The Four Knights

the four knights by Jan Pinski EVERYMAN CrlfSS Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com First published in 2...

Author: Jan Pinski

705 downloads 2957 Views 6MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

the four knights

by Jan Pinski

EVERYMAN CrlfSS Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2003 by Gloucester Publishers plc (fonnerly Everyman Publishers plc), Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2003 Jan Pinski The right of Jan Pinski to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 311 X Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Publishers plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: [email protected] website:

www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc.

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES

(formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in Great Britain by BiddIes Ltd.

CONTENTS

I

Bibliography

4

Introduction

5

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6

Part One: 4 ..tb5: Spanish Four Knights 1

Spanish Four Knights with 4...i.b4

7

2

Spanish Four Knights with 4...tDd4

17

3

Spanish Four Knights: Sidelines

32

Part Two: 4 d4 exd4 5 tLlxd4: Scotch Four Knights Scotch Four Knights: The Main Line

40

5

Scotch Four Knights: Sidelines after 7... dS

59

6

Scotch Four Knights: Sidelines after 5 tDxd4

72

4

Part Three: Other Systems 7

4 d4 i.b4

8

The Belgrade Gambit

102

9

Glek System with 4... i.cS

131

86

Glek System with 4... dS

146

11

Glek System: Sidelines

168

12

Unusual Fourth Moves by White

181

Index of Complete Games

190

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I

Books

Encyclopaedia ofChess Openings Vol C (Sahovski Infonnator 2000) New Ideas in the Four Knights, John Nunn (Batsford 1993) The Belgrade Gambit, Bruce Monson (Dearborn 1997) 200 Open Games, David Bronstein (Moscow 1970) 4.d4 im Vierspringerspiel, Lev Gutman (Gennany 1993) 300 Selected Games, Alexander Alekhine (Moscow 1954) Open Games Theory, Paul Keres (Warsaw 1955) First World Champion, Yakov Neishtadt (Moscow 1971) Periodicals

Chess Informant 1-85 New In Chess Yearbooks 1-64 Chess in USSR 64 Chess review Panorama Szachowa (poland) Kaissiber (Germa'!Y)

I INTRODUCTION I The Four Knights has made a comeback to the international chess circuit. Once it was used by the shameless in order to make a draw in a dozen or so moves, but now it has become a strong surprise weapon and a real alternative to the Ruy Lopez and other main openings. Based on home preparation and serious analysis it has been possible for top players to use this system to fight for an advantage. Objectively the different variations only give equality, but that is the eternal problem of openings. Against strong black defence, White cannot force an advantage. Chess is a fighting game where the better-prepared player will usually prove an advantage. That is why ancient and forgotten openings have come back into tournament chess. It is often pos sible to find a lot of new ideas in these openings from the 19th century, where the understand ing of chess was far different from what it is today. I would like to recommend: 4 g3, the Glek System, for those who need an hour or so to recover from a party the evening before, before getting into the game. 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJd5!? for those addicted to tricks and complications. 4 a3 as an advanced trick, but mainly for those who like absolutely no theory 4 d4 and 5 ttJxd4 for a calm, positional and somewhat harmless game. 4 �b5 for either a quiet, positional game or a real fireworks, depending on Black's re sponse. This book deals with many typical ideas and plans. Learning and understanding these is es sential. They will help you when you enter into new territory, and they will also help you re member what you need to remember. I hope you enjoy reading the book as much as I enjoyed writing it. Finally, I would like to thanks National Candidate Master Tomasz Olenderek for his kind ness, and for letting me use his great archive of chess material. Special thanks for assistance, a critical viewpoint and the new idea 4 �b5 .td6 5 g4!? to National Master Rafal Przedmojski. Jan Pinski Warsaw April 2003 5

CHAPTER ONE

I

Spanish Four Knights with 4...i.b4

1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 .i.b5 .i.b4

The Spanish Four Knights is probably one of the most classical openings in chess. Top players have investigated this position for many decades, and it still enjoys popularity today. Its followers include Short, Adams, Speelman and Shirov amongst others. In this chapter we will look at the main line, 4".i.b4. Chapter 2 is devoted to 4".'�Jd4 and Chapter 3 deals with sidelines and oddities. In the 1990s English GMs, with Nigel Short at the forefront, played some great games in this system with 4".i.h4. They showed that although White might not have a theoretical advantage, there is still a lot of play left in the position, where greater playing strength and new ideas can play an important part in achieving good results.

Game l Forster-Hjartarson

Leip:;dg 1996 1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 .i.b5 .i.b4

This is the absolute classical line. As you will see, games played 130 years ago still in fluence the main assessments of some lines starting from this position.

5 0-0

The alternative 5 d3?! is too passive. Play continues 5".ttJd4 6 i.a4 b5 7 i.b3 and now: a) 7".d5!? 8 ttJxe5 'ij'e7! 9 f4 ttJxb3! (Botvinnik was sure that after 9".0-0 White would be in trouble; however, after 10 exd5 the position is completely unclear) 10 cxb3 3Lb7 11 0-0 dxe4 12 dxe4 i..c5+ and Black has compensation. One line could be 13 'it>h1 0-0 14 'ij'f3 'u'fd8 15 a3 as 16 i.e3 3Lxe3 17 'iWxe3 b4 18 ttJd5 ttJxd5 19 exd5 3Lxd5 and Black is very close to having a big advantage. b) 7".d6 (this is safe) 8 h3 c6 9 0-0 ttJxb3 10 axb3 0-0 11 i.g5 (a more logical plan would be 11 ttJe2 followed by ttJg3 with equality) l1...h6 12 i.h4 'iWe7. The position is more or less equal, but I would prefer to be Black. After 5 ttJd5?! ttJxd5 6 exd5 e4! 7 dxc6 dxc6 8 i.e2 exf3 9 i..x f3 0-0 10 0-0 f5!? (10".i.d6 is equal) Keres believes that Black has a good game. For example, 11 l:1.e1 'ij'h4 12 g3 'iif6 13 c3 i.d6 14 d4 f4 with some initiative. 5

. . .

0-0

Not 5".d6?! 6 ttJd5 3Lc5 7 d4! exd4 8 i.g5 0-0 9 i..xc6 bxc6 10 ttJxf6+ gxf6 11 3Lh4! and White is better: 11...l:!.e8 12 'ij'd3 'iWe7 13 lIfe1 3Lh4 14 'ue2 c5 15 e5 with an attack. 7

Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Or 5...ltJd4? 6 ltJxd4 exd4 7 e5 dxc3 8 bxc3 .Jlf8 (8....Jle7 9 exf6 gxf6 10 d4 - 10

White has no edge after 7ltJxe5 l::te8 8 d4 .Jlxc3 9 bxc3 ltJxe4 10 .l:.e1 .lii.fS 11 g4 .lii.g6

�g4!? - 1O...c6 11 d5!? cxb5 12 d6 .Jlxd6 13 �xd6 'iWe7 14 'iWd3 gives White a strong attack) 9 exf6 'iixf6 10 .l:i.e1+ �d8 11 d4 and White is clearly better.

12ltJxg6 fxg6 13 'iid3ltJf6 14 .Jlg5 �d7 15 h3 l::txe1+ 16 .l:r.xe1 l::te8 17 l::txe8+ ltJxe8, Taubenhaus-Chigorin, New York 1889. 7 'iie l .Jld6 8 d3 ltJd7 9 .Jle3 c5 is also equal. The main idea is ...ltJd7-f8-e6-d4.

6 i..xc6 ! ? A n original idea, based o n a slightly better pawn structure, but hardly sufficient to gain an advantage. The main line with 6 d3 can be found in the next game. 6ltJd5ltJxd5 7 exd5 e4 8 dxc6 dxc6 trans poses to 5ltJd5.

6 . . . dxc6 Also interesting is 6...bxc6 7 ltJxe5! (the only test; 7 d3 .Jlxc3!? 8 bxc3 d6 gives White nothing). Now Black has the following op tions: a) 7....Jlxc3 8 bxc3 (8 dxc3 :Le8 9 ltJd3 ltJxe4 is even) 8...ltJxe4 9 .l:!.el and now: a1) 9...f5 10 f3 ltJd6 11 d3 ltJf7 12 ltJxf7 l::txf7 13 c4 is a little better for White - .Jld2c3 gives him a powerful bishop. a2) 9...ltJd6 10 d3 f6 11ltJf3 ne8 12 .Jlf4 and White is a little better. b) 7...'iie8 8 ltJd3 .ixc3 9 dxc3 �xe4 10 l:tel 'ilfh4 (10...'iig6 11 ltJe5 'iih5 12 'ii'xh5 ltJxh5 13ltJd3! and White is a little better) 11 ii'f3 .ia6 12 ltJe5! with a slight edge for White in Tseitlin-Haba, Ostrava 1991. c) 7...1:!.e8! and now White has a choice: c1) 8 d4 c5 (8....ixc3 9 bxc3ltJxe4 10 it'f3 ltJd6 11 .Jlf4 .Jla6 12 .l:i.fe1 should be more or less level) 9 ltJd5 ltJxd5 10 exd5 cxd4 11 it'xd4 .ia6 12 ltJd3 iLe7 13 :tel .if6 and Black has good compensation for the piece. c2) 8ltJd3 .Jlxc3 9 dxc3ltJxe4 10 it'f3 d5 11 .Jle3 as 12 .l:i.fel ':'b8 13 iladl with equal ity. c3) 8 f4 .Jlxc3 9 bxc3 (9 dxc3?! ltJxe4 10 ii'd4 ltJf6 11 c4 c5 12 'iWf2 d6 13ltJd3 iLb7 would benefit Black) 9...ltJxe4 10 'iif 3 ltJd6

7 . . . 4:Jd7 Black has many alternatives to this move. a) 7...iLd6!? and now: al) 8ltJe2!? a2) 8 .ig5 h6 9 iLh4 c5 10ltJd5? (10ltJd2 is equal) 1O...g5 11 ltJxf6+ 'iixf6 12 .ig3 .ig4! 13 h3 .ixf3 14 ii'xf3 'ii'xf3 15 gxf3 f6 with a black advantage, Winter-Capablanca, Hastings 1919. a3) 8 ltJh4 ltJxe4 9 ltJxe4 it'xh4 10 iLg5 �g4 11 �xg4 .Jlxg4 12 ltJxd6 cxd6 13 .Jle7 l::tfe8 14 .lii.xd6 with equality. b) 7....Jlg4 8 h3 iLh5 9 'iie2 .lii.xc3 10 bxc3 ltJd7 11 it'e3 (11 g4!? .ig6 12 ltJel! �f6 13 ltJg2 with the idea of f4 gives White a slight edge) 11....Jlxf3 12 �xf3 1We7 13 it'g4 c5 14 iLe3?! (14 c4 ltJb8 15 .l:r.bl b6 16 f4 would give White a slight edge) 14...c4! 15 dxc4?! ltJb6 16 �fbl ltJxc4 17 .lii.h 6 �f6 18 .ig5 it'c6 and Black was better in Larsen-Nielsen, Odense 1994. c) 7....ixc3 8 bxc3 l:te8 9 h3 h6 10 ltJh2 c5 11 c4 .Jle6 12 iLb2ltJd7 13 'iVh5 �g5 14 �xg5 hxg5 15 l::tfb1 f6 16 iLc3 b6 17 a4 as 18 ltJf1 �f7 19 ltJe3 nac8 20 l::tdl with a draw in Rodrigua-Praude, Oropesa del Mar 2000. d) 7...�e8!? 8 ltJe2 .ig4 9 ltJg3 ltJh5 10 h3 ltJxg3 11 fxg3 .Jlxf3 12 'ti'xf3 .Jlc5+ 13 'it>h2 'iie6 14 g4 l:tad8 15 b3 .Jld4 16 .l:i.b1 .Jlc3 17 l::tf2 'iid6 was equal in Tseitlin Degenhardt, Hessen 1996. e) 7...'fie7 8 ltJe2 .ig4 9ltJg3 ltJh5 10 h3 ltJxg3 11 fxg3 .ic5+ 12 �h2 .Jlc8?!

11 d3 f6 12ltJg4ltJf7 13 f5 d5 14 .ia3ltJe5 was agreed drawn in Nimzowitsch Teichmann, San Sebastian 1912.

(12....Jlxf3 13 �xf3 with a slight edge for White) 13 g4 and White is better because it is so hard for Black to find counterplay, Lar sen-Deep Blue, Copenhagen 1993.

7 d3

8 4:Je2

8

Sp anish Fo u r Knig h ts with 4 . . . .i b 4

Or 8 'YWe2 Me8 9 lbd1 lbf8 10 c3 �d6 with equality. 8 . . . .id6 Black would also be fine after 8 ...�e7 9 �h1 �f6 10 .ie3 �e8 11 'it'd2lbf8 12 .ig5 .ig4 13 .ixf6 'iWxf6 14lbfgl .ixe2 15lbxe2 lbe6, or 8...�e8 9 h3 lbf8 10 .ie3 .id6 11 'it'd2 c5 12 lbh2 lbg6. The line 8... f6?! 9 lbh4! 'YWeS 10 lbg3 lbb6 11 lbhf5, however, would give White something to play on. The move ...n-f6 is not necessary for Black, and it weakens the king in a bad way. 9 b3 9 �e3 f6 10 lbd2 'YWe7 11 lbg3 g6 12lbc4 lbc5 13 f4 exf4 14 .ixf4lbe6 15 .ixd6 cxd6 16 'iid2 d5 17lbe3 d4 1Slbg4lbg5 19 'iVf4 .ixg4 20 'iWxg4 'iie6 21 'YWf4 'YWe5 was agreed drawn in Tseitlin-Grabarczyk, Wiesbaden 1996. 9 d4 MeS 10 dxe5lbxe5 11lbxe5 Mxe5 12 f3 MeS! is also level. 9 . . . cS

This structure could have arisen from a Ruy Lopez. If Black keeps the centre closed he will be fine. 1 0 .ib2 f6 1 1 a4 �e7 1 2 h3?! This makes little sense. In a position like this White must play well just to keep the balance. 12 lbg3 g6 13 lbd2 lbbS 14 lbc4 lbc6 15 'iVd2, with the idea of f2-f4, keeps an even position. 1 2 . . J�e8 1 3 tDd2 c6 1 4 tDc4 .ic7 1 S 'it>h 1 tDf8 1 6 f4 exf4 1 7 tDxf4 If the pawn were on h2 now, White would

be doing rather well. 1 7 . . . 121e6 1 8 l2lhS After 1S lbxe6 .ixe6 19 'YWh5 .in 20 'YWg4 'lthS! Black starts to plan an attack. 1 8 . . JIf8 1 9 'ii"e2 121d4 20 �f2 .ie6

21 .ixd4? A positional mistake - now White is help less on the dark squares. Alternatively: a) 21 .icl? f5! 22 e5 .ixc4 23 bxc4 Mae8 24 .if4lbe6 25 .ih2 'it'g5 26 lbf4 .ixe5 27 lbxe6 Mxe6 also gives Black a clear edge. b) 21lbg3? lbxc2. c) 21lbe3 f5!? 22 .ixd4! (22 exf5lbxf5 23 lbxf5 Mxf5 24 'iWxf5 - 24 'iWe2 'iWd6 wins 24....ixf5 25 �xf5 MfS and White's compen sation is insufficient) 22...cxd4 23 lbxf5 �xf5 24 exf5 'iVd6 25 g4 g6 26 lbf4 gxf5 27 g5 MaeS with a strong initiative. 21 . . . cxd4 22 �xd4 bS 23 axbS cxbS 24 l2laS .ieS 2S 'ii"f 2 Or 25lbc6! .ixd4 26 lbxe7+ f7 27 c3 .ixc3 2S Mac1 b4 29 lbd5 .ixd5 30 exd5 MfdS and Black is better. Still, White can put up some resistance with ideas like 31 lbf4 as 32 'LJe6 Md7 33 lbg5+ 'ltg6 34lbe4 .s.c8 35 d6. 2S . . ..ixa 1 26 J:txa1 'ii"c 7 27 d4?! After 27 lbf4 'iVc3 28 Ma2 .if7 29 lbb7 as 30 lbd6 �e5 3llbfS a4 Black is also close to winning. 27 . . . �c3 28 J:ta2 fS 29 eS f4 30 'it>h2 J:tfS 31 �h4 .idS 32 l2lc6 .ixc6 33 k1xa7 lha7 34 e6 J::ta8 3S 'it>h 1 l:!.xhS 0-1 9

Th e Fo ur Knig h ts

Game 2 K . Berg-Bronstein Tastrup

1990

1 e4 e5 2 lOe3 lOf6 3 lOf3 lOe6 4 i.b5 i.b4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 6...i.xc3 7 bxc3 d6 sl:te1 t'De7 9 d4 c6 10 i.f1 is a little better for White - Nunn. 6...t'Dd4 7 t'Dxd4 exd4 S t'De2 c6 9 i.a4 d5 10 e5 t'Dg4 11 c3 dxc3 12 bxc3 i.a5 13 d4 'ilVh4 14 h3 t'Dh6 15 i.c2 i.fS 16 l:tb1 b5 17 i.xfS t'Dxf5 1S 'i¥d3 also gave White the edge in Perlis-Alekhine, Carlsbad 1911. 7 lOe2 This is too slow to pose any dangers to Black. 7 . . . i.g4 Both 7...i.c5 S c3 i.b6 9 t'Dg3 �hS 10 i.e3 tLlg4 11 i.xb6 axb6 12 d4 f6 (Maroczy Bogoljubow, London 1922) and 7...tLle7 S c3 i.a5 9 t'Dg3 c6 10 i.a4 t'Dg6 11 d4 .i:IeS 12 i.b3 h6 13 h3 �e6 14 l:!.e1 �b6 15 �e3 'fiic7 (Sveshnikov-Yusupov, USSR 1979) lead to equality. 8 i.xe6 S c3 is In my opinion a weak move: S...i.xf3! 9 gxf3 �c5 10 d4 �b6 11 �g5?! (11 i.xc6 bxc6 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 ilYxdS l:!.fxdS would still secure equality) 11...h6 12 i.e3 t'De7! (12...t'Dh5 13 t'Dg3 t'Dxg3 14 hxg3 'fiif6 15 i.xc6 bxc6 16 �g2 was level in Honfi-Byshev, Budapest 1959). This is a new idea - Black wants more then equality. The main plan is the following: 13 t'Dg3 c6 14 i.a4 t'Dg6 15 t'Df5 t'Dh5! and the knight on f4 will be quite strong. 8 . . . bxe6 9 lOg3 lOh5 1 0 e3 Better is 10 h3! tLlxg3 11 fxg3 i.c5+ 12 h2 i.xf3 (12...�d7?! 13 t'Dh4 d5 14 'iVe2 l:teS 15 t'Df5 ..ifS 16 ..id2 f6 17 g4 gave White an attack in Juarez-De La Vega, Bue nos Aires 19S5) 13 'fiixf3. According to the English GM and great authority on opening theory, John Nunn, White keeps a small edge. 10

1 0 . . . i.e5 1 1 lOf5 �f6 A very risky move. 11...i.xf5 12 exf5 t'Df6 13 i.g5 h6 14 �h4 l:tbS 15 d4 is a touch better for White. Probably best is 11.....ib6! 12 �hl (12 i.e3 i.xf5 13 exf5 i.xe3 14 fxe3 t'Df6 is fine for Black) 12...hS 13 h3 i.xfS 14 exf5 t'Df6 15 i.g5 ilfd7 16 i.xf6 gxf6 with good counterplay in the g-file. The black king is quite safe as the f5-square is not vacant for the knight. 1 2 h3 i.xf5 1 3 i.g5 �e6 1 4 exf5 'YWxf5 A player of Bronstein's calibre has no problems taking chances against a Danish

1M. 1 5 94 'YWe6 1 6 gxh5 'YWxh3 The forcing play is over and White has a problem. 1 7 h6??

A horrible blunder - now Black wins by force. According to Nunn, the position after

Sp a n is h Fo u r Kn igh ts with 4 . . . il.. b 4

17 �e3 is 'unclear', but he does not give any lines. This is clever, as the position is defi nitely very messy. In a correspondence game I would prefer to play White; in an over the board game, Black: 17..:iWg4+ 18 Wh1 Ji...xe3 (l8...'ilVxh5+ 19 ttJh2 'ilVxdl 20 lhxdl Ji...b6 21 lIgl is a touch better for White) 19 fxe3 'iixh5 + 20 ttJh2 'iih6 21 'iVf3 f5 22 'i'xc6 .:tab8 23 b4 'it'xe3 24 'i'xc7 'i'xd3 25 l:tadl with a mess. 1 7 . . . e4! With this Black accelerates his attack. 1 8 dxe4 J:.fe8! 1 9 lbd4 Or 19 �d3 gxh6! 20 b4 .ib621 .if6lIe6 and Black wins. 1 9 . . . Ii!.xe4 20 f3 'i'g3+ 21 'lith1 J:.e5 22 f4 'i'h3+ 23 'litg 1 J:te3 24 il..h 4 'i'xh4 25 J:tf2 �h3 0-1

8 . . . il..x c3 I believe a much better line is 8...c6! 9 .ic4 d5 (this idea seems so natural) 10 .ib3 (10 exd5 ttJexd5 11 ttJe4 Ji...e7 12 ttJf3 is equal) 10..:i'd6! 11 h3 h6 12 .ixf6 'iixf6 13 ii'h5 d4 ! (13. ..Ji...xc3 14 bxc3 'iig5 ! 15 'iixg5 hxg5 16ttJf3 f6with equality is also possible) 14 ttJe2 .id6! and Black is equal (analysis by Keres). Black wants to play ...�h7 and ...g7g6or a timely ..:ii'g5. Now forcing play does not work: 15 f4 exf4 16ttJf3 .ic7! 17 ttJfxd4 .ib618 e5 'i'g619 'i'xg6ttJxg620 �hl l::te8 21 ttJxf4 ttJxe5 and Black is better. It is inter esting that in ECO the position after 10 .ib3 is considered slightly better for White. 9 bxc3 Here we have the position from the Pills bury Variation 6....ixc3 7 bxc3 d6 8 .ig5 r------" ttJe7 9 ttJh4. Game 3 9 . . .lbg6 Adams-Korchnoi Or 9...c6and now: a) 10 .ia4 ttJe8 11 .ib3 with a slight edge Madrid 1996 for White, Nunn-Tatai, Manila 1992. b) 10 .ic4 d5 11 Ji...b3 (11 exd5 ttJfxd5 12 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 liJc6 3 lbc3 liJf6 4 il..b 5 �e1 f6 13 .id2 �h8 was level in Montoro il.b4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 7 il..g 5 lbe7 ! Sorin, Villa Ballester 2001) 11..:.d6 12 f4 The great Paul Keres was convinced that exf4 13 'ilVe1 dxe4 14 .ixf4 iVc5 + 15 .ie3 this move was the best way to equality. �h5 16.id4 with some initiative. 7....ie6 8 ttJd5 ! .ixd5 9 exd5 ttJe7 10 c4 1 0 lbxg6 ttJg611 �a4 is a little better for White. This is the natural move. 10 .ic4 ttJf4 ! 11 8 liJh4 Or 8 �xf6 gxf6 9 ttJh4 ttJg6 10 ttJxg6 'ilVf3 (11 .ixf4 exf4 12 ttJf3 Ji...g4 13 h3 Ji...h5 14 J:tbl b6 15 'iVd2 .ixf3 16gxf3 ttJh5 gave hxg611 f4 .ic5+ 12 �hl �g7 13 �c4 c614 Black all the chances in Janowski-Lasker, �f3 exf4 15 'iVxf4 .id4 with equality. Paris 1909) 11...h6 12 .ixf4 .ig4 13 iVe3 exf4 14 'iVd2 g5 15 h3 .ie616.ixe6fxe617 ttJf3 e5 and here Black is better, even though the players agreed a draw in Mar6czy Pillsbury, London 1899. 1 0 . . .fxg6 1 1 il..c4+ 'lith8 1 2 f4 With the two bishops and control over the pawn structure, White has a small edge. 1 2 . . .'i'e8 12...h613 .ixf6l::txf6 (13...gxf614 f5 'ilVe8 15 'iid2 gives White some chances of estab lishing an attack on the kingside) 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 'iid2 and White keeps a slight edge 11


due to his superior pawn structure.

�g8 2 4 It fl with a n unclear position, o r 24 iVe6+ with a draw. b) 17...gxf6? 18 .i.xh6 �e7 19 .i.xf8 ':xf8 20 'iib4 and White is better.

1 8 i.xf6 gxf6 1 9 i.f7 'iie 7 20 i.xg6 i.e6 20.J::tg8 21 'iVf7 'tixf7 22 .i.xf7 gives White serious winning chances.

21 'iib4 After 21 'iVa3?! 'iVg7 22.i.fS .i.xfS 23 exfS l:!.g8 24 g3 hS! you would wonder what White's pieces think they are doing on the a ftle, while Black is attacking his king.

2 1 . . . 'iWg7 22 i.f5 22.i.hS? .i.h3! 23 g3 'tigs and Black wins.

1 3 fxe5 After 13 'it'd2 bS! 14 .i.b3 as 15 fxeS clxeS 16 a4 bxa4 17 .i.xa4 .i.d7 18 .i.xd7 'iixd7 Black has good counterplay.

1 3 . . . dxe5 1 4 'iWb1 ! White wants to keep an eye on the bS square and get his queen into play on the queenside. 14 'iid2 bS 15 i.b3 as would equalise.

1 4 . . . b6 1 5 't't'b3 i.d7 1 6 a4 h6 1 7 1:txf6 Bad would be 17.i.e3? lbg4 18.i.d2 'it'e7, for example: 19 h3 'iic5+ 20 �hl lbf2+ 21 ..t>h2 lbxh3! 22 gxh3? .l:!.f2+ 23 .l:i.xf2 'ii'xf2+ and Black wins.

22 . . . l:tg8 22....i.xfS?! 23 exfS .l:!.g8 24 'iVe4! would give White a clear edge. Now it becomes clear why the queen belonged on the fourth rank.

23 g3 c5 23....i.xfS 24 exfS 'tigs 25 IIfl 'tie3+ 26 .l:!.f2 cS 27 'iVc4 and Black is a pawn down for very little.

24 'iWb1 i.xf5 25 exf5 h5! 26 'iWf1 't't'g4 27 Wg2 J::r.g 5 28 'iif3 't't'xf3+ 29 Wxf3 1:txf5+ 30 Wg2 White might be slightly better in this end ing, but Korchnoi is quick to neutralise the difference.

30 . . . c4! 31 a5 e4! 32 axb6 axb6 33 dxe4 J::r.a 5 34 1:tb1 1:ta2 35 �xb6 J::r.x c2+ 36 Wh3 Wg7 37 J:!.c6 J:!.xc3 38 Wh4 J:!.c2 39 h3 J:!.c3 40 Wxh5 y" - y"

Game 4 Speelman-Karpov

Linares 1 992. 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 i.b5 i.b4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 7 i.g5 i.xc3 8 bxc3 h6 1 7 . . . 1:txf6 Or: a) 17...hxgS 18 .i.f7 (18 .l:!.ff1 \ie7 is also unclear) 18....l:!.xf7 19 l:txf7 .i.e6 20 lIf8+ 'iixf8 21 'tixe6 'it'c5+ 22 �h1 \ixc3 23 'tih3+ 12

8....i.d7 9l:!.bl a6 10.i.a4 l:.b8 11 .i.b3 h6 12.i.h4 transposes to 9....i.d7 below.

9 i.h4 't't'e7 9....i.d7 10 l:i.bl a6 11 .i.a4 lIb8 12 .i.b3 'tie7 13 l:tel lbaS 14 d4 J::tbd8 15 h3 ..t>h7

Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh ts with 4 . . . iL b 4

gave an unclear position in Short-Speehnan, London 1991. 9...J.g4!? 10 h3 J.xf3 11 'iixf3 g5 12 .i.g3 tL'lh7 (12...tL'ld7 13 d4 f6 14 'iig4 'ith8 15 h4 gave White a clear edge in Capablanca Lasker, Petersburg 1914) 13 l:rabl (Janowski Tarrasch, Vienna 1898). Now 13 ...tL'le7!? is probably best (in the game 13..."iYc8 14 l:!.fdl ct;g7 15 d4 f6 was bad for Black). Following 14 d4 tL'lg6 15 Mfdl! 'iif6! 16 'iib5 'iig7 we have an unclear position. It is important that after 17 J.c4 b6 18 dxe5 tL'lxe5 19 jixe5 dxe5, 20 l:i.d7 falls short to 20 ... tL'lf6. 1 0 l:te 1 t21d8

Or: a) 1O...tL'lb8!? is similar to the Breyer Varia tion of the Ruy Lopez: 11 d4 c6 12 J.d3 Me8 13 tL'ld2 (13 h3 tL'lbd7 14 'iid2 tL'lf8 15 g4 tL'lg6 16 �g3 tL'lh7! 17 'itg2 'iif6 18 'tWe3 tL'lg5 19 tL'lxg5 hxg5 20 .l::!.h l tL'lf4+ 21 ct;fl �e6 and Black is slightly better, Istratescu Timoshenko, Bucharest 1993) 13...tL'lbd7 14 tL'lc4 tL'lfS 15 f4 tL'lg6 16 fxe5 dxe5 17 �g3 was a mess in Volzhin-Tolstikh, Volgograd 1994. b) Interesting is 10...g5!? 11 J.g3 (11 tL'lxg5!? is unclear after 11...hxg5 12 J.xg5 tL'ld8!, but not 12...ct;g7? 13 .l::!.e3! followed by l:i.g3, giving \Xihite a strong attack) 11...�g4 12 h3 �h5 13 d4 Mad8 14 .l::!.b l tL'lb8 15 �d3 b6 16 .i.h2 tL'lbd7 17 g4 J..g6 18 tL'ld2 gfe8 and the position is equal, Anka-Gross, Val jevo 2000.

1 1 d 4 t21e6?!

This initiates a long line of tactics where '-"''hite emerges with the advantage. Better was 11...'ith7 12 'iic1 �g4 13 'iie3 and White is only a little better. 1 2 dxe5

After 12 SLg3 tL'lg5 13 tL'lxg5 hxg5 14 Mbl a6 15 SLd3 c5 Black is equal. 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3 t21xe5

Risky is 13 SLg3 Md8! 14 'iic1! tL'lh5! (14.. :�!Vc5 15 �2 a6 16 jifl tL'lf4 17 c4 gives Black some problems with e5) 15 jixe5 (15 tL'lxe5?? tL'lxg3 16 hxg3 "ilVc5!) 15 ... tL'lg5 16 �d4 tL'lxf3+ 17 gxf3 c5 18 .i.e3 'i¥f6 and Black has good attacking chances on the kingside. 1 3 . . .�c5 1 4 iLxf6 'iIIxb5

Karpov has always been known for his great accuracy in defence. After 14... gxf6?! 15 tL'lg4 'iixb5 16 e5! fxe5 17 .l:.xe5 "iYc4 18 tL'lxh6+ 'ith7 19 .l:.h5 fS 22 lIe3 d7 12 d4 .i.g4 13 �e3 c6 14 b3 �xf3 15 l::txf3 'i*'d5 16 tL'lc3 �f5 17 h3 h5 18 d5 c5 19 'i*'d3 'i*'xd3 20 l::txd3 h4 21 tL'le2 l::te8 22 c4 with equality, Yeo-Hebden, British League 2001. . ..

17

Th e Fo u r K n igh ts

1 0 �g3 After 10 gl Black has the bishop pair and a safer king. In short, at least a small edge, for example: 10...it'c6 11 'iWe2+.i.e7 12 h3 iVb6+ 13 d4 tDf6 14 'It>h2 .i.d7 lS tDc3 O-O!. 1 0 . . :iVg6 Worse is 10...'lt>d8? 11 h3 tDh6 12 d4.i.fS 13 tDa3 �e7 14 .l::1.e l 'tWc6 IS dS 'ii'a6 16 c4 with an unclear game, Keitlinghaus-Meissner, Germany 2001. 1 1 �e2+ The great Paul Keres analysed the follow ing lines and, even today with the assistance of strong computer programs and SO years of experience, they cannot be improved upon: 11 tDh4 'iVhs and now: a) White is in trouble after 12 tDxc7+ d8 13 h3 (13 tDxa8 gS! 14 tDf3 gxf4+ IS xf4 dS! with a winning attack for Black) 13...'�Jf6 14 tDxa8 it'xh4+!! IS 'it'xh4 tDe4 16 1i'hs �e7+ 17 'ii'gS .i.xg5+ 18 fxgS h6 19 g6 fxg6 20 .l::1.f1 g5+ 21 �hS tDg3+ with a clear edge. b) 12 fS gS 13 'iWxg4 gxh4+ 14 Wf3 it'xg4+ IS Wxg4 �g8+ 16 'it'f3 Wd8 with a clear ad vantage. c) 12 h3 �xbS 13 hxg4 gS! and Black is clearly better here - the white king is fragile and Black has the two bishops. 1 1 . . .�d8 1 2 J:te1 White is also worse after 12 h3 tDe3+ 13 'it'h2 tDxc2 14 l::tb1 and now: a) Winning the exchange is suicidal: 14...tDd4? IS tDfxd4 'iixb1 16 �c4! c6 (or the entertaining 16...cS 17 'iixf7 'i'e4 18 'ii'c7+ We8 19 d3 lie7 20 tDxd6+ 'tlVxd6 21 .l::1.e1+ 'tlVe7 22 .l::1. xe7+.i.xe7 23 tDc6 .i.f6 24 tDb8! and Black loses material) 17 it'xf7 cxbS 18 .l::1.e1.i.d7 19 l:!.e8+ �c7 20 l:!.xa8 lixc1 21 tDe6+ Wc6 22 tDxf8 and the fight is over. b) 14...c6! (the right approach) IS tDc3 .i.e7 and Black has a pawn more and a better position. 1 2 . . . �d7 1 3 tLlbd4 tLle3+ 1 4 �f2 tLlxc2 1 5 tLlxc2 'tWxc2 White does not have real compensation 18

for the pawn deficit.

1 6 b4 Or 16 gl c6 17 b3 dS 18 tDeS.i.c5+ 19 Whl .l:!.e8 with a clear edge. 1 6 . . . a5!7 1 7 �a3 axb4 1 8 �xb4 'iit'f 5 1 9 'tWe3 h6 Here it looks better to play 19....l:i.a4! 20 tDd4 �g4 21 .i.c3 cS 22 tDe2 .i.c6 with a clear advantage for Black. 20 J::ta c1 :g8 If Black had taken the pawn on a2, White would have been able to benefit from the a file with .l:!.a1. That would not be worth win ning a second pawn. 21 �g1 g5! 22 'tWc3 ::'c8 23 fxg5 hX95 24 �h1 94 25 tLld4 'tWd5 26 �e3 93 27 �c3 J:ta8! 28 tLlf3 gxh2 29 �f6+ �c8 30 �c3 'tWc5 31 'tWd3 'tWh5 32 tLle5

32 . . . J:txg2! ! A powerful blow that highlights the weak-

Sp a n is h Fo u r K n ig h ts with 4 . . . tbd4

ness \X'hite is suffering from on the light squares. But not 32...dxe5?? 33 .l:!.xe5 and after J::te8+ it is \X'hite who wins. 33 �xg2 dxeS 34 l:!.xeS iVg4+ 3S �g3 Or 35 �xh2 'ii'f4+ 36 'it>gl �xf6 and Black wins. 3S . . .iVxg3+ 36 �xg3 ..td6 37 �xh2 .u.xa2 38 �g 1 l:.xd2 39 .u.hS b6 40 ..teS ..tcS+ 41 �f1 �b7 42 ..tg3 ..tbS+ 43 �e 1 l:!.e2+ 44 �d 1 l:!.g2 4S nc3 ..te2+ 0-1

Gamel Nikolenko-Aleksandrov

Smoiensk 2000 The Russian chess school teaches us that drawn positions do not exist, only equal posi tions do. This game is good illustration of that point of view. 1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 ..tbS lLld4 5 lLlxd4 5 .lta4 is considered in Games 9-12, while 5 .ltc4!? is dealt with in Game 8. S . . . exd4 6 eS Or 6lDd5lDxd5 7 exd5 �f6! 8 0-0 j.,e7 9 f4?! (very risky; 9 .lie2 0-0 10 c4 is equal) 9...0-0 10 'iff3 c5! 11 b3 d6 12 .lib2 j.,f5 13 .l:!.ae1 .lid8! (this move is worth remember ing) 14 .ltd3 .liaS 15 Ile2 .llae8 16 g3?! (16 .lid and \X'hite holds, although Black re mains much better) 16....lixd3! 17 cxd3 (17 llxe8 .lixf1 18 l:txf8+ �xf8 19 �xf1 j.,xd2 gives Black an easily winning endgame) 17...lhe2 18 �xe2 'iff5 and Black is close to winning, at least in practical play, Wolf Alekhine, Carlsbad 1923. 6 . . . dxc3 7 exf6 �xf6 Black will be punished hard for his greed after 7...cxd2+? 8 .lixd2 'iixf6 9 0-0 .lie7 10 .lic3 'iNg5 11 l:te1 0-0 (it seems tempting to take a piece too, but after 11...�xb5 12 'ii'g4 l:i.g8 13 J::txe7+l 'i;;xe7 14 'ii'e4+ �d8 15 'iVh4+ f6 16 .ltxf6+'it>e8 17 .l:!.e1+'i;;f7 [17...'it>f8 18 .ltxg7+! 'it>xg7 19 .l:!.e7+ 'i;; g6 20 'ifxh7+J 18 J:!.e7+ 'it>g6 19 .lieS!, mate comes so soon,

Shipman-Weber, New York 1985) 12 .l:!.e5 'ii'f 6 13 i.d3 g6 14 'iNe2 and \X'hite is much better, Milev-Fudeder, Amsterdam 1956. Black never really got round to ftnishing his development and most likely never will. 8 dxc3 ..tcS The position is also a dead draw (sorry, dead equal) after 8...'iie5+ 9 'ife2 (or 9 .lie2 .lic5 10 0-0 0-0 11 .lid3 d5! 12 'iNf3 .lid6 13 g3 c6 14 i.d2 'iVe6 15 �5 �h3 16 .lixh7+ 'it>h8 17 .lig6+ �g8 18 .lih7+ and the players agreed a draw in Wittman-Greenfeld, Thes saloniki 1984) 9 ...'iNxe2+ 10 .lixe2 d5 11 i.f4 c6 12 c4 .lie6 13 cxd5 i.xd5 14 0-0 i.c5 15 .l::tfe1 0-0 16 i.d3 !tfe8, Alekhine Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914. After 8...c6?! 9 .lid3 'ife5+ 10 .lie3 d5 11 �f3 .lic5 12 0-0 i.xe3 13 J:!.fe1 0-0 14 .l:!.xe3 'ii'd6 15 .l:!.ae1 \X'hite is slighdy better, Ima naliev-Thipsay, Frunze 1985. 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 ..txd7

'If \X'hite wants a draw 10 .lixd7 is the simplest method' wrote GM John Nunn about this position . However, as we shall see, there is still the little task of obtaining this draw. 1 0 . . . ..txd7!? 10....l:!.d8 11 'iih5 .lixd7 12 'i¥xc5 i.c6 is dead equal once again. 1 1 iVxd7 J:!.ae8 1 2 ..te3 Or 12 j.,d2? l:i.e2 with an initiative . 1 2 . . . ..txe3 1 3 fxe3 �b6 1 4 J:!.ae 1 J::!.xe3 The position is also balanced after 19


14.. :iVxb2 15 'iiUxc7 (15 Mxf7?! is risky be cause you have to calculate the pawn ending: 15.. :iVxc3 16 Mxf8+l:i.xfS 17 �e6+ �hS 1S l:i.f1l:i.xf1+ 19 �xf1 �f6+ 20 1Wxf6 gxf6 and Black looks better here, but probably White can keep the balance) 15...�xa2 16 �xb7. 1 5 l:txe3 'iVxe3+ 1 6 �h1 "iYe2 1 7 "iYd3 J::!.e8

"iYf8 36 "iYc7 "iYa8 37 liId4 l:txg2+ 38 �h 1 'iVa 1 + 0-1

Game 8 Ivanchuk-Svidler

u'nares 1999 The annotations to this game are based on Vassily Ivanchuk's annotations in Chess Infor

mant 75. 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 .tb5 ttJd4 5 .tc4!? As 5 .ta4 does not seem to promise White any advantage, this has also been tried.

It hard to believe that an 1M with an Elo rating of 2500 can lose a position like this. But Black does have a three against two ma jority on the kingside, and would win any pawn endgame. In a rook endgame, though, the majority cannot really play a part. 1 8 �g 1 h6 1 9 h3 "iYe6 20 b3 "iYe3+ 2 1 J::tf 2?! Simplest was 21 'fixe3 llxe3 22 c4 l:i.e2 (22...WfS 23 .i:!.dl We7 24 Wf2 is equal too) 23l:i.dl �xc2 24 �d8+ Wh7 25l:i.d7l:i.xa2 26 l:i.xc7 and the game will be drawn. 21 . . . "iYe7 22 a4 .l:!.d8 23 "iYf3 c6 24 b4? After this move the white pawns on the queenside are all weak. 24 . . . J::td6 25 "iYh5 25 �f4 with �h2 to follow looks much stronger. Black is still better, though. 25 . ...l:!.e6! Black is starting an attack against the white weaknesses on the queenside and the open white king. 26 :f1 .l:!.e3 27 "iYa5? a6 28 "iYf5 g6! 29 "iYf4 .l:!.xc3 30 .l:!.f2 h5 3 1 .l:!.d2 b5 32 axb5 axb5 33 �h2 J:!.c4 34 l:t.d4 .l:!.xc2 35 .l:!.e4

20

5 . . . c6 Black obviously has some other possibili ties: a) 5....tc5 and now: al) 6 0-0 d6! 7 tDxd4 .txd4 S d3 c6 91Wf3 b5 10 i.b3 as 11 a4 b4 12 tDd1 i.e6 with equality according to Gutman. a2) 6 tDxe5 with a further branch: a21) 6.. :iie7! tDf3 (7 tDd3?! d5 S i.. xd5 tDxd5 9 tDxd5 �xe4+ 10 tDe3 i..d6 11 0-0 i..e6 12 tDe1 0-0-0 13 c3 tDf5 gave Black the upper hand in Nimzowitsch-Alekhine, St Petersburg 1914) 7 ... d5! S tDxd5 �xe4+l (S...tDxd5 9 i..xd5 c6 10 tDxd4 cxd5 11 tDb3 dxe4 12 tDxc5 'fixc5 13 d4 exd3 14 'fixd3 0-0 was rather level in Janovsky-Marshall, Paris 1905) 9 tDe3 .tg4 10 .te2 tDxe2 11 1Wxe2 0-0-0 12 d3 1We6 13 0-0 tDd5 and Black has quite strong compensation -

Sp a n is h Fo ur Knig h ts with 4 . . . lD d 4

Keres. a22) 6...d5!? (Tkachiev's patent) 7.ixd5 (7 exd5?! 0-0 8 0-0 'iid6 9 ':el .l:.e8 10 lZ'ld3 .ig4 would give Black an attack; 7 lZ'lxd5 lZ'lxd5 8 c3! is unclear according to Kramnik and Dolmatov; the main idea is to avoid 8 .ixd5? 'tig5! 9 .ixf7+ r.i;e7 10 ..Ith5 'ii'xe5 and Black is a piece up) 7...lZ'lxd5 8lZ'lxd5 0-0 9 c3 (9 0-0 l:!.e8 10 lZ'ld3 ..Itd6 with compen sation - Kramnik, Dolmatov) and now:

a221) The move 9...f5!? and the following analysis belongs to Lev Gutman. In my opin ion this move is a mistake, but a very inter esting mistake! 10 cxd4 .ixd4 11lZ'lf3 (11 0-0 fxe4 12 lZ'lb6 .ixe5 13 lZ'lxa8 'ti'h4 14 g3 "iHh3 15 d4 .ig4 and Black wins; my im provement would be 11 lZ'lc4! .ixf2+ 12 �xf2 fxe4+ 13 �gl 'iVxd5 14 lZ'le3 and the compensation for the piece is not enough) l1.....Itxf2+ 12 �xf2 fxe4 13 lZ'lf4 exf3 14 'ti'b3+ r.i;h8 15 d4 fxg2 16 �xg2 g5 17 lZ'le6 .ixe6 18 'iVxe6 "iHxd4 19l:tel "iHf2+ 20 'lithl 'i' f3+ with perpetual check. a222) 9...l:!.e8 10 cxd4 .ixd4 11 0-0 (11 lZ'lf3 "iHxd5 12 d3 ..Itg4 13 .i.e3 .i.xf3 14 gxf3 'i'd6 15 .i.xd4 'ifxd4 16 'ife2 .l:.ad8 17 0-0-0 .l:.e6 18 'tie3 and White is a little better ac cording to Gutman) 11...:Lxe5 12 d3 c6 13 lZ'lf4 (White should be better here) 13...b6 14 'ifc2 I:tc5 15 'ife2 i.a6 16.ie3 "iHd6 17 l:!.ac1 .l:!.xc1 18 .l:.xc1 i.e5 and a draw was agreed, Shirov-Kramnik, Cazorla 1998. a3) 6 d3 c6 7 lZ'lxd4 .ixd4 8 'iVf3 h5?!

(\1Vhen a human plays such a move w e talk about inspiration and style, but if a computer played it we would talk about lacking under standing or assume that it was all calculated. The best move is of course the central push 8...d5 9 exd5 i.xc3+ 10 bxc3 cxd5 11 i.b5+ .id7 12 .ixd7+ 'iixd7 13 .ig5 "iHc6 14 0-0 lZ'ld7 with equality) 9 h3! (Not surprisingly Leko declines this invitation to a dance. The computer probably was 'hoping' for some thing like 9 .ig5 d5! 10 exd5 .ig4 11 "iHg3 'i'b6) 9...d5 10 exd5 i.xc3+ 11 b�c3 cxd5 12 .i.b3 'iic7 13 0-0 0-0 (The pawn on c3 ap pears to be poisoned, even for the computer: 13...'iWxc3? 14 ..Ita3 .ie6 15 'iWg3 .l:.g8 16 :fe1 lZ'ld7 17 :Lab1 f6 18 i.b2 "iHc6 19 d4 e4 20 �g6+ and 'X'hite's attack has only just started) 14 'ifg3. In this position it is clear that the inclusion of ...h7-h5 and h2-h3 has been of benefit to White, Leko-Deep Junior (C), Dortmund 2000. b) 5...lZ'lxf3+1? is underestimated. The re sulting position might be boring and solid, but it also appears to be equal, which should appeal to some people: 6 'ilixf3 d6 7 d3 (7 lZ'ld5 c6 8 lZ'lxf6+ 'iWxf6 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 d3 :g8 and Black is more than okay) 7....ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ilie2 .ig4 10 f3 ..Ite6 11 ..Itb3 c6 12 f4 exf4 13.ixf4 d5 14 exd5 cxd5 15 d4 a6 16 h3 b5 17 a3 lle8 and the players agreed a draw in J onkman-Romanishin, Lvov 2001. 6 lDxe5

This is the right approach. If Black has freedom to do what he likes, he will equalise easily. After 6 d3 Black can choose between the following: a) 6...'iWa5 7 ..Itd2 .ib4 8 .ib3 lZ'lxb3 9 axb3 'iic7 10 0-0 .i.e7 11 h3 0-0 12lZ'le2 d5 13lZ'lg3 dxe4 14 dxe4l:te8 with equality. b) 6...b5 7 .ib3 lZ'lxb3 8 axb3 d6 9 0-0 .ie7 10 h3 0-0 11 lZ'le2 as 12 lZ'lg3 i.e6 13 lZ'lh2 d5 and Black is closer to being better than to being worse. 6 . . . d5 7 exd5 .fLd6 8 lDf3 lDxf3+ 9 "i!fxf3 0-0 1 0 h3 b5

Black tried 1O...l:;le8+? 11 .ie2 cxd5 12 d4 21


'ik'b6 13 0-0 �b8 14 �b5 lld8 in the game Podlesnik-S. Polgar, Ljubljana 1994. White should win after 15 �g5! 'iWd6 16 .l:!.fel 'ik'h2+ 17 �fl 'ti'd6 18 .l:!.e5. 1 1 i..e2 b4 1 2 ltJe4 White should not fall for 12 dxc6? bxc3 13 c7? (13 dxc3 is better) 13...'ti'xc7 14 'i'xa8 �a6! 15 'ifxf8+ i.xf8 16 �xa6 'ife5+ 17 i.e2 cxb2 18 i.xb2 'ifxb2 19 0-0 'ifxc2 and wins. 1 2 . . .ltJxe4 1 3 'i'xe4 cxd5?! Black should play with all his pieces: 13...1:te8! 14 "iWf3 i.a6 (also possible is 14...cxd5!? 15 0-0 'iYe7 16 "iVe3 �xh3 17 gxh3 'iVh4 18 'ik'f3 l:txe2 19 'ik'xe2 "i¥xh3 20 f3 i.c5+ 21l:!.f2 'ifg3+ 22 'ltfl "iWh3+ 23 �gl! with a draw) 15 d3 cxdS 16 0-0 (16 'ti'xdS?! .l:!.c8! looks too dangerous) 16...'ife7 17 i.dl 'ilVe5 18 g3 �c8!? and Black has good com pensation. 1 4 'i'f3 'i'c7 Better was 14....se8!? 15 d4 �a6 16 i.e3 i.xe2 17 'ti'xe2 lic8 18 0-0 �b8! and Black still has some counterplay. 1 5 0-0 d4? This is simply a tactical error. I have no ticed during my work with this book that, despite his great understanding of attack and chess in general, Svidler makes some strange tactical mistakes for his leye! from time to time. 15...�b7 16 .i.d3 d4 17 "i¥g4 l:tae8 gives compensation for the pawn. %0 knows if it is enough? 1 6 'i'xa8 i..b 7 1 7 'i'xa7 .1t .c5

22

1 8 'i'xb7? This is sufficient, but why not 18 'ik'a4! d3 19 1lVbs 'ti'g3 20 'ilVxb7 dxe2 21 d4! i.xd4 22 �d2 exfl'if + 23 .l:!.xf1 and all you have to do is count the pawns... 1 8. . . 'i'xb7 1 9 i..d 3 �b8 20 b3 �f4 2 1 i..b2 i..d 6 2 2 g 3 'i'g5 2 3 'it>h2 h5 2 4 f4 'i'd5 25 h4 J:te8 26 a4! White's plan is very primitive. First he cre ates some passed pawns, then he pushes them to the eighth rank and promotes them to queens. 26...bxa3 27 .i.xa3 .i.xa3 28 .l:!.xa3 'it>f8 29 b4 lIfb7 30 b5 shows that this is a realistic plan. 26 . . .i..c 7 27 a5 Probably it was better to exchange rooks with 27 .l:!.ael! 1:txel 28 .uxe1 g6 29 .l:!.e4, when White dominates. 27 . . . il..xa5 28 i..xd4 �xd4 29 J:.xa5 .l:!.c8 30 J::le 5 White should not fall for 30 .l:!.xh5? .l:!.xc2 31 �h7+ �f8 32 .i.xc2 'iYxd2+ 33 �h3 'ti'xc2 34 :h8+ �e7 35 .l:.e1+ 'ltd7 36 hS "i¥xb3, when Black has been successful in confusing the matters. 30 . . .'i'd6 31 J:!.fe1 g6 32 f5 Clear-cut is 32l::t1e2! 'ltg7 33 .i.c4 .l:!.c5 34 .ue7 :i.c7 3Sl::txc7 "i!Vxc7 36 c3 bxc3 37 dxc3. 32 . . . gxf5 33 .txf5 J:tc5 34 l:!.e8+ 'it>g7 35 i..d 3 J:!.d5 36 J:!.8e3 J:!.d4 37 'it>h3 'i'd7+ 38 'it>g2 �d5+ 39 'it>f2 �c5 40 l:l 1 e2 .li!.d5 41 'it>g2 liId6 42 'it>h2 �c6 43 .li!.e4 'i'c5 44 �e5?!

Sp a n is h Fo u r K n igh ts with 4 . . . tiJ d4

Dortmund 1992

dasin) 11 i.b3 i.e6 12 ttJg3 h6 13 i.xf6 'ifxf6 14 'ifxf6 10f6 and Black had equalised in Nijboer-Huzman, Leeuwarden 1995. 7 d3 Interesting is 7 0-0 d6 8 h3 i.e7 9 ttJe2 0-0 10 c3 b5 11 i.c2 c5 (11...d5 12 d3 1:i.e8 13 ttJg3 might be a little better for White) 12 d4 cxd4 13 cxd4 i.b7 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 ttJg3 1:i.c8 16 i.b3, which was played in Istratescu Berkovich, Tel Aviv 1994. White seems to be a little better placed, but not much. 7 . . . d6 8 0-0 8 i.b3 i.e7 9 'iHe2 0-0 10 f4 i.g4 11 'ilVf2 i.e6 12 0-0 exf4 13 i.xf4 d5 14 �ae1 dxe4 15 ttJxe4 i.xb3 16 axb3 'ifd7 17 ttJxf6+ i.xf6 was level in Anand-Ivanchuk, Dort mund 1992. 8 . . ..te7 After 8...b5! 9 i.b3 i.e7 10 h3 0-0 11 ttJe2 ttJd7 12 c3 ttJc5 13 i.c2 f5 14 exf5 i.xf5 Black's position is perfect. The players agreed a draw in Acs-Kholmov, Pardubice 2001, but normally Black would play on. White can improve on this of course, but an advantage will probably be hard to find. 9 llld 5 llld 7

1 e4 e5 2 lllf3 lllc6 3 lllc 3 lllf6 4 .tb5 llld4 5 �a4 lllxf3+ This line is of course more peaceful than 5....lii.c5 and 5...c6. Black does not wish to give up material, simply takes a defensive position and enjoys the fact that White can not play d2-d4. 6 fixf3 c6 Some black players have also experi mented with 6....lii.b4, for example: 7 ttJe2 (after 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 i.e7 9 h3 c6 10 i.b3 d6 11 ttJe2 i.e6 12 ttJg3 'iHd7 it is doubtful if White has any advantage at all) 7...0-0 8 c3 .lii.a5 9 d3 d5 10 i.g5 (or 10 h3 dxe4 11 dxe4 ttJe8 12 ttJg3 ttJd6 13 .lii.c2 .lii.b6 14 a4 as 15 b3 i.c5 with equality, Nijboer-Cifuentes Parada, Holland 1995) 10...c6 (10...'ifd6 11 .lii.xf6 dxe4 12 dxe4 'iVxf6 13 'YWxf6 gxf6 14 ttJg3 gives White an edge according to Yu-

Black would lose after 9...ttJxd5? 10 exd5 b5 11 dxc6! e4 (or 11...bxa4 12 c7) 12 'iixe4 d5 13 c7 'YiYd7 14 'YiYd4 bxa4 15 'YiYxg7 �f8 16 i.f4. The line 9...h6 10 ttJxe7 'iVxe7 11 c3 0-0 12 .:tel i.d7 13 i.c2 1:i.fe8 14 h3 1:i.ad8 15 i.e3 c5 16 d4 .1i...c6 17 dxc5 dxc5 18 1:i.ad1

Here White misses a win with 44 .lii.c4! 1:i.f6 45 1:i.e5 'i¥d4 46 'itg2 �al 47 l:!.g5+ Wf8 48 1:i.xh5 'YWf1+ 49 'ith21:i.f2+. 50 1:i.xf2 'ifxf2+ 51 Wh3 'iVxd2 521:i.f5 'iVxc2 531:i.xf7+. 44 J:td5 45 l:l5e3 fid6 46 �f2 f6 47 �g2 l:le5 48 J:!.f4 fic6+ 49 �g 1 ? White could still retain the majority of his advantage with 49 l:tef3! "iVd6 50 g4 hxg4 51 1:i.xg4+ WfS 52 .l:tff4 ii'c6+ 53 Wg3 'iVb6 54 1:i.d4 f5 55 l:.gf4, when Black is under strong pressure. 49 .. Jbe3 50 dxe3 fic3 51 �f2 fid2+ 52 .te2 fixc2 Now White has some weaknesses too and the position is more or less impossible to win. 53 J:!.xb4 fif5+ 54 J:!.f4 fic2 55 b4 �g6 56 b5 �g7 57 .!:f.c4 fif5+ 58 J:tf4 fic2 59 g4 hxg4 60 J:!.xg4+ �h6 61 l:!.f4 �g6 62 h5+ �g7 63 ':g4+ �h7 64 J:l.c4 fif5+ 65 l:lf4 fie5 66 .td3+ �h6 67 �e2 �h7 68 J:td4 fif5+ 69 J:tf4 Y:. - Y:. . .

Game 9 Kamsky-Adams

23

Th e Fo u r K n igh ts

lead to a draw in Prokopchuk-Magomedov, Moscow 2002. Black could also try 9...0-0 10 lbxe7+ Wixe7 11 i.g5 h6 12 i.d2 b5! 13 i.b3 as with a fine position. 12 i.xf6, with a small advantage, is better. 1 0 4Jxe7 iilxe7 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 iilg3 White is a little bit better here. The two bishops do count for something. 1 2 . . AJc5 1 3 .tc2 4Je6 Black would get into trouble after 13...f5? 14 i.g5 "Wic7 15 f4!, for example: 15...lbe6 16 i..b3 h8 17 fxe5 lbxg5 IS "Wixg5 dxe5 19 exf5 and White has won a pawn, or 15...iib6 16 l:tf2 fxe4 17 dxe4 lbe6 IS f5 lbxg5 19 Wixg5 with an attack on the kingside. 1 4 .te3 c5 1 5 J:!.ad1 b6 1 6 .tb3 .tb7 1 7 f4 exf4 1 S .txf4 tLlxf4 1 9 �xf4 .tcS!

In the heavy piece ending the attack on the king is not as important and Black has more chances of reaching a draw. 20 .td5 �bS 21 �df1 .te6 22 h4 J:!.beS 23 c4 .txd5 24 cxd5 hS 25 iilf2 gS 26 g4! iild7 27 g5 .l:!.e5 2S h2 iile7 29 iilf3 'ilVd7 30 :f2 b5 31 b3 a5 32 J:!.g2 "V$e7 33 iilg4 .IleS 34 �gf2 l:!.fS 35 J:!.2f3 g6 36 �f2 g7 37 g 1 h6 3S J:!.f6 3S gxh6+?! xh6 and Black is even better. 3S . . . h5 39 iilf3 c4! 40 l:!.f4 40 bxc4 bxc4 41 lif4 cxd3 42 'ii'xd3 "Wia7 43l:tf6 "Wic5 gives Black good counterplay. 40 . . . cxd3 41 iilxd3 b4 42 g2 gS 43 'ilVf3 "V$c7 44 g3 �e7 45 g2 'ilVd7 46 litf6 lIfeS 47 .!:te2 l:tcS 4S iilh3 "V$eS 49

24

"V$f3 l:!.c3 50 iilf4 'ilVcS! 51 .l:!.xd6 J:tec7 51..."Wih3+ would end with a perpetual check after 52 �f2 l:tec7 53 l:td8+ �h7 54 l:tfS lic1! 55 l:txf7+ gS 56 l:tf8+ Wh7 57 l:tf7+ WgS. 52 f2 l:!.c2 53 .Ilb6 iilh3 54 l:tc6 �2xc6 55 dxc6 �xc6 56 �d2 Y, - y,

Game 10 Motylev-Grischuk

Moscow 200 1 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 .1/..b 5 4Jd4 5 .1/..a4 c6 An interesting pawn sacrifice first found in the early 1990s by J eroen Piket. So far the conclusion is that Black obtains good coun terplay for the pawn. 6 4Jxe5 This is the only way to fight for an advan tage. Still, White should remember the phrase 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Alterna tively: a) 6 0-0 'iVa5 7 l:tel (J a3 i.e7 S b4 "Wic7 9 i..b2 0-0 10 lbxd4 exd4 11 lbe2 lbxe4 12 lbxd4 d5 is equal) 7...d6 and now: al) S lbxd4 exd4 9 lbd5 lbd7! (9..."i!Vxa4? 10 lbc7+ 'It>dS 11 b3! iia5 12 lbxaS b6 13 i.b2 i.b7 14 i.xd4 i.xa8 15 e5 dxe5 16 l:txe5 would give White a very strong attack for the piece) 10 b4 'iVdS (1O...'iVxa4 11lbc7+ 'It>dS 12 lbxa8 b5 is a mess) 11 lbf4 lbe5 with equality. a2) S h3 i.e7 9 a3 0-0 10 d3 (or 10 b4 "iHc7 11 i.b2 b5 12 i.b3 c5 [equal - Piket] 13 lbxd4 cxd4 [13...exd4?! 14 lbxb5 "fibs 15 a4 a6 16lba3 gives White some good squares for his pieces] 14 lbxb5 "fIb7 15 a4 i.e6 16 i.xe6 fxe6 17 d3 a6 IS lba3 "Wixb4 with equality) 10...b5 11 i.b3 lbxb3 12 cxb3 c5?! (This pawn push weakens the d5-square; 12...l:teS seems like a very sensible move. Now Almasi shows how White is able to take the initiative and get the rook into play via the 3rd rank) 13 i.d2 'iVb6 14 b4 cxb4 15 axb4 a6 16 i.g5 h6 17 i.xf6 i.xf6 IS lbd5

Sp a n is h Fo u r K n ig h ts with 4 . . ,tlJ d4

"iVd8 19 d4 exd4 20 ttJxd4 .ib7 21 ttJxf6+ 'iVxf6 22 .l::!.a3! and White is better, Z.Almasi Rabiega, Bundesliga 200 1 . b) 6 a3?! (this kind o f move i s usually a waste of time and here is no exception) 6 ....icS 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 dS! (as White does not want to take over the initiative, Black feels himself compelled to do so) 9 h3 J::te8 10 .JtgS bS 11 �b3 ttJxb3 1 2 cxb3 d4 1 3 ttJe2 .if8 14 b4 as 15 bxaS .l:i.xaS and Black was better in Ryzhov-Zubov, Kiev 2002. c) 6 d3 bS 7 .ib3 ttJxb3 8 axb3 d6 9 0-0 .ie7 10 ttJe2 0-0 1 1 ttJg3 and the position is more or less level. One wonders why White chose to give up the bishop. S . . . dS 7 l2Jf3 Completely harmless is 7 ttJd3 bS 8 ii.b3 as 9 a3 dS 10 eS ttJe4 1 1 0-0 ttJcS 1 2 ttJxcS �xcS 1 3 'it>h1 0-0 (Adams-Kramnik, Iinares 1 999). After 1 4 d3 l:te8 1 5 .if4 ttJxb3 1 6 cxb3 �d4 this position i s equal according to Vladimir Kramnik. This is of course true, but two bishops are stronger than one, so I pre fer Black. 7 . . . i.g4 a d3 Interesting is 8 h3 �xf3 9 gxf3 g6! (Black plays on the dark squares; the most impor tant thing is to control eS and f4) 10 'it>f1 ii.g7 1 1 ttJe2 ttJxf3 1 2 d4 'fias 1 3 ttJc3 ttJgS 14 eS ttJfe4 1 5 ii.xgS ttJxgS 16 'iWg4 ttJe6 with unclear play, Ponomariov-Gomez Esteban, Pamplona 1 996. a dS . . .

In Acs-Karakehajov, Athens 2001 Black had no success with 8... ttJd7?!, which does look a bit passive. There followed 9 .Jte3 ttJxf3+ 10 gxf3 ii.hS 1 1 d4 'iWf6 12 .l:i.g1 ! .ixf3? (better was 12 ...bS 13 .JtgS 'fixf3 1 4 'iWxf3 ii.xf3 1 5 J:tg3 ii.hS 1 6 ii.b3; Black has regained his pawn, but he is underdeveloped and White has started an initiative) 1 3 'iWd3 'iVh4?! (this gluttony will be punished se verely; 13 ... h6 with ... .ie7 and ... 0-0 was much better) 1 4 .l:i.g3 'fixh2 1 5 Wd2 'iWhS 1 6 d S c S 1 7 �ag1 (White i s already winning! Just try to find a saving move for Black.) 1 7 .. .f6 1 8 ii.xd7+ �xd7 19 'iWb5+ Wd8 20 'iVxb7 lic8 21 .l:i.xg7 'iWe8 22 'iWxa7 .ie7 23 'iWb6+ Wd7 24 ttJbS 1 -0. 9 0-0 Or: a) 9 h3 ttJxf3+ 10 gxf3 .ihS 1 1 exdS lbxdS 12 ttJe4 'iWe7 13 Wf1 0-0-0 14 c3 'iVc7 1 5 Wg2 .ie7 1 6 I!e1 gS and Black had a strong initiative in Kholmov-Malaniuk, St Peters burg 2001. b) 9 .ie3 ttJxf3+ 10 gxf3 ii.hS 11 .id4 dxe4 12 dxe4 .ixf3 13 'iWxf3 'iVxd4 14 .l:i.d1 fieS 1 5 0-0 .id6 would be fine for Black. 9 . .dxe4 1 0 l2Jxe4 After 10 dxe4 .ixf3! 1 1 gxf3 bS 12 .ib3 .ics 1 3 eS ttJd7 Black has compensation for the material according to Czech GM Pavel Blatny. 1 0 . . .l2Jxe4 10 ...ii.xf3!? is one of my own ideas, un verified by practice to this day. The plan is to give up the bishop in order to obtain some initiative. It seems to give Black a good game, for example: 1 1 gxf3 'iVd7 1 2 c3 ttJe6 1 3 .l:i.e1 (there will be a strong attack on the white king, should his soldiers be so careless as to open the g-ftle) 1 3 ...0-0-0 1 4 .ie3 ttJdS and who knows? I believe in Black, but practical games have yet to be seen. 1 1 l:!.e1 i.e7 After 1 1 ...fS? 12 c3 ttJxf3+ 1 3 gxf3 .i.hS 14 dxe4 �xd 1 1 5 .i.xd 1 Black has no real compensation for the pawn. However, after .

25

Th e Fo u r K n ig h ts

l 1 .....ltxf3 12 gxf3 iVf6 13 �xe4+ i.e7 1 4 i.e3! O-O-O! Black does have real compensa tion for the pawn. But not with 1 4 ... 4Jxf3+?! 1 5 �hl 4Jg5 16 .txg5 'ii'xg5 17 "iVe2 'it'dS l S l::te 1, with a strong initiative for White. 1 2 J:!.xe4 'Dxf3+ 1 3 gxf3 �f5 1 4 l:te5

A fter 14 l::te 1 ?! 0-0 the question is how much better is Black? 1 4 . . . �e6 Black has two alternatives: a) 14.. :iid6?! is met with 15 "iVe2! "iVg6+ 1 6 �hl 0-0-0 1 7 l:!.xe7 .th3 I S .tg5! (an impor tant resource) l S .. :�xg5 1 9 .l::!.gl 'ilt'f6 20 �b3 .l:i.d7 21 l:te5! and White has a clear edge due to his better pieces. b) 14 ... 'ilt'd7! 1 5 "iVe2 �fS! 16 .td2 (16 .tf4? .tf6 and White loses the exchange) 1 6... .td6 1 7 .l:!.e3 .txh2-H? (White has freer development so probably this is good) I S �xh2 'iVd6+ 1 9 �h1 �h6+ 20 'it'gl "iVg5+ 21 �hl "iVh4+ 22 �gl �g5+ with a draw. 1 5 .tb3 .bb3 1 6 axb3 0-0 1 7 'iWe2 �d6 1 8 J:!.e4 "ifie7 White would be slightly better after l S ... f5!? 1 9 1Ie6 "iVd7 20 .tg5 (20 .td2 .l:!.aeS 21 l:le1 lIxe6 22 'iVxe6+ 'ii'xe6 23 .l:!.xe6 is also pleasant for White - an endgame with an extra but weak pawn is better than a level endgame) 20 .. J::!.aeS 21 l:!.el .l:i.xe6 22 'ilt'xe6+ 'iVxe6 23 .l:i.xe6 .tc7. And now 24 lle3! with some chances, rather than 24 .te3 �f7! 25 .tc5 �xe6 26 i.xfS, which would lead to a drawn endgame.

26

1 9 �92 19 h4? with some naive ideas like h5-h6 is bad: 19 ... 'ilt'd7 20 .tf4 .txf4 21 ':xf4 f5! and the rook is horrible on f4. 1 9 . . . f5 20 J:!.e6 �xh2? After 20 ..:i*'d7 21 .tg5 l::taeS 22 lIel �xe6 23 'iVxe6+ 'iYxe6 24 .l:!.xe6 .tc7 25 .l:!.e3 White has a slightly better endgame. 21 .l:!.e7 iVd6 22 J:ta4! Bringing the worst placed piece into ac tion. After 22 llxb7? .l:i.feS! Black has active counterplay. 22 . . JU6 22....l:.f7? 23 l:!.e6 filc7 24 f4 and White wins. 23 �g5 J:lg6 24 l:te8+ �f7 25 "ifie7+ �xe7 26 J:!.xe7+ �g8 White also has truly excellent winning chances after 26...'it'fS 27 �xh2 b5 2S lIa6 .l:i.xg5 29 l:te5 .l:.eS 30 .l:i.xe8+ �xeS 31 l:!.xc6 f4 32 .l:i.c7. 27 �xh2 J:txg5?! Better was 27 ...b5 2S :a6 �fS 29 lId7 .l:i.xg5 30 .l:!.xc6, though White has very seri ous winning chances. Now there is no salva tion for Black. 28 J:!.xb7 a5 29 J:!.e7 e5 30 f4 J:!.g4 3 1 f3 J:!.h4+ 32 �g3 :th 1 33 l:!.e5 :ta6 34 J:txf5 J:!.ah6 35 J:txe5 J:!. 1 h2 36 J:!.axa5 J:!.6h3+ 37 �g4 llh4+ 38 �f5 h6 39 �e4 1 -0

Game 1 1 Acs-Khalifman

Hoogeveen 2002 1 e4 e5 2 'Df3 'De6 3 'De3 'Df6 4 �b5 'Dd4 5 .lia4 .lie5 This gambit has been popular for almost a hundred years. 6 'Dxe5 White has no real alternative to accepting the pawn, as after 6 d3 0-0 7 0-0 d6 S 4Jxd4 .ixd4 9 .te3 .txe3 10 fxe3 .ie6 1 1 .tb3 c6 12 fild2 b5! (Lein-Onischuk, Chicago 2002) Black has equalised completely. One of Black's next moves will be ... a7-a5.

Sp a n is h Fo ur K n ig h ts w i th 4 . . l:fJ d 4 .

6 . . . 0-0 In order to get compensation for the pawn, Black has to finish rus development. After 6 ...iie7?! 7 ttJd3 ttJxe4 8 0-0 ttJxc3 9 dxc3 (9 bxc3!? ttJe6 10 ttJxc5 iixc5 1 1 'iVf3 c6 12 d4 'iVa5 1 3 .ib3 d5 14 c4 also gives a strong pressure) 9 ...ttJe6 1 0 ttJxc5 iixc5 1 1 .ie3 White's position is more than slightly better. 7 I:fJd3

This has been established over time as the main move. After 7 d3?! d5!? (7...d6 8 ttJf3 i..g4 9 .ie3 c6 10 h3 .ixf3 1 1 gxf3 d5 1 2 i..g5 h 6 1 3 i..h4 'iVd6 1 4 i..g3 'iNe6 gave Black good counterplay for the pawn in the more recent Kamsky-Sokolov, Brussels 1992) 8 .ig5 c6 9 'iVd2 (9 i..h4 .l:!.e8 10 f4 'iVa5 1 1 a3 dxe4! 12 b4 .ixb4 1 3 axb4 'iNxb4 14 0-0 'iNxc3 1 5 dxe4 ttJxe4 would leave Black clearly better) 9 ... .l:!.e8 10 f4 b5 1 1 .ib3 h6 12 i..h4 (12 .ixf6 gxf6 1 3 ttJf3 dxe4 1 4 dxe4 b 4 gives Black a strong attack - e 4 is very fragile) 12 ... ttJxe4 13 .ixd8 ttJxd2 1 4 'it>xd2 I:txd8 1 5 ttJe2 ttJxe2 1 6 'it>xe2 .l:!.e8 1 7 'it>fl .i b7 1 8 c 3 f6 1 9 ttJg4 h 5 Black com pletely dominated the board, Tarrasch Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1 91 2. 7 . . . .i.b6 S e5 This move is very logical, as Black has to 'undevelop' rus knight to the back rank. Of course the e-pawn will work as a hook for destroying the White centre, but all silver linings have a cloud. Some attention has also

been paid to the following: a) 8 ttJf4 d5 9 d3 c6 10 h3 Me8 1 1 0-0 dxe4 12 dxe4 ttJxe4 13 ttJxe4 .l:!.xe4 14 c3 .ic7! (14 ... ttJe6 15 "iYxd8+ ttJxd8 16 .ic2 l:te8 with dead equality, S.Santos-Campora, Al garve 1 998) 15 .ie3 b5 1 6 cxd4 bxa4 and in my opinion Black is slightly better, but of course the position is very close to equal. b) 8 O-O? d5! 9 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 10 exd5 iixd5 1 1 ttJf4 'iNg5! 1 2 d3 i..g4 1 3 ttJd5 "iVh5 1 4 ttJe7+ Ioth8 15 "iYd2 .ic5 gives Black a clear advantage according to Keres. S . . .l:fJeS 9 I:fJd5 This is also considered the main move. After 9 0-0 d6 10 exd6 ttJf6! White will come under heavy attack. \v'hite now has two main choices: a) 1 1 d7 .ixd7 12 .ixd7 'iNxd7 1 3 ttJe1 .l:!.ae8 14 d3 ttJg4 1 5 ttJf3 ttJxf3+ 1 6 'iVxf3 ttJxf2 1 7 ttJd5 ttJxd3+ 1 8 ttJxb6 "iHd4+ is a little bit better for Black according to Hiib nero b) 1 1 dxc7 "iVd6! (another excellent move from Keres) 1 2 'it>hl ! (12 Mel .ixc7 1 3 ttJe5 ttJg4 and White is in trouble) 12 ...ttJg4 1 3 g3 (after 13 f4? ttJxh2!! \v'hite is lost: 14 'it>xh2 'iNh6+ 1 5 Iotg3 ttJf5+ 16 'it'f3 "ir'h5+ 17 g4 "iVh3+ 1 8 'it'e4 ttJg3+ 1 9 'it'e5 .ixg4) 1 3. .. 'iVh6 14 h4 .ixc7 and Black has a lot of strong threats that are not easy to meet. There are ideas like ...ttJxf2 and ...b7-b5 and also a tricky little line like 1 5 'it>g1 ttJh2!! 1 6 'it'xh2 'iNxh4+ 17 'it>g1 .ixg3 1 8 fxg3 'iVxg3+ 1 9 c,t>hl "ir'h3+ 20 'it'g1 i..g4 21 'iYel ttJf3+ 22 .l:!.xf3 .ixf3 23 ttJf4 'iYh1+ 24 'it'f2 "iYh4+ 25 'it'fl "iYxf4, when Black is more or less win ning. 9 . . . d6 A new idea is 9 ...c6!? 10 ttJe3 d5 11 c3 ttJe6 12 i..c2 d4 1 3 ttJf5 "iYg5 1 4 "ir'f3 g6 1 5 ttJg3 f6 1 6 ttJe4 'iih4 and here in this unclear position the players agreed a draw in Potkin Acs, Pardubice 2002. I have a feeling that White might end up being better in this line. 9 ...d6 just seems more natural. 1 0 l:fJe3 c5!? 27


Here Black has a wide range of alterna tives (1 0... dxeS is considered in the next game): a) 10 ... c6!? 1 1 c3 lbfS 12 0-0 ..Ilc7 1 3 f4 lbxe3 1 4 dxe3 ..IlfS 1 S exd6 lbxd6 1 6 lbeS lbe4 17 'iVxdS l:taxdS and Black has com pensation. Jenni-Blauett, Internet 2002. b) 1O ... 'iVgS!? and now: bl) 1 1 exd6 lbxd6 12 0-0 4J4fS 13 4Je1 lbxe3 14 fxe3 .ig4 I S 4Jf3 'iVhs 1 6 �el c6 and the position holds chances for both players according to Hiibner. b2) Not so reliable is 1 1 f4?! �g6 12 0-0 ..Ilg4! with a strong attack (1 2 ... f6 1 3 exd6 4Jxd6 14 lbf2 lb4fS 1 S 'iVf3 4Jxe3 1 6 dxe3 ..IlfS also gives Black compensation for the pawn - Timman), for example: 13 4Jxg4 lbxc2+ 14 lbcs ..Ilxc5+ 1 S d4 lbxd4 1 6 ..Ile3 'iVe4! 17 .l::!.e 1 bS 1 S ..IlxbS lbc2; or 1 3 �e1 .ie2 and Black has a very strong position. b3) 1O ... 'iie 7!? 1 1 exd6 lbxd6 12 0-0 l:tdS 13 c3 lbe6 14 ..Ilc2 (1 4 'iihS!?) 14 ... cS l S l:tel �gS 1 6 'iVg4 'iixg4 1 7 lbxg4 c4 1 S lbdeS f6 1 9 lbf3 lbcs 20 lbe3 lbd3 21 ..Ilxd3 cxd3 22 lbdS ..Ilg4 23 b3 .ics 24 c4 ..Ilxf3 2S gxf3 lbfS 26 ..Ilb2 and Black was a little better in Nunn-Hitech(C), Hague 1 992. 1 1 c3 tLlf5 1 2 exd6?! This way White plays with fIre - he should probably be content with equality. But if we remember that we actually have a junior world champion playing White here, against a former FIDE world champion, we can understand why \�/hite is adventurous. White should probably play something like 1 2 .ib3 4Jxe3 (12...'iVh4!?) 1 3 dxe3 dxeS 14 e4 �c7 1 S .tc4 lbd6 1 6 .idS ..Ile6 1 7 0-0 with equality. Or 12 0-0 lbxe3 13 dxe3 c4 14 lbb4 dxeS and the position is equal. After 12 ..Ilc2 lbxe3 1 3 dxe3 c4 1 4 lbf4 dxeS 1 s lbdS lbf6 16 4Jxb6 'i1Vxb6 17 e4, however, the position should be fIne for Black. White has two bishops, but they are not impressive and Black has a little space. 1 2 . . . iVxd6 1 3 i.c2 After 13 'iVe2 iLe6 14 lbxfS iLxfS 1 S lbeS 28

.tc7 1 6 f4 lbf6 17 0-0 l:adS it is hard to show how White should complete develop ment. 1 3 . . .tLlf6 1 4 0-0 i.c7 1 5 g3?! Black has more than enough compensa tion for the pawn. The fIght for the h1 -aS diagonal will be a matter of life and death for White - most likely death. l S f4 4Jxe3 1 6 dxe3 .tg4 1 7 'tiel fs was more normal. 1 5 . . . b5! A strong improvement. Previously tried was 1 S ... 'iVc6 1 6 lbxfS .txfS 1 7 lbb4 �d7 1 S .txfS 'iixfS 1 9 lbc2 l:tadS 20 d4 l:tfeS 21 b4 cxb4 22 lbxb4 lbe4 23 .td2 hS and the black initiative was very dangerous in Yudasin Nielsen, Kemerovo 1 995. 1 S ... hS!? has been suggested by Yudasin. 1 6 tiJf4

i

It seems to be some kind of accelerated masochism to enter such a position against a master of attack like Alexander Khalifman. 1 6 . . . tLlh4! Black is aiming the canons directly at the white king. Making moves like this was called launching by Tal, who compared it to ice hockey, where the puck could be shot far into the opponent's area with no idea other than hoping for something to happen. 1 7 d4 Perhaps better was 1 7 4JhS ..Ilh3 (1 7 ... ..Ilb7?! 1S f4! 'iVc6 1 9 lbxf6+ gxf6 20 ..Ilxh7+! �hS 21 'iit>f2 lbf3 22 ..IlfS c4 23 ..Ilh3 fS 24 ..Ilg2 'iYh6 2S h3 and the black attack is

Sp a n is h Fo ur Knig h ts with 4 . . .ti':, d4

history) 1 8 l:te 1 lUe8 19 d4 (19 lbxf6+ Wixf6! 20 i.xh7+ h8 21 Wih5 lbf3+ 22 Whl lbxel 23 Wixh3 �6 24 'it'xh6 gxh6 25 .lif5 l::tad8 and Black has a clear advantage) 19 ... cxd4 20 cxd4 lbe4 21 lbf4 lbg5 and the attack goes on, but 'W'hite still has his extra pawn. 1 7 . . . �b7 1 8 d5 l:tad8 1 9 a4 After 1 9 'We2 �fe8 all the black pieces play (but not 1 9 ... g5? 20 lbh5! lbxd5 21 f4 lbxe3 22 .lixe3 lbg2 23 fxg5! and 'W'hite wins). For this 'W'hite has only a pawn (and some problems developing the queenside rook and bishop). My judgement is that this is not enough. Play continues with 20 �dl g5!. Now the situation is different - Black is a full rook better off than in the previous line because it is now taking part in the action. 21 lbh3 (or 21 lbh5 lbxd5 22 1Wxb5 lbf3+ 23 'it>hl "iVh6! 24 "ii'xb7 'i'xh5 and Black wins) 21 ...g4 22 lbg5 h6 23 lbe4 lbxe4 24 'it'xg4+ lbg5 and 'W'hite is ready for his own funeral. 1 9 . . . �d7 20 gxh4 20 lbh5 lbxd5 21 lbg4 (or 21 it'd3 lbf3+ 22 'it>hl lbg5 23 lbg2 'Wh3 24 f3 lbb4 25 'iWf5 'iWxh5 and wins) 21 ...�e7 22 gxh4 lbxc3 23 bxc3 l::tx dl 24 .lixdl 'Wxh4 and wins. After 20 lbd3 lbxd5! 21 lbxc5 (21 gxh4 'iWh3) Black has the beautiful 21...lbf4!! 22 gxf4 (or 22 .lixh7+ 'it>xh7 23 lbxb7 lbh3+ 24 'it>hl lbxf2+ 25 l:txf2 'iWxd1+) 22 ...Wih3 23 .lixh7+ Wxh7 24 'iWc2+ �h8 25 f3 .lixf4 and the black attack is crashing through. 20 . . . �xf4

All this for free. Oops, sorry, Black is of course missing one of the little ones, but who is counting when you're having so much fun? 21 �f3 Or 21 lbf5 'iWc7 22 i.xf4 �xf4 23 �d3 .txd5 with an accelerating attack. 21 . . . 'Wic7 22 11d 1 �xh2+ 23 �f1 a6! 23 ....lif4? 24 lbg4! would give 'W'hite some counterplay. 24 axb5 axb5 25 tL'lg4 tL'lxg4 26 'Wixg4 �xd5 27 �xh7+ �xh7 28 J:!.xd5 'Wic6 29 'Wih5+ �g8 30 l:txd8 �h 1 + 3 1 �e2 l:txd8 0-1

Game 12 Movsesian-lIIescas Cordoba

Elista O!Jmpiad 1998 1 e4 eS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 �b5 tL'lf6 4 tLlc3 tL'ld4 5 �a4 �c5 6 tL'lxe5 0-0 7 tL'ld3 �b6 8 e5 tL'le8 9 tL'ld5 d6 1 0 tL'le3 dxe5

This is known as the main line, but I pre fer 1 O ... c5!? as in the previous game. 1 1 tL'lxe5 �g5 1 2 tL'l5c4 f5 1 3 f4 An interesting new idea is 1 3 h4!? 'iVf6 (1 3...�g6 1 4 lbe5 'i'f6 1 5 f4 lbc6 1 6 .txc6! bxc6 1 7 d4 lbd6 18 c4 lbe4 19 b4 gave 'W'hite a clear edge in Motylev-Shirov, Mos cow 2001) 1 4 f4 lbd6 1 5 c3 lbxc4 1 6 lbxc4 lbc6 17 d4 .lie6 1 8 lbe5 lbxe5 19 fxe5 "iVf7, with an edge to 'W'hite according to Motylev. 1 3 . . .'itIVxf4 1 4 c3 �h4+ The alternatives are worse: 29


a) 14 ...ctJe6?! 15 d4 'ifh4+ 16 g3 'iVd8 1 7 ctJg2! f4 1 8 i.xf4 ctJxf4 1 9 ctJxf4 l:txf4 20 gxf4 "iVh4+ 21 'it>d2 'iVxf4+ 22 ctJe3 and Black had insufficient compensation in Kobalija Korneev, St Petersburg 1998. b) 14...ctJc6?! 15 d4 i.e6 (1 5 ... 'iih4+ 16 g3 "iVh3 1 7 ctJxb6 axb6 1 8 i.b}t 'it>h8 1 9 i.d5 f4 20 i.g2 "ikh6 21 O-O! gave White a clear edge in Alavkin-Varavin, Ufa 1 999) 1 6 i.b3 i.xc4 1 7 ctJxc4 'iYh4+ 1 8 g3 "ike4+ 1 9 '.t>f2 '.t>h8 20 l:tel 'iVg4 21 "ikxg4 fxg4+ 22 '.t>g2 and White has a positional advantage, with the better pawn structure and the two bish ops, Campora-Handoko, Istanbul 2000. 1 5 g3 'tWh3 1 6 cxd4 f4 1 7 �f1 ?! This is risky. Better is 1 7 gxf4 'ifh4+ 18 '.t>e2 i.g4+ 1 9 ctJxg4 'iVxg4+ 20 'it>e1 (20 'it>d3 iHf5+ 21 We2 [21 '.t>c3?? i.xd4-H 22 'it>xd4 .l:l.d&t would be a gift] 21...iHg4+ draws) 20...'iYh4+ 21 �e2 ifg4+ 22 �e1 1/2_1/2 El Kher-Olsen, Tastrup 2000.

30

1 7 . . .fxe3 1 8 .l:txf8+ �xf8 1 9 'tWf3+ liJf6 20 dxe3 'ilkxh2 21 'tWf2 'tWh1 + 22 'tWf1 'tWh2 23 'tWf2 'tWh5! 23...'iYh1+ would draw, but Black rightfully decides to go for more. 24 .\tb3?! Better was 24 i.d2, even though 24...i.e6! 25 ctJxb6 axb6 26 i.c2 l:txa2 27 l:txa2 i.xa2 28 e4 i.c4 still poses problems for White. 24 . . . .\te6 25 lLlxb6 White is trying to exchange in order not to be mated, but now he is left with very weak light squares and a dark-squared bishop - not a good combination. 25 . . . .\txb3 26 axb3 26 ctJxa8?? "ikdl mate! 26 . . . cxb6 27 it'g2 it'f7 28 g4 h6 29 .\td2 �g8 30 �e2 To protect the pawn seems wrong: 30 .l:l.a3? a6 31 g5 hxg5 32 iYxg5 ctJe4 33 iHg2 .l::!.f8 34 i.b4 l:!.e8! would continue the attack for Black. 30 . . ..l:te8 31 g5 31 l:!.xa7 ctJe4 32 Ita3 iVd5 was maybe a better chance, even though Black remains much better. 31 . . . hxg5 32 l1h 1 ?! g4 33 'ilfh2 'ilfxb3 34 'i'h8+ �f7 35 �h4 �b5+ 36 �e 1 "tixb2 37 �f1 'ilfb 1 + 38 �e2 'ilfb5+ 39 �e 1 J:.e6 40 it'h 1 it'b1 + 41 �e2 'ilfb5+ 42 �e 1 l:le7 43 d5 'tWd3 44 1i'h5+ "ilVg6 0-1

Sp a n is h Fo u r K n ig h ts with 4 . . . eiJ d4

Summary 4 .. .':t:Jd4 will remain the main line for some time to come. The immediate captures like 5 lLlxe5 and 5 lLlxd4 are hannless or even dangerous for White. The main focus in this variation is still directed towards 5 .i.a4. Here Black can try to equalise with 5 ...lLlxf3+. Though his position will be a little passive, this is a perfecdy viable strategy and has been successful numerous times. More standard is the gambit with 5 ... .i.c5, which has given Black good results over the years. The current status is that Khalifman's choice l O... c5!? gives Black sufficient compensa tion, while other moves in that position could be slighdy dubious. The more modern idea with 5 ... c6 also seems to give perfect compensation for a pawn, so White might choose to follow the footsteps of Ivanchuk and try 5 .i.c4 in the future. Black will probably prove to be doing just as well there too, but there will be chances for original ideas and opening surprises, something that 5 .i.a4 no longer seems to offer in the same way. 1 e4 e5 2 lllf3 lllc6 3 lllc 3 lllf6 4 �b5 llld4 5 �a4 5 lLlxe5 (0) Game 6; 5 lLlxd4 Game 1; 5 .i.c4 Game 8 5 . . . �c5 5 ... lLlxf3 Game 9; 5 ... c6 (0) Game 10 6 lllx e5 0-0 7 llld 3 �b6 8 e5 llle8 9 llld 5 d6 1 0 llle3 dxe5 (0) lO .. c5 Game 1 1 -

-

.

-

-

-

-

Game 12

-

5 lllx e5

5 . . . c6

10 . dxe5 .

.

31

CHAPTER THREE

I

Spanish Four Knights : Sidelines

1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 i..b 5 In this [mal chapter on the Spanish Four Knights we will look at unusual options for Black after 4 i.b5. In Game 1 3 Black imme diately attacks the bishop with 4... a6?!. This is tempting because after 5 .ta4 the game en tered a hannless variation of the Ruy Lopa. However, after the stronger 5 �xc6 Black cannot achieve an equal position, so it's diffi cult to recommend Black's fourth move. In Games 1 4-16 Black plays 4... i.d6, an interesting idea that avoids the symmetry of 4 ... i.b4 and the deeply investigated main lines of 4 .. .'�Jd4.

Game 13 Yudasin-Sagalchik

Kemerovo 1995 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lUc3 lUf6 4 i.. b5 a6?! Alternatively a) 4... ..ll.e 7 5 0-0 d6 6 d4 exd4 7 tLlxd4 ..ll. d7 leads to the Steinitz Defence to the Ruy Lopez. This usually arises via 3 �b5 d6 and is outside the scope of this book. b) 4... i.c5 appears to be quite natural, but white has several promissing continuations: b 1) 5 ..ll.x c6!? is an improved version of the classical Ruy Lopez exchange. The main 32

reason is that black already has developed the knight and bishop onto the inferior squares f6 and c5, e.g. 5 ... dxc6 6 d3 0-0 (Risky but if 6 ....1i.g4 7 h3 ..ll.h5 8 ..ll. e 3 'iVe 7 9 .ixc5 'iVxc5 1 0 'iVe2 tLld7 1 1 g4 ..ll.g6 1 2 0-0-0 tLlf8 1 3 h 4 h 5 - as i n Hug-Fernandes, Thessaloniki 1 988 - then 14 d4! exd4 1 5 tLlxd4 0-0-0 16 tLlb3 .l:i.xdl + 1 7 l:txdl 'iVe7 1 8 'iVe3 b8 1 9 g5 and White is betteL) 7 h3 I:te8 8 tLle2 .tf8 9 g4 h5 1 0 .1i.g5 'ii'd6 1 1 tLlg3 hxg4 1 2 hxg4 tLlxg4 1 3 'iYe2 as?! (bet ter was 13 ...'iVg6) 14 tLlh4! and White is much better, Psakhis-Barua, Calcutta 1 988. b2) 5 0-0 0-0 (After 5 ... d6 6 d4 exd4 7 tLlxd4 ..ll.d7 8 tLlf5 0-0 9 i.g5 White is slightly better - Keres.) 6 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 (6 ... .l:!.e8?! 7 tLlf3 tLlxe4 8 d4 tLlxc3 9 bxc3 ..ll.e 7 10 d5 tLlb8 1 1 .1i.f4 a6 12 ..ll. a4 ..ll. f6 1 3 d6 with a clear advantage for white i n Ma roczy-Pillsbury, Nuernberg 1 896. Black's best is probably 6 ... tLld4 7 .tc4 d6 8 tLlf3 i.g4 9 i.e2 and White is better.) 7 d4 .1i.d6 8 f4 tLlc6 9 e5 ..ll. e7 10 d5 tLlb4 1 1 exf6 ..ll.x f6 1 2 ..ll. c4 'iVe7 1 3 hl and White is better, as in the game Shabanov-Frolov, Smolensk 2000. 5 i..xc6 dxc6 5 ... bxc6? 6 tLlxe5 'iYe7 (after 6 ... ..ll.b4 7 d3 'iYe7 8 f4 there is no compensation for Black) 7 d4 c5 8 .1i.g5 cxd4 9 'tlYxd4 c5 10 ..ll.x f6

Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s

'iix f6 1 1 'iVd5 gives 'X'hite a clear plus. 6 tLlxe5! The acid test. 'X'hite has no advantage af ter 6 0-0 ..Itd6! 7 d4 (7 d3 is also harmless) 7... lLJd7 8 dxe5 1LJxe5 9 1LJxe5 (or 9 �f4 ..Itg4 1 0 �xe5 �xf3 1 1 'iVxf3 .i.xe5 with equality) 9... .i.xe5 1 O 'iixd8+Wxd8 1 1 .l:i.d1+�e7. 6 . . . tLlxe4 7 tLlxe4 �d4 8 0-0 �xe5 9 d4 �f5 Or 9 ...'iid5 10 .l:!.el .i.e6 (1O ... .i.e7? 1 1 �g5! .i.e6 - 1 1 ...f6? 1 2 .i.xf6! - 1 2 �xe7 �xe7 13 lLJc5 gives 'X'hite a winning posi tional advantage) and now: a) 1 1 lLJg5 (this is not so clear) 1 1 ...0-0-0 1 2 1LJxe6 fxe6 13 'iig4 'i{j'xd4 (13. .. c5 1 4 :!:!.xe6 'iixd4 1 5 :!:!.e4+ 'iid7 16 'i{j'xd7+ .l::lxd7 1 7 Ite8+ :!:!.d8 1 8 l':txd8+ �xd8 1 9 ..Itd2 gives 'X'hite some chances in the endgame, even though they are slim) 14 'ii'xe6+ 'iVd7 (Black is even worse off after 14 ... �b8? 1 5 .i.g5! �c5 [1 5 ... :!:!'c8?? 16 'iixc8+! �xc8 17 .l:te8+ �d7 1 8 :!:!'d8+J 16 .i.xd8 'ijVxf2+ 1 7 �hl l:txd8 1 8 :!:!'e2 'iVh4 19 :!:!.f1 .i.d6 20 g3 'iid4 21 c3 'iVb6 22 �g2 c5 23 .l:tn h5 24 l::txg7 �a7 25 :!:!.n 1 -0 Teichmann-Spielmann, Leipzig 1 9 1 4) 1 5 .i.g5! �b4! 1 6 �xd8 (16 c3 'iixe6 17 l::txe6 l:!.d5 1 8 cxb4 .llxg5 1 9 :!:!.e7 :!:!.d8 gives Black enough counterplay for equality) 16 ... .i.xe 1 1 7 'iixd7+ �xd7 1 8 :!:!.xe 1 �xd8 and Black should draw. b) 1 1 �g5! �d6 1 2 b3 �b4 (12... 0-0? 1 3 c4 'ij'fS 1 4 1LJxd6 cxd6 1 5 �e7 drops a pawn and 1 2... f6?? 1 3 c4! 'iif5 1 4 g4 'iVg6 [14...'ii'xg4+ 1 5 iVxg4 .i.xg4 16 lLJxf6+j 1 5 lLJxd6+ cxd6 1 6 l:he6+ Wd7 1 7 'iWe2 :!:!'ae8 1 8 .l::le 1 drops everything) 1 3 c4! (1 3 Ite3 �c3! 14 1LJxc3 'iVxg5 1 5 lLJe4 'iVg6 16 lLJc5 0-0-0 is less clear) 13 .. :iDfS and now: bl) 1 4 d5 cxd5 1 5 cxd5 �xel 16 dxe6 �xf2+ 1 7 lLJxf2 'iVxe6 1 8 :!:!.c1 c6 gives no advantage to 'X'hite. b2) 14 l:!.e3 0-0 (14... f6? 1 5 �xf6! gxf6? 1 6 lLJg3) 1 5 a3 ..Ita5 16 'ij'd3 f6 1 7 ..Ith4 :!:!.ad8 1 8 b 4 .i.b6 1 9 c 5 and 'X'hite has practically an extra piece.

1 0 J:!.e1 iLe6 After 10 ....ie7 1 1 .i.g5! f6 12 'tie2 0-0 (12 ... fxg5?? 13 lLJd6+) 13 lLJg3 'iVxg5 14 'tixe7 'iVa5 1 5 :!:!.e3 White has an overwhelm ing advantage. 1 1 iLg5! iLd6 There are other possibilities here: a) 1 1 ...'iVg6?? 12 d5! cxd5 13 'iVxd5 c6 (13. ...ixd5 14 lLJf6+) 14 'iWd4! h6 (14...iVf5 1 5 :!:!.ad 1 and Black is also lost) 1 5 :!:!.ad I ! hxg5 16 'iVd7+1 .i.xd7 1 7 lLJf6+ �d8 1 8 :!:!.xd7+ �c8 19 �e8 mate. b) 1 1 ....i.b4!? 12 c3 .i.d6 13 i.h4 h6 1 4 lLJxd6+ cxd6 1 5 'iVb3! b 5 16 iVa3 �d7 1 7 d5! cxd5 18 .i.g3 with a strong attack. c) The best try must be 1 1 ... h6!. Now 'X'hite should continue with 1 2 .i.h4! in order to play as in the main game. Instead, 12 'lid3?! Wd7! 13 .i.h4 .lle 8 (13 .. :ilib5 14 'iVd2 t!.e8 1 5 b3! �c8 16 c4 'iVh5 1 7 i.g3 :!:!.d8 1 8 'iVc 3 gives 'X'hite some pressure according to Paul Keres) 1 4 c4 'itc8! (14...�d6 1 5 Mac1 'it>c8? [1 5 .. :iVg4 is better] 16 d5! with an at tack - Schlechter) 1 5 .i.g3! (1 5 Mac1?! .ib4! 16 Me3 [1 6 t!.e2?? 'iVf4!] 16 ...'lig4 17 �g3 f5 1 8 'iVb3 .ie7 1 9 Mcel f4 20 h3 'iDf5 21 �xf4 'iVxf4 22 lLJg3 .i.f6 23 Mxe6 [23 Me4? 'iDd6 24 c5 .ixb3 25 J::txe8+ Mxe8 26 Mxe8+ �d7 27 cxd6 �xe8 28 axb3 cxd6 and Black has realistic hopes of winning the endgame] 23 ... Mxe6 24 Mxe6 .ixd4 and Black has a good position) 1 5 ... h5 16 h4 leads to an un clear position. This is the only justification of 4 ... a6 I have found so far. 1 2 �d2 Not 12 g4?! 'iid 5! (12 ... 'iDg6? 1 3 f4 f5 1 4 lLJxd6+ cxd6 1 5 d5! was a killer in Snosko Borovsky-Rubinstein, Ostend 1 907) 13 b3 .i.b4 14 c4 'iVd7, with at most a very slight advantage for 'X'hite. 1 2 . . . h6 12 ... 0-0! is probably better. This is a well known idea - Black sacrifices a pawn and in return gets good drawing chances: 1 3 lLJxd6 cxd6 14 �e7 Mfe8 1 5 �xd6 Mad8 16 �e5 (16 Me5 iVf6 17 'iVb4 'iig6 1 8 t!.ael 'iVxc2 1 9

33

Fo u r Knig h ts

iLc7 .l:i:d7 20 'iYxb7 .l:i:xd4 21 'iYxa6 .l:i:a4 is not better for White at all) 1 6... cS 17 c3 f6 18 iLf4 cxd4 19 cxd4 .l:i:c8 20 iLg3 .l:i:c2 21 �4 'iVdS and Black has compensation, but must fight for the draw all the same. Even so, it should be possible to make it. The uncom fortable thing about Black's position is that the game might last 100 moves before the

�d7 34 g6 �e7 3S g7 �xf6 36 g8'iV f l N + 37 �f4 and \x'hite ",-ins. b) 17...cS?! 18 dxcS �xcS (18 ... dxcS 19 �b6 �c6 20 �a7 and Black's position looks like a Swiss cheese!) 19 'iVd2 dS 20 b4 'iYc4 21 �e3 d4 22 �eS gives White good attack ing prospects. 1 8 J:tad 1 ! b5

draw is achieved - White will always have an extra pawn. 12 ... �d7 13 tDc5+ iLxcs 14 dxc5+ �dS I S .l:i:ad1 �xd2 1 6 .l:i:xd2+ �c8 17 f 4 gives \\ihite good attacking chances - Yudasin. 1 3 i.h4 g5 After 13...�g4 14 tDxd6+ cxd6 IS ..tg3 0-0-0 16 �4! White has a strong attack. 1 4 tLlxd6+ cxd6 1 5 .tg3 0-0-0 1 6 �b4!

After 18 ... 114 19 c4 cS 20 cxdS (but not 20 dxcS?! �xcS 21 iLxd6 �xb4 22 iLxb4 .l:i:xdl 23 .l:i:xd1 .l:i:d8 and Black has chances to draw) 20...cxb4 21 dxe6 fxe6 22 l:Ixe6 hxg3 23 fxg3 White has good winning chances. 1 9 VWa3 cJ;;c 7 The alternatives also lose: a) 19...�b7 20 c4 bxc4 (20 ... �f5 21 iLxd6) 21 bxc4 �xc4 22 iLxd6 and Black's king is about to be mated. b) 19... h4 20 c4! (20 �xa6+? �d7 looks tempting, but it is not completely clear) 20...bxc4 (20.. .'�f5 21 'i!\Vxa6+) 21 bxc4 'iVxc4 22 iLxd6 �xa2 23 �cS and Black is lost. 20 c4! bxc4 21 bxc4 �xc4 22 d5! i.xd5 23 J:t.e7+ cJ;;c8 24 i.xd6 I:Id7 25 �b2 J:t.xe7 26 VWb8+ 1 -0

Game 14 Winsnes-Hector

0rebro 1998 Now White is clearly better. 1 6 . . . "iVd5 A better try was 16.. .'lIVbS 17 iLxd6 �xb4 18 iLxb4 and White has the advantage - after 18 ....l:i:xd4?? 19 iLc3 \X'hite's closing in on the full point. 1 7 b3 h5 The following lines are quite entertaining: a) 17 ... fS 18 c4 'iVxd4 19 .l:i:adl 'iVcs 20 �d2 with the advantage, for example: 20.. .f4 21 iLxf4 (21 .l:i:xe6? fxg3 22 hxg3 dS gives Black counterplay) 21...!-,rxf4 22 .l:i:xe6 f3 23 .l:i:xd6 .l:i:xd6 24 �xd6 'iVxd6 2S .l:i:xd6 .l:i:g8 26 g3 .l:i:e8 27 h4 .l:i:e1+ 28 �h2 .l:i:e2 29 g4 .l:i:xf2+ 30 �g3 .l:i:xa2 31 .l:i:xh6! (31 xf3 only gives a clear advantage) 31...f2 32 .l:i:f6 .l:i:b2 33 gS

34

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 i.b5 i.d6!?

5 d4

Sp a n is h Fo u r Knig h ts : Side lin e s

This is quite a logical attack on the centre, but not necessarily the best move. White has the following alternatives: a) 5 0-0 is seen in Game 15 and 5 d3, in Game 16. b) 5 i.xc6 dxc6 6 d4 exd4 (6 . ..lDd7 7 dxe5 lLlxe5 8 lLlxe5 i.xe5 9 'W!Vxd8+ �xd8 10 i.d2 We7 1 1 0-0-0 .l:!.d8 1 2 f4 gives White some advantage in the endgame) 7 'W!Vxd4 'W!Ve7 8 i.g5 i.c5 9 i.xf6 (9 lid2?! h6 10 i.xf6 'W!Vxf6 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 is better for Black - the two bishops dominate) 9 ... i.xd4 1 0 i.xe7 i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 Wxe7 1 2 0-0-0 with equality. c) 5 lLlh4?! lLlxe4! 6 lLlf5 (6 'ti'g4 lLlxc3 7 dxc3 i.f8 8 'iVe4 d6 and White probably does not have enough for the pawn) 6 ...lif6 7 lLlxe4 (7 'iWg4?! lLlxf2! 8 iVxg7 lixg7 9 lLlxg7+ �f8 and Black is a pawn up) 7 ... 'ii'x f5 8 lLlxd6+ cxd6 9 0-0 0-0 doesn't offer White enough compensation for the pawn. d) 5 a3!? h6 6 d3 b6 7 i.c4 i.b7 8 h3 lLla5 (8... i.c5 9 b4 .1i.d4 10 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 1 .1i.b2 gives White a slight edge) 9 i.a2 c5 10 lLle2! 'ilVc7?! (1 O ... .1i.c7 1 1 lLlg3 d5 with a level game was better) 1 1 lLlg3 .1i.f8 1 2 i.d2 d6 1 3 b4 lLlc6 1 4 c3 lLld8 1 5 0-0 and White was a little better in Keitlinghaus-Pedersen, Germany 2002. e) 5 g4!

This fantastic move is a completely new idea. Now Black can play: e 1) 5 ... 0-0 6 g5 lLlh5 7 d3 g6 8 .1i.e3 .l:!.e8 9 iVd2 .1i.f8 10 0-0-0 a6 1 1 .1i.c4 b5 12 i.d5

followed b y d3-d4 with advantage for White. e2) 5 ... h6 6 l:tg1 lLld4 7 i.c4 and White has some advantage. e3) 5 ... lLld4 6 .ic4 and Black has achieved little. e4) 5 ...lLlxg4 6 l:.gl lLlf6 (6 ...h5 7 h3 lLlxf2 8 'is;;>xf2 .1i.c5+ 9 d4 lLlxd4 1 0 .1i.e3 gives White the advantage) 7 l:.xg7 'is;;> f8 8 l:tg3 lLlh5 9 l:!g1 lLlf6 (9 ...l:.g8 1 0 l:i.xg8+ �xg8 1 1 lLlxe5 wins a pawn) 1 0 d3 and White is bet ter. e5) 5 ... i.c5! is probably best. Now White has the following possibilities: e51) 6 g5 lLlg4 7 l:i.f1 h6 (7 ... a6 8 i.xc6 dxc6 9 h3 lLlxf2 10 J::!.xf2 i.xf2+ 1 1 �xf2 i.xh3 12 'ilVg1 lid7 1 3 d3 0-0-0 with a great mess was also possible) 8 gxh6 gxh6 9 h3 lLlf6 10 d3 d6 1 1 l:!.hl looks about level. e52) 6 l:.gI ?! lLld4 7 i.c4 gives Black the chance to take the initiative with 7 ... d5! 8 lLlxd4 exd4! 9 lLlxd5 lLlxe4 10 d3 lLld6 1 1 i.b3 0-0 - Black is better. e53) 6 h3 lLld4 7 .ic4 d6 8 d3 c6 9 g5 lLld7 1 0 a3 with an unclear game. But not 1 0 lLlxd4?! exd4 1 1 lLle2 lLle5 1 2 f4 lLlxc4 1 3 dxc4 h6 14 'ifd3 hxg5 1 5 fxg5 'ilVe7 and Black is better. 5 lZ:lxd4 Also possible is 5 ... exd4 6 lLlxd4 0-0 and now: a) 7 lLlxc6 dxc6 8 i.d3 l:te8 9 0-0 (9 i.g5? lLlxe4!) 9 ...lLlg4 10 g3 (10 h3 'iWh4! gives Black a strong attack) 10 ... 'ii'f6 1 1 f4 i.c5+ 1 2 Wg2 f:ib6 with good play for Black. b) 7 i..g5 h6! (or 7 ... i.e5 8 lLlxc6 dxc6 9 'iWxd8 �xd8 10 i.d3 with a level game) 8 i.h4 i.e5 9 .ixc6! (Black is better after 9 lLlxc6?! bxc6 10 .id3 .l:!.b8 1 1 'i¥c1 d5 and 9 lLlf5?! d6) 9 ... dxc6 10 lLlde2 with equality. c) 7 .ie3 a6 8 .ie2 .ib4! 9 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 0 iVd4?! (10 e 5 lLld5 1 1 .id2 lLlxc3 1 2 bxc3 i..a5 only gives Black a slight edge) 1O ... c5 1 1 'ilVd3 1Ie8 1 2 f3 d5! 1 3 0-0-0 c4 1 4 lid2 i.b7 and Black is better, Maros-Grabarczyk, Par dubice 2002. . . .

6 lZ:lxd4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 'ii'e7 8 0-0 35

Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Or 8 f4 c6 (8... �cS 9 1i'eS 'iixeS 10 ExeS tLlg4 1 1 tLldS 0-0 12 tLlxc7 l:tb8 13 tLldS tLlxeS 14 �f4 gives White some advantage) 9 �e2 �cS 1 0 "ikeS d6 1 1 "ilt'xe7+ g2 'ii'h6 gives Black good at tacking chances. S o o .hS 6 ... b6 7 tLle2 J::te S S tLlg3 a6 9 .ltxc6 dxc6 10 b3 tLld7 1 1 �b2 cS was agreed drawn in Lemmers-Motwani, Belgium 1 996. After 1 2 tLlfS comes 1 2. . .tLlfS with the idea . . .tLle6-d4. 7 tLJe2 White has also tried 7 h3?!, a completely unnecessary move as ... �g4 isn't a threat at the moment: 7... b6 8 tLle2 �b7 9 c3 l:teS 1 0 tLlg3 �f8 1 1 l:!.el a6 1 2 �a4 d S 1 3 'iVe2 bS 14 .1i..c 2 'iid7 with equality, Sequera-Hector, Bled 2002. This position could just as easily have arisen from a Ruy Lopez with d2-d3 instead of d2-d4. 7 . . J:te8 8 tLJg3 a6 9 Si.xcS dxc6 The position is equal. 1 0 b3 Si.eS?! This move is very strange. The bishop is

Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh t s : Sidelin e s

utterly useless on this square, and it even blocks the knight's usual route to d4. Better was 1Q ... c5 1 1 i.b2 b6 12 'ife2 tiJd7! 1 3 tiJd2 tiJf8 14 tiJc4 tiJe6 with an even game. 1 1 i.b2 4Jd7 1 2 d4 exd4 1 3 4Jxd4 Now White has a slight pull. 1 3 . . .'Y!IVh4 1 4 f4 g6? Playing this is like pouring petrol on a fIre - it looks terrible and it is terrible. 1 4...i.g4 1 5 �d3 i.c5 1 6 'it'hl i.xd4 1 7 li'xd4 tiJf6 1 8 e5 tiJh5 1 9 tiJxh5 'fixh5 20 e6 gives Black problems, but maybe there was another way out of the mess. 1 S 'iiVd 2 Also interesting is the continuation 15 f5!? gxf5 16 tiJdxf5 i.xf5 17 .l:i.xf5 tiJe5 18 �h5 'fixh5 19 tiJxh5 and Black's kingside is very fragile. 1 S . . Jtad8 1 6 Wh1 f6 Better is 1 6 ...i.g4 17 'fic3 f6 1 8 tiJf3 i.xf3 19 'ifxf3, but White still has a stable initiative. 1 7 J:!:ae1 gS? 1 8 eS! In order to attack on the kingside, White crashes through in the centre. 1 8 . . .fxeS

1 9 tDdfS! White invades the light squares and has a winning attack. 1 9 . . . i.xfS 20 tDxfS �hS 21 fxgS hxgS 22 tDxd6 cxd6 23 J:1fS! "iVh6 24 J:!.xgS+ Wh7 2S "iVd3+ Wh8 26 J:tg3 tDcs 27 'iYe2 1 -0

Game 16 Yemelin-Kharlov

Moscow 2002 1 e4 eS 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 i.bS 4Jf6 4 4Jc3 i.d6! ? S d3 h6 Also fIne is 5 ...a6 6 i.a4 h6 7 h3 b5 8 i.b3 i.b7 9 a3 i.c5 1 0 0-0 (or 1 0 i.e3 i.a7 1 1 'ifd2 0-0 1 2 i.xa7 Itxa7 1 3 0-0 J::i.a8 1 4 a4 b4 1 5 tiJd5 1:.b8 16 tiJxf6+ 'fixf6 17 i.d5 tiJd4 with equality, Fiorito-Labollita, Buenos Aires 2002) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 tiJd5 tiJd4 12 tiJxd4 i.xd4 1 3 c3 i.a7 with a level position, Jonkman I.Sokolov, Leeuwarden 2002.

6 h3 O-O?! Better was 6 ... a6 7 �xc6?! (7 i.a4 b5 8 i.b3 tiJa5 is equal) 7... dxc6 with a very good version of the Spanish Exchange for Black: 8 tiJe2 (8 i.e3 �e7 9 li'e2 i.e6 10 a3 b5 1 1 a4 0-0 1 2 0-0 tiJd7 was even in KoscielskiMikhalchishin, Dortmund 2001) 8... c5 9 b3 i.e6 (or 9 ... tiJd7!? with the idea of ... tiJb8-c6d4) 10 i.b2 tiJd7 with equality, Podlesnik Pavasovic, Dobrna 2002. 6... b6!? 7 i.xc6 dxc6 8 tiJe2 �e7 9 a3 i.d7 1 0 i.d2 b5 1 1 g4 c5 1 2 tiJg3 g6 gave chances for both sides, Wittmann-Rabiega, Graz 2002. 7 g4! This illustrates the drawback of combining ... h7-h6 and ... 0-0. \Vhite now has a hook to attack.

37

Fo u r Kn ig h ts

7 . . . :l.e8 7... a6 8 i..xc6 dxc6 9 g5! (too slow is 9 'be2?! 'bh7 10 'bg3 c5 1 1 'bf5 .Me8 12 i.. e3 i.. f8 13 'iid2 "iVf6 14 h4 h5 1 5 g5 'iic6 1 6 'bg3 g6 and the position was unclear in the game Podlesnik-Pavasovic, Ljubljana 2002) 9 ...hxg5 10 i..xg5 "ife7 1 1 "ifd2 "ife6 1 2 0-0-0 i..b4 13 .Mdgl and \Xlhite had a strong attack in Podlesnik-Sebih, Bled 2002. 8 g5, hxg5 9 i.xg5 tLJd4 After 9 ... i..b4 10 .Mg1 'bd4 1 1 i..c4 b5 1 2 i..b 3 c6 13 a3 'bxb3 14 cxb3 i.. f8 1 5 d4 exd4 16 "iVxd4 White has a strong attack. 1 0 tLJd5 i.e7 1 1 tLJxe7+ �xe7 1 2 tLJxd4 exd4 1 3 lilg 1 e6 1 4 �f3! This is better than 14 i..a4 d5 1 5 �f3, even though this also makes sense. 1 4 . . .'ti'b4+ 1 5 �d1 �xb2 15 ... cxb5?? 16 i..xf6 "iVf8 1 7 'iig3 g6 1 8 "iVh4 and Black i s mated.

1 6 i.e1 Here White misses a really strong combi nation: 16 �xf6!! �xa1+ (16 ...gxf6 1 7 i..c 1+ �h7 18 i..xb2 cxb5 19 j"xd4 .Me6 20 �d2 b6 21 .Mg4 followed by .MagI and .Mh4 with mate) 1 7 j"c 1 g6 1 8 J::tg4 and Black has no defence, e.g. 1 8...Me6 19 iYd&+- �g7 20 .Mh4 with mate to come. 1 6 . . .'ilVxb5!

38

After 16 .. ."iha1 ? 17 'iYxf6 g6 18 .Mg4 we have transposed to the previous note. 1 7 'ti'xf6 �h5+ White wins after 17 ...g6 18 .l:.g5 "iVb4 1 9 .Me5! Mxe5 20 j"h6. 1 8 f3 g6 1 9 .l:.g5 �h7? Here Black could have kept the game alive with 19...'iYxh3 20 J:.xg6+ fxg6 21 �xg6+ Wf8 22 i..a3+ �e7 23 "iVf6+ �g8 24 i..xe7 "iff1+ 25 �d2 "iff2+- 26 'It>c1 'ilVe1+ 27 �b2 �c3+ and Black draws. 20 �xd4 After this White has a very strong attack on the dark squares.

20 . . :i'g7 20... d5 21 i..b2 i..xh3 22 �d2 "iVh6 23 .Mag1 dxe4 24 fxe4 is also very good for White. 21 i..b 2 �xd4 22 i.xd4 d6 After 22 ... b6 23 h4 c5 24 i..b2 i..b 7 25 h5 .Me6 26 ..t>d2 c4 27 .MagI cxd3 28 cxd3 .Mc8 29 hxg6 .Mxg6 30 .Mxg6+ fxg6 31 .Mxg6+ White has very realistic winning chances. 23 h4 �f8 24 �d2 �e7 25 f4 e5 26 i.b2 �d7 27 f5 gxf5 28 h5! fxe4 29 h6 �e6 30 h7 e3+ 31 �e2 f6 32 i..xf6 i.e6 33 trh 1 .l:i:h8 34 i..xh8 .l:!.xh8 35 �xe3 b5 36 a3 a5 37 .l:!.h6 a4 38 l:txe6 .llx h7 39 .l:tgg6 1 -0

Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh ts : Side lin e s Summary

After 4... a6?! I am very suspicious about the Black position. Only the line with 1 1 .. ..1i.h4!? might give Black a reason to continue studying this line, but I doubt it. 4 ... .1i.d6!?, however, has so far proven to be a variation in its own right. No clear way to an advantage has been found for White, and all I can do here is to recommend 5 g4!, which will at least surprise your oppo nent. 1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 ctJc3 ctJf6 4 i.b5 i.d6 (D) 4... a6 (D) - Game 13

5 d3

-

Game 16

5 d4 - Game 14; 5 0-0 (D)

4. . i.d6 .

-

Game 15

4. . a6 .

5 0-0

39

CHAPTER FOUR

I

Scotch Four Knights : The Main Line

1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 d4 exd4 5 4Jxd4 i.b4 6 4Jxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6

Black immediately provokes \X'hite to ex change. 1 1 ...l::te8, 1 1 ....i.d6 and 1 1 ....i.e7 will be discussed in future games.

The diagram above is the basic position of the Scotch Four Knights and has been for as long as anyone can remember. For a long time this line was considered utterly harmless and drawish, but in the 1 990s Lautier came up with 1 1 lba4!? and the line immediately became fashionable. However, over time it became apparent that \X'hite has no real chance of an advantage there either. These days this line is played mainly by those who favour familiar territory, do not care about opening advantage, but hope that opponents have not truly figured out the ins and outs of the position.

1 2 i.xf6 12 .i.h4? would be a bad mistake. After 12 ...g5 1 3 .i.g3 .i.g4! \X'hite only has one way to avoid losing a piece: 1 4 .tc7! .i.xf3 1 5 .i.xd8 l::t fxd8 1 6 gxf3. However, Black still has a clear edge.

1 2 .. :�xf6 1 3 'ii'xf6 gxf6

Game 1 7 Bykhovsky-Howell

Cappelle la Grande 1995 1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jf6 3 4Jc3 4Jc6 4 d4 exd4 5 4Jxd4 i.b4 6 4Jxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 0-0 8 0-0 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1 'iYf3 This is the traditional move. 1 1 lbe2 is considered in Games 22-23 and 1 1 lba4, in Games 24-28. 1 1 h6!? . . .

40

The position is more or less equal. I will leave it be up to the reader to decide on which side he prefers. \X'hite has a better structure and Black has two bishops and two half-open ftles.

1 4 4Je2 i.d6 After this move White can gain some ad-

S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Th e M a in L in e

vantage. 14....l::!.b8!, not committing the bish ops too soon, is better. Then there are the following possibilities: a) 15 c3 �d6 16 .i:Iab1 .l:.e8 17 lbd4 �d7 18 b4 hS!? 19 l:!.fe1 h4 20 g3 h3 21 f4 cS 22 lixe8+ l:!.xe8 23 bxcS i.xcs 24 'It>f2 i.b6 25 i.a6 �g4 26 l:tel l::tb8! with equality. b) 15 lbg3 i.aS 16 l:!.abl .ti.e8 17 lbfS?! �xfS 18 i.xfS l:!.e2 19 g4?! J:!b4 20 'it>g2 l:!.f4 and Black was a litde better in Rubinstein Spielmann, Berlin 1926. c) 15 lbd4 l:!.b6 16 c4 l:!.d8 17 lbb3 i.f8 18 cxdS cxdS 19 l:!.acl Si.e6 20 l:!.fdl as! with counterplay, Buxade Roca-Skembris, Villa de Silges 1999. d) 15 a3 i.d6 with equal play - Keres.

18 a4! would not work either.

1 6 'Llf5?! After this move chances of an advantage have basically gone. Better was 16 lbbS! �eS (16...�b8 17 c4! a6 18 lbc3 dxc4 19 �xc4 !Ji.eS 20 .l:!.ac1 gives \�lhite an edge) 17 f4 �xb2 (17... c4!? 18 fxeS! cxd3 19 .l:!.xf6 dxc2 20 .l:!.c1 .l:i.b8 21 a4 a6 22 lbd4 .l:Ixb2 23 .l:Ixc2 l:!.xc2 24 lbxc2 l:1e8 25 .ti.d6 gives \'(lhite good chances in the endgame) 18 l:!.ab1 a6 19 l:!.xb2 axbS 20 �xbS and the passed a-pawn gives White a slight advantage.

1 6 . . ..i.xf5 1 7 .i.xf5 l:tfe8 17...l:!.ab8 18 b3 d4 19 !tfel l:!.fe8 20 l:!.xe8+ l:!.xe8 21 �f1 was rightfully agreed drawn in Golubovic-Jurkovic, Kastav 2002.

1 5 'Lld4 White has also tried: a) 15 c3 and now: al) lS...1:I.b8 16 'uabl 1:I.e8 17 .i:Ifdl 1:I.eS! 18 lbd4 i.d7 19 lbf3 'ue7 20 lbd4 :eS 21 b4 hS 22 bS cxbS (22...cS?! 23 lbc6! �xc6 24 bxc6 l:!.c8 25 �bS and Black's weaknesses on c6 and dS give White good winning chances) 23 i.xbS i.xbS 24 l:!.xbS .l:.xbS 25 lbxbS Si.cs and White is possibly slighdy better. a2) lS...aS! (directed against b2-b4) 16 lbg3 .ti.b8 17 'uab 1 l:te8 18 .ufe 1 .ti.eS 19 l:!.e2 'it>f8 20 Wfl. This was played in Bykhovsky Khavsky, Moscow 1999. Now Black should not play 20....l:!.xe2?! as in the game, but 20...hS! 21 h4 !Ji.g4 22 f3 i.d7 and thanks to the weaknesses on the kingside Black has some initiative. b) ls lbg3 �eS 16 c3 l:!.b8 17 f4 !Ji.c7 18 b3 l:!.e8 19 J:tae 1 l:!.xe1 20 J:txe1 'it>f8 21 lbhS �d8 22 Wf2 as 23 h3 cS with good counter play, Sveshnikov-Yudasin, USSR 1986.

1 5 . . . e5 lS... !Ji.d7?! would allow White to play 16 !Ji.fS!, dominating the Black bishop - the knight versus bishop endgame would be terrible. After 16...!Ji.e8 17 �h3 .i:Ib8 18 b3 White is perhaps more than just slighdy bet ter. lS...l:!.b8? 16 lbxc6 l:!.xb2 17 lbxa7 !Ji.d7

1 8 l:lad 1 J:lad8 This rook looks more naturally placed on b8. 18...d4 19 .tIfe1 l:!.eS is leveL

1 9 f4 .i.e7 20 g3 .i.a5 21 llf3 l:!.b8?! 21...c4 22 .l:ta3 !Ji.b6+ 23 Wfl �f8 was still fine, even though the position no longer can be called completely drawn.

22 11a3 J:!.e 1 +?? This is a crime - the ending without the a pawn is just lost. Necessary was 22...i.b6! 23 l:!.xdS l:!.e2 24 �h1 .l:!.be8 25 1:.f3 c4 26 l:!.fl hS with counterplay.

23 .l:!.xe1 .i.xe1 24 'it>f1 .i.d2 25 'it>e2 .i.e1 26 l:txa7 lle8+ 27 �f3 .i.xb2 28 a4 e4 29 a5 d4 30 J:tb7 lle3+ 3 1 'it>g4 .i.a1 32 a6 J:la3 33 a7 'it>g7 34 .i.e6 d3 35 .l:!.xf7+ 1 -0 41

Th e Fo u r Knig h ts

Game 18 Kountz-Van den Doel

Dei;;jsau 2000 1 e4 e5 2 lllf3 lllc6 3 lllc3 lllf6 4 d4 exd4 5 lllxd4 i.b4 6 lllxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1 �f3 .!:te8 1 2 h3 %ite has no really promising way here: a) 1 2 .i.xf6 �xf6 1 3 �xf6 gxf6 is equaL b) So is 1 2 .l:i.fel .i.e6 1 3 .l:i.e2 h6 1 4 i.d2 ..td6 1 5 .l:.ae1 .l:i.b8 16 b3 'YWd7 1 7 h3, S.Lalic Richtrova, Thessaloniki 1 988.

1 2 . . . �b8 Alternatively: a) 1 2 ...h6!? 1 3 ..txf6 (1 3 .i.f4 d4 14 lbe4 lbd5 1 5 .i.h2 f5 1 6 lbg3 g6 1 7 lbe2 iY'f6 1 8 .i.c4 .i.e6 1 9 .l:i.ad 1 .i.c5 is also roughly level) 1 3. .. 'iHxf6 1 4 iY'xf6 gxf6 1 5 lbe2 .l:i.b8 1 6 .l:i.ad 1 .i.d6 1 7 b3 a s 1 8 lbg3 .i.b4 with equal ity in Georgiev-Yusupov, Linares 1 997. b) 12 ... .i.d6!? 13 .l:i.fel ..te6 1 4 ttJa4 .l:i.b8 15 b3 h6 16 .i.f4 c5 17 .l:i.adl is Gutman's analysis. He believes that White is better here, but I believe that after 1 7 ... .i.xf4 1 8 'YWxf4 'ilfa5! the position is equaL

Now Black is better placed for the mid dlegame.

1 6 b3 a5 Also interesting was 16 ...d4!? 17 i.xd6 �xd6 1 8 .l:i.fe1 .i.b7 19 �g3 .l:i.e5 followed by .l:i.be8, when Black is a little better.

1 7 .l:i.bd 1 i.b7 1 8 i.xd6 �xd6 1 9 �g3 J:!.e5 Black avoids exchanging queens in order to retain his attacking chances. 1 9 ...'i!Vxg3?! 20 ttJxg3 is only equal - g2 not really a soft spot anymore .

20 lllc3 l:!.be8 Black is still in the building up phase. It is too soon to turn to forcing measures: after 20 ... ttJh5 21 'YfUh4 d4 22 ttJb5 �c6 23 f3 .l:i.g5 White has 24 �e4! �xe4 25 fxe4 ttJg3 26 .l:i.fe1 .i.xe4 27 .i.xe4 .l:i.xb5 28 .i.d3 .l:i.b8 29 .l:i.e7 with compensation for the pawn.

21 l:tde1 d4 22 lllb5 'tWc6 23 llla 7 Wic7 After 23 ... it'e6?! 24 .l:i.xe5 'YWxe5 25 'iix e5 .l:i.xe5 26 ttJb5 .i.a6 27 ttJd6 .i.xd3 28 cxd3 .l:i.e2 29 .l:i.c1 White obtains counterchances.

24 lllb5 'tWb8 25 Jibe5 J:!.xe5 26 f3

1 3 l:tab 1 i.d6 1 4 llle 2 Or 14 ttJa4 h6 15 .i.xf6 iY'xf6 16 'YfUxf6 gxf6 with equality.

1 4 . . . h6 1 5 i.f4?! Better was 1 5 .i.xf6.

1 5 . . . c5!

26 . . . llld 7? Here Black could have held on to the ini tiative with 26 ...ttJh5!, leaving White in trou ble. His possible answers are: a) 27 �f2? ttJf4 28 �h1 .l:i.h5 29 .i.e4 .i.c8! 30 a4 .i.xh3 31 gxh3 .l:i.xh3+ 32 Wg1 it'e5 and Black wins. b) 27 'YWh4 .l:tg5 28 ttJa3 ttJf4 29 g4 l:.e5 30 ttJc4 .l:i.e6 and Black wins with ...g5!. There is 42

S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h ts : Th e Ma in L in e

no way to prevent this, e.g. 31 'it>hl ttJxd3 32 cxd3 li.e2 33 IW .lixf3+ 34 'it>gl g5. c) 27 'iVh2 g5! 28 ttJa3 .lidS!. White would like to have his knight on c4, but Black's knight is far superior to White's bishop, so after 29 ttJc4 .lixc4! 30 .i.xc4 'iid6 Black has a clear advantage. 27 .l:!.e1 .tdS 28 a4 White cannot play 28 c4?!, after which the d4-pawn has increased its value by 2-3 points! After 28 ... .i.c6 29 l:i.dl ttJf6 30 l:!.d2 ttJh5! Black is doing very well. 28 . . . g6 29 ttJa3! If you do not have a plan, it is often a good idea to improve your worst piece. 29 . . Jbe1 + 30 �xe1 ttJeS 31 .te4 �b4!? 32 'ii'xb4 White has two alternatives: a) 32 it'c1 ? .i.xe4 33 fxe4 c4!? 34 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 35 bxc4 �xc4 36 'iVaI 'it>g7 37 Whl 'it>f6! with a promising endgame for Black. b) 32 'it>f2 'iixe1+ (32....lixb3 33 cxb3 'iVxa3 34 'iYxa5 'iVc1 35 �d8+ Wg7 36 'iVd5 is probably somewhat better for Black) 33 'it>xel iLxe4 34 fxe4 �f8 35 �d2 'it>e7 36 c3 'it>e6 37 ttJb5 ttJc6 38 �d3 ttJe5+ with an even endgame. But not 38 ... We5?! 39 �c4! �xe4 (39 ...dxc3 with a slight white advantage is better) 40 Wxc5 d3 41 ttJd6+ Wf4 42 g3+ �f3 43 ttJc4 ttJd8 44 �d4 We2 45 ttJb2 d2 46 �c4 dl'iV 47 ttJxdl Wxdl 48 b4 and it is Black who will have to fight to draw. 32 . . . cxb4

33 ttJbS?? Now White loses! White only had one choice, to play 33 .i.xd5!! bxa3 34 b4! axb4 35 as ttJc6 36 a6 ttJa7 37 �f2 �f8 38 �e2 �e7 39 �d3 Wd6 40 .i.xf7 Wc5 41 f4 with chances for both sides. But not 33 ttJb I ?? d3 34 cxd3 .i.xb3 35 d4 f5 36 ttJd2 .i.xa4 37 .i.d5+ ttJf7 and Black wins. 33 . . . d3 34 cxd3 .txb3 3S d4 35 f4 ttJd7 36 ttJd6 .i.xa4 37 ttJb7 .lic2 38 ttJxa5 b3 39 ttJc4 ttJc5 40 ttJb2 ttJxe4 41 dxe4 .i.xe4 gives an easily winning endgame. Black's king will raid the kingside while White's knight is occupied doing nothing on the queenside. 3S . . . .txa4 36 ttJd6 ttJc6 37 dS ttJeS 38 ttJb7 fS 39 .tb1 .tb3 40 d6 a4 41 ttJcS �f7 42 f4 ttJc4 43 d7 �e7 44 .td3 ttJb6 4S .tbS .td1 46 ttJd3 b3 47 ttJeS b2 48 ttJxg6+ �d8 49 ttJeS ttJxd7 0-1

Game 19 Nunn-Sulskis

Moscow OlYmpiad 1994 1 e4 eS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 S ttJxd4 .tb4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .td3 dS 8 exdS cxdS 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 .tgS c6 1 1 �f3 .td6!? 1 2 l:tfe 1 Or: a) 12 .i.xf6 'tixf6 13 �xf6 gxf6 14 I:.adl (14 ttJe2?! c5 15 c3 l:tb8 16 b3 l::te 8 looks even better for Black) 1 4....l::l.b 8! 1 5 b3 .lieS 16 ttJe2 l:i.e8 with equality - Gutman. b) 1 2 h3 l:Ib8! 1 3 ttJa4 (1 3 l:i.abl h6 1 4 .i.f4 .i:te8 1 5 .i:tfdl .i.e6 i s harmless) 1 3. ...i.e6 14 l:i.adl h6 15 .i.xf6 'iVxf6 16 'iVxf6 gxf6 1 7 b 3 lafd8 with equality, Friedrich-Dervishi, Arco 2002. c) 1 2 ttJa4 .1:Ie8! (12...l':tb8!? 1 3 c4 .i.e6 1 4 lIac1 h 6 1 5 .lixf6 'iVxf6 1 6 'iVxf6 gxf6 1 7 b3 was agreed drawn in Sutovsky-Gabriel, Holon 1 995) 1 3 h3 �a5 1 4 .lixf6 'iVxa4 1 5 b3 'iff4 1 6 �xf4 .i.xf4 1 7 .i.d4 .i.d6 1 8 lafel l:i.xe1+ 1 9 l::txe 1 .i.e6 with equality in Adams Piket, Dortmund 1 992. 43


1 2 .. J1b8! 12... h6 13 i..xf6 'ii'xf6 14 'ii'xf6 gxf6 15 tDe2 l:i.b8 1 6 .l:!.ab 1 .l:!.e8 is a little better for White according to Gutman. 1 3 tLla4 h6 1 4 i.xf6 'WiVxf6 1 5 'WiVxf6 gxf6 1 6 J:tad1 i.g4 1 7 f3 i.e6 1 8 g3?! This move creates weaknesses on the kingside for no reason. Simpler was 18 c3 h5 1 9 .l:Id2 h4 20 .l:!.de2 c5 21 b3 i.d7 22 tDb2 with equality. 1 8 . . .'�i'g7 1 9 b3 h5!

Black now has a target on the kingside, and White will have to be accurate in his defensive play to keep the balance. 20 Wg2 h4 21 c4 i.b4 22 J:te2 dxc4 23 i.xc4 i.xc4 24 bxc4 hxg3 25 hxg3 J:tfd8 26 %:txd8? ! After this Black's rook penetrates. The right track would have been 26 lIb 1 f5 27 �b3 'it>f6 28 c5 i.a5 29 lIxb8 ':xb8 30 tDb2! i.c3 31 tDc4 �b5 32 tDd6 l:!xc5 33 g4! .l:Ie5 34 .:tc2 l:td5 35 tDxf5 lId2+ 36 l:i.xd2 i..xd2 37 'it>f2 i..f4 38 'it>e2 'it>e5 39 'it>d3 with a draw. Of course this is not forced, but it does show a highly likely way to equality. 26 . . . .:.xd8 27 Wf2?! 27 tDb2! f5 28 J:k2 'it>f6 29 'it>f2 f4! 30 gxf4 'it>f5 31 c5 l:r.d5 32 tDa4 i.d2 might be better, but Black still stands very well. 27 . . Jid1 28 tLlb2 .ltc5+ 29 Wg2 l:ic1 30 g4 Or 30 tDd3 lIxc4 31 tDxc5 l::txc5 and the extra pawn might not guarantee a win but ,

44

it's a heavy brick in the wall. 30 . . . i.d4 31 J:td2 c5! Securing the bishop on d4 and thereby highlighting the weaknesses of c4 and the knight on b2. 32 Wg3 Wg6 Better was 32...f5! 33 gxf5 �f6 34 �g4 (34 Wf4 .l:!.e1 35 tDd1 i.e5+ 36 Wg4 .l:!.g1+ 37 �h4 �xf5 and Black wins - Sulskis) 34 ... a5 35 f4 l:i.g1+ 36 �f3 'it>xf5 and Black has made improvements. 33 l:ie2 i.e5+ 34 Wg2

34 . . .i.xb2? This is a wrong decision - after 34...i.d4 35 �g3 f5 Black still has a lot of pressure. Choosing to enter the rook ending shows a little lack of technique. The old Russian mas ters always thought that you should improve your position slowly. 35 ':'xb2 .l:!.xc4 36 J:tb5! f5 37 gxf5+ Wxf5 38 Wg3 We5 39 J:ta5 f5 40 l:txa7 J:!.c1 41 �e7+ Wd4 42 Wf4 l:if1 43 a4 c4 44 a5 J:ta1 45 ':'d7+ Wc3 46 Wxf5 l:!.xa5+ 47 We6 Wb4 48 f4 c3 49 J:td 1 J:ta6+ 50 We5 J:ta2 51 l:!.e 1 l:!.f2 52 f5 c2 53 J:tc1 ':'e2+ 54 Wd6 Wc3 55 f6 J:tf2 56 We7 Wd2 % - %

Came 20 Berg-I. Sokolov

Malmo' 2001 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 exd4 4 tLlxd4

S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Th e M a in L in e

4Jf6 5 4Jc3 i.b4 6 4Jxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 0-0 8 0-0 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1 �f3 i.e7 Black does not wish to accept doubled pawns.

1 2 '!::'f e1 For 12 h3 see Game 21. Better, however, is 1 2 Mae 1 . Then 1 2... lIeS 1 3 tiJdl ! i!tbS 1 4 h 3 .i.e6 1 5 b 3 'ilYd7 1 6 tiJe3, 1 2. . .SLe6 1 3 tiJe2 c 5 1 4 tiJg3 h6 1 5 SLf4 .i.g4 1 6 'ilVe3 MeS 17 SLfS, and 1 2...�bS 13 tiJdl SLe6 14 h3 tiJeS 1 5 SLxe7 �xe7 16 Me2 tiJd6 1 7 Mfe 1 all seem to be better for \Xfhite. 1 2...h6? is now a very risky move; in my opinion it is actually a mistake. 1 3 .i.xh6! (13 SLf4 .lld6 14 h3 MbS 15 tiJa4 Mb4 1 6 .i.xd6 �xd6 17 b3 is a little better for \Xfhite Gutman; I am not completely sure about this evaluation - there are no obvious plans) 1 3 ...gxh6 1 4 'iVe3

and now: a) 14 ....i.d6? 1 5 lixh6 l:tbS 1 6 Me3 .l:lb4 (1 6 ....i.g4 1 7 l::tfe 1 l:txb2 1 S Me5 SLxe5 1 9 Mxe5 tiJe4 20 .i.xe4 f5 2 1 .l:i.e6 and \Xfhite wins) 1 7 �g5+ hS I S 'iWh6+ gS 1 9 Mf3 tiJe4 20 SLxe4 dxe4 21 l:i.f6 .i.xh2+ 22 xh2 J:i.eS 23 Mh 1 e3 24 'iot>g3 1 -0 Andres Mendez Garcia Gonzales, Camaguey 1 9S7. b) 14 ... MeS? 15 �xh6 'it'd6 16 'it'g5+ 'iot>fS 17 'ilVh6+ gS I S .l:!.e3! .i.g4 1 9 'it'g5+ fS 20 'itb6+ gS 21 .l:!.g3 �e6 (21...'it'e5 22 tiJdl ! .l:!.abS 23 tiJe3 .l:i.b4 24 c4 wins) 22 h3 SLd6 23 .i.h7+ tiJxh7 24 l:txg4+ lixg4 25 hxg4 Me6 26

'iVd2 MbS 27 g3 1 -0 Ardeleanu-Vajda, Iasi 1 999. c) 14 ...SLe6? 15 'Yixh6 .lld6 16 'iVg5+ 'it'hS 17 f4!, MeS 1 S Mf3 tiJgs 19 'Yih5+ 'iot>g7 20 Mg3+ f8 21 �xg&t xgS 22 �h7+ 'iot>fS 23 'ilVh6+ 'iot>gS 24 .i.h7+ �h8 25 SLf5+ 'iot>gS 26 'iVh7+ fS 27 'iVh&t e7 2S Mxe6+ 1-0 Rublevsky-Novik, Sochi 1 990. d) 14 ... d4! (the only move) 1 5 'Yixh6 �d6 1 6 'iig5+ 'iot>h8 1 7 f4! (17 Mxe7 'iixe7 1 S tiJe4 tiJgS! 19 �5+ �g7 20 tiJf6!? tiJxf6 21 llVg5+ only offers a perpetual for the material in vestment) 1 7 ... tiJg8 I S Mxe7 dxc3 1 9 Me3 llVf6 20 'it'c5 .i.g4 21 h3 (21 f5 cxb2 22 h3 MabS 23 c3 .l:i.fdS 24 .i.bl SLdl 25 :ee1 Md5 26 'it'f2 MbdS and suddenly Black wins) 21 ....i.d7 22 .l:Ie5 cxb2 23 lIh5+ tiJh6 24 g4!! (\Xfhite needs to bring new resources into the attack; after 24 lig5 'ilVxg5 25 fxg5 .i.e6 Black is much better - Gutman) 24 ... gS (or 24... .i.xg4 25 hxg4 b 1 � 26 Mxb 1 'Yixf4 27 Mfl lixg4+ 2S �hl and \Xfhite wins) 25 g5 lidS 26 'it'c3! (A very accurate move. After 26 gxh6? �6 27 lIb 1 'iVxc5+ 2S Mxc5 .l:!.abS the situation is not clear at all. Or 26 �d4? SLf5! 27 'ilVxb2 SLxd3 2S cxd3 .l:!.bS 29 llVc3 'iVb6+ 30 �hl irb2 31 'it'xb2 Mxb2 32 l:hh6 ':eS! and Black has good counterplay, while 26 ii'e5? f6 27 .i.c4+ �g7 2S gxh6+ 'iot>hS 29 ii'xb2 'iVe8 shows that regaining material with interest doesn't necessarily lead to hap piness.) 26 .. .f6 (26 ... SLf5 27 Mxh6 'i!fb6+ 28 'iot>h2 f6 29 .i.c4+ g7 30 .l:!.xf6 and \Xfhite wins) 27 Mxh6 �6+ 2S 'iot>h2 bl'iV 29 l:.g6+ 'iot>h8 30 l:txf6!! and White has a winning at tack.

1 2 . . . h6 Still risky, but everything changes with the white rook on a 1 . Now \Xfhite only has a perpetual after the sacrifice on h6 because, compared with all the lines above, Black benefits from having a target on al when his pawn reaches b2. 1 2...MbS! 13 l:tabl h6 14 SLf4 (14 SLxh6 gxh6 1 5 'iWe3 SLd6 16 'ii'xh6 Mb4 1 7 'ilVg5+ is a draw) 14 ... .i.d6 1 5 h3 .l:!.eS and Black is fine 45


- Gutman.

something good in White's position. What exactly that is, is hard to tell.

1 5 'YWxh6 J:tb8 Or 1 5 ... .l:!.e8? 1 6 .l:!.xe8+ �xe8 1 7 �xf6.

1 6 'ifg5+ !? White can play 1 6 Me3! directly, of course. But the very young Swedish man wisely plays a few checks fIrst in order to locate the cor rect winning manoeuvre.

1 6 . . .'�.h8 1 7 �h4+ �g7 1 8 'YWg5+ �h8 1 9 'iih 6+ �g8 20 J:I.e3! .i.g4 Or 20....l:!.xb2 2 1 .l:!.f3! and it is all over. 21 'iig 5+!? 1 3 .i.xh6?! Maybe not the best option. After 13 �d2 �d6 14 h3 !Ib8 1 5 b3 iLc7 1 6 SL f4 .l:!.b4 1 7 !Lxc7 �xc7 the players agreed a draw in Vydeslaver-Lev, Israel 1 992. Probably best is 13 SLf4! with a small plus - Gutman.

White has no rush. The time might pass, but when the position does not change there is nothing to worry about.

2 1 . . .�h8 22 'iVh6+ �g8 23 .l:tae 1 ! Classical attacking chess. White introduces another piece into the attack, and Black can still not bring any pieces into the defence.

1 3 . . . gxh6 1 4 'ife3 i.d6?? This is bad defence. Alternatively: a) 1 4... .l:!.e8 1 5 'fixh6 'tid6 (1 5 ...�f8? 1 6 .l:!.xe8! and the knight and queen are over loaded) 1 6 !Ie3 SLg4 and now: a1) 1 7 .l:!.g3 'tieS 1 8 h3 !Lc5 1 9 .l:!.xg4+ ctJxg4 20 hxg4 'iVg7 21 'iVxc6 !Lxf2+!. This is the key defensive move, after which it is Black who delivers the perpetual. Without this move \X/hite would have excellent com pensation for the exchange and probably a large advantage. 22 'it'xf2 'fid4+ 23 'i&tg3 1i'e5+ 24 'it'h3 'fih8+ 25 'i&tg3 'fie5+ 26 'i&t£2 'iVd4+ 27 'i&tf1 �f4+. a2) 1 7 'i¥g5+l �f8 1 8 h3! d4 1 9 �h6+ �g8

23 . . . i.h5 23 ....l:txb2 24 .l:te5! i.xe5 25 l:txe5 ttJe4 26

20 .l:!.g3 dxc3 21 .l:!.xg4+ and Black is mated.

1Lxe4 and Black must part with his queen

b) Correct is 14 ... d4!' None of the winning attempts works, for example 1 5 'tixh6 �d6 1 6 �g5+ 'i&th8 and now: b 1) White can head for a perpetual with 1 7 l:!.xe 7 'fixe7 1 8 ctJe4 ctJg8 1 9 �h5+ 'i&tg7

and his bishop with check in order to avoid being mated instantly.

20 ctJf6 ctJxf6 21 �g5+. b2) But he cannot go over the top with 1 7 .l:!.e5? ctJh7!. Now Black is close to winning after 1 8 �xe7 �xe7 1 9 Mxe7 dxc3 20 bxc3 !Le6, even though Junior 7 continues to see

Pavasovic-Beliavsky

46

24 'iVg5+ �h8 25 lilh3 1 -0

Game 21 Portoroz 1999 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJc3 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .i.d3 d5

S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Th e M a in L in e

8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 .i.g5 c6 1 1 1i'f3 .i.e7 1 2 h3!?

Black would be worse after 1 7.....ih4?! 1 8 fHg4 "it'g5 1 9 "ii'xg5 ..ixg5 20 b4!.

According to Gutman this move gives White an advantage.

1 8 iof5 iof8 1 9 lLla4 lLlg5 20 .i.d3

1 2 . . . h6 Or: a) 1 2... ..ie6 1 3 J:ladl h6 1 4 ..if4 ..id6 1 5 liJa4 .l:i.b8 1 6 b 3 was slighdy better for White in Santo Roman-Boudre, France 1 99 1 . b) 1 2...�b8 1 3 b 3 h6 14 ..if4 ..id6 1 5 liJe2!? (1 5 life1 .l:i.b4 1 6 .i.xd6 ii'xd6 1 7 liJa4 J:lf4 1 8 'ifg3 liJh5 is given by Gutman; here 1 9 'ife3! gives White a slight edge) 1 5....l:i.e8 1 6 liJg3 fHc7?? (16 ... .i.xf4 1 7 'ifxf4 and White is a little better) 17 .i.xh6 .i.e5 1 8 .l:i.ae1 gxh6 1 9 'ti'xf6! and White won, Murillo-Ugalde, Antiguo 1 999.

1 3 .i.f4 lLlh7 !? Black is trying to manoeuvre the knight to e6, where it will be ideally placed protecting c5 and the king. It isn't for nothing that in Beliavsky's recent book about intuition, he and his co-author Mikhalchishin suggest you improve your worst-placed piece when no other idea exists. Also possible was 1 3. ...l::!.e 8 1 4 .l:i.fe1 �6 1 5 b3 ..ia6 16 liJa4 'ifa5 (1 6...�7?? 1 7 J:lxe7! �xe7 1 8 liJc5) 1 7 ..ixa6 it'xa6 1 8 J:le2 with a slight edge for White.

Better was the apparendy illogical ex change 20 .i.xd7! "it'xd7 21 c4 .l:i.ad8 22 cxd5 cxd5 23 liJc3 'fib7 24 �e2 and White has a slight pull.

20 . . .1i'a5 21 b3 .i.d6! 22 h4 22 .i.c3 would be met with 22... "YWc7! (22... .i.xg3 23 .i.xa5 .i.d6 24 c4 .l::!.x e 1+ 25 1:txe1 l:i.e8 is equal) 23 'ifh4 c5! and Black has the initiative.

22 . . .l:be5 Black could also have tried 22 ... f6 23 f4!? fxe5 24 fxg5 hxg5 25 ii'xg5 with a mess. Probably he felt intimidated by White's queen and the possible attacking chances on the kingside, for example 25 ... e4 26 J:lxe4! and Black's queen is clearly unprotected.

23 .uxe5 1i'c7 24 hxg5 .i.xe5 25 1i'h4 .i.f4 Interesting was 25 ... ii'd8!? 26 f4! ..id6 27 lle1 c5 28 liJc3 ..ic6 29 liJe2 and the posi tion is unclear.

26 gxh6 .i.xh6

27 l:!.e 1 ? ! Simpler was 27 liJc5 lle8 2 8 liJxd7 ii'xd7 with complete equality.

27 . . .1i'd6 28 1i'e7 iof4 29 lLlc5?! 1 4 .l:.fe 1 lLlg5 1 5 �g3 lLle6 1 6 .i.e5 Or 16 ..ixh6 .i.h4 17 it'g4 ..ixf2+ 1 8 'it>xf2 �f6+ 19 �g1 �xh6 and Black is no worse.

White should be more active. After 29 c4 ..ie6 30 'ifxd6 ..ixd6 31 cxd5 ..ixd5 32 liJc3 he keeps the balance.

1 6 . . .J:te8 1 7 J:!.ad 1 .i.d7

29 . . .ii'xe7 30 .uxe7 .i.g4! 31 lLla4? 47


Not the correct response to the threat of .id6. Better was 31 :el .i.d2 32 :bl l:!.e8 33 b4 �f8, when Black has some chances to outplay White in the technical phase.

31 . . . i.e6! 32 i.a6 i.d6 33 �b7 i.c8 34 lLlb2 i.xb7 35 i.xb7 J:r.b8 0-1 .-------.

Game 22 Lutz-Yusupov

Munich 1992 The annotations for this game are based on Artur Yusupov's notes in Chess Informant

54. 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 lLlc6 4 d4 exd4 5 lLlxd4 i.b4 6 lLlxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1 lLle2 This move makes more sense than 11 'i¥f3 because White gets no real advantage from inflicting doubled pawns on the f-file. Now the knight is heading for d4 and, in some lines, g3-f5.

1 1 . . .h6 Also possible are: a) 11...l:te8 seems very natural, and in practice it's a very reliable possibility. 12 ttJd4 (12 c4?! l::tb8 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 ttJd4 'iVb6 15 ttJc2 .ig4! gave Black a better game in 1996) Alavkin-Bezgodov, Krasnodar 12...'iid6 13 c3 .ic5 and now White has two plausible options: al ) 14.i.h4 ttJe4 15 f3 'i!fh6 16 fxe4 iVxh4

48

17 'i¥a4 (17 'i¥f3? f5! gave Black a clear ad vantage in Leko-Winants, Nettetal 1992; the point is of course 18 exf5? �xd4+ 19 cxd4 'ii'xd4+ 20 Whl .l:te3 and Black wins) 1 7...dxe4 18 'ii'xc6 .ixd4+ 19 cxd4 .if5 20 .l:txf5 exd3 21 'iVc3 .l:tad8 22 'iNxd3 'iNxd4+ 23 'iVxd4 .l:txd4 24 .l:t£1 .l:ted8 with a draw in Nirnzowitsch-Tarrasch, Hamburg 1910. a2) 14 'iVa4 ttJg4!? (14....id7 15 ttJb3 ttJe4 16 ttJxc5 ttJxg5 17 'ii'd4 ttJe6 18 ttJxe6 �xe6 19 .l:tadl gives White a little something) 15 ttJf3 'iic7 16 h3 ttJe5 (16...ttJx£1 17 .l:tx£1 .ixf2+ 18 Wxf2 'iVb6+ 19 �f1 'iixb2 with an unclear game is also possible) 17 ttJxe5 'ii'xe5 1 8 'i¥xc6 .ixh3 19 .l:tfe1 �xe1+ 20 l:.xe1 .l:!.xe1+ 21 �h2 .l:tc8 22 �xd5 �e6 with a gigantic mess. b) Black has also tried 11....id6 12 ttJd4 and now: bl ) After 12...c5 13 ttJb5 .ie7 14 c4! White is a little better because 14... .ie6 15 'iNc2 dxc4 16 .ixc4 .ixc4 17 �xc4 grants White a very strong position in which he can play for a win without any risks. b2) 12....ic7!? is more risky and ambi tious, but also quite possible, 13 ile1 (13 .ih4!? is interesting; remember that 13. ...ixh2+ 14 �xh2 ttJg4+ does not work due to 15 i¥xg4!) 13...�d6 14 g3 .ig4 15 'jWd2 J::tae8 16 'it'c3 ttJe4 17 .ixe4 dxe4 18 �f4 �d7 19 �xc7 �xc7 20 �xc6 �e5 (Black obviously has compensation for the pawn, but is it enough?) 21 c3 f5 22 f3 .ih3 23 :te2 �h8 24 l::tael 'i¥e7 25 �d5 'iif6 26 i¥d7 h5 with a fighting game, Afek-Sokolov, Portoroz 1993. b3) 12....id7! 13 �f3 �e5 14 c3 'iib6 15 .l:!.fel .ig4 16 'iie3 l:tfe8 and Black is no worse.

1 2 i.h4 i.d6 1 3 lLld4 c5 1 4 lLlf5 i.xf5 14....i.e5 15 c3 .ixf5! 16 .ixf5 'iid6 17 �g3 �xg3 18 hxg3 l:!.fe8 reaches a position similar to the game and one typical for the 11 ttJe2 line. Probably it is more or less equal, but I definitely prefer the black side.

1 5 i.xf5 l:tb8!

S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h t s : Th e M a in L in e

1 5 ....1Le5 was also enough for equality, but ftrst Black asks an important question. 1 6 b3? This is a serious weakness of the queen side - the knight will ftnd a very valuable square on c3. Black also has some initiative after 1 6 l:tb 1 l:Ib4 1 7 .i.g3 .i.xg3 1 8 hxg3 "ifb6 1 9 b3 l:!.d4, so 1 6 i.xf6 'iWxf6 1 7 'ii'xd5 z:tfd8 18 'ii'f3 .i.e5 1 9 .i:!.ad1 with approxi mate equality was probably better. 1 6 . . . .i.e5 1 7 ':b1 "iifd 6 1 8 .Jtg3 .i.xg3 1 9 hxg3 .!:!.fe8 The weakness of c3 secures Black a clear edge. 20 J:.e1 .!:!.xe1 + 21 "iifx e1 ];te8 22 "iifd 2 "iife 5!

The queen needs to take control of the dark squares. 23 'ii'f4 "iifc 3! Black's queen can inflict more damage so he avoids exchanges. 24 .:n g6 25 .i.d3 �g7 26 f3 a5 27 g4 c4 28 bxc4 g5 29 'ii'c7 After 29 'ii'g3 dxc4 30 .i.f5 ctJd5 31 l:td1 ctJf4 there is no defence against the invasion with ... J:.e2. 29 . . ."iifd4+ 30 �h2 A very nice winning line is 30 'it>h1 h5 31 gxh5 ctJxh5 32 g3 .:!.e5! (cutting off the queen) 33 l:tg1 (33 �g2 ctJxg3! 34 �xg3 'ii'f4+ 35 �h3 g4+1 and White loses his queen) 33 ...ctJxg3+l! 34 l:!.xg3 l:!.eH 35 �h2 (or 35 'it>g2 l:!.gH 36 �h2 it'f2+ 37 �h3

l:!.hH 38 Wg4 'iWd4+) 35 ...'iUf2+ 3 6 'it>h3 l:!.hH 37 'it>g4 'ii'd4+ 38 .i.e4 .l:!.h4+ 39 �xg5 'iif6 mate! 30 . . . h5 31 gxh5 "iifh 4+! But not 31...ctJxh5? 32 g3 and no direct win is apparent. 32 �g1 ttJxh5 33 "iifb6 After 33 cxd5 it'd4+ 34 �h2 .i:!.h8 Black has a winning attack. 33 . . . ttJg3 34 cxd5 34 l:!.b1 dxc4 35 .i.f1 lif4 also leaves Black in perfect controL 34. . . ttJxf1 ! Nice and clean. If 34...l:!.e2? White \vill be able to give many checks after 35 lib2+!. 35 .i.xf1 "iifb4 Yusupov is known for his great expertise in the endgame. The queen has done her destructive deeds and now she is ready to be exchanged. 36 �xb4 axb4 37 .i.b5 l:te 1 + 38 �f2 .l:!.d 1 39 .i.d3 �f6 40 �e2 .l:l.g 1 41 �f2 .u.c 1 ! 42 d6 White cannot save the endgame. 42 . . .�e6 43 .i.c4+ �xd6 44 .i.xf7 J:t.xc2+ 45 �g3 �e5 46 .i.b3 J:t.d2 47 .i.g8 �d4 48 i.b3 �e3 49 .i.c4 J:t.d4 50 .i.b5 �d2 51 �h3 �e 1 52 �g3 J:Id5 53 .i.a6 J:t.d2 54 .i.c4 ':c2 55 .i.b3 l:tf2! 56 �h2 J:t.d2 57 �g 1 �e2 58 i.c4+ �e3 59 .i.b3 �f4 60 �h2 .l:td6 0-1

Game 23 Christiansen-Gelfand

Munich 1992 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 ttJc3 ttJc6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .i.d3 d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 10 .i.g5 c6 1 1 ttJe2 .i.g4 This is normally considered the main line but, as we have seen, Black has many good options after 1 1 ctJe2. 1 2 c3 .i.d6 Less accurate is 12 ... .i.e7 13 'ii'a4 .i.d7 1 4 ctJd4 ctJe4 (14.. .'ti'c8 1 5 J:.fe1 .i.d8 1 6 ctJf3! 49


h6 17 .i.f4 with a slight edge - Gutman) 1 5 �xe7 it'xe7 and now \Vhite can keep some pressure with 1 6 lbb3!.

1 3 'YWe2 Alternatively: a) 1 3 h3 �xe2 14 'ii'xe2 �eS 1 5 it'f3 and now 1 5 ...I;;i,bS! is the easiest way to equality, even though Black was also fine after 1 5 ... h6 1 6 �e3 lbd7 1 7 �c2 lbe5 1 S 'iYf5 g6, Anto shin-Kholmov, USSR 1 957. b) 13 �a4!? �xe2 14 �xe2 h6 (14 ... I;;i, eS 1 5 �d3 I;;i,b S 16 �ae 1 l:i.e5 17 �xe5 .i.xe5 I S !:tel it'c7 was equal in Bykhovsky-M.Miiller, Groningen 1 991) 1 5 �h4 g5! (Black takes over the initiative, obtaining the typical pawn formation and the favourable knight against bishop) 1 6 �g3 �xg3 17 hxg3 itb6 IS �d3 lUeS 19 I;;i,ae1 .l:txe1 20 �xel I;;i,eS 21 �xe8+ lbxeS was a little better for Black, who man aged to win in Kotsur-Barkhagen, Duisburg 1 992.

1 3 . . . h6 1 4 i.h4

The king can often find itself in a worse position on hS than on gS. We remember how much such a check can matter from Kotov's classic Think Ltke a Grandmaster.

1 5 . . .�h8 1 6 i.f5 i.xf5?! Better was 1 6...�cS 1 7 lbd4 lbg4 (17... lbe4!? I S �xe4 dxe4 1 9 'ii'xe4 c5 with compensation has been suggested by Gut man - it is truly easier to sacrifice other peo ple's pieces - but \Vhite is probably better here) I S h3 lbe5 1 9 f4 lbc4 20 .l:.ae1 c5 21 �xd7 'ii'xd7 22 lbf5 I;;i,aeS 23 b3 lbb6 24 lbxd6 'iYxd6 25 'iVf5 "it'c7 26 .i.£2 with a slight edge for \Vhite.

1 7 'YWxf5 "iVe8 After 1 7...�eS I S lbd4! \Vhite is doing well. The following tactics are important: I S ... lbe4 1 9 f3 lbd2 20 I;;i, fe1 "iibs 21 lbxc6 i.xh2+ 22 �hl 'iYf4 23 �3 'iYc7 24 lbb4 and \Vhite wins.

1 8 'it'xe8 :taxe8 1 9 i.xf6 gxf6 20 ttJd4 Now it is �'hite who has a good knight against a less effective bishop.

20 . . J:tfe8 21 J:!.fe 1 J:te5! 22 �f1 a5 This march of the a-pawn brings Black lit tle relief. Black had the chance to go into a rook endgame with 22 ... i.c5! 23 f4 �xe1+ 24 I;;i,x e1 �xd4 25 cxd4 :i.bS 26 l:.e2 lab4 27 lad2 �h7. This should be possible to draw because of the active rook.

23 g3 a4?

1 4. . . i.d7?! This allows White to obtain a favourable exchange of bishops. As we have seen again and again, the d3-bishop is the problem child of the family. The right approach was 1 4... �xe2! 1 5 i.xe2 (15 'ii'xe2 l:!.bS 1 6 :i.ae1 g5! 1 7 i.g3 I;;i,e S I S �d2 i.xg3 19 hxg3 'iYd6 with the threat of simply exchanging rooks is unpleasant for \Vhite) 15 ...g5 16 �g3 �xg3 1 7 hxg3 'ii'd6 and Black is fine.

1 5 i.h7+! 50

Black plays with the impression that he has all the time in the world. Necessary was 23 ... i.c5 24 lbf3! (24 f4 l:.xe1+ 25 l:!.xel i.xd4 26 cxd4 .l:.bS 27 b3 .l:.b4 would actu ally justify ... a7-a5 and Black should draw easily) 24 ... lae6 25 lbh4 XIceS 26 lbf5, when \Vhite has some advantage, but not much.

24 f4 ':'xe1 + 25 J:txe1 The endgame clearly favours \Vhite. Now he brings the king to the queenside to protect his only weakness. Black should probably have tried to do something active quickly, but instead he remains passive and loses without a fight.

25 . . . h5 26 ttJf5 i.f8 27 .l:!.e2 �h7 28

S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h ts : Th e Main L in e

We 1 Wg6 29 ttJh4+ Wh 7 30 Wd 1 J:tbS 31 Wc2 i..c 5 32 Wd3 i..fS 33 J::tc 2 J::td S 34 b4 axb3 35 axb3 c5 36 J:td2 c4+ 37 bxc4 dxc4+ 3S We2 J:teS+ 39 Wf3 i..c5 40 ttJf5 J:!.e1 41 .l:!.d5 l:!.f1 + 42 We2 .l:!.f2+ 43 We 1 i..b6 44 .l:!.b5 i..a 7 45 1:.b7 1:.a2 46 ':'xf7+ Wg6?! 47 ttJd6 h4 Or 47...f5 48 ttxf5 lixh2 49 l:.g5+ 'it>f6 50 'bxc4 and White wins. 4S f5+ Wh5 49 J:tg7! hxg3 50 hxg3 i..bS 51 ttJeS! i..e5 52 J:tg6 i..xc3+ 53 Wf1 ':a 1 + 54 Wg2 1 -0 'bg7 mate cannot be delayed much longer. ,...---

Game 24 Lautier-I .Sokolov

Correze 1992 I have referred to Joel Lautier's annota tions in Chess Iiformant 54 in order to analyse this game. 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 i..b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 i..d 3 d5 S exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 10 i..g 5 c6 1 1 ttJa4!? This move and game were the reasons for the new attention paid to the Scotch Four Knights eleven years ago. The main idea is to play for the c5-square and maybe gain a very slight pull. In my opinion this should not give Black cause for concern, but still this is the most promising plan here.

1 1 . . .i..e 7?!

This move was later replaced by better op tions that promise equality (see Games 2528). Other moves that have been tried in clude: a) 11....l:.e8!? 12 c4 (White went astray after 12 c3?! i.d6 13 .ih4 c5 14 .ic2 i.b7 15 'iif3 'Wie7 16 'Wih3 h6 17 l:!adl liad8 18 f3 g5! 19 .if2 'it>g7 and Black was better in Rublevsky Zoler, Duisburg 1992) 12...h6 13 .ih4 .l:!.b8 14 .l:!.c1 .ie6 (14....id6! 15 b3 leads to Game 28) 15 cxd5 .ixd5 16 .1l.c4! (16 .ibl .id6 17 .1l.g3 .l:.b4 18 a3 .l:.b8 19 'Wid4 i.xg3 20 hxg3 as 21 .l:.fel h5 22 .l:.xe&t 'iixe8 23 'iid2 was even in Milos-Kamsky, Manila 1992) 16 ...lie6 17 i.xd5 cxd5 18 a3 i.d6 19 b4 and White is a little bit better - Gutman. b) 11....1l.e6!? 12 c3 i.e7 13 J:tel would transpose to the game, but without the un pleasant 12 c4. 1 2 l:te 1 Later it became popular to seize the mo ment instantly with 12 c4! .ie6 13 .l:!.c1 �a5 ' 14 .id2 �c7 15 cxd5 .ixd5 16 .ic4 .l:.ad8 17 .ixd5 .l:Ixd5 18 'bc3 and White was a little better, Zifroni-Onischuk, Budapest 1993. 1 2 . . .i..e6 1 3 c3 "ilc7 1 4 "ilf3 l:lfeS Also fine is 14...c5, for example 15 .if5 nae8!? (15...ir'c6 16 b3 .l:!.ae8 17 c4 .ixf5 18 'Wixf5 dxc4 19 .l:Iacl h6 20 .ie3 cxb3 21 axb3 would give White good, active play) 16 i.xe6?! (16 b3 is better) 16...fxe6 17 l:i.xe6? 'be4 and Black wins. 1 5 ':'e3? 15 i.xf6 i.xf6 16 'bc5 ir'd6 17 'bxe6 with equality and 15 b4 'bd7 16 .1l.xe7 .l:.xe7 17 'iWe3 as 18 'bcs 'bxc5 19 'iixc5 'ilia7 20 �d6 'ilic7 'With the same assessment were both better. 1 5 . . .liJg4? ! 15...i.g4 16 �g3 'iVxg3 17 hxg3 is equal, but strong would have been 15...'iia 5! 16 'ilidl (16 .1l.xf6 i.xf6 1 7 i.c2 d4 is unpleas ant) 16...c5 17 i.c2 .l:.ad8 and Black is better - Lautier. 1 6 i..f4 16 .l:.xe6?? loses to 16...�xh2+. 51


1 6 . . :�i'd7 1 7 J:!.e2 c5 1 8 b3 lZlf6 1 9 h3 �d6!

enough for equality after 27 .ltxe6+ tbxe6 28 'iih4 £5!.

The simplest and safest. After 19 ... d4!? 20 cxd4 .ltd5 21 'iVe3 .ltc6 22 .lte5 l:tad8 Black has good play, but 20 c4! gives White the advantage. The line 1 9 ... c4 20 .ltc2 .ltf5 21 ioxf5 'iVxf5 22 l:te5 also looks better for White.

27 'i¥ih 1 ?

20 lilae1 'ti'c7?! After 20... .ltxf4 21 "ij'xf4 l:tac8 the posi tion is completely even.

21 �g5 lZld7 22 'ilr'h5 lZlf8 23 �d2

Bad calculation. Also wrong would be 27 .ltxe6+? tbxe6 28 "ij'f5 'it'f7 29 ii'xh7 cxb3 30 axb3 .ltxf4 31 �h5+ 'it>f8 32 l:txe6 l:Ixe6 33 l:txe6 'iVxe6 34 i..xf4 l:txb3 35 'iHh8+ �f7 36 �a8 �e4 37 'iHxa7+ 'it'g8 38 .ltd6 l:tb1+ 39 'it'h2 l:t£1 ! with a likely draw as a result. Best was 27 l:txe6! Mxe6 (27 ... tbxe6? 28 .ltxh7+ 'it>f8 29 .ltg6) 28 "iixh7+!! tbxh7 29 .ltxe6+ �xe6 30 Ilxe6 l:td8 31 bxc4 tbf8 32 Me2 dxc4 33 tbb2! - White will win the c pawn eventually and have a very promising endgame.

Or: a) 23 tbb2?! lIab8 24 .ltc2 .ltd7 25 tbd3 would only bring the knight trouble; after 25 ....l::txe2 26 ':'xe2 c4! Black has a queenside attack. b) Best was the stereotypical 23 c4! d4 24 ioe4 l:tab8 25 tbb2 h6 26 .ltel tbd7 27 iof3, when White is a little bit better.

27 ... "ij'f7! 28 .ltxe6 l:txe6 29 Wixd5 l:txe2 30 Wixf7+ 'it'xf7 31 l:txe2 cxb3 32 axb3 �xb3 would suddenly give Black chances in the endgame.

23 . . . 'ti'd7

28 l:txe8 J:!.b 7?

After 23...ilc6?! 24 c4! ila6 25 cxd5 �xd3 26 dxe6 l:txe6 27 .lte3 l:Ie5 28 ilg4 l:te4 29 tbb2 iVd5 30 ii'f3 Mae8 31 tbc4 Black will have to fight long and hard in or der to reach a draw. White is also doing well after 23...l:tac8 24 tbb2 followed by c3-c4.

One senses time trouble around here. Af ter 28....ltg6 29 �xd5+ .ltf7 30 l:txf8+ lIxf8 31 'iHd4 l:.d8 32 i..e3 cxb3 33 axb3 .ltxb3 34 tbc5 the endgame will end in a draw.

24 f4

Clearer was 33 .lte3! a6 34 �e2 l:.b5 35 1:!.a7 tbd7 36 �g4 h5 37 �d1 ! i..b 8 38 c4! �d6 39 i..g1 i..xa7 40 cxb5 i..xg1 41 'it>xg1 axb5 42 tbb2 'iVc5+ 43 �h1 'iVf2 44 �e2 �xf5 45 'iVxb5 and White has a c1ose-to winning position.

It was possibly better to bring the knight into the game again with 24 tbb2!?

24 . . . c4 25 Jic2 f6 26 Jif5 .!:tab8? Overlooking a combination, but so does White. 26...g6 was both necessary and 52

27 . . . Jixf5? !

29 'ti'f3 Jig6 30 J::ta8 cxb3 3 1 axb3 'ti'c6 32 f5 Jif7 33 Jif4

S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Th e Main L in e

33 . . . �d7 34 i.xd6 'ii'xa8 35 i.xf8? Missing the last chance to seize the initia tive. After 3S ..wg3! 'tic8 36 ttJcS ':d8 37 ttJe6! ttJxe6 38 fxe6 .txe6 39 iLe7 l:te8 40 iLxf6 'iWb7 41 .td4 White has a lasting ad vantage and good chances of creating a mat ing attack.

l:te7 with a strong initiative, Rublevsky Gavrilov, St Petersburg 1 993.

14 c3

35 . . :�xf8 36 b4 l:!.e7 37 'iWg3 l:!.xe 1 + 38 �xe1 �c8 39 'iWe7 d4 40 cxd4 �c 1 + 41 �h2 'iWf4+ 42 �h1 �f1 + 43 �h2 � - �

Game 25 Arkhipov-Zaitsev

Moscow 1992 The annotations to this game are based on Igor Zaitsev's annotations in the book Secrets

1 4 . . .i.g4!?

from Russia. 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .td3 d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1 ttJa4 h6!

Another great idea copyrighted by the fa mous Igor Zaitsev (mainly known for his work with Anatoly Karpov). In his annota tions he writes that he found this move over the board!

This is the main continuation. Black does not play passively, but threatens amongst other things to play ... g7-gS and create coun terplay.

1 5 'iWc2!

1 2 ..Ith4 i.d6! There is no equality for Black after 1 2... iLe6 1 3 c3 .i.e7 1 4 l:tel J::te 8 I S iLc2 ttJd7 (or I S ... .:b8 16 ..wd4! as 1 7 Ite3 with an attack) 16 ii.xe7 ..wxe7 1 7 ..wd3 ttJf6 1 8 b4!.

1 3 l:!.e1 1 3 c3 with the idea of iLc2 and 'it'd3 is too slow - Black has no problems at all: 1 3...l!e8 14 b4 iLeS I S !Ie 1 as 1 6 a3 axb4 1 7 axb4 .tg4 1 8 ..wc2 'iid6 1 9 iLg3 ii.xg3 20 hxg3 ttJd7 21 �d2 l::txe1+ 22 'iix el gS! 23 iLc2 Wg7 24 �d2 "iVf6 2S l:te 1 hS and Black has good chances of creating an attack, but instead offered a draw in Mannion-Timman, Elista 1 998.

1 3 . . .l:!.b8 Much better than 1 3. ..cS?! 14 b3! (this stops Black's pawns) 14 ... iLe6 I S 'iif3 ':b8 16 ii.f5 ':b4 17 ii.g3 iLxfS 1 8 �xfS g6 1 9 "ilYf3 cJ;;g7 2 0 l:tadl iLxg3 21 ..wxg3 ..waS 22

The most obvious square, but other moves require our attention too: a) I S ..wd2 'iVc7 1 6 iLg3 .txg3 1 7 hxg3 �as 1 8 iLc2 cS 1 9 l:tab 1 ! (an improvement over 1 9 b3? i.d7! 20 ttJb2 d4 21 ttJc4 �xc3 22 'it'xc3 dxc3 and Black is better) 1 9 . .Jlfe8 20 ':xe&t l:!.xe8 21 b4 cxb4 22 cxb4 'iVa6 and Black has sufficient counterplay. b) I S 'iVxg4 ttJxg4 (but not I S ... ii.xh2+? 1 6 'i¥i?fl ttJxg4 1 7 i.xd8 ':fxd8 1 8 g3 d4 1 9 ii.e2 ttJf6 20 'It>g2 d3 21 .tdl and White wins) 1 6 ii.xd8 ':fxd8 (the position i s equal) 1 7 h3 ttJeS 1 8 ii.c2 l:te8 19 b3 ttJd7 20 ':xe&t J!1xe8 21 Wfl g6 22 ':el ':xe1+ 23 'i¥i?xe1 Wg7 24 .i.d3 Wf6 liz_ liz N.Lauritsen-N.Pedersen, Denmark 1 996. c) IS ii.xf6 iLxd1 16 ii.xd8 i.xa4 17 .i.e7 iLxe7 18 ':xe7 ':xb2 1 9 ':xa7 .tc2! and Black is better. White has more weaknesses and Black's rooks are easier to activate.

1 5 . . . g5 1 6 i.g3 ttJh5 1 7 i.xd6 Or 17 iLfS?! ii.xfS 18 'iUxfS ttJxg3 1 9 hxg3 ':e8 and thanks to the knight o n a4 53


Black is slightly better.

1 7 . . :�xd6 1 S l:t.e3?! In a later game White found 18 b4! tLlf4 1 9 tLlc5 l:tbe8 20 f3 .tc8 21 'iYf2 f6 22 .tn 'iYc7 23 g3 tLle6 24 tLlxe6 .txe6 25 "iYd4 cJ;;;;g7 26 J:!.e3 .tf5 27 J:.ae1 l:txe3 28 l::txe3 ILf7 29 a4 "iVd6 30 .l:.e8 and White had some initia tive, Istratescu-Zaitsev, Romania 1 992.

1 S . . .J:!.beS 1 9 �d2 After 19 l:.ae1 1he3 20 ':xe3 tLlf4 21 .tfS d4! 22 cxd4 .txfS 23 'iWxf5 lli'xd4 24 tLlc3 tLld5 25 �d3 .!:te8! Black has sufficient coun terplay.

1 9 . . /uf4 20 b4 J::!.xe3 21 fxe3? TIlls move is very unnatural - now White has some serious weaknesses on the kingside for little reason. Narural and good was 21 "iVxe3 d4 (21 ..."iVe6 22 'iixe6 fxe6 23 tLlc5 .te2 24 ..ltxe2 tLlxe2+ 25 wn tLlxc3 26 tLlxe6 is okay too) 22 'it'e4 (22 cxd4? lli'xb4 23 tLlc5 ti.d8 24 tLlb3 as! with a strong initiative) 22 .. .f5 23 .tc4+ �h8 24 "iYxd4+ "iYxd4 25 cxd4 l:td8 26 a3 ':xd4 27 .tb3! l:ld2 28 .!:ta2! and White holds his own.

tLlf4 28 .tb3 cxd5 with grave danger for White's king. c) 25 exd5! is the best chance. 25 ...tLlf4 (White is better after 25... cxd5 26 gxf3 l:txf3 27 l:txf3 .txf3 28 'iWe3, while 25 ...'iWxd5 26 "iVxd5 cxd5 27 h3 .tfS 28 .txf5 .i:!.xf5 29 tLlc5 tLlxc5 30 bxc5 :f6 31 .l:!.xf3 l:tc6 is drawn) 26 gxf3 tLlh3+ 27 Wg2 .tf5 28 .te4 tLlf4+ 29 �hl cxd5 30 tLlc5 .th3 and Black has an advantage, but not a decisive one.

25 . . . fxg2! 26 �xg2 Or 26 �xf8+ 'iWxfS 27 Wxg2 "iYf4!! 28 'iVc2 dxe4 and White's king is in big trouble.

26 . . . �xd1 27 J:!.xd1 ttJf4 2S 'ii'f3 �g6 29 J:!.e 1 g4 30 �g3 ttJh3+ 31 g2 l:!.f2+ 32 h 1

21 . . .lUe6 22 �e2 f5 23 J:!.f1 After 23 'it'd3 .l:!.f7 24 .!:tn 'il¥e5 Black's advantage should not be underestimated White has no counterplay. 25 h3? i.xh3 26 gxh3 lli'g3+ 27 �h1 'iixh3+ 28 �g1 g4! with ideas of ...g4-g3 and especially ... tLlg5! gives Black a winning attack.

23 . . .f4?! In my opinion this is too early. Simpler was 23 ... "iVe5! 24 tLlb2 f4 25 exf4 tLlxf4 26 'it>hl 1:!.e8 27 tLld3 'iVe2 28 'iVxe2 l1xe2 29 tLlxf4 .l:!.xc2 and Black will most likely win the endgame.

24 e4 f3! Now the position deserves a lot of scru tiny.

25 �d 1 ? TIlls loses by force. Let's look at alterna tives: a) 25 g3? ..lth3 26 llf2 'iVe5 27 exd5 cxd5 28 ..ltb3 cJ;;;g ; 7 and Black is riding high. b) 25 gxf3?! .i:!.xf3 26 l:lxf3 .txf3 27 exd5

54

32 . . .�xe4+! ! 0-1

Game 26 Malakhov-Pinter

Balatonberef!Y 1995 In this game we shall once again see Black win with knight versus light-squared bishop, although when compared to Game 22 it is less clear that Black was better all the way through.

1 e4 e5 2 lUf3 lUe6 3 lUe3 lUf6 4 d4 exd4 5 lUxd4 �b4 6 ttJxe6 bxe6 7 �d3 d5 S exd5 exd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 �g5 e6 1 1 lUa4 h6 1 2 �h4 �d6 1 3 �e 1 1 3 c4 is considered in the next game.

1 3 . . J:lbS 1 4 e3 e5!?

S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h t s : Th e M a in L in e

Another good move. 1 5 .te2 With the threat of .txf6. 15 b3 olte6 1 6 oltc2 g5 1 7 oltg3 .txg3 1 8 hxg3 'iVc7 i s equal - Gutman. 1 5 . . . .td7 1 6 J:!.b1 g5 1 7 .tg3 .txg3 1 7...'iVc7 1 8 b4 oltxa4 1 9 .txa4 .l:i.fd8 20 a3 as was equal in Georgiev-Nikolic, Brussels 1 992. 1 8 hxg3 .txa4 1 9 .txa4 'ilfd6 20 "i'ld3 �g7 21 J:!.e2 J:tb7 22 J:tbe1 J:tfb8 23 .te2 Otherwise White will never get the bishop 'home' to c2.

23 . . . �f8?! Black could also play for a draw with 23 ... .l:.xb2 24 .l:i.e7 (with the threat of �g6+) 24 .. .'�f8 25 lIxt7+ �xt7 26 'iVg6+ Wf8 27 'iVxh6+ Wt7 and White has nothing more than perpetual. But Black chooses to fight for an advantage. Probably White is better after this, but in practice this is sometimes part of a winning strategy. Risky, but if you need a win, you need a win... However, 23... c4!? was probably better, in order to fix the b-pawn or make sure the c pawn will be weak. 24 b3 .l:ib6 25 "i'lf5! Planning .l:Ie6 in some positions. 25 . . . "i'ld7 26 'i'd3 .!:t8b7 27 J:te5 J:id6?! 27 ....l:Ic7! would be better. 28 e4 J:te7 29 J:!.d 1 ?! 29 cxd5!? l:!.xd5 30 'iVc3 gives White some advantage.

2 9 . . .d 4 3 0 .l:tde1 .!:te8 3 1 f4 gxf4 3 2 gxf4 �g4 33 ':'f1 J:!.ee6 34 .ltd 1 'i'g6 35 "i'lh3 35 �xg6 fxg6 36 .tf3 .l:i.c7 37 g4 is not so clear, as after 37 ... h5! 38 g5 lLlg4 Black has good counterplay. 35 . . . d3 36 'l'e3? Probably time trouble was playing a part here. 36 f5 'ii'g5 37 l::te3 with further compli cations was better; now Black takes over the initiative. 36 . . . d2 37 .tf3 .l:td3! 38 "i'le2 ':'ed6 39 J:!.d 1 'l'g3 40 .l:txe5? 40 .l:Id5 lLlxd5 41 'iixd3 l:!.e6 42 'iixd2 lLlxf4 still offered some chances of survival, while 40 .td5 l:!.6xd5 41 cxd5 lLlg4 42 .l:Ih5 .l:Ixd5 43 .l:i.h3 'iix f4 leaves none.

40 . . . .l:txf3! The simple way to win. 41 "i'lxf3 Or 41 .l:Ic8+ �g7 42 'ij'xf3 �e1+ 43 �fl 'ife3+1 44 'iff2 lLlg4!. 41 . . ."i'le 1 + 42 �h2 J:!.d3 43 J:te8+ �g7 0-1 After 44 'iixd3 lLlg4+ 45 'it>h3 lLlf2+ every thing is lost.

Game 27 Golubev-Malaniuk

Alushta 1994 1 e4 e5 2 tL'lf3 tL'le6 3 tL'le3 tL'lf6 4 d4 exd4 5 tL'lxd4 .tb4 6 tL'lxe6 bxe6 7 .td3 d5 8 exd5 exd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 .ltg5 e6 1 1 55


'2la4 h6 1 2 i.h4 .l:Ie8 1 3 c4 This move became the fashion later, re jecting c3 as being too slow. In my opinion White should not obtain any advantage after this, but still some players have good practi cal results with this line.

1 3 . . . i.d6 13 ... I;Ib8 14 .l:i.c1 ..td6 transposes to Game 28. After 13 ... ..te6!? 'X'hite can obtain the ad vantage with 14 cS! 'ilt'e7 15 J::tc 1 ..taS 1 6 �c2! (Gutman) 1 6 ...J::tad8 1 7 �e2 gS 1 8 3l.g3 tiJe4 1 9 3l.xe4 dxe4 20 ..td6 'tWf6 21 �c2. 1 4 cxdS 'X'hite also has no advantage after 14 .l:i.c1 ..t f4 15 l:ic2 �d6! (1 S ... ..tg4!? 16 f3 ..te6 should also be okay) 16 ..txf6 'ilt'xf6 17 cxdS cxdS 1 8 'ilt'f3 ..txh2+ 19 �xh2 'ilt'h4+ 20 �g1 'ilt'xa4 21 'ilt'xdS ..te6 22 'iVe4 - a draw is very likely. 1 4 . . . cxdS I cannot see why 'X'hite should be better here. 1 S '2lc3 Or: a) 1 5 .l::!.c 1 3l.f4 16 llc6 (16 �cS 'ii'd6 1 7 ..tg3 3l.xg3 1 8 hxg3 ..td7 1 9 b 4 .l::!.ad8 2 0 a3 'ilt'eS with equality) 1 6 ...gS 1 7 ..tg3 3l.d7 1 8 �a6 and the position i s balanced. b) 1 5 ..tbS l:!eS 1 6 tiJc3 also looks fIne for Black after 1 6 .. J�b8. 1 S . . . .teS 1 6 J:!.e1 ?! 16 tiJxdS?? 'iVxdS 1 7 3l.xf6 ..tb7 and 56

White resigned in Svidler-Malaniuk, St Pe tersburg 1 993. Better than the text is 1 6 3l.bS .l::!.e6 1 7 ..txf6 3l.xf6 1 8 'iixdS 'i¥xdS 19 tiJxdS ..txb2 20 .l::!.ab1 ! 3l.eS 21 ..td3 with complete equality. 1 6 . . . i.b7 1 7 'iWd2 'iVb6! Taking control of all the dark squares. 1 7 .. :iid6 1 8 SLg3 ..txg3 19 hxg3 d4 20 tiJbS 'iVdS 21 f3 l:!xe1+ 22 l:!xe1 'iVxa2 23 l:!.e7! would give White excellent play for the pawn. 1 8 i.g3 i.xg3 1 9 hxg3 '2le4 1 9 ... d4 20 tiJbS lIxe1+ 21 .l::!.x e1 lId8 would give Black a pleasant position too. 20 i.xe4 dxe4 21 .l::r.a d1 l:tad8 22 'iWc1 l:lxd 1 23 '2lxd 1 White has not been very successful in the opening and now has to defend, but whether Black is better is hard to say. All the potential white weaknesses are on dark squares, so probably it is not so much of a problem. 23 . . :�aS 24 '2lc3 ii'b4 25 �d2 J:!.e6 26 a3 ii'b6 27 b4 ii'a6 28 ii'd8+ �h7 29 'iWd7 ii'xa3 30 ii'xb7 �xc3 31 J:!.xe4 % - %

Game 28 Pedersen-Khruschiov

Bled OlYmpiad 2002 This game is included to show how White can use the Scotch Four Knights as a weapon. White receives no advantage here, but his persistence leads to winning a pawn and the game. 1 e4 e5 2 '2lf3 '2lc6 3 4Jc3 '2lf6 4 d4 exd4 S '2lxd4 .tb4 6 '2lxc6 bxc6 7 .td3 d5 8 exdS 0-0 9 0-0 cxdS 1 0 i.gS c6 1 1 '2la4 h6 1 2 i.h4 J:!.e8 1 3 c4 i.d6 1 4 l:tc 1 !:!.b8 1 S b3 1 5 a3?! ..tf4! 1 6 .l::!.c2 'i¥d6 17 ..tg3 ..tg4! gave Black a slightly better game in Jouhki Norri, Helsinki 1 993. 1 S . . .i.eS Or: a) 1 S ... ..te6 1 6 cxdS cxdS 17 tiJcs .l::!.b4 18 .ixf6 'i¥xf6 1 9 tiJxe6 fxe6 with equality, Stu-

S c o tch Fo u r Kn igh t s : Th e M a in L in e

rua-Aleksandrov, Batumi 2002. b) 1 5 ... �f4!? 16 J:tc2 (1 6 �g3?! �g4 1 7 �c2 �xg3 1 8 hxg3 d 4 1 9 �d2 'iVd6 20 :ce1 c5 21 �a5 .l:tec8 22 tDb2 �d7! is slighdy better for Black, Rublevsky Obukhov, Kurgan 1 994) 1 6 ...'iVd6 1 7 c5 'Yi'd8 1 8 !te2 with an even game. White would be better if his knight were on d4, but by the time it arrives there, Black will have established counterplay. 1 6 .tg3 'i'd6 Also equal is 1 6...�xg3 1 7 fxg3!? "iVd6 1 8 cxd5 cxd5 1 9 tDc5. 1 7 ne 1 .tg4 1 8 'i'e2 .txg3 1 9 hxg3 l:tbd8 After 19 ... d4?! 20 c5! �d5 21 'ifc4 �xc4 22 �xc4 J:tbd8 23 tDb2! White is a litde bit better, but Black could also have played 19 ...iYb4 20 �c3 �xc3 21 tDxc3 d4 22 tDa4 tDd7! with complete equality.

20 'YWe3 tlle4 2 1 'i'd4 .tf5 22 exd5 exd5 23 .txe4 dxe4? ! After this White has a slight pull. Better was 23 .. .l::txe4! 24 J:txe4 (or 24 'ifxa7 d4 25 �a5 lIxe1+ 26 J::txe1 .i.c2 with good com pensation) 24... dxe4 25 �xa7 'i'd2 26 J:tfl (26 �c5?? loses to 26....l:!.c8) 26...�e6 with compensation for the pawn. 24 'i'xa7 'YWd2 25 'YWe5 lite8? This shows that Black is drifting. After 25 ... .i.g6 26 a3 (26 �c2?? e3 and wins; 26 tDc3 Itd3! 27 J:ted 1 'ilVb2 with play) 26 ...J:td3 27 'iVb5 f6 Black has play for the pawn.

26 ned1 'YWg5 27 'i'e3 'YWf6?! Black's best drawing chance is 27...'i'xe3 28 J:txe3 Itc2! 29 tDc3 J:tc8 30 tDd5 �f8 31 a4 J:tb2, with some counterplay. 28 tlle5 'i'b6 29 nd5 .tg6 30 a3 na8 3 1 b4 J:ta7 3 2 'i'e3 llae7 3 3 ne3 f6 34 'i'd4 .tf7 35 Itd6 'i'e7 36 a4 f5 37 a5

White has built up a winning advantage and, despite a few stumbles, gets the full point in the end. 37 . . . h5 38 .l:!.e3 'YWb8 39 J:tb6 'i'a8 40 a6 h4 41 .l:!.e3 ne5 42 nd6 'i'a7 43 J:!.d8? 'W'hy not 43 gxh4! here? 43 . . . 'i'e7 44 .l:.d7 'i'b6 45 f4? l:t5e7 46 nxe7 J:!.xe7 47 gxh4 'i'e7 48 ng3 .th5 49 'i'd5+ .tf7 50 'i'd4?! .th5 51 'i'd2?! J:re8 52 ne3?! 'i'e7 53 'i'e3?! 'i'xh4 54 b5 nd8 55 lIe 1 'i'f6 56 .l:!.b1 'i'b6 57 �f2 .tf7 58 tllxe4 'i'a5 59 'i'e3 �a4 60 tlld 2 'i'xf4+ 6 1 tllf3 ne8 62 .l:!.e 1 Ita8 63 "iWd4 'ilVb8 64 "iWe5 .l:.a7 65 .l::!.e 1 .te6 66 �e5 'ifb6+ 67 'ilVe3 'i'xe3+ 68 �xe3 .td7 69 J:!.b 1 .txb5 70 1:.xb5 .I';lxa6 71 J:!xf5 ];ta2 72 g3 �h7 73 �f4 �h6 74 �g4 lita4+ 75 .l:!.f4 J:!.a6 76 1:.e4 J:tg6+ 77 �h4 .l:!.f6 78 tllg 5 J:rf1 79 J:!e6+ g6 80 tllh 3 �g7 81 tllf4 �f7 82 na6 nf3 83 �g4 J:rb3 84 J:!xg6 nb5 85 J:!.g5 J:!b1 86 J:!.f5+ �g7 87 �g5 nb6 88 g4 lita6 89 tllh 5+ �h7 90 J:tf7+ �h8 91 nd7 .l:!.a4 92 ne7 J:.b4 93 tllf4 �g8 94 tlle6 l:.e4 95 �f5 .l:!.a4 96 g5 .l:!.a5+ 97 �f6 :eta8 98 .l:!.d7 l:te8 99 �d8 �h7 1 00 g6+ 1 -0 57

Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts Summary

\X1hite has no chance of getting an advantage solely from his own strong play in the Scotch Four Knights. 1 1 'iff3 is not dangerous for Black, unless he plays 1 1 ...i.e7 to avoid the ruina tion of his pawn structure, when he should be at least mildly cautious and perhaps cannot count on complete equality. 1 1 lbe2 is hardly anything to be afraid of and Black should take it easy and develop. Lutz-Yusupov shows a healthy road to equality for Black and maybe even an advantage if \X1hite is not careful enough. Finally, 1 1 lba4!? has been tested for more than ten years and the conclusion has been the same almost all the time: after 1 1 ... h6 Black has no problems equalising. He should be a little careful, as seen in the last game of this chapter, but all in all his position is fme.

1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 d4 exd4 5 lDxd4 �b4 6 lDxc6 bxc6 7 �d3 d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 �g5 c6 1 1 lDa4 1 1 lbe2 1 1 ...h6 Game 22; 1 1 ...i.g4 Game 23 1 1 �f3 1 1 ... i.d6 Game 19; 1 1 ....l::i.e8 Game 18; 1 1 ... h6 Game 1 7 1 1 ...i.e7 12 .l:!.fe1 Game 20; 12 h3 Game 21 1 1 . . .h6 1 1 ...i.e7 (0) Game 24 1 2 .Jth4 �e8 (0) 1 2 ... i.d6 1 3 .l:!.e 1 llb8 1 4 c3 1 4... c5 Game 26; 1 4... i.g4 Game 25 1 3 c4 .Jtd6 1 4 J:!.c1 (0) Game 28 1 4 cxd5 Game 27 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 1 . . . .Jte 7

58

12 . . J ae8

14 l:!.c l

I CHAPTER FIVE I Scotch Four Knights : Sidelines after 7 d5 . . .

in Game 3 1 . 1 1 . . .h6!? It is interesting that Vassily Smyslov tried 1 1 .. ..tg4!? against Alexander at Hastings 1 954/55, and after 12 c3 .te7 13 'it'c2 h6 14 .te3 cS he reached an equal position. 1 1 .. . .l1.e7 has also been played, for exam ple: a) 12 tiJf4 .l1.g4 13 f3 .l1.d7 14 .l1.xf6 (or 1 4 'iVd2 c6 with equal play) 1 4. . ..txf6 1 5 tiJxdS J..xb2 is equal. r------" b) 12 tiJd4 J..d7! (according to Gutman Game 29 this is a mistake; he gives 1 2...'iVd6 1 3 .l:i.el Spangenberg-Yemelin .l:i.ae8 14 'iVf3 cS 15 tiJxe6 fxe6 16 'ilVh3, when White has an edge) 1 3 'iYf3 (1 3 .txf6?! Bratislava 1993 --------------.. .i.xf6 14 'iHhs g6 1 5 'ii'xdS .l1.a4 1 6 'iYxd8 .l:i.fxd8 gives Black a good game) 13 ... .l:i.b8 1 e4 e5 2 ctJc3 ctJf6 3 ctJf3 ctJc6 4 d4 exd4 5 ctJxd4 i.b4 6 ctJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 and it is hard to see why Black should be worse. d5 8 exd5 0-0 9 0-0 cxd5 10 i..g 5 Another option is 1 1 ....td6!? 12 tiJd4 h6 This is of course one of the standard posi 13 J..M cS! 14 tiJxe6 fxe6 15 'iVe2 eS 16 J..g6 tions in the whole of the Four Knights. Here c4! (1 6 ....l:i.b8?! 1 7 c4! gave �'hite the advan 1O ... c6, investigated in the previous chapter, tage in Salov-Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 1991; per is the most common move 1 0 . . . i.e6 haps White is even clearly better) 17 b3 'iYc7 1 8 �h 1 c3!? with equal chances. A sensible-looking alternative to 1 0... c6. 1 2 i.h4 i.g4 Black develops a piece and lends support to Black has two equally good alternatives: the dS-pawn. a) 12 ...J.. e7 13 tiJd4 J..d7 14 tiJfS .txfS 1 5 1 1 ctJe2 J..xfS .l:i.b8 1 6 .l:i. b 1 .l:i.b4 1 7 J..xf6 .i.xf6 with This is not the most dangerous move. 1 1 equality was Ochoa-De la Villa, Barcelona 'iVf3 is treated in the next game and 1 1 tiJbS!, 1 e4 e 5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 ctJc3 ctJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ctJxd4 i.b4 6 ctJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 d5 In this chapter we will investigate some important sidelines after 7 ... dS in the Scotch Four Knights. This includes 1O ... .te6 and 1O ... J..e7 (Games 29-32), which are worth while alternatives to 1O... c6. Earlier on �'hite can diverge with 10 tiJbS (Game 33), while after 8 exdS Black can throw in an interesting check with 8 ... 'iYe7+l?

59


1 990. b) 12 ... .td6 13 lDd4 .td7 14 lDf5 .txf5 1 5 �xf5 Mb8 1 6 b3 .te5 1 7 1:tb1 'iVd6 1 8 �g3 .txg3 1 9 hxg3, Rossetto-Ju.Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 1 956. The position is more or less level, but I would prefer to play Black here. I am sure that a player with perfect technique, such as Karpov or Andersson, would make 7/10 from this position. Re member that after the possible exchange of the rooks, Black has queen and knight against queen and bishop in the endgame, which is normally an advantage as they complement each other better. 1 3 c3 After 13 h3 .txe2 14 .txe2 g5! (14 ... �e7 15 .tf3 Mb8 16 b3 c6 17 c4 would give White a slight plus) 1 5 .tg3 lDe4 Black is equal - 16 ..ie5 .l::!.e 8 does not achieve any thing. 1 3 . . . i.d6 1 4 �a4 i.xe2 1 5 i.xe2 l:tb8 1 6 l:tab' After 16 b3?' g5! 17 .tg3 lDe4 18 'iVxa7 lDxc3 19 �f3 .i:!.b6 White's queen is out of play, the knight is strong on c3 and Black has a strong passed pawn in the middle. Of course White also has a good bishop on f3 and a passed a-pawn, but still Black is slighdy better. 1 6 . . . �e8 1 7 �d 1

1 7 . . . 'WIYe5!? 1 7 ... lDe4! would also have been a very strong move because 18 'iVxd5 lDxc3 1 9 60

bxc3 Mxbl 20 1:txbl 'iVxe2 would have given Black a good endgame. All in all White has been drifting and putting too much faith in his two bishops, and now he is worse. 1 8 i.g3 �e6 1 9 i.f3 As I wrote in the note to Black's 1 2th move, 1 9 �xd6 'iVxd6 is equal but not a draw. 1 9 . . . i.xg3 20 hxg3 llfe8 21 �d4 11b6 22 l:tfd1 c6 23 b4 l:tb7 24 a4 l:tbe7 25 �bc 1 ? ! Necessary was 2 5 b 5 cxb5 2 6 Mxb5!, when White has active counterplay. If he never gets his rooks playing, he will lose. 25 . . . 1!i'd6 26 b5? This is bad; now Black takes over. Neces sary was 26 .l:!.b1 ! with the idea of b4-b5. You should always confess your sins and admit your mistakes! 26 . . . c5 27 �f4 l:te5 28 c4?! 28 'iVd2 'iVe6 29 as g5 illustrates the pres sure mounting up on White. Even so, that was preferable to the text. 28 . . . d4 29 a5 g5! 30 �d2 tOe4 31 1!i'd3?! Sadly, necessary was 31 ..ixe4 Mxe4 32 Mel f5, when Black has a clear edge. Now the final attack sets in. 31 .. .f5! 32 g4 fxg4 33 i.xg4

33 . . .tOxf2! 34 h 1 With the idea of advancing on the king side with f4-fS. 1 9 . . .l:!.feS 20 J:Iae1 'iVgS 21 f4 'iVhS 22 .ie2 Why not 22 fS! i.d7 23 liJd6 ':!'xe1 24 �xel i.c7 (24... i.c6 2S bS i.cs 26 i.e2 iVh4 27 g3 'iYh3 2S i.f1 iVhs 29 bxc6 i.xd6 30 'iiixdS and White is close to winning) 2S i.e2 iVh4 26 g3 'iiigS 27 'it'xdS i.xd6 2S i.c4 .:!.dS 29 ii'xd6 1:i.eS 30 .:!.xeS i.xeS 31 �f4! here? White has real winning chances in the endgame. 22 . . :�h6 23 lLld4 .id7 24 .ibS 24 i.f3!, simply to keep the pressure on, would have been better. 24 . . . l:Ixe1 2S '!:!'xe1 .ixd4 26 .ixd7 .ieS 27 g3 .!:!.dS 2S 'iVxdS?! Playing like a computer, but there is no win. The simple 2S i.c6 d4 29 'iiid3 i.c7 30 cxd4 i.b6 31 dS would have kept long-term winning chances in an endgame that is very uncomfortable for Black. 2S . . . .ixc3 29 l:!.e7 �g6 30 fS 'iVh5 31 g4 �h6 32 gS?! White is playing with fire, but surprisingly there is no win after 32 'it'xf7+ 'It>hS 33 .:!.e8+ l:txeS 34 ii'xe8+ r:J;g7 3S "tIHe7+ WhS - the game must end in a draw. 32 . . . fxgS 33 l:Ixf7+ 'it>hS 34 'iVcs .ig7 3S f6 .ixf6 36 'iVc7 l:tfs 37 .ie6 .ig7 3S .idS 'iVg6 39 .!ixfS+ .ixfS 40 'it>g2 'iVg7 41 "ii"x g7+ 'it>xg7 42 bS YO - YO

1 0 . . . .ie7!? Or 1 0... i.xc3!? 11 bxc3 h6 1 2 i.h4! (12 i.e3?! liJg4 1 3 ..Itcs .:!.eS 1 4 'it'f3 liJeS lS 'it'g3 liJxd3 1 6 cxd3 i.fS was level in Spiel 1 925) mann-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1 2...'it'd6 1 3 nel ! i.g4 14 "iVd2 .l:i.feS l S f3 (l S .:!.ab 1 liJe4 1 6 i.xe4 .l:i.xe4 1 7 .:!.xe4 dxe4 is equal) 1 S ... i.d7 16 "tIHf2 liJhS (1 6 ... aS!?) 1 7 .:!.xe8+ i.xeS l S 'iVe3 and the position i s very close to equality, even though White still has the slight advantage of the two bishops. 1 1 .ixf6! This is the drawback of 1 O... i.e 7. 1 1 . . . .ixf6 1 2 lLlxdS Less effective is 12 �hS g6 1 3 'it'xdS l:tbS! 14 .l:!ab1 (14 �xdS .:!.xdS 1S liJdl i.e6 1 6 .:!.b 1 c S 1 7 b3 c4 1 S i.e4 .l:i.b4 1 9 f3 was played in Ignatienko-Likov, Kemerovo 1 99 1 ; after 1 9 ....l::td2 Black has very good compen sation for the pawn) 14 ... i.xc3! l S �xdS .l:i.xdS 1 6 bxc3 i.e6 with a draw in Andreas Borges Cuba 1 9S9. After 1 7 c4 cS! the extra pawn is not too relevant, even though I would investigate a move like 1 S a4!? with the idea of 1 9 .:!.bS. Maybe l S....l:i.b4 spoils 63


my idea. 1 2 . . . ..txb2 1 3 lib1 J:I.b8 13 ... .ie5? 14 �h5! f5 15 .ic4 Wh8 1 6 .i:!.fel .id6 17 .i:!.b3 would give White a very strong initiative. 1 4 e4 Gutman gives White an advantage after 1 4 c3, but this can b e debated: 1 4...i. b7 ! (14....ie6 1 5 liJb4 .ixc3 1 6 .ixh7+ �xh7 1 7 �c2+ �g8 1 8 'ii'xc3 was Gutman's justifica tion, but even here it is not so obvious that White is better after 1 8...'ii'g5)

and now: a) 1 5 liJe3 ..ixc3! (1 5 ... .lta3 1 6 .i:!.b3 ..id6 17 .ixh7+ �xh7 1 8 �1+ �g8 1 9 J:!xb7 gives White an extra pawn) 1 6 ..ixh7+ �xh7 17 �c2+ f5 1 8 �xc3 f4 1 9 liJg4 f3 20 liJe5 'iYg5 gives an interesting position with chances for both sides. b) 1 5 liJxc7 .ltxg2 16 .ltxh7+ 'iitxh7 1 7 'iitxg2 'iVxc7! (l7...'i¥g5+? 1 8 'iith l �f6 1 9 �h5+ 'iitg8 20 liJd5 'iid6 2 1 .l:.fe 1 gives White a clear plus) 1 8 'iYc2+ f5 1 9 l:txb2 �f4 and here Black is close to winning. After probably the only move 20 .i:!.gl comes 20...l:i.f6! with a strong attack. And if 20 .i:!.xb8?, then 20 ... 'iYg4+ 21 �h1 'iYf3+ 22 'iitg1 lU6 23 .i:!.e1 11g6+ 24 'iitf1 � 1+ 25 �e2 .i:!.e6+ and Black wins. So probably 14 c3 is not advantageous for White, even though 'W'hite only becomes worse after being too pushy. 1 4 . . . e6 1 5 lUe3

64

After 1 5 liJe3 h6! 1 6 ..ie4 'iYc7 1 7 �f3 .id7 1 8 liJf5 .i:!.fe8 the position is completely equal . 1 5 . . .llVf6?! Black forces a position where he has a pawn less, but excellent drawing chances. It works out well in practice, but was hardly necessary. After 1 5 .. .f5!? 1 6 'ii'c2 .i:!.b4 1 7 .i:!.fe 1 (1 7 c 5 ..ie6 1 8 l:txb2 .i:!.xb2 1 9 �xb2 'i¥xd3 is even) 1 7 ... ..ia3 1 8 .i:!.b3 .i:!.xb3 1 9 axb3 .id6 Black has an excellent game.

1 6 llVe2 ..tf5 1 7 ..txf5 "YWxe3 1 8 ..txh7+ �h8 1 9 "YWxe3 ..txe3 20 ..te4 e5 21 ..td5 White, of course, has all the chances, even though they are not enonnous. 21 . . . �g8 22 �fe1 l:tfe8 23 �f1 ..td4 24 h4 �f8 25 ..tb7 J:!.e6 26 a4 �be8 27 J:te2 J:tb8 28 a5 a6! 29 !:tee1 g6 30 ..td5 J:txb1 31 1ilxb1 :f6 32 f3 ..te3 33 �b6 �g7 34 ..tb7 ..txa5 35 J:txa6 J:!.xa6 36 ..txa6 ..td8 37 g3 g5 38 h5 ..tf6 39 �e2 ..te5 40 g4 f6 41 �d3 �h6 42 �e4 ..td4 43 �f5 ..te3 % - %

Game 33 H nydiuk-Kiselev

Zabrzanski Wrzesien 1994 e4 e5 2 lUf3 lUe6 3 lUe3 lUf6 4 d4 exd4 5 lUxd4 ..tb4 6 lUxe6 bxe6 7 ..td3 d5 8 exd5 exd5 9 0-0 Or 9 �e2+ (this does not look so natural) 9 .....ie7 (for 9 ... 'iYe7 see Games 34-35)

S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Sidelin e s a ft e r 7 . . d5 .

As well as 10 Ji.g5, White has also tried: a) 1 0 ctJe2?! kteS 1 1 c3 i.d6 1 2 i.f4 c5 1 3 SLxd6 Vi'xd6 with the idea of ... .l:i.bS and Black is a little better. b) 1 0 i.d2?! ne8 1 1 a3 iLg4 1 2 Vi'el SLd6 1 3 .i.f4 c6 1 4 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 1 5 l:!.e1 i.e6!? and Black is no worse. Gambiza-Garcia, Novi Sad 1 990. 1 0 iLg4! The most accurate. 1O ... c5?! 1 1 i.g5 i.e6 would transpose to Game 31, while 10 ... c6?! 1 1 c3 i.c5 12 ctJd4 i.g4 1 3 �a4 iLd7 14 iLg5 would give White a slight edge. 1 1 f3 White should not play 1 1 i.e2?! i.xe2 1 2 'iYxe2 .l:!.eS 1 3 i.e3 c 6 14 ctJd4 "iHc7 1 5 ctJf5 l:!.e4, when Black is better due to his gteater mobility. 1 1 . . .iLd7 A good alternative that gtants equality is 1 1 ...i.c5+!? 12 'it'h 1 i.d7 13 c3 h6 (or 13 ... c6 14 ctJd4 i.d6 15 i.g5 lle8 with counterplay - Gutman) 1 4 'it'e1 (14 b4 i.b6 1 5 i.f4 ctJh5! is equal - Huzman; 1 6 i.e5 l:!.eS! 1 7 f4 ctJf6 would give Black the advantage) 1 4... c6 15 ctJd4 lieS 16 "ifh4 (16 'iVg3 ctJh5 17 iVf2 'iVf6 is good for Black; the el -bishop is still not playing) 16 ... i.fS (16 ... i.d6! was stronger) 1 7 i.d2? (1 7 b3! with equality was the only move) 1 7 ... c5! I S ctJf5 c4 1 9 SLc2 l:te2 20 l:!.adl i.xf5 21 i.xf5 l:!.bS 22 i.el i.c5 and Black was clearly better in Mathe Huzman, Wijk aan Zee 1 992. . . .

and now: a) 1 0 i.g5 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 i.e6!? (my new idea; 1 1 ...c6 1 2 J::Ih el i.d6 1 3 h3 h6 1 4 i.h4 ItbS 1 5 'iYf3 l:!.b4 1 6 i.xf6 'it'xf6 1 7 'it'xf6 gxf6 was equal in Zakic-Gligoric, Nis 1 995) 1 2 J:thel h6 1 3 i.h4 J:tb8 14 iLf5 J:tb6 1 5 ctJa4 Itb4! (1 5 ... Itc6?! would b e awkward and White would be better after 16 i.d3!) 1 6 i.xf6 (16 iLxe6 J:txh4 1 7 i.h3 l:!.xa4 1 8 'it'xe7 J:txa2 gives Black the edge) 1 6 ... i.xf6 17 i.xe6 fxe6! 1 8 'iixe6+- f7 with equality. 9 0-0 1 0 tLlb5 I cannot believe that this move is good; the knight does not seem to be the piece most in need of improvement. . . .

65


1 2 c3 White was in trouble after 12 �g5?! 1:.b8 13 �c3 c6 14 �hl 1:.e8 15 �cl �e7 1 6 i.h4 �c5 1 7 � e 1 i.e3 1 8 �xf6 gxf6 1 9 �dl f5 20 f4 d4 21 �e2 � 4 2 2 1:.fl c5, when the frailty of Black's pawn structure is irrelevant, while his two bishops and attack ing prospects are highly relevant. Rozentalis Klovans, Groningen 1992. 1 2 . . . .lte7 1 3 lbd4 White would also have no advantage after 1 3 �f4 �xb5 1 4 i.xb5 c6 1 5 �a4 i.d6! 1 6 i.xd6 (1 6 i.g5 h6 1 7 i.h4 �b8 i s also even) 1 6 ...ii'xd6. 1 3 . . .�e8 1 4 .l:!.e1 cS 1 S lbfS .ltf8 1 6 l:txe8 lbxe8 1 7 .lte3 White could have tried 17 i.c2!?, but after 1 7...�c7 1 8 'iVd3 g6 1 9 �h6+ (19 �e3?! 'iVh4 would give Black some attacking chances) 1 9 ... i.xh6 20 i.xh6 i.f5 21 'iVe2 i.xc2 22 ii'xc2 'iVf6 Black keeps the balance. 1 7 . . . hS!? 17 ... 1:.b8 is also equal. 1 8 �d2 g6 1 9 lbg3 19 �h6+? looks interesting, but analysis shows that it is a mistake: 19 ...�g7 20 b4 ii'c7 21 l::i.e l �f6 22 i.f4 i.d6 23 �xd6 'iVxd6 24 'iWg5 i.e6. The knight is not really doing anything good for White at h6, but it remains stuck there. 1 9 . . . lbg7 20 .l:!.e 1 .lte6 21 lbe2 'i!Vd7 22 b3 22 �f4? weakens the control over the centre and is refuted by 22... d4! 23 i.f2 i.xa2 24 b4 .tb3 25 bxc5 .txc5, when Black is better. 22 . . . as 23 lbf4 Now Black has an interesting pawn sacri fice. 23 . . . d4! 23 ... a4?! 24 b4 cxb4 25 cxb4 d4 26 .tf2 would grant White a slight edge. 24 .ltf2 Interesting also was 24 i.e4!? .l::t.d8 25 i.f2 i.d6 26 �xe6 �xe6 27 cxd4 cxd4 28 ii'xa5 d3 29 i.b6 (29 �xd3?? Ji.c7!) 29 ... d2 30 1:.d1 66

i.c7 with strong compensation for the pawn. 24 . . . .!:!.e8 2S lbxe6 lbxe6 26 cxd4 c4 26 ... cxd4? 27 'iWxa5 would leave White sig nificantly better. 27 dS? The decisive mistake. White should have played 27 �xe6! ii'xe6 28 i.xc4 (28 bxc4 i.b4 29 �c2 �e1 ! 30 .tf1 ..txf2+ 31 �xf2 �d6 32 h3 1:.d8 33 d5 l:tc8 gives Black the advantage due to the blockade) 28 .. :i'f5 29 �d3 �h6 30 'iVc2 �d7 31 �c4 �h7! 32 ii'd3 �c7 33 a4 and White has no obvious weaknesses, so it is hard to believe that he should be much worse, if worse at all. 27 . . . .ltb4 28 dxe6 J:txe6 29 �b2 .ltxe1 30 .ltxc4 'ifd 1 31 .ltf1 .ltxf2+ 32 'ifxf2 .l:!.c6! 33 f4 .l:!.c2 34 �e3 .l:!.c1 3S 'iff2 h4 36 fS gS 37 h3 .l:!.b1 38 f6 .l:!.c 1 39 a3 �xb3 40 'ifd2 'ifb6+ 41 �h2 'ifc7+ 42 �g 1 'i!VcS+ 0-1

Game 34 Shirov-Karpov

Moscow 1992 The annotations to this game are based on the those by Alexei Shirov in Chess Informant

56. 1 e4 eS 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 d4 exd4 S lbxd4 .ltb4 6 lbxc6 bxc6 7 .ltd3 dS 8 exdS 'ife7+!?

One of Efun Bogoljubow's ideas, first played in his game against Spielmann at the

S c o tc h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Sidelin e s a ft e r 7 . . . d5

holiday resort of Pistyan in 1 922. It is a rather rare line, but on the other hand it can be used as a surprise. All through the 1 990s this was former World Champion Anatoly Karpov's choice. 9 �e2 The obvious move. Some unprepared players have been known to play weird alter natives: a) 9 i..e2?! (some commentators has marked this move with 'I?', something it does not deserve) 9 .. .'�jxd5 (the obvious move now White cannot pin with i..g5; 9 ... cxd5 1 0 0-0 0-0 i s equal, but practical examples are needed) 1 0 i..d2 and now: al) 1O ... i..a6 seems to be quite good for Black. 1 1 lZJxd5 cxd5! (much better than 1 1 ... i..d2?! 1 2 �d2 cxd5 1 3 0-0 with good pros pects for White - Tartakower) 12 c3 0-0 1 3 i.e3 (1 3 cxb4 nfe8 14 i.e3 'it'xb4+ 1 5 'iii>f1 i..xe2+ 1 6 �xe2 d4 1 7 i..d2 �xb2 1 8 'fidl c5 gives Black a clear edge) 13 ... i..xe2 1 4 'iVxe2 .l:!.fe8 1 5 cxb4 d4 with equality in Po gonina-Dimovska, Oropesa del Mar 2001. a2) 1 O...i..xc3! 1 1 bxc3 i..a6 1 2 �f1 i.xe2+ 13 'iVxe2 'i*'xe2+ 14 xe2 0-0-0 1 5 l:the 1 was agreed drawn i n Movsesian Stocek, Trencienske Teplice 2002. Due to a difference of nearly 1 00 rating points in Movsesian's favour, we can assume that he was not truly happy with his position; Black seems to be a little better. b) 9 i..e3? lZJxd5 10 'fif3 .Jld7 1 1 0-0 lZJxc3 12 bxc3 i..xc3 13 .J::tabl 0-0 14 .l::!.b7 i.e5 1 5 l:txa7 Z;Ixa7 16 i..xa7 �d6! 17 g3 c5 gives Black a clear edge - Gutman. b) 9 'iii>f1 and now: bl) 9 ... lZJxd5 1 0 lZJxd5 cxd5 1 1 a3 i..c5 1 2 'i' f3 c6 1 3 i..d2 0-0 1 4 l::te 1 'iVh4 1 5 h 3 i..e6 is even, but White has more problems with his development, Czerniak-Troianescu, Netanya 1 968. b2) 9 ... cxd5 is also playable: 1 0 i..g5 i..xc3! (but not 10 ... c6?! 1 1 'iVf3 h6 12 i..b 5 0-0 13 i..xf6 gxf6 14 i..xc6 i..xc3 15 'i*'xc3 i..a6+ 16 �gl �ac8 1 7 'ii'g3+ 'iii>h 8 1 8 i..xd5

and White was clearly better, Velimirovic Lukic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 962) 1 1 bxc3 0-0 1 2 �f3 l:te8 1 3 h4 lZJe4 14 i..xe7 lZJd2+ 1 5 'iii>e2 lZJxf3 16 'iii>xf3 l:txe7 17 �hel 'iii> f8 with an even ending in Odeev-Aleksandrov, Voskre sensk 1 993. 9 cxd5 Also interesting is 9...�xe2+!? 10 'iii>xe2 and now: a) Sufficient is 1 0 ... lZJxd5!? 1 1 lZJxd5 (1 1 lZJe4 0-0 12 a3 !ii.e7 1 3 c4 lZJb6 14 i.. f4 i.. f5! with equality - Gutman. Probably it is in this line that White should look for an advantage, if there is any to be found. 1 5 b3 followed by a4 seems to be the best try.) 1 1 ...cxd5 1 2 i..b5+ i.d7 1 3 !ii.xd7+ 'iii>xd7 1 4 �dl 'iii>c6! (an improvement over 14 ... l!he8+ 15 i..e 3 'iii>c6 16 c4 dxc4 17 l::td4 with a slight advan tage for White in Oll-Beliavsky, Manila 1 992) 1 5 i..e 3 i..c 5! 16 c4 dxc4 1 7 J::tac1 !ii.xe3 1 8 fxe3 I:tad8 1 9 l:txc4+ 'iii>b7 and the endgame should be a draw. b) 10 ... cxd5 with a further branch: b 1) 1 1 i..d2 transposes to the game. b2) 1 1 !ii. f4 c6 12 lZJa4 0-0 (or 12 ... i..e 6!? 13 l:i.hdl 0-0 14 i.a6 i.g4+! 15 f3 i.. f5 and Black is okay) 13 .t!.hdl �e8+ 14 �f1 i.g4 1 5 f3 i.e6 1 6 i.a6 lZJh5! with an unclear posi tion, for example 17 i..c7 l:.e7! and Black is doing fine. b3) 1 1 lZJb5 'iii>d8 12 IIdl c6 13 lZJd4 and now: b31) 1 3 ...'iii>c7 1 4 c4 i.d6 1 5 h3 i..d7 1 6 f1 l':the8 1 7 cxd5 lZJxd5 with equality Gutman. In my opinion White is better after 1 8 i..c 4!. b32) 1 3. ..i..g4+! should be standard, but apparently it is a new idea. After f2-f3 White has weakened his dark squares and Black can win a tempo with the move ... i.d6, as White can no longer allow ... .txh2. Play continues 14 f3 i.d7 1 5 c4 i.d6 with equality. 1 0 i.d2 Or 1 0 i..b5+ i..d7 1 1 i..xd7+ lZJxd7 1 2 �xe7+ Wxe7 1 3 !ii.d2 lZJb6! (13.. .lZJf6 is equal, but the knight has more active oppor.. .

67


tunities on the queenside) 14 0-0-0 J:!.hd8 1 5 MheH �f8 1 6 ttJb5 .ixd2+ 1 7 Mxd2 c 6 1 8 ttJd4 c 5 1 9 ttJe2?! (19 ttJf3, keeping the bal ance, was stronger) 1 9... :Le8 20 .l:i.ddl Mad8 21 ttJf4 nxe 1 22 :Lxe1 g5 and Black was a little better in V.Gurevich-Smagin, Cappelle la Grande 1 995. 10 .. J1Vxe2+ 1 1 �xe2 1 1 ttJxe2 .ixd2+ 12 'it>xd2 .l:.b8 1 3 b3 c5 14 .l:!.he1 �d7 is equal. The king will be very well placed on c6.

1 1 . . .e6 Other moves look less natural. a) 1 1 ...0-0? 1 2 ttJb5 .l:!.e8+ 1 3 'it>d1 .ixd2 1 4 'it>xd2 nb8 1 5 ttJxc7 J;i.e7 1 6 ttJb5 and \X1hite has a clear advantage. b) 1 1 ....id7?! 12 a3 .ie7 (1 2 ... �a5? 1 3 ttJxd5 would drop a pawn) 1 3 ttJb5 and \X1hite is somewhat better. 1 2 tLJa4 �d6 1 3 �e3 0-0 1 4 f3 tLJd7 1 5 �f2 .l:I.e8! 15 ... c5 16 c3 c4 17 .ic2 .ib7 18 b4 would give \X1hite a slight edge. 1 6 l:the1 Or 16 Mhd1 ttJb6! 17 ttJxb6 axb6 1 8 �xb6 Mb8 1 9 .id4 c 5 and Shirov believes that this position is slightly better for Black. He probably intended something like 20 �c3 d4 21 �d2 MXb2 22 a4 and now 22 ... �e6 23 as c4 24 �c1 l:tbb8 25 �e4 f5 26 �c6 Mec8 27 .ia4 .l:i.a8 sees \X1hite clearly struggling. 1 6 . . . g6 1 6 ... ttJe5 1 7 �c5! �c7 1 8 b4 gives an un68

clear position. If 1 8... ttJxd3+ the opening of the c-ftle would expose the c-pawn. 1 7 l:.ad1 tLJe5 1 8 �f1 18 �c5!? is also possible. 1 8 . . . �f5 1 9 l:I.d2 h5 Black has equalised. 20 a3 �e7 20 ... ttJd7 21 g3 would be an improvement for \X1hite, as Black is now tied to the defence of c5. 21 b4?! 21 g3 f6 22 h3 was stronger, but after 22 ...g5 Black looks okay. 21 . . . tLJe4 22 �xe4 dxe4 23 g3 a5 24 i.b6 Shirov gives 24 ttJb6 c3 25 Mde2 lh6 26 �d4 (26 ttJc4 axb4 27 axb4 �e6 28 �d4 Mb8! 29 ttJe3 l:!.xb4 30 �xc3 Mb5 is better for Black, as the e6-bishop is clearly superior to the e3-knight) 26 ... Mxe2+ 27 Mxe2 �e6 28 ttJc8 axb4 29 axb4 'it>h7 30 �xc3 g5 31 ttJe7 �d6 32 �f6 �xb4 (32...g4!?) 33 �xg5 cJi;g7 with unclear play. 24 . . . l:I.xe1 25 �xe1 e3! 25 ... axb4 26 �xc7 .!:!.xa4 27 axb4 ':xb4 28 �e5 would be equal. 26 .l:I.e2 �xb6 27 tLJxb6 .l:I.a6 28 bxa5?! 28 ttJc4 axb4 29 axb4 Ma2 30 ttJe3 �e6 31 ttJd1 �c4 32 .t'te4 �a6 33 l:!.e8+ 'it>g7 34 Ma8 l:1a1 gives equality - Shirov. Now Black is better. 28 . . . l:.xa5 29 tLJe4 l1a4 30 tLJd6 i.e6 30 ... .ih3 31 ttJe4 (31 cJo>f2!? Mxa3 32 g4 hxg4 33 'ii?g3 f5 34 f4! gives \X1hite counter play for the pawns - Karpov) 31...1:!.xa3 32 .l:!.e3 MaH 33 'it>e2 J:th1 34 l:1xc3 .l:r.xh2+ 35 ttJf2 �d7 36 'it>f1 h4 37 g4 h3 38 'ii?g1 l:1g2+ 39 'ii? fl (Shirov) would probably end in a draw. 3 1 l:.e3 .l:I.xa3 32 tLJe4 �f5 33 �e2 '>tg7 34 �d3 g5 35 �d4 g4 36 fxg4 hxg4 37 tLJxe3 i.xe2 38 .l:I.e5 \X1hite is able to draw this endgame be cause of his counterplay against Black's weak pawns. 38 . . .i.g6 39 liite 5 l:I.a6 40 �e5 .l:I.b6 41

S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 7

�t4 �b4+ 42 �e3 �b2 43 tZJe2 .l:ib3+ tZJc3 �b6 45 �t4 t!.b2 46 �xg4 t!.xh2 �xc6 .:tt2 48 �h4 i.t5 49 g4 i.e6 �g3 t!.d2 51 tZJe4 t!.d3+ 52 �t4 i.d5 �c1 �g6 54 �e5 % - %

44 47 50 53

Game 35 Yandemirov-Aleksandrov 5t Petersburg

1996

1 e4 e5 2 tZJt3 tZJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 tZJxd4 tZJt6 5 tZJc3 i.b4 6 tZJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 d5 8 exd5 'iVe7+ 9 'ilVe2 tZJxd5 10 'iVxe7+

1 0 . . . �xe7 Almost everybody plays this, but why? Why not 1O....txe7!? instead (there's still plenty of room in chess for novelties). The threat of ...ctJb4 and the semi-open b-ftle makes this position hard to assess. 11 .td2 0-0 12 0-0-0 llb8 13 ctJxd5 cxdS 14 .tf4 11b7 15 l::!.hel .te6 was equal in Fomin-Romanov, Kstovo 1994. 13 ctJxd5 seems to be innocu ous, but how should White improve? 13 ctJe4 .tf5 14 f3 .te6 would be unclear (unfortu nately 14...l:txb2 does not work). 1 1 i.d2!? Another move order that leads to a well known position. This move order seems to be the more accurate than the 'normal' 11 a3, for example: a) 11....taS?! 12 b4! (this move was found by 1M Moshe Czerniak) 12....tb6 (12....txb4 13 axb4 ctJxc3 14 .tb2 ctJd5 15 .txg7 l::i.g8

.

.

.

d5

16 .te5 gives White a substantial advantage according to Karpov, while 12...ctJxc3 13 bxaS ctJdS 14 0-0 l::!.b8 15 :i.e1+ .te6 16 f4 gave White a clear edge in Czerniak Fenoglio, Buenos Aires 1949) 13 ctJe2 ctJf6 14 .tb2 l:!.e8 15 0-0 and White is a certainly better. b) 11....txc3+ 12 bxc3 .te6! (12...ctJxc3?! 13 .tb2 ctJd5 14 .txg7 l::!.g8 15 .te5 is better for White, as is 12...l::!.e8 13 O-O!) 13 0-0 (13 a4 as 14 .ta3+ 'it'd7 15 0-0 ctJf4 16 l:!.fe1 ctJxd3 17 cxd3 .she8 was rightfully agreed drawn in Afek-1vkov, Wijk aan Zee 2000) 13...f6 14 c4 ctJb6 15 .te4 .txc4 16 :tel �f7 17 .txc6 l::!.ad8 18 .te3 .tdS! 19 .tb5 .tc4 20 .txc4+ ctJxc4 21 .txa7 lIdS! and Black held in Lautier-Karpov, Biel 1992. White cannot keep the pawn on a3, no matter how much he would love to. 1 1 . . .tZJxc3 White had a clear plus after 11....txc3?! 12 bxc3 .te6 13 c4 ctJb6 14 .tb4+ �d7 15 0-0-0 �c8 16 c5 ltJd5 17 .ta6+ �b8 18 .taS .tc8 19 .tc4 .te6 20 i.a6 .tc8 21 .tc4 .te6 22 l::!.he1 in Yandernirov-Aleksandrov, Kstovo 1994. 1 2 a3 i.a5 This seems to be the only move, although previous publications have claimed differ ently. a) According to Gutman Black has a good game after 12...lIe8? 13 axb4 �f8+, but the two bishops and stronger pawn structure make this position clearly better for White. 14 �f1 ltJe4 15 .tf4 ltJd6 16 f3 shows how. b) 12....td6? 13 .txc3 !te8 14 0-0-0 �f8 15 l:!.hel .td7 16 .txh7 g6 17 h4 and 'X'hite has an obvious advantage, Frolov-Shibaev, Samara 2002. 1 3 b4 13 .txc3?! .txc3+ 14 bxc3 was equal in Teplitz-Schonau Spielmann-Rubinstein, 1922. 1 3 . . .i.xb4?! Very risky. 13...l::!.e8! was probably the best. 14 bxa5 (14 0-0 .tb6 15 l::!.fe1+ .te6 16 69

Th e Fo u r Knigh ts

.¥l.xc3 'it>f8 and the position is equal - Gut man) 1 4...�f8+ 1 5 'it>f1 ctJe4! 1 6 .iel (16 .¥l.f4 ctJc5! with equality is an important dif ference from the notes on move twelve; 1 6 .¥l.b4+ c5 1 7 .¥l.el ctJd6 is fine too) 1 6...'it>g8! 17 f3 ctJc5 and Black is no worse. 13 ... .¥l.b6 14 .¥l.xc3 f6 1 5 0-0 .¥l.e6 16 .l:!.fel 'it>f7 also looks fine. The game Arkhipov Kholmov, Azov 1 993 concluded in a draw after 1 7 l:.e2 .¥l.g4 1 8 .ic4+ �g6 1 9 l':!.e7 i.f5 20 i.f7+ �h6 21 i.d2+ g5 22 i.c3 Mhf8 23 i.b3 .l:!.ae8 24 l2:ael l:.xe7 25 .l:!.xe7 .l:!.d8 26 �f1 .l:!.d1+ 27 .l:!.el 'ud6 28 h3 c5 29 b5 c4 30 i.xc4 .¥l.xc2 31 l:!.c1 .¥l.a4 32 .¥l.b4 .l:td4 33 .¥l.e2 �g6 34 .ic5. 14 axb4 lLld5 1 5 .te4! 1 5 c4?! ctJb6 16 .if4 :d8 17 .¥l.xc7 .l:!.xd3 1 8 .¥l.xb6 i.e6 would allow Black to get counterplay. 1 5 . . J:te8 1 6 0-0 �f8 1 7 �f3 �e6 1 8 c4 White has an advantage somewhere be tween slight and large - a medium advantage! 1 8 . . . lLle7 1 9 J:lfc 1 lLlf5!? 20 �c3 .td7?! If 20...ctJe7 21 .¥l.d4 f5 22 .l:!.xa7 ':xa7 23 .¥l.xa7 g5 Black keeps good drawing chances. 21 J:[d 1 ! J::r.ed8

After 21 ...l:!.e7 22 l:!.xd7! l:I.xd7 23 .ixc6 .l:!.ad8 24 i.xd7 .l:!.xd7 25 �f1 White has seri ous winning chances. 22 h3? A sloppy mistake. Two alternatives were better: a) 22 i.e5!? i.e6 (22... ctJd6 23 .¥l.xd6+ 70

cxd6 24 l:hd6 'it>e7 25 c5 would put Black under pressure) 23 .ixc6 J::!.xd1+ 24 ':xd1 l:!.c8 25 c5 f6 26 .¥l.c3 ctJe7 27 .ie4 would give White a clear advantage. b) So would 22 ':xd7! ltxd7 23 .ixc6 .l:!.ad8 24 .ixd7 Ilxd7 25 'it>fl , when the end game is very unpleasant for Black. 22 . . ..te8 23 l:!.xd8 J::r.xd8 24 J::r.x a7 lLld4! 25 .txd4 After 25 .ig4? f5 26 i.xd4 fxg4 27 i.c5+ 'it>f7 28 hxg4 .l:!.d7 the endgame is most probably drawn. 25 . . . J:.xd4 26 �e2 J::r.d 2 27 .tf1 J:tb2! Black has now found some counterplay. 28 l:!.b7 J:tb 1 29 f4?! Better was 29 h4!? h6 30 f3 g6 31 c5 .l:!.b2 32 'it>h2 .l:!.b 1 33 .¥l.d3 .l:!.b2 34 �g3 l:!b3 35 i.e4 f5 36 i.c2 .l:!.b2 37 .¥l.d3 and White still has a little pressure. 29 . . . J:tb2 30 c5 g6 3 1 g4 31 g3 h5 32 .¥l.g2 llb 1+ 33 'it>h2 .l:!.b2 34 .l:!.xc7 l:txb4 35 .ixc6 i.xc6 36 .l:!.xc6 h4 37 gxh4 'uxf4 38 'it>g3 1:.c4 would be easily drawn for Black. And after 31 �h2?! .l:!.f2! Black would have good counterplay. 31 . . . hS 32 g5 h5 33 h4 Maybe stronger was 33 .¥l.g2 h4!, for ex ample: 34 .if3 i.d7 35 .l:!.xc7 .l:!.b1+ 36 �f2 .l:!.b2+ 37 'it>e3 ':b3+ 38 �e2 l:!.b2+ 39 �d3 l:tb3+ 40 'it>c2 .l:!.xf3 41 ':xd7 .l:!.xf4 42 'it>c3 .l:!.f3+ 43 l':!.d3. White's position looks good but Black can keep his counterplay alive with 43 ....:g3!. After 44 'it>c4 ':xg5 45 .l:!.d6 the position is not clear at all. 33 . . . .!:!.d2 34 .tg2 .!:!.d4 35 f5 gxf5 36 J:lxc7 l:txb4 37 .1xc6 .txc6 38 J:lxc6 l:txh4 Black is better! The draw occurs only be cause the rook endgame with f- and h-pawns are theoretically drawn. 39 tU6 litg4+ 40 �h2 J::r.x g5 41 c6 f4 42 c7 J::tc 5 43 J:lf5 J:lxc7 44 J::i:.x h5 J.:!.c2+ 45 �g1 �g7 46 .!:!.f5 J:tc4 47 �f2 �g6 48 J:ta5 J:lc3 49 litb5 f6 50 J:la5 lite3 51 J:lb5 J:[e5 52 J:lb8 �f5 53 .l:!.a8 l:1.b5 54 �f3 .l:!.b3+ 55 �f2 f3 56 �g3 J:le3 Y:z - Y:z

S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Sidelin e s a ft e r 7 . . . d5

Summary Once again it makes no real sense for White to avoid the main lines, but Black has an interest ing alternative in 8 .. JiVxe7+, which still contains many untried ideas. Later Black should be careful because, as opposed to the nonnal 1 0... c6, neither 10 ... .i.e7 nor 10 ... .i.e6 can fully guar antee equality. 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 �b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 �d3 d5 8 exd5 cxd5 8 . . "i!ke7+ (D) 9 'Yi'e2 9 ... cxdS Game 34; 9 .. .':tJxdS Game 35 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 �g5 10 ctJbS (D) Game 33 1 0 . . �e6 1O . .i.e7 Game 32 1 1 ttJb5 (D) Game 3 1 1 1 'iV f3 Game 30; 1 1 ctJe2 Game 29 .

-

-

-

.

.

.

-

-

-

8. . : �e 7 +

-

1 0 ttJb5

1 1 ttJb5

71

CHAPTER SIX

I

Scotch Four Knights : Sidelines after 5 ctJxd4

1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4 exd4 5 l2lxd4 This position is one with which many be ginners are familiar. And contrary to most symmetrical systems that beginners opt for, this line is also played at the highest level. In this chapter we shall investigate unusual ideas for both sides. This includes (after 5 ... i.b4 6 lLlxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3) the interesting 7... d6!? (Games 36-37), which can be used as a great surprise weapon. It is little known, looks passive, but is both good and active. It's not a very popular move, but quite a good alter native to 7 ... d5, which is in my opinion a bit overplayed and dull - it is very hard to find new ideas. After 7 ... d6 you will have a more dynamic game in uninhibited territory. Also making this chapter is Hebden's 5 ... .1c5!?, which is not fully reliable, and fi nally 5 ...lLJxe4?!, which is somewhat dubious. ....--------------... .

l2lg4! A good, aggressive move. a) After S... i.xc3?! 9 bxc3 Black cannot equalise: a1) 9 ... lLld7 is too slow. 1 0 .i.e3 0-0 1 1 f4 c5 1 2 e5 i.b7 1 3 'iHh5! g6 1 4 'iib3 f5?! (14.. :iKe7 1 5 exd6 cxd6 16 l1ae1 with a white initiative was preferable) 1 5 exf6 'iWxf6 16 f5 Game 36 gave White a clear advantage, Baldin-Ivanov, Godena-Beliavsky Chicago 1997. a2) 9 ... h6 10 .i.f4 0-0 1 1 li'f3 11es 12 Mfe1 Reggio Emilia 1995/96 '---------------.. lLld7 13 e5 lLlxe5 14 i.xe5 dxe5 1 5 �xc6 is somewhat better for White. 1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4 b) Interesting is S .. :�e7!? 9 lLJe2! (9 .tg5 exd4 5 l2lxd4 �b4 6 l2lxc6 bxc6 7 �d3 h6! 10 .th4 g5 1 1 .i.g3 �xc3 - better is d6!? 8 0-0 1 1 ...lLlg4! as in the main game - 1 2 bxc3 lLlg4 The best move, S .i.g5, is seen in the next 1 3 �d2 h5 1 4 f3 lLle5 1 5 f4 h4 1 6 .i.f2 gxf4 game. 72

8

. . .

S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 CiJ x d4

17 'YWxf4 c5 1 8 J::i.a bl Ji.d7 was unclear in Motylev-Mokriak, Briansk 1 995) 9 ... Ji.c5 1 0 c 3 (10 4Jg3?! 4Jg4! i s dangerous: ".iVh4 and ".h5-h4 are coming) 1 0".0-0 1 1 4Jd4 Ji.d7 1 2 ltf3 h 6 1 3 Ji.f4 and White appears to have a slight space advantage. 9 .1te2! The best. The alternatives are: a) 9 Ji.f4 'YWf6 1 0 ii'd2 0-0 1 1 'sae1 h6 1 2 .ig3 'iVd4 1 3 a 3 Ji.xc3 1 4 'YWxc3 ii'xc3 1 5 bxc3 4Je5 1 6 Ji.xe5 dxe5 with equality, S.Lalic-Maric, Hastings 1 994/95. b) 9 Itf3 0-0 10 'ii'g3 4Je5 1 1 4Je2 .i.c5 12 Ji.h6 4Jg6 13 .ig5 f6 14 Ji.e3 Ji.xe3 1 5 'YWxe3 .l:!.e8 was unclear in Nepeina Leconte Maric, Igalo 1 994. c) 9 h3 4Je5 and now: c1) 1 0 f4?! 4Jxd3 (a bishop is a bishop!) 1 1 cxd3 'ii'f6 1 2 e5 (1 2 'iVe1 'iYd4+ 1 3 'iVe3 Ji.c5 is a little better for Black) 12".dxe5 1 3 fxe5 'iVg6 14 4Je2 0-0 1 5 4Jf4 'ii'f5 16 d4 llVe4 1 7 'YWd3 .if5 1 8 'ii'xe4 .ixe4 1 9 Ji.e3 .l:!.ae8! and Black, who plans ".f7-f6, is better, Grabics Mikhalchishin Nova Gorica 2000. c2) 10 �e2 lth4 (1 0".0-0 1 1 4Ja4! .i.a5 1 2 b 3 with a small advantage for White - Gut man) 1 1 f4! (1 1 .ie3? .ixc3 1 2 bxc3 'ii'xe4 13 .l:!.b 1 0-0 and 'X-bite did not have full com pensation for the pawn, Ruchieva-Maric, Tivat 1 995) 1 1 ...4Jg6 (1 1 ...Ji.xh3? 12 'ii'e l ! and White wins a piece) 12 'iVel i.c5+ 1 3 'it>hl 'iVe7 (13".'ii'x e1 i s equal) 1 4 'iVg3 .i.d4 with an unclear position. 9 . . . CiJe5?! 9".h5? 1 0 �d4 z:tb8 1 1 'iVxg7 would just drop a pawn, but 9".�4!? needs to be investigated: a) 10 .ixg4 'ii'xg4 1 1 'ii'xg4 .i.xg4 is equal or maybe even slightly better for Black. He has two bishops and can utilise the e- and b flies. b) Interesting is 10 Ji.f4!? Ji.xc3 1 1 Ji.g3 'ili'e7 1 2 bxc3 4Jf6, when 1 3 f3?! 4Jh5! gives Black sufficient counterplay. After all, White's structure on the queenside is slightly flawed.

c) 10 h3 4Jf6 (1 0".4Je5 transposes to note 'c2' to White's 9th move) 1 1 'iVd3 as with good counterplay for Black; the chances are approximately equal. 1 0 CiJa4!

After this White will eventually gain the two bishops, and then the f2-f4 push will secure him a slight advantage. 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 a3 .lta5 1 2 b4 .1tb6 1 3 c4 13 4Jxb6 axb6 14 f4 4Jg6 1 5 Ji.b2 looks good too, but White is playing a strategy of restraint where Black must wonder when or if his bishop will be exchanged. 1 3 . . .'Yie7 1 4 .ltb2 l:lb8 1 5 iVd2 c5 1 5".l1e8? 16 ii'c3! wins the exchange after 1 6".f5 1 7 c5! dxc5 1 8 bxc5 Ji.xc5 1 9 4Jxc5 .l:!.xb2, as after 1 6".c5 1 7 4Jxb6 cxb6 1 8 f4 the knight is lost. 1 6 bxc5 dxc5 1 7 CiJc3 .lta5 1 8 CiJd5 �d6 1 9 'ilkc2 White only has a slight edge after 1 9 .ixe5 �xd2 20 Ji.xd6 cxd6 21 .:i.ad1 11b2 22 :b1 . 1 9 . . .c 6 20 J::.a d1 f6 21 f4! Black is up against it and does not find the relief he could have after 21 4Jb6?! 'iVc7 22 4Jxc8 .l:1.fxc8 23 f4 4Jg6 24 .i.g4, when White is better, but not by much. 21 . . . cxd5! Not 21...4Jg6?? 22 4Jxf6+. 22 fxe5 'iWb6 22".fxe5? 23 .l:!.xfS+ �xf8 24 .l:!.xd5 'iVb6 25 .ltxe5 'iVb1+ 26 .i.dl 'ii'xc2 27 .ltxc2 would lead to a winning endgame for White 73


(�d6+ comes next) . 23 J:!.b1 d4 23 ... dxe4? 24 exf6 gxf6 25 �xf6 �d6 26 MxbS 'iYxbS 27 "it'c1 wins the exchange and leaves Black in trouble. 24 �xd4 "ilic7 25 l:!.xb8 cxd4! Trying to complicate matters. 2S ...�xbS? 26 �xcS is hopeless. 26 "W\Yb3 d3 26 ... "it'xeS 27 MbS 'iVc7 2S �hl gives White a clear advantage. 27 c5+ c,t>h8 28 �xd3 "Yi'xe5 29 �b2? It was better to play actively. After 29 MfS! 'iHd4+ (29...fie7 30 MdS! �c7 31 .l:i.aS i.e6 32 Mxf8+ �xfS 33 "iibs i.xdS 34 exdS would win for White) 30 �hl �c7 31 .l:.aS �a1+ 32 �bl "it'd4 33 .lldS �f2 34 "it'dl Black is under attack and down on material. 29 . . . "Yi'xc5+ 30 c,t>h 1 "Yi'd6

31 .l:!.b3? White could still win after 31 �c4! .ltc3 32 ifbs .lteS 33 ItaS .ltxh2 34 �xa7 .ltes 35 �dS ifb6 36 MV MXV 37 fixv �dS 3S i.e2, followed by Md 1 , and Black will have to enter the hopeless endgame where the a pawn will decide the game. 31 . . . i.c7 32 e5 "Yi'xe5 33 "Yi'xe5 �xe5 34 i.f5 �xf5? After 34 ... i.a6 35 l:!.dl g6 36 i.e4 MV 37 Itd8+ �g7 3S Mbl �c7 39 l:!.eS i.b6 40 .ltf3 l:tc7 41 i:!.bel �h6 42 J::t Se7 J::tc2 White re tains practical chances of winning, but the position is probably an objective draw. 74

35 .l::!.xf5 .l:!.c8 36 J:tf 1 ! li!.c4 37 J:i:.d 1 ? Black is given more and more chances. White wins after 37 Mb7 Ma4 3S Mdl h6 39 Md8+ �h7 40 Mdd7. 37 . . . h6! 38 l:!.b7 a6 39 J:f.a7 J:!.a4 Now it is too late - White can no longer win the a-pawn. 40 J:td3 �b2 41 g3 J:!.xa3 Now the position is close to equal. 42 J:tdd7 f5 43 J:!d5 c,t>h7 44 .l:!.xf5 c,t>g6 45 J:td5 �f6 46 l:!.a8 J:ta 1 + 47 c,t>g2 J:i.a2+ 48 c,t>h3 ':'a3 49 J:th8 �g5 50 J:1d6+ �f6 51 l:td5 i.g5 52 l:!.d6+ i.f6 53 l:!.a8 h5 54 .l:!.dxa6 J:i.xa6 55 J:i.xa6 c,t>f7 56 J:i.a7+ c,t>g8 57 J:!.a5 g6

This position is a theoretical draw - it is a fortress where White cannot enter. All Black has to do is prevent the white king from get ting to V. 58 J:!.a7 c,t>f8 59 c,t>g2 c,t>g8 60 c,t>f3 c,t>f8 6 1 c,t>e4 c,t>g8 6 2 c,t>d5 i.c3 6 3 c,t>e6 i.b2 64 .l:!.b7 i.c3 65 h3 i.a1 66 J:.b5 c,t>g7 67 :g5 i.c3 68 h4 i.e1 69 c,t>e7 i.f2 70 c,t>d6 c,t>f7 71 c,t>d5 i.e3 72 lie5 Y, y, -

Game 37 Bezman-Varavin

Perm 1997 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 d6 8 i.g5 h6 9 �h4 �e6! After 9 ... 0-0?! 10 0-0 MeS 1 1 f4 �b7 1 2

S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h ts : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 tiJ x d4

lbe2! �e7 1 3 lbg3 'it'e6 14 f5 'i!Ve5 1 5 i.xf6 'i!Vxf6 1 6 c3 White has strong attacking chances - Gutman. 1 0 0-0?! This runs into a stonn of ancient propor tions. Better is 1 0 f41. Now there is a lot of logic in Black continuing aggressively with 1 0... g5! 1 1 ii.g3 (1 1 fxg5 lbg4 12 'iVd2 .l:i.g8 1 3 h3 hxg5 1 4 i.g3 lbe5 gives Black a good game) 1 1 ...gxf4 (Black must act; after 1 1 ....l:i.b8?! 1 2 0-0 i.cs+ 1 3 c;t>hl lbg4 1 4 f5! lbe3 1 5 'it'f3 lbxf1 1 6 I;[xf1 i.c8 1 7 e5 White stands much better because Black's rooks can hardly be called useful here) 1 2 ii.xf4 .l:i.g8

and now: a) 1 3 O-O?! lbg4? (1 3 ... i.cs+ 1 4 'it>hl lbg4 right move order) 1 4 'it>hl ? (14 lba4! ii.a5 1 5 c3 lbe5 16 b4 i.b6+ 1 7 lbxb6 axb6 1 8 a4 with unclear play) 1 4... i.c5 1 5 'it'e2 "ikh4 1 6 g3 lIVe7 (16 ...'tlVh3!? and 1 6 ...'it'h5!? are equally viable options) 1 7 lbdl lbe5?! (17 ...h5! with a mess is probably better) 1 8 ii.xe5 i.g4 (1 8 ...dxe5 1 9 i.c4 is better for White) 19 ii.xd6 cxd6 20 "iig2 and there is not enough compensation for the pawn. b) 1 3 'it'd2 lbh5!? 1 4 i.e3 (14 O-O-O? i.xc3! 1 5 bxc3 lbxf4 1 6 it'xf4 'iig5 is clearly better for Black) 1 4...iVh4+ 1 5 'it'f2 with an unclear position. But note that 1 5...lbg3?? is not an option because of 1 6 O-O-O! and White WillS .

1 0 . . . g5!

With this move and indeed Black's whole plan, Varavin is clearly inspired by a classic from more than 1 50 years ago. Here it is: 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 0-0 d6 5 d3 lbf6 6 i.g5?! (6 c3 6 lbc3) 6 ... h6! 7 ii.h4? (7 i.e3 7 i.xf6 'i'xf6 8 lbc3 is level) 7 ...g5! 8 ii.g3

8 ... h5!! 9 h4 (9 lbxg5 h4! 10 lbxf7 hxg3 1 1 lbxd8 i.g4!! 12 'iid2 lbd4 1 3 h3! [Black wins after both 13 lbc3 lbf3+1! 14 gxf3 i.xf3 and 1 3 lbf7 l:r.xh2!] 1 3. .. lbe2+ 1 4 'i'xe2 i.xe2 1 5 lbe6 i.b6 1 6 lbc3 i.xfl 1 7 'it>xfl c;t>d7! 1 8 fxg3 l:r.ag8 19 lbxc7 .l:!.xg3 20 lbe2 :g6 21 lbd5 [21 lbe6 lbg4! and Black wins] 21...lbxd5 22 i.xd5 J::i.f8+) 9 ... i.g4 1 0 c3 'iWd7 1 1 d4 exd4 12 e5 dxe5 13 i.xe5 ltJxe5 1 4 lbxe5 'it'f5! 1 5 lbxg4 hxg4 1 6 i.d3 'iWd5 17 b4 O-O-O! 1 8 c4 'it'c6 1 9 bxc5 .l:.xh4 20 f3 .l:.dh8 21 fxg4 'i'e8 (21 ...lbe4! 22 i.xe4 %:th1+ 23 c;t>f2 it'xe4 was quicker) 22 'iWe 1 'it'e3+ 23 �xe3 dxe3 24 g3 .:i.h 1+ 25 �g2 .l:!.8h2+ 26 �f3 .u.xf1+ 27 i.xf1 .l::!.f2+ 28 �xe3 .l::txfl 29 a4 �d7 30 c;t>d3 lbxg4 31 c;t>c3 lbe3 32 .l:i.a2 l:lxb 1 33 .l:.d2+ c;t>c6 34 .l::te2 ':k1+ 35 'it>d2 .l:i.c2+ 36 �xe3 ':'xe2+ 37 �xe2 f5 38 �e3 ..t>xc5 39 h1 dxe5 and Black is close to winning. b) 12 f3 h4 1 3 i.f2 g4 1 4 i.d4 g3 1 5 h3 i.c5!? 1 6 lbe2 ii.xd4+ 1 7 lbxd4 'ilfb8 1 8 75


ttJxe6 fxe6 1 9 e5 ttJd5 20 .Jtg6+ �d7 was unclear, but probably good for Black in Frolov-Varavin, Ekaterinburg 1 997. Maybe 1 6 .Jtxc5 dxc5 was forced, even though Black can continue with ... c5-c4. c) 12 h3 and now: c1) 1 2... lid7 1 3 'ii'd2 l:!.g8 14 a3 .Jtc5 1 5 ttJa4 .Jtb6 1 6 ttJxb6 axb6 1 7 'iVc3! with some advantage for White. c2) 1 2... h4 13 .Jth2 g4 14 e5! dxe5 (14... .1Lxc3? 1 5 bxc3 gxh3 16 exf6 hxg2 1 7 lie1 probably does not offer enough com pensation for the piece) 1 5 i.xe5 i.d6 1 6 .l:!.e1 with a very unclear situation. c3) 12 ... ttJd7! 1 3 ttJa4 lif6 1 4 a3 .1La5 1 5 b4 .1Lb6 1 6 ttJxb6 axb6 1 7 a4 h4! 1 8 .i.h2 g4 1 9 hxg4 h3 and Black has a very strong at tack. White would like to play 20 g3 but then the bishop is simply forgotten and buried, and after a move like 20... c5! Black is much better. 1 2 . . . h4 1 3 .i.e 1 Also possible was 13 i.f2!? i.xc3! (the right moment; 13. ..gxf4 1 4 i.d4 c5 1 5 .1Lxf6 "iixf6 1 6 ttJd5 .1Lxd5 1 7 exd5 'tixb2 1 8 J::txf4 .1Lc3! 1 9 'iNe2+ is not so clear) 1 4 bxc3 gxf4 1 5 lif3 (1 5 i.d4 c5 is less attractive now) 1 5 ... ttJg4! 1 6 .1Ld4 l:tg8 1 7 'it'xf4 (17 h3 ttJe3 1 8 .1Lxe3 fxe3 19 "iixe3 l:!.g3 is dangerous for White) 1 7... c5 1 8 ..ib5+ 'it'fS 1 9 i.f2 .l:.b8 20 a4 h3 21 g3 lig5 and Black is clearly better. 1 3 . . . gxf4 1 4 J:txf4 ttJd7! 1 5 cJ;>h 1 1 5 'tid2! ttJe5 (1 5 ...'tig5? 1 6 .l:!.xh4! costs a pawn for no reason) 1 6 a3 i.c5+ 1 7 'it'h1 h3 1 8 g3 �g8 would give Black good attacking chances, but White also has reasonable ideas and the game is still open. 1 5 ttJd5?? i.c5+ does not work. 1 5 . . :iWg5 1 6 .i.d2 16 lin .l:i.b8!? 17 a3 ..ic5 18 i.d2 "iflg7 gives Black the twin threats of the simple ....l:!.xb2 and the positional ... h4-h3. 1 6 . . . �g8 1 7 'i'e2 1 7 'iNn h3 18 g3 ttJe5 is also uncomfort able. 1 7 . . . ttJe5 1 8 �af1 76

White would have been better off trying 1 8 �xf7! 'iYxg2+ 19 "iflxg2 .l:i.xg2 20 Wxg2 .1Lxf7!? (20 ... �xf7 21 .l:i.f1+ �e7 22 .1Lg5+ �d7 23 .1Lxh4 ..ixc3 24 bxc3 .ixa2 is less clear - White has some counterplay with 25 .1Lg3 and the h-pawn, even though Black's chances are preferable) 21 a3 (21 .1Lg5? i.xc3 22 bxc3 .l:i.b8 23 SLxh4 l:!.b2 24 �g3 .l:i.xa2 25 �xa2 .1Lxa2 26 i.a6 .1Lc4! 27 .1Lxc4 ttJxc4 28 .1Lg5 as and Black wins; 21 ttJb5 cxb5 22 .1Lxb4 We7 is just very pleasant for Black) 21...i..c5 22 �n �d7. Ths gives White some problems to solve, but at least they would not be overpowering. 1 8 . . ..ltg4!

1 9 l:!.4f3?? A fatal blunder. 19 'iYf2 .1Lc5 20 I1f6! lig7 21 'iNxh4 i.e2! (21 ...i.. f3 22 "iflg3 "iixg3 23 hxg3 ttJg4 24 gxf3 ttJxf6 is hardly better for Black at all) 22 g3 i.xfl 23 .l:i.xf1 tth8 24 'iNf4 'iNg4 gives Black a clear edge, but still there is a fight left. Now it is all over. 1 9 . . :iWg7! 20 .i.e3 h3! 2 1 g3 .i.xf3+ 22 .l:!.xf3 ttJxf3 23 'i'xf3 .ltxc3 24 bxc3 'ifxc3 0-1

Game 38 Bondarevsky-Bronstein

Moscow 1945 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 .i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6

S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Sidelin e s a ft e r 5 CD x d4

'fixe4+, but 9 O-O! would give White a good game. Therefore S ... cS! with a slight edge should be preferred. 8 . d5 There are some relevant alternatives: a) S ... .tcS 9 'iid3 1:tbS 10 ttJa4 Ji.b4+ (10... 0-0 is very slightly better for White after 1 1 ttJxcS 'fixcs 12 .te3 'iib4+ 1 3 'fic3 'Viixc3+ 14 bxc3 as l S .td4) 1 1 c3 Ji.d6 12 Ji.d2! (12 Ji.e3?! 0-0 13 0-0-0 1:teS 1 4 ifc2 ttJdS! gave Black a strong attack in Bon darevsky-Smyslov, Moscow 1 944) 12 ... 0-0 1 3 0-0-0 with good attacking chances for White - Gutman. b) S... cS! 9 'iVf2 (9 ife3 0-0 1 0 Ji.c4 1:teS 1 1 0-0 c6 12 �gS .txc3 1 3 bxc3 dS 1 4 exdS cxdS I S .tbS .td7 16 Ji.xd7 'fixd7 and Black is a little better - Gutman) 9...0-0 10 Ji.d2 (10 Ji.d3 dS 1 1 0-0 c4 12 Ji.e2 1:teS is very pleas ant for Black) lO ... dS 1 1 0-0-0 transposes to the game continuation. 9 .id2?! Here White had a chance to escape the horrible position in which he soon ends up. After 9 Ji.gS! Black has the follo'Wlng choices: a) 9 ... dxe4 10 O-O-O! and Black is suddenly far behind in development and also structur ally damaged. b) 9 ... cS 1 0 .tbS+ �fS (1 O ... Ji.d7 1 1 .txd7+ ifxd7 1 2 'iVeS+ 'iie6 1 3 Ji.xf6 gxf6 14 'fixdS 'fixdS I S exdS 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 is close to winning for White) 1 1 ifd3 d4 (1 1 ...dxe4 12 fxe4 .txc3+ [12 .. :iVxe4+?! 13 'fixe4 ttJxe4 14 .tc6 ttJxc3 I S Ji.xas ttJe4+ 1 6 c3 .txc3+ 1 7 bxc3 ttJxgS lS .llb 1 with advantage for White was the line given by Salvioli] 1 3 bxc3 Ji.b7 14 0-0 'iVxe4 I S 'iig3 and \X/hite has obvious compensation for the material) 12 0-0-0 .txc3 (1 2...h6? 1 3 ttJdS ife6 1 4 .txf6 gxf6 l S Ji.c4! �d6 16 ttJxb4 cxb4 17 �xd4 and White wins) 13 bxc3 h6 14 Ji.xf6 �xf6 I S .tc4 g6!? 16 cxd4 cJ;;g7 17 eS 'iie7 1 S 'iVa3 with a distinct advantage for White. c) 9 ... 0-0! 10 0-0-0 .tcS 1 1 .txf6 gxf6 12 'iVd3 (12 'Viia4 .te3+ 1 3 �bl d4 1 4 1:td3!? [14 ttJe2 cS IS ttJcl Ji.e6 16 Ji.c4 .l:i.fbS 1 7 ttJd3 . .

Here the standard move is 7 iLd3. This is certainly the most logical and natural move, but even so other moves have found their way into the minds of chess players from time to time. 7 'ilVd4 Or: a) 7 eS? 'Viie7 S 'Viie2 ttJdS 9 .td2 ttJxc3 1 0 bxc3 iLcs i s simply good for Black. b) 7 .td2 0-0 S i.d3 l:teS!? (S... dS 9 0-0 is equal) 9 0-0 i.xc3 1 0 .txc3 ttJxe4 1 1 'ViihS (1 1 .td4 dS 12 1:tel .tfS looks good for Black too) l 1 ...dS 1 2 .l:.ael g6!? (double edged) 1 3 ife2 .tfS and White has to prove compensation that is obviously there. c) 7 .tgS h6 S .td2 (S .th4 gS 9 .tg3 ttJxe4 1 0 ifd4 .txc3+ 1 1 bxc3 O-O! gives Black the advantage) S... O-O 9 .td3 1:teS is an improved version for Black on the 7 iLd2 line given above. d) 7 'Viid 3?! O-O! (the strongest; 7... 'fie7 S f3 dS 9 .tgS dxe4 1 0 .txf6 exd3+ 1 1 i.xe7 cJ;;xe7 12 Ji.xd3 is only equal) and now: dl) S Ji.gS? iLxc3+ 9 bxc3 1:teS 1 0 f3 dS leaves White horribly placed in the centre. d2) S Ji.d2? .txc3 9 .txc3 (9 bxc3 ttJxe4!) 9 ... ttJxe4! 10 'Viixe4 1:teS 1 1 Ji.eS dS 12 'Viie 3 f6 and White is in trouble. d3) S f3 dS 9 .te2 as and Black clearly has the initiative. 7 . . :�e7 8 f3 S .td3!? is known to be bad because of S... dS 9 .tgS cS 10 .tbS+ �fS 1 1 'fid3

77


�b6 and Black can organise a strong attack] 14 ... dxc3 1 5 �xe3 cxb2 is very unclear) 1 2... .ie6 1 3 f4 (1 3 exdS?! cxdS 1 4 tt'lxdS?? .ixdS 1 5 �xdS �fd8 would be rather awk ward to say the least) 1 3 ... d4 1 4 tt'le2 �fd8 with confusion, in which lines like 1 5 fS .ixa2! 16 'iVa6 d3 can be very hard to evalu ate. White is probably in trouble; his kingside is not playing and his own king is under at tack. 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 O-O-O?! White should still play 10 .igS! - better late then never! It's unclear after 1 O... dxe4 1 1 .ixf6 gxf6 1 2 0-0-0 ..Itxc3 1 3 'iVxc3 e3 1 4 .id3. 1 0 . . . e5 1 1 Vif2 d4

Black has clearly taken over the initiative. 1 2 cub 1 ?! This i s rather passive. 12 tt'ldS tt'lxdS 13 exdS .ixd2+ 14 �xd2 �d6 15 .ic4 .ib7 was also rather good for Black, though. 1 2 . . .i.xd2+ 1 3 cuxd2 cud7! 1 4 f4 .!:I.b8 1 5 Vif3 cub6 1 6 Via3 Bringing the queen to the defence of the queenside. After 1 6 .id3 .ie6! the move ... cS-c4 will come with great power. One possible line is 1 7 fS c4 1 8 fxe6 fxe6 1 9 "iVg3 cxd3 20 �xd3 tt'la4 21 tt'lb3 cS with great attacking prospects. 1 6 . . :�f6 1 7 93 Vie6 1 8 h3 1 8 .ig2 .ig4 19 �de 1 tt'la4 20 tt'lc4 (20 tt'lb3? c4! 21 tt'lxd4 "iVb6 22 c3 tt'lxb2 and Black will crash through) 20 ...'iVbS 21 b3 78

tt'lc3 and it is very unlikely that White will survive the attack. Probably all chances of survival lie in the endgame after 22 �aS!? 18 . . . a5? ! Easier was 1 8... tt'la4 19 tt'lc4 .ie6! and White is in a deep crisis . 1 9 i.d3 a4? This was obviously Bronstein's plan, but it would have been better to change direction and play 19 ... c4 20 .if1 c3 21 bxc3 dxc3 22 tt'lf3 "iVxe4 23 'iVxc3 .if5, when White is completely outplayed. 20 e5 i.e6 21 J:!.he1 J:!.a8 21 ...c4 22 .ie4 .idS 23 c3 .ixe4 24 .ti.xe4 dxc3 25 'ifxc3 tt'ldS 26 'iVxc4 'iHb6 would still have given Black a very strong attack. 22 b4?? A terrible blunder, which Black does not exploit. 22 . . . e4? What does White do after 22... axb3 here? 23 .ie4 bxc2 24 'iVxa8 'iVxa8 25 .ixa8 cxd1'iV+ 26 .l::txd1 .l::txa8 is just one of many wins. This phenomenon is called mutual blindness; probably a very beautiful woman had just entered the playing hall! 23 i.e4 i.d5 24 'ilff3?! e3! Black now has a completely winning at tack. 25 cub1 Vie4 26 cuxe3 dxe3 27 J:.xd5

27 . . .CUxd5? A terrible game with many mistakes maybe time trouble was playing a part here.

S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 t'iJ x d4

27...'it'xa2! 28 'it'xc3 ttJxdS simply leaves Black a rook up. 28 �xd5 'i'xb4 29 �xa8 :td8! ! Black plays a good move again, and the position is still winning. 30 �d5 c6 3 1 e6 fxe6?! Missing the spectacular win. 31 ...l:.xdS! 32 'it'xdS cxdS 33 e7 is probably what Black was afraid of, but after 33...'tib2+ 34 �dl 'it'b1+ 35 �e2 'ifb5+1 36 �dl 'it'e8 37 :f.e3 f6 he will be completely winning, as moves like �e2-d3 will run into ...'ikb5+ and ...�e8. Therefore Black can simply improve his situation, for example 38 a3 �f1 39 fS g6 40 g4 gxfS 41 gxfS 'ii'xe7 42 l:.xe7+ �xe7 43 �e2 �d6 44 'i.t>d3 �eS 45 �xc3 �xfS and Black wins. 32 'i'e4 'i'a3+?! 33 'it>d 1 l:txd5+ 34 'it>e2 'i'd6 35 'it>f3 'it>f7 36 'i'xa4 %id2 37 'ii'e4 g6 38 �e3 :th2 39 :d3 'i'c5 40 �d7+ 'it>f8 41 'i'd3?? A horrible mistake. After 4 1 l:!.xh7 'it'dS 42 'it'xdS cxdS 43 a4! .l:txc2 44 l:!.c7 �e8 45 as �d8 46 l:tcs �d7 the endgame is easily drawn. 41 . . J:td2 42 :td8+ 'it>g7 43 :td7+ 'it>f6 44 g4 'i'f2+ 0-1

Ji.d6 13 ttJd4 iLd7 is better for Black, but not much) 9...ttJxc3 10 bxc3 Ji.xc3 and there is no real compensation for the pawn. Afek Votava, Rishon Ie Zion 1992. b) 7 Ji.d2 0-0 8 iLd3 ttJeS 9 0-0 dS! 10 exdS (10 ttJxdS ttJxdS 11 exdS ttJxd3 12 cxd3 Ji.xd2 13 'ifxd2 'iixdS and Black is much better because of the weakness of d3, bishop versus knight and better coordination) 1O...ttJxd3 11 cxd3 h6!? (bad would be l 1...ttJxdS? 12 ttJxdS iLxd2 13 ttJxc7!) 12 iLf4?! (12 'iWf3 iLxc3 13 iLxc3 ttJxdS with equality was better) 12...ttJxdS 13 ttJxdS 'it'xdS 14 iLxc7 iLfS 15 a3 Ji.e7 16l:!.el iLf6 17 d4 .l:tfe8 18 l'he8+ Itxe8 19 l:i.c 1 Ji.gS 20 lic3 iLg4 and Black had the initiative in S.Lalic-Hebden, London 1988. 6 . . . bxc6 7 �d3 It is too optimistic to try to punish Black with 7 eS?! because after 7..:�e7 8 'it'e2 ttJdS 9 ttJe4 (9 iLd2?! i::tb8 10 O-O-O? Ji.a3 would be a serious disaster, while Black is better after 9 ttJxdS?! cxdS 10 Ji.f4 llb8) 9...Ji.b4+ 10 c3 iLaS Black is a little better according to Gutman.

Game 39 Rozentalis-Adams

Koge 1997 1 e4 ttJf6 These two players are used to getting the Scotch via the Alekhine Defence; this also happened in Rozentalis-Adams, Elista 1998. 2 t'iJc3 e5 3 t'iJf3 ttJc6 4 d4 exd4 5 t'iJxd4 ..tc5!? GM Mark Hebden's favourite. 6 ttJxc6 This is the natural move, but not the best. 6 .lie3! is considered in the next game. White has also tried 6 ttJb3?!, but this looks too passive. 6...Ji.b4 and now: a) 7 i.d3 dS! 8 exdS ttJxdS 9 O-O? (9 Ji.d2 ttJxc3 10 bxc3 'iie7+ 11 'ife2 'it'xe2+ 12 .lixe2

7 . . . d6 Or: a) After 7... dS White should consider 8 exdS, but he can also choose 8 0-0, which can transpose into the main lines if the bishop returns to e7. For example, 8...0-0 9 Ji.gS Ji.e7 10 exdS cxdS reaches Game 32. b) 7...0-0 is a tricky move order. Black 79


waits before deciding on ... d6 or ... dS. 8 0-0 .l::te 8 9 J.gS h6 10 J.h4 d6 would take us to note 'a' to White's 8th move. 8 121a4! ? This does not turn out to b e successful in this game, but should not be dismissed. Other options are: a) 8 J.gS h6 9 J.h4 0-0 (9 .. :iiVe7!? 10 'iWe2 .l:.b8 1 1 ttJa4 J.d4 12 c3 [12 f4?! gS! 13 fxgS ttJg4 14 0-0-0 hxgS was better for Black in the game Ankerst-Kachiani, Baden-Baden 1 993J 12 ... J.eS and Black will follow up with ...gS) 1 0 0-0 .l::t e8 1 1 t>h1 gS 1 2 J.g3 .i.g4 1 3 f3 .i.hS 14 .l:.e1 ttJd7 1 5 'iVd2 �b8 1 6 .l:.ab1 J.d4 1 7 f4 J.g7 1 8 b4 gxf4 with an unclear game, Potkin-Lastin, Moscow 1 999. b) 8 0-0 is probably the best try. 8 ...ttJd7 9 .i.e2 0-0 10 ttJa4! (here this idea works bet ter) 10 ... J.b6 1 1 b3 'i¥h4 1 2 ttJxb6 axb6 1 3 f3 J.a6 1 4 c4 (to keep the advantage of the two bishops) 1 4... cS 1 5 i..b2 with a very slight advantage for White, Miles-Hebden, London 1 994. 8 . . . i.b6 9 i.g5 White stands slightly better after the stronger 9 O-O!?, intending ttJxb6 and b2-b3. 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 0-0 h6 1 1 i.h4 J:l.e8 Black searches for counterplay against the e4-pawn. 1 2 121xb6 After this exchange Black's pawns are no longer weak. 1 2 . . . axb6 1 3 f4! Safe play does not work. After 1 3 f3 ..tb 7 14 c4 d5 1 5 'ifc2 'iWd6 16 l:!.fd1 dxe4 1 7 ..txe4 'iWc5+ 1 8 ..tf2 'iig5 1 9 i..d3 c5 Black is at least equal. His bishop on b7 is the best piece on the board, and ...ttJf6-h4-f4 attacks the weakest spot in front of White's king. Best now is probably 20 'iid2! in order to reach an endgame, but Black is ftne after 20 ...ttJh5!. 1 3 . . .i.b7 14 c4 c5 1 5 'ii'c 2 J:f.e6! This move, preparing a positional ex change sacriftce, is necessary because White is threatening the following plan: a2-a3, 80

.l:::i.ae1 , .l::!.e 3, �fe1 and after that e4-eS Of Black queen remains on d8) or f4-f5. I'm convinced that ....l:.e6 is the only sensible move for Black in this position.

1 6 a3! White frees the rook from al . 1 6 . . :iVe8?! I do not like this move; the alternatives look better. 1 6...J.c6 1 7 f5 .l::!.e 5 1 8 l:lae 1 '>th7 (but not 1 8...'iWf8? 1 9 i..xf6 gxf6 20 .l:.f4 'iWg7 21 lle3 with a strong attack) 19 .l:!.e3 "ViIie7 (1 9 .. :iVd7? 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21 .l:!h3 .l::tg8 22 .l::!. f4 is very dangerous) 20 i..g3 .l:.e8 21 i..xe5 'ifxeS and Black has good compensation for the exchange. 1 6 .. :i\¥e7!? 1 7 f5 .l::!.e5 1 8 ..tg3 .l:.e8 would also secure Black compensation, but probably White just continues with 1 9 :ae1 i n order to delay the acceptance o f the sacriftce. 1 7 f5 J:f.xe4 Because of the inaccuracy of his previous move, Black is now forced to capture on e4. Black would like to play 1 7 ....l:!.e5?, but 1 8 J.xf6! gxf6 1 9 l:i.f4 i s very dangerous. 1 8 i.xe4 Or 1 8 J.xf6? �g4 19 .l::!.a e1 'iWc6 20 .l:.f2 gxf6 21 .l:::i. fe2 d5! (21 ...t>h7? 22 J.e4 and White is obviously better) and now: a) 22 .l:.e7?! Wid6 23 'iWe2 (23 h3 .l:.g5 24 cxd5 J.xd5 25 .l:.7e2 .l:.d8 26 .te4 J.xe4 27 �xe4 'iWd4+ 28 'iWxd4 cxd4 29 g4 hS 30 .l::!.e4 hxg4 31 hxg4 c5 followed by ... �f8 and ... .l:.g8 would give Black a clear advantage)

S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 liJ x d4

23 ... h5! 24 cxd5 'it'xd5 25 �e4 'it'd4+ 26 �hl �xe4 27 �xe4 .l::!.xe4 28 "it'xe4 'it'xe4 29 .l:!.xe4 l::td8 would give Black realistic winning chances. b) 22 cxd5 'it'xd5 23 �e4 "ili'd4+ 24 �hl �xe4 25 l::txe4 l:Ixe4 26 .li!.xe4 "ili'd7 and I'm sure that a player like Adams would win such an endgame. Perhaps it could be drawn in correspondence chess, but over the board the task of the defender is too great. 1 8 . . . liJxe4 1 9 .i.g3? Black of course has compensation, but this move does not make sense. Best was 1 9 l:tae l ! "it'e5 2 0 �g3 "ili'd4+ 21 �f2 'i¥d2 22 "iVbl lbf6 (22 ... lbxf2? 23 lIxf2 �d4 24 f6! is unhealthy for Black) 23 "it'c1 "it'xc1 24 .l:!.xc1 lbg4 25 .l:!.fel lbe5. This endgame is where the final judgement on 1 6...'it'e8 has to be made. I believe White has some chances to win it, while Black has very few active ideas. 1 9 . . . b5 20 b3 bxc4 Black slowly improves his position. 20 ... lbxg3?! 21 hxg3 'it'e3+ 22 �h2 �e4 23 "iib2 bxc4 24 bxc4 f6 25 �ael "ili'd3 26 ltf4 would give White a clear edge. 21 bxc4

21 .. :i1ia4! 21...lbxg3?! 22 hxg3 'it'e3+ 23 iff2 l::txa3 24 l::txa3 'i¥xa3 25 f6! is dangerous for Black. 22 'ilixa4 .l:!.xa4 In this ending the white pawns on a3, c4 and f5 are very weak. A draw is a fair result. 23 .l:!.fb1 .l:!.a7 24 .i.e1 '>t>h7 25 a4 .i.a6 26

.llc 1 h5 27 .i.h4 ltJd2 28 .l:ic3 liJxc4 29 f6 ltJe5 30 lite1 .i.b7 31 fxg7 '>t>xg7 32 J:!.g3+ liJg6 33 .i.d8 .l:!.xa4 34 .i.xc7 .l:!.d4 35 .!:!.b3 .i.d5 36 J:f.b2 .i.e6 37 .l:!.c2 ltJf4 38 :f1 liJd3 39 .i.d8 .l:!.e4 40 .i.e7 liJb4 41 .!:!c3 .i.c4 42 .i.xd6! Vi - Vi

Game 40 Reefat Bin Sattar-Hebden

Dhaka 1995 1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 .i.c5 6 .i.e3! The most accurate reaction against 5 .... .tc5!? 6 . . ..i.b6

7 'ilid2!? A surprise - White wants to build an at tack! The only question is: what about the possibility of ...lbg4 here? White's other options include: a) 7 g3 must be rather hannless. 7... 0-0 8 .tg2 d6 9 h3 Me8 10 0-0 �d7 1 1 Mel h6 was unclear in Lane-Hebden, London 1 994, a game Black later went on to win. b) 7 ii.e2 (I am not afraid of this move where is its sting?) 7...0-0 8 'it'd2 (or 8 0-0 d6 9 lbxc6 bxc6 10 �g5 'it'e7 1 1 �hl 'i¥e5 1 2 f4 ifd4 1 3 �d3 lbg4 with counterplay Dzindzichashvili) 8... d5!? (after this classic counterattack in the centre Black should equalise; 8...l::te 8 9 lbxc6 bxc6 10 .tg5 h6 1 1 .th4 g5 1 2 .tg3 lbxe4 1 3 lbxe4 ltxe4 14 81


0-0-0 gives White good attacking chances Gutman) 9 exd5 4Jxd5 (9 ...4Jxd4 1 0 .ixd4 4Jxd5? 1 1 .ixg7 4Jxc3 1 2 �xc3 l:.e8 1 3 .ih6 �d4 1 4 �g3+ 'iig4 1 5 0-0-0 �xg3 1 6 fxg3 .ie6 gives White a clear extra pawn) 1 0 4Jxc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0-0 (1 1 .ig5!?) l 1 ....ia5!? 1 2 .id4 .lte6 with a double-edged situation. c) 7 4Jxc6 bxc6 and now: c1) 8 .ixb6?! just cannot be good. 8 ... axb6 9 .id3 0-0 1 0 0-0 d6 1 1 1:!.e1 4Jg4 1 2 h3 4Je5 13 f4 4Jxd3 14 it'xd3 lWh4 gave Black an excellent game in Kozakov-Adams, France 1 997. c2) 8 e5!? (this is an interesting possibility) 8...ii.xe3 9 fxe3 (after 9 exf6? the two bish ops and the open b-ftle is too much: 9....ih6 10 �e2+ 'It>f8 1 1 fxg7+ .ixg7 1 2 it'd2 l:.b8 1 3 0-0-0 d5 and Black has a very strong at tack, Muningis-Bobras, Zagan 1 995) 9 ... 4Jd5 10 4Jxd5 cxd5 1 1 'iid4! (1 1 �xd5 it'h4+ 1 2 Wdl l:!.b8 must b e good for Black) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 0-0-0 with unclear play. 7 . . . 0-0 7...4Jg4 Iooks like the most obvious move. Now 8 4Jf5! is the correct reply (8 .ig5? f6 9 .ie3 4Jxe3 10 fxe3 4Je5 is obviously bad). Play can continue 8...4Jxe3 9 4Jxe3 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 d 6 1 1 g3! and, with the idea o f .ig2, f2f4, .l:!.he1 and �bl , White's position can be characterised as solid and rich in possibilities. 8 0-0-0 1:l.e8?! This is bad. Necessary was 8 ... 4Jg4 9 4Jf5 and now 9 ...4Jxe3 would return to the previ ous note, while after 9 ... d5?! 1 0 4Jxd5 .ixf5 1 1 exf5 4Jxe3 12 fxe3 Black has no compensation. 9 f3! As you will see this is a very dangerous at tacking plan. White plays in a similar fashion to the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian Dragon. In this game the GM achieves a draw only after extreme difficulties. 9 . . . d6 1 0 94 4Jxd4 1 1 i.xd4 i.e6 1 2 1:1.9 1 ! A strong, attacking move. 1 2 . . .i.xd4 1 3 "iVxd4 c5!? 82

Searching for counterplay III a difficult situation. 1 4 iVd2 Taking the pawn was also interesting: 14 "iVxd6!? �a5 15 g5 (not 15 a3? .l:Iad8 1 6 �f4 l:txd1+ 1 7 �xdl a6 and Black has compensa tion) 1 5 ...l:!.ad8 1 6 gxf6!! (this idea might have evaded White) 1 6 ...l:.xd6 1 7 .l:!.xg7+ 'It>f8 1 8 l:.xd6 .ixa2 1 9 l:txh7 �g8 20 l:.g7+ �f8 (20... �h8? 21 4Jxa2 it'xa2 22 l:!.d5! wins for White) 21 l:tg4! l:.e6 (Black needs to be really careful: 21 ... .ie6 22 l:!.h4 �g8 23 ktd2 and White wins) 22 .l:r.h4 �g8 23 .l:!.d1 .l:!.xf6 24 e5 l:txf3 25 .l:!.a4 iVc7 26 .t!.xa2 "it'xe5 27 �b1 a6 28 .ig2 J::tf4 29 lh4 ktxa4 30 4Jxa4 b5 31 4Jc3 "it'xh2 32 .ib7 and White has good chances to win this endgame. 1 4 . . . "iVa5 1 5 a3 a6 Unfortunately Black has to lose a tempo with this move. 1 6 95!

White's attack arrives first. 1 6 . . .4Jd7 1 6 ... 4Jh5 17 f4 g6 1 8 �f2 b5 19 f5 gives White a strong attack too. The knight will soon arrive on d5. 1 7 f4 Continuing the attack. 1 7 �xd6? l:!.ad8 1 8 �g3 b 5 would allow undeserved counterplay. 1 7 . . . b5 1 7 ... 4Jb6 18 f5 .id7 1 9 �xd6 .ic6 20 g6 is an example of how far White is with his attack.

S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 tD x d4

1 8 f5 ..tc4 1 9 g6! Black's kingside is being broken up, while Black has not been able to create any threats of his own. 1 9 . . .fxg6 20 ..txc4+ bxc4 21 fxg6 h6 22 �xd6 tDe5 23 .l:!.d5! Objectively this should be the end, but sometimes it is hard to win even the most completely winning positions. Especially if the opponent is a strong grandmaster, who has decided not to go down without a fight. 23 . . . �d8 24 'i'xc5?! 'i'h4 25 .l:!.dd 1 ? ! J:!.ac8 26 'i'a7?! 'i'xh2 2 7 tDd5 c 3 28 bxc3? Probably White was drifting into time trouble. He should have played safer with 28 lL"lxc3 'iWf4+ (28 ... lL"lc4 29 'tif7+ 'it>h8 30 lIhl and it is all over) 29 'it>bl 'it'f6 30 lL"ldS, when White is still winning. 28 . . . 'i'h4 29 l:!.df1 �h8 But not 29 ... 'ijixe4?? 30 lL"lf6+L 30 'i'd4 tDc6 % - %

The position is not clear. White's king will continue to live dangerously to the end.

Game 4 1 Kobalija-Sevostianov

Moscow 1 994 1 e4 tDc6 2 d4 e5 3 tDf3 exd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 tDxe4?! This idea looks like a patzer's mistake, but it is not so stupid as it looks. White should be

careful.

6 tDxe4 6 lL"lxc6?! lL"lxc3 7 lL"lxd8 lL"lxdl 8 lL"lxf7 ..t>xf7! (8...lL"lxf2? 9 lL"lxh8 lL"lxhl 1 0 iLf4 d6 1 1 iLd3 is uncomfortable for Black, who has problems on the kingside) 9 iLc4+ 'it>f6 1 0 �xdl c 6 with equality - Euwe. 6 . . .'i'e7 7 f3! This is the standard way for White to fight for an advantage. Alternatively: a) 7 �e2? 'iNxe4 8 lL"lbS iLb4+1 9 c3 i.aS 1 0 0-0 0-0 does not give White enough com� pensation for the pawn, even though the position is not entirely clear. b) 7 iLd3 lL"lxd4 8 O�O lL"le6! gives Black a clear advantage according to Gutman, but after something like 9 .l::i.e 1 White should have some compensation. One line goes 9 .. :iVd8 1 0 'iNhs iLe7 1 1 iLgS and Black has problems with finishing his development. c) Interesting is 7 'ijid3!? lL"lxd4! (Black could quickly end up in trouble with 7 ... dS?! 8 lL"lxc6 bxc6 9 f3 fS?! 19...1:i.b8!?] 10 'tic3! i.d7 1 1 i.gS 'iNe6 12 O-O�O fxe4 1 3 fxe4 dxe4 1 4 i.c4 �f5 I S h4 and White has a winning attack) 8 'iWxd4 fS 9 i.d3 fxe4 1 0 i.xe4 WHb4+ 1 1 'ilVxb4 i.xb4+ 1 2 c 3 i.cs and Black is only very slightly worse. 7 . . .d5 8 ..tb5 ..td7 9 ..txc6 bxc6 1 0 0-0 dxe4 1 1 fxe4 Gutman believes that 1 1 l:!e I !? is best. Practice shows us that it is not so clear. However, 'White is better and does have very 83


good attacking chances. Black has the follow ing options: a) 1 1 ...�f6?! 1 2 ':xe4+ .i.e7 1 3 .i.f4 (but not 1 3 �e2 O-O! 1 4 l:txe7?! 'ii'xd4+ and Black is fine) 1 3 ... 0-0 1 4 .i.e5 'iWg6 1 5 i.xc7 lUeS 1 6 �h 1 'uacS 1 7 .i.g3 c5 I S ctJe2 .i.f5 1 9 ctJf4 i¥c6 20 J::i.e5 g6 21 ctJd5 i.f6 2 2 ctJxf6+ with a clear advantage for White, Fernandez Romero-Fernandes, Santo Antonio 2002. b) 1 1 ...f5?! 1 2 fxe4 fxe4 with a further branch: bl) 1 3 c3?! c5 14 ctJf5 'ilVe5 1 5 ctJg3 i.e7 16 ctJxe4 O-O-O! (1 6... i.c6?? 17 ctJg3! 'iVf6 I S 'iVh5+ was Wlnning for White In Dzindzichashvili-Leveille, New York 1 994, but that does not say a lot about the varia tion) 1 7 iie2 �c6 I S i¥g4+ i.d7 1 9 .i.f4 �xg4 20 iLxe5 l::thgS and Black is only slightly worse here. b2) 1 3 'iVe2! g6 1 4 'ikxe4 'it'xe4 15 ':xe4+ �dS 16 Ji.g5+ �cS 1 7 .i.f6 J::tgS I S J::ta el with a clear plus. c) 1 1 ...0-0-0! 12 J::i.xe4 'iWf6 13 'iWf1! (13 'iVe2?! c5 1 4 ctJb3 .i.c6! 15 i¥a6+ i..b7 1 6 'iVxf6 gxf6 gives Black lot o f active counter play, even though his structure is flawed) 1 3 ... �c5 1 4 'iVa6+ c,t>bS 1 5 i..e 3 J::i.h eS! (or 1 5 ... .i.b6?! 1 6 a4 with an attack - Gutman) 1 6 c3 .l:!.xe4 1 7 fxe4 i.b6? (1 7...'ii'g6! was much better) I S a4 c5 1 9 as! with an attack, Timmerman-Mikhalevski, Dieren 1 996. 1 1 . . .g6 1 2 'iff3 i.g7 1 3 .1I..e 3! Accurate play. 13 c3?! 0-0 14 iLf4?! (1 4 i.e3! is still possible) 14 ... c5 1 5 ctJb3 .i.c6 1 6 �g3 i s given as slightly better for White in ECO by Nogueiras, but after 16 ...c4! 17 CDd2 .l:!.fdS l S ctJxc4 'iWc5+ 19 ctJe3 i..xe4 the pow erful bishop on e4 gives Black the edge. 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 tLlb3! 1:tfb8 Or 14 ... i.xb2 1 5 i..c5 'ife5 16 i.xfS .i.xa1 (or 16 ...J::i.xf8 17 'u'ad 1 with an exchange for nothing) 1 7 �xf7+ c,t>h8 1 8 'ii'xd7 and wins. 1 5 .1I.. c 5 �e6 1 6 l:!.ad 1 i.e8 Black is also in trouble after 16 ... .i.xb2 1 7 c3 as (otherwise the bishop will be trapped and lost) 1 8 J::i. f2 a4 1 9 J::txb2 axb3 20 axb3 84

i¥g4 21 'iVd3! i..e 6 22 h3 'iVg5 23 b4 'u'd8 24 i.d4 and White has a clear advantage.

1 7 i.d4 i.xd4+ 1 8 l:txd4 White has a clear advantage; Black has a wrecked pawn structure and no active play to compensate for it. 1 8 . . . a5 1 9 a4! .:i:!.b4 20 lIfd 1 :tab8 21 �c3?! More precise was 21 ctJc5! �e7 22 ':'xb4 J::i.xb4 23 �c3 and White is virtually winning. 2 1 . . . �e7 22 J:!.xb4?! The wrong exchange. Probably the best move was 22 h3! to create an air-hole for the king. Lines such as 22 ctJxa5 c5! 23 J::i.d5 J::i.xe4 24 b3 and 22 e5 'ii'xe5 23 J::i.xb4 'ii'xc3 24 bxc3 axb4 25 cxb4 ':xb4 26 as �a4 27 J::i.a l Iha1+ 28 ctJxal c5 29 c4 c,t>f8 30 ctJb3 c,t>e7 31 ctJxc5 d6 32 ctJd3, though favour able for White, are not completely clear. 22 . . JIxb4? Black should have tried 22 ...'iVxb4! with the idea of 23 'iid4 �xd4+ 24 J:.xd4 f6! and the bishop comes into play via f7. Still, �'hite should keep a clear edge with 23 e5!. 23 tLlc5 f6 24 b3 g5?! 25 h3 h5 Having nothing to lose in this position, Black storms forward like a boxer with his guard down, hoping to get a lucky punch in before the bell rings. As so often, this only speeds up his own defeat. 26 1:te 1 .1I..g6 27 e5 fxe5 28 .!:f.xe5 �d8 29 tLle6 'iif6 30 tLlxg5 1:tf4 3 1 tLlf3 J:!.e4 32 .!:f.e8+ cli;g7 33 l:!.g8+ cli;f7 34 1:tf8+ 1 -0

S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 Cfj x d4

Summary White has seemingly no other sound options between 4 d4 and his tenth move. 7 'iHd4?! was clearly a great part of Bondarevsky's downfall, and similar moves will meet similar fates. For Black there are some alternatives: 5 ...lbxe4 and 5 ... .i.c5 do not lead to equality and should be ignored by Black. However, 7 . .d6!? leads to a game with chances for both sides and plenty of room for originality. .

1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 Cfjc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 �b4 5 ...lbxe4 Game 4 1 5 ....i.c5 (D) 6 lbxc6 Game 39; 6 .i.e3 (D) Game 40 6 Cfjxc6 bxc6 7 �d3 7 'iVd4 Game 38 7 d6 8 0-0 Game 36 8 .i.g5 (D) Game 37 -

-

-

-

. . .

-

-

5. . . �c5

6 �e3

8 �g5

85

CHAPTER SEVEN

I

4 d4 i.. b4

1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4 i..b4 In the position after 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 the natural and probably also the best move is 4... exd4, moving into the Scotch Four Knights or the Belgrade Gambit (see Chapter 8). However, there are those who like to complicate matters with 4 ....tb4!?, which is probably not good enough for equality, but which can lead to more interesting positions. In this chapter we shall look at these lines. As they are very tactical in their orientation, no positional introduction will really make any sense, so instead we'll jump straight into the games.

Game 42 Santo Roman-Hector

Manila OlYmpiad 1992

bishops still have part of their strength.

S . . .lLle7 6 lLlxeS This move, together with 7 i.b5+ (Game 43), is very risky. Black develops quickly and gets a strong attack. Other possibilities include: a) 6 i.d2 is rather peaceful. 6 ... d6 7 'ii'e2 0-0 8 a3 i.a5 9 b4 i.b6 1 0 ttJa4 'ii'd7! ? (10....td7 1 1 ttJxb6 axb6 1 2 .tg5 ttJg6 1 3 g3 h6 1 4 i.xf6 �xf6 was equal in Spangenberg Servat, Buenos Aires 1 993) 1 1 ttJxb6 axb6 1 2 g3?! ( 1 2 h3! with level chances was better) 1 2 .. :�g4 1 3 i.g5 ttJexd5! 1 4 exd5 e4 1 5 .txf6 exf3 1 6 \i'c4 .l:!.e8+ 1 7 'ioi?d2 gxf6 1 8 "iVxg4+ i.xg4 with a clear advantage for Black in Spangenberg-Rubinetti, San Martin 1 993. b) 6 i.d3 is rather passive, and chess is very much the art of aggression. 6 ...ttJg6 7

After this move Black has a good game. The main reason is that the position is clos ing, and Black has his 'bad' bishop outside

0-0 i.xc3! (I bid you farewell, bad bishop!) 8 bxc3 d6 (this position is in my opinion slightly better for Black) 9 .l::!.b l 0-0 1 0 .l:!.el ? (Ibis move looks wrong. What is the rook supposed to do here? The only sensible plan was ttJe 1 followed by g2-g3 and ttJg2 to get

his pawn formation, while White has his inside. Of course it is always hard to say when a bishop is truly good and when it is truly bad, but generally knights are better suited to closed positions, even though the

kingside.) 1 0 ...b6 1 1 .tEl h6! (Not so much to play ... ttJh7, but more to prevent ttJg5-e6, after which the fl -bishop would move more freely on the board. Right now Black has

1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4 i.. b4 S dS

86

some control of the important squares on the

4 d4 il.. b 4 positioned his pawns to fight against the dark-squared bishop, but there is no reason to take liberties with the light squared bishop) 1 2 g3 liJh7 1 3 liJd2 fS 1 4 exfS .i.xfS 1 5 liJe4 liJf6 1 6 .i.g2 'ii'd7 1 7 f3 liJxe4 1 8 fxe4 .i.g4 1 9 'ii'd3 1:I.f6 20 .i.e3 l:!.afS and Black has a clear advantage, Weetik-Yande mirov, Russia 200 1 . c ) 6 'it'd3!? 0-0 and now: c1) 7 .i.d2 intends the very risky plan of castling queenside. It seems that Black has a more dynamic position and thereby can cre ate attacking chances much easier. 7... d6 8 0-0-0 liJg4 9 'ii'e2 fS 10 exfS .i.xfS 1 1 h3 liJf6 12 'iWbs (this move also seems a bit out of touch with reality; taking on b7 is not really a viable ambition) 1 2 ... .i.xc3 1 3 .i.xc3 liJe4 14 .i.el (now the queen is just a hook that Black exploits) 14 ... c6! 1 5 dxc6 bxc6 1 6 'iVb3+ liJdS! 1 7 .i.c4 .l:1b8 1 8 .i.xd5+ ..t>h8 1 9 'iVc4 cxdS 20 'it'xdS 'iVb6 and Black's attack clearly compensates for the sacrificed pawn. Mann-Mayer, Germany 1 988. c2) 7 .i.gS (this is safer) 7 ...liJg6 8 g3! (it is important to keep control of the f4-square) 8 ... c6 9 d6!? (An interesting pawn sacrifice. Whether White knew the pawn was doomed here, or only decided to sacrifice it later is not relevant. More relevant is that Black has problems with completing his development. He could have avoided this with 8...d6 of course.) 9 ...h6 10 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 1 1 0-0-0 l:!.e8 12 .i.h3 (12 .i.g2 l:!.e6 would be a favourable version for Black) 1 2... i.xd6 1 3 'it'xd6 'ii'x f3 14 .l:!.hfl liJf8 1 5 i.fS g6 1 6 .i.h3 b6 1 7 l:!.d2 'ii'h S. This position is very interesting. Unfor tunately, the two strong Russian grandmas ters felt in a peaceful mood that day and agreed a draw (Malakhov-Turov, Russia Ch. 2001). After 1 8 i.g2 �e6 1 9 'it'd3 as 20 'ii'e3 .i.a6 21 h4! the awkward position of Black's queen is good compensation for the pawn. One line is 21...i.xfl ? 22 .i.f3! and White is better. 6 . . .d6! Worse is 6...0-0?! 7 'ii'd4 3t..xc3+ 8 bxc3

and now: a) Adventurous is 8...l:i.e8!? 9 i.gS! d6 (9 ... liJ£5? 10 exfS d6 1 1 f4 dxeS 1 2 fxeS 'ii'xdS 13 0-0-0 'it'xd4 14 cxd4 liJe4 15 .i.h4 liJc3 16 l:!.d3 liJxa2+ 17 ..t>b2 liJb4 1 8 l:!.f3 gives White an overwhelming advantage in the endgame with the two bishops and the strong central control) 10 3t..xf6 cS 1 1 dxc6 gxf6 1 2 cxb7! (12 liJf3 liJxc6 1 3 'ii'e3 fS 1 4 0-0-0 and according to Gutman Black's king is more fragile than \x'hite's) 1 2... .i.xb7 1 3 liJg4 liJfS 1 4 'i!Vxf6 l:he4+ 1 5 .i.e2 'i'aS 1 6 0-0 l:!.xe2 1 7 'ii'g5+ Wh8 1 8 liJh6 and White has a clear advantage after 1 8...'ii'dS 1 9 liJxfS 'it'eS 20 liJh6!. b) 8 ... d6 9 liJc4! cS (9 ... J:.e8 is a possible al ternative here) 10 'iVd3 liJg6 1 1 f3 bS 1 2 liJe3 a6 13 g3 l:!.e8 14 .i.g2 and according to Lev Gutman Black does not have enough com pensation for the pawn. This is probably right. 7 lLlf3 Weaker is 7 liJd3?! .i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 liJxe4 9 'it'f3 £5, when Black is better. Also possible is 9 ...liJxc3 10 liJf4 liJa4 1 1 .i.d3 liJcs, which is also better for Black. All he needs to do is to avoid 1 1 ...0-0?? 1 2 'iVe4 liJg6 1 3 'iVxa4 (which actually happened in Spielmann Bogoljubow, Stockholm 1 9 1 9) . 7 lLlxe4 8 iYd4 . . .

8 . . . il..x c3+ The alternative 8 ...liJxc3! looks stronger. After this move \X'hite needs to be very care87


ful, for example 9 bxc3 (White can also try 9 �xb4 liJexd5 10 iVd4 'iVe7+ 1 1 i.e3 liJxe3 12 fxe3 liJe4 13 iVxg7 'iVf6, which leads to equality) and now: a) Exciting is 9 ... i.c5!? 1 0 iVxg7 l:Ig8 1 1 'iVxh7 i..f5 1 2 'iVh4 (12 i.bS+? c6! 1 3 dxc6 i.xh7 1 4 cxb7+ �f8 1 5 i.h6+ �g7 1 6 i.xg7+ rJ;;xg7 1 7 bxa8'it' 'i¥xa8 does not give White any reason to continue) 1 2... liJxd5 1 3 �xd8+ .l:.xd8 and Black has a lot of play for the pawn, probably more than enough to justify the sacrifice. b) 9 ...ii.a5 1 0 i.d3 (dubious is 10 'i¥xg7?! l:tg8 1 1 'iYd4 liJxd5 12 ii.d2 [12 'it'xd5 i.xc3+ 1 3 rJ;;d l i.xal 14 i.c4 i.e6 15 !:tel .lieS does not work out] 12 ... 'it'e7+ 1 3 ..Ite2 c6 1 4 rJ;;f1 i..b 6 and Black i s clearly better due to his coordination and lead in development) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 0-0 ..Itf5 (1 1 ...liJf5! 1 2 'it'c4 iVf6 1 3 ..Itd2 i.d7 1 4 a4 c6 leads to a preferable position for Black) 1 2 i.g5?! Qosing valuable time; 1 2 c4! ..Itb6 1 3 'it'f4 is more or less equal) 12 .. .f6 13 i.d2 'iVd7 14 .l:.ael liJg6 1 5 i.xf5 'iYxf5 1 6 'iVe4 'iVxe4 1 7 .l:i.xe4 l:Ife8 1 8 .l:.fe 1 .l:.xe4 1 9 .l:.xe4 rJ;; f7 Black had a much better endgame in Racek-Trifunovic, Prague 1 946. 9 bxc3 tLlf6 1 0 c4 After 10 ..Itg5 liJexd5 1 1 0-0-0 liJb6 there is no real compensation for the pawn. Also possible is 1 1 ...i.e6!? 12 i.c4 c5 1 3 i.xf6 cxd4 14 i.xd8 J::!.xd8 1 5 i.xd5 i.xd5 1 6 liJxd4 0-0 1 7 f3 i.xa2 with a very good end game for Black, Reefschlager-Neunhoffer, Germany 1 990. Still, the complications seem unnecessary. 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.e2 Or: a) 1 1 i.g5?! c5! (1 1 ... liJf5 1 2 'i¥b2 l:!.e8+ 1 3 �e2 h6 1 4 i.xf6 'iVxf6 1 5 'iVxf6 gxf6 1 6 �d2 is a little better for White according to Gutman) 1 2 'iWd1 (12 'iWf4 liJg6 1 3 �d2 .l:.e8+ 1 4 i.e2 h6 suits onlv Black, while 1 2 " dxc6 liJxc6 1 3 iVb2 �e8+ 1 4 i.e2 'iVa5+ 1 5 i.d2 'iVh5 i s extremely dangerous for White) 1 2... liJe4 1 3 �d3 liJxg5 14 liJxg5 liJg6 1 5 88

'iYh5 'iVe7+ 16 rJ;; f1 h6 and Black has a clear advantage. b) Also risky is 1 1 i.d3 liJf5 12 �f4 .l:.e8+ 1 3 �d1 and now: bl) 1 3. . .liJh5 1 4 'iVg5 'iVxg5 1 5 i.xg5 h6 1 6 i.d2 with equality, Caro-Schlechter, Vi enna 1 898. b2) More aggressive is 1 3 ...liJg4!? and: b21) 1 4 ..Itxf5!? is something for fans of Mikhail Tal. After 14 ... liJxf2+ 15 rJ;;d2 liJxh1?! 1 6 i.xh7+ �xh7 (or 1 6 ...rJ;;h8? 1 7 i.b2! and Black i s soon mated) 1 7 liJg5+ �g6 1 8 'iVxf7+ rJ;;h6 19 Wd3! "ife7 20 liJe4+ Wh7 21 liJg5+ rJ;;h6 22 liJe4+ ends in a draw. Unfortunately there is 1 5 ...i.xf5! (as with many of Tal's spectacular stunts, this also has its drawbacks) 1 6 'iWxf5 g6 1 7 'iYf4 .l:.e4 1 8 'iYh6 'iYf6 with a strong compensation for the piece - Gutman. b22) 1 4 1:.f1 ! "iff6 1 5 .l:.b1 with unclear play. 1 1 . . . tLlfS 1 1 ... .l:.e8!? looks like a logical move too. The idea of ...liJexd5 is obvious . 1 2 'ilYd1 tLle4 1 3 i.b2 tLlcs 1 4 �b 1 tLlh4 Here Black could have found a great square for his queen with 1 4 .. :ike8!? 1 5 0-0 li'a4 1 6 a3 l:Ie8, after which the position is probably equal, but it is more pleasant to play Black. 1 S tLlxh4 "iWxh4 1 6 0-0 i.fS 1 7 'ilYd2 �fe8 1 8 llbe1 h6 1 9 i.d3 With this move White more or less keeps the balance. 1 9 . . :i'hS 20 lte3 Bad would be 20 ..Itxf5? �xf5, after which Black would play ... rJ;; f8 and exchange the rooks. The queen and knight versus queen and bishop scenario would then, together with White's wrecked structure, give Black a better endgame. 20 . . .liIxe3 21 fxe3 i.e4 22 i.d4 'ilYg6 23 ':'f3 More accurate was 23 i.xc5! dxc5 24 1:.f4 .l:!.e8 25 ..Itxe4 1:.xe4 26 'iVd3 with equality. 23 . . . 'ilYhS 24 l:tf4

4 d4 i. b 4 24 J:tg3 .Jig6 25 �xc5 dxc5 26 �xg6 fxg6 would be better for Black. 24. . . i.g6 25 h4?! There was no reason to create a weakness like this. 25 'it'c3 ttJxd3 26 cxd3 f6 27 'iYb3 was equal, though not drawn. 25 . . . i.xd3 26 cxd3 b6 27 e4 f6 27 ... ttJd7 would give White time to create threats: 28 'ii'e l f6 29 g4. 28 i.f2 28 �xc5 bxc5 would give Black the better structure. 28. . . J:te8 29 J:tf3?

White chooses to be passive - a bad deci sion. It was necessary to complicate matters with 29 g4!? 29 . . .lLld7! Now the knight i s coming to e 5 with a gain of tempo. 30 'iff4? 30 .l::!.f5 'ii'g6 31 �d4 was better. 30 . . .lLle5 31 1:I.g3 'ifd 1 + 32 �h2 h5! 33 i.g 1 lLlg4+ 34 �h 1 ii'e1 35 J:tf3 g6 36 g3? 'tIYe2 37 i.f2? Losing on the spot. 37 . . . 'iff1 + 38 i.g 1 'iWh3+ 0-1

After this move White is in trouble, but the tables would turn following 7 ... c6 8 dxc6 0-0 and now: a) White would fall too far behind in de velopment after 9 cxb7? �xb7 1 0 ttJf3 ttJxe4 1 1 0-0 (White loses after 1 1 �d2 ttJxd2 1 2 'iYxd2 'ii'a5 1 3 �d3 tiJd5 1 4 0-0 tiJxc3 1 5 bxc3 �xc3) 1 1 ....Jixc3 1 2 bxc3 tiJxc3 1 3 'iYd3 ttJxb5 1 4 ttJg5 ( 1 4 'iYxb5 �xf3 1 5 gxf3 ':c8 is simply bad for White) 1 4...tiJg6 1 5 'iYxb5 'iYc8! 1 6 :tel h6 1 7 ttJe4 (17 ttJh3 would be met with 17...�xg2 1 8 'itxg2 'ikg4+ and Black wins) 1 7 ...J:te8 1 8 'iYb4 .l:!.b8 1 9 tiJg3 l:txe1+ 20 \i'xel 'iYxc2 and Black is winning. b) 9 tiJd7! tiJxe4 (9 ... .i.xd7 1 0 cxd7 tiJxe4 1 1 'iVd4 tiJxc3 1 2 'iVxb4 tiJcd5 1 3 'iYb3 gave White a clear advantage in Tal-Schmatlanek, Prague [simulJ 1 960) 10 0-0 (even 10 tiJxf8!? works; after 1 0 ...tiJxc3 11 bxc3 �xc3+ 12 �d2 i.xal 1 3 cxb7 .Jixb7 1 4 'iVxal 'iYxf8 1 5 0-0 White i s a little better) 1 0. . .�xd7 (1O ... .txc3?? 1 1 ttJxf8 �a5 12 cxb7 �xb7 1 3 tiJd7 would b e winning for White) 1 1 tiJxe4 bxc6 1 2 a3 �a5 1 3 �d3 (13 ttJxd6 cxb5 1 4 ttJb7 'iVc7 1 5 tiJxa5 �f5 gives Black good play) B. .d5 14 tiJc5 and White has a posi tional advantage. 8 lLlf3 White does not keep the balance after 8 ttJd3 .i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 tiJxe4 10 'iYf3 ttJf6 and now: a) 1 1 c4? �g4! 1 2 'Yif4 c6! 1 3 dxc6 bxc6 .

Game 43 Trabert-G . Flear

Asti 1998 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4 i.b4 5 d5 lLle7 6 lLlxe5 d6 7 i.b5+ �f8!

89


1 4 �b2 lLlg6 15 i.xf6 'iVa5+- 1 6 'iHd2 .l:te8+ 1 7 i.eS lLlxeS 1 8 'ii'xaS lLlxc4+ and Black gained a material advantage in Hort Trifunovic, Sarajevo 1 964. b) 1 1 i.c4?! i.g4 12 'it'f4 hS 1 3 0-0 lLlexdS is plainly bad for White. c) 1 1 i.gS? lLlexdS 12 it'xdS? 'ii'e7+! is an important little ftnesse, winning a pawn for nothing. d) 1 1 lLlf4 (the best) 1 1 ...i.g4 12 'ii'g3 (12 'iYd3 c6 13 dxc6 bxc6 1 4 i.a4 'iYaS 1 5 i.b3 i. fS looks very dangerous for White) 1 2... lLlfS 1 3 'iYd3 'ti'e7+ 1 4 �f1 lLlh4 1 5 f3 �fS 1 6 'ti'd2 lLlg6 1 7 lLle2 i.d7! 1 8 i.xd7 'iYxd7 and Black was better, Kunas-Dautov, Germany 1 993. 8 . . .tLlxe4 9 'iiVd4 i.xc3+ Tempting is 9 ...lLlxc3! 10 bxc3 i.cs 1 1 "iVd2 lLlxdS! (1 1 . ..c6 1 2 dxc6 bxc6 1 3 i.d3 i.g4 14 lLlgS lLldS 15 lLle4 is less clear) 1 2 "iVxdS c 6 1 3 'iYd3 ( 1 3 i.xc6 bxc6 1 4 'iYxc6 �e7+ 1 5 '>t>f1 i.b7 16 ifbs as looks very dangerous for White) 1 3 ... cxbS 14 it'xbS (14 0-0 a6 15 i.e3 i.e6 does not give White enough compensation for the pawn) 1 4 .. .'�e7+ 1 5 'it'e2 'ti'xe2+ 1 6 '>t>xe2 i.f5, when the two bishops and the lead in devel opment is well supplemented by a better pawn structure. 1 0 bxc3 tLlf6 1 1 i.g5 Also possible was 1 1 i.c4!? lLlfS (after the strange-looking 1 1 ...i.g4 1 2 i.gS lLlfS 1 3 'ii'd3 "iVe8+ 1 4 �f1 �xf3 1 5 gxf3!? White has a terrible pawn structure, but also two bish ops and the g- and b-ftles for his rooks; note that 1 5 'iYxfS? i.e4 16 �f4 ttJxdS is good for Black) 1 2 'ti'd1 ttJe4 1 3 0-0 �f6 14 i.b2 i.d7 and Black has an edge. 1 1 . . . tLlf5 1 2 'iiVd 3 h6 1 3 i.d2? ! After this move it will be very hard for White to save the dS-pawn. White could have kept the balance with 1 3 i.xf6 'ti'xf6 1 4 0-0 ttJe7 I S l:.fel i.fS 1 6 'it'd2 a 6 1 7 i.f1 gS 1 8 'iYd4!. 1 3 . . . a6 1 4 ..Ita4 b5 1 5 i.b3 'iiVe 8+ 1 6 �f1 90

1 6 �d1 lLle7! 17 ti.el i.b7 18 c4 bxc4 19 'it'xc4 'ii'd7 would illustrate the problems White has with the dS-pawn. 1 6 . . . tLle7! 1 7 c4 1 7 l:i.el i.b7 1 8 c4 bxc4 19 i.xc4 'ii'd7 20 h3 ttJexdS 21 �gl is just a pawn for nothing. Black has some problems with his king, but that is all . 1 7 . . . bxc4 1 8 ..Itxc4 White will be a pawn down without com pensation after 1 8 'iYxc4 'iWbs 1 9 �xbS axbS 20 ttJd4 i.d7 21 c4 bxc4 22 i.xc4 lLlexd5. 1 8 . . ...Itb7 1 9 l:!.b1 i.xd5 20 i.xd5 tLlexd5 21 c4 tLlb6 22 ..Ite3 'iiVc6 23 tLld2 tLlbd7 24 f3 lIe8 25 �f2 tLle5 26 'iiVd4 h5 27 lithe 1 tLlfd7 28 �g 1 f6

White has no real compensation for the pawn and no real chances for saving the game. 29 h3 �f7 30 ..Itf2 tLlc5 31 l:t.e3 tLle6 32 'iVd5 'iVxd5 33 cxd5 tLlf4 34 J:ta3 tLlxd5 35 l:txa6 l:!.a8 36 lIxa8 l:!.xa8 37 l:!.b5 �e6 38 l:!.b2 tLld3 39 l:!.c2 tLl3b4 40 l:!.c4 l:!.xa2 41 tLlb3 tLld3 0-1

Game 44 Todorov-Delchev

Bulga17'a 1995 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4 ..Itb4 5 tLlxe5! 0-0 This is rather risky. 5 ...lLlxe4, S .. .'ike7 and S ... i.xc3!? are considered later in the chapter.

4 d4 .i. b 4 6 �d3 \X1hite can squeeze a small advantage out of 6 It'lxc6!? dxc6 Oess accurate is the passive 6 ...bxc6 7 i.d3 It'lxe4, after which \X1hite gains a small advantage with S 0-0 It'lxc3 9 bxc3 i.xc3 10 i.xh7+! Wxh7 1 1 'iWd3+ WgS 12 'iWxc3) 7 i.gS! (7 eS It'le4 S a3 It'lxc3 9 'ifd2 lt'lbS 1 0 axb4 lt'lxd4 1 1 i.d3 'ifdS 12 f4 i.fS 1 3 i.xfS It'lxfS 1 4 c3 hS and Black is better - Gutman)

and now: a) 7 ... h6 S .ltxf6 'iVxf6. Here Black has compensation, but White should be able to keep the advantage, for example: 9 eS 'iYh4 (9 ...iff4 can be answered by 10 'iVd2! 'iYxd2+ 1 1 '>t>xd2 ':dS 1 2 \te3 cS 1 3 It'le2 cxd4+- 1 4 It'lxd4 .ltcs I S c 3 l.'i.eS 1 6 f4 and \X1hite keeps the advantage) 10 a3! (after 10 'iYd3 l::tdS 1 1 0-0-0 'iYxf2 1 2 'iYf3 'iYxf3 1 3 gxf3 .lte6 1 4 a3 .ltxc3 I S bxc3 cS Black equalised in Lavios Ctespo-Toderoevic, Las Palmas 1999) 1 0... i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 cS! 12 ifd3 .l:i.dS 1 3 g3 'iVg4 14 h3 (14 i.e2!?) 1 4...ifd7 I S .l:i.dl 'ifa4 16 i.g2 'iYxa3 1 7 0-0 and \X1hite's position seems to be preferable. b) The alternative 7 ... .l:i.eS probably doesn't work. S 'iVd3 (S eS? is too greedy too soon: S... cS! 9 i.bS c6 1 0 0-0 cxbS 1 1 exf6 cxd4 1 2 a3 i.cs 13 It'le2 i.g4 14 .l:i.el "i¥dS and Black has a completely dominating posi tion) S... .ltxc3+ 9 bxc3 .ltfS. According to Gutman this position is better for Black, but after 1 0 f3! I believe that it is very hard for

Black to generate counterplay, for example: 10 ...h6 (10... lt'lxe4? 1 1 .txdS It'lg3+ 12 Wd2 i.xd3 13 .txd3 It'lxhl 14 .th4 would leave Black a piece down) 1 1 i.e3 and it seems clear that Black does not have enough com pensation for the pawn. Black needs another move to replace 1Q ...h6 for 7 ...l:l.eS to work. 6 . . .J:t.e8 7 .i.d2 tZJxd4 This pseudo-combination doesn't look at tractive, but the alternatives also look bad: a) 7 ... lt'lxeS S dxeS ':xeS 9 0-0-0 :eS 10 f3 (this looks more logical than 10 nel c6?! [10 ... d6 would be a clear improvement] 1 1 eS i.xc3 12 'iVxc3 It'ldS 13 'iVg3 It'le7 14 .td3 and White was clearly better in Bykhovsky Sazev, USSR 1972) 1Q ...d6 1 1 g4 and �1Ute has good attacking chances. b) 7 ... dS does not work. After S It'lxc6 bxc6 9 eS cS 10 O-O-O! It'lg4 1 1 i.e1 'ifg5+ 12 '>t>b1 I:tbS 1 3 f4! \X1hite had a clear advantage in Jurtaev-Kochiev, Frunze 1979. The line continues 1 3..:iVfS (13 .. :iixf4? 1 4 lt'lxdS and \X1hite wins; 1 3..:iih6 14 h3 cxd4 I S 'iixd4 cS 1 6 'ifgl It'le3 17 'iYxe3 d4 I S 'iYg3 i.xc3 19 i.xc3 dxc3 20 'iYxc3 'iVxf4 21 .ltc4 gives \X1hite a clear advantage) 1 4 'iYf3 c6 I S h3 It'lh6 16 lt'le2 i.xel 1 7 .l:i.xel with an obvious advantage for \X1hite. 8 'i!i'xd4 c5 9 �d3 9 'iYd6? i.xc3 10 i.xc3 It'lxe4 1 1 "i¥dS It'lxc3 12 bxc3 'iVf6 and Black wins. 9 . . ..li!.xe5 1 0 0-0-0

1 0 . . . d5? ! 91


1 0...d6 11 f3 gives White a solid advan tage, but this is still preferable to the text. 1 1 lLlxd5! TIlls is a precise reaction; the alternatives give Black good play: a) 1 1 'ii'g3 i..xc3 (1 1 ....i:txe4!? also looks good) 12 .l1l.xc3 l::i.xe4 1 3 f3 l::i.e 3 14 i..xf6 'iWxf6 1 5 �xd5 i..e6 gives Black the freer game. b) 1 1 exd5 .ig4! 12 'iWg3 (12 f3 .if5 gives Black good attacking chances) 1 2...�xd5! 1 3 liJxd5 'iYxd5 1 4 c4 i..xd2+ ( 1 4...'ii'd4?! 1 5 i.d3 .l1l.xd 1 1 6 l:!.xd 1 .l1l.xd2+ 1 7 l:!.xd2 liJe4 18 .ixe4 'tWxe4 19 'ii'd3 gives White a slightly better endgame) 1 5 �xd2 �xd2+ 1 6 xd2 liJe4+ 1 7 c2 liJxg3 1 8 hxg3 �e8 with a likely draw. 1 1 . . . lLlxd5 After l 1 ...i..xd2+ 12 'ii'xd2 liJxd5 (12... liJxe4? 13 liJf6+l 'iYxf6 14 'iid8+ and Wbite mates) 1 3 i..c4 White has a clear extra pawn. The position after 1 3 ...l:!.xe4 1 4 i..xd5 �d4 15 'iYe3 i.f5 16 l:hd4 cxd4 1 7 'ii'xd4 'ii'c7 1 8 c3 does not promise real compensa tion. 1 2 i..xb4?! Better was 12 .l1l.f4! .l:!.e8 (12 ....l1l.g4 1 3 exd5! �f5 1 4 i..e3 gives White a clear plus) 1 3 exd5 i..g4 1 4 f3 �f6 1 5 i..g3 i.. f5 1 6 'iWc4 and Black does not have enough compensa tion for the sacrificed pawn. 1 2 . . . exb4 12 ... i..g4 1 3 f3 cxb4 14 exd5 i.. f5 1 5 'it'd4 'iVc7 1 6 i..d3 gives White the advantage. 1 3 f4 l:te7 1 4 'iVxd5 .l:1.d7 1 5 'iVh5 'i'e7 1 6 g3 J:txd1 + 1 7 'iVxd1 Now Black has some compensation for the pawn. 1 7 . . . i..e6 1 8 �b1 a5 After 1 8 ...'ii'a 5!? 19 b3 l:td8 20 .l1l.d3 'it'c5 Black would have some drawing chances. 1 9 i..d3 a4 20 f5 i..d 7 21 'i'd2 'iVe5 22 'i'f4? TIlls leaves the dark squares on the king side unprotected. After 22 c3! bxc3 (22... .l1l.c6 23 cxb4 'iWd4 24 'iWc3 �d8 25 'iWxd4 :xd4 26 92

'.t>c2 .l1l.xe4 27 .l1l.xe4 �xe4 28 '.t>c3 is close to winning for White, while 22 ... b3 23 a3 also does not achieve anything) 23 �xc3 'iWxc3 24 bxc3 White would have very good chances of winning the game. 22 . . . b3? Both players seems to have problems finding their way. Better was 22... a3! and White has problems with the threat of . .. 'iWd4, for example 23 e5 (23 b3 �d4 24 �c1 .l1l.c6 25 l:.e1 �e8 and Black dominates the show) 23 ....i.c6 24 .i:td1 .l1l.d5 25 b3 �c3 26 'it'c1 'ii'xe5 and Black is close to winning. 23 lld 1 ? Here White should have played 23 a3! .l1l.b5 24 l:tc1 .l1l.xd3 25 cxd3 'iWd4 and al though Black has some counter chances, White is better after a move like 26 l::i.c 3. 23 . . . bxa2+ 24 �xa2 a3? Bad attacking technique. After 24...b5! 25 'iVd2 b4 White's king is in great danger. 25 b3 i..e6 26 i..e4! Ile8 27 f6! g5 Black has no defence: a) 27...g6 28 �6 'ii'f8 29 'iWxf8+ �xf8 30 'it'xa3 and White wins. b) 27... gxf6 28 'ii'g4+wins. c) 27...�5 28 fxg7 b5 29 .ie6 fxe6 (29...�e8 30 �d6 and 'X-'hite dominates the board) 30 ':'£1 'iWe8 31 �h6 'iWe7 32 �f8+ �xf8 33 gxf8'ii'+ 'ii'xf8 34 'ii'xe6+ 'it'g7 35 'iVxc6 and White has a winning ending. 28 'iVg4 l:te8

29 l:.d5! 1 -0

4 d4 .i. b 4

Game 45 N adyrhanov-Safin

Bishkek 1993 1 e4 eS 2 tDf3 tDcS 3 tDc3 tDf6 4 d4 .i.b4 S tDxeS! tDxe4 This line is very risky and, in my opinion, not very good. S 'ii'g4! The critical test. 6 �f3?! is not so good. 6 ...lbf6 and now: a) 7 'it'g3 0-0 8 .tg5 lbxd4 9 0-0-0 lbf5 1 0 �f3 .txc3 1 1 bxc3 (1 1 �xc3? lbe4 does not work) 1 1 ...'ii'e7! 1 2 'tixf5 d6 1 3 .txf6 gxf6 1 4 lbd7 .txd7 1 5 'it'f3 'tie6 gives Black a better game, though many complications still re malll. b) 7 �e3 0-0 8 �d3 .l:!.e8 9 lbxc6 dxc6 1 0 0-0 �g4 1 1 'ii'g3 it'd7 1 2 h3 (1 2 iL.g5 lbh5! 13 it'h4 f6 14 h3 fxg5 15 'ii'xg4 it'xg4 1 6 hxg4 lbf4 would leave Black with the better chances) 1 2... �f5 1 3 .l:.ad1 ?! (1 3 .tg5 iL.d6 14 'it'f3 iL.xd3 1 5 'iWxd3 lbd5 with equality was better) 1 3 ... iL.xd3 1 4 l:.xd3 �xc3 1 5 bxc3 lbe4 1 6 'iVf3 'it'd5 and Black has a slight edge, Adams-Howell, Uoyds Bank 1 992. S . . . tDxc3 7 'ilfxg7 Black comes out on top after 7 a3? 'iWf6 8 axb4 lbxb4! (8... lbxe5 9 iVg3! [9 dxe5 'iVxe5+ 10 �e3 lbd5] 9 ...lbf3+ 1 0 gxf3 lbd5 1 1 J:!.a5 is less clear) 9 bxc3 (9 �d3 d6 1 0 'iWg3 lbcd5 1 1 tLlf3 lbxd3+ 1 2 cxd3 'iVe6+wins for Black) 9 ...tLlxc2+ 1 0 Wdl lbxal 1 1 'iVg3 0-0 1 2 �c4 d6 1 3 �g5 'iVf5 1 4 .td3 �e6 1 5 �c4 d5. 7 . . . 1:I.f8 7...�f6? 8 �xf6 lbe4+ 9 c3 lbxf6 1 0 lbxc6 .txc3+ 1 1 bxc3 dxc6 1 2 .td3 gives White a clear advantage due to the two bish ops and the better structure. 8 a3 Less clear is 8 lbxc6?! dxc6 9 a3 (9 'tieS+? .ie6 1 0 a3 �d6 would leave Black a piece up) 9 .. :i'e7+ 1 0 'ilVe5 'iWxe5+ 1 1 dxe5 lbd5+ 12 axb4 lbxb4, when Black has active coun terplay.

8 . . . .i.aS It seems that 8 ...iL.a5 is the only good move. For 8...lbxd4 see Games 46-47. After 8... lba2+? 9 axb4 lbxc 1 1 0 lbxc6 dxc6 1 1 .l:.xc1 'X'hite has a clear advantage, while the same goes for 8 .. :it'h4 9 lbxc6 �d6 (9... dxc6 1 0 axb4 lbd5 [10....i.g4 1 1 �g5!l 1 1 .i.h6 and White wins) 1 0 bxc3 dxc6 1 1 �d3 'ilVe7+ 1 2 'it>dl ! . 9 tDxc6 dxcS 1 0 'ilfeS+ 'ilfe7 1 1 �xe7+ �xe7 1 2 .i.d2 .i.fS 1 3 bxc3! A nice touch. After 13 .txc3 ..txc3+ 14 bxc3 ..txc2 1 5 �d2 .i.g6 1 6 h4 h6 1 7 .l:!.h3 c5 1 8 .l:.f3 cxd4 19 l::!.e 1+ 'it'd7 20 cxd4 Uae8 21 :xe8 .l:!.xe8 the position was drawish in Oll A.Petrosian, Moscow 1 992. 1 3 . . ..i.xc2 14 c4 .i.xd2+ 1 S �xd2

In this ending 'X'hite can continue to play for a win forever without having to take any risks at all. 1 5 . . . .i.gS 1 5 ... �f5 1 6 .td3 ..txd3 1 7 l:!.he1+ 'it>f6 1 8 'it>xd3 gad8 1 9 �c3 .l:!.g8 20 g3 .l:!.ge8 2 1 .l:!.e3 gives White good chances to fight for a win in the rook endgame. 1 S h4! hS Or 16...Wd6 1 7 h5 .tf5 and now: a) 1 8 .td3!? .i.xd3 1 9 'it>xd3 c5 20 .l:!.h4 .l:!.ad8 21 .l:!.el l:tfe8? (after the preferable 2 1 ...cxd4 22 klxd4+ 'it>c6 23 g4 .l:!.xd4+ 24 Wxd4 .sd8+ 25 �c3 .l:!.d7 26 g5 White would retain only some winning chances) 22 .l:!.xe8 l:.xe8 23 .l:!.f4 �e7 24 .l:!.e4+ Wd7 25 Mxe8 93


Or 24...f5 25 f3 f4 b5 29 xd3 f5 27 g5 h5 28 d3 b5! 27 f3 as Black draws. 24 �xd3

WillS .

This endgame is winning for White. As pawn endings have a tendency to be an exact science, we will have to be exact as well. Some might wonder what a pawn ending is doing in an opening book, but this pawn ending is actually very close to the theoretical position and could easily arise, so to me it seems very natural to include it. 24. . . �e7

26 94 f6 The endgame is also lost after: a) 26 ... b5 27 d5+ cxd5+ 28 cxd5+ We7 29 'it>d4 as 30 <Ji>c5 b4 31 axb4 a4 32 'it>c4 �d6 33 h5 f6 34 f4 a3 35 'it>b3 <Ji>xd5 36 �xa3 'it>e6 37 'ita4 f5 38 gxf5+ <Ji>xf5 39 'it>b5 'itg4 40 �c6 �xh5 41 <Ji>xc7. b) 26 ... f5+ 27 gxf5+ <Ji>f6 28 a4 b6 (or 28 ... a6 29 as b6 30 axb6 cxb6 31 d5 cxd5+ 32 cxd5 as 33 d6 a4 34 'it>d5 a3 35 d7 �e7 36 <Ji>c6) 29 d5! cxd5+ 30 'iio>xd5 'iio>x fS 31 'iio>c 6. 27 f4 a5 Or 27...bS 28 cxb5 cxb5 29 d5-H 'it>e7 30 �d4 as 31 �c5! (but not 31 gS?? hxg5 32 fxg5 f5! and all of a sudden it is Black who comes out on top) 31 ...b4 32 axb4 a4 33 �c4 (33 'iio>c 6? a3 34 �xc7 a2 35 d6+ <Ji>f7 36 d7 a1 � 37 d8'it' 'i'c3+ 38 <Ji>d7 'iid3+ 39 'iitc 8 �a6+ 40 �b8 'iib5+ 41 'iio>a7 'iixb4 only gives White good winning chances) 33... <Ji>d6 34 h5 a3 35 Wb3 Wxd5 36 g5 fxg5 37 fxg5 <Ji>e6 38 g6 and White wins.

94

WillS .

c) 27 ... b5 28 d5! fxg4 29 fxg4 bxc4 30 c1xc6 <Ji>e5 31 g5 hxg5 32 hxg5 �f5 33 <Ji>d4 Wxg5 34 'it>xc4 Wf6 35 'it>b5 a6 Wxc6 39 'it>xa7 Wb5 40 a6 and White wins. 25 �e4 �e6 25 ... b5 26 cxb5 cxb5 27 <Ji>d5 as 28 <Ji>c5 c6 29 g4 'it>d7 30 f4 'it>e7 31 g5 hxg5 32 hxg5 (32 fxg5? f6! 33 'it>xc6 fxg5 34 hxg5 b4 35 axb4 axb4 36 d5 b3 37 d6+ Wf7 38 d7 b2 39 d8� b 1 'it' 40 'it'f6+ is not so clear) 32... b4 33 axb4 a4 34 'it>c4 <Ji>e6 35 b5!! cxb5+ 36 �'b4 'it>f5 37 d5 f6 38 d6 'it>e6 39 g6 and White

4 d4 iL b 4 Wg4 42 �b6 hS 43 as. 28 a4 �d6 33 axb5 cxb5 34 h5 a4 White also wins after 28 ... b5 29 axb5 cxb5 30 cxb5 a4 31 'it'd3 a3 32 �c2 a2 33 �b2 White also wins after 3 4...Wd6 35 g5 and 34 ... We7 35 g5 fxg5 36 fxg5 a4 37 gxh6 Wf7 �d5 34 g5 fxg5 35 fxg5 hxg5 36 hxg5 and 38 dS. 28 ...b6 29 d5+l cxd5+ 30 cxd5+ �e7 31 �d4 35 g5 a3 36 �c2 a2 �f7 32 �c4 �e7 33 g5 hxg5 34 hxg5 fxg5 Or 36 ...fxg5 37 fxg5 hxg5 38 d5+ 'it'f6 39 35 fxg5 'it'f7 36 �b5 'it'g6 37 'it'c6. 29 c5+ �e6 d6 a2 40 Wb2 g4 41 d7. 37 �b2 fxg5 38 fxg5 hxg5 39 d5+ �f7 29 ... �e7 30 d5 cxd5+ 31 'it'xd5 'it'f7 32 f5 40 h6 g4 41 h7 �g7 42 d6 g3 43 d7 g2 'it'e7 33 �c4 (with the standard idea of Wb5) 33 ... c6 34 �d4 �f7 35 �e4 'it'g7 36 �f4 44 h8"Yi + 1 -0 �f7 37 g5 hxg5+ 38 hxgS ci;e7 39 gxf6+ ,...-----------....... Game 46 �xf6 40 �e4 and White wins.

Yandemirov-Bezgodov

Smolensk 1992 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 lLlc6 4 d4 iLb4 5 lLlxe5! lLlxe4 6 �g4 lLlxc3 7 "ilfxg7 ':'f8 8 a3

30 �e3?? A terrible blunder. White wins after 30 f5+l �e7 31 d5 cxd5+ 32 'it'xd5 �f7! (32 ... c6+ 33 ci;e4 �e8 34 �f4; 32 ... 'it'd7 33 c6+ bxc6+ 34 'it'c5 �e7 35 �xc6 �d8 36 �b5) 33 �c4! c6 34 �d3 We7 35 �e3 �f7 36 �f4 ci;g7 37 g5. 30 . . . b5?? 30.. .£5! 31 g5 h5 32 Wd3 'it'f7 33 �c3 �e7 would have drawn. 31 cxb6 cxb6 32 �d3 b5 Now Black is lost again, as these varia tions show: a) 32 .. .£5 33 gS h5 34 Wc4 �d6 3S g6 �e6 36 d5+l cxd5+ 37 �d4. b) 32 ... �e7 33 h5 �f7 34 �c4 'it'e6 35 d5+l! cxd5+ 36 �d4 f5 (36 ...'it'd6 37 g5 fxg5 38 fxg5 'it'e7 39 gxh6 ci;f8 40 �xdS; 36 ...b5 37 axb5 a4 38 �c3) 37 gxf5+ �xf5 38 �xd5 �xf4 39 �c6 �g4 40 �xb6 Wxh5 41 Wxa5

8 . . . lLlxd4? This variation has some attractions be cause it is quite complicated. Unfortunately for Black it is also very bad. White's king might be walking around in the centre, but Black cannot activate his pieces, and White immediately gains a strong initiative. 9 axb4 lLlxc2+ 1 0 �d2 lLlxa1 1 1 �xc3 a5 1 2 iLc4! Wie7 12 ... axb4+ is considered in the next game. 1 3 .l:l.e1 ! d5 The alternatives also do not work: a) 1 3. .. axb4+ 14 Wd2! 't\¥d6+ (White also wins after 14 ... d5 1 5 i..b5+ �d8 [1 5 ... c6 95


transposes to the next game] 1 6 'it>dl ! iLe6 17 tLld7 .l:Ie8 18 �gS tLlb3 19 �xe7+ .uxe7 20 tLlf6) I S tLld3+ 'it>d8 16 Wd 1 tLlb3 1 7 i.f4 and Black resigned in Smith-Fauth, corre spondence 1981. After 1 7 ...Ma 1+ 1 8 'it>c2 tLld4+ 19 'it>d2 tLlfS 20 'iVg5+ it's all over. b) 13. .. 'i¥xb4+ 14 Wd3 and now: b 1) 14 ... dS I S tLlxt7+ and Black resigned in J.C.Diaz-Am.Rodriguez, Cuba 1 981 . Play could have continued 1 S ... 'iVxel 1 6 .ltb5+ c6 17 tLld6+ �d8 18 .ltg5+ and Black is mated. b2) 14 ...li'd6+ I S e2! li'e7 (I S ... f6 1 6 W fl d8 1 7 .ltf4 � 4 1 8 tLld3! and the queen has no good squares; I S... l::ta6 1 6 .ltxt7+ e7 1 7 .ltg5+ and White wins) 1 6 �dl tLlc2 1 7 xc2 d S (1 7. . .d6 1 8 tLlxt7 i. f5+ [1 8 ... 'i¥xel 19 tLlxd6+ cxd6 20 .ltb5+ �d8 21 �g5+ is a nice finish] 19 Wdl �e4 20 3l.gS and White wins) 18 i.b5+ c6 1 9 tLlxc6 li'xel 20 tLlb8+ 'it>e7 2 1 iLg5+ Wd6 22 �xf8+ and again White wins. c) 1 3..J:h6 14 bxaS! (but not 14 .ltgS? �xb4+ I S d3 dS 16 tLlg6+ l::te6 and Black wins) and now: c1) 14 ... l::te6 I S .ltxe6 dxe6 1 6 .lte3 'iVd6 1 7 tLlc4 'i¥e7 (or 1 7 ...'i¥c6 1 8 .lth6 and White wins) 1 8 l::txal and White has a winning posi tion. c2) Also worth analysing is 14 ... bS 1 5 axb6 l::txb6 (Black is also lost after 1 5 ...l::ta4 1 6 iLh6 �4+ [1 6. . ..l:txc4+ 1 7 Wxc4 'iVe6+ 1 8 d4 �xb6+ 1 9 �d3 � 3+ 20 e2 .lta6+ 21 tLlc4 d6 22 d2+l looks risky, but it is impor tant to step out of the pin. 22 ... 'it>d7 23 'iVg4+ f5 24 'i¥g7+ �c6 25 tLla5+ and White wins] 1 7 �d3 'i¥d6+ 1 8 e2 .lta6 1 9 �f1 and White has a winning attack) 1 6 tLld3 Me6 1 7 i.xe6 dxe6 ( 1 7. ..fxe6 1 8 'iYxe7+ Wxe7 1 9 i.g5+ leaves White a piece up) 1 8 .lthG and �'hite has a decisive advantage. 1 4 i..b 5+ c6 1 5 l2lxc6! �xe1 + 1 6 i..d 2 "iVe4 Black has also tried 16 ... bxc6 1 7 .ltxc6+ i.d7 1 8 i.xd7+ Wxd7 19 .ltxel l:Iac8+ 20 d3 tLlc2 21 �c3 tLlxb4+ 22 i.xb4 axb4 23 li'xh7, when the endgame is winning for 96

White, 1 986.

Evers-Schuetze,

correspondence.

1 7 l2lb8+! 1 -0 Black resigned because of 17 ... �e7 1 8 i.g5+ Wd6 1 9 'iVxf8+ Wc7 2 0 i.d8+ 'it>xb8 2 1 �d6+ which leads t o mate, or 1 7 ...'it>d8 18 li'xf8+ Wc7 1 9 'iVc5+ Wxb8 20 'iVd6+ a7 21 i.e3+ and White wins.

Game 47 Polovodin-Rutman

Leningrad 1978 1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4 i..b4 5 l2lxe5! l2lxe4 6 �g4 l2lxc3 7 �xg7 .l:!.f8 8 a3 l2lxd4 9 axb4 l2lxc2+ 1 0 �d2 l2lxa 1 1 1 �xc3 a5 1 2 i..c4 axb4+ 1 3 �d2! d5 1 3. .."YWe7 14 l:i.el d5 is considered in the notes to Black's 1 3th move in the previous game. 1 4 i..b 5+ c6 1 5 .l:!.e1 ! All pieces join the attack. 1 5 . . .i..e6 Black is all out of luck: a) I S ...tLlb3+ 1 6 dl i.e6 1 7 tLlxc6 bxc6 1 8 Mxe6+ d7 1 9 l::txc6 and White wins. b) 1 S... cxbS 16 tLlxt7+ and again White Will S .

1 6 l2lxc6! bxc6 Or 16 ... �d6 17 l::txe6+ fxe6 (17...'iVxe6 1 8 tLld4+ wins) 1 8 tLla5+! and it's game over. 1 7 J:txe6+ �d7 1 8 .l:!.xc6

4 d4 iL b 4 Black is an exchange up, but the threats to his king are impossible to meet. 1 8 . . . 'i!He7 After 1 8 .. :�a5 White has the quiet 1 9 �e5! b3+ (or 1 9 ... lbb3+ 20 <J.idl �d8 2 1 �d6+ <J.ie8 22 lIc8 mate!) 20 lIc3+ "iVxb5 2 1 l:!.c7+ �d8 22 'iUe7 mate! 1 9 �d 1 l:!.ab8 20 iLf4 1 -0 Black had seen enough.

1 1 il..xg4 �xg4 1 2 lIe1+ �d7! with unclear play. 8 bxc3 'i!Hxc6 9 0-0 'i!Hxc3 After 9 ... d5?! 1 0 lIbl 0-0 1 1 �a3 lbe4 1 2 �xf8 lbxc3 1 3 "iVd3 lbxbl 1 4 �xg7 �xg7 1 5 lIxb1 White is a little better - Nunn. 1 0 litb1 0-0 1 1 l:!.b3 Stronger is 1 1 d5! - '.V'hite should prevent Black from playing ... d7-d5. 1 1 ...'i¥a5 1 2 .l:i.b5 ,...-----. �a4 1 3 �b2 d6 1 4 �xf6 gxf6 1 5 'i¥d2 �f5 Game 48 1 6 .l:i.b3 was dangerous for Black in l\fiagmasuren-Bisguer, Tallinn 1 97 1 . S kripchenko Lautier-Adams 1 1 . . . 'i!Hc6 1 2 iLbS 'ifdS 1 3 iLd3 d6 1 4 c4 Bundesliga 2001 --------. 'i!HhS 1 S iLe2 1 e4 eS 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4 White should not exchange queens a iLb4 S lLlxeS! 'ife7 pawn down of course. After 1 5 'iUxh5?! lbxh5 1 6 lIe1 lbf6 17 �g5 lIe8 1 8 lIbbl kIxe1+ 1 9 !!xe 1 ..te6 the compensation is limited. 1 S . . .'i!Hh4 1 6 h3 1 6 kIg3!? looks better. 1 6 . . ..!:!.e8 1 7 l:!.f3 l2lhS 1 8 iLd3 iLd7 18 ... b6!? 19 d5! gives White some com pensation because of the strong bishops, while 1 9 l:.xf7?! �xf7 20 "iVf3+ lbf6 21 'iUxa8 �xh3 would be in Black's favour. 1 9 iLe3 h6

6 l2lxc6 After this move Black has easy equality. For the critical 6 iVd3 see the next game. 6 . . . 'ifxe4+ 7 iLe2 iLxc3+ Even stronger is 7 ... dxc6! 8 0-0 �h4 and now: a) 9 lIe1 0-0 1 0 g3 �3 1 1 il..f1 �g4 1 2 .if4 'iYxdl 1 3 lIaxdl �g4 1 4 lIc1 .l:i.ac8 1 5 .ig5 lbd5 1 6 lbxd5 cxd5 i s completely equal - Gutman b) 9 ii.f3 il..e6 1 0 lbe2 ..tg4 1 1 g3 �h5 1 2 lbf4 ..\txf3 1 3 lbxh5 i..x dl 1 4 lbxf6+ �e7 1 5 Itxd 1 �xf6 was agreed drawn in D e la Villa Garcia-Mellado, Spain 200l. c) 9 g3!? (very risky) 9 .. :iih3 10 il..f4 lbg4! (1O ...h5?! would be too optimistic; after 1 1 �el c,t>f8 1 2 �f1 �d7 1 3 h4 '.V'hite i s better)

Prophylaxis against �d2 with the threat of �g5 followed by "iVa5 attacking the queen side. 20 iLc2 litad8 21 'i!Hd2!? 21 'iUd3 f5 22 'iUa3 with unclear play was also possible, but Black should avoid 22 ... f4

97


23 'YWd3, when White comes out on top. 21 . . . CLlf6! If Black were to fall asleep with a move like 21 ...�e6?, then the hammer would fall: 22 ..ltxh6! gxh6 23 'iVxh6 with serious threats. 22 'ifd3 �f8 22... dS?! 23 cxdS �c8 24 .:i.e1 would give White the advantage, as 24....:i.xdS? loses to 2S .:i.xf6. 23 'ifb3 b6 After 23 ... i.c8 24 dS a6 25 .:i.f4 �hS 26 ..ltd4 Black is under serious pressure. One should not underestimate the pressure on the dark squares. 24 l:!.f4 �h5 25 ii.d 1 iYg5 26 �h2 26 �c2 would allow 26 ... i.xh3!? 27 .:i.g4 �xg4 28 i.xg4 3Lxg4 with good compensa tion for the queen. 26 . . . ii.c6 27 d5 ii.d7 28 g3 �g6 29 i.c2 'ifh5 30 ':'h4 iYe2 31 �g 1 J:i.xe3! A safety sacrifice, after which Black has little to fear. He even has the advantage, but it is hard to come up with a winning plan. So maybe this was unnecessary, but still it was hard to see how Black could improve his position. 32 fxe3 lle8 33 e4 iYd2 34 iYd3 iYxd3 35 i.xd3 .tc8 36 �g2 CLld7! 37 J:!.hf4 CLle5

The perfect blockade, but how can Black win this? 38 i.e2 �e7 39 l:!.b1 a5 40 J:tbf1 J:!.f8 41 J:1.e 1 i.d7 42 ':'c 1 f6 43 ':c3 .te8 44 98

.tg4 .tf7 45 J:!.f1 J:1.h8 46 ii.d 1 llc8 47 ii.g4 :te8 48 ii.d 1 �f8 49 J:!.e 1 ii.g6 50 .tc2 �f7 51 �f2 J:1.e7 52 �e3 CLld7 53 �d4 .!:te5 54 J:tce3 CLlc5 55 .td 1 �f8 56 .tg4 i.e8 57 J:tf1 h5 58 ii.d1 i.d7 59 J:!.h 1 �f7 60 ii.c2 h4 61 g4 �g6 62 ':f1 �h6 63 J::.b 1 ii.e8 64 J::. be 1 ii.g6 65 lilf1 �e8 66 J::f.fe 1 J:!.c8 67 nb1 �g5 68 ii.d3 CLld7 69 J::.f 1 CLle5 70 i.e2 �h6 71 ii.d1 .:te8 72 ii.c2 CLlf7 73 .td3 CLlg5 74 l:!.b1 �h7 75 �b2 �g8 76 �be2 �f8 77 J:!.f2 �e7 78 i.c2 �d8 79 J;1fe2 J::te7 80 .!:tf2 .!:te5 8 1 ':'fe2 ii.e8 82 ii.d3 i.d7 83 ':'f2 �c8 84 J:tc2 �b7 85 l:!.b2 J:te8 86 ii.c2 �a7 87 ii.d3 J:!.c8 88 ii.e2 CLlf7 89 .!:tb1 CLlg5 90 J:!.b2 .l:!.e8 9 1 ii.d3 �a8 Y, y, -

Game 49 Sermek-Medancic

Bled 1998 1 e4 e5 2 CLlf3 CLlc6 3 CLlc3 CLlf6 4 d4 .tb4 5 CLlxe5! iYe7 6 iYd3!

The critical test. 6 . . . CLlxe5 Also possible is 6...tbxd4 7 fixd4 3LcS and now: a) According Lev Gutman 8 �d2?! gives White an advantage, but it is hard to see how. 8... �xeS 9 f4 fie7! (9... 'iVd4?! 1 0 eS tbg4 1 1 fixd4 �xd4 1 2 tbbS 3Lf2+ 1 3 'it>e2 �b6 14 h3 tbh6 1 5 g4 does heavily favour White) 10 eS (10 ..ltd3 0-0 1 1 �e2 d6 looks good for

4 d4 i.. b 4 Black) 10 ... d6 looks better for Black. b) 8 'tid3 �xeS 9 ..ie3 0-0 1 0 f4 fie7 1 1 0-0-0 :e8 1 2 .i.xcs fixcs 1 3 h3 d6 1 4 .i.e2 (1 4 g4?! fif2! would expose the f-pawn and give Black good counterplay) 14 ... .i.d7 1 5 ..if3 .i.c6 with an unclear middlegame ahead, Zelic-Mikac, Pula 2002. This might be the best line for Black in the whole system with 4... .i.b4. 7 dxe5 �xe5 8 i..d2 0-0 9 0-0-0 d6 Also possible is 9... ..ixc3 10 i.xc3 fif4-+ (10.. :�xe4?! 1 1 'iWg3! 'tig6 1 2 .i.d3 'ii'h6+ 1 3 ..id2 'tWhS 1 4 fixc7 d S 1 5 .i.b4 i.g4 1 6 ..ixf8 ..ixdl 1 7 ..ie7 ..ig4 1 8 'iVxb7 gave White a clear advantage in Spielmann Bogoljubow, Stockholm 1 9 1 9) 1 1 J:td2! (White comes out worse after 1 1 'it>bI ? tLlxe4 12 g3 tLlxc3+ 13 'iixc3 'tixf2 14 'iVxc7 d6 1 5 .i.c4 .i.fS 1 6 .i.b3 .i:lac8 1 7 'tixd6 i.xc2+ 1 8 ..ixc2 fixc2+ 1 9 'it>al h6)

and now: a) l 1 ...dS!? 1 2 exdS! l:.e8 13 b3! .i.fS (or 13 ... tLle4 14 'iWd4 'tih6 1 5 ii.bS c6 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 .i.xc6 tLlxd2 1 8 �b2 .i.a6 19 .i.xe8! tLlc4-+- 20 bxc4 l:txe8 21 l:tel and White wins) 14 'tif3 l:re1+ 15 Wb2 'tigS?! 1 6 h4 'tig6 1 7 d6 tLle4 1 8 .l:!.dS .i.e6 1 9 .l::te S ..ig4 20 d7 tLlf6 21 'tixb7 1 -0. Bellon-Lucacs, Bucharest 1 978. Better was I s .. :iHxf3 16 gxf3 lId8 (1 6 ...i.h3 1 7 .i.g2! makes no progress for Black) 1 7 i.xf6 gxf6 1 8 .i.g2, though it does not offer Black enough compensation for the pawn. The batde will be on the queenside, so the

weakness of White's pawns is less important. Still, Black can generate some counterplay with ....l:!.d6-h6, even though it is doubtful whether it will be enough. b) 1 1 ...'tixe4 1 2 i.xf6 'iWxd3 1 3 .i.xd3 gxf6 1 4 1Iei dS 1 5 .l::te7 c6 16 �de2 .l:!.b8 1 7 J::tc7 .i.e6! (17 ...h 6 1 8 l:tee7 with a clear ad vantage - Gutman) 1 8 .i.xh7+ Wh8 1 9 .i.d3 and White has the better structure. 1 0 f4 'IiIe7 10 ...'tiaS 1 1 a3 would give White a serious advantage . 1 1 J:Ie 1 i..d 7 1 2 'IiIg3 White has serious attacking chances. The way Black now tries to start an attack is too slow. He should have tried to play with his pieces. 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 i..d 3 b5 1 4 J:Ihf1 4Jh5 1 5 'IiIf3 iYh4 1 6 e5 f5 1 7 g3 �g4 1 8 'IiIxg4 fxg4 1 9 e6 i..xc3 20 i..xc3 i..c8 21 i..b4 ne8 22 f5

White has an overwhelming position. 22 . . . d5 23 i..c3 a5 24 a3 b4 25 axb4 axb4 26 i..xb4 4Jf6 27 i..c 3 4Je4 28 i..xe4 dxe4 29 b3 g6 30 J:Ixe4 h5 31 ne5 gxf5 32 !texf5 i.xe6 33 J:!.xh5 1 -0

Came 50 Egorov-Iuldachev

Aden 2002 1 e4 e5 2 4Jc3 4Jf6 3 4Jf3 4Jc6 4 d4 i..b4 5 4Jxe5! i..xc3+!? 99


A novel idea that comes close to equalis Ing. 6 bxe3 "iie7 7 i.d3! 7 lbxc6 'iYxe4+ 8 i.e2 't'ixc6 would trans pose to Game 48. 7 . . . tUxe5 8 dxe5 i*'xe5 9 0-0 White has only a slight advantage from the opening. 9 . . . d6 9 ... ii'xc3 1 0 �bl 0-0 1 1 i.b2 �c6 1 2 e5 would give White many attacking chances. 1 0 "iie 1 Interesting is 1 0 f4!? 'fixc3 11 Mbl 0-0 12 i.b2 "iVc5+ 13 c.t>hl lbg4 1 4 'iNel , when White has compensation for the pawn in his pressure on the dark squares. 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 f4 i*'h5 12 e4 tUd7 12 ...lbg4?! would be wasting time. After 1 3 h3! (1 3 i¥g3?! 'ifc5+ 1 4 c.t>hl f5! is Black's idea) 1 3..:iVc5+ 14 c.t>hl lbf6 1 5 'iYg3 White would have good attacking chances. 1 3 i.b2 tUe5 1 4 i*'g3 14 ktf3!? was interesting. 1 4 . . :iWg4 1 5 i*'e3 tUa4? Here the knight is misplaced. The bishop will also look strange on a3, but it can move back to the kingside much faster than the knight, so the misplacement is less of a prob lem for White. After 1 5 .. .l::t e8 1 6 Mae1 i.d7 1 7 Mf3 "iVh4 1 8 l:!.g3 f6 1 9 "iVf2 �h8 the position would have remained unclear. 1 6 i.a3 J:te8 1 7 J:tf3! White organises an assault on the king. 1 7 c 5 dxc5 1 8 i.xc5 lbxc5 1 9 ifxc5 would only be level. 1 7 . . . i.d7 1 8 .l:!.e 1 i.e6 1 9 J:tg3 i*'e6 20 e5! Opening up for the bishops and limiting the space for the black pieces. After 20 'iVd4 f6 21 c5 dxc5 22 i.xc5 lbxc5 23 'ti'xc5 Wh8 Black keeps the balance. 20 . . . dxe5 21 fxe5 J:tad8 Black is starting to feel the cold. 21 ...lbb6 22 i¥g5! g6 23 .l:i.h3 f5 24 "iVh6 'iVf7 25 e6 'iNg7 26 'iHh4, with the threat of i.b2, is very dangerous for Black. 1 00

22 "iif4 "iid 7? Black was afraid of the threat of j"f5, but he had to bring the knight back with 22 ...lbb6!, even though White has a terrible attack after 23 l::tg4 g6 24 h4!.

23 �h 1 ? Sloppy. After 23 'iNh6! g6 24 Mee3! b6 25 Mh3 f6 26 exf6 lbc5 27 i.b2 White has a winning attack. 23 . . . g6?! Black could have fought back with 23 .. :iVe6!, planning 24 i.f5? 'iVxe5! and Black wins. 24 'iYg5 g6 25 h4 remains unpleasant, but it is still a fight. 24 J:!.f1 'i'e6 25 h4! tUb6 26 i.b2?! 26 h5! is more accurate (see below). 26 . . . tUa4? Black should not go back here. After 26 ... Me7 27 i.a3 l:!.ed7 28 .if5 'iYxc4 29 "iVxc4 lbxc4 30 e6!? (30 .ixd7 Mxd7 31 i.cl lbxe5 32 .if4 is probably slightly better for White, but this kind of endgame is hard to win) 30 ... �d4 31 exf7+ �xf7 32 i.g4+ �g-;33 j"e7 �8d5 34 .if6+ �h6 35 i.xd4 �xd4 and Black has good drawing chances. Of course this is not a forced line, but it doe� show that Black has a tenable position. 27 i.a3 tUb6 28 h5! tUd7 29 i.b2 tUe5 30 i.f5! "iie7 31 hxg6 tUe6 Or 31 ...fxg6 32 .ixg6 and White crashes through. 32 gxf7+ �xf7 1 -0 It is mate after 33 .ixe6+ 'it>xe6 34 'iYf5.

4 d4 � b 4 Summary After 4 ... iLb4 there is only one critical move because 5 d5 CLle7 does not seem to give White a good game at all. Therefore 5 CLlxe5! is absolutely the best move. Then Black has a variety of choices. 5 ... CLlxe4 6 �g4! CLlxc3 7 �xg7 lif8 8 a3 is one of these. Here Black is forced to go into an uncomfortable endgame with 8 ...iLa5 as after 8... CLlxd4? White has a winning attack straight from the opening. Black has also tried 5 ... 0-0 but by returning the pawn and finishing his development, White holds a reasonable plus. This leaves Black with 5 ...�e7 and 5 ...�xc3+, both of which have failed to equalise completely, but they do have some quality. In the final analysis we can say that White is slightly better after 4... �b4. 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4 �b4 5 tLlxe5 5 d5 CLle7 6 CLlxe5 d6 7 CLlf3 (0) Game 42; 7 �b5+ - Game 43 5 . . .tLlxe4 5 ... �xc3+- Game 50 5 ... 0-0 -Game 44 5.. .'ii'e 7 6 �d3 Game 49; 6 CLlxc6 - Game 48 6 �g4 tLlxc3 7 �xg7 �f8 8 a3 tLlxd4 8 ... �a5 (0) - Game 45 9 axb4 tLlxc2+ 1 0 'it>d2 tLlxa 1 1 1 'it>xc3 a5 1 2 �c4 (0) axb4+ - Game 47 1 2... �e7 Game 46 -

-

-

7 tLlf3

1 2 �c4

101

CHAPTER EIGHT

I

The Belgrade Gambit

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4 exd4 5 tLld5 The Belgrade Gambit arises after the above sequence. This gambit is especially popular at club level, where home prepara tion has not reached the level of professional chess. The idea seems to be to sacrifice a pawn and get complications no matter what. Black has four main replies: 5 ... t2Jxd5 (Games 51 -52), 5 ...t2Jb4 (Games 53-54), 5 ... ..Ite7 (Games 55-59) and 5 ... t2Jxe4 (Games 60-65).

Game 51 Svidler-Cherepkov

Leningrad 1990 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4 exd4 5 tLld5 tLlxd5 In the position after 5 t2Jd5 Black has many alternatives. He has tried the text move, 5 ...t2Jb4, 5 ... ..Ite7 and 5 ...t2Jxe4. Here is a summary of less important lines: a) 5 ... d6!? 6 t2Jxd4 ..Ite7 (6...t2Jxe4? 7 t2Jb5 would of course be highly unfortunate) 7 i.b5 i.d7 and White does not appear to have an advantage. b) 5 ... h6?! (maybe Black still has a decent position after this move, but it does nothing for the development and it creates weak1 02

nesses) 6 t2Jxd4 ..Itc5! 7 t2Jb5! 0-0 (7 .....Itb6 S t2Jxb6 axb6 9 ..Itd3 gives White a slight edge) S t2Jbxc7 t2Jxe4 9 ..Ite3 ..Itxe3 1 0 fxe3 I:!.bS (or 1 0. ."iVh4+? 1 1 g3 t2Jxg3 1 2 hxg3 'iYxhl 1 3 t2JxaS and White wins) 1 1 g3 d6 1 2 .ig2 f5 1 3 0-0 and according to Bruce Monson, White has a small edge. Monson is an Ameri can master and great specialist in the Bel grade Gambit. c) 5 ...i.b4+ 6 t2Jxb4! t2Jxb4 7 t2Jxd4! (7 e5 'iYe7 S .ie2 t2Jg4 [S...t2Je4 9 0-0 t2Jc6 10 :el h6 1 1 t2Jxd4 0-0 12 .if3 t2Jg5 13 .idS! gave White a clear advantage, Wehmeier-Bzowski, Wisla 1 992] 9 .if4 d6! gives Black a good game, as 10 exd6? 'iie4! would lead to imme diate disaster). d) 5 ... i.c5 6 i.g5! .ie7 (6 ... h6?! 7 i.xf6 gxf6 S "iVd2 d6 9 b4 i.b6 10 .ib5 �fS 1 1 0-0 would give White a large advantage) 7 t2Jxe7 'iixe7 S .id3 0-0 (S ... "i¥b4+ 9 t2Jd2! d6 1 0 0-0 i.e6 1 1 f4 0-0-0 1 2 f5 i.d7 1 3 a3 "iVc5 14 b4 'iYe5 1 5 t2Jf3 'iYeS 1 6 b5 t2Je5 1 7 t2Jxd4 gave \X-'hite a clear advantage in the game Monson-MChess Pro 3.5) 9 0-0 d6 1 0 .ib5 .id7 1 1 :e1 :feS 1 2 i.xc6 .ixc6 13 t2Jxd4 and White has a slight edge - Monson. 6 exd5 .i.b4+ 6 ...t2Jb4 is considered in Game 52. Black will not find any relief in 6 ... 'iie7+? The check looks contrary to all logic, as the .

Th e B e /grade G a m b i t

f8-bishop is blocked and the fl -bishop is forced to develop. 7 �e2 tDb4 8 0-0 iVc5 9 tDxd4 tDxd5 1 0 i.e c6 (or 10 ... tDe7 1 1 lIel d6 12 �e3 'iVa5 13 c4 c6 14 �f4 and White is better in every conceivable way) 1 1 .l:.e1+ 'iii'd8 12 b4 'iVc4 13 �g5+ f6 14 �xd5 'iVxd5 1 5 i.f4 i.xb4 1 6 c4 'iit'xc4 1 7 tDe6+ 'i;;e 7. This was played in Koronghy-Ivanic, USSR 1 974. Now White has the combination 1 8 tDg5+ 'it>d8 1 9 'it'd4!!, winning the queen Monson. 7 i.d2 �e7+ Black is worse after the less natural 7 ... i.xd2+ 8 iVxd2 'iVe7+ (or 8... tDe7 9 'it'xd4 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 d6 1 1 g4! b6 1 2 h4 and White has good attacking chances in Fernandes Singh, Dubai 1 986) 9 �e2 tDb4 1 0 liJxd4 (interesting is 1 0 0-0 0-0 [with the idea 1 0... liJxd5? 1 1 i.c4 'it'c5 1 2 iVg5!!] 1 1 �c4 b5) 1 0...tDxd5 1 1 tDf5 'iVe5 1 2 tDxg7+ 'iVxg7 1 3 'iVxd5 'it'xb2 1 4 0-0 d6 (14...0-0 1 5 lIab 1 'it'g7 1 6 Ilb3 'i;;h8 1 7 �g3 'it'f6 1 8 'iVh5 [1 8 'iVc5!? d6 1 9 iVxc7 with advantage was clearer] 1 8... d6 1 9 i.d3 gave White a strong attack in Fabregas-Magnelli, Spain 1 992. Af ter 1 9 ... h6 White should be aware of tricks like 20 lIel i.e6 21 �g6 'it'xf2-H?, with an even ending) 1 5 lIabl 'iVg7 1 6 lIb3. 8 �e2 Forced. After 8 �e2?! d3 9 cxd3 i.xd2+ 1 0 WNxd2 tDb4 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 1;Hel liJxd5 there is no real compensation for the pawn. 8 . . . i.xd2+ 9 'i¥txd2 'ilfxe2+ The best. 9 ... tDb4?! 1 0 WNxe7+ �xe7 1 1 �c4 �d6 1 2 lIhe l ! 'iii'c5 1 3 �b3 tDxd5 14 lIeS c6 15 i.xd5 f6 1 6 .i:!.f5 g6 1 7 l:hf6 'it>xd5 1 8 lIel gives a clear advantage according to Monson. And 1 0 d6! looks even better Black has no way to equalise anymore. One idea is 10 ...cxd6? 1 1 WHb5! followed by Uel , winning material. 1 0 i.xe2 This position is more or less equal, theo retically speaking, but White has a dangerous initiative. Therefore 6 ... i.b4+ cannot be rec ommended for Black.

1 0 . . . tDe7 Also interesting is 10 ... liJb4 1 1 Uhel (1 1 d6!? is interesting) 1 1 ...0-0 (1 1 ...tDxd5?! 1 2 i.c4+ liJ e7 1 3 lIe2 d 5 1 4 �xd5 i.g4 1 5 lIae1 0-0-0 1 6 .uxe7 lIxd5 1 7 lIxf7 i.xf3 1 8 gxf3 lId7 1 9 �ee7 lIxe7 20 lIxe7 g6 looks uncomfortable for Black, although the end game is not so easy to win for White) 1 2 d6! c5 1 3 i.c4.

Now Black has tried the following moves: a) 13 ...liJc6?! 14 tDg5! liJd8 15 lIe7 gave White a big edge in Olszewski-McKaig, ICCF 1 972. b) 1 3...a6 14 l:!e7?! (14 a3 tDc6 1 5 i.d5! gives White a clear advantage, as Black can not easily free himself; the point is that 1 5...b5 1 6 l:te 7! lIb8 1 7 �xc6 dxc6 1 8 d7 i.b7 1 9 b4! simply wins for White) 1 4...b5 1 5 a3 liJxc2! (1 5 ...tDc6 1 6 �d5 gives a clear advantage according to Polovodin, but as can 1 03


be seen above, Black has no defence at all) 16 'it'xc2 (1 6 .ids lDxa1 1 7 i.xa8 lDb3+ 1 8 �c2 c4 gives Black reasonable counterplay) 1 6 ...bxc4 1 7 lDeS i.b7 1 8 lDxd7 l::tfd8 1 9 lDxcs .ixg2 and Black is in the game. c) 13. ..bS?! 1 4 i.xbS l:.b8 1S .ic4 i.a6 1 6 lDeS i.xc4 1 7 lDxc4 gave White a clear advantage in Polovodin-Tseitlin, Leningrad 1 979. d) 1 3. ..g6?! 14 l::te7! bS 1S i.xbS lDdS 1 6 .l:!.eS ..tb7 1 7 ..tc4 lDf6 1 8 J::tae1 gives White a clear advantage - Gutman. e) 13. .. b6! 1 4 l:Ie7 (14 lDeS?! iLa6 1 S iLxa6 lDxa6 1 6 lDxd7 l:fd8 1 7 .l:.e7 lDb4! 1 8 lDeS l::i.xd6 gives Black the better game) 1 4....ia6 1 S ..txa6 lDxa6 1 6 nxd7 (16 a3!? lDb8 1 7 �ael f6 might give White a slight advantage, but it is doubtful) 1 6 .. J:tfd8 1 7 l:Ixd8+1 (1 7 l:Ib7 l:!.xd6 with unclear play was played in Martinov-Gusev, USSR 1 9S9) 1 7...l::txd8 1 8 lle 1 �f8 1 9 .l:.e7 nxd6 20 J:.xa7 and the endgame is microscopically better for White. 1 1 d6 This is the thematic try, but other moves have also been analysed: a) 1 1 .ic4!? and now: al) l 1 ...cS 1 2 dxc6 dxc6 1 3 lDxd4 .ig4 1 4 .l:!.ael �d7 l S .l:!.e3 i s better for White, and so is l 1 ...d6 1 2 lDxd4 'it>d8 13 lihel lDfS 1 4 lDf3!, when Black has problems getting fully mobilised (for some reason Monson only gives 1 4 lDxfS with equality). a2) l 1 ...bS! 12 iLb3 (White has no advan tage after 1 2 iLxbS iLb7 1 3 lDxd4 .ixdS, which gives a dynamic and unclear position. A computer might prefer White, but there are no weaknesses to target, and in the long run the open b-ftle should give Black excel lent counterplay. That is also why after 1 4 l::th el Black would play 1 4. . .'it>d8! in order to bring both rooks into play.) 1 2... ..tb7 1 3 lDxd4 lDxdS! would give a safe path to equal ity, while after 13. .. a6 14 .l:!.he1 'it'd8 l S d6!? cxd6 16 .l:.e2 White would have compensa tion for the pawn and good reasons to de cline a draw offer. 1 04

b) More ambitious is 1 1 l:Ihe1!? d6 (for l 1 ...lDxdS 1 2 .ic4+ lDe7 1 3 .l:!.e2 see the note to Black's 1 0th move) 1 2 .ib5+ 'it'f8 (actually Black would be better off playing 1 2....id7! 13 lDxd4 �d8 14 ..tc4 lDg6 l S ne3 with a worse, but defensible position) 13 lDxd4! (1 3 .l:!.e4!? .ifS 14 .l:!.xd4 a6 1 S .id3 .ixd3 1 6 Mxd3 �e8 1 7 .l:!. e1 'it'd7 i s equal) 1 3. ..a 6 14 .l:!.e3!! (without this idea White would have nothing) 14 ... cS (14...axbS 1 S .l:!.ae1 cS 1 6 .l:!.xe7 .ie6 1 7 1:.c7 i.xdS 1 8 lDxbS and White is close to winning) I S l:Iae 1 cxd4 1 6 l:Ixe7 .ie6 1 7 l:Ic7! i.xdS 1 8 .ic4 i.xc4 19 l:Ixc4 hS! 20 ':xd4 l:.h6 and Black has some chances of saving the rook ending with active play. 1 1 . . lLlc6 1 2 ':!'ad1 Both the alternatives are more energetic: a) 12 dxc7! d6 13 .ibS .ie6 14 lDxd4 'it'd7 I S lDxe6 fxe6 16 l:Ihel with an advan tage for \Xihite in White-Williams, Los Ange les 1 995. b) 1 2 l:Ihe1!? cxd6 1 3 lDgs and now: bl) 1 3. .. �f8 14 .ic4! (14 .id3? dS! l S ':e2 d6 and Black i s going to survive) 1 4... lDd8 (or 1 4... lDeS 15 i.dS! with a clear advantage for White; lDe4xd6 is coming, and so is £2-f4) I S lDe4 lDe6 1 6 lDxd6 �e7 1 7 lDbS with a n advantage for White. b2) 1 3. .. 0-0?! 14 lDe4 dS 1 S lDd6 with a distinct plus for White - Gutman. b3) 13. .. lDd8! 1 4 .ifW? (14 .ib5+ 'it'f8 1 S lDe4 'it'e7 1 6 lDg3+ lDe6 1 7 lDf5+ 'it'd8 1 8 lDxd6 'it'c 7 1 9 tiJfS b 6 gives Black a good game) 1 4... lDe6 1 S lDe4 �e7 1 6 lDg3 �f6 (16 ... g6 1 7 lDe2 'it'f6 18 �d3 .l:!.e8 1 9 lDxd4 gives White the advantage) 17 l:Iad1 �b8 and White has good play, but whether this is enough to claim an advantage is not certain. 1 2 . . . cxd6 1 3 �c 1 1 3 l:Ihe1 !? 'it'd8 14 �c1 l:Ie8 1 S lDxd4 lDxd4 16 .l:!.xd4 b6! would equalise. 1 3 . . . b6!? This seems sound. After 1 3 ...dS?! 14 lDxd4 lDxd4 1 S l:!.xd4 d6 1 6 ':xdS White has a much better ending, but still it requires very .

Th e B e/grade G a m b i t

good technique to win such a position. 1 4 lithe 1 >td8 1 S �c4 Or 1 5 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 6 .l:!.xd4 .l:!.e8 1 7 .l:!.xd6 .i.a6 and a draw is very likely.

1 S . . . �b7 1 6 �xf7 4:JeS 1 7 4:JxeS dxeS 1 8 J:.xeS litf8 1 9 �dS Y, - Y, A draw was agreed probably because of 1 9 ... .ltxd5 20 .l:!.xd5 ':xf2 21 J:i.1xd4 .l:!.f7, when White's advantage is impressive only from an aesthetic point of view.

Game 52 Bellon lopez-Jamieson

Wijk aan Zee 1977 1 e4 eS 2 4:Jf3 4:Jc6 3 4:Jc3 lUf6 4 d4 exd4 S 4:JdS 4:JxdS 6 exdS 4:Jb4 7 4:Jxd4 This is more natural than 7 .i.c4, which arises (by transposition) in Game 54. 7 . . .lUxdS I prefer the following line: 7 ... "it'f6! (threatening 8..."ilVxd4 and thus slowing down White's development. 8 c3 ctJxd5 9 .Jtc4 ctJb6 (This is the natural move. Maybe the books have overlooked the strength of 7 .. :iVf6! because of the following game: (9 ..."it'eS+? 1 0 d2! "ilVg5+ 1 1 '.tc2 "it'g6+ 1 2 .i.d3 'iVf6 1 3 .l:!.e1+ Wd8 14 "ilVh5 with a strong attack, Szmetan-Zucotti, Mar del Plata) 10 �d3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 .l:!.e1 d5 1 3 ctJf3 l:.e8! (1 3. . .h 6 14 .Jtc2! with the threat of "it'd3 is given by Monson. Here White might be a litde better, even though it cannot be a

lot) 14 .i.g5 "ilVd6 1 5 ctJd4 .ltd7 1 6 'iVh5 h6 and 'W'hite does not have full compensation for the pawn. 8 lUfS!? Or 8 "ilVf3?! ctJf6 9 �g5 "ilVe7+ 10 .ie2 'iVe5 1 1 .i.xf6 �xf6 12 �xf6 gxf6 1 3 0-0-0 c6 and Black is better - Monson. 8 . . . 4:Je7 9 �gS

9 . . .f6 This allows for White to start a strong at tack. GM Lev Gutman recommends 9 ... d5 1 0 i.xe7 .Jtxe7 1 1 ctJxg7+ Wf8 1 2 ctJh5 "iIVd6 with unclear play. Also possible is 1 2...�b4+ 1 3 c3 'iVe7+ 1 4 i.e2 i.g4 1 5 ctJf4 .txe2 1 6 ctJxe2 .td6 1 7 0-0 (1 7 'iVxd5?! .l:!.e8! gave Black an attack in Holas-Jezek, Podebrady 1 956) 1 7...c6 with a dynamically balanced position. 1 0 �xf6! This is naturally the idea behind White's play. 1 0 . . . gxf6 1 1 'iYhS+ lUg6 1 2 0-0-0 Monson gives the following line: 12 i.c4? c6! 13 0-0-0 d5 14 ctJh4 .i.g7 1 5 ctJxg6 hxg6 1 6 �xg6+ '.tf8 1 7 l:.he1 �h6 and Black is winning. 1 2 . . . d6 Black cannot open up his king's position too much, but it is hard not to. After 12 ... d5!? 13 ctJh4! (1 3 l:.xd5?! 1i'xd5 14 ctJg7+ i.xg7 1 5 1i'xd5 c 6 1 6 'iYe4+ ctJe7 1 7 .i.c4 i.f5 is not clear at all; only Mikhail Tal has ever fully understood how to use the queen against an 1 05


ocean of minor pieces) 1 3 ...i..g7 14 .l:i.xdS 'iNe 7 1 5 i..d3 c6 16 i..xg6+ hxg6 17 'iWxg6+ �f8 1 8 .l:i.d4 i..e6 1 9 'iWd3! White has a very strong attack for the piece. But maybe this is the best line Black has at his disposal. 1 3 4:lh4 i..g 7 1 4 i..c4? This looks very natural, but now Black has the chance to flee to the queenside with his king, which is very pleasant as White's pieces are all either on the kingside, or directed against it. Better was 14 .l:i.e 1+1 'it'f8 1 5 i..c4 (with the idea of 'iNxg6) l S... dS 1 6 .ixdS i..g4 1 7 'iNxg6!! 'iNxdS (1 7. . .i..e6 1 8 i.xe6 hxg6 1 9 lLlxg6+ e8 20 i.bYt! Wd7 21 .l:i.d1+ 'it'c6 22 .l:i.xd8 .l:i.hxd8 23 lLle7+ b6 24 lLlfS �f8 25 h4 gives White a very promising endgame Monson) 1 8 'iNxg4 'iNxa2 1 9 'iWb4+ g8 20 lLlfS .l:i.d8 21 c3 "ith a clear advantage for White.

23 . . :�xb2+! Black is pulling the emergency cord. After 23 ... �xe6? 24 .l:i.xd6+ �d7 25 �xf6 bxc4 26 .l:i.t7 l:i.b6 27 'ili'xa7 White is much better be cause of Black's weak king. 24 'i.t>xb2 bxc4+ 25 'i.t>c3 i..g 7+ 2S 'i.t>d2 i..xeS 27 J:txdS+ i..d7 28 J:!.xd7+! White escapes with this perpetual check. 28 . . . 'i.t>xd7 29 'ilfxf5+ 'i.t>e7 30 �c5+ 'i.t>d7 31 �f5+ 'i.t>e7 32 'ilfe4+ 'i.t>d8 33 'ilfd5+ 'i.t>e7 % - %

Game 53 Van Haastert-Golod

Dieren 1998

1 4 . . JWd7 1 5 .l:.he1 + 'i.t>d8 1 S 4:lxgS hxgS 1 7 �xgS i..h S+ 1 8 'i.t>b1 �g7 1 9 "ike4 lilb8?! Black could have repulsed White's attack with 1 9 ... fS! 20 'iNdS �f6 21 .l:!.e2 Ji.g7 22 c3 f4!, when Black's pieces will develop and outnumber the small white army. 20 I!.d3 f5 21 �d5 �fS 22 �a5 b5? After 22 ...i..g7 23 c3 a6 White probably cannot make any progress. Black would win after something like 24 i..e 6 b6 25 �a3 Ji.d7! 26 Ji.xd7 \t>xd7. 23 geS! 1 06

1 e4 e5 2 4:lf3 4:lcS 3 4:lc3 4:lfS 4 d4 exd4 5 4:ld5 4:lb4 S i..c4 This is the only serious move. The alterna tives are not promising: a) White does not have enough after 6 lLlxf6+ 'ili'xf6 7 �c4 d6 8 lLlgS?! (this is reck less, but 8 a3 lLlc6 9 .ibS �g6! would also give Black the better game) 8... dS! 9 exdS Ji.fS 10 Ji.b5+ d8! (This would be a new move! Monson analyses 1 O... c6? 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 1 2 Ji.a4 'iWe5+ 1 3 f1 'iNcs 1 4 'iWf3 h6 1 5 Ji.d2 and White wins, but even this evaluation must be checked. After l s ... lLlxc2 1 6 SLxc6+ e 7 White is much better, but this is really a mess and the evaluation of 'win ning' is too optimistic) 1 1 SLa4 h6 1 2 'iNe2 (1 2 lLlf3? "ii'a 6!!, intending 1 3 �b3 lLlxc2+ 1 4


.i.xc2 .Jlb4+ and Black wins) 1 2 ... liJxc2+ 1 3 .Jlxc2 .ib4+ 1 4 wn .ixc2 1 5 �xc2 hxgS and Black has a clear advantage. b) 6 liJxd4? liJxe4! (the test; 6 ... liJbxdS 7 exdS .JlcS 8 Wie2+ and according to Nunn White may be slighdy better) and now: bl) After 7 liJbS liJxdS 8 WixdS 'iiVe 7!!

This is a new idea, and a very strong one. Instead, 8 ... .ib4+? (at least I think it deserves a question mark) 9 c3 �e7 10 liJxc7+ 'it>d8 1 1 cxb4! liJf6+ 1 2 liJe6+ fxe6 1 3 'iiVb3 gives an unclear position according to Monson's analysis. Actually White might be better as Black is potentially very weak on the dark squares. Going back to 8 ... Wie7, we have the fol lowing continuations: bl l) 9 liJxc7+ �d8 10 .Jlf4 d6! 1 1 0-0-0 'it>xc7 and Black wins because after 1 2 f3 gS! �'hite does not have enough compensation for the piece. b 1 2) 9 'ilVd4!? is the choice of Fritz 7, but after 9 ... dS 1 0 .Jlf4 liJc3+ 1 1 'it>d2 liJxbS 1 2 .Jlxb5+ c 6 1 3 l::the 1 .i.e6 White does not have any weaknesses to attack with his addi tional development. Black is clearly better. b 1 3) 9 .i.f4 (the best) 9 ... liJc3+l 1 0 WieS liJxbS 1 1 .JlxbS c6 1 2 .Jld3 d6 1 3 Wixe7+ .Jlxe 7 1 4 0-0-0 .i.e6 any compensation for the pawn is an illusion. b2) According to Monson 7 liJfS is simply bad. In my opinion it's not this move that's to blame, but the sad mistake made on the

previous move. 7. . .c 6 8 liJxb4 .ixb4+l (8...�aS!?, as in Prie-Psakhis, Paris 1 990, is not so clear) 9 c3 'iVf6!

and now: b21) 1 0 ii'f3 liJxc3 1 1 .i.d2 (1 1 a3 'iiVe5+1 1 2 .i.e3 .i.aS 13 b4 .i.c7 14 �g3 liJe4 1 5 Wixe5+ .i.xeS 1 6 .i.d4 .Jlxd4 1 7 liJxd4 0-0 and Black is winning) 1 1 ... g6! 1 2 bxc3 gxfS 1 3 l::t d l .ics 14 .Jld3 dS and White is two pawns down for nothing. b22) 1 0 liJxg7+ 'it>d8! 1 1 ii'f3 (1 1 Wic2 liJxc3 1 2 a3 .JlaS 1 3 b4 'iVe5+ 1 4 .i.e3 .Jlb6 and Black wins quickly) 1 1 ....ixc3+l! (a won derful little combination) 1 2 bxc3 �xg7 1 3 .ib2 d S and White must b e lost - both ...l:!.e8 and ....i.g4 are threats. 6 . . .ttJbxd5 7 exd5 7 .i.xdS c6 works in Black's favour. 7 . . ..1l.b4+ 8 i.d2 White has also experimented with 8 'it>n!? 0-0 9 Wixd4 h6 10 h4 d6 11 JtgS .i.cs 1 2 .ixf6 'iiVxf6 1 3 'iVxf6 gxf6 14 Jtd3 l::!.e 8, with equality in the game Hector-Karolyi, Copen hagen 1 985. 8 .. :�e7+ 9 ir'e2 .1l.xd2+ Or 9 ...Wixe2+ 10 Wxe2 .JlcS 1 1 b4 .ib6 1 2 a4 a s 1 3 bxaS .i.xaS 14 liJxd4, which was roughly equal in Fahrner-Wells, Graz 1 99 1 . 1 0 �xd2 ir'xe2+ 10 ... liJe4+? 1 1 Wd3! liJc5+ 12 'it>xd4 �xe2 1 3 .i.xe2 b6 14 l::the 1 0-0 1 5 b4! gives a clear advantage for White - Monson. 1 1 �xe2 c5 107


Also perfectly possible is 1 1 ...d6 12 �hel (12 CLlxd4 i.d7 1 3 .l:i.hel [or 13 CLlb5 'iit f8! 1 4 CLlc3 �e8+ 1 5 'It>d2 CLle4+ 16 CLlxe4 �xe4 with a likely draw] 1 3. .. 0-0-0 1 4 f3 .l:.he8+ 1 5 �f2 .l:i.e5! and Black is at least equal, Grimberg Plear, Belgrade 1 988) 1 2... 0-0 1 3 'iitd3 �f5+ 1 4 'it'xd4 llfe8 (14...i.xc2 1 5 .l::!.e 7 gives White good play) 15 .tb3 Ii.e4+ 16 �xe4 i.xe4 with a probable draw. Black can also play the more testing 1 1 ...b5!? 1 2 i.xb5 (White should avoid 1 2 i.b3?! .tb7 1 3 CLlxd4 CLlxd5! 1 4 CLlxb5 [risky is 1 4 l':the 1 'iit f8 1 5 CLlxb5 CLlf4+ 16 'it'd2 a6 1 7 CLlc3 CLlxg2 1 8 Me5 CLlh4 and White does not have full compensation for the pawn] 1 4... CLlf4+ 1 5 'it'd2 'iitd8 and White is under more threat than Black) 1 2... CLlxd5 1 3 CLlxd4 CLlf4+ (13. ..�b8!?, threatening ... c7-c5, is an interesting alternative) 14 �f3 CLle6 1 5 �hel l:ib8! 16 CLlxe6 fxe6 17 ':xe6+ 'it'd8 18 .l::!.e5 a6 19 �d3 l:txb2 and Black has good play. 1 2 dxc6 bxc6! 1 3 tiJxd4 White could also consider 1 3 .l::!.h el !? and now: a) 13. .. d5 14 �f1+ �d8 (14...�f8?! 1 5 .td3 c 5 1 6 b 4 cxb4 1 7 CLlxd4 a 5 1 8 c 3 would give White compensation - it is hard for Black to finish his development) 1 5 i.d3 c5 16 b4 cxb4 17 CLlxd4 a5 18 c3 bxc3 19 �ac1 .ta6 20 �xa6 �xa6 21 �xc3 l:te8 22 l:tbl with compensation for the pawn. b) 1 3. .. 0-0! 1 4 CLlxd4 lIb8 1 5 'iitd2 d5 16 .td3 c5 1 7 CLlc6 .l:lxb2 and Black is at least equaL 1 3 . . .d 5 1 4 .td3 c5 1 5 tiJb5 0-0 Black is definitely not worse. 1 6 b3 Black would win after 1 6 c4 .te6 17 CLlc7? (17 b3 would transpose back to the game) 1 7 ... dxc4 1 8 .tc2 Mab8 1 9 CLlxe6 .l:i.fe8 20 �d2 IiIxe6 21 'it'c3 �e2 22 .l:i.hfl .l:i.d8 23 �adl IiId4!. 1 6 . . . .te6 1 7 c4 l:l.feS 1 S 'it>f3? White could still have kept the balance with 1 8 CLlc7! dxc4 1 9 .tc2 cxb3 (or 1 9 ....tg4+?! 20 'iit fl .te2+ 21 �gl �ad8 22 1 08

CLlxe8 CLlxe8 23 bxc4 �xc4 24 h4 .te6 with an unpleasant position for Black) 20 axb3 �xb3+ 21 CLlxe8 �xe8+ 22 �d2 �xc2 23 �xc2 IiIe2+ 24 'It>d3 .l:lxf2 25 IiIxa7 h5 - the endgame should be drawn. 1 S . . .l:iladS! Now White has problems keeping every thing together. 1 9 .:the1 19 IiIhc1 .l:ld7 20 g3 CLlg4 21 'iitg2 CLle5 22 .tfl dxc4 23 bxc4 IiIed8 would also clearly favour Black. 1 9 . . ..l:t.e7 20 tiJc3 Or 20 cxd5 �xd5 21 �c2 .l::i.d2 and the rook invasion is very unpleasant. 20 . . .J:l.deS 21 J:l.ec 1 d4 22 tiJa4 .tg4+ 23 'it>g3 .l:te5 24 f3?! This is a bad idea in a difficult position; now the second rank is seriously weakened. 24 h3 was necessary. After 24... .td7 (24... �e2? 25 �xe2 IiIxe2 26 CLlxc5 would be unfortunate) 25 CLlb2 CLlh5+ 26 �h2 CLlf4 27 .l:ldl it is not so clear how Black is going to collect the full point.

24 . . . .td7 25 tiJb2 White would also be seriously worse after 25 �f2 i.xa4 26 bxa4 �e3 27 IiIdl CLld7 28 IiIel as - the d3-bishop is really weak, and it is likely that a knight versus bishop endgame will be terrible for \Xlhite. 25 . . . tiJh5+ 26 'it>f2 tiJf4 27 l:!.c2 tiJxd3+? Black mistakenly thinks that it is time to collect the fruits of his hard work. It was


better to put extra pressure on \Xfhite with 27 ... Me3 and, after something like 28 .l:!.d2, 28...i.c6 to continuously intensify the pressure on \Xfhite's position. 28 4:lxd3 �f5 29 4:lxe5 �xc2 30 .!:te 1 f6 This is what Black had been counting on, but \Xfhite can escape with one move. 3 1 4:lc6! The only move. 3 1 . . . J:ta8 31 ...�f8 32 l:te2! i.g6 33 ctJxa7 l:txe2+ 34 <Jtxe2 i.bl 35 a4 i.a2 36 ctJc8! would give \Xfhite a close-to-winning ending. The a pawn is very strong, and the Black c-pawn will most likely fall. 32 b4? This is unfortunate. After 32 .l:!.e7! as 33 J:.d7 l:ta6 (33 ... i.b 1 34 a3 i.a2 35 l:td5 gives \Xfhite the advantage) 34 l:tc7 \Xfhite has a slightly better position. 32 . . . �a4 33 b5 a6!

"YWe7+ 8 �d2 \Xfhite can also try 8 �f1 and now: a) 8...b5!? 9 .ixb5 i.b7 10 ctJxd4 ctJxd5 1 1 i.d2! 0-0-0 gives a very messy situation where it is really hard to say who is better and why. b) 8 .. .'�c5 9 'ii'xd4 (Black is clearly better after 9 'ii'e2+? i.e7 10 ctJd2 b5! 1 1 i.xb5 .ib 7; \Xfhite can really feel the problem of his centralised king, for example 1 2 c4 dxc3 1 3 bxc3 'ii'xd5 1 4 ctJf3 c6 15 i.c4 'ii'xc4 1 6 'ii'xc4 i.a6 1 7 'ifxa6 ctJxa6 and Black has a pawn more in the endgame) 9 .. .'Yi'xd4 10 'Llxd4 i.c5 and now: bl) 1 1 i.g5!? f6! 1 2 'Llb5 <Jtd8 1 3 i.f4 d6 1 4 c3 ctJc2! 1 5 �c1 i.f5 1 6 i.b3 (1 6 b4? i.b6 1 7 i.b3 i.d3+ 1 8 'it>gl .l:!.e8 gives Black a clear advantage; after 19 i.xc2 i.xc2 \Xfhite cannot recapture because of the back rank mate) 1 6 ... i.d3+ 1 7 Wgl i.xb5 1 8 i.xc2 i.c4 1 9 i.b3 .ixb3 20 axb3 is only equal. b2) 1 1 i.e3 i.xd4 1 2 i.xd4 ctJxc2 1 3 i.xg7 .l:!g8 1 4 J:.c1 �xg7 1 5 .l:!xc2 d6 might be slightly better for \Xfhite due to the weak ness of c7 and the weak kingside pawns. c) 8 ... c6!? (a new idea) 9 dxc6 dxc6 (9 ... bxc6?! 10 a3 d5 1 1 i.e2 'Lla6 12 b4! ctJc7 would give White a slight edge after 1 3 ctJxd4) 1 0 ctJxd4 i.d7 (1O.. :iVc5?! 1 1 �e2+ i.e7 12 ctJb3 'ifd6 1 3 i.e3 gives �'hite the initiative and should be avoided) 1 1 c3 ctJd5 12 i.xd5 cxd5 13 'iVb3 0-0-0 with a very unclear position.

Surprisingly it turns out that the knight is trapped. 34 l:tb1 �f7 35 �e2 �e6 36 �d2 �d6 37 a3 g5 38 h4 gxh4 39 4:lb4 cxb4 40 J::txb4 axb5 41 cxb5 �c5 0-1

Game 54 Pcola-S . Polgar Brazil 1 994 1 e4 e5 2 4:lf3 4:lc6 3 4:lc3 4:lf6 4 d4 exd4 5 4:ld5 4:lb4 6 �c4 4:lfxd5 7 exd5 1 09


8 .. :�f6? Probably too slow. The Queen can be at tacked from the g5-square. There are many alternatives that should be looked into: a) 8...g6? 9 li'e1 ! (9 .l:!.e1?? i..h6+ would be awkward) 9 ... b5 (9 ... c5?? 10 d6 ii'xe1+ 1 1 .l:!.xe1+ �d8 1 2 ctJe5 and White wins) 1 0 i..xb5 .Jtb7 1 1 �dl i..xd5 1 2 i..g5 ii'xe1+ 1 3 .l:!.xe1+ i.e6 1 4 ctJxd4 with a clear advantage for White. b) 8...�d6 9 .l:!.e1+ i..e 7 10 'iVe2 was played in Hanke-Haussler, Eppingen 1 988. Now 1O...b5! 1 1 i.xb5 ctJxd5 12 �d1 i..b7 looks very promising for Black. One possible line is 13 i..g5 f6 14 .td2 c5 15 i..c4 g5! with a strong initiative. c) 8...'ii'c 5!? looks very logical. 9 'i'e2+ i..e7 and now: c1) 1 0 .l:!.e1 ? was unsuccessful after 1 O...b5! 1 1 a3 (1 1 i..b3 i.b7 12 'Vie5 �f8! 13 'Vif5 d6 1 4 a4 i.. f6 1 5 axb5 i.xd5 1 6 i..xd5 d3! and White has no defence, while 1 1 i..xb5?? �xc2 is mate) 1 1 ...ctJxc2 12 b4 ctJxb4 1 3 axb4 li'xb4+ 14 �d1 bxc4 with a winning position for Black, Lankenau-Pedersen, Hamburg 1 993. c2) 1 0 a3! ctJxd5 (or 10 ...d3!? 11 cxd3 ctJxd5 1 2 b4 �d6 13 .Jtxd5 �xd5 14 .Jtb2 with an unclear position - Monson; here Black should probably play 1 4...'lt>d8 1 5 .l:!.he 1 .l:!.e8 when i.xg7 can be met by ....Jtg:n-) 1 1 .Jtxd5 'ii'xd5 12 .lle 1 �d6 (12 .. .'ti'c5!? 13 'it>d1 d5 14 b4 'iYd6 1 5 ctJxd4 c6 1 6 i.g5 f6 1 7 i.f4 'iYd8 1 8 .l:!.c1 g5 1 9 i.d2 h 5 20 c4 .l:i.h7 is unclear and roughly level) 1 3 'It>d1 c5 14 i..g5 f6 1 5 .Jtf4 'iVe6 1 6 �d3 �d5 1 7 �e2 'tWe6 with equality - Monson. 9 �e2+ i..e7 1 0 �e1 ! ? A more accurate move order might b e 1 0 'It>d1 ! h 6 ( 1 0. . .b5? 1 1 i..g5 and \X/hite wins) 1 1 .l:!.e 1 b5!, transposing to the game. After 1 1 ...c6 1 2 d6! 'tWxd6 1 3 i..d2! as 1 4 ctJxd4 'X'hite is on his way to victory. Black seems to be forced into 14 ...g6 1 5 c3 b5 16 i.. f4 �c5 1 7 ctJb3 'iVh5 1 8 g4 'i'h4 1 9 .Jtd6, when 1 10

he can resign. 1 0 . . . b5! 1O... c6 11 'It>dl! h6 12 d6 would only transpose to the previous note. 1 1 il.b3! Not giving Black the chance to free him self in the centre. 1 1 i..xb5 ctJxd5 1 2 �d1 .Jtb7 13 .Jtg5 'i'e6 14 �d3 'ii'g4 15 'ii'xd4 �xd4+ 1 6 ctJxd4 is very close to equality, even though White is slighdy better devel oped. 1 1 . . .h6 Black plays a prophylactic move directed against .Jtg5. After 1 1 ...a5? 1 2 �d1 h6 1 3 a3 ctJa6 1 4 'tWxb5 0-0 1 5 'i'xa5 Black does not have sufficient compensation, while after 1 1 ....l:i.b8?! 1 2 �d1 h6 1 3 g4 White has a strong attack. 1 2 �d 1 ! White is exploiting his initiative. After 1 2 'ii'xb5?! 0-0 1 3 a 3 ctJa6 1 4 i..a2! .l:i.b8 Black has good counterplay. 1 2 . . .�d8

12 ... d3!? seems better, but Black is still in trouble. 1 3 g4! White is exploiting the moment. 1 3 . . .i..c 5 1 3 ....l:!.e8 1 4 a3 ctJa6 15 g5 gives White a decisive attack. 1 4 g5 �g6 14 ... 'ii' f5? 1 5 ctJxd4! would be a serious blow.

Th e B e/g rade G a m b i t

1 5 tDe5?! This looks very tempting, but it was sttonger to play 1 5 gxh6! d3 (1 5 ... .tb7? 1 6 .tg5+1 f6 1 7 lLJe5 and White wins) 1 6 cxd3 lLJxd3 1 7 hxg7 .l:!.gS 1 S .tg5+ f6 1 9 d6 lLJxf2+20 'it'c1 cxd6 21 .ixgS lLJd3+ 22 'iixd3 �xd3 23 .ib3 and White wins. Even 1 5 lLJxd4!? hxg5 1 6 a3 lLJa6 17 lLJxb5 looks very promis ing for White. 1 5" .'ir'f5 1 6 a3 At fIrst sight White simply wins a rook af ter 1 6 d6, but then you spot 1 6 ... cxd6 1 7 lLJxf7+ rJi;c7 1 S lLJxhS .tb7 and you realise the rook is ttapped on al for the moment. 1 6" .tDa6 1 7 d6?? White falls for the fatal atttaction of win ning an exchange. He could still win with 1 7 gxh6 gxh6 I S .txh6!!, exploiting the bad position of the Black king. 1 S ... .ib7 (1S... .uxh6 1 9 lLJc6+ dxc6 20 it'eS mate) 1 9 .ig5+ �cS (1 9. . . f6 20 1LJf7+ �cS 21 'it'e8+ J:txeS 22 J:txeS mate) 20 1LJg6! 'it'xg5 21 lLJxhS .ixd5 22 lLJxf7 .txf7 23 .txf7 does not give Black enough compensation for the exchange.

1 7 " .cxd6 1 8 i.d5 'W1Ute is going for the other rook, but it is also hopeless. 1 S lLJxf7+ �c7 19 lLJxhS .tb7 20 f4 .l:!.xhS would give Black a sttong attack for the exchange. With White's king stuck in the centte and the rook buried on aI, he has little hope of survivaL 1 8" .dxe5 1 9 ..Iii.xa8 hxg5 20 b4 d3! 21

'iWxd3 'ir'xd3+ 2 2 cxd3 ..Iii.xf2 2 3 .I';le2 ..Iii.d4 24 ..Iii.b 2 ..Iii.xb2 25 .li!.xb2 .l:I.h3! 26 .l:I.c1 d6 27 ..Iii.e4 ..Iii.e6 All that remains is endgame technique. The exchange is natutally no match for Black's pawns. 28 J:.d2 f5 29 ..Iii.b 7 tDc7 30 :tc6 �d7 3 1 �e1 ..Iii.b 3 32 .l:I.c3 ..Iii.c4 3 3 ..Iii.g 2 .l:I.e3+ 34 �f2 f4 35 ..Iii.e4 tDe6 36 ..Iii.f5 ..Iii.d 5 37 .l:I.dc2 �e7 38 .l:I.c8 �f6 39 ..Iii.xe6 ..Iii.xe6 40 .l:I.f8+ �e7 41 .l:I.a8 .l:I.xd3 42 .l:I.xa7+ �f6 43 .l:I.c6 e4 44 .l:I.aa6 e3+ 45 �e 1 �e5 0-1

Game 55 Svidler-Morozevich

Moscow 2002 1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDf6 3 t2Jc3 t2Jc6 4 d4 exd4 5 tDd5 ..Iii.e7

This safe move leads to equality. Now White has four options: 6 .tf4 (this and the three following games), 6 .ic4 (Game 59) and the two discussed below. 6 ..1ii.f4 The most popular move. White has also ttied: a) 6 lLJxd4?! lLJxd5 7 exd5 lLJxd4 S 'iixd4 0-0 is at least immediate equality for Black. 9 .ie2 .tf6 1 0 �dl?! (10 'iid3, as played in Tal-Saigin, Riga 1954, is probably better, though Black still has no problems) 1O ... d6 1 1 0-0 .tf5 12 .td3 �d7 1 3 c3 llfeS 14 a4 111


.te4 with a fine game for Black. b) 6 .tb5!? and now: bI) 6 ...ttJxe4 7 0-0 ttJc5 (Maybe not the most natural, but the alternatives are not necessarily better. 7...a6 S .tf4 d6 9 .ta4 0-0 1 0 .l:!.e 1 f5 1 1 ttJxd4 .th4 12 g3 ttJxd4 1 3 'iVxd4 .tg5 1 4 .tb3 hS 1 5 f3 .txf4 1 6 ttJxf4 ttJf6 1 7 .l:!.e2 gave White good com pensation in occupation of the e-ftle, while after 7...0-0 S l:!.el f5 9 .tf4 .td6 1 0 .txd6 ttJxd6 1 1 .txc6 dxc6 1 2 ttJe7+ 'it>hS 1 3 ttJg5 White had serious threats in Marimon-Diaz, correspondence 1 959, one being "iVh5, ...h6, 'iVg6!) S ttJxd4 ttJxd4 9 'iVxd4 ttJe6 (this was of course the idea of ...ttJc5) 1 0 'iVg4 0-0 1 1 .td3 c6 1 2 ttJxe7+ 'iYxe7 1 3 'iYh3 and with Black's king somewhat exposed, White has some compensation, but whether it is enough is hard to tell. b2) 6 ... 0-0 (the safest; the bishop is not exactly lethal on b5) 7 0-0 with a further branch: b21) 7....tc5 S .tg5 d6 9 .txc6 bxc6 1 0 ttJxf6+ gxf6 1 1 .th6. All this looks a little uncomfortable, but White did not prove Black wrong in this game. 1 1 ....l:!.eS 1 2 b4 .tb6 1 3 ttJxd4 l:txe4 1 4 ttJxc6 'iVeS 1 5 b5 i..g4 with an unclear position, Udalov Gaspariants, St Petersburg 1 999. b22) 7 ...ttJxd5 (the simplest) S exd5 ttJb4 9 ttJxd4 (after 9 Ji..c4 c5 1 0 a3 ttJa6 1 1 .l:Iel d6 Black is at least equal) 9 ...ttJxd5 1 0 ttJf5 ttJf6 and now White has two natural ways to con tinue his attacking ideas: b221) 1 1 i..g5 Ji..c5 1 2 'iWf3 d5 1 3 .id3 i..xfS 1 4 'iHxf5 'i'd7! 1 5 'iWf4 (1 5 Ji..x f6 'i'xf5 1 6 .ixf5 gxf6 and Black is better in the end game, though White has some compensation through the ruined pawn structure on the kingside) 1 5 ...'iVg4! (1 5 ....td6 1 6 'iYh4 ttJe4!? 17 .ixe4 dxe4 I S 'iYxe4 'iWb5 1 9 .te3 :feS 20 �g4 'i'e5 is also better for Black) 1 6 'iVxc7 .txf2t 1 7 �xf2 'iYxg5 I S l::te l (I S 'iVxb7? 'iVe3 is highly dangerous for White) l S...l::tfeS and Black has a serious initiative. b222) 1 1 l:.e 1 .tc5 1 2 'iVf3 d5 1 3 Ji..g5 1 12

Ji..xf5 1 4 'YWxf5 "ii'cs 1 5 "ii'xcs (or 1 5 �d3 'iVxf5 1 6 Ji..xf5 .l:!.feS 1 7 .txf6 gxf6 with a slight advantage for Black) 1 5....l:!.axcS 1 6 .txf6 gxf6 and Black was slightly better in Markov-Kostic, Sofia 1 947. 6 . . . d6 The more risky 6 ...0-0! is investigated in Game 5S. 7 li:lxd4 O-O!? Black can equalise simply with 7 ...ttJxd5 S exd5 ttJxd4 9 'iVxd4, for example: a) 9 ...Ji.. f6 1 0 'iVe4+ (10 'iVd3?! 'iVe7-H 1 1 .te2 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 Ji.. f5! 1 3 'YWd2 "ii'e4 1 4 g4 .tg6 1 5 Wb 1 .l:!.feS and Black has some initia tive) 1 0...'iYe7 1 1 "ii'xe7+ xe7 1 2 0-0-0 i..f5 1 3 f3 h5 1 4 .tb5 .l:!.hdS with equality. b) 9 ...0-0 1 0 0-0-0 .tf6 1 1 �d2 'iVd7! ? (1 1 ...c6!? typical for this kind o f position. 1 2 dxc6 'iVb6 1 3 c 3 bxc6 14 Ji..xd6 .l:!.dS 1 5 �c4 .ta6! 1 6 .tb3! Ji..e5 1 7 �xe5 .l:!.xd2 I S ':xd2 J::tdS 1 9 .l:!.el .l:!.xd2?? 20 .tc7!!) 1 2 .td3 (12 �c4?! b5 13 .te2 as 14 g4 b4) 1 2...'iVa4 1 3 �bl .td7 1 4 .l:!.hel .l:!.feS with equality in LaFair-Gurevich, ICC 1 994.

8 li:lb5 lLlxd5 9 exd5 a6!? This move is not very popular, but it is quite good. 9 ...ttJb4 and 9 ...ttJe5 are investi gated in the two following games. 10 dxc6 White has two alternatives. a) 10 ttJd4? ttJxd4 1 1 'iVxd4 .tf6 12 'iVb4 .l:!.e&t and White's king is under attack. b) 1 0 ttJc3 ttJe5 1 1 .te2 and now:


bl) 1 1 ...i.g5?! 12 i.g3 ttJg6 1 3 0-0 i.f4 14 �d4 'it'g5 (14...i.xg3 1 5 fxg3! would give White good attacking chances along the open f-file, and Black some problems with space) 1 5 .:tae1 i.f5?! (1 5 ...i.xg3 1 6 fxg3! i.d7 1 7 i.d3 ttJe5 1 8 ttJe4 �h6 1 9 'iVc3 with a small advantage for White was better) 1 6 h4! 'it'h6 1 7 h5 i.e5 1 8 .ixe5 ttJxe5 1 9 f4 ttJg4 20 .txg4 .ixg4 21 f5 .ixh5 22 l:.e3! f6 23 .l:!.h3 gave Black a long list of problems, Van der Vaide-Ellenbroek, The Netherlands 1 995 b2) l 1 ...ttJg6! (this is an improvement) 1 2 i.e3 ( 1 2 i.g3?! f5! 1 3 f4 c5! followed b y ... .if6 and possibly . . .b7-b5 gives Black the better position) 1 2 .. .£5 (or 1 2... i.g5!?), in both cases with complete equality. 1 0 axb5 1 1 i.xb5 This is the most logical. After 1 1 'it'f3?! Black has two paths that lead to a slight ad vantage: a) 1 1 .. ..ig5 1 2 i.xb5 'iVf6 (but Black should not fall for the trick 12 ... l:.e8+?! 1 3 i.e3 .txe3 [1 3. ...l:!.a5!? direcdy might b e bet ter] 14 a-a!! l:.a5 15 cxb7 �xb5 1 6 bxc8� 'it'xc8 17 fxe3 "iVe6 1 8 b3, when White stands better because in the rook ending he has a very dangerous passed pawn on the a-file and his rook is well placed behind this pawn) 1 3 i.xg5 �xb2 1 4 0-0 �xb5 1 5 cxb7 .ixb 7 and Black has good chances - a2, c2 and g2 are a good collection of weaknesses. b) l 1 ...bxc6 1 2 i.xb5 .l:!.b8 1 3 i.xc6 .l:!.xb2 14 i.e4 (or 14 0-0 .l:!.xc2 and White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn) 1 4 ...i.e6 1 5 0-0 ':xa2 1 6 .l:!.xa2 i.xa2 gives Black realistic winning chances, as after 1 7 �h3 g6 1 8 .ih6 he has the important inter mediate move 1 8... i.e6!. 1 1 i.g5 Also possible was 1 1 ....if6 1 2 c3 (12 a-a? i.xb2 1 3 .l:!.bl "iVf6 14 cxb7 .ixb7 gives Black a good game -White's pieces are scat tered and misplaced) 1 2...�e8+ 1 3 i.e3 bxc6 14 .id3 i.g5 1 5 �f3 i.xe3 1 6 "iixe3 .ie6!? with an even game. The exchange of queens would of course benefit White. . . .

. . .

1 2 exb7 Or: a) 12 'it'c1 .l:!.e8+l 1 3 �f1 (13 i.e3? .ixe3 14 fxe3 'iVg5! and �'hite is in serious trouble; this is the main reason for playing ... .l:!.e8+ and not ... �e8+) 1 3 . .. .ixf4 1 4 "iix f4 .l:!.e5 1 5 cxb7 (1 5 c4 b6 would cut off the b5-bishop from the action) 1 5 ....ixb7 1 6 i.d3 'iVe7 with good compensation for Black. b) 12 i.g3 'iVe8+ is also be fine for Black, as after 13 'iVe2 bxc6 White has nothing. 1 2 i.xb7 Black has good play for the pawn. 1 3 �g4 'i¥e7+ I think Black either here or on the next move should have exchanged on f4. Here is the argument: 13. .. .txf4 14 'iVxf4 .txg2 1 5 .l:!.gl "iiVe7+ 1 6 'It>d2 (16 'it'e3 �f6 1 7 c3 .td5! and �'hite's king is in trouble in the middle, while he also has split pawns) 1 6... i.e4 17 f3 d5! (17 ... i.g6?! 1 8 ':ael �d8 1 9 a4 is differ ent - Black's pieces are not playing at all) 1 8 fxe4 �4+ 1 9 'it'c1 ..wxb5 20 'iUg5 g6 21 'it'xd5 �e2 and White has many problems to solve. 1 4 �d2 White is also in trouble after 14 �f1 .tf6! 1 5 c3 ..we4, when Black has excellent attack ing chances. 1 4 i.f6 1 5 .l:the1 �d8 1 6 e3 J:!.b8 Indirecdy attacking b2. 1 7 >te2 White would be punished after 1 7 a4? c6 . . .

. . .

1 13


18 .ic4 .ic8!, when the b2-pawn falls. 1 7 . . . ..tc8 17 ....ixg2 1 8 .id3 .ic6 19 h4 would give White some time to generate counterplay. 1 8 "tWe2 White should not insert 1 8 "ikh5?! g6! be fore retreating with 19 "ike2 because ... g7-g6 is useful for Black. 1 8 . . . c6 1 9 ..td3 ..te6 20 "tWd2 Between players of such a level, .ixd6 is of course a threat and not a trap. 20 . . . g6 Black could also play more actively with 20...'iYb6!? 21 �c1 .tf.a8 22 .ixd6 ':fd8 23 'iWf4 'iWa5 with compensation for the pawns. The rook on al is still not playing. 21 �c 1 "tWa5? This is of course very brilliant and heroic, but not correct. 21 ... l:ta8 22 .ic2 d5 23 .ie5 c5 would have been better, when Black has more than enough for the pawn. 22 ..txd6 1:txb2

What a mess! 23 �xb2? White takes the easy way out, but there was a win! 23 �xb2! 'ud8 24 .ig3 .tf.a8! (24... 'iVb4+ 25 �c2 'iVa4+ 26 'it>cl 'iVa3+ 27 'ib2 'i!ea5 28 �d2 would only help White to escape to the kingside) 25 a3 'iYb6+ 26 �c1 'iVa5 27 l:txe6 .ixc3 28 'iWe3 .ixal 29 lie8+ lixe8 30 'iWxe8+ �g7 31 "ike7 'iWc3+ 32 i.c2 and Black has run out of bullets. In the game Black manages to draw. 1 14

23 . . . ..txc3 24 "tWa3 "tWxa3+ 25 ..txa3 %:la8 26 l:!.xe6 ..txa1 27 l:!.xc6 l:!.xa3 28 ..tc4 ..td4 29 f4 lIa5 30 �d2 :c5! 31 1:txc5 ..txc5 32 a4 �f8 33 �d3 ..tb6 34 �e4 �e7 35 f5 g5 36 �d5 g4 37 �c6 ..tg 1 38 h3 gxh3 39 gxh3 �f6 40 ..td3 �g5 41 a5 �h4 42 a6 f6 43 �b7 �xh3 44 a7 ..txa7 45 �xa7 �g4 46 �b6 �f4 47 �c5 �e5 % - %

Game 56 Skrobek-Pinkas

Wroclaw 1987 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4 exd4 5 lLld5 ..te7 6 ..tf4 d6 7 lLlxd4 0-0 8 liJb5 lLlxd5 9 exd5 lLlb4!?

Though this does not promise equality, it does give interesting play. 1 0 c3 Stronger is 10 a3! .ig4 1 1 f3 (1 1 'iWd2 lLlxd5 1 2 'i!exd5 c6 1 3 'iVd2 cxb5 1 4 .ixb5 .if6 is only equal) 1 1 ....ih4+ 1 2 .ig3 (12 g3!? .ixf3 1 3 'iWxf3 lLlxc2+ 14 �dl lLlxal 15 gxh4 'iWf6 is very messy, but maybe not so silly) 1 2... .id7. Bruce Monson believes that this position is much better for Black, but this is not true. After 1 3 axb4 .ixg3+ 1 4 hxg3 'iVe8+ 1 5 �f2 .ixb5 1 6 .id3! White has good at tacking chances, as well as much better de velopment. 1 0 . . . a6? This is just weak. Necessary was 10...lLla6


1 1 �5! (1 1 iLe2 J.g5 is equal) 1 1 ..J::te8 1 2 0-0-0 g6 1 3 �f3 .ii.g5 1 4 iLd3 .ii.xf4+ 1 5 iVxf4 l:i.e5 1 6 h4, when White has some chances to generate an attack, but nothing concrete. 1 1 tUa3 .!:te8 1 2 i.e2 i.h4 After 1 2... J.g5 1 3 .ii.g3 iVf6 1 4 'It>f1 ! (14 O-O?? tt::Jxd5 would be what Black is hoping for) 14 ... .ii. f5 1 5 cxb4 �xb2 1 6 tt::Jc4 'it'xb4 1 7 f4 .ii. f6 1 8 .:tel Black does not have enough compensation for the piece. 1 3 tUe4? After this White has pieces hanging eve l)'Where, which gives Black a chance to sur vive the dangerous game he has been playing. White had at least two better moves here: a) 1 3 .ii.g3! .ii.f6 1 4 tt::Jc4! (14 cxb4? .ii.xb2 1 5 l:tbl iLxa3 1 6 l:lb3 iLg4 1 7 f3 iLd7 1 8 l:txa3 iLb5 1 9 l:td3 iLxd3 20 'iWxd3 c 6 i s less clear) 14 ... l:lxe2+ (what else?) 1 5 'It>xe2! (1 5 'iWxe2 tt::Jxd5 1 6 0-0 is good for White, but this is better) 1 5 ...�e7+ 1 6 'It>f1 'it'e4 1 7 tt::Je3 tt::Jd3 1 8 'iWc2 and White wins. b) 1 3 Wf1 !? l:i.xe2 1 4 �xe2 �f6 1 5 iLg3 iLxg3 1 6 hxg3 iLg4+ (1 6 ...'it'e5+ 1 7 'It>f1 tt::Jxd5 1 8 tt::Jc4 looks very promising for White; next comes �d3 and l:te 1) 1 7 f3 iLf5 1 8 �fl with a clear advantage for White. 1 3 . . . i.g4 1 4 tUe3 i.xe2 1 5 Wxe2 1 5 �xe2? tt::Jxd5. 1 5 . . :iWd7 Black cannot save the knight on b4, so he creates counterchances in other ways. 1 6 g3 16 cxb4?? 'iWg4+ 17 �f1 �xf4 18 �f3 'iWxb4 and Black wins. 1 6 . . . i.f6 1 7 h4 1 7 cxb4 g5! 1 8 iLxg5 iLxg5 1 9 �d4 .ixe3 20 fxe3 l:te5 gives Black good counterplay due to the e5-square, the weak white pawns, and a better king. 1 7 . . . 'ilVb5+ 1 8 Wf3 J:txe3+ ! 1 9 i.xe3 After 1 9 fxe3 tt::Jxd5 20 �3 �c6 21 e4 tt::Jb6 22 l:tadl l:i.e8 23 J:1hel tt::Jc4 24 'it'c2 b5 Black has good compensation on the light squares.

1 9 . . . tUxd5 2 0 'iWd2 'ilVe6 21 Wg4! 'iWd7+ 22 Wf3 'iWe6 23 Wg4 'ilVd7+ 24 Wf3 'ilVe6 %-%

Game 57 I .Almasi-Bezgodov

Balatonberef!Y 1996 1 e4 e5 2 tUf3 tUe6 3 tUe3 tUf6 4 d4 exd4 5 tUd5 i.e7 6 i.f4 d6 7 tUxd4 0-0 8 tUb5 tUxd5 9 exd5 tUe5

1 0 i.e2 White can also consider queenside cas tling, but this is probably not an option head ing for an advantage. 10 'it'dZ c6! 1 1 tt::Jc3 tt::Jg6! (as we have seen before, this is often a key move) 12 iLe3 c5 1 3 .ie2 f5 1 4 f4 iLf6. White now gave up the idea of 0-0-0, which is probably wise. There is no easy way for him to create counterplay on the kingside fast. 1 5 tt::Jd l 'it'e8 1 6 0-0 b5 1 7 J.f2 a6 1 8 J.f3 .l:i.a7! and Black was slightly better in Prie-Van der Wiel, Cannes 1 990. 1 0 . . .tUg6 ! ? This move again. Black wants to play . . . f7f5 and ...c7-c5. Black also has good play after 1 0... c6 1 1 tt::Jc3 tt::Jg6 1 2 .ig3 f5! (this is better than 1 2... c5 1 3 0-0 ii..h4 1 4 'it'd2 i.xg3 1 5 hxg3 l:i:e8, which was equal in Bragin-Fokin, Sochi 1 990) 1 3 f4 iLf6 1 4 �d3 c5 1 5 0-0-0 a6 1 6 h4 tt::Jh 8! 1 7 h5 tt::Jf7 and Black has the better chances, as �bite has no easy way to penetrate on the kingside. 1 15


1 1 �g3

on d5.

\'{lhite should possibly consider 11 .te3 c5 12 0-0 (12 Q'{c6 bxc6 13 tbd4 'YWc7 14 0-0 (14 tbxc6? WUxc6 15 .tf3 d5 16 .txd5 .tb4+ 17 c3 .txc3+ 18 bxc3 it'xc3+ 19 �f1 .ta6+ 20 'ltgl Mad8 would give Black a winning at tack) 14 ...Mb8 (Black is slightly better - Mon son) 12...f5 13 c4 .tf6 14 'iVb3 f4 15 .td2 .tfS 16 Mael with a complicated game ahead, although it might be easier to play Black. 1 1 . . . f5! 1 2 f4

Forced. After 12 f3? .th4 13 0-0 3£.xg3 14 hxg3 a6 15 tbc3 "iofg5 16 'iYel f4 17 g4 .td7 18 �d2 Mae8 Black would have a very good game because of the weakness of the dark squares in White's camp. 19 tbe4?! �e5 would only make matters worse, as ....txg4 is now a threat. 1 2 . . . �f6

Black should have played more energeti cally with 12...c5! and now: a) 13 c4 .tf6 14 'YWd2 a6 15 tbc3 .td4 and Black has the better game. b) 13 dxc6 is always risky. White has not fInished his development yet, and can easily be caught in the middle. 13...bxc6 14 tbd4 �6! and Black is somewhat better. 1 3 c3 J:!.e8 1 4 0-0 a6

This move is not very ambitious. Better was 14 ...c6! 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 tbd4 (1 6 tbxd6 %lxe2 and Black is better) 16...%lb8 with an advantage for Black. 1 5 ttJd4 .i.xd4+!

20 1Wc1 ?!

This move seems a bit artifIcial, but after 20 .tf3 l:he1+ 21 Mxel .l::!.e8 Black will con tinue to be better in the endgame. So White should play 22 Mel ! with some counter chances. 20 .. J:tc8 21 �c4?!

The bishop is not well placed here. Stronger is 21 .tf3, when Black is only slightly better after 21....l:.xe1+ 22 .l:!.xe1 tbe7 23 �c4 b5 24 �3 as 25 a4 bxa4 26 'iYc4 as the missing pawn is compensated by the multiple weaknesses on Black's queenside. Still, White has some problems with getting his g3-bishop into the game. 21 . . . ttJe7 ttJxd5!?

22

1Wc2

J:!.xe 1 +

23

'!:!'xe1

After this White suddenly becomes active. Interesting would have been 23...b5! 24 .tb3 as, when Black continues his aggressive, prophylactic strategy.

15...�e7!? 16 %leI �f7 with an even game was also an idea, but now Black, due to his better pawn structure, has some chances to manoeuvre his way in.

24 �h4 %:te8 25 %:txe8+ �xe8 26 i.d8 �b5 27 �b3 1We6 28 h3

1 6 cxd4 �d7 1 7 J:le 1 ? !

28 . . .c6 29 �h2 h6?

This move gives Black a free hand to quickly double the rooks on the e-ftle. Now or on the following move it was better to play %lel to create some countetplay on the open fIle.

Fritz 7 has an interesting suggestion here. It wants to allow an endgame of opposite coloured bishops after 29.. :iWe4 !? 30 �xe4 fxe4 31 .tc7 e3 32 �gl �f7. The argument would be that following 33 .txd5+ cxd5 34 .txd6 'lte6 35 .te5 �f5 Black's king is very active and might even win the game. Better

1 7 . . . 1Wf6 1 8 "iYd2 .!le4 1 9 .!lad1 1Wf7

This highlights the weakness of the pawn 1 16

28 .txc7 allows mate in one with ...'iVe1.


would be 33 .txd6 with decent drawing chances - the b3-bishop still has some func tions to perform. 30 a4!

dlegame where there are mutual chances of attack, the number of pieces is generally more important, compared to their individual value, while this reverses somewhat in the endgame. For this reason a rook might be strong enough to compete with two bishops in some endgames, while it is no match for them in the middlegame (depending on other factors of course). 7 . . :�e8

Black has missed the boat. 30 . . . i.f1 3 1 'iVd 1 i.e2 32 i.xd5 cxd5 33 'i'd2 i.c4 34 iYb4 iof1 35 iYd2 �e8 36 ioh4 iYxa4 37 'iVe1 i.d3 38 'i'e6+ �h8 39 i.f6! gxf6 40 �f7! % - %

Game 58 Bellon Lopez-Izeta Txabarri

Eigoibar 1998 1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4 exd4 5 l2ld5 i.e7 6 i.f4 As well as the safe 6 ... d6, Black also has a way of fighting for the initiative. 6 . . . 0-0! 7 i.xc7 All the obvious alternatives fail. a) 7 lZ'lxd4? lZ'lxd5 8 exd5 lZ'lxd4 9 'iVxd4 .tf6 gives Black a clear advantage - Nunn. b) 7 .tc4?! d6 8 lZ'lxd4 lZ'le5 9 'iWe2 (9 .txe5 dxe5 1 0 lZ'lxf6+ .txf6 1 1 lZ'lb3 'iVe7 is slightly better for Black because of the two bishops - Monson) 9 ...lZ'lxc4 1 0 'iVxc4 lZ'lxd5 1 1 exd5 .tg5! 12 .txg5 'iWxg5 and Black has good chances to create an initiative. c) 7 lZ'lxc7? lZ'lh5! 8 lZ'lxa8 (8 lZ'ld5 lZ'lxf4 9 lZ'lxf4 i..b4+ 10 lZ'ld2 .l:i.e8 1 1 .td3 d5 12 f3 f5 and White's centre collapses) 8...lZ'lxf4 9 'iVd2 lZ'le6 1 0 i..c4 b6 1 1 .txe6 dxe6 1 2 0-0-0 i..b7 with a clear advantage for Black. In the mid-

This is the critical position for the line starting with 6...0-0. 8 i.e2 White has the following alternatives: a) 8 lZ'lxf6+ .txf6 9 'iWe2 (9 .td3 d5 1 0 e5 .txe5 1 1 lZ'lxe5 �e7! and Black has the advantage) 9 ...iVe7! (9 .. :iVe6 1 0 e5 !ti.e7 1 1 a3 b6 12 0-0-0 .tb7 13 �bl l'!ac8 14 .td6 .txd6 1 5 exd6 1fHxd6 16 'iVe4 gave White lots of play in Polovodin-Lerner, Belzi 1 979) 1 0 e 5 �4+ 1 1 c 3 dxc3 12 0-0-0 .l:e8 1 3 .td6 and now: al) 1 3 ... cxb2+ 1 4 Wbl 'iVa4! 1 5 �d2 .te7 1 6 .td3 .ltxd6 17 exd6 b6 1 8 .tc2 �a5 1 9 'iVf4 .ta6 20 lZ'lg5 lZ'lb4! (inciting tactics) 21 .ltb3 (the only move; 21 �xf7+ Wh8 22 �3 �xg5 23 iYxb4 l:!.ac8 and Black should win due to his better king) 21...h6 22 lZ'lxf7 'it>h 7 (Black threatens a winning check on d3) 23 l'!he1 i..e2!? 24 l'!xe2 l:.xe2 with a crazy situation, but probably also quite a promising one for Black. a2) Also viable is 13 ...'iVxb2+ 14 �xb2 1 17


cxb2+ 1 5 'it>bl j.,e7 1 6 j.,c4 b6! (1 6 ... b5 1 7 .i.xb5 .i.xd6 1 8 exd6 i.b7 1 9 �d2 is slighdy better for White according to Monson, something that could be discussed) 1 7 j.,c7 liJa5 1 8 Sl.b5 i.c5 and in my opinion White does not have full compensation for the pawn. b) Probably the best move for White is 8 j.,c4!? d6 (8 ... liJxd5 9 ..Itxd5 d6 transposes) 9 liJxd4 liJxd5 1 0 ..Itxd5 "it'd7 1 1 ..Itxc6 bxc6 1 2 j.,a5 ..Ita6! and now: bl) 1 3 j.,c3? .l::!.fe8 1 4 "ii'h 5 (According to Monson, 14 'iVf3 Sl.g5! 1 5 liJf5? gives White the edge. However, after the simple 1 5 ...�xe4+l 1 6 'YWxe4 .l:.e8 1 7 f3 :xe4+ 1 8 fxe4 'iWe6 1 9 liJg3 fS Black will certainly win) 1 4... j.,f6 1 5 f3. This was agreed drawn be cause of time pressure in Braeuning-Lima, Berga 1 989. Black should continue 1 5 ... c5! 1 6 liJf5 g6 1 7 liJh6+ 'it>f8 1 8 'it'd5 j.,xc3+ 1 9 bxc3 rl;;g7 20 liJg4 f5 21 liJf2 .l:.ab8 with better chances - Monson. b2) 1 3 liJfS!? (an improvement over 1 3 ..Itc3?) 1 3 ...'iWe6 14 "iVg4 j.,f6. Here I have been toying with a wild semi-forced line 1 5 0-0-0 'i"xa2 16 Jic3 i..xc3 1 7 bxc3 g6 1 8 h4 j.,d3!? 1 9 .l:.xd3! "iVa1+ 20 �d2 'iVxh1 21 .l::tg3 .:rab8! 22 "ifg5 l:tb5 23 "it'f6 .l::tx f5 24 exf5 .l::te8 25 lIe3 .:txe3 26 'it'd8+ �g7 27 f6+ 'it>h6 28 Wxe3 'iVe1+ 29 �d3 'it'xf2 30 "iff8+ �h5 31 'iVxf7 and White continues to have decent counterplay.

S . . . d6 1 18

Here Black could play the stronger 8 ... liJxe4! 9 i.. f4 .i.d8! (this is a new idea) 1 0 liJxd4 liJf6 1 1 liJc3 j.,a5 1 2 j.,d6 liJe4 1 3 liJdb5 liJxd6 1 4 liJxd6 'i"e5 and Black has won the opening ballie. 9 ttJxf6+ Monson gives 9 liJxd4 liJxd5 10 exd5 liJxd4 1 1 'it'xd4 ..ItfS 1 2 c3 'i"d7 13 i..a5 b6 14 i..b4 as 1 5 i.a3 b5 with unclear play. 9 . . . ..Iixf6 1 0 ..Iixd6 i.e7 1 1 ..Iixe7 'ii'xe7 1 2 ttJd2?! White should not waste time defending this pawn. After 1 2 0-0 'it'xe4 1 3 .l:.el J::!.d 8 14 "ifd2 'i"d5 15 i..d3 White has a slight pull. 1 2 . . . f5! 1 3 exf5 l:teS Gutman gives 1 3. ..i..xf5? 1 4 0-0 liJb4 1 5 ..Itc4+ Wh8 1 6 .:tel with an advantage for White.

1 4 g4? After this White is simply lost. Necessary was 1 4 Wfl i.xfS 1 5 Jid3, when Black has a big initiative for the pawn, but White has not weakened himself too much and can fight for a draw. 1 4 . . . b6! Black decides to develop the bishop, which must be the correct idea. 1 5 Wf1 ..Iib7 1 6 ..Iif3?! 16 f3 was better, but White is s till in a hor rible mess after 1 6 ..."ii'h4. 1 6 . . . ttJe5 1 7 ..Iixb7 'ii'xb7 1 S J:tg 1 l:tadS Black is now fully mobilised, while White cannot get any coordination.

Th e B e/gr a de G a m b i t

1 9 J:!.g2 What else?! After 19 f4 tbc6 20 .l:!.g3 tbb4 21 �gl tbdS the weakness of the e3-square is felt and White will lose. 1 9 . . . d3 20 e3 b5 21 b3 liJf7! Heading for gS in order to attack the king. 22 liJf3 b4! Taking the d4-square away from the knight. 23 exb4 .l:!.e2 Black dominates all White's pieces, so who cares for pawns?

24 liJg 1 :te2 25 J:!.g3 'ilfb6 26 .l:!.e3 liJg5 27 'ilfe1 ¥i'e6 28 J:!.d 1 d2 29 ¥i'e2 l:te1 Actually it is only here that computers un derstand that White is lost. All the way from move 1 4 they have preferred White, but sug gested no reasonable improvements. So much for asking your computer how you played!

3 0 f3 l::txd 1 +? 30 .. .'it>f8! was quicker 31 ¥i'xd1 'ii'e 1 32 c;t>e2 'ii'e 7 33 c;t>f1 'ilfxh2 34 !:te2 It'f4 35 J:!.f2 'ii'xb4 36 c;t>g2 'ilfe3 37 liJe2 It'e3 38 liJg3 liJh3! 39 J:!.f1 liJf4+ 40 c;t>h2 .l:!.d6 41 f6 llxf6 42 liJf5 llxf5 43 gxf5 liJe2 44 c;t>h1 liJe3 45 It'e2 It'e 1 ! 0-1

Game 59 Lesiege-Gligoric

Montreal 1998 1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJe6 3 liJe3 liJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 liJd5 il..e 7 6 il..e 4!? This is an idea from Mihajlo Trajkovic and is therefore called the Trajkovic Gambit. 6 . . . 0-0 The only serious alternative is 6 ... tbxe4, as after 6 ...tbxdS? 7 exdS i.b4+ White has the powerful 8 c3! dxc3 9 0-0 tbe7 (better is 9 ...tbaS 10 'ii'a4 tbxc4 1 1 'i!Vxb4 tbd6 1 2 .I;Ie1+ �f8 1 3 bxc3 with a clear advantage for White) 1 0 d6! (to prevent Black from devel oping) 10 ... i.xd6 1 1 tbgs 0-0 1 2 'iibs h6 1 3 tbxf7 l:txf7 1 4 'it'xf7+ �h8 1 5 .l:!.e1 bS 1 6 i.b3 i. b7 1 7 .igS! and all there i s left for Black to do is to resign. 7 0-0 Black was slighdy better after 7 tbxd4?! tbxdS! 8 i.xdS (8 exdS?! tbxd4 9 'i!Vxd4 i.f6 10 'i!Vd1 .l:!.e8+ 1 1 .ie2 'i!Ve7 12 c3 lie4 is the usual story - White is in trouble) 8... tbxd4 9 lixd4 i.f6 10 'ii'd3 c6 1 1 i.b3 dS! 12 0-0 dxe4 13 'i¥xe4 l':.e8, Morris-Wedberg, New York 1 991 . 7 . . . d6 8 liJxd4 liJxd4 A cautious move. The other possibilities are: a) 8...tbxe4? 9 .l:i.e 1 ! i.f6 1 0 tbbS i.fS 1 1 i.d3 and Black loses material. b) 8 ... tbeS!? 9 Jib3 tbxdS (White probably has a slight advantage after 9 ... cS 1 0 tbf5 i.xfS 1 1 exfS c4 12 i.a4 �b8 13 tbxf6+ i.xf6 1 4 lidS 'ifb6 1 5 c3 tbd3 1 6 i.bS ':'bc8 1 7 i.e3) 10 i.xdS i.f6 1 1 f4 tbd7! 12 c3 c6 1 19


13 .ib3 ctJcS 14 �c2 �e8 I S �el "fic7 with an even game. c) 8 ...ctJxdS gives White the chance to try 9 exdS (9 .ixdS ctJxd4 10 'iVxd4 transposes to the game) 9 ...ctJxd4 10 'iYxd4 ..if6 1 1 'iYd3 l:te8 1 2 c3 ..ig4 1 3 ..ie3, although this doesn't achieve any advantage. 9 �xd4 lZ'lxd5 1 0 i.xd5 i.f6 1 1 �d3 c6 This is the natural move, even though it has to be calculated that d6 does not fa1l. Black does not fully equalise after 1 1 ...aS 12 a4 'VJIie7 13 c3 c6 14 ..ib3 b6 (even worse is 14 ... ..ie6?! I S ..ic2 g6 1 6 f4! ..ig7 [Monson gives 1 6... dS 1 7 eS ..ig7 1 8 fS! gxfS 1 9 .l:!xfS .ixfS 20 'VJIixfS �c5+ 21 Whl �fe8 22 ..ih6!! when White wins after 22 ... ..ixh6 23 .l:tfl ! .1Lg7 24 'VJIixf7+ �h8 2S 'iYfS] 1 7 fS i.c8 1 8 ..ie3 with a clear advantage for White, Trajkovic-Stieg, correspondence 1 968) I S .ie3 ..ia6 1 6 ..ic4 ..ixc4 1 7 �xc4 'iYc7 1 8 .1Ld4 ..ixd4 1 9 cxd4 and White is structurally better. 1 1 ...'VJIie7!? is a more natural waiting move. After 1 2 c3 �e8 1 3 .if4! ..igS! (1 3... ..ieS?! 1 4 ..id2! c 6 I S .ib3 ..ie6 1 6 f4 ..if6 1 7 ..ic2! gives some irritating threats) 14 ..ig3 ..ih4 the position is equal. 1 2 i.b3 i(e8 The most natural. The following moves have also been analysed: a) 12 .....ie6 1 3 c3 ..ixb3 14 axb3 'VJIie7 I S �dl �fe8 1 6 f3 .l:tad8! equalises, as after 1 7 �xa7?! dS! 1 8 'VJIie2 dxe4 1 9 .l:txd8 l\fxd8 20 fxe4 'VJIib6+ 21 ..ie3 l\fxb3 Black is even better. b) 1 2...'VJIic7 13 c3 .te6 14 ..ic2! and White is better. Also possible is 14 ..if4 ..ixb3 (14...�ad8 I S �fdl 'iib6 1 6 ..ie3 'ikc7 17 f4 was a little better for White in the classic game Monson-Yoram, ICC 1 995; with a different time control Monson might have played .l:tadl instead of �fdl) I S axb3 (IS .txd6?? .tc4!) lS ... ..ieS 1 6 ..te3 dS with suf ficient counterplay for Black. c) 12 ... bS!? 1 3 a4 bxa4 (13 ... b4 14 as! is better for White) 14 ..ixa4 'ikc7 I S �dl gives 1 20

White a clear edge according to Monson, but 'slightly better' is more realistic, as Black can play I S ... ..tg4! 1 6 f3 ..ie6 followed by ....l:td8 and ... dS. However, 14 �xa4! looks more logical, after which White rea1ly is better. 1 3 c3 13 �dl 'VJIie7 14 f3 .ie6 equalises because after 1 5 'i¥xd6?? .l:tad8 Black wins. On the other hand, 13 ..if4 'i¥e7! (1 3 ... .txb2?! 14 .l:tadl 'i¥f6 1 5 ..ixd6 ..ie6 1 6 f4 gives White the chance to create a kingside initiative) 14 f3 dS! 1 5 exdS ii.xb2 1 6 �adl 'VJIif6 1 7 nfel �fS gives Black the better pawn structure and good development. 1 3" .i.e6! Monson gives 13 ... 'VJIie7 14 ..ic2! (14 ..id2 ..ie6 1 5 .l:!.fe 1 J:tad8 16 ..if4 ii.xb3 17 axb3 a6 is similar to the game, and even) 14 ...g6 I S ..if4 dS 1 6 exdS ..ifS 1 7 'ikd2 ..ixc2 1 8 'VJIixc2 cxdS, when White must be slightly better after 1 9 ..ie3!. 14 i.e3 i.xb3 1 5 axb3 a6 1 6 f3 .l:te6

The draw is obvious. The weaknesses on d6 and b3 cancel each other out. 1 7 �ad1 �c7 1 8 i.d4 1:1ae8 1 9 1:1f2 h6 20 i.xf6 J:.xf6 21 �d4 l:tfe6 22 c4 �a5 23 J:.fd2 �g5 24 �f2 % - %

Game 60 Kenworthy-Van der Sterren

Ramsgate 198 1 1 e4 e 5 2 lZ'lf3 lZ'lc6 3 lZ'lc3 lZ'lf6 4 d4


exd4 5 ctJd5 ctJxe4 This is Black's most principled response. 6 .ic4 .ie7 This position could also have been reached via 5 ... �e7 6 .ic4 ll:lxe4. 7 ctJxd4 0-0 Black should be careful after 7 ... ll:lxd4?! S li'xd4 ll:lf6 9 0-0 0-0 (9 ... ll:lxd5? 1 0 'iYxg7! cannot be recommended) 10 ll:lxe7+ 'iYxe7 1 1 �g5 MeS 12 h3 d6 13 .l:!.ae 1 . According to Lev Gutman White has a serious initiative here. The line could continue 1 3 .. .'ilhel 1 4 .l:!.xel J:txe1+ 1 5 'it>h2 J:te4 1 6 'iVc3 .ie6 1 7 .ixe6 nxe6 I S �xc7 b 6 1 9 iVb7 neeS 20 .ixf6 gxf6 21 g4 with a clear white advan tage. S ctJb5 Also relevant is S 0-0 ..tc5 9 ll:lb3 (9 ll:lb5 is considered in the next game) 9 ...i.xf2+ 1 0 J:txf2 ll:lxf2 1 1 'iVe2! �h4! 1 2 .if4 ( 1 2 g3 ll:lh3+ 1 3 'it'g2 'iNdS! 1 4 'it>xh3 ll:le5 1 5 'it>g2 d6 followed by ...�g4 gives Black a good game) 12 ... ll:lg4 1 3 ll:lxc7 d5! 1 4 .ixd5 J:tbS 1 5 ll:lb5 �d7! (1 5 ....l:!.aS would allow a repeti tion) 16 ..txbS J:txbS with an unclear position. S . . .ib4+ S ... ..tc5 is considered in the next game. 9 c3

attacking chances. Where i s e4-knight going after J:te 1 ? b) After 9 ... i.c5 the white pawn on c3 is very useful to him. 10 0-0 ll:lxf2 1 1 �h5 ll:le5 1 2 ll:lbxc7 d6 (12 ... ll:lfg4+ 13 h1 tDxg5 1 6 fXg4 c 6 1 7 ctJxd6 cxd5 I S J.xd5.

ctJxf7 .l:!.aeS 2 2 J:!.afl g6 2 3 tDd6+ �xd5+ and Black wins) 20 ....l:!.adS 21 ctJxf7 l:1.xf7 22 ..Itxf7+ �hS 23 cxb6 axb6 24 ..Ite6 g6 and White has some chances of surviving. 1 2 Wh 1 lLlf2+ There is no salvation to be found in 1 2 ... tDxc4 1 3 bxc5 c6 14 ctJf6--H gxf6 1 5 ctJd6 tDe5 (1 5 ... ctJxd6 1 6 cxd6 tDg5 17 .i.b2 f5 I S l:1.xf5 and White wins) 1 6 gxh3 l:1.eS 1 7 ..Itg5!! (Monson) 17... fxg5 I S ':xf7 tDxf7 19 "iixf7+ 'it>hS 20 ctJxeS. 1 3 lbf2! iLxf2 1 4 iLg5 g6 1 5 'i'h6 lLlg4 1 6 i.xd8 lLlxh6 1 7 i.f6 lLlfS 1 8 lLlbxc7 J:!b8

1 9 g4? 1 -0 Black resigned. In my opinion this was too early, but you have to bear in mind that this was a correspondence game. White's last move was not the strongest. Better is 1 9 1:Ifl ! b5 (19 ... i.. d4 20 l:1.xfS!) 20 J.b3 .ib7 21 l:txf2 l:!.fcS 22 .ie5 'it>fS 23 tDf6 d6 24 tDxh7+ �e7 25 ..Itf6+ �d7 26 ctJxb5 l:!.eS 27 ..Itc3 and White wins easily. After 1 9 g4 ctJg7 20 ctJb5 l:1.eS 21 l:!.fl l:1.e 1 22 l:1.xel .txe1 23 ..Ite5 l:f.aS 24 ctJf6+ �hS 25 ctJeS White has a clear advantage, although Black can fight on. In my opinion White does not have enough compensation for the queen. I S ... b6!? 1 9 ..Itxg5 'iWxg5 20 c4! (20 1:1fS �d2! [20 ...'iVxg4 21 tDxf7 "iid4 22 ctJd8+ "iixd5+ 23 .l:Ixd5 l:1.axdS 24 l:1.xdS l:1.xdS 25 cxb6 axb6 with a draw is Monson's suggestion here] 21

Game 62 Gutnikov-Tal

Leningrad 1951 1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4 1 23


exd4 5 ti:Jd5 ti:Jxe4 6 'iWe2 f5

7 g4!? 7 g4 and 7 t2Jgs are the only serious tries for White in this position. 7 SLf4?! is studied in the next game, while here are some other alternatives: a) 7 i.gS? �e7 S h4 (S t2Jxe7 t2Jxe7 9 �xe7 �xe7 10 t2Jxd4 dS is just not enough) S ... .i.xgS 9 hxgS d6 with a clear black advan tage. b) 7 t2Jd2?! d3! (a common theme - one of the pawns is returned) S li'xd3 (S cxd3 t2Jd4 9 �dl t2Jf6 1 0 t2Jxf6+ 1t'xf6 1 1 .i.e2 �e6 and Black wins) S... t2Jb4 9 t2Jxb4 �xb4 1 0 c3 'fIIe 7 (after 1O ... t2Jxd2 1 1 �xd2 �e7+ 1 2 �e2 SLcS 1 3 0-0 0-0 White also has a tough job proving that he has enough compensation for his pawn) 1 1 cxb4! (1 1 t2Jxe4 fxe4 is clearly better for Black according to Keres, while after 1 1 �e2 SLcS 12 0-0 d6 Black has an extra pawn) 1 1 ...t2Jg3+ 12 SLe2 t2Jxhl 1 3 \t>f1 and White has some chances, even though he is still worse after 1 3 ... 0-0. 7 .'�f7! This looks very strong, but Black also has a respectable alternative in 7... t2Je7!? S t2Jf4 (S gxfS t2JxdS 9 li'xe4+ �e7 10 'iVxe7+ �xe7 1 1 t2Jxd4 .i.f6 is clearly better for Black) S. . .dS! (S... fxg4 9 t2Jxd4 t2Jf6?! 10 h3 gxh3 1 1 i.xh3 would belong in the 19th century, where all gifts were accepted with no questions asked) 9 t2Jxd4 fxg4 10 t2Jfe6 (too slow is 1 0 �g2 cS 1 1 t2JxdS �xdS 1 2 t2JbS t2Jc3!! 1 3 t2Jc7+ WdS . .

1 24

14 �xdS t2Jxe2 1 5 t2JxaS t2JxdS 16 'it'xe2 bS! and Black wins - Monson). Now 1 0 ....i.xe6 1 1 t2Jxe6 1fd6 12 �xg4 t2Jg6 13 �g2 t2JeS 14 �h3 c6 1 5 0-0 gives White some com pensation (Monson), but Black can also play the crazy-looking 1 O... t2Jc6!?

This is another interesting Monson idea. One continuation is 1 1 t2JxdS t2Jxd4 12 'Yi'd3 t2Jf3+ 13 'it'e2 c6 14 t2Jxc6 bxc6 1 5 SLg2 �fS which, according to Monson, is a terrible mess. Well, he is obviously right! Fritz 7 quite amusingly assesses this position as -0.03 after a few moments breath! 7 ... d6? is bad: S .i.h3! (Black wins amus ingly after S gxfS? �xfS 9 �h3 �xh3 10 �xe4+ \t>d7! 11 t2Jgs 'Yi'eS) S ...g6 9 gxfS gxfS 10 t2Jxd4 with a clear advantage for White. S .tf4?! After this move Black is doing very well, but the normal suggestion is S gxfS, after which theory thinks Black is slighdy better. Probably he is even more than this after S . .�d6! 9 �c4 bS!. Bent Larsen once said that you should accept almost all material on offer, if it is not losing direcdy - you can always return it! Well, this is also the philoso phy of chess computers and an important part of modern chess, which seems to be getting wilder. One continuation is 10 'iVxbS (1 0 'iVb3 t2Jcs 1 1 t2Jg5+ �xgS 12 �xgS t2Jxb3 1 3 axb3 �b7 and Black is probably just winning) 10 .. J:teS 1 1 �e2 as with a win ning initiative for Black. .

Th e B e /g r a de G a m b i t

Theory normally prefers 8... ..lT/.c5?! but White has some interesting tactics now: 9 tDxc7! ..IT/.b4+ (9 .. :filxc7 10 'ii'xe4 tDe7 1 1 ..IT/.f4 looks good for White) 10 �dl tDxf2+ 1 1 �xf2 'fiIxc7 1 2 ..IT/.c4+ �f8 1 3 tDxd4 'fiId6 and maybe White is actually somewhat better here. His development obviously looks bet ter, and after 14 c3 Black has no obvious way to proceed because 1 4...tDxd4 1 5 �xd4 �xd4+ 1 6 cxd4 ..IT/.e7 1 7 .ll.e3 must be much better for White. 8 . . . d6? Looks natural, but now Black has prob lems with the development of his kingside. Better was 8 ... ..lT/.d6!, when Black is simply better. One line goes 9 ..Il.xd6 tDxd6 1 0 0-0-0 l:te8 1 1 �d3 fxg4 with a clear advantage. 9 O-O-a? White could have kept the balance here with 9 gxf5 .1t.xf5 10 0-0-0 �d7 1 1 tDxd4 tDxd4 1 2 l:txd4 l:te8 13 �f3!, when the posi tion might not be comfortable, but for whom? 9 . . . �e6 1 0 �c4 tLle7!

Now White is finished. 1 1 tLlxc7 �xc4 1 2 �xc4+ d5 1 3 tLle5+ �g8 14 tLlxd5 �xd5!? This works well. 1 4... tDxd5 1 5 l:.xd4 tDef6 16 l:txd5 tDxd5 17 lIdl .i.d6 1 8 ..Il.xd5+ 'it>f8 is the materialist's guide to a quick win. 1 5 .!:lxd4 Vixc4 1 6 l:txc4 tLlf6 1 7 h4 fxg4 1 8 h5 tLled5 1 9 �g5 tLlb6 20 J:If4 tLlbd5 21 .l:t.f5 iLe7 22 h6 g6 0-1

Game 63 Hartoch-Timman

Leeuwarden 1978 1 e4 e5 2 tLlc3 tLlf6 3 tLlf3 tLlc6 4 d4 exd4 5 tLld5 tLlxe4 6 Vie2 f5 7 iLf4?! This idea does not fit in well. The move ... d7 -d6 proves to be more useful for Black than .ll. f4 is for White. 7 . . . d6

8 0-0-0 Or 8 tDg5 and now: a) 8... d3 9 cxd3 tDd4 1 0 �h5+ g6 1 1 'fiIh4 c6 1 2 dxe4 cxd5 1 3 exd5 ..Il.g7 14 'iVh3! is unclear according to Monson. This line has so many possibilities for improvements that I do not know where to start. Maybe with 9 �xd3, when White avoids a lot of possible improvements later on in the variation! b) 8 ...tDe5!? 9 tDxe4 fxe4 10 'fiIxe4 c6 1 1 tDb4 'ii'f6 1 2 0-0-0 ..IT/.f5 with very easy play for Black. c) I recommend the untried 8...tDe7!? 9 tDxe4 fxe4 10 'fiIxe4 c6 1 1 tDxe7 (1 1 tDb4 'fiIb6 12 tDd3 i.f5 is horrible for White) 1 1 ...�xe7 12 "iYxe7+ ..Il.xe7 1 3 0-0-0 0-0 1 4 ..Il.g3 .1t.g5+ 1 5 �b 1 .i.f4 16 �xd4 ..IT/.xg3 1 7 fxg3 d 5 with a good endgame for Black. 8 . . . tLle7! A classical solution to a simple problem. The knight on d5 was annoying, so it is elimi nated. 1 25


9 tDxe7 iLxe7 10 g4? 1 0 lLlxd4 0-0 1 1 f3 Sii.gS 1 2 .i.xgS Wixg5+ 1 3 'iitb 1 lLlcs 1 4 l\Vf2 .i.d7 1 5 Sii.c4+ 'iith8 1 6 h4 'tWh6 1 7 l::th e1 l::tae8 and Black has a pawn for virtually nothing, Van Oosterom Timmerman, correspondence. 1 986. 1 0 . . . c5 White has completely lost the opening battle. He has no real compensation for his two pawns. 1 1 i.h3?! After 1 1 gxfS .i.xfS 12 J::tg1 �aS White will also come under attack, but the text is even worse. 1 1 .. .fxg4 1 2 �xe4 d5! White must have missed that one. After 1 2...gxh3?! 1 3 Sii.gs dS 14 'tieS White has some initiative. 1 3 �e5 O-O!

Now it is all over. 1 4 :hg 1 i.f6 1 5 ifh5 gxf3 1 6 .l:!.g3 iLh4 1 7 iLxc8 I.1xc8 1 8 iLg5 i.xg5+ 1 9 .I:.xg5 ife8 20 �h6 liitf7 21 .:r.dg1 l::tc c7 22 .l:txd5 ':'ce7 23 d 1 lIe5 24 .l:!.xe5 �xe5 0-1

Game 64 Monson-Milat

correspondence 1996 1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 tDc3 tDf6 4 d4 exd4 5 tDd5 tDxe4 6 ife2 f5 7 tDg5 This is the direct attempt. The question is 126

whether it is too direct. 7 . . . d3! 8 cxd3 White has little choice. After 8 "iixd3? lLlb4 9 �e2 lLlxdS 1 0 lLlxe4 .i.e7! (1O ... fxe4? 1 1 "iih 5+ g6 12 "iie5+ �e7 1 3 �xh8 favours White) 1 1 Sii.d2 lLlb6! (1 1 ...0-0?! 1 2 "iic4 c6 1 3 lLlc3 'tWaS 1 4 0-0-0 quite unnecessarily gives White the initiative) 1 2 lLlg3 0-0 Black is a pawn up with no worries. 8 . . . tDd4 9 ifh5+ After 9 lLlxe4?? lLlxe2 1 0 Sii.gS Black came up with the stunning novelty 1 0...lLlf4!! 1 1 Sii.xf4 (1 1 Sii.xd8 lLlxdS 1 2 Sii.gs fxe4 1 3 dxe4 lLlb4 and Black wins - Lumachi) 1 1 ...fxe4 1 2 lLlxc7+ 'iitf7 1 3 lLlxa8 Sii.b4+ 1 4 Sii.d2 .i.xd2+ 1 5 �xd2 iVa5+ 1 6 'iitd 1 dS and White re signed, Imperiali-Lumachi, correspondence 1 994. 9 . . . g6 1 0 ifh4 c6! This move is very accurate. After 1 0...lLlc2+ 1 1 'iii>d l lLlxa1 1 2 dxe4 c6 1 3 exf5! cxdS 14 lli'd4 l::!.g8 1 5 f6 White wins - Keres.

1 1 dxe4 White has little choice. After 1 1 lLlc3 lLlxc3 1 2 bxc3 lLlc2-H (1 2...lLle6 gives Black a clear advantage - Monson) 1 3 �dl lLlxal White has no real threats for his rook and will soon lose the game. 1 1 " .cxd5 1 2 exd5 Maybe White is not so badly off after 1 2 exfS?! lLlxfS 1 3 "iVh3 Sii.b4+ 1 4 'iii>d l "iVe7 1 5 Sii.d3 0-0 1 6 a3, when the king is strangely safe on dl and the pieces will develop quite

Th e B e /g ra de G a m b i t

easily. But Black has the much stronger 1 2... .i.g7!, taking over the initiative and threatening ... h7-h6 amongst other things. 1 2 :�a5+ 12 ... iLb7 is discussed in the next game. 1 3 i.d2! 13 �d1 !? quite amusingly leads directly to a forced draw after 13 ...'ihd5 14 i.c4! 'iVxc4 15 l::te 1+ iLe7 1 6 l::txe7+ cj;;xe7 1 7 liJe4+ and now: a) 1 7...�e6 1 8 'iVf6+ �d5 1 9 liJc3+ cj;;c5 20 b4+ (20 .i.e3 l:!.e8! 21 b4+ 'iVxb4 22 .i:tel l::txe3 23 fxe3 liJc6 and Black wins - Gut man) 20...'it>xb4 21 'ikd6+ cj;;a 5! (21 ... cj;;xc3? 22 'i/j'a3+ liJb3 23 .i.b2-H [but not 23 'irb2+? 'it>b4 24 iLd2+ �c5 25 axb3 'iNf1+ 26 �c2 'iNxf2 27 'iVe5+ cj;;c6 28 �d3 and White has a winning attack- Monson, although 28 ... b6 29 l::tc 1+ 'iWc5! 30 llxc5+ bxc5 does not seem to be completely clear] 23... �d3 24 .l:i.el and White wins, as after 24 .. :iVf7 25 'itb4! liJxel 26 'iWd4 Black is horribly mated) 22 �a3+ �b6 23 'iNd6+ �a5 (23... liJc6? 24 liJd5+ �a6! 25 liJc7+ 'it>a5 26 iLd2+ 'it>a4 27 l::tb 1 ! gives �'hite a strong attack, for example 27".'iWg4+ 28 f3 'i/j'd4 29 liJd5 and liJc3+ comes next) 24 'iNa3+ 1/2_1/2 Varady-Larsson, correspondence 1 96 1 . b) Black can also play 1 7 ...g5 1 8 iLxgS+! (1 8 'iVxg5+ 'it>e6 1 9 'iVf6+ �d5 20 liJc3+ �c5 21 b4+ 'it>xb4 would lead to note 'a' but without Black's g-pawn; I cannot see that this will make any difference) 1 8...�e6 1 9 'tib6+ 'it>e5 20 'iNd6+ 'it>xe4 21 f3+ liJxf3! (21 ...'it>d3 22 'ii'a3+ liJb3 23 .:tel !! gives White a win ning attack) 22 gxf3+ cj;;x f3 23 'iVg3+ cj;;e4 24 'it'f4+ 'iitd5 25 'iYxf5+ �d6! (but not 25 ... �c6? 26 l::te l 'iVxc1+ 27 xel l::te 8 28 'ii'c2+ �d5 29 'i/j'd3+ cj;;c 5 30 .i.e3+ cj;;c6 31 'it'c4+ 'iitd6 32 .i.c5+ cj;;e5 33 .i.d4+ cj;;f4 34 'ii'f7+ and White wins) 26 .i.f4+ �e7 27 'ii'e 5+ �f7 28 'iWf5+ 'it>g8 29 'iVg4+ and again it's a perpetual check. 1 3 . . :�!Va4 1 3 ... 'iVxd5 14 0-0-0 iLg7? 1 5 .i.c3! would lose, but Black would also be in an awkward . .

situation after moves like 1 4. . ..i.e7. 1 4 'ilfg3 f4! All lines seems to lead to a draw here, even highly risky ones starting with 1 4...liJc2+!? This should probably be investi gated more than it has been so far: 1 5 �d1 ! liJxa1+ (1 5 ...liJe3+ 1 6 �e2 f4 1 7 'iVf3 iVb5+ 11 7 ... 'ii'c4+ 1 8 �e1 liJxfl 19 'iVc3! gives White a clear advantage - Monson] 1 8 cj;;e 1 'iVxb2 1 9 l::te l liJxfl 20 'iVe4+ iLe7 21 �xfl and White has a strong and probably decisive attack) 16 b3

and now: a) Black is lost after 1 6 .. .'ti'd4 1 7 iLc4 liJxb3 (17 ....i.c5 18 l:i.e1+ �f8 19 liJf3 and White wins; 1 7 ... .i.e7 1 8 .l:te1 �f8 1 9 liJf3 'iWg7 20 iLg5! would also give White a win ning attack) 1 8 J::!.e1+ .i.e7 1 9 iLxb3 f8 (19 ... d6 20 liJf3 'ika1+ 21 cj;;c2 f4 22 'it'xf4 'iVg7 23 iLc3 'iYf8 24 'iVxd6 i.. f5+ 25 �b2 gives White a winning attack - the rooks are of no value to Black's king) 20 .i:!.xe7 �xe7 21 liJf3 'iVa1+ 22 cj;;c2 d6 23 .i.c3 and White is winning, Svensson-Huglof, correspon dence 1 969. b) Black needs to seek survival with the exchange of queens: 16 ...'it'g4+1 17 'iVxg4 fxg4 1 8 iLb5!? (1 8 i.c3 l:tg8 1 9 i.c4 d6 20 l:te1+ �d8 21 .i.f6+ �c7 22 iLxal gives White good compensation, but Black can also defend) 1 8... iLe7 19 l:!.e 1 'iitf8 20 d6 iLf6 21 liJe4 i..g7 22 .i.g5 and Black resigned in Meier-Kretschmar, correspondence 1 964. 127


Maybe Black should have investigated 22.....te5!, when I do not see any win for White. There is repetition with 23 ..th6+ iLg7 24 iLg5, but that seems to be it. White does win, however, after 22 ... iLd4? 23 'bf6!. 1 5 ..bf4! A fter 1 5 'i!Vc3 iLg7 16 1:.c1 O-O! 1 7 b3 'i!Vxa2 1 8 d6 1:.e8+ 1 9 �d1 'be6 20 1Wc4 Monson believes that \X/hite has a good game. But let us take the analysis a bit fur ther: 20 ...b5! 21 'i!Vxb5 'bxg5 22 'i!Vxg5 'iY'xb3+ 23 1:.c2 iYb 1+ 24 .l:i.el i*b3+ (here Black could take a draw, but why not try for more?) 25 J::!.c2 �h8!? 26 iLc4 �6 27 h4 (27 'i!Vxf4 iLa6 28 iLe3 iYb 1+ 29 !.tel 'iVb7 would also give Black a fantastic game) 27 ... iLb7 28 h5 iLe4 and Black has a very powerful attack. A funny line is 1 5 iYxf4?? 'bc2+ 1 6 �d1 (1 6 �e2 'iY'xf4 17 iLxf4 'bxal is just win ning) 1 6 ... 'be}t! and Black ,,-ins.

1 5 . . .�b4+ 1 6 �d2 l2Jc2+! This is probably the simplest line. Also possible are: a) 16 ... iLxd2+ 17 �xd2 'iV'c2+ 1 8 �e1 0-0 1 9 iLd3 'i!Vxb2 20 1:.b 1 'iV'dt 21 �f1 'bf3 22 gxf3 'i!Vxd3+ 23 'itg2 'iV'xd5 24 l:tbd1 and Black has compensation for the sacrificed pawn - Monson. b) 1 6... 0-0!? 17 iLd3 iLxd2+ 1 8 �xd2 �4+ 19 �d1 "iVa4+ 20 �d2 'iVb4+ with a draw. 1 7 �d 1 l2Je3+ 1 8 �e2!? A winning attempt. 1 8 �e1 iLxd2+ 1 28

(1 8...'bc2+ with a draw is of course possible) 1 9 'l.t>xd2 1Wd4+ 20 iLd3 'bc4+ 21 'l.t>el 'bxb2 is apparendy good for Black, but after 22 'l.t>e2 0-0 23 'bxh7! 1:.xf2+ 24 'i!Vxf2 1Wxd3+ 25 'l.t>e1 iYc3+ 26 \t>f1 �xh7 27 1:.el ! White has good chances of generating an initiative. Ac tually Black only has one defence: 27 ... �4 28 d6 'iVb5+ 29 �g1 'iVb6!, pinning the queen. Now after 30 1:.e3 �g7! the game ,,-ill end in perpetual with 31 h4!? 'bc4 32 1:.e7+ �g8!, as 32... �h6?? 33 g4! 'i!Vxf2+ 34 \t>xf2 g5 35 �g3 'bxd6 36 h5! sees the black king trapped in a mating net starting with 37 l:tfl !. 18 . . ."iVb5+ 1 9 �xe3 �xd2+ 20 �xd2 "iVxb2+ 21 �e3 "iVxa1 22 �d3 'ilVf6 22 ..."iVxh 1 ?? 23 1We5+ gives a mating at tack. 23 l2Jxh7 l:lxh7 24 �xg6+ ':f7 25 J:t.c 1 !

Here we actually leave the game, which continued 25 iLxf7+? �xf7 26 1:.el d6 27 1:.c7+ �f8 28 'iVf4!? iLf5! with a clear advan tage for Black. Instead we follow the position to its logical conclusion. 25 . . . b6? An incorrect winning attempt. Best is 25 .. :iHb6+ 26 'it>e2 iYb5+ 27 'l.t>e3 'i!Vb6+ with a draw. 26 �c4 �a6 27 �xf7 + Viixf7 28 �e4+ �d8 29 �e5 �c8 30 'ilVe8+! Viixe8 31 J:!.xe8+ �b7 32 J:t.xa8 �xa8 33 h4 Now White wins easily after 33 . . . �c4 34 h5 �xd5 35 h6 �g8 36 f4 �b7 37 f5 �c6 38 f6 and 39 f7!


Game 65 Van Der Weide-Timmermans

Sas Van Gent 1996

1 5 �xd8+ �xd8 1 6 gxf3 d6 Or 1 6 ... ii.d4 17 h4 We7 1 8 �c2 b6 1 9 l:.gl (1 9 ii.e3 ii.xe3 20 fxe3 ii.b7 21 ii.c4 �d6 would give Black a pleasant endgame) 1 9 ... �f7 20 .i.e3 .i.xe3 with a likely draw.

1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 d4 exd4 5 4Jd5 4Jxe4 6 �e2 f5 7 4Jg5 d3 8 cxd3 4Jd4 9 �h5+ g6 1 0 �h4 c6 1 1 dxe4 cxd5 1 2 exd5 �g7 !?

This seems to be very healthy. As White moves his king anyway, why give a check? Why not just finish development first? 1 3 �d 1 ! There are of course some alternatives, but none of them is any good: a) 1 3 ii.c4?! h6 14 'iUg3 b5! (after 1 4...hxg5 1 5 ii.xg5 ii.f6 1 6 ii.xf6 'iUxf6 1 7 0-0-0 b5 1 8 'iUe3+ d8 1 9 ii.f1 l:.h4 20 f4 ttJc6 21 dxc6 'iHxc6+ 22 Wbl ii.b7 23 ii.d3 'iUxg2 24 'iHe5 White had a clear advantage in Monson Chess Master 4000, 1 994) 1 5 ttJh3 bxc4 1 6 'iVxg6+ �f8 1 7 ii.e3 ttJc2+ 1 8 We2 ttJxe3 1 9 fxe3 'iWf6 and Black wins - Monson. b) 13 'iWg3?! 0-0 14 d6 (1 4 ii.d3 'iHa5+ 1 5 �f1 b6 1 6 �3 h6 1 7 ttJf3 'iWxd5 gave \�'hite an awful position in Nikonov Yudovich, USSR 1 949) 1 4 .. :�a5+ 1 5 �d1 'iHd5 16 �d3 b5 1 7 .l:i.e1 ttJc6 1 8 'iVf3 'i'xd6 1 9 ii.f4 'iHd4 and Black is clearly better. c) 1 3 'il¥h3 h6 14 ttJf3 ttJc2+ 1 5 �d1 ttJxa1 16 'i'g3 'i'f6 and White is a rook down. 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 4Jf3 4Jxf3! Simple and good.

1 7 f4?! Played with the idea of stopping ... g6-g5. But it would have been better to meet this head on with 17 �g1 g5 1 8 h4 g4 1 9 .i.e2! (1 9 fxg4? fxg4 2() ii.e2 .i.d4 21 �el h5 gave Black a clear advantage in Wieringa-Van der Tak, Haarlem 1976) 1 9...l':tg8! (1 9 ... .i.d4 20 .l:tg2 h5 21 ii.g5+ f7 25 J:ih5! Maybe Black missed this one? After 25 l:!.h6? l:th8! Black is clearly better. 25 . . . l:i.e6?! Better was 25 .. .l::t e5 26 f4 l:te6 27 l:txf5+ l:tf6 28 l:txf6+ �xf6 29 e5 'iYc6+ 30 �g1 l:te8 31 f5, though White should still win. 25 ...Wie5 26 l:txf5+ Wixf5 27 exf5 l:he1 28 'iVg6+ 'it>g8 29 f6 also wins for White. 26 l:txf5+ c,t>e8 27 J:!.g5!

White has three pawns for the piece and now the knight is trapped! 27 . . . e4 28 1:txg7 l:!.h6 29 l:te7+ c,t>d8 30 J:td7+ c,t>e8 31 J:te7+ c,t>d8 32 J:td7+ c,t>e8 33 J:.xd6 .l:!.xh7 34 J:td4 .l:!.fh8 35 f4 l:.h2+ 36 c,t>f3 exd3 37 l::lxd3 J:!.xe2 38 .l:!.e3 .l:!.xb2 39 J:.xe7 J:!hh2 40 �g4 .l:!.b6 41 f5 �d8 42 .l:!.g7 l:!.b4 43 �f4 a5 44 a3 .l:!.b3 45 e5 l:lf2+ 46 �g4 1 -0

Game 67 Seger-Koch

Dortmund 200 1 1 e4 e5 2 cuf3 cue6 3 cue3 cuf6 4 g3

Jl..e 5 5 Jl.. g 2 d 6 6 d 3 Jl..g4 7 h3 Also possible is 7 tLla4!? and now: a) 7...�d7 8 h3 iLh5 9 �g5 iLxf3 1 0 iLxf3 tLld4? ( 1 o. . .Wie 6 1 1 c 3 with only a slight edge for White was more natural) 1 1 tLlxc5 dxc5 12 �xf6 gxf6 1 3 iLg4 gave White a clear edge in Vitolins-Agzamov, Moscow 1 967. b) 7 ... �b6 8 tLlxb6 axb6 9 h3 is slightly better for White. c) 7 ...tLld7 8 h3 i.h5 9 c3 i.xf2+ 1 0 'it>xf2 b5 1 1 b4 bxa4 12 'iixa4 tLle7 1 3 tLlh4 0-0 14 tLlfS and White had a slight advantage in Averbakh-Spassky, USSR 1 963. 7 . . .Jl..e6 7 ... iLxf3 8 SLxf3 tLld4 9 iLg2 b5 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 h2!, with the idea f2-f4, secures White a small plus. 8 cua4 Jl.. b6 9 cuxb6 axb6 1 0 0-0 h6 After 1 0...0-0 1 1 tLlg5! iLd7 1 2 f4 h6 13 tLlf3 l:.e8 1 4 g4 White organised a menacing offensive in Kovalev-Kepp, Germany 1 995. 1 1 d4

1 1 . . .Jl..d7 A bad mistake would be 1 1 ...iLxa2?? Af ter 1 2 d5 tLle7 13 tLld2! tLlg6 14 b3 l:.a6 1 5 i.b2 �a8 1 6 tLlc4 b5 1 7 tLle3 Black does not necessarily lose the bishop straightaway, but half his army is used up fighting not to lose it. Probably the bishop will be lost sooner or later anyway. 1 2 b3 0-0 12 .. .'iVc8 13 �h2 would lead to a slight 1 33


advantage for White after 1 3 ... 0-0, while Black would get into trouble with 1 3 . ..ctJxe4?! 14 dxeS dxeS 1 5 i.b2 MaS 16 b4! tiJxb4?! (1 6 ...l:!.a4 1 7 tiJxeS Mxb4 1 8 tiJd3 Mxb2 1 9 tiJxb2 and White is clearly better, but this is what Black should learn to live with) 1 7 tiJxeS tiJf6 1 8 tiJxd7 �xd7 1 9 l::te1 + 'it'd8 20 .txf6+ gxf6 21 'iVf3 and White has a winning attack. 1 3 i..b 2 13 dS!? 1 3 . . .1:1e8 Better here was 1 3 ...exd4! 1 4 tiJxd4 Me8 1 5 Me 1 tiJxd4 1 6 'i!Vxd4 .tc6 17 a3 Me6 1 8 Madl �e7! with counterplay against the e4pawn. White retains a small edge, as he has the two bishops, but it is nothing speciaL 1 4 l:!.e1 Here White should play 14 dS!. After the black rook has gone to e8 this move is even more sensible. 1 4... tiJe7 1 5 tiJd2 b5 1 6 f4 tiJg6 1 7 fS gives White a lasting initiative. 1 4 . . . iVe8?! Black should still open the position. After 14 ... exd4 1 5 tiJxd4 tiJxd4 1 6 �xd4 .ic6 1 7 f4 White is somewhat better. 1 5 �h2 1 5 dS!. 1 5 . . . lUh7? Neither player really cares about the centre it seems. After I S ... exd4 1 6 tiJxd4 tiJxd4 1 7 i.xd4 Me6 1 8 f4 i.c6 1 9 f5 M e7 20 i.xf6 gxf6 21 iVg4+ 'it'h7 22 �4 iVh8 Black is only slighdy worse. 1 6 �d2 Now after 16 dS tiJe7 17 c4 tiJg6 18 �d3 fS! 1 9 exfS i.xfS 20 �e2 tiJf6 21 tiJd2 White is only very slighdy better. 1 6 . . . f6 Black can no longer exchange on d4, as af ter 1 6 ... exd4 1 7 tiJxd4 tiJxd4 (Black loses a piece after 1 7 ...tiJgS?! 1 8 f4 tiJxh3? 1 9 iVc3 tiJxd4 20 �xd4 f6 21 �c4+ �h8 22 �f1 the knight is trapped) 1 8 �xd4 tiJf6 1 9 �d2 Me6 20 f4 \X1}Ute is clearly better (f4-fS is an obvious threat) . 1 34

1 7 a4 lUg5 17 ... tiJxd4 18 tiJxd4 exd4 19 �xd4 tiJgs 20 f4 tiJf7 21 c4 shows White domination. 1 8 lUxg5 hxg5 1 9 dxe5 dxe5 Or 19 ...tiJxeS 20 f4 tiJf7 21 .l::l.adl i.c6 22 .if3 with an advantage for White. 20 J:!.ad 1 ..\te6 21 f4 gxf4 22 gxf4 exf4 23 'it'xf4 J:!.a5 Black is also in trouble after 23... i.f7 24 eS fxeS 25 i.xeS tiJxeS 26 MxeS Mxe5 27 'i'xeS. He cannot really free himself because after 27...MaS? 28 �e7! White wins. 24 J:!.g1 Also possible was 24 !:te3 MgS 25 Mg3 Mxg3 26 �xg3 tiJeS 27 i.h1 ! with a clear advantage. The idea is to use the g-file for a direct attack. 24 . . . �h5 25 i..f 1 l::th 7? 26 �xf6 J:1e7 27 iVe3 Now Black is lost. 27 . . . ..\tg4 28 .!:!.d5 �f7 29 J:!.g5 J:1f2+ 30 J:tg2 J:!.f3 31 J:txg7+ �f8 32 fixf3+ ! iLxf3 33 .1:.g8+ 1 -0

Game 68 Schmaltz-Romanishin

Franken 2001 1 e4 e5 2 lUf3 lUe6 3 lUe3 lUf6 4 g3 ..\te5 5 i..g 2 d6 6 d3 lUd4!? An unusual but perfecdy viable road to equaliry. One should always remember that in the Glek System White is not really trying

Th e Glek S ys t e m with 4 . . . i. c 5

to get an opening advantage. He is trying to create a real battle instead of the usual long theoretical lines, where the pieces get chopped off straight from the opening.

7 lDa4 Also possible is 7 liJxd4 �xd4 and now: a) S 0-0 �g4 9 'iVe1 "i!Vd7 10 Sl.e3 �xe3 1 1 "i!Vxe3 Sl.h3 12 d4 .ixg2 1 3 �xg2 exd4 1 4 it'xd4 0-0 with equality i n Eingorn-Lerner, Germany 1 995. b) S liJe2!? might be more ambitious. S ... .tb6 9 0-0 c6 10 h3 �e6 1 1 �h2 h5 1 2 d4! (when attacked o n the flank, reply i n the centre; not 1 2 �e3? h4 1 3 g4 �xe3 1 4 fxe3 �xg4!) 12 ... .ic4 13 d5 cxd5 14 exd5 e4 1 5 b3 .txd5 1 6 Sl.b2 with compensation for the pawn in Kovaliov-Aleksandrov, Minsk 2000. 7 . . . i.g4 Better than 7...ctJxf3t S .txf3 h6 9 ctJxc5 dxc5 10 i.e3 "iNd6 1 1 i.e2 (1 1 .ig2!?) 1 1 ... c4 1 2 0-0 .ih3 1 3 .l:!.e1 0-0-0 14 f3 .ie6 1 5 iVd2 �bS 1 6 "i!Vc3 cxd3 1 7 cxd3 and White had some initiative in Stripunsky-Gilardo Garcia, Wijk aan Zee 1 996. S lDxeS dxeS 9 h3 i.xf3 10 i.xf3 lDxf3+ 1 1 ir'xf3 ir'd6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 b3 lDd7! A typical manoeuvre. The knight is head ing for the d4-square. 1 4 i.b2 1 4 1i'h5 ctJbS 15 .tb2 ctJc6 1 6 f4 f6 also does not pose any great threat to Black. There are not enough minor pieces on the board for White to hope for a successful

kingside attack at the present moment. 1 4 . . . lDbS 1 S ir'g2 Or 1 5 :tad1 ctJc6 16 c3 l:!adS 1 7 "i!Ve3 b5 1 S f4 f6 with equality. 1 S . . . lDe6 1 6 f4 f6 1 7 :tf2 J:taeS 1 S .!:taf1 bS 1 9 �h 1 lDd4 20 fS After the continuation 20 fxe5?! fxe5 21 lIxf8+ �xf8 22 lIxf8+ "i!VxfS Black would even be a little better - White has more weaknesses. 20 . . .ir'a6 21 e4!? White tries to fight for the initiative somehow, but this move leaves a terrible weakness on d3. After 21 J::!.a1 the chances would have been leveL 21 . . .lDe6 Not 21 ...'ii'xa2?? 22 Sl.xd4!. 22 i.e1 lDb4?! Together with the next move this is a pit fall that Black falls into. After 22 ... h4?! 23 g4 !IdS 24 "i!Vg3 l:!.d7 25 g5 White would have been able to start an attack on the kingside, but 22 ... !IdS! 23 .i.e3! .l:!.xd3 24 .ixc5 !IfdS 25 g4 bxc4 26 g5 with complications was better. 23 i.e3! lDxd3? This loses, but after 23...'ii'c 6 24 a3 ctJa6 25 g4 UdS 26 �d2 l::td6 27 lIfd1 White will soon play g4-g5. The misplaced knight on a6 is a problem for Black. 24 J::td 2! bxe4 2S J:tfd 1 Or 25 bxc4? 'iVxc4 26 l:.fd1 .i:!.dS and Black survives. 2S . . .l:!.dS 26 'iVe2 ir'e6 After 26.J::td6 27 bxc4 "i!Vxc4 2S l:.xd3 'ii'xe4+ 29 'i'g2 compensation for the pieces is hard to spot. 27 bxe4 ir'xe4+ 2S �g1 ir'xe4 29 J:txd3 e4 30 J:!.xdS 'jVxe2 3 1 i.xeS hS 32 J:!.xfS+ �h7 33 J:tf1 ? After this Black is able to create counter play with the e-pawn. Correct was 33 lIddS! 'ii'e1+ 34 �g2 'ife2+ 35 .i.f2 "iNf3+ 36 �g1 'iYxfS 37 l:.feS as 3S :Id4 'i'xh3 39 �exe4 and it is very likely that White will win the endgame. 1 35


'i¥xf6 16 gS "VJIie7 17 h4 gives White a king side initiative) 1 4 ctJe2 with chances for both sides.

33 . . . �d3 34 �f2 e3 35 �e1 e2 36 J:tf4 �b 1 37 Wf2 "iWb6+ 38 �xe2 "iWb5+ 39 Wf3 �d5+ 40 We2 "iWb5+ 41 Wf3 % - %

Game 69 Hector-Barkhagen

Swedish Championship, Skara 2002 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3 �c5 5 �g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 �e3 This move often leads to a transposition to the positions arising after 7 0-0, but in this game White tries something different. 7 . . .�xe3 Also possible is 7 ... ctJd4 8 ..txd4 exd4 9 ctJe2 ..tg4 1 0 'ifd2 ..txf3 1 1 ..txf3 dS! and Black should be fine. 8 fxe3 lLle7 Black should not part with his bishop too easily. 8... ..ig4 9 h3! (9 0-0 ctJe7 1 0 h3 ..ixf3 1 1 l::tx f3 c6 was okay for Black in Georgiev Alterman, Groningen 1 997) 9 .....txf3 1 0 "i*'xf3 "i*'e7 1 1 g4! and now Black needs to castle in the same direction as White, but White can improve his position without cas tling, while this is a hard task for Black to achieve. 9 d4 Also interesting is 9 'ikd2!? ctJg6 10 0-0-0 c6 1 1 h3 'ifaS 12 �bl bS 13 g4! (13 ctJdS "i*'xd2 14 ctJxf6+ �e7 1 5 ':xd2 �xf6 was level in Vasiesiu-Nisipeanu, Bucharest 1 998) 13. .. b4! (13. .. .ie6 14 ctJdS 'ifd8 1 5 ctJxf6+ 136

9 . . . lLlg6 Another idea is 9 ... ..tg4!? 10 0-0 "i*'d7 1 1 "ii'd2 ctJg6! with the plan o f ... h7-hS and Black has good counterplay. 1 0 h3!? c6 1 1 "iWd3 0-0 A fter 1 1 ...'ifc7 1 2 0-0-0 .id7 13 g4 h6 14 l:thfl 0-0-0 1 5 "ii'c4 White has some advan tage due to the open file and his better placed queen. 1 2 0-0-0 "iWa5 1 3 g4 b5 After this move Black has reasonable counterplay. 1 4 g5 lLld7 1 5 Wb1 lLlb6 Also interesting was I S ... exd4 1 6 exd4 (16 "ii'xd4 b4 1 7 ctJe2 ctJdeS 18 ctJf4 with equality was also possible, but not 1 8 "ii'xd6? ..Ite6 and Black has won vital time in the race for the kings; wrong is 1 6 ctJxd4? b4 and gS falls) 1 6 ...ctJf4 1 7 "i*'d2 ctJxg2 1 8 'ifxg2 b4 1 9 ctJe2 ctJb6 with unclear play. 1 6 lLld2 exd4?! After this Black's queen is sadly misplaced and trapped by its own knight. Better was 1 6... ctJa4! 1 7 ctJxa4 (or 1 7 ctJe2 cS! with threats) 1 7 ..."i*'xa4 1 8 h4 exd4 1 9 "i*'xd4 with an unclear position, while after 1 9 hS ctJeS 20 "iixd4 ..te6! 21 "iVxa4 bxa4 Black is a little better. 1 7 lLlb3 'ii'b4 1 8 exd4 lLlf4 1 9 'ii'g 3 lLlxg2 20 a3! �c4 21 lLla5 "i!Ve6

Th e Glek S ys tem with 4 . . � c 5 .

22 tiJxc6!? Here Hector chooses to play an interest ing positional sacrifice. After 22 "iHxg2 �d7 23 d5 cxd5 24 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 25 exd5 White would have kept a slight edge. 22 . . . tiJc4 23 d5 "iVd7 24 "iVxg2 tiJe3 25 �g3 tiJxd1 26 l:!.xd 1 White has full compensation for the ex change and a stable advantage. 26 . . . �b7 27 tiJd4 ::'ae8 28 J:tf1 ! Very calm! After 28 h4 .l::.e5 29 h5 l:i.c8 30 g6 h6 31 gxf7+ 'iVxf7 Black is okay! 28 . . . �h8 29 llf4 "iVe7 30 tiJd 1 �c8 31 tiJf2 "iVa7 32 c3 iVcS 33 �f3 �g8 34 J::th4 ne5?? 1 -0 Black walks straight into ttJd3 and proba bly lost on time before White could execute it. A fter 34...g6 3S l:tf4 �c4 36 ttJd3 �c7 37 h4 White had good attacking chances.

7... 0-0 8 i.e3 �xe3 9 £Xe3 d5 1 0 exd5 ttJxd5 1 1 ttJxd5 "iYxd5 12 0-0 "iVd6 1 3 �el �d7 14 l:i.dl l:i.ae8 15 �f2 was played in Adams-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1 998. According to Adams, after 15 ...'iVh6 the posi tion would be equal. 8 tiJh4?! 8 i.e3 i.xe3 9 fxe3 �e6 (9 ...ttJe7 10 'iVd2 ttJg6 1 1 �f2 �e6 1 2 ttJd2 0-0 1 3 g4!? was unclear in Gonzalez-Perez, Cienfuegos 1 998) 1 0 d4! with equality. 8 . . .�e6 9 tiJf5?! 9 i.e3!? "vith a level position was better. Now Black gets a speedy development. 9 . . . �xf5 1 0 exf5 �d7 1 1 g4 1 1 ttJe4 �xf5 1 2 ttJxc5 dxc5 1 3 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 4 i.e3 with compensation was indi cated by Glek. But I think that after 1 4... e4 Black is better. For example, 1 5 g4 �d5 1 6 dxe4 "iHxe4 1 7 0-0 0-0 and the pawn is not as important as the dominating black queen in the centre. 1 1 . . . dS!

Game 70 Glek -Mikhalchishin

Dortmund 1998 1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tiJf6 3 tiJc3 tiJc6 4 g3 �c5 5 �g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 h3 This is the start of a plan aiming to gain the two bishops. But as we shall see this plan is very time consuming and more or less ignores all other concerns in the position. 7 h3 is in itself not a bad move, but the fol1ow up is very dubious. 7 . . . h6

Taking control of the e4-square. 1 1 ...0-0-0? 1 2 ttJe4 and White is okay. 1 2 tiJe2 After 12 f4 exf4 13 i.xf4 0-0-0 14 ttJe2 l:i.de8 1 5 c3 .l::.e 7 16 d4 .l::.he8 Black has a clear advantage. This is the logical outcome of f2-f4, as Black is better developed and therefore prepared for an opening of the position. 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 137


Black is also better after 12...h5!? 13 ttJg3 (13 g5 'ii'xf5 14 f4 ttJh7 15 ttJg3 'iVd7 16 ttJxh5 g6 17 ttJg3 exf4 18 .1i.xf4 0-0-0 gives Black a strong attack) 13...h4. 1 3 0-0 After 13 c3 d4! 14 c4 e4! 15 0-0 .l:!.he8 16 ttJf4 e3 White is in crisis. 13 ttJg3 l:!.he8! 14 i.d2 e4 also gives Black a strong initiative. 1 3 . . . h5 1 4 g5 White would lose after 14 ttJg3 hxg4 15 hxg4 g6 16 .1i.g5 1l.e7 17 �e2 J::tdg8 18 c3 ttJh5! 19 gxh5 .1i.xg5 20 fxg6 fxg6 21 c4 gxh5 22 i.xd5 h4. This is just one illustration of the perils White is confronting. 1 4 . . . CLlh7 1 5 c3 'iWxf5 1 6 CLlg3 Or 16 b4 1l.a7 17 ttJg3 �g6 18 'iVxh5 'ii'xd3 and White is disorganised and under direct attack. Of course he still has the two bishops (!) but it has become clear that White took too many liberties in the opening in order to get them. Of course, sometimes when you try something new, it goes wrong. But more often than not Glek has been very successful with his improvements in this, his own opening. 1 6 . . :ife6 1 7 d4 exd4 1 8 CLlxh5 Or 18 l:tel 'ii'g6 19 �xh5 'i!lVxh5 20 ttJxh5 1l.e7 21 ttJxg7 .1i.xg5 22 ttJf5 i.f6 and the black initiative and extra pawn lasts into the endgame. 1 8 . . . Wb8 1 9 l:!.e1 'ifd7 20 h4 CLlf8 21 �f4 CLlg6 22 �g3 f5 23 gxf6 gxf6 24 l:t.c 1 d3 25 'iVxd3 CLlxh4 26 CLlxf6 'iWf7 !

1 38

There is no defence after this move. 27 �xh4 l:!.xh4 28 'iWf5 J:Id6 29 l:te8+ Wa7 30 �c8 J:!.xf6 31 'iVa8+ Wb6 32 b4 �xf2+ 33 Wf1 �g3+ 34 We2 l:tf2+ 35 Wd 1 'ifh5+ 0-1

Game 71 Glek-Zeier

Baden-Baden 2002 1 e4 e5 2 CLlf3 CLlc6 3 CLlc3 CLlf6 4 g3 �c5 5 �g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 This is the main move and the only one that really makes any sense. 7 . . . �e6 Black knows that the fight will not be on the dark but the light squares, and he quickly creates a set-up ready for this. The chances in this line should probably be about equal, but there is a lot of play and possibilities for indi vidual originality and new plans. This is probably what has attracted such creative grandmasters as Hector and Glek to this system. 8 �e3 In the long run White cannot live with the bishop on c5 and needs to eliminate it sooner or later. But a vital question is whether or not White needs to play h2-h3. As we shall see in Shaked-Leko (Game 73), it can sometimes be crucial, but often it should be possible to delay this move. 8 . . . �xe3 9 fxe3 CLle7 1 0 CLlh4!?

Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . i. c 5

To exploit the open f-flie is very naturaL White has also tried 10 a4 ttJg6 1 1 as "iVd7! (but not 1 1 ...0-0?! 12 "iVd2 h6 13 b4 with advantage for White in Romero Holmes Korneev, Gran Canaria 1 997) 12 ttJa4 hS! 1 3 h 4 (more or less forced). Now Black should have played 1 3 ...0-0-0! with good chances of opening the kingside before the queenside is opened, instead of 13. .. iLh3?! 1 4 c4 iLxg2 1 5 �xg2 O-O?! (1 5 ...0-0-0) 1 6 ttJh2, which was good for White in Pinski-Lopusiewicz, Kra kow 1 998. 1 0 . . . c6 Black can also try 10 ... "iVd7!? 1 1 iYf3 (maybe 1 1 d4!? is a more ambitious attempt) 1 1 ...0-0-0 1 2 d4 iLh3 1 3 iLxh3 "iVxh3 1 4 ttJES ttJxfS 15 "iVxfS+ "iVxfS 1 6 .l:IxfS and the posi tion appears to be leveL This shows that White cannot always delay h2-h3 for ever, and that is why White often plays it as early as move eight (see Games 74-75). The ques tion of when h2-h3 should be played is one of the great nuances and unanswered ques tions of this opening. 1 1 ttJf5 After 1 1 d4 "iVc7 (l 1 ...ttJg6?! 12 ttJES iLxfS 1 3 exES ttJe7 1 4 ttJe4 would give White something) 1 2 a4 dS 1 3 exdS ttJexdS 1 4 ttJxdS ttJxdS 1 5 "iVd2 ttJe7 Black was fine in Hector-Aleksandrov, K0ge 1 997. 1 1 . . .i.xf5 1 2 exf5 d5 1 3 'ife2 'ifd6 1 4 a4 h5! 1 5 h3 O-O-O?! An inaccuracy. Black should have gone for I S ... d4! 1 6 ttJe4 ttJxe4 1 7 iLxe4 0-0-0 1 8 a s lih6!? with unclear play. 1 6 a5 1:.dg8 On 16 ... d4 White will now have the re source 1 7 ttJa4!, when the knight has the option of going to b6 and then c4, while White can simply continue with Ra(f)bl and b2-b4 with an attack. 1 7 e4 d4?! Better was 1 7...'iVcs+ 1 8 �h2 d4 1 9 ttJa4 (19 ttJbl g6 20 fxg6 ':'xg6 is in Black's inter est) 1 9 .. :iVxaS 20 c3 �c7 and the position can best be described as a mess.

1 8 ttJa4 g 5 1 9 fxg6 l::txg6 20 ttJb6+ '>t>d8 21 l:tf3 h4?! 21 ...:hg8 22 �h2 cS was better, but Black is building up a macho image.

22 g4 lLlxg4?? This sacrifice is headless. After 22 ... :hg8 23 l:!.afl 'iVe6 24 .l:!.1 f2 ttJh7 25 'iVfl f6 26 ttJc4 White is better, but that is as far as it goes. 23 hxg4 l:!.xg4 24 '>t>h2 l:!.hg8 25 i.h3 1:.g3 26 ttJc4 'ifh6 27 l:!.af1 ttJg6 28 ttJd6 'ifh5 29 ttJxb7+ '&t;>e8 30 i.d7+ 1 -0

Game 72 Hector-I . Sokolov

Malmo' 1997 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 g3 i.c5 5 i.g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 i.e6 8 i.e3 .txe3 9 fxe3 jid7 1 0 d4 .tg4 1 1 'iVd3 I prefer White here. Black has managed to prevent h2-h3, but maybe this is too early because White also has other ways to place his pieces. 1 1 . . . 0-0 Alternatively: a) 1 1 ...0-0-0 1 2 a3 hS 1 3 ttJh4 ttJe7 1 4 b4! and I have a feeling that the White attack is stronger. b) After 1 1 ....Jtxf3 1 2 :xf3 0-0 White has 1 3 :afl with a slight edge or 1 3 ':'xf6?! gxf6 1 4 ttJdS �g7 l S l::tfl fS! 1 6 exfS f6 1 7 'iVd1 :ae8 1 8 c3 with compensation, but nothing 1 39


more. 1 2 tLlh4 tLle7 1 2. ..cLlb4 13 'ii'd2 c5 14 d5 as 1 5 tLlf5 gives White the edge. The battle zone is on the kingside. 1 3 tLlf5 i..xf5 1 4 exf5 exd4 1 5 exd4 c6 1 6 irVf3?! This neglects the most important objec tive of the position: including the rook on a1 in some way. Best was 16 l:!f4! to push the pawns and vacate f1 for the rook. 16 ... l:!.fe8 17 g4 h6 18 h4 d5 19 �af1 and White has a promising attack.

1 6 . . . tLled5 1 7 tLlxd5 cxd5!? After this Black should be okay. He ob tains some weak pawns, but also control of e4 and the open c-flie. 17 ... tLlxd5 18 c4 tLlf6 1 9 g4 d5 20 c5 ':fe8 with unclear play was also possible. 1 8 irVb3 'tIVc6 1 9 J:!.f3 b5 20 a4?! White should not open flies on the queen side; this is where his weaknesses are. 20 l:!.c3 'iVb7 21 l:!.e3 l:!.fe8 22 l:!.ae1 �xe3 23 l:!.xe3 cJ;>f8 24 "iVd3 l:!.e8 would give an even end game, where White still has to defend a little bit. 20 . . J!ab8 According to Ivan Sokolov Black is al ready slightly better. 21 axb5 J:!.xb5! Or course not 21...axb5? 22 ':c3, when White is active and Black passive. 22 �c3 'tIVb6 140

22...'iWxc3 23 bxc3 l:!.b6 24 l:!.e3 l:!.c8 would also give Black the better chances. 23 b3 a5 24 J:!.f4?! Here the rook is very weird. Better was 24 l:!.e3 l:!.b4 25 l:!.d1 (25 l:!.a4!? l:!.xa4 26 bxa4 :b8 27 h3 and White is a little worse) 25 ... a4 26 bxa4 l:!.xa4 27 "iVd3 l:!.c8 with a slight black edge. 24 . . ..li!.b4 25 .li!.e1 h6! A strong prophylactic move. Black pre vents both g4-g5 and all ideas of back rank mates. 26 g4 a4 27 bxa4 :!.c4 Better was 27... l:!.a8! 28 l:!.a1 l:!.axa4 29 l:!.xa4 .l:Ixa4 with clear domination. 28 'tIVd3 �a5? A mistake, giving White a chance to create some counterplay. 28...l:!.a8!, including all pieces in the attack on the queenside, was right. 29 .l:!.e2? 29 l:!.a1 ! is the best chance.

29 . . .'it'xa4 30 h4 .:tfc8 31 g5 tLlh5 32 J:.g4 hxg5 33 i..x d5? 33 hxg5 l:!.c3 34 "iVd1 tLlg3 with a clear black advantage was the sad alternative. 33 . . .J:!.xc2 34 hxg5 ltxe2 0-1

Game 73 Shaked-Leko

TilbulJ, 1997 1 e4 e5 2 g3 tLlc6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 tLlc3

Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . � c 5 .

�c5 5 �g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 0-0 8 �e3 As explained earlier, this move is the most natural. White has also tried: a) 8 ttJd5!? ttJxd5 9 exd5 ttJe7 10 d4 exd4 1 1 ttJxd4 and now: a1) 1 1 ...ttJf5 1 2 ttJb3 (also possible is 1 2 ttJf3!? lIe8 1 3 �g5 f6 14 �f4 �d7 1 5 c3 with a slight edge) 12 ... �a7 13 'iVd3 'iVf6 1 4 .td2 3Ld7 1 5 'iWc3 ttJd4 1 6 'it>hl .tf5 1 7 l:.ac1 lUe8 1 8 .te3 ttJxb3 1 9 'iVxf6 gxf6 20 cxb3! and White has some advantage, Dreev Ivanchuk, France 1 984. a2) l 1 ...ttJg6 (heading for e5) 1 2 c3 �f6 1 3 �e3 l::te 8 1 4 ttJc2 �xe3 1 5 ttJxe3 .td7 with equality. Gevorgyan-Gavrilov, Moscow 1 992. b) 8 3Lg5 h6 9 3Le3 ttJd4 10 3Lxd4 (1 0 h3 should be a litde better for White according to Glek) 1 0... exd4 1 1 ttJe2 .tg4 1 2 'ii'd2 d5! 13 exd5 �xf3 14 .txf3 ttJxd5 with an even game in Ahn-Geenen, Charleroi 1 994. 8 . . . �xe3 Also interesting is 8...ttJd4 and now: a) 9 h3!? 3La7 (9 ... c6!? 1 0 �xd4 3Lxd4 1 1 ttJxd4 exd4 1 2 ttJe2 'iVb6 1 3 'iVc1 ':e8 1 4 c3 dxc3 1 5 'iVxc3 d5 was level, Belikov-Kuzmin, Russia 1 997) 1 0 ttJh2 c6 1 1 'iVd2 ttJe8 1 2 lIael f5 1 3 f4 Exe4 14 dxe4 �a5 1 5 lIf2 with even chances, Zhang Zhong-Zhu Chen, China 1 997. b) 9 �xd4 exd4 10 ttJe2 .tg4 1 1 h3 .txf3 1 2 3Lxf3 d5 1 3 exd5 ttJxd5 1 4 c4 dxc3 1 5 bxc3 c6 1 6 d4 j"a7 1 7 c4 (Brodsky Bykhovsky, Rishon Ie Zion 1 997) 1 7... ttJf6! 1 8 �3 'iVd7 and Black keeps the balance. 9 fxe3 0,e7 This is the natural move. After 9 ... h6 1 0 ttJh4 'it>h7 1 1 �d2 .te6 1 2 lIf2 ttJe7 1 3 lIafl c6 1 4 h3 ttJfg8 1 5 d4 White had the initiative in Arbakov-Ageichenko, Moscow 1 985. 9 ... �e6 10 �e2 'iVd7 1 1 ttJh4! �g4 12 'iVd2 ttJe7 1 3 lIf2 c6 1 4 lIafl was also a litde bet ter for White in Vorotnikov-Polovodin, USSR 1 982. 1 0 0,h4 c6 1 1 d4 0,g4 1 2 'iYd2 0,h6 1 3 .:!:tad 1 ? !

Here I have a new idea: 1 3 h3! 'iVc7 1 4 g4 f6 1 5 .l:i.ad1 followed by ttJf5 and White should be better. 1 3 . . . �g4! Uncoordinating the white forces - Black has equalised. 1 4 �f3 �e6 1 5 'iYe2 b5 Threatening ...j"c4. 1 6 b3 'iYa5 Black is a litde better here. 1 7 ifd2 'iYc7 1 8 'it>h 1 .:!:tad8 1 9 �g2 f6 20 a4 b4 21 0,b1 a5 22 'iYe2 d5 23 0,d2 .:!:tfe8 Black has an alternative plan in 23 ... c5!? 24 ttJhf3 (24 dxc5? 'iVxc5 25 exd5 ttJxd5 26 .txd5 j"xd5+ 27 e4 �b7 28 ttJc4 lIxd1 29 lIxd1 f5! and White's position collapses) 24... cxd4 25 exd4 ttJc6 26 dxe5 ExeS 27 exd5 �xd5 28 ttJe4 ttJfS with advantage for Black. 24 0,hf3 0,f7 24... exd4 25 exd4 dxe4 26 ttJxe4 ttJef5 27 'iVd3 �d5 and Black is a litde better. 25 'iYf2 �c8 26 .:!:tfe1 ?! White could have kept his disadvantage to a minimum if he had played 26 ttJxe5! ttJxe5 27 dxe5 �xeS 28 exd5 cxd5 29 ttJf3 �c3 30 ttJd4 .ta6 31 J:tfel ttJg6 32 'iVd2, when Black needs to play 32... �cS! to keep some pressure. 26 . . . 0,g6 27 dxe5 Or 27 exd5 cxd5 28 ttJfl 3Lb7 29 lIc1 ttJd6 and White is slowly being ground down. 141


27 . . . dxe4 28 lLlxe4 lLlgxe5 29 lLld4 29 .l:!.xdS .i:txdS 30 liJd4 c5 31 liJf5 liJg4 32 'YlUf3 'ii'e5 33 'iYxg4 Sl.xf5 34 'YlUf4 .l:.e8 35 'YlUxe5 �xe5 36 liJd2 Sl.xc2 and the endgame is very difficult for \x/hite. Still, this is proba bly the best chance he had.

29 . . . c5 30 lLlb5 'iIIe 7 3 1 h3 .i.b7 32 lLld2 lLlg5 33 e4 lId7 34 h4 lLlgf7 35 lLlf1 c4 36 lLle3 cxb3 37 lLlf5?! White would also lose after the relatively stronger 37 liJd5 .lixd5 3S exd5 .l:!.ddS! 39 .lih3 (39 cxb3? liJd3!) 39 ...'ilb7 40 .lig2 liJg4 41 'YlUc5 'iVbs; White's king \vill not be able to survive the threats. 37 . . . 'illd8 38 �xd7 'iVxd7 39 cxb3 g6 40 lLle3 lLld3 41 'iIId 2 .i.xe4 42 �h2 .i.xg2 43 lLlxg2 litxe1 44 lLlxe1 lLlfe5 0-1 r------.

Game 74 Ganguly-Acs

Pardubice 2002 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3 .i.c5 5 .i.g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 0-0 8 h3 h6 Or: a) S...b5 9 a3 Sl.b7 10 liJh4 liJd4 1 1 liJe2 liJe6 1 2 b4 .lib6 1 3 Sl.b2 with a slight white advantage in Belavenets-Akhmilovska, USSR 1 979. b) S... h2 d5 1 4 'iNf3 d4 and Black was worse in Glek-Bleunven, St Ingbert 1 99 1 . But of course White did not play well. c) 8... liJe8 9 liJh4 liJd4 1 0 liJd5 c6 1 1 liJe3 liJe6 1 2 c3 g6 1 3 Wh2 liJ8g7 1 4 liJc2 .lib6 1 5 d4 �f6 1 6 .lie3 and White was a little better in Glek-Arbakov, Moscow (rapid) 1 988. d) 8 ....lie6 9 Wh2! (9 liJh4 liJd4 10 .Jle3 c6! 1 1 liJa4 .lia7 12 c3 liJb5 13 i.xa7 .l:!.xa7 only gives equality) 9 ... h6 (necessary as White threatened liJg5 and f4) 1 0 liJh4 liJd4 (1 0... d5 1 1 exd5 liJxd5 1 2 liJxd5 .lixd5 1 3 liJf5 .lixg2 14 'iWg4! 'iNf6 1 5 Wxg2 liJd4 1 6 liJxh6+ rt>h7 1 7 'iWe4+ 'iNg6 I S 'iWxg6+ fxg6 1 9 liJg4 liJxc2 20 .i:tbl .l:!.ae8 21 .lid2 with a slight edge for White; 1 O... �d7 1 1 f4 exf4 1 2 gxf4 �e7 1 3 liJ f3 with the initiative) 1 1 liJd5 liJxd5 (l 1 ...c6?! 1 2 liJxf6+ 'ii'x f6 1 3 c3 liJb5 1 4 f4! is uncomfortable for Black) 12 exd5 .Jld7 13 c3 liJf5 14 liJxf5 .lixf5 1 5 f4 and White is a little better. 9 lLlh4 Also possible is 9 .te3!? .lixe3 10 fxe3 liJe7 1 1 liJh4 c6 1 2 Wh2 liJg6 1 3 liJf5 and White is probably slightly better. 9 . . . lLle7 An interesting alternative is 9 ...liJd4!? and now: a) According to Glek 1 0 .te3?! gives White the advantage. However, after 1 O...g5! 1 1 liJfS (1 1 liJf3? liJxf3+ 1 2 �xf3 g4!) l 1 ...liJxf5 1 2 exf5 .lixfS 1 3 .lixc5 dxc5 Black is better. b) 1 0 liJe2 �eS 1 1 liJxd4 Sl.xd4 1 2 'ii'f3 c6 13 liJf5 .Jlxf5 14 'ii'xf5 d5 15 .l:.e 1 .l:!.e6 with a balanced position in Kuzrnin-Makarichev, Moscow 1 986. 1 0 .i.e3 .i.xe3 1 1 fxe3 c6 1 2 d4! This is stronger than 12 .i:txf6!? although the sacrifice is very interesting. But White has no real reason to sacrifice an exchange here, besides the pure pleasure of doing so. 12 ...gxf6 1 3 'iih 5 g8 30 .i.ds+'it>h8 31 i.f7.

Game 77 Motwani-Christensen

Copenhagen 199 1

14 dS ltJa7? Not a very impressive knight; after this move 'W'hite stands clearly better. Better was 1 4...lbb4! 1 5 lbh4 g5 1 6 a3 gxh4 1 7 axb4 hxg3 1 8 hxg3 i.xb4 1 9 'iVh5, when 'W'hite has compensation for the pawn, but nothing more. 1 S ltJd4 iLb4 1 6 'iVb3 iLcs 1 7 i..e3 'W'hite could also have played 17 lbe6!? 148

1 e4 e S 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 ltJc3 ltJf6 4 g 3 d S S exdS ltJxdS 6 iLg2 iLe6 7 0-0 This position was actually reached via a different move order in this game, but here we follow the usual route. 7 . . . ltJxc3 'W'hite would gain the lrubabve after 7 ... i..d6 8 d4!. Now Black must choose be tween: a) 8 ... 0-0 9 lbxe5! .i.xe5 (9 ... lbxc3? 1 0 lbxc6 bxc6 1 1 bxc3 loses a pawn, and 9 ... lbxe5? 1 0 lbxd5 is similar, only in worse circumstances) 1 0 dxe5 lbxc3 1 1 bxc3 lbxe5 12 i.xb7 l:.b8 1 3 .i.g2 does not give Black much compensation for the pawn. True, the

Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . d5

extra pawn is doubled, but still it controls squares. Black will fInd most counterplay after 1 3. .. 'i¥xdl 1 4 l::tx dl ii.g4 but his prob lems persist after 1 5 l::tfl ! (but not 1 5 l::td5 ctJf3+ 16 Whl ctJel ! with good drawing chances). b) S ... exd4 9 ctJxd4 ctJxc3 10 bxc3 ctJxd4 1 1 'iVxd4! 0-0 12 ii.xb7 with a clear advan tage, Mi.Tseitlin-Baranov, Moscow 1 974. c) S ... ctJxc3 9 bxc3 and now: c1) 9 ... ii.c4?! 10 lIel 0-0 1 1 ctJd2! ii.a6 1 2 i..xc6 bxc6 1 3 dxe5 ii. e7 1 4 ctJe4 and there is not enough compensation for the pawn, Khohnov-Zhukhovitsky, Moscow 1 969. c2) Better is 9 ... exd4!? 10 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 1 cxd4 (11 'iVxd4?! 0-0 1 2 ii.xb7 c5 1 3 �d3 l::tb S 1 4 i..g2 ii.e5 would give Black very active play; here the extra pawn counts for little) 1 1 ...c6 and White is only very slightly better, if better at all. a bxc3 e4?! This backfIres. It was better to play S... i..d6 9 d4 and in that way transpose to the previous note. 9 lLle1 ! 9 ctJd4?! ctJxd4 1 0 cxd4 'iVxd4 1 1 l:tb 1 0-0-0 12 d3 would give some compensation for the pawn. But it would also be com pletely unnecessary.

9 . . . i..c4? Of course it is not nice to play .. .f7-f5, but it seems to be necessary. After 9 ... f5 10 d3 i..d5 1 1 'iYe2 'i¥e7 12 c4 i.. f7 13 .l:tbl the

position is somewhat uncomfortable for Black. He is more or less forced to castle queenside before it is too late, and will have some problems with the b-flle. Still, White needs to activate the knight on e1, and Black is certainly in the game. 1 0 d3 exd3 1 1 lLlxd3! It is absolutely essential to bring the knight back into play. Black's main problem here is his bad development, and that can only be exploited with swift development. 1 1 cxd3 ii.d5 1 2 ctJf3 .i.e7 13 l::tb l l::tb S 1 4 c4 ..te6 1 5 ctJg5 ii.xg5 16 l::txb7 0-0 1 7 ..txg5 'iVxg5 i s i..xc6 l::txb7 1 9 ii.xb7 l::tdS gave Black reasonable counterplay for the pawn in Benko-Vaganian, Vrnjacka Banja 1971. 1 1 ... i..d 5 There is no alternative to stop the pres sure down the long diagonal. 1 1 ...ii.e7 1 2 'iYg4! ii.xd3 (Black can also try 1 2... Sl.e6 1 3 �xg7 ii.f6 1 4 'iVh6 i..xc3 1 5 l::tb l but then there are no good moves left, for example 1 5... ctJd4 16 l:!.xb7 llVd6 17 .i.f4 ctJe2t i s �hl ctJxf4 1 9 ctJxf4 i..c4 20 'iYxd6 cxd6 2 1 l::tc7 ii.xfl 22 ii.xaS 0-0 23 Sl.d5 and Black cannot save the endgame) 1 3 llVxg7 i..x fl (or 1 3... i.. f6 1 4 ii.xc6+ bxc6 15 l::te1+ �d7 16 'iVg4+ and White wins) 1 4 ii.xc6+ bxc6 15 'iVxh&t �d7 16 'iVd4+ �cS 1 7 �xfl gives White a close-to-winning endgame. 1 2 J:!.e1 + i..e7 1 3 i..x d5 'Yixd5 1 4 i..a 3

This position White.

IS

virtually winning for

149


1 4 . . :�d7 There is no salvation in 14 ... :td8 15 Wig4 �f8 1 6 ctJf4 'iWd7 1 7 �xe7+ ctJxe7 1 8 .l:.adl Wic8 1 9 .l:.xd8+ 'iixd8 20 �f3! ctJf5 21 Wixb7. Probably the only chance is to play 14 ...�f8 straight away, as Black will be forced to do so soon anyway. This way he might have the idea of ...l:i.ae8 in some situations. 1 5 �xe7+ ctJxe7 1 6 Wig4 promises White some initia tive. The Black rook is pretty ineffective on h8, but still there is no concrete refutation of Black's play. 1 5 Ji..xe7 tOxe7 1 S ii'e2 'WifdS 1 7 J:i.ad1 .l:l.d8 1 8 tOf4 'iWe5 1 9 J:td5 J:txd5 20 tOxd5 'itd7 21 tOxe7 1 -0 Besides being a piece down, Black's king is also in great trouble.

Game 78 Marinkovic-Yuneev

Leningrad 1989 1 e4 e5 2 tOe3 tOt6 3 93 d5 4 exd5 tOxd5 5 Ji..9 2 JteS S tOt3 tOeS 7 0-0 Ji..e5

This is an easy way for Black to equalise. I do not know why it is played so rarely. 8 'iWe2 Or 8 .l:.e 1 0-0 and now: a) White can win a pawn with 9 ctJa4?! �d6 1 0 c4 ctJdb4 1 1 c5 .i.e7 12 ctJxe5 ctJxe5 1 3 .l:.xe5 ctJd3 but it is certainly not worth it. b) 9 d3 ctJxc3 (9 ... f6!? with equality is also good) 10 bxc3 Wif6 and if anyone is better 1 50

here it must be Black. c) Interesting is 9 ctJxe5!? ctJxe5 10 .s.xe5 �xf2+ 1 1 'it>hl , when the idea of 1 2 d4 pre sents problems for the f2-bishop and might give White some chances for an advantage. 8 . . .0-0 9 d3 More ambitious is 9 ctJxe5!? ctJd4 1 0 'iVdl ctJb4 (10 ... l:i.e8 with compensation is also a viable option) and now: a) Not 1 1 ctJd3? ctJxd3 12 cxd3 'iid7, when Black has a perfect position. Galakhov Rakhimov, Tashkent 1 993. b) 1 1 .i.xb7 ctJbxc2 12 .l:.bl .i.h3 13 .i.e4 �xfl 14 'i¥xfl c6 15 ctJxc6 ctJxc6 16 .ixc6 l:!.c8 17 .ie4 ctJd4 with chances for both sides. c) 1 1 ctJe4 .i.d6 12 c3 ctJdc2 1 3 ctJxd6 'ii'xd6 14 d4 ctJxal 1 5 cxb4 and Black is forced into 1 5 ... �xa2 16 'i¥a4 �d5 (Black's position is fragile after 16 ... �e6?! 17 �xb7) 1 7 'iix al �xg2 1 8 'it>xg2 'iixd4 1 9 �a5, when Black has good counterplay with a rook and pawn against the uncoordinated two minor pieces. The position is probably about equal. 9 . . .tS 1 0 a3 JtbS?! Alternatively: a) 1O ... ctJd4?! 1 1 ctJxd4 �xd4 12 ctJb5! and White has ideas like 12 ... �b6 1 3 c4 ctJe7 14 i.xb7 �b8 15 .i.e4. Though Black has com pensation, it is not completely clear whether it's enough for a pawn. b) Much safer is 10 ... 'i¥d7! 1 1 ctJe4 �d4 1 2 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 3 'iVdl b6 and White might be happy with the two bishops, but more importantly the c1 -bishop cannot find a good square, and Black has a slight space advan tage. The chances are probably about even, but White should be careful. 1 1 tOa4! tOde7 1 2 b4 Ji..94 1 3 ii'e4 I t is not obvious that the queen is well placed here. More precise was 1 3 ctJxb6! axb6 14 .i.b2 ctJd4 1 5 i.xd4 exd4 16 'iWe4 i.xf3 17 .i.xf3 and White is better due to the superiority of his bishop to Black's knight. 1 3 . . .ii'e8?!

Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . d5

This seems somewhat artificial. More natural was 13 .. :iVd7 14 lLJxb6 axb6 and there are no apparent defects connected to the queen's position. 1 4 4Jxb6 axb6 1 5 j.b2 1 5 b5!?, keeping the pressure along the h l a 8 diagonal, was tempting. I t all depends on the line 1 5... iLxf3 1 6 iLxf3 lLJd4 1 7 iLg4 "iVd8 (after 1 7 ... f5 1 8 "iVxe5 z:td8 1 9 iLdl Black will regain the pawn, but once the bishop comes to b2 White will have a very strong pressure) 1 8 iLb2, when it seems that White will once again gain the advantage of bishop versus knight. 1 5 . . . �f5 1 6 'iWe2 lIe8?! Too passive; now White has time to gain perfect coordination. Black would be worse after 1 6...b5?! 1 7 d4! exd4 1 8 lLJxd4 lLJxd4 1 9 iLxd4 but stronger is 1 6. . ..ith3!, exchanging White's best piece. Even so, White is better if he reacts with 1 7 .itxh3 "iVxh3 1 8 b5 lLJa7 1 9 d4 �g4 2 0 a4, avoiding an undesirable pawn structure on the queenside, as well as manag ing to put Black's centre under pressure. 1 7 Jafe1 4Jg6 1 8 'iVf1 !

A very cryptic move that appears very strong. White has the idea of h2-h4-h5 to crack open Black's kingside, as well as b4-b5 and d3-d4. Black, on the other hand, is com pletely without counterplay. 1 8 . . . �h8 1 9 h4 h6 Unpleasant, but what is Black to do? 20 b5 4Ja5 21 d4 exd4

2 1 ...iLg4 22 'it'd3! iLf5 23 'it'c3 e4 24 1LJd2 "iVd7 25 a4 gives White a strong position. All Black's minor pieces are misplaced. 22 4Jxd4 4Je5 22... 'it'd7 23 .l:i.adl �xel 24 �xel does not solve any of Black's problems. 23 j.c3 Stronger was 23 lLJxf5! �xf5 24 j,xe5 kIxe5 25 �xe5 'it'xe5 (25 ... fxe5 26 �e2 would leave Black with a bad structure and bad pieces) 26 �el 'it'c3 (26...�d6 27 �d3! 'iVxd3 28 cxd3 c6 29 a4 .l:i.d8 30 .l:i.e7 gives Black enormous problems in the endgame) 27 .l:i.e7 �xc2 (chess resembles war; what good will it do you if you have the largest army, but cannot bring your troops to the front? 27 .. :iVxa3 28 "iVe2! is also very danger ous for Black) 28 �e1 .l:i.f8 29 .l:i.d7 �c5 30 �b4!' This highlights Black's problems, e.g. 30... �c1+ 31 'It>h2 .l:i.g8 32 �d5 with a win ning attack, or 30 ...�xb4 31 axb4 lLJc4 32 .l:i.xc7 lLJd6 33 .:!.d7 lLJxb5 34 �xb7 and White has a winning endgame. 23 . . . j.g4?! Necessary was 23... �d7!? in order to gain counterplay against the b-pawn. After 24 f4 lLJec4 25 �d3 c5 (25 .. J:he1+ 26 I!.xel lLJxa3 27 .l:i.e7 looks uninviting) 26 bxc6 bxc6 27 'it'g6 .l::i.xe1+ 28 l:.xel iLe8 29 �d3 �a7! White stands much better, but Black has managed to keep his last line of defence and is still in the game. 24 f4 4Jec4 25 'iWd3 j.h5 Black is also in trouble after 25 ...'it'd7 26 'iVg6 lLJd6 27 iLfl ! (with the threat of �fl d3 as well as protecting the b-pawn). After 27...iLf5 28 lLJxf5 �xf5 29 �xf5 lLJxf5 30 �f2 the endgame is rough for Black. 26 j.d5 'i'h3 27 4Je6 l:tad8? It is a pity that Black lost his cool here we can never have enough fantastic combi nations. The best move was 27 ... c6! and now: a) It is worthwhile investigating the posi tion after 28 �xf6?!' This is an inaccurate move, but the positions are so interesting that it is difficult to call it a mistake! 28...gxf6 151


29 lbfS!! J:IxfS 30 J:Ie7 (this certainly looks like the end, but ... ) 30...i.. f7! (3(l...�xg3+?! 3 1 �xg3 J:IgS 32 i..xgS J:IxgS 3 3 lixg8+ �xgS 34 J:Ic7 cxb5 35 J:Iel and thanks to the bad position of Black's king, 'X'hite has good winning chances) 31 .txf7 (31 J:Ixf7 J::!.xf7 32 i..xf7 iVg4! and Black is a piece up) 31 ...ctJe3!! 32 �xe3 l:!.xf7! 33 l:!.xf7 J:IgS 34 �f2 �2+ 35 �f1 iVh 1+ 36 'it>f2 'i¥h2+ with a draw by repetition (36 .. :�xa I ?? would lose in an instant to 37 f5). b) 2S i..g2! iVg4 29 f5 with a clear advan tage. On 29 ...�g6 White has 30 lbxg7!, but also 30 J:Ie4! iVxf5 31 lbxg7! is a threat, so Black is out of good moves. 28 i..x aS! CLlxaS 29 CLlxd8 J:txd8 30 i..g2! l:!.xd3 31 i..xh3 .!if.xg3+ 32 �h2 J:tf3 33 l:!.e7 �f2+ 34 Wg3 �xc2 3S �f5 nc3+ 36 Wh2 CLlb3 37 l:!.d 1 1 -0

0-0 1 3 c3 .i.b6 1 4 'iVxd5 iVxd5 1 5 ctJf6+ gxf6 1 6 .1l.xd5 gives 'X'hite a superior endgame, Snyder-Shmeteff, correspondence 1 975) 1 1 .txf3 ctJxd4 1 2 .txb7 l:!.bS 1 3 .tg2 0-0 14 c3, when the two bishops and better pawn structure give 'X'hite a clear edge, Snyder Oppenrieder, correspondence 1 975. 9 . . . 0-0 10 d3 �e7 1 1 a3!

Game 79 Smyslov-Polugaevsky

Baku 1961 1 e4 eS 2 CLlc3 CLlf6 3 g3 dS 4 exd5 CLlxdS S i..g2 iLe6 6 CLlf3 CLlc6 7 0-0 �e7 8 .l:!.e1 �f6 The alternatives arc not so good: a) S ... 'iVd6?! 9 ctJe4 iY'd7 10 d4 exd4 1 1 lbxd4 lbxd4 1 2 �xd4 0-0 1 3 i..g5 f6 14 ctJc3! c6 15 i.. f4 with a clear white edge, Korolev-Sauermann, 1975. b) S ...ctJxc3 9 bxc3 .i.f6 (\X'hite won after 9 .. .f6? 1 0 d4 0-0 1 1 �e2 lid7 [1 1 ....td6 1 2 dxe5 fxe5 1 3 ctJg5 iVd7 14 lbxe6 iY'xe6 1 5 �5 with a clear advantage to 'X'hite - Smys lov] 1 2 dxe5 l:!.aeS 1 3 exf6 1l.xf6 1 4 1l.a3 i..xa2 1 5 iVf1 !, Gufcld-Garcia Martinez, Camaguey 1 974 - Black ",ill lose the ex change) 10 .i.a3! and Black will come under serious attack, Vorotnikov-Sher, USSR 1 976. c) S.. .f6 9 d4! ctJxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 'iVe2 transposes to note 'b'. 9 CLle4 Here 'X'hite should prefer 9 ctJxd5! .txd5 1 0 d4 .txf3 (10...e4 1 1 ctJd2 i..xd4 1 2 ctJxe4 1 52

Preparing an expansion on the queenside. 1 1 . . .CLlb6 If Black tries to prevent b2-b4 with 1 1 ...a5, 'X'hite continues with 1 2 lbed2!, redi recting the knight in order to attack the e pawn. 1 2....1l.f6 1 3 ctJc4 i..g4 1 4 h3 .txf3 1 5 'iVxf3 ctJd4 1 6 �dl and Black has serious problems. For example, 1 6... J:IeS 1 7 c3 lbc6 I S d4 lbde7 1 9 d5 b5 20 lbe3 ctJbS 21 �e2 and 'X'hite is close to being strategically win ning. 1 2 b4 iLg4 1 3 c3 a6 1 4 h3 i..h S 1 S CLlcS 'X'hite has a clear advantage. Polugaevsky was a great fighter and a great defensive player. But Smyslov was a great natural player with a strong sense of positional play. Some times it is like this: you can fight all you like, but if the position is bad, the result will be bad. 1 S . . . �b8 1 6 �b2 iLd6 1 7 'tIib3 CLld7 1 8 d4 l:te8 1 9 l:te3! Preparing the doubling of the rooks on the e-ftle and thereby forcing Black to make uncomfortable exchanges. 1 9 . . . exd4 20 cxd4 �xe3 2 1 �xe3 as

Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 .

.

.

d5

Also possible was 21 ...liJxcS 22 dxcS �f8 23 g4 i.g6 24 liJeS liJxeS 2S �xeS f6 26 i.g3 with the idea of �f4, when White has a clear edge - Smyslov.

correct, because it happens to be my own idea! I played it in few games, but when I faced 8 d4! my love for ...liJde7 perished. 8 d4! was brought to my attention by the

22 b5 0,e7 23 l:!.e1 0,d5 24 'ilfb3 0,5f6

strong Polish 1M (now Gl\1) Pawel Blehm.

24... liJxcS?! loses by force: 2S dxcS .i.xcs 26 MeS i.xf3 27 .i.xf3 c6 28 �xdS cxdS 29 MxdS �c8 (or29 ...�b6 30 .t!.fS! Mf8 31 'iHc3 and White wins a piece) 30 .i.xg7! and White will have a winning endgame.

After his game against GM Marcin Kaminski, (which saw 8 d3 not 8 d4) this move has become quite popular. The last rime I tried 6 ...liJde7 (in 20(0), my teenage opponent,

25 0,d3 0,b6 26 0,fe5 a4

Polish master Grzegorz Gajewski, played 8 d4! as well. Oh what a misery creative life is!

Black's position is beyond redemption, for example: 26 ....i.xeS 27 dxeS a4 28 'iWc3 liJfdS 29 'ii'd4 with complete domination, or 26 ...liJfd7 27 liJf4 a4 28 'iVc2 with a very promising position.

7 0-0 g6 8 d4!

27 iVc2 .ig6 28 0,xg6 hxg6 29 0,c5! Highlighting the problem of the light squares.

29 . . .0,bd5 30 iVxa4 b6 31 0,d3 .if8 32 0,e5 �d6 33 0,c6 :re8 34 l:!.e5 0,e7 35 �c4 0,f5 36 l:!.xe8 0,xe8 37 0,e5 'ilfe7 38 0,xf7! iVe 1 + 39 .if1 0,xg3 40 0,e5+ �h7 41 fxg3 �xg3+ 42 �h 1 1 -0 r------__,.

Game 80 Shariyazdanov-Blauert

Calcutta 2002 1 e4 e5 2 0,f3 0,f6 3 0,c3 0,c6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 0,xd5 6 .ig2 0,de7?! It is hard for me to accept that the idea of ...liJde7 followed by ...g7-g6 and ....i.g7 is not

Or: a) 8 d3 .i.g7 9 �e3 0-0 10 'iHd2 liJfS 1 1 i.cs Me8 1 2 h4 �h6 1 3 'iHdl b6 1 4 �a3 i.b7 IS liJh2 and the players agreed a draw in this rather level position, Kaminski-Blehm, Koszalin 1 998. b) My fIrst impression of 8 b4 was that White could establish a strong initiative. As time showed, however, not all impressions can be translated into facts: 8 ... a6 9 a4 �g7 1 0 i.a3 0-0 1 1 bS (1 1 Mel i.g4 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 .i.xf3 lib8! with the idea of .. . fS gives Black good chances) 1 1 ...liJd4 12 Mel liJxf}t (this seems slightly unnatural; probably better was 1 2 ... i.g4!? 13 h3 .i.xf3 14 .i.xf3 axbS I S axbS c6 1 6 bxc6 bxc6 1 7 �g2 fS, when Black retains the strong knight on d4 and the chances are level) 13 'iWxf3 and White has an 1111t1at1ve, Pinski-M.Grabarczyk, Warsaw 1 998. This game shows the effects of practi cal chess psychology. To me it was very diffI1 53


cult to play against one of my own pet ideas I lost the game. 8 . . . exd4 9 tLlb5 ..tg7 ! Less good is 9 ... a6?! 10 liJbxd4 liJxd4 1 1 'iVxd4! 'iVxd4 1 2 liJxd4 il.g7 1 3 liJb3 0-0 1 4 c3 and White has a clear advantage. At fIrst it might not look like much, but his pieces are slightly better placed and Black has problems developing the queenside. Believe me, this position is rather uncomfortable. One possi ble line is 14 ... a5 1 5 liJc5 l:ta7 16 il.g5 f6 1 7 l:tfel �f7 1 8 il.e3 b 6 19 il.f1 ! gS 20 il.c4+ �g6 21 liJe6 il.xe6 22 il.xe6 and White kept a distinct advantage, G.Gajewski-Pinski, Po lanica Zdroj 2000. Thanks to the help of my opponent I managed to draw, but this posi tion has no value for Black. 1 0 ..tf4 0-0 1 1 tLlxc7 .::tb8 1 2 tLlb5 .::ta 8 -

1 8 J:!.e 1 h6 1 9 tLlge4 After 19 liJf3 liJxf3+ 20 il.xf3 liJc6 21 il.xc6 bxc6 22 l:txc6 the position is level. 1 9 . . . tLlec6 Better than 19 ...liJef5 20 liJxf5 liJxf5 (20 ... ..txfS 21 liJd6) 21 liJd6 liJxd6 22 il.xd6 l:te8 23 l:txe8+ �xe8 24 J::tc7, which gives White a strong initiative for the pawn. Black should probably return the pawn, and maybe give up another one, in order to get his pieces out of the corner.

20 tLlc5 tLle6 20 ... .l:!.a7! was more ambitious. 21 tLlxe6 ..txe6 22 tLlxb7 'i!Vxd 1 23 J:!.cxd1 tLld4 24 ..te5?! 24 il.xh6! il.xh6 25 J:'i.xd4 iLxa2 26 l:ta4 is slightly better for White. 24 . . . tLlc2 25 ..txg7 Wxg7 26 l:te2 % - % 1 3 c3?! This is the start of a bad plan. White had two preferable alternatives: 13 liJc7 with a draw, as in the game he is soon worse, but best is 1 3 lIe I ! a6 1 4 liJd6 liJf5 1 5 liJxc8 l:txc8 1 6 llVd2 �6 1 7 a3 and White has a slight plus because of the two bishops. 1 3 . . . dxc3 1 4 bxc3?! The normal 14 liJxc3 was clearly more sound. 1 4 . . . a6 1 5 tLld6 ..txc3 1 6 l::tc 1 ..tg7 1 7 tLlg5 tLld4?! Better was 17 ... h6 18 liJge4 �a5 and �'hite does not have full compensation for the pawn. 1 54

Game 81 Glek -Marcelin

Germatry 200 1 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 ..tg2 tLlxc3 This is the most popular move. 7 bxc3 ..tc5 7 ... ..td6 is considered in Games 84-86, while 7 ...il.e7 is considered in Games 87-88. 8 0-0 0-0 9 J:!.e1 Also possible is 9 d3 f6 (9...iLg4!?) 10 ..te3 il.b6 (10...il.xe3 1 1 fxe3 e4 12 liJd4 seems pleasant for White) 1 1 liJd2 'iVe7 12 liJb3

Th e Glek S y s te m with 4 .

iLe6 13 c4 as! (this is a pawn sacrifice in the long run because of the threats down the b flie, but this is better than giving up the dark squares) 14 iLxb6 cxb6 15 CLld2 l:!.fdS 16 l:!.bl "VJIic7. Here White should have played 17 f4! with to play on two flanks. Instead the game Reefschlager-Mainka, Germany 1994 continued 17 l:!.el iLf7 I S l:!.b2 f5 19 �1 e4 20 l:!.xb6 l:!.ab8, when Black had good coun terplay for the pawn deficit. 9 . :�f6!? The main idea of 7...iLc5 i s t o take control of the d4-square. 9...f610 d3 iLg4 11 h3 iLh5 12 g4 iLf7 13 CLld2 iLb6 14 a4 iLd5 15 CLle4 f5 16 gxf5 ':xf5 17 iLe3 was slightly better for White in Glek-Fox, Martigny Open 1995, while 9....:e8 is investigated in the next game. 1 0 d3 h6?! This is not necessary. White cannot use the g5-square for very much. Black should be equal after 10 ...iLb6. Now play could con tinue 11 iLe3 iLg4 12 h3 iLh5 13 l:tb1 e4!? 14 dxe4 "VJIixc3 15 'iVd3 "VJIif6! and White should be careful due to his weakened pawn structure. If he starts to play too casually, he might quickly end up in trouble. 1 1 j"e3 j"b6 1 2 4Jd2 .

I believe that White is slightly better here. 1 2 . . .J:!.e8 After 12.. :iVg6 13 CLlc4 f6 14 a4 CLla5?! (14...iLe6 15 as iLxe3 16 CLlxe3 a6 gives White some pressure against b7, but as is

.

.

d5

also a little loose, so White is not more than an inch better) 15 CLld2! (this highlights the awkward position of the knight on as) 15...iLg4 16 'iVb1 :i.aeS 17 CLlfl f5 IS iLxb6 axb6 19 CLle3 iLh5 20 CLld5 "VJIid6 21 �4 "VJIidS 22 '¥i'h4! White has an overwhelming advantage, Glek-Karpatchev, Bad Zwesten 2002. 1 3 4Jb3 j"e6 14 c4! This is the most aggressive move, forcing Black to make concessions. Also possible was 14 CLlc5 iLxc5 15 i.xc5 i.d7 16 "VJIih5 and thanks to the two bishops White has a small edge. 1 4 . . . .txe3 1 5 J:.xe3 Again the most natural move. After 15 fxe3 l:!.abS! 16 CLlc5 "VJIig6 17 CLlxe6 (wrong would be 17 CLlxb7?? iLg4! 18 "VJIib1 e4 19 'Yib5 iLc8 20 iLxe4 l:he4 21 dxe4 iLxb7 and Black is close to winning) 17...l:txe6 18 l:tfl though White has some advantage, Black can fight on. 1 5 . . . l:.ad8

1 6 �c1 ? White here misses the chance to ruin Black's pawn structure. Perhaps he mis judged the compensation Black might get on the light squares. 16iLxc6! bxc617 "VJIie2! (17 'iVel !? iLh3 18 'iVa5 also looks better for White, but the queen should not go astray like this and give Black hope of counterplay on the kingside) 17...iLd7 18 l::te l and White wins a pawn. He is clearly better after 18...e4 1 55


1 9 Mxe4 Mxe4 20 dxe4. 1 6 . . . �e8 1 7 �b2 l:!e7 1 8 l:!.ae1 &de8 1 9 tUe5 White would have had better chances to get an advantage with 1 9 f4!? exf4 20 'iWxf6 gxf6 21 Mxe7 Mxe7 22 Mxe7 0,xe7 23 gxf4 0,g6 24 0,as c6 25 fs 0,e7 26 'it'f2 - Glek. His main idea is 26 ... 0,xfs 27 .i.h3!. Going back a bit, 1 9 ... b6!? might be better: 20 J::!. f1 (20 ..Ill..xc6? 1Wxc6 21 J::!.xes .i.b7 and Black has a strong attack) 20 ...ifg6 21 .i.e4 "i'd6 with unclear play. 1 9 . . :i!Vd6 Black could equalise with 1 9 ... 0,d4! 20 c3 0,fs 21 M3e2 0,d6. 20 tUe4 "i!Vb4 21 �a1 21 'iWxb4?! ctJxb4 22 J::!.3e2 i.g4 23 l:!.d2 fs would allow Black to take over the initiative. 21 . . . �a5 21 ...'iWa4?! 22 0,c3! "iVa3 23 ctJds .l:!.d7 24 f4 "iVcs 25 Wh1 would play into White's hands. 22 i¥e3 Glek thinks White is preferable here. Per haps he is right. 22 . . . �f8?! After this Black has an unpleasant end game. Better was 22 .. :�tb6!? 23 a3! with only a slight white edge. Note that 23 0,d2 �4 24 0,e4 �6 would not achieve anything for \'V1llte. 23 i¥xa5 tUxa5 24 tUe3 Black has problems with his knight on as. I t does not really do anything out there, and it has no easy way to become useful. 24 . . . e6? This does little to solve the problem of the knight on as. Instead of improving his worst piece, as many theoreticians recommend, Black is actually making the situation for the knight even worse. It was better to play 24 .. .f6 25 h4 b6!, with the idea of ...ctJb7-cs. After 26 ctJds J::!. f7 27 f4 c6 28 0,c3 Mfe7 29 fxes l:txes 30 .l:ixes .l:ixeS 31 .l:ixes fxes 32 Wf2 White has better chances in the endgame. 156

25 tUe4 White immediately spots the weakness of d6. 25 . . . J:!.d8 26 e5! b6 27 tUd6 bxe5 28 tUxe8 �xe8 29 f4? Simple and best was 29 .l:ixes .l:Ixes (29 ... Mce8 30 Mxe7 l:txe7 31 .l:ib1 is very uncomfortable for Black) 30 .l:ixes ctJb7 3 1 f4 with a clear advantage. 29 . . . l::tee8 30 fxe5 J:!.b8 31 J:!:.e4?! This does not prevent Black's counterplay. Better was 31 c3 .l:ib6 32 Wf2 0,b7 and even though Black has improved his position, problems still remain. 3 1 . . . e4 32 d4? White is drifting. After 32 l:!.d4! J::!.b2 33 J::!.d8+ .l:ie8 34 .l:id7 J::!. e7 Black has no more than a repetition. Now Black takes over. 32 . . .l:!.b2! 33 J:!. 1 e2 J:!.xa2 34 J:!.f2 J:!:.b2 34....l:ib7! 35 e6 f6 with very promising prospects was better. 35 �f1 J:lb5 More precise was 3s ... c3! 36 .l:ie3 l:!.b4 37 .l:id3 'it'e8 and Black keeps his extra pawn with very few problems. 36 lilf3 e5? First White's play fell apart, now Black's game disintegrates as well. After 36 ... We8 Black is still better. Now White has the pos sibility of 37 ds! with an initiative.

37 J:ta3? tUb7?? Very bad. 37 ... cxd4 38 .l:ixd4 .l:iexes and Black is close to winning.

Th e Glek S y s te m with 4 . . . d5

38 J:d:.xa7 tLld6?? It does not improve. After 38... cxd4 39 .i.xc4 l!a5 40 lixa5 ttJxa5 41 .i.d5 lId7! 42 lIxd4 ttJc6 43 l!dl (43 e6 l!d6! achieves lit tle) 43... ttJxe5 the endgame is a draw. 39 J:.a8+ 1 -0 A real comedy of errors.

Game 82

Almasi, Biel 1 996) 15 ttJe4 ttJe7 1 6 c4 c6 17 .i.a3 .i.xe4 18 ':xe4 lIb8 1 9 lIxe5 .i.xf2+ 20 �hl and White is better due to the two bishops, Glek-Almasi, Germany 1 996. 14 . . .tLle7 1 5 a4 White needs to try something to disturb the Black set-up. 1 5 lif3 'i¥d7 1 6 lIbl lIad8 leads to an unclear position. 1 5 . . . c6 1 6 �g5 f6 1 7 �d2 tLld5

Harikrishna-Cvek

Pardubice 2002 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 �g2 tLlxc3 7 bxc3 �c5 8 0-0 0-0 9 J:te 1 .i:l:e8 1 0 d3! �g4 1 1 h3 �h5 1 2 g4 �g6 1 3 tLlg5

This position has been played a number of times. The conclusion seems to be that White has the better chances. 1 3 . . . �b6 Black has also tried: a) 1 3 ...h6 14 ttJe4 .i.b6 1 5 iVf3 �a5 1 6 lIb 1 �xe4 1 7 lIxe4 .i.xc3 1 8 :i!.c4 ttJd4 1 9 �xb7 with a slight plus for �'hite, Glek Lane, Belgium 1 996. b) 1 3. . .f6 14 ttJe4 .i.b6 1 5 h4 .i.t7 16 h5 h6 17 ttJg3 l!b8 1 8 �e4 ttJe7 19 �f3 with a small edge for White, Rusanov-Smikovski, Russia 2000. 1 4 tLle4 The best move is 1 4 lIb1 ! h6 (14...lif6 1 5 lif3 �xf3 1 6 .i.xf3 lIad8 1 7 �g2 f6 1 8 .i.xc6 gave White a small plus in Glek-

Black has equalised. 1 8 c4?! After this White has some weaknesses. 1 8 "iVf3 was more natural. 1 8 . . . tLlf4 1 9 i.xf4 exf4 20 "tIid2 After 20 c3 f5! 21 gxf5 .i.xf5 22 d4 .i.a5 we see how well the two bishops work to gether in an open position. 20 . . . i.xe4? ! This is rather safe. Black should play for an edge with 20 ... f5! 21 gxf5 .i.xf5 22 "iVxf4 �xe4 23 J::txe4 .l:.f8 24 iVg4 �xf2+ and �'hite's king \vill always be a little uncom fortable, even though draw is the most likely result. 21 �xe4 ll:.xe4 22 �xe4 �d6 23 .tf3 :te8 24 �g2 "tIie5 Black is continuing with inaccurate moves. After 24 ... .i.c7 25 d4 b6 26 lIe1 lIe6 the position is completely equal. 25 c3 "t1ig5 25 ...�c5! 26 lIe1 �xe 1 27 lixe1 �t7 with a likely draw. 26 J:l:.e 1 ':'xe1 27 "tIixe1 157


Game 83 Solovjov-Gavritenkov

Tufa 1999 1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 tDc3 tDf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 tDxd5 6 i.g2 tDxc3 7 bxc3 i.c5 8 0-0 0-0 9 �e1 .l:.e8 1 0 d4

27 .. .'t;f7? Black has completely lost his sense of danger. This move looks innocent, but it is in fact a terrible mistake. 27...�e5 28 'Ylid2 'i'c5 would sril1 keep the balance. Here we see the importance of playing at full concentration even in dull positions, as it is never easy to foresee when a slight inaccu racy will change the evaluation. 28 d4! h5 This does little good, but there is no de fence against c4-c5 and �b 1 with threats against h7 and b7. 29 c5 i.c7 30 �b1 ! hxg4 31 hxg4 b6 32 'ife4? ! More precise is 32 as! b5 (32... bxc5 33 'Ylib7 and \Xlhite wins) 33 'i'a2+ �f8 (33...�e7 34 "i¥e2+l �d7 35 �xc6-H �xc6 36 'iHe6+ �b7 37 a6+ and White wins) 34 'i'e6 f5 35 �f1 ! fxg4 36 �xc6 'iHd8 37 'iHxg4 �xa5 38 'iYxf4+ 'iYf6 39 "itb8+ �d8 40 'iYxb5 and White should win. 32 . . . bxc5? Bad defence. White would still have a promising position after 32 ... �d5! 33 'iHh7 (33 'i'xd5+ cxd5 34 �xd5+ �e7 35 c6 and Black has good drawing chances) 33 .. :ii'e6 34 'iHh5+ �e7 35 d5 cxd5 36 j.xd5, but this is still much better than the text. Now it is all over. 33 �xc6 i.b6 34 �d7+ \t>g8 35 i.d5+ \t>h7 36 i.e4+ \t>h6 37 'ifc8 i.d8 38 i.f5 f3+ 39 \t>xf3 1 -0

1 58

This move should give Black easy play. The problem is that White is not ready to support a big centre with his pieces, and Black quickly develops well to attack it. 1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 J:Ixe8+ "iVxe8 1 2 cxd4 i.b6 1 3 c4 Or 1 3 'i'd3 �g4! 14 liJg5?! (14 c3 with equality is better) 1 4...'i'e1+ 1 5 .i.f1 g6 1 6 c3 (even worse was 1 6 .i.b2? "ike7 1 7 h4 h6 1 8 liJe4 liJb4 1 9 .i.a3 j.f5! with a clear advan tage for Black, Delchev-Almasi, Odorheiu 1 995) 1 6 ...l::te 8 and Black is better. 1 3 . . . i.g4 1 4 c5 .l:.d8? This sacrifice is very ambitious, but unfor tunately flawed. Much better is 1 4. �a5 and a) 1 5 .i.d2 l::td8 1 6 d5 liJe5 (1 6 ... 'i'd7! 1 7 "ikc1 �xd5 1 8 liJe5 ii'd1+ 1 9 ii'xdl J:hd1+ 20 l:lxdl �xdl 21 j.xc6 bxc6 22 liJxc6 .i.d2 23 liJxa7 �a4! would give an endgame where Black has enough compensation to draw) 1 7 �xe5 .i.xf3 1 8 .i.xf3 �xe5 1 9 l::tb 1 b 6 20 c6 and White is a little better according to Glek, although I'm not so sure. b) 1 5 .i.e3 l::td8 1 6 'iYa4! .i.c3 1 7 l::tc 1 i.xf3 18 .i.xf3 liJxd4? (a grave tactical error;

Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 .

after 1 8.....ixd4 1 9 .i.xc6 'i'xc6 20 'i\i'xc6 bxc6 21 l::td l .i.f6 22 l::tb l �f8 23 l::tb7 i.d4 24 i.xd4 l::txd4 25 l::txa7 l::tc4 the rook end ing is completely drawn) 1 9 "iVxe8+ l::txe8 20 .tdl l::txe3 21 fxe3 .td2 22 l::tc4 .txe3+ 23 �g2 lLJe6 24 c6 with good winning chances for White, Belikov-V.Ivanov, Moscow 1 996. 1 5 cxb6! The proof of the pudding is in the eating. After 1 5 .i.g5?! l::txd4 1 6 �c1 .i.xf3 1 7 .txf3 .ta5 1 8 ..ie3 l::td8 1 9 �g2 �e6 Black was just a pawn up in Glek-Van cler Sterren, Ger many 1 995. 1 5 . . . ttJxd4

1 6 �xd4!! A fantastic concept. 1 6 . . . .t!.xd4 1 6 ... .txf3 1 7 'Yi'xd8 "iVxd8 1 8 .txf3 gives White a winning endgame. 1 7 ttJxd4 'iHe 1 + 1 8 �f1 axb6 1 9 ttJb3 \,(lhite's position is a technical win, but still it needs to be played with care and attention; Hector lost this position in a game in 1997. 1 9 . . . c6 20 �e3 'iHb4 21 h3 �f3? 21.. . .i.e6 is more resilient. 22 ttJd2! �d5 23 l:.b1 'iHe7 24 a4 f5 25 l:!.xb6 g5 26 a5 f4 27 gxf4 gxf4 28 �xf4 'iHg7+ 29 �g3 'iHc3 30 nxb7! �xd2 31 a6 'iHa2 32 a7 c5 33 1:td7 'iHa4 34 1:txd5 'iHxa7 35 i.d6 'iHg7+ 36 i.g2 'iHa1 + 37 �h2 'iHc1 38 J:i.xc5 'iHd2 39 i.g3 �g7 40 J:!.c7+ �h6 41 i.e4 �g5 42 nf7 h5 43 1:.f5+ 1 -0

.

.

d5

Game 84 Hector-Timoshenko

Bled OlYmpiad 2002 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 ttJxd5 6 �g2 ttJxc3 7 bxc3 i.d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 nb 1 !

Generally White should include this move in his arsenal in the 6 ... lLJxc3 line, as Black will have to make less convenient moves to finish his development. 9 . . . J:.b8 Black has also tried to do without this move: 9 ...l::te 8 10 d4 h6 1 1 l::te l (more passive is 1 1 .te3 l::tb8 12 lLJd2 lLJa5 1 3 'Yi'h5 b6 1 4 l::tfel .i.b7 with equality, Glek-Hector, Co penhagen 1 995) 1 1 ...exd4 12 ':xe8+ 'Yi'xe8 1 3 cxd4 b6?! (13.. ..l;tb8!? should be played)

14 l::tb 3! .i.b7 1 5 l::te3 (this wonderful rook 1 59


swing is something that should be remembered) 1 S ...'i¥f8 (Glek-Hort, Germany 1 994). Now White should play ctJh4 \vith some initiative according to Glek. 1 0 d4 .i.f5 1O ... h6 is considered in Game 85, while 1 0....ig4 is the subject of Game 86. Black has also tried: a) 10 ... Me8 1 1 Me 1 (1 1 ctJd2!? .if5 12 ctJc4 'i¥d7 is complex) l 1 ...exd4 1 2 ctJxd4 (12 Mxe8+ 'i¥xe8 1 3 cxd4 was maybe more natu ral) 1 2 ...ctJxd4 1 3 cxd4 b6 1 4 .ie3 .if5 and Black has equalised completely, Nasybullin Nikolic, Yerevan 1 996. Note that Black's main strategy has been to remove all objects of attack for the strongest piece in White's camp: the g2-bishop. b) 1 0 ...exd4 1 1 cxd4 .ig4 12 h3 i.hS 1 3 MbS! i.g6 1 4 ctJh4 .ixc2?! (better is 1 4...a6 1 5 Mb 1 'i¥f6 1 6 ctJxg6 with a slight plus for White, but nothing more) 1 5 "ilYxc2 ctJxd4 1 6 'i¥c4 ctJxbS 1 7 "ilYxb5 c 6 1 8 "ilYa4 "iVb6 1 9 ctJf5 'i¥b4 20 'i¥c2 and White has good attacking chances, Glek-Mainka, Germany 1 994. 1 1 'Llh4 .i.d7 1 2 f4!? I believe White could play more strongly here with 1 2 Mel ! l:i.e8 1 3 i.e4! "ilYf6 1 4 ctJf3 i.g4 I S i.gS 'i¥xgS (IS ....ixf3 1 6 'i¥d2 'i¥e6 1 7 .ixf3 looks good for White) 1 6 ctJxgS .ixdl 1 7 Mbxdl h6 1 8 ctJf3 and Black has problems holding his centre. 1 2 . . . exf4 1 3 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 1 4 �xf4 'Lle7 Black should avoid 1 4 ... gS? 1 5 ctJf5! "ilYf6 1 6 Mf2 i.xfS 1 7 .ie4 ctJe 7 1 8 .ixf5 ctJxfS 1 9 MbS!, when White will have a very strong attack against the now weakened black king. 1 5 �f2 b5?! Though structurally justified, this is simply too slow. It was better to neutralise White's 'canon' with 1 S ... .ic6!? 1 6 .ixc6 (1 6 "ilVhS?! i.xg2 17 ctJxg2 'i¥dS would even give Black the advantage, as all the weaknesses in 'X'hite's camp will count in the endgame) 1 6 ...bxc6! 1 7 Mxb8 "ilYxb8 1 8 "ilYe2 .l:i.e8 and Black has found active counterplay and equality. 1 60

1 6 �h5 .l:!.b6 1 7 J:Lbf1

Suddenly all of White's pieces are ready to attack Black's king. 1 7 . . . g6 Black could also have tried 17 ....ie6! 1 8 ctJf3 (1 8 i.e4!?) 1 8 ...i.c4 1 9 Mel ctJdS 20 ctJe5, when 'X'hite has some offensive possi bilities, but Black can defend with 20 ...ctJf6 followed by ....idS. 1 8 �c5 .i.c6 1 9 J::te 1 .i.xg2 20 'Llxg2! 'Lld5 21 .l::!.e 5?! This is not the right way to organise the rooks. White would have been better after 21 Mfe2 'i¥d6 22 Me5 ctJf6 23 ctJf4. 21 . . . 'Llf6 22 .!:te1 'Lld5? Better was 22.. :iVd6! with equality. 23 .l:!.fe2! .l::!.d 6 24 'Lle3 a6 Or 24...ctJxe3?! 2S .l:!.xe3 a6 26 Me7 .l:i.d7 27 M7eS with a very promising position for White. 25 'Llg4?! Inviting Black to take over the initiative. 2S ctJxdS MxdS 26 �c6 Md6 27 "ilYf3 would have secured White a small advantage. 25 . . . h5! 26 'Llf2 h4 It is archetypal for Black to further weaken White's kingside in this manner. It takes a tempo but the weakness is permanent. 27 �e5 hxg3 28 hxg3 'Llf6 Now Black is better due to a safer king. 29 �a3 rJ;;g 7 30 �c 1 ! .l:!.h8 31 �f4 J:!.h5 32 I:lf1 ?!

Th e Glek S ys t e m with 4 . . d5 .

White is drifting. It was necessary to ex change the knights with 32 lLJe4! lLJxe4 (32 ...lLJd5 33 �d2 l:i.c6 34 lLJc5 Mxe5 35 Mxe5 would give White counterplay, after which the game is far from clear) 33 l!xh5 gxh5 34 Mxe4 'iif6 and though Black is bet ter here, a draw is still a very likely outcome. 32 . . . CtJd5

33 �d2? Abandoning the king - not a good idea. Better was 33 'iVf3 .l:i.f6 (33 ...�h8?? 34 lLJe4 would be funny, but only for White) 34 'iVd3 Mxe5 35 dxe5 .l:i.f5, when Black is better, but that is alL 33 . . . �h8 34 �e2 l:tf6 35 ':'xh5? After this there is no way back. 35 . . :�xh5 36 �xh5 gxh5 37 l:te 1 CtJxc3 38 .!:!.e5 CtJxa2 39 l:tc5 J:!f3 40 CtJd3 l:txg3+ 41 'it>f2 J:!g4 42 'it>e3 h4 43 J:!xc7 h3 44 '!:!'xf7+ 'it>xf7 45 CtJe5+ 'it>e6 46 CtJxg4 'it>d5 47 'it>d3 CtJb4+ 48 'it>c3 a5 49 CtJf6+ 'it>e6 50 CtJg4 'it>f5 51 CtJh2 'it>f4 52 'it>b3 CtJd5 53 c4 a4+ 54 'it>a3 bxc4 55 'it>xa4 c3 56 'it>b3 'it>g3 0-1

Game 85 Hector-Johannessen

Maimii 2002 1 e4 e5 2 CtJc3 CtJf6 3 CtJf3 CtJc6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 CtJxd5 6 �g2 CtJxc3 7 bxc3 �d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 .!:!.b 1 ! J;!,b8 1 0 d4 h6 I don't really like this move. It weakens

the kingside and takes time, all for the right to play ...'iVf6. The costs are too heavy.

1 1 l:te1 White has also had success with 1 1 lLJd2!? .tf5 (1 1 ...lLJa5? to prevent lLJc4 would not work due to 12 dxe5 .txe5 1 3 Mb5 .txc3 1 4 1:i.d5 'iVe7 1 5 lLJe4 c 6 1 6 1:i.h5! and White will start a strong attack; Black has more prob lems than I can care to mention) 1 2 lLJc4 �f6 1 3 lLJe3!. Obviously White does not want to exchange the strong knight for the bishop on d6. He would like to have the two bishops, but the battle will be on the light squares and therefore the knight is more useful on e3. 1 3 ... .th7 (1 3 ... exd4 1 4 lLJxf5! 'iVxf5 1 5 cxd4 gives White a standard edge) 1 4 .tb2 .:rfd8 1 5 d5 lLJa5 1 6 c4 b6 1 7 .l:i.e 1 .l:i.e8 1 8 .tc3 'iVd8 1 9 'iVd2 lLJb7 20 lbg4 with an attack, Glek-Zolnierowicz, Berlin 1 990. 1 1 . . .�f6 1 2 CtJd2 �f5 1 3 CtJe4 �g6 1 4 d5 CtJa5 1 5 h4? This is too optimistic and weakens the kingside. After the more relaxed 1 5 'iVe2 .l:i.fe8 1 6 .1i.f3 \Xfhite would be a little better. 1 5 . . . �xe4! This move probably came as a surprise to White. He might have reckoned on some thing like 1 5 ... lLJc4?! 1 6 h5! iYh7 17 'iVe2 b5 18 a4 a6 19 axb5 axb5 20 g4 .td7 21 g5 with good attacking chances. 1 6 ':'xe4 f5 1 7 h5 �f6 1 7 ... 'iVe8!? 1 8 1:i.e1 (1 8 .l:i.h4?! .te7!) 1 8 ... 'iia4! would also have given Black very 161


good chances. White is punished for his recklessness and can now only look at the ruins of his position. 1 8 J:!.a4 Trying to gain some time to organise de fence. Of course the rook is also somewhat strangely placed out here, but when you de fend, often you have to make this kind of compromise with your position. 1 8 . . . b6 1 9 'iWe2 l:!.be8 20 i.d2 e4 20 .. .f4!? 21 gxf4 exf4 22 �f3 'iVf5 would also be better for Black, but the text move, blocking out the g2-bishop, is more princi pled. 21 i.e3 After 21 c4 e3! 22 fxe3 (22 .ixe3 f4 23 gxf4 .ixf4 is very uncomfortable) 22 ... �g5 Black has a very promising attack. 21 .. .'Jj.e7? This is a little slow. Black should have continued to put immediate pressure on �'hite's centre with 21 . :iif7! 22 c4 (22 .1:.d4 .ie5 23 .1:.ddl .ixc3 is a pawn) 22 ... �d7! (the awkwardness of the rook becomes transpar ent) 23 .1:.b5 a6 24 ;gbxa5 bxa5 25 ;gxa5 f4 and Black should win. .

22 c4 c5 23 dxc6 tLlxc6 24 c5! White has suddenly decided to fight back! 24 . . . bxc5 25 ga6? 25 �c4+ �h8 26 .ixc5 .ixc5 27 �xc5 was maybe better for Black, but still the lesser evil. 25 . . . tLlb4?? 1 62

Black does not have a good feeling for the fragility of his dark squares. After 25 ...;gb8! 26 ;gb3! White is worse, but can still bite. After 26 ;gxb&t? ttJxb8 27 .1:.a3 'iVe6 and 26 l:tdl J:i.b6 Black has good winning chances. 26 �c4+ J:tff7? 26 ... .1:.ef7 27 %hd6 'iVxd6 28 .ixc5 'iVd5 29 �xb4 gives White a clear edge, but now he wins. 27 l::tx d6! �xd6 28 i.xc5 �c6 29 litxb4 l:!.c7 30 l:!.b8+ Wh 7 31 'iWb5 g6 32 i.d4 gxh5 33 �h8+ �g6 34 :g8+ �h7 35 'iiVe 5! 1 -0

Game 86 Glek-Kroeze

The Netherlands 1996 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 i.g2 tLlxc3 7 bxc3 i.d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 J:!.b1 ! nb8 1 0 d4 i.g4 This move does not promise equality. As Black does not want to give up the bishop it is actually a little silly. The idea is of course to provoke White into weakening his kingside with h2-h3, but this is not such a big weak ness, and the bishop is not well placed on d7. 1 1 h3! Better than 11 'ifd3 �d7 1 2 .ie3 exd4 13 cxd4 ttJb4 1 4 'iVd2 ttJd5 1 5 l::t fel ttJxe3 1 6 l::txe3, when Black i s fine, Popovic-Pytel, Trstenik 1 979. 1 1 . . .i.d7 The alternatives are worse: a) 1 1 ...�xf3 12 .ixf3 �f6 1 3 .ie3 ttJa5 1 4 SLg2 b 6 1 5 h 4 was better for White in W.Watson-Z.Polgar, Brussels 1 988. b) 1 1 ....ih5? 12 g4! .ig6 13 dxe5 ttJxe5 1 4 ttJxeS .ixe5 1 5 'iVxd8 l:i.fxd8 1 6 f4! .ixc2 1 7 l::tb2 .id3 1 8 fxeS .ixfl 1 9 .ixfl gives White a technically winning position - Glek. 1 2 �d3 Or 1 2 .1:.el ;ge8 13 .ig5! �c8 1 4 dxe5 .ixe5 1 5 ttJxe5 ttJxe5 16 .if4 ttJg6 1 7 ;gxe8+ .ixe8 1 8 .ie3 b6 19 h4 h6 20 c4 with advan tage for White, Drazic-Godena, Bratto 1 999.

Th e Glek S ys t e m with 4 . . . d5

1 2 . . . exd4 12 ...h6 1 3 .l:!.el �eS 14 dS CiJe7? (14...CiJaS is stronger) I S CiJxeS CiJg6 1 6 CiJf3 gave Black no real compensation for the pawn, Forster Unzicker, Zurich 1 995. 1 3 lt:lg5! g6 14 cxd4 lt:lb4 1 5 iVd2!? This i s played with a combinational idea, which should only earn a draw. Objectively stronger was I S 'i¥b3 .1i.fS 1 6 CiJe4 with a slight edge. 1 5 . . . lt:lxa2

White is not afraid of taking risks - a draw is obviously not an option in his mind. Now Black shows that his opponent's insistence on continuing to fight was a wise decision. 21 . . . bS? An odd mistake because Black was forced to assist his king. After 21...'iVf6! 22 .1i.d3 .l:!.feS (Black needs breathing space; 22...'iVg7? 23 .1i.h6 �f6 24 ..th7+l and 22 ...'iVhS 23 ..th6 iLe7 24 .l:!.be1 iLf6 2S .l:!.eS!! are both winning for White) 23 'iih7+ 'itfS 24 iLh6+ 'ite7 2S .l:!.be 1+ 'itdS! (2S... iLe6 leads to a draw after 26 ..tg7 'iVgs 27 iLh6 "it'gS [27...'YWf6 with repetition is also possible] 2S l:I.xe6+l 'itxe6 29 'iVf5+ �e7 30 ..tg5+ WfS 31 �h6+) 26 h4 and according to Glek White has the attack. I feel that Black should now play 26 ..."it'f3!, intending 27 iLg5+ f6, when Black might just weather the storm. Now White just wins. 22 i.g5! i.e7 23 iVg6+ �h8 24 i.f6+ ! i.xf6 25 iVh6+ �g8 26 i.d3 It:le2+ 27 �h2 1 -0

Game 87 1 6 It:lxh7! �xh7 1 7 iVh6+ �g8 1 8 i.d5 It:lc3 Risky. It was probably safer just to play l S... ..tfS! 1 9 .1i.xa2 'ii'f6! with an unclear posi tion. But not 1 9....l:!.eS 20 l:I.bS 'iVd7 21 .l:!.dS, which would give White a strong attack. For example: 2 1 . ..c6? 22 ..tgS! 'iVe6 23 .l:!.xfS! 'ilxfS 24 g4 and White wins. 1 9 'Yi'xg6+ �h8 20 iVh5+ �g8 21 i.c4!?

Kovalevskaya-Xie Jun

New Delhi 2000 1 e4 e5 2 It:lf3 It:lc6 3 It:lc3 It:lf6 4 g3 dS 5 exd5 It:lxd5 6 i.g2 lt:lxc3 7 bxc3 i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 lle1 ! White is improving her forces gradually. 9 d4 does not make a lot of sense when the eS pawn can be threatened with tempo. But still it might not be so easy for Black: 9 d4 .1i.f6 10 iLa3 .l:!.eS 1 1 dS CiJaS 12 CiJd2 �e7 1 3 iLb4 cS! 14 �xaS 'YWxaS 1 S d6 (Glek-Semina, Eupen 1 993) l S ... ..txd6 1 6 CiJc4 �a6 i s equal according to Glek. The best line seems to be 1 7 CiJxd6 �dS I S 'ins l:txd6 1 9 'iVxeS iLe6! (all other moves lead to a white advantage) 20 .1i.xb7 (20 'iVxcS? �adS followed by ... l:I.d2 would give Black very active play for the pawn) 20 ...'ilxb7 21 �xd6 iLh3 22 f3 �xf1 23 �xf1 c4 with compensa tion for the pawn. White has also tried 9 d3 iLg4 (9 ... fS!? 1 63


Glek) 10 lIbl lIb8 1 1 'it'el i.d6 12 lLlg5 'iVd7 1 3 �e3 f5 and Black managed to create annoying threats, V.Maximenko-Petelin, St Petersburg 1 993.

9 . . .i.fS 10 J:.b1 This is the natural move, but White also has another path to an advantage: 1 0 d3 e4 I I l:txe4 .lii.xc3 1 2 l::tb l i.f6 and now: a) 1 3 g4?! .lii.e7 1 4 i.e3 f5 1 5 gxf5 .lii.xf5 1 6 l::ta4 with an unclear position, Krasenkow Bandza, Kaliningrad 1 986. b) 1 3 lLld2! improves the knight's position and gives the queen a chance to improve its location. 13 ...l::tb 8 (13 ... i.f5 14 .l:i.el l::tb8 1 5 lLle4 i.d4 1 6 l::tb 5 i s somewhat better for White) 1 4 .lii.a3 l::te8 1 5 ':xe8+ 'it'xe8 16 �h5 and White is better. 1 0 . . .�e8 1 1 d4 Or 1 1 d3 and now: a) 1 1 ...i.g4 1 2 h3! is better for White. As in other lines the bishop has no good square, especially with the pawn on b7 hanging. b) l 1 ...e4 1 2 lLld2! (12 dxe4 .lii.xc3 1 3 .lii.d2 .lii.xd2 14 lLlxd2 b6 1 5 e5 i.b7 1 6 ctJc4 l::tb 8 would only give equality) 1 2... exd3 (or 1 2... .lii.xc3 1 3 J:.xe4 with a strong initiative) 1 3 ilxe8+ Oess clear i s 1 3 lLle4 dxc2 [ 1 3. . .l::txe4? 1 4 l::txe4 .lii. f5 1 5 cxd3! i.xe4 16 i.xe4 is very good for White] 1 4 �xc2 i.f5 1 5 l::txb7 l::te6 1 6 lLlxf6+ 'iWxf6 17 l::txe6 'iWxe6 and Black has good counterplay) 13 ...'it'xe8 14 lLle4 dxc2 (14...i.e7 1 5 cxd3 is somewhat better for �'hite, as Black has problems developing) 1 5 1 64

lLlxf6+ gxf6 1 6 �xc2 lLle5 17 �e4!? (1 7 .lii.e3 c6 1 8 .lii.d4 .lii.g4 19 h3 ctJf3+ 20 .lii.xf3 .lii.xf3 21 �f5 �e4 22 �xe4 i.xe4 23 l::txb7 c5 24 l::t e7 cxd4 25 l::txe4 dxc3 26 l::tc4 J:.d8 was drawish in Shaw-Mannion, Edinburgh 1 999) 17 ... h5 1 8 .lii. f4 ( 1 8 .lii.e3 as! 19 .lii.d4 l::ta6 20 �dl .ltg4 21 f3 .lii.c8 22 f4 lLlg4! is unclear, while 22 ... .ig4?! 23 \\l¥f1 would be good for White) 1 8 ... a5 (or 1 8... c6 1 9 'itg2 with an initiative for White) 1 9 i.xe5 �xe5 20 .ixb7 i.f5 21 �d2 i.xbl 22 .ltxa8 and White is microscopically better. c) 1 1 ...J:.b8! (the best) 12 lLld2 (1 2 ctJg5 i.xg5 1 3 .ixc6 l::te6 gives �'hite no advan tage) 1 2... i.e6 1 3 a4 (13 c4?! 'iVd7 1 4 �b2 lLld4 is pleasant for Black) 13 ... \\l¥d7 14 i.a3 with unclear play. 1 1 . . . i.g4 1 2 h3 1 2 d5? e4 13 dxc6 �xd1 14 l::txdl bxc6! would give Black the advantage. 1 2 . . .i.xf3 12 ... .lii.h 5?! 13 g4 i.g6 14 g5 .lii.e7 1 5 lLlxe5 and White wins a pawn. 1 3 i.xf3 Here White could have played more strongly 1 3 'iVxf3! and now: a) Bad is 1 3 ... exd4 1 4 l::txe8+ 'iVxe8 1 5 l::txb7 �e1+ (1 5 ...lLle5 1 6 �e4 dxc3 1 7 l::txc7 l::td8 18 l::txa7 gives �'hite a clear advantage) 1 6 'ith2 lLle5 1 7 'iWe4 �xc 1 (17...�xf2? 1 8 cxd4 and White wins) 1 8 l::tb l ! ctJg4+ 1 9 hxg4 \\l¥h6+ 20 'itgl l::t d8 21 cxd4 with a clear ad vantage for White. b) 1 3 ... l::tb8 14 d5 ctJa5 1 5 \\l¥e4 b6! (or 1 5 ... b5? 1 6 .lii. f1 ! a6 [16 ...'iWd7? 17 'YWb4! does not work] 17 a4 with a clear advantage for �'hite; Black should not try to contest the light squares on the queenside as he is bound to lose such a fight) 1 6 'iVa4 lLlb7 1 7 .lii.a3 (17 \\l¥xa7 ctJc5 18 'iia3 l::ta8 19 \\l¥b4 l::txa2 is less clear) 17 ... a5 1 8 c4 with a slight advantage for White. 1 3 . . . exd4 Equally possible was 13 ...ctJa5!? 14 dxe5 i.xe5 (but not 14 ... 'iVxdl ?! 1 5 l::txdl .ixe5 [1 5 ...l::txe5 16 i.f4 l::tc 5 1 7 i.xb7 lLlxb7 1 8

Th e Glek S y s te m with 4 . . d5 .

.l:!.xb7 is obviously good for White] 1 6 �d5 l2Jc4 1 7 J::!:xb7 with a white advantage) 1 5 J::!:b5 ..ixc3 (1 5. . .'iVxd 1 ?! 1 6 J::!:x d1 ..ixc3 1 7 1:1c5 ..ib4 1 8 J::!:xc7 J::!:ac8 1 9 J::!:xc8 J::!:xc8 20 .l:!.d7 would give White complete domination; ..idS is very unpleasant) 1 6 .l:!.xe8+ �xe8 1 7 J::!: c5 J::!:d8 1 8 iY fl ..ib4 1 9 J::!:xc7 ..id6 with good counterplay. 1 4 J:txb7 14 J::!:xe8+ 'YiUxe8 15 l:txb7 would be un clear, but White cannot play 1 5 cxd4? l2Jxd4 1 6 .ixb 7 J::!:d8, after which Black has all the chances. 1 4 . . . CtJe5 1 5 .i.g2 After this White is fighting to keep the balance. Better was 1 5 ..ie4! dxc3 1 6 ..if4 �xd1 1 7 J::!:x d1 l2Jg6 1 8 ..ixgG hxg6 1 9 �fl with a likely draw. 1 5 . . . dxc3 1 6 .i.f4

1 6 . . . a6?! This is rather slow in a sharp position. It seems more sensible to fight for the initiative with 1 6 ... g5! 1 7 ..tel ( 1 7 ..txe5 J::!:xe5 1 8 'iYxd8+ J::!:xd8 1 9 J::!:xe5 ..ixe5 20 J::!:xa7 J::!:d 1+ 21 'ith2 J::!:d2 would give White serious prob lems with the c3-pawn and his kingside) 1 7 ... c6 1 8 f4 gxf4 1 9 .ixf4 with complica tions. 1 7 J:!.b3 1 7 'iVb 1 g5 1 8 ..ixe5 (1 8 .ie3 l2Jc4 favours Black) 1 8 ... J::!:xe5 1 9 J::!:xe5 ..ixe5 looks prefer able for Black. 1 7 . . :Vixd1 1 8 J:!.xd1 .l:l:.ad8 1 9 J;!.xd8 .l:l.xd8

20 &xc3 .l::td 1 + 21 .tf1 g5 22 .txe5 .i.xe5 23 &c5 f6 24 'it'g2 J:i.d2 25 .txa6 .i.d4! Black does not fall for the trick 25 ... J::!:x f2+?? 26 'itxf2 .id4+ 27 'iit f3 .ixc5 28 'iite4, when the endgame is lost. 26 .l::txc7 ':'xf2+ 27 'it'h1 h5

White is a pawn up, but Black has a very active rook and bishop, and all the white pawns are weak. Black should be okay. 28 .i.c4+ 'it'f8 29 .i.d3 .l:l.f3 30 .l:l:h7 h4 31 gxh4 J:!.xh3+ 32 'it'g2 g4! ? Black is taking a lot of risks with this move. 32 ... J::!:xh4 was a safe draw, but Black obviously still had some fighting spirit left. 33 a4 .i.e5 34 a5 J:!.h2+ 35 'it'g1 g3 36 J;!.d7 .i.f4 37 .i.e4 .i.e3+ 38 'it'f1 ':'f2+ 39 'it'e1 f5 40 .!:td3 f4 41 a6 g2 42 .txg2 1::tx g2 43 &a3 .l::tg 3 44 'it'f1 .l:.g7 45 'it'e2 'it'e8 46 'it'f3 J:la7 47 .l:!.a5 'it'd8 48 h5 'it'c8 49 h6 l::th 7 50 a7 .txa7 51 'it'xf4 'it'b7 52 .l:l:h5 % - %

Game 88 Glek-Nikolic

W!Jk aan Zee 1997 1 e4 e5 2 CtJf3 CtJc6 3 CtJc3 CtJf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 CtJxd5 6 .i.g2 CtJxc3 7 bxc3 .te7 8 0-0 0-0 9 .l:!.e 1 .i.f6 1 0 .l:!.b 1 J:!.b8 1 1 d3 ..\te6! ? This i s better than . SU5 because White now has to expend time defending a2. This ..

1 65


way White does not have time for manoeu vring with ..Ita3 and lDd2.

1 2 c4 "iWd7 1 3 .tb2 1 3 lDgs?! �g4 14 llVd2 lDd4 l s lDe4 �e7 would be rather awh.-ward for White. All his pieces are strangely placed. 1 3 . . . �g4 1 4 "iYc1 This is better than 14 'iVd2 because White leaves the d2-square for the knight. 1 4 . . J:!.fe8 Black develops his pieces into play smoothly. If he starts action too soon with 14 ... �fs?! l s lDd2! lDd4? he will end in trou ble: 1 6 �xd4 exd4 1 7 £3! and White wins a piece. The more normal l s ... i.h3 16 �e4 llVd7 1 7 lDf1 ! (eyeing ds and fs) 17 ...lDd4 1 S lDe3 c6 1 9 'Yi'd 1 favours White and so does l s ... ..Itgs 16 �e4 llVd7 1 7 ..Itc3 l:tfdS l S l:tbs,

1 66

with the idea of 1 9 �2. 1 5 .tc3 15 lDd2!? ..Itgs 16 �c3, with the idea of I:ibs and �2, was a possible improvement. 1 5 . . . b6 1 6 'iifb 2 1 6 llVa3 �d6 17 'iixd6 cxd6 i s lDd2 lDd4 19 ..Itxd4 exd4 would have been even.

1 6 . . .ct:ld4 1 7 .txd4 exd4 1 8 h4 nxe1 + 1 9 1:txe1 ne8 20 J:lxe8+ 'iifxe8 2 1 iVc1 h5 2 1 ...i.cS!, in order to prevent the weaken ing of the h-pawn, was probably more exact. After 22 llVf4 cs 23 'iibs llVd7 White would be a litde worse, but the most likely outcome would still be a draw. 22 iVf4 c5 23 ct:lg5 .txg5 24 hxg5 g6 25 .te4 "WIe7 26 f3 .tf5 27 �f2 �xe4 28 fxe4 iVd7 29 'iifb8+ �g7 30 iVe5+ % - %

Th e Glek S ys tem with 4 . . . d5 Summary 4... dS is probably the most flexible way for Black to meet the Glek System. It seems that after 4... dS Black can equalise with almost any idea, except for my own 6 ... ttJde7. Lugovoi's 6... ttJb6 followed by 7 ... ,i,cS! seems to give Black good play, while the main lines after S ... ttJxc3 also offer Black good counterplay. White will naturally try to create some threats along the b- and e-ftles, or try to push with d2-d4, but it should never be really dangerous for Black. 1 e4 e5 2 t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 t2Jxd5 6 i.g2 t2Jxc3 6 ... ttJb6 Game 76 6 ... ttJde7 Game 80 6 ... ,i,e6 (0) 7 0-0 7 ... ,i,e7 Game 79; 7 ... .tcS Game 78; 7 ... ttJxc3 Game 77 7 bxc3 ..Itc5 7 ... .id6 8 0-0 0-0 9 .l:i.bl .l::i.b 8 1 0 d4 (0) 1 0 ... .ig4 Game 86; 1 O ... h6 Game 85; 1 0 ... .i.fS Game 84 7....i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 .l::i.e l .i.f6 1 0 Ubi 10 ...l:tb8 Game 88; 1O ...l:te8 Game 87 8 0-0 0-0 9 J::!.e 1 l:f.e8 9 ... 'ilVf6 Game 81 1 0 d4 Game 83 10 d3 (0) Game 82 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6. . . i.e 6

1 0 d4

1 0 d3

167

CHAPTER ElEVEN

I

The Glek System : Sidelines

1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3 In this chapter we will discuss rare and less obvious lines at Black's disposal: 4....te7, 4...g6, 4... .tM and 4.. .'�Jd4!? Probably Black should look for equality in the main lines and not in the sidelines, but there are a still many new discoveries waiting to be found in the Glek System

Game 89 Glek-Vucic

Zillertal 1993 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3 il.e7

After this move White obtains an excel lent version of the Philidor Defence. 1 68

5 il.g2 d6 6 h3 It is hard to find other good squares for the c8-bishop than g4, and as White often has ideas with g3-g4 later and as the position is relatively closed, the loss of time is fully justified. 6 0-0 7 0-0 il.e6 8 d4 il.d7 Black cannot have felt comfortable about making this move, but his choices were be tween the unpleasant and the uncomfortable. After 8 ...exd4 9 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 10 'iVxd4 White is only a little better, but the position is very pleasant and it is very hard for Black to find a good plan. 9 l:.e 1 ne8 1 0 b3 Glek decides on slow development. Here it was probably fully justified to close the position and try to establish a kingside initia tive immediately with 1 0 dS!? ctJb8 1 1 '>ith2, with the idea of ctJgl and f2-f4 with a strong initiative. 1 0 . . . a5!? The downside to 10 b3 is shown immedi ately. Black suddenly has a hook for his counterplay. 1 1 il.b2 White could still change plans. After 1 1 dS!? ctJb8 1 2 a3! ctJa6 1 3 .te3 b 6 1 4 ctJd2 ctJcS 1 5 f4 he could still have created a strong kingside offensive. . . .

Th e Glek S ys te m : Sidelin e s

1 1 . . . .tf8 1 2 �d2 12 dS!? CiJe7 13 CiJd2 CiJg6 14 �h2 looks better for White too. 1 2 . . . h6?! Black is trying to adjust to being without space, but this can never be the road to hap piness. Here he could have tried the pawn sacrifice 1 2... a4!? 1 3 CiJxa4 exd4 1 4 CiJxd4 CiJxd4 1 5 "iYxd4 "iYcs 1 6 �h2 .i.xa4 1 7 bxa4 CiJd7 with some counterplay, even though White retains the better chances. 1 3 l:t.ad1

According to Glek White stands much better. It is hard to fmd counterplay for Black. 1 3 . . . exd4 This shows that S... .i.d7 is probably not such a good idea. After 13 ... 'ilVcS 14 �h2 Black has hardly improved his position. 1 4 tLlxd4 tLlxd4 1 5 �xd4 �e8 1 6 �h2 .te6 1 7 f4! If you have a space advantage you should not exchange pieces. After 1 7 CiJdS?! CiJxdS I S exdS .i.d7 1 9 c4 .i.fS the white advantage would have diminished. Black would be thrilled to have some breathing space for his remammg pleces. 1 7 . . . tLld7?! I t i s not obvious that the knight will b e better placed anywhere else. 1 7 ...bS!? with the idea of ..."iWb7 looks much better. 1 8 tLld5! Now the situation has changed. After an

exchange o n d S White will dominate the light squares completely and be close to winning. 1 8 . . . .txd5?! After this Black is forever in trouble on the light squares. It was better to play a move like l S... a4. 1 9 'iIIx d5 19 exdS!? CiJcs 20 g4!, taking the fS-square from the Black queen, gives \,\-1'lite a clear advantage. Still, it is logical to keep the pawn centre fluid and let the light-squared bishop dream of the long diagonal. 1 9 . . . tLlb6 20 �d3 a4 21 b4?! This unnecessary weakening of the c4square leads to complications. Simply 21 c4 with a clear plus looks better. 2 1 . . . �e6 21 ... a3!? changing the nature of the game was definitely also possible. 22 a3 �a2!? Black needs to create some counterplay. 22... c6 23 .i.d4 CiJd7 24 .i.f3! gives White a great advantage. 23 .td4 e5?! But this is not so good - Black is now los ing by force. Better were moves like 23 ...MacS or 23 ...iVc4, when Black is much worse but can still fight. 24 .tg1 J:tae8 25 bxe5 dxe5 26 e5 I!ed8 27 �xd8! Simple chess. The pin is lethal. 27 . . J:txd8 28 J::txd8 �xa3 29 e6 fxe6 30 l:.xe6 �a2 31 J::tee8 �xe2 32 �xf8+ �h7 33 f5 1 -0

Game 90 Hector-Hartman

Port Erin 1996 1 e4 e5 2 tLle3 lOf6 3 tLlf3 tLle6 4 g3 g6 Another way to the Pirc Defence. How ever, it's not a good version because Black's knight on c6 is misplaced. 5 d4! Stronger than the automatic 5 .i.g2 .ig7 6 0-0 0-0 7 d3 (7 d4? exd4 S CiJxd4 CiJxe4! and 1 69


Black has won a pawn for very little compen sation) 7 ... d6 S h3 h6, when there is no ap parent reason why Black should be signifi cantly worse, or even slightly so. 5 . . . exd4 6 tLlxd4 ..tg7 7 tLlde2 This move is logical but it does involve a slight loss of time. Equally interesting are: a) 7 ctJxc6!? bxc6 S jLg2 i.a6!? (S... O-O 9 0-0 l:.bS looks very sound too) 9 f4! (9 eS �e7 1 0 f4 0-0 is far from clear; White's king is quite uncomfortable in the centre) 9 ... dS (9 ... 0-0 looks better) 1 0 e5 ctJd7 1 1 �f2 0-0 1 2 .l:!.el .l:!.eS 1 3 i.e3 f6? (a bad mistake; after 1 3 ...iYe7 Black would only be slightly worse) 14 ctJxd5! fxe5 1 5 ctJb4 exf4 1 6 gxf4 .ib7 1 7 ctJxc6 White was clearly better in Stripunsky Kapetanovic, Toronto 1 995. b) 7 i.e3!? 0-0 S jLg2 d6 9 h3 ctJd7?! (9 ... .l:!.eS 10 0-0 jLd7 is more natural, after which 'W'hite is somewhat better; this is actu ally a direct transposition to the g3 system of the Pirc) 10 f4 ctJb6 1 1 b3 d5 12 O-O!? .l:!.eS? (simply bad; after 12 ... dxe4 1 3 ctJxc6 bxc6 1 4 ctJxe4 i.xal 1 5 iYxal 'W'hite would have a great initiative to compensate for the ex change, but still this is unclear) 13 ctJxc6 bxc6 14 i.d4! and White has a great positional advantage, Finkel-Kuzmin, Budapest 1 999. 7 . . . 0-0 8 ..tg2 d6 Or S ... .l:!.eS 9 0-0 .l:!.bS 10 a4 (this move is not necessary; Glek writes that White should play 1 0 f4 d6 1 1 h3 jLd7 1 2 g4 b5 1 3 ctJg3 b4 1 4 ctJce2 or 1 0 ctJf4 d6 1 1 h3 b5 1 2 ctJfd5 with some advantage in both cases) 1 0... a5 1 1 i.f4?! (1 1 h3 would still leave White better) 1 1 ...d6 1 2 iYd2 jLe6 1 3 ctJd5 i.xd5 1 4 exd5 ctJb4 1 5 .l:!.fel ctJe4. White has played the opening less than well, and Black has a pref erable position, Krasenkow-Glek, Moscow 1 9S5. 9 h3 �e8 This is very natural. 9 ... a5 is considered in the following game. 9 ... jLd7 1 0 i.g5 h6 1 1 jLe3 l:!.eS 1 2 0-0 is a little better for White, while 1 2 g4 ctJe5 1 3 f4 ctJc4 1 4 i.c1 ctJb6 1 5 0-0 jLc6 1 6 ctJg3 1 70

ctJfd7! would give Black good counterplay against White's centre. 1 0 0-0 Or 1 0 i.g5!? h6 1 1 .ie3 ctJe5 1 2 b3 as 1 3 0-0 ctJed7 1 4 'iVd2 ctJc5 1 5 f3 �h7 1 6 l:i.adl with a small advantage for White in Glek Ibragimov, Russia 1 995. 10 . . . ..td7 1 1 f4 This allows Black to create counterplay. Stronger are: a) 1 1 g4! .l:!.bS (1 1 ...b5? 12 gS! ctJh5 1 3 ctJxb5 'iVcs 1 4 'it'h2 and White i s much bet ter - there is no real compensation for the pawn) 1 2 a4!? with the idea of ctJg3 and f2-f4 with advantage. b) 1 1 �h2 b5! 1 2 a3 a5 1 3 ctJf4 ctJe5 14 ctJcd5 ctJc4 1 5 ctJxf6+ i.xf6 1 6 c3 with chances for both players in Rashkovsky Othman, Biel 1 999. 1 1 . . .a5 Black misses his chance. After 1 1 ...b5! 1 2 a3 as h e would have gained good counter play. 1 2 g4 h6 1 3 ..te3 a4

1 4 'iVd2! White correctly decides to let Black create some weaknesses on the queenside with the pawn push. He knows that it costs Black time, and that after 1 4 a3 'iVe7 1 5 'i'd2 Black would be able to use the weakening of the light squares to his advantage with 1 5 ...ctJa5!, leaving White awkwardly placed. 1 4 . . . a3 1 5 b3 b5 1 6 tLlg3 b4 1 7 tLlce2


'Llh7 Not 1 7...ttJxg4? 1 8 hxg4 �xal 1 9 l:!.xal ii.xg4 20 l:!.el 'iih4 21 c3! bxc3 22 'iixc3 because two pieces are much stronger than a rook here, where the weakness of the dark squares is especially important. 1 8 eS! dxeS? After this White has a very dangerous initiative. Better was 1 8...'ife7!? 1 9 I!ad1 ttJf8 20 ttJd4! and White is only a little better. 1 9 l:tad 1 'Llf8 Forced. After 1 9 ...exf4? 20 ii.xf4 (or 20 'ti'xd7!? 'iixd7 21 .u.xd7 ttJe5 22 l:txc7 fxe3 23 ii.xa8 .u.xa8 24 ttJe4 with good chances to win the endgame) 20 ... ttJf8 21 ..ixh6 .l:.b8 22 ii.xg7 rJ;;xg7 23 ttJf4 White has a strong at tack. I am very doubtful whether Black is able to hold the position together at all, for example: 23 ...ttJe5 24 ttJfh5+l gxh5 25 'Llxh5+ 'It>g6 (25 ... rJ;;h7 26 ttJf6+ rJ;;g7 27 'ti'g5+ ttJfg6 28 l:!.xd7 ttJxd7 29 'Llh5+ 'it>g8 30 'iVh6 and White wins) 26 J:H6+ 'iixf6 27 ..ie4+ ii.f5 28 �xf5+ 'iY'xf5 29 gxf5+ �xh5 30 'iVf4 and the threat of I!d 1 -d4 will force Black to part with at least another piece. 20 fxeS? In the game this works out well. But the alternatives were worth investigating: a) 20 ii.c5!? exf4 (20... ttJe6?? 21 'iVxd7 'iixd7 22 .u.xd7 ttJxc5 23 �xc7 and White wins the exchange at least) 21 'iVxf4 (21 ii.xf8? ..ixf8 22 'iVxd7 'iVxd7 23 l:!.xd7 fxg3 24 ii.xc6 l:!.xe2 does not work out; ... ..ic5+ is a horrible threat) 21 ...ttJe5 22 ..ixa8 'Yi'xa8 23 ii.xf8 l:!.xf8 (23 ... ii.xf8? 24 l:!.xd7!) 24 'iVxb4 ii.c6 (24... ttJf3+ 25 l:!.xf3 'ti'xf3 26 l:!.xd7 wins for White) 25 l:!.f2 'Llf3+ 26 'it>fl ttJg5 27 'Llf4 and Black has some practical compensation for the exchange. After 27... ..ie5 it is not obvious that he is worse. b) Very strong is 20 f5!, bringing the fl rook into play while simultaneously keeping the Black forces out. 20 ... .:ta6 (20 ... gxfS 21 'Llxf5 ii.xf5 22 ii.xc6 'iVxd2 23 l:!.xd2 gives White a winning advantage) 21 fxg6 fxg6 22 ii.xh6 and White has a clear advantage.

20 . . .'LlxeS? Black returns the favour. Necessary was 20... 'Yi'h4! 21 ii.f2 (after 21 ii.c5?! ttJxe5 22 ii.xa8? l:!.xa8 Black would have more than enough compensation for the exchange) 21 ...�e7 and Black has managed to keep his pieces together. The position would then have been very complicated and who is bet ter and why is a very difficult question to answer. After a move like 22 ttJd4 Black must choose between 22 ... 'Llxe5 and 22 ... l:!.a6 with a strategically complex position. 21 i.xh6 i.xh6? Another careless move. After 21 ...l:!.b8 22 ttJe4 White has the chances, but still this was preferable. 22 'iVxh6 .l:!.aS Black can no longer save himself. 23 'Llf4 'Llh 7 Now the Swedish Champion finishes the game in style.

24 'LlfhS! gxhS 2S 'LlxhS 'iVgS 26 'Llf6+! The point behind the combination. 26 . . .'iVxf6 27 J:1xf6 'Llxf6 28 'iVxf6 .!:!.cS 29 J:1dS l:txc2?! 30 J:1xeS l:txeS 31 'iVxe5 lixa2 32 'iVgS+ �f8 33 'iVcS+ �e8 34 'iVxb4 1 -0

Game 91 Belikov-Zaitsev

Moscow 1996 The annotations in this game are based on 1 71


those by Vladimir Belikov in New in Chess

Yearbook 42. 1 e4 e5 2 lOt3 lOc6 3 lOc3 lOt6 4 g3 g6 5 d4 exd4 6 lOxd4 d6 A slight diversion from 6 ...i..g7, which opens the way for some harassment with ... i..g4. But basically it makes little difference. 7 h3 Also possible was 7 lZJxc6 bxc6 8 i..g2 i..b 7 9 0-0 ii..g7 1 0 b3!? 0-0 (1 0...lZJxe4? 1 1 lZJxe4 i..xal 1 2 i..g5 f6 1 3 'iVxal does not work) 1 1 .lii.b2 c5 1 2 �el 11e8 13 'iHd3 with a small edge for White. 7 . . . �g7 8 lOde2 0-0 9 �g2 a5

This time this plan comes without ... �e8. 1 0 �g5!? 10 0-0 could quite easily have transposed to the previous game. With his move Belikov provokes Black to play ... h7 -h6. Whether Black would have played this move voluntar ily as Hartman did, or if it is a weakening of the kingside, is very difficult to decide. That two strong grandmasters came to a different conclusion is a very good indicator of this. 1 0 . . . h6 1 1 �e3 a4 1 1 ...�e8 1 2 0-0 would be a little better for White. 1 2 0-0 Also possible was 12 'iWd2 �h7 1 3 a3 lZJe5 14 i..d4 c5 (1 4 ... lZJc4 15 'YWd3 ii..e 6 [1 5 ... lZJxb2? 16 "iVb5 drops a piece] 16 lZJf4 would also give White a small advantage) 1 5 .lii.xe5 dxe5 1 6 0-0-0 and 'Wbite is better. 1 72

1 2 . . . �e8 1 3 b3 White now gives Black a choice. To be considered was 13 'iWd2!? lZJe5 (1 3 ... �h7 1 4 f4 gives White a small advantage) 1 4 i..xh6 i..xh3 1 5 .lii.xg7 cJ;;xg7 16 f4 lZJc4 17 'iWd4 i..xg2 1 8 �xg2 lZJxb2 19 �h 1 , when White seems to have some compensation. One line is 19 ... c5 20 'iWe3 lZJg4 21 �f3 lZJc4 22 lZJd5! and Black is in trouble. Or 20... b5 21 f5! and White holds a strong initiative. Maybe 1 9 ... c5 is wrong, but in any case White seems to have some dangerous options. 1 3 a3 lZJe5 would give Black good coun terplay and should not be considered. 1 3 . . . axb3 1 4 cxb3 .l:.a5!? Black develops the rook via the fourth rank. This is obviously quite double-edged, as the rook can either cause a lot of damage or come into trouble itself. A normal move like 1 4 ... 'it>h7 would have left the position rather balanced. 1 5 �d2 .l:!.ae5 1 6 .l:tae1 !

A sound positional decision. The rook is activated and vacated from the unpleasant pressure on the long diagonal. Less attractive was 1 6 i..xh6?! i..xh6 1 7 'iHxh6 i..xh3!! (a very nice tactic that can easily be missed) 1 8 .lii.xh3 �h5 19 1Wf4 �xh3 20 'it>g2 �h5 (20....!:.h8 21 .!:.hl cJ;;g7 would be even) 21 �h1 �ee5 22 �xh5 lZJxh5 and Black has some initiative. 1 6 . . . \¥th7 1 7 1Ot4 b6?! Too passive. Better was the active 1 7... b5!


in order to create weaknesses on the queen side. On the other hand Black could not play 1 7...tiJxe4? due to 1 8 tiJxe4 ':xe4 1 9 i.xe4 ':xe4 20 f3 ':e8 21 'it'g2 and the compensa tion for the exchange is hardly enough. 1 8 f3 i.a6 1 9 J:!.f2 tLlh5?! Black must feel under pressure to play such a move. The rook will be very badly placed on hS, the knight was a little bit in the way on f4, and also the f6-knight was keep ing a good eye on the e4-pawn. It was better to accept a slightly inferior position with 1 9 .. .'iHd7 20 tiJfdS tiJxdS 21 tiJxdS tiJe7! 22 tiJb4 (22 f4 tiJxdS 23 fxeS tiJxe3 24 ':xe3 i.xeS is [lie for Black) 22... �b7 23 �d4 ':e6 24 i.xg7 'it'xg7 2S 'iVb2+ and White might be a little better. 20 tLlxh5 l:[xh5 21 tLld5 tLle7 21 ...':heS 22 ':el �b7 23 b4! would give Black a headache. 22 g4!? This is a risky decision, and probably a lit tle unnecessary. White would keep a signifi cant plus after 22 f4!, exposing the awkward position of the rook on hS. 22 . . .tLlxd5 The exchange sacrifice is forced. After 22... ':h4?! 23 �f4! tiJxdS 24 'iHxdS �c8 2S ..ltg3 i.e6 26 iVd3 there is no counterplay whatsoever. 23 gxh5

.l::i. f7 'itg8 2 8 l:i.xg7+ Wxg7 2 9 �d4 �f6 30 ':e4 �b7 31 J::!. f4 the position favours no one. 23 . . . tLlxe3 24 �xe3 gxh5 Belikov believed 24... dS was a serious al ternative. As we shall see, this is an illusion: 2S J::!.d2 d4 26 llt'f4 W:Ve7 and in my opinion Black does not have enough compensation for the exchange in this position. After 27 eS! cS 28 e6 �c8 29 ..ltfl ! Black is under heavy pressure, for example: 29 ... �xe6 30 hxg6+ fxg6 31 �c4 W:Vd7 32 ':de2 d3 33 .l:!.xe6 .l:!.xe6 34 i.xe6 d2 3S ':d 1 'iHxe6 36 nxd2, when Black must choose between this hopeless position, or losing the endgame after 36...�xh3 37 "iVg4 'iYxg4+ 38 fxg4. 25 f4 f5 26 Wh2 fxe4? A mistake. There is no reason to let White's bishop come from g2 to e4 where it endangers Black's king. White would also be better after 26 ...'iHh4 27 ':d2!, but not 27 �g3? iVxg3+ 28 �xg3 i.d4 29 .l:lc2 cS, when the active bishop gives Black good compen sation for the exchange. 27 i.xe4+ Wh8 28 J:!.g 1 ! Exposing the problems for Black's king. 28 . . .1i"e7? This loses by force. 29 J:!.fg2 J:!.g8 30 �f3 1 -0 There is no way to meet i.dS.

Game 92 G lek-Grabarczyk

Griesheim 2002

The logical continuation. After 23 exdS?! ':heS 24 f4 ':Se7 2S fS MeS 26 fxg6+ fxg6 27

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 i.b4 5 i.g2! This simply must be the right move, oth erwise the g3 system is too slow to be justi fied. It turns out that Black has a reasonable game after S d3 dS 6 exdS and now: a) 6 ... tiJxdS 7 �d2 0-0 (after 7 ... tiJxc3 8 bxc3 �d6 9 �g2 0-0 10 0-0 White has a tempo extra compared to lines starting with 4... dS; the plan is simply to play c3-c4 and i.c3 to put maximum pressure on the eS1 73


pawn) 8 �g2 �xc3 9 bxc3 �g4 10 h3 �h5 1 1 0-0 f6 12 'iHb1 .l:tb8 13 iVb5 and White has the two bishops and is more active, Laketic-Lalic, Kladovo 1 995. b) 6 ...'ihd5! 7 �g2 �g4 8 h3 �xf3 9 �xf3 e4! (Black needs to use his lead in de velopment before it disappears) 1 0 �g2 �xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 0-0-0 1 2 0-0 .l:the8 1 3 .tf4 'ilif5 1 4 'YWc1 with prospects for both sides, Barczay-Acs, Budapest 1 995. 5 . . . .txc3 5 ... 0-0 and 5 ... d6 are both covered in the following game. 6 bxc3 This is the natural recapture, but far from the only option. Also interesting is 6 dxc3 and now: a) 6...0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 lLlh4! �e6 9 f4 exf4 1 0 .txf4 lLlg4 1 1 lLlf5 lLlge5 12 g4 f6 1 3 h3 'iVd7 1 4 b3 .l:tae8 1 5 �g3 (Glek-Rozentalis, Bad Godesberg 1 994) and White is better Glek. b) 6 ... lLlxe4 7 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 8 �xe4 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10 f4 lLlg4 1 1 f5 lLlf6 12 .tg2 .l:te8 1 3 g4 d 5 14 �g5 c 6 1 5 �h1 'tid6 1 6 �d4 and 'X'hite is a little better. Glek-Grabarczyk, Katowice 1 992. c) 6 ... d6 7 .tg5!? (7 lLlh4 h6! 8 lLlf5 �xf5 9 exf5 'iVd7 1 0 g4 0-0-0 would give an un clear position; 'X'hite has weakened his king side, and his two bishops have yet to create serious scope) 7 ... h6 8 �xf6 'tixf6 9 lLld2! h5 1 0 lLlc4 �e6 1 1 lLle3 0-0-0 12 'tid2 and White is a little better according to Glek. All of this needs to be tested in practice before any certain real evaluation can be presented. 6 . . . ltJxe4 7 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 8 .txe4 d5 9 .tg2 0-0 1 0 0-0 White is a bit better - he has the two bishops and a flexible centre. Still, the posi tion is not completely clear. 'X'hite does have a flawed pawn structure and the knight looks good in the centre. 1 0 . . J:te8 1 1 h3 A precaution. 1 1 d3 also looks natural. 1 1 . . .c6 1 2 d3 f6 1 3 a4 .te6 1 74

1 3 ... a5!?, to stop the a-pawn's march, comes into consideration. 1 4 a5 �d7 1 5 �h2 ltJf7 1 6 .te3 ltJg5!? The Polish GM opts for something inter esting. This move was Glek's own recom mendation from Injimnant 68. 1 6... lLld6?! 1 7 'iHb 1 ! lLlb5 1 8 iVb2 .l:tac8 1 9 .l:tfb 1 .l:t e7 20 �b4 gave White a clear advantage in the game Korchnoi-Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1 997. 1 7 �h5 h6 17 ....tf7 18 'iih4 lLle6 was possible, al though White is a little better. 1 8 J:tab 1 ?! Not the best. After 1 8 f4! �f7 1 9 'ilie2 lLle6 20 'Nif2 White would have kept a slight edge. Now Black decides to capture the a pawn. 1 8 . . .'i!fc7 1 9 .tf4 �xa5 20 �xb7 .tf7 Black could also take the c-pawn straight away: 20 .. :ikxc3!? 21 h4 �f7 (21 ...lLlf7!? with the idea of 22 �h3 f5! 23 .txf5 'Nif6 with unclear play is also possible) 22 �g4 �e6 (22... lLle6 23 .txh6 looks very dangerous) 23 'iVd1 and White has compensation for the pawn, but no more. 21 1Iid1 21 'ilig4 'iVxc3 22 h4 transposes to the pre vious note. 21 . . . ikxc3 22 .td2 �a3?!

The queen goes astray for no apparent reason. Black wants to come home and de fend g7 with the queen, but this is way too passive. It was better to keep the queen cen-


tralised and ready for action. 22...�d4! 23 i.e3 'iHa4! (keeping an eye on the g4-square) 24 'iHd2 Meb8 25 Mfbl l:i.xb7 26 Mxb7 as and the position is very unclear. \Xfhite has some potential threats against Black's king, but Black has a passed pawn supported by the rook. All in all the chances look pretty balanced. 23 f4 4Je6 Black would also be in trouble after 23 ...'iHa6 24 fxg5! �xb7 25 gxf6 i.g6 (or 25 ... i.e6?! 26 �hS 'it'f7 27 �h4 as 28 fxg7 "iixg7 29 i.xh6). Now both 26 i.c3 and 26 'iHg4!? give \Xfhite serious threats against Black's king. Even so, there is nothing con crete and Black can still hope for the a-pawn or the exchange to be a decisive factor later on. 24 f5 4Jg5? This leaves the knight in a terrible situa tion. Better was 24...lbd8 25 .l:!.d7, when \Xfhite will continue with 'iHg4. Black should avoid the following trap: 2S ...Me7?? 26 i.el ! and the queen has nowhere to go (b4 and cS will be taken from him with tempo-gaining pawn moves). 25 h4 4Jh7 26 �g4 h5 27 �f4 �f8

If you want to know who is better and who is worse, ask the knight on h7! 28 i.b4! c5 29 i.a3 J:!.ac8 30 d4 J:!.e2 3 1 J:!.f2 .l:txf2 3 2 �xf2 'iVd8 3 3 i.xc5 J:!.c7 34 J:!.xa7 J:!.xa7 35 i.xa7 'iVc7 36 i.c5 4Jf8 37 �e3 'iWd8 38 �b3 4Jd7 39 �b7 4Jf8

40 c 3 g 5 4 1 i.e7 "lWd7 4 2 "lWxd7 4Jxd7 43 hxg5 fxg5 44 i.xg5 4Jb6 45 Wh3 4Jc4 46 i.f4 Wg7 47 Wh4 Wf6 48 i.h3 i.e8 49 i.e5+! 1 -0 Glek returns one pawn in order to gain control of the dark squares for the passed pawn. This bishop ending is easily winning. \Xfhite will play '>t>gS, f6, ius and i.g6 and Black can do nothing about it.

Game 93 Glek-Wells

Ostend 1993 1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 g3 i.b4 5 i.g2 0-0 Or S ... d6 6 d3 h6 7 0-0 lbe7 8 d4! (this is logical as Black limits his control of d4) 8 ... i.xc3 9 bxc3 lbg6 1 0 i.a3 (10 dxeS!? dxe5 1 1 "iixd8+ '>t>xd8 1 2 lbel would slightly favour \Xfhite - Glek) 1 0 ...'iHd7 (Glek Onischuk, Wijk aan Zee 1 997). Now Onis chuk recommends that \Xfhite should con tinue with 1 1 �el ! b6 12 Mdl 'iHe6 1 3 dxeS dxeS 1 4 lbd4!? exd4 1 5 cxd4 with compensa tion. The natural continuation for Black is lS ...'iVc4 and now \Xfhite needs to prove his initiative, or at least increase the pressure. After 1 6 eS lbdS 1 7 i.n "iia4 1 8 c4 i.g4 1 9 cxdS ii.xdl 20 'ifxc7! \Xfhite gains a winning initiative. But this line is of course far from forced. Black should be both less greedy and more cautious. 6 0-0 d6 Also possible is 6 ....l:!.e8 7 d3 (7 .l:!.el !?) and now: a) 7 ... i.xc3 8 bxc3 dS 9 exdS lbxdS 1 0 lbgS h 6 1 1 'it'f3!? (1 1 lbe4 fS 1 2 c4 lbf6 was played in Glek-Zaitsev, Moscow 1 99 1 ; after 1 3 lbxf6+ "iixf6 1 4 i.b2 \Xfhite would keep a slight plus) l 1 ...hxgS 1 2 'iVxdS 'iVxdS 1 3 i.xd5 lbe7 1 4 Ji.g2 f6 1 5 Mbl ! with advan tage to \Xfhite. b) Less impressive is 7 ... h6 8 lbdS! i.f8 9 h3 (9 c4!? d6 10 h3 also looks better for \Xfhite) 9 ... d6 1 0 lbxf6+ (better is 1 0 c4! with 1 75


some advantage; the main idea is that if Black takes on d5 White will recapture with the c pawn and create pressure down the c-ftle with the rooks, as well as in the centre with the push d3-d4) 1 O .. :iVxf6 1 1 lLlh2 'iVg6 1 2 lLlg4 f5 1 3 exf5?! (not my fInest moment; better was 1 3 lLle3! fxe4 14 ..txe4 "ii'f7 1 5 'it>g2 and maybe White has a small advantage) 13. .. ..txf5 1 4 lLle3 ..te6 1 5 lLld5 "ii'f7 1 6 c4 lLld4 17 f4 �d7 IS 'it>h2 with an unclear position, Pinski-Magomedov, Cappelle la Grande 1 997. 7 d3 �d7 Black has tried other moves here: a) 7 ... ..tg4?! S h3 ..td7 (this is simply a lost tempo because White often plays h2-h3 freely) 9 lLlh4 lLld4 1 0 f4 ..tc5 1 1 'it>h2 c6 1 2 lLla4 and White was clearly better i n Glek Konson, Essen 1 995. b) 7 ... .l::!.eS S lLlh4!? (yet another Glek idea) S... ..txc3 9 bxc3 d5 1 0 ..tg5! dxe4 1 1 ..txe4 h6 1 2 ..txf6 �xf6 1 3 .l::!.b l and White's posi tion seems preferable. c) 7 ... h6 S ..id2 ..te6 (S... a6 9 a3 ..ia5 1 0 b 4 ..ib6 1 1 ..te3 ..tg4 1 2 h3 ..txf3 1 3 ..txf3 lLld4 1 4 ..ig2 was a little better for White in Glek-Wedberg, Biel 1993) 9 h3 as 1 0 a3 ..tc5 1 1 .Jte3 ..txe3 12 fxe3 d5 13 exd5 lLlxd5 1 4 "ii'd2 lLlxc3 1 5 �xc3 'it'd6 1 6 lLld2 f5 1 7 lLlc4 ..ixc4 1 S "ii'xc4+ 'it>hS (Lepelletier-Anic, Nar bonne 1 999). Now White can secure a better structure with 1 9 ..ixc6!? iVxc6 20 'iVxc6 bxc6 21 a4 with some advantage. Black should probably play 19 ... bxc6 and hope to create more counterplay with the queens remaining on the board. S lLlh4! This is a standard manoeuvre in this struc ture. S . . . h6 9 lLlf5 �xf5 1 0 exf5 d5 1 1 g4 .l:!.eS White would have the advantage after 1 1 ..:�d7 1 2 f4 exf4 1 3 ..txf4 SLd6 1 4 ..td2!, mainly because of the two bishops. 1 2 g5 hxg5 1 2 ... SLxc3? 1 3 gxf6! ..td4 14 fxg7 would 1 76

leave Black with serious holes in his kingside. 1 3 �xg5 �xc3 1 4 bxc3 �d6 1 5 .l:!.b1 e4? This pawn sacrifIce is not justifIed. Black would have been better off playing 1 5 ....l::!.a bS!. Often a rook that is not very well placed on as can be equally inactive on bS, except that it protects a pawn. If it currently has no better place to exercise its powers, it is usual for it to be deployed in this way. Probably the chances are balanced after 1 5 ... .l::!.a bS!. 1 6 J:txb7 lLle5 1 7 h3?! White is careful, but this is a little slow. Stronger was 1 7 ..txf6! 'iVxf6 I S dxe4 dxe4 1 9 'ii'd4 with some edge. One example is 1 9 ...lLlf3+ 20 SLxf3 exf3 21 1!Vxf6 gxf6 22 h3 and White has good chances in the endgame. 1 7 . . . lLled7 1 S �d2 �c6 1 9 .l:!.b4 J:le5 20 �f4 J:.aeS?! Black should have been more prophylactic in his line of thinking to prevent White's next move. After 20... a5! 21 .l::!.b b1 (21 SLxf6 lLlxf6 22 .l::!.c4!? 'ii'd6 23 .l::!.a4 lLlh5 should not give Black problems; the rook on a4 is probably the worst-placed piece on the board) 2 1 ...lLlh5 22 'iVd2 .l::!.x f5 23 .l::!. fel f6 24 ..te3 lLle5 Black knights are fInally playing. The position is probably in a dynamic balance, but Black must feel a bit more comfortable.

21 c4! Now the centre is broken up and White's bishops comes into their own.

Th e Glek S ys te m : Side lin e s

21 . . . �d6 22 .!:.bb1 dxc4 23 dxe4 tLlc5? 23 ...tt:Jxe4 was absolutely necessary. It is curious to see the indifference Black presents to his own material in this game. After 24 l:.fdl �c6 25 l:!.d4 ttJxg5 26 'i¥xg5 �f6 27 'iYxf6 ttJxf6 28 l:.xc4 White is better, but the game is still in progress. 24 l:ifd 1 ! �a6 25 f3 'iWxa2? A fast death is better than a slow torture! 26 �xf6 gxf6 27 'iYh6 tLld7 28 �h 1 1 -0

Game 94 Glek-Klovans

Willingen 2001 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 tLld4!? TIlls move is inspired by similar manoeu vres in the English opening, where both 1 c4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJd4 and 1 c4 e5 2 ttJc3 ttJc6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 ttJd4 have been tried. Here it gives Black reasonable chances to fight for equality, but it's too soon to judge whether it will become a main con tinuation.

5 �g2 TIlls looks like the logical move here, but accepting the pawn sacrifice is not necessarily completely hopeless. 5 ttJxe5!? and now: a) 5 .. ."i¥e7 looks natural, but still the con clusions are not so simple to draw. 6 f4 d6 7 ttJf3 iLg4 (7 ... ttJxe4?! 8 ttJd5! ttJxf3+ 9 'iixf3 ttJg5+ 1 0 'iVe3 'iYxe3+ 1 1 dxe3 ttJe6 1 2 f5

would leave Black seriously wounded) 8 i..g2 (8 i.e2!? ttJxf3+ 9 iLxf3 ttJxe4 1 0 ttJxe4 iLxf3 1 1 �xf3 d5 1 2 1 2 d3 f5 1 3 �d2 dxe4 1 4 dxe4 fxe4 1 5 �3 0-0-0 1 6 0-0-0 with a clear advantage, Todorovic-Kallio, Budapest 2002) 8 ... h5! (Black needs to seek active counterplay; 8 ... ttJxe4 9 ttJd5 'iVd8 1 0 c3 ttJxf3+ 1 1 iLxf3 iLxf3 1 2 �xf3 ttJc5 1 3 0-0 and l:.e1+ would give White a clear advan tage) 9 d3 h4 1 0 gxh4 d5 1 1 e5 c6! with ... ttJh5 to come. Black has sacrificed two pawns but has a superior structure and good chances in the middlegame. Practical tests will of course show if this is nonsense or not. b) 5 ... d5!? (the active reply) and now: bl) 6 exd5 iLd6 7 ttJc4 (7 f4 �xe5 8 fxe5 �g4 9 i..e 2 3Lxe2 10 ttJxe2 �xd5 1 1 0-0 'i¥xe5 and Black has better chances in the middlegame due to his safer king and better development) 7 ...iLg4 8 i..e2 ttJxe2 9 ttJxe2 0-0 1 0 0-0 ttJxd5 with good compensation for the pawn in this dynamic middlegame. b2) 6 d3! (White should try to stabilise his centre). 6 ... i..d6 7 ttJf3 3Lg4 8 i..g2. There is no doubt that \Xihite is under unpleasant pressure here, but he did steal a pawn! I have not been able to fmd anything really strong for Black, so maybe this is really worth a practical test. 8 ... iLe5 (8 ... i..b4 9 0-0 0-0 19 ... dxe4 10 dxe4! and White is just a pawn up] 10 exd5 l:.e8 1 1 i.e3 and Black has noth ing) 9 0-0 dxe4 10 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 1 1 dxe4 'iVf6 1 2 iLf4 ttJc6 1 3 iLg5! 'iYxg5 1 4 ttJxg5 iLxd1 1 5 .l:.fxdl i.xb2 16 .l:.abl i.f6 1 7 ttJf3 and White looks better in the endgame due to the weaknesses on the light squares. Even 1 7 l:.xb7!? iLxg5 1 8 e 5 ttJd8 1 9 .l:.xc7 l:.b8 20 l:.xa7 (with ideas like 20... 0-0 21 f4) looks a good try for the full point. 5 . . . tLlxf3+ 6 �xf3 6 'iVxf3 will be seen in the next game. 6 . . . �c5 The natural development. Black has also tried 6 ... i..b4!? 7 0-0 d6 8 d4 0-0 (the natural move; after 8... i.xc3?! 9 bxc3 0-0 1 0 i..g2 J:.e8 1 1 �d3 b6 12 f4 White was better in 1 77


Glek-Frog, Elista 1 995) 9 Jig2 exd4 1 0 'iVxd4 .icS 1 1 'iVd3 a6! (a hole for the bishop in case of CDa4) 1 2 Jie3 (the bishop has no better squares) 1 2 ... Jixe3 13 "iVxe3 �e8 and the position is more or less balanced. 7 0-0 7 d3 c6 8 0-0 d6 (maybe 8... 0-0 9 Jig2 bS with unclear consequences is better) 9 .ig2 .ig4 1 0 �el �d7?! (1O... a6 is more natural) 1 1 CDa4 gave White a small advantage in Glek-Rizouk, Biel 1 99S. 7 . . . d6 7 ... c6! 8 d3 0-0 9 Jig2 bS with unclear play is the right way. 8 121a4! This is a standard manoeuvre. Now White gains the two bishops and thereby a small, enduring edge. Still, Black has some devel opment as compensation and who is better and why has not yet been decided. 8 . . . �h3 9 J:!.e1 "ilVd7 1 0 l2lxc5 No need for any delay. If 10 c3? .ixE2+! 1 1 Wxf2 bS Black has good counterchances. 1 0 . . . dxc5 1 1 d3 0-0 1 2 �g2 l:rfe8 1 3 �g5 �xg2 1 4 �xg2 "ilVc6 1 5 h 3 l2ld7 After 1S ...h6 16 i.d2! c4 17 it'f3 �ad8 1 8 i.. c3 cxd3 1 9 cxd3 "iVd6 20 �ad1 cS 2 1 it'e3 White has the advantage because Black does not have time for the long manoeuvre ... CDf6d7-fS-e6-d4. White should meet this idea by preparing f2-f4. 1 6 �e3 121f8 Also worth considering was 1 6 ... c4 1 7 it'f3 cxd3 1 8 cxd3 'iVd6 followed b y ... c7-cS and ... b7-b6 with a complex middlegame ahead. 1 7 �g1 l2le6 1 7 ... c4 1 8 it'hS J::i.ad8! should give Black good counterplay (1 8... cxd3 1 9 cxd3 .l:!.ad8 20 �ac1 would be a little better for White). 1 8 f4! exf4 1 9 gxf4 g6? This is a horrible move - passive and weakening at the same time. Remember that Black should be trying to justify the exchange of bishop for knight with activity. The alter natives are: 1 78

a) 1 9 ... �ad8!? 20 fS CDd4 21 c3 CDbS 22 a4 CDd6 23 it'g4 and White has an initiative. b) 1 9 ... f5! 20 exfS CDd4 21 .ixd4 cxd4 22 l::te S l:IxeS 23 fxeS 'iiibs and the position is rather unclear.

20 "ilVg4 Now White has good attacking possibili ties because of the weak dark squares. 20 . . .121g7 21 "ilVg2 lite6 22 �d2 The bishop is going to the long diagonal. 22 . . . J:!.ae8 23 �c3 f6 24 a4 b6? Again Black is very passive. It was neces sary to try to create some counterplay before White gets his ideal set-up for the attack. Better was a move like 24... c4!? 25 l:U1 .:t6e7 26 f5 l2lh5 27 �h 1 litg7 28 "ilVf3 11f8 29 �d2 J:!.e7 30 fxg6 hxg6 31 J:!.g 1 J:!.h7 31 ...Wh7 would meet with the following combination: 32 .:!.xg6! �xg6 33 .:!.g1+ cj;; f7 34 'iYxh5+ cj;;e6 35 'i¥f5+ cj;; f7 36 Jih6 l::i.a8 37 it'g6+ 'it>e6 38 lW l::tf7 39 Jig7 �e7 40 .ixf6+! and Black will soon have to give in. 32 J:!.xg6+ �h8 33 �h6 l2lg7 34 J:!.ag1 J:!.f7 35 "ilVg4 f5 36 �xg7+ J:!.fxg7 37 "ilVxf5 1 -0

Game 95 Glek-Onischuk

Biel 1996 1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 g3 l2ld4 5 �g2 l2lxf3+ 6 �xf3

Th e Glek S ys te m : Side lin e s

ous threat. Still, this was the lesser evil. 1 1 exd4 �xa4 1 2 dxe5 dxe5 1 3 �e3 0-0-0 1 4 f3 �e6 1 5 �xe5 lid3 1 6 b3 �d7 1 7 l:if2 .i:e8 1 8 �e5 b6 1 9 �e2 J:td8 20 �f1

TIlls looks more logical than 6 .lii.x f3. The bishop belongs to g2 and the queen does not belong on d l , but rather e2, if it had to choose right now. With 6 'iWxf3 White leaves the dreams of d2-d4 behind him, at least for the time being. TIlls sacrifice is a necessity if he wants to play for an advantage. 6 . . .�e5 6 ... d6?! 7 d3 .lii.e7 8 �e2 0-0 9 0-0 c6 1 0 h 3 b 5 1 1 f4 4:Jd7 1 2 �h2 a s 1 3 4:Jdl gave White good attacking prospects in Glek Smagin, Cap d'Agde 1 995. 7 O-O! Critical. Also worth considering are: a) 7 h3 d6 8 4:Ja4 .lii.b 6 9 4:Jxb6 axb6 1 0 0-0 ..ie6 and Black does not look worse. b) 7 d3!? 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 h3 4:Jd7 1 0 4:Ja4 as 1 1 4:Jxc5 4:Jxc5 1 2 .lii.e3 4:Je6 1 3 .l:i.ae 1 with the idea of 'iVh5 followed by f4 and White is better, Belikov-Zaitsev, Moscow 1 996. 7 . . . d6 8 'tJa4 �d4?! TIlls seems a bit dubious. 8... .lii.b 6 9 4:Jxb6 axb6 1 0 'iVc3!, with the idea of d2-d4 (despite what was said above), gives White a slight advantage according to Glek. 9 e3 �g4?! 9 ... ..ib6 1 0 d4 ..ig4 1 1 �d3 0-0 12 4:Jxb6 axb6 1 3 f3 .lii.h5 14 .lii.e3 with an advantage was more prudent. 1 0 �d3 �d7?! 10 .....ib6 1 1 4:Jxb6 axb6 12 f4! would give Black some problems, as now 1 3 f5 is a seri-

20 . . :�d4 TIlls does not work, but Black is short of alternatives: a) 20....l:i.xf3 21 .l:i.xf3 'i'd4+ 22 l::te 3 �xal 23 .lii.b2 'i'xa2 24 b4! (with the idea of l:!.a3 trapping the queen) 24... .lii.d7 25 .l:i.a3 'iVe6 26 ':xa7 'iHc6 27 .lii.a6+ 'it>b8 28 .l:i.b7+ Was 29 .l:i.xc7 gives White a clearly winning endgame. b) 20 ... .l:i.d4 21 a4 as 22 .lii.b 5 �d6 23 e5! 'iVxe5 24 .lii.b2 also wins. 21 �xd3 �xa1 22 �a6+ �b8 23 �b2+ �xb2 24 �xb2 'tJe8 25 d4 e6 26 :te2 'tJe7 27 �e2 �b7 28 g4 a5 29 f4 f6 30 f5 �f7 31 �f2 a4 32 �e4 �xe4 33 bxe4 a3 34 �xa3 J::txd4 35 �e3 e5 36 �b2 l:id 1 37 g5 'tJe8 38 gxf6 gxf6 39 e5 �e6 40 J:If2 ':e 1 + 41 �d2 J:.e4 42 �d3 J::th4 43 exf6 .!::!.h 3+ 44 �e2 'tJd6 45 J:!.e2 .l:!.f3 46 .l:te6 �d7 47 lie7+ �d8 48 �e5 'tJxf5 49 l:lxh7 �e8 50 �d2 �f8 51 l:lb7 J:!.a3 52 �e7 �f7 53 �d8+ �g6 54 f7 �g7 55 �xb6 l:lxa2+ 56 �e3 'tJh6 57 f8� + �xf8 58 �xe5+ �e8 59 .l:.e7+ �d8 60 h4 .l:.h2 6 1 l:lh7 'tJf5 62 h5 �e8 63 �b6 'tJg3 64 h6 'tJe4+ 65 �b4 'tJf6 66 .!::!.h 8+ �b7 67 �d4 'tJd7 68 h7 .!::!.h4 69 �b5 J:lh5+ 70 e5 �e7 71 �e4 J:.h4 72 �d3 J::th 3+ 73 �e2 l:lh5 74 �f3 1 -0 1 79

Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts Summary

Black should not look for equality in the sidelines of the Glek System. 4 ... �e7 seems to be too passive to make real sense, while 4...g6 gives White a pleasant position if he plays 5 d4! and should be avoided by Black. 4 ... .i.b4 is more relevant, but after ... �xc3, which must be the main idea, White will gain some advantage due to the two bishops. 4... ttJd4!? is interesting, but White apparently has sev eral good options at his disposal, one of them being the greedy 5 ttJxe5!? 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 tLld4 4....tb4 5 .tg2 (D) 5 .. 0-0 Game 93; 5 ... .txc3 Game 92 4...g6 5 d4 exd4 6 ttJxd4 d6 7 h3 .fLg7 8 ttJde2 0-0 9 .tg2 (D) 9 ... l:!.e8 Game 90; 9 ... a5 Game 9 1 4. . ..te7 Game 89 5 i.g2 tLlxf3+ 6 'iWxf3 Game 95 6 .txf3 (D) Game 94 .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 i.g2

1 80

9 i.g2

6 i.xf3

I CHAPTER TWEl VE I U n usual Fourth Moves for White

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 In this final chapter we look at less fre quent fourth moves White. Tries such as 4 CLlxeS?, 4 a3, 4 �e2 and also the unfortunate 4 �c4?!. Normally people play the Four Knights with White in order to avoid masses of theory and computer analysis. This is al ready achieved at move three, so to try to get further away from the books is hardly a good idea. Of all these, only 4 a3!? makes some sense. And this is also where we will start.

Game 96 Blehm-Socko

Warsaw 2002 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 a3!?

Robert Fischer said that in the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian a player with an Elo rating of 2000 can occasionally can beat a Grandmaster. In the same way, 4 a3 is not so stupid as it looks at first sight. White says, '1 want see your plans.' Many well-known play ers have used this move once or twice. A funny swindle line is 4 CLlxeS? This move, called the MUller and Schultze Gam bit, only works in a blitz game, where Black does not have time to come up with a de fence! Play continues with 4".CLlxeS S d4 and now: a) S".CLlg6?! 6 eS CLlg8 7 i.c4 and 'WTIite does have some initiative for the piece. After 7".c6?! 8 'iVf3 dS 9 exd6 CLlf6 10 'iVe2+ �d7 1 1 ..txf7 White is "'inning according to some old analysis by Carl Schlechter. b) S".CLlc6! (this is more accurate) 6 dS ..tb4! (This is the great thing about accepting gambits. Sometimes you can return the mate rial and be better off for it. After alternatives the gambit starts to make sense: 6".CLleS 7 f4 CLlg6 8 eS CLlg8 9 d6 with some compensa tion, or 6".CLlb8 7 eS CLlg8 8 d6 again with play for White) 7 dxc6 CLlxe4 8 'iVd4 'iVe7 9 'iVxg7 CLlxc}t 10 �e3 CLld5+ 1 1 c3 l::tfS 1 2 cxb4 CLlxe3 1 3 fxe3 'iVxb4+ and Black i s very close to winning. 4".d5!? 181


According to the old masters you should play in the centre when your opponent plays on the flanks. Though many old ideas have been revised, this one stays strong in modern chess strategy. Still, Black has tried a lot of different options here: a) 4... g6 is a reversed 4 g3 system. But now White has some interesting opportunities to fight for an advantage. The pawn on a3 is very useful here. al) 5 g3 i..g7 6 .Jtg2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 d3 is level (a2-a3 is hardly useful). a2) 5 .Jtc4 .Jtg7 6 d3 d6 7 h3 .1I..e6 S .Jte3 h6 9 .Jtxe6 fxe6 10 d4 exd4 1 1 ctJxd4 "YWd7 1 2 ctJxc6 'fixc6 with a level game in Ham douchi-Adams, Cannes (rapid) 200 l . a3) 5 ctJxeS!? makes more sense as Black cannot play ....Jtb4! any longer. It is interest ing that this is the only move that gives White some chances of fighting for the ad vantage. S ... ctJxeS 6 d4 ctJc6 7 dS

and now Black has two possibilities: a31) 7... ctJeS S f4 d6! (S ... ctJhS 9 g3 and White regains the piece 'With good play; no tice that 9 fxeS? �4+ would be far too dan gerous) 9 fxeS dxeS 1 0 ..ib5+ .Jtd7 1 1 .1I..xd7+ ctJxd7 1 2 0-0 .1I..c5+ 1 3 'ithl 'Yih4 with chances for both sides. Practical tests are needed (or lots of free time and nothing bet ter to do!). a32) 7 ... ctJb8 S eS ctJg8 9 d6 (also interest ing are 9 ..ltc4!? and 9 'iVf3!?) 9... cxd6 (9...c6 10 'iVf3 iLg7 1 1 ..ltc4 fS 12 h4 'fiaS 13 .Jtf4 1 82

looks very dangerous) 10 exd6 'iVf6 1 1 ctJb5 ctJa6 1 2 ..ltc4 .1I..h6 (1 2 ... 'iVe5+ 1 3 ..lte3 iLh6 14 0-0 .Jtxe3 1 5 !tel ! gives White a strong attack) 1 3 'iVe2+ WfS 1 4 .Jte3 .Jtxe3 1 5 fxe3 and White had a strong attack in Carlsten Nyysti, Helsinki 2002. a4) 5 d4 exd4 6 ctJxd4 ..ltg7 7 ctJde2 (this is some kind of Pirc Defence that should not be dangerous for Black) 7... 0-0 S g3 d6 9 i..g2 .Jtd7!? Oess logical was 9 ... Wh8 10 h3 ctJgS 1 1 g4 fS 12 exfS gxfS 13 gS and White was a little better in Blehm-Kaufman, Wash ington, 2002) 10 0-0 'Yics 1 1 !tel ..lth3 and Black is hardly worse. b) 4... iLe7 (In my opinion this move is too passive to equalise fully. Still, the empirical evidence is against me) 5 d4 d6 6 .1I..b S exd4 7 ctJxd4 .Jtd7 S 0-0 0-0 9 !tel ctJxd4 10 'fixd4 ..ltxbS 1 1 ctJxbS ctJd7! (Black is equal) 1 2 a4 1:teS 1 3 as .Jtf6 1 4 'Yib4 ctJcS 1 5 .Jtd2 c6 1 6 ctJc3 b6 1 7 axb6 and a draw was agreed in Wahls-Piket, Novi Sad 1 990. c) 4 ... .JtcS (a provocation!) 5 ctJxeS!? ctJxeS 6 d4 ..ltd6 and now: c1) 7 f4 ctJc6! (7 ...ctJg6 S eS .1I..e 7 9 fS ctJh4 10 exf6 .Ilxf6 1 1 "ii'e2+ gives Black many problems with the knight on h4) S eS .Jte7 (now we see that move a3 is quite useful Black does not have ... .ib4!) 9 dS ctJxdS 1 0 ctJxdS (10 'iVxdS d6 1 1 .ibS dxeS 1 2 fxeS 0-0 is unclear) 10 ... d6 1 1 exd6 'iVxd6 1 2 ctJxe7 'iVxe7+ 1 3 �f2 (or 1 3 'iVe2 i..e6 with a good game for Black) 1 3. .. 0-0 1 4 ..ltd3 iLfS with equality in Wolf-Lesiege, Montreal 1 993. c2) 7 dxeS .ixeS 8 .id3 (also interesting is S ctJe2 c6 9 f4 i.c7 10 ctJg3 with unclear play, but 1 0 eS is very risky, for example 1 0 ... ctJg4 1 1 h3 ctJh6 1 2 .Ile3 f6! when per haps Black is better) S... dS 9 exdS .1I..xc3+ 1 0 bxc3 'iVxdS 1 1 0-0 0-0 and White i s probably very slighdy better here. 5 �b5 d4 The only move. After S ... dxe4?! 6 ctJxe5 �d6 7 d4 exd3 (not 7...a6? as in Bhend-Flear, Brocco 1 9 9 1 , when White is close to winning after S i.f4! axbS 9 ctJxbS 'fidS 1 0 ctJxc6

U n u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es fo r Wh i t e

bxc6 1 1 ttJxc7+ �d7 12 ttJxa8 tva5+ 1 3 b4 tvxa8 14 0-0 - Black's king is awkward and the a-pawn is potentially very dangerous) 8 0-01 i.e6 9 ttJxc6 bxc6 10 i.f4! 'iVd7 1 1 .ixd3 i.d6 1 2 'iVd2 and there is no compen sation for the bad pawn structure. 6 tLJe2 After 6 ttJxe5?! �d6! (6... dxc3? 7 ttJxc6 bxc6 8 i.xc6+ i.d7 9 .ixa8 'ii'xa8 1 0 d3 cxb2 1 1 SLxb2 .i.e7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 :bl is good for White) 7 ttJc4 'iic 5 8 ttJd5 ttJxd5 9 exd5 'iVxd5 1 0 'iVe2+ .i.e6 1 1 0-0 0-0-0 Black has the better game. 6 . . . �d7 An interesting alternative is 6 ...ttJxe4!? 7 d3 (7 ttJxe5 'iVd5 8 i.xc6+ bxc6 9 ttJf3 c5 looks good for Black) 7...ttJd6 8 SLxc6+ bxc6 9 ttJxe5 ttJf5 10 0-0 .i.d6 1 1 ttJxc6 (1 1 i.f4

17 g3 f6 18 �d2 1:1de8 19 c4 dxc3 This was necessary. After 19 ...ttJe5 20 'iVe2 :hg8 21 b4 White will be able to organ ise a major attack on the queenside. 20 bxc3

i.xe5 12 i.xe5 0-0 would be equal) l 1 ...i.xh2+ 1 2 'li;?xh2 'ii'd6+ 1 3 ttJf4 'ib'xc6 1 4 :e1+ 'li;?f8 1 5 i.d2 i.b7 with unclear play. 7 d3 �d6 8 0-0 h6 It's also possible to chase the bishop and gain space, like in the Ruy Lopez. After 8 ... a6!? 9 i.a4 0-0 1 0 ttJel b5 1 1 i.b3 ttJa5 1 2 i.a2 c5 1 3 f4 ttJc6 both players have good play. 9 tLJe 1 tLJe7 It is not fully justified to play 9 ... g5?!, when White will use his lead in development to break open the centre. 1 0 c3! dxc3 1 1 bxc3 a6 12 i.a4 'iVe7 13 ttJc2! b5 14 .ib3 ttJa5 1 5 i.a2 c 5 1 6 ttJe3 .i:!.d8 1 7 ttJg3. White is better due to his control of the light squares. This is of course just a fantasy variation, but it does show the tendencies in this position. 1 0 �xd7 + 'iYxd7 1 1 f4 exf4 1 2 tLJf3 tLJc6 Black could also have equalised with 12 ...ttJg4!? 1 3 ttJxf4 (1 3 ttJexd4 0-0-0 14 ttJb3 f5 would be very dangerous for White) 13. .. 0-0 14 c3 c5. 1 3 tLJxf4 tLJe5 14 �h 1 tLJxf3 1 5 �xf3 0-0-0 1 6 tLJh5 tLJg4?! Unnecessary complications. After 1 6 ... ttJxh5 1 7 'ib'xh5 f6 1 8 'iVa5 'li;?b8 1 9 c3 i.e5 Black is no worse.

White is better. He has control of the cen tre and possibilities for creating threats on the b-ftle. 20 . . .tLJe5 21 �e2 'iYf7 22 d4 tLJc4 23 tLJxg7 'iYxg7 24 �xc4 .:txe4 25 nab1 c6 26 'iYd3 .:the8 27 d5 c5 27 ...cxd5 28 �xd5 .l:18e6 29 i.xh6! illus trates Black's troubles. 28 �f3 :te2 29 'iYf5+ �c7 30 �f4 �e7 31 c4 l:td8 32 �xd6+?! More dangerous was 32 a4! �b8 33 as with an attack. 32 . . J�xd6 33 1:1f4 1:1e5 34 'iYc2 J:te2 35 'iYf5 J:!.e5 36 �g4 J:!.e3 37 1:1bf1 a6 38 �g6?! 38 a4 with some pressure was better. 38 . . ..l:.xa3! Now it is time. After 38 ... .l:tel ? 39 :xel 'iVxe1+ 40 'it>g2 'iVe2+ 41 �h3 h5 42 'iVf5! followed by .l:!.e4 White comes out on top. 39 ':e4 'iYd7 40 J:!.fe1 ? From here on White does not play his best. With 40 "iVxh6! f5 41 :e6 :xe6 42 'ib'xe6 'ii'xe6 43 dxe6 :e3 44 l::!.xf5 �d6 45 :f7 b6 46 l:!.a7 White could have kept the balance and made a draw. 40 . . .�b8?? Time trouble madness. After 40 ... f5! 41 1 83


Me6 Mxe6 42 �xe6 'iVxe6 43 dxe6 'it>d8. Black has serious winning chances in the rook ending. 41 J:l.e7 �a4 Not 41 ...'iVc8 42 Me8 Md8 43 Mxd8 'iVxd8 44 Me8+ and White wins. 42 .l:tb 1 ?? Returning the favour. After 42 �h7! Mb3 (or 42.. :�tb3 43 Mbl and b7 will fall) 43 Me8+ c:J;;;a7 44 'iWc7 'iVd7 45 'iVb8+ 'iitb 6 46 M8e7 'XThite wins. 42 . . . nb6 43 l:txb6?? Suicide? Miscalculation? 43 . . . iVd 1 + 44 'it>g2 J:l.a2+ 4S 'it>h3 �f1 + 46 'it>g4 hS+! It is very likely that this is the move White overlooked. After 47 �xh5 �d1+ Black wins the queen. 47 �xhS �h3 mate (0- 1 ) A terrible game!

Game 97 Golubovic-Szabo

Budapest 1995 1 e4 eS 2 l2'lf3 l2'lc6 3 l2'lc3 l2'lf6 4 a3 dS S exdS l2'lxdS 6 �bS

White enters a Scotch Four Knights re versed where he has the extra move a2-a3. This gives him the possibility to play an oth erwise dubious line, as the manoeuvre ...tLJc6-b4 has been prevented. 6 . . . l2'lxc3 7 bxc3 1 84

After 7 �xc6+?! bxc6 8 bxc3 �d6 the two bishops and the initiative are sufficient com pensation for the bad pawn structure, A fter 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 d3 SLg4 the position is slightly uncomfortable for White, for example: a) 1 1 h3 SLh5 12 g4 (this looks terrible, but there is no alternative) 1 2 ... SLg6 1 3 J:Iel with a slightly worse position for White. b) 1 1 .l:.el ?! f5 12 h3 �h5 1 3 .l:.e3?? (\X1hite was in trouble, but this is a bad blun der; after 1 3 'iWe2 l:te8 1 4 �e3 e4 1 5 dxe4 Mxe4 1 6 'iWd2 SLxf3 1 7 gxf3 Mxe1+ 1 8 'it'xel 'iVf6 Black has a strong attack) 13 ... e4 14 dxe4 fxe4 1 5 l:l.xe4 �h2+ 0-1 Mitchell-Mack, correspondence 1 980. 7 . .�d6 8 d4 exd4 9 cxd4 0-0 1 0 0-0 �g4 1 1 �e3 This can be compared with the 1 0 ... �e6 line in the Scotch Four Knights (see Games 29-31). 1 1 ... l2'le7 1 1 ...'iVf6 12 .ie2 Mae8 13 'iVd2 tLJe7 14 h3 �h5 15 SLg5 'iWe6 1 6 lIfe1 'it'c8 17 c4 c6 1 8 �f4 was a little better for White in Tarta kower-Griinfeld, Vienna 1 928. 1 2 h3 �h5 1 3 �d3 Or 1 3 Mel tLJdS 14 .id2 with equality, Braeuning-Jenni, Bodensee 1 999. 1 3 . . . l2'ldS 14 c4 l2'lxe3 14 ... tLJf4!? seems more logical. But after the critical 1 5 c5 .ixf3 (1 5 ... tLJxd3 1 6 cxd6 i.gG 1 7 tLJe5 tLJxe5 1 8 dxe5 .l:!.e8 1 9 .l:!.c1 ! gives White some pressure) 1 6 'iVxf3 (or 1 6 .ixh7+l? 'iitxh7 1 7 'it'xf3 tLJd5 1 8 cxd6 'iWxd6 1 9 .l:ab1 b6) 1 6... tLJxd3 1 7 cxd6 'it'xd6 1 8 Mtb 1 White does keep an advantage - the knight is not really comfortable. Black can still fight with 1 8 ... c5!? 1 9 dxc5 'it'e5 with some counterplay, but the long-term prob lems on the queenside must tell. 1 5 fxe3 c5 After 15 ...�e7 16 e4 i.xa3 17 e5 (17 c5? SLb2 18 Ma4 i.xf3 19 .l:!.xf3 Mfd8 and Black wins) 1 7 ... �b4 1 8 �c2 .igG 1 9 .ixgG hxg6 20 'iVe4 White has good compensation for the pawn with his great centre and chances .

U n u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es for Wh i t e

of creating a kingside attack. It will take a long time before the a-pawn gets close to promotion.

4 . . .ct:Jxe4!

1 6 'Vlic2 i.g6

A nice combinational theme.

5 ct:Jxe4 Solid. Wild is 16 ... SLxf3 17 SLxh7+!? (17 ':'xf3 �h4 is pleasant for Black) 1 7...�h8 1 8 ':'xf3 g6 1 9 SLxg6 fxg6 20 'iVxg6 ':'xf3 21 'iVh5+ Wg7 22 ii'xf3 'iVe7 with chances for both sides.

1 7 i.xg6 hxg6 1 8 d5 'Vlic7 1 9 J:!.ae1 J::!.ae8 20 �e2 J:te7! The plan of doubling the rooks on the e file gives Black a safe draw.

21 'Vlid3 ':'fe8 22 e4 .1i.f4 23 �h1 'Vlid6 24 J:!.fe1 i.g3 25 :d 1 i.f4 26 l;!de1 i.g3 27 .l:.d 1 i.f4 28 a4 b6 29 1:tde1 i.g3 30 l:ld 1 .i.f4 Y, y, -

White cannot make real progtess. In the following classic battle between two of the best players of their age, Emanuel Lasker brutally slaughters Siegbert Tartasch in a line that has been known to be dubious for White ever since.

5 SLxf7+? Wxf7 6 tLlxe4 d5 gives Black a serious advantage due to the two bishops and the strong centre.

5 . . . d5 6 .1i.d3 dxe4 There is no reason to make things compli cated. After 6 ... f5?! 7 tLlc3 e4 8 �b5 White will end up with an advantage: a) 8... d4?! 9 tLlxe4 fxe4 1 0 �e2 (Black has problems with the e-pawn) 10 ... SLf5 (1O ...'iVd5 1 1 SLc4 �f5 12 SLd3! tLle5 1 3 j"xe4 tLlxf3+ 1 4 .i.xf3+ and White has a clear pawn more) 1 1 d3 .i.b4+ 1 2 SLd2 .i.xd2+ 1 3 tLlxd2 e 3 1 4 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 5 fxe3 and Black is struggling to find counterplay that justifies the pawn deficit. b) 8 ... exf3 9 'iVxf3 .i.e6 10 0-0 �d7 1 1 tLle2! SLd6 1 2 d4 0-0 1 3 SLf4 SLxf4 1 4 'iVxf4 and White has a positional advantage, Morovic-Sagalchik, North Bay 1 996. The e5square is a good future outpost for all of White's pieces - especially the knight.

7 .i.xe4 i.d6

Game 98

1 e4 e5 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 3 ct:Jc3 ct:Jf6 4 i.c4?!

Or: a) 7 ... tLle7 (paul Keres' idea) 8 c3 f5 9 �c2 tLlg6 (9 ... e4 1 0 tLlg5 h6 1 1 tLlh3 SLe6 12 f3 looks good for White) 1 0 d4 e4 1 1 �e2 SLd6 12 0-0 with unclear play. This still has to be

This is a famous beginner's move. Unfor tunately, after this innocent-looking inaccu racy White already has to fight for equality!

tested. b) 7 ... .i.c5?! 8 0-0 f6 9 c3 0-0 (Grob Alexander, Hastings 1 947/48) and now

Tarrasch-Lasker

World Ch. (game 3) Berlin 1916

1 85


White should play 10 'iVc2! with some advan tage. 8 d4?! Not recommended. After 8 0-0 0-0 9 c3 h6 10 l:te1 .l:te8 1 1 h3 iLd7 the position was equal in Djuric-Malaniuk, Formia 1 995. 8 . . . exd4 9 lLlxd4 Or 9 iLxc6+ bxc6 1 0 'ifxd4 0-0 11 0-0 and now: a) 1 1 ....l:te8! 12 b3 cS 1 3 �c3 l:!.e6 1 4 iLb2 l:!.g6 1 S l:!.fe1 iLb7 with an attack. Sozin Rabinovich, Moscow 1 924. b) Also relevant is the natural looking 1 1 ...cS!? 1 2 'iVc3 i.b7. The authors of Enry clopaedia of Chess Openin,gs believe this to be equal, but in my opinion Black has a serious initiative. 1 3 b3 'iWd7 1 4 iLb2 f6 1S l:!.ad1 'Yi'fS 1 6 'iWc4+ 'it>h8 17 iLlh4 'iihs 1 8 h3 (fartakower-Bogoljubow, Piestany 1 922) and now 1 8... fS! would have given Black the ad vantage - the knight on h4 is very weak. 9 . . . 0-0! After 9 ... iLlxd4 10 'ifxd4 0-0 1 1 i.e3 'iVe7 12 0-0-0 l:!.e8 1 3 1:the1 iLe6 14 i.dS! the position is equal - Gligoric. 10 i.e3 The alternatives are worse. 10 O-O? iLlxd4 1 1 'iVxd4 i.xh2+ 10 iLlxc6 'ifh4! 1 1 iLxh7+ 'iWxh7 1 2 iLld4 �d8 1 3 'ife2 cS and according to Keres Black has more than enough com pensation for the pawn - I agree. 1 0 .. J1Vh4! 1 1 i.xc6 bxc6 Here several moves are possible.

1 2 g3? Or: a) 12 iLlxc6? i.b7 1 3 'ifd4 'ifhS! 1 4 'iVc4 �fe8 and White's position is terrible, for example: I S iLld4 (1 S 'it>El as! 1 6 'it>gl iVgG and Black wins a piece) 1 S ...i.xg2 1 6 .l:tg1 i.dS 1 7 "tWc3 iLeS! with a clear advantage for Black. But not 1 7... i.xh2? 1 8 !:!.xg7+ <Ji;xg7 19 iLle6+ �gG 20 iVg7+ �fS 21 iLld4+ <Ji;e4 22 'it>d2 and only the Gods (and maybe the computers) know what's going on here. b) 12 "tWd2 �b8 (12 ...J:i.e8 13 0-0-0 'iWe4 and Black is better) 1 3 0-0-0 cS 1 4 ttJf3 'iVa4 1 S a3 is unclear according to Emanuel Lasker, but 1 s...iL fS 1 6 'iVc3 l:!.bS with l:!.fb8 next gives Black a very strong attack. c) 1 2 h3 is unclear according to Gligoric. I would like to play this kind of unclear posi tion all the time! Just look: 12 ... cS 1 3 iLlb3 (1 3 iLlf3 iVb4+ 14 'ifd2 'iVxb2 1 S 0-0 iLfS can hardly be called equal; the extra pawn might not be passed, but still it controls im portant squares) 1 3. .. i.b7 1 4 0-0 "tWe4 I S �g4 iVeS 1 6 'ifg3 iixb2 and Black is very close to having a winning position. 1 2 . . . Vi'h3 1 3 Vi'e2 c5

1 4 lLlb3 The alternatives also give little comfort: a) 1 4 iLlf3? .tg4 I S iLlgS 'iWg2 1 6 'iVEl iVb7! and White is completely defenceless. b) 14 iLlbS iLa6 1S 0-0-0 l:!.fb8!! (a great positional move!) 1 6 c4 iLxbS 1 7 cxbS a6! 1 8 bxa6 �e6 1 9 b 3 (after 1 9 'it>b1 i.eS 20 j"c1 1 86

Un u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es for Wh i t e

':xa6 White has no defence; one line goes 21 b3 l:.xa2 22 �xa2 ii'g6+ 23 'iVc2 l:.xb3+ and Black wins) 1 9 ... .ltf8 20 1:.hel l:.xa6 and Black should win. For example: 21 ..tf4 c4 22 'iixe6 fxe6 23 Wb 1 cxb3 24 axb3 l:!.xb3+ 25 Wc2 l:.£3 26 ..te3 .ltd6 and Black has a clear pawn more and an active position. 1 4 . . . j,g4 1 5 'ilVf 1 'ifh5! Black would also be better after 1 5 .. :iVxf1+ 1 6 Wxfl l:.ab8 but there is no reason to exchange queens when you are attacking. 1 6 tLld2 l:!.fe8 1 7 l:!.g 1 This move looks utterly senseless, but the alternatives are not at all better: a) 1 7 tiJc4 .It£3 1 8 l:.gl 'iixh2 and Black is winning. After 19 tiJd2 .ig4 20 l:.h1 l:.xe3+1 it is all over. b) 1 7 c3 l:.ab8 (1 7 ...l:.e7!? is also a good move) 1 8 b3 l:!.e 7 1 9 �g2 l:.be8 and there is no defence against ...l:.xe3. 20 0-0 .lth3 21 'if£3 �xf3 22 tiJxf3 .ltxfl 23 l:.xfl cannot be called a real alternative. 1 7 . . . .l:lab8 1 8 tLlc4 j,e5! Accuracy. This bishop was doing little and now it is the 'king'. If White exchanges it he has no defence on the dark squares - he has already lost the battle for the light squares. 1 9 h3 Desperation is the common trait of des perate men. Black has a nice win in the fol lowing line: 1 9 l:.b 1 .ic3+1 20 tiJd2 l:.ed8 21 f3 l:.xd2 22 .ixd2 J:te8+ 23 Wdl .ixf3+ 24 '>t>c1 .txd2+ 25 '>t>xd2 i¥h6+ 26 '>t>c3 �f6+ 27 '>t>d2 'i¥d4+ 28 �d3 l:.e2+ 29 '>t>c1 "iYxg1+ 30 "iYdl 'iie 3+ 3 1 �d2 J:tel mate! 1 9 . . . j,xh3 20 'ilVe2 i.g4 21 'ilVd3 J:tbd8 22 tLlxe5 .l:txd3 23 tLlxd3 .l:!.xe3+! 0-1

Game 99 Van der Wiel-Timman

Wijk aan Zee 1985 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tZlc3 tZlf6 This game is between the two strongest Dutch players in the 1 980s. Van der Wiel's

opening experiment with 4 .ie2 i s not re warded, and neither should it be. 4 i.e2 The problem with this move is that the extra tempo is useless and the bishop is not very actively placed on e2, so probably it will have to move later. Alas, White just gives Black the advantage of the first move for free.

4 . . . d5 5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 0-0 6 .ib5 would give the Scotch Four Knights with reversed colours. This is probably not so silly when compared with the actual game. 6 . . . tZlxc3 7 bxc3 j,d6 Also interesting was 7 ... e4!? 8 tiJd4 (this gambit is clearly White's idea, otherwise after 8 tiJel Black is certainly not worse) 8 ...tiJxd4 9 cxd4 "iYxd4 1 0 c3 "iYd5 1 1 d3 .ltd6 1 2 dxe4 �e5! (12...ii'xd1 1 3 .l2:xd1 0-0 14 .ie3 ..te6 1 5 a4 gave White some initiative in Van der Wiel-Yusupov, Reykjavik 1 985) 1 3 g3 0-0 and the position is equal according to Nunn. 8 d4 0-0 9 J:.b1 9 .ib5 exd4 1 0 cxd4 would again trans pose to the main line of the Scotch Four Knights with reversed colours. 9 . . . h6 1 0 dxe5 tLlxe5 1 1 tLlxe5 j,xe5 1 2 j,a3?! Not a very good move, but Black also has good prospects after 12 .if3 "i¥h4! (12 ... l:.b8 13 ..ta3 ..td6 14 iLxd6 'iixd6 1 5 "iYxd6 cxd6 16 l:.fdl l:I.d8 leads to equality according to 187


Timman, but 12 ... l::tb8 seems a bit artificial) 1 3 g3 'iVf6 1 4 �e2 c6 1 5 c4 ne8 and Black has good prospects in the rniddlegame. A likely move could be ... lIe7 followed by ... .th3. 1 2 . . . lie8 1 3 �f3 1 3 �xd8 nxd8 14 c4 nb8 1 5 i..d3 .te6 would give Black a solid advantage in the endgame. \x'hite has weaknesses; Black doesn't. 1 3 . . :i'h4! 1 4 g3 'i'a4 The opening is over and \X'hite has accumulated a great amount of problems with his artificial play. 1 5 'i'c1 �xc3 1 6 �xb7 �h3 1 7 �b2 After 17 i..xa8 ':'xa8 1 8 �e3 (1 8 nd1 ? �e4 and Black wins) 1 8 ...'iVxa3 1 9 'iff3 nc8 20 nb3 �xa2 21 l::td l i.. f6 22 g4 'iVxc2 23 nbd3 .txg4 24 'iVxg4 lIe8 Black has three pawns for the exchange and good winning chances.

1 7 ...nab8! 1 8 i..g2 (1 8 .txc3 nxb7! 1 9 �xb7 'iVc6 20 f3 .txfl 21 lIbl i..h3 22 'iVd2 'iVxf3 and \X'hite has no defence against ...ne2) 1 8... i..xg2 1 9 ..t>xg2 i..a5 20 ..tal 'ii'xa2 21 l::txb8 l:!.xb8 and the extra pawn will count. 1 8 J:txb2 .l:!.ad8 1 9 �g2 �xg2 20 'it>xg2 J:.e2 21 c3 .l:!.de8 22 �d2?! After 22 �gl 'it'c6 23 ':'xe2 nxe2 24 1i'a3 a6 \X'hite has some drawing chances, even though Black is clearly better placed. 22 . . . a5 23 'i'b2?! 23 Wg1 'iVc6 24 'it'd1 leaves \X'hite with more chances for the draw. 23 . . . 'i'c6+ 24 'it>g 1 'iVc4 25 a3?! Again inaccurate defence. Better was 25 nxe2 ':xe2 26 'iVb8+ �h7 27 'iVb 1+ g6 28 'iVb3 'ifxb3 29 axb3 i:tb2 30 b4 axb4 31 cxb4 nxb4 32 .l::!.d 1 c5 33 nd7 and \X'hite has good practical chances for a draw. Still, Black is not forced to choose this endgame of course. 25 . . Jite1 !

1 7 . . . �xb2? Here Black could have gained a winning position with the following sequence:

After this there is no defence. 26 J:Ixe1 J:txe 1 + 27 'it>g2 'i'f1 + 28 'it>f3 'iVh 1 + 29 'it>g4 f5+ 30 'it>h3 'i'f1 + 0-1

1 88

U n u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es fo r Wh i t e

Summary 4 a3 is an interesting move for a player looking for a game with reversed colours and some advantageous differences. Probably the game is level after 4... d5!? 4 lLlxe5 is a losing blitz line with little theoretical importance, 4 .ic4?! is quite bad, and after 4... lLlxe4! Black already has the initiative, and quite likely also the advantage. 4 .ie2 is harmless and probably just close to a lost tempo. The best option for 'W'hite seems to be entering the Scotch Four Knights reversed. All in all 'W'hite should probably look for 4 g3 if he wants to play interesting sidelines. 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 a3 4 .ie2 (0) Game 99; 4 ..tc4 Game 98 4 . . . d5 (0) 5 exd5 Game 97 5 .ib5 (0) Game 96 -

-

-

-

4 ii.. e2

4

. . .

d5

5 il.b5

1 89


INTJEX OF COMPlUE GAMES

I

Acs-Khalifrnan, Hoogeveen 2002............................................................................................... 26 Adams-Korchnoi, Madrid

1996............................................................................................... 1 1 1914 ............................................................................................... 61 Almasi.I-Bezgodov, Balatonbereny 1996............................................................................... 1 15 Arkhipov-Zaitsev, Moscow 1992 .............................................................................................. 53 Alekhine-Lasker, Moscow

Belikov-Zaitsev, Moscow

1996 ............................................................................................... 171

Bellon Lopez-Izeta Txabarri,

Eigoibar 1998..................................................................... 1 1 7

Wijk aan Zee 1977 ...................................................................... 105 Tastrup 1990 ............................................................................................. 10

Bellon Lopez-Jamieson, Berg.K-Bronstein,

Berg-Sokolov.l, MalmO" 200 1 Bezman-Varavin, Perm Blehm-Socko,

............................. . . . . . . . . . . .............. ..............................................

44

1997 ................................................................................................... 74

Warsaw 2002................................................................................................... 181

Bondarevsky-Bronstein, Moscow

1945.................................................................................. 76

Cappe/le la Grande 1995 ........................................................................ 40 Christiansen-Gelfand, Munich 1992 ...................................................................................... 49 Bykhovsky-Howell,

Egorov-Iuldachev, Aden 2002................................................................................................ 99 Forster-Hjartarson, Gallagher-Cooper,

uipZig 1996

........... . . .......... .................

.

. . .. . . ...................... .........................

7

British uague 2001 .................................................................................. 36

Pardubice 2002.................................................................................................. 142 Griesheim 2002 ......................................................................................... 1 73 Glek-Inkiov, Porto San Giorgio 200 1 ...................................................................................... 144 Ganguly-Acs,

Glek-Grabarczyk,

Glek-Klovans, Glek-Kroeze,

Willingen 2001 ................................................................................................. 1 77

The Netherlands 1996........................................................................................ 162

Germa'!y 2001 ............................................................................................... 154 Glek-Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 1998 .................................................................................. 137 Glek-Marcelin,

Glek-Nikolic,

1 90

Wijk aan Zee 1997 .......................................................................................... 165

Index o f C o mp le t e G a m e s

Biel I996 ...................................................................................................... 1 78 Zillertal 1993 ....................................................................................................... 168

Glek-Onischuk, Glek-Vucic, Glek-Wells,

Ostend 1993

Glek-Zeier,

Baden-Baden 2002 ................................................................................................ 138

............................... . . . ................................ . . ........................ ..............

1 75

Reggio Emilia 1995/96............................................................................ 72

Godena-Beliavsky,

Golubev-Malaniuk, Alushta

1994 .......................................................................................... 55 Golubovic-Szabo, Budapest 1995........................................................................................... 184 Gutnikov-Tal,

Leningrad 1951 ................................................................................................ 123

Harikrishna-Cvek,

Pardubice 2002........................................................................................ 157

Hartoch-Timman,

Leeuwarden 1978 .................................................................................... 125

Swedish Championship, Skara 2002 ..................................................... 136 Hector-Hartman, Port Erin 1996 ......................................................................................... 169 Hector-Barkhagen,

Hector-Johannessen, Malmo· 2002 ...................................................................................... Hector-Sokolov.I, lvlalmiJ" Hector-Timoshenko,

161

1997 ............................................................................................. 139

Bled OlYmpiad 2002 .......................................................................... 159

Zabrzanski Wrzesien 1994 ........................................................................ 64 Kazakhstan 1994 .................................................................................. 14 Ivanchuk-Svidler, Linares 1999 ............................................................................................... 20 Hnydiuk-Kiselev,

Iuldachev-Kholmov,

Kamsky-Adams,

Dortmund 1992............................................................................................. 23

Kenworthy-Van der Sterren,

Ramsgate 1981 ...................................................................... 120

Comspondence 1993 .................................................................................... 122 Kobalija-Sevostianov, Moscow 1994 ....................................................................................... 83 Kountz-Van den Doel, Dei::rjsau 2000 ................................................................................... 42 Kovalevskaya-Xie Jun, New Delhi 2000 .............................................................................. 163 Kersten-Voetter,

Kucera-Oral,

Prerov 1995 .......................................................................................................... 63

Lautier-Sokolov.I,

Comze 1992.............................................................................................. 51

Lesiege-Gligoric, Montreal 1998 ...........................................................................................

1 19 Lima-Santos, Bra::rj1 2000 ....................................................................................................... 146 Lutz-Yusupov, Munich 1992 .................................................................................................... 48 Malakhov-Pinter, Balatonbereny 1995 ..................................................................................... 54 Malakhov-Yemelin,

Ekaterinburg 1996 ................................................................................. 61

Marinkovic-Yuneev, Monson-Milat,

Leningrad 1989 ................................................................................... 150

correspondence 1996 ........................................................................................ 126

Copenhagen 1991 ............................................................................. 148 Motylev-Grischuk, Moscow 2001 ............................................................................................ 24 Movsesian-Illescas Cordoba, Elista OlYmpiad 1998 ........................................................... 29 Motwani-Christensen,

Nadyrhanov-Safin,

Bishkek 1993 ........................................................................................... 93

Smolensk 2000 .............................................................................. 19 Nunn-Sulskis, Moscow OlYmpiad 1994 .................................................................................... 43 Nikolenko-Aleksandrov,

19 1


Portoroz 1999 ....................................................................................... 46 Bra:;:j! 1994 ................................................................................................... 109

Pavasovic-Beliavsky, Pcola-Polgar.S,

Pedersen-Khruschiov,

Bled Olympiad 2002

.......... ...................................................... ...........

56

Czeslochowa 1998 ......................................................................................... 131 Polovodin-Rutman, uningrad 1978....................................................................................... 96

Pinski-Pedzich,

Reefat Bin Sattar-Hebden, Rozentalis-Adams,

Dhaka 1995.............................................................................. 81

Ko/!/ 1997................................................................................................. 79

Santo Roman-Hector,

Manila Olympiad 1992 ...................................................................... 86

Schmaltz-Romanishin,

Franken 2001

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

134

Dortmund 2001 . 133 Sermek-Medancic, Bled 1998 ................................................................................................. 98 Shaked-Leko, Tilburg 1997..................................................................................................... 140 Shariyazdanov-Blauert, Calcutta 2002 153 Seger-Koch,

.............................................................................

.....................

........... ............... ........ .............. ................................

Shirov-Karpov, l'v[oscow

1992 .................................................................................................... 66

Bundesliga 2001 . 97 Wroclaw 1987 ............................................................................................. 1 14 Smyslov-Polugaevsky, Baku 1961 ....................................................................................... 152 Solovjov-Gavritenkov, Tula 1999 .................................................................................. 158 Spangenberg-Yemelin, Bratislava 1993 ................................................................................ 59 Skripchenko Lautier-Adams,

.....................

..............................................

Skrobek-Pinkas,

Speelman-Karpov,

unares 1992. ............................................................................................ 12

Spielmann-Rubinstein,

Baden-Baden 1925 ........................................................................... 1 7

uningrad 1990 Svidler-Morozevich, Moscow 2002 Svidler-Cherepkov,

...............

..

..............................................

..............................................

Tarrasch-Lasker,

.

.............

.

......................

. . . . . ..

..

...

...

.............

102 111

World Ch. (game 3) Berlin 1916................................................................ 185

Todorov-Delchev,

Bulgaria 1995 ............................................................................................ 90

Trabert-Flear.G, Asti

1998

........................ ..............................................................................

Van Der Weide-Timmermans,

89

5as Van Gent 1996 ........................................................ 129

Wtjk aan Zee 1985........................................................................ 187 Dieren 1998 ........................................................................................ 106

Van der Wiel-Timman, Van Haastert-Golod, Winsnes-Hector,

0rebro 1998 ................................................................................................. 34

Yandemirov-Aleksandrov, Yandemirov-Bezgodov,

51 Petersburg 1996...................................................................... 69

5molensk 1992 ................................................................................ 95

Aloscow 2002 . 37 Yudasin-Sagalchik, Kemerovo 1995......................................................................................... 32

Yemelin-Kharlov,

192

...........................................................

...................................

The Four Knights

New Ideas in the Four Knights

The Jaguar Knights

Knights of the Blood

The Jaguar Knights

The Jaguar Knights

Grey Knights

Vegas Knights

Knights of the Crown

The Winter Knights

Aristophanes - Knights, The

Knights of the Cross

The Knights of Malta

The two knights defence

The Two Knights Defence

The Two Knights Defence

The Knights Elemental

The Jaguar Knights

Knights of the Blood

The Jaguar Knights

The Knights of Arthur

The Disorderly Knights

The Jaguar Knights

Knights of the Morningstar

The Knights Templar

The Knights Templar

The Knights of the Cornerstone

The Knights of the Cross

Knights of the Blood 01 - Knights of the Blood

Grey Knights

Wild Knights

The Four Knights

New Ideas in the Four Knights

The Jaguar Knights

Knights of the Blood

The Jaguar Knights

The Jaguar Knights

Grey Knights

Vegas Knights

Knights of the Crown

The Winter Knights

Aristophanes - Knights, The

Knights of the Cross

The Knights of Malta

The two knights defence

The Two Knights Defence

The Two Knights Defence

The Knights Elemental

The Jaguar Knights

Knights of the Blood

The Jaguar Knights

The Knights of Arthur

The Disorderly Knights

The Jaguar Knights

Knights of the Morningstar

The Knights Templar

The Knights Templar

The Knights of the Cornerstone

The Knights of the Cross

Knights of the Blood 01 - Knights of the Blood

Grey Knights

Wild Knights

Recommend Documents