Gioco Piano-Gufeld 1

First published 1996 © Eduard Gufeld and Oleg Stetsko 1996 Pages 130-158 © 1996 of Murray Chandler/B. T. Batsford Ltd ISBN 0 7134 7802 0 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Typeset by B. B. Enterprises, Brighton and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1H 0AH A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, John Nunn, Jon Speelman General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE Commissioning Editor: Graham BurgessContents Introduction Part 1: Giuoco Pianissimo Section 1: White plays in the Centre 1 White plays 5 c3 2 Black plays ...2b6 3. Black plays ...2a7 4 Modern Systems Section 2: White plays on the queenside 5 White delays the queenside attack 6 Black retreats the bishop to a7 7 Black counterattacks with 7...a5 Part 2: White plays an early d4 8 43; Black strongpoints e5 9 Counterattack Against the e4-pawn 10 The 40-0 Variation Part 3: The Evans Gambit - by Murray Chandler 11 The Evans Gambit Accepted 12 The Evans Gambit Declined Index of Variations I5 16 19 30 39 59 70 71 88 97 98 105 129 132 134 153 159Introduction The Giuoco Piano (1 e4 e5 2 DE3 Deb 3 Bc4 Lc5) is a branch of the Italian Game with a 500 year history, and its name reflects the contribution of Italian players when the opening was coming into being. Refer- ence to it was first seen in the Géttingen manuscript (15th century). In particular, the continuation 4 c3 Af6 is attributed to Damiano in 1512. But to all intents and purposes the theory of this opening was first investi- gated by the first professional chess player (as the Botvinnik considered him), the Italian Gio- acchino Greco, who in 1619, by continuing this line, examined the sharp variation 5 d4 ed 6 cd Rb44+- 7 Dc3. In the 17th and 18th centuries the Giuoco Piano was used more often than any other opening, as the immediate threat to f7 corre- sponded best to the understand- ing of the game at the time. But in the process of its long history it has, like all living things, evolved, from the open and sharply impulsive game of the Middle Ages to the more circumspect play in the quieter Gi- uoco Pianissimo with 4 d3, which is linked with the name of Lolli (1763) and again from the Bayonet Attack of the Romantic era to today’s habit of profound manoeuvring. At the end of the last century the top rank of professional chess players, such as Steinitz, Lasker, Chigorin and others already understood that playing in the Romantic style with an energetic attack on the centre by d2- d4, based on precise knowledge, leads to concrete positions, which are accessible to less experienced players. At the same time, leading the game into a Procrustes bed of playing for tempi, to a certain extent nar- rows the scope for artistic potential, and denies the stronger6 Introduction player the chance to outwit the opponent in a strategic struggle. Therefore, the sharp, attacking game, based on opening up the centre early after d2-d4, gradually began to give ground to a second plan, in which White constructs a pawn phalanx after d2-d3 and c2-c3, setting aside an attack on the centre for a better moment. Thus in the 20th century it is as if the Giuoco Piano has taken a step backwards (in comparison with d2-d4), and its strategic manoeuvring is carried out in the style of the numerous closed variations of the Ruy Lopez. True, individual tests of similar interpretations also appeared in the last century. Therefore we consider it useful to show some analogies, and try to trace the links of time to connect examples from the past with the present. Game 1 Chigorin-Lasker St. Petersburg 1895/6 (notes by Bogoljubow) 1 e4 €5 2 Af Ac6 3 Rcd eS 43 a6 5 d3 d6 6 Dbd2 a6 7 h3 Ra7 8 2b3 Ba 9 Of Dc5 10 &c2 a5 11 We2 d4(D) 12 cd! Every commentator has cen- sured this move, as now Black is allowed to gain the initiative on the queenside with the move ..b7-b5 of. I, on the other hand, would suggest that 12 c4! is the only move that makes the d3- square safe in the long term, and takes away from Black the possibility of achieving a strong attack along the d-file after ..d4xc3. Only with a safe centre can White hope to develop an attack on the kingside. 2 £6 13 2d2 Deb 14 Dg3 bs! 15 cb ab 16 2b3 DeT 17 &ha D5 18 &c2 Reb 19 @Dhs 0-0 20 ga! Rb6! 21 »b4 Db3 With this very cunning manoeuvre, Lasker seizes some initiative on the queenside. 22, &xb3 A xb323 00 RE7 If 23...2xa2, then 24 2h6!. 24 45! White sacrifices the a-pawn to gain an attack. Another continuation could be 24 a3 c5 25 be Rxc5 26 Bb4. 24 ww O®xt5 25 of Wes! 26 Dg3 xa 27° «~Bxa2 Sxa2 28 bh2 fT 29 Hel = ths 30 Wed Hes 31 «fa! 5 For the sacrificed pawn Black has created for himself a very dangerous passed pawn, which finds support from the f7-bishop, although a white c5-pawn could also become dangerous. 32 fe fe! Very circumspect! Instead after 32..WxeS5? 33 24 We8 (33...We7 34 5!) 34 be Rxc5 35 Eel White would have gained a very dangerous attack. 33 Qgs! After 33 be? Black should continue 33...2xc5 34 Hb1 b4! 35 Axb4 WS 36 QxcS Wxbl 37 Ad6 2c8, etc. 33 2a8! 34 be b4(D) 35 6? Until this point, Chigorin has made good use of his chances, but here he overlooks something. By playing 35 Eel! he could probably have saved the game, for example, 35...b3 36 c6! (the pawn starts to become danger- Introduction 7 ous; 36...2a5 would have been too adventurous because of 37 £6) 36...b2 37 Hbl Wxc6 38 Exb2 We3 39 Hb8! (this is the saving move; if 39 Hd2??, then there comes 39...2xg5 40 Wxg5 h6) 39...2xg5 40 Hxg8+ Axes 41 Wxgs We2+ 42 Sgl!, and Black must make do with a draw, as he cannot take the d3- pawn because of ...f5. 35 Wxe6 36 Qxd8 Exd8 37 We5 With the aim of occupying the c-file. 37 we W6 38 Wel We7 Preventing Wc7. 39 £6 ef 40 ODEs WE 41 We7 Bc8! This move and the following bishop manoeuvre have been calculated beautifully. 42 Wh6 2g6 43° Dh4 Re8! 44 DES Rd7! 45 Dh?8 Introduction Hastening defeat, but after 45 Ad6 Hc2+ 46 #h1 Le6 as well, Black wins with the help of the b-pawn (if 47 Wxb4?, then 47...Bc6). 45... Whe! 46 Wd6 Wxh4 47 Wxd7 Wfd+ 0-1 An amazingly subtle game by the World Champion! Lasker himself had occasion to use the Giuoco Piano in the final World Championship match of the nineteenth century. This took place in Moscow at the end of 1896 in the form of a re- tum match against Steinitz, in which the fading matador remained true to the departing era and came forward openly. The reappearance of this opening at the highest level occurred only 85 years later in the second Kar- pov-Korchnoi world championship match. Game 2 Karpov-Korchnoi Merano Wch (8) 1981 (notes based on those by Makarychev) 1 e4 eS 2 AB Dc6 3 Bcd AS 403 D6 5 d3 d6 6 Dbd2 a6 7 00 0-0 8 &b3 Ra7 9 h3 Reb 10 Rc2 Karpov does not wish to exchange bishops, but 10 “cd is also possible. 10 .. d5 White tends to benefit from the centre opening up in this type of position, but Korchnoi doubt- less feared 10...De7 11 d4 Ag6 12 Hel f4 13 fl with the threats of 14 &xf4 and 14 de. 11 Hel de Black could consider first 11...Be8 and only if 12 Afi, then 12...de 13 de Wxd1. If the white knight manoeuvres via f1, then the black knight would rather stay on f6 than venture to h5. 12 de 13 Afi This is not only best, it is also necessary. Instead 13 @xe5? allows 13...@xf2+, 14...Wh4+ and 15...Axe5, while otherwise a knight invasion on f4 would give Black powerful threats. 13... Wxd1 13...W6 14 De3 sharpens the game to White’s benefit, e.g. 14..Df4 15 Dds, 14...Wg6 15 Dh! or 14...kad8 15 Dds We6 16 SFI! (but not 16 Axes &xf2!, nor 16 Dh4 Wg3) 16...£6 17 Dh4 WE7 18 W3 threatening g2-24. 14 Exdi Had8 So far the game has been tense, and the play direct. The ending that now arises does not look terribly unpleasant for Black, but the rather badly @Dhsplaced black knight and the hint of a weakness on d5 give Karpov enough to play for the win. 15 Re3 16 &xa7_ 9 Dxa7 17 De3 D4 18 ha! Karpov hinders Black’s kingside counterplay. Now Korchnoi should have given up any active plans for the time being and defended passively, starting with moves such as ...2f7, ...c6, D8, ...26 and ...Ae6. 18... 27 19 Del Ac8 20 £3 Deo? Black refuses to play the defensive move ...c6, but ends up walking into a combination. That Black has consolidated his position tums out to be an illusion. 21 Add a7 22 ~2b3 Del (D) Black frees the c8-square for the bishop so that he has a reply to the threatened 23 2xe6 2xe6 24 DcS. Introduction 9 It is hard to believe that Black can be in much danger, but consider the following variations: a) In response to 23...Hfd8 Karpov had prepared 24 @xe7+ Bxe7 25 Ac5, when Black must avoid 25...Bxd1? 26 Hxd1 Axc5 27 Hd8+, when he is actually mated, and play 25..Hb8 26 Dxe6 Axe6 27 Qxe6 Exe 28 Hd7 Hc8 (but not 28...b6 29 Hadi! Exb2 30 Exc7 and 31 Had7). b) 23...c6 is also unattractive, because of 24 AxeS! fe 25 DAf6+ gf 26 Bxd7. c) 23..xd5 24 cd Dd8 25 Dc5 Bd6 26 De4 Hd7 27 c4 and c4-c5 gives White a large advantage. 24 Bad Karpov forces a further weakness on the queenside, which he will use to open the a-file. ww b5 White’s main threat of 25 43b4 can be executed after 24... fd8, whilst 24..Hd6 leads to a difficult position: 25 &xc6 be 26 De7+ wh8 27 ALS Hdds 28 Dh4 Bb8 29 Hd2 c5 30 Ac6 bo 31 AaS followed by Dc3 and Dac4 in either order. 25 Re2 fds 26 a4 os 27 g3 This is not a position where White can blast his way through, but instead can gradually in- crease the pressure; Black is limited to unpleasantly passive, though not hopeless, defence.10 Introduction We shall give the rest of the game in brief, since we are well away from a discussion of the opening themes: 27..Hd6 28 b4 De7 29 De3 Hc6 30 Ha3 Ac8 31 ab ab 32 $22 Dbo 33 Db2 Exdl 34 &xd1 Hd6 35 Le2 Le8 Black must avoid the variation 35...Hd2 36 Dd3! Ac4 37 Ha8+! Re8 (37...8e7 38 Bel Hxd3 39 Df5+!) 38 Bel Hxd3 39 Qxd3 Dxe3 40 Vxb5 c6 41 Bxc6 Ac7 42 Ec8. 36 HaS Hd8! Black has no choice. If 36...c6, then 37 Ha6 Ac8 38 Ba8. 37 Sel 6 38 Ha6 Hb8 39 Rd1 Ac8 40 Ad3 Ac7 41 BaS Ha8 42 £4! ef 43 pf Db6! 44 2f3 Hd8 45 2e2 “Aad 46 Ha7 Ha7 47 Sd2 De6 48 Bxd7 2xd7 49 24 g6 Black moves into a very dangerous position thanks to the exchange of bishops and pair of pawns. In the event of 49...4e7 50 Df5 Sd8 White maintains powerful pressure, but has not managed to create a passed pawn. 50 £5 gf 50...A\c7 loses: 51 fg &xg4 52 gh!. 51 QxfS dg7 52 e5! Df 53 Rxd7 Dxd7 54 e6 DAdb6 55 Did S18 56 Sd3 Ac8 57 Aga be7 58 Ah6! bd6 59 Hdd De7 60 Af7+ Sc7 61 Ah5 c5+ 62 be De6+ 63 Se3 DAxc5 64 Axi6 Dxe6 65 h5 AlB 66 ed Lb6 67 Dgs h6 68 Af7 Deb 69 Ae8 Dc5+ 70 Se3 Dad 71 Ld2 b4 72 cb Dxb4 73 Axh6 De5 74 DES Dds 75 h6 Des+ 76 a3 Dg5 77 Sd Lc6 78 Dig? De7 79 DE6 Deo 80 DES Y2-"2 The appearance of new, or rather, well-forgotten old openings in world championship matches usually provides the impetus for their reintroduction into general chess practice. This is what has happened in this case. The Giuoco Pianissimo with 4 d3 has firmly taken its place amongst modern openings. Therefore the study of this system, whose theory is developing actively, is the primary plan of this book. We have devoted less space than earlier theoretical reference works to the system linked with an early d2-d4. Its theory is mainly based on the investigations of the masters of the past; in this book we have concentrated on modem experi- ence of this opening. As in the preceding case, we consider it useful to spend some time also looking at the prominent specialists of this opening. Game 3 Schiffers-Harmonist Frankfurt 1887 1 e4 eS 2 DB Dc6 3 Rcd 25 43 M6 5 d4 ed 6 cd 2b4+7 £d2 Rxd2+ 8 Dbxd2 5 9 ed @®xd5 10 Whb3 Dee 11 00 0-0 12 Sfel 6 13° a4 A contemporary of Chigorin, and the second strongest Russian chess player of the time, Schif- fers was also a well-known theo- retician. In this game he manages not only to overcome the standard Giuoco Piano defence, but also created a masterpiece of a combination, which received prizes for its beauty. 13 a4 (alongside 13 Ded) is one of the main continuations. 3 .. We7 14 acl! Threatening a double capture on dS. 4 .. Dia? If 14...2e6, then 15 Ag5. The best way to avoid problems on the e-file would have been 14...Wf4!, which was demon- strated more than a quarter of a century later in a 1914 game Schlechter-Breyer: 15 De4 2£5 16 Dc5 b6 17 Ad3 Lxd3 18 2xd3 with a level game. But one should not be too severe, as Harmonist was a player from the Romantic era of chess. 15 gs! Dego 16 He8! (D) The beginning of a well and deeply calculated combination, which Black could prevent only by paying White off with a Introduction 11 pawn, viz. by 16...2e6. 16 Bxe8 ehs Or 17.68 18 Dxh7+ Ye7 19 Hel+, etc. 18 &xe8 De2+ 19 @hi ®xel 20 Dt7+ gs 21 Dh6++ SB 22 Wg8+ de7 23 Sxg6 = hg 24 Wxg7+ = &d8 25 WE8+ a7 26 Ded! (D) Y Y Y Hay A In this quiet move lies the point of the combination that12 Introduction began ten moves ago. Was The mate on c5 can also be avoided by playing 26...d3 (or 26...b6), but then 27 Wg7+ Yd8 28 Df7+ &d7 29 Afd6+ is decisive. 27 Wd6+ = &Se8 28 Afo+ = 1-0 Game 4 Van der Wiel-Karpov Amsterdam 1980 1 e4 eS 2 AB DAc6 3 Rcd cS 43 Df6 5 d4 ed 6 cd Sb4+ 7 2d2 Rxd2+ 8 Dbxd2 d5 9 ed }®xd5 10 Wb3 DeeT 11 0-0 0-0 12 Bfel 6 13 Ded ho 14 De5 Woe 15 Dd6 A pawn sacrifice almost in the spirit of the Romantic era - after 15...Wxd4 White would continue 16 Wa3 followed by AeSxf7. However, White allows queens to be exchanged, whilst advanc- ing the knight only aids Black’s development, allowing him to equalize without difficulty. The pragmatic 15 Had1 is more in the spirit of modem chess. 5 .. 16 &xb3 Wxb3 bs 17 He2 aS 18 Dx = AxfS 19 2xd5 = cd (D) 20 g4 The diagram position can be evaluated as equal, and the development of events depends on how effectively the two sides make use of the open c- and e- files. But first White makes an attempt to gain some space on the kingside, seizing upon the fact that 20...2e6?! is suspect in view of 21 £4. 20 ... &h7 21 Hael The fork 21 “d7 only leads to an exchange of open files after 21,..Hfe8 22 Hael Hxe2 23 Exe2 Hc8. ‘2. Hba8 22 h4 £6 23 Ges gS! A far-sighted idea! It is useful to have more than one target in the white position; the g4-pawn will be vulnerable in addition to that on d4. 24 He7 Ef725 hg hg 26 He8+ Exe8 27 Exe8+ = bg7 28 Del Threatening to attack the dS- pawn, which does not work immediately: 28 Hd8 Hc7! 29 Exd5?? 2e4. 28 He7 29 £3 &f7 It is becoming clear that Black would profit from a straight fight for the open files. 30 Eb8 de6 31 Yf2 b6 32 Ha8 Qb1 33 a3 Qa2 34 de3 Eh7 35 He8+ dd7 36 Hf8 He7+ 37 Sd2 Se6 38 Eh8 He7 39 He8+ Sf7 40 Ha8 2h3 41 Dd3 Qad 42 Bh8 de6 (D) 43 f4 Black’s previous manoeuvre has not brought any tangible re- sults, and White could have continued his waiting strategy with 43 Has. 43...Hc2+ 44 te3 Hg? 45 £5+? This is a strategic blunder, which allows Black to reap the Introduction 13 benefits of his 23rd move. White will be unable to defend his two weak pawns, on d4 and g4. After the only move 45 #f3! Bgl 46 fg &dl+ 47 &e3 fg (after 47...Bxg4 there is the fork 48 £2), the weaknesses of g4 and g5 at least cancel each other out. 45..$d6 46 Bh6 Bp3+ 47 bd2 Le7! 48 Dba? This move may appear active, but it only leads to an exchange of rooks, after which the distant passed g-pawn should decide the fate of the game. 48 Hh7+ would have been more stubborn: 48...8f8 49 Exa7 2bS 50 Ab4 Bxed 51 Hb7 Bxd4+ 52 &c3 Hf4 53 DxdS Exf5 54 Dxb6. 48...ixg4 49 Dxd5+ 26 50 Dxf6 White cannot be saved by 50 De3 Exd4+ 51 Sc3 Le5 52 Bxf6 Sxf6 53 Sxd4 2c6 either, since the g-pawn moves into ac- tion. 50...2xd4+ 51 &c3 Hhd! 52 Dedt+ A final stunt, the idea being that 52...@e5? allows 53 Axg5 Hxh6 54 Af7+. But neither the double check nor 52 Hg6 Be5 helps. §2...8d5 53 Bxh4 gh 54 DgS d7 55 16 Sd6 56 Sd4 h3 57 £7 be7 58 Axh3 &xh3 59 Le5 2d7 60 f8W+ Sx 61 db Rad 62 dc7 be7 63 b7 Sd6 64 Sxa7 Sc5 0-1 It is not by accident that we have gone over the historical14 Introduction parallels which have thrown up bridges between the last century and the 1980s, as we consider these years to be the beginning of the renaissance of the Giuoco Piano. In fact, for the last 15 years there has been a significant evolution chiefly in the direction of striving for an open strategic battle, which has been enriched with modem ideas. The history of mankind’s development unavoidably leaves its imprint on an infinite sphere of activities, including chess. The modem world is astonish- ingly dynamic, a fact which in- evitably tells on human thinking, and also has significance in the re-evaluation of the correlation of dynamic and static factors in chess battles. Therefore, the life of any opening depends not only on objective parameters but also on the laws of fashion, which are usually strong in any given world - in our case, chess. And the very fact that the Giuoco Pi- ano has fallen into the field of view of such dynamic players as Kasparov, Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik and Gelfand, and other leading members of the chess elite, is a sign of the times. We do not want our readers to be left behind!Part 1: Giuoco Pianissimo In the old Italian manuals this system of development, 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 Bc4 cS 4 d3 (D) received the name ‘Giuoco Pia- nissimo’, which meant ‘very quiet game’. It is characterized by the modest placing of White’s pawn on d3, by which White demonstrates a temporary refusal to initiate sharp play by advanc- ing the pawn to d4. At that time the opening received its name, the play was reduced to leisurely manoeuvring, where each side’s plan was almost independent of the other’s. In modern chess the system has been imbued with new substance and ideas, and so it is now regarded as entirely suitable for those playing for a win. After the natural 4...0f6 (we should note that recently it has become quite common to transpose to this from the Two Knights Defence: 3...Df6 4 d3!? &c5 - for details on the alternative 4...2e7, please refer to Gary Lane’s book Winning With the Bishop’s Opening, Chapter 4) a position arises from which point the two directions of White’s game separate, as he has a choice between playing in the centre, preparing d3-d4, and playing on the queenside, with the b4 thrust. 5 3 serves as a crossroads between these plans (c3 is also frequently played on the 4th move). In Section 1 we will also discuss the old move 5 “c3.Section 1: White Plays in the Centre The fundamental position of the Giuoco Pianissimo arises after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 cd Lc5 4 d3 Af6 (D). A Tae, In this position White has a choice between bringing another piece to bear on the centre, viz. 5 c3, and the plan of preparing d3-d4 with 5 c3. The old move 5 4c3, with 6 &g5 to follow, aims to establish a firm grip on the d5-square, but hands over to Black the advantage of the bishop pair, with which, if he negotiates the positional concessions he is obliged to make, Black should secure plenty of counterchances. Sometimes White starts with 5 0-0, and after 5...d6 we consider it appropriate to issue a firm warning against 6 2.g5?!, which was known to be a serious error as long ago as the 19th century. Now after 6...h6 White, if he does not wish to lose a tempo by Tetreating to e3, is practically forced to exchange the bishop. If he persists with 7 2h4?, then he will fall victim to a powerful attack: 7...g5! 8 2g3 and now 8...h5! (D). Here are some clas- sic examples: ay BH, 'Y 7 y 7 O Y), Y Cs Wags O20 ga a) 9 h4 Bg4 10c3 Wd7 11 d4 ed 12 e5 de 13 Axe5 Axes 14 Dxe5 WES 15 Axg4 hg 16 Rd3 Wd5 17 b4 0-0-0 with an unstoppable attack, Dubois-Stein- itz, London 1862. b) 9 Dxg5 h4! 10 Axf7 hg 11 4xd8 (the alternative capture isno better: 11 Axh8 We7 12 Af7 Qxf2+ 13 Bxf2 gft 14 dbxf2 Ded+ 15 Sg3 WF) 11...2g4! 12 Wd2 Dda! 13 Bc3 Af3+! 14 gf &xf3 0-1 Knorte-Chigorin, St.Petersburg 1874. Nowadays piece sacrifices are less compulsory, but there is enough potential for attacking possibilities even with more ‘insipid’ play: 8..2g¢4 9 Dbd2 DhS 10 c3 WEG 11 b4 2b6 12 a4 a5 13 bS De7 14 Hbi Af4 15 Sxf4 Wxf4 gave Black dangerous threats in Vallin-Zak, Aix- les-Bains 1991. It stands to reason that if after 5 0-0 d6 White switches over to implementing the standard plan with 6 3, the matter will be reduced to a simple transposition of moves. Here as well, everyone should note that 5 c3, although it has not lost its topicality, has been edged out by the second plan of continuing 5 ¢3, when White will prepare d3-d4, in the spirit of the closed systems of the Ruy Lopez. The main strategic decision for White will be how to deploy the bl-knight: to the queenside via c4, or to the kingside through fl. Correspond- ingly, Black must decide on the best role for his dark-squared bishop. Out of this come two fundamentally different schemes of development after the more generally accepted sequence 5...d6 6 0-0 (D). White Plays in the Centre 17 The first is the retreat 6...2b6 (as was played most often of all in the past), from where the bishop can actively hinder the d3-d4 advance, and if necessary can be brought to the defence of the centre from c7 (after rede- ploying the knight and playing -.€6). The second method, which is more popular nowadays, involves 6..a6, providing the a7- square for the bishop. Sometimes Black tries the pin 6...2g4, after which the double attack 7 Wb3? is not dangerous for Black, as Estrin-An. Byk- hovsky, Moscow 1967, demon- strated: 7...2xf3! 8 Wxb7 Wd7!! 9 ef (after 9 Wxa8+ Black would continue 9...%e7 10 Wxh8 We4) 9...2b8 10 Wa6 b6 11 Wad Wh3 12 Ad2 hS 13 Hdl Bh6 14 Af1 He6+ 15 Dg3 Hxg3+ 16 hg Wxg3+ 0-1. However, if White plays 7 &b3 the early thrust by the bishop only helps White organize a pawn storm on the kingside18 White Plays in the Centre with h3 and g4 after 7...0-0. The plan of castling long, 7...Wd7 8 Dbd2 0-0-0, is also risky for Black as the advanced position of the other bishop also allows White to organize a pawn storm with gain of time, for example 9 &c2 dS 10 b4 2b6 11 a4 (in Men-Sherzer, USA Ch 1992, White procrastinated with 11 We2?! Hhe8 12 Hel and Black then seized the initiative with 12...Dh5 13 ed Dfa 14 Wea d4! 15 cd f5, creating dangerous threats) 11...a5! 12 2a3 ab 13 cb with better prospects for White. 11 &b2 is not bad either: 11...de 12 de DhS 13 a4 a5 14 bS De7 15 Dc4 Wxdl 16 &xd1 moving into a good endgame. Recent practice has seen both Black and White seeking new resources in the opening itself. Thus White quite often resorts to the plan of the quickest possible transfer of his forces with 6 bd? in this key position, temporarily refraining from castling in order to make use of the fl- square. Black sometimes tries to attack White’s centre without further ado by means of an early ..d7-d5 advance. In this case, the prelude is the fashionable continuation 5...a6, leaving Black with the possibility of also returning to the plan with ...d6. We will examine this method in a separate chapter. Sometimes Black first plays 5...0-0, in order to economize on moving the d-pawn, but he should bear in mind that in this case White can switch advanta- geously to a flank system with 6 b4 &b6 7 a4, where Black’s resources are limited, as the counter-plan 7...a5? does not work because of the undefended e5-pawn after 8 b5.1. White Plays 5 Ac3 1 e4 eS 2 Df3 DAc6 3 Qc4 &c5 4 d3 Af6 5 Ac3 d6 (D) gives rise to the standard position of the traditional Giuoco Pianissimo. White cannot expect to establish an enormous advantage from the opening, although, as in any symmetrical position, White has some initiative by virtue of having moved first. The finesses of the game were studied in the last century, and the evaluations of Many variations have remained unchanged since that time. Thus it was established that 6 0-0 allows Black to seize an advantage with the energetic 6...8.g4!. The problems which arise for Black were well illustrated by Salwe-Chigorin, Rus- sian Ch 1903: 7 &b5 0-0 8 23? (8 &xc6 is necessary) 8...A\d4 9 xd4 Qxd4 10 h3 LhS 11 g4? (a fatal weakening of the castled position; 11 We2 followed by dl is correct) 11...&xc3! (after 11...Axg4 White should continue 12 Dxd4 ed 13 AdS!) 12 be Axed! 13 hg (13 Axes Do! is good for Black: 14 Ag4 Axg4 15 hg We5, or 14 DF3 Axed! 15 de Qxf3 16 Wxf3 Wg5+ - Chigorin) 13...2xg4 14 d4 f5 15 e2 (or 15 de fe 16 Wd5+ Bh8 17 Dh2 We5S! 18 Shl 23+ 19 ®xf3 ef and White is winning - Chigorin) 15...fe 16 Ad2 Bxe2 17 Wxe2 We5+ 18 hl Bf4 0-1. Nowadays it has been established that the danger of 6...2g4 has been somewhat exaggerated, and it is useful to clarify the position of the bishop with 7 h3, not fearing 7...h5 in view of the possibility of 8 hg hg 9 Ags g3 10 &e3, or even the slightly stronger 8 2g5!: but one thing is not in doubt - only White has problems. Of rare continuations, one should note 6 a4, with the aim of exchanging the active bishop. For example, the game Ran- tanen-Razuvaev, Helsinki 198420 White Plays 5 Ac3 continued 6 Aa4 &b6 7 c3 Le6 8 2b5 0-0 9 Bxc6 be 10 25 We7 11 0-0 h6 12 Bh4 &c8 13 h3 We6 and here White could have gained somewhat better chances by means of 14 2xf6 Wxf6 15 Axb6 ab 16 d4. The alternative continuation 6 &e3, which at one time in the past was almost universal, has now practically vanished from use. Its basic disadvantages are too obvious, as it allows Black to organize counterplay based on the manoeuvre ...d4 and preparing the freeing move ...d5. They fundamental drawbacks were revealed at the tum of the century, and we consider it logical to illustrate them in an example of the art of the masters of the time - see Game 5. 6 &g5 is undoubtedly a logical method of fighting for an advantage. Then after Black’s breaks the pin with 6...h6 7 &xf6 Wxf6 8 Ads Wd8 9 c3 the basic position of this variation arises, as it is handled nowadays. Black’s main continuations here are 9...e7 and 9...a6. After 10 d4 White expands in the centre, although Black’s bishop pair gives him sufficient counterchances. Game 5 Chigorin-Janowski Cambridge Springs 1904 1 e4 eS 2 AB Ach 3 Rcd R54 d3 D6 5 De3 d6 Black can also play 5...h6, preventing the pin discussed in the next game. The position after 6 0-0 is not without nuances: a) Thus in Malaniuk-Short, Erevan 1984, Black allowed the trademark ‘Piano’ bishop to be exchanged: 6...0-0 7 h3 d6 8 Dad 2b6 9 c3 BeB 10 &b3 Leb 11 Bc2 dS 12 dé! Dxes 13 @xb6 ab 14 de £6 15 ef Wxf6 16 &e3 &£7 17 Dd2 Had8?! (Black should exchange the knight himself with 17..2xd2 18 Wxd2 De5, although here as well White’s chances are preferable) 18 Dxe4 de 19 We4, and he ended up in a worse position. b) It seems better to protect the active bishop from exchange for the knight by 6...a6!?, as in the event of White exchanging his bishop for it, Black stabilizes the centre with 7 £23 d6 8 &xc5 dc, for example 9 &.d5 Db4! 10 DxeS DfxdS 11 ed 0-0 (not 11...xd5? because of 12 Axf7! xc3 13 WhS) 12 Bel Dxd5 13 d4? (White should keep the knight, with 13 Ae4 b6 14 d4, keeping the chances equal) 13..Dxc3 14 be Wd5 15 He3 &e6 and Black’s chances are preferable, Ivanovi¢-Pandavos, Nea Makri Z 1990. 6 &e3(D) The more active 6 2g5 is discussed in the next game. 6 ow &b6 The exchanging manoeuvre 6...2xe3 7 fe Da5 8 2b3 Axb39 ab Dp4, brought into practice by the first World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, has been considered poor for Black since the game Salwe-Schlechter, Karls- bad 1907, which continued 10 Wa2 5 11 ef Qxf5 12 0-00-0 13 h3 Dh6 14 e4 Qd7 15 d4! with an advantage for White. 7 Wad2 This is considered the best move. 7 d4 is clearly premature because of 7...ed 8 Axd4 0-0 9 0-0 Ded}. 7h3 Be6 8 Bb5 0-09 Bxc6 (9 &g5 also deserves attention) 9..b¢ 10 &g5 We7 11 0-0?! (after this natural move the initiative passes permanently to Black; 11 Wd2 is more cunning, as then 11...h6 is risky because of 12 &h4 with the threat of g2- g4) 11..n6 12 Bh4 Shs! 13 d4 &c4! (‘a dangerous bishop threatening on two diagonals’ - Tartakower) 14 Hel Hg& 15 de de 16 &g3 Had8 and Black was substantially better in the game- White Plays 5 c3 21 Bogoljubow-Réti, 1920. 7 wm ga 7.un.06 8 .b3 (or 8 RBS La5 9 a3 a6 10 Bxc6+ be 11 b4 Bb6 12 d4 ed 13 Dxd4 &d7 with approximate equality, Sieiro- Frey, Havana 1983) 8...2xe3 9 Wxe3 0-0 10 0-0 &xb3 11 ab d5 12 ed Dxd5 13 WeS Axc3 14 be Wd6 is also possible, with an even game, Neverovsky-A.Kuz- min, Podolsk 1990. 8 Dgs Alongside this positional idea, preserving a flexible pawn structure, 8 0-0-0 also deserves attention, as after 8...4\d4 White can sacrifice the exchange with advantage, viz. 9 &xd4 Qxd4 10 Axd4! Qxdl 11 DS Bg4 12 Dxg7+ Sd7 13 d4. 8 &hS 9 £3 h6 9..Dd4 10 Bxd4 Qxd4 12 Ae2 Qb6 13 Dg Vg6 14 ha Chigorin-Janowski, St. Peters- burg 1900, favours White. 10 Ah3 Bd4 10..Wd7 is weaker: 11 g4! (after 11 Df2 Dd4 12 Axd4 &xd4 13 Dcd1 d5 Black seizes the initiative, Salwe-Rubinstein, Karlsbad 1907) 11..2d4 12 Qxds Qxd4 13 Agi! Lg6 14 @ge2 2b6 15 0-0-0, and then d4 is better for White. Wt &xd4 12 De2 In the game Von Holzhausen- Rubinstein, Berlin 1926, White decided to play Tartakower’s Gothenburg Rxd422 White Plays 5 Ac3 recommendation 12 Agi!, and then after 12..Wd7 13 Age2 D6 14 24 Bp6 15 0-0-0 c6 16 d4 ed 17 Dxd4 0-0-0 18 Db3 achieved a favourable position. 2 .. Rb6 13° (0-0-0 a5! Black opens up the position, underlining the weakness of e3. This, together with the advantage of the two bishops, gives Black the upper hand. 14 ed Dxd5 15 d4 00 16 Hhel Rg6 17 4 e4 18 Dg3 £5 The passed e4-pawn hangs like the Sword of Damocles over White’s position, but meanwhile he has managed to create the threat of c4. 9 .. a5! Defending and attacking si- multaneously. 20a4 Tf 20 c4, then 20...a4, 20...2h8 21 &b1 c6 Planning ...Sc7 and ...b5. 22 DF VhS 23 Hel Ab4 24 De3 2f7 25 Qxf? Exf7 26 Hedi Was! Very well played! Black would like to provoke 27 c4, after which 27...Wd7 threatens C5, ...Had8 and ...Ad3. 27 b3 Hd8 28 Ae2 Hfd7 29 We3 WE7! First class positional play! Black is preparing the undermin- ing move ...c5, as well as the manoeuvre ...Ad5 followed by ---Si.c7 and ...b5. 30 A Defending the rook and at the same time parrying ...c5. 30..0d5 31 Wh3 2c7 32 Wh4 bS 33 ab cb 34 g4 One must embark on something, as passive play will lead to an inevitable disaster. 34... Dxf4 35 Dg3 a4 36 DxéS ab 37 Hd2 b2! 38 xb2 If the rook withdraws, then 38...Ha8 is decisive. 38...Wea! 39 Hal Wb4+ 40 Bel Ag6 41 Wh3 24 42 Dxed If 42 “e3, then there follows 42... Wic3. 42...Hxd4! 43 c3 Hxed! 0-1 After 44 cb Exd2 there is no defence. Game 6 Ivanovi¢-Kir.Georgiev Vrsac 1987 1 e4 eS 2 AB Ac6 3 Rcd Rc5 4d3 DE 5 Dc3 d6 6 &g5(D)4, fle, Y Te 6 ho This move is considered almost compulsory. Indeed, why not gain the advantage of the two bishops? But the move found in the shadows, 6...2a5 (D), leads to exactly this aim. Here are some examples: a) 7 Dd5 @xc4 8B de c6 9 Dxf6+ gf 10 2h4 (or alternatively 10 2e3 Wb6 11 Wd2 2e6 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 b3 Ehg8 14 Hhgl a5 with possibilities for both sides, Korchnoi-Bronstein, USSR Ch 1952, but Estrin’s recommendation deserves attention: White Plays 5 c3 23 11...&xe3 12 fe Wxb2 13 0-0 Wa3 14 Dh4 Leb! 15 Exif 0-0-0 with a good game for Black) 10..%g8 11 0-0 2h3 (perhaps 11...2e6 is better immediately: 12 Wd3 We7 13 Had1 0-0-0 with good prospects for Black, Eliskases-Bronstein, Mar del Plata 1960) 12 &g3 2e6 13 We2 a6 14 Hfd1 bS 15 cb ab 16 a3 We7 with a double-edged game, Ivanovi¢-Portisch, Reggio Emilia 1984/5. b) 7 &xf6 Wxf6 8 Dds Was 9 b4 Axc4 10 be c6 11 de cd 12 WxdS WaS+ 13 Sl WxcS 14 Wxc5 de 15 AxeS Le6 with a level ending, Rabiega-Lukacs, Budapest 1993. Sometimes Black attempts to neutralize the active bishop by means of 6...2e6 and, it must be said, he has been fairly success- ful: a) 7 2b5h6 8 &h4 b49 d4 Rd7 10 0-0 &xc3 11 be g5 12 g3 Axes 13 Rxcb Rxc6 14 de de with a roughly even game, Nimzowitsch-Capablanca, Riga 1913. b) 7 AdS &xd5 8 ed h6! (after the weaker 8..0d4 9 Axd4 xd4 10 c3 Bb6 11 Lb5+ ¥f8 12 Wf3 h6 13 2d2 White’s chances are preferable, Wom- acka-Schone, Germany 1992) 9 &xf6 Wxf6 10 c3 0-0 with equal chances. Black can also develop sym- metrically: 6...2g4 7 DdS Ad4 8 2xf6 Rxf3 9 Qxd8 (it might be worth playing 9 gf gf 10 “e3)24 White Plays 5 Ac3 9...xd1 10 &xc7 Qxc2 11 b4 DS 12 a5 and here it is time to destroy the symmetry (i.e. not 12...8a4? 13 &xb5+!) in favour of 12...d7!, with an approxi- mately level game. 7 x6 Wxf6 8 Dds Was 9 ¢3(D) 9 Del This is one of the main lines of the variation - Black tries to exchange off the active white knight. The other main continuation, 9...a6, will be examined in the next game. In the past 9...0-0 also came into practice, ignoring White’s threats, who in the mean time has not yet found the key to Black’s position. Here are some examples: a) 10 b4 &b6 11 a4 a5!? 12 ®xb6 cb and here White gains nothing concrete after either 13 ba DxaS5 14 2d5 We7 15 c4 &g4 Ivanovi¢-Anand, Manila IZ 1990, or 13 bS Ae7 14 0-0 #h8 15 d4 &g4, as in Maciejewski- Macieja, Warsaw 1992. b) 10 d4 2b6 11 de de 12 We2 2c5! 13 0-0-0 2d6 14 Hd2 Re6 15 De3 WE with even chances, Minasian-Sharif, Ovie- do rpd 1993. 10 d4 Now this is played almost automatically, but we should certainly consider the retreat 10 Se3, which Capablanca used with success. a) Here is an example of his skill: 10..2e6 11 &xe6 fe 12 Wb3 Wce8 13 d4 ed 14 Axd4 SRxd4 15 cd 0-0 16 0-0 Wd7 17 Bacl Eab8 18 Hc3. Black’s position is clearly the more passive, although it is stable enough, when supported by 18...2f4, but it is not worth him displaying any activity by 18...d5?!, as after 19 We2 c6 20 e5 White has significantly increased his advantage, Capablanca-Eliskases, Mo- scow 1936. The good reputation of the move 10 “e3 is unshakeable even today: b) 10..0-0 11 0-0 Se6 (it would have been safer to retreat with 11...2b6 12 d4 Dg6) 12 d4 ed 13 cd &b6 14 d5 Qd7 15 e5 de 16 Dxe5 and White is more active, Andreenko-Sharif, Lyon- Oyonnax 1993. After 10 b4 the simplest is 10...@xd5 11 be De7 12 cd cd 13 Wad+ Ac6 14 2d5 We7 with ateliable position. 10... @®xd5 If Black hands over the centrewith 10...ed 11 cd &b6 12 Axb6 ab 13 0-0 then White has a freer game. After 13...0-0 he can play 14 We2. In Timman-Nunn, Am- sterdam 1986, Black played more ambitiously: 13...d5!? 14 ed 4xd5, and after 15 Hel+ Re6 16 Axd5 WxdS 17 Bes Wd6 18 d5 he confidently nego- tiated the complications that arose: 18...0-0-0 19 Wad &xd5 20 Hdl c6 21 Hexd5! cd 22 Dd4 Yb8 23 Abs Web 24 W4+ a8 25 Wa4 &b8. But Black’s delay in castling could have been better exploited with 15 We2! (threatening to take on d5) and now both 15...2e6 16 Sxd5 2xd5 17 Bfel+ G8 18 Des, and 15...c6 16 Hfel+ 2e6 17 Hxe6!? give White a dangerous initiative. 11 de 12 g3 After 12 0-0 Wf6 13 cd ed 14 &b5+ Se7 15 Hel h5 16 He3 h4 17 Wd2 Bh6 18 c4 &g4 195 de 20 We3 2xf3 21 Bxf3 Wd6 a double-edged game arises, Tis- dall-Hjartarson, Akureyri 1988. D4 2. Dh3! 13, &b5+(D) 13... os This seems the best. After the continuation 13...c6 14 2e2! the central pawns are sagging. After 13...d7 White can move into a favourable endgame: 14 &xd7+ Wxd7 15 cd Wxd6 16 Wxd6 (16 We2 followed by 0-0-0 is not bad either) 16...cd 17 Hdl Se7 18 be2 White Plays 5 c3 25 Bac8 19 Hd5 Ags 20 Ad2 Bc5 21 Bxc5 de 22 h4 Deb 23 De4 £6 24 @e3 and White’s chances are undoubtedly better, Ivanovi¢- Smejkal, Novi Sad OL 1990. gg BS fi “5 Ly, Gi a ae a ae After the retreat 13...e7 14 We2 2g4 15 We3 Wc8 16 2e2 We6 17 h4 the black king is in definite danger, Ivanovié-Salov, Belgrade 1987. 14 Re2 Wo 15 cd ed 16 Wad3 26 17 ‘Hal ke7 18 We3 Re6 19 4?! 19 4\d2 with the idea of &c4 (19...&xa2? 20 b3) deserves attention. Now Black can open up the h-file with advantage. 19... b6 20 Ha2 nS 21 Del Dxgl 22 Bxgl h4 23 dl hg 24 hg Bh2 25 f3 25 £4?! exposes White’s position too much, which Black em-26 White Plays 5 Ac3 phasises with the pendulum rook manoeuvre 25...Hc8 26 Hc2 ef 27 ef Bh3 28 Wf2 Hch8 as ana- lysed by Kiril Georgiev. 25 ww Hc8 26 b3 27 «ad! (D) A move with both a defensive function (hindering ...b5, in the event of @c2), and an attacking one, as it threatens 28 a5. Black must hurry. 27 ea! 28 fg we 29 Wxf2 After the risky 29 WgS+ sd7 the g3-pawn is undefended. 29 Exf2 30 del Eh2 31 2f3 Ech8 An obvious-looking move, but 31...2h6 seems stronger. Now in the event of 32 &f2 Hg8 Black’s advantage grows, but after 32 g5 Bg6 (32...0h3 33 f2 Bgs can be met by 34 Hh1 or 34 a5!) 33 Eh2 Exes 34 Sf2 White’s position is defensible. 32 5 H2h3 33 bf Hg8?! Black should have restricted White’s resources by means of the blockading move 33...a5!. 34 a5! Finally White can breathe freely, and with the open file he can also reactivate his rooks. 34...Hh2+ 35 Hp2 Bxg2+ 36 &ixg2 Sd7 37 ab ab 38 2fl Exg5 39 b4 HhS 40 del No activity is possible yet: 40 5? be 41 be Hh2+ 42 2g2 2h3 leads to a lost pawn ending. 40..2c7 41 Ha2 bS 42 Hc2 be 43 Qxcd Qxcd 44 Excdt+ bb6 45 bg2 LbS 46 Bc7 £5 47 SB Sxb4 48 He6 2-12 Game 7 Kholmov-Mi.Tseitlin Voskresensk 1990 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 Lcd Qc5 4 d3 D6 5 Dc3 d6 6 Res h6 7 Qxf6 Wxf6 8 Ads Wa8 9 3 a6 (D) Black opens a window for hisbishop, but only a small one: 9...a5?! not only weakness of b5, but also after 10 d4 ed 11 cd a7 12 h3 0-0 13 0-0 Reb 14 Hcl in comparison with the variation cited below (in the notes to 10...$2a7), he will not have the a5-square for his knight, while after 10...2a7 11 de de 12 We2 &c5 13 0-0-0 2d6 14 Bd2 &g4 15 Bhd 0-0, Tar- takower-Treybal, Karlsbad 1929, White could have gained an advantage by means of 16 Axc7 Wxc7 17 Exd6 Dd4 18 H6xd4. 10 d4 If 10 0-0, then 10...2g4 is possible. In the game Dely- Sinkovics, Hungary 1992, Black played 10...2e6, and after 11 d4 Sa7 12 de Axe (12...de is more cautious) 13 DxeS de 14 Wh! Wd6 15 Had! 0-0-0 16 b4 Rxd5 17 &xd5 WE6 18 Hd3 ran into problems defending the f7-pawn. 10 .. a7 Conceding the centre with 10..ed 11 cd 2a7 (D) gives White additional chances, e.g.: White Plays 5 ®c3 27 a) After 12 h3, A.Kogan- Svidler, London Lloyds Bank 1991 featured 12..0-0 13 0-0 Re6 14 Bcl Wd7 (the careless 14...e7? loses a pawn to 15 @xc7!) 15 Wd2 Hac8? 16 Afe+! gf 17 d5 with a clear advantage to White. This game by two young masters once again shows the benefit of studying the legacy of chess, which has in its annals the game Ivanovi¢-Timman, Za- greb/Rijeka 1985, when after 12...De7! 13 Hel Ads 14 2d5 and then 14...c6 15 2b3 0-0 16 0-0 Wf6 Black equalized easily, while it is also useful to remem- ber the recommendation of Paul Keres: 14..@a5! 15 &d3 cS, with which Black can even fight for an advantage. b) Ivanovic¢-Ilinti¢, Yugoslav Ch 1986, went 12 cl 0-0 13 h3 He8 14 0-0 Hed 15 2d3 He8 16 &b1 g67! (16...2e6 would have been better) 17 Wd2 &g7 18 fel 2e6 (after 18...2b6 White ought to continue 19 Bxe8 Wxe8 20 Hel Wf8 21 Axb6 cb 22 d5 with an advantage to White) 19 Df4 2d7 20 Hxe8 Wxe8 21 Dd5 Hc8 22 Hel Wd8 23 g4 Re6 24 Af4 Ad7 25 Qxg6l! fg 26 He6! Re8 (if 26...De7, then 27 Ah5+! Bh7 28 Hf! is decisive) and here, instead of 27 d5? Be7, which allowed Black to defend, 27 @hS+! Sf7 28 ds would have won swiftly. 11 de White can scarcely count on having an advantage without28 White Plays 5 Ac3 stabilizing the pawn structure, as shown for example by 11 h3 0-0 120-0 Re6 13 &b3 Wd7 14 Bel Hae8 15 de AxeS 16 Ad4 Ags 17 WE3 06 18 De3 Bxb3 19 ab Sxd4 20 cd Ah4 21 We4 Dg '-2 Tvanovié-Hjartarson, Novi Sad OL 1990. HN .. de The capture 11...Axe5!? deserves more serious attention. The character of the possible struggle is well illustrated by the game Ivanovié-Spassky, Bugo- jno 1984 which continued: 12 Dxe5 de 13 Wh 0-0 14 Wxes He8 15 Wr4 Wd6! 16 Wxd6 (in the event of White refusing to exchange queens by playing 16 Wf3?! 2e6 17 0-0-0 Wes the initiative would pass rapidly to Black) 16...Bxe4+ 17 &d2 cd 18 &b3 2d7 19 £3 Hes 20 f4 Be4 21 Bhel Hae8 22 Hxe4 Exe4 23 Hel Exel 24 dxel &f8 25 ded2 Rgl 26 h3 hS 27 Bc2 cb 28 ed £5 29 2F3 h4 30 Ac7 a5 31 &xc6 and the was soon drawn. 12 We2(D) 12 .. cS White intends to attack along the d-file, and therefore counterplay is demanded of Black. The attack carried out in Inkiov- Schiissler, Haifa Echt 1989, elo- quently testifies to the dangers awaiting him: 12..2g4?! 13 Hdl Wb8 14 b4 0-0 15 h3 26 16 0-0 He8 17 Dh4 bS 18 2b3 De7 19 ADf6+! ef 20 Lxe6 fe 21 We4+ Gh8 22 Bd7 Bes 23 Wrxe6 Wf8 24 He7 Hd8 25 Fs He6 26 Bxc7 2b8 27 Bf7 Wes 28 Wxe8 Hxe8 29 Edi 1-0. Black managed his forces more successfully in Moroze- vich-Ki.Georgiev, Tilburg 1993: 12..b5 13 2b3 Wd6 14 Hdl Ba5 15 2c2 0-0 with a reasonable game. 13 000 246 14 Haz 00 White is threatening to move the rook up the d-file, combined with the tactical thrust Ab6. In Kotronias-Amason, Reykjavik 1988, Black ‘urged him on’ in this operation: 14..b5 15 2b3 Da5 16 Db6! Axb3 (or 16...cb 17 Hhdl “b7 18 2d5 winning the piece back with interest) 17 ab Hb8 18 Axc8 Wxc8 19 Hd5 We6 20 Wd3 (as an alternative Kotronias suggests a central pawn storm: 20 “h4!? g6 21 Wad2! £8 22 £4! ef 23 AF3 dg7 24 e5 Re7 25 Ad4!) 20...0-0 21 $c2 and his control of the d-file guarantees White an advantage. In the our main game, play unfolded along similar lines.15 hdl We8 16 Dh4 b5 17 2b3 Das 18 Abé6! @xb3+ 19 ab cb 20 Exd6 We7 21 Whs 26 22 DES 2xf5 Full possession of the d-file guarantees White a big advantage. In the event of queens being exchanged with 22...Wp5+ 23 Wxg5 hg the strength of the rook increases, as after 24 Ae7+ the knight transfers to d5 with decisive effect. 23 Wxf5 Had8 24 Ha7! It stands to reason that White will not agree to exchange his domination of the d-file for the eS-pawn: 24 Exd8 Hxd8 25 Exd8 Wxd8 26 WxeS Wd3! and the black queen develops great activity. White Plays 5 Nc3 29 24...—Hxd7 25 Bxd7 Wh4 26 h3 g6 27 Wf3 aS Here as well after exchanging queens with 27...Wf4+ 28 Wxf4 ef 29 @d2 He8 30 &d3 Black can barely save himself. 28 db a4 29 b4 We5 30 3 f5 This move opens all the floodgates into Black’s position. 30...h5 should be met by the simple 31 h4. 31 Wad3 fe 32 Wxb5 a3 After 32...2xf2? White gives a linear mate: 33 We4 @h8 34 We8. 33 Wd5+ 2h8 34 Wxed ab 35 f4ef Here too if queens are exchanged, 35... W£5 36 Wxf5 Exf5 37 Hd6, the pawns become easy pickings for the rampant rook. 36 Wd4+ Wf6 37 ef &g8 38 &xb2 1-02 Black Plays ...2.b6 The basic position in this system arises after 1 4 eS 2 Df3 Ac6 3 cd 25 4 d3 AE 5 c3 d6 6 0-0 Rb6 (D). However, on b6 the problem of the bishop is not yet fully solved. Black should consent to the possibility of it being exchanged after the manoeuvre @®bd2-c4, or prepare to drop it back to c7. Therefore, his move order is significant. Black generally chooses between 7...0-0 and 7...2e7. On the other hand, 7...Sg4 is rather premature, and only helps White to organize a pawn attack on the kingside. Game 8 Gelfand-Cherepkov Minsk 1982 7 2b3 Recently it has been recog- nized that it is more accurate to develop the knight first. For example, it is important that in the event of 7 “bd2 £4 the bishop cannot maintain its pin on the knight: 8 Hel De7 9 Dfl Dg 10 h3 Qe6 11 Lxe6 fe 12 a4 c6 13 aS! &c7 (if 13...sxa5, then 14 Wb3) 14 Wb3 Wc8 15 d4 and White controls the centre. It is interesting to note that although the moves Abd2 and &b3 (in either order) are given unconditional priority, the quest for new paths for White continues. From this aspect Barua- G.Georgadze, Calcutta 1994, is interesting, as after 7 a4 aS 8 Se3!? Rxe3 9 fe Reb 10 Abd2 xc4 11 Dxc4 0-0 12 Wel d5 13 DexeS de 14 Axc6 be 15 de ®xe4 16 We2 c5 17 Radi We7 18 Hd5, thanks to his control over the d-file, White managed to achieve a preferable position. Tow gd Alternatively one might pro- pose the modest bishop development 7...2e6, for example 8Dbd2 0-0 9 Ac4 h6 10 Hel Hes 11 h3 De7 12 a4 c6 13 d4 Ag6 14 Axb6 Lxb3 15 Wxb3 Wxb6 16 Wxb6 ab gave rise to a level ending in Nevednichy-A.Frolov, Portoroz 1993. 8 Dbd2 0-0 9 Dea It is useful to exchange off the active bishop. De Das 10 @xb6 ab ll &c2 Deb 12 3 Bhs 13. bh2 Of course the move g4 enters into White’s plans, but for the time being it is impossible due to the piece sacrifice which is standard in constructions like this: 13 24? Dxpa! 14 hg &xe4 and, in view of the threat of ...f5, it is not obvious how White can es- cape the pin without material loss. 13... &d7 Black Plays ...&.b6 31 17 &b3! The bishop occupies a work- ing diagonal, with the threat after 18 Qh4 of exchanging off his important opponent. 17 &hS 18 g4 286 The threat of @f3-h4xg6 has been eliminated, but at the cost of an important tempo. 19 h4 hs 20 Dgs hg 21 Wxgd = Dxgs 22 Sxg5 We8 23° WH ehs 24 = hS &h7 Everything is ripening for attack, and of course the ‘modern’ Gelfand would now have had no difficulty finding 25 h6! with the possible continuations 25...f6 26 hg+ &xg7 27 &h6! &xh6 28 Hgl 2g6 (parrying the threats of 29 We3+ or 29 Weg3) 29 Hxg6! &xg6 30 Hgl+, or 25..£5 26 hg+ &xg7 27 WhS!. But the 14- year-old Gelfand is playing from aesthetic considerations, and allows his experienced opponent a key resource, although it is not that obvious. 25 2£67! £5! The bishop offers itself for sacrifice to help free the king. 26 Wes &h7 27° &xg7! White is held captive to the inertia brought about by an attack, and does not notice the gap opening up to evacuate the king. It was time to sound a retreat with 27 2h4.32 Black Plays ...2.b6 27...exg7 28 ef Wxf5 29 Hgl+ &f6 30 Hg3 Le7 White would also have escaped from the attack after the tempting 30...Wxh5+?? in view of the resource 31 h3. 31 Eg5 We6 32 d4? Misplaced activity. It was necessary to bring the second took into the game with 32 Hag! followed by H1g3. But White has no way of checking the metamorphosis which is occur- ring on the board, resigns himself to thought that the black king has escaped, and lets slip some errors. 32...2d8 33 de AxeS 34 £4? WxgS! 35 fg Dgd+ 36 wg3 Dxe3 37 bf4 Dg2+ 38 g3 d7 39 dexg2 (D) ee 4 BG 39...Hg8 The decision of an experienced master. The bishop, combined with the passed pawn, would have given White chances to save himself, whilst moving into the rook endgame promises Black chances to win. 40 g6 fg 41 2xg8 Exg8 42 h6 After 42 hg+ Hxg6+ 43 &f3 Ee6 the king is cut off from his own pawn block, and the win is a matter of technique, which incidentally Cherepkov also demonstrates expertly in this continuation. 42..Hh8 43 Hhi deb 44 bg3 Sf5 45 Brl+ gS 46 Bt7 Sxh6 47 Exc7 Hh7 48 Ec8 d5 49 Had 49 c4 would have been more stubborn. 49...Hc7 50 Hxd5 Hxc3+ 51 bg2 He2+ 52 dg3 Exa2 53 Hd6 Ha6 54 bS Ha3+ 55 dg4 Had+ 56 &g3 dg5! 57 Bxb6 Hg4+ 58 &h3 Hhd+ 59 g3 Eh7 60 Ed6 Ef7 61 b6 Ef6 62 Hd5+ Gh6 And after a king march for the b6-pawn, Black won. Game 9 Gipslis-Dobrovolsky Bardejovske Kupele 1991 1 e4 eS 2 AL Ac6 3 Qc4 cS 4 c3 AG 5 d3 d6 6 0-0 2b6 7 Dbd2 This is considered a more accurate reaction to 6...2b6 than 7 &b3, as when the popular plan with 7...Ae7 is carried out, the b3-square is not occupied, and Black should consider the possibility of an attack on the insuf- ficiently defended f7-square, such as 8 Ag5 0-0 9 Wb3 d5 10 ed, and now in the event of the ‘natural’ 10..@exdS 11 Dgf3He8 12 Hel Wd6 13 Aged he loses a pawn. However, after the ‘clumsy’ 10...Afxd5 with the idea of ...f6 and ...2e6 Black seems to be able to hold the position. 7 own 8 Hel White is moving the knight to g3, but a route to the opposite flank is not out of the question: 8 &b3 De7 9 Ac4. This will be examined in the notes to the next game. 8 ow DeT 9 Afi Quite often the moves 9 h3 h6 are included. Then after 10 d4 Qg6 White needs to find a place for the light-squared bishop, as if 11 fl, then 11..ed 12 cd d5 is not bad. The game Van Mil- Bronstein, Wijk aan Zee 1992, went 11 2f1 c6 12 Ac4 &c7 13 a4 ed 14 Axd4 He8 15 2d3 d5 16 ed Hxel+ 17 Wxel Wd5 and 0-0 Black seized the initiative. 9. Deo 10 h3 6 Instead after 10...h6 11 2b3 Re6 12 Ag3, 12...c6 leads to a position from the game, but the impulsive move 12...d5?! allows White to resolve the central tension in his favour: 13 ed Axd5 14 d4! ed 15 Axd4 Lxd4 16 Wid4 Ddf4 17 Wes WE6 18 Rxf4 Dxf4 19 Wxb7, winning a pawn, Titov-Dobrolovsky, Bar- dejovske Kupele 1991. 11 &b3 Reb 12 Dga h6 Black Plays ...2b6 33 13. d4(D) 13... Dh7!? An_ interesting manoeuvre, aimed at hindering the knight’s penetration onto f5. In the event of 13...He8 14 &c2 We7 15 Be3 Had8 16 We2 Af4 17 Wd2 Age 18 Hadl White’s position was preferable in Beliavsky-Gulko, USSR Ch 1981. 14 Qe3 The logical plan of fighting for f5 should have been crowned with the move 14 &c2, although White has developed indiffer- ently and is gradually losing the initiative. 4... Wr 15 We2 Bad8 16 Hadi Ac8 17 &c2 Black is well prepared to play in the centre, and is ready to meet the flank attack 17 DhS We7 18 d2 with the counter- blow 18...d5! (18...Wh4 19 Hfl De5 is not bad either) 19 de (19 ed ed favours Black) 19...de (there is a less reliable route:34 Black Plays ....b6 19...2xe3 20 Wxe3 WxeS 21 Be3 Df4 22 Wxa7 Dd3 23 He3 ®xb2 24 ed Wf4 25 Ef3! and White maintains the extra pawn) 20 &xb6 ab 21 Wxed Wxe5 with even chances. 7. Des 18 DxgS hg 19 de de 20 2xb6 ab 21 We3 bs Complete possession of f4 allows Black to develop a strong attack on the kingside. 22 Af The preparatory 22 Hxd8!? deserved attention. 22 su ea! 23 hg xed 24 Exd8 Exd8 25 93? Attempting to close the breach leads to catastrophe. He should have submitted with 25 f3. 25 we A! (D) An amazingly economical attack with few resources. Now if 26 gf ef 27 Wc5, then 27...Wg6 is decisive. The game continues with Black making full use of his concentration of forces. 26 D2 Wes! 27 hi After 27 £3 Dobrolovsky was ready to illustrate the theme of ‘seventh rank absolute’ (as Nim- zowitsch called it): 27...2d2! (reinforcing the tactic 28 Wxd2? Dh3+) 28 fg Wh6 29 AF3 He2 30 &f1 Whi 31 Agi Dh3. 27 Bao! Turning left. This strong rook can attack on two files! 28 £3 &h3 29 Bgl a3! Completing the interlacing mating net. The rest is simple. 30 Wa7 Wd2 31 &xd3 Eh6! 32 g4 Qxg4! 33 He2 2xf3 34 Sfl Wea 35 Wgl 2xed 36 2e2 Bg6 37 2f1 Wd2 38 b4 Wxa2 01 Game 10 Tiviakov-G.Georgadze Podolsk 1992 1 e4 eS 2 DB Dc6 3 2c cS 4 c3 Df6 5 d3 dé 6 0-0 2b6 7 2b3 De7 8 Dbd2 Until Black has castled, the pin 8 &g5 does not favour White, as it stimulates a pawn assault on his own king, for example 8...Ag6 9 @h4 Axh4 10 Sxh4 h6! 11 Bh1 g5 12 Lg3 h5 13 £3 h4 14 Qf2 Dns 15 d4 43+! with dangerous threats, Marin-Musat, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993.8 .. 6 Black is at a crossroads. White was threatening to exchange the bishop by 9 Ac4, so it is logical for Black to prepare a new spot for it. From c7 the bishop switches over to defend the centre. Another line involves 8...2\g6 9 Ac4 0-0 10 Hel (D), which gives rise to a problematic position: a) 10...2e6 is considered the fundamental continuation: al) 11 d4 is not an effective way to attack in the centre because of 11...2xc4 12 Bxc4 ed 13 cd (Klinger-Dorfman, Buda- pest 1988, continued 13 Axd4?! He8 14 AfS Wd7 15 Dgs hS 16 @DhS De4 17 Be3 ADxf2! and Black gained a material advantage) 13...d5 with equality. a2) 11 &g5 24! favours Black. a3) After 11 h3 c6! a position arises from Kramnik-Krasenkov, USSR Ch 1991, which will be examined in the notes to the next game. Black Plays ...2b6 35 b) In Gavrilov-Ibragimov, St. Petersburg Z 1993, Black played 10...c6 straight away, and after 11 @xb6 ab 12 d4 We7 13 h3 h6 14 Qc2 He8 15 Re3 We7 16 Dd2 Be6 17 WE3 Dh7 18 a3 c5 19 Hacl We7 20 2d3 Dgs 21 We3 Hf8 a double-edged position arose. 9 d4!(D) White achieves the main idea of the Giuoco Piano. In the event of White playing on the queenside with 9 ed 2c7 10 a4 0-0 11 Sg5 Agé 12 Ah4 Afa 13 De3 h6 14 Qxf6 Wxf6 15 Dhf5 d5! Black has time to extract some benefit from transferring the knight over to the kingside, A.Marié-Xie Jun, Novi Sad OL 1990. “ey Be Me De &cT After 9...g6 White can play 10 Ded: a) Now the pawn capture 10...2\xe4 allows White to maintain the initiative after 11 de de 12 We2 £5 13 AfxeS Qc7 14 £3 AxeS 15 Dxe5 RxeS 16 fe Wh436 Black Plays ...2b6 17 g3, as in Beckemeyer-Strater, Germany 1994. b) If the bishop is withdrawn, 10...2¢7, then White can move the game into an obviously favourable ending with 11 de de 12 Wxd8+ xd8 13 De3 Hfs?! (13..Dxe4 14 Qxf7 Dfa immediately is more precise) 14 D5 Dxe4 15 Bdl+ Qd7 16 Des Axgs 17 Qxg5+ cB 18 Dxg7, Vukovié-Ziatdinov, Nik- Bié 1991. 10 Hel Agé6 1 Df 00 12 Dg3 Bes 12...2.4 13 h3 &xf3 14 Wxf3 is not in the spirit of the position, and the benefits of the bishop pair guarantee White a durable advantage. 13° Ags The idea of attacking f7 is justified only after 13...Ke7?! 14 DhS!, but after 13...—68, by analogy with the Zaitsev Varia- tion of the Ruy Lopez, it is only sufficient to repeat moves: 14 £3 He8 15 Ags Hf8. However, Black can play more energeti- cally: 13... d5! 14 ed ed 15 de DxeS 16 2f4 gd The presence of the isolated d5-pawn compensates for the piece activity. 16...h6 is also possible: 17 RxeS HxeS 18 BxeS 2xe5 19 £3 with roughly even chances. 17 Waa Rb6 22 e3! In the style of one of the ‘early’ Botvinnik’s ideas in the Tarrasch Variation of the French Defence. After the exchanges 22...2xe3?! 23 Hxe3 Hxe3 24 fe, the presence of the backward e-pawn has no_ significance, whilst White seizes the d-file. However, Black is on the alert. 22 an R06 Walp Game 11 Kramnik-Yakovich Belgorod 1989 1 e4 e5 2 Df Ach 3 Lcd D6 4 d3 2c5 5 c3 d6 6 Qb3 2b6 7 Bbd2 This move represents a modem way of thinking. White sees no reason to reveal his plan at this stage, and develops hispieces before castling. However, this most frequently amounts to no more than a simple transposition of moves. fete De7 8 Dc4 Dee 9 h3 Reb 10 0-0 0-0 11 Bel (D) 11 .. h6 Black makes a superficially useful precautionary move, but connected with the intended bishop exchange it is premature at this point. It would have been more logical to play in the centre with 11...c6!, as in the game Kramnik-Krasenkov, USSR Ch 1991, which continued 12 @xb6 Wxb6?! (12...2xb3_ 13 Wxb3 W06 is more exact, with roughly even chances) 13 &c2 h6 14 d4 Had8 15 a4 a5 16 b4! ab 17 cb Hfe8 18 2e3 Wh4 19 Hb1 Was 20 Bxb7 &c8 21 Hb1 d5 22 Aes (after 22 ed? Black should continue 22...e4!) 22...Axe5 23 de de 24 2b6! Bxdl 25 &xa5 Exbl, and here by playing 26 Black Plays ...2.b6 37 Exbl HeS 27 Bb8 He8 28 2c3 White could have achieved a better ending. 12 d4 Axed It is difficult to maintain the pawn tension without this exchange. After 12...2e8 White could continue 13 d5! 2d7 14 a4 with initiative on the queenside. 13 2xcd = eB Black could have given White an isolated pawn by playing 13...ed 14 cd d5 15 ed Axd5, but after 16 2d2 c6 17 Wb3 in view of his strong and active bishop pair, White’s chances are preferable anyway. 14 Wb3 Wd7 15 a4 a5 (D) Y, Pe j BRT) 16 Re3! An effective pawn sacrifice, which threatens 17 de. Now in the event of 16..ed 17 &xd4 S&ixd4 18 cd White gains an advantage in the centre, but Black perhaps has no better choice. He has apparently overestimated the position that arises after White’s combination.38 Black Plays ...2b6 16 .. ®xea?! 17 bs! 6 18 2d3 It is rare to see such an un- usually effective implementation of a geometrical motif. White’s ‘scissors’ are threatening to cut off both bishops with Sxb6 and &xg6. Therefore Black has no choice but to part with the exchange. 18... ed 19 2xd4 = Qxd4 20 xed = Exe4 21 Exes = 6 22 Bael d5 23 Bde3 Bas 24 Whe Za8 25 Hdl White’s material advantage consists formally only of half a pawn, but defending is not that easy. The a5-pawn is weak, and 26 c4 is threatened. 25 ww De?! As the wise Lasker taught us, to compromise you only need strength. 25...a6 was necessary immediately. However, Black Procrastinates, and the youthful Kramnik provokes fresh weaknesses in Black’s camp with a fine manoeuvre. 26 DeS We8 27 He2 hs He had to deflect the threat of Ded, but now the g5-square is weakened, of which White skil- fully makes use. 28 Hdel Ha6 29 WicS We7 30 DEB Dp6 31 He8+ Lh7 32 Wed Aka 33 De5 QS 34 WE Lh6 35 g3 1-03. Black Plays ...2a7 : The position we consider in this chapter arises after the moves 1 04 e5 2 DF Ac6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 d3 Af6 5 c3 d6 6 0-0 a6 7 Abd2 a7 (one should note that here 7..a5 does not work because of 8 Wa4+ c6 9 &xf7+ &xf7 10 b4) 8 &b3 (now the threat of 8...2a5 forces a precautionary move in reply) 8...0-0 (D). The essence of this position has been cleverly explained by one of its specialists, Mak- arychev, by using the concept of trajectories, brought in by the former World Champion Bot- vinnik as one of the algorithms of chess computer programs. The main trajectories of the white pieces are “d2-fl-g3-f5 and 4f3-h4-f5, and for Black, ...Af6-5-£4. In most cases Ah4 (...Dh5) does not work because of ...Af6xe4 (Af3xe5), whilst the manoeuvre d2-fl-g3 de- mands the move Hfl-el, which in turn forces consideration of ...f6-g4. Following this plan, if White does not like Black’s counterplay after the continuation 9 Hel (9..Dg4! 10 He2 @h8 11 h3 Aho! 12 Dfl £5), then he is practically forced to reply 9 h3, which has its disadvantages not only in that it loses time, but it also weakens f4 and g3 (via the a7-bishop’s X-ray vision). To eliminate these disadvantages and prepare Efl-el, White can switch the knight to the other trajectory - Ad2-c4-e3. But this is already in essence a new plan, beginning with the move 9 4c4, Recently White has often tried to reroute the knight to g3 via the fl-square, temporarily postpon- ing castling, but this also has the drawback of giving Black additional possibilities to create counterplay. The following selected en- counters illustrate this mode of play, with all of White’s possible continuations.40 Black Plays ...2a7 The 9 Hel Variation Game 12 Torre-Wedberg New York 1988 1 e4 eS 2 DB Dc6 3 Qc4 Rc5 4 d3 Df6 5 c3 d6 6 0-0 6 a6 7 Dbd2 = a7 The idea of Black avoiding this and instead trying to maintain the bishop on c5 is discussed in the note to Black’s 8th move in the next game. 8 2b3 (Note that in the actual game, 5 0-0 a6 6 &b3 d6 7 c3 Ra7 8 bd2 was the move order that occurred.) 8... 00 Recently Black has been searching for more flexible ways of developing his forces, and so he is often in no hurry to castle. For example, he can test the popular plan of moving his knight to the kingside with 8..De7 9 Hel Dg6 10 Al c6 11 h3 We7 and Black has fin- ished mobilizing his pieces. Wolff-l.Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 1993 continued 12 d4 0-0 13 Dg3 Re6 14 &c2?! (this is too sluggish; Sokolov recommends 14 &g5) 14...h6 15 2e3 Had8 16 Wel Hfe8 17 b3 Qc8! 18 c4 ed 19 2xd4 &xd4 20 Axd4 d5 21 cd 'h-Ih. Now and again Black plays on both flanks, viz. 8..h6 9 Zel g5 10 Dfl g4 11 A3d2 (D): w & Bra q. WN a) 11..DhS 12 Dcd Df4 13 Re3 bS 14 Aa3 WEG with a sharp game, King-Hort, Dort- mund 1988. b) 11...n5 12 De3 h4 13 Ddfl Hg8 14 g3 Bhs 15 dg2 2d7 16 Sic2 We7 17 d4 0-0-0 18 Afs &xf5 19 ef Hh5 and Black con- centrates his forces on the kingside, Martinovié-M.Trifunovi¢, Belgrade GMA 1988. 9 Hel (D) After this move the f2-pawn is left poorly defended, and Black gains extra resources, which are used in the game. ThereforeWhite more frequently plays the preparatory 9 h3 or 9 c4, re- pulsing 9...g4 by means of 10 De3. 9... Dea! The reputation of this manoeuvre, which has pretensions towards seizing the initiative, has not been subject to serious doubt for the last ten years. a) We will add only that it is also good after the preliminary 9...2e6 10 Dc4 Dga!, as White is forced to consent to exchanging pieces after 11 Ae3. How- ever, delaying the ...Ag4 sally allows White, by leading his knight through the ‘Spanish’ route with 10 @fl!, to preserve some initiative: al) Thus in Karpov-Korchnoi, Merano Wch (10) 1981, Black exchanged both his bishop and queen on b3, but was still forced to play a passive waiting game: 10..2xb3_ 11 Wxb3 We8 12 De3 He8 13 h3 Hb 14 Le3 We6 15 We6 fe 16 Hacl e317 He3 Hbd8 18 d4 and White had an unceasing initiative. a2) Furthermore, after the continuation 10...Wd7 11 25 @h5 12 Be3 Bxe3 13 Dxe3 DFG 14 Bc2 Aga 15 d4 Dxe3 16 Hxe3 24, as played in the game Nunn-Smejkal, Lucerne OL 1982, 17 &a4! would have maintained a solid initiative for White. b) Occasionally Black tries 9...Ah5 10 fl (10 Axes Axes 11 WxhS @xd3 gives White Black Plays ...2a7 41 nothing) 10...Wf6 with the idea of using the f4-square, although White has enough resources to repulse Black’s temporary activity. The character of the possible struggle is well illustrated by the game Gipslis-Heine Nielsen, Minsk 1993, which continued 11 gs Wg6 12 Wd2 h6 13 Re3 xe3 14 Dxe3 Df4 15 g3 Reb 16 Dh4 We5 17 Bhi (17 Dhfs Hae8 18 h4 Wg6 19 &h2 Dns 20 We2 is reasonable immediately, preserving the better chances, as in the game Ehlvest- Karpov from Rotterdam 1989) 17...2xb3 18 ab Ag6 19 Dhf5 Ace7 20 f4! ef 21 gf Wxf4 22 Efl We5 23 Ded Web 24 Afh6+ gh 25 Df6+ dg7 26 DhS+ &h7 27 DE6+ Yo-'2. d) It remains only to recall the possibility of 9...He8 10 Afl h6 11 4g3 e6 and now in the event of the retreat 12 2c2, Black smooths out the situation with the breakthrough 12...d5! 13 We2 Wd7 14 &e3 Sxe3 15 Wkxe3 d4, Pripys-Yudasin, USSR hs it h3 If White continues to ignore the knight, Black will attack the centre with greater effect: 11 DEI £5 12 ef Axf5 13 Dg3 d5 14 Axf5 Bxf5 15 Le3 Axe3 16 fe &c5, and he gains preferable chances, as in Yudasin-Malan- iuk, Minsk 1985. il .. Dnt 22 Af £5 (D)42 Black Plays ...2a7 13 &xh6 This is a very principled and consequent exchange, although, as the practical evidence and in particular this game show, White’s achievements are not great. There have also been attempts to counterattack in the centre with 13 d4: a) In Ehlvest-Salov, Rotter- dam 1989, Black did not manage to solve the problems that arose: 13...WE6 14 de DxeS 15 Axes Wxe5?! (15...de is necessary, with the idea after 16 &e3 of playing 16...f4! 17 &xa7 f3) 16 ef! Wxf5 17 Be3 Rxe3 18 Axe3 We5 19 WdS and White’s pressure tumed out to be quite tangible. b) 13...fe is a stronger preparatory move: 14 Hxe4 Wf6 (in the event of 14..2f5 15 Hel ed 16 cd W£6 18 Wd2 White’s position is preferable, Hawelko-Lukacs, Amsterdam 1984) 15 Ag3 DFS and the attack with 16 hs? Wg6 17 Dh4 Axh4 18 Hxh4 ed 19 Df4 We8 20 WhS 2F5 tuned out to be incorrect, as Black could defend easily, preserving the extra pawn, Nielsen - Brinck- Claussen, Lyngby 1989. White has also tried other ideas, including 13 2g5 We8 14 d4, but here as well after 14...fe 15 Bxe4 Qf5 16 Bh4?! (16 Bel is better) 16...Af7 17 2e3 We7 the complications of the game favour Black, Small-Hawelko, Luceme OL 1982. 13 gh Rxf5 We can now sum up the result of the opening. Black’s pawn structure is in tatters, but in re- tum he has the open g-file and threatens with the support of the two bishops to develop a dangerous attack. He is threatening 15... 2xh3. 15 2d5 White brings his bishop to the long diagonal to neutralize the effect of his more active coun- terpart. In Lant-Smagin, Trnava 1987, he did not give it the necessary attention, and fell victim to an attack: 15 $h2 De7 16 De3 Rd7 17 d4 Deo 18 de? Rxh3! 19 He4 Qd7 20 6 2c6 21 Qd5 Qxf?, etc. I De7 15...Wf6 16 Dg3 2d7 also deserves attention. Here in the game Jakubiec-Skalik, Polish Ch 1993, White played the unfortu- nate 17 Se4? He8 18 Sh2 &xf2! and was left a pawn down, but in other continuationssuch as 17 Wd2 or 17 &hi, the advantage of the bishop pair is sufficient compensation for Black’s destroyed pawn structure. 16 Red It is useful to exchange off the active bishop. White may also try 16 &xb7 b8 17 Re4 Axed 18 Hxed! (in the event of 18 de?! Dg6 19 De3 Exf3! 20 gf Wh4 White falls under an attack) 19...Bxb2 19 d4 Wa8! 20 Ee e4 with a complex game, as in Gipslis- Podgaets, USSR 1985. 16. Deo 17 Qxf5 Here 17 d4? is premature because of the attack 17...Df4 18 Bel &xh3! 19 gh Wa7!. In Dreev-Yakovich, USSR 1987, White played 17 Dg3, and after 17...2xe4 18 Hxe4 (in this situation 18 de is again no good in view of 18...&xf3! 19 gf Af4 20 Hel Wh4) 18..d5 19 Be4 D4! hS 20 DcS Axf2+! 21 Sxf2 Ad3+ 22 dgl DeS 23 Wd4 Wd6 24 Hel Hae8 25 b4 Wb6 Black gained an advantage. 17. Ext 18 He4 After 18 4g3? Black should continue with the standard attack 18...Bxf3! 19 gf Af4 followed by 20...Wh4. 8... ars 19 gs Weg! 20 d4 Baf8 Black has the initiative, and threatens 21...Axh3. Black Plays ...2a7 43 21 Hh2 H5f6 22 Del Age 23 f3 d5 24 Hea If 24 de, then 24...b6 25 Hp4 We6 is possible, with the threat of 26...Ae5. 24...ed 25 cd Rf4! 26 Dc2 c6 27 De2 xed 28 hg h5 29 4e3 Not, of course, 29 gh because of 29...Qh4 30 Wl Wg5 with dangerous threats. 29... Rb8+ 30 #h1 Dh4! 31 Wa2 Weg5 32 Afi Forced, as Black threatened 32... Axf3+ 33 gh Wh4+, etc. But White can scarcely count on being saved in the endgame either. 32...Wxd2 33 4xd2 hg 34 Efi One can hardly call 34 fg Xf2 35 Hel Axg2 a reasonable alternative. 34...gf 35 Axf3 Axf3 36 Agi $g7 37 Axf3 2g3 38 Hdl He8 All the black pieces are inter- acting well, and the game will soon be over. 39 Ha2 Sf6 40 dgi GES 41 Sf He3 42 Hdl a5 43 Agi at 44 De2 Qh4 45 a3 Hb3 46 Hd2 gS 47 Bc2 Hd3 48 cS Hdl+ 49 $f2 Hd2 50 HaS Exb2 51 Exad hed 52 Sf1 d3 0-1 The 9 h3 Variation Game 13 Karpov-Yusupov Bugojno 1986 1 e4 e5 2 Df Ac6 3 Ac4 cS 403 ALG 5 d3 d6 6 0-0 6 0044 Black Plays ...2a7 7 Hel a6 8 2b3 a7 The bishop retreat in this system is almost automatic, and it acts as a precaution against d3- d4 being played with a tempo. We shall look at various examples where Black takes precau- tions against the f6-knight being pinned, and pays no attention to the threat of d3-d4 - 8..h6 9 Bbd2 De7 (D): a) 10 d4 Qa7 11 h3 Dgé 12 fl Be8 13 DAg3 Leb 14 Lc2 6 15 2e3 We7 16 Wd2 Had8 17 ad! with some advantage to White, Gipslis-Unzicker, Daug- avpils 1990. b) 10 Afl Ags 11 Ag3 Leb 12 2c2 Be8 13 d4 2b6 14 h3 6 15 2e3 We7 16 Bel Bad8 17 &b1. Here in Wolff-Shirov, Biel IZ 1993, Black submitted to the loss of a tempo with 17...2a7?!, and after 18 Wad bS 19 We2 White’s position turned out to be preferable. Instead Shirov pro- posed the improvement 17...d5! (planning after 18 de to play 18...2)xe4) and now: bl) 18 ed &xd5 19 &xg6 (or 19 de &xe3 20 Exe3 Sxf3 21 Wxf3 Dxe5 and the game is level) 19...ed! (after 19...2xf3 20 Qxf7+! Wxf3 21 Wxf3 White is better) 20 &xf7+! Wxf7 21 &xd4 2xa2 with even chances. b2) 18 Axe5 AxeS 19 Af4! Dfd7 20 ed Axd5 21 We2! g6 22 de DxeS 23 DhS! Heb! 24 cA! Axc4! 25 HxeS HxeS 26 Dfe+ bg7 27 Des Bel+ 28 Exel Wxf4 29 Hed Wxe4!! 30 Wrxe4 Hd1+ 31 @h2 Qc7+ 32 f4 Sd5 33 We3 Ebi 34 Wd4a+ Sf8 35 Dxh6 g5! 36 Wh8+ we7 37 Dp8+ Bd7 38 Df6+ Ye7 39 &xd5+ cd and everything is in order for Black. Of course, in this long variation deviations are possible, but the character of the struggle is favourable for Black. 9 h3 h6 10 Abd2 = AhS Black elects an active plan of fighting for f4. The developing move 10...8e6 (D) is also seen. In the game Dolmatov-Aseev,Kostromo 1985, White took the path of simplification: 11 Ac4 Rxc4 12 Bxc4 Das 13 Ld3 Dxb3 14 Wxb3 Wd7 15 2c3 Bxe3 16 Exe3 c6 17 d4 We7 18 Had1 Ead8 and Black achieved a stable enough position. It seems that White can only count on maintaining the initiative with the ‘Spanish’ 11 Df1: a) 11..Wd7 12 Dg3 Hfes. Here in Gipslis-Sygulski, Jur- mala 1987, after 13 &xe6 Black serenely played 13...Wxe6?!, and after 14 d4! ed (if Black plays 14...d5 straight away, then 15 c4! is extremely unpleasant) 15 cd d5 16 e5 Dd7 17 De2! As 18 4 fell foul to a powerful attack. Instead 13...fe 14 d4 ed 15 cd Wf7 would have been more reliable. b) 11...Be8 12 03h2 (the interesting idea of bringing the queen into the attack is the in- vention of Chebanenko: after the retreat 12 &c2 Black expands in the centre with 12..d5 13 We2 bS 14 &g3 Wd7 15 Qd2 Had8 16 b3 d4 17 c4 Hb8 and achieved a playable game in Orlov-Kaidanov, Pinsk 1986) 12...2xb3 (after 12...d5 White should continue 13 W£3 and then 4Nf1-g3) 13 ab a5 14 Dg3 d5 15 Wf3 de 16 de He6 17 “FS (with the threat of &xh6) 17...Wf8 18 Wg3 Yh8 19 Ag4 and White’s chances were preferable in the yvame Gavrikov-Van der Sterren, ‘Tallinn 1987. The plan involving 10...e7 Black Plays ...%a7 45 will be examined in the next game. ll fi Wr6! 12 2e3(D) In the event of 12 e3 Af 13 d5 @xd5 Black equalizes easily: 14 ed (or 14 &xd5 De7 15 2b3 Re6 16 Be3 Qxe3 17 fe Weg6 18 @h2 2xb3 19 Wxb3 Bab8 and Black maintains the balance, Landa-Gavrilov, St.Pet- ersburg Z 1993) 14...De7 15 d4 Dp6 16 Bc2 ed 17 Axd4 d7 18 &e3 Hfe8 and the black pieces are excellently mobilized, Shaked-Kaidanov, Philadelphia 1993. 2. ta Consistent, but later Yusupov managed to strengthen his game with 12...2e6: a) In Hawelko-Yusupov, Du- bai OL 1986, White exchanged bishops with 13 &xe6 fe 14 &xa7 Exa7, but the open f-file strengthened the knight manoeuvre to f4: 15 De3 Haa8 16 a4 }f4 17 Bh2 Bad8 18 Bfl d5 and Black gained a preferable46 Black Plays...2a7 position. b) In the game Kuczynski- Marin, Thessaloniki OL 1988, White avoided the exchange with 13 &c2, but after 13...0e7 14 &xa7 Hxa7 15 d4 Df4 16 eh2 Haa8 17 De3 Had8 18 d5 Rd7 19 Dl c6 20 c4 bS 21 b3 be 22 be Bb8 Black gained good counterplay. 13° Sxa7 14 $h2 The preparatory 14 e3 is not bad either. In Kaidanov-Lane, Hastings 1990, Black played the unsuccessful queen manoeuvre 14...Wg6?!, and after 15 dh2 Ha8 16 Dg] Ph8 17 g3 Deb 18 Exa7 c2 £6 19 h4 We8 20 hS De7 21 d4 White again achieved a clear advantage. 4... De7 15 De3 a8 16 ad! White is planning to fix Black’s queenside pawns after a4-a5. 16... Re6 17 &xe6 fe?! 17...Qxe6 would have been more natural. 18 Dgl Had8 19 g3 Digs 20 fl d5 21 We2 D6 22 Dg2 —ssBE7 23 «hd Bafs 24 Badt Dge7 In spite of Black’s superficially attractive pawn centre, the doubled pawns reduce his mobility, whilst White has the resource f2-f4, which he could now use. 25 hs 26 26 Dh3 wr 27 Wxf3 Exf3 28 hg Dxg6 29 Des 4?! Black should have continued with the waiting move 29...d8, as now the breakthrough f2-f4 wins in force. 30 Dc2 37 31 cd Dxd4 After 31..ed White should again continue 32 f4. 32 Dxd4— ed 33 4 cS 34 a5 b5 If 34...0e5, then 35 Af2 Ac6 36 Hcl leads to an advantage for White. 35 ab(D) Eb7? 35...b8 was necessary, as now White can force an endgame where Black has numerous pawn weaknesses. 36 Hel Exb6 37 ExcS Exb2+ 38 Hf2 Exf2 39 Axf2 Has 40 35 wwBaS De7 41 Dg4s Dc 42 HS! De7 43 He7 Lf8 44 De5! a5 45 24 a4 46 £5 ef 47 gf Dxf5 He has to part with the knight, as after 47...23 48 £6 a2 49 He7! the black king falls into a mating net. 48 ef HaS 49 HcS! BxcS 50 DAT+ SeT 51 Axc5 a3 52 Hg3 £d6 53 Db3 Le5 54 hg h5+ 55 Spgs h4 56 £6 Se6 57 Sg6 h3 58 £7 h2 59 f8W hiW 60 De5+ Le5 61 Wh8+ 1-0 Game 14 Sutovsky-Lengyel Budapest 1993 1 e4 e5 2 DB Dc6 3 Lcd AMG 4 d3 2c5 5 c3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 2b3 Given that both sides have castled, the pin 7 &g5 is not dangerous for Black, as it allows the pawn assault ...h6 and ...g5 with the aim of seizing space on the kingside, to go unpunished: 7...H6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Q2g3 Ved 10 h3 BhS 11 b4 Bb6 12 Abd2 De7 13 Hel Age 14 We2 g4?! (this is too risky; after 14...We7 Black has a reliable position) 15 hg @xg4 16 d4! and White seized the initiative, Yudasin- Tukmakov, Simferopol 1988. Tow a6 Black could also have ‘risked’ pinning the f3-knight: 7..2g4 8 Dbd2 d5 93 LhS 10 Hel de 11 de Wd7 with quite a solid position. Here Black often prevents his Black Plays ...2a7 47 own knight being pinning by playing the precautionary 7...h6. After 8 Abd2, in the event of 8...a6 White should continue with his basic plan 9 Hel, but it is worth looking at the possibility of economizing on the move ..a6, with the aim of carrying out a central strategy: 8...Ke8 9 Hel Re6 10 AFl d5 11 We2 Wd7 12 2e3 &b6 13 h3 Had8 14 2a4 Wd6 15 Had! and White’s position is only slightly better, | Akopian-Montecatine, Dos Hermanas 1992. 8 h3 Here 8 &g5 also allows an attack by the pawns with 8...h6 9 2h4 g5 10 293 (D). 10...2g4 11 Dbd2 and now: a) 11..DhS 12 Shi Whe 13 h3! $2.d7 14 d4! ed and in Nunn- Pinter, Helsinki 1983, White could have gained an advantage by playing 15 eS!, as it is dangerous to take the pawn with 15...de?! because of the attack 16 Des We7 17 Dfgs Dg3 18 fg hg 19 Whs.48 Black Plays ...2.a7 b) 11...2a7 (a useful prophylactic in the event of d3-d4, as we have just seen) 12 #h1 2hS! 13 Wel dg7 14 Qdi 2g6 15 Dc4 Hes 16 Bc2 Wd7 17 Wd2 Had8 18 a4 DhS 19 b4?! (19 BDe3 was safer) 19...d5! 20 ed Wxd5 21 b5 e4! 22 Ae3 Le3 23 fe Ag3 24 hg ef! 25 be Hxe3! 26 Wxe3 fg+ 27 @h2 gf\+ 28 Exfl Wxc6 29 We5 &g8 30 Ef2 He8 0-1 was the instructive game Chandler-Karpov, Bath tpd 1983, which is a good example of how to play such positions. 8... Ra7 9 Hel h6é 10 Dbd2 Be7 11 f(D) 11 .. D6 One of Black’s most important manoeuvres in this system, switching the knight over to the kingside. But until now the best move in the diagram position has not been clear. It would appear that Black ex- pects a difficult search for the main line of defence, down a long road of trial and error: a) 11...2e6 12 Ag3 h6 13 d4 He8 14 &c2 c6 15 Be3 We7 16 Wd2?! Had8 17 Hadi d5! and Black’s position is better, Ku- drin-Kosten, London 1988. It was necessary to remove the queen from possible opposition by the rook with 16 Wel!?, planning an attack against the advanced h6-pawn after g3-f5. b) 11...Dh5 12 dé (if 12 &g5, then 12...We8 is possible, followed by Dgf4) 12...Ahf4 13 ®g3 and now: bl) 13...We7?! 14 23 Hds 15 Qc2 h6 16 AfS WEG 17 g3! and White has the better game, as in Kramnik-Campora, Mos- cow GMA 1989. b2) In the event of 13...W6?! the queen falls under attack from the knight via another square: 14 @Dh5! We7 15 Qxf4 Axf4 16 Dxf4 ef 17 Wd2 g5 18 e5, and White's advantage is obvious, Belikov-Novik, Sochi 1990. b3) Of course, both queen moves, to e7 and f6, are unsuccessful, as they give away a tempo which allows the knight to attack. Kramnik recommends 13...h6 immediately. c) IL.eh8 12 Ag3 c6 13 We2?! (Skembris recommends 13. d4 as an improvement) 13.,.2e6 14 &d2 We7 15 Hadl Hae8 16 cl h6 17 Dh2 d5 18 DhS We7! 19 Af6 Wie 20 Aga Wh4 and Black’s chances were preferable in Kofidis-Skembris,Greek Ch 1993. 12 Dgs 6 After 12...2e8 13 d4: a) Dolmatov-Razuvaev, Tash- kent 1980 continued 13...2.477!, which is too sluggish; nothing will come of attacking the e4- pawn. This game was one of the first trials of this position. GM Dolmatov is one of the most prominent specialists of the systems with d3 in the Two Knights Defence and the Giuoco Piano, so it will be especially interesting for our study of the Giuoco Piano to trace the moves of his battle with a distinguished theo- retician: 14 &2¢3 206 15 &c2 ed 16 2xd4 Afa 17 Qxa7 Hxa7 18 Dd4 Dpo 19 Wd2 (White is carried away by organizing an attack on the king: otherwise he would have stuck to the ‘prosaic’ 19 Axc6 be 20 Ba4, with a clear advantage) 19...2d7 20 f4 Ha8 21 Hadi Dh7 22 fl Bos 23 Def5 Bxf5 24 AxfS DAh4 25 De3 Deo 26 We2 Wh4 27 WE3 De7 28 Lb3 Hs 29 Edd Ac6 Black Plays ...a7 49 30 Hd3 g6 31 Ae2 Hbe8 32 Ada Da5 33 Rad b5 34 Qc2 We7 35 b4 Ac4 36 Hddl c5 37 be de 38 Ac6 We7 39 e5 He6 40 Re4 Ec8 41 f5!! (an effective sacrifice: now neither 41..Axe5 42 DxeS ExeS 43 gf, nor 41...Ag5 42 Wf4 gf 43 Qxf5! Wxc6 44 h4! Dh7 45 &xh7+ &xh7 46 Wxf7+ @h8 47 Hd7 works) 41... Bxc6 42 Sxc6 Dgs 43 Wea Wxc6 44 h4 Wed! 45 hg Wxf4 46 Exf4 hg 47 Hf2! De3 48 Hel! Dxf5 49 e6 g4 50 Hd2! and White achieved an apparently won ending, in which after 50...fe he should have increased his threats with the invasion 51 Hd7! Hc6 52 He. b) Black should have neutral- ized the unpleasant bishop straight away: 13...2e6 14 &c2 c6 15 2e3 We7 16 Wd2, and linked with the threat of Af5 White of course maintains his initiative, but it is easier to defend. 13° d4! White has achieved the main ideas of the opening and maintains the initiative. 13... We7 14 2e3 Bes After 14...b5? 15 Wd2 &h7 16 Had! £b7 17 Af5! White develops the strongest of attacks, Gipslis-Ruderfer, USSR 1979. 15 Wa2 eh7 16 Hadi Reb 17 Qc2 Had8 18 We2 bs Black has fully mobilized his50 Black Plays ...S.a7 forces, but is not yet ready for counterplay in the centre (18...d5? 19 Axe5). 19 a4 5 20 ab ab 21 «d5 d7 22 Hal Has 23° DFS (D) \ I \Y 23 ww Rb6? 23...c4 was necessary, preserving good counterplay on the queenside. Now White leaves his opponent behind in attacking the king, where the important weak link is the the advanced h6- pawn. 24 94 begs Black is counting on halting White’s attack with ..2f4, which does not work straight away because of the dangerous open b1-h7 diagonal - 24...Af4? 25 &xf4 ef 26 e5, etc. 25 Wd2 h5? An important truism: do not move your pawns where you are weakest. Black should defend in more robust fashion: 25...2xf5 26 gf AFB 27 Axh6 gh 28 Wxh6 Debh7 29 Shi (29 £6 Axf6 30 Whxf6 Hxal 31 Hxal We7) 29...@h8 30 Bgl f6 and Black holds on. 26 2g5 hg 27 Qxf6 = Exal 28 @xg7! An unpleasant surprise! Black was apparently counting on holding out somehow after 28 Bxal 2xf5 29 ef Df. 28 Exel+ 29 @xel Af4 30 Dg2! Now the floodgates are open, and Black’s belated activity will not save him. 30...Axh3+ 31 ¢h2 Wa7 32 @xe8 Wal 33 2d1 c4 34 Wh6 g3+ 35 fg 2g1+ 36 Lhi 1-0 Game 15 Landa-Almasi Budapest 1991 1 e4 eS 2 A Ac6 3 Bcd cS 4 c3 D6 5 d3 a6 6 2b3 &a77 0-0 d6 8 Dbd2 After 8 Hel, besides the standard 8..0-0, another plan involves casting long: 8...We7!? 9 h3?! (here this move facilitates an attack on the flank; 9 Abd? is correct) 9...h6! 10 Abd2 g5! 11 AFI (11 Dh2 Le6 seems stronger, with roughly even chances) 11...g4 12 hg @xg4 13 d4 Qd7 14 &e3 0-0-0 15 Rd5 Hdg8! 16 &xc6 (otherwise 16..Ad8 and 06) 16...2xc6 17 DES (if 17 Dxg4 Uxp4 18 DeS, then thereply 18..Be4! is strong: 19 Exe4 2xe4) 17...Wd8 18 D3h4 DiC! 19 de Dg4! 20 He2 Axes and White has the better chances, as in Gipslis-Smagin, Berlin 1988. 8. 0-0 9 h3 h6 Before Hel has been played, 9...\h5?! is no good because of the possibility of 10 xe! Dxe5 (or 10...de 11 WxhS Wxd3 12 D3 Wxed 13 &xf7+!, etc) 11 Wxh5 Oxd3 12 Df3 Wf6 13 Rg5 We6 14 Wxg6 hg 15 Hadl, when White has powerful pressure. The continuation 9...2e6 was examined in Karpov-Korchnoi, Merano Weh (8) 1981. 10 Hel DhS I Dc4 Wte 12 De3 Ota 13 Dds Axd5 14 2xdS eT A standard manoeuvre in this type of position - the second knight is trying to get to f4, but it would also have been worth thinking about 14...2e6, as 15 Rxc6 be 16 Re3 Bxe3 17 Bxe3 c5 is not dangerous for Black. 15 2b3 Deo The more reliable 15...2¢6, played more recently in Landa- Gavrilov, St.Petersburg Z 1993, was examined in the notes to the game Karpov-Yusupov, Bugojno 1986. 16 4 ats 17 8e3(D) WT hs Black Plays ...&a7 51 White has tested the automatic moves in the centre, sustaining the principle of using the mini- mal amount of necessary force to repulse Black’s activity on the kingside, where the knight is fulfilling his role as a consolidat- ing piece. Black is preparing ...f5, but this plan does not lead to serious concessions in the centre. 17...He8 looks a little more solid: 18 Dh2! g5 (18...ed?! is weaker: 19 cd Ae6 20 Af3!) 19 Ded Axed 20 hg Hads. 18 Dh2! | We5 19 Wr Rd7 20 hi f5 21 &xf4 ef Exchanging queens does not ease the situation: 21...Wxf4 22 Wxf4 ef 23 e5 Hae8 24 Af3 and White has the advantage, as before. 22 «eS de 23° ExeS! After seizing the c-file, the decisive invasion of the major pieces into the black camp is52 Black Plays ...2a7 unavoidable. 23. 6 24 We2 Eae8 25 Hel 5 (D) Black’s desire to free himself is understandable, as 25...Wg6 26 @f3 leads to total suppres- sion, but now White's direct attack is decisive. 26 Hxe8! Hxe8 27 Wxe8+! Rxe8 28 Hxe8+ Ph7 29 228+ There now follows a number of checks to gain time, whilst Black is forced to await the de- nouement submissively. 29...@h8 30 2f7+ @h7 31 2g8+ Gh8 32 2f7+ Lh7 33 DB WE 34 2g8+ wh8 35 2d5+ Gh7 36 2g8+ Lh8 37 De5 g5 38 Heb! The final regrouping of the attacking pieces! 38...Wg7 39 2£7! hS 40 He8+ @h7 41 26+ was threatened. 40 Hg6 WES 41 Hxgs Wa8 42 h4 2b8 After 42...cd 43 2e6 Wb6 44 47+ White mates. 43 Exh5+ bg7 44 Hg5+ th7 45 258+ 1-0 The 9 4\c4 Variation Game 16 Torre-Kamsky Manila IZ 1990 1 e4 eS 2 DAB Deb 3 Vcd c5 4 3 D6 5 d3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 2b3 a6 8 Dbd2 a7 This move has entered Black’s ‘schedule’. If Black ignores the threat of d4, by playing 8...2e6 9 Ac4 h6 10 Kel He7, then after 11 d4 ed 12 cd 27 (if 12...2b4, then 13 4cd2!? is possible) 13 d5 2g4 14 Le3 Bxe3 15 Axe3 ShS 16 Afi! by moving the knight to g3, White gains an advantage, Speelman-Yusupov, Hastings 1989/90. 9 Bc4(D) Alongside 9 41, one of the main routes for the knight. Be- sides supporting the pawn attack on the queenside, this knight canbe thrown over to the kingside via e3. 9 ho 10 Hel Reb In Kosten-Motwani, London 1990, Black successfully managed to carry out the ‘Spanish’ plan: 10..Be8 11 &e3 bS 12 Ded2 Da5 13 Rc2 c5 14 h3 d5 15 Afl de 16 de Ac4 17 Wxd8 Exd8 18 &cl &Lb7 and the game is level. 11 &e3 White solves two problems, exchanging off the active bishop and moving the knight over to the kingside. The plan of attacking on the queenside with the pawn thrust 11 a4 will be examined later. ll... Rxe3 Is it worth developing the opposition’s knight voluntarily? 11...He8 deserves attention: 12 Qxa7 Bxa7 13 De3 Ha 14 Lxe6 Hxe6 15 Ads De7 16 Dxfo+ Bxf6 17 d4 Dgo with even chances, Kindermann- Bischoff, Hamburg 1991. 12 @xe3 Wd7 13 Dh4 Another line could involve preserving the bishop with 13 Re2!?. 3... &xb3 From the point of view of the classical approach to the oppos- ing e4- and e5-pawns in open positions, one should always bear in mind the need to assist the freeing move d6-d5. How- ever, in this particular situation, Black Plays ... a7 53 13...d5 is vindicated only in the event of White handing over the centre: 14 ed?! Axd5 15 &xd5 Axd5 16 DhfS Le6!, but after 14 Wf3! Black has to give up the centre in much inferior circum- stances. 14 Wxb3 b6 15 DbfS = eh7 Losing time. The immediate 15...Hfe8 would be a better precaution against White’s plan of f2-£4 or d3-d4. 16 Hadi Efe8 17 Ads DAxdS 18 Wxd5 Had8 19 d4 dg8 20 De3 b5 21 h3 De7 22 Wh3 Web 23 d5(D) 4 an Et a paeie By fixing the backward c7- pawn, White prepares the objective of his attack on the queenside. 23...WeS 24 a4 BES As White begins to lay his cards on the table, Black attempts to create play on the kingside connected with ...f5, but as the majority of the minor pieces have been exchanged, this plan has no chance of succeed-54 Black Plays ...2a7 ing. 25 We2 Zb8 26 b4 Wh6 27 Hal Ha8 A precaution. Counterplay such as 27...c6 28 ab ab 29 de Wxc6 30 Ba7 Hb7 31 Heal only opens up the way for the white rook to invade. 28 c4 be 29 Wxce4 £5 30 Hecl Hac8 31 b5 ab After the blocking move 31...a5 White switches over to attacking the c7-pawn, but only after playing the preparatory 32 a3, with the aim of preventing the f-pawn moving. 32 ab fe 33 Haé Wd4 This mobilization of the queen brings Black additional problems, but confused defence such as 33..Wb8 34 Heal DFS 35 ®xf5 Exf5 36 We is not at all promising. 34 Wa2! Wad3 35 Hed (D) The queen unexpectedly turns out to be trapped, and her capture is threatened after Ha3. 35...xf2, Black hopes to get the queen out at a price. The alternative 35... DF5 36 Ha3 Axe3 37 Hxd3 Dc4 38 Bc3 Abb 39 Wa7 AaB 40 b6! Axb6 41 Hxc7 Bxc7 42 Wxc7 Ac8 43 Wd7 is not par- ticularly attractive. 36 Wxf2 Hf8 37 Wel Axd5 38 Ha3! Depriving Black of his final illusion. The rest is a matter of technique. 38...Wxa3 39 Dxd5 Hf7 40 Sh2 Wb3 41 Wxed WxbS 42 Axc7 Wd7 43 Dds Web 44 Had g6 45 Ha8+ dg7 46 Hd8 hS 47 Wea WES 48 Hxd6 Wg5 49 “c7 W4+ 50 Wxf4 ef 51 Ae6+ &h6 52 hd Hf6 53 ApS Exd6 54 Dt7+ Sg7 55 DAxd6 Sf6 56 Ded+ LFS 57 Dgs bgd 58 AZ SES 59 Sel Sed 60 we2 LFS 61 de2 kgs 62 bd3 LFS 63 bd bg4 64 Sed Torre makes use of his extra piece with ruthless efficiency. Fans of the poetic should enjoy this variation, suggested by Short: 64 #e5 g3 65 de4 bed 66 Des Bh4 67 Sf4 v5 68 SF3 g4 69 SF4 g3 70 Al3#. 64...2g3 65 LeS Lega 66 LF6 bg3 67 &g5 1-0 Game 17 Dolmatov-Kruppa Irkutsk 1986 1 e4 eS 2 APS Ac6 3 Bcd cS 43 Df6 5 d3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 &b3 a6 8 Dbd2 2a7 9 Ac4 Del A universal knight manoeuvrein the Giuoco Piano. 10 25 11 hd (D) Deo Considered the most energetic continuation. In the event of 11...2e6 12 Be3 White maintains the initiative: 12...Af4 (White is clearly better after 12...Axh4 13 &xh4 h6 14 &xe6 fe 15 Ag4 Almasi- Neverov, Ajka 1992) 13 DefS &xb3 14 ab Deb 15 Re3 g6 16 @Dh6o+ &g7 17 Dgd Kosten- Slutzkin, Aix-les-Bains 1991. The suggested 11...\f4 allows White to begin active operations in the centre: 12 S.xf4 ef 13 Df3 g4 14 €5 de 15 AcxeS Wd6 16 d4 Zad8 17 Bel and he achieves a better game, Kosten-Gulko, Hastings 1988/89. After 11...2e8 the simple 12 xg6 hg 13 W3 is possible. 12 We2 12 Wd2? is an error due to 12...@xh4 13 &xh4 Ded, whilst in the event of 12 &xf6 Wxf6 13 Wxg4 Wxh4 the game is level, Black Plays ...a7 55 Nunn-Karpov, Hamburg 1982. 2 .. Ota In Kosten-Howell, British Ch (Blackpool) 1988, Black faced problems after 12...Wd7 13 Ae3 Dxh4 14 Axh4 Dns 15 Bfel! D4 16 £3 Be6 17 Badl d5 18 ed Dxd5 19 22. 13 De3 De?! Here Dolmatov recommends immediately disentangling the mass of pieces on the kingside with 13..h6 14 Qxf4 ef 15 Dxgd Dxgd 16 DL3 De, although after 17 Wd2 followed by d3-d4 White preserves somewhat better chances. 14 Qxe6! Lxe6 15 Dhfs h6 16 2h4- = &h7 It is clearly not so easy to es- cape from the pin, as in the event of simplifying with 16...2xe3 17 fe! Qxf5 18 Hxf5 g5 19 2g3 the weaknesses in the position on the kingside are too risky. 17 d4 25 18 &g3 After 18 de?! de 19 &2g3 Dd7 it is much easier for Black to defend himself. 18... 19 We2 Here as well 19 de?! Axg3 20 hg S&xe3 21 Axe3 de promises White nothing, Torre-Korchnoi, Dns Zagreb IZ 1987. 9 at 20 Wr Hg8 (D) 21 de! Now, when White has strengthened f5, this exchange is56 Black Plays ...2a7 appropriate, as it allows a link which aids the cavalry and the rook. 21... de 22 Hfd1 wes 23 Ded 6 24 @fxh6 Bhs White has won a pawn and maintained his attack. Tactics will not save Black either: 24..Mixh6 25° Axh6 94 (amusing, but no more) 26 Bd7+ Rxd7 27 Wd1 Had8 28 AE7, etc. 25 OS &g6 26 h4 Red 27 Sxf4 oof 28 DxeS+! 1-0 Game 18 Psakhis-Ehlvest USSR Ch (Minsk) 1987 104 e5 2 2c4 Af6 3 d3 Ac6 4 DB 2c5 5 c3 d6 6 0-0 0-07 Dbd2 a6 8 Lb3 La7 9 Dc4 Re6 10 a4 In the event of 10 &g5 Black could carry out an operation on the flank with 10...h6 11 2h4 g5 12 23, preserving good resources. For example, he could simplify the position with 12..,2xc4 13 Bxc4 Da5 14 2b3 @®xb3 15 Wxb3 Wd7 16 Hfe1 Bfe8 17 Had1 c6 with approxi- mately equal chances, Almasi- Siklosi, Kecskemet 1993. In the attempt to get a fighting game, the traditional 12...De7 (D) is possible, planning the attack &e6-g4, which is no good straight away: 12...2¢4 13 De3 &hS 14 DFS and White seizes the weak f5-square. One may judge the effectiveness of Black’s counterchances from the following examples: a) Almasi-Lukacs, Budapest 1993, featured 13 Hel Dg6 14 d4 &xc4 15 2xc4 We7 16 h4 Bad7 17 hg hg 18 Dh2 g7 19 Ded Bh8 20 De3 WB 21 DLS W£6 and Black had the initiative on the kingside. b) Spraggett-Marin, Manila IZ 1990 went 13 Ae3 Wd7 14 Bel &g7 15 d4 Axes 16 de d5 17Dd4 Bad’ 18 WhS Dc6 19 xe6 (now the initiative passes to Black: it is also worth looking at 19 Hadl @xg3 20 hg @xe5 21 Axd5 Rxd4 22 cd Rxd5 23 de with chances for both sides) 19... Wxe6 20 Had! 2e3 21 He3 WHS 22 2xd5 Axg3 23 hg DxeS 24 Red Dga! 25 Hl Web 26 He2 Af6 27 WE3 Axed 28 Bxed (after exchanging queens with 28 Wxe4 Wxe4 29 Exe4 Hd2 the endgame with four rooks clearly favours Black) 28...Wxa2 29 Eb4? (the position of the rook is too passive: after 29 He7 Wxb2 30 &xc7 the active rook aids White’s counterplay) 29...b5 30 Wce6 WaS 31 £4 Wb6+? (exchanging queens lets go of the advantage which Black would have kept after the preparatory move 31...d6) 32 Wxb6 cb 33 Hal Hfe8 34 fg hg 35 Hxa6 He2 36 Hd4 Exd4 37 cd Exb2 38 Bxb6 £6 Ya-Y2, 10... h6 10...De7 immediately is also reasonable: 11 a5 Dgé 12 h3 h6 13 2e3 Bxe3 14 ADxe3 d5 equalizing chances, A.Fedorov- Aleksandrov, Nikolaev Z 1993. 11 a5 11 Hel is also possible, after which 11...b5? only helps White to carry out his central strategy: 12 De3 Wd7 13 Bc2! Bfes (13...d5 deserves attention) 14 d4 ed 15 @xd4 (15 cd? is a typical mistake in situations like this, in view of 15...d5 16 eS De4 witha good game for Black) 15...Axd4 Black Plays ...a7 57 16 cd c6 17h3 We7 18 Afl 2d7 19 b4 ba 20 &b2 Wb6 21 2c3 and White has a big spatial advantage, Nunn-Hort, Wijk aan Zee 1982. Therefore it is better not to digress from the main line, and play 11...He8 12 a5 De7 13 Re3 Ago. ll. Be8 Another plan, 11...Wd7 12 Eel Dg4 13 De3 Dxe3 14 &xe3 Bxe3 15 Bxe3 Qxb3 16 Wxb3 Hab8 17 h3 Hfe8 18 d4 b6 19 ab Hxb6 20 Wc2 Heb8 21 d5 De7 22 b4, leaves White with some initiative, Dolmatov-Timo- shchenko, Irkutsk 1986. 12 Hel One of the merits of the manoeuvre “d2-c4 is the possibility of managing without the move h3. 2 .. Dga 13 De3 — Bxe3 14 &xe3 (D) 14... d5 This is quite fashionable. Af- ter 14...Axe3 15 Exe} 2xb3 16 Wxb3 Hb8 17 d4 White’s chan-58 Black Plays ....a7 ces are preferable, Romanishin- Smejkal, Szirak 1986. 15 2c5 de 16 de Wxd1 17 Sxdl = DxaS In _Dolmatov-Tseshkovsky, USSR Ch 1987, Black played the more restrained 17...f6 18 a4 Qd7 19 Qc2 Had8 and achieved a playable game. 18 Bxa5 Alternatively 18 h3 Df6 19 Hxa5 b6 20 &xb6 cb, and it is necessary to retreat the rook, as after 21 Bxe5? g6 it falls into a trap, as 22 Ad4 Ad7 23 Dxe6 fe clearly favours Black. 18... b6 19 Had be 20 h3 D6 21 @xeS &xh3 22 gh Bxe5 23 «£4 He6 24 5 To sum up, an ending has arisen where although he has a broken queenside pawn structure, Black still has an extra pawn. Therefore, while White is busy counting up the material he has to win back, Black manages to activate his forces to the maximum. Both sides’ chances can be considered roughly equal. 24...b8 25 Sf AdS 26 L£3 Db6 27 Bxa6 Acd 28 Ha8 Exa8 29 &xa8 Dxb2 30 2d5 He7 31 Hb1 a4 Of course, not 31...4d3?? in view of the reply 32 Xb8+ @h7 33 Red+. 32 Hb8+ th7 33 Led+? This move can only be explained by time trouble and the hypnotic effect of the abstract knowledge of the advantage of rook and bishop against rook and knight in the endgame. But here we have an exception. Because of the weakness of all the white pawns, the knight forces the bishop on to the defensive. After 33 Ef8 g6 34 Bxf7+ Exf7 35 &xf7 White is not in danger of losing. 33...g6 34 c4 dg7 35 bf2 Db6 36 23 g5! After this breakthrough the e5-pawn is hopelessly weak. 37 $13 gf 38 Hb7 After 38 @xf4 one should continue 38...d7. But here as well after Hxc7 Black has no time to extend his material advantage. After the black king has marched to the centre, the rest is easy. 38...Hxe5 39 txf4 He7 40 fl Ha7 41 $f3 £6 42 Ha7 eS 43 te3 He7 44 Hal He8 45 SP Heb 46 Re2 Hf6+ 47 Sg3 ded 48 Had Ac8 49 Bd3 Dds 50 Hd5 de3 51 2d3 c6 0-14 Modern Systems ‘This chapter is dedicated to examples of contemporary treat- ment of the Giuoco Piano. Both Black and White are seeking new resources in the very opening stages, trying to outplay each other with tactical nuances. Thus White quite often tries to hurry the knight over to the kingside as quickly as possible, attempting to use the fl-square before castling. In his turn, Black is in no hurry to divert the bishop to a7, as he is trying to win a tempo for the breakthrough d7- 5 at the very moment when the white knight is on f1, and has temporarily lost control over the centre. But sometimes in the carly stages of the game Black strives to leave White behind in attacking the centre with the help of either ...d6-d5 or even ...d7- d5. The prelude to all of these attempts seems to be the fashionable move 5...a6, which leaves Black the possibility of returning to the plan with ...d6. Game 19 Bologan-Westerinen Gausdal 1991 1 e4 eS 2 Af3 Dc6 3 Bcd AMG 4.d3 2cS 53 5. a6 In this game White sticks to the strategic line of the quickest possible deployment of his forces, even at the cost of castling. But there is nothing new under the sun, and before we move on, it will be useful to make an excursion into history and look at a game from the last century, Chigorin-Lasker, St.Pet- ersburg 1895/6: 5..d6 6 Dbd2 0-0 7 Afi d5!2 8 ed Axd5 9 &e3?! Dxe3 10 fe e4! 11 de We7 12 We2 De5 13 Axes Wxe5 and Black has come out of the opening with flying colours. One should note that Black’s indicated plan of an early advance to d5 generally lurks in the air, as in this case White has not managed to attack the e5-pawn, which he can usually do when the white king has castled. 6 2b3 d6 In the event of 6...$a7 7 @®bd2 d6 White sometimes car- Ties out a plan delaying castling, using fl to transfer the knight over to the kingside with 8 }F1!2._ Nevednichy-Aleksand- rov, Nikolaev Z 1993, continued 8..2g4 9 d4 ed 10 cd Af6 1160 Modern Systems Deg3 Bed 12 Re3 d5 13 e5 Des with chances for both sides. Black carried out an interesting idea from the Marshall At- tack of the Ruy Lopez in the game Bologan-I.Sokolov, Khal- kidhiki 1992: 6...0-0 7 h3 bS!? 8 0-0 2b6 9 Hel d5!? 10 ed Axd5 11 DxeS DeS 12 HxeS 06 13 &xd5 cd with sufficient compensation for the pawn. 7 Dbd2 As was examined above, the thrust 7 2g5 is not dangerous for Black, as it allows him to seize space on the kingside: 7..0-0 8 Abd2 2a7 9 Df h6 10 Rh4 g5 11 Qg3 Dns 12 De3 Sg7 13 Wd2 De7 14 d4 f5 15 ef e4 16 Del £5 with an excellent game for Black, Kramnik-An- and, Moscow GMA 1989. By using the obligatory plan (&b3 and Abd2), White retains the choice between castling or delaying it in order to carry out the manoeuvre 4\d2-fl-g3 more quickly. Tm 0-0 We should note that Black can also bide his time and include the ‘compulsory’ move 7...2a7, so that after 8 Df he maintains the possibility of choosing between the classical plan or decid- ing on 8...d5, as played in Bolo- gan-Magomedov, Azov 1991, which continued 9 ed @xd5 10 )g3 0-0 11 0-0 £6 12 Hel hs 13 2c2 Re6 14.d4 Rg8 15 Dh4 @de7 16 2e3 ed 17 cd DAb4 18 Re4 with a double-edged game. At the same time, 8...g4? seems to be a blank shot because of 9 d4. However, White can also stay in the shadows a little longer with 8 h3, and after 8...0-0 he achieves a position from the text game. Here 7...b5 8 fl d5?! is du- bious because of the great weakness of the d5 and aS-squares: 9 gs de 10 de Se6 (forced) 11 Dg3 h6 12 Qxf6 Wxf6 13 dS 2d7 14 DhS Wg6 15 Ah4 Wes 16 &£7+! and White has won a pawn, Komliakov-Ginzburg, Ni- kolaev Z 1993. 8 h3 A useful precaution. White hinders the incursions ...g4 and .Sig4 and clarifies Black’s plans. After 8 “fl, the energetic 8...d5 has a more solid basis, as when the knight is moved to fl, control over the centre is mo- mentarily weakened. Bo. a7 9 Afi De7 Black leads his knight over to the kingside by the well-wom path c6-e7-g6-f4 (taking into account the weakness left by 8 h3 it looks quite logical), and pays no attention to the fact that White has saved a tempo by not castling, in order to begin play in the centre. Meanwhile, with the knight deflected to fl, as was remarked in the previous note, 9..d5 is also quite realistic. Now, by handing over the centre with 10 ed Axd5 11 Ag3 Leb 12 0-0 {6 White especially hasnothing to count on, Kofidis- Stefansson, Athens 1993. To avoid simplification, 10 We2 looks logical, but here as well Black has enough resources to fight the forthcoming dynamic battle. a) 10...8e8 11 Ag3 h6 12 0-0 Re6 13 Hdl Wd7 14 Dhé (or 14 ‘kh2 Had8 15 Ah4 4e7 16 Be3 4 and Black can already aspire to seizing the initiative, as in Bereziuk-Galdunts, Azov 1991) 14...De7 15 WE3 de 16 de We6 17 Qc2 Gh7 18 Abs DxfS 19 ONxf5 QxfS 20 WxfS g6 21 WF ‘bg7 22 Qe3 'h-'2 Gelfand- Adams, Wijk aan Zee Ct (2) 1994. b) 10...h6 11 g4 de 12 de Ad7 (the origin of this plan was Komliakov-Gavrilov, Moscow 1988, which continued 12...2\h7 13 Dg3 Reb 140-0 WF6 15 2d5 ‘Nd8 16 DFS c6 17 Bb3 Qxb3 18 ab De6 19 h4 with a complex game) 13 g5?! Dc5 14 gh Dd3+ 1S @d1 Af4+ 16 Wd2 Wi6 17 Xgl g6 18 &c2 DAxh3 19 Hg3 4\xf2 and Black has achieved a material advantage, Bologan- Adams, New York Intel rpd 1994, 10 Ag3 Deb 11 0-0 h6 The counterplay Black found in the game Bologan-Kir.Geor- xicv, Tilburg 1993, deserves attention: 11...b5!? 12 d4 2b7 13 Bel He8 14 &c2 d5 15 DeS 4\c4 with complete equality. 12 d4!(D) Modern Systems 61 Compare this position with that in the diagram after 13 d4 in Dolmatov-Razuvaev, Tashkent 1980. White has carried out his plan in full without needing to play Efel. 12 .. ed? Why hand over the centre voluntarily? As Lasker pointed out philosophically, ‘In a dis- pute, it is worth respecting your opponent’s opinion, but it is not worth giving him any concessions until he has formed his convictions. In chess as well, it is not worth voluntarily removing an advanced post until it is driven away ... Defence should concede to strength, but only to strength.’ It is also useful to know the legacy of chess - after 12...He8 13 Hel a position arises from the previously mentioned game Dolmatov-Razuvaev. 12...2e6 13 Re3 Bxb3 is also possible, exchanging the active bishop, whilst refusing the exchange with 13..Wc8 14 Hel62 Modern Systems He8 after 15 2c2! Dh7 16 a4 Wd8 17 a5 Dh4 18 Dh2 Df 19 Wd2 Dh7 20 Hadi WE6 21 f4 ef 22 @DhS could lead to a strong initiative for White, as in the game Bologan-Benjamin, New York 1993. 13 cd dS 14 0&5 Ded 15 Bcd! Now it has become clear that the position of the knight is un- stable. 15. Dh4 The exchange 15...Axg3 16 fg creates new resources for White to carry out his attack in view of the breakthrough g4-g5, or to prepare the threat of sacrificing on hé6 after 2e3 and Wd2. 16 Axed de 17 Qxed — Dxf3+ 18 Wxf3 White returns the pawn, but by leaving the central one on e5 he is giving the pieces excellent assistance in organizing an attack. After the natural reply 18...2xd4 19 Edl c5 20 e3 Wb6 21 Sxd4 cd 22 Hd2 Black not only has a problem defending the d4-pawn, but he also has to repulse the attack, which is possible after arranging a battery (2b1 and We4) along the b1-h7 diagonal. But all the same it was worth making this decision, as leaving White with the menacing bishop pair would have been too Wxd4?! 19 .. 6 19...Wxb2 would be suicidal since after 20 Wg3! White’s attack is unstoppable. But after the move in the game, it is impossible for Black to hold his ground anyway. 20 Hadi Wb4 21 2xh6! gh 22 Wg3+ @h8 23 Wid 2g7 24 Hd3 He8 25 Hg3+ of8 26 Wxh6+ Ye7 27 Wh4+ £f8 28 a3! A final ‘quiet’ move, enticing the queen to the d-file, as he cannot defend d6 (28...Wa4? 29 Wh6+ de7 30 Wd6#). 28...Wd4 29 Wh6+ &e7 30 W6+ &d7 If 30...f8, then 31 2h7 is decisive. 31 Ha3 Wxd3 32 2xd3 1-0 Game 20 Kasparov-Lautier Linares 1994 (notes based on analysis by Lautier) 1 e4 eS 2 DB Ac6 3 Vcd2c5 43 Df6 5 d3 d6 6 2b3 6 .. h6 This move prevents the pin with 25, and prepares ...2¢e6 by preventing Ags. 7 h3 a6 8 Dbod2 Leb 9 227! Considering that this is a typical Lopez move, one wonders why Kasparov didn’t play 3 b5. Here the manoeuvre loses lime, since the bishop was better placed on c4 than on c2. Instead 9 4\c4 0-0 10 0-0 2a7 11 a4 He8 gives complete equality. Alternatively, White could play in the style of the previous game: 9 Dfl 2a7 10 Ag3 0-0 11 Dh2!7 De7 12 Aga Ago. Here in Belikov-Aleksandrov, Jurmala 1991, White sacrificed a piece with 13 @xh6!? gh 14 S&xh6, and after 14..h7 15 GMS Qxf5 16 ef Wh4 17 We4 Wh6 18 fg Af6 19 Qxf7 Se7 a complicated position would have arisen. 9 ow Ral 9..d5 immediately fails to 10 Dxe5! DxeS (10...2xf2+ 11 ‘exf2 DxeS 12 d4 with an advantage to White) 11 d4 2d6 (11...2xd4 12 cd Bc6 eS and White is better) 12 de &xe5 13 43 when White is much better. After the text Black threatens ..d5 in earnest. 10 We2 We7 Neither side wishes to castle into a kingside attack, consider- Modern Systems 63 ing that both have ready-made targets on h3 and h6 respec- tively. Kasparov now thought for a long time, and found a good plan. 11 b4! d5 12 a4 b5! Blow-for-blow! 12..d4?! is misguided in view of 13 bS de (13...ab 14 ab de 15 be cd+ 16 &xd2 be 17 &e3 with an advantage to White) 14 be cd+ 15 Wxd2! be 16 &b2, which leaves Black’s pawn structure in tatters. 13 00 The apparent vulnerability of the b5-pawn is deceptive, for example 13 ab? ab (threatening 14... Qxf2+) 14 d4? ed 15 Wxb5 2d7 wins. 3... 0-0 14 ab ab 15 d4? Kasparov played this error after little thought. Instead 15 &b2 would have forced Black to be more circumspect, e.g. 15...d42! 16 2b3! de 17 2xc3 Ad4 18 &xd4 Qxd4 19 Axd4 ed 20 &xe6 fe 21 Af3! Wxb4 (or 21...Exal 22 Hxal Wxb4 23 Wc2! with excellent compensation) 22 Habl followed by 23 Wh2 with some advantage. I... ed 16 e5(D) 16... de!? Instead = 16...d7 allows White to achieve his aim, for example 17 cd @xb4 18 2a3 c5 19 &xb4 (19 &b1!7) 19...cb 20 Wrxb5 Hfb8 21 Wa3.64 Modern Systems Syl nyt ‘yy wy ig! wine a Y ana i, However, as both players pointed out afterwards, Black had a stronger move, viz. 16...2d7! with good chances for an attack: a) 17 Hel dc! 18 ef Wxe2 19 Exe2 cd winning. b) 17 cd &xd4! (certainly not 17...Dxd4? 18 Axd4 2xd4 19 Bxa8 Bxa8 20 Af3 2c3 21 Wad3 &xeS 22 Hel Bal 23 Wa2! Excl 24 Wxcl Ded 25 Wdl with an advantage to White) 18 Bxa8 Bxa8 19 Axd4 Dxd4 20 Wd3 Wxe5 21 f4 De2+ winning. 17 ef Wxf6 18 Abs = Dxb4 19 Qb1 Lautier suggested 19 &e3 in the post mortem, but Kasparov responded ‘that is Karpov’s sort of move, but I want to keep my bishop for attack!’, However Lautier’s analysis shows that ‘Karpov’s move’ was no better; after 19...2xe3 (not 19...d4?7! 20 Rxd4 Qxd4 21 Bxa8 Bxa8 22 ®Dbxd4, and if 22...2c4!, then 23 We4 with an attack) 20 fe Dxc2 b4 22 DAfdd Wg5 Black is much better. 9 ww d4! (D) Activating the e6-bishop is significantly more important than conceding the e4-square. 19...c5? is too sluggish: 20 a3 d4 21 2xb4 Qxb3 (21...cb? 22 Dbxd4! Axd4 23 Wed) 22 Exa7 Hxa7 23 &xc5 and White has solved all his problems. 20 Hxa7?! Kasparov spent the lion’s share of his remaining time over this exchange sacrifice. This is indeed a critical position, and he needed to analyse several sharp lines: a) 20 Abxd4 2xd4 21 Wed: al) 21.02? 22 Bxa8! 2d5 23 Hxf8+ &xf8 24 Wh7! (a striking idea) 24...cbW 25 Wxb1 with an advantage to White. a2) 21....£5! 22 Wxa8 (or 22 Wxf5 c2! 23 Qxc2 Wxf5 24 Sixf5 Bxal winning) 22...c2! 23 Sxc2 &xal winning. b) 20 Wed? c2 21 &xc2 Axc2 22 Wxc2 d3 23 Wxd3 Sc4! (not23...Qxb3 24 Bxa7!) 24 We2 &xb3 winning. c) 20 8a3! d3 is critical: cl) 21 Wed 2xb3 22 &xb4 Rxf2+! 23 Sxf2 Bxal 24 &xd3 (24 &xf8? loses to 24...c2 25 Wxd3 cbW 26 Exbl &c4) 24...Wb6+ 25 &g3 f5 26 We7 Wg6+ 27 dh2 Hc8 with a clear advantage to Black. c2) 21 &xd3 is best: 21...Axd3 22 Qxf8 (22 Wxd3? Rfd8! 23 We2 2f5 24 Wel Rxh3 25 Bb4 Rxg2 26 xg2 Hd3! with a deadly attack, for example 27 Abd4 Wg6+ 28 Shi cS! 29 &xcS Wh5+ winning) 22...Df4! (after 22...2xf2+ 23 Hxf2 Bxal+ 24 Dxal Axf2 25 Qb4!7 DAxh3+ 26 gh Lxh3 it is difficult to say whether the six Pawns are stronger than the two knights) 23 Wxb5 @xh3+! 24 Whi! @xf2+ 25 Hxf2 Hb8 26 We2 Qxf2 27 Wxf2 c2! 28 Hcl &xb3 29 &c5 and Black is only slightly better. 20 .. 2!? A very tempting move, but the prosaic 20...xa7! is stronger: 21 Dbxd4 (21 Afxd4? loses quickly after 21...2c4 22 We4 Weg6! 23 DFS c5! 24 AxcS LdS 25 We4 Wrxg4 26 hg c2) 21...Hal! (after 21...2c4?! 22 We4 g6, 23 DeS! Qxfl 24 Apa gives White a powerful attack) 22 Wed Wg6! 23 Wxg6 fg and now: a) 24 2xg6 2c4 25 Hel c5 25 ‘)f5 Hd8, winning after “d3. b) 24 Dxe6 Bxf3! 25 gf (25 Modern Systems 65 Re4!? BE? 26 Dd4 Bd7 and Black is clearly better) 25...2xb1 26 Ad4 c5 27 AxbS Dd3 28 ®xc3 Excl 29 Excl Axel with a winning ending. 21 Exa8! Now the third queen will appear. 24 2xc2? loses hopelessly to 21...Hxa7 22 Abxd4 c4 23 We4 Axc2 24 Wxc2 cS, etc. 21. cbW 22 Bxf8+ &xf8 (D) Me, a auth 23 Wxb5?? After this dreadful blunder, the fight is abruptly concluded. After the game Kasparov tumed up in a restaurant and said to Lautier, ‘If I’d played 23 Dc5, you would have had to fight for a draw!’. Lautier provides the main details of an analysis ses- sion in which Gelfand and Kramnik also participated: a) 23...Wc2? 24 WxbS Ads 25 Wb8+ Se7 26 2a3 and Black has a bad position. b) 23...Wbf5? 24 Wxb5 Dds 25 Wb8+ de7 26 2a3 with the same theme as the previous66 Modern Systems variation. c) 23.898? 24 2g5 (24 Wxb5? Whg6! loses) 24... Wxfl+ 25 Wxfl hg 26 WxbS Ad5 27 We8+ &h7 28 Des! We7 29 Dexg5+! &g6 30 Wh8 Afe 31 Dh4+! &xgs 32 Wxe7+ Whs 33 3 and White is winning. d) 23...Wa2?! 24 WxbS Ads 25 Wb8+ #e7 26 Ab7!? &d7 27 Bc5+ &e7 and White could continue the attack by means of 28 Bel!?. e) 23..d3 24 We4 Wal! 25 Hell! Wxcl 26 Wxb4 d2 27 Dxe6+ Sg8 28 Wxd2! Wxd2 29 Exal Wd5 30 Dxc7 We6 31 Dab Wad6 leads to a draw. f) 23...Wbg6! 24 De5! Wes 25 f4! (D) and now: i, a yi ZU. fl) 25...2g8 (25...0d57? loses the queen immediately to 26 g4) 26 WxbS DdS 27 24! We2 (or 27...h4 28 gf Wg3+ with a perpetual check) 28 Wb8+ @h7 29 Dcd7 Bxd7 30 Dxd7 Wd6 31 DfS+ Sg 32 DAg6+ Lh7 draw. f2) 25...Wd8! was not ana- lysed deeply in the analysis ses- sion, but Lautier felt that it gives Black the better chances: 26 &a3 (or 26 WxbS @d5 27 g4 We2 with an advantage to Black) 26...8.c4! (this had been missed) 27 WE2 Qxfl 28 2xb4 Wa5! 29 Wxfl We2. Lautier claimed that White’s best chance was in fact to win back the queen immediately: 23 gS! Wxfl+ (23...Wfe6? 24 Wxbs Wxfl+ 25 &xfl Wd3+ 26 Wxd3 Axd3 27 Abxd4 hg 28 Dxeb6+ fe 29 @xg5 with a drawn ending) 24 Wxfl hg 25 Wxb5 DdS 26 Wb8+ ke7 27 Dbxd4 &d7 and when Black’s exposed king makes it difficult to exploit the extra pawn. 23 Wxb3 24 Wb8+ de7 25 Wxe7+ &e8 26 2d2 Was 26...d3! 27 Hal Wd5 was much stronger, followed by 28... Wfd8. 27 Wes $18?! In view of the next note, 27.46 would have been clearer: 28 Wxg7 &xh3, winning. 28 Axd4? It seems that the World Champion had already resigned himself to his fate. 28 We5+ re- gains the pawn, but here with care Black should still win: 28...6g8 (28...We7? allows 29 Wxe7+ &xe7 30 Dxd4 Wed 31 Axb4+ Lf6 32 Axes Wxb4 33 BDI Wed 34 De8+ Be7 35Hel+, drawing) 29 &xb4 We4 (or 29...d3) 30 Hdl Wxc5 31 Rxc5. 28 29 We3 0-1 a3! Wed Game 21 Dolmatov-Salov Irkutsk 1986 1 e4 eS 2 AB Ac6 3 Lcd Rc5 43 Df6 5 d3 5 iw a6 A modern and flexible continuation. Black is executing the obligatory programme, modify- ing his plans depending on White’s play. In particular, he is envisaging bringing the pawn move to d5 in one go. And although amongst specialists of the Giuoco Piano it is generally thought that playing an early .-d7-d5 (or ...d6-d5) is often tisky, practice shows that with precise play Black can maintain the balance. a) The immediate 5...d5 is too risky in view of 6 ed Axd5 7 Wb3! (D), when Black sustains material losses: al) Cunning tactics such as 7...0-0 do not help because of 8 Wb5! (8 &xd5? allows Black to slip away: 8...Da5 9 Wb5 Wxd5 10 c4 2d7) 8...Wd6 9 b4 Dcxb4 10 cb &xb4+ 11 &d2 c6 12 Sixb4 Axb4 13 Wad bS, etc. a2) Nor is there any compensation for the pawn in the event of 7...A4 8 Rxf4 ef 9 Qxf7+ Modern Systems 67 FB 10 Qc4 We7+ 11 GF 2d7 12 bd2 followed by Hal-el, Godena-Crepan, Italy 1986. b) Sometimes Black first plays §...0-0, in order to meet 6 0-0 with 6...d5, although after 7 ed @xd5 8 Hel (8 b4 is weaker: 8...2e7 9 h3 26 10 Afd2 Abs 11 &b5 2d7 12 Ded a6 13 Rxc6 Lxc6 14 We2 Ads 15 Hel &e7 16 Ag3 He8 17 We2 a5 and Black has an edge, Djur- huus-Arkhipov, Gausdal 1991) 8.224 9 h3 2xf3 10 Wxf3 Ade7 11 Ad2 Ag 12 Aes Qe7 13 b4 White has a solid initiative, Sermek-Florjanti¢, Bled 1993. 6 00 If 6 Dbd2 0-0 7 0-0, then 7..d5!? is interesting: 8 ed @xd5 and now: a) 9 Bel bS 10 2b3 Af6! 11 Ded (after 11 DxeS DxeS 12 Exe5 Black should continue 12...2xf2+, and if 11 Dfl, then the simple 11...2f5) 11...Axe4 12 de Wxdl 13 Exdl &g4 14 &d5 Had8 with a level ending,68 Modern Systems Tbragimov-Kaidanov, Las Vegas 1992. b) Kaidanov recommended first moving the knight to g3 via e3: 9 Ded!? Be7 10 Ag3 and then playing Bel. 6 .. Ra7 A timely retreat, as after 6..0-0 one must consider the possibility of the bishop being attacked with tempo - 7 d4. For example, Petrienko-Miranovi¢, Novi Sad 1988, saw 7...2.a7 8 de Dxe4 9 Bd5 Ac5 10 Lgs Wes 11 Hel De7 12 c4 Heb 13 Ac3 and White gained a clear advantage, whilst after the careless 13...Axgs 14 Dxg5 h6 15 Ages Dg 16 Df6+! gf 17 ef Wd8 18 BDe4 He8 19 WhS White’s enormous attack concluded the matter. 7 2b3 8 ADbd2 0-0 d5!? (D) Black has saved a tempo to free himself in the centre. 9 Hel The main continuation. Gip- slis-Kaidanov, Groningen 1990, continued 9 We2 &g4 10 Hel de! (Black does best to stabilize the situation in the centre) 11 de We7 12 h3 ShS 13 Ah2 (otherwise it is not clear how to involve the d2-knight in the game, and therefore one cannot avoid exchanging the light- squared bishop; if 13 a4 then 13...Wc5 is unpleasant: 14 He3 Had8! 15 Afl Wd6!, whilst after 13 Bcd WicS 14 He3 We7 15 Hel Wc5 Black repeats the position) 13...Aa5 14 Adfl Axb3 15 ab (15 Wkxb3 seems _ better) 15...$26 16 g3 (or 16 b4 DhS! with an attack on the king) 16...a5! and after breaking the queenside pawns Black has gained a small advantage. 9 ow Bes?! It would have been better to liquidate the pawn pressure straight away with 9...de!? 10 de We7. 10 ed ll da! The most energetic. In the event of 11 Dc4 2e4 12 h3 &xf3 13 Wxf3 W6 Black gains equality, Kudrin-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1985. @xd5 11... ga 12 b3 Shs 13 Afi 13 g4? 26 14 de is no good because of 14...A\f4 with an attack, 13... ed 14 Des go 14...ef? is weak: 15 Hxe8+ Wrxe8 16 &xd5 with a very clearadvantage to White. 15 Dh2 Not 15 @g5?! or 15 “d2?! because of 15...e3. 15 .. Wa6 16 Ags Dtar! 16...Had8 is more reliable, although here as well after 17 Rxd5!? Wxd5 18 2f4 Wd7 19 ®e3 White’s position is preferable. 17 xfs || Wxf4 18 De3 a5 (D) 19 2c2 As Dolmatov pointed out, White could have achieved a better game by moving into an ending with 19 Wg4! Wxg4 20 hg @xb3 21 ab c5 22 d5. 19 .. 5 20 d5 Had8 21 Wed A move with numerous plans, White is offering to exchange queens with the aim of removing the e4-pawn’s defence and re- pulsing the attack with ...f7-f5, incidentally threatening b2-b4. 21 c4 is no good because of Modern Systems 69 21...2c6, using the weakness of d4. 21... Wxg4 22 hg bs 23° Hadi Rb8 24 DefS Attempting to attack the e4- pawn by roundabout means leads to the same position as in the game: 24 DgfS 2f4 25 Afi ed 26 b3 Dd6 27 Dig3 Rxg3 28 Dxe3 Ad6. 24 xg3 25 Dxg3 Ded 26 b3 Dd 27 Ha2 f6 After the knight has moved to the blockading d6-square, it be- comes obvious that the weakness of the e4-pawn is counterbal- anced by the weakness of the d5- pawn. 28 fl 29 £4 Practically mandatory in view of the threat of ...Bde8 and .Stf7, but now the position is forcibly simplified and Black easily gains a very pleasant ending. 29...ef 30 gf Hxel+ 31 Sxel He8+ 32 G2 Qxc2 33 Exc2 He5 34 c4 be 35 be &f7 36 DAhS 25 It stands to reason that one should not allow the knight to reach e6, but this move devalues Black’s pawn advantage on the kingside. 37 Des aS 38 Hel Lf8 39 Hc3 £7 40 Bel $8 41 Bc3 Be7 "a-"a HesSection 2: White Plays on the Queenside After 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 Rc4 c5 4 c3 Df6 one of the modern plans involves carrying out a pawn attack on the flank with 5 b4, which has the aim until play begins in the centre of gaining a spatial advantage on the queenside, After 5...2b6 6 d3 d6 (D) the crucial position of the system arises, from which White’s fu- ture paths diverge. When it was first becoming established White often continued 7 0-0, with which he post- poned a pawn attack on the bishop in favour of the manoeuvre 4bl-d2-c4, but then it be- came clear that this aided Black’s counterplay linked with d6-d5. Recently, White’s basic continuation has been 7 a4, with which White prepares to expand his space on the queenside, thrusting a very concrete game on Black. The fundamental lines of the development of Black’s forces involve 7...a6 and 7...a5. In conclusion, we should note that the retreat 5...2e7 is not in the spirit of the Giuoco Piano: after 6 d3 0-0 7 Wb3 d6 8 a4 aS 9 bS Ab8 10 0-0 White achieves a durable advantage, Bologan- Kraidman, Gausdal 1991.5 White Delays the Queenside Attack In this system, by continuing development with 7 0-0 or playing the prophylactic 7 £b3, White temporarily declines a long-term attack by the pawns on the bishop in favour of the manoeuvre @bI-d2-c4. How- ever, this gives Black the possibility, alongside the traditional plan of using the bishop on the a7-gl diagonal, of preparing a safe square on c7, from where the bishop defends the e5-pawn, which will help him to organize a counterattack in the centre with ..d6-d5. Game 22 Yudasin-Karpov USSR Ch (Moscow) 1988 1 e4 cS 2 DAB Dc 3 Bcd 5 403 Df6 5 b4 2b6 6 d3 d6 7 0-0(D) This unsophisticated developing move allows Black with the help of the manoeuvres ...2e7- g6 and ...c6 to build up his forces in comfort. White could not have hindered this plan even at the cost of delaying castling: 7 Abd2 De7 (in the event of 7...0-0 8 &b3 De7 9 Dc4 the b6-bishop is exchanged, although after 9..Ag6 10 0-0 Re6 11 Hel h6 12 Axb6 2xb3 13 Wxb3 ab and Black has no reason to be discontented at his position, Nunn-Azmaiparashvili, Amsterdam 1990) 8 2b3 c6 9 Bcd Qc7 10 Bg5 Agé/ 11 Dh4 Dxh4 12 Qxh4 h6 13 a4 gS 14 &g3 We7 15 De3 Qb6 16 Aes Sxf5 17 ef a5 18 bS cb 19 ab %c8 with an excellent game for Black, Illescas-Calvo, Palma de Mallorca 1991. An automatic manoeuvre in Pawn structures of this type. The Preparatory inclusion of the move 7...2g4 in its own wa loses time, as after 8 Abd2 h6 9 Hel De7 10 h3 the bishop must withdraw and so White has a72 White Delays the Queenside Attack head start in battle for the centre: 10...2d7 11 d4 Ag6 12 a4 a6 13 a3 We7 14 &b3 2a7 15 b5 ab 16 ab &xb5?7! (too optimistic: 16...0-0 was necessary) 17 de D®xeS 18 AxeS Wxes 19 Df3 Wxc3 20 e5! with dangerous threats, Kudrin-Large, Hastings 1986/7. However, Black could also have followed the traditional plan by continuing 7..a6 8 @®bd2 0-0, after which he plans to maintain the bishop on the active diagonal. Let us examine the possible continuations after the crucial reply for White, 9 2b3 (D): a) 9...0e7 10 Bel Ag6 11 h3 (or 11 Ac4 Ba7) 11.206 (according to Short’s analysis the attack 11...2xh3 12 gh ®f4 is parried after 13 Bc4 Axh3+ 14 Sfl &xf2 15 He2 2a7 16 Wel, leaving White with some advantage) 12 Ac4 a7 13 e3 &e3 14 He3 b5! (in Short- Portisch, Brussels 1986, after 14...h6 15 d4 We7 16 Wel Dh7 17 Edi Had8 18 a5 White could have maintained some initiative) 15 Acd2 (or 15 a5 c5!) 15...a5 with a complex game (Short). b) 9...2a7 10 a4 h6 11 a5 Be8 12 Hel d5 13 ed @xd5 14 Ded F515 d2 Wd7 16 &c4 Bads with even chances, Vidarsson- Amason, Reykjavik 1988. 8 Abd2 The pin 8 2g5, especially before Black has castled, as has been recorded more than once in similar positions of this nature, often has the opposite effect, as it allows a pawn attack to begin on that flank: 8...Ag6 9 @h4 @xh4 10 Axh4 g5! 11 Qxg5 Hg8 12 2xf6?! (he should have preserved the bishop with 12 h4) 12... Wxf6 13 Phi 2g4 14 £3 2h3 15 g3 Wh6 16 Hel &xgl 17 Wxgi 0-0-0 and Black has secured his king, gaining a material advantage, Moroz- Podgaets, USSR 1986. 8 6 9 Hel Hot on the heels of this game 9 2b3 was recommended, but Black simply castles, 9...0-0 (D), and practice has not demon- strated any particular superiority for White after this move: a) 10 a4 Dg6 11 a5 Rc7 12 Eel leads to a position from the game. b) 10 “cd promises nothing concrete: 10...2c7 11 &g5 Ag6é 12 d4 (in the event of 12 Ah4 ®f4 White should play 13 Ae3,White Delays the Queenside Attack 73 as after 13 WE3 h6 14 Qxf6 Wxf6 15 g3 Wg5! Black seizes the initiative: 16 @h1 &g4 17 We3 De2 18 DFS d5! 19 Axes Rxf5 20 £4 Axg3+ 21 hg Whs+ 22 gl &xe4! and gains a material advantage, Teske-Lukacs, Budapest 1991) 12...h6 13 &xf6 Wxf6 14 De3 a5 15 d5 Af4 and Black’s position is preferable, Gomez Jurado-Marin, Andorra 1991. c) After the sluggish 10 h3 De6 11 Bel d5! 12 We2 He’ 13 fi a5 Black again seizes the initiative, Ermenkov-Sagalchik, Primorsko 1991. d) The decisive 10 d4 Ag6é does not achieve its aims either. Zhelnin-Dobrovolsky, | Odessa 1989, continued 11 Hel h6 12 a3 Be8 13 We2 DhS 14 Acd Qc7 15 &e3 W6 and Black’s position looks preferable. 9 we 0-0 10 a4 Deo ll aS Re7 12 2b3 d5 13 ed?! Black has already developed his main forces, and therefore concessions in the centre will bring no success. 13 “fl (D) was more logical, although practice has shown that in this case as well Black has a playable game. Here are some examples: a) 13...2e6 14 g3 h6 15 We2 Ec8 16 g2 Wd7 17 Dg] 2d6 and Black’s forces are more successfully deployed, Ljubojevi¢- Hiartarson, Tilburg 1989. b) 13..h6 14 Dg3 Be6 15 Le3 Wd7 16 c4 d4 17 242 b6! and after exchanging the restrained pawn, Black is better prepared for operations in the centre, Short-Salov, Linares 1990. 13. Dxd5 14 Des hé! It is useful once and for all to remove the problem of the knight lunging into g5, which is present in the event of 14...@h8 15 &d2 £5 16 Dg3 when White is threatening to counterattack74 White Delays the Queenside Attack with Af3-g5 and Wd1-h5. 15 cd White intends to dislodge the support from under the knight (16 bS). 5... ES Here 15...&h8 was possible, followed by ...f5. 16 2d2 b6 17 ab ab 18 Hxa8 Wrxa8 19 b5S cb 20 &xb5 Ddf4 21 2c4 Wa8 Playing against the weak pawn, but it would have been stronger to try attacking the king after 21...Wc8 with the idea of 22...2xe4 23 Bxed Wed. 22 d4 2g4! 23 Qxf4 Dx 24 h3 Sh5! 25 Ag3 Lxf3 26 Wxf3 ed 27 Hdl Wf6 28 Ded 28...Axh3+ was threatened, but now Black can switch to the attacking diagonal: 29...We5! with the threat of 30 De2, although Karpov prefers to attack the h3-pawn, and... he achieves his aim. 28...Wg6 29 Exd4?! 29 h4 was necessary. 29...2e5 30 Hdl Axh3+ 31 fl Dgs After 31...Af4 things would have been more difficult for White. 32 DxgS Wxg5 33 g3 We7 34 We6 Hd8 35 Bxd8+ Wxd8 (D) 36 Re2! After moving the bishop to the long diagonal, the strength of the opposite-coloured bishops (a factor that usually favours the side with the initiative) is roughly equal. at Mae, i met oa Bs 4 og Y 36..86 37 c4 Qd4 38 Qf3 pose X AN own NY) SX8 d6 Sacrificing a pawn with the aim of creating two sets of doubled pawns. It is also worth looking at 8 a4 a6 9 d6 Wxd6 10 Wxd6 cd 11 Rxf6 gf 12 Rds Bc7 13 Abd2 Bb8 14 a5 Bes 15 DAh4 Ac6 16 Bc4 De7 17 Nb6 Hg5 18 0-0 £5 19 £3 and Black’s game is at a dead end, Estrin-Nisman, USSR 1967. If White declines the blockading strategy, then it is easier for Black to get his defence going. An example of this is Sax- Smyslov, Teesside 1975: 8 Dbd?2 d6 9 243 c6 10 Ac4 Qc7 11 De3 h6 12 &h4 Hes 13 &xf6 Wxf6 140-0 g6 15 Del SF8 16 93 &g7 17 Dig? Bh3 18 hi bE 19 Dc4 cd 20 ed We7 21 £4 £5 22 Bel 'h-1h, 8. Wxd6 9 Wxd6 cd 10 &xf6 ef 11 Dh The ‘harsher’ 11 2d5 prevents the queenside being liber- ated. ll... ds 12 &xd5 d6 13° Dad Deb 14 Hal £e7 15 Ded Bas The most serious disadvantage of this kingside pawn structure is the limited mobility of the doubled pawns, which can be attacked after the f-file has been opened by means of f4, or, as in the game, with the rook from f3, 4 c3; Black Strongpoints e5 101 as well as the weakness of the h7-pawn, which White immediately emphasises. Therefore it is not worth rushing to switch the Took over to defend the d6-pawn, but Black should do this by means of 15..A\a5 and then +06. 16 Bd3! Re6 17 de2 Das 18 @xaS = xa5 19 b4 &xd5?! It is more logical to withdraw the bishop to c7 straight away. 20 Exd5 &c7 21 Afs+ heb 22 hdl (D) White has gained a strategi- cally won position, the most important point of which is the un- fortunate rook, which is chained to the d6-pawn in view of the threat of mate. Therefore, the remainder is a technical execu- tion, which White demonstrates in textbook style. 22..Hd7 23 c4 Hp8 24 g3 Hdd8 25 a4 a6 26 a5 Bd7 27 bS Xgd8

Gioco Piano-Gufeld 1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Gioco Piano-Gufeld 1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Potrebbero piacerti anche