To Dominic and Jane

An Opening Repertoire for White

RAYMOND KEENE International Grandmaster

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

Symbols and Abbreviations

+

++

!! '! ?'! !? ?! 1-0 0-1 �-� = ;!; + ± + ±± H 0-0 0-0-0 IM GM IQP

check double check good move outstanding move weak mov� blunder interesting move risky/dubious move White win Black win drawn game the position is equal or balanced White/Black has a slight advantage White/Black has a clear advantage White/Black has a winning advantage castles (kingside) castles (queenside) International Master Grandmaster isolated queen's pawn

Prologue

This book is an arsenal providing essential ammunition in hand for all White players who wish to open with I d4. The outst feature is its intention of reducing the areas of conflict to tho which the·reader is familiar and, therefore, competent and confi handle.

I t would be wrong to claim that the variations examined confer advantage on White, but the systems presented here all confor basic solid but aggressive style. I t is my belief that a reader who is in tune with the patterns displayed in this book will feel happy v

l ines I have recommended and will, therefore, score more poin An Opening Repertoire for White (OR W) is the companion vol

An Upt•ning Repertoire for the Allackmg Playu(URAP) by Keene ar which performs a similar function for openings commencing wi1

Raymond Keene

Note on Algebraic Notation

The notation used in this book is algebraic, the only type approved by FIDE, the World Chess Federation and the governing body of international chess. If you can understand a London A-Z guide or a Manhattan street map you will have absolutely no problems in comprehending algebraic notation, which is more economical and less prone to ambiguity than the alternative and outmoded descriptive variety.

A brief examination of the following diagram will immediately clear up any possible confusion concerning the application of algebraic notation.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I

a b c d e f g h

Introduction

The aim of this book is to provide a complete repertoire for the White player, based on the move I d4. In analysing the material I have chosen to develop from I d4, I have maintained several crucial principles: one main line is demonstrated for White against all of the major Black defences which the White player is likely to meet in competition; the mai n lines selected are sound but aggressive and do not rely on memorisation of long tactical variations and sub-variations. In several cases, they embody newly elaborated, relatively unexplored ideas which allow plenty of scope for individual creative contribution on the part of the reader. Furthermore, I have based each suggested l ine on annotated il lustrative games, so that the strategies outlined and attacking methods proposed can be fully absorbed, right up until the endgame phase.

Advantages of a Repertoire There is no need to feel concern at l imiting oneself to an opening repertoire. All chess players have restricted time and resources at their disposal, and this is particularly true of social, club, league or weekend competitors. In view of such constraints it makes excellent sense to work out a tangible, fixed group of opening variations in which to carry out a specialised study. Once the reader feels thoroughly at home with this, it will provide a firm platform for branching out and acquiring new knowledge and expertise in other, broader areas of chess science.

It should not be forgotten that even such great players as Fischer and Karpov have had their own selective repertoire, centred largely on I e4, while Viktor Korchnoi and Gary Kasparov strongly favour openings arising from I d4. A curious fact, in this context, is that of the twenty games played in the World Championship semi-final at London 1 983, in the matches between Smyslov and Ribli and between Korchnoi and Kasparov, no less than nineteen commenced I d4!

I d4 is a sound, solid move, aiming for central control and a restrained but ultimately convincing attacking build-up. It does not lend iiself to premature adventures and in general , by opening with it , you can avoid coll iding with too many devastating surprises from your opponents.

xii inlroduction

Link with 'BCO' OR W (An Opening Repertoire for White) is designed to give the reader confidence and ideas for the practical st ruggle. As I have already stated, this is essentially a book of strategies, not an exhaustive reference work . I have, therefore, taken the step of l inking each variation analysed with the related section in Botsford Chess Openings (BCO). This one-volume openings encyclopaedia, written by Gary Kasparov and myself, provides a vast amount of detailed background information. I t is a useful companion to OR W, and one that will form a handy compact compendium, both for expanding the repertoire beyond the confines of the lines l have examined here and for last-minute rev ision before and during tournaments or important games.

Good luck with improving your chess and your scores!

Raymond Keene London, June 1 984

Part I Queen's Gambit: 1 d4 d5 2 c4

8

Chapter 1: Chigorin 's Defence 2 ... lbc6

Chapter 2: Albin Counter-Gam bit 2 ... e5

Chapter 3: Queen's Gambit Accepted 2 ... de -· , Chapter 4: Tarrasch Defence 2 ... e6 3 lbc3 c5 \�� h Chapter 5: Orthodox 2 ... e6 3 lbc3 lbf6 j Je-t.��J Chapter 6: Slav 2 ... c6

1 Chigorin 's Defence 1 d4 d5 2 c4 tbc6!?

2 w

This remarkable concept was introduced in the late 1 9th century by the great Russian player Mikhail Chigorin, who used i t to defeat such supermen as Lasker and Pillsbury. This was at a time when Dr Tarrasch was claiming that his defence, 2 . . . e6 3 lt:lc3 c5, was the only correct antidote to the Queen's Gambit, and even the Slav, 2 . . . c6, was considered highly unusual.

In spite of Chigorin's personal success, his defence did not capture the public's imagination, possibly because Black is committed to rather too many positional

��wr��u concessions in the line 3 lt:lf3 .ig4 4 cd .ixf3 5 gf, such as surrender of the centre, exposure of the black queen and Joss of the bishop pair. In return for all this, Black's counterchances against White's slightly fragile king position seem somewhat nebulous: Furthermore, in the line 3 lt:lc3 Black has �o survive an immediate onsl:�g � which has claimed a number of victims, including the author!

My standard method in this book will be to give just one line against each Black alternative, but against the Chigorin I mention two White possibilities (here and by transposition in Chapter 1 8), since both are good but will appeal to different styles of player.

In contemporary tournament practice Smyslov and Miles have occasionally upheld the honour of the Chigorin, but no modern grandmaster is prepared to make a living out of it - it remains, essentially, a surprise weapon.

It is analysed in BCO on pages 54 and 55.

., Keene-Cox

Lloyds Bank Masters' 1 983

1 d4 dS 2 c4 ltJc6

The Chigorin . Very rare alternatives at international level are: a) 2 . . . cS 3 cd ltJf6 4 e4 ! ltJxe4 5 de ltJxc5 6 ltJc3 e6 7 b4 'tlff6 8 'tlfc2 ltJca6 9 a3 ed 10 ltJxd5 'tlfe5+ I I ltJe3 .ie6 1 2 ..ib2 'tlfc7 1 3 .ib5+ ltJc6 14 ltJf3 ±. Analysis by Bondarevsky, quoted in BCO. b) 2 ... g6?!.An incredible move, tried in Stahlberg-Alekhine, Kemeri 1 937. After 3 cd 'tlfxd5 4 ltJc3 Black has a very suspect Grtinfeld, while after 3 cd ltJf6 4 1ra4+ leaves Black with problems in retrieving his pawn. c) 2 ... ltJf6. The Marshall or American Defence: 3 cd ltJxd5 4 ltJO, White's best method, is given in the notes to Alekhine-Marshall in Part V of this book. d) 2 ... ..ifS 3 cd ..ixb I (3 0 0 0 '@xd5 4 li:lc3 is naturally excellent for White) 4 'ifa4t c6 5 lhb l 1Wxd5 6 ltJf3 lLJf6 7 e3 t; in a semi-open position Black has no tangible compensation for White's bishop pair .

3 lL!c3! For 3 ltJf3, see the section on

I d4 lt!c6 in Chapter 1 8 and the game Kasparov-Smyslov given on page 1 7.

J 8

3

Chigorin's Defence 15

de Black can also try:

a) 3 . . . ltJf6 4 lt:lO ..ig4 (4 0 0 0 de transposes to the main game; 4 0 0 0 e6 5 ..ig5 .ib4 6 e 3 o r 5 ..ig5 ..ie7 6 e3 are both passive for Black; 4 o o • ..if5 5 cd lL!xd5 6 'tllb3 e6 7 e4 lL!xc3 !l ef favours White. This is also mentioned in the notes to Alekhine-Marshall, Part V) 5 cd lL!xd5 6 e4 ltJxc3 (6 0 0 0 ltJb6 7 d5 ltJe5 8 lL!xe5 ..ixd l 9 .ib5+ is a sta ndard winning sacrifice) 7 be e5 8 d5 lObS (8 . . . .ixtJ 9 1rxf3 lLJb!l 10 llbl ± Keene-Rahman, Commonwealth Championship, Hong Kong 1984) 9 •a4+ lLJd7 10 ltJxe5 •r6 I I f4 ..id6 12 .ib5 ..txe5 13 fe

.\ Wxc5 14 0-0 ± (M inev) . White's bishops look good. b) 3 o o • eS 4 cd lL!xd4 (4 0 0 0 ed 5 de de 6 'W'xd8+ $>xd8 7 cb ±) 5 eJ lLJf5 6 ltlf3 .id6 7 .ib5+ ..id7 8 'tlfb3 ± (Gheorghiu).

4 lL!f3! lLJf6f

16 Chigortn's Defence

4 .•. .A.e4 looks natural but 5 dS! .A.xn 6 ef �e5 7 .A.f4 �g6 8 4

.A.xc4 !1 �xf4 9 .A.b5 + c6 10 de is B devastating; or 7 . . . �d7 8 .A.xc4 a6 9 0-0 �gf6 10 lie I ± DonnerKeene, London 1971, the game which taught me all about 3li:lc3!.

4 ... e6 5 e4 .A.b4 6 .A.xc4 li:lf6 7 Wd3 is very passive for Black, although Chigorin played it.

4 ... a6!? 5 d5 10b8 6 e4 e6 7 .A.xc4 ed 8 i.xd5 U ± (Watson).

S e3 This is not the only move.

Excellent alternatives are: S .A.gS h6 6 .A.xf6 ef 7 e3 .A.e7 8

.txc4 0-0 9 a3 li:la5 10 .ta2 b6 I I •c2 li:lb7 12 lld l c6 13 0-0 10d6 ;! Tisdall-Cox, Gausdal 1983.

S e4 .tg4 6 ..te3 .txn (6 . .. e6 7 .txc4 .tb4 S 1Wc2 1We7 9 lld I or 9 .ib5 , both� Watson) 7 gf 68ch liJe7 9 h4 li:lh5 10 1Wa4+ Wd7 11 •xc4 li:lg6 12 .i.h3 ± (Watson).

s i.e4 5 ... 10a5 ?! 6 Wa4+ c6 7 .A.d2!?

with either b4 or �e5 to come is an interesting gambit which looks good for White.

· 6 .txc4 e6 1 h3 i.bS 8 .i.bS

Otherwise Black plays ... a6 to obtain a normal Queen's Gambit Accepted.

See Diagram 4

8 ..td6 I f 8 . . . .tb4 9 g4 i.g6 10 �e5

1M5 11 ..txc6 + be 12 0-0 ±. 9 e4 .A.b4

10 1Wa4 10 g4 .i.g6 11 �e5 is no longer

desirable now that White has occupied the '!:entre with 9 e4, since the e4 pawn would hang .

1 0 i.xO? 1 had expected 10 ... 0-0 and had

calculated this variation: 11 .txc6 ..txc3+ 12 be be 13 i.g5 h6 14 .th4 g5 15 li:lxg5 hg 16 .txg5 e5 17 Wxc6 with advantage to White. If 16 . . . c5 17 Wa5 ! (17 e5 ?1Wd7 �) 17 ... cd 18 .txf6 1Wxf6 19 Wxh5 and now 19 . . . de or 19 ... d3 200-0 should favour White because of Black's shattered king position, though the passed black d- or c-pawn makes it difficult. Anyway, the text is a tactical error.

11 J.xc6+ be 1l Wxc6+ �e7 13 gf Wxd4

j B

14 1fxc7+ /t)d7 15 .tg5+ f6 1 6 lld1 1 (5)

1 6 llbc8 Agreeing to the loss of two

pawns, but if 16 . . . .txc3+ 17 be llhc8 18 1llg3 1fxc3+ 19 .td2 and 20 11fxg7+. If 18 . . . 11fc5 19 .i.e3! or 18 . .. Wa4 19 11fd6+ wins.

1 7 lilxd4 lhc7 18 ..ixf6+ q;,xr6 19 ll "M l<'\t>� 20 q;.e2 q;,g5

The only way to get counterplay, but the king position becomes very risky.

21 llg1+ �4 22 llg3 lld8 23 �n

With the idea of ltle2+. If now 23 . . . lld3 even 24 lld4! is good.

23 �c4

24 25 26

Chigorin's Defence 17

llb5 'iVe2 llbg5!

1-0

ltle3+ llcd7

26 . . . lld2+ 27 �e l ltlc2+ 28 �fl and Black is helpless.

Kasparov-Smyslov Candidates ( 1 1 ), Vilnius 1984

1 d4 d5 2 ltJO ltlc6 3 c4 .i.g4 4 cd .txO 5 gf 11fxd5 6 e3 e5 7 �c3 .i.b4 8 .i.d2 .txc3 9 be "Wd6 Unusual. Normally Black plays 9 . . . ed I 0 cd and then ... ltlge7 or ... ltJf6. The text is probably designed to avoid White's exchanging queens with 11fb3 as recommended. 10 llb1 b6 1 1 f4 A radical way of clarifying the central tension. 1 1 . . • ef 12 e4 ltlge7 13 'lt"O 0-G 14 .txf4 1ta3 With the threat of . . . 10xd4. 1 5 .i.e2 f5 16 0-G I would play 16 e5. The text is very sharp. 16 ... fe 1 7 Wxe4 Wxc3 1 8 .i.e3 Wa3 19 .i.d3 Wd6 20 1txh7+ �n 2 1 llb5 ltJxd4 22 We4 White could also try 22 1th5+ g6 23 1th7+. 22 . .. llad8! If 22 . . . ltlxb5 23 .i.c4+ �6 24 Wh4+. 23 .txd4 1fxd4 24 llf5+ Settling for half a point. 24 ... ltJxf5 25 1fxf5+ �g8 If 25 ... 1ff6 26 .i.c4+ �e7 27 lle I+ wins. 26 Wb7+ Wf7 Draw aereed. I t is perpetual check after 27 1ff5+.

2 Albin Counter-Gambit 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 !? 3 de d4

· forward to a middlegame with 6 extra material and/ or distinct

w

The Albin is a sh�£.� wea�.':>P which has never bee�reYu�ml't unlike the Benko Gambit, which has fi rmly established itself as a respectable black defence in international tournament play, the Albin has never really caught on at the highest levels. Part of the explanation for this must be that it does not offer Black permanent structural compensation for his invested pawn. Instead, Black acquires a lead in development (which may eventually be neutralised) and various tactical chances, often directed against White's king. If White survives Black's early burst of activity. and there is no compelling reason to believe that he should not, he can look

counterchances of his own against the black king.

The line I recom mend from the d1agram 1s: 4 zt:\fj llSc6 5 g3 (rather than 5 a3 or 5 ll:lbd2), ulso avoiding the obscurities of Spassky's 4 e4 ll:lc6 5 f4. Since Black usually has to castle queenside in the Albin, the development of the white king's bishop to g2 can be a useful asset for the future. Even if Black succeeds in recouping the sacrificed pawn at eS. the opening up of the h l -a8 diagonal for White's king's bishop combined

· w1th a while queen sortie (either to -a4 or 63) and an advunce of White's queenside pawns, can prove a senous threat to the black kmg on c8 or 68.

The most exalted victim of the Albin in recent years was US grandmaster and many times US Champion, Walter Browne. He lost, as White, to Mestel in the 1982 Interzonal at Las Palmas, but the final result says lit tle about the outcome of the opening phase, which was in White's favour.

The Albin is covered in BCO, pages 54 and 55.

Korchnol-Velnger Beersheva 1978

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 de d4

3 ... de 4 'ttxd8+ �xd8 5 lt::lc3 (Pillsbury) leads to an uncomfortable queenless middlegame for B lack; White will continue with .tg5+ and 0-0-0+, harrassing Black's king.

4 ltJ f3 lt::lc6 5 g3 (7)

5 .tg4 From the diagram Black's

sensible alternatives to 5 .. . .tg4: (a) 5 ... .te6 6 lt::lbd2! 'ttd7 7 .tg2 0-0-0 (7 . . . liJge7 8 0-0 lt::lg6 9 �g5 liJgxe5 10 10xe6 11fxe6 I I lbf3 and White has the two bishops and attacking chances, HortGasic, Sarajevo 1 972) 8 0-0 h5!? 9 b4 .txb4 10 :b l h4 1 1 11fa4 with complicated play, Vladimirov-

Albin Counter- Gambit /9

Volfson, USSR 1969. The simple 9 h4 merits attention. b) 5 . .. .if5!? 6 a3 1t'd7 7 .if0-0-0 8 0-0 j0h3 9 b4 h5 10 b_ ltdcs? when Black has compensatjon fgr the pawn in a complicated position, typical of the Albin. This line occurred m Chigorin-Aibin, Nuremberg 1 896.

Curiously, of these, 5 ... .tf5 may offer the best chatH.:cs partly because It ts coos•derabl� less explored than the other moves and the most effect ive white line

has not yet been clanfied.

8 B

6 lg2 'ttd7 7 0-0 0-0-0 8 tt'IJ]! (8)

An excellent move, striking directly at Black's most sensitive point, the b7 square. From the diagram: a) 8 ... .th3. This natural-looking move stumbles into an ambush -9 e6! .txe6 1 0 10e5 1t'd6 I I 10xc6 be 1 2 11fa4 1fc5 1 3 �a3 'ttb6 14 .txc6 .txa3 15 ba ± SpasskyForin tos, Sochi 1964.

20 Albin Counter- Gambit

b) 8 ... h5 9 l:ldl b6 10 �f4 h4 I I lt::lc3! �xfJ 12 �xfJ g5 1 3 1rb5! ±. c) 8 ... �c5 9 lt::lbd2 �h3? 1 0 e6! �xe6 and II lt::le5 again -c�nfers great advantage on White. d) 8 ... lt::la5 9 1Wd3 �f5 10 e4 de I I thc3 ±. e) 8 ... •rs 9 l:ld 1 lt::lge7 - this may be Black's best chance but it looks artificial .

8 lt::lge7 9 l:ld1 �xf3

If, innocently, 9 . . . li:lgo'? 1 0 lt::lxd4 �xe2 ( 10 . . . lt:lxd4?'! I I 1rxb7 mate) I I l:ld2 ±±. It is quite obvious, though, that this exchange of bishop for kn ight is an unwelcome one for Black, whose sensitivity along the h 1-aH diagonal is now accen tu;1tcd .

10 thO! Commencing a manoeuvre which

holds his extra pawn. 10 lt::lg6 I I 1rh5

Threatening �h3.

\1 H

I I �b8 12 i.f4 (9)

12 lt:Jxf4 Renouncing any thought of

regaining the 'Albin pawn', Veinger strives for counterplay by fracturing the pawns around White's king.

13 gf g6 14 1rf3 f6

More violence, but if Black proceeds quietly with 14 . . . �c5, then 1 5 �c3! is crushing, exploiting the d-file pin against Black's queen, to prepare lt:le4 .

15 ef t!t'fS 1 6 lt:ld2 1Wxf6 1 7 ltJe4 1rf5 1 8 b4! ( 10)

A move thoroughly conforming to the whole pattern of White's attack - namely, a bn:akthrough at b7. If now 1 8 . . . lt:lxb4 1 9 lt:ld6 ±± or I H . . . �xb4 19 l:lab I and Black is clearly finished. The black bishop on b4 can be nudged away with a3, when there would follow moves like l:lb5 and i.Llg3, intensifying the

Albin Counter-Gambit ��

) pressure against b 7, on the b-file and from the white queen and 11 bishop to in tolerable levels. B

18 d3 19 Uxd3

This way, at least, Black removes one pa ir of rooks from the board .

1 9 �xb4 20 l:i:bl lihd3 21 'flrxd3 �e7 22 l":; Wxf4

He m1ght as wel l . There is. in any l:ase. no good defence to White's 11-lile at tack . l f 22 . . . i.xc5 23 'ikl �J-1 �-I Wxc6 ±±-.

23 �.l.\b7+! ( 11) The logil:;tl culmination of

White's stra tegv - a sacrifil·ial bomb-blast on his theme s4uare. b7.

23 24 Wb5+ 2S .th3+

1 -0

ct>xb7 <t>c8

If 25 ... �dM 26 'thc6 ±t. An imposing and highly instruc

tive miniature which I had the privilege of watching since I participated with Korchnoi in the 197M Beersheva tourna men t .

For the record, Browne-Mestel, mentioncJ in my introduction, went , from diagram 7: 5 .. . i.g4 6 ltJbd2 tt'd7 7 i.g2 0-0-0 8 0-0 h5 9 h4 ltJge7 10 tt'a4 ltJg6 I I ltJb3 �b8 12 ltJa5 ltJxa5 13 tt'xa5, which should have favoured White.

3 Queen's Gambit Accepted 1 d4 d5 2 c4 de 3 ltJc3

I! B

In principle , acceptance of the Queen's Gambit should cede White precisely what he desires after I d4, namely a majority of pawns in the centre , plus speedy mobilisation. The Iauer derives from White's ability to recapture the pawn on �:4 in one move ( i.xc4) placing the white king's bishop on an aggressive diagonal, without wasting an initial tempo on .id3. In practice, the clearance of pawns in the middle of the board often leads to early simplification and total equality. On occasions, Black's fluid queenside pawns (especially if he achieves the configuration: pawns on a6, b5 and c5) may also be very annoying to White, whose queen's knight and king's bishop can be

harassed by their advance. The variation I have decided to

recommend to combat the QGA is an antiquated one that is only just beginning to find favour amongst modern grandmasters, but it has already been enthusiastically adopted by no less than Korchnoi, Vaganian and the US Champion, Walter Browne. The point is, that after 3 �c3 Black's most trusted reply, 3 . . . e5, leads to an Isolated queen pawn (IQP) sit uation, where Black has no obvio��!l breaks, while White's very free

· development confers a long-lastin� init iative on him. After 3 lDc3 Black cannot implement the pin line which can arise after 3 lDc3

· lLlf6 4 e3 }g4, while attemi!:5 IO enter the standard""lliain flne

(3 lDf3 lDf6 4 e3 e6 5 i.xc4 c5) are notreaily-oJ)erative:-i·l1blagrain 12, 3 . . . e6 can be met by 4 e4 in one go, while 3 lDc3 lDf6 can lead to uncharted and dynamic positions after 4 Olg5 . Alternatively, White can accept a modest endgame plus with 3 .. . ltJf6 4 e4 e5 5 lbf3!

The QGA as a whole is treated in BCO, pages 56-59.

13 B

La Bourdonnals-McDonnell Match, London 1834

1 d4 d5 2 c4 de 3 �c3! e5 (13)

The main alternatives are: a) 3 .. . a6 4 e3 (4 e4 b5 5 �f3 is an untested gambit, worth a try if you are in frivolous mood) 4 . . . b5 5 a4! and Black cannot cling to his pawn, viz 5 .. . b4 6 1110 ! c6 7 .bc4 be t! ..txf7+ 'it'd? 9 be with a strong attack , plus two pawns, for the piece. White will proceed with moves such as J:lb l , e4 and ..tf4. I should also point out the witty forced draw at White's disposal: 9 tiffS+ �c7 1 0 -.aS+ �d7 I I tiffS+ or even I I J.e6+ 'it>eB 1 2 ..tf7+ *d7 1 3 J.e6+ etc. b) 3 ... li'Jf6 4 e4 (4 ..i.g5 is untried) 4 . . . c5 5 lined 6 \Wxd4 tlfxd4 7 �xd4 J.b4 I! t1 a6 9 J.xc4 0-0 1 0 i.:f4 b5 I I ..i.e2 .i.c5 1 2 0-0-0 and_ White enjoys greater freedom of movement: or 8 . . . .i.d7 9 lxc4

Queen's Gambit Accepted 23

�c6 10 lt::Jxc6 .i.xc6 1 1 J.f4 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 also± ( 1 2 ..txc7? :U.ac8! is too dangerous for White, of course). This is Keres-Khalilbeili, USSR 1 960. c) 31 . . . c6 4 e4! and now: c l ) 4 . . . . e5 5 liJb ed 6 Wxd4! tlfxd4 7 lL!Xd4 �f6 8 f3 J.c5 (8 . . . b5 is too weakening: 9 a4! b4 10 liJdl ..ta6 I I J.f4 J.c5 1 2 lllf5 0-0 1 3 :U.c l l:let! 14 J.e3 lllbd7 1 5 J.xc4 ±) 9 J.e3 lL!bd7 10 J.xc4 0-0 I I q;.r2 lllb6 1 2 J.b3 ;t much as in (b) above, Portisch-Saidy, San Antonio 1972. ( In the above, Alekhine's sacrifice 6 J.xc4?! is dubious). c2) 4 . . . bS 5 a4 b4 (5 . . . tlfa5 6 J.d2 b4 r �a2 e6 8 ..txc4 regains White's pawn and leaves him with the superior pawn structure) 6 liJa2 liJf6 (6 . . . e5 7 .ixc4 tlfxd4 8 'lrb3 tlfxe4+ 9 �e2 is a highly promising gambit for White) 7 e5 llld5 8 .ixc4 e6 9 1llg4 ..ta6 1 0 .txa6 lllxa6 I I lt:\13 with fine chances for a kingside attack, Kotov-Enevoldsen, Jonkoping 1 958. d) ... c 4 d5 e6 4 . . . lllf6 5 e4 b5?! 6 e b4 7 ef be 8 be lDd7 9 tlfa4 ef 10 .tf4 Wb6 I I ..txc4 ;!;) 5 e4 ed (5 . . . �f6 6 liJO ed 7 e5 liJfd7 8 ..tg5 J.e7 9 ..txe7 Wxe7 10 liJxd5 ;t; or 7 . . . d4? 8 ..txc4! liJc6 9 ef de 10 tlfe2+ *d7 1 1 J.f4 11ra5 1 2 lld l + lDd4 1 3 ..tb5+. l -0 U hlmann-Wade, Hastings 1958-9) 6 liJxd5 lt::Jf6 7 ..txc4 lt::Jxd5 (7 . . . J.e6 8 Wb 3 ! - Petrosian) 8 ..txd5

24 Queen's Gambit Accepted

.td6 (8 . . . ll:ld7) 9 .. h5 ! g6 10 'it'h6 .tf8, Petrosian-Radulov, Plovdiv (Euro-Teams) 1983. Now best is I I 1ff4! forcing the horrid I I . .. f6 ( ±). After I I .. f4 1fc7 White wins outright with 12 .txt7+ 1fxt7 1 3 1fe5+ 1fe7 14 1fxh&- 'ttxc4+ 15 ll:le2. Black has better in 9 . . . .. f6 ! when 10 ll:lf3 1fg6 I I 1fxg6 hg 1 2 ll:lg5 0-0 1 3 f4 .te7 slows White's initiative.

14 8

4 e3 ed 5 ed ll:lf6 6 .txc4 ( 14)

An ancient variation, which has recently become the height of fashion! It was believed for decades that White halrm" play 3 ll:lf3 in the Queen's Gam bit Accepted to forestall . . . e5, but this is no longer held to be true. Given the disappearance of Black's e-pawn, the white king's b1shop on c4 can become a powerful, unobstructed force. I f now 6 . . . .tb4 7 lt:JO (7 .txf7+? �xf7 8 1rb3+ it:Jd5 H; or 7 1rb3 1fe7+

defending b4 and n with tempo) 7 . . . 0-0 8 0-0 .tg4 9 a3 .txc3 10 be c5 I I h3 .txf3 1 2 .. xf3 cd (stronger is 1 2 . . . ll:lc6 1 3 de ll:le5 with compensat ion for the pawn) 13 1fxb7lt.Jbd7 1 4 cd lt:lb6 1 5 .ta2 't!fxd4 16 .te3 ± KorchnoiMatulovic, Europa Club Cup, Belgrade 1984. White won by exchanging all of the major pieces and advancing his king towards Black's a-pawn in the two bishop v two knight ending.

6 · ... .tc7 6 . . . .td6!? 7 ll:lf3 tle7 8 .ie3

lbg4 9 it:Jd5 ll:lxe3 10 fe gives White f-file prospects.

/.1 II'

7 lt)IJ 0-0 {15)

7 . . . ll:Jbd7 8 .txf7+ ! 'it>xf7 9 ll:lg5+ c.t>g6 10 'lt'u3+ ..t>h5 I I lt.Je6 ti is a pitfall to note.

8 .tc3 White's treatment is-interesting,

hut 8 0-0 is more acceptable to modern eyes, e .g . 8 . . . . �bd7 (8 ... .tg4 9 h3 .txfJ - 9 . . . .th5 10 g4 .tg6 I I lt.Je5 followed by f4 - 1 0

'ifxf3 lL!c6 1 1 �e3 lL!xd4 1 2 'ifxb7 c5 13 �xd4 cd 14 li[ad l !) 9 �b3 lL!b6 10 li[e I c6 1 1 .i.g5 lL!bd5 1 2 lL!xd5 cd 1 3 ltle5 ! BrownePetrosian, Las Palmas 1982. Also I I . . . .tg4 12 'ifd3 .i.xO 1 3 1hf3 lL!fd5 1 4 .i.xe7 lL!xe7 1 5 lite5 lL!g6 1 6 li[e4 lL!d7 1 7 li[d I 'ifa5 18 li[e3 li[ad8 19 lL!e4 'ifc7 20 h4 ± Vaganian-Hiibner, Tilburg 1983. Tartakower used to recommend 8 h3 to stop . . . �g4, and this has resyrfaced jn co,wemoorary games:

10 ... c6 I I li[e I ltlfd5 1 2 lt:le4 lile8 1 3 .i.d2 .i.f5 14 lL!g3 �e6 1 5 �c2 lL!d7 16 a3 ltJf8 1 7 .i.d3 g6 1H .i.h6 ltJf6 19 'ttd2 .i.d5 20 lt:le5 lL!e6 2 1 .i.c2 lL!d7 22 ltJg4 ± TimmanPanno, Mar del Plata 1 9H2.

Or in the above 10 ... ltJbd5 I I li[e I c6 1 2 .i.g5 .i.c6 1 3 ltJe5 ltJc7 14 .i.c2 lle8 15 'ifd3 g6 16 'iff3 ltJfd5 1 7 .i.xc7 Wxe7 1 8 'irg3 B:ad8 19 llad I ltJf6 20 f4 lL!h5 21 Wf2 f5 22 g4 ! ± Razuvayev-Bagirov, USSR 19!!2. In a 'repertoire' book

Queen's Gambit Accepted 25

the reader might expect to have one white move proposed at each point, instead of three, as here (8 .i.e3, 8 ()...0, 8 h3). I have adopted the policy of pointing out reasonable alternatives within the main recommended l ine here, as elsewhere in this book, since the three choices seem equally worth investigation.

8 c6 9 h3 lL!bd7

I 0 .i.b3 ltJb6 I I 0-0 ltJfd5 1 2 a4 aS 13 lL!e5 .i.e6

If 1 3 . . . lL!xe3 14 fe .i.f6 1 5 'ifh5 .We7 16 llf3, summoning up h is reserves for a kingside offensive. Black would have gained the bishop pair, but White's centre is reinforced by the exchange of the minor pieces.

14 .i.c2 "Evading multiple exchanges

and stressing the high value of the b l -h7 diagonal." (Tartakower).

�4 f5? ! {1 7)

26 Quun's Gambit Accepted

Up to here this game could have been identified as a modern one between grandmasters. But the rash weakening manoeuvre introduced with the text places it -judged by contemporary Grand Magisterial standards - firmly in its 1 9th century context . Sti l l , there is no reason that your opponents in club, league or weekend events should play l ike grandmasters , and the reader may well encounter such moves from his own prospective vict ims. 14 . . . f5 must have been initially conceived as a means of blocking the b 1 -h 7 diagonal , but Black soon change� his mind and tries to use hi� f-pawn as a battering ram. Unfortunately, his pieces are inadequately co-ordinated to justify such ambition.

15 1te2 1 6 �d2 1 7 li!.ae I

Threatening llJxg6.

f4? 1te8

1 7 �f7 18 1te4 g6 19 �xf4

The refutation of Black's strategy. 1 9 llJxf4 20 .Wxf4 J.c4

The planned defence to 19 .txf4, bu t White now concludes with a beautiful and typical kiQgside demolition.

IH B

21 ... h6 22 �xg6! 23 llJxg6 ( 18)

�xfl hg

A rook and piece ahead, Black has no salvation from White's mating attack. I f 23 . . . li!.f7 24 1thH mate.

23 24 '*h8+ 25 1th7+ 26 llJf4! 27 li!.l-6+ 28 11t'h6+ 29 g4 mate

llJc8 �f7 �f6 �d3 'o!.>g5 <M5

A splendid game by La Bourdonnais, the uncrowned world champion of his day.

4 Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch Defence 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3 c5

/9 w

Under the influence of the outstanding German player and teacher, Dr Siegbert Tarrasch, this defence was, more or less, regarded as the norm at the turn of the century. As I observe elsewhere in this volume, Chigorin was the main dissenter. Even Capablanca and Nimzowitsch (Tarrasch's ideological rival) included this defence in their repertoire. But with the introduction of the SchlechterRubinstein variation : 4 cd ed 5 l0f3 l0c6 6 g3, the Tarrasch went out of fashion for many years and, for around half a century, it came to be seen as something of a positional risk whenever it was adopted.

N.:vertheless, the Tarrasch was

twice revived in modern times, once by Spassky in his world t i tle match against Petrosian in 1969, and then again by Gary Kasparov in his World Championship Candidates' contests with Belyavsky and Korchnoi during 1983. The effect of the contribution by Spassky and Kasparov has been to rob the Schlechter-Rubinstein g3 varia tion of some of its punch. Intensive analysis has revealed various ways for Black to generate counterchances - for example, Korchnoi-Kasparov, World Blitz Tournament, Herceg Novi 1983: 4 cd ed 5 l0f3 l0c6 6 g3 l0f6 7 �g2 �e 7 8 0-0 0-0 9 �g5 cd 10 l0xd4 h6 I I �e3 ltc8 1 2 Wa4 .i.d7 13 ltad 1 l0b4 14 't!t'b3 a5 15 a4 (20)

28 Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch Defence

This was a well known position, which various authorities had assessed as favourable to White. Kasparov clearly held a different opinion: 15 ... JileS 16 lt:\c2 b5! Ignoring the vulnerability of his IQP, Kasparov extracts the maximum tactical advantage from the active placing of his pieces: 17 lt:\xb4 ba IS lt:\xa4 .i.xb4 1 9 lt:\b6 J:lxe3! 20 'ilt'xe3 .i.c5 2 l lt:\xd7 .txe3 22 lt:\xf6+ 'ilt'xf6 23 fe 'ilt'xb2 and it is Black who has emerged on top from the theoretical duel.

Another popular line is 9 de (instead of 9 .i.g5 above) 9 . . . .i.xc5 I 0 .i.g5 d4 I I .i.xf6 'ilt'xf6 1 2 lt:ld5 'ilt'dS 1 3 li::ld2 (21)

11 8

Chandler, London (Phillips & Drew) 19S4. Karpov won this, but the average mortal might have more trouble coping with Black's counterplay.

In view· of such variations, I have decided to investigate a somewhat forgotten treatment of the many times US Champion, Frank Marshall. Marshall's concept was to reduce the potential of the black position

. by inaugurating an immediate exchange of dark-squared bishops (via lg5) and then im mediately

-inflict an IQP on Black by playing dxc5. This gives White an ideal blockading square for a knight on d4, fixes the black d-pawn an d5 as an endgame target for White's

-li-ght-square btshop, and saddles -Black with a queen's bishop_ restricted by its own d5 pawn. I t

- all soundS great, but the danger is that premature simplification increases the likelihood of a draw. Proper study of the variations given here should help to minimise this problem, and it is noteworthy

and now after 1 3 .i.g4, t ha t Korchnoi - and Tal - have pressurising e2, it is hard to see that White can make tangible progress. Another interesting possibility from the above diagram is 1 3 . . . JileS 1 4 J:lc l .i.b6 1 5 J:le l .i.e6 16 lt:\f4 .txa2! ? 1 7 b3 .ta5 1 8 J:lc2 .i.xb3 19 lt:lxb3 d3 20 J:lxc6 .txe I 2 1 llc l d2 22 J:lbl a5 Karpov-

recently adopted it . Fg.r tbe Tarrasch, see BCO,

pages 70-74.

Mltrshall-Schlechter Ostend 1907

I d4 dS 2 c4 e6

Queen's Gombil Declined Torrosch Defenu 29

22 B

3 �c3 4 cd (22)

An important branch from the main line of the Tarrasch ( 4 . . . exd5) i s the von Hennig-Schara Gambit. This is dangerous, but White can hardly avoid facing i� unless he opts for th�Ap'mt.'lt1'do 4 e3.}Vhite must therefore be aware of a good line against the Hennig-Schara. I recommend 4 . . . cd 5 1ra4+ (5 1rxd4 �c6 6 1rd 1 ed � ,.�,d5 i.d7 will probably trJll�se, but White also has to learn what to do about the tricky 7 . . . .te6!?) 5 . . . .td7 (5 . . . b5? 6 Wd4 ! b4 7 �b5 a6 8 de ±; 5 . .. 1Wd7? 6 li:Jb5 �a6 7 d6 ±) 6 1Wxd4 c:d 7 1Wxd5 �c6 (7 . . . lilf6

]J w

with moves like �cb5, Wa41 llab I, llfc 1 etc. Also reliable is 12 .td2 g5 1 3 0-0 �b8 14 llc l g4 ( 14 . . . .tf5 ! '!) 1 5 �d4 1We5 16 �cbS l0e4 ( 16 . . . a6 17 .tc3! ) 1 7 Wc2 �xd2 1 8 1Wxd2 a6 J 9 Wc3! ±.

4 ed 5 lOQ . �c6

5 ... cd is pf\'��e and makes the white kingside fianchetto very strong indeed: 6 l0xd4 �c6 7 g3 Wb6 8ltJb3 d4 9/0d5 1rd8 1 0 i.g2 .te6 1 1 e4 �ge7 1 2 .1g5 h6 13 .tf6!! ±±. Also inferior is 5 ... �f6 6 .tg5 .te6 7 e4! de 8 .tb5+7 or 6 . . . le7 7 de le6 8 llc l 0-0 9. .txf6 i.xf6 10 e3 1ia5 1 1 a3 �c6 1 2 .1d3 ± Marshall-Rubmsiein, Lodz 1908.

6 i.gS .te7 8 Wd I ! tranposes) 8 2f!f3 �f6 9 Wd 1 .tc5 1 0 d 'ie7 1 1 le2 �

See Diagram 23 1 2 0-0 g5 1 3 lild4 g4 1 4 b4 .ixb4 ( 1 4 . . . .1b6 15 b5 �e5 1 6 1tb3 ±) 15 .ib2 and White's attack on the qucenside -proceeds more swiftly t.iiiiilB1ack.•s on the other wmg,

. .L:.:.. �f6? 7 i.xf6!_i��--��_!_er _fo.!._l!l�c_!c_. �:.L �-..: ·�.�6 � �xd5 :fQ8 � -�--.£Q_JO 1.1?_5 _.aS+

•. 1.!.-'cg!�_f ter Z.:::.��lac:;�·�_pa..yn position is smashed. The only

. other move 6 . . . f6le�ve;-8i��k very loose after Yi.e3. --------

·-� -, .txe7 �gxe7

30 Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch Defence

8 eJ (24)

8 0-0 Or 8 ... c4 (Svc:shnikov-Nunn,

Hastings 1977): 9 .i.e2 0-0 10 ()..{) b5 1 1 ltle5 ll:lxe5 1 2 de litb8 1 3 a4 b4 14 ll:lb5 ll:lc6 1 5 f4 and the outpost on d6 for the white knight gave him the advantage. White actually won on move 2H. More aggressive is 1 1 . . . b4, though the disadvantage is that after 12 lt:lxcb /(Jxc6 1 3 l0a4, a white k night will settle on c5, and White may be able to start a queenside attack with moves such as 1Wa4 and a3, also supported by .i.f3.

Widely recommended in most theory books is 8 ... cd 9 lt:lxd4 Wb6, but my feel ing is that White keeps a s mall edge with 10 1td2! , e.g. 10 . . . .i.g4 (Tartakower's suggestion) 1 1 h3 .1h5 12 .i.b5 0-0 1 3 ()..{) lt:lxd4 (if 1 3 . . . a6 14 .1a4 and then .tb3, attacking Black's IQP) 14 ed li)c6 15 .txc6! -.xc6 ( 1 5 . . . be saddles Black with a weak c-pawn on an open file)

16 tfg5' ! Stronger is 10 . . . ll:lxd4 I I ed 0-0 White now plays .i.e2 and later .tf3. The position with the two fixed IQP's may look level, but White has a distinct pull: the black IQP is fixed as a target on the same colour square as his bishop, White's rooks have slightly easier access to the; e-file and ll:la4-c5 may prove a ��":\With all these subtle nuances in his favour, White can make Black's life unpleasant for some time to come. After 10 . . . li)xd4 I I ed 0-0 White can also consider the more ambitious 12 .i.b5!? preventing . . . liteH, and preparing .ta4-b3.

9 de WaS 1 0 .i.d3

Slightly less active, though still 'J;'. is I 0 .te2 tfxc5 I I 0-0 :dH 12 1Wd2 lt:lf5 1 3 litfd l .tc:6 1 4ll:lb5 followed by occupation of d4, Speelman-Chandler, H ong Kong 1984. Or 1 1 . . . i.e6 1 2 .. a4 tfb6 1 3 .. a 3 lt:lf5 14 lt:la4 Wa5 1 5 Hfd l lilacS 16 l0g5 ;t Korchnoi-Chandler, London (Phillips & Drew) 1984. I I .. . .te6 1 2 lilc l litad8 1 3 l0a4 Wd6 14 lt:lc5 .tc8 1 5 1Wd2 b6 16 l0b3 .i.g4 1 7 litfd I followed by lt:lbd4 and b4-b5, also at least ;t, was Tal-lvanovic, Bugojno 1 984.

1 0 1txc5 1 1 8-0

"Black is on the way to achieving a very fair development, but his position suffers from an

Queen's Gambit Declilted Ta"asclr Defence Jl

ineradicable weakness: the IQP. Not only will White be able to exert pressure on this weakness, he will have strong pressure on the central dark squares, d4, c5 and e5." ( Marshall).

1 1 j,e6 Another example is 1 1 . . . lidS

1 2 a3 j,e6 1 3 llc l tt'd6 14 lLl b5 ttd7 1 5 llJbd4 lilacS 16 j,bJ lL!xd4 1 7 ttxd4 llxc I 18 llxc l ± Marshaii-Spielmann, Ostend 1906.

Also 1 1 ... j,g4 1 2 lle l lladl! 13 .te2 f5? ! 14 h3 ..ih5 15 l0d4 j,xe2 16 l0cxe2 llf6 17 'trb3 ! Marshaii-Em.Lasker, Match 1 907.

12 li[cl 1!rb6 1 3 l0a4 ttb4 14 hJ h6

More solid is 14 . . . 1Hd8. IS aJ ttd6 16 l0c5 li[ ab8

If he parries . . . b6, as in Tallvanovic, he may have difficulty contesting the c-file, especially since White would have .ta6 at his disposal .

17 'tlre2 j,fS Schlechter reasons that a general

diminution of material, in particular the swap of his sub-standard bishop, will increase his prospects of a draw.

1 8 j,x£5 19 li[fdl 20 e4! (25)

lL!dS lL!fc7

Marshall's forte was the transmutation of a positional advantage

25 B

into a whirlwind attack. Here, abandoning the siege of Black's IQP, he goes straight for the throat. Black's only defence is 20 . . . llfd8 2 1 e5 ttg6.

20 b6? 21 eS ttd8

Or 2 1 . . . l0xe5 22 ttxe5 ttxe5 23 l0xe5 be 24 l0d7 :±±.

22 l0e4 1Wc8

}(J B

23 lL!f6+! (26)

23 l0d6 is good, but this IS

crushing. 23 gf

32 Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch Defence )

24 ef li'lg6 If 24 . . . <tlf5 25 Wb5 or 24 . . .

We6 2 5 Wxe6 fe 26 fe li'lxe7 2 7 lit e I <l;f7 28 lilc7 ±±.

25 'ttd2 11Vf5 26 1hh6 Wxf6 27 lilxc6! ( 27)

Hammer-blow follows hammerblow.

27 Wxb2 If 27 . . . 1!t'xc6 28 li'lg5 ±±.

28 lild4 't!t'bl+ 29 �h2 wrs 30 llg4

1 -0 Marshall gives: 30 . . . Ii[ac8

3 1 lilcxg6+ fg 32 lilh4 l:Hd8 33 Wh8+ �f7 34 lilh7+ <lJe6 35 <tld4+ ±±.

A splendid game by the US player, nominated by Czar Nicholas I I of Russia to be one of the five original grandmasters . (The other four were: Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Tarrasch.) Of course, the Marshall Chess Club in New York still bears the great master's name.

Endgame Material

The line of the Tarrasch I have examined in this chapter tends towards an endgame where Black's queen's bishop will be hampered by the fixed nature of the black IQP on d5. White, on the other hand, will enjoy a measure of dark-square control , including, probably, the option of occupying d4 with a piece. I t is, therefore, worth studying typical endgames which conform to this pattern , and which may well arise in your own games. Here is one fairly standard but difficul t example. I t d id not , i n fact, proceed from the Tarrasch but judging from the general configuration of both sides, it could well have done.

Petrosian-Benko Cu• ac.:ao (Candidates) 1 962

This ending is very important since even such an endgame artist as Petrosian was unable to derive the maximum from it. The game

Queen' .r Gambi t Declined Tarra.rch Defence J.1 ,

concluded: 32 j,g2 j,t7 33 j, f) j,e6 34 j,d3 g5 3 5 j,c2 �g4 36 j,a4 j,f3 37 j,b5 j,g2 38 fg fg 39 �d3 j,h3 40 j,g6 �e6 4 1 j,h7 ct>d6 42 a3 \12-\12.

Back to the diagram, Petrosian should have played 32 g4! ! to cause Black the most serious problems. There is a natural repugnance in bishop endings against playing one's pawns on to the same colour square as one's bishop, but the important factor here is the ongoing restriction of Black's bishop. White threatens (after 32 g4! !) to cont inue in some cases with h4 and g5, locating a further static weakness on g6, and if Black reacts with the natural 32 . . . g5 the following variations can occur: 33 f5 �f7 34 � h I �g8 35 i.g2 j,t7 36 j,f3 ! (29)

If now 36 . . . .ig!! 3 7 j,d I i.f7 38

j,b3 j,g8 39 e4 ±±; or 36 . . . �c6 37 j,d I <&d6 38 b5! j,e8 39 a4 j,t7 40 j,b3 j,g8 4 1 e4 i.f7 42 j,xd5! j,xd5 (42 . . . j,e8 43 j,e6 ±±) 43 ed ct>d7 44 ct>d3 ct>e7 45 d6+! ct>d7 46 't>c4 ct>xd6 47 't>d4 ct>e7 48 't>d5 c;t>d7 49 h3 winning the king and pawn ending.

JO B

This is Szabo-Penrose, Bath (European Team Championship) 1973. The play from the diagram provides a second highly similar example, this t ime with rooks present . 30 . . . ct>b7? Black fears playing 30 . .. 'it>d6 since his king will be cut off from his queenside pawns, but this is worse. 31 g4! (as recommended in Petrosian-Benko) 31 . . . l:Id6 32 a3 aS 33 h4 i.f7 34 f5 l:ld8 35 llc2 l:ld7 36 gS fg 37 hg hg 38 U.g2 l:ld6 (38 . . . 'it>c6 39 l:lxg5 i.e!! 40 h4 ±±) 39 l:lxgS g6 40 hg l:lxg6 and 1-0.

5 Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3 lbf6

4 .i.g5 .i.e 7 5 liJf3 h6 6 .i.h4 0-0 7 31 e3 b6 8 Ik l .i.b7 9 .i.e2 liJbd7 1 0 W cd ed I I 0-0 c5 (32)

This is the obvious reaction to White's pseudo-offer of a pawn on the second move, once it has been appreciated that Black cannot retain his booty after 2 . . . de . With the sturdy 2 . . . e6 Black maintains a dependable presence in the centre, "the Balkans of the chessboard", as Nimzowitsch described this critical area, and resolutely refuses to allow White to play e4. The standard freeing move for Black is . . . c5, and in the most solid variation of all, the Tanakower, Black calmly develops his forces, fianchettoes his queen's bishop, and ultimately sets out to equalise with the desired thrust of his c-pawn. Thus from the diagram:

J.? w

This is Hon-Karpov, Amsterdam 1981 and Korchnoi-Karpov, 1 st game World Championship match, Merano 1 98 1 . A lthough Karpov lost the first of these, Black really has little to fear, as was demonstrated by the world champion's willingness to rep:.-at against Korchnoi. In fact, Karpov won the later ga me.

As an historical aside I should point out why 5 . . . h6, "putting the q uestion" , as the cliche runs, is so necessary as a prelude to . . . b6 and . . . .ib7. From diagram 3 1 : 4 .ig5 .ie7 5 eJ 0-0 6 �f3 b6 7 .id3 .ib7

Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox 35

8 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 9 cd ed 1 0 h4 (33)

JJ B

Without the precaution of . . . h6 this bold advance grants White a vehement attack, e.g. 1 0 . • . g6 I I h 5 lile8 1 2 hg hg 1 3 -.c2 i,g7 1 4 iLxg6 fg 1 5 1hg6 ltld7 16 �g5 1Wf6 1 7 � h!H! 1 -0 Marshall-Burn, Paris 1 900; or 10 . . . g6 I I h5 c5 1 2 h g hg I J ltle5 ..ixe5 1 4 d e trg5 1 5 1Wf3 1Wxc5 16 �0-0 with excdlent attacking chances, as in Marsha liM.trco, a I so Paris 1 900. A fter I 0 . . . cS White should not sacrifice w i th I I ..ixh7+?! l!.>xh7 1 2 ltlg5+ \t>h6! but play I I 1Wc2! h6 I 2 0-0-0 ltlc6 13 g4! cd 14 ed 1Wd6 1 5 \t>b I lb b4 16 1Wd2 ltlxd3 1 7 1Wxd3 " ± " according to Soviet GM Taimanov, since White threatens g5. This notwithstanding, the Tartakower variat ion with . . . h6 is a serious obstacle to a white advantage. Indeed, the Lasker Defence, 4 .ig5 .ie7 :'\ c3 0-0 6 ltlf3 h6 7 .ih4 .!t:le4, is also tough to c1 ack , a s is Capablanca's 6 . . . �bd7 7 lilcl c6 8 .id3 de 9 .1xc4 ltldS 1 0 .ixe7

Wxe7 1 1 0-0 �xc3 1 2 lilxc3 eS! I therefore recommend here the

Exchange Vanat10n, ideally with 0-0-0. W hite fixes the pawn structu re in the middle of the board and releases the Jock on Black's queen's bishop represented by the pawn on e6. Wh1te1s a1m IS

to expl01 t the slat.c scenano , either to ning forward his kmgs lde pawns in the style of M arsha ll. or advance m the centre w i th 13 and e4, t he very thing the Orthodox QG D is designed to I mpede . As men t ioned, White should. i n theory. castle queens1dc , but spcc1al circum�ta nces may dll'tatc that 0-0 1s more prudent. Th1s spe�.:.fic t reatment has been adopted hy Nimwwusch, Alekhine, Spielmann, Botvinnik , Hronstein , Kasparov and Timman.

The QGD Ort hodox as a whole i:. examined in BCD, pages 60-69.

Spielmann-Sir George Thomas Carlsbad 1 929

d4 d5 2 c4 eb 3 �c3 ltlr6

For 3 . . . .ie7 see the next game, Korchnoi-Karpov.

4 cd ed s .tgs

See Diagram 34 Now the main l ine is 5 . . . �bd7,

but Black can also select: a) S . . . .te7 This o nly has

36 Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox

independent significance if B lack intends to switch into a Tartakower with . . . h6, . . . b6 and . . . c5, for which see Kasparov-Belyavsky in Pan V. b) S . . . c:S? 6 -'.xf6! gf 7 e3 -'.e6 8 �ge2 l0c6 9 g3 cd 1 0 ed -'.b4 I I -'.g2 1fb6 1 2 � 0-{)...0 1 3 l0a4 1ra6 14 a3 -'.d6 1 5 b4, PillsburySteinitz, Hastings 1 895. Evidently a strategic disaster for Black, whose doubled pawns are miserably weak. White also enjoys the unbelievable luxury of having Black's king as an extra target for his queenside attack. c) S . • . c6 6 e3 -'.f5 7 'it'D! -'.g6 8 .txf6 'tWxf6 ( 8 . . . gf 9 'tWd I ! 'tWb6 1 0 'tWd2 ltJa6 I I ltJf3 0-0-0 1 2 a 3 ltJc7 13 b4 ± Petrosian-Barcza, Budapest 1955, very similar to PillsburySteinitz) 9 'tWxf6 gf 1 0 \t>d2! l0d7 I I .id3 .td6 12 h4 h5 1 3 �ge2 V ±. White has neutralised Black's bishop pair with the manoeuvre 'it>d2 and .td3, but the weak doubled pawns remain .

d) S . . . c6 6 e3 h6 7 .th4 -'.f5. Now White could just play 8 .td3, exchanging bishops, and later playing to occupy f5 with a knight. The fact that Black has played . . . h6 makes . . . g6 as well somewhat less attractive for him. There is also an ambitious and complicated l ine available which tries to refute: Black's play, namely: 8 WtJ 'W'b6!? 9 Wxf5 Wxb2 1 0 Wc8+ 'it>e7 I I li:lxdH ( I I ltJd I 'tth4+ 1 2 \t>e2 g5! is good for Black which shows why 6 . . . h6 must be interpolated before Black can meet tff3 with . . . Wb6) I I . . . cd 1 2 We i 'tWb4+ 1 3 '.&.>c:2 Wb5+?! 1 4 \t>D Wd7 1 5 -'.xl6+ 'Ot.-xl6 (35), SmyslovPachman, Moscow 01 1 956.

Once White unravels, H lack's IQP is very weak im.h:ed, B lack should have sought further complications with 1 3 . . . g5 14 .ig3 ltJc4 1 5 f) tfb5+ 16 \t>e l Wb4+ 17 c;t>d l ltJcJ+ 1 8 \t>c2. If this is not to your taste, by all means plays 8 i.d3. e) S . .. c0 6 eJ .ie7 7 .td3 -'.g4 8 f3


.i.h5 9 lt:lge2 helps White to mobilise his cent re pawns.

5 lt:lbd7 This move sets a jejune trap,

which has, however, claimed a number of unwary VICtims: 6 lt:lxd5?? lt:lxd5 ! 7 .i.xd8 .i.b4+ and Black wins .l piece.

6 e3 c6 But 6 . . . .i.b4 is out of place

since White can protect h is knight on c3 with lt:lge2: 7 .i.d3 c5 8 lt:lge2 c4 9 .i.c2 0-0 10 0-0 1t'a5 I I a3 .i.xc3 12 ll:Jxd Jle8 1 3 1t'd2 h(l 14 f3 .ib7 1 5 ll:ac l wi th e4 to come, Portisch-Tringov, Plovdiv 1983.

7 .id3 .ie7 Uy playing 7 . . . .td6 H lack pays

insufficient ath:ntion to the pin on his king's knight, viz 8 ll:Jge2 lt:lf8 9 1t'c2 h6 1 0 .th4 1t'e7 I I a3 .id7 1 2 c4 g5 1 3 .i.g3 de 14 10xe4 ll:Jxe4 1 5 .ixe4 .i.xg3 1 6 hg tl ± Spielmann-Capablanca , Carlsbad 1 929.

8 1t'c2 Alekhine-Capablanca, 32nd game

1927 World Championship, Buc::nos Aires, went 8 10ge2 0-0 (on 8 . . . h6 Alekhine wanted to play 9 .i.f4 rather than .ih4) 9 lt:lg3 lLle8 (9 . . . h6 1 0 h4; 9 . . . Jle8 1 0 ll:Jf5 ) 1 0 h4 ll:Jdf6 (after 1 0 . . . f6 White has I I 1t'h 5, one rc::ason for keeping the queen on d I for a move or so) I I 'W'c2 i.e6 1 2 �.Jf5 .txf5 1 3 .ixf5 10d6 14 .id3 h6 1 5 .tf4 llc8? ( 1 5 . . . lle8 16 04-0 lLJfe4! ) 1 6 g4 ±.

This was the game where Alekhine invented the lt:lge2 system and the reader may wish to pursue Alekhine's idea of tllg3 before 11Pc2. There has, however, been no subsequent experience with i t .

8 �0 A common manoeuvre to ease

Black's position by exchanges is . . . tllfH-e6, . . . g6, . . . li'Jg7 and then . . . .if5. Here, White's elastic cc::ntre easily copes with th is : 8 . .. 10f8 9 tllge2 lLle6 to .th4 g6 I I 0-0-0 lt:lg7 1 2 f3 lilf5 ( i f 1 2 . . . .if5 1 3 c4 ± ) 1 3 .tf2 1t'a5 1 4 ¢'b l .ic6 15 h 3 0-0-0 1 6 e4 ± Bronstein-Medina, Gi:iteborg 1 955.

H • . • �)hS 9 .txe7 1t'xc::7 10 �ge2 g6 I I hJ Ci.Jg7 1 2 lbf4 and g4 t was Ti m m a n-Lobron , Sarajevo 1 984.

J6 w

9 lt:lge2 lieS

10 0-0-0 The point of White's play, but if

you don't relish a sharp battle i t is not too late to castle k ingside. White then has the choice -of the m inorit y attack ( Jlab I, b4, b5 to undermine Black's queenside) or a


central advance with f3, �ae I etc and then e4. Botvinnik-Larsen, cited above, is an example of this, and I could also mention BotvinnikKeres, USSR Championship, Moscow 1952: 1 0 0-0 lt:JfH I I �ab l .id6 1 2 'it>h I (to meet 1 2 . . . ..ixh2 with 13 ..ixf6! ±t) 1 2 . . . lt:Jg6 1 3 f3 .ie7 1 4 � be I lt:Jd7 ( 1 4 . . . h6 1 5 ..ixh6 gh 1 6 ..ixg6) 1 5 ..ixe7 �xe7 1 6 lt:Jg3 lt:Jf6 1 7 't!rf2 ..ie6 I ll lt:Jf5 ..ixf5 19 ..txf5 't!tb6 20 e4 ±.

I 0 li:Jc4 10 . . . h6 I I h4 'ita5 1 2 �g3 is

promising for White. Also 10 .. . ' ltJfH I I h3 ( I I f3 h6 1 2 h4 and I I lt:Jf4 a5 1 2 f3 a4 1 3 a3 b5 14 lt:Ja2 1Wb6 1 5 1td2 lt:Je6 1 6 h4 are good alternatives - Hort) I I . . . .id7 1 2 g4 �c8 1 3 <;!.lb l b5 1 4 lt:Jf4 a 5 1 5 .if5 a4 1 6 lt:Jd3 .ixf5 1 7 gf ltJ8d7 18 llhg l ..tf8 19 llg2 ± -Christiansen-Spassky, Linares 198 1 . I I . . . b5!? 1 2 lt:Jg3 a5 1 3 lt:Jce2 .id7 14 l0f5 is Hort-lnkiov, Lugano 1 984.

I I ..ixe4 de 12 h4! rs

1 2 . . . .ixg5 1 3 hg 1fxg5 1 4 lt:Jxe4 1tg6 1 5 f3 lt:Jf8 1 6 lt:Jf4 1tf5 1 7 llh5 1fd7 1 8 d5 !

See Diagram 37 This is Nimzowitsch-Spielmann,

Bad Kissingen 1 928, the game which persuaded Spielmann to t ry the variation against Thomas and Capablanca. White has clearly used his h-pawn as a decoy to wipe

Jl B

out Black's centre. The conclusion was: I ll . . . cd 19 lt:Jxd5 'it'c6 20 1Vxc6 be 2 1 lt:Jdf6+ gf 22 lt:Jxf6+ <;!.lhll 23 lt:Jxe8 .i.g4 24 lt:Jc7 llc8 25 llg5 .i.e6 26 lt:Jxe6 lt:Jxe6 27 �a5 1-0.

An impressively powerful display by Nimzbwitsch.

13 1tb3+ The queen check sets a very

beautiful trap. Also worth considering is 1 3 g4 !?

JH H

1 3 �h8 14 lt:Jf4 (38)

The threat now is 1 5 lt:Jg6+! ! hg 1 6 h5 .ixg5 1 7 hg+ .ih6 1 8 .. 17 'ite7 19 �xh6+ gh 20 g7+ 'it>h7 2 1 g81lr mate. Absolutely the only

Queen 's Gambit Declined Orthodox 39

defence (which makes Spielmann's continuation an excellent practical bet) is 14 . . . 'i:lf8! 1 5 d5 Wb6 (Tartakower).

14 �r6? This does not help.

I S hS �dS Or 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 Wf7! hg 1 7 h6 :±±.

39 B

1 6 .txe7 li:Jxe7 17 �g6+ �xg6 18 hg (39)

If now 1 8 . . . h6 19 Jbh6+ gh 20 Wf7 :±±.

18 .i.e6 19 1Ixh7+ �8 20 dS cd 21 �xdS llc8+ 22 �bl WgS

22 . . . �f8 23 llhiH .tg8 24 llxg8+ �xg8 25 lt:lf6+ :±±.

23 lldhl Wxg6 24 llh8+

1 -0 After 24 . . . 'it-17 2 5 Wxb7+

mates. [ For reasons of strict historical veracity, I should point out the

above game actually commenced 1 d4 e6 2 c4 i()f6 3 �c3 d5 4 .tg5 �bd7 5 e3 c6 6 cd ed etc. I have standardised the move-order for ease of assimilation.]

In the next game we see what can occur if Black, by adopting a cunning move-order, tries to avoid my recommended line against the Orthodox.

40 w

Korchnoi-Karpov 13th game, Merano 1981

c4 e6 2 lbc3 dS 3 d4 .i.e7!? ( 40)

This move-order. physica lly stopping White's intended .i.g5, is intended to outlaw the Exchange Variation with �ge2, as seen in Spielmann-Thomas. White's most usual response is 4 �0. but, as we shall see , it is sti l l possible to employ an aggressive form of the Exchange.

4 cd eel s .tr4 c6

40 Queen 's Gambit Declined Orthodox

6 e3 .tfS! Otherwise White plants his

bishop on d3, seizing control of the b 1-h 7 diagonal and obviously stands wel l . In Timman-Karpov, Bugojno 1978, White then succeeded in implementing an attack similar in many respects to SpielmannThomas, viz: 6 . . . lt:lf6 7 .td3 0-0 8 1fc2 lil:e8 9 l0f3 l0bd7 1 0 ��0 l0f8 I I h3 .te6 1 2 'iPb l lil:c8 1 3 l0g5 b 5 ( 1 3 . . . .i.d7! 14 .te5 h 6 1 5 l0f3 c 5 i) 14 .i.e5 h6 1 5 lt:lxe6 l0xe6 16 g4 lt:ld7 1 7 h4! ±.

7 g4! The best way of keeping up the

initiative. Exchange of l ightsquared bi.�s hv 7 .td3 .i.g6 is,

• �-·�¥� of course, ee le m comparison. 7 .te6

Black would like to play 7 . . . .tg6, but it fails for tactical reasons: 8 h4! threatening g5 to imprison Black's king's knight, as well as h5, trapping Black's queen's bishop, 8 . . . .i.xh4 9 1fb3 b6 10 lil:xh4 1fxh4 I I lt:lxd5 ! :i±.

8 h3 (41) Also interesting is Tony Mi les'

idea 8 .i.d3, e .g. 8 . . . lt:ld7 9 1ff3 h5 10 h3 hg I I hg .bg4 1 2 lil:xhll! or I I . . . lil:xh I 12 1fxh I .txg4 13 1fh8 'iPfll 14 .i.h7 lt:lf6 1 5 �e5 l0xh7 16 'tlhg7+ etc. MilesGeorgadze, Po rz 1 98 1-2, went instead: 10 . . . 'tlt'b6 I I 0-0-0 hg 12 hg lil:xh I 13 'tlhh I g5 14 .i.g3 .i.xg4 1 5 litd2 .i.e6 16 1fh2 0-�0

1 7 l0b5 cb 1 8 lil:c2+ with a dangerous attack.

41 H

8 l0f6 Alternatives:

a) 8 • • • .td6 9 l0ge2 l0e7 10 'tlt'b3 .i.c8 I I .tg2 l0g6 12 .txd6 1hd6 1 3 h4 l0a6 14 g5 lt:le7, KorchnoiSpassky, match (2) 1 968. Here Tal suggests 15 0-0-0 lt:lc7 1 6 e4! with advantage to White. b) 8 . . . hS!? a vigorous attempt to disrupt White's kingside structure: 9 gh ltJd7 10 lil:h2 lt:ldf6 I I .i.e2, Korchnoi-lvkov, Budva 1967. Black must now reson to I I . . . lLlh6 1 2 litg2 tl::lf5 1 3 i.g4 c;Pf8 t o hold his g-pawn.

9 lf:lf3 0-0 The time-consuming 9 . . . tl::lbd7

10 �d3 ll::lb6 I I 1fc2 ll::lc4, Botvinnik-Petrosian , match ( I H) 1963, can be parried by 12 .txc4 de 13 e4 or even 1 2 ltJg5 �d7 13 e4!

I 0 .i.d3 cS 1 1 '.t'fl

Anificial castling is more efficient


than I I 0-0, since White may need his king's rook on h I for attacking purposes. It also helps to keep the h3 pawn continuously protected.

I I �c6 1 2 �g2 llc8

Alternatively, 1 2 . . . cd 1 3 �xd4 �xd4 14 ed �d7 1 5 •c2 :! Botvinnik-Petrosian, match ( 14), 1 963.

13 llcl Also 1 3 de J.xc5 14 �e2 �e4 1 5

Il c l J.e7 1 6 �fd4 �xd4 1 7 �xd4 1rb6 18 Wb3 i (Bronstein).

1 3 lle8 A possible improvement is 1 3 . . .

a6 to prevent �b5. 14 de I S l()bS 1 6 �rd4! 17 llxc8 18 ed!

J.xcS

J.f'8 �xd� 1hc8

Indeed, 1 8 l0xc.J4 maintains a piece blockade over Black's J QP, but now White's knight on b5 threatens both to capture on a 7 and to invade on c7.

1 8 .d7 19 lUc7

Here I 9 �xa 7 lla8 is pointless. 1 9 llc8 20 li:lxe6 re

Black would prefer to play 20 . . . 11t'xe6 but i t fails t o 2 1 iLf5. The text, however, leaves Black with a weak pawn at e6 on an open file.

21 llel a6 22 gS

The quiet 22 1t'e2 is also strong and gives enduring pressure.

22 /()e4 23 .g4

Of course not 23 .i.xe4 de 24 lhe4 •d5, when Black has freed himself at the cost of a mere pawn.

23 .i.b4 24 lle2 llf'8 2s f3 •n

Karpov launches a counterattack. After all , he does control the f-file and White's kingside is porous, the penalty paid for the aggressive, but loosening, 7 g4.

26 J.eS Not 26 fe •xf4.

26 �d2 27 a3 �d3 (42)

28 g6? In a tense situation Korchnoi

overlooks a trick . Tal later gave as best 28 .ig3 ! ll:Jh4+ 29 �h2 �fH 30 �h I �h4 3 1 .ixh7+ �xh7 32 1fxh4+ and llf2.

28 hg . Hoping for 29 ab? �e l + 30


lhe l •fl+. 29 .tg3! .te7?

A disastrous move, immediately losing material, though the position is so complicated that the saving line is almost impossible to detect. The only correct path is the resource 29 . . . ltlh4+ ! ! e.g. 30 •xh4 1hf3+; or 30 .txh4 •n + 3 1 �h2 .td6+ 32 ..tg3 lilfl+; or 30 �h2 ltlf3+ 3 1 �h i lt'lh4 ! ! (43)

and now: a) 32 lilf2 �f5 33 i..xf5 gf; or 33 ab ltlxg3+ 34 •xg3 Wxfl.

b) 32 llc2 •n+ 33 •xn llxf1 34 .txh4 .id6 threatening . . . llxd3 and ... llxh3+. c) 32 ••h4 •n+ 33 lilg2 •xd3 34 ab llfl + 35 �h2 •d I with a draw; or 35 llg l Wf3+ 36 �h2 We2+ 37 lilg2 1M I and White must take perpetual check on d8 and h4.

The game wound up: 30 lilf2! ltlel + 31 �h i •xfl 3l ..txfl ltlxd3 33 •xe6+ lilf7 34 .ig3 ltlxb2 35 •xd5 .tf6 36 ..td6 g5 37 Wb3 .ixd4 38 \!re6 g6 39 •e8+ 'it>g7 40 .teS+ .txeS 41 •xeS+ �h7 Adjourned and 1-0. 42 1hb2 a5 43 a4 llf5 44 1hb7+ 'itr'g8 45 'i!lg2 'i!lh8 46 'i!lg3 'i!lg8 47 'it>g4 'i!lh8 48 •d7 'i!lg8 49 \!rxf5 gf+ 50 'i!lxg5 �17 5 1 'ltxf5 'i!lg7 52 �e5, with a

simply won king and pawn ending. A splendidly contested game which does enormous credit to both players.

6 _ _Queen's Gambit: Slav 1 d4.d5. 2 c4 c6 .

44 w

up-to-the-minute openings magazine which can continually register and update the changing fashions and emergent resources.

Here I suggest that White can maintain a modest plus with the unassuming Exchange Variation. It is not the same as the Exchange against the Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined, since the pawn structure in the Slav remains

A resilient defence to the symmetrical after the exchange on Queen's Gambit , which mainta ins d5, so the margin of the draw is Black's central bastions without increased. Sti l l , with White's temporarily locking in the black development edge, symmetry can queen's bishop. One of Black's often be an advantage and the ideas is to� a su��!�?r brand of Exchange Slav is a trusted weapon Queen's Gambit_ Ac'=.��d after · in the hands of Grandmasters 3 lLlf3 ll:lf6 4 lLlcJ de. White is now Portisch, Andersson and Seirawan. obliged to play 5 a4 (weakenmg Chief exponents of the Slav from Ji4}_!o rega!_!!_li_i!_E_��n . sl��}�e:-= Black's point of view are ex-gambit 5 e4 fal ls short of being World Champion Smyslov and totally convincing. An aiten1alrve Soviet GM Yusupov. h�ir-raising _!�ne can arTse-a.�t��- For the entire Slav complex see 4 li:)cJ e6 5 .ig5 de 6 e4 b5 7 e5 �6 8 _ _ BCO, pages 77-!!8 . .ih4 g5 9 lt:lxg5 and now either 9 . . . hg or 9 . . . lLld5!? generating "unfathomable complications. n yo-u want to keep abrea."stOJSui:h volati le regions of chess theory, it is probably wise to subscribe to an

Alekhine-Euwe AVRO 1938

I d4 2 74 3 00" -

dS c6 lOft

44 Queen's Gambit: Slav

<15 B

4 � s liJcJ 6 Af.4 7 ., .,el (45)

cd 'ik6 -JJi

"Like a good many symmetrical variations, this is less innocuous than it appears at first sight . In all symmetrical openings the danger for Black l ies in the fact that he cannot indefinitely continue to imitate White, and is l iable to find himself confronted with a position in which White makes a strong aggressive move and B lack is forced to make a very humble reply . . . " C. H .O'D. Alexander, Alekhine's Best Games, 1938-45 .

7 a6 He wants to forestall il:lb5.

Incidentally, contemporary sources indicate that Euwe avoided 7 . . . e6, upholding the symmetry, because he was afraid of 8 .,b3. The current view, though, is that after 7 .. . e6 White once more keeps the initiat ive with 8 l0e5 ! , e.g. 8 . . . l0d7 9 il:lxc6 be 1 0 llc l

J..e7 I I ..te2 0-0 1 2 0-0 e5 1 3 l0b5 a6 14 l0d6 ..tg6 1 5 de l0xc5 16 llxc5 J..xd6 1 7 J..xd6 .,xd6 1 8 .,d4 llfd8 19 ll d l a5 20 .,c3 lldb8 2 1 b3 ... b6 22 J..b5 f6

23 llc l , Gaprindashvili-Mokry, Reggio Emilia 1 982-3. Black's moves have been exceedingly natural, but White still has a dominating position.

46 8

8 �e5! Jlc8 9 -..&41 (46)

A highly typical thrust . I t is noteworthy that Botvinnik, Korchnoi and Kasparov have also developed a l iking for this son of move, see, for example, the games Korchnoi-Karpov and KasparovY.urtaev in this volume. When weighing up an unusual, aggressive move of this nature, it is also worth bearing in mind Alekhine's own advice: ' if your opponent makes some strange move or moves which will give him a good game if you continue to play in

standard fashion, it is usually necessary to react yourself with some exceptional solution . '

Here, for example, 7 . . . a6 may be considered a l i ttle strange, but if White had continued urbanely with 8 .td3 or even 8 �e5 lilc8 9 .td3, Black would soon have escaped the worst.

9 .td7 As so often in such situations,

the natural retreat 9 . . . .tg6 is no good, e.g. 10 h4! h6 I I lt:lxg6 fg 1 2 ..td3 ±±; or 1 0 . . . lt:lxe5 I I de �e4 12 Wa4+ Wd7 13 Wxd7+ �xd7 14 lt:lxd5 llc5 1 5 ll d l ±±. If 9 • . • �xe5 10 fg �c4 I I Wb3.

10 .tg2 e6 1 1 0-0 h6

To stop White playing g5. 12 -'..:3 hS?

But this is sheer panic induced by White's declared intention of establishing a 'super-PillsburyAttack' with f4 . Better, though miserable, is 1 2 . . . �e7, e.g. 13 l0xd7 Wxd7 14 f4 ±; or 13 f4 lt:lxe5 1 4 de followed by f5 .

13 lt:lxd7 li:lxd7?! After this, Alekhine's vigorous

play proves that Black is objectively los t . Stiffer resistance is offered by the very humble 1 3 . . . Wxd7 ! 14 g5 lt:lg8 ±.

14 gh Not just winning a pawn.

Alekhine also opens the g-file for later occupation.

Queen's Gambit: Slav 45

14 liJf6 t s .to .tb4

Black's three aims now are: reduce material; complete development; remove his king to safety. It is a measure of Euwe's prowess (he was World Champion from 1935-37, having defeated Alekhine in their 1935 world title contest) that in spite of the opening disaster he more or less succeeds in these aims. Only very brilliant play by the World Champion (Aiekhine had regained the title from Euwe in a 1 937 rematch) retains his advantage.

16 llcl 'iti>f8 Not 16 . . . 0-0 1 7 �h l ! and llg l ,

followed by h6. As Alexander points out, White's extra h5 pawn is not just a token doubled rook's pawn, but a dangerous advanceguard which constantly threatens to disrupt Black's king posit ion. For this reason, Euwe keeps his rook on h8.

1 7 a3 18 lhc3 19 'itb3 20 be

Or 20 . . . b5 2 1 a4!

.txcJ li.Je7

21 Wb6 liJc8 Driving off White's queen

before he can increase the pressure with llb l .

22 \WcS+ 23 Ubi 24 b6! (47)

'it;>g8" bS


Injecting fresh and decisive energy into the white attack. Euwe has accomplished everything possible within the confines of hi� meagre resources, but Alekhine now blows him out of t he water with four beautifully timed pawn thrusts: h6, a4, c4 and finally e4. The point of 24 h6! is either to weaken the e5-h8 diagonal after 24 . . . gh (as occurs in the game) or to lure Black's rook from its defensive station on the back rank, when the knight on c8 will lack adequate protection. Thus if 24 . . . lhh6 25 a4! lt:la7 (25 . . . ba 26 llb8 ti) 26 Wb6 ba 27 1ha6 and there is no answer to llb7.

"24 gh 25 .te5 �g7 26 a4! ba 27 c4

Here 27 llb8 does not work , but the text is deadly, prising away Black's final central bast ions.

27 li:Je7 Or 27 . . o de 28 .txf6+ �xf6

29 1re5+. 28 cd lt:lxd5

Or 28 o • • ed 29 llb6 ti. 29 �hi

Not 29 .txd5? ed 30 llb6 1fg4+ with perpetual check. Moving the white king eliminates this while preparing to launch the rook into action via g l .

29 30 lilgl + 3 1 Wa3! (48)

liteS �h7

am deeply impressed by the way that Alekhine finally smashes Black's resistance by withdrawing his king to h I , and his queen to a3. There is now absolutely no antidote to the threats of e4 and 1fd3+. If 3 1 0 0 . llc3 32 1ff8 tlo The game concluded: 3l o o o llg8 32 e4 lilxg l+ 33 <t>xgl 1lb5 34 ed 1tbl + 35 �g2 1t'g6+ 36 'it>fl Wbl + 37 �g2 1fg6+ 38 .tg3 lt:lxd5 39 .txdS ed 48 Wxa4 h5 41 h4 1-0.

"An original and forceful game" (Alexander).

Portisch-Ljubojevit Indonesia 1983

I d4 -2 c4 3 cd 4 lt::lc3 s . .tr4

dS _£§. cd

� ltJr6

Or 5 . . 76 6 e3 .td6 7 .ixd6 1Vxd6 8 f4 ! followed by lt::lf3 with a menacing grip over the central dark squares .

6 lt:lf3 e6 6 . . . tfoola:n .tf51! tria4 Wd8 9

e3 lt::ld7 10 .ib5 e6 I I 0-0 .ie7 1 2 li[c l lilc8 1 3 .ixc6 be 1 4 �e5 �xe5 15 .ixe5 0-0 16 ltJc5 U ± Andersson-Torre, Wijk aan Zee 1984.

49 8

1 �49)

7 J.d6 Black can strike out with 7 . . .

ltlhS hoping to acquire the bishop pair, but after 8 .ig5 tfb6 9 i.b5 h6 10 .ih4 g5 I I lt::lc5 ! is ±. The major alternat ive is 7 . . . .tc7: 8 h3 ( to meet . . . lt::lh5 w i th �h2) !l . . . 0-0

Queen' J Gambit: Slav 47

9 .id3 .td7 10 0-0 1rb6 I I a3 lt::la5 12 b4 lt::lc4 13 lt::le5 lilacl!! 14 .i.xc4 de 1 5 .ig5 with some pressure, Portisch-Petrosian, Candidates' Quarter Final 1 974. Also good is 15 ltJc4! followed by lt::lc5. Another line is Capablanca's 7 . . . .ie7 8 .td3!? (not bothering to preserve the queen's bishop from . . . lt.':lh5) !l . . . 0-0 9 0-0 lLlh5 (9 . . . .id7 10 lt::le5 lilc!l I I '@f3 a6 1 2 tfh3 b5? 1 3 lt::lxd5 ! ! ed 14 lLlxd7 'ihd7 1 5 .ixh7+ �h& 1 6 .if5+ .±± is a trap well worth adding to your repertoire. Of course, if you prefer Portisch's 8 h3 to Capablanca's 8 .id3, you cannot t ry for it, since h3 is not available for White's queen) 10 .te5 f5 I I lilc I lt::lf6 1 2 .txf6 gf with a sharp struggle ahead, Capablanca-Lasker, New York 1924.

8 J.g3 0-0 :. 9 J.d3 a6

9 . . . lile8 is Portisch-Petrosian, Moscow 1967 (see final chapter) 9 . . . b6 10 lilcl .ib7 I I 0-0 .ixg3 1 2 hg 'ire7 is Black's most solid defence.

10 llcl Note that White plays as many

useful moves as possible before committing h imself to 0-0

10 ,lxg3 A really dangerous exchange

while White can still util ise the open h-file . Perhaps Black should revert to the . . . Ile8 idea.


1 1 hg g6 1 2 e4 !

Rupturing the centre activates all of White's pieces for immediate transfer to the kingside.

12 de 13 J.xe4 i.d7

Or 1 3 . . . lbxe4 14 lbxe4 planning lbeg5.

14 1Wd2 1We7 He could fight against 1Wh6

with 14 . . . h5 15 1Wh6 ltJg4, but it looks like an extreme measure.

50 B

1 5 1Wh6 llfd8 16 g4 (50)

A singularly aggressive position to have arisen from an Exchange Slav. True, White often aims for dark-square control in this variation, but here Portisch would appear to have over-achieved in this respect.

16 "tlrfS 1 7 1Wh4 "tlrg7 18 g5 �e8

Of course 1 8 . . . �xe4 19 �xe4 presages a deadly check on f6.

1 9 d5!

The winning move. Black cannot capture on d5 ( 19 . . . ed 20 �xd5) since th is would again invite the terminal check on f6, so White wins a pawn and retains some initiative.

51 B

1 9 20 de 21 .i.xb7 22 i.xa6 23 0-0 (51)

fiJe7 .ixe6 llab8 llxb2

A flexible attitude to castling is the hallmark of many great masters. White's h-file attack has yielded its harvest, so Portisch now sensibly consolidates.

23 lla8 Or 23 . . . .txa2? 24 1fa4 .ie6

25 1Wa3 ::1:±. 24 .i.b5 lbd6

24 . . . .ixa2 25 i.xe8 llxe8 26 1Wa4 ::1:±. The game concluded: 25 a4 liJef5 26 'tff4 llc8 27 lbe4 �xe4 (27 . . . llxc l 28 lbf6+ 'it>fl! 29 'tfxc I ) 28 llxc8 .ixc8 29 1fxe4 lbd6 30 1We7 lbxb5 31 lld1 h5 32 gh 1txh6 33 lld8+ 'i&>b7 34 ltJgH 1 -0.

Part II Indian Defences

5! 8

Chapter 7: Old I ndian 2 . . . d6 3 lt:Jc3

Chapter 8 : Ki ng's I ndian 2 . . . g6 3 lt:Jc3 j.g7 4 e4 d6 Ch apter 9 : Grtinfeld 2 . . . g6 3 �c3 d5 Chapter 1 0 : :Nimzo-lndian 2 . ,. e6 3 liJcJ .tb4 4 �J . ..

7 Old Indian 1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 d6 3 li:Jc3

H istorica l ly, the Old I ndian was the precursor of the King's I ndian, fa voured in the late 1 9th cent ury and early 20th century by innovators such as Chigorin ( when not adopting the Defence w hich bears his own name) and N i mzowitsch ( before he invented the defence which bears his) . This was at a period before master players had realised that i t was possible to permit White the central latitude conferred by the development of Black's king's bishop to g7 (the King's I ndian ) . The Old I ndian is usua lly distinguishe·d-·byihe j?OsllWillngORJTack's. k.lni's bistioo on e7, a more passive square than g7, smce I rom there the bishop can exert little pressure aga_m_st�

white centre. From the diagram, Black has

Jhree moves: 3 ... eS allows W hite to retain the initiative by exchanging q ueens. displacing B lack's king; 3 ... .i.f5 4 g3 followed by .i.g2 exploits the exposed position of Black's queen's bishop to conquer the centre and gain time; while 3 ,.

l!Jbd7 4 e4 e5 5 d5 (Spassky's method) leaves Black cra�ped. White's plan will then be to castle q ueenside and attack Black 's k ing on the opposite side of the board. Note the similarities with Spassky's way of handling the Czech Benoni.

Currently t he Old Indian is favoured sporadically by Danish Grandmaster Bent Larsen a nd US G ra ndmaster Lubosh Kavalek; in BCO i t is covered on page 50.

Spassky-Ka�alek

Montreal 1979

d4 2 c4 3 10c3

l!Jf6 d6 l!Jbd7

Other ways of implementing the Old I ndian a re : a) 3 . . . eS 4 de de 5 'W'xd8+ <,$·xdl.S 6 l!Jf) l!Jfd7 (6 . . . l!Jbd7 7 Il:g l !

followed by g4) 7 .td2 c6 8 g4 (54)

54 B

This is Averbakh's idea, intending h4, g5 and .th3, gaining space on the kingside and exchanging lights4uared bishops to ac4uire dominance over squares such as e4 and f5 - 8 . . . a5 9 g5 �a6 10 h4 �ac5 1 1 .te3 f5 1 2 gf gf 1 3 0-0-0 'it>e8 1 4 .th3 at least !. SpasskyGheorghiu, Siegen 01 1970. White fol lows up by seizing the g-file with his king's rook . b ) 3 . . . ..trs 4 g3 ! (rather than 4 f3 which is usual ly given) 4 . . . eS 5 .tg2 c6 6 d5! with the makings of a tremendous space advantage for White. Or 4 . . . c6 5 .i.g2 �bd7 6 e4 .tg6 7 lt!ge2 e5 8 h3 1lrb6 9 0-0 0-0-0 1 0 d5 ± Alekhine-Janowski, New York 1924 . c) After the amorphous 3 . . . c6 I suggest 4 e4 e5 5 d5 or 4 . . . �bd7 5 �[3 e5 6 d5, broadly emulat ing Spassky's recipe.

4 e4 e5 5 . d5! (55)

55 8

Old Indian 51

An unambiguous declaration of intent . White will ossify the centre , castle quecnside and then try to blast B lack's king on the opposite wing. Black can scarcely consider . . . 0-0-0 himself, since his internal communications are inadequate to bring over sufficient ddensive pieces to shield his king, either on c8 or b8.

5 Jle7 Move-order now makes little

difference, since the contours of the position have been fixed, but here is one slightly divergent example; 5 . . . �c5 6 1rc2 a5 7 .te3 .te7 8 h3 0-0 9 g4 c6 10 0-0-0 cd I I ..txc5 de 1 2 ed ! Peev-Zeitlin, Pernik 1977. If 5 . . . g6, heading back towards a King's I ndian , White can play 6 ..te2 ..ig7 7 ..ig5 with a grip, since Black cannot easily throw off the pin without weakening his kingside (7 . . . h6 8 .i.h4 g5 9 .tg3 leaves f5 exposed, and Black does not even have . . . lllh5 at h is disposal).

52 Old Indian

0-0 ILleS aS

To secure his knight against eviction with b4.

9 .teJ b6 If 9 . . . lL!g4? 1 0 .ixc5 de I I h3

winning material. 10 h3 h6

Or 10 . . . g6 I I g4! The point of Black's l i th move is to fight for kingside dark square control (g5, f�. h4) impeding White's aggressive designs in that sector.

I I 0-0-0 lLlh7 12 g4 lL!gS

1 2 . . . g5 is much too passive, and would give White a free hand with a later h4, e.g. after lldg l .

1 3 lL!d2 A false trail .

1 3 �h7 14 �f3 lOgS IS lL!el !

Finding a more profitable route for the knight.

I S �h7 Black is willing to draw after

16 liJf3 liJg5 , but there is no need for White to conclude peace yet.

16 ll:lg2 .lgS An exchange which is 5trategicaUy

desirable for Black, in that he gives himself extra room in which to manoeuvre and eliminates the more agile of White's bishops.

17 h4 .ixe3+ 18 liJxe3 g6 (56)

56 w

Black adopts a classic defensive posture, with his pawns abreast of each other on the third rank. He

· can thus meet h5 with .. . g5 or g5 with . . . h5, blocking position in either case.

19 :dn .ld7 20 wbl 1We7 11 f3 wg7

Bronstein calls Black's set-up "the fire-resistant Kavalek wall". Actually, that is the maximum it can achieve. Black's position is going absolutely nowhere. The standard break-out attempts . . . b5 and . . . f5 are out of the question, so he must just sit and wait for White's winning try. The next few moves resemble siege warfare -Spassky lines up his mangonels and assault troops more or les:. as he pleases, while Kavalek maintains vigilance along his defensive 'wall', shifting his troops to any area where an immediate thrt:at arises.

22 l:l:fl lL!f6 2J 9d2 llae8

24 .tdl lUh7 25 .tel l:lb8 26 lUb5 l:lbc8 27 l:lfb2 l:lh8 28 l:lgl l:lhfl 29 g5 hS 30 lt:lf5+! (57)

J7 B

At last White storms the fort ifi�:ations. This is the only way to make progress, since playing for f4 would, given the absence of dark-squared bishops, tend to undermine White's own posi tion and give Black a splendid pie�:e outpost on e5. It is worth comparing the operations here with Gl igoric-Petrosian in Part V where White's f4 breakthrough was feasible.

30 gf 31 ef 'ti;>h8 32 l:lhg2

White is now ready to smash through Black's position with his g-pawn. Another plan that comes to mind is f6 fo llowed by We2 and f4. In view of these imminent

Old Indian 53

calamities, Kavalek resolves to return the material for a measure of freedom.

5il w

32 33 34 35 36

fe g6 fg gh

e4 We5 fg l:lf4 .tg4 (58)

An interesting psychological situation has arisen, and a common one in chess . The White assault has ended, but he is now one good pawn (plus one doomed pawn) ahead in material. So, White has to overcome Black's counterplay and adjust himself to a mental framework of consolidation, rather then aggression. Not everyone can handle such i mportant transitions! I t is also interesting, from a positional viewpoint, that the position in the diagra m could have arisen from a crude assault by White, involving a bru te-f<_?rce onslaught with f4. The diffe rence is that, although Bla�:k's forces have occupied the weakened dark

54 Old Indian

squares (e5/f4), White's more subtle conduct of the assault has netted him material gain .

I give the technical part of the game in brief; the important th ing, of course, is for White to exchange queens: 37 a3 Il:cf8 38 'W'd4 lil8f7 .19

'W'xe5+ de 40 �c3 '.t>xh7 41 'i!;>a2 lLld7 42 Il:d2 lilf2 43 llgg2 llxg2 44 lhg2 ll:lf8 45 b4 ab 46 ab \t'g7 47 c5 be 48 be li:Jg6 49 lih2 �1'8 50 .ia4 Il:f6 51 'i!;>b3 Il:f3 52 �e4 'i!i'e7 53 Il:b2 lH7 54 d6+ ed 55 ed 'i!;>f8 56 Il:d2 .id7 57 i.xd7 lixd7 58 'i!;>d5 'i!;>e8 1 -0.

I give another example to show the typical style of attack.

Diagram 5!!a is t imer KhanSolomon, 2nd Commonwealth Championship, Hong Kong 1 984.

5Hu w

t 6 li:Jf5! ! �r 17 er hg 18 fg li:Jxg4 19 'W'gJ ll:lxr5

1 9 . . . lLlf6 20 h5 <Jih7 2 1 h6 li:Jge8 22 liLdg l liLg!! 2J 'W'g7+ ! ! li xg7 24 hg+ �gK 25 liL h K mate.

20 '8xg4+ ttlg7 21 'W'g3 r5 22 h5

1 -0 22 . . . <Jihtl 23 h6 li:Je8 24 liLdg I

±± .

8 King's Indian Defence -t·�4- lL'lf6.2.c4.g6 3 tbc3 $.g/;.� e4.g6

The King's Indian is a tangled primeval forest , in which it is frighteningly easy to lose one's path . There are so many different ways of meeting it, leading to vastly varied structures and scenarios. I f you choose one that does not correspond to your own preferences and strengths the results can be fatal - for exa mple, the Four Pawns Attack (5 f4 0-0 6 lilf3 c5 7 d5 e6 8 i.e2) is not for the faint-hearted, while the Orthodox (5 .te2 0-0 6 lt:lf3 e5 7 0-0 lilc6 8 d5 lt:le7) requi res t itanium nerves and a lot of precise analysis to weather Black's inevitable kingside attack.

My feeling is that the main points to bear in mind when

fighting the K I D are to blockade the black position, clamp down on the freeing breaks . . . b5 (after Black has established a pawn on c5) and . . . f5 (after Black has played . . . e5) and, above :� ll , to prevent the liberation of Black's Draconian bishop on g7.

The chief blo(;kade system against the K I D is the Samisch, from the diagram: 5 f3 0-0 6 .td or lg5. The problem with the Samisch is that it is very llea vily documented indeed (see BCO, ··-pages 1 28- 1 3 1 , if you wish to delve further into this) and, therefore, hard to lc:arn. The system I have chosen with 5 2hge2 strongly resembles the Slim•sch, and may, on occasion, tranpose into branches of it . It has the same blockading

8lins, but is relatively unusual. The reader 'can, therefore, rely on his own judgment and instinct to a much greater degree, secure in the knowledge that his opponent will not be able to hit him with reams of devastating memorised analysis.

5 �ge2 is given, in brief, in BCO, page 1 24.

56 King's Indian

Boh'innik-Smyslow USSR Championship 1941

Notes marked " " by Botvinnik

I d4 IL!f6 2 c4 16 3 IL!cJ .A,g7 4 e4 ' d6 5 :�pl ... d (60)

6 acs "It would seem that this move

has not been met with before in this particular position. It is not easy for Black to free himself from the pin. The solution Smyslov found is too primitive."

Theoretical obsenation After � . . . e5 White also has the

option of transposing to an interesting version of the Samisch with 6 fJ. The advantages of such a treatment are that Black has already committed himself to defence based on . . . e5 (which eliminates many of his more exciting choices, such as . . . lL!c6 or ... a6) while White .Ul �taini the

possibility of developing the queen's bishop to g5 rather than e3. Here are some samples:

Benko-Fischer, Portoroi Interzonal 195H: 6 . . . 0-0 7 .i.g5 ed 8 �xd4 �c6 9 �c2 .te6 10 .i.e2 h6 1 1 .i.h4 g5 1 2 .tf2 lt:Je5 ( 1 2 . . . lt:Jh5) 1 3 �e3 c6 1 4 0-0 1Wa5 1 5 1td2 llfd8 1 6 llfd I a 6 1 7 a 4 1Wc7 1 8 a5 tl ±. Fischer now played the misguided 1 8 . . . c5? when 19 h4! left no doubt of White's superiority.

Sanguinetti-Fischer, Santiago . 1959: 6 ... 0-0 7 .i.g5 c6 8 1td2 11ra5

9 d5 cd 10 cd ( 10 �xd5 9xd2+ I I Wxd2 �xd5 1 2 cd ;!) 1 0 . . . .td7 1 1 g4 �a6 1 2 lOgJ �c5 1 3 llb 1 1Wb4 14 lL!b5! and once again the exchange of queens favours White. Fischer actually went on to lose both of the above games .

Petrosian-Najdorf, Bled 196 1 : 6 . . . c6 7 .i.g5 �bd7 8 d 5 l0b6 9 �c l cd 1 0 cd 0-0 I I a4 a6 1 2 lL!b3 .i.d7 1 3 a5 �c8 14 .td3 b5 1 5 lt:Ja2 l0e7 16 ttlb4 White has a great superiority on the queenside , and eventually conducted a successful campaign in the c-file. However, Petrosian d id have to overcome serious black counterplay based on . . . lt:Jh5 and . . . f5. In view pf this , White might have considered the prophylactic 1 6 g4!? as a preliminary measure before turning his full attention to the queen's flank .

Tal-Tolush, USSR Ch, Moscow

King's Indian 57

1957 : 6 . . . lL!bd7 7 .ig5 c6 8 Wd2 0-0 9 d5 c5 1 0 g4! a6 I I l0g3 �e!! 6 1 1 2 h4 Wa5 1 3 .ih6 lL!f8 1 4 h5 Wc7 w 1 5 .id3 b5 1 6 0-0-0 be 1 7 .ib l ! a standard device to halt Black's counterplay. If anything, the extra pawn on c4 obstructs Black's counterattack: 17 ... .ih8 1 8 �dg l �b8 19 l0f5 and White has a murderous attack.

6 h6 7 Ah4 .:S

.. Black weakens his f5 square without any compensation."

8 .i&3 �bS 9 . de

.. Precisely as the result of this exchange and the subsequent forced manoeuvre, White occupies Black's f5 square."

9 1 0 . • xd8+ I I 0-0-0+ 1 2 �dS 1 3 10e3

de �dl

. 10d7 c6 �c7

.. Black develops according to a well known system, preferred by Ukranian masters in the King's Indian Defence, but in the given case Black's weakness on f5 gives White the advantage." [Hotvinnik is referring to the variation : I d4 l0f6 2 c4 d6 3 lLJc3 e5 4 de.]

14 li:lfS .tfl (6 1) "In all probability Black did not

guess White's intention or he would have played 14 . . . .i.f6 or 14 . . . lL!xg3."

IS l hd7+! "Of course, White wins only a

pawn as yet for the sacrifice of the exchange, but his positional superiority gives him good chances."

I S 'it'xd7 " 1 5 . . . .txd7 is followed by

16 .i.xe5+, which would cost Black a piece."

16 .txeS f6 1 7 .i.c3

"Another good move was 1 7 ..td4. Now Black must defend his fpawn in view of the threat 1 8 g4."

17 �e6 Ill g4?

"The advantage can be thrown away with one stereotyped move. After 18 h4! g4 19 lL!ed4+ �f7 20 .i.e2 (20 . . . �g8 2 1 c5) there would be no doubt of White's superiority. This variation was pointed out to me after the game by V .Ragozin, while G.Levenfish also noted it in 64" (a well known So9iet theoretical journal).

Ill 10f4

58 King's Indian

1 9 li'lxf4 gf 20 Ad3

"When White played 1 8 g4 he planned to open up the game subsequently with e5 and to take advantage of the adverse king's open position. But, unfortunately, the king position turns out to be quite secure."

20 aS " Preparing . . . Ab4."

21 a3 .icS 22 eS �f7

" If immediately 22 . . . Axf2 then 23 lH l ."

23 er. "Whereas White's 1 8th move led

to the loss of advantage, this move brings with it loss of equality. Any other move (23 lii:f l or 23 f3) would have been bet ter. Black now brings about an advantageous endgame."

23 .ixfS 24 .ixfS

"24 gf llad8 25 �c2 Ad4 is no better for White."

6) w

24 Axf2 (63)

"Smyslov took good advantage of White's errors. He retained the material advantage and, by simplifying the position, obtained serious chances of winning. White has no way of saving his f-pawn or avoiding t he exchange of bishops. For instance, 25 h4 llad8 26 Axa5 b6 27 Ac3 Ad4 is obviously in Black's favour."

25 llfi Ah4 "There is no point in 25 . . . .ic3+

since in order to win the f6 pawn Black would have to attack

· with the bishop." 26 AdJ?!

" White should have chosen 26 �c2 .ixf6 27 llxf4 .ixc3 2M �xc3 �g7 29 c5 and the white king occupies a bet ter position than in the actual continuation ."

26 llf8 27 cS?!

"Here too, 27 q;,c2 was the better move ."

27 28 llxf4 29- Axf6+ 30 AfS 31 q;,c2

Axf6 �g7 llxf6 llff8 llfe8

"Black again takes subtle advantage of White's further virtually imperceptible mistakes (26 Ad3 and 27 c5). Now he provokes b4, after which the white king, cut off on the first two ranks, is in a dangerous position. White is compelled to lose a tempo in order to

secure the safety of the h-pawn." 32 h4 JileS 33 b4 ab

"This is more consistent than 33 . . . a4 since the black rooks are becoming very active. However, if Black does not succeed in exploiting the bad position of the adverse king, his winning chances will be almost nil since White has no weak pawns. "

04 w

34 ab lild (64)

The ending which follows is of no compelling relevance to the opening variation. Black clearly has some winning chances but these are nebulous. In the concluding phase of the game, which I give in brief, Black missed 37 . . . lilacS! 38 lild4 lilh3, maintaining some hopes of a win.

The remaining moves were: 35 �b2 lild8 36 c.t>c2 lia8 37 <&b2 lic2+ 38 c.t>b3 liae8 39 lid4 ll8e7 40 lid6 lif2 41 J.d3 lif6 42 lid4 lien 43 J.fS h5 44 b5 hg 45 .i.xg4

King's Indian 59

cb 46 .i.d7 lin 47 Axb5 lilbl + 48 'ittc4 licl + 49 ¢'b4 lle7 50 .i.d3 lie3 51 hS �h6 52 lidS llh3 53 c.t>bS lldl 54 Ae4 Yl-Yl in view of the continuation 54 . . . Jihd5 55 Axd5 lhh5 56 .i.xb7. (Most of the notes to the above game are based on those of Botvinnik in his book of selected games. )

65 B

Ma tulovic-Dednarski Palma de Mallorca 1967

I 2 3 4 5

e4 d4 c4 ll:Jc3 ll:Jge2 (65)

g6 .i.g7 d6 �f6

In the preceding game, BotvinnikSmyslov, I examined the consequences of 5 . . . e5. I n this game I survey the alternatives: a) 5 . . . ll:Jc6 6 d5 ll:Je5 7 lllg3 0-0 8 J.e2 c6 9 f4 �ed7 1 0 J.e3 cd I I ed a5 1 2 0-0 ll:Jc5 1 3 f5 J.d7 14 Wd2 ;t; ± (space advantage) Keene-Jasscm, Dubai 1 984. b) 5 .. . ll:Jbd7, evidently playable as

60 King's Indian

a transpositional route to main l ines, but in Barczay-Ortega, Berlin 1 967, Black went rapidly astray - 6 li:lg3 c5 7 d5 a6 H a4 h5 9 .ie2 h4 10 �fl �h5 I I .ig5! ± . c) 5 . . . c6 6 li:lg3 a6 (6 . . . h5? ! 7 h4 e5 H d5 'it'b6 9 1Vc2 .ih6 10 .ixh6 lhh6 I I .ie2 llhH 1 2 li:lfl t

( Forintos); W hite will play 0-0 and then proceed with llab l and b4) 7 a4 a5 8 .ie2 li:la6 9 0-0 0-0 I 0 .ie3Wc7 I I f4 e5 1 2 c5! ± SzaboLambert, K re ms 1 967. d) S . . . cS 6 d5 e5 7 li:lg3 (7 de frees Black's posit ion) 7 . . . h5 (7 . . . lLlbd7 H .ie2 a 6 9 0-0 h5 I 0 .ig5 li:lfll I I 'ttd2 li:lllh7 1 2 14 lDxg5 1 3 fg li:lh7 1 4 h 4 with an aggressive posture for White, who has f-file pressure combined with sacrificial ideas against h5 at his disposal -Barczay-Bogdanovic, Sarajevo I IJ6H) 8 h4 �h7 (threat . . . .if6) 9 li:lge2 li:la6 10 .ie3 �c7 I I aJ 0-0 1 2 li)c I li:lf6 1 3 .ig5 Well 1 4 .ie2. As I can personally testify ( the ga me is Forintos-Keene, Caorle 1 972) it is very difficult for Black to generate coun terplay here.

s 0-0 The most popular !)Joice.

6 li:lg3 eS 6 . . . c5 7 d5 e6 (7 . . . li:la6 ll .ie2

li:lc7 9 0-0 llb8 I 0 .ie3 a6 I I a4 b6 1 2 llb l .id7 1 3 b4 ± ForintosPolgar, H ungaria n Ch 1 961S-9) 8 .ie2 ed 9 ed (9 cd is playable, transposing to the Modem Benoni ,

but not the l ine I advocate in this book) 9 . . . a6 1 0 a4 lleH I I .if4 1!tc7 1 2 'ttd2 li:lbd7 1 3 0-0 b6 1 4 .ih6 .ih8 1 5 h3. At this moment, Szabo- Petrosian, Sarajevo 1 972 ended as a draw, but I believe this had more to do with the relative status of the players than with the position (good GM happy to draw with ex-world champion). Black is still cramped and has no obvious counterplay , while White has dangerous plans such as .id l -c2 plus f4-f5 at his disposal . There is

· obviously no need to agree to a draw if you reach this position yourself as Wh1te.

61i H

7 dS (66)

The game move here is 7 . . . c6, st riving for c-li le counterplay, but there are plenty of others: a ) 7 . . . �e8 8 h4 ! f5 9 ef gf 1 0 i.g5 1fd7 ( 1 0 . . . li:lf6 I I ..id3 e4 1 2 ..ic2 With fJ to come; or 10 . . . ..i f6 I I 11t'h 5 ph1s ..id3 and 0-0-0) I I .id3 li:la6 12 �h5 li:lc5 1 3 ..ic2 a5 1 4 'tte2 ;t a t least - White will castle

queenside and attack with a combination of f3 and g4. b) 7 ... ltlbd7 8 .ie2 a5 (8 . . . ltlc5? .� b4! ±) 9 h4 h5 10 .ig5 ltlc5? and npw Black is wiped out by a stock sacrifice which may net you many points in your own ga mes: I I .ixh5! gh 1 2 ltlxh5 (67)

White is i ntending Wf3 and ll:h3-g3 , while if 1 2 . . . ..tg4 1 3 �hf6+ and Wxg4 ::1:± . Th e main defence is 1 2 . . . �hi! 13 f3 ! ltlcd7 14 11td2 't>g8 ( 1 4 . . . 11te8 1 5 .ixf6 ltlxf6 1 6 llJxf6 .i.xf6 1 7 Wh6+ ±±.) 15 llJe2 1fel! 16 ltlxg7 'it;>xg7 1 7 .txf6+ �xf6 I I! Wg5+ ±± . A valuable shot to have: in your arsenal. c) 7 ... �lg4 8 ..ie2 Wh4 9 lt:Jb5! ltla6 10 .id2 f5 I I .ixg4! (only now, when Black must allow a pawn to settle on g4, reducing his mobility and blocking his own bishops) I I . . . fg 1 2 \te l 1fd8 1 3 b4 and then c5 ± , Forin tos-Dely, Kecskemet 1 968. d) 7 . . . aS 8 .ie2 ltla6 9 h4 ltlc5 10 h5 c6 I I .ig5 h6 12 ..teJ cd 1 3 cd

King's Indian 6 1

g 5 1 4 0-0 .id7 1 5 .ixc5 dc 1 6 a4, Szabo-Klundt, Bamberg 1 961!; ± i n view of Black's diseased light squares. G ufeld give s · as an i l lustration: 1 6 . . . ltle8 17 .ib5 ltld6 18 .ixd7 11txd7 19 Wb3 and ltlb5.

7 8 .ie2 ltla6

Or 8 . . . cd 9 cd a6 1 0 a4 ltlbd7 I I h4 h5 (Black avoids . . . h5 at his peril, e.g. I I . . . a5 1 2 h5 ltlc5 1 3 .ie3 .id7 1 4 ll:a3 ll:c8 1 5 1td2 and .ih6 ±; or I I . . . ltlel! 12 h5 f5 1 3 hg hg 1 4 e f g f 1 5 .ig6 ±; finally, I I . . . ltle8 1 2 h5 a5 IJ ll:a3 ltlc5 1 4 .ie3 f5 1 5 .ixc5 ! de 1 6 h g h g 1 7 ef gf II! lL!b5 lt:Jd6 19 lt:Jh5 f4 20 ..Q.g4 and then ll:ah3 ±) 1 2 .ig5 11tb6 1 3 a5 ! (68)

White has a clear advantage , e .g . 1 3 . . . Wxb2 1 4 ..Q.d2 ltlc5 1 5 ll:a2 WbJ 1 6 Wa I threatening 0-0 and ll:b l . Also 1 3 . . . 1td4 14 1tc2 \!fc5 1 5 0-0 and ll:fc l . If Black takes posi tional risks on 1he q ucenside to counter W hite's a ttack on the other wing, it is quite

62 King's Indian

clear that White can sti l l switch fronts to exploit such weaknesses. This observation is further justified by 1 3 . . . Vllc7 14 Vlld2 ll::lc5 1 5 lla3 b6 16 b4 lt:lcd7 17 0-0 and llfc l ± Forintos-Bogdanovic, Sarajevo 1 965. 8 . . . cd 9 cd lt:lbd7 1 0 h4 a5 I I h5 lt:lc5 1 2 �g5 t ransposes to Mat ulovic- Bednarsk i , but 1 0 . . . h 5 I I �g5 VIlaS 1 2 iVd2 lt:lc5 1 3 0-0 a6 14 I!ab l Vllc7 15 b4 -=t:lcd7 16 llfc l again favours White on the qucenside.

9 h4 lt:lcS 9 . . . h5 once more permits the

white queen's bishop to sett le on g5.

1 0 hS cd J J cd aS 12 �gS

A good alternative is 12 �d (stopping . . . a4) 12 . . . �d7 1 3 a4 ! llc8 1 4 lla3 ;t, e.g. 1 4 . . . W'b6 1 5 h6 �h!! 16 lt:lb5 planning llc3, 0-0, Vllcl and llfc l ; or 1 4 . . . ltJe8 1 5 1fd2 f5 1 6 h g h g 1 7 ef gf 1 8 .i.g5 ± .

69 w

1 2 .i.d7 13 Vlld2 a4 (69)

Now that Black is all ready for a queenside blitz, I would suggest that White reveal 0-0-0 as a feint, and cunningly play 14 0-0! He then has powertul threats based on f4, possibly with 'ith I as preparation. Matulovic's choice is bold, even foolhardy, castling into Black's counterattack.

14 0-0-0!? \WaS I S 'itbl bS 16 �d3 I!fc8?

Surely 1 6 . . . � xdJ 1 7 tVxdJ b4 is adequa te for Black . After the dilatory text , Black always appears to be struggling, and has to rely on a rtificial measures for his chances. 1 7 hg hg 18 �h6 lt:lb3 19 'ilrgS! lt:lh7 20 iVe3 �f6 21 tt:'lf5! �xrs 22 ef llxc3 23 t'g fg 24 ·Wg3 (70)

Probably in desperate t imetrouble, Bednarski wuld find no defence to White's threats: 24 ... lt:lf8 2S .ixf8 �xf8 26 1i'xg6 llcl + 21 llxc l lt:ld2 + 28 'itc2 JileS+ 29 �1 llxcl + 30 'itxcl 1 -0 .

9 Griinfeld Defence 1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 g6 3 liJc3 d5

this for the repertoire: the theory 71 of the Exchange Variation is in W such a s ta te of flux and innovation,

The G runfeld, introduced in the 1 920's, is one of Black's most rel iable defences. It does not make any structural concessions, maintains fl uid piece play and provides Black with plenty of tactical opportunities, especially along the a l-h8 diagonal. The only drawback to the Grunfeld is that in many lines White establishes a powerful pawn centre, but such pawn centres can also form a clear target for bombardment from Black's paeces.

The most popular anti-Grtinfcld line in contemporary international competition is the Exchange Variation, i n its various manifestations. There are, however, two good reasons for not selecting

that anything I write now may well be out of date by t he time this book appears. In addition, the Exchange is of such a forcing nature that if Black survives the init ial thrust, Whi te's initiative may well burn itself out prematurely.

Here are two examples in popula r l ines: a) I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 g6 3 lt:lc3 d5 4 tOO i.g7 5 cd l0xd5 6- e4 lt:lxc3 7 be c5 8 Jil b I 0-0 9 i.e2 i.g4! 1 0 lhb7 ..txf3 I I ..txf3 cd 12 cd .txd4 I ) 0-0 lt:lc6 14 9a4 llc8 1 5 .th6 lle8 (72)

72 w

Although White has the bishop pair, 1 do not see t hat there is any

64 Grunfeld Defence

way that the powerfully centralised black position can be breached. More interesting is 10 0-0 cd I I cd ..txf3 1 2 .ixf3 ..txd4 1 3 e5 �c6 14 e6!? fe 1 5 11fb3 1lrd6 but how convincing is it? White may regain both pawns, but the black bishop on d4 is still imposing. ,P.)J d4 �f6 2 c4 g6 3 �c3 d5 4 cd lt:Jxd5 5 e4 lt:Jxc3 6 be .i.g7 7 ..ic4 c5 8 lt:Je2 0-0 9 0-0 lt:Jc6 I 0 ..te3 cd I I cd ..tg4 1 2 f 3 ll\a5 1 3 .i.d 3 ..te6 14 d5 .txa 1 1 5 'tha i f6 16 lil: b l

_$.dU_7 ..th�_ lil:l7 I H e5 fe 19 'itxe5 11'b8 20 't!*xbll+ lhb8 21 .td2 ..tf5! 22 .ixf5 llxf5 23 ixa5 1Cxd5 (73)

w

and White is nominally better, with two minor pieces for rook and pawn, but I doubt if he has real winning chances .

Accordingly, I have opted for a httle known brainchild of the Soviet grandmaster Oleg 'R.omanishin, from Diagram 7 1 : 4 'tf3 .i.g7 5 cd �xd5 6 9b3. Romanishin dtd not mvent thts,

but he was in itially responsible for the l ine's modern reintroduction, while recent theory has been considerably enhanced by US I nternational Master Jon Tisdall .

Black's · counter measures are ·much Jess definable here than m the normal Exchange and there is scope for penonal input. The Romanishin Exchange is mentioned briefly in BCO on page 27. The main line Exchange Variations are covered on pages 98- 1 02.

I 2 3 4 s 6

74 8

Tisdali-J ansa Aarhus 1 983

d4 li:Jf6 C4 ----.-

__gL, Tc'3 dS Ccr _ lLJxdS l0f3 __!&?___ Wb3 (74)

Now Black has to choose oetweenthetra'dl'llonaTC:i'runfeid Excha-nge-on c3 or wi thdrawal of ffiel(-nlgfit to b6, with a consequent direcCassault against White's d4 .

pawn. Some examples of the former t reatment : a) 6 . .. /()xc3 7 be 0-0 8 e3 c5 9 i.e2 cd 1 0 cd li:Jc6 I I 0-0 e5 1 2 i.a3 �e8 1 3 de �xe5 14 �ad l 2tlxf3+ 1 5 .txf3 1tb6 1 6 Wa4 ± TisdallKing, M olde 1 98 1 . b ) 6 . . . li:Jxc3 7 be 0-0 8 e3 li:Jd7 9 i.a3 c5 1 0 .te2 Wc7 I I 0-0 b6 1 2

·e4! :ib7 1 3 d5 ! ± or Tfe4lt:lf6 1 3 e5! 2tlh5 ( 1 3 . . . i.c6? 1 4 ef! )

. J4 :fc4 With a veryact ive-position fpr Whtte.

· ·

6 �b6 7 i.gS (75)

The main line. A lso interesting i_s .

. 7 e4!?-�_8�_(r::..:�·xd4 H i.h6! ;

_o_r 7_ � . . Q-0 8 i.c2 i.g4 9 d5 c6 10 i.e3 cd I I ed i.xc3+ 12 be Wxd5

13.txb6- tl)

·8

-d5

·..txf3 9 �

Romanishin-Korchnoi, -l..lss·R Team Ch, Tinis 1 976. Now 1 0 a4! a5 I I i.e3 li:J 8d7 1 2 lid I 0-0 1 3 i.h3

"WCIT4lifcT-.t.

75 B

7 h6 Implementing a vigo7o'UScounter

at tack . Black should not play wo

Grunfeld Defence 65

passively, otherwise White will secure a grip over the centre which can hardly be shaken. Other examples are: 7 . . . �0 8 �d l h6 9 .th4 .tg4 1 0 e3 a5 I I i.e2 a4 1 2 'ttc2 c6 1 3 0-0 �8d7 1 4 h3 ..te6 1 5 e4 llc8 1 6 �fe I (White has defin i tely annexed the centre, while Black has been offered no obvious target for counterplay) 16 . . . i.c4 1 7 i.xc4 li:Jxc4 1 8 e5! (b isect i ng Black 's posit ion) 1 8 . . .

li:Jf8 1 9 d 5 Wbfo 20 �e2 a 3 2 1 b] li:Jb2 22 � c l 'ira6 23 lld2 g5 24 i.g3 cd 25 �xd5 li:Jc6 26 li:Jd4 li'l xd4 2 7 �xd4 'ira5 28 b4 't!ta7 29 t!rd2 lii:ab8 30 lii:c7 (preparing the fi nal spectacular invasion) 30 . . . c6 3 1 li'le7+ ct>h8 32 �dd7 't!ta6 33 Wd �ed8 (76)

34 li.Jg6+ fg 35 ll xg7 1 -0 ( J5 li:JJ3 36 :lih 7 + '>t>g8 3 7 lii:cg 7+ lt.tl8

38 'itc7 ±±). An amazing game. Tisda l l-Orset h, Molde 198 1_.

Another Tisdall game, as Whi te v Thipsay , Benedict ine 1 983 : 7 . . . i.cb 8 'i!t'c2 li'lc6 9 lid I li'lb4 I 0

66 Grunfeld Defence

1t'b I ll:l4d5 I I e4 lLl xc3 1 2 be 0-0 1 3 .te2 h6 1 4 .te l c5 1 5 de .t xc3+ 1 6 'it>fl ll:ld7 17 .ih6 i.g7 H ! i.xg7 'it>xg7 1 9 Wb2+ ..tig8 20 h4 Wc7 2 1 h5 ±.

8 .-..&!!:!. i. eli

9 1tc2 �-10 %fill !Eb4

Not 10 �ll:lxd4?"IJ ll:l xd4 i.xd4 1 2 e3 i.xc3+ 1 3 1!hc3 tl; or 10 ... 0-0 I I d5 ll:lb4 1 2 1tc l t.

77 8

I I "iltbl_ (77)

Now I I . . . c6 is insufficiently challenging: 12 e4 0-0 13 a3 ll:la6 14 .te2 ll:lc7 15 i.g3 i.bJ 16 Ild2 ll:le6 17 0-0 lLl xd4 I H ll:lxd4 i. xd4 19 We t c5 20 ll:lb5 'it>h7 2 1 .tc5 'tireS 22 ll:l xd4 cd 23 i.xd4 t Keene-Small , Commonwealth Ch. Melbourne 1 983.

I I 0-0 12 e3 "'1:15 1 3 -;.r- "ii4 14 dS gS (78)

Violent counter mea.s-ure;i, designed to detonate White's imposing centre.

711 w

I S ,tg3 16 a3 1 7 ab 18 hg 1 9 gf 20 Ilh2

rs f4 fg Ihf1 .td3 i.xdl

I n furman-Savon, USSR 1 970, Black preferred to stay the exchange down: 20 . . . ll:ld7!? 2 1 i.e2 lueS 22 1tc2 1td6 23 �f I . K otov assessed this as "equal", but iho it must be a dynamic balance where both sides have chances to win.

21 "iltxdl (79)

This is a curious case, where both players seem, in a sense,

to be playing past each other - White dominates the l ight squares while Black controls the dark square part of the board . White's chances reside in a direct assault against Black's king, based on the key moves i.h3-e6 and 1t'h5, threatening to infiltrate on g6 or 17 . In what follows Black has to play very accurately to maintain the balance . Here is one attractive trap concealed in the position: 2 1 . . . 'itd6? 22 .i.h3 'ffxb4 23 i.e6+ �h8 24 lhh6+ (80)

HO 8

All B lack's moves have been very natural, but now he is mated: 24 . . . i.xh6 25 .. h5 'it'g7 26 'itf7+ �h8 27 .tf5 i.g7 28 'ith5+ �g8 29 i.e6+ ±±:.

21 22 ba 23 ..thJ

aS! lixa5 lLlc4

Griinfeld Defence 6 7

24 i.e6+ 'it'h8 25 'ith5 1ff8

Not 25 . . . lLlxb2? 26 'itg6 1!t'f8 27 i.f5 *&8 (27 . . . 1rg8 28 llxh6+ ±±) 28 llxh6 with the crushing threat of llh8+.

26 1hg5 After the game Tisdal l fel t

26 ltJd I migh t have offered him better chances.

ill IJ

26 li'Jxb2 27 'it'e2! (til)

Set ting a final t rap: 27 . . . litc5 28 'itg6 litxc3 29 i.f5 ±± .

27 1rf6 Eventually Black has equalised ,

but it has been an uphill struggle. The game concluded: 28 1rxf6 i.xf6 29 lLlb1 lLlc4 30 lhh6+ �g7 31 lithl lita2+ 32 'it'd3 lLle5+ 33 �e3 ll:lc4+ 34 'it'd3 lUeS+ 35 �e3 1!2-\12.

1 0 �Nimzo-lndian ld4,.�r�amJ.��-c3 £b4

champions Botvinnik, Tal, Petrosian and Spassky, as well as prominent

w grandmasters such as Browne, H ubner, Timman and Miles. Strangely, Kasparov plays it rarely as Black and fares badly when he does, but is oftt:n to be seen on the white side. 4f'" I suggest that White should esc ew adventures such as 4 �. 4 f3, 4 1tb3 or 4 g) (though 4 1tc2

lnvente<.l . introduced and cham- is quite playable) and adhere to pioned by the great chess thinker the main lines emanating fro!!' and writer, A ron Nimzowitsch 4 e3. In the coming middlegame he ( 1 !!86- 1 935 ) . the Nimzo-lndian should strive to activate his has become, perhaps, the most central pawns en masseandnot� widely rt:spected defence to I d4. ·arratd of contracting doubled-It is the one I would recommend pawns on c4 and c3, if. in return ,

T<nnc reade r. when he himself has- -ne can perceJve adequate at tacking, to face I d4 . I t crea tes positions chances on the kingside against �.Ire nch 1 11 wct 1ca l and Black's kmg. White: will often los; sifaicgi�- plaits-IOrooth Sldt:s, - '1liCC4-pawn to an attack based oii whe-reBta.�C<>rten gi ve�.':P� . concerted black lire powt:r

.fro�� bishop pan 111 retu rn for corre- bishop on a6, knight on a5 and siwnJing adva n t a ges •n pawn rnok on c8 . But Black may have t.� structure . A dynam 1c, unbala nced . 1nvest so much time: in t his siege e4uahty 1s the normal outcome,- that the white kingside offensive whe re both s i<.les can play for a � �1. m the meantime, gathe� win. I t has, not surprisingly, been decisive momentum. I n this slate enthusiastically a<.lopted by World of dehcate balance and counter-Champion Karpov and former balance, a well developed chess-

board seismic sense can be most useful. I have given several

· illustrative games to help in acquiring this asset. The Nimzo is. in fact, such an important black defence that I have devoted more space to it here than to any other black line ment ioned in this book .

The N imzo i s examined in fu ll in BCD, pages 140- 1 59. I f you wish to employ the N imzo as Black and White sidesteps with 3 g3 (Cata lan) or 3 lll iJ b6 (Queen's Indian) the n:aucr �hould consult BCO, pages 42-46 and 1 60- 1 7 1 .

What I had been hoping for 1 1 1

the Kasparov-Korchnoi World Ch. semi-final match, wh i�:h 1 organised in london during t he winter of 1 9HJ, was a critical test of the hyper-sharp 'deferreu Samisch ' (4 e3 and then aJ as

appropriate and if necessary). The omens were goOd: 11 surts Kasparov's razor-edge style (mating attack in exchange for weak pawns) and Kasparov has recently used it no less than four t imes: v Belyavsky tn the Sparta k iad, Ivanovic at Nik�ic and v Timman and Korchnoi himse l f at the Herceg Novi World Bl i tl Tournamen l . A ll wins. aparl from a very favourable draw v Bclyav� k y . There arc three main White-win scenarios which at tract players to the deferred Samisch:

Nimzo-Indian 69

Massive central pawn advance a Ia Botvinnik-Capablanca, A VRO 1 938. I I Mating attack w&th thrust of the f-pawn. I I I Attack aga inst Black's king on the queenside after ... (}.0-0.

In the funhcr part of this chapter. I will show recent games with the deferred Samisch and point to the direction of current investigat ions.

MaHive Centre Pawn Roller

Bot"innik-Capablanca A V NO 1 9.18

1 d4 �r6 2 _� � J �c3 .ib4 4 e3 'd5--

For 4 .�6 see ReshcvskyFischcr , Part V. A lso 4 . . . ll:lc6 5 .id3 d5 (5 . . . c5 6 li:lc2 d5 !?) 6 a3 de 7 lxc4 lu6 H f4 ! ;!: KeeneFedorowicz, New York 1 9M I .

5 a3 .ixc3+ -- -6 ..J!£.. -iL" 7 cd ed 8 -:iifJ o:o-____. -9 ll:le2 b6

An in_tcn:�� ahernatJVCOu;tbod of �rlg W h i te's cen t re ·�

� �k6_!_!!9.£�_L?f!_ I_!Q:!l__�la5 1 2 rJ li c K I ] Y a 2 lLlb7! i ntt: t:t_d ing

- �5��1 ti ld6. - -1 0 ..J!:.Q_ I I �.ixa6

70 Nimzo-Jndian

1 2 .ib2 A fascinating all US encounter,

Reshevsky-Fine, NY State Ch, Hamilton I94I , reached the identical position after Black's I I th. It was very nearly Reshevsky's 'Immortal', on a par with Botvinnik-Capablanca. Since it is of outstanding interest, I cite it up to the crit ical moment: I2 Wd3 'tlt'c!! 1 3 .tb2 cd 14 cd !iJc7 I 5 lHc i �d7 16 f3 lHe!! 1 7 !iJg3 !iJe6 18 li:e l lilac!! 19 li:ad l ira4 20 li:d2 irc4 2 1 Wb I irb3 22 lt:lf5 lilc7 23 e4 li:ec!! 24 Ii:d3 'tlt'a4 25 e5 !iJe!! 26 !iJe3 tfb5 27 Ii:d2 irb3 28 · li:d3 'trh5 29 lild2 'tra5 (29 . . . 11rb3!? 30 g3 and f4 :t Reshevsky) 30 'trd l 'trb5 3 1 g3 g6 32 f4 f5 33 'trfJ li:d8 34 g4 lt:l8g7 35 gf lt:lxf5 36 ltJg4 lill7 37 !iJf6+ 'it7h8 38 lite I lilxf6 39 ef li:f!! 40 lie I li xf6 4 1 a4! Wd7 42 lif2 li:Jc7 43 lic2 lin 44 li l c l li:Je!! 45 .ta3 li:Jf6? 46 lic8+ �g7 47 .tf8+ 'ittg8 (83)

/JJ w

And at this juncture Reshevsky could have won bri ll iantly with

48 'trxd5! ! 'trxd5 Jor . . . !iJxd5) 49 .i.h6+; or 48 . . . 'trxc8 49 lixc8 !iJxd5 50 .ih6+; finally 48 . . . li:Jg7 49 'trxd7 ±t. White actually played 48 .td6+? and after various further inexactitudes, Reshevsky conceded the draw on move 6 I .

84 w

1 2 1 3 a4

Wd7 life8 (84)

Black should play 1 3 . . . cd 1 4 cd llfc8 with play on the c-lile. He cannot prevent e4 in the long run and after White achieves this advance he will be threatening e5 which is awkward for Black since the knight has no retreat squares. By leaving e8 open Black would also prepare the long-term manoeuvre .. . lt'le8-d6-c4.

14 Wd3 c4 Here Capablanca commences a

very risky sequence to win White's a-pawn.

I S 1 6

•c2

�� . According to Botvinnik 1 6 lLlg3!

is more accurate.

16 lt:lc6? Botvinnik recommends 16

�h5 ! the point being to stop �g3. 17 -�€)&3 lt:la5

After 1 7 . . . et'le4 White has 1 8 et'lh I followed by 1 9 f3 .

18 (3 li:lbJ 1 9 e4 1fxa4 20 •. eS �7

If 20 . . . et'll:5 21 :U.e2 and White wins a piece. Now Blal:k is threatening to play 2 1 . . . et'lbc5 with advantage.

21 1Ul g6 22 ,r4 rs 23 er lilxf6 24 f5 Ilxe t 25 lit XC I Ile8

25 . . . :U.f'!! 26 1t'f4 1t'd7 27 lle6 also lea ves Black in great difliculty.

26 lle6 llxcb If 26 . . . <,!;>17 27 llxf6+ 'o!i>xf6 2!i

fg + 'o!i>xg6 29 'it'f5+ �g7 30 et'l h5+ 'it>h6 3 1 h4 �gH 32 g4 11t'c6 33 �a3 is decisive .

11.1 w

27 rc 28 Wf4 29 1fc5

'.!/g7 1t'e8 11t'e7 (85)

Nimzo-Jndian 71

30 �a3!! A double piel:e sacrifice which

has deservedly gone down in chess history.

30 11t'xa3 30 . . . 11t'e8 3 1 11t'c7+ 'it>g8 32 i.e7

et'lg4 33 11t'd7 wins. 31 et'lh5+ gh 32 1lt'g5+ <i;>f8 .B 1t'd6+ �g8

The effect of White's sacrifice is to stri p Black's k ing of all its defen�.:es. The ga me l:oncluded: 34 c7 We i t 35 'itifl 11t'c2+ 36 'i!.>g3 'ff'd3+ 37 �h4 1t'e4+ 38 �xhS 1i'e2+ 39 'it>h4 1fe4+ 40 g4 Wet + 4 1 'ot>h5 1 -0.

Kasparov-hanovic Nik� ic 1 983

1 d4 et'lf6 2 c4 3 lDc3 --4 e3 s --aJ

Very intereSting that Kasparov should suddenly opt for the deferred Samisch which was general ly abandoned by Russian grandmasters in the 1950's.

5 .ixc3+ 6 _-.Jl£_ - 0-0

6 . . . lDc6 7 ..td3 e5 8 et'le2 d6 9 c4 ed 10 cd cd I I �0 1t'a5 ( I I . . . � 1 2 i.g5! h6 1 3 i.h4 g 5 1 4 ..ig3 et'lh5 1 5 ltl xd4 lt:Jxg3 1 6 li:lxc6 b� 17 hg W'f6) 12 .tf4 .-cs 13 lDc l ll:la5 14 i.xd6! Wxd6 1 5 e5 with the

72 Nimzo-Jndian

init iative, Kasparov-Belyavsky, USSR Teams Ch 1 983. In this line, 8 . . . e4 9 .i b l b6 10 �g3 .ia6 I I f3 .ixc4 1 2 lL!f5 0-0 1 3 lL!d6 ..id3 1 4 .ixd3 ed 1 5 1txd3 marginally favours White, Spassky-Tal, USSR Ch 1 958.

7 -'.d3 dS This is not a real test of White's

play and has been considered weak since the Botvinnik-Capablanca game. Better is 7 . . . lL!c6.

8 ...£!__ � 9 ll'le2 b6

10 � � I I 0-0 12 lLIG3 13 't!hd3 14 lb2 15 't!fd2 16 llael 1 7 e4 (86)

"h6 ..ixd.1

JC[: c4

"Td7 115-··-

Now Black is overrun by White 's cen t re pawns : 17 . . . g6 18 .let lDh7 19 't!t'h6 lle6 20 f4 li:.e 7 21 fS gf 22 'tlt'xh5 de 23 li:.xf5 li:.xfS 24 llxf5 llae8 25 lie3 llg6 36. a,l l-0. lf 26 .. � Jla7 27 :,Pl.

Petrosian-Ljubojevic NiUil: 1983

I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lc3 .lb4 4 e3 0-0

Against the move-order 4 . . . c5 5 ..id3 lt:lc6 6 lt:lge2 d5 (before . . . 0-0) White can also try 7 c d e d 8 a3, e.g. 8 . . . c4 9 ab cd 1 0 't!fxd3 lL!xb4 I I 't1Vb5+ llJc6 1 2 tt:lf4 with pressure against d5. Or 8 . . . cd 9 ab de 1 0 b5 cb I I ..ix b2 , with excel lent compensat ion.

5 ..id3 White could already play 5 a3

here. 5 d5 6 tt:lge2 c5 7 0-0 lL!c6 8 cd ed 9 a3 ..ixc3?!

Stumbling directly into a position where White can implement the central pawn steamroller. Correct is 9 . . . cd 1 0 ab de, or even 9 . . . c4!? 10 .lc2 ..id6 I I f3 't1Ve7 when 1 2 e4 de 1 3 fe l"ii:d!l is not total ly clear.

J O be lle8 I I f3 (� 7)

Black is a l ready i n a desperate s t rategic quandary, since W h ite's i mpen d i ng e4 can hardly be prevented. The most soph is t icated defence is I I . . . b6 1 2 lL!g3 cd 1 3 cd tt:la5 1 4 lla2 �b7, intend i ng . . . li::ld6 and . . . h5.

1 1 .td7?! 12 lt:lg3 'tWaS

Or 12 . . . 1t'e7 1 3 lila2 h6 14 lle2 followed by ..ib2 and e4. This rook manoeuvre is worth noting.

13 'tld2 If now 1 3 . . . cd 1 4 cd 1!hd2 1 5

..ixd2 and the simplifications favour White; e4 is still in the offing, while White's bishops control vital squares and may even support a minority attack based on lillb I plus e4 .

1 3 1t'a4 A brutal attempt to raid the

slight weakness of the l ight squares in White's camp, namely c4 und b3. The drawback is the eccentric and offside station oft he black queen. Petrosian is quick to exploit this.

14 lib1 I S 1 6

.ic2 .id3

1 7 e4! (88)

ltJaS 't!tc4 'i¥34

Of course, there is absolutely no

Nimzo-Jndian 73

need to repeat moves.

1 7 de Or 1 7 . . . cd 1 8 lilb4 de 1 9 'tlf4!

'tic6 20 e5 ±±. Having achieved his major strategic objective, White's play now revolves around a series of subt le tactics .

18 fe cd 19 lilb4 1t'c6

Once again, 1 9 de 20 1t'f4 1t'c6 2 1 e5 lt:ld5 22 11hf7+ �h8 23 lilh4 .

20 cd (89)

White has a massive mobi le

74 Nimzo-Jndian

pawn centre , backed up by the bishop pair and the open f-file. The fol lowing variation shows just how these accumulated advantages can be transmuted into a concrete win. In what follows, note how Black is plagued by the absence of his king's bishop: 20 . . . ]i[ad8 2 1 9f2 li[ f8 22 ]i[b5 b 6 23 ]i[g5 (threat - 9xf6) 23 . . . ¢>h8 (or 23 . . . h6 24 d5 1Wc5 25 ..ie3 1te7 26 ]i[xg7+ �xg7 27 ..id4 with demolition) 24 d5 9c5 25 9xc5 be 26 li[xf6! gf 27 ..ib2 h5 28 ..ixf6+ �h7 29 e5+ �h6 30 ]i[xh5 mate. This long variation is highly typical and instructive, and well worth s tudy.

20 �xe4 Giving up material to smash the

white pawn duo is Black's best chance.

21 lt:lxe4 ]i[xe4 22 91'2! 1'5

If 22 . . . li[f8 23 d5 ! or 22 . . . ]i[e7 23 1th4 forking e7 and h7.

23 d5! 9xd5 24 ..ixe4 fe 25 ]i[d4 9e6

· 26 ]i[xe4! 9g6 If 26 . . . . 9xe4? 27 9n+ wh8 28

9f8+ ]i[xf8 29 ]i[xf8 mate. 27 l%e7 .tb5 28 1tn+

1 -0 I f 2 8 . . . 1Wxt7 2 9 li[fxf7 ±±. A logical and convincing model from the former World Champion.

II f-Pawn Scenario

Bronstein-Najdorf Candidates' 1950

I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lcJ ..ib4 4 a3 ..ixc3+ 5 be c5 6 e3 lt:lc6 7 .td3 0-0 8 lt:le2 d6 9 e4 �e8

10 0-0 b6 (90) 1 1 f4 ..ia6 1 2 r5 e5 1 3 f6 (91)

B.S.Vainstein, Bronstein's bio-

grapher, writes of this move: "Blockade of the f7 pawn, cutting ofT communications between Black's kingside and queenside forces, and the isolation of the h7 pawn, these are the three ideas embodied in this sharp advance."

Black cannot take the f-pa wn: 13 . . . lt:lxf6 14 i.g5 with a crushing pin, or 1 3 . . . gf 14 i.h6 lt:lg7 1 5 lt:lg3. Also good is ( 1 3 . . . gf) 14 d5 lt:le7 1 5 i.h6 lt:lg7 16 lt:lg3 .icH 1 7 lt:lh5 lt:lxh5 1 8 1!hh5 lii:e8 1 9 llxf6 lt:lg6 20 lii:xJ7 ct>xf7 2 1 i.g5 tfd7 22 Wxh7+.

13 ct>h8 Now Black is swiftly despatched.

14 dS lt:laS IS lt:lg3 gf 16 lt:lfS i.c8 1 1 1nas ..txrs 1 8 ef lii:g8 19 lii:l3 lii:g7

19 . . . fiJg7 fails to 20 1Wxh7+ ct>xh7 2 1 lii:h3+ lt:lh5 22 lii:xh5+ c;t>g7 23 i.h6+ 'it>h7 24 .if8 mate.

20 .ih6 lii:g8 21 lih3

1 -0

Timman-Polugayevsky Tilburg 1983

I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lc3 i.b4 4 e3 cS 5 .id3 0-0 6 a3 .ixc3+

Nimzo-Jndian 75

7 be fiJc6 Here 7 . . . d5? was played in

Kasparov-lvanovic . 8 lt:le2!

To this square rather than f3, since White does not wish to block the advance of his f-pawn. This is the reason that White's chances in the deferred Samisch are superior to those he obtains in the variation: 4 e3 c5 5 i.d3 lt:lc6 6 lt:lf3? ! i.xc3+ 7 be d6 8 e4 e5, which scores consistently well for Black.

8 b6 9 e4 lt:le8

Sidestepping the pin i.g5 . 10 0-0 i.a6 1 1 f4 lt:laS

Boldly ignoring White's kingsidc demonstration. In contrast I I . . . d6 fails t o hinder White's plan, e .g. I I . . . d6 1 2 f5 e5 1 3 f6 ! (jj xf6 1 4 i.g5, followed by li:lg3, with carnage - as in Bronstein-Najdorr above.

12 rs f6! (92J

Correctly halting the fu rther

76 Nimzo-lndian

push of White's f-pawn. If 1 2 . . . ef 13 ef .txc4 14 f6! or 1 3 . . . 10xc4? 14 11ra4! ±:±:.

13 10f4 GM Larry Christiansen claims

that 1 3 fe is good here. 1 3 cd 14 'tthS? !

Both 1 4 cd and 1 4 fe de 1 5 e5! come into consideration here as possible improvements.

14 ef I S er?

Christiansen says 15 cd! .txc4 1 6 .txc4+ 10xc4 1 7 'ttxf5 "wirh good play for the pawn", while Polugayevsky recommends 1 5 11rxf5! 10d6 1 6 1lrd5+ lt:ln 1 7 cd.

15 �d6 Or 1 5 . . . de 16 li'lg6! lln 1 7 llf3

threatening 1 8 'ttxh7+ �xh7 1 9 llh3+ �g8 2 0 llh8 mate. The text prepares . . . 'tieS and seems to beat off White's attack.

93 B

1 6 llf3 17 10g6 18 .tf4 1 9 llh3 (93)

'tte8 .txc4 .txd3

The attack reaches its crescendo, but it is bluff.

19 20 'ttxh7+ 21 llg3 22 10e5+

.txrs c;&n �e4

Or 22 lle 1 lbxg3 23 llxe8 llaxe8 24 .ih6 lbe2+ 25 'i&f2 llg8 26 lt:lh8+ �e6 winning.

22 'i&e6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0- 1

Keene-Helmers Exhibition game

Arhus 1983

d4 lbf6 c4 e6 lbc3 .tb4 e3 cS ,a3 .txc3+ be lbc6

.td3 b6 �e2 0-0

On the k.ingside, Black's monarch represents a clear target. Black can also try to arrange . . . 0-0-0 with 8 . . . d6 but then 9 e4 1lrd7 (9 . . . .ta6? 10 'tta4! i s a trap into which Capablanca once fell against the variation's inventor, Fritz Samisch) 1 0 0-0 .i.a6 I I .i.g5 0-0-0 1 2 lOci ! lt.la5 1 3 l0b3 'tta4 14 lt.lxa5 'ttxa5 1 5 'ttc2, with advantage to White, since the black queen is temporarily out of action: For more on this see Section I l l .

9 e4 l0e8 To forestall .i.g5.

1 0 0-0 .ta6

Nimzo-lndian 77

Inaugurating the standard attack 94 against White's indefensible c4 B pawn.

I I f4 cd I t is exceedingly risky to open

up the position like this. M ore sensible is I I . . . f5 though after 1 2 ljjg3 g6 1 3 .te3 ljja5 1 4 de llc8 ( 1 4 . . . ljjxc4 1 5 .txc4 .txc4 1 6 llf2 ljjf6 17 1td4 b5 1 8 lld2 1tc8 -1 8 . . . h5 ! - 1 9 h3 1tb7 20 1te5 ltac8 2 1 i.d4 fe 22 ljjh5 ! ! ±± Christiansen-R . Rodriguez, Moscow IZ 1 982) fS ef ef 1 6 cb ab 1 7 c5! .txd3 1 8 1txdJ 6c 1 9 c4 �f6 20 llad I followed by .td2-c3 White still has a plus in my opinion. Also worth considering is the continuation of Tisdall-Kudrin, Gausdal l 983 : 1 3 ef ef ( l 3 . . . gf 1 4 .te3 ltla5 1 5 de ltlxc4 16 .txc4 .txc4 1 7 llf2 is promising for White, whose queen's bishop will rake Black's kingside from d4) 14 de be 15 .i.e3 d6 16 .txf5 gf 17 1td5+ lii:l7 1 8 1txc6 .txc4 1 9 lii:fe I 1Wc8 20 1111 lilbll 2 1 lld I 1ta6 and now best is 22 1th5 !

12 cd ltJaS 1 3 f5! f6

White threatened f6 fol lowed by .tg5.

1 4 l!J(4 (94) Tranposing into the posit ion

whid1 could have been reached in Timman-Polugayevsky after the recommended 14 cd!

14 e5 15 �d5 lilc8 16 1th5

At the cost of a pawn White enjoys a free hand to throw all his pieces into the assault against Black's king.

16 .txc4 1 7 .txc4 ltlxc4 18 llf3 ed 19 lii:h3 ljjeS

I f 1 9 . . . h6 20 .txh6 wins. 20 1txh7+ q;,n 21 .tr4 lii:c6 22 lii:fl (95)

22

78 Nimzo-Indian

This allows a quick finish but it is hard to see a constructive move for Black, e.g. 22 . . . d6 23 .!xeS de 24 Wg6+ �g8 25 Ilh7 with the devastating threat of •hs and Ilh8.

96 B

23 1L'hS+ �g8 24 li:Je7 maite

Kasparol-Yurtaev Spartakiad May 198 1

1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 li:Jc3 .!b4 4 e3 0-0 5 .!d3 dS 6 cd ed 7 li:Jge2 (96)

Kasparov's move-order in the opening is quite strange and seems to bemuse his less experienced opponent. It evinces a superficial similarity with the old Reshevsky variation: 1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 li:Jc3 .!b4 4 e3 0-0 5 li:Jge2 d5 6 a3 .!e7 7 cd ed, but the crucial difference is that White has already developed

his king's bishop to dJ. 7 �bd7

A perfectly acceptable move in t he Reshevsky line, but here is seems out of place. I nstead, Black should put more pressure on the centre with 7 . . . cS.

8 0-0 c6 9 f3 cS

Amending his previous move displays definite signs of confusion. However, after the normal 9 . . . Ile8 Yurtaev doubtless feared 10 e4, with a central initiative for White.

10 a3 cd Now 10 . . . .!xc3 I f be cedes

White a great advantage, since Black would have squandered a tempo ( . . . c6-c5) only to surrender the two bishops, strengthen White's central pawn roller and misplace his own queen's knight.

1 1 ed J.e7 12 li:Jf4 li:Jb8

At last Black recognises the fut i lity of having developed the knight on d7, and decides to reroute it to c6, from which square he can also threaten White's d4 pawn. Sadly, though, B lack has lost so much precious t ime in the opening that Kasparov can now floor him with a few well-aimed blows .

13 g4! (97) Threatening to knock away the

props of Black's d-pawn with g5.

Interestingly, this aggressive thrust (g4) often features in Kasparov's games.

1 3 1 4 'ii?hl IS gS 16 J.xf4

1 7 J.xb8!

J.d6 l:le8 J.xf4 lt:lhS ('18)

A very fine move indeed . I t breaks a number o f excellent rules about not giving up the bishop pair, not swapping an active piece for a passive one etc . . . but Kasparov has clearly perceived that the increased momentum of his attack fully justifies the exchange.

1 7 lhb8

Nimzo-lndian 79

18 f4 g6 19 •n b6 20 rs

Naturally, White does not capture on d5, which would only invite trouble along the a8-h l diagonal. The standard f-pawn thrust ensures White's advantage.

20 l:lb7 21 f6 .ic6 22 lbel •d6 23 l:leS l:ld8 24 •e3

White's winning plan is straightforward: play his bishop to e2 and then destroy Black's kingside with J.xh5. That was the point of 2 1 f6 (the culmination of White's f-pawn offensive) - to strand Black's k night .

24 bS 2S J.e2 b4 26 ab l:lxb4 27 J.xhS gh 28 g6! (99)

. A neat combination finishes off

the game. I f 28 . . . fe 29 lhe6 wins at once, so . . .

80 Nimzo-lndian

28 hg 29 lhe6 fe

Or 29 . . . 1rxe6 30 'tlrh6 with mate to follow on g7.

30 1Wb6 l::tb7 1-0

White wins with 3 1 l::tg l rt>n 32 'tlrg6+ rt>f8 33 'tlrg8 mate and there is no other sensible defence at move 3 1 .

III Black tries to play . . . 0-0-0 (Attack against Black's king

on the queenside) Geller-Lisitsin

USSR Ch 1 9�S 1 d4 �f6 2 c4 e6 3 �c3 ..tb4 4 a3 .ixcJ+ s be cS 6 e3 �c6 7 .idJ d6 8 �ge2 b6

An important position which can arise from a variety of moveorders (4 e3 c5 or 4 e3 b6).

/ 00 w

9 0-0 'tlrd7! ( 100)

Preparing . . . .la6, . . . �a5 and . . . 0-0-0. The immediate 9 . . . .ta6 is met by the embarrassing 1 0 1ta4.

10 1 1 1 2

e4 .ta6 .lgS 0-0-0 �cl ! (101)

I mproving on an earlier game in the same event, Geller-Spassky, which went 1 2 �g3? h6 1 J .lxf6 gf 14 �h5 cd 1 5 cd �xd4 1 6 �xf6 1re7 1 7 1ra4 (better was 1 7 �g4 followed by ll:le3) 1 7 . . . .lb7! 1 8 ll:lh5 l::tg8 1 9 Wd l f5 ! 20 l::te l (101)

20 . . . 1rh4 2 1 f4 e5! (stronger than winning the exchange with 21 . . . 1txe l + 2 2 1he l li.JfJ+. Now 22 l::tf l is met by n . . . fe 23 i.e2

�f.H H) 22 lite I ef 23 .i.fl 1txe I ! 24 Wxe l ltJf3+ 2 5 � �xe l 26 llxe I f3 ! and Black soon won.

1 2 li:la5 12 ... .i.b7 1 3 a4 a5 was possible,

but the b6 pawn would be a permanent target.

12 ... cd 1 3 cd ltJxd4 14 a4 ltJc6 15 liJb3! gives White value for the pawn, with a5 to come.

13 ltJb3 't!fa4 14 ltJxa5 'li/xa5? (103)

Better was 14 . . . 'li/xd I 1 5 lil:fxd I ba, but after 1 6 e5 de 1 7 de h6 1 8 i.xf6 gf 1 9 e f White has good winning chances in the ending.

15 't!fc2 h6 1 6 .i.d2 dS

Unthematic, but While was threatening ll:fbl followed by lil:b5 and trapping the queen.

1 7 cd c4 18 .ic2 cd 19 e5 l!Je4 20 i.e I ltlg5 21 a4 .ib7 22 h4 lL!e6 23 f4 .ic6

24 rs

Nimzo-lndian 81

Black has no counterplay and the central pawn advance is decisive.

/04 B

105 B

24 ltJc7 25 .i.g3 .i.d7 26 1td2 ¢>b7 27 h5 lil:c8 28 1tc2 f6? 29 e6 ( 104)

29 .ic6 30 .id6 ltJe8 31 .ie7 ¢>a8 32 ll:fbl lil:b8 33 i.f3 1!ta6 34 .cl ...,7 35 t!ia3 ltJc7 36 .id6 ll:hd8 37 aS! ( 105)

82 Nimzo-Jndian

Preparing the final breakthrough. Black cannot afford to a llow the opening of the a-file.

37 bS 38 a6 11t'c8 39 i.f4 ll b6

39 . . . ll d � loses to 40 11t'd6 lt:lxa6 41 .ixd5 �b6 42 �xb5! �d8 43 �xb6 �xd6 44 �bxa6 ±±::.

/06 w

40 •e7! lt:lxa6 ( 106)

a) 5 • . . .tb7 6 a3 i.e7 7 d5 t space advantage. White can continue with g3 and .tg2 or simply lt:lg3 and .te2. b) 5 .. . lt:le4 6 1rc2 .ib7 7 a3 .ixc3 + 8 lt:lxc3 lt:Jxc3 9 1rxc3 0-0 1 0 b3 d6 I I .ib2 li:ld7 1 2 .id3 (sacrificing the g-pawn) or 1 2 0-0-0, both ;!; since B lack has l i t t le to show for White's aggressive bishops, and hardly dare capture on g2, when given the chance. c) 5 ... cS 6 a3 i.a5 7 llb l . Korchnoi-G urevich, US Open, Pasadena 1 983, continued: 7 . . . 1!t'e7 8 .id2 0-0 9 lt:lg3 liJa6 10 d5 lt:Jc7 I I 1rf3 .ixc3 1 2 .ixc3 ed 1 3 cd �e8 1 4 lt:Jf5 ±.

6 lt:Jg3 (107)

107 41 11t'xg7 .ib7 B

42 11t'xf6 b4 43 1re5 1rc6 44 cb lt:lxb4 45 e7 �g8 46 f6 1re8 47 �xb4 ! �xb4 48 1!re6 11t'c8 49 1!rxc8+ �xeS 50 f7 1 -0.

Reshev!>ky-Santasierc US Ch New York 1951

I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 li.)cJ i.b4 4 e3 b6

After this move, White may not need to play a 1 s ince Black often exchanges voluntarily on c3 .

5 lt:lge2 ! .ia6 The main line. Alternatives are:

6 .txc3+ Or:

a) 6 . . . hS 7 h4 .ib7 8 ..id2 a6 9 1rc2 d5 1 0 cd lt:Jxd5 I I lt:Jxd5 .ixd2+ 1 2 1!rxd2 1rxd5 1 3 �ac I lt:Jc6 1 4 .ie2 0-0-0 1 5 .if3 and Black's position is uncomfortable, Geller-Keres, USSR Ch Tiflis 1 959.

b) 6 . . . 0-0 7 e4 ltle6 (7 . . . d5 8 cd .lxfl 9 'ii>xfl .lxe3 10 be ed 1 1 e5 ltle4 12 f3 !) 8 .ld3 e5 (8 . . . d5?! 9 cd .lxd3 1 0 Wxd3 ed 1 1 e5 l0e4 1 2 a3 J.xc3+ 1 3 be f5 14 ltle2! ± planning f3) 9 d5! .lxc3+ 10 be lt!a5 1 1 .,e2 c6 1 2 lt:lf5, with the makings of a kingside attack.

7 be d5 8 J.a3!

I used to like 8 •o. but have now come to the conclusion that it offers White very little.

8 1Wc8 Fischer once played 8 . . . de? !

(Black v Portisch, S iegen 01 1970). It is playable, but exceedingly risky after 9 .e4 .,d7 10 .te2 ltlc6 I I .,c2 0-0-0 1 2 0-0 followed by lilfd 1 and d5 if possible. N ormal is 8 . . . .txc4, though Kasparov has recently shown an improved way for White to handle this, in Kasparov-P. Wells, London/ Acorn Clock S im ul, 1984: 9. ·J.xc4 de 1 0 e4 1Wd7 1 1 0-0 1Wb5 1 2 Wc2! (the new move superseding the old 1 2 d5?! which does not work) 1 2 . . . ltlbd7 13 f3 h5 14 lilfb 1 1Wa5 15 J.c l h4 16 ltlfl 1Wh5 1 7 a4 a6 1 8 .,e2 h3 1 9 g4 1ltg6 20 ltlg3 0-0-0 2 1 •xc4 a 5 2 2 .tf4 c 5 2 3 �f5 �h8 24 .tg3 ±±.

IJ ltlh5!? ( 108) An interesting decision. One

might expect 9 cd .txfl 10 lilxf1 ( 10 c;i;>xfl ? .,a6+) but Reshevsky's move is deeper . . He eliminates

Nimzo-lndian 83

Black's most active piece and prepares to deploy his own queen on the kingsidc dark squares, in concert with the bishop on a3 .

9 ltlxh5 10 •xh5 1Wd7

Or 10 . . . de I I .,g5! forking e7 and g7.

1 1 cd •xd5 1 1 . . . J.xfl ? 12 de ! or 1 1 . . . ed?

1 2 .,e5+. 1 2 .g4 g6

If 1 2 . . . lilg8 1 3 .,h4! White's clever manoeuvres have permanently prevented Black from castling kingside and induced a general debility of Black's dark squares.

13 J.xa6 14 0-0

ltlxa6 0-0-0

The only refuge for Black's k ing, but Reshevsky proves it is not a safe residence.

15 1te2 c;i;>b7 1 6 .te7! ( 109)

Economy of execution - the bishop strives for a square "where

84 Nimzcrlndian

109 B

it will exert maximum pressure" (Reshevsky). At the same time, White unblocks the path of his a-pawn which can now press forward against Black's king.

16 lld7 17 .i.f6 l:lc8 18 a4 1!fa5

"The queen IS not a good blockader" (Nimzowitsch), but there was no other blockader in sight.

19 llaJ c6 Digging in; 19 c5 is too

loosening and attenuates Black's defences along the h l -aS diagonals, e.g. 1 9 . . . c5 20 llb l lt:Jc7 2 1 1Wt1+ q;>b8 22 .i.e5 ! ±.

20 .i.e5 liJc7 21 c4

Keeping the knight from dS. 21 ll:\e8 22 c5 f6 23 i.g3 e5

Desperately hoping to exclude White's bishop from the attack. I f 23 . . . be 24 lib I+ 'it>a8 25 llab3

fiJc7 26 llb7 cd 27 1Wb2 ±±. 24 cb ab 25 de fe 26 llbl lla8 ( 1 10)

27 1llg4? This looks like a time-trouble

error, failing to notice Black's coming resource. After 27 l:lab3! l:la6 28 1lrb2 White increases the pressure to intolerable proportions.

27 l0f6! 28 "W'f3

Suddenly White sees that the seemingly crushing and probably intended 28 1re6? fails to 28 1lrd5! 29 1rxf6 1rd l + .

28 1td5 29 1re2 1Wa5 30 l:lab3 l:la6 31 h3

White could st i ll play 3 1 1rh2, but he has already let Black's knight onto a more active post. The text avoids the back rank tricks which foiled White's previous attempt. "Always a good idea when there is no particular

hurry." (Reshevsky) 31 �e4

It seems reasonable to transfer the knight to c5, but White has a tactical refutation. Still, with Black's weak pawn on e5, his unstable king position and White's powerful bishop against the rootless knight, Black should lose anyway.

32 1Wg4 lt:lc5 33 -'.xeS! hS

A shaft of hope, since White's queen must be deflected from d7, and the rook on b3 is en prise.

34 1Wxg6 ! (I l l) A ll is clear. I f 34 . . . lt:Jxb3 3:t

1We8! threatening 1Wxd7 and 1Wb8

I l l B

Nimz�lndian 85

mate. The game concluded: 34 . . . 1Wxa4 3S 1We8 :c7 36 J.xc7 <Sxc7 37 1We7+ 1 -0.

Apart from one minor inaccur.tcy, a logical, compelling and instructive game studded with neat tactical points.

Part III Gambits and . . . cS Defences

ll2 B

Chapter 1 1: Budapest Gambit 2 . . . e5 3 de

C hapter 12: Benko Gambit 2 . . . c5 3 d5 b5

Chapter 1 3 : Czech Benoni 2 . . . c5 3 d5 e5 4 lbc3 d6 5 e4

Chapter 1 4: Modern Benoni 2 . . . c5 3 d5 e6 4 lbc3 ed 5 cd d6 6 e4 g6

1 1 Budapest Gambit 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de

Hardly a true gambit, since attempts by White to cling to his extra pawn can expose him to certain dangers. True, White players have gained some impressive victories by defending the e5 pawn at all costs, such as this steamroller by Yugoslav GM Svetozar Gligoric, one of the world's leading exponents of I d4 - Gligoric-Westerinen, Venice 1 9 7 1 : 3 . . . lt:Jg4 4 .tf4 lt:Jc6 5 lllf3 .tb4+ 6 lt:Jc3 1re7 7 1rd5 .txc3+ 8 be

See Diagram 1 14

8 . . . 1ra3 9 :tile I 1rxa2 I 0 h3 lt:Jho I I e4 lt:Jg8 1 2 c5 1ra3 13 .ic4 li..ld8 14 .id lt:Je7 15 1rd l b6 16 0-0 be 1 7 1fd3 1ra5 18 lilb l c6 19 lil a l

1!t'c7 20 .txc5 lt:Je6 2 1 .td6 1!t'd8 22 li..ld4 li:Jg6 23 lt:Jxe6 de 24 f4 f6 25 We3 aS 26 Wc5 .td7 27 f5 and Black , who has been spectacularly helpless for some time, now resigned. Of course, his troubles stemmed from the foolhardly manoeuvre . . . 1ra3 and . . . 1fxa2, destabilising his queen, just to regain the irrelevant white a-pawn.

If we return to the critical position after 8 be, it is pretty obvious that Black should now decide to stay a pawn in arrears, but lift his cramp with 8 . . . f6 ! 9 ef lt:lxf6 10 ._d3 d6 I I e3 lt:Je4 12 i..e2 0-0. Here the eminent Polish grandmaster, Akiba Rubinstein , advocated 13 Wc2 (BCO, page 50), assessing White's prospects as

88 Budapest Gambit

superior, but with White's unwieldy pawn constellation and Black's active pieces, there are s t il l plenty of pitfalls.

The approach I recommend in this section is less ambitious, but succeeds in maintaining a slight but clear plus, without imposing too much of a strain on the white position. The strategy is to give back t he e5 pawn in return for control of the d5 square, an excellent post for the white queen 's bishop on b2 and the chance of annexing the bishop pair, by tracking down Black's king's bishop wi th the white queen's knight. One advantage of my recommendation is that all of White's moves are simple and natural, so there is no need to rack one's brains for half-remembered, risky 'refutations' when faced with the Budapest.

Keene-Haugli Gausdal 1983

I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de �g4

Also possible is 3 . . . lt:le4, the Fajarowicz Variation. After 4 �f3 .i.b4+ 5 i.d2 .i.c5 6 e3 �c6 7 lt:ld lt:lxd2 8 'itxd2 0-0 9 lt:ld5 aS 10 .i.e2 l:te8 I I \!tc3! Black wil l have to struggle to rega in his pawn. A n important principle operates here: the Fajarowicz is very u nusual,

tactical and tricky. But White stays ahead with natural and sensible moves. The principle is, when faced with a rare, tactical l ine, especially for the first time -don't panic!

4 �f3 (J J5)

4 .i.c5 After 4 . . . d6?! 5 ed .i.xd6 6 lLlc3

leaves Black without compensation (but don't fall into the trap 6 g3? lt:lxf2! 7 'ii>xf2 .i.g3+ H). Alternatively, 4 . . . lt:lc6 5 e3 .i.b4+ (5 . . . .i.c5 transposes to the column) 6 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 7 'itxd2 lt:lgxe5 8 lt:lxe5 �xe5 9 .i.e2 0-0 10 llJc3 d6 I I O-O b6 ( 1 1 . . . ..te6 1 2 b3 ;!: ) 1 2 f4 lt:lg4 1 3 .i.f3 l:tb8 1 4 lLlbS a6 1 5 lt:ld4 ± due to the holes in Black's queenside (K nezevicMestrovic, Y ugoslavia 1 980) .

5 e3 lLJc6 6 ..te2 lDgxcS 7 0-0

White can also delay committing his king to this side of the board, although there is no need to be

nervous about it, as we shall see. The alternative is 7 /Oc3 d6 8 a3 a5 9 b3 'Oxf3+ 10 gf <tle5 I I .i.b2 .i.d7 1 2 /Oe4 'fle7 1 3 Wc2 f6 14 0-0-0 .i.c6 1 5 llhg l 0-0-0 16 /Oc3 :t.l ± Franco-Aguila, Argentina 1 982.

7 <tlxf3+ 7 . . . 0-0 8 a3 a5 9 �c3 lieS 10

�xeS lbxe5 I I b3 d6 12 .i.b2 t gives White his standard positional advantage - pressure on d5.

8 .i.xf3 'trh4 A bold attacking try, quite in

the style of those who are attracted by the Budapest. However, such adventures should make little impression if White continues solidly . 8 . . . ltJe5 9 .ie2 d6 or 9 . . . 0-0 would transpose into the note above.

9 .i.e2 This retreat will be necessary

anyway, as soon as Black plays the inevi table . . . lbe5 .

9 hS Continuing in the risky style

exemplified by his previous move, but if he does not, . . . Wh4 will be pointless.

1 0 I I

lbc3 lbdS

lbeS

As so often in the Budapest , the occupation of this square by a

white piece spells positional disaster for Black.

1 1 1 2 h3

lbg4 .id6 (1 16)

Budilpest Gambit 89

To my total amazement , my opponent informed me after the game that this was a known theoretical position. It had actually been recommended as winning for Black in a 1 982 monograph on the Budapest, written by a three-man team comprising Staker, Glasscoe and Stayart. White, however, has committed no detectable error so far, but has developed his pieces calmly and efficiently. Over the board , it did not take me long to spot the refutation of Black's scheme.

1 3 r4! c6 Now White threatens to capture

the knight, but if 1 3 . . . q-,h6 14 c5 ! ±±. Or 1 3 . . . lbf6 14 c5! �xd5 1 5 cd c6 16 e4 wi th overwhel ming advantage. Black cannot develop his queenside pieces, his kingside is riddled with wea knesses and White dominates the centre .

1 4 lDc3 ( I l l)

90 Budapest Gambit

I l l 8

This just nets a clear piece. Black ca nnot parry the double attack against g4 and d6. Black's position is now resignable. The game concluded: 14 ... .ie7 IS hg hg 16 .ixg4 11rh2+ 17 ct>fl .ih4+ 18 o;i>e2 11rxg2+ 19 o;i>d3 bS 20 cb ..Q.f6 21 .il3 1lrg6 22 .ie4 1lrg3 1-0.

1 2 Benko Gambit 1 d4 tt:Jf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5

from the sequence above: 7 lt::lf3 g6 1 /8 8 g3 .tg7 9 .tg2 0-0 10 0-0

w lt::lbd7 (1 19)

I do not advise White to accept the Benko Gambit. After 4 cb a6 5 ba .txa6 6 lt::lc3 d6 Black enjoys unhindered, harmonious development, plus two open files to blast away at White's queenside pawns. The standard procedure to adopt when material ahead is to simplify towards the endgame, when the extra pawn, or whatever, should gradually tel l . I n the Benko this procedure is not foolproof, for exchanges often intensify Black'!> pressure against Whi te's a- and b-pawns, in the line of fire of a black rook operating from bl:l a nd the bishop from g7. I n addition, accepting the gambit encourages Black to play a whole stream of very natural moves, e.g. contmuing

Black will now follow up with more easy moves, such as . . . 1ta5 and . . . llfb8. I f you are playing in a tournament with chess clocks, it is helpful to be able to play so many black moves without thinking and know that you are proceeding actively and correctly. Bent Larsen once wrote with acu ity about this: "Some players find it boring to play the same first I 2 moves over and over again: others don't m 1 nd Some are even happy if they play these moves quickly, there is less danger of serious timepressure. (The nasty part bf me thinks this is why Benko likes the

92 Benko Gambit

gambit - ten moves for a pawn!) ." US Grandmaster Pal Benko, chief propagandist for the gambit which bears h is name, is, of course, a notorious time-trouble addict.

My solution, therefore, is to play 4 lt:lO!?, politely declining the Trojan pony on b5, and thus throwing Black more or less on his own resources. I have used this successfully in my own games, and, incidentally, felt very uncomfortable whenever I have grabbed the pawn. It is also the recent choice of Viktor Korchnoi, twice" challenger for the World Championship.

For more details on the Benko in general, see BCO, pages 104 and 105.

Korchnoi-Sax London Phillips and Drew 1980

110 B

I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lt:lf3 (/ 20)

"Although we generally expect Korchnoi to take pawns that are offered to him, in the present game he prefers to avoid any sharp H ungarian theory. Better to leave the opponent to his own resources in a position where he is less comfortable." (Hartston in the Tournament Book).

4 be Alternatives are:

a) 4 ... J..b7 5 a4 a6 (5 . . . b4 6 lt:lbd2 followed by e4 shuts Black's queen's bishop out of play) 6 ab ab 7 lha8 J..xa8 8 lt:lc3 1i'a5 (8 ... be 9 e4! while 8 . . . b4 9 lt:lb5 d6? leaves Black struggling after 10 11ra4! lt:lbd7 I I 11ha8 11rxa8 1 2 lt:lc7+ 'i;>d8 1 3 lt:lxa8 h6 - to prevent lt:lg5 - 14 e3 'it>c8 1 5 b3 lt'b8 16 J..b2 �xa8 1 7 J..d3) 9 Af41 d6 10 lt:ld2 b4 I I lt::lb5 g6 1 2 e4 lt:lbd7 1 3 lt:lb3 1i'b6 14 11ra l J..b7 15 J..e3 J..g7 1 6 11ra5 lt:lh5 1 7 g4! lLlhf6 1 8 g 5 lt::lh5 19 J..h3 ! ± Dorfman-Mochalov, Moscow 191! 1 . b) 4 . . . e6 5 de fe 6 cb d5 7 e3 i.d6 8 lLlc3 J..b7 9 e4! de (9 . . . d4 10 e5 ±) 10 lt::lg5 J..d5 I I 11rc2 ± This is a recent attempt to refute the Blumenfeld Gambit, into which 4 . . . e6 transposes. c) 4 . . . g6 5 lt::l bd2 be ( 5 . . . 1lra5?! 6 e4! Keene-Bellon, Bal i 1 982 . I f 6 . . . l"i:Jxe4? 7 b4! ti'Kb4 8 llb l 'tlt'a5 9 llxb5 11rc3 10 .ib2 ±t) 6 e4 d6 7 J..xc4 J..g7 8 0-0 0-0 I) l:tb I l"i:Jbd7 10 lle l lt:lb6 I I b3 llb8 12

.tb2 U ± Keene-Pytel, Benedictine 198 1 . d) 4 . . . a61? 5 a4 b4 ! is less effective for White than variation (a), since the black queen's bishop is not yet committed to b7 (Keene-I vanov, Commonwealth Ch, Hong Kong 1984). My feeling after that game is that 5 11rc2! plus a quick e4 keeps White's opening advantage.

121 B

5 �c3 g6 6 e4 d6 7 .txc4 .tg7 8 eS (121)

The bold advance breaks up Black's tidy pawn chain (c5-d6-e7) and brings White's k ing's knight onto a powerful post, when: it menaces both c6 and e7. In addit ion, Black is left with a weak backward pawn on e7.

8 de 9 lDxeS 0-0

1 0 0-0 .ib7 The game Balashov-Stein, l\.los

cow 1 97 1 , saw 10 . . . li:J fd7!? Balashov's 1 1 lt:lc6 lt:lxc6 12 de

Benko Gambit 93

lt:lb6 1 3 .te2 1Wc7 1 4 .tO .ta6 1 5 lle l llad8 was unclear, s o White should investigate the sacrifice 10 . . . lt:lfd7!7 I I �xf7!? followed by 1 2 d6.

1 4

I I 1lrb3 1 2 llel

..igS .txb3

1 3 1 4

�b4 may

lt:Ja6 1Wxb3 llac8

be the last chance to resist.

/}} B

I S ltJc4 ( 122)

White's pos1110n is crushing. Black suffers from two very weak pawns on e7 and c5 while White is constantly threatening some tactical breakthrough based on d6, opening up the diagonal of his k ing's bishop from b3 to f7. I f now 1 5 . . . llfeM 1 6 i.a4 ±t or 1 5 . . . ;g: t:7 1 6

.i.f4 liL u 7 1 7 .i.a4 t± . Final ly , 15 . . . .t xd5'! 16 .i xf6 tl . Sax's

choice loses the exchange. I S lt.:lxdS. 1 6 (iJ xdS .i xdS 1 7 .ixc7 Ilfe8 18 lt:ld6 ±± ( 1 2 3)

94 Benko Gambil

The theoretical debate is over. I cite the remaining moves without further comment, other than that both sides were in t ime-trouble· and their rush continued until move 44. For those not used to competition chess, the time control is 40 ( ! ) moves in 21,1 hours for

each player, and then 1 6 per player per hour thereafter. Korchnoi could have killed more cleanly during this mad scramble, while Sax missed 42 . . . ¢'e3! complicating White's winning process. 18 .. c4 19 �xe8 lhe8 l0 .ta4 llb8 ll .td6 lld8 ll .teS �c5 l3 .txg7 �xg7 14 .tel .te6 15 lladl llb8 16 llbl <M6 17 lle3 aS 18 c;t>n a4 19 c;i;lel lld8 30 f4 .!Oa6 31 ..txa4 �b4 31 lldl lh8 33 a3 llxa4 34 ab llxb4 35 lldl c;i;lfS 36 liO llb5 37 llel 'M6 38 llfe3 ..trs 39 lla3 ..id3 40 llfl c;i;>f5 41 c;t>dl c;t>e4 41 �cl llh5 � h3 llf5 44 lla7 g5 45 g4 llxf4 46 lle7+ �d4 47 llxf4 gf 48 �dl f6 49 lle6 ..tn so llxf6 c;t>e4 51 llh6 1 -0.

1 3 Czech Benoni 1 d4 lLJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e5 4 lLJc3 d6 5 e4

on the other wing with a general 114 advance of the white kingside

B pawns, backed up by massed

A closer relative to the Old Indian than to the Modern Benoni, the Czech Benoni erects a solid, resilient, but ultimately passive position. Black's main hope of active counterplay resides in exchanging the dark-squared bishops (Black's king's bishop is severely restricted by the fixed c5, d6, e5 pawn triangle) and then achieving a bn::akthrough with . . . f5. If White is vigilant , however, both of these objcdives can be suppressed.

The most c1 iti<.:al test of B lack's resources is the aggressive deployment of White's forces introduced by former World Champion , Boris Spassky. White castles queenside, and then tries to smash Black

major pieces in the rear. I t is fortunate for White after 0-0-0 that if Black sacrifices with . . . b5 (a standard Benoni procedure) the congested centre impedes the efficient transfer of black units to a q ueenside counter-offensive.

Lines of the Czech Benoni appear in BCO on page 1 07.

Spassky-Ghitescu Beverwijk 1967

I d4 liJf6 l c4 c5 3 d5 e5 4 liJc3 d6 5 e4 i.e7

5 . . . lbbd1 makes little difference, if White is intending to adopt the 'Spassky Attack'. The exception is the eccentric line: 5 . . . lbbd7 6 lbf3 i.e 7 ( 6 . . . a6 see G ligoricPetrosian in Part V) 7 ..id3 lbf!! when White should play 8 a3 lbg6 9 g3 ! h5 1 0 h4 followed , if necessary, by liJg5 and 0, " when Black's knights looks sil ly. A real alternative, though, is 5 . . . g6,

96 Czech Benoni

e.g. 6 ..1e2 �bd7 7 �f3 lt:lh5 (7 . . . ..lg7 8 ..lg5 h6 9 ..1h4 g 5 10 ..lgJ �h5 I I h4 leads to a difficult line of the K ing's I ndian, where the move . . . c5 is premature) 8 0-0 lt:lf4 (8 . . . ..1g7 9 gJ !) 9 ..1xf4 ef 10 1td2 g5 I I e5! ± Keene-Mestel, Esbjerg 198 1 .

6 lt:\11 0-0 7 ..1d3

The most aggressive square for the white king's bishop, leaving e2 for his queen .

/}5 B

7 lt:lbd7 8 1i'e2 (1 25)

8 lt:le8 After 8 . . . lt:lh5 White should

play 9 g3 to prevent ... lt:lf4. The idea from Keene-Mestel is less effective here, since White has already moved his queen and would have to waste a tempo on 1td2. When and where to allow . . . lt:lf4 is a tricky business and the procedure crops up in notes to moves 5, 8 and 9.

9 g4 Heralding a full-scale kingside

attack . 9 g6

More cunning is the attempt to transfer a knight to f4, as suggested in Hartston's Benoni. However, I believe it can be refuted. A sample variation is: 9 . . . lt:lc7 1 0 g5 ! lle8 I I h4 lt:lf8 1 2 llg l lt:'lg6 1 3 h 5 lt:lf4 1 4 ..1xf4 ef 1 5 0-0-0 ±. Black has simply squandered too much time with his knight gyrations.

/}6 B

1 0 .th6 lt:'lg7 1 1 0-0-0 lt:\(6 1 2 h3 a6 13 lldgl (126)

Black has so few moves that it does not matter much in which order he makes them. Here are some samples of other moveorders: 1 3 . . . 'it>h8 1 4 'it>b l ( l 4 .i.d2 .id7 15 tt:lh2 b5 1 6 h4 h5 17 g5 lt:lfe8 is also not bad, KeeneTorre, Baguio City 1 980) 14 . . . .i.d7 ( 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 lt.ld2 b 4 1 6 li::ld I ll:lg8 1 7 .i.xg7+ 't>xg7 1 8 h4! , G h1 tescu-Popov, Siegen 01 1 970) 1 5 .i.e3! lt:lg8 1 6 h4 h5

1 7 gh ll'lxhS 1 8 ll'lgS 1te8 19 1td2 �gf6 20 .te2 �g7 2 1 f4 ! ± PopovHartston, Sk.ara 1 980. We can see from this note that t he 'Spassky Attack' spread like a contagion. First, Spassky beat Ghitescu, then Ghitescu hit Popov with it , and then Popov used it to defeat Hartston !

1 3 .td7 14 l0d2 <li"h8

To expel the bishop with �g8.

I S h4 ll'lg8 16 i.e3 hS

16 . . . i.xh4 1 7 g5 ±± or 16 . . . f5 1 7 gf gf 1 8 ef ±. Black cannot safely fight back on the kingside where White enjoys immense superiority, but he should be thinking hard in terms of a diversionary . . . b5, even if it costs a pawn. Of course, Whi te could always ignore . . . b5 and drop his king's bishop back to c2 or b l after . . . be.

Ill B

1 7 gS i.e8 1 8 f4! (127)

Czech Benoni 97

A very important break, given that Black has held up t he march of White's g- and h-pawns.

1 8 rs 19 gf lilxf6 20 fe de 21 ltJfJ ltJg4

It may appear that Black has also stemmed the second wave of White's attack based on f4 , but Spassky proceeds to disprove this notion with an astounding sacrificial idea.

22 lhg4! hg 23 ltJ xeS ll'lh5 24 ll'lxg4! ! ll'lg3 2S •g2 lilxhl 26 eS (128)

Spassky displays a curious disregard for Black's moves, not even pausing to recapture the knight which has devoured his rook. Black's best defence now is 26 . . . i.d7 27 e6 i.xe6 28 �e5 .if5 29 lt:lxg6+ '1Ph7 30 ll'lxfH+ 1txf8 when White throws in his reserves with 3 1 lile4 (analysis by Gligoric).

98 Czech Benoni

Ghitescu's choice goes down in 1fe7 31 �e4 lhh4 32 �ef6 1fc7 names: 26 . . . llf7 27 1fxhl llh7 28 33 .ie4 1fa5 34 1lg3 g5 35 lOxeB e6 .ig5 29 1le4 .ixe3+ 30 1fxe3 lhe8 36 9e5+ 1 -0.

1 4 .Modern Benoni J _ d4 llJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 .ltlcl� .. ?:� · ·cd. d6 6 e4 g6

/]9 w

The Modern Benoni was tried sporadically in the 1920's, notably by H romadka and Marshall, but it failed to attract public approbation until the 1950's and 1 960's when it was resurrected by those ambitious warriors, Tal and Fischer.

In one sense, it is the most strikingly anti-posi tional black defence analysed in this book, since Black immediately concedes White a mobile central pawn majority, combined with very free development. Furthermore, Black voluntarily submits to a weak pawn on d6, which can be particularly sensitive if White

plants a knight on c4 . Meanwhile, Black's own piece development is not except ionally rapid.

The point of the black counterplay actually resides in the halfopen e-file, which can be used to bombard the white e-pawn, plus the volatile chances conferred by the possibility of a sudden strike ( . . . b5, . . . c4) by Black's queenside pawn majority . Once the black infantry advances, it can prove a potent force, backed up by the black king's bishop in fianchetto on g7. Still, amongst grandmasters, there is a feeling that if one major black defence is unsound, it is the Modern Benoni. Danish Grandmaster Bent Larsen has written: " When I throw the Modern Benoni into the basket marked ' incorrect', Gligoric" (a noted 1 d4 expert) "will probably agree . . . "

Some years ago it was believed that a refutation had been found, namely (from the Diagram) 7 lL!t1 .tg7 8 .ig5 h6 9 .th4 g5 10 .tg3 �5 1 1 .tb:i+ Wf8 12 e5 !·(JJO)

100 Modern Benoni

/JO B

but later games demonstrated that the improvement 9 . . . a6(threatening . . . b5 and forestalling the annoyina j,b5+) keeps Black alive.

The line I recommend in this chapter is the one currently held to cause Black the greatest problems. Favoured by world title aspirant, Gary Kasparov, and · ex-world champion, Mikhail Tal, it sets up a large and menacing white centre wi thout hesitation and throws in the harrowing .i.b5+ (from the above line) for good measure. This is to jam up Black's development, since the unwieldy retreat ..• �fd7 appears to be obligatory. ·· This l ine is covered in BCO, pages 1 10- 1 1 1 .

Kasparov-Nunn Lucerne Olympiad 19112

1 d4 �r6 I . . . c5 2 d5 �f6 3 c4 g6 4 li:lc3

.i.g7 5 e4 d6 6 li:lge2 transposes to the King's Indian (Chapter 8). Also good here is 3 �c3 g6 4 e4 d6

5 /Of) .i.g7 6 .i.b5+ .i.d7 7 a4 0-0 8 �0 lLJa6 9 lle I li:lc7 1 0 .i.fl e6 I I i.f4 i (Kasparov).

2 c4 e6 3 �c31..J cS 4 dS ed S cd d6

I ncautious is 5 . . . g6? 6 d6! 'tlrb6 7 .i.f4 .. xb2 8 i.e5 .i.g7 9 llb I Wa3 10 �b5 :±±.

JJJ B

6 e4 g6 1 r4 .i.g7 8 .i.bS+ (131)

Black has two natural-looking, but suspect, alternatives to the main line of 8 . . . li:lfd7, namely: a) 8 . . . .i.d7? 9 e5 li:lh5 10 li:lf3 de I I fe i.xb5 1 2 li:lxb5 �0 1 3 0-0 ± O'Kelly-Diez del Corral , Madrid 1957; or I I . . . 0-0 1 2 0-0 .i.g4 1 3 .i.e2 .i.xf3 1 4 .txf3 .i. xeS 1 5 .i.xh5 'Wh4 16 g3 1hh 5 1 7 .. xh5 gh 1 8 lH5 .td4+ 19 �g2 liJd7 20 i.h6 llfe8 2 1 Itafl and Black has many problems. b) 8 . . . li:lbd7? 9 c5 de 10 te lLlh5 ( 10 . . . We7 I I .. e2) I I e6 (132)

JJ1 B

fe 1 2 de 0-0 1 3 ltlf3 :xtJ (in Mestel-Hodgson, British Ch 1983, Black played the amazing 13 . . . .td4!?. Mestel then won - eventuaUy - with 1 4 'W'b3 , while IM Martin has drawn attention to 14 ..ieJ .txe3 1 5 ed. My feeling, however, is that 14 .tc4 is the move most likely to refute . . . .td4!?) 14 1ihf3 .txc3+ 1 5 be ltlc5 1 6 1t'e4 1t'f6 1 7 e7! 'tfxe7 1 8 0-0 ± . I f, in the above l ine, Black plays I I . . . 1t'h4+ then Kasparov suggested 12 g3 lLlxg3 ( 1 2 . . . ..ixc3+ l J be "tre4+ 14 'ite2 ±±) 1 3 hg 'tfxh l ( 1 3 . . . 1t'xg3+ 1 4 \&d2 is harmless) 14 ..teJ! ( 1 4 t:d+ i.xd7 is les.s clear). The best line I can find for Black here is.(l4) . . . 0-0 1 5 ed ..ixd7 16 .txJ7 lHeM 17 .ixe8 ll xelol l lj '.t'd2 .ixc3+ 1 9 be 'W'xdH 20 ;!tc I ! 1hd I + 2 1 �xd I lhd 22 �1e2 and Black is probably lost m the ending.

8 �fd7 9 a4! (133)

JJJ B

Alodern Benoni 101

Clamping down on .. . a6 and . . . b5. True, Black's queen's knight can now reach b4, but such occupation rarely has much influena: on events.

9 �116 Tht:re are various other moves:

a) 9 . . . a6 10 .td3 (here 10 .te2 'tfh4+! could be annoying. I fee l that White should only put his king's bishop on e2 when . . . 1t'h4+ is no longer possible) 10 . . . 0-0 I I lL\fJ ltlf6 1 2 0-0 ..ig4 1 3 h3 ..txn 1 4 'Wxf3 ltlbd7 1 5 .id2 Ite8 and now White establishes an advantage by cementing his king's bishop on c4: 1 6 i.c4 ! li.lb6 1 7 b3 l.Uxc4 1 8 be li:ld7 1 9 llae I 'W'a5 20 1t'd3 'ttc7. Wil liams-Mecking, Nice 01 1 974. Nunn now recommends 21 e5 ! The manoeuvre .tc4 plus b.1 I S

worth attention. b) 9 . . . 0-0 10 l0f3 a6 I I .te2 (playable now Black no lorigcr has . . . 'tfh4+J I I . . . ltlf6 1 2 0-0 1tc7 1 3 c5 ltle8 1 4 e6 fe 1 5 ..ic4 'ii'c7 16 de

/02 Modem Benoni

li:Jc7 1 7 f5 , Kasparov-Kuijpers, Junior World Championship, 1980. White is already winning, since 1 7 . . . ltxf5 fai ls to 1 8 ..ig5 .if6 19 g4 lhg5 20 liJxg5 .ixg5 21 lU7 ±±. I n this l ine 12 . . . lte8 13 e5 ! de 1 4 fe li:Jg4 15 .ig5 f6 1 6 ef ..ixf6 17 ..ixf6 'tlrxf6 18 d6! also favours White, Mestel-P.Littlewood, Hastings 1982-3. c) 9 . . . 0-0 I 0 ltJf3 li:Ja6 I I 0-0 li:Jb4 1 2 li[e I a6 1 3 ..ifl li[e!i 14 h3 followed by .ie3-f2 and the inevitable e5, Ree-Hulak, Wijk aan Zee 1 983. d) 9 . . . 'tlrh4+ 10 g3 lte7 I I li:Jf3 0-0 ( I I . . . .ixc3+ 1 2 be 'tlrxe4+ 1 3 'iPf2 gives White a massive lead in development, while Black will also miss his vital king's bishop) 12 o-o li:Ja6 1 3 lte I .!Lib4 1 4 'tlrb3 a6 15 .ifl b6 16 h3 .ib7 17 ..id2! li[ae8 18 li[ad l and Black is deprived of active play. 1 4 e5!? a6 1 5 .ifl de 16 d6 'tlre8 1 7 fe bO 18 e6 fe 19 .ic4 ..ib7 20 li[xc6 'tlrf7! 2 1 li[e4 'tlrxc4 2 2 li[xc4 ..ixf3 23 'tlrb3 �h8 is, in contrast, very unclear.

10 li:Jf3 li:Jb4 I I 0-0 a6

Or I I . . . 0-0 12 li[e I a6 13 ..ifl . 1 2 ..ixd7+

An excellent move, gaining time and momentum for his attack.

1 2 ..ixd7 13 f5 (134)

If 13 . . . gf 1 4 .tgs ..ito I S ..if4 0-0 1 6 e5 ! ( 1 6 ..ixd6 ..ixa4 ! ) 1 6 . . .

IJ4 B

de 1 7 liJxe5 ± or 1 3 . . . c4 14 ..ig5 'tlrh6+ 1 5 �h 1 li:Jd3 16 f6 .tn1 1 7 aS lt::lf2+ 18 li[xf2 'tlrxf2 19 li:Ja4! ± and Black is paralysed; both critical variations stem from Kasparov.

1 3 0-0 14 .ig5 f6

14 . . . ..if6 I S 'tlrd2 does nothing to hinder White's attack.

IS ..if4 gf I f 1 5 . . . gS 16 ..ixd6 ..ixa4 1 7

li[xa4 'tlrxd6 1 8 c5 ! fc 1 9 li:lxg5 b5, Gheorghiu-Kertesz, Romania 1982, and now 20 li[xb4 ! cb 2 1 li:Jce4 ±±. Or 15 ... 'tlre7 16 fg hg 17 �h4 �h7 18 ..ig3 b5 19 'tlrb I c4 20 li:Jxg6 �xg6 2 1 .i xd6! ±± (Kasparov). Such variations pinpoint that the very worst has befallen Black here that can possibly go wrong in a

Modern Benoni - his k ing's bishop is locked out of play, his kingside pawn structure is hopelessly loose and he has no queenside cou nterplay.

16 ..ixd6 ..ixa4

Black cenainly neem this resource, but it doesn't help much.

/Jj w

17 llxa4 1hd6 18 l0h4! fe 19 lOfS 1rd7 (135)

20 l0xe4 �h8

Alodern Benoni /OJ

I f 20 . . . llae8 2 1 1lrg4 �h8 22 �xc5 ±±.

21 lUxeS 1-{)

I f 2 1 . . . 1rxd5 22 1rxd5 �xd5 23 �e6 ±±.

John Nunn's authoritative verdict on 7 f4 and 8 .ib5+ should be quoted: " In my view, this is one of White's best l ines against the Modern Benoni. White secu res good at tack ing chances at little risk to himself. " This assessment appeared in John 's excellent book on the Benoni which was published before the Kasparov game.

Part IV Asymmetrical and Unusual Defences

/36 B

C hapter 1 5 : Modern Defence I . . . g6 2 c4 i.g7 3 lbc3 d6 4 e4

Chapter 1 6 : Dutch Defence I . . . f5

Chapter 1 7 : English Defence 1 . . . e6 2 c4 b6 3 e4 i.b7

Chapter 18 : M iscellaneous I . . . d6 1 . . . b5 I . . . ll:lc6 I . . . h6

1 5 Modern Defence 1 d4 g6 2 c4 i.g7 3 e4 d6 4 ltJc3

mature occupation of its target IJ7 square. The resulting positions are

B fascinating, but, objectively, White

The Modern constitutes one of the most fertile fields for investigation of any opening complex. Remarkably, it is a defence that has only emerged into prominence in the past twenty years or so. There are virtually no games with it in the Romantic, Classical or Hypermodern periods in the development of chess thought. Even progressives such as Nimzowitsch, Ret i and the free-think ing Alek.hine, were reluctant to go as far as I . . . g6 as an answer to I d4.

From the Diagram Black. has three main possibil it ies: 4 ... lt:lc6 is the most consistent, since it furthers the theme of attack against d4. However, 5 d5! forces Black's queen's knight into pre-

should stand better. If 4 . . . lLlc6 is too active, then 4 ... e5 is too passive. After 5 de de 6 1Wxd8+ lt>xd8 7 f4! Black is inconvenienced by the situation of his king, which cannot castle into safety. This is even worse for Black than the comparable line of the Old I ndian. That leaves 4 . . . o!LJd7, which will probably tranpose into the King's Indian. Adherents of the Modern are Canadian Grandmaster Duncan Suttles, ex-world champion Tigran Petrosian and the author.

The Modern, and its close relation the Pirc, are to be found in BCO, pages 1 73- 1 84.

1 2 ] 4

Agdestein-Keene Gausdal 1983

d4 c4 o!LJcJ e4 ( 137)

g6 .ig7 d6

From Diagram 1 37 : a) 4 . . . c6 5 o!LJf3 .ig4 6 .ieJ li:ld7 7 .ic2 .ixf3 8 .ixf3 o!LJgf6 9 0-0 t. White could, of course, play

106 Modern Defence

5 �ge2 as wel l , with l ikely transposition to the King's Indian. b) 4 ... rs?! 5 ef .ixf5 6 l!JO �f6 7 ..ie2 0-0 8 0-0 �a6 9 d5 c5 1 0 �g5 and White has the advantage because of Black's shaky central situation. c) 4 . . . e5 5 de! de 6 -.xd8+ ot>xd8 7 f4! .ie6 (7 . . . �c6 8 fe .ie6 9 ..ig5+ \!i>c8 10 �f) is uncomfortable for Black, whose displaced king jams his rook communication; 7 . . . �d7 8 �f) c 6 9 ..ie2 f6 I 0 0-0 'tt'e8 I I gJ is a lso :!: and a tedious position for Black to defend) 8 lLlfJ lLld7 9 ..ie2 h6 10 0-0 lLle7 I I lLld5. Such positions may be defensible for Black but they are no fun. I have tried them for both sides, and believe me, it is more enjoyable to be White. d) 4 ... lild7, the most rel iable of Black's fourth move alternatives, which will normally go into a King's Indian. If White wishes to follow the recommendations in this book he should play 5 lLlge2, but 5 �f3 e5 6 ..ie2 or 5 f) are obviously playable too.

4 l!Jc6 s dS �d4

S . . . �b8 is obviously very passive.

6 J.eJ d Or 6 . . . eS 7 �ge2 �xe2 8 J.xe2

fS 9 ef gf 10 ..ih5+ 'it>f8 I I f4 ! ±; if 8 . . . �h6? ! 9 g4! Wh4 10 ltg l ! ± Conquest-Keene, London (Lloyds

Bank) 1983. 7 �gel 1rb6 8 l0xd4!?

For many years this capture was not taken particularly seriously. Indeed, the old l ine was 8 . . . cd 9 lt:la4 'tta5+ 10 b4 'ttxb4+ I I J.d2 1ra3 1 2 .icl 'ttb4+ 13 J.d2 = . Then in 1982, Yasser Seirawan played 8 lt:lxd4 cd 9 lt:la4 'tta5+ 10 .id2 'ttc7 I I cS de 1 2 ..ib5+ J.d7 13 J.xd7+ 'ttxd7 14 lUxeS ± against me and won.

8 cd 9 lLla4 de! !? (138)

My opponent, the 1 5 year old Norwegian answer to Nigel Short, looked shocked, but this 'sac' is mentioned in BCO and I had analysed it in some detail with GM Jon Speelman after the Y asser deb4cle.

1 0 �xb6 I I �xfl

ef+ ab (139)

We have reached an extraordinarily rich pos1t1on. My conclusion from the analysis with

IJ'J w

Speelman was that the situation was not at all clear, though i t must be said that Speelman is a man who would prefer to start the game with a couple of minor pieces instead of his queen, and might, therefore, be biased. After a l engthy investigation, it has been established that White should play 1 2 1td2 ! here, to prevent the black king's bishop from checking on d4. The game D.CramlingDavies, played at Copenhagen 1 983, several months after my game with Agdestein, sadly demonstrated what is the l ikely deathknell of the black queen sacrifice: 12 . . . l!Jf6 ( 1 2 . . . ..te5 13 ..id3 l!Jf6 14 h3 0-0 1 5 b3 ! i.d7 1 6 a4 e6 1 7 llhel b 5 1 8 cb ed 1 9 ed lL! xd5 20 .ic4 l!Jf6 21 -.Pg I ±± Davies) 13 .id3 l!Jg4+ 14 �e2 0-0 1 5 h3 lL!e5 16 b3 .id7 (after 16 . . . f5 White must play 1 7 el1 but this is sufficient to keep his advantage) 17 a4 lla6 18 llac l llfa8 19 'it'f2. Wh ite is consolidating and the

Modern Defence 107

posit ion must now be rated ±. 12 ... cl?! .i.d4+

To bother White's king. Another plan is 1 2 . . . l!Jh6 followed by a quick . . . f5 .

13 �el lL!f6 14 .iel 0-0 15 lldl .ie5 16 a4!? h5

Played partly to restrict White's king's bishop from use of g4.

17 b3 ..td7 18 ... d3

In tending to auack the b-pawns, diagonally from e3.

18 19 20 21

de ..tf3 �f2

e6! .ixe6 lL!d7 b5! (140)

The last difficult move of the game. If now 22 cb l!Jc5 wipes out White's queenside pawns, so White must submit to a variation which permits the exchange of his a�.:tive rook, and still leaves the king's rook bottled up.

·

22 ab ll:a2+

108 Modern Defence

141 B

23 24 25 26 27

lld2 1re3 1rxd2 1rc2 'it>g3 ( 141)

IOcS llxd2+ ll::lxb3 .td4+

If White's king goes to the back rank he will not be able to develop his king's rook .

27 28 29

..ieS+ ..id4+

Drawn by repetition of position. I was tempted by various sacrificial attempts to deliver mate, but could not quite make this work . Black may still be better positionally, but if he actually captures material the white queen may escape and become a nuisance.

The queen sacrifice in this game was nominated as · one of the most important theoretical games of the year by the prestigious Yugoslav journal, Sahovski /nformator.

It should be mentioned that in a later game Ginzburg-Arapovic, Lugano 1 984, White also got nowhere by allowing the check on d4 : 1 2 'trb3?! .td4+ 1 3 'it>d ll::lf6 1 4 lld 1 ..ic5 1 5 .td3 0-0 1 6 ..ib 1 b5 ! 1 7 cb ( 1 7 'tlhb5 ..id7!) 1 7 . . . .td7 1 8 h3 lla5 19 ..id3 llfa8 20 a3 e5 2 1 de .txe6 with more than adequate compensation.

1 6 Dutch Defence 1 d4 f5

/4} w

Capablanca once denounced the Sicilian Defence ( I e4 c5) as an opening which "leaves Black's position full of holes". There are many who believe that the Dutch, the mirror image of the Sicilian, is a considerably more dubious proposition. Indeed, the move I . . . f5 stakes out some sort of claim over the e4 square, and also prepares subsequent general activity by Black on the kingside. On the negative side, though, it is a gratuitous weakening move, which diminishes important support for squares such as e6 and g6, and it contributes little to Black's development . A common way for Black to suffer an accident in the Dutch is to be deluded into the belief that

1 . . . f5 is an immediately attacking move. Frequent disasters have overcome Black players who have launched inadequately supplied kingside attacks, relying only on their queen, king's rook, king's knight and kingside pawns, forgetting about their lines of communication with underdeveloped queenside units. Usually, White can detonate the entire undertaking with a timely central thrust, based on f3 and e4, exposing all of the weaknesses in the black structure, especially in the e-file.

Black has three systems in the Dutch - the Stonewall (with pawns on d5, e6 and f5); the Fluid (pawns on d6, e6 and f5) and the Leningrad, where Black fianchettoes his king's bishop. All three are playable, if Black is cautious and avoids premature adventures, and it should be mentioned that the Dutch has been favoured by Botvinnik , Bronstein and former British Champion, Robert Bellin, who has written an excellent book about i t .

There are various odp tries

//0 Dutch Defence

against the Dutch: the Staunton Gambit ( I d4 f5 2 e4!?); the Korchnoi Gambit ( 1 d4 f5 2 h3 ll:lf6 3 g4 !?); al ternatively, I d4 f5 2 .i.g5 or 1 d4 f5 2 ll:lc3 ll:lf6 3 .i.g5 . . . Here, though, I recommend the solid, classical variation based on g3 and the fianchetto of White's king's bishop. One good reason for this (apart from the method's inherent soundness) is that Black may introduce his Du tch via 1 d4 e6, inviting the French Defence with 2 e4, but avoiding the exciting ideas· mentioned above.

The Dutch is treated in BCO, pages 36-4 1 .

Stonewall and Fluid Systems

Keene-Fuller I Commonwealth Championship

Melbourne 1 983

I d4 e6 2 c4 f5

Or 2 . . . .i.b4+ 3 .i.d2! 1t'e7 4 e4 d5 5 ..txb4 1txb4+ 6 1td2 1rxd2+ (6 . . . �c6 7 li:lc3 ! ) 7 ll:lxd2 1 because of White's spatial plus.

3 lLlf3 li:lf6 4 g3

See Diagram /43

4 ..te7 Also worth considering is 4 . . .

..tb4+ 5 ..td2 to prevent White's

queenside fianchetto. This was invented by Alekhine and championed by B ronstein . Possible continuations are: a) 5 . . . .i.xd2+ 6 1txd2 0-0 7 ll:lc3 d6 8 .i.g2 lLlc6 9 lld l 1We7 1 0 d5 ll:ldll ( 10 . . . ltle5 I I ll:lxe5 de 1 2 d6!) I I d e ll:lxe6 1 2 ll:ld5 1. b) 5 . . . 1We7 6 .i.g2 0-0 7 0-0 ..txd2 8 1!fxd2 ll:le4 9 1t'c2 d6 I 0 lLlfd2 ll:lxd2 I I 1t'xd2 e5 1 2 ll:lc3 c6 1 3 llad l 1. c) 5 . . . ..te7 6 .i.g2 d5 (6 . . . d6 7 0-0 0-0 ll ll:lc3 1t'e8 9 1t'c2 1t'h5 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 de de 12 ll:ld5 ! SzahoBronstein, Candidates' Tournament, Budapest 1 950) 7 0-0 0-0 8 l0c3 c6 9 1t'c2 Well 1 0 a3! Introducing a highly sophisticated manoeuvre making expert use of White's bishop on d2, to trade dark-squared bishops: 10 . . . 1t'h5 I I lLla2! lLlbd7 1 2 .ib4 l1e8 1 3 .i.xe7 lhe7 1 4 ll:lb4 lLlg4 1 5 ll:ld3 ± Flohr-Szabo, MoscowBudapest match, 1 949. As we have seen, the following year Szabo

Dutch Defence 1 1 1

switched t o the white side. Black 8 b3 ! rather than 8 lle I 1tg6 9 e4!? can also try to plant h is king's which is possible as a result of the bishop on the more aggressive tactical t rick 9 . . . fe I 0 lt::lxc4 lt::lxe4 square d6, e.g. 4 . . . d5 5 ..tg2 c6 I I llxe4 1txe4? ( I I . . . lt:lc6! is best) 6 0-0 ..id6. This gives Black extra 1 2 lt::lh4 netting Black's queen. influence in engineering the advance However, the idea of opening up . . . f4, but White retains a positional the f-lile so qu ickly seems, to me, edge by proceeding broadly as in to be rather too co-operative. If the main game - fianchetto both White develops his pieces sensibly bishops, play ltle5 and watch out firs t , against the nuid system, for Black's k ingside ambit ions: Black's 'aggressive' queen on g6 7 b3 1te7 (to prevent ..ta3, or h5 will become a target (e.g. exchanging Black's useful king's e3, lt::le2-f4) while the thrust e4 will bishop) 8 ..ib2 0-0 9 1tc2 ..id7 (9 . . . evolve later, after due preparation b6 1 0 lt::lc3 lt::le4 I I ll.he4 de 1 2 (first e3 then rook centralisation). ltJe5 c5 1 3 llad I ..tb7 14 de :t . Here is one example: 8 . . . a5 9 ..ta3 Gligorii:) 10 lt:le5 lt::la6 I I li:Jd2 lt::la6 10 llc l ..td7 I I eJ lt::lb4 1 2 ..ie8 1 2 lt::ldf3 ..th5 1 3 a 3 llac8 14 ..tb2 1th5 1 3 a3 lt::la6 1 4 lt::ld2 1th6 b4 lt::lb8 1 5 .tel lt::le4 1 6 lt::ld3 g5 1 7 1 5 lle l (also playable, though lt::lfe5 to be followed by f3 , and more risky, is 1 5 ..ixb7 lt::lg4 16 White retains a l l the advantages of lLlfJ lila 7 1 7 ..txa6) 1 5 . . . c6 1 6 lLlfl his position, Kotov-Goldberg, ..ie!! 17 1td2 e5?! (Black should USSR Ch 1 949. instead seek to close things up

S ..ig2 0-0 with . . . d5 ! ) 1 8 de de 1 9 lt\a4 lid!! 6 0-0 dS 20 1txa5 lt::ld7 2 1 b4 ± Portisch-

The main alternative is 6 . . . d6, when I recommend 7 li'ld 11ret! (144)

Corden, Hastings 1 969-70. 7 lt::lc3

Substant ially similar is the move-order variance: 7 b3, e .g . 7 . . . lOeb!? H ..tb2 ..id7 9 lt::lc3 .ie8 (such galvanization of the inferior queen's bishop to h5 or f7 often occurs in the Dutch) 10 lt::lg5 ..tf7 I I e3 1td7 12 �xf7 ll x17 13 �a4 b6 14 llc I lt::ld8 1 5 lt:lc3 IU1l I h fJ lt::l17 1 7 c4 ! PolugayevskySpassk y, Tilburg 1983; or 7 . . . cfl 8 'tWc2 ..td7 9 ..tb2 ..te8 10 lt::lc5

1 12 Dutch Defence

l0bd7 I I /Od3 .th5, KasparovPetrosian, Bugojno 1983, and now 1 2 /Of4! .tn 13 l0d2 followed by 100 1 according to Kasparov.

7 c6 8 b3

I used to believe in Alekhine's pawn sacrifice: 8 llJe5 l0bd7 9 llJd3 de 10 l0f4 /Ob6 1 1 e4 until I read Robert Bellin's book on the Dutch which pointed out the refutation I I . . . e5! 1 2 de Wxd l 1 3 l hd 1 llJg4 H.

8 llJe4 Or 8 . . . b6 9 .tb2 .tb7 10 e3 llJa6

1 1 llJe2 .td6 1 2 llJf4 We7 1 3 lic l ;t Keene-Bellin, Benedictine 1 98 1 .

145 w

9 .tb2 We8 (145)

The standard Dutch attempt to gain a kingside attack . This can prove very dangerous if White isn't careful about how m uch leeway he allows his opponent on the kingside. Of course, to start his kingside play Black has to make certain concessions, such as weak

dark centre squares and tardy development of his queenside forces. More solid is 9 . . . 10d7 10 Wc2 .tf6, though White should prefer 1 0 e3, as in the game, intending /Oe2, 10e5 and then f3.

10 e3 WbS 1 1 /Oe2 g5

To stop llJf4. 1 2 liJe5 llJd7 1 3 f3 ltld6

1 3 . . . 10 xe5 14 de 10c5 also looks good for White.

14 Wcl llJ(7 1 5 cd

or course, the simple 1 5 llJxd7 .txd7 16 e4 is at least !, but I wanted to try for more.

15 ed Or 1 5 . . . cd 1 6 liac l , good for

White.

146 B

16 g4 (146)

The point of my idea, which leads to very interesting complications.

16 Wh4! After 1 6 . . . fg 1 7 liJg3 Black's

queen is embarrassed for decent squares.

1 1 er J.d6! Or 1 7 . . . �h6 18 e4 �xeS 1 9 de

de when 20 •c4+ is annoying. 1 8 f4 �f6 19 �£3!

The only move. 19 �xeS

Tempting, but the best defence is 19 . . . g4 to close things up. Even then 20 llad I or 20 llae I leads to better chances for White.

20 de Possible also is the exchange

sacrifice 20 fe ltlg4 2 1 J.f3 �xe3 22 .. e2 �xfl 23 llxf l .

20 �g4 2 1 J.xdS+!

21 J.f3 � xe3 22 •c) �xfl 23 ed wins for White, e.g. 23 . . . Wxh2+ 24 q,>xfl but 2 1 J.f3 J.c5 ! is slightly annoying.

2 1 cd 22 ed J.xfS!

Not 22 . . . �xe3 23 •c3. 23 'ttd2

Of cou rse not 23 �xf5 lhf5 24 Wxf5?? •xh2 mate.

23 llae8 Setting a neat trap 24 llac I ?

.td3 ! 25 llf3 gf and White is in trouble.

24 llf3! Setting a counter-trap into

which Black falls, although he didn't really have a good alternative. The best defence is 24 .. . d4,

Dutch Defence 113

though 25 10xf5 ll xf5 26 J.xd4 must win.

24 J.e4 25 �xe4 de 26 d71

If now 27 . . . ef 28 1fd5+ :n 29 de'tt+ or 27 . . . lle6 28 llg3 gf29 ef e3 30 •s2 llxf4 3 1 lld I •d8 32 •d5 wins; or 3 1 lld I e2 32 dl!•+ •xdl! 33 ll xd8+ <3117 34 •xb7+. Note, however, that 27 . . . lle6 28 d81W ef 29 1hg5+ •xg5 30 fg f2+! is good for Black.

26 lld8 27 llh3! (14 7)

Black lost on time 1 -0. I f 27 . . . -.xh3 2 8 •d5+ : n 29 -.xg5+ 'it;>f8 30 •xd8 mate; or 27 . . . llxd7 28 1Wxd7 •f2+ 29 <tlh l •xb2 30 •xh7 mate.

1 2

Dutch Leningrad

l .hano�-Henley New \' ork 1983

d4 rs �f3 �f6

J 14 Dutch Defence

Or 2 . . . g6 3 c4 Jl.g7 4 ll:lc3 d6 5 e4 ll:lh6 6 ..ie2 0-0 7 0-0 fe H �xe4 ll:lf5 9 d5 c5 I 0 lle I ;!: GufeldBilek, Kecskemet 196M; alternatively, 5 g3 ll:lh6 6 h4! li:',f7 7 h5 with a vigorous attack, Steinitz-L.Paulsen, Vienna 1 873.

3 g3 g6 4 ..ig2 Jl.g7 S c4 0-0 6 ll:lc3 d6 7 dS! (148)

I t is best not to allow 7 0-0 ll:lc6 8 d5 ll:le5 with black counterplay.

From the diagram Black has two other choices to the main line: a) 7 . . . 'ffe8 !! 0-{) ll:la6 9 ll:ld4 ..id7 . 10 e4 fe ( 10 . . . c6 I I b3 ll:lc7 1 2 Jl.b2 c 5 1 3 ll:lf3! t Malanyuk) I I ll:lxe4 lthe4 12 Jl.xe4 li:',c5 1 3 ..ig2 a 5 1 4 ..ig5 'ffl7 1 5 •d2 Jl.xd4 1 6 'ffxd4 e5 1 7 1!rc3, Van der Sterren-Helyavsky, Wijk aan Zee 1 984; a lthough White lost this game his position at this stage looks very promising.

b) 7 . . . c5 8 0-0 ll:la6 9 llb l lil:b8 (9 . . . ll:lc7 1 0 a4 a6 I I b4 ± Petrosian) 10 b3 ll:lc7 I I ..ib2 a6 ( I I . . . b5 1 2 •c2 be 1 3 be Jl.a6 1 4 ll:ld2 !) 1 2 e3 b 5 1 3 ll:le2 a 5 ( 1 3 . . . •e8 14 ..ic3 b4 1 5 Jl.b2 h6 1 6 a3 ba 1 7 Jl.xa3 g5 1 8 b4! ± KeeneH indle, English Counties Teams 1 970; 1 3 .. . Jl.d7 14 Jl.c3 ll:la8 1 5 ll:lg5! Jl.h6 1 6 h4 ± since White will soon play ll:lf4 and e4, KeeneRee, Paignton 1 970) 14 ll:lf4 a4 1 5 h4 a b 1 6 ab be 1 7 be ll b4 1 8 ll:ld2 .i.a6 19 •c2 ;!: Keene-Jansa, Nice 01 1 974.

7 c6 8 0-0 ll:la6

Or 8 . . . e5 9 de i.xe6 I 0 •d3 ll:la6 I I i.f4 ll:le8 1 2 ll:lg5 ! KeeneWi rthensohn, Hanover 1976.

9 Jl.e3! An interesting way of exchanging

the dark-squared bishops - an undertaking normally in White's favour. In this case, it looks superior to an involved transfer of White's queen's bishop to the a l -h!! diagonal.

9 .i.d7 10 1!rd2 twaS I I llacl c5 12 i.h6 liJc7 13 Jl.xg7 lt>xg7 14 e4 (149)

Standard procedure against the Dutch - deplete Black's k u1gs1dc defences and then smash open the central files with e4.

14 1 5 lt:lxc4

fe ..Wxa2?

Wildly over-optimistic. 1 5 1txd2 i s still n o worse than t.

16 lilfel lilae8 1 7 lt:lfg5

Aiming at e6, Black's perennial wound in the Leningrad.

1 7 bS Igor Ivanov's note in lnformator

gives the symbol here for 'with counterplay', but since Black is now swiftly demolished, I assume

Dutch Defence 115

this comment is ironic. 18 lila I ! 11hc4 19 lilxa7 lt:lcxd5

Or 1 9 . . . ll:ifxd5 20 ll:ixd6. 20 lilxd7! lt:lxd7 21 ll:ie6+ c;!,>h8

If 2 1 . . . c;!,>gH 22 lt:lxd6 ±±. 22 .h6 lilf7 23 li\4g5 (/50)

White's cavalry tramples Black underfoot. After 23 . . . :ers 24 lt:l:d'8 lt:Jxf'8 28 ll:ixn+ �8 Black resigned.

1 7 English Defence 1 d4 e6 2 c4 b6 3 e4 i.b'··.·

151 w

So named after exploits by English Masters such as Skipworth and the Rev. Owen in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and its resurrection by P.N . Wallis, Basman, Miles and myself in the 1 970's and 1980's. This defence positively invites White to set up a megalomaniac pawn centre, which Black will then snipe at with guerilla shots, such as . . . �b4 • . . . 1fh4 and . . . f5.

While I was acting as Viktor Korchnoi's second in the World Championship semi-final versus Polugayevsky at Evian 1977, I succeeded in persuading him to try out the English Defence in game 6 of their match. Polugayevsky at first looked unbelieving and shocked, later extremely worried, as his

position started to slide downhill. Nevertheless, Polugayevsky did bypass one extremely interesting and aggressive sacrificial possibility in the early stages of this game and that will form the topic of my recommendation in this section.

For the English Defence see BCO, pages 32 and 33 .

Polugayevsky-Korchnoi Candidates' Match Evian 1977

1 d4 e6 Or I . . . b6 (Owen's Defence)

2 e4 ! .ib7 3 .id3! (1 52) 152

B

And now: a) 3 . . . cS (Chandler-Spee lman, UK 1 976) 4 d5! blotting Black's queen's bishop out of play. b) 3 . . . e6 4 t0f3 c5 5 c3 l.Df6 6 tfe2 cd 7 cd i.b4+ 8 it) bd2 d5 9 e5 !

1 r o;en, Bugojno 1978. • -1 ef! J.xg2 5

e:h+ �ffi 8 ... /:> '" ... , ,] 1 0 ll g l

� Ait I I I W�J tl. l n this line, 4 efl wins. The comparable variation (which I do not recommend) I d4 e6 2 c4 b6 3 e4 J.b7 4 J.d3 f5 5 ef J.xg2 6 W"h5+ g6, is less clear, the extra moves . . . e6 ar ' c4 being helpful to Black . Th-. related queenside fianchetto defence: I d4 liJf6 2 c4 b6 is inferior: 3 l0c3 J.b7 4 1rc2 d5 5 cd �xd5 6 liJf3 e6 7 e4 l0xc3 8 be J.e7 9 J.b5+ c6 10 J.d3 ;!;/ ±.

2 c4 b6 3 e4

The strongest move, played with an air of disbelief by Polugayevsky who obviously regarded Black's set-up as a bad joke.

3 i.b7 4 1rc2!

Polugayevsky's idea is to defend e4 without allowing a pin of the knight on c3 which would risk doubled pawns.

4 11rb4!? (I 53) Viktor had been analysing such

weird moves days before this game, but to Polugayevsky it was unpleasantly new. It is surprisingly difficult to drive off the insolent black queen. After the only other plausible move 4 . . . i.b4+ White plays 5 J.d2 i.xd2+ 6 lihd2.

/53 w

English Defence I I 7

White then has an incontestable space advantage.

s l0d2 i.b4 6 J.d3 f5

6 . . . 1rg4 !? could be tried here. White must reply 7 c;Pfl and will then gain much time by chasing Black's queen.

7 �f3 ..txd2+ s �n ?

After the text White gains a pawn but loses the right to castle and also lets his pawn structu re be ruined. To be consistent White must sacrifice two pawns with 8 i.xd2! 1rg4 9 llJe5 ! 1txg2 I 0 0-0-0 fe I I .ie2 ( 1 54) when vast compl ica tions ensue. /54

R

1 18 English Defence

Investigation by Korchnoi, Murei, Stean and myself immediately after the Polugayevsky game convinced us that White has truly dangerous attacking chances in this posi tion. So dangerous, in fact , that Korchnoi was reluctant to repeat the entire defence. Let us examine some variations: a) 11 . . . eJ? 1 2 .i.xe3 1hh l 1 3 lbh l .i.xh l 1 4 .i.h5+ g6 1 5 .i.xg6+ hg 1 6 'tlrxg6+ ±± . The trade of Black's queen for White's two rooks is, of course, clearly a disaster. b) I I . . . 'tlrxf2 1 2 .i.g5 (threatening .i.h5+) 12 . . . 'tlrf8 1 3 llhfl 10f6 1 4 d5 with a terrific attack. c) I I . . . li:lf6 12 .i.e3 threatening both 1 3 li[dg l 'tlrh3 14 li[g3 and 1 3 h4, followed by lldg l . After I I . . . li:lf6 1 2 .i.e3 'tlrh3 1 3 lldg l ! threatens both llxg7 and llg3 plus .tg5 . d ) I I . . . li:l c6 is probably the best defence: 1 2 10xc6 .i.xc6 1 3 d5! and if now 13 . . . ecd 14 cd .i.xd5 1 5 llhgl 'tlrxf2 1 6 .i.h6 threatening .i.xg7, and .i.h5+. If 16 . . . 0-0-0 then 1 7 .i.a6+. Or 1 6 . . . 'tlrxg l 1 7 li[xg I li:lxh6 1 8 'tlrxc7 0-0 1 9 'tlre5. e) 1 1 . . . d6 1 2 llhg l 'tlrxf2 1 3 .tg5 ! again with the threat of .i.h5+, while lldfl may also prove annoying.

8 9 .txdl

'tlrh5 10f6

1 0 ef 1 1 gf 1 2 .i.cJ 1 3 llel

.i.xfJ li:lc6 0-0

'tlrhJ+ Spassky advocated 1 3 . . . 'tlrxf3

but pursuit of the attack is also excellent.

/55 w

1 4 'itlel 1 5 'itldl

llae8 e5! (155)

1 6 de li:lxe5 1 7 .tel

I f 1 7 .i.xe5 llxe5 1 8 llxe5 'tlrxO+ and . . . 'tlrxh I =F.

1 7 ll:l xfJ! Preparing a neat combination

which brings a decisive advantage. 18 'tlrdJ llxel 1 9 li[xel

Or 19 �xe2 1rh5! and Black wins.

1 9 1tg2 20 li[he I ll:lxe 1 2 1 �xel

See Diagram 156

21 Jeopardising victory. By inter

posing 2 1 . . . Wg I + 22 �d2 and only then .. . Wxh2 Korchnoi could have prevented the invasion of his position which now occurs.

22 lle7! From now until adjournment

(move 42) Polugayevsky plays excellently and brings about a dra wish ending.

22 23 'it>e2 24 �el 25 "trg3!

A difficult decision to make but it is the right one. Exchange of queens eases the task of defence.

25 1hg3 Maybe 25 . . . :n is stronger for

English Defence JJ9

26 llxn Wxg3 27 llxg7+?? fails to the retrogressive 27 . . . Wxg7!

/57 w

26 fg llf1 (157)

Black stands better in the ending, but White has chances to draw, notably on moves 42 and 44: 27 ..ixf6 gf 28 lle8+ �g7 29 �f2 �h6 30 b4 �g5 31 lla8 �xf5 32 Iha7 d6 33 a4 c;t;>e6 34 aS ba 35 lha5 f5 36 c5 llh7 37 cd cd 38 b5 h4 39 gh llxh4 40 lla8 llb4 41 llb8 c;t;>d5 42 'it;>fJ ( 42 ll b6! �c5 43 llc6 =) 42 ... llb3 43 �f4 'it>c5 44 llc8+? (44 �xf5 =) 44 . . . <&>xb5 45 'it>xf5 lle3 46 'it>f4 llel 47 Ild8 c;t;>cS 48 Ilc8+ 'it>d4 49 �fJ d5 50 �f2 Ile5 51 :t:la8 �c3 52 :t:la3+ 'it;>b4 53 Ilal d4 54 Ilcl d3 55 llc8 d2 56 Ilb8+ 'it>c3 57 llc8+ 'it;>d3 58 lld8+ 'it>c2 59 llc8+ 'it>dl 0- 1 .

1 8 Miscellaneous Black Replies

1 d4 bS (158)

158 w

The Polish Defence looks weird, but is not so easy to crack. I t should be mentioned that in the form I e4 a6 2 d4 b5 Tony Miles used it (as Black) to defeat World Champion, Anatoly Karpov in the European Team Championship in Sweden 1980. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that Black can fully equalise by this eccentric feint away from the centre.

I d4 h6 (159) The most wildly outrageous

reply to I d4, intending 2 . . . g5 to reach the Basmaniac Defence. Although this has been championed by Basman himself, the superfluous ventilation voluntarily created

159 w

around Black's kingside makes it exceptionally dubious.

I d4 �c6 ( /60)

An exceedingly rare defence which is by no means easy to refute. 2 d5 is obvious, but not totally convincing, while 2 e4 d5 leads to the labyrinths of Nimzo-

witsch's Defence to I e4. Here I propose the simple 2 �t1. when Black has nothing better than 2 . . . dS, returning to the paths of Chigorin's Defence.

1 d4 d6 (161)

161 w

. . . d6 has virtually no independent significance and will usually transpose to the Modern, King's Indian or Old Indian. White can also choose 2 e4, to transpose directly into the Pirc Defence.

I d4 e5 (162)

/6} w

Miscellaneous Black Replies 121

This ( Englund's or Charlick's Gambit) is just an inferior Budapest.

The irregular answers to I d4 are dealt with on pages 47, 1 85, 1 86 and 187 of BCO.

Petrosian-Spassky World Championship Matcb (22)

Moscow 1966

I d4 b5 Here I examine the really rare

alternatives on move I for Black: a) I . . . h6 2 e4 gS 3 ,j,d3 d6 4 �e2 cS 5 c3 ll:\c6 6 0-0 �f6 7 ll:\d2 1tc7 8 b4 b6 :!! ±. b) 1 . . . �c6 is difficult to refute. I recommend reversion to a line of the Chigorin which I briefly mentioned in Part 1: 2 �t1 ( threatening dS in earnest) 2 . . . dS 3 c4 ,1g4 4 cd ,j,xt1 5 gf •xd5 6 e3 eS 7 liJc3 .1b4 8 ,j,d2 ,j,xc3 9 be ed 10 cd liJf6 (or 10 . . . ll:\ge7) I I ,j,g2 followed by •b3 ! c ) 1 . . . d6 can hardly avoid transposing to one of the main lines I have already analysed. If Black insists on a sturdy independence of spirit he can land in trouble: 2 c4 e5 3 �c3 ll:\c6 (3 . . . ed 4 1fxd4 �c6 S .. d2 transposes to a line of the English, where White controls d5 and has a small advantage: 5 . . . ll:\f6 6 b3 ,j,e6 7 e4 ;!; Hubner-Balashov, Rio de Janeiro 1979) 4 d5 ll:\ce7 5 .g3 fS ( more sensible is . . . g6) 6 �f3 ll:lf6 7 ,j,g2 c5 8 liJg5 ± Csom-Suttles,

122 Miscellaneous Black Replies

Bali 1982. Hi.ibner-Seirawan, Tilburg 19H3, went: I . . . d6 2 e4 g6 3 c4 e5 4 ti:Jc3 ti::lc6 5 d 5 liJce7 6 .td3 h5?! 7 f4 il.g7 8 ti:Jf3 u ±. d) I . . . e5 2 de ti::lc6 3 ti:JO 1re7 4 1rd5 f6 5 ef ti::lxf6 6 1rb3 d5 7 ti:Jc3 d4 8 ti:Jb5 il.g4 9 ti::lbxd4 tt:Jxd4 1 0 ti::lxd4 0-0-0 I I c 3 ± .

2 e4 .tb7 3 f3

Erecting a solid barrier in the path of Black's queen's bishop. Few world champions have been faced with this exotic defence, so it is worth quoting Karpov-Miles, Skara 1 980: I e4 a6 2 d4 b5 3 ti:Jf3 il.b7 4 il.d3 ti:Jf6 5 1re2 e6 6 a4 c5 and now 7 ab ab 8 lha8 il.xaH 9 e5 c4 1 0 ef cd I I fg il.xg7 1 2 1Wxd3 1ra5+ (Mi les) ( 1 63) offers Black compensation for his pawn. I n the game, Karpov chose 7 d e and after many further vici�situdes the world champion actually went on to lose.

/63 w

3 a6

4 .te3 e6 5 ti:Jd2 ti:Jf6 6 c3

Petrosian does nothing to attempt an im mediate refutation . He develops efficiently and establishes rock-like central fortifications.

164 8

6 il.e7 7 il.d3 d6 8 a4 (164)

The attack on b5 forces B lack to jam the diagonal of his queen's bishop.

8 9

1 0 I I 1 2

�e2 0-0 ti::lg3 ab

c6 ti)bd7 0-0 ne8 ab

1 2 . . . cb is more active, but reduces Black's quantity of pawns in the centre. There would also be no obvious way for Black to launch a 'minority attack' advance of his a- and b-pawns.

1 3 lha8 1Wxa8 14 Wc2 .tf8

I S b4! (165)

An excellent strategic conception. He puts a greater clamp on Black's long term . . . c5 break, and also prepares seizure of the sole open file via ltlb3 and :a I .

I S trb8 1 6 li:lbJ g6 1 7 :at eS 18 'irf2

Further pressure against . . . c5, without which Black can never liberate his bishop on b7.

1 8 dS 19 de ltlxe5 20 .ic2 .ig7 21 .ia7 1Wc7 22 .ib6 1!t'b8 23 .ia7 't!rc7 24 .i.b6 'irb8 25 .ia7 (166)

An inglorious episode in the game - Petrosian was not unwilling to pocket half a point, since this would virtually assure him of match victory and retention of his

Miscellaneous Black Replies I 23

title. He was, however, rcluctalll to cla im the draw by repeti t ion since he obviously stands bet ter. Spassky, of course, was desperate to avoid a draw but now commits hara-kiri in his misguided effort to extract more from the posi tion than is objectively present . Of course, Petrosian should have played 21 .id4 ! ±, 23 .id4 ! ± or 25 .id4! ±.

25 1fc8? 26 .id4!

At last . 26 h5 27 h3

Intending f4 and e5. 27 h4 28 ttJn de 29 fe ltJed7 30 ltJfd2 cS 31 ltJxcS ltJxc5 32 be ..Q.xe4

If 32 . . . ltJxe4 .:n .ixe4 ..Q. �4 34 ..Q.xg7 '.!txg7 35 Wd4+ ±±: .

33 ..Q.b3 ( ifll)

124 Miscellaneous Black Replies

/67 B

only had the adverse effect of wrenching open avenues for White's attack: the f-file and a7 for White's rook.

33 j.f5 I f 33 . . . 1rc6 34 lla7 i.d5 35

i.xd5 'Wxd5 36 .txf6 ±±. 34 lla7 �d7 35 �13

Threatening �g5 and 11hh4. 35 'Wb8

Black's central clearance has and 1-0 ( 36 c6 ±±).

Part V The Top Ten with 1 d4!

1 0 Svetozar Gligoric (Yugoslavia)

9 A kiba Rubinstein (Po land)

8 Samuel Reshevsky (USA)

7 Lajos Portisch (Hungary)

6 Viktor Korchnoi (Switzerland)

5 Tigran Petrosian ( USSR)

4 H arry Nelson Pillsbury (USA)

3 M ikhail Botvin nik

2 Alexander Alekhine (Russia/France)

G ary Kasparov (USSR)

126 The Top Ten with 1 d4!

Each of the top ten is represented by one game:

Kasparov- Belyavsky, Moscow 1 983 Queen 's Gambit. Exchange

Alekhine-Marshall , Baden Baden 1 925 Marshall's Defence

Bohinnik-Larsen , Noordwij k 1965 Queen 's Gambit, Orthodox Exchange

Pillsbury-Marco, Paris 1900 Queen 's Gambit, Pii/Jbury A ttack

Petrosian-Fischer, Buenos Aires 1 97 1 Griinfeld

Korchnoi-Karpov, Hastings 197 1 /72 Torre Attack

Portisch-Petrosian, Moscow 1967 Queen's Gambit, Exchange Slav

Reshevsky-Fischer, Los Angeles 1 96 1 Nimzo-Indian, Ragozin

Rubinstein-Teichmann, Vienna 1908 Queen's Gambit, Orthodox

Gligoric-Petrosian, Belgrade 1 954 Czech Benoni

The 1 d4 Oscars

US Grandmaster Andrew Soltis, chess correspondent of the New York Post, once asked me to nominate the ten greatest players of I d4. I never found time to respond to his question directly, but here, in my book devoted to I d4, seems the appropriate time and place to publish my list of the I d4 Oscars. I have given them in order, with one annotated game each to demonstrate their prowess.

Of course, my list is controversial. Objections could be raised, for example, that Alekhi.'le was also a major exponent of I e4, or that the list should embrace Capablanca, Spassky, Tal, Polugayevsky, Euwe, Najdorf, Browne, Bogoljubow . . . . However, in his

world title matches Alekhine was a staunch adherent of I d4, while Capablanca, Tal and Spassky, for example, relied heavily on 1 e4 for their important competitions.

My choice of Kasparov for the number one spot, in preference to Alekhine or Botvinnik, also needs some explanation. My own feeling is that Kasparov's interpretation of I d4 blends icy efficiency and almost balletic artistry in a way that excels the achievements of his mighty antecedents. At the moment, Kasparov's rating is 27 1 0, the world's highest, and I believe that, still only twenty-one, he has the capacity to equal, or surpass, Fischer's all-time rating Everest of 2780.

Svetozar Gligoric

G Jigoril:-Petrosian Belgrade 1954 Czech Benoni

1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 cS 3 d5 e5 4 �c3 d6 5 e4 �bd7 6 �n a6 7 .ie2

With this move White declares his intention of castling kingside. The scheme is not as overly aggressive as the 0-0-0 based line I analyse in the Czech Benoni chapter, but it is an excellent alternative option.

7 .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ll:le1

Heading for d3, from where the knight can support either b4 or f4, assaulting Black's twin defensive horns at c5 and e5.

9 10 �d3

lLle8 �c7

Heading the wrong way. Black should prepare for . . . f5 to increase his kingside influence, e.g. 10 . . . g6 I I .ih6 ll:lg7 1 2 .d2

�h8 planning �e8-f6-g8, hounding Whi te's threatening queen's bishop.

1 1 a4 He must not allow the liberating

advance . . . b5 .

/6/J w

1 1 12

l:l:b8 .ieJ .i.g5 ( 168)

This is positionally desirable since Black's king's bishop is restricted by his dark-squared pawn chain, while W hite will be left, after the bishop swap, with a light-squared bishop slightly hampered by his pawns at e4, d5 and c4. Significantly, Black waits to play . . . .ig5 until White has expended a tempo with .ie3. Black cannot, of course, expand with 1 2 . . . b5? because of 13 ab ab 14 cb �xb5 15 � xb5 l:l:xb5 1 6

10xe5! unearthing an attack against Black's rook.

13 Wd2! e3 will provide a fine square for

White's queen. 1 3 14 'ttxe3 15 aS!

j.xe3 h6

If Black does not react, White will now roll him up with li[fb l and b4. Thus we see that, in spite of the strategically valuable bishop exchange, White is still at the controls because of his terrain advantage. This permits him the luxury of being able to choose either b4 or f4 as a means of progress.

1 5 1 6 ab 1 7 b3

b5 10xb6 li[a8

Black's snail-like plan is . . . a5, . . . j.d7 and finally .. . a4.

1 8 f4! ef Relying on use of the vacated e5

square to aid his defence. 19 Wxf4 f6

Securely squashing White's dream of breaking down Black's barricades with e5.

20 10d1 We7 21 10e3 g5?

Gligoric rightly condemns this as an "impulsive move". Not only does it undermine Black's influt:nce over f5 , it also exposes the g5 pawn to later tactical operations. Safer is 21 . . . c;i;>h8.

Svetozar G/igoric 129

22 10f5! j.xfS Unfortunately forced.

23 Wxf5 'tth7 24 'tlt'g4

Obviously White does not exchange queens. With Black's kingside so full of holes it makes sense to keep the most powerful aggressive unit on the board.

/69 B

24 li[ae8 25 li[f5 10d7 26 li[afl li[e7 27 b4! (169)

Black's fortress cannot be breached by kingside action alone. This thrust creates the requisite diversion to knock away its foundations.

27 cb 28 c5 h5

Neither here, nor on the next move, can Black capture on c5, since the advance d6 wins a piece.

29 1Wg3! Not 29 'ttxh5? Wxh5 30 .._xh5

li[xe4. 29 li[xe4

130 Svetozar Gligoric

30 c6 lilxe2 Or 30 . . . lLlb6 3 1 1fxd6! lil xe2 32

lilxg5+ ! and wins. 31 1fxd6

Much stronger than regaining his piece. The sacrificial combination which Gligoric has envisaged, and which now follows, is spectacularly beautiful .

31 lLlbS 32 1hb4 lLlb8 33 lilxg5+! 'it'll 34 lilxf6+! (1 70)

A corruscating crescendo of sacrifices. White gives up almost every piece to inflict mate.

170

34 35 1fxf8+ 36 h4+

1-0

'it'xf6 'it'xgS

36 . . . �xh4 37 1ff4, or 36 . . . Wg6 37 lLlf4.

Akiba Rubinstein

17/ B

Rubinstein-Teich mann Vienna 1908

QGD Orthodox

1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 4 .igS lt:lbd7 S e3 .ie7 6 lt:lf3 0-0 7 'Wc2 (171)

Rubinstein's patent, against which the correct reply is the active 7 . . . c5 ! . The choice of the Austrian grandmaster allows White to initiate a superior form of the Exchange Variation with 0-�0.

7 b6 8 cd ed 9 .id3 .ib7

10 0-0-0 1 1 b4

cS c4? (1 72)

The same category of error that Marco committed against Pillsbury in their game later in this section. Black voluntarily crystallises the central situation into a static one, where he has little or no hope of striking back in time with . . . a6, . . . b5 , . . . b4 etc. I t is rewarding to compare this position with the Botvinnik-Larsen game, where . . . c4 i s a reasonable decision. In this game Black should prefer 1 I . • • llc8, though 12 'lib 1 lle8 13 de llxc5 14 lt:ld4 also favoured White in the earlier game RubinsteinTeichmann, Carlsbad 1907.

Another example is 1 I . . . a6 1 2 g4 c4 1 3 .if5 g6 14 .i.xf6 .ixf6 1 5

132 Akiba Rubinstein

g5 Jl.g7 16 Jl.xd7 1rxd7 1 7 lt'le5 1re7 HI f4 ± Spassky-Bobotsov, Havana 01 1966.

1 2 Jl.fS lle8 1 3 Jl.xf61

An excellent move, dragging Black's knight towards f6, where it is a target for White's soon-tobe-advancing army of kingside pawns. White must first capture on f6, before Black can consolidate with . . . lt'lf8.

13 lt'lxf6 14 g4 .id6 15 g5 lt'le4 16 hS 'ti'e7

Or 16 . . . lt'lxg5 1 7 lt'lxg5 1rxg5 18 .ixh7+ 'it>f8 19 h6 gh 20 lldg 1 , a variation given b y Tarrasch.

/ 73 w

1 7 lldgl a6 (1 7 3)

White's pos1t10n is obviously very promising indeed, but what is the most accu rate way of clinching matters? Rubinstein's solution is staggering.

18 .ixh7+ ! ! 'it>xh7 19 g6+ �g8

Alternatively, 1 9 . . . c;!;>h6 20 gf Wxn 2 1 llg6+ �h7 22 /t)xe4 followed by a murderous check on g5; or 19 ... fg 20 /t)xe4 de 21 lt'lg5+ �h6 (2 1 . . . �g8 22 'ti'xc4+) 22 hg+ �xg6 23 /t)xe4+ �f7 24 1rxc4+ and wins.

20 lt'lxe4 de If 20 . . . 1rxe4 2 1 gf+ �xf7 22

lt'lg5+.

1 74 B

21 h6! (1 74)

The climax of White's majestic campaign. The most tenacious defence is now offered by 21 . . . fg when 22 llxg6 ef 23 llxg7+ 'ti'xg7 24 hg .ie4! 25 9xc4+ c;t;>xg7 26 llg l + 'it>f6 is not convincing for White. Stronger is 2 1 . . . fg 22 h7+ <t>n ( 22 . . . <t>h8 23 o.?lh4 spells instant doom) 23 lllh4 g5 24 lllf5 'tlt"e6 25 llxg5 g6 26 llh6, while most devastating of all, perhaps, is just 22 lt'Jh4! when Black's king's shield inelu�:tably disintegrates, e.g. 22 . . . gh 23 lt'lxg6 or ll xg6+, while 22 . . . g5

loses to 23 lt:lg6 1t'f6 24 h7+ 'it>l7 25 h81t' litxh8 26 lt:lxh8+. I n his Art of Allack Vukovic claims that Black can resist with 26 . . . rt/e7 27 1t'e2 c3 28 be ..ta3+ 29 c;i/b l 1t'f5, but after 30 lith5 ! I do not set: i t .

What Black plays encourages his opponent to bow out with a rapid flourish.

21 f6�! If 2 1 . . . ef 22 gf+ 'it'xl7 23 hg!

wins. 22 hg 23 li[h8+

ef rt/xg7

Akiba Rubinstein 133

24 li[h7+ 25 1t'f5!

�g8

Threatening 1t'h5 , g7 and litxe7. It makes no difference what Black does now.

25 26 litxe7

1 -0

c3

26 . . . lit xe7 27 1t'xf6 li[d8 28 lith I wins. A truly amazing game.

"A dashing victory in the grand mannt:r", said the noted critic and connoisseur Hans Kmoch.

Samuel Reshevsky

Reshevsky-Fischer Match (7) Los Angeles 1961

QGJJ I Nimzo-Indian (Ragozin)

175 w

I d4 dS 2 �f3 lt:lf6 3 c4 e6 4 lt:lc3 .ib4 5 e3 0-0 6 ,j,d3 fi:Jc6!? (1 �5)

There is nothing wrong with 6 . . . c5, transposing directly into the Nimzo-I ndian, where White no longer has recourse to 10ge2. Fischer used to enjoy playing this obscure line which blocks his own c-pawn, but several reverses ultimately persuaded him to abandon it .

7 a3

A good alternative is 7 0-0 de (7 . . . a6 8 h3 ! ) 8 ,j,xc4 .td6 9 lt:lb5 .ie7 10 h3 a6 I I lt:lc3 b5 1 2 .td3 .ib7 and now 13 a4 and 1 3 11re2 (Gligoric-Fischer, Leipzig 01 1960) both favour White.

7 .txc3+?! A dubious exchange . Greater

tension arises from 7 . . . de 8 .txc4 ,j,d6 9 b4 e5 10 d5 fi:Je7 1 1 ,j,b2 .tg4! and now either 1 2 Wc2!? or 12 h3 .td7 1 3 �g5 with the curious threat of 10e6! , e.g. 13 . . . 10g6? 1 4 �e6! fe 1 5 de �h8 16 ed ±. This was a line I analysed with US GM Larry Christiansen, while I was functioning as his assistant at the 1 982 Moscow Interzonal.

8 be fi:Ja.S 9 lt:ld2 c5

10 0-0 b6 1 1 cd eel (1 76)

Black captures with the pawn to maintain a foothold in the centre, thus discouraging white advances such as c4 or e4. However, the structure before us can be recognised from my chapter on the NimzoIndian and it is one which is excellent for White. The point is

that Black cannot ultimately prevent White from marching through the centre with e4; meanwhile, Black is unable to play quick . . . ..ta6, swapping White's k ing's bishop, which now stays on the board for some time representing a powerful distant menace to Black's king.

1 2 f"3 lle8 1 3 lle1 ..te6

Black's queen's bishop would exert more influence on the centre from b7. Another idea worth considering is 1 2 . . . �b7!? followed by . . . lt:ld6 and then . . . ..tb7 or . . . ..tf5.

1 4 lla2! The standard 'Arabic' develop

ment of White's queen's bishop, the most efficient method of bringing it into action on the kingside, or in the centre.

14 llc8 15 �n cd

Samuel Reshevsky 135

16 cd hS?! ( 1 77)

An interesting moment. I t should not be forgotten that White has two aggressive plans at his disposal, either e4 followed by e5 and a general advance of his kingside pawns, or g4 and then �g3, followed, perhaps, by g5 and f4, pushing Black back. Fischer must have been very concerned by the second of these possibilities and decided to stop it for good, but . . . h5 proves very weakening when White actually opts for plan A. New York GM Edmar Mednis recommends instead the constructive waiting move 16 . . . •d7, and he is surely right.

1 7 h3 Still threatening g4, so Fischer

continues with remorseless logic to stop it .

17 h4 But now the h-pawn is hopelessly

cut off from Black's lines of Striving for counterplay down communication.

the c-filc. 18 llf2 •d7

136 Samuel Re.shev.sky

1 9 e4! de 20 fe (1 78)

If now 2 1 . . . Wxd4? 2 1 e5 threaten ing to win Black's queen with �h 7+ and after 22 . .. lii:ed8 22 ef 1hd3 23 lii:d2 ±t.

20 i.b3 21 'ifd2 i.c4

Or 2 1 . . . ... xd4 22 e5 lii:fd8 23 ef ... xd3 24 liteS+! ±t.

22 i.c2 23 .txb3 24 25 26 27

e5 'ifg5 'ilg4 �g5 (1 79)

lL!b3 i.xb3 lL!d5 ... e7 lii:c6

Here Black is obviously lost, since 27 . . . tfe6 28 ... xh4 followed

by lLJg3 is horrible. What Fischer plays is a blunder which shortens the process.

27 1Wxa3 28 ... d7

1 -0 Black cannot protect c6, e8 and

f7 at once. Few people have dispatched Fischer so decisively.

Reshevsky has a phenomenal record, having beaten Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov and Fischer. Of living players, only Botvinnik can surpass this achievement, but at the age of 73 Reshevsky is still playing, while Botvinnik quit compet i t ive chess for good when he reached 60.

Lajos Portisch

Portisch-Petrosian Moscow 1967

QGD, Slav Exchange

1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 cd

With the immediate exchange White: avoids any possible complications arising from . . . de.

180 B

3 cd 4 �c3 �f6 5 �f3 �c6 6 jJ4 e6 7 e3 .i.d6 8 ..ig3 ( 180)

After Black has com mitted his king to the kingside, it is dangerous to swap bishops on g3, open ing up the h-file for attack . I f, however,

Black prefaces . . . 0-0 with 8 . . . ..txg3 9 h g 'ttd6, trying t o equalise with . . . e5, White has 10 .id3 e5 I I de �xe5 1 2 �xe5 1!txe5 1 3 1!fa4+ ..id7 14 'tif4! 'ttxf4 1 5 gf, with a very pleasant position based on his mobile centre and kingside pawns, general dark-squared control and play against Black's fixed I QP.

8 0-0 9 ..td3 liteS

10 �eS A version of the: 'Pillsbury

Attack' , which is seen in its purest form in the game PillsburyMarco . The knight on e5 is very threatening and Black hastens to remove it.

10 ..ixeS Of course not 10 . . . �xe5? I I de

winning a piece. 1 1 de lLld7 12 f4 1llb6?

A superior alternative to the pawn-snatching text is 1 2 . . lLlc5! 13 lLlb5 lLlxd3+ I H !hd3 'W'a5+ 1 5 �1'2 lLlb4 1 6 ire2 b6 1 7 lLld6 �a6 J g 11fd l llJd3+ 19 �g l , a varia t ion given by Varnusz, but doubt lt:ss stemming from consultat ion with

138 Lajos Portisclr

Portisch. This position is hard to evaluate, but probably favours White who will unravel with 1i'c2, h3, ¢>h2 etc. H is knight on d6 is more firmly entrenched than Black's on d3.

181 B

13 0-0! (181)

Calmly ignoring Black's demonstration. If Petrosian does not take one of the two pawns on offer, then his . . . 1i'b6 would be revealed as a total waste of time.

13 1i'xe3+ Or 1 3 . . . 1i'xb2 1 4 <tlb5 ! ±.

14 ¢>hi 1i'b6 If Black tries to seal things up

with 1 4 . . . f5 then 1 5 .i.xf5! d4 ( 1 5 . . . er 16 lL!xd5 and li:lc7) 1 6 .i.xe6+ l he6 1 7 li:ld5 1i'e4 1 8 li:lc7. Such important tactical variations must be noted carefully, since they often form the sole justification for an initial sacrifice. If t he sacrificer misses such vital opportunities, his offensive may run out of steam.

I S 1i'hS it:lf8

16 lU"3 li:lg6 Or 1 6 . . . 1i'xb2 1 7 llb 1 tfxc3

1 8 .i.xh7+ winning Black's queen. 17 .i.fl (182)

/81 B

White's a ttack seems to be playing itself, but some intricate tactical footwork is still required, e.g. in the case of 1 7 . . . 1i'xb2 1 8 llb l ! 'tltxc3 19 llh3 ¢>f8 ( 1 9 . . . h6 20 i.xg6 fg 2 1 1i'xg6 - 19 . . . 1i'a5 20 1i'xh7+ 'it>f8 2 1 llb5 and i.c5+) 20 1i'xh7 li:lxf4 21 .i.h4! and B lack is mated, since his k ing cannot escape via e7.

1 7 1i'd8 18 <tlbS

All white units right.

18 19 li:ld6

swing sharp

lL!ce7 .i.d7

Praying that White will be bought off with the paltry li:lxe!!, but White's knight on d6 is worth a whole regiment of cavalry.

20 i.h4 1i'b6 Or 20 . . . lt:lxh4 21 .ixh7+ ±±.

21 llh3 Threatening .i.xe 7.

/83 w

21 22 .if6!

h6 11rxb2 (183)

Lajos Portisch 139

23 lln! Even at this late stage White can

spoil things with 23 llb l ? llec8! exploiting the back rank mate to free himself. Black, naturally, does not worry about giving up the exchange on c8.

23 lt::lfS 24 .txrs

1 -0 I f 24 ef 2 5 .ixg7 'it>xg7

26 11rxh6+.

Viktor Korchnoi

Korchnoi-Karpo\' Hastings 1971/72

Torre A llack

I d4 ll:lf6 2 ll:lf3 e6 3 .igS b6

Korchnoi's choice of opening was surprising, at the t ime; his idea may have been to avoid. his opponent's excellent knowledge of main line opening theory . Though Karpov's 3 . . . b6 cannot be called a mistake, it may be a psychological error, since it allows White to create a position where Black has the bishop pair but is otherwise passive. 3 . . . c5 is more combative, leading to unfathomable complications after 4 e3 'lrb6 5 lllbd2 'tlrxb2 6 .id3 d� 7 c4 1fc3 8 �e2! � bd7 9 'ira4. Karpov needed only a draw from this game, played in the penultimate round, to clinch first place. This explains his cautious approach.

4 e4 h6 5 .ixf6 'tlrxf6 (184)

/84 w

6 .idJ Also interest ing is 6 a3!? e.g.

6 . . . .ib7 7 ll:lc3 d6 8 'tlrd2 ll:ld7 9 0-0-0 g5? ! 10 ll:lb5 �d8 I I h4 g4 12 e5 ± Korchnoi-Kcres, USSR Championship 1 965.

6 .ib7 7 �bdl a6

Black fears that 7 . . . ll:lc6 H c3 0-0-0 would be met by 9 1re2 followed by .ia6. The text safeguards t he bishop from exchange but costs va luable time. Both now and on the next move Black should have considered regrouping with . . . 'tlrd8. In the l ine played Karpov's queen becomes exposed.

8 1t'e2 d6 9 0-0-0 �d7

10 ¢>bl A useful move, wa1tmg for

Black to commit h imself in the centre, which he now does.

10 e5 Karpov should still play 1 0 . . .

1t'd8 followed by J.e7 and . . . 0-0.

I I c3 �e7 1 2 �c4 0-0 1 3 J.c2 l:Ue8

I f 1 3 . . . ed 14 cd lilfe8 1 5 e5! 14 d5!

By sealing the centre Korchnoi gives his pieces more freedom to manoeuvre as well as shutting Black's bishops out of the game.

14 c5? The decisive strategic mistake,

permitting White full scope to build up a powerful k ingside attack. It was necessary lo retain possibilities of counterplay with . . . c6, either immediately or after 14 . . . �f8 .

1115 w

I S ll:le3

Viktor Korchnoi 141

16 g4! Beginning an advance of pawns

to open l ines for the attack on the black king.

1 6 1td8 1 7 g5 h5

After 1 7 . . . hg 1 8 lildg l ! ±. 18 g6! fg 1 9 lilhgl trf6 20 lOgS J.e7 21 lt:le6 lt:lf'8

An auempt to repel boarders at the cost of the exchange. A fter the a l ternat ive 21 . . . lilacS 22 lilg2 lt:lf8 23 lildg I 'it'h7 24 lt:lxf8 lhfll 25 lilxg6 trxg6 26 lilxg6 <;ilxg6 27 lt:lf5 White's attack breaks through.

22 lt:lc7 1t'r7 23 lildn?

After this Black obtains counterplay; better 23 a4 to hold up . . . b5 .

26

23 bS! 24 lt:lxa8 �xa8 25 c4 lilb8 26 �d3 We8?! . . . b4! renders Whi te's win

problemat ic . Kon:hnoi felt he would have to reorgan ise: wi th a kn 1ght transfer to dJ and then play f4 .

2 7 l:i:cl i.. f6 28 l:i:g2 llbb?

With 2!! . . . b4 1 Black can st i l l put up much resistance:.

29 llcg i ! ( /XoJ Threa t e n ing 30 ll xg6 ti 1 >.: g6 J I

�hh 5 . Black prevents t h is by defending his queen, but he is too

142 Viktor Korchnoi

/86 B

late to avoid the collapse of his king's position.

29 lib8 30 1Wfl b4

If 30 . . . �b7 3 1 cb �c8 32 ba �h3 33 1We2 �xg2 34 lilxg2 :±±.

31 �el! There

lilxg6! 31 31

32

is no antidote now to

h4 lilxg6! 1Wxg6

otlxg6 33 ..th5 is even worse for Black.

33 lilxg6 �xg(i

34 ..tg4 otlf4 35 1td1 b3 36 ab �b7 37 otlg2 ..tc8

37 . . . otlxg2 would be met by 38 �e6+ �f8 39 1th5.

38 ..txc8 lilxc8 39 1Wg4 lile8 40 otlxf4 ef 41 1W·xf4 ..te5 42 1txh4 lilfB 43 b4 ..td4 44 be 1 -0

Emboldened by this success, Korchnoi was later to try I d4 otlf6 2 ..tg5!? in game 19 of his 1 974 Candidates' Final v Karpov, the match that was to determine the destination of the world title when Fischer defaulted in 1 975. After 2 . . . e6 3 e4 h6 4 ..txf6 'tlfxf6 5 otlf3 d6 6 otlc3 g6 7 1td2 'tlfe7 8 0-0-0 a6 9 h4 �g7 10 g3 White stood slightly better. Korchnoi has won I I competitive games against Karpov, more than any player ever - six of these as White with I d4 openings.

Tigran Petrosian

Pet rosian-Fischer Match (2) Buenos Aires 1971

Griinfeld Defence

I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 g6 3 lt:lc3 d5 4 .if4 .ig7

Petrosian has employed various methods against the G rtinfeld, but has tended to favour early development of his queen's bishop, e.g. 4 lt:lf3 .ig7 5 .ig5 �e4 6 cd lt:lxg5 7 ltJxg5 e6 8 ltJf3 ed 9 e3 0-0 1 0 .id3 b 6 I I 0-0 c 5 1 2 .ie2 ltJc6 1 3 llc l c d 1 4 ltJb5 .ib7 1 5 lt:lbxd4 t Petrosian-Benko, Candidates' Tournament, Cura�ao 1962. The ending of this IQP game is given in my chapter on the Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarraseh Variation.

5 e3 When in aggressive mood,

Petrosian has also had fascinating experiences with the alternative 5 lt:lf3, e.g. 5 . . . 0-0 6 llc i e5 7 de de (7 . . . .ie6! is better) 8 e4 'it'a5 9 e5 lld8 10 .id2 lt:lg4 I I .ixc4 1txe5 1 2 �e4 1tb6 13 .ixf7+! 'it>xf7 14 llxc8 llxc8 I S lt:lfg5+ 'it>g8 16 1txg4 1tc6 1 7 ltJd6! 1td7 (187)

187 w

Here the game Petrosian-Benko, Candidates' I 962 ( round. l 2 ) concluded: 18 1txd7 ltJxd7 19 ltJxc8 llxc8 20 f4 llc2 2I �e2 .ih6 22 lt:lf3 llxb2 23 g3 g5 !--S- !--S . At the time, it was believed that White might have won with I8 1th4!? but then Botvinnik indicated the defence 18 . . . h6 I9 ltJxc8 hg 20 1tc4+ e6 ! 21 ltJd6 ltJc6 22 ltJe4 �xeS!

5 c5 Black may also enter fearful

complications with the pawn sacrifice 5 . . . 0-0, though currently this wild line appears to be good for White: 6 cd ltJxd5 7 lt:lxd5 1txd5 8 .ixc7 lt:lc6 9 lt:le2 .ig4 I O f3 llac8 I I �c3 1te6 I 2 .if4 ltJxd4 I 3 fg llfd8 14 .id3 lt:le6 I 5 1tb i !De 5 1 6 .ie2 lt:lc4 I 7 0-0 lt:ld2 I S

144 Tigran P�trosian

1fc2 � xfl 19 �xf l ! .txc3 20 be 1ff6 2 1 g5 1fxc3 22 1fxc3 lhc3 23 l:td I ! ± Timman-Schmidt, I ndonesia 1983. I t seems that Fischer also distrusted this ambitious black strategy.

6 de 1taS 7 l:tcl �e4!

The most pointed choice. After 7 . . . de 8 .txe4 0-0 Black can only aspire to laborious equality.

8 ed For a while White falls behind

in development, but realises on gain of material or s trong cen"tre to offset this.

8 9 1fd2

1 0 be

�xe3 1fxa2

I would be tempted by exchange sacrifices based on 10 llxc3, offering the queen's rook for Black's strong king's bishop, but somehow I doubt that such concepts can be proved sound.

/88 B

10 WaS 1 1 .te4 �d7 12 liJel (188)

With ten years of hindsight, Black's best course at this stage was found to be 1 2 . . . � xc5 1 3 0-0 �e4 14 1fc2 �d6 with a complicated position if White retreats h is king's bishop. I n the game FaragoCeshkovsky, Banja Luka 198 1 , White sought to attack Black's king with a manoeuvre of truly Eolithic subtlety: 15 .txd6 ed 1 6 1fe4+ 'it> f8 1 7 liJd4, but Black unravelled easily enough ( . . . .tf6, . . . �g7) when his passed a-pawn proved exceptionally powerful.

12 liJeS 1 3 .ta:Z .tfS?

The transparent threat of a black knight check on d3 is easily met, though Fischer may have underestimated White's possibility of giving up his dark-squared bishop for B lack's knight - the same course which brought disaster to Farago ten years latt:r. Correct (again with much hindsight) is 1 3 . . . 1hc5 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 c4 a5 1 6 e4 1f b4 with a tough fight i n view, Farago (the same)-Filipowicz, Banja Luka 1 98 1 .

1 4 .txeS! IS liJd4!

.txeS 'i!heS

Fischer must allow h is kingside pawns to be shattered, if he wishes to regain his pawn. The alternative of 1 5 . . . J.d7 1 6 l:t b l is also unpleasant , while 16 c6 also does not look ridiculous.

16 liJxfS gf

/89 B

1 7 0-0 (189)

Black's position has become quite wretched as a result of his error on move 1 3. His king has no safe refuge, and the pawn on f5 is doomed if White sets about besieging i t . The best way of solving the problems is Mednis' suggestion: 1 7 o o • f4 ! ( if Black waits White may fix the pawn on f5 with f4, and then pick off f5 at his leisure) 18 ef j,d6 followed by 0 0 . 0-0-0. A strict blockade by Black's queen and bishop on c5 and d6 will shut White's k.ing's bishop out of play for some time, and with opposite bishops on the board, White will experience difficulty in converting his extra pawn into a win.

1 7 1ra5? A further error, relieving the

blockade, which encourages White to revive the fortunes of his temporarily muftled king's bishop.

18 1rc2 f4 19 c4 fe

After this White breaks his

Tigran Petrosian 145

shackles totally. The humble 19 • o o tlc5 might be in order, however miserable it looks.

20 c5! ( /90)

A pawn is no price at all to pay for the mobility White has achieved. If, for example, 20 o o • ef+ 2 1 Wxf2 0-{) 22 j,b I and either f7 or h 7 will collapse.

20 Wd2 21 Wa4+ <iif8 22 llad1

22 llc2 is also good. 22 tfe2

Or 22 0 0 0 e2 23 llxd2 j,xh2+ 24 �xh2 eftt 25 d6 ±±.

23 d6 Since this thrust can hardly be

stopped, the preliminary 23 g3 might have been safer.

23 1rh5 The last ditch defence is 23 . . .

.ixh2+ 24 �xh2 'tlrh5+ 25 �gl e2 26 de+ �g7 27 Jild5! ±.

24 f4 e2 . 25 fe ed1r 26 Jilxdl 1rxe5 21 :n r6

' !

146 Tigran Petrosian

/91 8

28 29 30

'ftb3 1t'n+ de (191)

�g7 �h6

Black's pieces are scattered and his king hopelessly exposed. If 30 . . . llhg8 3 1 .ib I llg6 32 .ixg6 hg 33 1tf8+ ±±. The game ended: 30 . . . rs 31 :axrs 1td4+ 32 �hi 1 -0. A beautifully flowing game, but Petrosian's sole win in the match. For any reader who wishes to cultivate an alternative antiGrtinfeld method to Romanishin's given in the G rtinfeld chapter, the .if4 based l ines mentioned in this game are fruitful field for investigation.

Harry Nelson Pillsbury

Pillsbury-Marco Paris 1 900

Queens Gambit Declined, Orthodox

I d4 2 c4 3 �c3 4 .tes

dS e6 �r6

In the main text I recommend the immediate exchange with 4 cd. As i t is, this game rapidly transposes into a version of the Exchange Variation.

4 .te7 5 e3 0-0 6 �f3 b6

We know now that this move should be prefaced by . . . h6.

7 .td3 i.b7 8 cd

The alternative is 8 .txf6 i.xf6 9 cd ed 1 0 h4, as I mention in my introductory comments to the Orthodox QG D. The text is the inaugural move of the famous 'Pillsbury Attack' based on 'Lle5 and f4.

8 ed Black could also consider 8 . . .

�xd5 9 .txe7 Wxe7, when White wil l proceed with 10 llc l to

i mplement c-file pressure.

192 B

9 �e5 (192)

Pillsbury's trademark and the key move of his Attack. White will cont inue to build up his pressure with f4, establishing a 'Stonewall' but with the important difference that White's queen's bishop is already outside the otherwise restrictive pawn triangle on d4, e3 and f4. For the negative aspects of the 'Stonewall', see by chapter on the Dutch Defence.

9 !idb47 10 f4 0

Here 1 0 �4 would block the white bishop on d3, one of the main actors in the looming denoument.

�""' 'if.t· 1 1 o-o c4?

148 Harry Nelson Pillsbury

Absolutely mistimed. In an endgame Black's pawn majonty would prove a decisive factor, when we1ghed agamst Wh1te1s centre pawns, wh1ch are mcapable • of producing a majority. However• by relinquishing all of the central tension, Marco gives his opponent, a free hand, way before any endgame sets m, to operate on the kingside against Black's near helpless king. Correct 1s I I . . . cd 1 2 ed 25e4 ! jamming White1s avenues of attack . It is worth comparing this strategic situation with the one arising in BotvinnikLarsen which follows. There Botvinnik's pieces are less actively placed (he has no knight on e5) but his central pawn configuration (d4, e3, f3) is still dangerously mobile.

12 13 14

..ic2 'W'f3 'W'hJ

a6 b5

All of White's attacking moves are simple, natural and logical. Fi rst , by lining up against h7, White provokc::s . . . g6, which , in turn, presents a target for 15.

14 g6 J s rs b4 1 6 fg! ( 1 9])

White displays no inclination to salvage his knight. If now 1 6 . . . be 1 7 g7 �xg7 1 8 ..ixf6+ lt:Jxf6 1 9 llxf6 �xf6 20 llfl + �g7 2 1 'W'xh 7 mate. 1 7 ..ixf6 is also very strong.

193 B

1 6 hg 1 7 'W'h4! be

A contemporary note states quite correctly: " Black is beyond salvation, whatever he does."

18 �xd7 'W'xd7 19 J:hf6 aS

Or 1 9 . . . .txf6 20 .txf6 and mate on h8.

20 21 22

llan ..ixg6 llxf8+

lla6 fg ..ixf8 (194)

And here, after the custom of his age, Pil lsbury announced mate in six: 23 lld8+ �xf8 24 .._8+ �n 2s 11fh7+ �ra 26 'thd7 followed by .th6+ and 'W'g7 mate.

Bronze Medal - Mikhail Botvinnik

Botvinnlk-Larsen Noordwijk 1965

Q GD Exchange Variation

1 c4 '2. e6 t 2 ltlc3 � d5 1

3 d4 l �f6 ) 4 cd a.. ed 1.r 5 -'.g5 � c6 ' 6 e3 ' -'.e7 " 7 1fc2 r 0-0 i 8 -'.d3 l ltlbd7 5 9 lt.Jge2 � h6 (/95J " .

/95 w

this move, since, in his opinion, the white queen's bishop can now drop round via h4 to fl, supporting White's centre. Yet, when Alekhine invented the lt.Jge2 line of the QGD Exchange in 1927, he regarded an early .. . h6 (best before . . . 0-0, in fact) as desirable

to stop White attacking with h4, while the white queen's bishop on g5. Indeed, had Botvinnik not been so convinced of the virtues of the manoeuvre i.h4-f2, he could have struck out with 1 0 h4 !? and if 10 . . . hg"! 1 1 hg lbe4 1 2 .ixe4 de 1 3 W'xe4 f5 1 4 •e6+ IU7 1 5 g6, or 13 . . . g6 1 4 'ith4.

10 -'.h4 lile8 1 1 f3

Preparing to advance with e4. 1 1 c5 1 2 0-0

Dictated by prudence; 1 2 0..0-0 is certainly possible, but Botvinnik prefers to avoid such a committed step when Black has already achieved . . . c5.

/ 96 B

12 a6 13 lilad 1 b5 14 -'.f2 (1 96)

150 Mikhail Botvinnik

14 c4!? A quite logical decision and

much better than in the comparable games Pillsbury-Marco and Rubinstein-Teichmann. The difference here is that White's powers have not yet adopted a threatening posture against the black king. Nevertheless, Botvinnik was obviously relieved by Larsen's decision to resolve the tension. He wrote: "Risky. Larsen was evidently concerned that with the white queen's bishop on fl, White was threatening de, saddling Biack with an IQP. This was, however, not so dangerous for Black. A fter . . . c4, though, White will inevitably advance with e4, and gain good kingside attacking chances."

15 -'.f5 ltlb6 1 6 ltlg3 -'.fl 1 7 a3

He may as well hold up . . . b4 for a while.

1 7 -'.b7 Larsen would rather have

a white bishop on f5 t han a white knight, after 1 7 . . . .i.xf5 1 8 �xf5.

1 8 e4 g6 (197) U is worth noting the sacrificial

idea 19 .txg6 fg 20 e5, even though it m ust be rejected on account of 20 ... �h7 21 ef trxf6 =t=, since White will then have no good way of continuing his attack.

19 .th3 aS 20 e5

20 ltlxb5 de! or 20 ed b4! 20 b4 21 ltlce2

White must stay flexible, maintaining his pawn on e5, while rushing up reserves with f4-f5. 2 1 ef! be, on the other hand, would soon leave White at a s tandstill.

21 ll:'!h7 22 f4

If now 22 . . . bd23 ba .i.xa3 24 f5 grants White a tangible attack.

1 9/J w

22 .i.c6 ( /98)

Very interesting at this juncture

is 23 f5!? .ta4 24 'trb l lt:lg5 (24 . . . .txd I 25 fg) 25 fg lt:lxh3+ 26 gh 1fd7. This i s given by Botvinnik who says: .. Black's chances are better than in the actual game." I find this impossible to swallow. After the simple 27 .te3! it seems to me that Black faces immediate and total annihilation. The conclusion must be that 23 f5 is exceedingly strong, and that Black should have tried 22 . . . f5; though if we go back to that position it can be seen that White may then try 23 ef 1fxf6 24 f5 g5 25 ltJh5 as an alternative means of attack .

23 lhl ?! .ta4 24 'ifbl f5!

He has to hold up W hite's f5. 25 ab

He needs the open a-file.

/S/9 w

25 ab (199)

26 ltJxf5! If White does not sacrifice he is

positionally crushed, for his pieces have curiously receded to the margins of the board and he has

Mikhail Botvinnik 151

no other visible counterplay against Black's predatory queenside pawns.

26 gf 27 .txrs 1fe7 28 ltJg3

Having demolished the frustrating barricade of black pawns, White's hitherto oppressed pieces now unfurl a searing energy.

28 .td7 29 .txd7 lt:lxd7 30 1fg6+ 1fg7

Natural enough, although Botvinnik holds that 30 . . . �h8 is superior. The pawn on d5 would not then hang with check after an eventual 1fc6.

31 1fc6 lhal 32 Ilxal

After 32 1fxd5+ 1ff7 White must acquiesce in an exchange of queens which does not yet suit his plans.

200 B

32 11n 33 Ila7 ( 100)

33 lt:lxe5? A time-trouble blunder, over-

152 Mikhail Botvinnik

looking that White's reply defends the rook on a7. Forced is 33 . . . �b8, when Botvinnik gives 34 •b6 �d7 35 •as lle7 36 f5 and White still wins.

34 del ±± The rest is not so interesting:

34 ... •e6 35 •xe6+ llxe6 36 �f5 llc6 37 �fl c3 38 be be 39 ..te3 ..tcs 40 ..txc5 :xeS 41 llal �1'8 42 �2 �e6 43 g3 h5 44 'it'd3 d4 45 lt:ld6 lld7 46 lt:le4 �h7 47 f5 �d8 48 �f6+ �h6 49 �d5 llb7 50 e6 �c6 51 lla6 �e5+ 52 �xd4 1 -0.

Silver Medal - Alexander Alekhine

Alekhine·Marshall Baden Baden 1925

American or Marshall's Defence

201 w

1 d4 2 c4

d5 �f6!? (201)

3 cd lLlxdS 3 . . . 'lt'xd5 4 ll:lc3 'lt'd8 or 4 . . .

'lt'a5 5 ll:lf3 i s a poor version o f the Centre Counter.

4 e4 Quite in Alekhine's vigorous

style, but it is too energetic. An improvement is 4 lLlf3 e6 5 e4 li:lf6 6 ll:lc3 c5 7 d5! ed (7 . . . i.e7 8 do ! ) 8 e5 d4 9 ef de 1 0 i.b5+ �c6 I I i.xd1+ be 1 2 1Wxd8+ c;!;>xd8 1 3 ..tg5 g6 1 4 0-0-0+ ±.

Also, 4 ll:lf3 i.f5 5 't!Vb3 e6 6 li:lc3 li:lc6 7 e4 ll:lxc3 8 ef

distinctly favours White. 4 ll:lf6 S i.d3 e5!

" In my opinion this gambit is completely correct." (Alek hine). Obviously not 5 ... 'lt'xd4?? 6 ..tb5+.

6 de ll:lg4 7 ll:lf3

Not 7 f4? ..tc5 !! ll:lh3 'tth4+ wit h tremendous compensation for the pawn.

7 li:lc6 8 ..tgS

8 ..tf4 .!Lib4 is too dangerous for White.

202 B

8 9

10 1 1

i.e7 ..txe7 't!Vxe7 li:lc3 llJcxeS lLlxeS (202)

Which way should BlacR recap-

/54 Alexander Alekhine

ture on e5? Alekhine believed that equality would have arisen from I I . . . lt::lxe5 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 .te2 .te6, an interesting vindication of Black's unusual opening variation. Alekhine criticises Black's next move as an over-ambitious attempt to aggress while his development remains imperfect.

!0.1 8

I I 1 2 l 3

WxeS? h3 lt::lf6

1rd2! (203)

Alekhine was a genius when it came to turning small positional advantages into murderous attacks. Her�. he has a marginal lead in development , plus an as yet dormant kingside pawn majority, liquid assets which could easily evaporate if White were not to detect the correct move precisely at every turn . For example, if 1 3 0-0 (a very natural choice ) 1 3 .. . g5 ! followed by . . . .id7 and . . . 0-0-0 and White's kingside pawns are stymied. Yet in the game, within a further six moves, these

very kingside pawns are at Black's throat.

13 .td7 14 1re3

A 'creeping' move, imperceptibly increasing his dark square control and preventing Black from castling long.

14 .ic6 I S 0-0-0 0-0

"This is perilous, but does Black have a viable alternative? I f 1 5 . . . 'tta5 16 .tc4 and now Black really has to play . . . 0-0 since his k ing cannot castle qucenside and certainly cannot risk a sojourn in the centre ." ( A iekhinc)

16 f4 1te6 If 16 . . . 1ra5 1 7 e5 lt::ld5 1 8 lt::lxd5

.ixd5 19 .ixh7+ �xh7 20 Wd3+ and 't!hd5. A minor, but significant, tactical point .

!04 w

1 7 eS lilfe8 18 llhe l ll adS ( 20./)

I I! . . . lt::ld7 19 g4! is unpleasant for Black but after the text Alekhine unleashes a brilliantly

calculated winning combination. It is all the more impressive in that his own king is somewhat open and Black has various ingenious counterchances with check.

19 f5 'it'e7 20 'ttg5 lLld5 21 f6 'it'f8 22 ..tc4!

The key move of the combination. 22 lLlxc3 23 lhd8 lhd8 24 fg!

Not 24 e6? li[d5! 24 lLlxa2+!

Marshall fights well. White cannot play 25 ..txa2 since Black then has a saving queen check on c5.

205 B

25 �bl ! 1te8 26 e6! (205)

I t is worth rereading my note to 1 3 1td2! at this stage. I am struck

Alexander Alekhine /55

by a strange resemblance between the decisive phase of this contest and Spassky-Ghitescu, from the Czech Benoni section of this book. In both cases, White conducts a slaughterous attack, apparently ignoring Black's moves, which happen to include several captures of White's own pieces.

26 ..te4+ 27 �at !

Continuing in the same vein. 27 lhe4 ltd I+ is more murky.

27 fS If 27 . . . fe 28 ..txe6+ 1Wxe6 29

'it'xd!H �g7 30 1td4+ and litxe4 ±±.

20t'l w

28 e7+ 29 1tf6

lld5 11n (206)

And White announced mate in three, beginning with 30e81t+. 1-0.

A crystal-dear demonst ration of Alekh ine's superla tive qualit it:s of vision, t:nergy and calculation.

Gold Medal - Gary Kasparov

Kasparov-Belyavsky Game S, Candidates' match 1983

QGD Exchange Variation

I d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lc3 ll:lf6 4 cd ed S .igS .ie7 6 e3 h6

Following Alekhine's advice, Belyavsky hastens to drive away the white queen's bishop, before playing . . . 0-0.

107 w

7 .ih4 0-0 8 .id3 b6!? ( 207)

An interesting attempt to convert a pure Exchange Variation into a Tartakower, but one where Black no longer has the option of . . .

ll:lxd5, since the central pawn configuration has already been determined.

9 ll:lf3 9 ll:lge2 is also possible, of

course. 9 .ib7

10 0-0 There is very lit tle point here in

bold ideas such as 10 'tlt'c2, followed 0-0-0, since the straightforward . . . c5 followed by . . . ll:lc6 would cause White immediate problems. In effect, Black has gained a defensive tempo by his early 6 . . . h6. This tempo is only of significance if White adopts methods of brute force, based on .ixf6, and then Wc2 plus h4. These now lack all punch, since Black's h-pawn would no longer be under attack on h7. 1n my introductory comments to the Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Exchange, and in the game Rubinstein-Teichmann, I show just how dangerous these brutal methods can be for Black , if he has not availed himself of the requisite defensive tempo with . . . h6.

1 0 cS

Or 1 0 . . . ll:le4 I I ..txe7 trxe7 1 2 ll:le5 l0d7 1 3 f4 l0xe5 1 4 fe c 5 1 5 tre 1 ! %lad8 1 6 %ld 1 f6 1 7 ..txe4 de 1 8 ef %lxf6 1 9 %lxf6 11rxf6 20 de be 2 1 %lxd8+ 11fxd8 22 10a4! ;!: since Black's c-pawn is weak. Alternatively, 1 6 . . . 1!rg5 1 7 h4 1!rh5 18 ll:le2 ;t crowding Black's queen.

1 1 ll:leS ll:lbd7 In an earlier · game of their

match, Belyavsky played the incautious I I . . . ll:lc6 and had to suffer after the clever t actical blow 12 ..ta6! ( 1 2 . . . ..txa6 13 ll:lxc6 ±).

.lOlJ B

1 2 ..trs r 1 (L .,, ,_ 11!1 , ) l �

A n excellent square for the bishop, one a lso visited by the k ing's bishops of Rubinstein anJ Botvinn ik . In this case it improves on Kasparov-Belyavsky, 3rd match game, where 1 2 'ttf3 cd 1 3 ed lt:lxe5 1 4 de lt:ld7 lead nowhcn: for White. White could also a im for a pure Pillsbury Attack with 1 2 f4, when 1 2 . . . .!i:l xe5 1 3 fe ll:le4 1 4 .ixe7 trxe7 1 5 'iWe I transposes into my comment to 1 0 . . . c5 .

Gary Kasparov 157

12 lt:lxeS If 1 2 . . . cd 1 3 ll:lxd7 10xd7 1 4

.ixe7 11rxe7 1 5 't!Pxd4 ± with a positional grip on the dark squares; 1 2 . . . Ji[e8, however, is the most flexible course.

13 de li:le8 If 1 3 . . . ll:le4 1 4 ll:lxe5! ±±, a

trick worth noting. 14 ..tg3 lt:lc7 IS 1t'g4 'fte8 1 6 .id7 1Wd8 1 7 :ladl (209)

White has constructed a position full of potential explosive energy. Bt:lyavsky now t ries to knock his opponent off-course with a kingside demonstration, but the weakening of the pawn cover around Black's king which it involves permits a spectacular attack to untold.

1 7 hS 1 8 't!fh3 h4 19 ..if4 i.gs·

Or 1 9 . . . g5 20 .if5 gf 2 1 'tig4+, a small taste of things to come.

158 Gary Kasparov

20 .us �:6 21 o!Oe4! (210) 2 1 1

l/0 B

There is nothing wrong with lhe simple retreat 21 .i.g4, which would have been the choice of 99o/o of the population. Kasparov's move is, however, vastly more pointed.

21 .bf4 22 ef gf

Belyavsky decides to be sporting and accepts the sacrifice.

23 WxfS de Giving up his queen to stem the

onslaught is the most sensible decision. If 23 ... li'le8 24 li'lg5 ±± or 23 . . . f6 24 Wg4+ 'it>h7 25 Wxh4+ 'it>g7 26 Wg4+ 'it>h7 27 litd3 ±±.

24 Wg4+ 25 litxd8 26 t!hh4+ 27 't!fe7 (21 1)

�h7 lithd8 �8

In spite of the terrrible exposure of his king, and White's golden horde of pawns, B lack, with rook and two pieces for the queen, can

B

certainly fight on. Here, for example, White must not rush in with 27 f5? because of 27 . . . litd7! , when Whi te's best is 28 Wg5+ and perpetual.

27 e3 If 27 . . . litac8 28 f5 .ta6 29 e6 fe

30 f6 ±± and White immediately achieves his basic objective - to nail Black down with h is pawns.

28 litel And not 28 Wxc7? e2 29 Wxb7

litd 1 30 Wxa8+ q;>g7 H. 28 ef+

The best chance is 28 . . . e2, though White still wins with 29 f3 litd 1 30 'l;>f2 .ta6 3 1 Wxc7 litad8 32 Wxa7 litxe 1 33 ti'xa6 118d 1 34 f5 :±±. Black's choice deprives him of his e-pawn, the only real counterforce at his disposal. The game finished: 29 ¢'d2 litd2+ 30 lite2 libel+ 3 1 'it>xe2 .ia6+ 32 'it>f2 o!Oe6 33 rs llld4 34 e6 :rs 35 WgS+ 'i!t>h7 36 e7 liteS 37 f6 llle6 38 'W'hS+ �g8 1 -0. ( 39 Wg4+ �h7 40 Wa4 o!Oc7 4 1 Wd7 ±t).

Bibliography

The following is a list of the major sources I have found helpful in writing OR W. The readc:r may find many of them useful in his own further studies.

Botsford Chess Openings (BCO) Kasparov & Keene ORAP Keene & Levy How to Open a Chess Game 5-Yolume ECO New in Chess 1970-81 Chigorin 's Defence Albin Countergambit A Complete Defence to J d4 King's Indian Defence

Larsen's section Ed. Matanovic Ed. Matanovic J .Watson Lam ford Cafferty & Hooper Barden, Hartston, Keene

Grunfeld Defence Botvinnik & Estrin How to Play the Nimzo-lndian Keene & Taulbut Benoni for the Tournament PlayerNunn Modern Defence Keene & Botterill Classical Dutch Bellin Fighting Chess Alekhine's Best Games 193/J-45

Kasparov & Wade Alexander

BotYinnik's Bes/ Games 1947-70 Botvinnik Pillsbury's Chess Career Sergeant & Watts Petrosian 's Best Games Clarke

Batsford Batsford RHM Batsford Elsevier Batsford Batsford Pergamon Batsford

RHM Batsford Batsford Batsford Batsford Batsford Bell/Tartan Batsford Printing Craft Bell/Hyman

To Dominic and Jane - Archive

Documents

Transcript of To Dominic and Jane - Archive