The Sicilian accelerated Dragon (Nielsen, Hansen,1998).pdf

Improve your results ideas in this

eine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen "

The Sicilian Accelerated Dragon

Peter Heine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1998

© Peter Heine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen 1998 ISBN 0713479868 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior pennission ofthe publisher. Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton and printed in Great Britain by Creative Print & Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 583 Fulham Road, London SW6 5BY

A BATS FORD CHESS BOOK General Manager: David Cummings Advisors: Mark Dvoretsky, Raymond Keene OBE, Daniel King, Jon Speelman, Chris Ward

Contents

Bibliography and Abbreviations Preface Introduction

4

5 7

Part One: Maroczy Bind (I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 c4)

2 3 4 5 6 7 H

Maroczy Bind: 7 ...tDg4 System Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... tDh6!? Maroczy Bind: 6 tDb3 and 6 tDc2 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

10

37 54 74 86 115 120

132

Part Two: Classical (I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 tDc3) <)

10 II 12

Classical with i.e2 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 "a5 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0 Lines in which White Captures with tDxc6

187 200

239 263

Part Three: Odds and Ends 13 14 15

Semi-Accelerated Dragon Hyper-Accelerated Dragon Guide to Transpositions

Index of Complete Games Index of Variations

287

295 309

316 319

Bibliography

ECO Volume B (2nd and 3rd Editions) Chess Informant 1-71 NIC Yearbook 1-45 Correspondence Chess Yearbook 1-14 Accelerated Dragons, lDonaldson and J.Silman (Cadogan Chess 1993 and 1998) Sicilian Accelerated Dragon, D.Levy (Batsford 1975) Beating The Sicilian 3, lNunn and lGallagher (Batsford 1995) ICON: Sicilian Accelerated Dragon, J.Donaldson (ICE 1995) Sizilianische Verteidigung: Drachen-System, E.Gufeld (Rudi Schmaus 1985) 52 - 54 - STOP - Fernschach, F.Baumbach (Sportverlag 1990) New In Chess Magazine - 1982 through 1998

Abbreviations

ch ct izt zt

01 corr

Championship Candidates tournament Interzonal tournament Zonal tournament Olympiad Correspondence game

Preface

The Accelerated Dragon had lived a life of semi-obscurity for many years, when Bent Larsen revitalised the black side of the Maroczy Bind with his impressive perfonnances against Karpov and Short in the 1987 SWIFf tournament in Brussels. For a while this boosted the popularity of the entire system before new ways were found for White, and slowly the system faded away once again. But in recent years, continued use by players such as Tiviakov, Anand, Altennan, Petursson, Andersson and Larsen has once again brought attention to Black's chances. In this book we have tried to cover every variation thoroughly with plenty of examples, new ideas and explanations to give you, the reader, a close feel for the typical plans, tactics and strategies in each line. In some chapters we have particularly emphasised the explanation of typical ideas and plans, as these should help you if you meet an unfamiliar move or move order and guide you to a safe position. The history of the Accelerated Dragon is long - you will find examples hy Lasker dating back to the last century - but nowadays the theory is developing so fast that it can be difficult to keep track of the newest moves in each line. However, we still feel that this book should be a helpful companion for several years to come and will hopefully bring you many points whether you play the white or black side. Although both of us have a deep attachment to the black side of this system, we have tried to be as objective as possible. Sometimes it may still shine through that we prefer Black, but this probably comes from having a solid belief in Black's chances. However, this should not keep White players from trying out our suggestions and recommendations. Several people have helped us throughout this project. Allan Holst, Jacob Aagaard, Ove Ekebjerg, Stephanie Alexander, Bent Hansen and Uffe V. Nielsen all deserve to be thanked for their contribution; without them this project would have taken even longer to finish. Last, but not least, we would like to thank our publishers, Batsford, for their patience and belief in the book. This book is the first either of us have written. It has been a lot of hard work, involving countless hours at the chessboard and on the computer.

6 Preface We hope that you, the reader, will find our work useful whether you are interested in only one chapter or decide to work your way through the whole book. Should you have any questions, new ideas or criticisms, please address these to Batsford Chess, so that they can be forwarded to us. Good luck! Peter Heine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen May 1998

Introduction

The starting position for the Sicilian Accelerated Dragon occurs after 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6

For years, White's most feared weapon was the Maroczy Bind, initiated by 5 c4, and many people seemed to believe this set-up was just 'good for. White'. As already highlighted in the Preface, however, Black has many resources at his disposal nowadays, and can look forward to a dynamic yet solid position. Nevertheless, the Maroczy is still White's most popular choice, and is covered in the first eight chapters of the book. Black can choose a range of setlipS against the Maroczy, each of which has its own unique flavour.

The three mainstream options are: a) The 7... ttJg4 system (Chapter I), entered via the move-order 5 ... i.g7 6 i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 ttJg4. b) The Classical Maroczy, 5... i.g7 6 i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3, which is given extensive coverage in Chapters 3-5. c) The Gurgenidze Variation 5... ttJf6 6 ttJc3 d6 followed by ...ttJxd4, analysed in Chapter 8. In addition, two slightly more offbeat configurations for Black are the double fianchetto system (Chapter 2) and the lines with an early ... ttJh6 (Chapter 6). Meanwhile, White's attempts to avoid the bulk of Maroczy theory by an early ttJb3 or ttJc2 are covered in Chapter 7. Chapters 9-13 give full coverage of the lines where White plays 5 ttJc3, avoiding the Maroczy. These variations have an affinity with the Dragon Sicilian, with the key difference that Black has delayed moving his d-pawn, so can often play ...d7-d5 in one go. Early deviations by Black such as the Semi-Accelerated Dragon and the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon are covered in Chapters 13 and 14, while Chapter 15 is a guide to the transpositions from queen's pawn

8 Introduction

or flank openings. Key Ideas in the Accelerated Dragon In the Maroczy Bind in particular, there are several common themes, of which players of either side should be aware. By studying these plans and strategies carefully, you will gain a better understanding of the opening, and you will then know what to strive for and what to strive to avoid. If you have never played the Accelerated Dragon before, or if you want some help to find which games are particular useful, here is a brief summary of the key themes and the games which best illustrate them. Black's Dark-Squared Strategy This is a common idea throughout the entire opening complex, but it is most evident in the Classical Maroczy and the Gurgenidze variation. It also frequently occurs in 7 ... lLlg4 system and in the main lines with 7 iLc4 WaS.

Important games for the understanding of this theme are Games 6, 7,23 and 43.

Good Knight vs. Bad Bishop This is one of Black's strategic goals, and occurs when the darksquared bishops are exchanged and Black succeeds in swapping his light-squared bishop for one of the white knights. It happens very freQuently in the Classical Maroczy, the Gurgenidze variation and the main lines with 7 ..tc4 "as.

See Games 22, 36, 38 and 53. White's Space Advantage The nightmare scenario for Black is where he is simply crushed by White's oncoming pieces and pawns. This is a potential feature in many lines of the Maroczy Bind.

Introduction 9

Games 12, 16, 19,21,25,28 and 77 illustrate how White can best make use of his space advantage.

weaken his queenside, something White may be able to exploit.

Black's Backward e-pawn With Black eager to reach a middlegame or endgame with good knight vs. bad bishop, he often has to exchange his light-squared bishop for a white knight on d5. After White recaptures with e4xd5, the backward black e-pawn is slightly vulnerable. On the positive side, however, this pawn may also be used to break the center open. Please study Games 3, 41, 50 and 66 for a deeper understanding on this common theme. The ...f7-f5 Break When Black has chosen a more modest set-up on the queenside and therefore does not have the ... b7-b5 break at hand, he can choose to break with ...f7-f5. Black, however, must bear in mind that in doing so, he drastically weakens his kingside and vital squares in the centre. Please see Games 39, 77 and 81 for illustrations of this scenario. The ••• b7-b5 Break With White controlling more space in the Maroczy Bind, Black often has to use this break to open up the queenside and gain counterplay. In the Gurgenidze variation, this is often Black's only way of releasing himself from White's pressure. From time to time, Black even sacrifices a pawn in the process, hoping to prove sufficient compensation in the form of open files on the queenside. However, when breaking with ...b7-b5, Black can also

Games 11, 37, 44, 51, 57, 62 show some of the pros and cons of this break.

1

Maroczy Bind: 7 ...ltJg4 System

Chapter Guide 1 e4 cS 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 S c4 ~g7 6 .i.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 lLlg4 8 'iVxg4lLlxd4 9 'iVdl 9...eS 10 lLlbS! 0-0 11 'iVd2 11...1Wh4 - Game 1 11.....e7 - Game 2 10.i.d3 0-011 0-0 d6

12 'ii'd2 12a4

- Game 3 -Game4

9...lLle6 10 l:c1 10...'ii'85 11 .i.e2 b6 12 "d5 - Game 5 12 'ii'd2 - Game 6 12 0-0 .i.b7 13 fJ gS 14 a3 - Game 7 14 lIf2 - Game 8 ll.i.d3 b6 120-0 - Game 9 12 "d2 - Game 10 1O... b6 -Game 11 -Game 12 1O... d6 -Game 13 10 'ii'd2 This system is often known as the Exchange variation or the Simagin variation, after the Soviet OM Vladimir Simagin who popularised it in the early fifties. From the midsixties until 1987 the entire system was regarded with a certain degree of suspicion, but the games Kar-

pov-Larsen and Short-Larsen from the SWIFT tournament in Brussels 1987 (both of which can be found in this chapter) changed the general opinion and made the variation fashionable again. The system is still often played, but once again most people tend to

Maroczy Bind: 7... ttJg4 System 11 prefer White's chances, although theoretically Black is certainly doing fine. It is almost impossible to generalise about the entire 7 ... lDg4 system, as the sub-variations are so different: some are extremely complicated, while others are based on sound positional understanding. We therefore recommend that the reader study the different games to get a better understanding of the specifics of each variation. We start with a classic encounter from the early 1970s.

Game 1 Gufeld-Espig Sukhumi 1972 (1 e4 e5 2 lDo tOe6 3 d4 exd4 4 tOxd4 g6 5 (4)

5 6

7

.t.e3 ttJe3

.t.g7 tOf6 ttJg4!?

For a long time this was considered dubious, but when Larsen IIsed it to obtain an advantage against Karpov in Brussels 1987, it hecame popular again. 'ii'xg4 8

Occasionally 8 lDxc6 lDxe3 9 ttJxd8 ttJxdl 10 lDxdl (to avoid ... J..xc3+) 1O... ~xd8 is played, but with the pair of bishops and no counterpart to the dark-squared bishop, Black is much better, as in for example Villegas-Reti, Buenos Aires 1924. ttJxd4 8 8... .t.xd4 has been tried and is in fact very logical, since it is a very common theme in the Maroczy Bind for Black to exchange darksquared bishops. The idea is to post a knight on d4, protected by a pawn on e5. Normally this gives Black good play, but here White is ready for a direct assault, and unless a major improvement can be found for Black, then 8... .t.xd4 must be considered unplayable. After 9 .t.xd4 lDxd4, 10 O-O-O! is now possible (if 10 'ii'dl then 10... e5 is fine for Black), since once the bishop on g7 has gone, the queenside is a safe haven for the white king. After 1O... e5, 11 'ii'g3 d6 12 f4 f6 White has tried 13 h4, but the more convincing 13 f5! was introduced in the game MestelKarlsson, Las Palmas izt 1982. On that occasion Black played 13 ...~, but he did not have much to smile about after 14 lDb5!, which gets rid of Black's only good piece. After 14... ttJxb5 15 cxb5 'iVc7+ 16 ~bl J..d7, instead of 17 b3?!, Mestel gives 17 Itcl followed by .t.c4+ and 'iVd3 as stronger, and this does indeed look awful for Black. However, Mestel still won after the game continuation. In a subsequent game, Black later tried 13... gxf5 (instead of 13 .. .'~n) and ISlDd5 survived after 14 'iVg7 Itn 16 'iVg8+ IU8 17 'iVxh7 'iVd7

:rs

12 Maroczy Bind: 7...lfJg4 System

(l7 ... ..id7 lost immediately to IS ':xd4! l:n? 19 ti'hS+ :f8 20 ti'h5+ 1-0 in Z.Almasi-Marosi, Hungary 1992) 18 "g6+
n

9

"dl

9 0-0-0 has been played on a few occasions, but it looks very risky. In Cherepkov-Gufeld, USSR 1961, Black played 9 ... e5 and stood better after 10 h4?! d5 11 "g3 dxe4 12 h5 ..if5. Much stronger is 10 "g3, intending 10... 0-0 11 tLlb5, which is much better for White. It is much more logical to play 9 ...lDc6, opening the diagonal for bishop on g7 and threatening both ...d7-d5 and .....ixc3 followed by .....a5, ... d7-d6, ... ..ie6 and ...lDe5. 10 lDd5 is the only way to counter both of these ideas, when after 1O... e6 White can return with 11 lDc3 since after 11.. ...ixc3 12 bxc3 "a5 13 'it?b2 White has ideas like "f4-f6, and Black does not have the standard attack with the pawn already on e6. Therefore Black should meet 11 lDc3 by 11.....a5 12 ..id2 0-0 13 'ittbl d5 with attacking chances. Note also that 13

ti'h4 can be answered with 13 ...d5!?, as after 14 exd5 exd5 neither 15 tLlxd5 "xa2 nor 15 exd5 ~d4 is scary for Black. In summary, the seemingly aggressive 9 0-0-0 actually offers more attacking chances for Black than White. After 9 "dl Black has to choose between positional play with 9 ... tLle6 or 9...lDc6 or the more tactical positions after 9 ... e5. 9 eS At one time this move was very popular, but since the main line seems to give White a clearly better game, interest has faded. Now and then Black comes up with a new idea, but so far none of these have stood the test of time. Apart from the standard 9 ...lDe6 (see Games 5-13) Black has also tried 9 ...tLlc6 a few times. However, the knight is misplaced here, and Black can do little to counter White's quiet development with "d2, ':cl, ..ie2, 0-0 and nfdl, after which White will have strong pressure. Black is as solid as always, but compared to the main system, not only is the knight less active on c6 than on c5 (after ... lDe6-c5) but it also takes away the c6-square from the lightsquared bishop. Furthermore, Black cannot prevent his opponent from playing b2-b4 with ...a7-a5, since tLld5 will exploit the weakening of the b6-square. A good example is Gavrikov-Pribyl, German Bundesliga 1993/94: 10 "d2 d6 11 ..ie2 140-0 ..ie6 12 b3 0-0 13 :tcl ':fcS 15 :fdl lDe5 16 h3
"a5

Maroczy Bind: 7... lL\g4 System 13

due to Black's pressure against the e4-pawn from a knight on cS and/or a bishop bearing down on the long light-squared diagonal.

10 lL\bS! The most ambitious attempt to refute the 9 ... eS line. Larsen once claimed that the only reason why 10 .i.d3 is played so frequently is that White players are afraid of the complications after 10 lL\bS!, but only because they are complicated, not for any intrinsic reason. With 10 .i.d3 (Games 3 and 4) White goes for a small but safe advantage, whereas if he dares enter the complications of 10 lL\bS! he should be rewarded with a clear edge. 10 0-0 11 "d2! Two other moves have often been seen here: a) The greedy 11 lL\xd4? is refuted tactically by l1...exd4 12 .i.xd4 "as+ 13 ~e2 l:te8 14 f3 dS IS .i.xg7 l:txe4+ 16 ~f2 (16 fxe4 .i.g4+) 16 .. :ii'cS+ 17 ~g3 "e3! (threatening ...l:tg4+) 18 h3 "f4+! 19 ~ ~xg7 20 "cl, and here for some reason Aizenhstadt-Aronin, USSR 1961, was agreed drawn, but if Black plays 20 ..."f6 he keeps

the queens on and obtains a fantastic attack after 21 cxdS .i.d7 followed by ...:'cS. Instead of 16 ~, 16 ~d3 was played in Brunner-Ekstrom, Switzerland 1990. After 16....:xc4 White found 17 ~e3!? which wins an exchange, but after 17.....cS+ 18 ~d2 ~xg7 19 .i.xc4 dxc4 Black had more than sufficient compensation. The white king cannot escape and Black won in 28 moves. b) 11 .i.e2 seems to be sufficient to gain a slight pull, as for example in Ivanchuk-Korchnoi, Monaco (rapid) 1994: l1...lDxbS 12 cxbS d6 13 0-0 .i.e6 14 "a4 "d7 IS :lfdl :tfc8 16 :d2. It is not a lot for White, but the d6-pawn is weak and Ivanchuk managed to win this particular game. 14... 'tWh4 instead of 14.....d7 is possibly an improvement, since then ... d6-dS is a threat and if IS g3 "e7, and Black is then ready to play 16 ... fS with , counterplay. Instead of 11...lL\xbS, 11...'ii'h4?! seems logical, but this is exactly what White is hoping for. In Gaprindashvili-Servaty, Dortmund 1974, play continued 12 lL\xd4 exd4 13 .i.xd4 "xe4 14 .i.xg7 "xg2? IS "d4! "xhl 16 ~d2 "xa117 "f6! 1-0. 14.....xg2? was clearly bad, but 14 ... ~xg7 IS 0-0 is also depressing. To summarise, 11 .i.e2 is solid and contains a nice little trap, but it should not bother Black too much. 11 "h4 11..."e7 is seen in the next game. Kuzmin has suggested ll...d6 12 .i.d3 (12 lL\xd4 exd4 13 .i.xd4 'tWh4 14 "e3 .i.h6 IS ':e8 16 .i.d3 fS wins for Black) 12 ....i.e6 with equality. However,

"f3

14 Maroczy Bind: 7.Ji::Jg4 System

after 12 tLlxd4 exd4 13 ~xd4 'iWh4 White simply plays 14 0-0-0 1i'xe4 15 ~xg5 ri;xg7 16 f3 with a safe extra pawn. 12 ~d3 Vaganian must have feared an improvement in the main line, since he chose to diverge here with 12 tLld6 against Espig, German Bundesliga 1990/91. After 12 ....e7 13 tLlxcs AfxcS 14 ~d3 a5?! 15 0-0 'iWb4 it seems as if Black will reach an equal ending, but after the surprising yet instructive 16 1i'c3! Black had to go back to d6, since an exchange of queens would have simply dropped the b7pawn. Still, White did not have a lot here, although he later managed to play f2-f4 under favourable circumstances and went on to win. Instead of 14... a5?!, we recommend 14...tLle6 with the idea of ... ~f6-g5 to play for the dark squares, when Black is doing fine. 12 d5

Black has to rely on tactics, otherwise he will just be positionally worse. 13 cxd5! The only try for an advantage. In reply to 13 exd5, Black has the

fantastic 13 ... ~h3! which guarantees a draw. After 14 ~xd4 (140-0 ~xg2) 14... exd4 15 gxh3 a6 16 tLla3, Espig played 16 ... :feS+ against Luther, German Bundesliga 1994/95, and won a spectacular game: 17 ~dl ~h6 IS f4?! ~xf4 19 .g2 ':e3 20 ~c2 ~d6 21 tLlbl?! ':ae8 22 tiJd2 ':xd3 23 ~xd3 :e3+ 24 ri;c2 d3 25 ~b3 ':e2 26 .f3 ':xd2 27 l:thfl f5 28 1i'e3 b5 29 ':ac1 :e2 30 1i'xd3 .e7 31 :f3 bxc4+ 32 .xc4'iWb7+ 33 "'a4 ':e4 0-1. However, it is better to play 18 .c2, when we do not see a convincing continuation of the attack. Neishtadt recommends 18 ...:e5 'with compensation', but White can defend with 19 f4!, as after 19 ....xf4 20 .g2 followed by ~c2 or 19 ... :e3 20 .d2 followed by ~c2, we have not found anything for Black, although intuitively you feel that there must be something. Also if 21 tLlbl?! is replaced by 21 :ad 1, it is difficult to believe that Black has sufficient compensation. So perhaps Black should go for the forced draw given by Boleslavsky: 16 ... ~h6 17 .c2 :ae8+ 18 ~dl! (18 ~e2 d3! 19 1i'xd3 l1e3 followed by ...l:tfe8 wins for Black) 18 ....xh3 19 ~e2! (19 l:tfl :e5 20 f4 :e3 and 19 ~e4 1i'h5 20 f3 f5 both win for Black) 19.. J:txe2 (else 1M3 will follow) 20 .xe2 d3 21 .e4 f5 22 .e6+:f7 and White has to settle for the perpetual. It is worse to play 13 tLlxd4 dxe4 and Black is already better, or 13 ~g5 1i'g4 again with fine prospects for Black. 13 tLlxb5 Here 13 ... ~h3 unfortunately loses to 14 ~xd4, so Black has to

Maroczy Bind: 7.Ji)g4 System 15

continue as in the game. .i.xbS 'Wxe4 14 IS 0-0 After 15 f3 'Wh4+ 16 .i.f2 'Wf6 17 0-0 :d8 18 :fdl .i.f5, Black easily held the draw in SchmidtEspig, German Bundesliga 1992/93 IS :d8 16 l:tfdl Black has got his pawn back and the d-pawn looks weak, unfortunately he is not able to make use of it tactically. Instead it turns out that the d-pawn, in fact, is a strong passed pawn and White is better. White has also tried the direct 16 d6 with some success. After 16 ... .i.e6 17 :adl .i.f8 18 f3 'Wh4 19 .i.g5 he won the exchange in Corral-Jimenez, 1967. Stronger is 16....i.d7 17 f3 'Wf5, when Black seems to be okay, since the d6pawn is solidly blockaded and may even be a weakness. 'WfS 16 Unfortunately 16 ....i.e6 runs into 17 f3!, since 17 .....xd5? 18 'We2 traps the queen in the middle of the board. Also 17 ... 'Wh4? 18 .i.g5 'Wh5 19 .i.xd8 :xd8 20 'Wa5 1-0 Joksic-Wemer, Biel 1975, was not much fun for Black either. Relatively best is 17 ...'Wf5 18 .i.d3, which 'only' wins an exchange, as in Penrose-Lees, British ch 1965. :acl .i.d7 17 18 .i.e2 e4 White's threat was 19 g4, after which the black queen would be in trouble. 18 ....i.c6 again runs into 19 .i.d3, when the endgame that arises after 19 ... e4 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 .i.xe4 :xd2 22 .t.xf5 :xd 1+ 23 :xdl gxf5 24 b3 is very bad for Black. 19 l:tc7 .i.c6 Necessary, since both 19....i.e6

20 .i.c4 and 19 ... b6 20 .i.g5 .i.f621 .i.xf6 'Wxf6 22 d6 are really bad for Black. The d-pawn is too strong.

20 . dxc6! Forced, because 20 .i.c4 and 20 d6 are both answered by 20....i.e5 with good play. 20 l:txd2 21 :xd2 bxc6 22 .i.c4 This position has been considered clearly better for White ever since this game, but Espig must believe that it is possible to make a draw, as he has repeated the line recently. 22 .teS! After 22 ...l:tf8 23 :xa7 White keeps his dark-squared bishop, and Black is lost. 23 :xt7 In Quist-Espig, Berlin 1993, White did not believe the endgame advantage was sufficient to win and tried 23 :b7 instead, but after 23 ...:f8 24 :xa7 .tf4! 25 l:ta3 .i.xe3 26 :xa3 ~g7 27 :de2 :d8 28 .tb3 :d4 29 .tc2 'i'c5 30 .i.xe4?? (Black would of course have played ...f7-f5 next, after which he would be fine) 30... l:tdl+ 31 :el 'Wxe3! 32 fxe3 lhel 33

16 Maroczy Bind: 7.. .li:Jg4 System ~ :at 34 a3 c5 35 .i.d5 ':'dl 36 e4 ltd2+ 0-1. It seems that after 24 ... .i.f4! Black has solved most of his problems, and the game should be drawn with normal play. 23 "xf7 24 .i.xt7+ <1;xf7

This ending is critical for the assessment of 11..."ikh4. It certainly looks bad for Black, with so many weak pawns. But Espig believes Black is holding on, and so far nobody has proved him wrong in practice. ltd7+ 25 After this Black seems to be holding his own, so perhaps 25 ':'c2!? is more critical. Black must play 25 ...a5 26 b3 a4! (passive defence is very dangerous, since if White can consolidate then the black pawns will become easy targets) 27 lhc6 axb3 28 axb3 :a3 29 b4 .i.c3 30 g4 .i.xb4 31 :c4 .i.e7 32 ':xe4. Black is a pawn down, but should be able to draw with careful play. 26 .i.cl!? may be stronger, since Black will find it problematic to find targets for his counterplay and White simply threatens to centralise with ~fl-e2 etc. Certainly Black is under a lot

of pressure, but whether White's chances to win are superior to Black's drawing chances is difficult to say. 'iPe6 25 26 :'xh7 If 26 ':'xa7 Axa7 27 .i.xa7 .i.xb2 Black's centralised king guarantees him the draw, e.g. 28 ~fl Iti>d5 29 'iPe2 c5 followed by ... .i.d4. 26 as! Not 26....i.xb2 27 Axa7. 27 b3 a4 28 bxa4 28 b4 :d8 followed by ... ltdl-al is too dangerous for White, and both 28 g4 axb3 29 axb3 ltb8 and 28 :a7 axb3! 29 axb3 l:tb8 are nothing to worry about for Black. 28...:xa4 29 :a7 ltb4 30 'iPn? J.Q..iJ...keeps the extra pawn, although Black still might save the rook ending after 30... .i.d4. 30•••:bl+ 31 'it>e2 .i.c3! This must be what White missed when he played 30 'iWl? The threat is ...Ael mate! 32f3 32 f4 ct>d5 is too risky. 32...ltb2 33 <1;0 exf3 34 gxf3 ':'xh2 35 a4':'&2 IJz-IJz It seems to us that after 11.. .1i'h4 Black has to defend some really unpleasant endings, and although he may succeed in making a draw, it is certainly not much fun for him. Game 2 Serper-5errnek Tilburg 1994

(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 lLlg4 8 "xg4 lLlxd4 9 'i'dl eS 10 lLlbS 0-0 II "d2) II

'i'e7

Maroczy Bind: 7... llJg4 System 17 dS 20 ~xd5 ltbS 21 ':el ~e6 22

l:txe61-0. 12 llJxbS 13 cxbS dS 14 exdS ':d8! The new move which has revitalised the I1...We7 variation. 14 ... ~fS was played in SmyslovJimenez, Havana 1963, but Black had nothing to show for the pawn after IS i-d3 ':cS+ 16 ~bl "d7 17 ~xfS "xfS+ IS "d3 e4 19 'it'b3, and White won easily. A move which has enjoyed something of a renaissance lately. 12 0-0-0 White has two main alternatives: a) 12 f3 was played in YemelinSilman, Budapest 1994. Black responded sharply with 12 ...fS, but after 13 ~d3 d6 14 ~gS ~f6 IS ~xf6 .xf6 16 llJxd4 exd4 17 0-0 all he had to show was weak pawns. As usual 12 ... llJxbS 13 cxbS d6 14 ~c4 is positionally suspect for Black, so maybe 12 ...:ldS!? should be given a try. The tactical point is 13 llJxd4 exd4 14 i-xd4 dS! IS ~xg7 dxe4! 16 .c3 exf3+ 17 ~f2 WcS+!, when Black gets a perpetual check. Also 17 .eS .xeS+ IS ~xeS ]:leS 19 0-0-0 lheS 20 ':dS ~g7 21 exf3 b6 22 f4? :el+ 23 ~d2 l:bl! is fine for Black. Probably White should go for 13llJc7, trying to prove that the rook on dS is misplaced, but since Black retains the knight on d4 he has a playable position. b) 12 ~e2 was played in TalPahtz, Halle 1974, when Black reacted badly with 12 ...b6? 13 llJxd4 exd4 14 ~xd4 Wxe4 IS ~xg7 Wxg2? 16 Wd4! Wxhl 17 'iPd2 Wxh2 IS ~xf8 ~xf8 19 iLf3

IS d6 Forced, as IS ... ~f5 followed by ...':acS was a big threat. The point behind 14 ... ':dS! is that Smyslov's plan of defence (~d3) is no longer possible, since the d-pawn can then simply be taken. IS We6 16 'iPbl Also possible is 16 Wb4, since 16 .. :ifxa2? loses to 17 ~c4 .al+ IS ~c2 ~f5+ 19 ~b3, and if Black parries White's threat of ~c4 with 16... iLd7, then White will play 17 ~b 1, when Black will never get rid of the d6-pawn. Still, the simple 16... ~f8! 17 ~c4 .f6 gives Black equality. 16 ~f8

18 Maroczy Bind: 7.JiJg4 System 17 "'e3 The critical test of Black's play. White returns the pawn and hopes that his better development will decide the game. 17 .Jtc5 is less good. After 17 ... b6 18 .Jtb4 .Jtb7 19 h4, as in B.Lalic-Heim, Slough 1997, Black played the strong 19 ....Jtxd6! 20 .Jtxd6 l%d7!, when White has no way of keeping his extra piece. 19 o has also been played, but again Black has 19 ....Jtxd6 with at least equality. 17 ':'xd6 Probably taken by surprise, Sermek tries to defend an inferior position, instead of playing the more complex 17 ....Jtxd6. He later won a nice game with this move against Dizdarevic: 18 .Jtc4 "f5+ 19 .Jtd3 e4 20 g4?! "'xg4 21 "f6 .Jte6 22 .Jtd4 'it>f8 23 .Jtc2 (it looks like Black is in big trouble, but in fact everything is under control) 23 .....f5 24 "'g7+ q;e7 25 "xh7 l1ac8 26 'iVh4+ g5 27 "xe4 ':xc2! 28 "'xc2 .Jtxa2+ 29 ..tel .Jtf4+ 0-1. Very impressive. Unfortunately, Serper points out the much stronger 20 .Jtc4, when Black must settle for a bad ending after 20....Jte6 21 g4!, and now either 21......e5 22 "'xe5 .Jtxe5 23 .Jtxe6 fxe6 or 21......0 22 .Jtxe6 fxe6 23 .Jtg5! The point is that 21.....xg4? loses immediately to 22 l1xd6 lhd6 23 .Jth6. This is all very convincing and difficult for Black to improve upon. 19....Jtb4?! is tricky, but simply 20 .Jtxf5 .Jtxf5+ 21 "'c2! .Jtxc2 22 ..txc2 gives White a pleasant ending, since his b5-pawn combined with pressure against b7 guarantees him a huge edge. Maybe Black's best chance is

18 ......g4!? instead of 18.....f5+, when Serper regards 19 .Jtd5 .Jtf5+ 20 'ital l%ac8 21 "'a5 as clearly better for White, although the position after 21....Jtc2 seems unclear and playable for Black, since both 22 .Jtxb7 i.xdl 23 .Jtxc8 :xc8 24 .Jtb4 25 "xdl "xg2 26 .Jtxa7 'iVb7 27 b6 .Jta5 and 22 .JtO "'d7 23 l%d5 b6 24 l:td2 "'e7 25 l%cl .Jtf5 are not better for White. Maybe 19 'iVb3 is better, keeping the pressure up. If this does not scare you, then 1I......e7 is an interesting way of fighting for the initiative. 18 .Jte4 ':'xdl+ 19 ':'xdl "'g4 20 "b3 .Jtf5+ Sacrificing the f7-pawn, but if Black had tried to defend it he would have been left in a very passive position. 21 'ital ':'e8 22 .Jtxt7+ 'itg7 23 0 "'xgl 24 .Jte6! With the idea of 24 ....Jtc2? 25 "d5 .Jtxdl 26 "xe5 mate! 24...':'d8 25 ':'xd8 .Jte2 26 i.h6+! Not 26 l%d7 'ith8 27 "xc2 "xc2 28 .Jtg5 .Jte7! 26...~xh6 27 "'e3+ g5 28 .Jtb4 29 h4 .Jtg6 30 .Jtg4 .Jte7 31 l%d7 .Jtf6 32 ':'d6 ~g7 33 l%d7 ~h6 34 l%d6 ~g7 35 h5 36 h6 'itt7 37 ':'d7 'it>e8 38 .Jte2 39 ':'b7 .Jtdl 40 l%a7 e4 41 .Jtd7 1-0

"d2

"'d

"c2"c2

Game 3 Polugayevsky-Piket Aruba match 1994 (1 lLlO e5 2 c4 lLle6 3 d4 exd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 e4 Ji..g7 6 .Jte3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 lLlg4 8 "'xg4 lLlxd4 9 "'dl eS)

Maroczy Bind: 7... ~g4 System 19

10

~d3

Black parried the attack and later won. His knight is clearly superior to the white bishop.

12

10 ~d3 is seen almost as frequently as 10 ~b5, probably because many White players prefer a quiet game to entering complications familiar to their opponents. White tries for a small positional edge instead of attempting to refute Black's set-up outright.

10 0-0 11 0-0 d6 ll...b6 has been played with some success and is a viable alternative to the game move: a) 12 1i'd2 ~b7 and now: al) 13 :adl ~e6 14 ~bl i.c6 15 b4 .:tc8 16 a3 :tc7 and Black has a solid position, SmyslovBagirov, Leningrad 1960. a2) White tried 13 i.h6 in Britton-Wells, Oviedo 1993; after 13...d6 14 i.xg7 'iii>xg7 15 f4 exf4 15 l:txf4 ~e6 16 .:tf2 "g5 17 ~c2 "e5 Black had good play on the dark squares. b) Another example of this theme is Bivshev-Simagin, Moscow 1952, which continued with 12 ~d5 i.b7 13 f4 exf4 14 i.xf4 d6 15 1M2 ~e6 16 i.h6 i.xh6 17 "xh6 i.xd5! 18 exd5 ~c5 19 :f3 f5 20 :tel "f6 21 :h3 .:tf7, when

i

"d2

12 a4 is seen in the next game, while 12 :tel was played in Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow 1956. After 12 ... i.e6 13 b3 a6 14 i.bl J:tb8 (l4 ... b5 15 cxb5 ~xb5! 16 :tc6 d5 17 exd5 1/2- 1/2, GulkoSeirawan, Key West 1994) 15 hl b5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 "d3 b4 IS ~d5 i.xd5 19 exd5 "a5 20 "c4 :b5 21 i.d2 J:tfb8 22 "cS+ i.f8 23 "d7 :t5b7 24 "g4 f5 25 'ii'h3 "xd5 Black was a pawn up, but only ~aged to draw. 12 i.e6 .

13

:ad1

In an earlier game of Polugayevsky's, against Bagirov, Leningrad 1963, 13 :acl was tried, which looks more logical since the other rook can then go to dl. Still, White had to concede an early draw after 13 ... a6 14 :lfd1 "a5 15 i.fl?! b5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 ~xb5 ~xb5 IS "xa5 J:txa5 19 b4 La2 20 i.xb5 llb8 1/2-1f2. Later 15 b3 was suggested as an improvement, the idea being to answer 15 ... b5 with 16 ~e2. But first of all, White has not got a whole lot after 16.....xd2 17 lhd2 :tfc8, and if this does not suit Black, then 15 ...:fcS preparing ... b7-b5 seems fine too.

13 a6 14 b3 A necessary prophylactic move, defending a2. If 14 ~e2?! then 14...b5! 14 ':c8

15

~2

~c6!?

It is now difficult for White to

find a reasonable plan, since 16 f4

20 Maroczy Bind: 7. .. l:t1g4 System will ruin his position, as Black gets all the dark squares, and an eventual b3-b4 will weaken c4 too much. White instead tries to attack the weakness on -d6, but it turns out to be immune.

Game 4

Smyslov-Fabriano Rome 1990

(1 1:t1f3 cS 2 c4 I:t1c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 I:t1xd4 g6 5 e4 .tg7 6 .te3 I:t1f6 7 I:t1c3 I:t1g4 8 'Wxg4 I:t1xd4 9 lid1 e5 10 .td3 0-0 11 0-0 d6) 12

16 .tb1 bS 17 cxbS axbS 18 I:t1c3 Realising that the pawn cannot be taken (18 'Wxd6?? I:t1d4! 19 'ii'xd8 I:t1xe2+ wins a piece), White tries to re-route the knight to d5 instead. However, 18 ~hl, making the threat on d6 real, seems like a better idea. 18 liaS 19 I:t1dS b4 20 .tgS f6 21 .te3 fS 22 exfS gxfS 23 l:t1e7+?? An incredible blunder, losing a piece. With 23 f3 or f4, White would still have been okay. 23 I:t1xe7 24 lixd6 ~t7! Defending both e7 and e6 and thereby winning easily. 25 .tgS I:t1g6 26 g4 e4 27 h4 .teS 28 lid2 h6 29 gxfS .txfS 30 hS hxgS 31 hxg6+ ~xg6 0-1

a4!?

Played with the idea of seizing more space with a4-aS and preparing 13 lObS, when White can take back on b5 with the a-pawn. .te6 12 We believe that 12 ...a5!? is the right answer, and if 13 lObS .td7! 14 I:t1xd4 (14 I:t1xd6 .txa4) 14 ... exd4 15 .td2 1Wb6 16 b3 .tc6 followed by doubling rooks on the e-file, when Black is fine. White can do little, since he needs to keep the e4-pawn protected and must watch out for the f5-break. Instead, 12 ... a6 was played in HerbertSermek, Cannes 1995, but after 13 as .te6 14 1:t1d5 ':c8 15 1Ob6 White was much better. 13 I:t1bS a6 14 I:t1xd4 exd4 15 .td2 l:%c8 16 b3 f5

Maroczy Bind: 7... ti:Jg4 System 21 Necessary at this point. If Black chooses to play quietly, he will not manage to attack the e4-pawn in time, and White will get in f4-f5 with an attack. ~xf5 17 exf5 18"0 d5 In Spraggett-Garcia, Candas 1992, Black played 18 .....d7, but after 19 :tfel :f7 20 i.xf5 lhf5 211M3 White was positionally much better and Black's kingside attack came to nothing. 19 :tct "d7 20 exd5 ~xd3 21 "xd3 "xd5 22 :txe8 :txe8 :tel 23

Since Black cannot use the c-file for anything constructive, and his d-pawn is blockaded, White stands better. All endgames will be a win for White, since the d4-pawn will become very fragile when the king comes to d3. 23 "fS!? 24 :te4 It is too dangerous to immediately enter the endgame with 24 'ii'xf5 gxf5 25 :tel:xel 26 .i.xcl because of 26 ... d3. 24 :tfS

25 f3 "e5 26 :tel:te8 27 :tct "f5 28 l:xe8+!? 28 "xf5 :txel+ 29 i.xcl gxf5 30 ~ ~f7 31 ~e2 'it1e6 32 ~d3 'ili>d5 33 g4 is also much better for White, but is perhaps defensible for Black. So Smyslov keeps the queens on and centralises his king instead. 28••:ii'xe8 29 ~t2 "d7 30 "e4+ 'ili>h8 31 ~e2 i.f6? Now White suddenly gets a mating attack. But things were not easy for Black in any case. White was planning g2-g4 and ~d3 followed by an attempt to exchange the queens, since now the black king will never reach d5. 32 ~h6! g5 33 "e5 d3+ 34 ~dl Not 34 ~d3?? 'ii'g6+. 34...d3 35 "f8+! "xfS 36 i.xfS i.e5 37 g3 i.e3 38 i.h6 b5 39 axb5 axb5 40 i.xgS ~g7 41 g4 ~t7 42 h4 ~e6 43 h5 ~d5 44 ~h6 'ili>e5 45 i.fS+ ~dS 1-0 White will play h5-h6 and .i.g7 and then push the other pawns. GameS Ribli-Rogers Germany 1995

(1 ti:Jf3 eS 2 e4 ti:Je6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti:Jxd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ti:Jf6 7 ti:Jc3 ti:Jg4 8 "xg4 ti'lxd4 9 "dl) 9 ti'le6 (see/ollowing diagram) A safe alternative to 9... e5. 10 :tct 10 "d2 is the subject of Game 13, while Vaganian tried 10 i.e2?! against Frias in St John 1988 and obtained excellent compensation

22 Maroczy Bind: 7...tiJg4 System

for the pawn after 1O... .itxc3+ 11 bxc3 "a5 12 0-0 'ii'xc3 13 c5! 'ii'e5 14 'ilfa4! 0-0 15 :ac1 tLlf4 16 .itn d6 17 :fd 1, although he later lost. What Vaganian had in mind on the simple 1O... 'ilfa5 11 0-0 b6 is hard to say. The logical 12 l:cl just transposes to the main line, and although 12 tLldS has been recommended, 12 ....itxb2 is good. It is very difficult for White to justify this pawn sacrifice. Finally, 12 'ii'dS is possible, though after 12 ...'ii'xdS 13 cxd5 tLlc5 White does not have much.

Still, perhaps even stronger, after 10 .ite2?!, is 10....itxc3+ 11 bxc3 'ii'c7 followed by ... b7-b6 and ... .itb7. In Imanaliev-Lanka, Moscow 1979, Black was better after 12 0-0 b6 13 .itd4 f6 14 l:el .itb7 15 .itfl d6 16 'ii'g4 tLlc5 17 l:adl 'ii'd7 18 'ii'h4 'ii'c6 19 f4 0-0, when White had too many weak pawns and no real attack. 13 .itd4 looks wrong and direct action with 13 f4 was probably called for, though after 13 ... .i.b7 we prefer Black, although it is a matter of taste. In brief, 10 .te2?! should not worry Black at all. The only problem is how to choose between sev-

eral promising options. 10 'ii'aS The usual move. 1O...b6 is the subject of Game 11 while for 1O... d6 see Game 12. 11 .te2 11 .td3 is seen in Games 9 and 10, while the immediate 11 'ii'd5!? was played in M.M.lvanovP.H.Nielsen, Aars 1995. Here Black should not go for the endgame, since 11.. ...xd5 12 cxdS tLld4 does not threaten to take on e2, and the knight is in danger. Black instead played the brave 1l....txc3+ 12 l:xc3 "xa2.

The game ended in a draw after 13 .tcl! (necessary, because of 13 "d2 'ii'bl+, when Black picks up the e4-pawn) 13 .....a4 14 .te2 d6 15 0-0 "c6 16 b4 as 1/2- 1/2. Not very informative perhaps, but I remember we concluded in our post-mortem that Black is okay in the final position. Later I analysed the game with Miron Sher and we decided that 14 h4! would have given White the better prospects. Instead of 13 ....a4, 13...d6, planning a quick ... tLlc5 and ... .te6, is possible. During the game I was afraid of 14 :a3?, but 14...'ii'bl 15 ~d2 lbc5 16 n .te6 17 .d4 f6 is a lot better for Black who will free

Maroczy Bind: 7... lLlg4 System 23

himself with ... b7-b5 and ... l:lcS. 14 'ii'b5+ .i.d7 15 "xb7 l:tcS is also fine for Black, as ... lLlc5 will come next, threatening both to take the e4-pawn and to play lLlb3. Finally, 14 h4!? is possible, when Black may try 14 ... lLlc5 15 h5 .i.e6 16 'iWd4 :tgS with counterplay. It is clear that White has some compensation in the form of the pair of bishops and play on the dark squares. Still, by leaving the queen on a2 and developing quickly, Black seems to be doing fine.

11

b6

_!~~s.. Now White forces his opponent to enter an endgame, since he is hitting the rook on as. 12 is seen in the next game and 120-0 in Games 7 and S. 12 "xd5 Since this does not equalise, attention should be paid to 12 ...:tbS, when: a) 13 "xa5 bxa5 is fine for Black. The a-pawn is useful, preventing White from expanding on the queenside and Black can also play along the b-file. After 14 b3 Black should play 14 ... .i.d4 with a fine position. b) On 13 0-0, 13 ...lLld4?! unfortunately does not work. White plays 14 .i.xd4 "xd5 15 .i.xg7! "g5 16 .i.xhS, when it is more likely that White will open the position for his pieces, than that Black will consolidate and win the bishop. However, 13 ... g5, threatening 14... lLlf4, seems to be okay for Black. c) Finally, if 13 f3 then 13 ... lLld4 is possible, as 14 .i.xd4 "xd5 15 .i.xg7?? "g5 wins for Black. In conclusion, 12 ...:tbS probably

"d2

allows Black to execute his usual dark-squared strategy with a fairly even game and should be preferred to 12 .....xd5 which gives a somewhat inferior endgame. 13 exd5 ~d4 13 ...~c5 was played in DurPlachetka, Austria 1991. Now after 14 f3 a5 15 d6 White was clearly better, since Black now had to play 15 ... e6 to keep a reasonable pawn structure, and then 16 b3!, which threatens 17 ~b5, would have been tough to meet. 14 .i.e4 14 .i.xd4? .i.xd4 15 ~b5 .i.xb2 16 lLlc7+ ~dS 17 l:c2 l:bS leads nowhere for White. 14 .i.b7 c,i>d2?! 15 Here White should play the simple 15 0-0 l:c8 16 b3, which is slightly better for White according to Rogers. This is clearly a critical line for Black. If 16... e6, then simply 17 dxe6 is good, e.g. 17 ... dxe6 18 lIfdl lLlc6 19 ~b5 is almost losing for Black. We have not found any way of making the black position playable, so we suggest Black tries 12 ... l:I.b8!? 15 e6 16 l:hdl :te8 17 b3 0-0 18 Wd3 exdS ~xdS 19 ~e6 20 f4 l:fe8 ..i.d2 21 ~d4 22 .i.e3 (see following diagram) Now instead of going for the draw with 22 ... ~c6, Rogers played 22 lLle6 and won on time on move 40, after Ribli had misplayed a better position.

24 Maroczy Bind: 7.JDg4 System his kingside pawns even further to attack the white king. Normally Black plays ... g7-g5 before ...h7h5, but here White has not yet castled, and could then have replied 14 h4!?

Game 6 Karpoy-Larsen Brussels 1987 (1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 llJf6 7 llJc3 llJg4 8 1ixg4 llJxd4 9 1idl llJe6 10 l:.c1 'WaS)

11 .i.e2 In actual fact Karpov played 11 1id2 b6 12 .i.e2. Perhaps he was afraid that (after 11 .i.e2) Larsen might grab the pawn with 1l....i.xc3+ 12' :'xc3 1i'xa2. Although Larsen has said that someday he will take this bait, we believe that it is much too dangerous for Black. 11

b6

12 1id2 .i.b7 13 f3 h5! This was the new plan introduced by Larsen in this game. By playing ...h7-h5 and ... g7-g5, Black prevents his opponent from playing f3-f4. The e5-square then becomes an excellent outpost for the black queen; from there it combines with the knight on e6 and bishop on g7 to control the dark squares. Given the chance, Black will also advance

14 0-0 gS 15 l:.fdl d6 16 llJd5 Karpov goes for a typical endgame, which he has won so often, but as we shall see, Black is excellently prepared to counter his opponent's plans here. 16 a3, postponing the endgame for a while, was played in Kosten-Cebalo, Paris 1988. However, after 16 .. .'itfS 17 1i'c21i'e5 18 b4 .i.c6 19l1Jd5 'ifb2, Black achieved his beloved ending anyhow and later won. 16 17 l:.xdl 18 b4 Playing for f3-f4 with g2-g3 would merely weaken the e4-pawn, while the opening of the g-file may bother the white king. 18 l:c8 19 a4 h4 20 .i.n A necessary prophylactic move, since 20 :a2 .i.d4 21 ~ .i.xd5!

Maroczy Bind: 7... tDg4 System 25

22 exd5 oltxe3+ 23 ~xe3 tDf4 would leave both the g2- and d5pawns under attack. 20 f6 21 :a2 The only way to try to break through the black position, but since Black ends up with slightly the better position, White probably should have declined to play actively. 21 oltd4 22 ~f2 22 oltxd4 was played in WolffMiles, Philadelphia 1987, when after 22 ...tDxd4 23 ':'dl tDc6 24 a5 tDe5 25 tDe3 h3!

26 axb6 axb6 27 :a7 oltc6 28 b5 hxg2 29 oltxg2 iLd7 30tDd5 :b8 31 tDxb6 olte6 32 Ild4 :h4 White was a pawn up, but his position was a tragedy. All his pieces are misplaced, doing nothing but defending some weak pawns. The game concluded 33 tDa8 oltxc4 34 b6 ~f7 35 1la4 oltb5 36 1%a3 oltc6 37 tDc7 Ihb6 38 Ildl :b7 39 tDa6 :f4 40 lld4 .l:la7 0-1. This is a good example of Black's potential chances in these endgames. The idea of advancing the pawn to h3 is very difficult to prevent, since for White to play h2-h3 himself would amount to capitulation on the dark

squares. 22 ~f7 23 as oltxd5 24 exdS oltxe3+ ~xe3 tDf4 25 ~d2 26 White had to watch out for ... tDxd5. The 'active' 26 Ileal would have been bad after 26 ... tDg6 27 axb6 axb6 28 :a6 tDe5 29 'iti>d4? h3. 26 ...':'c7 27 axb6 axb6 28 ':'a6 ':'hc829':'xb6 Again 'active play' with 29 ':'cl would be punished; this time with 29 ... b5. 29 ...tDxd5 30 ':'b5 tDf4 31 ':'a5 tDg632 c5! White is worse. His c-pawn is weak, but Karpov manages to reduce the material and make a draw. 32... tDe5 33 :c3 dxc5 34 bxc5 l:Ib8 34... tDd7 does not win a pawn, since White has 35 olta6 l:IxcS?? 36 oltxc8 :xa5 37 oltxd7. 3S oltb5 :d8+ 36 ~e2 tDc6 Now it is a draw for sure, but White has had to defend well to hold everything together. 37 oltxc6 :xc6 38 g3 ':'d4 39 ':'b5 hxg3 40 hxg3 :dS 41 g4 ':'c7 42 ~e3 e6 43 ':'c2 r:ile7 44 ':'c3 c:j;f7 45 ':'c2 f5 46 gxf5 exf5 47 r:ilf2 ~g7 112-112 Naturally this game attracted a lot of attention. It is not often that someone gets a safe ending, with some chances to play for win, as Black against Karpov. Later in the same tournament, Larsen faced Short as Black. Since Short is not a player who backs away from a critical discussion, the line was duly repeated.

26 Maroczy Bind: 7.JtJg4 System

Game? Short-Larsen Brussels 1987

Larsen intends to play 20 ... .i.a4, after which White will have to misplace his rook.

(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 tDf6 7 tDc3 tDg4 8 'it'xg4 tDxd4 9 'it'dl tDe6 10 :'c1 'it'aS)

11 12

13

.i.e2 0-0 f3

b6 .i.b7 g5

14 a3 This was Short's idea. By threatening 15 tDb5 followed by .i.d2 he forces Larsen to put his queen on e5. Then Short can continue with 1Ii'd2, b2-b4, tDd5 etc., without exchanging queens. In a later encounter between the same two players, Short switched to 14 .l:1f2!? (see the next game). 'it'e5 14 IS 'it'd2 h5 16 '::'fdl d6 b4 h4 17 18 tDd5 'iti>f8 19 .i.n .i.c6 Here both players had probably achieved what they wanted. But now Short realised that things were not as rosy as he had expected.

20 'it'd3 tDf4 Now 20 ... .i.a4 would be pointless after 21 .l:1d2. 21 tDxf4?! Short should have admitted that he had nothing and settled for a draw with 21 'iVd2 tDe6 22 'ii'd3. 21 ... gxf4 22 .i.d4 'it'xd4 23 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 24 '::'xd4 .l:h5 White is still about equal, but his next move is over-ambitious. 25 c5? dxc5 26 bxc5 b5 27 e5 h3! The usual undermining move. 28 '::'el hxg2 29 .i.xgl :'c8 30 '::'xf4 .i.d5 31 e6 f6 32 h4.l:1xc5 Larsen had again managed to achieve an edge against a worldclass player. This time he won in 74 moves. Later the same year Short had his chance for revenge as White against Larsen in Hastings. This time Short came up with something more venomous.

Game 8 Short-Larsen Hastings 1987188

(I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

Maroczy Bind: 7... ltJg4 System 27 ltJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ltJg4 7 ltJc3 ltJg4 8 ~xg4 ltJxd4 9 ~dl ltJe6 10 ~a5 11 ~e2 b6 12 0-0 ~b7 13 f3 gS)

:el

IJ~f .

:f2!?}

With the idea of transferring the rook to d2, where it will be excellently placed. White will then be able to play a2-a3, b2-b4 and ltJdS etc., without risking an exchange of queens. 14 h5 In this game, Larsen plays the same plan as before, but he ends up clearly worse. Subsequently, some other ideas have been devised: a) 14... ~eS with the idea of exchanging bishops with ... ~f4 and then following up with ... ~e5, is positionally well justified. Yet in Ikonnikov-Vokarev, Perm 1993, White acted quickly: IS g3 hS 16 ltJd5 ~xb2 17 ':bl and since 17... ~g7 18 cS is terrible, Black had to play 17 .....a3, after which he never managed to co-ordinate his pieces: 18 ~f1 ~xd5 19 "xdS 1Dc7 20 11M2 ~c3 21 "d3 ~b4 22 :tb3 ~aS 23 ~h3 0-0-0 24 cS! and Black was blown apart. b) 14 ... :td8!? is untried and de_

...•

_"',

"'"

...__ ~V"·_

serves serious attention. We believe that the position after IS ~f1 "eS 16 ':d2 'Wb8 17 ltJdS (otherwise Black will play ... .i.e5-f4, exchange the bishops and then return to eS with the queen) 17 ... .teS 18 h3 (necessary, since 18 g3 hS gives Black too much play) is critical for the whole assessment of Larsen's plan. Black has a great deal of dark-squared control on the kingside. Still, to make the attack real, he needs to get in ...gS-g4, which must be prepared by ... fi-f6, ...fi) 22 'in>3 g4 23

28 Maroczy Bind: 7.. .t1:Jg4 System 1Ii'xb8 ~xb8 24 hxg4 hxg4 25 f4! ~xd5 26 exd5 oltxf4 27 ~xf4 lLlxf4 28 l:td4 lLlh5 29 l:ta4 lLlf6 30 c6, Stangl-Becker, German Bundesliga 1991/92. This approach is quite similar to 14.. .l:td8 above and also warrants consideration. As already mentioned, we do not think the plan with c4-c5 should be a problem for Black. 17 tLJd5 ~f8 18 b4

We now see why it is more effective for White to place the rook on d2 instead of the queen. First of all, it is not possible for Black to exchange queens, while on dl the queen defends the a4-square, which means that a2-a4-a5 cannot be stopped by ... ~c6. 18 ~h6 Larsen tries to exchange the dark-squared bishops. Although this is normally a good plan in the Maroczy, here it is ineffective. White has too much space and the standard plan of ... e7-e5 and ... tLJd4 is impossible, because Black is so poorly co-ordinated. g4 19 'ii'b3 20 ~xh6+ ':'xh6 21 'ii'e3 'ii'g7

22 f4 h4? A bad move according to Larsen: It just weakens the g4-square. However, in the end it is these advanced flank pawns that save Black. From a practical point of view it is understandable that Larsen did not want to defend passively. 23 ~e2 ':'c8 24 ':'n ~xd5 25 ':'xd5 g3 26 h3 b5?! Again Larsen prefers to go for active, yet dubious, counterplay, instead of sitting and waiting. The neat point is 27 1::txb5?? 'i'd4! and Black is nearly winning. 27 cxb5 'i'c3 28 'ii'xa7 "xb4 29 b6 lLlc5 30 e5 dxe5 31 ':'xe5 l:te6 32 ':'xe6 fxe6 33 ~hl ':'d8 34 "c7 ':'d6 35 'ii'cS+?? Larsen claims that 35 f5 would have won for White. Now he manages to effect an escape. 35..,<~g7 36 'ii'e8 lLle4 37 'ii'xe7+ ~g8 38 'ii'h4 'ii'xb6 39 'ii'g4+ ~f8 40 'ii'g6 'ii'd4 41 f5 tLJf2+ 42 llxf2 'ii'xf2 Ih-Ifl White has a perpetual. Ever since this game, 14 l:tf2!? has always been regarded as the correct way to meet Larsen's plan of ... g7-g5 and ... h7-h5. Still, we suggest that after 14.. .l:td8!? Black has no more to fear than in any other line. Game 9

Ljubojevic-Korchnoi Tilburg 1987

(1 e4 c5 2 tLJf3 tLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLJf6 7 tLJc3 tLJg4 8 'ii'xg4 tLJxd4 9 "dl tLJe6 10 ':'c1 'ii'a5) 11

~d3

Maroczy Bind: 7.Ji:Jg4 System 29

Actually Ljubojevic played 11 'it'd2, but we have taken the liberty of changing the move order in order to cover some of White's additional opportunities. As it turns out, the white plan connected with f2-f4 is very strong. Yet the immediate 11 f4 seems too direct. After 11...d6 12 .i.d3 lllc5 White cannot play 13 .i.bl because of 13 ... .i.e6. 11 b6 There seems nothing wrong with playing 11...g5 first, preventing plans based on f2-f4. Eric Prie has faced this idea twice. First he tried 12 h4 against Berend in Val Thorens 1989, but achieved nothing after 12 ... h6 13 hxg5 hxg5 14 lhh8 .i.xh8 15 'it'h5 "e5 16 g3 b6 17 'ii'h7 "g7. Later in Moscow 01 1994, he played 12 'ii'h5 against Vorontsov, when after 12 .....e5 13 g3 b6 14 0-0 .i.b7 15 J:tfdl h6 16 b4 O-O? 17 llld5 White was better and went on to win. However, 16...0-0 is a mistake, and Black should be fme after both 16...:c8 and 16 ...1i..c6.

12

0-0

Here White might try 12 f4, when 12 ... lllc5 is now dangerous for Black, since after 13 0-0 lllxd3

14 "xd3 his queen is in trouble. 12 'it'd2 is considered in the next game. 12 .i.b7 Again we recommend 12 ...g5. An interesting attempt at a refutation is 13 lLJd5!?, which was played in Razuvaev-Ermenkov, Polonica Zdroj 1972. Ermenkov played 13 ... .i.b7, but after 14 a4! .i.c6 15 b3 h5? 16 .i.d2 "a6 17 .i.xg5 White won easily. The critical continuation is 13 ....i.xb2, when 14 :tbl .i.g7! 15 .i.xg5 lLJxg5 16 lLJc7+ ~d8 17 lLJxa8 lLJe6 is okay for Black. 13 "dl Here White should play 13 f4!, after which it is difficult to see how Black can obtain any counterplay. In Horvath-Conquest, Budapest 1987, Black tried 13 ....i.d4, but after 14 .i.xd4lLJxd4 15lLJd5 .i.xd5 16 cxd5 b5 17 .i.bl "'6 18 ~hl Black's knight on d4 only looks good; in fact it is very difficult to protect and Black soon lost. Just as depressing for Black was Rodriguez-Hernandez, Camaguey 1988, when after 13 ... 0-0 14 .i.bl d6 15 ltf2 :tac8 16 lLJd5 .i.xd5 17 cxd5 lLJc5 18 a3 lLJa4 19 b4 "a6 20 "'3 b5 21 .i.d3 ~7 22 c5 Black was lost. To make matters even worse for Black, Tukmakov played 14 a3 against I.Ivanov, Nuremberg 1994, and after 14... .i.d4 15 .i.xd4 lLJxd4 16 lLJb5! lLJxb5 17 cxb5 a6 18 :tc7 Black again found himself in a lost position. Since this plan seems very simple and effective, we recommend that Black prevents it quickly with ... g7-g5 as mentioned above. 13 gS 14 :tfdl d6

30 Maroczy Bind: 7.JiJg4 System 15 a3 h5 '::'c2 16 Preparing b2-b4, which here would been met by 16 ... 'ii'xa3 17 tLld5 'ii'b2, and the queen escapes via e5 with a pawn in the bag. 16 .i.d4!?

It was of course possible to play normally with 16 ... 'ii'e5 etc. Generally, however, Black should exchange dark-squared bishops in the Maroczy, when given the chance. He must only be careful not to concede too much space. 17 b4 "Wie5 17 ... 'ii'xa3 18 tLldS would leave the queen in big trouble. 18 tLld5 .i.xe3 It was safer to play 18 ... 'ifilfS, but probably Korchnoi did not foresee White's next move. 19 fxe3!? The 'normal' move was 19 'ii'xe3, but with his excellent darksquared control Black would have been fine. Now White tries to use the semi-open f-file for an attack. 19... l:tc8 20 l:tn tLlg7! Covering f5, which means the queen cannot be forced away from e5. 21"Wif2 f6

If 21... 0-0, then 22 'ii'g3! would be annoying. 22"Wie1 0-023 a4 h424 "Wia1! Realising that the black queen cannot be removed with violence, White exchanges it instead and tries to generate some initiative in the endgame with a4-a5. 24 ..."Wixa1 25 1:txa1 .i.xd5 26 exd5 f5?! Here Black should have secured the draw with 26 ... a5, when 27 lIb2 lIc7 28 bxa5 bxa5 29 lIb5 lIa8 is fine for Black, since White cannot break through. Unfortunately it is not possible to activate the g7knight, so Black cannot win either. 27 ':'12 l:tc7 28 as ~h7 29 g4 hxg3 30 hxg3 ~g8 31 ~g2 l:tf6 32 axb6 axb6 33 l:r.a8+ l:tf8 34l:ta6l:tb8 35 b5 ~f7 36 e4 ~f6 37 exf5 ~e5 38 l:ta4 tLle8 39 f6! If Black had had time for ... tLlf6 he might even have been better. 39...tLlxf6 40 l:tf5+ ~d4 41 c5+ ~xd3 42 l:tf3+ ~c2 43 c6 Not 43lIa2+ 'ifilbl 44lIe2lIxc5! 43 ...~b2 44 l:taa3 g4 45 l:r.tb3+ ~c2 46l:te3 ~b2 47 l:ad3
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 tLlg4 8 "Wixg4 tLlxd4 9 "Wid1 tLle6 10 l:tc1 "Wia5 ll.i.d3 b6) 12 "Wid2 .i.b7 13 .i.b1 g5 In the past Black has invariably responded with 13 ... lIc8 14 b3 f5, which was first seen in TalRashkovsky, Moscow 1973, where

Maroczy Bind: 7... lt)g4 System 31

Black drew the endgame after IS It)dS'i'xd2+ 16 ~xd2. However, I saw no reason not to play the usual dark-squared strategy.

24...:xhl 2S Axhl It)f5, so Leko had to give me an easy draw. This game shows how simple Black's game is, when White goes for the ending too quickly. Even a top player such as Leko did not manage to put the black position under any pressure. Game 11

B.Lalic-Conquest Hastings 1995196 (1 e4 c5 2 It)f3 It)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 It)xd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 It)f6 7 It)c3 It)g4 8 'i'xg4 It)xd4 9 'i'dl It)e6 10 ltd) 14 b3 d6 15 f3 h5?! This gives White the chance to play 16 h4!, when 16 ... g4 17 f4 looks good for White. Leko feared 16... gxh4, but after 17 ltxh4 all that Black has is a weak h-pawn. Probably I should have preferred lS ... 'i'eS or IS ....i.eS. 16 It)d5?! Leko goes for an endgame, where White traditionally has good chances. Here, however, Black can easily generate counterplay because of his dark-squared control. In general, it is not the endgame that one should fear when playing Black in the 9 ... lt)e6 variation. 16 'iixd2+ 17 cJi>xd2 h4 18 g3 hxg3 19 hxg3 citd7 Simply connecting the rooks and preparing to swap them on the hfile. 20 .i.d3 ttJd4 21 f4 gxf4 22 gxf4 ttJf3+ 23 cJi>e2 It)d4+ 24 ~d2 1/7.- 112 24 'iPf2 would have failed to

10

11

b6

1M2

The game'" - Chandler-Larsen, Hastings 1987/88, was played in a later round of the same tournament in which Short introduced his 14 Af2!? (see Game 8). Since Larsen got a bad position in that game, he switched to the more conservative 1O...b6 against Chandler, and after 11 .i.d3 It)cs 12 .i.bl d6 13 b4 It)d7 14 .i.d4 .i.xd4 IS 'iIIxd4 0-0 160-0.i.a6 17 It)dS Ac8 18 l:tfdl .i.b7 19 h3 lte8 20 'i'b2 .i.c6 a

32 Maroczy Bind: 7...ti:Jg4 System

fairly standard position was reached, White being slightly better. Here something very instructive occurred. Instead of slowly trying to build on his small advantage, Chandler played 21 f4?? to grab more space. But when Black answered 21...eS!

Chandler realised that he had irreparably damaged his position. White cannot prevent eSxf4, when Black will seize the e5-square for the knight. Then the c4-pawn is weak and the bishop on bl simply misplaced. Since 22 fS would leave Black with a classic good knight versus a bad bishop scenario after 22 ... i.xdS 23 cxdS Wg5, Chandler played the desperate 22 c5!?, but was soon a pawn down after 22 ...dxc5 23 llle3 We7 24 b5 i.a8 25 lllg5 ~g7, and Black later won. 11 b4!? may be the best answer to 1O... b6, in order to keep the knight away from cS and to gain space on the queenside. Black will never be able to open the queenside with ... a7-aS, since this will leave the b6-pawn very weak, and he will risk getting a very passive position. Suba-Taimanov, Bucharest 1979, continued 11...i.b7 12 i.d3 0-0 13 0-0 llld4 14 i.bl lllc6 IS a3 d6 16 Wd3 ':c8 17 f4, after which White

had all the play. 11 i.b7 12 i.e2 0-0 13 f3 f5!? Very often the ... f7-fS thrust only serves to weaken Black's position. Here, however, it is the only active plan, aiming for a combined attack on g2 with the bishop and rook. Still, White is very solid, and it is difficult to realise the attack. gxfS 14 exf5 15 llldS We8 16 0-0 Wf7 17 b4 In order to play 18 f4, since 17 f4 is met by 17 ... lllcS, when the knight heads for e4. 17 f4 18 i.f2 lllgS?!

With the idea of ... e7-eS followed by ... llle6-d4, which Lalic easily prevents. According to Lalic, 18 .. .'~h8 was better, in order to play down the g-file. 19 h4! llle6 20 l:[fe1
Maroczy Bind: 7... lLlg4 System 33

Black's only chance would be 23 ... i.b2, since both 23 ... i.h6 24 ':xe6 and 23 ... tLlfB 24 "f5! win for White. After 24 l:[bl "g7 25 'it'xh7+ "xh7 26 i.xh7 ~xh7 27 ':xb2 b5 28 ':d2 bxc4 all Black's pawns are weak and White should pick some of them up. 23 ••. d6 24 'it'd3 i.e5 25 ':xe5 dxe5 26 lLld4 27 :xe5 lLlxc2 28 'it'xc2 i.xd5 29 cxd5 ':c8 30 'it'd2 ':g7 31 i.d4 ~g8 32 i.b2 'it'g6? The losing mistake according to Lalic; Black may have been able to survive with 32 ...:c4! 33 :e4 34 i.e5 'it'h5 35 i.xf4 'it'xh4 36 ~gl :g7? 37 i.h6 'it'f6 38 i.xg7 ~xg7 39 :e6 'ii'h4 40 'it'e3 ~f7 41 :e41-0

:e1

:17

Game 12

Kasparov-Malshikov USSR 1977 (I e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 lLlg4 8 'it'xg4 lLlxd4 9 'it'dl lLle6 10 :c1)

10

d6

Another playable, yet passive, alternative to 1O.....a5.

11 b4!? 11 i.d3 has also been played on many occasions. After 11 ... 0-0 12 0-0 i.d7 13 i.b 1 (best, since 13 "d2 is met with 13.....a5, as in Kudrin-Larsen Hastings 1986, when after 14 b3 ':fc8 IS f4 lLlcs 16 i.bl i.c6 17 fslLld7 Black parried the attack and won due to his positional trumps) 13 ... a5 both 14 'it'e2 i.c6 15 :fdl b6 16lLld5lLlc5 17 i.g5, as in BeliavskyVelimirovic, Reggio Emilia 1986, and 14 f4 i.c6 15 'it'd2 a4 16 lLld5 lLlc5 17 eS, as in Kosten-Larsen, Esbjerg 1988, seem to give White a slightly better game although it should not bother Black unduly. Instead of 12 ... i.d7, 12 ...lLlcs was played in Portisch-Petrosian, Palma de Mallorca 1974, when after 13 i.bl a5 14 "d2 i.d7 15 i.d4?! i.xd4 16 "xd4 i.c6 17 'it'd2 f6 18 ':fdl ':f7 19 i.c2 "ikb6 20 J:.bl :d8 21 lLld5 'it'a7 22 b3 Black was ready for the thematic 22 ...e5!, with slightly better prospects, since his knight is on its way to d4. 11 0-0 12 i.e2 b6 The most common. Although Velimirovic has had some success with 12 ...a5, it looks suspect, since the b6-square is left terribly weak. Yet, so far no one has managed to exploit that. After 13 a3 axb4 14 axb4 i.d7 15 0-0 i.c6, White normally plays 16 'it'd2 (16 lLld5 was once tried in Kobas-Velimirovic, Zenica 1987, but Black won tactically with 16...l:a2 17 :el :e8 18 i.g4 "ikb8 19 b5 i.xd5 20 cxd5 lLlc5 21 i.xc5 dxc5 22 :Xc5 'it'f4 23 i.f3 :d2 24 'it'c1 i.d4 25 :c8 :xc8 26 'it'xc8+
34 Maroczy Bind: 7... 0.g4 System 0-1, since ... .i.e5 cannot be prevented), and after 16... %:.a3 17 0.d5, Velimirovic improved upon Portisch-Pfleger, Manila 1974, (where Black lost after 17 ... 'i&>h8?!), with 17 ... l:te8 and had a fine position after 18 .l:tfdl 0.f8! 19 h3 0.d7, since the-active rook on a3 is annoying for White. Instead, 18 .i.b6 was tried in the 1985 correspondence game Rosanen-Rau, but after 18 ......a8 19 f4 .l:ta2 20 .l:tc2 .l:txc2 21 "'xc2 .i.xd5 22 exd5 0.d4 Black had absolutely no problems. It is worth noting that here the opening of the a-file was a big plus for Black. Normally it is White who tries to open it by playing b2-b3, a2-a3 and b2-b4, but here we saw just how much counterplay this can allow. 13 0-0 .i.b7 14 0.dS 0.c7 Larsen tried 14 ......d7 against Adorjan, Hastings 1986/87, but faced a difficult position after 15 .i.g4 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 .i.h3 0.c7 18 0.xc7 "'xc7 19 c5! IS "a4!? In Cu. Hansen-Larsen, Esbjerg 1988, White played 15 .i.g5 and stood better after 15 ... f6 16 .i.e3
since this is not legal White gets the c-file with a winning initiative.

IS....:tbS 19 .l:tc7 fS 20 f3 .i.f6 21 :'fel a6 22 l:td7 Black's fortress looks impregnable, but the young Kasparov manages to organise a breakthrough. 22 ...
Maroczy Bind: 7... tLlg4 System 35

close study. Game 13

Larsen-Petrosian Santa Monica 1966

(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J..g7 6 J..e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 lLIg4 8 "xg4 lLIxd4 9 "dl lLIe6)

10

"d2

"d2

As we now know, this is not the most exact move order, since in the 1O......a5 systems, the queen does not belong on d2. At the time of the game, however, this had not been recognised, and on 1O••• d6 Larsen considered it more aggressive to have the rooks on dl and el. 10 d6 11 J..e2 J..d7

12

0-0

even argue that Black is in fact a tempo up! Since that structure is more relevant to the Classical system, we shall cover it in the relevant chapter (see Game 34). J..c6 13 14 tLld5 l:te8?! Too passive. It was better to play 14 ... tLlc5, which was actually Larsen's own choice in Porath-Larsen, Amsterdam 1964, when after 15 f3 as 16 J..d4? J..xd4 17 "xd4 e5! 18 lLIe6 Black had the usual advantageous structure and later won. Petrosian feared 15 "c2, yet 15 ... a5! is strong, since 16 J..xc5 dxc5 17 tLlf6+ J..xf6 18 l:txd8 :tfxd8 is okay for Black. 15 f4!? A logical reaction to the rook move. Now the f7-square becomes a target. 15 tLlc7 After the usual 15 ... lLIc5, Petrosian feared 16 e5 lLId7 17 tLlb4! which looks strong. Yet, Larsen suggests that after 17 .....c7 it is not clear whether Black is worse than in the game. lLIa6 16 f5 Black tries to get the knight to e5. Although it takes a lot of time to get there, this is necessary since the knight is badly needed in the defence. 17 J..g4?! Larsen goes for the direct attack, which is quite logical, since Black is using a lot of time to manoeuvre his knight. However, 17 b4! was simpler, after which Black cannot regroup, since 17... lLIb8 18 b5! J..xd5 19 "xd5 hits both f7 and b7. 17 lLIc5 18 fxg6 hxg6 19"1'2 l:tf8

0-0

13 :adl!? 13 l:tac1 was played in KeresPetrosian, Zagreb ct 1959, when after 13... J..c6 14 :tfdl tLlc5 15 f3 a5 16 b3 'iWb6 a well-known position from the Classical system had arisen, but a tempo up for White. Still, since the rooks ate on cl and dl, instead of bl and cl, one might

36 Maroczy Bind: 7...tiJg4 System

20 e5! Very strong, but also absolutely necessary. 20 .....4 .i.xdS 21 :xd5 e6 or 21 exdS e5 is not better for White. It is striking to see that although Black has lost a lot of time with his knight, his position is still very close to being tenable, and that only active tactical play breaks through. 20 .i.xeS 21 Wh4 .i.xd5 22 ':xd5 tL'le6?! The point behind 20 e5! is that 22 ...e6 would be answered with 23 Wxd8 :fxd8 24 ':xe5 dxe5 25 .i.xc5. Still, since Black has reasonable drawing chances in that case, he should have played it anyway. Also 22 ... tL'le4 23 .i.f3 tL'lf6 24 :b5 is positionally much better for White. 23':0 .i.f6? The decisive mistake. Black could still have hung on with 23 ...f5 24 :h3 ~!, after 25 .i.xf5 gxf5 26 .....5+ ~6 27 g4 tL'lg7! After 28 .i.g5+ ~e6 29 -'g6+ .i.f6 30 gxf5 ~d7 31 .i.xf6 ':xf6 32 -'xg7 -'g8, when Black has real drawing chances. It seems incredible that White does not have anything decisive, but Larsen has not found anything and neither have we. Now, however, we have ar-

rived at one of the proudest moments in Danish chess history, since it is not often that a reigning world champion is defeated like this. 14 -.h6 .i.g7

Wxg6! tL'lf4 25 Nothing works: 25 ... tL'lc7 26 -'xg7+ mates and 25 .. .fxg6 is very similar to the game. 26 ':xf4 fxg6 .i.e6+ ':17 27 27 ...~h7 28 ':h4+ .i.h6 29 .i.xh6 ':f5 30 ':xf5 gxf5 31 .i.f7! e5 32 :h3 mates. 28 ':xt7 ~h8 29 ':g5 b5 30 ':g3 1-0 Strong attacking chess, and a nice way to round off the 7... tL'lg4 chapter.

2

Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System

Chapter Guide 1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 R.g7 6 R.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0

8 R.e2 b6 9 0-0 R.b7 10 lLlxc6!? 10f3

-Game 14 1O... e6?! 1O...:c8 1O... lLlh5!?

- Game 15 -Game 16 - Game 17

The double fianchetto system against the Maroczy Bind does not have the greatest of reputations, but nevertheless it is still played with Black by several grandmasters, e.g. Bellon, Rogers and Pigusov to mention but a few. White must be aware that his opponent has several tricks up his sleeve, but if he avoids these, Black often ends up in an unpleasant, passive position with few prospects of being able to obtain active counterplay. Game 14

Schlosser-Pigusov

Sochi1989 (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 R.g7 6 R.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3)

7

8

0-0

R.e2

This quiet development of the bishop is the logical way for White to continue. However, a couple of other approaches have also been tried, with the following practical results:

38 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System

a) 8 h3 d6 9 ~e2 i..d7 (9 ... ~xd4 10 i.xd4 i.d7 11 0-0 i.c6 12 'ii'd3 a5 13 .l:tadl was slightly better for White in F.Olafsson-Bouaziz, Nice 01 1974) 10 0-0 a6 11 'ii'd2 b5 (Black has to play actively) 12 cxb5 ~xd4 13 i..xd4 axb5 14 .l:tfdl (Larsen gives 14 i.xf6 i.xf6 15 ~b5 'ii'a5 16 ~c3 .l:tfc8 17 .l:tfcl i.xc3 18 .l:txc3 .l:txc3 19 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 20 bxc3 .l:ta3 21 c4 i.a4 with a level ending) 14 ... i..c6 15 i.b5 ~e4 16 ~xe4 i..xb5 17 i.xg7 cJ;;xg7 with roughly equal chances in the game Larsen-Kavalek, Solingen 1970. b) 8 ~b3 d6 9 f3 i..e6 10 ~d5 (Black does not have any problems after 10 .l:tcl either: 1O... .l:tc8 11 ~d2 a6 12 i.e2?! [12 ~d5] 12 ... ~e5 13 b3 'ii'a5, Murey-Afek, MontpeIlier 1985) 10... ~d7 11 'it'd2 a5 12 .l:tcl a4 13 ~d4 i..xd5 14 exd5 ~xd4 15 i.xd4 i.xd4 with equality in Korchnoi-Van der Sterren, Netherlands 1977. 8 b6 This is the double fianchetto line, which has been laid to rest and then revived a couple of times. Its current status depends very much upon whether or not Black can find a way to meet 10 ~xc6, which has been causing problems for the last couple of years. Aside from 8... b6, Black has 8 ... d6, which will be discussed in Chapter 3. 9 0-0 At this point White has tried a number of other ideas. Some of these are quite interesting but the first is completely useless: a) 9 g4? (Where does White intend to put his king after this move?) 9 ... i..b7 10 ~xc6 i.xc6 11 tlM3 d6 12 .l:tgl ~d7 13 f3, Lus-

sault-Donaldson, Monaco 1977, and now 13 ... a6! intending ... b6-b5 would have been best, when Black would have had clearly the better chances. b) 9 'it'c2 .tb7 10 .l:tdl ~xd4 11 i.xd4 d6 12 h4 'it'd7 13 ~d5 .l:tac8 14 .l:th3 .l:tfe8 15 h5 b5 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 b3 bxc4 18 bxc4 i.xd5 19 exd5 e5 20 dxe6 .l:txe6 21 cJ;;fl 112-112 Speelman-Cebalo, Taxco izt 1985. c) 9 f3 i.b7 10 'it'd2 e6? (this move is not a good idea after 10 0-0 either - see Game 15; it is better to play 1O ... :c8!? or 1O... ~h5!? with a likely transposition to the main lines) 11 :dl ~e5 12 ~db5 d5 13 exd5 cxd5 14 ~xd5 ~xd5 15 exd5 a6 16 ~c3 ~c4 17 i.xc4 tlt'h4+ 18 g3 tli'xc4 19 i.d4 with a clear edge for White in the encounter Muco-Rantanen, Lucerne 011982. ~9 ~xc6 dxc6 10 'it'c2 ~g4 11 i.~'it'd4?! (this is a bad idea that only brings problems; better is 1l...i.e6) 12 i.h4 'ii'c5 13 h3 ~e5 140-0 g5 (this seems to be a rather odd move, but better moves are hard to come by; White was threatening 15 ~a4 'ii'd6 16 .l:tadl 'it'c7 17 f4) 15 i..xg5 ~f3 16 i.xf3 'it'xg5 17 'it'cl 'ii'g6 18 It>hl cJ;;h8 19 'it'c3 when Black had some, but not quite sufficient, compensation in the game Zso.Polgar-Edelman, Miinster 1993. @9 f4!1 and now: (see following diagram) el) 9... i.b7 10 i.f3 :c8?! (now Black ends up in a passive position; far better is 10... ~xd4 11 i..xd4 .l:tc8, e.g. 12 e5 i.xf3 13 'it'xf3 ~e8 followed by ... d7-d6 or ... f7-f6) 11 e5 ~e8 12 0-0 ~a5 13 i.xb7

Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 39

ttJxb7 14 "e2 d6 15 e6 f5 16 b4! ttJf6 17 ttJd5 ttJg4 IS l:tac 1 ..eS 19 ttJb5 and Black's position was downright awful in MortensenKristensen, Denmark 19S3.

e2) 9 ...e5!? lO ttJdb5 exf4 11 i.xf4 ttJeS 12 0-0 i.b7 (this position can also arise from 9 0-0 i.b7 10 f4 e5 11 ttJdb5 exf4 12 i.xf4 ttJeS) 13 'ii'd2 a6! 14 ttJd6 ttJxd6 15 i.xd6 :eS 16 c5?! (better seems 16 "f4!?, putting pressure on the f7pawn, which Black probably will have to sacrifice if he wishes to remain active) 16... i.d4+ 17 ~h 1 bxc5 IS i.c4 lle6 19 i.xe6 dxe6 20 'iff4 f5 and Black's powerful pair of bishops provided him with more than enough compensation for the exchange in Rodin-Kron, Moscow 1991. e3) 9 ... lLlxd4 10 i.xd4 i.b7 11 e5 (or 11 0-0 d6 12 'ii'd3 ttJd7 13 i.xg7 'iitxg7 14 :tadl f6 15 i.g4 ttJc5 16 'ifd4 a5 with a passive but solid position for Black) 11...ttJeS 12 i.f3 i.xf3 13 'ii'xf3 ttJd6 (here both 13 ... l:tcS and 13 ... d6 were worth considering; Olafsson's approach is more direct and frees his position immediately) 14 exd6 i.xd4 150-0-0 i.xc3 16 'ii'xc3 ':cS 17 ~bl exd6 IS h4 b5 19 ':xd6 l:txc4 20 "it'd3 l:te8 and Black had

solved his opening problems in Zso.Polgar-F.Olafsson, Vienna 1993. 9 i.b7

10 ttJxc6!? This"moveha"S gained in popularity in recent years and no wonder - White's results have been very impressive. However, as on move nine, White has tried an amazing variety of moves. For 10 f3, see the next game, while the other alternatives are: a) lO f4!? (this thrust is more difficult for Black to handle when played on the previous move, as Black can now stop e4-e5 with ...d7-d6) lO...d6 (lO ... e5!? 11 ttJdb5 exf4 12 i.xf4 lLleS transposes to Rodin-Kron above, but lO...l:tcS is too passive: after 11 e5 ttJeS 12 ttJcb5 [for 12 i.f3, see Mortensen-Kristensen under 9 f4 above) 12 ...ttJxd4 13 i.xd4 :as 14 'it'd3 ttJc7 IS fS ttJxbS 16 cxb5 :c8 17 f6 i.hS IS i.g4 :c7 19 :ael, White was much better in MurrayBarbeau, Montreal 19S1) 11 l:tcl (also interesting is 11 ttJxc6 i.xc6 12 i.f3 IlcS 13 :'cl e6 14 'ii'd3 'ii'e7 15 Ilfdl :fdS 16 lLlbS i.xbS 17 cxbS :XcI IS l:txcl eS 19 :c6


d5 with equal chances in HuntCrouch, London 1994) 11. .. ':c8 12 b3ltJd7 13 .ltf3 ltJc5 14 'ii'd2?! (14 ltJde2 with equal chances deserves preference) 14...ltJxd4 15 .i.xd4 .ltxd4+ 16 'ii'xd4 e5 171M2 exf4 18 :cdl 'ii'g5 and Black was a safe pawn up in Wallace-Silman, Phoenix 1990. b) 10 ltJc2 l:tc8 11 f3 ltJe8 12 'ii'd2 (or 12 ltJa3 f5 13 c5 ltJa5 14 exf5 l:txf5 15 .i.d3 l:te5 16 .i.d4 The point! (ll...ltJxe4?? loses a ':h5 17 .i.xg7 rJi;xg7 18 b4 ltJc6 with an initiative for Black in piece after 12 .i.xg7 cj;xg7 13 Scarella-Panno, Argentina 1995) ltJxe4.i.xe4 14 'ii'd4+). White now 12 ... f5! 13 .lth6 .i.xh6 14 'ii'xh6 loses material after either: el) 12 ':c2 ltJxe4 13 .i.f3 ltJxc3 ltJe5 15 exf5 gxf5 16 ':fel ':c6 17 'ii'e3 :e6 18 ltJd5 f4 19 'ifb3 ':h6 14 ':xc3 .i.xf3 15 'ii'xf3 l:tc8, 20 .ltd3 d6 21 .i.e4, Wegner- Tseshkovsky-Bellon, Las Palmas Raaste, Berlin 1990, and now 1976. e2) 12 f4 ltJxe4 13 ltJxe4 .i.xe4 Black should have proceeded with 14 .i.c3 (or 14 .i.f3 .i.xf3 15 'ii'xf3 21...e6 22 ltJxf4 l:txf4 23 .i.xb7 'ii'c7 16 b3 'ii'c6, as in Yakovich'ii'h4 24 h3 'ii'a3 (Wegner). c) 10 ltJdb5?! d6 11 f3 ltJd7 12 Antunes, Bayamo 1990) 14... 'ii'c7 'ii'd2ltJc5 13ltJd5 ':b8 14 :adl a6 15 1i'c2 e5 16 ':cdl .i.xf4 17 'ii'xd7 15 ltJa3 e6 16 ltJc3 e5!? 17 ltJd5 'ii'xd7 18 ':xd7 ':fd8 19 ':fdl .i.e3, ltJd4 18 .ltxd4 exd4 19 ltJc2 .i.xd5 as in Kruszynski-Hernandez, Po20 cxd5 d3 21 .i.xd3 .ltxb2 with a lanica Zdroj 1983. good game for Black in Ragozine3) 12 .i.d3 .i.xcl 13 'ii'xcl d6 14 f3 ltJd7 15 'ii'h6 f6 16 h4 ltJe5 Mezentsev, Ore11992. d) 10 ltJb3?! d6 11 l:tcl (or 11 f4 17 .i.c2 l:tc8 18 .i.xe5 dxe5 and ':c8 12 .i.f3 e5!? 13 ltJb5 exf4 14 White had insufficient compensa.ltxf4 ltJe8 15 ltJxd6 ltJxd6 16 tion for the exchange in Lichten.ltxd6 .ltxb2 with fine chances for stein-Petursson, Stockholm 1981. e4) 12 .i.f3 .i.xcl 13 'ii'xc1 d6 Black in Renet-Rantanen, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 1l...l:tc8 12 f3 ltJe5 14 ':dl ltJe8 15 'ii'h6 e6 16 ':d3 13ltJd5 e6 14 ltJxf6+ .i.xf6 15 l:tc2 'ii'e7 17 .i.g4 e5 18 .lte3 ':d8 19 .lta6 16 'ii'c1 d5 17 .i.h6 l:te8 18 f4 ltJd5 .i.xd5 20 cxd5 ltJf6 21 .i.f3 ltJxc4 and Black had the luxury of ltJd7 and once again White did not an extra pawn in Hertneck-Hickl, have enough for the exchange in Tosic-Karlsson, Nis 1981. Munich 1988. e) 10 ':cl? (a well-known mise5) 12 e5!? .i.xc1 13 exf6 .i.g5 take that, surprisingly, even strong 14 fxe7 .ltxe7 15 .ltf3 .i.c6 16ltJd5 grandmasters have been guilty of ':c8 17 'ii'd2 .ltxd5 18 .i.xd5 .i.f6 from time to time) 1O...ltJxd4 11 with a clear edge for Black in the .i.xd4 .i.h6! encounter Hauchard-Bemard, Val


Thorens 19S5. t) 10 1i'd2? is the most common mistake by White in the 9 ...b6 system. White does not lose material, but Black obtains the pair of bishops, and the dark-squared bishop in particular helps him to secure a safe edge. Practice has shown that White does indeed face a difficult defensive task; the score is heavily in Black's favour after 1O... ltJxd4 11 ~xd4 eS! (the trick)

12 ~xeS ltJxe4 13 ltJxe4 (13 'ifd4? and 13 'iff4? both lose to 13 ... ~xeS 14 'ifxeS lieS) 13 ... ~xeS and now White has tried: fl) 14 f4 ~xb2 IS 'ifxb2 .i.xe4 16 ~xf3 ~xf3 17 ':xf3 "ikc7 IS fS 'ii'c5+ 19
and Black went on to win in Eriksson-Rogers, Malmo 1993. f3) 14 ltJg3 ~c6?! (possibly better is 14 ......f6 15 ':abl ~c6, IS ...hS!? or IS ...a5!?, intending 16 'ii'xd7 ~c6 17 'ikd2 h5 with a powerful initiative) IS f4 ~g7 1611adl as 17 ~f3 'ii'f6 IS b3l:lfes 19 ~d5 ~h6 20 a4 ':e7 21 ~xdS 22 l:lxd5 J:laeS, when despite his weak b- and d- pawns Black had the better chances due to his strong darksquared bishop in Robovic-Rogers, Bie11992. f4) 14 ltJc3! :eS IS J:lael?! (best was IS :ac1) IS ...11cS 16 ltJd5 (not 16 f4 ~xc3 17 'ifxc3 bS) 16... ~xdS 17 cxd5 'ikc7 IS .i.a6! ':bS! 19 f4 ~f6 20 a4 "ikcS+ 21 ..ti>hl hS 22 ~bS "ikd6 23 lle2 AbcS 24 g3?! (preferable was 24 llfel) 'iI;Ig7 2S l:tfel :xe2 26 ':xe2? :cS 27 lle3 l:txd5 and Black went on to win in Sion-Zsu.Polgar, Salamanca 19S9. 10 ~xc6 After 1O...bxc6 theory gives White a preference, but in practice it has been a slaughter. For example, 11 eSltJd7 (ll...ltJeS? is even worse: 12 f4 'ii'c7 13 cS bS 14 a4 b4 IS ltJe4 as 16 ~c4 ~a6 17 ~xa6 llxa6 IS 'ifg4 liaS 19 :adl :taS 20 'ifd7! and Black was tom apart in Kaidanov-Kristensen, Hastings 1990) 12 f4 (also of interest is 12 e6 fxe6 13 ~g4, when Silman gives 13...:fS 14 ~xfS exfS with some compensation, but we prefer 13 ... ltJcS, e.g. 14 ~xcS bxcS IS ~xe6+ ~hS when Black's darksquared bishop compensates for the disrupted pawn structure; based on the obvious merits of 12 f4, White should not spend too much time on 12 e6) 12 .....c7 13 'ii'c2 llfeS

"'f2

42 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System (Black wants to activate his pieces with ... lDfB, ...:ad8, ... lDe6 and ... c6-cS, but he never gets that far) 14 h4! lDfS IS hS f6? (more sensible is IS ... :ad8) 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 cS! bS 18 'ifb3+ and White soon won, Wahls-Pigusov, Bie11989.

f3 d6 11 Black has a few options to choose from, but this is the most solid. The alternatives are: a) l1...e6 12 "'c2 (with 12 "'d2 d5 we would transpose to IOn e6 11 'iWd2 dS 12 lDxc6 .i.xc6 which, as we shall see in the next game, is better for White) 12 ......e7 13 :adl :tac8 14 f4 d6 IS .i.f2 with a small plus for White, FedorowiczDonaldson, Gausda11979. b) ll...lDhS 12 "d2 (also possible is 12 :tel, as in Nunn-Ristoja, Malta 011980) 12 .. .fS 13 exfS gxfS 14 f4 lDf6 IS .i.d4 l:tc8 16 ..tn e6 17 b3 l:tn 18 l:tadl and White was very much in control, SmejkalRantanen, Novi Sad 01 1990. c) 11...'ifb8!? 12 "d2 .J:.e8 13 :act d6 14 ~dS 'iWb7 IS .i.gS (White forces some structural weaknesses on his opponent, but with the limited material left on the board, he has problems taking ad-

vantage of this; it was therefore better to play IS b4) IS ...:tad8 16 ~xf6+ ..txf6 17 .i.xf6 exf6 18 l:tfdl "'e7 19 ..tfl "eS 20 l:tc3 fS 21 exfS "'xfS 22 :td3 "'cS+ 23 ~hl l:te6 24 b4 "eS 2S :d4 cj;g7 26 ~gl hS 27 "f4 l:tc8 28 'iWd2 l:[d8 29 "f4 ':c8 Ill-Ill was the game Nemec-Znamenacek, Czechoslovakia 1992. 12 -.d2 :te8 Although nothing much seems to be going on, Black has to handle matters with care. In the game Chekhov-Martin, Barcelona 1984, Black ended up in trouble: 12 .....d7?! 13 llfdl llad8 14 a4 e6 IS as 'iWb7 16 axb6 axb6 17 b4 'iWb8 18 .i.d4 dS 19 cxdS exd5 20 eS lDe8 21 "e3 lDc7 22 bS .i.a8 23 .i.xb6 and White was winning. Also 12 ... lDd7 has been tried, Isupov-Balogh, Budapest 1994, saw 13 :tacl as 14 b3 ~cS IS IUdl :a7 16 .i.gSlDe6 17 ..te3 fS? (it was much better to repeat the position with 17 ...~cS, although White is probably slightly better) 18 exfS gxfS 19 lDd5 ':b7 20 f4 with a clear plus for White. :tfdl :te8 13 13 .. :ifd7?! would have been met with 14 a4!, as in Chekhov-Martin above. 14 :tad "d7 With the rook gone from aI, White no longer has the option of a2-a4. IS i..n "b7 16 .i.gS lDd7 17 ~dS lDeS 18 :td as 19 b3 :cd8 Black has equalised and the game was agreed drawn after a few more moves:


-..c1

20 ':'d7 21 ~gS ttJe6 22 ~e3 ttJcS 23 ~gS ttJe6 24 ~e3 ttJcS l/Z-Ifl Game 15 Wojtkiewicz-Bellon Iraklion 1993

(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 b6 9 0-0 ~b7) 10

f3

10 e6?! Black hopes to get in ... d7-d5, thereby solving his problems through multiple exchanges. However, it is not quite so easy as that.

Black has a number of other options here on the 10th move, and in this game we shall take a look at most of them: 1O... ttJxd4, lO ... ttJeS and 1O ... d6. The next game will deal with lO .. .1ks and Game 17 with the two most popular choices 1O... ttJh5!? and lO ...1i'bS!? Although the latter two moves constitute the lines in which Black has the best chance of equalising, the others are often played and not without interest. However, with correct play White should obtain an advantage. Here are the lesser lines: a) 1O... ttJxd4? (very passive) 11 ~xd4 d6 12 -..d2 ltJd7 13 ~xg7 ~xg7 14 f4 .l:tcS?! (probably better is 14... a5, although White also has a clear edge after 15 .l:tac 1 ltJc5 16 'ii'e3 e5 17 1:cdl 'ii'e7 IS f5 f6 19 h4, Boleslavsky-Pirc, Belgrade 1956) 15 .l:tadl ttJf6 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 ltJgS IS 'ii'e3! 'ii'c7 19 e6 fxe6 20 ltJb5! 'ii'c5 21 'ii'xc5 .l:txc5 22 ':'xfS 'iii'xfS 23 ':'d7 with a decisive advantage for White, CvetkovicCebalo, Yugoslavia 1985. b) 1O... ltJe8?! (originally this was devised as an attempt to play ... f7-f5, but this advance just creates weaknesses; Black players then came up with an alternate plan of sending the e8-knight via c7 to e6, but this idea is very slow and Black usually ends up in an inferior position without counterplay) 11 'ii'd2 (11 ':'cl also seems good) 11...ttJc7 (as mentioned above, 11. .. f5?! does more to create weaknesses than generate counterplay; after 12 exf5 gxf5 13 1:adl ':'c8 14 Afel e6 15 ltJb3 1:f7 White was clearly better in Korelov-Bannik, USSR 1962) 12 Aadl ltJe6 13 ltJc2 (also interesting is 13 ltJdb5)


13 ...d6 14 b3 ~h8 15 f4 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 J.f3 'ifd7 18 :fel lLlcd8 19 J.d5 and White was very much in control, Magem Badals-Tatai, Andorra 1987. c) 1O... d6?! (this move used to be the main line, but after the game Gheorghiu-Bellon, Las Palmas 1976, the entire line was discredited) 11 'ifd2 'ifd7 (the alternatives are 1l...1L1d7 12 ~hl lLlxd4 13 .ixd4 J.xd4 14 'ifxd4 a5 15 f4 lLlc5 16 'ife3 e6 17 :adl 'ife7 18 J.f3 l:ad8 19 b3 with a small edge for White, Timoschenko-Apicella, Bucharest 1993, or 11...1L1xd4 12 J.xd4 lLld7 13 J.xg7
sacrifices the a-pawn to weaken Black's pawn structure and loosen his control over the c5-square) 15 .....c7 16 a5 bxa5 17 tDb5 'ife7 18 'ifxa5 l:d7 19 .a3 tDe8 20 J.xg7 ~xg7 21 1i'e3 and Black was scrambling to defend, CiocalteaForintos, Titograd 1982. c5) 12 a4! e6 13 :tfdl :tfd8 14 tDxc6 'i'xc6 (Black would also have problems after the superior 14... J.xc6) 15 as bxa5 16 tDb5 a6 17 tDxd6 tDe8 18 c5 l:td7 19 "xa5 J.xb2 20 :tabl tDxd6 21 :'xd6 :'xd6 22 exd6 J.f6

23 'ifc7! 1-0 Gheorghiu-Bellon, Las Palmas 1976.

11 "d2! This simple move is the best way for White to play for an advantage. However, there are some other moves of interest: a) 11 tDdb5!? dS (if ll...tDe8? then 12 "d2 a6 13 tDa3 and Black has more weaknesses that he can cope with) 12 cxd5 exd5 13 exdS tDb4! 14 d6 tDfd5 15 tDxdS (Black does not have any problems after 15 .if2 either: 15 ...•g5!? 16 tDxdS tDxd5 17 tDc7 tDe3 18 J.xe3 "xe3+ 19 hl :tad8 20 :tel .f4 21 ~3 l:txd6 with a clear edge for Black, Bramkamp-Znamenacek, Dortmund 1990) 15 ...tDxdS 16

Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 45 ~d4

.ilh6! 17 ~c4 ttJe3 IS ~xe3 19 ~hl 'ii'h4 20 g4 ~f4 21 'ii'e2 a6 22 ttJc7 :ladS 23 :adl ~xd6 and Black's strong bishops gave Black much the better chances in Kamyshov-Simagin, Moscow 1947. b) 11 lDxc6!? ~xc6 12 'ii'b3! (White obtained an advantage after 12 :c1 'ii'e7 13 'ii'b3 :acS 14 :fdl ~aS 15 "a3!? "xa3 16 bxa3 ~c6 17 c5 bxc5 18 ~xc5 .!:tfd8 19 ~xa7 :fdS 20 ~c5 :dcS 21 ~e7 in Vitolins-Bielczyk, Riga 1981) 12...dS? (possible is 12 ...:c8!? 13 :adl ikc7 14 ttJb5 ~xb5 15 ti'xb5 :fd8 16 :d2? dS with an edge for Black, Mokry-Kristensen, Belgrade 1985) 13 :adl "e7 14 e5 ttJd7 15 cxdS exd5 16 f4 ttJf6 17 ~d4 with a clearly better game for White, IlIescas-Bellon, Linares 1991. c) 11 .!:tc l!? ttJxd4 12 ~xd4 ~h6 13 .!:tc2 ttJeS 14 .!:tel d6 15 ~f1 lDc7 16 ~xe3 ii.xe3 17 :xe3 "g5 18 .!:td3 with a slight advantage for White, PolugayevskyBellon, Logrono 1991. ~xe3+

11 'ii'e7!? The old main line is 11...dS, but Black has been under a lot of fire in this variation and it seems that he

will have to give up that concept altogether. After 11...dS the line continues with 12 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e5 ttJd7 15 f4, when Black's attempts so far have been in vain: a) 15 .. .f5? 16 .i.b5! ~b7 17 e6 lDc5 18 f5 a6 19 ~xc5 bxc5 20 ~d7 "a5 21 ikd3 d4 22ttJa4 :ad8 23 'ii'c4 ~hS and Black resigned, Chiburdanidze-Pinal, Havana 19S5. b) 15 ... g5?! 16 ttJxdS ttJxe5 17 :adl gxf4 18 ~xf4 ttJg6 19 ~c4 'ii'h4 20 ~b3 ~xd5 21 ~xd5 :acS 22 ~d6 :fd8 23 ~g3 Wke7 24 ~xf7+ <;Ph8 25 ~d6 and Black was being crushed, Panchenko-Teilman, USSR 19S5. c) 15 ... ttJc5 (Black's best chance but he is nowhere near equality) 16 :adl! (White also has 16 llfdl!? and 16 ~xc5) 16... f6 17 ttJxd5 fxe5 18 ~c4
46 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System Game 16 Nunn-Karlsson He/sinki 1981 (1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 S c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 b6 9 0-0 i.b7 10 (3)

10

:c8

This move enjoys a quite large following, but with best play White should be able to develop an edge. White must not underestimate his opponent's resources, however, as the black position is both dynamic and solid. Unfortunately, it is close to impossible for Black to make any winning attempts if White does nothing. 11 1i'd2! Natural and best. White takes charge of the cl-h6 diagonal and thereby stops any tricks involving ...tLlxd4 followed by ... i.h6. The vast majority of games with lO ... .:cS feature 11 1t'd2, but White does have some alternatives: a) 11 tLlxc6!? i.xc6 12 "'3 e6 13 :adl 1Ic7 is Mokry-Kristensen, which can be found under 1O...e6 11 tLlxc6 in the notes to Game 15.

b) 11 :.tel ~xd4! (Black takes control of the cl-h6 diagonal) 12 i.xd4 i.h6! 13 :c2 tLlh5 14 g3 ~g7 15 f4 f5 16 :d2 i..c6 17 e5 tLle6 (at fIrst glance White seems better, but in fact he is struggling to keep the position under control) IS i.e3 (1S h4 to avoid ... g6-g5 was tried in Sznapik-Pytel, Polanica Zdroj 19S2: IS ...tLlxd4 19 lhd4 i.g7 20 1i'b3 ~hS 21 l:td2 1Ic7 22 :.tdl and now 22 ... d6 23 exd6 exd6 24 :xd6 l:tcdS! 25 ':xdS :xdS 26 :xdS+ 1ixdS 27 1idl 1ie7 is difficult for White; Black's strong pair of bishops and the vulnerable white king give him more than enough compensation for the pawn) IS ... g5! 19 i.f3 1ieS 20 i.h5 1IdS 21 i.f3 1IeS 22 i.h5 1IdS (now 23 i.f3 would have been a draw by repetition, but White tries for more and gets burned) 23 tLlb5 gxf4 24 gxf4 ~hS 25 :ff2? :gS+ 26 ~1 ':g7! 27 tLlxa7 1IgS 2S 'iL>e2 tLlxf4+ 29 i.xf4 1ixe4+ 30 l:td3 i.xf4 31 ~xe6 1ie4+ 32 ~f1 :legS and Black was winning, BrowneBenjamin, Lone Pine 19S0.

11

:e8

Black, and in partiCUlar GM Lars Karlsson, has done well with this


move, but it is still questionable whether it is Black's best. Alternatives are: a) 1l.....c7 12 :acl "Wb8 13 J:[fdl :fd8 14 ~fl tDxd4 IS .i.xd4 tDe8 16 tDdS ~xd4+ 17 "xd4 ~xd5 18 exdS eS 19 dxe6 dxe6 20 'ii'h4 as 21 :d4 :xd4 22 "xd4 "d6 23 "iixd6 tt)xd6 24 b3 'it>f8 112-112 was Pieper Emden-Bischoff, Gennany 1989. b) 1l...tt)e8?! (this move should not be trusted; Black hopes to play ... f7-fS, but this just weakens his position) 12 :fdl (12 :adl is also good) 12... tt)d6 13 b3 fS 14 exfS gxfS IS tDxc6 ~xc6 16 :acl
h8 17 tt)dS :g8 18 .i.gS ~xdS 19 "xdS 20 ~f4 "cS 21 "iid2 .i.eS 22 ~xeS+ l:txeS 23 f4 "a8 24 .i.fl !:te6 2S b4 with a clear edge for White, Liang-Qi, China 1981. c) 11...tt)hS!? is possibly Black's best chance. He intends to throw in ... f7-fS at the right moment and also plans ... tt)hS-f4 to take advantage of the e3-bishop's obligations to protect the d4-knight. White has now tried: cl) In Zso.Polgar-Sosonko, Aruba 1991, White scored a quick victory with 12 tt)c2 d6 (Black's position after 12 ... fS 13 exfS gxfS 14 !:tad 1 tt)f6 IS tt)d5 tt)eS 16 tDxf6+ .i.xf6 17 b3 d6 18 tt)b4 tDf7 19 tDd5 was very unappealing, Hendriks-Van den Bosch, Enschede 1995) 13 :abl "d7 14 l:tfdl fS IS exfS gxfS 16 ~h6! (before playing fJ-f4 to fix the black pawn structure, White exchanges the dark-squared bishops) 16...tDeS 17 b3 f4 18 .i.xg7 ~xg7 19 "d4 'it>g8?? 20 "xeS 1-0. c2) 12 tt)dbS should be harmless, but things got out of control in

the game Ghinda-Pavlov, Predeal 1988: 12 ...tt)eS 13 cS!? a6 14 tt)a7 :xcS IS ~xcS bxcS 16 f4 ~h6 17 ~xhS gxhS 18 'ii'f2 tt)g6 19 fS lLleS 20 f6 exf6 21 "iixcs with unclear complications. c3) 12 :fdl (the most common choice) and now:

"f8

c31) Black successfully took charge with 12 ...fS in BoeskenDoncevic, Gennany 1987: 13 exfS gxfS 14 f4? (this drops a pawn without compensation; 14 tt)d5, 14 tDc2 or 14 "c2 were worth considering) 14...tt)xf4 IS .i.fJ tt)g6 16 tDdbS tt)geS 17 .i.d5+
h8 18 ~gS "e8 19 tt)xa7 :a8 20 tt)abS 'ii'g6 with an initiative for Black. c32) 12 ...tt)eS is quite popular, but against best play Black has big problems to face: 13 b3 fS 14 exfS gxfS IS tt)dS! ~xdS 16 cxdS f4 17 ~f2 'ii'e8 18 ~d3?! (as Nuon and Gallagher point out, 18 d6 is better, e.g. 18 ... exd6 19 tt)bS "g6 20 :acl or 18 ...e6 19 tt)bS "g6 20 :acl in both cases with a clear edge for White) 18 ... tt)xd3 19 "xd3 "g6 20 "xg6 hxg6 21 :ac1 :xcl 22 :xcl ~xd4! 23 .i.xd4 :fS and White was struggling in Sherzer-Edelman, New York 1993. c33) 12 ... tt)f4! (the sane move) 13 .i.fl tt)e6 14 tt)cbS?! (this just


encourages Black to exchange everything; 14 ttJc2, preserving some tension, is probably better) 14... ttJexd4 IS ttJxd4 ttJxd4 16 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 17 'ii'xd4 d6 18 eS dxeS 19 'ii'xeS 'ilc7 20 'ilxc7 l:txc7 21 l:d2 Ji.c8 22 :adl <:J;g7 23 b3 .i.e6 24 ~f2 gS 1/2_ 1/2 TataiMakropoulos, Budva 1981. d) 11...d6 (this is similar to, but perhaps somewhat more accurate than, 10...d6, but Black's winning prospects are about the same, close to none!) and now: dl) 12 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 13 a4 as 14 .i.d3 ttJd7 IS .i.c2 ttJc5 16 .:tad 1 .i.d7 17 .i.h6 .i.xh6 18 'ii'xh6 f6 19 h3 20 b3 'ilfS 21 'ii'h4 fS 22 exfS gxfS 23 ttJdS :b8 24 'ii'g3 112-112 De Firmian-Benjamin, USA ch 1985. d2) 12 :fdl ttJd7 13 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 14 :tac1 as IS ttJdS ttJcS 16 l:tbl a4 17 b4 axb3 18 axb3 l:a8 19 .i.f1 ]:le8 20 b4 ttJd7 21 'ilf2 with a tiny edge for White, TaimanovCebalo, Titograd 1984. d3) 12 :ac1 ttJd7 (Black equalised smoothly in SammalvuoU.Andersson , Sweden 1994, after 12 ... ttJxd4 13 .i.xd4 ttJd7 14 .i.e3 l:e8 IS l:.fdl 'ii'c7 16 .i.f1 'ib8 17 'ii'f2 .i.e8 18 ttJdS e6 19 ttJc3 a6 20 'ild2 .i.fS, and was even more successful with 12 ... l:e8 in BangCallergaard, Copenhagen 1988: 13 ttJb3 ttJe5 14 ttJd5 e6 IS ttJxf6+ .i.xf6 16 :fd 1 .i.a6 17 'ii'b4 dS 18 exdS exdS 19 l:txdS ttJc6 20 .:txd8 ttJxb4 21 :xc8 .i.xc8 22 ~f2 .i.xb2 with a clearly better game for Black) 13 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 14 l:.fdl ttJcS IS ttJdS 'ii'd7 (IS ... a5!?) 16 b4 ttJe6 17 f4 fS 18 Ji.f3 cilh8 19 :el ttJc7 20 exfS .i.xdS 21 cxdS gxf5 with a clear advantage for White,

:n

Am. Rodriguez-Pazos, Moscow 01 1994.

12 :ac1 Another excellent move is 12 :fdl, after Black risks ending up in a joyless position even if he is careful. His best chance is 12 ...'ilc7 13 :ac 1 'ib8 and here White has tried the following: a) 14 ttJdbS 'ilb8 IS .i.f1 a6?! (lS ... ttJeS 16 ttJdS ttJed7 seems better) 16 ttJa3 ttJd7 17 'ilf2 ttJb4 18 ttJab 1 .i.a8 19 a3 ttJc6 20 ttJd5 with the better chances for White, Mulivanela-Taborsky, Prague 1993. b) 14 b3 ttJh5 15 .i.f1 .i.e5 16 g3 .i.g7 17 .i.g2 ttJf6 18 'ilf2 h5 19 ttJde2 ttJe5 20 h3 d6 21 ttJd4 ttJed7 22 g4 a6 23 gS ttJh7 24 h4 ttJhfS 2S .i.f1 e6 26 ttJde2 .i.a8 27 .i.d4 .i.xd4 28 :xd4 ttJe5 29 ncdl .:ted8 30 Ji.h3 ttJc6 31 :4d2 bS 32 cxb5 axbS with mutual chances, BorikKarlsson, Randers zt 1982. c) 14 .i.f1 ttJhS IS ttJde2 ttJeS 16 ttJf4 ttJxf4 17 .i.xf4 d6 18 b3 .i.c6 19 ttJdS ncd8 20 .i.g5 f6 21 Ji.e3 e6 22 ttJc3, Sznapik-Ristoja, Helsinki 1981, and now instead of 22 ...fS? 23 'ilc2 fxe4 24 tiJxe4 dS 2S cxdS exdS 26 ttJg5 with a big


advantage for White, Black should have remained calm and continued 22 ...:d7 with approximately even chances. d) 14 lDc2 d6 15 lDd4 (although White was successful with this, it can hardly be called a refutation of Black's play) 15 ...:cd8 16 lDxc6 ~xc6 17 b4 lDd7?! (the start of a series of strange moves; simple and better was 17 ...l::td7, intending ... e7e6 and ... l::ted8 to meet a wing attack with a counter-thrust in the centre) 18 a3 lDf8?! 19 'iVa2 h6?! 20 ~fl lDd7 21 lDb5 l::tc8 22 a4 a6 23 lDd4 ~b7 24 lDb3 ~a8 25 a5 bxa5 26 'iVxa5 lDe5 27 lDd4 lDc6 28 lDxc6 l::txc6 29 b5 axb5 30 cxb5 l::txcl 31 l::txcl l:tc8 32 'iVa7 with a comfortable edge for White, A.Martin-Haik, Manchester 1981. Finally, White can play 12 lDdb5, but after 12 ... a6!? 13 lDa4!? axb5 14 cxb5 d5! unclear complications arise. Kudrin-Karlsson, Hastings 1983/84, continued: 15 bxc6 ~xc6 16 lDxb6 ':'b8 17 e5! lDh5 18 'iVd4 f6! 19 'iVc5 i..h6! 20 i..xh6 'iVxb6 21 'iVxb6 l::txb6 22 l::tfcl ':'xb2 23 Ihc6 l:he2 with a level game. 12 'iVc7

13 b4! Black has no problems after 13 lDd5 1i'b8 14 lOb3 d6 15 .:tfdl lDd7, as in Jansa-Karlsson, Yugoslavia 1981, which finished 16 lDd4 e6 17 lOxc6 ~xc6 18 1Ob4 i..f8 19lDxc6 ltxc6 20 b3 1/2- 1/2. 13 lDh5?! This is a waste of time and just leads to a position where White has everything he wants. It was better to follow the standard plan of 13 ...1i'bs, intending ... d7-d6, ... l::tcdS, ...e7-e6 and ... l::td7 with a solid position. 14 lOxc6 ~xc6 :lS lDdS 'iVb8 16 f4 lDf6 17 ~f3 d6 18 i.d4! bS 19 eS lDxdS 20 cxdS ~d7 21 'iVe3 White dominates the entire board, and makes no mistake whilst taking the last few steps to the full point: 21 ...a6 22 e6 ~xd4 23 ext7+ ~xt7 24 'iVxd4 ':'xc1 25 ':'xc1 ':'c8 26 ':'el ':'c4 27 'iVe3 'iVd8 28 a3 ~c8 29 h3 ~fS 30 g4 ~c8 31 fS gxfS 32 'iVh6 ~e8 33 'iVhS+ ~f8 34 'iVxh7~e81-0

After 35 gxf5 followed by f5-f6 it is all over. Game 17

Saltaev-Pigusov Katerini 1993

(1 e4 cS 2 lDo ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 g6 S c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ltlf6 7 ltlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 b6 9 0-0 ~b7 10

0) 10

ltlh5!?

50 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System After the relative demise of the old 1O... e6 and 10... nc8, this has now become the preferred move. With the knight out of the way, it is easier to play ... f7-fS, which stirs things up a little and avoids the passive positions that arise after virtually any other 10th move. We have already looked at a number of other ideas for Black here, all of which have been around for some time. However, in 1990, Morovic introduced a new idea in his game against Kir.Georgiev at the Novi Sad Olympiad. His new move was 1O... 'iib8,

which does not seem to make much sense at first glance. The deeper point is revealed when you see the next couple of moves, where Black usually continues with 1l....l:.d8, 12 ... d6, 13. .. .l:.d7, 14 ... 'iffB and lS ... .l:.ad8. Black thus builds up a fortress which is not easy to break down, and given the opportunity he will open up the position with a timely ... d6-dS. Let us take a look at the present status of this line: 11 'ifd2 (11 .l:.c1 allows immediate equality with 1l...o!i)xd4 12 .i.xd4 .i.h6! 13 :'c2 ~f4 14 g3 ~xg3+ IS hxg3 'ifxg3+ and 1/2- 1/2 due to the perpetual, Milu-Moldovan, Bucharest 1994)

11..J:td8 and now: a) 12 o!i)c2 d6 13 ~h1 .l:.d7 14 .l:1ac1 'iff8 IS b3 .l:.ad8 16 f4 e6 17 fS?! exfS 18 exfS dS! 19 ~gS dxc4 20 'iff4 cxb3 21 axb3 h6 22 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 23 o!i)e4 ~eS 24 'ifg4 'ife7 2S f6 'iff8 with an extra pawn for Black, as in the game TimoshenkoMoldovan, Calimanesti 1992. b) 12 ~dbS d6 13 .l:.ad1 e6 (13 ... nd7!?) 14 ~h1 o!i)e8 (14 ... .l:.d7) IS f4 o!i)e7 16 .i.f3 a6 17 o!i)a3 .i.c6 18 o!i)c2 with a good game for White, I.GurevichRodriguez Andrez, Maringa 1991. c) 12 %tad1 d6 13 'ife1 .l:.d7 14 'ifh4 "fB IS ~h1 l:.ad8 16 l:.d2 o!i)xd4 17 .i.xd4 o!i)e8 18 .i.xg7 o!i)xg7 19 f4 fS 20 .i.e3 eS 21 .l:.df2 .l:.f7 with roughly equal chances, was Kramnik-Moldovan, Arnhem 1991. d) 12 .l:.fd1 (the most common move) 12 ... d6 and now White has tried a variety of moves: d1) 13 o!i)b3!? e6! 14 a4 o!i)aS! IS o!i)xaS bxaS 16 o!i)bS dS 17 cxdS a6 18 o!i)c3 exdS 19 .i.f4 'ifa7+ 20 .i.e3 'iib8 21 .i.f4 'ifa7+ 22 .i.e3 1/2- 1/2 Moldovan-Milu, Bucharest 1991. d2) 13 .l:.ac1 J:r.d7 14 o!i)c2 "f8 IS b3 .l:.ad8 16 f4 e6 17 J..f3 "e7 18 'ife1 o!i)e8 with slightly better chances for White, TundirarKahyai, Teheran 1991. d3) 13 o!i)dbS nd7 14 .l:.ac1 'iff8 IS .i.f1 nad8 16 'iff2 e6 17 o!i)d4 o!i)eS 18 h3 'ife7 with equal chances was Kir.Georgiev-Morovic, Novi Sad 011990. d4) 13 'ife1 nd7 and now: d41) 14 .l:.ab1 'iff8 IS ~h1 .l:.ad8 16 o!i)cbS o!i)xd4 17 o!i)xd4 o!i)hS 18 .i.f1 e6 19 %td2 dS with a promising game for Black, P.H.Nielsen-


Moldovan, Mamaia 1991. d42) 14 1Wh4!? 'ii'fS IS ttJdbS ttJe8 16 l:ac 1 .tf6 17 .tf2 e6 18 f4 :ad8 19 :d2 ttJc7 20 :cdl lDxbS 21 ttJxbS 'fIe7 22 .tf3 .tg7 with a passive but solid position for Black, where White is slightly better, Brodsky-Moldovan, Bucharest 1994.

11 ~xc6 This is probably White's best shot at an advantage; he eliminates all of Black's tricks involving ... ttJf4, and since ... f7-fS is rarely of any use, it leaves the black knight on hS looking quite silly. Apart from the text move, White has a number of alternatives, however, not all of which are to be recommended: a) 11 f4? (this loses a pawn) 11...lDxf4! 12 ':xf4 (12 .tg4 ttJe6 [12 ... lDxd4 is simpler; now White goes for an ill-fated attack] 13 ttJfS gxfS 14 exfS lDcs IS f6 .txf6 16 :f3 lbes 17 :h3 e6 18 .tfS exfS 19 'fibs :e8 20 'ii'xh7+ ~fS 21 .th6+ ~e7 22 'ii'xfS :g8, when it was soon all over in Kosten-Pytel, England 1981) 12 ... ttJxd4 13 .txd4 eS 14 1:[f3 exd4 15 lDdS .txdS 16 exdS 'figS 17 :g3 'ii'eS 18 'fId2

:ae8, and Black is on top, RaasteRantanen, Jarvenpaa 1985. b) 11 ~hl fS 12 exfS gxfS 13 f4 ttJxd4 14 .txd4 ttJf6 IS .tf3 .txf3 16 'ii'xf3 Af7 17 :adl Ac8 18 b3 ':c6 19 .teS "'e8 20 ttJbS ttJg4 with roughly equal chances, Agnos-Rogers, London 1991. c) 11 ttJb3 fS (1l....txc3!?) 12 exfS gxfS 13 cS ':b8 14 'ii'd2 ttJf6 IS ':fdl q;h8 16 q;hl .ta8 17 cxb6 axb6 18 .td3 e6 19 ttJbS dS 20 ttJ3d4 :e8 21 :el "'d7 22 :ac1 :bc8 23 .th6 ttJhS with equal chances, Rotman-Garrido, Mamaia 1991. d) 1.1 ttJdbS a6 (or ll...d6 12 'ii'd2 "'d7 13 l:adl Aad8 14.th6 l:ac8 15 .txg7 ttJxg7 16 f4 a6 17 ttJa3 Ab8 18 ttJdS .ta8 19 b4 a5 with good play for Black, VeresCertek, Slovakia 1993) 12 ttJa3 eS (in Timman-Yusupov, Linares 1992, Black ran into trouble after 12 ...:b8 13 f4.txc3 14 bxc3 ttJf6 IS eS ttJe4 16 "'el d6 [better was 16...fS, when White is only slightly better] 17 .tf3 ttJaS 18 fS! with a clear edge for White) 13 g3 ttJd4 14 ttJc2lDxe2+? (Silman and Donaldson's suggestion of 14......c7 seems to be the correct way to continue, as IS ttJxd4 exd4 16 .txd4 can be answered with 16.. ~ttJxg3 and IS ~g2 with Is ...lDxc2 16 'fIxc2 fS with unclear play) IS 'ii'xe2 fS 16 .tf2 1igS 17 ~hl b5 18 cxbS ttJf6 19 ttJb4 fxe4 20 fxe4 axb5 21 'ii'xbS Aab8 22 ifd3, when Black does not have enough for the sacrificed pawn, WirthensohnHernandez, Lucerne 01 1982. e) 11 'ii'd2 ttJf4 (other moves lead to a comfortable edge for White: 11...fS 12 exfS gxfS 13 :adl fS 14 .tf2 ttJeS IS :fel 'fIe8


16 .i.d3 ttJxd3 17 'ii'xd3 'ikf7 18 b3 l:tad8 19 liJdb5, Ilincic-Haik, Vrnjacka Banja 1986, or l1...ttJxd4 12 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 13 'ii'xd4 ttJf4 14 :fdl d6 15 ~£1 flc7 16 b4 :ac8 17 'ike3 ttJh5 18 a4 ttJf6 19 ttJb5 flb8 20 a5, Panno-Milos, Villa Gesell 1985) and now White has tried:

el) 12 ttJxc6 ttJxe2+ 13 ttJxe2 dxc6 14 flc2 flc7 15 .i.f4 e5 16 .i.g5 f6 17 .i.e3 f5 with some initiative for Black, Larrosa-A.Martin, Alicante 1991. e2) 12 .i.xf4 ttJxd4 13 .i.d3 l:tc8 14 .i.e3 d6 15 l:tadl 'ikc7 16 b3 :fd8 17 .i.b 1 liJe6 18 :c1 liJc5 19 ~hl, Kudrin-Ramos, Seville 1990, and now instead of 19... a5?! 20 l:tfdl with a clear advantage for White, 19 ...l:td7 would have been the right way to continue. e3) 12 ':adl ttJe6 (l2 ... ttJxe2+ is better) 13 ttJc2 d6 14 .i.h6 ':c8 15 .i.xg7
':xdl l:[d8 21 e5 :xdl+ 22 flxdl f6 23 exf6 exf6 24 ttJe4 f5 25 'iid6 .i.c8 with equal chances, UhlmannZsu.Polgar, Aruba 1992. (2) 13 ttJde2 f5 (also adequate is 13 ... d6 14 'iid2 :e8 15 :abl Ab8 16 :ec1 .i.a8 17 ttJd5 l:tc8 18 b3 ttJc5 19 l:td 1 ttJe6 20 1 :b8 21 flel flc8 with equality, MagyarPigusov, Budapest 1989) 14 exf5 :xf5 (14 ... gxf5 is a viable alternative) 15 'iid2 ttJe5 16 liJd4 ttJxd4 17 .i.xd4 'iic7 18 ttJd5 .i.xd5 19 cxd5 :afS with excellent chances for Black, Ekabson-Terentiev, USSR 1983. g) 11 :cl ttJf4 12 :f2?! (alternatively, 12 'ii'd2 ttJxd4?! [both 12 ... ttJe6 and 12 ... ttJxe2+ are superior] 13 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 14 flxd4 'iic7 15 ~hl e5? 16 'iid2 rJitg7 17 ':fdlllfd8 18 i.£1 ttJe6 19 b4 .i.c6 20 ttJb5 flb8 21 ttJd6 with a big edge for White, SmirinGrechinin, Smolensk 1992, or 12 i.xf4 ttJxd4 13 'ikd2 d6 14 i.h6 i.xh6 15 'ikxh6 e5 16 i.d3 ttJe6 17 .:tfdl a6 18 fle3 i.c6 19 ttJe2 :b8 20 i.bl 'iie7 with equal chances, as in Schinzel-Pytel, Poland 1980) 12 ... ttJxd4 13 i.xd4 i.h6! 14 l:tc2 ttJe6 15 i.£1 :c8 16 ttJd5 ttJxd4 17 'iixd4 e5?! (l7 ...d6! would have given Black a slight pull) 18 'iid3 .i.xd5 19 cxd5 'iig5 20 ':fe2 :fd8 21 g3 i.fS 22 i.h3 1/2- 112 GulkoYusupov, Groningen 1994.

:bc

11

dxc6

This is the most natural recapture. Black returns the pawns to a symmetrical configuration. However, in Khuzman-Hergott, Bie! 1993, Black did not experience many problems after 11...i.xc6 either: 12 c5 b5 13 g4 ttJf6 14 'iic2 e5 15 a4 a6 16 :fdl 'iie7 17 :d2


l:tfd8 18 l:txd8 lhd8 19 axb5 axb5 20 l:ta7 l:td7 21 b4 ttJe8 22 ~g2 .i.c8 23l:hd7 112-112.

12 f4 Possibly better is 12 c5, when in Grunberg-Certek, Bratislava 1992, Black was crushed after 12 ... lib8? 13 f4 .i.xc3 14 bxc3 ttJf6 15 "c2 b5 16 iLd4 ttJd7 17 f5 ttJe5 18 f6 "c7 19 "d2 exf6 20 l:txf6 "e7 21 l:tael l:tae8 22 ~6 iLc8 23 l:t1£4 g5 24 "xg5+ ttJg6 25 l:th4 iLe6 26 lhh7 ~xh7 27 'ifh5+ 1-0. In fact 12 ...~8? is not necessary; 12... b5 is much better, when Silman gives l3 f4 b4! 14 ttJa4 ttJf6 15 .i.f3 iLa6 16l:t£1 .i.b5 and 15 iLd3 "a5 with good play for Black in both cases.

Nunn/Gallagher suggests that White is better after 15 "c2, but 15 .....a5 is still fully adequate for Black. 12 lib3?! has also been tried, but after 12... iLd4! l3 iLxd4 "xd4+ 14 ~hl ttJf4 15 l:tfdl "e5 16 .i.f1 llfd8 17 a4 ttJe6 18 ttJe2 ttJc5 19 "c2 a5, Black was better in Kuznetsov-Silman, USA 1986. 12 .i.xc3 13 bxc3 ~xdl 14 ':'fxdl 14 ~xdl c5 15 .i.f3 ttJf6 16 e5 .i.xf3 17 gxf3 ttJh5 18 l:td7 llfd8 is also fine for Black. 14 c5 llfd8 15 e5 16 a4 ttJg7 16 ... ~f8 is inaccurate. Magem Badals-Apicella, Moscow 01 1994, saw 17 llxd8+ l:hd8 18 a5 .i.e4 19 ~£1 ttJg7 20 g4 f5 21 exf6 gxf6 22 axb6 axb6 23 lla6 with a small advantage for White. as 17 lIxdl+ 18 ':'xdl ttJe6 19 ~f2 h5! 20 ':'al .i.e4 21 .i.f3 .i.xt3 22 'it>xf3 ':'b8 l/Z-Ifl

3

Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations

Chapter Guide 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J..g7 6 J..e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 J..e2 d6 9 0-0 9 ...lLlxd4 10 J..xd4 10... J..e6 - Game 18 10... J..d7 - Game 19 9...:e8 10 a3 - Game 20 10 1t'd2 - Game 21 9 ... J..d7 - Game 22 10 f3 - Game 23 lOf4 10 lLlb3 - Game 24 10 lLlc2 1O.. .'ifa5?! - Game 25 10...a6!? 11 'il'd2 - Game 26 11 f3 - Game 27 lOl:tbl - Game 28 10l:tc1 - Chapter 4/5 10'il'd2 - Chapter 4/5

Whilst other systems have had their ups and downs over the years, the Classical system has remained quite popular. Black first strives to exchange a set of knights and the dark-squared bishops on d4; then the plan is to transfer the f6-knight to c5, put the light-squared bishop on c6, play ... a7-a5 and the rest

depends on the particular set-up chosen by White. Like most other systems in the Maroczy, Black gets quite a solid position, but here Black also has chances to play for a win, which probably explains why the system has remained a popular choice. It has been a favourite of Larsen's for

Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 55

several years, while Anand and Petursson are also happy to take the black side. This chapter deals with early deviations from the main lines with 9... .i.d7 10 .d2 or 10 :tcl, which are dealt with in the following two chapters. However, Black must be careful with his move order, as we will see.

and ...Wa5 is not very logical here, since White can take back on d4 with the bishop. Compared to the lines where White has to capture with the queen on d4, losing time since the queen cannot stay in the line of the bishop on g7 forever, he now has the chance to grab more space, which should give him an edge.

Game 18 A.Sokolov-Nemet Bem 1992 (1 e4 <:5 2 tLlf3 tLl<:6 3 d4 ud4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 <:4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 tLlf6 7 tLld 0-0 8 ~e2)

d6 8 The immediate 8... a5 has been tried on a few occasions. The most direct attempt at refutation was 9 0-0 a4 10 c5!?, as played in NunnHaik, Paris 1983, when, after 10... d5 11 cxd6 .xd6 12 lLldb5 'ifb4 13 a3 Wa5 14 f4 e5 15 fxe5 tLlxe5 16 :txf6 .i.xf6 17 tLld5 .i.d8?, White won in great style. It was much better to play 17 ...!ta6, when it is not clear whether White can break through. If White plays a move other than 10 c5!?, then Black will play ....a5, defending the a4-pawn, and then simply develop nonnally. An interesting way to prevent this is 9 f3!?, defending the e4-pawn and planning to meet 9 ... a4? with 10 tLlxa4. The standard answer to f3, 9 ...1i'b6, can be met by 10 tLlcb5, as Black cannot kick the knight with ... a7-a6! Black will probably have to play 9 ... d6 transposing to Andersson-Larsen in the notes to Game 30. 9 0-0 lLlxd4 The plan with ... tLlxd4, ... J..e6

.i.xd4 .i.e6 f4!? The most direct approach, but White has other good moves, too. ~m:~ov ~layed the prophylactic 11 hl!?l against Gheorghiu in osc0W1967 and was successful after 11....a5 12 .d3 :tfc8 13 b3 a6 14 f4 b5?! 15 cxb5 axb5 16 tLlxb5, since Black does not have enough compensation for the pawn. With 11 ~h 1!? White avoids the plan with ....c8 and ....i.g4 since he is not yet committed to f2-f4 and can simply reply f2-f3. Gheorghiu's play was in fact quite logical, trying to punish the 'slow' 11 'it>hl!?, but as it turned out to be insufficient, it seems that 11 ~hl!? is an excellent move, forcing Black to show his cards. 11 .d2 is also possible, but after 10

11

56 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations

11...a6 White should not playas in Larsen-Browne, Siegen 01 1970, where after 12 ':adl?! b5! 13 cxb5 axb5 14 b4 'iVb8 15 ':fel ':c8 White could not win the b5-pawn for tactical reasons. Realising that if he did nothing, Black would put something on c4 with the much better position, Larsen tried 16 ~f3 lbd7 17 ~xg7 Q;xg7 18 e5.:ta3 19 exd6 l:axc3 but did not have enough for the piece, although he later managed to swindle his way to a draw. Maybe White should have played 12 a4 instead, to control the queenside, and try to exploit the weakening of the b6square. In general, White stands better in this line since he is well prepared to meet any action on the queenside. 11 l:c8 More in the spirit of 10... ~e6 is 11..:ii"a5, but after 12 Q;hl ':ac8 13 b3 l:fe8 14 'it'd3 the logical question is: What next, Mr Black? Ornstein's answer against Tukmakov in Yerevan 1976 was the 'positionally logical' 14 ...lbd7??, but unfortunately after 15 f5! lbc5 16 ~xc5! White won a piece, since 16...dxc5 17 fxe6 ~xc3 18 exf7+ picks up a rook. But Black already has a bad position, e.g. 14...a6 is simply answered with 15 a4, and Black has no useful plan. 11....c8, with the idea of exchanging bishops with ... ~g4, has been tried a few times. After 12 b3 l:d8 13 'i'd3 ~g4 14 ~xg4 'i'xg4 15 f5 'i'h4 16 h3 a6 Black was okay in Panno-Najdorf, Buenos Aires 1968. 14 ':adl was later suggested as an improvement, keeping the pressure up and not activating the black queen. Yet Silman and

Donaldson's 13 h3!?, preventing the bishop exchange and seriously questioning the value of ...•c8 and ...:d8, seems even better. ~d7?! 12 b3 Better is 12 ...•a5, as in Korchnoi-Granda Zuniga, Buenos Aires 1993. After 13 f5 (13 ~hl transposes to Tukmakov-Omstein above) 13 ... ~d7 14 a3 .d8 15 b4 b6, White has more space but after 16 .d3 ~c6 17 :adl l:c7 18 "'e3 "'a8 Korchnoi could find nothing better than 19 ~xf6 ~xf6 20 lbdS ~xd5 21 :xdS with an okay position for Black. 17 "'e3!? is interesting, with the idea of replying to 17 ... ':c7 with 18 a4, since White still has his rook on a1. If 17 ...lbd7, then 18 ~xg7 ~xg7 19 .l:tf3 with an attack on the kingside. 13 eS! Black was trying to put his bishop on c6 with a normal position, but White wants more, well motivated by the fact that Black has lost too much time. 13 dxeS 14 fxeS! Now White gets an isolated pawn, but since it can be used aggressively, this is not a big problem. 14 lLle8 'i'd2 ~c6 15 l:adl 'ii"c7 16 'i'e3 17 Black is suffering; his pieces are not co-ordinated, and the knight on e8 gets in the way. l:d8 17 Threatening 18 ... ':xd4, when Black will get the e5-pawn and a lot of play on the dark squares; then he might even be better. 18 e6!


Now Black has the chance to enter an endgame, but in return White gets rid of his weak e-pawn. Black, on the other hand, is still left with a big problem: how to control the white queenside majority. 18 :'xd4 18 .. .f5 is positionally well justified: Black will swap twice on d4 and put the knight on d6. But after 19 iLxg7 ~xg7 20 "W'xa7 ~xe6 21 "W'e3 ~g7 22 ~d5 White keeps the advantage. iLxd4 19 :'xd4 20 :'xf7 exf7+ 21 'iVxd4 :'xn+ 22 ~f6 iLxfl Black hopes to become active after 23 'iVxa7 "W'e5 followed by ... ~g4, but White is not so easily distracted. 23 c5! Simple and effective. The c4square is freed, and the pawns can start rolling. 23•••e5 24 "c4+ Ij;g7 25 b4 iLe8 26 a3 a6 27 iLe2 "d8 28 "d3! Black needs his queen to create counterplay. Without the queens White will simply advance his pawns, which in combination with a centralised king, gives excellent

winning chances. 28 .."e7 29 iLf3 as 30 ~e4 axb4 31 axb4 iLc6 32 "d6! "xd6 33 lLlxd6 e4 34 iLe2 lLld7?? Losing a piece, but Black was probably lost anyway. The white king will attack via f2-e3-d4. 35 b5 iLxb5 36 iLxb5 ~xc5 37 1j;f21j;f'6 38 e3 ~e6 39 ~xe4 1-0 It seems to us that if Black wants to play for ... iLe6, .....a5 and .J:tc8, he should rather prefer the line 1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 ~c3 d6 7 iLe2 ~xd4, since here White has too many promising ways of countering it. Game 19

Lautier-Koch Lyon zt 1990

(1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 iLg7 6 iLe3 ~f6 7 ~c3 0-0 8 iLe2 d6 9 0-0) 9 ~xd4 The idea of this move order is to avoid the systems with 10 ~c2 or 10 lLlb3, hoping simply to transpose to the main lines. 10 iLxd4 iLd7


11 "ii'd3!? This seems to be the only way to exploit Black's move order. White gets the same kind of position as in Game 28, without having wasted time on l:tbl. 11 a6?! Since Black is unlikely to get ... b7-b5 in, this seems rather pointless. More logical was 11.. .i.c6, as in Smyslov-Pirc, USSR 1956, when after 12 llfel tLld7 13 i.xg7
15 cxb5 i.d7 16 a4 i.e6 17 as tLld7 18 i.xg7 ri;xg7 19 b6 White has made considerable progress on the queenside, and Black must prevent the white knight from getting to c7. Although he can manage that, as is often the case with passive defence, one can defend one flank but disaster often strikes on the other. 19...tLlc5 20 tLlb5 tLla6 21 f4 i.d7 22 tLlc3 Lautier suggests that 22 tLld4! was even stronger, but the text does not ruin anything. 22 •••i.c6 23 f5 tLlc5 24 i.c4 "ii'd8 25 e5 tLld7 26 exd6 exd6 27 i.d5 ':c8 28 l:tadl i.xd5 29 tLlxd5 ':c5 30 ':f3 l:te8 13 .f4 tLle5 32 ':h3 h5 33 f6 ~h7 34 "ii'gS l:te6 35 l:txh51-0 Again a clean sweep by White. In the last two games the White players were clearly more skilled than their opponents. Still, the games are important for the understanding of typical Maroczy positions, since one can see how things can go wrong for Black, if he does not manage to time his counterplay correctly.

This move would have been pointless on move 11, Black would simply reply 1l...i.e6 and start attacking the c4-pawn. However, now that the bishop is on c6, this idea is not possible anymore. Therefore, White seizes space on the queenside. 13 "ii'b8 14 b5 axb5

Short·Larsen

Game 20 Naestved 1985

(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0) 9 :'e8!? An idea that Larsen said he thought of over the board. The idea

CLassicaL Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations 59 is, that while .. .l::te8 will always come in handy, White will now have to show his intentions first, and Black can then react accordingly.

10 a3?! Short decides to make a semiwaiting move as well, but in the game the pawn structure with a2-a3 and b2-b4 just seems to be weak. He should probably have gone for one of the options mentioned in the next game. 10 ~d7 11 f3 a6 12 b4 This is very weakening, but having played a2-a3, White can hardly do without it, e.g. 12 l:tc1 nc8 13 'ii'd2 ttJa5! wins for Black since ... e7 -e5 follows. 12 ':'c8 13 ':'c1 ttJxd4 14 ~xd4 ~h6!

(seejolLowing diagram) A common theme in the 9 ... ne8 system. With the rook on e8, f2-f4 can always be answered with ... e7e5, after which Black will pick up the e4-pawn. 15 ':'c2 ~e6 Black is already much better

since his pieces exert strong pressure on White's weaknesses. White has no choice but to playas in the game.

16 ttJd5 ttJxd5 17 exd5 Playing for symmetry and a draw with 17 cxd5 will just give Black control of the c-file after 17 ... ~d7. The bishop on h6 controls cl. 17 ~d7 ':'c3 18 e6 19 dxe6 ':'xe6 Black is very active, but White is hardly lost yet. 20 f4 seems like a good idea, preparing ~f3 as well as closing the cl-h6 diagonal. Instead, Short tries to liquidate to a draw, but is hit by some powerful tactics. 20 c5? ~a4! 21 "xa4 dxc5! 22 bxc5 l:he2 23 "c4??

(seejoLLowing diagram) Dropping a piece, but the position was tragic anyway. 23 ... b5! 0-1 Since Black seldom wins such tactical miniatures in the Maroczy, this game attracted a great deal of attention, and 9 ... ne8 became quite fashionable for a while.

60 CLassicaL Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations

Game 21 Cu.Hansen-P.H.Nielsen Copenhagen 1995

(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lbf6 7 lbc3 0-0 8 ..\te2 d6 9 0-0 :le8) 10 1id2 Numerous other moves have been tried here: a) In the tournament in which the previous game was played, Andersson played 10 f3 against Larsen. After 1O...lbd7 11 "d2 lbc5 12 :lfdl Larsen tried the provocative 12 .....a5 with the idea of 13 lbb3!? .ixc3 14 bxc3 "a3, which seems very dangerous to us. Of course, Andersson played his usual solid chess, trying to squeeze something out of the endgame with 13 :labl lbxd4 14 ~xd4 J..xd4+ 15 .xd4 lbe6 16.f2 .id7 17 f4 .c5. He did not succeed, and in the end it was Larsen who had some winning chances, before the game finally ended peacefully after 55 moves. A simpler approach for Black would have been l1...lbxd4 12 .ixd4 .ixd4+ 13 "xd4 'ii'b6. White has nothing after 14 "xb6

lbxb6 15 Afdl J..e6. In StohlFtacnik, Trencianske Teplice 1985, 11 l:.cl was played instead of 11 "d2, although after l1...lbc5 12 "d2 .a5 13 :fdl J..d7 14 ':bl lbxd4 15 i.xd4 J..xd4+ 16 .xd4 lbe6 White did not believe in his position and agreed a draw. b) Speelman tried 10 ':b 1 against Larsen in Hastings 1988, but after 1O... J..d7 11 'ifd2 a6 12 l:tfd 1 l:.c8 13 f3 lbxd4 14 ~xd4 ~e6 15 lbd5 lbxd5 16 cxd5 ~xd4+ 17 .xd4 ~d7 18 ]:thel "a5 19 a3 J..b5 Black had equalised. c) 10 :lcl is possible, e.g. 1O...lbxd4 11 ~xd4 and now: cl) 11...~h6!? and: cl1) 12 :lc2 e5 (12 ...b6!? is interesting, since White will find it difficult to co-ordinate his pieces and the 'misplaced' bishop on h6 is very disturbing for him; after 13 f3 ~b7 14 'ifel lbh5 15 g3 e5 16 J..f2, as in Pyhala-Rantanen, Pori 1986, Black has an excellent position with a pleasant choice between the positional ... llJg7-e6 or the aggressive ...t7-f5) 13 ~e3 ~xe3 14 fxe3 is very good for White, since Black cannot consolidate. A good try was 14.. .'.i1g7 15 ':d2 "a5 16 ':xd6 .ie6, as in Veingold-Hergott, Manila 01 1992. After 17 .d2 ':ad8 Black was close to getting some counterplay, but Veingold responded aggressively, and after 18 b4 'ii'b6 19 ':d5! llJxd5 20 llJxd5 ~xd5 21 exd5 Black could not stop the pawn-roller. c12) 12 f4!? e5 13 ~e3 is more testing, when 13 ... ~e6 seems unfortunate, since after 14 .d2 exf4 15 ~xf4 ~xf4 16.:xf4 Black has problems: llJb5 is a threat as well


as simply l:tdl when the d6-pawn will be lost. Black played 16 ...l:tc8? in Escalente-Williams, Dubai 01 1986, and lost a pawn after 17 e5! Better is 13 ... i.d7 when 14 Wxd6 i.c6 will regain the pawn.

Here 14 Wd3 was tried in KolevCid, Tortosa 1992, and after 14... i.g4? IS f5 White was much better. 14...exf4 IS i.xf4 i.xf4 16 l:txf4 i.c6, however, seems okay for Black. Although 17 :tcfl looks strong, after 17 ...llJd7 White cannot take on f7 because of ... lLle5, 18 .xd6 Wb6+ followed by ...•xb2 also seems fine, while after 18 'ii'h3 lLle5 19 l:th4 i.d7 Black also holds sufficient resources. 14 "ii'd2 is another idea, intending 14...exf4 IS i.xf4 i.xf4? 16 Wxf4 and wins, so Black should play 15 ... i.g7, since he now attacks the e4-pawn, and should therefore be fine. c2) If this scares you, then follow Wolff-Larsen, London 1989, when after 11...i.d7 12 Wd2 i.c6 13 f3 as 14 b3 lLld7 IS i.e3 lLlc5 16 l:tfdl 'iib6 it seems like Black has lost time, since the rook on e8 will have to go to c8, but as we will see later, the white rooks are better placed on bland cl, so one might argue that Black has actually won a tempo and not the opposite!

d) 10 lLlc2 is logical, since ...ne8 is hardly ever played in the lLlc2 systems. After 1O...llJd7 II Wd2 White has played i.e3 and 1Ii'd2 directly, and not first i.d2 as in the lLlc2 systems. The game WolffCebalo, Croatia 1991, continued 11...lLlc5 12 f3 and now Cebalo played 12 ... b6. However, this looks too passive, so we recommend 12 ... Wa5, intending to take on c3 and play ...lLla4. 13 b4 does not work since after the continuation 13 ... lLlxb4 14 lLldS lLlc6 15 'ii'xa5 lLlxa5 White will not win the exchange with lLlc7; he has to move the queen's rook first. 10 lLlg4

Demonstrating another point of the move 9...:te8; the bishop now goes straight to g4. 11 i.xg4 i.xg4 12 h3 In the 9... i.d7 system the rook would have been on f8, when 12 f4! would be strong. However, this can now be met by 12 ...llJxd4 13 i.xd4 e5! with excellent prospects for Black, as in Mohring-Topakian, Eger 1988, when after 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 i.e3 "ii'xd2 16 i.xd2 i.e6 17 lLldS :ac8 18 nacl f5 Black is


fine. If White avoids this ending and goes for 14 ~e3 instead, simply 14... exf4 IS ~xf4 ~e6 is okay for Black, since his bishops are strong. Finally, 12 f3 was played in Magem Badals-P.H.Nielsen, Moscow 01 1994, when after 12 ... ~d7 13 b3 "as 14 ~h1 l:tac8 IS :adl a6 16 :fe 1 lDxd4 the game was agreed drawn. 12 ~d7 13 l:tadl l:tc8 14 lDxc6!? This forces Black to take with the rook, since 14... ~xc6 IS i..xa7! is bad for Black. 14 b3 would meet with 14...a6 followed by ...b7-bS, which should equalise. l:txc6 14 15 b3 "as 16 ~d4 ~e6? This turns out badly. Better would have been 16...~xd4 17 "xd4 a6, going for ...b7-bS again. 17 ~xg7 ~xg7 18 f4! f6? The standard way of parrying the white kingside attack. Now 19 fS ~f7 keeps things under control. Unfortunately, Black had missed some other tactics. 19 lDbS!

Strong play! Black cannot exchange queens due to the attack on a7 as well as the threat of lDd4, winning the exchange. 19.....b6+ 20 'iPhl ~f7 21 eS! dxeS 22 dxe5 l:te6 22 ... fxe6 23 1I'c3 was awful as well, so Black hopes to get some play along the e-file. 23 exf6+ exf6 24 lbd6! Stopping Black's dreams of activity in their tracks. 24 ...:l8e7 2S lDc8 is embarrassing, but now it is clear that the difference between the knight on d6 and bishop on f7 will decide the game. 24...:lf8 25 b4 "c7 26 c5 b6 27 'W(2 bxc5 28 bxc5 :lb8? The fmal mistake, but Black 'was lost anyway. 29l:tae1 'We7 30 'Wg3 30 lbfS+ wins as well. 30...l:txe1 31 :lxell-0 Black's disaster in this game cannot be blamed on 9 ...:le8, which does seems to be playable. Game 22 Annakov-P.H.Nielsen Buenos Aires 1992 (1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lbf6 7 lDc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0)

9 ~d7 The immediate 9... aS has also been tried here, but Andersson showed the right antidote against Larsen in Linares 1983. After 10 f3! lDd7 11 lbdbS lDc5 12 11'd2 a4 13 :lfd1 "a5 14 :lacl i.e6 15 lDd5 "xd2 16 :lxd2 Black has very few active options. Still, the black position is very solid, and with careful play such as 16...l:tfd8


and 17 ...~fS White is only slightly better. Larsen decided to be active with 16....i.xd5 17 cxd5 ll'lb4, but the nonnally very careful Swede now aggressively gave up the exchange with 18 Axc5! and won after 18 ... dxc5 19 .i.xc5 ll'lxa2 20 .i.xe7 l:.fc8 21 f4 .i.fS 22 d6 ll'lb4 23 .i.h4 :tc1 + 24
The standard move is 1O... ll'lxd4, transposing to the main lines, but since White has played inaccurately, why not punish him? 11 ll'la4 Several other moves have also been tried: a) Worse is 11 "d2? as played in Leko-P.H.Nielsen, Kecskemet 1991, when after 11...ll'lxd4! 12 "xd4 "xb2 Black was already nearly winning, and achieved an easy victory.

b) For some reason 10 f3?! seems to be popular among young prodigies. In Gistrup 1997, the Russian U-12 champion Vladimir Belov played 11 ll'lcb5 against P.H.Nielsen, and was nearly winning after 11...a6 12 ll'lc2 "a5 13 ll'lc3 l:.ac8 14 f4 b5? 15 c5!, although Black later managed to swindle a draw. !4 ... .i.e6 is much better, when Black is fine. c) 11 "d3 was played in Cuijpers-Rausis, Nimes 1991, when after 1l.....xb2 12 Aabl "a3 13 Axb7 ll'le5 14 "d2 Aac8 Black was better. d) White's best is 11 ~hl!, as in the game ·Rychagov-P.H.Nielsen, Norway 1997. The idea is that after 11.....xb2 12 ll'la4 "a3 13 .i.c! 1Wb4 14 .i.d2 "a3 15 ll'lb5 Black's queen is trapped. Since 12 .....xa1 13 'ii'xal ll'lxd4 14 .i.xd4 .i.xa4 15 f4 also looks good for White, I played 12 .....a3 13 .i.cl "xa4 14 "xa4 ll'lxd4 15 'iVdl ll'lxe2? 16 "xe2ll'lxe4, overlooking 17 .i.a3!, which gave White a winning position: he wins the e7-pawn. Still, this line is playable since Black has 15 ... ll'lxe4! The point is 16 .i.b2 ll'lxe2 17 .i.xg7 ll'l4g3+ 18 hxg3 ll'lxg3+ 19 ~g 1 ~xg7, which is excellent for Black. 16 fxe4 ll'lxe2 17 .i.g5 ll'lc3 18 'ii'd3 f6! also seems fine for Black, who has some pawns and two pieces which in this position is enough for the queen. White has no targets, and Black, if given time, simply attacks c4 and e4 and could easily be better. 11 12 ll'lc3 This looks clumsy, but the white position is still very solid.

"as


ttlxd4 12 l:lfc8 ~xd4 13 'ii'd2 ~e6 14 bS! 15 b3 Now White wins some time, but Black gets the c5-square for his knight! 16 b4!? 16 cxb5 lLlxe4 gives Black a good game, since he gets the c-file. 16 'ii'xb4 17 Aabl 'ii'aS 18 l:lxbS 'ii'd8 19 lLldS lLld7! The usual strategy, but here even better than normal, since the knight will become a monster on c5. 20 ~e3 lLlcs 21 ~xdS More ambitious was 21...f6 and then ... f6-f5 later. cxdS ~f6! 22

f.\IS

A typical trick, Black always wants to exchange bishops, which will magnify the imbalance between the knight on c5 and bishop on e2. The threat is 23 ...~xg5 24 'ii'xg5 e5! 23 ~xf6?? A positional blunder but a very common one. White imagines that he is wrecking Black's pawn

structure as well as getting the bfile. But as Larsen has once explained, Black gets rid of the weakness on e7 and has the e-file combined with the break .. .f6-f5. As we will shall see, White's play on the b-file is an illusion: the knight on c5 will defend the b7square forever. Much better would have been 23 ~e3 when White is okay. 23 ...exf6 24 'ii'd4 'ii'e7 25 l:lb2 'ii'eS 26 'ii'xeS fxeS 27 ~bS l:lab8 28 l:ltbl fS 29 exfS gxfS 30 ~c6 l:lxb2 31 l:lxb2 ~g7 White might seem to be active, but neither the bishop nor the rook can do anything active, since this will give Black control over the bfile. 32 g3 ~f6 33 ~g2 l:lg8 34 l:lb4 e4 3Sf4 Keeping the black king away from e5. 3S...hS 36 l:lbl h4 37 ~bS? h3+! The pawn cannot be taken, since ...l:lb8 wins a piece, as in the game. 38 ~f2? 0-1 This loses a piece. 38 cJtfl was necessary, but of course Black wins the ending after 38 ...l:lb8 39 ~d3 .l:txbl. The knight is far superior to the bishop. After 38 ~f2 Ab8 39 'iti>e3 l:lb7! and ... a7-a6 will pick up the bishop! It is worth noting that the knight on c5 never moved. It never had to, since White could not threaten it in any way. On c5 it simply controlled everything. Game 23

Kapetanovic-Petursson New York 1987

(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlf6 7


nearly always a good idea, unless White has prepared some quick action on the queenside, such as b2-b4, which is clearly not the case here. 14 .d2 A useful move which includes a small trap: 14...•a5 15 tLld5 is embarrassing. 14 liJd7 Black is running out of useful waiting moves, so he sticks to the standard plan. IS .txg7 'i&?xg7 f6! 16 l:dl

tLlc3 0-0 8 .te2 d6 9 0-0 .td7) 10

f4!?

Ambitiously trying to seize space. 10 tLlxd4 Here 10..."'6 is pointless, as after 11 tLlc2! .xb2 12 tLla4 White wins the queen. However, 1O... a6 is possible, e.g. 11 l:tcl l:tc8 12 lIe8 13 :fel e5! with a good position for Black, as in AntoshinBoleslavsky, Moscow 1957. Later the right plan was found for White: 11 'i&?hl :c8 12 :tcl:e8 13 tLlb3! tLla5 14 e5! tLlxc4 15 .td4 tLlxb2 16 .d2 dxe5 17 fxe5 tLlc4 18 i.xc4 :xc4 19 exf6 exf6 and Black's compensation is insufficient, Grooten-Vladimirov, Graz 1981. This probably means that 10... a6 is too ambitious. If White avoids exchanges, Black has problems with the co-ordination of his pieces. 11 i.xd4 i.e6 12 .to as 13 lin a4! White's 10 f4 showed that his intentions are on the kingside, so Black seizes as much space as possible on the queenside. This is

"d2

This looks like it weakens the light squares, but as we shall see Black's counterplay on the dark squares is more important. 17 i.g4 liJe5 18 .e3 .as 19 l:fd2 .a7! Forcing an exchange of queens, which signals an end to White's dreams of an attack. 20 .to liJe6 21 .xa7 l:xa7 22 g3 :a5 23 tLld5 .txd5 24 l:xd5 l:xdS 25 :xd5 tile5 26 i.dl a3!? Brave. It would have been safer to activate the king and rook first. 27 b4 tilxe4 28 :as l:e8 29 i.b3 tLld2 30 l:xa3 tilxb3 31 axb3 b5!?


32 cxbS rbf7 33 ~f2 :b8 34 l:aS l:b7 35 rbe3 eS 36 rbdJ rbe6 37 ~c4 l:e7 38 c6 ~a7 SO ~c7 l:c2+ 112_112 Although Black did not win this game, we once more saw an example of his chances, including a consistent dark-squared strategy. Game 24 Korchnoi-Anand Wijk aan Zee 1990 (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7 6 i..e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 0-0 8 i..e2 d6 9 0-0 i..d7)

10

tLlb3!?

This looks clumsy, but since after 9 ... i..d7 Black clearly intends to trade knights and play ... i..c6, there is some point in preventing this. 10 as!? Certainly the most direct way of meeting 10 lLlb3, although other moves have been tried: a) 10... lLla5 was a non-starter in Short-Hamdouchi, Lucerne 1989,

after 11 tLld2 a6 12 :c 1 Black found nothing better than 12 ...tLlc6 13 a3 e5?! 14 tLlb3, which Short did not have any problems in converting into a full point. b) 10 ...b6 has some points, besides preventing the c4-c5 break. In Polugayevsky-Ljubojevic, Roquebrune 1992, Black managed to draw after 11 f3 tLle8 121M2 l:lc8 13 l:acl tLle5 14 tLld5 e6 15 tLlf4 'fIe7 16 :fdl f5 17 exf5 l:xf5 18 tLld4 l:f8, although his position seemed suspicious. After 11 l:lc 1 Black, obviously inspired by our main game, managed to get the usual knight versus bishop middlegame after l1...a5 12 tLld2 i..c8! 13 tLlb3?! i.b7 14 f3 tLld7 15 tLld4 tLlxd4 16 i..xd4 tLlc5 17 i..xg7 ~xg7 18 "'d4+ f6 19 tLld5? e5 20 'fId2 i..xd5 21 cxdS 'fId7 22 b3 b5 and won easily in VescoviP.H.Nielsen, Buenos Aires 1992. 11 tLld2

11 i..c8!? Very original play by Anand. He believes that the knight is placed less well on d2 than on d4 and now transfers the knight to c5 with comfortable play. 12 l:c1


12 c5!? was tried in Sion-Vilela, Cuba 1991, but this 'unbinds' the Maroczy and should not worry Black, who equalised with 12 ... dxc5 13 ~xc5 ~e6. 12 ~d7 13 ~b3 b6 14 ~d4 Not very impressive, but the knight was indeed clumsy on d2. 14 ~xd4 15 ~xd4 ~h6!? 16 f4 After 16 l%c2, 16 ... e5!? 17 ~e3 ~xe3 will destroy the white pawn structure. 16...~b717 ~e3 ~c518 b3 18 1i'c2 ~g7 would leave the e4-pawn weak anyway. 18...~xe4 19 ttJxe4 ~xe4 20 1i'd4 ~c621 f5! A strong pawn sacrifice which Black wisely rejects. 21.. .~xe3+ 22 1i'xe3 followed by 'iVh6 is really dangerous. 21 ...~g7 22 1i'xb6 1i'd7 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 ~g5 a4 25 1i'e3 axb3 26 axb3 :82 27 :n 1i'e6 28 ~f3 112_112 10 ~b3 seems to misplace the knight somewhat, so if you want to avoid 1O...~xd4, 10 ~c2 is certainly our recommendation. Game 25 Short-Andersson Wijk aan Zee 1990

(1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 .ie3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7) 10

ttJc2!?

An interesting and quite logical

way of side-stepping the main lines by not allowing 1O... ttJxd4. Com-

pared to the normal ~c2 systems, an additional plus is that plans with ... ~xc3 are dubious for Black, since the knight on c3 will be defended simply with 11M2, given that the bishop is already on e3.

10 1i'aS?! To us this just seems to provoke White to seize more space by hitting the queen. One might argue that White thereby weakens his position, but here this seems less important than the extra space. 1O...a6 is seen in Games 26 and 27. 11 f4!? Ambitious. More usual is the solid 11 f3, when after 11...:fc8 12 "d2, Lutz-Vokac, Dortmund 1991, continued 12 ...~e8?! 13 :acl a6 14 Itfdl :ab8 when Lutz simply played 15 ttJd4!?, claiming that the two tempi spent by ~d4-c2-d4 had been used poorly by Black, since his queen and the bishop on e8 seem misplaced. Vokac played 15 ...~d7 16 ttJb3 1i'd8, and although he lost the game, it seems to us that by playing ... a7-a5, ... b7-b6 and ... ttJc5 here, Black would have been fine, since he reaches the normal solid structure. Similar to our main game is the

68 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations encounter Ribli-Qi, Bled 1979, which might in fact have been the game that inspired Short: 11 a3 lUc8 12 f4!? ~e6 13 'iti'hl "d8 14 l:[bl 1Wd7 15 "d2 b6 16 b3, when White controlled a lot of space, and if Black does nothing, he risks being suffocated. After 16 ...1:f8 17 ~gl lDe8 18 ~f3 1:c8 19 lDd5 f5 20 :the 1 White won easily. 11 :ac8 12 :bl a6 13 b4!?

Again very committal. Now the c4-pawn will be very difficult to defend if it is attacked, but since both a5 and e5 are unavailable for the black knights, White can afford to play like this. 13 "d8 14 "d3 Even more ambitious would have been 14 h3, not allowing Black to trade bishops. ~g4 14 IS ct>hl ~xe2 16 "xe2 e6?! Why not 16... lDd7, when Black's position would still be reasonably healthy? cS! 17 Short offers to exchange the

weak d6-pawn, but for example 17 ... dxc5 18 ~xc5 :te8 19 :fdl would mean serious problems for Black's queen. 17 dS 18 :fdl :e8 Played to discourage e4xd5, since now this would give Black some activity along the e-file. 19 a4 "e7 20 bS axbS 21 eS lDd7 22 lDxbS! Excellent play. After the standard 22 axb5, the white pawns might end up as weaknesses, but now lDd6 is threatened. 22 ...:b8 23 lDd6 :18 24lDd4 f6 The only chance. Black cannot sit around and watch his queenside collapse. 25 lDxb7 lDxd4 26 ~xd4 fxeS 27 fxeS :f4 28 c6 :xd4 29 :xd4 lDxeS 30 :db4lDxc6 31 :b6lDd4 32"g4 White has everything under control. The a-pawn is a winner. 32...:18 33 as ~eS 34 a6 "f6 35 :gl Not 35 a7??"fl! 3S... ~c7 36 :bbl "eS 37 "h3 ~b8 38 lDcs "d6 39 :b7 hS 40 lDd71-0 This game, along with Ribli-Qi (see note to White's 11th above), indicates that 1O.....a5?! is rather dubious. By playing ambitiously, White can secure a large space advantage. Game 26 Anand-Larsen Roquebrune (rapid) 1992

Normally we would not consider using a rapid game as one of the


main games, but with two real experts on the Maroczy playing each other, we hope you will forgive this exception. (1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 J..g7 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 d6 7 J..e2 0-0 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 J..e3 J..d7 10 lLlc2) 10

a6!?

Black claims that with 10 lLlc2, White has weakened his control of bS. Now White will constantly have to worry about the ... b7-bS break. It is not an immediate threat, but since White has no immediate plan either, Black has enough time to prepare it. 'ir'd2 11 11 f3 is the subject of the next game. l:te8!? 11 Anyone else would have played 11 ... l:tc8, preparing an attack on the c4-pawn. However, Larsen claims that the rook will be useful on e8. It defends e7 and if, at some point, a white knight is exchanged on d5, and White recaptures with a pawn, Black has the ... e7-e6 break, opening the e-file. As we saw in Game 20, this long-term plan can sud-

denly become a reality. 12 f3 ':'c8 13 ':'ac1 'ir'a5! Now this is an excellent square for the queen. White will not get in both f3-f4 and b2-b4, since Black will attack the c4-pawn in the meantime. ':'fdl 14 lLle5 lLlaJ 15 15 b3 bS! was not an option for White. 15 h5!? Again typical Larsen, who believes that this is nearly always useful. It gives the black king some air and controls the g4-square, while under favourable circumstances the h-pawn might march on and create weaknesses in the white camp. Other players have claimed that, at best, ... h7-h5 is just meaningless, losing a tempo and creating a potential weakness! In general, we agree with Larsen, and indeed here, since both sides are manoeuvring, Black can afford the luxury of a tempo. However, it is important to stress that ... h7-hS is not essential for Black in the Maroczy, but only useful if Black's forces are already well placed. ~n 16 A clear indication that White is experiencing difficulties in finding a useful plan. J..a4!? 16 (see following diagram) Again a surprising decision. Black offers his opponent the bishop pair, since this would mean an exchange of the well-placed knight on c3, leaving White with only the ugly knight on a3. l:r.el J..c6 17 18 lLld5

70 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations ~h6+ is even worse. 33...l:c2+ 34 e3 l:xgl 35 lLlc5 f6 36lLld7? l:e2+ 37 ~f4 ~xd7 0-1 Winning a piece. 38 l:xd7 is met by the thematic 38 ... ~h6+.

Game 27

Short-Petursson Tilburg 1992

(1 e4 c5 2 lLlO lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 d6 7 ~e2 ~g7 8 ~e3 0-0 9 0-0 ~d7 10 lLl(2) White goes for the classical endgame edge, but Black is well armed for immediate counterplay. 18 1ixdl 19 ~xdl lLld7 20 b4?! Too optimistic. This turns out just to weaken the white position; 20 b3 was more sensible. 20 e6 21 lLle3 lLl b6 22 h3 ~h6! Now it is getting unpleasant, as White's position is becoming rather loose. Black has no immediate threat, but given time he will double on the c-file and put pressure onc4. 23 c5 dxc5 24 l:xc5 l:cd8 25 ~c1 lLld3 26 ~xd3 l:xd3 27 lLlec4 lLlxc4 28 lLlxc4 ~f8 29 lLle5 ~xc5 30 lLlxd3 ~f8 White has just about managed to avoid losing material, but this does not mean an end to his suffering. The black pair of bishops will win a queenside pawn, unless White plays as in the game, which on the other hand is also highly unpleasant! 31 a3 ~b5 32 ~e2 l:c8 33 l:dl Losing material, but 33 'iti'd2

10 a6!? Usually 1O.. .l:tc8 just transposes, but some games have taken an independent course. For example, after 11 f3: a) 11...lLla5!? might be a strong option, when 12 lLla3 is met by 12 ... ~e6!, as in Holmsgaard-Hoi, Aalborg 1992. The idea is 13 lLld5 lLlxd5 14 cxd5 ~xb2! Here Holmsgaard gave up the exchange with 15 lLlb5, but his position was bad anyway. 12 b3 seems more logical, but after 12 ...a6, ... b7-b5 is a threat and 13 1id2 b5 14 cxb5 'ilc7 15 ~d4 axb5 16 lLlb4 1ib7 seems fine for Black. b) 11...~e6, as in Miles-Piket, Groningen 1992, is inferior, when after 12 1id2 lLld7 13 :acl 1ia5? (better is 13 ... a5, as in SerperHracek, Jakarta 1994) 14 b4! lLlxb4 15 ~d5 ~xdS 16 exdS lLlxc2!? 17 1ixa5 lLlxe3. Although Piket has two pieces and a pawn plus a lot of play on the dark squares, a queen is a queen, and Miles duly won the game. In order to avoid the 'Hoi' plan, 11 1id2 or 11 l:cl first and then a later f2-f3 should probably be preferred.


1984, in which he was successful with 14... lZ'lc5 15 b3 a5 16 lZ'ld4 i.xd5 17 exd5 lZ'lxd4 18 i.xd4 i.xd4+ 19 "xd4 'ii'b6 20 :fdl lZ'ld7. Here Black has the classical, very favourable ending, with a strong knight versus a bad bishop, which he converted into a full point. Short would hardly have played 16 lZ'ld4, but we cannot see what else he had in mind.

11 f3 :cS 11...lZ'le5 was tried in PetrosianRytov, Tallinn 1979. After 12 b3 :'c8 13 a4 "a5 14 "el i.c6 15 l:tdllZ'led7 16 'ifilhl "c7 17lZ'ld4 b6 18 i.d3! lZ'lc5 19 i.c2 i.b7 20 'iVh4 Petrosian had the queenside under control, and later broke through on the kingside. 12 a4 Like .Petrosian, Short wants to keep the queenside under control, but here the knight is still on c6, from where it controls some dark squares. Petursson is able to make excellent use of that in the game. The less committal 12 lZ'la3 was tried in Tempone-Spangenberg, Trewel 1995: 12 ... lZ'le5 (possible now, since with the knight on a3, White cannot get the pawn to a4 easily) 13 'ii'd2 i.c6 14 :ac1 l:te8 15 b4 b6 16 llfdl lZ'led7 17 i.f1 "c7 18 'ii'b8 led to a typical hedgehog structure, with reasonable chances for Black. 12 i.e6 13 lZ'ldS lZ'ld7 14 :bl as For some reason, Petursson chose to vary from the game P.Cramling-Petursson, Reykjavik

"f2

15 b4 Not very frightening. Black is well placed to meet this direct attempt, but Short was probably already happy with simplifications and a draw. 15 axb4 16 lZ'lcxb4 lZ'laS 17 i.d4 i.xd4+ 18 "xd4 lZ'lc6 19 'ii'e3 20 lZ'ld3 :xa4 21 :xb7 :&3 22 'ii'd2 i.xdS 23 cxdS lZ'ld4 24 :tbl 1/'1._ 1/Z Simple play by Black, but still enough to make a comfortable draw against a world championship finalist. 10 lZ'lc2 is certainly a reasonable weapon for White if he

:as

72 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations

wants to avoid the main lines, but after careful study of the games of Larsen and Petursson, players of the black pieces should not be scared. Game 28 Larsen-J.Sorensen Aa/borg 1989 (1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7 6 i..e3 ~f6 ~c3 0-0 8 i..e2 d6 9 0-0 i..d7) 10

4 7

l:bl!?

Typical Larsen. Most people play 10 ':'cl, so of course he has to play 10 ':'bl. It is hardly better but it is different! 10 ~xd4 11 i..xd4 i..c6 as 12 "d3 13 b3 ':'e8 ':'fdl! 14 White wants to meet ... ~d7 with i..xg7, so it is very important to keep pressure on the d6-pawn to prevent Black from playing the standard plan of putting his pawn on e5 and then directing the knight to d4 via c5-e6. 14

J.xg7 ~xg7 15 16 l:.d2 b6?! Too passive. Black tries to play solidly, but this square belongs to the queen. After 16 ... 'ii'b6 Black would have had more options than in the game. 17 "e3 "c7 18 .l:r.bdl ':'ac8? A very instructive mistake. The knight belongs on c5, and should go there immediately. i..g4! 19 It is nearly always favourable for White to exchange his lightsquared bishop in the Maroczy. He already has several pawns on the light squares. 19 l:tcd8 20 ':'xd7 i..xd7 21 ~d5 i..xd5 22 ':'xd5!

It was Mikhail Botvinnik who first pointed out that with only the heavy pieces left on the board, it is much easier to break through with e4-e5 after recapturing with the rook on d5, than to get any advantage from the pressure on the e-file after e4xd5. And so it is in this game, where Black is indeed in big trouble. White easily combines


threats of a breakthrough, while Black can only sit and wait.

22...:ed8 23 h4 f6 24 a4 e6 25 :b5 :b8 26 h5 :b7 27 'iVh3 :e7 28 'ii'g3 :d7 29 'ii'g4 :e7 30 :d3 'ii'b8 31 hxg6 hxg6 32 :h5 'ii'g8 33 :g3 rj;f7 34 :h6 rj;e8 35 :xg6 'ii'f7 36 c;i;1d7 37 e5 1-0

"1'3

It is important to note how bad Black's position was after 19 i.g4! in order to avoid ending up like this. White simply won numerous tempi by attacking the weak spots in Black's position, and in the end smashed through efficiently on the kingside.

(4 ,

Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops

Chapter Guide I e4 c5 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J.g7 6 J.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 J.e2 d6 9 0-0 J.d7 10 ncl lLlxd4 11 J.xd4 J..c6 12 1i'd3 - Game 29 101i'd2 1O... a5 - Game 30 10•••lLlxd4 11 J.xd4 J.c6 12 J.d3 - Game 31 12 fJ as 13 'it>hllLld7 14 J.xg7 'it>xg7 IS f4 15 .. .f6 15 ... a4 This chapter and the next feature the main lines of the Maroczy Bind, Classical system. An important early decision that White has to face is whether or not to allow the exchange of the dark-squared bishops. This choice has a crucial effect on the future shape of the game. First of all, in this chapter, we deal with lines in which White allows the exchange, while Chapter 5 covers positions where he avoids the bishop-trade. If White intends to playa system with J.xg7, we believe that 10 1i'd2 is more precise than 10 llc1, since having exchanged dark-squared bishops, White's only attractive plan is to attack the weakened dark squares around Black's king.

- Game 32 - Game 33

Game 29 P.Cramling-Petursson Reykjavik 1984

(I e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J.g7 6 J.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 J.e2 d6 9 0-0 J.d7) 10 11

llct lLlxd4 J.xd4 J.c6 (see following diagram) 12 1i'd3!? White tries to get the same kind of position as in Game 19, but here she has wasted time on 10 llc 1. However, when Black plays the 9...J..d7 move order, there is nothing that White can do about this. Black is ready to play ... a7-a5 with the standard dark-square strategy.

Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops 75

The correct move order. 12 ... li)d7?! was punished by 13 .i.xg7 q,xg7 14 b4! in SmyslovGolz, Polonica Zdroj 1968, when White has achieved a typical advantage. 13 f4 The logical plan. It is now far more difficult for White to seize space on the queenside. 13 a4!?

Instead, White can also play 12 f3, with the exchange of darksquared bishops in mind. Here it is important for Black to respond with 12 ... a5, since 12 ... li)d7? was severely punished in RazuvaevHonfi, Cienfuegos 1976. After the thematic 13 b4! .i.xd4+ 14 "'xd4 'ii'b6 15 'ii'xb6! li)xb6 16 e5! dxe5 17 b5 .i.e8 18 c5 li)d7 19 li)d5 e6 20 li)e7+ q,g7 21 c6 Black was unable to stop the c-pawn. But if Black does play 12 ...a5 it seems that:tel is not a particularly useful move. For example, 13 b3 li)d7 14 .i.xg7 q,xg7 15 'ii'd4+ q,g8 16 :tfdl, as in AnderssonChristiansen, Hastings 1978, and now Black could have obtained an equal ending with 16 ... 'ii'b6, but who wants to play an ending against Andersson? In DokhoianGlek, Bonn 1994, Black instead played 15 ...f6!? in order to control the dark squares. After 16 ]:tfdl lbc5 17 :tb 1 'ii'b8 18 .i.fl :td8 19 'ii'e3 e5! 20 :td2 li)e6 21 :tbdl b6 22 g3 :a7 23 .i.h3 li)g5 24 .i.g2 tbe6 a draw was agreed. Black has equalised with the standard darksquared strategy.

12

as!

This is a very interesting idea. Normally, this move would be met by b2-b4, ... a4xb3, a2xb3, with an opening of the queenside favourable to White. But here the rook has left aI, which means that Black gets counterplay along the a-file. The 'standard' 13 ... li)d7 is also playable, which after 14 .i.xg7 q,xg7 leads to structures very similar to the main lines where White takes on g7. Normally White must play his pawn to f4 in two moves, but here White has played "'d3, where it is not well placed in this kind of structure. TimmanWedberg, Amsterdam 1984, continued 15 ~hl f6 16 :tedl "'e8 17 .d4"'f7 with equality. 14 ~hl Black again delays ... li)d7,

"'as

76 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops

keeping White guessing, while making useful moves. 15 "e3 15 ll)d5 might be a better idea, when Black has a choice of captures: a) White was successful in Dolmatov-Petursson, Reykjavik 1988, when after 15 ... ll)xd5 16 exd5 iLxd4 Dolmatov played 17 dxc6!? iLxb2 18 1:c2 ~4 19 cxb7, and Black blundered with 19 ...1:a511 20 llxb2 'ii'xb2 21 l:tb 1 with a lost position. It was probably better to play 18 ...a3, which seems okay for Black. It is noteworthy that White did not like the attractive 18 'ii'xd4 iLd7 19 iLd3 followed by f4-f5. b) Black had more success with 15 ...iLxd5 16 exdS ll)d7 in the game Petrakov-Mololkin, Moscow 1994, when after 17 i..xg7 ~xg7 18 l:tfel l:tfe8 19 iLflll)f6 20 'ii'd4 b6 21 h3 1i'c5 22 1i'd2 :a7 Black had a solid position. White now mistakenly played the 'active' 23 b4 axb3 24 axb3, and Black took the a-file with 24 ...11ea8 and later won the game. 15 ll)d7 Now, finally, Black plays the standard plan. 16 iLxg7 ~xg7 17 iLg4 "c5 Since this kind of ending is at least equal for Black due to White's bad bishop, Black wins time by threatening the exchange of queens. 18 "e2 ll)f6 19 iLh3 e5! A very strong move which probably gives Black the advantage. He now threatens ... e5xf4 followed by ...l:tae8, attacking the e4-pawn, which will be difficult to protect

with the bishop offside on h3.

20 f5 g5! Since the knight on f6 is a mighty defender, Black does not fear the possibility of a white kingside attack. 21 iLg4 h6 22 h4 llh8 23 iLh5 ~f8 24 ll)d5 iLxd5 25 cxd5 "as 26 llc4 b5 27 :'c3

This is a very interesting position. Place the white h-pawn on h2 and the bishop on d3, and White would be winning. Yet here the pawn on h4 secures Black counterplay on the kingside, since White will never be able to close it comfortably. It is difficult to say who is better, but Black seems to have


more than sufficient counterplay. 27 .• /be728l:tfc1.!:ta7 Black defends c7, but White will break through eventually. The only question is: will Black be able to break through on the kingside? 29 .tf3 .l%d7 30 a3 l:tb8 31 l:te6 'ii'd8 32 'ii'el 'ii'g8 Black's last moves might seems passive, but now he is ready for 33 ... gxh4 and 34 ... 'ii'g5. White cannot find a way to meet this. 33 'ii'b4l:tbd8! Not 33 ... gxh4 34 :txd6! 34 .te2 gxh4 35 l:t6c3 'ii'g5 36 .txb5l:tg8 Finally it is Black who is making the threats. 37 .tn 'ii'f4 38l:te7 l:tgd8!? 38 ... h3 was winning, but in timetrouble Black plays it safe. He will win in the end because his knight is so much stronger than the white bishop. 39 'ii'el tbxe4 40 l:t7e4 tbg3+ 41 ~gl 'ii'xf5 42 l:txa4 'ii'g5 43 l:te2 f5 44 .tb5 l:tb7 45 .ta6 l:tb3 46 'ii'a5 l:txb2 47 l:te7+ ~f8 48 l:tb4 l:td2 49l:tbl h3 0-1 A hard-fought battle, where Black defended well. His knight on f6 kept things under control and then he went onto the offensive. White's ideas with 'ii'd3 are not particularly dangerous, but do lead to complicated struggles with mutual chances. Game 30 Timman-Larsen Las Palmas izt 1982

(1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 d4 exd4 4 tbxd4 g6 5 c4 .tg7 6 .te3 tbf6 7 tbc3 0-0 8 .te2 d6 9 0-0 .td7)

10

'ii'd2

This is a more aggressive way of playing the dark-squared bishop exchange system than 10 :tcl. 10 as Now White will not be able to prevent Black from playing ... a5-a4 and ... 'ii'a5, but on the other hand Black has lost time with 9 ....td7, since it is not clear whether this is the right square for the bishop in this line. With aggressive play White should be able to profit from this loss of time. The standard 1O... tbxd4 11 .txd4 .tc6 is considered in Games 31-49. 11 tbdb5! Although 11 f3 is more common, it does not pose Black any serious problems. After 11...a4 12 .!:tabl 'ii'a5 13 :tfel .l:r.fc8 14 tbdb5 .te6 15 tbd5 'ii'xd2 16 .txd2 tbxd5! 17 cxd5 tbd4 18 .td3 .td7 Black was slightly better in two of Petursson's games. Not much better is 14 .tf! tbxd4 15 .txd4 .te6 16 b3 axb3 17 axb3 'ii'b4 with an easy game for Black in SmejkalLarsen, Helsingor 1982. White did well in Cvetkovic-Mestel, Belgrade 1982, after 13 .l:r.fdl :fc8 14 tbdb5, but only because Black got himself


into trouble with the passive 14....i.e8?! 15.i.fl lLle5 16 b3 axb3 17 axb3 1i'b4 18 .f2. Probably better was 14 ... lLle5 15 b3 axb3 16 axb3 .i.xb5!? 17 lLlxb5 .xd2 18 ':xd2 lLlc6 followed by ... lLld7 with a decent ending; Black controls the a-file, and the bishop on g7 is quite strong. 11 a4 12 f4 'iVaS 13 c5!

This is the move which has put the whole line under a dark cloud. White acts before his opponent can complete his development. dxc5 13 14 .i.xc5 The more forcing 14 e5?! was played in the correspondence game Strand-Brezau, 1986, but Black survived the complications after 14 ... lLlg4 15 .i.xc5 ':fd8 16 .i.xg4 .i.xg4 17 'iVe3 ':d7 18 h3 .i.e6 19 .i.b6 1i'b4 20 lLlc7 ':d3! 21 'iVc5 .xb2 22 l%fbl 'iVxc3 23 .xc3 ltxc3 24 lLlxa8 g5 and later went on to win. 14 .i.g4 This is necessary in order to get some room to breathe, and 14 ... ':fd8 15 .e3 would just make

things worse. 15 .i.xg4 lLlxg4 16 'iVe2 .i.xc3 On 16... b6 Timman suggests 17 .i.a3 lLld4 18 lLlxd4 .i.xd4+ 19 It>hl .i.xc3 20 bxc3 "xc3 21 .i.xe7 :tfe8 22 .i.h4 as clearly better for White, but after the obvious 22 ... lLle3 it seems to us that White is close to losing a pawn. A critical alternative is 21 .i.b2! "c8 22 ':acl with compensation but probably not more. One strange line is 22 .....e6 23 f5 "xa2 24 ':c2 lLle3?! 25 "xe3 a3

26 .i.h8!! 'iVxc2 27 'iVh6 ~xh8 28 fxg6 mating. A beautiful variation, but 24...:ac8 is better since 25 ':xc8 ':xc8 26 'iVxg4 "xb2 27 fxg6 ':f8 28 gxf7+ ~h8 29 .d7 1Wb4*is not clear. If you have. the nerves for something like this, maybe you should give 10... a5 a shot, since most White players will probably play something safe and get nothing. And if they should dare to enter the complications, hopefully you will be the better . prepared player. It is interesting to note that the Maroczy expert Petursson has played lO... a5 several times since the Timman-Larsen game. Naturally he has an improvement ready,


but since he has almost now completely left the chess world in favour of the world of law, we may never know what he had in mind. 17 bxc3 liJf6 18 :Sbl l:tfd8 19 ~hl :Sc8 20 .i.a3 liJe8 21 fS Black's problem is that, after the bishop on g7 has gone, his king feels exposed due to White's play on the dark squares. 21 ...liJc7 22 rxg6 hxg6 23 f6 24 "g3 ~f7 2S'c4liJxbS This should have lost tactically. Better would have been 25 ... liJe6, helping with the defence of the king. White is still better, but if he does not break through, Black holds the positional trumps. 26 cxbS liJd4 27 .i.b4? Timman must have been suffering from time pressure, otherwise he would not have missed 27 .i.xe7! ~xe7 28 "xg6 l:tf8 29 e5 which wins immediately. 27.....b6 28 eS liJrs 29 Since White cannot play 30 "xb7?? liJg3 and l:th8 mate, Larsen forces the exchange of queens, after which only Black can be better. Indeed, Larsen managed to get a close to winning position, but then it was his turn to blunder. The game ended in a draw after 63 moves.

10 11

.i.xd4

12

.i.d3!?

liJxd4 .i.c6

"12

"1'3 "e3

Game 31 Beliavsky-Hjartarson Reykjavik 1989

(1 e4 cS 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7 liJc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10 "d2)

A similar idea is 12 .i.f3!?, also

intending to attack with the rook along the third rank. GellerAbramovic, New York 1989, continued 12 ... a5 13 l:tfel liJd7 14 .i.xg7 ~xg7 15 l:te3 liJc5 16 l:tael f6 17 .i.dl e5, when Black slowly prepared .. .f6-f5 and went on to win. In Luther-P.H.Nielsen, Bad Lauterberg 1991, Black played in even more solid fashion: 12 ...a5 13 :Iael a4 14 liJd5 liJd7 15 .i.xg7 Q;xg7 16 l:te3 liJc5 17 .i.dl e5, and again Black was fine. This indicates that if Black exercises some care, 12 .i.f3 is harmless. The standard 12 f3 is seen in Games 32-49. 12 13 l:tfet liJd7 A interesting alternative is 13 .. Jle8, as in Mortensen-Larsen, Aalborg 1989, played shortly after our main game. The idea is that White cannot naturally continue his plan as long as the dark-squared bishops are still on the board. There followed 14 l:tadl a4, after which White got tired of waiting and

as


played the positionally undesirable 15 ttJd5 (after the exchange of the dark-squared bishops Black threatens ... i.xd5 with the usual knight vs. bishop positions). The game continued 15 ... ttJd7 16 i.xg7 ~xg7 17 b4 axb3 18 axb3 e5 19 i.c2 (in order to take back on d5 with the queen) 19 ... ttJc5 20 b4 ttJe6 21 ttJc3 ttJd4 22 ttJe2?? ttJxc2 23 'ihc2 i.a4 and Black was winning easily. Instead of 17 b4, 17 l:te3, as in Sorokin-Nielsen, Cheliabinsk 1991, is more logical. White won after 17 ...•a5 18 i.xd5 (l8 ... e5!?) 19 l:th3 ttJf6 20 'Wh6+ ~h8 21 exd5 'Wb6 (2l...e5 seems to solve Black's problems) 22 g4 .d4 23 l:th4 .xb2 24 g5 ttJd7 25 i.xg6! Generally, when White wants to play i.xg7 followed by a kingside attack, Black should not hurry with ... ttJd7, but simply play useful waiting moves. 14 i.xg7 ~xg7 15 :e3

.cl

Interestingly, Beliavsky cntIcises this move in In/ormator, claiming that White should play on the queenside. We do not believe this. With the dark-squared bishops off the board, Black has too much

play on the dark squares, combined with the idea of manoeuvring the knight to d4. 15 ttJf6?! Probably not best. Black has two other options: a) Larsen introduced 15 ... h6 against Milos, Mar del Plata 1993. The idea is to answer .:113 with ... l:th8, and then simply continue with the standard dark-squared strategy. After 16 l:tdl 'Wb6 17 ttJd5 i.xd5 18 exd5 l:tfe8 19 l:tdel 'Wb4! 20.e2 a4 (Black makes sure that he has targets on the queenside so that White never really threatens e7) 21 i.bl ttJf6 22 l:tdl l:tac8 23 b3 axb3 24 axb3 b5 25 i.d3 ~k7 26l:tbl bxc4 27 bxc4 .c5 28 'Wb2 l:ta7 Black had much the better position. Sorokin-Spangenberg, Argentina 1994, saw 16 b3 instead of 16l:tdl, but after 16... 'Wb6 17 ttJd5 .d4!? 18 l:td 1 e5 19 ttJc3 ttJf6 Black had solved his problems. b) 15 ... f6 was tried in L.HansenV.Nielsen, Vejle 1994, and after 16 l:tdl 1:[f7 17 i.e2 ttJc5 18 h4 .f8 19 h5
h8 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 .l:Ih3+ l:th7 22 l:txh7+ ~xh7 23 f3 'Wh6 Black was fine, although White later won. 16 :dl 'ir'b6 In the simultaneous game Kasparov-Koch, Evry 1989, Black played 16... a4 and the world champion achieved nothing after 17 ttJd5 e6 18 ttJb4 .a5 19 i.c2l:tfd8 20 .c3 e5 21 h3 .c5 22 b3 axb3 23 axb3 .l:Ia3 24 .d2 .a4 25 ttJxc6 1/2- 112. 17 ttJd5 i.xd5 18 exd5 :tfe8 19 i.f1 Now the e3-rook might go to b3.


19 'ii'b4 10 'ii'd4 a4 21 b3 ~g8?! This is dubious, Black should have gone in for 2l...axb3 22 lIxb3 'i'cS 23 'ii'xcs dxc5 24 l:txb7 ':xa2 25 :el ..ti>f8 26 lIc7 :as, when it is difficult to see how White can make progress. 21 ':bl ttJd7 23 a3! 'ii'xa3? Another mistake, but the position was already bad, since 23 ... 'ifcS 24 'iWh4 axb3 2S lIbxb3 ttJeS 26 lIh3 hS 27 lIbg3 is very dangerous for Black. 24 b4 'ii'a1 25 'ii'dl a3 26 ':c3 1-0 The queen will have to leave the board. An impressive performance by Beliavsky, but as we saw on moves 13, IS and 16, Black has other options. Game 32 Salov-Velimirovic Szirak izt 1987

(1 e4 c5 1 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 0-0 8 ~e1 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 'ii'd1 ttJxd411 ~xd4 ~c6) 12

f3

12

as

In this position, 12...tLld7 has

also been played, since 13 b4 is harmless. Mter 13 ... ~xd4+ 14 'ii'xd4 'ii'b6 IS 'ii'xb6 tLlxb6 16 eS does not work, as the rook is not yet on cl and 16 ]:tfcl ':fc8 is just equal, Vaganian-Mariotti, Leningrad 1977. Adorjan-Velimirovic, Budapest 1973, continued instead 13 ~xg7 ~xg7 14 f4 (perhaps White should try 14 ~hl which would transpose to the main game if Black answers 14... aS) 'ii'b6+ IS \lIhl 'ii'cS?! 16 ttJdS ~xdS 17 b4 'ii'b6 18 cxdS as 19 :abl ~g8 20 bxaS, when Black could have played the drawing 20...'ifxaS 21 'i'xaS ':xaS 22 :Xb7 ':xa2. Anyway, safer was IS ... ttJf6, hitting the e4-pawn, as given by Silman and Donaldson, and if 16 ~f3, then 16 ... 'ii'cS targeting the c4-pawn. We believe this is fine for Black, since White has to waste time protecting his pawns. An example is 17 b3 eS!? 18 fS'ii'd4 19 'ii'c2 gS!? with a goos! game for Black. If the lines after 12 ... aS do not suit you, this may be the way to play. Here White's attack is not nearly as dangerous as it may become after 12 ... aS. 13 ~hl Sensible, and clearly the best way to keep the tension, waiting for Black to play ... tLld7. 13 f4 eS! is embarrassing, and other moves hardly help the white attack. 13 ':acl is seen in Game 38 and 13 b3 in Games 39-49. 13 ttJd7 This is what everybody plays, but as it is not clear what White will do next, it is quite tempting for


Black to make a useful waiting move instead. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. 13 ...a4?! is strongly met by 14 b4 axb3 IS axb3, when White achieves easy play on the queenside. But 13 ... l:te8!? seems playable, and may be a way to force White to think independently, instead of just following mainstream theory. Although Black has excluded himself from using the defensive plan with ...f7-fS, it is not easy to say how White should try to exploit it. 14 :ael will be met by 14... a4! since the rook has left a1. One might play 14 b3 tlJd7 IS .te3 claiming that ~hl is more useful than ...l:te8, but not everybody would agree. And by playing 13 ~h 1 White was emotionally prepared for an attack, but would then have to hold fire. ~xg7 14 .txg7 15 f4

Other moves have been played but are clearly unambitious, since Black achieves good play with the standard set-up: ...e7-eS and ... tlJcs etc. f6 15 Black follows the classical dark-

squared strategy. However, this may not be best here. Apart from IS ... a4!? (see the next game), two other alternatives are worth considering: a) IS ... tlJc5 has been tested twice in high level games. In Chandler-Petursson, Chicago 1983, White played 16 .tg4!? and held the initiative after 16...eS 17 fS f6 18 1i'e2 fle7 19 lIf3 b6 20 :g3 Ah8 21 .thS g5 22 h4 h6 23 l:tdl l:td8 24 .tg6 1i'b7 2S lte3 ~f8 26 b3 flc7 27 ~h2 ~e7. Here Chandler's assessment of White being clearly better is a little excessive, since neither in the game nor in his analysis in In/ormator does he offer a plan by which White is able to break through. It is interesting to note that the white fS-pawn radically changes the position. Now Black cannot manoeuvre his knight to d4, but has to keep White busy by exerting pressure on the e4pawn, which now requires constant protection. Clearly, Black has no active plan, but still has reasonable chances for a successful defence. Epishin-Kamsky, Leningrad 1989, saw the more conventional 16 .tf3 a4 17 :adl 1i'aS 18 1i'e3! 'Wb4 19 eS! .txf3 20 l:txf3 flxc4 21 fS dxeS 22 l:th3 llad8 23 flxeS+ ~g8 24 tlJdS f6 2S flxe7 l:td7 26 fxg6! h6 27 l:txh6 'ii'xd5 28 l:th8+! ~xh8 29 g7+ 1-0. Impressive, and a warning for Black to remember how important it is to keep his dark squares under control. Probably Black should have gone for 16...eS, although he may then end up in a somewhat passive, but solid position, as in Chandler-Petursson. b) IS ...'ii'b6 was played in Dolmatov-Gufeld, USSR 1985, when


16 :ael 91>417 Af3 AadS 18.ltfl a4 19l:th3 ttJf6 20 a3 "'cS 21 ltJdS .ltxdS 22 exdS AfeS 23 Ae3 ttJg4 gave reasonable play for Black, although he eventually lost. :'adl ttJcS 16 17 "'d4 Actually, White would prefer to have his queen on e3, but after 17... 91>6 Black would threaten IS ... ttJa4 with simplifications. 17 b6?! This was criticised by Salov, who believes that Black should play more actively with 17...91>6, hitting the b2-pawn. If 18 b3?, then IS ...a4 with counterplay. In fact, this seems to give Black a reasonable position, since White cannot both defend b2 and stop ... ttJa4. 18 .ltD "'b8 19 :'d2 Aa7 20 .ltg4!

now 24 g4 is forced, since otherwise Black has 24 ... d5 with the threat of mate on h2. White might still be better, but the bishop on hS looks quite ridiculous. 22......b7 23 h4! Splendid play. Now White really does threaten 24 fS. One might call 23 h4! weakening, but Black is in no position to take advantage of it. 23•••.l:dd8 24 ~gl eS 2S f5 "'17 26 ttJdS .ltxdS 27 :'xdS :'d7 28 :'fdl :'fd8 29 b3 Now White is ready for a2-a3, b2-b4 etc., which will be terrible for Black. So instead he comes up with a «lever pawn sac, hoping that his knight will give him suffiCient compensation. 29•••:'c7!? 30 :'xd6 ':cd7 31 ':6dS :'xdS 32 :'xdS :'xdS 33 cxdS gxfS 34 exfS "'d7 35 .ltxhS "'xfS? A better chance was 3S ......xd5, hoping for 36 'l'g3+ ~f8 37 'l'g6? "'d4+ with a perpetual. However, 36 .lte2 secures White excellent winning chances. 36 'l'g3+ ~h6 37 .ltg4 "'e4 38 d6! "'d4+ 39 ~h2 ttJe4 39.....xd6 40 .ltfS is mate. ~g7 41 d7 ltJcS 42 "'fS e4 40 43 hS "'d6 44 'it>hl ~h8 45 h6 "'e7 46 "'dS 1-0 This game shows how important it is for Black to keep open some active options, otherwise he runs the risk of being suffocated.

"'1'3

Black was intending to play 20 ...l:.d7 followed by ... e7-eS, but to accomplish this now, he has to weaken the kingside with ...h7-hS. 20 hS 21 .ltf3 Ad7 22 "'e3 White could have won a pawn with 22 f5 gS! 23 .ltxhS :'hS, but

Game 33

A.Sokolov-Haik Luceme 1985

(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 .ltg7 6 .lte3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 0-0 8 .lte2 d6 9 0-0 .ltd' 10 "'d2 ttJxd4 11 .i..xd4 .i..c6 12 f3 as


13 'iithl tiJd7 14 ~xg7 'iitxg7 15 f4) 15 a4!? This is more active than 15 .. .f6, which we looked at in the previous game. Black wants to put his queen on a5, when he always has ......e5g7 to cover the kingside after a white f4-f5. Also, White must defend the c3-knight; otherwise Black plays ... a4-a3 to undermine it.

16 :f3!? White goes for a direct attack, which seems to be the only way to trouble Black, whose only worry is his somewhat naked king. 16 'it'a5 17 :h3 'it,lg8 18 'it'e1? A mistake that allows Black to use a clever defensive idea. 18 ~f3 has been recommended by Hertneck, with the idea of meeting 18 ... f5? with 19 e5!, while 18 ......c5 19 e5! is also quite tricky, since 19 ... dxe5 20 i.xc6 "'xc6 21 fxe5 is critical for Black. It seems most sensible to switch to the darksquared strategy with 18 .. .f6, hoping to prove that the rook on h3 is offside. Of course, White hopes to

break through on the kingside, but ...:f7 is a useful defensive resource. Meanwhile Black will attack on the opposite flank, and the c4-pawn should keep White busy. A complicated game thus lies ahead. f5! 18

Ambitious and strong. Black claims that his opponent has been too direct, and counters efficiently. 19 ~f3 ':'ae8 20 'it'h4 :17 21 exf5 This helps Black to bring his queen to the main battleground, but since 21 tiJd5 e6 is nothing, and 21.. .a3 is a huge threat, there was no real choice. 21 'it'xf5 White must certainly have been depressed here, seeing his attack disappear so easily. Now he should worry about defending the f4pawn, which was only possible with a passive strategy. White may have thought that he was still better, but a nasty surprise awaits. 22 tiJd5?! ~xd5 23 ..txd5 e6 24 ':'e3? 24 ..txb7 was better, although 24 .. ..!:lb8 followed by 25 ...:'xb2 is


unpleasant for White. Now he is just lost. 24 ••• liJe5! As this piece cannot be captured due to mate in two, White will lose material. 25 h3 ii'xf4 26 ii'xf4 l:txf4 27 ~xb7 liJxc4 28 l:te2 l:tb8 29 ~a6 liJe5 Black, of course, keeps his two passed pawns instead of going for the b2-pawn. 30 l:tc1 h5 31 ::'c7 l:tf7 32 l:tc8+ l:txc8 33 ~xc8 l:tf1 + 34 h2 f7 35 l:te4 l:tc1 36 ~a6 :tel 37 :tb4 a3 38 bxa3 ::'xal 39 a4 d5 40 ~gl cIS 41 ~n ltJc6 42 :tb7+ ~f6 43 ~b5 liJd4 44 g4 hxg4 45 hxg4 liJxb5 46 axb5 ::'b2 47 el ~e5

48 ~dl l:tgl49 l:lb8 l:lxg4 50 ~c2 ~d6 51 b6 ~c6 52 b7 l:te4 0-1 Black will exchange the g-pawn for the b-pawn, leaving him completely winning. The idea of defending actively with ... f7-f5 is certainly attractive, but 18 ~f3 is critical. We think Black should be okay, but if this kind of position scares you, we recommend either 13 ... l:te8!?, or 12 ...liJd7!? which makes ~xg7 less attractive. Black's counterplay then comes really quickly. However, this has had few tests at the very highest level. To us it seems to be reliable and offers Black good play, and hopefully it will be tested in practice soon.

5

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops

Chapter Guide 1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 .::tel tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 a5 13 b3 tLld7 14 ~e3 tLlc5 15 a3 - Game 35 15 'iVd2 15 .. .'ifb6 - Game 36 15 ... f5 - Game 37 10 'iVd2 tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 a5 13 nacl - Game 38 13 b3 tLld7 14 ~e3 tLlc5 15 Itabl 15 ...'iVb6 16 tLlb5 - Game 39 16 nfel 16... 'iWb4 - Game 40 16... nfc8 17 nc2 'iVd8 18 ~fl ~e5 19 tLldl!? - Game 41 19 a3 - Game 42 18a3 18 ... h5 - Game 43 18 ... iff8 - Game 44 15 ... e6!? - Games 45,46 14 ~f2 tLlc5 15 :tabl 15 ... e6 - Game 47 15 ... ifc7 - Game 48 15 ... 'iWb6 - Game 49

Here we examine in detail the lines where White avoids the trade of dark-squared bishops, a plan which

can be adopted after either of the 10 ncl or 10 'ji'd2 move orders. White keeps as many pieces on the

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 87 board as possible, since he has more space in which to manoeuvre. Compared to the lines with the exchange of bishops, Black's king is relatively safe, but White will use a different strategy now, intending slow manoeuvres and an eventual breakthrough on the queenside. Game 34 Keres-Petrosian Zagreb ct 1959

This game is not of current theoretical importance, since Black reaches the main line a tempo down. However, in this famous game Black introduced some strategic ideas which later became standard, so we feel it is relevant to include it. (1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 llJf6 7 llJc3 llJg4 8 .xg4 llJxd4 9 .dl llJe6 10 .d2 d6 11 ~e2 ~d7 12 0-0 0-0 13 l:ac1 ~c6 14 l:fdlllJcS 15 f3 a5 16 b3 .b617llJbS)

.e8 20 llJc3 b6 21 :'c2 .18 Hoping to exchange bishops with 22 ... ~h6. 22 .d2 ~d7 23 tLld5 l:ab8 24 ~g5l:e8

It may seem as if Black is playing very passively, but just wait and see. He is slowly preparing to expand. 25 l:e1 l:b7 26 .1'2 ~c6 27 .h4 White finds it difficult to form a plan, and tries to provoke some weaknesses. Having had no success so far, he finally tires of waiting and tries to attack. 27 •••f6! This looks ugly, but the pawn will not stop here. 28 ~e3 e6 29 llJc3 l:d7 30 ~d4 fS!

White is now simply a tempo up on the next game, as his rook is already on d 1.

17...:fc8 18 ~n .d8 19.1'2

Black is on top now since the position is opening up, and he is better prepared for this. In particular the light-squared bishop on c6 is well placed for a coming kingside attack. 31 exfS gxfS 32 l:d2 ~xd4+ 33 l:xd4 l:g7 34 ~hl l:g6 35 l:d2 l:d8! Not only defending d6, but simultaneously heading for the kingside.

88 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops

"f2

36 l:edl l:d7 37 "d8 38 "e3 e5!? Although this weakens the d5square, since Black is threatening ...itle6-d4, White has no time to exploit this. 39 f4 e4? Very bad, blocking the bishop on c6. Much better was the dynamic 39 ...1Wh4! which gives an ideal attacking game, with a huge edge for Black. Probably time trouble was a factor here. 40 itle2 l:dg7 41itld4 .i.d7 42 a3 42 itlb5 leads to an edge for White, as after 42 ... .i.xb5 43 cxb5 White's bishop reaches c4 and the d6-pawn will also be under fire. 42... "a8 43 ~gl h5 44 l:bl h445 :bb2 :g4 46 'ii'd8 47 b4 :g3! Just in time, otherwise Black's knight had to retreat. 48 hxg3 hxg3 49 :fd2 "h4 50 .i.e2 :h7 51 ~? But even 51 i.h5! lhh5 52
:f2

Shirov introduced a concept which had not been seen at the highest levels. He played 13 c5!?, a move which at frrst seems very illogical, since it reduces White's space advantage. Damljanovic responded well with 13... e5 14 .i.f2 i.h6! 15 Ilc2 d5 16 .i.h4!? d4 17itlb5 .i.e3+ 18 ~h 1 g5 and had a fine attacking game. Shirov would have done better to follow the stem game Filipenko-Rausis, Albena 1989, in which White picked up an exchange after 14 .i.e3! d5 15 .i.g5 dxe4? 16 "xd8! :fxd8 17 fxe4 l2'lxe4 18 i.xd8, which he easily converted into a full point. Much better was of course 15 ...d4, as in Todorovic-Abramovic, Cetinje 1992, but White was still somewhat better after 16 l2'lb5 h6 17 .i.h4 'iVd7 18 'ib3. Untried is 13 ... dxc5 14 .i.xc5 itld7 followed by ... a5-a4 and "as. This seems very reasonable for Black, and it would be interesting to see it tested in practice.

Game 35 Ernst-Larsen Sweden zt 1992 (1 e4 c5 2 itlf3 itlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 itlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 itlf6 7 itlc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10 :el itlxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 f3 as)

13 b3 13 'iVd2 transposes to Game 38, while at the 1990 Manila Interzonal

13 l2'ld7 At the time when 15 a3!? was considered critical for Black, Velimirovic came up with a very creative idea. Against Nunn in the

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 89 Szirak Interzonal 1987, he introduced 13 ... J..h6!?, when after 14 l:tc2 ~d7 15 <;PhI ~c5 16 ~d5?! J..g7! Black had absolutely no problems. Nunn should have preferred 17J..g 1 but instead he went for 17 J..xg7?! <;Pxg7 18 1Id2 J..xd5 19 lIxd5 'ii'b6, when Black was better. It might seem as if 13 ... J..h6!? just loses time, but it disrupted White's position and Black then got the typical knight versus bishop edge. Velimirovic tried out his idea again the following year: 14 l:tbl ~d7 15 a3 ~c5 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 ~e6 18 J..f2 lla3 with active play in ZelicVelimirovic, Belgrade 1988. 13 ... J..b6 is certainly playable, but since 15 a3!? is not causing Black problems any more, it has remained a rarity. 14 J..e3!? Nowadays, this is generally accepted as the critical test. 14 ~c5 15 a3!? A move which, for a while, was regarded as a clever way to prevent the rook from transferring to c8. 15 11M2 is covered in Game 36.

15

*ltlk~

(:, ftf

h5!?

This is certainly the most fun. White might have thought his opponent had gone nuts! White is ready to break through on the queenside, and Black starts making strange moves on the other flank. The alternatives are: a) 15 ...'iWb6?! is met by 16 ~b5, when 17 b4 is hard to meet. b) 15 ... b6 is solid but passive. Van der Wiel-Petursson, Biel 1995 continued 16 "c2?! 'iWb8 17 :cdl?! lIc8 18 tDd5 :a7 19 a4 J..xd5 20 :'xd5 e6 21 l:[d2 e5! and Black was fine. However, White's handling of the opening was hardly impressive. <;PhI ~h7 16 Now White has no useful waiting moves left, so takes concrete action. Normally, White would play 'ii'd2, l:[dl etc. first, but here this is not possible, since 15 a3!? bas weakened the b3-square! 17 b4?! axb4 lS----aib41Ia3! The key move. Since e3 would be hanging, White cannot move the knight from c3, but has to admit to the failure of his opening strategy. 17 b4?! is to blame for White's troubles, but as this is the logical follow-up, we have to conclude that 15 a3 is insufficient for an opening plus. J..xc3 19 bxc5 20 cxd6 exd6 20..."xd6 was fully playable, leaving Black at least equal. But as always, Larsen is playing the Maroczy to win and prefers a middlegame to an endgame! 21 J..d2 J..g7 22 J..b4 :82 Black is not losing a pawn because of 23 J..xd6? lIxe2 24 J..xfS

ttto! moore ~e biSh.op back

Ca.ier

*

e~ ft. AIt1~

O(

1.1. ~~1

90 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 1i'xdl! 23 c5 It is always a bad sign when your best move is to exchange your opponent's only weakness! 23 ...:a4 24 .el dxc5 25 .i.xc5 :e8 26 .i.c4 f5 Opening lines for the rook on e8 and bishop on c6. 27 .i.f1 :e5 28 .g3 .f6 29 .i.b3 :xc5! White is uncoordinated and, not surprisingly, Black can strike with a combination. 30:xc5 :al Unbelievably, White must lose material. If 31 ltcl :xcl 32 ltxc1 ~2 wins a piece, while 31 :tel h4 32 1i'f2 .d4! also picks up material. 31.i.dl

31....d4? What a pity! Larsen was close to creating a classic, but here he slips up. 31...fxe4 was decisive, e.g. 32 .f2 1i'd6 33 ltxc6 .xdl! Now White manages to escape. 32 :xc6 bxc6 If 32 ...1i'xdl then g6+ is a perpetual. at.J '9f fila 33 exf5 gxf5 34 .i.e2 Now things are under control

331x

again. Surely, it is a dead draw, but Larsen gets too ambitious 34...11xO+ 35 .i.xo _~§~ 36 .g5 h4? :'~-.- fOIl i"'F~'·r.Ai.~,.!r:,! Losing. 36....al seems like it better chance, hoping that Black's activity will compensate for the lost pawn. 37 .xf5+ ~h6 38 .i.d3! This was probably what Larsen had missed. Now 38 ....al? 39 .i.bl! is nothing. 38•.••f6 39 .e4 .i.f8 40 f4 .f1 41 g4 fxg3 42 hxg3 Suddenly, White is completely winning. The rest is simple. 42....i.d6 43 ~g2 ~g7 44 ~rJ .h5+ 45 ~e3 t;t>f8 46 .i.c4 .dl 47 .f5+ ~e7 48 .f1+ ~d8 49 ~e4 .hl+ 50 ~f5 .h3+ 51 g4 .e3 52 ~g5 .i.e7 53 ~g6 .e4+ 54 ~h6 .i.d6 55 .g8+ ~c7 56 f5 .f4+ 57 ~h7 .i.e7 58 .f1 ~2+ 59 ~g8 .h4 60 .g6 .i.g5 61 .i.e2 c4 62 .17+ ~b8 63 .xc4 .h6 64 .b4+ rJ;c7 65 .c5+ 1-0 A tragic end for Larsen, who certainly deserved a better fate. Still, from an opening point of view, the game is very interesting, again stressing the fact that White should not expand too quickly, if Black is ready with immediate counterplay. Game 36 Serper-J.Sorensen Tunja 1989

(1 e4 c5 2 liJrJ liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7 liJc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10 :tel liJxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 rJ as 13 b3 liJd7 14 .i.e3liJcS) 15

.d2

.b6

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 91

This is the most common plan in these positions, and it will be covered in detail. Black tries to restrain the potential b3-b4 break, and intends to put his king's rook on cS. In addition, he now threatens 16... a4 to break up White's pawn structure. 15 ...f5 is discussed in the next game. 16 ltJb5!? Now 16... a4? 17 b4 wins a piece, but of course this is not the only idea behind 16 ltJb5!? White intends to stifle Black's active ideas on the queenside, and ... i.xb5 is hardly ever possible, since this kind of structure, as we shall see in Game 47, is quite depressing for Black. Therefore, Black must start manoeuvring, so that he will be able to counter b3-b4, when White is ready to play it. 16 ~fc8 17 ~fdl "d8 As there is nothing left for the queen to do on the queenside, it returns to dS, hoping to re-emerge later on the a1-hS diagonal. 18 ltJd4 18 i.f1 has been tested twice against Petursson. First by Sax, Reykjavik 19S8, when after

18 .....f8 19 ltJc3 b6 20 ltJd5 lhb8 21 lib 1 i.e5 22 i.h6 i.g7 23 i.g5 :'b7 24 .!::tel ltJe6 25 i.e3 ltJc5 26 :cd1 .!::tcbS 27 :c1 e6!? 2S ltJc3 ltd7 29 :ed1 "dS 30 "e1 i.e5 31 ltJe2 i.e5 32 ltJd4 i.aS 33 "f2 a draw was agreed. White was not close to breaking through, since every time he created a threat, Black could easily meet it. Since White cannot make progress with piece play alone, he needs to use his pawns. De Firmian recognised this before his game against Petursson, Reggio Emilia 19S9, and followed the game above until Black yaried with 2l...':b7, preparing ... e7-e6 and ....!::td7right away. Here De Firmian did not like 22 a3 a4! 23 b4 ltJb3 followed by 24... b5, when Black will be very active, so he played 22 b4 instead, but after 22 ... axb4 23 .!::txb4 i.xd5! 24 cxd5 :as 25 :'dbl "dS all Black's pieces were well placed, although the game ended in a draw. Again, we see that without an eventual b3-b4, White has no chance of breaking through. But we also saw that it is hard to accomplish! In conclusion, 18 i.f1 should not scare Black. IS ':c2 was played in KarpovMariotti, Milan 1975. Normally, Karpov is very effective at using space advantages, but here he was less efficient: 18 ... b6 19 i.n "d7 20 ltJc3 ~7 21 ltJa6! 22 .!::tccl a4 23 ltJd5 i.xd5 24 cxd5 axb3 25 axb3 b5 26 f4 b4 27 .l:tc4 ':xc4 28 i.xc4 ltJc7 29 "e2 :a5 30 i.f2 ltJb5 31 ':cl ltJc3 32 "d3 "a8 33 g3 1/2- 1/2. Karpov is usually a trend-setter but, not surprisingly, this approach has not found many followers!

"£2


18 "18 19 :lb1 This is probably White's only way to make progress, but then of course the rook should have gone to bl in the first place, leaving White with an extra tempo. However, as we shall see in the notes to the next game, even this should not frighten Black. 19 il.d7 The game Nunn-Velimirovic, Dubai 01 1986 went 19 ...il.f6 20 a3 'ilg7 21 b4 axb4 22 axb4 tLle6 23 tLlxe6 fxe6 24 b5 il.e8 25 f4 il.e8 26 e5! dxe5 27 fxe5 il.xe5 28 c5 with a crushing position. Nunn recommends instead 18 ... il.d7 19 :b 1 tLle6 20 tLlxe6 il.xe6 21 f4 with some edge for White. But Sorensen points out that there is no reason for the knight to leave the excellent c5-square, unless it is forced to do so! The big difference is that in the line given by Nunn, the queenside remains closed, and White starts to play in the centre. Here, however, he would have to play a2-a3 and b3-b4 first, when Black will exchange knights with ... tLle6, since the a-file, combined with the bishop on g7, secures him

sufficient counterplay. Compare with Jansa-Petursson in the note to White's 18th move in Game 39. 20 l:dc1 h5!? An attractive idea. Instead of the typical ... il.f6 and ...'ilg7, Black prepares 21...~h7 either to exchange bishops with 22 ... il.h6, or simply to play ... 'ilh8 to play on the long diagonal. 21 il.d1 ~h7 22 tLle2 On 22 il.c2 with the idea of 22 ... il.h6 23 f4 e5 24 tLlf3, Sorensen had prepared 22 ... e5!? 23 tLle2 il.c6 followed by 24 ... il.h6 with excellent play for Black. 22 il.h6 tLlf4 il.c6 23 Black is preparing ... e7-e5, which was not possible immediately due to 24 tLldS. 24 tLld5 White tries to avoid ... e7-e5, but it might have been the lesser evil. 24... il.xd5 25 exd5 il.xe3+ 26 "xe3 :le8! 27 il.c2 e6 28 dxe6 :lxe6 29 'ild2 b6 30 :leI :lae8 31 a3 :lxe1+ 32 :lxe1 :lxe1+ 33 "xe1

It may seem that White is on top due to his better pawn structure.

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 93 But since queen and knight work better together than queen and bishop, in fact Black has the advantage. He can also attack on the dark squares. 33......g7 34 h4 "'b2 35 "'dl "'xa336f4? . White should have tried 36 'ii'xd6, although 36... 'ii'c1 + 37 'ii'dl 'ii'e3+ is clearly better for Black. 36•••lLle6! 37 'ii'xh5+ ~g7 38 'ii'dl 'ii'c5+ 39 ~ lLlxf4 40 'ii'f3 'ii'e5 41 g3 lLle6 42 i.dl lLld4 43 'ii'd3 lLlf5 44 'Wtfl 'ii'c5 0-1 A pawn down with a bad position, White threw in the towel. Again White never accomplished b3-b4, since Black kept him busy with small positional threats. Game 37

Vaganian-Yudasin USSR 1988 (1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0 i.d7 10 :el lLlxd4 11 i.xd4 i.c6 12 f3 as 13 b3lLld7 14 i.e3lLlc5 IS 'ii'd2)

IS

f5!?

An interesting idea. Black is

aiming for similar attacking possibilities to Game 34, but he plays ... £7-f5 immediately, hoping that he can regroup later. It is thought of as a difficult line for Black, as while he regroups, White will be able to attack his weaknesses. But since no-one has actually proved this in practice yet, it is difficult to explain why 15 ...f5!? is not more popular. exfS gxfS! 16 A natural recapture - the g-file is potentially more dangerous than the f-file. 17 lLldS 17 f4 prevents Black from pushing his own pawn to f4, but then the c6-bishop, combined with play on the g-file, would give Black attacking chances. After 17 ltfdl, not 17...:£7?? 18 i.xc5 1-0 (Lerner-Urban, Berlin 1991), but 17 ... b6 with similar play to the main game. :f7 17 18 :fdl b6 Since the queen is not heading for b6, and Black has already committed himself by playing ... f7f5, it is sensible to fortify the strong knight. This move also opens up a different path for the other rook to the kingside. 19 i.gS :a7 Both defending the e7-pawn and preparing for a quick transfer to the kingside, which Black hopes will be the main battleground. 20 i.h4?! Yudasin was more afraid of 20 'ii'e3!?, and rightly so. He was intending 20...:b7, covering the b6pawn, and after 21 f4 h6 22 i.h4 i.f8 23 i.h5 :g7 he considers the position to be unclear, since Black plans 24 ...•a8 and then 25 ...e5.

94 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops The position is indeed messy, but one cannot help thinking that White's centrally placed forces should offer him the better chances. 20 ~b8! This looks odd as the queen is moving away from the kingside, but Black needs to play ... e7-e6 to get rid of White's annoying knight. However, the b-pawn needs protection and that is why this must be the right square for the queen. In any case, the price is just one tempo, since the queen will later attack via f8. 21 ~n?! This was criticised by Yudasin, who claims that 21 ~g3 would hold the balance for White, the trick being 2l...e6? 22 ~xd6, but of course Black would play 21.. .l:td7 with excellent chances. 21 e6 22 lbc3 l:tad7

Black's position looks a little loose, but that is of no importance, as White has no quick way of attacking the weak spots. The only white plan is a2-a3 and b3-b4, but by the time White is ready for this, Black's dynamically placed pieces will already be tearing his kingside

apart.

23 l:tbl ~e5 Already threatening 24 ... d5. Should White play 24 f4, Black has the instructive 24 ... ~xc3! 25 "xc3 l:tg7 followed by doubling rooks on the g-file with a potentially winning attack. 24 hl "a8 Threatening 25 ... i.xf3. 25 ttJe2 f4! This prevents 26 ~g3, which would have eased the pressure a little. 26 lbgl l:tf5 27 "el l:tg7 28 a3 l:th5 29 ~d3! Careful defensive play, not allowing 29 b4? lbe4!!, when Black's last piece enters the attack with decisive effect. 29 ...f7!? Black wants to break through with brute force and prepares some interesting sacrifices. Simple and good was 29 ... lbxd3 30 1hd3 "e8, bringing the queen to the kingside with decisive effect. 30 ~c2 "g8 31 ..a l:tg3! 'Trapping' the bishop on h4, and thereby forcing White to accept the offered material. 32 hxg3 fxg3 33 "e2 l:txh4+ 34 lbh3 "g7 35 b4 Since White cannot stop Black's attack anyway, he tries to create counterplay on the queenside. At least it forces Black to make some exact moves, as his knight is now threatened. 35.....f6! 36 l:tn The only way to stop 36:.J:txh3+ followed by 37 ... ~xf3. 36.....h6! It was important to lure White's rook to f1 first, as there it blocks the king's escape route.

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 95 37 :bdl tLla4?? Poor Yudasin. Having played such a great game, he messes it up in time trouble. 37... ~f4! won, as 38 .. .l:lxh3+ 39 gxh3 'i6'xh3+ 40 ~g 1 ~e3+ mating cannot be met. 38 ~xa4 ~xa4 39 f4! ~xf4 40 1:txd6 rJ;;e7 41 :'xf4 112- 11l 41..J:txf4 42 l:txe6+ 'i6'xe6 43 tLlxf4 leads to a drawn ending. It is a pity that Black did not win after having generated such an attack, but still this game is a fine illustration of Black's potential chances, if he gets the attack rolling. Game 38

Kristiansen-Larsen Copenhagen 1985

(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 iVd2 tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as)

13

:'ac1?!

This is inaccurate. White should either play 13 ~hl, exchanging on g7 and going for the attack (Games 33-34), or play slow positional chess with 13 b3 (Games 39-49). If

White insists on not playing b2-b3, he should not leave the a-file so that 13 ...a4 can be met by 14 b4! 13 a4! Now after 14 b4 axb3 15 axb3 tLld7 Black has excellent play due to his control of the a-file, while the knight threatens to go to c5. 14 tLld5?! Perhaps we are too harsh in our criticism of White's play, but this was not one of his better days. On other occasions he has given the authors a lesson or two. This move is actually a quite common inaccuracy. White might have been hoping for 14... tLlxd5, but Black was going to play 14 ... tLld7 anyway, so why force him to do it? Actually, White's knight does nothing on d5 and should have stayed on c3. 14 tLld7 15 ~e3 15 ~xg7 is a typical, but incorrect follow-up. Black recaptures, and tries to regroup with ... tLlc5, ... e7-e5 and ... tLle6, when White will have to take his knight to e2 to keep the black knight away from the beautiful d4-square. 15 :'e8 Larsen loves this move, and for once it is immediately useful, releasing the queen from the defence ofe7. 16 tLlcS 17 iVaS Since Black has gained some space on the queenside, he is not afraid of the endgame. It is difficult to see what White should play now. 18 ~gS "xd2 19 :'dxd2 ~xdS 20 cxdS ~f6 A typical trick, winning time. 21 ~xf6?


This is a positional blunder. First of all, Black gets rid of the weak e7-pawn, leaving him with an open e-file and a possible ...f6-f5 break. Second, the c5-knight cannot be challenged for a while, which means that the bishop on e2 is useless compared to the black knight. White should have played 21 ~e3 with a perfectly normal position and retaining equal chances. 21 exf6 22 l:.d4 l:.e5 23 l:.b4 f5 24 l:.b6 This square was probably what seduced White. It looks like he is exerting pressure, but Black can easily defend the pawn on d6. 24••.:'d8 25 exf5 :'xf5 26 ~c4 :'e5 27~f2:'e7

:dl+ 38 rbe3 ~d7 39 l:.b4 l:.c1 40 ~f2 h5 41 l:.e2+ ~f8 42 l:.e1 l:.xe1 43 ~xe1 ~e7 44 ~d2 ~d8 45 :a4 lLle5 46 f4? Of course, White should have drawn this game, but he has been under constant pressure due to his bad bishop. This move only creates more weaknesses, which means more problems. 46...~g4 47 h3 ~f6 48 :'a8+
Black is on the retreat, but his knight versus bishop advantage is permanent - no need to hurry. 28 b4 axb3 29 axb3 l:c7! Stopping White's plans of removing the knight with 29 b4, which would now lose due to the Game 39 pin on the c-file after 29 ... ~d7t.Y£q... lat( Kudrin-Velimirovic 30 l:.a2 ~f8 31 ~e3 ~d7 32l:.b4 Thessa/oniki 0/ 1988 l:.e8+ 33cotd4 l:.el 34 l:.a8+ cote7 35 l:.a7 ~c5 36 :'b6 l:.c1 37 l:.a2 (1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 97 ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tiJf6 7 tiJc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0 i.d7 10 'ii'd2 tiJxd4 11 i.xd4 i.c6 12 f3 as 13 b3 tiJd7 14 i.e3 tiJeS) 15

lIabl!

This certainly seems to be the right square for the rook, since it helps to prepare the b3-b4 advance. 15 'ifb6 16 tiJbS This used to be the main move, but nowadays 16 lIfc1! is more common (Games 40-42). With the text move, White puts an end to Black's dreams of activity on the queenside. But apart from that, the knight is not well placed, and will often simply retreat, having lost some tempi. 16 lIfe8 17 lIfdl Other moves have been tried here: a) Adams-Larsen, London 1990, saw 17 lIfcl 'ii'd8 18 tiJd4 i.d7 19 i.dl?! We8 20 i.e2! (stopping 20...b5) 20... h5 and Black has a good position. Instead of 18 tiJd4, 18 Ilc2 was tried in KotroniasPetursson, Komotini 1993. After 18 ... 'ii'fS 19 i.f1 i.e5 20 tiJc3 b6

21 tiJdS "d8 22 i.g5 l:a7 23 i.h4 l:[b8 24l:[el i.xdS 25 exdS Wd7 26 f4 i.f6! 27 i.xf6 exf6 28 :'c3 lIe8 29 Ilce3 l:r.aa8 a drawish position had arisen. Again, White got nowhere by just manoeuvring around. b) The direct 17 a3 was tried in Cebalo-Petursson, San Bernardino 1989, but after 17 ......d8 18 tiJd4 i.d7 19 Itfdl 'irf8 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 tiJe6 22 tiJb3 lIa3 23 lIbl i.a4 24 i.dl :a8 White had to ask himself whether opening the a-file was such a great achievement. 17 "'d8 18 tiJc3 18 tiJd4 proved ineffective in Jansa-Petursson, Naestved 1988. After 18 ......f8 19 a3 i.d7 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 tiJe6 22 :al lIxal 23 l:[xa 1 :a8, White had absolutely nothing, and went on to lose! "'e7?! 18 Petursson would probably have gone for 18 ... b6 19 i.g5 l:a7. Also Sorensen's approach with 18 ......fS and a later ...h7-h5 is worth a try, although Black is a tempo down on the previous game. 18 ... i.e5 was played in Kudrin-Haik, Marseilles 1987, but after 19 i.f1 e6?! 20 tiJb5 i.xb5 21 cxb5 "fIe7 22 i.g5 'ii'c7 23 'ithl f6 24 i.e3 f5 25 i.c4 "'e7 26 i.xc5 :xc5 27 f4 Black's position was terrible and he soon lost. 19 ... e6?! was premature, since Black was not yet able to defend the d6-pawn with a rook on d7. 19 i.n b6 20 lbdS "'b7 21 i.gS i.xdS 22 exdS! The only way to make progress. 22 cxd5 b5 would not get White anywhere, and capturing with the queen would ease the pressure.

98 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops l:.e8 22 23 The structure is very similar to the previous game, but here White is ready to meet Black's counterplay, since he is several tempi up. 23 'ike7 24 h4!

This is often a useful move to break through Black's defences. The pawn will march on, since 24 ...hS would only weaken the black position. The difference between h2-b4 and ...h7-hS is that here it is White who holds the initiative! 24 .•.e5 25 dxe6 l:.xe6 26 l:.adl l:.ae8 27 l:.xe6l:.xe6 28 'ikd5 This time it is White who is active. Black can only sit and wait, defending his weaknesses. 28...'ike8 29 g3 'ike8 30 c;t>f2! .li.e3 31 .li.d2 .li.g7 32 .li.f4 .li.e5 33 .li.xe5 dxe5 34 .li.h3 l:.e7 35 'ikd6 Black has got rid of his main weakness, the d6-pawn, but as often happens, some other problems have been revealed. White is about to break through via the d-file. 35...l:.b7 36 'ikf6l:.b8 37 ~e3! 'ikfS 38 :d5 'ikh6+ 39 'ikg5 'ikfS 40 'ikf6 'ikh6+ 41 ~e2 e4 42 f4 'i'fS 43

c;t>e3

Complete domination. Black is hopelessly lost. 43...liJd3 44 'i'd6! 'ikxd6 45 l:.xd6 f5 46 g4! fxg4 47 .li.xg4 liJe5 48 f5 c;t>f7 49 l:.c6 l:.b7 50 h5 g5 51 h6 1-0 The f-pawn will be a winner. Truly a model game for White, but Black went astray early in the middlegame, when correct play would have offered him reasonable chances. Game 40 Gelfand-Anand Manila izt 1990

(1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJe6 3 d4 exd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 e4 .li.g7 6 .li.e3 liJf6 7 liJc3 0-0 8 .li.e2 d6 9 0-0 .li.d7 10 'i'd2 liJxd4 11 .li.xd4 .li.c6 12 f3 a5 13 b3 liJd7 14 .li.e3 liJc5 15 l:.abl 'ikb6) 16 l:.fc1! Nowadays this is generally accepted as the right way to place the rooks against the ...'ikb6 system. On bland cl they will support a future b3-b4 break in the best possible way, while leaving the dl-

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 99 square free for manoeuvring the knight to the kingside.

16 This move is often criticised, but it is not so bad. At first sight, it seems as if Black is trying to prevent a2-a3 and b3-b4, but in fact the opposite is true. As we will see in the game, White has to play 'ifc 1 and a2-a3 to shift the annoying queen, after which she happily returns to b6, hoping to prove that White's a2-a3 has been played too quickly. For 16.. JUc8 see Games 41-44. 17 ':fc8 ':c2 18 -.c1 -.b6 19 a3 -.d8 20 -.d2 As we now see, Black has not lost a tempo, but has in fact forced White to go for an immediate a2a3. 20 'ifd2 was not absolutely necessary, but the queen is not very well placed on c 1. 20 e6 An active choice. Black is planning to put the bishop on e5 to protect the weakened d6-pawn. Although this is a common idea, it is usually played without moving the king's rook to c8.

23

.in b4 axb4

24

tiJe2

21 22

.ie5

axb4

ttJa4

24 'iVb4?! This seems too ambitious. Black creates a long-term weakness, but it is unlikely ever to tum into anything concrete. The prophylactic 24 ....ie8 seems to us to be a better move. Black intends to play 25 ...tiJb6 next, hitting the c4-pawn and leaving the a-file open. This typical way of exploiting the open a-file secures plenty of counterplay. Such positions are normally given as slightly better for White, due to his space advantage, but practical play has not supported this. -'e7 25 g3 26 tiJd4 .ie8 27 ':bc1 tiJb6? Now Anand is going for the standard plan, but there is a tactical flaw. Gelfand recommends instead 27 ...'l1c7 28 tiJb3 lhc8 29 c5!, when White is somewhat better, although it is not that scary. 28 tiJxe6 -.xe6 29 .ixb6 ':a3? Gelfand gives 29 ... d5 as a big improvement, hoping for compensation after 30 .in dxe4 31 fxe4

100 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops l%dS. It is true that Black is somewhat active, but White will create a passed pawn on the queenside, which should bring him the win. 30 f4?! Gelfand is not one to back off. Still, a pawn up, the more cautious 30 'iVf2 was wiser, leaving White a clear pawn up with no immediate targets. 30••..ig7 31 'iVd5 .ie6 32 'iVxe6 fxe6 33 .igl e5 Now Black is getting some counterplay together, since White's pawns are somewhat weak. 34 l%d2 exf4 35 gxf4 .ic3?! After this move White takes control again by returning material. 35 ....ih6 or 35 ... :fS was to be recommended, going for the f-pawn. Although only White can win, Black could put up a tough fight for the half point. 36 l%xd6 .ixb4 37 e5 l%f8 38 e5! The key move. White is happy to return the extra pawn in order to regain the initiative. 38•••.ixgl 39 ~xgl l%xf4 40 e6 White now has a huge passed pawn, and since the b7-pawn is weak, the c-pawn could also turn into something. 4O•••l%e4 41 l%d8 ~g7 42 l%d7 ~h6 Forced. After 42 ...~f6 43 .idS+!, Black could not take on e6 anyway, since 44 l%e7+ picks up a rook. 43 e7 :e2+ 44 ~f1 Lal 45 .ie7 .ia3 46 :e1 :12+ 47 c;i;Jgl .ixe5 48 ~hl .ixe7 49 :dxe7 :f5 50 .ib6 :f6 51 .ie3 g5 52 l%gl :f5 53 h41-0 Along with the previous game, this encounter really set the trend. Nowadays everybody puts their rooks on bl and cl. Although this

is certainly sensible, Black has ways to kick back, and his defeat in this game was due to later mistakes, not because of the opening. Game 41

Vaganian-Ivkov Moscow 1985

(1 e4 e5 2 ltlfJ ltle6 3 d4 exd4 4 ltlxd4 g6 6 e4 .ig7 7 .ie3 ltlf6 7 ltle3 0-0 8 .ie2 d6 9 0-0 .id7 10 'iVd2ltlxd411.ixd4.ie6 12 fJ as 13 b3 ltld7 14 .ie3 ltle5 15 :abl 'iVb6) 16

:fc1!

16 :fe8 17 :e2 17 a3 does not work yet, as seen in Maksimenko-Marinkovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1991, where Black was fine in the complications after 17...ltlxb3 18 .ixb6lLlxd2 19 :b2 ltlxc4! 20 .ixc4 .id7! 21 .id5 .ixc3 22 :bb 1 .ie5 23 .ixb 1 l%xcl+ 24 l%xcl :bS 25 :C7 .ie6 26 .ia7 :e8, although White had enough compensation to draw. 17 'iVd8 Since White is close to the aZ-a3 and b3-b4 push, the queen has no

Classical Maroc'l:j: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 101 further purpose on the queenside. It might seem strange to move back and forth, but in that way the black rooks can be placed on the a- and c-files, where they have useful prophylactic purposes, since White's standard plans will lead to the opening of one file or the other. Furthermore, the queen now goes to fS or even h8, where it has a useful role. 18 .i.n The direct 18 a3 is the subject of Games 43 and 44. Vaganian plays more slowly, hoping his extra space will make it easier for him to manoeuvre. 18 .i.eS Normally this is a useful move, simultaneously planning ...'ii'fS-g7 and ... e7-e6 and ...'ii'e7. The problem is that the bishop is somewhat unstable on eS. Black would not mind if it were exchanged with .i.d4xeS, since after d6xeS he will get a solid grip on the dark squares. However, if it is exchanged by the knight, White keeps his darksquared bishop, which is unacceptable for Black. This fact is skilfully exploited by Vaganian. 19 liJdI!? This weakens the grip on bS, but by the time Black gets ...b7-bS in, White's attack is already at full speed. 19 a3 is seen in the next game. 'ii'e8 19 20 liJll bS?! 20 ... hS would be the modem way of playing, and this would certainly have provided a much tougher test. In general, Black would be happy to push ... b7-bS, as it loosens White's queenside bind. Here, however, White shifts his attention to the kingside.

21 22 23

llJg4 exbS liJh6+

.i.g7 .i.xbS

23...f8 Black is forced to this unpleasant square due to the weakness of f7. 24 .i.xbS 'ii'xb5 25 'ii'd5 'ii'e8 Although it is bad, Black had to try 2S ... .i.xh6, which would have left him with a small chance of a successful defence. Now White has a rarely possible, but in this case decisive break. 26 eS! This move undermines the position of the strong cS-knight, which is Black's main defender, while opening up the black king. 26..J~d8 27 exd6 exd6 28 :eI! The black queen now has nowhere to hide. 28...:e8 29 :xeS :xeS 30 'ii'xeS!

1-0 An attractive game, and it is no wonder that many players started copying Vaganian's approach. Game 42

Khalifman-Hracek Pardubice 1994

(1 e4 eS 2 ~f3 liJe6 3 d4 exd4 4


lL'lxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lL'lf6 7 lL'lc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 • d2 lL'lxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as 13 b3 lL'ld7 14 ~e3 lL'lc5 15 :tab 1 16 '::'fc1 '::'fc8 17 ::'c2 .d8 18

.b6

~n ~e5)

19

a3!?

It is interesting to note that 19 lL'ldl!? neither attracts Khalifman nor scares Hracek. The only possible reason for this must be that 20 ...h5, as mentioned in the previous game, is evaluated as okay for Black by both players. If this is not the case, then 18 ... ~e5 is indeed dubious. 19 19 ... ~e8 was played in Wojtkiewicz-Bischoff, Altensteig 1995, but it seems dubious, since it is difficult to see what Black can do next if White keeps on manoeuvring - the bishop blocks Black's traditional plans. In the game, however, it was fully justified, since after 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 lLla4 22 lLle2 lLlb6 White agreed to a draw, admitting that he had expanded too quickly. 20 lL'ld5 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 ~a4 22

.f8

~d5 .i.xd5 23 exd5 'ii'g7 simply transposes . 20 ~xd5 21 exd5 21 cxd5? a4! 22 b4 lLlb3 gives Black everything he could dream of. 21 .g7 This idea of putting the queen behind the bishop on the long diagonal is a typical way of obtaining counterplay. Black might already be threatening 22 ... a4 23 b4 ~b3 with counterplay. 22 b4 axb4 23 axb4 lL'la4! Going for the dark squares at any cost. 24 ::'b3 25 '::'a3 White was threatening to double rooks on the a-file, but now this is met with 26 ... 'ii'e8, when a later ... b6-b5 gives Black counterplay. 26 ~d4 White tries to fight back on the dark squares, hoping that after the exchange of dark-squared bishops, Black's ... b7-b5 sacrifice will not be so effective, since he cannot use the c3-square. The risk, of course, is that he might end up with a terrible bishop versus knight endgame. 26 ~xd4+ 27 .xd4 .g7! White's threats along the a-file were getting serious, but after the queens disappear, Black is saved by tactical means. 28 .xg7+ If the queen had gone anywhere else, Black would have had counterplay with 28 ...b5. 28 ...c;itxg7 29 '::'cal b5! This is the trick that saves Black. If White accepts the sacrifice with

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 103 30 cxb5, then Black responds end White was too ambitious. 30...lLlb6, and White will not find a Game 43 way through Black's defences, Ivanchuk-Larsen since the knight offers a very effective blockade. White goes for Roquebrune (rapid) 1992 more, which involves serious risks. 30 c5 ':ab8 This was a rapidplay game, and 31 ~xb5 was the threat, but now it should be regarded as such. But this would simply lead to a draw, even here, these players come up which does not satisfy White. with moves that we mere mortals 31 c6 e6 would be proud of producing in White should now go for the serious chess. draw with 32 ~xb5, but he contin(1 e4 c5 2 ilJf3 ilJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ilJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 ~e3 ilJf6 7 ues his ambitious approach. 32 ':xa4 bxa4 33 ':xa4 ':c7 tL'lc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 Black certainly will not allow "d2 lLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as b4-b5 and :a7. 3S. t~(; ... ~··:.!:CI . 13 l:ablilJd7 [With this particular 34 b5 ~f6 35 ':a6 exd5 36 ~r.z~ move order; 13... a4 14 b4 axb3 15 Sadly enough,there is no way axb3 ilJd7 16 i.e3 ilJc5 17 b4 ':a3 for White to make progress, so he seems okay] 14 ~e3 lLlc5 15 b3 has to switch to defensive mode, "b616 ':fc1':fc817':c2 "d8) hoping to make a draw. 18 36.. /be5 37 ~e3 d4+ 38 ~d2 ~d5 a3 39 ':al ~c5 40 ':c1+ ~b6 The model game for this move The time control has been made, was Dimitrov-Abramovic, Prilep and Black has achieved more than 1992, when White managed to exhe could have hoped for. Before he pand on the queenside whilst seemed to have sufficient counter- keeping his opponent's activity to a play for a draw, but now he only minimum. The game continued need to solve technical problems to 18 ... b6?! (this often turns out to be get the full point. a weakness) 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 41 ~d3 ':a8 42 ~xd4l:a2 43 ':dl lLla4 21 ilJd5 e6 22 lLlf4 "e7 23 ':ca7 44 h3 f5 45 ~d5 ':al 46 ~fl :d8 24 ':b3! 'ifb7 25 ':d3 ':xal ':xal 47 ~c4 ':dl+ 48 ~e6 'ifb8 26 ilJe2! (preventing ...b6-b5) 26 ... ~e8 27 ~g5 ':c8 28 ~e7 d5 ~c7 49 f4 ':d4 50 ~d5':b4 51 g4 ':xb5 52 gxf5 gxf5 53 h4 h6 54 29 exd5 exd5 30 :Xd5 b5 31 c5 ~f3 ':a5 55 ~d5 ':c5 56 ~f3 ':b5 'ifb7 32 ~g5 ilJb6 33 ':d3 ilJc4 34 57 ~d5 ':a5 58 ~f3 l:a3 59 ~d5 "f4 ~d7 35 lLlg3 ':e8 36 ~f6 ':d3 60 ~g2 ':d2 61 ~hl ':h2 62 ~c6 37 ilJh5! 1-0. An impressive ~d5 ':xh4 63 ~xf5 h5 64 ~e4 performance. Black's problem was ':h2 65 ~g5 h4 66 f5 h3 67 f6 .:r.z that he was una~le to use the a-file 68 ~g6 h2 69 f7 .:n 70 ~g7 hI" for anything concrete, did not get 0-1 any play on the a1-h8 diagonal, and Again, this was absolutely not an had to keep the weak b6-pawn unerror-free game, but Black kept der control. It was better to play rmding clever resources, and in the 22 ... ~e5 followed by 23 ......f6.

dt


18 h5!? Typical Larsen: pawns on a5 and h5! The idea is, as mentioned before, ... ~h7, and then either ... 'it'h8 or .. :tlff8 and ... i.h6. Furthermore, the h-pawn might be used to create counterplay, as we shall see later in the game. Again, the standard warning is that ...h7-h5 could be a weakness, but not many games have proven that it is. 18 ... 'ii'f8 is seen in the next game.

i.n 19 The direct 19 b4 was successful in Pytel-Sokolowski, ladwisin 1985. After 19 ... axb4 20 axb4lLla4 21 lLld5 e6 22 lLlf4 'ii'e7 23 i.f1 ~h7 Black was almost okay but was then slowly outplayed. 22 ... lLlb6 is a possible improvement, trying to make use of the afile. i.d7!? 19 This seems like a passive and rather odd move, but in fact it is very aggressive. Larsen is trying to show that White's early a2-a3 has its downside too. He intends to play 20 ... a4 21 b4 lLlb3 followed by ... e7-e5 and ... i.e6, or the immediate ... i.e6. Should White then put his knight on d5, it will be ex-

changed, and the b3-knight will promise Black good chances along the c-file. 20 lLld5!? Clever play. 20 ... a4 21 b4 lLlb3 22 'ii'd3 would leave Black with a problem on b6. 20 e6 .e7' 21 lLlc3 22 i.g5?! White tries to provoke more weaknesses, but Black fmds enough dynamic play to justify them. The natural continuation would have been 22 b4 axb4 23 axb4 lLla4 24 lLle2, hoping to control Black's active pieces, and then to cash in due to the space advantage. Still, there is nothing here that should scare Black - it is just an ordinary game. 22 23 i.f4 e5! 24 a4! i.e3 25 b4 lLlb3 .dl 26 i.h6

Black wants to put his knight on d4, even at the cost of some material. 26 ... lLld4 27 i.xd4 exd4 28 lLle2 would have justified White's previous moves. i.xh6 27

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 105 Ivanchuk is not afraid to take up 43 :'d4 'ii'e3 44 :'d3 'ii'g5 45 :'d4 the challenge, but 27 .i.f2!? was 'ii'e3 112-1I2 Black is very active, so White certainly worth considering. Black would have then have problems has to go for the repetition; 45 :'c3 with the d6-pawn, while the white :d8 was too dangerous. A strange knight is heading for dS. Black's game, showing some active plans only chance seems to be 27 ... .i.e6!? for Black. Although Black's play 28 lLlxa4 Iba4 29 Axb3 ':ca8 30 was on the edge of the unsound, he :a2 b5 with compensation, which probably never crossed the line into a bad position. should be enough for the draw. 27•• :it'xh6 28 'ii'xd6 .i.e6 29lLlb5 A tough choice. 29 lLldS .i.xd5 Game 44 Filippoy·P.H.Nielsen 30 "xd5 allows .....e3+ and ... l:1d8. My computer claims that Minsk 1996 White is winning here, but surely (1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 not many humans would like to play this position. White will be lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lLlr6 7 some pawns up, but, normally, lLlc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10 when Black wins the a3-pawn, his 'ii'd2 lLlxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 fJ a5 own a-pawn will become a mon13 b3 lLld7 14 .i.e3 lLlc5 15 Lbl ster. Ivanchuk tries to keep things 'ii'b616 :'fcl :'fc817 Ad 'ii'd818 aJ) under control. - ffih 29•••lLld4 30 lLlxd4 'ii'e3+ 31 rt>hl exd4 18 'ii'f8!? Black is very active and surely has enough compensation. But by some clever defensive moves White escapes. 32 b5 Ad8 33 'ii'b4 d3 34 :'c3 h4! It was not just for fun that the hpawn was advanced... 35:'dl 35 h3 was risky, since after 35 ... l:1ac8 36 ':dl "f2 37 :dxd3 Axd3 38 .i.xd3 1i'el + 39 'ith2 l:[d8 Black has at least a draw, and maybe more. 35... h3 36 'ii'b2 :'ac8 37 :'cxd3 l:xd3 38 l:xd3 'ii'e1 39 'ii'e2 'ii'c1 19 b4 axb4 40 'it'dl h~?gl+ 41 'itxgl 1i'~5+ ~2 AJ(J~ 20 .. axb4 . lLle6!? ~bl 'itfh7.. '13. ''KJ 4 .,';f(..c 8~ The traditional path IS 20...lLla4, Since 42 ... .i.xc4 ~ waS ~ but I wanted to use the a-file to embarrassing, Black gets out of the generate counterplay. 21 lLld5 l:aJ! way first, hoping that the white pawns are so weak that they will Winning a tempo, as 22 lLlb6?? fall anyway. l:1xe3 picks up a piece. ~: 34. ~igs ~x63 32.6"g3 i'1:';l'y\d:.',:~ 33-~ Q.-l.J 3"/'[.[ Or ?II At!

*'

// de

.±

fJ

1'65,

106 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 22 ~f2 :ca8 23 tiJb6 :al! Again Black defends actively. The trick is 24 :cc 1 :8a2! White therefore has to allow his opponent to swap a pair of rooks, while leaving Black's other rook actively placed on the a-file. 14 :dl :xdl+ 25 ~xdl :al 26 ~e3 :a3 27 ~f2 fS!

A well-justified move. Black's position looks passive, as only the rook is active, but it is like a compressed spring and his pieces will soon be in command. 28 bS ~e8 29 exfS This helps Black's queen to become active, but 29 ii'd5 ~f7 30 _xb7 :al would have backfired. 29..:iVxfS 30 tiJdS
f8! A last defensive move. Now Black is ready for ideas like 31...g5 and 32... ~g6 or 31. ..ttJc5 and 32 ... ~f7. 31:cl'iVeS! White was planning 32 ~c2, which is now answered by 32 ... :a2 with a nasty pin. 32:bl 32 f4 'iVb2! would force a favourable ending for Black, as 33 :c2 .., 1 24 :d3 is good for

:c1

him. White's pawns are weak and without the queens it will be impossible to defend them. 32...:al 33 f4 'iVe4 34 %bal ~xal 35 ~f3? A mistake under time pressure. Better was 35 'l'e3, hoping to make a draw in a worse ending. 3S.....xc4 36 fS gxfS 37 h4 Admitting failure, but after 37 'iWh6+ tiJg7, White has to worry about a check on the first rank anyway. 37...~xbS 38 'l'h6+ tiJg7 39 ~g3 ~c6 40 t'iJxe7 ~xf3 41 ~xd6
t7! The key move. Black's attack now comes in first. 42 gxf3 ~d4+ 43 'itJg2 'l'e2+ 44 ~hl 'iVfl+ 45
h2 ~gl+ 0-1 White will soon be mated. It is difficult to say exactly what went wrong for White in this game. However, the knight manoeuvre clearly missed the target as Black's rooks managed to become active anyway. This game illustrates quite well that opening the a-file is risky for White, as Black gets plenty of play there. In the last few games we have been focusing on the standard plan with ... 'ii'b6, trying to slow down White's queenside actions. However, more direct plans have also been tried. Game 45 Cu.Hansen-J.Sorensen Denmark (rapid) 1996

(1 e4 cS 2 tiJf3 tiJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tiJf6 7 t'iJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 'l'd2 t'iJxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as 13 b3 t'iJd7 14 ~e3 tiJcS IS :abl)

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 107 15 e6!? This is Sorensen's pet line. He aspires to the attacking chances associated with ... f7-f5, but prepares it with less committal moves such as ... e7-e6, .....e7 and ... iLe5 fmt, and only decides whether or not to go for ... f7-f5, depending on what White is doing.

16 ~hl 16 J.dl!? has been regarded as the 'official' refutation of 15 ...e6 since Tringov-Haik, Vrnjacka Banja 1986, when White was much better after 16... f5 17 exf5 ':xf5 18 It'le2 b5 19 J.c2 1:.f7 20 Ilfdl :d7 21 cxb5 J.xb5 22 It:ld4. But, of course, 17... gxf5! is the right move. Still, there was no reason to rush ...f7-f5, and 16.....e7 looks sensible, when it is difficult to believe that 16 J.dl is such a great achievement. 16 J.eS! An excellent place for the bishop. It now defends the weak d6-pawn as well as having aggressive intentions on the kingside with 17 ...'ifh4!? already in the offing. 17 J.d4 Not very ambitious, but this seems to be the choice of many

players when faced with ...e7-e6. Black could now simply have played 17... J.xd4 18 "xd4 e5! 19 "d2 ttJe6 with no problems at all. 17 1re7 18 :fdl :ad8 19 J.n J.xd4 20 1rxd4 fS!? Again, 20... e5! is safe and solid with no risks. 21 exfS gxfS 22 a3 eS! This concedes White the dSsquare for his knight, but gets d4 for Black's own knight. This is a good bargain for Black, as with the light-squared bishops on the board the dS-knight can be removed, whereas the one on d4 cannot. 23 "e3 ttJe6 24 axb4 axb4 25 axb4 1rg7 26 bS iLe8 27 1rb6 "d7 28 :al J.hS As always, it is difficult to evaluate the position when Black plays the ... f7-f5 break. The b7and d6-pawns are not that easy to attack, and given a couple of free moves Black will have a rook on the g-file with a dangerous attack. 29 :dS1re7 30 :adllt'ld4 31 ttJe2 31 c5! to simplify the position after 31...dxc5 32 1rxc5! seems correct, with a probable draw. 31 •••lt'lxfJ! 32 ttJg3 32 gxf3 J.xf3+ 33 ~gl looks very dangerous for White, but as we cannot find a clear win, this was certainly preferable. 32...'ifh4?? The simple 32 ... ttJxh2! 33lt'lxh5 'ifh4! would have won immediately. 33 gxfJ J.xfJ+ 34 J.g2 J.xdl 35 :xdl f4 36 J.dS+ ~h8 37 ttJe4 1rh3? 38lLlgS 1-0 39 lLlf7+ picks up material. A

lOB Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops tragic end for Black, but the middlegame was certainly fine for him. That 15 ...e6 holds direct threats, is well illustrated with the next game. Game 46 P.H.Nielsen-Larsen Danish ch 1997

(1 d4 tlJf6 2 c4 c5 3 tlJf3 cxd4 4 tlJxd4 tlJc6 5 tlJc3 d6 6 e4 g6 7 .i.e2 tlJxd4 8 "'xd4 .i.g7 9 .i.e3 0-0 10 "'d2 .i.d7 11 0-0 as 12 b3 .i.c6 13 f3 tlJd7 14 lhbl tlJc5 15 l:fc1 e6!) After a strange move order, we now have the main line with an extra tempo for White. 15 ...e6! is a strong idea here, as White's rook belongs on d I. 16 tlJb5 .i.e5 17 l:dl?? Losing, and a very difficult mistake to explain. I had actually discussed this position with Sorensen, who told me about the combination that arises in the game. However, over the board I confused this line with another line I had analysed with iof2 and then tlJb5, which is quite strong (see the next main game).

17......h4! Winning immediately. In fact even 17...tlJxe4 18 fxe4 'W'h4 should win. 18g3 At least White gets an extra piece. 18 h3 o!iJxe4 19 fxe4 'i'g3 with 20...'W'h2+ and 21...f5 wins. 18•••.i.xg3 19 hxg3 "'xg3+ 20 <;PhI 20 <;WI o!iJxe4 21 fxe4 f5! wins, as 22 e5 .i.g2+ mates. 20...tlJxe4 21 "'d3

21 ..JWh3+? 21...tlJf6 would have forced immediate resignation, as 22 ... o!iJg4 mating cannot be prevented without dropping too much material. 22 .i.gl o!iJg4 23 'i'xd6 'i'xf3+ 24 .i.xf3 .i.xf3+ would have fmished the game in a proper way. 22 <;Pgl tlJg3 23 tlJd4? 23 'iii>f2 would have offered some fighting chances, but this was really not my day. 23....i.e4! A nice shot, winning material. 24 fxe4 "'hl+ 25 ~ tlJxe4 26 "'xe4 "'xe4. Normally, three pieces is enough for a queen, but here Black has too many extra pawns, and White will not be able to counterattack, as

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 109 Black's position holds no weak spots. 27 ~f3 "h4+ 28 g2 a4 29 b4 :lac:8 30 :lbc:l d5 31 c:xd5 exd5 32 :lc:S "e7 33 ~f2 b6 34 :lb5 :lc:4 35 fl "d6 36 :lxd5 "xb4 37 :ld7 38 ~d5? "h3+ 0-1 Even without the last blunder, the game was lost. The Maroczy is known as a solid opening, but if White takes it too lightly, Black can still score dramatic wins.

"a3

Game 47 Hellers-Cebalo Debrecen 1992

(1 e4 c:5 1 ~f3 ~c:6 3 d4 c:xd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 c:4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ~f6 7 ~e3 0-0 8 ~el 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10 "dl ~xd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 13 b3 ~d7)

as

14

~f2!?

14 lOeS The immediate 14...'I'c7 has also been tried as well. It was not especially successful in I. GurevichPalatnik, New York 1992, after 15 :abl :fc8 16 :fcl 'I'd8 17 a3 IOc5 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 lOa4 20 lOe2, Black was outplayed, ai-

though his position was probably okay. 17...b6 intending 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 :a3! seems like a reliable alternative. In Kengis-P.H.Nielsen, Gistrup 1997, White went for 15 :lac1 instead, but after 15 ...:lfc8 16 :lfe 1 ~c5!?, Black switched back to the standard plan, as White was not ready to counter it with a2-a3 and b3-h4. The game continued 17 ~fl ~6 18 ~b5 "d8 and now White played 19 e5!?, an unusual way of breaking through Black's fortress, using the fact that the knight on c5 seems insufficiently defended, and I have to admit that it was only through plain luck that I found the following resource: 19 ...a4!, the point being that 20 exd6 axb3 21 ~xc5 ~xb5 22 cxb5 bxa2 is good for Black. Kengis went for 20 h4 ~e6 21 exd6, when a draw was agreed. The ending after 2l...~xbS 22 cxbS 'I'xd6 23 "xd6 exd6 is now okay for Black, as the a4pawn, combined with an attack on a2, secures Black at least equality. 15 :labl Here we see the point of White's 14 .tf2!?: if Black plays along the standard lines with IS ...'i'b6 16 a3, the trick from the 14 .te3 system, 16...lOxb3 does not work now because of 17 'I'dl, when White simply wins a piece as the bishop is now well protected on f2. 15 e6 An aggressive move which seems slightly dubious. The solid 15 ... b6 was Serper's choice against Bischoff, Krumbach 1991, when White was a little better after 16 :lfdl :a7 17 .tfl .te5 18 ~e2 'i'b8 19 IOd4 .td7, but agreed to a draw after 22 moves. Indeed it is

110 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops not easy for White to make progress, as Black is ready to exploit the open a-file which would arise if White should go for a2-a3 and b3b4. Serper indicates that 20 g3!? followed by 21 i.g2 and then 22 f4 is the right way to expand. This does indeed look like the way to play, but Black's position still looks solid enough. IS .....c7!? is seen in the next game and IS ..."'6!? in Game 49. 16 lLlbS! This looks like the right antidote to Black's plans, as the d6-pawn will come under immediate pressure. Less successful was 16 lUdl iLeS 17 iLfl? (17 lLlbS!) 17.....f6 18 l:[bcl gS! 19 lLle2 g4 20 'ii'e3 gxf3 21 gxf3 'ii'g6+ 22 iLg3 fS, when Black had an attacking position in Ikonikkov-P.H.Nielsen, Cheliabinsk 1991, the game ending in a perpetual after 23 f4 lLlxe4 24 fxeS dxeS 2S iLg2 f4 26 iLxf4 exf4 27 lLlxf4 ':xf4 28 "xf4 l:tf8 29 'ii'h4 30 l:[d8 ~f7 31 :d7+! 1/2- 112. In this game Black had the only chances, and White just managed to hold the balance.

:£2

16 17

iLeS lLld4

17 :fd l!? seems more direct to us, as the threat to the d6-pawn forces 17... i.xb5 18 cxbS, which generally favours White. Actually, this was what I had intended in the previous game, but I was surprised by 17 ... 'ii'h4, which is impossible here. Black was maybe intending 18 .....f6, planning 19... gS, with good control of the dark squares on the kingside, but then 19 i.e3! is strong, as now 19... 'ii'h4 20 g3 iLxg3 21 hxg3 'ii'xg3+ 22 'iitfl seems to win for White. Maybe Black could try 18 ... gS, but 19 iLe3 h6 20 h4! looks very good for White. 17 'ii'f6 iLf4 :bdl 18 19 'ii'c2 :fd8 20 g3 iLh6 21 lLlbS!? This leads to the structure discussed earlier. Hellers indicates 21 lLlxc6 i.xc6 22 f4 eS 23 fS as somewhat better for White, but this does not seem all that clear to us, as suddenly Black's pieces are excellently placed, and he has the plan of preparing ...as-a4. 21 iLxbS 22 cxbS

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops III Now, however, it seems clear that White is much better. He has the simple plan of a2-a3 and b3-b4 which is very difficult to prevent, as without the bishop on c6, Black will find it very difficult to undertake any active play.

22 ...:ae8 23 ~c4! Making sure that Black will never be able to push ...d6-dS. 23...~g7 24 :d2 b6 25 "dl "e7 26 "e2 ~e3 27 :e2 "f6?! An ambitious way of preventing White's plan of a2-a3 and b3-b4, but it seems to be insufficient. Better was 27 ... ~g7 28 f4?! 'irb7!, as indicated by Hellers, when Black gets in ...d6-dS with counterplay. 28 :dl ~b4 29 cbg2 "e7 30 ~d4 e5 31 ~b2 tLle6 32 a3 ~e5 33 ~xe6!

It may seem illogical to exchange the strongly posted bishop, but Black was ready to occupy d4 with counterplay. Instead Black's bishop is about to be trapped, and he will lose a pawn.

33.....xe6? Better was 33 ... fxe6, when Black keeps control of d5. Rescuing the bishop will cost a pawn, but as White's extra pawn is the doubled b-pawn, Black retains some drawing chances. 34 :e4 hS 35 :dS h4 36 g4 "f6 37 b4 axb4 38 axb4 ~d4 39 :exd4!? Probably in time pressure, Hellers misses 39 ~xd4 :xc4 40 'i'xc4 h3+ 41 ~f2 'ii'f4? 42 ~xe5! However, he does not spoil anything. 39...exd4 40 ~xd4 "f4 41 ~xb6 :e8 42 ~e3 :el 43 ~xf4 :xe2+ 44 ~h3 :tl 45 :d3 :b8 46 ~xd6 :xb5 47 ~xh4 :g2 48 'i1>h3 :e2 49 ~g3 :b7 50 ~c5 :b8 51 h4

:a8 52 :d5 :b2 53 h5 ~h7 54 hxg6 ~xg6 5S :d6+ ~h7 S6 gS :b3 S7 :h6+ 1-0 There is no defence to 58 ~d4. Although the 15 ... e6 plan is certainly interesting against 14 ~e3, it seems less attractive against 14 ~f2!?, as Black does not have the ...1fh4 trick as in the previous game, and therefore has to take on b5, which hardly ever is good. Game 48 Leko-Spangenberg Buenos Aires 1994 (1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLle6 3 d4 exd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7 tLle3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 "d2 tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~e6 12 fJ as 13 b3 tLld7 14 ~tl!? tLle5 IS :abl)

15

"e7!?

Black wants to play along standard patterns, putting his king's rook on c8, an4 then bringing the queen back to d8. However, here he uses c7 for the queen to sidestep a quick a2-a3 and b3-b4 by White.

16

:fc1

:fc8


White must now take care to avoid 17 a3? a4! 18 b4 tLlb3, winning an exchange. 17 ':'c2 The same tournament featured the game Renet-Spangenberg, in which White tried another way of re aring a2-a3 and b3-b4. After 17 i.dl 'ii'd8 18 a3 b6 19 b4 axb4 20· axb4 tLld7 21 .i.b3 the bishop was well posted on b3, where it protects c4 and eyes fl. Although Black has a solid position, he went down surprisingly quickly after 21...'ii'f8 22 .i.e3 i.f6 23 i.h6 'ii'd8 24 tLldl b5? 25 cxb5 'ii'b6+ 26 tLlf2 i.xb5 27 i.e3 'ii'a6 28 tLlg4 i.g7 29 tLlh6+ i.xh6 30 i.xh6 tLle5 31 'ifd4 txcl+ 32 ':'xcl 'ii'a3 33 'ii'c3 i.d7 34 f4! 1-0. However 24 ... b5? was very bad and 24 ... l::ta3 should be okay. 17 'ifd8 18 'iff8 a3 19 ..t.e3 Preventing 19 ... ..t.h6. 19 h5!? axb4 20 b4 21 axb4 tLla4 22 itldl i.f6

classic b3-b4 break, but as we now know, this is absolutely no guarantee of success. Black's pieces are active, and he has reasonable control of the dark squares. A clear indication of White's difficulties is the fact that Leko now heads for a repetition, as he sees no way of making progress. 23 i.h6 i.g7 24 ..t.e3 i.f6 25 i.h6 i.g7 26 i.e3 i.f6 27 i.h6 'ifd8!? Black bravely decides to play on. 28 i.e3 ct>h7 29 i.n 'ifh8 Now Black has excellent control of the dark squares, and White has to keep his knight on the clumsy dl-square, or else Black's knight will invade on c3. 30 ~hl l::tc7 31 l::tbc1 i.d7 32 l::t&2 i.e6 33 l::tac2 l::tac8 34 ..t.e2 i.d7 35 i.n 'ife8 36 ~gl i.g7 37 i.e2 b5!? Again Black chooses to keep the game alive instead of settling for a draw. 38 cxb5 l::txcl 39 ':xc2 ':xcl 40 'ifxc2 .txb5 41 ~tl e6 Although the position is certainly drawn, Black keeps pressing his slight initiative by making pawn breaks in an attempt to unbalance the position. 42 Wd2 .txe2 43 'ifxe2 d5 44 exd5 exd545 Wd3 d4!? 46 ..t.xd4 'ifd8 47~e3Wg5+?

A typical Maroczy position. White has managed to get in the

Better was 47 ... 'ife7+!, getting the pawn back with a draw. 48 "'e2 Wxg2+ 49 itltl itlb2 50 'ifc3?? After 49 'ife3! White would nearly be winning, as Black is close to losing his lmight, e.g. 49 ... itlc4 SO 'ifc3. Now, however, Black is rewarded for his willingness to take chances.

Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 113 ~'.1(r.,! wi~"

50..:ii'xf2+! 51 .i.xf2 .i.xc3 52 b5 .i.e5 53 h3 ~g8 54 b6 ~f8 55 ~e3 ~e7 56 ~e4 ~e6 57 b7 ~c4 58 .i.d4 ~d6+ 59 ~d3 ~xb7 0-1 Not an error-free game, but one that illustrates that b3-b4 is not that great for White. 14.. :iWc7 and 15 .....c7 both seem reliable ways to reach standard positions, reaching near equality. Game 49 Hernandez-Petursson Linares 1994

(1 e4 c5 1 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 g6 5 c4 ~f6 6 ~c3 d6 7 i.e2 i.g7 8 i.e3 0-0 9 0-0 i.d7 10 "d2 ~xd4 11 i.xd4 i.c6 12 fJ a5 13 b3 ~c5 14 i.f2!? ~c5 15 :abI) ~xd4

15

"b6!?

This was introduced by Larsen in 1989 against Savon. When we saw this move for the first time, we were sure that Larsen had simply played too quickly and was lucky to escape. And when we saw him play 15 ...~6 again three years later we were rather concerned that our national hero seemed to be un-

p

s!cudc_.. ,~

fC,Hlor~

able to remember his own mistakes. Then, suddenly, Petursson started copying it, and we began to understand that they were actually doing it on purpose! _~~._.. _~ 'IM8! Amazing! Two of the biggest experts on the Maroczy consider a2-a3 to be a weakness worth giving up two tempi for! The point is that it is now very difficult for White to regroup quietly before undertaking anything active. The main problem is that 17 fUcl a4! IS b4 ~b3 loses an exchange. In the two Larsen games, White tried the critical 17 b4 axb4 18 axb4. Against Savon, Palma de Mallorca 1989, he went for IS .. .l:la3 19 ~b5 .i.xb5 20 bxc5 .i.c6 21 cxd6 exd6 22 :fdl .i.e5 23 c5 .i.a4 24 cxd6 .i.xdl 25 :xdl "f6, which looks good for Black but ended in a draw. Against Amason in Ostersund 1992, he went for IS ... ~a4 instead, reaching an equal position after 19 ~xa4 :xa4 20 l:fc 1 "a8 21 l:c2 l:c8. 17 b4 should not scare Black at all. 17 .i.dI!? Quite logical, as White wants to keep b3 well under control, and then start regrouping. In the game I.Gurevich-Petursson, St Martin 1993, White tried 17 l:fdl instead, which resulted in an fairly even position after 17... l:e8 18 .i.fl i.e5 19 ~e2 ~e6 20 l:bcl ~8, as Black is now ready for 2l...b5. White stopped this radically with 21 i.b6, but after 21...~5 22 l:bl l:a6 23 i.xc5 dxc5 Black's position was excellent due to his bishop pair and control over the dark squares, although active play by White later secured him a draw.

114 ClassicaL Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 'ii'b8 17 Preparing ... b7-b5 and allowing the king's rook to go to c8. .Ji.e2 lIe8 18 19 a4!? An interesting decision. As 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 lIa3 certainly is okay for Black, White decides to stop a possible ... b7-b5 at the cost of closing the queenside. He now has hopes for an attack on the kingside, as with the queenside closed, he can now concentrate all his pieces over there. 19 lIe7 20 libel 'ii'f8! Black, of course, hurries to bring his major pieces to the kingside battleground. 21 f4 e6!

Securing e7 for the queen, which now seems an ideal square for it. Then the rook will go to f8 in preparation for a later ... f7-f5 break. Should White go for 22 f5, hoping for an attack, 22 ......e7 followed by 23 ... .Ji.e5 gives sufficient counterplay on the dark squares. 22 i.xc5 Not a very ambitious decision, but it was not easy to see a convincing plan for White. 22 .ith4!? looks like an idea, preparing 23 f5!, but 22 ... f5! seems like a convincing answer. Now the game enters a sharp tactical phase which peters out in a draw. 22...dxc5 23 e5 f6 24 'ii'd6 'ii'e7 25 ~b5 .itxb5 26 'ii'xe7 l:xe7 27 exf6 .Ji.xe4 28 fxe7 .Ji.xfl 29 lIxe6 ~t7 30 eS'ii'+ lIxeS 31 lIxe8 ~xeS 32 ~xfl liz_liz 15 ... 'ii'b6 does indeed look suspicious at first sight, but it has some deep points, and so far White has not been able to come up with a convincing answer. It also has a psychological plus as White may believe that his opponent has just blundered, become over-optimistic, and overreact when trying to punish him.

6

Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ...ltJh6!?

Chapter Guide 1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 Jig7 6 Jie3 6 ... d6 6 ... ~h6

- Game 50 - Game 51

In this line Black strives for an early ...f7-f5, attempting to undermine the white centre. If Black manages to time his counterplay correctly, before his opponent can establish a strong hold on the centre, then he may be able to equalise. However, practice has shown that it is quite difficult for Black to handle these positions, and the line has therefore more or less disappeared from high level tournaments.

Of course, Tarrasch's maxims teach that it is bad to place the knight on the edge of the board, but here it does have some use. The only other square for the knight is f6, where it temporarily hinders Black by blocking the g7-bishop and the f-pawn.

Game 50

Geller-Larsen Monte Carlo 1967

(1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 Jig7 6 Jie3 d6)

The immediate 6 ... lLlh6 has, of course, also been tried, but generally it just transposes. A few exceptions are mentioned in the next game. Jie2 7 ~h6!? First recommended by Simagin.

8 0-0 0-0 9 1i'd2 At the time of the game, this move was considered good for White, but now it is not very highly

116 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... 0.h6

regarded. The game transposes to the Classical system with 9...:e8 without Black having played ....:e8! In that variation Black plays 9...:'e8, waiting to counter 10 1Ii'd2 with 1O...llJg4 but here Black gets a better version, since the rook is not urgently needed on e8 with this structure. The standard 9 llJc3 is considered (by transposition) in the next game. llJg4 9 .i.xg4 .i.xg4 10 11 'iWaS llJc3 Nowadays this is regarded as the main line. The alternatives are: a) 11...%lc8 has been played on occasion. A horrible example is Bhend-Keres, Zurich 19S9, when Black had a terrible position after 12 b3 a6 13 :'acl 'iWaS 14 h3 .i.d7 IS llJxc6 bxc6? 16 cS! .i.e6 17 llJdS!?, although Keres later managed to draw. Better was IS ... .i.xc6 16 llJdS 'iWd8, followed by ... b7-bS with reasonable play. b) Langeweg-Velimirovic, Amsterdam 1974, saw 11.. ..i.d7 12 f4 :'c8 13 b3 'iWaS 14 :tacl fS IS exfS gxfS 16 0.de2 .i.e6 17 llJg3 :'fd8 18 :tfdl .i.f7 19 llJbS! 'iWxd2 20 :'xd2 a6 21 llJc3 e6 22 .i.b6 :'d7 23 0.a4 and Black has too many weaknesses. Normally Black is not afraid of endgames in the Maroczy, but if he has played ... f7-fS, they are in general dangerous for Black.

12

up a piece. 12 ....i.d7 followed by ...:c8 seems more logical, after which Black has reasonable play. A sign that 12 f4!? cannot be so bad for Black is the fact that Larsen was ready for it - and Geller did not dare play it!

12

:.rc8

13 b3 a6 14 :'cl?!, Played to prevent ... b7-bS, but this move misses its objective. Better is 14 0.xc6!, which was introduced by a young Kasparov against Ivanov, Daugavpils 1978, which continued 14 ...:'xc6 IS .i.h6! (trading Black's best piece, since IS ....i.h8 16 llJdS 'iWd8 17 'iWgS! is winning) IS ...:'ac8 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17 f4 f6 18 ~h1 bS 19 fS g5 with complex play. Kasparov writes that 17 'iWb2 is preferable, giving White an edge after 17...f6 18 llJdS, though surely it is not a lot. This idea was tried out in Popovic-Abramovic, Novi Sad 1985, and after IS .i.d4 .i.e6 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17 'iWb2 f6 18 llJdS 'iWd8 19 a4 lIac8 20 IIcdl IIcS Black's set-up was solid and he can try for ...b7-bS.

:'ad

Interestingly, Geller has no confidence in 12 f4!?, which had brought Petrosian a quick victory against Heinicke 12 years earlier. In that game Black had played 12 ... llJxd4 13 .i.xd4 eS 14 fxeS dxeS IS .i.e3 :'ad8 16 'iWf2 fS? 17 .i.cS! :'f7 18 h3 and White picked

14

b5!

Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early .. .'l)h6 117 Very strong. After 15 cxb5 Black has the pleasant choice between 15 ... axb5 16liJdxb5 liJb4 17 :b2 .id7 with fine compensation, 15 ...liJxd4 16 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 17 'ii'xd4 axb5 and the spectacular 15 ... .i.xd4!? 16 .i.xd4 axb5, since 17 .i.e3 liJb4 is annoying for White. It may seem odd to give up the dark-squared bishop, but White must defend his queenside and will not get a mating attack. liJd5 'ii'xd2 15 16 1:r.xd2 .i.xd4 17 .i.xd4 :abS! Black keeps things under control. If now 18 c5 .i.e6! 19 cxd6 .i.xd5 20 exd5 tt)xd4 21 :xd4 exd6, he gains a huge advantage due his control of the c-file. IS l:ct ~ 19 .i.b2 bxc4 20 :xc4 ~eS 21 :dc2 ~d7

24 h4 :b5 25 J:r.a4 f6 Seemingly a very innocent move, but it contains a little trap which Geller walks right into. 26 'iti>h2? .i.xd5! 27 :xd5 :xd5 28 exd5 tt)b4 29 ::'xa5 :'c2 Now we see the idea behind 25 ...f6. Without it White would have had a perpetual with :a7+, but now the king hides on f7. 30aJ Entering a difficult rook ending, but the alternatives were grim and in particular 30 .i.d4 l1xa2 31 1:r.b5? liJxdS!! 32 l1xd5 ~c6 is beautiful. 30...:xb2 31 axb4 :xb3 32 :a7+ ~eS 33 :as+ 'iti>f7 34 :bS :d3 35 :b5 :d4 36 g3 g5 37 hxg5 fxg5 38 ~f2 :d2+ 39 'iPg3 h5 40 h3 :d3 41 ~g3 'iPf6 42 'iPf2 :d2+ 43 g3 :d4 44 ~h3 g4+ 45 fxg4 :xg4 46 :b8 :d4 47 :b5 48 :bS :e5 49 l1b5 e6 50 :bS ':xd5 51 b5 :d4 52 :hS :b4 53 :h6+ f7 54 :xh5 ~g6 55 g4 d5 56 :e5 f7 57 ~h4 :xb5 58 :el d4 59 :al f6 60 :a8 :d5 61 ~g3 d3 62 :al ~eS 63 'iti>f2 ~d4 64 :a7 e5 65 g5 e4 66 :a4+ ~e5 0-1 Nice play by Black, who managed to carry out the Sicilian dream: proving that 3 d4 leaves Black a central pawn up!

:e4

Game 51 Wojtkiewicz-Hoffman Valencia 1990

Black enjoys a slight edge. He has more central pawns and a centralised king, and can later play ...a5-a4. This may not be enough to win the game, but it is quite unpleasant for White. .i.e6 22 f3 23 :d2 a5

(lliJf3 g6 2 d4 .i.g7 3 c4 c5 4 e4 cxd4 5 liJxd4 liJc6 6 .i.e3 tt)h6!?) 7 liJc3 This gives Black an extra option. 7 .i.e2 is more exact, as then Black is more or less forced to play

118 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... tiJh6

7... d6, since the alternatives are dubious: a) 7 ... 0-0 8 "d2 tiJxd4 9 .txd4 is very troublesome for Black. The game Seirawan-Shirazi, Durango 1992, continued 9... f6?! 10 tiJc3 d6 11 0-0 tiJg4 12 tiJd5 .th6 13 f4 e5 14 .txg4! .txg4 15 .te3 .tg7 16 fS! with a huge edge for White. Better is 9 ... d6, but it is still unpleasant for Black, since without the dark-squared bishops, plans involving ...f7-fS are less attractive. b) 7 ... fS? is too direct and can be refuted by 8 exfS tiJxfS 9 tiJxf5 i.xb2 (9 .....aS+ 10 tiJc3 "xfS 11 c5!) 10 tiJd2 gxf5 11 .th5+ 'iPfS 12 1i'c2! and White was winning in Unzicker-Filip, Vienna 19S7.

7 d6 interesting alternative is 7... 0-0 8 .te2 f5!? 9 exfS i.xd4 10 i.xh6! l:txf5 11 0-0 and now 11. ..d6 transposes to the next game, but Black also has the extra option of 11...'iVb6!? This was condemned following Gurshevsky-Veresov, Moscow 1959, where White won brilliantly after 12 tiJd5 .txf2+ 13 'Iilhl 1i'd4? 14 .tg4! 1i'xdl IS l:taxdl l:[f7 16 tiJxe7! tiJxe7 17 .te6!!, winning material. However, An

in Marusenko-Turner, London 1994, Black was successful with 12 .....xb2. The game continued 13 l:tbl "a3 14 .tg4 l:[f7 IS tiJc7 l:[b8 16 tiJb5 1i'cs 17 tiJxd4 1i'xd4 18 .te3 "xdl 19 l:[fxdl tiJeS 20 .te2 d6 and now White wrongly took on a7 and ended up worse after 21 .txa7 :a8 22 .td4 :xa2 23 .tn tiJd7. Better was 21 cS with sufficient compensation, but not more. Even 13....txf2+?! is not so easy to refute, although 14 ~hl 1i'a3 IS .tn looks dangerous. Still, White has to act quickly or he will be two pawns down for nothing. Although this is all very interesting, it is not so relevant if White plays 7 .te2. 8 .te2 0-0 9 0-0 fS 10 exfS gdS This seems to be Black's best chance, as the alternatives are dubious: a) 1O... tiJxd4 11 .txd4.txd4 12 "xd4 tiJxf5 13 1i'd2 .td7 14 .tf3 .tc6 IS .td5+ ~g7 16 :el eS 17 cS! gave White a huge edge in TalKupreichik, Sochi 1970, which Tal easily converted into a win. b) 1O....txd4 11 .txh6 l:[xfS and now: bl) 12 .tn is very good for White. In Kudrin-l.Ivanov, New York 1983, Black was outplayed after 12 ... .tg7 13 .te3 .td7 14 l:[el b6 15 .te4 l:[f7 16 .tgS .tf6 17 .txf6 l:txf6 18 1i'd2 1i'fS 19 l:[adl :d8 20 ~d5 l:tf7 21 tiJc7. White rules on the light squares. b2) 12 1i'd2 has also scored well in practice, but in that case 12 ...'l'b6 seems reasonable. Black was better in Ilivitsky-Keres, Pamu 1955, after the weak 13 .te3? .txe3 14 fxe3 "as IS l:txf5 .txfS

Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... t'i:Jh6 119 16 "ir'd5+ "ir'xd5 17 tOxd5 ':c8, as he gets his knight to e5. Surprisingly, 12 ... 'ifb6 has rarely been seen since, but since 12 .if3 looks good, so this is not so important. 11 f4 The logical way to prevent ... f5f4. 111M2 has also been played, but without much success. Motwani-l.Ivanov, British ch 1987, continued 11...t'i:Jf7 12 f4 e5 13 t'i:Jxc6 bxc6 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 "ir'xd8 lbd8 16 :adl .ie6 with an equal ending. 11 .id7 11...'ii'b6? 12 liJxf5 "ir'xb2 13 t'i:Jxh6+ .ixh6 14 liJd5 .if5 15 .id3 gave White a big plus in Yermolinsky-Chepukaitis, Leningrad 1980. 12 hl!? This may be White's best, since he can now answer ... t'i:Jg4 with .ig1. 12 h3 was played in KavalekLarsen, Sousse izt 1967, when wild complications arose after 12 ... 'ifb6 13 t'i:Jxf5 'iWxb2 14 tOxh6+ .ixh6 15 :'cl .ig7. Later 12 "ir'd2 became the normal move, when in IlIescasAbramovic, Biel 1993, Black was fine after 12 ... t'i:Jg4 13 .ixg4 fxg4 14 :'adl 'iWe8 15 tOde2 'ii'e8 16 b3 'ii'g6. 12 ~h8 13 :'c1 :'g8 Black plays very directly, but since there are no real targets, he is unlikely to succeed. 14 .iO 'ii'e8 15 :'e1 :'c8

16 17 18 19

b3 J.gl t'i:Jxc6 lLldS!

t'i:Jg4 'ii'hS .ixc6

As usual, in open poslllons, central strategy proves superior to flank action. The black centre is about to collapse. 19•••e5 20 tOe7 e4 Black continues his hunt for White's throat, but White easily rebuffs the attack. 21 .ixg4 fxg4 22 tOxc8 :'xc8 23 .id4 :'g8 24 .ixg7+ :'xg7 25 'ii'xd6 g3 26 h3 e3 27 ~gl e2 28 'ii'e5! 1-0 Black's plan was certainly too optimistic, but still this game nicely illustrates White's chances, including positional play in the centre. Black would perhaps do better with a more careful approach, but still it seems that ... f7-f5 simply weakens his position, rather than creating dynamic counter-chances.

7

Maroczy Bind: 6 ltJb3 and 6 ltJc2

Chapter Guide 1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7 6llJb3 - Game 52 6 llJc2 d6 7 i..e2 llJf6 8 llJc3 0-0 9 0-0 9 ...a6 - Game 53 9...llJd7 10 i..d2llJcs 11 b4llJe6 12
Game 52

Renet-Rantanen Palma de Mal/orca 1989

(1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7) 6 llJb3 (see following diagram) This was played twice by Alekhine, but despite his two wins it has never caught on. The rare alternative 6 llJb5 was twice played by Bronstein, but without much success. The manoeuvre is well known from the Paulsen Sicilian (after 1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 e6 5 llJb5), but there the idea

Maroczy Bind: 6ltJb3 and 6ltJc2 121

is to force Black to play the weakening ... d7-d6. Here this is not the case, and 6 ltJbS just looks like it loses time. On the other hand White is still very solid, so it leads to a fairly level game. After 6 ... ltJf6, 7 ltJlc3 is probably the best, e.g. 7... d6 8 ~e2 0-0 9 ~e3 a6 10 ltJd4, when White has to play the main line a tempo down! Of course it is possible to play along standard patterns, but Simagin played more creatively with 1O...ltJxd4 11 ~xd4 bS!? (sacrificing a pawn) 12 cxbS axbS 13 ~xbS .i.b7 14 0-0 (clever play by Bronstein; he returns the pawn, hoping that his two queenside pawns will counter the black centre) 14 ... eS 15 ~e3 ltJxe4 16 ltJxe4 .i.xe4 17 a4, when the wild game BronsteinSimagin, Moscow 19S1, later ended in a draw. Instead of 11. ..bS!?, 11. .. ~e6 is a safer way to exploit the extra tempo. Then 120-0 ltJxd4 13 ~xd4 ':'c8 was played in Lutikov-Roizman, USSR 1964, when 13...Wa5, with the standard idea of using the f-rook on the c-file, sidestepping any ltJd5 tricks, gives Black a good position. In a later game Bronstein tried 7 ltJSc3, but after 7... 0-0 8 ~e2 b6!? (it was of course possible to develop normally with 8...d6, but Black plays more creatively) 9 .i.g5 ~b7 10 0-0 lIc8 11 ltJd2 ltJd4, Black had placed his pieces harmoniously, Bronstein-Rantanen, Tallinn 1979. 6 ltJf6 (see following diagram) 6 ...d6 often transposes, but does sometimes have independent value: a) Ljubojevic-Short, London 1980, continued 7 ltJc3 as 8 ltJa4

ltJf6 9 f3 ~e6 10 ~e3 0-0 11 ~e2 ltJd7 with equality. A good plan for Black would be ... b7-b6 followed by ... ltJcS, which will force the retreat ltJc3, since capturing on c5 gives Black control over the d4square. Note that Short did not play 7... ~xc3+. Normally it is good to double the pawns when the knight is on c2, since it is then possible to play .....as and apply pressure on the weak c-pawns immediately. However, with the knight on b3 this is not possible, and the capture is therefore less attractive .

b) In Schmid-Larsen, Havana 1967, White avoided this possibility with 7 ~e2 and Larsen responded with one of his typical flank pawn moves: 7 ...aS!?, and after 8 a4 ltJf6 9 ltJc3 0-0 10 ~e3 ltJd7 11 Wd2? (better is 11 0-0; Schmid probably feared 11...~xc3, but after the inclusion of a2-a4 and ... a7-aS this is less attractive for Black, since White has targets on the b-file) Larsen now won a pawn with 11...b6 12 ltJd4 ~b7 13 ~dl ltJc5 14 ltJxc6 ~xc6 15 ~c2 'i'd7 16 O-O? 'ife6 17 ltJd5 ltJxe4 18 'ifd3 ltJc5 19 ~xc5 bxc5 20 lhel ~eS! 21 f4 ~xd5 22 cxdS ~d4+

122 Maroczy Bind: 6 &jjb3 and 6 tbc2

and won easily. 6 ...e6 was played in AlekhineGonzalez, Estoril 1940, but this weakens the d6-square, and after 7 &jjc3 a6 8 .i.e2 &jjge7 9 0-0 0-0 10 .i.f4 the world champion was able to take full advantage. &jjc3 d6 7 8 .i.e2 0-0 8 ... ~e6 was played in AlekhineSamisch, Vienna 1922, when after 90-0 hS?! (bizarre) 10 cS! opened up the game and Alekhine won convincingly. 9 .i.e3 9 0-0 transposes after 9 ... b6 10 .i.e3. 9 b6 This is commonly played, but we think that 9 ... aS!? deserves serious attention. If 10 a4, Black then continues with ... b7-b6, ...&jjd7-cS and ... .i.b7, as in Schmid-Larsen above. And if 10 &jja4 then 1O... &jjd7 with the plan of ... b7-b6, ... &jjcS etc. This seems quite promising, and we believe that Black is at least equal. .i.b7 10 0-0 Again 10... aS!? was interesting. 11 f4 A good move that prevents ...&jjeS. The omission of f2-f4 had serious consequences in HertneckHicld, Munich 1988: 11 ':c1 ':c8 12 f3? (12 f4!) 12 ...&jjeS (hitting the c4-pawn) 13 &jjdS e6 14 &jjxf6+ .i.xf6 IS ':c2 .i.a6 16 WeI, and now after 16 ...dS! Black won a pawn and later the game. 11 l:c8 12 .i.f3 eS!? The standard ... &jjd7 was safer, but 12 ...eS!? is an attempt to take over the initiative. Black threatens ... eSxf4 followed by ... &jjeS, when

the f3-bishop would be misplaced and the c4-pawn weak. Renet now tries to use the obvious weakness of the backward d-pawn to launch a frontal attack, but Black is already too well developed to have problems with such a simple plan.

13 14 Black already has a good game, but now it goes fast downhill for the Frenchman. &jjxd6 15 16 .i.xd6 17 eS!? 17 l:ab1 .i.d4+ 18 &jjxd4 1i'xd6 gives Black a nearly winning position due to White's weak pawns. 1igS 17 18 .i.dS .i.xal 19 1ixal &jjd8 20 .i.xf8? 20 .i.xb7 first was better, but it is still not very nice. 20 21 cxdS 22 l:f2 'iltn 23 23 Wd4 l:c1+ also loses for White. 23 ~xf8 24 e6? l:xal

Maroczy Bind: 6 tLlb3 and 6 tLlc2 123 25 26

ext7 'ifxfl 0-1

':xf2 'ifxb3

Game 53 Spraggett-Andersson Nov; Sad 0/1990

(1 e4 c5 2 tLlfJ tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7) 6

tLlc2

This is a lot more common than tLlb3, but it should not concern Black too much either. White plays the black side of a line in the English opening with an extra tempo (1 c4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlf6 3 g3 d5 4 cxd5 tLlxd5 5 ~g2 tLlc7) but it is not enough to guarantee an edge. 6 d6 As usual 6 ... tLlf6 normally just transposes after 6 tLlc3 ~g7 7 ~e2, but Black also has a couple of other possibilities: a) 6 ...b6 7 ~e2 ~a6 8 0-0 ':c8 was tried twice at a high level in the sixties: al) Tal-Aronin, Yerevan 1962, continued 9 tLld2 liJf6 10 b3 'ifc7 11 f4 0-0 12 ~b2 b5, when Black won a complicated game, although

White seems to be fine here to us. a2) In Nei-Larsen, Bewerwijk 1964, White played the stronger 9 tLlba3, controlling c4 and b5, and after 9... tLlf6 10 f3 White was slightly better. The ... b7-b6, ... ~a6 plan certainly seems playable, and could be an interesting way of taking the game into uncharted territory. b) 6 ...'ifb6 is another idea to unbalance the position. After 7 tLlc3 ~xc3+ 8 bxc3 "'a5 a position from the English Opening arises, where White has in got e2-e4 for free. Unfortunately, this idea has never been te~ted in practice. It would be interesting to see if White has a convincing answer to Black's simple plan of ...d7-d6, ... ~e6, ...tLle5 imd ... nc8, trying to grab the c4pawn. Maybe White should simply develop with 9 ~e2 and sacrifice the c3-pawn, e.g. 9 ...'ifxc3+ 10 ~d2 'ife5 11 f3 with good play on the dark squares. Still, it is not clear who is better. 7 ~e2 7 tLlc3 allows 7... ~xc3+ 8 bxc3 'ifa5 with a transposition to a position from the English Opening with reversed colours, but with no extra tempo for White. tLlf6 7 The aggressive 7...f5 was played in Alexander-Botvinnik, Amsterdam 1954, which continued 8 exf5 ~xf5 9 0-0 tLlh6 lO tLld2 0-0 11 l[}f3 'ifd7 12 l[}e3 ~h8 13 l[}xf5 l[}xf5 and Black was close to equality due to his control over the d4-square. 10 tLlc3 seems more logical, when lO...O-O 11 ~e3 ~xc2! 12 .xc2 l[}f5, as in CiricHort, Sarajevo 1965, leads to the same kind of position. Both games

124 Maroczy Bind: 6 t'i:Jb3 and 6 lDc2

were drawn, so, although it is slightly weakening, 7 ...fS looks like a reliable alternative. t'i:Jc3 8 Since ... it.xc3 cannot be played now, the knight has to be developed. 0-0 8 An interesting alternative is the immediate 8 ...t'i:Jd7 with the idea of exchanging on c3 and then later playing ...0-0-0. For example: a) The inexact 9 i..e3?! runs into 9 ... it.xc3+ 10 bxc3 'ii'aS 11 'ii'd2 t'i:JcS 12 f3 f6!?, intending 13 0-0 t'i:Ja4 14 t'i:Jb4 t'i:Jxc3 and 13 t'i:Jb4 t'i:Jb3! b) However, this idea completely failed in Stangl-Korchnoi, Nuremberg (rapid) 1994, when after 9 0-0 it.xc3 10 bxc3 t'i:Jcs 11 f3 'ii'aS 12 'ii'el it.e6? 13 it.h6 t'i:Je4 14 it.g7 :g8 IS it.d4 0-0-0 16 t'i:Jb4 'iPb8 17 f4 t'i:Jxd4 18 cxd4, it was obvious that Black's strategy had proved inadequate. 12 ... t'i:Ja4, designed to provoke 13 it.d2 and then continue with ... it.e6, ...0-0-0 etc., is more logical. Still, we think that this is a rather risky strategy, and White should be better. 9 0-0 a6 Not very common, but the Swede always has independent ideas. For 9...t'i:Jd7 see Games S4S7. 10 :el 10 i..gS is more aggressive and logical. Gufeld-Tal, Dneprotovsk 1970, continued 1O... it.d7 11 t'i:Je3 l:tc8 12 'ii'd2 l:.e8 13 ~hl 'ii'aS 14 f4 bS with a complicated game. 9 ...a6 certainly seems to be a good way to get out of theory and maintain a solid position with possibilities for outplaying the opponent.

10 :b8 11 it.d2 This is too passive. 11 it.d7 12 Abl t'i:Je8 13 b4 t'i:Jc7 14 a4?! as! Fixing the dark squares. 15 b5 t'i:Jd4 16 t'i:Jxd4 it.xd4 17 :b3

Now it was of course possible to play ... it.g7 followed by ...t'i:Je6-cS with a nice position, but Black wanted more. 17•••e5! 18 it.n t'i:Je6 19 t'i:Jd5 t'i:Jcs 20 :g3 it.e6 21 it.e3 it.xdS 22 it.xd4 If White were to take back on dS, Black would exchange the bishops, and his knight on cS would give him a positionally winninggame. 22••• t'i:Jxe4 23 :a3 exd4 24 'ii'xd4 t'i:Jf6! 25 cxdS t'i:Jd7! 26 :ae3 'ii'f6! Strong play by Black, keeping a big edge. 27 'ii'a7 t'i:JcS·28 'ii'u5 :a8 29 'ii'c7 :xa4 30 :f4 31 :xf4 'ii'xf4 32 g3 'ii'f6 33 'ii'aS 'ii'd8 34 'ii'c3 Black uses the fact that every exchange will make the difference

:0

:e8

Maroczy Bind: 6l:iJb3 and 6 tDc2 125

between knight on cS and bishop on fl even bigger. 35 :c1 'fIe7 36 h4 h5 37 J.g2 'fIe2 38 'fIf6 'fIe5 39 'fIf3 rt;g7 40 'fIdl 41 'fIc2 :a3 42 b6 :b3 43 :bl l:txbl 44 'fIxbl 'fId4 45 'fIc2 'fIb4 0-1 White had had enough. The simple Maroczy Bind strategy of good knight vs. bad bishop was seen here in its purest form.

:as

Game 54

Ivanchuk-Andersson Tilburg 1990

(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 c4 J.g7 6 tDc2 d6 7 J.e2 tDf6 8 tDc3 0-0 9 0-0) 9

tDd7!?

transposes to note 'b' below after 11...J.xc3 12 bxc3) 11...J.d7 12 'ili'd2 ];lc8 13 :adl :e8 14 ~hl .as IS f3 l:iJe6 16 tDb3 'iWb4 17 .c2 tDa5 18 l:iJxaS .xaS 19 AdS iLlcS with approximately equal chances, but perhaps a slight initiative for White, NimzowitschCapablanca, Carlsbad 1929. However, Black can consider 12 ... l:iJxd4 13 J.xd4 J.c6 with a Classical Maroczy where White has wasted some time with tDd4-c2-d4. b) 10... J.xc3 11 bxc3 tDcs 12 f3 .as 13 'W'd2 l:iJa4 does not win a pawn, since after 14iLlb4 tDxc3 IS tDxc6 tDxe2+ White has 16 'iPf2, which wins a piece because of the possibility of interposing a check on e7. But 13 ... l:iJa4 is not Black's best move. After 13 ... J.e6 14 iLld4 :ad8 IS .:tabl b6 16 J.h6 lUe8 17 .:tbS 'fIa3 18 l:iJxe6 fxe6 19 h4 tDd8 20 hS tDf7 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 J.e3 <3;g7 23 :h8 24 J.fl eS Black had excellent chances in SteinKapengut, Leningrad 1971. Another idea is 12 ... b6 to develop normally, keeping the queen at home to defend the king. If you do not like these kind of positions for Black, normal play with l1...aS followed by ...f7-fS, as played with the colours reversed in the English opening, is also possible. Of course, it is to White's advantage that his bishop is on e3 instead of d2, although this is nothing special. 10 tDc5 If the 11 b4 pawn sacrifice scares you, then 10...aS is playable with a possible transposition. Some independent examples are: a) 11 %lel tDcS 12 b3 iLlb4! with a clear edge for Black, NunnPetursson, Wijk aan Zee 1990.

:f2

The main line. Black puts his knight on cS, where it is often well placed in the Maroczy. 10 J.d2 The standard move, preventing ... J.xc3. A more testing alternative is the critical 10 J.e3, since if Black does not take on c3, White's pieces will be the more actively placed: a) lO ... tDcS 11 tDd4 (11 f3

126 Maroczy Bind: 6 et.Jb3 and 6lDc2

b) 11 'ifcl!? l:te8 12 .i.h6 .i.h8 13 'iM2 a4 14 et.Ja3, PeturssonDonaldson, New York 1991. Now Petursson prefers 14.....a5 15 et.Jab5 et.Jc5 and then ... .i.d7 and ...:tec8 with a good game for Black.

tion proved sufficiently solid. More testing is 14 a3, as played in Razuvaev-P.H.Nielsen, Viking games 1997, when after 14...a5 15 b5 et.Je5 16 et.Je3 f5 17 "d4 et.Jf6 18 c5 White opened the position for his bishops and should have won, but I managed to swindle a draw. Afterwards Razuvaev told me you simply cannot take pawns like this. Remembering my unpleasant position, I have to agree with him. Black should retreat his knight... 11 ~6 White has won some space, but in return Black has play on the dark squares around d4.

12

11 b4!? White hopes to prove darksquared compensation for the pawn after 11....i.xc3 12 .i.xc3 et.Jxe4 13 ~b2 and now: a) In Milos-Spangenberg, Buenos Aires 1996, White's strategy worked well: 13 ... e5 14 "el "g5 15 l:tdl .i.e6 16 hl 1i'h4 17 .i.f3 f5 18 b5 et.Jd8 19 g3 "f6 20 et.Je3 et.Jf7 21 .i.g2 :'ac8 22 f3 et.Jc5 23 f4, and the bishop on b2 soon became a monster. b) However, Black's play can be improved. We much prefer Maroczy-expert Tiviakov's 13 ... .i.e6. Black intends quickly to exert pressure on c4 with ... l:tc8, ... et.Je5 etc. The idea was tried out in SmirinTiviakov, Paris 1995: 14 b5 et.Je5 15 "d4 et.Jf6 16 et.Je3 et.Jed7 17 ltadl a6 18 g4 1i'b6 19 'ii'xb6 et.Jxb6 20 ~xf6 exf6 21 :'xd6 et.Jc8 22 :d2 axb5 23 axb5 112-112. Not very informative, but Black's posi-

.

~hl

Since the f2-f4 thrust is difficult to achieve, this is probably a waste of time. It is better to play either 12 l:[bl (see Games 55 and 56) or 12 :'cl a5 13 a3 and now: a) 13...axb4 14 axb4 et.Jed4 15 et.Jxd4 et.Jxd4 16 .i.e3 when in Geller-Pigusov, Cappelle 1a Grande 1992, Black played the thematic 16... e5!, cementing the knight on d4. White played 17 et.Jb5, but after 17... et.Jxb5 18 cxb5 .i.e6 19 b6 f5 20 f3 :a3 21 "d2 :a2 22 llc2 :'xc2 23 "xc2 "d7 24 :lcl f425 .i.f2 :'c8 he was slightly worse due to his doubled pawns. b) Also possible is 13 ... .i.d7 14 et.Jd5 axb4 15 axb4 et.Jcd4 16 et.Jxd4 et.Jxd4 17 .i.g5 :le8 18 .i.e3 e5 19 .i.g4 .i.e6 20 h3 lla3 with good play for Black, De la Villa GarciaT.Georgadze, Salamanca 1989. 12 et.Jed4 13 et.Jxd4 et.Jxd4 14 .i.d3 as 15 b5 tlJe6 16 lleI et.Jc5 17 .i.bl b6

Maroczy Bind: 6 ~b3 and 6 ~c2 127

18

.tg5

.tb7

fended and could not therefore push the f-pawn to f4 etc. Game 55 lIIescas-Ljubojevic Linares 1993

(1 e4 e5 2 ~f3 ~e6 3 d4 exd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 e4 .tg7 6 ~e2 d6 7 .te2 ~f6 8 ~e3 0-0 9 0-0 ~d7!? 10 .td2 ~e5 11 b4 ~e6) 12 All of Black's minor pieces are excellently placed and he can start preparing breaks with ... f7-fS or ... d6-dS. The game continued: 19 Wd2 lIe8 20 ~d5 f6 21 .te3 e6 22 ~f4 We7 23 f3 lIfe8 24 .c.ed1 lIde8 25 Wf2 .trs 26 lId2 We do not understand this move. It is obvious that Black is playing to break with ... d6-dS and this could have been prevented by the perfectly natural 26 l:tfel with a balanced position. Now Black gets the edge. 26•••d5 27 ~d3 We7 28 exd5 exd5 29 ~xe5 .txe5 30 .txe5 Wxe5 31 Wxe5 bxe5 32 l:lfd1 ~f7 33 exd5 l:lxd5 34 l:lxd5 .txd5 35 gl e6 36 l:ld2 l:lb8 37 a4 lIz_lIz A strange decision. Black is better centralised and would have had good winning chances after 37 ....tb3, threatening ... as-a4. For example, 38 .tc2 .txc2 39 l:hc2, then 39 .. .'.t>d5 followed by ... cS-c4, .. .'.t>c5-b4 etc., which is very difficult for White and totally risk-free for Black. It is notable that in this game White did not even come close to getting active play, since he had to keep the e-pawn de-

l:lb1

12 as 12 ...~cd4 was played in IIlescas-Hjartarson, Barcelona 1989, with a level position after 13 ~xd4 ~xd4 14 .td3 b6 15 ~e2 ~xe2 16 Wxe2 .te6. 15 ~e2 was not very ambitious, but Black is close to equal in any case. 13 a3 13 b5 is seen in the next game. 13 axb4 14 axb4 ~ed4 15 ~xd4 ~xd4 16 .td3 .td7 After 17 lIel lIa3 18 .tfl :e8 19 lIe3 .tc6 20 b5 .td7 21 ~d5 l:a2 22 .tc3 e5 23 ~b4 lIa3?? 24 .txd4 White won a piece in Kaidanov-Khasin, Belgrade 1988. The

128 Maroczy Bind: 6 0.b3 and 6 tLlc2 plan with ... e7-e6, which we see in the main game, would also have been strong here. Khasin should have played ... e7-e6 on move 17 or 18 with good prospects. 17 'it'd Now Ljubojevic played the key: 17 e6!

Black wants to follow up with ....f6 or ....e7 and then double the rooks on the a-file with beautiful co-ordination. 18 ~h6 ~xh6 19 .xh6 .f6 20 .g7 21 :Ldl :Lfe8 22 ~n

.d

~a4!

.i.e2 0.f6 8 0.c3 0-0 9 0-0 0.d7!? 10 ~d2 ttJe5 11 b4 0.e6 12 :Lbl as)

13 14

b5!? b6!?

0.ed4

A try for the advantage. If Black gets in ...b7-b6 and ...~b7 he will have a very solid position. 14 0.xe2 15 .xe2 ~d7 16 0.d5 ~e6 17 ~g4 0.e5 18 ~g5 ~xd5 19 exd5

Forcing a favourable exchange since 23 l:tel 0.c2, 23 :d2 0.b3 or 23 :d3 ~c2 loses the exchange. 23 0.xa4 :Lxa4 24 .b2 e5 Now Black has a dream Maroczy position. Black was winning, but in the end Illescas managed to escape with a draw in 82 moves. Black's play was very instructive and nobody plays 13 a3 anymore. Game 56 Saloy-Adams Dos Hermanas 1993 (1 e4 e5 2 tbfJ tbe6 3 d4 exd4 4

0.xd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 tbc2 d6 7

Adams regards this as slightly better for White, but since he wins this game in an instructive manner

Maroczy Bind: 6 {jjb3 and 6 {jjc2 129

and only gives alternatives with White gaining equality, it is difficult to place too much faith in this. Black has counterplay against the b6-pawn and his only concern is to keep the knight on c5 defended after a white i.e3, since the rook cannot go to c8. 19 h5! This strong move forces White to decide where to put his bishop. If he plays it to h3, Black plays 2o ... lh6, threatening 21.. ..tf6! (not 2l...l:[xb6?? 22 .txe7!) which is a typical idea. If White takes on f6, Black gets the e-file and the usual knight vs. light-squared bishop advantage, and also stops all White plans involving an e4-e5-break. 20 .te2 :e8 21 .te3 a4 Not really a pawn sacrifice, since 22 .txc5 :xc5 23 "xa4 "a8! wins back the pawn with advantage. 22 :b4 a3 23 nibl 'it'd7 24 .tb5 'it'd8 25 .te2 'it'd7 Now Salov should have settled on a draw by repetition. In the game, he was slowly outplayed. 26 :c4?! e6! 27 :dl exd5 28 nxd5 'it'e6 29 .tf4 :e6

It may look like White is very active, but the opposite is in fact the case. All Black's pieces are placed on good squares, and the a3pawn is strong. 30 .txd6 :xd6 31 :xd6 'it'xd6 32 :xe5 'it'xb6 33 :b5 'it'e6 Black followed up with ...':'c8 with the better position and won in 67 moves. As we have seen, Black has just as good chances to win as his opponent in this line, so 11 b4!? does not look like anything to be afraid of. GameS7 Portisch-Tukmakov Madrid 1973

(1 e4 e5 2 1tJf3 ltJe6 3 d4 exd4 4 ltJxd4 g6 5 e4 .tg7 6 ltJe2 d6 7 .tel 1tJf6 8 ltJe3 0-0 9 0-0 ltJd7!? 10.i.d21tJeS) 11

f3

11 as We wonder why nobody has ever tried 1l...'it'b6!? Although this looks like a patzer's move, it is not so easy to refute: a) After 12 ~hl 'it'xb2 13 :bl .i.xc3 14 J:xb2 .txb2 Black has

130 Maroczy Bind: 6 0.b3 and 6 ttJc2

rook, knight and pawn for the queen. His position is solid, and he has a strong knight on c5. Only Black can be better. b) More critical is Ii 0.dS, but 12 .. .'ihb2 13 :bl 'ii'xa2 14 0.cb4 0.xb4 15 0.xe7+ ~h8 16 ~xb4 ~e6 is better for Black. We have not been able to find a decent way to meet 11...'ilfb6, which could mean that 11 f3 is actually a mistake! Instead 1l...~xc3 was played by Spiridonov against Fillip in Sochi 1973. The idea is that after 12 ~xc3 0.a4, White cannot preserve the dark-squared bishop without losing a pawn. However, in the game White used his space advantage with 13 'ii'd2 a5 14 ~hl ~e6 15 f4 f6 16 :adl ~g7 17 0.e3 0.xc3 18 'ii'xc3 'ilfb6 19 :tf3 0.b4 20 a3 0.a6 21 f5 ~f7 22 fxg6 ~xg6 23 0.f5 ~xf5 24 exf5 0.b8 25 lIh3 ~h8 26 l:xh7 ~xh7 27 'ii'h3 1-0. Of course, it is possible to improve on Black's play, but 1l ... ~xc3 looks dubious. 12

a) 14 :acl was played in SanzZsu.Polgar, Leon 1989, when Black reacted with the ultra-solid 14 ... ~d7 IS ~hl ':fd8 16 :fdl .i.e8 17 0.a3 \t1h8. Although Black's last few moves look quite suspicious, she won in 70 moves. Probably Black should prefer either 14...fS or 14... b6 followed by ... ~b7, ...:fd8 etc., with a balanced position. b) 14 :abl fS IS exf5 ~xf5 16 lIbel ~xc2 17 :xc2 0.b4 18 :tccl a3 19 bxa3 ~xc3 20 :xc3 0.xa2 21 lIc2 'ii'xd2 22 :'xd2 0.c3 23 ~xc5 dxc5 24 :al :fc8 25 :c2 0.xe2+ 26 lIxe2 ~f7 112-112 StohlMalisauskas, Manila 011992.

~hl

Once Black has played ... a7-a5 in this line, White need not fear ... ~xc3 anymore, since Black no longer controls b5 and b6, and the black queen cannot go to a5. The more active 12 ~e3!? is therefore quite logical. For example, 12 ...a4 (everybody plays this, but other moves are also possible and in particular the Petursson approach, 12 ... b6 13 'ii'd2 :a7 followed by ...:d7, ...e7-e6, ... ~b7 etc., looks good; Petursson has played the Maroczy for many years, so one should pay extra attention to his ideas. He knows what he is doing!) 13 'ii'd2 'ii'a5 and now:

12 fS A more passive, but solid way of

meeting 12 'ifthl was tried in Conquest-Petursson, Palma de Mallorca 1989: 12 ... b6 13 :el l:a7 14 b3 ':d7 15 'ii'el e6 16 :dl ~b7 and Black had no problems, since he will soon be ready for the ... d6-dS break.-

exfS ~xfS 0.e3 14 ~e3!? is an interesting alternative, e.g. 14... 0.b4 15 0.d4 or 14...~xc2 15 'ii'xc2 0.d4 16 'ii'd2 13 14

Maroczy Bind: 6llJb3 and 6lLlc2 131 or 14 ... ~h8 15 ll)d4 with a slight advantage for White in all cases according to Filip, but 14 ... a4!?, as suggested by David Strauss, seems to provide Black with adequate counterplay.

ll)d4! 14 Black does not care for the bishop pair, since the knights are just as important in the battle for the central squares. ll)xf5 15 ll)xf5 16 J:lbl e6 17 b3 ~h8 18 ll)b5 d5 exd5 exd5 19 b6 20 J:lc1 21 g4 lLld6 22 .i.e3 lLlxbS

23 24 2S

.i.xg7 .i.xbS :c4

~xg7

d4

J:lf4

26 a3 'ii'd5 27 b4 axb4 28 axb4 lLle6 29 'ii'e2 d3 30 'ii'b2 ~h6 31 .i.c6 'ii'xe4 32 .i.xa8 d2 33 'ii'bl :d40-1 A strategic triumph for Tukmakov. In general the 6 lLlc2 and 6 ll)b3 systems do not give Black much to worry about, and he has the choice between many interesting ideas. Of the two, the 6 ll)c2 system with a quick .i.e3, daring Black to take on c3, seems to be White's best: he gets some attacking chances in retum for his spoiled pawn structure, and a complicated game ensues.

8

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

Chapter Guide 1 e4 c5 2 ttJo ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl'lxd4 g6 5 c4 tl'lf6 6 tl'lc3 6 ...ttJxd4?! - Game 58 6 ...d6 7 0 ttJxd4 8 'iVxd4 ~g7 9 ~e3 0-0 10 'iVdl ~e6 11 l:[c1 'iVaS 12 tl'ld5 'iVxa2! 13 ttJxe7+ ~h8 14 ~d4 :feS - Game 59 14 ~e2 ttJgS! 15 ttJxg8 - Game 60 7 ~e2 tl'lxd4 8 'iVxd4 ~g7 90-00-0 10'iVd3 1O... lbd7 11 ~g5 tl'le5 12 We3 ~d7 - Game 61 1O...~e6 11 ~d2 - Game 62 10'iVe3 1O...~d7 11 ~d2 - Game 63 1O... ~e6 11 :b 1 - Game 64 9 ~e3 0-0 10 'iVd2 ~e6 11 0-0 'iVaS 12 :abl!?- Game 65 12 :acl - Game 66 11 f3 - Game 67 9~g5

9... h6?! - Game 68

9...0-0 10 'iVe3 ~e6 11 :cl 1i'b6! 12 b3 10'iVd2 10... a6 11 f3 - Game 70 10...~e6 11 0-0 - Game 71 11 %leI - Game 72

- Game 69

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 133

Over the past few years the Gurgenidze line has developed from viable sideline to become the most frequently played variation in the entire Accelerated Dragon. In particular, the games of Tiviakov, Antunes, Petursson and a group of Cuban players such as Andres have done much to popularise it. Black's main idea is to get in the freeing ... b7-b5, but depending on the particular set-up chosen by his opponent, Black has a variety of different plans to choose from, and these are explained in the illustrative games. Game 58

Polugayevsky-Jansa Sochi 1974

10 1M2 transposes to the next game) 9... 0-0 10 ~e2 .i.e6 11 ~d2 ttJd7 12 0-0 'iib6 13 'iWxb6 ttJxb6 14 b3 a5 with equality, KlavinBannik, USSR 1963. c) 8 c5 ~g7 (less advisable is 8... dxc5?! 9 'iWxc5 [Silman and Donaldson give 9 'iWxd8+ 'iti>xd8 10 ~f4 .i.e6 11 0-0-0+ 'iti>e8 12 ~e3 c4 13 nd4 ttJg4 14 ~xc4 ttJxe3 as equal, but 12 ttJb5 seems to win for White] 9 ... .i.g7 10 ~e2 0-0 11 ~f4 with a small advantage for White according to Levy) 9 ~b5+ ~d7 10 cxd6 0-0 11 0-0.txb5 12 ttJxb5 a6 13 dxe7 'iWxe7 14 ttJc3 lIfe8 15 lIel lIad8, as in Ciocaltea-Parma, Athens 1968, and now 16 -.c4 gives equal chances.

(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ttJf6 6 ttJc3)

ttJxd4?! 6 This is an inaccurate move order, as it allows White some extra options. Most importantly, White does not need to decide immediately whether he wants to play .i.e2 or f2-f3; here he can wait and place the light-squared bishop on the ideal square d3. 7 -.xd4 d6 ~gS! 8 This is the only way to take advantage of Black's move order. Other moves have been tried, but none of them have secured White an advantage: a) 8 b3 ~g7 9 .i.b2 0-0 10 .i.e2 "it'a5 11 0-0 .li.e6 12 l:tac1 nfc8 13 "it'd3 a6 14 ~al nab8 with equal chances, Korchnoi-Benko, Buenos Aires 1960. b) 8 f3 .i.g7 9 'iWf2 (9 .i.e3 0-0

8 ~g7 9 0-0 There is no real point in holding back on castling, as Black will have to do it later anyway. However, other moves have been tried: 9 ... .i.e6 10 :tcl nc8 11 b3 'iWa5 12 f3 (12 .i.d3?! allows 12 ...h6 13 ~e3 ttJg4 14 .i.f4 g5 15 ~g3 ttJe5 with equality according to Bagirov) 12 ... h6 13 ~e3 0-0 14 ~d3 (14 ~xh6? .ixh6 15 'iWxh6 b5! is excellent for Black) 14 ... 'iti>h7 15 0-0

134 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

a6 16 h3 lZ'ld7 17 f4 f5 18 exf5 ~xf5 19 ~e2 with a small but clear advantage for White, Polugayevsky-Beliavsky, USSR ch 1975. 10 ~d3! Here 10 ~e2 transposes to Games 68-72, whereas 10 f3 is analysed in the notes to the next game. 10 Black has not had much luck with the alternatives either: a) 10... ~d7 11 0-0 a6 12 :fel llb8 13 lZ'ld5 lZ'lxd5 14 exd5 f6 15 ~f4 and White was on top, KhasinMakarov, USSR 1976. 1O... a5 11 0-0 a4?! b) (1l...~e6!?) 12 lIael ~e6 13 "c2 with a slight plus for White, Portisch-Reshevsky, Petropolis izt 1973. 11 lid 11.. .a6 was tried in MorgadoBaumbach, carr 1984/89, but here too White obtained an advantage: 12 0-0 l:te8 13 lZ'ld5! ~xd5?! (White is only slightly better after 13 ...lZ'lxd5) 14 cxd5 lZ'ld7 15 b4! llc8 16 :xc8 .xc8 17 l:tel 1i'b8 18 ~e2 with a big plus for White. It is surprising to see an Accelerated Dragon specialist like Baumbach end up in such a bad position. 12 0-0 In Nijboer-Van der Weide, Amsterdam 1996, White was successful withJ_+'._~ "xd2+ 13 ~xd2 ~xd5 14 cxd5 lUc8 15 f3 ~ 16 ~e3 a6 17 b4 e6 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 h4 with a clear edge for White. Since 12 .....xa2 13 lZ'lxe7+ ~h8 14 0-0 is also quite uncomfortable for Black, perhaps 12 .....d8 is necessary. 12 a6 13 b3 IIfe8

"as

14

IIfel

~f8!

Intending ... b7-b5 without allowing lZ'ld5. White should now have met this plan with ~ :tab8 (l5 ...1i'b4!?) 16 IIc2~ 17 IIbl 1i'b4 18 "el, intending .i.d2 with a clear advantage for White, as in Spraggett-Zuk, Canada 1983. IS IIc2 b5 16 exbS axb5 17 lied b4 18 lZ'lb5 IIxc2 19 IIxc2 ~d7 20 lZ'le7! White is slightly better, but in the rest of the game he lets his advantage slip away: 20...lIe8 21 "d "eS! 22 lIe4 22 ~f4!? was interesting. 22 ...lZ'lg4 23 ~f4 "a 1 24 h3 "xd+ 25 IIxdlZ'le5 26 ~a6 IIb8 27 ~d2 e6 28 'itm Perhaps 28 ~fl!? 28... cbe7 29 ~e2 ttJe6 30 ~b5 IIb6 31 ~e2 ~d4 112_112 ~rI1~,59._

Panchenko-T.Georgadze USSR 1975 (1 e4 e5 2 ttJrJ ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 135 tbxd4 g6 5 c4 tbf6 6 tbc3) 6 7

d6 f3

This move was immensely popular in the early seventies, but when it became apparent that White does not have much to show after 12 .....xa2, its popUlarity slowly died out. These days 7 f3 is rarely seen, and it could therefore serve as a handy surprise weapon, though with accurate play by Black, all White can hope for is equality. The standard 7 .te2 is seen in Games 61-72. tbxd4 7 7... iJ..g7 transposes to the Classical Maroczy with White already committed to f2-f3, but White more or less always plays this move at some point. Note that 7...'ifb6? (hoping for either S tbc2 or S tbb3) is bad because of S .te3! "xb2 9 tba4 "a3 10 .tel 'ifb4+ 11 .td2 "a3 12 tbb5, when the black queen is trapped. "xd4 .tg7 8 9 .te3 Another possibility is 9 .tg5, but when White has already weakened his dark squares with 7 f3, this

move has less point. Although White has had some good results with this approach, Black should be able to equalise without too much difficulty: 9 ... 0-0 (just as in the line with 7 .te2, 9 ...h6 gives White a small advantage: 10 .te3 0-0 11 "d2 h7 12 :el iJ..e6 13 b3 tbd7 14 iJ..e2, Vaisman-Balogh, Budapest 1975) 10 "d2 .te6 11 :el (11 iJ..e2 allows 11...:cS 12 tbdS bS!?, which may transpose to the note to White's 11th move in Game 70) 11.....aS (here Black can try to transpose to Game 70 with 11...:cS!? 12 b3 a6, when 13 iJ..e2 bS allows the transposition) 12 b3 :fc8 13 ~dS (13 iJ..e2 a6 transposes to Game 72) 13 .....xd2+ 14 ~xd2 tbxdS IS exdS (or IS cxdS .td7, when 16 iJ..xe7?? loses to 16....th6+, and the pawn-grabbing 16 ':'xc8+ :xc8 17 .txe7 gives Black a nasty initiative after 17....th6+) IS ....td7 with equality, as 16 iJ..xe7? .ih6+ 17 ~dl .txcl 18 ~xcl :e8 19 .txd6 :el+ is good for Black. The above is very similar to the lines in Game 72. For a better understanding of the ideas for both sides, careful study of those lines is recommended.

9

OMO

10 "d2 .te6 As in the 7 .te2 lines, Black must be very careful with the move order. Here, for example, 1O.....aS? allows White to expand on the queenside because his rook is still on al: 11 a3.te6 12 b4 "d8 13 :el :cS 14 tbbS a6 IS tbd4 .td7 16 .te2 "c7 17 0-0 with a clear advantage for White, SavonTal, Sukhumi 1972. 10....td7, intending ...a7-a6 and


...b7-b5 has also been tried, but so far this has proved a little too passive to provide equal chances: 11 ltc1 Wa5 12 iLe2 ltfc8 13 0-0 a6 14 b3 iLc6 (worse is 14... b5?! 15 c5! :c6 16 cxd6 exd6 17 ':c2 %:tac8 18 ~d5 with a clear advantage for White, Polugayevsky-Bednarski, Siegen 01 1970) 15 iLd4 ~d7 16 iLxg7 c;i;1xg7 17 ~hl ~g8 18 f4 b5 19 'ifb2 bxc4 20 iLxc4 with a small advantage for White, SuetinForintos, Budapest 1970. An untried idea is l1...a5, intending 12 iLe2 iLc6 13 0-0 ~d7 14 b3 ~c5 transposing to a Classical Maroczy with White already committed to %:tc1, which is not considered dangerous for Black. 11 ltel In Donaldson-Perelstein, Bermuda 1997, Black was apparently unfamiliar with 7 f3 and chose l1...a6?! here: 12 b3 Wa5 13 ~d5 (now ...Wxa2 is no longer possible, and Black will just end up in an inferior endgame) 13 ...Wxd2+ 14 ~xd2 iLxd5 15 cxd5 :'fc8 16 ltxc8 :'xc8 17 g3! with a clear advantage for White.

but here too Black does not have much to worry about: 12 ... ':fc8 13 iLd3 a6 14 ~a4 (the less accurate 14 ~e2 was tried in lPolgarAntunes, Yerevan 01 1996, which continued 14... Wxd2+ 15 ~xd2 ~d7 16 ~f4 ~c5 17 iLe2 a5 18 ~d5?! [18 h4 is equal] 18 ...iLxd5 19 cxd5, reaching the position that White was probably hoping for, but she was in for a big surprise: 19 ... a4! 20 b4? [better is 20 iLc4, but White hadn't seen Black's next move]

waS

12 ~dS A popular alternative

i~~

b},

20...~b3+!! [all of a sudden Black is much better, the passed apawn will cost White a rook, leaving Black an exchange up] 21 axb3 :'xcl 22 :xc1 a3 23 iLb5 a2 24 'itd3 a1'if 25 Axa1 ltxa1) 14... 'ii'xd2+ 15 cotxd2 llXl7 (this position is almost identical to the main line with 7 iLe2 and 9 iLe3, except that the bishop is on d3 instead of e2; however, the position is still equal - see Game 67 for a comparison) 16 f4 f5 17 :the1 'itfS 18 exf5 and Black has no problems: 18 ... iLxf5 19 iLe2 h5 20 iLf3 :'c7 21 ~b6 (or 21 ~c3 e6 112-112 Polugayevsky-Timman, Hilversum 1973) 21...~xb6 22 iLxb6 :d7 23 iLd5 :e8 24 :e6 iLf6 25 :ce1 a5! 26 a4 :a8 27 lt6e2 iLg4 28

:e4

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 137 1/2- 1/2 Boey-Abramov, corr 197580. II 'ii'xa2! This is the move that has made it possible for Black to continue playing 7 ...ttJxd4 against 7 f3. Prior to the discovery of 12 .. :iha2!, Black had suffered badly in the ending that arises after 12 .. :ihd2+ 13 'it>xd2 .i.xd5 (unlike most cases when White plays ttJd5, here Black cannot play 13 ...ttJxd5 14 cxd5 .i.d7, because White then has 15 ':'c7) 14 cxd5 l:.fc8 15 ':'xc8 (Kholmov gives 15 .i.e2 e5! 16 dxe6 fxe6 as unclear, but after 16 a4! White has all the chances) 15 ...lIxc8 16 g3, and White is much better. Two examples are: 16 ... ':'c7 17 J.h3 ttJd7 18 ':'c 1 ':'xc 1 19 'ii7xcl ttJc5 20 'it>c2, Kurajica-Huguet, Malaga 1970, and 16...b6 17 .i.h3 ':'c7 18 lIcl ttJe8 19 b4 ':'xel 20
14 .i.d4 For White's alternative, 14 J.e2, see the next main game. After 14 .i.d4 Black has to decide which rook he will place on e8. 14 ':'fe8

14 ... :ae8 is generally considered to be stronger in this position because it keeps the t7-square protected. However, we feel that the text move is better, as it offers more possibilities for White to go wrong, whereas the other rook move leads to a more or less forced draw. After 14...%lae8 15 tLld5 J.xd5 (an interesting alternative is 15 ... ttJxd5, although its only outing turned out in White's favour: 16 cxd5 J.xd5 17 J.b5 J.c6 18 J.c4 "'a4 19 J.xg7+ hl

30 llxd6 llb8 31 :gl lbgl+ 32 lIbl+ 33 ~f2 l:tb2+, when Black has the initiative in the endgame. But as Larsen would say: 'Long variation, wrong variation!' White can improve with 18 O-O!, threatening 19 "c3, as Black no longer has 19 .....gS due to 20 f4. The only move is 18 ...lLld7, which is slightly better for White after 19 ~xg7+ ~xg7 20 "xd6 followed by ~dS. 15 lLldS In Vaisman-Volchok, corr 1973, White achieved nothing with IS "c3 lLlhS 16 ~xg7+ (Andersson the following line: 16 g4 ~xg4 17 lLldS ~xf3 18 ~xg7+ lLlxg7 19 "xf3 "xb2 20 ~dl with an unclear position) 16... lLlxg7 17 b4 as 18 bS a4 19 ~e2 a3 20 'ii?h2 Wb2 21 lLldS ~xdS 22 cxdS fS and Black even had the better chances. Timman has suggested 17 b3 as better, giving 17.....a6 18 lLldS ~xdS 19 cxdS Wb6 as unclear, but with his control over the dark squares and better development, we believe that Black is better. ~xd5 15 16 cxd5 %lacS Both 16... lLlxdS? and 16.....xdS?! are met by 17 ~c4. 17 ~e2 %lxcl+ Also possible is 17 ...~g8 180-0 "a4 19 ~c3 Wb3 with equality, Bednarski-Ree, Skopje 011972. 18 "xci lLld7 18 .....aS+ is inaccurate due to 19 "c3 "xc3+ 20 bxc3 lLld7 21 ~d2 :c8 (21...~xd4?! 22 cxd4 lLlb6 23 :al was better for White in Donaldson-Silman, Philadelphia 1985) and now both 22 Aal a623 :bl ':c7 24 f4, PolugayevskyBednarski, Varna 1972, and 22 ~xgl

grves

lIbl lLlcs 23 ~e3, as in Panchenko-Gufeld, Kishnev 1975, are slightly better for White.

19 ~xg7+ ~xg7 20 "c3+ ~g8 21 ~ lLlb6 22 "f6 %lc:8 23 h4 %lc2?! This is not the best, Black has the strong 23 ... lLla4!, when PavlovAdorjan, Bath 1973, continued 24 hS "xb2 2S "xb2 lLlxb2 26 :al a6 27 'iii>e3 l:tc2! with a small advantage for Black. 24 h5 lLld7 lLlf8 "d8+ 25 26 hxg6 fxg6 27 "xd6? This allows Black to draw immediately, but even after the stronger 27 :el! Black has good drawing chances, e.g. 27 .....a6 28 ~fl 1t'b6 29 "xb6 axb6 30 b4 gS followed by ...lLlg6. 27 :xe2+ :xe2 28 "xb2+ The rest of the game was just a series of queen checks: 29 'iii>d3 "b3+ 30 ~d4 "b2+ 31 'iPc4 "c2+ 32 ~b4 .-b2+ 33 ~c4 "c:2+ 34 ~b4 ~2+ 35 ~a4 "c2+ 1/2-1/2


Game 60 Andonovski-Baumbach Corr 1981-84 (1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 d6 7 f3 lLlxd4 8 "xd4 i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 10 "d2 i.e6 11 "a5 12 lLld5 "xa2 13lLlxe7+ ~h8)

:c1

14

i.e2

14 lLlg8! This is the only way for Black to continue; gaining time by threatening the b2-pawn and forcing White to decide what to do about his knight on e7. The alternatives have proven ineffective: a) 14 .. JUe8 IS lLldS i.xdS 16 cxdS with a clear edge for White, lansa-Gazik, Sarajevo 1972. b) 14 ... lLld7 IS i.d4 lUe8 160-0 'ii'b3 17 ~dl 'W'a2 18 1Wc3 i.xd4 19 'W'xd4+ f6 20 lLldS with slightly better chances for White, Andersson-Reshevsky, Palma de Mallorca 1971. 15 lLlxg8 Although IS lLldS!? is probably a stronger move, the text is just as popular. After IS tiJdS!? Black has

to play with care to avoid ending up in a bad position: IS .....xb2! (for some reason Black often gives preference to IS ... i.xdS, which should give White a small advantage with best play: 16 cxdS l:lfc8 17 0-0 as 18 i.d4 "a4 19 i.c3 1Wb3 20 g3 a4 21 i.xg7+ ci;xg7 22 'W'd4+ f6 23 i.dl 1Wbs 24 :xc8 l:txc8 2S 1Wxa4 1Wxa4 26 i.xa4 l:tc7 27 l:tf2 with an advantage for White, Cornu-Dusart, carr 198890) 16 'W'xb2 i.xb2 17 :bl i.g7 18 lLlc7! l:tac8 19 l:txb7 ':b8! 20 l:txb8 ':xb8 21lLlxe6 fxe6 22 i.xa7 l:lbl+ 23 i.dl lLle7 240-0 lLlc6 2S i.f2 i.d4 with equal chances, Schmidt-Andersson, Warsaw 1973. 15 ct>xg8 16 i.xd4 i.xd4 17 "xd4 1Wa5+ 18 ct>f2 Also 18 'W'c31WeS 190-0 l:lfc8 is fine for Black. 18 "e5 Another excellent possibility is 18 ...1Wcs, as in Commons-Browne, USA 1973, which continued 19 :cdl (Browne gives 19l:lhdl l:lfd8 20 :d2 "xd4+ 21 l:txd4 'ii;>f8, intending ... ct>e7, when Black is fme) 19... :fc8 20 b3?! (20 l:ld2) 20 ... aS! 21 "xcS dxcS 22 :al bS 23 :hbl a4 24 bxa4 bxa4 2S l:tb7 l:taS with a small advantage for Black. 19 :cdl :fc8 More passive, yet still adequate is 19...:fd8 20 l:td2 'W'xd4+ 21 l:txd4 'if.?f8 22 f4 as 23 g4 f6 24 g4, Ribli-Ghitescu, Kecskemet 1972, and now 24 ... h6! should provide Black with equality according to Florian. 20 b3 Black does not have any problems after 20 g3, e.g. 20... l:tc6 (or


20 ... a6 21 f4 "iWcs 22 "xc5 l:txcS 23 b3 bS with equal chances, Tringov-Mista, Varna 1973) 21 f4 "xd4+ 22 l:txd4 l:tb6 23 g4 f6 24 b3 l:txb3 25 :xd6 with equality, Timman-Ree, Amsterdam 1972. 20 :'e6 Or 20...aS 21 "iWxd6 Wxd6 22 :'xd6 a4 23 bxa4 :xa4 24 :'b1 :'a2 2S' 'ifi1e3 i..xc4 26 i..xc4 :'xc4 with level chances, AnderssonHug, Las Palrnas 1973. 21 We3 In Pytel-Bednarski, Lublin 1972, White got himself into trouble after 21 :'d2 ltb6! 22 "iWe3?! fS! 23 exfS Wxe3+ 24 ~xe3 :'xb3+ 2S ¢>f2 i..xf5 26 g4?! i..e6 with a clear advantage for Black. 21 as!? Black can also try 2l...%tb6!? 22 :d3 Wc5 23 :a1 a5 with a good game for Black according to Ghizdavu, whose analysis continues 24 ':a4 ':b4 25 ':xb4 axb4 26 f4 :'a2 27 'ilfxc5 dxc5 28 '.ii>e3 '.ii>g7 29 g4 b5 with a clear advantage for Black. 22 :'d4 a4

23 b4? Equal was 23 f4 'ilff6 24 bxa4. Now the black passed a-pawn will

cause White a lot of grief. 23 a3 24 f4 Wf6 2S bS :'ee8 26 g3 al 27 Wc3 Against 27 :a1 Baumbach gives the following variation, 27 ... i..xc4! 28 e5!? dxe5 29 :'xc4 :'xc4 30 i..xc4 exf4 31 WeI fxg3+ with a strong attack. However, Black also has a tactical solution against the text move. The game finished: 27 ... dS! 28 exdS i..xdS 29 :'d Wb6 30 :'al :'a3! 31 e5 Wf6 32 Wd2 :'xeS 33 Wb4 b6 34 l%ddl :'b3 35 Wa4 :'b2 36 :'xd5 :'xd5 37 :'xal :'dxb5 38 :'xb2 :'xb2 0-1 A powerful game by Baumbach. Game 61

Franzen-Baumbach CO" 1994-96 (1 e4 eS 2 llJf3 llJe6 3 d4 exd4 4 llJxd4 g6 5 e4 llJf6 6 llJc3 d6)

7

i..e2

7 8 9

Wxd4 0-0

llJxd4 i..g7


This move is quite hannless and should not cause Black too many problems. Better are 9 i.e3 (see Games 65-67) and 9 i.g5 (see Games 68-72). Finally, White can opt for 9 i.d2 0-0 10 'it'e3, but after 10... i.d7 or 1O... i.e6, he will have nothing better than a transposition to the main lines. 9 0-0 Now White invariably chooses to move his queen out the line of the bishop on g7. Here and in the next game we consider 10 'it'd3, while Games 63 and 64 deal with 10 'ii'e3. 10 'ii'dJ

This line has been a favourite of Smejkal for many years and of late also of the young Hungarian Zoltan Almasi. With the white queen on d3, it is harder for Black to achieve ... b7-b5, as the queen gives extra protection to the knight on c3. White's plans for the future lie on the kingside. He intends to exchange the dark-squared bishops and then play f2-f4-f5. Black's counterplay is mainly based on his attempts to get in the freeing ... b7b5 and exert pressure on the c4and e4-pawns. Black has a number

of moves to choose from; in this game we shall take a look at 1O... t[)d7 and 1O... a6, while the next game will cover 10... i.e6 and 1O....i.d7. 10 ~d7!? Black targets the queen on d3 and intends to give up his darksquared bishop under favourable circumstances in order to weaken the white pawn structure. Until quite recently this idea was considered dubious, but at present Black seems to be doing just fine. Before we continue with the merits of the text move, let us take a look at 1O...a6: 11 i.e3 ~g4 (for the better alternative 11...i.d7!? see 1O...i.d7 11 i.e3 a6, which can be found in the next main game) 12 .i.xg4 .i.xg4 13 i.d4 .i.xd4 14 'ii'xd4 i.e6 (this position can also arise from a different move order: 9 i.e3 0-0 10 'ii'd2 t[)g4 11 i.xg4 i.xg4 12 0-0 a6 13 i.d4 i.xd4 14 'it'xd4 i.e6) and now: a) 15 f4 b5! 16 b3 bxc4 17 f5 i.d7 18 bxc4 with an unclear position - Silman and Donaldson. b) 15 ]:lfel ]:lfe8 (both players prepare for ~d5, but Black could also consider 15 ...b5!?) 16 b3 'it'a5 17 t[)d5 l:ac8 18 t[)f4 i.xc4?! (much better was 18 ...'ii'c5, e.g. 19 ltJxe6 fxe6 20 'ii'd3 ]:lf8! followed by ... b7-b5 with excellent chances for Black) 19 e5! J..b5 20 ltJd5 J..c6 21 exd6!, as in KeeneSchmid, Bath 1973. Now, instead of 21.. ...xd5? 22 'ii'xd5 .i.xd5 23 d7 with a clear edge for White, Black should have tried 21...:cd8 22 t[)xe7+ ':xe7 23 ':xe7 'ii'g5 24 f3 'it'xe7 25 dxe7 ':xd4 26 ]:leI f5 27 ':'xc6 'it>f7 with a defensible ending according to Keene.


c) 15 b3 (best; White secures his queenside before proceeding on the other flank) 15 ...'iWa5 16 f4 f6 17 l:tael! :'acS?! (better was 17... 'ii'c5) IS f5 i.f7 19 lLldS, Smejkal-Jansa, Amsterdam 1975, and now Smejkal suggests 19 ...l:tfeS! 20 q.,hl "xa2 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 :'e3 with an unclear position. However, it seems to us that Black has quite a few problems to solve. Right now his king is under heavy fire; White threatens 23 lLlxf6+ exf6 24 1Wxf6 followed by l:.h3 and mate, so Black's only defence is 22 ... i.xd5 23 "xdS+ q.,g7 and now not 24 :'g3?!, which is answered with 24 ...l:tc5 25 "xb7 :'e5!, but the simple 24 "xb7 when White has somewhat the better chances. 11 i.gS!? This is considered best. The alternatives should not worry Black: a) 11 i.e3 lLlc5 12 "c2 i.xc3 with a slight plus for Black. b) 11 "g3 lLJc5 12 1Wh4 i.xc3 13 bxc3 f5 14 i.g5 (14 exf5 i.xf5 15 i.e3!?) 14 ...:f7 with an edge for Black, Smit-Parma, Yugoslavia-USSR 1961. c) 11 i.d2 lLlc5 12 "e3 (Black is a tempo up on the 10 1We3 line and is doing fine) 12 ... i.d7 (equally good is 12 ...a5) 13 .tIacl i.c6 14 f3 a5 15 b3 e6 16 :fdl "e7 17 i.fl :'fdS IS 'iWf2 b6 19 i.e3 i.e5 20 :'c2 ':acS and Black had no worries in AnderssonTukmakov, Madrid 1973. 11 lLJcS 12 'iWe3 i.d7!? Two other moves are worth considering: a) In Z.Almasi-Spangenberg, Buenos Aires 1996, Black tried 12 ... lLJe6?! and stood a bit worse

after 13 i.h6 i.xh6 14 "xh6. Z.Almasi gives 13 i.h4! with a clear edge for White as stronger, but Black has a solid position and can defend himself. A possible line 13 ...:eS 14 :'bl (preparing lLJdS) 14... i.d7 15 lLJd5 i.c6, intending .....d7 followed by ... i.xd5, ... lLJd4 and ... e7-e6 or ...e7-e5. b) A very interesting alternative is 12... i.xc3!?, which was revived by Black in Mohrlok-Kamenets, corr 1992-94. After 13 bxc3

Black played the strong 13 ...:'eS!, which is an improvement over the previously tried moves: 13 ... b6? 14 i.h6 :'eS 15 f4 i.b7 16 f5! e6? 17 fxg6 fxg6 IS e5! d5 19 ':f4 lLJe4 20 cxd5 exd5 21 ':xe4 dxe4 22 i.c4+ i.d5 23 1Wxe4 i.e6 24 'ii'b7 :e7 25 i.xe6+ and White soon won in SmejkalJansa, Hradec Kralove 1981, or 13 ...f6 14 i.h6 :'f7 15 f4 f5! 16 exf5 i.xf5 17 g4 i.e4 18 f5 ""6 19 fxg6 :'xfl + 20 :'xfl hxg6 21 i.f3 :'c8 22 h4 with an initiative for White, Vukcevic-Tennant, corr 1989. After 13 ...:'e8! White continued with 14 f4 (also possible is 14 :adl) 14.....,,6 15 :'abl 'iWc6 16 e5?! (Mohrlok suggests 16 i.f3!? and gives 16.....a6 17 e5 i.f5 18


l:tb2 'ifxc4 19 1:tdl 1:tac8 with unclear play, but Black is at least equal, so White should perhaps deviate as early as move 14) 16 ... 'ife4 17 'iff2 'ifc2 18 ~f3 'ifxf2+ 19 l:ixf2 i..f5 20 1:tdl dxe5 21 fxe5 1:tac8 22 i..d5, and here Black should have played either 22 ... b6 23 g4 lLle6 24 gxf5 lLlxg5 or 22 ... lLle4 23 i..xe4 i..xe4, in both cases with an endgame advantage for Black.

13

lLldS

A worthless alternative is 13

i..h6?!, when after 13 ... i..xh6 14 'ihh6 i..c6 15 i..f3 'iib6 16 'ifd2 'iib4 17 'ife2 e5 White's opening play had been a failure, PupoR.Hernandez, Havana 1992. 13 l:r.e8 14 l:abl as 15 ~hl i..c6 The black set-up is very similar to the Classical Maroczy variation, but White's position is unlike any he can achieve in the line mentioned above. Black therefore has to exercise extreme caution in order to stay in the game. i..xdS 16 f4 17 exdS ~ 18 Vi'h3!? \,

. fl" \ "

White does not fancy allowing .. ,'iib6, so he tries to prevent this while simultaneously keeping his attack going. 18 ~f6! 19 ~g4 19 i..xf6? exf6 is of course out of the question, as it leaves White with a bad bishop versus a strong knight. 19 lLlcS 20 'ifh4 'ifb6! A very brave decision. The black queen leaves the defence of the king in order to create some longtenn counterplay. However, it was difficult to suggest anything else for Black, e.g. 20 ... lLle4 21 libel lLld2 (2l...lLlxg5 22 fxg5 i..g7 23 lIxf7! 'i!i>xf7 24 i..e6 ~8 25 'ii'h7 wins for White) 22 :f2 lLlc4 23 lIf3 followed by l:ih3 with a strong attack for White - analysis by Franzen. 21 fS lLle4 22 i..xf6 lLlxf6 In this situation it would be mistaken to take back with the epawn: 22 ... exf6? 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 i..e6! fxe6 25 'ife4 with a clear edge for White according to Franzen. 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 i..e6! ~g7! The bishop cannot be touched: 24 ... fxe6? 25 'ifh6 cj;f7 26 'ii'h7+ ~f8 27 dxe6 with mate to follow. 25 i..xf7! l:r.h8 26 'ife1 l:r.xh2+! The only move. The bishop was still not to be touched: 26 ... ~xf7 27 'ife6+ ~e8 28 l:xf6. 27 xh2 28 ~g3 29 l:r.dl! The only way for White to play

144 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation for a win. In Informator Franzen gives the following analysis of the alternatives: a) 29 'iWe7?! lDe4+ 30 ~f3 (30 rlt>f4? lDg5!; 30 ct>g4? lDg5! 31 ];[f4 lIh4 32 'iitxh4 1i'xf4+ 33 g4 'iWh2+ 34 ~g5 'iWh6 mate) 30...'iWd3 31 ~f4 g5 32 ct>fS lDf2 and Black wins. b) 29 lIxf6 'iWh4+ 30 ~f3 1i'xf6+ with an initiative for Black. c) 29 ~e6 lDe4+ 30 Wf3 (30 ~4lDg5!; 30 1i'e4 'iWxe4 31 Af7+ ~h6 32 .l:thl+ ~g5 33 lIxh8 1i'eS is better for Black; and 30 ct>g4 lDf2+ 31 'itg3lDe4+ is a perpetual) 30...lDg5+ 31 ~e2 'iWxc4+ 32 'iitf2 'iWf4+ with equal chances. 29...lDh5+ 30 ~f3 'iWf4+ 31 'iite2 lDg3+ 32 ~d3 lDxo 33 'iWxfi 'ilxf7 34 'ilxf7+ c;t>xf7 35 :0+ ~e8!

The black king is needed in the defence of the queenside. 36 ~e3 :h2 37 lIhl 38 ~b3 lIh4! 39 lIe2 b5! 40 a3 bxe4+ 41 lIxe4 lIh5 42 lId4 lieS 43 'iita4 lIe2 44 b3 lIe3 45 lId2 lIe3 46 b4 lb.-Ill

:0

Game 62

Z.Almasi-Tiviakov Buenos Aires 1996 (1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDe6 3 d4 exd4 4 lDxd4 g6 5 c:4 lLlf6 6 lLlc:3 d6 7 ~e2 lLlxd4 8 'iWxd4 ~g7 9 0-0 0-0 10'ild3)

10 ~e6 10... ~d7 is a fairly new idea. Black will either go for a position very similar to the Classical Maroczy, or attempt to play for ... b7b5. In both cases the results have been quite good for Black, and

both players should take a serious look at this line. White has tried three ways to develop his bishop in reply: a) 11 1.g5 makes little sense. In the game Matthias-Ree, Lippstadt 1992, Black had a clear edge after l1...a6 12 lIfdl ~c6 13 ::tacl b5! 14 b4 bxc4 15 'iWxc4 i.b5! 16 lLlxb5 axb5 17 'iWc2 'iWb6 18 i.e3?! "'a6 19 f3 ];[fb8 20 ];[d2 'iWa3, but this was not model play by White. b) 11 i.d2 a6 12 'iWe3 lIb8 13 b4 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 f4 i.c6 16 a4 d5! is also excellent for Black, Fedorowicz-Ree, Cannes 1992, continued 17 exdS lLlxdS 18 lLlxdS 'iWxdS 19 i.f3 Wd6 20 i.c3 ~xc3 21 'iWxc3 i.xf3 22 Wxf3 bxa4 23 lha4 lbb4 24 .l:.xb4 'iWxb4 with a useless extra pawn for Black. c) 11 i.e3 and now Black has tried four different moves: cl) 11...'iWa5 (this looks strange in combination with ... ~d7-c6, and White can only blame himself for the fact that Black gets a comfortable position in this game) 12 i.d4 (or 12 a3 immediately) 12 ... i.c6 13 a3 ];[fc8 14 .l:.fel?! (more logical seems 14 b4 with a space advantage) 14...'iWg5!? IS g3 lLld7 16 ~xg7 ~xg7 17 .l:.adl as 18 'iWd4+ "'f6 19 'iWe3 lLlcS 20 ~g4 l:c7 21 f4 e5 22 b4 axb4 23 axb4 exf4 24 gxf4, Smejkal-Sikora Lerch, Czech Team ch 1994, and now 24 ...lDa4 was best with unclear complications. c2) 11...aS!? (this move makes a lot of sense, Black would like to enter the Classical Maroczy position after 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlf6 7 ltJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 i.d7 10 lIc 1 lLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6


12 .d3 a5) 12 b3 (Donaldson gives 12 c5 .tc6 13 cxd6 exd6 14 !Iadl lte8 15 f3 d5 as equal) 12 ....i.c6 13 f3 ll'ld7 14 Itac1 ll'lcs 15 .d2 .i.e5 16 !Ifdl b6 17 .tfl !Ia7?! 18 Itbl l:.d7 19 ll'le2?! (White should play for b3-b4; hence 19 a3 is correct) 19 ... e6 20 .tgS .tf6 21 .tf4 .te5 22 .tgS .tf6 23 .tf4 .te5 and a draw was agreed 112-1/2 Kudrin-Donaldson, Reno 1992. c3) 11....tc6 12 b4! (less accurate is 12 .td4 or 12 f3) 12 ... b6 13 .td4 as 14 a3ll'ld7 IS .txg7 ~xg7 16 .d4+ ~g8 17 :ad1 axb4 18 axb4 Ita3 19 f4 .c7 20 .tg4 ll'lf6 21 .tf3 with a small advantage for White, Hellers-Petursson, San Bernardino 1990. c4) 11...a6 12 a4! (other moves have failed to produce any advantage for White: 12 .td4 .tc6 13 b4 bS 14 cxbS axbS IS f311a3 16.d2 .d7 17 .l::tfdl :fa8 18 :acl 'ii'b7 19 :c2 hS 20 ll'lbl :3a6 21 ll'lc3 Ita3 22 ll'lbl :3a6 23 ll'lc3 112-1/2 T.Tolnai-Leko, Hungarian ch 1993, or 12 Itfdl .tc6 13 .c2 .as 14 Itacl :fd8 IS 'ii'bl hS!? 16 b4 .eS 17 .td4.g5 18 .tf3 bS with level chances, Schlosser-Leko, Bmo 1993) 12 ... aS (12 ...•aS is met by 13 b4! .xb4 14 as!, when the queen is in trouble, and 12 ....tc6 13 b4 is uncomfortable for Black) 13 cS! dxcS 14 .i.xcs .tc6 IS .e3! (Black receives some compensation for the pawn after IS .xd8 Itfxd8 16 .txe7 :d2) IS ...•d7 16 f3.e6 17 ll'lbS .txbS 18 .txbS ll'ld7 19 .ta3 ll'leS 20 :acl l:[fd8 21 ~hl, and the pair of bishops secured White a small but clear advantage in Z.Almasi-Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

11 .td2 Pointless are 11 ll'ld5 ll'ld7 12 ltbl ll'lcS 13 .c2 fS!? 14 f3 fxe4 IS fxe4 :xfl+ 16 .txfl .txdS 17 exdS .td4+ 18 'iii>hl 19 .tgS .g7 with level chances, Nagashima-Braga, Sao Paulo 1997, and 11 .tgS ll'ld7 12 .d2 (White aims for a position he could have had with an extra tempo by playing 9 .tgS 0-0 10 .d2) 12 ... ll'lcS 13 f3 as 14 c,i>hl :e8 IS :abl 'ii'b6 with a good game for Black, StraussDonaldson, corr 1981-83. However, 11 .te3 is quite good, when Black has the following options: a) l1...a6 12 .td4ll'ld7 13 .txg7 ~xg7 14 b3 .as IS f4 .cS+ 16 ~hl ll'lf6 17 .tf3 :ab8 18 :ael :fd8 19 a4 with a small but lasting edge for White in Smejkal-Browne, Milan 1975. b) 11...ll'ld7 12 .td4 .txd4 13 .xd4 .as (Donaldson's suggestion of 13 ...'ii'b6!? seems to be much better, e.g. 14 .d2 :fc8 IS b3 ll'lcs when Black has no problems) 14 b3 a6 IS cRhl lhc8 16 f4 f6 17 :f3 ~h8 18 :e3 gS!? 19 ll'ldS gxf4 20 ll'l:Xf4 .tfl 21 ll'ldS :ce8 22 b4 with a clear edge for

.f8

146 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation White, Korneev-Penniakov, Omsk 1996. . c}:H .....aS 12 ..t.d4 (this used to be'" considered quite good for White, but in the light of recent developments, White should probably consider 12 :'ac1 instead, e.g. 12 ...:'fcS l3 b3 ttJd7 14 "d2 ttJcS IS f3 a6 16 ..t.gS :'c7 17l:Udl with a slight edge for White, Ornstein-Popov, Skara 19S0; 12 f4 has also been tried, when in PadevskySzabo, Kesckemet 1966, Black quickly had the better position: 12 ... :'fcS l3 b3 ..t.g4 14 l:lac1 bS! IS ttJdS bxc4 16 ttJxf6+ ..t.xf6 17 :'xc4 :'xc4 IS 'iVxc4 ..t.xe2 19 'iVxe2 :'cS 20 h3 :c3) 12 ...:'fcS 13 b3 a6 14 f4 bS!? 15 cxb5 axbS 16 ttJxbS.

This posItion was considered clearly better for White on account of Gipslis-Damjanovic, Tallinn 1969, which continued 16 ... dS? 17 eS ..t.fS IS 'iVe3 ttJg4 19 ..t.xg4 ..t.xg4 20 a4 ..t.d7 21 ..t.c3, but Black can easily improve: cl) 16...:'abS 17 f5 ..t.d7 IS a4 'iVb4 19 fxg6 hxg6 20 eS ttJh7! 21 'iVe3 dxeS 22 ..t.xeS ..t.xeS 23 'iVxeS 'iVxb3 24 'iVxe7 :'eS 2S 'iVxd7 :'xe2 and White's extra pawn was of no real significance, HardicsayAltennan, Hartberg 1991.

:as

c2) 16... 'iVb4!? 17 :'fdl (Black threatens IS ... ..t.d7, intending 19 a4 ..t.xbS 20 axbS lbal 21 :'xal ttJxe4; however, there was no reason for White to go down as he did in this game) IS ttJc3? ttJxe4! 19 'iVxe4 :'xc3 20 ..t.c4? dS 21 'iVel dxc4 22 a3 ..t.xd4+ 23 l:lxd4 'iVxb3 and Black won shortly in MessaAntunes, Reggio Emilia 19S6. 11 ttJd7 This is the main line, but Black has other possibilities as well: a) l1...a6 12 b3 (or 12 :acl bS! l3 cxb5 axbS 14 ttJxbS :'xa2 IS ..t.c3 :a4 16 b3 l:ta2 17 ttJd4 ..t.d7 IS ttJc2 'iVbs with equal chances, Pablo-Rodriguez Talavera, Menorca 1994) 12 ... ..t.d7 (12 ... ttJd7 transposes to the main game and 12 ...'iVb6 to the next line, whereas 12 ...:bS!? is an untried suggestion of Fedorowicz's) 13 :acl bS 14 'iVe3 e6 15 b4 bxc4 16 ..txc4 ..t.bS 17 ttJxbS axb5, Kestler-Schlick, Gennany 19S5, and here a draw was agreed after IS ..t.b3, but IS ..t.xbS seems better, e.g. IS .. .lha2 19 J:.fdl when White's passed pawn should guarantee him some advantage. b) 11...'iVb6!? 12 b3 IUcS (12 ...a6) 13 :acl a6 14 ~hl "d8?! (14 ... ttJd7!? is to be considered) 15 f4 :abS?! (15 ... ttJd7!?) 16 ..t.e3 and White is better, Am.Rodriguez-Hernandez, Holguin 1991. 12 b3 a6 Two other moves have also been tried: . a) 12 .. .fS? is bad for obvious reasons: 13 exfS ttJc5 14 'iVg3 ..txfS IS :'adl is clearly better for White, Savon-Shvedchikov, USSR 1973.


b) 12 ...t'Lle5?! gave White an edge in Smyslov-Korchnoi, USSR ch 1961: 13 'ii'g3 t'Llc6 14 'iti>hl t'Lld4 15 .i.d3 :'c8 16 :'adl a6 17 f4. c) An interesting new try is 12...t'Llc5!?, when in LekoTiviakov, Groningen 1995, Black quickly obtained equal play: 13 We3.i.d7! 14 ltabl .i.c6 15 f3 a5. d) Finally, another Tiviakov idea is 12 ... a5!? 13 .!:tacl t'Llc5 14 We3 .i.d7!, when Z.Almasi-Tiviakov, Cacak 1996, continued 15 f4?! .i.c6 16 .i.f3 e6 17 'itthl We7 18 t'Llb5 1/2- 1/2. Instead of 15 f4?!, Tiviakov suggests 15 :'fdl, giving following line: 15 ....i.c6 16 f3 Wb6!? 17t'Lld5 .i.xd5 18 exd5t'Lld7 19 Wxb6t'Llxb6 with equal chances. :act t'Lle5 13 Also possible is 13 ... Wb6, although White is somewhat better after 14 ~hl Wd4 15 Wc2 ltfc8 16 f4, Fedorowicz-Zsu.Polgar, Amsterdam 1990, and now best was 16... t'Llf6 17 f5 .i.d7 18 .i.g5 with a slight pull for White. Also worth considering is the direct 13 ...b5. In Luther-Brendel, Groningen 1990, Black equalised easily after 14 cxb5 axb5 15 b4 .i.c4 16 We3 .i.xe2 17 Wxe2 .i.xc3 18 .i.xc3 Wb6 19 Wd2 Wb7 21 Wd4 f6 22 .!:tc2 lLlc4, but Tiviakov's suggestion 15 :'c2!? represents a problem for Black. Wg3 14 This is probably the way to go, as after 14 We3 Black did not have all that many problems in the game Am.Rodriguez-Antunes, Malaga 1991: 14 ... t'Llc6 15 t'LldS t'Lld4 16 .i.d3 .i.d7 17 .i.c3 e5 18 f4 .i.c6 19 f5 .i.xdS 20 exd5 Wh4! 21 :'cel .i.h6 22 Wf2 Wxf2+ 23 :'xf2 b5.

14 t'Llc6 t'Lld4 15 f4 16 f5t? .i.d3 Unfortunately for Black, this is the only proper way to continue the game, since for example 16... b5 17 f5 is quite uncomfortable. After 16... f5 Black is left with the usual structural weaknesses: three pawn islands and weak light squares. However, his position is quite active, and White has to play accurately to maintain his advantage. 17 exf5 .i.xf5 18 .i.xf5 :'xf5 19 Wd3! Wd7 20 lbd5 :af8 21 .i.c3

White's advantage is evident. If Black now continues with 21...lLle6, he will have problems on the e-file: 22 .i.xg7 ~xg7 23 Wc3+ ~g8 24l:[cel. lLlc6 21 ~g7 22 .i.xg7 :'5f7?! 23 We4 Black wants to centralise and possibly exchange his queen, but it was better to play actively with 23 ... e5, giving White less time to place his pieces optimally . 24 :'fe1 Wf5


'ii'xf5 l:txf5 25 26 l:tedl e5 Black must stay active, as 26 .. J~5f7 27 li:Jc7 is rather uncomfortable for him. White is of course still better. 27 li:Je7! ~g8 28 fxe5 dxe5 29 li:Je6 l:t8f7 30 l:td2! l:te7 31 li:Je5 ~g7 32 l:td6 l:tf6 33 l:td5 l:tf8 34 h3 l:tee8 35 l:td6 l:te8 This is inaccurate. It was better to play 35 ... li:Jb4 to keep the white knight away from d3. 36li:JdJ }:tee8 37 l:te4 l:te6 38 l:td5 l:t6e7 39 c;tJh2 ~f6 40 li:Je5 q;g7 41 l:td6 l:te8 42 li:JdJ l:tee8 43 b4! as 44 b5 Instead 44 a3 axb4 45 axb4 would have kept things a little less complicated. 44••• li:Jb4 45 li:Jc1 l:tee7 46 1td2 ltee7 47 l%e5+ ~f6 48 l:tee2?! One careless move and the advantage is gone. Correct was 48 l:te3! a4 49 a3 lhc4 50 :d6+ q;g5 51 li:Je2, when White is still clearly better. 48...a4 49 Itd6+ ~g5 50 a3 lte4 51 lte5 ~h6 52 li:Je2 li:Je2 53 li:Jg3 :8<:5! 54 :e7 :e7 55 tLlf5+ ~g5 56 Itxe7 :xe7 57 tLld4 tLlxd4 58 :xd4 :e5 11l_112 _C?am~.::~

IvJ(ov-B"rowne Wijk aan Zee 1972

(1 e4 e5 2 li:JO tLle6 3 d4 exd4 4 li:Jxd4 g6 5 e4 li:Jf6 6 tLle3 d6 7 i.e2 tLlxd4 8 .xd4 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0)

.e3

10 This move looks quite modest, but do not let your eyes deceive you, it is in fact very ambitious. With the queen on e3 and the

bishop on d2, the c3-knight is thoroughly protected, and White will then be ready to start action on the queenside without having to deal with the usual ...b7-b5 tricks. This way of handling the position was quite popular in the late sixties and early seventies. Then it disappeared for a while, but as the ... tLlxd4 system has re-emerged as a serious weapon for Black, 10 'iVe3 has once again found a following in top-level chess.

10 i.d7 We feel that this is probably Black's safest option. Of Black's other choices, 10... i.e6 is the most reliable, which often transposes to other lines in the ... tLlxd4 system. We shall take a look at this in the next game. 10... a6 has been tried, but always transposes to either 10... i.d7 or 10... i.e6. So let us take a look a 1O... tLld7. (see following diagram) Although this move is rarely played, it does have some logic to it. Black wants to transpose into a Classical Maroczy, in which the White set-up is somewhat unusual. Black's results in this line have been anything but encouraging to


date, but this is mainly due to poor follow-up play. White has tried:

edge for White) 13 b3 (13 .i.e 1!? is still worth consideration, e.g. 13...a4 14 f4 .i.d7 15 e5) 13 ....i.d7 14 ~d5 e6 15 ~3 .i.c6 16 .i.el .e7 17 f3 nfeS (17 ...nfdS is quite possibly stronger, leaving the other rook on the a-file, which will be of use when White eventually breaks with b3-b4) IS .i.d3 b6 19 .i.c2 .i.e5 20 .i.g3 nadS 21 a3 .i.xg3 22 hxg3 .c7 23 b4 ~d7 24 .d4 with an edge for White, GelfandPigusov, Sverdlovsk 19S7. b) 11 hl (this is probably ~ 11 b3 ~c5 (l1...fib6 can be White's best; he would like to start answered with 12 lLld5, when some kingside action, but does not 12 ...•xe3 13 ~xe7+ hS 14 want the queens to be exchanged) .i.xe3 .i.xal 15 nxal neS 16 l1...lLlc5 12 f4 .ltxc3?! (a dubious .i.d4+ f6 17 ~xcS naxcs IS .ltg4 idea - White wants to attack and nc7 19 .i.xd7 nxd7 20 .ltxf6+ Black gets rid of his dark-squared gS 21 f3 is better for White, but bishop; the white attack comes to a in Benko-Panno, Palma de Mal- halt, but the weaknesses in the lorca 1971, Black played more pas- black position remains, so it was sively: 12 ...•dS 13 nbl ~c5 14 better to play 12 ....ltd7) 13 bxc3 f5 .i.b2 e5 15 f4 .i.h6 16 .ltxe5 dxe5 14 exf5 .ltxf5 15 .lta3 ncs 16 .ltf3 17 .xc5 exf4 IS nbdl and White .d7 17 nadl b6 IS l:.fel lUeS 19 was clearly better) 12 .ltb2 a5 13 h3 .a4 20 .ltxc5 bxc5 21 g4 .ltd7 nadl and here 13 ... .ltd7, intending 22 f5 with a strong initiative for ... .ltc6~ould be the obvious way White, Smyslov-Furman, USSR to continue. Nonetheless, two other 1967. (quite poor) moves have been 11.ltd2 played: 13 ... f5? (nearly always a The normal rook moves to bl bad idea) 14 exf5 .ltxf5 15.ltf3 and dl have also been tried: ncs 16 nfel with a much better a) II ndl with a further divergame for White, Uhlmann- gence: Matulovic, Skopje 1966, and al) l1...a6 12 c5 .c7 13 ...b6? 14 f4 .ltb7 15 e5 fibs 16 (Boleslavsky gives 12 ...•a5 13 exd6 exd6 17 .ltf3 neS IS.d2 cxd6 exd6 14.ltd2 .ltc6 with equal .i.xf3 19 nxf3 fib7 20 f5! and chances) 13 cxd6 exd6 14 .g3 once again White was clearly better nfeS with chances for both sides Salov. in Tatai-Cosulich, Bari 1972. b) 11 .ltd2 lLlc5 12 nadl a5 a2) 11.....a5 12 .ltd2 nfcS 13 (Geller-Ostojic, Belgrade 1969, lLlb5 ilb6 14 "xb6 axb6 15 ~c3 saw 12 ....ltd7 13 .ltel!? b6 14 f4 .i.e6 16 b3 b5! 17 e5 lLld7 IS ~a4 15 b3 lLlxc3 16 .ltxc3 .i.xc3 lLlxb5lLlxe5 19.1tc3 .ltg4 20 .ltxg4 17 .xc3 .c7 IS .g3 with a small lLlxg4 21 .ltxg7 xg7 22 a4 ~f6 .-eY6!A ":Pier ~~.. A"J:/ -/'1. It( ~ 1.!f.51 see-41I S s-l{D
150 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 1/2- 1/2 Smyslov-Browne, Amsterdam 1971. a3) 11..."'6 12 .xb6 axb6 13 .te3.tc6 14 f3 tDd7 15 l:tdcl tDc5 16 '!:'c2 '!:'fcS 17 tDd5 .txdS IS cxd5 :a3!? 19 .tf2 :caS 20 .tc4 b5! 21 l:r.ac1 l:r.3a4 22 .txb5, Illescas-Leko, Leon 1993, and now Black could have maintained equality with 22 .. .lIb4! 23 .tc4 b5 24 .tb3 tDxb3. b) 11 l:r.b1!1 and now: b 1) 11..."'6 was the preferred treatment by Black until quite recently, but Stohl's handling of the game below has cast some clouds over Black's prospects; we therefore suggest that you take a look under 'b2', which seems fine for Black. White has: bll) Smyslov-Gligoric, Moscow 1971, saw 12 .g3 l:fcS 13 .te3 "'4 14 :fcl .te6 15 1Wh4! (15 b3 .xc3! 16 1::txc3 tDxe4 is excellent for Black) 15 ...a6 15 a3 .a5 16 b4 'iWdS 17 b4 'iWdS IS c5 dxc5 19 bxc5 .a5! with equal chances. b12) The actual move order in Stohl-Leko was 12 b3 .tc6 13 11M3, but this allows 12 ... 'i'xe3 13 .txe3 .tc6 14 tDd5 .txd5 15 exd5 tDe4 16 :bcl tDc3 17 l:r.c2 tDxe2+ IS l:xe2 .tf6 with equality accO~dinto Stohl. 13 121M3! .tc6 13 b3 :fcS 14 . e3 'iWdS (14 ..."'4 15 i.d2! "'6 16 'it>hl, intending f2-f4, is also good for White) 15 f3 a6, Stohl-Leko, Bmo 1993, and here White should have continued 16 a4 a5 17 tDdS with a small but clear advantage. Instead he chose 16 :fcl?! :abS! 17 .ta7 :as IS .te3 :abS 19 a4 a5 20 tDd5 tDd7 21 .tg5 .txdS 22 exd5 .tf6 23 i.e3 tDc5 with chances for both sides.

b2) ll...aS!? (we feel that this is Black's best shot, though tests are needed before a clear evaluation can be given) 12 a4?! (this is clearly not the critical test of Black's idea; interesting is 12 l:r.dl .tc6!?, e.g. 13 eS tDd7! 14 exd6 exd6 IS 'iWg3 [IS l:r.xd6 gives Black too much play for the pawn: lS ... l:teS 161M2 'iWe7 17 .tf! tDcS] IS ... ~cS! 16 'iWxd6 'iWxd6 17 l:Ixd6 .txc3 IS bxc3 tDe4 19 .l:td3 l:IfdS with equal chances) 16....tc6 13 f3 ~d7 14 b3 ~c5 IS .ta3?! 'iib6 with a good game for Black, as in Martinez-Bar, Baile Herculaine 1994.

11 a6 Several other moves have been tried here: a) White had an edge after 1l...'ifb6 in Keres-Lengyel, Tallinn 1975: 12 l:tabl 'iWxe3 13 .i.xe3 l:tfcS 14 l:tfc1 a6?! (the wrong plan; better was the normal 14....tc6 IS f3 tDd7, although White is still slightly better) 15 f3 i.e6 16 b3 <;io>f8 17 a4 a5 IS tDd5. b) Once again, Black can consider ll...a5!?, when after 12 .l:tfdl .tc6, Barcza-Damjanovic, Vrsac 1967, continued 13 tDdS tDd7 14


.i.c3.i.xc3 15 tbxc3 'ifb6 16 'ii'xb6 advantage. tbxb6 17 b3 ':fc8 with equal 13 a4 If Black achieves ...b7-b5, he chances. c) 11.. ..i.c6 has also been played equalises easily, e.g. 13 ':acl b5 14 on occasion. Kirov-T.Georgadze, b3 bxc4 15 .i.xc4 tbg4 16 .g3 Polanica Zdroj 1976, saw 12 .l:bcl .i.d4 17 ':f1 "'a7 18 tbe2 .i.e5 19 (better is 12 b4, whereas 12 ':fdl .i.f4 .i.g7 20 h3 tbf6 21 .d3 ~b5, a5 transposes to the game Barcza- Sakharov-Kapengut, USSR 1967. Damjanovic above) 12 ... e6 (for 13 as some reason Georgadze does not 14 :ad bother to play ... a7-a5, which Other moves do not give Black would also be quite good in this anything to worry about either: position) 13 ':fdl .e7 14 b4 b6 15 a) 14 b3 .i.c6 15 .i.el tbd7 16 f3 :ad8 16 .i.fl ':fe8 17 .i.el h6 ':abl tbc5 17 tbdS :e8 18 f3 b6 18 a3 lh_ 1h. with equal chances, BoleslavskyAverbakh, Moscow 1966. 12 ':fdl b) 14 h3 iLe6 15 tbdS ':e8 16 The alternatives are: a) 12 tbd5?! tbxd5 13 cxd5 ':c8 iLe3 tbd7 1.7 iLxg7 'itxg7 18 b3 e5 14 'ii'b3?! (14 .i.d3 is equal) is also equal, Uhlmann-Kapengut, 14... b5! with a clear plus for Black, East Germany-RSFSR 1969. Lombardy-Browne, USA 1972. e) 14 ':a3 iLc6 15 tbd5 ':e8 16 b) 12 b3 b5?! (l2 ....i.c6!?) 13 .i.e3 tbd7 17 .i.xg7 'itxg7 18 .g5 cxb5 axb5 14 a4! bxa4 15 bxa4 h6 19 'it'h4 tbf6 20 :113 tbg8 21 tbg4 16 .g3 tbe5 17 lIfcl .a5 18 ':dd3 .d8! 22 e5?! dxe5 23 tbf6 • g5! With a clear plus for White, exf6 24 l:lxd8 l:lexd8 with a good II1escas-Alvarez, Oviedo 1991. game for Black, Nicevsky-Kapenc) 12 a4 a5! 13 b3 .i.c6 14 :ael gut, Vilnius 1969. 14 tbd7 15 .i.dl tbc5 16 ~c2 b6 17 f4 iLc6 e6 18 tbe2 f5 with equality, Ivkov15 b3 tbd7 16 Adorjan, Amsterdam 1971. tbd5 iLxd5 12 .b8! tbc5 17 exd5 Most common, and probably 18 ':e1 best, but Black also did fine with Not 18 .xe7? ':e8. 12 ...':b8 in Peshina-Rashkovsky, 18 .c7 Barnaul 1984: 13 a4?! tbg4! 14 19 h4 ':ae8!? 20 iLdl .i.xg4.i.xg4 15 l:el .i.e6 16 b3 b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 cxb5 ':b7 19 .d3 21 .i.d e5 22 h5 e4! 'ii'b8 with an edge for Black; White Black must stay active. The rest will lose both b-pawns. Another possibility is 12 ....i.c6, of the game went as follows: which was tried out in Salov- 23 ':bl .c7 24 hxg6 hxg6 25 b4 Dzindzichashvili, New York 1996. On 25 iLxa5 Ivkov gives folAfter 13 b4 b6 14 l:labl tbd6 15 lowing line: 25 ...•xa5 26 b4 .a6 h4!? b5 16 a3 bxc4 17 .i.xc4 tbe5 27 bxc5 .xc4. 18 .i.b3 .i.b7, White should have 25...axb4 26 .i.xb4 tba6 27 iLa3 continued with 19 h5 with a small .c4 28 "b3 "xb3 29 ':xb3 ':c8

.b6


30 i.e4 tLJcS 31 i.xeS AxeS 32 Axb7 Ac4 33 as Ab4 34 ~e2 Game 64

Sax-Petursson Va/by 1994 (1 e4 eS 2 ~f3 ~e6 3 d4 exd4 4 ~xd4 g6 S c4 ~f6 6 ~e3 d6 7

i.e2 ~xd4 8 'it'xd4 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 'i'e3) 10

i.e6

This is Black's most popular response to 10 'i'e3. After 11 ~d2 'i'b6, play usually transposes to lines which arise after 9 i.g5 0-0 10 'i'e3 i.e6 11 0-0 'iVb6. Under this main game, we will take a look at those lines which do not transpose.

l:tbl 11 This is currently White's most common choice. Other possibilities are: a) 11 Adl 'i'c7!? (also possible is 11...'i'b6 12 'i'xb6 axb6 13 i.e3 :tfc8 14 b3 b5 15 ~xb5 ~xe4 with equal chances, Panno-Ree, Las Palmas 1973) 12 ~b5 'iVc6 13 tLJxa7 'iVxe4 14 ~b5 :fc8 15 b3 d5

16 tLJd4 i.d7 with equality, Uhlmann-Hecht, Raach 1969. b) 11 i.d2 with a new fork: bl) l1...tiig4?! 12 'i'g3 tLJe5 13 b3 tLJc6 14 h4 l:tc8 15 f4 tLJd4 16 f5! tLJxe2+ 17 tLJxe2 i.xal 18 lha 1 i.d7 19 h5 'i'b6+ 20 i.e3 'i'a5 21 hxg6 fxg6 22 fxg6 g6 23 c5 with a clear plus for White, Khenkin-Neverov, Moscow 1989. Black invested a little too much time in winning the exchange. b2) l1...tLJd7 12 b3 (White also obtained a small edge in SmyslovSaii.iwneffi~"· Mar del Plata 1966, afierT2f4 '1Jb6 13 W'xb6lbxb6 14 6f'Id7T5 Aacl i.c6 16 tLJd5) 12 ... 'i'b6 (12 ... a6 transposes to 'b3' below) 13 :ac1 i.d4 14 'i'g3 tLJc5 15 'i'h4 i.f6 16 'i'f4 a5 17 tLJd5 i.xd5 18 exd5 i.e5 19 'i'h6 i.f6 20 'i'f4 i.e5 21 i.e3 e6?! 22 dxe6 fxe6 23 g3! with a clear edge for White, Wojtkiewicz-Gdanski, Warsaw 1993. b3) l1...a6 12 b3 tLJd7 13 f4 'i'b6 14 'i'xb6 ~xb6 15 Aacl i.d4+ 16 ~hl i.d7 17 i.f3 i.c6 18 :tcdl ~d7 19 ~el with equal chances, Uhlmann-Browne, Amsterdam 1971. b4) 11...'i'b6!? 12 'iVxb6 (12 b3 'iVxe3 13 i.xe3 Afc8 is fine for Black, while the game BaumbachMohring, East Germany 1975, saw 12 Iladl 'i'xb2!? 13 Abl 'iVa3 14 Axb7 l:tfb8 15 J:tfbl Axb7 16 Axb7, and now 16 ... ~d7 was best with chances for both sides) 12 ...axb6 13 f4*:fc8 14 b3 b5! 15 cxb5 ~xe4!? (possibly better was 15 ...~d7) 16 ~xe4 i.d4+ 17 ~hl i.xal 18 lhal, as in MatulovicJansa, Vrsac 1979, and here, according to Jansa,. Black should have c~ntinued 18 ...~xb3 19 ~c3

*-13ot41.

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenitize Variation 153 d5 20 ~f3 ~xa2!? 11 1tb6 This is probably the best, but other moves are of interest too: a) ll...a6 12 a4 (12 .i.d2!? bS? 13 cxbS axbS 14 .i.xbS .i.xa2 IS ttJxa2 %lxa2 16 .i.c4 %la8 17 b4 was clearly better for White in Korchnoi-Benko; Curacao ct 1962, but 12 ...bS? was a mistake, which should be replaced by 12... ttJd7) 12 ... %lc8 13 b3 ttJd7 14 ttJdS l:te8 IS ttJf4 ttJf8 16 ttJxe6 ttJxe6 17 ~g4 %lc6 18 .i.xe6 fxe6 19 'ii'h3 'ii'c8 20 ~e3 eS 21 'ii'xc8 %lexc8 with a drawn ending, VehiAntunes, Platja d'Aro 1994. b) 11.. ....aS (this looks a little odd, as White nearly always develops his bishop to d2, which will force the black queen to move somewhere else, but Black equalises easily enough in this game) 12 ~d2 %lfc8 13 ttJdS "'d8 14 .i.c3 bS! IS .i.xf6 ~xf6 16 ttJxf6+ exf6 17 cxbS .i.xa2 18 %lbcl 1i'b6 19 'ii'xb6 axb6 20 %lc6 %lab8 21 %lal ~e6 with equality, Pierrot-Sorokin, Buenos Aires 1994. c) 11...ttJd7 12 ttJdS (or 12 ~d2 ifb6 13 ttJd5 .i.xd5 14 exdS ~d4 IS .g3 as 16 b3 ttJcS 17 "'g4 ~g7 18
After this move Black has to be careful not to be pushed off the board. In Eingom-Malisauskas, Debrecen 1992, White allowed the queen exchange, and soon after most of the remaining pieces departed: 12 b3 %lfc8 13 a4 (White can still transpose back to our main game with 13 .d3) 13 ...•xe3 14 ~xe3 ttJd7 IS ttJd5 .i.xd5 16 cxdS %lc2 17 .i.bS ttJf6 18 llfcl l:txcl+ 19 %lxcl ttJxe4 20 l:tc7 a6 21 l:txe7 axbS 22 %lxe4 bxa4 23 %lxa4 %lxa4 24 bxa4 fS and soon drawn. 12 l:tfc8

13

b3

a6

13 ......d8?! is both unnecessary and too passive. After 14 ~gS a6 IS a4 ttJd7 16 ttJdS ~xdS 17 exdS ~f6 18 h4 "'f8 19 .e3 as 20 ~g4 White has a clear advantage, M.Miiller-Herbrechtsmeier, German Bundesliga 1993/94. 14 .i.e3 "as

"'f3

12

"d3

15

~d2

Or IS ~d4 bS! 16 cxbS axbS 17 .xbS "'xbS 18 ~xbS ttJxe4 19 iLxg7 ttJxc3 20 .i.xc3 l:txc3, when Black cannot be worse.

15

'ii'b6

Once again ..."d8 is uncalled for. In Komeev-Antunes, Benasque

154 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 1996, White soon dominated due to his massive space advantage: IS .....d8 16 a4 ttJd7 17 ttJdS ttJcS 18 'iIIe3 as 19 f4 ~d7 20 ~c3 ~xc3 21 ttJxc3, when Black is without counterplay and can only wait miserably for White to finish him off. 16 ~hl ~d7 17 f4 ~c6 18 :tbe1 ttJd7 19 ~g4 e6 20 ~f3 Game 65 Ivan~nuf(:Anand Buenos Aires 1994 (1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ttJf6 6 ttJc3 d6 7 ~e2 ttJxd4 8 'iIIxd4 ~g7)

9

~e3

This move used to be considered quite harmless, and was (and, by the way, still is!) a perfect remedy if White wanted to bore his opponent or get a quick draw. But in recent years, players like Ivanchuk have come up with new ideas for White, and Black therefore has to be alert, so as not to end up in a

passive, joyless position. 9 0-0 10 'iIId2 Also posSible is 10 "d3, when 10... ~e6 11 0-0 transposes to 9 0-0 0-0 10 "d3 ~e6 11 ~e3 (see the notes to Game 62). 10 ~e6 This is almost exclusively played, but a few other moves have been tried. Most of these merely transpose, but 1O...a6!? is interesting. Of course, with 11 l:lcl or 11 f3 White can aim to transpose into the main lines, but in YudasinAntunes, Seville 1993, White explored another path: 11 0-0 'iIIaS!? (ll...iLe6 is the main line) 12 a3!? (12 ttJdS 'iIIxd2 13 ttJxe7+ ~h8 14 ~d2 lUxe4 is okay for Black and 12 f3 is another way to transpose to the main line) 12 ... ~e6 13 b4 'iIId8! 14 :tabl (on 14 :tac1, Yudasin gives 14...:tc8 IS cS dxcS 16 'iIIxd8 l:lfxd8 17 bxcS lUg4 18 ~xg4 ~xg4 19 ttJdS ~fS with equal chances) 14 ...bS?! IS cxbS axbS 16 ~xbS l:lxa3 17 ~d4 'iIIa8 18 ~d3! :tc8 19 rUcl with a small but clear advantage for White. But according to Yudasin, Black has better. After 14... l:tc8! he gives the following analysis: IS cS dxcS 16 'iIIxd8 :tfxd8 17 bxcS (17 ~xcS? ttJd7!) 17 ... bS! 18 cxb6!? (18 l:lfc1 or 18 a4 are both equal) 18 ... l:txc3 19 b7 ttJd7 20 ~xa6 :txa3 (20 ... iLeS!) 21 ~bS lUb8 22 :tfdl l:tfS 23 ~cS with unclear play. 11 0-0 For 11 f3, see Game 67. 11 :tel is also sometimes played, and can be quite tricky for Black if he is not careful. Best is 11. ..a6 and then 12 f3 (12 0-0 can be found in the next main game) and now:


vantage, White was much better in the endgame, which he went on to win in beautiful style. b) Instead of 12 .. :ifaS?!, Black has had some success with 12 .. J:tcS 13 b3 bS!? After 14 cxbS axbS IS lLlxbS :xc1+ 16 "xcI "as+ 17 Wd2 :a8 an interesting position has arisen.

a) This may look like a nonnal position in the 9 i.e3 system, but if Black continues with the standard 12 .....aS?!, he soon finds himself in difficulty after 13 lLldS! DvoirisTiviakov, Podolsk 1993, continued 13 .....xd2+ (unlike in the 7 f3 system, 13 .....xa2 does not work, as White has a bishop on e2 and therefore the pin themes on the efile do not exist; Ibragimov-Khasin, Gorky 19S9, ended quickly after 14 lLlxe7+ ~hS IS 0-0 'iWb3 16 i.dl "a2 17 i.d4 ':feS IS lLldS i.xdS 19 exdS lLlhS 20 i.xg7+ lLlxg7 21 Wc3 and Black resigned, since his queen is lost after 22 i.b3) 14 lfrxd2 i.xdS IS cxdS ':fcS 16 b4 (also interesting is 16 g4, when after 16... e6 17 gS lLlhS!?, White decided to sacrifice a pawn with 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 f4 i.xb2 20 ':xcS+ lIxcS 21 ':b 1 i.c3+ 22 'iti>d3 bS 23 :tc1 b4 24 fS dS 2S f6, when Black has plenty of problems, primarily due to his poor minor pieces and White's passed pawn on f6, Adams-Hodgson, Hastings 1991/92) 16 ... lLld7 17 a4 'iti>f8 IS as i.b2 19 l:tc2 l:txc2+ 20 ~xc2 i.f6 21 c4 i.b2 2S i.e3, and with the bishop pair and a huge space ad-

b1) 18 "x as does not worry Black: lS ... ':xaS 19 lLlc3 lLld7 20 lLla4 lLlcs 21 i.d2 :taS! 22 i.d1 lLlxa4 23 bxa4 i.xa2 24 as i.d4 2S i.e2 lIbS 26 i.d3 :b2 27 :f1 i.b3 1/2- 1/2 Shaked-Burtman, Las Vegas 1993. b2) Of interest is IS lLlc3, but after ls ... lLlg4! 19 i.xd4 i.xd4 20 "xd4 ':cS 21 ~d2 (this position is almost identical to the game Frolov-Tangbom, which can be found in the lines with 9 i.gS [Game 70] the only difference being the position of the black hpawn, which in that game was on h6) Black now has 21.....gS+! (in the above-mentioned game Black played 21...l:txc3? and lost) 22 ~c2 lLle3+ 23 ~b2 "xg2 24 :tel (otherwise Black will play 24 ... l:txc3 and 2S .....xe2) 24 .....f2 2S "d2 d5 with a good game for Black. b3) Somewhat more problematic


seems IS a3, transposing to Game 70, with the slight difference that the white bishop is on gS instead of e3.

12 :labl!? The alternatives are 12 :'ac 1, which can be found in the next main game, and 12 :lfcl and 12 f3, which we shall cover now: a) 12 Afc1!? was first tried in Psakhis-Alterman, Israel 1996. Now 12 ... :lfcS 13 b3 a6 (13 ...bS!?) 14 a4 is slightly better for White, and 14 :'ab 1 transposes to this main game, but Alterman wanted to play differently: 12 ... ttJxe4!? (an interesting approach) 13 ttJxe4 "'xd2 14 ttJxd2 i.xb2 IS i.f3. Here Black went wrong with IS ... i.xel?, and after 16 :lxcl :lacS 17 i.xb7 :'c7 IS i.f3 :lbS 19 i.dl! White was clearly better. Instead of IS ... i.xc 1?, Psakhis suggests IS ...l:lfbS 16 ttJb3 i.xal 17 ttJxal i.d7 IS cS with chances for both sides. b) 12 f3 is possible (this position usually arises after 11 f3 "as 12 0-0, but it does not make a whole lot of difference) and here Black has two options, both of which lead

to equality: bl) 12 ... a6 13 .:tfdl lUcS 14 ttJdS "'xd2 IS :'xd2 ttJxdS 16 exdS i.d7 17 a4 e6 IS as exdS 19 cxdS i.eS 20 f4 i.f6 with equal chances in the endgame, Blanco-Antunes, Havana 1994. b2) 12 ...:lfcS 13 :'fel (or 13 b3 a6 14 :'fcl bS IS cxbS axbS 16 i.d4 b4 17 ttJa4 ttJd7 IS i.xg7 ~xg7 112-112 Witke-Detter, Graz 19S7) and now: b21) 13 ...i.xc4?! 14 ttJdS "'xd2 IS ttJxe7+! ~f8 16 i.xd2 ~xe7 17 i.xc4 ttJd7 IS i.gS+ with an edge for White in the endgame. b22) 13... ttJd7 14 l:abl i.xc4 IS ttJdS "'xd2 16 ttJxe7+ ~f8 17 i.xd2 i.d4+ (with 13 ... ttJd7 and 14 :labl inserted, Black plays more actively, as the knight is away from the al-hS diagonal; White achieved a very small edge in the game Am.Rodriguez-Minzer, 1997, after the less accurate 17 .. .'ii;xe7 IS i.xc4 :'c6 [1S ... i.d4+!] 19 i.b3 :lacS 20 :Xc6 :'xc6 21 :'el :'xel + 22 i.xcl) 18 c;t>hl ~xe7 19 i.xc4 ttJb6 20 i.b3 :lxel+ 21 :'xcl :lc8 22 :lxcS ttJxcS with an equal ending, Aseev-Vokarev, Russian ch 1996. b23) 13 ...a6 14 :'abl ~S!? (14 ......d8 transposes to the note after Black's 13th move in the main game) IS b4 "'d8 16 cS "'d7 17 cxd6 "'xd6 IS "'xd6 exd6 1/2- 112 Am.Rodriguez-Antunes, Mondariz 1994. This looks quite simple for Black, but in Kramnik-Anand, Amsterdam 1996, Black instead tried 14...l:abS?!, when after IS b4 "'d8 16 cS as! 17 a3 axb4 IS axb4 :as 19 i.f1 hS 20 "'el lLleS 21 ~hl ~ White could have maintained a slight edge with 22 i.g 1, but chose

Maroc'q Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 157

instead 22 ttJdS, after which Black equalised with 22 ... i.xdS 23 exdS dxcS 24 bxcS 'iWxdS 2S :tdl 'it'eS 26 :d 1 ':xcS! and much later (on move 108!) went on to win the game. 12 ':fc8 On 12 ... ttJg4, Ivanchuk gives the following analysis: 13 ttJdS (13 i.d4 i.xd4 14 'iWxd4 "'eS IS "'xeS ttJxeS with equality or 13 b4 i.xc3! 14 "'xc3 "'e5 IS "'xeS tZ.'lxeS with an unclear position) 13 ......xd2 14 i.xd2 i.xdS IS cxdS ttJf6 16 f3 :fc8 17 :fc 1 with a slight advantage for White. 13 b3 13 b4 looks quite logical, but Black gets a good game after 13 ......d8 14 cS as IS a3 axb4 16 axb4 :a3 17 ttJbS :a2 18 "'d3 dS!, as in Hanel-Stefansson, Vienna 1991.

13 tZ.'ld7 Several other moves have also been tried in this position: a) 13 ...bS? 14 b4 "'c7 IS eS! (1S ttJxb5?! 'ii'b7 is slightly better for Black, but 15 c5 a6 16 :tfel dxc5 17 i.xc5 tZ.'ld7 18 tZ.'ld5 i.xdS 19 exd5 tZ.'lxc5 20 bxc5 favours White, Arsovic-Kovacevic, Yugoslavia

1997) IS ... dxeS 16 ttJxbS 'ii'b7 17 :fcl :td8 18 lIel ttJg4 19 i.cS e4 20 i.xg4 i.xg4 21 ttJc3 i.fS 22 ttJdS :d7 23 i.e3 with advantage to White, Ivanchuk-Kovacevic, Belgrade 1997. b) 13 ... ttJg4 14 JQd5l? (Ivanchuk's 14 i.d4 i.xd4 15 "'xd4 did not give White anything in the game Korneev-Tiviakov, Linares 1998: 15 ... lIcs 16 "'d3 ttJf6 17 ~hl i.d7 18 f4 a5 19 a4?! [19 i.f3 or 19 ':bel were better] 19 ... i.c6 20 ttJdS :te8 21 ':bdl :ad8 with approximately level chances) 14......xd2 15 i.xd2 ';;'fS 16 i.gS! (16 i.xg4 i.xg4 17 i.gS f6 is equal) 16...ttJf6! (16 .. .f6?! is too passive: 17 i.d2 ttJeS 18 f4 ttJc6 19 f5 i.f7 20 g4 ttJeS 21 ':bcl i.xdS 22 exdS ~f7 23 i.e3 b6 24 h4, and White holds the advantage due to his space advantage and bishop pair, Gelfand-Andersson, Polanica Zdroj 1997) 17 ttJxf6 i.xf6 18 i.xf6 exf6 19 ':bdl ~e7 20 f4 ':c5 21 ':d4 a5 22 :tfdl :a6 with a drawn endgame, Tischbierek-Van der Weide, Berlin 1997. c) 13... a6 (this is probably Black's best choice, as White has yet to show a clear path to an advantage) 14 ':fcl and here we have another divergence: el) 14... bS?! IS b4! "'d8 16 cxb5 axb5 17 i.xb5 with a clear plus for White - Ivanchuk. c2) 14...'ii'b4 IS a3!? (the natural IS f3 is good for Black: 15 ... bS! 16 cxbS axb5 17 a4 ':xc3! 18 ':xc3 ttJdS 19 ':d3 ttJc3 20 ':cl ttJxe2+ 21 "'xe2 bxa4 22 bxa4 i.c4 23 "'d2 "'xa4 24 "'dl i.b2 2S "'xa4 ltxa4 26 ':bl i.xd3 27 :xb2 with a extra pawn for Black in the ending, Lopez-Nanu, Szeged 1998)


IS ... 'ii'aS (not IS ... 'ii'xa3?? 16 :al

'iib4 17 :a4 'ii'xb3 IS .i.dl! and wins) 16 b4 'ii'xa3? (Black is playing to win, but gets too optimistic in the process; correct was 16 ...'ii'dS 17 cS dxcS IS 'ii'xdS+ :xdS 19 .i.xcs 1:d7 with a slight edge for White) 17 :al 'ii'xb4 IS 1:a4 ltJxe4 19 l:f.xb4 ltJxd2 20 .i.xd2 l:f.c7 21 ltJa4! .i.d4 22 i.f3 l:f.bS 23 cS i.xcS 24 dxcS dxcS 2S :bbl and White was winning in Al.David-Antunes, Yerevan 01 1996. c3) 14.....dS IS f3 hS!? 16 i.fl ~h7 17 ltJe2 IS ltJd4 i.d7 19 i.gS l::tcs 20 l::tel as 21 a3 l::tacS 22 b4 axb4 23 axb4 :Sc7 24 f4?! eS! 2S ltJf3 i.c6 with an initiative for Black, as played in M.KaminskiKveinys, Krynica 1997. c4) 14...llabS!? IS f3 ~fS 16 i.fl 'ii'b4! (with the bishop now on fl, it is not quite as easy to take advantage of this move, e.g. 17 a3?! 'iVxa3 IS :al 1i'b4 19 :a4 'ii'xb3 20 l:f.bl ltJxe4 21 l::txb3 ltJxd2 22 i.xd2 bS 23 l::txa6 bxc4 24 lhbS i.d4+ 2S 'it>h 1 l::txbS and Black is better - Donaldson) 17 l:tc2 bS! IS a3 'ii'xa3 19ltJxbS axbS 20 :a2 'ii'xa2 21 1i'xa2 bxc4 22 bxc4, as in De Firmian-Donaldson, Philadelphia 1997, and now 22 ... 1:xbl 23 1i'xbl i.xc4 24 i.xc4 l::txc4 is equal. 14 l::tfc1 'ii'd8?! Ivanchuk prefers 14...a6 IS f4 llabS for Black, but in 011Alterman, .Krynica 1997. Black tried something else: 14 ...1i'b4 IS l::tc2 a6 16 :bcl 1:abS 17 f3 1i'aS IS ltJdS 'ii'xd2 19 i.xd2 'iitf8 20 lldc2 fS 21 exfS i.xfS 22 lld2 with a comfortable edge for White in the endgame.

"f8

15 ltJd5 ltJc5 16 i.f3 as 17 h4! With the queenside and the centre under control, Ivanchuk feels it is time for a kingside attack. If now 17 ...hS, then IS i.gS i.xdS 19 exdS i.f6 20 l::tel with a clear advantage for White . 17 i.xd5 18 exd5 'ii'd7 19 'ii'e2!? l::te8 Also possible is 19 ... hS, when Ivanchuk intended to break up the kingside with 20 g4 hxg4 21 i.xg4 fS 22 i.h3! followed by h4-hS. 20 h5 'ii'f5 21 l:[dl i.e5?! Now Black starts to go wrong, Correct was 2l...gxhS 22 i.xhS ltJe4 23 'ii'd3 1i'hs 24 1i'e4 i.eS with the better chances for White according to Ivanchuk. 22 g4 'ii'c8 23 'it>g2 i.g7 Now White's attack starts roiling. 24 l:[hlltJd7 25 hxg6 hxg6 26 l:[h4 a4 27 l:[bhl axb3 28 axb3 l:[al? The last chance was 2S ...bS! 29 cxbS'it'c3. 29 l:[lh3 'ii'a8 30 l:[h7 'ii'al?! The only way to continue the game was 30... i.eS 31 i.f4 i.g7! 31 l:[xg7+ ~xg7 32 i.d4+ f6 33 'ii'e3 ltJf8 34 i.e4! ~t7 35 l:[h8! 1-0 Game 66

Shirov-Alterman Santiago 1990

(1 e4 c5 2 ltJrJ ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 g6 5 c4 ltJf6 6 ltJc3 d6 7 i.e2 ltJxd4 8 'ii'xd4 i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 10 'ii'd2 i.e6 11 0-0 'ii'aS)


12

l:.ac1

12 l:.fc8!? This used to be considered a mistake, but now it seems that Black actually is doing okay here, particularly considering that Anand used this move to win against Ivanchuk. Conventional wisdom was that Black should not play .. .l:1fc8 while White can still play f2-f4-f5. For the more cautious player, we can recommend 12 ... a6!?, which objectively speaking is probably best, when White has tried: a) 13 a3!? l:.fc8?! (this leaves Black in a passive position, so we recommend 13 ... ttJd7!, stopping White's b2-b4 ideas, when with ... l:tfc8 and ... ttJe5 to come, Black can apply pressure on the white queenside, which White was kind enough to weaken with 13 a3) 14 b4 "dS (14 ... 'ifxa3 is a little too adventurous after 14 :al 'ifxb4 15 l:ta4 'ii'b3 16 i.dl! with a clear edge for White) 15 c5 dxc5 16 'ifxd8+ ':'xdS 17 i.xc5 c;Pf8 18 f4 ttJd7 19 i.e3 l:tac8 20 e5 i.c4 21 i.xc4 ':'xc4 22 ttJa4 with a clear advantage for White, Diaz JoaquinAndres, Camaguey 1987. b) 13 f4 b5! 14 cxb5 axb5 15

b4? (this allows Black to get on top; equal was 15 f5 b4 16 fxe6 bxc3 17 exf7+ c;Ph8 18 'ifxc3 'ifxc3 19 bxc3 ttJxe4 20 i.d4) 15 ... 'ifxb4 16 l:bl 'W'a3 17 l:xb5 l:tfc8 18 i.d4 ':'xc3 19 'W'xc3 ttJxe4 20 l:bS+ :'xbS 21 'W'xa3 i.xd4+ 22 ~hl ttJf2+ 23 l:.xf2 i.xf2 with a clear advantage for Black, CardosoAdorjan, Lanzarote 1975. c) 13 f3 l:.fc8 14 ttJd5?! (better is 14 b3, transposing to a position considered in note 'b' to White's 14th move in the next game) 14... 'ifxd2 15 i.xd2 ttJxd5 16 cxd5 (16 exd5 .if5 17 b3 i.d4+ IS c;Phl i.b2 is also comfortable for Black) 16... i.d7 17 b3 i.d4+ 18 ~hl i.b2 (although it does not seem as if White has done anything drastically wrong, he is already in deep trouble) 19 l:c4 i.b5 20 l:txcS+ l:xcS 21 i.xb5 axb5 22 a4 :tc2 23 i.h6 b4 24 i.e3 :te2 25 i.b6 i.c3 26 ~gl :tb2 27 l:.dl f5 and Black went on to win, Fishbein-Alterman, Beersheva 1991. 13 b3 a6

14

f4

This used to be considered the refutation of Black's move order. It is certainly quite logical to take


advantage of Black's slow, queenside-oriented play. Other moves do not pose' Black any problems. A few examples are: a) 14 a4 tLld7 IS i..d4 i..xd4 16 'ii'xd4 'ifb4 17 l:tbl tLlcs 18 'ife3 'ifb6 19 as 112_112 Vadasz-Leko, Budapest 1993. b) 14 i..f3l:tc7 IS tLldS 'ii'xd2 16 i..xd2 i..xdS 17 cxdS l:tac8 18 l:txc7 :xc7 19 l:tcl l:txc1 20..l1i.xc1 tLlcs with a level endgame, as in the game K.Miiller-Brunner, Altensteig 1992. c) 14 f3 hS transposing to note 'b' to White's 14th move in the next main game. 14 bS Reshevsky once tried 14 ... i..g4 against a young Fischer, but White had the better position after IS i..d3 i..d7 16 h3 i..c6 17 'ii'f2 tLld7 18 ttJdS i..xdS 19 exdS bS 20 :fe 1 tLlcS 21 i..b 1 bxc4 22 lhc4, Fischer-Reshevsky, Los Angeles 1961. 15 f5 i..d7

The alternatives are not worth trying for Black: a) IS ... b4? 16 fxe6 bxc3 17 exf7+ ~f8 18 'ifc2 'ii'eS 19 i..f3 with a clear plus for White,

Sham kovich-Kagan, Netanya 1975 b) IS ... gxfS? 16 exfS i..d7 17 i..d4 bxc4 18 i..xc4, also with a clear edge for White, Lengye1Matanovic, Budapest 1964. 16 fxg6 The position after Black's ISth move is a key one in this line. White has tried a number of things, but the only move with which he has managed to obtain an advantage is the text continuation. Before we continue let us take a look at some of White's alternatives: a) 16 i..d4?! tLlxe4 17 'ii'e3 tLlxc3 18 l:txc3 i..xd4 19 'ii'xd4 eS 20 'ii'd2 'i'd8 112-112 Bobotsov-Hort, Kapfenberg 1970. b) 16 i..gS?! l:tcS 17 i..e3 l:tc7 18 c5 l:tac8 19 l:tc2 l:txcS! with better chances for Black, De Firmian-Strauss, Los Angeles 1992. c) 16 b4?! 'ii'xb4 17 eS dxeS 18 fxg6 i..e6 (White was threatening 19 l:txf6 followed by 'ii'xd7) 19 gxf7+ i..xf7 20 i..h6 i..xh6 21 'ii'xh6 i..xc4 22 'ii'gS+ ~h8 23 l:txf6 l:tg8! and Black was winning, Ivanchuk-Anand, Moscow 1994. d) 16 g4!? (an untried, yet interesting suggestion of Shamkovich's) 16 ... b4 (or 16... bxc4 17 gS) 17 tLldS tLlxe4? 18 'i'c2 wins for White. We believe that the best way for Black to meet 16 g4 is by playing 16 ...i..c6!? , maintaining control over the important dSsquare even when the black knight is pushed away with g4-gS. Both sides have chances. 16 hxg6 17 cS!? This is the only way to play for an advantage, although 17 eS?! has been tried quite frequently: 17 ... b4! 18 exf6 bxc3 19 l:txc3 i..xf6 20


':xf6 (if White moves the c3-rook, Black will exchange the queens and have a slightly better endgame; with 20 ':xf6 White aims for an attack, but Black's defensive resources are perfectly adequate) 20 ... exf6 21 .if3 .ic6 22 .id4 .ixf3 23 "'f4 'ii'g5 24 'ii'xf3 l:le8 and although Black has a small advantage, the game soon ended in a draw in Spassky-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1969.

17 .ie6! In Vitolins-Telman, Kiev 1967, Black soon got into trouble after 17 ... dxc5? 18 e5 lDg4 19 .if3 lDxe3 20 'ii'xe3 l:a7 21 lDd5 .ie6 22 :'xc5 :d8? (22 ...:'xc5 23 "xc5 ':d7 24 lDxe7+ ~h8 25 lDc6 'ii'd2, although White is still better) 23 l:lc6 :ad7 24 :'xe6! fxe6 25 .ig4! with a murderous attack. ECO's suggestion of 17... h4!? was tried out in Miiki-Frois, Thessaloniki 01 1984: 18lDd5 lDxd5 19 exd5 dxc5 20 .ic4 :'f8 21 a4 'ii'b6 22 :'ac8 23 d6! e6 24 :'cdl 'ii'c6 25 1fh4 f5 26 :'f3 and White had the clearly better chances. Donaldson suggests 20....ie8 as an improvement, but we believe that White has all the chances after 21

"£2

d6 exd6 22 'ii'xd6. Black is badly co-ordinated and he has difficulties defending himself against the threat 23 "xg6, e.g. 22 ...':c6 23 .ixf7+. IS .if3 dxe5 19 e5 lDd7! In the stem game of this line, Parma tried 19... lDg4?, but after 20 .ixa8 .ixe5 21 .id5 lDxe3 22 .ixe6 ':d8 23 lDf5 24 'ii'e2 .id4+ 25 lithl he was lost. The game was soon over: 25 .. .fxe6 26 "'xe6+ ~g7 27 lDe4 'ii'c7 28 lDg5 ':f8 29 "'xf5 1-0 Tal-Panna, Bled 1961. 20 .ixaS :'xaS 21 'ii'e2 e4 Black already has a pawn for the exchange, and the white e-pawn does not have a very promising future. Therefore White has only one thing left to do if he does not want to die slowly: attack! 22 bxc4 .ixe4 23 'ii'f3 ':f8 24 lDdS .ixd5 25 'ii'xd5 lDxe5 26 .ie5 :'dS To be considered was 26... 'ii'c7, but it seems as if both parties were happy with the draw that is coming up after the text move. The game concluded: 27 "'7 'ii'xal 2S .ixe7 :'eS 29 ':eS ':xeS 30 'ii'xeS+ ~h7 31 'ii'h3 ~gS 32 'ii'eS+ ~h7 lIz-liz

"'£2

Game 67

Short-Korchnoi Lucerne 1997 (1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 1Dc6 3 d4 exd4 4 lDxd4 g6 5 e4 lDf6 6 lDe3 d6 7 .ie2 lDxd4 S 'ii'xd4 .ig7 9 .ie3 0-0 10 'ii'd2 .ie6)


11

f3

"'as

A rare alternative is 11...a6!? After 12 b3 "'a5 we would be back in the main line, but if White plays 12 lIcl !?, hoping for 12 .....a5 13 tLld5!, Black can give 12 ...b5!? a try, with two possibilities: a) The critical test may be 13 cxb5 axb5 14 a3, when Donaldson now gives 14 ... tbd7 15 tbxb5 tbc5 16 ~xc5 dxc5 with some compensation for the pawn. With two strong bishops and pressure against the queenside, Black should be alright, e.g. 17 'ii'xdS AfxdS IS tbc7 ~xb2 19 lIc2 :xa3! b) In Pimenta-Khenkin, Geneva 1994, White played more cautiously: 13 tbd5 bxc4 14 tbxf6+ ~xf6 15 ~xc4 lIc8! (Black strives to create some imbalance; the normal 15 ... ~xc4?! 16 lIxc4 :c8 led to an equal endgame in BragaTsuboi, Sao Paulo 1991: 17 lIxc8 'ii'xc8 IS 0-0 'ii'b7 19 b3 :c8 20 :cl Ac6 21 Axc6 'ii'xc6) 16 ~xe6 :xc1+ 17 "xcI fxe6 18 "d2?! (better was 18 0-0) IS ...d5 19 b3 'ii'd6 20 0-0 d4 21 ~h6 :c8 22 :cI :xcl+ 23 'ii'xcI ~ 24 i.f4 ~e5 26 ~xe5 'ii'xe5 27 'ii'c4 'ii'd6 27 ~f2 d3 2S e5 'ii'b6+ 29 'i.tfl

"e3 30 'ii'e4 'ii'cl+ 31 ~f2 d2 0-1. 12 :d Less challenging are 12 tbd5 "xd2+ 13 cJ;lxd2 tbxd5 14 cxd5 .i.d7 15 :ac 1 :fcS 16 :xcS+ :'xc8 17 :'cl :xcI IS cJ;lxcl a6 1/2- 112 Przewoznik-Malisauskas, Mikolajki 1991, and 12 tbb5 'ii'xd2+ 13 ~xd2 tLJd7 14 :abl tLJe5 15 :bel :'fcS 16 b3 tLJc6 17 f4 f5 IS ~f3 fxe4 19 ~xe4 ~f5 with a good game, Botvinnik-Matulovic, Belgrade 1970. 12 :fc8 13 b3 Nor does 13 tbd5 promise anything: 13 .....xd2+ 14 ~xd2 tLJxd5 15 exd5 ~d7 16 f4 a6 17 b4 a5 IS b5 ~b2 19 :'c2 ~a3 20 ~d3 ~c5 with equal chances, A.SokolovVelimirovic, Bar 1997. 13 a6

This is pretty much the standard continuation, but other moves are also sufficient for equality: a) 13 ... tLld7 14 0-0 a6 15 :fdl b5 16 tbd5 'ii'xd2 17 :xd2 ~xdS IS lIxd5 b4 19 g4 tbc5 20 :cdl as 21 ~xc5 1/2- 1/2 Larsen-Panno, Buenos Aires 1991. b) 13 ...:abS 14 tba4 'ii'xd2+ 15 ~xd2 ~d7 16 tbc3 a6 17 a4 b6 18

Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 163 g4 i.e8 19 tL\d5 112_112 KavalekChristiansen, Wijk aan Zee 1982. 14 tL\a4!? This is White's only real try for an advantage, but with the bishop on e3, Black does not really have too much to worry about, as he can now move his knight to d7 to cover the b6-square. Apart from 14 tL\a4, White has three other moves at his disposal. None of these are very ambitious and Black equalises without too much difficulty against each of them: a) 14 tL\dS (this leads to mass exchanges) 14...'ii'xd2+ 15 'it>xd2 tL\xd5 16 cxdS i.d7 17 ltxc8+ ltxc8 18 ltc 1 ltxc 1 19 c2 e6 1/2- 112 Petrosian-Fischer, Buenos Aires 1970) 20 ... e6 21 i.d4 'i&i>e7 22 'it>c2 i.e5 23 h3 ~d5 24 i.xd5 i.c6 25 i.xc6 bxc6 ~. 'i&i>g3 i.c3 with a very drawn ending, Dorfman-Gdanski, Polanica Zdroj 1993. b) 14 0-0 (this allows Black to play ... b7-b5, and is therefore the only line in which Black can hope for an advantage!) 14...b5 and now we have: b 1) Of course, there is still 15 tL\dS, but with the king away from the centre, White cannot hope for any advantage: 15 ... 'ii'xd2 16 i.xd2 tL\xd5 17 cxd5 i.d4+ 18 ~hl i.d7 19 l:lxc8+ ltxc8 20 :tel 1/2- 112 Tsarev-Zhachev, Moscow 1988. b2) Worse is 15 cxb5?! axb5 16 ltc2? ltxc3 17 1Wxc3 'ii'xc3 18 ':xc3 lha2 19 i.xb5 tL\g4 20 fxg4 i.xc3 with a nightmare ending for White, whose pawns are horribly weak, Sherzer-Honfi, Hungary 1988. b3) 15 tL\bl b4! and:

b31) 16 :fd 1 has been tried, but Black was .slightly better after 16...lhb8 17 h3 tL\d7 18 i.f1 'ii'c7 19 1Wf2 tL\c5 20 tL\d2 a5, BuzaMarasescu, Romania 1988. b32) Boleslavsky gives 16 a3 ltab8 17 i.f2 tL\d7 18 'i&i>hl tL\e5 19 i.e 1 tL\c6 with an edge for Black. b33) 16 ~hl (White has actually managed to pull off a few wins with this move, but only after weak play by Black) 16... ltab8 17 i.d4 tL\d7 18 i.xg7 ~xg7 19 f4 f6 20 'ii'b2 1Wc5 21 l:lcdl ltc7 22 ltd3 a5 and Black had nothing to worry about, Zelcic-Korholz, Cannes 1993. c) 14 a4!? (by preventing ...b7b5 and gaining some more space on the queenside, White prepares for the ending that he eventually will force by playing tL\d5; however, the inclusion of a2-a4 does not change the picture a great deal, the likely result is still a draw) 14... tL\d7!? 15 tL\dS 'ii'xd2+ (an interesting option is 15 ...'ii'd8!?, when Herrera and Alzugaray give the following line: 16 a5 i.xd5 17 exd5 b6 18 axb6 tL\xb6 19 b4 a5 20 bxa5 tL\d7, intending ...tL\c5 and ...1Wxa5 with a good game for Black) 16 ~xd2 i.xdS 17 exd5 (in Vukcevic-Drimer, Leningrad 1960,


White obtained an advantage after 17 cxd5 ~f8 18 b4 i..b2 19 Ac2 l'hc2+ 20 c,txc2 i..g7 21 ~b3 :'c8 22 l:cl, but we think that Black can improve on his play by playing 17 ... i..b2 instead of 17 ... ~f8; the idea is to transfer the bishop to b4 via a3, or possibly to exchange off the dark-squared bishops, leaving Black with a good knight versus bad bishop) 17 ... a5 18 ~c2 :'e8 19 l:hel e6 1/2- 112 Dochev-Delchev, Sofia 1994. 14 15 ~xd2

16 g4!? White's most popular and dangerous option. The alternatives have proven quite easy for Black to handle: a) 16 ~c3 ~f6 17 ~d5 ~xd5 18 cxd5 i..d7 19 :txc8+ :'xc8 20 :'el :'xel 21 ~xcl f5 112-112 Spassky-Sosonko, Tilburg 1981. b) 16 :'c2 Ac6 (also good is 16...f5 17 i..d3
:'d8+ 20 ~el :'xdl+ 21 ~xdl :'c8 with equality, Hort-Vasiukov, Wijk aan Zee 1973) 17 exf5 gxf5 18 'iti>el Wf7 19 ~c3 i..xc3 20 :'xc3 b5 21 g4 fxg4 22 fxg4 bxc4 23 bxc4 li'le5 24 :'d4 l:.ab8 25 :tb3 :a8 26 :'c3 :lab8 27 :'b3 :a8 1/2_ 1/2 Kir.Georgiev-Tiviakov, Groningen 1994. d) 16 h4!? f5 (16 ... llab8!?) 17 exf5 gxf5 18 i..d3 Aab8! 19 ~c3 ~c5 20 ~d5?! (20 i..bl!?, keeping the bishop and maintaining the pressure on Black's kingside, was a better idea) 20 ... ~ 21 g4 ~xd3 22 ~xd3 b5 23 ~f4 bxc4+ 24 bxc4 i..d7 with a very comfortable endgame for Black, Vaisser-Antunes, Tilburg 1994. Both players must be aware of the fact that often the positions analysed above, in which Black plays ... f7-f5, also arise from the 9 i..g5 variation: 9 i..g5 0-0 10 11M2 (or 10 "e3 i..e6 11 Acl 1ib6! 12 "d21ib4) 1O ... i..e6 11 Acl "a5. 16 1:[c6 A very popular alternative is 16... f5!? and now: a) 17 gxf5 is harmless for Black after 17 ... gxf5 18 Ahgl ~h8 19 ~c3 fxe4 20 ~xe4 d5 21 ~g5 i..g8 22 cxd5 i..xd5 23 J:tg3 llxel 24 ~xcl ~f6 with equal chances, Lau-Zsu.Polgar, New York 1985. b) But 17 exf5 has caused Black quite a few problems, although objectively speaking, Black is doing alright after 17...gxf5 18 h3 and now: b 1) After the slightly inaccurate 18 ...:td8 White's advantage is barely traceable: 19 ~c3 ~f6 20 l:lhdl d5 21 cxd5 ~xd5 22 ~xd5 Ilxd5+ 23 ~el :'xdl+ 24 ~xdl :'d8+ 25 ~el ~ 26 i..c4 i..e5 27


f4 .i.d6, W.Schmidt-Khasin, Koszalin 1997, but it seems better to leave the knight on a4, as after 19 l:thdl!? then: bll) 19... ~f7 20 ~el fxg4 21 hxg4 h5 22 gxh5 l::th8 23 c5 d5 24 f4 lLlf6 25 c6 bxc6 26 llxc6 White had the better ending in SkalikGdanski, Polish ch 1994. b12) If Black instead of 19 ... 'iiff7 tries 19 ... lLlf6, then 20 lLlb6 is quite uncomfortable, because then after 20 ... d5 White no longer has to worry about ... d5-d4, forking the c3-knight and e3-bishop, and can therefore can play 21 c5, threatening 22 .i.f4, when after 21..JHS 22 'iifel! fxg4 23 hxg4 l:tbdS 24 c6 White is ~l~arly better. But Black has a co~ of other interesting alternatives. b13) 19 ... d5!? 20 exf5 (20 cxd5 .txd5 21 ~el .i.c6, but not 21 gxf5? lLle5) 20 ... .txf5 21 cxd5lLlf6 and in this position Black has no problems. b14) 19... b5!? (with the white knight left on a4, this looks very logical) 20 cxb5 axb5 21 lLlc3 b4 22 lLlb5 fxg4 23 hxg4 lLle5 with a good game for Black, but 22 lLla4 is probably better. b2) Finally, IS ... l:tfS 19 f4 (less to the point is 19 l::thfl fxg4 20 fxg4 l:tabS 21 lLlc3lLle5 1/2- 1/2 LissDonaldson, Port Erin 1997) (see following diagram) and now: b21) 19 ... d5 20 cxd5 .i.xd5 21 l:thdl! l:tacS 22 gxf5 b5 23 l:txcS l:txc8 24 ~el .tc6 25 lLlc5 lLlxc5 26 .txc5 .tf6 27 b4! with a clear advantage for White in the endgame, although Black managed to save the draw in BeliavskyTiviakov, Groningen 1993.

b22) 19 ... lLlf6!? 20 .:thgl lIad8 21 .tb6 lIc8 22 lLlc3, as in Ivanchuk-Kir.Georgiev, Belgrade 1997, and, according to Ivanchuk, Black could now have chosen between 22 ... d5!? 23 cxd5 lhc3 24 dxe6 lLle4+ 25 'iifdl or 22 ... fxg4 23 hxg4 d5!? 24 f5 (24 cxd5? lIxc3! or 24 g5 lLld7!) 24 ... .tf7 25 lLld5 lLlxd5 26 cxd5 .i.xd5 with chances for both sides in each case. b23) 19 .. J~ad8!? and now: b231) 20 lLlc3 d5!? (Black must stay active, as after 20 ... lLlf6 21 g5 lLle4+ 22 lLlxe4 fxe4 23 .tb6 l:td7 24 xg7 33 lLldl l:td3 with an equal endgame, Am.RodriguezAntunes, Matanzas 1994. b232) 20 .tf3 fxg4 21 hxg4 d5 22 cxd5 lLle5 23 .i.e4 .i.xd5 24

166 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation it.xh7+ f7 25 :'h5 it.xb3+ 26 e2 it.c4+ 27 el tiJxg4 28 it.b6 :'d5 with equal chances in the endgame, Riemersma-Van der Weide, Enschede 1996. b233) 20 :'hdl d5 21 cxd5 ll:\f6 22 tiJb6 tiJxd5 23 tiJxd5 it.xd5 24 e 1 fxg4 25 :'xd5 :'xd5 26 it.c4 e6 27 it.xd5 exd5 28 hxg4 it.b2 29 :'c2 d4 30 it.d2 it.c3 112_112 LaneDonaldson, Wrexham 1997. 17 h4 ct>f8 In Soffer-I.Almasi, Budapest 1993, Black mixed his plans: 17 ... h6 18 tiJc3 f5? 19 tiJd5 c:ilf7 20 exf5 gxf5 21 g5 hxg5 22 hxg5 tiJf8 23 f4 c;t>e8 24 it.f3 :'b8 25 tiJb4 :'c7 26 it.b6 :'d7 27 :'cel, when White had a magnificent clamp on the entire black position. hS l:tae8 18 19 hxg6 hxg6

20 gS White does not want to allow the possibility of a freeing ... f7-f5 later on in the game. tiJeS 20 21 tiJe3 bS! The pawn cannot be taken: 22 cxb5 it.xc3+ 23 :'xc3 tiJxe4+ 24 fxe4 :'xc3. 22 tiJdS bxe4

23 it.xe4 as 24 it.bS it.xdS 2S exdS l:t6e7 26 it.e6 ~g8! Black has to play very carefully, since with a pair of bishops and a weak black pawn on a5, White does not need a whole lot more to win the game. If Black tries to release the tension with 26 ... e6, White has 27 :'xc5! exd5 28 lhd5 :'xc6 and now not 29 l:txa5 :'c2+ 30 c;t>dl :'b2 with compensation for the pawn, but 29 r,ite2 with an advantage for White: the weak a- and d-pawns should be all White needs to win. Nor does 27 ... dxc5 offer Black salvation: 28 it.xc5+ 'iStg8 29 it.b6 l:txc6 (not 29 ...:'e7? 30 d6 :'xc6 31 dxe7, when the e-pawn decides) 30 dxc6 :'xc6 31 it.xa5 (31 it.e3!?) 3l...':c5 32 it.b6 :'xg5 33 :'h2!, when White's queenside pawns will prove stronger than Black's kingside majority. l:te4 27 27 it.xc5 dxc5 28 :'xc5 e6 is okay for Black. 27 e6 28 l:thc1 l:td8 29 exdS l:tIe2 30 l:te7 it.xdS 31 l:tde8 it.d4 it.xg7 32 l:te2+ ct>e3 33 l:t8e3+ 34 ct>b2 ct>xg7 3S l:td4 tiJd3+ Ill-Ill After 36 ':xd3 :'xd3 37 ':'xe2 :'xd5 the chances are level. Game 68 Gulko-Petrosian Biel izt 1976 (1 e4 eS 2 tiJf3 tiJe6 3 d4 exd4 4


tbxd4 g6 5 c4 tbf6 6 tbc3 d6 7 ~e2 tbxd4 8 "'xd4 ~g7) 9

~g5

This move has more point than 9 iLe3, as often when Black has developed his queen to a5, White has the option of 1 ~xf6 ~xf6, 2 tbd5 'ii'xd2, 3 tbxf6+, disrupting the black pawn structure, although many of these endgames with an isolated Black d-pawn are in fact drawn. The drawback of having the bishop on g5 is that it is sometimes slightly vulnerable tactically, protected only by the queen. White's chances of an opening advantage are certainly better after 9 ~g5 than 9 ~e3, but Black should still be able to keep the balance with correct play. 9 h6?! Nowadays this is rarely seen in top level tournaments, but it is not really that bad. The main move is of course 9... 0-0, which will be covered in Games 69-72, but two other ideas are sometimes seen: a) It is not particularly good to postpone castling: 9 ... ~e6 10 .!:tel lia5 (10 ... 0-0!) 11 lid2 .!:tcS?! (11...0-0!) 12 f3! and now the po-

sition is already critical for Black: al) In the game Geller-Stean, Teesside 1975, Black suffered a violent death: 12 ... ~xc4? 13 tbd5! lixa2 140-0 tbxd5 15 .!:txc4! nxc4 16 "'xd5 lh4 17 ~b5+ 'itfs IS ncl 1-0. a2) Best is 12 ... 0-0 13 tbd5! lixd2+ 14 'it>xd2 tbxd5 15 cxd5 ~d7 and now 16 b3 with an edge for White in the endgame, but not 16 lhcs (16 ~xe7?? ~h6+) 16 .. .lhcs 17 ~xe7?! ~h6+! IS ~el (1S ~d3?? ~b5+ and wins) 18 ... l:tc2 with a good game for Black. b) Recently 9..."'a5!? has become quite popular. Usually, it just transposes to the main lines, but with 10 ~d2!?, threatening 11 tbd5, White can avoid these transpositions. In the only examples given, Black chose to deal with this threat immediately, moving his queen to b6 with 10..."'6. This bears a resemblance to the line 9 0-0 0-0 10 'ii'e3 ~e6 11 ~d2 "'6, but White is a tempo up compared to this line. However, White must play energetically to retain the initiative. After 11 lixb6 axb6: bl) In Kalesis-Leko, Budapest 1993, White played 12 f3?! ~e6 13 ~f2 tbd7 14 l:thel f5 15 exf5 gxf5 16 b3 0-0 17 a4 tbc5 IS .!:tabl f4 19 tbd5 ~xd5 20 exd5 ~d4+ and Black had solved his opening problems successfully. b2) A better impression is made by 12 a4! ~e6 13 0-0 0-0 14 f4! .!:tfc8 15 b3 b5 16 f5, when, already in a bad position, Black tried to create some confusion, but White kept his cool: 16 ... ~xc4 17 bxc4 b4 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 e5 bxc3 20 exf6 ~xf6 21 lhf6 exf6 22 ~xc3

168 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation with a won endgame for White, Alburt-Llvanov, Chicago 1989. 10· .i.e3 0-0 11 -.d2 'iith7 An idea deserving of attention is 1l.....a5!? 12 0-0 .i.e6!? planning to answer 13 i.xh6 J.xh6 14 "xh6 with 14... ~. In its only outing, White did not achieve much: 15 ':ad1?! "xb2 16 ':d3 tiJxe4 17 ':bl "c2 18 ':el 'iVb2 with equality, Honfi-Makropoulos, Athens 1976. Silman and Donaldson claim that White is clearly better after 15 tiJd5!? J.xd.'; 16 exd5 "xb2 17 %:tael!, intending f2-f4-f5. However, we do not agree with this judgement. In many endgames Black will be better due to the superiority of his knight over White's bishop, and if White insists on an attack with f2-f4, he will weaken his kingside dramatically. A possi17 ... ':ae8 (or ble line is 17 ... ':fe8!?) 18 f4 (18 J.dl b5!) 18 ... tiJe4, threatening .....d4+ and ... ~8. With best play from both sides, the position is probably roughly equal. Instead of 15 tiJd5, White could try 15 ':ab 1, but the chances are about equal after 15 ... J.xc4 16 J.xc4 lIbc4 17 "e3. The correct way for White to take advantage of Black's weak h6pawn is initially to ignore it, until White has secured his own position, as then Black will have to waste a tempo protecting the h6pawn. Seen in the light of this recommendation, moves such as 13 ':ab!, 13 ':ac1 and 13 ':fc 1 would all be good choices. 0-0 12 White also achieved a slightly better position with 12 f3 J.e6 13 ':c1 ':c8 14 tiJb5!? a6 15 tiJd4

.i.d7 160-0 "c7 17 ':c2 ':fd8 18 ':fcl e5!? 19 tiJb3 J.e6 20 ':c3! tiJd7 21 tiJal! f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 tiJc2 in Seirawan-Llvanov, USA ch 1992. 12 J.e6 12 ... J..d7 is too passive here: 13 ':fdl J..c6 14 f3 (or 14 "c2 "a5 15 i.d4 with a slight plus, Garcia Martinez-Pinal, Cienfuegos 1983) 14.....a5 15 ':ael l:.fc8 16 a3 a6 17 .i.f1 "d8 18 b4 'ji'b8 19 a4 a5 20 b5 J.d7 21 tiJd5 with the better chances for White, GriinbergDumitrache, Romania 1992.

:ac1 13 This is not White's best move here. Other possibilities are: a) 13 f3 "a5 14 l:.ael a6 15 b3 ':fc8 16 a4 tiJd7 17 ':c2 (White does not achieve anything after 17 tiJd5 "xd2 18 .i.xd2 .i.b2 19 ':ce1 tiJc5 20 J.e3 .i.xd5 21 exd5 b6 22 J.dl i.c3 23 ':e2 ':c7 with equality, Karasev-Tal, USSR ch 1971) 17 ... tiJc5 18 ':bl ~! 19 tiJd5 "xd2 20 l:bd2 J.xd5 21 ':xd5 a5 22 J.dl ':c6 23 J.c2 e6 24 ':ddl tiJa6! 25 e5 d5 with equality, as in the game Uhlmann-Andersson, Hastings 1971/72. b) 13 .i.d4 ':c8 (an interesting


alternative is 13 .....aS [threatening 14... lbxe4!] 14 f3 ':fc8 IS b3 bS!? IS cxbS lbxe4 16 fxe4 .i.xd4+ 17 1i'xd4 'ii'xc3 18 'ii'xc3 l:lxc3 with a good game for Black, but White is probably slightly better after 14 l:.adl!?) 14 b3 a6 IS 'ii'e3 lbd7 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17 f4 'ii'b6 18 'ii'xb6 liJxb6 19 fS .i.d7 20 liJdS with a small edge for White, TimmanRibli, Amsterdam 1973. c) 13 f4! (White's most direc~ and strongest approach) 13 ... :c8\ 14 b3 'ii'aS IS :adl (in the famous game Larsen-Fischer, Denver 1971, White tried IS a3 a6 16 fS .i.d7 17 b4 "eS, and now instead of 18 l:tael .i.c6 19 .i.f4 lbxe4 20 liJxe4 'ii'xe4 21 .i.d3 'ii'd4+ 22 ~hl l:tce8 with equal chances, White should have gone for Rabar's 18 :adl J..c6 19 .i.d4 lbxe4 20 'ii'e3 liJxc3 21 .i.xeS ~xdl 22 l:lxdl with a small edge for White, but Black can consider 18 ...lbxe4 19 lbxe4 'ii'xe4 20 .i.d3 'ii'eS, when White still has to prove exactly what he has in return for his pawn) 18...a6 16 .i.d4 .i.d7 (White also gets the better position after 16... bS 17 fS J..d7 18 .i.xf6! exf6 19lbdS "xd2 20 l:lxd2, Nunn-Van der Sterren, Groningen 1974/7S) 17 .i.xf6 exf6 18 lbdS 'ii'cS+ 19 ~hl as 20 fS with a very comfortable position for White, Nunn-l.Ivanov, London 1987. 13 "as 14 f4 ':ac8 With the weakened structure on the kingside, Black decides it is best to keep a rook on the kingside for protection. a6 15 b3 16 f5 .i.d7 17 h3 A:<£

"

17 cS .i.b5 is quite messy, as in the game Vera-Marasescu, Timisoara 1982. 18 .i.d3 lbd7 ~d5 "xdl 19 20 .i.xdl ':fe8 Black has equalised, and a draw was soon agreed: 21 .i.bl .i.d4+ 22 ~hl ~g7 23 fxg6 fxg6 24 ~f4 .i.f6 25 .i.e3 1/2_1/2

Game 69

Dolmatov-Tiviakov Rostov na Donu 1993 (I e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 g6 5 c4 lbf6 6 lbc3 d6 7 .i.e2 lbxd4 8 'ii'xd4 .i.g7 9 .i.g5 0-0)

10

'ii'e3

This is a fairly new way of playing the position. Ideally, White wants to place his rooks on c 1 and d 1 and then push through either c4cS or e4-e5. However, if White is not interested in the exchange of queens, this is not the right line for him, since Black often plays .. :ili"6. Although 10 We3 is not theoretically any better than 10

170 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 1t'd2, it certainly gives White more options, as after 10 'ii'e3 .i.e6 11 0-0 'ii'b6 White can choose 12 'ii'd2, when after 12 ... 'ii'a5 we are back in the 10 'ii'd2 lines. 10 .i.e6 1O... 'ii'a5 is also possible, but after 11 0-0 .i.e6, we will transpose into the note to Black's 11th move. Three rarely played alternatives are: a) 10...a6 11 0-0 .i.d7 12 Afd1 l:tc8 13 h3 Ae8 14 ]:tacl with a slight plus for White, MureyGelfer, Tel Aviv 1980. b) 1O... 'ii'b6 (in this form ... 'ii'b6 is slightly unusual, but in the game Black soon manages to equalise) 11 'ii'xb6 axb6 12 ~d2 .i.e6 13 a4 Afc8 14 b3 :a5 15 .i.xf6 (15 .i.e3 lLld7 is excellent for Black) 15 ... exf6!? (15 ... .i.xf6 was good enough for equality, but the text move is an interesting attempt to create some action) 16 .i.d3 f5 17 Aad1 .i.xc3+ 18 ~xc3 fxe4 19 .i.xe4 Ih_Ih Arencibia-Antunes, Cuba 1991, but here 19 ...d5 is quite interesting. White's only move is 20 b4!, when 20 ... ':xa4 21 .i.xd5 and 20.. Jlxc4+ 21 ~b3 ':a8 22 .i.xdS are both about equal, but instead of 21...lIa8, Black can try 2l...dxe4!? 22 bxa5 bxa5 with very good chances. c) 1O... .i.d7 11 0-0.i.c6 12 Afd1 lLld7 13 ..th6 'ii'b6 14 'ii'xb6 lLlxb6 IS .i.xg7 ~xg7 16 Aacl as 17 f3 ':fc8 18 ~ lLld7 19 ~e3 lLlc5 20 Ac2 lLla4 and White was just a tiny bit better, Penrose-Damjanovic, Palma de Mallorca 1969.

11

0-0

In Amason-Petursson, Reykja-

vik 1989, White was successful with 11 lIcl a6!? 12 0-0 b5!? 13

cxb5 axb5 14 a3! "'8? IS .i.xb5, when he was just a pawn up. Amason suggested 14.. JlaS!? as an improvement, but Petursson himself showed the right way for Black the following year against the same player: 1l...'ii'b6! 121M2 (or 12 b3!?) 12 ...'ii'b4!? (12 ...'ii'aS is also playable, but the text is more interesting) 13 f3 and now: a) Petursson gives 13 ... .i.xc4!? 14 a3 'iib3 IS .i.xc4 'ii'xc4 16 ttJdS 'iib3 17 ttJxe7+ ~h8 as unclear. Gallagher disagrees and gives 18 0-0 'ii'b6+ 19 Af2 Afe8 20 ..txf6 .i.xf6 21 ttJdS 'ii'd4 22 ':c7 with a clear advantage for White, but we think that after 18 ...Afe8 Black should have nothing to complain about. In fact, how does White continue? 19 'ii'xd6? :ad8 20 'ii'cS (20 'ii'c7 Ad7) 20 ...ttJxe4, 19 l:tc7 'ii'b6+ and 19 ttJdS ttJxd5 20 'ii'xdS 'ii'xdS 21 exdS .i.xb2 22 ':c7 .i.d4+ 23 c,t.>hl ~g8 24 ':xb7 :ab8 are all good for Black, but White can keep level chances with 19 .i.xf6! .i.xf6 21 ttJdS 'ii'xb2 22 'ii'f4! .i.eS! 23 'ii'xfl Af8. b) 13 ... ':fc8 14 b3 a6 IS ttJa4 'ii'xd2+ 16 ~xd2 ttJd7 17 h4 (or 17 g4 f6 18 .i.e3 fS - transposing to the note after Black's 16th move in Game 67) 17 .. .f6 18 .i.e3 fS and we have transposed to the note to White's 16th move in Game 67.

11

'6'b6!

An interesting option is l1...'ii'aS 12 .:tac1 l:tfc8 13 b3 a6 and now: a) 14 a4 'ii'b4 IS ..tdl 'ii'cS! (lS ... Aab8 16 'ii'el gave White a slight edge in Kavalek-Visier, Lanzarote 1973) 16 'ii'xcs Axc5 17 .i.e3 l:tcc8 18 .i.f3 Aab8 19 as ttJd7 20 ttJa4 ttJcS IIl_lh KavalekBrowne, Las Palmas 1974.


b) 14 tLla4 l:tab8 15 c5 with a slight plus for White, DahlbergDonaldson, Lone Pine 1981. c) 14 'it'hl!? (White would like to play f2-f4-f5, but wants to keep the queens on) 14...b5 (14 .....c5!?) 15 f4! bxc4? (now White develops a strong initiative; better was 15 ... b4, although White is better after 16 tLld5 i.xdS 17 exd5 "c5 18 "xc5l:txc5 19 f5) 16 f5! cxb3? 17 fxe6 b2 18 exf7+ ~f8 19 l:tc2 :c5 20 i.xf6 exf6 21 "d3 l:tacS 22 "xd6+ q;f7 23 i.g4 :Sc7 24 i.e6+ ~eS 25 :d2 1-0 AgnosRocha, Linares 1995. d) 14 f4 1Wc5 15 ti'xc5 l:txc5 16 i.f3 and now a further fork: dl) 16...l:tbS?! 17 e5! dxe5 IS fxe5 tiJeS 19 i.xe7 l:txe5 20 i.h4 b5 21 cxb5 l:tc5 22 bxa6! and White was winning in CiocalteaSpiridonov, Timisoara 1982. d2) 16.. /">f8!? 17 l:tfdl :bS IS e5?! (this may give White some initiative on a short-term basis, but Black will eventually be able to free himself; better was IS a4) IS ... dxe5 19 fxe5 tLld7 20 i.dS i.g4 21 l:td2 tiJxeS 22 i.e3 :c7 23 h3 i.fS 24 g4 i.cs 25 i.b6 l:td7 26 :£2 (the white position looks pretty impressive, but Black is pretty solid) 26 ... 'it'gS! 27 :cc2 e6 2S i.g2 tLld3, when White had some compensation, but not quite enough in Pajkovic-Govedarica, Centinje 1991. d3) 16...:eS!? 17 e5!? dxeS 18 i.xb7 tiJg4!? (an interesting way of playing; instead of worrying about his queenside, Black immediately starts his counterplay) 19 h3 exf4 20 i.xf4 i.d4+ 21 'ii.>hl tiJ£2+ 22 q;h2 tiJd3 23 l:tcdl i.xc3 24 l:txd3 i.e5 25 i.xeS l:txeS 26 l:tfd 1 rt;g7

27 lUd2 a5 with equal chances in the endgame, Timoshenko-S.Nikolic, Chelyabinsk 1990.

12 b3 At this point White has a number of important alternatives: a) 12 ti'xb6?! (this is very comfortable for Black; White has to play carefully just to maintain the balance) 12 ...axb6 13 :acl (the alternatives are good for Black: 13 b3 tiJd7 14 :fc1 :feS 15 i.d2 tiJc5 16 f3 :ecS 17 'iWl, ChristiansenDonaldson, Los Angeles 19S9, and now 17 ... fS would have been better for Black, or 13 :fcl?! l:tfc8 14 b3 bS! 15 eS tLld7 16 tiJxbS i.xeS 17 i.d2 tiJcs IS i.f3 tiJxb3! 19 axb3 :xa 1 20 :xa 1 i.xc3 21 i.xc3 :xc3 22 :bl b6 with a big advantage for Black, Runic-Nikcevic, Banja Vrucica 1991) 13 ...:fcS 14 b3 b5! (see following diagram) and now: al) IS tiJxb5 :xa2 16 i.d3 h6 17 i.e3 tiJg4 IS i.d4 tiJeS 19 i.b 1 :a6 20 f4 tiJc6 21 i.xg7 'ii.>xg7 22 :c3 i.d7 23 llg3 tiJb4 with a better game for Black, Larduet-Diaz, Holguin 1991. a2) IS tiJd5 i.xdS 16 cxdS


lLlxe4 17 i.xe7 :xc 1 18 ':xc 1 i.d4 19 ~fl ':xa2 20 i.f3 lLld2+ 21 ~el, Winslow-Gross, New York 1994, and now Black should have continued with 21...lLlxf3+ 22 gxf3 i.e5 with a much better position.

a3) 15 cxb5!? l:bc3 16 ':xc3 lLlxe4 17 ':e3 lLlxg5 18 h4 i.d4! 19 ':d3 i.c5 20 hxg5 ':xa2 21 i.f3 b6 with good compensation for the exchange according to Alzugaray and Herrera. a4) 15 i.f3 bxc4 16 e5 lLld7 17 i.xb7 lLlxe5 18 i.xa8 %ba8 19 i.xe7 cxb3 (or 19... lLld3 20 bxc4 i.xc4 21 i.xd6 lLlxc1 22 :xc 1 with equal chances) 20 axb3 lLld3 21 ':cdl lLlb2 22 ':c1 lLld3 23 lIcdl lLlb2 1/2- 1/2 Herrera-Andres, Havana 1990. b) 12 llabl (Karpov's move, which used to give Black quite a few headaches, though now he seems to be doing fine) 12 .....xe3 13 i.xe3 l:tfc8 (less to the point is 13 ... a6?!, as after 14 b3 ':ac8 15 :bc1 :fc8 16 ':fd1 lLld7 17 lLldS lLlc5 18 f3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 i.fl ..tff8 22 g3 White had a small advantage, Gavrikov-Andersson, Biel 1993; Karpov mentions 13 ... lLlg4 and gives 14...i.d2 ':fc8 15 b3 i.xc3 16 i.xc3 bS 17 f3 with a slight advantage for White) 14 b3

and now Black has tried a variety of things: bl) 14 ... i.d7 IS :fdl i.c6 16 f3 as (the black set-up, which is similar to the Classical Maroczy, is too passive without the queens on the board; Black is left with virtually no counterplay and Karpov, of course, is certainly not the right man to play against in such a position) 17 nbc1 lLld7 18 g3 ~f8 19 h4 h5 20 ~f2 i.e5 21 i.fl e6 22 :d2 lLlcs 23 i.g2 q;e7 24 lLle2 b6 2S :cdl l:td8 26 i.g5+ i.f6 27 i.xf6+ ~xf6 28 e5+ with a clear advantage for White, KarpovPetursson, Reggio Emilia 1990. b2) 14...a6!? 15 lLla4 :ab8! (Black had his share of problems after ls ... lLld7 in ChristiansenDzindzichashvili, USA ch 1991: 16 f4! f5 17 exfS i.xf5 18 1 ':ab8 19 lLlc3 ~f8 20 g4 with a clear edge for White) 16 lLlb6 ':c7 17 i.f3 lLld7 18 a4 (Silman and Donaldson mention 18 lLld5 i.xdS 19 cxd5 lLleS with good chances for Black, e.g. 20 i.e2 nc2 or 20 nbcl ':bc8 21 :Xc7 l:txc7 22 ':c 1 ':xc1+ 23 i.xc1 lLlxf3+) i.c3 19 ':fdl lLlxb6 and a draw was agreed in A.lvanov-Petursson, New York 1991. b3) 14.. .'itIf8!? 15 f3?! (15 i.d2!?) Is ...lLlg4 16 fxg4 i.xc3 17 lIbcl i.b2 18 :c2 i.a3 19 g5 b5 with a big advantage for Black, Rodin-Pigusov, Podolsk 1992. b4) 14...lLlg4!? 15 i.xg4 (the only move seen in practice, but instead IS i.d2 is possibly stronger: 15 ... i.xc3 16 i.xc3 b5 17 f4! [Christiansen] with a powerful initiative for White, e.g. 17 ...bxc4 18 fS gxfS 19 exfS cxb3 20 fxe6 :xc3 21 exf7+ ~f8 22 i.xg4 bxa2 23

nbc


l:tb2 and White wins; but Black can improve with 15 ....t.eS!? 16 ttJdS ~ 17 h3 ttJf6 with chances for both sides - analysis by Silman and Donaldson) IS ....i.xc3! (IS ....i.xg4 16 ttJdS ~ 17 .i.g5 f6 18 ~e3 is slightly better for White, StanglSchindler, German Bundesliga 1989/90) 16 ~xe6 fxe6 17 f4 a6 18 fS exf5 19 exfS b5 20 ':'bc1 ~f6 21 c5 dxc5 22 lIxc5 ':'xc5 23 ~xc5 with a level endgame, A.lvanovDonaldson, Reno 1990. b5) 14 ... ttJd7!? 15 ttJd5 ~xd5 16 exd5 ttJc5 17 l:tbc1 as 18 ':'c2 ttJa6! 19 a3 b5 20 l:tfcl b4 1/2- 1/2 Anand-Tiviakov, Groningen 1993. A surprisingly easy draw by Black against Anand. Since this game was played, 12 .l:.abl has disappeared from high level games. c) 12 1Ii'd2 (if handled correctly by Black, this is absolutely harmless) 12 ...•aS! (slightly inaccurate is 12 ...':'fc8 13 b3 and now 13 .....a5 14 llacl a6 transposes to Game 71, but independent play can arise if Black plays 13 ... a6 14 ':'adl "c5, when in Kamsky-Andersson, Reggio Emilia 1991, White did not manage to get any tangible advantage: IS .t.e3 1Ii'a5 16 f4 bS 17 fS .t.d7 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 ~d4 ~e6 20 .t.xf6 .t.xf6 21 ttJdS 'ii'xd2 22 ttJxf6+ exf6 23 ':'xd2 bxc4 24 bxc4 .i.xc4 25 ':'xf6 ~e6! 26 l:txd6 ':'cl+ 27 l:fl l:xfl+ 28 .i.xfl .t.xa2 29 ~xa6 with a drawn endgame) 13 ':'acl with a transposition to Game 71. d) Finally, also 12 1i'd3 has been tried, but in Chandler-Pigusov, Sochi 1982, Black equalised easily: 12 ... ':'fc8 13 b3 a6 14 ~e3""4 IS ':'acl l:lab8 16 .t.a7 :a8 17 ~d4 bS.

12 1Ii'xe3 12 ...l:lfc8!? is an untried suggestion of Tiviakov's. ~xe3 tLld7 13 13 ... ttJg4 is quite a popular move, e.g. 14 ~d2 ~e5 15 ~xg4 (15 h3 ttJf6 is equal) 15 ... ~xc3 (Black also equalised in KalesisSilman, Budapest 1994: 15 ....i.xg4 16 ':'acl ~e6 ~4 lUc8 18 .i.e3 a6 19 a5 ~xc3 20 ~xc3 f6 21 f4 ~) 16 ~xc3 • xg4 17 ~d4 ~d7 18 a4 ~c6 19 rUel f6 20 f3 cj;f] 21 ..tf2 hS with equality, EndersKochiev, Balatonbereny 1988. But White should retain a small edge after Tiviakov's 15 g3.

14 l:lac1 l:lfc8 Korneev-Polak, Karvina 1992, Black equalised without too much trouble with 14...ttJcS: after IS f3 a5 16 .l:.fdl l:tfc8 17 ttJd5 ~xdS 18 l:lxdS b6 19 l:lc2 ~ 20 ~fl l:lab8 21 h4 h5 22 g3 lId8 23 ~g2 e6 24 .l:.d1 ~e7 2S ~fl l:ld7 the chances were level, but according to Tiviakov, White can play 15 ttJd5! ~xd5 16 exd5 a5 17 l:lc2! and keep a small advantage. 15 tLld5 This is the only to play for an advantage. In the game BernardIn


Solozhenkin, Paris 1997, White achieved nothing with 15 f4 lDc5 16 f5 ..i.d7 (l6 ... ..i.xc3!? Tiviakov) 17 lDd5 'it>f8 18 ..i.g5 ..i.d4+ 19 'iith 1 f6 20 .l:1cd 1 ..i.e5 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 ..i.f4 i.xf4 23 .l:1xf4 'iitf7 24 b4 lDe6 when a level endgame was reached. 15 ebf8 16 f4 as In his notes in Informator Tiviakov mentions 16 ... i.b2!?, intending 17 .l:1bl ..i.xd5 18 cxd5 i.a3 19 b4 .l:1c2!?, but in Dolmatov-Alterman, Haifa 1995, White improved over this analysis with 17 .l:1cd l!, when after 17 ... a5 18 l:tf2 i.xd5 19 .l:1xd5! lDf6, he could now have obtained a clear advantage with 20 .l:1b5! lDxe4 21 i.g4 lDxf2 22 ..i.xc8 .l:1xc8 23 'it>xf2 .l:1c7 24 .l:1xa5 - Alterman.

ebg8 20 i.h6+ 21 h4 White must start some action on the kingside, otherwise Black will take control of the game. 21 lDf6 22 hS gxhS 23 l:.c3 ebh8 24 l:.h3 bS!? Drastic measures, but 24 ... a4 25 ..i.xh5 lDxh5 26 ':xh5 axb3 27 axb3 i.b2 was also fine for Black. 25 i.xhS lDxhS 26 l:.xhS bxc4 i.b2! 27 bxc4 After 27 ... .l:1xc4 28 f6 exf6 29 .l:1xf6 White would have had compensation for the pawn. 28 l:.h4 i.f6 29 l:.e4 l:.ab8 g4 30 31 gS i.xgS?! 112_112 Here a draw was agreed, but Black's last move is actually a small mistake. It was better to play 3l...i.e5 32 f6 exf6 33 gxf6 l:.bxc4 with a small advantage for Black according to Tiviakov.

:b4

Game 70 Mokry-Kallai Tmava 1985

fS i.xdS 17 18 exdS i.b2! Ideally Black would like to swap the dark-squared bishops, since this would leave him with the traditional good knight versus bad bishop ending, but of course he cannot expect White to co-operate with such a plan. 19 ':c2 i.a3

(1 e4 cS 2 lDO lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 g6 5 c4 lDf6 6 lDc3 d6 7 i.e2 lDxd4 8 "xd4 i.g7 9 i.gS 0-0) 10 "d2 This position is by far the most popular in the Gurgenidze variation. The safe 10 'ifd2 keeps the queen safely tucked away from enemy attack, and at the same time it will counter the black queen if it


takes up its traditional outpost on a5. White's plan is to expand on the queenside with the support of the rooks, which will usually be put on cl and dl. In some cases, when Black plays ... :'fc8 before White has played f2-f3, White can take advantage of this by playing for a kingside attack, but we will come to this in the next main game.

10 a6!? This is a fairly new idea. Black abandons the traditional ... J.e6, ... Wa5, .. JUcS, ... a7-a6 plan and strives for immediate counterplay on the queenside, often sacrificing a pawn with ... b7-b5. So far this concept has proven quite successful, but more games must be played before we can establish a clear idea of the true value of this plan. 11 f3 This is White's most logical response, supporting the e4-pawn. If White does without this move, Black may be able to take advantage of the overloaded white knight to get in ... b7-b5: a) 11 0-0 J.e6 and now: al) 12 :'acl b5! 13 cxb5 axb5 14 J.xb5 .ltxa2 15 .ltc6 l:ta6 16 ltJxa2 :'xa2 17 :'c2 Wbs with

chances for both sides, OrtegaAndres, Holguin 19S4. a2) A better try for advantage is 12 f3 Wa5, and now instead of 13 ltJd5?! Wxd2 14 ltJxe7+ cJi>hS 15 .ltxd2 ':fe8 16 ltJd5 ltJxd5 17 cxd5 .ltxd5 18 .ltc3 112_112 ShortAndersson, Novi Sad 01 1990, White should try 13 :fdl!? 1:fcS 14 ltJd5 Wxd2 15 1:txd2 .ltxd5 16 cxd5 'it>f8 with a very small plus for White. Black can only sit and wait. a3) 12 1:adl WaS 13 .ltxf6 (or 13 b3 b5!? 14 cxb5 [14 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 15 ltJd5 Wxd2 16 ltJxf6+ exf6 17 l:td2 112-1/2 Kramnik-Anand, Moscow rapid 1994] 14 ... axb5 15 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 16 ltJxb5 l:tfbS! 17 b4 Wb6 18 a3 .ltd7 19 ltJc3 .lte6 20 ltJbl 1:a7 21 1:c1 Wd4 22 Wxd4 .ltxd4, when Black's active pieces compensate for his pawn deficit, Sherzer-Karolyi, Hungary 1993) 13 ....ltxf6 (Nunn and Gallagher suggest 13 ... exf6!? 14 Wxd6 f5, when White has some problems with his queenside) 14 ltJd5 Wxd2 (in Tiviakov-Polak, Oakham 1992, Black found himself in trouble after 14 ... Wxa2? 15 ltJxf6+ exf6 16 Wc3! Wa4 17 :'xd6 J:acS IS b3 Wa3 19 l:tfd1 with a big advantage for White) 15 ltJxf6+ exf6 16 ':'xd2 b5! (if it were not for this move, Black would have been clearly worse, but now his counterplay comes just in time) 17 cxb5 axb5 18 a3 ':'fc8 19 f4 f5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 lhd6 b4 22 l:ta1 ':'c8 23 .ltf3 bxa3 24 bxa3 (24 .ltxa8 axb2 25 l:tbl ':'cl+ 26 :'dl 1:xdl+ 27 l:txdl .lta2 is a draw) 24 ...lta4 25 .ltd1 ':'xf4 with a level endgame, Campora-Morovic, Spain 1994. b) 11 l:tc1 .lte6 12 b3 and here


another junction: bl) 12 ... .!:tc8 13 0-0 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 .i.xf6 i.xf6 16 ltJxb5 'ifb6 17 b4!? (Chiburdanidze tried 17 ltJa3!? against Gufeld, at Kuala Lumpur 1994, which then continued 17 ... .!:tc5!? 18 .!:txc5 "'xc5 19 ltJc4 ~g5 20 "'c3 f5 21 exf5 ~xf5 22 b4! 'ill'c7 23 'ifb3 ~e6 24 b5 d5 25 ltJe3 "'e5! 26 "'d3 and here Black could have maintained equality with 26 ... d4 27 ltJc4 'ifb5 28 'ill'd4 .!:tc8 29 ltJd6 'ill'd7) 17 ... 'ifb7 18 a4 'ill'xe4 19 ltJc7 .!:tb8 20 ltJxe6 fxe6 21 ::'c4 "'d5 22 "'c2 ~d4 23 ~f3, Gufeld-Konguvel, Calcutta 1994, and according to Gufeld, Black should now have played 23 ... Axf3!? 24 gxf3 .!:tf8 with unclear play. b2) 12 ... b5 13 cxb5 axb5 14 ~xb5 "'a5 15 i.c6! (prior to this game theory suggested that Black was better; 15 ~d3 :tfc8 16 0-0 :txc3 17 :txc3 ltJxe4 18 i.xe4 ~xc3 19 "'d3 d5 20 ~f3 .!:ta7 21 ~e3 l:!.d7 22 i.b6 'ifb4 23 .!:tdl d4 24 'ill'a6 i.f5 with better chances for Black, May-Ca.Hansen, corr 1994) 15 ... .!:ta6 16 ltJa4! :tc8 17 "'xa5 :txa5 18 ~d2 :ta6 19 ~b5 l:.xcl+ 20 ~xcl l:.a5 21 i.d3 ltJd7 (Black would like to create some counterplay with ... ltJc5, but White continues in accurate fashion) 22 ~d2 .!:ta8 23 ~bl! ltJc5 24 ltJb6! :ta7 25 e2 with a clear edge for White, Serper-Donaldson, Las Vegas 1997. White's play was very impressive. 11 ~e6 12

.::lcl

.::lc8

Since 12 ...:tc8 leads to a drawish position, Black might consider 12 ... b5!? if he wants to play for a win: 13 cxb5 axb5 14 a3

(possibly better is 14 b4!?, when White developed some initiative in 01 Hellers-Piket, Thessaloniki 1988: 14 ... d5 15 ~xf6 i.xf6 16 exd5 i.xc3 17 :txc3 "'xd5 18 "'xd5 ~xd5 19 a3 Afc8 20 :txc8+ .!:txc8 21 d2 :ta8 22 :tal ~c6 with a slight pull for White) 14 ... ltJd7 15 b4 lha3 16 ltJxb5 :ta2 17 "'e3 h6 18 ~h4 g5 19 ~f2 'ifb8 200-0 .!:tc8 21 h4 ~f6 with excellent play for Black, TopalovAntunes, Candas 1992.

13 b3 A.lvanov-Pigusov, Biel 1989, saw instead 13 1tJd5 b5! 14 0-0 ltJxd5 15 exd5 ~d7 16 b3 :te8 17 i.e3 bxc4 18 ~xc4 i.b5 19 i..xb5 axb5 20 :tc6 .!:ta8 21 .!:tf2 "'a5 22 b4 "'a3 23 ~d4 .i.xd4 24 "'xd4 "'a7 25 "'c3 'ill'a3 Ih-Ih. 13 bS Also possible is 13 ......a5, leading to the main line after 10... ~e6 but with the difference that here Black has played his queen's rook to c8 instead of the usual king's rook. This rather limits Black's options with regard to the freeing ...b7-b5, so White is slightly better. 14 cxbS Tukmakov has suggested 14

Maroczy ~d5, but after 14 ... ~xd5 15 exd5 i.d7 we do not feel that Black is worse; for comparison see the A.lvanov-Pigusov game above. 14 axb5 15 ~xb5 This leads to massive exchanges, but it is probably the only way to play for the advantage. In SzekelyTangbom, Budapest 1992, 15 0-0 b4 16 ~b5 'Wa5 17 i.e3 ~d7 18 ~d4 ~c5 19 ':fdl ':fd8 20 i.f4 i.d7 21 i.c4 ~e6 was equal. But why not did Black not play 21...e5 here? Unless White does something drastic, he will end up a piece down, but what can he do? 22 a3 is met by 22 ...'Wb6! 23 axb4 ~e6, so it seems as if White has to go in for 22 i.g5, when Black is much better after 22 ... exd4 23 i.xd8 l:txd8. 15 ':xcl+ 16 'Wxcl 'Wa5+ 17 'Wd2 :a8! 18 a3 This position is almost identical to that which arose in the note to White's 11th move in Game 65, the only difference being that here the white bishop is on g5, but in some examples, such as our main line, transpositions may occur, so one must keep an eye out for these. Possibly better than 18 a3 is 18 ~c3!?, as in Frolov-Tangbom, Budapest 1992, which went 18 ... h6 19 i.e3 ~g4 20 i.d4 i.xd4 21 'Wxd4 ':c8 22
d2, and now instead of 22 ... ':xc3? Black should have tried 22 .. :i'g5+! - see Game 65 for analysis. 18 i.xb3 19 'WxaS ':xa5 (see following diagram) 20 0-0 The best. Other moves have

Bind~6urgenidze

Variation 177

proven even more harmless: a) 20 i.d2 :a8 21 'iPf2 ~d7 22 :el ~c5 23 i.e3 i.a4 24 i.xc5 dxc5 25 :xc5 i.xb5 26 l::.xb5 i.d4+, and a draw was agreed, Kuzmin-Zachev, Moscow 1988. b) 20 ~ i.a4 21 ':bl h6?! (correct was 2l...i.xb5! 22 lhb5 lha3 23 :b8+ i.f8 24 i.h6 ~d7 25 ':d8 and now 25 .. ,llb3? loses to 26 i.a6! intending 27 i.c8, but 25 ...:a2! transposes to the main game) 22 i.d2 ':a8 23 lbc7! ':a7 24 lba6! with a small edge for White, as in Tukmakov-Vaganian, USSR 1984.

20 i.a4 21 ':bl i.xb5 22 ':xb5 ':xa3 The game finished: 23 ':b8+ i.f8 24 i.h6 lbd7 25 ':d8 l::.al+ 26 'iPfl':82 27 g4 f6?? 28 'iPe3?? ':c2 29 i.d3 111.- 111. Why all the question marks? Well, instead of 28 ~e3??, White could have won on the spot with 1M Strauss' discovery 28 e5!! (28 ... dxe5 29 i.e3!, 28 .. .fxe5 29 g5 or 28 ... g5 29 e6). Hence Black's 27th move was a blunder; correct was 27 ... g5!, intending ...f7-f6 and ...'iPf7, when Black can defend.

178 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation Game71 Kruppa-Tiviakov St Petersburg 1993

Black tried 12 ... b5!?,

i·~·'

'.

(1 e4 cS 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 tLlf6 6 tLlc3 d6 7 ~e2 tLlxd4 8 'iixd4 ~g7 9 ~gS 0-010'iid2) 10

~e6

This natural move is Black's most popular choice. The main line (see the next game) is drawish and quite dull, but the alternatives, as we shall see in this game, are anything but boring. 11 0-0 The main line is 11 .:tc1 followed by 12 f3 (see Game 72) but White also has: a) Another attempt to enter the main line is 11 f3, but Black does not need to co-operate, since with 11. ..l:c8 he can benefit from the omission of the move l:c 1. Akesson-Wojtkiewicz, Antwerp 1994, ended in a quick draw after 12 tLld5 tLlxd5 13 cxd5 ~d7 140-0 f5 15 f3 fxe4 16 fxe4 :xfl 17 l:xfl 'iic7 112-112. However, Black has a sharp alternative to 12 ...tDxd5. In HorakDobrovolsky, Luhacovice 1993,

which is not so easy to meet, e.g. 13 cxb5 tLlxd5 14 exd5 ~f5 or 13 .txf6 exf6! 14 cxb5 .i.xdS 15 'ifxd5 'ifb6! in both cases with a strong initiative for Black. White has massive problems covering all the weak squares in his position. In the game White found the best way to continue: 13 .:tc1 bxc4 14 l:xc4 .txdS 15 exd5 1Wb6 16 b3 a5 17 ':xc8 ':xc8 18 .i.c4 tDd7 19 .te3 'ifb4 20 'ifxb4 axb4 21 0-0 ':a8 22 .i.c3 with some initiative for Black in the endgame. b) Also possible is 11 nd1 a6 12 0-0 'ilc7 (12 ...'ila5 transposes to the note after White's 11th move in the previous main game) 13 b3 .:tfc8 (worth considering was also 13 ...':ac8!?) 14 f4 :e8 15 f5 .td7 16 hl .i.c6 17 .f4 'ila5 18 ':d3 'ile5 with equality, Renet-Petursson, Reykjavik 1992. 11 "as This time Black cannot take advantage of the omission of :tel, as White has not weakened his position with 11 f3. Here 11...':c8?! is met by 12 b3 (or 12 :ad1!? 'ifaS 13 b3 a6 14 OO! 'ilxd2 15 tDxe7+ h8 16 .i.xd2 :tce8, as in the game 1.Polgar-Dzindzichashvili, New York 1992, and now White should

:£2


have continued 17 e5! dxe5 18 .i.b4 with a clear advantage) 12 ... b5?! (l2 ... a6!?) 13 e5! (not 13 cxb5?! l:txc3 14 'i'xc3 ttJxe4 15 'i'e3 ttJxg5 16 "xg5 .i.xal 17 lIxal d5 with a small edge for Black, BrodskyTiviakov, USSR 1991) 13...dxe5 (also bad is 13 ...b4? 14 exf6 bxc3 15 "xc3 exf6 16 .i.e3 f5 17 .i.d4 .i.xd4 18 'i'xd4 with a horrible position for Black, Uhlmann-Balogh, Budapest 1989) 14 'i'xd8 ':xd8 15 ttJxb5 a6 16 ttJc3 h6 17 .i.e3 with a large advantage for White, BologanMichenka, Ostrava 1993.

12

:ad

White also has: a) 12 l:tfdl, when after 12 ... a6 (12 ... :fc8 13 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 14 ttJd5 'i'xd2 15 :xd2 .i.xd5 112-112 Uhlmann-Vogt, Nordhausen 1986) 13 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 14 ttJd5 'i'xd2+ 15 ttJxf6+ exf6 (15 ... ~g7 16 ttJh5+ gxh5 17 :xd2 :fc8 18 b3 J:tc5 is possibly stronger than the game continuation) 16 l:txd2 :fc8 17 l:txd6 .i.xc4 18 .i.f3
... h7-hS, ...~ac8 ~nd'di'f8-g7, or 16 .. :ii'd7, mtendmg ... 'l'f5-e5 or ... e7-e6. c) White can also try 12 Aadl :fc8 13 b3 a6 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 15 lLId5 'i'xd2 16 lLIxf6+ ~g7 17 ttJh5+ gxhS 18 Axd2 :c5 19 f4 f6 20 :el!? (20 a4 a5 21 :f3 :g8 22 f5 .i.f7 23 :g3+ ~h6 24 :xg8 .i.xg8 25 'ittf2 .i.f7 26 :d3 :e5 27 ~e3 .i.c8 28 ~f4 .i.c6 with equality, Prie-Trauth, Cannes 1992) 20...:a7 (20... h4 seems stronger to us, when the chances should be approximately equal) 21 e5 dxe5 22 .i.xh5 b5 23 cxb5 axb5 24 fxeS Axe5 25 :xe5 fxe5 26 .i.f3 .i.f5 27
12 13

a6 b3 13 f3 transposes to the next main game, but White has two other possibilities: a) So far Black has not had any problems against 13 lUdl, after which most of the pieces seem to depart the board after 13 ...:fc8 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 IS ttJd5 'i'xd2 16 ttJxf6+ ~g7 (less accurate, but apparently still sufficient, is 16 ... exf6 17 ':xd2 bS 18 :dc2 fS! 19 f3 fxe4 20 fxe4 ~8 21 cxbS axb5 22 a3 b4! 24 axb4 :a4 25 ~f2 l:txb4 26 ~e3 ~e7, and a draw


was soon agreed, Stangl-Sandor, German Bundesliga 1993/94) 17 ttJhS+ (in Agnos-Alterman, Korditsa 1996, Black almost developed an initiative after the more peaceful 17 Itxd2 rj;lxf6 18 f4 as 19 a4 ':cS 20 b3 gS 21 g3 :g8) 17 ... gxhS 18 ':d2 h4! 19 :dc2 as! 20 f4 fS 21 .i.f3 Itc7 with a level endgame, Shmuter-Alterman, Rishon-Ie-Zion 1994. b) Adams was successful with 13 "e3 against Adrian, French Team ch 1991: 13 ... l:tfc8 14 b3 bS?! IS cxbS axbS 16 ttJxbS 'ii'xa2 17 t:Dc7 'ii'xb3 18 t:Dxa8 ':xa8 19 'ii'xb3 .i.xb3 20 .i.f3, which was alI Adams needed to take home the fuII point. But instead of 14 ...bS?!, Black should have tried 14 .....cS!? with equal chances.

13 :fc8 For a long time 13 ... bS was considered to be quite strong, but now the tide has turned, and the general opinion is that White is better: a) 14 .i.d3 Itfc8 IS b3 bS 16 ttJdS "xd2 17 .i.xd2 t:DxdS 18 cxdS .i.d7 with equality, AmasonPetursson, Reykjavik 1989, and Ye-YrjoUi, Novi Sad 011990. b) 14 b3 bS and now:

bl) 15 cxbS axbS 16 ~xb5 ':fc8 17 a4 (17 e5! ? dxeS is unclear) 17 ....i.xb3 18 "d3 .i.c4 19 .i.xc4 "xgS 20 .i.bS "eS 21 t:DdS t:DxdS 22 exd5 Itc3 1/2- 1/2 TseshkovskyPigusov, Podolsk 1990. b2) 15 e5!? dxeS 16 cxb5 axbS 17 .i.xbS h6! 18 .i.e3 ttJg4 19 .i.c4 ~xc4 20 bxc4 e4! 21 ttJxe4 "e5 with a good game for Black, Casabona-Orseth, corr 1988-93. b3) IS ~f3!? b4 16 ttJa4 ':ab8 17 :fel Itfc8 18 "e3 hS? 19 h4 .i.d7 20 l:txc8+ ':xc8 21 1i'b6 with a clear advantage for White, Ortega-Andres, Camaguey 1988, but Black can improve: after 18 ....i.d7! he has no problems. b4) It is quite possible that IS t:DdS is stronger: IS .....xd2 16 t:Dxe7+ ~h8 17 .i.xd2 t:Dxe4 18 .i.aS ':ae8 19 t:DdS .i.xd5 20 exdS ttJc3 21 Itxc3 l:txe2 22 .i.b4 ':d8 23 a3 ':b2 24 ':c6 ':xb3 2S l:[dl .i.eS 26 g3 ':a8 27 f4 as 28 .i.c5 .i.b2 29 .i.xd6 with a big advantage for White, WelIs-Karolyi, Oakham 1993. 14 f4 Aside from 14 f4, White has three alternatives at this point: a) 14 .i.f3!? :ab8 15 ':fel bS?! 16 ttJdS "xd2 17 .i.xd2 f8 18 cxbS axbS 19 ttJb4! ttJg4 20 .i.e2 .i.d7 21 h3 ttJe5 22 llxc8+ .i.xc8 23 ':cl with a clear edge for White, Sigurjonsson-Petursson, Reykjavik 1985, but IS ...f8! improves for Black, leaving the position balanced. b) 14 ':fel b5?! (just what White was hoping for; correct was 14 ...
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 181 f5) 15 ttJd5 'it'xd2 16 .lixd2 ttJxd5 17 exd5 ~d7, Dutreeuw-Donaldson, Liechtenstein 1994, and here White could have played 18 ~g5, forcing Black to play 18 ... ~f6 19 .lixf6 exf6 when White is practically a pawn ahead. c) A third possibility is 14 a4, an attempt to clamp Black's queenside, but since Black simply plays 14... b5 anyway, it does not make much sense. The game GasseholmIsajev, corr 1987-92, continued 15 e5 dxe5 16 axb5 axb5 17 .lif3 e4 18 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 19 .lixe4 1i'xd2 20 .lixd2 %:txa2 with a small advantage for Black.

14

stronger is 20 fS"iW+! and Black is busted) 19 e5 dxe5 20 "iWxe5 "iWa3 21 ~f3 %:tab8 with a complicated position, but somewhat better chances for White in Levy-Silman, Lone Pine 1975.

':'c5

Black must try to stop the white e- and f-pawns from marching forward. A similar idea is known from the Yugoslav Attack in the Dragon variation. White has a murderously high percentage score against 14... b5: 15 f5 b4 (even worse is 15 ... .lid7 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 e5 ttJe8 18 ttJd5 "iWxd2 19 ~xd2 %:td8 20 ttJxe7+ 'it>h7 21 .lif3 %:ta7 22 .lie3 %:tc7 23 exd6 ttJxd6 24 ~b6 1-0 Van der Werf-Ree, Holland 1993) 16 fxe6 bxc3 17 ext7+ 'it>f8! (this is the only way to stir things up; 17... 'it>xt7?! 18 %:txc3 [18 "iWd5+ "iWxd5 19 exd5 is also good for White, as in Mainka-Dory, Dortmund 1987] 18 ... 'Ot>g8 19 ~f3 %:tab8 20 %:td3 "iWxd2 21 %:txd2 with a clear advantage for White, UhlmannSpiridonov, Decin 1977) 18 "iWf4 "iWxa2 (in Barle-Whitehead, Lone Pine 1979, Black committed suicide with 18 ...ttJxe4? 19 .lixe7+ 'Ot>xe7 20 "iWxe4+ 'it>f8 21 "iWf4 h5 22 ~f3 %:ta7 23 "iWg3 with a big advantage for White, but even

15

'iVe3

Other tries are: a) 15 %:tbl ttJd5 16 exd5 ~xc3 17 "iWe3 .lif5 18 b4 ~xb4 19 ':'xb4 .xb4 20 .xe7 1i'b6 21 .f6 %:tcc8+ 22 'iPhl "iWd8 23 "iWxd8+ %:txd8 24 ~xd8 %:txd8 with equality, Berthelot-Bernard, French Team ch 1996. b) 15 a3 (White wants to play f4-f5, and nothing is going to stop him from doing so!) 15 ...•xa3 16 ~xf6 ~xf6 17 f5 gxf5 18 exf5 ':xf5 19 ':xf5 ~xf5 20 ttJd5 ~g6 21 ttJxf6+ exf6 22 b4 ':e8 and Black was slightly better, AdlaPalacios, Parana 1993. c) 15 ~f3 ':ac8 16 "iWf2!? (not 16 "iWe3 b5! 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5 ttJd7 19 ttJd5 ~xd5 20 ~xd5 e6 with a clear plus for Black, Psakhis-Pigusov, USSR 1979, or 16 %:tcdl b5 17 ttJd5 "iWd8 18 cxb5 .lixd5 19 exd5 axb5 with a slight edge for Black, as in the game Kaiszauri-Spiridonov, Skara 1980)


16 ... :5c7?! (16 ... b5 is met by 17 f5! gxf5 18 i.e3, but Black has 16...':'xg5 17 fxg5 Wxg5 with control over the dark squares and excellent compensation for the exchange) 17 f5 gxf5 18 l2Jd5 i.xd5 19 exd5 b5 20 i.e3 ':'b8 21 c5 with a big advantage to White, KmicSpiridonov, Athens 1981. d) 15 i.d3 (this is considered White's best option; White keeps playing for the f4-f5 advance) 15 ... b5 (this leads to a small advantage for White, but Black has an interesting alternative: 15 ...:xg5! 16 fxg5 .!iJg4 with serious compensation on the dark squares) 16 f5 bxc4 17 fxe6 cxd3 18 exf7+ ~xf7 19 i.e3 ':'c6 20 Wxd3 l:.ac8 21 i.d2 Wc5+ 22 ~hl with a slight edge for White, Orlov-Petrenko, Podolsk 1989. IS :ac8 16 :bl In Korchnoi-Wojtkiewicz, Antwerp 1994, White insisted on playing f4-f5. However, after 16 l2Ja4 :t5c6 17 f5 i.d7 18 ~hl ':'e8 (Black aims for a set-up with ...:te8, .. J1c8, ... i.c6 and ... .!iJe5 with absolute control; to avoid this White must play very actively) 19 .!iJc3 %lcc8 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 21 .!iJd5 i.c6 22 b4 'ii'xa2 23 .!iJb6 ':'cd8 24 b5 i.d7 25 i.g4 g5 26 ':'cdl 'ii'b2 27 h4 gxh4 28 .!iJxd7 and Black lost on time! After 28 ... ':'xd7 he would have had a good game. 16 'ii'd8 17 a4 as 18 ~hl 'W'f8 19 :tbe1 This is beginning to look uncomfortable for Black. His position is solid but quite passive, and if he waits, White will soon play either

e4-e5 or f4-f5. However, Tiviakov has no intentions of being a sitting duck, so he pulls out a weapon which is also quite common in the regular Dragon variation: the positional exchange sacrifice.

19 :txgS! In return for the exchange, Black gets excellent control over the dark squares and simultaneously takes the dynamism out of the white position. The chances are level. 20 fxgS .!iJd7 21 l2JdS i.eS 22 i.f4 i.xf4 23 :txf4 White has exchanged the black dark-squared bishop, but Black still has a strong hold on the central dark squares. 23 h6 24 h4 .!iJeS 2S :tfn :tcS 26 gxh6 ¢>h7 27 hS 'ii'xh6 28 'ii'xh6+ ¢>xh6 29 hxg6 ¢>xg6 We have now reached an ending, in which only White can play for win, but Black's strong knight will keep the chances equal. White plays on for quite some time before


accepting the draw: 30 l:tf4 tiJe6 31 l:th4
l:tel f3

120-0 transposes to the previous game. 12 l:tfeS 12 ... a6 13 b3 l:tfcS usually transposes, but Kudrin-Ca.Hansen, Satellite Beach 1997, saw Black try 13...b5? Unfortunately he was se-

verely punished for weakening his queenside in such a fashion: 14 ttJd5 'iWxd2+ 15

most ambitious try for an advantage in the main line. Other tries in this position are: a) 14 0-0 b5 15 ti)d5 ti)xd2 16 .txd2 reaching a dead level position that can be found under 9 ~e3 - note to White's 14th move in Game 67. b) 14 ti)d5 "xd2+ 15 'iitxd2 ti)xd5 (15 ... ..txd5?! 16 cxd5 'iitfB 17 .te3 ti)d7 IS b4 a5 19 .tb5 'iiteS 20 bxa5
14 'it'xd2+ This move used to be played exclusively, but 14 .....d8!? became famous after Krasenkov-Hernandez, Palma de Mallorca 19S9. Although it has only been tried a couple of times in high level games since then, we feel that this line deserves more attention. White has tried: a) 15 0-0 ..td7 (15 ... l:tabS?! is too passive, e.g. 16 c5 l:tc6 17 l:tfdl ti)eS 18 b4 b5 19 ti)c3 l:tb7 20 ti)d5 'iitfB 21 .th6 .txh6 22 "xh6+ 'iitgS 23 "e3 'ii'bs 24 f4 when White was clearly better in Frey-Andres, Camaguey 1987) 16 ti)c3 b5 17 l:tfdl .te8 (17 ... b4? is just plain bad: IS .txf6 exf6 19 ti)d5 a5 20 "e3 '::'c5 21 l:tc2 .te6 22 l:tcd2 .tfB? 23 "xb4 and White is winning, Marciano-Spiridonov, French team ch 1996) IS e5 dxe5 19 "xd8 l:txdS 20 l:txd8 l:txdS 21 cxb5 axb5 22 ti)xb5 h6 23 .te3 ti)d5 is unclear, Beliavsky-Shabalov, Manila 011992. b) 15 c5 ti)d7! (the KrasenkovHernandez game mentioned above took another route: 15 ... l:tc6!? 16

"xb7 .i.d4+ 20 .i.e3 l::tbS 21 'fIIc7 with a clear edge for White, Hernandez suggests IS ...exd6!? 19 "xb7 iLd4+ 20 'it>g3 ttJf6! 21 iLxf6 l::txcl 22 l::txcl .i.xf6 with an unclear position) 16 cxd6 :Xcl+ 17 "xcI l::tcS! (everywhere else only 17 ...'flla5+ IS .i.d2 with a small advantage is given, but this move is much better) IS 'ifbl (other queen moves loses at least a piece after IS ... b5) IS ... b5, and now in Medda-Conti, corr 19S2, White lost his head and played 19 dxe???, which loses to 19 .....c7!, but even after the better move 19 ttJb2 "a5+ (or 19 ....i.c3+ 20 'it>fl f6 21 dxe7 "xe7 with good compensation for the pawn) 20 iLd2 iLc3 21 'fIIc2 .i.xd2+ 22 "xd2 "xa2 Black has a clear advantage. 15 'it>xd2 ttJd7 The old main line 15 ... ltc6 is still playable, when White has tried the following: a) 16 .i.e3 ttJd7 17 ttJc3 ltacS IS ttJd5 .i.xd5 19 exd5 iLxc3+ with equality, Reshevsky-Browne, USA ch 1974. b) 16 h4!? 'iii'fB 17 iLe3 ttJh5? (17 ... ttJd7 is much better, when the chances are approximately level) IS ttJb6 ltdS 19 g4 ttJg3 20 :hgl ttJxe2 21 'iii'xe2 iLb2 22 ltcdl .i.a3 23 f4 with a clearly better game for White, Pigusov-Makarov, USSR 19S2. c) 16 ttJc3 ltccS (KarpovKavalek, Nice 01 1974, was better for White after 16... ltacS 17 ttJd5 'iii'fB IS iLe3 ttJd7 19 h4; 16... l%eS is suggested by Karpov in his annotations to the game, when after 17 ttJd5 ttJd7 White cannot take on e7 [IS ttJxe7+?! ltxe7 19 iLxe7 f6 20 iLdS b6] but IS g4 iLd4 19 h4

f6 transposes to our main game) 17 h4 'ii;lf8 IS .i.e3 ttJh5 19 g4 ttJg3 20 lthg 1 tiJxe2 21 'it>xe2 b5 22 ttJd5 iLxd5 23 cxd5 iLb2 24 ltxcS+ ltxcs 25 'iii'd3 b4 26 ltbl ltc3+ 27 'it>d2 .i.a3 with an equal endgame, Morris-S.B.Hansen, Copenhagen 1992.

16 g4 After 16 iLe3, which was tried out in Kramnik-Ivanchuk, London 1994, White achieved a slightly better position after 16...lbbS (16 ...f5!?) 17 ttJc3 ttJe5 (17 ...f5) IS ttJd5 ttJc6 19 ttJb6 ltdS 20 l1hdl .i.d4 21 .i.xd4 ttJxd4 22 'iii'e3 ttJxe2 23 'iii'xe2 f5 24 exf5 .i.xf5 25 l:ld4. 16 l:lc6 After 16 g4 (and the same goes for 16 ltc2, 16 h4 and 16 ttJc3) Black can transpose to the 9 .i.e3 main line (Game 67) with 16...f6 17 .i.e3 f5. However, 16...'ii;lf8 leads to independent play: 17 h4 (in Zsu.Polgar-Leko, Budapest 1991, Black had no problems after 17 .ie3 l:labS [not 17...l:lc6?! IS ttJc3 ttJc5 19 ttJd5 .i.d7 20 h4 h6 21 b4 ttJe6 22 f4 ttJd4 23 f5 ttJxe2 24 'iii'xe2 with a small edge for White, Dvoiris-Pigusov, Vilnius 19S4] IS g5 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 b5 21

186 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation cxb5 axb5 22 tLlc3 tLlc5; but Alterman suggests 17 h3!? f6 18 .ie3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 with a small edge for White) 17 .. .f6 (according to Alterman should Black have played 17 ... Itc6 18 .ie3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 g5 d5 21 cxdS i..xdS with equality, but in Averbakh-Popov; Polanica Zdroj 1976, White achieved the better chances after 18 Itc2 tLlc5 19 tLlc3 as 20 tLld5 l:e8 21 .ie3) 18 .ie3 fS 19 exf5 gxf5 20 g5 d5 21 cxd5 i..xd5 22 l:hd 1 with a small advantage for White, Wang Zili-Alterman, Beijing 1995.

17 h4 White still cannot take on e7: 17 i..xe7 f6 18 gS (18 c5 .ih6+) rbf7 19 .ixf6 tLlxf6 20 gxf6 .ih6+. 17 l:e8 18 tLlc3 .id4

Black wants his bishop out in open air before advancing with ... f7-f6. 19 tLldS f6 20 .if4 .in 21 gS 1/;g7 22 .ie3 i..xe3+ 23 1/;xe3 e6 24 tLlxf6tLlxf6 25 exf6+ 1/;xf6 26 l:hdl1/;e7 27 f4 l:ec8 We have reached an endgame in which White has a tiny edge, but the black position is solid, and the draw is never really in danger. 28 l:d2 bS 29 l:cdl bxc4 30 .ixc4 .ie8 31 l:gl l:b6 32 fS exfS 33 exfS l:cS 34 fxg6 .ixg6 35 l:gS l:r.xgS 36 hxgS l:c6 37 1/;d4 as 38 l:e2+ 1/;d8 39 l:e6 .in 40 l:r.h6 .ig6 41 .id3 .ixd3 42 1/;xd3 l:cS 43 l:r.xd6+ 1/;c7 44 l:h6 l:xgS 45 l:txh7 1/;b6 46 l:h6+ 1/;cS 47 1/;c3 l:r.g3+ 48 1/;b2 l:tg2+ 49 1/;a3 1/;bS so l:hS+ 1/;b6 liz-Ill

9

Classical with .ie2

Chapter Guide 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 tDc3 i..g7 6 tDb3 - Game 73 6 i..e3 tDf6 7 i..e2 0-0 8 0-0 d5! 9 exd5 9 ... tDb4!? - Game 74 9... tDxd5 - Game 75 In this chapter we shall deal with the classical lines in which White neither plays 5 c4, entering the Maroczy Bind, nor plays i..c4 (see Chapters 10 and 11). White hopes that by developing his lightsquared bishop to e2, he will be able to transpose to a regular Classical Dragon (nonnally reached via the move order 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 g6 6 i..e2). However, White's modest set-up often allows Black to play ...d7-d5 in one go, with a good game to follow.

Game 73 Zapata-Garcia Martinez Sagua /a Grande 1984

(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6) 5 tDc3 Since 5 tDc3 i..g7 6 tDb3 allows

Black the option of 6... i..xc3+, White may try 5 tDb3 if he wants to enter the Karpov variation of the Classical Dragon (1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 g6 6 i..e2 i..g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 tDb3 tDc6 9 i..g5). However, Black can keep the game within the Accelerated Dragon by postponing moving the d-pawn: 5... i..g7 6 i..e2 tDf6 7 tDc3 0-0 8 0-0 as 9 a4 tDb4 10 i..g5 h6 (l0... d6 would transpose into the Karpov variation, but on occasion Black has tried the immediate 1O...d5: 11 exd5 tDfxd5 12 tDxd5 tDxd5 13 i..f3 tDf6 14 :el 'fIc7 15 1i'e2 ':e8 16 1i'b5 ~ 17 c3 with some initiative for White, Kupreichik-Pohl, Schwabisch Gmiind 1995) 11 i..h4 g5 12 i..g3 d5 13 exd5 (13 e5 only helps Black: 13 ... tDe4 14 tDxe4 dxe4 15 tDc5 i..f5 with excellent chances) and now: a) Black adopted an interesting

188 Classical with i.e2 approach in Fishbein-Hodgson, Stavanger 1989: 13 ... i.fS!? 14 tDd4 i.g6 IS i.c4 ':c8 16 i.b3 tDfxdS 17 tDxdS tDxdS 18 lte 1 (Black has taken over the initiative, but 18 c3 was to be preferred) 18 ... tDb4 19 i.eS tDxc2 20 i.xc2 i.xc2 21 tDxd2 'iWxdl 22 ':axdl ':xc2 and Black won the endgame. b) 13 ... tDfxdS 14 tDxdS tDxdS and now: bl) IS 1Ii'd2 has been tried: IS ... i-e6?! (Donaldson suggests IS ... e6! as an improvement, giving 16 c3 'iWb6 17 tDd4 i.d7 18 tDbS ':ad8 with equality) 16 tDcs i.xb2 17 tDxe6 with a slight plus for White, Meijer-Ozolin, Riga 1986. b2) IS c3 eS?! (too ambitious: it would have been better to try the solid lS ... e6 with about equal chances or Silman's IS ...tDf4, e.g. 16 i.xf4 gxf4 17 'iWxd8 ltxdS IS ':'fdl i.e6 or 16 i.bS!? 'iWb6 17 i.xf4 gxf4 18 lIfe 1 eS in both cases with good play for Black) 16 i-f3 tDb6 17 'iWxd8 ':xd8 18 ':fdl ':xdl 19 ':xdl fS 20 l:td8+ rt;f7 21 i-hS+ q;e7 22 l:te8+ q;d6 23 ltg8 and White later won the endgame, Balashov-Winants, Eupen 1994.

5

i.g7

6 liJb3 6 i.e3 is seen in Games 74 and 7S.

6 i.xc3+ Both theory and practice indicate that Black's chances are inferior after the text, but Suba has suggested a couple of ideas which should prove that Black is okay. However, Black does not need to exchange on c3. After 6... tDf6 7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 he has a few alternatives: a) S... aS 9 a4 tDb4 and now 10 i.gS will transpose to the lines given in the note to White's fifth move above and 10 i.e3 to the 6 i.e3 lines which are to be found later in the book. However, White can avoid these transpositions with: al) 10 f4, when in UnsworthTheis, corr 1995, Black equalised after 1O... 'i'b6+ 11 q;hl dS 12 eS (12 exdS i.fS) 12 ...tDe4 13 tDxe4 (or 13 tDd4 f6 14 exf6 i.xf6 IS i-e3 tDxc3 16 bxc3 tDc6, LengyelSilman, Budapest 1994) 13 ... dxe4 14 i.bS i.e6 IS c3 i.xb3 16 'ii'xb3 tDd3. a2) White can also try 10 ..thl, but after lO... dS 11 eS tDe4 12 f4 f6 (12 ...'i'b6 is the 10 f4 line) 13 exf6 exf6 14 tDbS fS IS c3 tDc6 16 i.e3 i-e6 17':f3 i.f7 18 'ii'gl gS! Black held the initiative in Zapata-Laflair, New York 1993. b) 8... b6 9 i.gS (9 f4 was successful for White in FranzoniNemet, Switzerland 1987: 9...i.b7 10 i.f3 as 11 a4 tDb4 12 i.e3 'iWb8?! 13 eS tDe8 14 tDbS tDc7 IS i.xb7 'ii'xb7 16 tDxc7 'iWxc7 17 c3 tDa6 IS 'iWdS with an edge for White; instead of 12 ...'i'b8?! Black could consider 12 ... dS or 12 ... d6, but his set-up looks artificial)

Classical with .i.e2 189

9....i.b7 and now: bl) After 10 ~hl?!, Black seized the initiative with 1O...lIcS 11 f4 dS 12 exdS ll:)b4 13 .i.f3 .i.aS 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 IS a3 .i.xc3 16 axb4 .i.xb2 17 lIxa7 'ii'd6, HebdenPavlovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1991. b2) Nor should Black have any major problems after 10 'ii'd2 d6?! (1O...ncS, intending ...ll:)eS is stronger, when Skembris gives 11 f4 bS!? as unclear) 11 f4 ll:)d7 12 lIael ll:)cs 13 .i.c4! ll:)xb3 14 axb3?! (14 .i.xb3!) 14... a6 IS ll:)dS bS 16 .i.d3 f6 17 .i.h4 e6 IS ll:)e3 gS 19 .i.g3 gxf4 20 .i.xf4 ll:)e7 21 c3 lXadS 22 ll:)c2 ll:)eS with unclear play, Thorhallsson-Skembris, Kopavogur 1994. b3) 10 f4 d6 11 .i.f3 ll:)d7 12 :blll:)cS 13ll:)dS (13ll:)xcS?! bxcS 14ll:)dS f6 IS .i.h4 e6 16ll:)e3ll:)d4 is good for Black, Timmerman-Van den Bosch, Enschede 1993) 13 ... f6 14 .i.h4 e6 IS ll:)c3 gS!? 16 .i.g3 gxf4 17 .i.xf4ll:)eS IS .tg4 'fIe7 19 ll:)d4 ll:)xg4 20 'fIxg4 'ithS and Black was in command in Kotronias-Skembris, Karditsa 1994. c) S...e6 9 'ii'd6 (best is 9 .i.e3!, e.g. 9 ... dS 10 exdS ll:)xdS 11 ll:)xdS exdS 12 c3 with a lasting edge for White [Donaldson] while 9 .i.gS h6 10 .i.h4 gS 11 .i.g3 dS 12 exdS ll:)xdS 13ll:)xdS exdS 14 lIb 1 as IS a4 .tfS 16 .i.d3 .i.xd3 17 'ii'xd3 ll:)b4 18 'fId2 d4 is okay for Black) 9 ... ll:)e8 10 'fIg3 ll:)b4 11 .i.gS (11 .i.dl!? dS 12 a3 tbc6 13 exdS exdS 14 .i.f3, planning 1:[dl with a small plus - Velicovic) 11...f6 12 .i.f4 ll:)xc2 13 l:ladl ll:)b4 14 l:lfdl ll:)c6 IS ll:)bS ~h8 16 ll:)d6 eS i 7 .i.e3 ll:)xd6 18 :xd6 'ii'e8 20 .i.c4 b6!, when White had insufficient compensation for the pawn, Torre-

N.Nikolic, Lugano 19S9. 7 bxc3 ll:)f6

8 .i.d3 The alternatives should not bother Black too much: a) S .i.c4?! ll:)eS 9 .i.e2 dS .i.h6 dxe4 11 'iVxdS+ 'iitxd8 12 :dl + ~e8 13 ll:)cs ll:)ed7 14 .i.bS a6 IS .i.xd7+ ll:)xd7 16 ll:)xe4 f6 17 0-0 ~ with a better ending for Black, Raaste-Wedberg, Helsinki 19S3. b) S f3!? dS 9 exdS 'iVxdS 10 'ii'xdS ll:)xdS 11 .i.d2 O-O?! (l1.. ..i.fS!? 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 is a better try) 12 .i.e2 l:ldS 13 h4 .i.fS 14 0-0-0 ll:)b6 IS ll:)cs ll:)aS 16 g4 .i.e6 17 ll:)xe6 fxe6 IS hS ll:)ac4 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 .i.d3 with a clear edge for White, Gomez BailloGarbarino, Salta 1987. c) S c4!? ll:)xe4 9 .i.h6 d6 10 .i.d3 ll:)cS 11 0-0.i.e6 12 'ii'd2 'iVc7 13 ll:)xcs dxcS 14 'fIe3 ll:)b4 IS .i.g7 ll:)xd3!? 16 .i.xh8 ll:)b4 17 :ladl l%dS IS .i.eS 'ii'c6 19 'ii'h6 .i.xc4 20 'ii'fS+ 'iitxfS 21 l%dS+ 'iVeS 22 .i.g7+ 'itxg7 23 l%xeS .i.xfl 24 ~xfl ~6 with equality, Imanaliev-Yurtaev, Frunze 19S7. d) 8 'iVe2 'iVc7 9 f4 d6 and soon White's pawns will become targets - Suba.

190 Classical with 8 9

exd5

~e2

d5 'ii'xd5

0-0 10 0-0 Since the main line favours White, Black has to consider trying something different here: a) 1O... .ig4!? 11 "'e1 0-0 112-112, J .Fernandez-Zsu.Polgar, Pamplona 1991. This is hardly a test of 1O ... ~g4. While 11 f3 .if5 12 c4 "'d7 is okay for Black, as 13 tDc5 fails to 13 ......d4+, the real test is 11 c4!?, but Black should be fine after 11......d7 12 "'e1 0-0 13 tDc5 "'cS. b) 10... .if5!? (Suba's recommendation) 11 c4 "'d7 12 tDc5 "'cS (or 12 ......c7 13 ~b2 tDg4!? 14 g3 tDce5? 15 ~xf5 gxf5 16 tDd3 0-0-0 17 "'e2 with a clear plus for White, Peters-Silman, Los Angeles 19S2) 13 ~h6 (or 13 ~xf5 'it'xd5 14 tDxb7 0-0 with good play for Black) tDg4 14 ~g7 AgS 15 .ic3 "'c7 16 g3 0-0-0 17 Abl b6 IS tDa6 'ii'b7 19 c5 tDce5, when Black is clearly better Suba. 11 Ael An important alternative is 11 h3!? In Tolnai-Chernikov, Debrecen 19S5, White had a clear edge after l1...tDe5 12 tDe2 "'xdl 13 Axdl tDe4 14 .ih6 tDxc3 15 .ixfS tDxdl 16 ~xe7 tDc3 17 .in, but for example, both 11.. .AdS and 11.. ..if5 seem to provide Black with good chances of equality. Another possibility is 11 c4, when 1l...'ii'h5 12 "'xh5 tDxh5 13 Ael AeS 14 tDc5! f5 (Razuvaev suggests 14 ... tDg7) 15 ~e2! is better for White, as in Vogt-GarciaMartinez, Leipzig 19S3, but Black should instead opt for 1l......d6 12 c5!? (12 ~b2 tDg4 13 g3 tDge5 14

"'e2 tDxd3 15 cxd3 .ih3 16 Afe1 e5 is equal, Bokuchava-Rashkovsky, Tbilisi 1972) 12 ......c7 13 h3 a5? (too slow and weakening; better was 13 ... J.e6 followed by ... AadS) 14 Ae1 ~e6 15 a4 16 .if4 'it'cs 17 tDd2 AdS IS ~g5 tDd4 19 'it'f4 tDh5 20 'ii'h4 tDh5 20 'ii'h4 tDg7 21 tDe4 tDgf5 22 "'f4 with a clear advantage for White, Kuzmin-Bern, Cappelle la Grande 1994. 11 ~g4

"'f3

12 'iM2!? Even better is 12 c4! For example, 12 ......d6 13 "'d2 .l:r.adS 14 "'g5 ~cS 15 ~f4 'iVd7 16 h3! tDh5! 17 tDc5 'iVd4 IS ~c7 AdeS, Ljubojevic-Kir.Georgiev, Thessaloniki 01 19S5, and now Georgiev gives 19 Aabl b6! 20 tDb3 'it'd7 21 .ih2 followed by c4-c5, when White's two bishops and space advantage guarantee him the better of it. 12

J:r.ad8

Possibly better is 12 ... AfdS!? 13 'iVf4! Meister-Vokac, Ceske 1994, saw instead 13 c4 'iVh5 14 "'c3 ~f5 15 .ib2 e5! 16 ~e2 'iVh4 17 g3 'iVh6 IS ~f3 tDd4 19 ~xb7 tDg4 20 h4

Classical with liJxc2, when Black was doing very well. 'ii'hS 13 14 h3 ~c8 15 c4 liJe8 16 ~b2 f6 17 ~e4 eS 18 'ii'e3 liJd6?! Zapata suggests instead 18 ... liJc7, intending 19 ~xc6?! bxc6 20 'ii'xa7 liJe6. 19 ~dS+ ~h8 20 f4 Now Black's position is undergoing demolition. 20 ...liJb4 21 fxeS liJxdS 22 cxd5 liJc4 23 exf6! liJxb2 24 'ii'd4 'ii'xdS 25 'ii'xb2 'ii'd7 26 ':adl ':xdl 27 ':xdl ~g8 28 ':d6 d6 29 'ii'd4 ~e6 30 liJdl ~xa2 31 c4 1-0 Game 74 Radulov-Deze Vrsac 1971

(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 ~g7) 6

~e3

liJf6

7 ~e2 The alternatives mostly transpose into other lines: a) 7 h3?! 0-0 8 'ii'd2 d5 9 exd5

~e2

191

liJxd5 10 liJxc6 bxc6 11 ~d4 ~xd4 12 'ii'xd4 'iVa5 13 'iVa4 'ii'b6 14 liJdl ~f5 15 c3 e5 16 ~a6 .l:ad8 17 0-0 liJf4 with a plus for Black, Saltaev-Serper, Tashkent 1987. b) 7 liJb3 a5 (7 ... 0-0 is likely to transpose into Game 75) 8 ~b5 0-0 9 0-0 a4 10 liJxa4 liJxe4 11 liJb6 :b8 12 c3 f5 13 f4 e6 14 a4 d5 15 a5 g5 16 ~xc6 bxc6 17 fxg5 e5 with compensation for the pawn, Sisov-Kotkov, USSR 1954. c) 7 f4 0-0 (7 ...d6 transposes to the Classical Dragon after 8 ~e2) 8 e5 liJe8 9 'iVf3 d6! 10 liJxc6 bxc6 11 'ii'xc6 ~d7 and Black has excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn. d) 7 f3 0-0 8 ~c4 'ii'b6 transposes into lines which can be found under 7 ~c4 0-0 8 f3 'ii'b6 - see Game 87. 7 0-0 It is premature to play ... d7-d5 before castling. The game Filipowicz-Borkowski, Poland 1976, showed why: 7... d5? 8 ~b5! ~d7 9 exd5 liJb4 10 ~c4 ':c8 11 ~b3 'ii'a5 12 'iVd2 ':xc3 13 bxc3 liJbxd5 14 ~xd5 liJxd5 15 c4 and Black had insufficient compensation for the exchange. 8 0-0 For 8 f4 and 8 liJb3, see the notes to the next game. The other moves at White's disposal should not bother Black too much: a) 8 h4? d5 9 liJxc6 (White should try to limit Black's advantage by 9 exd5 liJxd5 10 liJxd5 'iVxd5 11 ~f3 'ii'a5+ 12 c3 ':d8 or 12 ... liJxd4) 9...bxc6 10 exd5 liJxd5 11 liJxd5 cxd5 12 c3 e5 with an excellent position for Black, Lepeshkhin-Zaitsev, USSR 1958.

192 Classical with i.e2

b) S 1id2? (a common mistake in this position) S... d5! and now:

bl) 9 ttJxc6 bxc6 10 e5 (10 0-0-0 i.e6 11 exd5 cxd5 12 i.f3 'fIc7 13 i.d4 lidS is very comfortable for Black, Ciuksyte-Stankovic, Litosmyl 1994) 1O... ttJd7 11 f4 e6 (11...f6? 12 ttJxdS!) and now 12 ttJa4? can be answered with 12 ... ttJxe5 13 fxe5 'ilh4+. b2) 9 exdS ttJxd5 10 ttJxd5 (damage control with 10 ttJxc6 is more advisable; Barczay-Adorjan, Budapest 1975, then continued with 1O...bxc6 11 :dl i.e6! 12 i.d4 i.xd4 13 'fIxd4 'fIa5! 14 'ii'a4 'iVb6 15 'fIa3 l1fbS! with a slight 1O...ttJxd4! plus for Black) (l0....xd5 is not easy for White to handle either: 11 i.f3 'fIa5! 12 ttJxc6 bxc6 13 i.xc6? [better was 13 0-0] 13 ... i.a6! 14 c3 lIfdS 15 'fIc1 :acS 16 f4 'fIa5 17.c1 llacS IS f4 .a5 19 i.f3 i.xc3+! 20 bxc3 lIxc3 21 ~f2 :dd3! winning, Ekstrom-Cvitan, Bern 19S5) 11 i.xd4 (here 11 lLlc3 was to be preferred, though Black of course retains the advantage after II...lLlxe2 12 'ii'xe2 i.f5; to be avoided is the greedy 11 lLlxe7+? 'fIxe7 12 i.xd4 i.xd4 13 'fIxd4 l:eS 14 .e3 1i'b4+ 15 .c3 'fIe4 16 .e3 .c6 with a nasty attack) 1l....xd5 12 i.xg7 'ii'xg2!

13 0-0-0 ~xg7 14 'i'e3 'ii'c6 15 i.d3 'fIe6 (or 15 ... i.e6 16 h4 h5 17 :bgl i.g4 with an extra pawn for Black, Crepeaux-Glatmann, Varna 1972) 16 'fId4+ 'i'f6 17 'ife3 i.e6 with a big advantage for Black, Ignacio-Donaldson, Anaheim 19S5.

8 dS! 9 exdS Or 9 lLlxc6 bxc6 and now: a) 10 i.f3 e6 11 exd5 cxd5 12 lLle2 i.a6 13 lIel lLld7 14 c3 lLle5 with a very good game for Black, Jensen-Ca.Hansen, corr 1996. b) 10 exdS cxdS 11 i.d4 e6 12 a4 a5 13 lLlb5 i.a6 14 c3 lLle4! 15 i.e3 ':eS 16 lIfe! 'ii'bs 17 i.d3 lLld6 IS .e2 e5 with clearly better chances for Black, Pilnik-Petrosian, Stockholm izt 1952. c) 10 e5 is the ECO main line, which continues 1O... lLle4?! 11 lLlxe4 dxe4 12 'fIxdS ':xdS 13 ltfdl i.e6 14 i.d4 lld7 (l4 ...c5!?) 15 a4! with a slight plus for White, Short-Yrjolii, Manila 01 1992. Better is 1O... ttJd7 11 f4 e6 12 lLla4 .e7 (also good is 12 ... f6 13 lLlc5 'i'e7 14 lLlxd7 i.xd7 15 'i'd4 :tl>S 16 b3 a5 17 c4 a4 with a slight plus for Black, Desch-Donaldson, Portland 1979, or 13 exf6 'i'xf6 14 c3

Classical with -'.e2 193 Less dynamic is 11.. ...d7 12 c4 "e7 with equality, FechnerDonaldson, Heidelberg 1979) 13 c4 a6 13 "a4 tDc6 14 %ladl l:tbS, f6 14 exf6 ~xf6 15 "d2 l:td8 16 Bartis-Yudovich, corr 1971, and l:tfdl ~b7 17 l:tac! d4 with a slight now Korchnoi gives 15 tDc3 tDxd4 16 ~xd4 with a slight plus for edge for Black, ZhukhovitskyA.Zaitsev, USSR 1962. 1O...~e8 White. also deserves attention: 11 f4 f6 12 12 c4 exf6 exf6 13 ~a4 tDd6 is unclear. 12 "c1 a6 13 tDc3 tDbdS 14 9 ~b4!? tDxdS, Minev-Keres, Munich 01 For 9 ... tDxdS, see the next game. 1955, and 12 tDc6 13 -'.f3 10 d6!? J.d7 are both equal. Clearly best. Other tries are: a) 10 "d2 tDbxds 11 tDxdS tDxdS 12 ~h6 ~xh6 13 "xh6 'fIb6 14 tDb3 with equality, Calcado-Martinez, Sao Paulo 1992. b) 10 ~f3 tDbxdS 11 tDxds tDxdS 12 -'.g5, Postler-Baumbach, East Germany 19S3, and now 12 ...tDf6 is equal. c) 10 tDb3 tDbxdS (alternatively Black could go for 10... ~f5!? 11 l:tc1 tDbxdS 12 tDxd5 tDxd5 13 ~d4 -'.h6, Anceschi-Makropoulos, Groningen 1972) 11 tDxd5 tDxds 12 -'.d4 es (12 ...tDf6 13 ~f3 "c7 12 86 14 l:tel ~f5 15 c3 l:tac8 16 "e2 Also perfectly playable is l:tfe8 17 ~e5, Hoen-Soos, Lucerne 12...tDc6 13 tDxc6 (or 13 'fIb3 1979, and 12 ...tDf4 13 ~f3 ~xd4 tDxd4 14 ~xd4 a6 IS tDc3 tDg4 14 "xd4 [Korchnoi] both slightly with a slight plus for Black - Anfavour White) 13 ~c5 l:teS 14 ~bs dres) 13 ...bxc6 14 tDd4 and now ~d7 15 ~xd7 "xd7 16 c4 tDf6 17 Black has: "xd7 tDxd7 IS ~e3 e4 19 tDd4 a6 a) 14.....xb2? 15 tDxc6 J.e6 16 with equality, Ievtic-Twardon, By- tDxe7+ ~hS 17 -'.d4 'fIb7 IS tDdS! dgo¢z 1980. tDxds 19 -'.xg7+ ~xg7 20 -'.f3! %ladS 21 "d4+ ~gS 22 l:tfdl l:td6 10 "xd6 11 tDcbS 23 cxdS %lfdS 24 'iVh4 -'.xdS 25 Inferior is 11 tDdb5?! 'fIb8! 12 -'.xdS %lxdS 26 "xdS+, &tevezJ.c5 (12 ~f3 tDc6 slightly favours Andres, Cuban ch 19S4/S5. Black) 12 ... tDc6 13 J.f3 a6 14 b) 14... J.d7 15 J..f3 "c7 16 tDd4? (14 ~xc6 bxc6) 14...tDxd4 ~b3 %lfdS 17 tDcs ~f5?! (better is 15 -'.xd4 l:td8 16 l:tel tDg4! 17 17... J.g4! IS "e2 J..xf3 19 "xf3 tDd5 "xh2+ IS
"d2

194 Classical with i.e2

c) 14 ...1i'c7!? has been recom- light-squared bishop look foolish. mended by Andres, who claims It was better to play 22 ...ltJb4 or 22 ...i.f8. equality. 23 liJd2 13 ltJc3 i.xc3?! 13 1i'b3 leaves Black with the 24 .xc3 .h4 25 h3 initiative after 13 ...axb5 14 "xb4 ltJdeS 26 f4! bxc4 15 "xc4 e5 16 ltJb3 i.e6 17 Now Black's hopes are crushed. "'5 i.d7 18 1i'd3 .i.c6 19 l:Udl ltJd5 20 i.c5 :te8, Binder- 26 ...exf3 27 liJxf3 liJxf3+ 28 i.xf3 is very uncomfortable and the Felegyhazi, Debrecen 1995. game continuation does not present 13 eS?! This thrust is somewhat prema- him with much hope either: ture. A wiser course is 13 .....c7 14 26•••ltJd3 27 liJxe4 i.xe4 28 i.xd3 "'3 (14 :tel i.d7 is also fine for Ad8 29 ~h2 liJb4 30 i.e2 l%xdl Black) 14... ltJc6 15 ltJxc6 bxc6 16 31 i.xdl "d8 32 i.e2 ltJc6 "a3 :e8 17 i.c5 :b8 18 i.f3 i.e6 32 ... liJxa2? loses to 33 "e5 folwith equality, as in Gounder- lowed by i.d4. Balaskas, Caorle 1975. Now White 33 "d2 "e7 34 cS hS 35 i.c4 "f6 got greedy with 19 1i'xa6?, but 36 "d7 i.fS 37 "xb7 i.e4 38 found himself losing after "d7 ~g7 39 i.d2 liJd4 40 "d6 19 ...ltJd7! 20 i.a3 ltJe5! 21 i.e4 "xd641 cxd6ltJc6 42 d7 1-0 :ta8 22 ltJb5 1i'd7 23 1i'b6 l:tab8 24 i.xc6:xc6. Game 75 14 ltJf3!? Estevez-Andres 14 ltJc2 also leads to a slight adSagua la Grande 1987 vantage for White after 14...ltJc6 15 ltJd5 i.f5 16 ltJcb4 ltJxb4 17 (1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxb4 l:td8 18 'ii'b3 a5 19 ltJd5, as ltJxd4 g6 5 ltJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 ltJf6 7 in B.Martinez-O.Martinez, Cuban i.e20-0) ch 1995. 14 i.fS 8 0-0 15 i.cS l:td8 Here we shall take a look at S f4 and 8 ltJb3. For White's other 16 "b3 as 16...ltJd3 17 i.e7 :tcS 18 i.xf6 eighth move alternatives, see the ltJc5 19 i.xg7ltJxb3 20 i.xe5 1i'a7 previous game. 21 axb3 l:tdS 22 ltJd5 is very pleasa) S f4 and now of course Black ant for White. can choose to transpose to a Classi17 l:tadl i.c2 cal Dragon with S... d6, but since 18 l:txd8+ .xd8 that is not the subject of this book, we shall to bypass that particular 19 ltJc6 possibility: 20 l%c1 i.fS 21 l%dl ltJd7 a1) After the 'mad' approach 22 i.e3 e4?! S... e5!?, Grosar-Zsu.Polgar, PorBlack is too optimistic and initi- toroz 1991, saw the following conates a mistaken plan. The text just tinuation 9 ltJdb5 exf4 10 i.xf4 weakens the e-pawn and makes the ltJe8 11 0-0 ltJe5 12 ltJd5 a6 13

"a3

Classical with .i.e2 195

liJbc3 liJc7 14 liJxc7 'ii'xc7 15 liJd5 'ii'd8 16 .i.e3 b5 (Black has equalised) 17 .i.b6 "g5 18 .i.c5 :e8 19 .i.e3 'iM8 20 .i.b6 'ii'g5 21 liJc7? (White should have settled for the draw with 21 .i.e3 "d8 22 iLb6, since after the text Black's well coordinated pieces more than compensate for his small material deficit) 21.. ..i.b7 22 .i.f3 f5 23 liJxe8 1 liJxf3+ 25 .:txf3 'ii'f6 .:txe8 24 26 .i.a5 :xe4 27 ':f2 'ii'h4 28 .i.c3 .i.h6 29 .i.d2 .i.f8 30 .i.e3 .i.d6 31 g3 .i.xg3! 32 ':g2 .i.xh2+ 33 ..t>fl 'ii'h3 34 'ii'd2 ':xe3 0-1. a2) 8... d5 9 e5 liJe4 (also possible is 9...ttJe8, intending to break up the centre with ...t7-f6, e.g. 10 'ii'd2 f6 11 exf6 ttJxf6 12 0-0-0 liJg4 13 .i.xg4 .i.xg4 with equality in Westermeier-Weidemann, German Bundesliga 1981/82) reaching the following position:

"C

10 liJxe4 dxe4 11 ttJxc6 bxc6 12 "xd8 :xd8 13 .i.c4 :b8 14 b3 g5 and now: a21) 15 .i.xa7 :xa8 16 .i.e3 gxf4 17 .i.xf4 .i.a6 18 .i.xa6 %ba6 19 ~e2 f6 and Black held on to the initiative and went on to win in the ending in Tamowski-Gheorghiu, Bucharest 1961. a22) Much more difficult to meet is the untried 15 g3!, which

allows White to take back on f4 with the g-pawn if Black decides to exchange. Black is more or less forced to answer with 15 ...:b7 (15 ...a5 16 a4 leaves the a-pawn even more exposed) when 16 ~f2! (16 0-0 gxf4 17 gxf4 .i.g4 is fine for Black) 16 ... .i.g4 17 .i.e2 .i.xe2 18 ~xe2 gxf4 (or 18 .. .f5 19 exf6 .i.xf6 20 .:tadl and again White is better) 19 gxf4 f5 (or 19 ... f6 20 e6! f5 21 :ag 1 with big problems for Black) 20 :adl :d5 21 c4 ':a5 with an unclear position, but 20 .:tag I! e6 21 :g3 is uncomfortable for Black. It seems better to play 17....i.e6 instead of exchanging on e2, but still White holds the better chances after 18 :hd4 ':dd7 (18 ...:bd7 19 iLxa7) 19 iLd4 gxf4 20 gxf4 or (best) 19 ':xd7! :xd7 20 :dl ':xdl 21 iLxdl with a won endgame for White, since the black pawns are hopelessly weak. Black can improve with 18 ...:c8, but White is still better. b) After 8 liJb3 it is also possible to transpose to the Classical Dragon with 8...d6, but Black does best to play for ... d7-d5. However, 8... b6!? 9 f4 iLb7 is interesting. For example, 10 iLf3 d6 (not 1O... e5?! 11 0-0 "e7 12 g3 :ad8 13 "d2 d5, Milner-Barry-Wade, England 1955, and now 14 liJd5 liJxd5 15 exd5 with a clearly better game for White, would have been best) 11 0-0 :b8?! (Black could have transposed to the 7 .i.c4 "a5 8 0-00-0 9 liJb3 line with 1l.....c7, where he does not have much to worry about) 12 ':f2! a6 13 :d2 with better chances for White, RhodinCladouras, German Bundesliga 1988/89. Instead of 8...b6!? Black should play 8... a5!

196 Classical with ~e2

Now if White allows ... a5-a4, Black has easy play: bll) 9 0-0 a4 10 ~d4 d5 11 exd5 ~xd5 12 ~xd5 'ifxd5 13 ~f3 'ifc4 (13 ... 'ifa5!?) 14 c3 ~xd4 15 cxd4 ::'d8 with a clear edge for Black, Ravinsky-Vasiukov, Moscow 1958. b12) 9 a3 a4 10 ~cl d6 11 f4 ~e6 12 ~f3 ~a5 13 ::'bl tLlc4 14 ~d4 'ifa5 15 0-0 :ac8 16 tLlca2 ~d7 17 ~hl e5 with a clear plus for Black, Zhukovitsky-Suetin, Vilnius 1953. b13) 9 ~d5 d6 10 ~b6 ::'b8 11 f3 ~e6 12 c4 ~d7! 13 tLla4 ~xc4! 14 ~xc4 b5 15 ~xf7+ ::'xf7 16 ~c3 ~de5 and Black is on top, Schutt-H. Schmid, corr 1976. b14) 9 a4 ~b4, when Black does not have to worry after: b141) 100-0 d5! b142) 10 f4 d5 11 e5 tLle4 12 ~f3 ~f5 13 ~d4 ::'c8 14 tLlcb5 f6 15 c3 fxe5!? (15 ... ~c6 is also fine for Black) 16 tLlxf5 gxf5 17 cxb4 exf4 18 ~xf4 e5 19 ~cl ~h8 20 'ife2 axb4 and Black had massive compensation for the sacrificed material in Galkin-Kochiev, St Petersburg 1993. b143) 10 'ifd2!? d5 11 ::'dl ~e6 12 ~c5 tLlxe4 13 ~3xe4 dxe4 14 ~xe6 'ifxd2+ 15 ::'xd2 fxe6 16 c3

tLld5 with the upper hand for Black, G.Garcia-Antunes, Seville 1994. b144) 10 ~f3 (this stops ... d7-d5 for now, but apart from that the bishop is not of much use on f3) 1O... d6 11 0-0 ~e6 12 ::'el (or 12 tLld4 ~c4! 13 ::'el 'W'c8 14 tLldb5 ::'d8 15 ::'d4 ::'a6 16 b3 e5 17 ~e3 i.e6 18 'W'e2 d5 19 exd5 ~f5! and White had trouble coping with all of Black's threats in LemryeDonaldson, Philadelphia 1979) 12 ... .i.xb3 13 cxb3 tLld7 14 ~e2 ::'c8 15 ::'cl ~c5 16 ~b5 e6 17 ::'e2 'W'e7 18 ::'d2 ::'fd8 19 ~c4 f5 and Black was in command in the game Bastrikov-Vasiukov, Yerevan 1955. 8 dS

9 exdS tLlxdS 10 tLlxdS White's attempt to exchange everything with 10 tLlxc6 bxc6 backfires after 11 ~d4 tLlxc3 12 bxc3 .i.e6 13 .i.xg7 ciJxg7 14 'ifd4+ 'W'xd4 15 cxd4 ::'ab8, when Black was much better in Stubenrauch-Donaldson, USA 1989. 10 'W'xdS! Black sacrifices a pawn for the initiative, and in fact White does best to decline the sacrifice. The

Classical with -*.e2 197

alternative 1O...ttJxd4 leads to boring equality. White has tried the following ideas: a) 11 c4 eS is equal. b) 11 -*.c4 ttJc6? (correct is 11... eS 12 c3 -*.e6! with equality) 12 -*.gS -*.e6 13 lIel lIe8 14 c3 h6 IS -*.h4 gS 16 -*.g3 with a strong initiative for White, London-T.Taylor. New York 1985. c) 11 -*.xd4 (White wants to exchange everything down to an ending in which he has a queenside majority, which should offer him the better chances, but practice has shown that Black does not have any problems with best play) 11.. ....xdS 12 -*.xg7 "'xdl 13 lIfxdl ~xg7 and now: cl) 14 c4 -*.e6 IS cS as (or IS ...lIad8 16 -*.f3 :XdI+ 17 lIxdl lIc8) 16 -*.f3 lIac8 17 lIacl lIc7 18 lIc3 lIfc8 19 lIdcl lIc~ with equality, Brooks-Donaldson, Columbus 1990. c2) 14 lId2 -*.fS (or 14 ... -*.e6 IS lIadl lIfc8 16 -*.f3 lIab8 17 c3 bS 18 -*.dS -*.fS with equality, MillsI.Ivanov, Chicago 1985) IS lIadl lIac8 16 c4 -*.e6 17 b3 lIc7 18 f4 as 19 ~ lIa8 with equality, Zso.Polgar-Moldovan, Bucharest 1989. c3) 14 -*.f3 -*.fS! (somewhat more passive, but still good enough for equality is 14 ... -*.e6 IS b3 lIac8 16 c4 lIac7 17 h3 -*.d7! 18 1Id2 -*.c6 19 -*.xc6 bxc6 20 lIadl hS 21 ~fl ~6 with equal chances, Radulov-Rajkovic, Vrsac 1973) IS c4 (or IS lId2 lIad8 16 :adl lIxd2 17 lIxd2 eS [17 ...lIc8! 18 c3 l:c7 is equal] 18 c3 b6 19 lId6 with a slight plus for White, Shakhov1989) Pakhomov, Simferopol IS ... lIac8 16 lIacl (or 16 b3 lIc7

17 %ldS .i.e6 18 lId4 lIfc8 19 :adl a6 20 .i.xdS .i.xdS 21 lIxdS e6 22 lId6 bS with equality, as in Wedberg-Donaldson, Athens 1980) 16 ... lIc7 17 cS as 18 a3 a4 19 lId4 lIa8 20 :b4 :a7 21 h3 .i.d7 22 lIcc4 -*.c6 23 .i.xc6 lIxc6 24 f4 ~f6 2S ~f2 :as 26 lIxa4 lIxa4 27 lIxa4 lIxcS 28 b4 bS '/2-'/2 Radulov-Forintos, Budapest 1970.

11

.i.f3

Or 11 ttJxc6 "'xc6 12 c3 .i.e6 13

.i.f3 1i'bs (13 ......a6 14 "'c2 :ac8 IS lIfdl lIc7 16 .i.dS -*.fS is equal, Grano-Wexler, Mar del Plata 1960) 14 "'c2 lIfd8 IS a4 "'c4 16 as (White should have tried 16 -*.xb7 -*.fS 17 llab8 18 -*.f3 as with some compensation for the pawn) 16... -*.dS 17 -*.xdS lIxdS with a slight plus for Black, LeonardDonaldson, USA 1983. 11 "'as! The alternatives are: a) 11..."'d7 led to a White advantage in Radulov-Fimhaber, Kiel 1978, after 12 lDxc6 bxc6 13 c3 lIb8 14 "'xd7 .i.xd7 IS lIfdl .i.e6 1611d2. b) Black has also done well with 1l......c4!? and now: bI) 12 .i.e2 "'dS (12 ...1i'b4!?)

"'c1

198 Classical with ~e2 ~f3 repeats the position. 22 'iWhs ~d5. with a clear plus, Dob2) 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 c3 eS 14 brito-Vilela, AIcobendas 1994) 17 ltJb3 .i.fS IS 'iWcl l::tfd8 16 ltJcs e4 'iWe4 ~b7 18 'iWg4 h5 19ltJbS .c6 17 ~dl ~dS with equality, Shaba20 'iWgS f6 and Black was winning, nov-Cherniak, Moscow 1994. Muller-Donaldson, Vancouver b3) 12 ltJxc6 bxc6 13 c3 (or 13 1980. 'iWd3 .i.e6 14 'iWxc4 ~xc4 IS l::tfdl b2) 13 ltJb3 'iWc7 14 c3 ~a6 (l4 ... aS!? IS ltJcs a4 16 ltJxa4 .i.xb2 16 &b 1 .i.f6 17 ~xc6 .i.xa2 18 ~xa8 .i.xbl 19 ~e4 1/2_ 1/2 Dely~d8, intending ... ~e6 or ... .i.fS Aronin, Moscow 1962) 13 ... ~e6 Donaldson) IS ~el ~ad8 16 'iWg4 (also of interest is 13 ... ~b8, e.g. 14 ~dS 17 'iWa4 ~bS 18 "'xa7 "'xa7 b3 'iWxc3 IS ~xa7 ~b7 16 ~cl 19 ~xa7 eS 20 l::tedl ~a8 with strong compensation for the pawn, 'it'aS 17 ~e3 'iWxa2 18 .i.xc6 ~b8 19 ~dS ~a6 20 ~xc4 .i.xc4 21 Casey -Donaldson, Seattle 1979. bxc4 ~fd8, Tverskaya-Kondou, 12 bxc6 Moscow 1994, or 14 .i.e2 "e6 IS 13 'iVc1 'iWc2 as 16 b3 "fS 17 .i.d3 'iWhs 18 Probably White's best chance . .i.e2 'iWh4 19 ~acl ~d8 20 ~c4 The alternatives are: .i.fS with some initiative for Black a) Exchanging the queens with in both cases) 14 ~el (14 'iWc2 as 13 'iWd2? does not ease White's IS ~e2 .i.fS 16 ~xc4 .i.xc2 17 task: 13 ......xd2 14 .i.xd2 ~b8 IS ~acl ~fS is equal, Thomsen.i.c3 .i.xc3 16 bxc3 cS 17 l::tfel Weemaes, Novi Sad 01 1990) ~e6 18 c4 l::tfd8 19 .::i.eS ~b2 20 14 ... ~fd8 IS 'iie2 'iWxe2 16 ~xe2 ~c 1 ~c8 21 a3 ~f8 with a slight .i.d5 17 ~cl as with equality, plus for Black, Nalic-Ca.Hansen, Short-Christiansen, Monaco (rapid) Orlando 1997. 1993. b) Accepting the pawn sacrifice 12 ltJxc6 with 13 ~xc6? gives Black treA reasonable alternative is 12 mendous compensation. After c3!? ltJxd4 13 .i.xd4 ~d8 14 'iWe2 13 ... ~b8 Black has a clear edge following: ~xd4 IS cxd4 e6 16 ~fd 1 'iib6 17 dS with equality according to Donbl) 14 "'dS "'c7 IS ~a4 ~xb2 aldson, whereas others are not to be 16 'iWxcs 'iib7 17 .i.b3 .i.fS 18 ~adl ~c8 19 'iWxa7 'iixa7 20 ~xa7 recommended: a) 12 ltJb3 'iic7 13 c3 .i.fS 14 ~xc2 21 g4?! ':c3 22 ~xc2 ~bxc2 'it'e2 .::i.ad8 IS ~fdl ltJeS 16 ltJd4 23 ~xc2 ~xc2, as played in ~d7 17 ~f4ltJxf3+ 18 'iWxf3 eS 19 Basanta-Donaldson, Bellingham ~g3 'iWc4 with a clear edge for 1987. Black, Roll-Donaldson, Philadelb2) 14 ~f4 ~a6 IS ':el .i.xb2 phia 1983. 16 ~xe7 ~fd8 17 'iibl ~f6 18 ~c7 b) 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 and now ei- 'iWc3, as in Sherzer-Donaldson, New York 1985. ther: bl) 13ltJxc6? 'iic7 14ltJd4 ~a6 b3) 14 b4 .::i.xb4! IS .i.d2 ~xal IS ~el ~ad8 16 'iWg4 ~c8 (or 16 .xal 'iWcs 17 ~xb4 .xb4 16... eS 17 'iWg3 'iWc8 18ltJf3 e4 19 analysis by Donaldson. ltJgS 'it'xc2 20 'iWh4 h6 21 ltJh3 gS c) Finally, 13 c3 was played in

13

Classical with .li.e2 199

Nelson-Turner, British ch 1994, when after 13 ... l:td8 14 'ii'c2 .ltf5 15 .lte4 l:tab8 16 .li.xf5 gxf5 18 Irfd1 l:td5 19 l:txd5 cxd5 Black had clearly the better chances. 13 J:lb8 14 c3 c5 14 ... 'ii'c7 15 .li.c5 l:td8 16 Ire1 is also okay for Black.

.li.d5?! 15 As Black can improve on his next move, White must look here for alternatives: a) Inferior is 15 a3?, when after 15 ... c4! 16 l:tdl .li.e6 17 .li.d4 Irfd8 18 .li.xg7
15 .li.f5?! Stronger is 15 ... 1i'b5!, when White has problems protecting his b2-pawn, e.g. 16 l:tb 1 .li.f5 17 c4 'ii'a5 or 16 b3 'iid3 or 16 .li.b3 c4. l:tdl l:tfd8 16 17 .li.f4 l:tbc8 18 'iie3! 18 .li.c4 is strongly met by 18 ... 'ii'a4! 19 i.b3 (19 b3 'iia5!) 19 ... 'ii'c6, intending 20 ... c4 with a slight plus for Black - Andres. 18 l:td7 Silman and Donaldson mention 18 ... c4 19 .li.b7! Irxd1 20 1hd1 l:td8 21 l:txd8 'iixd8 22 h3 a5 23 'iic5!, when Black's pawns are weak. 19 .li.c4 l:tcd8 20 l:txd7 l:txd7 21 h3 h5 22 .li.e5 .li.xe5 23 'iixe5 'iib6 24 b3 'iid6 25 l:tel Andres gives the following line 25 'ii'xd6 exd6! (25 ... ':xd6 26 :tel ~f8 27 Ire5 slightly favours White) 26 l:td1 .lte6! with equality. 25 'iid2 26 a4 26 l:te2 'iicl + 27
10 Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 .a5

Chapter Guide 1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 ~c3 J.g7 6 J.e3 ~f6 7 J.c4

"'as

8 0-0 0-0

9 J.b3 d6 10 f3 - Game 76 10 h3 J.d7 11 l:.e1 11...l:.acS - Game 77 ll ... l:.feS - Game 78 11 f4 1l....l:acS 12"'f3 - Game 79 12 lCif3 - Game 80 1l...~5 - Game 81 11 ...~xd4 12 J.xd4 J.c6 13 lCid5 - Game 82 13 "'d3 - Game 83 9~b3"'c7

10 J.g5 - Game 84 10 f4 d6 11 J.e2 11.. .a5 - Game 85 ll...b6!? - Game 86 The lines covered in this chapter are more positionally orientated than those to be found in the next chapter (7 ... 0-0 S J.b3 a5 and S... d6). White has a choice of two main ways of countering Black's 7......a5. Either: a) 0-0 and J.b3, intending ~d5 to put a central clamp on Black's position, or

b) 0-0 and ~b3 forcing Black backwards and into the Classical Dragon, when Black has committed himself to the odd looking ......c7. In both lines, Black has to be very careful not to end up in a passive and joyless position with no counterplay, but with best play his chances are no worse than his oppOI1ent's.

Main Lines with 7..tc4 Wa5 201 If as Black you do not like the somewhat passive positions that Black often ends up with after 7 .. :"aS, we refer you to the next chapter, where more complicated and risky positions occur more frequently. Game 76

Sax-Andersson Szirak 1990

(1 e4 cS 1 .!LlfJ .!Llc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .!Llxd4 g6 5 .!Llc3 j.,g7 6 ..te3 .!Llf6 7 j.,c4 "a5)

8

0-0

Other moves have proved easy for Black to meet: a) 8 "d2? .!Llxe4! 9 .!Llxc6 (after 9 ~xe4 "xd2+ 10 ~xd2 .!Llxd4 Black has an extra pawn) 9 .....xc3! 10 bxc3 .!Llxd2 11 ~xd2 bxc6 with a winning endgame for Black, as in D.Hansen-Ca.Hansen, Denmark 1994. b) 8 f3 wt'b4 9 iLb3? (better is 9 .!Llxc6 bxc6 when Black is at least equal) 9 ... .!Llxe4 10 fxe4 (even worse is 10 .!Llxc6 j.,xc3+ 11 bxc3 "xc3+ 12 ~e2 dxc6, GurgenidzeA.Geller, USSR 1959, 13 "gl ~f6 14 iLd4 wt'b4 15 "e3 0-0, and now Ravinsky gives 16 :tadl b6 winning and Silman and Donaldson give 16 j.,cS WaS 17 j.,xe7 :te8 18 ~ WfS!, threatening ... .!Llg4+, and wins) 1O... j.,xd4 11 j.,xd4 Wxd4 12 "f3 e6! 13 a4 a6 14 h4 hS IS l:dl "eS, when Black was just a pawn up in Matulovic-Toran, Palma de Mallorca 1967. c) 8 .!Llb3?! wt'b4! and now: cl) 9 ..td3? tL'lxe4 10 iLxe4 ..txc3+ 11 bxc3 Wxe4 is plain good for Black, Ramayrat-Silman, Fish-

becks 1992. c2) Worse is 9 We2? .!Llxe4 10 a3 .!Llxc3 11 ..txf7+ ~ 12 bxc3 Wxc3+ 13 .td2 "eS and Black was winning in Calvo-Toran, Palma de Mallorca 1968. c3) 9 .!Lld2! (best; the following analysis is by Silman) 9.....xb2 10 ~bS! (10 tL'la4 'lieS! [also good is 10...wt'b4 11 c3 WaS, Pilnik-Silman, Lone Pine 1975] 11 f4 WaS, threatening 12 ...bS, 12... Wxa4 and 12 ... .!Llxe4) 10.. ,li'eS (10...0-0? 11 c3) 11 f4 wt'b8 12 eS .!LlxeS! (Black also has 12 ... .!Llg8!?, intending ... ~h6, or 12 ....!Llg4!? 13 Wxg4 dS 14 We2 dxc4 IS .!Llxc4 0-0 with ... j.,e6 and ...f7-f6) 13 fxeS WxeS 14 ~ dS IS .te2 a6 16 tL'ld4 Wc7 followed by ...e7-eS and White is in difficulties.

8

0-0

Black has also tried: a) 8 ...wt'b4? leads to nothing but trouble: 9 ..tb3 (or 9 We2!? .!Llg4 10 tL'ldS Wd6 11 Wxg4 ..txd4 12 j.,xd4.!Llxd4 13 l:adl WcS 14 Wh4 f6 15 .!Llxf6+, Grankin-Soslov, Riga 1965) 9 ....!Llxe4? (9 ...0-0 was called for) 10 tL'lxc6! bxc6 11 a3! tL'lxc3 12 Wf3 and White was winning in Grabczewski-Filip, Lublin 1967.

202 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'ika5 b) 8 ... ~g4?! and now:

b 1) 9 ~xc6 dxc6 lO i.xd4 ~xd4 (Black also has lO ... e5 11 ~e3 0-0 with satisfactory play,

whereas 11...~xe3 12 fxe3 favours White since 12 ... 0-0? is met by 13 ':'xf7!) 11 'ii'xd4 'ii'e5 12 ii'xe5 ~xe5 13 ~b3 gS with equal chances, Usov-A.Geller, USSR 1962. b2) 9 ~dS!? ~xe3 (this gives White a strong initiative, so perhaps 9 ... d6, but White is still better) lO fxe3 ~e5 11 ~bS ~c4 12 ~bc7+ -.t>f8 13 c3 ':'b8 14 b4 ii'a3 15 ii'g4 f6 16 'ii'gS ~ 17 e5 when White's attack more than compensated for his material deficit in Litvinov-Litov, corr 1972. b3) 9 'ii'xg4 ~xd4 10 ~dS! (Boleslavsky recommends lO 'ii'h4!, e.g. lO ... ~xc2 11 ~d5 with a nasty attack or lO ... i.f6 11 'ii'h6 ~xc2 12 ~d5, and this time, too, Black is in deep trouble) 10... 'ii'd8 (10 ... ~xc2 11 'ii'gS ii'd8 12 l:tac1 ~xe3 13 ~c7+! 'ii'xc7 14 .ixf7+ wins for White) 11 c3 ~c6 12 'ii'h4 with a strong attack in CiricIlievsky, Yugoslavian ch 1965. b4) 9 ~b3 'ii'hs (9 ... ~xe3? lO i.xf7+) lO i.f4 i.eS (lO ... gS!?) 11 ~xeS! (this is Boleslavsky's move; Ivkov-Lehmann, Beverwijk 1965,

continued less convincingly with 11 'ii'f3 gS!? 12 .ig3 ~f6 13 'ii'e3 ~g4 14 'ii'f3 tLlf6 15 'ii'd3 a6, when White's chances are preferable) ll...tLlcxe5 12 h3 tLlxc4 13 hxg4 'ii'eS 14 f4 ii'd6 15 ~d5 tLlb6 16 'ii'd4 0-0 17 c4 t.UxdS 18 cxd5 b6 19 eS and Black is lost. c) 8 ... d6 again with another choice: cl) After 9 .ib3 Black should transpose to the main lines with 9 ... 0-0. c2) In Kapengut-Romanishin, Gomel 1968, White chose 9 tLlb3, but after 9 ... 'ii'h5!? (or 9 ... ii'c7) 10 f3 0-0 11 'ii'el .ie6 12 i.e2 dS Black had equalised. c3) 9 ~d5!? (attempting to take advantage of Black's move order) 9... ~xe4?! (9 ... 0-0? lO ~xc6 bxc6 11 ~xe7 loses, and since the text move is very risky Black should try 9 ... ~eS, though after 10 ~b3 White is better) lO 'ii'f3! .ixd4 11 .ixd4 tLlxd4 12 'ii'xe4 and White's initiative compensates for the pawn deficit. c4) 9 i.b5 .id7 lO tLlb3 'ii'd8 (lO ... 'ii'c7!?) 11 .ie2 0-0 (this is given as slightly better for White by ECO, but practice has ITOt verified this judgement) 12 f4 b5! (or 12 ... a6 13 g4 b5 14 gS ~e8 15 ii'd2 b4 16 ~a4 a5 17 :tadl l:tb8 18 c4 tLleS 19 tLlac5 t.Ug4 and Black was okay in SuetinLehmann, Berlin 1967) 13 a3 (13 i.xb5 fails to 13 ... tLlg4) 13 ... a5 14 .if3 b4 IS axb4 axb4 (lh_lh ShortMiles, Dortmund 1986) 16 :txa8 'ii'xa8 17 ~dS ~xd5 18 exd5 tLlaS 19 tLld4 ~c4 20 ~f2 ~xb2 21 'ii'el i.f6 22 1ii'xb4 l:tb8 lh_lh CarlierW.Watson, Wijk aan Zee II 1987. 9 ~b3

Main Lines with 7 oltc4 Wa5 203 For 9 ttJb3, please see Games a3) 9 ... ttJxdS! 10 exd5 and now S4-S6. The alternatives in this poplay can continue: sition are: a) The positional 9 ttJdS. If Black captures the white knight on dS, White will take back with the epawn and start playing against the backward black e-pawn. Black must usually strive to avoid such positions unless he can immediately create counterplay elsewhere. Black has a choice: al) 9 ... ttJxe4!?1O lbxc6 (10 .f3 ttJd2!) 1O ... dxc6 11 ttJxe7+ ~hS 12 a31) 1O... lbe5 11 oltb3 (Levy ttJxcS (12 oltd4 .dS! is equal) gives 11 olte2!? Wxd5 12 ttJf5 .e6 12 ... l:r.axcS 13 c3 l:tcdS (here 13 lbxg7 with compensation for the T.Georgadze gives 13 ... fS as unpawn, but Black should be better) clear, but in an open position like ll...d6 12 h3 (12 c4 ttJg4 13 oltd2 this White's bishops should guar'ifc5 14 oltc3 ttJe5 IS .:tel ttJxc4 16 antee him some advantage) 14 'ifc2 ttJf6 (14 ... ttJd6 IS oltb3 ttJfS 16 oltxc4 'ifxc4 17 ttJe6?! [17 ttJc6!?J 17 ... oltxe6 IS oltxg7 .xdS 19 oltxfS oltf4 olteS 17 .e4 is clearly better 'ifxdl 20 l:r.fxdl ~xfS 21 .:tc7 l::tbS! for White according to Adorjan) IS and Black had somewhat better l:r.fel .c7?! (Adorjan suggests IS ... ttJg4!? 16 oltf4 .cS, when chances in the game PattersonWhite is slightly better) 16 h3 b6 G.Taylor, Canadian open 1990) 12 ....a6! 13 oltg5 lteS 14 ltel 17 l:r.adl ~gS IS a4, AdorjanVisier, Lanzarote 1975. oltd7 15 c3 lhcS 161t'cl2 oltf6! 17 a2) Black has also tried 9 ....dS, olth6 (17 oltxf6 exf6 IS 'ii'h6 lbc4 is but without success: 10 ttJxf6+ fine for Black) 17 ... b5 IS lte4 'ifb7 oltxf6 11 f4 (also good for White is with equal chances, BrowneSilman, Sunnyvale 1974. 11 c3 .c7 12 We2 d6 13 f4 oltd7 a32) Probably better is 14 l:r.ae1 l:r.acS IS oltd3 .as 16 10... ttJxd4 11 oltxd4 e5 12 dxe6 (12 ttJxc6 ~xc6 17 fS, Kinzel-Hort, Krems 1967) 1l...d6 12 eS! oltg7 oltc3 'ifc7 13 oltb3, intending f2-f4, (or 12 ... dxeS 13 ttJxc6 .xd1 14 is roughly equal) 12 ... dxe6 13 l:r.axdl bxc6 IS fxeS oltxeS 16 olth6 oltxg7 ~xg7 14 Wd4+ (14 .:tel il..g7 17 il..xf7+! ..t>hS IS il..xg7+ l:tdS 15 'ifc7 16 oltb3 oltd7 17 ~xg7 19 il..b3 oltfS 20 l:tde1 h4 is clearly better for White acanalysis by Adorjan) 13 e6 fS 14 cording to Adorjan, though Silman oltdS ttJb4 IS oltb3 as 16 c3 ttJc6 17 and Donaldson suggest 15 ....c5! 16 oltb3 a5! 17 a4 l::ta6 followed by ttJbS (intending ttJxd6) 17 ... a4 IS 18 ... l:tad6, and 14.. :i'cS!? IS 'ifd3 oltc4 ~hS 19 .f3 :bS 20 .f2 b6 b6 16 'ifc3+ 'ito>gS 17 :e5 'ifc6 in 21 oltdS with a sad position for Black, J.Rodriguez-Kagan, Skopje both cases with fine play for Black) 011972. 14 ... e5 15 .e3 (Gufeld gives 15

.f3

204 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as "d6 ~f5 16 b4 with an initiative for White, but T. Georgadze improves with 15 ...:d8 16 "e7 :d7 17 "e8 'fIe7 18 :adl :e7 19 "d8 ~g4 20 'fIxe7 :xc7 21 f3 i.f5 with a clear edge for Black) IS ...i.fS 16 i.b3 :ae8 17 :adl i.xc2 18 :d5 "a6 19 "xeS "f6 with equality, as in BeliavskyT.Georgadze, USSR 1973. b) A similar idea is 9 :el followed by ~d5, e.g. 9... d6 10 ~d5 and now in Pedzich-Baumbach, German Bundesliga 1992, Black kept the balance after 10...:e8 11 c3 i.d7 12 b4 "d8 13 i.gS ~xdS 14 i.xdS ~xd4 15 cxd4 'fIb6 16 eS e6. c) 9 h3 mainly leads to transpositions to the main lines. However, it acquires independent significance if Black tries to exploit it with the dubious 9...'fib4?, when White has 10 i.b3 ~xe4 11 ~dS! "as (worse is 11.. ...d6 12 ~bS! "eS 13 i.f4 'iWhs 14 "xhS gxhS IS :e 1) and here White has so far tried two different paths:

cl) 12 "84 ~f6 (12 ... ~d2!? 13 "gS! ~xb3 14 axb3 "'d8 IS ~xc6 dxe6 16 ~xe7+ ~h8 17 :fdl "c7 18 i.f4 with an edge for White ECO) 13 ~xc6 bxc6 (13 ... dxc6!?) 14 ~xe7+ ~h8 15 "'f4 i.a6 16

:fel ~hS 17 'i'd6 favours White Lepeshkin-Demirkhanian, Yerevan 1964. c2) 12 ~xc6!? (simpler, but not as convincing as the above) 12 ... dxc6 13 It:)xe7+ ~h8 14 :el It:)cs IS "d6 It:)xb3 16 cxb3 "d8 17 "xd8!? :xd8 18 i.b6 :fS 19 ~xe8 :fxc8 20 :xa7 :xa7 21 i.xa7, when White is clearly better, as in the game Hector-Andersson, Haninge 1990. 9 d6 Black's attempts to deviate here have not been particularly impressive: 9... lt:)g4?! (9 ... bS? 10 ~dS! "d8 11 ~xf6+ i.xf6 12 f4 i.b7 13 eS ~xd4 14 i.xd4 i.g7 was MinicPorintos, Pula 1971, when White should have continued with 15 fS!, intending f5-f6) 10 "'xg4 It:)xd4 and now: a) White was successful with 11 i.xd4 in I.Zaitsev-Pavlovichev, Moscow 1965: 1l...i.xd4 12 ~S ~d8? 13 c3 i.g7 14 f4 d6 IS 'iWh4 e6 16 ~e7+ ~h8 17 f5! gS 18 "xgS f6 19 ~g6+ hxg6 20 'iWh4 ~g8 21 fxg6 :e8 22 'fIh7+ ~fS 23 :f3 1-0. But much better is 12...e6! 13 c3 i.g7 14 It:)e7+ ~h8 IS :adl "c7 with equality. b) ECO suggests 11 "'dl ~c6 with an edge for White. c) 11 ~dS (aiming for more) 1l...~c6 (ll...e6!? 12 ~e7+ ~h8 13 :fdl It:)c6! 14 ~xc8 :xc8 15 c3 "c7 is better for White) 12 'fIh4 :e8 13 c3 d6 14 i.g5 "'d8 IS f4 i.e6 16 f5 i.xdS 17 i.xd5 It:)eS 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 ~hl :f8 20 :xf7! It:)xf7 21 :f1 :fS 22 i..xe7 It:)d7 23 i..xfS :xfS 24 :f3 "a4 25 i..b3 'fibs 26 "e7 'fIe2 27 i..xf7+ ~h7 28 l:lh3+ i.h6 29 i.e6 1-0 HallGordon, Canada 1992.

Main Lines with 7 R.c4 "a5 205

10 f3 Black was threatening to play 1O... ~g4, so either 10 f3 or 10 h3 (Games 77-S3) is usually played. When he has already castled kingside, 10 f3 does not seem to fit as well into the White set-up as 10 h3 does. On occasion White has also tried the interesting 10 ~dS! ?, which is not easy for Black to meet: a) 10... ~xe4? 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12 ~xe7+ ~hS 13 ~xc6 is bad for Black. b) Not too good either is 10.....dS?!, in Suetin-T.Georgadze, Lublin 1976, Black soon ended up in a passive position: 11 f3 ~a5 12 "d2 ~xb3 13 axb3 .i.d7 14 c3 a6 15 b4 :eS 16 :fdl ~xdS 17 exdS :cS IS ~b3 eSt? 19 dxe6 :xe6 20 .i.d4 .i.fS 21 ~f2 and due to Black's isolated d-pawn, White had the better prospects. c) Kapengut's recommendation is 10...:eS!? and now: cl) 11 ~d2 "dS 12 ~bS ~xdS? (playing White's game; better was 12 ...:bS 13 :el a6 14 ~bc3 bS with counterplay - Baumbach) 13 exd5 ~a5 14 ~c3 .i.d7, and now in Estrin-Baumbach, corr 1972,

White should have continued 15 .i.xg7 ~xg7 16 ~d4 with much better chances. c2) 11 ~xf6+ .i.xf6 12 c3 ~eS 13 h3 "a6 is also comfortable for Black, Kurajica-Bellon, Malaga 1970. c3) Therefore best is 11 f3 R.d7 12 c3 :acS 13 "d2 ~xd5 (Black should avoid the endgame and prefer 13 ... ~eS with roughly equal chances) 14 exd5 ~xd4 15 R.xd4 R.xd4 16 "xd4 "cS 17 :ad1 "xd4+ IS :xd4 with a slight plus for White in the endgame, SandorTroyke, played in the German Bundesliga 1994/95. d) 1O... ~xdS! 11 exdS ~e5 transposes to line 'a31' in the note to White's ninth move above. 10 R.d7 Less common is 10... ~xd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.e6 (11....i.d7 is too passive: 12 "e2 R.c6 13 :adl :adS 14 "e3 ~d7 15 ~d5 R.xdS 16 exd5 and White had a typical structural advantage in RitzmannFlechsig, corr 19S9) and now: --'l a) 12 "d2 :fcS 13 :fdl ~d1 14 ~xg7 ~xg7 15 "d4+ ~f6 16 h3 "cS with a level endgame, Damjanovic-Gufeld, Sarajevo 1964. b) 12 ~dS?! .i.xdS! (less accurate is 12... ~xd5 13 exdS ~xd4+ 14 "xd4 R.d7 15 :fel :feS 16 ~hl "cS 17 :adl?! "xd4 IS :xd4 :acS with equality, WallinWennstrom, corr 1975, but White can improve with 17 1i'h4 with a siight plus) 13 exdS ~7 14 R.xg7 ~xg7 15 "d4+ f6 16 ~hl1Wb6 17 "e4:n IS f4 ~cS 19 "e3 as and Black had an edge in Pope-Silman, San Francisco 1974, but this was not exactly model play by White.

206 Main Lines with 7 iLc4 'ila5 c) 12 f4!? (this leads to an almost identical position to the one that arises after 10 h3 lbxd4 11 iLxd4 iLe6 12 f4, which is favourable for White; the question is whether Black can take advantage of White's omission of h2-h3) 12 ...lbd7 (in Mack-McCue, corr 1989, Black tried 12 ...iLg4, when after 13 'ilel e5 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 iLe3 iLe6 16 'ilh4 White was clearly better; however, 13 ... lbd7 looks like an improvement) 14 iLxg7 ~xg7 15 iLxe6 fxe6 16 'ii'g4 l:tf6 with roughly equal chances, but 15 tbd5 is slightly better for White. 11 'ii'd2 11 "el has been tried on occasion: 11...l:tac8 (11..Jlfc8!?) 12 l:tdl :tfd8 (l2 .....a6, intending ... lbe5-c4, is interesting, while in the game Domnitz-Reshevsky, Netanya 1969, Black tried 12 ... l:tfe8 13 "f2 tbe5 14 tbde2 b6 15 :td4 "a6 16 l:tfdl with slightly better chances for White) 13 ~hl (13 "f2 does not pose any problems for Black: 13 ... tbe5 14 l:td2 b5 15 l:tfdl tbc4 16 iLxc4 bxc4 17 tbde2 l:tc7 18 tbf4 iLc6 when Black was slightly better due to the open b-file in Scarlett-Gibbs, corr 1968) 13 ... lbe5 (again 13 .....a6, preventing 14 "e2, is interesting) 14 'ile2 a6 15 f4! iLg4 16 ttJf3 lbxf3 17 gxf3 iLe6 18 f5 i.xb3 19 axb3 ':c6 20 iLd4 :dc8 21 f4 ttJe8 22 b4 "d8 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 f5 ':'c4 25 fxg6 fxg6 26 iLxg7 tbxg7 27 "g4 "e8 28 ':d5 1-0 SpasskyGurgenidze, Leningrad 1960. Untried, but worth a shot is 11 tbdS, when l1...ttJxdS 12 exdS ttJxd4 13 iLxd4 iLxd4 14 "xd4 "c5 15 Iladl is better for White,

but I1..Jlfe8 should be okay. Two rare alternatives are: a) 11 ~hl lUc8 12 ttJdS "d8 (12 ...e6!? 13 lbxf6+ iLxf6 14 ttJxc6 l:txc6) 13 'i'd2 lbe5 14 c3 lbc4 (14 ... b5!?) 15 i.xc4 l'hc4 16 b3 ':'cc8 17 c4 lbxd5, KnollZnamenacek, Oberwart 1991, and White should now have played 18 exd5 with an edge. b) 11 lbde2! ? b5 (perhaps 11...:ac8!?, intending ... lbe5-c4) 12 a3 ':'ac8 13 lbf4 ':fe8 14 "e2 lbe5 15 'ii'f2 .ftc7, NevednichyCabrilo, Novi Sad 1993, and according to Nevednichy, White should now have continued with 16 lbcd5!? lbxd5 17 ttJxd5 :b7 18 iLd4! with a small edge for White. 11 :tfe8 11...':fe8 12 l:tadl ':'ac8 13 lbxc6 iLxc6 14 iLd4 b6 15 :tfel lbd7 16 iLxg7 ~xg7 17 f4 'i'c5 18 ~h 1 lbf6 is level, MikenasButnoris, USSR 1974. 12 :tadl

12 :tab8 Black has no problems after 12 ... lbe5 13 "e2 a6 14 f4?! iLg4 15lbf3 ttJxf3+ 16 gxf3 iLe6 with a slight plus for Black in BorgeCa. Hansen, Denmark 1995, nor

Main Lines with 7 J..c4 "a5 207

"f2

after 12 .....a6 13 lLle5 14lLld5 lLlxdS IS exd5 lLlc4 16 J..c 1 :cS 17 c3 llac8 18 lLlc2 b5 19 lLle3 "iWb7 20 f4 fS with equal chances, Kosenkov-Osnos, Moscow 1964. ..a a6 13 14 lLlde2 bS 15 lLlf4 "d8 16 lLlcdS lLlxdS 17 lLlxdS J..e6 The safest. 17 ... J..xb2 would have left Black's kingside very vulnerable: 18 c3 J..a3 19 f4 with plenty of compensation for the pawn. The game continued: 18 f4 J..xd5 19 J..xdS e6 19 ... .i.xb2 20 fS is too dangerous for Black. 20 J..b3 lLlaS 21 fS ltIxb3 22 cxb3 exfS 23 exfS J..eS 24 J..d4 Interesting is 24 fxg6 hxg6 2S "f7+ 'it>h8 26 J..d4, but Black can defend with 26 ... J..xd4 (26 .....e8 27 J..xeS dxeS 28 lld7 is very good for White) 27 llxd4 "iWb6. 24.....f6 25 fxg6 "xa+ 26 :xa hxg6 27 J..eS dxeS 28 :e2 :e8 29 :dS e4 30 :d4 fS 31 :d6 ct>t7 32 :xa6 112- 112 Game 77

H.Olafsson-Kagan Randers zt 1982

(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ltIc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltIxd4 g6 5 ltIc3 J..g7 6 J..e3 ltIf6 7 J..c4 8 0-0 0-0 9 J..b3 d6)

"as

10 h3 (see following diagram) 10 J..d7 Black almost always answers with this natural move, connecting the rooks and supporting a later ... b7-bS. Other moves fail to impress:

a) 1O•.. ltIhS?! (hoping for 11 "d2? lLlxd4 12 J..xd4 J..xd4 13 "xd4 ttJf4 with equality) Illt1dS!? (Parma gives 11 f4!? ttJxd4 12 J..xd4 J..xd4 13 "xd4 ttJxf4 14 :xf4 eS IS :xf7! with a clear edge for White, while in Ciocaltea-Bilek, Bucharest 1968, White tried 11 ttJde2 J..e6 12 g4?! [12 f4 looks better] 12 ...ltIf6 13 ttJg3?! [13 ltIf4! was slightly better for White] 13 ... ttJd7 14 J..d2 ttJdeS IS f4 ltIc4 16 J..xc4 "cS 17 ~g2 J..x~4~~d Black was much better) 1 ~d8 12 ttJfS?! (White cannot resist the temptation to create complications; sane and much better was 12 c3 or 12 'iVd2, when Black seems to have wasted time) 12...gxfS 13 "xhS e6 (l3 ... fxe4!? 14 J..h6 J..xh6 IS "xh6 J..fS 16 lLlf4 ct>h8 17 lLlhS :g8 18. J..xf7 "f8! - Silman and Donaldson) 14 ttJc3 fxe4 IS ltIxe4 d5 16 lladl fS 17 ltIgS h6 18 c4!? with a mess, but White later won in Griinfeld-Kagan, Tel Aviv 1986. b) 1O.•. ltIxd4?! 11 J..xd4 J..e6 (Parma-Pirc, Beverwijk 1963, continued instead l1...bS 12 J..xf6 J..xf6 13 ltId5 J..xb2 14 ltIxe7+ rl;g7 IS :bl "c3 16 "xd6 and White had the best of it) 12 f4 (this

208 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as may not be the most accurate; Gufeld gives 12 :e1!, intending liJdS, and 12 .i.xe6 fxe6 13 eS!, when in both cases White stands better) 12 ...:fcS (12 ...:acS 13 "d3 liJd7 14 .i.xg7 ~xg7 15 "d4+ ~gS 16 fS .i.xb3 17 axb3 'it'b6 IS "xb6 axb6 19 :a7 is slightly better for White, Gauilanes-D.Rodriguez, Havana 1990, or 12 ... a6 13 "f3 1WhS? [13 ... liJd7 was necessary] 14 :acS IS :ael .i.c4 16 eS dxeS 17 :xeS+, Tal-Stefanov, Kislovodsk 1966, while 12 ... liJrl7 also gives White an advantage after 13 .i.xg7 ~xg7 14 liJdS) 13 "d3 "c7 14 liJbS? (14 .i.xe6 fxe6 IS eS is better) 14 .....c6 IS liJxa7 :xa7 16 .i.xa7 b6 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 IS 'it'b3 "xe4 19 .i.xb6 liJxdS 20 :ael "xc2 21 "xc2 :xc2 22 .i.a7 :xb2 23 :xe6 112-1/2 Ciric-Panna, Ljubljana 1960. c) lO...1WhS?! was used by Kamsky against Short in their 1994 PCA Candidates match in Linares. Short chose to transpose into the main line, but it would have been interesting to see what Kamsky had in mind against 11 "d2! (see line 'c4' below). White has: cl) 11 f4 .i.d7 (11.....xdl 12 :axdl .i.d7 13 liJf3, intending e4eS, is better for White) transposes into 10 h3 .i.d7 11 f4 1Whs - see Game SI. c2) 11 liJdS "xdl 12 :axdl liJxd4 13 .i.xd4 liJxdS 14 exdS .i.d7 IS :fel :feS is equal - Ubilava. c3) 11 "xhS liJxhS 12 :adl liJxd4 13 .i.xd4 liJf4 14 :fel .i.e6 IS liJdS .i.xdS 16 exdS i.f6 1/2- 1/2 Jonasson-Frey, Reykjavik 1982. c4) 11 "d2! i.d7 12 ~de2 "as 13 i.h6 :tac8 14 .i.xg7 ~xg7 IS f4

with a clear edge for White, SydorFilipowicz, Poland 1969. 11 :el

"£2

White's intentions with this move are strictly positional, planning to play his c3-knight to dS to make it more difficult for Black to create counterplay. If Black captures the knight, White will often be clearly better due to his pressure against Black's backward pawn on e7 and general space advantage. The main alternative, 11 f4, is the subject of Games 79-83. 11 :ac8 11 ... :feS is seen in the next game. Two rarer alternatives are: a) 11...:fcS 12 f4! (this is a strong plan, as Black's rook has left the f-file) 12 ...1Whs 13 liJf3 :dS? 14 "e2 e6 IS :ad1 i.e8 16 "fl, intending 17 g4 with a strong attack, Pietzsch-Damjanovic, Sarajevo 1966. Kapengut suggests 13 ... bS as an improvement, but even then White has the better chances. b) l1...liJxd4 12 i.xd4 i.c6 (not 12 ... eS 13 i.e3 .i.c6 14 "xd6 liJxe4 IS liJxe4 i.xe4 16 i.d2 "dS 17 "xd8 :fxdS 18 .i.gS, winning the exchange) 13liJdS and now:

Main Lines with 7..tc4"aS 209

bl) 13 ....i.xdS?! 14 exdS :fe8 15 Wf3 ~d7 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17 :e3 with a strong initiative for White, Sigurjonsson-Bochosian, Tbilisi 1974, or 15 c4 a6 16 ':cl ~d7 17 J-xg7 ~xg7 18 ':c3 ':ac8 19 l:lce3 with a clear edge, T.Tolnai-Oney, Komotini 1992. b2) Eduard Gufeld recommends 13; .. e5!? but 14 J-c3 Wd8 15 Wd2, intending ':adl, gave White the better chances in TodorovicKunovac, Zlatibor 1989. 12 "e21 This is White's only real try for an advantage. Less convincing are: a) 12 "d2 l:lfe8 transposing to the next game. b) 12 "d3 (this move was introduced by Ljubojevic, but it does not give Black a hard time) 12 ... ~eS! (White gains the upper hand after 12 ... ~xd4 13 ..txd4 ':fe8?! [13 .....tc6 is not joyful either, as after 14 ':adl ~d7 IS J-xg7 ~xg7 16 ~d5 White has somewhat the better prospects] 14 f4 ..tc6 15 e5 ~h5 16 "e3 ..th6 17 e6 f5 18 l:lfl ':f8 19 l:ladl with a clear plus for White in LigterinkKagan, Haifa 01 1976) 13 "e2 (White now threatens f2-f4) 13 ...Wa6! (other tries are worse: 13 ... ':xc3 14 ..td2 or 13 ... b5? 14 a4 b4 15 ~dS ':fe8 16 ~b5 ~c6 17 l:lad1 ~xe4 18 ~xa7! and White soon won, Ljubojevic-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1976) (see following diagram) 13 ...Wa6! is a brilliant idea of Silman's. Black takes control of the c4-square, and this suffices to generate enough counterplay to compensate for his damaged pawn structure. For example, 14 "xa6 bxa6 15 ':ad1 (15 ~d5?! ~xdS 16

J-xdS ~c4 17 ..txc4 ':xc4 18 c3 :b8 19 l:le2 e5 20 ~f3 ':c7 21 ':dl ':f8 22 ':cl J-b5 23 .:d2 ..tc6 24 ':el f5 with a distinct advantage for Black in Povah-Silman, England 1978) 1!L.~c4 16 ..tc1 as 17 ~dS?! ~xdS 18 exdS ~b6! and Black was better in KramerCa.Hansen, Denmark 1996. White should have tried 17 a4 to limit Black's queenside activity.

c) 12 ~d5 Wd8 (after 12 ... ':fe8 13 J-d2 "cS 14 ~f3 ~xdS 15 exdS ~aS 16 ..te3 "c7 17 c3 ~18 J-d4 Black ended up in a dead end in L. Bronstein-Kagan, Rio de Janeiro 1979; in Pietzsch-Panno, Lugano 1968, Black tried 1S ...~d4 but after 16 ~xd4 ..txd4 17 ..te3 ..txe3 18 ':xe3 b5 19 "d2 ':c7 20 ':ae 1 White held the better prospects) 13 ~bS ~xd5 (l3 ... ~xe4? loses to 14 ~xa7 ~xa7 IS ..tb6 "e8 16 ..txa7; Black has also tried 13 ..."a5, but after 14 a4! ..te6 IS ..tgS J-xdS 16 exdS ~e5 17 ..td2 "a6 18 "e2 ':fe8 19 ..ta3 b6 20 as, he was experiencing great pain in Vasiukov-Roizman, Moscow 1972) 14 exdS ~aS IS ~d4 bS 16 c3 ':e8 (this may not be necessary; instead 16... ~c4 is worth consideration, e.g. 17 ..tg5 ':e8 18 "e2 Wb6 or 17 ..txc4 ':xc4 18 ..tgS

210 Main Lines with 7 Jl..c4 'i'a5 l:te8 19 'i'e2 .a8 or 17 ... bxc4!?) 17 'i'd2 (better seems 17 tLlc2 'i'c7 18 Jl..d4 Jl..h6 with a slight plus. Hennings-Kapengut. Lublin 1973) 17 ... tLlc4 18 Jl..xc4 l:txc4 19 tLlc2 'ii'a8 (here T.Georgadze has recommended 19... a5 20 Jl..d4 b4 21 Jl..xg7 ~xg7 22 cxb4 'i'c7 23 l:te2 l:tc8 24 tLla3 l:tcl. but as Silman and Donaldson correctly point out. Black loses a pawn after 25 l:txci 'ii'xcI+ 26 'i'xci l1xcl+ 27 ~h2 axb4 28 tLlc2 Jl..b5 29 l:td2) 20 Jl..g5 Jl..fS 21 l1adl l:tc5 22 Jl..e3 l:tc7 23 Jl..h6 Jl..f5! 24 Jl..xfS (24 tLlb4 a5 25 tLlc6 e5) Jl..xc2 25 'ii'xc2 l:txfS 26 'ii'd2 l:tb8 (intending ....:bb7• .....fS-g7) 112-112 Vogt-T.Georgadze. Lublin 1974. 12 tLlxd4?! In Sigurjonsson-L.Garcia, Bogota 1978, Black was tempted by 12 ... tLlxe4? but realised too late that it was actually the losing move: 13 tLlxc6 Jl..xc6 14 tLlxe4 Jl..xb2 (14 ... Jl..xe4 15 Jl..d2 is even worse) 15 l:tabl Jl..g7 16 Jl..d2 and Black was lost. However, worth a try is 12 ... 'i'h5!?, when White cannot go for the pawn win: 13 'i'xh5 tLlxh5 14 tLlxc6 bxc6 15 Jl..xa7 Jl..xc3 16 bxc3 c5 or 13 tLlxc6 bxc6 14 Jl..xa7 'i'xe2 15 ':xe2 c5 and White's bishop is lost. Probably best is 13 tLlf3, when White IS slightly better. 13 Jl..xd4 Jl..c6 14 l:tadl l:tfeS 14 ... b5 is possible, but after 15 tLld5 Jl..xd5 16 exd5 White is clearly better. IS 'i'e3! tLld7 Worse is 15 ... b6 16 tLld5 tLlxd5 17 exd5 i.b7 18 c3 ':c7 19 Jl..xg7 ~xg7 20 l:td4!, and White was having the time of his life in

Lanka-Veremeichik, 1979. 16 tLld5 17 exd5 IS Jl..xg7 19 "d4+ 20 l:te2 21 c3 22 l:.del 23 axb3 24 'i'f4

Daugavpils i.xd5 tLlc5
b5 l:tc7 tLlxb3 "b6 'i'b7

It seems as if Black has solved most of his problems by exchanging all the minor pieces, but he is still left with a very passive position, while the backward a7- and e7-pawns are permanent weak-

nesses. 25 l:td2 l:tcS 26 h4 "as 27 "13 hS 2S b4 l:tc4 29 l:tde2 ~f8 30 g3 as 31 :al a4 32 b3 :c7 33 bxa4 bxa4 34 :da2 "cS 35 :xa4 l:.xc3 36 "f4
"as "eI

Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as 211 penetration on the back rank. 47 'ii'xe4 fxe4 48 f3 ~f6 49 fxe4 e6 50 dxe6 ~xe6 51 ~f3 ~f5 52
(1 e4 c5 2 ti)f3 ti)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti)xd4 g6 5 ti)c3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ti)f6 7 ~c4 'ii'a5 8 0-0 0-0 9 ~b3 d6 10 h3 ~d711 :e1) 11

:fe8

This is probably Black's best answer to 11 :el. For a while Black nullifies White's intention to play ti)d5. 12 'ii'd2 This is White's most common try, but not necessarily the best. Other attempts: a) 12 f4 (this does not seem logical in combination with 11 l:el) 12 ... ti)xd4 13 ~xd4 :ad8 (13 ...e5!? is interesting, although after 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 ~e3 ~e6 16 'ii'f3 a6 17 :fl 'fIc7 18 b5 19 ~g5 ti)h5 20 ti)d5 White held a strong initiative in Griinfeld-

:£2

"f3

Nikolic, Belgrade 1989) 14 15 :adl ti)d7 16 ~xg7 ~xg7 17 f5 (it seems wrong to leave the e5-square in Black's hands, but it is hard to come up with anything better, e.g. 17 ti)d5 e6 is also okay 18 ..g3 "e5 19 for Black) 17 ... 1i'h4 ti)f6 20 :d2 e6 21 It)d5!? l:fe8 22 fxe6 fxe6 23 ti)c7 :e7, Medina-Bellon, Palma de Mallorca 1971, and here 24 ti)xe6 ltxe6 25 ~xe6 g5! 26 'fIf2 'ii'xe6 27 e5 ti)e4 wins for Black. b) 12 "d3 l:Iac8 (Baumbach mentions 12 ...:tad8, intending to meet 13 ti)d5 with ... e7-e6) 13 f4 (more logical is 13 :tadl ti)xd4 14 ~xd4 ~c6 15 'fIf3 a6 16 ti)d5 ti)d7 17 ~xg7 ~xg7 18 a3!? e6 19 ti)b4 'fIe5 20 c3 'ii'e5 21 "e3 'fIc5 22 c4 Ill_Ill Bryson-Baumbach, corr 1989) 13 ... a6 (better is 13 ...ti)xd4 14 ~xd4 ti)h5!, as after 15 i,xg7 'iPxg7 16 'fIf3 'ii'c5 17 ~hUc6 Ill-Ill, as in Schoneberg-Baumbach, Schwerin 1969, Black has sufficient counterplay on the queenside) 14 ti)f3 (14 ltadl b5 15 a3 "c7 16 ti)xc6 ~xc6 17 ~c1 ti)d7 18 ti)d5 ~xd5 19 'ii'xd5 "c5 was about equal in Walther-Nagomi, corr 1986) I4 .....c7 15 ]:tadl ti)a5 16 e5 ti)xb3 17 exf6 ti)c5 18 "d2 exf6 (also to be considered is 18 ... ~xf6 19 ti)d5 ti)e4; there could follow 20 ti)xc7 ti)xd2 21 ti)xe8 ti)xf3+ 22 gxf3 l:Ixe8 with an interesting endgame) 19 "xd6 ~e6 20 'ii'xc7 Axc7 21 ~d4 Aee8 22 g4 f5 23 gxf5 gxf5 24 Ad2 (White tries to improve on Sorokin-Baumbach, corr 1977, which continued 24 ~xg7 ~xg7 25 ti)d4 ~6 26 l:e5 Ad8 27 l1tf2 Acd7, when Black had no problems and in fact later won) 24 ... ~xd4 25 ti)xd4 b5 26 a3 ltd7 ~c6

:f8

212 Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 "as 27 l:te5 f6!? 28 l:txc5 (this leads to a draw, but the tempting alternative 28 :g2+ is no good: 28 .. .'~h8! 29 l:txc5 :xcS 30 lLlxe6 l:tc6 31 :e2 l:tdd6 32 tLlf8 ~g8 33 :e8 ~f7 followed by ... l:tc7-e7-e8 and the knight will be lost) 28 ... l:txcS 29 lLlxe6 l:txd2 30 lLlxcS 112-112 Kramer-Ca.Hansen, corr 1995. c) 12 "e2 and now: cl) Again 12 ... lLlxe4? does not work, since after 13lLlxc6 -'.xc6 14 lLlxe4 (1-0 Neukirch-Baumbach, Schwerin 1969) 14... .i.xe4 IS -'.d2 Black loses a piece. c2) Also bad is 12 ... l:tad8? 13 l:tadllLlxd4 14 -'.xd4 -'.c6 15 "f3! (Black answers IS lLldS with IS ... lLld7 followed by ...e7-e6) 15 ... bS 16 lLldS -'.xdS 17 exd5 :c8 18 l:te3 and Black was suffering, P.Popovic-Renet, Dubai 01 1986. c3) 12 ... tLlxd4 13 -'.xd4 -'.c6 14 l:tadl :ac8 IS "e3 b6 16 lLldS! with a nice advantage for White, Vogt-Roizman, East Germany 1969. c4) 12 ... 'ii'hS! and now: c41) 13 lLlf3 lLleS 14 lLlxeS "xeS (this has been regarded as equal since Ree-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1976, but things are not that easy) 15 "d3 -'.c6 16 -'.d4 "as 17 lLldS lLlxdS? (17 ... lLld7!?) 18 exdS -'.d7 19 -'.xg7 ~xg7 20 l:te3 with a clear edge for White, GonschiorLerch, corr 1982. c42) 13 "xhS has also been tried, when after 13 ... lLlxhS 14 l:tadl lLlxd4 IS -'.xd4 -'.c6 16 lLld5 -'.xd4 17 l:txd4 l:tac8 18 eS -'.xdS 19 l:txd5 dxeS 20 l:td7 l:tb8 21 :xeS e6 22 l:tbS White was winning, De.Markovic-Jelic, Belgrade 1989. Black could try to improve with 14 ... lLlf6 or Is ... lLlf4.

12 l:tac8 Black has three other valid alternatives: a) 12 ...:ad8 13 l:tadl a6 14 lLlf3 -'.c8 15 -'.h6 lLle5 16 lLlxeS 17 "e3 -'.xh6 18 "xh6 e6 19 "e3 ~g7 20 lLlbl l:td4 21 lLld2 l:ted8 with equality, Koch-Ivkov, Dortmund 1989. b) 12 ... lLlxe4!? 13 lLlxc6 "xc3! (or 13 ... -'.xc3?! 14 "xc3?! [14 lLlxaS -'.xd2 15 -'.xd2 lLlxd2 16 -'.d5 is better for White] 14 .....xc3 15 lLlxe7+ l:txe7 16 bxc3 lLlxc3 17 -'.d4 :xel lLlbS 19 l:te7 lLlxd4 20 -'.xf7+ ~g7 21 l:txd7 ~f6 22 c4 b5 with a drawish endgame in AnkaP.Kiss, Dortmund 1988) 14 bxc3 lLlxd2 15 lLlxe7+ l:txe7 16 -'.xd2 l:txel+ 17 :xel-'.c618 :e7 d5 19 l:te3 d5 with equal chances, Kristiansen-Borge, Danish ch 1996. c) 12 ... lLlxd4 13 -'.xd4 -'.c6, which stops 14 lLldS and threatens ... lLlxe4. 13 lLlf3 In Delacroix-Jenal, corr 1989, White gave 13 l:tadl a try, but Black was untroubled after 13 ... bS 14 a3 lLle5 IS lWe2 lLlc4 16 -'.cl eS. 13 a6?!

Main Lines with 7.i.c4 'ii'aS 213 Better was the immediate 13 ... b5 or 13 ...1t1h5 14 :abl ltle5 15 .i.xe5 i.xe5 161t1e2 'ii'xd2 17 .i.xd2 i.b5 18 i.c3 .i.xe2 19 .i.xe5 dxe5 20 'ii'xe2 :ed8 with equal play, KochTal, Marseilles 1989. 14 :adl b5 15 .i.h6 ltld8 Also possible is 15 ... .i.h8 16 ltlg5 'ii'c5 17 f4 (or 17 'ii'f4 lZ)c4 18 ltld5 .i.c6 19 c3 .i.xd5 20 :xd5 .i.g7 21 'ii'h4 e6 22 .i.xg7 ~xg7 23 :xd6 ltlxd6 24 e5 'ii'd8 25 exf6+ 'ii'xf6 26 'ii'xh7+ ~f8 27 'ii'h4 ~g7 28 'ii'h7+ ~ 29'ii'h4 112-112, as in the game Chandler-W.Watson, London 1987) 17... 1t1c4 18 e5!? lZ)h5? (18 ... b4! 19 ltlce4 lZ)xe4 20 :xe4 .i.e6 21 .i.xc4 .i.xc4 22 b3 .i.e6 and White has somewhat better chances - Jansa) 19 'ii'f2 ltlg7 20 g4 b4 21 ltld5 ltle6 22 f5! with a fierce attack, Jansa-W.Watson, Gausdal 1988. 16 lOd4 :cS 17 a3 .i.xh6 18 'ii'xh6 :hS 19 'ii'f4 .i.e6 20 .i.xe6 .i.xe6 21 g4! :xh3 T.Georgadze gives 21...:c5 22 b4 'ii'xa3 as interesting. 22 f3 According to T. Georgadze, Black should now have continued with 22 ... g5 23 'ii'xg5+ ~h8 24 'ii'd2 b4 25 lOd5 .i.xd5 26 axb4 'ii'b6 27 ~g2 :xf3 28 ~xf3 .i.b7 with some compensation for the exchange. Instead, Black unfortunately chose: 22 ... b4? 23 axb4 'ii'xb4 24 ~g2! 'ii'xb2 2S lOdS! .i.xdS 26 exdS ltlxdS 27 'iVd2 :h4 28 ~g3 ltlc3 29 :al lOe2 30 ltlxel 'iVf6 31 gS 1-0

Game 79

Pletzsch-Kapengut Byelorussia-East Germany 1968

(1 e4 cS 2 ltlf3 lZ)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lOxd4 g6 S lOc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lOf6 7 .i.c4 'iVaS 8 0-0 0-0 9 .i.b3 d6 10 h3.i.d7)

11

f4

wm!

In contrast to 11 :el, 11 f4 White hopes to get something going on the kingside. Black has a number of different moves and plans at his disposal, most of which, however, are inadequate for equality. 11 :ac8?! Later we will analyse Black's main alternatives 11...'ii'h5 (Game 81) and 11...1t1xd4 (Games 82 and 83). Other tries are: a) ll...b5 12 lLld5 (Euwe gives 12 e5! as stronger: 12 ... dxe5 13 ltlxc6 .i.xc6 14 fxe5 ltle8 15 ltldS .i.xdS 16 .i.xdS :d8 17 'iVf3 .i.xe5 18 .i.xf7 with a clear advantage for White, but there is no reason for Black to allow his opponent to take on f7, so 17... e6 looks like an improvement) 12 ...1t1xdS 13 exdS ltlxd4 14 .i.xd4 'ii'b4 15 .i.xg7

214 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "a5 rj;xg7 16 c3 'it'c5+ with a fair game for Black, Schoeneberg-Baumbach, East Germany 1966. b) ll...e5?! 12 ~xc6 ~xc6 13 f5! l:.ad8 (things are already a little difficult for Black but in ShortWagman, Lugano 1986, Black now made things much worse: 13 ... i.xe4? 14 ~xe4 ~xe4 15 fxg6 hxg6 16 l:txf7! ':xf7 17 i.xf7+ rj;xf7 18 'it'f3+ and the game was soon over) 14 fxg6!? hxg6 15 i.g5 ~xe4 16 ~xe4 i.xe4 17 i.xd8 "xd8 and White has the better chances. c) 1l...':fc8?! Usually Black has to be very careful when he moves his rook away from fS, as White may take advantage of the lack of protection of the f7-pawn. 12 a3?! (12 ~f3! clearly favours White) 12 ... ~xd4 13 i.xd4 i.c6 141M3 ~d7 15 i.xg7
Kan's move from 1936; the idea is to prevent e4-e5, but it is very passive and with correct play White obtains a clear advantage: dl) 12 f5 ~e5 (in the stem game Black incorrectly sacrificed a piece with 12 ... ~xe4?, but was rewarded when White answered 13 ~d5?,

and Black went on to win in Chekhover-Kan, Leningrad 1936; correct was 13 c!l)xe4 "e5 14 Wd3 ~b4 15 "d2 "xe4 16 ':ael, when Black is much worse) 13 "el i.c6 14 ~xc6 bxc6 15 g4 1rb4 16 a3 "'7 17 'ii'h4 d5 with chances for both sides, Damjanovic-Baumbach, Bad Liebenstein 1963. d2) 12 Wf3lLlxd4 13 i.xd4 i.c6 14 ~d7! (of course not 14 ... ~xe4?? 15 c!l)xe4 i.xe4 16 i.xg7 Q;xg7 17 Wd4+) 15 i.xg7 (15 i.xa7? only leads to trouble: 15 ... b6 16 i.d5 i.xc3! 17 i.xc6 i.b4! winning a piece) 15 ... ~xg7 16 "d4 ~f6 with equal chances. d3) 12 "d3 (in the game ShortKorchnoi, Garmisch-Partenkirchen 1994, Black now chose to transpose to Game 83 with 12 ...i.xd4 13 i.xd4 i.c6) 12 ... ~b4! (not 12 ...:fe8? 13 ~f3 "c7 14 g4 ~a5 15 f5 i.c6 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 i.xf7+! rj;xf7 18 e5 with a strong attack in Neikirch-Baumbach, East Germany 1967; a nice demonstration of why the rook should stay on fS) 13 "e2 (13 "d2 ~a6 followed by ... ~c5 is fine for Black) 13... e5 14 ~f3 ~h5 and Black can be satisfied with the position. d4) 12 ~f3! (Romanovsky's 1937 recommendation is still considered strongest) 12... b5 (12 ...'ii'h5 was tried out in Krogh-Ca.Hansen, Denmark 1995, but Black came up short after 13 'iVd2 b5 14 a3 a5 15 Wd3 b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 "e2 i.c6 18 e5! dxe5 19 l:.xa5) 13 a3 a6 14 WeI Wc7 15 'ii'h4 'iVb8 16 g4 a5 17 f5 gxf5 18 exf5 a4 19 i.a2 b4, Kurajica-Hiibner, Barcelona 1965, and now instead of 20 ~d5 b3, better was 20 axb4 ~xb4 21 g5 with a very strong attack.

"f2

Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'ii'a5 215

12 'ii'0 For 12 lZ)f3! see the next game. The alternatives are less troublesome for Black: a) 12 f5?! lZ)e5 (as the reader will know from the line 1l...l:ad8, 12 ... lZ)xe4? does not work for Black: 13 'ii'xe4 'ii'e5 14 'iVd3 lZ)b4 15 'ii'd2 'ii'xe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 J:lael) 13 'iVel lZ)c4 14 ~xc4 ::'xc4 15 lZ)b3 'iVc7 16 ~d4 :txd4 17 lZ)xd4 'iVb6 with compensation for the exchange, lanosevic-Stein, Sarajevo 1967. b) 12 'iVd3 lZ)b4 (12 ... lZ)xd4 13 ~xd4 ~c6 transposes to 11...lZ)xd4 - see Game 83) 13 'ii'e2 (13 1Wd2!? ttJa6 14 ttJf3 ttJc5 15 e5 ttJe8 16 'iith 1 was problematic for Black in Gaponenko-M.Calzetta, Buenos Aires 1993; 13 ...~c6 may be an improvement) 13 ... lZ)a6 14 'ii'f3 lZ)c5 15 1:tadl lZ)xb3 16 lZ)xb3 'iVc7 17 :tf2 b6 with equal chances, as in the game Panna-Stein, YugoslaviaUSSR 1965. 12 'ii'hS! Black threatens to equalise by exchanging queens and thereby gains time to start an attack with his queenside pawns. Other possibilities are:

a) 12 ...lZ)h5? 13 lZ)de2 lZ)f6 14 g4, Littleton-Yanofsky, Lugano 01 1968. b) 12 ...a6?! 13 'ii'f2! 'ii'h5 14 lZ)de2 b5 15 a3 'oii>h8 16 l:1adllZ)a5, Pietzsch-Szabo, Kecskemet 1966, and now 17 f5! is strong. c) 12 ... lZ)xd4 13 ~xd4 ~c6 14 l:1adl e6!? (both 14...b5 15 'ii'e3 b4 16 lZ)d5 ~xd5 17 exd5, lanosevicKagan, Netanya 1971, and 16 e5 lZ)e8 17lZ)e4 ~xe4 18 'ii'xe4 e6 19 c3, Hector-Wilder, Cannes 1989 slightly favour White) 15 'ii'£2 b6 16 f5 (White goes for the attack, but 16 e5 with equality would have been more advisable) 16 ... gxf5 17 exf5 e5! 18 ~e3 d5 19 'ii'h4 ::'cd8 20 ~g5 ::'d6 21 ~xf6 ~xf6 22 1Wel 112-112 was lanosevic-Schubert, Dortmund 1987. In the final position Black was much better. 13 'ii'f2 This is still regarded-aJthe main line, but since Black is at least equal here, White must try something else at some point, perhaps even as early as here. So far, White has also attempted: a) 13 g4? ~xg4! 14 hxg4 lZ)xg4 15 :tfdl 'ii'h2+ 16 ~1 lZ)xe3+ 17 'ihe3 lZ)xd4 18 ::'xd4 'ii'hl+ and Black was winning in MesingKarev, Yugoslavia 1966. b) 13 :tadl lZ)xd4! (13 ... lZ)a5 14 g4?! [14 'ii'f2! slightly favours White] 14... lZ)xg4 15 hxg4 ~xg4 16 'ii'hl ~xdl 17 :txdl 'ii'xhl+ 18 ~xhl ttJxb3 19 axb3 :tfe8 with an equal endgame in MnatsakanianStein, Yerevan 1965) 14 'ii'xh5 (14 ~xd4 'iVxf3 15 'ii'xf3 ~c6 16 lZ)d5 lZ)xd5 17 exd5 ~d7 18 ::'e3 :tfe8 19 c3 a5 leads to equality, Rubinetti-Panno, Buenos Aires 1968) 14... lZ)xh5 15 ~xd4 ~xd4+ 16

216 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as :xd4 .i.e6 (inaccurate is 16 ... .i.c6?! 17 :d2 filf6 18 eS! 1Cle4 19 IClxe4 .i.xe4 20 exd6 exd6 21 c3 with a slight plus for White, Teufel-Toran, Bamberg 1968) 17 :f2? ! (17 :d2 was still equal) 17 ...a6 (Silman and Donaldson give 17...lClxf4 18 :b4 .i.xb3 19 axb3 lCle6 as good for Black) 18 g4? IClxf4 19 :xf4 ~xb3 and Black was on top in Teufel-Kestler, Bamberg 1968. c) 13 IClxc6!? (White's most recent try, which Kamsky used to win an important game in his candidates match against Anand in Sanghi Nagar 1994. though with correct play Black should be okay) 13 ... .i.xc6 14 g4! "as 15 :tadl (15 gS? loses to 15 ...lClxe4 161Clxe4 d5 17 IClg3 d4) 15 ... b5 16 g5 ICld7 17 fS and at this point Anand chose 17 ... .i.xc3?! and got into difficulties. In Informator Ubilava analyses instead 17...gxf5!: cl) 18 'fibs .i.xc3 19 g6! IClf6! (19 ...hxg6 20 "xg6+ ~h8 21 'fIb6+ ~g8 22 ~ wins for White) 20 'fIb6 .i.xe4 (also interesting is 20...~xb2, intending .....c3) 21 bxc3 (21 ~ hxg6 22 "xg6+ ~h8 23 'fIb6+ IClh7 24 bxc3 :tg8 25 :gl :xgl 26 :xgl "xc3, intending .....f6) 21.. ...xc3! (21...:xc3? 22 gxh7+ IClxh7 23 ~f2. intending :gl and wins) 22 ~f2 (22 gxh7+ filxh7 23 ~ "f6 clearly favours Black) 22 .. .f4! 23 gxf7+ ~h8 24 "f4 (intending .i.d4) 24 ... :tc4 25 ~xc4 "xc4 26 ~d4 :Xii with an initiative for Black c2) 18 "f5 e6 19 "f4 with chances for both sides. 13 bS! A brilliant idea of Stein's that takes advantage of the tactically

weak e4-pawn. The alternatives are too slow to prevent White's kingside build-up: a) 13 ... lCla5? (Black intends to sacrifice the exchange on c3, putting more pressure on the e4-pawn. but this plan is easy for White to meet) 14 IClde2! b6 IS f5! (Black's queen is now caged in, and White just has to catch it!) 15 ... g5 16 "g3 h6 17 'fIb2! IClc4 18 ~d4lClxb2 19 :tael IClc4 20 ICld5 IClxdS 21 g4 i.xd4+ 22 IClxd4 'fIb4 23 exd5 lCle5 24 :xe5 1-0 Tal-Gazik, Sarajevo 1966. b) 13 ... lClb4?! (the same theme: Black wants to play ...:xc3) 14 IClde2 as 15 a3 lCla6 16 e5 dxe5 17 IClg3 1fh4 18 fxe5 IClh5 19 IClxh5 "xh520 ~xf7+ ~h8 21 "d2 and White is on top, Sakharov-Stein, Tallinn 1965.

ICldxbS 14 The only move if White wants to battle for the advantage. The alternatives have led to disappointing results for White: a) 141Clxc6 ~xc6 15 i.d4 b4 16 e5 (16 ICld5 .i.xd5 17 exd5 lCle4 18 "e3.i.xd4 19 "xd4lClg3 loses an exchange) 16...bxc3 17 exf6 .i.xf6 18 bxc3 .i.xd4 19 cxd4 i.e4 with a

Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 "as 217

slightly better game for Black, played 26 ... ~d4 27 "e3 ~xb3 28 Tsarenkov-Kapengut, USSR 1968. "xe7 tLlc5 29 ~f5 gxfS 30 "f6+ b) 14 tLlde2 b4 IS tLlg3 'ii'h4 16 with a draw) 21 .i.f4 (better is 21 tLldS (16 tLlce2 tLlaS 17 tLld4 tLlhS .i.d2, although Black is better after 18 tLlge2 "xf2+ 19 ':xf2 eS also 21...gxf5 22 tLlxfS "xf2+ 23 ':xf2 favours Black, Sprenger-Scholz, .i.xfS) 2l...gxfS 22 .i.xeS+ ~xeS corr 1972) 16... tLlxdS 17 exdS tLlaS 23 ':d4 "f6 24 ':dS (or 24 ~xf5 18 ':abl .i.bS 19 ':fdl tLlc4 20 .i.xf5 2S "xf5 ~f3+) 24 ... ':g8 25 .i.xa7 tLlxb2 with an excellent po- ':xaS ..g5 26 ~e2 .i.c6 27 ~f4 sition for Black, Ciocaltea-Panno, tLlf3+ 28 ~hl "xf4 29 gxf3 :g3 30 .i.dS l:Ixh3 0-1 PopovychLugano 011968. c) 14 a3 as (14 ... tLla5!? may be Sherwin, USA 1968. 16 as better) 15 ':adl (or 15 tLlde2 a4 16 tLlg3 'ii'h4 17 .i.a2 b4 with an ini17 c4 "b4 tiative for Black, Tseshkovsky18 .i.d2! "b7 Kapengut, Odessa 1968) 15 ...b4 16 Bad is 18 ....i.d4? 19 "xd4 tLldS tLlxe4 17 ..e 1 bxa3 18 tLlxc6 ~xd4 20 .i.xb4 ~xb3 21 .i.xd6 .i.xc6 19 tLlxe7+ ~h8 20 tLlxc8! exd6 22 axb3. (20 tLlxc6 ':xc6 21 .i.dS ':xc2 22 20 .i.c3 ~b4 20 .i.xg7 ~xg7 21 .i.xe4 ':e2 is favourable for Black, "d4+ f6 22 cS dS! This practically forces a drawn Hulak-Romanishin, USSR 1969) 20 ... ':xc8 21 bxa3 .i.c3 22 .i.d4+ endgame, whereas 22 ... .i.c6? loses .i.xd4 23 ':xd4 "c5 24 "e3 tLlg3 to 23 cxd6 .i.xe4 24 ':fel. 2S ':fdl tLlf5 26 "f2 tLlxd4 27 23 ~xdS ~xdS 24 "XdSJi'xdS "xd4+ ~g8 with a likely draw 24 ....i.c6? 25 "e6 he4 26 ':d7 wins for White. Balashov. tLlxe4 2S ':xdS .i.c6 26 ':d4 eS! 27 fxeS 14 fxeS 28 ':xf8 112_112 IS ~xe4 "xbS 16 ':adl! White's best choice, planning Game 80 Klundt-Kapengut c4-cS. The other move tried here, 16 tLlg3, is considered bad: Ybbs 1968 16... aS!? (or 16... ~h8!? when 17 fS loses a pawn: 17....i.xf5 18 ~xf5 (1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 "xfS 19 "xf5 gxf5 20 ':xfS e6) 17 ~xd4 g6 S ~c3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 ~f6 7 a4 "'4 18 fS 'ith8 (l8 ... ~4 is a .i.c4 8 0-0 0-0 9 .i.b3 d6 10 suggestion of Silman and Donald- h3 .i.d7 11 f4 ':ac8?!) son; one line goes 19 fxg6 hxg6 20 12 ~f3! .i.xf7+ ~h7, when White has a (see/ollowing diagram) number of threats to meet) 19 :adl 'ii'h4 20 ':d3 .i.eS! (20 ... ':b8 led to 12 ~S The alternatives suit White fine: level chances in R.Byme-Stein, a) 12 ...bS? (taking away the Sarajevo 1967: 21 "el .i.xfS 22 ':xf4 "xf4!? 23 .i.xf4 .i.xd3 24 central control provided by the "d2 .i.a6 25 .i.h6 .i.xh6 26 "xh6, queen on as) 13 e5! ~e8 14 ~g5 when Black should now have e6 IS ~ce4 dS 16 .i.cS, Matulovic-

"as

218 Main Lines with 7 i1.c4 "a5

F.Petersen, Kapfenberg 1970.

lbxd5 exd5 IS c3 with an edge for White, I.Polgar-Szilagyi, Budapest 1968) 15 ...h6?! (here 15 ... d5 was a better try, but White should be better) 16 ~xe6 fxe6 17 J.xe6+ J.f7 18 J.xc8 l:txc8 19 ':xd6 J.c4, Zuckerman-Toran, Malaga 1968, and now 20 e5! J.xfl 21 exf6 .i.f8 22 l:td5 would have won for White.

13

b) 12 .. .l:lcd8?! 13 "el (also excellent is 13 'ife2 e5 14 fxe5 lbxe5 15 lbxe5 "xe5 16 i1.xa7 i1.c6 17 :'ae 1 lbd7 IS 'ifc4 and White had a full pawn extra, G.Garcia-limenez, Havana 1969) 13 ... i1.cS 14 l:tdl (ECO suggests 14 g4!?) 14 ... e6 15 'jj'b4 lbe8? (necessary was 15 ... 'ifh5 when after 16 g4 'ifxh4 17lbxh4 White has more space) 16 f5! exf5 1711d5 'ikc7 18 J.g5 J.e6 19 exf5 J.xc3 20 fxe6 fxe6 21 bxc3 exd5 22 J.xd5+ <;PhS 23 J.xc6 1-0 Kurajica-Kuijpers, Wijk aan Zee 1970. c) 12 ...:'fdS?! 13 "el e6!? (after 13 ... J.eS, it looked like Black was hit by a steamroller in I.Zaitsev-Dietze, Polanica Zdroj 1970: 14 f5! b5 15 fxg6 hxg6 16 'ifh4 lbe5 17 lbg5 lbc4 18 lbd5! lbxe3 19 lbxe7+ ~8 20 lbxg6+ fxg6 21 l:txf6+, and Black soon gave up) 14 l:tdl J.e8 15 lbg5 (less aggressive options are 15 :f2 b5 16 a3 b4 17 axb4 'ifxb4 18 i1.d2 lbd7 19 lba4 'ifb7 20 J.c3 lbb6 with equal chances, WeltonDonnelly, Warwickshire 1993, and 15 'iff2 d5?! [15 ... b5 should be okay for Black] 16 exd5 lbxd5 17

"el

The new move 13 "d3 has also served White quite well: 13 ...b5 14 a3 b4 15 axb4 lbxb4 16 "d2 lbc6 17 i1.c4 lba5 18 J.e2 lbc4 19 J.xc4 l:txc4 20 l:txa7 and Black had lost a pawn without compensation in Gild.Garcia-Oblitas, Havana 1992. An improvement for Black is badly needed, but not hard to come by: 14...a5 intending ... a5-a4 or ...b5b4looks like a clearly better try.

13

b5

14 a3! Clearly the strongest move, other tries have not been able to offer White any tangible advantage: a) 14 f5?! b4 15 lbe2 lbxe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 lbf4 'jj'b7! with a slight edge for Black in GliksmanRajkovic, Yugoslavia 1973. b) 14 e5?! dxe5 15 fxe5 lbxe5 16 lbxe5 "xe5 17 J.xa7 "xel 18 l:taxe 1 b4 with a completely level endgame - Gufeld. c) 14 ':dl!? b4!? (14 ... a5?! 15 a4 slightly favours White Korchnoi) 15 lbd5 "xe4 is given by Silman and Donaldson who now continue with 16 f5!? gxf5 17 lbf4 'jj'b6 18 lbe6 'ifg6 19 lbxfS l:txfS with plenty of compensation for the exchange. True, but it seems that White can improve by playing 16 J.xa7!?, when after 16... ~xa7 17 lbxe7+ ~h8 18 lbxc8 Black is ob-

Main Lines with 7.i.c4"a5 219 viously lost and 16 ... e6 fails to 17 lLlb6 l:tc7 IS lLlxd7 ':'xa7 (or Is .. Jbd7 19 "xe4 d5 20 "e3) 19 "'xe4 d5 20 .i.xd5. Best is probably 16 ... .i.f5 17 g4 .i.xg4 IS 'iVxe4 .i.xh3, which leads to a complicated position where White holds the better chances.

14 as 15 :dl a4 Bad is 15 ... b4? 16 lLld5 bxa3 (not 16...lLlxe4? 17 lLlb6 :cdS IS lLlxd7 l:txd5 19 .i.xd5 and wins) 17 lLlxf6 .i.xf6 IS :d5+. In In/ormator Maric gives 15 ... .i.e6 16 .i.xe6 fxe6 17 lLlg5 b4 as unclear, but 18 axb4 axb4 (or Is ... lLlxb4 19 :d2 and Black is in deep trouble) 19 lLle2 lLldS 20 lLlg3 'ii'h6 21 f5 gxf5 22 exf5 lLld5 23 l:txd5! exd5 24 lLle6 wins for White - Gufeld. In Dueball-Klein, West Gennany 1965, Black tried 17 ... lLldS IS e5 lLld5 (Boleslavsky gives IS ... b4 19 axb4 axb4 20 exf6 exf6 21 lLlde4 fxg5 22 fxg5 l:txc2 23 l:txf8+ ~xf8 24 + ri;e7 25 "'d3+ ':c6 26 lLlxd6 and White wins) 19 lLlxd5 exd5 20 :xd5, but his position was unenviable. 16 .i.a2 b4 17 lLldS bxa3

As we have seen before, 17... lLlxe4?? loses to IS lLlb6 :c7 19lLlxd7 Axd7 20 i.d5. 18 lLlxf6 18 bxa3 lLlxe4! 19 lLlb6 lLlf6 (or even 19....:.c7 20 lLlxd7 l:txd7 21 .i.d5lLlc3! 22 .i.xc6 :c7 and Black wins the piece back - Gufeld) 20 lLlxc8 ':'xcS gives Black some compensation for the exchange. 18 .i.xf6 19 :dS! On 19 e5 dxe5 20 :'xd7 exf4 21 .i.xf4 axb2 it seems that Black has sufficient compensation for the piece. 19 eS 20 :'xd6 Also possible is 20 bxa3 .i.e6 21 :xd6 exf4 22 .i.xf4 "c5 23 "e3 lLldS, when Black is doing well according to Levy, but White can improve with 22 :xe6 fxe6 23 .i.xe6+ q.,hS 24 .i.xcs fxe3 25 .i.d7, when Black was a pawn down in Ausinsch-Dauga, corr 1974. 20 exf4

"fl

21 .i.xf4? Boleslavsky's recommendation of 21 l:txf6! is much stronger, e.g. 21...fxe3 22 "xe3 (22 bxa3 "c5

220 Main Lines with 7 iLc4 'ilaS and Black defends the e3-pawn) 26 bxa3?! 22 ...axb2 23 ft:)g5, when although Here White misses another Black has an extra pawn, he has to golden opportunity: 26 e5! ttJxe5 prove himself capable of defending (26 ....te7 27 bxa3) 27 J.xe5 .txe5 against White's threats against his 28 ttJxeS ':'e8 29 ':'f7+ ~g8 30 'ilh4 h5 31 ..-f6 and wins - Maric. king, Boleslavsky continues: a) 23 ... ttJb4 24 .txf7+ ':'xf7 (or White is still clearly better though. 24 ...~g7 25 ':'d6 [ECO gives 25 26...':'e8 27':'12 .te3 28.td2 .i.b2 'ild4 ~h6 as unclear) 25 ....:.c7 26 29 ttJgS .tf6 ':xd7!) 25 ':'xf7 ft:)xc2 26 'ilxf4 29 ...ttJe5 30 J.b4 'ilc6 31 c3 ttJd3 32 ':'t7+ ~g8 33 'ilfl wins iLb5 27 ttJe6. b) 23 ...ft:)e5 24 'ilf4 ':'ce8 25 for White - Maric. ttJxf7 ttJxf7 26 ':'xf7. 30':'xf6! c) 23 ... ttJd8 24 ttJxf7 ttJxf7 25 An excellent move that forces ':'xf7 ':'xf7 26 .txf7+ ~g7 27 the win. 'ild4+! 30...~xf6 31 'ilf1+ ~e7 32 'ilf7+ d) 23 ... .te8 24 'ilf4 ttJd8 25 e5 ~d8 33 ft:)e6+ ':'xe6 34 'ilxe6 ~e7 h6 26 ttJe4! 3S J.f4+ ~b6 36 'ild7 'ilxe2 37 e) 23 ...iLe6 24 ttJxe6 fxe6 25 J.e3+ ~a6 38 'ile8+ 1-0 iLxe6+ ~g7 26 'ilf2 ':'b8 27 iLa2! ':'fc8 28 ':'f7+ ~h6 29 h4! Game 81 This is all very convincing, so it J.Polgar-Kamsky seems that this entire line is almost Buenos Aires 1994 unplayable for Black, who must deviate at move 11 or 12, unless he (1 e4 eS 2 ttJf3 ttJe6 3 d4 exd4 4 can come up with a huge improve- ttJxd4 g6 S ttJe3 .tg7 6 .te3 ttJf6 7 ment somewhere. .te4 'ilaS 8 0-0 0-0 9 .i.b3 d6 10 21 'ileS+ h3 .i.d7 11 f4) 22 ~hl .te6 23 ':'xe6 fxe6 11 'ilhS!? 24 .txe6+? ~g7? This loses for Black, who should have tried 24 ... ~h8 when 25 .txc8 .txb2 26 .te3 'ild6 27 e5 'ildS or 25 eS .tg7 26 .txc8 axb2 27 .te3 'ilxc2 would have given him a clear advantage thanks to his passed pawns. However, White had 24 bxa3 with a complicated position and mutual chances. 2S .txe8 ':'xe8 Here 25 ....txb2 did not work due to 26 ttJgS! 'ilxg5 (or 26 ...ft:)d8 27 ft:)e6!) 27 .txg5 ':'xfl 28 'ilxfl a2 29 J.h6+! ~xh6 30 'ilxf8+ .tg7 This move originates from Kap31 'ilf4+ and mate to follow. engut. The reasoning behind it is

Main Lines with 7 j.c4 "a5 221 logical: it is not yet clear where the queen's rook is best placed, while the queen has to move to h5 anyway to start action with the queenside pawns. 12 tLlf3! Again this knight move is best. The alternatives enable Black to generate sufficient counterplay: a) 12 "xh5 (after this move Black has already equalised) 12 ... tLlxh5 13 :adl :ac8 14 'lPh2 b6 15 g3 tLla5 16 tLlde2 j.c6, when Black is already a little better thanks to White's loose pawn structure, Peterson-Troyke, Germany 1991. b) 12 "d2 b5 13 a3 tLla5 14.i2 tLlxb3 15 cxb3 a5 16 b4 ax~ axb4 :ac8 with a clear edge for Black, Mnatsakanian-Romanishin, Yerevan 1976. c) 12 :e1 :fe8 13 j.f2 tLlxd4 14 j.xd4 j.c6 IS tLldS j.xdS 16 exd5 .xd1 17 :adl a6 18 c3 .!LId7 with equal chances, as in DonchevMartinovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1984. d) 12 .d3 (White's main alternative to 12 tLlf3) 12 ... bS! and now:

d1) 13 .xb5?? .!LIxd4 14 .xhS tLlxhS and wins. d2) 13 tLldxbS .!LIb4 14 .c4 as IS .!LId4 :ac8 16 .e2 .xe2 17 tLldxe2 a4! and Black is better.

d3) 13 tLlcxb5 tLlb4 14 "c4 as IS tLlc3 transposes to 13 tLldxbS above. d4) 13 a4 b4 14 tLldS tLlxdS IS j.xd5 :ac8 16 tLlxc8 (or 16 tLlb5 as! 17 j.xc6 ':xc6 18 tLla7 :c7 19 j.b6 :b7 20 .a6 :fb8 with very good play for Black - T.Georgadze) 16... j.xc6 17 j.xa7 j.xb2 and Black was better in GrabczewskiT.Georgadze, Lublin 1974. dS) 13 :ae1 a5 14 a3 b4 15 axb4 axb4 16 tLlxc6 (16 tLldS tLlxdS 17 exdS tLlxd4 18 j.xd4 j.b5! see note to White's 19th move) 16 ... j.xc6 17 tLldS tLlxdS 18 exdS j.d7! (the game Tseshkovsky-Kapengut, Lvov 1973, went 18... j.a4!? 19 j.xa4 :xa4 20 fS 'iVh4 21 j.f2 "f6 22 fxg6 bxg6 23 'iVb3 :aa8 24 .xb4, and now 24 ...:fb8 was better for Black, but according to Ubilava can White improve with 19 j.c4 j.xb2 20 j.d2 with compensation) 19 j.f2 (best is 19 j.d4 j.b5! 20 .xbS! j.xd4+ 21 'lPhl 'iVh4 or 20 j.c4 j.xc4 21 "xc4 :fc8 22 .xb4 :ab8 23 .a4 j.xd4+ 24 "xd4 :xc2, when Black is somewhat better in both cases - Ubilava) 19...:fe8 20 :bl "fS! 21 .d2 j.a4 with a clear edge for Black, Short-Kamsky, Linares 1994. d6) 13 a3!? (the best way to counter ... b7-bS, taking away the b4-square from Black's knight) 13 ... b4 (also interesting is 13 ... a6 14 tLlf3 :ac8 15 :ad1 tLlaS 16 e5 dxeS 17 fxeS J..f5 18 .d4 tLld7 with a complete mess, De FirmianJ. Whitehead, San Francisco 1977, e.g. 19 g4 .xh3 20 gxfS tLlxeS) 14 .!LIxc6!? (also possible is 14 axb4 tLlxb4 IS .d2 as with equal chances) 14... bxc3 IS tLlxe7+ 'lPh8

222 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 .a5 16 bxc3 l:tae8 17 'iWxd6 ..ixh3 18 'iWg4 19 l:tf2 l:[d8 20 'iWxf6 l:txd4 21 'iWg5 ~he4 22 ttJd5 h6 23 'iWxg4 ~xg4, and now that the madness is over, White has an extra pawn, but the pair of bishops and a better pawn structure provide Black with excellent compensation, as . played in De Firmian-Radke, San Francisco 1978. bS 12 as 13 a3 14 'ii'd3! ~d4

This has proved quite troublesome for Black. White also has: a) Less threatening is 14 .el a4 15 iLa2 b4 16 axb4 ttJxb4 17 iLbl _a5 18 g4 .c7 19:f2 'ii'b7 20 g5 and now of course not 20 ... ttJxe4 21 ttJxe4 .xe4 22 c3, but 20 ... ttJh5 when Black was much better in Tsarenkov-Roizman, Minsk 1973. b) Another strong move for White is 14 ttJd5!, e.g. 14... a4 (14 ... ..ie6 leads to a depressing position for Black: 15 .d3 a4 16 ttJxf6+ iLxf6 17 ~xe6 fxe6 18 c3 }:tab8 19 ~h2 d5 20 e5 iLh8 21 g4 'W'h6 22 itJg5, Vujadinovic-G. Todorovic, Kladovo 1992) 15 iLa2 itJxd5 16 exd5 itJa5 17 iLd4 iLxd4+ (too passive is 17 ...'W'h6 18

iLxg7 _xg7 19 c3 llac8 20 'ii'e2 llfe8 21 itJd4, which was not very enjoyable for Black in WangLevitan, Manila 01 1992) 18 .xd4 .f5 19 g4 .f6 20 l:tadl (20 _xf6 exf6, intending ...itJb7-c5, was nice for Black in Wiemer-Finkenzeller, Germany 1990) 20 ...•xd4 21 itJxd4 with a slightly better position for White. 14 a4 Here 14...b4 has been suggested as a potential improvement for Black: 15 itJe2 bxa3 16 itJg3 axb2 17itJxh5 bxal. 18 l:txalitJxh5 19 c3 with unclear play. IS iLdS! Clearly White's strongest move. In Mariasin-Roizman, Minsk 1970, White went for Black's queen with 15 itJe2?, but Black refuted this easily: 15 .....ixh3! 16 gxh3 axb3 17 'it>g2 b4 18 f5 gxf5 19 exf5 ttJe5! and White's position was miserable. Nor can White claim any advantage after 15 iLa2 b4! 16 itJe2 .a5 (16 ... bxa3 17 bxa3 .a5 is also fine for Black) 17 l:tael :ab8 18 itJed4 itJxd4 19 iLxd4 b3! and Black was better in DabeticNovoselski, Cetinje 1993. 15 itJxd5 According to T.Georgadze 15 ...:ab8 is met by 16 iLxc6 ~xc6 17 itJd4 l:tfc8 18 f5 with a clear advantage for White. Piket's suggestion of 15 ... e6!? seems best: 16 iLxc6 iLxc6 17 iLd4 :fd8, when Black is okay, but in G.GarciaZamura, New York 1994, Black had his share of problems after 17 itJd4 ~b7 18 f5! gxf5 19 exf5 e5 20 itJdxb5 d5 21 ~c5 l%fc8 22 iLe7 d4 23 iLxf6 iLxf6 24 itJe4 iLh4 25 itJbd6 iLa6 1-0. Black can instead try 17 ... iLd7, intending 18 itJdxb5

Main Lines with 7 i.c4 "a5 223

i.xb5 19 tiJxb5 tiJxe4 20 g4 "xh3 21 'iWxe4 "g3+ 22 'oii>hl 'iWg3 with a draw, but after IS i.t2, intending 19 g4, Black faces new problems. exdS! 16 An improvement over Gerasimov-T.Georgadze which went 16 tiJxd5 :tabS 17 c3! i.e6 (17 ....l:tfeS !? is fine for Black) IS .l:tae 1 i.xd5 19 exd5 tiJa5 20 tiJg5 tiJc4 21 g4! 'W'h6 22 i.cl i.f6 and now White could have settled things with 23 tiJe4!

downhill quickly. 20 b3! i.fS 20...axb3 21 cxb3 i.f5 22 We3 is also very good for White. 21 "d2 ':xc2 22 "xaS i.xh3 23 .:n! Now whatever hopes Black may have had can be buried. He could have resigned here, but he struggled on until he eventually lost on time: 23 ...axb3 24 i.xg7 ..txg7 2S ':xc2 bxc2 26 "c3+ ~g8 27 gxh3 "xf4 28 ~f2 29 tiJbd4 :a8 30 ':xe7 "as 31 "xaS ':xaS 32 tiJc2 ':dS 33 a4 ':as 34 ':e4 fS 3S ':b4 ~g7 36 tiJcd4 cltf6 37 tiJb3 :a7 38 as gS1-O

"a4

Game 82 Skovgaard-Svensson CO" 1984

16 tiJaS 17 i.d4! "h6 Piket analyses 17 .....f5 IS "e2 JLxd4+ 19 tiJxd4 "f6 20 :tad 1, intending tiJe4, or 17 ...i.f5 IS "e3 tiJc4 19 "t2 tiJxb2 20 g4. But best seems 17 ... tiJc4!?, e.g. IS i.xg7
(1 e4 cS 2 tiJf3 tiJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 g6 S tiJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 tiJf6 7 i.c4 "as 8. 0-0 0-0 9 i.b3 d6 10 h3 i.d7 11 (4) 11

tiJxd4!

As we saw in the previous games, Black has his share of

224 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 "a5 Harrachov problems after 11.. .llac8 as well as Ciocaltea-Funnan, 1966. 11. ..1Wh5. The exchange of knights with II...lDxd4 draws some of the b) 13 "e2? 1Wb4! 14 ':'fdl (14 tension from the position, enabling ':'adl? allows 14 ...lDxe4! IS .i.xg7 Black to immediately direct his ~xg7 16 lOxe4 [16 lDd5 fails to 16....i.xd5 and 17 ...lDg3 winning attention towards the weak e4pawn in combination with a timely the exchange, which is why White ... e7-e5. There is also a certain must play the f-rook to dl] amount of logic behind this, since 16.....xe4 17 "d2 "f5 18 c3 and in reply to almost any other move, now 18 ...b6 19 .i.d2 "f6 20 fS g5 White moves his knight back to f3 would have left White without much to hope for, but instead Black to avoid an exchange. chose a disastrous path: 18 .....cS+ 12 .i.xd4 .i.c6 Almost exclusively chosen, but 19 ~h2 f5? 20 ':'fel ':'fe8 21 .i.e6 Black has also had some success .i.e4 22 b4 1Wb6 23 c4 ~f6 24 with 12 ... e5!? 13 .i.e3 (13 fxeS ':'xe4 fxe4 25 fS, and Black was dxe5 14 .i.e3 .i.c6 15 "f3, intend- soon dead and buried, Holusijaing .i.g5, is an interesting possibil- Gazik, Yugoslavia 1967) 14... lDxe4 ity for White) 13 ... exf4 (13 ....i.c6? 15 .i.xg7 .i.xg7 16 lDxd5 "c5? 14 fS transposes to Short-Wagman, (this only leads to a draw; better see note 'b' to Black's 11th move was 16....i.xd5 17 ':'xdS 1i'b6+ 18 in Game 79) 14 .i.xf4 .i.c6 15 "f3 ~h2 lDf6, and White is just a pawn llad8 16 :ad 1 (16 lDd5 .i.xd5 17 down) 17 ~h2 lDf6 18 lDc7 .i.xg2 exdS lDd7! is nice for Black) 19 "xe7 .i.xh3 20 ~xh3 1i'hS+ 21 16... ~h8 17 llxd6?! (17 ~hl!? or ~g2 and a draw was agreed in 17 llf2!?, intending llfd2, seems Hort-Funnan, Polanica Zdroj 1967. better) 17 .....cS+ 18 "f2 "xf2+ c) 13 "'el (this usually leads to a 19 ':'xf2 lDxe4 20 lDxe4 .i.xe4 21 draw) 13 ...1Wb4 14 ':'dl ltlxe4! 15 ':'fd2 ':'xd6 22 .i.xd6 ':'d8 23 .i.xf7 .i.xg7 ~xg7 16 lDdS (16 lDxe4 .i.xc2 24 llxc2 .i.d4+ 112-112 "xe4 17 "c3+ [both 17 "d2 and Janosevic-Wagman, Bratto 1984. 17 "f2 lead to positions which can This really went very smoothly for be found under 13 "e2] 17 ... ~g8 Black, but only time will tell the 18 ':'f2 e6 19 ':'xd6 llad8 was equal future of this line. in Jacobsen-Kapengut, Ybbs 1968) ·13 lDdS 16 .....cS+ (16 .....xel 17 ':'fxel For 13 "d3 see the next game. lDcs 18 lDxe7 ':'fe8 19 lDxc6 The other alternatives do not pres- ':'xel+ 20 llxel bxc6 21 ':'e7 ent Black with any problems: lDxb3 22 axb3 and although a draw was agreed here, White was better a) 13 "f3? (neither 13 ':'el :ad8 14 lDdS eS IS .i.c3 "c5+ 16 in the endgame in Kostro-Hort, ~hl .i.xdS nor 13 e5lOe8 14 exd6 Polanica Zdroj 1967) 17 ~h2 lDf6 .i.xd4+ 15 "xd4lDxd6 give White 18 lDc7 .i.xg2! 19 "xe7 .i.xh3! anything either) 13 ...1i'b4! 14.i.xf6 (certainly not 17 ... e6?, which gave .i.xf6 IS ':'fel "cS+ 16 ~hl .i.xc3 White a clear edge in Janosevic17 "xc3 "xc3 18 bxc3 ':'ac8 with Panna, Yugoslavian ch 1964: 18 a very enjoyable ending for Black, "xe4 exd5 19 "d4+ 'l'xd4 20

Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'tWa5 225 l:xd4 :ae8 21 fS) 20 ~xh3 1i'hS+ with a draw by perpetual check, e.g. in Ostojic-Kaplan, Hastings 1968.

13 :tae8! Three other moves have also been tried: a) 13 ... ~xdS?! is too passive: 14 exdS lLld7 IS ~xg7 ~xg7 16 "d4+ ~g8 17 ]he 1 :ae8 (or 17 ...:fe8 18 :e3 "cS 19"d2 with a slight plus for White, SmitRazvalayev, USSR 1967) 18 'itlh2, Vasiukov-Ciocaltea, Bucharest 1967, and now Black should have continued with 18 ......cS 19 "'d3 bS with a slightly inferior position. b) Levy mentions 13... lLlxdS 14 exdS ~d7 IS :tel:tfe8 16 'itlh2 ~xd4 17 "'xd4 'tWcS 18 'tWd2 bS 19 c3 with a slight plus for White, but Black has no prospects of counterplay. c) Also inaccurate is 13 ... :tfe8, as Black takes away some of the protection from the f7-pawn. White has tried numerous moves here: cl) 14 c4?! ~xdS 15 exd5 lLld7 16 'iti>hl ~xd4 17 'ilfxd4 'ilfc5 and Black's knight is stronger than White's bishop. c2) 14 ~c3 'tWc5 15 'iti>h2 lLlxdS

16 exdS .tb5 17 :f3 :tac8 with equal chances. c3) 14 lLlxf6+? exf6 15 fS ~e4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 ~xf6 "'cS 18 lfilhl d5 19 'tWg4 'ilfd6 and Black again has a slight pull, KiirkerYudovic, corr 1966-67. c4) 14 .txf6?! exf6 (14 .....cS+ 15 c;i1h2 ~xdS [Kapengut suggests 15 ... ~xf6 16 lLlc7 ~xe4, when Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange] 16 ~xg7 ~xb3 17 ~c3 ~c4 18 :f3 and White's chances are slightly better due to the weak dark squares on Black's kingside) 15 f5 (interesting is 15 "d3!?, intending 15...fS?! 16 exf5 ~xb2 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 lLlf6+ ~xf6 19 11bg6+ ~g7 20 "xf7+ c;i1h7 21 ~ith a decisive attack, yet with 15 ... ~b5!? 16 c4 .tc6 Black has a solid position) 15 ...:txe4 16 fxg6 (16 ~h1 :tae8 17 'tWd3 gS 18 :tadl 'tWc5 19 c;i1h2 .tb5 slightly favours Black, Nonnenmacher-Hecht, German Bundesliga 1987/88) 16...hxg6 17 lLlxf6+ ~xf6 18 :txf6 'tWc5+ 19 'iti>hl d5 20 'tWf3 'tWe7 with equality, as in the game Hector-Donaldson, Malmo 1985/86. cS) 14 :tel!? l:ac8 IS c3 .txd5?! (now Black ends up in a terribly passive position; better was Is ... lLlxdS 16 exdS ~xd4+ 17 'tWxd4 ~d7) 16 exdS lLld7 17 ~f2! b5 18 a3lLlb6 19 :te4 ~ 20 "'e2, and Black was not enjoying himself in Minic-Bellon, Kapfenberg 1970. c6) 14 'tWd3 :ac8 (or 14... lLlxdS 15 exdS ~b5 16 c4 ~xd4 17 'tWxd4 .td7 18 ~h2 'tWcS with equal chances) 15 'ithl lLlxdS 16 exdS 'tWxd4 17 'tWxd4 ~d7 18 :tf3 'tWcS 19 'tWd2 a5 20 c3 'tWbs 21 :tel a4 22 ~dl e6! is equal, Smit-Murey, USSR 1967.

226 Main Lines with 7 1l..c4 'WaS c7) The best move is 14 fS!, exploiting the fact that Black's previous move took away the protection of the f7-pawn. Play usually continues with 14 ... i..xdS (14 ... lLixe4? loses quickly to IS fxg6 hxg6 16 lhf7!; of interest is 14... lLixdS, though after IS i..xg7 ~xg7 16 exdS i..d7 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 'it'd4+, Black's open kingside will soon give him a headache) IS exdS lLid7 (keeping some defenders on the board with IS ... bS seems a lot safer, but Black's lack of counterplay does not promise him a bright future) 16 ~hl! (both 16 c3 i..xd4 17 'it'xd4 'it'cs and 17 cxd4lLif6 18 'it'f3 'it'd2 19 'it'f2 lLie4 20 'it'xd2 lLixd2 21 l:tf2 lLixb3 22 axb3 l:tec8, Browne-Bellon, Malaga 1970, are comfortable for Black) 16 ... .Jtxd4 17 'it'xd4 'it'cs (l7 ... lLieS is met by 18 f6 and 17 ... f6 by 18 h4, intending g4-gS) 18 'it'f4lLif6 19 l:tael as 20 c4, with a powerful attacking position for White, as in the game Kelecevic-Rajkovic, Yugoslavian ch 1968.

14 "'el White has also tried to seek an advantage with: a) 14 'it'f3 lLixdS IS exdS .JtbS

16 c4 i..d7 17 i..xg7 ~xg7 18 ~hl 'it'cS 112-112 Klovan-T.Georgadze, Tbilisi 1973. b) 14 .txf6 'it'cS+ IS ~hl exf6 (or IS ... .txf6 and now both 16 c3 J..g7 followed by ... e7-e6 and 16 lLixf6+ exf6 17 .JtdS i..xdS 18 exdS l:te8 are good for Black) 16 fS l:txe4 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 lLixf6+ J..xf6 19 .!:txf6 'it'gS with equal chances, Acosta-L.Garcia, Bogota 1980. c) 14 lLixf6+? exf6 IS fS is bad because of IS ... i..xe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 J..xf6 'it'cS+ 18 ~h 1 i..xf6 19 l:txf6 J..xg2+! d) 14 'it'd3 lLixdS IS exdS i..bS (since White loses material after 16 J..c4? .txc4 17 'it'xc4 l:tc8, he is forced to block off the b3-bishop; Black can then easily break with ... e7-e6) 16 c4 i..xd4+ 17 'it'xd4 i..d7 18 l:tael (18 ~h2 'it'cS 19 'it'd2 e6 is equal, as in the game Van Riemsdijk-Naumann, Wechem 1997) 18 ... 'it'cS 19 'it'xcs dxcS 20 l:te3 e6 21 l:tfe 1 exdS 22 cxdS l:txe3 23 l:txe3 l:te8 24 l:txe8+ i..xe8 2S d6 ~f8 112_112 HaupoldAnschutz, corr 1976. 14 'Wxel 15 l:taxel lLid7 After Is ... lLixdS White got some advantage with 16 i..xg7 rj;xg7 17 exdS i..d7 18 ':f3 in IvanovicDavies, Vrsac 1989, but Black should try 16 ... lLie3!?, e.g. 17 i..xf8 lLixfl 18 i..xe7 ':xe7 19 rj;xfl lhe4 20 ':xe4 i..xe4 21 rj;f2 ~f8 22 c3 f6 23 g3 gS, when Black held the draw, F.Olafsson-Pedersen, Athens 1969. 7;xg7 16 i..xg7 17 l:te3 tLlc5 18 l:tdl lLixb3

Main Lines with 7 i.c4 'ii'a5 227

'ii'g3!?, intending e4-eS) 16... ~g8 171t1d5 ':fe8 18 ~hl 'ii'c5 19 'ii'd2 Olot 1974 as 20 fS i.xd5 21 i.xdS e6 22 fxe6 fxe6 23 ltle5 24 i.b3 "c7 2S (1 e4 cS 2 tLlfJ tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 :lf2 bS with equal chances, DetkotLlxd4 g6 5 tLlc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 tLlf6 7 Muresan, Bmo 1989. i.c4 'ii'aS 8 0-0 0-0 9 i.b3 d6 10 b) 15 'itthl tLlc5 (15 ...~5 16 h3 i.d7 11 f4 ltlxd4 12 i.xd4 ':ae 1 f6 17 ltld5 ltlc5 18 ..e3 e5 i.c6) 19 fS :lad8 20 ltlc3 ltlxb3 21 axb3 a6 22 ltdl with a slight plus for 13 'ii'd3 White, Soylu-Hifny, Manila 01 1992; IS ... l:ac8 has also been suggested, but after the text Black is doing fine) 16 'ii'd4+ f6 and now: bl) 17 i.d5 (threatening 18 b4) 17... 'ii'b6 18 :labl (Zhidkov-Pavlenko, USSR ch 1967) and now 18 ... e6! 19 i.xc6 with 19...bxc6 or 19... 'ii'xc6 20 b4 tLla4. b2) 17 ltael tLlxb3 18 axb3 'ii'cs 19 "d2 e6 20 ':f3 and now instead of 20 ... l:tfe8 21 l:td3 with a comfortable edge for White, as in the old game Matanovic-Simagin, Yugoslavia-USSR 1963, Black should By far White's most popular have played 20...:lad8! 21 ltd3 bS! move and probably also his strong- when the threats are parried. The direct thrust 13 ... e5 is menest. However, it should not worry Black too much. tioned by Gufeld and dismissed after 14 i.e3 exf4 15 i.xf4 'as 13 :lad8! Theory does not think highly of Black cannot control the eS-square Black's chances after 13 ... tLld7, but in time'. But things are not that Black may be doing okay. After 14 simple: 15...%lad8!? 16 i.xd6 (16 i.xg7 ~xg7 White now has two :tad 1 ltlhS is, by transposition, choices: Ledennan-Kagan, Netanya 1975: a) IS :lael and now: 17 i.c 1 i.xc3 18 bxc3 'ii'cS+ 19 al) IS ...'ii'cS+ 16 'iith2 bS 17 i.e3 'ii'eS 20 i.h6 tLlg3 21 i.xfS i.dS %lac8 18 i.xc6 lbc6 19 tLlxbS and now Black should have contin"xc2 20 'ii'd4 eS 21 'ii'xa7 with a ued 21...:lxfS 22 :lfel ltlxe4 23 clear plus for White, Matulovic- 'ii'd4 a6 with adequate compensaRajkovic, Vrnjacka Banja. tion for the exchange, instead of a2) IS ... f6 16 'ii'g3!? ltlcs 17 2l...'ii'cS+? 22 'ii'd4!! ltle2+ 23 ~h2 tLlxb3 18 axb3 with a slight ~h2 ltlxd4 24 cxd4 'ii'b6 2S i.e7 advantage for White, Ciric-Parma, and White was winning) 16...'ii'b6+ Yugoslavia 1963. 17 ~hl tLlxe4 18 :lxt7!? lbt7 19 c) IS ...:lac8!? 16 'ii'd4+ (16 i.xt7+ ~h8! 20 tLlxe4 i.xe4 21 Game 83

A.Martin-Belion

"f3

228 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'ii'aS

'ii'xe4 1i'xd6 with some compensation for the pawn due to White's weak kingside. Perhaps White should try 15 %lxf4. 14 %lad 1 The main line. The alternatives are not difficult for Black to meet either: a) 14 f5?! liJd7 15 iLxg7 (or 15 liJd5 ~xd5 16 ~xg7 'i;xg7 17 iLxd5 liJf6 18 %lf2 1i'c5 19 c3 e6! 20 b4 'ifb6 21 iLb3 d5 22 exd5 liJxd5 23 iLxd5 lhd5 24 f6+ ~g8 25 'ii'f4 :f5 with a clear edge for Black, Janosevic-Funnan, Harrachov 1966) 15 ... 'Iii'xg7 16 1i'd4+ 'ii'e5 17 %lad 1?! (White should have tried 17 'ii'xa7, but after 17... liJc5 18 %lael e6! Black has strong compensation in return for the pawn) 17 ...1i'xd4+ 18 %lxd4 liJf6 with a slight pull for Black, Ekblom-Pytel, corr 1992. b) 14 ~hl e5 15 iLgl d5! 16 fxe5 dxe4 17 'ii'e3 1i'xe5 with a slight edge for Black, OstojicForintos, Belgrade 1967. c) 14 We3 liJd7 (14...b6? is too passive: 15 f5! liJd7 16 iLd5! iLxd4 17 Wxd4 liJe5 18 b4 1i'a6 19 a4 'ifb7 20 b5 iLxd5 21 liJxd5 f6 22 a5, as in Klovsky-Averbakh, USSR 1966) 15 iLxg7 ~xg7 16 'lii'h2 Wc5 17 'ii'd3 b5 18 a4 (18 liJd5 is equal) 18 ...b4 19 liJbl e5 20 f5 liJf6 21 liJd2 d5! with a slight edge for Black, Matanovic-Bilek, Havana 01 1966. d) 14 %lael liJd7 (l4 ... e5 15 iLe3 exf4! 16 iLxf4 d5 17 e5 liJe4 with equal chances) 15 iLxg7 ~xg7 16 'ii'd4+ (also good is 16 ttld5 iLxd5 17 exd5 %lfe8 18 %le3 with a slight advantage, Juarez-Bellon, Siegen 01 1970, whereas 16 'it>hl does not lead to any advantage: 16...liJc5 17

1i'd4+ ~g8 [l7 ... e5 18 1i'e3 ttlxb3 19 axb3 exf4 20 'i'xf4 'i'e5 21 1i'xe5 dxe5 22 %ldl 1h- 1h MorgadoFedorov, corr 1970] 18 iLc4 liJd7 19 e5 'ifb6 20 'ii'xb6 liJxb6 21 iLd3 dxe5 22 Axe5 e6 is equal, Matanovic-Cruz, Buenos Aires 1961) 16... liJf6 17 f5 Wb6 18 'ii'xb6 axb6 19 g4 g5 with a slight edge for White, Short-Korchnoi, GarmischPartenkirchen 1994. e) 14 ttld5 e5!? (clearly the most interesting move, although 14...liJxd5 15 exd5 iLxd4+ 16 1i'xd4 iLd7 17 %lae1 %lfe8 18 'it>hl Wc5 19 'i'd2 a5 gives equal chances, Klovan-Kapengut, USSR 1965, and 14...%lfe8!? can be given a try) 15 liJxf6+ iLxf6 16 iLc3 'i'c5+ 17 ~hl iLg7 (17 ...iLb5!? 18 'ii'f3 iLxfl 19 %lxfl is not clear, as Black has difficulties releasing himself from the pressure White is exerting on the light squares) 18 f5 iLh6!? (both 18 ...d5 and 18 ...iLb5 are worth considering) 19 fxg6?! (according to Ivkov, White should try 19 iLd2!? while alternatively, White could go for 19 %ladl or 19 Aae1) 19 ...hxg6 20 'i'g3 ~g7, and now 21 Aad1 is best, YilmazIvkov, Praia de Rocha 1978.

Main Lines with 7.ic4"a5 229

:f7

a) 22 'ii'f2 f6 23 h4 24 ~gl tDd7 14 Best. Other moves leave White :dfS! with a slight edge for Black, Jansa-Furman, Harrachov 1966. with the upper hand: b) 22 :h4 ~gS! 23 1Wh6 1/2- 1/2, a) 14...e6?! IS fS gxfS 16 exfS eS 17 .ie3 dS IS .igS e4, Bauer- Ciric-Gheorghiu, Beverwijk 1965. 18 ~xb3 Adrian, French ch 1996, 19 'ifg3 19 axb3 dxeS with strong threats. b) 14 ... eS?! IS .ie3 exf4 16 20 fS! l:lxf4 with a plus for White (16 Inferior is 20... Axdl 21 "f6+ ~gS 22 Axdl with a slight plus for i..xf4 tDhS - see 13 ...eS!?). c) 14... bS (Short-Hellers, Wijk White. 21 b4! aan Zee 19S6) IS tDdS with a slight White wants to remove Black's plus for White. 15 .ixg7 ~xg7 qu~en from its protection of the ---tOOk on dS. The immediate 21 16 ~hl 16 fS tDe5 17 "e3 "cS and 16 J:txdS?!, however, is good for "e3 "cS are both equal, and 16 Black: 2l.....xdS 22 "xa7 fxe4 23 tDdS is best met by 16... e6 l:xfS 1IxfS 24 "e3 (24 tDdl? only makes things worse: 24 ...e3 2S (16 ....ixdS 17 exdS tDf6 IS l:ldel :d7 19 :e3, Tiviakov-Gogoladze, tDxe3 "f2! wins for Black) "f4 2S Riga 19S7, is the standard good tDdl 11f1+ 26 "gl "e2 27 tDe3 position for White) 17 ..d4+ eS! hS! with a clear advantage for IS fxeS dxe5 19 "d3 tDcs 20 "e3 Black. 21 tDxb3 21 "xb3 "cS+ is equal, "xb4 22 :xd8 Matanovic-Tal, Palma de Mallorca :xd8 23 exfS gS! 1966. Best is 16 "d4+ ~gS 17 ~h2 1Ics IS "d2 bS (IS ...tDf6 has been suggested, e.g. 19 tDdS tDxe4 20 tDxe7+ ~g7 21 "e2 fS) 19 tDdS .ixdS 20 exdS tDf6 21 fS with a clear plus for White, YilmazTangbom, Budapest 1992. 16 tDcS Inaccurate is 16 .....cS?! 17 tDdS .ixdS (17 ... e6!? may be better, even when met by IS c4!?) IS exdS bS 19 l:lfel l:lfeS 20 a4 a6 21 axbS axbS 22 l:lal with a clear edge for White, Maki-Karkanaque, Malta 1990. A wonderful idea and a big im17 "d4+ eS 18 fxeS provement over 23 .....f4? 24 "ell Black easily obtains a comfort- with a clear plus for White, able position after IS "e3 tDxb3 Shagalovich-Baumbach, Byelorus19 axb3 exf4 20 l:lxf4 1IeS! 21 sia-East Germany 1968. l:dfl a6 and now: 24 f6+ ~

"f2

230 Main Lines with 7 il..c4 'ika5

This position is evaluated as unclear by many sources, but Black's strong bishop on c6 gives him the advantage. 25 'ike3 'ikh4 26 ~h2 26 'ikxeS?? loses to 26 ......xh3+. 26 ... g4 27 'ikxe5 g3+! 28 'ikxg3 Unfortunately for White, if 28 'iitgl then 28 .. :ir'd4+ is very good for Black. 28 ...'ikxg3 29 ~xg3 ::tg8 30 ~f4 l:xg2 31 ~e5 l:g3 Now the greedy 31...l:hc2? when 32 J:tg 1 lets White back into the game. 32 h4 ::te3+ 33 ~f4 l:h3 34 ::tf2 l:xh4 35 ~g5 l:hl 36 tiJe2 h6+ 37 ~f5 J:th5 38 ~g4 J:tg5+ 39 ~h4 Ag2 40 '::'xg2 il..xg2 41 tiJf4 il..f3 42 ~g3 il..dl 43 e3 ~xf6 44 tiJd5+ ~e5 45 tiJe3 il..h5 46 ~h4 il..e2 47 ~g3 ~e4 48 ~f2 il..b5 49 e4 il..d7 50 ~e2 as 51 ~d2 ~d4 52 b3 h5 53 tiJg2 il..f5 54 tiJf4 h4 55 tiJg2 h3 56 tiJe3 ~e4 57 ~e2 ~f4 58 tiJf1 il..e20-1 Game 84 Busquets-Davies New York 1991

(1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tiJe6 3 d4 exd4 4 tiJxd4 g6 5 tiJe3 il..g7 6 il..e3 tiJf6 7 il..e4 'ika5 8 0-0 0-0) 9 tiJb3 'ike7 10 il..g5 This is generally considered stronger than the main line 10 f4 (Games 8S and 86). White's intention is to meet ... d7-d6 by an exchange on f6 followed by tiJdS and tiJxf6+, leaving Black's pawn structure in a shambles. But of course Black need not play ... d7-d6 right away.

10

a6!

ECO's main line is lO ... aS 11 a3

(also good is 11 a4 tiJb4 12 il..e2 J:td8 [or 12 ... d6 13 tiJd4 il..d7 14 "'d2 Afe8 IS il..h6 with a slight plus for White] 13 tiJd4 "'eS 14 tiJf3 "'e6 IS eS tiJg4 16 tiJb5! il..xeS 17 h3 tiJf6 18 ]:tel tiJc6 19 .i.fl when White's better development and piece co-ordination gave him a strong initiative in KuzminKapengut, USSR 1972) ll...a4 12 tiJd2 'ikaS 13 tiJdS d6 14 c3 Ae8 IS tiJxf6+ with a clear edge for White, Kupreichik-Veremeichik, Minsk 1976. Most sources quote the game Kupreichik-Privara, Stary Smokovec 1975, which went lO ... b6 11 f4 tiJaS 12 .idS!, when ECO amongst others claims a decisive advantage for White, which is only correct if Black continues as in the game: 12 ... tiJxb3? 13 axb3 tiJxd5 14 tiJxdS "'cS+ IS 'iithl f6 16 b4! "'d6 17 eS! "'e6 18 exf6 exf6 19 nel 20 J:te7 and White soon won. But as Banas has pointed out, things are not that clear after the stronger 12 ... il..a6! His analysis continues: 13 il..xa8 ..txfl 14 e5 (14 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 IS tiJdS 1ib8) 14 ... J:txa8 IS 'iitxfl "'c4+ 16 'iitgl

"'f7

Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as 231 ttJxb3 17 axb3 'itc5+ followed by ... ttJh5 and ...f7-f6 with an unclear position. However, the text seems to be the best move, after which Black yet has to meet any problems. 11 a4 Black is doing fine after 11 .t.xf6 ~xf6 12 ttJd5 'ite5 13 ttJb6 .l:tb8 or 11 f4 b5 12 .t.e2 d6 (or I2 ... b4 13 ttJd5 'ita7+ 14 hl ttJxe4 15 ~xe7 ttJxe7 16 ttJxe7+ 'it>h8 17 .t.f3 f5 18 ~xe4 fxe4 19 'itd6 a5 20 ttJc5 'iib8 21 ttJxd6 ~a6 with a clear edge for Black, Gudmundsson-Tangbom, Reykjavik 1990) 13 ~f3 (13 ~xf6 ~xf6 14 ttJd5 'ita7+) 13 ... ~e6 14 ttJd5 .t.xd5 15 exd5 ttJa5 16 ttJxa5 (16 ttJd4 ttJc4) 'itxa5 17 .l:tel .l:tfe8 with roughly equal chances - Silman. 11 ttJb4

12 "e2?! Better was 12 ~e2 d6 13 a5 ~d7 (13 ... ~e6!?) 14 'itd2 b5 15 axb6 'itxb6 16 e5 dxe5 17 ~xf6 .t.xf6 18 'itxd7 ttJxc2 19 .l:tacl 'itxb3 20 ~dl .l:tad8 21 ~xc2 'itxb2 with a slight advantage for White, Tate-A.Horvath, Budapest 1997. In our main game White is on a downward slope and it is soon

over. 12 13 as?! Threatening ... d6-d5. 14 f4 15 axb6
r

~.

d6 ttJg4! b5

"xb6+ ttJe3 ~g4

Game 85 Fischer-F .Olafsson Bled 1961

(1 e4 e5 2 ttJO ttJe6 3 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 5 ttJe3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7 ~e4"aS 8 0-0 0-0 9 ttJb3 "e7) 10 f4 10 ~e2 usually transposes to the main line after 10...d6 II f4, but on occasion White has tried 11 "d2 (II f3 a6!?) with good results: II...ttJe5 (the somewhat provocative II...ttJg4 seems to be a better shot at equalising) 12 b6 ttJc4 13 ~xc4 'itxc4 14 ~xg7 1ilxg7 15 f4 b6 16 e5! dxe5 17 fxe5 ttJe8 18 .l:tf4 with a dangerous attack, Lublinsky-Shabanov, USSR 1961.

10 11

d6 ~e2

232 Main Lines with 7 Ji..c4 .as Other possibilities are: a) 11 ~hl a6 (11...b6!?) 12 a4 lLlaS 13 lLlxaS .xaS 14 'ifd3 Ji..d7 IS fS ':acS 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 Ji..d4 'ii'hs IS h3 ':xc4! 19 Ji..xf6 Ji..xf6 20 'ifxc4 Ji..xh3 21 ~g 1 and White later won, Belov-Utiatsky, USSR 1960, but Black's chances should be no worse after 21...Ji..e6 followed by ... ~g7 and ...ms. b) 11 h3 Ji..d7 (11...b6!?) 12 Ji..e2 as 13 a4 lLlb4 14 Ji..f3 Ji..c6 IS ':f2 lLld7 16 lLld4 ':adS 17 :d2 ':feS IS 'ife2 with a slight advantage for White, Timoschenko-Andreev, Voronezh 1973. The position that has now arisen could also have been reached from the Classical Dragon: 1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 g6 6 Ji..e2 Ji..g7 7 Ji..e3 0-0 S lLlb3 lLlc6 9 0-0 .c7 10 f4. Although ...•c7 seems to do less for Black than the usual ... Ji..e6, ... lLlaS or ... a7-aS, White has yet to demonstrate an advantage in the main lines; Black's position is both solid and dynamic. 11 as 1l...a6?! is too slow: 12 Ji..f3 bS 13 l:tf2 .tb7 14 lLldS! lLlxdS IS exdS lLlaS 16 Ji..d4 lLlc4 17 .txg7 with a slight plus for White, Ghizdavu-Ribli, Bucharest 1971. However, an interesting alternative is 1l...':dS!?, preparing ... d6-dS, e.g. 12 Ji..f3 (possibly stronger is 12 g4, e.g. 12 ... dS 13 eS d4 14 lLlbS 'fIb6 IS Ji..xd4 lLlxd4 16 lLlSxd4 lLldS 17 .d2 and now according to Boleslavsky can Black should play 17...aS! and after IS a4 gS 19 fxgS Ji..xeS with an unclear position) and now: a) 12 ... eS!? 13 fS (not problematic for Black either is 13 :f2 .te6

14 lLldS .txdS IS exdS exf4 16 Ji..xf4 tl)eS 17 :'cl lLlfd7 IS c4 lLlcS 19 lLlxcs 'ihcs 20 'fIb3 lLlxf3+ 21 'ifxf3 Ji..d4 22 .txe3 .txe3 23 .xf7+ 'ii'hS 24 .f6 112-1/2 Prandstetter-Znamenacek, Prague 1992) 13 ... dS! 14 lLlbS 'fibs 15 exdS (White was successful with IS fxg6 in Kosenkov-Kubinin, COlT 1977: IS ... dxe4? 16 gxf7 ~hS 17 'ii'cl gxf3 IS Ji..h6 e4 19 'ii'gS and White was winning, but Black can improve with IS ...hxg6 16 exdS .tfS! as in the game DobrovolskyKarlik below) IS ... Ji..xfS (IS ... e4? loses to 16 dxc6! lhdl 17 c7!) 16 c4 and now according to Langner Black should continue with 16 ... a6!? 17 lLlc3 bS IS cxbS axbS 19 'ii'e2 (19 .tgS lLld4! slightly favours Black) 19...lLlb4! with a clear edge for Black, but instead he played 16...lLlb4 17 Ji..gS h6 IS i.xf6 Ji..xf6 19 .tg4 .txg4 20 'ii'xg4 .tg7?? 21 ':xf7! ~h7 22 lLlc7 :fS 23 :'xfS 1-0 Dobrovolsky-Karlik, Karvina 19S9. b) 12...Ji..e6 13 :f2 (less accurate is 13 .d2, when after 13 ... Ji..c4 14 :fel Black could have equalised with 14 ... eS!; instead he chose 14 ... dS?! when White held the advantage after IS eS lLle4 16 Ji..xe4 dxe4 17 .f2 fS IS exf6 exf6 19 lLld2 lLlb4 20 lLldxe4 fS 21 lLlgS, Kupreichik-Kotkov, Sukhumi 1973) 13 ... Ji..c4 (Levy claims equality for Black after 13 ... aS, but after 14 lLldS Ji..xdS IS exdS lLlb4 16 c3 lLla6 17 a4 White stands better) 14lLldS Ji..xdS IS exdS tl)aS 16 .td4 lLleS 17 c3 and White is slightly better, Ostojic-Musil, Yugoslavian ch 1965. c) 12 ... Ji..d7 13 1We2 lLlaS 14 lLlxaS .xaS IS Ji..f2 Ji..c6 16 :abl

Main Lines with 7..t.c4 .a5 233

1:1ac8 17 b4 1i'c7 18 :b3 b6191:1dl e6 is equal, ApiceHa-Ivkov, Cannes open 1989.

12 a4 Aside from this move, White has tried a few other things: a) 12 ~d2 (12 ~d5 ~xd5 13 exd5 a4 is equal) 12 ...1:1b8?! (according to Baumbach 12 ...~b4 would have been a better move, as 13 ~c4 can be answered with 13 ... ltJg4! and 13 a3 with 13 ... ~a6 followed by ... liJc5 with good play) 13 h3 .i.d7 14 a3 liJd8!? 15 liJc4! ..t.c6! 16 ..t.b6 1i'c8 17 ..t.a7 b5 18 ..t.xb8 bxc4 19 ..t.a7 liJxe4 20 ..t.d4 e5 21 liJxe4 ..t.xe4 22 fxe5 dxe5 23 ..t.c3 1i'c5+ 24 ~h2 liJe6 with compensation for the exchange, Khasin-Baumbach, corr 1972. b) 12 liJb5?! .d7 13 liJd2 ltJg4 14 ..t.xg4 .xg4 IS c3 .xdl 16 l:taxdl ..t.g4 17 :del ..t.d7 18 a4 fS 19 1:1f2 20 exfS ..t.xfS 21 liJc4 :af8 with equal chances, UitumenBaumbach, corr 1970. c) 12 a3 a4 13 ~d4 liJxd4 (in a similar position, but with the apawns on a2 and a7 in the Classical Dragon ...1i'b6 is a good move, but here it does not deliver: 14 eS! dxeS IS fxeSliJxeS 16liJfS 1i'e6 17

:n

~xg7 ~xg7 18 .d2 ~g8 19 :ael liJc6 20 ..t.bS with a clear edge for White) 14 ..t.xd4 eS IS fxeS (IS ..t.e3 exf4 16 ..t.xf4 1i'b6+ 17 ~hl :e8, when Black should be fine according to Levy) IS ... dxeS 16 ..t.e3 (16 liJbS? .e7 17 ..t.c3 .cS+ 18 ~hl liJxe4 is better for Black) 16.....t.e6 17 .elliJd7 18 :dl and now both 18 .. Jlfd8 and Levy's 18 ... ~b6 gives Black a good game. 12 liJb4 ~ :tl!? This ~ultipurpose move, which Fischer IDtroduced in this game, protects the c2-pawn, allows White to answer ... ..t.c4 with ..t.f3 and prepares to transfer the rook to d2, putting an end to Black's hopes of a ... d6-d5 advance. However, White's alternatives are not without importance: a) 13 ..t.f3 ..t.g4! 14 ..t.xg4?! (Razuvaev gives 14 :f2 ..t.xf3 IS .xf3 as equal) 14... liJxg4 IS .xg4..t.xc3 16 bxc3liJxc2 17..t.d4 liJxal 18 :xal eS 19 fxeS dxeS 20 .g3, Makarichev-Zlotnik, USSR 1978, and now 20...:fe8 intending ...•c4 would have been better for Black. b) 13 :cl ..t.d7 14 ~d4 .c8 IS 1i'el eS! 16liJdbS ..t.xbS 17 ..t.xbS exf4 18 ..t.xf4 .cS+ 19 ~hl ~hS 20 ..t.e3 and now both 20...•eS and 20 ... ..t.d4 are quite comfortable for Black. c) 13 liJd4..t.d7 14 ~dbS ..t.xbS IS ..t.xbS :fd8 (stronger seems IS ...liJd7!?) 16 lIf2 d5?! (once again 16...~d7 is interesting; Boleslavsky gives 16...eS 17 :d2 exf4 18 ..t.xf4 liJhS 19 ..t.xd6 :xd6 20 :xd6 liJxc2 21 :cl ~3 with an edge for Black, but White can improve with 17 fxe5 dxe5 18 .e2,

.c4

234 Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 'ii'a5

intending l:r.afl and .i.c4 with pressure on the f-file and the advantage of the pair of bishops in an open position) 17 eS lDe4 18 lDxe4 dxe4 19 'ii'e2 e6 20 c3 lDd3 21 :ffl .i.f8 22 .i.d4 with clearly better chances for White, Dubinin-Rittner, carr 1969. e5 13 Black has two alternatives, neither of which have given him much success: a) 13 ....i.d7 14 .i.f3 .i.c6 IS l:td2! (stopping Black's dreams of a quick ... d6-dS advance; ErmenkovPopov, Sofia 1989, saw a different approach with IS lDdS .i.xdS 16 exdS 'ii'c4 17 l:r.d2 lDe4 18 c3 lDxd2 [better was 18 ... lDa6] 19 lDxd2 'ii'd3 20 .i.f2 lDxdS 21 .i.e4 lDxc3 22 bxc3 'ii'xc3 23 :c1 'ii'f6 24 .i.xb7 with a clear edge for White) Is ... lDd7 16 lDd4 lDcs 17 lDcbS! 'ifc8 18 c3 lDba6 19 'ifc2 'ife8 20 b3 and White was on top, Heemsoth-Baumbach, carr 1982. b) 13 ... .lte6!? 14 lDd4! ~c4 IS .i.f3 l:r.fd8 16 :d2 'ifc8 17 lDdbS lDd7 18 .i.g4 (Boleslavsky has recommended 18 l:r.bl!, intending 19 b3 or 19lDdS) 18 ... fS! (18 ... ~xbS? 19 axbS fS 20 exfS lDf6 21 .i.f3 gxfS 22lDa4! lDe4 23 c3lDxd2 24 'ii'xd2lDa6 2S lDb61ib8 26 'ii'xa8 1-0 Westerinen-Jansson, Finland 1969) 19 exf6 lDxf6 20 .i.b6 (20 .i.f3!?) 20... gxfS 21 .i.xd8 'ii'cS+ 22
18

f5

18 b6?! Here Boleslavsky claims that Black could have kept the chances level with 18 ...lDcS 19 lDxc5 dxcS 20 ltxd8+ 'ii'xd8 21 :dl 'ii'e8 22 .i.xcs lDxc2. In Hunoldt-Flechsig, carr 1989, White was successful after 19 lDb5 'ife7? 20 lDc5 ~xb5 21 axb5 dxc5 22 ~xc5 'ife8 23 l:r.xd8 :xd8 24 c3 with a clear edge, but Black can improve with 19 ... .ltxbS! 20 lDxc5 (20 axb5 lDxb3 21 cxb3 lDd7 22 ~b6 .i.h6! 23 :ddl :dc8 with a clear advantage for Black) 20....i.c4! (not 20 ... dxcS? 21 axb3 and Black has problems with the knight on b4) 21 lDb3 (21 lDd3 .i.xd3!? 22 cxd3 :a6) 21...~xb3!? (21...J:.a6) 22 .i.b6 'ii'c6 23 ~xd8 ~h6! 19 :adl lDc5 Not 19... lDxc2? 20 :xc2 ~xd4 21lDai .i.xc2 22 lDxc2 bS 23 'ii'f2 :dc8 24 lDel b4 25 lDd5 with a clear plus for White, Vanden Bosch-Oruon, carr 1975. 20 lDb5! 'ii'e7 Worse is 20 ... ~xb5 21 axb5 (threatening 22 lDxc5 and 23 c3!) 21...lDxb3 22 .i.xb6 and Black loses material.

Main Lines with 7.tc4 "Wa5 235 21 tlJxd6 tlJxe2 tlJxe3 22 tlJxe5 23 'ili'xe3 bxe5 24 .te2?! 24 b3! 'ii'a7 2S .te2! would have been even stronger. In the game White's idea is the same, but Black gets the white a-pawn for nothing. 24 ....txa4 25 b3 .te8 26 .te4 a4 27 ~d5! :xd6!? 27 ...:b8 2S tlJxeS 'ii'xeS 29 bxa4 is clearly better for White. 28 .txa8 :d4 29 fxg6 hxg6 30 bxa4 .txa4 31 :al 'ii'f8? Better was 31...~c6 32 ~xc6 'ii'xc6, when Black can play on. 32~dS!

Now Black's poor piece coordination becomes evident. 32•••.th6 33 :xd4 ~xe3 34 :dxa4 'ii'h6 35 .tf4 36 g3 'ii'h3 37 :aal .txg3 38 :a8+ 1-0

:0

Game 86

Zagarovsky-Baumbach COff1986 (1 e4 c5 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 tLlc3 .tg7 6 .te3 tLlf6 7 .te4 'ii'aS 8 0-0 0-0 9 tLlb3 "We7 10 f4 d611 ~e2)

11 b6!? Black's best move. The idea behind it is to put pressure on White's e4-pawn and maintain control of the important dS-square if White plays g2-g4-gS to force the knight away from f6. Black often follows up with ...tlJa5, when if White exchanges on as Black, in return for the doubled pawns, gets strong play on the semiopen b- and c- files; while if White does not exchange the knight, it will continue its journey to c4.

12 g4!? The sharpest, but not necessarily the strongest. Safer alternatives are: a) 121M2 .tb7 13 tlJd5!? (13 :adl tlJaS 14 tLlxaS bxaS IS .tf3 transposes to note 'b9' below) 13 ...tlJxdS 14 exdS tLla5 15 tlJxaS bxaS 16 c4 and now 16...e6! would have been best, e.g. 17 :ac 1 l%feS with sufficient counterplay. Instead the game Litvinov-Roizman, Minsk 1973, continued with 16... .tcS?! 17 :abl a4 IS .td3 l%bS and now with 19 "Wc2 .td7 20 fS White could have obtained the better chances. b) 12 ~f3 .tb7 and now: bl) 13 :fl?! tlJaS! 14 tLlxaS bxaS IS .td4 tLld7 16 tlJdS .txdS 17 exdS .txd4 18 "Wxd4 "WcS 19 :dl :abS 20 c3 l:b7 21 ~1 l%abS with a clear advantage for Black, Hammie-Silman, USA 1975. b2) 13 tLlbS?! 'ii'cS 14 c4 tlJb4 IS tLld2 tLld7 16 a3 (16 :bl a6 17 tLlc3 .txc3 IS bxc3 tlJd3 19 "We2 tLl3cS is equal, Klovan-Litvinov, Oaugavpils 1979) 16... tLlc6 17 :bl a6 IS tLlc3 tLld4 and Black is clearly better, Mukhin-Baumbach, Primorsko 1973. b3) 13 .tfl :feS (13 ...tLlaS! is

236 Main Lines with 7 ~c4Wa5 more active and better) 14 'ifd2 :ad8 IslildS "c8 16 ~h4lilb8 17 c3 lilbd7 IS Iladl e6 19 lilxf6+ ~xf6 20 "f2, DementievKapengut, USSR 1975, when ECO prefers White's chances, but Kapengut gives 20 ... ~a6 21 l:lfel ~xh4 22 "xh4 lilcs as equal. b4) 13 g4 lild7 (awfully passive is 13 ...lhdS?! 14 gS tbe8 IS lildS Wd7 16 Jt.g4 e6 17 tbd4 lilxd4 18 ~xd4 with a slight plus according to Korchnoi; but once again 13 ...tbaS! seems to be the best way to challenge White, although the text is perfectly playable) 14 Wd2 l:lacS IS :adl tbcs 16 Wf2 ~xc3 17 bxc3 lila4, when Black holds the better prospects, MysliuvjecPiihtz, East Gennany 1977. bS) 13 tbdS tbxdS 14 exdS lilaS IS lilxaS bxaS 16 c3 Wc4 with equal chances. b6) 13 "ii'e2 tbaS 14 lilxaS bxaS IS l:ladl ~c6 16 ~d4 lild7 17 ~xg7 ~xg7 18 b3 l:lacS 19 Itf2 a4 is equal, Mikhailov-Baumbach, corr 1977. b7) 13 WeI :acS (this may seem a bit repetitive, but 13...tbaS! is again the way to go) 14 lilbS 1Wb8 IS c3 a6 16 tbSd4, NaschkeSchulz, corr 1981, and now 16... tbxd4 17 ~xd4 eS or 16... e6 followed by ...tDd7-cS would equalise. b8) 13
hl l:lac8 (13 ...lilaS! 14 tbxaS bxaS IS a4 ~c6 16 Wd3 lild7 17 :adl tbb6 18 b3 %lac8 19 lile2 ~b7 20 c4 lild7 with good play for Black, Britton-Silman, England 1977) 14 Itf2 l:[fd8 IS %ld2 1Wbs 16 a4, Wilken-Melzer, corr 1988, 16... tbaS 17lilxaS bxaS IS "gl ~c6! with fine play for Black.

b9) 13 "ii'd2!? (probably White's best) 13...lilaS! (slower is 13 ... ItacS 14 l:ladl %lfdS IS Wf2 1ibs 16 g4 lild7 17 h4 lilcs IS hS ~a6 19 l:lfel e6 20
g2, KunzelmannNeubert, corr 19S2, 20... lilaS! with excellent chances for Black) 14 lilxaS bxaS IS :ad1 l:lfdS! (everything else is good for White: IS .. J:lfb8 16 1If2 ~c6 17 b3 a4 18 ~d4 axb3 19 axb3 l:d8 20 lildS, Kupreichik-Kapengut, Minsk 1972, or IS ... ~c6 16 eS! dxeS 17 ~xc6? [much better is 17 fxeS!, e.g. 17... ~xf3 18 exf6 ~xdl 19 fxg7 lUd8 20 1i'f2 with a big edge for White - Silman] 17... Wxc6 18 fxeS lilg4 19 tDds, Lutzkat-Baumbach, East Gennany 1986, and now 19... l:lae8 with unclear complications according to Silman.

~b7

12

12 ... tbe8 looks rather strange, but seems to work for Black, e.g. 13 "ii'd2 ~b7 14 gS lilaS IS lildS, Osnos-Sakharov, USSR 1967, IS ... ~xdS! 16 WxdS (16 exd5 ~xb2 is clearly better for Black) 16...Wxc2! with unclear complications - Korchnoi.

13

g5

Once you say 'A' you must say

Main Lines with 7.i.c4 'ii'aS 237

•B'. Other moves would not be in accordance with the previous one, e.g. 13 11M2 ltla5! 14 ltlxa5 bxa5 15 .ltf3 .i.c6 16 };tabl l:tab8 17 b3 lUc8 with clearly the better chances for Black, K.Nelson-Silman, USA 1975. 13 ltld7 14 ltld5 Pointless is 14 1If2?!, when in the game Tseitlin-T.Georgadze, Bamaul 1969, Black obtained the better position after 14... lIfe8 15 h4 ltla5 16ltld4 a6 17 ltld5 'ifc8 18 f5 .i.xd5 19 exd5 ltlc4 20 .i.c 1 bS 21 hS 'ifcs 22 ltlb3 "a7 23 hxg6 fxg6. 14 'IM8

15 1Ib1!? Korchnoi's recommendation. Other moves do not worry Black: a) IS fS .i.xb2 (bad is IS ...lIe8? 16 f6! whereas IS ... ltlce5!? seems fine for Black: 16 c4?! [better is 16 ltld4 or 16 'ii'ell 16 ... l:te8 17 l:I.el e6 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 ltlc3 ltlcs with a clear edge for Black, Kristiansson-Toran, Lugano 01 1968) 16 l:I.bl .i.eS 17 'ifel e6 18 1Wh4 exd5 19 f6, Tseitlin-T.Georgadze, and now 19 ...dxe4! 20 .i.g4 ~h8 wins for Black.

b) IS ltld4 e6! 16 ltlc3 ltlxd4 17 .i.xd4 eS 18 .i.e3 exf4 19 .i.xf4 .i.xc3! 20 bxc3 ltlcS 21 'ii'xd6 ltlxe4 22 'ii'xd8 l:I.axd8 23 .i.f3 ltlcs with a clear edge for Black in the endgame, Savereide-Silman, USA 1974. c) IS c4?! ':e8 (1S ....i.xb2 is perfectly playable and bags a pa~~ 16 '1M2 e6 17 ltlc3 ltlcs 18 .i.f3 ~7 19 ltlbS ltlxb3 20 axb3 dS with unclear complications, Maliszewski-Stachorski, corr 1993. 15 ltlcS Silman's suggestion IS ...e6!? 16 ltlc3 ..txc3 17 bxc3 ltle7! deserves serious attention, e.g. 18 'ii'xd6 .i.xe4 19 lIadl ltlf5 or 18 .i.d3 d5 or 18 f5 exf5 19 'ifxd6 .i.xe4 20 lIadl ltlcs in all cases with fine chances for Black - analysis by Silman. Black has also done wen with 15 ... l:te8 16 'ii'd2 (16 c4 e6 17 ltlc3 ltlcs 18 .i.f3 'ii'e7 19 a3? .i.xc3 20 bxc3 ltlxb3 21 ':xb3 lIac8 wins for Black, Sakrin-Bieluczyk, corr 1983) 16... e6 17 ltlc3 ltlcs 18.i.f3 ltle7 19 ltld4 d5 20 eS a6 21 h4 'ifc7 22 "g2ltlc6 with ,bout equal chances, Orosz-Keleman, corr 1988. 16 .i.f3 Less logical is 16 ltlxcs, giving Black control over the d4-square: 16... bxcS 17 f5 (17 h4 ltld4 18 .i.d3 e6 19ltlc3 a6 20 ~h2 'ii'c7 21 .i.xd4 cxd4 22 ltle2 .i.g7 23 c3 .i.c6 24 ltlg3 e5 2S ':f2, WeikeNagomi, corr 1988, 2S ...f6! with an initiative for Black) 17 ....i.d4? 18 lIf4 .i.xe3+ 19 ltlxe3 f6? 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 ..tc4+ ~g7 22 ltlfS+! 1-0 Martschei-Schlegner, corr 1988, but 17...e6! is difficult for White to handle: 18 ltlc3 .i.d4! 19 .i.xd4

238 Main Lines with 7 iLc4 .as

.xg5+ or 18 f6 exd5 19 fxg7 ':'e8 20.xd5 l:te7, intending ... ttJe5 or ...ttJd4, or 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 ':'xf8+! .xf8! 20 ttJc7 iLd4! 21 iLxd4 ttJxd4 22 ttJxa8 .f4! with more than enough compensation.

16 e6 ttJc3 .e7 17 18 .d2 :fd8 19 l:bdl 19 :bel lhc8 20 h4 ttJa5 21 ttJxa5 bxa5 22 .g2 iLc6 23 iLxc5 iLxc3 24 bxc3 dxc5 is equal, Moller-Baumbach, East Germany 1986. 19 ttJa5! bxa5 20 ttJxa5 21 .gl?! Too optimistic. Baumbach gives 21 iLd4 iLxd4 22 .xd4 e5 23 exf4 24 1i'xf4 ttJe6 or 24 ... l:ac8 in both cases with equality. 21 :ac8 22 iLdl

.d2

Here Baumbach gives 22 iLd4 as best, but after the obvious moves 22 ... iLxd4+ 23 :xd4 e5 24 fxe5 dxe5 25 :xd8 :'xd8, intending ... ttJe6, Black is clearly better.

The rest of the game went as follows: 22 ...iLc6 23 :de1? Now White gets into serious trouble. Correct was 23 :fe 1. 23....b724 b3 .b625 .tl 25 'ii>hl loses a pawn to 25 ... iLxc3 26 iLxc3 ttJxe4. 25...d5 26 exd5 exd5 27 ttJe2 iLb5! 28 l:tel iLxe2! 29 iLxe2 ttJe4 30 .xb6 axb6 31 iLe3 31 iLel iLb2 32 l:tcdl l:xc2 33 iLd3 :c I! wins for Black. 31 ...d4 32 iLtl ttJc3 33 iLg4 :c7 34:a1 ttJd5 35 l:fdl l:txc2! 36 f5 ttJf4 37 ~n gxf5 38 iLxf5 :b2! 39 l:del d3 40 l:dl iLd4 0-1 A beautiful performance by Baumbach.

11 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0

Chapter Guide 1 e4 c5 2 l'Llf3 l'Llc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l'Llxd4 g6 5 l'Llc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 l'Llf6 7 i.c4 0-0 8 f3 -Game 87 8i.b3 8... a5 9 a4 9 f3 d5

- Game 88

10 exd5l'Llb4 1ll'Llde2 a4 12l'Llxa4l'Llfd5 13 i.f2?! - Game 89 13 i.d2?! - Game 90 10 i.xd5 l'Llxd5 11 l'Llxd5 - Game 91 . 11 exd5l'Llb412l'Llde2 \ 12...i.f5 13 lid b5 14 a3 - Game 92 140-0 - Game 93 12... e6

- Game 94

8...d6 9 f3 i.d7 10 h4 10 "d2

- Game 95 - Game 96

This is one of the sharpest systems in the entire Accelerated Dragon. White uses the same set-up as against the standard Dragon variation, hoping to reach that opening by a transposition. Some died-inthe-wool Dragon players, such as Tiviakov, gladly transpose, since with this move order they avoid the

critical 9 O-O-O!? in the main line Dragon, because White has already played i.c4. However, not many Accelerated Dragon players are quite so happy to enter the long theoretical lines of the Dragon, since these differ so much in 'flavour' from their favourite system. Because of this, a number of

240 Main Lines with 7 JLc4 0-0

interesting ideas have been found to get off the beaten track. Amongst others, the correspondence players Uogele and Ekebjerg have devised some dynamic ways to exploit the fact that the black dpawn has yet to be moved.

Game8? Fischer-Panno Portoroz 1958 (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 g6 5 lDc3 JLg7 6 JLe3 lDf6 7 JLc40-0)

8

f3?!

It is interesting to see that even a player of Fischer's class can make serious inaccuracies in the opening. Maybe Fischer believed he was transposing to the main line Dragon (in which he won many miniatures) and just played too quickly. However, White should first play 8 .lib3 and only then f2-f3 (Games 88-96), when he avoids the following tricks. 8 Wb6!? After this move only Black can be better. Still, it is not clear if it is Black's best. 8 ... e6!? was intro-

duced in Tolush-Lengyel, Warsaw 1961, when White just managed to hold the balance after 9 .lib3 d5 10 exd5 liJxd5 11 liJxd5 exdS 12 0-0 1i'b6 13 c3 Ue8 14 .i.f2 liJxd4 15 .I1Lxd4.i.xd4+ 16 .xd4 .xd4+ 17 cxd4 and the ending is drawn. In the later game Szilagyi-Adorjan, Hungary 1972, Adorjan was ready to try 12 .. J:te8 13 .lif2 .g5!? with an initiative, but did not get the chance, since Szilagyi went for 10 0-0 lte8 11 liJxc6? bxc6 12 WeI .I1La6 13 l::tf2 d4 14 l::td2 c5, leaving Adorjan with a huge plus. 8...e6!? is certainly not bad, but careful play by White should keep the balance. We used to believe that Black only had the pleasant choice between 8... 'iVb6!? and 8... e6!?, but just before finishing the manuscript for this book, NIC Yearbook 45 drew our attention to 8... dS!? The idea is very similar to Uogele's 9... d5 in the notes to Game 89, and here it seems playable as well. A nice point is 9 .lixd5 liJxd5 10 exd5 liJb4 11 liJde2 .lif5 12 l:[c1 .a5 13 a3 liJa2!, which really seems fine for Black. Also in the line 10 liJxd5 f5!, the fact that the pawn is on a7 rather than a5 favours Black as the b6-square is now well protected. 9 liJxc6 bxc6 10 exd5 cxdS 11 liJxdS e6! 12 liJc3 liJd5! 13 .lixdS exd5 14 liJxdS is given as the critical line, but after 14 ... l:te8 15 'iiff2 .i.xb2 16 l:tbl JLg7 Black clearly has sufficient compensation. However, 8... d5!? has hardly ever been seen in practice so a serious test would be interesting. That it has not been discovered until now, can be explained by the fact that Black has several excellent alternatives

Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0 241

and therefore no-one has been searching for new ideas. i.b3! 9 Surely White's best way of limiting the damage. 9 a3!? , as in Keres-Larsen, Bewerwijk 1964, also avoids immediate loss of material, but leaves Black with a pleasant edge after 9 ... d6 10 liJce2 'iJ'aS+ 11 c3 liJeS 12 i.a2 'ii'a6 13 0-0 i.d7 14 a4 liJc4 15 i.xc4 'ii'xc4, when Black was better due to his bishop pair. Other moves are just bad: a) 9 O-O? 'ili'xb2 just leaves Black a pawn up, e.g. the game N.P.Nielsen-Yakovich, Aalborg 1993, went 10 liJcbS "'4 11 'W'e2 'ii'aS 12 nfdl d6 13 i.d7 14 i.fl liJxd4 IS lLlxd4 l:tfc8 16 c4 with a normal Maroczy position, but the 'slight' difference that White has no b-pawn! b) Equally depressing is 9 "d2? liJxe4!, since 10 lLlxc6 liJxd2 11 liJxe7+ 'it.?h8 12 i.xb6 liJxc4 is just about winning for Black. NilssonGeller, Varna 1962, saw instead 10 fxe4 i.xd4 11 i.xd4 'ili'xd4 12 'ii'xd4lLlxd4 13 0-0-0 lLlc6 14liJdS Wg7 IS i.bS nd8, when Black was winning.

.f2

9 liJxe4?! This secures an easy draw, but we feel that Black should go for more with the ambitious 9...liJg4!? In Zagorovsky-Simagin, Moscow 19S1, White now tried to avoid damage to his pawn structure with 10 liJa4?, but was punished after 1O... liJxe3 11 liJxb6 i.xd4! 12 .e2 i.xb6 13 ~d2 liJaS 14 h4 liJxb3+ IS axb3 dS! Black's minor pieces became too active and White was blown off the board. So White must enter 10 fxg4 i.xd4, when he will suffer for a long time due to the black knight, which will eventually fmd a safe haven on eS: a) 11 i.xd4.xd4 (ll...liJxd4 12 liJdS 'iJ'aS+ 13 c3 liJc6 followed by ...d7-d6, ... i.e6 etc. is not bad either) 12 "xd4 liJxd4 13 liJdS liJc6 was good for Black in SakharovStein, Kiev 1964. However, not many players would voluntarily defend #Ie position after 14 i.a4 ~g7 16 0-0-0 l:tb8 16 h3 bS 17 i.b3 d6; White's structure is 100% awful. b) The alternative 11 liJdS has given White some success in practice after 11....aS+ 12 i.d2 .cS 13 c3. For example, the game Houser-Svarcova, Prague 1989, makes a strong impression: 13 ... i.g7 14 i.e3 "as IS 0-0 d6 16 'ii'e!!, when White used his weakened structure constructively to attack along the f-file and after 16... i.e6 17 'iJ'h4 i.xdS 18 i.xdS 'iJ'c7 19 l:tf3 e6 20 l:th3, he had a winning attack. But simple, and good, seems 12 ....d8 13 c3 i.g7 followed by ... d7-d6, ... liJeS etc. when Black will benefit from his superior structure. 9 ... liJg4 seems like a safe way of

242 Main Lines with 7 Ji..c4 0-0

playing for a win. 10 lLldS! Absolutely the only move; everything else loses at least a pawn. 10... 'WWaS+ 11 c3 lLlcs Safe and solid. More ambitious is 1l...it.xd4!? 12 it.xd4 lLlc5, keeping the extra pawn. After 13 Ji..c4 lLle6! (not 13 ... d6?? when Black had problems with his queen after 14 b4 'it'a4 15 .lib3 lLlxb3 16 axb3 'il'b5 17 c4, TrassaertBirmingham, Cannes 1990) 14 b4 'it'd8 15 it.e3 d6 16 0-0 lLlc7 17 Ji..h6 lLlxd5 18 it.xd5 l:te8 19 Ji..g5 Ji..e6, Oszvath-Honfi, Budapest 1963. White has adequate compensation, but no more than that. Pulido-Spangenberg, Seville 1994, saw instead 13 O-O?! lLlxb3 14 'ii'xb3 d6 15 Ji..f2 Ji..e6 16 c4 :b8, where White had very little for the pawn. In general, 11...Ji..xd4!? seems fully playable, and if you like to grab pawns and have the patience to defend such positions, this could give you great results. 12 lLlxc6 bxc6 13 lLlxe7+ ..t>h8 14 lLlxc8 l:taxc8 IS 0-0 l:tcd8 16 'WWc2 'WWbS Equally good is 16 ...:fe8 17 it.f2 lLlxb3 18 axb3 'il'b5 19 l:tfel ::'xel+ 20 :xel Ji..f6 21 b4 b6 22 'ii'e2 'it'xe2 112-112 W.WatsonChandler, London 1984. 17 l:tfdl ..t>g8 18 l:txd8 l:txd8 19 l:tdl l:te8 20 Ji..f2 as 21 Ji..xcS Ib.-Ib. It is not often that players achieved such an easy draw with the black pieces against Fischer.

Yet, he was probably happy to escape after his opening error. 8 f3?! should certainly not scare Black, and although the choice between 8...'Wb6!? 8... e6!? and 8...d5!? certainly is not easy, it is a nice problem to have. Game 88

Sax-Pigusov Moscow 1990 (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 S lLlc3 Ji..g7 6 Ji..e3 lLlf6 7 Ji..c40-0)

8

Ji..b3!

The critical test. White· avoids ... 'WWb6 tricks and prepares f2-f3, 'WWd2, 0-0-0, h2-h4 etc., following standard Yugoslav Attack patterns. However, in the normal Dragon White only plays Ji..b3 after a knight coming to e5 or a rook to the c-file forces him to do so. This slight difference gives Black some interesting opportunities. S as!? This tricky move has been popularised by the Lithuanian correspondence player Uogele. His games, together with those of

Main Lines with 7 lLc4 0-0 243

Petursson and Pigusov have done much to bring this variation to the public eye. Black is waiting for White to play 9 f3, when he will start some serious complications. It is noteworthy that in this game Sax backs off from a theoretical discussion, when normally he is not one to shirk a challenge. 8.... d6 is seen in Games 95 and 96. 9 a4!? Quite a good move, avoiding the tricky lines after 9 f3. White claims 8... a5!? to be positionally suspect; both the b5- and b6-squares look inviting for his minor pieces. The sharper 9 f3 d5 is the subject of Games 89-94. lLlg4! 9

10

chess with l1...lLlxb3 12 cxb3 d6 followed by 13 ... lLe6 he is fine, since the b3-pawn is a target. Black's chances were illustrated nicely in Gamarro-Petursson, Buenos Aires 01 1978: 13 1It'd2 lLe6 14 lLld5 lLxd5 15 exd5 'iVd7 16 0-0 b5! and Black was clearly better. He has targets on the b-file, and White has no counterplay.

'ibg4

White can force a draw with 10 lLlxc6. Mololkin-Yakovich, Volgograd 1995, saw 1O...lLlxe3 11 lLlxd8 lLlxdl 12 lLld5 (both 12 lLlxf7?l)lLlxc3 and 12 l:txdllLxc3+ are b~er for Black) 12 ...:Xd8 13 ':'xdl'. If the a-pawns had not moved, Black would be better due to his pair of bishops, but here White can exchange a bishop by force: 13 ... ~f8 14 lLlb6 1:.a6 15 lLlxc8 l:lxc8 16 1:.xd7 l:lb6! (winning back the pawn) 17 ~e2 lLxb2 18 l:[hdl ':'b4 19 l:ld8+ l:lxd8 20 1:.xd8+ ~g7 21 'iti>d3 e6 22 l:ld7 ~ 23 f4 ~e8 24 1:.e7 l:ld4 25 ~e3 ':'d7 26 l:[xd7 1/2- 112. Boring, but as in many sharp openings, White often has some way of bailing out with a draw. 10 lLlxd4 (see following diagram) 11 'iVh4! Certainly White's most testing option. 11 'iVdl is also commonly seen, but if Black plays simple

Equally hlJ11Illess is 11 lLxd4 lLxd4 12 'iVg3 due to the simple 12 ... d6 13 0-0-0 lLxc3 14 'iVxc3 lLe6 with equality, IvanovicCebalo, Yugoslavia 1983. Black has exchanged his dark-squared bishop, which normally weakens his king. With counterplay along the c-file, however, Black can maintain the balance. Ambitious attempts to exploit the bishop pair have so far been unsuccessful. For example: a) Kotronias-Bannikas, Greece 1996, saw 12 ... e6 13 l:[dl "'f6 14 0-0 'iVf6 15 l:lfel 'iVe5 16 l:[d2 lLxc3 17 bxc3 'iVxg3 18 hxg3 l:[b8 with an edge for White. Black has difficulties developing without losing pawns, although in the game he 'exchanged' his a- and b-pawns for White's a4-pawn and set up a

244 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 fortress, drawing after 71 moves. b) Muhutdinov-Yakovich, St Petersburg 1993, saw 12 ...d6 13 0-0-0 .i.g7?! 14 h4! .i.e6 15 ~b5 'iib6 16 f4 ltac8 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 18 'iib3 'W'c5 19 'iWxe6+ d2 and Black was left with positional problems. White is about to put his king on d3 and start playing on the e-file or going for h4-h5. The game ended rather comically with 23 .. Jba4 24 l:hel e5 25
~d5 (otherwise 15 ... i.e6 is just fme) 15 ...e6 16 'iWxd8 l:xd8 17 ~c7 l:tb8, when White even managed to lose in Borocz-Deak, Kobanya 1992, after 18 l:tdl?! i.d7! 19
"£2

12 l:ta6!? Seems best. 12 ... J.f6?! looks strange, but has scored well on its few outings: a) White has not proven any advantage in the endgame arising from 13 i.g5 i.xg5 14 'ifxg5 d6 15

Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 0-0 245

good position for Black. White's play was unimpressive, but if Black gets in 15 ... ~e6 he will always be fine. The point of inserting 13 ... .i.f6 14 'ikg3 is that White does not have tiJd5, hitting e7, which won an important tempo in IIlijinKaidanov. This could be the way to play, and it is our recommendation. 13 ...':'e6!? is designed to take care of the weak b6-square. Black is planning to play 14 ... b6 and 15 ....i.b7, when the b6-square will be safely protected. 14 lIadl 14 life 1 led to a victory for White in Topalov-Larsen, Mesa 1992, when White had a huge positional edge after 14...b6 15 .i.h6.i.b7 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17 lIe3 f5 18 lIae 1 fxe4 19 tiJxe4 h6 20 tiJd2 ':'xe3 21 'ikd4+ e5 22 'ikxe3 d6 23 tiJc4. Black should playas in EmmsYakovich~ Copenhagen 1993, in which ~ck was fine after 14...b6 15 .i.h6 .i.b7 (15 ....i.xh6!?) 16 lIadl .i.xh6 17 'ikxh6 'ikc7 18 tiJd5?! .i.xd5 19 exdS ':'xe3 20 1Wxe3 1Wc5!, though White can improve with 18 lld4. 14 b6

W.Watson-Shabalov, Oslo 1991, saw 14....i.f6 15 1Wg3 .i.xc3!? 16 bxc3 1;lxe4, when White had excellent compensation due to his better development, as well as the presence of the opposite-coloured bishops, which always help the attacker. If this does not suit White, then 15 .i.g5 is safe, transposing to the main line. lId2 .i.b7?! 15 Pigusov recommends 15 ....i.f6, giving 16 .i.g5 .i.xg5 17 'iixg5 .i.b7 as equal. This seems a little too optimistic, since by continuing 18 lIfdl .i.c6 19 f3 White should keep some advantage with plans such as like tiJe2-d4 or lId4 and b3-b4. Perhaps Black should seek immediate counterplay with 19.. .f5, but this is somewhat weakening. Although this is playable for Black, we believe that White has a slight plus in t~e positions. 16 .'ikg3 is also pOSSible, but Black will grab the pawn with 16....i.xc3 17 bxc3 ':'xe4, with reasonable chances. 16 lIfdl .i.f6 17 1Wg3 .i.e6 Now this is necessary, since the d-pawn needs protection, and Black has no time for pawn grabbing. lLIdS .i.eS 18 19 1Wh4 .i.d6 20 .i.xb6 1Wb8 As always in this line, the b6square is Black's problem. With the pair of bishops there is usually some compensation, but it is not always quite enough. 21 .i.d4 f6 22 1Id3 1If7 23 .i.e3 1Wxb3 24 lLIxf6+ exf6 25 lIxd6 llxe4 26 1Wg3 1Wxa4 Now Black is a pawn up, but the bishop on c3 is a worry for the

246 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 black king. White has plenty of play on the dark squares. 27 h3 .b3 28 .d3 l:.e6 29 l:.d4 29 "'xe6 'ii'xe6 30 ~xa5 'ii'e4 31 'ii'xe4 ~xe4 32 ~c3 is given as slightly better for White, but Black should draw this. 29 ....bS Now Black is completely equal and the game was drawn in 55 moves. Although 9 a4 is solid and gives White some chances of a small advantage, Black should not worry too much. In particular, 13 ... .if6 deserves attention.

Game 89 Shirov-Lautier Tilburg 1997 (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 S lLlc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJr6 7 ~c4 0-0 8 ~b3 as)

9

f3!?

White's most ambitious try. He now threatens 10 a4! with a positional bind since Black no longer has the ... ttJg4 trick. However, f2f3 is slightly weakening, and Black can strike immediately to create complications.

9 dS! The main idea behind Uogele's S... a5. Black is a little ahead in development, and gives up a pawn to speed up his mobilisation even further. 10 exdS This is not considered to be the critical test at the moment, although as we shall see in our next main game, even here new ideas have appeared recently. The main line, 10 .ixd5, is seen in Games 91-94. 10 ttJb4 11 ttJde2 11 ttJdb5?! is generally considered harmless, but it is not all that easy to refute. 11...a4 12 ttJxa4 ttJfxd5 13 ~d2 ~d7 14 ttJbc3 .ixa4 15 ttJxa4 b5 is often given as the easiest way to equalise, but the endgame arising after 16 lLlc3 ttJxc3 17 ~xc3 'ii'xdl+ IS ~xdl .i.xc3 19 bxc3 "'fdS+ 20 ..tel is slightly better for White; he will exchange rooks on the d-file and then use his queenside pawns. More interesting is 15 .. .lha4!? 16 ~xa4 ~xb2 17 l:tbl ttJc3 IS .i.xc3 ~xc3+ 19 c:tfl 'ii'a5 20 ~b3 "'dS with plenty of compensation, after which we feel that Black is definitely not worse. 11 a4! Certainly Black's best. ShortKotsur, Lucerne 1997, saw instead ll...e6?! 12 0-0 ttJfxd5 13 ttJxd5 ttJxdS 14 ~xdS exd5 15 .id4 ~h6 with transposltlOn to HectorHernandez (see below), but with the important difference that White has not wasted time on a2-a3. This really should mean that White is much better, but surprisingly White was not able to prove it, and the

Main Lines with 7..tc4 0-0 247 game was soon drawn. 12 tiJxa4

tiJfxdS

13 ..ttl?! Not a serious try for an opening advantage. Later Shirov has admitted that he had simply mixed up two different variations! 13 .i.d2 is seen in the next game, while after 13 ..td4 Black can choose between: a) ~fe draw with 13 .....txd4 14 'ii'xd4 ..tf5 15 tiJac3 tiJxc2+ 16 .i.xc2 tiJxc3 17 "xd8 :fxd8 18 .i.xf5 tiJxe2, as in Kostro-Szilagyi, Polanica Zdroj 1969, since 15 'ii'd2?! ..txc2! with the idea of 16 ..txc2 ttJe3! is far too dangerous for White. b) If a draw does not suit Black, Uogele's 13 ... ..tf5!? might be worth a shot. Sachs-Uogele, corr 1968, saw 14 tiJac3? ..txc2! 15 ..txc2 ..txd4 16 tiJxd4 tiJe3 0-1. As pointed out by Silman and Donaldson, the critical test is 14 ..txg7 ~xg7 15 ~ e5!?, planning ... :xa4 and ... 'iib6+ with sufficient compensation, which seems to be a reasonable evaluation. 13 ..tfS! 13 ...:xa4 14 ..txa4 "a5 15 O-O! and White is winning, Sax-Haik, Smederevska 1982. 15 .....xa4 16

c3 wins back the piece. 0-0 14 14 a3 tiJxc2+! 15 ..txc2 "a5+ 16 b4 tiJxb4 17 axb4 "xb4+ 18 11M2 "xd2+ 19 ~xd2 l:Ud8+ 20 tiJd4 ..txd4 21 ..txd4 .l:hd4+ 22 ~c3 .i.xc2 23 ~xd4 ..txa4 is drawn. 14 bS 15 tiJxc3 tiJac3 16 tiJxc3 "xdl :fxdl 17 ..txc2 18 ..txc2 tiJxc2 19 :ad ..txc3 20 :xc2 ..tf6 112_112 Not a terribly interesting game, but one that shows that even at the highest level, 8... a5 can be played with success. Game 90 Sanakoev-Ekebjerg World corr ch 1994

(1 e4 cS2tiJf3 g6 3 d4 ..tg7 4 tiJc3 cxd4 5 tiJxd4 tiJc6 6 ..te3 tiJf6 7 ..tc4 0-0 8 ..tb3 as 9 f3 dS 10 exdS tiJb4 11 tiJde2 a412 tiJxa4 tiJfxdS) 13 ..td2!? This is the critical choice.

248 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 ~fS!? 13 Definitely a logical move. In Rogers-Laird, Brisbane 1994, Black thought it was time for immediate sacrifices and played the spectacular 13 ... .l:txa4 14 ~xa4 "a5, hoping for tactics such as 15 ~b3 ~xb2 16 ltb 1 liJe3! with a winning attack. However, Rogers played 15 a3! 'iWxa4 16 axb4 'iWc6 17 0-0 ~xb2 18 .l:ta5 when it was apparent that Black had insufficient compensation. In his notes in In!ormator, Ian Rogers suggests 13 ... i.e6!? a'S Black's most promising continuation, giving 14 liJc5 i.xb2 15 l:.bl i.e5 16 tt'lxe6 fxe6 17 0-0 with some advantage to White. But by simply playing 14... ~f5!?, we believe that the black position is rather promising, since both 15 a3? ~xb2 and 15 c3 b6! are good for Black. Therefore 14 liJc5?! is probably wrong, but Black seems to be fine anyway, and 13 ... i.e6!? looks like a reliable alternative to the game move. 14 liJac3 This is White's safest option, since 14 a3!? has been scoring badly in practice. After 14... b5!? 15 tt'lac3 tt'lxc3 16 tt'lxc3?! tt'lc6 17 tt'lxb5 liJa5 18 ~c3 'iWb8 19 'iWe2 tt'lxb3 20 cxb3 :a6 Black certainly had an excellent attack, EnoshiGreenfeld, Tel Aviv 1988. Better is 16 i.xc3!?, which led to a quick draw in Lanc-Rantanen, Tbilisi 1987, after 16.....xdl+ 17 ltxdl tt'lxc2+ 18 ~ i.xc3 19 tt'lxc3 liJxa3 20 tt'ldS. A critical alternative is 17 'iitxdl!?, when after 17...l:tfd8+ 18 ~cl i.h6+ 19 'iitbl it is not easy to find sufficient play for the pawn. 14 tt'lxc3

IS i.xc3 i.xc3+ 16 bxc3! Necessary, since after 16 tt'lxc3 'iWb6, followed by ...ltfd8, Black is fully developed with the white king stuck in the centre. 16 'iWxdl+ 17 'it>xdl Ilfd8+ 18 ~cl tt'la6 19 tt'ld4 i.d7 20 ltel e6 White is a pawn up, but has no hope of making progress, since Black has an excellent blockade on the queenside. 21 l:.eS l:.dc8 22 ~d2 ttJcS 23 f4 ~g7 24 l:.ael hS 2S g3 l:.c7 26 l:.Se3 i.c6 27 l:.eS ~d7 28 l:.Se3 i.c6 29 l:.eS Ill_Ill Again a game with absolutely no problems for Black, who even had some interesting alternatives. Game 91 W.Stern-Ekebjerg World COff ch 1994

(1 e4 cS 2 tt'lf3 g6 3 d4 i.g7 4 liJc3 cxd4 S liJxd4 tt'lc6 6 i.e3 tt'lf6 7 ~c4 0-0 8 ~b3 as 9 f3 dS) 10

~xdS!

Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 249 This seems to be White's best shot at an advantage. White puts an end to Black's tricks with ...a5-a4 at the cost of the bishop-pair. 10 lLlxd5 11 lLlxd5?! This is rather dull. The critical 11 exd5! is examined in Games 9294. f5!? 11 This rather surprising move tries to open up the position immediately. Less good was 11...e6?! which featured in BerzinsMalisauskas, Yurmala 1995. Black had nothing for the pawn after 12 lLlxc6 bxc6 13 lLlb6 l:tbS 14 'ifxdS l:tfxdS 15 l:tbl! ~a6 16lLla4. 12 lLlxc6 Necessary."p f=3 fxe4 13 fxe4 e6 14 lLlxc6 tIi'IN+! is already embarrassing. 12 bxc6 lLlb6 l:tb8 13 'jixd8 ':xd8 14 l:tdI!? 15 This has caused Black some problems in the past, although they now appear to have been solved. White's idea is to return the pawn, and then try to prove that Black's pawns are weak in the endgame. Worse is the move 15 c3, when after 15 ... l:td3 Black is already better, since White is struggling to co-ordinate his defence. ':'xdI+ 15 16 xdi ~xb2 Also not bad is 16... fxe4 17 fxe4 ~xb2 IS 'ii;Je2 ~e5, IvanchukZsu.Polgar, Monaco (rapid) 1994. This seems simple and solid. 17 lLlxc8 l:txc8 18 exf5 gxf5 19 e2 This is the ending that White

was heading for, and indeed it seems like he has a slight pull, as the black pawns are weak. Furthermore, White can play on the bfile. However, practice has shown that Black is still okay.

~

19 ~e5 20 f4!? The normal move is 20 ':'bl, which gave White the edge in the stem game Kir.Georgiev-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 19S9: 20... ~xh2?! 21 g3! e5 22 ~f2 f4 23 g4 ~g3 24 ~c5. Yet, in two games shown Hernandez has that 20 ... f7! holds no terrors for Black. Estevez went for 21 l:tb6, Cuba 19S9, but had nothing after 21...~xh2 22 l:ta6 ~d6 23 l:txa5 'ii;Je6 24 a4 l:tgS! 25 'ii;Jf1 l:tbS! as Black is very active. The following year Diaz tried 21 f4!? ~d6, which transposes to our main game. ~d6 20 l:tbi ~n 21 l:tb6 22 22 a4 was played in Diaz-Hernandez, Cuba 1990, when Black played 22 ...l:tgS 23 g3 l:tg6 24 ~d2 IDI6, creating counterplay. 22 l:.b8!

250 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 This looks rather dangerous, but it is safe enough. l:xb6 23 g3 a4 24 ~xb6 ~g6 25 ~d3 hS! 26 ~c4 Active counterplay secures the draw. Now White has to weaken his position in order not to let the black king come in: 27 h3 eS! 28 fxeS ~xeS 29 J..f2 liz-Ill

After 29 ... ~d6 White cannot break through on the queenside. His bishop will constantly have to defend the g3-pawn. 11 lDxd5?! seems to be nothing to worry about for Black, although it is rather difficult for him to play fora win. Game 92 Hamarat-Ekebjerg World corr ch 1994

(1 e4 cS 2 lDf3 g6 3 d4 ~g7 4 ttJc3 cxd4 5 ttJxd4 ttJc6 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7 ~e3 0-0 8 ~b3 as 9 f3 dS 10 ~xdS ttJxd5) 11 exdS! Certainly the critical choice.

11 ttJb4 12 ttJde2 12 ttJdbS?! ~d7 13 ttJa3? e6 14 d6 ttJdS IS 1It'd3 1i'h4+ 16 g3 1Wb4 17 i.d2 J..xc3 18 i.xc3 ttJxc3 19 "'xc3 :fc8 20 "'xb4 axb4 21 ttJbl 1:hc2 left Black with a winning endgame in Semenov-Uogele, corr 1989. Better is 13 a3 i.xbS 14 axb4 i.c4 IS bxaS l:xaS 16 l:txaS i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 1i'xaS 18 d6 l:td8 19 f2 l:txd6 20 "'al after which White survived in WesterinenHernandez, Alicante 1989. 12 ~fS 12 ... e6 is seen in Game 94. 13 l:c1 bS Less exact is 13 ... l:tc8?, which was first seen in GriinfeldKarlsson, Randers zt 1982, when Black had a bad position after 14 a3! ttJxc2+ IS l:xc2 ~xc2 16 1i'xc2 'ii'xdS 17 ~f2 'iVc4 18 l:dl bS. Here 19 'ii'd2 is very good, and Rogers has pointed out that 17 a4! is simple and good. Black will not get his usual counterplay, and White's two minor pieces against rook and pawn should be decisive. 13 ... l:a6?! has been played a little, but without much success. The idea is the piece sacrifice 14 a3 :r.d6!? IS axb4 axb4. In its first test, Gallagher-Wolff, London (L1oyds Bank) 1994, White was a bit worse after 16 0-0 bxc3 17 ttJxc3 bS! 18 'ii'el :te8 19 ~c5 ~xc3 20 1i'xc3 'ii'xd5 21 :tfel 'ii'd7 22 l:e5? lhe5 23 'ii'xe2 i.xc2! Gallagher, obviously impressed by Black's approach, decided to test it himself against Hector in Geneva 1995. Hector varied with 16 ~d4!?, keeping an extra pawn after 16...bxc3 17 ttJxc3 i.h6 18 l:a 1 i.e6 19 'ii'e2 i.xd5 20 ttJxd5

Main Lines with 7.ic4 0-0 251

l:txd5 21 ~xe7 We8 22 0-0, as Black had no way of profiting from the pin on the e-file. Just to make things worse, White successfully grabbed the piece in Olivier-Beck, Geneva 1997, after 16 tDe4!? l:txd5 17 tDd2 .ixb2 IS l:tbl .i.c3 IS WcI. Black tried 18 ... l:te5!? 19 tDxc3 :'xe3+ 20 tDe2 'fib6 21 tDfl ':e5 22 g4 .ie6 23 tDfg3 .ic4, but did not get sufficient compensation. Although 13 ... :a6?! has its charming points, it seems to fail for several reasons. 14 a3!? Generally considered as leading to a drawn ending, but White is more comfortable. 14 -0-0 is considered in the next gameV 14 tDxc2+ 15 l:txc2 .ixc2 16 "-xc2 b4 17 tDa4 The only sensible move, since White tries to slow down Black's initiative by creating threats of his own. Furthermore, he dreams of putting his pawn on b3 and then the knight on c4, when everything will be under control. ..-xd5 17 tDb6 18 "-e6 19 'iPfl The only move seen in practice. Bagirov gives 19 tDxa8?! Wxe3 20 tDc7 :'cS 21 tDd5 :'xc2 22 tDxe3 ':xb2 23 axb4 ':bl+ 24 tDdl a425 0-0 a3 26 liJdc3 ':xb4 27 ':dl h5 2S ':dS+ ~h7 29 ':a8 ':b3 30 l:tcS l:[b2 31 ':a8 with a draw by repetition. This seems correct, but maybe Black can try for more, since White is badly co-ordinated. For example, 20 ... .id4!? seems unpleasant for

White as his king is trapped in the middle of the board. l:tabS 19 20 liJf4 ..-32 Compared to the 13 ...l:tcS? line, Black's counterplay is already well under way, as he has created targets on the queenside. 21 axb4 axb4

22 l:tdl!? The stem game sa~2 liJfd5 b3 23 "e2 l:tb7 24 liJb4 .a5 25 liJc6 "a2 26 l:tdl "xb2 27 'i'xb2 .ixb2 2S ':bl .if6 29 l:txb3 l:tc7 30 liJb4 e6 1/2- 1/2, Klovan-Dorfman, Yerevan 1975. The critical move is 22 'fib 1!?, inviting Black to play the ending. This is generally dangerous for Black as long as the b-pawns are on the board. It is easier for White's minor pieces to attack Black's pawn than it is for the rooks to get active. Therefore it is Black's strategic goal to exchange the b-pawns, which will nearly 100% guarantee him a draw: a) He cannot play 22 ... 'i'xb2 due to 23 'i'xb2 .ixb2 24liJd7. b) Black has played 22 ...'i'xbl 23 ':xb 1 a few times, but with little success.

252 Main Lines with 7 JLc4 0-0

c) 22 ... b3!?, as seen in LankaPriedniek, USSR 1980, is quite clever. The idea is 23iUd7?! JLxb2, which is very dangerous for White. The game continued 23 "xa2 bxa2 24 l::ta1 JLxb2? 25 l:txa2 .i.c1 26 JLxcl l:txb6 27 ttJd5 l:tb7 28 l::te2 e6 29 ttJf6+ ~g7 30 iUg4 with some chances to White. However, Silman and Donaldson have proved a draw for Black with 24 ... l::tb7 25 lha2 l::tfb8. White's b-pawn is lost and he won't be able to develop an initiative as in the game. 22 b3 23 "e2 :b7! Ekebjerg's improvement on Milenkovic-Ujhazi, Kladovo 1992, which came to a beautiful end with 23 .. J:lfd8 24 ttJfd5 e6 25 ttJe7+ h8 26 ttJd7 :b7 27 ttJe5 :f8 28 ttJxti+! l::txti 29 l::td8+ :f8 30 l::txf8+ .i.xf8 31 .i.d4+ i.g7 32 "e5! 1-0. Black will be mated. This game was probably the reason why Hamarat gave 22 l:dl!? a shot, but against one of the world's strongest correspondence players, you should not expect to get your points that easily. 24 ttJc4 e6 2S i.d4

Around here it looks like White enjoys some initiative, since he is better centralised and Black's queen is rather offside. However, the b2-pawn needs constant protection, and Ekebjerg is sure that Black is okay. This is probably correct in a correspondence game, but in an over-the-board game it may not be so easy. 2S lld8 26 i.xg7 "a7+! An important check, getting the queen back into the game. 27 ttJe3 27 ~g3 :xd1 28 i.c3 looks attractive, but 28 ...l:c 1 followed by 29 ...:xc3 leads to the same type of position as in the game 27...:xdl 28 "xdl ~xg7 29 ttJe2 f6 30 ttJf4 "b6 31 'ii'd3 :a7 32 ~e2 eS 33 ttJfdS "b7 34 ttJc3 34 ttJg4?! may look interesting, but it leads to nowhere after the cool 34...l:b2 35 "d2 "c8! keeping the balance. 34.....c6 3S "bS "xbS 36 ttJxbS :a1 This ending appears to be critical for Black. It seems that sooner or later the white king will pick up the b3-pawn. However, with active play, Black creates potential counterplay on the kingside, so White has to be careful. 37 ttJc3 fS 38 ttJcdl 'iitf6 39 ~d2 hS 40 h3 ~e6 41 ttJll :gl 42 g4 'iitf6 43 gxfS gxfS 44 h4 1/2_ 1h. 44 .. .l:lg3 45 e2 llgl 46 ~d2 is a repetition. Probably this line is okay for Black, but it is not easy to play. Over the board it is hard to evaluate which endings are drawn and which are not, though objectively speaking, Black is fine.

Main Lines with 7 i..c4 0-0 253 Game 93

Prandstetter-Dory Dortmund 1987 (1 e4 cS 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 lLlc3 i..g7 6 i..e3 lLlf6 7 i..e4 0-0 8 i..b3 as 9 f3 dS 10 i..xdS lLlxdS 11 exdS lLlb4 12 lLlde2 i..fS 13 ':d bS) 14

0-0

The main line. White does not want an ending with only small winning chances, so he enters a fascinating labyrinth of complications. 14 ':e8 IS lLld4! The only way since 15 ... lLlxc2 was now a threat due to the pin on the c-file. Busquets-Donaldson, New York 1991, saw 15 1Wd2?! lLlxc2 16 i..f2 lLlb4 17 lLld4 lLlxd5 18 lLlxf5 lLlxc3 19 'iVxd8 lLle2+ 20 ~h 1 l:tcxd8 with a slight edge for Black. 15 i..xd4!? Uogele's initial idea, winning material at the risk of his own king's safety. The alternatives are: a) 15 ... lLlxd5?? is a blunder, White picks up a piece with 16

lLlxf5 i..xc3 171Wxd5! b) Silman and Donaldson suggest 15 .....d7?!, but we think that after 16 g4! i..xc2 17 lLlxc2 i..xc3 18 bxc3 lLlxa2 19 ':'al lLlxc3 20 'iVd2 White's piece is more important than Black's pawns. He should be able to launch an attack on the black king. c) More to the point is the exchange sacrifice 15 ...':xc3!? 16 bxc3 and now: cl) Black got a bad position in Oll-Kochiev, Tallinn 1987, after 16... lLlxa2 17 :al lLlxc3 (Kupreichik-Malisauskas, Miedzybrodzie 1991, saw 17... 'iVxd5 18 lLlxf5 'iVxf5 19 ':'xa2 "e6 20 ':'xa5 'ifxe3+ 21 ~hl Wb6 22 ':a2 i..xc3 23 'iVe2 e6 24 ':'dl b4 25 ':a6 "c7 26 "e4 'iVc5 27 h4 with good chances of breaking Black's fortress) 18 'iVd2 lLla4?! 19 lLlxb5 lLlb6 20 'iVxa5 lLlxd5 21 i..d4 and White was almost winning. However, in his notes in Informator 011 indicates that Black could have achieved a drawn ending with 18 ... i..xd4 19 i..xd4lLlxd5 20 ':xa5 i..xc2! 21 ':xb5 i..d3! 22 lWxd3 lLlf4 23 "e3 lWxd4 24 'iVxd4 lLle2+ 25 ~ lLlxd4 which was later proven in Donchev-Fauland, Graz 1987. Instead of 20 ltxa5 011 mentioned 20 g4!? as a possible improvement - and rightly so. It seems that Black is just an exchange down with insufficient compensation. Black has some chances of setting up a fortress, but with the queens still on and pawns on both wings, we think White is close to winning. An attempt to improve is 18 .....c7!?, which was tried in the

254 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0 game Ivanovic-Cebalo, Yugoslavian ch 1989. Although Black managed to draw after 19 d6!? exd6 20 lbxfS gxfS 21 i.h6 f4 22 i.xg7 ~xg7 23 .l::tfel dS, we feel this position is dangerous for Black. His king is weak and White should be able to launch an attack. Black's pawns look impressive. but since he needs to concentrate on defending his king, they may end up as weaknesses. c2) 16 ... lbxdS is playable and even led to a Black victory in Gonzales-Pazos, Camaguey 1986. Still, we believe that the position that arises after 17 lbxfS gxfS 18 ~d4 lbxc3 19 ~xc3 "iib6+ 20 ~h 1 ~xc3 should only hold chances for White. The exchange sacrifice Is .. ..l:hc3!? is playable, but by combining an attack on Black's king with pressure on his queenside pawns, we feel that White holds realistic winning chances.

lbxc2 'WWxd4 16 i.xc2 :'xc2 17 17 ... eS? was Uogele's original idea, but this seems to have been more or less refuted. PermanUogele, corr 1980, saw 18 'ii'xeS

.l:te8 19 'ii'f4? i.xc2 20 ~d4 gS! 21 "ii'd2 b4! 22 lbe4 i.xe4 23 fxe4 :'xe4 24 i.f6 "iib6+ 2S ~hl 'ii'e3 winning for Black. The later game De Firmian-Forintos introduced the far stronger idea 19 'ii'd4! :'c4 (necessary since 19 ... i.xc2 20 ~h6! f6 21 d6 is a transposition to Hector-Pirrot below) 20 'ii'd2 i.xc2 21 lbxbS with an eventual win for White, although it is not clear if he is much better. However, this is not so important, since Mors-Bes, corr 1993, saw 18 dxe6!? i.xc2 19 e7! 'ii'xe7 20 lbdS 'ii'd8 21 lbf6+ rJih8 22 lbd7+ f6 23 lbxfS 'ii'xd4 24 lbxg6+ hxg6 2S i.xd4 with an extra pawn for White, although Black still has reasonable chances to draw. However, we cannot understand why White did not play 21 ~h6!? f6 22 i.xfS, which seems to be winning. Maybe Black's best is 18 ... 'ii'xd4 19 i.xd4 ~xc2 20 e7 :'fe8 21 lbdS fS 22 lbf6+ ~f7 23 lbxe8 'iitxe8 24 :'e 1, although White should still be winning. i.h6 eS 18 19 'WWxeS f6 20 'WWd4!? 20 'ii'e6+?! has not been successful so far, and seems to offer Black the better chances in the ending after 20 ... :'f7 21 lbe4 i.xe4 22 fxe4 'ii'd7, since both 23 :'xf6 :'e8 24 'ii'c6 'ii'xc6 2S :'xc6 :'fe7 26 :'cS :'b7 27 i.d2 a4 28 d6 :'xe4 29 :'dS :'d7, as in Smit-Ekebjerg, corr 1991, and 23 'ii'xd7 :'xd7 24 :'xf6 :'e7 25 nf4 :'f7 26 c;ilf2 :'c2+ 27 c;ile3 :'xg2, Gonzalez-Estevez, Havana 1992, leave Black with excellent winning chances. The fIrst game ended in a draw, and Black won the second. Not surprisingly 20 'ii'e6+?! is not often seen in

Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 255

practice anymore. 20 'iVe2?! is just as toothless. After 20 .. JH7 21 'iVxc2 b4, Black retains the piece on c3, after which he will start attacking White's rather weak central pawn. 20 r:.ti! 20 ... Ite8 led to an immediate disaster in Hector-Pirrot, Metz 1988, when after 21 d6 .i.f5 22 ttJe4! .i.xe4? 23 'iVa7! Black had lost too much material to avoid being mated. 22 ... .i.xe4 is of course bad, but it is probably not possible to defend Black's position anyhow. 21 ttJxb5 \ / Other moves have not challenged Black's idea. Both 21 d6 b4 22 ttJe4 .i.xe4 23 fxe4 l:tc6 24 e5 fxe5 25 'iVd5 'Wb6+ 26 'ith 1 it'f7, Kontic-Stanojoski, Kladovo 1990, and 21 l:tf2 l:tc4 22 it'd2 .i.f5 23 g4 ..ltd7 24 ttJe4 .i.xg4 25 b3 r:.b4 26 a3 .i.xf3 27 axb4 .i.xe4 28 bxa5 'iVxd5, as in Pantaleoni-laloszyinski, corr 1988, led to trouble for White. 21 r:.b7

22 ltJc3!? Two games of Hector's indicate that Black is okay after 22 a4. First Hector-Petursson, Belfort 1988,

continued 22 ... 'ikb6 23 'iVxb6 nxb6 24 .i.e3 nb8 25 .i.f4 Itb6 26 l:tel .i.f5 27 .i.c7 .l:tb7 28 d6 .i.d7 28 'iti>f2 with some pressure. Hector was happy to repeat the line, but in Clennont Ferrand 1989 Dorfman improved with 25 ... l:ta8! when Hector settled for repetition with 26 ltJc7 Ab8 27 ltJb5 .l:ta8 28 ltJc7. Dorfman probably should have taken the draw now, since after the ambitious 28 ... :'a7 29 d6 .i.xa4 30 nel g5 31 .i.e3 :'b7 32 ttJd5 :'c2 33 ltJxf6+ c;tf7 34 .i.d4 :'d2 35 .i.e5 Ad2 36 Ael a4 37 .i.c3 Itxd6 38 l:txc2 lbf6 39 .i.xf6 'i!i>xf6 his reward was an ending a pawn down, which, however, is easily drawn due to the active rook. 22 it'b6 23 it'xb6 23 .i.e3?! was tried in BorgeP.H.Nielsen, Aarhus 1998, but Black simply played 23 ......xd4 24 .i.xd4 l:txb2 25ltJe4?! lha2! 23 r:.xb6 24 r:.f2!? .i.f5?! This leads to a difficult ending for Black. We believe Black has a rather safe draw with 24 ... l:txb2 25 .i.cl r:.b3! 26 axb3 :'xc3, when it is almost impossible for White not to end up in a drawn oppositecoloured bishop ending, e.g. 27 .i.b2 l:tc8 28 .i.xf6 .i.xb3 29 d6 l:tc 1+ 30 l:[fl :'xfl + 31 'itxfl .i.e6 with a drawn endgame. The only way to avoid this type of ending is 27 d6 .i.f5 28 .i.d2 :'xb3 29 g4!? .i.e6 30 .i.xa5 nd3 31 .i.c7 ~, but this, too, is an easy draw, since Black is too active. If this is correct, then Black has no problems after 15 ... .i.xd4!? 25 .i.e3 l:[b7 26 g4 .i.d7

256 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 27 ttJe4 ~g7 28 ~d2! Winning an exchange and the game, since if the bishop gets to c3, Black will have to give up an exchange anyway. 28 ...:'xb2 29 ~h6+ ~xh6 30 :'xb2 ~a4 31 ttJxf6 ~gS 32 ttJe4+ ~f4 33 ~f2 ~c2 34 ttJg3 ~eS 3S :'b7 gS 36 ttJn a4 37 ttJe3 ~g6 38 :'a7 ~e8 39 :'xh7 :'b8 40 ~g3 ~d4 41 ttJfS+ ~xdS 42 :'h8 :a8 43 a3 ~c6 44 :'xa8 ~xa8 4S f4 ~c4 46 fxgS ~b3 47 h4 1-0 White's new queen covers the a I-square just in time. Game 94

Hector-Hernandez Thessaloniki 011988 (1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 g6 S ttJc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7 ~c4 0-0 8 ~b3 as 9 f3 dS 10 ~xdS ttJxdS 11 exdS ttJb4 12 ttJde2)

12

e6!?

A safe way of avoiding the complications arising from 12 ... ~fS!? Generally, this move leads to quieter positions, since White nor-

mally returns the offered pawn, and then tries to exploit the positional defects of Black's position. 13 a3!? This seems to be White's best attempt for an advantage. Alternatives are: a) The latest ECO quotes an old recommendation of Korchnoi's, claiming that White is better after 13 'ii'd2 exdS 14 ~d4 .i.xd4?! IS ttJxd4 1i'h4+ 16 Wfl ttJc6 17 ttJdbS. This is probably true, but it is really completely irrelevant since Rothaler-Hagberg, corr 1979, saw the much better 14... ~f5!, refuting White's plan since after IS :'cl ~xd4 16 ttJxd4 :'eS+ 17 ~?! 'i'b6 the game is already close to lost for White, who resigned after IS llhd I? ttJd3+ because 19 cxd3 'ii'xd4+ followed by ...:le3 is terrible. Just as bad is 14 a3 d4! IS 0-0-0 ttJxc2! winning after both 16 "'xc2 ~fS 171i'd2 dxc3 IS ttJxc3 'ikc7, Hennings-Szilagyi, Varna 1970, when Black has an very easy attack, and 16 ~f2 ttJal! 17 ~bl ttJb3 IS 'ikc2 dxc3! 19 ltxdS :xdS, as featured in Sammalvuo-Wedberg, Osterkan 1994, where White's unsafe king again gave Black a winning attack. b) The greedy 13 dxe6?! was tried in Borge-Oblitas, Manila 01 1992. Black had terrific compensation after 13 ... ~xe6 14 a3 ttJdS 15 ~d4 ttJxc3 16 bxc3 l:eS 17 ~ "'c7 IS :bl ~xd4+ 19 cxd4 :cS and a winning position after 20 c3 ~c4 21 ttJg3 ~d5 22:el 'fIe723 'fId2 'fIxa3. c) 13 ~c5 :leS 14 d6 is usually given as unclear, but simply 14......g5!, hitting both cS and g2, is very good for Black.

Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 257

d) This leaves only 13 0-0, when

16 0-0 lb6 This is the usual way of transfer'iib6 was okay for Black in Este- ring the rook, but the simple vez-Hemandez, Holguin 1989. 16...l:te8!? seems better to us. The Simpler for Black is 13 ...:e8!?, idea is that this rook always bewhen White has nothing better than longs on e8, but the other rook may 14 a3 transposing to 13 a3. sometimes go to c8 instead of a6. 13 liJxdS The only example seen in practice 14 liJxdS exdS is Real-Estevez, corr 1989, when 15 ~d4 ~h6!? Black was much better after 17 The positional continuation. liJg3?! :a6 18 f4 'iWh4 19 :el 15 ... ~xd4!? looks awful, since :ae6 20 :xe6 j,xe6 21 f5 j,xf5 Black risks a white knight ending 22 liJxf5 gxf5 23 ~f2 j,e3! In up on d4, but surprisingly Black"-/general, we do not think putting the has been doing fme in practice. The knight on g3 is a good plan. Its game Griinfeld-Taylor, New York ideal square is c3, where it puts 1985, illustrated Black's plan rather pressure on d5. However, if White well. After 16 "ii'xd4 :e8 17 <,j;lf2 plays 17liJc3!?, Black has 17...~f5 :a6!? 18 liJc3 :c6 19 :adl ~f5 18:f2 :c8 19 "ii'fl?! :c4! 20 :dl 20 l:td2 :'c4! 21 "xd5 "ifb6+ 22 j,xc2! winning a pawn. White's 'iii'g3 "ii'e3 23 h3, Black had a per- best might be 17 ~f2 followed by petual with 23 .....f4+. However, liJd4 and c2-c3 etc., hoping to exert the prophylactic 18 :ael! gives pressure on the d-pawn later. White an edge. The idea is that Maybe Black should play 17... b6 18 ...:c6 19 c3! l:tc4 20 "ii'd2 fol18 liJd4 ~a6 19 :el "ii'd6, when it lowed by liJd4, as well as 18 ...l:tae6 will not be easy for White to make 19 liJc3!, seems good for White. progress. 17 <,j;lhl?! Although 15 ... j,xd4!? has been scoring well for Black, we find it Much better is 17 liJc3!, immedifficult to believe that his tempo- diately putting some pressure on rary initiative counterbalances d5, since 18 j,c5 would already be White's positional pluses. a threat. 17.. J:le8 seems necessary, but then 18 "ii'd3, intending 18 ... j,f5 19 "ifb5!, gives White some advantage. Since it seems that 17 liJc3! gives White a pleasant position, we recommend 16...:e8!? as the right move order. :e8 17 18 ~fl a4 19:e1 lbe6 20 ~c3 :xel+ 21 ~xe1 d4 22 ~xa4 ~e3 23 ~cs j,fS Black has fine compensation, 13 ... exd5 14 ~d4 J.xd4+ 15liJxd4

258 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 since the c2-pawn is easy to attack. 24 .i.g3 "'b6 25 b4 "'c6 26 a4 l:c8 27 as 'iVb5 28 l:bl "'c4 29 l:b2 "'c3 30 'iVbl l:e8 31 tLle4! Avoiding 31 tLld3? .i.xd3 32 cxd3.i.cl! 31....i.xe4 32 fxe4 :'xe4 33 l:b3 'iVc434 b5 .i.f4 35 a6 bxa6 36 b6 'iVe6 37 b7 .i.b8 38 'iVai l:e2 39 'iVd4 "'c6 40 "'d8+ <3;g7 41 "'d4+ ~g8 42 .i.f2 'iVc7 43 g3 l:tc2 44 'iVf6 l:td2 45 "'13 "'c2 46 .i.gl l:tdl 47 h4 48 'iVe3 "'c6 49 ~h2 'iVc2+ 50 <3;hl "'c6, Ill_Ill So far, 12 ... e6!? have been doing very well in practice, and White has no easy way of achieving an edge. He may get a slight positional plus, but Black, armed with the bishop pair, always has some counter-chances.

"'c1

Game 95 Lanka-P.H.Nielsen Moscow 01 1994

(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 liJc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7 .i.c4 0-0 8 .i.b3)

8

d6!?

This move is generally used to

transpose to the main line Dragon, which is outside the scope of this book. However, the Danish correspondence player Ove Ekebjerg has popularised an idea which takes advantage of the fact that White, compared to the main line Dragon, has already put his bishop on b3. 9 13 .i.d7 10 h4!? Although we consider this to be more accurate than the common 10 'iVd2 (see the next game), for some reason, 10 h4!? is played only rarely. To us it seems a good idea to start the attack immediately. 10 liJxd4 This may be too dangerous, but at the time I had not realised just how strong White's attack is. Unfortunately, no-one has tried 10 h4!? against Ekebjerg, but he claims that 1O...h5!? is fine for Black. This need practical testing, and is critical for the entire variation. 11 .i.xd4 b5!? This is Black's idea in this line . Since White's bishop is already on b3, it is easier for Black to become active on the queenside. 12 h5! e6 Limiting the activity of the bishop on b3, as well as preventing a white liJd5, exchanging Black's important defender on f6. Over the board I considered the more direct 12 ... a5!? too. In Vescovi-Afek, Groningen 1994, White did not fmd a way through Black's defences. The game continued 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 tLld5liJxd5 15 .i.xdS l:lc8 16 .i.xg7 ri;xg7 17 'iVd4+ f6 18 c3 "'c7 19 .i.b3 'iVc5 with equality. 16 'iVd2!? looks dangerous, but after 1~."e~!, 17 .i.xg7 I,

.' .' {

;

. 'j

~

:;

/1; ••

,

Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 259 ~xg7 18 'ii'h6+ ~f6, we can only chances. see a perpetual for White. Perhaps 19 eS 19 'ii'h2 dxe4! 20 .i.h6 .:txb3! 21 the modest 14 a3!?, as in Damjanovic-Begovac, Sombor 1974, is cxb3 exf3 22 .i.xg7 f2+! arrives White's best, when he was clearly just in time. lDd7 19 better after 14 ... eS?! 15 .i.e3 b4 16 f6! lDd5 lDxd5 17 .i.xdS bxa3 IS 20 Absolutely the only move, since ':xa3, although by analogy to our 20 ... .:eS? loses to 21 'ii'h7+ ~f8 22 main game 14 ... e6!? suggests itself. .i.h6. bxg6 13 bxg6 ~t7!! lDcS 21 14 as 15 a4!? White delays his attack for a short while, and makes a positional \ move instead. The direct 15 .i.e3?! \ ____ would backfire after IS ...a4 16 ~h6 .i.hS! 15 bxa4! This weakens the queenside, but lS ... b4? 16 lDe2 would allow the white king to live a safe life on the queenside, and give his subordinates plenty of time to organise a mating attack on the other flank. Now, at least, Black has some targets on the queenside. Actually I am quite proud of this 16 lDxa4 .i.c6 move. It is not often that Black 17 g4!? defends like this in the Dragon. Motwani-Larsen, London 1989, Now the e-pawn is defended and saw 17 0-0-0 instead. Black won ...:b8 is a threat. after 17... ':bS 18 .i.c3 dS 19 eS 22 lDxd7 .i.xd7 lDd7 20 g4? "c7 21 .i.xaS? "a7, "d2! 23 as his attack strikes first. Instead of Quite a strong move. It is not 20 g4? Larsen gives 20 :b3! with a easy to admit one's attack is a failpromising attack for White. ure. On d2 the queen maintains 17 some threats. ':b8 18 .i.e3? 23 fxeS?! This gives Black the opportunity Greedy. Better was 23 ...:b8!, he was hoping for. Instead IS keeping the initiative. ':h8 'ii'h2!, threatening .i.xf6, forces 24 l:txaS 18 ... l:eS, when 19 .i.e3! followed 25 ':xb8 "xh8 by .i.h6 probably gives White a 26 ':a7 winning attack. 26 ':xd5 exd5 27 'i'xd5+ Cite8 18 dS! does not promise White more than This classical counterstroke in a perpetual. the centre secures Black excellent 26 ~e8

"«12

260 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 It may seem like Black has lost his co-ordination, but everything is okay; the activity of the black queen secures plenty of counterplay. 1.7 1M3 Whl + 1.8 e1. e4 1.9 fxe4 .i.b5 30 .i.a4 Wg2+ 31 ~e1 Whl+ 31. d1. Wg1.+ 33 ~e1 .i.c3+! A nice trick, opening up the bfile, and ensuring that Black gets to the white king first. 34 bxc3 .i.xa4 35 Wdl?? After 35 We2 'ii'h 1+ White has serious problems, but now he loses on the spot. 3S....i.xc2 0-1 12 ... e6 has an unbeaten record, but it seems to us that it is just a matter of time before White stops misplaying his rather dangerous attack. However, 10... h5 and 12 ...a5 seem interesting and deserve testing. Game 96 Topalov-Tiviakov Wijk aan Zee 1996

(1 e4 cS 1. lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 lLlc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lLlf6 7 .i.c4 0-0 8 .i.b3 d6 9 f3 .i.d7) 10 Wd2 White's traditional continuation. He prepares 11 0-0-0 followed by 12 h4, with the standard attack. 10 We2!? is also possible, preventing Black's immediate ...b7-b5. However, the queen is not very well placed on e2, and Black should play 10... lLla5 when he has good chances. 10 lLlxd4!? lO.,J%c8 is a normal Dragon and is outside the scope of this book. The text move exploits the fact that

White already has played the move .i.b3.

11 .i.xd4 b5! Speeding up Black's counterplay on the queenside. 12 h4!? This seems to be White's best. 12 a4?! is played just as often, but it tends to steer the game towards a draw after 12 ..,b4 13 lLldS lLlxdS 14 exd5 .i.xd4 15 1i'xd4 as, as proven by Ekebjerg in a number of correspondence games. White has absolutely nothing, e.g. 16 h4 e5 17 dxe6 .i.xe6 18 .i.xe6 fxe6 19 0-0-0 dS 20 :del lIa6 21 lIe5 lIc6 22 ~bl 1i'b6 Mallae-Ekebjerg, corr 1977. Even less problematic is 16 0-0 1i'c7! 17 lIfel lIfe8 18 ~hl (18 :e2 1i'a7 is drawn as well) 18.,.e5! 19 dxe6 J.xe6 20 J.xe6 lIxe6 21 lIxe6 fxe6 with a drawn ending. 14 .i.xdS?! is even worse, and led to an advantage for Black in the game Smith-Ekebjerg, corr 1972: 14.,.J.xd4 15 1i'xd4 Ilc8 15 .ib3 Wa5 16 lIdl .i.e6! 17 lin .i.xb3 18 cxb3 Ilc2 and Black went on to win. 12 a4?! is certainly nothing for Black to worry about, unless he has to win at all costs.

Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 261 12 as 12 ... e6 in the style of the previous game may be possible, and seems to be a viable way of getting off the beaten track. 13 a4! The sharper 13 hS?! backfires, e.g. 13 ... eS! 14 ~e3 a4 IS ~dS b4 16 4Je2 4JxdS 17 'W'xdS ~e6 18 'W'd2 dS!, Tolnai-Leko, Hungary 1992, where Black was much better after 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 .Jlcs l:I.t7 21 .i.xb4 l:td7 22 exdS l:txdS 23 'iVe3 .i.fS. Leko gives 19 .Jlcs dxe4! 20 .i.xfB 'W'xfB 21 fxe4 1i'cs as ~ritical, but it looks as if White is itLgreat difficulties. 14 hxg6!? is given as unclear after 14... exd4 IS ~xt7+ h8 16 1i'xd4 h6 17 1i'd2 4Jg8 18 1i'xd6 .Jle8 19 'W'xd8 l:txd8 20 ~xe8 b4! by Stoica and Nisipeanu, but only Black can win this position. Therefore 13 hS?! must be considered harmless. 13 bxa4 A positional concession, but a necessary one, since 13 ... b4? 14 4JdS 4JxdS IS ~xdS ~xd4 16 1i'xd4l:tc8 17 hS! is just bad. Black hopes that the weakened squares on the queenside are not too important, since White's h2-h4 indicates that he will castle queenside. However, White, in turn, can try to exploit these concessions in a positional manner, hoping that h2-h4 will not prove to be a serious weakness later.

14

4Jxa4

e5

This is necessary, as 14... .Jle6 IS tLlb6 l:tb8 16 tLldS ~xdS 17 exdS AbS 18 ':a4 'W'c7 19 hS ':a8 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 g4 was good for White in Hort-Forintos, Athens 1969.

15 .i.b6! This strong new move seems to pose Black big problems. The older moves are: a) IS ~c3, putting pressure on the as-pawn, has proven ineffective after the reply IS ... .i.e6. Both 16 0-0-0 ~xb3 17 cxb3 'ii'b8 18 'W'c2 dS 19 exdS ':d8 20 d6 ':xd6 21 ':xd6 'W'xd6 22 ':dl 'W'e6, when Black was better in LepsenyiEkebjerg, corr 1980, and 16 ~xe6 fxe6 17 0-0-0 dS 18 ~xe4 tLlxe4, again with a good position for Black, Omelschenko-Ekebjerg, corr 1977, are fine for Black. b) Not a whole lot better is IS ~e3, when Black is doing fme again: IS ....Jle6 16 4Jb6?! (16 0-0-0 ~xb3 17 cxb3 ':b8 is okay for Black, but probably White's best) 16...':b8 17 4JdS .JlxdS 18 exdS e4 19 ~d4 :e8 20 ~dl :b4 21 ~a4 exf3 22 ~xe8 tLle4 and White was blown off the board in Stern-Ekebjerg, corr 1972. Unfortunately these old lines seem academic in the light of IS .Jlb6! 15

1Wb8

16 ~e3! .Jle6 17 :aJ! These three strong positional

262 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 moves give White much the better chances. White simply ignores the fact that he has played h2-h4 and plays along Classical Sicilian lines, trying to exploit the hole on dS. "b4?! 17

This makes things even worse. The critical test is 17.....c7!? according to Topalov, when 18 ~xe6 fxe6 19 ~b6 "c6 20 ~xaS ~h6! seems fine for Black. However, White should forget about winning material and simply play for a better structure with 180-0 or 18 tiJc3, which should leave him better. tiJb6 J:ab8 18 19 'iVxb4 axb4

20 l:aS! Again White is not tempted to win a pawn with a move such as 21 ':a4, instead he keeps his positional bind by constantly controlling dS. 20.....txb3 21 cxb3 ':fd8 22 <;Pe2 tiJhS?! It would have been more practical to play 22 ...dS!? with drawing chances in the ending resulting from 23 tiJxdS tiJxdS 24 ':xdS ':xdS 25 exdS l:d8 26 ':dl ..tfS. 23 ':c1 fS 24 ':c7 fxe4 2S fxe4 tiJf4+ 26 ~d2 tiJe6 27 ':e7 :e8 28 tiJdS :xe7 29 tiJxe7+ ~ 30 tiJdS ':b7 White has a won position, and now simply with 31 :a4, winning a pawn as well as creating two dangerous b-pawns, would have been best. Topalov's 31 :a6 was not bad either, but he kept missing wins, and in the end Tiviakov held the draw after 71 moves. At the moment the Ekebjerg system is in theoretical crisis. Both 10 h4!? and Topalov's 16 ~e3! seem very promising, so unless some serious repair work is done, this line will probably not be seen much in the future.

12 Lines in which White Captures with ltJxc6

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 tL\f3 tL\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tL\xd4 g6 5 tL\xc6?! - Game 97 S tL\c3 i.g7 6 i.e3 tL\f6 7 tL\xc6 bxc6 S eS S•••tL\gS 9f4 9 ... f6 - Game 98 9 ... tL\h6 - Game 99 9 i.d4 - Game 100 8...tL\dS 9 tL\xdS cxdS 10 "xdS :b8 11 i.c4 - Game 101 11 i.xa7 - Game 102 An early tL\xc6 from White is usually an attempt to punish an inaccuracy on Black's part. However, in the lines given in this chapter, White decides to take on c6 without provocation, attempting to take advantage of Black's modest development. However, this is not particularly easy to do, as Black's position is solid and White is not really very far ahead in development.

Game 97 Vestol-Botvinnik Moscow 0/1956

(1 e4 cS 2 tL\f3 tL\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tL\xd4 g6)

S tL\xc6?! This early assault should never really succeed. Looking at the position objectively, White is just as undeveloped as his opponent. But even such strong players as grandmaster Alexander Beliavsky have occasionally experimented with this line. S bxc6 5... dxc6?! was once played by the great Emanuel Lasker, but that was more than a century ago, and since it only equalises we cannot recommend it: 6 "f3?! (6 'ii'xdS+ c,t>xdS is equal; 6 i.d3!?) 6...tL\f6 7 h3 i.e6 S tL\c3 i.g7 9 i.d3 tL\d7 10 'ii'g3 'ii'b6 11 i.e2 h5 when Black was better in the game Albin-

264 Lines in which White Captures with lOxc6

Em. Lasker, Hastings 1895.

6 -.d4 The logical follow-up to White's previous move, but White has also tried a number of other moves: a) 6 J.e2 J.g7 7 0-0 ~6 8 ~a3 ~f6 with a slight plus for Black, Denker-Stoltz, Groningen 1946. b) 6 J.d3 J.g7 7 ()",O ~f6 8 c4 0-0 9 ~c3 d5 10 h3 ltb8 with equal chances, H.Steiner-Stoltz, Groningen 1946. c) 6 J.c4 J.g7 7 0-0 e6!? (Black is playing for ...d7-d5 in one go, but 7 ...d6 8 ~c3 ~f6 is also fine) 8 ~c3 ~e7 9 ltel 'ilc7 10 J.g5 d6 11 'ii'f3 0-0 is equal, OutereloFrois, Cordoba 1991. d) 6 J.e3 J.g7 (6 ... ~f6!) 7 J.d4 ~f6 8 e5 ~d5 9 c4 ~f4 followed by ...~e6 with a good game for Black. lLlf6 6 Also quite common is 6.. .f6, which White has met with following moves: a) 7 h4 ~h6 8 h5 J.a6 9 J.xa6 'ii'a5+ 10 ~c3 'ii'xa6 with a slight plus for Black. b) 7 J.c4 is the most common choice, when Black has several good answers:

bl) 7 ... e5? (with the white bishop on c4, this is way too weakening) 8 1Iid3 ~e7 9 ~c3 J.b7 10 f4! d5 (or 10...exf4 11 J.xf4 d5 12 exdS cxd5 13 J.b3 'liaS 14 0-0 0-0-0 15 lLle4! lLlfS 16 lLlxf6 and wins, Dolginin-Antoshin, USSR 1970) II exd5 cxdS 12 J.b5+ rJ';i7 13 fxeS fxeS 140-0+
Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6 265

...liJe7, ... i.g7, ... 0-0 and ... d7-dS. c) 7 c4! (best; it is advisable to restrict Black's options in the centre) 7...eS!? (instead PoljakSimagin, USSR 19S0, saw 7 ...lLlh6 8 i.e2 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 cS fS 11 eS [Korchnoi suggests 11 "a4] 11...lLlti 12 i.c4 'fIc7 13 i.xti+ l:lxti 14 l:lel i.a6 IS lLlc3 l:lb8 16 J:bl d6!? 17 cxd6 exd6 18 exd6 "a5 19 1i'h4 i.xc3 20 bxc3 ':'xbl 21 J:e8+ with a perpetual) 8 'fId3 i.e6 9 lLlc3 lLlh6 10 i.e2 lLlti 11 i.e3 WaS 12 0-0 i.b4 (12 ... i.e7 is also interesting, although after 13 f4 exf4 14 i.xf4 d6 Black will have to face h2-h4-hS) 13 :fcl d6, Naselli-Pelikan, played at Buenos Aires 19S8, and now instead of the passive 14 i.f3?!, White should have opted for the more aggressive 14 a3, e.g. 14... i.xc3 IS b4 Wd8 16 'fIxc3 dS 17 i.cs with an unclear posItIon or 14 lLldl (threatening a2-a3 followed by b2b4) 14...dS IS a3 i.e7 16 exdS cxd5 17 b4 'ili'd8 18 b5, when White holds the better chances. 7 e5

7 lLld5 This seems best, but Black does not have any problems after:

a) 7... lLlg8 (the fact that Black is still okay after this move shows that White's entire opening idea is a waste of time) 8 i.c4 (or 8 e6 lLlf6 9 exti+ ~xf'7 10 lLlc3, F1uderGawlikowski, Poland 19S3, and now 1O... dS! with a good game for Black) 8... i.g7 9 0-0 f6 10 exf6 (10 i.xg8 llxg8 11 11h4 fxe5 12 1Ixh7 ri;;f'7 13 i.h6 e6 14 i.xg7 l:lxg7 15 1i'h6 1If6 16 "e3 "f4 with a slight advantage for Black, Akopian-Faibisovich, Kharkov 1971) 1O... lLlxf6 11 i.b3 dS 12 i.f4 (Korchnoi's recommendation 12 c4 is best met by 12...0-0 13 cxdS exdS 14 lLlc3 i.e6 with excellent play for Black) 12 ...0-0 13 i.eS e6 14 lLlc3 cS IS 1IxcSlLld7 16 1Ic6 i.xeS 1711xa8 i.xc3 18 bxc3 1Ic7 19 i.xdS exdS 20 "xdS+ with equal chances. b) 7 ...lLlhS and now a further branch: bl) 8 lLlc3 (untried are 8 i.c4 lLlg7 9 0-0 and 8 g4 lLlg7 9 i.c4 a5 and 8 e6 i.g7 9 exf'7+ ~xf'7, but in all cases Black is doing fine) 8...'iib6 9 fS 10 "c4 i.g7 11 f4 dS 12 'iib3 llb8 13 i.e2 0-0 14 1Ixb6 axb6 IS g3 J:.d8 16 i.f3 i.f8 17 b4 e6 18 a3 i.a6 19 i.d2 lLlg7 20 qm lLle8 21 l:lhb 1 lLlc7 with equal chances, Beliavsky-Karlsson, Lucerne 01 1982. b2) 8 i.e2 lLlg7 9 lLlc3 (Leonhardt-Reti, Berlin 1920, saw 9 0-0 tLle6 10 'iih4 i.g7 11 f4 1i'b6+ 12 <;Ph 1 tLld4 13 i.d3 i.a6 with an edge for Black, but Korchnoi mentions 9 tLld2!? tLle6 10 1i'h4! as unclear) 9 ...tLle6 10 'fIe3 i.g7 11 f4 0-0 followed by ...d7-d6 was better for Black in Adams-Bisguier, USA ch 19S4. 8 e6 White attempts to disrupt his op-

"e4

266 Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6

ponent's structure, but only helps Black to gain a significant lead in development. Other moves are little better: a) 8 c4 and now Black can try: al) 8... lDc7 9 e6 f6 10 exd7+ 'ii'xd7 11 i.e3 'ji'xd4 12 i.xd4 eS 13 i.c3 with equality, BendiktssonPetursson, Iceland 1980. a2) 8...lDb4 9 'ii'c3 cS 10 i.e2 (Donaldson gives 10 i.e3 i.g7 11 i.xcSlDc6 12 f4 d6, which is good for Black, while 10 e6 is also hannless after 10... f6 11 a3 lDc6 12 exd7+ 'ji'xd7 13 i.e3lDd4 14lDd2 i.b7 IS lDb3 as Black is clearly better, as in Vartapetyan-Ovsejevich, Nikolaev 1995) 10... .tb7 11 0-0 .tg7 12 i..f4 lDc6 13 lDd2 d6 14 .tf3 0-0 with approximate equality, Suchorokov-Isupov, Orel 1992. a3) 8 ... 'ii'b6 9 'ii'e4 lDc7 10 lDc3 .tg7 11 f4 0-0 12 .td2 dS 13 'ii'f3 .tfS with better chances for Black, Chistiakov-Veresov, USSR 19S3. b) 8 i.c4 'ii'b6 9 c3 .tg7 10 .txdS cxdS 11 'ji'xb6 axb6 12 f4 gS 13 fxgS i..xeS and with a pawn majority in the centre and the pair of bishops, Black clearly holds the better prospects, Yanofsky-Stoltz, Groningen 1946.

8

f6

The alternative 8... lDf6 also offers Black quite good chances: a) 9 exf7+ <3ixf7 10 .te2 .tg7 11 h4 'ii'b6 12 'ii'a4 and now 12 ... eS gives Black a good game. b) 9 exd7+ i.xd7 10 .te2 .tg7 11 0-0 0-0 12 lDa3 .tfS! 13 'ji'a4 'ji'c7, Wolff-Serper, Baguio City 1987, and here 14 lDc4! would have kept the chances level, but instead White continued 14 .tf3? and after 14...lDd5 IS :leI :ab8 16

c3 l:[fd8 17 lDc4 lDb6! 18 lDxb6 l:xb6 Black was on top. 9 exd7+ 9 c4 may transpose into the 8 c4 line above if Black continues 9 ... tt:lb4 10 'ii'c3 cS, but in HartSilman, USA 1991, Black played 1O... aS and won at great speed: 11 exd7+ .txd7 12 .te3? (best was 12 i.e2 to get the white king away from the same diagonal as the queen) 12 ....tfS 13 lDa3 eS 14 Adl? 'ii'b8 IS :d2? tt:lxa2 0-1. 9 .txd7

10 .te2 Probably not the best, so White should consider trying something different: a) Motamedi-Donaldson, Portland 1985, saw 10 .tc4 eS 11 'ii'dl?! (Korchnoi suggests the interesting 11 'ii'e4!? intending lDc3) 1l...i..e6 12 "e2 (12 h4 can be met with 12 .....aS+ 13 .td2 'ii'b6 14 .tb3 as IS c4 lDb4!? 16 .txb4 i.xb4 17 tt:lc3 :d8 with a clear edge for Black) 12 ... .tcS 13 0-0 0-0 14 lDc3 "e7 (14 ...:f7 IS lDe4 i.e7 16 i.b3 fS 17 tt:lc3 i.f6 slightly favours Black, AbmvanelHaik, Royan 1987) IS .th6 l:fd8 16 lDe4 .tb6 and Black was better.

Lines in which White Captures with lbxc6 267

b) 10 .i.d3 can also be played, although after 1O ...e5 11 'ii'h4 ~g7 12 0-0 0-0 13 :dl 'fIc7 14 ~c4 ~e6 15 tl)c3 :ad8 Black was already better in Balinas-Donaldson, Reno 1994. At this point White blundered with 16 ~h6??, which Black met with 16 ... g5! 17 'ii'h5 ~f7 18 ~xd5 cxd5 19 'fIb3 .ltxh6 20 'fIxh6 d4 21 tl)b5 'fIb6 22 a4 ~g6 and while White avoided losing a piece, he could not save his queenside. 10 e5 11 'fIdl In J.Cruz Lima-Garcia Martinez, Cuba 1979, White tried 11 'fIa4 without much success: 11.. ..:b8 12 c3 ~g7 13 0-0 0-0 14 ':dl 'fIc7 15 tlla3 f5 16 tllc4 ~h8 17 1i'c2 ~e6 18 ~hl e4 19 ~d2 ':fe8 20 f3 ~g8 21 'fIcl e3 22 ~el g5 23 g3 f4 and White was about to be crushed. 11 ~g7 c3 12 0-0 13 tlla3 f5! 14 ~c4 ~e6 15 'fIa4 'fIc7 16 ~e3?! ~h8 17 ~c5 ':tb8 The game concluded: 18 'fIc2 'fIaS 19 ~d6 ':d8 20 ~e7 ':e8 21 ~h4 f4 In his last six moves White has moved his bishop five times, finally putting it on h4 where it does nothing; of course, Black is already much better. 22 0-0 ~f5 23 'fIe2 h6 24 t3 e4 25 ~xd5 'fIxd5 26 fxe4 ':xe4 27 'fIdl ':b8 28 "cl':e2 29 ~f2 "e4?! Botvinnik now starts making things more complicated than they ought to be. Simple and good was 29 .. J::tbxb2.

30 b3 t3 31 gxt3 "d3?! Here 31..."xf3 was best. 32 "f4 ':be8 33 ~d4? This just loses. Better was 33 :adl when although Black is still better, White is still on the board. 33...~xd4+ 34 "xd4 "xd4+ 35 cxd4 ~h3 36 ':fd ':g2+ 37 ~hl ':ee20-1 Gameg8 Ulibin-Serper Tbilisi 1989

(1 e4 c5 2 tllt3 tllc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tllxd4 g6) 5 6 7

tllc3

~g7

~e3

tllf6

tllxc6

With the black knight on f6, the exchange on c6 makes more sense. Black has to play accurately to avoid falling too far behind in development. 7 bxc6 The other possibility is the unambitious 7 ... dxc6. Play usually continues with 8 "xd8+ ~xd8 and now: a) 9 ':dl+ ~e8 10 f4 ~e6 11 ~e2 h5 120-0 (better is 12 h3, not

268 Lines in which White Captures with lLlxc6

allowing Black's knight into g4) 12 ... ttJg4 13 i..xg4 hxg4 14 i..d4 i..xd4+ IS .l:Ixd4 fS 16 .l:Iel Wf7 17 exfS gxfS with equality, Lukic-Puc, Yugoslavian ch 19S8. b) 9 i..c4 We8 10 f3 (better is 10 h3 to take control over eS with f2f4, but Black can try 10... ttJd7 11 i..b3 i..xc3+ when White may find it difficult to make use of his two bishops) 1O ... ttJd7 11 a4 ttJeS 12 i..b3 i..e6!? 13 i..xe6 fxe6 140-0-0 ttJc4 IS i..d4 eS 16 i..f2 i..h6+ 17 rJ;bl when Black's doubled e-pawn gives White an insignificant edge, Khasin-Shatskes, Moscow 1961. c) 9 0-0-0+ and:

cl) 9 ... i..d7? 10 i..e2 eS 11 i..gS iLc7 12 f4! iLe6 13 fS! gxfS 14 exfS iLd7 IS g4 is very unpleasant for Black. c2) 9 ... ttJd7!? was tried out in Granda Zuniga-Pinal, Havana 1985: 10 i..c4 f6 11 f4 i.c7 12 .l:Id2 eS 13 g3 ttJb6 14 i..b3 i..h3 IS ttJdl :ad8 16 ttJf2 .l:Ixd2 17 iLxd2 i..c8 18 .l:Ifl ttJd7 19 ttJd3 exf4 20 i..xf4+ Wb6 21 i..e3+ Wc7 22 ttJf4 ttJeS 23 i..e6 lte8 112-112. However, White can improve with 11 i..e6 ~c7 12 i..f4+ ttJeS 13 i..b3, intending 14 i..g3 and f2-f4, or 11...~e8 12 f4 b6 13 a4 in both cases with an edge for White.

c3) 9.. .'~e8 when White should keep the black knight away from g4: c31) 10 eS? ttJg4 11 ttJbS i..xe5 12 i.d4 cxbS 13 iLxbS+ Wf8 14 i.xeS ttJxeS and White is already lost, Olifer-Bannik, Ukrainian ch 1960. c32) 10 i..d4 i..g4?! (10 ... i..e6!) 11 f3 i..e6 12 g4 l:I.g8 13 i..e2 i.h6+ 14 Wbl i.f4 15 a4 ttJd7 16 ttJa2?! f6 17 ttJc1 ttJeS 18 ttJd3 ttJxd3 19 iLxd3 ~f7 is equal, Hamann-Rendboe, Lyngby 1989. c33) 10 f3 when Black usually answers 10...i.e6 after which White has tried the following options: c331) 11 ~bl ttJd7 12 ttJa4 iLeS 13 ttJcS ttJxcS 14 i..xcS hS IS i..e2 f6 16 h4
Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6 269

after the pawn sacrifice 7 ... bxc6 8 eS tDdS (Games 101-102), he should opt for 8 ... tDg8, which will be examined in this and the next two games. 8 eS lLlg8 Black retreats his knight and accepts the loss of time. Although Black looks terribly undeveloped, he is not in bad shape, as first White has to protect his forward epawn, which will allow Black to set up his counterplay.

9 f4 9 ~d4 is seen in Game 100. 9 f6

For the more solid alternative 9 ...tDh6, see the next game. Three other possibilities deserve attention: a) 9 ...dS 10 exd6 (on 101M2 Strauss gives 1O...hS!? 11 0-0-0 tDh6, intending ...tDfS and ... 0-0, which should be alright for Black) 1O... exd6 11 ~c4 (11 .ltd4 lLlf6 12 1M2 0-0 13 0-0-0 ~e6 14 h3 'ii'aS IS a3 l:ab8 16 lLJe4 'ii'xd2 17 lLlxd2 is equal, Delanoy-Hayoun, Torey 1991) 11...tDf6 12 0-0 0-0 13 'iWd2 dS 14 :tadl "fIc7 with equality, Kupka-Stefanov, Leningrad 1960.

b) 9... fS (this move leads to a very rigid structure where White should be somewhat better) 10 ~c4 e6 11 "fIe2 tDh6?! (the knight looks silly out here; 12 ... tDe7 was to be preferred) 12 0-0-0 'iWc7 1/2- 1/2 Kr.Georgiev-Ninov, Bulgaria 1988, but White is clearly better in the final position. c) 9 ... hS!?, intending ...tDh6-fS, is untried, but definitely worth a shot. ~d4 10 In this position White has tried numerous other moves as well: a) 10 .ltd3? (a sharp but unsound gambit) 10... fxeS 11 fS dS! 12 fxg6 tDf6 13 gxh7 e4 and Black is much better, Sapunov-Milev, Bulgaria 19S9. b) 10 fS?! 'ii'aS! (also good for Black is 1O .. .fxeS 11 fxg6 dS 12 gxh7 tDf6) 11 exf6 tDxf6 12 fxg6 'iWeS (in Vileseco-O. Martinez, Colon 1993, everything was a mess after 12 ... tDdS 13 ~d4 eS 14 'iWe2 lPd8 IS ~e3 l:b8 16 ~d2 tDf6) 13 'iWd4 tDg4 14 'iWxeS ~xeS IS ~gl hxg6 16 ~d3 ~ 17 0-0-0 ~g7 with a strong centre and clear advantage for Black in ZaharovAntoshin, USSR 1964. c) 10 e6? and now: c1) 1O... dxe6? 11 'iWf3 'iWc7 12 ~bS! (much stronger than 12 tDbS 'iWb7 13 lLJd4 tDh6 14 'iWxc6+ rM7 IS 0-0-0, Chernikov-Sosonko, Leningrad 1965, and now IS ...lLJfS! would have left White with only a small advantage) 12 ... ~d7 13 0-0-0 ':c8 14 ~c4 tDh6 IS l:hel lLJf7 16 .ltcS .lth6 17 l:xd7!, Kurkin-Estrin, USSR 1962. c2) 10... tDh6? 11 exd7+ 'iWxd7 12 'iWxd7+ ~xd7 13 .ltc4 ~c7 14 0-0 tDfS IS ~cS tDd6 16 l:fel with

270 Lines in which White Captures with tOxc6

a better game for White, Boleslavsky-Szilagyi, Debrecen 1961. c3) 1O...dS! By playing around the e6-pawn rather than taking it, Black refutes the pawn sacrifice. 11 fS 1i'd6 12 "f3 (or 12 g4? "eS 13 "f3 transposing to HenningsBaumbach below) 12 .....eS 13 lLle2 (also insufficient are: 13 .i..d3 .i..h6 14 ~ .i..xe3+ IS "xe3 gxfS 16 "xeS fxeS 17 .i..xfS lLlh6 18 .i..h3 l:.f8+ 19 ~el lLlfS, Samolewicz-Pzorelli, Poland 19S9; 13 g4 hS 14 lLle2 as in the game Hennings-Baumbach, East Germany 1961, and now 14....i..h6! IS .i..d4 hxg4! 16 "xg4 "xfS is clearly better for Black or 13 0-0-0 "xe3! 14 "xe3 .i..h6 IS "xh6 lLlxh6 16 fxg6 hxg6 with a huge edge for Black) 13 ... .i..h6 14 .i.f2 gxfS IS 'ii'hS+ ~d8 16 .i..d4 "e4 17 c4 .i..xe6 18 lIdl .i.e3! when Black is clearly better, Geissert-Baumbach, East Germany 1961. d) 10 exf6 (this move does not challenge Black) 1O... lLlxf6 11 .i..e2 0-0 (l1...l:tb8 12 lIbl "c7 13 0-0 0-0 14 'ithl d6 IS .i..d3 ~h8 slightly favours Black, KnoppertYakovich, Leeuwarden 1994) 12 0-0 dS (or 12 .. :.aS 13 'i'd2 l:tb8 14 l:tabl d6 IS a3 lLlg4 16 .i..d4 .i..xd4+ 17 "xd4 'itb6 18 "xb6 axb6 with equality, FemandesAndersson, Novi Sad 01 1990) 13 .i..d4 .i.fS (13 ...l:tb8 14 l:tbl as IS ~hl .i..fS 16 .i..d3 'i'd7 is equal, Edvardsson-lonasson, Reykjavik 1994) 14 .i..f3 :Cb8 with a slight initiative for Black, Aronin-Geller, Moscow 19S1. e) 10 .i..c4!? This is White's only good move aside from 10 .i..d4. It is rarely played, so it is worth trying as a

surprise weapon:

el) 1O... d5 11 exd6 exd6 11 'i'd2 followed by 0-0-0 is unpleasant for Black. e2) However, Black might consider 10...lLlh6!?, although it takes a brave man to face 11 0-0 lLlf7 (an attempt to get the king in safety) 12 .i..xf7+ ~xf7 13 fS! e3) 1O... fxeS (so far the only move tried in practice) and now: e31) 11 fxeS "as (possible is ll ....i..xeS, but White has a strong initiative for the pawn and it will take time before Black's king is safe) 12 O-O! "xeS 13 .i..f7+! ~d8 14 "d2 lLlf6 15 :ael 'ii'hS? (Gheorghiu gives IS .....aS as unclear, but White has massive compensation for the sacrificed pawn, and it is very doubtful that Black will ever free himself) 16 l:txf6! exf6 17 lLld5! cxd5 18 "as+ ~e7 19 .i..gS+! 1-0 Krystall-Burstow, Lone Pine 1976. e32) Possibly stronger is 11 0-0 exf4 12 .i..xf4 lLlf6 (perhaps 12 ...d5, intending 13 lLlxdS cxdS 14 .i..xdS 'itb6 IS ~hl .i..b7, is worth a try, but Black's unsafe king position will provide White with some compensation for the sacrificed material) 13 .i..d6! .i..a6 (not 13 ...exd6? 14 l:tel+ or 13 ...1i'b6+

Lines in which White Captures with llJxc6 271 14 ~hl ~d8 as in KrystallBatchelder, USA 1974, and now 15 .i.a3! with excellent compensation for the pawn) 14 .i.xa6 (in the fllSt edition of their book Silman and Donaldson mention the line 14l:tel 1i'b6+ 15 'it>hl .i.xc4 16 ':xe7+
1i'f3 White is better) 12 1i'e2+! 'ii'e7 (a little better is 12...~ 13 0-0-0 dS 14 1i'£2 lle8 15 .i.e2 .i.g4 16 .i.xg4 CiJxg4 17 1Wh4 CiJh6 18 g4, but White is still clearly better, Kaplan-Juhnke, Stockholm 1969) 13 CiJe4 ltd8 14 .i.c5 1i'e6 15 CiJd6 1i'd5 16 1i'c4 1i'xc4 17 .i.xc4 .i.f8 18 0-0-0 and White is winning, Ostojic-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1969. c2) 11 .i.c4! CiJf5 12 exf6 .i.xf6 13 .i.xf6 exf6 14 1i'f3! 1i'e7+ 15 ~d2 'iM6+ 16 'ii>cl with a clear edge for White, Diickstein-Jansson, Lugano 01 1968. These examples clearly illustrate how careful Black must be in these lines, particularly since he is so far behind in development.

11 1i'e2 This is no better or worse than other moves. White has also tried: a) 11 .i.c4?! fxe5 12 fxe5 .i.xe5 13 1i'd3 CiJf6 14 0-0-0 .i.xd4 15 'ii'xd4 dS 161i'e5 (Baumbach analyses 16 llhel O-O! 17 .i.b3 .i.g4 and 17 lhe7 dxc4 18 CiJe4 "f5 19 "xc4+ CiJd5 as good for Black) 16...0-0 17 CiJxdS cxdS 18 l%xdS 1i'b4 19 l%d4+
272 Lines in which White Captures with fuc6 b) 11 exf6 lDxf6 (a safe alternative is 11...i.xf6 12 i.xf6 lDxf6, e.g. 13 "d4 0-0 14 0-0-0 l:tb8 and Black was doing fine, UshakovKapengut, Minsk 1969) 12 i.c4 d5 (also possible is 12 ... i.a6!?) 13 i.e2 (in TseitIin-Mikac, Ostrava 1991, White achieved a small advantage after 13 i.d3 l:lb8 14 "d2 0-0 IS lDe2 'ii'xd2+ 16 ~xd2 lDd7 17 i.xg7 ~xg7 IS lDd4 :f6 19 :ael) 13 ... 0-0 14 0-0 l:lbS IS .l:.bl i.fS 16 i.f3 11b4 with equality, Diickstein-Benko, Varna 01 1962. Black can also try Baumbach's suggestion 16 ... lDe4!? 17 i.xg7 ""xg7 IS "d4 (IS ~xe4 dxe4 19 "d4+? eS!) 18 ...lDf6 with equality. c) 11 b4!?

(an interesting gambit; White sacrifices a couple of pawns in return for a huge lead in development) 11.. ...xb4 12 .l:.bl "as 13 i.c4 fxeS? (Black is asking for trouble; best was 13 ... ~h6, intending 14 exf6?! i.xf6! IS i.xf6 exf6 16 'ii'd4? lDfS! 17 'ii'xf6 11f8 and wins or 14 0-0 ~fS IS exf6 i.xf6 16 i.xf6 "cS+! 17 'ifi>hl exf6 and Black seems to survive) 14 fxeS i.xeS? (better was 14... ~h6) IS 0-0 lDf6 16 lDbS! i.xd4+ 17 "xd411f8 ISlDd6+ exd6 19 "xd6 "c3 20 .l:tbel+ ~dS 21 "xfS+ and

White was winning here in DiezF.Petersen, Kapfenberg 1970. d) 11 'ii'd2 (the most important alternative) and now: dl) Black can try ll...liJh6, although he did not have much luck in its first outing: 12 exf6 exf6 13 i.c4 (even stronger is 13 0-0-00-0 14 i.c4+ 'ifi>h8 IS i.b3) 13 ... dS 14 0-0-0 i.e6? (Donaldson suggests that Black can take the bishop on c4 and survive after 14... dxc4 IS .l:thel+ ~f7 16 'ii'e2 1i'b4, but after the simple 17 a3, Black will have a hard time defending himself, e.g. 17 .. :iid6 IS i.eS 'iie6 19 ~e4 with a nasty attack, but this is definitely better than what Black did in the game) IS .l:.fel ""f7 16 l:lxe6 ""xe6 17 'iie2+ ""d7 IS ~xdS cxdS 19 i.c3 l:tae8 20 i.bS+ 'ifi>d6 21 lhdS+ and Black resigned, Kovalev-Roizman, Minsk 1981. d2) ll...fxeS 12 fxeS cS (in Varavin-Khasin, Elista 1994, Black was successful with the risky 12 ... i.xe5!?, when after 13 0-0-0 lDf6 14 :tel i.xd4 IS 'iixd4 0-0 16 .l:.xe7 'ii'gS+ 17 'ifi>bl d5 18 i.d3 White appears to hold an advantage, but it proved remarkable little after 18 ... i.fS 19 i.xfS "xfS 20 llhel 11ae8! and Black has few problems) 13 i.e3 i.xeS (after 13 ... llbS 14 i.c4 i.a6, Black was caught in the middle of a stampede: IS O-O-O!! i.xc4 16 'ii'xd7+ 'iii'f7 17 llhfl + i.xfl 18 11xfl + ~f6 19 exf6 i.xf6 20 11xf6+ 'ifi>xf6 21 lZldS+ ~eS 22 i.f4+ ~e4 23 'iie6+ ~d4 24 i.e3+ 1-0, PavmonRoizman, USSR 1982) 14 i.c4 lZlf6 IS 0-0 i.b7 16 ltael (after 16 i.f4 i.d4+ 17 ~hl i.a6 18 i.xa6 "xa6, White did not have enough compensation in Haag-Hennings,

Lines in which White Captures with ~c6 273 Zinnowitz 1966) 16...0-0-0! 17 'ii'e2 d5 with a clear plus for Black, Pieri-P.H.Nielsen, Forli 1992. If White instead of 17 1fe2 tries 17 ~d5 he can in fact save himself: 17 ...Wxd2 IS ~xe7+ rJilc7 19 ~xd2 d6! (19 ... i.xb2? 20 c3! is not what Black has in mind) 20 i.g5 ~d4+ 21 ~h 1 ~e4 22 ~d5+ i.xd5 23 i.xdS+ 'Ot>xdS 24 i.xd5 ~f2+ 25 lIxf2 i.xf2 with a likely draw. 11 fxeS An interesting idea is 11.. .c5! ? 12 exf6? ~xf6 13 i.e5 0-0, Stodola-Chemikov, Pardubice 1994, when compared to the main line, Black has achieved ... c6-c5 and ... 0-0 for free and is of course clearly better. White can do better, but how much better? 12 i.f2 fxe5 13 fxe5 ~h6, 12 i.e3 ~h6 and 12 'ii'b5? 'ii'xb5 13 ~xb5 cxd4 14 ~c7+ dS 15 ~xa8 i.b7 are all good for Black. 12 i.xeS Black stands clearly better after 12 fxe5 11b8 (l2 ... ~h6!?) 13 0-0-0 c5.

12

~f6!?

Most sources suggest that White is a little better after 12 ... i.xe5 13

'ii'xe5 "xe5 14 fxe5, but this is not necessarily true: 14...~h6 (inferior is 14... d5 15 exd6 exd6 160-0-0 d5 17 i.e2 ~f6 IS ':d4 0-0 19 i.f3 i.f5 20 11e 1, when White had the better chances in Smrcka-Baumbach, corr 1965) 15 0-0-0 O-O!? (Donaldson gives 15 ... ~g4 16 11el 0-0 17 i.c4+ 1;g7 18 h3 11f4 19 b3 ~h6 20 11hfl 11xfl+ 21 :lxfl i.b7 22 lIdl ':dS 23 ~e4 which is unpleasant for Black; nor does he equalise after 15 ...':f8 16 ':e 1 l:.f5 17 i.d3 ':h5 18 i.e4 with a clear edge for White, Puc-Pirc, Sarajevo 1960) 16 i.c4+ ~g7 17 :hflllxfl IS lIxfl d5 19 exd6 exd6 20 ':el ~ and Black had no problems in Delanoy-Van den Bosch, Kecskemet 1991. 13 1fc4! 1fb6 14 0-0-0 dS In Ulibin-Maliutin, USSR 1985, Black got into deep trouble after 14...d6? 15 i.d4 c5? 16 ~d5!, but everyone seems to have forgotten about 14...a5!?, which equalised smoothly for Black in MinicParma, Titograd 1965: 15 ':el i.a6 16 1fd4 1fxd4 17 i.xd4 1;f7 IS i.xa6 :xa6 19 :le2 :eS 20 :hel 11aaS 21 g3 d6. 1fa4 15 0-0 16 i.d4 1fc7 17 i.eS 1fb6 18 i.d4 1fc7 19 g3 White is not in the mood for a draw just yet, which would have been the result after 19 i.e5, but in this position Black is by no means worse. 19 i.g4! Black wants the bishop in front of the pawns. 19 ... e6? is horrible: 20 i.g2! i.d7 21 1fa3.

274 Lines in which White Captures with tZJxc6

fear after 9 ... liJh6!?, but White also has:

20 l:td2 Black is also fine after 20 l:te1 i..f3 21 l:tgl c5. 20 ...i..f3 21 i..g2 i..xg2 22 l:xg2 e6 23 "a3?! Now Black gets the upper hand. Best was 23 l:te1 c5 24 i..e5 'iifb6 25 :ge2 l:tac8 with about equal chances. 23 ... l:ac8 24 :tel 24 'iha7? 'ii'xa7 25 i..xa5 c5 is good for Black according to Serper. 24 ...c5 25 i..e5 "b6 26 :tge2 liJc6 27liJbl! Ill-Ill Serper gives the following lines: 27 ... 'iifb5!? 28 liJd2 l:ta6 29 'iifb3 'tWxb3 30 liJxb3 with the idea of 30.. Jha2 31 ~bl or 27 ... :d8 threatening ... d5-d4 and ... c5-c4. Game 99 Faulks-Donaldson Bermuda 1995

(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i..g7 6 i..e3 liJf6 7 liJxc6 bxc6 8 e5 liJg8 9 f4) 9 liJh6!? (see following diagram) 10 "d2 Black does not have much to

a) 10 liJe4 0-0 11 'ii'd2 d6 with equal chances. b) 10 'ii'f3?! 0-0 11 i..c4 (or 11 i..d3 f6 [11.. .d6 transposes to note 'd' below] 12 exf6 i..xf6 13 0-0 d5 14 i..c5 'tWa5 with a slight edge for Black, Witt-Malich, Havana 01 1966) 1l...d5! 12 exd6 exd6 13 'ii'xc6?! (White takes a little more time than he actually has, but he was already in trouble; Black threatens ... d6-d5-d4) 13 ... i..d7 14 'ii'f3 l:tc8 15 i..d3 i..g4 16 'ii'd5 :e8 17 ~d2 :xe3! 18 ~xe3 'iifb6+ 19 ~d2 'ii'xb2 and Black soon won, Fichtl-Gereben, Warsaw 1956. c) 10 i..e2?! 0-0 11 0-0 liJf5 (or 11...f6 12 exf6 i..xf6 13 g4 d5 14 i..c5 'ii'a5 15 b4 'ii'd8 16 g5 i..xc3 17 gxh6 i..xal when White does not have enough for the exchange) 12 i..f2 h5 13 liJe4 d6 14 exd6 exd6 15 c3 l:te8 16 i..d3 d5 17liJg3 liJe3 18 i..xe3 ':'xe3 19 f5 'iifb6 20 -.t;>hl i..a6 21 i..xa6 'ii'xa6 22 f6 i..f8 23 liJxh5 'ii'e2 with an initiative for Black, Rakic-Damjanovic, Portoroz 1961. d) 10 i..d3 d6 11 'ii'f3 0-0 12 0-0 (12 h3 dxe5 13 fxe5 liJf5 14 .tf4

Lines in which White Captures with liJxc6 275 .as IS 0-0 'ifb6+ 16 'itlhl tLld4 17 tLlf2 tLle6 18 .xb6 axb6 is clearly better for Black, Faulks-Shadade, Bennuda 1995) 12 .. dxeS (l2 ...•c7 is also good) 13 .xc6 tLlg4 14 .i.cs i..d7 15 .a6 exf4 16 tLld5 'ifb8 17 h3 .eS 18 tLlxe7+ ~h8 19 b4 tLle3 with a very unpleasant position for White, Rohde-Tarjan, Lone Pine 1975. e) 10 .i.c4 0-0 11 .d2 (11 0-0 d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 i..d4 tLlfS [also good is 13. .. .i.xd4+ 14 .xd4 'ifb6 IS .xb6 axb6 16 i..d3 i..fS 17 .:lfdl dS when Black is comfortable, Smirin-Davies, Gausdal 1990] 14 .i.xg7 <:Ji;xg7 IS .d3 'ifb6+ 16 <:Ji;hl dS! with a small edge for Black, as in Pilszyk-BrinckClaussen, Marianske Lazne 1962) l1...d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 0-0-0 i..g4 14 tLle2 tLlfS IS .i.f2 .:lb8 16 i..b3 a5 17 c3 a4 18 .i.c2 .as with a strong attack for Black, RubezovSokolsky, corr 1961.

10

0-0

Levy suggests 1O ... tLlfS 11 .i.f2 hS, intending to meet 12 h3 with 12 ... h4 and if necessary give up the h-pawn to slow down White's kingside attack.

11

0-0-0

White has from time to time prepared g2-g4 with 11 h3 at this point. However, Black has no problems against this slow approach. After 11 ... d6! (Boleslavsky-Gurgenidze, Riga 19S8, saw l1...f6 12 .i.c4+ tLlf7 13 i..xf7+ <:Ji;xf7!? 14 0-0-0 ~g8 IS exf61hf6 16 i..d4 .:ld6 17 .e3 .:le6 18 .f3 i..xd4 19 .:lxd4 'ifb6 20 ne4 .:lxe4 21 .xe4 .:lb8 22 .xe7 .xb2+ 23 <:Ji;d2 'ifb4 with approximately equal chances) 12 0-0-0 lLlf5 13 .i.f2 cS 14 g4lLld4 15 .i.g2 .:lb8 16

.i.xd4 cxd4 17 .xd4 .a5 18 J:thel i..a6, threatening ... .:lb4 followed by ... l:.fb8 with a strong attack, Diickstein-Waller, Austria 1969.

11 d6 Recently this has been the most popular of Black's options. However, 11....aS!? is possibly stronger: 12 .i.c4 (now Black gets the better of it; critical is 12 h3 tLlfS 13 i..f2 d6 14 g4 dxeS IS gxfS .i.xfS when Black has two pawns and attacking prospects for the piece; it is hard to say whether this is really enough) 12 ... l:.b8 13 h4 (13 1i'd4?! d6 14 .xa7 1i'xa7 IS .i.xa7 na8 16 .i.d4 tLlfS 17 .:lhel .i.h6! 18 g3 tLlxd4 19 lhd4 dxeS 20 l:tde4 exf4 21 gxf4 eS! is very good for Black, Akaba-Boop, USA 1991) 13 ... d6 14 h5 tLlf5 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 g4 tLlxe3 17 .xe3 .i.xg4 18 J:tdg 1 .i.fS is very good for Black, Ravinsky-Zilberstein, Leningrad 1963. Other moves have proven less successful: ll...f6? 12 .i.c4+ <:Ji;h8 13 h4 fxe5 14 h4 exf4 15 .i.xf4 g5 16 .i.xg5 tLlg4 17 • e2 lLle5 18 h6 .i.f6 19 .i.xf6+ exf6 20 nd6 with a killing attack, Shianovsky-Funnan, USSR 1960, or ll...dS 12 h4 .as

276 Lines in which White Captures with llJxc6 13 hS l:tdS 14 hxg6 fxg6 IS 'ifd4 llJfS 16 'ii'cs 'ii'xcs 17 i(,xcS llJg3 IS l:lh2 with a small edge for White, Estrin-AZaitsev, corr 1964. 12 h3!? Boleslavsky's old recommendation. Less good is 12 exd6 exd6 (inferior is 12 ...llJfS?! 13 Ji.f2! [13 d7?! llJxe3 14 dxcS'ii' 'ii'xd2 IS ~xd2 llJxfl + is just about equal] 13 ... exd6 14 g4! which slightly favours White) 13 Ji.d4 ~xd4 14 1i'xd4 llJfS IS 'ii'd2 d5 16 ~d3 (16 g4 is not a worry, as after 16... llJd6 and eventually ...f7-fS Black has excellent control over the centre) 16...llJd6 17llJa4 'iff6 ISllJcS l:tdS 19 c3 ~fS 20 g3 1:1abS 21 ~xfS 'ii'xfS 22 'ii'd2 'ii'f6 23 'ifd4 'ifxd4 24 1:1xd4 with equality, KochBirmingham, Val Thorens 19S5. 12 llJf5 Boleslavsky analyses 12 ... 'ii'aS 13 exd6 exd6 14 g4 1:1bS IS i(,d4 with a clear advantage for White. i(,fl 13 Now 13 g4 is met by 13 ... ~b7 14 1:1g1 llJd4, intending IS ~xd4 cxd4 16 'ii'xd4 'ii'aS, and very soon White will feel the presence of the black bishops. 13 e5

14 ~e4 ~b7 15 ~d5 ~xd5 16 'ii'xd5 l:tb8 17 g4 llJd4 18 ~xd4 exd4 19 l:txd4 dxe5 20 fxe5 'ii'b6 21 llJa4 'ii'e7 22 l:tel l:tfe8 Black has a pawn less, but the poor co-ordination of the white pieces and the weak pawn provide more than enough compensation. Now Black starts to penetrate the white position. 23 e3 e6 24 'ii'd6 'ii'aS 25 l:tde4 l:tb5 26 'ii'd4 l:td5 27 'ii'e3 l:ted8 28 'ii'f4 .l:.d3 29 l:te4 'ii'd5 30 :n :dl+ 31 ~c2 'ii'd3+ 0-1 Game 100 Tringov-5tein Sarajevo 1967

(1 e4 e5 2 llJf3 llJe6 3 d4 exd4 4 llJxd4 g6 5 llJe3 i(,g7 6 ~e3 llJf6 7 llJxe6 bxe6 8 e5 llJg8)

9

~d4

White often plays this move, although Black does not seem to have any problems equalising.

Lines in which White Captures with lbxc6 277 9 The main line. Alternatives are: a) 9...•c7 10 e6 tDf6 11 exfl+ c;t>xfl 12 ~c4+ d5 13 ~b3 e5 14 ~c5 .a5 15 ~a3 ~a6 16 .f3 !Ihe8 17 0-0-0 g8 18 tDxd5!? cxd5 19 !Ixd5 tDxd5 20 ~xd5+ ebh8 21 ~xa8 e4! 22 ~xe4 ~b7! 23 ~xb7 !Iel+ 24 .dl !Ixdl+ 25 lIxdl ~xe5 with about level chances, E.Kennedy-Biyiasas, USA 1977. b) 9 ...tDh6 10 e6 and now: bl) 1O... f6? 11 exd7+ ~xd7 (even worse is 1l....xd7 12 ~c4 tDf5 13 ~c5 tDd6 14 ~b3 ~a6 15 .d4 !Id8 16 0-0-0 f8 17 .a4 .c8 18 tDe4 ~h6+ 19 bl ~b5 20 tDxd6 exd6 21 l:.xd6 1-0 Varavin-Myrvold, Gausdal 1993) 12 ~c4 ~f5 13 .f3 .d6 14 h3 ~e6 15 tDb5! 'iIb4+ 16 c3 .xc4 17 tDc7+ d7 18 b3, Diez del Corral-Velimirovic, The Hague 1966, and now best is 18 ...•xd4 19 cxd4 xc7 20 !Iel ~d7 21 d5 with an initiative for White. b2) Another bad idea is 1O... ~xd4? 11 .xd4 0-0 12 exd7 .xd7 13 .xd7 ~xd7 14 ~c4! !Iad8 15 0-0-0 tDg4 16 l:.d2 ~c8 17 l:.hdl with a clear edge for White, Bisguier-Geller, Helsinki 01 1952. b3) 10... 0-0 11 ~xg7 xg7 12 .d4 f6+ 13 exd7 ~xd7 14 0-0-0 ~g4 15 f3 .xd4 16 .l:txd4 ~c8 17 ~d3 tDf5 18 ~xf5 gxf5! 19.1:thdl ~e6 20 tDa4 .l:tg8 with an endgame advantage for Black, TroianescuGhitescu, Romanian ch 1957. c) 9 ... c5?! 10 ~xc5 (interesting is the less played alternative 10 ~e3!? .c7 11 ~c4 ~b7 12 .d2 .xe5 13 0-0-0 tDf6 14 .l:thel 0-0 15 ~g5 .xh2 16 f3 .c7 17 .l:txe7

'ilb6 18 .d6! with a powerful initiative for White, TukmakovWeichert, Graz 1972; whereas 10 "f3 .l:tb8 11 ~xc5 .c7 12 .e3 .xe5 favours Black) 10...•c7 (inaccurate is 1O... ~xe5? 11 .d5 ~xc3+ 12 bxc3 .a5 13 .xa8 .xc3+ 14 dl .xc5 15 ~a6 .d6+ 16 ~d3 with a clear plus for White) 11 ~d4 ~xe5 and now White has tried: el) 12 ~xe5 .xe5 13 ~e2 ~a6 (13 ... tDf6!?) 14 .d5 .xd5 15 tDxd5 ~xe2 16 xe2 l:.c8 17 tDe3! e6 18 c4 tDf6 19 .l:thdl e7 20 .l:td3! with a small edge for White in the endgame, Versinin-Voloshin, Litosmyl1995. c2) 12 ~e2 tDf6 (or 12 ... ~b7 13 ~xe5 .xe5 14 0-0 tDf6 15 ~f3 ~xf3 16 .xf3 0-0 17 .l:tfel .c5 18 .l:tadl .l:tab8 with equality, Bradvarevic-Pirc, Sombor 1957) 13 ~xe5 .xe5 140-0 O-O?! (best was 14... d5! 15 ~b5+ c;t>f8 16 ~c6 .l:tb8 with a good game for Black, whereas 14... ~b7!? transposes to Bradvarevic-Pirc above) 15 ~f3 l:.b8 16 ':el .c5? (16 ...•a5!?) 17 tDa4 .a5 18 b3 ':e8 19 c4 with a clear advantage for White, IvkovPachman, Buenos Aires 1955. c3) 12 tDb5 'ilb8 13 f4 ~xd4 14 .xd4 tDf6 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 nel ne8 17 g4 ~b7 18 ngl ~c6 with equality, Estrin-Averbakh, Moscow 1968. c4) 12 f4 (the only way to maintain the initiative) 12 ... ~xd4 13 .xd4 tDf6 14 g4 (also promising is 140-0-00-0 15 ~c4 ~b7 16 ':d2 d5 17 ~b3 ':fd8 18 .l:thdl nd7 19 g3 with a slight pull, TringovDamjanovic, Ljubljana 1969) 14... ~b7 15 .l:tgl 0-0 160-0-0 !Ifc8 (Cebalo-Ostojic, Yugoslavian ch

278 Lines in which White Captures with fuc6

1968, went 16 ... d5 17 h4? ttJe4 18 'iWxf4+ 19 ct>b 1 ttJxc3+ 20 "xc3 llfc8, but White can do much better: 17 "e5! "c5 18 :g3 IUc8 19 J..g2 with a slight edge) 17 fld2 llab8 18 llg3 a5 19 fle3 dS 20 f5, Diickstein-Stein, Sarajevo 1967. ~g2

10

~c4

Two other moves have been tried at this point: a) 10 f4 llb8! 11 e6? (best is 11 "d2 llxb2 12 ttJe4 with some compensation for the pawn) 11...ttJf6 12 exf7+ ~xf7 13 ~c4+ dS 14 ~b3 l::td8 15 J..e5 ttJg4 16 ~xg7 ct>xg7 17 1i'd4+ e5! 18 fxe5 c5 19 "a4 "c7 20 0-0-0 d4 with a clear edge for Black, KovacsA.Zaitsev, Debrecen 1970. b) 10 e6!?

lOe4 'i'd5 14 lOxf6+ exf6 15 ~e3 'i'e6 16 l::tdl l::tfd8 17 b3 1i'e5 18 f3 1i'e7 19 ~d3 ~h6 20 ~ ~xe3+ 21 'i'xe3 "a3 with an initiative for Black, Barcza-G.Horvath, Zalakaros 1994) 1l...~xf7 12 f4!? (12 ~c4+ is good for Black: 12 ... d5 13 ~b3 lle8 14 ~e5 lLlg4 15 ~xg7 rltxg7 161i'd2 e5 170-0-0 1i'c5 18 f3 lLlf6 llhel ~d7 with a clear edge for Black, Cherkasov-Pekacki, Czestochowa 1992) 12 ...d5 (12 ...l::tb8 13 ~c4+ dS 14 ~b3 l::tb4? [14 ... ~f5!?] 15 a3 l::txd4 16 1i'xd4lLlg4 17 1i'd2 e5 18 h3 ~h6 19 g4 l::te8 20 0-0-0 and White was much better, Ulibin-Knezevic, Pula 1990) 13 1i'd2 c5 14 ~e5 l::td8 15 ~e2 d4 16 lLle41i'xd2+ 17 lLlxd2 lLldS (17 ... ~b7!?) 18 lLlc4 ~e6 19 ~f3 l::tac8 and White has a small advantage, Ulibin-M.Garcia, Santa Clara 1991. ~xe5

10

11

This move, which was once thought plain bad, has in recent years been through a revival, and although it is not considered good for White, it is certainly no longer regarded as bad. Play continues 1O...ttJf6 11 exf7+ (White can also try 11 exd7+ to split up the black pawn structure, after 11.. ..ixd7 12 "d2 [also possible are 12 ~d3 0-0 13 0-0 llfd8 14 f3 llab8 15 1i'e2 l::tb4 16 ~c4 ~e6!? 17 ~xe6 l::tbxd4, Nadjar-Tugage, Val Thorens 1989, with equality] 12 ... 0-0 13

0-0

lLlf6!

11 ...f6?! does not make much sense. After 12 :tel ~xd4 (another weak possibility is 12 ...1Ifb4 13 ~xe5 1i'xc4 14 ~d6 ~ 15 ~e4 1i'dS 16"f3 1i'f5 17 ""3+ ~g7 18 ~xe7 1i'e6 19 lLlxf6! 1i'xb3 20 ttJe8+ ~f7 21 lLld6+ ct>g7 22 axb3

Lines in which White Captures with fuc6 279 and White won, Haag-Forintos, Hungary 1965) 13 'ii'xd4 d5 14 ~b3 e6? (l4 ...1ifb6 was a better try) 15 liJxd5 cxd5 16 ~xd5 l:.b8 17 ~xe6 ~xe6 18 lbe6 and Black was laid to rest in KhudiakovAltennan, Voronezh 1973. 12 l:el d6! In Trifunovic-Kort, Noordwijk 1965, Black did not have much luck with 12 ... ~xd4? After 13 .xd4 0-0 14 l:txe7 liJh5 15 l::tael d5 16 liJxd5! cxd5 17 ~xd5 i..e6 181Uxe6 it was soon over. ~xeS 13 13 'ii'e2?? loses on the spot to 13 ... liJg4 14 ~b3 ~xh2 15 'iti>hl e5, as seen in Mestrovic-Stein, Sarajevo 1967. dxeS 13 14 'ii'e2 ~fS 15 ~b3 e4 'ii'c4 0-0 16 l:ad8 'ii'xc6 17 :lad 1 'ii'eS 18

Game 101 Frolov-Shabalov USSRch 1991 (1 e4 cS 2 tZJt3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 liJf6 7 liJxc6 bxc6 8 eS)

8

liJdS!?

An interesting pawn sacrifice, Black is unwilling to take on the somewhat passive positions that we have seen in the previous three games. At the cost of a pawn, he gets active piece play and a lead in development. liJxdS 9 cxdS 10 'ii'xdS l:b8

11 ~c4 In this game, we will take a look

Black has fully equalised and has good centralisation of his pieces. 19 h3 .l:lxdl 20 liJxdl :c8 21 'ii'a6 l:c7 22 'ii'e2 as 23 liJc3 l:cS 24 'ii'e3 'ii'c7 25 l:dl'
at the complications that arise after the text move and 11 0-0-0; the next game will deal with 11 ~xa7. 11 0-0-0 is rather hannless: a) The commonly played 11...0-0 is not good: 12 ~xa7! (Levy gives the following analysis after 12 ~d4: 12 ... d6 13 exd6 ~e6 14 'ii'c6 ~xd4 15 lbd4 exd6 16 'iVxd6 'iVa5 17 'ii'a3 .el+ 18 :dl 'iVxf2 19 'ii'f3 1ifb6 20 b3 a5 and White's defence is rather difficult)

280 Lines in which White Captures with ttJxc6

12 ... .ltb7 13 'iibS! ~xg2 14,it'xb8 it'xb8 IS ~xbS ~xhl 16 ~c7 ~c6 17 f4 gS IS b4 and White had a beautiful set of queenside pawns in Handoko-Bellon, Indonesia 19S2. b) On occasion Black has also tried 11..:iWc7, but without much success: 12 f4 0-0 13 it'cs 'iib7 14 b3 d6 IS it'xa7 it'c6 (or IS ... dxeS 16 it'xb7 ~xb7 17 l:tgl exf4 18 ~xf4 l:tbdS 19 l:txdS l:txd8 20 ~e3 ~e4 21 a4 ~c3 22 ~e2, when Black has insufficient compensation for the pawn, ZadrimaAnceschi, F0rli 1991) 16 it'xbS ~fS 17 it'xfS+ ~xfS 18 i..d3 it'c3 19 ~bl ~g4 20 ~d2 'ii'd4 21 l:tdel and White was much better, Colon-Camera, Mar del Plata 1962. c) 1l...~b7! 12 'ii'd4 (in Radulov-Forintos, Hungary 1969, after 12 'ii'd2? ~xeS 13 ~d4 i..xd4 14 it'xd4 0-0 IS 'ii'xd7 'ii'aS 16 ~c4 i..xg2 and Black is already much better) 12 ... 0-0 13 f4 (13 'ii'xd7 'ii'aS! gives Black too much for the pawn) 13 ... d6 14 ~c4 'ikc7 IS ~b3 dxeS 16 fxeS ~xg2 17 l:thgl l:tbdS IS 'ii'xa7 'ii'xeS 19 ~d4 'ii'f4+ 20 ~e3 'ii'eS 21 ~d4 and drawn by repetition, Stein-Nei, USSR 1960.

11

Black was much better) IS f4 (15 i.gS? is met by IS ... i..f8 and 15 .ibS is equal after IS ... ~xeS 16 l:tfdl ~c6, Smit-Gipslis, Amsterdam 1976) IS ... a5! 16 'W'bs i..xg2 17 ~xg2 'ii'xc4 IS it'xc4 l:txc4, Skuja-Gipslis, Riga 19S9, and here 19 l:tf3 is best met by 19 ... d6! (Donaldson), intending to meet 20 exd6 with 20 ... ~d7 with pressure on White's queenside. b) More aggressive is 13 0-0-0, but after 13 ... l:tcS 14 'W'b4 ~xg2 (after 14 ... 'ii'c7? IS i..gS! .if8 16 'ifd2 ~xg2 17 l:thel ~f3 IS i..b5 White is better, as in the game Muratov-Veresov, Novgorod 1991) 15 l:thg 1 .if3 16 .ig5 f6 17 .ixe6! (17 exf6 .ixf6 gives Black nothing to worry about) 17 ... i..xd 1 18 l:txd 1 l:tc7, Donaldson gives 19 'iff4 l:tfS and 19 ~h4 gS 20 'iWe4 'iWe7 when Black should be fine. We think 19 exf6 i..xf6 20 i..f4! is better, although Black can defend after 20 ... ~gS! 21 ~bl! ~xf4 22 'ii'xf4 IUS 23 'ifeS!? l:tf6! 24 i..xd7+ ~fS with a roughly equal position.

0-0

Black can also hold his own after the less popular, but still playable ll...e6!? 12 'ii'cs ~b7 and now: a) 13 a-a?! leaves Black without much to worry about: 13 .. J:tcS 14 'W'b4 'ii'c7 (bad is 14... ~xeS? due to IS ~xe6! dxe6 16 'ii'xb7 0-0 17 c3 with a clear edge for White analysis by Wedberg; in DiicksteinKarlsson, Lucerne 1979, White played IS l:tadl?, but then after IS ... i..xh2+ 16 ~xh2 'ii'h4+ 17 ~gl 'ii'e4! IS f3 'ii'xe3 19 l:tf2 'W'b6

12 0-0-0 White has a number of alternatives, several of which are quite interesting:

Lines in which White Captures with lDxc6 281

a) 12 l:tdl!? (tried once with success, but improvements for Black are not that difficult to come by) 12 ...'ifc7 (l2 ...:'xb2? 13 ~b3 is embarrassing, but 12 ...d6!? is interesting) 13 ~b3 ~b7? (simple and good is 13 ... ~xeS) 14 "cS! 'iWxeS IS 'iWxeS ~xeS 16 0-0 ~a6 17 l:tfel ~xb2 IS ~h6!, and Black was going down in HolujPogorevici, Bucharest 19S9. b) 120-0 and now: bl) 12 ... ~b7 was once thought to be mistaken, but matters are not that clear: 13 'iWd3 (best, since other queen moves give Black an easy game: 13 "d2? "c7 14 ~b3 ~xeS IS f4 ~xb2 16 :tadl d6, Zvorykic-Volpert, Plovdiv 19S9; or 13 "d4?! d6 14 ~f4 dxeS IS "xdS %:tfxdS 16 ~e3 as 17 lUdl e4 IS ~b6 :'dcS, HigitianKadimova, Debrecen 1992, in both cases with a clear advantage for Black) 13 ... ~xe5! (13 ... 'iWc7? is a mistake due to 14 f4 ':fd8 IS .i.b3 l:tbc8 16 "e2 d6 17 fS gxfS 18 l:hfS and White was much better in Kostro-Kraidman, Budapest 19S9) 14 1Lxa7 :'cS IS .i.d4 .i.xh2+! (a massive improvement over the old IS ... ~xd4, when White is clearly better after 16 "xd4 e5 17 'iWg4 dS 18 iLb3 d4 19 :fel 'iff6 20 %ladl hS 21 'il'h3 :fdS 22 c3 in Langeweg-Geller, Beverwijk 1965) 16 'ii'xh2 'iWc7+ 17 'it>gl 'iWxc4 IS "xc4 ~xc4 19 c3 f6 20 ~e3 :a8 with a good game for Black, Lhagvasuren-Bhend, Novi Sad 01 1990. b2) 12 .....c7 and: b21) 13 1Lf4 .i.b7 14 'iWd4 d6! IS :fel (or IS exd6 exd6 16 "d3 ~xb2 17 :'adl 1LeS IS ~g3 :fcS 19 iLb3 'iWc6 with a slight pull for

Black - Donaldson) IS ...l:tfdS 16 "c3 :'bcS 17 ~b3 "xc3 IS bxc3 dxeS 19 ~xe5 e6 20 ~xg7 ~xg7 21 :'e3 :'c7. b22) 13 f4 d6 14 exd6 exd6 15 ~b3 ~e6 16 "d2 ~xb2 17 :'adl :'feS IS h3 ~c3 19 a5 20 ~d4 ~xb3 21 cxb3 a4 22 fS J.xd4 23 lhd4 axb3 24 axb3 Axb3 2S fxg6 hxg6 26 :d6 1/2- 112 Evans-Eliskases, Buenos Aires 1960. Black could consider IS ... ~b7!? After 16 "gS?! ~e4 17 c3 as 18 :'£2 a4 19 ~d5? h6 Black was winning in the game AI-Handrani-Antunes, Moscow 01 1994, but 16 'it'd3! ~xb2 17 fS, threatening 18 fxg6 bxg6 20 "xg6+, is very dangerous for Black indeed. b23) 13 "cS "xeS 14 "xeS ~xeS IS ~xa7 %laS 16 .i.cs (or 16 ~b6 ~a6 17 ~xa6 :xa6 IS ~e2 ~xb2 19 :adl d6 20 c4 :'cS 21 Ad2 ~a3 22 :'c2 l:ac6 with a clear edge for Black, Gdanski-Grigore, Santiago 1990) 16 ... d6 17 ~a3 ~fS IS ~d3 ~xd3 19 cxd3 :'xa3 20 bxa3 ~xal 21 ':xal and 0-1, Abdulghafour-Gonzalez, Moscow 01 1994. Perhaps a little early to resign, but Black was better in the endgame. c) 12 f4 d6 13 ~b3 (bad is 13 0-0-0 "c7 14 ~b3 dxeS IS fxeS ~fS 16 "cS "xcS 17 ~xcS :'fcS 18 g4 ~xg4 with a clear edge for Black) and now Black has the following possibilities for his consideration: cl) 13 .....c7 14 exd6 exd6 IS 0-0-0 and Black does not have enough for the pawn. c2) 13 ... dxeS 14 "xdS :'xdS IS fxeS ~xeS 16 ~c4 ~e6 when Black is okay - Donaldson. c3) 13 ... ~b7!? and now:

"f2

282 Lines in which White Captures with liJxc6 22 i.xb8 i.c4 23 i.c7 i.xfl 24 J:taxfl a4 with equal play, as 2S l:tf4 can be met with 2S ... l:tc8 26 i.aS gxfS 27 lIxfS a3! - Donaldson. 12 d6

c31) 14 "d2 dxeS IS 0-0-0 exf4 (also possible is IS .....c7 16 "d7 1i'xd7 17 lIxd7 i.xg2 18 lIg 1 lIb7!) 16 i.xf4 lIa8 17 "a4 'it'b6 18 1i'xb6 axb6 with about level chances, Hebden-Gerber, London 1987. c32) Possibly stronger is 14 "c4!?, when White won quickly after 14 ... i.xg2 IS lIgl i.h3 16 0-0-0 as 17 exd6 exd6 18 ..a6! "f6 19 c3 lIfc8 20 "xaS i.fS? 21 i.d4 'it'h4 22 "xfS! gxfS 23 i.xg7! 1-0, Muir-Stem, corr 1972. However, Black has nothing to fear after lS ... i.f3!, keeping White's king in the centre, or 16 ... i.e6!?, intending 17 "a6 i.xb3 18 axb3 "c8!, e.g. 19 "xc8 lIfxc8 20 i.xa7 lIxb3 21 i.d4 i.h6 22 lIhfl dxeS 23 i.xeS lIe3 when White has problems keeping both his bishop and f-pawn on the board: 24 i.d4 lIe4, 24 lIdel lIxel 2S lIxe1 f6, 24 lIfel lIxeS!, 24 'It>b 1 lIe2 or 24 i.c3 eS! 2S i.d2 exf4 26 i.xe3 fxe3. c4) l3 ... aS 14 0-0 i.b7 IS "c4 lIc8 16 "d3 dxeS (16 .....c7? allows 17 e6 fS, Gheorghiu-Forintos, Ljubljana 1969, and now Baumbach's suggestion of 18 c3 1i'c6 18 "c2 leaves White with an extra pawn) 17 "xd8 lIfxd8 18 fS e4 19 c3 i.dS 20 i.b6 lId8 21 i.c7 i.xb3

13 i.xa7 l:tb4 Interesting is l3 ... i.b7!?, e.g. 14 "d3 i.xg2 IS i.xb8 i.xhl 16 l:txhl "xb8 with roughly equal chances. Best is IS l:.hgl l:tb7 16 l:txg2 lIxa7 17 exd6 'it'b8! 18 i.b3 lId8 19 "d5e6!, when Black will win backfue d6-pawn but White is still better. 14 i.b3 Frolov recommends 14 i.cS i.e6 (14 ... e6 IS "xd6 "xd6 16 i.xd6! l:txc4 17 i.xf8 ~xf8 18 lIhel slightly favours White) IS "xe6 fxe6 16 i.xe6+ 'It>h8 17 i.xb4 i.xeS 18 f3, when White has a small advantage. But 14... i.b7!? is worth considering, e.g. IS "d4(d3) lIxc4! 16 "xc4 "c7 17 exd6 exd6 18l:txd6 lIc8. 14 1i'c7 15 exd6 The normal IS i.e3 i.xeS leaves Black with plenty of compensation. 15 1i'xa7 16 d7 l:.xb3

Lines in which White Captures with fuc6 283

17 dxc8~ White steers towards the draw. If White takes the rook on b3, matters become uncomfortable for him, e.g. 17 cxb3? 'it'xa2 or 17 axb3 'it'al+ IS 'it>d2 .lth6+ 19 ..ti>e2 .xb2 and Black has more than enough compensation for the exchange. 17 ~xb2+ 18 ~bl ':b8 19 .h3 ~g7+ 20 ~c1 ~b2+ 21 'it>bl ~g7+ Ih-lfz

Game 102 Kupreichik-Petursson Reykjavik 1980

(1 e4 cS 2 lLJf3 lLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJxd4 g6 S lLJc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLJf6 7 lLJxc6 bxc6 8 eS lLJdS 9 lLJxd5 cxdS 10 'ii'xdSl:[b8) 11

~xa7

Once recommended by Euwe, this move is now regarded as the main line. Play becomes complex, but more often than not the end result is a draw. 11 ':xb2 12 ~d4

White needs the bishop to protect the important e5-pawn; furthennore, it may end up in trouble if left on a7. Boleslavsky gives the following line after 12 ~c4? e6 13 'it'c5 ~fS 14 "e3 (14 "d4? 'it'a5 15 c3 ':b7 wins) 14 .....a5+ 15 c3 ~a6 16 ~xa6 'it'xa6 with a clear advantage for Black. 12 ':xc2 In an attempt to avoid the draw ish main line, Black has recently tried 12 ... l:[bS!? with good results. After 13 ~c4 0-0 14 0-0 .ltb7 (also adequate is 14 ... d6, when Delanoy-Pigusov, Mendrisio 19S9, went 15 ':abl ~e6 16 ':xbS 'it'xbS 17 'it'b5 'it'xb5 IS ~xb5 dxe5 19 ~e3 i.xa2 20 c4 e4 with slightly better chances for Black; his bishop is somewhat offside on a2, which gives White some compensation for the pawn deficit) 15 'it'c5 d6! (best; though 15 ... ':cS has also done fine for Black after 16 'ii'b4 .c717 ~d3 e61S l:tfbl ~d5 19 'it'b6 ~xe5 20 'it'xc7 ~xc7 with about level chances, KleywegtBrockmann, Groningen 1994) 16 'it'a3 .cS 17 ~e2 dxe5 IS ~e3 "xc2 19 ':fel "c6 with a clear advantage for Black, N.MitkovVelimirovic, Kladovo 1991. An inferior alternative to this is 12 ... ':b4, Rachels gives 13 c3 ':b2 14 c4! e6 (14 ... ~b7 15 'it'c5 d6 16 "a3 wins) 15 "as l:[b7 16 ~e2 with a clear edge for White. 13 ~d3 e6 The immediate 13 ...lIc6 is inaccurate. According to most sources White should be able to get a slight edge, although practice has shown that is not all that easy: 14 0-0 ~a6 (14 ... 0-0 did not tum out so well for Black in Ulibin-Kozlov, Minsk

284 Lines in which White Captures with lLIxc6

1986: 15 a4 i.b7 16 .i.b5 :Ic7 17 "b3 "a8 18 "g3lUc8 19 a5 .i.a6 20 'ii'd3 and White was clearly in control; still another attempt is 14.....c7!?, when after 15 .i.b5 :Ic2 16 'ii'b3 0-0 17 .i.d3 :Id2 18 :Ifel 'iib7 19 "c3 .i.h6 20 l:tcbl ~a8 21 .i.f1 ~d5 Black was enjoying himself in Wolter-Ponater, Germany 1991) 15 Ji.xa6 :Ixa6 16 a4 (16 'iib5 ':c6 17 a4 slightly favours White - Rachels) 16 ...0-0 17 lIfdl :a5 18 'ii'b7 (or 18 We4 Was 19 "c2 :Ic8 20 'ii'b3 Wc6 21 'ii'b4 l:tca8 22 Wxe7 "xa4 with equality, Knoppert-Rubio, as in VelezMalaga 1991) 18 ...~a8 19 'ii'b4 .i.xe5 20 Ji.xe5 :Ixe5 21 l:txd7 Ih-1f2 Soltis-Cvitan, Moscow 1989. 14 "a8 Or 14 'ii'bs :Ic6 IS 0-0 i.a6 16 'ii'b3 .i.xd3 17 'ii'xd3 0-0 18 a4 Wa5 19 :Itbl d6 20 Ilb5 ~a6 21 'ii'b3 :Ifc8 with equality, Stein-Nei, USSR 1960. 14 l:tc6

15 0-0 White has two important alternatives: a) 15 .i.b5!? and now: al) Black can try 15 ...:Ic2 with two possible responses:

all) After 16 0-0 0-0 17 "e4 (17 :ael?! "c7 18 Axc2 ~xc2 19 f4 d6 20 Wa7 "e4 21 ~hl .i.b7 favours Black, Ionescu-Teodorescu, Bucharest 1994) 17 .. .'ii'c7 18 a4 i.b7 19 We3 l:tc8 20 l:tfdl .i.d5 the position was balanced in G.Garcia-L.Garcia, Bogota 1980. a12) With 16 Wa3 White tries to prevent Black from castling, though for the moment Black can do without: 16...Wg5 (in DoghriBojczuk, Moscow 1991, Black tried 16... 'irh4, when after 17 Wd3 ~c7 180-00-0 19 f4 .i.b7 20 .i.b6 .l:1c6!? 21 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 22 a4 f6 23 .i.c5 l:ta8 24 .i.d6 "g4 25 Af2 .l:1xa4 26 Axa4 .i.xa4 his strong light~~\lared bishop provided plenty of compensation for the exchange) 17 0-0 .i.xe5 18 .i.xe5 ~xe5 19 l:tacl Axcl 20 1:xel .i.b7 21 'ii'b4 (White threatens .i.xd7+ and plans to move the a-pawn up along the a-file; had it not been for Black's next move, White would have been winning, but White does have problems finding another way to make progress) 21...Wg5 22 .i.xd7+ 'ii.>d8! 23 1i'b6+ ..ti>e7! 24 'ii'b4+ c;Pd8 25 1i'b6+ 112-112, MarinIonescu-Popovici, Bucharest 1994. a2) Black's best is 15 ...1:a6! 16 .i.xa6 "a5+ and now:

Lines in which White Captures with ttJ.xc6 285

a21) 17 e2 0-0 18 ~b7! (18 'ji'e4? ~xa6 19 f3 f6! gives Black a winning attack) 18 ... 'ifb5+ 19 e3 ~xb7 20 :hbl ~h6+ 21 f4 iLxf4+ 22 'iiixf4 'ii'd3 23 'ii'xb7 f6! 24 ndl?? (this loses on the spot; a draw was around the comer after 24 exf6 'ii'xd4+ 25 'iiig3 'ii'xe3+ 26 'ii'f3 'ii'g5+ 27 'iiih3 'ii'h6+ 28 'iiig3 'ii'g5+ with a perpetual check) 24 ...g5+ 25 'iiig4 h5+! 26 'iiixh5 'ii'h7+ 27 g4 fxe5 28 g3 "f5+ 29 'iiih5 'ii'h3+ 30 'iiig6 'ii'h7+ 0-1 Barczay-Pokojowczyk. Subotica 1981. a22) 17 'iiifl! 0-0 and now:

a221) 18 'ii'xc8? nxc8 19 i.xc8 'ifb5+ 20 'iiigi "c4 clearly favours Black. a222) 18 'ii'e4 'ii'xa6 (l8 ...i.xa6!? 19 gl d6! 20 l:tel i.b7 21 'ii'e3 iLh6 22 'ii'c3 'ii'd5 23 f3 nc8 24 'ifb2 nc4 25 iLf2 iLg7 and Black is somewhat better - analysis by Volchok) 19 'iiig 1 ~b7 20 'ii'e3 'ii'c4! (insufficient is 20.. Jla8? 21 h4 'ii'c6 22 f3 na4 23 'iiif2 "c2+ 24 'iiig3 with a very good game for White, Shianovsky-Volchok. USSR 1960) 21 f3? (21 h4 was better in order to meet 21...'ii'd5 with 22 :h2, but Black has excellent compensation for the exchange; in the game White went down in flames)

21...~h6! 22 'ii'f2 'ii'd3 23 nell:tc8 24 iLb6 nc2 25 'ii'fl 'ii'c3 26 iLf2 (a nice little assembly of white pieces in the comer) 26 ...nxa2 27 nb 1 iLe3 0-1 Carstens-Blaess, German Bundesliga 1986/87. a223) 18 'ii'a7! iLxa6+ 19 'iiigi nc8? (Black could have maintained the balance with 19 ...i.xe5 20 h4 'ii'd5! 21 i.xe5 iLb7! 22 :h2 1he5 23 ndl iLc6 24 'lie3 'lixe3 25 fxe3 na8 26 g3 l:a3 27 nel i.d5 28 nb2 nxa2 29 nxa2 i.xa2 30 e4 e5 31 g4 iLe6 1/2- 1h Wagner-Frendzas, Chania 1997) 20 h4 h5 21 nh3 iLxe5 22 nf3 ~xd4 23 'lixd4 d5 24 'lif6 'lic7 25 nel 'lid7 26 ne5 ncl+ 27 'iiih2 l:tc7 28 l:tg3 'lie7 29 l:txe6! and White was winning in Rachels-Petursson, Manila izt 1990. b) Lastly, White has 15 'lia4, but he runs right into a hurricane. In N.Liicke-Sandor, German BundesIiga 1994/95, White was swept away after 15 ... 'iih4! (also 15 .....c7 16 0-0 i.xe5 17 iLb5 i.xd4 18 'lixd4 e5 19 l:tfel l:tc5 20 a4 0-0 21 'ifb4 d6 22 a5 i.e6 23 a6 l:tb8 and Black was winning, Loeffler-Claverie, Cannes 1996) 16 g3 'lig4 17 f4 'lif3 18 'iiid2 (this clearly illustrates White's problems; Black often breaks with ...d7d6 in this line, so the d-file is not exactly where the white king belongs) 18 ...0-0 19 :hel 'iih5 20 iLe4 'lixh2+ 21 l:te2 'lixg3 22 i.e3 lla6 23 'ifb3 'iih4 24 .l:thl 'lid8 and Black soon won. 15 0-0 Here 15 ... iLa6 leads to a better endgame for White: 16 'lixd8+ 'iiixd8 17 i.xa6 l:txa6 18 a4 d6 19 f4! (Boleslavsky gives 19 .l:tfdl 'iiid7 20 exd6 i.xd4+ 21 .l:txd4

286 Lines in which White Captures with tUxc6

l:tha8 22 'litfl l:txd6 with a likely draw) 19 ... 'litd7 20 as l:tha8?! (20 .. J:k8 was better, but after 21 l:tfdl l:tc4 22 .ie3 dS 23 l:tdbl .if8 24 l:tb7+ l:tc7 2S l:txc7+ 'litxc7 26 .ib6 followed by l:tc 1 White has a clear edge according to Klompus) 21 .ib6 dxeS?! (2l....:tc8!?) 22 l:tac1 'lite8 23 l:tfdl l:txaS 24 .ixaS l:txaS 2S l:tc8 'lite7 26 l:tc7+ and White was on the road to victory in Klompus-Rettenbacher, corr 1983.

16 ~a6! ~b5 In Sakharov-Veresov, USSR 1960, White got a clear edge after 16 ....:tc2?! 17 'i*'e4 'i*'c7 18 a4 ~b7 19 'i*'e3 l:tc8 20 .:tfdl. 17 'iixd8 J:bd8 18 ~xc6 White can also consider 18 a4, when Rajna-Marosi, Budapest 1982, went as follows: 18 ... .ixbS 19 axbS l:tc4 20 l:tadl l:tb8 21 b6 d6 22 f4 dxeS 23 fxeS l:tb7 24 'litf2

.if8 2S 'lite3 .ics 26 .ixcs l:txcS 27 l:td8+ 'litg7 28 l:tbl l:txeS+ 29 'litd4 l:te2 30 'litcs l:tc2+ 31 'litbS l:txg2 32 ~c6 l:txb6+ 33 l:txb6 l:txh2 and later a draw. 18 ~xn 19 ~xn dxc6 20 ~c3 :d3 Note how well Black is using his rook to avoid White sending his apawn off to the queening square. 21:c1 l:td5 22:e1 22 f4 gS is equal. 22 ...:c5 23 l:te3 ::'c4 24 ~b2 h5 25 ~e1 ~h1-26 ~dl g5 27 f3 :a4 28a3 This is as far as it gets! 28...c5

29 ~c2 c4 30 ~c3 ~g6 31 :e4 ~f5 32 ~d4 g4 33 ~e3 ~h6+ 34 ~f2 ~f4 35 g3 ~d2 36 :d4 ~h6 37 fxg4+ hxg4 38 ~e2 ~g5 39 ~f2 ~h6 Ill_Ill Neither side can make progress.

13 Semi-Accelerated Dragon

Chapter Guide 1 e4 c5 2ttJf3ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4ttJf6 5ttJc3 g6?! 6ttJxc6 bxc6 7 e5 ttJg8 8 ~c4 8 ......a5?! - Game 103 8... .i.g7 - Game 104 In this line Black plays ... ttJf6 before developing his dark-squared bishop. This forces White to put his knight on c3 and thereby excludes White from reaching the Maroczy Bind. However, if it were as easy as that, everyone would play this line, but unfortunately White can play 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 e5 with a big lead in development. If Black plays well, he will survive the opening with a passive, yet solid position, but not many leading players are happy to settle for this. The exceptions are Sosonko who played it twice at Wijk aan Zee in 1986 (lost one and won one) and Shamkovich who used it on occasion, not to mention Botvinnik, who once adopted it against Smyslov in their 1958 World Championship match. It is difficult to pinpoint a clear-cut way to an advantage for White, but you always have the feeling that there must be something good for him.

Game 103 Varadi-Sabian Corr1985

(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4) ttJf6 4 ttJc3 g6?! 5 ttJxc6 6 At this point there are some other moves which do not transpose into either the standard Dragon variation or the Accelerated Dragon lines. These are as follows: a) 6 f4 'ii'b6 (6 ...d6 is a Levenfish Dragon, which is absolutely harmless for Black, but also, of course, not the subject matter of this book) 7 ttJf3 (interesting is the untried 7 ttJb3 d6 8 ttJd5) 7 ...d6 8 ~c4 i.g7 9 "'d3 0-0 10 ~b3 ~g4 11 ~e3 .a5 12 0-0 ~xf3 13 gxf3 'ii'h5? (better is Levy's 13...ttJd7 followed by ttJc5 with a good


"f2

game) 14 'iithl :ad8 15 :adl 'ii'h3 16 "e2ltJh5 17 :gl 'iith8 18 "c8 and now 19 f5! with clearly better chances for White, as in the game Ljubojevic-Bilek, Teesside 1972. b) 6 ~c4 ~g7 (6 ... d6? is a wellknown mistake which leads to a clear advantage for White after 7 ltJxc6 bxc6 8 e5!, and 6 .....a5?! leads to nothing but problems for Black: 7 0-0 i.g7 [here Black should go for the lesser evil 7 .....c5 8 ltJxc6 "xc4 9 ltJe5 "c7 10 ltJd3 with an edge for White, but Black is still in the game] 8 ltJb3 "c7 9 ~g5 0-0 10 f4 b5!? 11 ~xf6 bxc4 12 ltJd5 'jj'b8 13 ~xg7 'iitxg7 14ltJd4 e6 15 ltJxc6 dxc6 16 "d4+ f6 17 ltJe3 with a clear edge for White, Tal-Benko, Portoroz izt 1958) 7 ltJxc6 bxc6 8 e5 ltJg8 transposing to Game 104.

6 bxc6 6 ... dxc6 was once used by 8otvinnik, and more recently by GMs Ljubojevic and Karlsson, and although none of the above lost with it, it is not to be recommended. Black hopes for a drawish endgame, but he is in fact very lucky if he gets that. After 7 "xd8+ 'iitxd8

8 .i.c4 (other moves are possible, but this is clearly the best) 8 ... ~g7 (best; the old main line is 8 ... ~e8, when 9 e5 [less ~rgetic is 9 a4 e5 10 f4 i.e6! 11 i.xe6 fxe6 12 :fl .i.h6! 13 f5 ~xcl 14 .::txcl ~e7 with equality, Smyslov-8otvinnik, World ch match 1958] 9 ... ltJd7 10 f4 [or 10 e6 fxe6 11 ~xe6 i.g7 12 ~e3 b6 13 0-0-0 ~xc3 14 bxc3 ltJc5 15 ~xc8 :xc8 16 ~xc5 bxc5 17 :hfl with slightly better Shirovchances for White, Ljubojevic, Buenos Aires 1994] 1O... ltJc5 11 ~e3 ~e6 12 i.xe6 ltJxe6 13 0-0-0 ~g7 14 g3 b6 15 :d3 :d8 16 l:.hdl :'xd3 17 :xd3 with clearly better chances for White in Hellers-Karlsson, Ostersund 1992) 9 f4!? (Karasev has proved that 9 f3 does not promise White anything, e.g. 9 ... ~e8 10 a4 a5 11 ~d2 ltJd7 12 0-0-0 e5 13 h4 h5 14 g3 ltJc5 15 'iitbl ~e6, Solozhenkin-Karasev, Leningrad 1990, but 9 a4!?, intending 10 h3 and 11 f4, is quite interesting; Silman and Donaldson now give 9... ltJg4 10 f4 ~xc3+ 11 bxc3 ltJf6, which is fme for Black, but 10 f4?! should be replaced by 10 ~d2 with a slight edge for White) 9 ... b5 10 ~d3 e5 11 0-0 ltJd7 12 f5 f6 13 ~e3 ~f8 14 fxg6 hxg6 15 a4 b4 16 ltJbl, A.lvanov-Shabanov, USSR 1986, and now 16 ... ~e7, intending ... ltJc5 and ... ~e6, would have kept White's advantage to a bare minimum. 7 eS ltJg8 Unlike in the previous chapter, Black does not have 7 ... ltJd5, which is easily refuted: 8 ltJxd5 cxd5 9 'ifxdS :'b8 10 e6! f6 (10 .. .fxe6?? allows 11 "e5 forking both rooks) 11 ~f4 with a horrible

Semi-Accelerated Dragon 289

position for Black, e.g. Il..J:tb6 12 .1t.b51he6+ 13 'iVxe6 'iVa5+ 14 c3 'iVxb5 15 'ii'e2 and White was winning, Mikenas-Uogele, Lithuanian ch 1965. However, an interesting alternative is 7...~h5!?, e.g. 8 .1t.c4 (or 8 .1t.e2 'iVa5 9 f4 with a good game for White, whereas 9 .1t.xh5 gxh5 10 'iVxh5 .1t.g7 11 f4 0-0 12 0-0 f6 13 ~e4 d5! is playable for Black Silman and Donaldson) 8...d5! 9 exd6 'iVxd6 10 'iVf3 (or 10 0-0) 1O....t..e6 11 .1t.b5 .!:[c8 12 .1t.a6 l:1d8 13 0-0 'iVc7, when Black is only slightly worse, Petrushin-Vizek, Czechoslovakia 1985. 8 .1t.c4

8 'iVaS?! This move is highly dubious; better is 8... .1t.g7, which can be found in the next main game. Black has two further alternatives: a) 8... d5?! (Black cannot break in the centre when he is this far behind in development) 9 exd6 'iVxd6 (9 ...exd6? is even worse: 10 'iVf3 d5 11 tLlxd5! cxd5 12 .1t.xd5 'ii'e7+ 13 .1t.e3 :b8 14 0-0 .1t.g7 15 .1t.f4, John-Janowski, Mannheim 1914) 10 0-0 'iVxdl 11 :xdl .1t.h6 12 .1t.xh6 tLlxh6 13 lId2 ~f5 14

itJe4 with a clear edge for White in Geller-Stein, USSR ch 1966/67. b) 8... f5!? (Black is way behind in development and yet he keeps playing pawns moves!) 9 .tf4 e6 10 'iVd2 :b8 11 .1t.b3 (White could consider both 11 0-0 and 11 0-0-0 at this point) 1l...:b4!? 12 0-0 'iVc7 13 lIfel :xf4! 14 'iVxf4 (it is quite amazing that Black is still in the game: he is an exchange down, and has only developed his queen) 14...itJh6 15 :adl (jjf7 16 'iVe3 .1t.g7 17 f4 g5 18 fxg5 .1t.xe5 19 'ili'h3, when White is better, but with his pawn majority in the centre and the bishop pair, Black has some counterplay, and actually went on to draw the game in Popovic-Velimirovic, Banja Vrucica 1991. 9 .1t.f4 White has two other strong possibilities: a) 9 'iVe2!? .1t.g7 10 f4 itJh6 11 .1t.d2 0-0 120-0-0 'iVc7 13 g4 d5 14 exd6 exd6 15 f5 gxf5 16 gxf5 .1t.xf5 17 J:hgl .1t.g6 18 h4 with a dangerous attack for White, Shianovsky-Sherbak, USSR 1960. ~ 9 P-O! .1t.g7 (even worse is 9 .. ~xe5? 10 :el and now for example 1O...'iVb8 11 'iVd4 f6 12 itJe4 .1t.g7 13 .1t.f4 'iVb6 14itJd6+ ~ 15 'iVd3 .1t.b7 16 .1t.xg8 :xg8 17 'iVc4 and it was all over, 1-0 TiviakovMugerman, Pinsk 1989) 10 Wf3! e6 11 ~e4 .1t.xe5 12 .1t.f4 Wc7 13 .t..xe5 'ii'xe5 14 :fel d5 15 :adl with a strong attack for White, Barvik-Terentiev, USSR 1961. 9 .1t.g7 10 Wf3! In Timman-Korchnoi, Brussels 1991, White was successful with 10 0-0 .1t.xe5 11 .1t.xe5 'iVxe5 12 :el


.f4 13 l:te4 .f6 14 :te3 dS IS .i.xdS! with a clear advantage. However, 10 "f3 is even better.

18 .i.xdS! cxd5 19 l:lxdS cj;f7 On 19 ... ltJe7, Bottlik gives: 20 ltJd6+! 'ifr>d7 21 l:td3 ltJdS 22 ltJe4 i.a6 23 l:txdS+ exdS 24ltJc5+. 20 l:ld8! .xbS 21 .c7+ ltJe7 22 l:lxh8 .xb4 23 c3 .h4 24 .d8 e5 25 l:lf8+ ~e6 26 l:le8 1-0 Game 104 De Firmian-5osonko Wijk aan Zee 1986

10 e6 Nor does 10... f6 help Black to survive: 11 .i.g3 .i.a6 12 b4 'iib6 13 bS .i.b7 14 O-O! lIcS IS ltJa4 "as 16ltJcS .i.aS 17 'ii'b3ltJh6 IS ltJxd7! cxbS 19 .i.xbS .i.c6 20 ltJxf6+! .i.xf6 21 .i.xc6+ lIxc6 22 exf6 1-0, was the game UnzickerRausis, Daugavpils 1990. White played very accurately; all of Black's moves were responses to white threats. 11 0-0 .i.xe5 12 b4 .c7 12 .....xb4? is answered by 13 .i.xeS f6 14 .i.xe6! 13 ltJb5 14 .i.xe5 IS lIadl 16 lIfel 17 .c3! 17 .i.xdS! also wins for White: 17...cxdS IS "xdS ~f8 19 .cS+! ~g7 (19 ... ltJe7 20 lIdS+ ~g7 21 lIxh8 ~xhS 22 .xe7) 20 lId8 'iib7 21 .f8 ~f6 22ltJd6 .e7 23ltJe4+ ~S 24 .xe7 1-0 Geenen-Miranda, Novi Sad 01 1990. 17 f6

(1 e4 c5 2 ltJt3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6?! 6 ltJxc6 bxc6 7 eS ltJg8 8 .i.c4)

8

9

.i.g7

.13

Also possible is 9 'j'e2...ltJh6 10 .i.f4 0-0 11 0-0-0 'iib6 12 h4 ltJfS 13 g4 ltJd4 14 .e4 ltJe6 IS .i.e3 "c7, as in Tarasevich-Karagoiz, USSR 19S9, and now 16 .i.xe6 fxe6 17 f4 is clearly better for White. Black has real problems on the kingside; White threatens 18 gS and 19 hS with a nasty attack.


In Baker-Shamkovich, New York 19S5, White tried 9 0-0, but then Black got away with 9 ....i.xeS!? (9 ...liJh6!?) 10 ':el .i.g7 11 .i.f4 dS 12 texdS! cxdS, and now White should have continued with 13 WxdS "'xdS 14 .i.xdS gS IS .i.c7 ~d7 16 .i.g3 fS 17 %lad1 f4 IS .i.xaS+ ~c7 with an unclear position. 9 f5 If Black tries to avoid the main line with 9...e6, White is much better after 10 .i.f4 WaS 11 O-O! .i.xeS? (suicidal, but l1...liJe7 12 liJe4 is also good for White) 12 b4! "'xc7 13 liJbS and White won, Pietzsch-Baumbach, East Germany

of the game) 17 .i.e3 .i.c4 18 'iVb7 %lxeS 19 .i.gS!? :bS! 20 "'xbS "'xgS+ 21 f4 "'xf4+ 22 liJxf4 .i.xbS and Black has all the chances to win this endgame. c) Best is 11 0-0 e6 12 %ladl Wc7 13 %lfelliJe7 (13 ...liJh6 is also possible, but 14 "'g3 ten IS h4 is quite uncomfortable for Black) 14 b3 0-0 IS We3 "'as 16 h4 %1£7 17 a3 and White had the better chances in Andersson-Bilek, Teesside 1972.

19S9.

10

.i.f4

e6!

As we should know by now,

10......aS? is a bad idea. Pawn snatching when you a,re far behind in development is suicidal: 11 O-O! .i.xeS 12 b4! Wc7 13 tebS 'iVbs 14 .i.xeS "'xeS IS %lfel 'iVbs 16 "'c3 1-0 Karakas-Polihroniade, Bewerwijk 1966. A better alternative, yet somewhat passive is 1O...:bS!? and now: a) In Suetin-Bilek, Kecskemet 1972, Black did not have too much trouble after 11 .i.b3 Wc7 12 0-0 e6 13 %lfe1 liJe7 14 .i.gS tedS IS %lad1 0-0 16 liJxdS cxdS 17 "'f4 1:[£7 IS .i.h6 .i.xh6 19 "'xh6, and now 19 ...:b4 would have given equal chances. b) White tried something different in Daurelle-Koerholz, Cannes 1994: 11 0-0-0 %lb4 12 .i.xgS?! %lxgS 13 a3 ':c4 14 liJe2 e6 IS 1Wb3 l:te4 16 :bel .i.a6 (White's play leaves an artificial impression, and Black is already taking charge

11 0-0-0 This is the main line, but other moves have also been tried: a) 11 g4 (tried only once, when White got an excellent position, but Black need not fear this move) l1...fxg4?! (l1...liJe7, intending ... 0-0, seems to be better, trying to catch up on his development) 12 "'xg4 "'as?! (again this is not advisable, better is 12 ... liJe7 or 12 ...liJh6!?, e.g. 13 .i.xh6 .i.xh6 14 liJe4 0-0 IS liJf6+ %lxf6 16 exf6 Wxf6 with good play for Black) 13 0-0-0 .i.xeS 14 .i.xeS "'xeS IS :bel with more than enough for the pawn, Suetin-Korchnoi, USSR 19S4.

b) 11 0-0 (this move is possibly

.",..RA' .... ~


stronger than 11 0-0-0, but so far it has not been played very often) ll...lLlh6 (also possible is 11...lLle7 which may transpose to AnderssonBilek above) 12 :adl 'ikc7 13 l:tfel liJf7 14 "g3 (or 14 'ilfe3 :bS IS b3 h6 16 i.g3 'ilfaS 17 lLla4 i.fS 18 'ilfd3 i.e7 19 i.f4 'ifc7, ZivicDezelin, Slokobanja 1989, when White was somewhat more active) 14 ... 0-0 (Shamkovich gives 14 ... gS as unclear, but one has the feeling that White should be better, although it is pretty difficult to prove, e.g. IS i.xgS i.xeS 16 f4 :g8! or 16 'ilfh4 :g8!; this is definitely better than the game, where Black ends up bound hand and foot) IS h4 ~hS 16 lLla4 as?! 17 b3 :e8 IS 'ilfe3 h6 19 g4! :g8 20 ..tg3 ..tfS 21 'ilfb6! with total control, Short-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 19S6. c) 11 h4 'ilfc7 (this may already be wrong; perhaps 11...liJh6 was once again the right move) 12 'ikg3 ':b8 13 hS gS 14 h6! (the only way to maintain the pressure) 14... i.xh6 IS ':'xh6 lLlxh6 16 'ilfxgS liJf7 17 'ikg3 llb4 18 b3 'ikaS 190-0-0 and White develops a strong initiative, Kislov-Groh, Budejovice 1992. 11 'ike7 12 h4 Once again we have some alternatives for White: a) 12 %lhel lLlh6 (in Damjanovic-Gazik, Stary Smokovec 19S8, Black ended up in a very sad position after 12 ....:b8 13 a3 [preventing Black's .. ..:~b4xf4 ideas] 13 ... liJe7 14 h4 liJdS IS hS liJxf4 16 'ifxf4 'ikaS 17 ':e3 with a much better position for White) 13 h4 lLlf7 14 'ike3 llbS IS g4 ':b4 16 i.b3? (if possible, White should

never allow Black to sacrifice the exchange on f4 as the eS-pawn will become too weak, and Black will then gain excellent chances due to his pawn majority in the centre and the pair of bishops; in this case 16 b3, despite being weakening, would have been better) 16 ...:xf4! 17 'ikxf4 liJxeS IS 'ikg3 (Black threatened 18 ...lLld3+) 18 ...fxg4 19 hS gxhS 20 :hl "as 21 1Ii'h4liJf3 with a clear advantage for Black, Gaber-Dezelin, Pula 1990. b) 12 l:del!? (this move looks slightly strange, but it is actually quite logical; White wants to break with the h-pawn, so why not keep the rook on hI and use the other rook to protect the e-pawn, as nothing will be happening on the dfile for some time?) 12 ... liJh6 (12 ...liJe7!?) 13 h4 liJf7 14 'ikg3! l1b8?! (it is quite possible that 14 .. J:tg8, intending ... ..tfS or ... i.h8 followed by a ... h7-h6, ... g6gS plan is better) IS h5! gS 16 i.xgS liJxgS 17 h6! ..tf6 18 f4! :b4 19 b3 :g8 20 exf6 liJf7 21 'ife3 with a much better position for White, since Black has real problems with his co-ordination, Kiesekamp-Bogdan, Szeged 1995. c) 12 'ifg3liJe7? (12 ...liJh6!?) 13 h4 h6 14 l:[d6 0-0 IS hS gS 16 i.xgS! hxgS 17 h6 and White was winning in Mortishov-Shamkovich, USSR 19S1. d) 12 'ilfe3 :b8 13 i.b3 (KuijfSosonko, Hilversum 19S7, saw 13 :hel 'ilfb6 14 lLla4 'ikxe3+ 15 i.xe3 ..txeS 16 i.xa7 ..tf4+ 17 ~bl :as IS i.d4 :xa4 19 b3 l:txc4 20 bxc4 e5 21 :xe5+ ~ 112_112) 13 ... l:lb4 14 g3 liJe7 (interesting is Shamkovich's suggestion 14... gS!? 15 i.xgS 'ifxeS


16 "f3 lLlf6 17 .i.f4 ':'xf4!? with an unclear position) IS a3 :lb8 16 h4 with the better chances for White, Popovic-Shamkovich, New York 1986. 12 lLlh6! 12 ...:lb8?! is too slow. Black needs to finish his development and put pressure on the e5-pawn, which is White's only weakness. A few examples illustrate the downside to this move: 13 :lhel (13 .i.b3?! is less to the point due to 13 ...:b4! 14 'itbl l:xf4 15 "xf4 .i.xe5 16 lLlf6 17 f3 0-0 18 g4 fxg4 19 fxg4 lLlxg4 20 l:Ihg 1 lLlf6 with chances for both White and Black, ZontakhVelimirovic, Belgrade 1993) 13 ...l:b4 14 b3! lLlh6 IS a3 l:b8 16 .i.xh6! .i.xh6+ 17 ~b2 0-0 18 "d3 ':'e8 19 "d6 when Black is in a bind, Golyan-Mukhin, Alma Ata

"d2

19S8.

13 "g3?! Shamkovich's 13 "e2!? lLlf7 14 :ldel followed by :lh3 and :lg3 is worthwhile, as is 13 :Ide!!? transposing to the Kiesekamp-Bogdan game, which seems quite attractive. Silman and Donaldson give 13 hS gS! 14 .i.xgS lLlf7 14 .i.f4 .i.xeS IS .i.xeS lLlxeS 16 "g3 d5 17 ':'he1 f4! without an evaluation, though the exclamation marks indicate that this should be good for Black, but we think that 18 lLlxd5!! should win for White: 18...cxdS (18 ... exdS 19 "xf4 is obviously murder) 19 .i.bS+ .i.d7! (the only move, as everything else loses on the spot: 19 ... lLld7 20 "g7 ':'f8 21 l:xe6+; 19 ... lLlc6 20 "c3; 19 .. .'it?d8 20 "gS+; 19... 'iWS 20 "xf4+; 19.. .'iPe7 20 "gS+!) 20 "g7 O-O-O! 21 .i.a6+ ~b8 22 'ii'xeS. Furthermore, if Black tries to improve with

15 .....xeS, then 16 :lhel "a5 17 i.xe6! decides. If White does not have any improvements on our main game, this is obviously where he should be looking for an alternative; and there are three good possibilities to choose from. 13 lLlrr 14 :lhel Better was 14 :de 1!?, transposing to Kiesekamp-Bogdan above. 14 :lb8 15 ~bl?! White cannot play like this, as the game continuation clearly demonstrates. A reasonable alternative is IS a3 Wb6 16 b3! (Silman and Donaldson's only playable option for White is 16 .i.b3 cS 17 lLla4 "c6 18 c4 0-0 with an unclear position) 16.....a5 17 ~b2 with a good game for White. 15 :lb4! 16 .i.b3 0-0 a3 :lxf4 17 .i.xe5 18 "xf4 19 d5 "dl

This is exactly what Black is hoping for in this variation. He has tremendous compensation for the exchange and is much better.


20 g3 Another convincing example: 20 ~e2 ~d7 21 f4 ~f6 22 h5 l:.b8 23 hxg6 hxg6 24 ~d4 1i'd6 25 1i'e3 c5 26 ~xe6 c4! 27 ~d4 cxb3 28 cxb3 'itb6 29 1i'd3 a5 30 l:e3 ~d6 31 g4 ~e4 32 ~c2 l:.d8 33 g5 ~b5 0-1 was Ravinsky-Shamkovich, Vilnius 1953. i..d7 20 h5 21 g5! 22 l:e2 i..f6 ~d6 23 'ii'e3

24 'ii'c5? White could have limited his opponent's advantage here with 24 ~a4 ~e4 25 ~c5 f4 26 gxf4 gxf4 27 1i'xe4 dxe4 28 ~xd7 e3! 29 ~xf8 1i'e5 30 c3 ct>xfS 31 fxe3 f3 with a clear advantage for Black Sosonko. The rest of the game is a desperate attempt by White to create some counterplay, which does not succeed at all: 24..:iVb8 25 g4 ~b7 26 'ii'e3 f4 27 'ii'd2 ~c5 28 ~a2 'ii'b6 29 'ii'e1 ':'b8 30 ~a4 ~xa4 31 ':'xe6 'ii'd8! 32 ':'xc6 i..xc6 33 'ii'e6+ ~g7 34 'ii'xc6 ~b6 35 h6+
14 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon

Chapter Guide 1 e4 cS 2 lLlO g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'iVxd4lLlf6 5 .i.b5 - Game 105 5 e5 - Game 106 5 lLlc3 - Game 107 3 c3 .i.g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 dS 6 eS lLlc6 7 i.b5 - Game 108 7 h3 - Game 109 The Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 g6) is often employed

by Accelerated Dragon players as a means of avoiding 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .i.b5. Normally White transposes to the main lines of the Accelerated Dragon with 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 tLlc6, but 2 ... g6 gives White some extra options, which constitute the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon, and these are covered in this chapter. Game 105

Hector-Larsen London 1991 1 e4 cS 2 tLlO g6!? 3 d4 The main alternative, 3 c3, is the subject of Games 108 and 109. 3 h4 is interesting, and quite

logical too, if you consider the g6pawn to be a weakness. It was first played by future World Champion Boris Spassky against Leonid Stein in 1965. Stein did not prevent the threat of h4-h5, and after 3 ... i.g7 4 h5 tLlc6 5 tLlc3 e6 6 d3 d5 7 i.g5, White had some initiative, since his h-pawn was highly annoying for Black. Larsen later tried 3... h5 against Rodriguez in St Martin 1994. This is what one would expect from Larsen, who has always enjoyed pushing his h-pawns. However, Rodriguez, found the g5-square very inviting for his knight, and played a much improved Morra Gambit: 4 d4 cxd4 5 .i.c4 tLlc6 6 c3 dxc3?! (too brave; more sensible was 6 ...d3 or 6 ...tLlf6 with some edge for White) 7 tLlxc3 tLlf6 8 i.f4 d6?? (an incredible move from a


player of Larsen's class; much better was 8... .Jtg7, when White will still have to prove his attacking skills, but now it is all over) 9 lLlg5 e6 10 lLlb5 (simply winning the d6pawn) 1O... a6 11 lLlxd6+ .Jtxd6 12 .i.xd6 ii'a5+ 13 b4 "'d8 14 l:lh3 lLlg4 15 .Jtb3 a5 16 ii'd2 a4 17 .Jtc4 ii'b6 18 l:Idl f6 19 .i.c5 ii'c7 20 lLlxe6 .i.xe6 21 .Jtxe6 l:Id8 22 l:Id3 l:Ixd3 23 "'xd3 lLlge5 24 ii'b5 l:Ih7 25 .Jtd6 ii'g7 26 "'xa4 1-0. Since this Morra-like gambit looks like a strong reply to 3... h5, perhaps Bla("k should try 3... lLlf6, since 4 e5 lLlg4 5 d4 cxd4 6 "'xd4 h5 7 e6 f6 8 .i.d3 l:Ig8 is not very clear, while 5 c3 d6 and 5 h5 .i.g7 also look fine for Black. Still, if White is the creative type, 3 h4 is a good, provocative idea based on sound principles. 3 .i.c4 is quieter, but not without venom. It is very similar to 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 .i.c4, which Michael Adams has played a few times. However, there is a difference. In that line, after 3 ... lLlf6, White has to defend with the e-pawn with 4 d3, but here White has time for the immediate d2-d4, since Black will not hit the e4-pawn in time. Bronstein-Khasin, Moscow 1961, saw 3 .i.c4 .Jtg7 4 0-0 d6 5 c3 lLlf6 6 "'a4+!? .Jtd7 7 ii'b3 0-0 8 e5 lLlg4 9 e6 with a huge plus for White. Later the same year, the game Lutikov-Stein showed how Black should play: 4 ... lLlc6 5 c3 e6! 6 d3 lLlge7 7 a4 0-0 8 lLlbd2 d5 9 .Jta2 b6 and Black already had the better position. After the immediate 4 c3!?, Bilek has had some success with 4 ... e6. Against Per Juslin in Boraas 1986, he was worse after 5 d4 cxd4 6 cxd4 d5 7 .Jtb5+ lLlc6?!

8 e5 .i.d7 9 lLlc3 f6 10 exf6 lLlxf6 11 iLxc6 .i.xc6 12 .Jtf4 0-0 13 iLe5, although he later won the game. Three years later, against Chevallier, Val Thorens 1989, he improved with the correct 7... .Jtd7. After 8 .i.xd7 "'xd7 9 e5?! lLlc6 10 0-0 f6! 11 exf6 lLlxf6 12 lLlc3 0-0 13 l:IellLlh5, he was already better. The structure is similar to the French Defence, but here in a more active version. In particular the bishop on g7 looks nice. The game finished 14 .i.e3 l:Iad8 15 "'e2lLlf4 16 "'d2? lLlxg2! 17 ~xg2 e5 18 h3 l:Ixf3 19 ~xf3 "'xh3+ 20 ~e2 exd4 21 .Jtg5 dxc3 22 bxc3 l:Ie8+ 23 .Jte3 d4 0-1. Not too difficult, but still very attractive. It seems that playing ... e7-e6 and ... d7-d5 immediately secures Black excellent chances.

3cxd4 Also possible is 3....Jtg7, intending to use some of the extra options after 4 c4, which can be found in the transpositions chapter. However, White can play 4 d5 with a Schmid Benoni, or the even more scary 4 dxc5!?, when Black should respond 4 ......a5+ 5 lLlc3 lLlf6 6 .i.d3 "xc5, but not 5 ......xc5?! 6

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 297

tLld5! which has led to some quick disasters for Black. Nunn seems to support the view that 5 c3 "xc5 6 .i.e3 'ilc7 7 i.d4!? is White's most promising line. Although 7...e5?! looks logical, White is much better after 8 .i.e3 tLlf6 9 tLla3!, e.g. 9 ... 0-0 10 tLlb5 "c6 11 tLlxeS .xe4 12 liJxf7! .:txf7 13 tLld6 .c6 14 .i.c4 .i.f8 15 .i.xf7+ fj;g7 16 tLlxc8 winning for White, as the knight escapes via a7, LesiegeStrenzwilk, New York 1992. Best is probably 7... tLlf6 8 e5 tLlg4 9 e6 f6, which looks quite playable. 4 'ilxd4!? As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, 4 tLlxd4 just transposes to a nonnal Accelerated Dragon. 4 lLlf6 5 .i.bS

Bronstein's ingenious idea from his game against Zhidkov in 1972. Black played the weak S...•a5+, but after 6 "c3 he realised that 6 ...'ilxc3 7 tLlxc3 with the threat of e5 followed by lLld5 can only be parried with 7 ... a6, and then S e5 axb5 9 exf6 with lLld5 or lLlxbS next is almost winning for White. Zhidkov swallowed his pride and

played 6.....dS, but after 7 i.c4! followed byeS Black was in big trouble. Still, Legahn tried to improve on this disaster with 6...lLlc6 against Fette. However, after 7 'ilxa5lLlxa5 8lLlc3 a6 9 eSlLlg4 10 lLld5 ~d8 11 h3 lLlh6 12 .i.e3 he found himself on the wrong side of a miniature. S e5 is the subject of the next game and 5 lLlc3 of Game 107. 5 lLlc6 Nowadays nearly the only move played, although we do not find the consequences of S... a6 to be clear at all. After 6 eS axbS 7 exf6 e6 (7 ...lLlc6 has been played, but after S 'ild5 Black has to play the awkward' s...lLlb4 9 'ilb3 e6, after which 10 lLlc3 looks preferable for White) 8 lLlc3 (best; S 0-0 lLlc6 9 'ii'h4 .:ta4! is fme for Black) S... lLlc6 9 'ii"h4 Black never got developed in Riihrig-Stertenbrink, German Bundesliga 1983/84, after 9...b4?! 10 lLlb5 .:ta5 11 c4! bxc3 12 a4 cxb2 13 .i.xb2 .i.b4 + 14 ~e2. Instead of 9 ... b4?!, we find 9 ....:taS more logical. Now ... bS-b4 followed by ....:th5 cannot be prevented, since 10 a4 bxa4 is okay for Black. Maybe White should try 10 .i.h6 .i.xh6 11 'ilxh6 "xf6 12 lLle4 'ilxb2 13 0-0, which is very unclear. In summary, after 5 ... a6, Black is well behind in development. But with the pair of bishops, the rook coming into play via a5 and the f6pawn being weak, inexact play by White could easily give Black the better game. So, if you find the endgame after S...lLlc6 too difficult to win, 5 ...a6 is a risky, but not bad winning attempt. .i.xc6 dxc6 6


6 ... bxc6 is more ambitious. Black hopes to prove the advantage of the bishop pair and the extra central pawn. The variation is similar to 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 g6 4 i.xc6 bxc6 5 0-0 i.g7 6 :tel ttJf6 7 e5 ttJd5 8 c4 ttJc7 9 d4 cxd4 10 W'xd4, which has been considered good for White since Kasparov-Salov, Dortmund 1992, when White had easy development due to his space advantage. After 6 ...bxc6 Black will suffer for the same reasons: 7 e5 ttJd5 8 0-0 (after 8 e6?! Black gets a huge centre after either 8.. .f6 and 8...ttJf6!) 8... i.g7 and now: a) The attempt to transpose to the above Kasparov game with 9 c4 was less successful in EdelmanShabalov, New York 1992. After 9 ... ttJb4 Shabalov took advantage of the white Queen's early development to d4, and won a messy game after 10 ttJa3 d6 11 c5 ttJd5 12 cxd6 exd6 13 i.g5 dxe5. b) 9 W'h4 (planning i.h6 to eliminate the bishop pair) 9 .. .f6 (allowing i.h6; critical was 9 ... h6 to keep the bishop pair, when after 10 c4 ttJb4 11 ttJc3 ttJd3 12 i.d2 ii'c7 13 ttJe4 g5 14 ifg3 ttJxb2 15 l:ael f8 Black survived White's attack and later won in KengisLevcenkovc, Riga 1984; still, this looks very dangerous for Black, as after 9... h6 he will hardly ever be able to castle, so 10 a3, preparing c2-c4, or 10 ttJd2 followed by ttJe4 looks like a good idea, but probably this is the kind of position Black has to play if he chooses 6 ... bxc6) 10 c4 ttJc7 11 i.h60-0 12 i.xg7 'iti>xg7 13 ttJc3 ttJe6 14 ':adl fxe5 15 ttJxe5 ':f4 16 ii'g3 ii'c7 17 ':fel d6? (losing a pawn, but Black

was much worse anyway) 18 ttJxg6 hxg6 19l1xe6 i.xe6 20 ii'xf4 with an extra pawn in Sax-Tatai, Rome 1986. After 20 ...:f8 21 ii'd4+ ~g8 22 llel i.f7 23 W'h4 e5? 24 ttJe4 1-0. It seems to us that unless you have very strong nerves and are happy to defend Black's position after 9 ...h6!?, 6 ... bxc6 will be unattractive to you, since otherwise White just has a simple position with an edge. 7 W'xdS+ 'iti>xdS This endgame used to be considered as slightly better for White. Yet Larsen does not believe that the right to castle is more important than Black's bishop pair. So he plays very ambitiously, trying to prove Black to be better. S ttJc:3 In the rapidplay game J.PolgarLarsen, Melody Amber 1992, White tried 8 e5, but after 8...ttJd5 9 i.d2 i.g7 10 c4 ttJb6 11 b3 i.g4 12 i.c3 i.xf3 13 gxf3 ttJd7 14 f4 ttJc5 15 'iti>e2 'iti>c7 16 ttJd2 ':hd8 17 i.b4 ttJe6 18 i.xe7 ttJxf4+ 17
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 299 had equality after 9....i.e6 10 tt'ld3 .i.g7 11 lLlc5 .i.c8 12 .i.f4 b6 13 0-0-0+ ~e8 14 tt'ld3 tbd7 15 l:td2 e5. Although 8... ~g4 is playable, it seems more flexible to develop with 8... ~g7 and 9 ... ~e8 first, and then decide where to put the other pieces. 9 h3 Preventing ... ~g4, but allowing Black to play a plan with ... tt'ld7, ... e7-e5 and ... ~e7 etc. 9 ~f4 is more ambitious, since if Black tries the same plan, he gets into trouble after 9...tbd7 10 0-0-0 ~e8 11 ~c7!, when White threatens to double rooks on the defile, after which Black can never free himself. In Arkhipov-P.H.Nielsen, Gistrup 1994, Black managed to draw after l1...b6 12 h4 (not 12 :d2 ~h6 or 12 :d3 ~a6) 12 ...~b7 13 h5 tbc5 14 ~e5 f6 15 ~d4 tbe6 16 ~e3 :g8 17 tt'lh4 ~f7 18 f4, but it was obvious that White enjoyed some initiative. Instead 9 ...~e8 (or 9... tbh5) 10 0-0-0 ~h5 is more active, and in practice White has not been able to equalise: a) Schlosser-Lerch, Tmava 1989, saw 11 ~c7 ~g4 12 l:td3 ~h6+ 13 ~bl ~f4 14 .i.xf4 ~xf4, when Black was just slightly better. b) And Kosten-Birmingham, Paris 1988: 11 ~e5 f6 12 ~d4 ~h6+ 13 ~e3 ~xe3+ 14 fxe3 e5, when only Black could think of victory. We have not found a way to improve on White's play after 1O••. tbh5, and if there are no improvements, then the endgame arising after 5 ~b5 must be considered harmless for Black.

9 10

tbd7 ~dl

After the more 'aggressive' 10 Rausis simply took on c3. After 1O••• ~xc3+ 11 bxc3 f6 12 0-0-0 ~e8 13 :he 1 e5 14 tbd2 ~b6 followed by ... ~e6, Black was much better, Myrvold-Rausis, Gausdal 1995. 10 ~e8 11 0-0-0 ~eS Also possible was the standard plan with ... e7-e5 and ...
'12

~d4

White should accept that he has achieved nothing and simplify with 12 ~xe5 ~xe5 13 ~e2 and 14 ~c3.

12...~c4 13 ~gS f6 14 ~h4 eS 15 ~O
Now Larsen has a serious initiative. His pieces co-ordinate very well, and he is ready to open the kingside. 21 c4 ~f7 22 :dl g4 23 hxg4 hxg424 f4 Active defence. If White had played passively, Black had plans like ... ~h6-f4 and ...tbg5 or ...~h6-g5 and ...f6-f5. 24...gxO 25 tbxO ~h6+ 26 ~c2 :hg8 27 tbh4 :ad8 28 ~el :xd3 29 :xd3 :14 30 tbc3 tbd6 31 cS

300 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon tDxe4 32 cxb6 axb6 33 tDa4 bS 34 tDc3.i.gS Another strategic triumph for Larsen, but he later allowed his opponent to escape with a draw. It seems to us that the endgame arising after 5 ~b5 offers as many chances to Black as it does for White. Game 106 Rozentalis-Tregubov Sf Petersburg 1996 (1 e4 cS 2 tDf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'it'xd4 tDf6)

S

eS!?

Generally not considered very strong, but recently Rozentalis has come up with a new idea, which seems promising for White. S tDc6 6 -'a4 White has to watch out for 6 tWh4? tDxe5 and 6 -'e3 tDg4 followed by ... tDgxe5. In both cases Black wins a pawn because of .. :ifa5+ which wins back the piece. tDd5 6 7 -.e4 tDdb4 This used to be the main move,

but perhaps 7 ... tDc7 8 tDc3 .i.g7 is a more solid option and now: a) In Lutikov-Osnos, Kiev 1964, Black was blown apart after 9 .i.f4 tDe6?! 10 .i.g3 b6 11 h4 h5 12.i.c4 i.b7 13 .i.d5 -.c8 140-0-0 tDa5 15 tDg5 .i.h6 16 f4 .i.xg5 17 fxg5 rt:Jc7 18 .i.xti+ 'itxf7 19 e6+ tDxe6 20 l%hfl with total destruction. Impressive play by White, but Black could have done better by not giving up control of d5 and playing 9... b6 instead of 9 ... tDe6?! Silman and Donaldson suggest that 10 .i.c4 .i.b7 11 'ife2 tDa5 12 .i.d3 tDe6 13 i.g3 tDc5 140-00-015 %ladl Wc8 is equal. This is probably right, but 10 .i.c4 seems unnecessary, Black gains a lot of time chasing the bishop. 10 0-0-0 or even stronger 10 h4! seem to be the real tests of 7 ... tDc7. It looks as if White has good attacking chances, but since Black has no obvious weaknesses, with careful play he should have a fully playable position. b) The correct answer to 9 .i.c4 was shown as long ago as Trenchard-Blackbume, in 1898! There followed 9 ... b5!

This gains valuable time to develop, as acceptance of the pawn sacrifice with 10 bb5 (10 tDxbS?? tDxbS 11 .i.xb5 WaS+) is


bad. After 1O... tl)xb5 11 tl)xb5 'iVa5+ 12 tl)c3 l:b8! (not 12 ...~a6 13 .i.d2, when White might keep his pawn) Black wins back the pawn, while keeping all his trumps. Instead of capturing on b5, White played 10 ~b3 ~b7 11 'iVe2 ~a6 12 ~d5 0-0 13 ~xc7 'iVxc7 14 ~f4 'iVa5+ 15 'iVd2 'iVxd2+ 16 c,i;Jxd2 d5! and Black had a level ending. 8 ~a3!? A well-known move in the 'c3 Sicilian'. At one time 8 ~b5 was more popular, but the game KmicSax, 1974, drastically changed the evaluation of the position. After 8...•a5 9 ~c3 d5 10 'iVe2 ~g4 11 0-0 Black has: a) 11...0-0-0 12 a3 ~xf3 13 .xf3 ~xe5 14 'iVh3 e6 15 axb4 'iVxal 16 ~f4 was winning for White in Romanishin-Kupreichik, USSR 1971, and Adorjan-Sax, Budapest 1973. But still, the move 12 ... ~d4 as recommended by Donaldson/Silman is far better. After the forced 13 ~xd4 ~xe2 14 axb4 'iVxai 15 ..txe2 ~h6! White has to go for the spectacular 16 ~xh6 'iVxb2 17 ~d2 with some dubious attacking chances, or the more reasonable 16 ~b3 ~xcl 17 ~xal ~xb2 18 ~a4 ~xe5 19 ~b3, when White definitely has attacking prospects to counter Black's centre. The position should be roughly equal. But Black is just better after... b) 11...d4! 12 lDe4 ~xf3 13 gxf3 d3! 14 ~xd3 lDxd3 15 ..td2 "a6 16 'iVxd3 "xd3 17 cxd3lDxe5 with a far superior ending for Black, since after 18 ~c3 ~g7 19 f4 lDf3+ 20 ~g2 ~h4 followed by ...lDf5, White is left with a horrible pawn structure.

8 d5 8... d6 has also been played. After 9 c3 ~f5 10 'iVh4 lDd3+ Black was better in Schmitzer-Brendel, German Bundesliga 1994/95. Far better, however, is 9 ~b5!, when Black is in trouble. 9 'iVf4 ~g7 9.....tf5 was tried in Vadasz-1. Polgar, Hungary 1968, when after 10 c3 lDd3+ 11 ~xd3 ~xd3 12 ~g5 f6 13 exf6 exf6 14 'iVe3+ 'iVe7 15 ~e6 lDe5 16 ~xfS l:xfS Black had no problems. 10 ~b5 seems more testing, but after 10... e6! both 11 ~d4 ~xc2! and 11 ~d2 a6 12 ~xb4 axb5 13 ~xfS l:a4 seem fine for Black. 9... ~f5 is apparently fine and should be more thoroughly tested. 10 ~d2 lDa6?! Rozentalis recommends instead 1O... 'iVb6, which is certainly better. After 11 c3 lDa6 12 ~b5 0-0 Black has more chances of counterplay than in the game. Now White gets a clear edge and Black has no play. 11

~xa6

bxa6

12

0-0

0-0

13 14 15

~e3

:ad1 l:fel

'iVe7 e6 ~b7


:fd8 16 'ii'e3 .!LJd4 :ac8 17 .!LJxc6 'ii'xc6 18 i..d4 19 Black's position is a disaster, and of course the game is soon over. 19•.•i..f8 20 ':d3 as 21 'ii'f4 i..xa3 22 :xa3 'ii'xc2 23 'ii'h6 :d7 24 :h3 f5 25 exf6 ':c4 26 ':he3! 1-0

6.. .'ti'c7?! is the only way to stop 7 e5. Not surprisingly, Black runs into even bigger problems, since both 7 tLld5!? .!LJxd5 8 exd5 tLle5 9 i.f4 tLlxf3 10 gxf3 and simply 7 J.g5 are terrible for Black. The white attack is already rolling. 7 e5! The logical follow-up. 7 .!LJg4 Black's most active choice, hitGame 107 ting the f2-pawn in some lines. Other moves have not been as efVan dar Wial-Pikat fective: Wijk aan Zee 1995 a) 7 ... dxe5 8 tLlxe5 'ii'd4 9 tLlxc6 (1 e4 c5 2 .!LJf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'i'xa4 10 tLlxa4 bxc6 was played in 'ii'xd4 .!LJf6) the stem game, which was Bonsch Osmolovsky-Khasin, Kiev 1957. White had a huge edge and later 5 .!LJc3!? ---.• -.":;",~..-=-.-:.:.:.~ won due to the c5-square, which is ideal for a knight. If 8... i..g7, hoping for compensation, it seems as if 9 i..b5 i..d7 (9 ... 0-0 10 tLlxc6 bxc6 11 i..xc6 l:.b8 12 0-0) 10 tLlxc6 bxc6 11 i..xc6 is nowhere near enough; Black is not that far ahead in development. b) 7 ... tLld7 was tried in WalterHorstmann, Germany 1990, when Black had an acceptable position after 8 exd6 i..g7!? 9 i..e2 .!LJb6 10 'i'h4 'i'xd6 11 0-0 0-0 12 l:.dI 'i'b4. However, far more critical is Not played very often, but one --2,dxe7 'i'xe7+ 10 i..e3 followed by of White's best chances to refute Ii Oie2 and 12 0-0 to consolidate. Black is well developed, but the 2 ... g6!? white position is difficult to attack. 5 .!LJc6 6 'ii'a4 We believe that White has the betAt first sight it may look odd to ter chances. develop the queen this early, but 8 exd6 Black will find it very hard to stop This might be fp White, the e4-e5 thrust. This will be very but Vydeslaver's 8 f4(.· is also interesting. The wbac is that annoying, since the queen then takes both e4 and g4 away from the the f2-pawn will quite often be hanging. Still, White gets a powerblack knight. ful attack in return: Vydeslaver6 d6

t'i!


Flash, Beersheva 1993, continued 8 ... .i.g7 9 exd6 'ili'b6 10 0-0-0 tLlxf2 11 l:tel lLlxh 1 12 l:txe7 'lttf8 13 .i.c4 .i.e6 14 .i.xe6 fxe6 IS .i.gS 'ili'b4?! 16 'iixb4 tLlxb4 17 l:txb7 with a winning position for White. However, IS ...tLlxe7 16 'iid7 h6! 17 dxe7 'i!?g8 is not clear at all. Nor is 13 tLlgS i.e6 14 l:txe6 fxe6 IS tLlxe6+ 'i!?g8 16 'iic4 tLleS! 17 'iidS 'iic6 18 'ib3 'ili'b6 easy to refute. We have not found anything clear for White, but it still requires a lot of courage to play like this as Black. But on the other hand, after 8 .i.f4 there is no way back, since 8 ...dxeS 9 tLlxeS tLlxeS 10 .i.xeS and 8 ...'ili'b6 9 0-0-0 tLlxf2 10 tLldS are downright awful for Black. 8 'iVxd6 9 tLlbS!? The direct 9 .i.f4 eS does not lead anywhere, so White tries this interesting knight twist, hoping to spoil Black's pawn structure. 9 'ii'b8 10 tLlbd4!?

Again 10 .i.f4 is not clear, since after 1O... e5 11 .i.g3 .i.g7 12 'i'a3 .i.f8! the bishop returns to g7, when there does not seem to be any way for White to maintain the pres-

sure. 10 tLlbd4!? is more subtle. If Black is be forced to take back on c6 with the pawn, the c5-square will be weak. Since 10....i.d7 11 tLlxc6 .i.xc6?? 12 'i'xg4 drops a piece, Black must enter some risky complications in order to avoid the weakening of his pawns. 10 .i.g7 11 .i.bS tLlgeS!? This move looks risky, but it seems as if Black can afford it. 11...0-0 12 lLlxc6 bxc6 13 .i.xc6 .i.xb2 14 .i.xb2 'ii'xb2 15 0-0 l:tb8 16 'iixa7 is good for White, since although he will lose his extra pawn, the a-pawn is dangerous. 12 . .i.f4 0-0 12 ... lLlxf3+ 13 tLlxf3 e5 14 .i.xc6+ bxc6 IS 'ii'xc6+ .i.d7 16 'iic3 0-0 is fine for Black, but White has instead 13 gxf3! 'iixf4 14 .i.xc6+ bxc6 IS 'ihc6+ ~f8 16 'iixa8 .i.xd4 17 "xc8+ ~g7 18 'i'g4 "f6 19 0-0 (19 c3 .i.xc3 20 bxc3 'iixc3+ 21 ~e2 'ili'b2+ 22 'i!?e3 'ii'a3+ gives Black a perpetual) 19... .i.xb2, when although Black has some compensation for the exchange, White is better. Despite the weakened kingside and c-pawn, White has fair winning chances. 13 lLlxc6 Piket was hoping for the tactical trick 13 .i.xc6lLlxf3+ 14 tLlxf3 e5!, when all of Black's problems would disappear. 13 bxc6 14 .i.xc6 'ii'xb2 14...tLlxf3+ 15 .i.xf3 e5 16.i.xa8 exf4 17 .i.f3 .i.xb2 18 l:tdl .i.c3+ 19 'i!?f1 .i.e6, with compensation, has been recommended as an alternative. White's co-ordination is certainly far from desirable, but by playing h2-h3 and ~gl-h2 this

•

304 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon problem should be solved, leaving White with the better position. 15 .i.xeS .i.xeS 16 0-0 :b8 17 ttJxeS "xeS 18 "xa7 .i.fS 19 a4!? White does not try to defend his small material plus, but starts pushing the a-pawn, which will soon give Black something to worry about. 19 :be8 20 .i.f3 :xc2 21 as :fc8 With the cute threat of 22 .....xal! Logically, White now tries to exchange queens, since normally an endgame would make the passed pawn even more valuable. However, he misses a clever defence and should have played the simple 22 h3 with good winning chances. 22 "e3? "xe3 23 fxe3 .i.d3 24 :fdl 24ltfbl :2c3 25 :b7 l::tc1+ 26 :xcl l::txcl+ 27..tf2 :al is drawn. 24 .i.a6 25 :dbl :8c7! This is the point. Now 26 l:tb6 :a7 is nothing, since White cannot make progress, and Black will eventually start attacking the a5pawn. 26 :b8 1/2-1/2 After 26 ... .i.d3 27 a6 l:cl+ 28 :xcl l:xc1+ 28 ~ :al 29 a7 White threatens :d8, picking up the bishop. However, 29 ....i.f5 solves this problem, leaving White with no way to improve his position. Although Black managed a draw in this game, it seems to us that 5

lLlc3!? is the most testing move in the 4 "xd4 variation, and certainly should be played more often. No clear path to equality for Black has been proved as yet. Game 108

Smyslov-Zsu.Polgar Vienna 1993

(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 g6)

3

c3!?

A logical move. White is heading for the Alapin variation (2 c3), hoping to prove that g7 -g6 is less effective there. 3 .i.g7 3 ... d5 may be better, hoping after 4 exd5 'iixdS 5 d4 to transpose to the system 1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exdS "xdS 4 d4 g6!?, the popularity of which has been increasing in the last few years. Here, however, White is already committed to ttJf3 and therefore loses some of his sharpest options. According to present theory this should be fine for Black. But since this really is a 2 c3 Sicilian position, we will only cover a few independent variations: a) The stem game is Merenyi-


Capablanca, Budapest 1928, in which Capablanca, won a beautiful ending. White played 4 .ltbS+?!, but after 4 ... i..d7 S i..xd7+ 'ii'xd7 6 exd5 'it'xdS 7 d4 cxd4 8 'ii'xd4 'it'xd4 9 lLlxd4 eS 10 lLlb5 ~d7! Black was doing fme with his centralised king. b) Short-Andersson, Tilburg 1990, saw 4 exd5 'i'xd5 5lLla3!? (5 d4 is a 'c3 Sicilian') 5 ....ltg7 6.ltc4 'ii'e4+ 7 .lte2 lLlf6 8 ttJbS ttJa6 9 0-00-0 10 nel d5 with reasonable chances for Black. Actually, we are rather sceptical about combining ... g7-g6 with early activity in the centre, but so far no convincing plan has been found for White. So for the time being, 3 ... dS is fully playable. 4 cxd4 d4 5 cxd4 dS! Here, however, we find activity in the centre fully justified, if 6 exd5, Black plays 6 ...ttJf6! Earlier this was evaluated as being better for White, but now theory gives Black the thumbs up: 7 .ltbS+ ttJbd7 8 d6!? (the only critical try, if Black gets time to castle and to play ... ttJb6, he will win back the dS-pawn with good play) 8... exd6! (this is the move which gives Black equality; previously, Black went for either 8... ttJe4 or 8... 0-0, both of which, however, are insufficient for equality), now White has to enter the endgame with 9 'i'e2+ 'it'e7 10 'ili'xe7+ (10 .ltf4 is possible, leading to quite similar positions after 1O... 'it'xe2+ 11 .ltxe2 ~e7 followed by ...ttJb6+ and ... J.e6 etc.) 1O... 'i!;1xe7 11 ttJc3 (11 0-0 lbb6 12 lbc3 .lte6 13 lbgS :lac8 14 nel a6 15 .lte2 ~d7 16 lbxe6 fxe6 17 .ltg5 lbfdS was equal in Timman-

Sax Hilversum 1973) ll...lLlb6 12 0-0 :d8 13 l:tel+ ~ 14 h3 .lte6 ISlbg5.ltc4 16 i..f4 h6 17lLlf3 a6 18 .ltxc4 lLlxc4 19 b3 lLlb6 20 Aacl lbbd5 21 .ltd2 lLlxc3 22 .ltxc3 lbd5 with advantage for Black, Christiansen-Larsen, Monaco 1992. This line is similar to 1 e4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 cxdS cxdS 4 cxd5 lbf6 S .ltb5+ lbbd7 6 lLlc3 g6 7 d4 .ltg7 8 d6 exd6 9 'i'e2+ 'it'e7. But there White has 10 i.f4! 'i'xe2+ 11 .ltxe2! followed by i.f3! with pressure. This is not possible here, so Black is doing fine. 6 eS 6 exd5 lbf6 leads to a harmless position from the Caro-Kann Defence. 6 lLlc6 Generally, 6....ltg4 is recommended by theory, but for some reason, when this line is played at the top level, Black nearly always prefers 6...lbc6. We have not been able to find any logical explanation for this, since White often answers 6 ... lbc6 with 7 h3!?, as we shall see in the next game, which is the main motivation to play 6 ....ltg4!? White's best may be 7 .ltb5+!? with a transposition to the game. Normally, White plays 7 lbc3, but this is harmless. Black plays 7 ...lbc6 8.lte2 lLlh6! 9 h3 .ltxf3 10 i.xf3 lLlfS 11 .ltxd5 lbfxd4 12 f4 0-0 13 0-0 e6 14 .ltxc6 ttJxc6 15 .lte3 'i'aS with equal play, as in Ljubojevic-Larsen, Monaco 1992. Equally harmless was 11 J.e3 e6 12 0-0 0-0 13 g4?! lbxe3 14 fxe3 and now instead of 14....lth6?!, as in Hacker-Kaposzas, Loosdorf 1993, 14.. .f6! would have left Black somewhat better, since White has merely weakened his

306 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon position. Even without g2-g4, exchanging on e3 followed by ... f7f6! is strong, nonnally leading to equality. ~bS!? 7 White hopes to exploit the c5square, which will be weak after .ixc6. He also removes pressure from the d4-pawn by pinning the knight. 7 h3 is the subject of the next game. ~g4 7

This has been Black's choice in all of the games with 7 ~b5!?, but it seems positionally risky to us. However, strong alternatives are difficult to fmd. 7 ... ~d7 is met with the annoying 8 lDc3, hitting the d-pawn, when 8 ... e6 weakens the dark squares on the kingside. 8 0-0 lDh6 8... 'ii'b6!? attacks the centre, as well as protecting the queenside, and is an improvement on the game. lDbd2 9 f6!? The usual way of seeking counterplay in this line. Not 9... 0-0 10 ~xc6 bxc6 11 h3, and if the bishop retreats, then 12 lDb3 is positionally much better for White. ~d7 10 h3

Risky, but 10 ... ~xf3 11 lDxf3 is just better for White, who has the bishop pair and better co-ordination of his pieces. 11 exf6 ~xf6 Nonnally Black takes back with the pawn, but since she has not castled yet, White has a check on the e-file. 12 lDb3 lDf7 13 lDcs lDd6 14 ~xc6 ~xc6 lDeS 'ii'c8 15 It is obvious that Black's opening strategy has been a complete failure. Somehow the Hungarian manages to hang on and defend. .:tel lDe4!? 16 Not nice, but a good practical decision, reducing material. lDxc6 'ii'xc6 17 18 lDxe4 dxe4 'ii'g4 ~xd4 19 20 .:txe4 ~f6 21 ~h6 ~f7

Black's position is far from attractive, but at least she is now fully developed and only needs to exchange some pieces on the d-file to be okay. 22 .:tel 'ii'dS 23 l:r.cS!? 'ii'xa2


23 ...1fxc5? 24 "'e6+ e8 25 1fxf6 :g8 26 .i.g5 is tenninal. 24 .:r.aS "xb2! Removing an important queenside pawn. Now Black has good chances of building a fortress after sacrificing her queen. 25 "e6+ ~e8 26 This looks strong, but 26 :d5! with the idea of 27 :d6 seems. to win. 26.....c3 27 .i.g7!? This seems to win too, but Black has a trick. 27.....c1+! 28 :e1 28 ~h2 "c7+. 28.....xel+! 29 "xe1 .i.xg7 30 "e4 .i.f6 31 "xb7 ~f7 32 :a6 gS 33 g3 :hd8 34 ~g2 ~g7 35 "e4 :f8 36 a6 37 h4 h6 38 hS ~h8 39 "g6 .i.g7 40 :xa6 :xa6 41"xa6eS Although he tried hard, White never found a way through and had to be content with a draw after 51 moves. Even though Black managed to save herself in the end, not many players would like to defend the black position arising after the opening. 8.. ;ilb6, with mutual chances, seems to be critical.

:a2

10 dxe5 e6 11 .i.f4 ~ge7 12 0-0 0-0 13 1fd2 "a5 14 J:[fel 'Wb4! 15 .i.h2 Ihf3! 16 gxf3 ~d4 and soon won. b) Much later, in Kecskemet 1992, Fette went for 9 exf6, but Black played the surprising move 9... ~xf6!?, aiming for quick development and not caring much about weak squares. After 10 0-0 0-0 11 ~c3 a6 12 .i.xc6 .i.xc6, they agreed a draw. Black will play ... ~e4 next, and if 13 ~e5, then 13 ...~d7 equalises.

:as

Game 109

Smlrin-Ivanchuk Paris (rapid) 1994 (1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 g6 3 c3 .i.g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 dS 6 eS ~c6)

7 h3!? ~h6 Since 7 h3!? is rather slow, 7 ...f6!?, a favourite of the Hungarian GM Bilek deserves attention: a) Kern played 8 .i.b5 against him, Ludwigsburg 1969, but Black was fme after 8 ....i.d7 9 ~c3 fxe5

8 ~c3 0-0 9 .i.e2 9 .i.b5 was played in AnderssonDueball, Berlin 1971. Black played 9 ... ~h8?!, but after 10 0-0 f6 11 :el fxe5 12 .i.xc6 exd4 13 .i.xh6! White had an extra pawn. Better is the immediate 9 ...f6!?, when after 10 0-0 fxe5 11 dxe5 e6 12 :el "c7 Black was doing fine in Schweber-Larsen, Buenos Aires 1991. In general Black should act quickly to take advantage of the fact that he is slightly ahead in development after 7 h3. 9 f6 10 exf6 exf6


It may look as if Black has equalised, since he has eliminated White's space advantage. However, Black's pieces do not co-ordinate very well, and practice has shown that White still has an advantage.

11 0-0 tLlf5 l1...tLlt7?! 12 1i'b3! was good for White in Savon-Bachmann, Dortmund 1975. 12 .i.f4 .i.e6 13 :'el 13 :'c 1 was successful in Adams-Larsen, Monaco 1992. Larsen now misplayed his position with 13 ...ltc8 14 tLla4 .i.t7 15 :c3 :e8 16 .i.b5 :e4 17 .i.xc6 l:rxf4? 18 .i.xb7. Black should of course take back on c6, but White is better. 13 .i.f7 14 .i.b5 :c:S 15 :d a6 .i.n :eS 16 Again, Black seems to be doing fine, but as we shall see, White's pieces are more actively placed. 17 :xeS+ 'it'xeS IS g4! Since White is very active, he can play this seemingly weakening

move as Black is in no position to exploit it.

IS...tZ:le7 19 'it'd2 'it'dS 20 tLla4 g5?! Black is trying to win space, but he also gives White targets for his attack. 21 .i.g3 .i.g6?! 22 tLlc:S 'ii'b6 23 :el 9;;f7 24 'it'e3 Now it is nearly over. White is ready for a quick assault and it is striking to notice how easily White manages to develop a huge attack from a seemingly simple and quiet position. 24...c;t>gS 25 .i.d6 :eS Ivanchuk was probably down to his last few minutes, but even more time would not have saved him. 26 'ii'e6+ .i.f7 27 'it'd7 .i.f8 28 'it'xb7 'it'aS 29 :e3 'it'xa2 30 tLld7 .i.g6? 31 tLlxf6+ 1-0 It seems that after 7 h3!? Black should not sit and wait, since White's pressure is long-lasting. Bilek's 7...f6!? with active counterplay seems more promising. However, this is rather academic, since with 6....i.g4! Black avoids 7 h3!? altogether.

15 Guide to Transpositions

Even if your opponent does not play 1 e4, there are several ways to trick him into playing an Accelerated Dragon. This chapter deals with the most common ways to enter the Accelerated Dragon without 1 e4 from White. We shall also look at ways in which White can avoid Black's transpositional attempts. English and Reti Opening The most common transposition is probably: A) 1 c4 cS 2 tbf3 g6!? instead .of the more normal 2...tbf6 or 2 ... tbc6. After 2 ... g6!? White will either have to play the unambitious 3 g3 with a Symmetrical English, which definitely should not scare Black, or go for the official 'refutation' of 2 ... g6: 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 tbc6 when after S e4 we already have the standard Maroczy Bind. Of course, this should not worry the Accelerated Dragon player, but Sg3 (see following diagram) may be more annoying. However, after 5 ... i..g7 6 tlJc2 Black can either choose to play 6 ... tlJf6 with a standard line in which White has committed himself to an early

tlJc2 or the more 6... 'ifb6 or 6... 'ifaS:

interesting

a) Korchnoi answered Spangenberg's 6 ...1Wb6 with 7 tlJd2, but after 7... tlJf6 8 i..g2 0-0 9 0-0 d6 White's knight on d2 was more misplaced than Black's queen, so Black had no problems. Critical is 7 tlJc3, as 7... i..xc3 8 bxc3 tlJeS will be answered with 9 e4 followed by 'ife2, f2-f4 etc. b) Better looks 6 .....aS+, as 7 tlJc3 now loses several pawns. b I) Christiansen played 7 tlJd2 against Leko in New York 1994, when after 7... tlJf6 8 i..g2 0-0 9 0-0 'it'hs 10 e3 "xdl White had almost nothing, although he later managed to win. b2) More ambitious is 7 i..d2,

310 Guide to Transpositions when in the game RotsteinKlimenko, Simferopol 1991, Black played 7...•c5, but was crushed after 8 ltJc3 .xc4 9 ltJe3 .c5 10 ltJed5 ~e5 11 f4 ..tb8 12 ncl e6 13 b4 .d6 14ltJe3 a6 15 ltJc4 .c7 16 ~e3 b5 17 ltJb6 na7 18 ltJe4 ~b7 19 ..tc5 .d8 20 .d6! Instead of 7 ...•c5, 7 ... 'itb6 is the real test, as Black will pick up an important pawn. It is not easy for White to get reasonable compensation, and since 8 ltJc3 .xb2 9 nb I?? fails to 9 ...•xc3!, 8 ~c3 may be forced, but 8... ..txc3 9 ltJxc3 .xb2 looks healthy for Black. In summary, unless you are afraid of the symmetrical English, both 1 c4 or 1 ltJf3 can be answered with l.. .c5 followed by 2 ... g6 with good chances for an Accelerated Dragon. Also interesting is: B) 1 c4 cS 2 ltJf3 g6 3 d4 ~g7!? Now White can play 4 d5, which can lead to a Benko Gambit after 4 ... b5 or a Benoni Defence after 4 ... d6 or 4 ... ltJf6. However, most players would probably go for 4 e4

trying to get to the Maroczy Bind, which has a reputation of

being good for White. Now, of course, it is possible for Black to go back to the well-trodden paths with 4... cxd4, but there are some interesting ways to confuse White: a) Filipowicz's pet 4 ... ltJa6 is one of them. Normally his games transpose into a Benoni after 5 ltJc3 d6 6 ~e2ltJf6 7 0-0 0-0 8 d5. Here Black has avoided a lot of the critical lines, but still it is not everyone's taste to play the Benoni. 8 ne 1 is also possible, when at fIrst Filipowicz took on d4, leading to a normal Maroczy with the knight misplaced on a6. Later he tried 8... ~g4 and 8... b6, trying to provoke White into playing 9 d5 leading to the normal Benoni structure. Against 8... ~g4 Cvitan did not co-operate and played 9 i.e3, as after 9... ltJd7 10 nc1 ltJc7 11 dxc5, ll...dxc5? was bad, since after 12 ltJg5 he realised that 12 ... ~xe2 would allow 13 nxe2, threatening 14 nd2. Therefore he had to play 12 ... ~e6, but suffered after 13 f4. 11...ltJxc5 is better, but still with a strange Maroczy. 4 ... ltJa6 may be a possibility for Benoni fans, but we have to admit that it looks optimistic to put a knight on the edge of the board this early. b) 4 ... d6 was played in the famous game Smyslov-Botvinnik, World ch match 1957. After 5 ltJc3 ltJc6 6 ~e3 ~g4 7 dxc5 dxc5 8 .xd8 nxd8 9 ~xc5 ~xc3 10 bxc3 ltJf6, the usually very well prepared Botvinnik met with the surprising 11 ltJd4 (not 11 ltJd2? ':xd2!), which allowed Smyslov to keep the extra pawn after 1l...ltJxe4 12 ltJxc6 bxc6 13 ~xa7, and with his excellent technique he had no

Guide to Transpositions 311

problems converting this into a full point. Since nobody has taken this up since, we have to consider it unplayable for Black. Much better is 6 ... 'ifb6,

when Nickoloff-Dzindzichashviii, St John 1988, continued 7 ttJa4 "'a5 8 i.d2 "'c7 9 d5 ttJd4 10 ttJxd4 cxd4 with a transposition to the Modem Defence (1 e4 g6 2 d4 i.g7 3 c4 d6 4 ttJc3 ttJc6 5 d5 ttJd4 6 i.e3 c5 7 ttJge2 'ifb6 8 ttJxd4 cxd4 9 ttJa4 "'a5 10 i.d2 "'c7). This line is considered okay for Black, and White has to look for improvements earlier. 9 dxc5, as played by Letzelter against Forintos, is not one of them, as Black was better after 9 ... dxc5 10 i.c3 i.xc3 II ttJxc3 i.g4 12 i.e2 i.xf3, since his knight gets the d4-square. 7 ttJd5 looks critical, when the only move is 7......a5, hoping for 8 i.d2 'ifd8 9 i.c3 i.g4 with good play. More testing is 8 "d2!, when after 8... 'ihd2 9 i.xd2 :b8 10 dxc5 dxc5 II i.f4 e5 12 i.e3 White has some initiative, but it is playable for Black. Also possible is 5 ... i.g4, but after 6 d5 we have a Benoni with Black committed to ... i.g4. c) 4 ... 'ii'b6 was played on occasion by Robatsch. His games probably inspired Yudasin to try it

out against Gulko in Beersheva 1993. After 5 dxc5 "'xc5 6 i.e2 ttJc6 7 0-0 d6 8 a3 i.g4 Black had a normal position, but 8 a3 looks strange. Why not 8 ttJc3 instead? White is better after 8... i.xc3 9 bxc3 ttJf6 10 "'c2, as White will be able to develop normally with i.e3, ttJd4 etc. with some advantage. 6 i.d3 was tried twice against Robatsch, but after 6 ... d6 7 0-0 i.g4, White could not prove an edge. Cvetkovic tried 8 i.e3 "'c7 9 ttJc3, but after the brave 9 ... i.xc3 10 bxc3 ttJf6, Robatsch won a complicated game. Less ambitious is Vukic's 8 h3, when after 8... i.xf3 9 "'xf3 ttJc6 10 ttJa3 ttJe5 II "'e2 ttJxd3 12 "'xd3 ttJf6 13 :bl 0-0 14 i.e3 'ifc6 15 f3 ttJd7 16 :fcl f5 17 'ifd5 ~h8 18 "'xc6 bxc6 19 exf5 gxf5 he received a lesson in the importance of centre pawns in the endgame. Since 5 dxc5 does not give White much, he maybe has to gambit his b-pawn with 5 d5, but after 5 ... i.xb2 6 i.xb2 "'xb2 7 ttJbd2 it is difficult to say whether he has enough for a pawn. Overa1l4 ...'ii'b6 is playable and quite solid. d) More provocative is 4... ttJc6 and now:

dl) 5 i.e3 is careless; 5 ...'ii'b6 is

312 Guide to Transpositions

an embarrassing reply. d2) After 5 d5 ltJd4 6 ltJxd4 Black can take back in two ways, but neither has given him much success.

If 6 ... cxd4 then 7 ~d3 is the most common followed by 0-0 and b2-b4 with play on the queenside. 7 ltJa3!? may be even stronger as 8 ltJb5 is a threat. 7...a6 is answered by 8 ~d3 and if 8... e5 then 9 c5!, as played by Akesson against Negulescu in 1980. The point is that 9 ... 'ii'a5 10 ~d2 'ii'xc5 11 ':cl followed by ltJc4 is crushing. Black played 9 ...~f8, but after 10 b4 b6 11 ltJc4 bxc5 12 bxc5 ~xc5 13 'ii'a4 f6 14 f4 White had a huge attack and won quickly. More solid is 6 ... ~xd4, as Black gets a kind of Benoni, but he will lose time when his bishop is kicked home by a later ltJd2-f3. Ljubojevic tried to keep it on d4 against Smyslov in Wijk aan Zee 1972: 7 ~d3 d6 8 0-0 e5 9 liJd2 liJf6 10 ltJb3 ~g4 11 .el ltJh5 12 liJxd4 cxd4 13 f4 "e7 14 fxe5 fxe5 15 ~d2, but it was now obvious that Black's idea had failed; White is ready for ~b4, keeping Black's king in the centre. Ljubo tried 15 ... a5 16 h3 ~d7 17 ~xa5 liJf4, but these kinds of tricks do not

work against Smyslov, who parried it easily with 18 ':f3 ':xaS 19 'i'xaS 0-0 20 ~f1 (1-0, 36). 8...e5 was not exactly a good idea; better was 8... ~g7 followed by ... liJf6, .. .0-0 etc., though White still has a small edge. d3) 5 dxc5 is another possibility if White insists on getting a Maroczy kind of position.

5 .....aS+ is commonly played (although 5... liJf6 has also been tried) when after 6 ~d2 'i'xc5 7 ~e2 followed by 0-0, ~e3 and liJd4 White gets a Maroczy with Black's queen developed too early. After 5....a5+ White sometimes tries 6 ltJc3, hoping for a transposition to the 4...Wb6 variation. If this is not Black's taste, then 6...~xc3+ 7 bxc3 gives some him interesting options. Black was successful with 7 ......xc3+ in the game CvetkovicLupu, 1990, when he won an unclear game after 8 ~d2 'ii'a3 9 ~e2 ltJf6 10 0-0 ltJxe4 11 ~e3 0-0. Probably better is 10 .c2, defending the e4-pawn. Then White has the standard compensation on the dark squares, but Black's position is solid and the position is probably about equal. After 7 ... liJf6, the normally very peaceful Faroe Islands 1M Rodgaard played

Guide to Transpositions 313 8 tLld2 against Gheorghiu at the Novi Sad Olympiad 1990. Black accepted the offered pawns with 8...•xc3 9 :bl lbxe4 10 :b3 .d4 11 tLlxe4 .xe4 12 :e3 .d4 13 .i..d3 .xc5 14 0-0 d6, but White had sufficient compensation after 15 .i..e4 .i..e6 16 .i..d5 0-0 17 Ilxe6 fxe6 18 .i..xe6
lems with 1 tLlf3 or 1 c4 as he can happily enter Maroczy positions.

King's Indian Main Line For the player who likes to play the Kings Indian with Black, but feels that the main lines after 1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 tLlc3 i.g7 4 e4 d6 5 tLlfJ 0-0 6 ..te2 e5 7 0-0 tLlc6 8 d5 tLle 7 are too heavy to study, then 1 d4 tLlf6 1 c4 g6 3 tOc3 i.g7 4 e4 d6 5 tLlf3 0-0 6 i.el c5!? is a way of heading for a Maroczy. If White goes for 7 0-0 cxd4 8 tLlxd4 tLlc6, we have arrived in one of our main lines. Here, however, White is not forced into it, as 7 d5!? leads to a Benoni position after 7•••e6 8 0-0 and now 8 ... exd5 9 cxdS. However, White has already put his bishop on eZ, which was popular some twenty years ago, but nowadays is not regarded as particularly dangerous, and the current view is that Black has nothing to complain abol1t. Also interesting is 8...:e8!?

and now 9 tLld2 lba6, not releasing the tension in the centre just yet. The point is that Black can

314 Guide to Transpositions play useful moves such as . JiJc7, ... l:.b8, ... a7-a6, ... ~d7 etc. This strategy is more difficult for White to playas he does not have access to the c4-square, which is quite essential for White's play in the Benoni. Therefore White has experimented with 9 dxe6 or 10 dxe6, hoping to prove that the d6-pawn is a weakness, though so far he has not been particularly successful. a) After 9 dxe6 ~xe6 10 ~f4, Black has some interesting options:

1O... tDc6 is often played, but is not our recommendation. Better is 10...""6!?, which led to a win for Black in Beliavsky-De Firmian, Reggio Emilia 1989, when Black was better after 11 ~xd6 l:.d8 12 e5 tDe8 13 tDa4 1rc6 14 b4 cxb4 15 c5 1rc8 16 tDd4 tDxd6 17 tDxe6 fxe6 18 dxe6 ~xal, as White did not have enough compensation. Simplest, however, is Loeffler's excellent discovery namely 1O... ~g4! when Black is fine after 11 h3? tDxe4! 12 tDxe4 l:txe4 13 ~g5 1re8 14 ~d3 ~xf3 15 1rxf3 l:.e5 16 1rxb7 tDc6 with a huge edge, Prymula-Loeffler, Hradec Kralove 1988. The point is that 12 hxg4 ~xc3! leaves Black with an extra pawn. Therefore 11 h3? is bad, but if Black gets to play

... .i.xf3 followed by ... tDc6-d4, he is just better. 1O ... ~g4!? has not been played much, but it seems like the best choice to us. b) 9 tDd2 tDa6 10 dxe6 is also possible, since the knight on a6 now takes a long time to get to d4. The white knight, however, also looks oddly placed on d2. After 1O ... ~xe6 11 tDb3 ""6 12 ~f4 l:.ad8 13 1rcl tDb4 14 l:.dl a6 Black was fine in LukacsDamljanovic, Lucerne 1988. 9 h3!? exd5 10 exd5 was successful for White in Speelman-Larsen, Hastings 1990, after 1O...""6?! 11 .i.d3 tDa6 12 a3 ~d7 13 l:.bl tDh5 14 ~d2 when White slowly managed to expand (1-0, 36). However, fine for Black is 1O... tDe4! 11 tDxe4 lhe4 12 ~d3 ::te8 13 ~g5 ""6!? 14 l:.bl tDd7 followed by ... tDe5 with equal, but dull play. 13 l:.el tDd7 14 .i.g5 f6!? 15 ~d2 l:.xel+ 16 1rxel tDe5 17 tDxe5 112-112 was Volke-P.H.Nielsen, Austria 1997, another good example of the ease of Black's position in this line. Again White normally goes for the Maroczy with 7 0-0, as this is thought to be good for White. However, many 1 d4 players have never or rarely faced Maroczy positions before, and in our experience they often do very badly in them, since they are more a matter of understanding and experience than just knowing some theory. But it should be noted that the King's Indian move order is just a way to avoid some critical lines, and not a complete repertoire against 1 d4. Benoni and Benko Gambit The move order 1 d4 tDf6 2 c4 cS 3 tDf3!?

Guide to Transpositions 315

is important if you play the Benko Gambit or the Benoni Defence, or simply if you for some reason forgot to play 2 ... g6 after 1 c4 c5 2 lLlf3! After 3 •••cxd4 4 lLlxd4

Black can now go for 4 ... g6?!, which quite often transposes to the Maroczy after 5 lLlc3 i..g7 6 e4 etc.

However, 6 g3!? is quite annoying, when White gets a line of the English Opening that is considered quite pleasant for him. Black's problem is that his knight already is on f6 and therefore he does not control the d4-square as in the pure Symmetrical English. So, unless you are willing to play that particular line, this is not a good way of reaching the Maroczy. Instead 3... g6 is possible, hoping for a Benko after 4 d5 b5, but after 4 lLlc3! i..g7 5 d5!, since White has not yet committed to i..e2 (as in the King's Indian line above), he can choose whichever set-up he likes against the Benoni. We hope that the above material gives some ideas of what to do and what not to do in order to reach an Accelerated Dragon from other move orders.

Index of Complete Games

Almasi.Z-Tiviakov, Buenos Aires 1996 ............................................ 144 Anand-Larsen, Roquebrune (rapid) 1992 ......................................... 68 Andonovski-Baumbach, Corr 1981-84 ........................................... 139 Annakov-Nielsen.P.H, Buenos Aires 1992 ........................................ 62 Beliavsky-Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1989............................................... 79 Busquets-Davies, New York 1991 ..................................................... 230 Cramling.P-Petursson, Reykjavik 1984.............................................. 74 De Firmian-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1986 ............................... .......... 290 Dolmatov-Tiviakov, Rostov na Donu 1993 ...................................... 169 Ernst-Larsen, Sweden zt 1992 ............................................................ 88 Ernst-Tiviakov, Haninge 1992 ......................................................... 183 Estevez-Andres, Sagua la Grande 1987 ........................................... 194 Faulks-Donaldson, Bermuda 1995 ................................................... 274 Filippov-Nielsen.P.H, Minsk 1996 .................................................... 105 Fischer-Olafsson.F, Bled 1961 ......................................................... 231 Fischer-Panno, Portoroz 1958 .......................................................... 240 Franzen-Baumbach, Corr 1994-96 .................................................. 140 Frolov-Shabalov, USSR ch 1991 ...................................................... 279 Gelfand-Anand, Manila izt 1990 ........................................................ 98 Geller-Larsen, Monte Carlo 1967..................................................... 115 Gufeld-Espig, Sukhumi 1972............................................................... 11 Gulko-Petrosian, Biel izt 1976.......................................................... 166 Hamarat-Ekebjerg, World corr ch 1994 .......................................... 250 Hansen.Cu.-Nielsen.P.H, Copenhagen 1995...................................... 60 Hansen.Cu-Sorensen.J, Denmark (rapid) 1996 ............................... 106 Hector-Hernandez, Thessaloniki 011988 ......................................... 256 Hector-Larsen, London 1991 ............................................................ 295 Hellers-Cebalo, Debrecen 1992 ........................................................ 109 Hernandez-Petursson, Linares 1994 ................................................ 113 IIIescas-Ljubojevic, Linares 1993 ..................................................... 127 Ivanchuk-Anand, Buenos Aires 1994 ............................................... 154 Ivanchuk-Andersson, Tilburg 1990 ................................................. 125 Ivanchuk-Larsen, Roquebrune (rapid) 1992 .................................... 103 Ivkov-Browne, Wijkaan lee 1972.................................................... 148

Index o/Complete Games 317

Kapetanovic-Petursson, New York 1987............................................ 64 Karpov-Larsen, Brussels 1987........................................................... 24 Kasparov-Malshikov, USSR 1977...................................................... 33 Keres-Petrosian, Zagreb ct 1959 ........................................................ 87 Khalifman-Hracek, Pardubice 1994 ................................................ 101 Klundt-Kapengut, Ybbs 1968........................................................... 217 Korchnoi-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1990 ................................................. 66 Kristiansen-Larsen, Copenhagen 1985 .............................................. 95 Kruppa-Tiviakov, St Petersburg 1993 ............................................. 178 Kudrin-Velimirovic, Thessaloniki 011988 ......................................... 96 Kupreichik-Petursson, Reykjavik 1980 ............................................ 283 Lalic.B-Conquest, Hastings /995/96 .................................................. 31 Lanka-Nielsen.P.H, Moscow 011994 ............................................... 258 Larsen-J .Sorensen, Aalborg 1989 ...................................................... 72 Larsen-Petrosian, Santa Monica 1966 ............................................... 35 Lautier-Koch, Lyon zt 1990 ................................................................ 57 Leko-Nielsen.P.H, Copenhagen 1995 ................................................. 30 Leko-Spangenberg, Buenos Aires /994 ............................................ 111 Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987 ................................................... 28 Martin.A-BelIon, Olot 1974.............................................................. 227 Mokry-Kallai, Trnava 1985 .............................................................. 174 Nielsen.P.H-Larsen, Danish ch 1997 ............................................... /08 Nunn-Karlsson, Helsinki /981 ............................................................ 46 Olafsson.H-Kagan, Randers zt 1982 ................................................ 207 Panchenko-Georgadze.T, USSR 1975 ............................................. 134 Pietzsch-Kapengut, Byelorussia-East Germany 1968 ...................... 213 Polgar.J-Kamsky, Buenos Aires 1994 .............................................. 220 Polugayevsky-Jansa, Sochi 1974...................................................... 133 Polugayevsky-Piket, Aruba match 1994 ............................................. 18 Portisch-Tukmakov, Madrid 1973 ................................................... 129 Prandstetter-Dory, Dortmund 1987................................................. 253 Radulov-Deze, Vrsac 1971 ................................................................ 191 Renet-Rantanen, Palma de Mallorca 1989 ...................................... 120 Ribli-Rogers, Germany 1995 .............................................................. 21 Rozentalis-Tregubov, St Petersburg 1996........................................ 300 Salov-Adams, Dos Hermanas 1993 .................................................. 128 Salov-Velimirovic, Szirak izt 1987...................................................... 81 Saltaev-Pigusov, Katerini 1993........................................................... 49 Sanakoev-Ekebjerg, World corr ch 1994 ......................................... 247 Sax-Andersson, Szirak 1990 ............................................................. 201 Sax-Petursson, Valby 1994 ............................................................... 152 Sax-Pigusov, Moscow 1990............................................................... 242 Schlosser-Pigusov, Sochi 1989 ........................................................... 37 Serper-Sermek, Tilburg 1994 ............................................................. 16 Serper-Sorensen.J, Tunja 1989 .......................................................... 90 Shirov-Alterman, Santiago 1990...................................................... 158

318 Index of Complete Games

Shirov-Lautier, Tilburg 1997 ........................................................... 246 Short-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1990 ................................................. 67 Short-Korchnoi, Lucerne 1997......................................................... 161 Short-Larsen, Brussels 1987............................................................... 26 Short-Larsen, Hastings 1987/88 ......................................................... 26 Short-Larsen, Naestved 1985.............................................................. 58 Short-Petursson, Tilburg 1992 ........................................................... 70 Skovgaard-Svensson, Corr 1984 ...................................................... 223 Smirin-Ivanchuk, Paris (rapid) 1994 ............................................... 307 Smyslov-Fabriano, Rome 1990........................................................... 20 Smyslov-Polgar.Zsu, Vienna 1993 ................................................... 304 Sokolov.A-Haik, Lucerne 1985........................................................... 83 Sokolov.A-Nemet, Bern 1992 ............................................................. 55 Spraggett-Andersson, Novi Sad 011990 .......................................... 123 Stern.W-Ekebjerg, World corr ch 1994 ........................................... 248 Tal-Hansen.Cu, Reykjavik 1986 ....................................................... 211 Timman-Larsen, Las Palmas izt 1982 ................................................ 77 Topalov-Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee 1996.............................................. 260 Tringov-Stein, Sarajevo 1967........................................................... 276 Ulibin-Serper, Tbilisi 1989 ............................................................... 267 Vaganian-Ivkov, Moscow 1985 ........................................................ 100 Vaganian-Yudasin, USSR 1988.......................................................... 93 Van der Wiel-Piket, Wijkaan Zee 1995 ........................................... 302 Varadi-Sabian, Corr 1985 ................................................................ 287 Vestol-Botvinnik, Moscow 011956 ................................................... 263 Wojtkiewicz-Bellon, Iraklion 1993 ..................................................... 43 Wojtkiewicz-Hoffman, Valencia 1990 ............................................. 117 Zagarovsky-Baumbach, Corr 1986 ................................................. 235 Zapata-Garcia Martinez, Sagua La Grande 1984............................ 187

Index of Variations

A detailed summary appears at the start of each chapter. Part One: Maroczy Bind (1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4) Chapter 1 Maroczy Bind: 7...lLlg4 System (pages 10-36) 1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlr6 7 lLlc3 lLlg4 8 -'xg4lLlxd4 9 -.dl 9 ... e5 - Games 1-4; 9 ... lLle6 - Games 5-13 Chapter 2 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System (pages 37-53) 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlr6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 b6 9 0-0 ~b7 10 lLlxc6!? - Game 14; 10 f3 - Games 15-17 Chapter 3 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations (pages 54-73) 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 9 ... lLlxd4 - Games 18-19; 9 ...:e8 - Games 20-21; 9 ... ~d7 - Games 22-28 Chapter 4 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops (pages 74-85) 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 l:tc1 - Game 29; 10 1i'd2 - Games 30-33 Chapter 5 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops (pages 86-114) 1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlr6 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 1O:c1 - Games 35-37; 10 'ifd2 - Games 38-49

320 Index of Variations

Chapter 6 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ...liJh6!? (pages 115119) 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 6 ... d6 - Game 50; 6 ...tDh6 - Game 51 Chapter 7 Maroczy Bind: 6 liJb3 and 6 liJc2 (pages 120-131) 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 liJb3 - Game 52; 6 liJc2 - Games 53-57 Chapter 8 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation (pages 132-186) 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 liJf6 6 liJc3 6 ... liJxd4?! - Game 58; 6 ...d6 7 f3 - Games 59-60; 7 i.e2 - Games 61-72 Part Two: Classical (1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJ(3) Chapter 9 Classical with i.e2 (pages 187-199) 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i.g7 6liJb3 - Game 73; 6 i.e3 Games 74-75 Chapter 10 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 "as (pages 200-238) 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 liJf6 7 i.c4 8 0-0 0-0 9 i.b3 - Games 76-83; 9 liJb3 - Games 84-86

"as

Chapter 11 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0 (pages 239-262) 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 liJf6 7 i.c4 0-0 8 f3 - Game 87; 8 i.b3 a5 - Games 88-94; 8...d6 - Games 95-96 Chapter 12 Lines in which White Captures with liJxc6 (pages 263-286) 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5liJxc6?! - Game 97; 5liJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3liJf6 7liJxc6 bxc6 8 e5 - Games 98-102 Part Three: Odds and Ends Chapter 13 Semi-Accelerated Dragon (pages 287-294) 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6?! 6 liJxc6 bxc6 7 e5 liJg8 8 i.c4 8.....a5?! - Game 103; 8... i.g7- Game 104 Chapter 14 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (pages 295-308) 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .xd4liJf6 - Games 105-107; 3 c3 i.g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d5 6 e5 tDc6 - Games 108-109

he 'Maroczy Bind' formation once terrified players so much that few dared to play the Dragon in its accelerated form. Therefore the authors have focused their attention on how Black can break the bind and create counter-attacking possibilities. The general principles involved deserve careful study and will enhance anyone's understanding of chess.

T

Peter Heine Nielsen is a well-known grandmaster (Denmark's fourth) who plays in many tournaments across Europe. He was Danish Champion in 1996 and won an individual silver medal at the 1994 Moscow Olympiad. Carsten Hansen is a muchtravelled and experienced FIDE master, and is very much an 'ideas man:

I)f Grandmaster Chess ed new edition of a modern

890

plete c3 Sicilian '--.- ·- ~--"'~--~~------~·n~r~.'landler Angus Dunnington A modern guide to the most popular way The first practical club-player's guide to the subtle Catalan.

to avoid the main lines of the Sicilian.

0713478284

071348021 1 For further information about Batsford chess books, please write to:

Batsford Chess Books. 583 Fulham Road, London SW6 SBY Batsford Chess Online: http://WWW.batsford.com

£17.99 ISBN 0-7134 -7

I

9 7

I~

11111111

9867

>

The Sicilian accelerated Dragon (Nielsen, Hansen,1998).pdf

Recommend Documents