alekhinels defence
by Nigel Davies
EVERYMAN CHESS Everyman Publishers pic
www.everyman.uk.com
First published in 2001 by Everyman Publishers pic, formerly Cadogan Books pic, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2001 Nigel Davies The right of Nigel Davies to be identified as the author of this work has been as serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission ofthe publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 253 9
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, G uilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Man sions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H SHD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email:
[email protected] website: www .everyman.uk.com
To Louise
EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Production by Book Production Services. Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge, Wilt shire.
CONTENTS
I
Bibliography
4
Introduction
5
1
Classical with 4 ....i.g4
7
2
Classical Kengis System: 4 ... dxe5 5 ttJxe5 g6
25
3 Classical with 4 ... dxeS 5 ttJxe5: 5...ltJd7 and 5...c6
42
4 Classical Divergences: 4 ... c6, 4...ll'lc6 and 4... g6
58
5 Exchange Variation with 5...cxd6
77
6 Exchange Variation with 5 ...exd6
93
7 Four Pawns Attack: Main Line
105
8 Four Pawns Attack: Divergences
1 17
9 The Chase Variation
132
10
Other Lines
142
Index of Complete Games
1 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
Books 107 Great Chess Battles, Alekhine, Winter {Dover 1980) Alekhine's Defence, Eales & Williams, (Batsford 1973) Alekhine'sDefence: 'JheFourPawnsAttack,Christiansen,Raingruper&Joseph(fhink ers' Press, Davenpon 1988) Aljechin- Verteidigung, Bagirov (Schachverlag Rudi Schmaus, Heidelberg 1979) Developments in theAlekhine Defence, Dunworth (Square One Publications 1987) Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume B, Jrd Edition (Sahovski Informator 1997) Fischer-Spassky: The Chess Match of the Century, Gligoric {Fontana) Learn from the Grandmasters, Keene et al (Batsford 1975) New Ideas in the Alekhine Defence, Burgess (Batsford 1996) The Alekhine for the Tournament Player, Alburt & Schiller (Batsford 1985) The Complete Alekhine, Burgess (Batsford 1992) Trends: Alekhine Defence, McDonald (Trends 1990)
Periodicals
Chesspublishing.com Jnformators 1-79 The Week in Chess 1-355
INTRODUCTION
Reykjavik 1972, Game 13. The Soviet World Champion, Boris Spassky, opened the game with 1 e4. He was losing the match by a 7-5 scoreline but had won brilliantly against Fischer's favourite Sicilian Najdorf in Game 1 1. And the analytical spotlight ofthe entire Soviet chess machine was now focused on Fischer's favourite openings... What could Fischer do? He totally wrong-footed Spassky by playing l...lbf6, the so-called Alekhine Defence. By the 12th move White was already in a critical position and after a tremendous struggle Fischer won. The Fischer-Spassky match was the event that fanned the flames of my in terest in chess. I was 12 years old and wanted to play like Bobby Fischer, but when I asked more experienced players about this funny knight move, they in variably advised me against playing it. Their wisdom was confirmed when most of the books seemed to agree. This Alekhine Defence was a dubious opening against which White could eas ily secure a large advantage.
I Whilst the Alekhine continued to en joy its dubious reputation, strong Grandmasters such as Larsen, Korchnoi, Bagirov, Timman, Jansa and Alburt kept winning with it. But how could they keep winning with this dodgy defence? And why were they even playing it in the first place? Some years later, not much has changed. The Alekhine's reputation is probably even worse, and now it's the likes of Miles, Morozevich, De Firmian, Shabalov, Agdestein, Kengis and Ba burin who are playing this defence and winning. Don't they know any better? Eventually there came a point at which I realised that the wisdom of the frog pond was at odds with reality. It was nothing but talk, which people re peated without ever looking at the posi tions for themselves. When I finally started to check things out I discovered that the Alekhine is a tough, fighting defence which creates unbalanced posi tions from the outset. And if anything its dodgy reputation was actually quite helpful; a lot of people were overconfi5
A lekhin e 's De fen c e
dent and sloppy when playing against it. As far as results are concerned, in practice the Alekhine scores just shy of 50% on my database, which is better than the French, Caro-Kann, Pirc, Scandinavian and l . eS. Only the Sicil ian is marginally ahead, but that in volves being booked up to the gills and treading the same paths of so many other players. From a stylistic point of view the Sicilian is not for everyone; play ohen proceeds at an unremittingly fast pace in which Black's king ohen comes into the firing line. The Alekhine, on the other hand, tends to take less forceful paths in which the greatest danger for Black is that of falling into a passive position. Is the Alekhine the opening for you? There is certainly scope within this de fence for many different styles of player, though it seems to me that the ideal Alekhine player should have indi viduality, flexibility, good nerves, fight ing spirit and tactical ability. In my opinion this is not a defence for those with either a methodical, systematic way of thinking or those with very conserva tive tastes. In writing this book I have not tried to produce either a complete or a schol arly work. The emphasis has been on getting someone up and running if they want to play the Alekhine as either Black or White, and I have therefore concentrated on what I regard the most promising lines for players of either colour. Accordingly I have devoted rela tively little space to the traditional 4 t:Df3 �g4 or even Alburt's 4t:bf3 g6, concentrating instead on the modern treatments with 4 ... dxe5. I have also ..
6
taken the position that most Whites should probably want to play either the Exchange Variation or 4t:bf3; all the other variations are covered mainly from Black's point of view. If you are using this book to learn the Alekhine, here's how I suggest you go about it: 1) Play through the games very quickly and ignore the notes and sub variations. This is to give you a basic familiarity with the lines and positions. 2) Play a few quick games with the Alekhine, either against your computer, on the internet or at your local chess club, making a brief note of any points of interest. 3) Look up the lines which occurred in these games and find out exactly what you should have done. 4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until you get a 'feel' for the defence. 5) Start playing it in selected serious games, again using the book as a source of reference. Readers who are already playing the Alekhine should also find something of interest. First of all, I made a decision not to hold anything back, so the notes contain a number of new ideas and points at which I disagree with other authors. Secondly, I have tried to point out the lines which I believe are the most logical and promising rather than just list all the possible variations and adorn them with selected soulless sym bols. Nigel Davies Southport, October 2001
I CHAPTER ONE I Classical with 4 ... lL.g4
1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbf3 .i.g4 The Classical Variation is generally recognised as the main line of the Alekhine and probably the hardest thing for Black to fight against. By playing the modest 4lL'lf3, White sets about developing his kingside and puts the onus on Black to develop some counterplay. Depending on Black's re action he can either try to maintain the cramping pawn on eS or capture on d6 to reach a kind of Exchange Variation. Pinning the knight on f3 with 4....i.g4 certainly looks like the most natural way to intensify pressure against eS. For many years it was regarded as the way to play against the Classical and as such a large body of theory has developed around it. Essentially White has two different plans; either to try and maintain the cramping pawn on eS or effect a timely liquidation in the centre with exd6. Black tries to force the liquidation whilst trying to make sure that his pieces are well placed when it happens.
Game 7 shows White using plan 'b' in its most direct form, arguing that Black's bishop has gone to g4 prema turely. Usually White will not take such direct action and first play 5 i.e2. Black then has a choice between Flohr's 5 ...c6 and the standard 5 ... e6. Flohr's move actually contains a mi nor positional threat of ...i.xf3 followed by ... dxeS, which brings about a posi tion in which the eS-pawn needs con stant surveillance and White's bishop pair has little scope. In Game 6 we see White's various strategies for combating this plan, which include switching to a kind of Exchange Variation. Against S ... e6 White has to make a major decision about whether or not to interpolate the moves 6 h3 i.h5. The pros and cons of this depend on which plan he intends to adopt later. The plans which require 6 h3 are Be logan's treatment {Game 4), the 1 1 cxd5 line, given as a note to White's 1 1th move in Game 2 and Geller's treatment of 12 i.xf3, given as a note within the same game. Having 6 h3 i.hS included 7
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
is also useful for White if Black opts for an early ... fi)c6 (as in Game 5); if, after d4-d5 plus multiple exchanges, White's queen lands on d5, it will gain a tempo by hitting Black's bishop on h5. On the other hand, 6 h3 is definitely not required in the 'main line', in which White recaptures on f3 with a pawn. A comparison of Games 1 and 2 shows that h3 is often a useful square for White when he tries to attack Black's king. Blocking it with a pawn reduces his options. .------.
Gamel
Kobalija-Nalbandian
Geller Memorial, Moscow 1999
.___________..
1 e4 IC!f6 2 e5 IC!d5 3 d4 d6 4 IC!f3 .i.g4 5 .i.e2 e6 6 0-0 .i.e7 7 c41Clb6 8 IC!c3 0-0 9 .i.e3 d5?! 10 c5 .ixf3 1 1 gxf3 As this game was played in the 'Geller Memorial', it would have been more fitting to use Geller's own treat ment with 1 1 i..xf3. For a discussion of this plan, see the note to White's 12th move in Game 2.
1 1 /ClcS 1 2 f4 .i.h4 Black has also closed the position . • .
8
with 12 ...f5 but this has the drawback of being very passive. A good example of how to play White was given by Kiril Georgiev in his game against Popov from the 1986 Bulgarian Championship: 13 �h 1 g6 14 b4 lilc6 15 l:tg1 �h8 16 :.g2 l.tg8 17 a3 i..h4 18 .i.f3 ltl8e7 19 "it'd2 a6 20 liJe2 llg7 21 ltlct ltlg8 22 liJd3 and White will gradually advance his queenside pawns. 1 3 .i.d3 g6 14 f5!? If White tries for a slower build-up in this position, Black can at least bring a knight to f5 and might one day be able to lever open the f-file with ... f7-f6. Nevertheless, White must be better, one example being 14 �h 1 fi)e7 15 l:g1 �h8 16 1i'f3 fi)bc6 17 a3 fi)f5 18 fi)e2 b6 19 l:ac1 with an edge for White in Kruszynski-Gruen, Hamburg 1984 . 14... exf5 After 14 ... gxf5 15 'i'h5 White will have a very dangerous attack. 1 5 'iVf3 c6 16 ¢>h1 ¢>h8? In such a critical position Black must play with the utmost accuracy. He should probably take the bull by the horns and undermine White's e5-pawn with 16 .. .f6!?, after which Finkel gave the line 17 e6 .i.g5 18 l:ae1 .:es 19 .i.xf5!? gxf5 20 i..xg5!? fxg5 21 'i'xf5 lif8 22 'il'g4 "it'f6 23 f4 'i'xd4 24 'i'xg5+ Wh8 25 f5 when it's anybody's guess what's happening. 1 7 J:g1 IC!a6?1 Black seems to be unaware of the imminent danger to his king. He had to try 17 .. .f6!?. 18 .i.xf511Cle7 Accepting the sacrifice with 18 ...gxf5 loses immediately to 19 i..h6 l:g8 20 Axg8+ 'i'xg8 21 l:g1 etc.
Classical with 4 ... .i.g4
19 .i.c2lllg8 Or 19 .. .f5 20 'iih 3tbg8 21 lLle2tbc7 22 lLlf4 with a sacrifice on g6 coming up. When White plays these gxf3 lines he often makes use of the h3-square. This is one argument in favour of omit ting the moves h2-h3 and ... i.h5.
20 1i'h3 lt:lc 7 21 l:lg4 .i.e7 22 l:lag 1 1i'd7 23 f4! The advance of the f-pawn increases the strength of White's attack to deci sive proportions. 23 l:lae8 24 f5 .i.d8 25llle2 b6 26 lt:lf4 g5 .•.
27 1i'xh7+ ! ! �xh7 28 f6+ �h6 Or 28... �h8 29 %lxg5li:lli6 (29... .UxeS only delays the inevitable after 30 dxe5 lLlxf6 3 1 exf6) 30 l:th5 is the end of the
road. 29 l:lh4+ ! gxh4 30 l'Oe6+ �h5 31 .i.d 1 mate ( 1-0)
Game 2 Aseev-Bagirov
Berlin 1990 1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 ltld5 3 d4 d6 4 lllf3 i.g4 5 .i.e2 e6 6 0-0 .i.e7 7 c4 ltlb6 8 h3 .i.h5 9 ltlc3 0-0 10 i.e3 d5 Black cannot keep the tension too long as 10 ...lLlc6 is met by 11 exd6 cxd6 12 d5 exdS 1 3 lLlxdS lLlxdS 14 'iixdS, with the better game for White because of the weakness on d6. 1 1 c5 White has another interesting plan in 11 cxd5 and now: a) After 1 1...lLlxd5 White can play 12 ll'b3 lbb6 13 dS!? (131lfd1 is also pos sible) 1 3 ...exd5 (13 ...lLlxd5 is met by 1 4 l:.fd1 c6 1 5 ll'xb7) 1 4 .ixb6 axb6 15 lLlxdS .ic5 16 l:lad1 'iic8 17 a3lLlc6 18 1i'c3 l:le8 19 l:tfe 1 with the better game for White according to Kremenietsky. b) 1 1 ...exd5 12 g4!? (12lLlet .ixe2 13 9 xe2 tbc6 14 lLld3 'i'd7 15 llad1 lL\d8 16lt:\c5 9c8 17 f4 fSleft Black with an ultra-solid game in Plachetka-Bagirov, Kirovakan 1978) 12 ...i.g6 13 lLlel f6 (1 3 .. .f5 14lLld3 c6 15lLlf4 'ifd7 16 'it>h2 gave Black serious problems on the g file in Ornstein-Alburt, Reykjavik 1984; if Black wants to play .. .fS he should wait until White plays f2-f4) 14 f4 fxe5!? (Setting up a blockade with 14 .. .f5 would be more solid, especially since White can no longer put a knight on f4) 15 dxe5 c5 16 f5 .ie8 17 i.f4 .ic6 18 i.f3 d4 19 lLle4 lLld5 20 lLlg2 lLld7 21 i.g3 and both sides have chances, 9
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
King-Baburin, British League 2000. 1 1 ....txf3 1 2 gxf3 This has been the most popular way to play it, preventing Black's knight from coming to c4 . But Efim Geller considered the pawn recapture rather dubious, instead preferring his patented 12 .i.xf3!? �c4 13 .i.f4
and now: a) 13 ... b6 14 b3 �aS 15 l:.cl (15 �a4!? �d7 16 1i'd2 c6 was played in Ciocaltea-Williams, Nice Olympiad 1974 and now 17 .i.g4!? was given as White's best by Ciocaltea; 1 5 .d2!? is also interesting) 15 ... bxc5 16 dxc5 �c6 17 lle1 .i.g5 18 �xdS!? exd5 19 .i.xg5 •xg5 20 .i.xd5 (Schmid also mentioned 20 'lrxd5!? l:d8 2 1 'lrc4 l:ld4 22 1i'c3, assessing the position as 'unclear' 20... �h8 was a game Kavalek-Schmid, Nice Olympiad 1974, in which White should now have played 21 11fe2 aS 22 1i'e4 l:la6 23 f4 with two pawns for the piece and badly placed black pieces. b) 1 3 ...�6 14 b3 �4a5 15 :ct (Geller played 15 11'd2 b6 16 llacl bxc5 17 dxc5 in his game against Hecht from Budapest 1973 but during the subse quent game against Bronstein he be came concerned about 17...'i'b8!?) 70
15 ... b6 (15....i.g5 16 �2 .i.xf4 17llW4 �e7 18 .i.g4 �ac6 19 1i'd2 was mar ginally better for White in Hiibner Hort, Biel 1984 whilst 15.. .'i'd7 16 i.e3 f6 17 exf6 .i.xf6 18 'i'd2 b6 19 �a4 �e7 20 .i.e2 li)fS was pretty much equal in Geller-Bagirov, Tbilisi 1978) 16 �a4 b5?! (according to GeJier Black should have played either 16 ... .i.g5 or 16 .. . £6) 17 �c3 b4 18 li)e2 and White was clearly better in Geller-Bronstein, Petropolis Interzonal 1973. 1 2 . .. �c8 The knight hopes to come to f5 via e7. 13 f4 This has been played almost auto matically but in McShane-Baburin, Cambridge 1995 White took some space on the queenside with 13 b4!?, after which 13 ...�c6 14 'i'a4 .i.h4 15 i.d3 f6 16 f4 �6e7 17 �e2 �f5?! (a preliminary 17...fxe5 is better) 18 .i.xf5 exf5 19 'i'c2 �7 20 �h2 1i'd7 21 l:lg1 gave him pressure on the g-file and a passed pawn on e5.
13 . . .�c6 With the moves h2-h3 and ...i.h5 White can no longer use the h3-square in some of his attacking lines. For this
Classical with 4
. . .
.i.g4
reason Black has slightly more justifica Black can get an excellent position with tion in playing 13 ...i.. h 4 here. It would Volzhin's suggestion of 17, ..l'jj8e7 18 then be pointless for White to play 14 l'jjxe7+ 'ifxe7! 19 .txc6 bxc6 20 11ff3 .id3 g6 15 f5?! exf5 16 11ff3 c6 17 Wh1 'ife6 {21 .txf4? 11ff5 wins a piece). �h8 18 l:tgl l'jje7. Instead White 1 7 ...J.xf4 18lDxf4lD8e7! should play 15 11fg4 but Black is still And not 18...li)xd4 because of 19 doing okay after 15 .....t>h8 (Agzamov's .txb7 llb8 20 .i.g2! llxb2 21 'l'g4! with suggestion of 15 ... h5 16 'i'f3 li)e7 a strong attack. would also leave White regretting the 19 b3 l:tb8 20 J.e4?! fact that he couldn't put his queen on h3) 16 b4 /1)c6 17 :abl h5! 18 'iff3 li)8e7 19 b5 lba5 20
h2 b6 (Diesen Vaganian, Hastings 1974/75) and now 21 f5 missed the mark after 21.. .exf5 22 •f4 {jjg8 23 :g1 �4 24 e6 �h7 25 exf7 l1xf7 etc. The stodgy 13 .. .f5 would reduce White's attacking chances but leave Black without counterplay. A good ex ample of how to play these positions with White was given in the Georgiev Overestimating his chances. He Popov note within the previous game. should play 20 li)e2 11fd7 21 i..g4 'i'dS 14 f5 22 f4 (and not 22 'ifd2l'jjxe5) 22 .. .:.fd8 23 i..f3 'ird7 24 i.g4 1i'd5 with a draw by repetition. 20 ...Wxd41 Black is quite right to want to ex change queens as after 20...lt:lxd4? 21 1Wg4! White obtains a strong attack. 21 'i*xd4 �xd4 22 J:.fd1 l:tfd8 23 J:ld3? 23 l'jjd5 was relatively best, though Black is still better after 23, l'jje2+! 24 �fl l'jjxd5 25 :xd5 llxd5 26 i.xd5 14 . . . exf5 1 5 J.f3 lCJf4! 27 .ig2 �f8 because of his strong If White can just recapture on d5 and knight on f4 and White's weak pawns. then advance his central pawns he will 23 ...lDdc6 24 e6? have a huge advantage. But Black is able And this is probably the losing move. to stop this plan. He has to play 24 i..xc6 llxd3 25l'jjxd3 15 J.g5! 1 6 l.i:lxd5 f4! 17 J.xf4 with chances to make a draw. 17 i..c l has also been played but then 24. . .f5! 25 J.g2 l:txd3 26lDxd3 J:.d8 •.
•••
77
A lekhln e 's Defenc e
27 /0f4 g6! Intending to bring his king to f6 from where it puts pressure on the weak e6pawn. 28 l:le1 �g7 29 .i.xc6
29 ... bxc6! And not 29 ...l2Jxc6? which fails for a moment to keep White's passed pawn 'under lock and key'. White could then draw with 30 e7! l:Z.e8 31 l2Je6+ Wf7 32 l2Jxc7 %be7 33 lb:e7+ �xe7 34 f4 (Volzhin). 30 �g2 Trying to prevent 30...g5 with 30 h4 loses to 30.. J:td4. 30 g5! 31 o!Oe2 �6 32 h4 gxh41 33 o!Of4 l:ld4 34 �3 l:le4 35 l:lxe4 fxe4+ 36 �xe4 o!Od5 37 o!Oe2 The pawn ending is lost because of Black's distant passed pawns. The passed h-pawn is also the deciding fac tor in the knight endgame. 37 ... o!Oe7! 38 o!Od4 If White tried to repeat the position with 38 l2Jf4 I'm sure that Bagirov would have varied this time with 38...l2Jg6. 38 h3! 39 l0f3 Black is also winning after 39 �f3 WeS. .•.
••.
12
39 ...o!Od5 40 e7 �xe7 41 �f5 .!Of&! 42 �4 �86 43 �g3 l0e4+ 44 �xh3 o!Oxf2+ 45 �h4 �d5 46 �g5 0-1 46 �gS l2Jd3 47 �h6l2Jct will mop up White's queenside pawns.
Game 3 Mainka-Yusupov
German Ch., Bremen 1998 1 e4 .!Of& 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 o!Of3 .i.g4 5 .i.e2 e6 6 0-0 .i.e7 It's also interesting for Black to play 6 ... a6!? at this early stage. The game De Firmian-Baburin, Copenhagen 1996 continued 7 c4 l2Jb6 8 1Wb3 J.e7 9 lldl llJSd7 10 J.f4 0-0 1 1 l2Jbd2 dxeS 12 dxeS 1We8 with a cramped but playable position for Black. 7 c4 o!Ob6 8 lDc3 0-0 9 .i.e3 a6 An interesting move which threatens 10... .ixf3 (after 1 1 i.xf3 l2Jxc4 12 .i.xb7 Black has the a7-square for his rook) and can be useful against plans which involve an advance of White's queenside pawns. One good reason for White insen the moves h2-h3 and ... .ihS is that Black can now play 9 ...llJc6. The point is that
Classical with 4
10 exd6 cxd6 1 1 d5 exd5 12 �xdS l0xd5 13 ...xd5 is not as good for White as it might have been because he is not hitting the bishop on hS. This allows Black to play 13 ....i.f6 (or maybe 13 ....i.e6).
10 �d2 This allows Black to obtain a very comfortable position. White's more challenging options are as follows: a) 10 b3 and now: at) 10 . ..Ii)8d7 1 1 h3 (11 llct l:tb8 1 2 l:te 1 dxeS 13 �xeS �xeS 14 .i.xg4 �xg4 15 1Wxg4 � 16 .i.h6 also gave White the freer game in Oratovsky Zilberman, Israeli Team Ch. 1996) l l. .. .i.fS 12 exd6 cxd6 13 l:tel !? h6 14 i.d3 i.xd3 15 1i'xd3 l:lc8 161:lad11:le8 17 .i.f4 and White had a slight space advantage in Chandler-Hort, Surakarta 1982, though it is difficult to achieve anything because Black's structure is flexible and sound. a2) Alternatively Black can play 10...d5, after which 1 1 c5lb6d7 12 li)d2 .i.fS 1 3 f4 f6 1 4 li)f3 (14 g4!? is more aggressive) 14 ... fxe5 15 fxeS li)c6 16 .i.d3 b6 gave him equality in Spasov Ehlvest, Biel Interzonal 1993. b) 10 1ib3 is a reasonable move but
. . .
.t.g4
after 10 ... dxe5 he should resist the temptation to play 1 1 cS?! (1 1 lbxeS .i.xe2 12 �xe2 li)Sd7 with equality is better) 1 1...exd4 12 cxb6 cS 13 llfd1 1fe8 14 �xd4 cxd4 15 .i.xd4 .i.xe2 16 lbxe2 l0c6 with the better game for Black in Rabiega-Jansa, Austrian Team Ch. 1995. c) 10 exd6 cxd6
and now: cl) The standard 1 1 b3 is fine for Black after 1 1...d5 12 cS (or 12 h3 .i.bS 13 �eS .ixe2 14 1i'xe2 ll)c6 1 5 llfdl i.f6 with equality as in Anand Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee {7th match game} 1994) 12 ...l0c8 13 b4 l0c6 14 1i'b3 .i.f6 15 l:lfd1 �8e7 16 l:ld2 li)fS as in Dolmatov-Morozevich, Moscow (rapid) 1995. c2) 1 1 d5!? i.xf3 {1 1...e5 produces a position very much akin to Hamdouchi Baburin, but having the pawn on a6 is of doubtful value) 12 ..ixf3 lllxc4 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 14 ..tg4 1id7 15 1i'e2 lbe5 16 ..th3l0bc6 17 f4 lilf7 18 ..tb6 �fd8 19 �dS and White had more than enough for the pawn in Ulibin-Kengis, Pinsk 1986. 10 ..i.f5 Better than 10.....txe2?! 1 1 'ifxe2 .
13
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
dxeS 12 dxeS when White has a useful space edge. 1 1 �de4 dxeS 1 2 dxeS lbsd7 13 f4 f6
14 'ilb3!? This leads to great complications. White could also play 14 exf6ll\xf6 15 tlJcS with a fairly even game. 14...fxeS 1 S fxeS ..ixe4 Simplifying the position. Black could also play lS ...lL\xeS but then White has compensation for the pawn. 1 6 �xe4 �xeS 1 7 llad1 l:txf1 + 1 8 ..txf1 'ilea Once again aiming for a small but clear advantage rather than risk life and limb in continuing complications. After 18 ...9c8 White can play 19 cS tbds 20 llxdS!? exdS 21 'ifxdS+ lL\£7 22 .i.c4 with dangerous compensation for the exchange. 1 9 ..ixb6 cxb6 20 'ilxb6 Wc6 21 -.xc6 bxc6 The arising endgame should be as sessed as slightly better for Black, but Black's advantage has symbolical char acter and it's really hard to believe that White will lose this position in ten moves! 22 ..ie2 l:f8 23 g3 aS 24 'iPg2 l:lb8 14
2S :d2 l:lb4 26 a37!
A slight mistake which creates weak nesses in the queenside. The simplest way to hold the position is with 26 b3 followed by a transfer of the bishop to c2 via dt. 26 ...l:lb3 27 'iPf2 And here 27 cS is a better try. 27 ...cS 28 �c3 ..igS 29 l:c2 �c6 30 �bS? The losing move. White had to play 30 lL'Idl although admittedly Black has some pressure after 30...ll\d4 31 l:tc3 llb7 etc. 30 ...�d4 31 �xd4 .i.e3+ ! 32 'iPf3 .i.xd4+ 33 �e4 .i.xb2 34 a4 ..id4 3S ..id3 l:a3 36 l:c1 l:lxa4 37 l:lb1 .J:r.a2 38 h4 a4 39 g4 a3 40 l:lb8+ 'iPf7 41 l:b7+ 'iPf6 42 l:la7 h6 0-1
Game 4 Hamdouchi-Baburin
Saint Vincent 2000 1 e4 �f6 2 eS �S 3 d4 d6 4 �f3 ..ig4 S ..ie2 e6 6 h3 .i.hS 7 c4 lDb6 8 exd6 In the game Polgar-Yusupov, Dort mund 1995 White tried 8 ll\c3 il.e7 9 dS but got nothing more than a fairly
Classical with 4
even endgame after 9 ...exd5 10 cxd5 dxe5 1 1 g4 .ig6 1 2 lLlxe5 lLl8d7 1 3 lLlxd7 1rxd7 (13 . . .lLlxd7 is also very reasonable, but Yusupov likes end games) 14 .ib5 c6 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 1Wxd7+ �dl 17 .i.a6 .id6. Both sides have some pawn weaknesses here. 8 . . cxd6 9 �c3 J/.e7 In view of the apparent strength of White's reply, Black might also consider 9 .lLlc6!?, after which 10 dS exdS 1 1 cxdS .ixf3 1 2 .ixf3 �5 leads t o posi tions similar to the next game, Nguyen Anh Dung-Anastasian. 10 d5! .
..
An interesting new approach to the position that was introduced by Bolo gao. White simply takes some space in the centre and challenges his opponent to find enough counterplay. 10 ...e5 After 10...exd5 1 1 lbxd5 0-0 12 0-0 White is simply better because of his strong knight and the weakness of Black's d-pawn. The attempt to win a pawn with 12 ... .ixf3 1 3 J.x£3 lLlxc4 would then be bad because of 14 'ifc2! �5 1 5 .ie4! ltlbc6 (15 ...g6 16llk7) 16 .ixh7 + �h8 17 f4, with White having the two bishops and Black's king look-
. . .
.t.g4
ing weak. 1 1 g4!? An improvement on Bologan· Tischbierek, Vienna 1996, in which Bo logan played 1 1 .ie3 and obtained the initiative after lt.. .Lf3 12 .i.xf3lLI8d7 13 'ife2 l:.c8 14 b3 fS?! (simply 14. . 0-0 looks like a possible improvement) 15 g4!. Bologan introduced 11 g4 in a sub sequent game against Agdestein. 1 1 ....i.g6 1 2 h4 h5 Bologan-Agdestein, Yerevan Olym piad 1996 continued 12 ... h6 13 .id3! 'ifc8!? (13 ...i.xd3 14 'ifxd3 'ilc8 15 b3 11'xg4 16 ltg1 •hS 17 llxg7 fS is strongly met by 18 ltlbS! e4 19 1fd4 etc.) 14 i.xg6 fxg6 15 l[)d2 0-0 (15 ...l[)xc4? 16 'ifa4+ wins the knight) 16 b3 lZ.f4 17 gS! and White stood clearly better because of his mighty grip on the e4-square. .
.
1 3 g5lDSd7 14 J/.e3 Ilea In Vescovi-Leitao, Itabirito 1998, Black played 14...a6 but still found him· self in difficulties after 15 b3 1llc7 16 .id3 0-0 17 lLle4 (17 i.xg6 fxg6 18 l[)d2 followed by 19lLide4 was another good line) 17 ... i.xe4 18 .ixe4 g6 19 lLid2 ilkS and now Volzhin suggested 20 .ic2 (instead of Vescovi's 20 'ifc2) ,5
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
with a clearly better game for White aher 20... a5 {20...1lac8 2 1 b4!? lDcd7 22 .tb3) 2 1 1lbl. 14 ...i.. f5 has also been tried but aher 15 lDd2 g6 16 lDde4, intending lDg3, White was clearly better in Leonarda Rodrigues, Maceira 1997. 1 5 b3 �c5 1 6 %tg1 1?
Although this is partly as prophylaxis against Black moving his f-pawn, the rook may also become an attacking piece in some lines. 1 6 ...�bd7 1 7 b4!? e4!? Both sides play sharply and the game gets thrown out of its 'normal' pattern. The alternative was 17...lDe4. 1S �d2 �d3+ 1 9 Wt1 lt:lxb4 20 �dxe4 0-0 21 .td4 :as 22 a3 �a6 23 .i.xh5 :xc4 24 .te2 'ireS!? Black must act with urgency before the storm breaks on the kingside. After 24 ...1lc8 25 h5 i..xe4 26ltlxe4lLlac5 27 lLlg3! White's knight will come to f5 with a ferocious attack. 25 h51 Ignoring Black's offer of the ex change as aher 25 i..xc4 ...xc4+ 26 Wg2 lL!dcS Black obtains some counterplay 25 ....tf5 26 :g3 .i.fS 27 :e3 �b6 28 .i.xb6 16
28 ...:cxe4 The only move. Both 28 ... axb6 29 i..xc4 9xc4+ 30 'i'e2 and 28 ... i..xe4 29 i..xc4 1i'xc4+ 30 'i'e2 are hopeless for Black. 29 �xe4 .txe4 30 .txa7 'irf5 31 'ird4! tOes 32 :g3 i.xd5 33 .tg4 'irxg5 34 .tf3 'irxg3!? With both sides in time-trouble, Black tries his last chance. After 34 ...1lre5 35 'ifxe5 :XeS 36 i..xd5 1lxd5 37 i..xc5 dxc5 38 1lb1 Black's position is hopeless. 35 fxg3 .txf3 36 i.xc5 36 lle1 is probably simpler though White should be winning in any case. 36 ... dxc5 37 'irf4 .i.xh5 3S :e1 :xe1 + 39 �xe 1 i.g6
Classical with 4 . . . J..g 4
40 a4? On the last move before the time control White lets the win slip. He should first play 40 'ifc4!, preventing Black's bishop from coming to a6. 40 ....i.d3! 41 a5 .i.b5 42 Wc7 ..ta6 Building an impenetrable fortress. A draw is now inevitable. 43 g4 g6 44 g5 c4 45 ¢>d2 .ib4+ 46 ¢>c2 ¢>g7 47 1i'd8 ¢>h7 48 11ff6 c,t>g8 %-% r-----
Game 5 Nguyen Anh Dung-Anastasian
Budapest
1999
..______________.
1 e4 lLlf6 2 e5 lLld5 3 d4 d6 4 lLlf3 .ig4 5 ..te2 e6 6 0-0 lLlc6 1 c4 lLlb6 8 exd6 cxd6 9 d5 exd5 1 0 cxd5 ..txf3 1 1 .i.xf3 White can also consider 1 1 gxf3!?, af ter which 1 1 ...�5?! 12 i.bS+ �d7 {12 ...lLlbd7 loses a piece after 13 f4lLlg6 14 fS lLlgeS 15 'ife2 followed by f2-f4) 13 1i'd4 1i'f6 14 l:e1 + i.e7 15 1i'xf6 gxf6 16 �3 gave White the better end game in Vogt-Uddenfeldt, Skopje Olympiad 1972.
Saanen 1994, White found another way to develop his queen's knight. After 13 a4 0-0 14 f4lLlg6 15 a5lLld7 he played 16ltkl2!? and had the better game after 16 .. ."l'c7 17 �4 b5 18lLle3 because of his bishops and space. 1 3...0-0 14 a4 a5 1 5 l%a3 lLled7 1 6 .i.b5 lLlc5 1 7 lLle2 .i.g5 1 8 lLlf4?! White starts to lose his way and over the next few moves launches a some what wild 'attack' on the kingside. Ac cording to Finkel, he should have played 18 f4 i.f6 19 g4!? g6 20 g5 i.g7 21 fS!? f6 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 gxf6lbf6 24 J:lg3 when Black's king is the weaker of the two. 1 8 l%c8 19 h4 .i.h6 Snatching the h-pawn with 19...i.xh4 is obviously quite risky after 20 l:r.h3, but it's by no means clear that this would be bad. 20 Wg4?! ••.
Continuing with his 'plan' at the cost of his d-pawn but this proves to be a highly speculative venture. White should have played the consolidating 20 g3.
20 ..txf4 21 .i.xf4 lLlxd5 22 .ig5 �16 23 ._f3 d5 24 l%d1 lLlce4 25 llad3 'iVb6 26 .tel •e6 27 .i.d4 •••
1 1 ...lLle5 1 2 ..te2 .i.e7 1 3 lLlc3 In the game Oratovsky-Kaenel,
17
A lekhine 's Defen c e
J:te2 28 •t4 :tea 29 f3? Probably missing Black's reply. After 29 l:le 1 the position would be very messy; Black is a pawn up but White's bishops are very strong. 29 ... /0h5
43 J:txb5! The simplest. 44 axb5 l0d5 45 .i.d6 /Oe3 46 .i.e7 /Oxb5 47 .i.xb6 a4 48 .i.e3 a3 49 .i.e1 a2 50 .ib2 o!Oa3 51 �4 ltle2 52 �e4 a,._ 53 .i.xa 1 /Oxa1 54 �d4 ltlb3+ 0-1 ••.
Game 6 Zarnicki-Malbran
Argentine Ch., Buenos Aires 1998 1 e4 o!Of6 2 e5 o!Od5 3 d4 d6 4 /Ot3 .i.g4 5 .i.e2 c6
30 -.e5 Unfortunately for White he is forced to enter what is probably a losing end game. After 30 'ife3 there is 30 ... 'ifg6! 3 1 g4 ...d6! when Black obtains a win ning attack. 30 ...-.xe5 31 .i.xe5 ltlf2 32 J:txd5 ltlxd1 33 J:txd1 J:te1 34 J:txe1 J:txe 1 + 35 �h2 l0f6 36 .i.e3 b6 37 .i.e6 lld 1 38 g4 o!Od5 39 .i.e5 f6 40 .i.b8 %ld2+ 41 �g3 l087 42 .i.b5 J:txb2 43 .i.e7
Salo Flohr's favourite line, which re ceived enthusiastic support in Burgess's books on the Alekhine. 6 e4 The simplest approach, which gives White an edge without getting involved in murky complications. White's sharpest line is 6 lLlgS .tfs (6....txe2 7 1Wxe2 is better forWhite) 7 e6 fxe6 8 g4 (8 J.. hS+ g6 9 g4 has also been played but it seems fine for Black after 9 ... J..xc2 10 ...xc2 gxhS l t lLlxe6 11fd7) 8 ..tg6 9 .td3 J..xd3 10 9xd3 lLlf6 (10...g6 1 1 c4 ltlf6 12 lLlxe6 'ifc8 13 9e2 �6 14llk3 lbc7 15 d5 tl\xe6 16 dxe6 followed by J..f4 and 0-0-0 ..
18
Classical with 4
gave White attacking chances in Keres Bhend, Zurich 1968) 1 1 �e6 1i'd7 12 'i'e2 �f7 13ltlg5+ �g8 14 l:lg1ltla6 15 t!t.1c3 lieS, De Firmian-Bw-gess, Gausdal 1995, and now White's best is probably 16 �f4, as De Firmian suggested aher the game. One of the points of Black's system is that the 'natural' 6 0-0 can be met by 6... �xf3 7 �xf3 dxe5 8 dxe5 e6 producing a position in which White's bishops have little scope and the e5pawn is weak. One example is lvanovic Kovacevic, Yugoslav Ch., Subotica 1984, which went 9 'ife2 liJd7 10 g3 1Fc7 1 1 l:le1 i.c5 1 2 ltld2 0-0 13 ltlb3 .i.b6 14 c4ltle7 {this is often a key ma noeuvre for Black; the knight can come to g6 from where it hits e5) 15 �d2 aS 16 i.c3 a4 1 7 ltld2 i.a5!, exchanging off White's dark-squared bishop, which is a crucial defender of e5. 6 ...�b6
7 �bd2 White has an interesting alternative in 7 ltlgS!? i.xe2 (7 ... i.f5?! is not as good with the moves c2-c4 and ...ltlb6 thrown in as after 8 e6 fxe6 9 g4 i.g6 10 i.d3 i.xd3 1 1 •xd3 Black's knight cannot come to f6 to help with the de-
. . .
i.g4
fence of his kingside) 8 1Fxe2 h6 9ltlf3 dxe5 10 dxe5 e6 1 1 0-0 ltl8d7 12 i.f4, which was rather good for White in Emst-Urday, Manila Olympiad 1992. 7 ...�8d7 After 7 ... dxe5 8 ltlxe5 White has a pleasant space advantage and the at tempt to grab a pawn with 8 ...i.xe2 9 'iVxe21ixd4 gave White a strong attack after 10 ltldf3 1i'c5 11 0-0 f6 12 i.e3 'WaS 13 i.d2 •a6 14 b3! fxe5 15ltlxe5 lbsd7 16 11"h5+ g6 17 ltlxg6 ltlf6 1 8 '4ih3 i n Marczell-Krecak, correspon dence 1986.
8 exd6 The simple move, aiming for an ex change variation in which Black's pieces are rather passively placed- Black is unable to aim for the traditional coun terplay against d4 based on ...ltlc6. Once again White can play the sharp 8 �g5 i.f5 (8 ... i.xe2?! allows 9 e6! after which 9 ... fxe6 10 'Wxe2 is clearly better for White) with unclear consequences after 9 e6 fxe6 10 g4 i.g6 1 1ltlxe6 (this time 1 1 i.d3 is unavailable) ll ...'WcS etc. The line 8 h3 i.xf3 9 �f3 dxe5 10 dxeS e6 is better for White than the positions arising from 6 0-0 i.xf3 be19
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
cause his knight on f3 lends support to the e5-pawn. Even so, rd prefer to avoid them with White because Black's pieces would operate quite nicely on the dark squares. 8 ... exd6 9 0-0 J..e 7 1 0 a4!? An interesting move which aims to create weaknesses in Black's queenside and bring the at-rook into play via a3. Black's reply creates a 'hole' on b4, but his knights are too far away for this to be a problem for White. 1 0 ... a5 1 1 .J:e1 0-0 1 2 .J:a3 :es 1 3 .J:e3 Wc7 The game Yudasin-Timoshenko, Po dolsky 1989 went 13 ...lDf8 14 1i'b3! .i.e6 1 5 .i.d3 :bs 16 1i'c2 d5 (maybe 16 ...1i'c7 was better) 1 7 c5 lDbd7 18 lDb3, intending 19 .i.d2, with a strong initiative. Another possibility is 13...ll:lf6 but this still looks nice for White after 14 1i'c2 .i.h5 1 5 .i.d3 etc. 14 J..d 3 lOt& 1 5 Wc2 J..h 5 1 6 lCJe4 lC!xe4 1 7 J..xe4 J..f6 1 8 J..xh7+ �8 1 9 Wf5?!
White has seen an apparently attrac tive 'combination', but there's a big hole in his calculations. According to Finkel, White is basically just a pawn up after 19 :xeS+ :xeS 20 ltxe8+ �xeS 2 1 20
.i.g5! i.xg5 {2l. ...i.xf3? 22 J.xf6 gxf6 23 gxf3 is even worse) 22 ll:lxg5 1i'e7 (or 22 ... g6?! 23 J.g8!) 23 h4 etc. 19 ...J..xf3 20 Wxf6?? This is the point ofWhite's previous move, but unfortunately he has missed something. It wasn't too late to bail out with 20 'ffxf3. 20...gxf6 21 :xeS+ �g7 Is this what White had missed? Of course Black cannot play 21. ..:xe8?? because of 22 i.h6 mate. 22.J:8e7 Wc8 Black has a queen for a rook and everything seems to be clear, but the fun is just beginning! 23 J..d 3 'W'g4 24 J..n :9&!? 25 h3 'W'h5 26 gxf3 Wxf3? 26 ...�h8+ 27 Wh2 1i'g6 forces mate. 27 .J:7e4 �h8+ 28 .J:g4 .J:[xg4+ 29 hxg4 Wxg4+ 30 �2 Wh4+ 31 �g 1 'W'xd4 32 b3 Wg4+ 33 J..g 2 l0d7 34 J..b2 lC!e5 35 :e3 'W'd1 + 36 J..f 1 lCJf3+ 37 Wg2 lCJh4+ 38 Wg 1 Wg7 39 .J:[g 3+ Wf8 40 J..xf6 lCJf3+ 41 Wg2lCJe5
Black has been making heavy weather of winning this game, but he's still got his extra queen. 42 J..d8 lOg& 43 J..g5 'W'h5!? 44
Classical with 4 . . . �g4
.i.d3 lL!e5 45 .i.f1 lL!g4 46 .i.e3 ..Wh2+ 47 �f3 lL!xe3 48 �xe3 f5 49 .i.d3 f4+ 50 �xf4 'Wxf2+ 51 ltf3 'Wd4+ 52 �g3+ �.1 53 .i.n •91 + 54 �4 'ird4+ 55 �g3 d5 56 cxd5 cxd5
The beginning of the end. Eventually Black will be able to push his passed d pawn. 57 ..tb5 1lg1 + 58 �4 �f6 59 J:ld3 Wf2+ 60 J:lf3 'ird4+ 61 �g3+ ¢>e5 62 J:ld3 11f4+ 63 �g2 �e4 64 J:lh3 Wd2+ 65 �f1 1ld1 + 66 �g2 1td2+ 67 �1 �d4 68 J:lh4+ �e3?! 69 l:lh3+ �.4 70 lth4+ �f3 71 lth3+ �4 72 J:ld3 -.c1 + 73 �e2 '*c2+ 74 �f1 �e4 75 lth3 'ird1 + 76 �g2 Wg4+ 77 llg3 Wff4 78 lth3 �d4 79 l:.d3+ �e5 80 J:lf3 'ird2+ 81 Wf1 d4 82 ..tc4 �d6 83 ltd3 Wb2 84 l:lh3 �e5 85 ..te2 tlc1 + 86 �f2 Wfc2 87 l:lh5+ �d6 88 J:lh6+ �c5 89 llh5+ �b4 90 lth3 �a3 91 l:ld3 �b2 92 ltxd4? Wc5 0-1 ...----.
Game 1
Mortensen-Baburin
Copenhagen 2000 ._____________..
1
e4
lL!f6 2 e5 lL!d5 3
d4
d6 4 ltlf3
..tg4 5 c4 5 h3 is very rarely played these days; after 5 ....ixf3 6 'ft'xf3 dxeS 7 dxeS e6 the position is known to be very com fortable for Black because of the lack of scope for White's bishops and the weakness of his e-pawn. An example is Zhuravlev-Aiburt, Daugavpils 1974, which went 8 .ic4lDd7! (I personally would prefer this to 8 ...lDc6 because it keeps open the option of playing a later ...c7-c6) 9 ...g3lDe7 10 0-0lDfS 1 1 •f4 .i.cS 12 lDd2 ...h4 13 lDf3 ...xf4 14 .i.xf4lDd4 when the e5-pawn was a big problem.
5 ... lL!b6 6 exd6 Transposing into a kind of Exchange Variation, though one in which Black has developed his bishop to g4 rather early. 6 dS was a speciality of the Latvian player Vitolins; it looks playable and interesting but not dangerous for Black if he knows what he's doing. The most reliable defence is 6 ...e6 (both 6 ... dxe5 7 h3 i.xf3 8 'ft'xf3 and 6 ...lD8d7 7 e6 fxe6 8 h3 .i.xf3 9 'ft'xf3lbe5 10 'ft'b3 exdS 1 1 cxdS g6 t2lDc3 give White reasonable compensation forthe pawn) 7 exd6 1i'xd6 (7 ... ..txd6 is very messy after 8 21
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
'ifd4! i.xf3 9 'ifxg7 l:tf8 10 gxf3lD8d7 1 1 .i.gS i.e7 12 llgl, Vitolins-Bagirov, J urmala 1985} 8 lDc3 exdS 9 cxdS c6 and now:
off one of his attacking pieces with 10 llJxd7} 9 ...lD8d7 (or 9 ...e6 10 llJc2) 10 llJf3 with good play for the pawn. 6... exd6
a) 10 h3 .i.hS 11 g4 ..ig6 12 i.g2 lDxdS 1 3 lDxdS cxdS 1 4 0-0 i.e7 (14...lbc6!?} 15 11fd4 lbc6 16 'ifxg7 0-0-0 gave Black good play in Vitolins Kengis, Riga 1984. b) 10 .i.e2! (this is stronger} 10 ... lbxd5 1 1 lbd4 .i.e6 12 0-0 i.e7 13 lCixe6 fxe6 14 .i.hS+ g6 15 .i.g4 lDxc3 16 bxc3 1i'xd1 17 llxd1 lba6 18 .i.xe6 llJcS was okay for Black in Vitolins Kengis, Jurmala 1985. Alekhine himself played 6 i.e2 on several occasions, though this should amount to no more than a transposition into normal lines after either 6...c6 or 6 ... e6. The move with independent sig nificance is 6 ... dxe5 7llJxe5 (Aiekhine played 7 cS e4 8 cxb6 exf3 9 i.xf3 i.xf3 10 1i'xf3 in an earlier game against Euwe, but in his notes pointed out that Black should have answered this with 10 ...llJc6) 7 ... i.xe2 8 1i'xe2 1i'xd4 (Aiekhine-Reshevsky, Kemeri 1937}. Now Alekhine felt that he should have played 9llJa3! (in the game he played 9 0-0 and aher 9 ...lL!Sd7 had to exchange
7 tbc3 �e7 8 .i.e3 ltlc6 9 h3 �xf3 As White has not castled kingside yet, the plan of a kingside pawn storm is something that Black must be very wary of. After 9 ....thS White can play 10 g4 i.g6 1 1 d5 llJeS 12 lDxeS dxe5 1 3 c5 with a strong initiative. 10 'tlfxf3 0-0 The attempt to exchange dark-square bishops with 10....i.g5 is embarrassingly answered by 1 1 1i'e4+. 1 1 h4 Preventing ....i.gS and starting a king side pawn advance. 1 1 . a5 Without having a light-squared bishop on the board, l l . .. dS? is very bad for Black because of 12 c5lL!c4 13 0-0-0 and the dS-pawn is lost (Wed berg-Sandstrom, Stockholm 1998). An idea worth considering is 1 1 ...llJa5 12 b3 c6 (maybe even 12 ...llJc6!?, arguing that the weakening of White's queenside with b2-b3 is an achievement), after which Mortensen gives 1 3 i.d3 d5 14 cS llJd7 1 5 tiffS!?
22
..
Classical with 4 . .. �g4
g6 16 'i'h3 with attacking chances. 1 2 0-0-0 a4 1 3 c5! lL!d7
14 a3?! After this Black can equalise with ac curate play. Mortensen claimed that he could have kept a slight edge with 14 cxd6 i.xd6 (or 14...cxd6 15 a31Z.c8 16 �b1/i)b6 1 7 i.d3 d5 1 8 hS threatening 19 'i'fs) 15 a3 �b6 16 i.d3 1We7 17 �bS, stopping any sacrifices on a3 and keeping a useful bishop pair_ 14 dxc5 1 5 dxc5 'ireS •••
Calmly evacuating the d-file aher which he can feed his knights to the e5square and the cS-pawn is weak. 1 6 .i.b5 .i.xc5 1 7 .i.xa4 lL!de5 1 8 'ire4 .J.xe3+ 1 9 'ifxe3 'irg4 20 .tc2
20 l:lad8 Snatching a pawn with 20...1i"xg2? would be bad for Black because of 21 f4 �g4 22 .d3 /i)f6 23 llhg1 1Wf2 24 /i)dS (Mortensen). 21 f4 lL!g6 22 g3 lL!ge7 23 l:lxd8 l:lxd8 24 l:ld1 l:lxd 1 + %-Y.z ..•
23
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
Summary
Whilst 4 . .i.g4 remains more or less playable, it has come under pressure from so many different directions that I find it very difficult to recommend. For anyone playing White I'd suggest adopting either Monensen's 5 c4 or Bologan's 9 dS. If Black plays the Flohr Variation with 5 c6 then Emst•s 6 c4 li)b6 7 �gS!? looks very prom1smg. .
.
...
1
e4 lilf6
2 a5 lild5 3 d4 d6 4 lilf3 .i.g4 5 .i.a2 (D)
5c4-Game7
5... a6 5 .c6- Game6 ..
6 0-G
6 h3 .i.hS 7 c4 �b6 8 exd6 cxd6 9 �3 .i.e7 10 dS (D) - Game 4 6 ....i.a7 6...�6 7 c4 �b6 8 exd6 cxd6 9 c:l5 Game 5 7 c4 lilb6 8 lilc3 8 h3 .i.hS 9 li)c3 0-0 10 .i.e3 dS 1 1 cS .i.xf3 12 gxf3 �c8- Game 2 a . o-o 9 .ia3 d5 (D) 9 a6 - GameJ 10 c5 .i.xf3 1 1 gxf3 lOeB - Game 1 -
..
.•.
5
24
.ie2
10 d5
9
...
d5
I CHAPTER TWO I Classical Kengis System: 4...dxe5 5 ttJxe5 g6
1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c!Jf3 dxe5 5 c!Jxe5 g6 In the Kengis Variation Black solves the problem of the cramping e5-pawn in the simplest and most direct way. He simply removes it from the board! Whilst classical theories about the cen tre maintain that the resulting 'little cen tre' formation gives White a space ad vantage, in practice it is no simple mat ter for White to do anything with it. The position could be compared with lines of the Caro-Kann in which Black plays ... dxe4 (1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 !0:3 dxe4 4 liJxe4 etc.). On the face of it White's outpost on the half-open e-file is more valuable than the d5-point on the half-open d-file. Yet Black's posi tion is incredibly solid and by challeng ing the knight on e5 he will probably force it to retreat with a loss of tempo. Meanwhile Black will attempt to free his position with ... c7<5 or sometimes even ... e7-e5. The main line of the Kengis is 6 �c4, though this may be at least partly due to the fact that Black can also reach a
Kengis set-up via 4 ... g6 5 ..tc4 c6 fol lowed by a later ... dxe5. Black obtains excellent counterplay with a timely ex change of his light-squared bishop fol lowed by playing for the freeing ...c6<5. Games 8-1 1 show the kind of play that might arise. Games 13-15 illustrate aggressive at tempts by White to use the knight on e5 as the basis for ambitious and forceful play. Frankly I find it difficult to believe in the merits of the primitive-looking 6 1Wf3 (Game 15) but the space-gaining 6 c4 (Games 13-14) needs very accurate handling by Black. This may be a strong argument in favour of a 4... g6 5 .i.c4 c6 move order.
Game S Mukhametov-Bagirov
Bern
1995
,______________...,.
1 e4 c!Jf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c!Jf3 dxe5 5 c!Jxe5 g6 6 .i.c4 This has become established as the main line though it's by no means clear that it's White's best move in this spe25
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
cific position. One of the reasons it might have gained w idespread accep tance is the fact the positions it leads to can be reached by transposition from 4...g6 5 .i.c4 c6. Many white players may want to cut down their workload by playing just one set-up against both of Black's move orders.
6 ...c6 Black has to be careful to protect the knight on dS. 6....i.g7?? loses to 7lL\xf7 r.txf7 8 •f3+ �e6 9 •e4+ etc. Having said that Black does have an other move in 6 ....i.e6 and aher 7llX3 (given an exclamation mark by most sources) to play 7 ... c6 (aher 7 ....i.g7?! 8 �4 White threatens to put his knight on g5 and 8 ....i.xe5 9 dxe5l£lc6 10 b3! l£lxe5 1 1 j.b2 f6 12 i.xe5 fxe5 13 lDc5 wins back the pawn with a huge advan tage). Aher 7 ...c6 White has a choice: a) The immediate 8 l£le4 can be an swered by 8 ...lDc7, when Godena Vaganian, Reggio Emilia 1994/95 went 9 i.xe6 lL\xe6 10 •f3 f6 1 1 Wb3 •ds 12 •xb7 •xe4+ 1 3 .ie3 .i.g7 14 1i'xa8 fxe5 1 5 1i'xb8+ �f7 1 6 'l'b4 'irxg2 17 0-0-0 exd4 1 8 i.d2 1l'd5 19 'irb3 lidS and Black has good compensation, even in the endgame. 26
b) 8 •f3 .i.g7 9 l£le4 (9 0-0 0-0 10 lte1l£ld7 1 1 h3lbxe5 12 dxe5 ti)xc3 13 'irxc3 .i.xc4 14 'irxc4 'W'dS was equal in Hort-Panchenko, Bern 1992) 9 . .0-0 10 0-0 and now Psakhis's recommendation of 10...lLic7 (10 ...lLid7 is also playable) 1 1 .i.xe6 lLixe6 12 c3 •ds looks fine for Black. 7 0-0 J.g7 Black has also tried 7 ...lLid7 8 ti)f3 lLI7b6 9 i.b3 i.g4 but the knight on b6 is not very well placed. The point is that Black will usually want to advance his queenside pawns in this type of posi tion, to compliment the activity of his bishop on g7. 8 l:le1 0-0 9 c3 .
9 ...J.e6 Black has a major alternative in 9...lLid7 aher which Ostojic-Bagirov, Neu lsenburg 1992 continued instruc tively with 10 lLI£3 (exchanging knights with 10 lbxd7 eases Black's position) 10 ...lLI7b6 11 i.fl .i.g4 12 lLibd2 e6 (with the light-square bishop ex changed, Black puts his pawns on light squares) 1 3 h3 j.xf3 14 ti)xf3 lieS (playing for ...c6-c5) 15 c4li:Je7 16 b3 lLif5 17 .ie3 and now Black should probably play 17 ...li:Jxe3 (in the game
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4
his 1 7...c5 was met by 1 8 i.g5 i.f6 19 i.xf6 'iixf6 20 dxc5 l:txc5 21 'iid2 with an edge for White) 18 fxe3 c5 when Black has excellent counterplay. 10 lbd2 10 i.b3 transposes into the next game, Howeli-Kengis. 1 o .. lbd7 1 1 lbxd7 The exchange of knights definitely eases Black's game and 1 1 llJdf3 llJxe5 12llJxe5llJc7 is also fine for Black. Of the alternatives, 1 1 llJef3 i..g4 12 h3 i.xf3 1 3 'it'xf3 e6 leads to play similar to Ostojic-Bagirov in the note to Black's 9th, whilst 11 lbd3 llJc7 lets Black exchange bishops. 1 1 :•xd7 1 2 lbe4 b6 1 3 h3 A slightly more testing way for White to play it is with 13 llJg5, after which van der Wiel-Bagirov, Yerevan 1996 continued 13 ... i..f5 14 h3 f6 15 lbf3 1lae8 16 i..fl i..e6 17 c4 llJc7 18 i.f4 i.f7 19 1i'a4lbe6 20 i.e3 llc8 21 llad1 'h-'h. The way Bagirov regrouped his forces in this game was very interesting and in the final position it is difficult for either side to make any significant pro gress. 1 3 ... lbc7 14 .i.f1 h6 1 5 .i.f4 l:lfd8 16 lbd2 .
••
. . .
dx e5 5 tll x e 5 g 6
After this Black has to be very care ful. 1 6 lbd5?! Bagirov suggested that the immediate 16 ...c5 would have been better; White would be unable to answer with 17lbb3 because Black can take it and the cap ture on d4. 1 7 .ig3 c5 1 8 lbb3! 'it'c8 1 9 'it'e2 cxd4 20 lbxd4 J..d 7 21 'it'f3 e6 22 l:lad1 a6 23 J..d 3 l:la7 24 .ic2 b5 25 J..h4 l:le8 26 J..b3 lbb6 Finally Black is out of the woods and can claim full equality, if not more. He is starting to take some space on the queenside and his central pawn majority later comes into play. 27 J..f6 lbc4 28 J..xc4 'W'xc4 29 J..xg7 �xg7 30 'it'e3 'ilc7 31 .l:ld2 e5 Now I definitely prefer Black; the knight has difficulty finding a good post. 32 lbf3 J..c8 33 .l:ld5 f6 34 a3 wn 35 l:led1 l:lae7 36 l:ld8 .ib7 37 .l:l1d2 l:lxdB 38 .l:lxd8 Wa2 39 l:ld2 'it'b 1 + 40 ¢>h2 'it'f5 41 .l:ld6 .l:lf7 42 lbg1 h5 43 lbt3 g5 44 h4 Wg4 .•.
45 lbe1 Time-trouble? After 45 hxg5 i..xf3 46 'i'xf3 (and not 46 gxf6+? llxf6 47 gxf3 'i'h4+ 48 «itg2 llxd6 etc.) 27
A lekhine 's Defen c e
46...'irxf3 47 gxf3 fxg5 48 lba6 :.Xf3 it should probably be a draw. 45 ... l:ld7 46 l:lxd7+ Wxd7 47 Wc5 ¢og6 48 We3 Wd5 49 Wd3+ Wxd3 50 l0xd3 a5 51 l0c5 .lc6 52 g3 f5 53 ¢oh3 0-1 This was probably on time. Black is definitely better here but White can cer tainly play on. r------
Game 9 J Howeii Kengis .
-
London 1991
,____________..
1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 li:ld5 3 l0f3 d6 4 d4 dxe5 5 l0xe5 g6 6 .tc4 c6 7 0-0 .tg7 8 l:le1 0-0 9 .tb3 White's most popular choice at this juncture, which keeps the option of pushing his c-pawn two squares instead of one and avoids Black winning a tempo with ...ltlb8-d7-b6 in some lines. 9 ....te6 Black can also play 9 ...ltld7 but after 10 ltlf3 ltl7b6 (Bagirov has suggested 1 O aS) White can prevent ...i.g4 with 1 1 h3 and leave Black struggling to find a plan. For 9 . . .a5 see the next game, Short-Agdestein. •••
10 c3 28
Of White's other possibilities at this point, 10 h3 is sensible as after 10...li)d7 1 1 ltlf3 Black cannot pin the knight on f3 with ....i.g4. On the other hand he can try to exchange light-squared bish ops with 1 1 ...ltlc7. White's critical reply is 12 c4 (12 ltlc3 .i.xb3 13 axb3 ltle6 was very comfortable for Black in Del Rio Angelis-Soppe, Santa Clara 2000; after 12 c3 .i.dS 13 .i.g5 ltle6 14 .i.e3 {Zso. Polgar-Kengis, Vienna 1991} Black should play 14...ltlb6 with equality, according to Kengis) after which I like 12 ... ltlb6 13 'ire2 aS 14 a4 ltlc8, intending either ...b7-bS or ...ltlc8-d6-f5. After 10 ltld2 Black once again sets out to exchange a pair of minor pieces with 10...ltld7 1 1 ltlef3 (or 1 1 ltldf3 ltlxeS 12 dxeS aS 13 c3 .i.g4 with a comfortable game) 1 t...llk7 (1 t.. ..i.g4 is als0 possible; after 12 h3 .i.xf3 13 ltlxf3 Bagirov suggested the line 13 .. .a5 14 .-g5 %te8 15 c4 1tl5b6 with counter play for Black), when Christiansen Kengis, Manila Olympiad 1992 contin ued in interesting fashion with 12 c3 (12 ltlc4 aS 13 a4 .i.d5 was also fine for Black in Milos-Llanos, San Luis 1995) 12 ... c5 13 .i.xe6 ltlxe6 14 d5 ltlc7 15 ltle4 ltlf6 16 c4 (after 16 ltlxc5 ltlcxd5 17 ltlxb7 there is 17 ...11'b6) 16 ...ltlxe4 17 l:lxe4 e6 18 .i.g5 f6 19 d6 ltle8 20 l:lxe6 fxg5 21 'ifd5 �hS 22 llaet ltlf6 23 'irxb7 11'b6 24 lle7 Wxb7 25 llxb7 l:tfeS and White had enough compensa tion for his piece, but probably not more than that. 10 ...l0d7 1 1 l0f3 l0c7 As usual 1 1.. ..ig4 is very reasonable for Black. Wahls-Maus, Hamburg 1991 continued 12 h3 .ixf3 13 Wxf3 e6 14 ltld2 b5 15 ltle4 aS 16 a4 'irb6 1 7 ltld6
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4
with a fighting game in which White's chances may be slightly preferable. 1 2 .i.xe6 l£Jxe6 1 3 9b3 'i'b6 14 'ifc4?!
White is following some old theory, but in doing so he is drifting into trou ble. Volzhin suggested just 14 �bd2 with equality. 1 4 c5! Opening lines, which certainly makes sense for the side with the better devel opment. 1 5 d6 Or 1 5 dxc5 �dxc5 with play on the d- and c-files and a juicy d3-square wait ing for his knight. 1 5 . . .lbc7 1 6 l:lxe7 'i'd6 1 7 l:le1 'i'xd5 1 8 !£Ja3 !£Jb6! The last time Kengis reached this po sition he was White against Tsesh kovsky in Riga 198 1. On that occasion his opponent played 1 8 ...tl'xc4?! and aher 19 l£1xc4 stood much worse. Ken gis plays a much better move, simply keeping White's knight on a3 out of the game. 1 9 'ifxd5 Avoiding the exchange of queens also leaves White in trouble. After 19 tl'h4 ltfe8 he will have trouble developing his
. . .
dxe5 5 liJ x e 5 g 6
queenside because of the pressure against the a2-pawn. 1 9 !£Jcxd5 20 .i.g5 h6! 21 .i.d2 White may have been hoping to play 21 i.e7 but then 2l...l:fc8 22 l:ladl J:lc6! (threatening ... f7-f6 followed by ...�f7) 23 i.h4 f5 puts White's bishop in trouble. 2 1 ...!£Ja4! 22 l:lab1 l:lfe8! And not 22...J:tfd8 because White can then eject the knight from a4 with 23 l:le4. 23 Wf1 a6 24 l£Jc4 ••.
..•
24. .. b5?! Kengis later feh that 24...l:lxe 1 + 25 ltJxel b5 26 ltJe3 l:ld8 would have been more precise. I n playing the immediate ... b7-b5 he might have missed the fact that 25 ...ltJf4 did not work. 25 1£1e3 After 25 lLlceS Black has a strong move in 25 . ..lte6. 25...l:led8 Perhaps now Black saw that 25...lhf4 is answered by 26 ltJf5! when suddenly White manages to free his position. White now has a fleeting moment in which he might have eased the defence. When he misses it Kengis gives him little in the way of further opportunities. 29
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
26 l:tec1?1 White had to play 26 lDxd5 l:.xdS 27 :.ect with good chances of saving the game. He soon regrets the opportunity to exchange this knight as it promptly heads for the e4-square. 26 l0f6! 27 c4 lOe4 28 l:tc2 l:ld3 29 i.e1 l:te8 30 lLld2 lLld6l 31 �e2 After 31 lDb3 there is 3 1 ...lldxe3! 32 fxe3 lDxc4 with White's pawns drop ping like flies, whilst 31 b3 lbc3 is really excruciating. 31 . . .J:ldxe3 +! 32 fxe3 lLlfS 33 .tf2 t:Lld4+ 34 �d1 t:Llxc2 35 Wxc2 f5 36 a3 �f7 37 b3 t:Llc3 38 :n h5 39 h3 t:Lle4 40 l0xe4 llxe4 41 cxbS? 41 �cl3 would have been more tena Cious. 41 axb5 42 l:td1 i.h6! 43 Wd3 we6 44 We2 i.gS! 45 Wt3 h4 46 l:td2 i.f6 47 l:ta2 �dS 48 a4 b4! 49 aS c4 50 bxc4+ After 50 a6 cxb3 51 a7 :es 52 aS'if + :xa8 53 l:xa8 b2 Black gets a new queen. so.. .wxc4 51 a6 b3
b111f threatens mate with 54...'ifdl . 52 .'�b5 0-1 In the line 52 ...�b5 53 :xe4 fxe4+ 54 �e2 Black queens first and delivers mate with 54 ... b2! 55 a7 b1'il' 56 aS'il' 'il'cl3+ 57 Wet �c3. . •
•••
Game 10 Short-Agdestein
Isle ofLewis (rapid) 1995 1 e4 t:Llf6 2 e5 t:Lld5 3 d4 d6 4 lLlf3 dxe5 5 �xeS g6 6 .tc4 c6 7 i.b3 i.g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 l:te1 a5
..•
52 l:ta4+ There is no longer any defence. After 52 a7 bxa2 53 aS'il' at 'it' White will run out of checks, and 52 liaS b2 53 a7 30
Immediately setting about his space gaining operations on the queenside. 10 c3 There is an alternative in 10 a4 but then 1 o....te6 1 1 c3 'il'c7 12 lL:Icl3 lL:Id7 13 lL:Id2 l:tfe8 14 lL:Ie4 h6 15 1Wf3 .ifS 16 .td2 "M>6 17 .tc2 :ads 18 :.e2 lL:I7f6 brought about exchanges and equality in Godena-Kveinys, European Tearn Ch., Debrecen 1992. 10 ...i.f5 I'm not sure that I like the bishop on this square but it certainly worked in this particular game. In Korchnoi Vaganian, Horgen 1995 Black played the more natural-looking 10...lL:Id7 with
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4
the game going 1 1 ltlf3 l£17b6 12 a4 'irc7 (12 ...i.g4 is possible) 13 i.gS .i.g4 14 ltlbd2 c5 (one of Black's key levers) 1 5 h3 .i.xf3 16 'irxf3 e6 17 c4 (starting a sequence which wins material but crip ples White's queenside) 17...ltlb4 18 .i.f4 1i'c6 19 'irxc6 bxc6 20 dxc5 ltld7 21 i.d6 ltld3! 22 i.xf8 �xf8 23 lle2 :bs 24 l:lb 1 l£17xc5 25 i.c2 ltlxb2 with excellent compensation for the ex change. 1 1 h3 In Arnason-Knezevic, Grindavik 1984 White played 1 1 ltld2 and after 1 t...ltld7 12 ltlef3 Black could consider 12 ....i.g4 (in the game he played 12 ...lL17f6 13 a4 'ifc7 14 li)c4 �ladS with an okay position) 13 h3 hf3 14 lL1xf3 e6 with a typical position for this line in which both sides have chances. 1 1 ... ltld7 1 2 ltlf3 ltl7b6 1 3 a3 'irc7 1 4 ltlbd2 a4
1 5 -*.a2 After 15 1Lc2 .i.xc2 16 'irxc2 c5 Black would stand very well because of his active pieces and the weaknesses in White's queenside pawn structure. 1 5 c5 1 6 dxc5 'irxc5 1 7 ltle4 .i.xe4 1 8 :Xe4 l:lfd8 19 'irc2 White would have liked to play 19 •.•
. . .
dx e 5 5 IC.xe5 g 6
1i'e2 but then 19....i.xc3! 20 bxc3 (or 20 .ixdS �xdS 21 l:c4 'irb5 22 bxc3 ltlxc3 etc.) 20... lL1xc3 21 'ire 1 l:tdl is simply terrible. 19 e6 20 .i.g5 l:tdc8 21 l:tae1 Wa5 22 We2 l:te8 Being wary of any combinations based on llxe6. 23 -*.d2 'irc5 24 ltle5 'irc7 25 �g4 ltlf6 26 ltlxf6+ .txf6 27 .i.b1 J:la51 .•.
A nice way to bring the rook into play. 28 h4 We& 29 g3 .i.e7 30 .i.f4 ltld7 31 .tc2 .i.c5 32 .tg5 �g7 33 'ird2 f6 34 .th6+ 34 lld1 lL1b6 35 .i.h6+ has been recommended, but Black is fine there too after 35 ...�f7 36 c4 l:aa8 etc. 34 ...�7 35 h5?! f5 36 l:th4 ltlf6 37 hxg6+ hxg6 38 .te3 -*.xe3 39 Wxe3 J:laa8 39 ...e5 looks better, as now White should take the opportunity to put his queen on that square. The remainder of the game was played under quite serious pressure from the clock. 40 .i.d1 ?! e5 41 .tf3 e4 42 .te2 J:lad8 43 l:th6 J:lh8 44 J:lxh8 l:txh8 45 J:ld1 �g7 46 'irf4 l:te8 47 Wd& e3 48 f3? 31
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
The losing move. White has to play 48 ...xc6 bxc6 49 .tfJ with a draw as the likely outcome. 48 .. :ifxd6 49 .l:lxd6 lllh5 50 .l:ld7+ �h6 51 �g2
51 ...f4 52 gxf4 lhxf4+ 53 �1 �g5 54 .l:lxb7 llh8 0-1 After 55 l:b5+ �f6 56 llb6+ �eS 57 llb5+ �d6 Black's king escapes the checks and 58 llgS is met by 58 ...lth2 59 :g4 l:tf2+ etc. ,...----.
Game 11 Nijboer-Vaganian
Dutch League 2001 ....______________.
1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 l0f3 dxe5 5 l0xe5 g6 6 .i.c4 c6 7 l0d2 The knight comes to the support of its compatriot on eS. 7 0-0 .tg7 8 �d2 is less precise as after 8...�d7 White cannot play 9 �d3 because his d-pawn would hang. 7 . . ..i.g7 Black can also regroup with 7....te6 8 �4 �c7, before White is ready to meet ....i.e6 with �gS. Egger-Petrov, World Junior Ch., Buenos Aires 1992 continued 9 i.e2 .idS 10 i.d3 i.g7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 c3 1Lld7 13 f4 i.xe4 14 i.xe4 32
�f6 15 .i.d3 e6 with a very solid posi tion and chances to get counterplay with a later ...c6-c5. 8 lhdf3 0-0 9 0-0 li:ld7
10
l0d3 The most difficult move for Black to meet; White avoids any freeing exchanges and posts the knight on a square from which it inhibits ...c6-c5. After 10 llel �xeS 1 1 �xeS (1 1 dxeS .i.g4 12 h3 i.xf3 13 ...xf3 e6 14 i.b3 •c7 15 1i'e4 llad8 followed by doubling rooks on the d-file gave Black a very easy game in Magomedov-Kengis, Frunze 1989) 1t. ...te6 Black has a very comfortable game, for example: a) Adams-Agdestein, Oslo 1994 continued 12 .tb3 a5 13 c3 •c7 14 �d3 .tfS 15 i.gS llfe8 16 'Wd2 a4 with Black already starting to take the initia tive. b) The bishop is not very well placed on b3 so it might be better to play 12 .tft 'Wc8 13 .td2 lld8 14 c3 with equality, as in Conquest-Maus, Copen hagen 1990. c) On the other hand 12 c3 allows Black a some tactics with 12 ...i.xe5! 13 dxeS �c3! 1 4 ...xd8 l:Uxd8 1 5 i.xe6 �2+ 16 'it£1 �xc1 17 i.xf7+ �xf7 18
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4
. . .
dxe5 5 liJ x e 5 g 6
16 a4 'W"b6 17 ..i.c4 ltae8?! 18 l:e2 'W"d8 19 ..i.d2 and now 19 ...e5? 20 ..i.xd5 cxd5 21 11rxd5 exd4 22 ltxe8 ltxe8 23 cxd4 lLlb6 24 'i'xd8 ltxd8 25 ..i.xaS leh Black a pawn down. 1 5 .a5 16 a4 l:le8 1 7 l:le1 9b6 1 8 .tc4 'flc7 The knight on d3 is making life diffi cult for Black. If 18 ...c5? there is 19 JlbS, winning a pawn. Black decides to bail out into an endgame in which the bishops slightly favour White. 1 9 'ifxc7 �xc7 20 .tf4 l:lec8 21 l:lad1 b5! ?
l:laxcl �e6 with much the better rook endgame. 1 0 ...�7b6 1 1 .tb3
..
1 1 ....tg4?! This may not be the best and I tend to agree with Burgess's sentiment that Black should probably want to ex change the d3-knight. For this reason l l...aS 12 a4 ..i.fS! is probably better, aher which Arnason-Kengis, Jurmala 1987 continued 13 lte 1 ..i.xd3 14 ..xd3 e6 15 ..i.gS Wc7 (aher eliminating the d3 knight, Black will find it easier to play ...c6-c5) 16 11'e4 lbc8 17 c4 lLld6 18 11'e2 lLlb4 19 lladl llfe8 20 11'd2 lLlfS with excellent counterplay. 1 2 c3 e6 12 . a5 would give rise to similar play to the game. 1 3 h3 .txf3 1 4 Wlxf3 �d7 1 5 Wlg3 There is a major alternative in 15 lte1, aher which Kolev-Panchenko, Villalba 1996 continued in somewhat artificial vein: 15 ...a5 (15 ... b5 16 g3 a5 17 a3 :e8 1 8 h4 hs 19 .tgs i..f6 20 ..i.d2 a4 21 ..i.a2 'ile7 was an earlier Panchenko game as Black against Kruppa from the 1990 Ukrainian Championship; no doubt he got the idea to play ...e6-e5 aher this encounter) .
.
.
Despite the dangers posed by the bishops, Vaganian plays in aggressive and double-edged fashion. Obviously there are deep risks associated with this kind of play and Vaganian has to walk the tightrope in the later stages of this game. 22 .tb3 .tf8 23 lla1 �5 24 .tg3 l:ta7 25 lle2 llca8 26 f3 llb7 27 .i.f2 llc7 28 g3 �5b6 29 Wg2 �xa4 I'm not sure Black should have done this as his queenside pawns are now split. He probably got tired of waiting; in any case this isn't much for White. 30 .txa4 bxa4 31 l:lxa4 lOb& 32 lla2 a4 33 f4 .i.d6 34 llc2 llb7 35 33
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
Wf3 f5 36 We2 Wf7 37 c4
It's now quite clear that Black's risky play has backfired. He manages to hang on by the skin of his teeth. 37 .../.0d7 38 c5 �c7 39 .J:lc3 .J:lba7 40 .J:lca3 I.Of6 41 �e1 We8 42 b3 I.Od5 43 .J:lxa4 .J:lxa4 44 .J:lxa4 .J:lxa4 45 bxa4 Wd7 46 I.Ob2 h5 47 /.Oc4 h4 48 Wf3 hxg3 49 �xg3 Wc8 50 /.Ob2 �d8 51 �f2 Wb7 52 /.0c4 �f6 53 �e3 Wa6 54 We2 �g7 55 Wd3 I.Ob4+ 56 Wd2 I.Od5 57 Wd3 I.Ob4+ 58 Wd2 %-%
lbxe5 8 dxeS c6 9 0-0 .tg7 10 'i'e2 i.e6 1 1 b3 'ifc8 12 i.b2 .th3 was equal in Wolff-De Firmian, New York 1996) 7... .tg7 8 .tg2 0-0 9 0-0 cS 10 .Ue1 cxd4 1 1 l£lxd4 lbes 12 l£la3 .tg4 13 lb£3 e6 14 c4 i.xf3 15 .txf3 �b4 16 i.xb7 �bd3 and Black won this wild game, though it's anybody's guess what's happening at present. b) There's nothing wrong with the 'standard' 6 ...i.g7 either, after which 7 i.g2 0-0 8 0-0 c6 9 l:le 1 .tfs 10 c3 �d7 1 1 lbf3 lle8 12 lbbd2 was Anand Adams, Linares {1st matcbgame) 1994, and now Black should have played 12 ...e5 13 �c4 i.g4 with close to com plete equality.
Game 12 Miles-Pons
Andorra 1996 ...._ .. _________......
1 e4 I.Of6 2 e5 I.Od5 3 d4 d6 4 I.Of3 dxe5 5 /.Oxe5 g6 6 I.Od2 With a huge slab of irony, Miles awarded this move two exclamation marks in Informator 67 and splattered more exclamation marks over the rest of the game. Later on he switched sides and showed how to equalise with the black pieces. Another quiet line is 6 g3 and now: a) Plaskett-Hillarp Persson, St Helier 1999 continued 6 ... lbd7!? 7 lbf"3 (1 .tg2 34
6 ...�g7 Once again it's possible to play 6...�d7, after which 7 lbxd7 'ifxd7!? 8 �f3 .tg7 9 i.e2 1i'd6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 lle1 cS 1 2 dxcS •xeS 1 3 c4 lbb4 1 4 a3 �c6 15 b4 was a bit better for White in Ricardi-Speelman, FIDE World Ch., Las Vegas 1999. 7 1.0df3 7 i.c4 0-0 8 M3 c6 9 0-0 �dl would have transposed into the previ ous game, Nijboer-Vaganian. 7 ...0-0 8 c4 I.Ob6 9 �e2 I.Oad7 1 0
Classical K engis S ys tem: 4
. . .
dx e 5 5 li:J x e 5 g 6
.i.f4 �xe5 When Miles played Black in this posi tion (K.ofidis-Miles, Agios Nikolaos 1997} he preferred 10 ...c5 and got slightly the better of it after 1 1 dS liJxeS 12 .i.xe5 .i.xeS 13 ltJxeS 9d6 14 liJf3 e6 etc. The implication is that 6 liJd2 doesn't refute the Kengis Variation after all. 1 1 �xe5 �d7 1 2 'it'd2 �xe5 1 3 .i.xe5 .i.xe5 14 dxe5 'it'xd2+ 1 5 �xd2 .i.e& 1 6 �c3 36 b4 Surprisingly the pawn endgame is a draw. Miles gave the variation 36 �b6 �d6 37 f3 g5 38 b3 e6 39 �xa6 �c6 40 �a7 'l;c7 41 a6 e4 42 fxe4 e5 43 �aS �c8 with no further progress possible. 36 . . .cxb4 37 c5 b3 38 c6+ �d6 39 c7 b2 40 cS'it' b1'it'+ 41 �a7 'it'b5 42 'it'xa6+ 'it'x86+ 43 �xa6 �c6 44 f3 g5 45 �a7 �c7 46 �86 �c6 47 �87 �c7 Y.z -Yz
In the endgame, White's active king and greater control of terrain give him a clear edge. 1 6 . . .f6 1 7 .i.f3 c6 1 8 llh81 �7 1 9 a4 llad8 20 a 5 a6 21 llad1 llxd1 22 .i.xd1 lld8 23 .i.f3 .i.f5 24 �b4 lld3 25 �c5 llb3 26 lle2? The move which allows Black to es cape. According to Miles he should have first played 26 exf6, after which 26 ... exf6 (26...lhb2 27 lbe7+ �f6 28 llxh7 also wins for White) 27 lte2, fol lowed by lld2 and .i.d1, will win easily enough. 26 ...fxe5 27 lld2 �86 28 .i.82 h5 29 h3 h4 30 .i.d1 lld3 31 llxd3 .i.xd3 32 .ig4+ .if5 33 �b6 .ixg4 34 hxg4 �d7 35 �xb7 c5!
Game 13 J .Polgar-Agdestein
Isle ofLewis (rapid) 1995 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 l0f3 dx85 5 �85 g6 6 c4
35
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
A tough line for Black to meet. White takes the lion's share of the centre and puts the onus on Black to find decent counterplay. 6 ...l0b6 7 l0c3 .ig7 8 .ie3 In the game Gallagher-Kengis, Bern 1992 White varied with 8 1Lf4 0-0 9 1Le2 aS!? 10 h4?! (simply 10 0-0 is bet ter), after which 1 0...llk6! left White struggling for equality. The game con tinued 1 1 lt.Jxc6 bxc6 12 .i.e5 i.xe5 1 3 dxe5 i.e6! 14 b3 ...xd1+ 15 l:txd1 a4 and now, according to Volzhin, 16 0-0 was probably the best chance as after 16 ... axb3 17 axb3 lta3 1 8 l:lb1 .i.xc4 19 i.xc4 lL'Ixc4 20 bxc4 .:xc3 21 l:.fcl! l:lxc 1 + 22 lbc1 White should be able to draw. 8 ...0-0 The alternatives are 8 ... c5, 8 ... �c6 and 8 ...i.e6, all of which will be looked at in the next game. 9 .f3 A typical judit Polgar move, intend ing to castle long. Another sharp move is 9 f4, support ing the knight on e5: a) Gdanski-Tomaszewski, Naleczow 1988 continued 9 ...lL'I6d7 10 'it'f3 c5 1 1 0-0-0 ...aS 12 ltJxd7 �xd7 1 3 .i.f2 ltb8 14 i.e2 and now 14 ... b5!? looks interesting (in the game Black played 14...cxd4 1 5 i.xd4 eS 16 fxe5 ltJxe5 but was slightly worse after 17 'ifd5). b) Another possibility is 9 ... c6, after which Pokojowczyk-Tomaszewski, Pol ish Ch. 1980 continued 10 •£3 f6 1 1 ltJg4 i.e6 12 b3 .i.xg4 1 3 1i'xg4 f5 14 ...g3 e6 1 5 l:d1 ...e7 16 i.e2 ltJ8d7 17 0-0 a5 with counterplay on the queen side. White's other possibility is 9 :let, af36
ter which Grischuk-Baburin, Torshavn 2000 went 9 ...c5!? {9....i.f5 is also possi ble but relatively passive) 10 .i.e2 cxd4 1 1 .ixd4 i.h6 12 lta1 £6 13 ltJg4 i.xg4 14 i.xg4 �c6 15 .i.c5 lbe5 16 .i.e6+ �g7 17 lbds lL'Ixds 18 cxds 'ifaS+ 1 9 b4 'ti'a6 20 'ife2 �d3+ 21 cla>f1 �xeS 22 bxc5 and now 22 ...'ifa5 looks interest ing (in the game Baburin was much worse after 22 ...111xe2+ 23 cJilxe2 b6 24 c6 .i.f4 25 �d3). 9 ... f6
10 l0d3 10 �xg6 doesn't work after 10 ... hxg6 1 1 c5 lb6d7! 12 i.c4+ ltf7 (and not 12 ... �h7? 13 1i'h3+ followed by mate). 1 0 ...e5! Quite right. Black has the better de velopment so he opens the game up. 1 1 dxe5 fxe5 1 2 ..d1 l0c6 13 l0c5 •e8 A slightly odd-looking move, though it turns out to be okay. Black can also put his knight in the middle with 13 ...�d4. In any case he has an excel lent game. 14 lbd5 •f7 1 5 l0e4 .if5 1 6 lOgS 'ifd7 1 7 l0xb6 'ifxd1 + 1 8 ltxd1 axb6 1 9 c5 Opening up the c4-square for the
Classical Kengis Sys tem: 4
. . .
dx e5 5 t0xe5 g 6
bishop. Accurate play by both sides re sults in perpetual check.
Helsinki 1992
9 dxc5 'tl'xd 1 + 10 ltxd1 i.xe5 1 1 cxb6 .t.xc3+ Black should take the chance to dou ble White's pawns. Aher l l...axb6 12 i.d4 J.xd4 13 llxd4 White was much better in Campora-Abreu, Las Palmas 1993 . 1 2 bxc3 axb6 1 3 :d2 ll:ld7 14 i.e2 ll:lc5 1 5 0-0 .i.f5 15 . 0-0 might be an improvement for Black, but this endgame is worse for him in any case. 1 6 i.f3
1 e4 ll:lf6 2 e5 ll:ld5 3 d4 d6 4 ll:lf3 dxe5 5 ll:lxe5 g6 6 c4 ll:lb6 7 ll:lc3 .i.g7 8 .i.e3 c5 8 ...c!tJc6 is a known idea, allowing doubled pawns but eliminating the knight on e5. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work aher 9 c!tJxc6 bxc6 10 1id2 aS 11 �e2 a4 12 lld1 0-0 13 �h6 when White was much better in lvanov Men, US Ch., Durango 1992. 8...�e6 is a solid move but does little to challenge White's space advantage. Bode-Kengis, German Bundesliga 1991 continued 9 f4 c6 10 1ib3 0-0 1 1 ..te2 �8d7 12 0-0 llJf6 13 lladl with the better game for White.
1 6 .i.e4?? A blunder. Black should play 16 ..0-0 aher which 17 llb2 1la6 18 �xeS?! (18 lldl) 18 bxc5 19 lbb7 e6 leaves him without further problems.
1 9 ... h6 Obviously not the rash capture 19 .. .llxa2? because of the forking reply 20 i.c4+. 20 .i.c4+ �h8 21 h4! b5 22 ll:lf7 + �h7 23 ll:lg5+ �h8 24 ll:lf7+ �h7 25 ll:lg5+ %-%
.
Game 14 Ernst-Bagirov
.
•..
.
.•.
37
A lekhin e 's De fen c e
1 7 ..i.xc5 ..i.xf3 1 8 .id4 e5 19 i.xe5 f6 20 lle1 fxe5 Black has little choice but to jettison pawns and hope he can hang on. 20... 0-0 21 .i.d6 would win the exchange. 21 llxe5+ �7 22 gxf3 llhc8 23 lld7+ Wf6 24 llb5 llxc4 25 l:txb6+ Wg5 26 llxh7 l:lxc3 27 h4+ Wf5 28 l:ln+ We5 29 l:xg& l:lxa2 30 lle7+ Wd5 31 lld7+ We5 32 llxb7 llxf3
Sometimes you can't win rook end games with extra f- and h-pawns, but in this case Black's king has to go too far away. 33 llb5+ Wd4 34 llg4+ Wc3 35 llg2 Wc4 36 llbg5 lla1 + 37 Wh2 llf1 38 h51 llf6 It turns out that Black can't get his pawn back. White wins easily after 38 .. .1Uxf2 39 h6 1hg2+ 40 �xg2 l:tf6 41 l:.hS l:.f8 42 h7 l:th8 43 �f3 etc. 39 Wg3 Wd4 40 ¢'g4 ¢'e4 41 llg6 l:l 1 xf2 42 l:lxf2 llxf2 43 l:te6+ Cutting Black's king off. White's h pawn carries the day...just! 43 ...Wd5 44 l:le8 llh2 45 Wg5 ¢'d6 46 h6 llg2+ 47 ¢'16 llf2+ 48 ¢'g7 llg2+ 49 Wh8 Wd7 50 llg8 llh2 51 h7 we& 52 ¢'g7 l:tg2+ 53 Wt8 llf2+ 38
54 We8 lla2 55 l:[g6+ ¢'15 56 llf6+ Wg5 57 llf8 1 -0 r------.
Game 15 Ernst..Josefsson
Swedish Ch., Karlskrona 1983 1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbf3 dxe5 5 lbxe5 g6 6 'irf3 One of White's two most bludgeon ing moves. The other one is 6 h4?!, which is well met by 6...�d7 7 �xd7 1i'xd7 8 hS .i.g7 9 c3 cS 10 dxcS ..c6 1 1 �d2 .i.fS as in Reeh-Loeffler, Am stelveen 1994. Undaunted by this earlier experience, Reeh later tried 6 .i.c4 c6 7 h4?! against Maus in the 1992/93 Ger man Bundesliga season. Once again Black had a good game aher 7...�d7 8 �xd7 .i.xd7 9 hS .i.g7 10 c3 'irc7 1 1 �d2 0-0-0 1 2 �4 eS etc.
6 ... i.e6 In my view this is an only move. If Black has to play the ugly 6 . . f6 he can forget about the Kengis Variation alto gether. 7 c4 The critical line. If White plays 7 .i.c4 there follows 7...J.g7 {7...c6 8 0-0 ltld7 9 �3 .i.g7 10 l:td1 .i.xeS 1 1 .i.xdS .
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4
i.xclS 12 lC!xclS .tg7 w as also very comfortable for Black in Sherzer Panchenko, Chicago 1992) 8 li)c3 (8 ().() c6 9 l:te1 lC!d7 10 lbxdl •xd7 1 1 c3 0-0 12 i.g5 l:tfe8 13 h3 lbc7 14 lC!d2 .i.d5 1 5 i.xdS cxclS and Black had an excellent game in Luther-Bagirov, Len ingrad 1989) 8 ... c6, which transposes into the 6....te6 note in Mukhametov Bagirov (see Game 8). 7 ltJb4 8 'irxb7 White has an interesting alternative in 8 d5!?. Vilar Lopez-Regan, Saint Vin cent 1999 continued 8 ... lbc2+ 9 'it'dt lL'Ixal 10 lDd2 i.fS (and not 10 ...i.g7 1 1 dxe6 0-0 because of 12 exf7+ �h8 13 lL'Ixg6+ hxg6 14 ...h3+ ..th6 15 ..xh6 mate) 1 1 .i.d3. Now Black should play l l...lL'Idl (in the game Black played 1 1 ...11Vd6 and after 12 lDxf7!? �xf7 13 g4 Black should still have played 13 ...l0d7), after which 12 lbxf7 �xf7 13 g4 is bad because of 13 ... lDe5 etc.
. . .
dxe 5 5 (i)xe5 g 6
1 1 . .. c5!? is the other possibility and looks massively complicated. 9 1ixa8 White has to take the rook if he wants anything out the opening. 9 11fxb4 Wxe5+ 10 .i.e2 lL'Id7 1 1 lbc3 .tg7 12 0-0 0-0 13 .i.e3 llab8 gave Black excellent play in Ziska-Flindtholt, Festuge 1991.
• •.
8 .. 'irxd4! This feels right to me; it keeps Black's pieces centralised and all his options open. 8 ...lbc2+ 9 �dl lDxa1 10 Wxa8 .i.g7 1 1 ..td2 (1 1 ... b7, mentioned by Fleck, is another idea for White) .
9...'irxe5+1 In New Ideas in the Alekhine Defence Burgess only mentions 9 ...lL'Ic2+. I like the knight where it is because it can now keep White's queen out of play. Meanwhile Black will race ahead with the rest of his development, with good compensation for the exchange because White's king is in the middle. 1 0 Wd1 lb4c6 1 1 ltJc3 Kavalek cops out of assessing this position by calling it 'unclear'. l'll stick my neck out and claim that Black is bet ter. It's only an exchange and Black is developing a massive attack. 1 1 .. .tg7 1 2 .i.e3 0-0 13 'irb7 AdS+ 14 We1 ltld4 1 5 .i.d3 ltJbc6 16 ltld5 %1b8? A serious mistake. Black should play 16 .. ..txcl5 17 cxclS WxciS with excellent play for the exchange. .
.
39
A lekhin e 's Defen ce
26 f4 Ernst is fighting for his life. 26 g3 lDxg3 is not an improvement. 26 .loxf4 27 c5 We5 28 l:lf3 •.
17 'ita&? White in turn misses his chance. He can simply play 17 lLlxe7+! lLlxe7 {or 17...'�f8 18 lLlxc6) 18 11t'xb8+, winning on the spot. 1 7 ... .ih6 1 8 �1 .ixe3 19 l:le1 .if5 20 .ixf5 'itxf5 2 1 lDxe3 After 2 1 lbe3 there is a good old fashioned mating combination with 2 1...'ifb1+ 22 l:te1 'ifd3+ 23 �g1 �+ 24 �fl (or 24 l::xe2 11'd1+ etc.) 24. ../t)g3+ 25 �g1 11'fl+ 26 .Lf1 lDe2 mate. 21 'itd3+ 22 Wg1 l:lxb2 23 h3 'itd2 24 :n ltle2+ 25 Wh2 'itd&+ ••.
40
28 ... Wxe3 This certainly ought to be good enough but 28 ...lDxg2+ butchers White on the spot. 29 :hf1 l:lxg2+ 30 Wh1 l:lg1 +? A jolly amusing way to draw a win ning position. 30 ...11'd2 is decisive. 31 ¢>h2 l:lg2+? And here 31. ..11'd2+ 32 lUf2 l:tg2+ WlnS.
32 Wh1 l:lg1 + 33 ¢>h2 l:lg2+ %-%
Classical K eng is System: 4
. . .
dx e5 5 lfjxe5 g 6
Summary The Kengis Variation has become the workhorse of most of the Alekhine profes sionals. The primitive 6 ..f3 looks very dangerous for White and against 6 .i.c4 Black gets a solid position with fighting chances. My greatest concern is about the 6 c4 lines, but Black can actually sidestep these by adopting a 4 g6 5 .t.c4 c6 move order. ..•
1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 �f3 dxe5 5 �xe5 g6 6 J.c4 (D) 6 ..f3 - Game 15 6 ltld2 .t.g7 7 ltldf3 ()..() 8 c4 - Game 12 6 c4 ltlb6 7 ltlc3 J.g7 8 J.e3 8 0-0 Game 13 8...c5 - Game 14 6 ...c6 7 0..0 7 tnd2 ..tg7 8 llldf3 ()..() 9 ()..() end? lO lbd3 (D) - Game 1 1 7 . . ..ig7 8 D.e1 0-0 9 J.b3 9 c3 - Game S 9 ... a5 9 ...te6 - Game 9 10 c3 .if5 (D) - Game 10 •••
-
..
6 .ic4
1 0 llid3
TO
. . •
J.f5
41
I CHAPTER THREE I Classical with 4 . dxe5 5 ltJxe5: 5 ... ltJd7 and 5 c6 . .
. . .
1 e4 ll!f& 2 e5 llJd5 3 d4 d& 4 �f3 dxe5 5 �xe5 From a structural point of view, the positions that arise here bear an obvious similarity to the Kengis Variation. Once again it brings about a 'little centre' structure in which Black plays for an eventual ...c6-c5 to free his position. The difference is that he is not neces sarily committed to a kingside fi anchetto. An immediate challenge on White's knight on e5 with 5 ...llxl7 invites a scary sacrifice on f7. Black's king gets caught in the centre but Games 16 and 17 show that he has many defensive re sources. I even wonder whether White should sacrifice the knight at all; a more circumspect choice would be the quiet retreat back to f3. Black can eliminate these dangers by first defending the knight on d5 with 5 ...c6. Britain's Tony Miles has been making a living out of this move and it is most definitely a tough nut to crack. The game can easily transpose back into a Kengis Variation if Black plays a later 42
kingside fianchetto, which is in fact what happens in Games 19, 21 and 22. But given a chance, Black can also adopt a set-up in which he develops his queen's bishop (....ig4 for example) and then simply plays ...e7-e6. This plan of development was used in Games 18 and 20. In Game 23 White tries 6 c4, which is certainly a very interesting line for White in the Kengis Variation. But here Black is not committed to a kingside fianchetto and Miles was doing weU in this game. Very well, even.
Game 16 Rozentalis-A .Sokolov Bern 1992
1 e4 �f& 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d& 4 �f3 dxe5 5 �xeS �d7 As first played by Bent Larsen in his 1965 match against Mikhail Tal. The 'magician from Riga' would have seen the knight sacrifice on f7 in the .twin kling of an eye, but strangely enough decided against it. His decision was no
Classical with 4
doubt prompted by the thought that Larsen must have analysed the sacrifice at home. After the game analysts pored over the sacrifice and Tal was criticised for having avoided what was probably a 'winning' line. But more than twenty years later, the English amateur Peter Sowray started playing 5 ...ltXI7, and suddenly people weren't quite that sure.
6 liJxf7l? Tal played 6 .ic4 after which van der Wiel's suggestion of 6...llJxe5 7 dxeS c6 8 'irf3 'irc7 may be Black's best. Many strong practical players have decided simply to avoid an exchange of their knight on eS with 6 lDf3, after which 6 ... e6 (6 ... c5 7 c4 lD5f6 8 d5 llJe4 9 .i.d3 llJd6 10 0-0 g6 1 1 l:le1 ..tg7 12 .igS llJf6 13 llJcJ was also nice for White in Pavosovic-Hillarp Persson, European Team Ch., Batumi 1999) 7 g3 .ie7 (7... b6 8 c4 llJSf6 9 ..tg2 ..tb7 10 0-0 lLe7 11 llJc3 0-0 12 J..f4 was also slightly better for White in Psakhis Komarov, Benasque 1995) 8 .ig2 0-0 9 0-0 cS 10 c4 lb.sf6 1 1 llJc3 cxd4 12 llJxd4 gave White had a comfortable edge in Groszpeter-Pitschka, Pardubice 2000. 6 . . .�xf7 7 •h5+ �e6
. . .
dx e5 5 l0xe5: 5 . . .li::J d 7 and 5
. . .
c6
The only move. 7 .. .<�g8?? 8 1llxd5+ leads to mate and 7 ...g6 8 'irxdS+ wins a pawn for nothing. 8 c4 During the Larsen game, Tal spent some time analysing 8 g3 but the posi tion is far from clear after 8... b5! and now:
a) 9 b3 b4 10 a3 lD7f6 1 1 .ih3+ �d6 12 1i'e5+ �c6 13 .ig2 was played in Angelov-Orev, correspondence 1961, and now Black should have defended himself with 13 ...1i'd6!. b) 9 a4 c6! (Greiner-Sowray, corre spondence 1988 varied with 9....ib7 10 i.h3+ �d6 1 1 1i'f7 cS 12 llJc3 lDxc3 13 1i'e6+ r:llc7 14 .if4+ r:llc8 15 bxc3 gS, but now 16 dxcS gxf4 17 0-0-0 would have won on the spot; Burgess has sug gested 9... b4 but this awaits practical tests) 10 axbS g6 1 1 'ite2+ r:l/f7 12 bxc6 lD7b6 1 3 .ig2 was played in Ernst Komarov, Dortmund 1992, and now 13 ...lLg7! 14 c4 lDb4 15 dS .i.fS 16 .ie4 i.xe4 17 'itxe4 lD4xd5! would have equalised according to Ernst. One practical drawback of S llJcll is that White can take a draw by repetition at this point with 8 'irg4+ �f7 9 1rh5+ etc. ...
43
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
8 . lD5f6 9 d5+ �d6 1 0 'iff7 .
.
The obvious move is 10 �f4+? but then 10...e5! 1 1 c5+ (1 1 dxe6+
.
44
overwhelming position) 16 'ire1 1i'f5 17 �g3 g6 18 �d3 �h6+ 19 rj;b1 'i'f6 20 h3 and White was winning in Nguyen Miroshnichenko, Budapest 1999. 1 1 .i.f4 c5 Forced, in view of the threat of 12 c5+. 1 2 lDc3 White has also tried 12 li)d2 but then 12 ... g5! (and not 12 ...1i'e8? 13 ltle4+) 13 i.g3 g4 14 Q.().Q �h6 15 llel llf8 16 �xeS+ �d7 17 •e6+ �e8 18 •d6! exd6 19 i..xf6+ �d7 20 �xd8 �xd8 brings about an equal position accord ing to Bagirov. The other try is 12 b4!?, which we'll look at within the context of the next game. 1 2 . .86 Black had to defend b5 and 12 .....td7? would be a blunder because of 13 li)bS+ i.xbS 14 •e6+ etc. 1 3 0-0-0 This fails because of Black's crahy reply, which exploits the position of White's king on cl. For this reason Yu dasin suggested 13 lld1 rather than 1 3 O.O.Q. White's main alternative is 13 b4, which will be covered in the next game. 1 3 g6! .
.•.
Classical with 4 . dxe 5 5 lll x e5: 5 . . . lll d 7 and 5 .
Suddenly endangering White's queen with the threat of 14....th6. 14 .i..xeS+ �xeS 1 S d6 ..th6+ 1 6 �c2 WeB! 1 7 :IdS+ lOxdS 1 8 9xdS+ ci>f6
1 9 ..td3 Rublevsky-Hauchard, Oakham 1992 varied from this with 19 t'lle4+ 'itg7 20 1i'e5+ �f7 (and not 20...�g8? 21 lilf6+) 21 .td3 (21 dxe7 is answered by 21 ... .tf5 22 .id3 1i'xe7 23 �d6+ 'irxd6 24 'irxd6 llad8) 21.. ..ig7 (2 1.. ..tf5 22 g4 .ixe4 23 .i.xe4 e6 24 llel 'ira4+ 25 �d3 llhe8 26 h4 0-1 was De Firmian Rohde, US Ch. 1989; did Rublevsky have an improvement ready?) 22 'iVf4+ �g8 23 llel 1Wf8 24 'irgS exd6 25 'iVd5+ 'iVf7 26 t'llxd6 1Wxd5 27 lle8+ .tf8 28 cxdS c4 29 .txc4 b5 30 i.b3 �g7 3 1 t'llxc8 .ic5 32 l:le7+ 'it>h6 0-1. 1 9 ... exd6 20 9xd6+ �f7 21 l0e4 9c6 22 9es :ds 0-1 .-----
Game ll
Mysliwiec-Krzyzanowski
Correspondence 1995 1 e4 l0f6 2 eS lOdS 3 d4 d6 4 l0f3 dxeS S 4:\xeS lL\d7 6 l0xf7 �xf7 7 'irhS+ �e6 8 c4 l0Sf6 9 dS+ �d6
.
. . .
c6
10 Wf7 lOeS 1 1 ..tf4 cS 1 2 l0c3 White has also played the immediate 12 b4 but this seems to give Black an additional defensive possibility in 12 ......b6 13 �c3 'irxb4 (13 ... a6 would transpose back into the game). Batakovs-Aleksandrovs, Latvia 1991 continued 14 l::tc 1 gS 15 .i.xe5+ �xeS 16 .id3 'itd6 17 0-0, followed by 18 .D.fel, with a strong attack. 12 . . . a6 13 b4
1 3 . . .1llb61 Counterattack proves to be the best form of defence. The cowering 13 ...b6 is effectively answered by 14 llb1 g5 (Bagirov pointed out that 14 ...cxb4 15 J:r.xb4 'itc5 is answered by 16 llb1!! liJxf7 17 liJa4+ 'itd4 18 f3 followed by 19 lld1 mate) 1S .ig3 .th6 16 bxcS+ bxcS 17 llb7! .td7 18 .id3! 'ireS (after 18...J:r.b8 Wolff demonstrated that White can win with 19 llxb8 1Wxb8 20 liJb5+! axbS 21 .i.xe5+ �xeS 22 1i'xe7+ Wd4 23 1We3+ Wc3 24 .i.e2+ �b4 25 'W'dl+ followed by mate) 19 .i.f5! 'ifxf7 20 li:)e4+ t'llxe4 21 l:bd7 mate. Keres pointed out that 13 ...cxb4? Loses to 14 cS+ 'itxcS 15 t'lla4+ �d6 16 t'llb2 b5 17 t'lld3 etc. 1 4 0-0-0 45
A lekhin e 's D e fence
At one time it was thought that 14 bxc5+ 'ifxc5 15 J:.d1 was strong but this assessment was turned upside down by the game Wydrowski-Krzyzanowski, correspondence 1993. Black uncorked the remarkable 15 ...'ifa3! 16 .U.d3 'ifcl+l 17 .i.xcl liJxfl and went on to win after 18 c5+ �c7! (and not 18 ... �xc5? 19 ltla4+ �d6 20 li)b6 1lb8 21 .tf4+ ltle5 22 ltlc4+ etc.) 19 .i.f4+ �d8 20 ltla4 .tfs 2 1 l:td4 c;;Pe8 22 .tc4 ltd8 23 0-0 .i.c2 24 ltlb6 eS 25 d6 .i.xd6 0-1. White has also played 14 J:.cl but this can be met by 14 ...g5 15 .i.g3 {15 .i.xe5+ �xeS 16 i.d3 would be an swered by 16 ...cxb4) 15 ... h5 and now: a) 16 1i'g6 1i'xb4 17 'ifxg5 ltlfg4 18 'irg6+ �d7 19 i..xe5 ltlxe5 20 'ire6+ 'ittd8 21 'it'xeS J:.g8 left White facing the threat of 22 ....tg7 in Elburg-Krantz, correspondence 1991. b) Szilagyi-Krantz, correspondence 1992 continued 16 bxc5+ 'ifxc5 17 1!i'g6 ..d4 18 cS+ q;c7 19 1i'xg5 ltlfd7 20 c6 bxc6 21 dxc6 .i.h6 and now White should probably play 22 lDds+ 'ifxd5 23 cxd7+ �xd7 24 :C7+! q;xc7 25 1i'xe5+ 'ifxeS+ 26 i..xe5+ 'ittc6 27 .i.xh8 i.e6, when Black wins his pawn back with a likely draw.
14. . . cxb4 This is supposed to be an 'only move' but the reason seems to be questionable to say the least. After 14 .. .'i'xb4 (sup posedly .?, Volzhin has given 15 �c2, but then just lS ....tfS+ 16 .i.d3 'ifxc4 looks good for Black. 1 5 �a4 11'xf2 1 6 c5+ Gipslis has suggested 16 i.xe5+ �xeS 17 i.d3, when White intends to bring his other rook into play. 1 6 . . .'�d7 1 7 .i.xe5 After 17 c6+ Burgess gives 17...bxc6 {17...�d8? 18 c7+) 18 dxc6+ �xc6 19 i.xeS 1i'e3+ 20 J:.d2 'i'e1+ 21 ltdl 'i'e3+ with a draw. Actually, this would have been White's best option; after the move chosen Black's king finds safety. 1 7 11'e3+ 1 8 Wb1 1fxe5 19 �b6+ Wc7 20 d6+ After 20 ltlxa8+ �b8 21 ltlb6 .i.g41 22 ltlc4 'ttc3 23 i.d3 .i.xdl 24 J:.xdl 'ifd4 Black is winning. 20 . . .Wb8 21 d7 .i.xd7 22 l:lxd7 Wa7 •..
Made it! Now it's White� king that comes under pressure; he's standing on b1 with the wind in his hair. 23 lld1 �e4 24 �xa8 �c3+ 25 Wc1 �xd1 26 Wxd1 'irxc5 27 .i.d3 Wxa8 46
Classical with 4 . . . dxe5 5 li:Jxe5: 5 . . .ll:J d 7 and 5 . . . c 6
dxe5 ltld7 10 0-0-0, all of which is very impressive if you play bad moves for Black! b) Tal-Larsen, Bled (6th matchgame) continued 6...1Wf6 7 1Wg3 h6 8 ltlc3 ltJb4 (here Black should consider 8 ...i..b4 9 i..d2 ltJd7 which seems to me to be quite playable} 9 .ibS+ c6 10 .ia4 ltJd7 1 1 0-0 (Tal suggested that 1 1 ltJe4 1if5 12 f3 ltlxe5 1 3 dxe5 .id7 14 a3 ...-----. would also be good for White, which Game 18 seems true enough at this stage} Van der Weide-Miles 1 1 ...lL\xe5 12 dxe5 1Wg6 13 'iff3 1Wf5 14 European Ch., Saint Vincent 2000 'ife2 JJ..e7 15 a3 li:)dS 16 li:)b5! cxb5 17 'ifxb5+ �d8 18 c4 and Tal had con 1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 tl:Jd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbf3 jured up one of his magical attacks. dxe5 5 lbxe5 c6 6 �c4 Arguably White's most natural move. 6 1Wf3 .ie6 7 .ic4 llJd7 8 lLid3 g6 9 0-0 .ig7 10 c3 0-0 1 1 li:)d2 was Rabiega Loffler, Austrian Ch., Melk 1999, and now 1 1 ... a5!? looks like Black's most interesting plan. 6 tl:Jd7 Miles has favoured this move though Black has also tried the slightly clunky looking 6 ... .ie6. 7 tl:Jf3 Exchanging knights abandons any Tony Miles has been playing this a hope of obtaining an opening advan lot; it's a very reasonable move which tage. The game Cao-Miles, European theory has virtually ignored Rather than Ch., Ohrid 2001 continued 7 lLixd7 challenge White's knight immediately, .ixd7 8 0-0 .ifS 9 .id3 (or 9 c3 e6 10 Black first protects the horse on d5. 'ife2 J.d6 11 lL\d2 0-0 lh-lh, Kobalija This precludes the possibility of a sacri Miles, Capablanca Memorial, Varadero fice on f7. 2000) 9 ...i..xd3 10 ..xd3 e6 1 1 c4 ltJE6 Bent Larsen also experimented with 12 lL\d2 J.e7 13 ltJf3 0-0 14 J.d2 'ifc7 5 ... e6 in his 1965 match against Tal in 15 llfel llad8 16 1i'e2 llfe8 17 .ic3 Bled. After 6 11ff3 we have: lh -\.7. a) 6...lLif6 was dismissed by the varia 7 ...tl:J7b6 tion 7 i.e3 lL\bd7 8 lL\c3 lL\xeS? (both Intending to develop his bishop on 8... .i.b4 and 8 ...i.d6 are better tries) 9 g4. 7 . . .ltJ7f6 is not as good after 8 h3, Black has three extra pawns and White's king is still vulnerable. The rest requires little comment. 28 l:tf1 e5 29 l:te1 �e7 30 Wxg7 lidS 31 �e2 Wd5! 32 l:td 1 Black has calculated that 32 'i'xe7 is met by 32 ...'ifxg2+ 33 �e3 'iih 3+ 34 �f2 'ifxh2+ 35 �fl l1g8 36 i.g6 11ff4+ 37 �e2 lbg6 with the win in sight. 32 . . ..i.c5 0-1
. . •
47
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
but 7...g6 is worth considering. 8 .i.b3 .i.g4 9 lbbd2 e6 1 0 0-0 .i.e7 1 1 h3 .i.h5 1 2 c3 0-0 1 3 tbe4 .i.g6 1 4 'ife2 tbd7 1 5 l:.e1 a5 16 a4 J:l.e8
Black has a very comfortable posi tion, which sums things up from a theo retical point of view. Over the next few moves Miles aims to free his position with ...e6-e5, this being one of Black's two major pawn levers in such struc tures {the other is ...c6-c5). 1 7 .i.c4 'ifc7 18 .i.g5 .i.xg5 1 9 i!)exg5 h6 20 tbe4 J:l.ad8 2 1 l:.ad1 ?! After this Black is definitely better. White should probably play 2 1 llJed2, applying some restraint to Black's im pending ... e6-e5. 21 i!)5b6 22 .i.b3 e5 23 tbg3 After 23 dxeS llJxeS 24 lbd8 exd8 White would find Black's e-file pressure quite unpleasant. 23 e4 24 tbh4 .i.h7 25 'ifh5 i!)f6 26 Wxa5 :as 27 'ifc5 After 27 1i'b4 there follows 27 ...llJfdS 28 .ixdS llJxdS 29 1i'b3 1i'f4, hitting the knight on h4. 27 tbxa4 28 .i.xa4 l:.xa4 29 i!)hf5 .i.xf5 30 tbxf5 l:.e6 31 b4 Black was ready to meet 31 d5 with 31...l2Jxd5 32 l:r.xdS b6 etc.
31 b6 32 Wc4 b 5 3 3 Wb3 i!)d5 34 i!)e3 Wd7 . . •
35 l:.a1 ? Losing. White had to play 35 tbxdS but after 35 ...cxd5 Black is obviously better because of the weakness of the backward c3-pawn and Black's kingside pawn majority. 35 l:.g6 36 �h1 If White had chosen 36
..•
.••
.•.
48
37 ...l:.xg2+ 0-1
Classical with 4
Game 19 Tiviakov-Van der Werf
Dutch Ch., Leeuwarden 2001 1 e4 o!bf6 2 e5 o!bd5 3 d4 d6 4 o!bf3 dxe5 5 o!bxe5 c6 6 o!bd2
Aiming to maintain his knight on eS, in the hope that this will guarantee a slight space advantage. The drawback is that Black gets to exchange a pair of minor pieces which does relieve his po sition. Other possibilities are as follows: a) 6 c3 g6 7 g3 �g7 8 �g2 �d7 9 �xd7 �xd7 1 0 �d2 0-0 1 1 �f3 1i'c8 12 0-0 �h3 left Black very comfortably placed in Shur-Bagirov, Baku 1996. b) 6 h3 looks innocuous but the idea is quite good; when Black challenges the knight on e5 White plans to drop it back and not have to worry about a pin. Jansa-Burkar, Bonnevoie 1999 contin ued 6 ... �d7 7 �f3 g6 8 �c4 �g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 llel e6 (the immediate 10 ... b5 loses a pawn after 1 1 �xd5 cxdS 12 �3) 1 1 �b3 b5 12 �g5 eel 13 �bd2 �b7 14 c4 bxc4 15 �xc4 cS 16 l:lct and now 16 .. Jlac8 17 dxc5 �xeS looks fine for Black.
. . .
dx e 5 5 t'iJxe5: 5
. .
. li:J d 7 and 5 . . . c 6
c) 6 �d3 �d7 7 �d7 �xd7 8 0-0 g6 9 lle1 �g7 10 c3 0-0 1 1 �gS lle8 12 �d2 ti'c8 13 �e4 �f5 left White with nothing special in Macieja-Kuczynski, Polish Ch., Warsaw 2001. 6 ..o!bd7 .
7 lbdf3 7 �d3 would avoid the exchange and the knight is placed on a square from which it inhibits either the ... c6-c5 or ... e7-e5 pawn levers. On the other hand, it stops White's bishop coming out to its most natural posts on either d3 or c4. Black's best is probably 7... g6, after which 8 �e2 �g7 9 �f3 0-0 10 0-0 b6, intending ...c6-c5, looks about equal. 7 ...ltlxe5 8 o!bxe5 g6 9 Wf3 .i.e& 1 0 c3 .i.g7 1 1 �e2 a5 One of Black's most common plans, staking out some territory on the queenside. In the game Dutreeuw Loeffle, Tanta City 2001 Black played 1 1...0-0 12 �d3 �f6 13 'i'g3 �c4 with a solid position. 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 o!bd3 a4 14 a3 �f5 1 5 .l:te1 �xd3 Giving up the bishop pair to elimi nate the knight that controls the e5 and c5 squares. In the following play White tries to keep Black tied down whilst 49
A lekhin e 's Defen ce
gradually trying to weaken Black's king position. Black wants to free his game with an ultimate ...c6-c5 or e6-e5, but without allowing White's bishops to become too dangerous. White is slightly better, though it's not very much. 1 6 .i.xd3 e6 1 7 g3 'ii'b6 17 ... b5 looks preferable, cementing the position of the knight on dS before preparing ... c6-c5. .•.
1 8 h4 h5 I think that Black should avoid this weakening and instead focus on playing ... c6-c5. However, the immediate 18 ...c5 is bad because of 19 c4 liJe7 (19 ...liJf6 20 dxcS 'it'xcS 2 1 'it'xb7) 20 dS. All of this supports the case for 17 ... b5. 19 �g2 J:tfe8 20 J:te2 lbe7 21 .i.gS lbf5 22 :ae1 :as 23 g4 Starting the process of prising open Black's kingside. This was definitely made easier by Black's 18th move. 23 ... hxg4 24 'ii'xg4 'ife7 25 l:tg1 'ifd7 26 .i.e2 J:tea8 27 �1 e5 28 dxe5 J:txe5 29 h5 gxh5 30 'iff3 �f8 31 .i.d2 l:ld5 32 .i.e1 :ca? Overlooking White's 34th move. 33 'ifg2 .i.f6 34 .i.xa4! b5 35 .i.e2 J:te4 36 'iff3 J:tg4 37 J:txg4 hxg4 38 'ifxg4 'ife7 39 .i.e4 :es 40 .i.d2 50
'ifh2 41 .i.f4 'ifh8 42 J:td2 �e7 43 .i.xf5 l%xf5 44 .i.d6+ WeB 45 'ifg2 J:td5 46 J:txd5 exd5 47 'ifxd5 'ii'h3+ 48 �e1 We&+ 49 Wxe6+ fxe6 50 We2 Wd7 51 .i.fB we& 52 Wd3 1 -0
Game 20 Ljubicic-Zelcic
Croatian Ch., Slavonski Brod 1995 1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbf3 e6 4 ...dxe5 5 liJxeS c6 6 J.e2 would transpose back into the game. For more about the independent aspects of 4 ... c6, see Chapter 4. 5 .i.e2 dxe5 6 lbxe5 lbd7 7 lbxd7 This gives White nothing, though the way Black creates unbalance in the posi tion is interesting. For 7 liJf3 see the next two games. 7 ... .i.xd7 8 0-0 .i.fS 9 a3 'ife7 10 e4 lbf6 1 1 lbe3 e6 1 2 .i.e3 h51 The start of an old-fashioned attack on the kingside. The immediate threat is 13 ...liJg4. 1 3 h3 .i.d6 14 f4?! 0-0-0 15 'ifa4 g5
This surprising blow rips open files on the kingside. Black does not bother
Classical with 4
to defend a7. 1 6 d5 White in tum plays for his own attack and the race is on. Capturing on gS would open the flood gates; aher 16 fxgS there follows 16 ...lbg4! 17 hxg4 i.h2+ 18 �h1 (18 'iPf2 1i'g3 mate) 18 ... hxg4 threatening a lethal discovered check. 1 6 ... �xf4 1 7 �xf4 gxf4 18 dxc6 bxc6 19 �f3 l:r.d2
. . .
dx e5 5 li::J x e5: 5 . . . li::J d 7 and 5
. . .
c6
lld7 Wf4 37 �d6
37 ...f5 38 �f7 �g3 0-1
Game 21 Degraeve-Miles
Mondariz Zonal 2000
20 J:r.ad 1 ? This looks like a case of desperation. White should go ahead with 20 ilxc6. Then 20.. .f3 21 i.xf3 lbg4 22 i.xg4? hxg4 23 lbb5? ...c5+ 24 �h 1 1hh3+ 25 gxh3 ..i.e4+ is mating, but 22 1i'a6+ �clS 23 i.xg4 hxg4 24 J:lad1! is totally un clear. 20 .....b6+ 21 'ith1 �c2 Winning material. White gives up the queen in the hope that there's some compensation. But it never looks any thing like enough. 22 J:r.xd2 �xa4 23 �xa4 •as 24 �c3 J:r.d8 25 l:txd8+ •xd8 26 l:r.d 1 •b6 27 l:r.d6 •xb2 28 J:r.xc6+ �d8 29 ·�b5 �d7 30 �xa7 �e5 31 l:r.d6+ �e7 32 �c8+ Wf6 33 �xh5 f3 34 �xf3 �xf3 35 gxf3 �e5 36
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 �f3 dxe5 5 �xe5 c6 6 �e2 �d7 Black does have an alternative here in 6 ...g6, after which 7 c4 lbc7 8 �c3 (8 .ie3 i.g7 9 lbd2? cS! was good for Black in Gi.Garcia-Miles, Matanzas 1994) 8...i.g7 9 i.e3 lbd7 10 f4!? 0-0 1 1 0-0 tbxe5 1 2 dxe5 (12 fxe5 c5) 12 ...1i'xd1 13 J:laxd1 f6 was equal in Dolmatov-Tseshkovsky, Russian Ch., Tomsk 2001 . 7 �f3 Keeping pieces on the board makes sense because White has more space. 7 ...g6 8 c4 �c7 9 �c3 �g7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 i.f4 Varying from De Firmian-Miles, Chi cago 1994, in which Black obtained good counterplay aher 1 1 J:lel c5 12 d5 b5! 13 cxb5 lbb6, when Black recovers the dS-pawn with a good game. Of White's other moves, Black would probably meet 1 1 .te3 with 1 1 ..e5 and .
51
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
11 .igS with 1 1 ...c5 12 dS h6, and if 13 J.h4 then 13 ...g5 14 J..g3 eS etc.
1 1 ... c5!? 1 2 d5 In the next game we will see 12 dxcS. 1 2 ...e5!? Obtaining a kingside pawn majority but giving White a passed d-pawn. Black will try to blockade the passed pawn by bringing his knight to d6, and meanwhile White can play to open files on the queenside. In shon, it will be a full-blooded and double-edged game. 1 3 .tg5 f6 14 .i.e3 :t71
A very deep move. Miles envisages that he must hold on to cS, so he pre pares to bring his bishop to f8. The immediate 14 ...ltle8 is met by 15 ltle4 b6 16 a3, followed by b2-b4. 52
15 a3 .tts 16 :b1 White could also consider the imme diate 16 b4!?, after which 16 ... cxb4 17 axb4 J.xb4 18 ltle4 gives him some initiative for the pawn. 1 6 .../tJeS 1 7 b4 b6 18 �2 Another possibility was 18 ltle4 but then 18 ...ltld6 (and not 18...f5 t9 ltleg5) 19 ltlxd6 .ixd6 looks fine for Black. 18 ...liJd6 19 �de4 �f5 Heading for the d4-square. White de cides that it's now or never. 20 d6 -*.b7 Miles in turn has to switch plans and a short tactical skirmish ensues. Follow ing 20...ltld4 White would immediately try to undermine the position of the knight with 21 f4, after which 2 1...f5 (21....ib7 22 fxeS) is still met by 22 ltlgS etc. 21 bxc5 �xe3 22 fxe3 f5 23 c6! .i.xc6
24 c5! With White threatening to bring his bishop to c4, the struggle reaches its climax. 24 .:g7 25 .i.b5 •cs Black cannot accept the offer of a piece as after 25 ... .ixe4 26 ltlxe4 fxe4 there follows 27 1Wd5+ �h8 28 c6 ltlf6 ..
Classical with 4
{or 2 8...lbc5 2 9 c 7) 29 llxf6 11fxf6 30 d7 11fd6 3 1 1ld1 etc. After 25 ... 11fc8 the complications fi nally fizzle out into a draw. 26 ..b3+ Wh8 27 �g5 �xc5 28 �f7 + Wg8 29 �h6+ Wh8 30 �t7 + *g8 31 �6+ % -%
. . .
dxe 5 5 li::J x e5: 5
. .
JiJ d 7 a n d 5
• . .
c6
ening 16 �xeS. 14 bxc3 �dxc5 1 5 /Od4 .i.d7 1 6 f4 �e4 Baburin pointed out that 16 .. .f5 was possible both here and on his next move. 1 7 .if3 �6c5 18 �b3 l:tc8 19 •d4!
Game 22 W.Watson-Baburin
Kilkenny 1994 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 �f3 c6 After a brief detour, we soon return to the paths of the previous game. 5 .A.e2 dxe5 6 �xe5 �d7 7 �f3 g6 8 0-0 .A.g7 9 c4 �c7 1 0 �c3 0-0 1 1 .A.t4 c5 1 2 dxc5
Suddenly making it very difficult for Black to maintain the position of his knights. He only manages to do so with some clever tactical play. 1 9 ....ic6! 20 f51? Every move increases the tension. After 20 ll)xcS ll)xcS 21 11'xd8 {or 21 WxcS .ixf3} 21...1lfxd8 22 �xeS .ixf3 23 �xe7 lld7 the game fizzles out into a draw, whilst after 20 lladl Black de fends himself with 20...•b6. A totally different treatment to the 12 d5 we saw in the last game. White opens up the centre and hopes to use his advantage in development to trouble Black. 1 2 l086 1 3 .A.e3 .A.xc3! It looks risky to give up this bishop, but Black wants to secure cS for his knight. After 13 ...�xc5 14 1l'c2 White threatens b2-b4, and preventing this with 14 ... a5 is met by 15 1ladl, threat.••
53
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
20 . . J:le8 Black gets out of the way of the threatened 2 1 �h6. According to Ba burin, 20 .. .f6? would have been bad because of 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 lLlxc5 lLlxc5 23 1i'xd8! {23 9g4 �g7! 24 �xeS �xf3 allows Black to defend) 23 ... 1lfxd8 24 J.xcS �xf3 25 �xe7 lld7 26 l:lxf3 l:lxe7 27 .llxf6 with a winning endgame. But there was another possibility in 20...1i'b6!?. 21 .i.h6?! e5 22 fxe6 tL!xe6 23 9xa7 9h4! Suddenly finding a way to exploit the looseness of White's pieces. In time trouble Watson does not find the best defence. ·
24 9e3? 24 �e3 was mandatory. Now Black is winning and doesn't give White any further chances. 24 ... tLI6g5! 25 .i.xg5 tLlxg5 26 9d4 tL!xf3+ 27 gxf3 9g5+ 28 9g4 9e3+ 29 �g2 9xc3 Black re-established material parity but now has an overwhelming posi tional advantage. 30 J:tf2 J:tcd8 31 llc1 9e3 32 J:tcf1 J:te5 33 h4 h5 34 9g3 J:tf5 35 �g1 ? J:txf3 0-1 54
Game 23 Short-Miles
European Ch., Ohrid 2001 1 e4 tL!f6 2 e5 tL!d5 3 d4 d6 4 tL!f3 dxe5 5 tL!xe5 c6 6 c4 tL!c7 In Adams-Burkart, European Club Cup, London 1996, even Michael Ad ams failed to get much against the na ive-looking 6...lLlb4. The game went 7 �e3 {7 a3? 9xd4} 7...J.f5 8 lba3 lLld7 9 lLlxd7 li'xd7 10 J.e2 g6 {10 ...e6 also looks very reasonable) 1 1 dS �g7 12 �d4 lLlc2 + 13 li)xc2 J.xc2 14 1!6'd2 .ixd4 15 1i'xd4 0-0 16 0-0 cxdS 17 cxdS and now the immediate 17...1i'd6 would have left things fairly even. 7 tL!c3 lbd7
8 tL!xd7 It's not clear that this is White's best. In Apicella-Miles, Linares Zonal 1995, White preserved his knight from ex change with 8 lLlf3 g6 9 .ie2 J.g7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 .ie3 a6 {l t...lLlf6 12 h3 lLlce8 13 •b3 lL!d6 14 .lladl was un comfortable for Black in Nunn-Ghinda, Hamburg 1984 whilst l l...e5 leaves White better after 12 d5 cxdS 13 cxdS lLlb6 14 J.cS l:le8 15 d6 lLle6 16 �a3.
Classical with 4
according to N unn) 12 a4 and now Black should probably play 12 ..a5 fol lowed by bringing his c7-knight to b4 via a6. 8 ... .i.xd7 9 .i.e3 .i.f5 .
10 g4?! Short loves to throw his pawns for wards like this, though very few other grandmasters would have played this way. On this occasion Miles makes it look rather dubious. 1 0 ...-*.cB 1 1 .i.e2 e6 1 2 1fc2 b5! Well played! With White having cre ated weaknesses, Miles reasons that this thematic pawn sacrifice will be stronger than usual. 1 3 .i.f3
Perhaps Short had been relying on
. . .
dx e5 5 l0xe5: 5
. . .
l0d 7 and 5
. . .
c6
this move, but Black reacts with a pow erful exchange sacrifice. 13 cxbS cxbS 14 lDxbS can be met by 14 ... lDd5 (or 14 ....tb4+) when White's king would have difficulty finding a safe haven anywhere. 1 3 . .. bxc4 14 .i.xc6+ .i.d7 1 5 1la4 Snatching the material with 15 .txa8 'l'xa8 would have given Black excellent compensation for the exchange, but now he is simply better at zero cost. Had Short missed Black's next move? 1 5 ...:ca! 16 11rxc4 �d51 1 7 .i.xd7+ 1Wxd7 18 1lrd3 .i.b4 19 .i.d2 0-0 20 0-0 .i.xc3 21 bxc3 1Wa4 In this position Black has more than enough for his pawn; he can firmly blockade White's c- and d-pawns on d5 and c4, and in addition White's kingside has a gaping hole in it. 22 f4
22 ...f5!? I don't especially like this move which creates some weaknesses in Black's own camp. My own preference would be for 22 ...:c6 intending ...:fc8. Black has very strong pressure on c3 and a2, and should White try to open the f-file with f+fS, he would activate the black rook along the third rank. 55
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
The other move that deserved con sideration was the immediate 22 ...11fc4, for example 23 .xc4 {23 ltf3 is better) 23 ...ltxc4 24 l:lf3 l:.fc8 25 llcl l:la4 26 llc2 :Xd4 and Black certainly stands better. 23 gxf5 exf5 24 ltf3 -.e4 25 a4 •xd3 26 llxd3 llc4 27 a5 There has been a turn around and suddenly the position looks dangerous for Black. Should White mop up the a pawn, the pawn on a5 would be very menacing. Meanwhile, Black's pieces are tied down to the blockade of the passed pawns on d4 and c3. 27 ...1lb8 2S lle1 Threatening to land on e5. The re mainder of the game looks as if it was most likely affected by a bout of time trouble.
56
2S. ..�f6 29 d5 �e4 30 .i.e3 l:lb7 31 a6 l:ld7 32 llb1 �6 33 llb4 Ilea 34 .i.d4 W 35 lld1 wea 36 l:le1 + Wd8 37 lle6 �8 3S e4 �d6 39 .i.xa7 �xe4 40 llxe4 l:lxa7 41 l:lxeS+ Wxe8 42 Wf2 Wd7 43 �e3 :as 44 Wd4 llbS 45 We5 llb2 46 a7 lla2 47 Wb6 1 -0
Classical with 4 . . . dx e5 5 ltJxe5: 5 . . . CiJ d 7 and 5 . . . c 6
Summary Inviting a sacrifice on f7 (with S ...lbdl) is cenainly not for those of a nervous dis position. White gets a very dangerous attack, but then again there is nothing clear. This makes it into a very interesting weapon for Black, especially against stronger players. For anyone playing White against 5. ..�, I would actually recommend that you withdraw the knight to f3. There's no point getting embroiled in complications that your opponent has probably studied. Keep the space and play quickly. Tony Miles's S...c6 is a very tough and interesting line for Black, which has so far been linle explored by theory. On the next move Black can challenge White's knight on eS without fearing a sacrifice on f7. Depending on how White plays it, Black has the option of a kingside fianchetto. The lines in this chapter constitute an excellent way for Black to play against the Classical. For extra variety practical players might want to switch between 4...c6 (Chapter Four) and Miles's 4 ...dxe5 S ltlxeS c6. In these days of huge computer da tabases it is useful to keep your opponent on his toes. 1 e4 l'tlf6 2 e5 l'tld5 3 d4 d6 4 l'tlf3 dxe5 5 l'tlxe5 c6 (D) s ...ltld7 6 ltlxf7 �xf7 7 1i'h5+ 'ite6 8 c4 ltl5f6 9 dS+ �d6 10 'i'f7 ltle5 1 1 J.f4 cS 1 2 l0c3 a6 (D) 13 b4 - Game 17 13 0-0-0 - Game 16 6 .i.e2 6 ltld2 - Game 19 6 c4 - Game 23 6 J.c4 - Game 18 6 lbd7 7 l'tlf3 7 ltlxd7 - Game 20 7...g6 8 0..() ..tg7 9 c4 l'tlc7 10 l0c3 0-0 1 1 .tf4 c5 (D) 1 2 d5 12 dxcS - Game 22 1 2 e5 1 3 .tg5 f6 - Game 21 •.•
.••
5. . . c6
1 2. . . a6
1 1 . . . c5 57
CIIAPTER FOUR
I
Classical Divergences : 4 c6, 4 liJc6 and 4 g6 . . .
.
. .
. . .
1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 llld 5 3 d4 d6 4 lllf3 In this Chapter we will consider some of Black's more uncommon ideas against the Classical. Some readers may object to the fact that the Alburt Variation (with 4...g6) is represented only by Games 24 to 26, though this really reflects the declining popularity of 4...g6, at least in conjunc tion with 5 .i.c4 lL!b6. Although the bishop on g7 puts pressure on e5, it does seem that White can maintain this pawn and its cramping effect on Black's game. In the line 5 .ic4 lL!b6 6 .ib3 .i.g7 7 a4, the exciting 7...dxe5 looks rather dubious for Black because of the improvements pointed out within Game 24. The alternative {7.. a5) looks rather passive and even Howell's ingen ious plan in Game 26 looks better for White. In any case, whether or not Black manages to improve on these two games, he still has quite a passive game after 7 'ire2. Maybe Black can keep things more or less equal if he defends very accurately, but for me the Alekhine should be all about counterplay. .
58
Games 27 and 28 feature the ambi tious but risky 4 ... lL!c6. This certainly does the job of challenging White's cen tre but the drawback is that it allows a dangerous pawn sacrifice with 5 c4 lL!b6 6 e6!?. The correspondence player Mar cinkiewicz has discovered many im provements for Black against the stan dard lines, but my concern is that the little-known 7 .id3 is far more danger ous than is generally thought. Alekhine himself thought highly of this and the existing theory relies heavily on White not making the most of his chances. In Game 29 we look at 4 ... c6, which supports the knight on d5 (in anticipa tion of 5 .ic4) and vacates the c7square in case of White playing c2-c4. The knight is probably better placed there than on b6, especially if White later exchanges pawns in the centre with exd6. The point is that it can often come to e6, from where it pressurises the vulnerable d4-pawn. The drawback to 4 ... c6 is that it is relatively passive and does not immedi ately increase the pressure on e5. It fol-
Classical Divergences:
lows that the logical thing for White to do would be to maintain this pawn and it does in fact seem that White is better after 5 .i.e2 dxe5 6 dxe5. ,-------.
Game 24 Oral-De Firmian Reykjavik 2000 .___________..
4 . . . c 6, 4 . . .li:J c 6 a n d 4 . . . g6
been quite good for Black. Black should also take account of the fact that White can transpose into an Exchange Variation with 5 c4 tl.\b6 6 exd6 cxd6, though in this case his knight is already committed to f3 which precludes some of the more dangerous set-ups. 5 i0b6 .•.
1 e4 i0f6 2 e5 i0d5 3 d4 d6 4 i0f3 g6
Putting the bishop on g7 is very logi cal as it helps to support undermining operations against White's d4 and e5 pawn chain. The American grandmaster Lev AIburt did most of the spadework on this line so it rightly carries his name. 5 i.c4 5 tl.\g5 is not much more than a cheap trap which is well met by 5 ...c6 (but not 5... h6 6 tl.\xf7 �xf7 7 ..f3+) and now: a) 6 c4 tl.\c7 7 ..f3 f6 8 exf6 exf6 9 'ife3+ .i.e7 10 tl.\f3 0-0 was very com fortable for Black in Ljubojevic-Tal, World Cup, Brussels 1988. b) 6 f4 .i.g7 7 .i.c4 0-0 8 0-0 tl.\a6 9 .i.b3 tl.\ac7 10 c4 li:lb6 1 1 li:lc3 dxe5 12 fxe5 was Kosikov-Khmelnitsky, Kiev 1989, and now just 12 . .f6! would have .
5 . . .c6 leads to positions very similar to the important Kengis Variation and it can transpose directly if Black plays dxe5 at a later stage and White recap tures with the knight. The independent lines occur when White captures on d6 after 6 Q.O .i.g7 7 exd6 •xd6, for ex ample 8 tl.\bd2 .i.g4 9 lte1 0-0 10 h3 .i.xf3 1 1 tl.\xf3 e6 (lt. .tl.\d7) 12 .i.fl (White has also tried 12 .i.g5 but the quiet text move seems to make more sense} 12 ... b5 {in order to sidestep any possible preparation, Vaganian varied with 12 ...c5 against Tischbierek in the 1994/95 Bundesliga season and achieved a satisfactory position after 13 c4 l'il.e7 14 dxc5 'W'xc5 15 llbl 'Wc7 16 b4 li:lbc6 17 ..c2 li:lf5 18 c5 1lfd8 etc.) 13 a4 b4 1 4 c4 bxc3 15 bxc3 11fc7 16 .i.a3 ltd8 17 c4 li:le7 18 lta2 a5 1 9 ltd2 li:!a6 20 g3 li:lb4 2 1 .i.g2 l:tab8 22 'We2 •.•
.
59
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
�fS 2 3 :edt cS and Black had ob tained a fully equal game in lvanchuk Vaganian, Manila Olympiad 1992.
a better version of this because of his cramping pawn on aS.
6 .i.b3 .i.g7 7
The only serious attempt to gain the advantage. 9 'ife2 0-0 10 dxeS �cS is very comfortable for Black whilst both 9 dxeS �xeS 10 1Wxd8+ cRxd8 1 1 /l)gs �e8 12 f4 h6 and 9 �gS e6 10 .i.xe6 0-0! 1 1 0-0 exd4 leave White a pawn down with no compensation.
a4
Other 7th move alternatives for White will be examined within the notes to Game 2S (Leko-Timman).
9 .i.xf7+!
9 .'�xf7 10 �g5+ �g8 1 1 IC!e& '8'e8 1 2 �xc7 ..
7 .dxe5!? ..
A razor-sharp move which leads to wild complications. For the relatively sedate 7 ..aS see Games 2S-26. .
8 a5 After 8 �xeS .ixeS! 9 dxeS 'ifxdl+ 10 �xdl , I think that 10....i.g4+ (10 ... �c6 1 1 a5 �d7 12 e6 fxe6 13 .txe6 �deS is what Black has played so far, and it also gives very decent play) 1 1 f3 .ie6 1 2 .ixe6 fxe6 is a good idea, when Black has a nice outpost for his knight on d5 or a hole on b4, should White play a later c2-c4. The doubled e pawns should not be a problem in this position.
1 2 .".d8! .•
Lev Alburt's move, which stops White's knight getting back from aS. 12 ...1Wf7 1 3 �a8 exd4 14 0-0 �6 1 S c 3 allows White t o conduct a successful rescue.
1 3 �xa8 From a practical point of view this line has a serious drawback for Black in that White can draw by repetition with 13 �e6 1i'e8 14 C&7 etc.
8 1C!6d7
1 3 exd4 1 4 c3
Allowing the following sacrifice, which Alburt has worked hard to show is just about okay for Black. After 8 ... �dS 9 �xeS we get a position simi lar to the Kengis Variation (4...dxe5 5 �eS g6 6 .ic4) but with White having
This has been White•s knee-jerk reac tion, trying to get play before Black wins his knight. But it is starting to look as if White can play less nervously with 14 0-0! tbc6 15 c3 �c5 16 b4 and now: a) After 16 ...�6?! Volzhin gives 17
.•.
60
..•
Classical Divergences:
Wb3 dxc3 18 lLlxc3 lLlcd4 19 Wc4 .i.d7 20 .i.e3 lLlf5 (20...Wxa8 21 .i.xd4 ..ixd4 22 .J:ladl! won quickly in Gubanov Romanovich, Chigorin Memorial 1995) 21 llad1 l0d6 22 Wb3 .i.xc3 (22 ... Wxa8 23 lLlb5! .i.xb5 24 1lxd6 exd6 25 1i'xe6+ �f8 26 •xd6+ �f7 27 .d5+) 23 .i.c5! •xa8 24 .i.xd6 exd6 25 l:txd6 We8 26 l:lfdl! .i.a4 27 lbe6 .i.xb3 28 l:txe8+ �f7 29 l:lxh8 .i.xdl 30 llb8 with White having winning chances in the endgame. b) 16... dxc3 17 Wxd8+ lLlxd8 and now Volzhin gives 18 1la3! lLle4 19 lie1 c2 20 lLld2 lLlxd2 2 1 .i.xd2 .i.f6 22 lLlc7 when Black has insufficient compensa tion for the exchange. In Z.Aimasi-de la Villa Garcia, Pamplona 1999 White played less well with 18 bxc5?! which gave Black good compensation for the exchange after 18 ... c2 19 lLlc3 i.xc3 20 lla3 (20 llal!?) 20...-i.£6 21 lLlc7 lLlc6 22 lLldS �7 etc. 1 4 llx:5 •..
4
. . .
c 6, 4
. . .
Q)c6 and 4
. . .
g6
Christiansen-Alburt, US Ch.,Jackson ville 1990 in which White ended up in serious trouble after 16 0-0 e5 (Black can also consider both 16 lbc6 and 16...lLlba6) 17 .i.e3 (Christiansen later suggested 17 lLlc3 .i.£5 18 lLlb5 i.d3 19 lLlxd4 exd4 20 i.£4 and claimed an ad vantage for White) 17...lLlba6 (17...lLlc6 18 .i.xd4 exd4 19 •c2 lLle6 20 a6 'ifd5 21 lLld2 �g7, as in Cooper-G Smith, Walsall 1992, is also interesting) 18 lLlc3 .i.f5! and now: a) The game continued 19 llcl �g7! 20 ..ixd4 'i'xd4! 21 b4?! (White should play 2 1 tixd4 exd4 22 lLlb5 after which 22 ... ltxa8 23 lLlxd4 £6 leaves Black only slightly better) 21...lLld3 22 lLle2 1id7 23 .J:lc3 llxa8 24 g4 lLlb2! 25 'ifcl .i.d3 26 'i'xb2 Wxg4+ 27 lLlg3 .i.xf1 28 �xfl lld4 with a winning position. b) According to Christiansen, 19 lLlb5! .i.d3 20 .i.xd4 exd4 21 b4 L:f1 (21. ..lfub4 22 llct!) 22 bxc5 i.xb5 23 tib3+ �g7 24 tixb5 'i'xa8 25 'it'd?+ leads to a draw by perpetual check. These positions are clearly very com plicated and the reader would be well advised to take existing 'theory' with a pinch of salt. 16 ...e5 1 7 .i.xd4 exd4 18 0-0 �ba& ..•
1 5 cxd4 The tempting 15 b4?! doesn't work after 15 ...lLle4 16 Wb3+ e6 17 cxd4 lLlc6! intending 18 ....i.d7, as pointed out by Dlugy. 1 5 ....i.xd4 1 6 .i.e3 An attempt to Improve on 61
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
Cutting off the a8 knight's exit squares. But can this knight actually be captured when White's other pieces start coming into play? 1 9 lbd2 �e6 20 %le1 �f7 21 lbe4 d3 22 . b4 lbxe4 23 %lxe4 Wg7 24 l:la3 d2 25 %le2 l:le8 26 l:lxe8 .i..xe8 27 l:la2 'iba8 28 l:lxd2 The knight has been lost but White has a rook and pawn for the two minor pieces. Add in the factor that Black's king is exposed and White's prospects are slightly preferable. 28 .....c8 29 %ld8 •e6 30 h3 Perhaps 30 'ifd4+ was more precise. Aher 30...�g8 3 1 h3 Black can't take the b4-pawn with 3 1...11t'e1+ 32 �h2 lLJxb4 because of 33 'ifc4+
White loses a piece aher 34 lth2 11'f4+ 35 �g1 lLJxd5 36 ..d7+ ..f7 etc.
Game 25 Leko-Timman
Wijk aan Zee 1996 1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbf3 g6 5 �c4 lbb6 6 �b3 �g7 7 We2
A logical move which avoids the complications of 7 a4 dxe5 (see Game 24}, whilst aiming to maintain his ad vantage in space. Alburt has also had a long-running battle against 7 lLJg5 e6 (7. . dS?! gives Black a cramped position because he can no longer challenge the e5-pawn} and now: a) In the game Pupols-Alburt, Port land 1987, Alburt defused 8 f4 with 8 dxe5 9 fxe5 c5 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 c3 cxd4 12 cxd4 lDc6 13 lDf3 f6 14 lDc3!? (White's best try as 14 exf6 ..xf6 15 i.e3 lDd5 16 J.f2 lLJf4 produces a com plex position in which both sides have chances} 14 ... fxe5 15 i.g5 1i'd7 16 dxe5 lLJxe5 17 lLJxe5 :Xf1+! 18 1i'xfl ..d4+ 19 �h 1 'ii'xe5 20 i.e7 i.d7 (Alburt mentioned that 20...1tc7 is an al ternative) 21 .Uet ...f5 22 ..e2 1Z.e8 with a virtually even game. .
•..
33 1ixe8? Blundering the game away. 33 11t'e7+ �f7 (33 ... �h6?? 34 1i'f8+ 1i'g7 35 11ff4+ gS 36 11fxb4} 34 l:ld81 leaves Black with nothing better than a clraw by perpetual check aher 34 11fc1 + 35 �h2 Wf4+ etc. 33 1ic 1 + ! 0-1 ..•
••.
62
Classical Divergences:
4
. . .
c 6, 4
. . .
/;jc6 and 4
. . .
g6
alternative approach for White is the simple 7 exd6 but then 7...cxd6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lite 1 liJc6 10 h3 liJaS gets the bishop pair as compensation for Black's lack of space. 7 0-0 The fact that the moves a2-a4 and a7-a5 have not been played gives Black an additional possibility in 7...lbc6 8 0-0 dxe5 9 dxeS liJd4 10 lbxd4 9xd4. Black's knight on b6 is better protected, White no longer has support for a piece on bS and the queenside is now quite habitable for Black's king. Play can con tinue 1 1 e6 (after 1 1 l:te1 .i.g4 12 9ft I think that 12 ... .i.e6 13 .i.xe6 fxe6 looks fine for Black because of his active pieces) l l....i.xe6 12 .ixe6 fxe6 13 9xe6 llc4 14 •xc4 (14 11h3 0-0 was also very comfortable for Black in Vo robiov-Chekhov, Moscow 1999} 14 ...ltlxc4 15 c3 (if both sides had moved their a-pawns White could de fend b2 with :ta2 at this point} 15 ...0-0-0 and Black's active pieces fully compensated for his marginally inferior pawn structure, Dolmatov-Neckar, Bern 1994. 8 h3 a5 After White's reply this transposes back into the 7 a4 line. Black can also play 8...lbc6, after which 9 0-0 liJaS 10 lbc3 actually transposes into a line of the Pirc Defence. Kveinys-Speelman, Moscow Olympiad 1994 continued 17 Ci)d5+ (17 li)g8+ �e8 18 li)h6 . 10 ... h6!? l t liJe4 ltlxb3 12 axb3 f6!? 13 i.xh6 19 .txh6 .i.e6 20 0-0 f6 leaves c4 fxe5 14 dxe5 lbd7 with complex play White with some compensation for his in prospect. pawn but 1 7 lbh5+? is bad because of 9 a4 �c6 10 0-0 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 17 .. .f6 18 lbxg7 WxgS} 17 ...Wf8 18 ltle3 �d4 1 2 �xd4 "ii'xd4 1 3 J:le1 Wd7 and Black will consolidate with Arriving at a critical position in which 19 .. .f6 according to Nigel Short. An White temporarily has a slight advan-
b) 8 11f3 1i'e7 {8...11d7 is less good because of 9 lDe4 dxe5 10 dxeS .i.xe5 1 1 Ci)f6+ i.xf6 12 11xf6 l:tg8 13 .h4 f5 14 Cl)cJ, when White has excellent com pensation for his pawn; 8...0-0 is also uncomfortable for Black after 9 1i'h3 h6 10 Ci)f3 or even 10 lDe4) 9 Ci)e4 dxe5 10 i.g5 'ti'b4+ 1 1 c3 1i'a5 12 liJf6+ {12 i.f6 i.xf6 13 •xf6 0-0 14 1i'xe5 9xe5 15 dxe5 .i.d7 gives Black equality in the endgame according to Alburt) 12 ...Wf8 13 d5 e4 14 1i'g3 Ci)a6! (14... liJ8d7 15 Ci)xd7 + Ci)xd7 16 dxe6 �5 1 7 e7+ We8 18 0-0! was very dangerous for Black in Short-Alburt, Foxboro { 1st match game} 1985} 15 dxe6 'iff5 (15 ...h6!? 16 e7+ Wxe7 17 Ci)dS+ �e8 18 Ci)xc7+ Ci)xc7 19 11xc7 11xg5 20 11xf7+ �d8 21 9xg7 l:te8 is also very interesting and leh Black with compensation for the pawn in van der Wiel-Blees, Dutch Ch., Hilversum 1990} 16 e7+ �xe7
••.
•••
63
A lekhine 's D efen c e
tage because his pawn on e5 shuts the g7 bishop out of play. Having said that, there is nothing terribly wrong with Black's position and if he successfully completes his development he will probably be about equal. 1 3 ... �d7 13 ...e6 was Timman's first idea and it may in fact be playable if Black meets 14 l£lcl2 with 14....i.d7 intending to transfer the bishop to c6 (in the game Short-Timman, Tilburg 1991, Black played 14...l£ld5 but after 15 ll:lf3 'i'cS 16 'ife4 'ifb4 17 .t.c4! ll:lb6 18 b3! ll:lxc4 19 bxc4 l:te8 20 l:td1 found him self completely tied up, White's pawn weaknesses being insignificant in this position). Black would really like to exchange the light-squared bishops but 13 ...i.e6 14 i.xe6 fxe6 15 l£ld2, followed by l£lf3, will support the key pawn on e5 and leave Black with a miserable game. He can, however, play 13 ... i.f5 14 l£ld2 'i'd7, after which 15 lLlf3 i.e6 16 l:td1 1Wc8 17 1Wb5 i.xb3 18 11fxb3 is only slightly better for White.
14 �3! Leko finds the most challenging line, planning to plant the knight on b5. 64
Black can equalise after 14 c3 with 14 ...1i'h4 15 l£ld2 i.c6 16 ll:le4 (or 16 ll:lf3 'i'h5 17 lLld4 'i'xe2 18 l:txe2 i.d5} 16 ...i.xe5 17 i.g5 1Wxe4 18 11t'xe4 i.xe4 19 l:lxe4 l£ld7 20 l:td1 i.d6 21 i.xe7 ll:lc5!, as in Stefansson-Egger, Moscow Olympiad 1994. 14 ...�c6 At the time of the game this was a new move but it's not at all clear that anything's wrong with the old line. Af ter 14...e6 15 i.g5 h6, Chekhov gave 16 i.e7 (White should play 16 1lad1, after which 16 exe5 17 Wxe5 i.xe5 1 8 llxe5 hxgS is just equal} 1 6...l:tfe8 17 llad1 but then, as Burgess pointed out, 17 ...1i'xe5 just wins a pawn for Black. 1 5 ltlb51 As Leko pointed out in his notes, Black can meet 15 e6 with 15 .. .f5 16 i.g5 Wb4, producing a position in which both sides have chances. 1 5 .txb5 16 'lrxb5 c6 1 7 'lre2 ltld5 1 8 c3 'lrb6 1 9 .tc4 1lad8 .•.
•..
20 .tg5?! According to Leko this was an error. He later preferred an initial 20 h4! and only after 20...h5 to play 21 i.g5. This position would be rather unpleasant for Black.
Classical Divergences:
20... h6! 21 .i.c1 After 2 1 ..ih4 Black would play 2 1 .....c5, when the bishop on h4 is mis placed. But now Black gets some coun terplay on the d-file. 21 86 22 h4 l:ld7 23 g3 Playing for mate with 23 h5?! g5 24 9e4 {threatening 25 .id3) would give Black counterplay after 24 .. .f5! 25 exf6 l:.xf6, threatening f2. 23 l:lfd8 24 Wg2 Wc5 25 .i.b3 Wb6 26 .i.c4 Wc5 27 .i.b3 Wb6 28 Wc4 l:iJe7 Unveiling his fire-power on the d-file. Black is out of the woods. 29 J.e3 Wc7 30 We2 l:iJf5 After 30. ..111xeS Leko intended to play 31 .ib6!, after which 31...9xe2 32 llxe2 llf8! (and not 32 ...11.a8 33 l:txe6Q 33 .ixa5 {33 llxe6? ll'k8!) 33 ...liJd5 34 .ixd5 l:lxd5! 35 .ib6 lla8 36 a5 ..tf6 brings about an equal endgame. •••
••.
31 .i.f4 'Wb6 32 .i.c4 'Wc5 33 l:lab1 .i.f8 34 .i.b3 Y.z -% .-------.
Game 26
Nunn-J. Howell
Port Erin 1994 ,____________......
1 e4 l:iJf6 2 e5 l:iJd5 3 d4 d6 4 l:iJf3
4 . . . c 6, 4 . . . lDc6 and 4 . . . g6
g6 5 .i.c4 llJb6 6 J.b3 .i.g7 In Volzhin-Davies, Dhaka 2001, I tried 6 ...liJc6?! but obtained a very bad position from the opening after 7 exd6! cxd6 {Black also has a difficult position after 7...1i'xd6 8 �c3 .ig7 9 lbe4 'i'd8 10 c3 because his only pawn lever, ...e7e5, is very hard to achieve due to the danger of White playing .icl-g5 in re ply) 8 d5 ttla5 9 9d4 f6 10 ..td2! /1)xb3 1 1 axb3 .ig7 12 .iaS! etc. 7 a4 a5
The solid move, preventing the fur ther advance of White's a-pawn. 7...dxe5 was covered in Game 24 (Oral De Firmian). 8 'We2 At this point in the proceedings, 8 exd6 is well worth considering as after 8...cxd6 {White is also better after either 8 .....xd6 9 ltlc3 or 8...exd6 9 0-0 0-0 10 lte1) 9 0-0 0-0 tO h3, White is certainly better off than in the 7 exd6 line be cause of the weakness of b5. Adorjan Smejkal, Wijk aan Zee 1972 continued 10... ltlc6 11 ltlcJ ds 12 .if4 .ie6 13 liJbS with much the better game for White. 8 ... 0-o Black has also played 8...ll'k6 9 0-0 65
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
dxe5 (9...�g4 is met by 10 .i.xf7+ etc.) 10 dxe5 /i:}d4 1 1 /i:}xd4 'ifxd4, but with the moves a2-a4 and .. a7-a5 insened the position is very difficult for Black. Van der Wiel-Santa Roman, Cannes (rapid) 1992 continued 12 e6 (12 :e1 is also very interesting as aher 12 ....i.g4 I think that White·can play 13 .A.e3! i.xe2 14 .A.xd4 i.c4 15 .A.xb6 .i.xb3 16 cxb3 cxb6 17 /i:}d2 followed by lLlc4, when White simultaneously guards e5 and puts pressure on the b6-pawn) 12 .. ..i.xe6 13 �xe6 fxe6 14 1fxe6 1i'c4 15 1i'xc4 /i:}xc4 16 :a21 .
(without a2-a4 and ...a7-a5 this would be impossible) 16 ...l:r.f8 17 b3 /i:}d6 18 .i.a3 :fs 19 c4 i.f6 20 lle2 and White started to develop quite seri ous pressure. 9 h3 dxe5 1 0 dxe5 l0a61? For the standard 10.../i:}c6 see the previous game, Leko-Timman. The text is an interesting attempt to generate some counterplay which Howell had to face with on the white side before springing it on Nunn. 1 1 0-0 White can prevent the knight from coming to cS with 1 1 i.e3 but then 1 1...�d5 leaves White with nothing 66
better than 12 � �xe3 13 •xe3. Nunn prefers to give up his light squared bishop. 1 1 ...l0c5 1 2 :ld1 'it'e8 1 3 l0c3 l0xb3 Nunn pointed out that trying to win the a-pawn with 13 ... .A.d7 is far too op timistic; aher 14 lLld4 lLlbxa4 15 lLlxa4 �a4 (or 15 ....i.xa4 16 .i.xa4 �xa4 17 �b5 etc.), White plays the powerful 16 e61. 1 4 cxb3 .te6
Black's main problem in this position is in finding some sort of active plan. He can also develop his pieces with 14....i.d7 15 �4 :d8, but where does he intend to go from there? 1 5 l0d4 i.d5 1 6 l0xd5 l0xd5 1 7 l0f5! gxf5 Black had an unpleasant choice be tween weakening his kingside like this and allowing the exchange of his dark squared bishop. Personally speaking I would have preferred 17 ...c6; aher 18 �xg7 �xg7 19 l:td4 1i'd7 20 :h4 �g8 21 .i.h6 Black can play 2l. ..l:lfe8, in tending ...1i'e6 and ...f7-f6 (Nunn gave 2 1 ...ltfd8 22 ltel when he felt that White's attacking chances - based on e5-e6 or f4-f5 - were more significant
Classical Divergen c es:
than the strength of Black's knight on
ciS).
1 8 :Xd5
4
. . .
c 6, 4
..
.fi)c6 a n d 4
. . •
g6
J.xf4 with a piece and two pawns for the rook. 22 .z:lb1 J.g7? 22 ...J.e5 was more tenacious but Black is still in serious trouble after 23 l:lcl. 23 tlg3 'ifc3 24 Wxc3 .i.xc3 25 .i.xf8 l:lxfB 26 .z:lxc7 ..tb4 27 .z:lxb7 .z:ld8 28 g3 Wg7 29 .z:lc1 1 -0
Game 27 Wydrowski-Marcinkiewicz
Corr�ondence 1997 1 8 Wc6 1 9 Wd3 The only way to maintain control of the d-file, though this involves the sacri fice of the e-pawn. Black is okay after either 19 llbS b6, intending ... 'tie6, or 19 l:ld3 :ads 20 l:lg3 1i'e6. 1 9 e6 20 .z:ld7 .*.xeS 21 .i.h6 .••
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 �f3 ll:!c6
.•.
2 1 ...J.xb2? According to Nunn this was the deci sive mistake. Apparently Black can still defend himself with the paradoxical 21. ..i.d6! 22 f4 (or 22 1l'd4 f6 23 llg7+ �h8 24 •h4 1i'e4 25 1i'h5 f4! defends against the threat of l:lxh7+) 22 ...�h8 23 i.xf8 Lf8 24 11'c3+ 1i'xc3 25 bxc3
A highly provocative move, which encourages White to go for broke. I do not recommended it to players with a nervous disposition! 5 c4 The critical line, and in fact probably the only way to get something. After the quiet 5 .te2 dxeS 6 �xeS �xeS 7 dxeS ..tfs Black developed very comfortably in the game Kengis-Grigorian, Togliatti 1985. White has also played 5 ..tbs but this fails to achieve anything after 5 ... a6 6 .i.a4 (aher 6 .txc6+ bxc6 7 0-0 Black 67
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
achieved a solid position with 7...e6 8 liJbd2 .i.e7 9 lik4 a5 10 l:le1 a4 1 1 J.d2 J.d7 12 'ii'c t 0-0 13 liJg5 9b8! in the game Shamkovich-Larsen, Moscow 1962) 6 ...liJb6 7 J.xc6+ bxc6 8 0-0 J.g4 9 'i'e2 'i'd7 10 h3 J.h5 1 1 1ik3?! (1 1 b3 looks better) 1 1 ...e6 12 i.g5 d5 and with ...c6<5 coming Black had a good game in Lastin-Dyachkov, Russian Jun ior Ch., Ekaterinburg 1996. 5 lbb6 6 e6 The sharpest line, sacrificing a pawn for a strong attack. White can also try to exploit the early development of Black's queen's knight by transposing into an Exchange Variation with 6 exd6 exd6 (6... cxd6 7 d5 llJe5 S liJd4! �exc4 9 a4! llJes to liJc3 a5 1 1 J.bS+ i.d7 12 f4 i.xb5 13 fxe5 J.c4 14 e6! gave White a powerful attack in Adorjan-Polgar, Bu dapest 1973) but after 7 d5 (7 llJc3 J.e7 8 .te2 0-0 transposes into positions considered in Chapter 6) 7...llJe5 8 liJd4 c5! 9 dxc6 llDcc6 Black can equalise ac cording to Pogorelov. 6 ... fxe6 •••
7 tbg5 The most direct line but not neces sarily the best. White has several inter esting alternatives: 68
a) 7 h4 e5 8 d5 llJd4 9 llJxd4 exd4 and now: a1) 10 J.d3 'i'd7 1 1 J.gS h6 12 J.d2 'i'g4 13 J.e2 'ii'e4 14 0-0 J.fs 15 liJa3 was played in Tal-Larsen, Eersel {8th matchgame) 1969, and now Black should have played 15 ...g6 (after his actual choice of 15 ...1i'xh4?! White could have obtained a strong attack with 16 liJbs d3 17 llJxc7+ �ds 18 llJxaS dxe2 19 'ii'xe2 �xa8 20 c5!). a2) 10 'ii'xd4 eS 1 1 dxe6 i.xe6 12 J.g5 'i'd7 13 i.e2 was played in Honfi Westerinen, Wijk aan Zee 1969 and now 13...1i'f7 looks fine for Black. b) 7 J.e3!? �d7 (the alternatives look even less satisfactory: 7 ...g6?! 8 h4 will give White a very strong attack and 7...e5 8 dS leaves Black without a good place to put his knight) 8 lbc3 �f6 9 J.d3 g6 10 h4 J.g7 1 1 lbgS eS 12 dS li:\d4 13 h5 gxh5 (13 ...lbxh5 14 LhS; 13 ... i.g4 14 f3) 14 i.xd4 exd4 was Vogt-Cibulka, Trencianske Teplice 1974 and now Plachetka's suggestion of 15 li)ce4 (the game saw 15 l£1e2) 15...J.g4 16 'ii'c2 looks very good for White. c) 7 J.d3!? will be considered in the next game, Reed-Danielsson. 7 ... e5
Classical Divergen ces:
8 .id3 White has a major alternative in 8 d5 lbd4 9 i.d3 and now: a) 9 ...g6 looks very dangerous for Black after 10 h4!? ..tf5 1 1 h5 i.g7 12 hxg6 i.xg6 (after 12 ... hxg6 there fol lows 13 llxh8+ i.xh8 14 i.xf5 lbxf5 15 'ifd3 with an edge for White because of his control of e4) 1 3 lbxh7! (13 lbc3!? c6 14 i.e3 e6 15 i.xg6+ hxg6 16 llxh8+ i.xh8 17 dxe6 1re7 18 'ii'd3 also gave White a strong attack in I.Drozdov Nosenko, Ukrainian Ch., Kharkov 1988) 13 ...i.xh7 (or 13 ...e4 14 11fg4!) 14 i.xh7 with a strong attack. b) Black should probably play 9 ... i.f5! 10 i.xf5 lbxf5 1 1 lbe6 (after 11 i.e3 too, Black should get ready to eject a White knight from e6 by playing 1 1...g6, intending ...lbg7) l l .. .'it"d7 1 2 i.e3 (after 1 2 lbc3 the right move is 12 ... g6 as usual) 12 ...g6 13 i.xb6 axb6 14 lbc3 lbg7! 15 1i'g4 lbxe6 16 dxe6 1i'c6 17 h4 i.g7 18 lbcl5? b5! and Black seized the initiative in Sorsak-Stratil, Bratislava 1992. 8 ...llJxd4
4
. . .
c 6, 4
. .
.loc6 and 4
. . .
g6
ll'lxf8 �xf8 13 0-0 c5 is another possi bility suggested by Komarov; Black has compensation for the exchange) 12 ltlxc4 (if 12 0-0 there is 12...ll'lxa3 1 3 bxa3 i.c2 1 4 1Wh5+ g6, or if 1 2 1Wa4+ there follows 12 ...b5 13 ll'lxb5 i.d7 etc.) 12 ... ll'lc2+ 13 4iii>f1 ltlxa1 14 ll'lxf8 �xf8 15 ll:le3 1rd7 16 1Vf3? (the theoretical move is 16 i.d2 after which Burgess gives 16...ll'lc2 17 ll'lxc2 ...a4 18 ll'le3 i.d3+ 19 c,i>g1 ...xa2 without an as sessment; I propose that it's 'unclear', Black having three pawns for the piece) 16 ... g6 17 g4 'i'c6 18 'i'xc6 i.d3+ 19 �el bxc6 20
1 2 llJxc4! 1 This amazing queen sacrifice com pletely alters the assessment of this po sition. 12 ...'i'e8 13 lbxh8 is known to offer Black inadequate compensation. 13 llJxd8 Black intended to answer 13 Q)xh8! with 13 ...c6!?, when it's anybody's guess as to what's happening. 1 3 .'�xd8 14 b3 Both 14 ll'ld2 and 14 Q)c3 allow ••.
9 1Vh5+ The alternative is 9 i.xh7 :Xh7 10 ll'lxh7 i.f5 1 1 ll'la3 lbxc4 (11...e6!? 12
••
69
A lekhine 's D e fen c e
14....i.f5 but the position isn't clear in either case. White can also prevent this with 14 g4!?; all this requires more analysis.
1 4...J.f5
after 22 Wb5+ c6! 23 11xb6 ltb4 etc.
22 J.g6 23 'it'd5 llXI4+! 24 Wd1 c& 25 'it'c4 b5! 26 �xb5 •.•
Retreating the queen doesn't help. After 26 111ft there follows 26 ...ll:)xb3 27 We2 ll:)d4+ 28 Wdl lbc2 29 �e2 llc4! etc.
26 J.c2+ 27 we1 ..•
1 5 'it'f7 l0b6 1 6 .i.e3 This meets with an amazing refuta tion but there is very little White can do. Aher 16 ..tb2 there follows 16....i.e6 17 ...g6 lth6 18 11fg3 li)c2+ etc.
1 6 ...l:lh7! 1
27 ... cxb5! 0-1 If 28 11fc3 there follows 28 ....i.xb3! 29 'li'h3 .te6 30 �7 .tf5 31 ..h5 ltxg2.
Game 28 E.Reed-G .Danielsson
Buenos Aires Olympiad 1939 1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d& 4 l0f3 lDc6 5 c4 l0b6 6 e6 fxe6 7 .i.d3!?
1 7 'it'g8 The point is that after 17 ...xf8+ �d7 White's queen is trapped.
1 7 l0c2+ 1 8 We2 Wd7 1 9 J.xb6 axb6 20 l0c3 l:lg7 21 'it'c4 l:lg4 22 'it'f7 •..
White also loses his queen mid-board 70
Classical Divergences:
Alekhine himself liked this natural move, which to me indicates that it de serves a closer look.
7 li:Jd7 •••
4
. . .
c 6, 4
. .
Ji)c6 and 4
. . .
g6
l£lxd4 12 l£la3 •es (there's nothing better) 13 1£1£6+ , but that after 13 ...exf6 1 4 11fxh8 11fg6 Black has good compen sation. s . ltlt& 9 J:te1 ..
Burgess, in The Complet.eAiekhine, sug gests that 7 e5 is the answer but after 8 d5 lDb4 White should keep his light squared bishop with 9 i.e4! (9 lDg5 lDxd3+ 10 11fxd3 e6 1 1 lDxh7 11fe7 was unclear in Letelier-Penrose, Moscow 1956) and now: a) White obtains a strong attack after both 9 ... e6 10 lDg5 and 9 ... i.g4 10 a3 lDa6 1 1 11fc2. b) 9 ...g6 10 l£lg5 .i.g7 11 lllxh7 is also good for White. Black's best may be to challenge the bishop immediately with 7 ...lDb4, after which 8 i.e2 (8 1£lg5 lDxd3+ 9 11fxd3 11fd7 10 lDxh7 •c6 1 1 •g6+ �d7 pro duced a messy position in Lehmann Bogolyubov, Munich 1950) 8 ... g6 9 a3 lDc6 10 b4 .tg7 1 1 .tb2 0-0 12 0-0 11fe8 1 3 b5 �d8 gave White good com pensation for the pawn in Vogt-Rogulj, Trencianske Teplice 1979. •..
8 0-0 Alekhine pointed out that White can win the exchange with 8 lllg5 lllf6 9 .txh7 l£lxh7 10 11fh5+ �d7 1 1 tDxh7
9 ...e5? Returning the pawn without easing the defence. According to Alekhine Black should have played 9 ... g6, after which the great man suggested that White should sacrifice another pawn with 10 d5 exd5 1 1 cxd5 l£lxd5 12 l£lg5!. White would certainly have very strong pressure though this position would require further analysis.
10 dxe5 li:Jxe5 1 1 /Dxe5 dxe5 1 2 J:txe5 •d& 1 3 .*.f4 .tg4 1 4 •d2 ..d7 After 14...0-0-0? 1 5 ltd5 White wins on the spot.
1 5 li:Jc3 see
following diagram
In his notes Alekhine suggested that 1 5 h3! was stronger as after 15 . 0-0-0 he obtains a winning attack with 1 6 •aS 11fxd3 17 ltc5 etc. ..
1 5 J:td8? ••.
After this Black's king gets caught in the centre. Alekhine pointed out that 71
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
Black should play 15 ...0-0-0 an d then gave a brilliant means of continuing the attack with 16 l£lb5! {Black is okay aher either 1 6 l£ld5 e6 or 16 l:le3 eS 17 .ixeS .ib4) 16...'irxd3 (lf 16 ... c6? then 17 l£lxa7+ wins, but 16 ...e6 is more tena cious) 17 WaS �d7 (17...1i'xc4 1 8 l:.cS) 18 l:te3 1i'c2 19 ·1i'xc7+ �e8 20 l:.ael etc.
1 9 hxg4 'ii'xg4 20 J.t5! 'ii'xf4 2 1 .ie6+ �e8 22 'ii'a4+ l:td7 23 l:txd5 'flc7 24 llxd7 ll:lxd7 25 l:td1 1-0 A very elegant game.
Game 29 Ulibin-Baburin
Vienna 1998 1 e4 ll:lf& 2 e5 ll:ld5 3 d4 d& 4 ll:lf3 c&
16 ll:ld5 c6 After 16...e6 White wins with 17 l£lxc7+ 1i'xc7 18 llxe6+ etc.
1 7 'ii'c21
Threatening 18 i.g6+ followed by mate.
1 7 /�17 1 8 h3 cxd5 .•
Or 18 ... i.e6 19 l:txe6! 'i'xe6 20 ..if5 winning the queen. 72
5 J.c4 White can also gain space with 5 c4 but in this position Black's knight can retreat to an arguably superior square on c7 from where it may later harass White's d-pawn with ... lbe6. So 5 ...llk7 and now: a) White can prevent a pin on his f3 knight with 6 h3 but then Black can revert to a Keogis Variation type plan with 6 ...dxe5 7 l£lxe5 l£ld7 8 l£lf3 g6 9 l£lc3 .ig7 10 i.e2 bS! 1 1 0-0 (1 1 cxbS l£lxb5 12 i.xb5 cxb5 13 l£lxb5 i.a6 would give Black excellent compensa tion for his pawn) 1 l ...bxc4 12 .ixc4 0-0 13 lle1 l£lb6 14 i.b3 �-� Ramesh Ibragimov, Sangli 2000. b) 6 l£lc3 ..ig4 7 exd6 (in the game AI Sayed-Varga, Budapest 2001 White
Classical Divergences:
carelessly played 7 h3?! and had his cen tre demolished after 7...i.xf3 8 ..xf3 lLle6! 9 i.e3 dxe5 10 dxe5 lLld7 1 1 'it"g3 'it'aS 12 f4 g5! 1 3 f5 lLlg7 14 1Wxg5 'ifxe5 15 g4 h5! with Black obtaining a strong initiative) 7 ...exd6 (7...11fxd6 is also possible) 8 h3 i.hS (and here Black could consider 8 ...i.xf3 9 'i'xf3 i.e7, intending to castle and then mount pressure on d4) 9 g4 i.g6 10 ..b3 b6?! (10 ...'it'c8 looks better, avoiding weak nesses in his queenside pawn structure) 1 1 i.e3 i.e7 12 i.g2 0-0 13 h4 h5 14 gxh5 i.xh5 15 lLlg5! and White had taken the initiative, McShane-Baburin, Kilkenny 1998. The quiet 5 ..i.e2 only has independ ent significance if Black plays 5 lLld7!?, .•.
4
. . .
c 6, 4
. . .
li) c 6 and 4
. . .
g6
5 .i.g4 6 h3 i.h5 6...i.xf3 7 'it'xf3 dxe5 8 dxe5 e6 is also very reasonable. 7 g4 .i.g6 8 e6 fxe6 ..•
9 .i.d3 Black can meet 9 ..e2 lLla6 10 lLlg5 (after 10 .ixa6 there is 10...11'a5+ fol lowed by ...'it'xa6) with 10 lhac7 1 1 lbxe6 lbxe6 1 2 11'xe6 1l'd7 with equal ity. After the immediate 9 lbgS Black can play 9...e5. 9 .i.xd3 10 1i'xd3 g6 .•.
.••
but then 6 0-0 dxeS 7 dxe5 lLlc5 8 c4 lLlc7 9 11'xd8+ �xd8 10 lLlgS! �e8 1 1 .i.e3 lLl7e6 1 2 lLlxe6 lLlxe6 1 3 f4 gives White the better endgame according to Stoica. Also, after S ... dxeS White can play 6 dxe5!? (6 lLlxeS transposes into the 4 ...dxe5 5 li)xe5 c6 line) 6 ... .tf5 7 lLld4!? e6 8 lLlxf5 exf5 9 0-0 li)d7 10 .i.c4 lLl7b6 1 1 .i.b3 .i.cS 12 'iff3 g6 13 lLlc3 0-0 14 l:ld1, which gave him strong pressure in the game Smirin-Zelcic, Struga Zonal 1995.
1 1 c4 U lib in and Lisenko mention a couple of alternatives. The attempt to charge down the h-file with t 1 h4 can be met by 1 l ...'l'a5+ 12 .i.d2 1l'a6 13 11'e4 lLld7 14 lbg5 lLlc7, whilst 1 1 lbgS allows 73
A lekhin e 's D e fence
1 1...e5 12 c4 (12 clxeS dxeS 13 c4 is met by 13 ...1i�b4!) 12 .../l:lf6 13 dxeS 1Wa5+ 14 ll:lc3 1i'xe5+ 15 �d1 1l:la6 16 1lel lhc5 17 'i'd2 'lrh2 18 b4 with a full-blooded struggle in progress. These lines would require _further analysis before any kind of conclusion could be reached. 1 1 ...li)f6 1 1 .../1Jc7 is strongly met by 12 h4, intending h4-h5. 1 2 li)c3 12 /l:lgS would once again allow Black to play 12 ... e5, though once again the resulting position would be far from clear. 1 2 .. .loa6 1 3 i.f4
25 cxd6
25 .. Jlxd4? A mistake. Black should play simply 25 ...exd6, after which 26 1l:lxe6 /1Jxe6 27 llxe6 .ieS 28 ltxg6+ hxg6 29 dxeS is unclear. 26 .b3? White in turn makes a mistake which comes close to costing him the game. He should play 26 'i'a3l, after which 26 .L4 (or 26.../l:lbS 27 1i'b3) 27 'ifb3 exd6 28 i.xd6 ltxg4+ 29 hxg4 'irxd6 30 •h3l is probably winning. 26 ...exd6 .•
1 3 ...o!Oc7 An interesting alternative is 13 ...c5!?, undermining White's last remaining central pawn. Baburin's move is aimed more at solid defence, though it remains to be seen how Black will use his extra pawn. 14 0-0 i.g7 1 5 l:.fe1 0-0 16 i.g3 •d7 1 7 l:.ad1 b5 1 8 b3 bxc4 1 9 bxc4 l:.ab8 20 l:.e2 l:.b4 21 Dde1 •cs 22 c5 •d7 23 lL!g5 lLifd5 24 lL!xd5 cxd5 The intermediate 24...Ld4 is bad because of 25 1ixd4 .ixd4 26 /1Jxc7 etc. 74
27 Wt'b7! And not 27 ll:lxe6? because of 27 ... lDxe6 28 llxe6 .ieS winning the exchange.
Classical Diverg ences:
27 e5 28 l%c2 l:l.c4 29 l%ec1 Wb5 • . .
30 l%xc4 Giving up the queen is cenainly the best practical chance. After 30 1!rxb5 �xbS 3 1 ltxc4 dxc4 32 lbc4 �d4 the endgame is very bad for White. 30 ...Wxb7 31 l%xc7 Wb2 32 tile& l:l.f7 33 l:l.c8+ �f8 34 l:l. 1 c6 After 34 ltlc7 Black can play 34 ... h6! aher which 35 ltxf7 � 36 �xf8 d4 makes the d-pawn difficult to stop. 34. . .Wb1 + 35 �h2 35 �g2? is even worse after 35 ... d4
4
. . .
c 6, 4
. .
.lll c 6 and 4
. . .
g6
36 ltxd6 1!rb7+. 35 . . .Wxa2 36 l:l.xd6 d4 37 :ea l:l.f6 38 g5
38 ...:xt2+? A serious mistake which lets the win slip. Black should eliminate public en emy number one, the knight on e6. 38 ... ltxe6! 39 ltdxe6 �f7 wins without much trouble. 39 .i.xf2 'ii'xf2+ 40 �1 Wf1 + 41 �h2 •f2+ 42 �h1 •e1 + 43 *g2 Wd2+ 44 'i>g3 •e3+ 45 *g2 We2+ 46 �g3 Wd3+ % -%
75
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
Summary If White wants something against 4 lbc6 he is almost forced to play a critical pawn sacrifice with 5 c4 li)b6 6 e6!?; I don't believe that either 5 J.b5 or 5 J.e2 really of fer him anything. This certainly makes 4 ...li)c6 an interesting weapon for games in which Black is prepared to take risks to win, but I strongly suspect that 7 J.d3 is a strong move that gives White lasting compensation for his pawn. Personally speaking, I feel that neither 4...c6 nor 4...g6 5 J.c4 li)b6 do enough to challenge White's centre, and if White maintains the cramping e5-pawn Black finds himself without a decent plan. The main advantage of 4...g6 might actually be to transpose into the Kengis variation by meeting 5 .ic4 with 5...c6, and only reach lines of the Kengis in which White's bishop is on c4 already. With 4...dxe5 S li)xe5 g6 6 c4 looking like a problem for the Kengis Variation, this move order should certainly be a consideration for Black. •..
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 tLlf3 g6 4...�c6 5 c4 li)b6 6 e6 fxe6 (D) 7 .id3 - Game 28 7 lbgS Game 27 4 ...c6 Game 29 5 .i.c4 �b6 6 .t.b3 .t.g7 7 We2 7 a4 dxe5 8 a5 li)6d7 9 J.xf7+ (D) - Game 24 7 . . . 0-0 8 h3 aS 9 a4 tLlc6 9 dxeS 10 dxe5 lba6 - Game 26 1 0 0-0 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 /0d4 1 2 tLlxd4 Wxd4 1 3 l:le1 (D) - Game 25 -
-
...
6. . . fxe6
76
9 Jl.xf7+
1 3 l:le 1
I CHAPTER FIVE I Exchange Variation with 5 cxd6 . . .
1 e4 c!iJf6 2 e5 c!iJd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 l.l:lb6 5 exd6 cxd6 The Exchange Variation has always been known as a solid line but in the last couple of years it has come into its own. The so-called Voronezh variation with 6 ltJc3 g6 7 .te3 .tg7 8 :te l 0-0 9 b3 has been giving Black all sorts of trouble. It looks innocent enough, but the mass-evacuation of the a1-h8 di agonal makes it very difficult for Black to generate his thematic counterplay. Game 30 shows how Black's coun terplay usually develops; White is unable to play 10 d5 because of the strong re ply, 10...ltJa5!. Thus Black gets time for central action with 1 1...e5 or even 1 1 ...d5 12 cS ltJc4. However, when White has already played the 'Voronezh' 9 b3, as soon as Black plays 9. ..ltJc6 he gets hit with 10 dS! {Game 31). Black has tried to combat the Vo ronezh in a number of different ways; perhaps the most intriguing of these being 9 .. .f5 as in the notes to Game 32. Yet if this fails to pass the test posed by 10 g3, there may be little option other
than 9 . . . e5. This definitely gives White initiative aher 10 dxeS dxeS 1 1 'ii'xd8 l:txd8 12 cS! (Game 34) but these posi tions might be playable for Black. r------
Game 30
Levacic-Rogulj
Croatian Ch., Pula 1998 1 e4 l.i:lf6 2 e5 l.i:ld5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 l.l:lb6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 ll:lc3
I successfully revived Hartston's old idea of 6 .te3 g6 7 h4 (7 dS gives Black good play aher 7 ....tg7 8 .td4 .ixd4 9 ...xd4 0-0 10 ltJc3 eS!) in a critical last 77
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
round game which I needed to win for my first GM norm. Davies-Westerinen, Oslo 1987 continued 7... .tg7 8 h5 ltlc6 9 ltlc3 and now, rather than 9 ... d5, Black should have played 9 .. 0-0 10 hxg6 fxg6, which I found Westerinen analysing with Jansa shortly after the game. Black's pawn structure isn't great, but he is well ahead on development. 6 ...g6 7 h3 .
White wants to develop his knight on f3 without having it pinned by ... i.g4. 7 ltlf3 .tg7 8 i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 i.g4 10 i.e3 ltlc6 1 1 b3 is known to be fine for Black after 1 1. .. d5 12 c5 �c8, a recent example being 13 b4 a6 14 llb1 e6 15 a4 ltl8e7 16 b5 axb5 17 axb5 i.xf3 (17...�a5 18 i.f4 i.xf3 19 i.xf3 ltlf5 20 ltle2 h5 2 1 h3 lt)h4 22 1i'd.3 lt)c4 also gave Black good counterplay in Glauser-Varga, Zurich 2001) 18 gxf3?! {trying to keep control of c4, but the weakening of the kingside carries more weight) 18 ... lt)aS 19 i.cl3 ltlc4 20 1i'e2 lt)xe3 21 fxe3 e5 22 dxe5 .txe5 23 lt)d 1 lla3 24 llcl d4 25 e4 11fc7 26 llc2 i.xh2+ 27 1i'xh2 1i'xh2+ 28 � llxd.3 and Black went on to win in Zufic-Zelcic, Pula 2001. Another means of preventing the pin 78
on the knight is to continue developing with 7 i.cl3 i.g7 8 �ge2, a plan used by the great Bobby Fischer. Black can then obtain adequate counterplay with 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 e5! (9... ltlc6?! 10 d5 lt)e5 1 1 b3 leaves White with an annoying space advantage) 10 i.e3 �6 (10...£5!? 1 1 dxeS dxe5 1 2 c5 l2)6d7 1 3 (3 a6 14 b4 ltlc6 {Trapl-Hoticka, Ceske Budejovice 1993} is also interesting) 1 1 d5 ltlb4 (1 1...ltle7 12 b3 ltld7 13 ltle4 ltlf5 14 i.g5 (6 15 .td2 was good for White in Fischer-Berliner, US Ch., New York 1962/63) 12 b3 ltlxd3 13 1i'xd3 lieS!? {the 'obvious' 13...f5 is well met by 14 f4, shutting Black's light squared bishop out of the game) 14 llac 1 ltld7 15 b4 a5 16 ltlb5 e4 17 1i'd2 ltle5 and Black had taken the initiative in Jhunjunwala Timman, Teeside 1974. Having lost faith in the h-pawn push I used against Westerinen, I subse quently switched to an advance of my a pawn with 7 a4.
The game that made me lose faith in this plan was Davies-Chekhov, Gausdal 1990, in which I got nothing from the opening after 7...a5 S lt)f3 (the sharp 8 c5!? was successfully neutralised in Perovic-Begovac, Yugoslavia 1985:
Ex change Varia tion with 5
8 ... dxc5 9 .i.b5+ tn6d7 10 .i.£4 .i.g7 1 1 lL!d5 e5 12 dxe5 0-0 13 lL!f3 lLlc6 14 .i.g5 f6; Burgess has suggested that White should try to get this line with the moves h2-h4 and ...h7-h5 inserted, but Black should probably meet 8 h4 with 8 ... .i.g7 9 h5 0-0 10 hxg6 fxg6 with a lead in development that offsets Black's weakened structure) 8 ... .i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 10 .i.e2 lbc6 1 1 d5 (without the moves a2-a4 and ...a7-a5 inserted this would be strongly answered by 1 1 ...lLla5; the negative side of White's plan is that Black gets an invulnerable outpost on c5 for his other knight) 1 1...lLle5 12 lL!xe5 ..txe5 13 0-0 lL!d7 14 lla3 lL!cs 15 .i.d4 .i.xd4 16 •xd4 i.d7 17 lL!bs b6 1 8 :let lle8 19 ..tg4 f5 20 .if3 l:lc8 and a draw was agreed a few moves later. 7 !i:.g7 8 /t)f3 0-0
. . .
cxd6
g5 13 i.e3 d5 14 c5 lL!c4 15 i.xc4 dxc4 16 d5 lL!b4 17 h4 ..td3 18 hxg5 hxg5 19 .i.xgS lL!xdS was good for Black in Adorjan-Eales, Groningen 1970) 12...e5 13 .ie3 e4 14 lL!d2 d5 15 cxd5 lLlxd5 16 lL!xdS •xdS 17 .ic4 •d8 Black had the better game in Geller-Vaganian, Moscow 1985. b) 1 1 .igS!? h6 12 i.e3 dS 13 c5 �c4 14 .tel b6 15 b3
• • .
9 !i:.e3 There's a strong argument for not putting this bishop on e3 so soon as it gets hit after the sequence ...d6-d5, c4c5, ...lL!c4. In fact there is a major alter native for White in 9 .ie2 after which the main line runs 9 ... lbc6 10 0-0 .if5 and now: a) After 1 1 .i.f4 h6 12 llcl (12 'iid2
with a further split: b1) It's starting to look as if the tempting 15 ... bxc5?! is good for White after 16 bxc4 cxd4 17 lLlxd5 and now: bll) 17...e6 18 .ia3 exd5 (18...l:le8 19 lM4) 19 ..txf8 �xf8 20 llc l dxc4 21 .ixc4 and Black had inadequate com pensation for the exchange in Sermek Sutter, Biel 1994. b12) 17 ...d3 18 .ixd3 ..txd3 19 .xd3 i.xa1 20 i.xh6 .ig7 21 J..xg7 �xg7 22 •c3+ �g8 (22 .. .f6 23 �g5 11rd6 24 lbc7 was also good for White in Khmelnitsky-Pesotsky, Kiev 1989) 23 lle1 l:le8 (or 23 ...'1t'a5 24 'lt'e3 threaten ing 25 •h6, as in Khmelnitsky-Kozlov, Naberezhny Chelny 1986) 24 �e5 �xeS 25 'IfxeS and White had powerful threats in Hervet-Cimolai, correspon dence 1993. 79
A lekhine 's Defen c e
b2) 15...ltJ4a5 1 6 cxb6 axb6 17 .i.e3 (White can also play 17 .i.f4 when Ser mek-Moscatelli, Vienna 1991 cominued 17 ...g5 18 .i.g3 ltJb4 19 Wd2 ltJac6 20 .J:fcl .i.e4 21 ltJb5 .i.xf3 22 .i.xf3 llc8 23 h4 with · an edge for White) 17...Wh7 18 :ct .i.e6 19 11d2 and I, for one, prefer White due to the awkward posi tions of Black's knights and the outpost on b5 {Brodsky-Pesotsky, Ukrainian Ch., Kharkov 1988). In view of the fact that the main line looks rather good for White, I suggest taking at look at Black's treatment in the game Rechel-Movszeszian, Germany 1995; after 9 ... e5!? 10 .i.g5 f6 1 1 i.e3 .i.e6! 12 d5 .i.f7 13 0-0 ltJa6 he ob tained a compact and harmonious posi tion. 9 /0c6 •••
10 :c1 The immediate 10 d5?! allows 10 ... ltJa5! 1 1 i.d4 e5! 12 clxe6 .i.xe6 13 .i.xg7 �xg7 14 'ifd4+ Wf6 15 b3 dS! 16 cS ltJd7 17 Wxf6+ ltJxf6 when Black had the initiative in Mikac-Khmelnitsky, Sibenik 1989. 10 . .. 85 I am not convinced that Black is worse after 10... d5 1 1 c5 ltJc4 12 .i.xc4 80
clxc4 13 0-0 .i.f5.
Lev Alburt has analysed this position with White's queen's rook on a1 rather than cl, but it seems to me that it doesn't make a massive difference: a) In The Complete Alekhine Burgess gave Gipslis-Ciocaltea, Bucharest 1968 as better for White after 14 b3 .i.d3 15 :tel ltJxd4 16 ltJxd4 .i.xd4 17 bxc4 .i.xe3 18 :Xe3 i.xc4 19 •xd8 llfxd8 20 llxe7 but I think that Black can equalise with 20... b5! 21 c6 (or 21 ltJe4 �f8) 21. ..llac8 22 c7 .J:d6 etc. b) 14 •a4 and now: bt) Not 14...i.d3 15 :tfd1 ltJxd4? (15 ...e5 16 dS ltJd4 17 ltJel!) 16 ltJxd4 i.xd4 17 :Xd3 and White wins mate rial. b2) 14 ...e5 15 llfd1 (15 clxe5 is met by 15....i.d3 16 llfdt ltJxe5, and 15 d5 by 15...ltJd4) 15 ...exd4 16 ltJxd4 ltJxd4 17 i.xd4 i.xd4 18 1i'xc4 i.xf2+ 19 �xf2 and now 19...Wg5!? produces a sharp position in which both sides have chances (after 19...W'f6 20 ..d4! Wxd4+ 21 .J:xd4 llac8, the move 22 ltJdS takes advantage of the fact that White's rook is on c1 already). 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 The fighting move, but Black may
Ex change Varia tion with 5
have a simpler route to equality in 1 1...�e5 12 l£lxe5 .i.xe5 13 .i.e2 .i.e6 14 b3 d5 15 cxd5 .A.xc3+ 16 llxc3 l£lxd5 17 lld3 l£lxe3, as in Serper Yermolinsky, Tilburg 1994. 1 2 c5 l0d7 1 3 .i.c4
. . .
c x d6
0-0 i.h6 are messy) 19.../.l)cS 20 i.e4 •b5 21 i.xf8 lbf8 and Black had a winning attack in Grzesik-Hanman, German Bundesliga 1985. 14 a3 e4 1 5 lt\d2 15 lLld4 gives White nothing after 15 .../.l)xd4 16 i.xd4 i.xd4 17 11xd4 11'xc5 etc. 1 5 lL\de5!? 15 ...lbxc5 16 b4 'irxa3 17 i.xcS i.xc3 18 i.xf8 �xf8 19 b5 was good for White in Zagrebelny-Remizov, St Petersburg 1994. 16 0-0 l:ld8 .•.
1 3 •85 It isn't quite clear what Black's strongest move is at this stage. He has tried two other moves with reasonable results: a) 13 ...h6 14 0-0 �h7 15 /.l)d2 f5 16 f3 /.l)d4 17 l£lb3 l£lb8 18 /.l)b5 l£lbc6 (18 ...eDxb5 19 i.xb5 l£lc6 20 'ffd6 11'e8 21 l£la5 llf6 22 11'd2 was slightly better for White in Zagrebelny-Varga, Buda pest 1993) 19 /.l)3xd4 lbxd4 20 /.l)d6 b6 2 1 b4 a5 22 a3 produced a very complex struggle in Pergel-Nataf, World U16 Ch., Szeged 1994. b) 13 .../.l)d4 14 lLle4 {14 /.l)xd4 exd4 15 i.xd4 .Ue8+ 16 eDe2 •aS+ recovers the cS-pawn with equality) 14 . . b6 15 i.gS 'ilc7 16 i.e7 i.b7! 17 c6 (17 i.xf8 . i.xe4 gives Black compensation for the exchange) 17...'ffxc6 18 lLleg5 �h8 19 i.d3? (19 /.l)x£7+? llxf7 20 i.xf7 •e4+ 2 1 �fl i.a6+ 22 �g1 eDe2+ 23 �h2 11'f4+ wins for Black, but both 19 i.xf7 l£lxf3+ 20 gxf3 and 19 i.xf8 Lf8 20 •••
.
1 7 1Wb3 A mistake, according to Finkel. An earlier game (Glauser-Varga, Zurich 2000) went 1 7 l£lcxe4 lbxc4 18 llxc4 i.xb2 {18...i.e6!? is a natural alterna tive) 19 i.g5 lle8 (19 ...l:ld5 20 •b3 i.g7 21 l:la4 wins material and 19...l:lf8 20 i.f6 i.eS 21 /.l)f3 i.xf6 22 l£lxf6+ �g7 23 'flat threatens a deadly discov ered check) 20 .i.f6 (20 •b3 i.g7 21 lLld6 llf8 22 eDxb7 •c7 is fine for Black) 20.../.l)e5 21 l:lc2 �-� . though according to Finkel White is much bet ter in this final position. 1 7 lt\d4 18 Wb4 •xb4 1 9 axb4 lt\d3 20 l:lb1 .••
81
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
After 20 i.xd3 exd3 21 .i.xd4 l:r.xd4 22 b5 Black keeps an edge with 22...l:r.b4. 20 ...lbxb4 21 lbdxe4 .i.e& 22 .i.xe6 lbxe6 23 lbb5 Or 23 llJd6 b6. 23 ...lbd5
The so-called 'Voronezh Variation', which has been giving Black some seri ous headaches. 9 l0f3 gives Black excellent play after 9....i.g4 10 h3 .i.xf3 1 1 11xf3 (1 1 gxf3? d5 12 c5 t:bc4 13 i.xc4 dxc4 14 0-0 l0c6 15 t:be2 e5 16 d5 tbb4 was good for Black in Shovunov-Solozhenkin, Russian Ch., Elista 1996) 1 1 ...l0c6 12 1td1 d5 13 c5 t:bc4 14 i.xc4 dxc4 15 d5 llJb4 16 0-0 t:bd3 17 llc2 lieS, as in Levin-Shainswit, Ventnor City 1944. 9 lbc6?! 10 d5 ..•
24 .i.g5 After this White loses a pawn. The most tenacious line was 24 b4 a5 25 bxa5 l0xe3 26 fxe3 f5 27 l0ed6 l0xc5 28 :fcl with drawing chances. 24. . . f6 25 .i.c1 25 .i.h4 is no better as 25 ... g5 26 i.g3 f5 27 llJed6 f4 shuts White's bishop out of the game. 25 f5 26 lbg5 lbxc5 27 b4 lbe4 28 lbe6 l:td7 29 l:d1 a6 30 lbxg7 axb5 31 .i.b2 'iti7 32 g4 fxg4 33 hxg4 l:ad8 34 J:ld4 'Ddc3 35 J:lxd7 + J:lxd7 36 .De1 J:ld 1 37 l:lxd1 lbxd1 38 .i.d4 lbdxf2 0-1 •.•
--------.
Game JJ
Nedev-Oney
Heraklio
1997
.______________.
1 e4 'Df6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 ltlb6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 lbc3 g6 7 .ie3 .i.g7 8 J:lc1 0-0 9 b3 82
The point of the Voronezh set-up and White's mass evacuation of the al h8 diagonal. Usually this advance would be met by 10 ...llJa5, with embarrassing pressure on the c-pawn. In this position there would no pressure whatsoever, just a badly placed black knight. 10 lbe5 1 O llJbS is no better; White keeps an edge after 11 i.e2 e5 12 dxe6 i.xe6 13 llJf3 l0c6 14 0-0. 1 1 .i.e2 lbed7 One of several alternatives, but in every case White's space advantage is the position's most important factor: a) 1 1 ...f5 12 f4 tbg4 (12 ....i.h6 13 •d2 llJf7 14 llJf3 e5 15 dxe6 .i.xe6 16 ••.
•••
Exchange Varia tion with 5
0-0 was also good for White in Peder sen-Hjorth, Aalborg 1995) 13 .i.d4 e5 14 dxe6 .txe6 1 5 liJf3 ll.e8 16 .i.xg7 �xg7 17 0-0 and White had an edge because of the weakness of d6, Howell Panchenko, Hamburg 1995. b) 1 1..Jie8!? 12 /iJf3 e6 13 dxe6 .txe6 14 /iJxe5 (14 /iJd4!?) 14 ....txe5 15 0-0 d5!? 16 .txb6 1Wxb6 17 cxd5 l:lad8 18 .tc4 .tf5 19 1i'd2 a6 20 a4 1i'd6 21 g3 h5 22 :fe 1 produced a position in which it is difficult for White to convert his extra pawn, though he's certainly on the positive side of the position, Kuc zynski-Nokka, Nordic Team Ch., Pohja 1985. c) 1 1 ...h5!? 12 f4 (the most direct line, but the simple 12 /iJf3 also looks good) 12 .../iJg4 13 .td4 .th6 14 liJh3 e5 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 .txg4 hxg4 17 1i'xg4 with a huge edge in Howell-Trifunovic, Hastings 1995. d) 1 1...e6 12 f4! liJed7 (12 ....th6 13 1i'd2! liJg4 14 .i.xg4 'i'h4+ 15 1i'f2 1i'xg4 16 h3 1i'f5 17 g4 1i'd3 18 /iJge2 exd5 19 l:ld1 trapped Black's queen in Raecki-Velicka, Apolda 1992) 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 1i'xd6 e5 15 /iJf3 exf4 16 .txf4 llx:S 17 0-0 .tg4 18 h3 .i..xc3 19 hxg4 left White with a good extra pawn in the encounter V.lvanov-Bagirov, Moscow 1995. e) 1 1...a5 12 f4 /iJed7 13 /iJf3 /iJc5 14 0-0 .tg4 15 .td4 .txf3 16 1lxf3 .i.xd4+ 17 1i'xd4 liJbd7 18 .i.fl 1i'b6 19 l:le1 left White with pressure against e7 in the game Emms-McDonald, Hastings 1997/98. 1 2 lbf3 lbf6 1 3 h3 13 /iJd4 is also good. 1 3 lbbd7 14 0-0 %le8 1 5 %le1 lC!fS 1 6 'ifd2 .i.d7 . • .
. . .
cxd6
17 b4 Starting to advance his queenside pawn majority, but there was an argu ment for further suppression before trying to do anything active. White could also restrain Black's next move with 17 llcd1 and an earlier improve ment might have been 15 1i'd2 followed by 16 l:tedl. 17 e6 18 .!Dd4 White could also consider 1 8 dxe6 .i.xe6 19 l:.ed1 but this might have been psychologically difficult to play because it frees Black's pieces to some extent. 18 a6 19 .!Db3 Finkel recommendedthat White first play 19 dxe6 /iJxe6 and only then 20 liJb3, after which 20 ....i.c6 2 1 l:lcd1 'i'c7 22 a4! (and not 22 'i'xd6? 1i'xd6 23 l:lxd6 i..f8} 22 ...l:lad8?! 23 a5 is very unpleasant for Black. But in any case the position looks better for White. 1 9 ....z:tc8 20 c!Da5 b6 21 c!Db3 exd5 22 c!Dxd5 c!De4 23 'lrd1 .z:tb8 24 .i.d4 f6 25 .i.d3 .!Dg5 26 .z:txe8 .i.xe8 27 'l'e2 c!Dge6 28 .i.c3 .i.f7 29 a4!? .!Dd7 30 a5 f5 30 ... bxa5 31 /iJxaS llc8 looks better, avoiding any further weakening of the dark squares. .•.
•.•
83
A lekhin e 's Defence
lbxc4 41 ltlxa6 l:lb6 42 lbc7 etc. 36 ...Wf6! 37 'ile2 ltxb4 38 .i.c2 :b21 39 �d5 .i.xd5 40 cxd5 :Xc2 41 'ilxc2 �f3+ 42 Wf1 �xe1 43 �xe1 -.a1 + 0-1
Game 32 Sofronie-Ziatic
Brasov 1998
31 .i.xg7 Wxg7 32 l:te1 32 1i'h2+!? would force 32 ...�h6 {not 32 ...�g8? 33 axb6 lbxb6 34 lbf6+) but then it isn't easy to capitalise on the position of Black's king. 32 ...'ilg5 33 g3?! With the time control approaching, White starts to lose his way - this weak ens f3. Finkel suggested 33 axb6 lbxb6 34 1i'b2+ �h6 35 lbxb6 .U.xb6 36 g3! when 36 ...llxb4? is met by 37 h4 fol lowed by a fork from d2. 33 ...bxa5 34 l0xa5 �e5! 35 •b2!? �c5
36 �f4?? A blunder. White could force a draw with 36 :XeS! lbxd3 37 lhf5+ lbxb2 38 .U.xg5 �e6 39 lbc7 .ixc4 40 lbxc4 84
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 �c3 g6 7 .te3 .i.g7 8 :c1 0-0 9 b3 .i.f5 Black's most popular alternative to 9...e5 is the interesting 9...f5!?, which aims for active counterplay at the cost of structural weaknesses. After this move we have the following possibili ties to consider: a) 10 d5 is adequately met by 10 .. .f4 1 1 �d4 e5 12 dxe6 �xd4 13 1i'xd4 lbc6 14 1td2 .ixe6 15 lbf3 'it'e7 16 .ie2 d5 17 cxd5 l:lad8 when Black re covered the pawn with an okay position in Milu-Ignatescu, Romania 1995. b) 10 lbh3 looks logical but the knight can become misplaced on h3. The game Malisauskas-Kupreichik, played in the Moscow Olympiad 1994 continued 10 ...h6 1 1 f4 �e6 12 dS .if7 13 .ie2 lte8 14 Q.O e6 15 dxe6 llxe6 16 .id4 .ixd4+ 17 1txd4 lbc6 18 'iff2 lLld7 19 �f3 ltlf6 with a reasonable position for Black. c) 10 lLlf3 is probably best met by Burgess's suggestion of 10...f4 1 1 .id2 e5!? 12 dxeS dxe5 1 3 c5 e4!? 14 lbxe4 lte8 15 cxb6 lbe4+ 16 �e3!? 'ifxd1+ 17 �d1 .if5 with messy complica tions. d) White's most promising reply seems to be 10 g3
Ex change Varia tion with 5
. . .
cxd6
dS, with White keeping a solid space advantage after 10...t0a6?! (I prefer lO...eS!? 1 1 dxe6 .i.xe6 intending ...d6d5) t 1 li.)f3 .i.g4 12 .i.e2 ..txf3 13 .i.xf3 llX5 14 b4 llXd7 15 •b3 l:lc8 16 .i.e2 li.)f6 17 0-0 in Yagupov-Petit, Ubeda 1996. 10 ...d5?!
10 ... e5 1 1 dxeS dxeS (1 1...i.xe5?! 12 li.)h3 would see White's pieces converge on the weak d5-square) 12 ..xd8 l:txd8 13 cS f4 14 ..td2 li.)6d7 15 .i.c4+ �h8 (15 ...�8 16 li.)dS li.)xcS 17 li.)c7 b6 1 8 li.)xa8 .i.b7 19 li.)c7 fxg3 20 hxg3 .i.xh 1 21 ..tb4 .i.h6 22 l:lc2 l:lc8 23 �6+ �e8 24 .i.xcS bxcS 25 f3 .i.e3 26 l':h2 .i.xgl 27 l:lxh1 is good for White ac cording to Ardeleanu, but such long variations may contain improvements for both sides) 16 lilb5 lilxc5 17 lilc7 b6 18 lilxa8 i.b7 19 f3 .i.xa8 20 b4 �4 21 fxe4 ..i.xe4 22 lilh3 i.xh 1 23 lOgS and the threat of lilf7+ had Black in trouble in the game Pavasovic Bawart, Bled 1998. I'm not sure that all of Black's 9th move alternatives have been properly investigated. One further possibility is the super-solid 9 ...e6, intending to de velop with ...lilc6 and ... ..td7 and then eventually play ...d6-d5. Another idea is 9 ... ..td7, intending either ... e7-e5 (with out allowing the exchange of queens) or going back to the solid plan of ...e7-e6 and ...ll:x:6. I think that these ideas merit further investigation. 1 0 .ie2 Another possibility for White is 10
The idea behind 9.....tf5, but White can now force a clear advantage. 1 1 c5 l0c8 12 .i.f3! �c6 Attempting to counterattack. 12 ...e6 can be met by 13 g4 and 12 ....i.e6 is answered by 13 lilge2, intending lilf4. 13 .i.xd5 e5 14 .i.xc6 bxc6 Or 14 ... exd4 15 .i.xb7 l:lb8 1 6 .i.f3 dxe3 17 'irxd8 exf2+ 18 Wxf2 1bd8 19 lilge2 etc.
85
A lekhin e 's D e fen ce
15 dxe5?! Allowing Black to get some compen sation for his pawn. After 15 lLlge2 he has nothing. 1 5 ..txe5 1 6 'ifxd8 l:lxd8 1 7 lt:lf3 .i.g7 1 8 0-0 lt:le7 1 9 .i.g5 lld7 20 l:tfe1 lt)d5 21 lt:lxd5 J:txd5 22 J:ted1 ..te4 23 l:lxd5 ..txd5 24 lLld2 f5 25 �f1 Black's bishops dominate and the po sition is even becoming dangerous for White. 25 h4 would have been a better idea, preventing the following kingside pawn advance. 25 h6 26 ..te7 J:te8 27 .i.d6 g5 28 f3 g4 29 ..tf4 h5 30 a4 ..td4 31 b4 a6 32 fxg4? fxg4 33 g3? h4! .•.
For 1 1 'ii'xd8 see the next game. Rowson's move was also highly re garded until Baburin's 12th move nov elty. 1 1 ...lt:l6d7 1 2 ..tc4 'ifa5!
..•
An important new move which forces White to develop his knight on a far more passive square than he'd like. After 12 ...lLlc6 White can play 13 lLlf3. 13 lt:lge2 The point of Black's move order is that 1 3 lL!f3 can now be answered by 13 ...e4 14 lLld4 lLlxc5. 1 3 ...lt:lc6
With the terrible threat of 34 ... h3 fol lowed by 35... .1g2 mate - and there's nothing White can do. 34 J:te1 .i.g2+ 35 �xg2 0-1
Game 33 Rowson-Baburin
Port Erin 1999
1 e4 lt:lf6 2 e5 lt:ld5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lt:lb6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 lt:lc3 g6 7 ..te3 ..tg7 8 l:tc1 0-0 9 b3 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 c5 86
14 a3 An attempt to exploit the position of Black's queen, which meets with a strong reply. Another possibility is 14
Ex change Varia tion with 5
J.d2 'irxcS 1S lbbS (threatening i.f7) 1S ...1We7 16 lbc7 ltb8 17 lbd5 9h4 and although White has the initiative it's hardly worth a pawn. 1 4 l2Jd41 14 ... 'ilxa3?? would lose the queen af ter lS llal 'il'b4 16 lla4, but now Black threatens both a3 and cS. 1 5 lbxd4 exd4 1 6 .i.xd4 J:te8+ •..
1 7 �1 The loss of castling rights shows that things have gone wrong for White, though Rowson certainly makes a fight of it. 17 J.e2 would have been worse, losing a pawn for inadequate compensa tion after the sequence 17 ...i.xd4 18 •xd4 'ilxa3 19 ltdll li'xcS 20 'fixeS ll:lxcS 2t llJdS lleS! 22 f4 (or 22 b4 J.e6 23 ll:lf6+ �g7 24 f4 .:Xe2+ 25 �xe2 �xf6 26 bxcS .tg4+) 22 ...1Z.xe2+ 23 c;i;>xe2 .tg4+ etc. 1 7 .i.xd4 1 8 'tixd4 'tixa3 19 'tif4 l2Jf6! 20 l2Jb5! 'tib2 21 l2Jd6 It looks as if White has obtained a . powerful initiative for his pawn, but Baburin's next move turns the tables. 21 .i.e6! 22 l:td1 If White accepts the exchange sacri fice it isn't clear how he should com plete his development. Volzhin gave the •.•
•••
. . .
cxd6
variation 22 lbxe8 :E.xe8 23 h4 ll:\hS! 24 'ifh6 hc4+ 2S bxc4 ll.e2 26 �gl llxf2 27 l:th2 ll:lf4 28 1i'gS h6! when Black wms. 22 J:tad8 23 h4 .i.xc4+ Volzhin pointed out another possibil ity for Black in 23 ...1i'eS!?, after which 24 'fixeS .txc4+ 2S bxc4 llxeS gives Black a winning ending. 24 Wxc4 .!Lle4? A serious mistake. Volzhin pointed out that simply 24 ...lte6 is strong, threatening both ... l;)e4 and ...l;)e8. 25 'tixf7 + �h8 26 'tif3 .!Llxd6 26 ...lbd2+ would also lead to a draw after 27 llxd2 11'xd2 28 11'f6+ �g8 29 'l'f7+ �h8 30 'l'f6+ �g8 etc. 27 cxd6 J:tf8 28 1Ve3 J:tfe8 29 'tif3 .•.
29 We5? Playing on through momentum rather than any objective merit of the position. Black should repeat the posi tion. 30 h5! J:txd6 31 hxg6 J:txg6 32 J:th5! Finally developing the king's rook. Now White is better because of Black's exposed king. 32 ...9e7 33 J:tf5 �g8 34 g3 9e6 35 �g2 a6 36 ltd4 'tic& 37 'tixc6 bxc6? •..
87
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
Black's nerve is going. Allowing White's rooks to the seventh rank is certainly a lesser evil than the crippling of his queenside pawns. After 37...lbc6 38 %ld7 Black defends himself with 38 ... b6 39 llff7 h6 40 l:tg7+ �h8 41 %lh7+ �g8 42 lldg7+ �f8 43 %la7 �g8 etc. - the rooks can check but they can't deliver mate. 38 :as l:lbB 39 b4 :as 40 ltd1 l:lf6 41 l:d7 l:laf8 42 f4 l:l6f7 43 l:ld6 l:lb8 44 l:lxc6 l:lxb4 45 l:lcB+ �g7 46 l:lg5+ �f6 47 l:lc6+ �e7 48 l:le5+ �fB 49 l:lc8+ �g7 50 Ag5+ � 51 l:lc6+ �e7 52 l:lxa6
If there were only one pair of rooks on the board then Black should be able to draw. But now his king is a constant source of worry, which adds considera bly to the burden of defence. 52 ...:Z.b8 53 �h3 �f8 54 �h4 ltg7 55 l:lc5 �g8 56 g4 l:lgb7 57 :Z.cc6 l:lf7 58 f5 l:ld7 59 l:c3 :Z.db7 60 l:lcc6 l:ld7 61 �g5 �g7 62 l:c3 l:ldb7 63 �h5 l:lf7 64 l:lac6 l:la8 65 �g5 l:lb8 66 ll3c5 l:[bf8 67 llb6 :a7 68 f6+ �g8 69 Wh6 :a1 70 :9s+ �hB 11 l:lhs :n 12 9s :9s 73 :h4 l:.f5 74 :94 :n 75 l:.bb4 lth1 + 76 llh4 :9 1 11 llbg4 :n 78 88
Af4 l:tg1 79 l:lf5 llc1 80 l:lh3 llc7 81 �5 llf7 82 l:le3 :as 83 l:lfe5 l:[ff8
84 Wh6? Missing a win with 84 lle7 llal (84...llg8 85 f7 l%gf8 86 lte8 �g7 87 :Xa8 ll.xa8 88 l:J.e8) 85 l:.e 1 lbe 1 86 l:.xel, followed by lte7 and �h6. 84...l:la1 85 l:lh3 l:lg8 86 1le7 l:lg6+ 87 �h5 l:lg1 88 lle8+ llg8 89 l:lxg8+ �xg8 90 l:la3 l:lh1 + 91 Wg4 l:lg1 + 92 �4 llf1 + 93 �g4 llg1 + 94 �f4 l:lf1 + 95 l:[f3 1la1 ?! Black could already force a draw with 95 ....:.xf3+! 96 q;xf3 �f7, followed by ... h7-h6. Next time round he grabs this opportunity. 96 l:lb3 llf1 + 97 �e5 l:le1 + 98 �4 llf1 + 99 l:lf3 l:lxf3+ 100 wxf3 wn 101 Wf4 h6 102 gxh6 %-%
Game 34 Honfi-Varga Budapest 1995
1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 llld 5 3 c4 ll:lb6 4 d4 d6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 l/Jc3 g6 7 .i.e3 .i.g7 8 l:lc1 0-0 9 b3 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 'ifxd8 l:txd8 1 2 c5! The critical line. 12 ltlb5 is answered
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . cxd6
by 12 ... ltk6! 13 l0xa7 lbd4! 14 fOxeS fOxeS 1S .ixd4 exd4 16 a4 d3!, when Black had a very strong initiative in the game Chernisbov-Friesler, Pardubice 1992.
1 2. lb6d7 And not 12 ... l0ds? 13 lld1 .ie6 14 .ic4, winning a piece. 1 3 J.c4 lbc6 1 4 lbf3 Another possibility is 14 l0e4!? lllf8 15 l0d6 l0e6 16 l0£3 l0cd4 17 lOgS lllxgS 18 .ixgS lld7, which also gave White a slight edge in Yagupov-Ukolov, Moscow 1996. ..
14 lba5 The bishop on c4 is public enemy number one. Black has tried a couple of alternatives but neither bas produced .•.
satisfactory results. a) 14.../lld4 15 /llgS llfS 16 ltke4 lllfs 17 0-0 {17 lhxf7!? llxf7 18 lllgs lllh6 19 1lle6 {Olsson-Zetterberg, Bor lange 199S} should be met by 19 ... bS! 20 .idS l0£6! 21 .ixa8 .ixe6 with complex play) 1 7.../llf6 18 /lld6 lhxd6 19 cxd6 .td7 20 llfd1 a6 21 f3 and White bad an edge because of the passed d-pawn in Dzindzichashvili Alburt, US Ch. 1996. b) 14...b6 15 llle4 {Emms has also suggested 15 0-0) 15 .../llaS {15 ...l0f8 16 lhd6 %ld7 17 O-O ile7 18 l0xc8 1lxc8 19 llfd1 left White slightly better in Gross Bagirov, Berlin 1996, whilst 15...l0d4 can be met by 16 lhd6 lhxf3+ 17 gxf3 llf8 1S llg1, threatening 19 Jlxg6, ac cording to Raetsky) 16 .td5 (16 i.e2 l0f8 17 lhd6 also gives Black a difficult game according to Sanakoev) 16 ...l0f6 17 lhxf6+ .ixf6 1S lld1 �g7 19 0-0 lteS 20 lhd2 and White had a definite advantage in Finkel-Drazic, Nova Gorica 1997.
1 5 .i.g5!? Certainly a tempting move, but pos sibly not the best. Both Emms and Sanakoev suggest that the quiet 15 .ie2 is much more difficult for Black, and it 89
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
does seem as if ·he is struggling in all variations:
.ib7 1 8 0-0 �dS 19 Jlfd1 was played in Varga-Llanos, Budapest 1999, and now Finkel suggested 19 ...�xe3! 20 fxe3 e4 2 1 lbfd4 �f8! with equality) 16 ... bxc5 17 0-0 c4 1 8 b4 lbc6 19 Lc4 lbxb4 20 a3 lLla6 2 1 lLlg5 (threatening both the f7-pawn and .tdS) was deeply unpleas ant for Black in the game Kiik-Hautala, Tampere 2000. 1 5 . .1:lf8 Black has another possibility in 15 ... l:r.e8!?, the game Sanakoev-Honfi, correspondence 1993-5 continuing 1 6 lbbS e4! 17 li1c7 ex£3+ 1 8 lLlxe8 fxg2 19 ltg1 lLlxc4 20 Jlxc4 �5 2 1 ltc3 i.g4 22 lbxg7 lbf3+ 23 1lxf3 .txf3 24 �f6 llc8 25 �d2 {and not 25 b4 lk6 26 i.d4 f6 27 �8 lte6+) 25...Jixc5 26 i.d4, reaching a highly complex end game which is probably about equal, according to Sanakoev. .
a) 15 ... h6 16 0-0 lbf8 17 lbe4 lbc6 18 �d6 llb8 19 a3 f5 20 Jlfd1 �e6 21 b4 staned the key push of White's queen side pawns in Hunt-Schnabel, Oxford 1998. b) 15 lbc6 16 �b5 �£8 17 �6 �e6 1 8 i.c4 �cd4 19 lbgS also gave White strong pressure in Mitkov-Toth, Rio de Janeiro 2000. c) 15 ...lbf8 16 0-0 �c6 17 llfdl i.fS 1 8 �bs lbe6 19 �d6 ltab8 20 �gS /i)xgS 21 i.xgS was again pleasant for White in Mitkov-Dischinger, Sitges 1997. d) 15...b6 ..•
1 6 .i.e7 IC!xc4 After 16 ... l:le8 there follows 17 lLld5 �xc4 1 8 ltxc4 e4 19 lbg5 with numer ous threats.
1 7 .i.xf871
16 /i)a4!? {16 cxb6 lbxb6 17 lbb5 90
According to Sanakoev, Black is also slightly worse after 17 bxc4 e4 18 i.xf8 exf3 19 J.xg7 fxg2 20 llg1 �xg7 2 1 l:.xg2, though admittedly he would have
Ex change Varia tion with 5
good drawing chances because White's pawns are split. Now Black obtains ex cellent play for the exchange. 1 7 .'�xf8 1 8 bxc4 ltlxc5 1 9 0-0 e4 20 ltlg5 ltld3
. . .
cxd6
lbxd4 l:lxd2 30 lbxc6 bxc6 31 �1 Zlxa2
.•
21 lbcxe4? After 21 :c2 Black can repeat the position with 2t...li:}b4 22 :cct li:}d3, but this would have been White's best course. Inexplicably he gives back the exchange and then has to face the wrath of the two bishops. 21 ltlxc1 22 llxc1 h6 23 ltlf3 i.d7 24 ltJc5 i.e& 25 ltld2 l:ld8 26 ltlf1 l:le8 27 ltlb3 l:le2 28 lbfd2 i.d4! 29 •..
Winning a pawn and maintaining his rook in a dominating position on the seventh rank. 32 Zlb1 lla4 33 l:lb7 aS 34 l:la7 J:lxc4 35 Zlxa5 l:lc2 36 l:la7 �g7 37 h4 g5 38 hxg5 hxg5 39 g4 �f6 40 �e1 �e6 41 l:lc7 f6 42 l:lc8 l:lc5 43 �e2 �e5 44 We3 l:lc3+ 45 �d2 l:lc4 46 �d3 lld4+ 47 �e3 :td6 48 f3 �d5 49 wd3 Wc5+ so �c3 �d5 51 Wd3 c5 52 �c3 :ta6 53 :td8+ �e5 54 �c4 l:la3 55 Zld5+ �f4 56 :tf5+ �g3 57 :txf6 :txf3 0-1
91
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Summary The Voronezh is a problem, a big one in fact. Right now I'd only recommend this line to White, though it is possible that Black may find a major improvement in the sharp lines arising from 9 .f5 10 g3. He can probably get a solid enough game with 9 e6 (or even 9 .td7) but he is unlikely to achieve full equality in these lines. The �ost ·natural' move is 9 e5, but defending against the initiative White ob tains is probably a rather thankless task. It could be that someone like Baburin will eventually show how Black can draw; until that happens I'd preferto recapture with the e-pawn on move 5. •.
...
...
•..
1 e4 lilt& 2 e5 llld 5 3 d4 d& 4 c4 lllb& 5 exd& cxd& 6 lllc3 g& 7 .1e3 {D) 7 h3 - Game 30 7 .1g7 8 1lc1 0-0 9 b3 e5 9 ..tf5 - Game 32 9 lik6 {D} - Game JJ 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 1Wxd8 1 1 c5 - Game 33 1 1 llxd8 1 2 c5 lll&d7 1 3 .1c4 lllc& 14 lllf3 {D) - Game 34 .•.
••.
...
.• .
7 .1e3
92
9
. . .
lllc 6
14 lllf3
CHAPTER SIX
I
Exchange Variation with 5 exd6 . . .
ried out. A plan that often crops up is a kingside pawn advance, usually with h2h3 and g2-g4, often after White has cas tled kingside! The idea is to deprive Black's pieces of good squares. Game 35 shows a very standard treat ment for both sides, though in this par ticular game White used a slight twist in that he delayed kingside castling. In Game 36 Black also used some subtlety in that he developed his queen's bishop to fS rather than g4. Here the idea is that h2-h3 by White does not gain a tempo. Game 37 features an aggressive new try by White - an early ..f3 followed by castling long. Games 38 and 39 show a more mature treatment with i.d3 fol lowed by l'llge2.
1 e4 lt:lf6 2 e5 lt:ld5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lt:lb6 5 exd6 exd6 The simple 5 ... exd6 has always been known as a solid line for Black, but the rise of the Voronezh Variation (Chapter 5) has thrown it into the limelight. The symmetry of the pawn structure is maintained with White claiming a space advantage and a badly placed knight on b6. On the other hand it can be argued that White has slightly weakened his d pawn. The pawn on c4 cannot move back to c3! White has a wide choice of different piece formations and move orders that make an understanding of plans and ideas more important than a slide-rule knowledge of exact variations. Black's traditional method of counterplay has been to play i.e7, castle short, de velop his b8 knight and c8 bishop (the latter to either f5 or g4) and then play ...d6-d5. When White meets this with c4-c5, the knight on b6 is recycled to f5 via c8 and e7. Pressure against d4! Of course White does not sit still whilst these manoeuvres are being car•..
Game 35 ·
Velicka-Freisler
Czech Ch., Zlin 1997 1 e4 lt:lf6 2 e5 llJd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 l0b6 5 exd6 exd6 6 l0c3 .te7 7 i.e3!? 93
A lekhin e 's D e fence
doubled pawns and maintain a slight space advantage. In the game he played 12 i.e3, with unclear complications resulting from 12 ...i.xc3 13 bxc3 ll:le5 (13 ...lbf8!? looks like a good move to me) 14 l£lxe5 lbe5 15 a4 'i'h4. 7 0-0 8 l0f3 .i.g4 9 .i.e2 l0c6 Once again it's worth considering Agdestein's flexible 9 ...c6!? approach. 10 b3 .i.f6 Black can also first play 10...1le8, when Djurhuus-Tisdall, Eikrem Memo rial, Gausdal 1996 continued 1 1 1fd2 i.f6 12 0-0 d5 1 3 cS lbc8 14 h3 i.e6 (14...i.f5!?) 15 b4 a6 16 b5! axb5 17 ll:lxb5 ll:la5 18 i.f4 lte7 19 llfe1 b6 20 llac 1 c6 21 ll:ld6 ll:lxd6 22 .i.xd6 llb7 23 ll:le5 bxc5 24 i.xc5 i..g5 25 f4 with a definite edge to White. .•.
This is actually quite a subtle move order. White intends to delay castling so that a later ... Ji.g4 by Black can be met by h2-h3 and g2-g4 without worrying about weakening the king's defences. After the standard 7 lbf3 0-0 8 i.e2 i.g4 (8 ....tf5 9 0-0 transposes into the next game, Yagupov-Balashov} 9 0-0 Black can consider the flexible 9 ...c6!? (9 ... lbc6 10 i.e3 i.f6 1 1 b3 d5 trans poses into the note to White's 1 1th move} 10 b3 lieS, when Mortensen Agdestein, Reykjavik Zonal 1995 con tinued 1 1 h3 .th5 12 i.f4 aS 13 l:tel lba6 14 i.fl lbc7 15 l:tcl lbe6 16 i.e3 d5 17 c5 lbd7 with a complex struggle Black can put pressure on d4 and break up White's queenside pawns with ... b7b6. 7 h3 is an attempt to prevent ... ii.g4 altogether, though this gives Black time to adopt an alternative plan based on ...c7-c5. V Atlas-Loffler, Austrian Ch. 2000 went 7...0-0 8 lbf3 c5!? (8 ... i.f5, seems very reasonable here, with similar play to Game 36, Yagupov-Balashov) 9 d5 i.f6 10 i.e2 lle8 (the immediate 1 o. . i.xc3+ also looks interesting) 1 1 0-0 ll)Sd7 and now White should probably have played 12 i.. d2! to avoid .
94
1 1 h3!? Giving the game an independent fla vour compared with the standard plan of castling short. After 1 1 0-0 d5 12 c5 lbcS 13 h3 (13 b4?! is dubious because of 13 ...lb8e7 14 b5 lbaS 15 h3 i.xf3 16 i..xf3 c6 17 'ifd3 ll:lc4 when Black's pieces find ex cellent squares and the d-pawn comes under pressure, Gipslis-Larsen, Sousse Interzonal 1967} 13 ...i..e6 (more or less
Exchange Varia tion with 5
the only move for Black as 13 ...i..xf3 is met by 14 i..xf3 �8e7 15 g4 g6 16 ltc1 and 13 ...i..f5 by 14 W"d2 h6 15 llacll �8e7?f 16 g4 .th7 17 h4f ltlg6 18 g5 hxg5 19 hxg5 i..e7 20 �g2, with the simple but highly effective plan of dou bling on the h-file, Kurajica-Hort, Som bor 1968) 14 W"d2
and now: a) 14... h6 15 .td3 ltl8e7 16 g4 g5 17 �e2 .i.g7 1 8 ltlh2, intending f2-f4, gave White a strong attack in Armas-Graf, West Germany 1989. b) 14. . .b6 15 �a4 J.d7 16 ltacl lle8 1 7 l:tfel ltl8e7 18 g4 h6 19 b4 �g6 20 a3 ltlxd4 2 1 ltlxd4 .txa4 22 b5 put Black in serious trouble in the game Brynell-Baburin, Copenhagen 2000. c) Black is doing okay after the flexi ble 14 ... ltl8e7. Mortensen-Kengis, Mos cow Olympiad 1994 continued 15 g4 g6! 16 ltle1 (after 16 b4 it looks quite interesting to play 16...�xb4 17 llab1 ltlbc6 1 8 llxb7 lLla5 19 l:tbb1 �c4 20 i..xc4 dxc4 with the idea of ... h7-h5 in the air) 16 ..i.g7 17 ltlg2 b6 18 cxb6 cxb6 19 �f4 1Wd6 20 ltacl .Uac8 2 1 ltfdt ltlbS 22 ltlb5 1Wd7 23 l:txc8 l:txc8 24 ltct llxcl+ 25 W"xct ltlbc6 26 W"d2
. . .
exd6
d) The other interesting move for Black in this position is 14 ... g6. White doesn't have much here which explains Velicka's attempt to introduce a finesse based on delayed castling. 1 1 �e6 And not 1 1. ...i.h5 12 0.0 lte8 1 3 1Wd2 d5 1 4 c5 ltlc8 15 l:tad1, transpos ing into Kurajica-Hort above. 1 2 li.le4!? 12 0-0 d5 13 c5 �c8 would transpose into Mortensen-Kengis above, which was very reasonable for Black. 1 2 ... d5 1 3 li.lxf6+ •xf6 14 c5 lt.lc8 1 5 ..d2 .i.f5 Compared to the positions arising from 1 1 0-0, White has exchanged his knight for Black's dark-squared bishop. Probably this is in White's favour, for although Black's position has been slightly freed he will find it difficult to put effective pressure against the d4pawn. 1 6 b4 a6 1 7 0-0 lOSe7 18 a4 ll:lg6 1 9 b5 axb5 20 axb5 ll:lce7 21 g41? .i.d7 22 l:ae1 ••.
.
'h-'h.
It now looks as if White is better; he has more space and Black's pieces are awkwardly bunched on the kingside. The downside is that his king is fairly 95
A lekhine 's D efen c e
exposed, which certainly presents Black with practical chances. The following moves look as if they were played under pressure from the clock. 22 h6 23 lbe5!? lbxe5 24 dxe5 •h4 25 �g2 c6 26 f4 lbg6 27 .i.d4 l:la3 28 l:lf3?? A blunder which should have lost immediately. Finkel suggested 28 .ic3 cxbS 29 l:la1 llfa8 30 l:.xa3 l:lxa3 31 fS 0Je7 32 11'b2 with a complicated strug gle. 28 ...l:lfa8?? Missing an immediate win with 28 ... l::txf3 29 .ixf3 0Jxf4+! etc. 29 .i.f2 l:lxf3!? 30 .i.xf3 And not 30 .ixh4?! lCJxh4+ 31 �gl llaa3 32 bxc6 .ixc6 33 l:ldl l::txh3 with a ferocious attack. 30 . ....e7 31 •d4?1 exb5 32 .i.g3 l:la4 33 •d2 •xeS Suddenly Black is material up whilst White's kingsicle advance is no further forward. 34 f5 lbf8 35 f6 lbg6 36 fxg7 ¢'xg7 37 •xd5 •xd5 38 .i.xd5 .i.e& 39 l:ld 1 .!Llf4+ 40 .i.xf4 l:lxf4 •.•
The endgame offers Black excellent winning chances, though there are some practical difficulties. 96
41 �g3 l:la4 42 h4 b4 43 e6 fxe6 44 .i.xe6 �6 45 .i.f5 l:la3+ 46 �2 �e5 47 l:lb1 l:lf3+ 48 �e2 b3 49 �d2 .i.d5 50 l:ld1 l:lh3 51 h5 .i.f3 52 l:lb1 .i.d5 53 l:ld1 l:lh1 54 l:lxh1 .i.xh 1 55 �e3 .i.d5 56 .i.b1 .i.e4 57 g5 hxg5 58 h6 �6 59 h7 �g7 60 �d4 .i.e2 0-1 After 60....ie2 61 �c3 .id 1 62 .ie4 .ic2 63 .ixb7 �xh7 Black will win the bishop with his g-pawn and then pro mote the b-pawn.
Game 36 Yagupov-Balashov
Moscow 1996 1 e4 .!Llf6 2 e5 .!Lld5 3 d4 d6 4 e4 .!Llb6 5 exd6 exd6 6 ll:lf3 .i.e7 7 .i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 .i.f51? This is often the reaction to an early h2-h3 by White, but in any case it seems like a very sensible alternative to the development of the bishop on g4. If White chooses the typical plan of a kingside pawn advance (h2-h3, g2-g4 etc.), it saves a tempo for Black. 9 .!Llc3 .i.f6 10 .i.e3 .!Lle6 1 1 b3 d5 12 e5 .!Llc8 13 ll:le1 h6 14 g4 .i.h7
Compared to the Kurajica-Hort
Exchange Varia tion with 5
game, given in the notes to Game 35, Black has an extra tempo through hav ing played ... .i.f5-h7 rather than ..i.g4f5-h7. This cenainly improves his pros pects because his counterplay kicks in a move earlier.
. . .
exd6
"ird7 27 llc1 "irb5
_
1 5 l0g2 b6 1 6 l0a4 Ganging up on Black's d-pawn fails to produce the desired effect: 16 cxb6 axb6 17 ll)f4 ll)Se7 18 .i.f3 ll)b4 threat ens 19 ...ll)c2.
16 l0b4 17 1.0&1 .••
Preventing 17...ll)c2.
1 7 bxc5 1 8 l0xc5 l0d6 1 9 "ild2 aS • . .
Winning a pawn.
28 "ifxb5 After 28 IZ.c3 there is 28 ...11'xd3 29 IZ.xd3 llxe3! 30 llxe3 .i.xd4 etc.
28 l0xb5 29 J.f2 •..
Or 29 ll)c2 ll)c3, threatening ...�2+ and ... llxb3.
29 l0xd4 30 llxc7 J:lxb3 31 llc5 llxa3 32 J:lxd5 l0e2+ 33 Wh1 lla1 34 J:ld6 J.c3 35 J:lc6 .tb4 36 J:lc4 g5 37 J:le4 J:lxe4 38 fxe4 l0f4 39 .i.g3 0-1 •••
After 39 ...ll)d3 Black wins a piece.
20 a3?! This creates more weaknesses on the queenside, notably the b3-square. Ac cording to Chekhov, White could con solidate his position with 20 f3 {preventing ...li)e4 by Black) 20...lte8 21 IZ.cl 'ile7 22 ll)g2, when both sides have chances in a complex game.
Game 37 H.Hagesaether-Wohl
Ubeda 2000 1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lOb& 5 exd6 exd6 6 "iff3?!
It's too late for 22 f3 because of 22...lbe3!.
A very sharp plan introduced by Vic tor Korchnoi; White aims for queenside castling and an all-out onslaught against Black's king.
22 l0xb7 23 llxc6 l0d6 24 f3
6 l0c6
And not 24 .i.d3?! because of 24 ....i.xd3 25 ll)xd3 'ild7, forking c6 and g4.
An alternative treatment is 6 ....i.e7 7 ll)c3 and now: a) The odd-looking 7 ...11'd7?! was tried in Saltaev-Marinkovic, Ikaria 1994
20 l0c6 2 1 llc1 Ilea 22 l0b77! • . .
••.
24
••.
1lb8
25 -t..d3 J.xd3 26 "ifxd3
•..
97
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
but after 8 i.e3 t:Lla4?! (8 .. .'ifg4 is stronger, but slightly better for White after 9 ...xg4 i.xg4 10 h3) 9 1lld5 0-0 10 b3 t:Llb6 1 1 ltJxe7+ exe7 12 .i.d3 White had a clear edge because of his useful bishop pair. b) 7 ...0-0 8 i.e3 c6 9 0-0-0 {9 i.d3 d5 1 0 c5 lllc4 1 1 i.cl b6 gave Black excel lent counterplay in Grosar-Raspor, Por toroz 1996) 9...d5 10 c5 1ll6d7 1 1 i.d3 (or 1 1 g4 b6 1 2 cxb6 axb6 13 i.d3 b5 14 a3 llla6 with a strong queenside ini tiative, Lakos-Zhukova, Women's Olympiad, Yerevan 1996) 1 1 . .. b6 12 h4 lllf6 13 lllge2 (Camacho-diaz Perez, Pinar del Rio 1995), and now 13 ...bxc5 14 dxc5 1llbd7 would have given Black a good game.
10...1i)c4!? (not many grandmasters would play such a loose-looking move, but the passive 10...1llc8?! gave White the better game after 1 1 i.d3 d5 1 2 il)ge2 i.g5 1 3 h4 i.xe3+ 1 4 fxe3 'ifd7 15 h5 in Osadchenko-Donchenko, Moscow 1996), after which 1 1 i.f4 {1 1 d5 tD6e5Q 1 1 ...'ifc8 12 'Wg3 �6a5 13 b3 tba3 14 cxd6 cxd6 15 'iPb2 b5 gave Black an attack in Buenermann Waechtler, German Bundesliga 1994. 10 . . .85 Black can also interpose 10 ... 'i'c8 1 1 h3 before playing 1 1 ...a5, at which point Seul-J Horvath, Budapest 1995 was rather unhelpfully agreed drawn.
7 .i.e3 .i.e7 8 ltlc3 0-0 9 0-0-0 .i.e&
1 1 c5 10 b3 A logical and possibly superior alter native is the move 10 d.S, after which 10 ... 1lle5 1 1 •e4 .tg4 12 f3 f5 13 'iff4 lllg6 14 ...d4 f4 15 .tf2 i.£6 16 'ifd2 i.f5 17 g4 fxg3 18 hxg3 was slightly better for White but agreed drawn in the game Donev-Zlochevsky, German Bundesliga 1996. After the sharp 10 cS!? Black should probably react with the risky looking 98
Deciding to punch, rather than duck. Alternatively White can try to blockade the queenside with 1 1 a4, when 1 1 ...d5 (or 1 1 ...'ifc8 12 i.e2 lllb4 13 �h3 dS 14 c5 t:Lld7 15 �f4 1llf6 which also led to complex play in Gadjilu-Miles, Linares 1998) 12 c5 IlleS 1 3 lllh 3 (13 lllge2 lllb4 14 �f4 would transpose) 13 ...ltJb4 14 1llf4 11d7 15 1llxe6 fxe6 16 1Wh3 i.f6 17 i.b5 c6 18 i.e2 liJe7 19 g4 eS was good for Black in Mas-Wohl, Sydney 1999. 1 1 ...�d7 1 2 .tbS?
Exchange Variation with 5
. . .
exd6
ifa3+ 21 Wc2 1l\b4+
A poor move which helps Black ac celerate his play on the queenside. White should play 12 d5 /llce5 13 'i'e2 .*.fS 14 h3, intending g2-g4, with chances for both sides in a highly com plex and tactical position.
1 2 .../l\b4 1 3 1l\ge2 13 9xb7? llb8 would be even worse.
1 3 c6 1 4 .1d3 a41 1 5 /l\xa4 •.•
22 Wd2! Trying to escape via el.
22 llJxd3 23 �xd3 ifxb3+ 24 ll::lc3 If 24 �d2 there follows 24 ....b4+ 25 lilc3 dS!, threatening ... d5-d4. 24.....tf6 25 exf7+ Wh8 26 ..td4? ..•
.
Having defended himself very accu rately White finally goes astray. He should return the piece with 26 11'xc6!, after which 26 ... L8 27 'i'dS llxc3+ 28 �e2 ltc2+ 29 �fl sees his king finally escape. A draw would be likely after 29 ...'i'xd5 30 llxd5 ltxf7 etc.
26 .....txd4 27 Wxd4 d5! 28 :a 1 ifc4+ 29 We5 D.ad8! 30 l:lhc1 d4
1 5...b5!? Attempting to decide the game with an immediate attack. A simpler way to . play the position was with the continua tion 15 ...1llxa2+ 16 �b2 lilb4, recover ing the pawn with White's king still vul nerable.
1 6 cxb6 /t)xa2 + 1 7 ¢'b2 /t)xb6 1 8 llJxb6 ifxb6 1 9 d51 Wa5 20 dxe6
31 ltla4 Or 31 llle2 1Wb4 32 11fxc6 llxf7, once 99
A lekhin e 's D e fence
again leaving White's king hopelessly placed. 31 ...'irb4 32 l0c5 d3 33 'ire4 'irb2+ 34 Wf4 'irxf2+ 35 �g5 Or 35 �g4 lld4, winning the queen. 35 ... h6+ 36 Wh5 l%d5+ 37 �g4 l%g5+ 38 �h3 l%h5+ 39 �g4 l%h4 mate (0- 1 ) .-------.
Game 38
Davies-Sinha
Calcutta 1990
_____________.
1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 l0b6 5 exd6 exd6 6 l0c3
6 ... J.e7 Black can also try 6 ...lbc6!? in an at tempt to prevent White from adopting the �d3 plan. The drawback is that the knight can be driven away immediately, though the immediate attempt at refuta tion seems to faJl short: a) A game between Ara and Artashas Minasian, Armenian Ch., Yerevan 1999 continued 7 d5!? etle5 8 f4 ltled7 (and not 8...etlexc4? 9 i.xc4 lbxc4 10 11'a4+) 9 1i'd4 J.e7! 10 9xg7 �f6 1 1 1i'g4 {1 1 1i'h6 9e7+ 12 �d1 lDc5 gives Black very strong play for the pawn because of the offside position of White's 7 00
queen; 1 1 11fg3? is a blunder because of 1 1...�h4) 1 1 .. �xc3+ 12 bxc3 1i'f6 13 �d2 ltlc5 14 11fg5 1i'xg5 15 fxg5 �f5 with more than enough for the sacri ficed pawn because of the weakness of c4. b) White is probably well advised to delay this advance. Emms-Baburin, Port Erin 1997 continued 7 ltlf3 �g4 (7...JJ..e7 8 dS!? I.Oe5 9 lbxe5 dxe5 10 �e2 0-0 11 0-0 f5 was okay for Black in Palliser-Miles, British Ch., Scarbor ough 2 00 1) 8 �e2 i.e7 (8 ...�xf3 9 �xf3 etlxc4? 10 1i'e2+! 1i'e7 1 1 etldS 1i'xe2+ 12 .i.xe2 is strong for White) 9 dS! i.xf3 10 �xf3 I.Oe5 1 1 J.e2 0-0 12 b3 �f6 13 i.b2 with the better game for White. 7 J.d3 lbc6 8 l0ge2
8 ...J.g4 For the sensible 8 ..0-0 see the next game {Sermek-Zelcic). 9 f3 J.h5 Or 9...J.h4+ 10 lDg3 J.h5 1 1 0-0 J.xg3 12 hxg3 0-0 {12 ... J.g6 13 1le1+ �f8 14 b3 'iff6 15 �e3 lle8 16 11'd2 J.xd3 1 7 11'xd3 1l'g6 18 11'd2 1i'xg3 19 c5 lDd7 20 J.f4 1l'g6 21 etlb5 gave White a winning attack in Boleslavsky Kopylov, USSR Ch. 1949 and .
Ex change Varia tion with 5
12 ... lt)xd4? loses a piece after 13 g4 .ig6 14 .txg6 etc.) 13 b3 :e8 14 g4 .ig6 15 .ixg6 hxg6 1 6 d5 and White had a nice space advantage in Panov Mikenas, Moscow 1942. 10 0-0 i.g6 1 1 i.xg6 hxg6 1 2 d5 l0e5 1 3 b3 .d7?! Unrealistically hoping for some play on the kingside. 13 ...0-0 was better, intending ...IZ.e8 and ... .tf6.
1 4 i.e3 'iff5 1 5 lL!d4 'ifh5 1 6 h3 End of 'attack'. Now White's well placed pieces and space advantage start to tell. 1 6 . . ..-h4 1 7 :e1 a6 1 8 f4 lL!ed7 1 9 lL!f3 'ifh5 20 i.d4 lL!f6 21 i.xb6 cxb6 22 ••2 lL!g8 This is not a good sign for Black. 23 ••3 0-0-0 24 Wxb6 i.f6 25 lL!e4! ..te7 After 25 ....txa1 White mates with 26 lbxd6+ llxd6 27 lle8+ �d7 28 'ild8. 26 /Od4 lL!f6 27 lL!c6! 1 -0 27... bxc6 28 dxc6 wins easily. .-----
Game 39
Sermek-Zelcic
Croatian Team Ch., Makarska
1994
_______________.
1 e4 lL!f6 2 e5 l2Jd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4
. . .
exd6
lbb6 5 exd6 exd6 6 lL!c3 i.e7 7 i.d3 0-0 8 lL!ge2 lL!c6 Another possibility for Black is 8 ... c6, meeting 9 1i'c2 h6 10 0-0 with lO.. .dS 1 1 cS lb6d7, followed by ...b7-b6. It looks like a solid way to play the posi tion and may not leave Black suffering from the same lack of space as the lines in which White kicks the knight on c6 with d4-d5. 9 0-0
9 ...i.f6 The most popular move which ap plies pressure to the d4-pawn. There are several alternatives: a) 9 ...lbb4 sets out to 'win'the bishop pair, but White can simply retreat it with 10 .ib1 (it turns out that 10 ...lt)xc4? loses to 1 1 a3 llX6 12 1i'd3). Kaminski Baburin, Biel 1995 continued 1O ... aS!? 1 1 b3 lle8 12 �e3 a4!? 13 lt)xa4 lt)xa4 14 bxa4 llX6 15 �3 lt)aS 16 .id3 c6 17 1i'c2 g6 18 h3 d5 19 cxdS cxdS 20 l:lab 1 and White was better because of his pressure against the d5 and b7 points. b) 9 ...lle8 is a good, flexible move that has only been seen in one game that I know of. Atkinson-Fogarasi, Groningen 1 989 continued 10 a3?! �f6 101
A lekhin e 's Defence
1 1 .i.e3 g6 12 'irc2 fi)e7 13 fi)g3 d5 14 c5 fi)d7 15 b4 fi)f8 16 bS h5 17 fi)ge2 fi)fS with an excellent game. c) 9 ....i.g4 is similar to the 8 ....i.g4 from Davies-Sinha. White gets more space after 10 f3 i.hS 1 1 fi)f4 .i.g6 12 .i.xg6 (12 fi)xg6 hxg6 13 d5 fi)eS 14 b3 .i.f6 15 .i.b2 aS gave Black counterplay in Ilfeld-Zilberman, Israeli Ch., Tel Aviv 1994) 12 ...hxg6 1 3 dS lfleS 14 b3, Djuric-Miles, Aegina 1993, and now Zil berman•s plan of 14 ....i.f6 (Miles played 14... 'ird7?! which takes d7 away from his knight on b6) 15 .i.b2 aS looks reasonable. d) 9 .. .f5 is a double-edged way of gaining space on the kingside. Malashenko-Cistiakova, Decin 1998 continued 10 J.e3 (10 b3 looks stronger) 10 .. .c�h8 1 1 f3 lflb4 12 a3 fi)xd3 1 3 'irxd3 d5 14 cS lflc4 with counterplay. 10 .tel
10...�b4 On this occasion Black succeeds in obtaining the bishop pair as after 1 1 .i.b1 fi)xc4 1 2 a3 he can capture the bishop on e3. 10 ... .i.g4 is still possible but led to a plus for White after 1 1 h3 .thS 1 2 'ircl2 1 02
.tg6 13 b3 J.xd3 14 'irxd3 d5 15 cS fi)c8 16 b4 l0xb4 17 'irb1 lflc6 18 'irxb7 lfl8e7 19 ltabl, Sermek-Zelcic, Pozega 2000.
1 1 b3 Emms's suggestion of 1 1 lflg3 is worth considering. 1 1 ...�xd3 1 2 'iVxd3 i.g4 1 3 13 .th5 14 �g3 i.g6 15 'iVd2 i.h4 16 d5 Taking the familiar space advantage, which pretty much guarantees that White will be better. The big question is whether or not he will be able to make further progress. Black•s position is cramped but sound.
1 6 ...:ea 1 7 :ae1 �d7 18 :e2 i.xg3 1 9 hxg3 a6 20 :te 1 lOIS 21 .td4 ..d7 22 �4 i.xe4 23 :xe4
Exchange Varia tion with 5
:xe4 24 :xe4 :ea 25 WVe3 :xe4 26 WVxe4 f6 27 �2 �7 28 g4 h6 29 �e3 WVe7 30 WVxe7+ �xe7
. . .
exd6
kept both his space edge and bishop versus knight. But it's not enough to WID.
31 �e4 a5 32 c5 lbg6 33 cxd6+ �xd6 34 .i.f2 lbe7 35 .i.g3+ �d7 36 �d4 c6 37 dxc6+ �xc6 38 .i.e1 b6 39 .i.d2 �b5 40 .i.f4 �c6 41 a4 lbg6 42 .i.g3 �fa 43 �e4 �e6 44 �f5 lbd4+ 45 �g6 �b3 46 �xg7 �c5 47 Wxh6 l.tlxa4 48 �g6 l.tlc5 49 �xf6 a4 50 .i.e 1 lbd3 51 .ic3 b5 52 g5 b4 53 g6 bxc3 54 g7 c2 55 g8WV c1WV 56 WVe8+ wc7 57 WVxa4 WVh6+ 58 �5 WVh5+ 59 wt6 White is still slightly better. having
% -%
1 03
A lekhin e 's D efenc e
Summary Black must know what he's doing in these lines in order to avoid the kind ofthing that happened in Kurajica-Hon, given in the notes to Game 35. Having said that, he can obtain excellent counterplay if he plays the position precisely. Yagupov Balashov is certainly worth studying, as is Mortensen-Kengis, given in the notes to Game 35. I also l ike Agdestein's flexible ... c7-c6 treatment, also given in the notes to Game 35. One of the best ways to play it with White is with .td3 and ltlge2, which cer tainly calls for accurate play on Black's part if he wants to avoid falling into a pas sive position. In this case I like Fogarasi's play against Atkinson in the note within Game 39. Black avoided any fruitless development of his queen's bishop, instead concentrating on the reorganisation of his kingside. The Exchange Variation is one of the two lines I'd recommend for White against the Alekhine, the other being the Classical. Against 5 ...exd6 I suggest the J..d3 and �ge2 set-up.
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 exd6 exd6 6 1003 (D) 6 •£3 Game 37 6 ltl£3 J..e7 7 .i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 i.£5 9 ltlc3 J..£6 10 J..e3 etk6 - Game 36 -
6 ... .ie7 7 .id3 7 i.e3
7 . . . 0-0
0-0 8 �f3 i.g4 9 i.e2 etk6 10 b3 i.f6 1 1 h3
-
Game 35
7 llk6 8 ltlge2 J..g4 (D) - Game 38 8 �ge2 �c6 9 0-0 .if6 1 0 .ie3 (D} - Game 39 •..
6 l'Dc3
1 04
8
. . .
.ig4
10 .ie3
CHAPTER SEVEN
I
Four Pawns Attack : Main Line
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 White's ninth move; Black must decide �b6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 �c6 7 .i.e3 how he intends to tackle the centre. With 9 .....ie7 he intends to castle and .i.f5 8 �c3 e6 9 �f3 The Four Pawns Attack is White's play ... f7-f6 (Game 40}, but he must also sharpest line against the Alekhine and take account of the fact that White can represents an attempt at outright refuta play 10 dS (Games 41 and 42). One line that has been quite popular tion. The reason that it is not at the front of the book is more a question of of late is 9 . ..tg4 (Game 43}, which im popularity; in practice it is far more mediately puts pressure on d4 by likely that Black will meet either 4 liJf3 threatening to eliminate the knight on f3. Existing theory applauds the idea, or the Exchange Variation. White has taken as much space as he but remain unconvinced after 10 ..ie2. possibly can, sending four of his pawns Does Black get compensation for the forward with gain of tempo. The prob two bishops? Games 44 and 45 deal with 9 . '1fd7 lem with this massive expansion is that pawns are unable to move back. If the and 9 . . ..ib4 respectively, neither of centre collapses White's entire position which have received much attention but may implode. both of which look playable. Black's traditional method of com Game 40 bating the Four Pawns Attack is to de Yudasin-Kengis velop his pieces before attempting to undermine White's pawn structure. · Minsk 1985 Both sides get the opportunity to de- ._______________. velop their pieces before commencing 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 battle which is how people played be lbb6 5 f4 dxe5 6 txe5 �c6 7 .te3 .i.t5 8 �c3 e6 9 �t3 .i.e7 fore they broke all the rules! This natural developing move is The critical position comes after ..
.
.
.
1 05
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Black's most popular continuation, though it does require a good knowl edge of theory after the sharp 1 0 d5.
10 .te2 0-0 1 1 0-0 f6! 1 2 exf6 After the sharp 12 lbh4?! Black ob tained excellent counterplay in Arakelov-Bagirov, Baku 1960: 12 ... fxe5 1 3 lbxf5 exf5 14 d5 lbd4! (offering a pawn to gain strong play on the dark squares; 14 ... lbb8 15 c5 is too passive) 15 .i.xd4 exd4 16 'ii'xd4 llJd7! 17 �h 1 .i.c5 (17 ....i.d6 is not bad either) 18 'ii'd3 'ii'g5 19 liJbS .:lae8! 20 lbxc7 .Ue3 21 lbe6 1fh6 22 lbxcS lbxcS 23 1ic2 lbe4 24 �g1 'ii'b6 25 �h1 l:t£6 26 lU3 l:lx£3 27 .i.xf3 lbg3+ 0-1. 1 2 ....i.xf6 1 3 •d2 ••7 1 4 llad1
The position is in a state of dynamic 1 06
equilibrium, with Black's weak pawn on e6 being compensated for by the weak pawn on d4. The more forceful 14 c5 led to equality after 14...llJd5 15 -t.f2 l:lad8 16 Z:fe1 llJdb4 17 .ic4 llJc2 18 .ixe6+ i.xe6 19 'ifxc2 lbxd4 20 llJxd4 .ixd4 21 i.xd4 ltxd4, Garma-Alburt, New York 1993. 14 ...1lad8 15 Wfc1 h6 16 h3 .i.h7 1 7 llfe1 �h8 18 .i.f1 •f7 19 �h1 lbc8! Improving the position of the poorly placed knight on b6. 20 .i.f2 �d6 21 a3 e5 22 c5 exd4 23 lbxd4 .i.xd4 24 .i.xd4 lbxd4 25 llxd4 liJf5 26 llxd8 llxd8 27 Wff4
%-% Game 41 Pegoraro-Henderson
Ischia 1996 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 liJd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 �c6 7 .i.e3 .i.f5 8 lbc3 e6 9 ll)f3 .i.e7 1 0 d5 exd5 1 1 cxd5 �b4 12 li)d4 .i.d7
13 ..,3 This is currently White's most popu lar choice. An alternative method of defending the dS-pawn is with 13 1fb3.
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main L in e
Tsarev-Palatnik, Kiev 1989 continued 13 ...c5 14 dxc6 (14 �f3 c4 15 -'lxc4 lDxc4 16 'ilxc4 �2+ 17 �f2 lDxa1 18 llxa1 is another possibility in which White has some compensation for the exchange) 14...bxc6 1 5 0-0-0 (after 15 lld1 •b8 16 e6 fxe6 17 �f3 a5 18 lDe4 lD6d5 Black had successfully consoli dated in Polajzer-Kovacevic, Maribor 1980} 15 ...•c7 16 ..tc4?! (16 e6 fxe6 17 lDxe6 11fe5 18 l:txd7 is the critical line, according to Palatnik; I would need convincing about White's compensation - Black can anchor a knight on d5) 16...�c4 17 •xc4 1i'xe5 18 l:the1 0-0 19 a3 �d5 20 �xc6 ..txc6 21 lDxdS ..txa3! 22 bxa3 {Or 22 lbc3 llfc8} 22 ...l:tfc8 23 -'lc5 ..txdS 24 llxe5 -'lxc4 25 �b2 f6 0-1. The immediate 13 e6 leads to wild complications aher 13 ... fxe6 14 dxe6 ..tc6 15 11fg4 i.h4+ 16 g3 -'lxh1 {16.....tf6? 17 0-0-0 ..txh1 18 lDf5! is known to give White a winning attack) 17 0-0-0 (17 ..tb5+ c6 18 0-0-0 0-0 19 gxh4 h5! 20 .g3 cxb5 21 i..g5 1ib8 was okay for Black in Velimirovic Kovacevic, Yugoslav Ch. 1984) 17 ... 0-0 18 gxh4 •f6
a) After 19 i.e2 Black should proba bly play 19 ... ..td5 (if 19 ... c5 20 .tg5 1We5 21 e7 cxd4 22 exf8e + l:txf8 the move 23 1i'xd4 is now possible because White's bishop is no longer on b5; Black is unable to play 23 ...�xa2+ be cause of 24 lDxa2 .xe2 25 llxhl) 20 ..tgS 11fe5 21 e7 IU2 (21...l:tfe8 and 21. ..l:tf7 are also possible) 22 a3 c5 23 axb4 cxd4 24 l:txd4 h5!, which was at least equal for Black in Marjanovic Cicovacki, Sombor 1978. b) 19 ..tb5 c5 20 ..tgs 11fe5 21 e7 cxd4 22 exf8•+ llxf8 23 llxhl (this time 23 •xd4 is met by 23 ... lDxa2+ 24 lDxa2 exbS 25 llxhl? .c6+) 23 ... dxc3 {this is Black's simplest option, though 23 ... h6 and; 23 ...a6 are also possible) 24 exb4 cxb2+ and the exposed white king gave Black an easy game in Murey Alburt, Beersheba 1980. 1 3 ...c5 13 ...0-0 14 a3 c5 15 axb4 cxd4 16 ..txd4 i.xb4 has been suggested by Alekhine guru Lev Alburt. Black evi dently hopes that the pawns on e5 and dS will be vulnerable but it remains to be seen how this is so aher, say, 17 .td3. 14 dxc6 bxc6
and now: 707
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
14...l0xc6 is bad because of 15 e6 fxe6 16 i.d3, with the threat of 17 11fh5+, and 14...i.xc6 is better for White after 15 l0xc6 l0xc6 (1 5... bxc6!?) 16 .tb5. 1 5 e6 Or: a) 15 a3 c5! 16 axb4 cxd4 17 i.xd4 0-0 is equal, according to Hanston. b) 15 o-0-0 o-o 16 lDf5 lD6d5 17 l0xe7+ 1i'xe7 18 lDxdS cxd5 19 a3 llfc8+ 20 �b1 lDc2 21 .tel J:lab8 gave Black a winning attack in Trkaljanov Kovacevic, Stip 1979. 1 5 ...fxe6 15 i.xe6 16 a3 lD4d5 17 lDxc6 1ic7 18 l0xe7 11fxe7 19 i.bS+ is good for White. 1 6 0-0-0 16 a3 l04d5 17 i.d3 l0xe3 18 1ixe3 0-0 19 11fe4 g6 20 h4 e5 2 1 lDf3 .tfs 22 i.c4+ �g7 23 1fe2 l0xc4 24 1fxc4 1ib6 25 0-0-Q J:lab8 26 J:ld2 i.xa3 was winning in Velimirovic-Kovacevic, Yugoslav Ch. 1979. 1 6 ...lb6d5 1 7 a3 lbxc3 18 li)xe6 lbca2+! •..
�xd7 21 1fg4+ �c7 22 axb4 lDa2+ 23 �b1 lDxb4 24 i.c4, when White had a strong attack in Velimirovic-Kovacevic, Yugoslavia, 1978 . 1 9 �b1 i.xe6! 20 :xd8+ :xd8 2 1 axb4 lbxb4 Black has only a rook, knight and pawn forthe queen, but the main factor is that White's king is very exposed. 22 i.e2 Black is also winning after either 22 •hS+ i.f7 23 1fg4 i.g6+ 24 �at lDc2+, or 22 •e4 J:ld1 + 23 .tel i.a2+. 22 ...:t8 23 9h5+ Or 23 1l'g3 i.fS+ 24 �al l:ld5!, again with a winning attack. 23 ...g6 24 9e5 .t.f5+ 25 a1 :ds 26 9b8+ *t7 0-1
27 11'xa7 lDc2+ 28 �a2 lDxe3 29 •xe3 liaS+ 30 �b3 ltb8+ would be a massacre.
Game 42 Paramonov-Bratchenko
PetroffMemorial, St Petersburg 2000 This recommendation of Bernard Caffeny is an important improvement over 18...1fa5 19 lDxg7+ �d8 20 :Xd7+ 1 08
1 e4 lbt6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lbb6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 lbc6 7 i.e3 i.f5 8 lllc3 e6 9 lt)f3 i.e7 10 d5 li)b4
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main L in e
I doubt that this will be played very much in future. White has two good lines. 1 1 �d4!?
This may be even better than the more traditional 1 1 llcl, though Black has some problems there too. Velimi rovic-Marovic, Yugoslavia 1977 contin ued l l. .. exd5 (11. .. .i.g4 12 a3 �6 13 ,j_e2 0-0 14 0-0 .i.cS 15 AxeS lbxc5 16 b4 lbcd7 17 'ifd4 .i.xf3 18 ,j_xf3 was also good for White in Vodicka L.Smejkal, Czech Team Ch. 1997/98) 12 a3 c5 13 axb4 d4 14 Axd4 cxd4 1 5 lbxd4 1Wb8 16 lbxfS 1Wxe5+ 1 7 .i.e2 'ifxf5 18 c5 lbd7 19 ltld5 AdS 20 llc3 0-0 2 1 ltle3 1l'e6 22 Ag4 f5 23 .i.f3 with strong pressure. 1 1 ... .t.g6 1 2 a3 c5 1 3 �xe6! The key move. 13 axb4 cxd4 14 11'xd4 i.xb4 1 5 dxe6 11xd4 16 .i.xd4 0-0 17 exf7+ .i.xf7 gave Black the initia tive in Blazek-Kantorik, Slovakian Ch. 1995. 1 3 fxe6 14 axb4 cxb4 1 5 �a4 o-o Gipslis once suggested 15...lbd7, but then 1 6 1id4 11'a5 17 d6 .i.d8 18 c5 b5 19 b3! (19 ...bxa4? 20 llxa4) is good for White. 1 6 �xb6 axb6 1 7 J:lxa8 •xaB
18 .te2 Or 18 d6 .i.d8 19 .i.e2 'ila2 20 .i.d4 .i.e4 21 lift i.xg2 22 llxf8+ �xf8 23 .i.d3 .i.h4+ 24 �d2 as in Buchnicek Krajnak, Stary Smokovec 1996. With White having a supponed passed pawn on d6, Black will be struggling to hang on in these endgames. 1 8 ...•82 1 9 J:lf1 ? A serious mistake; for reasons known best to himself, White suddenly pre sents his opponent with his own passed b-pawn. White should play 19 d6 J.d8 20 .td4 as in the Buchnicek-Krajnak game above. 1 9 ...W'xb2 20 J:lxf8+ �xf8 21 d6 .td8 22 .td4 11a2 23 11a1 b3 24 11b2 •xb2 25 .t.xb2 .i.e4 26 .tf3?
.•.
1 09
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
Exchanging light squared bishops is a further mistake; Black's king can come marching in on the squares it used to protect. 26 g3 was the right move, when White should be able to draw. 26 .i.xf3 27 gxf3 �7 28 �d2?! This makes it easy for Black. White had to stop Black's king from coming in on the kingside, and for that reason 28 �f2 would have been better. 28 ...�g6 29 �c3 �f5 30 �xb3 �4 31 �b4 �xf3 32 c5 �e4 33 �b5 �d5 33 ... bxc5 34 �xeS gS 35 d7 g4 36 �d6 �fS, followed by a march of the kingside pawns, is also winning. 34 cxb6 g5 35 .i.c1 h5 36 .i.d2 g4 37 .i.e 1 h4 38 .i.f2 �xe5 39 �c5 �e4 40 d7 �f3 41 .i.d4 g3 42 hxg3 h3 43 .i.e5 h2 44 .i.c7 h1'it' 45 .i.xd8 'ifd1 0-1
b) 11. ..'ii'h4+ 12 .tf2 'ii'f4 13 c5
..•
Game 43 Fedorov-Baburin
Istanbul Olympiad 2000 '------_.
1 e4 lL\f6 2 e5 lL\d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lOb& 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 lL\c6 7 .i.e3 .i.f5 8 lL\c3 e6 9 lL\f3 .i.g4 10 'it'd2
This is currently thought of as the main line, but it is not necessarily the most testing move for Black. The quiet 10 .te2 has been looking quite venom ous: 10....txf3 1 1 gxf3 and now: a) Aher 1 1 . ..'ii'd7 White should play 12 'ii'd2 which takes the games along similar lines to 10 1i'd2 'ifd7 1 1 0-0-0 but with Black having played 1 1.. ..txf3 rather early. Instead 12 f4 l:Z.d8! 13 dS .tb4! 14 .txb6 axb6 15 .tf3 exd5 16 cxdS 'i'h3 was good for Black in van der Wiel-Vaganian, Ter Apel 1993. 1 10
with a further split: b1) Aher 13 . ../i]d7 14 .tb5 .te7 ( 14 .. .f6?! has been suggested by Burgess, but it looks bad aher 15 'ii'b3) 15 0-0 .th4 16 .txc6 bxc6 17 'ii'a4 0-0 18 lZ.ad1 White was simply threatening to take the pawn on c6 in Koch-Konopka, Clichy 1993. b2) 13 ...ttJd5 14 tlJxdS exdS 15 'li'd2 'ii'xd2+ (the endgame is certainly un pleasant for Black, but in any case the position seems cramped and passive; 15 ...'flf5 16 'ii'd3 'ii'd7 17 f4 tlJe7 18 :gt h5 19 i.fl g6 20 .th3 was also good for White in Bongers-Etmans, Dieren 1998) 16 �xd2 g6 17 f4 .th6 18 .te3 tlJe7 19 .i.d3 tiJfS 20 .i.xfS gxfS 21 lZ.hg1 �d7 22 :g3 lZ.ag8 23 b4 lZ.g6 24 'iti>e2 .tf8 25 :gs �e6 26 lZ.hs h6 27 bs i.e? 28 a4 llb8 29 lZ.b1 and Black was under massive pressure in Timman-De Firmian, Malmo 2001. 10 ... .i.b4!? This is Black's most trendy move, trying to provoke White into playing a2a3 so that a later ...tlJc6-a5 will have greater force. He can also consider two other options: a) A young Jan Timman played
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main L in e
10...�e7 1 1 0-0-0 f6!? and went on to win against Schenstok in a 1968 game in Holland. The game continued 12 exf6 .i.xf6 13 lhe4 0-0 14 �e2 1i'e8 15 lbfg5 �f5 16 g4 �xg5 17 lhxg5 �g6 18 h4 h5 19 gxh5 �f5, which looks very dan gerous for Black but probably isn't that easy. b) 10 ...'ifd7 1 1 .i.e2 0-0-0 (the posi tion after the voluntary 1 1.. ..i.xf3 12 gxf3 can also be reached via 10 �e2 �xf3 1 1 gxf3 'ifd7 12 'ifd2 and seems quite difficult for Black after the further 12 ...0-0-0 1 3 0-0-0 �b4 14 a3 �e7 15 lhe4 f6 16 exf6 gxf6 17 :hg1) 12 c5! �xf3 (12 ... lhd5 13 lhxd5 'i'xd5 14 b4 a6 15 a4 looks very strong - White can still castle kingside!) 13 cxb6 �xg2 14 �b5 a6 (14...�xht 15 bxa7 will be fol lowed by promotion) 15 1i'xg2 axb5 (Shabalov-Kengis, Riga 1989} and now Shabalov gave 16 a4! b4 17 bxc7 'ifxc7 18 lhb5 1i'd7 19 0-0 as being good for White.
1981. Last, but not least, it isn't good to play 12 0-0-0 because of 12 ...lha5 13 1i'c2 .i.f5 - yet another advantage of Black keeping his bishop. 1 2 1Wd7 13 b4 White tries to profit from the move 1 1 a3, but these space gaining opera tions leave huge gaping spaces behind the ranks. The game Hiibner-Hort, Biel 1987 went 13 .i.e2 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 �f5 15 lhg3 i.g6 16 h4? (16 .i.d3 is better) and now Black uncorked the startling 16 ...lbb4! 17 b3 (17 axb4 'iia4 18 .td3 lbxc4} 17 ...lhc2 18 c5 1fc6! 19 .id3. Here 19 ... lhxa3 20 �b2 �xd3 21 Wxd3 i.xc5 would have been the crispest way to finish matters according to Hort. ••.
1 3 .txf3! 14 gxf3 0-0-0 According to Baburin, Black can play 14...l:Z.d8 15 lld1 .i.h4+ 16 lhg3 f6 17 f4 0-0, which also leaves White's game looking very ropy. 1 5 l:ld1 .th4+ 1 6 �g3 f6! Commencing undermining opera tions. 1 7 b5 �e7 18 1Wa5 Wb8 1 9 .te2 �f5 20 .tf2 1Wf71 21 f4 g51 22 �xf5 .txf2+ 23 wxf2 exf5 24 d5 fxe5 25 fxe5 g4 White's centre has remained intact ..•
1 1 a3 .te71? 1 2 �e4?! It's too late for 12 �e2 because of 12 ...lha5. After 12 l:Z.d1 Black can open it up with 12 .. .f6, while 12 b4 .i.xf3 13 gxf3 .i.h4+ cost White his castling rights in Kremenietsky-Vaganian, Moscow
17 1
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
but his king is horribly exposed. An other good line was 25 ...'i'e7 26 "ffc3 t'Lla4 27 "ffd4 t'Llc5, with the knight threatening to come into the e4-square. 26 Wc3 h5
27 e6 Perhaps 27 d6 would have been bet ter, but in any case White is in trouble. 27 . . .'fle7 28 h3 J:lhg8 29 hxg4 hxg4 30 Wd4 f4 31 .id3 Wg5 32 .te4 f3! 33 c5 lbc8 Baburin also mentioned the line 33 ... g3+ 34 �xf3 g2 35 llhg1 llgf8+ 36 �e2 "ffg4+ 37 e3! lDxds+ 38 i.xdS 'i'g3+ 39 �e2 llxciS, but bringing the knight round is much simpler. 34 J:lh7 g3+ 35 Wxf3 g2 36 J:lg1 J:tdf8+ 37 We2? 37 llf7! is White last chance. 37 .'flg4+ 38 Wd3 Ilf3+ 39 .ixf3 'flxf3+ 40 Wd2 Ilg4 41 'fle3 Wlxd5+ 42 Wc1 Ile4 43 'flf2 'flc4+ 44 'flc2 'flf1 + 45 "ild1 'flf4+ 46 '*b1 Wlf5 0-1
lbb6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 lbc6 7 .ie3 .if5 8 lbc3 e6 9 lilf3 'fld7 Another way of putting pressure on d4 which has many similarities to 9...i.g4. 10 d5 A tricky line in which the complica tions are still unresolved. What is clear is that White must have nerves of steel to play this way as his king may have to spend some time in the centre. White's most testing line is 10 i.e2 after which the once traditional 10... 0-0-0 11 0-0 (1 1 "ffd2 t'Llb4) 1 1 ...i.g4 now seems very dangerous for Black because of 12 c5! (12 t'Llg5!? lDxc4 13 llxf7 'i'e8 14 i.f2 h6 15 i.xg4 hxgS 16 llxf8 l:txf8 17 "ffe2 t'Llb6 is uncon vincing) 12 ...t'Lld5 13 t'Llxds 'i'xd5 14 b4!? (14 t'Llg5 i.xe2 15 'i'xe2 lDxd4 16 i.xd4 'i'xd4+ 17 �h1 'i'd2 18 ..xd2 lhd2 19 llxf7 i.xc5 20 t'Llxe6 i.d4 21 t'Llxd4 llxd4 led to drawish rook end games in Ligterink-Gipslis, Amsterdam 1976 and Gipslis-Kengis,Jurmala 1983) 14 ...'ife4 15 1i'b3 t'Llxd4! 16 t'Llxd4 i.xe2 17 lbxe2!? lld3 18 1i'a4 1i'xe3+ 19 �h1 'ifxe2 20 'i'xa7 ltd2 21 "iVa8+ �d7 22 'i'xb7
•.
Game 44 Mendes-R.Rodrigues
Figueira Foz Honra 1999 1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 1 12
when White had a very strong attack
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main Line
in the game Art.Minasian-Donchenko) Naberezhnye Chelmy 1988. 10..Jld8 looks much safer, aher which 1 1 0-0 (1 1 'Wd2 llJaS!? is an un tested idea of Hellers) ll ...i..g4 12 c5 (12 llJg5 .i.xe2 13 .. xe2 llJxd4 14 i..xd4 'tlt'xd4+ 15 �h1 l%d7 16 'Wf3!? also needs more analysis) 12 ...llJd5 13 llJxd5 •xd5 14 llJg5 i.xe2 15 'ifxe2 l:td7 16 'iff2 llJd8 was the ultra-soJid continuation of Macieja-Timmer, Par dubice 1994.
16 ...i.b4+. 1 6 . . ..i.xe5 1 7 'irb3 o!Of4 1 8 .i.e3 J:the8 19 'i'a3
1 9 ...Wd2+!1 20 .i.xd2 .i.xb2+ 21 We3 .i.xa1 22 �f2? The only way to keep playing was with 22 1i'xe8, forlorn though this is. 22 .i.d4 23 g3 .i.xe3+ 24 .i.xe3 �d3+ 25 �f3 �e5+ 26 *t2 �g4+ 0-1 .••
Game 45 10 exd5 1 1 cxd5 �b4 1 2 �d4 �6xd5 1 3 o!Oxf5?? White should play 13 llJxd5, aher which 13...lbxd5 14 llJxf5 .i.b4+ (14... 0-0-0!? 15 ..d3 g6 is also very in teresting, Bullockus-OakJey, correspon dence 1984) 15 �e2! 0-0-0 16 llJd6+ i..xd6 17 1i'xd5 1i'f5 18 'Wc4 1h-� leh unanswered questions in Tomic-Gipslis, Dortmund 1978. 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 Theory gives the simple 13 'WxfS 14 llJxd5 0-0-0 as the refutation. But Rod rigues comes up with something far more spectacular and beautiful. 14 �d6+ .i.xd6 1 5 o!Oxd5 �xd5 1 6 .txa7 And not 16 'Wxd5 because of ..•
Kulaots-Kengis
Riga Zona/ 1995 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 �c6 7 .ie3 .i.f5 8 o!Oc3 e6 9 �f3 .i.b4
•.•
1 13
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Although this· move has a poor repu tation, its adoption by an Alekhine spe cialist such as Kengis should at least earn it a second look. 10 a3?! If White plays the solid 10 J.e2, Black should try to develop counterplay with 10...0-0 (10: .. lLla5!? 1 1 c5 lLld5 12 J.d2 lLlc6 13 0-0 0-0 14 J.g5 was played in Rohde-Shamkovich, New York 1976) 1 1 0-0 lLla5!? 12 lLld2 (12 c5 .i.xc3! 13 bxc3 lLlbc4! is an excellent possibility that was not available for Black in the Rohde-Shamkovich game because White could take the knight and play 1i'a4+) 12 ....i.g6 13 1i'el c5 14 a3 .i.xc3 15 bxc3 llc8 16 l:.cl 'fle7 and the veiled threat against the a3-pawn gave Black excellent counterplay in Goldenberg-Ghizclavu, Graz 1972. After 10 llcl the Czech GM Pavel Blatny suggested the line 10 ...0-0 1 1 a3 ..txc3+ 12 llxc3 ...d7 13 .i.e2 llfd8 14 0-0 .i.g4 15
10 ...J..e7? I should point out that 1 1 d5 will be very strong because Black's knight is unable to come to b4. 1 1 bxc3 0-0!? A very simple and reasonable move, preparing to play 12 ...lLla5. In the game Faibisovich-Bagirov, Baku 1969 the Alekhine maestro gained the advantage after l l ...'fld7 12 .i.e2 lLlaS 13 lLld2 1i'c6 14 J..f3? 1i'a4 15 c5 'flxdl+ 16 ltxdl lLld5 17 .i.xdS exd5 18 0-0 .i.g6! 19 llde 1 �d7; Black is better due to his superior pawn structure. Bagirov later suggested 14 0-0 as an improvement and gave the line 14 ...lLlaxc4 15 lLlxc4 lLlxc4 16 d5 lLlxe3 17 dxc6 lLlxdl 18 cxb7 llb8 19 .i.b5+ �f8 20 llaxd1 llxb7 21 l:ld8+ rJi;e7 22 .:.xh8 .:.xb5.
..
10 ...i.xc3+ Before anyone gets the idea to play 1 14
1 2 c5 �d5 13 i.d2 f61 With White still lagging behind in de velopment, Black prises the position open. 1 4 exf6 •xf6 1 5 .i.b5 e5 16 .i.xc6 bxc6 1 7 dxe5 After 17 lLlxe5 'irh4+ 18 rJi;e2 (or 18 g3 1i'e4+) 18...llae8! 19 h3 llxe5+ 20 dxeS ...e4+ Black gets a winning attack. 17 ...-.e7 18 ._a4 White should have tried 18 c4!?, but
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main Lin e
then 1 8...li)f6 19 .ig5 .tg4 1ooks pretty good for Black in any case. 18 .. JWxc5 1 9 9d4 'irxd4 20 cxd4 .i.d3!
This bishop cuts through White's p<> sition like a knife through butter. Of particular importance is the fact that it controls the b1-square and thus pre vents White from contesting the b-file. 21 .i.b4 J:r.fb8 22 Wd2 .i.g6 23 J:r.hc1 aS 24 .*.c3 .Ub3 25 a4 c5! 26 l:.a2 26 dxcS loses a piece after 26 ...li)xc3 27 llxc3 l':d8+. 26 c4 27 & 1 IUS 28 �f3 �f4 0-1 The pawn on g2 is falling and with it, White's position. .•.
1 15
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
Summary I don't think that it's the right time to start playing the trendy 9 .tg4 unless Black can find a way to generate meaningful counterplay after 10 �e2. So unless Black wants to study the complications arising from 9 . .te7 10 d5 he should take a look at 9 ...d7 (and after 10 .ie2 play 10 ...l:td8) or 9 .tb4. I recommend that full-time Alekhine players use one of the solid lines given in this chapter together with one ofthe more experimental lines given in Chapter 8. It is probably advisable to learn the solid line first. •..
.
...
.
•..
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 /t)c6 7 .ie3 .tfS 8 �c3 e6 9 �f3 .te7 9 .tg4 {D) - Game 43 9 'ffd7 - Game 44 9 .tb4 - Game 45 1 0 d5 10 �e2 0.0 1 1 0-0 f6 12 exf6 .txf6 Game 40 1 0 exd5 10 ...lbb4 Game 42 1 1 cxd5 �b4 1 2 �d4 .td7 (D) 13 1Wf3 - Game 41
(D)
..•
.•.
...
-
.•.
-
3 .tb4 . . .
1 16
3 .'fle7 . .
9
. . .
0-0
I CHAPTER EIGHT I Four Pawns Attack : Divergences
1 e4 I.L!f6 2 e5 lLldS 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lLlb6 5 f4 In this chapter we take a look at Black's more extreme ways of counter ing White's massive pawn centre. Games 46 and 47 illustrate the razor sharp 6 ...c5, originally championed by Ljubojevic in the 1970s and more re cently taken up by Shabalov. Actually this is starting to look like a drawing line, due largely to the fact that if Black improves on Game 47 with 10 ....i.b4, he is likely to get an equal endgame but nothing more. In Game 48 Black com bined 6 ...c5 with 7...g6, which enters really uncharted territory. In Game 49 Black used an alternative method of playing for ... c7-c5; he first developed his queen's bishop and then brought his knight out to a6. White should play 8 .i.e3 with chances for a better endgame. Djurhuus found him self in big trouble when his centre fell apart. Amongst the weird and wonderful ways Black has tried to undermine White's pawn front, the weirdest and
most wonderful must be with 5 ...g5!?. Despite its astonishing appearance, the theoretical reputation of this move has never been better, and that due largely to the efforts of the correspondence player Schirmer. Game 50 demonstrates his treatment of the line and his many new ideas. In fact I've added one of my own, 1 1 ...'ii'g6 instead of his 1 1.. . .i.g7. Game 51 is a gambit line invented by the Australian IM Wohl. His prepara tion backfired in this game but he still obtained strong counterplay. The worry is that 1 1 .i.e3 may leave Black with inadequate counterplay, but in such ob scure positions it is always possible that an improvement will be found. The Russian player Pushkin has been experimenting with 5 ... g6, with the theoretical reputation of this move hav ing been considerably enhanced by Game 52. My own feeling is that White should actually avoid the automatic 6 lbc3 as this knight may be required to defend the c-pawn. I suspect that Black will have far more difficulty after my suggested 6 �f3, followed by 7 .i.e2 1 17
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
8 ...exd5 9 cxd5 c4
and 8 0-0.
Game 46 Vetemaa-Shabalov
USSR 1986 1 e4 li)f6 2 e5 li)dS 3 d4 d6 4 c4 li)b6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 c5!?
One of the sharpest lines at Black's disposal, it's no accident that it has been adopted by the likes of Ljubojevic and Shabalov. 1 d5 White has a much quieter possibility in 7 �f3 but 7 ...cxd4 8 'i'xd4 'i'xd4 9 �d4 (Velimirovic-Bagirov, Palma de Mallorca 1989) and now 9 ...e6 10 �b5 �a6 looks solid enough. 7 ... e6 S li)c3 The seemingly strong 8 d6 ...h4+ 9 g3 1i'e4+ is not quite the simple win of a rook that it appears to be, but in any case White's compensation is probably inadequate. 10 'i'e2 'i'xh1 1 1 �f3 is met by 1 1 ...�c6! 12 �bd2 �d7! 13 �f2 �dxe5! 14 lLlxe5 'i'xh2+ 15 .ig2 lLld4 16 11'd1 .ixd6 17 lLlf1 (finally trapping the queen) 17 ...'ilxg2+ 18 �xg2 .ixeS with a decisive advantage according to Volzhin. 1 18
Reaching the critical position. Black is forcing White's pawns to advance in the hope that they will become weak. 10 a3?1 Preventing Black's threatened 10... .ib4, but losing time. White has a number of alternatives: a) 10 ..tf4?! is bad because of 10 ... .ib4 1 1 ..ixc4 lLlxc4 12 ...a4+ lLlc6 13 dxc6 lC.xb2, winning on the spot. b) 10 'i'd4 ltlc6 1 1 'i'e4 ltlb4 12 a3 (12 d6 g6 threatens the horrific 13 .....if5) 12 ...ltl4xd5 13 lLlxd5 'i'xd5 14 ...xd5 ltlxd5 15 i..xc4 lLlc7 16 i..e3 .ie6 was fine for Black in Ciocaltea Ljubojevic, Malaga 1971. c) 10 d6!? lLlc6 1 1 �f3 (1 1 J.f4!? gS!? needs testing} 1 1. ..J.g4 12 J.f4 g5! 13 ltle4 (13 ..ig3 ..ig7) 13...gxf4!! 14 ltlf6+ 'i'xf6 15 exf6 0-0-0 and Black had more than enough for the queen in Paunovic Mrsevic, Yugoslavia 1982. d) 10 e6 is good for Black aher 10 ...i..c5 1 1 exV+ �xV 12 lLlf3 :e8+ 13 .ie2 .ig4. e) 10 ..ie3 .ib4 1 1 i..xb6 is a radical way of securing the dS-pawn, aher which Alexandrov-Shabalov, Riga 1987 continued 1 1 ...11'xb6 12 ...d2 0-0 13
Four Pawns A ttack: Divergences
lbf3 .i.g4 14 h3 .i.xf3 15 gxf3 �dl 16 f4 lbc5 17 � lDe4 18 Wd4 �xc3 19 'i'xb6 and now van der Talt's recom mendation of 19 ... axb6 20 bxc3 .i.xc3 would give Black good counterplay. f) 10 lbf3 is seen in the next game.
A move reminiscent of Frank Mar shall's famous 'gold coins' move against Lewitsky, ...'irg3. The immediate threat is mate on b2, and the queen is immune to capture. 21 l:ld2 Both 21 �xbS �b3 and 21 .i.xbS �b3 are immediate mates, while 2 1 b4 loses to 21. ..�b3+ 22 .i.xb3 ltxc3+. 21 ...lL!xc3 0-1 22 bxc3 allows 22 .....b1 mate, while 22 'irxc3 is met by 22 ...�b3+ 23 .i.xb3 'irxb3.
Game 47 Grunfeld-Ljubojevic
Riga Interzona/ 1979 10 .i.c5 Preventing White from castling king side, and the other flank turns out to be pretty dangerous too. 1 1 lbt3 0-0 1 2 .te2 .tf5! 1 3 .tgS Wd7 1 4 "ild2 h& 1 5 .tf4 lOa& 1 6 0-0-0 llac8 1 7 h3 l0a4! The prelude to a really fantastic com bination. Shabalov must have foreseen his 20th move at this point. 1 8 lbd4 .txd4 1 9 "ilxd4 l06c5 20 .txc4 Wb5!! . . •
1 e4 lOt& 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d& 4 c4 lOb& 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 c5 7 d5 e& 8 lbc3 exd5 9 cxd5 c4 10 lbt3 White's usual move, which leaves Black the choice about which knight to pm. 10 .tg4 Recently Black has been playing 10....i.b4! which leads to an endgame in which he gets excellent positional com pensation for a pawn: 1 1 .i.xc4 (aher Timman's suggestion of 1 1 .i.gS, Black seems to survive with 1 1 .. . .i.xc3+ 12 bxc3 •xdS 13 •xdS �xdS 14 0-0-0 �e7 15 .i.xe7 �e7 16 .i.xc4 .i.g4 17 llhft �c6) 1 1...i..xc3+ 12 bxc3 �xc4 13 'ira4+ �dl 14 'irxc4 �b6 15 'irb5+ 11fd7 16 'i'xd7+ (after 16 11fe2 'irxdS 17 ().() 0-0 18 .i.a3 lieS Black's pieces get well entrenched on the light squares) 16 i.xd7 17 d6 llc8 18 .i.d2 (18 .i.e3 is more active but then 18...lbc3 19 i.xb6 axb6 20 �d2 lta3 gave Black equality in Shirov-Shabalov, Riga 1986) •••
•..
1 19
A lekhin e 's D e fence
1 8 ....i.b5! (probably even more precise than the older 18 .../iJc4; first of all Black stops his opponent from castling) 19 liJd4 .i.d3.
The fact Shulman-Baburin, San Fran cisco 2001 was agreed drawn at this point confirms the view that this posi tion (the last word on the 6...c5 line) is fine for Black. The previous game in this line was MChess Pro-Shabalov, Boston 1994 which continued 20 �f2 �d7 2 1 llhe1 lthe8 22 a4 J.g6 23 .:ta2 lieS 24 liJf3 liJc4 25 J.f4 ..thS 26 llae2 .i.xf3 27 gxf3 l:taS 28 llg1 g6 29 llbl b6 30 l:Lb4 /iJxe5, recovering the pawn with a good position. Shabalov actually lost this game but this was only due to a subsequent blunder. 1 1 Wd4 This leads to some spectacular play, but it is not the only move. The simple 1 1 J.e2 J.cS (1 t ...J.b4 12 0-0 i.xc3 13 bxc3 11fxd5 14 1i'xd5 liJxdS 15 .ixc4 liJb6 16 i.b3 left Black facing menacing threats against f7 in Boudre-Werner, Royan 1988) 12 liJg5 .tfs 13 llfl (13 i.g4!? .id3 14 e6 {Durao-Silva, Portu guese Ch., Lisbon 1995} is also very interesting) 13 ... .tg6 14 h4 h6 (14 ... h5 15 .if4 allows White to build his posi120
tion undisturbed) 1 5 h5 .id3 1 6 .txd3 cxd3 was played in S.Biicker-Fleck, Biinde 1985 and now Foisor's sugges tion of 17 l:Lxf7! hxg5 18 llxg7 liJxdS 19 'i'f3 gives White a winning attack. 1 1 . . ..txf3 1 2 gxf3 .ib4 13 .ixc4 0-0 14 Dg1 The spectacular 14 .ih6!? should be answered by 14.../iJ8d7!, which leads to unexplored complications after 15 .Z:g1 g6 16 e6 /iJe5!, and not 14 ... gxh6 15 e6 f6 16 d6! liJxc4 17 e7! 1i'e8 18 .Z:gl+ �h8 19 1llg4 llf7 (19 ...'iff7 20 11fxc4!) 20 1llg8+! 11fxg8 2 1 llxg8+ '.txg8 22 e8111 + etc.
14... g6 14 ...\lfcl? 15 e6 f6 16 .th6 1Wxc4 17 llxg7+ �h8 18 l:Lg8+!! 1-0 was the con clusion of Ljubojevic-Honfi, Cacak 1970. 1 5 .ig5 In such a sharp position, possession of the initiative is paramount. 15 .ih6 is bad because of 15 ... liJc6 16 11fe4 l2Jxe5! 17 .ixf8 'ifxf8, with a safe king and demonic piece activity for the sacrificed exchange. 1 5 .. .'iic7 16 .ib3 .ic5 1 7 Wf4 .ixg1 Driven by necessity rather than
Four Pawns A t tack: Divergences
greed. 17 ...l:le8 18 .i.f6 ltl8d7 19 ltle4 l:lxe5 (19 ... ltlxe5? is refuted by the devastating 20 llxg6+!!) 20 .i.xe5 ltlxe5 21 �e2 .i.d6 was played in Banaventure Renaud, Le Havre 1977, and now 22 llacl would leave Black struggling. 17...ltl8d7 is well met by 18 d6 'i'c6 19 0-0-0.
18 d6 -.c5! The only defence. 18 ...11'c8 19 0-Q.O .i.c5 20 e6! fxe6 2 1 1i'e5 lieS (or 21...lbd5 22 d7!!) 22 i.h6 •d7 23 ltle4 ltlc6 24 ltlf6+ wins for White, as pointed out by Bronstein. 19 lbe4 •d4 20 D.d 1 •xb2
21 e6?! In such complex positions it can of ten take years to uncover the right path, and it seems that White missed his way at this point. The correct line is 21 ltlf6+ �hS 22 .:td2 1i'a1+ (22.. .'W'b1+ 23 �e2 ltl8d7 24 1i'h4 h5 25 ltlxh5 was also winning for White in Moura-Rinaldi, correspon dence 1983, while 22.....cl+ 23 �e2 'ifc5 24 �fl 1i'c1 + 25 J.d1 also leaves Black facing deadly threats to his king) 23 .i.dH (23 lld1 'iib2 24 l:ld2 repeats the position, while 23 �e2 ltlc6 24 1i'h4 h5 was unclear in Griinfeld-Wiemer,
Tecklenburg 1984) 23 ... ltl8d7 24 'ifh4 11'xe5+ 25 �1 h5 26 ltlxh5 gxh5 27 'iixh5+ �g8 28 l:lg2 and White wins (Wiemer). 21 l08d7! 22 e7 1i'xh2! Black can afford to return some ma terial as long as he breaks White's at tack. 23 exfB• + D.xf8 24 1i'xh2 A forlorn hope, but White has noth ing better. 24.....ixh2 25 lOt&+ Wg7 26 lbxd7 lbxd7 27 ..te7 D.bB! .•.
28 Wf2 Black's precise 27th move ensured that 28 .i.a4 is met by 28 ...b5. 28 .....ie5 29 D.c1 lbc5! 30 D.d1 .if& 31 ..ixf6+ Wxf6 32 ..tc4 D.dB 33 �g3 a& 34 ..tf1 �e5 35 f4+ �e& 36 ..ic4+ Wf6 37 Wt3 b5 0-1
Game 48 Volzhinwl.Svechnikov
USSR 1988 1 e4 lbf& 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lOb& 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 c5 7 d5 g6!? An intriguing move which takes aim at the eSwpawn. As yet it has very little established theory. 121
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
enough but this loses immediately) 16 i.f6! and White won in Solomon Kanikevich, Sydney 1991. 12...llJ8d7 also fails to gain the much needed counterplay after 13 llJf3 l%e8 14 l%e 1. If White maintains his centre like this, Black will be struggling.
8 .*.f4 White can also play 8 llk3 .ig7 9 .i.f4 (9 .ie3 0-0 10 .i.xc5 llJ8d7 will recover the pawn with a good game, while 9 c!ilf3 is met by 9 ....i.g4). 8 .tg7 9 .!Oc3 0-0 1 0 Wrd2 Preparing to castle long. White has tried a couple of other plans: a) 10 .i.d3 e6 1 1 d6 is dubious be cause it allows Black to start hammering away at e5. Ciuffoletti-Sedina, Saint Vincent 1998 continued 1 1 ...llJc6 12 llJf3 llJdl 13 1ie2 l0d4! 14 llJxd4 cxd4 15 llJb5 1ia5+ 1 6 J.d2 ilb6 17 b4 l0xe5 1 8 c5 llJxd3+ 19 1i'xd3 1i'c6 20 0-0 e5 with the better game for Black. b) 10 .i.e2 e6 1 1 l0f3 exd5 12 cxd5 .i.g41 13 0-0 llJ8d7 14 9e1 .i.xf3 15 .i.xf3 llJxe51 16 .i.xe5 l%e8 won a pawn for Black in Moraru-Grunberg, Bucha rest 1999. c) 10 h3 is slow but nevertheless worth considering. White wants to de velop his knight on f3 without it being pinned. 10 ... e6 1 1 0-0-0 exd5 1 2 cxd5 .tg41 12 ... c4 is not as good because of 13 llJ£3 .i.g4 14 .i.h61 .ixf3 15 .ixg7 .i.xdl? {15 ...clt>xg7 16 gxf3 is miserable .••
122
1 3 l:te1 ! White wants to kick Black's bishop out of g4 before developing the knight on f3. After 13 llJf3 llJ8d7 Black threat ens 14 ...l:le8 and it gets difficult for White to hold e5. 1 3 ...c4! 14 h3 .tf5 1 5 g4 15 llJf3 deserves consideration. Now Black comes up with a promising pawn sacrifice. 1 5 ....td31 16 .ixd3 cxd3 1 7 'ibd3 lba&! The immediate threat is 18 ...llJb4. 18 d& l:tc8 1 9 *b1 lbc41 And now the idea is 20.....b6. In a later game (Ilincic-Marinkovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1989) Black played the inferior 19 ... l0c5 but even here he had compen sation after 20 1i'e2 llJe6 21 .ig3 l0c4 22 ltlf3 1i'a5 . 20 .!Od5 'ifa51 21 lbe7+ *h8 22 .!Df3 l:tc5 According to Volzhin, Black could
Four Pa wns A ttack: Divergen ces
also consider 22 ... lbxb2!? as after 23 Wxb2 lbb4 24 t!fb3 l:tc2+ 25 �b1 l:txa2 the attack is very strong. 23 h4? Missing Black's reply. White had to play 23 1i'b3 lbxb2 24 i..d2 1i'a4 25 l:te3 llb5 26 1i'xa4 lbxa4+ 27 lZ.b3 lbb3+ 28 axb3 lb4c5, producing an endgame in which both sides have chances (Volzhin).
23 ...Wxa2+1 24 �xa2 �b4+ 25 �b3! �xd3 26 h51 The only chance. With both players in time trouble it is Black's turn to make a mistake. 26 gxh5? The right way to play it was with 26 ...lbxf4! 27 hxg6 fxg6! (and not 27 ...lbxg6? 28 lhh7+! �xh7 29 l:th 1+ i..h6 30 lbg5+ �g7 31 lbf5+ �g8 32 lbxh6+ �g7 33 lbf5+ �g8 34 l:th7 lbd2+ 35 �b4 l:tc4+ 36 �a3 lbb1+ 37 �a2 J:.d8 38 llg7+ �f8 39 l:txf7+ �g8 40 ltlh6+ �h8 41 l:th7 mate). 27 l:lxh5 �xf4 After 27... lbxe1 Volzhin gave 28 lbgS h6 29 d7! lba5+ 30 ct>a2 li)c6 31 lbxc6 bxc6 32 d8'if! l:txd8 33 li)xf7 + �h7 34 lbxd8 tLid3 35 e6! llxh5 36 gxh5 i.. f6 37 i..c7 with a drawish end..•
game. 28 l:txh7+! �xh7 29 l:th1 + .J.h6 30 �g5+ �g7 31 �f5+ �g6 32 �h71
32 ...�d2 + Finally it is dear why White's king went to b3 on move 25. Had he played 25 �b1 he would be getting mated! 33 �a4 �xh7 Black decides not to push his luck and accedes to a draw by perpetual check. The attempt to play for a win with 33 ...l:tc4+ 34 b4 tbh5? is met by 35 :XhS :.Xg4 36 l:lxh6+ �xfS 37 liJxf8 �xeS 38 lbd7 +I �f5 39 l:H6+ �e4 40 liX5+ �e5 41 d7 (Volzhin). 34 l:txh6+ �g8 35 �e7+ �g7 36 �f5+ �98 37 �e7+ % -%
Game 49 Djurhuus-Agdestein
Norwegian Ch., Asker 2000 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 f4 .tf5 6 �c3 e6 7 �f3 After 7 i..e3 Black can play 7 dxe5 (7...liJa6?! would leave Black's knight on a6 badly placed after 8 exd6 cxd6 9 liJf3) 8 fxe5 i..b4!? (8...lllc6 transposes into the main lines) 9 liJf3 c5, which is known to give Black good counterplay: ..•
1 23
A /ekhine 's Defen c e
a) 10 •b3 cxd4!? 1 1 ltlxd4 tlh4+ 12 g3 tle4 13 �f2 .txc3 14 .tg2 .xd4! 1 5 .txd4 .txd4+ was good for Black in Marjanovic-Suba, Novi Sad 1974. b) 10 a3 cxd4!? 1 1 .xd4 (1 1 .txd4 is met by 1 1. .. .txc3+ 12 .txc3 1i'xd1+ 13 :lxdl ltla4!, and 11 axb4 by 1 t...dxe3! 12 1i'xd8+ �xd8 13 0-0-0 + �e7 14 cS aS! 1 5 cxb6 axb4, threatening 1 6.. .:a1+ {Miulescu-Ghuzdavu, Romania 1972}} 1 t...Wxd4 12 .i.xd4 .txc3+ 13 Lc3 ltla4 14 .tb4 ltlxb2 15 ltld4 (Ostojic Marovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1972) and now 1 5 ...a5! 16 .td6 .tg6 17 ltlbS ltla6 is fine for Black according to Burgess. 7 ..�86 After 7...dxeS 8 fxeS .tb4 White can play 9 .td3! ..i.xd3 (9... c5 10 0-0! cxd4 1 1 ltle4 gives White a dangerous attack, and 9 ....tg4 is met by 10 0-0! ltlc6 1 1 c5 ltldS? 12 M) 10 •xd3 c5 1 1 0-0 cxd4 12 ltle4 ltl6d7 (12...0-0 is met by 13 ltleg5 g6 1 4 ltlxh7! �h7 15 lLlg5+ �g7 16 9h3 l%h8 17 :lxf7+ �g8 1 8 1i'xe6) 13 ltlfg5 ltlxeS 14 1i'g3 ltlbd7 15 .tf4 1i'b6 (15 ...ltlg6 16 ltlxf7) 16 .txeS f6 17 .td6 fxgS 18 .txb4 1i'xb4 19 ltld6+ �e7 20 l%f7+ �d8 21 1i'xg5+ with a winning attack in lvkov-Timman, Am sterdam 1974. .
8 .i.d3 This now turns out to be very dan gerous for White, who shortly gets hit by a flurry of tactical blows. 8 exd6 would also be bad because of 8 ...ltlb4!. White should play 8 .te3, after which 8 ... c5 9 dxcS dxcS 10 a3! (stopping Black's a6 knight from getting back into the game) 10...11Vxd1+ 1 1 :Xd1 .te7 12 .ie2 gave White the better endgame in Hort-Knezevic, Luhacovice 1973. He has more space and the knight on a6 is badly placed.
8 . . . .i.xd3 9 •xd3 c5 10 dxc5 I doubt that White really relished this line, but it seems to be the only way to play it. 10 d5 is bad because of 10 ...exd5 1 1 lLlxdS dxe5 12 ltlxeS ltlxdS 13 cxdS ltlc7, winning the dS-pawn.
1 0 ...li:)xc5 1 1 ••2 dxe5 1 2 1Cixe5 f6!? Forcing the knight from eS by book or by crook. White is forced to go for broke and accept the offer of the ex change.
1 3 •h5+ g6 14 1Cixg6 hxg6 1 5 •xh8 .d41
Putting the biggest lump available right in the middle of the board. Black has a multitude of threats and White's 1 24
Four Pa wns A ttack: Diverg enc es
queen is shut out of the game. 16 �2 It seems that 16 �f1 would result in a draw by perpetual check aher 16 ...tbe4 17 ltlxe4 11fxe4 18 1i'h3 (18 'ii'xf6 11'd3+ 19 �f2 .tc5+ 20 �el .tb4+ 21 �2 .tc5+ is also a draw) 18 ...1t'xc4+ 19 �g1 1t'e4 20 1t'g3 (or 20 �f2 .tc5+ 21 �g3 'ifd3+ 22 �h4 g5+ 23 �g4 1t'f5+ 24 �g3 •d3+) 20....tc5+ 21 �ft 1t'c4+ 22 �e1 1t'e4+ 23 �f1 1t'c4+ etc. 16 'ifh3 is bad because of 16 ...ti)d3+ 17 �e2 'iff2+ 18 �xd3 l:[d8+ 19 ltld5 ltlxdS 20 •xe6+ ti)e7+ 21 �c3 1t'd4+ 22 �b4 l:[d6 23 'ilfel .Ub6+ 24 �a3 'ifxc4 25 b3 11fd4, according to analysis by Carsten Hansen. 16 .....xc4+ 1 7 Wf3 �d5 1 8 l:ld1 �3 1 9 WigS? Under massive pressure, White loses his way. After 19 ltlxd5 'ifxdS+ 20 �g3 •f5 (20....d4 21 •g8} 2 1 .te3 (or 21 •h3 1ie4 22 1i'g4 .tb4) 21...e5 the po sition would still be massively compli cated.
1 9...�e7! 20 Wh7 We&+ 21 �e2 Wxg2+ An old-fashioned king hunt. 22 Wxd3 0-0-0 + 23 Wc4 l:lxd1 24
ltlxd1 We2+ 0-1 Game 50 Mischke-Schirmer
Correspondence 1995 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 ltld5 3 c4 lLlb6 4 d4 d6 5 f4 g5!?
You need to be very enthusiastic about undermining pawn centres to play this idea of GM Albin Planinc. More than thirty years after Planinc used to play it the shock value is still intact. And armed with his own ideas, Michael Schirmer thinks it's good enough for correspondence chess. 6 exd6 The theoretical 'refutation'. Another Schirmer game (Gerloff-Schirmer, cor respondence 1989) went 6 fxg5 dxe5 7 d5 (7 dxe5 'ii'x d1+ 8 �d1 .ig7 9 ti)fJ .tg4 is good for Black) 7...e6 8 ti)fJ exdS 9 .te2 e4 10 ti)e5 'i'e7 1 1 ti)g4 .txg4 12 .txg4 1i'b4+ 13 ti)c3 'irxc4 14 .te2 'i'c5 15 'i'd2 llx:6 16 .tg4 ti)e5 17 .te2 0-0-0 18 h4 .tg7 19 llft llhe8 20 ltlb5?? ltld3+ 0-1 - a total massacre, but White's play was unimpressive. In the classic Eales and Williams book on the Alekhine, 5-.g5 is relegated 1 25
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
to a side note. But neither of the sug gestions offered seem very good; 6 lbf3 can be met by 6... g4 and 6 'it'h5 by 6... dxe5. Meanwhile, 6 d5?! e6 7 f5 exfS 8 e6 'it'f6 was better for Black in Erma kov-Keene, correspondence 1971-72. If White is in search of a good line against 5 ...g5!?, then maybe he should also look at simple development with 6 lL!c3. 6 . . .1i'xd61 This was thought to be bad, with no less an authority than Vlastimil Hon recommending White's reply. Black's earlier try was 6 ...gxf4 but then 7 dxc7! 'ii'xc7 8 lDc3 e5 9 dxe5 lbc6 10 �xf4 j.e6 1 1 lbe4 �b4+ 12 'itf2 lbxc4 13 i.xc4 Axc4 14 lL!f3 was horrible in Tringov-Pianinc, Varna 1970. 7 c5 'ife&+
8 �2!? At this point Hon gave 8 ...e2 but then in Zoels-Schirmer, 1993, Black generated powerful counterplay with 8...lbd5 9 Wxe6 (delaying the exchange of queens with 9 fxg5 Ag7 10 lbf3 ltk6 doesn't help White) 9 ...j.xe6 10 fxg5 Ag7 1 1 lbf3 l2Jc6 12 Ab5 lbdb4! (the key move, avoiding doubled pawns and opening the d-file against the d4-pawn) 126
13 lba3 0-0-0 14 �xc6 l2Jxc6 1 5 lbc2 .i..fS 16 lbe3 Ad3 17 �d2 �e4 18 lbc2 ..ixf3 19 gxf3 lbxd4 20 l2Jxd4 Ld4+ 2 1 �e2 llc4 2 2 �e3 ltc2+ 2 3 'iti>d3 llxb2 0-1 . 8 ...llJd5 9 i..c4 The game Blake-Schirmer, corre spondence 1994 continued 9 fxg5 .i.g7 10 .i..c4 l2Jc6 1 1 lbf3 Wf5 12 ..ie3? lbxe3 13 �xe3 lbxd4 14 lbxd4 Wxg5+ 15 ..td3 ..if5+ 16 ci>c3 1!fe3+, when Black recovered the piece with a win ning attack. 9 . . .gxf4 1 0 'iff3 White could also consider simple de velopment with 10 lL!f3, after which 10 ... 1i'f5 could be Black's best. 10 ...c6 1 1 i..xf4 i..g 7 I suggest 1 1 ... 11t'g6 (!), keeping e7 de fended, the g-file open and preparing ... .i.e6. The position looks very interest ing and complex. 1 2 llJe2 llJd7 13 llJbc3 llJ7f6 14 h3 1i'd7 15 l:lad1 llJxf4 16 llJxf4 'iff5 16 ...0-0?! 17 l:r.he1 is poor for Black, so he leaves his king on e8 for the mo ment in order to defend the e-pawn. 17 g4 1i'g5 18 l:lhg 1 !?
White can also try to eliminate Black's dark-square bishop with 18
Four Pa wns A t tack: Diverg en c es
lllli5, after which 18...lihh5 19 1i'xf7+ �d8 20 .xh5 IU8+ 2 1 'it>g2 1i'xh5 22 gxh5 gives White slightly the better of the endgame, but 1 8 ...1i'h4+ 19 �g2 l:lg8!? is still messy. 18 ...0-0 1 9 l:lge1 l:ld8 20 �g3 h5 21 l:le5?! In his notes, Shirmer gave 21 lDe4 lLlxe4+ 22 'ifxe4 as being better. 21 hxg4 22 1We3? After this White has nothing. He had to try 22 llxg5 gxf3 23 lllg6! e6 24 tbe5 with a complex struggle ahead. 22 .tf5 0-1 •..
••.
....----
Game 51 Mamadshoev-Wohl
Yerevan Olympiad 1996 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 f4 c5!? 6 dxc5 6 d5 is met by 6...e6, with very strong counterplay. 6 l06d7 6 ... dxc5 7 'i'xd8+ gives Black a truly horrific endgame, which is not at all what Black had in mind. Instead he gambits a couple of pawns for what turns out to be quite interesting com pensation. •••
7 cxd6 exd6 8 exd6 ll:lf6! 9 We2+ .i.e6 10 ll:lc3 10 fS? doesn't work because of 10...1fa5+. 10 g6! Wohl had originally prepared 10...1fa5, but changed his mind during the game. 1 1 c5 In a subsequent game (Smeets-Wohl, Zwolle 2001) White played 1 1 .i.e3 .i.g7 12 0-Q.O and left his opponent with very little compensation after 12 ... 0.0 13 tbf3 lbc6 14 1i'd2 .aS 1 5 lbd4 li)xd4 16 .i.xd4 b5 17 .i.x£6! .i.x£6 18 tbd5 etc. It remains to be seen if Wohl has an improvement ready. 1 1 ... .tg7 1 2 Wb5+ ll:lbd7 1 3 ll:lf3 In giving the check on b5, White might have intended 13 1i'xb7 lllxc5 14 'i'c7, exchanging queens and staying a pawn up. But by now he might have realised that after 14...1i'xc7 15 dxc7 Q..O Black's active pieces provide good compensation for the material deficit. After c7 drops it will only be one pawn. 1 3 0-0 14 .i.e2 l:lc8 1 5 0-0 ll:lxc5 1 6 l:ld1 .td7! 1 7 'tWb4 a5 1 8 Wd41 •••
.•.
Over the next few moves, some fancy footwork keeps the queen on the 127
A lekhine 's Defen c e
g1-a7 diagonal. After 18 1lra3 Black can generate ferocious play with 18 ... b5 19 .txbS 11rb6 etc. 1 8 l[)g4 1 9 lOes l[)e& 20 'tWa7! l[)xe5 21 fxe5 .i.xe5 22 'tWf2! .i.e& Preventing 23 lDds. 23 .i.h& .i.g7? After his brave and imaginative ear lier play, Wohl suddenly loses his nerve. Black should sacrifice the exchange with 23 ....txd6! 24 .txf8 11rxf8, when the mighty pair of bishops provide excellent compensation. 24 .i.xg7 �xg7 25 .i.b5! .i.xb5 26 lbxb5 'tWg5 27 lbe3 'ireS 28 l:ld5 'tWxf2+ 29 �xf2 l:lfd8 30 l:lad1
r------.
Game 52
Brener-Pushkin
USSR 1988
••.
30 b6? The final mistake? According to GM Ian Rogers, Black could still draw with 30...ltlc5. 31 d7 l:le5 32 lba4! l:le2+ 33 l:l1d2 l:lxd2+ 34 l:lxd2 l[)eS?! The last hope was 34... b5, though this does look rather ugly after 35 �b6! J:[b8 36 �8 ltld8. 35 l[)xeS bxe5 36 �e3 ¢16 37 l:ld5 a4 38 �d3 �e6 39 �e4 l:lxd7 40 l:lxd7 �xd7 41 Wxe5 f5 42 �b4 f4 43 �xa4 g5 44 *b3 g4 45 �e3 h5 46 �d3 h4 47 �.2 1 -0 .•.
1 28
1 e4 l[}f6 2 e5 l[)dS 3 d4 d6 4 e4 lbb& 5 f4 g6!?
Another interesting line in which the theoretical 'refutation' has been ren dered totally unconvincing. 6 lbe3 In view of the dangers to his c-pawn in this line, White might do well to con sider the unpretentious 6 �3 .tg7 7 .te2 0-0 8 0-0, after which 8 ... .te6 can be met by 9 �bdl. 6 .i.g7 7 .i.e3 0-0 The immediate 7 ... .te6!? is also worth considering, a game Kotek Sergiev, Czech Republic 1997 continu ing 8 11rb3 (8 cS is met by 8...�d5; White's best may be 8 l0f3, after which 8 0-0 transposes back into the game) 8 ... a5! 9 a4 �6 10 l:td1 �b4 1 1 �f3 dS! 12 cxdS (12 cS?! �4!) 12 ...�xd5! 13 �dS .txdS 14 1ic2 .txf3 15 gxf3 �dS 16 .i.ct e6 with a clear advantage for Black because of his superior pawn structure and grip on dS. 8 lbf3 ..•
...
Four Pa wns A ttack: Diverg en c es
White has also tried the supposed 'refutation' 8 cS!?, but then 8 ...�6d7 is not at all clear {and not 8...dxc5 9 dxcS 1i'xd1 + 10 llxd1 �6d7 1 1 �dS etc.). After the further moves 9 �f3 b6! 10 b4 .i.b7 1 1 i.e2 aS 12 a3 bxcS 13 bxcS dxcS 14 dxc5 ltla6, Black had excellent counterplay in the game Rogers-Loffler, Wijk aan Zee 1996. 9 h4!? has been sug gested by Volzhin and would need an energetic response by Black; it is cer tainly very dangerous after, for example, 9... b6 10 1i'f3 c6 1 1 hs. 8 ...�e6! Once again this is the key to Black's counterplay; the attack on the c-pawn is surprisingly difficult to meet. 8...dxe5 9 dxeS! condemns him to a cramped and pass1ve game.
9 �3 After 9 �cl2 dxeS 10 fxeS {10 dxeS may be White's best, but Black has an easy game after 10 ...�6, intending ...f7-f6) 10 ... c5! 1 1 d5 {or 1 1 dxcS �6d7} 1 t ....tfs 12 .tf4 e6! 13 d6 �6 14 �f3 �d7, Black won the eS-pawn in Schmidt Schaeffer-Haakert, Germany 1988. Of White's other moves, 9 d5? is downright bad because of 9....tg4 10
exd6 exd6, intending 1 1... IZ.e8, whilst 9 b3 allows 9 ... c5! 10 dxc5 �6d7 1 1 cxd6 exd6 12 1i'xd6 �xeS! etc. 9 ...a5! 10 �g5 The threat of 10 ... a4 is quite difficult to meet; after 10 a4?! �6 Black gets the b4-square as in the Kotek-Sergiev game above. White's can play 10 �4!?, after which 10 . .d5 1 1 �ed2 {1 1 �egS?! dxc4 12 �xe6 cxb3 13 �xd8 llxd8 14 axb3 �6 gave Black the better endgame in Nikitin-Pushkin, USSR 1988) 1 1...dxc4 12 �xc4 �6 looks fairly even. White has more space which is compensated by Black's powerful grip on the dS square. 10 . . a4! And not 10 ....tf5 because of the powerful thrust 1 1 cS. .
.
1 1 �xe& 1 1 1i'b5?! can be met by 1 1. .. .i.d7 12 ..b4 �6 13 1i'a3 f6!, detonating White's centre. 1 1 ... axb3 1 2 �xd8 l:lxd8 1 3 a3 �c6 14 0-0-0?! After this White gets renewed prob lems with his c4-pawn. Volzhin rec ommended an improvement for White in 14 :c1, his analysis continuing 1 29
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
14...dxe5 1 5 dxe5 ltld4 16 .td3 ltlc2+ 17 .txc2 (17 �e2 lbd3! 18 �d3 :ld8+ 19 �e2 �e3 20 �xe3 ltlxc4+ 21 �e4 ltlxb2) 17 ...ltlxc4! 1 8 �e2!? bxc2 19 :lxc2 with equality. 1 4.../lla5! 1 5 c5 dxc5 16 dxc5 lbd 1 + 1 7 lC!xd1 17 �xd1 ltlbc4 18 .tel ltd8+ 19 �e 1 f6! puts White in even deeper trouble. 1 7 ...lC!bc4 1 8 .i.d4 l:td8 19 .i.c3 l:td5 20 .i.b4 g51 An Alekhine•s Defence dream - the undermining operations finally cause White•s centre to collapse. 2 1 fxg5 21 g3 gx£4 22 gx£4 .th6 will win the f-pawn. 21 J%xe5 22 .i.xc4 lC!xc4 23 l:te 1 e6 24 h4 Or 24 lbe5 .txe5 25 g3 .td4, which ties White•s pieces up prior to bringing the king in. 24...l:td5! • .
1 30
25 l:te4 If 25 ltlc3 there follows 25 .. .1td2 26 l:te2 l:lxe2 27 ltlxe2 .txb2 + etc. 25 ...lC!e5 26 ltJf2 .i.f81 27 c6 lC!xc6 28 .i.xf8 Wxf8 29 l:tc4 l:ld4 30 l:lc3 l:lxh4 31 l:lxb3 lC!a5 32 l:ld3 l:th2 33 l:tg3 Wg7 34 ltJe4 Wg6 35 b4 ltJc6 36 lC!c5 l0d4 37 l:lg4 e5! 38 l:le4 l:lxg2 39 AxeS l:lxg5 40 l:lxg5+ Wxg5 41 lC!xb7 Wg4 0-1 The advance of Black's h-pawn will decide matters.
Four Pa wns A ttack: Divergences
Summary The lines in this chapter are still largely uncharted, with only 6 c5 7 d5 e6 being truly 'respectable'. I have my suspicions about the soundness ofWohl's treatment in Game 5 1 and the counterplay available from 5 ... g6. Both of these (plus 6 ... c5 7 d5 g6) require some homework to turn them into useful lines. On the other hand the amazing S ...gS looks quite playable on the basis of existing evidence. •••
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6 5 f4 dxeS S ... .tfS - Game 49 5 ... g5 Game 50 S ... cS {D) - Game 51 5 ...g6 - Game 52 6 fxe5 c5 7 d5 (D) e6 7. g6 Game 48 8 �3 exd5 9 cxd5 c4 1 0 llJf3 10 a3 - Game 46 10 ....1g4 1 1 'ird4 .1xf3 1 2 gxf3 .1b4 1 3 .1xc4 0-0 (D) - Game 47 -
..
-
5
. . .
c5
7 d5
13
. . .
0-0
131
CHAPTER NINE
I
The Chase Variation
1 e4 lLlf6 2 e5 lLld5 3 c4 lLlb6 4 c5 lbd5 The Chase Variation, thus named for obvious reasons, is often chosen by players who like to force the pace early on. Well-known exponents of the white side include the strong grandmasters Sveshnikov and Thorhallsson, so it cer tainly deserves to be taken seriously as a white weapon. Having driven Black's knight away from d5, White promptly sends it back again and argues that the pawn on c5 will have a cramping effect, if only tem porarily. White sometimes gambits this pawn whilst continuing with his devel opment. If he chooses to protect it with the move d2-d4, then Black should probably construct a plan to undermine it with ... the advance b7-b6 at some point. The positions arising from the Chase Variation are very sharp and Black cer tainly needs to know what he's doing. My recommendation is to meet either 5 tbc3 or 5 .ic4 with 5 e6, as in Garnes 54 to 56. .•.
1 32
Game 53 Thorhallsson-Gausel
Reykjavik 1997 1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lLld5 3 c4 lLlb6 4 c5 lLld5 5 lLlc3 lLlxc3 Another interesting possibility is 5 ...c6 6 .i.c4 {6 tbxdS cxd5 7 d4 d6 gives Black an easy game) 6...e6 which can also be reached via transposition from 5 .ic4 c6 6 tbc3 e6: a) Black seems to be doing okay after 7 d4 b6 8 cxb6 axb6 9 tbge2 .ia6 10 .tb3 d6 11 tbxdS; this was agreed drawn at this point in Rozentalis Kengis, Daugavpils 1989. b) 7 tbe4 b6 8 tbd6+ .i.xd6 9 cxd6 0-0 10 d4 .ia6 was also fine for Black in Szabolcsi-Knezevic, Budapest 1981. c) Finally, 7 'ifg4 f5 8 'ilg3 b6 9 cxb6 axb6 10 t2Jge2 i..a6 11 d3 ...e7 12 0-0 'ikf7 also saw Black complete his development with a good game m Sveshnikov-Giuzman, Bern 1992. 6 dxc3 lLlc6 6 ... d5 7 cxd6 exd6 8 ..if4 d5 9 i..d3 is
Th e Chase Varia tion
slightly better for White because of his lead in develoJ?ment. The text is Bagi rov's idea.
with 1 1 1i'd2 achieved nothing after 1 1.....i.e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 l:lfd1 d6 14 exd6 cxd6 in Kalikova-Hallerova, Czech Women's Ch., Nymburk 1994.
1 1 ...i.e7 1 2 'i'd3!? 0-0 According to Finkel, the tempting 12. ..o!Da7?! leaves Black with slightly the worse endgame after 13 .ta4 ..i.xf3 14 gxf3 llJc6 15 ..i.xc6 dxc6 16 "ffe4 "ffdS 17 l:lfdl "ffxe4 1 8 fxe4, his problems stemming from the fact that he can't castle without allowing White's rook into d7.
13 l:lfd1 d5 14 exd6 cxd6 7 ll:lf3 e6 8 i.e3 b6 9 i.b51? This is probably the only move to give White solJle pressure. 9 'iVa4?! gave Black the initiative after 9 .....i.xcS 1 0 ..i.xcS bxcS 1 1 0-0-0 f6!? 12 ..i.bS o!DxeS 13 l:the 1 0-0 14 o!DxeS fxeS 1 5 .txd7 'iVgS+ in Cappello-Bagirov, Tunis 1979, while after 9 cxb6 axb6 1 0 a3 fS!? 1 1 exf6 tfxf6 12 �gS 1i'f7 13 .td3 .ta6 1 4 c4 .td6 15 1i'c2 1i'h5 Black had a com pact and well organised position in Fo garasi-Bagirov, Budapest 1989.
And not 14 ... ..i.xd6?! 1 5 llJg5, which forces a serious weakening of Black's kingside. In the game too, White man ages to bring some real pressure to bear.
9 ....i.b7 10 cxb6 axb6 1 5 We4! Wc7 16 'i'g4! :ladS 1 7 i.d3 ll:le5
1 1 0-0 Trying to pot pressure on the d-file
Black wisely tries to simplify the posi tion before White's threats become too serious, though in this case he gets a different set of problems due to his in ferior pawn structure. After 1 7...d5? White has 18 ..i.h6 ..i.f6 19 "ffh3!, when the mating threats (with 20 ..i.xg7) would force Black to give up the exchange with 19...g6.
18 ll:lxe5 dxe5 1 9 'i'c41 1 33
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
Yet another queen move, but one which confirms White's advantage. White's 3-1 queenside majority would be a big factor in the endgame, not least because the mobility of Black's own majority has been hobbled by the dou bled e-pawns. 19 ...Wb8!? Giving up a pawn rather than ex change queens. The decision to play like this might have been motivated by prac tical considerations; White might have been running short of time and it would be easier for him to play the endgame.
We3?1 After this Black is right back into it and the shock of the turnaround tells on White's nerves. He should play 40 1ic7!, keeping Black tied up. 40 .. .Wa4! Suddenly threatening ...�a8 followed by ...¥c6. White gives up a pawn to prevent this and suddenly he is equal at best. 41 �c3 �aS 42 l:lf1 'ffc6 43 .i.f3 'il'xc4 44 Wg2 f4 45 'ffe 1 fxg3 46 hxg3 'il'a2+ 47 Wd2 �xf3+ 48 l:lxf3 'it'a4
20 �xb6 :ca 21 Wb3 Was 22 �f1 �c6 23 a4 h5 24 aS h4 25 c4 f5! The only chance to create a counter play. Black should be losing with best play but the position still poses some practical difficulties. 26 Wc3 l:lf6 27 Wxe5! l:lg6 28 g3 l:lf8 29 �e3 Wea 30 �f4?1 Thus far White's play has been ex emplary but this allows some counter play. White should push his passed pawn with the cold-blooded 30 a6!. 30 hxg3 31 fxg3 �f6 32 1rc5 �xb2 33 �d6 �xa1 34 �xf8 .*.f6 35 �d6 l:lh6 36 .i.e2 �g5 37 rlb 1 Wh7 38 .i.e5 �e4 39 l:ld1 �e7 40
49 'it'd3+ Probably missing the fact that Black can profitably use the h7-square. He should play the move 49 'i'd4 immedi ately, when the position is probably about equal. 49 ...Wg8 50 'it'd4 'ffc2+ 51 l:lf2 'ifh71 52 'it'f4?! l:lh2+ 53 Wg1 l:lh1 + 54 wg2 'it'h3+ 55 Wf3 'ifh5+ 56 Wg2 .i.c5! Winning for Black. 57 .i.d4 'ifh3+ 58 Wf3 'it'h5+ 59 Wg2 l:ld1 1 60 l:lf1 l:lxf1 61 Wxf1 'ird1 + 62 wg2 'it'xd4 63 Wb8+ Wh7 64 1rb1 + g6 65 'it'b7+ Wh6 66 a6 0-1
•••
1 34
Th e Chase Varia tion
r-----
Game 54
Sveshnikov-Solozhenkin
Russia 1998
,______________.
1 e4 /Of6 2 e5 �d5 3 c4 �b6 4 c5 �d5 5 /Oc3 e6 6 d4 The continuation of Oim-Mikenas, Palanga 1961 cenainly deserves a men tion. Aher 6 ...g4 Black played 6...h5!? 7 'ilc4 d6! 8 cxd6 cxd6 9 �xdS exdS 10 'ifxdS llk6 11 .i.b5 .i.d7 12 exd6 lth6 13 i.c4 1le6+ with excellent compensa tion for the sacrificed pawn. 6 l0xc3 7 bxc3 b61
i.d3 {9 'tlt'g4?! c5 10 dxc5 'flc7! 1 1 lDf3 lDa6 12 i.xa6 i.xa6 13 i.e3 i.xc5 was fine for Black in Lein-Zelcic, Belgrade 1988) 9...i.b7 10 �f3 d6 {10....i.e7 1 1 0-0 �-� was the end of the game Sveshnikov-Solozhenkin, Russian Ch., Elista 1996) 11 0-0 .i.e7 12 lle1 �d7 13 i.c2 lla5 14 �d2 dxe5, which led to complex play in Sveshnikov-Moroze vich, Alushta 1994. 8 . . .bxc5 9 .i.g5 J..e 7 10 .i.xe7 Wxe7 1 1 •xg7 :ts 1 2 /Of3 cxd4
•••
Once again this is a key move for Black. He undermines White's pawn structure and prepares to develop his queen's bishop via a6 or b7. s •g4 8 'ilf3!? is also interesting: a) 8...c6?! 9 cxb6 axb6 10 lDh3 i.a6 1 1 .i.xa6 �xa6 12 0-0 b5 13 a4 was better for White in Mukhametov Oriamin, Moscow 1996. b) Bowden-Murshed, London 1988 continued 8...�c6 9 cxb6 cxb6 10 i.d3 i.b7 1 1 'flg3! 'flc7 12 �2 d6 13 .i.f4 and White had the better game. Another possibility is 8 cxb6 axb6 9
1 3 J..e2 The impatient 13 �g5? is answered by 13 ...'tlt'a3! 14 �e4 .i.b7 15 ll)£6+ t:lie7, when Black's threats prove to be far more serious. 1 3 f51 Improving on 13 .. .f6 14 1Wg3 d3 15 i.xd3 f5 16 llb1 �a6 17 �d4 �c5 18 'tlt'f3! c6 19 0-0, which left Black with some problems to solve in Sveshnikov Basagic, Ljubljana 1997. 14 Wh6 Keeping queens on the board is the only way to trouble Black; 14 1txe7+ 'ii?xe7 1 5 �xd4 .i.b7 is equal. Now White threatens 15 �g5, so there's no time to capture on c3. 14 :9s 1s o-0 .i.b1 • . .
••.
135
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Wisely continuing with his develop ment. After 15...dxc3 White can play 16 llab1, which prevents the development of the bishop. 16 cxd4 .i.d5 1 7 J:fd1 l0c6 18 l0e1 J:b8 1 9 J:ab 1
problematic winning chances. 34.. 1id8 is probably the best, though Black still has cause for concern over the position of his king. .
34
1 9 J:lb6 Once again Black must consolidate. Although his position is structurally quite nice, the position of his king gives constant cause for concern. 19 ...llxb 1? 20 .:Xb1 .i.xa2 would be tantamount to suicide after 21 l:tb7 �d8 22 .i.b51 etc. 20 a4 Wd8 21 Wd2 Wa3 22 "irh6 'ife7 23 J:lb5 Wg7 Finkel suggested 23 ... .i.b3, going af ter White's a-pawn. 24 'ifh3 Ci:Je7 25 J:db 1 .i.c6 26 J:xb6 axb6 27 aS l0d5 28 .i.f3 'ifg5 And not 28 ... bxa5? because of 29 llb8+ �e7 30 1ih4+ 1Wg5 31 'ifxh7+ llg7 32 1i'h8 etc. 29 g3 &3 30 J:la1 Ci:Je4 31 'ifxh7 bxa5 32 J:b 1 Wc8 33 .i.e2 .i.b7 34 'ifh3? A blunder in time-trouble. The cor rect move was 34 �f3!, after which 34 ...1Wg7?! 35 1Wxg7 l%xg7 36 llb3! (pre venting ...ltk3) 36 ... a4 37 lla3 .i.c6 38 .i.d1 wins the a-pawn and gives White ..•
136
l0c3! Completely turning the tables. 35 J:lxb7 After 35 llb2 there is 35 ...1Wc1!. 35 l0xe2+ 36 Wf1 Wxb7 37 Wg2+ c6 38 Wxe2 'ifg4+ 39 l0f3 'ife4+ 40 Wd2 •ds 41 'ifh 1 1ia2+ 42 We3 'ifb3+ 43 We2 Wb2+ 44 Wd3 a4 45 'ifd1 a3 46 •c2 'ilb5+ 47 Wc3 :.as 48 11a2 'ifd5 49 'ifb1 + Wc7 50 l0d2 a2 0-1 •••
•..
Game 55 Posch-Baburin
Vienna 1995 1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 Ci:Jd5 3 c4 Ci:Jb6 4 c5 l0d5 5 .i.c4 e6 6 l0c3 6 1i'g4 was tried in Radojevic Bagirov, Trinec 1973, with Black win ning quickly after 6 ...�b4 7 lba.3 b6 8 d4 .i.a6 9 1We4 �8c6 10 i.xa6 �xa6 1 1 ...d3? (1 1 cxb6 is good for Black but not fatal) 1 l ...�ab4 12 •c4 bxc5 13 dxcS �xeS 0-1. 6 ...ltlxc3
Th e Chase Varia tion
There are two other interesting lines: a) 6 ... .txc5!? 7 d4 .tb4 8 11fg4 ltlxc3
a1) 9 a3 .tf8 10 .tg5 (10 bxc3!? Sveshnikov) 10 ... h5 1 1 'irf4 ltld5 12 .txdS .ie7 13 .ixe7 Wxe7 looks like rather nebulous compensation for the pawn. a2) 9 bxc3 9 ....txc3+ 10 �ft 'tie7 1 1 l%b1 (1 1 Wxg7 1rf8 1 2 1rf6 l:lg8 also leaves White struggling) 1 1 ...f5 12 1ih5+ g6 13 1rd1 ltlc6 and White's compensa tion was inadequate in Sveshnikov Khmelnitsky, Sibenik 1990. b) 6 ...ltlc6 7 d4 ltlxc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 cxd6 cxd6 10 exd6 .ixd6 1 1 ltlf3 0.0 12 0-0 e5 was also fine for Black in Vavra Pacl, Czech Team Ch. 1992. 7 dxc3 .!Llc6 7....txc5 8 1rg4! gives White a dan gerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn. After 7 ...ltlc6 Black can meet 8 ltJf3 with 8 ... .txc5 because 'tig4 has been ruled out. 8 ..t.f4 .h41? An interesting idea of Mihai Suba which comes close to winning a pawn by force. Can White hang on to it or, if not, demonstrate sufficient compensa tion?
9 g3 9 1i'd2 ltlxe5! 10 .ie2 ltlg6 1 1 J.xc7 .ixc5 12 .tg3 1ra4 also left White with insufficient compensation in Angelov Suba, Varna 1975. 9 ....e7 10 b4 After 10 1i'e2 Black obtained the bet ter game with 10...g5! {10...1rxc5 also leaves me wondering if White can pos sibly have enough) 1 1 .td2 'tixc5 12 .txg5 11'xe5 13 11'xe5 liJxeS 14 i.f6 liJxc4 15 .txh8 ltlxb2 in Holzl Speelman, Hastings 1971/72. 10 /iJ£3 h6 1 1 i.e3 b6 12 cxb6 axb6 13 'tie2 .tb7 14 0.0?! (14 0-0-0!?) 14 ...g5! was also very promising for Black in Hegedus-Grunberg, Romanian Ch., Bucharest 1985.
137
A/ekhin e 's D e fence
10 ... g5 1 1 ..te3·l!Jxe5
21 i.f2 i.xf2+ 22 �xf2 dxeS with three pawns for the piece and an exposed white king to aim at. 1 6 -.xg5 1 7 :h5 -.g& 1 8 l!Jh31 .i.e& . • .
1 2 ..td4!? An interesting attempt to breathe new life into White's position. 12 'ifhS i.g7! 13 i.xgS i.f6 14 i.xf6 Wxf6 15 'ffe2 �xc4 16 'ffxc4 bS! 17 Wd4 11'xd4 18 cxd4 i.b7 19 f3 aS! gave Black a huge endgame advantage in Schwarts Solozhenkin, New York,1994. 1 2 .....tg7 1 3 .i.e2 d6 14 cxd6 cxd6 1 5 h4 15 f4? is wrong because of 15 ...gxf4 16 gxf4 11'h4+ etc. 1 5 .....td7
19 %lg5? So far White has played very well, but this is a mistake. He should play 19 ll:\f4! We4 20 �fl! {threatening 21 f3 �3 22 i.d3) 20... h6 2 1 f3, aher which the forced retreat with 21...'ffh7 leaves White with definite compensation. 1 9 . . .'ife4 20 l:lxg7 l!Jf3+ 21 �1 ll:lh2+ 22 �e1 ll:lf3+ 23 �1 ll:lxd4
16 hxg5! 16 f4?! still doesn't work, this time because of 16 ... gxf4 1 7 gxf4 i.c6 18 lth3 0-0-0 19 Wc2 i.f6 20 fxeS i.xh4+
24 f3 This leaves White two pawns down without anythingto show for them. But 24 Wxd4 is hardly attractive as after
1 38
Th e Chase Variation
24...1i'h l+! 25 �g1 i.g2+ 26 �e1 'ifxg1 + 27 �d2 Wxa1 he loses most of his pieces. 24 lllxf3 25 *t'2 llle5 26 .!bt4 0-0-0 27 b5 .J.e8 28 l:lb1 d5 29 :Z.b4 'Llc4 30 'ira4 Wb8 31 .J.t3 'ire3+ 32 �g2 1fxc3 33 .!bxe6 l:lc8! 34 .txd5 1i'd2+ 0-1 •.•
r------.....,
Game 56
Potkin-Neverov
St Petersburg 2000 .______________.
1 e4 lllt6 2 e5 .!bd5 3 c4 lllb6 4 c5 .!bd5 5 .i.c4 e6 6 d4 b&!? Another possibility is 6...d6, which actually transposes into a 2 c3 Sicilian after 7 cxd6 cxd6.
/1Jxd2 0-0 looks fine for Black) 9 ...lbxa6 10 0-0 i.e7 l l ll)c3 /1Jab4 12 a3 0-0 13 /1Je4 f5 14 /1Jc3 c6 15 i.d2 /1Ja6 16 /1Jxd5 exd5 17 'ti'cl l1Jc7; Black's knight is coming to the 'dream' e6-square which makes his position super-solid. Neither 8 Wg4 f5 nor 8 �c3 /1Jxc3 9 bxc3 d5! 10 .i.d3 i.a6 {Machulsky Bagirov, Kirovabad 1973) promise White anything. 8 ...d6 Black has also played 8 ...i..a6, after which Semeniuk-Mikhalchishin, Cheliabinsk 1975 continued 9 i.xd5!? exd5 10 �bc3 c6 11 0-0 .i.e? 12 :et (12 f4!? f5 13 g4 fxg4 14 llf2, intending �g3 and f4-f5, is worth a second look) 12 ...0-0 13 �g3 d6 14 f4 f5 with a good game for Black. 9 0-0 .i.b7 10 1fb3 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 ll:ld7 1 2 1t'g3 Making it difficult for Black to de velop his kingside. Black tries to solve the problem by re-routing a knight to f5 although this costs valuable time. 1 2 ll:le7 13 .!bd4 c5 14 1Llxe6!? • . .
7 cxb6 White has also played 7 1Wg4 bxc5 8 i.xd5 exd5 9 i.g5 i.e7 10 .i.xe7 •xe7 1 t 1i'xg7 9f8 12 9£6 (Longschmidt Zeh, correspondence 1988) and now Burgess's suggestion of 12 ... l:lg8 looks very good for Black. 7 ... axb6 8 .!be2 White played 8 /1Jf3 in Machulsky Gurgenidze, USSR 1973, but failed to obtain any advantage after 8 ... .i.a6! 9 .i.xa6 (9 �bd2 .i.b4 10 0-0 i.xd2 1 1
One of those infamous positional piece sacrifices. White gets two pawns and Black's king is stuck in the centre. Enough compensation? Who knows? 7 39
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
14 fxe6 1 5 .ixe6 ll:lc6 16 .ie3 1We7 1 7 1Wh3 lbd4 1 8 .txd4 cxd4 19 ll:la31 ltlc5 20 .tg4 h5 21 .tf5 *t7 22 lLlb5 11xe5 23 ltfe1 1Wt6 23 ... l:.xa2!? was possible but then 24 l:acl ! would continue the attack. 24 b4 g6 25 .tc2
l:h7 32 11fe4 recovers the c2-pawn with Black's king still exposed. 29 1i'xb6? was bad because of 29 ...11fxal!. 29 .txc5 30 ltxc2 lth71 31 1le4 l:lt7 32 11e2 ltdta 33 .:n 1Wg5 34 1Wc4 Wh7 35 li:ld4 11g4!
25 d37 Perhaps Volzhin•s suggestion of 25 ...i.c8! 26 11fg3 tt:le6 would have been better, though in this case too Black's king is far from safe. 26 bxc5 dxc2 27 1ld7+ �g8 28 1Wxb7 ltd8 29 ltac1 According to Volzhin, another inter esting possibility was 29 tt:ld6!?, after which 29 ... i.xd6 {29... bxc5 30 'irb3+ ..th7 31 tt:le4) 30 cxd6 11fxd6 31 llacl
36 ll:le6?? A blunder in mutual time trouble. M ter the superior 36 tt:\£3! llf4 (and not 36 ...l%xf3 37 1i'xg4 :x£2 because of 38 llfxf2! hxg4 39 llxcS llxf2 40 .C.c7+ etc.) 37 1i'e6! .C.8f6 38 11fxg4 hxg4 39 tt:leS .C.d6 a draw is the most likely out come, Black's pressure against f2 com pensating for the pawn. 36 ....:Xf21 37 ll:lxf8+ ltxf8+ 38 :tt2 'irxc4 0-1
..•
•.•
1 40
•.•
The Chase Varia tion
Summary The Chase Variation offers Black his fair share of the play in a sharp and uncom promising struggle. The plan of 5 . . .e6 (aher either 5 t£!c3 or 5 �c4) followed, if necessary, by ...b7-b6, is both sound and economical. But there are some specifics to be learned here too. Black should probably pay close attention to Sveshnikov-Solozhenkin and White's alternative of 8 1i'f3. And instead of following the 8 ... d6 of Potkin Neverov, I suspect that 8 .. ..ta6 is more promising.
1 e4 �f& 2 e5 li:\d5 3 c4 �b& 4 c5 �d5 5 J.c4 (D) S t£!c3
5...lbxc3 6 dxc3 lik6 7 t£!f3 (D) - Game 53 5 . .. e6 6 d4 t£!xc3 7 bxc3 b6 - Game 54 5 e6 6 d4 •••
6 t£!c3 - Game 55 & b& 7 cxb& axb& (D) - Game 56 ••.
6 .t.c4
7 li)f3
7. . . axb6
141
CHAPTER TEN
I
Other Lines
1 e4 lbf6 The final chapter is devoted to a vari ety of unusual systems that have had occasional bouts of popularity before slipping back into the footnotes. None of these lines seems, in principle, to offer White a lasting initiative, but the element of surprise is likely to be quite dangerous. Game 57 features 4 f4, which is an interesting attempt to play a kind of Four Pawns Attack but without having committed the c-pawn as yet. The notes to this game include other unusual 4th move alternatives such as Romanishin's 4 .i.e2 and 4 .tc4 (as formerly played by Sax). All of these require accurate handling but the current theoretical verdict is that they are harmless if met correctly. In Game 58 we see 3 ...li)b6, an un usual line that Westerinen has been playing. Games 59 and 60 illustrate the old Keres speciality of 3 lL!c3, which is actually quite a reasonable line that re quires accurate handling from Black. White has a slightly damaged pawn 142
structure but obtains open lines for his pteces. Rozentalis has tried 3 lL!c3 but more recently he has played 3 g3 (Game 61). Black needs to play purposefully to avoid being slightly worse, but a king side fianchetto looks like a perfectly good plan. Last, but not least, we come to 2 lL!c3, which has proven quite irritating for many Alekhine players. The stan dard 2.. d5 has come under severe pres sure because of the ingenious im provements thought up by the Swedish GM Hector, and his victims in this line include Alekhine specialists such as Kengis. .
Game 57 Njobvu-Wohl
Yerevan Olympiad 1996 1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 llld5 3 d4 d6 4 f4 One of several interesting fourth move alternatives. Here's a round-up of some of the other possibilities: a) 4 .te2
O ther Lines
4 ... dxe5 5 dxe5 i.f5 6 c3 e6 7 ll'1f3 ll'1d7 8 0-0 i.e7 9 a3 0-0 10 h3 aS 1 1 c4 ll'15b6 saw Black generating some inter esting play on the queenside in Walter Mohr, Bled 1992. b) After 4 i.c4 most Alekhine spe cialists like 4 ...ll'1b6 5 i.b3 J.fS and now: b 1) 6 e6?! i.xe6 7 J.xe6 fxe6 8 ll'1f3 ll'1c6 9 0-0 1i'd7 10 ll'1g5 g6 1 1 11'£3 ll'1d8 left White struggling to justify the pawn sacrifice in D.Gross-Zvolanek, Czech Ch., Luhacovice 1973. b2) 6 11'£3 is met by 6...1i'c8, though sacrificing a pawn with 6 ... e6!? 7 11'xb7 d5 is also interesting, one point being that 8 ll'1e2 i.b4+ 9 c3? can be met by 9 ...i.d3! and 10...i.a6, trapping White's queen. c) 4 .i.g5 was played in one of Alekhine's own games, Steiner Alekhine, Budapest 1921. Black gained the advantage with 4 ...dxe5 5 dxe5 ll'1c6 6 i.b5 (6 ll'1f3 J.g4 7 J.b5 h6 8 J.d2 e6 was fine for Black in Lutikov-Kopylov, correspondence 1968) 6...i.f5 7 ll'1f3 ll'1db4 8 ll'1a3 'ifxd1+ 9 llxdl ll'1xc2+ 10 ll'1xc2 i.xc2 11 llc1 i.e4 12 ll'1d4 i..xg2 13 l1.g1 0-0-0! etc. 4...c517
A highly unusual and experimental treatment. A more solid way to play against this line is with 4...dxe5 5 fxe5 c5 (or 5...i.f5!?) and now: a) 6 c4 ll'1b4! 7 d5 i..f5 8 ll'1a3 e6 is very unpleasant for White. b) 6 ll'1f3 cxd4 7 11'xd4 ll'1c6 8 i.b5 and now Kengis has suggested 8 ... i.f5, intending 9 ...e6. This seems to be quite comfortable for Black. 5 c3?! After 5 dxc5 dxe5 6 fxe5 e6 Black al ready has an excellent game and threat· ens 7...1i'h4+. White can also try to transpose into Wohl's line against the Four Pawns At tack with 5 c4 after which 5...ll'1b4!? (5... ll'1b6 transposes into Mamadshoev Wohl) is the only move with independ ent significance. Mutzner-Varga, Men drisio 1999 continued 6 a3 lL14c6 7 d5 ll'1d4 8 i.d3! (8 ll'1f3 is strongly met by 8 ...J.g4) 8 ...e6 9 ll'1c3 exd5 10 cxdS 1i'h4+ 1 1 g3 11fg4 12 1i'xg4 J.xg4 13 h3 i.f5 14 J.xf5 ll'1xf5 15 �f2 and White was better, though he lost because of later errors.
5 ...�c6 6 �f3 �g4 7 �b5?! cxd4 8 cxd4 8 11'xd4 J.xf3 9 gxf3 e6 is also good 143
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
for Black. 8 .. .1Wa5+ 9 �c3 �xc3 10 .i.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 bxc3? White had to play 1 1 'ifcl2, aher which 1 1 . ...i.xf3 12 gxf3 1ld5 13 1lxc3 e6 is good for Black but a long way from decisive. 1 1 ...1Wxc3+ 1 2 · ..td2 1Wd3 12....i.xf31 was simpler. 1 3 9b3! 9xb3 1 4 axb3
14... .i.xf3? And now it becomes very difficult for Black to achieve the win. 14....i.e6!, in tending ... .i.d5, would keep Black's ad vantage. 1 5 gxf3 e6 1 6 lla6! dxe5 1 7 dxe5 �d7 1 8 �e2? Missing his chance to save the game. 18 .i.e3 would prevent Black's next move and lead to a draw aher 18 ....tb4+ 19 �e2 �c7 20 :Z.hal. 1 8 .....tc5! 1 9 lld1 �c7 20 b4 .i.b6 21 .i.e3 �b7 22 llaa1 llad8 Finally I can say that it's a matter of technique. 23 .i.c5 lld5 24 .i.d6 h5 25 llxd5 cxd5 26 .i.c5 :ca 27 llc1 �a& 28 �d3 �b5 29 �d4 a5 30 llb1 a4 31 llb2 a3 32 llc2 :as 33 llc1 a2 34 lla1 J.xc5+ 35 bxc5 lla4+ 0-1 1 44
Game 58 Stefansson-Westerinen
Reykjavik 1997 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 �b6!?
Westerinen plays this quite ohen and quite successfully. Black's position is actually reasonably solid; combine this with the provocative appearance of 3 ... �b6 and it can be quite effective in practice. 4 a4 Another Westerinen game went 4 �f3 d5 5 .i.d3 .i.g4 6 h3 J.xf3 (and not 6 ... .ih5? 7 e6 fxe6 8 g4} 7 'ii'xf3 e6 8 0-0 c5 9 c3 when White could claim to be slightly better, Bjarnason-Westeri nen, Torshavn 1997. 4 ...85 5 �f3 White could also try 5 i.d3, intend ing to avoid a pin on his knight aher 5 . .d5 6 lbe2, though with the bishop on the unusual d3-square Black could also consider 5 ...d6. A further possibility is 5 .tb5!? c6 6 .td3 d5 (6... g6 is more flexible, main taining the option of either ... d6 or ... dS) 7 .tg5!? g6 8 h4 h6 9 .te3 .tg7 10 � lLla6 1 1 c3 .te6 12 lLlh3, when White .
O th er L ines
had dangerous attacking chances in Tal Lutikov, USSR Ch. 1969. 5 ...d5 6 i.d3 Or 6 .te2 .tfs (6....tg4 is also possi ble) 7 0-0 e6 8 b3 lba6 9 lba3 J.e7 10 .td2 lLlb4 1 1 .tb5+ c6 12 i.e2 0-0 13 c3 lLla6 with an unclear position, Sariego-Arencibia, Linares 1992. 6 ...i.g4 7 h3 i.xf3 And not 7 ....th5 because of 8 e6. 8 Wxf3 e6 9 Wg3 c5 10 dxc5 l06d7 1 1 l0c3 l0xc5!? 1 1. ..lLlc6 12 l£lb5!? lLldxeS 13 i.f4 f6 14 0-0-0! 11'd7 15 i.e3 llc8 16 i.e2 11'f7 17 f4 l£ld7 18 llhe1 gave White strong pressure in Benjamin-Aiburt, New York 1990.
15 ...l0c6 16 h5 h6 17 J:th4 lDe7 1 8 J:tf4 'tld7 19 l0d4 :c8 20 i.e3
20 ...l0c6 21 l0f3 Wg8 22 J:[g4 i.f8 23 i.b6!? White manages to win the aS-pawn but in doing so he loses both time and piece co-ordination. 23 ...Wh7 24 tLld2 l0e7 25 i.xa5 lLlf5 26 Wf3 i.e7 27 l0b3 %thf8 28 i.c3 f6 29 We2 fxe5 30 i.xe5 i.f6 31 Wg 1 'tlf7 32 J:[f4 i.xe5 33 Wxe5 Wxh5 34 Wxe6? Maintaining the extra pawn, but now White's king comes under attack. White should centralise his knight with 34 lLld4!. 34 . .Wg5! 35 J:tf3 J:tce8 36 'tld7 :e7 .
1 2 lLlb5?! Giving Black an important tempo for development. According to Volzhin, White should first play 12 0-0, after which 12 ...l£lc6 (or 12 ... l£lxd3 13 cxd3 lLlc6 14 lLlbS) 13 lLlbS :lc8 14 .tf4 leaves Black wondering how to com plete his kingside development. 1 2 ...l0xd3+ 1 3 cxd3 i.b4+ 14 Wf1 Wt8 1 5 h4!? White still has some kingside pres sure, but now his loss of castling rights gives Black chances.
37 Wb5?! 145
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
Probably the losing move. White has to play 37 1Wxd5, after which 37...ltJh4 38 'i'xg5 ltJxf3+ 39 gxf3 hxg5 would leave him with drawing chances in the endgame. 37 ... lDd&! 38 l:lxf8 lDxb5 39 axb5 'ireS 40 d4 'ire2 41 l:lf3 'irxb5 The technical stage is fairly straightforward; Black combines threats against White's king and weak pawns which eventually proves too much for the defence. 42 l:la5 l:le1 + 43 Wh2 'ird7 44 l:la1 'irc7+ 45 g3 l:le2 46 lDc5 'irb& 47 b3 Wb4! 48 l:la4 'ire1 49 Wg2 'irb1 50 l:lb4 l:le1 51 l:le3 l:lg 1 + 52 Wt3 'irf5+ 53 We2 'irh5+ 54 l:tf3 l:tc1 55 lDd3 l:lc2+ 56 We3 'irg5+ 57 lDf4
57 ...'ire7+ 58 Wd3 'ire4 mate .....-----..,
Game 59 Rozentalis-Volzhin Polish Team Ch., Zakopane 2000
.____________...,.
1 e4 lDf& 2 e5 lDd5 3 lDc3 An old line favoured by Paul Keres: 'I know that the theoreticians consider this move of little interest and not dan gerous for Black, but his position is by no means without problems.' 146
3 lDxc3 Black has also tried 3 ...e6 4 llJxd5 (af ter which 4...exd5 5 'iff3 may be White's best) and even 3 ...lbb6!?. But capturing on c3 has to be the critical line. 4 dxc3 White captures 'away from the cen tre' in order to obtain free piece play, but it is not the only move. The game Yudasin-Ehlvest, Biel Interzonal 1993 was a recent, high-level example of 4 bxc3 which continued 4...c5 5 f4 lbc6 6 d4 (6 llJf3 d5 7 d3 was mentioned by Y udasin as another possible set-up for White) 6 ... d5 7 llJf3 .i.g4 8 �e2 e6 (8. ..'ifa5?! 9 0-0 'i'xc3 10 �d2 'i'a3 1 1 llb1 gives White the initiative for his pawn) 9 0-0 �e7 10 h3 �h5 1 1 llb1; now Black should probably play 1 1. .'ifd7 in order to lend better support to f5 with a double-edged struggle in prospect. In the game he played 1 1...1!fc7 but after 12 �e3 c4 13 g4 �g6 14 llJe1 faced the unpleasant threat of 15 f5. 4 ... d& 5 lDf3 5 �c4 is well met by 5...lbc6! 6 lbf3 dxe5! 7 W'xd8+ ltJxd8 8 ltJxe5 f6 9 lbd.3 e5 10 0-0 �e6 1 1 �b3 .i.d6 12 llel g5 . • •
.
O th er L in es
13 .i.e3 �f7 14 f3 lbc:6, which proved to be clearly better for Black in Nezhmetdinov-Spassky, USSR 1959. He has safely completed his develop ment and maintains a kingside pawn majority. 5 ... dxe5 For S ... �c6 see the next game, Toot· hill-Davies. 6 1Wxd8+ Wxd8 7 l0xe5 We8
stronger than 8 ..f6) 9 �f3, and now Volzhin's sensible suggestion of 9 ... e6 intending ... .i.cS or ... .id6 gives Black very comfortable equality. 8 ....i.d7! White's idea was that after 8 . c6? it would be difficult for Black to complete his development - if he later moves his e-pawn the d6-square becomes very weak. A sample line is 9 .i.c4 e6 10 .i.f4 .i.d6 1 1 0-0-0 �e7 12 l:lxd6! etc. 8 �d7 is also difficult for Black af ter 9 .i.f4 c6 10 .i.c4 (and not 10 �xc6? a6! 1 1 J.a4 �cS!) 10...lilice5 1 1 .i.xe5 f6 12 .i.g3 eS 13 0-0-0; White will be able to open up Black's king with f2-f4. 9 l0xd7 l0xd7 1 0 .i.f4 c& 1 1 .i.e2 e6 1 2 c4 .i.c5 1 3 c3 �e7 1 4 l:d 1 The immediate 14 b4 J.d6 is okay for Black, but now b2-b4 is a threat. 14 ... a5 1 5 i.d3 l:hd8 1 6 We2 l0f6 1 7 h3 l:d7 18 a4 l:ad8 1 9 .i.c2 l:xd1 20 i.xd1 l0e4 21 .i.c2 e5! .
.
.
...
Arriving at a critical position. Black has a sound kingside pawn majority, whilst White's queenside majority is difficult to use because of the doubled pawn. On the other hand Black has not yet castled and it might be difficult for him to co-ordinate his pieces. 8 .i.b5+ !? A clever wrinkle which requires accu rate defence from Black. 8 .i.c4 has long been known to give White absolutely nothing: 8...e6 9 J.f4 .i.d6 10 0-0-0 �d7 1 1 :bel was Pfleger-Schmidt, Polanica Zdroj 1971, and now ll . . .'it>e7! would have been fine for Black {1 1 ...�xe5 12 J.xeS .i.xeS 13 l:lxe5 �e7 14 lieS was slightly better for White in the game). 8 .i.e3 doesn't give White anything either after 8. �d7! (less common but ..
And not 21.../-Dxf2?? 22 1U1, winning the knight. 22 .i.c1 Keeping the game going. 22 .i.xe4 exf4 would be completely drawn. 22 ...lbd6 23 .i.d3 h6 24 f3 f5 25 J:.d1 J:.f8 26 b3 J:.f6 27 .i.c2 e4 28 747
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
.i.f4 %-% After 28 .i.f4 gS 29 .i.xd6+ llxd6 30 l:txd6 �xd6 31 fxe4 f4!? there is noth ing left to play for.
Game 60 Toothiii-Davies
British League 2001 .______________.
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 �c3 �xc3 4 dxc3 d6 I'm not sure I particularly like 4...d5, despite its solid theoretical reputation. After 5 11ff3 White's queen comes to g3 and makes life uncomfortable. A recent game Hector-Jessen, Copenhagen 2000 went 5 ... g6 6 .i.d3 .i.g7 7 1llg3 cS 8 lhf3 lDc6 and now 9 .i.f4 (Hector castled short at this point) 9 ...c4 10 .i.e2 .i.fS 1 1 0-0-0 looks quite good. 5 �f3 �c6
tected by the doubled c3-pawn. It blocks both the c-file and the h8-a1 diagonal. 6 . . . g6 In the light of experience I prefer 6...dxe5 7 ..xd8+ lDxdS 8 .i.xeS (8 lDxeS f6, followed by ... e7-e5, is fine for Black) 8... c6, with the game L.HiibnerBaburin, Berlin 1992 continuing 9 0-0-0 f6 10 .i.c7 .i.g4 11 .i.c4 eS 12 llhe1 i..e7 13 l:td2 lhe6 and now White sacri ficed unsoundly with 14 lDxeS. 7 .i.c4 .i.g7 8 We2 A few White players have been tempted by 8 lDgS, not knowing that 8...dxe5 9 .i.xf7+ �f8 10 1ff3 exf4 1 1 lld1 1fxd1 + 1 2 'ifxdl h6 just wins for Black as in Payrhuber-Ligterink, World Junior Ch., Stockholm 1969. 8 ...0-0 9 0-0-0
9 .i.g4 According to my database this natural move is new. Previously Black had played odd moves such as 9 ...'ifd7 and 9 ...11fe8. 10 e6 fxe6 1 1 .i.xe6+ .i.xe6 1 2 Wxe6+ �h8 1 3 .i.g5 Wc8 14 l:lde1 Wxe6 1 5 l:lxe6 l:lf7 1 6 l:lhe1 h6!? An interesting pawn sacrifice. 1 7 .i.d2 •••
6 .i.f4?1 After the normal 6 .i.bS I was intend ing 6 ...g6 (6....i.d7 7 11fe2 is known to be uncomfortable for Black) 7 .i.f4 .i.g7, but then 8 exd6 cxd6 9 'ird2 fol lowed by castling long gives White in teresting play. Black's central pawn ma jority will find it difficult to advance whilst White's king will be well pro148
O th er L in es
After 17 J.xe7 I intended 17 ...g5, leaving White's bishop stranded on e7. 1 7 ... g5 1 8 h4 g4 1 9 �d4 I felt that 19 tt:lh2 ti:leS 20 i.xh6 i.xh6+ 21 l:xh6+ �g7 22 l:e6 :h8 would have given Black more than enough compensation. 1 9...�e5 20 f4 gxf3 21 �xf3 �xf3 22 gxf3 .tf6 23 .ixh6 .ixh4 24 :h1 :t6
25 J:txf6 The spectacular 25 .ig7+ is refuted by 25 ...�xg7 26 l:xe7+ �f8 27 llxc7 l:h6, threatening ....tg5+. 25 ....ixf6 26 :g1 J:tg8 27 J:txg8+ �xg8 28 �d2 �7 29 b3 �g6 30 .ie3 .ig5?1 30...a6 would have been better, when Black still has some chances. 31 f4 .ih6 32 .ixa7 �f5 33 �d3 .ixf4 34 a4 e5 35 c4 e4+ 36 �e2 c5 37 .ib6 �e5 38 .ia5 �5 39 .ie1 �e6 40 .if2 .ie5 41 .ie1 d5 42 cxd5+ �xd5 43 c3 .if6 % -"h
A favourite line of Rozentalis with which White aims for smooth develop ment and a slight space advantage. In the game Termeulen-Davies, Haarlem 2001, White tried the even more indi vidual ) 'iff3!? but after 3 ...c6 4 'it'g3 d6 5 f4 i.f5 6 c3 e6 7 ti:lf3 c5 8 .te2 tt:lc6 9 0-0 .ig6 10 ti:la3 a6 1 1 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 bS 13 .td2 'it'b6 White was already in serious difficulty because of the pres sure against his d4-pawn. 3 ... d6 4 exd6 cxd6 4 ...exd6 5 .i.g2 ti:lf6 6 d4 d5 7 ti:lf3 .te7 8 0-0 0-0 9 tLle5 ti:lbd7 10 ti:lc3 c6 1 1 f4 was slightly better for White in Rozentalis-Appel, German Bundesliga 1994. 5 .ig2 �f6 6 d4 g6 7 �e2 The Israeli IM Alex Finkel has sug gested an alternative plan of develop ment for White with 7 b3, intending .tb2, ti:ld2, ti:lgf3 and h3. It looks rea sonable. 7 . .ig7 8 0-0 0-0 Another reasonable line for Black was 8 . ..d5 9 h3 0-0 10 tt:ld2 ti:lc6 1 1 c3 eS, Rozentalis-Cs.Horvath, European Team Ch., Debrecen 1992. .
.
Game 61 Petrik-Bogdanovski
European Club Cup� Heraklio 1997 1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 g3!?
9 c3?! After such a passive move Black will 149
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
have an easy time of it. The logical move is 9 c4, as played by Rozentalis himself in this position. Black in turn should probably reply with the flexible 9 ....!iJc6 10 llJbc3 and now: a) 10 . ..t..g4 1 1 ..t..e3 Wd7 12 f3 .ih3 13 d5 lDe5 14 b3 ..i.xg2 15 �xg2 e6 16 ltcl (Rozentalis-Yermolinsky, Rakvere 1993) and now 16 ...l:He8 would have left Black only slightly worse. b) 10.....i.f5 1 1 h3 a6 12 b3! llb8 13 ..t..e3 h5 14 d5 llJa5 15 llJd4 �d7 16 a4 •cs 17 �h2 with an edge for White, Rozentalis-Pribyl, Liechtenstein 1996. c) 10 ... a6! 1 1 b3 l:.b8 12 h3 ..t..d7 13 d5 (13 ..t..e 3!?) 13...llJa5 14 llJd4?! (14 J.e3 is met by 14 ... b5 so White should probably play 14 .ib2) 14 ...Wc8 15 �h2 b5! 16 l:.b1 bxc4 17 b4 llJb7 18 .ie3 llJd8 when White had only nebu lous compensation for the pawn in Rozentalis-Hjartarson, Tilburg 1994. 9 lLlc6 1 0 lLla3 i.f5 1 1 lLlc4 Wc8 1 2 lte1 White's eventual downfall in this game stemmed largely from his refusal to ever play d4-d5. Here he would be no worse after 12 d5 llJb8 13 �3 .ih3 14 .ixh3 Wxh3 15 .!lJ£4 'i'c8 16 'i'e2. 1 2 l:le8 ..
..•
1 3 lLle3 Again opting for a 'safety-first' ap proach. At this point he should play 13 llJf4!? (preventing ...J.h3). 1 3 . . ..i.h3 14 i.xh3 •xh3 1 5 lLlf4 ..d7 1 6 'Dfd5?! Facing a higher rated opponent, White is evidently trying to play it safe by exchanging pieces. Although his po sition is still solid enough, Black now has whatever chances that are going. 16 d5 was still the best, at least getting some space. 1 6 lLlxd5 1 7 lLlxd5 e6 1 8 lLlf4 lba5! Preparing ... b7-b5. 1 9 b3 b5 20 i.e3 After 20 a4 Black should probably play the quiet 20...a6 with continued pressure. 20... b4 looks attractive at first sight; 21 cxb4?! llJc6 22 .ib2 .!lJxb4 is better for Black, but White can play 21 c4 llJc6 22 �b2. 20 . ....b7 21 l:lc1 l:lac8 22 ._d2 lLlc6 .••
..•
The knight is en route for a better post, either f5 or d5. 23 lLld3 23 d5 is now bad because of 23 . ..l�e5 24 �g2 llJd7 (24... .!lJg4!?) 25 f3 eS 26 llJe2 fS, intending ....!iJf6, with an active 1 50
O ther Lines
kingside pawn majority and pressure against dS. 23 ...ltle7 24 �h6 �h8 25 �g5 lilf5!? Intending to undermine the d4-pawn with ...a7-a5 and ... b5-b4. White hurries to prevent this but in doing so seriously weakens his position. 26 g4 ltle7 27 �f4 l:led8 28 11fe2 l:ld7 29 �d2 ltdc7 30 lilf4 llld 5 31 ..f3 lllxf4 32 ..xf4?! With his kingside looking weak, White should definitely take the oppor tunity to exchange queens. After 32 'ii'xb7!? lDh3+ 33 �g2 l:lxb7 34 �xh3 a5 he is definitely worse, but the posi tion should be tenable with accurate defence. 32 ...•d5 33 •e4? The final mistake. He had to vacate the c-file with 33 llcd1, after which 33 . .. a5 (and not 33 ... b4?! 34 c4 'ifxd4 35 'ifxd4 i.xd4 36 ..i..xb4) 34 'ife4 'ifxe4 35 l:xe4 d5 36 lle2 still leaves him on the board. Now he is lost. 33 . . ...xe4 34 l:xe4 b4! 35 c4 d5! 36 l:.f4 a5
Simply threatening to take the pawn on c4. White covers this one but then loses his d4-pawn.
37 c5 g5 38 l:tf3 J.xd4 39 J.xg5 :lxc5 40 l:.d1 �e5 41 �g2 l:c2 42 J.f6 J.xf6 43 llxf6 l:txa2 44 lld4 l:te2 45 l:.df4 l:.c7 46 g5 l:te5 47 h4 l:ld7 48 l:td4 l:l.e4 49 llxe4 dxe4 0-1
Game 62 Hector-van der Wert
Berlin 1993 1 e4 �f6 2 �3
2 . . . d5 The real 'Alekhine' move, but one which has been under pressure of late, due largely to the efforts of Swedish GM Jonny Hector. 2 ...e5 would trans pose into a Vienna Game, which theory holds to be relatively harmless for Black. 3 e5 3 exdS lbxdS 4 i.c4 is well met by 4 ...lDb6 5 i.b3 lbc6 (in the game Min nulina-Davies, Osteraker 1995 I tried the risky S ... cS 6 d3 �c6 7 'ifhS e6 8 lbf3 g6, after which White should have played 9 'ifh3 with dangerous attacking chances) 6 lbf3 g6!? (more dynamic than 6 ...i.f5) 7 �g5 e6 8 d3 lbd4 9 0-0 i.g7 10 lbce4 h6 t l lbf3 lbxb3 which was very comfortable for Black in 151
A lekhin e 's D efenc e
Rozentalis-Bagirov, Vilnius 1985.
3 ...l0e4 There are two other moves, both of which lead to complex play: a) 3 ... d4 4 exf6 dxc3 5 fxg7 cxd2+ 6 .ixdl .ixg7 7 1i'f3 1Clc6 8 .ib5 11fd6 (or 8 ...0-0 9 .ixc6 bxc6 10 .ic3 .ixc3+ 1 1 •xc3 1i'd5 12 lld1 11fe4+ 13 1Cle2 .ia6 14 lldl :adS 1 5 f3 1i'e6 16 �f2 with a clear advantage to White, Hec tor-Daillet, Cannes 1989) 9 .ic3 0-Q 10 .ixc6 .ixc3+ 1 1 11fxc3 bxc6 12 1Cle2 .ia6 13 .J:.d1 1i'e6 14 ...e3 1i'xe3 15 fxe3 and White had slightly the better end game in Hector-Kengis, Haninge 1992. b) 3 ...1£lfd7
This currently looks like Black's best, though in this case Black must be pre1 52
pared to transpose into a Classical French; 4 d4 e6 5 f4 c5 is the French transposition, which might be enough to put Alekhine exponents off this line. White also has a sharp gambit line in 4 e6!? fxe6 5 d4 and now: b1) After 5 ...c5 6 1Clf3 lt:'lc6, Hector has done well with 7 .ib5!?, fighting for control of the d4 and e5 squares. Hec tor-Sergeev, Berlin 1995 continued 7 ...g6 8 dxc5 .ig7 9 .ie3 1i'a5 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 llb 1 a6 12 .ixc6 bxc6 13 lle 1 'it'c7 14 lt:'lg5 1Cle5 15 .id4 llf5 16 lL'lh3 lt:'lf7 17 .ixg7 �xg7 18 l£la4 e5 t9 1Clb6 llb8 20 c4 with a complex struggle in which I, for one, would prefer to play White. b2) 5 ... g6 h4 .ig7 7 h5 lt:'lf8 s .if4! (White's number one priority is to clamp down on the e5-square; with this in mind, Bagirov's suggestion of 8 1Clf3 is also interesting, but a dubious alterna tive is 8 .id3 tl:k6! 9 hxg6 hxg6 10 l.txh8 .ixh8 11 .ie3 e5! which gave Black a good game in Bobkov-Sokolov, correspondence 1960) 8 ... c5 9 l£lb5 1Cla6 (I don't really like this move; a far more critical line is 9...cxd4!? 10 lt:'lc7+ �f7 1 1 1Clxa8 e5 with a mighty centre and White's knight on aS is trapped) 10 l£lf3 .id7 1 1 �5 'it'aS+ 12 1i'd2 1fxd2+ 13 �xd2 c4, Hector-Maus, Co penhagen 1990. In The CompleteAlekhine Burgess gives no comment on this complex endgame. Personally speaking, I would not want to play Black - the extra pawn is useless and he is under severe pressure. 4 l0ce2 This is probably the most critical move, aiming to gain time against Black's errant knight.
O th er L ines
4 11t'f3 looks primitive, but it needs careful handling by Black: 4...�xc3 5 dxc3 cS! (this natural move may be stronger than either s ... c6 or s ... g6; White gets some temporary pressure against d5 but it looks as if Black can handle it: a) After 6 .i.bS+ Black's safest reply is 6 ... �6! (6 ... .i.d7 can be answered by 7 e6!? fxe6 8 .i.d3 with dangerous looking attacking chances for the pawn) 7 c4 e6 with a complicated game in prospect. b) 6 .i.f4 .i.f5 7 0-0-0 e6 8 �el?! (the critical move is 8 c4!?, after which 8 ... .i.e4 9 •b3 d4 isn't clear) 8...�c6 9 h4?! (and this doesn't help White either; the calm 9 �bl!? looks better) 9 ... h51 10 �b1 •aS 1 1 l:[d2 {the immediate 1 1 �g3 is met by 1 1 ....i.g4, which is why White was probably regretting his 9th move at this stage) 11...c4!.
This simply threatens to generate an overwhelming anack with ... b5-b4; White, meanwhile, will unfortunately find it very difficult to generate any se rious counterplay: b1) After 12 �d4 there follows 12 ...�d4 13 llxd4 (13 cxd4 .i.b4 wins for Black) 13 ... .i.c5 14 l:td2 b5 with a
winning attack. b2) 12 �g3 i.g6 13 .dl b5 14 a3 {14 .i.e2 b4 15 cxb4 �xb4 16 a3 c3! wins) 14... b4! 15 axb4 .i.xb4! 16 .i.xc4! (16 cxb4 lDxb4 17 l:td4 c3 also gives Black a winning attack) 16 ... dxc4 17 11'f3 0-0! 18 cxb4 (18 •xc6 hc3!) 18 ...lllxb4 19 1l'a3 •xa3! 20 bxa3 lbd5 21 i.g5 l:tfb8+ 22 �at (22 �cl c3 fol lowed by ...l:lb2 wins) 22...c3 23 l:le2 l:lb2 24 �fl (or 24 f3 l:lc8 25 llle4 llc6} 24 ...llab8 25 �3 lllb4 26 .i.e7 l:ta2+ 27 �b1 lllxc2+! 0-1 was Zahariev Stefanopoulos, Hania 1996.
4...f6 The other method of disrupting White's plans is with 4 ...d4 5 c3 and now: a) s ...lllc6 (this is regarded as the critical line) 6 �xd4 �xd4 7 •a4+ c6 8 •xd4 9xd4 9 cxd4 �g5 10 i.d3!? {10 i.c4 i.e6!? 1 1 d3 bS 12 .i.xbS cxb5 13 .ixgS .i.d5 14 f3 e6 gave Black very annoying play for his pawns in Hector Werner, Andorra 1988 - and both 10 ...�e6 and 10 ... bS are good alterna tives) left Black with very little for his pawn after 10 ...�6 (10....i.e6? 1 1 h4 wins a piece) 1 1 �2 g6 12 .ie4 ll:Jc7 13 b3 .ih6 14 h4 in the game Hector1 53
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Anagnostou, Komotini 1992. b) Black should probably play the simple 5 ...dxc3!? 6 bxc3 (and not 6 'ffa4+ lDd7 7 'ffxe4 �c5) 6...�c5 7 d4 �ca6 8 �f4 e6 9 t0f3 cS, as in Nier mann-Bagirov, Giessen 1993. 5 d3 ll:lg5 6 .txg5 fxg5
7 h4! Much stronger than 7 t0g3 e6 8 'fi'g4 g6 9 h4 t0c6!, which was good for Black in the encounter Paoli-Alburt, Odessa 1976. 7 . g4 In his book The Complete Alekhine Burgess felt that this advance was nec essary in order to keep the h-file firmly closed. 7 ... gxh4 is supposed to be bad for Black aher 8 �f4 g6 9 .:xh4 .i.g7 10 d4 c5 1 1 .i.d3 'ifaS+ 12 �f1 cxd4 13 llxh7! l:lxh7 14 .i.xg6+, the game Vorotnikov Kengis, Riga 1983 'confirming' this as sessment after some wild complications: 14 ...�d8 15 .ixh7 .ixeS 16 1i'f3 �c6 17 �xd5 .ie6 18 ..f8+ 4iPd7 19 'ffxa8 'ffb 5+ 20 .i.d3 1i'xb2 21 �b6+ 1Vxb6 22 lbf3 .tbs 23 c3 dxc3 24 l:lb1 9xb1+ 25 .ixb1 q;c7 and now 26 �e1 .id5 27 'itdl! would have won fairly easily ac cording to Kengis. .
.
1 54
8 ll:lf4 White can also play 8 d4 and after 8 ...c5 (Pedersen-Burgess, Assens 1990) the move 9 dxcS is critical. 8 ....tf5 An attempt to improve on the 8 ...g6 9 d4 .th6 10 �d3 �a6 11 .i.e2 c5 12 .i.xg4 ofW.Watson-Dunwonh, London 1987, which continued 12 ...cxd4 (Dunworth suggested that 12 ...c4 13 �cl 1i'b6 might be better, but after 14 .i.xc8 l:lxc8 15 �e2 1i'xb2 16 l:lb1 •xa2 17 llxb7 White looks better) 13 h5 llks 14 .ixc8 1lxc8 15 t0f3 'fi'a5+ (here Dun worth suggested 15.....b6 but I doubt it helps aher 16 0-0} 16 �f1 lbe4 17 hxg6 hxg6 18 �xd4 with White much better because of Black's vulnerable king.
O ther Unes
9 �ge2 Here 9 d4 looks like a good alterna tive. 9 �c6 1 0 �g3 'W'd7 1 1 d4 lllb4 1 2 e6 'W'd6 12 ... .i.xe6 13 c3 ltlc6 14 .i.e2, intend ing to castle, eliminate the bishop on e6 and recapture the g4-pawn would leave Black with a poor position without any redeeming features. Unclerstandably he tries to confuse the issue but Hector maintains a vice-like grip. 1 3 lllxf5 'W'xf4 14 llle3 g3 There•s not much choice - 14 ...h5 is answered by 15 c3 lLlc6 16 lLlxd5 'ile4+ 17 ltle3 1ixe6 18 d5 etc. 1 5 'iff3 'ifxf3 1 6 gxf3 gxf2+ 1 7 �xf2 0-0-0 1 8 c3 llla6 1 9 h5! Sealing in Black•s f8 bishop. 1 9 c6?! 19 ...:g8 was a slightly better try. 20 .i.xa6 bxa6 21 f4! l:tg8 22 f5 g6
23 hxg6 hxg6
••.
.••
24 l:tag1 End of game. None ofBlack•s pieces can do anything. 24. . ..i.g7 25 J:lxg6 .i.f6 26 l:thh& J:lxg6 27 J:lxg6 c5 28 lllg4 .i.h8 29 f& .i.xf6 30 lllxf6 exf6 31 dxc5 l:te8 32 J:lxf6 �dB 33 �e3 �e7 34 l:tf7+ �xe6 35 l:txa7 �e5 36 :xa6 J:lb8 37 l:lb6 1 -0
1 55
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
Summary One of the main difficulties in dealing with these lines is of a practical nature; they crop up so rarely that by the time you get to meet them you no longer remember what to do! I therefore advise occasional revision of anything that has not occurred in your tournament practice. Against the 4 f4 of Game 57, I suggest 4 dxe5 5 fxe5 c5. My recommended an tidotes to other lines are contained within the notes to this game. Westerinen•s 3 ... c!Ob6 might he a useful surprise weapon to have available; it slows the game down and leads to some quite original play. Hector•s favourite 2 c!Oc3 is not a problem if Black is happy playing a Vienna Game. The only purely 'Alekhine• line I can recommend for Black is Bagirov•s 2 . d5 3 e5 c!Oe4 4 l0ce2 d4 5 c3 dxc3, given in the notes to Game 62. .•.
.
.
1 e4 .!Of6 2 e5 2 l0c3 dS (D) - Game 62 2 . . .!0d5 3 d4 .
3 c!Oc3 c!Oxc3 4 dxc3 d6 5 c!Of3 5 dxe5 6 1i'xd8+ �xd8 7 l0xe5 (D) - Game 59 5 ...c!Oc6 Game 60 3 g3 - Game 61 .•.
-
3 . d6 ..
3 ...c!Ob6 (D) - Game 58
4 f4 c5 - Game 57
2
. . .
1 56
d5
7 liJxe5
3
. . .
%6
I INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I Aseev-Bagirov, Berlin
1990 9 Brener-Pushkin, USSR 1988 .............................. ..... ........................... 12 8 Davies-Sinha, Calcutta 1990.............................. . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 1 00 Degraeve-Miles, Mondariz Zonal 2000 ........... . . . ....... .......... ................... 5 1 Djurhuus-Agdestein, Norw;r;jan Ch., Asker 2000 . . . . . . . . ......................... 123 Emst-Bagirov, Helsinki 1992.......................... ............................... ....... 37 Emst-Josefsson, Swedish Ch., Karlskrona 1983................................ ....... 38 Fedorov-Baburin, Istanbul 0/ynpiad 2000 ............ . . . . . .............. .... ......... 11 0 Grunfeld-Ljubojevic, Riga /nterzona/ 1979 ................... . . . . . . . . . .... ........... 1 1 9 Hagesaether.H-Wohl, Ulxxla 2000 ................. ......... ....... . . . . . . . . . ............ 97 Hamdouchi-Baburin, Saint Vinant 2000 . . . . . . . . . ......... ........................... 14 Hector-van der Werf, Berlin 1993......................................... ............... 151 Honfi-Varga, Budapest 1995 .................................... . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 88 Howell.J-Kengis, London 1991 ................... . . . ..... . . . . . . . ........................... 28 Kobalija-Nalbandian, Geller Memorial, Moscow 1999 ...... .. ................. ...... 8 Kulaots-Kengis, Riga Zonal 1995 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .................................... 1 13 Leko- Timman, Wijk aan lee 1996....... ................................................. 62 Levacic-Rogulj, Croatian Ch., Pula 1998 ......... ....... . . ............................. 77 Ljubicic-Zelcic, Croatian Ch., S/awnski Brod 1995 ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 50 Mainka-Yusupov, German Ch., Bmnm 1998. . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . ....... 12 Mamadshoev-Wohl, Yerwm Ol)mpiad 1996. . . . . . ... ......................... . ...... 12 7 Mendes-Rodrigues.R, Figueira Foz Honra 1999........................ ........... 1 12 Miles-Pons, Andorra 1996 ........ ............................................. . . . ............ 34 Mischke-Schirmer, Com:sponJence 199 5 ......... . ...... .................... ........... 12 5 Mortensen-Baburin, Copenhawz 2000 ......................... ......................... 21 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
157
A lekhin e 's De fen c e
Bern 1995 . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . ................................... 25 1995 ..................................... 45 Nedev-Oney, Heraklio 1997 82 Nguyen Anh Dung-Anastasian, Budapest 1999 ................................... 1 7 Nijboer-Vaganian, Dutch League 2001 .................................................. 32 Njobvu-Wohl, Yereum Olympiad 1996 ............ ...................................... 142 Nunn-Howell.J, Port Erin 1994 ............................................................ 65 Oral-De Firmian, Reykjtnik 2000 .................... .......... ........................... 59 Paramonov-Bratchenko, PetroffMemorial, St Petersburg 2000................ 1 08 Pegoraro-Henderson, Ischia 1996 ....................................................... 106 Petrik-Bogdanovski, European Club Cup, Heraklio 1997....................... 149 Polgar.J-Agdestein, Isle ofLewis (rapid) 1995 ........................................ 35 Posch-Baburin, Vienna 1995................................................ ............... 136 Potkin-Neverov, St Petersburg 2000...................................................... 139 Reed.E-Danielsson.G, Buenos A ires Ol)mpiad 1939............................... 70 Rowson-Baburin, Port Erin 1999 ......................................................... 86 Rozentalis-Sokolov.A, Bern 1992 ......................................................... 42 Rozentalis-Volzhin, Polish Team OJ., Zakopane 2000.............. .............. 146 Sennek-Zelcic, Croatian Team OJ., Makarska 1994............................... 101 Short-Agdestein, Isle ofLe'llis (rapid} 1995.. .......... ................................. 30 Short-Miles, European OJ., Ohrid 2001 .................................. ................ 54 Sofronie-Zlatic, BraS(Jl) 1998...................................................... ........... 84 Stefansson-Westerinen, Reykjauik 1997 ................ . . . ...................... . . . . . 144 Sveshnikov-Solozhenkin, Russia 1998 ................................................ 135 Thorhallsson-Gausel, Refejauik 1997 ....... . . . .... ............. ...................... 132 Tiviakov-Van der Werf, Dutch OJ., Leeucmrden 2001.............. ............... 49 Toothill-Davies, British League 2001 ........ . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . .................... 148 Ulibin-Baburin, Vienna 1998 .................................. ............................. 72 Van der Weide-Miles, European OJ., Saint Vinant 2000........................ 47 Velicka-Freisler, Czech 0,., Zlin 1997................................................... 93 Vetemaa-Shabalov, USSR 1986.................................... . . . . .................. 1 18 Volzhin-Sveshnikov.L, USSR 1988 ................ .................................... 121 Watson.W-Baburin, Kilkenny 1994 . . . . .. ........... . . 53 Wydrowski-Marcinkiewicz, Correspondence 1997 . ................................. 67 Yagupov-Balashov, MosaYW 1996 ............................................. ............ 96 Yudasin-Kengis, Minsk 1985 .............................................................. 105 Zamicki-Malbran, A rgentine OJ., Buenos Aires 1998 .............................. 18
Mukhametov-Bagirov,
Mysliwiec-Krzyzanowski, Correspondence
. . . . . .......... ..... . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
..........
7 58
...
..
............
..
..
.
...
.
