Byron Jacobs & Jonathan TaitNimzo- Larsen | | attack =. The Nimzo-Larsen Attack (1 b3) enables White to take his opponent out of his stride from the very first move. By avoiding the theoretical landmines of openings such as the Sicilian and King’s Indian Defences, White is able to steer the game towards a pure battle of chess skill, rather than a test of memory. Furthermore, as the games of exponents such as Grandmaster Julian Hodgson have shown, the Nimzo-Larsen Attack often provokes an overreaction by Black, causing him to overextend his position and thereby leave himself open to an early j knockout blow. ™ Dynamic surprise weapon for players of all standards aol cat Rial aol Croan Tal cores itge uc Tell) and tactics for both sides lm Provides everything you need to start playing the Nimzo-Larsen Attack straightaway ® Ideal battle manual for competitive players International Master Byron Jacobs is an experienced chess author and journalist, who has written extensively on all aspects of the game. His recent works include H Wigr-M r= Ikeda C gee ei laler lace oy e-1g ge O01 ag OB Jonathan Tait is a former British Correspondence Champion and editor of the quarterly magazine ole toute cute nen comn eT oR CeIn aniclg acs analytical articles on many tactical opening systems. Rarer cn) iN GUM a sepia ae Distributed in the US by the Globe Pequot PressNee ee gos 6 a | | attackNimzo-Larsen attack by Byron Jacobs & Jonathan Tait EVERYMAN CHESS Published by Everyman Publishers plc, LondonFirst published in 2001 by Everyman Publishers ple, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2001 Byron Jacobs and Jonathan Tait The right of Byron Jacobs and Jonathan Tait to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 286 5 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480 All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: dan@everyman.uk.com website: www.everyman.uk.com ‘The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First Rank Publishing. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Production by Book Production Services. Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge, Wiltshire.1 b3 or 1 Df3, 2 b3 Bibliography Introduction Part One: 1 b3 e5 11b3e52 2b2 Ac 3 e3 d5 4 2b5 db 21b3e52 &b2 Ac 3 3 3.1b3 e5 2 &b2 other lines Part Two: 1 b3 d5 and 1 Af3 d5 2 b3 4 Reversed Nimzo-Indian: 1 Df3 d5 2 b3 ¢5 with ...c6 and &b5 5 Reversed Queen’s Indian: 13 d5 2 b3 5 6 Black plays 1...d5, 2...0\f6 but not ...c7-c5 7 Black plays 1...d5, 2...2g4 Part Three: Other lines 8 Black plays an early ...g7-6 9 Black plays 1...c5 and other moves Index of Complete Games 32 51 a 109 130 146 171 191BIBLIOGRAPHY Books (openings) Basman, M. The Killer Grob (Pergamon 1991) Burgess, G. The Complete Alekhine (Batsford 1992) Burgess, G. 101 Chess Opening Surprises (Gambit 1998) De Firmian, N. et al. Modern Chess Openings, 14th edition (Batsford 2000) Dunnington, A. Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman 2000) Gallagher, J. Beating the Anti-King’s Indians (Batsford 1996) Gallagher, J. Beating the Anti-Sicilians (Batsford 1994) Hansen, C. The Gambit Guide to the English Opening 1..e5 (Gambit 1999) Hansen, C. The Symmetrical English (Gambit 2000) Harding, T.D. Colle, London and Blackmar-Diemer Systems (Batsford 1979) Kasparov, G. & Keene, R.D. Batsford Chess Openings (Batsford 1982) Keene, R.D. Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack (Batsford 1977) Krnic, Z. et al. Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume E, 3rd edition (Sahovski Informa- tor 1998) Matanovic, A. et al. Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume A, 2nd edition (Sahovski Informator 1996) Neishtadt, I. The Queen’s Gambit Accepted (Cadogan 1997) Nunn, J., Burgess, G., Emms, J. & Gallagher, J. Nunn’s Chess Openings (Every- man/Gambit 1999) Pedersen, S, The Dutch for the Attacking Player (Batsford 1996) Soltis, A. Bird-Larsen Attack (Chess Digest 1989) Suba, M. The Hedgehog (Batsford 2000) Watson, J.L. English 1...P-K4 (Batsford 1979) Wells, P. The Complete Semi-Slav (Batsford 1994) Books (reversed openings) Basman, M. The New St. George (Cadogan 1993) Bellin, R. The Classical Dutch (Batsford 1977) Gallagher, J. The Trompowsky (Cadogan 1998) Geller, E. The Complete Queen's Indian (Batsford 1992)Bibliography Gerstner, W. Der Trompousky-Angriff im Damenbauernspiel (Reinhold Dreier 1995) Gligoric, S. Play the Nimzo-Indian Defence (Pergamon 1985) Jensen, NJ. Fajarowicz-gambit (Eleprint 1995) Keene, R.D., Plaskett, J & Tisdall, J. The English Defence (Batsford 1987) King, D. English Defence (Everyman 1999) Moles, J. 8& Wicker, K. French Winawer: Modern and Auxiliary Lines (Batsford 1979) Tseitlin, M. 8& Glaskov, I. The Budapest for the Tournament Player (Batsford 1992) Watson, J.L. Play the French (Cadogan 1996) Books (general) Bronstein, D.I. 200 Open Games (Batsford 1973) Dvoretsky, M. Secrets of Chess Tactics (Batsford 1992) Dvoretsky, M. & Yusupov, A. Attack and Defence (Batsford 1998) Harding, T.D. The Games of the World Correspondence Chess Championships I-X (Batsford 1987) Harding, T.D. Startling Correspondence Chess Miniatures (Chess Mail 2000) Keene, R.D. Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal (Batsford 1991) Keene, R.D. Grandmaster Strategy (Raymond Keene 1999) Levy, D. & O'Connell, K. Oxford Encyclopaedia of Chess Games, Volume 1 1485-1866 (Oxford University Press 1981) Marovic, D. Understanding Pawn Play in Chess (Gambit 2000) Nunn, J. Secrets of Rook Endings (Batsford 1992, Gambit 1999) Reinfeld, F. Hypermodern Chess: Games of Aron Nimzowitsch (Dover 1958) Tartakower, S. My Best Games of Chess 1905-1954 (Dover 1985) Wade, R.G. & O'Connell, K.J. The Games of Robert J. Fischer (Batsford 1972) Periodicals British Chess Magazine Check! (Canadian CCA) Informator Chess Mail (ed. Harding, T.D.) Chess Monthly The Chess Player Correspondence Chess (BCCA) Fernschach International Kaissiber (ed. Biicker, S,) ‘The Myers Openings Bulletin (ed. Myers, HE.) New In Chess Rand Springer (ed. Schlenker, R.) Die Schachwoche Databases ChessBase Mega Database 2000 Informator Chess Mail Mega Corr hitp//wrwrw.bemchess.co.uk/brithase http//wew.chesslab.comINTRODUCTION Why play the Nimzo-Larsen Attack? Many opening monographs have enthusiastic titles of the form Winning with he. and invite the reader to ingest some marvellous system or other and rack up the points ~ either by encyclopaedic knowledge of main lines or the methodical application of simple strategies. So let us make it clear, first of all, that White has no advantage in the Nimzo-Larsen. ‘The lines in ECO, for example, conclude mostly in‘=” (equal) or ‘=’ (unclear), with just a few ‘Y (White stands slightly better) and even these ‘” seem optimistic. Nor is the Nimzo-Larsen a ‘system’ opening in which the first moves are played parrot-fashion regardless of the replies. There are system-like elements in some variations - the plan 2b5, 2e5, £2-f4 in the reversed Nimzo-Indian (Chapter 4) for instance - but more often White (and Black) can do just about any- thing. Anyone who likes to win their games in the opening should therefore look else- where. That’s not to say White can’t win, of course. In strategically rich positions, such as arise in the Nimzo-Larsen, the player who brings more to the game - in imagination, technique, spirit, or understanding - will generally have the better chances. 1 b3 also has the usual advantage associated with ‘side- line’ openings: that opponents are thrown onto their own resources at an early stage. Thus theoretical equality is turned into a practical advantage, whereas a theoretical plus against someone's pet defence (or coun- terattack) can easily be outweighed by their superior understanding of the types of posi- tion that arise in that opening. And in aesthetic terms there is an appeal- ing leftfield quality about b2-b3. Kingside fianchetti are so commonplace that some players boast of fianchettoing their king's bishop in every game, White or Black. The queenside fianchetto is more exotic, and the bishop looks quaint gazing down the long diagonal into the heart of Black’s kingside. Subjective factors do count for something in chess, if only to induce a positive attitude at the board. Should | play 1 b3 or 1 3, 2 b3? ‘The Nimzo-Larsen arises after either 1 b3 or 1 ®f3, 2 b3. Nimzowitsch almost always began 1 @\f3, Larsen usually with 1 b3, Of the modern practitioners, Minasian plays 1 b3, Blatny starts only with 1 03. There are pros and cons to both move orders. With 1 b3 Black can reply 1...e5! and does so in nearly 50% of games. Thisis sufficient for alot of players to be put off starting 1 b3.Nimzo-Larsen Attack On the plus side, White has more options in all the other variations; e.g. against 1...g6 or 1..d5 2 &b2 B24. Also, the pawn remains free to advance and take part in the fight for €5; with 1 D3 this is only possible after a later Df3-e5. 1 D3 prevents 1...e5. However, if White is going to follow whatever with 2 b3, Black can cause a few problems: 1...g6, 2...£2g7 gets to the long diagonal first and disrupts White’s development. 1...d6 and 1...c6 plan 2b3 e5! reaching 1...e5 variations after all - and with the knight prematurely at f3. Black can be even more tricky with 1...A\f6 2 b3 dé!? in- tending 3...e5 again, or 1...c5 2 b3 d6 and 3...e5 when the knight on {3 might prefer to be on e2. For maximum effectiveness 1 Af3 should perhaps only be used by those who are comfortable with nor playing 2 b3 in some positions; e.g. 1 Df3 dé 2 dal. What is included in this book? Angus Dunnington has already provided an introduction to 1b3 in chapter 2 of Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman 2000). So, rather than aim at the same audience, we have produced a more complete reference work on the Nimzo-Larsen. Nevertheless, the amorphous nature of b2-b3 makes it impossible for a single book tobe fully comprehensive. Transpositions to and from other openings occur constantly as the Nimzo-Larsen can slide effortlessly into and out of an English, Réti, Dutch, King’s Indian, Queen's Gambit, Bird, ... just as long as White inserts b2-b3 early in the opening. We have indicated numerous transpositional possibilities in the text, often with an exam- ple or two (see the ubiquitous ‘e.g.’ but each example may be only a taste of another opening complex with its own accompanying body of theory. Some b2-b3 variations have not been in- cluded, in particular those with e2-e4 arising from completely unrelated openings; e.g. 1¢4 52 b3 or 1 e4 e6 2 b3. The only instances of an early e2-e4 are specific Nimzo-Larsen variations in which White attempts to exploit acertain black formation; e.g. 1b3 e52 2b2 {63 c4!? (Game 27) or 1b3 g6 2 2b2 Df63 e4!? Game 58). Nor have we attempted to present a reper- toire for White or recommend defences for Black. There seems little point since every variation is theoretically equal, so that the struggle is mostly transferred to the middle- game. However, if White wants to keep the opening simple s/he might stick to lines with e2-e3 and look first at Games 6, 7, 20, 28, 35 and 59 for a basic grounding. In turn, Black can defend in keeping with her or his usual openings; e.g. ...Df6, ...g7-g6 etc. for King’s Indian players, or 1 b3 e5 and 1...d5 respec- tively for 1 e4 and 1 d4 exponents. Byron Jacobs and Jonathan Tait April 2001CHAPTER ONE 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 Ac6 3e3 d5 4 2b5 2d6 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 Ac6 3 e3 d5 4 2b5 2d6 Thisis the most straightforward and natu- ral response to 1 b3 and the most critical. Whereas in classical openings White has a certain latitude to go wrong without risking worse than equality, in hypermodern systems where the opponent is allowed the centre, the stakes are higher and inaccurate play of- ten means bad position. For that reason we are covering this variation more thoroughly, especially as it has been dealt with rather scantily in openings literature hitherto. Asis usual in such positions, attacking the pawn centre involves swiping at it from the flank with one of the bishop’s pawns. What is not so usual is that here White can attack from both sides, the main continuations be- ing 5 f4 (Games 1-5) and 5 c4 (Games 6-8). Sometimes White postpones the attack and develops the king’s knight: 5 “f3 is the sub- ject of Game 9, while 5 e2 is Game 10 - in which we also wrap up the odds and ends. Game 1 Pridorozhni-Gipslis Decin 1997 1b3 e5 2 2b2 Ac6 3 e3 d5 4 Ab5 Ad6 For Black’s main alternative, 4...f6, see the notes to Game 10. 54 Exploiting the pin on the long diagonal; i.e. not 5...ex/4?? 6 &xg7 and wins, Black can support the pawn by ...{7-f6, ..We7 or both. The most common response is 5...Wh4+ inducing a weakness on the kingside light squares before defending the e5-pawn. The alternatives 5...We7 and 5...f6 are seen in Games 4 and 5. 5...Wh4+ 6 g3 We7 7 AB Increasing the pressure on e5. Black is perfectly OK after 7 fxe5 Bxe5. 7.16 7....g4 is Game 3. 8 fxe5. 8 We2 and 8 Ac3 are seen in the next game.Nimzo-Larsen Attack 8...fxe5 9 &xcB+ White has to insert this capture since if 9 Dxe5? Bxe5 10 Wh5+ Bd8! or 10 Bxc6+ ed8! (Keene) and if 11 d4 xg3-+ 12 ded2 &.{2 wins. 9...bxc6 10 Axed ATE! Not now 10...&xe5? 11 Wh5+. 11 Da37! It is probably better to take the second pawn as well, 11 Dxc6, although 11...Wed! gives Black very strong counterplay; e.g. 12 0-0 (12 Bgl? &g4 13 Wel 0-0 14 Ac3 Wes 15 Dd4 Wh5 16 h4 2xg3+ 0-1 Cvetkovie- Krnic, Vrnjacka Banja 1974) 12...@h3 13 Bf2 Des and now: a) 14 Bf32 Axh2! 15 xh? Les 16 Ads (16 eg2? HES 17 Dd4 &xf3+ 18 Dxf3 Wes wins, while if 16 d3 or 16 Dc3 We6) 16...c5 17 Df5!? (Wikman-Haufe, corr 1980) when Black of course should have taken the knight: 17...S.xf5 with a clear advantage (if 18 Ac3 Wh4t, or 18 We2/WF1 0-0 19 Ac3 Wxe2 or 19 3 Wes). b) 14 Ac3 Wh1+ (or 14... Dxf2 15 Axed Dxdl 16 Dxd6+ cxd6 17 Bxd1 He8 18 Ab+ 0-0 19 £c3 with an unclear situation) 15 exhi Dxi2+ 16 Sgt Axd1 17 Axd1 with the unusual material balance of two knights and two pawns vs. rook and bishop in Krnic- Vuruna, Yugoslavia 1974. 11...0-0 12 0-0 &h3 13 Axf6 Exfe 14 Exf6 Wxf6 15 Dc3 Hf8 16 We2 Tf 16 We2 g5! prevents Af4. 16...Wg6 ‘Threatening ...2xg3. 17 Df2 B45 18 deg? Axc2 19 d3 Exf2+! 20 Wxf2 &xd3 21 Bd1 hs z fa we ne ave ae are a “fo 2 a wt “ene With two strong bishops and White's weak light squares, Black has more than enough compensation for the exchange. White’s next does not achieve anything but it hardly matters as he has nothing to do ... other than shuffle about and hope Black can’t break in. If 22 Wd2 £5 (or 22....a6!? 23 e4 h4) 23 Wd4 Web 24 e4!? Bh3+25 Set ‘WI7! threatens ...W{3 and if 26 We3 d4! wins at once. 22 De2 Wig4 23 DAc3 Ag6 24 Hd4 Wes 25 ba? This fails totally in its objective of pre- venting ...c6-c5; better to return with 25 Bd1. 25...c5! Since if 26 Exd5 cxb4 wins or if 26 bxc5 xc5 27 Hxd5 Be4+ 28 Dxed Wxd5. 26 bxc5 Sxc5 27 Wi4 c6 28 212 Axda 29 exd4 Gh7 30 Dad Wh3 31 og 204 32 Wd2 h4 33 gxh4? A final mistake. 33 Wi2 was necessary. 33...W43 34 DAcé Whi+ 35 Sf2 Wxh2+ 36 we3 Wxh4 37 Axed Wxed+ 38 H12 #g6 39 Wo3 GhS 40 Wc5 a6 41 xc Wrxda+ 42 &g3 Wd3+ 43 Gh2 wha 44 Wel We2+ 45 &h1 Wed+ 46 Gh2 d4 47 Wet+!? The blitz player's final throw. 47...Wxe1 0-1 a 101 b3 e5 2 2b2 Dc6 3 e3 d5 4 2b5 2d6 Game 2 T.Wall-Crouch Sutton 1999 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 DAc6 3 e3 d5 4 Ab5 2d6 5 f4 Wh4+ 6 g3 We7 7 Af3 f6 8 We2 Raymond Keene’s move, which is usually given as slightly better for White. 8 2c3 eb is the alternative and then: a) 90-0 Dh6 10 fxe5 fxe5 11 Dh4?! (bet- ter 11 e4 though Black is OK after 11...dxe4 12 Qxed 0.0 or 11..d4 12 Dds Wd7) 11...0-0.0 12 &xc6 bxc6 13 We2 #h3 14 Wa6+ Sd7 15 Dg? BhiB 16 Dat Exfl+ 17 Eixfl Hf8 18 e4 Hxfl+ 19 Wxfl dxed 20 Wes WeS 21 De3 WhS 22 Dc3 DLS 23 Wxet ®xe3 24 dxe3 Wi7 and White had to try to defend for the entire game in McMichael- Chandler, London 1994, though he later blundered and lost. b) 9 We2 Dhé transposes below, but Black also has 9...a6! 10 S.xc6+ bxc6 110-0-0 Dh6 12 e4 d4 13 Dat c5 14 fxe5 fxed 15 Ef c4 16 Dh4 g6 17 Sb1 kd7 (better is 17...d3! 18 cxd3 cxb3 19 @c3 bxa2+ 20 dal a3 and wins or 18 We3 Dg4) 18 DB HEhbs8 (still 18...d3) 19 d3 c3 20 Sexc3!? (if 20 ct Dl7 Black will open up the king with a timely ...Kb4xa4) 20...dxc3 21 d4 exd4 22 Hixd4 dc8 23 We3 with a bit of counterplay in Chandler-Crouch, 4NCL 1998. Black later blundered in time trouble and lost. ‘There are also a couple of ideas borrowed from the English Defence (1 c4 bé): ©) 9 152 Bxf5 (or 9...217 10 e4!2) 10 Axd5 WI 11 Dc3 Dge7 120-0 (or 12 We2 0-0-0 13 0-0-0) 12...0-0-0 (but not 12...0-02? 13 ict Be6 14 ps). d) 9 fxe5 fxeS 10 el? dé (10...dxe4 11 xed seems a bit better for White) 11 Dd5 Wa7 (not 11..Wd8? 12 Axes) and now White must be careful not to get the d5- knight trapped; e.g, if 12 gs Be4 13 Be? Saxe? 14 Wxe2 Dd8 planning ...c7-c6. 120-0 (threatening 13 Axe5) can be answered by 12...g4, so White should probably strike with 12 c3 as Black’s lack of ...c7-<5 (com- pared with 1c4 b6) means that the centre is more vulnerable. Returning to 8 We2: 8...0h6 a) 8...£.g4?! was played in the stem game Keene-Martin Gonzalez, Alicante 1977, which continued 9 h3 &h5 10 g4 2f7 11 Axc6+ bxcb 12 Wab &d7 13 Dc3 d4 14 Det dS (if 14...dxe3 15 0-0-0!) 15 Axdé &xf3 16 Efl! d5 17 DfS We5 18 0-0-0 (or 18 fxe5 fxe5 19 Wd3) 18...2e4 19 d3 xf5 20 gxf5 with a decisive advantage for White. b) 8...26!? is interesting: after 9 &xc6+ bxc6 10 fxe5 fxe5 11 AxeS Al6 White has an extra tempo (We2) on 8 fxe5 (see Game 1) and can try 12 Dxcé (12 Dd3!2) 12...Wes 13 0-0 2h3 (13...2g4 14 Wd3) 14 Bel (to defend c2) 14...0-0 15 4c3 though the posi- 1Nimzo-Larsen Attack tion is still somewhat precarious. ¢) InM.Williams-T. Thomas, corr NATT4 1992, Black inserted 8...exf4 9 gxf4 before 9...a6 10 &xc6+ bxcé and this paid dividends after 11 2g?! (wasting time; better is 11 \c3 Dh6 120.00 or 11...2g4 12 Hg?) 11...Dh6 12 Dc3 Bg4 13 Dat (now 13 0-0-0 d4 14 Bad dxe3 15 dxe3 &xf4 wins a pawn, or if 13 Adi 0-0 14 Af2 &h5) 13...0-0 14 £5? (14 Wi2 Bxf4 15 Dd4 and 16 Axcé is relatively better) 14... Wed! 15 Hf1 Dxf5 16 0-0-0? Ah4 17 d3 &xf3 0-1. 9 Ae3 Le 10 e4 dxed If 10..d4 11 Ad5 then, apart from 11...Wd7, 11...Wd8 (Keene) is also possible since after 12 fxe5 fxe5 the knight on h6 prevents J\f3xe5 tricks; nor does White have Dg5, while if 13 0-0-0 a6 14 Lcd (14 Rxc6? bxc6 wins the d5-knight) 14...b5 15 @xc7+ Wxc7 16 Lxe6 d3! is strong (17 Wxd3? ®b4). Therefore White should strike with c2-c3 again. 11 Dxed exf4 12 Dxd6+ Wxd6 13 Dda [a Y OR tes pee ae URRY), 2 SY 13...d2d7?! 13...0-0-0! is more natural and if 14 Dxe6 Bde8 15 Bcd Dd8. Presumably Black was worried about 14 &.xc6 bxc6 15 Wa6+ ted7 16 0-0-0, but the zwischenzug 14....2.¢4! pre- vents White from castling long, and if 15 2xb7+ Hxb7 16 Wet+ (16 Wh5+ da8) 16...c6 17 Wxf4 Hhe8+ 18 &f2 Wxft+ 19 gxf4 Bed Black threatens d4 and f4. 14 Wxe6+ White could also consider 14 2xc6+!? bxc6 15 Wxe6+ Wxe6+ 16 Dxeb Baek 170-0 Bxe6 18 Exf4 with a structural advantage. 14...Wxe6+ 15 Dxe6 Sxe6 15...Bhe8 is worse after 16 0-0-0 Bxe6 17 dal. 16 gxt4 Db4 17 0-0-0 c6 18 Lc4+ AdS 19 Sh With the two bishops White has the ad- vantage, even though the bishop on b2 is doing little at the moment. 19...HaeB 20 a3 &f7 21 2d3 g6 Otherwise developing the kin’s rook might cost the h7-pawn (ie. &xh7 g6, Hfgt frees the bishop). White won’t have been too unhappy to see ...g7-g6, weakening Black’s fortification on the long diagonal, and now tries to soften up the diagonals some more. 22 {517 g5 23 h4 g4 Not 23...gxh42! 24 cA! (intending 25 Hf4) 24..e7 25 &e2 (threatening &h5+) 25...Dbxf5 26 2d3! and the bishops are now raking the kingside. 24 c4 Abb 25 Bf4 Dd7 26 b4 Preparing both c4-c5, 2c4+and 22, d2- d4-d5. Black opts for an active defence, sacri- ficing a pawn to eliminate the light-squared bishop and gain activity for his rooks. 26...De5!? 27 de2 Ad7 28 Axg4 Axgd 29 Bxg4 Bhg8 30 £4?! 30 Hd4 was better, restricting Black’s counterplay somewhat after 30...2e7 or 30...e5 31 2 intending Bel and Bdes, or 121 b3 e5 2 2b2 Ac6 3 e3 dh 4 2b5 2d6 if 31..Hg2 32 Rf1 He2 33 Hff4 and 34 Rado. 30...2e2 31 Hdf1 De5 32 Sc2 h5 33 c5 293 Now all Black’s pieces are in the action. 34 &c3 Eh3 35 Ed4 Lhh2 36 248 Ags! Isolating the h-pawn, defending {6, threat- ening ...2)d34, and allowing the rook to re- turn to defence. 37 Bf3 Bes Not yet 37...Exh4? 38 Hfd3 He7 39 Bhs 97 40 8dd8 and White gets in behind with dangerous threats; e.g. 41 Hdg8+ &f7 42 Hig6, 43 Hhg8, 44 6g7 mate. 38 Ed7+ Ee7 39 Ed8 He8 40 Ed7+ kh Game 3 Ljubojevic-Portisch Teesside 1972 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 Ac6 3 e3 d5 4 2b5 Ld6 5 £4 Wh4+ 6 g3 We7 7 D3 294 8 fxe5 8 h3 is the next game. 8...Axe5 9 Oxe5 The English Defence queen sacrifice 9 @xe5? Bxd1 10 Axcé fails here because Black’s c-pawn is on c7 rather than c5; ie. 10...Wg5! (defending g7; not 10...bxc6? 11 Lxc6+ Gf8 12 2a3!), In the reversed posi- tion 11 De5+ and 12 &xd1 would give three pieces for the queen, but here Black has 11...c6! 12 Axc6 a6 13 Bad b5. 9...2xf3 10 Wxf3 Wxe5 11 Dc3 Dfe 12 Axc6+ White can also elect to keep the bishop, and it seems remarkable that only one player has ever done so. Nenashev-Glek, Tashkent 1987, saw 12 0.0 0-0 13 Wh Wexf4 (13...2fe8) 14 Bxf4 e715 Hafl and Nunn (in NCO) prefers White who has the bishop and the more active position. The game con- tinued 15...Had8 16 &d3 c6 17 Bb4 Hd7 18 g4 De8 19 e4 d4 20 Ae2 c5 21 Bat bb 22 b4! He7 23 bxc5 bxc5 24 c3 dxc3 25 Axc3 D6 26 e5 Ddc8 27 e6! {6 (not 27...fxe6? 28 Bxh7+) 28 Be4 Ado 29 Ads Axd5 30 Qxd5 He8 31 g5! 8 (not 31...fxg5? 32 7+, while if 31..{5 32 Ha6) 32 gxf6 exfo 33 Exfo+ Se7 34 Bho and White went on to win. 12...bxe6 13 0-0 0-0 “4 04Et aig 8 oi a, This position is generally reckoned to be equal: Black’s pieces are sufficiently active to compensate for the worse pawn structure and it is not so easy for White to get at the weaknesses in any case. Nevertheless posi- tions in which the opponent can play for a win at no risk are not a lot of fun for the defender. 14 WES With the option of WB while leaving the f4-square for the rook. 14 Wf4 is also played and then: a) 14...We7 15 Bf2 Hab8 16 Bafl Eb4 17 WIS Det 18 a3 Dd6 (if 18...Dxf2!? 19 axb4 Det 20 Dxe4 dxet 21 WS!) 19 Wd3 Bbo 20 Bf4 Db5 21 Axb5 Exb5 22 Rad (the exchange of knights has lessened Black's counterplay) 22...a5 23 Eh4 g6 24 a4 Bb4 25 Eif4 Bfb8 26 Exb4 Exb4 27 Exb4 Wxb4 28 hg? We4 29 c4 dxc4 30 Wxcd Wxc4 31 bxc with a clear advantage in the endgame in McMichael-Lilley, British Championship 2000. b) 14...Wd6 15 Wh4!? Dd7 16 Hf2 Babs 17 Bafl Des 18 HfS Hb4 19 Wh3 Wd7 20 a3 Ebb8 21 Wh4 {6 22 Wd4 Wd6 23 Wxa7 Bas 24 Wd4 Wxa3 25 Dad Bfbs 26 Wit Wado 27 d4 Ad7 28 e4 g6 (28..Wxl4 29 13Nimzo-Larsen Attack BSxe4 Be8) 29 e51? Web?? (29...fxe5 30 dxe5 We6) 30 Exfo! Axf6 31 exfe Hfs (if now 31... WI7 the d4-pawn supports 32 Ac5-d3- €5) 32 Ach Wdé (McMichael-Tait, 4NCL 1999) when 33 £74! intending Wxd6, Des was the quickest win. c) 14...fe8 15 WxeS Bxe5 16 Hf4 Dd7 transposes to the next note. 14...Wa6 14...Bfe8 is safer: 15 Wxe5 HxeS 16 Bf4 Dd7! 17 Haft £6 18 Bad a6 (if 18...a5 19 b4) 19 Adi a5! 20 Af2 (if 20 b4 HeeB 21 bxad ®b6!) 20...Ab6 21 Bad Hee8 22 Ad3 a4 23 Dc5 axb3 24 Kxa8 Hxa8 25 axb3 wi7 4-4 ‘Tait-R James, Birmingham 2000. 15 fd Hae8 Or 15...Bfe8 16 Bafl He5 17 Wd3 Bg5!? (17...c5) 18 Bf5 (18 £2) 18...Bxg3+ 19 hxg3 Weg3+ with perpetual check in Prusikin- Bossert, Rieden 1996. 16 aa 16 Bafl c5 17 Ha4 would transpose (if 17 Abs Whé); if instead 16...He5 17 Wd3 Hes 18 Wa6! pinpoints the queenside weaknesses; e.g. 18...Wc5 (or 18...h5 19 B4f3) 19 Wb7 Whe 20 bs. 16...c5 17 £1 Black gets strong play if White takes the pawn; e.g. 17 Hixa7!? Wh6 18 Had d4 19 Ddi (if 19 exd4 exd4 20 AbS g6 21 Wd3 Dd7 intending ....c5) 19...De4 20 d3 (20 exd4 Dxg3!? 21 hxg3 Hel+ 22 def2 Bfe8) 20...Dd6 21 Wi2 Heo 22 e4 £5 or 21 Wit dxe3 22 Axe} c4 23 Hel Be6 and ...Hfe8. Portisch suggested 17 Wd3!? which does at least pre- vent ...d5-d4. 17...d4 18 exd4 cxd4 19 Abs Whe 20 Dxd4 c5 21 DB c4+ 22 &h1 exb3 23 axb3 Be2 White has won a pawn and thus stands better. Realising this advantage over the board is not so easy though, given the king- side light squares weaknesses and Black’s active pieces. For instance, if 24 Wa5 We6! 25 Wab Ded 26 Uxeb {xeb 27 dei Dxd2 is equal (Portisch), or if 24 d4 Rfe8 25 Des Hd2 (not 25...He7 26 Hc! and 27 Xc8+ or 27 W713) 26 c3 Wxb3 27 Bxa7 Sf8 and White still has difficulties after 28 Hc7 Wa2 29 Wh3 Ded or 28 Wi3 Be2 29 Bc7 hs. 24 Wd3 Bfe8 25 Hd4 h5 26 wg! a5 27 Bf2 B2e7 White hasn’t achieved anything over the past few moves, whereas Black has strength- ened his control over the e-file and threatens various infiltrations with his knight. 28 Ags Ze1+ 29 &g2?! ‘The beginning of an unwarranted winning attempt. Better to accept a draw with 29 Eft Hes. 29...We6+ 30 Sh3 If 30 Af3 Ags. 30...21e5 31 2c4 Wb7 32 &h4? It was advisable to play 32 E{5 and if 32...He2 33 Df3 when it is not clear that Black has more than a draw: 33...Dg4 34 Wd5 We7 35 Exh5 Df2+ 36 dg? ete. me 7 Yq) O28 < Sy A a & 32...We7? Portisch gives 32...Exg52! 33 dexg5 We7 34 Exfo! Wxf6+ 35 @xh5 ‘unclear’, but the preparatory move 32...2d5! (Fritz) is very strong, then if 33 Wf3 Hee5 34 @h3 We7 wins, or 33 Wf Hxgs! 34 dexg5 Dct+ 35 cbuhs (if 35 deh4 Wad7! 36 IIf5 g6) 35...Ze5+ 36 wh4 Wh6, while if 33 Hdd Wc8! (threat- ening 34...Exd4+ 35 Wxd4 Hed+!) 34 h3 Bxg5! 35 dexg5 He5+ wins after 36 Hf g5+ or 36 Bf5 Ded+. 33 Bf5 Be2 34 h3 g6 141 b3 e5 2 262 Bc6 3 e3 d5 4 &b5 2d6 Preparing 35...Ah7 (not 34...h72? 35 Be5! Wxe5 36 Wxh7+ &f8 37 Hf4) and pan- icking White into giving up the exchange. After 35 Bxa5! Dh7 36 Wd4! it is again not clear that Black has more than a draw: 36...Dxg5 (if 36...£5 37 WE4! Dxgs 38 Wxg5 Het+ 39 g4) 37 Hxgs h7 38 Wc5 Wes 39 WS persisting to harass the black queen, and now if Black tries 39...f6 40 Hxh5+! gxh5 41 Wah5S+ &g7 42 Bed+ ff8 43 Wh7 nets a draw. 35 Exf6? Wxfé6 36 Bt4 Wd8 37 Wxd8 If 37 Wet H8e6! defends. 37...2xd8 38 Axf7 Zdxd2 Le a ew woe Vy Ea ge Uh q -gEO a “Y 3 “y 39 &g5? A final mistake. Better 39 Dg5 Exc2 40 Ef6 or 39...Hf2 40 Bad (Portisch). 39...0997! 40 Gh4 Hd5 41 c4 Bc5 Threatening 42...Be7 43 Dd6 g5+ or 43 Des Bxg5! 44 dxg5 He5+45 She g5+, while if 42 Ef3 Portisch intended 42...Be4+ 43 g4 hxg4 44 hxg4 Mf5! 45 Exf5 gxf5 46 Dd6 Bxg4+ with an easy win. 42 Efl a4 43 bxa4 Bxc4+ 44 94 hxg4 45 Que Baa! This way Black gets all the pawns. If 45...ixa4 46 hxg+ Hg? White can prolong the game with 47 De8+ and 48 Afo. 46 Abs Bb4 47 hxg4 Hg2 48 gh3 Hgxg4 49 a5 Eh4+ 50 wg3 Bbg4+ 51 St3 Bi4+ 52 hg3 Exf1 53 oxha Brat 54 tg3 Had 55 Dd6 Hxad 56 Ded Bad+ 57 94 Had 58 &g5 Another last throw: 58...Eixe4?? is stale- mate. 58...2a5+ 59 &g4 Lh6 0-1 Game 4 Munoz-R.Sanchez Spanish Team Championship 1993 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 Ac6 3 e3 d5 4 Abd Ad6 5 f4 What The variation adopted in this game, 5..Wih4+ 6 g3 We7 7 Df3 2g48h3, makes it appropriate to consider the immediate 5... We7 at this point as 6 Af3 Sg4 is roughly equivalent: For 7 h3 &xf3 8 Wxf3 Df6 see the notes to move 10 below, while 7 fxe5 Bxe5 8 xe5 Lxf3 can be compared with the previous game. There seem to be no cases where it bene- fits White to have the pawn on g3 (rather than g2) and none where it benefits Black to have the pawn on g? - which implies that Black should always prefer 5...Wh4+ to 5...We7. Looking at the previous game, for instance, Ljubojevic would certainly have preferred the pawn to be on 2. The only significant difference is in the line 5... We7 6 23 f6 when: hee at tk Z ame wy 7 OD AS LORE BD 7 fxeS fxe5 8 Qxc6+ bxc6 9 Dxes D6? 10 Dxcé Wed (as per the notes to Game 1) is obviously ineffective, but Black can be more than satisfied with 9... Wh4+ 10 g3 Wh3 (for which see the variation 5...f6 6 fxe5 fxe5 in 15Nimzo-Larsen Attack the notes to Game 5). 7 0-0!? is more attrac- tive without g2-g3 having been inserted, but 7 Dc3! Leb 8 0-0 looks best (c.f. 8 Ac3 in the notes to Game 2) 8... Dh6 9 fxe5 fxe5 10 4! and then: a) 10...dxe4 11 &xc6+ bxc6 12 Axe4 0-0 13 We? is certainly worse for Black with the pawn on g2. After 13...2g4 14 Wet+ Gh8 15 Digs 2d7 16 Bact DfS 17 Dl3 Hack 18 )P2 Black had no compensation in Arenci- bia Kaidanoy, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. b) 10...d4 11 Dd5 Wa7 (not 11... ds? 12 @xe5 Bxe5 13 Wh5+ Df7 14 Bxf7 wins) 12 c3! dxc3 13 Bxc3 D7 14 d4 a6? (better 14.exd4 15 Dxd4 0.0) 15 Lxc6 Wxc6 (15...bxc6 16 De3 is also good for White) 16 Hel @xd5 17 dxe5 0-0-0 18 exd6 Bxet 19 2xg7 1-0 Movre-Kuspiel, corr ICCF 1987. 6 g3 We7 7 Df3 294 8 h3 &xt3 9 Wxt3 ate 9...e421 is premature: 10 We4 f6 11 Ac3 WI7 12 d3! attacks the centre, while 12...f5 both opens the long diagonal and creates a target for g3-g4. With the pawn on g2...c5-e4 leads to disaster: 8...04? 9 Wg3 {6 10 Dc3 WE7 11 @xd5! since if 11...Wxd5 12 &c4and Black can’t defend g7. Dvoretsky-Makarov, Moscow 1971, concluded 11...0-0-0 12 Sc4 Wad7 13 0-0-0 a6 14 We4 a5? 15 Abo! 1-0. Note that this doesn’t work with the pawn on g3 since 9...e4 10 We4 f6 11 Dc3 WA7 12 @xd5? is refuted by 12... Ah6!. Y y avs White has several alternatives: a) 10 c4.0-0 11 &xc6 bxc6 12 fxeS Rxe5 13 d4 2d6 14 c5 Wed! 15 0-0 (not 15 Wxed? Qxg3+) 15...Re7 16 og? Has 17 Dc3 We6 18 Hael 2d8 19 WES Wxf5 20 Exf5 Des 21 Dxet Bxed 22 Rid Bfe8 4-% Van Wedel- Kroncke, corr 1991. With the pawn on g2, Black cannot play this way: 9 c4 0-0 10 &xcb when 10...bxc6?? loses to 11 fxe5 Bxe5 12 d4 (Karasev-Kuzmin, St Petersburg 1999) since after 12...2d6 13 c5 Wet White can take the bishop. Black would be forced into 10...e4 weakening the long diagonal. b) 10 0-0 is somewhat inconsistent since White wants to attack on the kingside, though it does set a little trap as seen in Mi- nasian-Kalantarian, Ubeda 2000 (without g2- g3): 9 0-0 0-0-0? 10 &xcé bxc6 11 fxe5 Axe5, 12 Wi5+ Dd7 13 Bxe5 Wxe5 14 Wxes Axed 15 d4 Dg6 16 Bxf7 with an extra pawn. Also if 9...exf4 White can try 10 &xf6!? Wxf6 11 @c3 and @xd5, So Black should play 9...0-0 and if 10 &xc6 (or 10 A\c3 Db4!?) 10...bxc6 11 Dc3 exfa! 12 exf4 Hfe8 as Rauzer gave (by transposition) in 1936. ©) 10 £51? is interesting. Dvoretsky- Khramtsov, Moscow 1970 (without g2-23) saw 9 £5 e4 10 W2 h5 11 Ac3 (11 g3 h4! 12 gxh4 wrecks the kingside and Black will re- gain the pawn with ...0-0, ...2Bh7, ...%dh8) 1L..h4 12 0-0-0 2g3 13 Wl 0-0 14 &b1 Wcc5? (better was 14...a5 since, as Dvoretsky explains, Black needs to be able to answer De2 with ....Re5) 15 Rxco Wxc6 16 Be2 ®DbS5 17 f6! with a strong initiative. Dvoret- sky also suggests 10....\h5!? forcing White to castle short. The plan is no more effective with the inclusion of g2-g3; i.e. 10...e4 11 WI2 h5! 12 Dc3 ha! 13 gxh4 0-0-0 planning -Eih7 etc. d) 10 c3 (as in the game) is equivalent to 9 c3 since White intends to attack with g3- g4, reaching the same positions as after 9 @®c3 and g2-g4. 10...0-0! 10...a6 11 &xc6+ bxcé clarifies the posi-1 63 e5 2 8b2 Bc6 3 e3 d5 4 &b5 2d6 tion and defends the d-pawn, then 12 0-0-0 0-0 transposes to the game. 10...0-is slightly more accurate since White can’t take on d5 anyway: 11 @xd5? Dxd5 12 Wxd5 Ab4 13 Wed (the only move) 13...exf4! 14 Wxe7 &xe7 15 0-0-0 fxg3. If 11 0-0 Hardicsay rec- ommended 11...Ab4 12 Hfcl a6 13 &f1 c5 with a good position for Black, while Lar- sen’s suggestion 11 S&.xc6 bxc6 12 0-0-0 gives Black a tempo on 10...a6. 11 0-0-0 a6 11...e4 12 WE2 a6 (or 12..23 immedi- ately) 13 &.xc6 bxc6 14 g4 23! was also OK in Hermann-Wilhelm, corr Germany 1991, until 15 Khgl Dd7 16 g5 Ac5?? 17 Bxad 1-0. Perhaps Black intended to attack with ..Db6-c4 and wrote down ...D\e5 by acci- dent. These things happen in postal chess. 12 &xc6 bxc6 13 94 e4 Dunnington suggests the line 13...exf4 14 g5 Dd7 15 exf4 Kfe8 ‘with no worries for Black’. 14 We2 223! By neutralising the enemy bishop Black both impairs his opponent's attack and en- hances his own. 15 g5 Dd7 16 Hdg1 16...4xb2+?! ‘When attacking a fianchetto position the rook’s pawn should, if possible, be advanced before bishops are exchanged so that the opposing pawn cannot blockade - especially so when there isn’t an accompanying attack- ing knight’s pawn. Hence 16...a5! with the idea 17...a4 18 Dxa4? Bxad 19 bxat Mb8, while if the game proceeded in the same fashion 17 £5 {6 (17...a4!?) 18 gxf6 Bxf6 19 Bg5 Black would have the option of playing D5. 17 &xb2 a5 18 a4 Db 19 £5 16 20 gxt6 Exf6 21 Eg5 Hbs 22 da2 If 22 Bhg1 Ac4+! 23 b1 Wad forces a draw: 24 Hxg7+ 8 25 Hg8+ (or 25 Dd1 Eixb34) 25...he7 26 8g7+ BI etc. 22...h6 23 Hg6 Exg6 24 fxg6 Web 25 Wg2 c5 26 Hf1 c4 27 Wg3 cxb3+ 28 exb3 Wee a e mae a8 ie g him sag a me Simpler to play 29 WeS first, to avoid ... 29...Axa4! 30 Wed Tf 30 bxa4 Wott 31 al Wh4 the coun- ter-sacrifice 32 Bxg7+ is insufficient for per- petual after 32...sexg7 33 We5+ xgo 34 ‘We6+ 7 and the king runs off to the queenside. 30...Aaxc3+ 31 dxc3 Wxg6 32 Exc7 Efe?! Black still has some chances after 32...8d8 due to White’s exposed king. 33 Wxd5+ %-% A ie Game 5 Narciso Dublan-Vivas Catalan Championship 1991 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 Ac6 3 e3 d5 4 2b5 Ld6 51416Nimzo-Larsen Attack 6 Whs+ Black has scorned the check at h4 so White puts it in himself (at h5) to force a weakness on the long diagonal. Tf 6 fxe5 fxe5 White has three ways to win the pawn, none of which are any good: a) 7 &xe5 Wh4+ 8 g3 Wed with a clear advantage to Black: 9 &xg7 Wxh1 10 Wh5+ then 10..&e7! 11 Wg5+ {7 12 Qxh8 Wag lt 13 RF1 Dce7 or 111 Leb 12 Le2 Be5! (not 12...Ne5? 13 d4) 13 £3 Bxg7 14 &xh1 Bfs+ 15 D3 &xal with two rooks and a bishop against a queen. b) 7 Df3 We7 (or 5...We7 6 AS £6 7 fxe5 fxe5) with a further split: bi) 8 Axe5? Bxe5 9 Qxc6+ Hd8! 10 d4 Axh2 11 WE Afe 12 Hxh2 (not 12 Ac3? Wao! intending ...2g4) 12..2g4! 13 223? (better 13 WE4 bxc6 14 Ba3 Wee 15 ded2 Det+ 16 Gel and White may survive) 13...We6 14 2xd5? (again 14 Wh4 Wxc6 15 Sd2 - Knaak) 14...Axd5 15 Wi2 Axe3 16 ed2 Ke8 17 Ac3 We6! 18 Bel? (a final mis- take; White had to play 18 ct) 18... Wg5! 19 Wh4 Dct+- and White resigned due to 20 Bd3 Le2+ 21 Dre? He3+ 22 dexct b5+ 23 sbb4 a5 mate (Piastowski-Herschel, corr East German Championship 1985). b2) 8 Bxc6+ bxc6 9 Axes Wh4+ 10 g3 Wh3! with a strong attack; e.g. 11 We2 Afé 12 Dad Dg 13 dd 0.0 14 0-00 Af2 15 Bhi Bxe5 16 Rxf2 Qg4 17 Wel Axf2 18 dxe5? Haf8 0-1 Szilagyi-Vaisman, Wroclaw 1974, or 11 WE3 Df 12 Dd3 0-0 13 Af2 Who 14 Axfo? Bxfo 15 Wg? Le5 16 c3 Wes 17 e4 dxe4 18 Dxe4 BE7 19 d4 Bh3 20 We2 Ad6 0-1 Wikman-Watson, corr Finland- Scotland 1981. Really White should be think- ing about adraw after 11...\f6, to which end 12 Wel! Wh5 13 WE3 or 12...Wh4 13 Wh seems appropriate. White has also tried 6 Df3 intending 6...lfe7 7 0-0 or 6...8847 h3, but this is an- swered strongly by 6...exf4! with a clear ad- vantage to Black after 7....Age7 and 8...0-0. 6...96 7 Wha Theory has generally assessed this as in White's favour. Practice has mostly favoured Black. 7...exfa! If7...2d7 8 Bxc6 Bxc6 9 fxe5 Mxe5 10 Axe5 fxeS 11 Wrd8+ (or 11 We3 We7 12 DEB ef 13 Dd4 D6) 11...Hxd8 12 Dl3 and now 12...d4! is equal. In Haessler-Barnes, corr NATT3 1990-92, White tried 8 Af}? e4 9 Bixcb bxcb 10 Ad4 c5 11 De2 Le7 12 g4 h5 13 Hg Hho 14 g5 fxg5 15 fxgs Qed when White gave up the exchange 16 Exg4? hxgd 17 Wxg4 Sxp5 and duly lost; instead 16 Wed axg5 (or 16...0d6 17 Dfs) 17 We5+ Se7 would have been OK. B exf4 8 DPB? used to be thought a good move, since after 8...fxe3 9 0.0 White has good compensation for the pawns; e.g. 9...We7 10 Dc Heb 11 Ads Wa7? (beter 11... Vy YY AW ke m: me 6 &bs If 6 Bcd Age? 7 0-0 0-0 8 fxe5 Lg4! (not 8...dxe5? 9 Ag5) 9 Dc3 Axe5 transposes to 8...0.0 below. Black also has 6...h6! 7 0-0 0.08 fxe5 Dg4 9 Le? Dgxes 10 Axes dred 11 2£3 We8 12 d3 £5 with an equal position in Rotstein-Hertneck, Austrian League 1999. 6...2d7 6...De7 is perhaps more accurate since on 7 fxe5 0-0 the pin along the diagonal ensures that Black can recapture on e5 next move, while maintaining options for the queen’s bishop. After 8 0-0 Axe5 9 Dxe5 dxed 10 Bct DMS 11 a4 Ado 12 Lad BFS 13 Ac3 Wd7 14 e4 Bg4 15 Wel c6 16 Wh4 White had the initiative in Minasian-Belakovskaja, World Open 1993, so Black should prefer 8...dxe5 9 Sct h6 or 9 Ac3 a6 White has nothing very much at all. 7 0-0 Dge7 8 fxe5 dxe5 Black can delay by 8...0-0 9 Ac4 Rg4l? (9...dxe5 transposes to the game) 10 c3 Dxe5 (if 10...dxe5 113) and then in Rausis- Engelbert, Hamburg 2000 (via 6 Sc4 Dge7), White surprisingly sacrificed with 11 Axe5!? xd 12 Axf7 Bxf7 (12...Wb8!?) 13 &xf7+ SBh8 14 Baxd1 Wd7 15 &c4 d5 16 £3 with enough (but no more) for the queen. Blatny- Konopka, Czech Championship 2000, was more sedate: 11 Re2 Axf3+ 12 Lxf3 xf 13 Wxf3 c6 14 Dd1 £5 15 &xg7 dexg7 and the weakened dark squares later caused prob- lems for Black after 16 Af2 Wd7 17 Bae Bac8 18 e4 fxe4 19 We3+ dg8 20 Axes Dd5 21 Wd4 Bxfl+ 22 Exfl He? 23 Wxd5+ Rxd5 24 Dfo+ tg7 25 Dxd7 and White won. 9 ca 9 Dg5 0-0 10 &c4 transposes below; Keene also notes 10 £3 as unclear (Forin- tos-Hoen, Skopje Olympiad 1972). 9...0-0 10 Ag5 £e8 ‘The only move but good enough. White has no way to force anything: if 11 WE3 Af5 12 Det Abs 13 Aa3 Lc6 or 11 We4 ho 12 Des? b5! 13 Axb5 f5 and Black won (Georgiev-Ermenkov, Sofia 1984). 481 b3 e5 2 &2b2 Dc6 3 e3 11 Dc3 Dad 12 Le2! 12 &d3 keeps e2 for the queen and hin- ders ...Af5, but on d3 the bishop is open to ...e5-e4 hits and, as the game shows, White doesn’t want to prevent ...Mf5 anyway. After 12 &d3, Tait-Mutton, Notts League 2000, continued 12...Ac8! 13 Aged £5 14 Ac5 Wo (14...267 15 b4 Bc4! 16 Oxct Bxct 17 d3) 15 b4 bé6 (not 15...¢4? 16 xed!) 16 bxa5 Wxc5 17 axb6 axb6 18 a4 We6 19 &b5 Wes 20 We2 Ad6 21 &a3 Axb5 22 axb5 EI7 23 e4 £4 24 Dd5 with an unclear posi- tion; though a time scramble rendered the rest of the game meaningless (later 44-14). 12... D#57! Better 12...2\c8 (as in the previous note) to keep the option of 13 Aged f5 hitting the knight and consolidating the file. 13 Dge4 Ad7 14 b4 Ac6 15 bd Ace7 16 a4 c6?! 17 a3 ‘The quality of each side’s last five moves has been telling: White has reorganised effec- tively while Black has jumbled and weakened his dark squares. 17...b6 18 bxc6 Here 18 g4!? was possible 18...h6 19 g5 (18..h4? 19 Wet) 19..Ahf5 20 Afo+ Rxf6 (if 20...d2h8 21 2f3) 21 exfo Dds 22 &xf8 winning the exchange. Rather than cash in his positional advantage immediately White prefers to build up his position. 18...2xc6 19 Sc4 Zc8 20 We2 Wd7 21 ib3 ‘Again 21 g4 won the exchange. Now Black decides to prevent it. 21...h5 22 3f2 Wb7 23 DAd6 Dxd6 24 xd6 Ecd8 25 a3 2d7? 26 Haf1 Overlooking that after 26 &ixe7! 2g4 27 Lxf8 Sxe2 28 Bxg7 dexg7 29 Hxi7+ wins the queen back: 29...Whxi7 30 S2xf7 dex{7 31 Dxe2 with an extra piece, or if 28...d4 29 Hxf7. 26...i8e6 27 Axe fxe6 White is still hugely better of course. 28 Wed Wd7 29 Ded Uxf2 30 Bxf2 Dds 31Dg5 26 Else 32 Bf7. 32 D3 wh7 33 Wed Wo7 If 33...c8 34 c4 Wat 35 Axes! &xe5 36 ‘Were5 Wra3 37 Hi7+ mates. 34 c4 De7 35 axe7 35 Dd4 was also strong. 35...Wxe7 36 Dxe5 Wg7 Better to take the knight. 37 Dc6 eB 38 Axa7 &g5 39 Abd Wal+ 40 21 Wxaa Black gets a pawn back but now loses by force. 41 Bf7+ Gh6 42 h4 248 43 Wi4+ g5 44 Wea Wa1+ 45 seh2 gxh4?! 46 Zh7+ &g5 47 Wi4+ &g6 48 WI7+ dg5 49 Exh5+ 1-0 49Nimzo-Larsen Attack Summary 3.06 4 &2b5 d6 5 e2 is the standard formation for White, followed mostly by either d2-d4 or f2-F4 according to taste. Keene regarded the latter as ‘more theoretically accurate’. It is also possible to play in restrained fashion with d2-d3 (and later €2-e4 or c2-c4). One conclusion can perhaps be drawn: that if Black plays ...g7-g6 then d2-d4 seems the most effective. For Black: 4....2d6!? is catching on as an offbeat reply to an occasional opening - the side- line 5 Qa a5 is wonderfully bizarre. 3...d6 is a tricky move order specifically designed to combat the usual 4 2b5, 5 e2 set-up. White does better either to assault the e5-pawn differ- ently with f3 and d2-d4, or switch to c2-c4 or g2-g3 systems in the next chapter. 3...g6 also seems viable though it has not received much theoretical attention hitherto. 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 Ac6 3 e3 (D) 3...Df6 3...g6 - Game 18 3..d6 4 DB - Game 13 4 c4 ~ Game 20 (Chapter 3) 4 &b5 Bd7 (D) 5 De2- Game 11 5 Df3 - Game 12 4 &b5 dé 4...8.d6 ~ Game 17 5 De2 (D) &d7 5...a6 ~ Game 15 5...g6 - Game 16 6 0-0 - Game 14 50CHAPTER THREE 1 b3 e5 2 &b2: Other Lines 1b3 e5 2 &b2 In the same way that some players may not want to establish a big centre for their opponents to use as a target, equally others may not want their opponent to have a big centre whether they can bop att or not. This leads them to play c2-c4 before Black achieves the two pawn centre. 3 ct AV6 4 03 (or 3 3 Df 4 c4) 4...d5 (Game 19) leads to a sort of reversed Sicilian Hedgehog. Practice has shown it to be ex- tremely difficult to break down this forma- tion and many Whites attacking a black Hedgehog have overpressed and been left with a shattered position after a timely counterthrust somewhere. The problem here is the same as with all reversed openings: Black is under no obligation to press and can be satisfied with a solid position. Therefore a lot of Nimzo-Larsen players start with 3 €3, allowing 3...d5, and only ven- ture c2-c4 against certain set-ups, e.g. when Black plays an early ...d7-d6. The sequence 2..Dc6 3 €3 dé (or 3...g6) 4 c4 is seen in Game 20, while 2...d6 3 ¢3 Df6 4 4 appears in the notes to Game 23, with transposition to Chapter 8 (Games 60 and 61) if ...27-26 and d2-d4 are played. White can also try the provocative 3 Af3! (Games 21 and 22), a system that sometimes arises via 1 2f3!? ®c6 2 b3 e5 3 Bb2 and aims to lure the black centre forwards in order to work round it on thethen weakened dark squares. In the remaining games Black withholds 2...2\c6 and defends the e5-pawn by 2...d6, avoiding any difficulties with the pin (or half- pin) 2f1-b5. The consequence of limiting the centre so soon is that White has more choice of opening schemes: 3 e3 (Games 23 and 24), 3 g3 (Game 25), 3 d4!? (Game 26), as well as the immediate English 3 c4 with countless transpositions dependent on how White and Black develop further. The final game in this chapter features 2...f612 (Game 27) shutting down the &b2 bishop at the cost of some light-square weaknesses. Game 19 B.Stein-Brinck Claussen Copenhagen 1987 1 b3 e5 2 &b2 Ac6 3 c4 DAE 4 e3 Or3 3 Dfé 4 c4. If White has not already played e2-e3 s/he has a few lesser options: a) 4 DP e4 5 Ad4 can be seen in the notes to Game 21 below. b) 4 g3 d5 5 cxd5 (5 Bg? d4) 5...Wixd5! (Keene) 6 DL e4 7 Dc3 WaS 8 Dh4 Leo 23) 9 &g2 0-0.0 100-0 (if 10 Axes? 51Nimzo-Larsen Attack xed 11 xed Hxd2!) 10...e7 11 f4 Hhe8 12 Gh1 Bs 13 a3 Dgs 14 (5 BcB 15 b4 Wes 16 Wel? Qxh4 17 Hf4 Wxf4 0-1 Nes- trovicKozul, Bled 1995. c) 4 Bc3 d5 5 cxd5 Axd5 is ineffective because after ...2xc3 White is unable to re- capture in Sicilian fashion with the b-pawn; eg. 6 g3 Dxc3 7 dxc3 Wxd1+ (7...WH6l2) 8 Hxd1 2d7 9 &g2 0-0-0 10 Af3 fo 11 0-0 SRe7 %4-% Rausis-Westerinen, Gausdal 1995; or 6 Df3 Dxe3 7 Lixc3 Wd6 8 d3 0-0 9 3 We7 10 Be? 2d7 110-0 Had8 12 D2 £5 13 Bed {4 14 Dxd6 Wxd6 15 exfa Exfs 16 2.13 Udf8 Korchnoi-Gipslis, USSR Spartakiad 1976. 4...d5 For 4...d6 or 4...g6 see next game. Sometimes Black plays 4...{2.¢7 intending to castle and perhaps reorganise by ...He8, .8Lf8 before advancing the d-pawn, thus avoiding any imagined difficulties with #b5. This cautious approach, though perfectly playable, gives Black fewer prospects since with ...d7-d5 the bishop is more active on d6, while if ...d7-d6 the bishop is better on @7. After 4...2e7 White can force Black’s hand by attacking e5 again or continue with development. a) 5 Dc3 0.0 6 Df3 He8 7 Dds (thwarting 1d7-45) 7...818 8 Be2 d6 9 0-0 Dxd5 10 exd5 Ae7 11 e4 Dg6 12 2b5 Ld7 13 Bxd7 Wxd7 14 Bet 06 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 g3 d5 17 exd5 cxd5 and Black was better if anything (Adams-Dvoirys, Biel 1993; though 1-0, 101). b) 5 @f3 hits e5 and Black must either ad- vance 5...e4 6 Dd4 Dxd4 7 &xd4 (reaching 5.26 in Game 22) or forego ...d7-d5 by 5...d6 when White can choose between 6 d4 (c-f. Game 13) and development by 6 a3 0-0 7 Wed etc. ) 5 a3 0.0 6 We2 He8 (6..d5 7 cxd5 Dxd5) 7 d3 B88 DL a59 Le2 d5 10 cxd5 ADxd5 11 Abd? £62! (better is 11...96 12 0-0 £27; see 6...S267 below) 120-0 Be6 13 deh! Wa7 14 Bgl Had 15 Des Wi7 16 g4 96 17 He3 207 18 Hagi and White followed up with Dh4-f5xg7, 5 and won in Fischer- U.Andersson, Siegen 1970. Just like after 4 &b5 Black can also try 4...2d6!? intending ...0-0, ...5e8 and either wt5-€4, ..Se5 or ....S68, ...d7-d5. The former plan was seen after 5 \c3 0-0 6 Age? Ke8 7 Dg3 4 8 We2 Le5 9 a3 dé 10 Be2 We7 11 0-0-0 a6 12 £3 %4-% Afifi-Rausis, Cairo 2000. The latter may transpose directly back to 4...2e7; e.g. 5 23 0-06 We2 He8 7 d3 218 8 £3. Developing the bishop to d6 rather than e7 does have one small advantage for Black, in that 5 Jf3 can be ignored. 5 exd5 Axd5 5..Wxd5 may also be OK, though it turned out badly in Smyslov-Grigorian, USSR Championship 1971: 6 Ac3 Wd7?! 7 a3 07 8 Wc2 0-09 AF3 a6 10 h3 Bd8 11 d3 b6 12 Be2 &b7 13 0.0 WIS 14 Bact Bac8 15 Eid h6 16 Dd2! Abs 17 Dces Dbd7 18 213 xe4 19 Axed c5 20 Dg3 Wee 21 2b7 and White won. Black’s retreat ...Wd7 was a little odd; 6...¥d6 looks better, planning to develop the queen’s bishop more actively (e6/f5/g4) and perhaps castle long (if 7 Ab5 simply 7...Wd8 and 8...26). UV“ 6a3 Preventing ...Ab4 in readiness for We2 and supporting a later advance b3-b4. White will usually develop by d2-d3, D3, e2, We2, Dbd2 in some order. a) 6 &b5 is not frightening as 6...8d7 de- fends (7 &xc6? &xc6 8 Bxe5 loses to 521 b3 e& 2 &b2: Other Lines 8..Dxe3!). 6... Abs? (Keene) is also fine after 7 DEB (not 7 Bxe5? Wd5) 7...2d3+ (or7...e4 8 DAd4 Wes! - Fritz; but not 7.25 8 Dxe5! Dc2+ 9 Sf Dxal 10 WE3) 8 Bxd3 Wxd3 9 Axe5 (nor 9 DxeS? Dxes 10 &xe5 Wed) 9... Db4 10 Da3 Wab 11 Act MES 12 Ad4 Ad3+ 13 Sil Dxed 14 Axf5 Dxc4 15 bxc4 Bxc4 and Black won the pawn back in Gmuer-Henze, corr World Cup 1994. b) 6 Af3 gives a choice between 6...2d6, 6...e4 (c.f. 3 D3 - White has captured on d5 prematurely), or even 6...2g47 &b5 Ab4!? (not 7...e42 8 Axc6+ bxc6 9 We2) 8 Rxe5 Dd3+9 Lxd3 Wxd3 10 £c3 0-0-0 Black has the light squares as compensation. ¢) 6 Ac3 can be neutralised by 6...Axc3 since White does not have b2xc3, and 7 Bxc3 &b4 8 Bel a6 9 We2 x3 10 Wxc3 0-0 11 @fS He8 was very equal in McMichael-Sheehan, 4NCL 1996. Too equal perhaps for IM Wohl who tried 6...Ab6!? 7 D3 do 8 d4 0-09 Be? We7 10 d5 Ads 11 e4 a6 12 Dd2 c6 13 Act Axc4 14 bxcd b5 15 0-0 Bb8 16 bi b4 17 Da4 c5 18 Ral £5 19 exfS Qxf5 20 Bb3 Af7 21 He3 We7 22 2d3 Dh6 23 Les &d7 24 Ab2 Df 25 Bh3 h6 26 Ad3 a5 27 Het a4 28 BE Ad4 29 Exf8+ Bxf8 30 h3 Wd8? 31 £4! exf4 32 Axd4 cxd4 33 c5 and the pawns won (McMichael- Wohl, British Championship 2000). 6...2d6 ‘The most active square, leaving e7 for the queen. Black will continue with ...0-0, ..We7, #h8, ...d7, ...Hae8, {7-65 (by some move order) and attack on the kingside. If White removes the bishop by Abd?-c4xd6 then ...c7xd6 reinforces the centre. Black might like to develop the bishop on g7, but after 6...26 7 D3 2g7 8. 2b5 Black will have to make concessions in order to defend eS. It is possible to fianchetto later; i.e. by 6...Le7 and later ...2f6-g7 or ....Rf8- £7; e.g. 6..Re7 7 We2 0.0 8 DB Bf6 9 d3 a5! (to prevent White’s queenside expansion) 10 Dbd2 g6 11 Re2 Lg7 12 0-0 He8 and Black is OK; e.g. 13 Zacl We7 14 Bfet Sd7 15 Wb1 Bad8 16 Wal Db6 17 Ded Bc8 18 Bedi £5 19 Dc5 BAS (LRogers-Mantovani, Lugano 1999), or 13 fet We7 14 2f1 2d7 15 Hacl h6 16 h3 Had’ 17 Wbi wh7 18 Wal 2c8 19 Bxc6!? bxc6 20 Act f6 21 DxaS Web 22 e4 Df4 23 da c5 24 d5 (if 24 dxe5 fxe5 25 Det Dd3) 24... Wb6 25 Dc6 Bd7 26 g3 Dxd5 27 exd5 Bxd5 28 2g? Wac6 and Black won (Spraggett-Renet, Clermont-Ferrand 1989). 7 We2 White can vary move order by playing, for example, 7 d3 0-0 8 Af3 and then 9 We2. It doesn’t seem to make much difference. 7...0-0 8 D3 We7 Overprotecting ¢5 in order to answer 9 &b5 with 9...2d7, Instead 8,..2h8!? sets a little trap: 9 &d3? &xa3! 10 &xa3 Ddb4, while if 9 Ac3 Dxc3 10 Wxc3 6 or 9 BbS Dde7 intending ...a7-26 or ...SL£5 are OK. 8...2e6 was B.Stein-Chandler, London 1985, continuing 9 b4 (if 9 &b5 Dde7 or 9...8.d7!2 are OK; Larsen prefers 9 2e2 for White) 9...a6 10 £c4? (better was 10 d3) 10...Axb4! 11 &xd5 Wad5 12 axb4 Axb4 13 We3 Dd3+ 14 de? Wh 15 Dad Alte 16 di 2b3+ 17 Ac? Ad3 with a clear advan- tage. 9d3 White has also tried: a) 9 De3 Dxc3 10 Wxc3 {5 11 &b5 ed! 12 &xc6 bxc6 13 De5 c5 and nothing has hap- pened to change the assessment ‘un- 53Nimzo-Larsen Attack clear/equal’ since the stem game Larsen- Spassky, Leiden 1970, which continued 14b4 cxb4 15 axb4 &b7 16 Bad a6 17 0-0 f4 18 exf4 Bxf4 19 b5 axb5 20 Exa8+ 2xa8 21 Wh3+ dhs 22 Wxbs Hf8 (later drawn). b) 9 &d3!? dh8 10 Be4 Abs 11 Lxcé bxc6 12 d3 2d7 13 Abd? {5 14 e4 fxe4 15 dxe4 with the advantage (Petrosian-Balashov, USSR 1978); at move ten 10....e6 (Larsen) is better and if 11 Wd3 (11 Ac3!?) 11...Af6 12 Axcb bxc6 13 Axes Ld5! or 13 Lxe5 Axes 14 Dxe5 2d5. But simpler still is 9...f5! 10 Lcd (if 10 Bb5 Od7 11 Wet Geb! 12 &xc6?! Abd) 10...2e6 11 Dc3 Dxc3 12 Wxc3 Rxct 13 Wxcd+ Bh8 14 d3 ef 15 dxe4 fxe4 16 Dd? Bae8 17 We2 (Bagirov- Hefti, Bern 1995) and now 17...2e5 or 17...84d8!? intending ...De5 (or 18 0-0? &xh2+) and Black is no worse. 9.65 It is possible to develop the queen’s bishop first: 9...&2g4 10 Abd2 Gh8 11 Be2 £5 and then 12 0-0 Hae8 13 cd e4 14 dxe4 fxe4 15 Dd4 Dxd4 16 Bxd4 23 17 wh1? (17 Dxd6) 17...2-xh2! 18 &xf3 Wh4 19 Bfdd (if 19 &g4 Bf! 20 Bh3 Bxh3) 19...exf3 20 gxf3 Hxf3 21 dg? Wh3+ 0-1 Szczepanek- Grabarezyk, Swidnica 1997. Instead White might try 12 h3 @h5 13 g4l? fxgt 14 hxgd Sixg4 15 Dh4 Wi7 16 Des Bxe2 17 Wxe2 Xe7 18 0-0-0 with compensation (Grabu- zova-Shumiakina, Moscow 1999). 10 Dbd2 hs If 10...Af6 (intending ...c5-e4) White should prefer 11 Dc4 (and if 11...e4 12 fd2) to 11 e42! (weakening f4) 11...h8 12 Ge? fxet 13 Axed Dd5 140-0 Af4 15 Qd1 Qgt 16 Digs Q£5 17 23 ADxd3! 18 Wxd3 Waxg5 19 Wxd6 xed 20 Wxc7 Wd2 21 Ba2 (Ibragimov-Rublevsky, Smolensk 1991) when Fritz spots an easy win with 21...Wd5! intending 22...{7 trapping the queen. 11 Be2 2d7 12 Ded Not 12 Wed a6! 13 Wxd5?? 26 trapping the queen. "The plan of advancing the h-pawn may be more promising; e.g. a) 12 h4 Bae8 13 h5 Df6 14 Dh (threat- ening 15 Dg6+ hxgé 16 hxg6+ dag 17 West Be6 18 Wh4 and mates) 14...eg8 (14...f412 blocks the fourth rank) 15 b4 b5? 16 @xf5 WI7 17 Dxd6 cxdé with an extra pawn for White (McMichael-Hebden, London 1992) though Black won. b) 12 b4 Bae8 13 h4 a5 14 b5 Da7 15 h5!? Axb5 16 h6 96 17 Act &xcd (17...De6) 18 dxct Afo 19 c5 Bxc5 20 DxeS b5? (20...2d6 21 Act with compensation) 21 Dd7! Qdé (if 21..Wxd7 22 Wxc5 AcB 23 Axb5 or 22...06 23 Hdl We7 24 Wxe7 Bxe7 25 Qxfo+ etc.) 22 Dxf8 Bxf 23 0-0 and White won (Tibensky-Banas, Sala 1992). The game move order was 11 Ac S.d7 12 @e2, ruling out the above alternatives. 12...Zae8 Concentrating the forces on the kingside. In Ibragimov-Iskusnyh, Ekaterinburg 1997, Black unthematically played on the queen- side: 12...b5 13 Axd6 cxd6 14 0-0 Hfc8 15, Wd2 Le6 16 Bfel Ab6 17 d4 and White was better: if 17...2xb3 18 dxe5 Axed (not 18...dxe5? 19 &xb5) leaves Black with a lot of weak pawns, while the game saw 17...e4? 18 &xb5 exf3? (if 18..Dd8 19 d5) 19 Bxc6 and White won. 13 0-0 Bf6 14 447! A logical thrust, opening lines for his pieces, but it seems premature. It was better to centralise the rooks first; e.g. 14 Hlacl (or 541 b3 e& 2 &b2: Other Lines 14 b4 a6) and if 14..8h6 15 Hfdi when 15...04? 16 dxe4 dxe4 drops the Md5. 14...e4 15 DfeS Lxe5 16 DxeS5 DxedS 17 dxe5 Eh6 18 g3 White can also defend with kingside with h2-h3. De Smet-Jaime Summers, corr Bel- gian Championship 1994, saw 18 Bfdi Wh4 19 h3 c6 20 Bfl Leb 21 g3 We7 22 Ad4 Dbo 23 b4 Ad7 24 Bacl (if 24 &xa7 Axed 25 Sg? D+ wins; e.g. 26 Axf3 exf3 27 h4 Exh4!) 24...2d5 25 &g? (if 25 &xa7 Axes 26 ig? WIT! and 27...\f34) 25...a6 26 e6 Wxe6 and Black won. 18...c6 19 Hfd1 £4! Not now 20 gxf4? Wh4, while if 20 exf4 Dxf4! 21 gxf4? Wh4 22 Sf1 3! (covering d2 and opening the diagonal for the bishop) 23 fxe3 Bg6 forces White to give up the queen 24 Wxg6. Instead after 21 2f1 Black can choose between 21...2g6 to pick up the e- pawn, and 21...2)h3+22 $&xh3 Exh3, or per- haps throw in 21...We6!? 22 &ct 3! 23 fxe3 Dh3+ 24 Bxh3 Exh3. White’s move is not a good solution: 20 Exd5? &xd5? 20...fxg3 wins since 21... Wh4 follows if the Hd5 moves away. 21 exf4 We6 22 94? White had to defend the light squares with 22 Bf. 22...2h3 23 15? 23 Wxc7 was worth atry; if then 23...Wh6 24 p5 Wh4 25 e6! counterattacks against g7, or 23..2c8 24 Wd6 Bc2 25 Hel!? Bxb2? (25...Wxd6!) 26 Wb8+ Weg8 27 Hc8 Bxe2 28 Hixg8+ Sxg8 29 fi! (not 29 e6? €31) fol- lowed by 30 e6 and Black has to take the draw with the rooks. But 23...c3! 24 fxe3 Exe3 25 Bet 23 or 25 £5 Wh6 wins. 23...Wh6 Now the threat of ...ixh2 etc., means that White doesn’t have time for anything. 24 &cl e3! 25 &xe3 Exe3!? Of course 25...%xh2 mates. 26 fxe3 Wxe3+ 27 &f1 Wxe5 0-1 Game 20 Tibensky-Banas Stary Smokovec 1986 1b3 e5 2 2b2 Dc6 3 e3 dé The actual move order of Tibensky-Banas was 3 c4 Df6 4 €3 96 5 DS dé 6 d4 Be77 Dc3 0-08 Se? E5. Note that here 5...e4? is bad as after 6 @g5! Black cannot defend the pawn: 6..\We7? 7 Dxe4 or 6...Bg8 7 Ac3 We7 8 Wh1 S297 9 Agxed! Axed 10 Dds. Similarly not (6...d6 6 d4) 6...e42! 7 Dfd2 {2g7 as 8 d5! makes it difficult again for Black to defend e4 (if 8...De5 9 &xe5!). Alternatively 3 ¢3 g64c4 p75 213 and then 5...d6 6 @e2 D6 7 Zc} transposes to the game at move seven. However, Black has acouple of extra options by this move order: a) 5...ge7 intends 6...0-0 and 7...d5;€.g. 6 a3 0-0 7 We2 a6 8 Se2 5.9 cxdd Dxds (Bezold-Fusi, Berlin 1997) and Black had two tempi on 6....2e7 from the previous game. Perhaps, since the knight is missing from {6, White should try 6 h4l? and h4-h5. b) 5...£5 6 We? (for 6 dé e4 see the notes to Game 18) 6...d6 (if 6...Dge7 7 b4!2) 7 23 a5 8 We2 g5!? prompted an immediate mis- take: 9 d4? g4 10 A\fd2 exd4 110-0 We7 and Black won a pawn (D.Andersen-Stangl, Dortmund 1993). Better simply 9 d3, delay- ing action in the centre or against the pawn phalanx until development is complete; e.g. after Mc3 and 0-0-0, 55