ....a5+ 313; 4 ...d6 8 .xg4255 lC!xd4257 314; 4....b6 315 8....txd4255 e) 3b4316 Β22)