To my mother and father
THE TOURNAMENT PLAYER'S REPERTOI RE O F OPENINGS Series Edited by R . G . Wade , O . B . E .
Sicilian: Keres Attack Jon Kinlay
B.T.Batsford Ltd, London
First published 1 98 1 � Jon Kinlay 1 98 1
ISBN 0 7 1 34 2 1 39 9 (limp) Photoset by Andek Printing, London and printed in Great Britain by Bill ing & Son Ltd, London, Guildford & Worcester for the publishers B.T. Batsford Ltd , 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W I H OAH
A BATS FORD CHESS BOOK Adviser: R . G . Wade Technical Editor: P. A . L amford
Contents Symbols Acknowledgments I Int roduction 2 Central Counterattacks: 6 . . . d5; 6 . . . e5 3 6 . . . h6 4 Queenside C ounterattack: 6 . . . a6 5 6 . . . lbc6; 6 . . . i.. e7 Index of Complete Games Index of Variations
vi vii I 15 19 56 75 1 00 101
Symbols + ;!; + ± + ±± ++ =
00
! !! !? ?! ? ??
Corres OL IZ L Ch \.-S f
·
Check Slight advantage Clear advantage Winning advantage Level position Unclear p osition Good move Outstanding move Interesting move Dubious move Weak move Blunder Correspondence Olym piad Interz onal League Championship Semi-final
Acknowledgments My thanks are due to Graham Hillyard for checking the manuscript, to Paul Lamford for his editorial work and especially·to Bob Wade,
whose extensive library, friendly advice and warm hospitality were equally invaluable. My thanks also to E,obert, whose creativity both on
and off the chess board will always be a source of inspiration, and, above all, to my wife Margaret for her enduring support and patience. Jonathan Kinlay, London, July
1 98 1 .
1 Introduction
B
introduction will provide the reader with an understanding of the fundamental strategic ideas; th e main text will deepen that under standing and acquaint him with the theory ; tactical ability the reader will himself have to provide. Origin
The Keres Attack, introduced by the IlliO ves cS l e4 e6 2 ltlf3 3 d4 cd ltlf6 4 ltlxd4 d6 S ltlc3 6 g4 is one of the most dangerous weapons available to White in the Paulsen Variation of the Sicilian . An uncompromising strategy, its purpose is to assure W hite of an undisputed advantage in space and a firm grip on the centre , which form the basis for a direct kingside attack with pawns . The unbalanced positions w h ich arise require a deep understanding of the strategic concepts a nd a high degree of tactical alertness to supplement the necessary detailed knowledge of current theory. This
The a ttack derives its name from the Estonian grandmaster P aul Keres , whose lucid, attacking styl e of play placed him among the topmost rank of chess masters of this century. His approach to chess strategy was clear and direct and in his handling of openings he displayed an extraordinary inven tiveness. These distinctive qualities which typified his style were nowhere more apparent than in the following game in which he first experimented with the attack which was later to bear his name. Keres-Bogoljubow, Salzburg 1943 l e4 cS 2 ltle2 Another of Keres' ideas, the pur pose of which is to retain the option of a closed system. e6 2 3 d4 cd
2 Introduction 4
lbxd4
lbf6
S lbc3 d6 6 g4 Keres wrote: ' Th is interesting idea came into my mind during the course of the game . In this position the continuation 6 g3 followed by i.g2 was often employ ed and an attack on the king's wing was begun only later by f4 and g4. The thought came into my head, however, why not save a tempo and begin immediately with g4?' 6 �c6 It is interesting that Bogoljubow avoided the natural attempts at refutation, 6 . . . d5 and 6 . . . e 5 . Perhaps he chose this solid contin uation instinctively, or perhaps, like Keres, he was able to convince himself through over-the-board analysis that the idea was sound. In any event he must h ave found the situation confusing and it is not too surprising that he rather quickly goes wrong. g5 7 �xd4? Black quite j ustifiably desires to simplify the position as much as possibl e, but exchanging the knights at this stage turns out to be an error of judgment. The white queen takes up a dominating position in t he centre of the board where it hinders both the development of Black's pieces and his intended expansion on the queenside - a theme we wil l be returning to at various stages of the analysis to follow.
8 9
11Vxd4
lbd7
i.e3 a6 1 0 i.el 1!fc7 11 f4 b6 It now transpires that the normal 1 1 . . . b5 will merely result in a serious weakening of Black's pawn formation after 12 a4! since the undesirable exchange 12 . . . ba i s forced due to the positioning of White's queen - directly the result of the premature simplification on move 7 . White's advantage is al ready substantial . 12 fS! (2) 2 B
The concession of e5 in this way is permissibl e onl y in special circumstances. Here White is able to force open the f-file by tactical means thereby preventing Black from castling. 12 lbe5 13 fe fe The point is that 1 3 . . . i.x e6 fail s to 14 "t!f a4+ i.d7 ( 1 4 . . . 'ir d7 1 5 i.b5 ! ) 1 5 lbd5 ! 14 a4 N ot immediately 14 "t!fx b6 't!Vx b6 1 5 i.x b6 lib8. The tex t move
Introduction 3
ensures that White will be able to protect his bishop with a5 if necessary. 14 �e7 15 h4
the closed system with the advan tages of space and piece mobility which he enjoys in the open system. Th e disadvantage of the variation i s th at it is rath er slow, so it is
Renewing the th reat on the b -pawn. Black has no time to get castled. 15 1!Vc5 1 6 1!Vd2 1!Vc7 17 ll fl �b7 1 8 ,.td4 ! Now 1 8 . . . � -0 is impossible on account of 19 1!re3 . 18 ll f8 19 llxfl 0-0-0 i.d8 20 llxfl Or 20 . . . �c4 21 't!rf4 0-0-0 22 "it' g4 etc. lDg6 2 1 . 't!rf4 ) 22 "it'g4! 1!re7 As Keres points out, a prettier finish would have been 22 . . . <2;>d7 23 �d5 1!rc6 24 't!rxe6+ xe6 25 �g4 mate ! After the move played Keres won as follows: 23 't!rh5 e5 24 �e3 i.c7 25 't!rxh 7 �f4 26 i.xf4 ef 27 i.h5+ d7 28 i.g4+ c6 29 "ft' f5 b5 30 "it' d5+ ct>b 6 31 1!rd4+ c6 32 �d5 1 -0.
difficult for White to generate and sustain an attacking initiative to offset the looseness of his open formation. In the Keres Attack the intention is to overcome thi& problem by extending the fianchetto immediately to create a fast moving flank attack. The justification for this is that if Black is thrown onto the defensive at an early stage he will be too preoccupied with his own position to prevent White from consolidating his initial gain in space and subsequently pursuing his ready-made kingside attack. To summarise, Wh ite's aims in the Keres Attack are to: I) make early gains in space on the kingside. 2) disorganise Black's forces, so that it is difficult for him to counter attack. 3) consolidate his position in the centre (note that the displacement of the knight from f6 weakens Black's control of d5 and e4) and on the kingside . 4) finally, pursue his kingside attack directly with f4, f5 and h4, h5 etc. Turning to Black's viewpoint, there are a numb er of different strategies he can follow. We will examine: A) rapid counteraction with 6 ... d5 or 6 . . . e5.
Basic Strategies
Keres' comments on the game in which he first experimented with the attack provide an important insight into its rationale and the underlying strategic concepts. In the 6 g3, 7 i.g2 varition to which Keres refers White's aim is to combine the pattern of strategy of
4 Introduction
B) restraint on the kingside with 6 ... h6. C) counterattack on the queenside by means o f 6 . . . a6 and . . . b5. D) simple dev elopment with 6 . . . ltlc6 o r 6 . . . �e 7.
J.b5+! J.d7 8 J.xd7+ 1!rxg7 9 ltlf5 h5 1 0 J.g5 ltlxg4 I I h3 ± (4). Afte r 1 1 . . . ltlf6 1 2 J.xf6 gf 1 3 ltld5 Whit e has complete control.
A) 6
B) 6
...
d5; 6
...
e5
After 6 . . . dS Black is saddled with an isolat ed pawn and White gains a subst antial development
adv antage . One example: 6 . . . dS 7 ed ltlxd5 8 J.b5+ J.d7 9 ltlxd5 ed 1 0 't!Ve2+ 1!re7 1 1 J.e3 g6 1 2 �xd7+ ltlxd7 1 3 lObS ltle5 1 4 0-0- 0 ± Fischer-Reshevsky , USA Ch 1 966/ 67 (3).
Diagram 4 shows a typical outcome fro m the move 6 . . e5, .
which seri o us ly weakens Black's white square control: 6 . . . e5 7
..•
h6
Black shores up his defences to av oid t he disorganisation of his forces which results from g4-g5 . At t he same time, howev er, t he move provides a target for Whit e's kingside att ack . There are t hree ways in which White can proceed: B 1) open up lines immediately with 7 g5. B2) reinforce his grip on the centre by fianchettoing the bishop. B3) make further preparations for the attack with 7 I!g l . Bl) 7 g5 This is a popul ar line of play in which White breaks early on the kingside to gain greater scope for his pieces. To offset the weakening of his pawn structure he has the open g-file and a strong bishop on g5 which hampe rs the action of Black's pieces while enhancing his o· wn control of the centre . His strategy is to restrict his opponent by pushing the f- and h-pawns, looking for opportunities for a break with e5 and actio n along the g-file. Black usually handles the position slowly, castling long and gradually u ntangling his position with . . . J.e7 and . . . llJg8 (5) .
Introduction 5 5 B
From diagram 5 : 1 5 . . . .tc8 1 6
.tf3 (preventing 1 6 . . . d5) 1 6 . . . 1Wc7
( 1 6 . . . lih7 1 7 1!V e2 lDg8 1 8 lihg 1 .txg5 1 9 lixg5 !i:J ge7 20 lDd5 ! ed 2 1 ed ;!; Skrobek-Adamski, P olish Ch 1 977) 17 �b 1 !i:J g8 18 lidg 1 (White saves a tempo in this way) 1 8 . . . lih7 19 \t f2 .txg5 20 lixg5 (;!;) 20 . . . f!J ge7 2 1 lid 1 g6 22 hg !i:J xg6 23 li h5 lig7 24 lig 1 ligg8 25 lihg5 !i:J ge7 26 .th5 lixg5 27 lixg5 f5 with equality, Karpov Andersson, Skara 1 980. But Black can also break quickly with . . . a6 and . . . b5 (6): 6 w
1!V xf5 1 9 1!V xf5 ef - Razuvayev Commons, L ublin 1978 - 20 .txd5 ±) 1 4 lDa4 e5 1 5 fe de 1 6 h3 .te6 17 1!V f2 !i:J d7 with a fine position for Black, Nunn-Ghinda, Dortmund 1 979. B2) 7 .t g2 A more sedate system which nevertheless deserves attention . White strengthens his position centrally before carrying forward his kingside attack . He can opt for either king- or queenside castling, the latter offering the better attack ing opportunities though naturally incurr ing greater risk. The emphasis of the attack has shifted from the wing to the centre so that instead of steering for a g5 advance White will be looking for opportunities to push forward with e5 or f4-f5. Black's typical plan for counter action is to wait for White's f4 a dvance and then liquidate in the centre with . . . !i:J xd4 and . . . e5, when the outcome of the struggle will depend on how well each side makes use of the resulting open fi les. One example scenario: 7 B
From diagram 6: 1 3 .ig2 (the simple 1 3 a3 needs testing) 1 3 . . . b4! ( 1 3 . . . .ib7 1 4 't!Ve3 ! b 4 1 5 lDa4 lDd7 1 6 e 5 ! d5 1 7 f5 ! 't!Vxe5 1 8 \t f2
6 Introduction
1 1 . . . lt!xd4 1 2 .t xd4 e5 1 3 .te3 ef 1 4 .txf4 .te6 1 5 0-0-0 0-0 1 6 'it>b l (White has only a slight pull in this position and the way he develops his attack using the f- and e-files is most instructive) 16 . . . llac8 1 7 1!V d2 llfd8 1 8 llhfl lt!e8? ! 1 9 .te3 .tf6 20 lt!d5 .txd5 2 1 ed .te5 22 h4 1Wc4 23 g5 h5 24 .tf4 g6 25 llde l .txf4 26 ll xf4 \!Vc5 27 lle7 with a winning attack in Horvath-Stean, Virovitica 1 977. B3) 7 llgl This move introduces an inter esting alternative to the more commonplace plans outlined in B 1 . White's intention i s to run through on the kingside with h2-h4, g4-g5 followed by an eventual g5-g6. The pawn attack will be all the more dangerous now that Black's kingside defences have been weak ened and it is therefore incumbent on the second player to seek active counterplay as quickly as possible. R outine operations will permit White to complete his development wi th .te3, .te2, 1!V d2 and 0-0-0 and then pursue his strategy with h4 etc, so attention focuses on the more dynamic . . . d5. This break has the effect of shifting the emphasis away from the wing to the centre, so precipitating an immediate struggle for superiority in that sector of the board. Although Black is rather better prepared for the contest than after 6 . . . d5 discussed in section A , he once again runs the positional risk of an isolated d-pawn and faces tactical
t hreat s from Whit e's rapidly mobil ised pieces. By way of illust ration we consider t he position shown in diagram 8 , arising from t h e game Karpov Spassky, Tilburg 1 980. 8 w
The continuation was 9 .tb5 .td7 1 0 ed lt!xd5 1 1 lt!xd5 ed 1 2 .te3 ! (White aims t o control the square in front of the isolated pawn and shapes up for an attack on h6 in case Black should castle short) 12 . . . .te7 13 't!Vd2 .txh4 (not so much pawn grabbing as an attempt to secure a sanctuary for the bishop on f6 where it can defend the kingside) 14 0-0-0 .tf6 1 5 lt!f5 .txf5 1 6 gf a6 (after 1 6 . . . d 4 1 7 .txd4 .txd4 1 8 \!Vxd4 1!V xd4 19 .txc6+ be 20 ll xd4 Black's endgame prospects are bleak) 1 7 .txc6+ b e 1 8 .tc5 ll b 8 1 9 b 4 llb5 20 llge l + �d7 21 c4 ±± . C) 6 . . . a6
The system where Black engages in an early minority attack with . .. a6 and . . . b5 is the most energetic at his disposal. It is also the most dangerous plan for the second
Introduction 7
player since it allows White a free hand to pursue his ambitions on the other fl ank. Evidence suggests that Black's most productive for mation in this line is the placement of his knights on b6 and d7, in preparation for occupation of c4 o r in some cases .a n exchange sacrifice on c3. White's optimal development is less easy to define and it is an open question whether it is better to- bring the major pieces into play at an early stage or to concentrate on forcing concessions with an immediate pawn storm an early h4 followed by h5 and eventually g5-g6 seems to be one of the most promising plans , - but we examine one or two of the options. 1 After 7 g5 .!t::l fd7 8 .te3 (8 llg 1 is interesting, as is 8 .tc4 reaching a type of Sozin position) 8 . . . b5 9 a3 we divide into: C 1 ) 9 . . . .!t::l b6 C2) Other formations Cl) 9 .!t::l b6 As indicated earlier this plan is likely to be Black's best bet and can be precarious for White, particularly if he routin ely castles queenside, as the game Korsunski Timoshchenko, USSR 1 979, illus trates (diagram 9). The game follows three phases: 1) occupation of c4; 2) exchange sacrifice on c3 to demolish White's centre; and finally 3) switch to direct attack on the king. 1 2 . . . llc 8 13 .td3 .!t::l c4 14 .txc4 llxc4 1 5 llhe 1 .!t::l c5 1 6 .ig 1 .te7 ! ...
(enticing White's next) 1 7 b3 ll xc3 18 ti' xc3 .!t::l xe4 1 9 ti'f3 't!Va8 20 \!Vg4 0-0 21 lld3 d5 22 llh3 .txa3+ 23 'it>b 1 't!Vd8 ! 24 lld 1 1!ra5 =f=f. White's other major piece d evel opment strategies compris e llg 1 and 't!Vg4, and the two have been combined although without any particularly noticeable effect. Here we take a look at the latter scheme, this being rather less well mapped out than the llg 1 plan. White's intention in seeking a more active role for the queen is to pressurise Black's kingside, particularly the e6 square , in the hope of forcing positional concessions for his pawns to exploit - the reverse side of those h4 plans in which the pawns do the
8 Introduction
initial softening up. If we consider the position in diagram 10, it is clear that comparisons with the position shown in diagram 9 are in order, in which White's formation has a more passive look to it. Here Black's most natural move is 12 ... llc8, when in view of the routine exchange sacrifice inte nded White should test the pote ncy of his own threats with 13 g6!? hg 14 li:lxe6!? fe I5 't!r xg6+
on I2 llh3! (this unusual manoeuvre has the benefit of preventing . . . g 6 b y maintaining the pressure o n the h-fi le) I 2 . . . \!Vc7 I 3 g6!? h g I 4 h g li:lxg6 (or I 4 . . . llxh3 I 5 gf+) I 5 llxh8 lDxh8 I 6 \!Vh5 lDg6 I 7 i.h3 (White already has considerable pressure for the pawn and in the next phase of the game she capital ises on the ope n files and her opponent's mistakes ! ) I7 . . . e5? I S lDf5 li:le7 I 9 't!r h8 ! lDxf5 20 e f i.b7 2 I 0-0-0 li:lc4 22 f6 ! gf 23 't!r xf6 lDxa3? (irrelevant) 24 llg i i.c8 25 llg8 ! i.xh3 26 llxf8 + I -0. C2) Other formations Lines in which Black refrains from the aggressive . . . li:lb6 forma tion pose fewer difficulties for the first player. Not only are Black's threats o n the quee nside easier to meet but his control of the d5 square is weakened, offering White opportunities to play f4-f5 when the response ... e5 will be positionally or tactically undesirable. The usual range of strategies are available to White as outlined in section C I and here we concentrate on a single interesting example which illustrates
Introduction 9
several of the pri ncipal themes.
22 1!b h7 llJ xe4 23 Iil xf7 Iil xf7 24 1!rg8+ Iil f8 25 1!rxg6+ ct>d7 26 llJ xe4 .txe4 27 Wxe4 ±± . D) Simple Development Strategies:
6 ... li'l c6; 6 ... .te7
The posl tl on in diagra m 1 2 arises from the game Fedorowicz P etrosian, Hastings 1977/78. White has already co mmitted his queen to the attack (cf. diagr am 1 0) and stands ready to open the bidding with f4-f� . Black reacts unsteadily, gaining a tempo on the queen only to fall back on the defensive at once: 1 1 . . . lik eS ?! 1 21i' h3 (pi nning the h-pa wn in preparati on for g5g6) 1 2 . . . g6 (per haps Black had intended 12 . . . li'l b6, only now realising the consequences of 13 f4 li'l ec4 1 4 .txc4 llJxc4 1 5 g6! ) 1 3 f4 llJ c6 1 4 Iil g 1 "t!Vc8 1 5 f5 llJc5 (in . . . llJb6 lines Black would have been happy to play . . . e5, covering d5 wi th his pieces) 16 fe fe 17 .txb5 ! (Black has taken steps to protect the pawn on e6 but in so doing has weakened his d-pawn: the text is therefore j ustifi able as a tacti cal means of exploiting this posi tional weakness) 17 . . . ab 1 8 llJdx b5 llJd8 19 Iil gf l .te7 20 1!f h6 llJf7 2 1 't!Vg7 (completing the penetrati o n on the dark squares; there follows a mopping up operati on) 2 1 . . . Iil f8
The strategic concepts underlying the 6 . . . li'l c6 and 6 . . . .te7 lines are difficult to pi n down in exact terms. Whereas in other variations Black follows clear policies of restraint or counterattack, here he adopts no particular str ategic plan but instead concentrates on avoiding weak nesses and on co mpleting his development as rapidly as possible. His i ntention is to regroup his forces during the early midd le game and then draw up his plan according to the requirements of the position as he sees them, taking into account the particular method of dev elop ment which White has opted for. The i dea i s that by retai ning maxi mum flexibility in his positi on he will be able to cope with any conti ngency and later on exploit the positional weaknessesi ncurred by White in the openi ng. On the debit side, the main criticism which can be made of these lines i s that they are essentially passive , and White shoul d aim to exploit thi s by adopting simple, forceful methods. There i s no shortage of options from whi ch Whi te may choose, and we exami ne a number of these i n turn. 6 ... llJc6 7 g5 llJd7 Dl) 8 .te3 A non-com mittal move whi ch
10 Introduction
Whit e can follow up wit h queenside cast ling and a rapid kingside att ack, or Karpov's idea of cent ral act ion, among ot her plans. Diagram 1 3 shows a t ypical position arising from the former plan. Scent ing White's intent ion of going for an attack with h4-h5 and g5-g6 Black has himself made preparations for an all-out assault on the opposite wing. As the sequel shows, the outcome of the struggle is decided by White's capability to adequately defend his own king while making use of his superiority in the centre to even tually open up lin es to his opponent's.
1Wxg2 1 -0. Anot her illust rat ion of the king side v queenside att ack t heme is provided by the game Alexandria Kozlovskaya , Tbilisi 1 979, which once again shows the- strength of the plan of breaking open Black's pawn barrier by attacking the white squares with h4-h5 followed by g5-g6.
13 w
Mednis-Timman, Sombor 1 974, continued 1 5 h4 a5 16 h5 a4 1 7 g6 b3? (more resilient was 1 7 . . . fg 1 8 hg h6) 1 8 gf+ <3t xf7 1 9 cb ab 20 a3 ! (Black's play o n the queenside is . now essentially dead) 20 . . . h6 2 1 llhfl lL!xd4 2 2 lL!xd4 <3t e8 2 3 't!r f2 .tc8 (both sides have managed so far to defend adequately but now, after due preparation, White breaks open the centre) 24 e5 llb6 25 f5 ! .tb7 26 fe de 27 't!r g3 .txg2 28 't!r g6+ <3t d8 29 ltlb5+ lld6 30
The sequel was 15 . . . .tc6 (preparing . . . a5) 1 6 f5 ! (White reasons that with her pawn attack so far advanc ed the concession of e5 is of lesser significance than the pressure which this move brings to bear on Black's light squares) 1 6 .. . lL!e5 1 7 .ih3 .td7 ( 1 7 . . . lL!c4 1 8 't!Vf2 ltlxe3 1 9 't!Vxe3 e 5 20 ltld5 .ixd5 21 ll xd5 likewise leaves Black with a substantial inferiority on account of the weakness on d5 and the passivity of her pieces) 1 8 h 5 a 5 1 9 g6 h g 20 hg llxh3 (this exchange sacrifice alleviates some of the im mediate pressure: on 20 . . . b4 there would follow 21 gf+ lL!xf7 22 fe ±±) 2 1 gf+ lL!xf7 22 llxh3 b4 23 fe be 24 ef+ <3; e7 25 .tg5+ 'i!> xf7 26 1!Vd5+ <3; g6 27
Introduction 11
lixc3 1!V b8 28 ll g3 1 -0. Finally in this section we take a look at a plan devised by Karpov, the essence of which is to break open lin� s in the centre by sacrificial means in an attempt to exploit the exposed position of Black's king. Naturally there are many fine points to this strategy and the reader is advised to take note in particular. of the idea behind White's 1 2th move. 15 w
of which is to apply pressure to Black's d-pawn, which has been temporaril y weakened by the retreat of the knight to d7. In order to defend the pawn Black's pieces will be forced to take up exposed positions in the centre where they are subject to further harassment by White's forces. The line can thus be said to be tactically biased with primary emphasis on rapid development and piece play, factors likely to be favoured by K eres Attack players. One example should be sufficient to highlight the main features of the variation. 16 B
The game Karpov-Dorfman , USSR Ch 1976, continued 1 2 llJxc6! (drawing the queen to the c6 square so that after the knight sacrifice on d5 White will be able to recapture with gain of tempo: note also the crucial role played by White's queen acting along the e-file - the point behind it s peculiar looking development on e2) 12 ... 't!Vxc6 1 3 .id4 b4 1 4 llJd5 ! ed 1 5 .txg7 llg8 16 ed 't!Vc7 17 .tf6 llJe5 18 .txe5 de 19 f4! .if5 20 .th3 .txh3 2 1 lixh3 lieS 22 fe with three pawns and a tremendous amount of play for the piece . D2) 8 llJdb5 An enterprising move, the point
Szabo-Ivkov, Hilversum 1 973, went 1 0 ... .td7 (on 1 0 ... a6 White has the tactic I I 0-0-0! �bc4 1 2 .txc4 llJxc4 1 3 .txd6: Black's best is probably 10 .. . �g6) I I .txe 5 ! (rarely a good move in this line but here justifiable on tactical grounds, e. g. I I . . . g6 12 .txd6!) I I . .. de 1 2 g6! a 6 ! 1 3 gf+ �e7 1 4 � a 3 'f/c7 1 5 0-0-0 g 6 1 6 1!Vh4+ �xf7 1 7 �c4 �xc4 1 8 .txc4 .te7 1 9 1!Vg3 ! (an i mportant improvement on 1 9 'f/g4 after which Black c a n gain a
12 Introduction
t empo with . . . h 5 , which could become necessary later on) 19 . . . litad8 2 0 .tb3 .tc8 2 1 h 4 llxd 1 + 2 2 li:lxd 1 ! (instead of the routine 22 llxd 1 White maintains the rook on the h-file where it is doing some useful work while at the same time improving the prospects of his knight) 22 . . . lld8 23 h5 g5 24 lDe3 h6 25 1!r g4
17 w
(the logi cal course of events would be 16 f5 lDc4 1 7 g6, but in contrast to the game Alexandria-Kozlovskaya - see diagram 1 4 - Black is able to handle the pressure on the light squares since his bishop still stands on c8 while White's will require another tempo in order to reach the appropriate posting on h3) 16 . . . d5 17 .txd5!? b4! 1 8 li:l e4 ed 19 lDxd6+ .txd6 20 ed1!t' c6! (20 . .. Wxd6 2 1 .tc5 followed b y 22 llhe I + is awkward for Black) 21 f5 0-0 22 f6 ! b3! 23 ab lDxb3+ 24 '.!? b l 1!r a4 25 cb1!t' e4+ 26 '.!? a2 llb5 27 .tc5 ! d4! 2 81!t' xd41!t' c2 291!t' c4 Wxc4 30 be llxc5 3 1 d7 .txd7 32 llxd7 with a level ending. 6 ... .te7 7 g5 li:lf d 7
These li nes bear a close affinity to those arising from the 6 . . . lDc6 variation and i ndeed a great number of transpositions are possible. However, it is not altogethe r clear what the attracti ons of the move are , si nce in comparable 6 . . . lDc6 lines Black generally leaves the piece on f8, preferri ng to use the sorely needed tempo to secure
Introduction 13
some counterplay in the centre or on the queenside . The move does give Black the option of castling short early on, but this is rarely advisable given the strength of White's attack. On these grounds it would appear that White should do no worse than in analogous 6 . . . li:lc6 lines and i n addition t o the standard plan of pushing the f and h-pawns he has other inviting possi h ili ties. D4) 8 i.e3 This gives ri se to positions similar to those discussed in section D 1 .
Without a positive response by Black White will simply roll through with i.h3, f5 etc, as the game Alexandria-Kozlovskaya, Rio de Janeiro 1 979, illustrates: 10 't!Vc7 ( 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.h3 li:lxd4 1 2 't!r xd4 b5 1 3 0-0-0 Iil e8 1 4 f5 i s vir tually untenable for Black, Kostro Baumgartner, Corres 1 975) 1 1 i.h3 lDc5 1 2 f5 b5 1 3 a3 lDxd4 1 4 't!r xd4 e5 1 5 lDd5! \t d8 1 6 't!r c3 i.b7 1 7 i.xc5 i.xd5 1 8 0-0-0! i.b7 1 9 f6! g f 20 gf \t c7 2 1 fe \t xc5 2 2 \t f3 't!r c4 23 't!r f6 i.xe4 24 i.d7+ ! '.!? xd7 25 \t xd6 ±± .
Belyavsky-Vogt , L eningr ad 1 977, shows the right way for Black, viz to break up the pawn roller at once before it breaks on his kingside defences: 10 h6! 1 1 't!r f3 (there does not appear to be any method for White to avoid the ensuing simplification: 1 1 i.g2 hg 12 hg Iil xh 1 + 1 3 i.xh 1 lDxd4 14 \t xd4 e5 1 5 't!r d2 ef 16 i.xf4 lDe5 is about equal, but 1 1 i.h3 deserves a closer look) 1 1 . . . li:lxd4 12 i.xd4 hg 1 3 hg Iil xh 1 1 4 't!r xh 1 e 5 1 5 i.f2 ef 1 6 0-0-0 i.xg5 1 7 \t h8 + lt) f8 1 8 lDd5 with chances for both sides . DS) 8 Iil g1 This move is rather more effect ive than in compa rable 6 . . . lDc6 lines, since given Black's less act ive approach White has more time t o make preparations. He can follow up in much the same way as in 0 4 with f4, h4 etc, but here we exa mine an alternative strategy based on an attack with pieces. ...
19 B
...
Faced with the dual th reats of lDxe6 and g6 Black is virtually forced to castle. White will than play Iil g 1 -g3, when the threat of
14 Introduction
lith3 will force the weakness . . . g6, presenti ng a useful target for th e h-pawn. Van Riemsdijk-Najdorf, Sao Paolo I978, continued from diagram I 9 with lO 0-0 I I 0-0-0 ...
liteS I 2 lilg3 g6 1 3 't!r e2 .tf8 I 4 b I 'ttc 7 I 5 h4 lbxd4 I 6 J.. xd4 b 5 I 7 h 5 b 4 I S lba4 .ib7 I 9 h g fg 20 b3 leaving White with most of the positional trumps.
2 Central Counterattacks: 6
6
.
.
.
. . .
d5;
e5
In response to White' s unortho dox kingsi d e initiative it is natural for Black to c onsider the possibility of an early counterattack in t he centre, in accordance with Nimzo witsch' s axiom that this is the appropriate reaction to an attack on the flank. If successful such action wo uld completely disrupt the devel�pment o f White' s strategy and expose the weaknesses incurred by the knight' s pawn' s advance . While in general the validity of Nimzowitsch' s maxim may not be challenged, the Keres Attack is something of an exception to the normal rules. As we shall see, neither of the two candidates for direct central action is an effective antidote to White' s wing attack. The reason for this is that despite its an tipositional lo ok the move 6 g4 is not merely a tactical device initiating an assault on the kingside. It is intended, through the displace ment of B lack' s knight and the consequent disorganisation of his forces, to weaken the second player' s control of the centre, bringing about an abrupt shift in the balance of power in that
important sector of the board. A 6 . . . d5 B 6 ... e5 A 6 d5 (20) 20 w
This appealing move rather rebounds on Black by giving White a lead in development and a stron g attacking position after . . . ed 7 Not 7 .ib5+ .id7 8 ed (8 .ixd7+ was tried in the game Stein-Castro, Havana OL 1 966, which continued 8 . . . "t!rxd7 9 e5 i0 e4 1 0 i0 ce2 i0 c6 1 1 i0 xc6 Wxc6 1 2 i0 d4 Wa6 +) 8 .ixb5 9 i0 dxb5 a6 1 0 i0 d4 i0 xd5 when Black' s position is preferable, being free of weaknesses. i0xd5 7 White has a winning position ...
16 6
...
d5; 6
...
e5
a fter 7 . . . ed 8 .tb 5+ .td7 9 't!re2+ 't!re7 10 g5. 8 .t bS + (21) 21
B
So fa r P anov-K otov, USSR 1 9 39 , which was followed in the game N ikitin-Cherepkov, Moscow v L eningrad 1 95 8 . The latter went on 1 1 . . .
23
w
This is the move which causes a ll the problems f or Black. White's piece s now bec ome extremely active and Blac k's increasingly clumsy. 8 i.d7 ed 9 �xdS 10 't!re 2+ .te7 Reshevsky tried 10 ... 't!re7a ga inst Fischer in the USA Ch of 1 966/6 7 but af ter 11 .te3 g6 ( 11 . . . a6 1 2 .txd7+ �x d7 1 3 �f5 't!re6 1 4 0-0-0 0-0-0 1 5 't!rd3 �f6 1 6 li[ he 1 ±) 1 2 .txd7+ � xd7 1 3 �b5 �e5 1 4 0-0-0 .tg7 1 5 li[ xd5 0-0 1 6 li[ hd 1 his position was hardly enviable. 11 �fS! (22)
White has here two alternatives, the second of which is the more logical and effective : B 1 7 �f5 B2 7 .tb5+ ! B1 7 �fS This i s the 'book' move , which gives Black some possibilities for counterplay. 7 hS 8 gS This is the only atte mpt for a real advantage . It's messy, but then this is a position that demands some brute force . In the game A. Zaitsev-P ersitz, Cor res 1 966, White tried the more restrained 8 .tg5 but his position began to slip
6 after 8 ... hg! (8 .. .i.e6? is too slow: 9 gh .i.xfS 10 ef .i.e7 I I h6 ±± Bagirov-Morsovich, USSR 1 960) 9 lt:l e3 .i.e6 10 Wd2 lt:l c6 1 1 0-0-0 lt:ld4 12 .i.xf6 gf 1 3 lt:lb5 't!Vb 6 ! 14 lt:lxd4 ed 1 5 Wxd4 't!rxd4 1 6 Ilxd4 .i. h6 =F. B la c k ha d more than sufficient compensation fo r the broken pawns in terms of his very active piece play. lt:lxe4 8 9 lt:lxg7+ .txg7 1 0 lt:lxe4 d5 1 1 . lt:lg3 (24) .
...
d5: 6
..
.
e5 1 7
could ra pid ly prove fa tal after 1 4
lt:lh5 Ilh7 13 14 15
1 5 lt:lxg7+ Ilxg7 1 6 1!fh5 . .txh5 lt:lxh5 i.xh5 lt:lc6 .tg4 (25)
25 B
24 B
A rather deceptive pos1t10 n . Black, though in ful l command o f the centre, i s under considerable pressure on the kingside where the really important action is taking place. 11 i.g4 This represents some improve ment over the move 1 1 . . . h4? after which there followed in the game N eielov-Romanov, C orres 1 966, 12 lt:lh5 Ilh7 13 lt:lxg7+ lit xg7 1 4 t!Y h5 with a pow erful initiative . 1 2 .tel 't!rd7 Again the attempt to save the pawn by 12 . . . .txe2 1 3 't!rxe2 h4
Although B lack has some com pensati on for the pawn his position is marred by his inability to remove his king from the centre in order to continue active opera tions there . White will slowly orga nise his development, castle queenside and run the h-pawn. B2 7 .tb5+ ! (26)
7 .td 7 Black cannot avoid the exchange of bishops ai though it emphasises his weakness on the white squares.
18 6 . . d5; 6 . . . e5 .
7 . . . li:lbd7 is too cumbersome: 8 li:lf5 a6 9 .txd7+ '@xd7 1 0 g5 lilg8 I I lild5 and White's position is overwhelming. '@xd7 8 .txd7+ Unsatisfactory is 8 . . . ll:l bxd7 9 lilf5 lilb6 (9 . . . li:lc5 1 0 f3 ±) 1 0 g5 g6 ! ? II lile3 lilh5 12 ll:l ed5 ± . 9 lilfS hS (27) 27 w
ll:l xe4 I I ll:l xg7+ .txg7 1 2 ll:l xe4 d5, O'Kelly-Christoffel, Groningen 1 946. Gipslis gives 10 f3 hg I I fg g6 ( I I . . . lila6 1 2 "& e2 ± Keller-Rat, Switzerland 1 96 1 ) 12 lile3 lilc6 1 3 "& f3 .tg7 1 4 li:lcd5 ll:l xd5 1 5 lilxd5 ll:l d4 16 "& g2 ± . The text is rather more dynamic and in keeping with Keres' style . ll:l xg4 10 11 h3 ± (Keres). lilf6 11 gf 12 .txf6 1 3 li:ldS (28) 28 8
On 9 . . . g6? 1 0 .tg5 ! is rather unsettling: 10 . . . ll:l xg4 I I "& xg4 gf 12 "& h4 with 13 li:ld5 to come . 10 .tgS! Keres' move and typically a very active one. Far less clear is 10 gS
White has a winning position.
3 6 ... h6
29 w
concede White a large spatia l advantage (with all the dangers which that entails) so early on in the opening, and the psychologica l feeling of security which the second player gains by containing White's initiative in this wa y is not to be despised. If we tum our attention to White's viewpoint we fi nd that there are two pa tterns of strateSY from which he ca n choose. He may break a t once with 7 g5 or prepare the advance by fi rst extend ' ing his piece development in one fashion or another (7 .t. g2, 7 lilg l). Opening principles are too crude a yardstick with which to attempt to measure the relative merits of the two plans and the reader is advised to familiarise himself with both types of position before deciding which line to follow. Ideally White should have one or two (new) tricks up his sleeve with which to meet this variation. We will divide our analysis as follows: A 7 g5 B 7 .t. g2 C 7 lit g l and other moves. A 7 gS hg 8 .t.xgS (30) ·
Lines in which Black plays the restraining 6 . . . h6 are an important and popular branch of the opening. The idea behind the move is, of course, to impede White's progress on the kingside until Black's defencei are sufficiently organised to launch an effective counter action. While it is true that Black can avoid the loss of time and disorganisation of his pieces which trouble him in othe r variations, the move 6 . . . h6 suffers from the drawback of allowing White gr eater opportunities to ope n lines on the kingside. On balance the extra time which Black buys is insu fficient compensation in itself for the weakening of his pawn structure which loses a considerable amount of its defensive resilience as a result. It is , however, understandable that Black should be unwilling to
20 6 . h6 ..
30
B
This position is quite possibly the most importa nt tha t can a rise from 6 g4, representing White's most reputa ble attempt for an adva ntage against Black's most solid defence . It has arisen in games at the highest standards of play with world class players championing both the white and bla ck pieces, and it is for this reason tha t I shall spend some considerable time a na lysing the strategic elements of the position in order to familiarise the rea der with it as thoroughly as possible . I begin by drawing the reader's attention to the similarity of the position shown in the diagram to that which arises from the Richter Rauzer line 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 lbc6 3 d4 cd 4 lbxd4 ltlf6 5 lbc3 d6 6 .i.g5 e6. Since Black in the Keres Attack position almost invariably plays . . . ltlc6 sooner or later the diff erences between the two positions amount to the following: White has gained the open g-file which he can use to put pressure on his opponent's kingside , while Black has the h-file and some possibilities of exploiting
White's now wea kened f3 squa re by bringing a knight to e5 where it a tta cks both c4 a nd f3 a t the sa me time . An importa nt considera tion a lso a re Bla ck's improved end ga me prospects brought a bout by the wea kening of the white pa wn structure, a lthough this long term benefit is a mply compensa ted by the enlivening of the white position induced by the excha nge of pa wns. Exploring the position further some other importa nt points come to light. In the Richter-Ra uzer it is often the case tha t White's stra tegy will involve exchanging the bishop fo r knight on f6a t a time when his opponent can only recapture with the g-pawn, leaving B la ck with a weak h-pawn and a centra l ma jority which, although strong, tends to hamper the action of his bishops. Such possibilitie s a re not r eally open to White in the Keres Attack as with Black's h-pa wn a lready gone the first player would have relatively little compensation for the two bishops Black would have no problems mobilising either his rook on h8 or his black-squared bishop, which could quickly come into play via h6. But we have yet to mention the si ngle most important feature of the position which is sufficient to outweigh all the disadvantages of the pawn exchange and tip the balance in White's favour. It is that the bishop on g5 is virtually immune to attack, and as Black no longer has the option to drive it -
6 ... h6 21
away with . . . h6 he must suffer the constriction which it imposes on his game for as long as W hite chooses to leave the piece in this position. Furthermore White can later play h4 to support his bishop and eventually h5, reducing the scope of Black's rook considerably and threatening to undermine his kingside with h6. While it is possible for Black to defend against these threats he is often forced into a rather passive position in order to do so and it is this aspect which prospective Keres Attack players are likely to find agreeable . Playing from the position shown in diagram 30 Black must choose between rapid queenside counter play with lg . . . a6 or solid develop ment with 8 . . . �c6, possibly coupled with the modern . . . 't!Vb6. Only the latte r seems to promise near-equality and hence is the current favourite . A I 8 . . . a6 A2 8 . . . �c6 At a6 (31) 8
this move order to transpose to A2 lines but this plan is not to be recom mended as White has more choice in the placement of his quee n . 9 1!t' d2 It is also quite feasible to de velop the queen on e2 where it guards the e-pawn and the c4 and f3 squares. This plan was illustrated by the game Geller-Korchnoi, match (6) Moscow 1 97 1 , which went 9 .tg2 (this move order has the benefit of ruling out an early . . . b5 by Black) 9 . . . .td7 (on 9 . . . �bd7 1 0 1!Ve2 1!Vc7 1 1 0-0-0 White has a considerable advantage accor ding to Velimirovic ; Black dare not try 1 1 . . . b5? because of 1 2 e5 and hence must waste time with 1 1 . . . llb8, and after 1 2 f4 b5 1 3 llhe l ! White's build-up o n the e-file means he is ready for a direct attack based on e5, e.g. 13 . . . llxh2?! 13 b4? 1 4 �d5! ± - 1 4 e5 ! de 1 5 fe �g8 - 1 5 ... i.b 7 1 6 ef llxg2 1 7 �xe6! ±±; 1 5 ... �h 7 1 6 .t/4 ±±; 15 .. 1!Vxe5 161!Vxe5 �xe5 1 7 llxe5 llxg2 18 � c 6 ±± - 16 �xe6! fe 1 7 .te4 ! �xeS - 1 7 llxe2 1 8 i.g6 mate; 17 ll h6 18 1!Vh5+! llxh5 19 i.g6 mate; 17 ... �e7 181!Vxh2 ±± - 1 81!t' xh2! ±± for if 1 8 . . . �d3+ 1 9 llxd3 1!Vxh2 once more there i s 20 i.g6 mate) 10 1!Ve2 i.e7 1 1 0-0-0 1!Vc7 1 2 h4 �c6 (finally Black has no othing better than to transpose to an inferior line) 13 f4 0-0-0 14 f5 'it>b8 1 5 fe fe and now as 1 6 i.h3?! all ows the equalising 16 . . . �h5 ! White should play 1 6 ll hf l with -
0 0 0
o
. o .
31
w
Of course , Black may choose
0 0 0
22 6 . . . h6
some advantage (Guf eld). The manoeuvre . . . �h5 can be of considerable use to Black if White has locked in his bishop with f4 and cannot avoid an exchange . For example , the game Kavale k-Szabo, Salgotarian 1 967, went 9 f4 �bd7 1 0 1We2 i.e7 1 1 0-0-0 �h5! 1 2 i.xe7 1Wxe7 1 3 1!re3 �df 6 1 4 .ie2 e5! and Black took the initiative . b5 9 The only move with independent siginificance , but saf er is the trans position 9 . . . �c6 leading to A2 lines. Other possibilities are: (a) 9 ... 1Wc7 1 0 i.g2 �bd7 1 1 f 4 Ji bS 1 2 0-0-0 �h7 1 3 i.h4liJ b6 1 4 libe l! i.d7 1 5 �d5 ! �xd5 1 6 ed g5 1 7 de ! with a crushing attack, Savon-Bikov, Ukrai ne (Spartakiade) 1 973. (b) 9 . . . i.e7 1 0 i.g2 �c6? ! I I �xc6! be 1 2 e5 �d5 1 3 i.xe7 'tf xe7 14 ed! 1Wxd6 1 5 0-0-0 Ji bS 1 6 �e4 1Wf 4 1 7 c4 and White's active pieces and queenside pawn majority leave him very much on top , Ciocaltea-Bukic, Bucharest 1 97 1 . .ib7 1 0 .ig2 �bd7 0-0-0 11 12 f4 1Wc7 (32) Black seems to have successfully completed his development but the sequel demonstrates a weakness in his f ormation on the long white diagonal. e5! de 13 fe 14 b4!
32
w
fe 1 5 �xe6! 15 1!rxe5 1 6 libe l be 1 7 1Wxd7+! �xd7 I S �c7 mate. 16 ef gf .ixe4 1 7 �e4 1 7 . . . f g I S 1!rxd7+ "t!Vxd7 1 9 �xf6+ � e7 20 lixd7+ 'it>xf6 2 1 .ixb7 Ji bS 22 .i xa6 ± . 1 8 i.xe4 0-0-0 19 1We2 (33) 33 B
Calvo-Panno, Las Palmas 1 973. Black's weak pawns and exposed king will be difficult to def end against the two powerf ul white bishops. A2 �c 6 8 Theory suppose s that the immed iate development of the knight
6 . . . h6 23
gives Black a more solid posit ion and bett er equalising chances but White should be able t o ret ain a slight plus with best play. In broad out line White's strategy must follow three phases: completion of his queenside development wit h '4W d2 and 0-0-0; restraint of Black's cent ral majority with .t. g2 or .t. e2f3; and a st eady advance on the kingside wit h f4 and h4. As long as ' White main tains his control oft he centre (and this should present no problems with the bishop now firmly entrenched on g5) the order in which these phases are enacted is relatively unimportant, but there are some nuances of which Keres Attack pl ayers should be aware and a thof ough study of the ensuing material is strongly advised. We examine: A2 1 9 '4W d2 A22 9 h4 A23 9 .i. g2 An alternative rarely seen in practice is 9 ll:lb3 with which White voluntarily loses a tempo : 9 . . . a6 10 f4 '4W c7 1 1 '4W e2 b5 (the game L ane-Pritchett fro m Decin 1978 varied with 1 1 . . . .t. e7 1 2 0-0-0 b5 1 3 .t. g2 .t. b7 1 4 e5 de 15 fe lild5 1 6 .i.d2 1Wxe5 1 7 1Wxe5 ll:lxe5 1 8 ll:lxd5 .t. xd5 1 9 .t. xd5 ed ) 1 2 0-0-0 b4 when Black's rapid queenside expansion gave him the better chances in Karasev-Krogius, USSR Ch 1 97 1 . 12 a3 is Korchnoi's suggested improvement. A21 9 '4W d 2 (34) =
34
B
The most common move at this point. White follows the classical Richter-Rauzer plan, quickly cast ling long before he undertakes further kingside action. Black has the choice of 9 ... a6, the older continuat ion which we examine first, and the more modern 9 . . . '4Wb 6 . A2 1 1 9 . . . a 6 A2 1 2 9 . . . '4Wb 6 A21 1 9 a6 10 0-0-0 .t. d7 10 . . . ll:lxd4 is premature: 1 1 '4W xd4 .t. e7 1 2 h4'4t c7 1 3 f4'4W c5 1 4 '4W d2 b5 1 5 e5! d e 1 6 fe 1Wxe5 1 7 .t. g2 ll a 7 1 8 llhe l with excellent attacking chances for the pawn , Medina-Guge, L as Palmas 1 97 3 . Naturally 1 0 . . .'4W b6 is possible, transposing to A2 1 2. 11 h4 This is marginally more flexible than 1 1 f4 but the latter is perfectly playable: (a) 11 ... .t. e7 12 f5 ll:lxd4 13'4W xd4 efl! ( 1 3 . . . '4W c7) 14 ef .t. c6?! 1 5 llg l ll xh2 1 6 .t. f4 llh7 1 7 .t. c4 d5 18 .i. b3'4W d7 19'4W e5 and Black was
24 6 . . . h6
completely tied down in Belyavsky Steinberg, USSR 1 972. (b) 11 • c7 12 i.g2 0-0-0? 13 h4 ( 1 3 e5! de 14 ll:lxc6 i.xc6 1 5 • xd8+ • xd8 1 6 lit xd8+ 'it>xd8 1 7 .txc6 be 1 8 fe ±±) 1 3 . . . lit e8? ( 1 3 . . . .te7) 1 4 e 5 ! de 1 5 ll:lxc6 i.xc6 1 6 i.xc6 • xc6 1 7 fe lild7 1 8 � 4 f6 1 9 ef gf 20 i.xf6 lilxf6 2 1 • xf6 i.e7 22 � 4� Bangiev-Zeliandinov, USSR 1 974. (c) 11 't!rb6!? 12 .te2? ! (not 1 2 ll:lb3 ll:lg4 1 3 lit e 1 f6 =F + but 1 2 lilf3 seems a promising improvement as White threatens an immediate e5 and 12 . . . ll:lg4 leads nowhere after 1 3 lit e 1 - 1 3 . . . � 1 4 lit e2! • xf3 15 .tg2 ±±) 12 . . . ll:lxd4 1 3 • xd4 • xd4 1 4 lit xd4 lilh5! 1 5 f5 lilg3 1 6 lit e 1 ll:lxe2+ 1 7 lit xe2 + Bonev-Padevsky, Bulgaria 1 972. • c7 (35) 11 .••
...
35
w
Adamski, Slupsk 1 978. White has a small but persistent advantage in this position and there are a number of ways to exploit his superiority: A2 1 1 1 12 f4 A2 1 1 2 1 2 i.h3 A2 1 1 3 12 i.g2 A2 1 1 4 1 2 i.e2 A21 1 1 12 f4 (a) 1 2 lilh7!? 1 3 .th3 ll:lxd4 ( 1 3 . .. f6? 1 4 lilxe6 .txe6 1 5 .txe6 fg 1 6 ll:ld5 .., a5 1 7 • xa5 ll:lxa5 1 8 hg is winning for White and if 13 . . . ll:lxg5 14 hg the threat of 1 5 i.xe6! makes life difficult for Black) 1 41i' xd4 f6 1 5 f5 fg 1 6 fe .tc6 1 7 e 7 ! (drawing the black queen to the e-file) 1 7 . . . • xe7 1 8 lild5 i.xd5 1 9 ed 1!Vf6 20 1!rb 6 i.e7 2 1 lit hf l 1!Vh6 22 i.d7 + ! 'it>xd7 23 • xb7+ � d 8 2 4 • xa8+ 'it>d7 25 • xh8 1 -0 was Ma rris Formanek , USA 1 979. (b) 12 . . .te7 1 3 'it>b 1 (more enter p rising is 1 3 i.g2 transposing to A23, or 1 3 .th3, or 1 3 .te2 - see A2 1 1 2 and A2 1 1 4 below) 13 . . . lilh5 1 4 .ih3 lilxd4 1 5 • xd4 f6 1 6 f5 fg 1 7 fe i.c6 1 8 h g 0-0-0 was played in Alexandria-Belavenets, Tbilisi 1 979. With two pawns and a strong bind on the light squares White has considerable compen sation for the piece . In the game Black did not find a satisfactory way to resolve the problem: 1 9 .tf5 ll:lg3 ( 1 9 . . . 'it>b8 t o free the dark-squared bishop is more resilient) 20 lit xh8 lit xh8 2 1 • xg7 lit h 5 22 g6 lilxf5 23 ef lit xf5 24 ...
.
A curiosity was 1 1 . . . i.e7 12 lit h3 (normal are 12 f4, 12 .tg2, 1 2 i.e2 or 1 2 i.h3 transposing eventually to the main line) 12 . . . lilxd4 1 3 • xd4 e 5 1 4 .., d 3 i.xh3 1 5 .txh3 ll:lg8 1 6 ll:ld 5 ! f6 1 7 .., c3 fg 1 8 lilc7+ 'it>f7 1 91!rb 3+ 'it>g6 20 i.f 5+ ct>h 6 2 1 M7 1-0 Pokojowczyk-
6 . . . h6 25 '8h7 't!f d8 25 a3 lilf8? 26 g7 lilg8 27 lilf l ..e8 28 lilf7 �8 29 ..f 5 �7
30 lile2 't!f d8 3 1 lilf 4 �b8 , 32 lilg6 .te8 33 lilxe7 .txf7 34 ef 1 -0. A21 1 2 1 2 .th3 .te7 f4 13 lilxd4 1 4 "t!Vxd4 And now: (a) 1 4 ... llc8 1 5 lld2! (to guard c2 and preparing to break open the centr e now t hat Black has for feited castling) 1 5 . . . "t!Vc5 1 6 "t!Vd3 .tc6 1 7 lile l "t!Va5 1 8 a3 lidS 1 9 li:ld5!? ed 20 ed "t!Vxd5 2 1 "t!Ve3 with a strong attack f or the piece in Holmov Shamkovich, Timisoara 1 972. (b) 14 ... .tc6 15 llhe l � ( 1 5 . . 0-0-0 1 6 li:ld5! ) 1 6 "t!Vf2 lilg8 1 7 .tg4 lilh6 1 8 .txe7+ "t!Vxe7 1 9 .tf3 ll:lg8 20 h5 lilf6 2 1 lild5! and White had a dangerous initiative, Gipslis-Jansa, Budapest 1 970. (c) 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 �b l � b8 16 f5! putting a great deal of strain on Black's position with the threat of switching the attack to the weak dark squares around his king) 1 6 . . . e5 ( 1 6 . . . .tc8 1 7 .te3 b 5 1 8 a4 ±) 1 7 't!Vf2 .tc6 18 i.g2 llc8 19 .tf3 b5 20 a3 .tb7 2 1 lld2 llhd8 22 llhd l and White's simple strategy of loading up on the d5 square was sufficient to provide a marked advantage in Tarj an-Evans, USA Ch 1 973. (d) 1 4 . . . '@c5 15 '@d3 0-0-0 1 6 llhg l � b8 1 7 f5 '@c7 1 8 @f3 llh7 1 9 lld3 lldh8 with equal chances, B rowne-Andersson, Las Palmas 1 974. .
A21 1 3 1 2 .t g2 12 . . . .te7 1 3 �b l ( 1 3 f4) 1 3 . . . lilxd4 1 4 ..xd4 .tc6 1 5 lilh3 0-0-0 1 6 llhd3 �b8 1 7 lLld5!? ed 1 8 ed ll:lxd5! 1 9 .txd5 .txg5 Gipslis Liberzon, Tallinn 1 969. A21 1 4 1 2 .te2 This move has invariably been Karpov's choice in the position. White endeavours to constrict his opponent further by supporting the advance of the h-pawn. 0-0-0 12 .te7 13 f4 �b8 14 h5 14 . . . ll:la5 1 5 llh3 lilc6 16 lilb3 .te8 1 7 �b I �b8 18 "t!Ve3 was Sutterer-Podzielny, West German Ch 1 978, in which White retained a substantial spatial advantage. .te8 1 5 �b1 1 5 . . . d5 16 e5 lile4 1 7 lilxe4 de 1 8 .txe7 lilxe7 19 "t!Ve3 lLlf5 20 ll:lxf5 ef 2 1 llhg I ± Karpov Steinberg, USSR 1 97 1 . 1 6 .tf3 (36) =
36 B
Karpov-Smith, San Antonio 1 972. Black's position remains
26 6 ... h6
cramped and he faces grave dif ficu lties in attempting to free it. The sequel was 16 . . . �a5 17 't!Ve2 �c4 1 8 lithe! liteS 1 9 litd3 �g8 20 Wg2 .tf8 2 1 lith I �e7 22 b3 �a3+ 23 �b2 �b5 24 �cxb5 ab 25 't!Vd2 Wb 6 26 .th4! b4 27 .tf2 't!Va5 28 .te l e5 29 �e2 �c6 30 f5! f6 3 1 litd5 't!Va3+ 3 2 �b I .tf7 3 3 litd3 b6?! 34 .tf2 �b7 3 5 c3 be 36 litxc3 .te7 37 litg l lithg8 38 Wb2 't!Vxb2+ 39 �xb2 �a7 40 lit xc8 �xc8 4 1 �c3 ± ( 1 -0, 70). A21 2 't!Vb6(!) 9 It sometimes happens that chess commentators get carried away when awarding 'oscars' to their favoured opening innovations. The unfortunate move is lumbered with this extravagant commendation until such time as the author recants or another more dispassionate analyst reviews it rather less enthu siastically. The reader will notice that I have attempted to sidestep this pitfall by awarding Black's ninth only ' half an exclamation mark. My intention is to point out that the move , though far from being a devastating blow, represents a tangible improvement in Black's strategy as hitherto examined. The proof that this is so lies not only in the fact that in current master· practice 9 . . . Wb6 is now regarded as the only acceptable way to play the line: the reasons why the move is good may be clearly stated.
for my oscar award: the move . . . Wb 6 opens new avenues for Black in not one but two opening variations! 1 0 �b3 (3 7) 37 B
White should not permit a general exchange of pieces as in the resulting endgame the weak nesses in his pawn structure would begin to tell. The interpolation of the moves 9 . . . Wb6 10 �b3, while reducing the attacking p6> tential of the white position , has done little to alter the general pattern of his strategy. Unless Black attempts a vigorous follow-up such as . . . �e5 or an early ... b5 White will continue as usual with queenside castling, f4, h4 and .te2 or .tg2. Now that the g l -a7 diagonal is not blocked by the knight he may wish to give some consideration to the plan of exploiting Black's dark squares on the queenside with .te3 . In the main, though, his intention remains simply to increase his spatial advantage. Black now has:
6 . . . h6 27
By pu tting immediate pressu re on his opponent's centre in this way Black forces the knight away f rom its central post, where it has enjoyed considerable activity, to a rather dull square on b3, and in so doing he has neutralised some of the dynamic potential in White's position. As a result White's build up proceeds rather more slowly than in the 9 . . . a6 1ines. A possible drawback . to the move is that Black no longer has the option to exchange knights on d4 (which could precede an . . . e5 thrust) but this consideration is rarely of i mportance. What of our comparison with the Richter-Rauzer? Why af ter I e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 1lDc6 3 d4 cd 4 lt:lxd4 lt:lf 6 5 lDc3 d6 6 .tg5 e6 7 Wd2 is the analogous 7 . . . "t!fb6 virtually un known? It could be reasoned that in the Keres Attack position Black has a natural follow-up to . . . 1!fb6 in . . . lDe5 to exploit the absence of the defender of White's f 3 square, coupled with the threat of occupying c4, but it transpires that this strategy is not a viable proposition as White will reorganise his forces to cover the threatened squares and event ually drive out the invader. My belief is that the dif ference between the two positions is . . . essentially nothing! 7 . . . 'itb6 in the Richter-Rauzer is certainly playable and probably good and my prediction is that we will be seeing more of the move in f uture. This brings me to the second reason
·
A2 1 2 1 1 0 . . . lDe5 A2 1 22 1 0 . . . a6 (the main line). A2121 lDeS 10 11 1!fel This move has the benefit of reinf orcing c4 but 1 1 .te2 is playable, e.g. · 1 1 . . . .td7 12 0-0-0 lih3 (playing to exploit the absence of the bishop f rom f l - Black now threatens 1 3 . . . lixc3 or 13 . . . lDf3; a mistake would be 1 2 . . . 1!fxf2 on account of 1 3 lDd4) 1 3 .ie3?! ( 1 3 f 4! lDf 3 1 4 .txf3 lixf3 1 5 e 5 lDg8 1 6 lt:ld4 lih3 1 7 f 5 ± or 1 3 . . . lixc3 14 .txf 6! lixb3 1 5 ab ±) 1 3 . . . lixe3! 1 4 f e g 6 1 5 1!fd4 .th6 1 6 1!fxb6 ab 1 7 lixd6 .tc6 with f ull compensation f or the exchange, Browne-Kavalek, USA Ch 1 975. 11 .td7 Or 1 1 . . . 1!fc7 and now: (a) 12 0-0-0 .td7 13 f 4 lDc6 14 .tg2 a6 1 5 .tf 3 0-0-0 1 6 h4 �b8 1 7 h5 Ilc8 1 8 c.t>b l .te8 1 9 .th4! ± (the black square plan! ) 19 . . . lt:ld7? (better was 1 9 . . . lt:la5 20 lt:lxa5 1!fxa5 2 1 .tf2 lt:ld7 22 We3 lt:lc5) 20 .tf2 lDc5 21 lihg l g6 22 hg f g 2 3 f5! lDxb3 24 a b gf 2 5 ef ef 26 lt:ld5 1!fa5? 27 .ib6 @b5 28 1!ff2 ±± Tatai-Sax, Budapest 1 976. (b) 1 2 h4 .id7 13 0-0-0 Ilc8 1 4 h5 lDc4 15 Ilh3 b5 Gipslis-Sax, Amsterdam 1 976, and now 1 6 lt:ld4! with the idea 1 6 . . . b4 1 7 lDd5! Ilc8 0-0-0 12 f4 13 Less forceful is 1 3 h4 as played in the game Lanka-Knaak, Jurmala 1 978, which continued 1 3 . . . a6 1 4
28 6 . . . h6
lilh3 Wc7 1 5 f4 l0c4 16 lilhd3 l0h7 17 e5! ( 1 7 l0d5 !? 1!rb8 ! ) 17 . . . �xg5 1 8 hg d5 19 g6! fg 20 Wg4 lilh6 2 1 lilh3 llxh3 2 2 ..xh3 (22 .txh3 l0xb2) 22 . . .
Having served the eviction order ( 1 3 f4) the bailiff moves in immed iately. Black has no time to consolidate his gain of c4 and the ent ire manoeuvre is shown to be a waste of time . Chiburdanidze Erenska, Buenos Aires (Women's OL) 1 978, continued 1 4 . . . �a5 1 5 Wd2 l0xb3+ 1 6 a b l0g4 1 7 .te2! ltlf2 1 8 lilfl l'lxh2 1 9 f5 (th reat : .ie3 or .if4) 19 . . . e5 20 llc4 l'lxc4 2 1 .txc4 .tc6 22 �d5 l0xe4 23 Wxh2 .txd5 24 .txd5 �xg5 25 �b l ..c7 26 ..g l @c5 27 "t!Vxc5 ±± . A 2 1 22 10 a6 II 0-0-0 Most commonly played. I I .te3 commits the bishop too early as Black need not fall in with White's plans by castling queenside but can instead launch a minority
attack: I I . . . Wc7 12 f4 ( 1 2 f3?! b5 13 0-0-0 .td7 1 4 11t'f2 lilb8 15 .td3 l0e5 16 �b l b4 17 l0e2 a5 18 f4 �eg4 1 9 ..g3 a4 20 ltld2 l0xe3 2 1 @xe3 lilh5 =F Padevsky Suba Moscow 1 977) 1 2 . . . .td7 1 3 0-0-0 b5 14 .tg2 �b8 1 5 �b l a5 1 6 l0d4 l0xd4 17 .txd4 b4 18 l0e2 .ic6 1 9 �g3 ltld7? ( 1 9 . . . e 5 ! ) 20 e 5 ! d e 2 1 fe .tc5 2 2 .txc6 't!rxc6 2 3 @f4 .txd4 24 llxd4 �c5 25 l'lfl lilb7? 26 @g5 ±± Alexandria-Koloyartseva, USSR 1 977. Black now chooses between the solid I I . . . .id7 and the aggressive I I . . . @c7 aiming for a quick . . . b5 . A2 1 22 1 I I . . . .td7 A2 1 222 I I . . . 't!rc7 A21221 II i.d7 (39) -
,
h4 12 This is the currently favoured try for an advantage . Experie nce with alternatives has not been extensive but 12 .te3 seems worthy of investigation . (a) 1 2 f3?! llc8 ( 1 2 . . 0-0-0? 1 3 .te3 1!Vc7 1 4 �a4 ± ) 1 3 � b l @c7 14 f4 b5 1 5 .ig2 b4 1 6 l0e2 a5 and .
6 . . h6 29 .
Black already held the advantage, Muhin-Estevez, Luhacovice 1973. (b) 1 2 ..te3 'f!/c7 13 f4 ( 1 3 ..tf4?! lL!e5 14 .tg3 g5 ! 1 5 �b l .te7 1 6 i.e2 b 5 1 7 a 3 llcS + Lein-Benko, Novi Sad 1 972) 13 . . . b5 1 4 i.g2 llcS 1 5 �b 1 .te7 and now: b l ) 1 6 llhe1 b4 17 lL!a4 lL!a5 1 S ll:lb6 ll:lc4 1 9 lL!xc4 '4!¥xc4 Stein Krogius, USSR Ch 1 964/65, and here 20 e5 is promising. b2) 16 h 3 · b4 17 lL!a4 llbS lS '4!¥f2 (notice how with the bishop on e3 White can set up threats on the dark squares) lS ... .idS 1 9 e5! de 20 ll:lac5 with an attack, Ambrazatis Roizma n , Riga 1 972. (c) 1 2 .i.g2 and now: c l ) 12 ... i.e7 13 .i.e3 !? 'it'c7 14 f4 ll:la5 l j lL!xa5 'f!/xa5 1 6 'i!?b l t Hort-A ndersson, Nice OL 1 974. c2) 1 2 ... lL!e5 13 'ire2 llcS 14 f4 lL!c4 1 5 lld3 'irc7 1 6 h4 .ie7 1 7 lite l?! b 5 1 8 e 5 de 1 9 fe lO b S 20 'f!/f2 (20 .i.xe7 lL!f4! 2 1 'irg4 ll:l xe 5 ! � � ) 2 0 . . . lL!xe 5 2 1 ll h 3 ? f6 22 .i.e3 b4 �� Tal-Adamski, Lublin 1 974. (d) 1 2 f4 0-0-0 13 .i.g2 .i.e7 1 4 'i!?b l l0g4 ! 1 5 .i.xe7 lL!xe7 1 6 'f!/xd6 •xd6 1 7 ll xd6 lL!g6 1 S f5 lLl6e5 1 9 fe fe 20 lL!c5 llh6 2 1 h3 lL!e3 22 litg2 g5 with an unclear position , Mednis-Jansa , Kragujevac 1 977. .te7 12 13 ..te2 (40) 1 3 .ig2 is an important alter native since White may arrive at the postion via a number of different routes, e . g. 9 i.g2 .i.e7 1 0 h 4 a 6 1 1 'ird2 1!fb6 1 2 ltlb3 .i.d7 1 3 0-0-0 (A23).
40 B
After 1 3 .ig2 't!fc7 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 14 i.e3 ! 'irc7 1 5 lL!a4 is very difficult for Black; note that this manoeuvre is only possible because the bishop on g2 guards the e-pawn) 14 f4 0-0-0 1 5 .tf3 �bS 1 6 h5 the game transposes to the main line. Blac k may , however, attempt to cross White's plans and prevent the transposition by playing 1 5 . . . g 6 1 6 'it>b l 'i!?bS a n d now: (a) 1 7 'irf2 lOgS lS i.xe7 (forced because of the threat of f6) l S . . . ll:lgxe7 1 9 't!fg3 (with . . . g6 Black has effectively ruled out h5 by White , but in so doing he has slightly weakened his dark squares on the kingside) 19 . . . .icS 20 'irg5 llh7 2 1 lld2! (with the black squared bishops exchanged now is the time for White to pressurise Black's d-pawn) 21 . . . 1!fb6 22 llhd 1 'it'e3 23 'f!/g3 e5 24 fe lL!xe5 25 llxd6 llxd6 26 llxd6 l07c6 27 llxc6! llh5 2S llf6 1 -0 Mednis Fernandez, Budapest 1 97 S . ( b ) 1 7 llhfl .tcS l S f5 (it's rather too early for White to commit himself in this way and Mednis's more restrained approach is to be
30 6 . . . h6
preferred) 1 8 . . . lbh7 19 .ie3 lbf6 20 'trf2 lbd7 2 1 llh l .tf6 22 lba4 lldf8 23 h5 gh 24 llxh5 .te5 25 .ib6 lbxb6 26 lbxb6 lbe7 27 lbxc8 lbxc8 28 lldh 1 llxh5 29 .txh5 ef 30 ef llh8 � - � Tseshkovsky Anikayev, USSR Ch (Top L) Minsk 1 979 . 0-0-0 13 rJib8 . f4 14 h5 15 White should not forego this important move which further restricts his opponent's position and cuts out some of his defensive resources such as . . . g6. Postpone ment of the advance will react in Black's favour, as the following games illustrate. 15 .tf3 1!fc7 and now: (a) 16 rJibl .tc8 (for 16 . . . g6 see note to White's 13th move) 1 7 'tre2 (after this White's advantage slips away: the most accurate was 1 7 h5 to answer 1 7 . . . lbg8 with 1 8 lthg l ) 1 7 . . . lbg8! (played a t a time when White must make the exchange of bishops because of the threat of f6) 1 8 .txe7 lbgxe7 1 9 h5 g 6 2 0 a3 g h 2 1 llxh5 llxh5 22 .txh5 f5 23 'trd2 fe 24 lbxe4 e5 and Black has equalised, Chi-Andersson, Buenos Aires (Clarin) 1 978. (b) 16 libel .tc8 1 7 1!ff2 lbg8 ! 18 h5 (the alternative 18 .txe7 lbgxe7 also leaves Black with few problems) 1 8 . . . .txg5 19 fg f6 20 ll g l lbe5 2 1 .ie2 fg 22 llxg5 lbf6 and Black's firm grip on the important e5 square gives him sufficient counter play, Karpov-Andersson, Bugojno
1 980.
15 16
.t c8 .tf3 (41)
Following his strategy both logically and accurately White has increased his spatial advantage to the limit while fully restraining his opponent's central counterplay. However, he now fi nds himself without a clear way forward and so must use the extra flexibility allowed by his spacious position to manoeuvre his forces, preparing to react quickly to any small concession Black may have to make in order to free his pieces. For his part Black has succeeded in reaching a robust if so mewhat defensive position and finding his counterthrust . . . d5 well and truly contained must seek to alleviate the crampedness of his formation by exchanging pieces . With careful play he should be able to secure equality, but White's advantage, though small and static, is likely to persist for some time to come, and even a relatively mi nor slip by the second player may eventually prove fatal.
6 . . h6 31 .
Black now has: (a) 1 6 lt:la5 (this is probably not the best way to seek exchanges) I 7 "4We2 '@c7 I 8 lt:lxa5 '@xa5 I 9 l:thg i Ilde8 20 a3 '@c5? (better was 20 . . . "4Wc7 preparing . . . l:th7 and . . . lt:lg8) 2I e 5 ! de 22 fe lLld7 23 .te3 '@c7 24 llxg7 ± Chiburdanidze-Muresan , Budapest I 978. (b) 1 6 l:th7 I7 'W'e2 lt:lg8 (the plan of exchanging bishops is Black's main chance for equality; notice how White correctly declines to make the exchange, thereby saving two tempi) I8 llhg i .txg5 19 l:txg5 ll:lge7 20 ll:ld5 ! (this is a noteworthy tactic) 20 . . . ed 2 I ed f6 22 de fg 23 '@xe7 g4! 24 .te4 l17h8 25 '@xg7 with a dangerous initiative, �robek-Adamski, Polish Ch I 977. (c) 16 '@c7. This move strengthens the d-pawn in preparation for the exchange of dark-squared bishops and guards against ltld5 tactics (see Skrobek-Adamski above). The move is particularly important because the resulting position can arise from a number of lines, e.g. after (A2 I 222) I I . . . '@c7 I 2 .tg2. Now: c i ) 1 7 "4We3 ( White takes up the g i a 7 diagonal which Black has abandoned) I 7 . . . lt:le8 I8 llhg I .txg5 I 9 llxg5 lt:le7 20 lld3 f6? (20 . . . g6 2 I ll:la4 gh 22 .txh5 lt:lc6 ::!) 2 I l:tg i ( ±) 2 I . . . d5?! 22 ed ed 23 ltlxd5 lt:lxd5 24 l:txd5 l:txd5 25 .txd5 Ilxh5 26 .txb7 ±± Spassky Ribli, Manila IZ I 976. ...
...
...
c2) 1 7 �b1 lt:lg8 I8 l:tdg i ( I 8 l:thg i !?) I 8 . . . l:th7 I 9 '@f2 ( I 9 '@e3 .txg5 20 llxg5 lt:lge7 2 I l:thg i g6 22 hg ll:lxg6 23 .th5 lt:lce7 24 a4 (::!) l:tdh8 25 .txg6 ll:lxg6 26 f5 �e5 27 llg8 llh3 28 '@d4 ll:lf3 29 l:txh 8 ! l:txh 8 ! 30 '@xh8 lt:lxg i 3 I fe fe 3 2 lt:ld4 '@ f7 33 '@d8 '@fl + 3 4 �a2 '@c4+ 35 lLlb3 !h-!h Kinlay-Pritchett, London I 980) I 9 . . . .txg5 20 l:txg5 ' lt:lge7 2 I l:td i (2 I l:thg i !? - see Kinlay-Pritchett above) 2 I . . . g6 22 hg ll:lxg6 23 llh5 llg7 24 l:tg i Il7g8 25 l:thg5 ll:lge7 26 .th5 Ilxg5 27 Ilxg5 f5 28 ef lt:lxf5 29 .i.g4 ll:lce7 30 a3 l:tf8 3 I .te2 lt:lc6 32 .td3 ll:lfe7 and Black has successfully trodden the path to full equality, Karpov-Andersson, Skara I 980. c3) 17 ll:l d4 .i.d7 I8 ll:lb3 .te8?! I 9 .th4 d 5 2 0 e d lt:lxd5 2 I lt:lxd5 e d 2 2 .txe7 '@xe7 2 3 '@f2 (23 .txd.S lt:lb4) 23 . . . llh6 24 l:thg i '@c7 25 Ilxg7 '@xf4+ 26 '@d2 ! '@xd2+ 27 llxd2 lt:le5! 28 l:txd5 l:txd5 29 .txd5 .i.c6 30 .txf7 (30 .txc6 lt:lxc6 3 1 Ilg5 f6 32 l:tf5 lt:le7) 30 . . . lt:lxf7 3 I l:txf7 l:txh5 32 ltld4 ± (Sosonko), Tim man-Spassky, Til burg 1 980. c4) 1 7 .th4!? with the plan of switching to the g i -a7 diagonal seems promising. A21 222 "t!Vc7 (42) 11 In this section we examine Black's alternative strategy of forfeiting the immediate queenside castling and instead pushing for a direct attack with . . . b5. White
32 6 . . . h6
42 w
has to remain alert to Black's intentions and consider forcing a transposition to line A2 1 22 1 to maintain a safe edge. f4 12 (a) Too routine is 12 h4 .i.d7 13 .i.e2 hoping to transpose to A2 1 22 1 . Black need not continue 1 3 · . . . .i.e7 but can instead play 13 . . . b5! e.g. 14 a3 b4 15 ab ll:lxb4 1 6 f4 litbS 17 f5 e5 I S lih3 .i.c6 1 9 .i.xf6 gf 20 'it>b 1 a5 2 1 l0d5 .i.xd5 22 ed a4 23 lL!c 1 ..th6 24 't!Vc3 @b6 + A . l vanov Anikayev, Frunze 1 979. (b) Good, however, is 12 .i.g2 clamping dow n hard on Black's attempts to play actively on the queenside . 12 . . . b5 is then not possible because of the reply 13 e5! so that Black is forced to give up the idea of fianchettoing his bishop and the game takes on the charac teristics of the A 2 1 2'2 1 1 1 . . . .i.d7 lines after 1 2 . . . .i.d7 (unworkable is 12 . . . lL!e5 13 f4 lL!c4 14 @d4 even better is 14 @e2 .i.d7 15 lid4 - 14 . . . .i.d7? 1 5 e5 lLlh7 and now instead of 16 ed? ll:lxd6 17 lithe 1 liteS I S lid2 lL! xg5 1 9 fg ll:lf5 + Chiburdanidze-Kushnir, match ( 1 2)
Bad Kissingen 1 97S, White should try 16 .i.h4 de 1 7 fe with a promising game) 1 3 f4 .i.e7 (not 1 3 . . . b5 14 e 5 ! de 1 5 fe 't!Vxe5? 1 6 .i.xf6 ±±) 1 4 h 4 0-0-0 1 5 f3 transposing t o A2 1 22 1 - see note to White's 1 3th. 12 b5 1 3 .i.g 2 With accurate play Black emerges from this line quite well, so alternatives should be investigated: (a) 1 3 't!Ve3 .i.b7 1 4 .i.h3 ( 1 4 .i.g2 ! transposes into the favourable Razuvayev-Commons game that follows, so Black should improve with 1 3 . . . b4 instead of 13 . . . .tb7) 14 . . . b4 15 .i.xf6 gf 16 ll:le2 lL!e5 ! 1 7 'it'b l lL!c4 I S @d3 0-0-0 1 9 ll:led4 li e S 2 0 lithe 1 'it'bS 2 1 lie2 .i.h6 22 lif2 lieS 23 .i.g2 @b6 + . Black's pieces are aggressively placed and White is rapidly running out of ideas, Furman-Belyavsky, USSR Team Ch 1 977. (b) The natural 1 3 a3 .i.b7 has yet to be tried . What has been tested (by transposition) is the position after 1 3 a3 .i.d7 14 .i.e2. The game Zaitsev-Padevsky from Baku 1 9SO continued 14 . . . b4 15 ab ll:lxd4 16 .i.f3 libS?! ( 1 6 . . . lieS 17 'it>b l e5 IS fe de 1 9 .i.xf6 gf 20 't!Vxd7+ @xd7 21 litxd7 'it'xd7 22 .i.g4+ ) 1 7 e 5 ! de I S fe l0 h 7 ( I S . . . lL!fd5 1 9 .i.xd5 e d 2 0 l0 xd5 ll:lxd5 2 1 @xd5 .i.e6 22 @a5 ±) 19 .i.e3 .i.c6 20 lihfl .i.e7 2 1 't!Vg2 ( ±) 21 . . . g6 and here White could have underlined his advantage with 22 h4! .i.xh4 23 litd4 .i.xf3 24 't!Vxf3 .i.g5 25 .i.xg5 ll:lxg5 26 't!Vg4 @e7 27 litfd l =
6 . . . h6 33
threatening 28 l:td7. 13 b4 1 3 . . . .tb7 is the natural move and until recently was considered perfectly adequate, e.g. (a) 1 4 'i!?b1 .te7 15 h4 ( 1 5 a3 b4 1 6· ab lt:lxb4 1 7 h4 e5 ) 1 5 . . . b4 16 lt:le2 a5 17 Ilhe 1 0-0-0 1 8 lt:led4 lt:lxd4 19 @xd4 'i!?b8 20 @g l (20 c4 ! be 2 1 ll c l oo) 20 . . . e5 + Stean Spassky, Moscow 1 975. (b) 14 h4 0-Q-O 1 5 f5 'i!?b8 1 6 fe fe 17 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 18 @xd4 i.e7 1 9 i.h3 e5 20 @e3 b4 21 lt:ld5 lL!xd5 22 ed .ixg5 23 hg @a5 24 't!re4 Ilhf8 + Timman-Ligterink, Netherlands Ch 1 978. However, a recent game has cast d oubt on the move, with the result that pref� rence is currently given to the text. (c) 1 4 @e3! b4 1 5 lt:la4 lt:ld7 (trying to cover the dark squares while preparing for . . . e5) 1 6 e5! d5 ( 1 6 . . . de 1 7 llxd7 ! 't!rxd7 1 8 lL!b6 't!rc7 1 9 lhxa8 i.xa8 2 0 fe ± ) 1 7 f5 ! 't!rxe 5 ( 1 7 . . . lL!cxe5 1 8 fe fe 1 9 lt:ld4 't!rd6 20 i.f4 ±) 1 8 't!rf2 't!rxf5 (after 1 8 . . . £e7 1 9 i.xe7 lt:lxe7 20 fe fe 2 1 lt:ld4 Black's position is near to collapse) 19 't!rxf5 ef 20 ll he l +? (20 £xd5! ±) 20 . . . lt:lce5 2 1 lt:la5 :b8? (2 1 . . . llh2 oo) 22 lt:lxb7 :xb7 23 llxd5 llc7? 24 ll l xe5+ 1 -0 Razuvayev-Commons, Lublin, 1 978. 1 4 lL!a4 14 e5 be 1 5 't!rc3 lt:ld5 1 6 . lld5 ed 1 7 .id5 ..tb7 + . e5 14 de fe 15
16 17 18
h3 'trf2 i.e3
i.e6 lt:ld7 lt:la5 (43)
43
w
=
Nunn-Ghinda, Dortmund 1 979. Black's position is excellent and the additional time which his opponent must lose in extricating his poorly placed knight will allow the second player to build a strong attack. A22 9 h4 (44) 44 B
This relatively little explored possibility has the merit of keeping White's position very flexible. In particular, if Black should adopt an early . . . 't!t'b6 plan White can follow l0b3 with t!te2, thereby saving a tempo in some variations.
34 6 . . . h6
Black can and probably should avoid this continuation by employ ing some of the less committal . moves at his disposal ( . . . a6, . . . .id7, . . . .te7) until his opponent's piece development becomes clear. Nonetheless , 9 h4 seems a good alternative to the more usual 9 Wd2 and may serve as an introduction to the main line or the .tg2 formation's discussed under A23. 9 trb 6 As mentioned above, Black can force a transposition to A2 1 2 lines with 9 . . . a6 I(} 1!M2 '@1>6. There are grounds for the belief that the text is premature, as we shall see. Possible also is 9 . . . .td7, e.g. 1 0 llJb3? ! (better are 1 0 Wd2 and I 0 .tg2) 1 0 . . . 1!rc7 I I h5?! a6 1 2 f4 b5 1 3 i.g2 lieS 1 4 We2 b4 1 5 llJd l a5 with good counterplay for Black in Tseshkovsky-Kurajica, Ljubljana/ Portoroz 1 977. a6 1 0 llJb3 1 1 1!re2! (45)
·
45 B
The queen is clearly better placed on e2 where it covers the important c4 and f3 squares and prepares for future action in the
centre (f4, e5 or even llJd5). 11 Wc7 .td7 12 0-0-0 12 . . . b5 also did not work out well for Black in Zhuravlyev Pjaren, Corres 1 977, which con tinued 1 3 .th3 .te7 14 f4 .ib7 1 5 libe l e 5 1 6 fe llJxe5 1 7 't!fg2 b4 1 8 llJd5 llJxd5 1 9 ed g6 20 llJd4 ± . 1 3 'it>b1 .te7 1 4 .ib3 0-0-0 15 .te3 (46)
A noteworthy plan. Instead of locking out the bishop with the customary f4 White attempts to exploit Black's weakened queenside dark squares , beginning with the immediate threat of llJa4. Black may counter with the llJc6-e5-c4 manoeuvre but with White's queen already on e2 the horse is likely to be displaced rather quickly. llJe5 15 f4 16 lt:lc4 17 .tf2 'it>b8 18 lid4! This is the procedure: the rook on d4 has the double function of attacking the knight on c4 and preparing further pressure on the
6 . . . h6 35 d-file. 18
li:c8? (47)
48 B
47 w
Tempting, because of the threat of 1 9 . . . �xb2, but Black does not fully realise the extent of the danger he is in. Already the weakening 1 8 . . . b 5 was necessary. Wxc4 19 ll xc4! llcS 20 , 't!fe3 21 a3! The threat of .i.fl is devastating. llchS 21 'itc8 22 't!fa7+ .i. c6 23 J.b6 24 .i.fl ±± Trapl-Adamski, USSR 1 974. ,An outstandingly clear exposition of the possibilities at White's disposal in these lines. A23 9 .i.g2 (48) White's intention is to underpin his hold on the centre and restrain Black's queenside initiative . In favourable circumstances he may break quickly in the centre with eS, opening up the long diagonal with devastating effect. As we shall see, Black would do well to avoid the accepted line of play, transposing
instead to A2 1 variations discussed earlier. 9 .i.d7 (a) 9 'tWaS 10 h4 a6 I I 't!fd2 �g4 1 2 �b3 't!fb6 1 3 We2 �f6 1 4 0-0-0 .i.d7 1 5 .i.e3 was Goldevov K�Jzmin, USSR 1 964. After Black's loss of tempo White is prepared for a rapid f5 , e5 or l0a4-b6 and stands very well. (b) 9 .i.e7 may very well represent Black's most accurate method of handling the variation. After 1 0 h4 ( 1 0 �xc6? ! 1>c I I e5 �d5 1 2 .i.xe7 1!P'xe7 1 3 Wg4 - 13 ed Wxd6 1 4 �e4 't!¥b4+ is awkwardfor White - 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 e d Wxd6 1 5 0-0-0 ll b 8 1 6 llhg l llb4! 1 7 Wg3 't!ff4+ 1 8 lld2 Wh6 =f Stepak-Dzhindzhihashvili, Israel (Ch) 1 977 178) 10 . . . a6 1 1 't!fd2 Wb6 ! White has nothing better than 12 �b3 transposing to the main A2 1 2 line , since if 12 .i.e3 Black can happily accept the offer of the white b-pawn as his own is guarded by the bishop on c8. h4 10 Marginally more accurate than 10 "t!t'd2 since if he is given the option White would prefer to ••.
•••
36 6 . . . h6 develop the queen on the more active e2 square where it supports an eventual e5 break. The game Ljubojevic-Larsen, Orense 1 975, went 10 Wd2 "@b6 1 1 �db5 ( 1 1 .i.e3 ! ) 1 1 . . . �g4! 1 2 h3 a6 1 3 �xd6+ .i.xd6 1 4 h g llxh l + 1 5 .i.xh 1 �e5 regaining the pawn with an excellent position. .i.e7 10 1 1 Wd2 a6 't!fc7 12 0-0-0 On 1 2 . . . "@b6 White has the important resource 1 3 .i.e3 ! which maintains his knight in its strong central post. 13 f4 (49) 49 B
�xd4 13 This is the manoeuvre which is supposed to equalise. Safer is 1 3 . . . 0-0-0, although White retains his superiority with 14 .i.f3 - see A2 1 1 . .i.c6 1 4 Wxd4 eS! IS The move overlooked by theory. Gipslis-Liberzon, USSR Ch 1 969, went instead 15 .i.h3 b5 16 llhe l 't!fa7 ! 1 7 't!fd3 b4 with equal chances . .i.xg2 IS
15 . . . de 16 .t.xc6+ Wxc6 ( 1 6 . . . be?! 1 7 fe lld8 - 1 7 . . . �d7 1 8 i.xe 7 �xe 7 19 �e4 �xe5 20 Wc5+ �e8 21 �d6 + ±±; 1 7 . . . �d5 18 i.xe 7 Wxe 7 1 9 �e4 ± - 18 't!fa4 ±) 17 fe lld8 18 't!fe3 �d5 ( 1 8 . . . �g4 1 9 Wf4 ±) 1 9 �xd5 llxd5 20 .i.xe7 �xe7 21 ll xd5 leaves Black with plenty of problems to solve: 21 . . . Wxd5 22 lld 1 followed by 2 3 Wg5 + o r 2 3 't!fc5+; 2 1 . . . e d 22 't!fg5+ ± . .i. xh1 16 ef (a) 16 ... gf!? 17 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 8 Wxf6 llf8 1 9 llh2 .i.c6 20 h 5 ;1;- . (b) 1 6 ... eS. 1 7 Wg l ! gf ( l 7 . . . .i.xh l 1 8 fe7 f6 - 1 8 . . .i.c6 19 fe d5 20 �xd5 .i.xd5 21 ll xd5 ±± - 1 9 .i.xf6! g f 2 0 Wg7 llxh4 2 1 Wf8+ �d7 22 fe ! fe 23 Wxa8 �xe7 24 llfl ±±) 1 8 't!fg2 fg 1 9 �d5 ± . 17 fe f6 (a) 1 7 ... eS? 1 8 fe de 1 9 't!fd8+ ±± . (b) 1 7 ... .i.c6 1 8 't!fxg7 �d7 1 9 Wxf7 llhe8 2 0 f5 ! ±± . gf 1 8 .i.xf6! �d7 1 9 't!fxf6 20 rs! (50J .
50 B
White has a winning attack .
6 B
7
J.g2 (51)
51 8
. .
.
h6 3 7
h4 8 8 h3 transposes to l i n e 82 after 8 . . lDc6. At this and other stages 9 g5 will lead to positions discussed under A. Black is already in difficulties, as can be seen from the fol lowing lines. B l l 8 . . h5?! B I 2 8 . . . g6? ! 813 8 lDc6 Bll hS?! 8 lDg4 9 gS f3 10 10 't!t'e2 't!Vc7 I I f3 lDe5 I2 f4 lDg4 1 3 J.f3 ± , O' Kelly-Stoltz, Zaandam I 946, is similar to the column. 10 lileS f4 11 lt:lg4 1 2 J.f3 lDc6 1 3 lDxc6 be 1 4 J.xg4 hg 1 5 't!Vxg4 't!t'b6 16 dS b3 1 7 't!t'f3 J.b4 1 8 J.d2 (52) .
.
. . .
It is logical to make use of the luft created by the advance of the k night's pawn in this way , and the move has other merits besides. The bishop reinforces the e-pawn, i ncreasing White's bind on d5 while discouraging Black's intended expansior\ on the queenside. In addition the rook on hi is now guarded, enabling White to push forward the h-pawn in support of the g5 advance. On the debit side · White has allowed his opponent access to the c4 square, and his intended h4, g5 advance will inevitably lead to the exchange of some of his attacking fire power while the rook remains on h I . Black has two ways to continue: 8 1 7 . . . a6 82 7 . . . lDc6 81 7 a6 This move seems insufficiently motivated towards central action and as a result White can gain the advantage by actively continuing his advance on the kingside.
Spassky-Shishkin, USSR I 960. White is a safe pawn up.
38 6 . . . h6 812 g6?! 8 This move was tried by Stahlberg as Black against O' Kelly at Mar del Plata 1 948. The game continued
hg 9 gS 10 hg nxh 1 + 11 .ixh1 lDh7 1 2 'Wg4! eS ed 1 3 1!rh4 14 lDdS with White attacking down the h-file. 813 lD c6 8 The sturdiest alternative. None theless White's initiative is gaining momentum: hg 9 gS nxh 1 + 10 hg 1 1 .ixh 1 (53) 53
B
54
B
Exploiting the ful l power of his bishops , White is winning with an attack on the queenside . (b) 8enko-Clarke , Tel Aviv O L 1 964, continued l l . . . lDd7 1 2 lDb3 lDa5 13 't!fe2 1!rc7 ( hitting the c4 square again) 14 lDxa5 1!Vxa5 1 5 .id2 't!Vc7 1 6 f4 lDb6 1 7 b 3 ( White can afford this weakness, having a strong position centrally and on the kingside) 17 . . . .id7? (better 1 7 . . . lDd7 ± ) 1 8 a4! .ic6 1 9 lDd5 ! lDxd5 20 ed with a clear plus for White (55) . 55
B
Two games to demonstrate White's advantage in this position: (a) Strauss-Pelz, Krakow 1 964: 1 1 ... lDxd4 1 2 'Wxd4 lDd7 1 3 .ie3 g6 14 0-0-0 I!b8 (this loss of time is necessary because of the white bishop on h 1 ! ) 15 f4 b5 16 e5 de 1 7 'fta7 ! (54)
82
7 lD c6 As we saw in variation B l Black ru ns into difficulties if he does not play energetically enough in the
6 . . . h6 39 centre. For this reason it is more accurate to develop the queen 's knight immediately in order to be prepared to exchange White's actively placed pieces as soon as danger threatens. White is forced to play more slowly than after 7 . . . a6 and the immediate threat of . . . ll:\xd4 and . . . ll:\ xg4 will cause him to lose some time safeguarding the pawn. h3 8 As before , 8 g5 will effect a transposition to lines handled under A. 8 tt:lb3 allows Black to equalise with 8 . . . e5 9 g5 hg 10 .ixg5 .ie7 I I .ixf6 .ixf6 12 ll:\d5 .ig5 or even take the initiative with a pawn sacrifice: � . . . a5 ( ! ) 9 a4 d5 10 ed ll:lb4 l l de Wxd l + 1 2 ct>xd l tt:lxg4 1 3 ef+ ct>xf7 14 ll:\e4 .if5 . The position after 8 h 3 can also be reached by inverting the order of White's 7th and 8th moves. White's intention, having taken care of his g-pawn, is to continue his development before attempting any further action on the kingside. He will use his pieces to maintain a grip on the centre , for which purpose the bishop is well placed on g2, and then push forward his kingside pawns, slowly increasing his spatial advantage until an opportunity appears for a direct assault. In many ways this strategy is similar to the one which White follows in Maroczy bind formations with the difference that his pieces
are more active while his pawn structure is looser and less able to contain his opponent's counterplay. The contrast between the two types of game is not negligible. , White players , I for one, may welcome the prospect of more active play and a straightforward plan of attack, even if Black too is given greater leeway. For his part the second player should bide his time with developing moves until he can undertake an effective counterattack in the centre to simplify the position, thereby neutralising the attacking potential which White has built up. a6 (56) 8 56 w
The game follows a similar course no matter whether Black plays the text or . . . .id7 first. The exchange 8 tt:l xd4 seems premature . 9 Wxd4 and now: (a) Gipslis-Abrasimov, Riga 1 966, saw 9 eS 10 't!fd3 .ie6 I I .ie3 .ie7 12 0-0-0 0-0 l 3 f4! ef 14 .ixf4 't!fa5 1 5 Wb5 ! Wc7 l 6 e5 ! and White was winning material. (b) Gipslis-Zarchov, Latvia versus Ukraine 1 963, varied with 9 .id7 ...
...
...
40 6 . . . h6 1 0 't!fd3 .ic6 I I .if4 't!t"a5 1 2 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 't!t"g3! (forcing the weakness) 1 3 . . . e5 14 .ie3 �b8 1 5 lild3 't!t"c7 1 6 lilhd l lilc8 1 7 lil l d2 .ie7 1 8 h4 ± . Having deprived his opponent of counterplay White proceeded smoothly with his attack on the wing. The game Hort-Andersson, Malta OL 1980, featured a novel approach by Black: 8 .ie7 9 .ie3 ll:\e5!? 1 0 f4 lDc4 I I .i f2 .id7 ( I I . . . lDxb2? 12 't!t"b l ±±) 12 b3 't!t"a5 1 3 't!t"d3 lDa3 14 0-0 lilc8 1 5 ll:\ce2 0-0 ( 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 ll:\f5 ! ) 1 6 c3 ( 1 6 c4 b5 ! +) 1 6 . . lilfd8 1 7 lilac I lDb5 1 8 a4 ll:\ xd4 1 9 ll:\xd4! a 6 2 0 lilfe l 't!t"c7 2 1 c4 ;!;. From the position in diagram 56 White must choose between 9 0-0 and the more flexible 9 .ie3 . The only important feature to distinguish between the two lines arises if White castles queenside in order to push his attack forward with all the more vigour. The choice is, however, essentially a question of style as White's prospects are reasonable in either case. B 2 1 9 0-0 B22 9 .ie3 B21 9 0-0 .id7 10 .i e3 10 ll:lde2 has also been played with the idea of avoiding exchanges and further increasing the pressure on d5. However, the move allows Black scope to expand on the queenside without fear of tricks on the long diagonal . This in itself need not be a bad thing: in variations ...
.
of the Sicilian which White handles positionally it can be dangerous for Black to push his queenside pawns too fast, leaving them exposed and allowing White to open lines to his advantage . This theme is illustrated b y the game Liebert-Madler, East German Ch 1 963, which continued (after 10 ll:\de2) 10 . . . b5 I I a3 .ie7 12 f4 a5 1 3 .ie3 b4 1 4 ll:\b5 "t!t'b8 1 5 a4 0-0 16 c4 be 1 7 be d5 1 8 e 5 ! ll:\h7 1 9 lilb l with good play for White. 't!t"c7 10 .ie7 11 't!Vel 12 lilad1 (5 7) 57 B
The untested 1 2 a4 would seem more consistent with White's policy of restricting Black's counterplay as far as possible. Then attempts by Black to play on White's weak point, the c4 square , would appear to be unfruitful: (a) 1 2 lbe5 1 3 lilad l lDc4 1 4 .ic l lilc8 1 5 b3 (promising is 1 5 �h i followed by 1 6 f4 ±) 1 5 . . . lDe5 ( 1 5 . . . lbe3 1 6 .ixe3 't!t"xc3 1 7 lild3 't!t"c7 1 8 c4 ±) I f! .ib2 0-0 1 7 �h i ;l; . (b) Black probably does better to follow the plan of exchanging on ...
6 . . . h6 41 d4 coupled with . . . e5: 12 0-0 1 3 f4 l0xd4 1 4 .i.xd4 e 5 1 5 .i.e3 ef I 6 lixf4 .i.e6 with level chances. 12 0-0 The game Enklaar-Petrosian, Amsterdam I 973, continued instead with I 2 . . . b5 1 3 a3 l0xd4 I 4 .i.xd4 e5 I 5 .i.e3 .i.e6 I 6 l0d5 .i.xd5 I 7 e d l0d7 a nd here White could maintain a slight pull with 18 f4 according to Petrosian . l0xd4(!) l3 f4 1 4 .i.xd4 eS 15 .i.e3 ef 16 lixf4 .i. e6 .i.xdS 1 7 lOdS 18 ed (58) •••
58 B
.i.e7 I I f4 l0xd4 I 2 .i.xd4 e5 1 3 .i.e3 ef I 4 .i.xf4 .i.e6 I 5 0-0-0 0-0 I 6 �b i � - White is better placed than in equivalent positions in line B2 I because he can make better use of kingside attacking potential. I n the game Black ran out of ideas rather quickly: I 6 . . . lilacS 17 1!Vd2 lifd8 I 8 lihfl l0e8?! I 9 .i.e3 .i.f6 20 l0d5 .i.xd5 2 I ed .i.e5 22 h4 1!Vc4 23 g5 h5 24 .i.f4 g6 25 lide l .i.xf4 26 lixf4 "t!t'c5 27 lile7 ±± . 1 0 1!Ve2 .i.e7 1 0 . . . lic8 normally transposes back to the mai n line after I I f4. The game Matulovic-Sax, Vrbas I 977, saw an attempt to avoid this by I I . . . "it'a5 1 2 l0b3 1!Vc7 1 3 0-0 .i.e7 I4 "t!t'f2 0-0 and now Sax's suggestion of I 5 a4 leaves Black neatly parcelled up, facing threats of a5 followed by l0a4 and f5. 11 f4 (59) 59 B
R. Byrne-Reshevsky, USA Ch I 966/67 . The position is level. 822 9 .i.e3 This is the more flexible of White's alternatives and allows him to consider the possibility of castling long in addition to trans posing to the previous line. .i.d7 9 An i mporta nt departure was seen in the ga me Horvath-Stean, Virovitica 1 97 7 : 9 . . . "t!t'c7 1 0 1!Ve2
Again the most flexible. White waits for Black to declare the posting of his major pieces before decidi ng which side to castle. liteS 11 12 0-0-0 Safe and good is I 2 0-0 l0 xd4 1 3
42 6 . . . h6 .t.xd4 .t.c6 1; R. Byrne-Lombardy, USA Ch 1 972. 12 W'aS The same idea as in the game Matulovic-Sax mentioned earlier. Black's position seems in no way improved for having delayed the manoeuvre until White has castled. 1 2 . . 0-0 was indicated (but not 1 2 . . . b5? allowing 1 3 e 5 ! ) . 1 3 lilb3 W'c7 1 4 �� bS 0-0 (60) IS libel
fg 25 .t.e4 ll:'la4 26 W'f3 lilc3 27 �b2 W'd6 ! =F=F and Black went on to win. c
7
l::t g l (61)
61 B
.
60 w
Not 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 lLld5 ! with a winning attack. The text is better but the position strongly favours White anyway ± according to Marie. We are following Horvath-Sax, Hungarian Ch 1 9 7 5 : 16 e5! de 17 g5! hg 1 8 fg (White's idea is a positional pawn sacrifice to enhance the scope of his own pieces while restricting the mobility of his opponent's) 18 . . . lilh7 19 lt:le4 ( 1 9 't!fh5 appears to be stronger) 1 9 . . . ll:'lb4! 20 lt:lec5? (better i s 20 .t.c5 .i.xc5 21 lt:lexc5 followed by 22 g6! ) 2 0 . . . ll:'l d 5 2 1 lt:lxd7? lilxe3 22 ll:'lxf8 lt:lxd 1 23 lilxh7 lilxb2 24 g6 -
In this section we shall examine the consequences if White should adopt a different approach from those outlined in A or B, dispensing with any preliminary restraining manoeuvres in order to pursue his flank attack directly . To simplify matters we can say that White's ideal ' formation in this line is with his queen on d2, bish ops on e2 and e3, the rook on gl and the h-pawn on h4, when he is ready to bring his king .to safety and continue the attack with g5. The success or failure of this plan must hinge on the possibility of an effective counteraction by Black in the centre or on the queenside. Specifically, it will be a major concern for White to ensure that any attempt by his opponent to secure counterplay with . . . d5 can be actively combatted and exploited to his own advantage. In accordance with this observation White must
6 . . . h6 43 strive to achieve his ideal formation by alternating attacking moves ( l::t g l , h4) with developing moves ( .i.e3, .i.e2) so that the threat of . . . d 5 is contained a s much a s possible. If he can surmount these initial difficulties White should cope successfully with other attempts by Black to gain counterplay and reach a very promising attacking position indeed. Before oeginning the detailed analysis of the line we pause for a word about White's seventh move alternatives. (a) 7 .i.el commits the bishop rather too ea rly - it's useful to retain the option of a check on b5 in case of a quick . . . d5 by Black. (b) 7 h4 d�clares White's intentions too soon and allows Black to make preparations for a rapid counterstrike in the centre . 7 . . . .te7 ( ! ) and now: b I ) 8 llgl d5! - transposing to C2. b2) More interesting is the novel I 1Wf3!? e.g. S . . . h 5 ! (S . . . .!Llc6 9 tlxc6 be 1 0 g5 olild7 I I g6 oo) 9 gh /()xh5 I 0 .i.g5 lt:lc6 ( 1 0 . . . .i.xg5? I I hg 't!t"xg5 I 2 lt':ldb5 ±±) I 1 0-0-0 .txg5 ( I I . . . a6) I 2 hg 't!fxg5+ I 3 *b I lt:lxd4 I 4 l::t x d4 .i.d7 I 5 ll xd6 .tc6 I6 llxc6? ! ( 1 6 .i.e2 g6 oo) I 6 . . , be I 7 e 5 l::t d S ! I S 't!t"xc6+ ct>f8 1 9 't!t'c5+ gS 20 .i.c4 lt:lf4 + Ljubojevic-Timman, Montreal i 979. b3) The curiosity 8 llh3, guarding the rook in preparation for g5, was played in the game Torre-Hubner, Rio de Ja neiro IZ I 979. After S . . . d S 9 .i.b5 + ct>f8 1 0 e 5 lt:lfd7 I I .i.f4
't!t"b6 1 2 .!Llb3 .!Llc6 1 3 11fe2 a6 I 4 .txc6 b e I 5 0-0-0 a5 Black already stood better. (c) The trouble with 7 .i.e3 is that after 7 . . . a6! White has problems guarding against the threat of S . . . e 5 , since after 9 lt':lf5 g6 h e n o longer has the square e3 for his knight. However, there has recently been much interest in the move S 11ff3 !? an unusual sortie which despite its seeming artificiality keeps White's attacking chances very much alive. As yet no clear refutation of the idea has emerged, and the theory is rapidly developing: c l ) 8 ... .!Llc6 9 h3?! .i.d7 1 0 0-0-0 b5 I I .i.g2 liteS I2 a3 .!Lle5 1 3 tlre2 lt:lc4 I 4 f4 .i.e7 I 5 .i.f2 11fa5 1 6 l::t d 3 d5? I 7 .!Llb3 11fc7 1 S ed 't!fxf4+ I 9 'it>b i 't!t"bS 20 de fe 2 I l::t h d I ( ±) 2 1 . . . e 5 22 lt:le4! .i.e6 23 .!Llec5 't!t"b6 24 lt:lb7 't!fc7 25 lt:l3c5! .i.xc5 26 .i.xc5 I -0 Ciocaltea Ungureanu , Romania 1 9S l . c2) 8 olilbd7 9 't!fh3 (threat I O g5): c2 1 ) 9 .!LlcS 10 f3 e5 l l lt:lb3 .i.e6 ( I I . . . lt:lxb3+ I 2 ab .i.e6 1 3 .i.c4 ±) 12 0-0-0 ( I 2 lt:lxc5 de I 3 't!t'g3 .i.e7 I4 h4 - 14 't!fxe5? .i.d6 =F=F - I4 . . . 't!fa5 I 5 't!t"xe5 0-0-0 I 6 .i.c4 .i.d6 1 7 .i.xe6+ ct>bS I S 't!ff5 fe 1 9 't!fxe6 l::t h eS 20 't!ff7 oo Sax-Tukma kov, Las Palmas I 97S) I2 . . . lt:lxb3 + 1 3 ab lieS I 4 lt:ld5! .i.xd5 I 5 ed 't!fc7 I 6 c3 't!fa 5 I 7 .i.c4 b5 I S g5 lt:ld7 I 9 b 4 't!Va4 20 .i.d3 't!fa 1 + (20 . . . 't!t"xb4 2 1 .i.f5 ±±) 2 I ct>c2 't!fa2 (2 I . . . 't!fa4+ 2 2 'it>b l ll xc3 ! 2 3 g6 ! ll a 3 ! 2 4 gf+ 'it>dS 25 b a 't!fb3 + 2 6 ct>c i 't!fc3 + 27 .i.c2 't!t'xe3+ 2S ct>b2 lt':lb6 ...
•..
44 6 . . . h6 29 lld3 ±) 22 g6! '@a4+ 23 �b l l:txc3 24 llc l ! lla3 25 '@xd7+ ! ! 1 -0 Perenyi-Barczay, Hungary 1 979. c22) 9 e5 10 l0f5 ( 1 0 l0b3 b5 1 1 f3 .i.b7 oo) 1 0 . . . g6 1 1 g5 ! ( 1 1 l0xh6 J.xh6 12 .i.xh6 l0c5 ! 13 '@h4 .i.xg4 =F=F; l l lDg3 lOb6 1 2 .i.e2 h 5 1 3 '@h4 J.e7 1 4 g5 l0h7 =F Ermenkov Polugayevsky, Buenos Aires OL 1 978) 1 1 ... gf 1 2 ef! d5! 13 gf ( l 3 o-O-O d4 1 4 gfdc 1 5 .i.c4 '@xf6 1 6 f4 l0c5 ! 1 7 libe l .i.xf5 1 8 '@g2 .i.e4 1 9 '@g3 l0e6 ( =F) 20 fe '@g6 2 1 .i.xe6 cb+ 22 'ibxb2 fe 23 '@f4 lieS 24 lld2 .i.b4 0- 1 Sax-Gheorghiu , Wij k aan Zee 1 9 8 1 ) 13 . . . d4 14 .i.c4! ( 1 4 lDe4 lDxf6 ! 1 5 '@h4 l0xe4 1 6 '@xe4 de 1 7 '@xe5+ .i.e6 ! 1 8 lld l ef+ 1 9 ct>e2 '@g5 and Black went over to the attack in Perenyi-Tompa, Hungary 1 979) 14 . . . l0xf6 ( 14 . . . de 15 .i.xf7+ 'ibxf7 1 6 '@h5+ ±±; 14 . . . '@a5 1 5 .i.xf7+ �xf7 1 6 '@h5+ xf6 1 7 '@g6+ 'ibe7 1 8 o-o-o with a dangerous attack for the piece) 1 5 0-0-0 't!t'd7?! ( 1 5 . . . '@c7 !?) Perenyi-Cabrilo, Kecskemet 1 979. Now Perenyi's suggestion is 16 llhe l .i.e7 ( 1 6 . . . '@xf5? 1 7 '@xf5 .i.xf5 1 8 .i.xd4 ±±) 1 7 f4 '@xf5 1 8 '@xf5 .i.xf5 1 9 fe de 20 ef .i.xf6 2 1 llxe3+ ct>f8 22 l:U3 J.g5+ 23 ct>b l .i.g6 24 Itd7 ± . From diagram 6 1 Black has: Cl 7 . . . lDc6 C2 7 . . . .i.e7 7 d5?! would fail for reasons similar to those which caused Blac k's demise in the 6 . . . d5 1ine as the interpolation of the moves 6 . . . h 6 7 It g I does little t o alter the character of the position as far as ...
...
an early central counterattack is concerned: 8 ed l0xd5 9 J.b5+ J.d7 10 l0xd5 ed 1 1 '@e2+ ± etc. Unsatisfactory too is 7 g5. The game Radovici-Kiuger, Lublin 1 97 1 , continued 8 .i.e3 a 6 9 '@d2 J.d7 1 0 0-0-0 l0c6 1 1 J.e2 '@c7 1 2 h4! g h 1 3 g 5 h g 1 4 .i.xg5 .i.e7 1 5 l0xc6 J.xc6 1 6 '@f4 with a clear advantage . Cl 7 l0c6 (62) ...
62 w
Once more 8 .i.e2 commits the bishop too early: 8 . . . d5! 9 ed ed 1 0 .i.e3 .i.b4! 1 1 a3 .i.xc 3+ 1 2 b e lDe4 1 3 l0xc6 be 14 '@d4 Ciocaltea Golombek , Tunis 1 97 1 , and now 14 . . . 0-0 ! 1 5 0-0-0 '@a5 16 't!¥b4 '@xb4 1 7 cb lDc3 1 8 Itde l lbxe2+ 19 Itxe2 is equal according to Ciocaltea. So White chooses fro m : C l l 8 h4 C l 2 8 .i.e3 Cll h4 8 White has now expended three successive tempi building up his kingside attac k and is th reatening to overru n his opponent's with g5g6, so Black must fight back
6 ... h6 45 without further delay. He can secure counterplay either by meeting his opponent head-on with 8 . . . h5 or opening up the centre with 8 . . . d5. 8 . . . ll:lxd4 on the other hand leaves White fully in control: 9 't!t'xd4 ll:ld7 10 g5 hg I I hg ll:le5 1 2 lig3 ! a6 1 3 .i.e3 .i.d7 1 4 0-0-0 't!Vc7 1 5 f4 ll:lc6 16 't!rd2 and White's position has considerable attacking potential . The · game Guseinov Morgulev, USSR 1 9 7 5 , continued 16 . . . g6 1 7 ll:la4 b5 1 8 ll:lb6 lib8 1 9 tl:lxd7 't!Vxd7 2 0 .i.c5 ±± . C l l l 8 . . . h5 C l l 2 8 ... d5 CU I h5 8 9 hg 9 g5 was a recent try in Belya vsky Andersson, Moscow 1 98 1 , which continued 9 . . . ll:lg4 10 .i.e2 't!rb6? ( 1 0 . . . g6! I I ll:lxc6 be 1 2 .i.xg4 - J2 '¥ld4 '¥lb6! + - 1 2 . . . hg 1 3 't!rxg4 i.g7 oo) I I .i.xg4 't!rxd4 12 .i.e3 't!t'b4? ( 1 2 . . . 't!rxd l + 13 .i.xd l g6 14 tl:lb5 'i!?d7 15 i.e2 a6 16 ll:ld4 ;t) 1 3 .i.e2 g 6 1 4 a3 ! 'i!Vxb2 1 5 ll:lb5 't!re5 1 6 lib I 'itd7 1 7 't!Vd3 a6 1 8 f4 'i!Vg7 19 ll:lxd6 .i.xd6 20 lid I lid8 2 1 i.b6 't!t'f8 22 e5 'i!?e8 23 i.xd8 ll:lxd 8 2 4 't!Vxd6 't!rxd6 25 li xd6 ±± . ll:lxh5 9 ll:lf6 10 i.g5 10 . . . 't!rc7 , though not clearly bad , is certainly more dangerous for Black : I I 't!Vd2 a6 12 0-0-0 ll:lxd4 ( 1 2 . . . .i.d7 allows the lively 13 ll:lf5 ! ef 1 4 ll:ld5 't!t'b8 15 ef) 1 3 't!Vxd4 .i.d7 1 4 'itb l lic8 1 5 .i.e2 b5 1 6 lige I 't!rc 5 17 't!Vd2 ll:lf6 ( 1 7 ... b4
1 8 ll:ld5 ! ed 1 9 .i.xh 5 ±± or 1 7 . . . 't!Vxf2 1 8 e 5 d5 1 9 ll:lxd5 ed 20 e6 .i.c6 2 1 .i.xh5 ±±) 18 a3 't!Vc7?! ( 1 8 . . . i.e7 1 9 e5 't!Vxe5 20 .i.xb5 't!Vc5) 1 9 f4 't!rb7 20 e5 de 21 .i.f3 't!Vxf3 22 .i.xf6 't!Vc6 23 ll:le4 ± Vasyukov Larsen , Manila 1 974. I I 't!Vd2 In the game Jansa-Andersson, Cienfuegos 1975, White experiment ed successfully with the aggressive I I h 5 ! ? The continuation was I I . . . a 6 ( I I . . . ll:lxd4 1 2 't!Vxd4 lixh5 1 3 .i.b5+ i.d7 1 4 .i.xd7+ 't!rxd7 1 5 i.xf6 g f 1 6 't!Vxf6 ± ; I I . . . 't!rb6 ! ) 1 2 ll:lxc6 be 1 3 't!rf3 .i.e7 1 4 e5 ! de 1 5 h6 gh 1 6 i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 7 lid I .i.d 7 1 8 ll:le4 i.e7 1 9 lig7 lif8 20 .i.c4 with a powerful attack. 't!rb6 II a6 1 2 ll:lb3 .i.d7 (63) 13 0-0-0
By all accounts this positiOn should favour White as he is two tempi up on a similar position occurring in line A2 1 22 1 . However, the position is not nearly so bad for Black as it might appear precisely because one of White's extra tempi has been expended on developing
46 6 . . . h6 the. rook to gi where it hinders rather than helps the evolution of his strategy: I4 f4 is impossible and if I 4 J.e2 then I 4 . . . 't!Vxf2 can be played as I 5 .ie3 leaves the h-pawn hanging. Despite this consideration it should be possible for White to realise his advantage by redeploying the rook and aiming for play in the centre rather than on the wing. 14 .ig2 I4 'i!?b i 0-0-0 I5 J.e3 't!Vc7 I 6 f4? llxh4! I 7 't!rf2 lL!g4 I 8 't!Vxh4 lL!xe3 I9 lld2 J.e7 20 't!rh 5 g6 2I 't!Vf3 lL!xfl 22 't!rxfl cilb8 with full compensation for the exchange in Cardoso-Andersson, Manila I 974. 't!Vc7 14 IS llgel .ie7 0-0-0 f4 16 Balashov-Andersson, Cienfuegos I 9 7 5. Now instead of the incorrect sacrifice 17 lL!dS? ed I 8 ed lL!xd 5 ! I 9 J.xd5 f6 =F White should continue 17 't!re2 preparing to break open the centre with e5, when he stands rather better. Cll2 dS!? (64) 8 64 w
This continuation is logical but very risky. 9 .ibS More accurate than 9 ed lL!xd5 IO lL!xd5 which allows 10 . . . 1!rxd 5 . However, t h e game Belyavsky Ghinda, Bucharest I 980, demon strated that White could still maintain a slight edge: I I .ig2 't!ra5+ I 2 .id2 't!re5+ 1 3 .ie3 .id7 ( 1 3 . . . lL!xd4 I4 't!rxd4 't!Vxd4 I 5 .ixd4 ± ) I 4 lL!xc6 J.xc6 I 5 J.xc6+ be I6 't!Vd4 ! . In the game Black went badly wrong with I6 . . . 't!Va5+? ( 1 6 . . . 't!Vxd4 I 7 .ixd4 f6 !) 17 c3 c5? I8 't!re4 llc8 19 0-0-0 ! ( ±) 1 9 ... .ie7 ( 1 9 ... Wxa2 20 't!Vb7 ±±) 20 g5 hg 2I J.xg5 .ixg5+ 22 ll xg5 't!rxa2 23 llxg7 llf8 (23 . . . cilf8 24 llxf7+ ! ) 24 h5 c4 25 lld6! 'ira 1 + 26 cilc2 't!Va4+ 27 cilb i llc7 28 llxe6+ fe 29 't!ra8+ I -0. Ristoja-Eising, Gliickberg Team Tournament 1 97 7 , went instead 10 . . . ed I I g5?! ( 1 1 .ib5 transposes to the main line) 1 1 . . . hg I2 hg g6 1 3 lL!xc6? ! be 1 4 't!rd4 llh7 I 5 J.e3 ll b 8 ! I6 't!Vxa7 llxb2 1 7 .id4 llxc2 18 llg3 .ib4+ with a winning attack. 9 lL! xc6 be strengthens Black's centre but White gets tactical chances. The game Pioch-Adamski, Polish Ch I 9 7 4, continued I 0 g5 hg I I hg lL!d7 1 2 .ie3 llb8 1 3 g6 ll xb2 I 4 ed cd 1 5 gf+ 'i!?xf7 I 6 .id4 e5 I 7 't!rf3+ lL!f6 00 . 9 J.d7 10 ed lL!xd5 II lL!xdS ed 1 2 J.e3! (65)
6 . . . h6 47 65 B
An idea introduced by Karpov at Tilburg 1 980. The plan is to reinforce White's grip on the dark squares and after 1 3 't!rd2 and an eventual lL!f5 to drum up threats against h6 and g7, which could prove fatal for Black if he castles. In itself this scheme is not new compare fi ne C l 2, note to Black's 8th move - but its introduction at this point in the line marks a considerable improvement over play as hitherto known: 1 2 't!Ve2+ Jl.e7 1 3 ltlf5 ( 1 3 lLJO O-O l 4 g5 liteS 15 cild I .if8 16 't!rd2 lle4 1 7 Jl.d3 llg4 1 8 lle l 'fi'b6 + Formanek Wagman, Reggio-Emilia 1 977 178) 13 .. . .ixf5 14 gf ci1f8 1 5 c3 Jl.f6 1 6 .ie3 Liberzon-Formanek, Beersheva 1 97 8 , and now Black should play 16 . . . 't!ra5 + to prevent White from castling and to prepare for . . . lle8 and an eventual . . . d4. .ie7 12 White also gets good attacking chances after 12 . . . 't!rxh4 1 3 't!rd2 .ie7 14 0-0-0 followed by 1 5 lL!f5 . .ixh4?! 1 3 't!rdl Risky, but it is easy to understand Black's desire to avoid unpleasan-
tries such as 13 ... 0-0 1 4 ltlf5 .ixf5 1 5 gf '.t>h7? ( 1 5 . . . lL!e5 1 6 .ie2 ±) 1 6 .ixh6! gh 1 7 f6 .ixf6 1 8 Jl.d3+ cilh8 19 't!Vxh6 mate. Black's best is the simplifying 1 3 . . . lL!xd4 14 Jl.xd7+ 't!rxd4 1 5 't!rxd4 ( 1 5 .ixd4 't!re6+) 1 5 . . . Jl.f6 1 6 'fi'b4 't!re7 ( Krnic). After 1 7 \tb5+ 't!Vd7 1 8 't!Vxd7+ '.t>xd7 1 9 0-0-0 '.t>c6 White has only a minimal edge. 14 0-0-0 Jl.f6 IS lL!fS Jl.xfS 16 gf a6 1 7 .ixc6+ be 18 Jl.cS (66)
White's dark-square strategy is now complete. With Black's king pinned down in the centre the success of the ensuing attack is assured. We are following the game Karpov-Spassky, Tilburg 1 980, which continued 1 8 . . . llb8 19 b4 llb5 20 llge I + '.t>d7 2 1 c4 llxc5 22 be Jl.g5? 23 f4 't!Vf6 24 cd! 't!ra l + 25 'iti>c2 't!rxa2+ 26 '.t>d3 't!Vxd2+ 27 llxd2 Jl.xf4 28 lla2 cd 29 llxa6 h5 30 '.t>d4 h4 3 1 'itxd5 llb8 32 f6 gf 33 llxf6 .ig3 34 llxf7+ 'iti>d8 3 5
48 6 . . h6 .
IU'8+ 1 -0. Cl2 8 .te3 After this move White is even better prepared to deal with Black's counterthreats in the centre. a6 (67) 8
Once again 8 . . . d5 is the critical move , but in this position it is of dubious value because White is able to dispense with h4 and substitute a move with more relevance to the centre. 9 ed (9 J.b5 ! ) and now: (a) 9 ed 1 0 i.b5 i.d7 I I 't!Ve2 ( 1 1 a3! followed by 1 2 't!Ve2 and 1 3 0-0-0 ± ) I I . . . i.b4! ( I I . . . .te7 1 2 0-0-0 0-0 1 3 h4 ± - White's attack has real power with the knight remaining on f6) 1 2 ll:lxc6 .txc6 1 3 0-0-0 .txc3 1 4 i.d4+ ll:le4 1 5 .txc3 0-0 16 i.d4 1fa5 =F Matulovic Bukic, Kralievo 1 967. (b) 9 ll:l xd5 10 ll:lxd5 ed ( 1 0 . . . 't!Vxd 5 ! ? I I i.g2 't!Va5+ 1 2 c 3 :! ) I I J.b5 i.d7 1 2 't!Vd2 .te7 1 3 0-0-0 0-0 14 ll:lf5 .txf5 1 5 gf ±± . 8 . . . .te7 transposes to C22. The position shown in diagram 67 forms the cornerstone of this ...
...
important variation . White's strategy has evolved smoothly so far, and he has contained Black's counterplay while strengthening his own lines in the centre and on the kingside . The question he now faces is whether to continue the quiet pattern of development with 9 i.e2 or 9 1fe2, or attempt an immediate foray with 9 h4. It is difficult to evaluate these possibilities precisely but in general terms it may be said that neither of the two developing plans can be incorrect and both have their good points, the former offering immediate protection to the g-pawn and related white squares on the kingside, the latter preparing for queenside castling while retaining options on the placement of the bishop. The interesting question, however, is whether White can achieve more with the third, more active, approach. C l 2 1 9 .te2 C l 22 9 't!Ve2 C l 23 9 h4 Cl21 9 .te2 We examine : C l 2 1 1 9 . . . .td7 C l 2 1 2 9 . . . i.e7 C l 2 1 3 9 . . . 't!Va5 ( ! ) The latter i s the only move for Black if he is to upset the smooth running of White's scheme. The alternatives 9 . . . i.d7 and 9 . . . i.e7 allo w the first player to reach his ideal position with 10 h4. Once he
6 . . . h6 49 h'as achieved this set-up White will be very well placed, threatening to throw back his opponent's pieces with g5, when the prospect of an open file on the kingside will be most unwelcome to Black. In addition there is the further threat of g6 rupturing the protective barrier around the black king. All in all the message is one of warning to Black players as both theory and practice indicate that they are in for a very rough ride in these variations. Cl21 1 9 i.d7 10 h4 (68) 68 B
The sharpest continuation. The quieter 1 0 @d2 is perfectly playable but allows Black more time to organise a defensive block ade with e.g. 10 . . . tt:l xd4 !? I I 't!Vxd4 h5 1 2 gh li:lxh5 and Black is a tempo ahead on the main line, or 10 ... g5!? - compare with Ghizdavu Spassky in the C I 2 1 2 line. In the game Kurajica-Ostojic, Belgrade 1 969, Black continued 10 ... i.e7 and was summarily punished for his lethargy as follows: I I h4
ltlh7 1 2 ltlxc6 .txc6 1 3 g5 hg 1 4 hg li:lf8 1 5 0-0-0 ± . 10 li:lxd4 Black can no longer afford to ignore the storm gathering on the kingside but must counterattack immediately. Passive play will simply allow White to sweep through: (a) 1 0 't!Vc7 1 1 g5 hg I2 hg li:lg8 13 @d2 li:lxd4 I 4 i.xd4 li:le 7 I S 0-0-0 li:lc6 I 6 i.e3 @aS I 7 g6! (with Black's h-pawn gone this thrust is extremely dangerous) I 7 . . . f6 I 8 llh I ± Ciocaltea-Langeweg, Hamburg I 965 - a most explicit example of White's ideal strategy in practice. (b) 1 0 . . . g6 I I g5 hg I 2 hg li:lh5 1 3 't!Vd2 't!Vc7 I 4 0-0-0 li:la5 I S f4 b 5 1 6 f5 li:lc4 I 7 i.xc4 1fxc4 I 8 fe fe I 9 'it>b I llc8 20 e 5 d 5 and Black was left with telling weaknesses on e6 and g6 in Ghizdavu-Toran, Skopje OL I 972. (c) Perhaps Black's most promising attempt to neutralise the pressure is 10 ... d5, though after I I ed tt:lxd5 I 2 li:lxd5 ed 1 3 g5 hg I4 hg White retains some initiative and can re-direct his attention to Black's weak isolated d-pawn. h5! 11 't!Vxd4 12 gh tt:l xh5 't!Vc7 13 0-0-0 14 f4 i.c6 li:lf6 15 i.f3 llc8 16 i.f2 17 lld2 t (69) White enjoys a generous advan tage in space which his pieces are .••
·
50 6 . . . h6
69 B
eS but the open lines and increased piece activity provide ample com pensation) I S . . . gf 1 6 j.xf4 bS Ghizdavu-Spassky, Nice OL 1 974. Here the logical and strong move 1 7 gS should be tried, the main threat being 1 8 j.hS when White's position offers the better chances. (b) 10 ... �xd4! I I 't!Vxd4 e S 12 't!rd2 .ie6 1 3 h4 dS 1 4 ed �xdS Radulov-Tukmakov, This game emphasises the im portance of the extra tempo White would gain if Black tried the same manoeuvre after the text move: 1 0 h 4 �xd4 I I 't!Vxd4 eS 1 2 't!Vd2 j.e6 1 3 gS hg 14 hg �d7 I S 0-0-0 ± . �h7!? 10 An interesting prophylactic approach to the problem of the pawn barrage ! White cannot allow his pawns to become blockaded ( I I h S?) so the only way forward is by means of the follo)Ving sacrifice: hg 11 g5! 12 hg - � xg5 � xd4 13 't!rdl . 1 4 .ixd4 .if6 1 4 . . . eS I S .ie3 �e6 1 6 �dS also leaves Black in considerable difficulties . gf 1 5 j.xf6 f4 16 �h7 17 lih1 ± (71) Kinlay-Wells, London 1 979. The finish was 1 7 . . . j.d7 ! 1 8 't!Vxd6 't!Ve7? ( 1 8 . . . .ic6 19 'ireS 't!rc7 20 't!Ve3 0-0-0 t) 1 9 'ti'b6 .ic6 20 0-0-0 lieS 2 1 lih4 't!Vf8 22 lidh l '@g 7 23 =
well placed to exploit. Cl212 j.e7 9 10 h4 (70) 70 B
This continuation is the most precise. White retains the queen on d l so that he may prevent the blockading . . . h S and if necessary recapture on d4 without loss of tempo. 10 't!Vd2 and now: (a) 10 . . . g5!? I I 0-0-0 � d 7 12 h4! lig8 1 3 hg hg 14 'i!?c I (this seems a little slow and an improvement would be 14 lih l followed by lih7 and doubling on the h-file, with a significant advantage) 1 4 . . . �ceS I S f4 (antipositional in the sense that it ensures Black a safe seat on
't!rf2 fS 24 't!rh2 .ixe4 2S lixh7 iixh7 26 '@xh7 't!rg2 27 't!Vh8+
6 . . . h6 51 71 B
r:!Je7 28 'Wh4+ r:!Je8 29 't!fh8+
Played in the game Krnil:-Jansa, Sombor I 970, this pawn sacrifice for the initiative proved most effective: I2 ed ed 1 3 ltlxd5 ltlxd5 I 4 @xd5 .i.e6 I S @e4 0-0-0 an d with the weaknesses in White's pawn structure exposed, his king stranded in the centre and his queen on the run Black had excellent ' compensation for the pawn. A hint to the antidote to this dangerous gambit was provided by the game Ghizdavu-Espig, Varna I 97 3 , in which White declined the sacrifice and calmly continued his development: I4 't!rd2 ! .i.e? I 5 0-0-0 .i.xh4? I 6 g5! .i.xg5 I 7 .i.xg5 hg I S @xg5 .i.e6 I9 j,f3 with the initiative and a positional plu s for th e pawn . C l 22 9 @e2 (73) ' 73 B
72 w
This move retains a greater degree of flexibility in White's position and thereby avoids some of the problems which Black was able to set his opponent after 9 .i.e2. The other mode of queen devel opment is not satisfactory at this point: 9 't!rd2 .i.e? 10 0-0-0?! ( 10 .i.e2
52 6 . . . h6
transposes to the game Radulov Tukmakov in line C l 2 1 2, note to White's tenth move) 10 . . . it)xd4! I I 1!fxd4 e5 1 2 1!fa4+ .i.d7 13 Wb3 and Black had at least equality in Ghizdavu-Tukmakov , Ybbs 1 968. 9 ll:lxd4 Invariably played at this point as Black fares rather worse with alternatives : (a) 9 .i.d7 10 0-0-0 1!fc7 ( 1 0 . . . b5? I I ll:lxc6 .i.xc6 12 e5 ll:ld5 13 ll:lxd5 .i.xd5 14 ed 1!fxd6 1 5 .i.g2 ±) I I h4 b5 12 g5 hg 13 hg ll:lg8 14 g6 ! when the initiative is very much in White's hands. (b) 9 1!fa5 1 0 it)b3 't!Vc7 I I h4 b5 1 2 g5 hg 13 hg ll:ld7 14 g6 ! fg 15 f4 lt)f6 1 6 't!rg2 with a dangerous attack. 1 0 .i.xd4 eS 11 .i.e3 .i.e6 h4 12 llc8 (74) ...
...
74
grip on the position was stronger than ever. Notice that the thematic 12 dS fails simply to 13 ed it)xd5 14 0-0-0 1!fa5 1 5 ll:lxd5 .hd5 16 M4. hg 13 g5 ll xc3 14 hg This sacrifice is essential if Black is to secure any counterplay. As we have seen, passive measures lead to dismal positions for the second player . 15 gf! llxe3 16 1!fxe3 gf 1 7 1!fc3 tlb6 Kurajica-Spassky, Solingen 1974. Having fended off his opponent's counterattack White has every prospect of consolidating his mat erial advantage with 1 8 0-0-0, e.g. 18 . . . 't!rxf2 1 9 1!fc7 ! 1!fc5 20 1!fxb7 .i.xa2 2 1 b3 't!rc3 22 lld3 ± (Kurajica) . C123 h4 (75) 9 ...
w
More active than 12 it)d7, played in the game Matulovic Janosevic, Yugoslav Ch 1 972. After 1 3 g5 hg 14 hg g6 1 5 0-0-0 llc8 1 6 't!rd2 1!fa5 1 7 �b l llh4? 1 8 f3 .i.e7 19 a3 it)b6 20 1!ff2 lt)a4 21 it)d5 ! llh5 2 2 c4 it)c5 2 3 .i.e2 White's ...
Despite the effectiveness of 9 .i.e2 and 9 't!re2 it is still worthwhile for White to investigate this move, which is in many ways the most flexi ble possibility. Once more the critical reply is
6 . . . h6 53 9 WaS (a) 9 . . . dS worked out badly for Black in the game Gheorghiu R. Garcia , Buenos Aires 1 970, which went 10 ed ll:lxd5 I I ll:lxd5 @xd5 ( I I . . . ed 12 g5 hg 1 3 hg followed by 14 .i.e2, 1 5 @d2 and 1 6 0-0-0 ±) 1 2 i.g2 't!Va5+ 1 3 c3 ll:le5 1 4 1fe2 't!Vc7 15 0-0-0 i.d7 16 .i.f4! ll:ld3+ 17 1fxd3 1fxf4+ 18 'i!?b 1 1fc7 1 9 't!Vf3 ± . (b) 9 . . . hS(i) may well be Black's best but is as yet untried . After 10 gh ll:lxh5 1 1 .i.g5 ll:lf6 he is a tempo ahead on line C I l l . 't!Vc 7 1 0 ll:l b3 This was the course of the game Krnic-Jansa, Sombor 1 970, quoted in line C l 2 1 3, where 1 1 .i.e2 d5!? 1 occurred . A substantial improve ment is . . . hg 11 gS ll:l d 7 12 hg f6 13 g6! f4 bS 14 ll:lb6 15 @f3 16 0-0-0 (76) 76 B
The open h-file and the looseness of Black's pawn structure should provide White with promising
avenues of attack. C2 7
.i.e7 (77)
77 w
At fi rst sight the purpose of this move is difficult to discern as it seems unlikely that there should be any advantage in positioning the piece with the least scope first. It will come as no surprise that the intention is to facilitate an eventual counterattack with . . . d5, but the reader will be forgiven if he fails to discover the nature of the contri bution of the move towards that goal. It will be recalled that Black encountered problems achieving . . . d5 in other lines chiefly because White could make use of an annoy ing pin with 7 .i.b5 . With 7 . . . i.e7 Black intends to sidestep this difficulty by bringing his king to f8 ! White has the usual choice of continuations: C2 1 8 h4 C22 8 i.e3 C21 h4 8 The move most frequently seen in practice and the one which
54 6 . . . h6
Black's set-up is designed to deal with first and foremost. d5 8 9 .i.b5 + '.t>f8! (78) 78 w
while White's already smacks of defeat. The text was played for the first time in the game Urzica-Ghinda, Romanian Ch 1974, after the inter esting transposition 6 ... h6 7 h4 -*.e7 8 .i.b 5+ xg7 1 9 't!fg5 + cilf8 20 .i.e7+ and White quickly won. C22 8 .i.e3 (79) .
e5 10 Willynilly White must go on. Ineffectual is I 0 ed ltlxd5 I I .i.d2 .i.f6 ! ( I I . . . .i.xh4 12 1We2 .i.f6 1 3 0-0-0 -*.xd4 1 4 ltlxd5 'i!Vxd 5 1 5 .i.e3 ! -*.xe3+ 1 6 1Wxe 3 ! 1Wxb5 1 7 lld8+ e7 1 8 llxh8 with consider able compensation, Radulov-Sax, Vraca 1 975) 12 ltlf3 ltlxc3 1 3 -*.xc3 i.xc3 14 be 't!fxd I +
79 B
= .
10
ltlfd7
White now has two pawns under attack and it will cost him more than his position is · worth to try to hang on to material. It is far better for him to give up a pawn for attacking chances , though a direct assault on Black's solid position seems unlikely to succeed against accurate defence. All in all a line for gambiteers only. II .i.f4 Dismal is I I ltlf3 ltlc6 1 2 -*.xc6 be 1 3 g5 hg 14 -*.xg5 .i.xg5 1 5 hg llb8 =F Matulovic-Tukmakov, Bath 1973 - Black's position plays itself
After this move Black must forego his intended . . . d5, which would prove rather too risky with so many of White's pieces in play, and instead adopt a more solid approach similar to C l lines. ltlc6 8 h4 h5! 9 10 gh ltlxh5 a6 II -*.g5
6 . . . h6 55 12
t3
'tWd2 o-o-o
J.d7
l0f6 (80)
80 w
We have reached a position si milar to that arising from line C 1 1 1 , to which the reader is referred for a comparative analysis. Once again the white rook does not stand particularly well on g 1 and Whit � must look for a way of increasing his spatial advantage
other than the standard plan of advancing the h-pawn, which is not feasible in this position. The game Hort-Andersson from Bugojno 1 980 featured a restrained approach by White: 14 f3 ( 1 4 f4!? 1Wb6! ; 1 4 J.g2) 1 4 . . . 1Wc7 15 l0xc6 J.xc6 16 J.h3 lidS (on 16 . . . 0-0-0 White has 1 7 l0d5 ! - the point of White's exchange of knights on move 1 5) 1 7 1We3 b5 1 8 b 1 J.b7 19 ll:le2 g6 20 lid3 (;!;) 20 . . . l0d7 !? (20 . . . d5 21 J.xf6 J.xf6 22 ed J.xd5 23 ll:lf4 is very dangerous for Black) 2 1 J.xe7 xe7 22 1Wg5+ ll:lf6 23 l0f4 e5 24 ligd 1 ! ef 25 e5 de 26 lixd7+ lixd7 27 lixd7+ 1Wxd7 28 1Wxe5+! 'itlf8 29 J.xd7 lixh4 30 b3 with the better chances for White, although the game was eventually drawn.
4 Queenside Counterattack : 6 . . . a6 h4! - see B l Chapter 3), but the move may have some independent significance. Some examples : a1) 7 lL! fd7 S 0-0 lL!c6 9 'it>h 1 .te7 1 0 f4 0-0 1 1 g5 ll:lxd4 1 2 '1Vxd4 b5 ( 1 2 . . . e 5 ! ) R. Byrne-Spassky, match ( 1 ) 1 974. Now best is 1 3 a4! libS 14 ab ab 15 b3 ± Bondarevsky. a2) 7 lL!c6 S lL!xc6 !? be 9 e5 � d5 1 0 ed '1Vxd6 ( 1 0 .. . .ixd6 1 1 ll:le4 followed by 1 2 c4) 1 1 lL!e4 '@c7 1 2 c 4 lL!f4 1 3 .ixf4 '@xf4 1 4 lL!f6+? ( 1 4 ll:ld6+ .txd6 1 5 .txc6+ 'it>e7 1 6 .txaS lidS =t= ; 1 4 '@a4! .id7 1 5 lid 1 '@c7? ! - 1 5 . . . .te l w - 1 6 c5 ±) 14 ... 'it>e7 ! 15 lL!e4 ( 1 5 .ixc6 lia7 1 6 ll:le4 lic7 1 7 '@a4 f6 =t=) 1 5 . . . h 5 ! =t= Planinc-Ribli, Wij k aan Zee 1 97 3 . S h3 was tried in Radulov Cvetkovic, Vrnj acka Banja 1 974, which continued S . . . '1Vc7 9 ll:lde2 .te7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 f4? ( 1 1 g5 lL!d7 1 2 f4) 1 1 . . . d 5 ! 1 2 e5 .ic5+ 1 3 'it>h 1 lL!d7 + . a3) 7 '1Vc7 S 0-0 ll:lc6 9 h 3 h 6 1 0 a4 .id7 1 1 lL!xc6 .txc6 1 2 .te3 .te7 1 3 '@d2 lidS 14 a5 (;!;) 14 . . . 't!n> S 1 5 lifd 1 d5? ! 1 6 ed lL!xd5 1 7 ll:lxd5 .txd 5 l S .ib6 ! lieS 1 9 .ixd5 ed 20 lie l ± Engel-Estrin, Corres 1 977. (b) White also has the possibility of a sharp piece sacrifice in 7 .ie3 ••.
...
In this chapter w e examine the possibilities arising from the move 6 . . . a6. Instead of co ntesting White's kingside initiative directly Black's strategy in these lines is to gain as much space as he can on the queenside in the belief that he can secure equal chances with energetic cou nterplay. The move certainly has appeal, especially for those who prefer a sharper game, but there is too an element of the kill-or-be-killed syndrome in allow ing such an imbalance to build up and many players prefer to opt for the safer and more trustworthy alternatives. 7 gS The logical continuation. (a) 7 .i g 2 has also been tried with the idea of postponing the advance until a favourable transpositional possibility emerges (e.g. 7 . . . h6 S
...
6 . . . a6 57
(the position can be reached via the move order 6 �e3 a6 7 g4): bl) 7 eS 8 ll:lf5 g6 9 g5 gf 1 0 ef! d 5 ! 1 1 't!Vf3 ll:\e4 ( 1 1 . . . d4 1 2 0-0-0 't!Vc7 1 3 gf de 14 'ttd 5 �xf5 oo Nunn) 1 2 ll:\ xe4 de 1 3 'ttx e4 ll:lc6 14 �c4 't!Va5+ ( 1 4 . . . �d7 1 5 0-0-0 'f/c7 1 6 ll he 1 f6? 1 7 lhd7! 'ttx d7 18 gf �d6 19 �e6 't!Vc7 20 f7+ 'it>d8 21 lld l llc8 22 'ttx e5 ! 1 -0 Perenyi Schneider, Hungary 1 978) 1 5 �d2 'ttc 5 1 6 0-0-0 ll:ld4? ( 1 6 . . . 'ttd 4 1 7 'f/e2 �xf5) 1 7 �b4 ! 't!Vxc4 1 8 'ttx e5+ ll:\e6 1 9 �a5 b 6 20 �xb6 �b7 2 1 fe fe 22 libe l llc8 23 c;t>b l �d5 24 'ttx d5 't!Vxc2+ 25 'it>a 1 't!Vc l + 26 ll xc l ll xc l + 27 ll xc l ed 28 llc7 ±± Perenyi-Mokry, Decin 1 978. b2) 7 bS \ s also possible, normally transposing to the main line after 8 g5 ll:lfd7. An exception was the game Rigo-Barczay at Budapest 1 980 which continued 7 �e3 b 5 8 g5 b4?! 9 gf be 10 fg �xg7 I I b4! �b7 12 lig l �f6 1 3 'tth 5 't!Ve7 1 4 b5 �xe4 1 5 ba d5 16 ll b l �g6 1 7 'f/h6 ( ±) 1 7 . . . ll:ld7 1 8 llb7 �xd4 19 �xd4 e5 20 �xc 3 'tta 3? 2 1 llg3 't!Vxa2 22 �xeS 1 -0. b3) 7 h6 transposes to a similar variation in the 6 . . . h6 lines - see C Chapter 3, note to White's 7th. ll:l fd7 7 We examine: A 8 �e3 B 8 llg l c 8 �g2 D Rarely played 8th moves. ...
...
...
8 h4 transposes to A after 8 . . b5 9 a 3 �b7 " 1 0 �e3 . There have been a few independent tries but none provides any evidence that White does better to avoid the transposition : (a) 9 �g2 � b 7 1 0 h 5 ! ? ll:l c 6 I I a 3 li e S 1 2 ll h 3 ? ! ll:lxd4 1 3 't!Vxd4 llc4 14 't!Ve3 �e7 1 5 f4 e 5 ! 16 f5 h6 1 7 g6 fg 18 hg ll:lf6 1 9 �d2 'tta 8 20 0-0-0 ll:lxe4 =t= =t= Cardoso-Andersson, Las Palmas 1975. (b) 9 f4 �b7 1 0 f5 ! ? e5? (10 ... ef I I ll:lxf5 ll:\e5 oo) I I ll:lde2 ll:lb6 1 2 �g2 ll:l8d7 1 3 ll:lg3 lieS 1 4 f6! gf 1 5 0-0 ± A.Rodriguez-Espig, Halle 1 976. (c) 9 hS �b7 (9 ... b4 10 ll:lce2 �b7 I I �g2 ll:lc5 12 ll:lg3 ll:lbd7 13 f4 �e7 1 4 'ttg4 h6 1 5 g6 ± Ljubojevic Tal, Las Palmas 1975) 1 0 �g2 ll:lc6 I I �e3 ll:lde5 12 't!Ve2? ll:lxd4 1 3 �xd4 't!Vxg5 =t= =t= Okrajek-Vogt, East German Ch 1 978. A bS 8 �e 3 For 8 . . . ll:lc6 or 8 . . . �e7 see Chapter 5 . The most usual move a t this point is 9 a3 but there are other ways for White to handle the position and these are examined afterwards. AI 9 a3 A2 Other moves. AI 9 a3 (82) We pause at this very important position to outline the strategies of the two combatants. .
·
58 6 . . . a6
White's plan revolves around a direct attack with his kingside pawns, either by f4-f5 or, more usually, by pushing the h-pawn to h5, when in order to continue the assault he must reposition or guard his rook. Black's most effective set-up for counteraction is with the bishop on b7 and knights on d7 and b6, leaving the c-file uncluttered in preparation for occupation of c4, or in some cases a break in the centre with . . . d5. In practice the move order which Black chooses to reach this piece formation is irrelevant, but for the purpose of highlighting alternative strategies we divide the analysis as follows: A l l 9 . . . .i.b7 A l 2 9 . . . lL!b6 Al l .i.b7 9 In this line we look at what happens if Black avoids the standard set-up with . . . lL!b6. White now has the following choice:
A l i i 10 Jlg l A l l 2 1 0 ..d2 A l l 3 10 ..g4!? A l l 4 1 0 f4 A i l S 1 0 h4! 1 0 .tg2 leads to a pos1t10n handled under section C. Al l 1 10 ll g1 White makes further preparations before launching his attack with f4 or h4. ll:lcS 10 For 10 . . . ll:lb6 see A l 2. 1 0 . . . lL!c6 allows a standard space gaining manoeuvre II lL!xc6 .txc6 1 2 'ttd4 ;!;, when White's control of the centre is enhanced by the dominating position of his queen, which Black cannot easily displace without incurring some positional disad vantage . In addition it is difficult for Black to achieve much on the queenside, as the sequel illustrates: 1 2 . . . 't!Vc7 1 3 h4 't!fb7 14 .i.g2 a5 1 5 f4 b4?! 1 6 ab a b 1 7 llxa8 't!Vxa8 1 8 'ttx b4 d 5 1 9 'ttd4 e 5 20 fe .i.c5 2 1 't!Vd2 't!Va7 2 2 .i.xc5 't!Vxc5 2 3 llfl -
6 . . . a6 59
d4 24 ttidS 0-0 25 b4 ± Liberzon Lein, USSR 1 972. ltlbd7 11 1!rg4 j.e 7 (83) 12 0-0-0 White has built up an impressive battery of power behind the 'advance scout' on gS and now proceeds to bulldoze his way through with a kingside pawn storm. ttixe4 13 f4! 1 4 .ll:lxe4 j.xe4 I S j.g2 j.xg2 16 't!Vxg2 0-0 ef fS 17 1 8 ll:lxfS g6? I S . . . ll:leS ± . The column is Vasyukov-Dzhindzhihashvili, Baku 1 972. White could now have brought \lis attack to a successful conclusion with I 9 't!rxaS! 1!rxaS 20 ll:lxe7+ r3Jg7 2 I l hd6 't!fb7 22 i.d4+ f6 23 Ild I ! r3Jfl 24 j.c3 ! cJ;;x e7 25 li xd7+ '@xd7 2 6 j.b4+ ±± (Boleslavsky). Al l 2 1 0 'W'd2 (84)
to b6, threatening to occupy c4 with gain of tempo on the white queen - see A I 2. Here we look at the less popular plans. 10 j.e7 IO . . . tOeS leaves the knight short of play after I I f3. The game Adorjan-Ostojic, Polanica Zdroj 1 970, continued I I . . . ttic6 I 2 ll:lxc6 j.xc6 I 3 0-0-0 1!t'c7 I 4 j.f4 lidS I S b4 ! ltlb7 I 6 h4 liteS I 7 j.e3 j.e7 and now IS f4 ! 0-0 I9 fS ef 20 j.h3 with a clear plus. 11 h4 I I lig i lL!c6 I2 tti xc6 i.xc6 I 3 0-0-0 't!VbS I 4 f4 lL!cS I S fS ± Vayrynen-Valtavaara, Corres I97S. lL!cS 11 The same comment applies to this move as at move ten but Black has little choice now since I I . . . ll:lb6? i s met b y I 2 tti xe6! fe I 3 1!rd4 ltic4 I4 'W'xg7 r3Jd7 I S j.xc4 be I6 0-0-0 Ilf8 I 7 Il xd6+ ! r3Jxd6 IS 1!rd4+ r3Jc7 I9 't!fb6+ cJ;;c S 20 '@xe6+ ltld7 2I lid i with a crushing attack, Karlins-Commons, USA 1 972. 12 f3 1!rc7 85 w
Against this quieter set-up Black do.es best to manoeuvre his knight
60 6 . . . a6
1 2 . . . ltlc6!? ttibd7 (85J t3 o-o-o Fischer-Najdorf, Leipzig O L 1 960. White n o w continued with the sacrificial 14 �xb5 ab 1 5 ltldxb5 't!Vc6 1 6 ltlxd6+ �xd6 1 7 'W'xc6 0-0-0 1 8 't!Vxc6 �xc6 with good prospects in the ensuing endgame. A113 10 'W'g4!? (86)
At the time of writing this move has had but a single trial at master level and its success in that game is largely attributable to its surprise value. It is true that White's queen deserves a more active role in the game, but as White's strategy is very much based on the idea of a flank attack with pawns the logical course of events would be to bring in the heavy pieces after forcing some concessions with h4-h5 and g5-g6 or f4-f5 . Nonetheless, the text move, when coupled with the advance f4-f5 , is a dangerous attacking idea. llJc6 10 Bringing pressure to bear on the
centre now that White's queen has been committed to the attack. ltlceS?! 11 0-o-0 This tempting move may be a mistake. Black should reserve the option of exchanging the knight on d4 so that in response to the advance f4-f5 he can play . . . lL!xd4 and . . . e5 with gain of time. 1 1 . . . lieS should b e tried, with the plan of . . . 't!Va5 and . . . b4. 1 2 1!rh3 White will regain the tempo with f4 and in the meantime he moves his queen to a square where it continues to threaten e6 as well as preparing for the advance g5-g6 by pinning Black's h-pawn. 12 g6 This weakening move is necessary ( 1 2 . . . lL!b6 1 3 f4 ltlec4 14 .txc4 llJxc4 1 5 g6! ±) but it sets up another target for White's pawn roller. 13 f4 llJc6 14 ligl 1!Vc8 llJcS rs IS 16 fe fe (8 7) ·
1 7 �xb 5 ! ab 1 8 llJdxb5 llJd8 1 9 ligfl i.e7 20 @h6 llJf7 2 1 @g7
6 . . . a6 61 Ilf8 22 ..xh7 ll:lxe4 23 lhfi! lilxfi 24 t!rg8+ IUS 25 t!rxg6+ �7 26 ltlxe4 �xe4 27 t!rxe4 with a winning position for White in Fedorowicz-Petrosian, Hastings 1 977/78. All4 h6 f4 10 Tackling the pawn storm head-on in the hope of exploiting the temporary insecurity of the white king ( 1 1 gh t!rh4+ ). 10 . . . ll:lb6 is handled under A 1 2. 11 f5 (88)
White's best chance lies in unleashing the potential energy in his pawn roller at once , for Black's king may also become exposed . ef 11 Necessary, for if 1 1 . . . e5 then 1 2 ltle6 ! fe 1 3 fe hg ( 1 3 . . . ltlc5?? 1 4 @1'\5+) 1 4 ed+ ll:lxd7 1 5 t!rg4 o r 1 5 �e2 with a significant initiative for the pawn. 12 ll:lxf5 ll:le5 a4 g6 13 hg 14 ltlg3 15 ab ab 16 Iha8 �xa8 ltlbc6 17 �xb5+
18 19
0-0 ll:'ld5
�g7 g4! (89)
89 w
Eruslanova-Minogina, Nikolayev 1 978. In this complex position, with attack and counterattack in full swing, the chances are about even. The game continued 20 �b6 'fflt 4 21 ltlc7+
This currently seems to be the most reliable method of attack, which in addition allows White to retain all the options on the placement of his major pieces. ltl c6 10 For 1 0 . . . ltlb6 see A l 2. 1 1 Wel(!)
62 6 . . . a6
Alexander's idea, the point of which is to open up threats on the e-file. The less purposeful I I "t!Vd2 allowed Black to reach a most satisfactory position in the game Peresipkin-Kochiev, USSR 1973, after 1 1 ... i.e7 1 2 lbxc6 ( 1 2 0-0-0 !? lbce5?! 13 f4 lbg4 14 i.g 1 h 5 1 5 i.h3 g6 1 6 f5 ± Corden-Eising, Paignton 1 970) 12 . . . i.xc6 13 h5 "t!Vc7 1 4 "t!Vd4?! ( 1 4 lih3 ! ) 1 4 ... 0-0 1 5 h6 e5 1 6 "t!Vd2 g6 1 7 f4 ef 1 8 i.xf4 lbe5 1 9 0-0-0 Ilab8 with the plan b5-b4. 11 lb de5 12 0-0-0 lbc4 13 lbxc6 The immediate 1 3 f4 allows Black to equalise with 13 . . . lbxe3 1 4 "t!Vxe3 "t!Vb6. 13 i.xc6 "t!Va5?! 14 f4 More solid is 14 . . . i.e7 but White retains the initiative with 1 5 i.d4 0-0 1 6 lig l . IS lbd5! (91) 9/ B
We are following the game Alexander-Lundholm, Corres OL 1 970/7 1 , which continued 1 5 . . . ed ( 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 16 lbb6+ ! lbxb6 1 7
i.d2 ..a4! 1 8 i.b4! d 5 ! 1 9 b3 i.xb4 20 ba i.xa3+ 21 c;t>b 1 lbxa4 22 Ilh3 i.b4 23 ed i.xd5 24 "t!Ve5 is the critical line which Alexander most feared) 16 ed 0-0-0 17 de d5 18 i.d4 i.xa3 1 9 "t!Vg4+ cct>c7 20 i.xc4 be (20 . . . de 2 1 i.e5+ 'lt>b6 21 . cct>xc6 22 "fl/3+ and 23 "t!Vxa3 22 ba c3 23 "fig 1 + 'lt>xc6 24 "flg2+ c;t>b6 25 "t!Vf2+ cct>b7 26 "t!Vf3+ and 27 "flxc3) 21 ba c3 22 lide 1 "flxa3+ 23 c;t>d 1 "t!Vb4 24 i.e5+ 'lt>xc6 25 "flf3 1 -0. All 9 lbb6 (92) . .
We now come to what must constitute Black's most popular and effective development schema. The black knights are best placed on b6 and d7 where they give greatest support for action on the queenside or in the centre . If White's play is anything less than purposeful· he will fall prey to an almost automatic attack along the c-file or a sudden break in the centre with . . . d 5 . Currently t h e evidence i s that 10 "t!Vd2 is too routine and that White should opt for an immediate pawn
6 . . . a6 63
storm with 1 0 li[g 1 followed by f4-f5 or h4-h5, or better still the immediate 10 f4 or 10 h4! A 1 2 1 1 0 1!t'd2 A 1 22 1 0 li[g 1 A 1 23 1 0 f4 A 1 24 1 0 h4! Al21 t'Dbd7 1 0 1!t'd2 II f4 It seems that White does not have time fur further preparations. The game Suradiradja-Cvetkovic, Belgrade 1 977, went 1 1 li[g 1 i.b7 12 f4 t'Dc5! 13 i.d3 t'Dc4 1 4 i.xc4 be 1 5 1!t'e2 t'Dxe4 16 t'Dxe4 i.xe4 1 7 1!t'xc4 1!t'cS ! with some advantage to Black according to Cvetkovic. II i.b7 This pb sition can of course arise from the 9 . . . i.b7 move order. It is difficult to see how White's attack is to make a sufficient impression on Black's position to offset his opponent's growing queenside initiative . Black has provided the d5 square with plenty of cover so that after White's f5 advance he can reply . . . e5 without leaving the weakness too exposed. Meanwhile White faces problems regarding the security of his king and must carefully watch the increasing pressure on his e-pawn. 12 rs (93) White should not let his position run out of steam but should extract whatever advantage he can from his kingside pawn roller. The dangers of insipid play are well illustrated by the game Korsunsky-
Timoshchenko, USSR 1979, which went 1 2 0-0-0 liteS 1 3 i.d3 t'Dc4 14 i.xc4 li[xc4 15 li[ he 1 t'Dc5 1 6 .tg 1 i.e7! 1 7 b3 litxc3 l S 'ttx c3 t'Dxe4 19 1!t'f3 'tWaS 20 1!t'g4 0-0 2 1 litd3 d5 22 li[h3 .txa3+ 23 �b l 'ttd S ! 24 li[d 1 'tta 5 and White's disorganised forces had no chance of withstand ing the onslaught. 12 e5 1 3 t'Df3 According to Mednis and Peters this retreat is preferable to 1 3 t'Db3 because of the exchange sacrifice 1 3 . . . liteS 14 0-0-0 li[xc3 1 5 'ttx c3 i.xe4 1 6 li[g l i.xf5 1 7 'ttc 6 i.e7 l S 'fVb 7 1!t'cS liteS 13 14 0-0-0 The game Formanek-Peters, Las Vegas 1 976, continued 14 t'Dc5 1 5 i.xc5 li[xc5 16 i.d3 'ttc 7 1 7 litde l �dS ! l S h4 �cS 1 9 li[h3 �bS 20 'it>b l i.e7 2 1 t'Dh2 li[cS 22 t'Dg4 i.d8 with chances for both sides. Worthy of investigation is 14 . . . ltlc4 1 5 i.xc4 litxc4 1 6 b3 lit c 8 ( 1 6 . . . litxc3 !? 1 7 'ttx c3 i.xe4 oo ) 1 7 ltld5 ltlc5 1 S i.xc5 litxc5. = .
.•.
64 6 . . . a6
Al22 10
li g1
�8d7 (94)
White now has the choice of 1 1 f4 or 1 1 h4. 1 1 't!rg4, the analogue of Fedorowicz's idea in the A 1 l 3 line, does not combine well with lig 1 in this variation because the superior placement of Black's knights enables him to launch an effective counterattack on the c-file: 1 1 . . . i.b7 1 2 0-0-0 g6 ! ( 1 2 . . . lieS? 13 g6 ! hg 14 ll:\xe6 fe 1 5 't!rxg6+ �7 1 6 i.g5+ �f6 1 7 e5 'it>d7 1 S ef gf 1 9 .txf6 i.e7 20 i.xhS @xh S 2 1 litg3 1 -0 Vasyukov-Modr, Prague 1979/SO) l 3 h4 lieS 14 h5 �e5 1 5 9h 3 litxc 3 ! 1 6 hg ( 1 6 be i.xe4 followed by . . . d5 and . . . ll:\c4 is curtains for White) 16 ... lixe3 17 gf+ ll:\xf7 1 S @xe3 i.cS =t= Nichevsky Estrin, Albena 1 973. A 1 22 1 1 1 f4 A 1 222 1 1 h4 A1221 f4 11 i.b7 12 eS rs 13 �b 3 In the game Shamkovich:.Benko, USA Ch 1 97S, White tried l 3 �e6? fe 1 4 1!rh5+ when instead of
14 . . . g6? Black could play 14 . . . � 7 1 5 fe 'it>xe6 1 6 i.h3+ �7 1 7 lift @eS 1 S g 6 lidS winning. lieS 13 14 i.d3 (95)
Balashov-Malich , Leipzig 1973. Now instead of 14 �c4? 1 5 i.xc4 lixc4 1 6 't!rd3 'tWaS 1 7 �d2 lieS 1 S 0-0-0 ll:\c5 1 9 i.xc5 lixc5 20 �b3 ! Black should play 14 �cS 1 5 �xc5 d e 1 6 't!rg4 c 4 1 7 i.e2 b4 with good prospects (Matich). A1 222 h4 11 The plan of h4-h5 followed by g5-g6 is rather more dangerous than the advance of the f-pawn. Black will be forced to make the concession .. . g6 when the white rook can return to h 1 with pressure along the h-file. H owever, the effort which White expends on the manoeuvring of his rook should allow Black enough time to marshall his defensive resources sufficiently well to hold the balance. 11 i.b7 12 hS g6 13 li g1 i. g 7 (96) ...
...
6 . . . a6 65
Rather more active than 1 3 . . . Ir.g8, which nevertheless should be sufficient for equality. The game Viruna-Cvetkovic, Belgrade 1 977, went 13 . . . Ir.g8 1 4 hg hg 15 Ir.h7 i.g7 ( 1 5 ... e5? 1 6 1!rf3 ! i.g7 1 7 ll:\dxb5! ab 1 8 lt:lxb5 lt:lf8 1 9 0-0-0 ll:\c8 20 i.c4 'fle7? 2 1 Ir.xd6! lt:lxd6 22 lt:lxd6+ �d7 23 lixg7! lixg7 24 lt:lxb7 r:J;;c 7 25 i.d5 lt:ld7 26 'fle2 ll:lb6 27 1!rb5 lt:lxd5 28 ed r:J;;c 8 29 'flc6+ r:J;;b 8 30 lt:ld6 1-0 Hulak Cvetkovic, Krk 1 976) 1 6 1!rf3 ll:\f8 ( 16 . . . 'flc7 1 7 0-0-0 d5 1 8 e5! ? ll:\c4 19 lt:ldxb5 ab 20 lt:lxb5 'flxe5 2 1 i.d4 'flxg5+ 22 r:J;;b l ll:lde5 - 22 ... lLld2+! 23 lixd2 'flxd2 24 i.xg 7 't!Ve 1+ 25 �a2 't!Vxfl 26 ll:\d6+ ro 23 't!Vc3 ! f6 24 b3 'flg4 25 lie 1
1!re7 1 6 1!rg4 lieS 0-0-0 17 f4? 18 This falls foul of the conventional exchange sacrifice on c3. Better was 18 '4!¥h4, though after 18 ... i.g7 19 1!rh7 � Black can defend his kingside with ease and continue his attack on the other flank. 18 lixe3! 19 be i.xe4 Torre-Espig, Polanica Zdroj 1 977, continued 20 1!rh3 i.g7 2 1 r:J;;d 2 d 5 2 2 li a 1 lt:la4 23 ll:\e2 i.f5 24 1!rh7 � 25 i.h3 ll:\xc 3 ! =F =F . A123 10 f4 (9 7)
With regard to the question of which is the most effective line of play for White in the early . . . a6, . . . b 5 , . . . ll:lb6 syste ms one may make a few simple inferences based on a study of the material thus far. It seems that having committed himself to a pawn attack with g4-g5 White does badly to routinely follow the rules of simple development with 1 0 'ti'd2. The attack requires a further im mediate commitment of time and effort from him if it is
66 6 . . . a6
not to prove abortive. 1 0 llg 1 goes some way towards this but still lacks the punch which a direct and full-blooded plan would provide. White therefore needs to add impetus to his attack before he decides on the placement of all his major pieces, and there are two ways he can go about this : 10 f4 and 10 h4. The latter is probably the better of the two plans as it is the eventual threat of g5-g6 which must trouble Black the more, but 10 f4 is still very dangerous and a worthwhile experiment. l08d7 10 11 1!rg4 Following a plan similar to that devised by Fedorowicz in line A l l 3 , to which the reader should refer. He should also compare with a similar position which can arise from 10 llg 1 - see A 1 22, note to White's l i th move. The extra tempo which White gains for his attack by leaving his rook on h 1 may prove crucial later on when, having forced the weakening . . . g6, the piece is more appropriately placed for a breakthrough on the h-file vvith h4-h5 . 1 1 1!rf3 is possible too , though in the game Sweiecik-Espig, Halle 1 978, White followed up poorly: l l . . . .tb7 12 0-0-0 1!rc7 1 3 .th3? ! ( l 3 1!rh3 g6 1 4 lt:lxe6!? fe 1 5 1!rxe6+ .te7 16 .txb 5 ! is most unsettling for Black) 1 3 . . . lt:lc5 14 llhfl lt:lc4 1 5 ..tg 1 .te 7 and Black's game was preferable in view of White's artificial looking development.
An interesting mixture of plans was seen in the game Thornally Commons, USA 1 975: 11 h4 .tb7 12 f5 ef 1 3 lt:lxf5 lt:le5 14 .td4! (freeing e3 for the knight) 14 . . . g6 1 5 lt:le3 .tg7 16 .te2 h6 1 7 gh llxh6 1 8 1!rd2 lt:la4 19 lt:lcd5 lt:lc5 �- � . but White stands better after 20 .txc5 de 21 0-0-0. .tb7 11 g6 12 0-0-0 It is not clear that this move is essential, though after 12 . . . llc8 13 g6 ! ? hg 14 lt:lxe6!? fe 1 5 1!rxg6+ rt1e7 1 6 f5 lilf6 1 7 e 5 ! ? .txh l l 8 ef+ gf 1 9 .tg5 ! White's attack is worrying to say the least. h5 13 h4 Probably necessary, for if 13 .. . llc8 there comes 14 h5 .tg7 ( 1 4 . . . nxc3 1 5 hg! nxe3? 1 6 gf+ r:J;; xf7 1 7 1!rxe6+
6 . . . a6 67 98 B
steady kingside pressure provides sufficient compensation for the pawn. In the sequel Black defended poorly: 1 7 . . . e5? 1 8 lbf5 'lbe7 1 9 1Wh8 lbxf5 2 0 e f J.b7 2 1 0-0-0 lbc4 22 f6 ! gf 23 't!Pxf6 lbxa3? 24 litg l J.c8 25 lilg8 ! J.xh3 26 lilxf8+ 1 -0 . 12 lih3! (99) 99 B
lD8d7 10 It is important to note that while the flank attack is in progress White maintains sufficient central control to render useless any action taken there by Black: 10 . . . d5?! 1 1 ed ed ( l l . . . lbxd5 1 2 lt:lxd5 't!Pxd5 1 3 litg l J.b7 14 J.g2 't!Pd7 1 5 lt:lxe6 ! ±=\) 1 2 lbde2 lbc4 1 3 't!Pxd5 lt:lxe3 1 4 fe lia7 1 5 't!Pxd8+ �xd8 16 0-0-0+ �e8 17 J.g2 ±± Hort Ree, Amsterdam(IBM) 1978. J.b7 11 h5 The natural move but one which, however, has the defect of removing sorely needed support from the pawn on e6. In the game Savereide-Markovic, Malta ( Women's OL) 1 980, Black tried to contain the threat of g5-g6 with 1 1 . . . lbe5. The game continued 1 2 lih3 ! (see the main line for an explanation of this manoeuvre) 1 2 . . . 't!t'c7 (after 1 2 . . . lt:lbc4 1 3 J.c l it is difficult to find a counter to the threat of 14 f4 and 1 5 g6; 12 . . . J.b7 i s the main line) 1 3 g6 !? hg 1 4 h g lb xg6 1 5 lixh8 lt:lxh8 1 6 't!Ph5 lt:lg6 1 7 J.h3 when apart from the direct threat of 1 8 lt:lxe6 White's
Prior to this important discovery White usually played 1 2 litg l transposing to A l 222 after 1 2 . . . g6! but this highly unusual method of guarding the rook prevents Black from blockading the advance of the g-pawn anq so makes life very difficult for the second player. lt:le5 12 12 . . . J.e7 is no improvement: 13 g6 J.f6 14 't!t'g4 't!Pe7 15 gf+ �xf7 1 6 0-0-0 lihc8 1 7 f4 lixc3 18 be lieS 1 9 f5 e5 20 lt:le6 ± Pokojowczyk-Sznapik, Lodz 1 978. hg 13 g6 lixh3 14 hg 14 . . . lt:lxg6 15 lixh8 lt:lxh8 1 6 't!t'h5 lt:lg6 1 7 lt:lxe6 ! ± . 15 gf+ lt:l xf7 1 6 .i.xh3 (100) With his pawn structure now seriously weak Black faces grave
68 6 . . . a6
101 B
difficulties warding off an attack by his opponent's aggressively placed pieces. The game Torre Vogt, Polanica Zdroj 1 977, went on 16 . . . lt:lc4? (better is 16 . . . 't!Vh4 17 'ti'g4 'ti'xg4 18 i.xg4 lt:lc4 ;t) 1 7 i.xe6 'ti'h4 1 8 i.xc4 be 19 1!Ve2 ± A2 Other 9th moves In addition to the normal 9 a3 White has: A2 1 9 f4 A22 9 a4!? Further experimentation is needed with 9 'ti'e2: 9 . . . i.e7 10 h4 i.b7 1 1 a3 lt!e5 1 2 0-0-0 lt:lc4 1 3 i.h3 1!Vc8 1 4 lt!d5 lt!c6 1 5 lt:lf5 ef 1 6 ef 0-0 1 7 f6 with attacking chances for the piece, Sokolov-Sukhanov, Moscow Ch 1 978. A21 9 f4 (1 01) This move introduces a piece sacrifice which although dangerous should not prove sufficient. 9 i.b7 b4 f5!? 10 11 fe be 12 ef+ 1 2 ed+ 1!Vxd7 + . .
12 �xf7 1 3 i.c4+ This forceful continuation is White's best try. After 13 1!Vg4 'tlfe 7 1 4 i.g2 lt!e5 1 5 0-0+ c;!;>e8 1 6 1!Vg3 lt:lbc6 1 7 b e g6 Black was winning in Kochiev-Tukmakov, USSR 1 972. 13 'it>e8 14 0-0 lt:le5 1 5 1!Ve2 lt:lbc6 1!Ve7! ( 102) 16 l:U5 1 02 w
Belyavsky-Tal , Sukhumi 1 972. Black has begun to untangle his position and should emerge safely. A22 9 a4!? (1 03) The idea behind this move, first employed by Smyslov, is to give
6 . . . a6 69
1 03
104
B
B
up the e-pawn for Black's b-pawn and try to control the centre with pieces. If his policy is successful White will then slowly push forward his kingside attack without fear of too much queenside counterplay by his opponent. There has been too little practical experience to give a firm j udgment on this positional approach, but certainly the line deserves further experimentation. b4 9 i. b7 1 0 lt:la2 lt:lc5 1 1 i.g2 I I . . . a S 12 c3 lt:lcS 13 cb ll:\xe4 14 "t!¥g4 dS I S bS 00 . lt:l xe4 1 2 ll:lxb4 12 . . . i.xe4!? 1 3 i.xe4 lt:lxe4 1 4 "t!¥g4 dS I S ll:\ d 3 ll:\d7 1 6 ll:\xe6!? fe 1 7 "t!¥xe6+ i.e7 1 8 lig I lt:lf7 with an unclear position in the game Veroci-Grosch, Hungary (Women's Ch) 1977. The column is Smyslov-Vogt , Leningrad 1 977, which continued 13 "t!¥g4 dS 14 lt:ld3 i.e7 I S h4 lt:ld7 16 0-0 0-0 17 lifd I lic8 18 c3 lieS 1 9 aS! lt:ld6 20 f4 lt:lc4 21 .i.f2 ll:\xaS 22 h S lt:lc6 23 g6 (104)
After 23 . . . i.f6 24 gf+ �xf7 2S lt:lxe6! lixe6 26 i.xdS "t!¥e7 27 fS White's attack quickly proved overwhelming. B 8 lig1 White may use this move order to reach lines covered in A after 8 . . . bS 9 a3 i.b7 (or 9 . . . lUb6) 1 0 i.e3 a n d there are possibilities for Black too to transpose to other variations (for 8 . . . ll:\c6 see Chapter S). In this section we intend to cover the independent tries for either side . b5 8 ll:lb6 9 a3 10 lig3 ( 105) 1 0 i.e3 transposes to line A 1 2 2.
70 6 . . . a6
There has lately been a great deal of interest in this plan, which has proved very successful on the international circuit. White intends to fianchetto his king's bishop to control d5 but needs to cover his c4 square which will be weakened as a result. He does this by playing b3 and fianchettoing the other bishop, after which · Black's build-up on the queenside can look a little pointless. The purpose of the mysterious tenth move is to avoid obscuring the action of the rook since with the queen's bishop fianchettoed the g-pawn will need protection. Finally the rook fulfils a useful function in guarding the c3 square . l08d7 10 11 .tg2 .tb7 12 b3 g6!? Black's most recent attempt at an antidote to White's strange but logical plan has a peculiar look to it too . He intends an all-out attack on the g-pawn and wants to prevent White from supporting it with f4 by playing . . . e 5 . Before he can do this he must prevent the knight on d4 from coming in on f5 by playing . . . g6, which at the same time fixes the intended victim fast. Less pointed play can lead Black into difficulty, e.g. 12 . . . lieS 1 3 .ib2 and now: (a) 1 3 ltlcS 14 't!te2 .te7 15 0-0-0! .txg5 16 'it>b 1 0-0 17 .th3 .tf6 1 8 f4 't!Ve8 1 9 e 5 de 20 fe .id8 2 1 lidg 1 g6 22 't!Ve3 'it>h8 23 .tfl lig8 24 h4 ± ...
IvanoviC-Hulak, Yugoslav Ch 1977. (b) 13 .te7 14 't!Ve2 g6 1 5 h4 e5 16 lt:lf3 lic5 17 0-0-0 't!Vc7 1 8 lt:le 1 0-0 1 9 h5 with an attack, I vanovic Geszosz, Greece 1 978. eS 1 3 .tb2 h6 14 lilde2 h4 IS With the bishop no longer on the c 1 -h6 diagonal White has no option but to allow this opening of the h-file . hg IS 16 hg .te7 17 't!Vd2 (106) ...
Bruggemann-Espig, W German Ch 1 979. Now Black should round off his plan with 1 7 . . . lt:lc5 (intending 18 . . . lt:le6) 1 8 lt:ld5 lt:lxd5 19 ed lih5 after which he stands clearly better. c
8 .tg2 This is a popular treat ment of the 6 . . . a6 line in which rather more emphasis is placed on central play . White's intention is to strengthen his grip on the centre, containing Black's counterplay while slowly
6 . . . a6 7I
building on his space advantage. Unless he is careful Black will find himself in a cramped position without the necessary counterplay to offset White's initiative on the kingside. Black's most logical plan is to intensify his own operations in the centre with S .. . lt:lc6, transposing to the 6 . . . lt:lc6 lines covered in Chapter 5. While this may suit those preferring a slower strategic build-:up to the pell-mell pawn rush characteristic of lines A and B it is likely that many players of Black would rather opt for their original plan of rapid queenside expansion with S . . . b5, or first the more flexible S . . . t!rc7. In this section .we propose to answer. the question of just how successful Black's policy of outright aggression is likely to be in view of White's more restrained approach. Cl S . . . b5 C2 S . . . t!rc7 C1 bS (1 07) 8 107 B
9 0-0 White need not worry unduly about . .. b4 as the knight can be
quickly redeployed on g3 via e2. An interesting alternatiave is 9 f4 with the idea of putting immediate pressure on e6 before Black can exchange the knight on d4. The game Ciric-Langeweg, Beverwijk 1 967, went 9 f4 J.b7 10 f5 e5 1 1 lt:lb3 lt:lc6 1 2 J.e3 lt:la5 1 3 lt:lxa5 t!rxa5 14 0-0 with some small advantage to White. 9 J.b7 f4 10 Simple and good is 1 0 J.e3 , e.g. (a) 1 0 lt:lb6 l l f4 ( l l t!rg4 lt:lc4 12 J.c l lt:lc6 - I2 . . . g6 I3 b3 J.g 7 14 'fJ.d I lilc6 I 5 lilce 2 ± Liberzon Espig, Sukhumi / 9 72 - 1 3 lt:lxc6 J.xc6 14 b3 lt:lb6 1 5 J.b2 t - White has shored up his queenside with the prospect of good kingside play to come) 1 1 . . . lt:lc4 12 J.c l lt:ld7 13 b3 lt:lcb6 14 J.b2 lt:lc5 15 t!rg4 t!rd7 1 6 '11. a d 1 b4 1 7 lt:lce2 h5 l S 1Wh4 0-0-0 1 9 c3 ± Westerinen P. Garcia, Las Palmas l 97S. (b) 1 0 lt:lcS l l a3 lt:lc6 l 2 f4 J.e7 13 t!rg4 lt:lxd4?! 14 J.xd4 e5? 1 5 fe lt:le6 1 6 ed! J.xd6 1 7 e5 J.xg2 l S t!rxg2 0-0 1 9 ed lt:lxd4 20 lt:le4 ( ±) 20 .. . 'fJ.cS 2 1 c3 lt:le6 22 'fJ.ad 1 '11. c 4 23 b3 lieS 24 '11. d 5 t!ra5 25 t!rf2 t!rxa3 26 lif5 't!fxb3 27 '11. x f7 't!rd5 2S 't!rf3 t!rc4 29 lif2 'fJ.cdS 30 d7 ±± Sax-Gheorghiu, Skara 1 9SO. 10 b4 10 . . . lt:lc6 1 1 J.e3 lt:lxd4? ! 1 2 't!fxd4 lieS 1 3 a4! e 5 1 4 't!fa7 b4 1 5 t!rxb7 be 1 6 b4! ± and White was winning the battle on both flanks in P1achetka-Knaak, Po1anica Zdroj 1975. ...
...
72 6 . . . a6 II 12
lbce2
lbg3
lbc5 d5 (1 08)
108 w
It seems that Black has achieved a great deal . Having proceeded in a logical manner to gain space on the queen side he finds himself able to afford the luxury of the central break . . . d5. However, whereas in other lines the consequences of allowing his opponent so much counterplay would normally prove fatal for White, here , with his pieces geared for action in the centre, he is quite well able to cope and may even proceed to counter attack on the queenside . The game Sveshnikov-Georgadze , USSR Ch 1 978, continued 13 e5 lbc6 14 .te3 g6 15 a3 lbxd4?! 1 6 't!txd4 ba 17 b4! lbe4 18 Ir.xa3 lbxg3 19 hg Ir.c8 20 c3 .te7 21 Ir.fa 1 ± . White has re-established his superiority in the centre and his pieces exert considerable pressure on Black's queenside. C2
8 't!Vc7 (1 09) This move is rather more flexible than either 8 . . . b5 or 8 . . . lbc6 but suffers from the defect that if
White can quickly weaken the d5 square the queen will find herself uncomfortably placed. f4! 9 The text compares favourably with the slower (though well playable) 9 0-0: 9 . . . b5 10 :!Ie 1 lbb6 1 1 .tf4? (instead of this artificial tactical device White should play 1 1 f4 with a less potent version of the main line) 1 1 . . . b4? (not 1 1 . . . .te7 1 2 lbf5 ! ef 1 3 ef ±± , but correct is the acceptance of the sacrifice - 1 1 . . . e5 12 .tg3 ed 13 e5 .te6 +) 1 2 lbd5 ! ed 13 e5 �d8 1 4 g6! (threat 1 5 .tg5) 1 4 . . . lbc6 1 5 .tg5+ lb e 7 1 6 g f Ir. a 7 1 7 c4! d e 1 8 Ir.xe 5 ! .td7 1 9 't!te 1 't!tc5 20 cd lbbc8 2 1 lbc6+ .txc6 22 de 1 -0 Faibisovich-Korelov, USSR 1 972. Interesting, though , is an idea of Timman's: 9 't!th5 lbc5 10 .te3 lbc6 1 1 0-0-0 .td7 1 2 f4 g6 1 3 't!te2 J.g7? (after 1 3 . . . Ir.c8 Black's prospects are satisfactory) 1 4 e5! ± Timman-Rohrl, Madrid 197 1 . 9 b5 10 e5 f5 A sorry move to be forced into but on 10 b4 there follows, of ...
109 w
�.
course, 1 1 fe, while after 10 lt:le5 1 1 fe fe 1 2 0-0 Black is unable to castle and his e-pawn is open to attack. 11 lt:ld5 't!rd8 1 2 lt:lel lt:lb6 1 3 lt:lec3 lt:l8d7 14 a4! ba 1 5 lt:lxa4 lt:lxd5 16 ed J.e7 17 't!rh5! (1 1 0) .••
. .
a6 73
D l 8 J.c4 02 8 a4 D1 8 J.c4 (1 1 1) Ill B
JJO B
Threatening 1 8 g6 and preventing Black from castling - 1 7 . . . 0-0? 1 8 f6 gf 1 9 J.e4 ±± . W e are following Gipslis-Padevsky, Vrnjacka Banja 197 5, which continued 1 7 . . . lt:lf8 18 J.e4 J.xf5 19 J.xf5 g6 20 J.xg6 fg 2 1 't!rf3 J.xg5 22 0-0 lia7 23 lt:lc3 and the dual threats of 24 lixa6 and 24 lt:le4 rapidly proved decisive . D 8th move alternatives Moves covered in this category are relegated to the 'second division' not necessarily because they are bad but in most cases because there has been too little experience of practical play to give a firm j udgment.
This seems to be a promising alternative to the standard schemes. Black is prevented from following through his usual plan of action because of tactical threats on e6 (8 . . . b5? 9 J.xe6! fe 1 0 lt:lxe6 1!fa5 I I J.d2 ±±) and the game takes on the characteristics of the Sozin Velimirovil: Attack . This aspect may prove to be a source of worry for Black as more often than not he has adopted the . . . d6( e6), . . . lt:lf6, . . . e6(d6) move order to avoid Sozin type positions. lt:leS 8 (a) 8 ltlcS 9 a4 lt:lc6 1 0 J.e3 't!rb6 I I 't!rd2 ;t (Gipslis). (b) 8 1!fc7 9 't!re2 (9 J.xe6? fe 10 lt:lxe6 't!Vc4 I I 1!fd5 't!fxd5 12 lt:lxd5 � 13 lt:lec7 lia7 14 J.e3 b6 +) 9 . . . lt:lc6 10 J.e3 and White has transposed to a favourable So zio variation in which he has avoided the complications which normally attend the g4 advance if it is unaccompanied by lig l . ...
...
74 6 . . . a6 lll bc:6 9 .tb3 9 . . . @c7 10 f4 lll e c6 1 1 .te3 lll xd4 12 •xd4 lllc6 13 •d2 b5 1 4 f5 lll a 5 1 5 0-0-0 ± Mikhalchishin Stupica, Yugoslav Ch 1 96 1 . lll x c6 10 lll x c6 11 .te3 .te7 bS 12 @dl .td7 13 0-0-0 lib8 a3 14 0-0 f4 15 16 h4 •as (1 12)
Day- Amos, USA 1 969 . Now White went over to the attack with 17 g6 ! fg? ( 1 7 . . . b4! ) 18 h5 b4 1 9 lll d 5 ! ± ( 19 . . . e d 2 0 .txd5+ 'it>h8 2 1 hg h6 22 lixh6+ gh 23 1!rh2 ±±). 02 a4 8 Another, more direct method of containing Black's queenside play. The game now takes on the characteristics of the 6 . .. lll c 6 lines in which White's a4 move is not particularly effective.
8
9 10
.te3 .tel
lll c6 llldeS
10 lll b 3 lll a 5 1 1 lll xa5 •xa5 1 2 f4 lll c6 1 3 .tg2 .te7 ( 1 3 . . . h 6 !?) 1 4 0-0 0-0 Kmil:-Cvetkovil:, Yugoslavia 1 974, and now 1 5 f5 ± . .t d7 (1 13) 10 1 13 w
Shaping up for a direct attack along the c-file and, in particular, occupation of c4. Less active is 1 0 . . . lll xd4 1 1 't!Vxd4 lll c 6 1 2 1!Vb6 ( 1 2 1!Vd2 ;!;) 1 2 . . . 1!Vxb6 1 3 .txb6 h6! 1 4 gh lixh6 1 5, 0-0-0 .t d 7 R.Byrne Spassky, match (5) 1 974. lieS 11 't!Vd 2 lt:laS! 0-0-0 12 lt!ec4 1 3 't!Ve l lt:l xc4 14 .txc4 lt!xe3 b3 IS .t e 7 1 6 1!Vxe 3 17 h4 1!Vc7 Black is in firm possession of the initiative, Matulovil:-Cvetkovil:, Vrnjacka Banja 1 974. =
5 6
0
0 0
ltlc6; 6
o
o
0
In this chapter w e are concerned with the simple development options available to Black, viz 6 . . . lbc6 and 6 . . . j.e7. There has recently been a great deal of interest in these lines (especially the former) as the search for a fully satisfactory defensive system continues. With rapid piece development Black can ensure a flexible position which presents White with no immediate targets to attack and which Cf n be moulded to his defensive requirements as White's initiative takes shape . In the hands of a strong player this unambitious style of play can be an effective weapon but, all the same, it leaves the problem of White's spatial advantage unresolved and allows the first player considerable scope in the formation of his attacking strategy. A 6 . . . lbc6 8 6 . . . i.e? A lb c6 6 Heralding the animated activity in the centre which characterises both sides' play in this line. The move 6 . . . lbc6 applies immediate pressure on White's centre and can often be usefully coupled with the manoeuvre . . . lOdeS, . . . lbxd4 and . . . lDc6 in order to resolve the
J.e7 problem of the awkwardly placed king's knight. gS lbd7 (1 14) 7 1 14 w
White must also gear his play towards central action and there are a number of possibilities open to him. He can maintain the status quo with the non-committal S i.e3, waiting for further information on Black's intended piece formation before finally deciding the pattern of his own development; he can precipitate an immediate crisis in the centre with 8 lbdb5 with the aim of exploiting the temporary weakness of Black's d-pawn caused by the awkward placement of the knight on d7; or he may attempt to increase his dominance of the centre with the solid , restraining 8 i.g2. A I 8 j.e3 A2 8 lbdb5 A3 8 j.g2 There has been little experience
76 6 . . . li:J c6: 6 . . . j.e7
with the enterprising S h4: S . . . li:Jxd4!? ( S . . . a 6 9 f4 j_e7 1 0 j.e3 transposes to line B 1) 9 1!t'xd4 li:Je5 1 0 j.e2 li:Jc6 1 1 1!t'd3 a6 12 j.f4 1!t'c7 1 3 0-0-0 li:Je5 1 4 1!t'd4 j.d7 1 5 h 5 .tc6 1 6 llh3 (instead o f this peculiar manoeuvre, which is not without its good points, however, White should proceed in a more direct manner with 1 6 .tg3 to force through f4-f5, e.g. 1 6 . . . b5 17 f4 li:Jd7 IS f5 li:Je5 19 g6 ±) 16 . . . b5 1 7 a3 lEeS 1 S h6?! (and here White's play may be improved with Nunn's suggestion of 1 S li:Ja2 followed by 19 llc3) 1 S . . . gh 19 gh lEgS with equal chances, Lutikov Malich, Leipzig 1 977. AI 8 j.e3 This is White's most popular choice largely because it maintains maximum flexibility and postpones the commitment to one particular avenue of attack. White largely controls the tempo of the game and can at any stage switch from simple development to an all-out assault with the f-, g- and h-pawns. 8 a6 (1 15) J /5 w
S . . . j.e7 will transpose to lines covered in B after 9 h4 or 9 llg l . Alternatives are worth exploring: (a) 8 li:Jxd4?! (this premature exchange allows the white queen to establish a dominating presence in the centre of the board) 9 1!t'xd4 a6 10 j.e2 1!t'c7 1 1 f4 b6 ( 1 1 . . . b5 1 2 a4! ba 13 llxa4 ±) 1 2 f5 li:Je5 1 3 fe fe 1 4 a4 j.e7 1 5 h4 1!t'c5 1 6 1t'd2 1!t'c7 1 7 llfl ± Keres-Bogoljubow, Salzburg 1 943. (b) 8 li:JdeS. This is a useful way of bringing about an improvement in the positioning of the knight by means of a simplifying exchange of pieces. b I) 9 li:Jb3 li:Ja5 (9 . . . h6!? 1 0 gh g5 I I .te2, Kudryashov-Kapengut, USSR 1 975, and now critical is 1 1 . . . 1!t'f6 1 2 li:Jb5 1!Ve7 1 3 1t'd2 a6 1 4 .tg5 f6 1 5 .th5+ li:J f7 giving rise to tremendous complications) 10 li:Jxa5 1!t'xa5 I I f4 li:Jc6 1 2 .tg2 h6 1 3 h4 j.d7 1 4 1t'd2 hg 1 5 hg lixh l + 1 6 .txh I b 5 1 7 .tf3 lieS 1 S li:Je2 with a marginal advantage for White in the game Bangiev-Kapengut, USSR 1975. b2) 9 .te2 a6 1 0 f4 li:Jxd4 1 1 1!t'xd4 li:Jc6 1 2 1!t'd2 b5 1 3 a3 .tb7 1 4 h4 and White's attack is very dangerous, e.g. 14 . . . lieS ( 1 4 . . . 1!t'a5 15 0-0 ! b4? 1 6 ab 1!t'xb4 1 7 lia4 ±±) 1 5 h5 ( 1 5 0-0-0 1!t'a5 ! ) 1 5 . . . li:Ja5 1 6 0-0-0 li:Jc4 1 7 .txc4 lixc4 I S g6!? .txe4 19 gf+ r3;xf7 20 li:Jxe4 lixe4 2 1 'i¥d3 lic4 22 f5 with strong pressure for the pawn. b3) 9 f4 li:Jxd4 10 j.xd4 li:Jc6 I I .te3 a6 1 2 h4 (White is effectively ...
...
6 . . . lilc6; 6 . . . .tel 77
a tempo down compared with b2 but he has more choice in the positioning of his queen and bishop) 12 . . . b5 1 3 .tg2 (the bishop is better placed here than on e2: White no longer has to worry about . . . b4 as he has a retreat square for the knight and the bishop can add to the pressure on e6 later on by slipping to h3) 1 3 . . . .tb7 1 4 0-0 .te7 1 5 f5 0-0 1 6 .i.h3 .tcS 17 't!Vh5 lile5 1 S .td4 liteS 19 f6 ! gf 20 litad 1 '@c7 21 gf with a winning attack, Balaskas-Tringov, Istanbul 1 975. 12 ... 't!Va5 was tried in the game Malevinsky-Gutman, Vilnius 1 979: 13 .tc47! (clea rly 13 .tg2 b5 1 4 0-0 i s good for White a s in the previous g�ame) 13 . . . .td7 14 't!Ve2 b5 1 5 .i.b3 libS (a Velimirovil: Sozin Attack type of position has been reached in which the exchange of knights is to Black's advantage) 16 0-0-0 b4 1 7 lilb 1 '@c7 1S .ta4 li:la5 1 9 .txd7+ '@xd7 20 lild2 .te7 21 lilc4 lilxc4 22 't!Vxc4 0-0 + . (c) 8 lilb6. A move to watch. The theory has been developing rapidly in recent months with Tal giving it his seal of approval at the 1 979 Riga IZ. Black's strategy is to force a rapid . . . d5. c 1 ) 9 lilgl d 5 ! (9 ... a6 1 0 't!Vd2 .td7 1 1 f4 liteS 1 2 lilb3 d5 13 ed lilxd5 14 lilxd5 ed 15 c3 .te6 16 .td3 g6 1 7 't!Vf2 ± R. Byrne-Grefe, USA 1 970) 1 0 .i.b5 .td7 1 1 ed ed 1 2 "t!t'e2 .te7 1 3 0-0-0 0-0 1 4 .td3 lieS 15 <2;>b 1 .tf8 1 6 lilxc6 be and Black had at least equality in the game ...
Chiong-Green, ltoh 1 97S. c2) 9 't!t'd2 d5 (9 ... lile57! 1 0 0-0-0 .te7 10 . . . lilbc4 1 1 .txc 4 lilxc4 12 't!t'e2 lilxe3 13 1Wxe3 a6 14 f4 .te l 15 h4 .tdl 16/5 '@a5 1 7 lihf1 lilc8 18fefe 1 9 '@f3 ± Kruszynski Schinzel, Polish Ch 1 980 11 lildb5J 0-0 1 2 t'Llxd6 lilg4 1 3 litg 1 lilxe> 1 4 '@xe3 '@c7 1 5 e5 lild5 1 6 litxd5 ! e d 1 7 lilxd5 '@dS 1 S .td3 .txd6 19 lilf6+ <2;>hS 20 't!Ve4 g6 2 1 "t!rh4 't!Vxf6 2 2 gf 1 -0 Fernandez Vilela, Alicante 1 97S) 10 0-0-0 .te7 1 1 lilb3 0-0!7 1 2 ed ed 1 3 lilxd5 lilxd5 1 4 '@xd5 '@xd5 1 5 litxd5 lilb4 and Black had enough compensation for the pawn in van Riemsdyk-Tal, Riga I Z 1 979. White may do better with a less routine approach: c3) 9 a4 lila57! (9 . . . a6 1 0 a5 lild7 1 1 lilb3 b5 1 2 ab lilxb6 clearly improves on Black's play, but White still has the edge) 10 f4 lilbc4 1 1 .te l d5 1 2 ed .i.b4 1 3 .i.g2 ! 0-0 1 4 0-0 .txc3 1 5 be ed 1 6 '@f3 ± M ista-Navarovsky, Reggio Emilia 1 967 /6S. c4) 9 .tb5!? (this exploits Black's omission of . . . a6) 9 . . . .td7 1 0 t'Llb3 (to control d 5 ) 1 0 . . . liteS (better is the immediate 1 0 . . . a6) 1 1 't!Ve2 a6 12 .txc6 .txc6 13 0-0-0 .te7 1 4 h4 .td7 1 5 f4 lilc4 1 6 h5 b5 1 7 .td4 b4 ( 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 S g6! b4 1 9 h 6 ! ±±) 1 S lild5 ! e d 1 9 h6 de 20 hg ligS 21 '@xe4 with an overpowering attack, Griinfeld-Rodriguez, Riga IZ 1 979. White now has 9 litg 1 , 9 '@d2 and 9 h4, of which the last is the -
-
78 6 . . . t0c6; 6 . . . j.e 7
most flexible and at the time of writing considered the strongest. A l l 9 lilg l A l 2 9 't!rd2 A l 3 9 h4 9 f4 is possible too, transposing after 9 . . . j_e7 to line B l of the following section on 6 . . . j.e7. The premature 9 . . . h6 runs into trouble after 1 0 f5 ! as the game Belyavsky Ree, Kiev 197S, illustrates: 10 . . . t0xd4 ( 1 0 . . . e 5 I I t0f3 ± ) I I 1!fxd4 t'Lle5 1 2 0-0-0 hg 1 3 fe j.xe6 I 4 t0d5 liteS I 5 't!ra4+ 't!rd7 I6 1!fxd7+ .txd7 I7 .txg5 (;t:) I7 ... .tg4 I S lild2 t0f3? ! I 9 j.e2! lilc6 20 ..txf3 j.xf3 2 I lite I f6 22 .tf4 b5 23 lid4
It is not clear that this move makes a significant contribution to White's kingside effort, since instead of castling early as he is often forced to do in comparable 6 . . . j_e7 lines, Black can concentrate on drumming up counterplay on the queenside.
't!rc7 9 A necessary preparation for the minority attack. The more convoluted plans tend to lead Black into difficulty: (a) 9 t0c5 1 0 f4 ..td7 1 1 1!fe2 b 5 1 2 0-0-0 b4 1 3 t0xc6 .txc6 1 4 t0d5 ! 1!fa5 I 5 j.xc5 d e 1 6 �b i ± Krantz Bryntse, Corres 1 977. (b) 9 lOdeS 1 0 t0b3 .td7? ! ( 1 0 . . . t0a5 was indicated, and then pos sibly I I t0xa5 1!fxa5 1 2 f4 t0c6 1 3 't!rd2 b 5 I 4 h4 .tb7 I 5 h 5 g6 with a complicated game in wbich Black's chances are no worse than White's) I I f4 t0g6 1 2 't!rd2 h6? (this move only serves to open the g-file for White's rook) 1 3 0-0-0 hg I 4 lixg5 ( ±) 14 . . . b5 I 5 1!fg2 't!rc7 I6 lilxg6! fg 1 7 �xg6+ 'i!ldS I S e5 d5 19 t0c5 .txc5 20 ..txc5 t0xe5 2I 't!rxg7 ±± Savon-Gutman, Ashkhabad 197S. f4 10 Worth considering is 1 0 1!fe2 with a similar idea to that used by Karpov in line A l 3 , viz 10 . . . b5 I I t0xc6 1!fxc6 1 2 0-0-0 .te7 1 3 j.d4 b4 14 t0d5 ! 1 0 1!fh5 o n the other hand only helps Black to free his position: 1 0 . . . t0de 5 I I f4 t0xd4 1 2 ..txd4 t0c6 13 j.e3 g6 14 't!re2 ..tg7 and the slight weakness of Black's d-pawn is more than fully compensated by the power of his dark-squared bishop. The game Salov-Popov, USSR 1 979, continued 1 5 't!rd2 't!ra5 1 6 0-0-0 0-0 I 7 'i!lb l lidS I S t0e2 1!fc7 ( I S . . . 1!fxd2 ) I 9 t0g3 b5 ( 1 9 . . . d 5 ! ) 20 f5 d5! 2 I f6 de 22 �e2 li xd l + 23 1!fxd i .tf8 with .•.
•••
=
6 . . . l0c6; 6
some advantage to White, though the game was eventually drawn. 10
II 12
a3
1!fd2
bS lilb8 lOcS (1 1 7)
Sax-Tringov, Osijek 1 97 8 . With his last move Black guards his a-pawn as a final preparation for the advanc� . . . b4. White's own attack is lagging way behind so Sax decides to try to hold up Black's advance in a typically unorthodox way. 13 b4?! This hardly improves White's game, though in any case Black had already reached an excellent position. l0xd4 13 The game went on 14 't!rxd4 l0d7 1 5 Itd l j,b7 16 �h3 Itc8 17 Itd3 when Black had a compact and comfortable position with good middlegame prospects. All 9 't!Vd2 (1 18) The game now crystallises into the orthodox pattern with pawn avalanches racing down opposite flanks. Theory would indicate
. . .
�e 7 79
J J8 B
that White can ward off or outrun his opponent's attack, but only with very accurate play. 9 't!rc7 The most direct method of introducing . . . b5, but there are important alternatives to consider: (a) 9 @aS 10 0-0-0 l0xd4 I I 't!rxd4 b5 1 2 'i!lb l j,b7 1 3 f4 b4 1 4 t'Lle2 h6 1 5 gh Itxh6 1 6 j,g2 lilh5 17 f5 ! ± Unzicker-Medina, Hastings 1 969170. (b) 9 lOcS 1 0 0-0-0 j,d7 I I f4 b5 12 �g2 b4 1 3 l0ce2 Itb8 1 4 'i!lb l 't!rc7 1 5 h4 a5 1 6 h5 a4 1 7 g6 b3? (better is 17 . . . fg 18 hg h6 t) l 8 gf+ 'it>xf7 1 9 cb ab 20 a3 ( ±) 20 . . . h6 2 1 Ithfl t'Llxd4 2 2 l0xd4 'it>e8 2 3 't!rf2 �c8 24 e5 Itb6 25 f5 ! j,b7 26 fe de 27 1!fg3 ! j,xg2 28 1!fg6+ 'it>d8 29 t'Llb5+ Itd6 30 @xg2 1 -0 Mednis Timman, Sombor 1 974. A crucial game, this, since it shows that Black's attack , even when pursued with the utmost vigour, is not as strong as White's. (c) 9 lOdeS (a familiar manoeuvre which here has the additional intent of exploiting the early placement of the white queen) 1 0 •..
...
...
80 6 . . . ltlc6; 6 . . . 1.e7
1.e2 ( 10 0-0-0 ltlxd4 I I 't!Vxd4 .td7 12 f4 ltlc6 13 'tib67 - 13 't!Vd2 b5 14 h4 ±: compare note b on Black's 8th move - 13 . . . 't!Vc8 14 f5 .te7 1 5 fe fe 1 6 .tf4 0-0 1 7 .txd6 .txg5+ 18 c;!;lb l llf7 + Kostina-Minogina, Moscow Women's Ch 1 978) 1 0 . . . 1.d7 I I ltlxc6 .txc67! 1 2 f4 ltld7 13 0-0-0 b5 1 4 .tf3 .te7 15 c;!;lb l 0-0 1 6 'tlrg2 lle8 1 7 h4 ltlb6 1 8 h5 and White's attack bites first, Vasyukov-Djurasevic, USSR v Yugoslavia 1 962. ltlxd4 0-0-0 10 Safer than 10 . . . b5 which allows White to draw the black queen onto the long diagonal with I I ltlxc6! Wxc6 1 2 .tg2. The game Gufeld-Tukmakov, USSR 1 97 1 , continued 1 2 . . . .te7 1 3 llhe l 0-0 (necessary, since White threatened to break open the centre with 1 4 ltld5 ! ; now, though, White switches to the kingside) 14 .td4 lle8 1 5 f4 1.b7 1 6 c;!;lb l ltlc5 1 7 f5 b4 1 8 ltle2 .tf8 1 9 ltlf4 llac8 20 g6 ± . The column is Hort-Andersson, Las Palmas 1973, which continued 1 1 •xd4 b5 1 2 h4 llb8 1 3 c;!;lb l b4 14 ltla4 .tb7 1 5 b3 (1 /9) Jl9
With his queenside now well defended White can turn his attention to his own attack on the kingside with every expectation of a successful conclusion. Al3 h4 9 The purpose of this flexible move is not so much to launch into an immediate kingside attack but, as with the move preceding it, to avoid the commitment to one particular piece fo rmation until Black declares his intentions. Of course, the move is a useful one anyway and White has nothing to lose by advancing the h-pawn so early, but it was only when Karpov linked in a subtle new strategic concept that the importance of the line was realised. 't!Vc7 9 9 .te7 will transpose to the main line after 10 't!Ve2 b5 I I 0-0-0 or to B lines after 10 llg l or 10 f4. Worth considering is 9 ltldeS I 0 f4 ltlxd4 I I .txd4 ltlc6 12 .te3 see note b3 to Black's 8th move. 10 We2 (120) ...
...
1 20 B
B
Karpov's idea, the cornerstone
6 . . . lbc6; 6
of a plan for energetic central action . The more conventional 1 0 f4 i s strong too: 1 0 . . . b5 I I lbxc6 ( l l f57 is premature I I . .. lbde5 12 .th3 lbxd4 1 3 .txd4 b4 14 lbe2 lbf3+ 15 cM2 lbxd4 16 lbxd4 e5 1 7 lbe2 .tb7 1 8 lbg3 d5 1 9 �g2 de 20 �h2 e3 21 ,tg2 litd8 0- l Rodriguez Tringov, Buenos Aires OL 1978) 1 1 ... 't!rxc6 1 2 a3 .tb7 13 '@d4!7 't!rc5 1 4 Wd2 'Wc7 15 0-0-0 J.c6 1 6 f5 lbe5 1 7 J.h3 J.d7 1 8 h5 a5 19 g6 ± and White went on to win with a direct attack in Alexandria Kozlovskaya, Tbilisi 1 979. 1 0 J.gl transposes to line A33. 10 bS 11 J.e7 0-0-0 1 2 ' lbxc6 ! This exchange is an important complement to White's strategy. The purpose of White's deployment of his queen on e2 is to open up possibilities of action on the e-file with lbd5 and the threat becomes more concrete with the black queen on c6. Wxc6 12 b4 (121) 1 3 .td4 -
121 w
. . .
J.e7 8 1
Naturally Black can refrain from provoking the ensuing sacrifice, but after 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 f4 lbc5 15 a3 J.b7 16 .tg2 the black queen is poorly placed on the long diagonal and White's kingside attack moves very fast, as the game Egin Zamansky, Uzbekhistan Ch 1977, illustrates: 1 6 ... litfc8 17 h5 a5 1 8 g6 b4 1 9 Wg4! e5 20 gf+ �xf7 2 1 fe be 22 lilhfl + �e8 23 .txc3 lbxe4 24 ed J,g5+ 25 �b I lbxc3+ 26 be 't!rb6+ 27 �a I J.f6 28 '@e6+ 'i!n8 29 lilxf6+ gf 30 Wxf6+ �g8 3 1 J.xb7 1 -0. ed 1 4 lbdS! lilg8 IS J.xg7 Wc7 16 ed 1 7 .tf6 lbeS de 18 .txeS 19 f4! White has two extra pawns for the piece and will soon win a third while maintaining a ferocious initiative. We are following the game Karpov-Dorfman, USSR Ch 1976, which continued 19 . . . J.f5 20 J.h3 (20 fe lieS 2 1 lith2 !7) 20 . . . J.xh3 2 1 lixh3 lilc8 22 fe '@c4 23 litdd3 '@f4+ 24 �b l litc4 25 d6 lite4 26 lithe3 lilxe3 27 litxe3 Wxh4 28 'tt'f3 ! '@xg5 ! 29 lie 1 '@g2 30 '@f5 litg6 3 1 lilfl \!fd5 32 de �xe7 33 'tt'f4 a5 34 't!Yh4+ �e8 35 't!Vxh7 '@f3 36 't!fh8 + �e7 37 't!fh4+ � 8 38 Wc4 ! Wb7 3 9 b3 ± a n d White went on to win on move 50. Al 8 lLldbS (122) This aggressive line deserves a place in the arsenal of every Keres
82 6 . . . �c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7
112 B
Attack player as it gives rise to positions with plenty of scope for imaginative attacking play. The move itself is not motivated merely by short term tactical considerations but has a logical strategic basis. The omission of the move . . . a6 by Black and the awkward station of his knight on d7 has resulted in a weakening of his d-pawn, albeit a temporary one. In similar positions White's attack would quickly ebb away, but here it is possible to sustain the initiative with repeated attacks on the black knights, which are forced to exposed squares in the centre, resulting in a further gain of space. All things considered this is a very difficult line for Black and consequently many players choose an alternative move order such as 6 . . . a6 7 g5 lbd7 8 .te3 lbc6 in order to avoid the possibility of its occurrence. 8 lbb6 8 . . . lbc5 is considered to be less accurate because of 9 .tf4 e5 (9 . . . �e5 !? 1 0 b4 �a6 1 1 a 3 .te7 1 2 h4 - 12 .tg3! 0-0 13/4 lbc6 14 h4 t -
1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 J.e3 lbc7 1 4 f4 lbxb5 15 �xb5 lbc6 16 J.g2 a6 1 7 lbd4 'flc7 1 8 0-0 lbxd4 19 J.xd4 f6 with approximately equal chances in Fatalivekova-Minogina, Nikolayev 1 978) 10 .te3 a6 1 1 J.xc5 de 1 2 "t!Vxd8+ �xd8 1 3 0-0-0+ �d4 ( 1 3 . . . J.d7? 1 4 �d5 ! ab 1 5 lbb6 litxa2 16 lilxd7+ �e8 17 J.xb5 ! ±± was Matsukevich-Yakovlyev, USSR 1 976) 14 lbxd4 ed 1 5 lbd5 t White's mobile kingside maj ority and the powerful knight on d5 are ample compensation for the bishop pair and he can break open the d-file with c3, exposing Black's king to further harassment. �e5 9 .tf4 This is the move currently accepted by theory but Black should consider 9 . . . e5, which may represent an improvement in his prospects: 1 0 .te3 .te6 ( 10 . . . a6? 1 1 .txb6! 'flxb6 1 2 lbd5 "t!Va5+ 13 b4 �xb4 1 4 lbbc7+ �d8 1 5 9d2 ±±; White also gains the advantage after 10 . . . .te7 1 1 h4 0-0 1 2 @d2 .te6 1 3 lbd5 lbc8 1 4 0-0-0 'fld7 1 5 .te2 .td8 1 6 lilhg 1 �h8 1 7 h5 ± Krasnov-Yakovlyev, Moscow 1 966) 1 1 lbd5 .txd5 1 2 ed lbe7 with an interesting position yet to be explored by theory. For example , 1 3 c4 ( 1 3 lbxa7 litxa7 1 4 .tb5+ lb d 7 1 5 .txa 7 9a5+) 1 3 . . . lbf5 1 4 9g4 ( 1 4 .txb6?! 9xb6 1 5 9a4+ 'i!ld8 1 6 .th3 g 6 and White has no way to increase the pressure) 14 . . . lbxe3 1 5 fe with some advantage. 1 0 9h5 (123)
6 . . . lbc6; 6 .. i.e7 83 .
123 B
White brings his queen out to a menacing position on the kingside while vacating the d 1 square so that his rook can increase the pressure on the d-file and thereby further embarrass Black's knight on e5. By con \ rast the simplistic 1 0 i.xe5? misses the mark completely: 10 . . . de 1 1 '@xd8+ 'it>xd8 12 0-0-0+ i.d7 1 3 lbd6 i.xd6 1 4 li[xd6 'it>e7 1 5 litd3 ( 1 5 litd2 h6 + Mestrovic Ciric, Belgrade 1 967) 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 litg3 hg 1 7 li xg5 'it;>f6 1 8 litg3 lith4 and the initiative passed to Black in Formanek-Polugayevsky, Lone Pine 1 978. 10 lbg6 (a) 10 ... a6? fails to I I 0-0-0 ! lbbc4 1 2 i.xc4 lbxc4 1 3 i.xd6 lbxd6 1 4 lbxd6+ i.xd6 1 5 e 5 . ( b ) White also comes o u t on top �fter 10 . . . g6 I I '@h3 i.d7 1 2 0-0-0 '@b8 1 3 '@g3 ! ± (the threat is 1 4 lbxd6+ i.xd6 1 5 lixd6 '@xd6 1 6 i.xe5 ±± ). (c) Rather more resilient is 1 0 ... i.d7 but with forceful play White can demonstrate his superiority : I I i.xe5 ! de ( l l . . . g6 1 2 i.xd6! ±±)
1 2 g6! a6! 1 3 gf+ 'it>e7 1 4 lba3 •c7 1 5 0-0-0 g6 1 6 "tlh4+ �xf7 1 7 lbc4 lbxc4 1 8 i.xc4 i.e7 1 9 •g3 ! ( 1 9 •g4 litad8 2 0 i.b3 i.c8 2 1 h 4 h5 22 •g3 with even chances in Plachetka-Ho rt , Luhacovice 1 973 -with the text move White avoids the loss of a tempo) 19 . . . litad8 20 i.b3 i.c8 2 1 h4 litxd 1 + 22 lbxd 1 ! , litd8 23 h5 g5 24 lbe3 h6 25 •g4 and Black can barely resist the infiltration of the white forces (the threat is 26 '@f5+), Szabo-Ivkov, H ilversum 1 973. 11 i.e3 1 1 i.xd6 i.xd6 12 li[d l 0-0 1 3 lbxd6 '@e7 gives Black compensation for the pawn ( Boleslavsky). ll a6 12 lbd4 i.d7 Fischer-Bukic, Skopje 1967, went instead 12 . . . lbeS 1 3 li[d 1 g6 1 4 '@e2 i. d 7 1 5 h 4 h6 1 6 i.g2 hg 1 7 i.xg5 ! i. e 7 1 8 f4 lbc6 1 9 i.xe7 '@xe7 20 � when White had increased his space advantage and preserved the initiative . Less active than the text is 1 2 . . . i.e7: 1 3 0-0-0 i. d 7 1 4 f4 h6 (this works out badly but the threat of f4-f5 is a very powerful one) 1 5 gh li[xh6 1 6 '@a5 ! li[h8 (the threat was 1 7 f5) 1 7 lbxe6 fe 18 i.xb6 '@c8 19 f5 ! and White quickly won in Gufeld-Kirov, Sochi 1 979. 13 lid1 (124) Caution is needed. The premature 13 f4 allows Black to gain a strong foothold in the centre after 1 3 . . . e5 ! ( 1 3 . . . h6? 1 4 gb li xh6 1 5 '@a5 ! and 1 3 . . . lbxf4 1 4 i.xf4 e5 1 5 i.e3
84 6 . . . li::J c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7
1 24
B
ed 1 6 J.xd4 leave White with a marked advantage) 1 4 fe ( 1 4 li::J f5 ltlxf4 1 5 J.xf4 ef + ) 1 4 . . . ltlxe5 1 5 J.e2 li::J b c4 1 6 .te l g6 1 7 1!Vh4 J.g7 with excellent counterplay, while if 13 0-0-0 Black gets the first blow in with 13 . . . liteS 14 f4 Itxc3 1 5 be '@c7 with a dangerous attack. The game Yuneyev-Nepomnashi in the Leningrad Ch 1978 continued 1 6 �d2 ( 1 6 'i&b l ltla4! =F - White's best chance may be 16 c4!? ltlxc4 17 .txc4 Wxc4) 16 . . . li::J a 4 17 li::J e 2 li::J b 2 18 li::J g 3?! ( 1 8 Itb l ltlc4+ =F) 18 . . . ltlxd 1 1 9 Wxd 1 d5 and Black already had a decisive advantage. Itc8 13 1 4 .th3!? This move has an anti positional look to it, giving up the c4 square and blocking the advance of the h-pawn, but there are several good points to recommend it. In the first place White is now prepared to get his king rapidly into safety so that after 14 . . . Itxc3?! 1 5 be '@c7 16 0-0 Black's exchange sacrifice looks dubious. Secondly, the bishop performs a useful function on h3, supporting the key advance f4-f5
and adding to the pressure on e6. Black's occupation of c4 is a slight annoyance but no more than that, since with White's rook already developed his bishop can drop back to c l without inhibiting the activity of any of his pieces. li::J c 4 14 bS IS .tel 16 0-0 b4 17 li::J c e2 (125) / 25 B
In this critical position, yet to be tested in practical play, the chances are very finely balanced, e.g. 1 7 . . . J.e7 ( 1 7 . . . '@a5 ! ? with the threat 1 8 . . . h6) 1 8 f4 h6 ( 1 8 . . . e5? 1 9 .txd7+ '@xd7 2 0 li::J f5 0-0 2 1 li::J x g7 ! xg7 2 2 f5 with a very promising attack, e.g. 22 . . . Itg8 22 . . . J.. d8? 23 '@h6+ �g8 24 li::Jg3! ±± or here 23 . . . 'i&h8 24fg ±± - 23 fg! fg 24 't!rh6+ 'i!lh8 25 Itf7 Wg4+ 26 fl ±±) 19 li::J x e6 ( 1 9 f5 hg 20 fe J.xe6) 1 9 . . . J.xe6 ( 1 9 . . . Wb6+ 20 li::J 6 d4 hg - 20 . . . J.. xh3 21 Wxh3 and Black 's rook on c8 is hanging 2 1 .txd7+ �xd7 22 '@g4+ c7 23 b3 li::J a 3 24 '@f5 ±) 20 J.xe6 hg 2 1 J.xf7+ xf7 22 fg+ J.f6 2 3 't!Vf3
6 . . . l0c6; 6 . . .te 7 85 .
and after White regains the piece Black will have to work hard to justify his material deficit. A3 8 .tg2 a6 (126)
9 0-0 .te7 1 0 h4 ( 1 0 lbxc6? bc 1 1 f4 e5 1 2 f5 h6 1 3 f6 gf 1 4 't!t'h5 lbf8 1 5 gh .te6 1 6 .th3 'ttd 7 1 7 .txe6 t:bxe6 + Mednis-Padevsky, Orense 1 973) 10 . . . h6 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 l0de2 b5 12 lbg3 .tb7 13 f4 followed by 14 f5 with good attack\ng prospects) 1 1 gh lbxd4 ( I I . . gh 1 2 lbxe6 fe 1 3 't!t'h5+ ct>f8 1 4 .txh6+ li xh6 1 5 'ttx h6+ ;!;) 1 2 'ttx d4 .tf6 1 3 'ttx d6 gh ( 1 3 . . . .te5 14 'ttd 3 't!t'h4 15 f4 .tc7 1 6 hg lig8 ;!;) 1 4 .tf4 .txh4 1 5 liad 1 .t e7 1 6 'ttd 4 lig8 1 7 e 5 .tc5 18 'ttd 2 b5 19 lbe4 'ttc 7 Y H � Radulov-Quinteros, Montilla 1 974, but after 20 .tg3 White is clearly better. A31 9 .te3 lOdeS The favoured resonse. Rather more passive is 9 . . . .te7 transposing to A 3 2 1 after 10 f4. 10 0-0 (127) .
This important position often arises from the move order 6 . . . a6 7 g5 t:bfd7 8 .tg2 lbc6 (see Chapter 4 for alterhative 8th moves for Black). Despite the frequency of its occurrence this line is very far from being completely mapped out, a fact which is largely due to the flexibility of both players' positions and the large number of transpositions which are possible. In broad perspective White's policy is to fo!low the by now familiar strategy of central restraint coupled with kingside action of one king or another (f4, h4). To counteract this Black will naturally assume the initiative on the other wing, but it will be noted that he is hampered by the placement of the white bishop on the long diagonal . A3 1 9 .te3 A32 9 f4 A33 9 h4
127 B
With his queen's bishop already developed the move 10 b3 (to prevent .. . lbc4) is desirable but questionable. The game S krobek Bonsch, Halle 1978, went 10 b3 'tWaS 1 1 lbde2 h6! 12 gh gh 13 f4 t:bg4 1 4 .tg 1 lig8 1 5 'ttd 2 .td7 1 6
86 6 . . . lll c6; 6 . . . J.e7
llla 4 lll f6 17 J.f3 lieS I S J.e3 d5 19 e5 lllb 4! 20 /04c3 lll g4 2 1 J.xg4 lixg4 with the better game for Black. 10 h6 gh ll 'tth 4 l 2 lll f3 ! lll x f3+ l 3 'ttx f3 g6 liad1 14 J.xh6 1 5 J.xh6 lixh6 h3 16 tOeS 17 'tte 3 gS! (128)
A3 i l 9 . . . J.e7 A322 9 . . . h6 A323 9 ... 'ttb 6 A321 9
J.e7 (129)
129 w
128 w
In this sharp position the chances are evenly balanced. We have been following the game Ubilava Anikayev, USSR 1 976, which went on I S f3 J.d7 19 'ttd 4 J.b5 20 lll x b5 ab 21 'ttx d6 'ttg 3 22 f4! lixh3 23 fe 'tth 2+ 24 �f2 'ttg 3+ �-� . A32 f4 9 Currently the most prom1smg continuation for White as neither of Black's most popular choices 9 . . . J.e7 and 9 . . . h6 seems to equalise fully. However, the more recent try 9 . . . 'ttb 6 is worthy of further investigation .
A position which commonly arises by transposition from 6 . . . a6 or 6 . . . J.e7 lines. Black's set-up is solid but rather passive and with active play White should maintain an advantage. 10 J.e3 0-0 h4 ll I I 'tth 5 is bad because rather than achieving anything constructive the queen gets in the way of White's attack: I I . . . lll xd4! 1 2 J.xd4 e5 1 3 J.e3 ef 1 4 J.xf4 lll e 5 1 5 lll d 5 J.e6 + Tringov-Lombard, Skopj e 1 972 - White faces difficulties getting his king to a safe spot ( 1 6 0-0-0? J.g4) and Black is ready to go into action on the queenside. ll lll x d4 Further delay in this simplifying measure will only add to Black's problems, e.g. I I . lieS 12 0-0 J.f8 1 3 'ttf3 ( 1 3 f5 ! starts the attack rolling at once) 1 3 . . . 'ttc 7 14 liad l libS 1 5 h5 lll xd4 1 6 J.xd4 b5 1 7 f5 .
.
6 . . . �c6,· 6 . . Ae7 8 7 .
�e5 1 8 •g3 ( ±) 1 8 . . . b4 19 �e2 �c6 20 Axg7! �g7 2 1 f6+ 'itlh8 22 �f4 �e5 23 1t'h4 Ab7 24 lild3 �xd3? 25 cd d5 26 'itlh 1 de 27 de Ad6 28 g 6 with a winning attack, M ed i na-Tringov, Skopje 1 972. 1 2 •xd4 bS (130) 130
w
Savon-Espig, Sukhumi 1972, continued' 13 h5?! (simply 13 0-0-0 gives White an excellent position as 13 . . . e5 fails to 14 @d5 ! followed by 1 5 f5 ±) 1 3 . . . b4! 14 Wxb4 lib8 15 Wd4 e5! 16 Wd2 ef 17 Axf4 llxb2 and White's position suddenly began to look rather exposed. A322 9 h6 (1 3 1)
that White maintains an edge nonetheless. b4 10 10 gh 111114 + . 10 bg lilxb 1 + 11 bg 12 Axb1 1ltb6 �cS 13 �1'3 14 1Wd2!
White needs to make preparations for fianchettoing the queen's bishop ( 1 4 b 3 is met by 1 4 . . . Wb4) as this is the most elegant solution to Black's pressure on the b-pawn. 14 Ad 7 a3 aS 15 0-0-0 16 b3 1 7 A b2 g6 18 0-0-0 (132)
13 1 w
Gheorghiu gives this move an exclamation mark, but it appears
R. Byrne-Penrose, Nice OL 1974. Black's position is cramped, while his d-pawn is rather exposed and the weakness of the dark squares on his kingside looks part ic ularly telling in view of White's strong bishop on b2. A323 't!rb6 9 It is a moot point whether the displacement of t he white knight
88
6 . . . lC.c6; 6 .
. .
J.e 7
effected by this move is a worthwhile gain for Black, as the option of exchanging on d4 is no longer open to him. In t he game Tringov Hulak, Zagreb 1 975, Black played 9 . .. 'ttc 7 and White voluntarily retreated t he piece with 10 lC.de2. After 10 . . . lC.b6 1 1 a3 J.d7 1 2 'ttd 3 lC.e7 1 3 b3 d5 1 4 J.b2 �0 1 5 0-� J.c6 1 6 'iPb 1 the game was about level. 1 0 lC. b3 Instead of this rather passive retreat White should consider 1 0 lC.f3 o r 1 0 lC.de2 s o that the knight can play a useful role on the kingside. The problem of guarding the b-pawn can then be handled by fianchettoing the queen's bishop as in the Byrne-Penrose game . 10 h 6 ! (133) 1 33
w
0-0-0
14 15
b5
lb b6 a3 lbbc4 16 h4 R. Byrne-Peters, USA Ch 1975. With White's f-pawn exchanged Black has excellent squares for his knights and can now generate a dangerous attack. A33 9 h4 (134) 134 B
9 tfc7 Black prepares for . . . b5. 9 .!Llxd4 1 0 'ttx d4 b5 is premature on account of 1 1 a4 ! e.g. 1 1 . . . e5 1 2 'ttd l ba 1 3 f4 ( 1 3 0-0 ± ) 1 3 . . . J.b7 14 f5 (!) 14 . . . lieS 1 5 0-0 a3 ( 1 5 . . . lbb6 1 6 lbxa4 d 5 1 7 e d J.xd5 1 8 J.xd5 lbxd5 1 9 tfe2 ± ) 1 6 lixa3 d5 17 lib3! lbc5 1 8 lixb7 .!Llxb7 1 9 lbxd5 ± Razuvayev-Ree, Amster dam I 1 975. For 9 J.e7 1 0 J.e3 see line B32 h5 lOdeS 10 lbxd4 f4 11 lb c6 1 2 tfxd4 13 tff2 b5 14 J.e3 lib8 15 lba5 (135) 0 0 0 ...
An improvement on 1 0 . . . J.e7 1 1 'tte 2 'ttc 7 1 2 J.e3 b5 1 3 0-0-0 J.b7 14 h4 b4 1 5 lC.d5 ! t Andersson Kuijpers, Wijk aan Zee 1 97 1 . Now, of course, on 1 1 h4 Black has I I ... hg 1 2 hg lixh 1 + 13 J.xh l 'ttg 1 + . 1 1 'tte 2 hg 12 J.e3 'ttc 7 13 fg lbce5
••.
-
-
6 . . . lll c6; 6 . . . J.e7 89 135
w
Tal-Malich; Halle 1 974. In this interesting position the chances are roughly level. Characteristically White now began a typical piece of rough house stuff with 1 6 e5 d5 17 .i.xd5!? b4! 18 lll e4 ed 1 9 lll d 6+ .i.xd6 20 ed 't!Vc6 ! 2 1 f5 0-0 22 f6! b3! 23 ab lll x b3+ 24 'Ctb 1 't!Va4 25 cb 't!Ve4+ 26 'Cta2 I!b5 (26 . . . d4! ) 2 7 .i.c5 ! d4! 2 8 't!Vxd4 't!Vc2 2 9 't!Vc4 't!Vxc4 30 be I!xc5 3 1 d7 .i.xd7 32 I!xd7 and the game shortly petered out into a draw. B .i.e 7 6 lll fd7 (136) 7 gS 136
w
lines as many transpositions are possible. It is also difficult to discern what advantage Black hopes to gain that will offset the drawbacks of committing his bishop so early on in the game. It may be argued that the idea is to force White to declare his intentions on the kingside at an early stage. In fact Black's attack on the g-pawn is something of an illusion since White may ignore the threat and go on developing normally: 8 J.e3 .i.xg5? 9 lll x e6 ! fe 10 't!Vh5+ ± etc. White's possibilities are: B 1 8 J.e3 B2 8 lig 1 B3 8 h4 81 lll c6 8 .i.e3 A position closely associated with those arising from 6 . . . lll c 6 7 g5 lll d 7 8 .i.e3 lines. f4 9 9 't!rhS? g6 1 0 't!Vd 1 .i.xg5 1 1 .i.xg5 't!Vxg5 1 2 lll x c6 be 1 3 't!Vxd6 I!b8 1 4 h4 't!Vc5 1 5 0-0-0 't!Vxf2 + Pietzsch-Ciric, Sarajevo 1 966. 9 a6 10 h4 (1 3 7) 137 B
It is difficult to separate into distinct classes the positions which can arise from this and 6 . . . lll c 6
90 6 . . . ltl c6; 6 . . . J.e 7 An important position which often arises via the B3 move order 8 h4 ltlc6 9 J.e 3 a6 10 f4. Less exact is the immediate 10 1!fd2. After 1 0 . . . ltlxd4 1 1 J.xd4 0-0 1 2 .*.g2 lle8 1 3 0-0-0 ltlb6 14 '@e 2 '@c7 15 lld3 e 5 1 6 J.xb6
'@xb6 1 7 J.h3 ef 1 8 .txc8 llxc8 Black had equ al i s ed in Minic Udovcic, Zagreb 1 965. Black must choose now between 10 . . . 0-0 (risky), 10 . . . '@c7 and the promising 10 . . . h6(!).
B 1 1 10 ... 0-0 B l 2 1 0 . . 1!fc7 B l 3 10 . . . h6(!) B11 0-0 10 11 J.h3 With this move White aims for i mmediate pressure on the e6 square coupled with the advance f4-f5 , but 1 1 J.g2, transposing to line A32 1 , also promises excellent chances. Less energetic is the move 11 .tel: 1 1 . . . llb8 1 2 '@d2 ltlxd4 1 3 1!fxd4 b5 14 a3 lle8 1 5 0-0 J.b7 1 6 llad l (!) 1 6 . . . .*.c6 1 7 f5?! d5 1 8 fe fe 1 9 ed ed 20 1!ff4 .*.c5 2 1 J.xc5 ltlxc5 22 J.h5 't!Vb6 23 't!rf7+ 'lt>h8 24 'Cth2 d4! 25 llxd4 ltle6 26 lldd l b4 ! =F S metana-Gross , Czech Team Ch 1 977/78. ltl xd4 11 1 1 . . . 't!ra5 1 2 0-0 ltlxd4 13 't!rxd4 d5? (this plan misfires , but with f5 coming Black badly needs counterplay) 14 ed .ic5 1 5 't!rd3 ed 16 'lt>h2 J.xe3 1 7 1!Vxe3 ltlb6 1 8 .ig2 and Black's isolated d-pawn
proved a decisive liability in the game Kurajica-Eising, Solingen
1974.
12 13 14
1!fxd4 0-0-0 fS (138)
bS llb8
138 B
.
White's attack has now reached very dangerous proportions and Black will be hard put to it to avoid being swamped. The game Kostro Baumagartner, Corres 1 975, went 14 . . . ltle5 1 5 'Ctb l b4 1 6 ltle2 ltlf3? ! 1 7 't!rc4 ef 1 8 ef J.b7 1 9 't!rf4 ± . Bl2 10 't!rc7 More active than 10 . . . 0-0. Black takes steps to initiate a queenside attack before committing the king. 11 .ih3 (139) Probably the best move in the position, aiming at e6 and preparing the advance of the f-pawn. White can, however, afford to take things at a more leisurely pace, as the game Ciric-Kapelan, Yugoslavia 1 979, illustrates: 1 1 't!rd2 b5 12 a3 .ib7 13 J.g2 t:ba5?! ( 1 3 . . . ltlxd4 14 .ixd4 e5 15 .ie3 ef 16 .ixf4. t:be5
6 . . . llJc6; 6 . . . .te 7 91
139
B
gives Black far better chances of achievi ng equality) 1 4 b3 lieS 1 5 lhde2 0-0 (as Black is subsequently unable to make further progress on the queenside consideration should be given to the sharp 1 5 . . . d 5 ! ? 1 6 e d b4 ! ) 1 6 0-0 l::t fd8?! 1 7 f5 .tf8 1 8 fe fe 1 9 .th3 ( ±) 1 9 . . . :es 20 h5! lhc5?! 2 1 lif4 llJaxb3 22 cb llJxb3 23 't!Va2 lhxa l 24 .txe6+ ! :xe6 25 't!Vxe6+ �h8 26 l:[f7 't!Vc6 27 't!Vf5 �g8 28 llJd5 1-0. lhc5 11 I I . . . b5? allows 12 .txe6 fe 1 3 lhxe6 't!Va5 1 4 lhxg7+ with three pawns and an attack for the piece. f5 b5 12 lhxd4 a3 13 The only way to relieve some of the pressure on e6. On 1 3 . . . lhe5 White can continue with 14 h5 and 1 5 g6 or more simply 1 4 fe fe 1 5 0-0 preventing Black from castling and preparing 1 6 b4 and/or llJce2-f4. e5 14 't!Vxd4 1 5 llJd5! (140) White has successfully weakened the d5 square and now has a substantial positional advantage. We have been following the game
Alexandria-Kozlovskaya, _Rio de Janeiro (Women's IZ) 1 979, which White concluded forcefully as follows: 1 5 . . . 't!Vd8 16 't!Vc3 .tb7 1 7 .txc5 .txd5 1 8 0-0-0 ! .tb7 ( 1 8 . . . .txe4 1 9 ];[be l 't!Vc7 20 :xe4 't!Vxc5 2 1 't!Vxc5 de 22 :xe5 ±±) 19 f6! gf 20 gf 't!Vc7 (20 . . . .tf8 2 1 't!Vf3 ±±) 2 1 fe '@xc5 22 '@f3 '@c4 23 Wf6 .txe4 24 .td7+! 'iPxd7 25 't!Vxd6+ �c8 26 't!Vd8 + �b7 27 lid7+ 1-0. 813 10 h6(!) Rather than sitting back passively awaiting the attack Black takes an active hand in trying to break up White's pawn phalanx before it becomes too dangerous. 11 't!Vf3 (1 41)
92 6 . . . liJ c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7
I n this way White ensures his possession of the h-file, but at the cost of permitting a reduction in his attacking potential. 1 1 .i.h3 should be considered, though it is not clear how White can improve on 1 1 . . . liJxd4 1 2 .i.xd4 h g 1 3 h g e 5 1 4 .i.d7+ 'Ctxd7 1 5 lilxh8 't!Vxh 8 16 .i.xe5 't!Vh l + 1 7 f2 Wh2+ with a draw by perpetual check. ll liJxd4 1 2 .i.xd4 hg 13 hg lixh1 1 4 't!Vxh 1 eS 1 5 .i.f2 ef .i.xgS 16 0-0-0 1 7 't!Vh8+ {j)f8 1 8 liJdS White has plenty of compensation for the sacrificed pawns, but Black's defensive resources are probably adequate. The game Belyavsky-Vogt, Leningrad 1 977, continued 18 ... .i.e6 1 9 .i.b6 \!Vc8 20 \!Vxg7 .i.xd5 2 1 ed \!Vf5 22 lie 1 + .i.e7 23 Wd4 lilc8 24 .i.d3 't!Vg5 with an unclear position. B2 8 lilg1 (142)
This is a popular treatment of the line. White foregoes the possibility of kingside castling in order to enhance his attacking prospects. Not only does the rook provide support for the pawn phalanx, it also introduces, in this variation where Black usually castles early on, the idea of a direct attack along the h-file with l::t g3-h3. Once again Black must decide whether to advance immediately on the queenside with 8 . . . a6 and . . . b5 or more cautiously continue the pattern of simple development with 8 . . . liJc6 . B2 1 8 . . . �-6 B22 8 . . . liJc6 B21 8 a6 9 .i.e3 bS 10 a3 10 't!Vd2 .i.b7 1 1 .i.d3?! liJc5 1 2 f3 liJbd7 1 3 0-0-0 b4 1 4 liJce2 d 5 + was Neikirch-Malich, Zinnowitz 1 967 . 10 .i. b 7 ( 143) This line occurs less commonly than B22 for the reason that White usually delays l::t g l until Black
1 42
143
B
w
6 . . . li:lc6,· 6 . .te 7 93 . .
plays . . . lbc6 (e.g. 8 .te3 lbc6 9 l::tg l ) and so there is relatively little data with which to form an opinion as to what is White's best continuation. Clearly, though, a comparison with the 6 . . . a6 line is in order (the reader is referred to Chapter 4, lines A 1 1 1 and A 1 22) and this would indicate that the interpolation of the moves . . . .te7 and lilg l is not favourable to Black: the quiet development of the king's bishop seems at odds with his very active play on the other flank. On the basis of such a comparison the most likely looking candidates are l l h4 followed by h S , when in contrast to line A 1 22 of Chapter 4 Black no longer has the useful defel)sive plan of . . . g6 and . . . .tg7, and 1 1 f4, which we take as our main line . 11 f4 (a) 1 1 1!rh5?! (it seems pointless to provoke . . . g6 which cuts out the possibility of gS-g6 at the cost of a tempo) 1 1 . . g6 1 2 't!Vh6?! .tf8 1 3 'Wh4 li:lcS 1 4 .tg2 li:lbd7 l S 0-0-0 Haag-Bukic, Pech 1 968, and now the active IS . . . '@aS is in order with good chances for Black. (b) 1 1 '@d2 li:lc6 (Black's best bet must surely be I I . . . li:lb6, following the plan of A l 2 1 Chapter 4) 1 2 li:lxc6 .txc6 1 3 0-0-0 1Wb 8 1 4 f4 li:lcS l S fS with the initiative, Vayrynen-Valtavaara, Corres 1 978 - see A l 22 Chapter 4, note to White's 1 1 th move. (c) 1 1 h4!? li:lcS (on 1 1 . . . li:lb6 1 2 h S g 6 White has 1 3 lih 1 ! li f8 - 13 .
J.xg5 14 hg ±± - 14 hg hg 15 1lrg4 ±) 1 2 f3 ( 1 2 @g4! should be considered - see A l l l Chapter 4) 1 2 . . . li:lc6 13 li:lxc6 .txc6 1 4 @d4 0-0 lS 0-0-0
1Wb8 1 6 hS aS and Black's attack is no less dangerous than White's, Matulovic-Padevsky, Lugano OL 1 968. 11 0-0 l 2 't!VhS! g6 1 3 't!Vh4 li:lc6 14 0-0-0 lile8 15 fS .tf8 fe 16 fe 1 7 .th3 (144)
Black's position is now critical, Ciocaltea-Padevsky, Smederevska Palanka 1 97 1 . B22 li:lc6 8 It is conceivable that Black should choose the 6 . . . .te7 move order to entice White's lilgl rather than going via 6 . . . li:lc6 which allows other possibilities. Be that as it may, practice indicates that the lines arising from the position in diagram l 4S tend to favour White. 9 .te3 a6 (145)
94 6 . . . lll c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7
8221
1 45 w
This move is interchangeable with 9 . . . 0-0. Black will probably find that both are necessary sooner or later. Mter 9 . . . ltlb6 White should take care to discourage the intended . . . d 5 break: 1 0 J.b5 J.d7 1 1 "t!Vh5 g6 12 'tte2 l:[cS 13 O-O-O O-O Gheorghiu Najdorf, Havana OL 1 966, and now 1 4 t:bxc6 be 1 5 J.a6 l:[bS 1 6 f4 with advantage to White. White now has: B22 1 1 0 h4 8222 10 'ttd 2 8223 10 Wh5 Theory has so far rather neglected 10 f4 for no particular reason other than that White has promising alternatives: 10 f4 0-0 1 1 J.e2 ( l l 11t'f3?! t:bxd4 1 2 J.xd4 e5 1 3 J.e3 ef 1 4 'ttxf4 t:be5 15 0-0-0 J.e6 R.Byrne-Padevsky, Lugano O L 1 96S) 1 1 . . . li e S 1 2 'ttd 2 t:bxd4 1 3 J.xd4 b5 1 4 a3 J.b7 1 5 f5 t:b e 5 1 6 0-0-0 (t) 'tta 5 1 7 f6 J.f8 l S 'tte 3 llacS 1 9 'ttf2 'ttc 7 20 lid2 J.c6 2 1 h4 'ttb 7 22 h 5 ! J.xe4 2 3 J.xe5 de 24 t:bxe4 'ttxe4 25 g6 and White had a prodigious attack in Balashov Spassky, Manila 1 976.
0-0 h4 10 In Kagan-Petrosian, Rio de Janeiro IZ 1 979, Black speculated with the early decentralisation 1 0 . . . t:b a 5 which worked o u t well after some flaccid play by White: 1 1 'ttd 2 ( 1 1 h5! llJe5 - 11 . . . g6 12 lih 1! lif8 13 hg hg ± - 1 2 f4 llJec6 - 12 . . . tbec4 13 .i.cl with the threat of 14 b4 and !J/ack' s knights look rather silly - 1 3 'ttd 2 followed by 14 0-0-0 and f5 or g6) 1 1 . . . 'ttc 7 12 0-0-0 g6 13 f4 b5 1 4 f5 llJe5 1 5 'ttf2 t:bac4 1 6 J.xc4 llJxc4 1 7 li[gfl 0-0 ( ) lS f6?! J.dS 19 h5 b4 20 t:bce2 e5 2 1 llJb3 J.g4 22 hg fg 23 �b l l:[cS 24 lic l a5 25 c3 'ttb 7 26 t:bg3 a4 27 llJa 1 J.e6 2S cb 'ttx b4 29 b3 ab 30 t:bxb3 liaS 0- l . 11 hS t:b deS (1 46) =
1 46 w
=
There is little to choose between this and the immediate capture on d4: 1 1 . . . t:bxd4 1 2 'ttx d4 ( 1 2 J.xd4 t:be5 1 3 f4 t:bc6 trans poses to the main line) 12 . . . llJe5 1 3 J.e2 t:bc6 1 4 'ttd 2 b5 15 f4 ( 1 5 a3 'tta 5 16 f4 b4 1 7 llJa2, Bronstein-Jansa , Vrsac
6 . . . ltlc6: 6 . . .te l 95 .
1 979, and now instead of 1 7 . . . dS? simply 1 7 . . . ba) 1 5 . . . •as 1 6 .tf3 .tb7 1 7 ltle2! ? (the execution of White's kingside attack is hampered by 1 7 g6 .th4+ , and on 1 7 0-0-0 there comes 1 7 . . . b4) 1 7 . . . lilacS !? 1 8 c3 b4 1 9 � with approximately even chances, Matulovic-Vilela, Sombor 1 978. 1 2 lilxc6 This allows Black to consider the recapture 12 . . be 13 f4 lild7, so the best move order for White is probably 12 f4 lilxd4 1 3 .txd4 �c6 14 .te3 transposing to the text. lilxc6 12 f4 13 In the game Timoshchenko Grigorian, USSR First L Ch 1 979, White played 13 @g4 ! ? when in view of the strong threat of g6 Black decided on the tactical thrust 1 3 . . . d5?! The game continued 1 4 0-0-0 d 4 1 5 e 5 ! lilxe5 1 6 't!re4 lilc6 17 .txd4 lilxd4 18 Ilxd4 •a5 1 9 �d5 ! e d 2 0 't!rxe7 .te6 2 1 g6 ( ± ) 2 1 . . . 'tire 1 + 2 2 lt d 1 't!re5 2 3 gh+ 'C&h8 24 Ilxd5 ! ! 't!rf4+ (24 . . . 't!rxd5 25 h6 't!Vd4 26 hg+ •xg7 27 llxg7 'C&xg7 28 .td3 ±±) 25 lld2 Ilad8 26 'frg5 'tWxd2+ 27 'frxd2 Ilxd2 28 'C&xd2 �h 7 29 Ilg3 llc8 30 a4 and White went on to win. 13 b5 1 4 'iff3?! Kasparov suggests 1 4 .td3 .tb7 15 'frg4! which clearly improves White's prospects. 14 .tb7 1 5 .td3 lilb4 (14 7) .
147 w
1 5 . . b4?! would provoke 1 6 lild5 ! e d 1 7 e d lila7 1 8 •e4 g 6 1 9 h g h g 2 0 0-0-0 with more than enough for the piece. The text move is the standard procedure in this type of position, preparing to exchange off the potentially useful bishop on d3 and preparing for an eventual ... dS when circumstances permit. If in this position the white queen stood on g4 instead of f3 (see note to White's 1 4th move) he could continue with 16 f5 and on 16 . . . ef recapture with the pawn, 17 ef, threatening an outright win with 18 f6, e.g. 17 . . . lilxd3+ 18 cd Ile8 19 0-0-0 .tf8 20 .td4 and Black is about to go under. f5 ef 16 lilxd3+ 17 't!rxf5 18 cd •c8 ! Ile8! h6! 19 1 9 . . . g6 20 lild5 ± . 20 hg 't!rxf5 21 ef .txg5 Ilxe3+ 22 l hg5 no 23 ct>d2 Black has sufficient counterplay to hold the balance. We have been .
·
96 6 . . . li:J c6; 6 . . . j.e7
following Kasparov-Polugayevsky, USSR 1 979, which continued 24 li:Je4 j.xe4 25 de l1e8?! (25 . . . f6 26 l1h5 lia7 27 Ilc l ) 26 lic l d5?! 27 e5! h6 28 lih5 lixe5? (28 ... rtixg7 29 lig 1 + 'C&h7 30 f6 lig8 3 1 :axh6+ ;!;) 29 f6 ! lif2+ 30 �3 lif3+ 3 1 �d4 lie4+ 3 2 c;!.>xd5 lieS 3 3 lixh6 lif5+ 34 �4 lif4+ 35 c;!,>c5 lie5+ 36 c;!.>b6 lie6+ 37 lic6 1 -0 (notes by Kasparov). B222 0-0 1 0 'iid 2 li:Jxd4 0-0-0 11 On 1 1 ... li:Jde5 White has 12 lig3, a characteristic move in this line preparing to transfer the attack to the h-file, e.g. 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 li:Jxc6 li:Jxc6 14 f4 't!ra5 1 5 'tWf2 lib8 1 6 c;!.>b 1 b 4 1 7 li:Je2 ± Stein-Ciric, Sarajevo 1 967. b5 1 2 j.xd4 13 a3 (148) =
13 j.b7 lieS 14 :1Ig3 lieS 15 c;!.>b1 li:Jb6 16 h4 li:Jc4 h5 17 li xc4 1 8 j.xc4 fg 19 g6 h6 20 hg Shamkovich- H . Olafsson, Lone Pine 1 979. Despite his logical play Black's position is now rather precarious. White should now proceed with the sacrificial 2 1 lih 1 j_f8 2 2 :1Ixh6! g h 2 3 g 7 @h4 24 gft!l+ ct>xf8 25 j_g7+ e7 26 j.xh6 with a ferocious attack. B223 1 0 't!rh5 White's most aggressive and currently most promising continu ation. The idea is to set up an attack on the h-flle with lig3-h3, provoking the weakening . . . g6 which presents a useful target for an f4-f5 or h4-h5 thrust. 19 0-0 lieS 11 0-0-0 12 :1Ig3 (149) /49 B
White dispensed with this move in the game Schonberg-Tukmakov, Zinnowitz 1 967, and got a winning attack after 13 f4 b4 14 �a4 e5? 1 5 j.e 3 e f 1 6 j.f4 't!ra5 1 7 j.xd6! j.xd6 18 't!rxd6 't!rxa4 1 9 j.c4 '@a5 20 g6.
The most direct, but other approaches are worth consideration:
6 ... l0c6; 6 . . . A.e 7 97
(a) 12 f4 g6 1 3 '@'h4 .tf8 1 4 1Wf2! t'Llxd4 15 i.xd4 b5 (the thematic 1 5 . . . e5 fails to 1 6 fe l0xe5 - or 16 . . . de 1 7 i.c4! ±± - 1 7 i.b6 followed by 1 8 l0d5 ±±) 16 f5 and White has already developed con siderable pressure, Espig-Adamski, Lublin 1 970. (b) 12 �b1 i.f8 1 3 llg3 g6 1 4 '@h4 i.g7 1 5 f4 h5?! 1 6 i.e2 '@a5 1 7 l0b3 '@c7 1 8 i.xh 5 ! l0e7 ( 1 8 . . . gh 19 '@xh5 and Black will not survive an attack based on f5-f6 followed by llh3) 1 9 i.g4 t'Llf8 20 llh3 ±± Ermenkov-Jansa, Tito Uzice 1 978. 12 g6 1 3 't!re2 i.fS 14 �b1 '@c7 l0xd4 h4 15 b5 1 6 ' i.xd4 17 h5 (150)
24 ... A.xd4 25 Ilxd4 ..g7 26 Ild l i.c6 27 Ild6 i.d7 28 Ilgd3 and White went on to win on move 42. B3 h4 8 An elastic move, possibly without much independent significance, but which can serve as a useful introduction to earlier lines. a6 8 9 i. e3 (151)
/50
Premature is 9 i.h3 l0b6! (9 . t'Lle5?! 1 0 f4 l0ec6 1 1 f5 0-0 1 2 i.e3 t'Llxd4 1 3 '@xd4 l0c6 14 't!rd2 b5 1 5 '@g2 lle8 1 6 0-0-0 ± Ljubojevil: Larsen, London 1 980) 10 f4 d5 1 1 f5 e5 ( 1 1 . . . de? 12 fe 0-0 1 3 l0xe4 ± Planinc-S. Garcia, Varna 1 970) 1 2 l0f3 d4 with unclear p1ay. From the position shown in the diagram Black has: B3 1 9 . . . b5 B32 9 . . . t'Llc6 B31 b5 9 This move gives rise to positions bearing a close affinity with those discussed in line B2 1 and the A 1 lines of Chapter 4, to which the reader should refer .
B
We are following the game van Riemsdijk-Najdorf, Sao Paolo 1 978. White has a well developed and powerful kingside attack which Black can buy off only at a considerable positional cost. The sequel was 1 7 . . . b4 1 8 l0a4 i.b7 19 hg fg 20 b3 d5?! 2 1 ed i.xd5 22 i.h3 l0c5 23 t'Llxc5 i.xc5 24 c4! ( ±)
/51 B
.
.
98 6 . . . /Dc6; 6 . . . J..e 7
10 f4 White need not fear the advance of the b-pawn but in any case 10 a3 is quite a natural move to consider, after which 10 . . . J.b7 1 1 ..d2 transposes to A l l 2 Chapter 4 while 1 1 lilg 1 is line B 2 l 10 b4 J.b7 1 1 /D eel 12 /D g 3 'D eS 13 J.gl 'Dbd7 14 ..el ! (152) .
was now quickly overrun on the kingside: 22 /Dd2 /Da4 23 lilc2 lilb8 24 f6! gf 25 'DfS ..d8 26 @hS
152 B
Black's pressure on the centre has reached its peak and can be intensified no further. White now proceeds t o make further progress by opening lines on the queenside, nullifying · his opponent's early gain in space th e re . 14 't!te7 ba a3! 15 �b6 16 lixa3 �ed7 17 e4 ± lieS 18 lie3 0-0 19 0-0 20 f5 e5 21 /Df3 a5 Horvath-Kovacevic , Virovitica 1977. Black has failed to make any impression on White's centre and
This is a position of considerable importance which can arise from a number of different move orders. There is a wide choice of plans available to both sides and there are many transpositions which can occur. 10 't!te2 transposes to A 1 3, 1 0 f4 is a common method of reaching line B 1 , while 10 lilg l is covered in B2. Here we are concerned chiefly with the move 10 \!ldl As always the possibility of fianchettoing the king's bishop is open to White, maintaining the maximum support for the centre prior to a further build-up on the kingside , e.g. 10 J.g2 0-0 1 1 !fe2 ( 1 1 f4 is A32 1 ) 1 1 . . . �xd4 1 2 J.xd4 e5?! 1 3 J.e3 -�b6 1 4 0-0-0 J.e6 1 5 J.h3 lieS 1 6 g6 ! hg 1 7 J.xe6 fe 1 8 lidg 1 <3Jf7 1 9 !fg4 J.f6
6 . . ltlc6: 6 . . . A.e7 99 .
20 1txg6+ rt;e7 2 1 h5 lilh8 22 h6 gh 23 ll xh6 lilxh6 24 1lt'xh6 ltl d7 25 lig7+ 1 -0 Tarjan-Naranja, Manila 1977. 10 0-0 11 ltlxd4 0-0-0 1 2 1i'xd4 b5 lib8 (154) 13 lig1 /54 w
Donchenko, USSR 1 970. 14 b4 h5 15 ltle2 In Pokojowczyk-Timoshchenko, Polanica Zdroj 1 979, White con tinued over-optimistically with 1 5 ltld5?! ed 1 6 h6 lt!e5 1 7 f4 1i'c7 ! 1 8 ed ( 1 8 fe de 1 9 1i'xd5 g6 �) 1 8 . . . j.f5 1 9 lig2 lifc8 2 0 lidd2 b3 2 1 ab lixb3 22 � 1 .tf6 23 c b 1i'c l + 24 rt;e2 ltlf3 and Black quickly won. 15 e5 t'Llc5!? 16 'it'c4!? 17 .txc5 !Vc7 de 1 8 ltld4! 1 8 . ed? 19 .txd4 ± . .te6 1 9 ltlf5 20 lidS ! The foregoing series o f inventive moves culminating in this exchange sacrifice is due to Timoshchenko, who assesses the position as unclear. . .
Directe>d towards the advance . b4. 1 3 . . . .tb7 14 h5 e5 1 5 1i'd2 g6 16 hg fg 1 7 ltld5 ± was Gufeld. .
Index of Complete Games Alexander-Lundholm Alexandria-Bela venets Alexandria-Kozlovskaya Belyavsky-Ghinda Ciocaltea-U ngureanu Ciric-Kapelan Egin-Zamansky Faibisovich- Korelov Fernandez-Vi lela Horvath-Kovacevic Hulak-Cvetkovic Kagan-Petrosian Karpov-Spassky Kasparov-Polugayevsky Keres-Bogoljubow Kinlay-Pritchett Kinlay-Wells Krnic-Ostojic
62 24 91 46 41 91 81 72 77 98 65 94 47 96 1 31 50 65
Mednis-Tim man Mednis-Fernandez Morris- Formanek Perenyi-Barczay Perenyi-Schneider Pokojowczyk-Adamski Radulov-Quinteros Razuvayev-Commons Rigo-Barczay Rodriguez-Tringov Savareide-Markovic Sax-Gheorghiu Tarjan-Naranj a Thornally-Commons Tseshkovsky-Anikayev Ubilava-Anikayev Vasyukov-Modr
79 29 24 43 57 24 85 33 57 81 67 43 98 66 30 86 64
Index of Variations 1 e 4 c 5 2 �f3 e 6 3 d 4 c d 4 li:\xd4 �f6 5 li:\c3 d 6 6 g4: 6 . . . d5 6 . . . e5
6
•••
h6
15 7 �f5 7 i.b5+
16 17
7 g5 hg 8 i.xg 5 : 8
. ..
8 ...
7 i.g2 :
7 ...
7 ...
a6
9 "t!Vd2 b5 �c6 : 9 "t!Vd2 a6 9 "t!Vd2 "t!Vb6 9 h4 9 i.g2 a6
7 ...
�c6 :
8
h4 i.e3
44 47
8
h4
53 54
8
7 . . . i.e7 :
8 i.e3
6 . . . a6 7 g5 li:lfd7
8 i. e 3 b5
9
23 26 33 35 37 38 43
�c6 7 i.e3 a6 8 "t!Vf3 !? 7 l:i: g l :
21
a3 i. b 7 :
l O l:i: g l
l O "t!Vd2
l O "t!Vg4 l O f4 l O h4!
57 58 59 60 60
102 Index of Variations 8 i.e3 b5 9 a3 ll:lb6:
8 8
8 8 8 8
1 0 'ifd2 10 llg l 1 0 f4 10 h4! i.e3 b5 9 f4 i.e3 b5 9 a4 llg l i.g2 i.c4 a4
62 63 64 65
67 67 68 69 72 73
6 ... t'Llc6 7 g5 t'Lld7 8 i.e 3 a6: 9 llg l 9 't!Vd2 9 h4
77 78 79 80
9 i.e3 9 f4 9 h4
84
8 ll:lbd5 8 i.g2 a6:
6 . . . i.e7 7 g5 t'Llfd7 8 i.e3 t'Llc6 9 f4 a6 1 0 h4: 1 0 . . . 0-0 10 . . 't!Vc7 10 . . h6 8 llg l a6 8 llg l t'Llc6 9 i.e3 a6: 10 h4 1 0 't!Vd2 10 't!Vh 5 8 h4 a6 9 i.e3: 9 . . b5 9 ll:lc6 .
.
.
. . .
85
87
89 89 90 9/ 93 95 95
96 97
