Andrew Soltis Chess Digest, IncCopyright © 1993 Andrew Soltis A\ll rights reserved under Pan American and International Copy- right conventions. ISBN: 0-87568-228-6 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tapes, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior and current permission from the pub- lisher. AUTHOR: Andrew Soltis EDITOR: Ken Smith COMPUTER TYPESETTING: Kenneth Artz COVER: Elaine Smith PROOFREADER: Sid Pickard FINAL PREPARATION & DIAGRAMS: Kenneth Artz PUBLISHER: Chess Digest, Inc. ®, Inc., 1601 Tantor, Dallas, Texas 75229 Send the publisher $2.00 for the New Chess Guide that catalogs every chess book for general sale in the United States. You are given publishers, page counts, notation, and critical reviews. Also included is a free Chess Improvement Course for Beginners up through Master level players. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT 3 INTRODUCTION Anyone who has faced the Queen’s Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.04) has regretted playing the move regarded as the best way of declining it. The reason is that after 2...e6, Black’s bishop is hemmed in by his own pawn and therefore completing development may take another 12to 15 moves. In the past, many of the great masters have tried to solve the problem posed by 2...e6: How to get that bishop on the board? Jose Capablanca popularized a freeing maneuver involving a later ..dxc4 and ..NdS so that his queen, when it reaches e7, can promote the ..e6-e5 advance, Emanuel Lasker found another way of doing this, involving an early ...Ne4. Siegert Tarrasch discovered that by ..c7-c5 Black will tempt his opponent into playing exdS ~ thereby isolating Black’s d-pawn but also allowing the c8-bishop to spring to life by way of ..exd5! And another generation led by Alexander Alekhine and Max Euwe tried to avoid 2...e6 altogether by playing the Slav 2.06. There is another school of thought entirely. This school, which has had a number of adjunct professors over the years, believes that Black should solve the bishop problem first, with 2...Bf5, before solidifying his center with ...e7-e6. A surprising number of this school’s members have hailed from the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Among them are Vladas Mikenas and Paul Keres, who played in the 1930's and '40s, followed by Vladimir Bagirov and the modern generation that has included Alexi Shirov and Igors Rausis. While there have been a number of others who have contributed to the theory of 2...Bf5 (Roberto Grau of Argentina, Nikolai Nimev of Bulgaria, Bent Larsen of Denmark, Vladimir Malaniuk of Russia)4 INTRODUCTION we feel justified in giving this overlooked variation a name ~ the Baltic Defense. And we believe it has been unjustifiable overlooked. (Try and find it in the $20 books that survey all the openings in one volume.) Galliamova-Ivanchuk vs. Levitina, Manila 1992 Played by Wilhelm Steinitz in the first official World Champion- ship match ~- back in 1886 (!). 3.NB 6 4.Qb3 Since Black has solved the c8-bishop problem at move two, White does not have the usual confidence in a Queen’s Gambit Declined that he will emerge from the opening with an advantage just by playing simple moves. He needs targets to attack and the only obvious one here is on b7. 4. Neo! ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT 5 S.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 The Black b-pawn is often en prise for several moves of this variation, But as soon as White plays Qxb7 Black replies ...Nb4, threatening a minimum of a "perpetual check" to the queen (..Rb8/Qxa7/...Ra8). | RR SAH Now 10.Qb7 is met by 10,..Rxa3! and 11...Nc2 +. Generally, when White gets an advantage in the Baltic Defense it happens in a quiet position. When the position becomes tactical -- White should watch out. Here White, one of the world’s strongest women’s players, is almost lost with the White pieces — and not even ten moves have been played. 10.Bxe7 Nd3+! 1L.Kd2 Or 11.exd3 Qxe7 with check and 12...Rxa7.6 INTRODUCTION 11... Nxe7 12.Qxa8Qxa8 13.exd3 Qas+ ‘And Black had a substantial advantage (although later errors led toa draw). MOVE ORDER ‘There are, in fact, many, many little traps for White to fall into in the Baltic Defense. But before we get into the more specific analysis, apoint should be made about move order: there are three basic ways of getting into the Baltic Defense: (a) 1.44 d5 2.c4 BES. (b) 1.d4.d5 2.Nf3 BES (c) 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 BES ‘The first order appears in the games of dedicated Baltic Defenders and takes the greatest positional risks. However, if you don’t feel you can trust the analysis in Chapters Four and Five, you can still save the Baltic Defense for those games which begin like (b).. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 7 Why would someone begin a game with White like that? There are a variety of reasons, including fear of the Albin Counter Gambit (which 2.NB3 averts) and a desire to play the Colle (2.Nf3 Nf63.e3), which 2...BES discourages. In any event, you can save the analysis of the first three chapters of this book for those occasions when your opponent plays the conservative 2.Nf3. A third possibility arises when an opponent starts the game with 1.Nf3 and then, when he sees that you are going to play classically with 1..d5, decides against a true Reti Opening (2.4) or King’s Indian Reversed (2.3) and escapes into a queen- pawn opening with 2.44. Then 2...Bf5 surprises him further. You will find this move order occurring in several fine games played over the years by Paul Keres, Bent Larsen and others. Their opponents are often surprised into passive opening play: Voorema-Keres, Tallinn 1971 LNB 5 2.44 BES. 3.04 6 4.Nc3 6 5.Bi4 White’s fourth and fifth moves are the essence of conservatism — and this troubles Black not at all. As we'll see, White has to put some pressure on the light squares, such as b7 or d5, to have any hopes of an advantage in the Baltic Defense.Suddenly White has made a major decision. He will advance his b-pawn to open a file while preventing ...e6-e5 by Black. This succeeds only if he can keep all the dangerous files closed. 13... 14,.Bd3? INTRODUCTION Nd7 b6! ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 8 15.cxb6 Now White realizes that the intended preservation of his pawn chain -- with 15.b4 a5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4, would lose a piece to 17...Rxal and 18...Bxd3. The White pawn advance to c5 is a powerful positional stroke, as we'll see in Chapter One. But if Black can counter with a well-timed ...b7-b6, all bets are off -- as Chapter Two. will show. 15... axb6 16.23 bs 17.Ne2 Nb6 18.Ng3 Ned! 19.Bxe4 No better is 19.Bxf5 exf5 20.Nxf5 Qe4 and Black regains the pawn favorably. With his b2-pawn under permanent attack White now becomes desperate. bxed dxed 21.Qc2 Qb7 22.Qxch ——Qxb2 Bad Rtas Aad hs One pretty line runs 25.a6 Rxd4! 26.Qxe6 Rd2! and even winning the rook with check will not save White. 25.Ne2 e3! 26.Ra2 Bd3!27.Qa4 Qb5 28.Qxb5 cxb5 29.Rfal Ra6 30.23 Bo431.Rb2 Rda8 32.Ra3 RxaS 33.Rxe3 Ral + 34.KQ2 R8a235.Rxa2 Rxa2 36.K£3 Kf8 37.Nc3 Rxh2 38.f5 exfS White Resigns10 INTRODUCTION We'll be examining the specific lines of the Baltic Defense in this order: Chapter One: White Plays 2NB -- But Quietly Chapter Two: 2.Nf3, Main Line Chapter Three: White plays 2.c4 and 3.Nc3. Chapter Four: The Grau Gambit, 2.c4 Bf 3.Qb3!? Chapter Five: White dissolves the center with 3.cxd5 Editor's Note: Turn to the Table of Contents on the last two pages. Go over it again and again and again until you have mastered all the variations. Then you are ready to learn the following analysis. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 1" (CHAPTER ONE: White Plays 2.Nf3 -- But Quietly 1.d4 ds 2Nf3 Asnoted earlier, 2.04 BES 3.N13 is another way of reaching the main lines below. Dae BS. 3.4 If White avoids the Queen’s Gambit ~with developing movessuch as 3.Bg5 or 3.Bf4, Black will be under no immediate pressure until after he has completed development with ...Nd7/...Ngf6)...e7-e6 and Bd6. This solidifies part of Black’s center and avoids the open center problems that hat arise in Chapters Four and Five. In one of the 1983 Women’s Candidates matches, Nona Gaprindashvili suprised Irina Levitina with 2...Bf5 --so much so that White meekly continued 4 €3?!. Then 4...e6 leads to a harmless Slav. But if Black insists - as2 (CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY Gaprindashvili did -- the position can remain independent with 4..Ne6!2. See Illustrative Game 1. 4.Nc3 ‘There are many non-threatening methods for White to complete his development. A typical alternative is 4.Bf4 c6 5.e3 Nd7 and now 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 Naf 8.Nf3 Be7 with a scant advantage to White at best. Inoffensive is 4.Bg5 and 4...Be7 5.Bxe7 Qxe7. Black does not mind leaving himself with a "bad" bishop in such positions as long as the bishop is outside his center pawn wall. After 6.Qb3 c6 7.3 Nf6 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.Be2 the move 9...a5!? reduces any queenside hopes of White. In Ftacnik-Bronstein, Tallinn 1981 the game liquidated after 10.23 a4 11.Qc3Ne4 12.Nxed dxe4 13.Nd2¢5! 14.f3 ext3 15.Nxf3 Neb into a quick draw. We now have two paths, one positionally natural, (a) 4...c6 ~ the other, double-edged (b) 4...Nc6!?. Right now, the latter seems pref- erable. (a) 4. 6 5.Qb3! Without this move the position declines into a semi-normal Slav Defense, which promises very little for White. For example: (a) After 5.Bf4 Black can simply reply 5...Bd6 6.Bxd6 Qxd6 with quite a bit more freedom than the comparable Orthodox Defense position with a bishop still on c8. After 7.c5 Qe7 8.e3 Nf6 9,Be2 Ne4 and ...Bg4, the position is even. THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 13 More combative is 5... Nf6 and now 6.3 Nbd7 7.Be2 Be78.0-0. 06 9.cxd5?! Nxd5! is the way Keres used to equalize. Similarly, 6.Rel Nfd7 7.063 Qb6 8.c5 Qxb3 9.axb3 White has his usual slight edge butin a recent game Ivo Nei with the Black pieces, got the edge with 9.86 10.43 Be7 11.¢3 0-0 12.Be2 Rac8 13,0-0 Bd8 14.b4 a6 15.Nd2 Re8 16.Nb3? eS! 17.Bh2 Be7. (b) 5.e3 Nf6 6.Be2 is similarly too conservative. Black can develop aggressively with 6..Bd6 and eventually ..Ne4 asin Illustrative Game 2, Malaniuk once took time out for 6,..h6 and then 7,Qb3 Qb6 8.c5 Qe7. Black should be equal once he gets ...e6-e5 but somehow White won after 9.Qa4 Nbd7 10.b4 Be7 11.Bb20-0 12.03 e5 13.dxe5 NxeS 14.NxeS QxeS 15.NbS Qe4 16.Nd4 Oxhl 17.Nxf5 (Zakharov- Malaniuk, Bryansk 1975). (c) 5.e3 Nf6 6.Bd3 and now 6...Bg6!? 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.Qe2 Bb4 9.Bd2 a5 and in Seirawan-Larsen, Las Palmas 1981 Black was soon equal with 10.Bxg6 hxg6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.e4 dxe4 13.Nxe4 0-0 14.NegS Re8. (d) 5.BgS and now 5...Nf6 6.3 Qb6!? was tried in Anikaev- Malaniuk, Riga 1982 which was promising for White after 7.Qc1 Nbd7 8.c5 Nbd7 9.Bf4 Qc8 10.h3 h6 11.b4!. But simpler is 6..Be7 followed by castling and ...Ne4. (e) 5.g3 is a Catalan with little bite. After 5...Nf6 6.Bg2 Nbd7 7.0-0 the typical reply is 7..h6 to preserve the bishop but perhaps better is just 7...dxc4! followed by 8...Bb4 to control e4. Suu Qb6“4 (CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY Rarely seen is 5..Qc8, probably because of 6.Bf4 and 7.Rel, intending 8.exd5 and 9.Nb5. The text is more natural since 6.Qxb6? only lets Black breath easier (see Illustrative Game 3). Neither player wants to initate the queen trade here because it will open a file for an enemy rook and allow the enemy to use the forward b-pawn as a battering ram, 6.051 Qe7 On 6...Qxb3 7.axb3 White’s b-pawn is aching to run forward. How quickly that pawn can wreak havoc is shown by 7...Nd7? 8.b4 a6 9.b5 exb5 10.NxbS (Illustrative Game 4). Black must try to stop this with something like 7...Na6 but then 8.Bf4 f6 9.e3 Nb4 10.Kd2 and the Black knight is offsides at b4 because 10...a5 allows 11.Bc7!, and 10...e5 is refuted by 11.dxeS Bxc5 12.Na4! (Boleslavsky), but not 11.Bg3 g6 12.Na2? Nxa2 13.Rxa2 dxe4 14,exd4 Bh6 + 15.Kc3 Ne7, Shipman-Soltis, New York 1991. White doesnot need 7,23 to support 8.Bf4 because now 7.Bi4 Oxi 8.Qxb7 wins the queenside. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 15 Nevertheless, you may very well find yourself facing 7.g3 Nd7 8.Bis Qc8 some day. Then 9.Nh4 Ngf6! is an improved version of our main line below (10.Nxf5 exf5 11.Qc2 g6 and even ...h7-h5 to prevent White from playing g3-g4). Ton QB The queen has lost time but Black has reduced pressure on the center. Bear in mind that this position -with colors reversed occurs in the London System (.ci4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nob 5.NE3 Qb6 6.Qb3 and now 6...c4 7.Q¢2 BIS 8.Qc! has often been played). It is Black, who has ..b7-b6 and ...e6-e5 in reserve, who seems to have the best chance of opening the position favorably. For example, 8.¢3 Be7 9,.Be2 Nd7 and if 11.Qa4 to hold up 11..b6 Black can try Tukmakov’s suggestion of 11...b5 and 12...a5. Anold Bronstein game once went 8.24?! (why?), Nf6 9.h3 b6! and then 10.cxb6axb6 11.Qxb6 Na6 gave Black fine play. After 12.e4dxe4 13.Ne5 Nb4 14.Nxc6 Nd7 15.Qxb4!? the middlegame clarified in Black’s favor. 8.Nh4! This catches the bishop. Normally such an exchange only helps fortify Black’s pawn structure -- and sometimes ends up weakening White’s. But here, for example, 8...Bg4 9.h3 BhS 10.24 the move 10...Be7 leads after 11.Bg3! to a fine game for White. 8... Ne7 ‘Tukamakov recommended 8...Bg6 but 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.e4! helps White along nicely. Then 10...Nf6 I Lexd5 NxdS 12.Nxd exd5.13.0-16 CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY 0-0! of 12...Nxd5 13.Bxb8 Qxb8 (13...Rxb8 14.Qa4 +) 14.Bb5 + Kd8 15.Q£3 Qc7 16.b4 as Boleslavsky pointed out back in 1951. For 8...Nf6 8.Nxf5 exf5 see Illustrative Game 6. But what about 8...Be4!2. This is the recommended move (with colors reversed) in the London System. After 9.Nxe4 dxe4 White’s knight is offsides and threatened by 10...Be7 (11.Bg3? g5!). This bears testing. 9.NxfS The trick behind Black's last move was that 9.e3 can be met by 9...Ng6!, denying White the two-bishop advantage (10.Nxg6 Bxg6 or 10.Nxf5 Nxfé since on 11.Nxg7 + Bxg7 12.exi4 Black has 12...Bxd4). 10.e3 Nd7 Black’s game appears more solid than it really is. It is too early to start thinking about the queenside because 11...b6 is met by 12.Qa4! bxc5 13.Ba6 Qd8 14.Bb7! with advantage. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 7 ‘To fortify his pawn structure, Black tried 11..g6 12.0-0 Bg7 in ‘Tukmakov-Baburin, Helsinki 1992 but after 13.Bxf5! gxf5?! 14.Ne2 he had problems on both wings and after a few more errors (14...Nf6 153 NhS? 16.Bd6 Bf8 17.4!) he was doomed. More hopeful is 13..exf5 with play along the e-file, as in Illustrative Game 5. Unless Black can improve his play significantly ~ such as with .e4 or later 13...ext5 ~ he should look more closely at the alter- native system, 4...Nc6!? (b) 4. Neo 1.d4 d5 2.NB Bis 3.04 6 4.Nc3 Neo ‘This anticipates 5.Qb3 but at the cost of making the one move that Black is always supposed to avoid in the Queen's Gambit Declined ~blocking the c-pawn with ..Ne6. So far, there has been relatively little experience with this odd- looking setup, but a convincing White strategy has not materialized.18 (CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY 5.Bi White would like to pin Black’s knight with 5.Bg5 Nf6 with a later exchange on f6. But Black will reply 5...Be7! 6.Bxe7 Ngxe7 7.€3 0-0 followed eventually by .. Ng6/..dxc4 and e6-eS. A little too cute is 5.Bg5 Be? 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bf4 and then 7...Nf6 8.Be5!? in order to play Bxf6, This was Shirazi-Soltis, Marshall C.C. Championship 1992, which led to equality after 8...Bb4 9.Re1 0-0 10.Bxf6! Qxf6 11.3 Rfe8 12.Bb5 Rad8 13.0-0 Bg4 and ...Ne7/...c7-c6. Sun Nib 6.3 Be7 Black can afford simple developing moves in the absence of direct White pressure against the queenside. As usual in such positions, Black will eventually capture on c4 followed by ...Nd5 oF ..e6-e5. 7Rel 0-0 We are following Andersson-Kovacevie, Bugojno 1984, in which Black temporized before clarifying matters with ..dxe4 and «.NhSxg3. See Illustrative Game 8. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT 19 ILLUSTRATIVE GAMES (1) Levitina-Gaprindashvili, Lvov 1983 1L.NB d5 2.44 BS 3.c4 6 4.03 Ne6!? Against such an innocuous move 2s 4.e3, Black might have just played 4...06. S.exd5 exdS 6.BbS! Bd6 ING Nge7 This relieves a bit of the queenside pressure, but it was time for Black to reorganize his pieces with 9...Nb8! and 10...06. 10.Be2 Qd7 11,.Nh4 Be6 12.f420 (CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 — BUT QUIETLY ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 21 One of the problems of the Baltic Defense ~ as with many - . vate Alexey Yermolinsky, then second to Levitina, recommended variations of the Queen’s Gambit Declined ~ is that the pawn bs. Not 24 Ota Nes 22 Bid NéoS a leadins te dymconie equal structure becomes set after exd5/...exd5 and Black’s centralized SENOS B to ey: quay. pieces can’t easily break into the enemy camp. White, however, does 2 on Nxd3 have pawn action planned ~- b2-b4 on the queenside to stop ..c7-c5 Qxdd —_NeB?! and something like f4-f5 on the kingside. (But White hurries matters 2Racl -N&6 now.) 26.BE4 Ned? 27.983 Khe 28.b3! Black's whole conception of the last several moves was based on this move not being possible. Since itis (28...Rxa3 29.Nc2; 28..Nxa3 29.Rc7) White begins to push the enemy back all over the board. 2B. NeS 29.04 Re? 30.R3 Rac8 31.Qh4 Bg8 32.Rfel RS 33.Qg3 Rfe8 34.h3 White’s position was so good that he could maneuver and repeat Now protecting the weak f5 and d4 pawns i difficult (18.Nf3 NxfS) moves before threatening 35.BxeS fxe5 (35..Rxe5 36.Rc7) 36.No6. so White returns to the offensive. 18.Bd3!—exd tied Qb7 T9.NbS——BeS 35.NbS. NIT oN deed 36.Re7 Qas 21.Bxe3 Rfe8 37.Nd4 , NeS 22NxeS—NxeS ee fxe5 23.Nd4 £61 Mate on g7 looms.2 CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY 39. eto 40.NES Beb 41.Nxe7 Black Resigns Black had better as shown in the notes. (2) Salo-Grau, Stockholm (Olympiad) 1937 1.44 d5 This kind of position, arising out of the Slav (2...c6) Defense, offers White little chance for a serious edge. In fact, Black, with ...Qf6-h6, has the more aggressive thoughts. 10.Nxe4 dxed!? ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 23 1L.NeS Nf 12.f4 exf3 13.Nxf3? White’s last two moves play into the enemy hands, Better was 12. Qc2 or, (after 12.£4) 13.gxf3. 1B. Ned 14.Qd2 Bet 15.h3 Bx 16.Rxf3 Nh2t The rook, not the knight, is the endangered species on the kingside now. I7RR Qh 18.Bdl 8 19.RE4 Ned! Now 20.hxg4 fxg4 21.Rxf8 + ? (else 21...Bxf4 and 22...23), Rxf8 and mates. 20.R3 Nf6 21.Be2 Net 22.Qel? Quel + 23.Rxel Nat (see next diagram) And since 24.Rf2 Bg3 costs the Exchange, White struggled on with: ARE? 5! 25.RE3 NxB + 26.gxt3 Rad828 CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3~ BUT QUIETLY 27Red h6 28.Re2 Kf7 29.Re2 Ke7 30.Kg2 kd7 31.5 Be7 It's merely the absence of an open file that keeps the game going. Once Black has prepared ...g5-g4, its all over. 32.Bd3 hS 33.Be4 g4 34.{4 gxh3 + 35.Kxh3 Rg8 36.Rg? Red 37.Be2 Rxg? 38.Kxg2 Rg8 + 39.Kh2 BaS! 40.Bel Bel 41.23 h4 42.B8 Rg} 43.Bg2 BZ. White forfeits (3) Basescu-Soltis, New York 1991 1.4 a5 2.NB BS 3.c4 6 4NB 6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.Qxb6? ——_axb6 7.Bt4 Nfb ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 25 8.Nd2 Nbd7 9.Rel Be7 Black actually has slight edge in pawn structure, thanks 10 6.Qxb6, and will eventually be able to use it with ..dxe4 followed by ...b6-b5- b4. White, on the other hand, believes in his pawn center. 10.8 0-0 lLe4 dxed 12.fxed Bg6 BSABX White realizes that the opening of the center will benefit Black and that’s why he avoids 13.e5 NhS 14.Be3 5! (15.94 cxd4 16.pxh5 dxe3 or 15.dxe5 BxcS). But the center is going to open one way or another. 13. 5! 14.dxe5 Net 15.Be2 NexeS 16.0-0 Rfe8 17.Redl BIG 18.Nb3 Rad8 19.Ra2 NOB! 20.Rfd1 Rxd2 21.Rxd2? Ned7!CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY ‘This wins a pawn (22..Bxc3) and with it the game. In a bid for compensation White drops the Exchange. 22.Na4 23.Bd6? ANB 25.Bxf8. 26.Nxd2_ 27.Kf2 28.K3 29.b4 30.Ki2 31.Bxd3 Now the a-pawn is doomed. Rxet BgSt Re8 Bxd2 Kxf8 Ned Nd3 Ne5S+ Bd3 Nxd3 + 32.K13 £5 33.Nb3 Nel + 34.Kf2 Nc235.Nb1 Ra8 36.c5 Nxa3 37.N1d2 bxe5 38.Nxc5 Ke7! 39.Nxb7 Rb8 40.Na5 Kd6 41.Nde4+ Nxe4 42.Nxe4+ Kd5 43.Ne3 + Ket 44.Nc2 c5 White Resigns ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT ar (4) Ornstein-Kauppala, Jarvenpaa 1985 1.44 2.N3 3.04 d5 BSS 6 6 Qb6 Qxb3 Nd7? ab White has a simple winning plan now of b2-b4-bS and there is not much Black can do about it. 12... 13.03 14.Nxe4 15.Ne5 Be7 Ned dxed In view of 15...NxeS 16.Bxe5 0-0 17.Be4 and b2-b4-bS touchdown. Black’s sacrifice now is desperation, but appropriate desperation.‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 29 28 CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY 15. Nuxe5!? White now begins an interesting but doomed plan to bring his 16.dxe5 BxeS bishop to h3 and then open the diagonal with e2-e4. 1784 Bb4+ 18.Ke2 Ke7!? 19.¢xf5 Rha8 20.Bh3 Rd2+ 2L.Kfl Reed 22.Kg2! ‘The king is safe on g3 and White remains at least a piece ahead. 22...Rxf2+ 23.Kg3 6 24.Rhfl Rxh2 25.Rad1! fxe5 26.Bg5+ Kf7 27.Rd7 + Ke8 28.fxe6 BaS 29.Re7 + Kd8 30.Rf8 + mate (5) G. Garcia-Larsen, Linares 1981 oa oe Unsound. White should have continued 17.Rael but 17...Be7 Pen en would have been a good answer. 4N3 6 5.Qb3 Qb6 ties, “Noel 6.5 Qe7 ! : 18 Nd7 8.BM Q8 9.Nh4 Nefé 10.Nxf5 exfS U.Qe2 12.Rdl hs!? Bent Larsen likes to advance his h-pawns but here it seems a bit too exotic. Perhaps he didn’t like the looks of 12...Be7 13.Bh6. Or perhaps he was anticipating 13.Bh3 with 13..h4.30 CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY On anything else, Black consolidates with 21..Nf6. 21... exdS 22.Bxd5?! QxcS + 23.Qxc5 Nxe5 2Ab4 Neb 25.Bxb7 Bb6+ 26.Kh1 Nxfat This saves the Exchange (27.Bxa8 Ne2 28.Be6 Nxg3-+ 29.Kg2 Nxf1 30. Bxe8 Ne3 +) and ends resistance quickly. 27.Rxf4 Rab8 28.Bd5 Bc7 29.Ro4 Bxg3 30.Rgl Re3 White Resigns (6) Flohr-Mikenas, Soviet Championship 1951 1L.NB d5 2.04 BS "A fully possible continuation," was Isaac Boleslavsky's less-than- revealing comment in the tournament book. He agreed with Flohr’s earlier comment in the he tournament bulletin that 3.¢4 e6 4.0b3 Nob 5.c5 was best. 3.04 6 4.Nc3 6 5.Qb3 Qb6 "A poor move, since the exchange on b3 is disadvantageous to Black," Boleslavsky added. "After...Qc8 a typical position of the Slav Defense is reached." ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 3 "Much stronger than the mistaken developing move 8.3," the Soviet GM commented. Surprisingly, the effect of 8.Nh4 was more or less forgotten after this game. 8... Nfé 9.NxfS, exfS 10.e3 Be7 11.Bd3, NhS? Boleslavsky recommended 11...Na6. The more natural 11...0-0 invites 12.f3 and 13.g4! with a line-opening attack. But after the text, 12.Be5 £6 can’t be played because of 13.Bxb8! and 14.Be2. 12.BeS 0-0 13.h3! 26 14.94 Ng? 15.Bxg7!?_ Kxg7 16.gxf5 Bh432 CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY Clearly 16..gxf5 was to be avoided. Now Black is hoping he can mount a counterattack on e3 and £2 (while stopping h3-hé-hS).. 17.Qdl1! bs 18.cxb6 axb6 19.Qg4 Qas 20.Ne2 Qe7 2LKfl This meets the threat of 21..Qxe3 and gives White time for the assault on g6. Nd7 Kh Res fxg6 And since 25...Nf8 26.Qh5 is quite lost, the game drew to a close with... 25a hxg6 26.Nxg6+ — Rxg6 27.0xg6 NIG THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 2 28.Rel! RB Or 28,..Re8 29.Qh6ch Qh7 30.Rg6! Ne4 31.Rexc6 and wins. 29.Rxc6 Nh7 30.Rg2 Bf 31.Q¢4 Qb7 32.Qe6 Qa6+ 33.Kgl NgS 34.Rxg5! Bxg5 35.Qc5 + BM 36.Rxfb Re8 + 37.Rg6 + Black Resigns (7) Shipman-Soltis, New York 1991 1.4 a5 2.NB BS 3.04 6 4.N3 6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.05 Qe7 7B Q8 8.3 Nd7 9.Rel? Nef 10.h3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 b6!34 CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 35 This is what happens when White has delayed queenside action So that 26.NxcS bxe5 and 27...Qxb2 is threatened. (12. Qa4) and allows Black to strike first. Now the best policy was to keep matters closed with 13 Na4. 26.Nxf6+ — gxfb 27.Bb5 Ra8 13.cxb6?!—_axb6 28.Rel Qe7 14.Nh4?! Bet 29.b4 Neb 15.8 Bg6 30.Rxe3 dxe3 16.Nxg6 hxg6 31.Qel Nf 17.04 Qb7! 32.Re2 Qes 18.exd5? Here or on the next move Black could have played the paralyzing Logic suggests that his bishops need an open position, but this isn’t 32.2, the way to do it. Black is now able to seize the e-file. 33.a4 Kg7 34.g3!2 Nxh3 35.Kg2 Ng5 36.Re2 QfS 37.Rxe3 Qh3 + 38.Kg1 Rh8 39.Kf2 Qh2 + 40.Kf1 Rc8!41.Bd3? Rel! White Resigns (8) Andersson-Kovacevic, Bugojno 1984 ht] a t J = it = Da36 (CHAPTER ONE: WHITE PLAYS 2.Nf3 ~ BUT QUIETLY It’s worth noting that GM Kovacevie often plays the London System (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4) as White, but usually with ¢2-c3 rather than Nc3, as he does here, with the colors reversed. 5.Bf4 6.03 7Rel 8.Be2 9.0-0 10.a3 Nf Be7 0-0 a6 ‘ho What is going on here with beginner's moves like 8...a6, 9...h6 and 10.a3? Actually, they each have a purpose (to prevent Nh4xf5 or keep an enemy piece off b4 or b5). But they reflect a mutual reluctance to change the pawn structure. 10... LL.Bxe4 12.Bg3 13.hxg3 14.Qe2 15.Rfdl 16.45! White has a slight edge thanks to Black’s vulnerable points along the c-file. 16... 17.Bxd5 18.Bxc6 19.Nd5 exd5 Bd6 Qxeb Qbs! ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 37 Black has calculated that the endgame is more than tenable. And since b2 and a3 are as weak as d5, a draw is soon agreed: 25.Nc3 Be5 26.Rxd5 Rxd5 27.Nxd5 Bxb2 28.Rb1 Bxa3 29.Rxb7 Rad 30.Rb8 + Kh731.Rb7 Draw38 (CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3 ~ MAIN LINE CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3 -- Main Line If Black can meet quiet play with a bit of eccentricity (4..Ne6), perhaps White needs more direct approach. The "book refutation” of the Baltic Defense is the focus of this chapter. 1.4 d5 2.N3 BES Black’s last move is the traditional antidote to the Colle attack ¢ {6 3.e3 and 4.Bd3). After 2...BE5 3.3 Nf White gets little from 4.Bd3 Bg6! (better than 4...Bxd3 5.cxd3!) 5.Ne5 e6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 and 7.65. 3.04 After 1.d4 dS 2.c4 BES some grandmasters believe the best move ofall is 3. NB! transposing exactly into this position, so this subvaria- tion has particular significance. 3. 6 Vladimir Tukmakov has suggested 3...Bxb1!? without further com- ment, In fact, that move was played nearly a century ago by Carl Walbrodt (e.g. 4.Rxb1 dxc4 5.0a4+ 06 6.Oxc4 ¢6 with the kind of position that would later be called a slightly inferior Slav Defense). Black can also handle the position the way Frank Marshall did in the 1920s, keeping the center fluid with 3...Nf6 (and then 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Qb3 e6 or 4.Qb3 Nc6 5.Qxb7?? Bd7! and 6...Rb8) Nb4). ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 39 But solidifying the center with 3...e6 is the move that puts White to the test. 4.Qb3! There is no reason to exchange on d5 here since White wants to retain the possibility of c4-c5!. See the note to White’s fifth move below. Also, 4.¢3 again leads to little for White. The first edition of ECO gave only 4...Ni6 but4..c6!, creating a Slav, looks natural ~ and quite equal. Note that 4.e3 Nf6 allows White to play a delayed 5.Qb3 after which 5...Ne6 is more or less forced. This allows 6.c5 Rb8 7.BbS! with advantage or 6..Q¢8 7.Bb5 Nd7! 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 g6! as in an old Colle-Nimzovich game. White does better in the last line with 8.0-0 Be7 9.Qa4! Neb8 10.b4 preserving his two bishops. Here the road divides as White makes a crucial choice. Since 5,Qxb7 once again gets him into trouble by way of 5..Nb4 White’s40 (CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3 ~ MAIN LINE ‘most interesting tries involve moves that prevent ...Nb4. Specifically, (a) 5.c5 and (b) 5.Bd2. We'll examine them separately. (a) Locking the center with 5.c5 5.c5! This closes the diagonal of Black’s f8-bishop and prepares BbS/NeS in addition to renewing the 6.Qxb7 threat. In contrast, 5.cxd5?! exd5 leaves Black fairly well off. In the 1948 World Championship Tournament, Mikhail Botvinnik won a key game from rival Paul Keres with 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxe7 Ngxe7 8.e3 Qd6 9.Nbd2 (not 9.Nc3 Nb4 10.Re1 Bd3!) 0-0 10.Rel a5! but it wasn’t the fault of Black’s opening play. Black can also try to complicate the game with 6...Qd7 7.Nc3 £6 8.Bf4 Nb4 or 8...Na5 or even 8...25 followed by queenside castling. 5. Rbs ‘After Minev’s 1977 article on 2...Bf5 was reprinted in Shakmatny Bulletin, a number of Soviet masters began to experiment with the system. In the playoff match of the 1978 Soviet Championship, Josif Dorfman added a new wrinkle mentioned in the article: 5..Qc8!?. There followed 6.¢3 Nf6 7.BbS Nd7!. This safeguards against NeS at the cost of a pawn: 8,Qa4 Be7 9.Bxc6 bxo6 10.Qxc6 0-0 11.0-0 Rb& 12.Qa4 Bd3 13.Rel eS and the game, against Boris Gulko, was eventually drawn, ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT a There is not much benefit to be had by locking in the c1-bishop with 6.e3. Then 6...Nf6 looks natural, since BgSxf6 is out of the question. There was even an old Kostic game that went 6.¢3 £6 7.Nc3 Nge7 8.BbS a6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 and reached eventual equality ~ although 9... Nxe6!? would have been much more interesting. The chief alternative here is 6.Bf4 which stops 6...e5. Then 6...Nge7 7.Nc3 a6 will transpose back into our main line. Meanwhile, 7.e3 a6 8.Qa4 Ng6 9.Bg3 Be7 leads to a new set of problems for both sides. After 10.Nbd2? 0-0 11.Re1 Bf6! Black gets ..6-e5 in and that is usually enough to equalize. It seems that White should keep Nc3 and Rd1 in hand to deter the Black e-pawn. See Illustrative Game 11. Nevertheless, Black’s best answer to 6.Bf4 may be 6...a6 (waiting and preventing BbS or NbS) 7.e3 Nf6!? and then 8.Nc3 Be7 as in the Note to Black’s seventh move. 6... a62 (CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3~ MAIN LINE ‘This anticipates the greatest dangers in the position (BbS) while preserving the option of ...Nf6-e4/...Be7-f6 as well as ..,Bf6/...Nge7. Compare this with 6...Be7, which has two useful ideas behind it: .Bf6 and ..Nge7 or the kingside expansion of ...7-g5 after White plays Bf4. However, this neglects the queenside problem and after Bid 95 8.Bg3 g4 9.NeS Bf6 10.Qa4! Nge7 11.Nxe6 Black’s queen- side is a mess but he has taetical chances. See Illustrative Game 9. On the other hand, Keres’ 6..e5? (based on 7.Qxd5 Qxd5 8.Nxd5 exd4 9.Nxc7+ Kd7) was dealt a serious blow by Lajos Portisch at Wijk aan Zee 1971: 7.e4! exd4 8.exf5 dxc3 9.Bb5 Bxc5 10.0-0 Ni 11.Qxc3 with a big edge. 7.Bf Since the bishop is bound to become vulnerable on this square ~ to ...Nf6-h5 or ...Bf6 and ...Nge7-g6 - White sometimes inserts the escape clause of 7.h3 (or 7.Bf4 and 8.h3). But that turns out to be a wasted move or, worse, an invitation to invite a charge of the Black g-pawn. See Illustrative Game 10. To Nge7 Here’s a question that has never been resolved: what is a better policy, 7...Nge7 or 7...Nf6? After 7..Nf6 8.e3 Be7 Black has a minor threat of 9...NhS -- minor, but it should be respected because 10.Bg3 Nxg3 and 11...Bf6 will allow him to eventually push the e-pawn. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 43 White can anticipate the challenge to his bishop with 9.h3. Butthen 9...0-0 and Black has 10..b6 coming up. For example, 10.Be2 b6 11.Qa4 Qd7 12.Bxa6 Ra8 or 10.Qa4 bS!?.. On the other hand, 9.Be2 Ned is also available although after 10.Nxe4 Bxed it is not clear where Black’s play is coming from. See Ilustrative Game 12 for a smashing White victory. 8.3 Ngo 9B Be7 Because Black has two pawn levers, White can not load up against one of them. For example, 10.Rd1 would discourage ...e6-e5. But it makes 10...0-0 11.Be2b6 very appealing (12.cxb6 Rxb6 13.Qa4 Nb4). 10.Be2 InFlohr-Terpugov, Soviet Championship 1950 White tried 10.Qd1 Qd7 11.Bd3 but his edge was microscopic after 11...Bxd3 12.Qxd3 0-0 13.0-0 f5!.“a (CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3 ~ MAIN LINE This is untested analysis. Black’s main idea is 12...b6!. On 12.Qa4 Black probably can’t take time out for 12...Ra8 and 13...Rfb8 because of 13.b4 Rfb8 14.23 with firm control of the queenside. But 12...b6 13.Bxa6 Ra8!? may be possible (not 13...bxc5 14.BbS). Besides closing the center with 5.c5 White has another method of threatening the queenside and we turn to that now: (b) Retaining Options with 5.Bd2 1.d4 d5 Botvinnik endorsed this move after playing it in his 1954 title defense against Vasily Smyslov. A tricky alternative is 5.Bg5 so that 5...Be7? can be met by 6.Qxb7! NaS (or 6...Nb4) 7.Bxe7! Black’s alternatives include 5...Qc8, 5...f6 and 5...Bb4 +. Minev points outa game that went 5...Bb4 + 6.Nc3 dxc4 7.Qxc4 Nf6 8.e3 ho ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 45 9.Bh4 Be7 10.Be2 0-0 11.Rc1 in White's favor, but suggests 7...Qd5!? as an improvement. But Shirov’s 5...Nxd4! looks best, since 6.Nxd4 Oxg5 7.Qa4 + c6 leads at best to equality for White (8.Nc3 Ne7 9.Rd1 g6 10.cxd5 exdS 11.Nxf5 Nxf5, Sorokin-Shirov, U.S.S.R. 1988). 5... dxe4!? Here 5...Rb8 may, in fact, be better, with play similar to that of section (a). The text was played by Smyslov with play proceeding: 6.QxbT ——_Nge7 7.Qbs! Rbs. 8.Qa4 Rxb2 9.Na3 Here Botvinnik pointed out the intriguing Exchange sacrifice 9..Rxd2!? which offers substantial compensation after 10.Kxd2 eS or 10.Nxd2 Qxd4 11.Rdl c3 12.Nde4 Qc5. ue Qa7 10.Nxe4 RBS 11.3 Nb446 CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3 ~ MAIN LINE Unfortunately 11...NdS allows White to consolidate his structur- ally superior position with 12.23! 12.Qxd7+ — Kxd7 13.Bxb4 Rxb4 14.NeeS+ — KeB In the Botvinnik-Smyslov game cited above, White continued 15.Bd3 £6 16.Bxf5 Nxf5 17.Nd3 Rb6 18,.Ke2 Ba3 19.Nd2 and Rhb1, eventually making his material count. However, as Botvinnik pointed out, Black should solidify a posi- tion for his knight at d5 with 16...exf51, after which he is only margin- ally worse. ILLUSTRATIVE GAMES (9) Fine-Grau, Stockholm (Olympiad) 1937 1.d4 d5 2.NB. BS 3.04 6 4.Qb3 Neb ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT a7 5.c5 Rbs 6.Nc3, Be7 7.Bf si? 8B gt Notas risky as it seems, since White has little access to the kingside now. Black is willing to accept the doubling of his c-pawns. 9.NeS Bie 10.Qa4 Nge7 ILNxc6 x6 12.3, 0-0 13.3 Qa7 14.Be2 Ng6 Here’s Black’s problem: He has some active pieces but the king- side and center are closed in amanner that keeps his queen and rooks from complementing them. He would like to shoot his h-pawn up the board but White is making steady progress on the other wing (16. QaS Rfc8 17.Ba6; 16...Bd8 17.Qxa7). 16.QaS 5! 17.dxe5 Rfe8 18.Radl!48 (CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3 ~ MAIN LINE White has 19.¢4 (or as it turns out Ne4) just in time. This is a recurring danger to Black when he hurries...e6-e5: His d5-pawn then falls under immediate pressure. 18... Beb 19.Nes! Qe7 20.Nxg5 Qugs 21.Qxe7 Black’s position, which looked reasonable a few moves ago has suddenly collapsed. 21...Rec8 22.Qa5! Nxe5 23.Ba6! Rd8 24.Qc7 Black Resigns (10) Piket-Bareev, Dortmund 1992 LNB d5 2.44 BS ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 49 This is designed to preserve the bishop (Bf4-h2) and eliminate all risks of ..7-25-g4. At least, almost all such risks. Toe Nf 8.Bf ab 9.3 Ned! 10.Be2 On 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Be2 0-0 and 12...Bf6, Black has an easy game. 10... gsi? 1.Bh2 hs 12.Nxe4?— Bxed 13.0-0-0 _b6!”? White’s last two moves have been quite compromising. Now 14.Qa4 Qd7 15.Qxa6 Bxf3 16.gxf3 bxeS is promising for Black. 14.Na2 Bg6 15.Bxa6_——bxcS 16.Qa4 0-0! Based on 17.Qxc6 Rb6 18.Qa4 Qa8 19.BbS Qb7! witha devastating attack.50 (CHAPTER TWO: 2.Nf3 ~ MAIN LINE 17.dxe5. Qd7 18.Nb3. Black was quite prepared to sacrifice the Exchange (18.Bb5 RxbS 19.QxbS because of 19...Nd4! 20,Qxd7? Ne2 mate). Now he gets to post his rooks at a8 and b4, 18... Rb4! 19.Qa3 Rad 20.Rd2 Ra7 2LKd1 Qed. 22.Nd4 Bxc5 23.Qa4?? ‘A gross error in what has become a difficult position, White resigned before Black could snap off the queen. But 23.4 Rxd4 24.Qxc5 Rxd2+ was also lost. (11) Anikaev-Vaganian, Moscow 1982 LNB a5 2.44 BS 3.c4 6 4.Qb3 Neb 5c5 RbS 6.Bt Nge7 108 a6 Here 8.23 gives Black enough time to achieve ..e6-e5: 8..Ng6 9,Bg3 Be7 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 eS 12.dxeS Bxe5 13.Nc3 Be6 as in Polugayevsky-Vaganian, Moscow 1981. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT st White this time has geared up to stop ...b7-b6, He is taking many precautions based on the assumption that Black can’t open the center -- or won’t do anything with an open center when he does open it. IL... Bf! 12.Be2 3d 13.Nb3 eA Suddenly it’s Black who has a space advantage and a clear plan of 7-65-64. 14.Nfd2 Bd7! 15.Qa3 BgS 16.NaS 8 17Nxc6——Bxeb 18.0-0 White is playing without a queen.CHAI : NS — INE 52 PTR TWO: 2.Nf3 ~ MAIN Li ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT 53 This is often an equalizing move when White does not have an immediate plan. The difference is that this time he does. 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.0-0 0-0 12.93 BG 13.Rfdl Qe7 14.NeS! Target: g2. 23.Nb3 Rf6 24.Nal €3 25.fxe3 Bh3! 26.BE3 Bxe3 + 27.Kh1 Rxf3! And Black won. (12) H. Olafsson-Knezevie, Neskaupstad 1984 LNB a5 2.44 BS 3.04 6 4.Qb3 Neb 5.05 Rbs 6.N3 Nf6 Black’s worst nightmare has come true: The queenside pawns can TBI a6 advance further. 8.3 Be7 9.Be2 Ned 22...Nb8 23.c6! bxc6 24.bxc6 Rg6 25.e4 dxe4 26.Ra8 Black Resigns54 CHAPTER THREE: WHITE PLAYS 2.c4 AND 3.Ne3 CHAPTER THREE: White plays 2.c4 and 3.Nc3 Instead of pressuring the target at b7, White can also go after d5 with a combination of Qb3 and Nc3. This leads to trappy play that should not be unweleome to Black. 1.d4 dé 2.04 In this, the most natural move order, Black is risking a bit more than after 2.Nf3 Bf5, since his center is not yet secure and can be dissolved with 3.cxd5 (which we'll examine in Chapter Five). 2... BS There are no waiting moves at Black's disposal that will readily allow him to play this move later. For example, 2..c6 (the Slav Defense) 3.Nc3 Bf5? walks into 4,cxd5 exd5 5.Qb3! hitting both b7 and d5. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 55 Now, it seems, Black does not have enough time to protect both b7 and d5 before 4.Qb3 makes one of them indefensible. 3 6! Anything else leads to a major White advantage. 4.Qb3 Naturally, 4.N{3 would have been Chapter One all over again — and some analysts, such as Nikolai Minev, have called that White’s best option. The text has been given a question mark -- by Latvian master Valentin Kirillov in the Riga-based "Shahs" magazine -- and a"?!" — by Minevin the Bulgarian "Shakmatna Miscl." It is not quite that bad. 4... Ne6! But this is why it’s not very good. On 5.Qxb7 Nxd4 Black has ..Rb8 and a big knight check coming up. Black’s d-pawn now proves surprisingly invulnerable: S.cxd5, exdS:56 CHAPTER THREE: WHITE PLAYS 2.04 AND 3.Nc3. Watch out: This position is mined with Black traps: Now 6.Nxd5? is met by 6...Be4! and White is in big trouble (7.Nc3 Nxd4 8.Qa4 + bS! and White resigned ina West German miniature). White can temporarily sacrifice a piece with 7.Qe3 Qxd5 8.8 but after 8..Nxd49.fxe4Ne2 + 10,K£2QeS! he doesn’t get the piece back. Of the other moves: (a) Not much better is 6.Qxd5 Qxd5 7.Nxd5 because of 7...0-0-0 with advantage to Black’s development. (b) Again 6.Oxb7? Nxd4 runs White into trouble (7.e4 Rb8! and wins). (c)6.e4 has been analyzed by the Russians with published analysis that give: 6..dxe4 7.d5 NeS 8.Qxb7 and 7.Qxb7 Nxd4 8.Bb5+ as “unclear.’ But in the first line 7..Nb4 is better than 7...NeS. And in the latter line 8...Nxb5 9.Nxb5? Bb4 + or 9.Qxb5 + Qd7 is not at all unclear. 6.Nf3 Black was really threatening 6..Nxd4 now. The gambit 6.Bf4?! Nxd4! 7.Qa4 + Nob 8.0-0-0 Nié is insufficient. One of the many miniatures that have arisen from such position was Bryansky- Komaroy, Kiev 1983. It ended with 9.Nxd5 Nxd5 10.e4 Bb4 11.exdS? Qe7 12.dxc6 Qc5+! White resigns. This was the shortest game played in the tournament, a Soviet Youth Championship in which the adolescent ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 87 contestants included names like Gelfand, Bareev, Khalifman, Dreev and Epishin -- and the winner was the little-known Rustem Dautov. ‘And 6,Be3 is a clumsy way of defending the d-pawn because it invites a later ...Na5-c4. For example, 6.Be3 Nf6 7.g3 NaS! 8.Qd1 c6. 9.Bg2 Ne4 with an excellent game for Black (Illustrative Game 13). Black must avoid 6..Nb4? which, because of the exchange of pawns at move five, is bad here because of 7.e41. Then 7...dxe4 8.NeS Be6 9,Bed gives White a powerful attack. For example, 9...Bxc4 10.Qxc4 Nd3+ 11.Nxd3 exd3 12.Qb5 + Qd7 13.Qxb7! and White retains his advantage following 14.0-0 Be3 and Rad1/Rfe1 (Zaltsman-Shipman, World Open 1983). Similarly, 10...Qe7 11.0-0 f6 and now 12.a3 maintains an edge. ‘The main alternative here is 6...Nf6, which once again dares White to play 7.Qxb7? (7...Nb4). The problem with 6...Nf6 is the pinning effect of 7.BgS!. Vladimir Malaniuk has had a good deal of experience as Black with 7.Na5 8.Qa4+ 06. One of his opponents played 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.3 but58 (CHAPTER THREE: WHITE PLAYS 2.¢4 AND 3.Ne3 achieved nothing more than dynamic equality after 10..a6 11.Nh4 Bg6 12.Be2 bS 13.Qd1 Ned (eventually drawn). More accurate is 9.e3 and now 9..b5!2 10,BxbS is Illustrative Game 14, in which White gets three good pawns for a piece. Safer is 9.86. 7B White often decides to give up his bishop on f6 to avert ..Nf6- e4, so this bishop move may be a waste of time. White got a small edge in Ree-Sahovic, Amsterdam 1979 with 7.23 Bxc3 + 8.Qxc3 Ni6 9.Bg5 and then 9...0-0 10.e3 h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Be2. (Yet Black won, See Ilustrative Game 15). Tone aS We are following Speelman-Short, Hastings 1989 which went 8.23 a4! 9.Qd1 Bxc3 + 10.bxc3 Nf6. Here 11...Ne4 is coming up (11.Bb5 0-0 12,.Bxa4?! Ned). Speelman continued 11.Bg5! h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.e3 0-0 14.Bb5 Ra! 15.Be2 Ne7 and after .. Ng6 held a very small edge for White. ILLUSTRATIVE GAMES (13) Shakins-Rause, Latvian Team Championship 1985 Although not involving a trap, this game shows how quickly Black can develop an overwhelming initiative with relatively simple moves (14-22), ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT 59 1.d4 d5 2.04 BS As noted above, this wastes the bishop on a square from which it is soon driven. 6 Nt 13 Nast 8.Qd1 6 9.Bg2 Net 10.Bel Bb4 11.63 0-0 12Nge2 QT? 13.0-0 Qe7 After this indecisiveness (in place of 12...Re8 and 13...h5!), the benefit of moves 6-9 is lost. But Black still stands well and, what’s more, White hasn’t a clue. 14.23 Bd6 15.Qb3 aSeo (CHAPTER THREE: WHITE PLAYS 2.04 AND 3.Ne3 THE BALTIC DEFENSE To THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 6 16.04 Rfe8 2.04 BS 17.Khl hs! 3.N3 6 18.Ngl? 4.exd5 exd5 5.Qb3 Neb 6.NB Nt 7.Bg5 Imagine that White’s bishop is on g5, and not c1. Then, he might be equal. 18... hd 19.gxh4? Ng 20.NB Bxh2! Toe NaS 8.Qat+ 6 Of course 21.Nxh2 Qxhé and resignation is in order. 9.63 bat? 21.e4 dxed 22.Bg5 Qe7 23.Qx04 This is the face of desperation. 2. et | White Resigns | It’s not clear what Malaniuk has against 9...Be7, since 10.b4 Ne (14) Schneider-Malaniuk, Yalta 1982 11.05 cxbs is harmless. Lad as 10.BxbS!_—_exb562 (CHAPTER THREE: WHITE PLAYS 2.c4 AND 3.No3 11.Qxbs + 12.Bxf6! 13.Qxd5. Bd7 ext Rbs Simpler is 13...Be7 and castling, White has material compensation for his piece, but his pawns are not likely to count before an endgame. 14.0-0 15.Qh5 16.Nd5 17.Rfel! Be7 0-0 Re8 ‘The threat is 18.Nc7 winning material. 17... 18.b3 19.Nh4 20.Nxb4 Neb RB Nb4 Bxb4 BR Bxh6 BS Qxc8 A curious decision, virtually agreeing to a draw. 25.Qx16 26.Q95+ Qc Draw (15) Ree-Sahovic, Amsterdam 1979 1d4 2.04 3.Nc3 dé BES 6 THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 63 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Qb3 Ne6 This follows a familiar policy, seen in the Queen’s Gambit De- clined and some Nimzo-Indian variations. White, having lost control of e4, acts to prevent it becoming a Black knight outpost. 9. 0-0 10.3 he LL.Bxf Qxf 12.Be2 RES This looks like the wrong rook, since he needs one for the e-file (and his 16th move admits as much). Black will correct his pawn structure with an eventual ...c7-c6, leaving White with one play: the minority attack. 13.0-0 14.Rfel 15.b4 16.Nel! Ne7 6 Ng6os CHAPTER THREE: WHITE PLAYS 2.04 AND 3.Ne3 ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 6 Not willing to see if there’s more than a draw from 28.Kxg2 RxeS!, Black’s best chances naturally lie on the kingside and this preven- White turns the tables 180 degrees. tive move anticipates ...Bg4 and ...Nh4 while aiming to bring the knight to d3 and perhaps c5 or b4. | 2B... Nh4 29.64 Qed! 16... Re8 30.Re8 Ries Vad Reb 31L.Rxe8+ — Rxe8 18.b5 a 32.Re2 Ra8 19.Qa5 Qe7 33.041 NBS 20.Bd3 b6 34.003 Ral+ 21.Qc3 35.KQ2 Qh! White has the typical advantage resulting from a minority attack. This looks like the product of time pressure. 2a Bxd3 36.Re2 Qgi+ 22.Nxd3_—exb5 37.Ke2 Qe2+ mate 2B.axbs QUT66 (CHAPTER FOUR: THE GRAU GAMBIT CHAPTER FOUR: The Grau Gambit None of the previous variations of the Baltic Defense, as tactical as they may seem, will prepare you for the sharpest line of them all, the neo-Albin Counter Gambit introduced by Roberto Grau of Argentina. Usually the reason an early bishop move by Black is dubious in the closed openings is because of the retribution wreaked by Qb3 at some point. This suggests that for the Baltic Defense to work it must pass the test of the earliest possible 3.0b3. 3... est This was Grau’s gambit idea. It is a vast improvement upon 3...dxe4? after which 4.Qxb7 Nd7 5.Nc3 gives White a clear positional edge. One example of this was Forintos-Sahovic, Reykjavik 1982 which went 5...Rb8 6.Qc6 Rb6 7.Qxc4 Ngf6 8.Nf3 e6 9.€3. White’s edge was ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT “7 obvious after 9...Qb8 10.Be2 Rb4 11.Qc6 Rb6 12.Qc4 Rb4 13.Qa6! Rb6 14.Qa4 Rb4 15.Qa5 c6 16.23 Rb7 17.Ba6 and 18.0-0. Keep this in mind: this is what happens when Black’s initiative evaporates and he is left to deal with numerous positional problems. 4.Qxb7 It’s a funny how theory becomes established as "book." A typical example: Svetozar Gligoric won a 1971 game with 4.cxd5 exd4 5.Nf3. The game went 5...Be4 6.Nxd4 and now 6...Qxd5 7.Qe3 favors White. So there followed instead: 5...Bxd5 7.Qe3 + Qe7 (7...Ne7 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Nxc6! Bxc6 10.Bd2 seems to favor White) 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qxe7 + Bxe7 10.Bg5 Be6 11.4 6 12.Nxe6. This was widely accepted as a key variation of the Baltic Defense and demonstrated how White, while avoiding all risks, can assure himself through forcing play of a superior endgame. But the improvement of 5...Be5! alters matters radically. Then 6.Qc4 Nd7 7.Nxd4 Qh4! leads to easy equality for Black. The real test ofS...BeS is 6.Nxd4 Bxd4 7.Qa4 + after which 7...Ne6! 8.dxc6 b5 9.Oxb5 Ne7 is a dangerous attacking line. For example, 10.Nc3 Rb8 11.Qc4 Be6 12.Qd3 (12.Qa4!?) Nxe6 13.3 Nb4 14.Qe4 0-0! 15.exd4 Re8. Perhaps 10...Bc2 is even better. An example of this line, Trobat-Rausis, Andorra 1990, went 10.e3 Rb8 11.Qe2 (else Black captures on b2 with something) 0-0! 12.exd468 (CHAPTER FOUR: THE GRAU GAMBIT Nxc6 13.Qd1 Re8-+ 14,Bd3 Qxd4 and Black soon had a won en- dgame. Nd7! Creating a kind of Albin Counter Gambit in which the moves Qb3xb7 and ...Bf5/...Nd7 have been inserted. Clearly, Black’s moves have been more useful than White’s. If White continues in Albin style, with 5.dxe5?! d4 he quickly gets abad position (6.Nf3 Rb8 7.0d5 Bb4 + 8.Nbd2c5!? as in Ilustrative Game 16). 5.Nc3 On S.cxd5 Black maintains his initiative with S.. then 6...Rb8 and ...Bb4 +. xb1 6.Rxb1 and More conservative, at first examination, is 5.Nf3. But then 5..Rb8 6.Qxd5 Bb4 + is OK (7.Bd2? Ne7! and wins as in a 1971 English game, Webb-Sinclair). Better is 7.Nfd2 but following 7..Ne7 8.013 exd4 Black can hardly complain. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT 69 7B Probably better is 7.e4!? after which 7...Bxe4 allows 8.Nxc7 + and 9.Oxe4., The tactical 7...Ne5 leads to all sorts of complications, such as 8.Nxc7 + Bxc7 9.Qc6 + Nd7 10.exf5 BaS + 11.Kd1 Ne7 12.Qf3 0-0 13.Bf4 Qb6 with Black better, or 8.Qc6! Bd7 9.Nxc7+ Qxc7! 10.Qxa8 Ke7 11.Qd5 Nf6 (Miles-Gobet, Geneva 1986). Best of all may be the simple 7...Bg6 which renews Black’s ideas of 8...Rb8 and 8...Ne7. Ton Bxf4 8.Nxf Nef Here 8...c5 anchoring the pawn at d4 and gaining queen access to the queenside, is inexact because it allows the White knight back to 5 with threats of Qxa8 and Ne7 +. See Illustrative Game 17. 9.0-0-0 And now Goldin-Klaric, Palma de Mallorca 1989 went 9...c5 10.f3 Rb8 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.g3 QeS when Black must be OK (Illustrative Game 18).70 CHAPTER FOUR: THE GRAU GAMBIT ILLUSTRATIVE GAMES (16) Litinskaya-Rause, Kiev 1984 1.d4 2.4 3.Qb3 4.Qxb7 S.dxe5? 6.NB 7.Qd5 8.Nbd2 9.06 d5 BSS 5 Nd7 d4 Rbs Bb4+ ct Otherwise 9...Ne7 traps the queen. The game now begins to look like a rout. fxe6 Ngf6 Ned! 0-0 ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT n ‘This is a semi-desperate but apparently sound bid to break open the center and free White’s pieces. Both 14.bxaS and 14.Nxe4 Bxed 15.Qxe6 + are threatened. 4. 15.Nxe4 16.Qxe6 + 17.Qxe4 18.Q¢5 exb4 Bxet Kh8 NeS! White is obviously lost on 18.Qc2 b3 + so he might as well allow the knight into b3. 18... 19.axb4!? 20.Kd1 21.04?! 22.Ke2 It’s over in seconds now. Nb3 Bxb4+ Nxal x8 + Qs 23.fxe3 Qxe4+ 24.Kf2 Qxcl 25.Bd3 Qxhl 26.Kg3 Bel + White Resigns (17) Mikhalevsky-Basin, U.S.S.R. 1990 Ld4 2.04 3.Qb3 4.Qxb7 5.N3 6.Nxd5 d5 BS 35 Nd7 exd4d Bd6n CHAPTER FOUR: THE GRAU GAMBIT ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 73 TBR Bxft The threats of 15,.Nc2+ and 15...Ra6 are immediately decisive. 8.Nxt4 Ss 9.NdS Rbs! 15.Rel Rab 16.Qd1 Rxa2 17.Qd2 Qas 18.04 Rxb2! White resigns in view of 19.Qxb2 Nd3 +. (18) Goldin-Klaric, Palma de Mallorca 1989 Black is willing to allow a discomforting check in order to retain ae oe the great pawn at dé ae a 10.Ne7 + Kes 4.Qxb7 Nd7 11.Qxa7 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Nxd5 Bd6é Clearly 11.045 Oxe7 12,0xf5 Qa5-+ and 13..Rxb2 is unaccept- 7B Bxfd able. 8.Nxft Naf, 9.0-0-0 ro} IL... Ne7 12.Nb5 Nob Black can now castle and quickly develop an attack with ..Qa5. His 13.Qa6 Rb6 ‘queen maneuver in the game only helps White find a tactical device. 14.Qa4 Nb4 10.8 Rbs 11.Qa6 Qe7?! 12.3 Qs White now manages to break the hammerlock on the center.74 CHAPTER FOUR: THE GRAU GAMBIT THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT 75 AN 25.NB 26.Rel 27.Ke2 28.Re2 29.Nd1 30.Kd3 through exhaustion of ideas. ‘There is safety both in numbers and in endgames. Now 16..Qxc3?_-——Rb3.38.Nd4 Draw 17.bx¢3 is probably an unsound exchange sacrifice. 16... Bxd3 17.Rxd3 Ned!? Concerned that the e-pawn is being surrounded, Black offers to | play an endgame with a very active rook against two knights. The threat of 18..Nf2 forces matters. 18.QxeSNxeS 19.fxe4 Nxd3 + 20.Nxd3, Rxed + 21.Kdl Rd8 22.Ke2 Re2+ 23.Kxe3 oft If all the queenside pawns are exchanged off, White has winning chances. But the text gives Black, if anyone, the better chances. 31.Nxc3 Rxb2 Rxa2 Ra3+ 3 16 Re8 aS ad After this Black’s progress is stopped and a draw is reached 32.Rel Rb3 33.Nd4 Rb4 34.Ral Ra8 35.Nc2 Rb3 36.Nd4 Rb4 37.Nc276 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 CHAPTER FIVE: White Dissolves The Center With 3.cxd5, This has become something of a main line of the Baltic Defense, particularly with 5.Kxb1 below. White gets the two bishop advantage and the superior center -- but somehow can’t seem to prove any advantage of significance. It is essential for Black to avoid 3...Qxd5 4.Nc3 which would cost him a prohibitive amount of time and center control. The natural move here, or course, is (a) 4.Rxb1 but this is rarely played, We will also examine two other possibilities ~ (b) 4.Qa4 + and then 4..c6 5.dxc6 as well as (c) 4.Qa4-+ 06 5.Rxb1. (a) 4.Rxbl ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 7 The initiative that Black obtains with his next move turns out to be lasting. He can then continue with ...Nc6 and ...0-0-0, which in many cases will doom the d4-pawn. 4. Qxd5 Another benefit of 3..Bxb1 is that the a2-pawn is hanging. Defend- ing it via 5.32! is no way to obtain an edge and might give Black the upper hand after S..e5. If White is going to gambit the pawn he should simply continue S.NB3 Qxa2.6.Q¢2 followed by 7.e4. But here again Black is inno rush to grab such a pawn, He can use his knights effectively with S...Nc6! and 6..Nf6, followed by ..Nxd4 or . On5.Qa4 + Black might try Minev’s suggestion of S..b5 6.Qa5 e5! intending 7...Nc6. However, the easiest way of equalizing against the check is5..Nc6. Then 6.Nf3 allows the key tactical idea in this variation: 6..e5! with Prospects such as 7.dxe5? Bb4 + 8,.Bd2 Qe4! and the threats to the78 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.0xd5 rook and queen (9...Bxd2+) force 9.Qd1 0-0-0 followed by 10...Bxd2 + and wins. Better, after 5.Qa4+ Nc6 is 6.e3 and then 6...e5 7.b4 0-0 8.Nf3 exd4 9.Bb5 as in Alexandrov-Svidler, Alma Ata 1991 (9...Nge7 10.0- 0 Kb8 11.Rd1 a6 12.Be2 Qe6 13.b5! with a winning attack). If Black is going to accept such a sacrifice he should be prepared to continue 9..dxe3! and then 10,Bxe6 exf2 + 11.Kxf2 Qxe6 when he is at least temporarily two pawns ahead in the endgame. Sine Neo 6.NE3 Here 6.c3 looks better because of the idea of 6...0-0-0 7.Ne2! and 8.Nc3. If Black may has to defend with 7...Qh5!? 8.Qc2 Qg6 as in one recent game (see Illustrative Game 19), then 6.e3 must be consid- ered an improvement. One possibility for Black is 6...e5!? but even in the line above he can do better with 7...Nf6 (instead of 7...Qh5) 8.Nc3 Qg5! as in Crouch-Shirov. Gu 0-0-0 7.Qe2 Not 7.e3 e5 when Black is already a bit better. Now Yermolinsky- Malaniuk, Rostov 1975 went 8.Be2 exd4 9.exd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.Qc2 Nf6 and 12,..Qe4 denied White adequate compensation. Ton Nx 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.93 ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 79 White has much better compensation than in the note to his seventh move. Now the Russian player Fadeev used this variation twice at Uzhgorod 1985. Both games went 9...e6 10.Bg2. Qc5 11.Qa4 a6 and now Khuzman obtained reasonable chances with 12.0-0 Nf6 13.b4 Qc4 14.Be3. But Smirin got the worst of it after 12.Be3 QbS 13.Qc2 Nf6 14.0-0 QF5 15.Qc3 NdS5. ) 4.Qa4+ dd 45 24 BS 3.cxdS Bxbl 4.Qa4+ The check rudely interrupts Black in the process of equalizing. At one time it was thought that it was 4.Qa4 + that refuted 2...Bf5. Now 4...Nd7 5.Rb1 Ngf6 has been suggested, by Nikolai Minev, without further analysis, After 6.e3 Nxd5 7.Nf3 Black’s pieces are not as lively as in section (c) below. Black can also try this idea with queens off the board: 4..Qd7 5.Qxd7 + Nxd76.Rxb1 Nef. Clearly, Black will regain the d5-pawn and achieve material equality. However, White’s light-squared bishop is not restricted in any way and he can obtain an edge with 7.Nf3 Nb6 8.3 Nbxd5 9,Be2e6 10.0- 0 Be7 11.NeS and 12.Bi3 as in Euwe-Tylor, Pistyan 1926. These positions should be compared with variation (c) below in which Black’s queen offsets the power of the bishop. 4... 6!20 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 This appears to develop Black’s game and liquidates White’s fine d4-pawn for no reason. However, the exchange on c6 serves to free the board for the appearance of White’s excellent bishop pair -- one of whose members may take up residence on bS. For 5.Rxbl, see subvariation (c) below. Sua Nxe6 6.Rxb1 This appears to equalize, according to analysis by Alexey Shirov in Informant 52, Surprisingly, 6..e5, which sets the transparent 7.dxe5?? Bb4+ trap, can get Black into hot water after 7.Bd2! Once Black regains his pawn the position may resemble a bad version of the Albin Counter Gambit. For example, 7..exd4 8.NB3 Qd5 9.93 BeS 10.Bg2 Nge7 11.0-0 and now 11...0-0? 12.Ng5! Qd7 13.Nxh7! worked perfectly in a Soviet game, Vaulin-Fadeev, Yevpatoria 1985. Black does better with 7...Qxd4 8.Qxd4 and now 8...Nxd4 9.¢3! favors the bishops, according to Shirov (9...Nc6 10.Bb5 Re8 11.Nf3 Bd6 12.Bc3 6 13.Nd2 or 10...Bd6 11.Bxc6 +! bxc6 12.Nf3 Ne7 13.e4). THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 81 But 8..exd4!, an idea of Malaniuk’s seems OK. Black will play .-BeS-b6, securing his center pawn and queenside. Qxd4! Black gets the same kind of endgame as in the last note but with 7-e6 instead of ...e7-e5, which concedes too much light-square terrain. But the text leads to an endgame in which White, at least at first, has the better chances, More in the free-wheeling spirit of the opening is 6...Qd5!? and then 7.NB e5. More testing is 7.Bd2 after which 7...e5?! 8.dxeS 0-0 9.Bc3! is unsound, and so is 7...b5?! 8.Qb3 Qe4 9.Rel Nxd4 10.Qc3, but 7...Qe4!? and probably 7...0-0-0 aren’t. That leaves only 7.Bd2 Nf6 and now not 8.e3 e5 9.Ne2 with advantage to White but 8...Ne4!? 9.Nf3 Nxd2 10.Nxd2 e5 11.Qb5 Qd7 12.d5 Bb4 13.Rd1 0-0-0!?. 7.Qxd4 Shirov gives 7.b4 eS 8.a3 as being unclear. don Nxd4 8.NB After 8.e3 Black plays 8...Nc6 9.Bb5 Re8 followed by ..Bd6 and «.Nge7. A quick draw was seen in Kishinev-Svidler, Copenhagen 1991 with 10,.Bd2 a6 11.Ba4 bS 12.Bd1 e6 13.Re1 Bd6 and 14...Kd7.82 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 White’s initiative is too great after 8...Nxf3 + 9.exf3 or 8...Nc6 9.b4 followed by 10.e3 and 11.bS. 9.Kd1 Nb4 And according to Shirov, chances are equal (10.Bd2 e6 11.¢3 a6). © 5.Rxb1 1.d4 d5 THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 83 6.Nf3 This reasonable move may be a slight inaccuracy because it gives up the opportunity for Ne2-c3!. Both moves may involve the sacrifice of the a-pawn. For example, 6.e3 Nd7 7.Ne2 Nb6 and now 8.Qb3 Qxb3 is harmless while 8.Qc2 Qxa2.9.Nc3 Qe6 10.b4 offered White good play ina 1982 Soviet game (Illustrative Game 20). 6... Nd7 Now the game begins. Black appears to be threatening 7...Nb6 after which 8.Qc2 Qxa2 is now a somewhat dubious gambit because there is no Nc3 and because 8.Qb3 Qxb3 is an equal endgame. White's choices here include: 7.23, 7.e3 and 7.Bd2. (cd 7.03 14 a5 et BS 3.exd5 Bxbl 4Qat+ ob S.Rxbl exd 6.NB3 Nd7 a3 A modest move that solves the ...Qxa2 problem once and for all. Tone Nef 83on (CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 After 8.Qc2 Black has enough time to play 8...e5! and then 9.e3 e4! (not 9...exd4 10.Be4). See Illustrative Game 22, won by Rausis. 8... 6 Another Rausis game went 8...Qe4 9.Ral eS and then 10.Bd2 NeS! with a strong attack (11.Qd1 exd4 12.Nxd4 0-0-0 13.63 Qe5). 9.Be2 More enterprising is 9.Qc2 and 10,Be4 or 10.Bd3, and castling. But White must be aware of another, quite dangerous Black strategy. If White castles too quickly he invites a bayonet-like attack on the g-pawn. For example, 9.Qc2 Bd6 10.Bd3 Qh5!? and now 11.0-0? allows 11..g5!. The threat of 12...¢4 is powerful and in Sakayev- Akopian, Sochi 1986, White decided to look for compensation with 12.e4 4 13.Ne5 NxeS 14.dxe5 BxeS but never achieved any. 9... aS This restrains White on the queenside (no b2-b4-b5) and takes away a major enemy plan. A quite reasonable alternative is 9..,Bd6 and 10,.e5 or 10...QhS. 10.0-0 Bd6 And with ...e6-e5 coming up, Black should have a comfortable middlegame. See Illustrative Game 21. (2) 7.03 ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 85 dd a5 2.04 BES 3.exd5 Bxbl 4Qad+ ob S.Rxbl Qud5 6.NB Nd7 7.03 We should take note of 7.b4 Ngf6 8.e3 which transposes into our main line below. Ton Nef Not 7...e5? 8.Be4 which favors White. But 7...Nb6 forces either a more questionable pawn sac (8.Q¢c2 Qxa2) or 8.0b3 Qxb3 9.axb3 e6 with unclear chances. In fact, 9.axb3 was the final move of Timoshenko-Malaniuk, Lvov 1988 -- since the players immediately agreed to a draw. 8.b4 6 9.Qe2 Now Hofstein-Fadeev, U.S.S.R. 1984 went 9...a5! 10.Be4 Qe4 11.Bd3 Qg4 and White must sacrifice a pawn. After 12.0-0 axb4 13.Bd2 there were chances for both sides for Black seems to be doing quite well. (63) 7.Bd2 1.d4 d5 2.04 BIS86 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 3.exd5 Bxbl 4.Qa4+ 6 5.RxbL Qxd5 O.NB Nd7 This is the best White can do with this bishop because 7.Bf4? is a blunder, hanging a piece to 7..f5!, Almost unexplored is 7.93 after which 7..Nb6 8.Qb3 Qxb3 9.axb3 e6 leads to an even game in Christiansen-Senador, Manila 1992 (10.Bd2 Nf 11.Bg2 Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Ral Nfd5 14.Rfel Bb4!). Ton Nef Here 7...Nb6 was unavailing because of 8.Qa5! offering to enter an ending slightly favorable to the bishops (although one can be eliminated by 8..Ne4 9.Qxd5 exdS 10,e3 Nxd2). Worth investigating is 7..Qe4!? with the idea of 8..e5. 8.03 6 Not 8..e5? because of 9.Be4 Qd6 10.Qb3 or 9...Qe4? 10.Bxf7 +. In other words, Black has to be very careful about further loosening of the light-colored squares. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 87 9.Bo4 Not 9.Bd3? because of 9...Nc5! A 1981 Malaniuk game went 9.Qc2 Ne4 10.Be4 Qf5 11.Bd3 Ndf6 12.0-0 Bd6 but it was clear that White had very little from the opening. After 13.Be1 Qd5 14.Rd1 aS 15.Kh1 Bb4 16.NeS Nd6 17.Bc3 0-0 18.a3 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Nc8 Black won anice game. Du Qs 10.Qd1 Otherwise, 10...b5 or 10...Qxb1 + ends the game. ‘Time to take stock. White seems to have the superior center and holds the two bishops. But his only clear plans are the advance of the e-pawn -- a neat trick here -- or of the b-pawn. As long as Black controls d5 and e4 he should be OK. And his future includes ..e6- eS-e4. With 12.Bc3 Ne4 13.Bd3 Qd5 White achieves nothing. A better try is 12.Rel playing for 13.e4! Nxe4 14.Bd3 winning material88 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 89 (14...Nxf2_15.Bxf5 Nxd1 16.Bd3 traps the di-knight). However, 12...Ne4 13.Bd3 Qd5 keeps control. See Illustrative Game 24. ILLUSTRATIVE GAMES (19) Supatashvili-Lyegky, Leningrad 1989 1d4 ds 2.4 BS 3uexd5 Bxbl 4.Rxbl Qxd5 5.03 Neb 6.03 0-0-0 Suddenly White has no obvious targets and it is Black -- with 7.Ne2! Qhs 96-g5-g4 ~ who has the threats. 8.Qc2 Qe6 20.8 Nt This forces an endgame in which Black’s king position is safe but 21.Bd3 Rh3 he lacks th he normal counterplay in light-colored squares. 2.R2 Rah8 23.Re2 Ka7! 9.Qxg6 —_hxg6 Nf Preparing to protect the £5 pawn with his king so he can push the Nb8 g-pawn. Nbd7 6 24.aS Keb Nb 25.06 b6 NbdS 2%Ba3! gS 27.Bxd6 cxd6! Justin time. Since Black can retake now on d5 with a pawn 7 5 . improving his pawn structure sufficiently — he is nearly equal. After 27..Kxd6 28.Rc3 and 29.Re6 + , White stands well. 28.Rc3 g4 29.4 g6 30.Rc7 R8h7 Draw90 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT of (20) Ohotnik-Malaniuk, Yalta 1982 1.4 a5 2.04 BS 3.cxd5 Bxbl 4Qad+ | SRxbl——Qxd5 6.e3 Nd7 7Ne2 Nb6 8.Qc2! Qxa2 9.Ne3 Qe6 10.b4 Now, for example, 10...a6 (to stop 11.b5) 11.Ne4 and 12.Nc5 orjust 11.Be? followed by 12.0-0, 13.Rd1 and 14.Bf3 offer obvious compen- sation, 25.Bxa6 BIB. 26.B3 Qe8 10... Nt 27.Bas Rd7 1L.bs Qd7 28.05 Nas 12.bxeb bxe6 29.Qxe6 13.Na4 Nxad 14.Qxad Ned! White regains the pawn butafter Black’s next move he findsit hard to defend d his d-pawn and make progress at the same time. ‘Threatens the fork at c3 and in so doing, denies White the oppor- tunity of 15.Ba6 and 16.Rb7. | 29... Ras | 30.Qxe8 Rxe8 Lipa | 3L.RbI Bbd! 16.Ra6 6 | 32.BbS 17.Bet Re7 | 18.0-0 | (Or 32.Bxb4 Rb8 and 32.Rxb4 Nxb4 33.Bxb4 Rb8 34.Bc3 Rbl + . 35.Bf1 Rb2 and the a-pawn is active enough for Black. The a-pawn is just weak enough to provide compensation but just strong enough to be won only at the cost of a drawish liquidation. Ban Rbs92 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 33.Be6 Bd6! 34.Rxb8+ — Bxb8 35.Kfl Be?! Although this exchanges White’s bad bishop, it is sufficient to draw. White’s king has no point of entry now. 36.Bxc7 Nxc7 37.Ke2 Kf8 38.Kd3 Ke7 39.Ke4 g5 40.23 h6 41.f4 gxf4 Draw (21) Remlinger-Soltis, Chicago 1992 1.4 a5 2.04 BS 3.cxd5 Bxbl 4.Qa4+ S.Rxb1 Qxa5 6.NB Nd7 Tad Ngf6 8.63 6 9.Be2 a5 10.0-0 Bd6 1LNe2 This stops the freeing 11..e5?? because of 12.Be4. 1. Be7 12.BE3 Qa6 BB 0-0 14.Qc2 Rfe8 15.Ne4 Qe7 16.04 bst? ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 93 ‘The liquidation of the center with 14...e5 would have equalized earlier, Black has a pawn sacrifice in mind, 17.Ne@3 Bb6 18.5 Nas 19.Qxc6 Bx 20.NxdS ex 21.QxbS ——Nxe5 22.Bxd5——-Rab8 23.QxaS_—Qd7 24.Bg2 NeB Now the attack on £2 appears overwhelming (25.Qd2 Rb3! 26.Qxd3? Bxi2 +). 25.Be3! Bxe3 26.fxe3 Rxe3 27.Rbd1 Re2 28.Bd5! Qh3! Amore or less forced piece sacrifice that ensures a perpetual check ~- but no more. 29.RXI7! —— Qxh2-+ 30,KEL Kh894 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.0xd5 31.Rxd3!— Rbe8 32.Rd1 Qh3 + 33.Kgl Qxg3+ 34.Kfl Qh3 + 35.Kgl Qet+ 36.Kfl R263! Black had to find a dark square to attack and it is g1 (via 37..Re2 and 33...Rg1 +). 37.Qd2 Rg3 38.Kf2 Qh439.Rh1! Rh3 + 40.Kgl Rel + 41.Rfl Rxfl + Draw (22) Peshina-Rausis, Daugavpils 1990 1.d4 24 3.exd5 4.Qa4+ S.Rxbl 6.NB a3 8.Qc2 a5 BIS Bxbl 6 Qxas Nd7 Nef & White’s loss of time has cost him the chance to play 9 Be4. Now 9.dxe5 NxeS 10.Nxe5 QxeS 11.Bd2 can be safely met by 11..Qe4 or 11...Ne4. 9.3 10.Nd2 11.33 12.Be4 ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 95 13.8 Qhs 14.fxed Net 15.Nb3. Nxe3! 16.Bxe3 QB Now to preserve the extra piece White must try 17.Kd2 Nf 18.Rbel bs! 19.Be2 Nxe4 + 20.Kd3 O68 21.Rhfl Q86 22.Rf4 Rac8 23.Rxed Bb! This wins back at least a rook. 24.BEB Bxel 25.Qe2 £5 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Qxel f4+ 28.Kd2 Rxe3 29.Qxe3 White forfeited ‘The next two games should be compared with one another because of their similar development and because of the outcome of the Ne5!? sacrifices.96 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 (23) Knaak-Pfretzschner, East German Championship 1984 1d4 2. 3.cxd5 4.Qa4+ S.Rxbl 6.NB 7.03 8.Bd2 9.Q¢2 10.Bot 11.Bd3 a5 BS Bxbl 6 Qxas Nd7 6 Nef Net Qf Naf Black will maintain the e4 outpost at all costs. 12.0-0 13.Ne5! 14.dxe5 15.4 16.Bel Bdé BxeS QxeS Qd6 White has reasonable compensation in the form of dark-squared bishop and the prospects of breaking the e4 outpost. ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 97 16... NeS 17.Rdl Nxd3 18.Rxd3_Qe7 Ifthe queen goes to ¢7 then White would put the bishop on c3. But now: 19.Bh4! 20.Rb3 21.04 22.e5 23.Kh1? Anerror which should allow Black to seize the edge with 2: Ras Rd7 Qa6 Qd4+ Correct was 23.BI2 Qe4 24,Qcl!, retaining compensation. 23... 2A.Rxb7! Nd5? Nb4 Now Black is quite lost (24...Rxb7 25.Qc6 + Rd7 26.Qc8 + ). 25.Rb8-+ 26.003! Because of 26...Qxc3 27.Rxd8 mate. Ra8 Black Resigns (24) Taylor-Soltis, Chicago 1992 La4 2t 3.cxdS 4.Qa4+ S.Rxbl ds BS Bxbl 6 Qxd598 (CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxd5 ONES 7.Bd2 8.03 9.Be4 10.Qd1 11.0-0 12.Rel 13.Bd3 14,Bel?! Nd7 Nef 6 Qs Bd6 0-0 Net Qas White’s faith in the two bishops is justified if Black opens the game prematurely (14...Ngf6 15.Qc2 c5? 16.dxe5 Bxe5 17.Be4 and 18,b4).. Offering a plan as in the previous game. Alternatives such as 16.b4 aS or 16.Nd2 Nxf2! were certainly unattractive. 16... 17.dxeS 18.exf 19.Qxd3 20.f8g7 Qxa3 Rad8 ‘THE BALTIC DEFENSE TO THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 99 2LKfl 6! Black must make the remaining bishop inferior to the knight. His initiative is bound to run out of energy (21..Nd2ch 22.Bxd2 Rxd2 23.Re2) so Black must find a different way to win. Kxg7 Nf Ki7 cS} Rxd2+ Keb Res An unlikely error, which allows Black to establish a hold on e4. 29... 30.Re4 31.Bel 32.fxe4 33.3 34.Rad?! 35.g4 36.hxg4 37.gx5 + 38.Re4 39.Re2 hs ef! Rd8 Nxet cs a6 hxg4 Rh8 KxfS bS Rhi Preparing to run White out of moves (40..Kg4 41.Kd3 Kf3). 40.Ba5 41.Kd3 Rh2+ N+100 CHAPTER FIVE: WHITE DISSOLVES THE CENTER WITH 3.cxa5 42.Ke2 Or 42.Kc3 Nd1 + 43.Kd3 c4 +! 44.bxe4 bxe4 + 45.Rxc4 Nb2 +. 2. Ned + 43.Kd3, NeS+ 44.K3 bat White Resigns TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. Galliamova-Ivanchuk vs. Levitina, Manila 1992 Move Orders . (a) 1.d4.d5 2.04 BES (b) 1.44 d5 2.NB3 BES (c) LNB d5 2.44 BES Chapter One White Plays 2.Nf3 ~ But Quietly Lda d5 2.NP3 BES 3.c4.e6 4.Nc3 (2) Salo-Grau, Stockholm Olympiade 1937 (3) Basescu-Soltis, New York 1991... (4) Ornstein-Kauppala, Jarvenpas 198: (5) G. Garcia-Larsen, Linares 1981 (6) Flohr-Mikenas, Soviet Ch. 1951 (7) Shipman-Soltis, New York 1991 (8) Andersson-Kovacevic, Bugojno 1984 Chapter Two 2.Nf3: Main Line 1.04 d5 2.Nf3 BES 3.c4.e6 4.Qb3! Neb (a) Locking the center with 5.c5. (b) Retaining Options with 5.Bd2 Ilustrative Games ... (9) Fine-Grau, Stockholm Olympiade 1937 (10) Piket-Bareev, Dortmund 1992 (11) Anikaev-Vaganian, Moscow 1982(12) H. Olafsson-Knezevie, Neskaupstad 1984 .. Chapter Three . White plays 2.c4 and 3.Nc3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 BES 3.Nc3 e6! Mlustrative Games (13) Shakins-Rause, Latvian Team Ch. 1985 (14) Schneider-Malaniuk, Yalta 1982 (15) Ree-Sahovie, Amsterdam 1979 Chapter Four ‘The Grau Gambit 1.d4.d5 2.c4 BES 3.Qb3 eS! Illustrative Games (16) Litinskaya-Rause, Kiev 1984 (17) Mikhalevsky-Basin, U.S.S.R. 1990. (18) Goldin-Klaric, Palma de Mallorca 1989 . Chapter Five 76 White dissolves the center with 3.cxd5 1.d4 d5 2.04 BES 3.cxeS Bxbl! (a) 4.Rxb1 (b) 4.Qa4 + 06 S.dxo6 . (c)4.Qa4 + c6 5.Rxb1 . Mlustrative Games (19) Supatashvili-Lyegky, Leningrad 1984 . (20) Ohotnik-Malantiuk, Yalta 1982 (21) Remlinger-Soltis, Chicago 1992 (22) Peshina-Rausis, Daugavpils 1990 (23) Knaak-Piretzschner, East German Ch, 1989 .. (24) Taylor-Soltis, Chicago 1992 76 NOTES