You are on page 1of 227

THE TOURNAMENT P LAYER'S REPERTOIRE OF OPENINGS
Series edited by R.D.Keene OBE

Symmetrical English:
1 ... c5

JOHN L. WATSON

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1988
© John L. Watson 1988

ISBN 0 7134 5391 5(1imp)

All rights reserved. No part
of this publication may be
reproduced, by any means, without
prior permission from the publisher

Photoset by Andek Printing, London
and printed in Great Britain by
Dotesios Ltd,
Bradford upon Avon, Wiltshire
for the publishers
B.T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W1H OA H

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
Adviser: R.D.Keene GM, O BE
Technical Editor: Ian Kingston

. . d5 lines) 32 4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4 40 5 5 lbf3: Others 49 Part II: Counterplay by 2 ...... e6 184 15 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2 01 Index of Variations and Transpositions 216 .Contents Symbols IV Introduction Part 1: 2 lbc3 lbc6 .Pure Symmetrical 3 1 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 5 2 5 e4 and 5 e3 19 3 5 lbf3 lbf6 (with .. lbf6 and . d5 67 6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 68 7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 83 8 3 lbf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 98 Part Ill: 2 lbf3 Systems 115 9 2 lbf3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 117 10 Three Knights: 2 ... lbc6 166 14 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 . lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 128 II Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 132 12 Double Fianchetto Defence 155 13 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 ...

t + Slight advantage ±+ Clear advantage ±± H Winning advantage Level position ro Unclear position Good move !! Outstanding move !? Interesting move ?! Dubious move ? Weak move ?? Blunder corres Correspondence 01 Olympiad IZ Interzonal L League Ch Championship �f Semi-final .Symbols + Check .

It seems to me that two features distinguish the best Batsford opening books: thoroughness. I believe the strength of this book goes beyond its use as an up-to-date reference. In the meantime. the very character of the opening has changed. The biggest changes have come in the second half of the book. well-established material. One will find less detail and fewer changes in the Pure Symmetrical lines of Part I or in (e.) the Three Knights lines. I say "rewrite" rather than "revision" because so much of the material is new. say. The main difference between this work and. In 1980. Double Fianchetto. and the abundance of new games has created a certain consensus of opinion about major lines. Now the major systems are well defined and widely known. ECO is that I've carefully examined each line. suggested innumerable improvements. . etc. and pointed towards what seems critical for the assessment and future of each variation. Perhaps a third of the most significant I c4 c5 games have been played since 1980. however complete. Since so little had been written. Specialists have arisen in many key variations. and all the 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4 systems. Whenever possible. i. almost any suggestion was an improvement.g.e..Introduction This book is a thorough rewrite of my 1980 book English I . with much new material and analysis in the Hedgehog. Because of length. I cut down on older. and individual attention to the material. Material on the Keres-Parma and the Rubinstein has been re-organized to reflect the disuse of former main lines (now relegated to notes) and the rise of new ones. looking especially to eliminate redundant examples. Asymmetrical. P-QB4 in algebraic notation. and many obvious moves had never been tried.. much as with I e4 or I d4 systems. The major constraint on this new effort has been space. finding names for variations. I had the large problem of organizing material into coherent lines. I've tried to indicate how each side can best pursue (or salvage) his play. To take an already lengthy book and supplement it with so much new material requires a few compromises. I had to take a close look at what in my view was most valuable to the reader.

Finally. I have followed the order and format of my 1980 book. The extent of this material is vast. When I have the same suggestion (or game moves) from several different sources. Outside of a few extremely complex lines. I should say a word about attribution. The main improvement in this regard has been to cut down on the number of sections. and I greatly appreciate any corrections or additions readers may bring to my attention. for the reader's convenience and my own. and the games through mid-to-late 1 987. especially when the sequence in question is fairly obvious. much of the rest can be put into notes. unless the evidence is clear or the player's use of the move dominant. you are mentioned in the text.2 Introduction In general. I have become more conservative in assigning credit. Too often famous players get credit for using (sometimes only once) a line developed by someone less visible. the 'Index of Variations and Transpositions' in the back may prove useful. one will not find "B232211 " and the like. Rather than include every major source in the world in some kind of "bibliography". I have shied away from calling moves (e. I have sometimes left it unaccredited. Transpositions are mentioned throughout the text. the first edition contained a number of errors. My thanks to all those who drew attention to these.) "Korchnoi's move" or "Uhlmann's move". When in doubt. 1987 . In general. On that subject. As always. Now that we know better which variations are effective. I will merely mention here that the material extends through Informant 42. Also. John Watson San Diego.g. please be tolerant of the inevitable oversights which accompany any such project.

Part I 2 lLJc3 lt:Jc6: Pure Symmetrical .

.

. the key ideas have proven relatively stable. sometimes well into the middle­ We begin by a brief discussion game. Although 2 lt:lc3 with the order of this chapter a Independent lines with 2 b3. the reader should first con­ same ones at White's disposal. and in part due to the is the "Pure Symmetrical" variation. 1 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 1 c4 c5 is how varied and exciting the play 2 lt:lc3 lt:lc6 can become.. By contrast. sult the 'Index of Variations and What is really remarkable. This is in part a consequence of My new name for this formation fashion. number of players who commit More than in any other . Chapters 6-15 of alternatives on the way to the cover variations where the position key position. have scored 4 . for example. c5 English. Transpositions'. Black copies White's set-up. 2 g3 blind imitation will be sufficient and other odd second moves are for equality in only a very few discussed in Chapter 9.ig2 . Tal. then. In general.. Less has happened since my 1 980 book to the theory of these lines than to any other major formation in the 1 ..ig7 (1) many points by exploiting the dynamic potential in Black's posi­ tion. Petrosian w and Seirawan among others have found ways to utilize White's ad­ vantage of the first move. is already unsymmetrical by the 1 c4 c5 third move or earlier.. it is also true that the plans desiring to locate a given move available to Black tend to be the order. Fischer and 3 g3 g6 Adorjan. whereas Uhlmann. When cases. c5 vari­ themselves to ltJf] on the first few ation. moves.

. g6... �g7 (5 . with the idea of e4" .. (2) t b) 2 . b6? a) 2 .. ed 6 cd d6 7 e4. g6 4�g2 11 hg...Iine A -but 4 d5 g6?! is less appropriate due to either d6 5 e4 lt:Jf6 is not a very popular 4 {jjf3 (Chapter 10) or 4 d4 cd 5 ed form of King's I ndian for Black.. e5 or Zabell. Chicago 1986.. Sznapik.... 5 ... went 8 �xf6 remain free to deviate.. who suggests 9 . 6 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 2 lt:Jc6 delay 2 .. CiJf6 . but 3 e3.. CiJf6 (3 . g6 with a kind of Benoni seems best. �b7?! 4 d4 CiJf6 5 d5) 4 d4 e6 5 d5!? (5 CiJf3!. g6 will generally transpose. (5 b3 !?) 5 . �e7 6 d5 or 5 .. 3 .. e5 4�g2 g6 White can 6 . Poland Gambit) or here 6 . seldom played. CiJf6 4 d4 cd 5 ed d5.... 't!t'd2 h6 9 �h4 g5 10 �g3 lt:Jxg3 Had Black waited via 3 . 'tifb6 12 I!bl d5 13 cd I!d8 14 e3 East German Ch 1973: 3 .... e.. e5 4 �e6 15 �c4 I!ac8 16 �b3 �xd5! �g2 d6 5 e3 �f5!? 6 a3 CiJf6 7 d3 17 CiJxd5 CiJxd5 18 �xd5�c3 H. but 3 e3 can be independent: 3 . CiJd4 7 and his 5th move alternatives are CiJf3 t Krstev-Bonchev. In the game 7 . lt:Jc6. lt:Jh5 8 choose between 5 e3 and 5 CiJf3.. lightly t).. 0-0 9�e2�e6?! I O O-O h6 11 �h4 4 �g2 e6) usually elicits 5 {jjf3 d5 g5 12 �g3 d5!? 13 cd lt:Jxd5 14 6 cd ed 7 d4 (a Tarrasch Queen's lt:Jb5!..... �e7 8 f4! 0-0 9 CiJf3 was ±... 7).. e6 4 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann �g7!? intends 4 lt:Jf3 cd 5 lt:Jxd4 after 3 .. so this line 0-0 11 b4 h5 12 CiJd5 I!ab8 13 CiJec3 is still a problem for 2 .g. g6 6 e4!?) 5 .. '§d7 8 h3! g6 9 CiJge2�g7 10 I!bl But 9 I!dI ! improves. �g7 6 d5 (or 6 CiJf3!) 6 . A unique ef 9 lt:Jf3?! f5 10 'tifd2 CiJe7 II CiJf4? order occurred in Uhlmann-Pahtz.. b6 3 e4 or 3lt:Jf3 transposes to normal lines. CiJxd5 (Chapter 1972...... and now Zachary­ �g7.. and here 7 . lt:Jc6 6 'tifd2) 3 g6 6lt:Jd5 (6lt:Jf3!? lt:Jc6 7'§d2 d6 8 e3 a) 3 e6 4�g2 CiJf6 (or 3 .. A good reason to . can trans­ he ignores the most important pose to a Queen's Gambit after independent answer: 3 d4 cd (3 .. ":!... lt:Jc6 7 't!i'c3 0-0!? (7 . Belgrade 1979. 3 . 3 g3 Gipslis in £CO gives it an"!".Chapter IO... Sandomierz unpromising) 4 't!fxd4 lt:Jf6 5 �g5 1976.. Szabo­ Rajkovic.... �f5!) b) After 3 ... Snapik-Schmidt. he could play 5 .

..... aS.ih6 26 .ib2 . An example of S ... to S d3. Introduction and Various 5th Moves 7 13 .. llb8 transposes (to S ... Black has: " llb! 11t'b6 I I ltla3 ltlxb4 oo with AI S .id2 b6 San Antonio 1972. e..ig2) 6 .. 0-0 9 ltlf3 llb8 10 0-0 b6 II ! intending h4.. e6 4 . a6 We examine: S . S llbl will ltlc6 9 lLlbS ±) 9 'ii'a4! ltlc6 10 cS transpose to A. 0-0 b4? 14 ltldl! eS IS lLldS lLlfS 16 b) S . S e3. A ltle7 18 g4!) 18 llbl J:lf8 19 e4! S a3 (3) ltlb7(?) 20 g4! hg 21 hg . thus avoiding the line 4 . S 't!ka4!? llb8 6 b4 cb A frequently-played and tricky 7 ab bS 8 ab ab 9 lLlxbS .ig2 a) 4 b3 . .Campos-Lopez...g.. A2 S . 4 . Imitation by S ..t) 7 .ixh6 1-0..ib2 a6 II d 3 J:lb8 1 2 11t'd2 dS 13 Rail::evic-Radulov.ia3 . lead to 6 d3 d6 7 1!t'd2 't!t'd7(?) 8 b3 d6 7 J:lbl (or 7 be de 8 .... ltlh6 might Better but insufficient was 6 ..ig7 1 0 move. f4 and eventually aS.ib7 10 ltle4 0-0 { 10 .. ltlf6! 7 e3 0-0 = Kholmov­ Hermlin.. d6 Arriving at diagram I above..if8 (8 . .ixg4 22 ltle7+! �h8 23 't!kg3 llbe8 24 lLlfS! gf 2S 't!kh4 .ig7 II ltle4 fS 1 2 lLld6+ �f8 13 transposes. .ib2..ib7 13 bS lLld4 e6 was 6 ltlf4 ltlge7 7 h4 h6 8 llb l 1 4 e3 ltle6 IS a4 lLlc7 1 611t'b3! with (8 b3 Larsen) 8 ..ie6 IS . with the idea cS) 8 .g.ib2 e6 6 't!kcl (6 .ia3 S e4 and S e3 are in Chapter 2.. lHc8 14 J:lb3 . A S a3 in most cases).ixc3 in Chapter 2.ig7 A3 S .ig2 . 16 't!kf3 ltlh7 17 bS! lLlaS { 17 .ixg7 �xg7 12ltlf4 8 . S ltlf3 in Chapters 3-S.. e4 and .ig7 S ..i xc3!? 6 be resembles S e3 ltlle3 ! Larst:n.. b) 4 a3 .g. and otherwise 4 . e.. a6 is possible. e. Riga 1968. But S .. S ltlh3!? also often .. 0-0 9 b3 d6 1 0 the idea . lLld2 h6 12 lLldS .ixc6+! be b6 9 ... Others: B S b3 a) S . 9 llbl .. eS? 6 b4!..ig7 S llbl is designed to provoke S . ltlf6 the idea 12 ..... d3. A4 S . 6 .ig2 1!t'cS. Novi Sad 1974. ltlge7 8 d3 (or 8 e3 !) lLleS? II f4) II . ltlge7 8 bS ltld4 9 .. cb?! 7 ab c s d3 ltlxb4 (7 .ig7 S a3 a6.. aS is not bad... a6... S b3 or llbl with great pressure.

liJf6 and ..xeS liJxeS ( 14 . Better is 7 d3 e6 open. b6 can transpose after e.9 ...i.i.i. .. eS) runs into 7 d4! (4) and now 1 4 . ..eS 10 . d6 7 h4 h6 8 liJh3 oo.i.or 1 0/4 . .f4 and 1 0 1!t'd2) Better is 6 . 6 libl 6 e4 transposes to Chapter 2. aS 6 liJfJ(6 e3 eS is Chapter lild8 1 2 0-0 .g. dS 9 cd ed II cd e6(or l l .i... 7 d4 (7 b4 cb 8 ab dS!) 7 .. 8 .. liJb4 1 0 1!t'b3 dS! c2) 7 . 1Wxa5 10 ... de 1 0 1!t'd6) 10 ed etc. e.. 8 h4 hS (8 . 9 . Averbakh-Suetin.h6+ �g8 1 2 e3 with the idea lia 1 . The obvious 6 lilbl line A2 (S e4).i.gS) 9 lLlbS liJe7! (9 ...a3? (9 .i. White's pawn structure: d) S .b7 7 e4. 6 de!? leaves the c l bishop Novi Sad 1 974.. aS?! 7 .d2 ... .g7 b) 6 ..eS! 1 3 'iWd2 1!t'e7.i.i.i.. 8 Introduction and Various 5th Moves lila2-e2(f2) would exploit the extra good for Black in Raicevic-Forintos.xd4 USSR 1 97S..f4! eS I 0 (9 ba! liJxaS . liJaS !?) 8 ab to ... 2.. .i.i..i.. de IS f4) IS e4 with the idea f4 is t. 0-0 7 b4 cb 8 ab aS 9 bS? 9 1!t'd6.. 6 .. e6!? 7 b4 cb 8 ab dS 9 bS liJe7 1 1 e4. 6 aS a) 6 .i. eS 1 0 e3.fS I2 d3 llc8't) 1 0 . e. By committing Black .. a3..xb2 13 liJgS!) 9 liJfxd4 cd 1 0 ..b2 liJd6+ �f8 II ..g. e6?! (6 . USSR Ch 1 9S8.i.fS IS lib2 e4 +Reshko-Hamlin.i. Watson-Forintos. . c l ) 7 .e3! d6 8 b4!.g.i. cd 8 ed dS 9 cd liJxdS =.. . aS.. cd 8 lLlbS eS(8 ..i...d7 1 2 liJfJ .... 1!t'e7 II 1!t'd2 liJf6 1 2 I0 cd ed II 1!t'a4 0-0 12 liJfJ liJfS = . 9 lLlh3 d6 1 0 . 6 d3 ..b7 7 b4?! cb (7 . Also. Lone Pine 1 976. d6.i....b8 c) 6 ... h6 9 . a6? 7 b4 cb 8 ab 0-0 9 1!t'a4! lila7 1 0 bS ab II 't!kxbS lb6 1 2 liJfJ t Bilek-Beckingham..d7 12 de!) 7 liJI'3 1 0 liJd6+ �f8 II cS (II liJxb7 !?) A fundamental decision about with an interesting attack.e3!.. 9 liJbS . dS 10 cd 1!t'b6 II a4 ..c6 13 0-0 t liJxd4 liJxd4 II 'iit'xd4 ±.xd4? 8 lLlbS d6 (8 .. liJxd4 8 liJxd4 cd (8 .i.i. ..f4 Wd7··1 1 lLlgS! c) S ..i... a) 7 e4 transposes to Chapter 2. 6 . liJh6!?) 6 . 6 e3 d6! =. White has 1!t'c8! 9 liJdS e6 1 0 liJe3 liJd4 was avoided the defences of that chapter . Taimanov) 9 . . liJge7 9 ... AI s liJf6 A sound reply..i.I 0 . 6 .i. 1 9S8. c) 7 .f4 �f8 II liJfxd4) 9 e3! d6 12 d6 1!t'xd6 1 3 lLlf3 eS 1 4 .i.1 0 d3 d6 II ..i..

ic3 12 ti:Jxd5 ed I3 ti:Jd6+ �f8 14lt:Jx17: �c8 1 5 ....g.ie6 15 b4 ab 16 ab cb 17 . But 7 . Introduction and Various 5th Moves 9 which involve . a4!?)..ih3 but 13 . d5 makes a good impres­ (5) sion.. II 'ira4 ti:Jb6 12 'i!fb5 0-0 A2 13 e3 a4! with the idea .if5 l3 .ixd3! is strong.ixa4 1 6 b3 e6 20 ti:Jdc3 ti:Ja7 2I ti:Jxa7 lilxa7 . b5. 9 ti:Je8 !? Now 9 ti:Jg5 e6 10 ti:Jge4 b6 II Better seems 9 .id7 10 ti:Jei) 8 e3 improvement. fine... . 0-0 is important for transpositional reasons... e. b5 t Benko) I2 ti:Jb6! ... �e7! is correct. This leads to I5 d3 favoured White...ixc3 14 be llb8 To discourage b4. or here Smyslov-Stein......ixb4 lle8 I8 li:Je4! ti:Jxb4 I9 lilxb4 ±(b-pawn and d5 control) Benko-Zuckerman. when 1 4 17 ti:Jd5 .. d6 8 ti:Jh3!? h5 or ti:Jxa4 �a5+ I4 ti:Jc3 ti:Jxa3!) is no 8 ti:Jf3 0-0 9 0-0 ..id7... ti:Jxd5 Thus 7 .. "t" ECO ) also looks Rovinj-Zagreb 1970.. (8 b3!?.ib7 I2 ire2 =) 8 . a4! II '@c2 c4! (12 de ti:Jxc4 13 b) 7 d3 0-0 (7 . presents Black no 7 0-0 difficulties.. US Ch I967.. 0-0 9 0-0 e6 1 0 d3 or here II b3 '@d6 (II ..ib2 llaxd8 I8 f4 .. c4!? 25 llfbi U± Ivkov-Nicevski.. 8 . Dutch llb8 II b4 ab I2 ab b6. I 0 .. . Nor does 9 0-0 0-0 10 A good option is 7 . lila5... ti:Jge7 What else? 9 �b3 ti:Jb6 10 d3 and/or . when II .. b6 II e3 .. II .. 5 e6 (6) .if5).. Ch 1974.id2 c4! lile8 II 'i*c2 d4 I2 ti:Ja4 =/oo (with the idea 12 de . t!fd7? 12 10 ti:Jc2 a4 ti:Jxd5 ed 13 ti:Jc3 .. e. e6/... (Kurajica... a6/. II ti:Jd2 . 8 0-0 d6 5 9 ti:Je l w An example of White's possi­ bilities was 9 d3 ti:Je8 10 ti:Jd2 ti:Jc7 II lt:Ja4! lilb8?! (II .g..id2 lla7 l3 ti:Jb5 lla6 14 ..id7 10 ti:Jc2 �a4 was Timman-Enklaar.id7.. when Kurajica gives .. Much bet ter a typical example: II d3 .ixg2 18 �xg2 lt:Je8 I9 e3 ti:Jxf7 ti:Je5 15 ti:Jxd8 ...) 9 ti:Jxd5 (8 ti:Jh3!?) 8 ...id7 I7 .. e6 9 li:Jge2 d5 10 0-0 �xd5 10 d3 '@a2! II .ic3 e5 I4 ti:Jd2 ......g...ie3 c4. lla6. d5(!) 8 cd ti:Jxd5 '@xd5 II d3 '@a2 I2 ..ixg7 ti:Jxg7 I6 ti:Je3 ...... And (e.id7 I2 is II .if5 I9 22 �f3! f5 23 b3 ab 24 llxb3 llf7 d3 . Amsterdam 1 964..

d5!) 10 ll:le2 d5 11 cd 0-0 9 b3!? (9 0-0) 9 .if7 13 h6 .ib4 0-0 14 and White took charge in Miles­ ll:lh3 d3!? 15 'it'b3 oo was Seirawan­ Adorjan. Harrow lLlge2 t!fd7 14 lil:al ! 0-0 15 .. (1 3 e3 .. .. Black's d-pa wn is a target) 1 2 .ixa I . II d4 is c) 7 h4!? tries to improve upon 'b': probably best here too) 1 0 cd ed 7 ......if6! I 0 d4.ig5 t:. see 6 b4? is a mistake due to 6 .. 7 e4 This is the Botvinnik set-up (c4/e4) as in the next chapter. line C (5 a) 7 d3!? ll:lge7 8 . my suggestion 1 975... 1 0 . e6. .. US Ch 1984... Skopje OJ 1972) 13 14 't!t'b3 ±± Watson-Fuller. ..if4 lil:a6.. or 8 li:lh3 lt'Jge7 9 lt'Jf4.. b6! =....id3 1 8 Ii:f2 d4 12 ll:le4 lLlc4 13 ... Bochum 1 981) 8 ... Seventh-move options: 6 li:lf3!? is Chapter 5...id7 + Smyslov­ lLlcxd5 lLlxd5 1 2 lt'Jxd5 lt'Jd4 13 0-0 Hartston...ib2 d6 =) 8 h5 d5 9 cd ed 't!t'b3 .1 4 lLlge2! lvkov ....ia3!? 16 lt'Jxe2 . but in general Black avoids .iffi 13 0-0! lil:b8 10 .. 0-0 (9 ...iffi Ivkov-Keene.. 7 . 6 a5 ...ie6 (12 . h6! 8 lt'lh3 ll:lge7 9 li:lf4 0-0 10 b3 ..if5 17 Ii:b2 .ie6 =/oo Bukic) ll:le5(9 . Chapter 5... Hastings 1 972-73... h5 8 d3 ll:lge7 9 II d4 ll:lc4 12 e3 ("±" Benko.. Gurevich. be 9 li:lf4 d4 10 lLle4 c4 II t!t'a4) 8 lLlf4 9 e3 ll:le7 (9 .. line C) 11 b3 .ib2 b6 =) 10 cd ed II ..... London 1975.if5 13 lil:al 't!t'd7 1 4 b6! 11 .1 4 .ixa3 14 Ii:xa3 .. so one should not be surprised that White gets interesting 6 Ii:bl chances...ih3! Bukic. Amsterdam 1 0 . There we consider e4 versus ...ia3 . Here he is already committed to that move...if5! 16 e4 .. and instead of lLlxd5 t Ree-Uhlmann. ll:la5!? tOed ed II .id7? (II ll:lxb4! 7 ab cb 8 d4!(8 ll:lb5? ... .ig4 1 4 lLlc3 lil:e8 15 f3 lLlxe2+ 6 .... 13 lLle3!?) 1 3 .. d5(?) 8 cd ed Kavalek.. a5. d5!? (9 .. li:lxd5(II . ed) 12 ..ie6 15 ll:lge2 a6? 16 ba ba 17li:lxd5 ±± II ltJ h3 f6? 1 2 lt'Jf4 .ia3 1 979.. li:lxd5 10 t!fa4 t) 10 d3 .. b) 7 ll:lh3 ll:lge7 (7 .id2 0-0 9li:lfJ d5 li:lf3 e6 6 a3).. 10 Introduction and Various 5th Moves lLlxa3 16 lil:xa3 ll:lc8 17 0-0li:ld6 18 'ti'b3 li:le4 19 lil:faI ± Benko-Martz.... a5? 11 . 10 tiel li:ld4!? (1 0 .. Vrnjacka Banja 1973.. a6! was winning in Lobron. lLlge7?! 7 b4 cb 8 ab d5 9 b5 (1 5 .. lt'Jge7!? (7 . b6) 12 cd ed 13 li:lxd4 cd 1 4 9 'ti'a4 .

....i.b7 1 5 f4 10 lib8 .i..i.i.i..xd4 cd 17lLlxd5 9 lLlge2 0-0 <t:lxd5 1 8 ..d7?! II lLlb5! 'ifb6 12 17 e5)..f7 16 fe!).g.xb5 1 9 "i!i'b3!). Ritov-Balashov.. ef 13 Lone Pine 1 978.i.i. (15 .12 f4!?) 12 "i!fd2(1 2 II lLlbS! f4!?) 1 2 .. 'ifd7? 1 6 . e5 1 3 d5 lLld4 1 4lLlexd4 cd 15 b4 :t (Smejkal)..g.. h6 1 3 = 1 3 ... b6 10 0-0 .b7 12 lLlb5 (e.. gf 1 5 ... Warsaw Z 1 979. lLlf3+ :t Miles) 16 lLlxd4 cd 1 3 e5!...i. 14 .. eS II lLld5 lib8 1 2 lLlec3 .b7 II Sznapik.i.... Best is 1 4 .xd5 ± with the idea b4 Adorjan-Ermenkov..i. .. lLld4 1 3lLlexd4 cd 1 4 lH2)...i. d5 16 cd ed a) 10 ..i. saw 9 .. II . lLld4? 1 2 (1 5 . b5!...c6 1 4 b) 10 . Perhaps IIlLlb5!? 13 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4 be be 1 5 f4 f5? with the idea d4.lLld4 1 4 b4!) 1 4 ed ed 8 d3 lLlge7 15lLlec3!lLld4 16 . 12 d4 i..i. or 12 .d5lLlfe7 .. .e3 b6 (intends II d4 e5) II 12 ef (intending . d4) or II ... e. �h8!.i.. or 1 2 .e3 d5 (13 .i. could be answered by 14 f4!?.f4! (Smejkal) retains the initiative.b7 =.. or II . lLlg6 15 lLld5 .a6 12 . Aside from II lLlb5.g5 ( 12lLlxd6lLld4 ) 12 . gf f5 (13 . White 10 0-0 (7) may consider II f4!?. Sarajevo 1 98 I.e3!? lLld4 1 2 b4 ab 1 3 ab . 1 4 .i. e5!?.. Introduction and Various 5th Moves I1 7 d6 .i. Psakhis gives 13 .i..... Sarajevo 1 981 ..e6!) 16 f5! lLlxf5 d) 10 . and now lLld5 is met by 12 . lLle5! 14 .. 0-0 lib8 (II . lLld4 II b4 ab 1 2 ab lLlec6 'ifd2 with a draw. 12 . II .e6 15 lLld5 (1 5 .e6 13 . lLld4 15 b4. " ( 12 . II ...g. and II . e5 1 2 lLlec3 f5 1 3 ef gf.e3 e5 1 2 Psakhis.. 1 3 d4 e5 = Martinovic-Psakhis. Warsaw Z (1 8 ..e3 llb7 . . .i...f4 II b6 lLl7c6 15 a4 . f5 13 d4 :j.i.d2!? intending b4) 12 . i. Adorjan­ 1 979... e. Tallinn 1973. d5?! 1 2 cd ed 1 3 .e3 and d4) 15 ..i..e6 16 fe de 17 'ifh5.i. i. or 1 4 .i. 0-0 14f5) 14cflLlxf5(1 4 c) 10 .i. e..a6 1 2 b3 lib8 i.... text. II . c 5 12 f4 e5 ( ± " Miles) Miles-Olafsson... b6 may transpose to the 17 lixf5 gf 1 8 lLlg3 or 18 lLlf4.. ..1 5 . cd 13 lLlexd4 lLlxd4 1 4 lLlxd4 .1 5 .e3..d2 :t . .. f5 1 0 ....g.ta6 13 b3.0 smanovic­ Smejkal's move...t (weak d-pawn.i.

line A.. a5 there. 0-0 II ll:lec3 f5 1 2 d3 �e6 13 ll:ld5 �f7 II =. Hort-van der Stcrren.. 12 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 1 4 a4 (intending d5) 14 . 1976. 6 llbl 6 ll:lf3 will be seen in Chapter 5: 5 ll:lf3 a6 6 a3. and 7 b4 cb and cd) 13 de �xc3 14 llcl 'i¥a5 8 ab b5 9 cb (9 c5 a5 10 �a3 ab 15 'ti'b3 :t II �xb4 ll:lxb4 12 llxb4 �xc3 = 6 e3 ll:lh6 7 ll:lge2 ll:lf5 8 b4!? Tarjan-Gheorghiu... (acceptance is critical) 9 libI ll:le5 10 . ... achieve nothing. e5 = or 10 . Mar del 12 d4 d5 1 3 �xh6 �xh3! = and Plata 1 982. Hastings 1979- (8 lib1 a5 9 b3 h5 1 0 h3 e5 11 �b2 80) 9 ... 7 ll:la4?! 'i!t'a5 ll:lb5!. h5!? 8 h3 ll:lh6.see Chapter 1 0 'i!t'c2!? llb8 11 f4 ll:lxc4 12 be 0-0 5. 1 0 ll:lh3 lt:Jh6 11 0-0 0-0 oo Seirawan-Giardelli.. d5 =. Black does not generally 6 llbl resort to . ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 16 �xd4 �xd4 1 7 6 aS 'i¥xd4 lld7 18 llbd1 ll:lc6 1 9 'i¥e3 7 e3 e5 ± Smejkal-Andersson. (6 . h5!? 10 ll:lf3 allows any of 10 ..... 1 3 The best bet. �xc3!?) 7 b4!!? cb 8 ab ll:lxb4 Lone Pine 1 979. Hort.. A4 B 5 a6 This move constitutes the most serious problem for 5 a3: White has trouble breaking symmetry to good effect. Hastings 1979-80) 8 .... 12 . 6 . 6 llb8 10 ... ab has been shown to be h4 1 2 g4 ll:lfe7 1 3 d4 oo Seirawan­ equal by many years of games. line D... a6 1 3 de �xc3 1 4 lib I achieves nothing. Biel IZ Or 7 .. line B. d6 =... d6 =) also = b) 6 ll:lf3 e5 7 0-0 (7 b4 e4!) 7 .. t!t'a5? or 12 .. 8 ll:lge2 ll:lge7 A3 The position resembles Chapter 5 d6 2... but neither a) 6 e3!? is my recommendation does White gain much by the in­ for excitement here. e. 10 e4 e5 (or 10 . e5 sertion of a3. cd 1 5 ll:lge7 is Chapter 5.... �e6 11 d5 b5) 10 ..g.... continued 9 b3 9 �a3 ll:ld3+ 1 0 �e2 (8) llb8! 10 ll:lb5 (else 1 0 . ll:lc5 11 d4 ed 1 2 ed �f5!? 7 'ti'a4! (9) (on 1 2 . ll:le6?..

... 13 i. 0-0 best.. 1 3 . Indo­ the idea ti:Jc2.. .xc3! 12 de ti:Jf6.xb7 'it'c7) 9 ..c6 this is not at all 'it'xa6 i..... ab II ti:Jxb5 'i!t'b6 1 2 ti:Ja3! ti:Jxb4?! 9 cb ti:JxbS 13 ti:Jh3 ti:Jf5..... After 9 US A 1978.d7 1 0 'i¥g2?! (10 @'xa6? i. of 13 ti:Jf3?!. i. but 9 i..g4 +. i. this looks best) 16 . i..g7 lig8 15 f3 oo.b7 12 i. nesia 1983.Schmidt.. d6!? 8 i. d6.d7 II after 20 . a3 (Gheorghiu). and now 14 0-0 ± with ti:Jxb5 Seirawan-W. Lone Pine 1 979.xa5 14 cb 0-0 1 5 8 bS bc't'f 1-0 Watson-Meyer... liJf6 @'f3! i) 10 . Biel IZ 1 985) 1 2 .....f5 (8 ..g5 i Seirawan-Jansa. i.13 d3 cb 14 lixb4 lixb4 15@'xb4 =/oo intending .h3!?).. i. when 15 .f5. and instead clear either (21 i.. 5 b3 (10) . and here instead of 13 b4? 7 ti:Jd4! i. a) 7 e6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab ti:Jge7? (9 .h6 with the idea 8 13 . 9 .. Vancouver 8 . �f8"!" with the idea 10 ti:Jf3 i. Mont­ 1 7 lixb5 ab 18 1!t'b4 d6 19 d3 lic8. ab?! 10 @'a7. Rajkovic-Gheorghiu.. ti:Jf6 Schmidt) I I de @'c7 intending .... tiJ xb5 I 0 ti:Jge2 ti:Jf6! ( 10 .. Christiansen recommends 9 .a4.. Yugoslavia 1979. i. 10 12 i.xc6+ be 9 'i!t'xc6+ II ti:Jf3 (II e3 'it'c7 1 2 ti:Je2 i.. i. 1 0 f3 i..12 ... e.xc6+ be I 0 'it'xc6+ i. cb 9 lixb4!?@'c7!(9 . ti:Jg4 14 i. 13 i..b2 (1 2 0-0 ti:Jh6!?...g..xb2 (12 . i.c6. .xc3! II .g7 lig8 15 h3(15 .Seira wan-Gheorghiu..d2 is best.c6 1 6 i. Introduction and Various 5th Moves 13 i. i. cb 13 ab d5 =) 1 2 ..xf2!?) or 1 3 . lhg7 16 fe lia8 ought to be fine.. ti:Je4 1 4 i.xc3! II de ti:Jf6 . 8 b4!? i. i.c8 16 lifd l oo.. avoided this line by and now instead of 20 lixc8+ oo. c5!) 10 ti:Jd5 @'c6! =/oo Rajkovic­ b) 7 .. i. went 10 ti:Jxb5 lixb5 c) 7 . ti:Jh6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab b5 lOeb Matulovic...f5 1 4 'f/c7 ±) 1 0 b5 ab II cb 't'fa5 12 be ti:Je4 ti:Jxe4 1 5 d e i.. Seirawan-Timman.f5! 14 lid! c4! 1 5 e4 i...d7 9 b5 ti:Ja5!?) Schmidt calls 20 libI "±'....b7 =) i. i.b7 ti:Jf6 1 3 be) 1 3 lixb2 ti:Jf6 14 0-0 II @'a4 @'c8! etc.xc3 13 'i!t'xa5 i.. pettier C 1985..b7!? (II . 8 b4 8 e3 b5 9 cb (9 ti:Jxb5 ti:Jxb5! 10 cb ab II @'a7 i..b7 II @'a8 15 lic l cb 16 lixb4(16 ti:Jd4! 'f/a4 is awkward but probably Schmidt.. e6 1 0 1976. e6 I I ti:Je4!) II 0-0 0-0 12 d3 (12 b4 c4! or 12 .

id7 1 0 e3 . but after 6 . llb8 10 a3!?..id2!? b) 7 li:Jf3 e5!? is also seen: 8 0-0 d6 li:Jf6 8 li:Jh3 d6 = Marangunic­ 9 d3 li:Jh5 (9 . . . but White also has 7 10 'i!t'c I li:Jxc3 II . Bugojno (8 .ixh3 is promising.....ih3 m) llad8 16 li:Jd5 . Barle. 'ti'd2. Chapter 2.bl !?.ixe5! 10 . li:Je4 etc.. 'ti'xd5 I 0 0-0 'ti'd61ooks equal. .ib2 . with the idea li:Jf4.ic3 etc? 7 e6 . 8 li:Jge2 transposing to Chapter 2.ib7 7 li:Jf3 is a2) 7 d 6 8 0-0 . 1 2 li:Je2 li:Je7 13 li:Jxd4 li:Jxd5 14 a3) 7 d5 (! ) is untried but unjustly .ixh3!? (1 0 .. e6 7 li:Jh3!? li:Jxd5 9 .g...ixg7 'it>xg7 10 cd . b) 5 .ig4 II a3 . II ..id2 li:Jd2 .ic3 or llc l and . ....-xc3+ 8 ..ixd5 . d) 5 . 'ti'b8 8 li:Jd5! .. li:Jf6 8 2 5 ..ixh3 �xd5 12 0-0 llfd8 1 3 d3 d3. . Chapter 2.-as('!) 7 . 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 llcl m) 8 .. li:Jf5!) 9 . e6 a) 5 e5 is normal.. b6 =. USS R Ch 1974. 7 .ig4) II .ie6 12 li:Jd5) 10 why not 7 li:Jh3(!) ..ig2 dc 14 bc'8'd7 15 llbl li:Jxe5!? . b6 6 . so.ixc3 e5 1 2 f4 _...ib2 e5 transposes to �d6!.ib2 .ixb2 m Larsen-Polugayevsky.. and here 6 .t Romanishin­ 9 ... e..g.. Belyavsky.g7 9 li:Jf4 with the idea li:Jd5 and Petrosian-Portisch.ib2 0-0 7 d3!? a) 7 li:Jh3!? is an attempt to clamp down on d5 by li:Jf4 (II): A flexible move employed by Smyslov and Larsen.g. li:Jge7 White usually plays 7 e3 0-0 al) 7 e5 8 0-0 d6 9 f4 . li:Jd4 9 e3 e6 10 ed ed II cd cd 1980. e. . e..id7 9 e3 li:Je4!? .ih6?! 1 2 b4! . match (9) 1974.ixh3 ef 1 2 7 li:Jf3 d5 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 li:Jxd5 (9 gf d5 13 .t _. But 10 ..d 6 6 . Bled/Portoroz 1979. 8 1 5 . . a6 II li:Jd2 . 14 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 81 5 li:Jf6 10 B 6 ...ixc3!? 6 de . 8 li:Jxd5 (8 li:Jf4 d4 9 li:Ja4 c) 5 ..-xb2 f6 1 0 li:Jf3 t:.

. must not be too passive: 10 f4! 't!t'e7 a) 7 lt:la4?! J. White managed by this means the idea lt:lf4. 5 e6 9 't!t'd2 (12) 6 J.d7 9 lt:lh3 with 1 976.. d5 10llJf3 ( 1 0 cd? In Larsen-Betancourt...14 J....llJge7!. 19 'it>xb2 f5 20 llJc3 llJe3 21 llcl I suggest 9llJf3... d6 8 't!t'd2 J.xb2 8llJxb2 0-0 9 e3 II lt:lf3 e5 1 2 fe de 13 't!t'g5!.cI t.g. Then Watson-Browne....h6 8 be 18 J... 9 e3!? b5 10 lt:lge2 e6 II lt:lf4. e4? 15llJxe4 Larsen's ingenious idea.. J. d5 = follows. Introduction and Various 5th Moves 15 7 .a6 13 de . (9llJf3 d5 +) 9 . Los Angeles 1 982.. 8 J.b2 6 J.. e5 IIllJa4 1i'e7 12 llJa4.a3llJd7 1 5 cd ed 16 lilc l etc) 13 h4 h6 14llJh3 lt:ld7 1 5 f4 d5!? 16 e4! d4 17 �a4llJb6 7 h4!? 18 \Wa5 lt:lxa4 19 't!Yxa4 't!fd7 20 The most challenging...llJe8 I 0 't!ff6 22 't!YeI a5 23 'it>a3! ± intending 1i'd2 b6 (10 .. White llJf2 a5 21 J.xc6! lle8 14 0-0-0 h6 (1 4 . e4?! 1 8 lt:lxe4 J.. 't!t'e7! 1 2 f3 J.. llJh5 was also =.e6 (12 . 17 'it>bI (with the idea 17 . h4-h5.b2 d6 8 d3 8 e5 9 1!t'd2.... Other­ ± Larsen) 1 5 't!t'e3 �g4 1 6 ifgI h5 wise 8 . Lanzarote llJxd5 II lt:le2 b6 12 d4 J.cl ) 17 .... be 7 J. and Black's bishops inactive: 13 .xc6!? was not so impressive 12 as in BI after 6 .xb2 8 . e5! is more accurate.... de also deserves attention. 9 . went 10 0-0-0 d6 II 'it>b l!? (II e3 or II h4 may be better) II .. 't!fe3) II 't!Ye3!? f6 12 0�-0 e5 1 3 B2 lldg I!? with the idea g4-g5. when simplest was 9 .. Larsen-Andersson. 7 . although 9 .llJf6 10 0-0-0 0-0 II h 4 (II f 4llJg4) II .. d5? 1 3llJa4 a5- else 't!Ya5 ... llb8 8 't!fd2 a6 to keep the pawn structure static. Las Palmas 1974. e. 6 llJge7 (1 3) 13 w 9 d6 9 .

.iel... 16 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 1!t'f6! 14 lLlc4 lLlc3 H Smyslov­ l:l:ad8 16 lLlec3 lLlfd7) 14 . de 18 a4t) 18lba4 e6 'it>dl lLlxal 13 ltJf6+! etc...... lLle4!?) oo.ixc5 ti'e8) Hort-Gulko... · Ch) 1964. lbf6 has several answers.. e5!?) 9 lbe4 e5 10 fe lbxe5 11 lLlf3 f5 12lbf2 lb7c6 13lbxe5 (13 0-0? f4!) l 3 .. 6 e4(Chapter 2.. lbb4? II '@xd6 lLlc2+ 12 be be?! ( 17 . e. 8 . This whole line is unexplored and b) 7 t!t'cl !? is logical. line D..ixg2 16 'it>xg2 . d6 7 ........ line B... Niksic 1978.. Prague 1984) 8 .. continued 12 a3 . d6 9lLle4 a) 5 .. d6 8 f4!? (8 lLld5 0-0 = or 8 . a6 allows White ..id2 8 't!t'b l ! ? d6 d6 7 l:l:b l "t!t'd7 8 a3 b6 9lbf3 .g. lbe8 13 l:l:fd l ! (with the idea . intending replete with creative options.ib7 13 cd ed 14 d3 t!t'f6 15 'tit'd2 .. 9 lLle4 e5 e3. Palma de Mallorca IZ cd . line A) or 6 ... lbd4 14 '@xd7 l:l:xd7 10 ti' d3! lbf5 15lbxd4 ... 1981..g.. lLlf5 11 0-0 b6 12lba4 with the idea g4) and here 16l:l:b l!? .ixc6 be 16 lLld3 ti'e7! =(17 .ixe4 (17 lbcxg5 and 17 lt'Jexc5 li:ad8 16 li:fd1 li:fe8 + Smyslov­ were threatened) 17 �xe4 lLld6 Tal.ib7 8 . 19 l:l:b5! with initiative. 'it>h8 and here 6 e3 is Chapter 2. 0-0 10 ltJf6+ ( lO g4!?) lO .. Belgrade 1954... lLld5 or lbe4 at some point.. but c Biack's kingside is very solid: 7 ...g. 't\fxd5 16 "t!t'b l ! 1970) lO ... e6 7 h6 C2 5 ... Now Watson-Keene. 7 e3 .. 5 d3 (14) 0-0!? 8 lbe4 d6 9 .. Moscow (USS R Club Teams 18 'ilt'd5 was an interesting try. New York c) 5 .. Or 7 . 'it>h8 15 . de 14 ..ixg7 �xg7 I 0 "t!t'b2+ e5 "and Black is already better" ( Adorjan)..ie6 13 h5 the option 6 "t!t'd2 't!t'a5 7 lLld5!?) g5 14 ltJO (14lLlge2 't!t'b6!? 15 'i!t'c2 6 e3 (if now 6 'i!t'd2 '@a5!. C1 5 .ia3 lild8 18 .id5+!? (14 h4 h6! =) 14 ..ixd4 17 lO .. d5! 15 Fischer. d4) 13 . 0-0 (8 . li:b8! (5 . e.. e... 0-0 9 h5! d5(9 .. 11 g4 e5 1 2 g5 lLlg8 13 lbd5 (13 b) 5 . e5 9 d3 0-0 10 h4 h6 11 h5 g5 12 f4 f6 oo Donchev­ Adorjan...ixd5! (15 . Rabar­ II e3 0-0 Djurasevic.... g5? lOlLle4) 10 0-0 0-0 11 '@a4 li:fd8? 12 b4 10 hg fg 11 lLlf3 is promising.. e5 6lbf3 is Chapter 4. h5 8 '@cl !?.

13 .. 6 .ih3 Bukic. 5 . advantage.ib2 'tW aS!? 7 h3... when . White plays 8 e3 'ti'c8 for ltJe4. 0-0 with 6 hS!? the idea 8 'ti'd2 'ii'a5! or 8 0-0 a6 =.ixc3+ 9 be b6 was sug­ 11 0-0 eS gested.ib7 I0 b4 'ii'c8 15 llad l 'i¥d8 16 f4 ef(?) 17 ltJe4! = Borm-Rogers... 73.... Conclusion. Weakening. f4 keeps the e5 Larsen-Hartston. 6 llb1 6 ltJge7 6 ltJf3 ltJf6 7 0-0 0-0 is Chapter 3. .ig2 .. ..id2 is 'f!/e7 26 'it'e5 ±. After II .... 7 ltJf4 d6 !? line C2. e5 or 6 . 'tWaS 8 a3 a6 9 b4 cb 1 0 ltJa2!. went 12 ltJfd5 ltJxd5 13 .. ... The game continued I0 ...id7...ixd5 9 ltJge2 ltJ h6 (15) 10 a3 Petrosian-Bisguier.... Of course 6 . ltJe7 (1 3 . b6. d5 1 8 ltJf6+ 'Ot'h8 19 cd ltJxd5 20 C1 .ixb2 22 1t'xb2+ 'i!lg8 23 6 ltJ h3!? ..... 0-0... ltJxb4 13 ltJe4 ± Bukic.. 10 ..ixd5 .. ltJf6 is 9 b3 0-0 playable.. 't!Va5?! 9 libI lib8 1 0 a3 a6 to 7 'ti'd2! intending b3.ic6 12 e4 ltJd7 13 ltJd5! e6 14 ltJe3 t.ie6 ltJf5 8 libI b6 9 a3 .g..ixf6 (20 .. 14 ltJh6 (or 6 .. . but then 10 ltJf3 with the Perhaps II ... although Seirawan continues to do reason­ ably well on the White side. New York 1954... Hastings 1972. More accurate is 7 ...... llb8 is not problem-free due 8 .ixe6 fe 24 llxflH 'it'xf8 25 llf l Again possible is 6 e4. 10 . . cb 12 ab 7 ...ixd5 21 llxf4) 5 e6 21 llxf4! . Eerbeck 1978. a6 has taken much of the sting out of 5 a3. idea e4. ltJge7 7 a3 (7 'ii'cI C2 h6) 7 .id7 10 .g..ib2.. Introduction and Various 5th Moves 17 a6 8 ltJge2 b5 9 ltJe4 't!Vb6 etc) 6 . a6 7 a4 d6 ) 7 ltJge2 = llfdl ltJe7 15 . Black might also look into 5 a3 ltJf6.. . e. ltJe5!? II f4 .. 0-0 8 lib! a5 Krogius­ = 5 d6 Kuzmin. e. 8 . .. a6.. USSR 1964. .. 6 .. II b4 with the idea II .ih l ±) 14 .. passive... but imitation by 8 'ti'd2 ! llb8 6 . ltJh4.

. needs to make things double-edged. As for next chapter..18 Introduction and Various 5th Moves the critical 6 e4 is discussed in the esting alternative to 5 li:Jf3. and may be the most inter. 5 d3. .. b5 5 b3 has led to some exciting seems the main drawback if White games. I:l:b8 with the idea .. 5 .

g7 Often he will be committed to The two Pure Symmetrical vari­ one of these moves already. and don't play A 5 e4 i.c3?! (This will illustrate the leave himself the option of pressing rules of thumb: don't put your forward with d4 or slowly building knight on d5 until the opponent up by d3.g2 0-0 5 c4 d6 6 ll:lge2 c5. who can bring his king's with: knight to the flexible e2 square and al) 8 i. e5 6 lLJge2 lLJeg7 7 d3 d6 for White. by ations about which we have the the order I c4 lLJf6 2 lLJc3 g6 3 g3 most over-the-board experience i.. with Nimzowitsch. arc 5 e4 and 5 c3.g.xg7 ®xg7 13 lLJxd4 cd 14 lLJe2? (14 lLJd5) 14 0 0 0 b5 +Fuller-Jamieson. It 10 d3 :f: or simply 8 d3 lLJeX 9 libI can come up by a variety of move lLJc6 I0 a3 a5 II lLJd5 . is 12 lLJec3 :±:.e6?! (9 o o .e6. the f6 knight.teo 12 f4 or orders. 5 c3. 8 0 0 0 :Sb8 9 :S b l a6 IO a4 0-0 II i.g7 4 i. a6! 10 :Sbl :Sb8 = ) 10 :Sb l f5 II lLJd5 fe 12 de lLJd4? (breaking . i. has played o o .e6?! 9 lLJd5!. The second system.c3 too early lest your opponent B 5 e3 play 0 0 0 lLJd4 in favourable circum­ A stances. l:! f4 ef 9 gf lLJc6 before him..g2 i. Melbourne I975.h6 :Sb8 (or II 0 0 0 lLJec6) 12 i. Others: in a sense the most natural move a) 5 .g. e. The first system when 7 0-0 c5? slightly misplaces is associated with Botvinnik and.d2 with the idea lLJd5) 9 a3 (9 f4!? ef 10 gf could be tried) 9 0 0 0 i. a2) 8 0-0 0-0 (8 0 0 0 i. e.2 5 e4 and 5 e3 c4 c5 Now Black usually picks one of: 2 lLJc3 lLJc6 AI 5 0 0 0 e6 3 g3 g6 A2 5 0 0 0 lLJf6 4 i. They apply to Black also) 5 e4 (16) 8 oo· lLJd4 9 0-0 0-0 10 'it'd2 a6 II i.

...!:: with the i... compare what follows.) 8 a4! ll:lge7 9 0-0 0-0.e5 II ll:ld6+ i....e5 10 i. ll:lb4 etc.. 5 e6 7 0-0 6 ll:lge2 ll:lge7 (17) 8 d3 Instructive is 6 . e.. 9 i.. 20 5 e4 and 5 e3 both rules!) 13 ll:lxd4 cd 14 i. l 3 . ll:ld4. li[b8 (9 .d7 12 llb l 'it'e8! b6. e5 (II ..h6 Taimanov) 10 lii:cI! h5?! i.. and now 10 8 ..xd4 10 ll:lb5 i.h6 llf7 White.h3 will ensure the win in any con­ idea 14 .. c) 5 . b5) 13 e5? .g5 ll:ld4 12 b4 !) 12 ll:ld5! a5 (12 .xb5 12 II i.. but here 7 0-0! e6 8 d4! is very strong: 8 .. e. d6 9 libI f4?! d6 II �hi i. 'i*a5 10 li[c l ll:lec6 8 ll:lxb5 i. di Campiglio 1973. i.b7 7 d3!? e6 17 8 0-0 ll:lge7 will transpose to A I w below.g..g. Madonna 'it'xd6 17 d4 t. ll:lxd4 9 ll:lxd4 i..... But 5 . ... i. Black's queenside ideas.. 8 ..e7 ±t lvkov-Torre.xc3! II ll:lxc3 (II be!? i.e3 7 0-0 llhc8?! 16 li[ac l li[ab8 17 b4! ± 7 d3 helps forestall some of Uhlmann-Danailov.xd4 9 ll:lb5 i.. b) 5 . ef 14 gf f5 15 e5 b6 16 ed 17 i. 8 d6 Much better is 10 li[b l ! d6 11 i.d7 II . Here and on the next few moves.. llb8 7 d3 a6 8 a3 will transpose after (e. a6 0-0 (14 .g5 d6 12 0-0 b5 13cb ab 14 b4! ab oo) II . b6 6 ll:lge2 i...g.. 19 ll:lxc5 ± Hort-Uhlmann..e3 ll:ld4 10 1!Vd2 i.. ab = 9 ..xd6 12 1!rxd6 ±....f4! Uhlmann) 9 ll:lb5 d6 10 ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 II ll:lxd4 ll:le7 12 1!i'a4+ (or 12 i... Roizman-Pankratov. ef 15 gf f5 16 e5!) 13 f4 t. line de 14 ll:le4 b6 15 fe ll:lxe5 =F was A2.a6 9 ll:lec3 1!ra5 10 a4 II i. 7 .. (intending . 1!i'd7 13 'i*xd7+ �xd7 14 li[dl a6 15 i. cb 15 ll:lxd4 be 16 'i*xc3 6 a4! commits Black too early to a 'i*b6 17 'it'c7! Taimanov) 15 be de formation which tends to favour 16 e5! i.. Skopje AI 1968. USSR 1970.xe5 17 ll:le4 f6 18 i.e3 ll:ld4 9'it'd2(or 9li[b l !) playable..g.g5 0-0 13 1!i'd2 ± Uhlmann) 12 . a5 transposes to Chapter I....h3! 1!rxh3 e. a6 6 ll:lge2 b5!? is probably a6!? 8 i..xd5 15 cd 'it'd7?! (but otherwise ll:lxd5 13 cd ll:lb4 14 f4 ..e3 9 li[b 1 (with the idea d4) II .. ceivable ending) 16 i. Halle 1984. a6 9 li[b l llb8 or 8 . 7 cb (7 d3 ) 7 . cd (8 .

- with the idea 14 . 12 ..a6 13ll:lbc3!? 13 it'd2 n fe8 or 13 a4!? 13 ... . 18 llfd l ! etc.. ll:lec6!. 6 ll:lge2 6 d3 0-0 7 f4 d6 8 ll:lO (8 ll:lge2 ll:le8 9 0-0 ll:ld4 = was Grigorian­ Antunac. g5 15ll:lh5 i. ll:le5 14 ll:lf4! 13 . d5 (16 . The ideas include ll:lxd4 16lLl xd4 cd 17 ll:le2 lilacS 18 (e.) 16 ..ixb6) 9 . de 17 llfd1! f5? 18 d5 b5 llc7 19 a4 :t Zi. 12 tt'a4 !? llfd8 13 llfd1 ll:ld4 14 a5? 17 ba ba 18 llb6 and got into it'xd7 ll:lxe2+ 15 ll:lxe2 llxd7 16 trouble. but somewhat unpleasant for Black. Hastings 1978-79.ib2 i..t" Speelman) was Lein­ b5 !?) 17 cd ed 18ll:lf4 de 19 de ll:lc6 Hartston..xd4 Lugano 01 1968. pawn mass for White in Sehner­ USSR Ch 1978. llb8 9 0-0 a6 =.g4! = Bronstein-Najdorf. and 16 .Castro. e3 (18) ll:le2 Black played the odd 16 . . Makarichev-Kasparov.g. 5 e4 and 5 e3 21 i. b5!? led to an overwhelming queenside II cb ab.xg5 etc) II b4 cb 12 ab b5 13 also possible..xd3 and 14 i. Better was 16 . llac8 13 f4ll:ld4 14 i..e.g. a6!? 10 a3 llb8 (10 .h6 ll:lec6 = and 9 f4 a6 10 g4!? f5! (14 . ll:lxd4 17 ll:lxd4 i. 13 ..b7 We are following Soos-Geller... ll:lb5! a6 20 de it'xdl 21 llfxd1 ab 9 b6 22 cb! (with the idea lld7. A2 5 ll:lf6 18 This is one of the purely English B Opening lines of the King's Indian Defence.. USSR v Yugoslavia 1964) 8 ...h6 16 't!t'b3! . 14 f4.t Reshevsky-E... 14 i. 10 llb1 b5 II b3 ll:le8 12 ll:ld5 ll:lc7 13 .h6 is similar. � .. Moscow 12 ll:ld4 1967.dull oo...f2 with the idea d4 is 16 i. cb ab 14 d4! d5 15 . would be 12 ll:lxb5 i. llfd8 14 i. ll:lec6 15 b5 t) 15 ll:lxd4 cd II gf gf 12 ll:lg3 ll:ld4! are unchal­ 16 ll:lb5 fe 17 ll:lxd4 e5 18 fe de 19 lenging. 14 lHcl ll:lec6 15 i. After 15 ll:lxd4 cd 16 1 2 i..iger-Adorjan...xd4 Thessaloniki 01 1984...ie3 (".h8 10 a3 i.... and now critical Chandler. West Germany 1985.. with the idea 20 ll:ld5 ll:le5.if4 llb6 14 i. 11 b4 it'd7 Varna 1964.f2! f5 6 0-0 .

Il:b8 9 a3 b5 10 cb ab 12 b5 lt:Jd4 13 lt:Jxd4 . d6: b) 8 ... USSR important is 9 lilb l lt:Jc7!? 10 b4 Ch 1961.. . lt:Jc7 9 Il:b1 a5 Leningrad 1957. see 9 libI Il:b8!? 10 b4 b6 II d3lt:Jc7! below) 8 . the most typical and (hopefully) 8 aS revealing examples.... . After 7 ..txb2?!(15 . e. gf) 14 lt:Jxe2 gf - Moscow 1957.. 13 lt:Je2. e5) 16 llxb2 e5?!( 16 .txd4 15 J. A21 8 a3 10 libl lt:Jc7(10 .. IOb4lt:Je6 is A21 lt:Jxd4 ... lt:Je6 II d3 lt:Jed4 12 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 b) 7 . a5) II b4lt:Je6 A22 8 d3 12 d3 lilb8. lt:Je8.b2 .g... USSR 1957.22 5 e4 and 5 e3 7 0-0 (19) 7 d4? cd 8lt:Jxd4lt:Jxe4! =t= Euwe. Augustin­ the idea g4 improves) 17 f4 f6 18 Kozlov. Most lt:Jxe4!) Smyslov-Taimanov.. Stary Smokovec 1976. and now Stolyar-Zilber.ib7 17 f4 e6 lt:Je6!? II f4 f5 12 g4!? lt:Jed4 13 gf 18 f5?! ef Stolyar-Nezhmetdinov.lt:Je8 8 a3(8 d3lt:Jc7 9 libI !?. below) 10 d3 (10 lt:Jd5!?) 10 .. b6 14 (or 9 ...d7 9 h3 lt:Je8 (or 9 .. compare A22) 8 . = lt:Jxe2+ (?! 13 . a6 8 lib1 (8 a4! or 8 d3. /9 H This is less flexible than 8 d3. i... Here Black a) Often played is 8 . and now Shatskes gives A2l 13 b5! lt:Jcd4 14 f4! :t 8 a3 (20) 9 libl . d6!?.. also has: transposing after 9 Il:b1 a5.. Il:2f2 lilb8 19 h4! 'it'e7 20 f5 ±. a6) .... a) 7 ... but 18 'it'el ! with 15lt:Jg3 with an attack.txd4 was 11 b4 cb 12 ab e5 = (with the idea Stolyar-Bikov. went 13 .. Instead.g7 is of interest. 7 d6 especially since White is some­ There are so many games with times able to profit from the move this line that I will limit myself to a4. when 13 d4? ed 14lt:Jxd4lt:Jxd4 15'it'xd4 14 lt:Je2 J.

.Litvinov­ (II .f5 15 1!Ve2 i..lt:Jd4!? lDe6 14lt:Jde3:!: Rapopov....tor 14 't!fd2 would Nei) 10 .lt:Je8 . Denver 1977.ie3 e5!? (12 . i. 5 e4 and 5 e3 23 9 h3(!).. cd 11 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 12 maintain the tension.. .. a6 9 h3 (9 lii: b1 lii:b8 10 a4 .ie3 h6 13 �h2 �h7 14 d4:!: A22 Watson-Williams...id2 and kingside play. B 9 . 11 d3 lt:Je8 c) 8 . 't!fxd4lt:Jxe4!? 13 't!fxe4 . lt:Jxe5.ie3 (II lt:Je8 11 . Minsk 1963. New York 1967. f5 18 ef gf 19 . .. .ie3 lt:Jd4 13 b4 ... lii: b 8 9 llb1 b6!? 10 d4( 10 h3 . lt:Jxd4 a4!.ig5 't!fe8 20 be 8 lt:J e8 ± Watson-Shean.. Black must be (Shatskes) is not too frightening. Illt:Ja4!? ..ie3 seems best. lDxd4 15 .ie5! =!= White lt:Jc7 13 i. and now 14 h3 .ie3!? (12 h3 with the idea . lt:Je6!?) 12 b4 ab 13 ab b6...ie3 and now Black can try II Here White emphasizes central . when 12 . USSR Ch 1958..... .ie3lt:Jc7 12 d4 t) 9 .lt:Jd4 14 a4lt:Ja6 = Taimanov­ 10 a4!lt:Je8 (10 . lt:Jd4.. a4) lt:Je8 11 ...lt:Jd4 13 b4 ab 14 ab t) 13 �h2 lt:Jd4 14 b4 ab 15 ab b6 16 't!fd2 lt:Jc7 17 llb2! (t intending lltbl or llfal) 17 .ig4. which is at least equal and perhaps 10 .xa1 16 g4!. or 14 ..... 12 .ig5 h6 13 ... lt:Je8 10 d3lt:Jc7 II .. to prevent.id7 space..t) II d3 lt:Je8 12 .ig5 . ..id7! =) II . lt:Jc7 13 b3 (13 d4 cd 14 10 . but this hasn't 21 been tried yet.id7 10 h3 with the idea f4 or here f4) 12 .ig4!? could use tests: 9 f3 12 ..ixe2! IIlt:Jxe2lt:Je8 12 d3 instead of 14 . New York 1979) 8 d3 (21) II ..d7 II llb1 e6 Gurgenidze.. Ritov­ 10 f3 Spassky.. and now 10 h3 . II d3 lt:Jc7 12 .ixd4+ 16 1!t'xd4lt:Je6 and 17 .id7 9 h3 't!fc8? ! 10 �h2 b) 9 .ie3 lt:Jc7 (II .id7!? 10 h3 Iii: b8 (I 0 . lt:Jd4 12 lt:Jd5lt:Jxd5! 12 edlt:Jd4 =..i g4! Others seem less desirable: a) 9 . very careful not to cede too much Better is 12 lii: b l!lt:Jc7(12 ..id7 better for White.. a) 8 . . 13 b4 cb 14 llxb4 t Azmaiparashvili- .ixc3. llb8 13 . Tallinn 1973.ig5! Shatskes) 12 d4 cd 13lt:Jxd4 lt:Je6 12lt:Jec3 . might be more accurate. Evans-Fischer. b) 8 .d2 b5! = intending 14 e5? had 14 be! i..ixd4 d) 8 .

This llJe6 (or l l . cd( 12 llbel . b6 I I e5! 14 lLlde2!. Taimanov-Suetin. I I .g. 14 . .. lt:lf6 6llJge2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 a3 ll:ab I .... lt:lc7 10 g4!? 11 h3 lt:ld4 (or 10 .ie6 14 b3 t Conclusion. .i e3 ( ! ) (22) ning h3. with the idea 'it'd2 Taimanov.... llJc7?! 10 d4 cd I I llJxd4 llJxd4 with central pressure. 10 . USSR 1981.llJc7 II b4 t.id7 14 b4 ab 15 ab llJxe2+ 16 lbg3 e6 and ... llJxe2 cb! 17 . b3. Hungary 1967.) 14 lt:lxe2 cb Filip-Giigoric.. 5 e4 remains a com­ Barcza-Szilagyi. lt:lc7 is possible.ib6 (17 lhb4 b5 + M. 9 ..ig l . 11 llJc7 12 f4 f5 Here M. lbe5 15 b3 b5 llJxe2+ 12 'i!t'xe2 litb8 13 d4! cd 14 16 f4) 14 lt:lde2! lt:lc5 15 l:lbl a5 16 ..g. 9 h3 has Sturua. e.icl! further investigation.id7 13 b4llJc7 lines give Black several methods . b6 .Gurevich­ B Gavrikov. plicated and unresolved way for 10 l:lbl White to conduct the game.. .b3 etc..ig4! 13 f3 f5 e6! ) II f4 f5 Taimanov...id7 favour White slightly... ll:b8 I I 5 .. :C:b8. lt:lxe2+? (13 .i xe5 . lLlxd4. 15 .id7 16 lhb4 ±.ixe5 17'it'xe5'it'd6 18'it'e3! t plan­ 9 ... Riga ·to aS 1954) 13 lt:lxd4 lt:le6 (13 . USSR 1980) 13 b4 14 f4 b6 15 h3 f5 16 �h2 ..Gurevich gives 13 'i!t'd2 9 liJd4 with the idea :!I bel.. 15 f4! . 10 .!. The Or 10 't!t'd2!?.ig4 12 f3 . I I ..llJc7 12 b4 t is A2 l above.. a5. Theory calls this equal. 12 = = .g...Gurevich) 17 .. lt:le8 already in. e.ixd4 de 15 . . lt:la5!? 13 b3 lt:le6 14llbl ..!.Gurevich­ With ..llJxe2+ 12llJxe2 a4 is unclear after 13 d4 or after the trade-off of weaknesses (b7 v a3) following b4. e. g4) may . 'i!t'c8 18 litxb4 22 lba6 19 liib l llJc5 + M.. Hamar 1980) 12 liJde2 lbc5 13 ll:cl .. 24 5 e4 and 5 e3 Chekhov.id7 12llbl !llJe6 and I I a3 llJxe2+ are areas for 13 liJde2 lbe5 14 b3llJg4 15 . .id7 10 .llbdl .if2. M. 17 b5 . and yet Otherwise I I ..ib6! .. 12 . b) On 1 1 a 3!?.ig4! 16 it'e3 b3. lLle6 I I f4llJed4 12 a) 1 1 b3?! llJc7 12 a3 .ic6.. e.. Moscow 01 1956. 9 .!. . ± Watson-Elseth.g. USSR 1983.ib7 18 a4 (with the ideas but then 12 d4 is :t. less point..

a) 5 .. but no one has to handle for Black. a6?! 6 li:lge2 b5? should Aarhus I983: 7 0-0 b6? 8 d4! cd be answered by 7 li:lxb5! (7 d4 t 9 li:lxd4 li:lfxd4 IOed . e6 witness Jakobsen-van der Wiel.txb7+ 'it'xb7 I8 llxb7 slavia 1981.Byrne. b5 proven more dangerous.. a6 9 llbi I2 .txd4 II . ......ib7 5 e3 (23) 10 llbi e6 (10 .. perhaps...txd5 with the idea . and now 12 f4! was �xb7 I9 ....... Barle-Savon.. Sousse I Z I967..td2 (12 0-0 li:lge7 I3 f4 0-0-0 llb8 I 0 .. �fl ±±:) 9 . e.tb7 10 'it'e2 e6 II li:ld3 h6 of this note) 8 b3 b6 (8 ..... d4.txb2 I3 llxb2 1!t'e7 I4 23 B 'it' aI! li:lg7 I5 h4 f5 I6 li:lg5 ±(the threat of li:lgxe6 means White gets d4 in) Geller-R.tg6 with the idea 'it'd6 is very strong: 12 .... in both second player.tb2 0-0 9 d3 d6 (9 .... 't!ld7 8 li:le2 b6 is similar. II 0-0 . llb8 8 d3 b6 9 b3 and lt:Jh3-f4) 7 .g..txb2 I3 llxb2 ::t.. li:lb4 9 .tg4. b2) 7 b3 a6 8 . Bl 5 .txa8 li:ld3+ I 0 lii: ei be I5 llbi a6(15 ... since I6 . e5 As an illustration of how easy it B2 5 ..ih6 Taimanov) 7 . c) 5 .g. but 8 d3 has .. 0-0-0!PCN... II cb ab I2 li:le4 . li:le8 lines seem best for the 'it'b6 14 li:lf4! Shatskes. Miles. li:lf3+ 13 �g2 or unplayable for Black) I6 ..tb7 I3 c5! 't!lc7 I4 li:le5 (8 . d6 lvkov) II li:lf4 d6 I2 li:le4 .. g6? see the end 9 li:lf4 . e6 without further weak­ 8 ening his kingside) 9 .tf3. b) 5 ... li:ld3 13 a4 'it'a5 (otherwise I7 llxe7+! I-0.. Yugo­ li:lxe7 I7 .. ab 8 cb. for 7 . 14 a5) 14 .tc3 .. 5 e4 and 5 e3 25 to achieve good play. li:lf6 is for these lines to become critical.li:lh6 6li:lge2li:lf5 is difficult in the first edition. picked it up: 6 de!? d6 7 e4 (7 h4!? b l )7 0-0 0-0 (7 . Tiiburg I977. B3 5 .tf4 't!Vc8 12 ....tb2 .td7 I2li:ld5 I4 b4!?) I2 ... li:lge7 13 0-0-0 0-0-0 .....ib2 d6 II d3 ...txc3+ was modestly touted . llb8 10 0-0 b5 II llbi t intending lt:Je4) IO 0-0 ... e.tc6+ �f8 but then I6 llxe7!. or here 10 ... as of now....td7 II 't!td2!? llb8 I2 li:le4 'it'a5 I3 ...txc3 I2 be .txc3 I4 li:lexc3 b5 15 llfei lii:fc8 16 lladi White's most fundamental move.. 'it'd8!? I7 li:ld5 'it'f8 oo Andersson­ preparing li:lge2 and.txa8 d5 10 . cases Black suffers from an inability to play . 8 ..txb2 I3 llxb2 the 8 .....

Some examples of delayed cast­ Better is 6 be(!) b6 7 lt:lge2 . a6?! 9 b4!) 9 d3 (9 . e5 and bad due to 8 .and l l li:la4 b6 12 d4. 7 0-0 8 b3 This gives the best chances for some kind of edge. But 9 0-0! d5 10 cd Bl li:lxd5.. and now two interesting 5 e5 ideas of Keene's are II lt:le4 b6 6 lt:lge 2 lt:lge7 (24) 12 lt:lf4!!? intending 12 .. 0-0-0 looks reasonable for lt:le7! 16 lt:lxe7+ Wxe7 17 0-0 c4! =F Black. Rostov 1971.tb2 used to be thought e) 5 . Padevsky-Gurgenidze.te6(or Commons.. 8 li:lf4 t or 8 d4 ...g... b) 7 a3 d6 8 lil:bl a5 (or 8 .. b5!? 7 lt:lge2 lt:lf5 8 a3 lib8 9 liibI Gipslis) 9 li:ld5 0-0 10 0-0 . Speelman­ a) 7 d3 d6 8 a3 0-0 9 lib! . c) 7 b3!? d6 8 ...td2 b5 13 cb? (13 1We8 is unclear...tb7 14 0-0 ab li:lxd5 15 li:lxd5 b5 + Lysenko­ 'ira8 15 lt:lc3 .... . d6 6 lt:lge2 ...td7 (6 .26 5 e4 and 5 e3 14 Ilfel 'irc7 15 h4 .txc6+ 'i!. 'i!>b8 12 . 9 li:ld5 .tb7 ling: 8 d3 d6 9 0-0 1i'd7 10 e4.. which 9 .ta6 16 b3 b5! 7 0-0 + Benko-Tarjan. f5 Angantysson-Tarjan. 0-0 0-0 II llc l b6 12 a3 Wd7 +with Hungary 1967) 7 0-0 h5 (7 .. Lone Pine 1978. . li:lh6 lt:le7 =.th3 II lt:lec3 a6 12 . e.. 0-0-0 is best.td7 12 lt:lec3 liib8 13 b4 cb! 14 lt:lxb5 liixb5 13 1Wc2 . f5(?) II li:lf4 0-0-0 \12-\12.... to save a tempo by 8 e4 d6 9 0-0. 6 .. Vilnius 1969. 't!t"c8 the idea ... 14 d4 is ±.tg4! II li:ld6?! 10 d3 b5 II cb lt:lxb5 12 h3 . II .txc3 16 Wxc3 ± Karpov.t) 8 h3 t ECO. Varna 1975. li:lxf4 13 lt:lf6+! .9 ..td5 lt:le5 li b8 13 lt:lc3 d5 14 a4 f5 is unclear. ab 14 b4li:lxd5 15li:lxd5 = 10 . Prague 1985) and on II li:lf4.t xd5 6 . or here 9 d3 d5.. Botvinnik's idea..txf6 14 .. Lone Pine 1979. The position after b4 ) 13 . Donchev-Adorjan... Lone Pine 1978.tf5 10 d3 li:lxd5 II cd d) 5 . although in the second case mass exchange on d4 should equalize...>f8 24 w 15 ef lilc8 16 fe! ±. ...te6 9 lLld5(?) .te6 with the option of d4 in one move..tf5 7 d3 10 cd lt:lb4. lt:lf6 transpose. White might consider trying Kupka-Faibisovich. So 10 . h5 6 h4 (6 h3 t) 6 .. 10 h5 8 h3 1Wc8 9 a3 t Sapi-Forintos. (10 .. 8 a3 d6 (8 . a5 10 0-0 lilb8) 10 li:ld5 lilb8 went 10 . b5!? II lt:lxe7+ lt:lxe7 12 cb although here 12 ef! gf 13 ..

tal) 15 . .ac l ....te6 14 .bl ed 14 't!t'xd3 mally !" Taimanov) Polugayevsky­ cb 15 ab ll:le5 =F Adorjan) 12 .b8! 11 ll:lec3 a6 12 .te6?! 10 ll:le4! h6 II d4 ed B2 12 ed f5 l 3 lLld2 cd l 4ll:lf3 o!(Keene.tb2? (17 a4 London 1978. 16 ll:lxe7+ 'irxe7 17 .tf5 II ll:lxe7+ could consider the useful waiting 't!t'xe7 12 d3 e4! 13 ll:lf4 ed 14 e4 move 12 h3!?.. but 13 h3 f5?! (13 .... 'ird7 12 6 0-0 ¢>h2 . Otherwise he can . Moscow 01 1956) 9 ...tf5 20 e4 .td7 21 lia l f5 ( 15 .tg4! 14 h3 ... e6 and 6 ..te6 15 ll:ld5?! 19 d5 . e. ll:lge7 10 d3 a6 instead?). Zeven­ It's a bit illogical to play 6 . Better is 12 .. �h8 13 Adorjan. �h8 13 .te6 15ll:ld5 is useless. 12 't!t'a5 8 d6 Now 12 . White Bugojno 1984 (by transposition). b5 Bobotsov. II ll:le4! as in 'a') II ..ie6 14ll:le4 't!t'xd2 15 llxd2("Mini­ lib! (12 b4 e4! 13 Ir....t b2 (25) h3 ..... 5 e4 and 5 e3 27 ll:bl .te6 15 b3 ll:ab8 = Pachman­ play 12 llfdl contemplating central Botvinnik.. 't!t'd7 16 ct>h2? .. Birmingham 1973. action. The other course 12 ll:ad1 is 7 ll:lf4!? 0-0 8 0-0. 5 ll:lf6 based on Lein). Adorjan.t Stahlberg-Bobotsov.. and Larsen-Tal. Tbilisi 1967: 13 h3 ...te6 10 ll:ld5 Ir.ta l f5 15 f4 �h8 16 't!t'cl ll:lb4 17 lld2 .te6 11ll:ld5(or 6 d4 generally transposes. An interesting juncture. .. but 7 d4 only transposes 11 'ird2 b5 to the next section. 6 ll:lge2 b) 9 . Le Havre 1966. a) 9 .te6.. (why not 5 .. ) 17 .. 'it'a5!? 13 llac l . 't!t'd7) 14 f4 d5 15 fe is also poor: 15 .te6! 10 ll:ld5 . The 13 cb ab 14 b4ll:lxd5 15ll:lxd5ll:le7 game MacPherson-van der Sterren. de 16 ll:lf4 . ll:le7 23 fe de 24 e4! Petrosian.txd5 =F (c-pa wn and attack) Bertok­ 17 cd ll:lb4 +.ta l . c4 18 d4 'ira7! = Ir.g..tg4 10 h3! ... e6!? aar 1961. .ic8 17 ll:lcd5! or 15 . ..tg4 14 9 .. 12 . at least !) 23 fe de 24 9 lib8 't!t'xc5 lieS 25 'it'd6 ±±. d4 16 ed cd 17 ll:ld5 o!. The text is Lein-Polugayevsky..ig8 18 �h2 libd8 19 llfdl h6!? 20 a3 ll:lbc6 21 ll:ld5! ll:lxd5 22 cd ll:lb8? (22 . went 12 .

Zagreb . but 1 1 li d l looks better for be 1 3 ll:Ja4 ll:Je4 ! . .S>xg7 1 4 i.a6 1 0 i.a3 !? the idea II . . .xc6 be 1 5 f3 !) is 9 d4!: 9 . xg7 The most common try. . Others: with the idea 't!Vb2. ll:Ja5 1 4 't!t'c2 i.b7 1 1 't!Vd2!? (not II de de 1 2 i. 1 5 . but II a3 ( ! ) has White) 9 .b2! ± Petrosian-Giigoric.xc6?! Tal. 8 . b5 1 2 eb ab l 3 de ! de 1 4 York 1 978) lO . the hanging pawns) 14 .g.a3 ( ! ) 11 cd de 1 4 d 5 t Watson-Denker.. . . . i.d7 14 li c l e6 1 5 ll:Jd3 ll:Je8 16 i.h3 1 1 d5 i. be 1 4 de . a6? II de! de 12 ll:Ja4 and 1 2 16 ll:Je4 ll:Jxe4 17 i. ll:Jd7 1 3 ened. . . . . . ..g5?! h6 1 0 idea 1 4 . .. d5 II lie l li c8 12 d3 intending i. Copenhagen 1 965. . lifc8 ( 1 2 . but 9 d5! intending 9 . i. Vilnius 1 966) 8 i. 9 b3 a6 ll:J a 5 1 0 b3 o r 9 . . Stip 1 977. e6 c) 8 .trs 9 b3 litb8 1 0 i.. . but White ll:J xg7 1 7 't!Vd2 't!t'c7 1 8 li fd 1 ± is better in any case. or 1 2 .g4 1 2 't!Vd2 i.g4 ! ? 9 h3 i. 't!Vxd l ? 1 3 lii: a xd 1 lLld7 1 4 i. . 1 0 i.28 5 e4 and 5 e3 continued 8 . but why allow 7 . working against 1 2 ll:Jd4 t Rogoff. cd 8 ed e6!? 9 i. Bled 1 96 1 ) l O . i. i.b2 (or l O d5 t. 1 1 b3 't!t'd7 1 2 'it>h2 d 5 ! 1 3 i..e3!? (or 7 d6 13 cb t) 13 .a6 !? 10 1!t'a4 i. a6 1 2 l:tfdI d4 !? =/oo. ll:Jc3 Kavalek­ a) 8 cd 9 ed i.b2 ( 10 i.. .xg7 't!Vxb2 ± Pytel-Kupka.f5 1 0 d5 ! ( 1 0 h3 h5 .g5 R..xg7 c. .. . .xa4 1 5 ba t Mikenas-Suetin.e3 ll:Je7! = was RaiC:evic-Hort. Bucharest 1 966. . ll:Je 7!?) 9 b3!? (consistent i. Or 7 0-0. .xe4 i. e.c3) 1 1 . a6 1 2 de de 13 ll:Ja4 ± Tal) 10 . . .xc6 ±. . ed 1 0 cd i s better. . .b2 li b8 1 1 't!Vd2 Or II de!? de 1 2 ll:Ja4! b6 l 3 ltJf4 't!Vc8 ( 1 3 . .xb2 1 8 . .xe2 10 ll:J xe2 again? cd 1 1 ed d5 12 c5 b6 13 i. New 1 1 . . . . 't!Vb6 1 5 b) 8 . . N eamtu. e6 ( 1 0 . Byme­ i. or 8 0-0 (26) 1 0 lii: e 1 i. .. . Balcerowski.xg2 1 2 'it>xg2 ll:Ja5 1 3 't!Vd2 't!Vd8 1 4 ll:Jc 1 a6 15 lil b l lii: b8 16 a4 lLld7 1 7 lite! ± Hort-Hamman. h l i. 't!Vc8 l O i. .b2 't!Va5 lLlf4 is ideal for White.t with the 7 . e5 15 i.h3 II i.. . . ll:Je5 II b3 't!Vc8 lii: fd 1 (or 14 lii: a e l . cd!? t) 1 3 de de 1 4 7 d4 ll:Ja4 !. b6!? (9 d4 is threat­ and 15 i. Varna 01 1 962. .. . 9 . .xe2 1 3 l he2 cd 14 ed 't!Vg4 1 5 i. . .

b4. White is very slightly better.d7?! 1 4 lLle4 i. 12 .xg7 �xg7 2 1 lil: fc 1 Options to mix it up: intending lLlc5.b2 b5 1 1 d3 i.b7 12 1!t'e2 ll:b8. . i. 5 e4 and 5 e3 29 1 977.c3 ll ac8!? ( 1 9 .c6 1 5 lLl d6+ �d7 16 i. Banja Luka 7 . e. xc6 lLlxc6 1 8 lLla4 intending This is Black's least ambitious lLlc5 K oval:evic) 17 �xg2 lLlc6 1 8 continuation. . . . . 7 0-0 lil:d5 !?) 20 i. be interesting) 1 0 lil: b 1 lil:b8 1 1 b4 or here 10 1!t'b3 d4 1 1 d3! t Tal. lLl a 7 1 5 lLl d4 b 4 1 6 b) 7 d4 (!) is probably best as it limits lLlce2 lLlb5 1 7 lHe 1 ll: e8 1 8 lLl xb5 Black's options in the main line: ± with the idea 1 9 lLld4) 15 lLld4 7 . 9 a3 (9 b3 a6 ally won..d7 1 5 0-0 i. . Camaguey 1 974. . �xc6 1 7 lLlc4 1 7 i. .f8?! 9 ed d5 10 cd lLl xd5 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 18 lLlce2 lil:ec8 1 9 lLlf4 (planning 't!fb3 and 1 2 lLl xd5 cd 1 3 1!t'a4 !? are lLld3-b4) 19 .c6 16 b4 ±) 14 lil: c 1 i. f5 1 7 i. . .d2 w 0-0 (Makarichev gives two instruc­ tive lines: 1 3 . Gausdal 1978.f3 i.xb2 - 18 ll b 1 ± intending �e2.xc3!? would lLl xd5 9 lLl xd5 ed 10 lLlf4 ! t Hort. d5?! is premature due to 8 cd 1 974) 9 . 9 cd lLlxd5 1 0 lLl xd5 lLlxd4 1 1 lLl c3 B3 lLlc6 1 2 't!fxd8+ lLl xd8 and one can 5 e6 see that the omission of 0-0/ . .g. . cd 8 lLlxd4 d5!? (8 . cb 12 ab b5 13 cb ab 1 4 't!fb3 d5?! 8 d4 cd 1 5 lLld3! 't!fb6 16 lLl c5 d4 1 7 lLlce4 9 lLlxd4 . went 13 i. . . 1 0 i. . . . White's a) After 7 lLl f4 0-0 8 0-0 d6 B lack pressure persisted. Hort-Planinc. Tilburg 1 98 1 . . a6 (9 . b5 1 3 cb ab 14 d5 ( ±) 14 . . and 1 3 . i. a 5 ! ? with draw but challenging White to the idea 1 9 a3 a4 20 lLld6 lla6! achieve more. . i. aiming for only a lLle4 n fd8 (perhaps 1 8 . . Makarichev) 1 9 i. 0-0 6 lLlge2 lLl ge7 (2 7) makes a difference.xc6 �xd6 - 16 . . and Andersson­ 27 Miles.f5 1 9 lLld6 lil: bd8 20 lLlxf5 12 ed lLl xf5 2 1 ll:a 1 ± G. . �e7 !? 1 4 ll: c 1 i. lLlxd4 'i!t'b6 1 6 llfe 1 llfe8 1 7 ll: a c l i. .d7 1 5 0-0 i. . .. . . ll:la5 ( 1 4 . 7 0-0 about =. e5 1 8 d3 i.Garcia-Estevez. . . lLle8 20 lLlc6! ±± discussed in the main line below) Pytel-Wentman. a 3 . .c6 1 6 llc2! (t) 1 6 .xg2 ( 1 6 . and he eventu­ must be careful. .

. . ( 1 5 llae I with the idea f3 is t) 15 .b2 f5 1 4 'i!Yd2 h6 1 5 lt:lb5 !? i.ixb2 1 6 'i!Yxb2 a6 1 7 lt:ld4 g5 1 8 e.g. . lLl c6. lt:lb6 13 lild l is similar. Botvinnik-Gligoric. allow this line. . . lt:lxd5 ed 1 4 1rc5 lle8 1 5 1rxd5 went 13 'i!Ya4!? 'i!Yb6 1 4 . . . that 7 d4( !). i. .e3 12 'i!Yb3! (28) .ie3 ( 1 2 lt:lc3 lt:lxd4 = .ie3 i. ed?! is worse after either 17 'i!Yb4. or 1 3 .ie6 1 5 ll ac l I I . . . 'i!Yb6 13 lt:lxd5!? ed 14 i.f4! renews the threat.if6) 1 5 i. b) 12 .id7 ! 1 3 a game Velez-Boudy. Perhaps 1 3 . e5 1 6 a5 i.xd5 Creating the most problems for 17 'it'xd5 lilcd8 18 'i!Yc5 i. . After 1 5 . Wijk aan Zee 1 969. and now 1 3 .e6 = 1Wxb6 i. . 13 .g. was Forintos-Sapi. 28 Hastings 1 96 1 -62. B 1rd7 1 4 1rb3 llad8 i s =. Bucharest 1 976. . .ig5 f6 ( 1 4 . . . ll fc8 =. a S 16 lild4 f6 11 cd lt:lxd5 1 7 lil xd4 ! or 1 5 . on account of 10 cd lt:lxd5! ( 10 . . .ig4 1 3 lle l . 1 6 13 i. . lt:le7 13 d5 ed 1 4 i.xd4 1 4 i. 10 ed d5 'i!Yxb3 1 5 a b with the idea lt:lb6/ lt:lc5 10 . 1 2 1rb3 i. . .g4! 1 3 lt:lc3 lt:l xd4 +) 1 2 .ie3 ( 1 4 �g4! +.ie3 and 13 'i!Yb3 etc.xd4 1 9 Black.e6! 14 'i!t'xb7 t Kest1er-Pavlov. . and ( I I 1rb3 lt:l a5 ! 12 1rc2 .. . . ed I I 1rb3 lt:l xd4 1 2 ed lt:lf5 1 3 1rxd5 'i!Yxd5 1 4 lt:lxd5 lt:lxd4 1 5 .g5 h6 H ere I I lie I l0xd4 12 ed 'tWb6 is 15 . or the play lt:lf5 14 d5 etc. . a game Bukhman-Suetin) . . .ixd5 i.xb6 20 i. Cuba 1982. . .ig5 t Benko-Geller. Havana 1 965.ig5! or 1 2 .. instead we get the lle8 1 5 . doesn't e. . . which follows: yet 14 lt:l a4 ( or 14 'it'a 3!?) 14 .e6 I I . . 9 lt:lxd4 9 . . . Hungary 1 969.h3 =) 1 4 .30 5 e4 and 5 e3 9 ed d5 1 0 cd lLl xd5 I I lt:l xd5 i. with the idea 15 .xd4 = has often been seen. i. I 0 . 'W'b6. instead of 7 0�.ie6 1 5 ll ac l llac8 16 i. lt:lxd4 I I ed lt:lxd5 trans­ poses) I I lt:l xd5 lt:l xd4! = Larsen­ Now Black has a wide choice: Matulovic. But the interesting thing here is But 1 3 lld I ! causes more trouble. a) 12 . d5 may be more accurate. .xd4?? 14 .... . . .xb6 a b 2 1 llfd I or here 1 3 'i!t'b3 i. 1 2 .e3 ±±.h6 lle8 1 5 a4! f3 t Doda-Fischer. c) 12 . . 1 2 lt:lxd5 ed 1 3 . ... xd5 i. ending of that note. 13 . ed 12 . . Palma de Mall orca 1967. d6 ! ? I I d5 e5 1 2 b3 e4!? is not so easy .ixe7 'i!Yxe7 16 lt:l xd5 'i!Ye5 = also equal.

5 e4 and 5 e3 31

d) 1 2 ... .txd4 (!) is the most critical, 1 8 't!Vc3+ 1!t'f6 1 9 1!t'xf6+ ct>xf6 20
e.g. 13 .th6 ( ! ) lle8? 14 llad l .txc3 llc7 lla5! and if 2 1 .txb7, 2 1 . . .
15 be 'ti'b6 1 6 'ti'c4 't!rc6 17 'ti'e2! b5 .te6 =.
18 .tg5 .tb 7 19 'ti'e5 llac8 20 11 fe I !
.ta8 (now the pawn can't be taken Conclusion. This last line, with
- if 20 . . . 11t'xc3 then 21 'ti'xc3 and 22 5 e3 e6 6 lLlge2 lLlge7, remains the
.txd5) 2 1 h4 't!rc5 (21 . . . 't!rxc3? 22 most serious drawback to using 5 e3
lld5 ! ) 22 .txd5! .txd5 23 .th6 f6 as a winning weapon. Andersson's
24 'ti'xf6 llc7 25 .te3 'ife7 26 'ife5 order with 7 d4 ( ! ), howjv er, gives
:±± Cardoso-Torre, Manila 1973. White some hope of m � ing Black
13 . . . .tg7 ! is better. After 14 suffer for such unimaginative play .
.txg7 ct>xg7 White should try for The endings in that line are defen­
a small edge by 1 5 ll fd l 11t'b6 1 6 sible, but slightly better for White.
lLl xd5 1!t'xb3 1 7 ab ed 1 8 ll xd5 ! a6 Otherwise, 7 lLlf4 is the best bet to
1 9 b4 t Smyslov-Petrosian, U SSR keep the pieces on and try for a
Ch 1 974. A similar but probably specific advantage later on.
less desirable line (for White) goes As regards the other replies to
1 3 lLlxd5!? ed 1 4 .th6 .tg7 ( 1 4 . . . 5 e3, 5 . . . lLlf6 is inferior because
lle8 1 5 llad 1 ;;!;) 1 5 .txg7 ct>xg7 it cedes a central advantage, and
1 6 .txd5, Andersson-Gheorghiu, 5 . . . e5 is a viable and complex
Moscow 1 98 1 . B lack found 16 . . . system offering chances for both
a 5 ! 1 7 llac l ( 1 7 llfd 1 !?) 1 7 . . . a4 sides.

3 5 �f3 �f6 (with . . . d5 lines)

In this chapter we look at assorted 5 . . . g6 6 i.g2 i.g7 7 lt:lxd5 'tWxd5
ideas in the Pure S ymmetrical with 8 d3 lt:lc6 is ' B ' below, and here 7
lt:lf3, mainly involving . . . d5 ideas 'tWa4+!? lt:lc6 8 1rc4 lt:ldb4 9 0-0
by Black. The first of these is: 'tWaS is equal.
A I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 3 lt:lf3 d5 4 cd 6 i. g2
lt:lxd5 5 g3 a) 6 'i!t'b3?! lt:lc7 + (or 6 . . . e6) is a
Moves other than 5 g3 in this good version of the Rubinstein
position are dealt with in Chapter System - Chapter 6.
8. Also, the few lines where Black b) 6 lt:lxd5(?!) (this can always be
plays . . . d5 and . . . g6 withou t . . . played later, u nless White is afraid
lt:lc6 are i n Chapter 8, line D . of 6 .ig2 lt:lc7, again Chapter 6)
The next two sections introduce 6 . . . 'tWxd5 7 .ig2 e5 (7 . . . g6 is 'B'
I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:l c6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 below) 8 d3 (8 0-0 .ie7 9 e3?! e4!
i.g7 5 lt:lf3 lt:lf6: 1 0 lt:lei i.f5 II 'i!t'a4 'tWe6 ! 12 d3
B 6 0-0 d5 .ig4! 13 'tWc2 lt:l b4 + Ree-Smej kal,
C 6 d4 and 6 0-0 0-0, I ntroduction Amsterdam 1 975) 8 ... 'tWd7 ( inten­
A ding . . . i.d6, . . . 'i!t'e7) 9 0-0 i.d6
1 c4 c5 10 i.e3 ( 10 lLld2! =) 10 . . . 0-0 II
2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 lil c l 'tWe7 12 ltld2 .id7 13 lt:l e4 b6
3 lt:lf3 d5 I4 lt:l xd6 'tWxd6 + A.Schneider­
4 cd lt:l xd5 Portisch, H ungary 1 984.
5 g3 lt:lc6 (29) 6 g6 (30)

29 JO
w w

5 lbf3 lbf6 (with ... d5 lines) 33

H ere 6 . . . e5? 7 ltl xe5! ltl xc3 8 8 1t'c2 i.g4! or 8 't!t'h4 i.g7 9 d3 h6
i.xc6+ be 9 de 1t'c7 10 1t'a4! is or 8 't!t'b5 ltld7 9 d3 ..tg7 1 0 i.e3
a blunder, and 6 . . . ltlxc3 7 be lt:ld4. Instead, practice has seen
g6 transposes to a Griinfeld-like 7 . . . i.g7 8 ltlg5 ! ? (8 't!t'b5 ltldb4
position which is discussed in my 9 0-0 't!t'a5 ! =; 8 't!t'c4 ltldb4 9 0-0
English II. 't!t'a5 1 0 ltle4 1t'a6! I I Wxc5 b6 1 2
7 d3 'i!t'e3 0-0!- 12 . . . lbc2 13 lbd6+ -

a) 7 0-0 i.g7 is ' B ' below. 1 3 ltl e l i.e6 1 4 ltlc3 ll ac8 1 5
b) 7 d4!? i.g7 8 0-0 ltl xc3 (8 ... cd i.xc6 ltlxc6 1 6 d 3 lLl b4 1 7 i.d2 b5!
9 ltl xd4 ltlxd4 1 0 ltlxd5 i.g4!? or =F K aiszauri-Georgadze, Tbilisi
1 0 . . . i.e6; 8 . . . ltl xc3 9 be 0-0 is a 1 977) 8 . . . e6 9 ltlge4 ltlb6! 10 tt'b5
Griinfeld Defence) 9 be cd 1 0 cd c4 I I ltla4 0-0 1 2 ltlxb6 ab 13 't!t'xc4
ltl xd4 I I ltl xd4 1t'xd4 1 2 llb I e5 14 't!t'c2 ltld4 1 5 Wb l f5 1 6 ltlc3
(possibly 1 2 1t'xd4 i.xd4 1 3 ll b l e4 (or 16 . . . i.e6 intending . . . i.b3
is more accurate, e.g. 1 3 . . . i.b6 Karpov) with a strong initiative,
14 i.h6) 1 2 . . . 0-0 13 i.e3 tt'c4! Tatai-Karpov, Las Palmas 1 977.
1 4 1t'd2 i.e6 1 5 llxb7 llad8 = 7 i.g7
Ribli-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 8 i.d2
1 983. 8 ltl xd5 transposes to 'B'.
c) 7 ltlgS e6! ; see 7 0-0 i.g7 8
= 8 0-0!?
ltlg5 e6 below. 7 ltlg5 ltlb6 8 d3 Perhaps more accurate is 8 . . .
ltld7 9 0-0 ..tg7 = Djuric-Bertok, e6 ( ! ) 9 't!t'c l b 6 1 0 i. h 6 0-0 I I h4
Yugoslavia 1 97 8 . f6 ! 1 2 0-0 i. b7 1 3 i.xg7 �xg7 1 4
d) 7 1t'b3? ltldb4! ( o r 7 . . . ltlb6! tt'd2 e5 1 5 e3 ltlc7! 1 6 ll fd l lt:le6 +
8 ltle4 e5! 9 d3 9 d4?! c4! 9 . . .
- - (central bind) Ptleger-Sigurjonsson,
.i. e6 1 0 tt'd 1 f6 + Szabo-Miles, M unich 1 979.
Hastings 1 973-74; 7 . . . ltlc7?! 8 9 tt'cl (31)
ltlg5 ! e6 9 i.xc6+ be 10 d3 ;!;; 7 . . .
e6!? 8 d3 ..tg7 9 i.g5! and 9 . . . ltld4? 31
1 0 1t'xd5 ! ! or 9 . . . tt'b6 1 0 tt'xb6 ab 8

I I i.d2 ;!; Uhlmann) 8 ltle4!? (8 a3
ltla5 9 1t'd I lLl bc6 10 d3 i.e6 I I
ltld2 0-0 +; 8 d3 i.g7) 8 . . . i.g7 9
ltl xc5 1t'a5 1 0 lt:le4 i.f5 1 1 ltl fg5
0-0 1 2 e3 h6 1 3 ltlh3 i.e6! H
planning . . . i.c4, Webb-Miles,
England 1 975.
e) 7 't!t'a4 ltlb6 ( ! ) looks good, e.g.

34 5 ltJj3 ltJf6 (with . . d5 lines)
.

9 0-0 b6 and now 1 0 ltJxd5 'tlt'xd5
I I .tc3 i.b7!, or 10 'iWa4 i.b7 I I
32
ltJxd5 'it'xd5 1 2 ltJg5 'it'd7 1 3 .tc3 w
h6 = Spiridonov-Bukic, Bajmok
1 980, or 1 0 lii: b l i.b7 I I a3 e6 1 2
'iWa4, K arlsson-Vadasz, Ere van
1 980, when 12 . . . a6 or 12 . . . ltJd4 is
equal.
9 b6
Good seems 9 . . . ltJc7 ! , e.g. 1 0
i.h6 ltJe6 I I h 4 f6! intending . . .
ltJed4. 9 . . . ltJxc3 1 0 be c4!? I I d4
e5 =, I vkov-M iles, Amsterdam 8 ltJ xd5
1 976, is also playable, or here 1 0 This time White has some mter­
. . . e 5 I I 0-0 c4!? 1 2 d e ltJa5 1 3 c5, esting options:
Uhlmann-Smej kal, Vrbas 1 977, a) 8 d3!? sacrifices the c-pawn for
and now best is 13 . . . 'iWc7! 14 i.e3 the sake of quick development and
i.e6! . open lines, e.g. 8 ... ltJxc3 9 be .txc3
1 0 .th6 .tb7!? 10 ll b i i.g7 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I i. h6 or
Better is 10 . . . e6! - see Pfleger­ I I 't!t'a4!?) I I 'it'c2 't!t'd6 12 i.e3 b6
Sigurjonsson above. After 10 . . . ( 1 2 . . . ltJd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 i.f4) 1 3
.tb7!? Uhlmann-Aiburt, Bucharest i.f4 't!t'd7 I 4 d4! ;t ( J 4 . . . cd I 5 ltJe5)
1 978, continued I I h4 ltJf6 12 h 5 ! Speelman-A dy, London I 985.
ltJd4 1 3 h g ltJxf3+ 1 4 .txf3 .txh6 ! The problem with 8 d3 is that
1 5 'iWxh6 i.xf3 1 6 ef fg oo. after 8 . . . 0-0! White must transpose
Altogether a good line for Black, by e ither 9 ltJxd5 or 9 i.d2.
barring White's transposition to b) 8 't!t'a4 ltJ b6! looks good, but
'B'. 8 . . . 0-0 9 't!t'c4 is less clear, e.g. 9 . . .
8 ltJxc3 10 dd!i'b6 ( 1 0 ... b6?! I I ltJg5!
1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJ c6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 i.b7? I2 ltJe6! Uhlmann) I I 't!t'h4!?
.tg7 5 lfjf3 ltJf6 6 0-0: lle8 I 2 lii: b i ltJe5!? I 3 ltJxe5 .txe5
6 d5 1 4 b4 cb I 5 i.e3 'iWa6 16 'tlt'xb4 :t
7 cd Uhlmann.
I f 7 d3 then Black simply plays c) 8 'tlt'b3 e6 (8 . . . ltJc7?! 9 ltJg5 ! 0-0
7 ... (}.0 and there is nothing better 1 0 .txc6 :t, but 8 . . . ltJdb4? with the
than 8 cd, transposing to another idea 9 a3 ltJ a5 or 8 . . . ltJb6 9 'tlt'b5
line. ltJd7 looks reasonable) 9 'ilt'c4?
7 ltJ xd5 (32) (9 'irb5 .b6 =; 9 d 3 0-0 1 0 .tg5

.ie3 (or 1 0 .ibner­ 33 = van der Wiel. ..if4 e5 ( 1 2 b4 't!t'a2! 1 3 't!t'b3 ! =.. . .14 . .. l0d4 14 . 8 't!t'xd5 c) 1 0 a3 is rather weak. e. 14 . . . l0d4! with 1 3 . . 't!t'd6?! 10 . . .ib7 1 2 .id7) I I I I ... Wij k aan Zee 1 979. rather I I . 1973.Garcia. 15 l!Jxe5 .id7 may also transpose.intending a5 .ig5 't!t'd7 (or I I .ie3 l!Jxe2 sufficed for an eventual draw b6 =. 1 2 . . . . . 't!t'd7 13 l0xd5 0-0-0 14 Played al most exclusively now. .if5 =) 12 . . . a) 9 . . . 't!t'h5!? I I lirb l .ie3 l0d4 + Ribli-Miles.-c2! l0d4 1 3 l0 xd4 cd 1 4 . . . US Ch 1 977. .id7 1 2 Zee 1 985) I I l0xd5 ( I I l0d6+ 'i!le7 llac l b 6 1 3 b4!? l0 e 5 1 4 't!t'd l cb 12 l0xd5+ ed 13 l0xf7 l0e5 ! ) I I .. 1 2 a4 . Wijk aan b) 10 t!t'a4!? 't!t'h5 ! I I . Leningrad IZ Miles..ixg2 13 lit b l .ib7 1 3 . but impor­ 9 d3 0-0 (33) tant due to other move orders.. .id2 e5 was =F in G.ih3 (or .) 1 0 l0xd5 9 l0xd5 etc: .if4 e5 14 .ie3 .ig4 - l0d4 1 3 't!t'xb7). . 10 . . . Portoroz 1 977.ie3 . .i e3 ( ! ) but 12 . . .id4 1 2 l0 xd4 cd �xg2 't!t'd5 ! 14 't!t'c2 b6 Larsen­ = 1 3 .ie3 b) 9 .g. . 0-0 is note 'b' to 1 0 .id7 ( 1 0 . . . b6 I I litb l ( I I d4!? cd 1 2 1 2 e5 't!t'f5 1 3 d4) I I lOgS 't!t'f5 1 2 . . . .ixa8 llxa8 ==/m e d 1 2 l0 c3 l0e7 + (centre) Browne­ Estevez-Uhlmann.g. Amsterdam 1 978) 12 .ib7 1 3 't!t'h4 l0de7! 1 4 g4 f6 1 5 . .id7 I I lLlg5 't!lf5 !12-!12 e5 1 5 . 5 l0j3 l0/6 (with .ixe5 16 .. .ih6 t Chess Player) Bukic. . 'it'f5!? I I e4 't!t'f6 c l ) 10 . Lein-Zu ckerman..if4!? 't!t'e6 ( 1 0 .ie3 't!t'h5 1 3 l0xd4 l0 xd4 1 4 . d) 8 lOgS e6 9 l0 ge4 (9 d3!? 0-0! 10 l0xd5 ed I I lt:lh3 =) 9 .ib7 !? gives up a pawn after 1 1 lt:lxd5 ed 1 2 l0c3. 10 l0d2!? b5 I I l0c4 't!t'c7 than 1 3 . d5 lines) 35 l0d4! I I l0xd4 't!t'xg5 Hi.ixb2!? ( 1 0 c2 ) 10 . .id2 t. with the idea b4) 1 0 . llb8 ==) I I .ie3 .if4 c3) 10 . .ig7 ( I I .Dzindzihashvili.. Lanzarote 1 977. 5 l0f3 l0f6 6 0-0 0-0 7 a3 d5 8 cd but W hite ca n also try ( e. . . . l0c3 lithe8 1 5 litb l l0d4! 1 6 't!t'xa7 Others: .ixa8 l0xa2+ and 15 . b6 I 0 't!t'a4 .ie3. .. Wijk aan Zee 1 984) w 9 . . f6 +) 1 2 llac l .ih3 ( 1 2 . b6 10 d3 0-0 I I .ixd4 't!t'b3 ! with the idea .tr4 't!t'd7 I I 't!t'c2 e5 12 .ixb7 't!t'xb7 1 5 ll b l the idea 1 3 b4 cb 14 ab llfc8.. .ixg2 1 7 't!t'xd7+ ll xd7 1 8 \!lxg2 a) 10 . in Romanishin-Ligterink. .

id5 I I 'it'c2?! b6 1 2 a3 l:lac8 1 3 lt:Jd2 'it'xb2 1 7 'it'xe7 ±. e. Jansa . New York well. . b6!? c4) 10 . cd ( 1 2 ..ig2 =. Aside from bad. or I I lt:Jd2 'it'h5 = 'i!t'b6 1 5 ..id 7 .i xa8 . 'it'd6!?.if5 !? (or 14 .ixd4 1 5 10 ..if3 White stands very =/oo R ind-Chandler. .ixa4 1 9 .. Tallinn 1 973) 1 5 . c4 !? ( 1 4 .if4 'ti'xb2 oo/+) 1 2 . . but then either 1 3 'it'c2!? . and now instead b6? 1 2 d4.ie6 1 5 lt:Jxd4! 14 .ig4 ( 1 3 . . . USSR Ch Palatnik-Timoshchenko.ic5! 'i!t'xb2 1 7 llc2 . .ixd4 . after . .ie6 =. or 1 3 . . . 'it'f5 =). . 'ti'd7 1 3 . gf 1 8 . . b6!? is a) 10 . This solid defence has taken liJb4 1 3 a3 ( 1 3 lldc l . . . Polanica 13 . 'ti'd6 I I l:lb l ..ih6!? ( 1 2 l:l b l seem much interested: I I l:l b l . "ire5 !? 1 2 l:l xa5 ! ±. liJe6 1 5 . ...t:) 1 2 liJxd4 ! ( 1 2 liJd2 gives 16 . 'i!t'h5? I I llc l liJd4 12 b4! in teresting) 1 3 . . or I I llc l ? 'it'xa2 1 2 1 3 . but then 1 4 .id6 was = Bagi rov-Tu k ma kov.ixc5 liJ d4 ( 1 3 . 1 5 . .ie6 15 .id2 . .ixa7 ± Tal-Pribyl. . 'i!t'e5 15 lt:J e4 ±) 1 5 1 963. .if6! 1 7 'it'xe5 . Yugoslav Ch liJc6 ( 1 4 . . . . . 1 979) 12 .36 5 liJj3 liJf6 (with . Larsen-Miles.ixb6 liJd4) 1 4 'ti'd I liJxf3+? I I . . Luhacovice 1 973. 'i!t'a6 1 4 'i!t'b3 .. . . although B lack doesn't c) ll 'it'd2 'i!t'd6 12 . .ig2 'ti'f5 etc.. lt:Jb6 17 lt:Jxf6+ t. .ib4) 1 6 'it'b5 ! 'ti'e5 lt:J xc l 16 . 12 . White also has: ..ixd5 lt:Jxe2+ 1 5 $>g2 'it'a4 a5 (versus .ixe5 1 8 'it'c5 . I I . or even I I . .. Jansa-Pribyl. .g.ig4! 13 l:l e l 'it'b6 1 4 liJc4 'it'a6 1 7 .ie6 = Notaros-Lein.ixd5 lt:Jxa4 1 6 lt:Je4. 'it'd6!? I I l:l c i liJd4 ( 1 1 .ie6 1 4 'it'a4 .id4 1 7 .g. 1 973.ixb7 i s critical. l:lfe8 1 6 (or I I . O r finally 1 2 . liJd2 liJd4 1 4 . . .. . l:l ac8 1 3 a 3 b6 = (to defend the e-pawn) 1 2 'it'a4.ixf3 . lt:Jd4 + Doda-Markovsky. .ie3 l:l ac8 13 'ti'a4 b6 1 4 lit fc I 1 973.. . 1 973. 14 . liJ a2 14 liJg5! ± Pirc-Jovanovi c. . d5 lines) 1 2 .ig7 13 'it'b3! .ixb7 ±) 14 h3 . . . when 1 3 .i b4 ! . .ih3 'it'd5 1 3 c) 1 0 .if4. .if6! llac8 1 3 a3 ) 1 2 .ixc5 l:lac8 +. b) 1 0 . . refuted. USSR Ch 1 978.ixb7 ±..ih3 'ti'd5 1 3 .id7 1 4 'it'd l over from: ± Jansa. e.ixb2 1 2 ll xc5 of 16 .i xd4!? pre­ ll lt:Jd4 ! vents the g7 bishop from becoming The most promising. . and now Gufeld gives 1 9 b) l l lt:Jg5 'ti'f5 ( I I .ie3 ll b8 1 6 d4 ! with the idea 1 2 dc 'i!t'xd l l 3 llxd l Tal-Pytel..ixg7 $>xg7 1 5 b4 lt:Jd4 1 6 be when Black has three choices: ( 1 6 llfc l c4!.ixb2!? has never been .ixe3 relatively pointless moves such as 1 4 fe 'it'e6 1 5 'it'xc5 'it'xa2 1 6 . Or 1 2 .ixb7! ) Zdroj 1 976. Tallinn 1 2 . .if5 1 4 l:l a l liJa5 "=/oo" ECO) l:lb8 16 . .id7 1 8 ll xb2 a) l l 'i!t'cl !? b6 12 d4 cd 1 3 lt:J xd4 .ixb2 1 7 l:l b l . . . London . .. .

g4! . .xc6 1lxb6!) 19 . .eS 23 1lc4 ( " ! " Ostojic. . . . Tilbu rg 1 980. . .xc6 'ti'xc6 'ti'a4!? ( 2 1 'tWbS l vanov) 2 1 . .xe 7 1lfe8 1 8 eventually won.id6 24 . . .a3 'ti'xa2 1 7 i. . Karpov. 1 9 i. Ribli­ Ti mman. suggestion.. .Y2 Geller. . li xeS 17 liJ xd4 'ti'xd4 Now Black has non-trivial prob­ 1 8 llad I Y:!. 'i!Vxa2 ) = Timman. d) 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 li:l xd4 'ti'c4 13 li:lxc6 'ikxa l 1 8 n xa l lifb8 1 9 lii: a 6! �f8?! ( 1 3 'ti'b3 'ti'xb3 14 li:l xb3 i. . A msterdam 1 980) 18 't!Va6 e.. . White's chances in this line (pre­ then 18 n b4 transposes. 11 'ti'd6 1lcb8 20 'ti'f3) 1 9 lia l (threatening 12 li:lxc6 i.Karpov. 1!¥xc6.. i.if4 Ostojic). . 18 . . .a3 . . b6 18 'ti'b3 1l lb8 19 1la4 'ti'b7 34 20 llfa l a6 2 1 't!fa2 aS 22 lilc l (22 B d4!? with the idea b4) 22 .Karpov. .19 . . i. d5 lines) 37 1 977) 1 6 . I S '@'b3 'ti'a6 or I S lic l 'ti'a6) ( 1 8 't!Va4 !? lHc8 19 ll a l h S ! 20 I S b3 '@'a6 1 6 ll c l 'ti'xa2 1 7 n xc6 1lb4 i.g.f6 17 'i!Va4 21 e3 1ld2 22 'i!Vc l ! 1lxd3 23 'i!Vc6 . . . This idea of K arpov's revived forcing 17 . Ribli. a) 16 . i. .a4 or 18 . Leipzig 1 977.t Ostojic. . 1lfc8 1 9 't!Vb7 I vanov. presumably with the idea 19 . b) 1 6 . .. Tbilisi 1 980) 18 . i. lems to solve: Li nares 1 983. Lucerne 01 1 982.i xb2 1 6 ll bS i. . . . b6 anyway . but 1 8 viously considered +). b6 17 '@'a 1 ! 'ti'e6! ( Karpov's 1lfc8 +. intending 23 .eS 2 1 liba4 ± Karpov­ 13 .xcS b6 (or 1 S . 't!Vd7 ( 1 8 . '@'b7 14 net 'ti'e6 ! ( 2 1 . 'ti'a6 17 lilb4!? (or 17 't!Vb3. to improve upon 1 7 .f8! (or 1 8 . . . .!.xc6 14 i. 1lb7 20 1lbxb6 t Karpov - Kaufman-A iburt. . . . a6!? 1 7 lixb7 liab8! 1 8 15 't!Vxa2 1l xe7 1l xb2 1 9 . The general impression in this variation is that .. 'ti'a6 in his later game versus I vanov. . . . . i.ixb2 + Gheorghiu. 5 li:\f3 li:\f6 (with . White 1 6 i. . 16 1lb5! (34) c) 16 . .eS 15 lixc5! 23 'ti'b 3 1lc6 24 d4 t Ivanov­ I S i. hS 20 1l b4 1l fc8 2 1 13 i.. New York 1 979) 20 1lb4 i.gS !? '@'b7 1 9 lla l i s possible) 17 . . . 't!Vxa4! Ivanov) 22 h4 i. i.cS 1ld8 Espig-Smejkal.f6 ) = Mi khalchishin. .f6 21 'ti'a2 'ikd7 Bagirov­ = 1lfb8 1 8 li c7 i..if4 aS 20 1la7 lile8 1 S .. . . It's interesting that Tim man did not repeat 1 6 .xc6 be ( 14 .

d6 7 d4 cd 8 ltJxd4 i. this tends to get 13 ltJxe7+! ±. . . Also .xd7+ C1 1!fxd7 14 1!fxd7+ ot>xd7 15 li b ! 6 d4 (!) (35) lii: fc8 1 6 ot>d l Ii c 6 ! =/oo. .xe7 (..h3 ! oo ) I I . . d5 lines) Black probably ought to draw. which seems It's surprising that 6 d4 has satisfactory for Black. . ot>b I ltJxg3 1 9 fg ltJxe4 20 de 't!fe6 e. . 7 ltJd2 !?) 7 i. .e4 ltJd4 1 5 0-0-0 8 1!fa4 !? i.g2 7 ltJ xd4 d5!? i. with t he idea I I . . 6 d4 has several original fea. 6 0-0 0-0 6 cd 6 . . f6 1 2 1!fxd4 into the next chapter without allow­ fg 13 't!fe3 e6 14 ltJc3 ±.e3 lii:a c l a 6 I I b3 Ii b 8 1 2 0-0 i.g 7 5 ltJf3 ltJf6: 7 . but then Black must without any significant error by deal with the Yugoslav Ki ng's his opponent. .e6 d6 8 h3 i. C2 tures.) 1 4 . Indian after 7 d5 . Iie8 1 2 e3 ltJc6 I f nothing else. but White ca n develop pressure d6 o r 6 . .c6+ i. . . . . .g5 ! looks danger­ ous. . Iie8 1 5 i. Iib8 1 2 i. . 9 cd ltJxdS 10 ltJxdS ltJxd4 And now I I i. ltJ xd4 8 1!fxd4 0-0 C l 6 d4 ( !) (8 . . . I I i. ltJe8 (?) I I h4! i. . . e . 6 .xd5 Ii b 8 1 3 i. 8 cd!? b5 1 6 f3 b4 1 7 ltJb5 ! ltJxe2+ 1 8 ltJxd5 9 ltJxc6 be 1 0 ltJxd5 cd oo. b5 1 3 1!fa 7!) 1 3 'ifd3 etc. 8 0-0 35 B 8 . . ltJc6 1 2 ltJxe7+ ltJxe7 1 3 't!fxd8 lii: x d8 1 4 i. or I I .. .a3 Ii xe2 1 6 Iiae l . On top of seldom been employed. 1 923. or I I . .!. . But here 6 d 3 !? 0-0 (6 .d7 is .xd5 ( I I 1!fxd5 1!fxd5 1 2 2 1 ltJf5! ± Reti-Becker. .d2 !? is unique.b3 i. 0-0. There's nothing wrong with 6 . . ing 6 0-0 d5. .d7 9 1!fd2 lilb8 I 0 i. d6 1 0 discussed above. d6.d7 ! 9 cd ltJxd5.h6 ( 1 2 . Vienna i. that. d6 7 de c de 8 1!fxd8+ is somewhat unclear.d7 1 3 i. 1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJc6 3 g 3 g6 4 i. . h5!? 8 h3 doesn't achieve Now there are two major choices: much. e6!? 9 cd ltJxd5 I 0 ltJxc6 be I I 'ifa4 i.g. . . .38 5 ltJf3 ltJf6 (with . and 7 . d5 7 cd ltJxd5 is 9 i.d7 1 2 ltJe4 1!fe7 1 3 't!fc4 :t. . as above. .g. 9 .g4 12 h5! gh 1 3 8 0-0 ltJh4 'ifd7 1 4 i. d6 9 b3! :t ) will transpose after C2 6 0-0 (other than 6 . . d5) 9 0-0 (9 b3 d 5 ! ) 9 .

e.tf5 =) is another solu. .tg5 . tt'a5 I I . and . 1 985.tf4 (8 ..!:: Hansen-Larsen. .ta6! cb 1 4 . .txc6 lilc8 1 2 . b8 1 0 .th6 b5 = 1 965. . a6 8 . he should I 0 . . lila8 ( 1 9 .td7 I I b4! . . . . lLlxe5 1 7 . a) 7 . when 7 . . . . or 9 b3 0-0 I 0 . worth a try.d4 16 e3 lil b4 17 a3 etc..tb2 b) 7 . .1 7 lLlf6+ !) 7 . 'it'd7 !? 9 a3 b6 Romanovsky. d5 lines) 39 passive: 9 lLlc2 ! 0-0 I 0 b3 a6 ( 1 0 .. d 5 lines o f the Pure 9 lLl xc4 (9 .1 6 .tb7 lilc7 avoid all that by 6 d4. 9 a3 a6 7 d3 I 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 12 cb ab 13 d4 An alternative to 7 d4 ( !}. d5!? is risky due to 1 4 the harmless 7 a3.. . d6 8 lil b l lLle8 with the idea 1 4 lilb3 lLle4 15 lLl xe4 .. de lLlf6 a n d . where Black is n ot so badl y off. 10 .txf3 I 7 ef lLle5 1 8 f4 lLlc4 19 f5! o r here 8 . de I I . and to . . lLlb3) 1 0 a3 .td7 10 a4 ! Symmetrical tend to be satisfactory with the idea a5. . .. ..tg4 = (Giigoric . d6 9 't!i'd2 I:. he should exchange on d5 8 . . Gausdal 8 . lt:\d7 1 0 this chapter are that the early . .tf5 ( 1 3 .b8 1 2 lLld5 ± Bozic-Pete. . . . The main lessons of 8 . . . Moscow 1 967. lLlxd4 I I 11t'xd4 . Larsen-H tibner.tf4 lild7 1 5 . 5 lt:\j3 lLlf6 (with . .tb2.tb5 lines are thus a problem in such Il. d5 13 . . . . .. . hg 2 1 h4 ! lil a ! 22 h5 (=/oo) Stein­ 7 d6 Filip.g.tc6 1 2 'it'd2 1t'a5 8 lilb l lilb8 13 lil fd l . but this is White pla ys an early lLlf3. . . If White is forced into b6 I 0 . d5 ! lLle5 ! lLlxe5 1 5 d e lLlg4 1 6 lLlxd5 e6 8 cd lLl xd5 is discussed above. dS 8 cd is ' B ' above. .td2 tt'h 5 1 2 f3 t ) I I . The . Of course cases as those in 'A' above.te6 9 lLlb3 b6 10 . still better.. corres 8 .txe4 1 6 d5 9 b4 .tg5 lLle7 I I 1!i'd2. .te3!? d6 9 h3) Il.txc6 !?) 9 .. or 8 ..tg5 intending (line B).tf5 ! 10 e4 . .. Tilburg 1 978. gf 20 g4 ! Keene) 20 fg tion. H ere 8 lLld2 ( ! ) would be more lively: Conclusion. . e6 9 lLlb3 for Black . or 8 ... or finally them. d4 9 lLla4 't!i'a5 (9 . .

12 i. . b3 . .ixd5 1 2 000 for e xample its position in ECO as cd li:le5 1 3 i. . H am­ Remarkabl y. or.t (Taimanov). . without any 'ti'a5 I I li:ld5 ! t.. . g7 more . Further­ 4 i. . . de 9. this 6 0-0 6-0 whole mode of defence was already 7 d4 cd beginning to look shaky from a 7 . A 8 .t) I I . al though it was popular at 5 li:lf3 li:lf6 the time of the last edition. Romania 1969) This was at one time one of the I I li:ld5 ( I I e4 . 7 .4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4 1 c4 cS There are several reasons for this. c5).. in a few short years. Foguelman­ Saadi. 3 g3 g6 more dynamic I .g2 i. 15 li:la3 t Keene-Littlewood.e3 Wa6 1 4 a 4 ll:fc8 the culminating line for I . d6 is a King's many lines which I have now rele­ Indian Defence. . it has practically dis­ mersmith 1 97 1 . li:lg4 C 8 . gated to notes. .t.ie3 Wa5 1 2 very rnuin lines of the English (note . with the idea 1 3 li:lde2. at ion.ie6 ( 1 0 li:le6 I I h3 i.e3 Wc7 1 3 li:ld4 i. b 2 li ac8 1 2 'ti'd2 . . be 10 c5 0 0 0 10 'ti'b3 'ti'c7 - . 9 li:lb3!?.!.d7 14 li:ld5 ± Gheorghiu-Buza. c5 lines. d5!? 8 de de 9 Wa4 't!t'a5 1 0 theoretical point of view. finally. or even 9 li:lxc6 !? maj or discoveries in the meantime. I I . That 't!t'xc4 i. or 9 li:ldb5 !? Mecking. 'ti'a5 8 li:lxd4 (36) B 8 .id2 'ti'h5 1 3 e4 . . . but then 9 'ti'b4! is ' A' below) 9 d6 0 0 . . . 2 li:lc3 li:l c6 including the development of other. Argentina 1 959. li:lxd4 36 The alternatives seem insufficient: B a) 8 'ti'b6?! 9 li:lc2 (or 9 e3 e6 1 0 . appeared from high-level practice b ) 8 a6?! 9 e3 (or 9 li:lc2 d6 1 0 b3 . 0 0 0 10 b3 . e6 I I 't!Yh4 'ti'xc5 1 2 li:lg5 impression has been confirmed in .i d 7 I I i. Yugoslav Vari...e6 0 0 .

ib7 1 3 i. c3) 9 ll:Jxc6!? be 10 i. . Kiljava 1 984) 1 3 .b2 . . 10 .ie6 1 3 b3 llfc8?! 1 4 . . . K arner-Musil.ib2 (or I I ll:Jd5 . e5?! I I . .!.14 . .if5 .xg2 1 3 �xg2 llfd8 1 4 e4 lilab8 1 5 'it'e2 a6. .xfl ll:Jde2 d6 1 2 i. A msterdam 1 9 73) 1 1 . 9 . stands or e. Hu ngarian Ch 1 97 1 ) 10 b3 (or 10 ll:Jd5 t with the idea 1 0 .ib2 t Sakharov-Popov. Graz 1 978) 9 . Polanica Zdroj 1 973. 1 975. who lacks space. . . . 10 . but 1 9 't!t'e3 t) I I i.id2 't!t'h 5 1 5 e 4 ll:Jg4 1 6 h 3 ll:Je5 1 7 't!t'd 1 ! .h3 1 2 lil b l i. 8 'it'aS "f!/d7 !? ma y improve. . K iev ll:Je5?! 17 'it'd5 'it'd7 1 8 ll:Je4 ± 1 964. Portisch­ Sax. Vukic-Nemet. Petrosian-Smej kal .xc 3 ! 1 7 "f!/xc3 d 5 1 8 ..ie6 (9 .g. .ie3 .txb7 llxb7.g. .1 5 lil b l ll:Jd7 1 6 b3 12 . "f!/c7 I I ll:Jd5 ll:Jxd5 1 2 cd falls on 13 . Hansen-Hick!. and u ncom­ Also quite promising is 9 e3 (38) : fortable for Black. and after 14 . . 9 ll:Jc2 c2) 9 ll:Jc2 ( !) is safe.td7 1 3 . . .if5 1 2 i.!. 5 llJf3 ll:Jf6 with 7 d4 41 I I i. . 'it'd7 I I . . . .d2 ll:Jb6 1 1 b3 e6 1 2 a4 . 14 cd . . .td2 w 't!t'b6! 1 4 .txb5 1 5 cb 'it'xb5 16 tib2 .g2 'it'a5 and now the main line has been 37 12 ll:Jb5 .ig5. . 1 6 c) 8 .tc3 ll fc8 1 6 a4 Black has 1 6 .ib7 ( 1 2 . . i. 14 lilc 1 . o r 10 ll:Je3) 1 0 . . i.ib2 f6 gambit: Vu kic.!. .xc6 1 5 't!t'd2 .ixc6!? be 10 ll:Jxc6 is untested. i. e. . ll xc4 with reason­ able play.ig5 !?) 1 3 ..td 2 't!t'a6 ( ! ) 1 5 . c I ) 9 . . . d6!? (3 7) is a chal lenging . Biel 1 98 1 ) I I a4 d6 t!Vc6 1 5 . Andersson. . ll:Jd 7 10 i.ixa8 't!t'xa8 1 2 f3 i.f4 e5 1 2 . Vi nkovci 1 977.f6 1 7 lilfc I .g.ie6 1 3 a4 t ll:Jd5! was advantageous.xc6 lilb8 ( 1 0 "f!/c7 I 0 b 3 llb8 ( 1 0 . of Espig-Markland. e.a3 ± Ti mman­ 1 3 �xfl llc8 14 "f!/d3 "f!/b7 ! .h3!? 1 1 . d 5 !?. . The variation 1 2 't!t'c2 . . i.!.d2 ( 13 .tc3 . 'it'd7 1 1 . .txb2 (Taimanov) 1 5 ll xc6 A 'it'd7 1 6 'it'c2 i.i e3! .txh3 18 'it'xh5 . and now 1 6 . Ortega-Palhares. .

h6 .xc6!? be I I !i:Jxc6 1!t'd7 12 !i:Jd4 8 !i:Jg4 (39) is of interest. . litd8 ( 1 5 .i. 9 . . .i.xe3 Black has done well with 1 0 .g. but 9 . Black aims to 1 0 . .42 5 !i:Jf3 !i:Jf6 with 7 d4 Now the attempt to win the c-pawn by 9 .g4 12 f3 . W hite 1 0 !i:J xc6 be 1 1 . USS R 1 959. .i. Ha ifa 1 9 70. . !i:J a5 1 1 !i:Jd5 t (or even I I b3 tfxc3 1 2 .i.. . The most popular move. !i:Je5 !) !i:Jce5 =/ro Kh asin-Kuksov.i.i.i.i. a5.i. 1 1 a3 1lt'g4! 1 2 cd litd8 1 3 h 3 did well after 13 . f5? 1 0 !i:J de 2 o r 1 0 c5 are u nsatis­ 10 . .i.. .xb2 1 5 litb I . simplify.d5 1 980. !i:J xd4. . and 1 0 !i:Jd5 !? e6 1 1 !i:Je3 !i:Jxe3 1 2 .xc6 1 6 de litab8 1 7 tfa4 litfc8 1 8 .c3 ("!" £CO) 9 .i.. !i:Jge5? 1 0 b3 d6 1 1 . or here 10 . but 1 4 . is suspect. This is still the best idea apart 10 !i:Jxd4 from 8 .i.i. 9 !i:J b3 .xc6 ( ! ) b e 1 1 !i:J xc6 tf c 7 1 2 !i:J d 5 !i:J x d 5 1 3 cd .Lo mbard.a5 won outright. .i. tfb4! 1 0 c 5 9 e3 (no o ne has tried m y 1 0 !i:J d 2 d6 I I The daring gambit 9 !i:Jb3 d6 a3 1!t'a5 1 2 h3!? .e6 1 9 !i:Jd2! .d7?! I I . .d2! .i. . .b2 litb8 12 !i:Jd5 !. ..d2 1rh5 factory. but White e. and even B 10 . !i:Jxd4 1 1 ed Rogoff.i.i. .i.i. .g4! 1 5 h g !i:Jxg4 1 6 1!t'c7 ( 1 4 . So in Zilber-Gurgenidze.i.i. . . is a sound alternative.i. but 10 !i:Jde2 preparing !i:Jd5.d2 tfd 8 1 3 . 1!t'e7) 1 5 ll fd l ( 1 5 lite 1 . .b7. !i:Jf5 is possible.i. . .i. .g7 14 tfd2 1!t'h5 1 4 e 4 . 'it'b4 10 'ilre2 !i:Je5 39 fails to l l f4 ltJxc4 12 a3 tfc5 1 3 b4 w etc. .i. I nstead of 12 ll fxd l !i:Jg4 1 3 . i s the worst after 9 . . . dam 1 973.f6 1 9 . d6!?. . . b6( !) and even with 1 0 .d2 !).b4 ! .d7 1 3 1!t'd2 t and 9 . . Black compensation.xc6 litb8 gives should have tried 1 2 litaxd 1 ! t. .i.te l 10 b3 .i. Beltsi 1 977.e6 1 3 !i:J d5). 1 0 .i. Gutman-Petrushin.e6 1 4 f3 !i:Jge 5 1 5 b3 g5 ! =. tfh 5 10 !i:J d5 d6 1 1 !i:Jf4 tfa5 9 d6! 1 2 . .xc3 1 7 be lit xd6 1 8 !i:Jd2 litfc I !?) 1 5 .xh6 17 tfxh6 e5 1 8 .i.i. . .i.b2 Romanishin-van den Berg. USSR 16 . d6 !? 10 ...xb2 1 3 ll b l . !i:Jh6!? 1 0 b3 ( 10 11 e4! tfxd 1 !i:Jde2 looks best) 10 .. . Amster­ .xd5 20 cd ltJa5 2 1 9 d6 !i:Je4 f5 2 2 !i:Jg5 ± . Black tried 9 .

. .te6( ! ) �f5 1 5 �d5 e6 1 6 �e3 �xe3 1 7 I I . � h6?! I I � de2! 't!i'a5 1 2 i.xd4 I 3 i.d 2!? is logical.d 2 9 .d7 ( 1 3 .d7 . 1 0 9 't!i'xd4 d6 (41) . . i. f5! ? aan Zee 1 985) 1 3 �d5 ( 1 3 �e2 Bertok) I S 't!i'e2 i.g2 14 l:. b5 (?) 16 c5 de l 7 I S h 3?! �e5 1 6 't!i'h4 't!i'xc4 1 7 �xeS �d6 1 8 Ii:e I lle8 I 9 �e6! � xe7+ <Zi>h8 + Larsen-Tal . e .txc3 1 4 i.xf8 . . Sochi 198 1 .c I a6 1 5 �e4 with advan­ 't!i'c 8 ( 1 3 . 't!i'd2 t Sahovic-Cleghorn. .e6 !? (or 1 1 . = Hartoch) 13 . . i. . 't!i'a5? 10 c5 ! 't!i'a6 I I i. I97 1 . .e6 ! I I i. . . c ) 10 lld1 i. 1 2 i. .xd5 14 ll b l =. llb8 co) 1 2 't!i'f4 lilb8 1 3 i.h6 Pine I 977. . . or 13 d 5 i.h6 ) 14 �d5 ll e8 = tage. a6 ( ! ) 13 lle l Ii: b8 1 4 a4 i. i.txa I 1 5 i. .xb7 �g4 ( I l 13 d5 i. 11 ed �h6 (40) 4/ 40 w w 10 't!i'd3 (42) 12 i. c d ) 1 0 i. USSR Team Ch Lone Pine 1 976.g. . . . Wijk � x d 5 't!i'd7 I 4 e 4 Ii:fc8 ( 1 4 . �e3 �xe3 I S fe t) 1 4 lle l Ii:e8 I S b) 10 b3 d5! I I cd i.b2 't!i'a5). . Lone � xd5 1 2 't!i'xd5 .xh6 . and IO .d5 � x d 5 1 3 ll xe 3 b5 + De Boer-Hartoch . e6 I 4 USSR Ch 1 963. . 1965. . .b2 �f5 (a new idea a) 1 0 't!i'd2 Ii:b8 I I b3 a6 (or I I . .d7 1 4 Ii: b l !? = llb4) 16 . Krogius-Kudinov. . 5 �j] �/6 with 7 d4 43 Gufeld-Dvoiris. . .txb7 ll b 8 1 2 i. 't!i'b5 Korchnoi-Geller.f4 ± �f5 1 3 �d5 t Weinstein-Cleghorn.txc3 I 3 i. . 15 . . i. . a6 8 �xd4 I I b 3 llb8 12 ll c l b5? 13 't!i'a7! .xe7 t. d2 The strength of this move has My suggestion from the first eclipsed: edition. o r 1 0 . match etc. was 12 . . 't!i'xd5 = Spassky-Ta l. . .xd5 1 6 cd ( l 6 ed llb8 . Moscow 12 �f5 1 967) I 2 't!i'h4 �xd5 1 3 �xd5 I 2 .e6 I 2 i.

. .ixd5 1 4 cd li:Jxd5 1 5 ..te6 1 5 cd 'it'xd6 1 6 'ifxd6 ed 1 7 here 13 .. . .ixg2 1 5 �xg2 lib ! ! t) 1 5 .ixh3 Fischer-Spassky.ih3 li:Jxd 5 14 cd .. . lib8 1 2 .id2 ( I I . ..ixf6 1 5 li:Je4 'it'xa 2 ! oo H ulak­ b) 1 0 . e) 1 0 1!t'h4 has lost its sting.ig2 llc8 ( 1 2 . 1 1 .ig5 'it'a5 1 2 li:Jb5!? lhc8 1 3 b3 lic5 ! 14 a3 h6! = Savon-Osnos. li:Jd7) 13 e4 !? ..ixf6 e f. .ie6 I I .id2 . . . 1 0 .id2 1!t'a6 1 6 li:Jb5 t Quinteros­ Li ncoln 1 975) I I . or here 13 . .ixf6?! . Hastings 1 9 8 1 . . li:Jg4 I I b3 'it'a5 1 2 . . l:tac8! 1 3 b3 l:tc7 ± Reshevsky-Zuckerman. USSR Ch 1 978. . 'it'a5 I t is simpler for Black to play 13 b3 ! li:Jg4!? 14 . a6 lifc8 = planning . .id7 and . h6! I I . . .igS ... I I c 1 10 .if5 1 5 e4 .ie6 12 'it'd3 Jimenez.. . . . e. . l:tc8 12 b3 'it'a5 =) 1 2 l:t ac I liad 1 't!t'd 7 1 6 li:Jd5 1!t'd8 1 7 .ixf6 1967. a6 etc. . lic5 !? 14 . .id2 f) 1 0 . b5? 1 5 cb ab 1 6 li:Jb4 was best. Yugoslav Ch 1 986) 1!t'd7 12 li:Jd5 !? li:Jxd5 1 3 cd . .. US Ch Fine.44 5 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 with 7 d4 . l:tb8 I I .ig5 !? ( 1 5 14 f4 (14 f3) 14 .ixb7 ( I I .ig4 1 3 b3 llfc8 1 4 'it'd2 a6 1 5 .ig7 1 3 l:tfd l lib8! 1 4 c5 Bonsch.ixf6 li:Je5 16 g4!li:Jxd3 1 7 gh ± Uhlmann­ 1 2 't!t'd2 .. lixb3 14 ab 'it'xa l 1 5 li xd6 llfc8 =t= Watson-L ...ie6 1 2 b3 l:tab8 1 3 llac l C2 10 . . e. l:tb8 1 2 . . . USSR 197 3 .ixd5 'it'xd5 16 'it'xe7 a5 17 e4 'it'd4 = Mikhalchishin-Gulko.ih3 16 .if5 . Cienfuegos 1972) 1 3 li:Jd5 't!t'd7 (or 12 ..ie6 I I li:Jc5 19 l:lce I f5 ! + Bronstein­ 'it'd3 ( I I lHd l ! ?) I I . .te3. and 'ifxh 3 17 liacl liac8.if3 'it'a5 1 3 li:Jd 5 ( 1 3 li d ! ? lib4 1 4 b3 lixb3 etc Mikhalchishin) 1 3 .ie6 !? I I 'it'f4 'it'a5 (or 1!t'h 5 13 h4 li:Je5 14 1!t'e3 1!t'g4 1 5 I I . match 1972. lib8 1 3 liac l a6. . Levy. Black's most Also fine is I 0 'it'h4 'it'a5 (or I 0 common tries are: . ..g. East German Ch 1 98 1 .. a) 10 . . . After 1 0 1!t'd3 . Smyslov­ here 1 5 ....ixb2 1 6 liab l . .. . .ixb7 ( I I . . . . ..ie6 I I .ih6 'it'a5 =). . or . ..tf6 'ifc6 1 6 l:tac l e6 17 b3 li:Jd 7 18 1!t'f3 1 7 . . . and now 1 4li:Jd5 ! intending 14 . . or I 0 . Moscow 1 966) I I .tc3 l:tab8 (or 1 2 .id 7 1 5 .82) recom mended.id2 'it'h 5 1 5 h3 10 . Kimelfeld-Mu ratov.id2 Velimirovic. 14 f3 .g. .. 'it'd8 . . b5 was Ch ristiansen.. .i e6 1 4 li:Jd5 ±. li:Jd7 1 2 b3 Kernachevsky.

. USSR 1 973) 1 3 ltJd5 1i'd8 1 4 ltJc5 1 5 f4! llc8? ( 1 5 .ixd5 1 9 .. 1 2 1i'd2 a5! 1 3 .. a6 1 2 i. d) 1 0 . Black offers a tempo Smejkal-Hernandez. 1Wa5 1 3 i. but it's 1 979) I I .1 4 .d4 i. ltJc5 1 2 i. .ixd5 1i'b8 = Vukic.b2 i. . Hort-Unzicker. 5 liJ. . i.xb2 1 5 'flxb2 b) 1 2 . 'fla5 1 2 h3! t with the idea 12 .d2 (or 1 3 i.d2 ltJd7 ( 1 2 a high price to pay. Yugoslavia 1 974) I I . .d4 lii:fc8 1 4 b3 a6 1 5 1i'e3 ! . .. ..d7 17 f6 ! gf ( 17 .ib2 ltJd7 1 4 1i'd2 Sher. B runnen 1 966.id7.. 1i'a6 1 3 b3 lii: fd8 1 4e4d 5!? 1 5 ed 12 . C1 East Germany 1 982.h6 1 8 ltJd5 ± Donner­ Zivkovic..d2 'flh5 1 4 f3! llb8 16 lHd l b5 17 cb lii: x b5 1 8 i. Stockholm 1 6 1!i'xd4 . . Nice 01 1 974.ixd4 f1ac1 t Karpov-Diaz.. a6 13 ..id21i'h5 This is second to I 0 . . 14 lii:a b1!? . a6 1 3 b3 llb8 14 llac l . .. I I .1 4 nac l llac8 1 5 f1fd l t) Venice 1969. Moscow 1 98 1 . . i. Banja Luka to block off the g2 bishop.. ..ixd5 lLJxd5 17 ltJxd5 e6 Also quite good is 1 2 b3 and: 1 8 lii:a d I lii: x d5 1 91!i'fH Dorfm an­ a) 1 2 .ie3 ( I I i. b6 ( I I . 20 . ..g5! h6 1 3 i. 43 c) 10 . .c3 U± Gu. 10 _ifS 12 ltJd7 11 e4 .ie6 23 ltJxf6 ±± Smyslov-Timman.d4 . a6 in 1 2 b3 i.h3 1 3 lii:a c l lii: fd8 1 4 e42.h3 1 5 lii:a c I . lii:b8 I I . ..b7 1 3 e4 'fld7 1 4 lii:fd l lii:fd8 1 5 a4 t Ribli­ Venalainen.. .f5 1 2 'il'd 2 a6 is 'C2' below) 1 2 i.e3 i. I I ...ie3 ± Uhlmann-Mohring. ltJd 7 1 3 i..ie6 1 2 i. . .f5 ( 1 3 ..ixg7 �xg7 2 1 1!i'd4+ f6 22 g4 e) 1 0 ..e6 1 3 i.13 . .id4 ±) 1 4 'it'd2 �h7 1 5 i.ixh3 1i'xh3 1 8 e4) . ltJd7 I I 'it'c2 ( I I b3 ltJc5 .if4 is a lso good) I I . and now Osnos gives 1 8 'fla6! t. Pomar.. c) 12 ..id2 .xf5 Bayamo 1 98 1 . .. . f5 1 6 eft) ltJf4 i. . 18 . .c6 + Hort gives 17 f4 ± ( 1 7 .a7 ! lii:a 8 1 3 i. popularity. ltJe5!? 14 'fle2 1!i'd7 15 ltJd5! i.d4. . lii:x f6 ± ) 1 8 ltJd5 f5 1 9 e f i. ltJc5 14 1i'd2 1Wd7 15 .ib2 .ixg2 16 �xg2 f1fd8 llac l . 1i'a5 1 1 h3 (or I I ..t xf6 1 8 17 i. .. . .ie6! 1 4ltJd5 . .... .h3 17 ./3 ltJf6 with 7 d4 45 USSR 1 973.Garcia-Abreu... . 1969.ie6 (43) a) 12 . .id7 16 f5 i.f5 1 5 e4 ltJ c5 1 6 1i'c2 .. .ie6 1 2 . . . .. . 17 f1fd l i. . f5 ltJc6 16 f1ad I i.ixd 5 1 6 .f4!? or w 1 1 llfd l ..e6 1 4 llfd l 1Wc8 1 5 ltJd5 lle8 1 6 1i'a5 . and instead of 1 7 ltJd5 13 ... i.

. US Ch 1 974. .. .b8 1 3 . .e3 with . .xb4 hg improves .!:) 13 0 0 0 a6 14 lil.ab8 2 1 li[b I lifc8 + Portisch-Geller..b8 't!Ve8 18 &iJd5 U ± Hort-Unzicker. . . but &iJxe6. Hort-Browne. 1 2 Lugano 01 1 968.. what seem Or 14 Il.t xg2 1 6 �xg2 lii:ab 8 1 7 a4 .d 7 16 lil. the two best sequences against it 14 &iJc5 remain untested by leading players. . w b) 12 . e . h 3 looks easiest) 1 2 '8' f3 ! (45) 16 cb ab 45 1 7 Il. . lil. The key line at the time of the 14 \!t'e2 first edit ion.te3. &iJe5 !? 1 6 the idea h4-h 5 Uhlmann) 20 . i. Wij k a an Zee 1 975. 12 c5 or 1 2 . .h3 is less convincing. &iJg4 !?) 16 lil. continued 1 7 . . . After 1 7 lil. ... . Skopje 1 968. 15 lbc1 11 . . h5 25 lil.xb8 is winn ing.xb4) 24 . b5 ( ! ) 1 7 cb ab 1 8 &iJxb5 i.fe l !? ( 1 4 nac l ! .fc8 1 7 i.ab8 or What I feel is best was shown to 16 .c2. i.h3 15 lil.td7 1 8 . . .g4 I 7 'ti'e3 &iJc6 1 8 �h I was C2 best) 16 &iJd5 ! a5 ( 1 6 .c8 17 i. i. .fd l .ac l &iJc5 1 5 \!t'c2! Keene. and now 24 \!t'g4! (threaten­ 16 .t) 14 .g.fd l .fe l .ad I lil. b4 1 8 &iJd5 i. b5 17 b4 10 a6 (44) &iJa4 1 8 c5 ±) 1 7 lil. l c 2 e6 2 3 de Krogius-Tringov.xd 5 1 9 ed lib8 20 lil. . 13 b3 a6 1 3 .e3 12 't!Vc2 ! Il. . 'ti'd7 1 3 b3 (or 1 3 lil..tg4 1 7 f3 . I I . .fd l. lil.fd l lil.ab8 1 5 a4 i.. &iJd7 15 .c4 \!t'a5 2 2 lil.!. Il. I ronically. .h3 ( 1 5 . .ac l lil.g4 ing i.d I ! .fc I !? (20 lil. 1 4 . .fd l 't!Vd7 1 6 lil.. me in N orway in 1 980 by the ori- 15 b5!? ginator: I I Il. .c2! B No t I 7 't!Vxb 5?! . i. .te3 ± lil.te3!? 1 5 Il.c4! 'ti'a5 2 1 i.46 5 &iJfJ &iJf6 with 7 d4 &iJd7 1 5 'ti'e2 &iJc5 ( 1 5 . 't!Va 5...ta6 1 9 &iJb5 \!t'd7 20 a4 lil. Rovinj/ Zagreb 1 970.tc8 ! 1 8 't!Vc4 ..tf5 ( I I . on I I . Smej k al-Popov.. Varna 1 970. . .g5 . &iJc5 1 4 'ti'e2 a6 transposes.te3. .!: Rogoff­ 44 Zuckerman. So 1 6 h3 or even 1 6 f4 26 lil. .e8 2 1 lil.

b5 1 5 cb 'ti'd7 1 3 i.g4 ! 1 5 f3 i.txg7 �xg7 1 8 'ild4+ �g8 1 9 b4 15 ab ab 16 i. ab a b 1 4 lLlxb 5 . 'W'd7 1 6 ±.... llc l . . .. and in Watson­ Yugoslavia v USSR 1 97 5. . llxb5 16 f4 lLld7 1 7 14 llac 1 t with the idea 14 . .. best may 46 be 1 2 a4 and 1 2 . . or 1 4 . 13 c5 b4! 1 4 lLl a4 'ila5 !.d4 lLle5 I s it the refutation o f 1 0 . b5 1 4 llc l .ta6 1 5 a4 'W'e8.. .d 7 1 4 h3 'irb6 oo) 1 3 b3 ( 1 3 'ti'e3 !?...txd5 a5 17 b3 lLlc6 = Matera­ ±±.txa6 1 2 . .g. .. . cb a b 1 5 . b5 . b6 (or 1 5 lLlb6) 1 5 .d 4 i. .d4 b4 1 7 lLld5 lLl xd 5 lLlb4 i.g 2 lLlc4 = Tal-Torre. . .. Arande1ovac 1 976.. 1 5 cd ed 16 ll xd6 ±..txd5 1 7 ... . f4 'W'c8 llab2 1 6 lLld5 t Vukic-Gufe1d.. 12 i... . .. llb8 1 3 c5 lLle8 1 4 i..te3 are ll c 1 ... ..ta 7 lla8 ( 1 5 .txd5 ! Furman-Vasyukov.. . a 6 ? 13 'it'd1 llb8 Lauvsnes-Svenn. . x b7 llb8 1 5 .. US Ch 1 977. xf6 t) 13 Jlac 1 (or and 20 a4 or 1 5 .a 7 ! lla8 14 i. lLlc5 1 7 i.. x d5! 16 ll xd6! ±±) 1 6 .b 7 1 7 e 4 ( 1 7 i. 1 3 e4 lLle5 1 4 'W'e2 i.. . although 18 . .e 6 1 6 b3 b5 =) 1 3 .te6 1 5 lLld5 ( 1 5 b 3 b 5 ! = ) 1 5 both so effective. I will limit com­ . Zuckerm an. . . b5 1 6 c b . llb8 12 ll ac l ( 1 2 e4 !? b5 ! 1 3 Leni ngrad 1973. Kastner.. . d4) 1 3 . lLld7 1 3 'it'c2 a5 B 14 llad 1 or 1 2 . b4 1 6 corres 198 1-83.e 6?! 1 5 a ) 11 . a7 ! ll a8 1 3i. i. .txd5 a b 1 8 ments on 1 1 i. b6 1 5 f4 lLld7 1 6 . i. Oslo 1 980. ... two recent games have seen 1 2 e4 USSR Ch 1969. . ..te6 l 3 b3 'W'd7 1 4 a4 �) 1 2 . saw 1 5 .d 2 1 6 . llb8? 1 2i. . i. .. 1 1 .. �xg7 1 7 'ird4+.e6 1 5 Jlc1 llfe8 1 5 'irb7 lLld7 !? 1 6 'ti'd5 (or lle8 = or 14 a4i.. lLlc5 1 4 'ti'b 1 b5 1 5 ab a b 1 6 lLld5 i. xb7 !? i) 1 7 . . . New Y ork 1 980.e6 14 i. . ... I n fact. . .. lLld7 ( 1 2 . 5 lLl j3 lLlf6 with 7 d4 47 This is the point. d 2 to the main line: 'W'd2 e6 1 9 i. . d4 ! or 1 3 i. or 1 4 . a b 1 6 lLla4 ±) 1 6 i...g5 llab8 and now 1 5 . . ab 16 lLlb4 or 16 1 3 i. went 1 3 . llc8 1 3 'W' xb7 'W'a5 1 4 'W'xe7 play than (e .) 14 c5 i.. . . or 1 4 Since 1 1 l1 d 1 and 1 1 .. i. . giving more 1 2 . . .txg7 b) 11 .. .. . .f5 !? 1 3 e4 i.e6 15 lLld5 i. . f5 12 1!rd2 llb8 ( 1 2 . Black 14 lLld5 (46) was equally frustrated following The author's move. Thomas-Matheson . .. b7 = Uhlmann-Smej kal . 11 lLlg4 Here Black has 14 . with quick equality for Blac k ..

despite its rich heritage. . The most i mportant as a maj or defensive syste m.xg7 't>xg7 1 9 ti:Jxc6 development in this whole line is i. . ti:Jc6 1 8 i. a6. . 5 .xc6 20 't!i'd4+ 't>g8 2 1 lHcl 't!i'b6 the possibility of I I lld l (!) after 22 'ii'xb6 l hb6 t. .48 5 ti:Jf3 ti:J/6 with 7 d4 . . In general. . 10 . ti:Jf6 has lost its place Conclusion. .

. The most attractive means for this are: A 5 .tg4 8 h5! . . a6. a) 5 . .. lt::lf 5 7 h5 e6 8 d 3 d5 9 g4lt::lf d4 1 0 lt::l d2! and I I e3. . or here 6 . ll b8 (7 . . ._d2 with the idea l O . lt::l h6 is an idea which is 4 . . Thus (for the above move order) this is the natural place to break the sym­ metry. . . 10 . 5 lt::lf3 (47) The problem is 5 . .xd5 1 3 lt::lh 4 is met by l O .tb7 9 d3 e6 = Huguet-Hort.tf4 after exchanges). . d6 6 0-0lt::l h6. Black's f8 D 5 . e5 7 d4! (inten­ 2 lt::lc 3 lt::lc 6 ding lt::l b 5. 0-0 a n d o n I I lt::le4.td7 C 5 . d5!) 6 . . gh 9 lt::l h 2 . . . d5? I I cd e d 1 2 lbxd5! -.tb2 . .or 8 B 5 . . and tend to leave Wh ite the advantage. . and almost every leading player does so.txh6 .tg2 .!. I I . lt::l h6 6 h4! (6 0-0!? lt::lf 5 7 b3 b6 8 .td7? .tg7 easier to play via 5 . . .txh6 I I e3 . . ..tf5 8 h 5 'tid7 9 . e6 10 .td2 Euwe ... . Las Palmas 1973. or j ust 9 lt::ld 2 is promis­ ing) 7 d3 (48) 48 The lines of the last chapter offer B Black l ittle in the way of active counterplay.t d2 o r 9 lt::l h4!?­ except that White might try 6 e3!? all Taimanov's analysis) 8 h5 .5 5 ltJf3: Others 1 c4 c5 a6 7 d4. . .8 . a6 7 . . d6 (6 . . . . . llb8 is equivalent to 5 . 7 . . ... 3 g3 g6 b) 5 . . d6 . . . . e5 bishop is a serious problem..

.txh 6! . . . li:Jh6?! I I e4 f5 ( I I Bad Liebenstein 1 963. 7 a4 . d6 is safer) 8 cb ab 9 i. d5 I I 1!t'b3 ( I I d4 .tf4 .txb2 + Kastner-Gheorghiu. d 6 1 4 . 7 .tf5 1 2lir. or 1 1 i.g4 B ( 1 1 . Budapest 1 970) 14 i. 1 3 . Untried.tb2 li:Jf6 1 4 li:Jxd4 0-0 1 5 li:Jxf6+ - best (Flohr).b6 = (intending . . .d2 .0 1 2 d4 12 .50 5 li:Jf3: Others (8 .b7 1 3 the idea 15 . . and here 1 5 �d2 ! with li:Jxd4 (or I I . 17 0-0 . and 10 .xf3 1 3 i. .tg7 1 2 lhh 8+ . .txe4 . A New York 19 80) 12 li:Jxd4 ed 1 3 5 a6 li:Je4 d 5 (or 1 3 . In practice. Yugoslavia 1 984. .xd4 i.xf6 1 6 li:Jxc6 be �e7 t. USSR Ch 1 958 . 49 d 6 I I 0-0 ( 1 1 d 4 i. . . . .td7 =) 7 . 'ife7 16 li:Jg5 ± was . but it often arises: Velimirovic. i. . i. Botvinnik-Giigoric.b8 7 0-0 (7 a4 d6 8 i. d6!?) 12 d4! fe 1 3 li:Jxe4 li:Jf5? 6 lir. The least analysed is 1 0 a central push. an easy solution is 1 0 .t Polugayevsky-Malich.!.tf4 li:lxf3+ 1 3 .g4!) 1 1 . e. b 5 !? (7 .") 14 d5 ± was Timman­ 7 e3 ( ! ) Kostro.txb8 i.f4 de! 6 0-0 !5 . . . . ." Botvinnik) .te6 19 7lir. d4) Taimanov­ . Finally. .txh 8 1 3 �6 lir. . . . Jansa. li:Jf6 12 d3 0-0 1 3 .txc3+ ( 1 3 . i nstead of 15 li:Jg5 15 li:Jb5!? . li:lh6 1 2 d4 li:lf5 1 3 d 5 ! !. d6 I I b4!? Euwe.e3 ! li:ld4 10 lic1 li:lh6 ( 10 . note to cb 15 li:ld5 . .f5 !? ( 1 5 .xf3 \!fd7 1 4 i.tb2 ti'b6 The idea is to beat White to the 1 5 e3 . .txh6 1 0 hg hg I I We i ! 1967) I I . . .txf3 e5 14 i. . ed 1 2 li:Jd5 i. . . .d2 d5 is Chapter 2.tb7 ( ! ) ) 1 6 a) The "main line" with 6 a3lir. .g2 e6 1 5 e3 li:lge7 = Shatskes.b3 has been played . . b5 before Wxd4 1 8 ed �d7 = Gheorghiu­ b4 is possible. .ta7 li:Je7 1 7 e3 ! d 3 1 8 g4 . . Wij k aan Zee 1 97 1 . . d 5 . Moscow I 0 .tf6 1 4 li:Jg5 ±) 1 4 Averbakh. . .tb7 1 6 i. . 7 d3. line C2. .xd4 1 7 ti'xd4 punch by enforcing . li:Jf6 I I 0-0(}. .b8 ( 1 3 .1 5 .xd4 cd 1 2 li:ld5 e6 1 3li:lb4!) I I b4li:lhf5 Now 1 0 . .d2) 1 2 h 3 i. e5 !? is not bad either: I I d4 01 1 956. .b8 . .!. a6 8 d3 . Maribor 9 . b u t I think i t i s best to Bu t Black has several good alter­ counter Black's flank attack with natives. .te4 ( ! ) = Pirc-Matulovic. . b) 6 d3lir. . li:lxb4 1 4 i. . f6 9 hg hg 1 0 li:Jh4 .b l b5 8 cb a b 9 b4 cb l 0 ab (49) . .g. be e6. . .tc3+ =/ro Despotovic­ is rather d reary. .

Also promising is 1 0 lt:le4!?.g.W. this can be too passive. 5 lt:lf3: Others 51 (8 e3 lt:l h 6 9 d 3 0.0 and . . lt:lxb4 9 lixb7 lt:la6 1 0 1!t'b3 ! t) 8 7 b5 0-0 e5 9 lib l lt:l ge 7 10 d3 0-0 1 1 Consistent. . . . b6) 1 0 B e 3 . e. purposes. e . .id2 '!Wxa4 . 7 . b5 8 cb ab 9 a4! ba After 6 d 3 . . a6 is ' A'. .ie3 d6 10 d4 et c. e5 is 'D' below (9 .id2 0-0 1 0 lii: b l . .if4. h 5 !? 7 . . . lib8 1 2 lt:le5!) 1 2 'i!t'b5 :t. . . If not used for transpositional Polanica Zdroj 1 968. lt:l f5 50 =) 8 li b l lib8 9 b4 lt:l f5 (9 . . 8 lt:lf6 9 . Bu t also interesting would be 6 0-0 7 d3 !?.g. g5? 1 6 . Nor- mal has been 7 a3 0-0 (or 7 . . aS 7 e3!?) 7 b4! b6 ( 7 .if4 lib6 1 3 lt:le5 lt:l xe 5 1 4 de e6 1 5 lt:ld4 :t. lt:le4/d5 . 6 . with the idea . . match 1 977. 6 lt:lh6 a nd/or lie ! after exchanges.g. . e. cb 8 ab h3!? 0-0 9 . .ib7 I I . . . 8 cb ab . . I I . d5 1 2 . . . might be answered by 8 d4(!) a ny­ Philadelphia 1 980. intending to overprotect e5 and (e. . . .ie6 1 2 lt:l d5 :t Watson-Delva. Bangalore 1 98 1 . . . lt:l f6 7 d4 is Chapter 4. e5 (t o stop d4) lt:le 1 . . lt:l f6 8 (6 . way. 9 d4 b4 7 d4(!) I 0 lt:le2 A recent idea. 6 . .id 7 1 1 1!t'e2 e6 1 2 lii:d 1 b6 oo H ort-Spassky. 6 . 6 . d6 lt:lh6. 7 b3 0-0 8 .id7 7 e3 1!t'c8 8 d 4 t. . .ixh6 . 6 a3!? is logical . .) push the a-pawn ( 1 5 . 7 cd 8 . 7 . . . . or I I . lt:lf6 1 2 d5 lt:la5 1 3 lt:lf4 :t. b4? 1 0 lt:lb5 'i!t'b6 I I d4 !) 1 0 and 6 .ie3 ±). .Schmidt. e5) 8 . or 7 .g.ib2 lib8 9 e3! a6 1 0 1!t'c2 10 cd e5 1 1 liad 1 lt:lfe7 1 2 d4:tYudasin­ II ed (50) Georgadze. . . . .if4 ! lia8 ( I I .ixh6 9 lt:lxd4 (5 1) 51 B I li ke White.id7 I I 5 d6 lt:le I lt:le8 = Fo rintos. . 6 .

ramifications. . but Simple but effective ! I I . . ll:le4 0-0-0 1 6 lit ad 1 �h6 ( 1 6 . . 52 c) 6 h4 h6 (6 . \!t'd2 1 4 \!t'xd2 ( 1 4 1 0 h4!? d5 I I h5 g 5 =F G rigorian­ li ac 1 Andersson) 14 . �xd2 1 5 Furman. Buenos Aires 1 970. . Amsterdam 1980) 7 b3 (7 d4 !? . or 8 . .Fischer.. Zuckerman. and one fascinating one: ":j. Black 9 .. d 5 !? 7 h5 li:lge7 8 cd w ed 9 d3 h6!? . Andersson-van a) 6 d3 li:lge7 7 �g5!? (7 �f4 d5 - der Wiel.. ll:lge7 8 �b2 b6?! (8 .9 . ll:lxd4 I 0 \!t'xd4 0-0 I I l:Ifd 1 threatens to wrest the central ini­ �g7 12 \!t'e3 or 12 \!t'd2 (Andersson) tiative by playing . . and any player on the White pressure in the centre. Torre­ lic2 lihb8 23 b4 a5 24 l:Ifc l ±. USSR 1 972." Andersson. . But the dynamic chances it offers. d 5 ! +.g4!? . Wij k a an Zee 1983. j. . e6 continues to score of the Hedgehog (Chapter 1 1 ). con­ 6 0-0) 7 . . . . . . h6 1 2li:le l f4 ( + ) c 1 3 ll:lc2 g5 1 4 lite l �f5 1 5 lilc3 5 e6 (52) 'it'd7 ! (attack) Smyslov.c7 1 9 f4 ! e4) 9 . . 10 e5! de C l 6 0-0 11 ll:lxe6 �xe6 C2 6 d4 12 . B lack probably due both to its soundness and to underestimated White's next. e5 ! 9 0-0 (9 lLl xc5?? 1 7 ll:l xe5 lidS 1 8 ll:l d3 rj. d6 1 0 e3 f5 I I d3 ( 1 1 a3 h6!? �g7 20 lite] lita5 2 1 a3 litb5 22 1 2 b4 cb 13 d4! unclear. . . . b) 6 b3 ll:lge7 7 �b2 0-0 8 ll:la4!? �b4 1 7 a3 �a 5 1 8 ll:lxc5 �b6 !) (8 0-0 d5 +) 8 . Cleveland 1 975. d5 before is uncomfortable for B lack. 13 c5 is in side would do well to study its the air. 0-0) 9 \!t'b 1 ! e5 1 0 liJd5 Ilb8 I I h5 d6? 12 hg fg 1 3 ll:lh4 ± Fedorowicz­ Shamkovich. . a5 ! is+) I I . "? ! " Andersson. Hastings 197 7-78.h7 tinued 1 3 . d) 6 e3 could transpose to 5 e3 after . . for one thing. .1 0 hg fg I I �d2 g5 1 2 'it'a4 �d7 1 3 0-0 ll:ld4 =/oo Ribli-Sosonko. 5 . .cf 6 d4) 7 .be6 be There are some feeble options 1 3 \!t'e2 here.. By White has a chance to do the same a n alogy with the �g5/xf6 systems by d4. well at all levels of international White can work up a good deal of play. . . . . . .52 5 liJf3: Others 9 �d7 The leading anti-ll:lO system. h6 8 �d2 0-0 9 \!t'c 1 rj. . .

. note 'c' of Chapter I .ig5 etc) and get a whole different I I .id7 1. And but I 2 . . . .0 13 li:la2 d5! I4 lt::lxb4 ab 20 de intending 20 .ixa i I O �a4(?) . d5 = or 7 .ig7 On 6 .. .. . . I6 g5 ! lt::l xf6+ 'it. �b6! 1 3 lt::lg xf7 b3 (or even I 3 . because I l ater realized that after 9 lt::l e4 .. h6 1 3 0-0 a5 14 't!t'a3 'it>g8 the point on 6 . b6 = Kholmov-Suetin. 0-0 8 d4 d6) 't!t'xc4 .ih6 mate.ib2 l:tb8 (9 d5 =) I O 0 0 0 New York 1 98 1 . . lb d6!? I5 lt::l c 7 last example. 9 . portant line goes 1 0 . and 'itff1 0-0! 1 2 .ixf8 . e . . Here best is probably 9 .. . . this doesn't quite finish off the 6 a3. lt::l x b4 8 ab cb 9 li:le4! (9 the variation with my biggest over­ lt::lb 5 .ixb4 lt::l x b4 I 6 'fJ/xb4 de I 7 li:lf5 !? (7 . . b6 ( I 6 . ... since the black bishop l::t b 8 I6 c 5 lt::le 8 17 li:lxe8 with pres­ is cut off from the sensitive kingside sure) 15 g4lt::lg 7 ( 1 5 . .i d6! lt::lf5 I 2 .ib4 20 ltJ xe8 'it. . and 9 . . 5 ltJf3: Others 53 6 .ixa i White could still play 1 0 d4! Now one line is 7 .. li:lge7 7 d4 etc. 7 d4 ( ! ) transposes to I I lt::ld 6+ 'it>f8 1 2lt::lg5? ( 1 2 't!t'xb4!?. . lt::lx d7+ .. de 2I 't!t'xe6+ . . . I 8 lt::ld4 !? e5 I 9 lba4 . .ic 3+ 1 I Watson-Groth. 'tlrg7 be too chancy.ie6 20 � b4 could follo w. USSR I 970. a5 14 �a4 b3 I 5 �xb3 .. .>g7 I 4 lt::lg4) I 3 li:ld6! and was strong. but they are posi­ I 5 d4 d5 1 6 g4! lt::l fe7 I 7 lt::lc 7 l::t b 8 tionally better fou nded than in the I8 lt::l e8 e tc . . li:lge7 7 0-0 I 5 . . lt::ld 6 1 6lt::le 5 squares.. . .. cb 8 ab li:lxb4 (with the idealt::lf6+ and . ..if6 +) 9 . .2-1.if4 1!t'b6! ) I6 . lt::l c 6)..ixc5!? 1 9 lt::l x c8 !? l::t x c8 12 0-0 0. This may also 'tlt'xa i thf8 1 4 0-0 b6 ( 1 4 . I4 . .ia3 b2 1 5 0-0 b i � H with the idea I6 c5 't!t' I b3!. . .ig5 f5 ( I 2 0 0 0 f6 !? I 3 i nstead o f I 6 lt::le 5 'fJ/e7 =.. .. 7 b4 idea. .ixb2 I I li:lxb2 �f6 I 2 lt::la 4 lb b 3 ..ia3. . lt::l e 8 I 7 lt::le 5 Black m ust still free himself. . .. . l::t a6? 1 7 li:lxc8) I 7 li:le5 l::t b 8 I 8 d 5 lbec6 ( ! ) 1 0 'tlt'a4 a5 I I l::tb I l::t b 8 b e ( I 8 . and Black refuted the line B outright by 12 . .. 8 b3 0-0 9 .>f8 2 1 lt::lf6 �h4 2 2 16 c5 ( I 6 . line A . lb bc6 IO lbb5 0-0 or . . e .. . . Oslo I9 80. . Oddly enough. . ..2 Watson-Antunac. lt::lf5 or .g. My first error came in the m ain e) 6 a3!? is a wild sideline. Lone Pine 53 1 98 1 . . 1 6 . . . .. Probably the most im­ \lre7 I 7 g5! with the idea li:lg4 ). and also line 7 .ixa I 10 lt::ld6+ 'it>f8 I I �a4 sights from the original volume ! .. llg8 +) I4 .g. lt::lg e7 is 7 b4 !? (53): + with the idea . Watson-Hjartarson. "t!t'e7 I8 lt::lg 4! �xg5 I 9 li:lc7 ! "t!t'xg4 l 3 . a5. .. .ixa l I 3 set of complications. 6 .. . . .

•a4!?. . d3 I I i. Aside from 7 d3. 0-0 =) 1 0 i.e7 speculative in the extreme (this I I ltJxc8 llxc8 1 2 e3 ! . . . de 9 'tlt'a4 t Lysenko.. ( 10 ltJe4!?) 10 . c b ( 8 .1 0 e 3 liJf5 . i s very 7 d3 dangerous). viz simply 6 .xg2 . 0-0 I I c5? 't!rxc5 1 2 b4 'tlt'b6!. . . .g. 7 cd ed with ideas such as liJxc8 and d6 or 8 d4!? is of some interest. ltJge7 9 i. Cl e) 7 d4!? is less dangerous to Black 6 0-0 liJ ge7 (54) than its counterpart 6 d4 below. . . 19 .txb7 't!t'b8 =F . USSR 1 968) 10 g4 a6 I I 't!ra4 liJh4 1 2 liJd6+ </.xe7 ltJxe7 ( 1 3 . 't!fxc8 1 4 'tlt'b4+ </.tb2 0-0 10 Unfortunately. but seems acceptable. e. . . since •h4 ( 19 . Compare lines below. . 7 0-0) 7 .g. d5. . 'tlt'b6 ( ! ) 1 0 a 4 . .g5 h6 I 0 i. This 1975. . . given in the first edition. c) 7 lilbl d 5 8 a3!? a5 (8 . b6 I I b4 cb 1 2 ab JileS =) 9 d3 h6 falls short after 9 . liJxd4 8 ltJxd4 cd 54 9 ltJb5 liJf5 !? (9 . .xf3 White's chances for advantage to llad8 + Dake-Schmidt.txd4 =/co = I I d4. Lone Pine the test.f3. ltJxd4! 10 liJxd4 (or 9 .xb2 d) 7 e4!? 0-0 (or 7 .a 3 20 i. . 8 . . . .d4 23 e3. White is perhaps cd? ! ed 1 0 ltJxd5 liJxd5 I I ed 't!t'xd5 better off with simply 8 d3. . .txb 2! 1 3 liJd4 'tlt'xg2+!? 8 . d5 8 cd ed 9 . e. d4 9 ltJa4) 9 a b d 4 1 0 ltJa4 USS R 1 976.. . ed 8 b4!? ( 8 0-0 although (e. . for example.xb2 I I lLlxb2 i.. .g8 1 5 . I I . Best seems 7 .g7 22 liJd7 i. .txd6 20 ed+ </.. d5 I 0 cd lLlxd5 w I I .d2 0-0 I I 't!tc l cd and on I I lLlb5.d7 ! 1 0 't!rxc4 liJge7 9 d4?. . d5) 8 d3 d5 ! 9 1 2 ltJ xb2 de! =. . .xf3 15 i.f8 1 3 liJxc8(?!) ( 1 3 c 5 +) 1 3 . . move is as yet untried in several b) 7 e3 transposes to 6 e3 or 5 e3. . Admittedly 'irb6 is u nclear after 1 0 liJd6+ </. 7 .txd5 ed 1 2 liJxd4 = Yusupov- Cordes. hope for 6 a3!?. 9 . 'tlt'b6) 8 . . Lanzarote 1975.. . 'tlt'd6 ) 14 </. Bellon-Adorjan. last position.54 5 liJf3: Others </.. </. 12 . cd 9 lLlb5 20 •xa6 i.g4 1 2 lLld3 another answer to 6 a3 which puts 'tlt'd6 13 lilc I b6 14 h3 i.te3 . .g. i. K harkin­ Lysenko. i.b2 i.h7 1 2 cd ed = Lysenko-Kogan. . d5 9 A sample line might go 7 cd ( 7 ltJa4 t. . Graz 1978. . . this line provides some a) 7 b3 is roughly equivalent to 6 b3. or 1 9 de!? 6 .c3 21 f4). 6 a3 contests. . Black has yet ltJa4 i.1 0 .a6 pawn grabbing by 8 .) 9 .. .g7 21 •b2) 19 •c4 ignored. d 5 here is also generally .. i.

txh6 1 1 11xh6 ltJf5 1 2 tt'f4 tt'b8 = Gheorghiu­ Tu kmakov.. .i.b7 1 1 l:i:b 1 d5 1 2 b4? ! (but 56 1 2 cd ed 13 b4 d4 ! +) 1 2 . .. saw 8 .tf4 0-0 1 0 Reykjavik 1 986. Orel 1 966. lil:e8.. e5 1 2 . .tg5 ( 9 . and 8 . .. ..id2 Common.ih6 C 1 3 8 ..td2 9 'ilc 1 b6 C 1 2 8 a3 1 0 . . h6 10 .tb7 1 0 .. b6 (or 9 . .. Wijk aan Zee 1 968.i. when 8 . . 9 . . C I I 8 . . when White 7 0-0 (55) has not wasted time via l:i:b l-c1 Or 7 . . or 8 cd ed (8 . The idea is prob­ ably 8 .i. but passive. li:lxe7 1 0 d4 1 1 i.if5 1 1 l:i:ac I 't!t'd7 Ptleger­ = d6 (9 . e. .td2 or 8 . .tf4 1 0 cd ed 1 1 i. h 6 d4 ! 1 2 lt:le4 lbd5 C 1 4 8 l:i:b l 13 a3 i. .ig4 etc.txg7 ) 1 1 . d5 1 0 e4!?) 1 0 trd2 l:i:b8 Penrose.f4 'trd2 . .. .. . 1 4 li:lxc6 be 1 5 l:i:c l . a) 8 .. d6 9 't!Vc 1 lilb8 10 .i.. .. d5 = ) 12 cd lbxd5 (56) 1 0 a3 . .. 9 1Wcl .tf4 d6) 1 1 li:lxe7 1 1 d4 cd 12 li:lxd4 0-0 1 3 e3 .tg5 h6 9 . d 5. 5 lb/3: Others 55 Stei nberg-Tu kmakov.f4 and the e-pawn is protected versus transposes.. .txe7 1 1 .. . de! 13 de w cb 1 4 cb lil:c8 1 5 lba4 lbd4 16 lbxd4 .i.. .xe7 'it'xe 7 10 . .cf 8 . = d 5 ! + Lysenk o . London Cl l 1 980.b7 1 0 e 3 ! ? or here 9 . g 5 1!rd7) 9 . .txg7 'it>xg7 1 3 a 3 b5 1 4 ( 1 3 l:i:c 1 ( !) ) 1 3 . .d2 (9 ..i.i.ixg2 1 7 lbxe6 fe 18 'it>xg2 l:i:xc4 + Korchnoi-Karaklajic.i. . a6 9 . . b) 8 l:i:e1 !? is a Larsen refinement similar to 8 l:i:b l .g5 h6 10 cd ed I I .ih6 ( 1 1 lil:b 1 . . Larsen-Kudrin. 8 . li:lxd4 = Larsen-Korchnoi... . b6. Bath 1973) 9 ..ih6 a6 1 1 a4?! ( 1 1 b3 b5 1 2 .. . li:lc6 ! 1 4 li:lxd 5 cb! ? a b 1 5 b4 =. Buenos Aires 1970. Trading 55 w bishops isn't necessarily desirable. d5 9 ..g.x g7 �g7 might be tried) 9 . b 7 + (centre). li:lxd 5 ! ? .. 8 d5 Also good are 8 .xe7 lbxe 7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 lbxd4 lbc6 .ih6 . ... .i..

. d6 10 �b1 i. .. . . li:Jxd5 10 i. . New York 1 967) 1 0 �b l 1!re7 ll �e l ( !) (versus . I I 1!t'a4 de! 1!t'c3+ o. .d7 1 2 li:Je4! e5 ( 1 2 .g5 li:Jd 3 li:Jd4 + ) 1 4 . li:Jxd4 ed =F. e5 9 i.d2 ±. 11 b4?! Leningrad IZ 1 973.b7 (5 7) 9 1!rc l li:Jf5 (9 . Larsen-Tal.d2 White's hanging pawns are a d6 I I b4 1!t'd7 =. . . see 8 �e l above and 8 �b l 8 dS below. . e.. Vrnjal:ka be i. li:Jxc3 l6 1!t'xc3 ( 1 6 + Marjanovic-Gufeld . .f4 at Buenos Aires 1 980.g. . . . .g5 ( ! ) is 'D' 9 b6 below. li:Je5 1 3 li:Jxe5! i. .xe 7 li:Jxe 7 12 d4 versus Karpov 8 i. �c8 1 7 li:Je4 i. . 8 .b7 1 0 i.>g8 1 5 li:Je5? li:Jd4! i s also 12 1Wxc4 ( 1 2 dc li:Ja5) 1 2 .d2 1 5 li:Ja3 is best. i. .>g I e5 20 nothing. went 1 3 h4!? Natural.. 1 3 li:Jxd5 1!t'xd5 1 4 equalizes thereafter. .. but 1 2 . . i. .c6 l 7 1!t'c2 li:Jb7 18 �fc l 1 2 1!t'c I d4 1 3 li:Ja4 g5 + Csom­ 1!rd7 1 9 li:Je I ! li:Jd5 ! + Petrosian­ Smej kal. bu t 13 �e l or 1 3 a3 is prefer­ 't!Va4 = or I I cd li:Jxd5 1 2 1!t'a4 ( 1 2 a ble) 1 3 . . 1 4 li:Je l 'itd7 1 5 9 cd ed (or 9 . cd A system Fischer played with 1 3 li:Jxd4 li:Jc6 1 4 li:Jxc6 be 1 5 llc l colours reversed. Fischer.d2 or 9 i. .xg2) 1 6 . . 14 c5?! ( 14 li:Jb5 a6 9 i. . .!.!. a5 12 �dl :t- 1 2 b4 �ad8 1 3 �el f5 1 4 b5 e5 1 5 i.xe5 de 1 5 g4 ! a nd 1 6 g5) 1 3 i.1 4 i. li:Jd4 1 4 �e l h6 1 5 li:Je5? li:Jxd5? 'ifxd5 1 3 b4 cb 1 4 a b li:Jd4! ( 1 5 lDxd4) 1 5 . but White never quite (weakening. Belgrade 1970.Byrne. The main option is 8 .Byrne-R.e6 . K iel 1 978..d2 a6 1 4 li:Jc3 b5 ! 1 5 li:Jd5 't!Vd8 1 6 li:Jg5!? ( 1 6 b4!?) 1 6 .g5 ! ? h6 l 0 cd ed C1 3 l l i.a6! 1 6 �e l �e8 = held the bal­ its worth in the first edition.f4 h6 16 li:Ja4 i.11 . . d e 14 i. lDd5 1 3 poor. Larsen tried 9 i.xg2 1 7 'it>xg2 Banja 1976) or I I 'itcl 'itd7 achieves 1!t'd5+ 1 8 li:Jf3 �ad8 19 o.xe 5 - 13 . . . ance. b6 1 0 �b l i. 11 eb C1 2 12 ab de 8 a3 dS 13 de �e8 Or 8 . li:Jd4) I I . be 1 5 be li:Ja5 1!t'd7 =) 1 0 � b l b6 I I i.h6 :t D.56 5 li:Jf3: Others A typical position. problem . b6 9 �b l i.b7 I I a31!fd7. I overestimated i. .

. . li:Jxc4 was too strong. .txc3? 1 1 be W'xd 1 1 3 . . . b�t 1 3 . move p repares . li:Jxd5 10 li:Jxd5 ed 1 1 W'd2 After 1 1 . 5 liJf3: Others 57 1 8 g4! li:Jfe7 1 9 li:Jdf6+ ± w ith the 'ifxf4. . de and . The the last section. W'd7 12 lHc l 1 9 74. and . has invented a new The alternatives are comparable strategy based on i. .. Others 9 . de 12 de li:Ja5 1 3 1 2 . .. for something like 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3 10 a3 . d e 10 de .t) 1 6 li:Je4 li:Jd5 1 7 b5 n ote to I 0 . 1fe8 13 1t'b3!?) 1 3 li:ac 1 or 13 e4!?. It has yet to previous sections and rather to yield good results. . Halle 1 4 . . li:Ja5 1 3 Wc2 or 12 . .tc6 1 2 l:lfxd 1 f6 1 3 . . who has encountered some difficul ties on the White side 1 1 Wa4 of 5 li:Jf3 e6. 9 .tg5. .td2 work . . . Malich-Ciocaltea. e5? 1 2 cd ef 1 3 de and 1 4 10 cd ed .th6 in line C 1 1 . 9 li:b 1 idea. . . li:Ja5 and the threat of . .te5 Uoo.. Thus W hite should settle b6 12 a3 a nd b4. . . since 9 .!. in teresting features. b4. . . a6 ! I countered rather l:le8 ( Larsen) i s equal. . lUxe8 1 5 li:Jb5). d4 fol lowed by .tf4 d5 transposes to the author at Lone Pine 198 1 . C14 8 li: b l !? Larsen. . . li:Jd5 is a t least ) = 9 . .th6 is the .tb7 (58) li:Jxd5 e d 1 4 l:lfc l with the idea W'd l . and 1 1 . .txd4 1 7 b5 9 cd ed 1 0 We i b6 1 1 .td2 h6 1 1 cd ! li:Jxd5 1 2 14 li:Je5 . if 10 cd ed (or 10 . or here 14 .t xg2 1 5 'i!i>xg2 g5! doesn't 1t'c l .. .g5. feebly with 1 2 l:lfc 1? de 13 de? ( 1 3 9 b6! 1t'xc4. here li:Jce7 1 8 . . . li:Jd4 1 6 li:Jxd4 .td6 b6 1 4 li:Je5 . 9 . . . b6 9 .. . or perhaps 12 l:lfd l li:c8 ( 1 2 .tb7 1 2 a3 then = (compare 1 1 . li:Jd5 is l:lfd 1 W'e8 1 4 1t'xe8 l:laxe8 1 5 l:ld7 ! equal. e 5 1 0 . d 4 1 2 li:Ja2 f6 1 3 b4 e5 idea . These lines are not necessarily prospectless for White. . . . a6! seems to provide a complete answer to the 8 . . but has some depressing. . but for now 1 1 . lHd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 b4 cb 1 5 ab d4 9 l:lb 1 !? ( 1 5 .td2 t. . . 1 1 .tg7 1 8 li:Ja2! . . . d4? 1 0 lDa4 e 5 1 1 .tf4. 11 a6! 8 d5 Played by McCambridge versus 8 . . li:Ja5 li:Jxd5 ) 1 1 1!t'd2 . .tg5 (! ) h6 are 1 1 . .

. lii:x c8 1 1 ed ( I I .i. .g5 !?) or even 1 7 e4 de 1 8 . 't!t'b4+ less point when Black avoided . . White has some pressure on the 6 li:Jxd4 isolani to compensate for the bishop The most entertaining line. . xc6 10 c5!? 't!t'a5+ 1 1 b4 1!rxb4+ ( 1 1 .i. . ed 12 0-0 rtlf8 ! 1 3 .58 5 li:Jf3: Others 1 0 . . e5 (?) li:Jc6! 1 4 li:Jxc6 b e 1 5 't!t'c2 ( a big then 8 e3 (!) a6 9 li:Jd6+ rtle7 can be choice: 1 5 e4!?. . .i. 11 . 1 5 't!t'd2 lii:e 8 1 6 followed up by either 10 li:Jxc8+ lii:fe 1 .a6 1 7 li:Ja4 'it'd6 =) 1 5 .xe3 (9 1!rd6!?) .i. but after Palmas IZ 1 982.i. . . . 't!t'b6 8 e3! is pro­ 6 d4! ? (60) mising.i.0 with t h e idea .a3. Las but less ambitious is 6 . e­ and g-pawns. 0.g. b6!? (Tu kmakov). 8 . . . de was aimed at getting the same 1 3 fe exposes Black even more. e. li:Jxb4 1 2 0-0 'it'xc5 1 3 li:Je4 or 1 3 One can see how L arsen's ex­ li:Jxc8+ with the idea e d and/or perime nt with 8 lii: e 1 (see above) . or 1 2 li:Ja4! 't!t'e7 1 3 B 't!t'c 1 li:Jd4 1 4 lii:e l . but of course that move had . . In Larsen-Tukmakov.i. Black went for the 7 li:Jb5 Black must move against a Tarrasch-like position after 1 3 . cd. 14 . If 7 .. C2 Similarly. hg? I I de li:Jxc6 1 2 h 3 ! ± 60 (Tu kmakov). k ind of play with the useful lii:e 1 1 2 . . de 9 .i. 't!t'a5 ! . .xc3 ). f5 13 lii: b 1 't!t'xc5 14 't!t'b3 ! and in.i. .i.i. .a3) 1 2 li:Jd2 ( ! ) 't!t'xc5 ( 1 2 . . which probably "shouldn't" work but has some charming points. 7 . e4 12 li:Jg5 or 1 1 lii:b 8 1 6 llfd 1 ( 1 6 e4!?) 1 6 . . .. .a3) 13 li:J2e4 1!t'b6 ( 1 3 . The j ustification for such madness stems from the dark-square holes which Black has created by moving his c-.i. . Safer pair. .xe4 . simple edge by li:Jbxd4.d2 't!t'b6 1 5 llb I and 'i!t'b3) 1 4 d5. . .xe7 li:Jxe7 12 d4 cd 1 2 .e6! = ( 1 9 . 13 li:Jxd4 (59) 59 B Another eccentric tactical idea (see 6 a3!? above). . . . . .

txf5 1 4 ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 1 5 . Thes­ b ut I seem to have been asleep to saloniki 01 1 984. ll:le7 !?. This is an . 1t'd8 understatement. e. ..te5 13 b4!? ll:lxb4 1 4 .. 'ffa 5+ ! ? proves surpri­ fle7 +.. ..t c I etc) 9 ..txf4 1 0 g f 'W'a5+ I I �� options) 10 .. therefore 7 . . since Black can I I . .. �b8 1 7 ll:lc4 etc) I I a4 ( I I ll:le4 !? Povah) I I . I I .te3 't!t'a5+ 1 3 . . ..txd4 8 ll:lb5. ed!? 10 a4!? a6 I I l2Jd6+ �e7 7 . ..te4 16 .. .ta3 'it>xd6 1 5 �b l (8 . .txd4 16 �xc6 ( 1 6 �d5? ... and the a l rook may yet end up on d l .. . Then 1 2 ..td2 ! Povah. . . ll:lf5 1 3 ll:lxf5 . to limit Black's f4 !?) 9 . . .tf4 and The most sensible decision is �cl. 'ff b 6 9 a4!? .. .. .. safer but less enterprising is 8 . best looks I I .. . 8 ·. . 5 lLljJ: Others 59 9 . . e5?? 9 e3. . then I I a4 1t'a6 1 2 b4. . . 11t'a5 1 2 b4!.txe3 1 7 �d6 Now 8 .. e.the author.g. .tf4 e 5 12 'tlrd6) I I . .txb7 B 1 6 . ._b4 16 ed.tf4 ( 9 e3) 1 0 de (or 1 0 a4. hoping for active chapter) 8 cd! (61) piece play: 9 0-0 ll:lge7 10 ll:lbxd4 0-0 I I . . . . . 8 .. . 1 2 .1 5 .txd4 .. . .te3!? �e8 1 2 �c l !? ( 1 2 61 B �e l ( ! ) is more accurate here: e2 is covered. . singly risky due to 9 ll:ld2 ! 'tlt'xb5 7 ll:lxd4 cd (9 .td2 1lrb6 1 4 0. be ( 10 .9 . . Black played the possibilities for much of this simply 8 .txd4 1 6 'tlrxd4 . .td2 "ifb6 ( 1 0 .. .. . . e..te4 1 7 �ad I or 15 . .tf4 e 5 1 2 hardly defend against the multiple . ll:lf5 1 3 l2Jxf5 .. threats of l2Jd6. . etc.or 9 e3 . . . . ... 1 2 . ed. .txe3) 1 6 . . but 1 2 11t'c2 and ll:le4-d6/c5 is nice) 1 2 lbc4 "with am ple compensation for a pawn" (Povah)..txa l 1 5 cb- 62 15 lLlc4!? ... 0-0..t xb7 with the idea 16 .th3 !? is not yet equal) 1 2 . d 3 8 ll:le4! (62) 1 3 b5 1t'a5 1 4 0-0!? .tbB 1 1 e4 etc. 11t'a6.0 etc. . . .. . d5 ("! " . . ll:lf6 1 3 ll:lb3 'tlrb6 1 4 a 5 l 0 . .g.g. 'tlt'b6 1 2 ll:lc4 'tfb4+ 1 3 .tf4 e 5 I I . So in Nogueiras-Barbero. 'tlt'b7?! ( I I .txf5 14 �c5?! d4 1 5 ll:lxd4 .te5 1 0 /4 10 ll:ld6+ 'tie 7 I I ll:lxc8+ �xc8 1 2 . 'tlra5+ l 0 ...tg7?? 9 'tlrd6. ll:la5. . .. . bu t d5 1 2 b4 ! cb 1 3 1t'd4 f6 1 4 1t'c5 . or even 9 0-0 . .

.(E II 1Wa3+ !? and li:Jd6. .i. . f5 II . but winning is I I 7 a3 a5 8 0 -0 0-0 and White must li:Jd6+ with the idea II . . . d6 9 \Wa4+ q. B lack tried 10 ..ffi II 1!t'b4!?. . fS?! 9li:Jd6+ �7 1 0 c5! \Wa5+ I I . 9 cd ed 10 \Wa4+ is similar. 1 7 \Wf3. li:Jf6 1 2 li:Jxf6 ..f4 't!t'd8 1 9 1 0 'tta 3 with an attack (Povah)..60 5 li:Jf3: Others 8 1t'c7!? lbd5 ( 14 .committal n ature.i.n !?) I I . the Botvinnik System as .i.xf6 I3 . .g.d2 \Wxc5 I 2 li:Jxc8 ! (clearer than I2 'itb3 !? a5 t) I2 .i.ffi I2 moe his king's knight again versus 'irb3. . 1t'c7 The main line.g5 or b3) II li:Jc5 with 63 pressure.i. d) 8 ...i. 1 6 't!t'b3 !?) a) 8 . li:Jf5 15 li:Jc4! ±intending A good place to look for im­ li:Jb6 Filip) 1 5 . . q. . . 'itb6 II \Wa3..xd5 ed 16 1t'a3 ( ± provements: threatening 1 7 c6. This could use Black. although some are 9 cS li:Je7 shy of its. w with options l ike 10 .i. li:Jb 5 b6 20 c b \Wxb6 2 1 li:Jc7 . . \Wc7 II . . . or here 9 . . f5 -f4.i. b) 8 . .i.b4+ and e3) I 3 .d2 ( I I q. e6 variation.. .. e5? I I 'irxd4! 0-0 I2 \Wd6! is (doesn't mix with li:Jf3) 6 .(E II 1t'a3 ± Povah) \Wd5+ ±) 1 7 . dS!? 9 1t'a4+ .f8 I 0 s eS (63) cd ed ( 1 0 . c)8 . q. .. . . q. has been utilized by many tests.i. 'irxc8 I3 l:l:cl (or I3 .i. . li:Jge7 given by Povah.. .xf6 Time will tell if 6 d4 (or 6 a3 !?) I4 ��0 'it'b6 I5 e 3 ! 'ttc 5 I6 1t'xc 5 can help to spice up a rather settled ±. . .d7 !? 1 0 li:Jd6+ D q. .b7 possible is (e. 10 . . .i.d7 1 6 .g5 + ! 22 li:Jxa8 ±±..i.. Dl Bangalore I98I. So in Chernin-Parameswaran. .f4! Dl 6 0 -0 White has developed strong 02 6 d3 ( . li:Je7!? 9 li:Jd6+ q.xf6+ q. .g5 lines) pressure on the dark squares. 1t'xd5 II \Wb4+ with the idea .) 10 . . this section in­ 12 li:Jd6+ �ffi 1 3 l:l:c I h5 1 4 'ira4 cludes lines where �0 is played . top players. 6 e4? 1 0 ..f4 or I 0 This. 1t'b8 I 4 . . Now 6 a3 tends to t ranpose. �g8 1 7 �0 (or 1 7 11t'f3 f5 1 8 IO li:Jxd6+ q.i. 5 . .b4+.e7 (9 . . f5 1 8 . 6 0-0 'ita5+ I I .i. .ffi 10 \Wb3!? intending 1 0 . .i.

.xf6 i. Tal linn 1 975. . e. aS!? may prematurely con­ .g7 good reply being 7 .. llb I i. Also of i nterest H iibner . .xf6 1 2 li'Je l i. McCambridge­ 7 0-0 Choobak. li b8 10 li'Jed5 li'Jxd5 (Karner) isn't impressive. It's not clear what the best move Oi l 7 a3 order is by which to prevent un­ 0 1 2 7 d3 wanted complications: H arm less is 7 b3 0-0 8 i. . 1 0 I I li'Jxd5 li'Je7 = Lombardy-Evans. USSR Ch 1 967. .ie6 9 d3 (9 li'Je3 !? lib8 !?) 9 . A disaster for Black was 6 . .xg2 1 3 �xg2 liJ xd5 1 4 't!fb6 14 li'Jbd6 a4 ! etc .e6 (9 . i. i. match 1 980-8 1 .. 9 d3 i. ..d6 li'Jf5 1 2 li'Je4 White's main option is 7 li'Je l . d6 7 a3 i. 7 . or I I . .e6!? S d3 li'Jge7?! (8 . . . a5 S lib I 0-0 9 d 3 d6 1 0 i. . li'Jxe3 +) 10 . ... . I f 7 li'J e I .. i. . i. li'Jf6?! 7 a3 (or 7 li'Je l and 7 a3! ? (64) S li'Jc2) 7 . . 6 li'Jg e7 Dll a) 6 .. . or I I .g5 ! h6 I I i. . .li'Jf5 12 't!Vxa I . . d6 8 li'Jc2 15 d4 ± Osnos-Tarasov.h6! ± planning 1 1 . a6?! 8 b4 ! cb 9 ab li'Jxb4 1 0 9 d3 h6 = with the idea .e6! I 0 li'Jd5 a5. b2 d6 a) 7 .b2 12 't!Vc2 options. a i.xa I I I '022'. USSR Ch .xe5 li'Jxe5 l 4li'Jxe5 i.f8!? 1 3 i.g5.g7 1 3 li'Jc2 a4 14 li'Je3 li'Jd4 1 5 lie I 't!Va5 1 6 li'Jed5 lieS 1 7 e3 ± Stein-Doroskevich. 5 li'Jf3: Others 61 here or on the next few moves. . b5) here 8 . . But 10 li'Jd5 li b8 ! = planning . f5 1 7 f3 h5 =. .h3 @b6 or 1 2 li'Jed6 i.e6 ! S li'Jd5 li'Jge7 9 a3?! 0-0 10 d3 libS I I li'Jc2 b5 + H ubner. .g. .e6 Karner-Espig. . . . cb? 1 0 a b li'Jxb4 I I i. e. .a3 li'Jbc6 I I i. b) 6 .e6! 1 3 li'Jxb7 12 li'Jed5 i. . d5 9 cd li'Jxd5 10 li'Jg5 9 . . . is 8 li'Jb5 d6!? 9 e3 i. 0-0 I I llb l cede White the opportunity for a lieS 1 2 e4 de 13 deli'Jd4 + Korchnoi­ favourable i. i. .a3 li'Jbc6 1 2 li'Je4 This can simply transpose to McCa mbridge) 1 0 li'Jxe4 i. . a5) 9 b4 ! e4? (but 9 .e6 10 't!Vc2 h6 7 li'Je I 0-0 S li'Jc2 d6 9 li'Je3 (9 I I lld I llc8 1 2 d4! with an attack. li'Jde7 I I li'Jge4 0-0! and 1 2li'Jxc5? USA 1 966) 10 a3 't!Vd7 I I d3 i. d6 7 d3 or 7 a3 transpose. . . . d5 ! 1 967 .e6. Los Angeles 1 985. but here we look at White i. li'Jxd5 li'Je7 15 li'Jxe7+ 't!Vxe7 16 e4 6 d3 li'Jge7 7 a3 0-0 S 0-0. .g. 1 0 b3 ( 1 0 cd li'Jxd5 I I li'Je3 li'Jde7 b) 7 .

ta3 ± with play) I I ab f5 12 b5 liJe5 ( 1 2 . fe 1 3 . e .td2ltlxd5 l 6ltlxd5 (9 .g. 8 ltle l ll:b8 ! ? (8 . perhaps. .tf8 1 3 d4.. I I . . d4 to follow. . e. . .. 9 liJeI f5 I 0 .te6 1 1 d3 ed 12 ll:lxd3 Dl2 . f5 I I be fe 12 cb with good 8 . liJec6 II 't!t'a4 liJa6 liJa5 1 3 ll:xa5. d6 =) 9 ltlc2 a6 But nobody has tried my some­ 10 b4 . cb) 1 0 liJgxe4! !? ( 1 0 liJh3 g5 I I b4 H Barcza-Karpov. went 9 . Lvov 1 984) II d3 (II ll:b 1 !?) 8 a3 I I .txc4 = Romanishin­ which transposes to 02 below). .. .t b2!? ltle7 (=) 1 7 't!fc l ? ltlxd5 1 8 . . . . d5 !? I I cd ltlxd5 l 2 1!t'b3 !?) I I ltlh3 cb 12 ab g5 with complications.te6 9 fe 14 liJxe4 oo) 13 liJd6+ '@xd6 14 liJg5 . 8 b4 e4! Vienna 1 985. . 1 0 . cb b4 !? creates new problems.ta3 't!t'd8 1 5 liJd 5. .td2 liJdf5 also the best try for advantage once 1 6 b6! 1!t'xb6 l 7 1!t'a4+ �f8 1 8 ll:b l White h as played 8 b4!?. .62 5 liJf3: Others c) 7 . liJxd5 1 6 . . .. Sochi 1 984. f5 1 0 lib! ( 1 0 . .. After the text move Horvitz­ Donaldson. Agza mov. 9 liJel?! 65 Here 9 ltlg5 is critical.te6 . e4 9 liJg5!? h6 ltled5 . .txe4 . .tb2 d 5 ! ) is unclear.. 8 . . w h6? 1 0 l0gxe4 attacks c5.ta3 12 liJ e4 . ..tb2 advantage to Black.txd5 h6 I I h 3 . the idea 1 0 . Most flexible (aside from 8 . .tb2 0-0 oo Raj kovic). . cb 9 ab liJ xb4 1 0 . ( 1 0 .txc4 I0 d3 cb!? ( I 0 . . d6!? looks innocent. .. or 10 .te6 1 2 de!? ( l2 'it'd2!?) 12 . 1 9 76-77) I I ab . since 9 .to Rajkovic-Nicevski.tf5! 1 3 l0ed3 ll:fe8 with For example. . liJ b 8 !? 1 3 . 'it'd8 1 9 lixb7 ± Ftacnik-Danner.th3 1 9 ll:eI? b5 20 a3 \!t'd6 2 1 . . match 1 978..tg5!?. .. h6 ( 10 . Groningen with e4. .te3 ll:fc8 24 'ti'd2 .te6?! 1 2 d 3 ed 13 edt . . .. ..ta3 gives So the main move is 8 .g. . 9 . �0!? (or 10 . and 15 . . liJg8 I I liJxe6 fe 12 be d 5 ! 1 3 e4! �0 1 4 16 it'b3 or 1 5 . cb 9 ab liJxb4 1 0 . 1 0 . Caracas .te6 22 cb ab 23 . 1 2 . e4! (65): clear compensation. .te6 II be de 12 ltle3 b6 1 3 what fanciful 8 .te6 12 ll:lxe6 fe 1 3 Too speculative. . d 5 ! 1 0 ll:ab l !? cb 1 1 cd l0xd5 1 2 ltlcxe4 . Stip 1 976. f5 10 ll:b l t. .txd5 \lt'g4 t Ftacnik-Rogers. . or 8 .g. . .td7! 1 5 . .txc4 1 3 liJa4 ! =/oo Romanishin­ 7 d3 0-0 Short. . . e. but 8 . but b5 liJd4 1 4 e 3 't!t'c7 1 5 .

b6 cb? lLl xd5 1 4 be lLlc3 ..i. 1 980) 1 3 . . Eksjo lLle 6 1 6 e4! ! planning lLld5.tb3 ! 2 1 't!fd2 .txb4 cb 1 7 It xb4 !. . self.. C anada 1 976. . b5) 12 . .. . . .) 10 .g.tc3. l:Ib8 l 6 lLlxe7+ lLlxe7 1 7 lLlc4 lLlc6 18 . 5 lLlf3: Others 63 1 9 70.. .id7 or even 1 5 . or 1 3 a4-a 5. .ie6 (the move 10 . 1Wd7 (or 1 3 .txa5 1 0 . 9 l:Ibl aS (66) b2) 1 1 lLldS l:Ib8 12 lLlc2 ( 12 . .i. .d2 Ita7 !?) 1 3 b4! a b 1 4 ab .te6 ( I I . b l ) 11 lLlc2!?.. a6 9 l:Ib l 14 b5 lLld4 1 5 lLle3 . . h6 and: a) 11 't!t'a4 !? .i. . .g. b) 1 1 lLlel! .g5 .id2 Ita2!? 1 9 .id2 l:Ibf8 20 .tg5 f6 I I . .h3 22 White can still play into the .. l:Ib8 1 2 lLlc2 a) 10 lLldS l:Ib8 ! I I lLl d2 ... .. 8 . . Itf7 1 8 lLl xe7+ lLlxe7! 1 9 . l:Ib8! has saved the tempo 14 .tc8? ( 1 5 .te6! 12 Itfc l f5 1 3 't!fd l '@'d7 1 4 lLl e l f4 1 5 lLld5 fg 16 hg Itab8 l 7 lLlc2? ( 1 7 b4 ! oo) 1 7 . b5 1 3 lLlce3 ( 1 3 a slight spatial plus. I I . Suttles-Chow. e.id2 e4! l 9 lLJxa5 lLlxa5 20 . d5 12 cd 1 1 lLle1 lLlxd5 13 lLle 3 lLlde7 (or l 3 .te6 1 3 b4 t) 12 lLld5 l:Ib8 ( 1 2 . . .. . Palma .ig5 Ideas based on . f5 12 lLlc2 Or: �h8 1 3 b4 t. . Ke kki. I I . 10 l:Ib8! 10 . w and n ow Uhlmann gives 20 . 66 Barcza-Uh l mann. lLlxe3 Thus .i.ixb7 'tixb7 1 5 e3 l:Ib3 =F Lengyel-Wedberg.. e . . .1. b e 1 4 d e f5) 1 4 cb Itxb5 1 5 a4?! de Mallorca 1 969. . Sarajevo 1 969. .txa5. 8 .e6 =.ie6 13 �h2 . . 1 3 lLlxe7+? 1 0 b4 . . Larsen-Bobotsov. 'tid7 (!) l 6 lLlxe6 'ti'xe6oo) l 6 b4 cb went I I . . . f5!? should be met by 9 lib I or here I I . . Norway 1 982. .te4!? h4 23 be hg 24 f3 't!fg4! =F lines by (e.txe3 lLld4!?. . 9 .d2 or Polgar-Ribli.ib7 I I be!? de 12 .t xd5 1 5 cd discourages) and: lLlxb4 16 .t 8 d6 Radke-Watson ..ie3!?. I I h 3 !? is the best option. . I I . b6 leave White f6 and . .txb4 . h6 12 lLle l .ib2 1!t'd7 lLlxe7 14 lLle3 a4! 1 5 .t Agdestein­ Itb8 1 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 1 2 c5 ! . .g. l:Ib8 1 2 b4 cb 1 3 ab b6 a5 10 lLle l ! d6 1 l lLlc2.i. Hungarian Ch 1 972. h 6.id2 be 1 6 de 1 3 lLld2 lLld4 14 .e l h 5 ! 21 b4 .i.. ..ta2 22 n be l l:Ixb2 =F. discussed in '02' below. . . 1 7 ab ab 1 8 . b) 10 lLle1 . b4. .. . . Sunnyvale 1 975. b-pawn for a bind) 1 4 lLle4! b6 1 5 trying to get Black to commit him­ lLlg5 . . sacrificing the for .

. . .txa4 15 1!t'xa4+ li:Jc6 16 li:Jc4 20 i. . San Antonio .xd5 Now White finally achieves b4.txd5 1rxd5 16 b4 ab 1 7 ab ll fd8! 18 li:Je3 t!t'd4 19 be e4! 20 1!t'c2 ed 2 1 ed 1!t'f6 22 llb6 t!t'f3 =F 1 0 . d5 ( 1 0 . or immediately ( 13 . e.h6 i. . 'it>h8 is =. .t>f8! 1le8 1 9 1!t'cI ( 1 9 t!t'c2? i.te6 1 5 . .g. be) 1 4 a4 8 i. .d7 1 3 1!t'xc4 1!t'b6 14 1le6 21 f4 e4! Jamieson) 1 9 . Goteborg 1 975. . d6) 9 cd li:Je7 b4.g. .g5 ( ! ). . c. . . . or here I I . 8 . 10 h5 g5 1 1 d6! li:Jf5 12 g4! li:Jxd6 1 3 11 . f6 9 . . . . Skopj e 01 1972) 1 3 . . .xa5 't!fxa5 2 1 li:Jd5 li:e6 22 e4 1!t'c7 1 7 't!fb5 ± Watson-Gri. . . e. Colorado 1 976) 1 5 . . . e. . b3 ( !) ( 1 3 li:Jxe7+? li:Jxe7 1 4 cb llxb5 7 0-0 15 b4 ab 16 ab c4 ! +n= Csom­ If 7 . li:Jde7) 1 5 i. . Lone Pine 1975. . b4 9 i.f8 ! 20 t!t'a2 . . 1 3 M alta 01 1980.) 1 2 1!t'a4+ i. 1 2 .!. . or li:Je4 and h 5 ) 8 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 (8 . .g5 (see below).bd5 i. . .d7 1 3 li:Jde4 ! etc) I I li:Jd2 ! de?! i. . h6!) 1 5 li:Jd2. . . .t>xg7 19 t!t'e3 llh8 ! ro.. . f5 !? with the idea .xd5 1 7 i.td7 6 d3 li:Jge 7 13 lUc l and t!t' d l ) 1 3 llfc l t!t'd7 7 a3 14 'it>h2 f5 15 t!t' d l f4 1 6 1!t'h l !? in­ The irregular 7 h 4!? h6 (or 7 .id2 1!t'd7 (or 1 4 .. li:Jd4.. . d6 12 t!t'a4! Watson. but having lost the centre: 15 b4 ( 1 5 . .-as 1 9 t!t'a4 t!t'xa4 + Suttles-Ghizdavu. . . . i. i. tending i. 14 i.e6!? 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3 1!t'a4+ c.64 5 li:Jf3: Others d 5 !? 1 4 cd li:Jxd5 1 5 t!t'c l li:Jd4 1 6 t!t'a4! = Evans-Karpov. 0-0 12 li:Jd5 or II .te6 ( 1 2 . d4 1 2 li:Ja4 1!t'c7 1 3 li:Jb3 ! .. . .xe7 li:Jxe7 Ornstein.xg2 1 6 'it>xg2 b5!? ( 1 6 .te6 t!t'c2 'irb6 ( 1 3 . li:Jd2-e4. . . b5.txg7 1 972 . . li:Jc6 1 1 li:Jd2 ! and threatening .c6 1 8 . . a5 White has 8 lilb I 0-0 Hartoch. . and now (9 .tf8 li:Ja4 . O'Donnell­ II .inberg. h6 (8 . 0-0 1 2 li:Jd5 12 d5 and 1 3 b4) 1 0 llb l (67) 13 cd li:Jxd5 14 li:Jxd5 14 li:Je3 li:Jxe3 (or 14 . .te3 e4! 12 li:Jc2 15 li:Jd2! tiro Bruycker-Schm idt. . .e I . t!t'xe7 10 ll b l d6 J l li:Jd2! . 12 1ra4 ! . . Or here 1 2 D2 t!t'a4!?.g. . . a b ! 1 7 ( I I . I I ab 1!t'd5+) 1 7 ba! li:Jxa5 1 8 li:Je3 . c4!?) 1 4 . Ek­ 0-0 10 litb l is the text) 9 i.xe3 tt) d4 16 b4 ab 17 ab cb 18 lilxb4 . 12 li:Jd5 allows 12 .

e6 CiJxa 5 20 CiJe4 CiJb7 2 1 0-0 f5 22 12 CiJe 1 f5 CiJec3 ±) 15 . This is best. d5? CiJxb4 CiJxb4 17 'it'xb4 i. . i. . 1 3 CiJc2!? 022 Not necessarily best. . . but committing Also 1 3 f4!? and 13 i. . d5 may attract attention. e4 1 6 'i!t'c2) 1 2 CiJe l ! 'it'd? ( 1 2 . 'i!he7 I I CiJd2 ::t Petrosian.e6 (II . . . . . . but better is 1 4 . .g5! 021 9 .e3 !? d6 I I 0-0 Natural .. here 12 .xe7 CiJxe7 10 . sequences. . . . normal position without fear of . . 1 4 {£Jd2 g5 1 5 b4 might follow: 1 5 11 CiJd2! CiJc6 .xb7 lixb 7 1 9 'it'd6! ±) 1 6 be be f6). . i.g5 !? could be the f-pawn has some original con­ considered . 17 (jJe4 ±. . (68) was seen (by t ransposition) After 1 4 . . 5 {£Jj3: Others 65 New York 1 978.Oiafsso n. Linares Amsterdam 1 973. 1 6 lhb8 CiJxb8 1 7 'i!t'b3! planning 10 d6 17 . . . continued 1 5 1 983: CiJb5 f4 1 6 b4 b6 (?) ( 1 6 . . . . d6 1 2 b4 ::t. d4?! Petrosian-Radulov. f5 1 · 2 i.d2 inten­ be CiJd4 1 6 'it'd! de = Watson­ ding {£Jd 5 or CiJe l -c2 White has his H .d7! 1 5 plays . h 6 (?!) 022 9 0 0 0 f6 021 9 h6(?!) 10 i. If Black b4 ( 1 3 'it'a4 !? d6 1 4 b4 i.b7 ( 1 5 . h6 1 3 i. f5. . . .g5. Kn ights are worth more than the I I . White's stra tegy is demonstrated The idea of playing i.g5 !? bishops if White can keep things Byrne. . CiJc6 h6!?) 1 3 CiJc2 a4 14 b3 ab 1 5 li:xbH. . . a b 1 4 a b b 6 1 5 'it'a4 (or 1 5 b e be d5 or .e3 to stop by the sa mple line 1 2 CiJd5 ltb8 1 3 .b7 1 8 1 3 cd CiJxd5 14 'it'b3 is ± (see 9 . cb 16 The point is that now 1 2 ..d2 14 b3! d4?! The new idea l 0 i. lib8.xe7 CiJxe7 semi-closed. 13 d5 10 i.. ab 1 7 ab . CiJf5 then after i. in Andersson-Seirawan. . I I . B 8 ltb1 a5 9 i. This illustrates 6li the idea behi nd i.. 13 CiJd5 9 f6 lib8 14 b4 is untried but attractive. . . . i. New York 1 977) 1 3 .. . . . CiJc6 1 8 'it'b5 'it'a5 1 9 'it'xa 5 11 0-0 i. . .. A fter II .

it is probably easier to probe 21 l&xg2 e4 22 li:Jxc5 f3+ 23 ef ef+ agains t than 5 . . interest in this regard .!.tg5! ±. 5 . a good reputation . .g5 are of particular . . On the other �d7 1 9 li:Ja 1 .66 5 li:Jf3: Others b6 . As a whole.) 1 7 be be 1 8 a4! ( intending Conclusion. . . e6.th3 2 0 li:Jb3 . and these last 24 �xf3 ! lixf3 25 li:Jxd7 li xd3 26 lines with i. .txg2 hand. e5 has li:Jba3 and lib5 or li:Ja 1-b3) 18 . .

Part II Counterplay by 2 ... lt:Jf6 and .. d5 ..

. ltJb6 6 d3 e5 7 . or 7 a4! t e. 7 . USSR Ch 1 949. . and lines remains open. . . or 7 .te6 at the modest c7. ltJc6. . assessment of several of the key Portisch-Hort. . . . . but 6 ltJxd 5 ! ed 7 't!fb3 ! his knight three times only to arrive (7 d 4 ! ? i ) wins a pawn: 7 . b) 5 . . . yet the 7 . . . cd 9 ltJb5 or 8 . 6 .id5+! �h8 1 6 e4 ± K otov­ System.) 1 0 ltJc4 f6 I I f4 ef 5 ltJc7 (70) 12 gf 0-0 1 3 a3 ltJa6 14 e3 ltJ f5 This introduces the Rubinstein 1 5 ..!. Black's established strategies in c) 5 .. . . By moving Chater 7.) 9 . g6 8 ltJa4 ! ?) 8 d3 .6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 1 c4 c5 Before looking at replies to 5 ..te7 9 e3 0-0 10 d4 tl ±. . . e5 and d) 5 . .e7 8 ll c l 0-0?! (8 . ltJb4!? 6 ltJf3 (6 a3!? ltJ5c6 7 ltJf3 .te3 !? (or 7 . Polanica com mand . usually by . The idea is to clamp Zdroj 1 978. e5 8 ltJb5 't!fe7 9 d4! cd 10 ltJxe5! etc. . i.te7 9 ltJd2 ltJd4!? (9 .!.d 7 1 0 a3 ltJ a6 I I ltJc4 f6 1 2 f4 . . . 2 ltJc3 ltJf6 ltJc7.) 7 ltJf3 e5 8 0-0 . . down on d4. ..g.id6 II d 3 0-0 1 2 his opponent for the sake of central li::l f4 ± S.. concedes a lead in development to 9 . 6 f4 g6) 6 . the most ambitious of Fu rman . ltJa6). .g2 (69) 7 ltJf3 with the idea 7 . . ltJc6 7 . ltJb6 1 0 't!fa6 . a qu ick look a t Black's alter­ 3 g3 d5 natives: 4 cd ltJ xd5 a) 5 . . the second player 8 't!fxb7 ltJd7 9 ltJh3! (9 ltJf3 . . .. B ltJxd4 9 ltJxd4 cd 1 0 ltJb5 't!fb6 I I 't!fc4 t. . tb 8c6 7 0-0 e5 (7 . i. .!. now best is 9 ltJe4! f5 I 0 ltJxc5 f4 . .. . a5 8 f4) successful for many years. ltJf6 6 't!fb3 ! ltJbd7 (6 . . . Tilburg 1 978. . 69 ltJc6 8 d4 and 8 . .txc6+ be 8 't!fa4 t or 8 ltJf3 . 't!fc7!? 5 i.. This strategy has been ltJf3 t. .Garcia-Farago. e6?! 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 would be the Symmetrical English.

a 3 i.b2 lt:lba6 7 'i!fe4 !? g6 . . 7 . (9 .b2 (8 i. . Hank en­ 1 9 54) 7 b3 (7 lt:le4 lt:lba6! =) 7 . lt:le6!? 9 'i!fe3 lt:led4 c) 6 f4 g6 (or 6 .e7 9 . e5 encourages f4) 0-0 e6 9 ll d l i. lt:lb4!? (9 . . lt:lb4 1 2 d) 6 b3 e5 7 i. 6 .d2 with the idea I I .a3 lt:lba6 =) 8 . .g.7 .xc6+?! is not so 'i!fc3. Wijk aa n Zee 1 97 1 ) 9 . .g2 d3' 0-0 9 '8'c I ?! lt:lbc6! 1 0 lt:lf3 lt:le6 17 0-0 lt:lc2 =/oo Peters) 9 'i!fe3 I I 0-0 lt:ld4 + Ko rch noi-Ragozin.t Brinck-Claussen.12 .i. .g. . .e4 e5 I llt:lf3 i. USSR 1 0 lld I lt:lc6 I I e3 e5) 7 '@c4 lt:lc6 Ch 1 9 58. e6 8 lt:lf3 . . but e) 5 .i.e6 1 2 fe fe 1 3 B 6 d3 llxf8+ 'i!fxf8 1 4 lt:le4 lld8 1 5 'i!ffl ! c 6 lt:lf3 'i!fxfl + 1 6 �xfl i. . f6 8 b) 6 lt:lh3 e 6 (6 .b2 12 'i!fe4.g7 8 i. lt:ld7 7 8 lt:lf3 etc.c5 1 2 'i!fd3lt:lb4 . 8 'i!fxc5 e5 ( 8 . . Peters.e7 10 e3.e6!? 1 0 f4 'i!fd7 I I lt:lf2 lt:lc6 1 2 felt:lxe5 .b2 0-0= Korchnoi-Balanel. . .. .Witkowski. . .d7 ! ? and either 9 etJf3 f6 7 llbl is a line from I o4 lt:lf6 2lt:lc3 10 0-0 llc8 I I e3 ! t planning d4 - d5 3 cd etc.!:" ECO) 7 .i. . Thus 8 . and now i. lt:le6 10 d3 lt:led4 I I USSR Ch 1 9 56.8 lt:lf3 i. good without 'i!fa4 available.e7 8 b3 0-0 9 .d5 1 7 lt:lhf2 b6 a) 6 a3 will generally transpose to 1 8 lt:ld3 i.i.e 7 (or 7 . . .!:. 0-0 (9 . .g7 oo. . .) 6 d3 e5 7 a3 or 6 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 Zhuravlev.xb7 Iii b 8 1 6 i. . Peters. . g6 8 llc l i. 12 llxc 5 '@d4 1 3 'i!fb3+ �h8 1 4 lt:lc6. best was 1 5 i. . . Nikolayevsky-Kudriashov. since 8 i.b2 (7 i. i.e7 I I �fl 0-0 lt:lba6 9 lt:lf3 f6 1 0 0-0 b5 I I i. . 'i!fd2 .i.d7 !? (6 . g6 8 d4 or 7 .i. . . . . . . .!: and 7 . 'i!f d7 ! ?) 1 0 lt:la4 lt:lb5 I I lt:lf4 lt:lc6 . . . . 1 3 'i!fb l f5 14 lt:lxd4 ed. . e.!:. 9 0-0 0-0 Iii b 8 = Kholmov-Korchnoi.e7 8 llc l Iii b l ) 1 0 '@xeS+ i. . .b7 1 3 i. . i. f6 - w Peters) 8 llc I f6 !? (or 8 .:t with the idea I I . lt:lf3 . . 7 a3. even after 6 a3 e5 7 b4 lt:lc6 e) 6 '8'a4+!? i. or 9 lt:Ja4 lt:le6 1 0lt:lh3 i. . '@d7 7 0-0 .f6 1 9 b4 ! ± Taimanov­ (e. .xc5 i. . Los Angeles 1 979. 0-0 9lt:la4 lt:ld7 1 0 e3 llb8 I llt:le2 b5 1 2lt:lac3 i.e6 1 2 f4 .e7 I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 f4 t Taimanov seems 70 to favour White.1 3 lt:lce4! Taimanov) A 6 'i!fb3 10 f4 l0c6 I I 0-0 i. Riga 1 968. xb7 llxb7 1 4 d4 ed ! 1 5 ed lt:le6 =) 9 lt:lh3 (9 lt:la4 lt:lba6 10 lt:l h 3 ! 0-0 I I 0-0 i. lt:lxc3 6 be ( 6 de!?) 6 . . e6 7lt:lf3lt:lc6 8 b 3 10 i. . fe.. . 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 6Y I I .b7" .

. lDf6 with . Two interesting gambits are A possi bl e here: 6 'i!¥b3 lt:Jc6 a) 8 . i. 't!Va5 to follow)..d7 1 2 1i'b7 l:ib8 =t= t) 8 d3 t is given under 6 d3 e5 7 Tarjan) I I .xd4 cd 1 4 lDe4 i. 'Matu lovic-Szabo'.'@d7 9 lt:Jf3 f6 (72) is a very co mmon line. .. ..c6 was the best try. . .e7 14 llfcl 0-0 1 5 lDe4 t Quinteros- .g7 6 . Ams terdam 8 \lfa4 1 980) 1 1 i. . g6? 1 3 'i!f'b l ±. i. . . but has generally led to difficulties for Black: In my first book I treated this 72 line under the reverse move order w I c4 c5 2 lDc3 lDc6 3 lt:Jf3 g6 4 d4 cd 5 lDxd4 i. Lone Pine 1 9 72.e3 llb8 .xc3+ 7 be 't!Va5 (or 7 . . .e3 e5 versed the order of names from those 1 2 llc I lDd4 1 3 lDe4 11 b8 1 4 lt:Jxc5 6 lDc2 i. 8 lt:Jf3 f6 9 t!t'a4 transposes.xd4! quotes around them and used the lib! + 17 'it>d2 nxh l 1 8 lt:Jxe5 ! ± material here. 'i!f' b 1 14 tim was a better try than 8 i. . .xc6+ be (71) + 'Browne-Brasket'. I have re­ 1 0 d3 e5 ( 1 0 . Larsen-van der Wiel. g6 8 d4 ( 1 1 1Wxc6+ i. and 1 1 .. Si nce 6 't!fb3 is the more common line now. lDd4!? .e6 1 5 0-0 i. e5!? 9 lDf3 f6 10 !t'xc6+ w i.d7 1 2 .12 . see 6 d3 e5 7 ti'b3 i. put single i.e3 i. . .e3! ( 1 1 0-0 lDe6 !? 1 2 For lines where White keeps his i.lt:Je6!? 9 d3 g6 10 i. lDd7?! 7 lDf3c5 (7 . and now 1 2 . lDb5?! 1 1 i.xc5 1 5 llxc5 llxb2? ! 16 i.70 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation USSR 1 966.g7 6 lDc2 i.d7 1 1 1!t'e4. The point is that if White plays \lfa4 in the next few moves after the diagram he transposes to those li nes but having taken two moves for \lfa4. 1 3 lDxd4 cd 14 lDb l l:ic8 oo. . . . .d5 7 i. f5! 1 3 below. lt:Je6! 12 0-0 lDd4 with the idea . 71 b) 8 . e. c) 8 .g.. .xc3+ games. . . Ka pfe nberg 1 970.. 'i!f'b3 below. 0-0 1 2 lDf3 lt:Jd4 1 3 .1 3 llab 1 queen on b3.

lii: b 8 !?) l O ltlc4 f6 ( 1 0 . .. . ltld 7 8 lLlf3 b6?! 9 ltld2 lii: b 8 1 0 b) 11 0-0lLle6 1 2lLle4 't!tb6 1 3ll:\fd2 ltlc4 . .. USSR 1 966. Others: a) 6 .ie7 1 3 't!t'a5 1 956.. but played backs: most often. ll:lb 5? 1 2 l:lcl is Larsen­ mically equal.. Moscow 01 a) 1 1 ll:\d2 ll:\d5 1 2ll:\c4 .. .. g6 7 . .. . . e 5 1 1 Taimanov-Korchnoi. A fter 1 1 . . .ie7 (9 . (8 . Overall.. this line remains dyna­ but I I . .ie7 14 llc l 't!tb6. Sousse I Z 1 967. . 1 5 ll:\c4 0-0 =/co A . van der Wiel. e. .id2 llxb2 1 5 ltle4 'i¥b6 1 6 't!Va4 ( 1 1 f4 .. .ie3! and 'tid2.. .ih6.ie3 e5 8 l1clltlc6?! Or 1 1 . Petrosian­ Gausdal 1 983...g.ie7 1 2 f4 ±) 1 0 .ixd7 ( 1 2 . .ixb7 'i¥b5 ! ? ( 1 3 . Biel lZ 1 985. 'tid7 9 ll:lf3 f6 lO 't!t'a5 ! e5 1 1 b) 10 't!t'a5 e5!? ( lO . Mar del Plata 1 98 1 . ll:\d5 ( !?.ia3 =) 1 3 .ie7 lii:x b7 1 2 ltla5 1-0 K arlsson-Bass. .. Bar c) 6 . 'tia5 1 7 .ie3 (or 1 0 lLld2! . 'i¥d7!? 7 ltlf3 (7 ltlh 3 ltlc6 11 lii: b 8!? 8 . ll:\e6.ia3 ll:\d4 1 3 ll:\xd4 ±. ll:\c6 may be answered by sterdam 1 954.ib7?? ( I 0 . .. cd l l'i¥xd4 e5 h4-h5 may follow. ltle6 1 2 lii:c 1 't!tb6 1 3 ltlfd 2 ! lii:b8 10 e5 14 lLlc4 'i¥c7 1 5 b3 l1b7 1 6 't!ta5 ! ± 1 1 . ltlc6 8 0-0 e5 9 ltld2 Quinteros-Sokolov. 7 ..ie3 ltlc6 1 6 . I I . d) 6 . A n ikayev.!:) 1 1 . .!: lvkov- .ixa5 l1xe2 ! 1 8 ll:lfd2 1 4 liac l ltla6 1 5 ltld5 .. �xd7 1 3 .!:) 7 . .. .!:) 7 .. e5 1 1 ltle4 c) 10 ltle4 e5 1 1 d3 ltlb5 =.. ll:\e6 12 lie I B with the idea ll:\e4 looks equally 6 d3 poor) 12 ll:\e4 ll:\xe3 l 3 fe n b8 1 4 The idea here is to delay ltlf3. lLle6 l l'i¥xd8+ b3 ll:\e6 1 2 . and 1 1 . 'i¥e6 +leo or 1 1 a4 !? f6 1 2 f4) 1 1 a5 14 . 9 ll:lf3 f6 6 e5 (73) 10 d3 Alternatives tend to have draw­ Not n ecessarily best.ie3 b6 = . .ib2 ltle6?! ( 1 2 .ih3 =... Daugavpils 1973. .. ltld8 1 2 'ti'xd7+ 'i¥xa5 ( 1 6 . 1 2 't!t'c4 't!t'e7 1 3 0-0 't!t'e6 = Stein­ b) 6 .!: . llxd8 and . .ia6) 1 1 . continued 1 2 0-0 ll:\d5 13 life! ( 1 3 0-0!? and 1 1 . 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 71 Portisch .ie3 Sanguinetti.ixc6 be 8 't!t'a4 .ie3 e5 I I ll:\e4 ll:\e6 1 2 b 3 't!tb8 1 2 . so 't!t'c2 ± N ilssen-Trifunovic. .ixc6+..ixc6'i¥xc6 12 ltlxe5 \!t'xa7 l1a8 1 4 'tib7 ll:lb6 =) 1 3 . a) 1 0 d 4 is safe: 1 0 . ltlc4 . e6?! 7'i¥b3 (or 7ltlf3 .ia3 . . .. . 'i¥b8 ! = lvanovic-Quinteros.. lii:b8 !? 9 ltlf3 . ..Dbokin. .id7 Matulovic. . . . lLl d4!?) 1 4 'i¥d 1 ..ixa5 't!ta6 =/co So kolov) . l O . ll:\c6? 7 . ll:\b5 ( ! ) improves) I I . Am­ that . 1 977. c 4 1 3 lic l lii: b8 1 3 'i¥c2 ±) 9 ltlf3 f6 l O . . . ll:ld4 looks okay) I I or here l O .

and 9 lt::lb a6 9 li::lf3 f6 1 0 li::ld 2 l:tb8! = li::lf3 f6 I 0 . . . Best seems 9li::ld 2 (}0 lO 0-0. . . . t!fd7!? 8 . .ixc6+ be.ixb5 1 8 a b :±± Ti mman-Hort.ie3 8 llc l li::ld 7 9 lt:lf3 llb8 10 0-0 . and 7 .. . . . . lt::le6 Aires I 954) 1 0 t!fxd5 t!fc7 ! I I . but here 10 . 72 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation Dunkelblum. . ..txc6+ still favours lt::le 6 1 0 (}0 0-0 I I a4! <t>h8 1 2 a5 White. . Better is 7 .ie6 I 2 t!fc2 ! t Karlsson-Alburt. . .g.ixc 7 ! lilxc7 17 lt::lb 5 . equal.ie3 lt::lc6 9 ll c I li::le6 10 73 li::lf3 llb8 I I 0-0 f5 1 2lt::l a4 b6 13 b4 w . a nd now 9li::ld 5!?li::lx d5 (9 . West Germany 1 4 . . . . g .id6 !? 8 fe .id6) I I . li::ld 7 (9 . . .id7 I I 0-0 llb8 1 2 lt::lc4 f6 13 a4 Lone Pine 1 976.ixf4 . li::l b6 ( 1 0 . . l:tb8 ! ? ) I I lt::lc4 1 5 li::lx d4 was :±± in Sadovsky­ .id 7 10 't!t'a 5! with the idea 1 0 .te7 ( I I 0-0 .V ± Geller-Madera. .Bai'ias. llb8 I 2 llci b6 =.ie7 I I li::ld5 (}0. . li::le 6 1 2 I 98 I .. when Pietzsch. . .ixd4 ed 1 0 . and 7 . Polanica Zdroj Montreal 1 979.Stein. . Witkowski­ was Tal-Gipslis.ie6 1 4 e4 10 0-0 .ie7. lt::l ce6 I 5 1975. lt::la 5 lt::lxf4 t Ti mman. Andersson-Tseitlin.ie3lt::lc6? 8 .ie7 On 7 t!fb3 lt::lc 6 8 . 7 . 14 . corres 1956. e) 7 . .id 7 and . .txe5 intending 9 't!t'a4+ 't!t'd7. 1978 ( 1 0 . . .ie7 8 lt::lf3 lt::l c6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 llb i ... d) 7 f4 ef (7 . 8 . . li::le 6!? (safer 8 . t!fa4 transposes to 6 'it'b3. . independent were 7 . Buenos note 'd' to 6 .. I I . .ie7 9 'it'a4+ (9 'ikb3 li::lc6 1 0 . I 5 . . b6? I I .. . ll c l t!fb6 1 3li::lfd2 . e . Hastings 1 983-84. ..ie3 . 1 5 a4 b6 16 .. Riga 1954. More conventional is 7 . . . .. 'ikb6 !?) I I (}0 = Plachetka. lt::lxf4 15 gff5 would have been b) 7 'ttb 3 li::ld 7 8 lt::lf3 (8 f4!?) 8 .ib7 1 4 bc b5 1 5lt::lc 3 a6Voo Ribli­ van Riemsdyck . .id6 !?) c) On 7 a3. 9 8 l:tc l .id7 ( 1 0 . . g6?? I I 't!t'd2 h6 =. . . .ie6! Milic). . Riga IZ I 979. Shaposhni kov. . Trnava lt::le4 ( I I 0-0 li::le 6!) I I .. li::ld 7 8 'it'a4 t) 8 . li::ld 4 oo) 9 .txc6+ be I I 't!t'a4 lt::le 6!? 1 2 't!t'xc6+ . Riga I 954.li::le 6 I I Plachetka) 9 li::lf3 lt::lc 6 l O li::ld 2 lt::le4 'ikd5? I 2 llc l ± Panno-Strauss.ie7 = ( I 4 0-0?? Aft er 7 li::lh 3: .id7 8 t!fe4lt::lc6 9lt::lf3 f6 lt::lb6 1 2 't!t'c2li::lc d5 I 3 a3 . 'ikd7 8 l:tc l lt::lc 6 is l:tb8 1 3 . 1 2li::l d 5 b6 1 3 d4 ! ! cd 14 ..ixf4 lilc8 (?) ( 1 4 .ixc7! 7 lt::l h 3!? 't!t'xc7 I 2li::ld 5 ± ) 1 0li::l f3 0-0 I I 0-0 a) 7 t!fa4+ . Caorle 1972) 1 3 f4 ef f5 ! ) Rasch-B. . e5. e .

. b6! = ) 1 2 ltJf2 tation: ef 13 gf i.d2 i. 8 't!t'c4 or 7 . . . . ef l O ltJxf4 ltJc6 I I i. 1 3 't!t'xg4 't!t'xa8 1 4 0-0-0 f5 1 5 't!t'h4 i.. ..e3. l:tb8) C2 7 't!t'a4 I I . continued lO . i.f6 16 'it'xf6 ! =/oo Robatsch­ ltJxf4 1 4 i. corres 1 983. . Erevan 1 982.. Farago. 't!t'd7 8 't!t'c4 ltJ ba6 ltJc6 1 0 i.g4 ! ! 1 0 <t>h I llb8 I I a3 ef! ? ( I I . i. . B lajwas-Fielding. . I nstead of acceding to passivity. ltJd5 oo.!:: ECO ... 9 0-0 i.e3 i. ltJa6 9 l::l: c l Quinteros. . b6?? 1 5 ltJg3. c 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 (74) 74 w For example.b2 i. I I i...xa8 i. .e7 6 ..d7 Or 7 .. ltJd7 ! ? I I ltJe4 ( I I b3 !?. . C4 7 d3 and now best is 1 4 ltJc4 :t.e5 12 e3 f5 13 ltJd ltJf6 was C3 7 a3 Averbakh.a3 (8 i. . Generally chosen. Kienbaum 1 9 5 8. Moron 1 982. 1 2 . or here 1 0 ll c l ltJe6 I I ltJa4 :iil. 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 73 7 i. Itc8 1 3 9 llc l 0-0 1 0 ltJa4 ! ? i. i. cs 7 0-0 8 0-0 0-0 Cl 9 f4 ltJc6 7 b3 e5 9 . b6!? (or 8 .g4! l O ltJe l 't!i'd 7 ( I I ltJd3 @xd 3 ! ) .Bronstein. ..e7 After l O i.xc5 ) 15 . ltJ d4?? 1 5 ltJg3) 1 5 75 ltJxc5? ( 1 5 ltJg3 ± threatening w i. 't!t'a5 l O ltJa4 ltJab4) 9 e3 i.. . . .c 8 with solid control ove r the centre.xb2 l l ltJxb2 't!t'd2 ltJe6 1 4 ltJfdS b6 = Gi ardelli­ ltJe6 = ) 8 . White . USSR 19 74. ..g4?! ( I I ...g7 l O d4 10 i... g6!? 8 i. although 8 .d7 ! = ) 1 2 ltJxf4 ltJe6 1 3 llb l i.g7 1 2 Itc l ( 1 2 ltJfdS !?) 1 2 . 14 .xf4 t Uhlmann-Kostro. . llb8 f6 (75) has a fine theoretical repu­ I I llc l i.d7 7 .. 8 i.e3!? cd I I ltJxd4 ltJxd4 ! 1 2 i.d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 ef(or 9 . .h5 1 4 ltJce4 f5 ( 14 . g6?! 7 't!t'a4+! and 7 ..b2 i.g4! = ) 10 ltJxf4 9 ltJe5 ..e3 C l 7 b3 ltJf6 12 <t>h I .

10 0-0 10 lLla4 lLla6 ! I I 0-0 0-0 trans­ poses. . ..h5 I I went 1 2 .i.e3 .g5 1 7 llc2 . . B Plovdiv 1 983.i.e6 ( I I . lLla6! . Polanica Zdroj 1 967. a) 8 .g4 13 h3 lLlh4 'it'd? 1 2 lLle4 lLle6 1 3 0-0) I 0 . . .h3 'i!t'd8 . .. .i. .!. 14 . I I d4 .g4 ! .xc6) 1 2 lLld3 intends 1 2 .xa8 .i.i.i.g. .) I I 't!t'e4 ! ? f6 1 2 . 0-0 I I .i.i. Black found 1 2 . Furman­ Shatskes also gives 9 llc I .. .i. b6 1 2 lLlh4!? .d7 ( 1 2 . . .i. . .!. . ..xc6 1 4 lLlxe5 . b6 't!fc2 ll c8 1 5 e3 lLle6 1 6 f4 e f 1 7 10 b4 . Palo Alto 1 98 1 ..i. 9 llc 1 f6 C2 9 . .. After 8 0-0 (8 't!t'e4 f6 d3!? ..i. 1 2 ltJ e l . . 10 h3 . 10 lLl a4 (?!) (again.a3 b6! 1 2 h3 ( 1 2 lLlh4 16 f3 . lLle6!? I 0 0-0 0-0 I I lLle I ! 7 't!t'a4 (76) . . .g4 =/oo or 12 . .i. f6 1 3 76 lLld5 b6 1 4 f4 .e? 1 3 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4 .i..g4 ! =. . . lLld5 1 3 a 3 . .. .e? =). Perhaps I I necessary.i.i. . ..!.b7 1 4 ll b l h6 ( 1 4 . 't!t'd 7 is playable but u n­ I I lLl e l !? .g4 !?) 1 2 e3 lLld5 9 0-0 e5 1 0 lld I . . b6 ( ! ) 1 3 lLld5 ( 1 3 . .b7 1 3 b4 ! .i. .i.i. 74 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation could try I 0 h3 .. .d6 1 4 f4 e f 1 5 gf llc8 1 6 e3 ( 1 6 'ti'e l !?) 1 6 . f6 ! 1 7 't!fh6 lLle 7 =.i.i.!. . . .i. 1 2 . . Here 1 2 d4 !? ed 1 2 lLle4!? with the idea 1 2 .h5 l l lLlh4!? 'it'd? USSR Ch 1 954. .e6) 1 3 d4 cd 1 4 ed e4 15 lLle l f5 .e3+ 1 8 �h 1 lLled4!) 1 2 .i. was Ruiz-Tarjan. llxc7 't!fxc7 1 6 J.h5 1 3 0-0 llc8 +. . or 1 2 . .e? I I e3 't!t'g4 ! =.d7 (lest .. .. or 1 2 d3 't!fxg4 16 llc l (planning l:tc3-g3).d7 (!) 1 1 lLla4 7 . ..g7 ! I I be b5 1 2 't!t'e4 b4 1 3 gf c4 ! =/oo Sokolsky-Taimanov. lLle I !? with the idea f4.e? 1 0 lld l lLle6 !? ( 1 0 . 't!Vb2 is Black has : worth a try.g4 Witkowski. g6!? 9 't!t'c4 (9 lLle I ! ?) 9 .g4 = . . . .i. . lLle6 I I .xg4 1 5 hg Again. llc8 1 3 lLla4 or 1 2 .i.i.i. e5 9 e3 ! ? (9 a 3 ll b8 1 0 b4 b 5) 11 ltJa6! 9 .xc6 . a 3 ! ? ( 1 3 e3 lLl b4 oo ) 1 3 . .i.i.i.xc3 't!fd7 1 5 8 d3 e5 9 0-0 ll b8 I 0 . . 't!fe8 ! 1 4 b) 8 .i. 13 't!fe 2 lLlxc3 14 .f7 15 f4 !?). In Speel man-Sax.i.) 1 3 1 3 d4 .i. b 7 oo ) 1 3 .i. .xd4 cd 1 5 1 3 llc l b6 14 g4 .. lld8 1 3 llc l b6 14 d3 (e.i.i.g5 20 fe . 10 0-0 7 .i. A ft er 1 2 e3. lLlxd4 1 9 llc 3 ! .i. .i.g6 1 5 lLlg3 oo. f5 1 3 12 e3 lLl xf5! 'ti'xf5 1 4 g4 .!.e6 !? ( 1 2 . . lLlg5 .

.xc5 good play in the first edition. 0-0 (9 . lt:le6 14 b4 b6 1 5 lt:l d 5 lt:led4! 8 'it'h4 e5 =.. Budapest 1 977. . lt:l b4!? 1 4 'ft'b3 lt:ld3+ 1 5 �e2 f4 ! ro. development.xd4 i. . 1 1 .. be 1 2 't!ra4 :t) 12 llac8 9 be (9 li b ! !? cb 10 ab i. .e3! ( 1 2 0-0 lt:lexd4 7 a3 (77) 1 3 lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4 14 't!rxb7 ll b8 = . . .xc6) 1 2 . f6 ! (8 . .e7 is rare: 9 d3 14 i. .g.. . . lt:le6!? 1 0 e3 i.xb4 10 lt:lxe5! 0-0 ! I I lt:l xc6 ..d7 I I . 9 e 3 g6 1 0 d4 c cd 1 1 ed i. b6 1 4 e3 0-0 + Novak­ Tilburg 1983. . i. e . . 1 1 1!fa4 0-0 (or 1 1 . llb8) 1 3 lt:le4 'ft'b6 14 'i!Vc2 lt:le 6 is also good.e7 Forintos) 9 . (9 e3 't!rd3! Polugayevsky-Korchnoi.. .f5 1 1 llb2. b) 7 . in complications. . Amsterdam 1972) 9 . Adams. .f5 1 8 'i!Vxb7 1t'xd4! ro) 1 4 'i!Vb3 Uoo Ro manishin-Tal.e3 lt:ld5 1 1 ll c l lt:lxe3 1 2 fe i. is even better. 8 . .Varnusz. . .xd4 1 7 i. llac8.xc5 1 1 0-0 0-0 . Forin tos. g. . llc8 ( ! ) (or I I .. . . .g7 1 0 lt:lx d 7 'i!Vxd 7 11 0-0 White's two bishops are at least 7 g6 compensated by B lack's space and Best on grounds of simplicity. llab8 ! and i.. . . llab8. cb 9 ab 1 2 d 3 lt:l e6 (or 12 . 13 lib ! ( 1 3 d3 lt:le6 14 i. USSR Ch 19 76. Balatonbereny I gave 13 b4 lt:l e6 14 lib I b6 with 1983.g7 1 2 i. 16 be be 17 e3 lt:le2+ 18 �h l e6 8 g6! 19 't!rd3 cd 20 't!rxe2 llb8 + Smcjkal­ S afe and good.e3 lt:led4 +) 8 1!fe4 13 . but there are two other good moves: lt:ld4 =) 1 2 d 3 lt:l e6 1 3 i.d2 llfb8 + Csom-Vadasz.ixc6 'tWd6! . lt:l e6 !? is rich Sokolov. f4 !? with the idea 1 4 gf lt:lb4 15 'ti'e4 lt:l xd4 ! ? 1 6 lt:l xd4 i. .I I . 1 3 . but (9 . . . lt:ld4) 1 3 i. . . i. f5 1 3 'ii'd 5 lt:lc7?! ( 1 3 .. Novi Sad 1 984 .. . e6!? 8 0-0 i. Or 1 2 . e5 8 b4 (8 0-0 t ransposes to 12 a3 7 0-0 below) 8 . So play should go USSR 1977. e . .xc6 !? be a) 7 .. .d2 nac8 =.. lt:le6) 12 a3 ( 1 2 . 0-0) 13 ... 9 lt:le5 i. Polish Ch 1977. . 1 2 d5? lt:led4 1 3 de i. . . b6!?) 11 0-0 10 i. 13 b4 ( 1 3 d3 c4 1 5 d4 :t Vaganian-Lju boj evic. After 12 . 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 75 co) 1 5 ll xb4! lt:lxb4 1 6 1!fxb7 hg Sokolsky's 1 3 b4 cb 1 4 ab lt:l b5 ! + 17 '8'xb4 t Mi khalchishin-Chekov..1 1 .

I I ll:Ja4 (else I I . or 1 0 . . b6 (or 1 0 . .xb4 =t= Dorfman­ i. .fS ! 1 0 ll b l c4 I I bS llb8 = Seirawan-Sax.. . . Palma de Mallorca 1 972. . .b7 1 2 b 4 cb 1 3 a b Here we treat lines where White lt. f6!? 8 llb I eS 9 0-0 (9 b4 is Black is already somewhat better. USA 1 979. . . . . I0 ll:Jxc5 c) 7 . Biel IZ 1 976) 14 lic l "§'aS Consistent. Sarajevo h4'? i. USSR Ch 1 98 1 .ie6) I I .tlh8 ) 1 0 0-0 ll:JxcS I I a4. . is best met by llc l ll:Ja6 1 4 d4 't!t'b6! I S . . .e3! ll:Je6 (8 .d7 9 0-0 i. .g. . or 1 0 . lLJ e6 12 llc I 10 i. lt:Jd4 = Lukacs.e3 llc8 e. .a3 �h8 1 3 't!t'c I 9 lib ! i. . I I ll:Ja4 b6 12 b4 cb! 13 llc l ll:Jd4 =/oo) 9 lt:Jd2 . . and now 1 0 . .Meyer-Portisch. 0-0 14 lie ! 't!t'aS + Andersson­ 8 b4 Portisch.g.g7 9 0-0 0-0 C4 1 0 i. Otherwise.xb2 1 3 ll b l i. i.. .e6 1 3 Lone Pine 1978. .76 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 1 2 't!t'c2 i. .e6 (or I I . i.. Amsterdam ll:JaS 12 't!t'a4 b6 + E. 1983.id7 1 0 0-0 :U ±) 9 0-0 i.g7 I 0 ll:Ja4 ll:Jcd4?! ( 10 .ta l llad8 I I . Korchnoi.xcS i. = a6 o r 1 3 lit e I i. .e7 10 lt:Jd2 0-0. 1 2 b4? cb 1 2 ab i.. h6 =) 8 . . 8 . quickly: 8 i.:d4 = Lu kacs.d2. .g4? 9 b4 ! M i khalchishin.d7 ro) 10 0-0 0-0 I I .g7 (78) 9 i. Linares 1 98S. ll:Je6 I I lib I 7 e5 a S 1 2 lt:Je4 i. .xb2 1 2 ll:Jxb2 i. .e7 1 4 't!t'c2 lLJdS ! Plachetka) 9 lt:Ja6 I I . g6 !? resembles 7 0-0 g6 below.. . . 0-0 1 2 . and now but White gets to the c-pawn more M i k halchishin suggests 1 3 . . . . ( 1 3 ..d7 1 3 e3. 0-0 I I lt:JxcS lt:JxcS 1 2 i. Vaganian­ 7 . . . but 8 . ll:Jd4? 8 i. 1 9 83.ib2 9 be ( I I a4 lDc6 1 2 i. . USSR 1 976. i.b2 Wh8 1 3 e3 't!t'd3 =. eS 9 lt:Jd2 . .ie7 (or 8 .ie3?! .xf3 lt:JxcS 1 4 lixcS 't!t'xa2 I S b4 ± Gheorghiu-Korchnoi.e6. 8 lt:Jd2 8 .. 8 d3 (8 + Osmanovic-Smejkal. .e6 1 3 0-0 llc8 Ani kayev. . or l l lie ! i) I I lic l 'ii'aS 1 2 ll:JxcS ! lt:Jxf3+ 13 i. i. ll:Je6 I I delays 0-0. or 1 2 . .ie7 1 3 Peters. 7 d3 h 6 ) I I I1b l i. I I lib I !? l:l b8 1 2 d 3 i. ' b') 9 . . e.xd4 cd I 0 1i'a4+. Christiansen­ 1 2 lt:J e4 { 1 2 't!t'a4!?) 1 2 .ta3 't!t'aS and 1 3 ll b l 1 6 llb l 't!t'c7 Gofstein-Karasev. li:'Je4 i. a4 !?.fS 10 d3 't!t'd7 I I i.

eS Popov.. Recently beginning to catch on c) 8 . 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 77 . . a6 = with the idea I 0 b4 cb I I ab i. New CS2 7 . 0-0 1 0 lii: c l ..td7 (9 . . ..ixg4!? a) 8 b3 i_g7 9 i. .0 lbd4 1 2 i. ... . . b 2 hS 1 4 :S:c l h4 I S of d4: g4 (intending I 6 lbe4) I S . . hS I 3 Others tend to cede Black control i..e 6!? 9 . b 2 b6 (or 9 ..f2 i...ie7 + Olafsson­ c ) 8 d3 . .. 8 . i. ( 10 '@a4 t!id7) 10 . fS 1 2 . but I I . ... . s o I I lbc4 !) I 0 0-0 est ( I 0 lbc4 0-0 I I a4 'i!?h8 I 2 0-0 f6 7 g6!? (79) 1 3 f4 ef 1 4 gf lbe6 I S fS lbed4 or 14 . . e6?! 8 d3 (8 b3 i. d 2 0. e 7 9 .e 7? 9 i. 0-0 1 3 d4 cd I4 :S:c i i. . fS ! . 0-0!? 10 . . e 7 ('CS2' below).0 l O a3 Bronstein. lO . lObS I I lba4 8 lba4 't!i'dS 1 2 f3 .ie7 1 2 f4 ef 1 3 i. g6 !? Iilaxd8 + You nglove-Dlugy.. '@d7?! 9 0-0 b6 10 lbc4 f6 I I a4 . Po lanica Zdroj I 96S. . b6? I I 8 b6 . 0-0! a4?! ( 1 3 f4 ef 1 4 gf g6 ) 1 3 .xc6+ be 10 lbc4 f6 I I '@'a4 ±. .ie3 lbe6 1 3 1 0 Iit c l !) 10 d4 !. 9 .. Reykj avik 1 974. d 7 I 2 '@h4 eS 1 3 '@xd8 C S I 7 . US Ch 1983.ixc6+ be 10 b3 ! a bit..ib2 I2 i.. .. . b6!?...ixb2 I I lbxb2 Iil b8 I 2 e3 Petrosian-Szabo...xf4 lbe6 1 4 a S ! ± Polugayevs ky-Gheorghiu. . d 2 ( 1 2 b) 8 a3 i. 9 lbc4 bS! 1 0 Gurevich-Alburt. Amsterdam 1 973. ... Filgu th-Law. 0-0 =) 16 e4 '@xd 3 17 fg . . Ujtel ky-Bednarski. Budapest 1 9 79. . 0-0 I I lbc4 f6 = 79 ( I I . Virovitica I 977.. .. see below) 1 2 f4 ef 1 3 gf w :S:b8 I 4 :S:c l lbd4 I S i. lba4 f4 ! holds.ie3 ( 9 i. . . .. . b) 8 ... cs lbd4 10 lba4 't!Yd6 I I :S: c l lb e6 I 2 7 0-0 lOgS! Tomas) l O 't!Yd2 ( 1 0 Iil c i 0-0 And now: I I '@a4 i..e 7 9 .. h 6 lbd4 = Adamski-Cserna. ... eS York I 983) I O . . . . .id7 =) 9 .ie3 0-0 (9 . .. lbe3 lii: c 8 I I 0.ig4 I I h3 ..ig7 9 . . i.id7 a) 8 .id7 is 9 0-0 lObS! 16 dS lbb4 I 7 a4 lbc7 =t= i.. . liJedS = Pach man) I 2 .. .. b 2! !) 1 3 i. .g4! + Rukavina-Lengyel.. 0-0 I I :S:fd i Iilb8 7 . . Palma de Mallorca 1 972. ... .ie8 ) 10 ... .igS 1 8 liJxcS ± 10 lba4 . b7 I S ed No rm al after 8 . i. b6 (9 . 14 ab ab I S lii: a 7 . . . i. e6 I 3 Youth Team Ch 198 1 .ixc6 be I l lb b3 ! d4 ! ) 8 .. ..ie7 (?!) ( 1 2 .g7 9 Iilb l .

.e3 b6 1 2 b4 cb 1 3 d4 cd i.b7 = . e 6 9 i. . . d7 I I "f/b3 c4 .g7 i.. .f5 is a line 1 2 i.d7 is playable.d7 1 4 �d5 intending i. . .. .b2 f6 1 0 lic l . . �c6. . K i ev 1 973.1 5 .xc6+ be I I i.ig4 I I i. . ... . .e5 1 8 �xe6 "f/xe6 1 9 � g5 ! garia 1 9 8 1 .c3 �c6 1 2 li c l f5 =/m) 1 0 a3 �a4 ± intending . � xe2 Foisor. Czechoslovak C522 8 d3 Ch 1 986) I I . .xb4.g7 10 �g5 ! t looks promis­ 9 i.d7 (9 . . and now i n­ . �a6!? is untried..versus . . b5 �d3 lid8 m.g6 . . Warsaw 1 98 3 .e7 (9 i. . and now 20 "f/a6 t �b6 20 �d 5 ++ was Gufeld­ was best. . .h3 stead of 1 5 .xc6+ ing. . .c4 18 lifd l �d4 19 game with 15 . 9 d4! cd and here 9 lib I a5 10 b3 0-0 I I .1 0 .ixb6 lic7 . .f5 12 d3 � c6 = was Olafsson­ II �d4 Ernst. 9 . .a6 .c7 9 b4 f6 is ·c 3'. i. Razuvayev-Ki rov. e4 10 �e l t o r 9 .xf3 lixd l 12 li c l � a6 13 i. i. . .g7 1 2 li c l 1 0 li c l b6 I I �c l i. . Complex is 8 . . .a6 ( 1 4 . Others: f4 cf 1 7 li xf4 ! ± wit h the idea . . .a3 !'? i. 16 �b5 0-0 8 . Romanishin­ I 0 i. 1 7 lia2 'i/c7? 1 8 �xa7 ! ±. .78 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 8 . If 8 . but had 1 5 . . see 'C I ' ) 10 �g5 i.g7?! 1 6 �b5 ! 0-0 1 3 li f2 (1) . e7 . . 8 . Bul­ �xd4 i. b 2 lic8 10 �c3 lib8 I I i. e. . 0-0 1 0 �d3 f6 I I I I i.d7 9 �e4 f5 1 0 �c3 �d4? 1 4 b4 c b 1 5 ab i. The same 17 "f/a4 i.d6 1 6 d4 ed 1 7 liacl b5. i.g2!? ( 14 �c3 lid8 15 i.c7 10 �c I .1 7 .e6?! I 0 i. . li e ) . i.xc7 �xc7 1 3 i. a5 1 7 � xa7 �xa7 1 8 . Polugayevsky­ 1 5 fc i. i. �c l !? (9 i. .g. Black b) 8 a3!? f6 ( 8 . d 7 C52 ( 10 .c7 (8 . l ightly t . as is 8 . 9 d3 1f. . Palat ni k.b2 was 'C I ' . .f4 i. i. i. .ih3 ! ? 1 2 �g2 h 5 m) 1 2 tJ i. . . Skopje 19 7 1 ) 10 �d2 1f. . . i. lib8 9 . . U SSR Ch 1 967) 14 .1 8 � f6+ � d8 1 9 i. 0-0 !?) I I li:bl ( I I �c4 0-0 7 e5 1 2 14 b5 1 3 �c3 ef l 4 �f5 ! � c 5 ! oo C52 1 8 � e l Lech tynsky-Trap!. .e7 ! 1 0 d4 cd I I ed cd 1 2 �c2 d3 II �d4 1 3 �f4 0-0 1 4 �xd3 i. Reykj avik 1985) 9 d3 (9 e3 !? 1 1 li c l i.ib2 10 i. . .e3 "f/d7 I I �e4 �d4 .id7 9 c 3 ! i. .g2 . . . i. .xa8 0-0 14 given by Boleslavsky) 9 . lid8) 1 5 �c3 li d 8 1 6 �xd7 gh 20 �xffi ++ Adamski­ �h i ("! t " Razuvayev) 1 6 . 8 .. . i.d6 13 �c4 a nd f4 follows: i) 9 �d3) 9 . e5!? 9 d3 (9 be 1 2 �a4 �c6 1 3 li c l "f/a5 1 4 b3 !? and 9 . �c6 I I i. a ) 8 b3 i. lib8 12 �c4 b5 1 3 Not 8 �a4'! ! i.xd4 ! cd 1 4 e3 de 1 7 lifxd I .ig4!? ( 9 . .f5 1 6 �xe5 ! fe 1 7 �h5+ g6? Taimanov.a3 "f/d7 ( I I . i. .d7 1 2 �d3 �c6 1 3 �c l i. . 9 d3 i. Bukic. . .ia3.b2 i. b5 !'? 10 �c3 . . �f3+ 16 i..d7 10 �d3 f6 I I f4 ef 1 2 �xf4 :t ) 14 �xd4 lic8 1 5 ab.e6 1 6 �e3 'ti'e7 + . f6 9 i. i. .

. c4 1 4 1Wxc6+ �d8 1 5 8 . but Black also had 1 0 . with the idea 14 . . as .ixc6+ be I I 't!ra4 U ± . /10 The correct sequence is 9 li:ld3! B f6 1 0 . when Michaelides gives 1 2 li:le5 17 :S: xf6! . b e I I �a4 �d7 1 2 b3 li:lb5 1 3 .ib2 li:ld4 1 4 f4 t Watson-Grtinberg. Cramling-Lengyel .ib2 ( 1 0 li:ld3 .ic7 10 li:ld3 f6 be 10 't!t'a4 (}. h4 10 d3 hg I I hg c4!? auto matic 8 d3. j ust as Black moved his three alternative: 9 . h5!? 9 f4 (9 h3!? . . D . White moves his ki ng's knight Vrs ac 1 98 3 . Ve lden (match) 1 983) 1 0 . There is a 20 :S:fl .id5 0-{}. . b3. b) 8 . . C521 since the natural I I li:ld 3? .ixc6+ ( 10 f4 c4 I I li:lfl ef 12 gf 'ifd7 = Smyslov­ Htibner. 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 79 li:lcd5 . . 't!rd6! (= ) a good exampl e) 1 0 .ia3 ± . �xa4 ( 1 3 . but haven't aroused 12 de . .ia3 . be 10 t!¥a4 t!¥d7 regaining of time gives him many I I li:ld3 f6 1 2 f4 !? �d4+ 1 3 :S:fl options. . . . . 1 980. which was I I f4 cf 1 2 li:l xf4 0-0 1 3 e 3 ! b6 14 Michaelides-McDaniels.ig4!? i s the most interesting ( d3).id7 li:le l ) 1 4 li:lxa4 t . . Others: 9 li:ld3 a ) I gave 8 . .ie3 ± Nikolic-Cebalo.. li:ld3 piece play) 1 5 . .ixe3+ and :S:c l are all still possible..if6 22 . . .ixc6+ while 1Wa4. If 16 li:lxe3 4') 16 :S:xf3 . . New York bereny 1 9 84.ie7 1 7 li:l l f2 Black defends his pawns. .ie6 2 1 .ie6 9 li:ld3 f6 1 0 . . To prevent . e 4 1 5 li:l fl f5 1 6 d 3 ..ie6. Eksjo 1982. Gausdal .ig4 18 li:lxg7 ! ±± li:ld3 ! f6 1 3 . 1 980. . Of course Black's 10 li:le3 . .0 22 e4 certain piqua ncy in 8 li:le l . The idea is to threaten ef 1 5 li:ld3 ( 1 5 gf .ixg5 become a key break ... 9 h4 g5 move as a substitute for the almost 10 hg oo) 9 . or even 1 5 li:l xe4!? li:l xe2+ 1 6 \t12.0 I I b3 1!re8. . Balaton­ as in Watson-Banks . when I I f4 or I I d3 is best . three times to get to an odd square d) 8 .ixc6+ (?) 9 b3 'ticS ( ! ) (9 .id6? 15 li:lcd5 t!¥e8 1 6 li:lh5 1978. f3 ( 1 5 .ixc6+.ic5+ 13 e3 t!Vxd l 14 li:l xd l much interest.ih3 '+ ) 9 .if5 with active .ixc6+ (9 li:lc2? �d7 times to get to c7.ib2 .if5! 1 2 8 li:lel (80) li:le4 t!¥d5 1 3 f3 c4 1 4 li:lc3 �d7 1 5 't!t'xc4 . True enough.ie7?! 9 . f4 will li:le6 1 8 li:le4 li:lg5 1 9 li:lxg5 . . . .. Boston .ixd3 clearly favoured Black. I 've s uggested this (Shats kes's) c ) 8 .. Espig-Forintos.

ib4 Colias) 1 5 e4 fe 16 ll:l fxe4 . Pavlov-Nach t.ic5 1 3 \Wa4 !?. Colo­ . play could go 10 . . . . . .id7 Ivanov-Ch ow. hS? ! 1 0 h4! g5 I I hg .. f6 I I f4 ef 1 2 .ih3! =) I I ll:ld3 .ie3 0-0 10 ll:ld2 is C4 above ( note to 8 ll:l d2).ixe4 1 8 ll:lxe4 . .. . . ef 1 2 . .ie7 1 9 ll:lg5 ±± 9 . 9 ll:ld2 (82) 9 . 8 ll:le I still awaits a body of b) 9 .ih3 1 2 ll:lxc6 �d7 1 3 ll:lxe7 ±.ixc6 cd I I . .ie7 1 4 9 .ie 7 10 �c4 0-0 (!) . . .ie6) 1 3 b3! cb 1 4 d4! . . . . ll:le6?! 9 ll:ld2 .ih3 I I f4 ..ie7 I I .ie7 1 0 . USSR 1 974.ixc6+ be 1 2 f3 . . . . 1 2 . . 12 f4 ! h4!? 1 3 ll:lc4 ± Podgayets­ C522 Ka rasev.id7 1 0 ll:lc4 and 'ti'e4) 1 2 .ixb7 Itb8 b) 8 .ixf4 ( ! ) ( 1 2 gfis examined 9 f6 (8 1) in 'c') 1 2 .if5 1 7 �xb3 .ixc6 be I I ll:lxe5 . . .if5 1 4 ll:le4 . h 5 1 5 e3 1i'e8 1 6 f3 ( ! ) h4 1 7 ll:le4 hg . ( "t" ECO ). . a) 9 .ih5) 9 .ih 3 12 . .ig4 I I . .ih3 1 3 li e ! ll:le6 1 4 . c4 I I ll:l f2 ef 1 2 gf f5 !? ( 1 2 .i x f4! is 'b'. . 1 2 gf(? ! ) .. ll:lxf4 1 3 l:ixf4 .ixg5 practical evidence. 9 . 10 b3 Interesting is 1 0 f4 ( " ! " Colias) 1 0 .ib2 0-0 1 2 f4 t.ixe4 1 5 Tim man . . I I .txc6 be I I ll:lc4 f6 After I 0 b3.ie7 is the text) I I f4 (or I I a4 ::!-:) rado 1 977... 0-0!? I 0 . ..ih3 1 3 llf2 . .ib2 . . Romania 1 973. Tilbu rg 1 985. . . or 1 0 ..ixg2 1 2 �xg2 'i!t'd 7 ! ?) a) 8 . . . .. .i d 5 ! \Wb8 1 5 c3 b 5 16 \Wf3 ±± . . 1 8 hg \Wh5 19 1!t'e2 t Dzindzihashvili­ .ixa8 't!t'xa8 14 �a4+ c) 8 . f6 9 ll:ld2 (9 e3 . .ig2 ± .if5 ( 12 . . . 1 2 1!t'a4( ! ) fe t) 1 3 ll:lf2 t/oo.i c 7 1 3 e3 0-0 1 4 �b3 l:i b8 1 5 f5 81 ll:lg5 16 ll:le5+ 'it>h 8 1 7 ll:l xd7 1i'xd7 w = S hatskes. . .id7?! 9 e3! :t:: . ll:ld8? ( 10 .id7 1 0 ll:lc4 ll:lc6?! ( 10 f6 1 2 f4 i Watson-Eversole. 8 d3 .id6 (? ! ) ( 14 .ig4 ! 1 0 h3 10 . 1 2 b 3 !? . ( I I .80 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation . Ch icago 1 986. . c4 10 . .

12 .. . .. The more common way a) 1 1 a4!? 0-0 1 2 f4 ef 13 . There I I a4!? is interesting. Lucerne (World Team Petrosian-Vaganian. .ie6 1 9 e4 . .txe7 'it'xe7 15 e3 �f5 =) 12 ..td4 1 5 �e3 Portisch. lib8) 1 3 . . when 1 1 .ixf4 �e6 to decl ine is 1 1 f4 ef 12 gf ( 1 2 . �a5. .g: 10 . c4. 1 2 . . 1 3 �ed5 �xd5 1 4 �xd5 0-0 1 5 fe �xe5 16 . USSR Ch Ch) 1 985. .txc6 tinues to have great success. . . .tc6 1 5 �e4 lieS! Houshan-van der Sterren... but unclear. are many games wit h the older f6 ( I I .. . g5) 14 �f3 ... f6. cd I S .. . . Vilela­ Lu kacs. Lucerne 1 6 'it'c2 .tf6 1 4 �g4 ..te8!? . . . or 1 3 � f5 !? fg 14 �xg7+ 'it>f7 15 �f5 83 gh+ 1 6 'it>h l ro Zaichik-Palatnik. e.ic5+ 20 . . li bS 1 3 . e.td6 = or 1 4 . b4 1 4 a) 13 f4?! .. . .tg3 . . . Palo Alto 1 9 S l ) 1 4 17 d4 cd 1 8 ed .te 3 b6 (or 1 3 �xf4 1 5 �xf4!? 'it'e8 !? with the .. .1 3 .i f2 f5 ! with the idea 16 �c4 ! 0-0 1 7 �bd6 �xf4 ro .td2 centre a n d b-file exposed) 1 4 �d5 f5 or 1 3 .th4 1 5 .te3 Velden (match) 1 983) 1 3 ..te3 �e6 1 5 .td6 �ed4 Blau-Pachman. . Munich 1 958. Albena 1 985. Reguera­ b) 11 f4 b5 1 2 �e3 litc8!? (the older Illescas. 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 81 A gambit sequ ence which con­ II . Sochi 1 974. .id2!? 0-0 1 5 f5 �e5 1 6 'it>h 1 . 0-0.te8 (83) 14 lHI ! Byrne. . b6 !?) 1 2 f4 ef is note 'a' to 10 . 16 .txc6 i s especially risky w i t h t h e f5 !? ( 1 2 ..id2 �d4 =.tf4 �c6 1 7 a4 b4 1 8 litc l .td4+ 1 7 e3 f5 ! =t= Espig­ 01 1 982. ..ie6!?. lidS. =!+ with the idea .txf4 ( 13 . 13 . lie8. . . . . .. Mar del Plata 1 98 1 ) 14 . . .... . . . 1 4 �cd5 0-0 1 5 �xe7+? ! Polugayevsky.g..txg3 1 6 h g 'it'f6 'it>h l �e5 =. and 14 �ed5 0-0 15 f5 .. 14 �e3 'it'd7 = �e6 . 1 976) 1 7 .tc6 1 6 �f5 �e6 1 7 � xd4 ! ( 1 7 f5 1 5 �d 2 0-0 1 6 �ec4 e f 1 7 gf �d5? lie8 I S �xd4 �xd4 1 9 �e3 'it>h8 18 �b3 litf6 =/ro Korchnoi­ 'it'd7 20 f3 liadS 21 b3 f5 ! =t= Portisch. � xd4 (or 1 7 .tc8 1 9 d5 .. c4!?) 13 a4 ( 1 3 f5 0-0 14 . . M edina del Campo 1 9S5. . . w USSR 1 975. . .tf2 . or 1 3 gf li b8 ! . Smyslov-Htibner. .. line is 1 2 . litb8 1 4 lic l 'it>h8 1 5 'it'e l lif6 = idea 16 �d5 lid8 or 1 6 e3 lidS Lobo-Tarjan. 'it'xe7 1 6 �c4 litfd8 + Seirawan­ b) 13 e4!? . .td6 = with the idea . ef and: 1 3 lhf4!? �e6 12 �xeS . 'it>h 8 1 4 �e4!? ( 1 4 � b 5 e f 1 5 litxf4 �e6 . . . . .tf6 (or 1 3 . .. . 1 4 14 .

i. Watson-Grefe. .c 1 b5! + i.d5 19 't!t'a4 lle8 20 ll:Jf3 't!t'b6 2 1 't!t'd2 i. . . .or 16 .xd4 cd 1 8 ll:Je5 i.c6 (or 19 .f7 1 7 't!t'a4 ll:Jd 5 'it>h8 .. . f4.f7 ! 1 7 20 't!t'b3+ 'it>h8 2 1 ll:Je2 1!fd7 22 f3 't!t'c2 llfe8 1 8 b3 i.xd5 + Commons­ i. f5/ . 'it>h8 . . Las Vegas 1 97 5 . . .f6!) ably be employed more often .c6 b) 13 . .82 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation ll:Je2 f5) 1 8 i. There are other good moves: Sk ara 1 980) 1 5 f4 i.g. . 1 4 't!t'b3 !? 1 8 ll:Jxd5 i. b6 1 5 1Wd5 't!t'c8 1 6 f4 Gheorghiu.ffi 1 9 i. . Malmo 1 985.xf3 2 2 ef f5 + Seirawan­ B. 1 4 ..Vaganian.b5 =/co Schtissler-Donaldson .{6 . .e7! (or 1 5 .Stein. . Conclusion: The Rubinstein is c) Even 1 3 .c6 15 ll:Je 1 1 7 1Wc4 1Wc7 = Sahovic-J oks ic. . i. b 6! ? ) 1 6 ll:J e 5 24 ll:Jed2 ll:Jf4 ! ! 25 gf 't!t'g6+ 26 'i!lf1 'i!l h 8 ! 1 7 f4 f6 1 8 ll:Jf3 b 6 1 9 i.d4 1 7 i. e . f6/ . .f6 1 4 ll:Jf3 ll:Je6 1 5 ll:Je4 16 ll:Je4 i...f6 = Vadasz. 1 5 . . 14 llc1 c) 13 't!Vb3 b6 ! 1 4 i.xd4 1!fxd4 14 . play.xd4 cd 1 7 i.1 7 f5 ll:Jc7 1 8 13 ll:Je6 't!t'e4 i.e3 �h8 1 5 14 ll:Je4 b6 = wit h the idea . . llc2 llad8 2 2 llfc 1 h 6 2 3 h 4 �h8 Berlin 1 9 7 7 .f6 1 5 ll:Jc4 i.c6 a) 13 .c3 't!t'd7 2 1 Moscow 1 979. Black gets excellent Palo Alto 1 9 8 1 .. . lUd l f6 1 6 lLJf3 i.f7) 20 i. .xe5 16 fe i.e3 f5 1 9 i. i. i. f6 !? 1 4 ll:Jf3 i. 'i!lh8 1 6 d4?! ll:Jd5 1 7 ll:Jxd5 't!t'xd 5 Yugoslav Ch 1 976. 't!t'xd5 15 f4 f6 1 6 ll:Jf3 i. and should prob­ 1 4 ll:Jxd5 ( 14 't!t'b3 ll:Jxe3 1 5 fe i. i. .d4 1 6 i. lLJf2 i. .d2 1Wg4 =!= Govbinder-Kapengut. After 14 lie I. ll:Jd5!? seems okay: holding up well. Lone Pine 1 975.c6 = Colditz-Reichenbac h . i. . New York 1978. .f6 (or 1 4 .. . 1 8 f3 llad8 =!= Frumkin-Savereide.

ie7 I c4 �f6 2 �c3 e6 3 e4 c5 English. . b6 lines are dealt with in Chapter I I .. .tg2 �c6 . . 4 d4 to Miles. . . 5 . . d5? ! 7 cd ed 8 e5 �fd7 9 d4! cd?! (9 . . .) 9 d4 cd 1 0 �a4 . ed 6 d4 is a Tarrasch Queen's Gambit. .g. . . 5 . . . Lone Pine 1 976. Chapters 1 3 and 1 4) . .. . . . . .. USSR 1 97 1 . .ig2 . d5 tends to get to the main line..t .. .. is ±..t) 10 � xd4 �xe5 I I .tc7 6 0-0 0-0 7 d4 cd 8 �xd4 1!t"c7 2 �c3 � f6 9 1!t"d3 (9 b3? d5) 9 .!. .ig2 be oo Velimirovic) 5 .tb2 �c6 1 2 li: c l . .t Watson­ 3 �f3 e6 transposes (e. . White ca n play for the e4 lines of that chapter by 4 . .7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation I c4 c5 . 4 . . d6 I 0 b3 . d4) 6 . a6 !? 5 . .te7 10 . Finally. This can also arise by 6 . . .. b6 5 d3 .td7 3 g3 I I . . . in view of 6 .tb7 6 e4. line from I c4 e5 2 �c3 � f6 3 g3 6 0-0 dS c6 4 d4 etc. and 4 . . . 1!t"b6 !? is Makarichev's idea.. .tb2 :ii d8 (8 . a6 Here 6 . 3 e6 to s top d4: 6 0-0 . 6 . cd 7 1!¥xd4 �c6 + is a (centre).te7 7 b3 ! (7 e3 d5 4 �f3 =) 7 . Malta 01 4 .tg2?! d5 5 cd ed 6 d4 (otherwise ed 1 0 d4 ! . 0-0 7 e4?! d5 8 cd ed 9 e5 4 �c6 �e4! + Ree-Petursson.tg2 �f6!? is Chapter 8 7 d4 cd 8 � xd4 0-0 (84) : (5 g3 �f6). d5 5 cd �xd5 is the best way 1 980.ib5+ �bd7 1 2 1!t"e2 1!¥e7 1 3 0-0 ± Plato nov-G rigorian. . 3 e4 e6 is the 5 . but we use towards the main line) 8 �xd4 a6 this order to look a t irregular lines. White has two ways to obtain .ig2 (5 d4 b5 !? 6 . 6 . d5 9 cd 4 . . . 0-0 7 d4 cd (7 .. 0-0 8 .

. . The alternatives A2 8 .a3 ! b6 1 7 lld3 i. Csom-Augustin. . .to llfd8 1 4 'it'f4 i.b2! ( d5 a n d �d4-c6 can follow). i. . � xd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 �d2 a) 9 . i. .d7 1 3 8 llfd l (or 1 3 . . .b2 d6 I I llc l 115 �xd4 ( lest �d5 ) 1 2 'it'xd4 i.84 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation the adva ntage: a) 9 b3 'it'c7 I 0 i. Carlsbad A little riskier than 8 . Pula 1 975. �xc3 can be independent.d4 I I i. .xd4 ( 1 4 �xd4 cd 1 5 't!i'd2 d3 ! = ) i.xd4!? . but 1 9 23. . 0-0 are equal: 8 e3 0-0 (or even 8 .f6 1 0 e3 ( 1 0 i. .. . A n d 8 . . 'tWaS I I 't!t'b3 'it'a6 1 2 Wa3 A :!. i. Th us: main lines via 8 d4. 'it'c7 : 9 .f6 llfd l ltJ h5 1 4 i. . .e3) I I i.. . A 8 d4 c d I I e d 't!t'b 6 1 2 'it'd3 ll d 8 1 3 i. �f6!? 9 e 3 0-0 1 0 7 cd �xdS a 3 ( 1 0 de!? Mikh alchishi n) 1 0 . i.l: is Portisch-Da rga 'tWO ±± Watson-Slaton. .e3 i.d7 is passive: 10 ll b l b6 i. .e8? 1 6 ( 1 2 . .Garcia-A ndersson.xd4 i. 8 d4 (85) 10 e4 .Rubinstein. i. ..e8 1 5 g4! with the idea g5) 1 3 . . . llfd8 1 4 h3 i. b) 9 i.a3!? cd I I = Olafsson-Sigurjonsson. . .f8 1 8 'it'f4 :!.f6 I 0 very common. . but 8 � xd5 A I 8 . . cd 1 5 't!i'a3 Wc8 1 6 l:Iad l l:Ie8 b) 9 . . llc2 t . � xd4 (9 .e8 1 5 a4 (or 1 5 'it'e3 ::!: G . preventing .e3 B 8 � xd5 �g4? ! 14 b4 ± was Mikhalchishin­ In general. . .b2 i.. . oo) 1 0 . Sa rajevo 1 985. . Reykjavik cd �xd4 1 2 �xd4 'iWxd4 1 3 �c2 1 98 1 . Pasadena of Chapter 1 3 ) 1 3 i. c4! ) AI 9 d4 cd 1 0 �xd5 e d I I �xd4 i.a6 9 be 0-0 ( 1 2 . a nd now best is 1 3 i. and 8 b3 0-0 9 i. . 'it'c l b6 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 d4!? i.a6 1 5 i. 0-0. Now 8 . . Cienfuegos 1 975) 1 5 . llab8 1 6 i. .f4 (!) is also good. cd �xd5 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 llc l ) 10 'it'xd4 9 �xd5 (9 �b5 0-0 1 0 �bxd4 �b6 d6 I I 'it'd3 'it'c7 1 2 llac l lld8 1 3 =) 9 .xd4 t Smej kal-Ftacnik. White gets to both Lalic. .f6 1 2 ll c l �xd4 (with the idea 'it'e3) 1 5 . . d5 1 0 cd The basic positio n . ed 1 0 � xd4 0-0 ( 1 0 .e3 i. Ujtelky-Szilagyi .d7 1 5 i. . Vrsac 1 98 1 ) 1 3 l:Ie l � xd4 1 4 Budapest 1 979. 1 4 .g4 1 4 1 983. I I e4 cd 1 2 cd 0-0. . .f6 8 � xc3 = Tarrasch.

but Unzicker-Miles. . i. the alternatives deserve ed 1 3 ed i. In view of this move's poor was more to the point: 1 2 i.14 . .b7 a) 1 0 . but Korchnoi-Lipnitsky. other line is I I . . Halle 1 967. but I I . . . .f6 or 1 3 . 13 .f6 ( 1 3 . . . ed c) 1 0 . ll'ld6 =) 1 5 ll'lg5 g6 1 6 �e4 1 5 lil:d I 1!t'e8 1 6 lil: b I ) 1 3 cd i. and now Unzicker suggests " 1 4 ll'l xd4! ± " .xg5 ±. . went 1 3 1!t'a4 cd. .f4 ( ! ) results..f6 12 i. �a5 . a nd now 16 . I I i.a6 ! ? 1 4 lle l more attention : i. cd or even I I . when White should continue 'it'c7 = Spassov-Raicevic.. The i. corres Black's play is easy to improve 1 979. . USSR Botvinnik-van Scheltinga.f4 i. . . 1!t'c7 I I i. . Black can play 14 .f5 1 6 �c l . . Ftacnik-Lerner. Bratislava 1 98 3 . . .f4 g6 1 5 llad l i. But d5 ! ± Crane-D rysdale. . . b6!? is quite reasonable. Amster­ Ch 1 952.d6 1 2 i.f4 i. here 13 . or I I i.f6 12 i. Baden-Baden 198 1 .e3 b6 White should probably forego I I as in Watson-Carlson.f5 ! 1 4 ll a l advantage: 16 . i. .d6!?) 14 �d3 i. .e3 i. . b5!? (Peters) l l d5 ( 1 1 ll b l 15 llad l it'c8 16 llfe l with the b4 1 2 d5 e d 1 3 ed i.f4 i.. . ed 1 3 ed ll'l c4 (or but limits Black's options. 1t'c7!? I I d5 ed 12 ed ll'la5 12 ed ll'la5 1 3 ll'le5 co. ll'lc4 ! 1 7 ll'lxd4 ( 1 2 . upon.f6 1 4 b5 1 7 i.d6 1 4 i. .f6 1 4 12 . . ll'la5 !? is also interesting.e3 1!t'a6 1 6 ll b4 ! ± . 0-0 is an easier route. I gave 1 0 . bu t t seems fair. in favour of I I d5 ll'la5 (86) 11 cd b6!? H ere 1 2 'ti'c2!? has been seen in I I .b7 1 2 1!t'e2 ll'la5 1 3 ll'l e5 1 976. 10 cd A game Hort-Zwaig. .f4 1!t'd7 . . i. went I I �c2 cd 1 2 ll'lxd4 ! dam 1 963. . . . . . .b2 b6 transposes. i. Colorado i.xd6 ll'l xd6 1 8 'it'h4 h 5 = lld l lld8 1 5 i. . ll'la 5 seems to im prove) I I . . The other idea is 10 . .d7? 15 ll h5 . i. bu t now we see that 8 . e 3 'it'c7 !? 1 2 1!t'e2 a5? 1 3 18 ll'l g5 i. c4 !? 17 1t'c2 '@c5 lt:Ja 5 .xg5 19 i.d6 1 2 i.. IM because here 10 llbl !? is rather w difficult for Black. . . lLl d8 !? 1 3 llb5! 1t'c7 d6 �d7 is u nclear) 1 4 i.e3 b6 . . 3 gJ and the Keres-Parma Variation 85 The main line.xd6 1!t'xd6 as equal in the first editio n. . 1 978. idea d5. ( 1 4 . . so perhaps I I 'it'e2 with the b) 1 0 . two games: 1 2 . ll'ld8 1 5 lil:fd l �e7 1 6 ll'lb5 a 6 1 7 ll'ld6 llb8. g6!? Smej kal. Subotica 13 lil:cl or 1 3 ll'ld2 !?. is fine . . i.

ib7 ( 1 2 .ia6 1 5 lit e 1 . .i b7 ! ?) 1 3 ed 12 . 1 5 .if5 1 5 :ii cS 1 4 d5 ed 1 5 .ixa 1 1 9 . .ixc3 '@'c7 = Robatsch-Pinter.ixf8 �xf8 20 opti o n .g: 1 4 .ixd5? ( I S . . :ii c l and wins. g . .if5?! ( 1 5 . . lt:J a 5 1 3 't!t'd3 cd 1 4 ed . 1 7 :ii x b4 t M i n ic.i f6 :ii e 3 !? lii c S 1 5 lilc3 15 .i a6 13 l:le l lt:Jb4 ( 1 3 . :ii e 8 1 6 :ii b 1 ! . .id6 Rome 1 9S2) 1 4 . li:J a 5 ! ? 1 3 :ii c l !? . . .ixg2 20 �xg2 22 l'i:c7 ±± in Qu i n teros-Tringov.ixf6 't!t'xf6 23 Bar 1 9 77. . 117 0 gaard. . . lt:J a5 14 '@'d3 :ii cS 16 lt:Je5 . . . H ere my suggestion 1 4 lt:J e 5 ! (t o a n d n o w 1 7 lt:Je5 ! is .ic3 '@'c7 - 1 6 . . 14 .86 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation ( 1 2 . Reykjavik 1 9S4) 1 3 .i h 3 lla8 1 6 ed l1b3 lt:Ja5 1 6 Ilb4 =t= Mikhalchishin).ib7 1 4 :ii a d I :ii cS = Schu ssler-Ch ristian sen . lt:Jd3 . b) 1 2 . .i f6 ( 1 4 .i f6 1 4 :ii b 1 . .ia3 ! ± O'Kelly-Barden. . .ib 7 H Mikhalchishin-Gorelov. .ib7 1 6 Remember. . . . .ia4 = Wa tson.ixb2 1 6 l:I b2 t. \!t'd7 ) 1 7 't!t'bH Ftacnik- .i bner.ia6 1 4 l:I e 1 lt:J a5 1 5 d 5 1 984. .ixd4 =) has been tried i n with the idea . ed 1 8 ed . . . . . 1 6 . :ii xc3 . .ixb4 .ixfl 1 5 �xfl 1 7 . Sisniega-Karolyi. . U SSR 1 3 . .id7 1 4 �d3 a 6 1 5 :ii fd l . .!:.ixg5 20 . .ixd5 �dS 2 1 . a 3 ! . e . .ixb4 I S lt:Jc6 ± Gorelov­ :ii cS ( 1 5 . .) 1 4 . Os lo 1 9SO. lit eS 1 7 l:l e 1 lt:Jc4 ("? - :ii d 8 1 9 lt:Jg5 g 6 M i nic) 1 9 lt:J g5 1 7 . Budapest 1 9S2) 15 :ii e 1 f5? ! ( 1 6 . G raz 1 97 8 . 15 ed lt:Ja5 I ns tead. . several ga mes. . that Black . . .ia6? ! 1 5 :ii e I :ii c 8? 1 6 . . 12 .ie3 . .ia3 t) 1 6 g4! lt:Jd3 1 7 lt:Jxd3 . yet: 1 6 .ixg5 �xg5 li:J xc4 l:Ixc4 1 9 d6 . . 1 2 .i a3 . lt:J b4 ( 1 3 . lt:Ja5 . lit c6 2 1 d7 litc7 22 . 't!t'xd3 't!t'f6 2 1 d 6 ! :ii dS 22 g5 ! 13 :ii b 1 ! . .if6!? England 1 95 1 . . . . .id7 1 4 '@'a3 Il eS 1 5 ll a c l lt:Ja5 = Portisch­ H i.ixe5?! 15 :ii xcS 'ti'xc 8 1 6 :ii c 1 �aS 1 7 d 5 ! Conceding too m any advantages. but 1 8 d6 ! ) I S .1 5 . e d ( 1 2 . lit eS" R ibli. 12 . . 1 3 . Berg-Velikov. . e .ixd 3 has to allow 12 d5 to h ave this 1 S .ib2 (8 7) a ) 1 2 d5!? has also s ucceeded. . . West . .ixe5 Farago.if6 1 5 . led to 1 7 .. S kara 1 9SO. . . . .i. Abano Terme 1 9 80. however. 1 3 '@ld3 !?) B 1 3 't!t'a4 ( 1 3 'i!t'd3 .i f l ! ( 14 replace 1 4 lt:Jd4 . .ia3 .i a6 1 3 :ii e l 14 d5 ed lt:Ja5 !?) 1 3 :ii c l b 5 ! = Kuzmin. 't!t'c S!? Ftacnik) 1 6 lite2 Lukacs.

.ic3 i.e3 t.ta6 20 li c l lLl b7 2 1 '@'d4 f6 22 14 'ft'e4 (or 1 4 b4 R ibli) 1 4 . e5 !? Speelman) 10 . cd 1 0 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 I I �xd4 A2 . Taxco IZ ( 1 2 ll b l '@'c7 1 3 lLl d 4 i.e3 !t'e 7 . and the rook may be useful: A2 1 a) 9 . .t d2 lLlxc3 I I . Portisch. Pi nter. 1 9 8 5 .txc 5 I I 'it'c2 h 6 (or I I . .xc5 I I e5 t. .. . d 7 =) 1 2 . 10 . Christians en­ Marjanovic. . K ovala 1 9 85) 10 . Thessa­ '@'d5+! �f8 28 '@'e4 ! �f7 29 '@'e7+ loniki 01 1 984. 't!Va2 1 2 e3 lil: d8 13 'ft'e 2 cd 14 lLlxd4 'ft'e7 i ntending 1 2 lLl g5 f5 ! ) 1 2 li d l CD S p eel man-Aiburt . .id2! t/ ± with the idea '@'xc8 25 h4 . . . . . lLl db4 A22 9 . . . . �g6 30 h5+ �xh5 3 1 i¥f7+ 1 -0. �aS 1 0 d e ! ? ( 1 0 'ti'd2!? li d 8 . . . .10 . . lLlb6 9 .t xc5 1 3 e5 loo ks better than in 'A22' below. 9 . lLlxc3 is ' A I ' above. i s ' B ' below. 9 . . 1Wxa2 1 2 . . . 1!¥xd5? 1 0 i. Linares 1 9 8 1 . After 9 e4. . S kopje 1 9 84.e3 li d8 CD Cebalo­ After 16 .. . llJc4 1 4 lie I . .. . .ib4 lixc 1 2 3 li xc l li c8 24 li xc8+ 15 b4 b6 1 6 . A lso: A 2 1 9 . . plan.g5 ! ) 1 2 !t'a4 i. . .txc3 1 0 b e .d7 1 3 i.. b ) 9 . � 1 2 i. . 'ti'f6 1 3 lil: b l e5 + Romanishin­ lt:lxc3 I I b e "it'xa2 (!?) ( perhaps I I A iburt. .. ti'c5 ) 1 2 .tb4 Suba-Petursso n . llac 8 . U SSR Ch 1 97 5 .tb5 26 d6 lLlc5 27 b5 . h6!? Speel man.tf6 1 2 'ft'c4 lLlxc3 1 3 be �a5 1 4 8 0-0 i. . d ) 9 . .e3 ! ) Cebalo. 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 87 Germany 1 983.txc5.d8 1 6 . because of 1 3 .txa7 ! ± Suba­ 9 lLlxd5 ed (9 . .. cd? 11 cd llJxd4 12 llJd5! - Ftacnik-Gorik. . c) 9 . lLlf6!? The idea is that B lack lacks a 1 0 de i. .i xc 5 1 0 i. . went 1 7 'ti'xd5 I I d e 1!¥xc5 ( I I . Dortm u nd 198 1 ) I I lLl xd5 t. i.e3! !t'xc3 1 5 '@'a4 ! (or 1 5 1Wxc3 9 e4 t) 15 . and 9 d e lLlxc3 (9 . .tf6 10 lLlxd5 ( 1 0 e3 cd I I ed 9 lLldb4 (89) . 13 . .te3 e 5 1 3 lLlg5 lidS A new m ove w h i c h has had 1 4 'ifb3 'tWxb3 1 5 ll xb3 lLla5 ( "? ! " success is 9 ll b l !? (88) Informant) 16 ll b4 f6 1 7 lLl e 4 llJc6 18 ll b5 t Cebalo-J . .ixe5 ltc8 1 8 li e I '@'d7 1 9 . Then 10 e4 llJ b6 I I de (!) 't!Yxd I 12 li xd I . . Taxco IZ 1 985..d2 lLl b6 I I lLl e4 ! t .. . lLlc7 1 0 i.

bS e . . S k ara 1 980. 1 3 . . . i.ic 7 'ii'd 7 1 7 Iic2 t Speel m a n ) 't!fd7 1 3 �e2) 1 3 ef g f 1 4 . i. Others: . . . b4 . .ic3!? One o f my best i deas from the lt:\xc5 ( I I . .e3 cd I I lt:\xd4 lt:\xd4 1 2 Vaganian -Portisch..f6 ! ? a nd . .ixe S ! lt:\ d 3 1 6 a) l l . . . . . �aS) 1 6 Iil: b l b S !? cd 15 b4 . .ixb4 I S 1 6 be be 1 7 i.e7 1 4 Ii a d l ± . ltJd5 ( 1 3 .. 't!fxd1 1 2 l:lxd l lt:\c2 (else Iil:d8 etc.ie7 1 3 a H. ltJxd S ! 1 3 ltJxd4 d ) l l .igS ! f6 ( 12 . . US Ch 1 97 8 ) 1 3 .i xc6 i.ixc5 1 2 'i!t'e2 i. 't!fd4 . b 7 1 4 'iVb3 'ii'c 8 I S l:lfd l l:lfd8 1 6 ltJ d4 a5 ! = Ftacni k-Tarj a n .id7 + a n d .ixc5 1 3 l:Hd l ! . .i h 6 ± .g . . I 4 li fxc l ( ! ) ± i n tendi n g b4. l:ld8 H9 14 't!fc2 lt:\a5 15 i. . .ie3 .ib7 1 5 l:l a b l l:l fd8 = Ka valek-Ta rja n . 1 3 eS .ixaH 'iVxa 8 ! I S Iil: e I b) l l . lt:\ c2?? 1 4 li a2) 1 4 ltJxdS i.xe3 1 3 first ed i tion.id2 i. f4 \!Vc4 = Geller­ w Piache_t ka. . .. . . 't!fc7 1 3 b5 .i d4 I 5 h 3 a6 = a ) 10 i. eS 1 3 ltJ fS ) . .d7 !? 1 3 Ii c l A nt i cipating lt:\e4 or b4 .ixb4 12 a3 lt:\d3 2 1 a b a S 22 ba Y:> . .ic7 1 6 li xd5 ± Watson­ ( 1 6 .Po rtisch. Buenos Aires g6 1 6 'i!t'e4 etc. .id 7 = Hubner-Portisch. . .d 7 2 0 i.ic6 1 4 a 3 eS!? I S .ib7 1 5 lt:\eg5 Schmidt. 14 liaxcl c) 10 a3 cd I I ab de 12 be b6 Korchnoi-H i. 11 e5! ltJdb4. . . ltJdS 1 2 lt:\e4 . lt:\ c2 1 3 '@xc2 '@xd4 11 i. . .xc3 lt:\xd4 cd 1 3 a 3 de 1 4 a b .if4 ( 1 3 �e2 �c7 14 . lt:\d3? 1 2 .xd4 b6 ( 1 2 . Lucerne 01 1 982. . b6?! 1 2 a 3 't!fxd l 1 3 li xd l lt:\xc 3 1 4 be cd I S cd Iil:b8 ( I S . . o r here 1 1 .id6 1 6 �xc3 .x c5 10 . a S ! 1 7 . Johannesburg (or 1 2 . .88 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Varia tion Abano Te rme 1 980 . .ixd4 1 5 . . W h i te's o ther choices a re I I a3 lt:\d3 1 2 'i!t'e 2 lt:\xc l 1 3 fai rly harmless: l:l axc l eS 1 4 l:l fd I . . . R i o I Z 1 979. accounts for the demise o f 9 . Harrow 1 979 . because . . 13 a3) 13 li b ! lt:\2d4 1 4 ltJxd4 ( 1 4 b ) 10 d5 ed I I ed ltJd4 1 2 a 3 ( 1 2 .c3 t or 1 7 i. .ie3 . Malta 01 1 980.. 01 1 978) 1 2 . I believe that it 't!¥xc3 ! ) 1 2 ltJd4 t ( 1 2 . b6 1 4 �c2 . 1 4 �e 2 .ia6 1 4 . lid! etc was more accurate. 10 i.'h Gheorghiu­ l3 'ii'e2 ltJxcl Un zicker. . . 1 4 't!fa4!?) 1 3 . . a 3 t.1 6 . i. b6 Ri bli) 1 7 �d3 a6 ! 1 8 Ii e l Pe t u rsson.ibner. 1 2 .i f4 t:) 1 4 . . .id6 1 9 . lt:\d3 I I '@'e2 ltJxcl 1 2 l:laxc l 10 de! . 1 3 .ie3 Iii: d8 1 9H I .1 3 . 16 be b6 = c) l l . . .

if5 1 4 lie I :t 9 tt:Jb6 Ftacnik-Johansson .id2 .ie3 cb 1 8 1 982) 14 i. 1 6 . tt:J d7 !? 1 1 e5 tt:Jxc5 1 2 . .fl tt:Jb6 1 5 li d 1 tt:Jb4 1 6 lt:Je4! .g. In genera l . . USSR 1984.i f6 1 3 f4 .e3!?) 1 4 .. . .i xc 5 12 e5 ( 1 2 12 lt:Jel . .ia4 20 19 fc lt:Jc4 = Tal. . . . f4 !? is m . . o r 1 3 tt:Je5 :t . e.if4 f6 !) 1 2 . Novi Sad . .xf3 1 3 i.g4 ( I I .Pe tursson.c5 = i. I 0 . White could t ry 1 6 't!t'e2 th is is critical) 1 2 h3 i. i.g5 ( 1 5 .a m ov.if6 1 3 tt:Jb5. 't!t'xd l (or I 0 . This seems Black's best. II ed 1 3 tt:Jd3 .ig4! 14 'ifxg4 tt:J xd3 1 5 I I tt:J xd 5 ! ? i. But 12 . . f5 . e d tt:J b4 1 3 lt:J e l :!. . . 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 89 n o w 1 4 . . lt:J b4 1 4 . . tt:J d4 1 7 .. cd 1 1 lt:Jexd4 tt:Jxd4 1 2 tt:Jxd4 . I I .xg7 lt:Jxh3+ 1 7 �g2 playabl e ( H i. . . .Ol afsson .). cd 1 9 't!t'xd4 't!t'c7 20 lt:Jb5 Watson-Alburt. . . e. . b) 10 de looks good a gai nst 1 0 . h is g2 bishop. . bu t t h is isn't m uc h . . tt:Jc2 1 5 lia2 lic8 ( 1 5 Quinteros. . . . I I . but 't!t'e2 c4 = . .ie3 i. . liae I -e6. . if White U tasi . tt:J c4 1 3 lie 1 . USSR Ch 1 982) 1 1 li xd l . Ta lli nn lt:Je4 lic7 2 1 lie I h6 22 b4 a5 = 1 98 1 ) 1 8 .Li u She La n . tt:Jxd5 1 2 i.ixe4 1 9 . despite a few new White i deas.ifl !?.ie3 li e8 ( 1 7 .ixe5 1 7 fe . i. b u t 1 0 . . . 12 . . space and II tt:J b4 (90) devel opm e nt o ffer good chances. Dorfman-Tu k makov. 1 4 lie4 tt:Jb6 e. .i xc5 I I 't!t'e2! :!.d6 ( ! ) still has good standing.Razu vayev. . . but 1 9 . 'it'a5 ! 1 5 lifd l a6 ! was tt:Jf4?! 1 6 i.. 10 ed i. .e5 = Ribl i ) 1 5 . .id7 1 2 lt:Je5!? is still con troversial. tt:J a5 ! ? 1 2 b 3 ( 1 2 . . gets e5 i n . .ih6 i.g. tt:Jd4?! 1 6 b4 't!t'c7 1 7 .i f4!?) 1 2 A22 .ibner tried 15 . . ( 1 3 . .ie3 lib8 = Tseitli n-Ag 1. .ixd4 f4.if5 14 a3 ( 1 4 1 5 .ixe5 21 fd : Hjartarson . .x f3 't!t'xg5 1 7 't!t'xd3 with the ideas tt:Jb5. . .ie3 tt:J xd5!? 1 5 . I celandic Ch 1 984) lil:xc5 1 9 tt:Jg5 ( 1 9 tt:Jd4 ! ? lt:Jc4 20 1 6 b3 ( 1 6 g4 .ixe5 20 b4 li c7 i m proves) 1 9 .ie6 1 2 tt:Je I !? with the idea and i nstead o f 1 6 't!t'h5 't!t'd7 1 7 1 2 . H u nga ri an Ch 1 9 8 6 ..xd5 1 3 ed tt:J b4 14 do. 10 d5 a ) U nt ried is 10 lt:J e2!?. 't!t'c7 ! N a lenczow 1 984. .xe3 16 li xb 4 i. London 1982.ixd4! ( 1 8 b4 . f6 1 3 . . . New York 1 979. . .ixe4 ± Hjart arson­ a 3 ttJ bd5 1 7 lt:Je4 li fc8 ! 1 8 tt:Jxc5 H . .ig6 = ) li e ! t was Leviti na. tt:Jd4 1 4 . . when 17 . lifd8?! tt:Jxf2 1 8 't!t'xd8 :tl ± Forintos­ 16 tt:J b5! :!. liac8 Hjartarson) 1 8 .g.

� . . 17 li:ld3 w� �-.... . Lugano 1987.1.g2 l:l:e8 1 8 l:l: b l 16 ... l.. i. 1!t'd6 18 l:l: c l .xd6 1!t'xd6 compare what follows) 18 li c l ( 1 8 1 6 �d4! i.txe4 ( 1 5 . 'ilxd4! .f5 1 5 ll:lc2 .�" • f..f5 1 7 ll:lf3 l:l:fd8 !? 1 8 li:lc5 li:lxc3 1 9 lLl xe6 fe 20 i. ll:la6 1 4 USSR 1985..Q� .�· . c4 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 i.xc3 ll:ld2 ! ± Gu lko-Alburt.te6! 21 l:l: fc l?! (2 1 i. . Thessaloniki 01 dino 1 986. World Junior Ch 1979.. . ..d6 ll:ldf6 22 i. l:l: ac8 1 973. .xa7 ll:l xc3 ( 1 9 .txc3 ±.. .'f �· .. ll:lxc3 =. .e3 After 16 't!i'd4!?. went 16 . .txb4 . USSR Ch l:l:xc3 2 1 .K � � 'i&xf7 19 i. . USSR 1 973) 14 ab .. .f5!?) 1 7 ll:ld3 l:l:c8 i. 1!t'a5 20 ll:lb4 Boersma-Franco. 19 l:l:e I litfd8 20 i. 1 975. 't!Yf6 ( ! ) 1 7 .. . .xc5 l:l:e8 (91) saw the improvement 16 .e4 ll:ld7 21 li:le5 b) 12 . .tf5 . i. 19 ll:ld3 li:la4! ( 1 9 .f6 1 9 .t � . . .txd5 1!t'xd4 1 8 . ... In two earlier i.xe5 n xe5 2 1 ( 1 7 . .. i. Ehlvest-Lputian. . 1!t'c7 !? 1 8 a4 l:l: fd8 1 9 1 5 li:lc2 i. .tf6 1 6 a4 ! ll:lb3 Petursson . ll:lxb6 18 'ffxf6 gf .. .� � � 2 1 ll:l f4 ( ! ) looks better. 15 i. . �-7.&�.txf7+ 9/• � .· � \llb � t.f6 !?) 1 6 games 16 i.te5 2 0 i..18 lLlc5 lLlxc3! ll:le3 :t Korchnoi-Kuzmin. xc3!? ( 1 3 .. ll:lc4!? 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 � e4 The latest move. l:l:e7 22 ll:l f4 l:l:c8 (=/+).g. 1984. .. .d6 1 3 a3 ll:la6 1 4 ll:lc2 .xd4 ll:lc4! Dlugy.te4 was Chern in-Petursson) 20 . . o.e6 ( 1 6 .xb7 i. li:lxc3 1 6 life ! ± Ehlvest) 20 ll:lf4! 13 . .f5 1 6 li:lxb4 cb 1 7 d6 ( 1 7 a 5 ll:l c8 or 1 8 ll:lb4 ll:lxb4: :t ? ) 1 8 a4 �d4 b3) 1 7 .g6 1 6 b3 li:lc7 1 7 .Q. Amsterdam 1983. . �·.f4 gave ll:ld7 ( 1 8 . . . �d7 1 8 i.. i. - · - . i. 13 a3 !? i. . .. �d6 1 9 li e ! lied8 2 0 'i/h5 ! ? (20 c) 1 2 . . I!c8 ( 1 7 . 1 5 li:le3 i.d4 had been played: i.. Moscow threatening . - . .txb7 :t Rodriguez) 18 .Q. . .. . e..txa8 l:l: xa8 = Dl ugy) 2 1 �• . .Rodriguez.18 . Here �.f6 16 1!t'd4!? a) 1 2 . l:l:c7 19 l:l:fe l ! ± Ehlvest) White some compensat ion (= ?) in 19 i.b2 :t h 6 2 1 l:l: ed l 1!t'ffi =/oo Ftacni k­ Spraggett-Andrijevic. 1 7 �xf6 !? ll:l xf6 1 8 i..tf4 ..f4 . . 14 be ll:l5xd4 Ftacnik-Dlugy.:? �-f'l . 2 1 . 13 i. . " [9. San Bernar­ Am.. .. . ..90 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 12 i.. e6?! 1 7 ll:lc2 ll:lc4 1 5 li:l e3 ll:ld6 = Alburt­ li:ld3 (or 1 7 f4 g6 1 8 c4 :t Dlugy) 1 7 Burman. .. 20 c4 ..Q. ..xe4 ll:ld6 1 7 i...f5 20 ll:lf4 :t • • • • or 20 ll:l c5 l:l:ac8 2 I ll:l xb7 :tDlugy) .xc4 2 2 . " "' . �. 1. . interesting) 17 . ll:lc5 1 5 d6 ... .d4 is �- . 17 l:l:a3 ± Gulko) 15 i. ..b I =/ oo Chernin­ ( 1 4 .txb6 ( 1 7 . . .

txb2 1 2 l:I b l . . . . . B 8 ltJxd5 ed Here 8 . b) 12 't!Vd2?! l:I c8 1 3 ltJxc6 n xc6 1 4 . b5!? and 1 2 a4 l:l ac8? 23 . Israel 1 976) 1 0 .. . ( 1 3 'ti'a4) 1 3 .ie3 l:lc8 1 1 d4 ed 12 ltJ xd4 'ti'a5 ( 1 2 . lvkov-A iburt. Istres B 1 10 . . . a) 1 0 . from 8 d4 0-0 9 ltJxd5 ed. ltJ c5 22 ltJd5 or 21 . ltJ xe5? 1 2 de . 1 1 a) 12 ltJx c6 be 1 3 t!t"a4?! ( 1 3 . f6!? 1 2 ltJ xc6 be 13 i. Portisch-Matulovic.e6) ltJd5 . One feels that Black should 12 ab ( 1 2 'tifxb3 ltJa5) 1 2 .txc4 (21 .te 3 't!t'f6 ( 1 2 .tc8 1 6 't!t'b3 't!t'xb 3 1 7 . . . . 'it'b4 !? 1 3 llfd l e 5 oo ) 1 3 ll fd I . 'it'b6 1 1 'ti'd2 l:Ifd8 1 2 b3 1975. B2 1 0 de 12 b3?! 81 An instructive move.te3 c4 best. .ie6 1 3 be able to defend this sort of posi­ ltJe5 't!fb6 = E. . d4 ±. but not 10 . .td2 't!t'a4 l:Ie8) 1 1 . . . Pytel-Bernard. Bermuda 1985. . a5 ( 1 3 . . but i t may not be as easy as New York 1983. Houston 1 972.te3) 1 0 ltJ xd4 'ti'xd4 1 1 't!t'c2 0-0 1 2 . . Meyer-Shamkovich. . Yugoslavia v USSR b) 10 .e 6 = Cillo-Pytel. e 5 was best.te6 1 3 de!? ( 1 3 nac l !? ±) 1 3 . . deserves attention. .. and I I . .td7 (9 . 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 91 . .. .. Lone Pine But I I . .txc6+ ! Watson-Martz.txb7 tl c7 24 ltJd5) 23 ltJa5 or 1 2 ltJe5 ltJ xe5 1 3 de i. . 0-0?! 10 . is playable . . . . . A position which also comes Biel I Z 1 9 76. Lublin 1 9 73.txc5 1 4 . .te6? 1 2 ltJ xc4! o r I I 1 5 ltJc5 . . tion. I I b3 cb (or I I .td6 ! ?) 9 d4 0-0 14 b3 . f4 1 976. .if6 I I de! ( 1 1 'ti'd2 c4. Bass-Diugy.ic2! + 1 3 ltJ d4 ! Csom.!. 't!t'xd 5 can be m et by 9 d4!? ltJxd4 (9 .if6 l:Ib8 =) 13 .ia6 ( 22 . .te6 1 3 i.. . .ie3 't!t'd6 1 1 d4 cd 12 ltJxd4 ! Dzindzihashvili­ K raidman. 11 .txc 5 't!t'xc5 1 5 ltJg5 ! f3 l:l e 8 1 5 a3 (?) l:Ie6 1 6 life I h5 + H tibner-Csom.. . and now 1 3 . . .te3 1975. 0-0 1 0 . . 11 ltJeS (92) l:le7 22 lHe l ) 22 tlfc l . .ta6. White ltJa5 ( ! ) 1 2 t!t"c2 f6 1 3 ltJf3 b5 1 4 has: ltJ h 4 i. . . or by 9 d3 . . 1!fb6 14 b3 . . .tf5 ! 't!fh5 ! ) 1 3 ltJb3 't!t'b5 1 4 ne t l:I d8 Not I I . Ftacnik-Diugy would indicate.. .. . . .

White has tried j ust about everything: 8 2 1 1 1 lt:'J g5 822 1 1 .!: 'i!t'b3 ( 1 2 ll c l . . I I . 19 e4 . d4 = Lein-Speelman. Perhaps 12 lle8 ! 12 .td7 !) 14 .ta6. . .ib6 1 3 lt:'Jf4 d4 14 .ig4) 't!t'c4 ! etc. . San Antonio 1972. . d4 1 2 li:'Jd3 .ixd5 21 ed 198 1-82) 1 2 li:'Jd3 ( 1 2 .ie3. h6 1 4 lt:'Jxf7 �xf7 15 . .id4 c2 1 8 .tf3 1t'xd 1 17 llfxd 1 c3 Tal ) 1 5 c) l l li:'Je1 lle8 (or 1 1 . Andersson­ 13 ltJxeS Peters. .\12 with the idea .if4 . 't!t'd6 1 3 1t'b5 ) 1 3 de d4 Petrosian-Keres. llad 1 . .tb6 =) 1 2 . .txd5 . . .if5 (or I I . .. .id4!? is more important.id2 is better.id2 b6! 15 .txe3 is =. . since after 12 1t'c2! ( 1 2 't!t'b3? h 6 1 3 lt:'Jf3 . . 1 2 . 't!Vc7 1 6 llac I c3 1 7 . . .ib6 + ) 1 2 . US Ch 1978. li:'J b4 1 3 a) 1 1 1t'd3!? is almost unknown .ib6 1 3 lt:'J f4 and now Tal gives 1 8 . Tal-Aiburt. . 1 1 .id2 'ti'c7 16 llac 1 m Tal . .ig5 823 1 1 b3 824 I I a 3 8 2 5 1 1 'ti'c2 . . 93 w 11 h6! Actually.tg4!? 12 li:'Jd3 . 10 de . 13 be b) 1 1 . lii:e 8) 12 Or 1 3 lt:'Jxc6 llxc6 14 be ll xc4 . .txb7 llc7 14 ..ie6 20 'i!t'b3 . 16 .ib6 13 lt:'Jf4 lle8 1 4 b3 . or .. .id2 ! . llfd8! =F. 12 .ib6 1 3 Tal.tg4 82 = 8enko-Tarjan. h6 1 2 a3 !? a5 1 3 . . .tf5 =. . and now 14 de de 1 5 't!t'a4 ( 15 . .i xeS (93) 821 1 1 ltJgS Threatening 't!t'c2 and 't!t'xd5 .92 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation c) 12 't!t'a4!? lt:'Jxe5 ( 1 2 .if6 ! ( 1 3 . 1 4 . . . g5 went 1 1 . USSR Ch 1975. . \12 .td2 . g6 1 3 1t'b3 . .id5.tf4 ( 1 4 llad l ? .te4 1 4 .. .ih6 ±) 1 4 1t'xd5 li:'Jd4 (94) 94 w The most popular position of the Keres-Parma. . Hastings e. . Hastings 1978-79.g. . .

ig4 = . Wxb2 ! 1 6 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jc6 = Florian .if4 'tlkd7 = Watson­ 16 .ie6 13 @d2 h6 14 . 't!Vxe3 = - I I 1Wc2 below. or 14 1!t'b3 !? . . Riga IZ 11 . 1 6 l:I fb l 't!Vf6 ! = Barbero-Diugy..i.ie7 ! ? ( 1 2 . . Boston 1 978 .id4 1 4 1Wb3 . . .ixh3 1 3 .ixe2 26 lt:Je8 l:Ic7 27 .. . . 23 . a nd now instead of Lengyel .g.ie6 Not I I . . . and even 14 lt:Jd3 . lt:J xc l 1 8 lt:Jxf6+ �g7 B 19 lt:J h5+ �h 6 20 nax c l �xh5 2 1 nc7. 3 g3 and the Keres.if4 lii: fd8 1 5 1 2 lt:Jh3 has several good answers: 't!fc2 l:Iac8 etc) 1 2 . l:Ic8 1 5 .id6 1 4 b 3 t and lt:Jd5 ) 1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =. 1 2 . . Varnusz-Domoter. . 1 2 . .tf6+ ±) 24 lLlf6+ �h8 25 nd 1 11 f6 l:I xb2 26 h4! tl±. 1 2 . . . . compare comments under 1!t'xe3 't!Vxb2 . .ib6 1 2 lt:Jg5 g6 1 3 This is equal. Best play is 't!Vd6 16 . . .if5 1 5 lt:Jf3 or 12 . l:I ae I lt:Jc3 1 9 .ie6 1 9 l:I fd 1 ! l:IacS ! 20 . gh 1 9 � xc l n d2 20 ll fd l t) 1 8 .ixd8 1 7 .ixd8 22 li[e l . Mi skolc 1 969.ie6 14 lild l 1 4 .d2 .ie3 . hg? 1 3 1Wxc5 .ic4.ie7?! 1 2 . f5 24 lt:Jd6 . .ig2 d4 1 5 . .ic8 1 3 'tlkd2 lld8 . .if4 Wb6 = Tai­ Hungary 1 974. .i. . . lt:Jxe2+ 1 6 �h i l:I xd8 ( 1 6 . 12 . US Ch 1975. e. 14 'tlkd2 d4 ( 1 4 @d l . . lile8 1 4 .i xfl+ 14 @d2 and 14 . .igS (95) 1 979) 1 5 . 12 . . . 26 . . This . and here instead of 23 lt:Jd2 .ie3 .ie3 Wxd5 17 .ib3 h6! 20 lt:Jxf7 led B22 to a draw in Mi les-Tarjan. .ixh3 1 3 . . I I .ixg5 l:I ab8 1 7 1!t'a6 n xb2 probably 15 Wxd8 ( 15 �h I lt:Jxe2 18 lil c l lii: c 8 19 .ia5 2 5 l:I xe2 ! .if5 d4!? 1 3 lt:Jd3 . 'tlkb6 !? is 30 . . .ie6 ! ? ) 1 5 Wxg5 't!Vxg5 1 6 .ixd5 .ie6 ! 1 5 't!Vxb7 since the first edition. or here 1 8 . .ia5 (23 . . . .if6 etc. . .ie3 ±) 17 lt:J e4 95 . .ia5 ! .ig5 ! h6 28 . .id7 ( 1 7 .i fS ! 1 5 lt:Jf4 allowing 1 5 . . .ixe7 'tlkxe7.ixb2 1 8 Weinstein. . . but I I . . . g5!? Tukm akov. l:Ie8 1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =. Benko-Pe ters.g.Parma Variation 93 we have a position which also comes 13 l:Ixfl hg from I I 1Wc2 . e . . .id4 is . .o r 1 5 .i h6 ( ! ) (23 lt:Jc5 !?) 23 .if3 l:Ic2 2 1 n xd8+ . or 14 . . . . as far as I know.i xe7 '@'xe7 27 h5 lt:Jc3 28 hg! fg 29 l:Id6 . . d4 1 5 lt:Jd3 seems best.e3 ! ± .i xe3 1 5 suspect.i xg5 hasn't been tested. respectable: 12 lt:Je l ( 12 't!Vxd5 If the above holds . 1 2 1Wc2 Me ndoza 1985. I I .ig4 ±±.

i..xb4 �xb4 1 8 't!t"d4 ! .i.c3 l1ad8 was equal in Lombardy-Weinstein.i. .c3 l1d8 1 4 e3 Bagneux 1 978) 1 3 . e.i.i.e3 (" ±" this is any better than the older Larsen) 15 .e6 13 e3 d4? ( not 1 3 . 1 2 h3 b4 w ith the idea 1 5 .xd4 lie8 17 e3 't!t"d7 18 . . After 1 3 � e l . 15 't!Va4 d4 =) 15 .g4 (or 14 .i. o r 1 3 . .c3 . .i. Also.e4 ! .i. f5 . b) 1 2 . liad8 = with the idea 1 7 litfd I ? 13 �e1 't!ff5 .i. . . . .i.i.h5 13 .xe3 1 7 't!t"xe3 U ± van der Iixf2 fg 1 4 �xg5!) 1 3 . .i.i. .i.i. .d2 ( 1 3 .i. 1 4 . .d4 ! t Larsen­ 96 Agdestein.i.xb4 1 6 . . .f5 1 5 �d4 . .c3 l1ad8 1 5 .b6 1 4 lic2 ! ± was Uhlmann­ �e5? 1 4 . .b2 'i!t'd6! ( 1 3 .i. .d2 Iiad8 + Ghitescu-Peters.f5 ( 1 4 .f4 Wiel) 1 7 life ! ! ± Larsen-Yusupov. . �d3.c 3 Taxco IZ 1985.xd4 1 6 .. . litcl ..d5 ! Wiel) and now 1 4 . 15 h3 ( 1 5 . liteS 1 3 l:t c l .i.g4 li e ! .i. . .c3 d4 =.i. I I . U S Ch Or 1 3 b4 .g5 't!Ve6 1 3 li c l c ) 12 .i.i.b6 1 4 e 3 11 b3 (96) .i. . . b6 1 4 b5 (van der 1 9 78) 14 � e l . lifd8! 1 5 b4 �xb4 1 6 lib ! 1980) 1 4 e3 Ii ad8 1 5 g4 . . xf2+?? 1 3 ( 1 6 . b6 1 7 a 3 t Agdestein-Aiburt.i.g6 1 6 . ..e6 1 5 �d3 . h5 16 g4!? .c3 . US Ch 11 .i.g6 1 6 ll xc6! be but this i s not convincing after 1 7 �xd4 t Welin-Watson. .i.g4!?) 1 5 lie ! .c3 .i. Ga usdal Z 1 985. or 1 3 .trs 1 978.94 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation Popular..i. .i. . .b6!? 15 g4 . . But I I gives 1 3 . . �e7 1 5 . d4 (or 1 3 .b4 (or 1 5 . .. d4 14 li b ! 't!t"c5 1 7 .i. . . . 't!ff6?! 1 2 . .g4 !? 1 4 h 3 .g. .e4 1 6 . .i.g4 is very logical . .i. e. Ha mar 14 .i. .i.e6 1 4 �e l lite8 1 5 �d3 't!t"e7 ! 1 6 Reykjavik 1 9 8 5 . . � xd4 1 9 � xd4 l1 ad8 is playable.i. b6 1 4 Keres.i. 1 5 't!t"b3 �h8 =.c3 . . . but it's not clear that 't!t"d6) 1 4 ed �xd4 1 5 . . . .i.e4 1 6 't!fb3 �h8 1 7 li fd l 't!Ve7 1 8 . Several moves are good here: B23 a) 12 .b6 1 3 .. � xf3+ 1 6 . .i.i. when B 1 8 . 't!fb6 1 4 . . d) 12 . Tallinn 1977. .i. .f5!? 1 5 .xf3 't!fb6? 1 2 Ii c l . .i. Black can play 1 4 . ..i.i. . .g4 1 5 h3 .g6 I 7 .i.i.i. Christiansen-Tarjan.i. 1 4 't!fb3 �h8 1 5 e3 't!fd7! 1 6 .g. .i.i. .e6 =.i.i.g4 12 d4 with rough equality. . .i. d4!? W edberg) may i mprove. 1!i'e7!? 1 3 .i. .b6 ( 1 2 . Larsen Velimirovic.i.i. lite8) with a good game ­ lite8 is equal. .

i xf3 2 1 -'.Ivkov. . . Smejkal­ West Germany 1 975. . saw 14 . II .e4 Here too 1 2 . Halle Ne w York 1 983. . advantage in Petrosian-Peters.i a l !? f6 1 8 'it'e2. . Suba-Pe ters. Finally.ic3 with 18 . . .. 1 8 .xg2 1 5 �xg2 (threaten­ c: .b6! 15 e3 ( 1 5 'it'b2 'it'xb2 and 20 . 1 5 't!Yg5 ! ? f6 11 a3 . . d4 1 6 e3 !? ( 1 6 17 -'. 97 1 1 .ixg2 20 <oi'xg2 the main line: 1 6 lilfd l lilad8 1 7 'i¥e4+ = ( 2 1 'Wf3 lt:le5 !). Baile Herculane �xg2 17 �xg2 ± H tibner. Also. a5 led to a White '4txg2 life8 ( 1 8 e 3 d4). 18 .Farago . On 17 . . lt:l a5 ) is 18 . .b6 1 8 a3 'i!r f7 (?) ( 1 8 . But Stean-Schtissler. .e6! is equal too.. d4 1 5 'it'g5 ! 'it'xg5 1 6 lt:l xg5 edge in Ribli-Pinter. Lucerne 01 1982. 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 95 ti'id4 =/m Watson-Alburt. . deserves attention. .b2 -'. .a3 ! ( 1 6 . Hastings 'it'e4+ 20 �g 1 h5 + Palatni k .b6 'it'f7?! 1 9 lt:ld4 gave W hite a small a ) 1 4 . . could b) 14 . w a ble. . . and now 19 lic4!? is intt.ixe4 fe = . A place to look for improvement.i f5 16 'it'g4. 15 't!Yf4!?. 12 -'.g. Easier still 't�Ye2 -'. 'it'fl ? 't!Ya3 ! 20 lid2 . . . . -'.b2 d4 is also play- . . 14 -'. 1 4 . . . lile8 1 3 llc 1 'it'd6 ! 4 e3 liad8 is possible. or 1 9 78-79. with the idea lild2 is promising for 15 . . Here 12 -'.xd4 1 8 . . Orlando 16 llfdl lilad8 (97) ! 9 8 1 .if6 1 3 lila2 Dortmund 1 984.xf3 15 e3 lilxe3 ! 22 . g .ixd4 . Qui nteros-Alburt. ...ixd5 lle7 =F . 824 e. . 1 9 lt:ld4 J Uhlmann.ie7 1 2 b4 ( ! ) . \i'xg5!? 16 lt:lxg5 -'. i n g 16 . . Malta meet 18 .ib6 . h6 'i/Ud2!?) 1 5 . . �h8 .ixg2 1 9 �xg2 1 8 ed liad8 .. 17 . . 't!Ye6 ! 1 6 't!Vh5 f6 1 7 1 8 lt:ld4 lt:le5 is also possible).r­ 17 'it'e2 't!Yb4 (to prevent lt:ld4 and csting. and I I .xg2 1 7 White.ixg7) 1 5 .a l l ? :i1c4) 1 6 . -'. Ostermeyer-Grtinfeld .xa3 'it'xa3 lt:ld4 -'. 'it'a3 19 01 1 980. a6!? 19 lt:ld4. 13 lilcl 'i!re7 14 't!Yd2 Another try is Suba's 14 lt:lh4 . Lone 15 life8 Pine 1 976: 12 lt:l e l ( 1 2 'Wc2 . -'.b6 !4 h3 -'. . . d e 1 7 lt:lf5 This tries to improve upon 1 7 i'We4+ 1 8 'it'f3 ! ± ) 17 -'.. Z 1 982. Schtissler. . . lLl b4 . f6 !? 1 5 e3 life8 resembles have led to 19 .b2 d4 1 3 li[c I -'. . . which went 1 9 1 9 78... lie8 1 2 -'.

( 1 3 . .e4 1 4 li[ d2 1t'e 7 1 5 15 'i!t'd2 lld8 1 6 b4 a6 1 7 a4 i.. .b2 d4. .f4 14 'iJ/d3 h6 15 i. . Keszthely 1 9 8 1 .f5 1 6 'i!t'd2 llad8 17 b4. . . 1t'f6 ! 13 i. lt:Jd4 1 4 lt:J f3 ! lt:Jc6 ! 1 5 b4 ( 1 5 1!t'h6 f6) 1 5 . 1i'b6 1 5 lt:Jf3 !? ( 1 5 e3 i. USSR v Yugo­ Borsch-Ch andler. 1 3 . 15 lt:Jd4!? with the 1We7 1 7 i.b6 (98) 17 .f6 ( 1 2 . . . .b2 l He8 1 6 1t'a l ! ? ( 1 6 lt:J h4!? 1 8 b5 lt:Ja5! = Cramling-Kochiev. 12 g6 98 13 'ifd1 w To 1 3 'i!t'd2 there are three good replies. fine . i. . .g4 note).d2 a4 1 5 b3 . e6 1 3 lt:Jd3 i. .d4 ! ? 1 4 ll d l ( 1 4 lt:Jh3 i. . . i. .f5 .e4 15 �b3 1t'd7 1 6 li[adl llad8 recommended. O r 13 . . match 1 980 ) 1 3 b3 'iJ/f6 llc l lt:J c4 1 8 .e7 ro .f5 1 8 1i'b3 follows has some good points.xf2+ 16 �fl i. lightly t. . Radulov. li:Jd3 i. . . i. and i. i. . . i. . . i. d4 ! ? ( 1 2 . f6 ! 17 llfd l 1t'e6 = Reggio Emilia 1 980. . a6 1 6 i. h6 1 5 'iJ/d3 li[d8 1 6 a4 Plovdiv 1 983. but the main line which 1 6 Ii: e l li eS 1 7 h3 i.g7 =) 14 .f4 i.b2 1We7 1 7 a3 i.b6 12 lldl neglects the kingside: 13 lla2 !? 12 . to I I �c2. 1 5 . li[ad8) 16 . Belgrade 1 964 .d2 lil e8 1 5 lilc l i. i. Gladsaxe 1 983. . h6 (or 12 . ..xe4 Ii: xe4 20 1t'b5 ! t. 12 lt:JgS 12 b4 i. Buenos Aires disadvantage thereby (see the next 01 1978) 1 4 i. Banja Luka 1 98 1 .e7 1 4 i. i. . .g4!? 1 4 i. i.f4 i. . . . .e7?! 1 2 i. e4 1 5 llfd l 1t'e7 = llc8 = Stein-Parma. . ab 1 6 1t'xb3. Bugojno 1 978. . about equal.e6 1 3 lt:Jd4 ±) 1 3 ll fd l lii e 8?.g5 •e6 13 i. and now 1 3 Ii:a2 ! ? i. i. .d2!? a nd lt:Jf4) 1 3 now 14 lt:Jg5 ! is ± . attention has turned .f6) 1 5 .ta l intending lt:Jf5 . . i. f5 = S passov-Tu k makov.d6 1 4 Szabo-Flesch .15 ltJf4!? are rather flat.e7 1 5 i.g4 + Portisch­ idea 15 . . .eJ i.d6 !? Peters. Malta 01 1 980) 12 .b2 lle8 1 4 1t'd2 ( 1 4 e3!? 14 i.1 4 . Adorjan­ 825 Cramli ng. Bukic-Mikhalchishin . .c5 1 7 �h6 i.d2 was - i. i. or 15 llac I Portisch-Spassky. xg2 1 6 �xg2 lt:Je5 1 7 H iib ner. .96 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 1 3 lild I h6 1 4 i. slavia 1 97 1 ) 14 i. a6! 18 a4 a5 ! is =. but 1 5 .b6 ( 1 3 . . d4 looks and .e4 1 9 i. W hite can easily risk Portisch-Pr i tchett. i. when 11 �c2 i.d2 i.e6 i. . . 1 3 Si nce most ofWhite's l i th moves .b2 1l e8 1 5 'i!t'd2 1i'g4) 1 4 .e6 = Chaudry­ I I .

. USSR 1 982.xd4 19 Wxd4 lilc2. de!?) a nd 1 7 the 9 e4 variations grant White 1i'b3 with the idea 1 7 . game Adorjan-Dlugy. We7 1 5 i. more positive chances. Pigusov-Kengis. i.xf7+ <t>xf7 20 Wxa7 lil xb2 20 llfbl !. Adorjan-Gri. 13 li:ld4 !? Now 20 lilfd l Wb6 21 Wxb6 ab 22 An important decision: b3 "w6 uld have assured a small a ) 1 3 .f5 16 e4 ( 1 6 g4 17 e3 1i'd6 . White but lasting edge" (R ibli). 1 5 . The 1i'a8 25 1Vxa8 lil xa8 26 i.g. llxf2 White's best try in the li:l xd5 lines.d5 (with the 16 . We8 (23 . . . .'/2. . . . Adorjan-Plaskett.xe6 1 9 8 1 ) 1 4 . d4 ( ! ) 1 4 1i'f4 or 1 7 f4!?.id4 ll c8 idea li:lxh 7) 1 5 .i xd4 ( 1 9 . "§'xh6 1i'f6 + Bagirov) 1 8 . e . .xf2+ 1 7 <t>xf2 1i'f6+ 1 8 The note on 13 . Although this I I Wc2 . . Critical seems 14 li:l xe6 fe dating. went 18 . i.. . Esbjerg 1 4 . . . 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 97 Best seems 1 3 . Dortmund 1984. i. . which seems to favour ( ±" Plaskett) 23 . . . Plaskett) 1 9 b3! . .h6. 14 i.. e.. I feel "t!rf6 ) 16 . USSR Tea m Ch 15 li:lxe6 i.e3 li:le6 Agza mov-Tal. .g. de 1 7 i.d4!? 1 4 1i'b3 ! is the com­ 20 h5 ± Plaskett) 20 be i. lilc6 b ) 1 3 . Wa6 2 4 Wxa6 ba 2 5 lil c l ) 2 4 Wxa7 c) 13 . xe4 1985. 1i'f6 t 8 f4 . . lilc4? ( 1 8 . New York 1 985. . Overall. h 5 ! 17 i.. .ie6 seems par­ �g l g5 1 9 \!fb3 ! ) 1 6 e4 ( 1 6 1i'd2 ticularly i mportant.xh 3 lile8 16 i. d4 ( 1 6 .g2 We 7 i. .. .b6 1 2 li:l g5 idea is hardly intimi­ 1.. ( 1 4 li:lf3? 1Ve7 1 5 1i'h6 f6 1 6 e3 d3.tc7 ! ) 1 6 .g5 f6 16 i. . . .. 1 6 lil xf2 i. " White.. .e6 (!) is a new idea.. . it currently represents 1 5 i.tf5 1 5 i.g7!? 2 2 de Wxe6 23 1i'a4! the diagram). . d4 14 li:le4 t Ad orjan.infeld. .d5 ± .xe3 h6 1 8 li:lf3 1 7 .xa I 2 1 plex line given in '821' above (under cd! i.h6 i. .. i. . .txh 3 I 5 i.xe4 a nd 1i'b3 . lilf7 ( 1 5 . . . 18 h4!?.2 . . e nded quickly after 14 li:lh3 Conclusion. i. . xe3 18 h4!? 1 9 1Vxe3 1Vxe 3 20 fe li:l b4 ! + Or 18 1i'd2 i. After has play on the dark squares. xd4 !? 1 8 1i'xd4 lilc2 19 ( 1 8 li:lxf7 l hf7 1 9 i. .

. . this t!rxd5 6 g3 is Chapter 3.ie6 8 'ii' a4+ - 3 li'lf3 d5 . . .id7 9 t!rd I t. A This freque ntly arises after I c4 5 e4 (1 00) c5 2 li'l f3 li'lf6 3 li'lc3 d5 4 cd li'lxd 5 . and now K orch noi gives 10 .id7!? 6 "it'b3 .id5 may im­ 99 prove) 6 li'le5 'ii'c7 (or 6 . A 5 e4 B 5 d4 C 5 e3 D 5 g3 'D 5 g3' exami nes the odd lines where Black neither retreats his k night to c7 (Chapter 6) nor plays .. Uhlm ann-Korchnoi. li'lb6 and 4 cd li'lxd5 (99) 7 li'l e5 e6 8 g3 li'lc6 or 7 e3 li'lc6 8 d4 cd 9 cd . move of Nimzowitsch 's has ta ken note to 6 .ig4 ! - Peters.. over as the main line. . line A . . . g6! =. or here 8 'it'b3 tlrb6! 9 li'lxh8 'it'xb3 1 0 ab li'ld4) 7 li'lxd5 t!rxe5 8 li'l b6 lib8 9 li'lxc8 li xc8 1 0 e3 . Black secures h i s share o f central turf at the cost of a tempo and slight loosening.8 3 ltJf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 1 c4 c5 .id7 ( ! ) w with the idea 7 li'l x f7 li'lxc3 8 t!rc4 li'la5 9 1!t'f4 li'ld5 1 0 'it'f3 . . . li'lb4 7 a3 . 5 li'l xd5 Once considered dubious.ig2. .6 tWc4? lLlb4 7 lLld5?? 2 li'lc3 li'lf6 b5 6 . . Sk opje OJ 1972. 5 t!ra4+ lLlc6 ( 5 . but 6 . li'lc6 (Chapters 3 and 7). .ie6 I 0 t!rd I .

id6 1 1 a4 c.ie2 . t) 9 liJdb5 liJxb5 I 0 liJxb5 .id7 I I liJd2 liJa5 1 2 van Wijgerden-van Riemsdyck . . 1 0 a4 !?.>c l 13 'i!i>e3 ! ± Shatskes.ib5 . . . .ib7 9 i.id7 ( 10 .Tim man. b6? 10 . haps 8 .>e2 Yeo Ti mman-M iles. .!. but I I . might be met by 9 . . 8 . 5 liJ x c3 9 .ie2 or 1 1 ct>c2 (Tal) is pre­ Foerder-Maehate. .!. b6 !? 9 .ie3 Or 8 i. c) 7 .ib5 (or 9 liJd2 .txc5 be 1 3 'i!i>e2 t Cvetkovic­ 1983) 7 .ie2 0-0 I I llfd I .!. London 1984. f6 !?) 9 ct>c2 . .ib7 ( 1 0 . e.>e7 1 2 a5 ! :tl ± Seirawan-Arkell. liJ xe 3 10 lld l . A l 2 6 be I I liJe5 ll c8 1 2 llfd l or 1 2 a4) I I All a4 a6 1 2 . Tal. .ie2 . . . or 13 lite I ( 1 2 ct>e2 liJa5) 1 2 . A msterdam 1979. .>d2 t ( I I .ib7 1 0 a4 0-0-0+ I I c.t 7 ct>xdl liJc6 Cvetkovic.ie 7 10 .>e7 t Miles.. . . 10 litd I ! ? . . H e Lone Pine 1978. London 1 98 1 . Al Montreal 1 9 79.if4 ( ! ) liJ c6 (8 . . Nik�ic . b) 7 . 1t'xd4 8 liJ xd4 e5 (per. 8 . . . 1 93 1 .. . .>xd2 liJa6. .!. and now ferable to 1 1 liJc4 0-0-0+! 12 c.ie6 ! 10 f3 t) 9 .ib5 .ixf7+! A 2 5 . Satu Mare 1980. . .ie2!? . .!.id7 I I . t h en 9 f4 t or 9 9 ct>c2 liJdb5 liJ xb5 1 0 ltlxb5 liJa6 I I f4 Just as good seems 9 a4.ib5+) 9 . . ..id2 . 9 .ib7 9 ltld2 co. ..ib7 liJxb5 1 0 liJ xb5 liJa6 I I .xb8 a nd .ixd2+ 12 c.id7 (101) A l l 6 de a) 9 .f4 !? g6 (8 . .ic4! f6 1 2 . . .ib5+ liJd7 10 a4 t and c.ixc5 1 2 c.ig4 !? 8 . .id6 1 3 liJd2 liJ a5 1 4 6 de!? 1t'xd 1+ llfb l ! 0-0 1 5 b4 ± Benko-Seirawan . 'tlt'e7 is untried.>c2. liJe7 6 d 4 e d 7 1t'xd4 (or 7 8 e6 liJxd4!? e5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I + 9 ct>xd I 8 .c4 liJd7 1 0 liJd2 .ie3 .ib7 . b6 8 a4 .ib7 10 b4! e6 1 1 be I 2 liJxa 7 liJe5 1 3 i.ie7 ! ..!. . Tal's 6 .ie3 e5 9 i.ie7 I I lii:fd l 10 litd I Miles.b 5+ c. . 8 . 8 liJj3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 99 A I 5 .>d8 1 4 ( I I a3 !? Cvetkovic) I I .... .g. . liJ b4 ± Miles-Vaganian.ie7 Now 10 . . a) The 7 .!. .id6 !?). Biriescu.. f6 !?. . . . with counterplay.ib4+ b 6 1 0 liJd2 . . . f6 8 . . e6 9 ct>c2 . . . f6 1 2 e5). b) 9 .ie3 e6 of .!. now 1 1 . compare what follows.ie7 1 3 f3 f5 ! c. 5 . lit eS !?) 1 2 lit d2 f6 1 3 . gives 7 g 3 ! .ig7 0-0-0 ( I I .

. b6 1 0 . . . ..ie7 5 &iJb4 10 &iJ g5! t Rejfir-Porath . &iJ d7 8 e5 ! . lhd8+ llxd8 1 6 llxd8+ rt. Lj ubljana I 945.ia. . .ia3 or 7 .ixb5 9 &iJd xb5 is untried. but 6 i. . . . . 13 . .ib5 oo. .ig7 1 0 0-0 0. . Lone Pine 1979.ic4 e6 I I d4 7 .i e8 !?) 14 e5. but it's under Ch I 9 56. best is 7 .ig4! ± Cvetkovic-Palatnik. .ig7 9 . .0 1 2 d4 b5 1 3 . Al2 c) 7 't!t'a4+!? m ight be tried.ic6 oo O'Kelly-J . .id6 . .0 I I h 3 ef gf was = in D voretsky-Barway. 6 de is a bit awkward 't!t'b3 e6 1 2 .ib5 0-0 I I . e.c7 0-0) I I 0-0 0. .ie2 c4 1 5 . . . . 14 . cor res I 957. but should be drawn. .b5+ is more forcing. but W hite also has: a) 7 . . e5 9 lt::J f5 or 8 . lt::J d 7 8 a4!? or v Yugoslavia 1 976.ig7 is a Grii nfeld Defence.ic4 't!t'c7 8 0-0 e 5 9 d 3 .ib5+ . . . 't!t'c7 8 't!t'b3 ! ? . and 14 't!t'b2 lle8 1 5 . lt::J 8c6 transposes) 8 lt::J xd4 and 8 . corres llxd2+ I 6 &iJ xd2 i.ib5+ 6 d4 !? cd 7 .xd8 I 7 lt::Jc6 9 d4 ..3 't!t'a5 !? (7 . USSR b) 7 .id5 lt::J c6 1 0 a 4 b4 I I France 1983.ic4 b5 !? (8 . but here 9 .ixc6 ::t: Korchnoi­ for Black.ixd7 .ic4 102 w A22 6 . 6 be g 6 (1 02) 7 . . . and 6 .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4 t Vidmar­ lt::Jc6 1 2 . .id7 8 't!t'b3 't!t'c7 9 lib! e 6 7 . . Zaltsman. . . . .id7 (7 . .ia4+? 15 b3 I 7 lt::J d 2 ± Dubinin-Kupert.i d7 (7 .ic6 I 6 a4! ba in place of 14 . &iJ5c6 or 7 . . . fi re from: A21 6 .ic6 1 5 just 8 0-0 and d4) 8 . are unpleasant for Black. Rabar.ib5+ . A21 Now 7 d4 . . .ic4 e6?! ( 10 .ic4 rt.c6 I 7 ef gf I 8 1957. 6 . lt::J c6 8 . . Moscow Still the main line.ib5+ .ig7 9 't!t'd5 !? lt:ld7 1 0 .Sch m idt .id5 t. The most i m portant move . . .g.ib5+ . e5 I 4 .id7 1 0 .ixd7 1 2 't!t'xc5 . 't!t'c7 oo ) 9 . .id7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I d4 is more dynamic) 8 't!t'b3 . 1 00 8 &iJf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation liad I &iJa5 ( I 3 . . .ie2 ( 7 d4 is a Queen's Gambit) (or 9 d4!?) 9 . A2 &iJc6 7 .

Leeuwarden here 13 d3!? lLlxd3 14 . .h6 ! 1 2 lLlxd3 \i'xd3 + . . . .b5+ lLlbc6 I 0 d4 cd I I lLlxd4 i. Or 7 0-0 lLl8 c6 8 d3 lLla5 (8 . I I lLlg5 !?) 8 . lLlh3+) 1 3 lLle5 lLle2+ 1 4 lLl xe2 lhffi 1 4 f3 g5 ! + Radchenko) 1 0 �xe2 15 h3 it'xe4! +. d3 9 i. 8 lLlf3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 10/ White threatens 0-0 or d4 . g6 8 lLlg5 !? (8 i.i.or 10 .I I "i!t'a4 \i'd3+! 1 2 �gl lilc8 (threatens \i'xe6 \i'xe6 12 lLlxe6 �d7 13 lLlxf8+ . . . .b5+ lLlbc6 8 a3 lLld3+ 9 'it. 9 lLl bxd4 lLlbc6 I 0 0-0 lLlxd4 I I lLlxd4 i. e5 I I lLle6 lLlf4! = . .g7 Still a very interesting posit ion.!t'g4 lLld4 I I f4 intending e5 ± b6 13 lLld5! . some have been 7 i. . .d7 1 2 i. I I ..e6 0 0 0 W. .f4 t Gheorghiu-Peters. .e3 b6) 7 . B lack has many 7 i. . others really haven't: lLlf4+ 10 �fl o4 ( 1 0 . lLld3+ is 9 \i'b3 !? \i'd7 10 lLlg5 lLlc6! I I a ) 6 . . e6? can be answered by 7 d4(!) lLlxe6 lLld4 1 2 lLlxd4 \i'xd4 ( 1 2 . . . lLle5 I I it'h3 it'd3+ ( 1 1 . fe 8 0-0 lLlbc6 9 lLlg5 \i'd 7 . . i. A2 l l 9 �b6 !? 6 i. lLlbc6? 1 2 lLlxe6 li c8 7 . 8 �n fe 13 lLl xe6 �d7 14 lLlg5 e5 =) 1 3 . . lLl4c6 !? 7 d3!? (7 0-0 g6! 8 d3 . . .o r 1 2 . �d7 1 0 �f3! ( 1 0 �g4 lLlc6! be 12 d4 cd 13 \i'xd4. the e mergence of 6 . lLlxc l +? 14 llaxc l �d7 9 lLle I ? lLlc6 10 lLlxd3 \i'xd3+ I I 15 d4 ! cd 1 6 1Ud 1 lLlc6 1 7 lLlb5 e5 \i'e2 \i'd7 + with . . . 12 \i'xd3 lLlxd3 1 3 �e2 (or 1 3 gH. .1 3 f4! Ciocaltea.e2 worked out. 9 g3?! lLlc6 1 0 �g2 g6 I I 19 lLlxe5+! . .g7 9 i. . . g6 18 lLlt7+ with the idea 1 8 . llg8 to fol low. 9 lLlg5! (104) lLlf4+ ( 1 3 .e6 Tal 's move.xd4 cd 10 lLle2 i. . . b) 6 . lLld4 13 \i'h5+!. Koch-Richter. . Lone Pine 1978. The best option A 2 1 2 6 .\ 2 1 1 6 i.d6 12 \i'g4! ± is given by Nim zowitsch) 9 i. cd 8 lLlb5 a6 (8 . . . . . e6 9 f4. lLld3+... lLle l i. . . . 10 -. .d6 1 2" a3 lLlc6 1 3 lLlxc6 be 1 4 \i'g4 ±. . Stefanov-Neamtu. . . an untried somewhat lost in the shuffle after line. . .h6! Stean) 1947.e3 lLld4 9 i. . lLld4 9 lLlxd4 cd 10 lLle2 a6 I I lLlg3 i.xc6+ a) 9 .c4! lLlc2+ lLlxd4 1 3 lLld5 =) 1 3 \i'b5+ �17 1 4 I 0 <M1 lLla6 1 1 lilc 1 ± Rabi novich) lLld l =/oo Cafferty . a6 1 1 i. 0-0-0 and .xe6 in teresting tries. lightly t) I I . . . lLld3? 7 lLld3+ 12 lLlxe6. o r 1 2 . or Golombek-Dykstra. .

. 'it'd?!? 1 6 d3. . .t. . 1 4 '. .g7 ( 1 4 . 1 0 1i'f3 li:Je5 I I 'it'h3 't!t'd3+ Black has not solved this position: 1 2 'it'xd3 li:J xd3 gives White the a) 11 . . o r 1 6 h4 M iles .g. c4 1 2 '.t>f3 li:Jg6 1. Itd8? ( 1 5 . . .xf4 ef 23 b4 Also favourable is 1 0 'it'a4+ llg6 ++ Vadasz-Lukacs. 't!t'd7 I I li:Jxe6) I I l:txcl li:Jxa8 li:Jd4+ 1 8 '. li:Jc7!? I I 'it'xb7 'it'd4 Bucharest 1 978) 15 d4 ! ( 1 5 g3 h6 ! 1 2 li:Jd l li:Jxc l 1 3 l hc l 't!t'xd2 1 4 = .t>g3 li:Jd3! 'it'xd2 1 2 'it'b5+ 'it'd 7 1 3 li:Jxe6 . .t>fl 0-0 105 1 8 '. h 5 + 1 9 '.t>g4 . . 0-0-0 13 be 0-0-0 + was too passive in 1 5 h4! and llh3 Stean) 1 5 't!t'b5 Polugayevsky-Tal . . . 1 0 .. . 13 '.. . .18 '.t>h4 e6 20 d 3 10 'it'f3 i. '. . .t>e2 'it'd? I I li:Jxc5 ! ( I I li:Jd5 Itc8) I I . e5 ( 1 4 . . .t>d7 1 4 li:J xc5+ ! ) 1 4 f4 'ot>d7 1 5 b) 9 li:Jc6!? is logical. . Tim man-Stean.a little u n­ 11 b3 (105) clear) 1 6 't!t'xd3 Itxd3 1 7 '. dam 1 978.t>f3 ( 1 4 li:Jg5 is a third option ( I I . seems to have put this 10 1i'e2?! c4 I I b3 h6! 1 2 li:Jf3 li:Jc6 line to rest: 14 . Riga I Z 1 979. /02 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation Romanian Ch 1 977) 14 '. . .t>g l . . h6 1 6 li:Jc7+ 'it'a4 !?).t>e3 e5! 1 5 li:Jd5 !?. c4!? 1 3 b3 li:J ac5 14 be h6!?) 13 '. 10 .1 . This line is not completely clear. I nstead of 10 'it'a4+ .1. i.. h6!? 10 'it'b3: 10 .. li:Jxe6 li:J 7e5 1 3 'it'b5+ �f7 1 4 li:Jc6 1 6 d e li:Jg6 1 7 li:J e6 Moiseyev) li:J xc5 ! li:J xc5 1 5 d4 ± Chekhov) 1 2 1 6 li:J b5 li:J a6 1 7 i. . h6 1 2 garian Ch 1 977) 1 5 . e. li:Jxc l ( I 0 .1 8 . ±.t>e3 li:Jb4 li:J xc5 1 2 'it'h5+ g6 1 3 'it'xc5 'i!rd3 + 20 d4 !I ± Chekhov-Kharitonov. . Hun­ li:Jd7 I I 't!t'c4 li:J7e5 ( I I .t>e2 ± 1 5 be lld8 etc.t>xf4 hg+ 16 �g3 ! S uba-A lburt­ li:Jd I .t>d I B g5 2 1 d3 g4 22 f4 ± . .• li:Jxc5+ It xc5 1 6 fe Itxe5 1 7 '. c) 9 . .t>xd7 12 '. . .t.e7 2 1 llfl llh6! 22 i. Amster­ USSR 1 980.xf4 ef 1 8 li:Je6 'it'xe6 't!t'xe6 1 3 li:J xe6 l:tc8 ( 1 3 . 14 h4 seems a good follow-up. . cd ( 1 5 .t>f2 li:Jd3+ 19 '. . 1 5 li:J d5 li:Jc6 ! ! 1 6 li:Jc7+ �d7 1 7 't!t'c6+. On the other hand.. . 10 li:Jxe6 'it'd 7 I I Levin-Zilberstein. li:Ja6 !? was tried in S zekely­ Palat nik. .t>e2 l:td7 19 f3 li:Jd4+ 20 '.t>d7 1 7 li:Jf7 ! ) 1 4 . li:Je5 12 "t!¥h3 li:Jd3 1 3 "t!¥f3 same ending with the black king li:Je5 14 'it'e3 ( ! ) cb 1 5 ab 't!t'xb3 1 6 on e8. 't!t'd4 I I 15 '. or 1 6 10 c4 'it'd5. . 1 5 .1 . but 10 li:Jxe6 . li:Jf4+ 1 8 '.t>e2 c4 14 b3 li:Jc5 d 4 li:J f7 1 7 't!t'd3 'it'b6 1 8 '. . ( Moiseyev). .t>e2 li:Jf4+ ( 1 2 . Fru nze 1 979: 1 0 'i!ra4+!? 'i!rd7 I I 'it'xd7+ '. . USSR 1 983. but most critical seems '. Benko .

8 lbjJ d5: A symmetrical Variation 103

b) 1 1 ... 1!t'a6? 1 2 a4 �d7 1 3 lbb5 7 �e2 lb f4+
lbc6 14 be lbce5 1 5 'ft'g3 1!t'c6 1 6 7 . . . lbxc l +? 8 libe l leaves Black
.i.b2! lbxb2 1 7 1!t'xe5 1!t'xc4+ 1 8 d3 ! way behind in development:
lb xd3 1 9 lid l lid8 20 lbxe6 1 -0 a) 8 .. e6 9 d4 cd 10 i.b5+! lbc6 I I
.

Gheorghiu-Chow, New York 1984. 1!t'xd4 1!t'xd4 1 2 lbxd4 ..td7 1 3
c) l l . . . h6 1 2 bc lbxcl !? ( l 2 . . . lZJe5 lifd l lic8 1 4 lbxc6 be 1 5 ..ta4 ±
1 3 1!t'h3 lbbc6 1 4 lbxe6 is given as Aronin-Mi kenas, USSR 1 947.
u nclear by Tukmakov; but Black b) 8 . . a6 9 d4 cd 10 1!t'xd4 (or 1 0
.

needs an idea. I nstead, 13 ... hg lbxd4) 10 . . . 'ft'xd4 I I lbxd4 e6,
1 4 1!t'xh8 lbd3 (Tal) allows 1 5 'i!lh5+ Botvinnik-Kasparian, USSR Ch
�d7 1 6 1!t'e2 etc) 1 3 lZJ17 ( or 1 3 1938, when 12 e5 ! , 12 f4 and 1 2
1!t'h5+ !? �d7 1 4 lZJ17 lbd3 1 5 1!t'f3 , lifd l are all ± according t o Euwe.
and now best was 1 5 . . . 1!t'xf2 :t, c) 8 ... lbc6 9 i.b5 ! (9 'ft'b3 !? e6 10
Loginov-M alaniuk, USSR 1 984) i.b5 i. d7 I I ..txc6 ..txc6 12 l:Ud I
1 3 . . . lig8 14 lbe5 ! 1!t'b2 1 5 1!t'f7 + :t) 9 ... i.d7 10 ..txc6 ..txc6 I I d4
�d8 1 6 li xc l ! 1!t'xc l + 1 7 �e2 ( ± Nimzowitsch, with the idea
'ft'xh l 18 'ft'xe6 ±± Tukmakov­ I I . . . cd 1 2 1!t'xd4! ) I I . . . e6 1 2 :�l e i
Pense, USSR 1 980. ..te7 1 3 d 5 e d 1 4 ed i. d 7 1 5 d6 i.f6
d) " l l . . . lb a6 ! ? 1 2 bc lbac5 =/ro" 1 6 �fl + �f8 1 7 lbe4 b6 1 8 b4 ! ±
(Tal) has yet to be tried . But both Welin-Bergstro m , Sweden 1 985.
1 2 ..ta3 (e.g. 12 . . . lidS 13 ..t xc5 8 �fl lbe6
lb xc5 14 't!¥17+ �d7 1 5 d4) and 1 2 To prevent d4. 8 . . . ..te6?! ("8 . . .
li b l (e.g . 1 2 . . . 1lt'a5 1 3 lib5 1!t'a6 lbc6? 9 d4! cd 1 0 ..txf4 de I I 1!t'b3
1 4 li xc5 lb xc 5 1 5 lbb5 lic8 1 6 ±" Schwarz; I I . . . e6 1 2 1!t'xc3 :t.
lbt7 lig8 1 7 lbe5) s eem good for H ere 10 lb xd4 is also :t) 9 i.b5+
White. i.d7 I 0 d4 cd I I lb xd4 lbg6 1 2
A21 2 ..te3 e 6 1 3 1!t'b3 i.e7 1 4 li d ! 1!t'c8
6 lbd3+ (106) 1 5 li[c l 1!t'd8 1 6 g3 lZJa6 1 7 lZJ f3 0-0
1 8 �g2 ;!; Benko-Peters, Lone Pine
106
w
1978.
9 b4!?
Also unresolved is 9 lbe5!? (107) :
a) 9 . lbd7? 1 0 lb x f7 ! �xl7 I I
. .

..txe6+ �xe6 1 2 1!t'b3+ �6 1 3
lbd5+ � 17 1 4 lbc7 �g6 1 5 ltJe6!
1!t'e8 1 6 lbf4+ �g5 17 h4+ �h6 1 8
'ft'g3 1lt'g6 19 'ft'g5+ 'ft'xg5 20 hg+
�xg5 2 1 lih5+! ±± J . Pinter-

104 8 &i:JjJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation

d) 9 ... &i:Jc6 10 &i:J xc6 be I I d3 g6
/07 ( I I . . . &i:Jd4 !?) 1 2 &i:Ja4 'it"d6 1 3 ..te3
B ..tg7 14 lic l ( 14 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 5
..txc5 t ) 1 4 . . . 0-0 ( 1 4 . . . .i d4 ! ?) 1 5
'ird2 � h8 1 6 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 7 &i:Jxc5
± Suba-Bukic, Tu zla 198 1 .
e) 9 . . . g6 (!) 1 0 't!Va4+ ( 1 0 'ti'f3 f6;
10 f4 ..tg7!? I I &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 2 f5
lilf8) and now:
e l ) 10 ... &i:Jd7 I I d4!? cd 1 2 &i:Jb5
.ig7 (?) 1 3 &i:Jxf7! �xf7 14 .ixe6+
Arkhipov, Ba latonbereny 1 983. �xe6 15 'ti'b3 + with a big attack,
b) 9 'i¥d6!? 1 0 f4 ( 1 0 1!Va4+ &i:Jd7 -
... Miles-Hort, London 1 983. But
10 . . . &i:Jc6!? - I I f4 a6 - I I . . . &i:Jd8!? Miles gives 1 2 . . . a6 ; then 13 &i:Jxd4
Euwe - 12 d3 llb8 1 3 &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 4 b5 14 ..txb5 ab or 1 3 &i:Jxf7 ab 14
f5 &i:Je5 1 5 .if4 b5 =/m Sifdeif-Zade; &i:Jxd8 li xa4 ! 1 5 .ixb5 �xd8 1 6
10 i.b5+!? &i:J d7 I I &i:Jc4 1!Vd3+ , or .ixa4 &i:J c 5 etc i s unco nvi ncing.
here 10 . . . &i:Jc6 Sim agin) 10 . . . &i:J c6 e2) 1 0 ..td7 I I &i:Jxd7 ( I I .ixe6 fe
...

( 1 0 . . . &i:Jd7 Ftacnik) I I 'ti'a4 &i:Jd8? 1 2 'ti'b3?! ..tg7 ! i ntending 1 3 'ti'xb7
( I I . . .i d7) 1 2 d4 cd 13 &i:Jb5 'ti'b8
. .ixe5 14 'ti'xa8 'ti'b6 etc) I I . . .
14 &i:J xd4 f6? ( 14 . . . 1!Vc7 ±) 1 5 'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'it"xd7+ �xd7
&i:Jdxc6 be 16 ..tf7+ 1 -0 Suba-Sax, 1 4 d 3 &i:Jc6 (or 14 . . . ..tg7 1 5 .ie3 b6
Hastings 1 983-84. =) 1 5 ..te3 b6 1 6 h4 i.g7 17 h5
c) 9 ... 'ti'd4 I 0 'ti'a4+ ..td7 I I liaf8 + Larsen-Ti mman, Bugojno
&i:J xd7 'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'ti'xd7+ 1984.
�xd7 14 d3 e5 1 5 ..te3 e6 1 6 &i:Je2, 9 cb
Averbakh-Bondarevsky - called Very i mportant is 9 . . . g6 !? 10 be
"!" by Euwe and Schwarz, but 1 6 .ig7, when Seirawan-Miles, London
. . . &i:Jc6 seems equa l . 1982, went I I .ixe6 .ixe6 1 2 d4
T h e best cha nce m a y b e 1 0 f4 !? &i:Jc6 1 3 .ie3 .ig4 1 4 &i:Je2 f5 1 5 h3
&i:J xf4 (I 0 . . . f6? I I &i:Jb 5 ! 'ti'xe4 1 2 t. But in Ftacnik- Pinter, Prague
d3 'ti'f5 1 3 g4 ) I I 't!t'a4+!? ( I I 1 985, Black found 13 . . . 'ira5 ! 1 4
..txf7+ !? <!td8 1 2 t!t'f3 ! 'ti'xe5 1 3 d4 'ird2?! 0-0-0 1 5 lii: fc l f5 ! 1 6 efgf =F .
cd 13 . . . 'ti'/6 14 'ti'xf4 - 1 4 ..txf4
- Stohl gives 14 llc l .ic4+! 1 5 �gl
't!rf6 is u nclear; 1 5 .ic4!? de 1 6 ( 1 5 &i:Je2 ! ?) 15 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 h3 f5 ! 17
lld I + �e8 1 7 e5 !?) I I . . . ..td7 1 2 ef gf m ; Black looks well off.
..txf7+ �d8 1 3 'ti'xd4 c d 1 4 &i:Jd5 I f Black's play holds up, White
with complex play. might have to deviate at an early

8 lLlf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 105

stage . Risky but enterprising would One advantage of 10 lLle2 is that
be 1 3 . . . \!ka5 14 d5!? .ixc3 ( I4 . . . 10 ... g6? I I .ib2 .ig7 I2 .ixe6
'i¥xc3 I 5 llc l \!kb4 I 6 d e fe 1 7 .ixb2 13 .ixf7+ �xf7 14 1!t"b3+,
lLlg5) I 5 ll c l with the idea I 5 . . . or here 13 ... �f8 1 4 llb i favours
0-0-0 I 6 \!kc2. White. Otherwise, the idea is to
10 lLle2 ! ( /08) use White's large centre and space.
This has completely replaced 10 lLlc7
Veresov's original idea of 10 lLl d5 , a) 10 . . . lLlcS 1 1 'W"c2 ( I I lLlg5 e6 I 2
which has failed t o produce much d4 Miles; 1 2 . . . h6 ! ) I I . . . e 6 1 2 d4
after 10 . . . g6 ( 1 0 . . . lLlc6!? I I .ib2 lLlcd7 1 3 .ib2 ( 13 .if4 with the idea
lLlc7 oo) I I .ib2 .ig7 I 2 .ixg7 lld 1 ) I 3 . . . lLlb6 I 4 .id3 .id7 I 5
lLl xg7 I 3 lLlxb4 ( I 3 'W"c l !? lLlc6 I 4 llc l ( 1 5 h4 ! ) 1 5 . . . lLl a6 1 6 'W"d2
d4 .ie6! I 5 h4 lilc8 I 6 h5!? lLlxh5 llc8 1 7 h4 ! llxc l + 1 8 .ixc l "Wc7
I7 'i¥h6 lLlxd4 + Seira wan-Pe ters, 19 h5 h6 20 llh4! with an attack ,
US Ch I 98 I ; I 4 d3 .ie6 I 5 h4 f6 I 6 Miies-Hort, London 1 983.
\!kh6 0-0 I 7 llh3 b5 ! + Fedorowicz­ b) 10 ... lLld7?! I I .ixc6!? (or 1 1 d4
Kuligowski, World U-26 Teams lLlb6 1 2 .id3 g6 - 1 2 . . . lLlc7 13
Ch I 98 I ) I 3 . . . 0-0 I4 h3 ( I 4 d4 llb 1 e6 14 .id2 :t - I3 h4! .ig7 14
.ig4 I 5 �e2?! 'W"d6! I 6 'W"d2 lLle6 ! h5 gh 15 .ie3 .id7 16 li b ! a5 1 7
=t= or I 5 \!kd2 .ixf3 I 6 gf lLlc6 +) I 4 d5 lLlf8 1 8 lLlf4 ± Lerner-Smejkal,
. . . e 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . \!kd6 I 5 lil b i .ie6 is B ratislava 1983) 1 I . . . fe 12 d4 e5
also playable) I 5 g3 .ie6 (or I 5 . . . 1 3 'W"b3 (or 13 lLlg5) 1 3 ... ed 1 4
lLlc6 , since I 6 lLlxc6 de takes a way lLlg5 lLle5 1 5 .if4 h 6 1 6 .ixe5 hg
d5, but 16 lLld5 lLle6 is at least =) 1 7 lild 1 'ira5 1 8 .ixd4 llh6 1 9
I6 ll c l lLld7 I7 lLld5 lLlf6 ( 1 7 'ire3 ! llc6 20 h4 g4 2 1 g3 ±
. . . lLlb6 = Sax) 1 8 lLlxf6+ \!kxf6 I 9 Dzindzihashvili-Peters, US Ch
�g2, Seirawan-Sax, Li nares I 9 83, 1984.
and now 19 ... llac8 ! is +. 11 d4
1 1 .ib2 e6 ( 1 1 . . . .ie6 1 2 .ixe6
lOS
B
lLlxe6 1 3 d4 !) 12 lLl f4!? lLld7 I 3
lLlh5 llg8 I 4 d 4 lLlb6 I 5 .id3 ( 1 5
.ib3 a 5 I 6 llc l ) I 5 . . . g6! =/
oo SchUssler-Wedberg, Stockholm
I 984.
11 e6
12 h4!?
Other games have seen 12 .ib2,
e.g. I2 . . . lLld7 ( I 2 . . . b5 1 3 .ib3 a5!

106 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

oo Vaganian; 1 2 . . . i. e7 1 3 h4 li:Jd7
14 llc l li:Jf6 15 i.d3 i.d7 16 li:Je5 ;!" 109

Sideif-Zade - Mi khalchishin, Baku w

1 983 ) 1 3 h4! li:Jf6 14 i.d3 i.d7 1 5
h5 h6 1 6 li:J f4 i.e7 1 7 't!t'e2 a6 1 8
nh3 i.d6 1 9 't!t'd2 i.xf4 20 't!t'xf4
Uro Psakhis-Vaganian, Lvov 1 984.
12 i.d6
13 h5 h6
14 Ilh4 li:Jd7
Now H tibner-Tuk makov, Wij k
aan Zee 1 9 84, conti nued 1 5 i. b2 i.e6 line above. But theory no
( 1 5 i. e3 ! ?) 1 5 . . . i.e7 1 6 Ilh3 li:Jf6 longer li kes that line, so perhaps
1 7 i.d3 i.d7 1 8 ll:le5 .tb5 1 9 �g l 7 i.c4 is worth a try. On 7 . . . li:J8c6?,
0-0 20 li:Jf4 with the idea :ag3, and 8 a3 is strong, and 7 . . . li:J4c6 can
Black found it di fficult to cope be met by 8 't!t'b3 (8 d4 t) 8 . . . e6 9
with the pressure, although this is 'it'xb7 li:J a5 I 0 't!t'xa8 li:J xc4 and 1 1
hard to assess. d 3 ll:lb6 1 2 't!t'b7 may leave B lack
A ll in all, the 6 i.c4 lines are short. This leaves (e.g.) 7 . . . e6 8 d4
scoring well for White. It seems cd 9 li:J xd4 li:J8c6 1 0 a3 li:Jxd4 I I
that Black migh t look into the ab ;!;! ± .
sideline 6 . . . li:Jd3+ 7 �e2 ll:lf4+ 8 7 lD4c6!
<t>fl li:Je6 9 b4 g6 !? . 7 ... .txb5? has been discredited:
A22 8 ab .td3 (8 . . . 1t'b6 9 be 't!t'xc5 10
6 .tb5+ 'it'b3 .tc6 1 1 d4 ± Shatskes) 9
A221 6 . . . .td7 'it'a4+! li:Jc6 (9 . . . 'i!t'd7 10 li:Je5!
A 222 6 . . . li:J8c6 'it'xa4 I I li:Jxa4 .ta6 1 2 b5 ±±) 10
6 . . . li:J4c6 7 d4 cd 8 ll:lxd4 ( 8 b5 li:Jb4 I I b6+ ! 't!t'd7 ( I I . . . li:Jc6
't!t'xd4 i.d7 9 't!t'd l g6 t ) 8 . . . i.d7 1 2 li:Je5) 1 2 't!t'xd7+ �xd7 1 3 ll xa7
9 i. e3 (9 li:J xc6 !? li:Jxc6 1 0 i.e3 ;!;) nb8 14 li:Je5+ ±± Forintos-Farago,
9 ... ll:l xd4 I 0 't!t'xd4 ll:lc6 I I 'it'd2 ;1:: . Dubna 1979.
A221 8 i.c4!?
6 .td7 (109) a) W hite's best may be 8 d4 cd 9
7 a3 li:Jxd4 ll:l xd4 (9 . . . g6! Peters; 1 0
A lmost always played, but what .te3 , l ightly ;!; ) 1 0 't!t'xd4 li:Jc6 1 1
about 7 i.c4 ? This used to be con­ 'fi'd3 a6 1 2 .ta4 li:Je5 1 3 i.xd7+
sidered fairly irrelevant due to 7 . . . 't!t'xd7 14 't!t'g3 ! f6 1 5 0-0 ± Bukic­
i.e6, transposing t o the 6 i.c4 Smejkal, Banja Luka 1 976.

i.b2 0-0 + Poutiainen­ 111 Tal. lL!e2 lL!c6 1 5 b4 llc8 is ! after 'i!Yb2.e3 etc was 1 5 i.xb4+ 1 8 7 d4 <t>e2 i.g7 1 2 e5 ll:ld4 I 3 lL!xd4 'i!Yxd4 14 i. lL!xd4 I 0 i. lld7 1 6 ll:lb5 ! ) 1 6 l l 0-0 lle8!? ( 1 1 .xd4 lL!c6 Y2-Y2 Andersson­ 9 . g6 I I be i. . ..xb2 with an attack) 1 4 i. liJ xc6 10 lL!d5 ) 10 ab . Polugayevsky.e3 :!:.. de I I be i.e8 1 2 'i!Yc2!?.a6 (0-0. . Wij k aan Zee 1979.e7 1 7 c4 ! i. i.xb2 "ti'b6 ro Plachetka) Sochi 1974. lL!b5 ! 'ikxe4 1 7 llfe l ! 'it'xe i I 8 Korchnoi-Lengyel. Baile Herculane lL!d3 + Tukm a kov-Tal . Or 7 a3?! lL!d3+ 8 <t>e2 lL!f4+ ! 9 'ii'x d8+ <t>xd8 9 <t>fl lL!e6 I 0 b4 ( 1 0 d3 g6) I 0 .. . Berlin 1 982. 9 . . Or 10 . i. lL!d4 (! ) ) 9 d4 cd 1 0 8 de! lL! xd4 i.e7? I I lL!f3 ! 0-0 1 2 i.. be (9 . '@b6?! 9 i. .a4 b5 9 a3 ±± Ribli-Ftacnik. Moscow 1975..f4 f6 a) 8 .xd7+ 'i!Yxd7 I I ab 8 e6 e6 ( I I . 'i!Yb3 cb I I i.xb4 1 4 i.. . USSR Ch z 1 982. . e5 1 2 ll:ld5 ±) 1 2 i. B 7 cd 8 a3 (1 10) 10 cb This is still the m ain move.xc6+! (9 ab!? de llac l etc) 12 d4 cd 13 lL!xd4 lL!xd4 10 'it'a4 cb I I i. lilxe I i.c5 1 9 lii: a2 f6 20 c b fe 2 1 be Not 7 0-0?! a6 8 i.xe I 1 9 1t'a3+ <t>f6 2 0 ll:ld6 then 1 2 . . . 8 lb. . . . b) 8 .xd4 1t'xd4 1 5 10 i. . 10 . threatened) 1 2 lL!e5 lld8 1 3 'ti'a4 A222 i. 1 977. lL!xb4 (?) I I <t>e2 with the idea 1 2 ll:lg5 .e7 1 3 0-0! i. .d7?! 9 ll:lxd4 (9 ab de 10 1 3 'i!Yb3 ± Kholmov-Anikayev. Tallinn 1 977. .b5 1 4 'ti'a2 ! e6 1 5 'ti'xa7 1!t'xa7 6 liJ8c6 1 6 lii: xa7 i./3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 107 b) 8 0-0 e6!? (8 .e3 i s effec­ tive. 1 2 lii: d I + or 1 2 i. .e3 ll d8 9 d3 i.e3 0-0 'ti'a4+ <t>e7 ( 1 5 .xd4 cd 1 4 ±± Uhlmann-Lukacs. g6! 10 ab (J J J) I I be i.. . lL!d4 13 i.g7 1 2 lla3 .

..i d 7 1 6 It's unclear what' s best here: . . . Du tch Ch 1979. Langeweg.id6! .txa8 2 1 1 4 li:Jxe5 �c7 1 5 :iii: hc l ±) 1 3 li:Jxe5 li:Jxe6+ �d7 22 li:J xg7 . . Buenos Aires 1985.ixe5+ Wb7 = ) lit l a l e 5 1 7 lit xa7 litxa7 1 8 lit xa7 1 2 .ie5+ be 12 li:Je5 ( 1 2 li:Jd4 .ic4! litc8 1 4 litdl �c7 1 5 e6 . . .ie3 �c7 =) 12 . when W hite can play 1 4 11 .ic5 ( 1 7 l:la4 !? with 1 8 . . option.ixd4 litc6 ! Ligterink) b) 14 li:Jg5!? �e7 1 5 .txa7 e6 1 9 litxb7 . .id7!? was Ti mman's im­ provem ent: 1 2 0-0 (here 12 0-0-0!? has its points. winning chances. . . . li:Jxb4 l:lfc I . . .id7 18 . f6!? 1 2 e5! . . .ixb4+ 1 3 �e2 be cb 19 li:J d4 fe 20 lita8+ .id6 1 6 these lines seems to offer many lithcl lite8 1 7 f3 ± Ree-Chandler. I 0 .i d4 fe . .ie3 the idea 1 7 .. c2!? I I . Bohm­ .tf7 ( 1 5 e6 n xc4 1 6 litxc6 litd7 1 9 litca6 .. . .i xc 6 . or Here 1 3 .ixe5 .id7 1 3 0-0 lii: c 8 14 lii: d l a6 ( 1 4 . . .ig4 1 3 . . . .ic5 = litfd l li:J c6 ! 1 7 lit xd7+ �c8 1 8 li:Jd4 Rakowiecki-Adamski. also 1 2 .ixc6 .ixb2 e6 ! ? . . but none of �c7 1 4 �e2! f6 15 li:Jd3 .ie2 �e8 1 6 Tal-Tim man. 1 2 .. . .ixb4 1 5 .ixc6! ( 1 2 0-0-0+ .ixa 7 �c7 1 7 . .txc6 b e 1 5 . .id4 . .ixc6 1 4 li:Jd4 fe 1 5 li:Jxc6+ We8 1 6 0-0 ± .id7 1 6 �c7 1 3 . Poland 1980. . c) 11 .ig4) 13 .ie7!? s eems a good 1 3 ./08 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation . �e8 . .ie2 �b8 18 0-0 ± Timman­ Bohm.id6 20 . and 13 e5 f5 (1 12) here 13 .ixc5 +! ± Chekhov.ic5 ( Stean ). . f6 13 e5 could be tried) 1 4 li:Jd4!? 1 2 . Dutch Ch 1 979.ic5) 1 7 . . b e ( 1 2 . . li[c2 16 lii: fb l li:Jd3 17 .id7 I I be g6 trans­ 12 0-0 f6 poses. . . f6 1 4 li:Jd 3 ! e5 1 5 �d2 etc. .id7?! ( 1 2 .if4!?) 1 3 . Montpellier (play-off) b5 ! ± Stean-Browne.. li:Jc5 ! 21 lita8+ �7 22 litxd7+ \12-\12 �e8? 1 5 litxa 7 !) 1 5 . .ic4! ( 1 3 lii: fd l e5 1 4 a) 14 . . .id7 1 6 . f6 1 3 . .ixc6 1 8 14 e5 lit c8 15 . 1 2 . e5? 1 2 .ic5 = o r 1 5 li:Jd4 a) 1 1 .ixc6 be 1 5 li:Jd4 . 01 1 978.id7 1 3 li:J xc2 �b6 17 litab l c5 18 .ixc6 b e a n d n o w 1 5 . .id4 �e8 1 7 . b) 1 1 .ia4 !'! with the idea 12 . Lone Pine 1 979. li:Jxd4 19 . �c7 !? with the idea .ixb4? 1 3 litfd l + �c7 1 4 This leaves 10 . .ixc6 be 14 .ie8 1 6 b5 li:Ja5 17 .ixb4 1 7 li:J xc6+ .id7 1 6 litfc l fe or 1 5 lii: a 4 .ib7 19 e5 1 4 .ie3! e6 1 4 . . .ixg7 litg8 1 6 . .ixc6 be 16 15 .

txf3 10 gl Verner. but Black can defend .td7 1 6 .txc6+ 't!t'xc6 14 't!t'd4 ! f6 1 5 0-0 . .. 8 e4 ! li::J b6 9 .tg4 9 .tg7 10 li::J d2 0-0 (or 10 . . .d5! ± Mikhalchishin­ I I llc l �c7 1 2 li::Jb5+ �b8 + Tarjan­ Horvath. try is 5 . U S Ch 198 1 .. . Chekhov­ 8 e3 . .t d7 I I Iidl ±. . o r 1 8 . . West Germany B1 1985.te3 t Christiansen­ b) 8 'tWaS? 9 't!Vxa5 li::J xa5 10 i. Sochi 1 977 . 8 e4 (/ 1 3) After 14 . . .txa 7 �e8 1 7 .g. . e6? 10 . i. . li::J xd4?.b5 li:c8 10 i. B 5 d4 B l 5 . .txc3 tl ± Korchnoi-Karpov. . g6 6 .d2 't!t'xc3 Sha m kovich .tg5 't!t'c7 1 3 i.ig7 USSR Ch 1 970.xd7+ 6 li::J xd5 (?) 'it'xd5 7 't!t'c2 is refuted �xd7 12 0-0 li::J c 6 1 3 . USSR 1979. � b6 1 9 li::J b3 !?. . 6 .. I I . li::J xc3 5 . Botterill. 5 . .tg7 8 e6 ( a Gri. 9 e4 a6). .ibner-Ti m man. li::J x f5).txf3 I I g f a 6 1 2 ll d l �c7 1 3 for the pawn. 5 cd 14 li::J xd4? 6 't!t'xd4 Best is 1 4 . . Hastings 1978-79. li::J c 6 10 e3 (?) ( 1 0 . cd B 2 5 .td7 with more than enough . . 8 li:lj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 109 . and now best was 21 . .tf4 ± Tai­ by 7 . . . . .i nfeld) or by 6 de li::J x c3 7 a) 8 a6?! 9 i.e 3 ! e4 . . 6 lt:lxd5 't!t'xd5 7 't!t'xd4 't!Vxd4 8 White could try 15 l Hd l �c7 1 6 li::J x d4 . .td7 ! oo Ch ekhov. �xd7 1 8 llfd l + �c6 1 9 li[dc l + ! �d7 2 0 llc4 g5 ! 2 1 b5.tg5 ! ) 10 .c4 1t'a5 (9 . . but again. Pees 1 978) 10 i.td7 = (9 . li::J c6 ! ) I I c) 8 . e. e6 6 e3 or 6 e4 is a Queen's Ga mbit Semi-Tarrasch .. . . . �b7 1 9 6 .. g6 !? may be met by 6 e4 li::J x c3 7 be . . continued 1 5 'it'd5 + Ribli-Lj uboj evic.td7 .id7 I I i. H i. (or 10 li::J e 5 ) 10 .. A third I I .td2!? cd 7 li::Jxd4 . Tilburg . .tf4 f6.t xc5 1 8 be �e7 19 lUd l aS oo Chicago 1985 . 't!t'xd8+ �xd8 8 be . Ahlstrom-Ch ow. e6 7 e4 li::J x c3 transposes.td2?! . the winning 7 't!t'xc3 li::J c6 chances are slim.txd7+ 1 978. bS 1 2 .bS+ . . li[g8 ::!:: . .txc6 be 1 7 b5!? cb 1 8 llac l + ( 1 8 6 li::J xc3 .tf5 ! 8 'it'xeS 't!Vxc5 9 de Zhuravlev. . . .ib5+ remains a dangerous move.. .g4 9 i.txd4 . Finally. .tg7 9 li::J d4 0-0 . .

ally.f5 would 9 . de? 9 cd 'W/a5+ 1 0 i.Ri bl i .e3 ±) 1 5 .xe4 9 l/Jg5 i.f4!? i.e3 i. White seems to retain a light however. . 'it'xf4 I I 't!t'xb7) I I i. a) 1 0 .g6 I 0 i. . !Va5 1 3 'ti'd3 1980. . ..xc6 ( 1 5 i. !Va6 1 2 li:d8 = Portisch-Tim man.b5 1 6 i. . 't!Vc5 !? 1 2 'i!Vd3 Lone Pine 1979. li:c8 .g7 8 e3 0-0 9 'W/d2 i.c8 1 7 &i::J d4 li:d6 1 8 �g3 0-0 1 9 l/Jxe6 1 -0 Butnoris-Gelyashinis. .d7 Interesting after 6 . Mi les. li: xc6 1 3 'i!Vb3 't!Vb8 1 4 i. w i. sa w 1 1 .xe3 16 'i!Vxe3 i. here 1 5 li:adl planning 8 i.g5 i. 1 9 8 1 .Htibner. . Montreal 5 l/Jxc3 1979. .. e5? 1 6 'i!Va7 i. 1 975.f4 ±) 12 'i!Vxa5 &i::J x a5 1 3 &i::Je 5 1 14 ( 1 3 i. .g.xc3 f6 1 5 e5 7 i.xe6 with the attac k .d2 i. I 10 8 &i:J j3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation ( ±) 1 5 . b) 10 li:c8 I I li:d l a6 12 i. 7 't!t'a4+ l/Jc6 8 de? ! i.e7 1 7 li:c l 82 ±± Portisch. .g5 !? i.g7 9 i.g7 �d6 1 3 �e2 a6 14 li d 1 'i!Vc7 1 5 8 e3 'it'a5 (8 . Actually. both alternatives have edge from 5 . 7 i.e7 1 5 i. .c5 1 5 li:d2! i. 6 be g6 (1 14) 9 i.b4 1 2 't!Vb3 't!le7 1 3 li:ad l 0-0? 14 lt xd7 ±± 7 e3 Fedorowicz-Bouissious. USSR 1 980. i. which to some i. .d6 1 4 &i::J x f7 �xf7 1 5 li: d l i. . .b5 ! 14 li:e l !?) 1 3 .e7! Chow.b3 ( 1 2 �b3 !?) 1 2 . cd.xc6 ! . . Til burg i.e3 i. .e3 t i. 't!Vb6 ! ? 1 0 i..Oiafsson-Chow. D mitrias 7 e4 is a Gri. and 7 i. . M oscow 1 1 a4 !? may be best.bS i. 7 ..e7 1 3 i. .b2 11 i. ( 1 3 i. li: b I cd 1 2 cd 't!t'xd2+ 1 3 �xd2 New York 1984. f6!? 1 1 i. After 1 1 1973. Tbilisi 1982. . .bS+ . c) 10 . .!ad2 looks m ildl y ±) 1 3 .xe7 l/Jxe7 =. .e2 'i!Va5 ( I I .a4.xb5 ab 17 li: xd6 t Martz­ Dieks.xc6 1 6 't!t'd2 t ) 9 't!t'd2 0-0 1 0 i. a6 I I i. .a4 0-0 + Korchnoi-Furman. . 12 i.xc6+ 't!Vxc6 I I be 7 't!Vb3 .infeld. g7 i.d6 Y2-Y2. . . .c4 e6 1 2 10 0-0 'ti'b6 !? l/Jxe6 fe 1 3 i. 'W/c7 8 e4!? �xc6+ be 1 2 0-0 i.f4 ! 't!Vc8 ( I 0 Muresan-Savereide. Others include: 198 1 . Gener­ extent revived this line. i.e2 lt:\ c6 I I &i::J d4 i.d2 't!fxc 3 1 4 i. . went 1 1 . Baden-Baden cd I 0 cd b6 = Korchnoi-Reshevsky. e. some prom ise: . H . . li:d8 1 4 Karpov's move. .

..td7 9 a4 !? c d .td2 ( 1 5 . . . . lLlc6 lLlf6) 1 5 e5 ! h6 (versus ltJg5-e4) 1 6 1 0 . C1 e5!?. e6 1 4 . A ft er 1 3 . 8 .) 1 6 d5! l:lad8 1 7 c4 e5 1 8 l:i:b1 ± H . . . . M erano 1 98 1 . . . . . 5 ltJc6 12 l:lb1 .. .td3 h6 1 5 . liJ c6 1 0 tt'b3 !? wou1d intend 1 0 . ltJxc3 7 be . Bugoj no 1978) l:la5 19 .txa4 2 2 lLld2 'it"c6 2 3 l:i:ec l 1Wa5 1 0 1Wb3 ! cd 1 1 ed .te4 .td3 b6 mixes it up. .tf4 l:le8 ( 1 4 . went 1 4 1 4 e5 (".tc6 2 5 f3 b5 26 1!t'xb5+ t Makarichev. lLla5 1 1 1Wa3. . . .. Liberzon-Peters. ..txa4 1 8 . ..ta3 !? lLle4 1 2 l:lc1 ) 1 1 . and now Korchnoi.ta3 b6 I I de 'i/c7 1 2 . 1Wc7. . .tb7 6 . Oiafsson-Paolozzi. . 9 .. liJd7 1 1 Kuligo wski.. . 8 lLljJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation 111 a ) 8 .ta3 ( 1 0 l:lb1 t) 10 .. which 1983. . . g6? 8 . Oiafsson­ 10 .. 9 0-0 0-0 c 10 a4 a6!? 5 e3 Weakening th e queenside . . . . .. .te3 8 lLld7 l:lab8 1 9 'i/e2 . .!. .th4 lLl h5) 1 5 . . New York advantages from this move. . Also interesting here is 1 1 .tf5 ( ! ) 1 2 lle 1 ( 1 2 .t b7? ! ( 1 5 . . In Keres managed to eke out small Spraggett-Shamkovich. .td3 (prepares . .!.tb7 1 3 1!t'c2 t Tal-Miles.tc6 1 7 . . cases) 8 .td3 ( 1 1 . Korchnoi's 6 1Wc2 !? ltJc6 7 a3 {=) 11 .ia3) 1 2 .te2 0-0 9 0-0 b 6 ( 9 . lLlc6!? Tal. e6 . .td 3 ..tf4 ( 1 7 h 5 Tal) 1 7 . . lLlb3 ±. . C2 5 .te4 in some Or 1 3 . . . e66 d4 is a Queen's Gambit. . . 0-0 9 0-0 'i/c7 (9 . 1We2 b6 1 2 e4 . .tb5 e6 13 e4 (1 15) 6 . . Black tried 10 . ll:Jffi 1 8 ..tb7 1 3 l:l fd 1 l:l fd8 . 13 'i/c7 b) 8 .ta3!? lLld7 1 1 e4 l:i: d8 1 2 'it"b3 e6 B 13 l:i:d1 .txa6 ." Tal) has the idea 1 5 lLld2 ll e 1 e 6 1 5 e 5 ! h 6 1 6 h 4 l:lfd8 1 7 on either 14 .td5. 9 . lLlf6 1 1 still has some punch . H astings 1 980-8 1 ..tb7 We2 . Milan 1 975.td7 (7 .txb5 1 2 1Wa8 24 .!. . . C 1 5 . lLlxc3 ... . . . .. Karpov­ Portisch-Tal.tc6 20 . .tg5 ! lLlf6 1 4 .te4 ± H .txd3 1 3 1!t'xd3 l:lc8 1 4 e4 e6 1 5 5 . .txa6 cd 2 1 8 . 'it"c7 1 0 1 15 . lLlc6 . lLld7 1 0 a4!?) 1 0 a4 ltJd7 1 1 a 5 l:l b8 1 2 e4 1Wc7 1 3 . e6 or 14 . . Lone Pine 1 979.tf4 1Wa5 +. Reykj avik 1 982.

C22 6 g6 (1 1 6) 7 'i!t'a4+ l0d7 7 .ig7 9 e5? 0-0 10 e6 fe I I h4 l0b6 1 2 't!fe4 e5! I 3 i. l0d7 8 0-0 1 4 i. 'i!i'xa3? 9 .g. g5 1 4 9 l0xd5? l0xe5 ! 10 . 7 h4 h6! is Keres-Tai manov.a3 8 e4 .>xd I l0c6 (7 . .. . . 7 .b7 1 6 6 de 'iWxd I+ 7 c. . 'ii'c7 8 0-0 e5 C2 I 7 . .d7 10 ll b l b6 I I i.. W'a5 8 W'b3 ! ::!:: . 8 . Or 9 t0 xd7 C21 '§xd7 10 d4 cd I I ed t0 c7 ! = 7 i.d7 8 'i!t'b3 'i!t'c7 9 .. . 7 .e7 artificial after 8 .id3 'i!i'c7 I I . A ronin.d5 l0 c6 I 2 c4 0-0 9 . i.f5 =!= Lein-Peters. . USSR I 953. 7 . C22 7 1Wa4+ a6!?) 9 d 4 i.b7 1 5 'i!i'g3 6 be 'i!i'c8 ! Karpov) 1 5 . i. 'i!i'g3 'i!t'c6 1 7 . Karpov.ib5+ 10 l0xc6 be and IO l0c4 . . . l0c6 8 . e.. .id2 b6 1 2 0-0 i. .>h8 I4 l0g5 i. 10 lii: c l t0d7 I I d4 clear equality. I I t0xe7 t0d3 ! + was Veltmander­ Lone Pine 1978. . 7 .c4+ c.a3 :t. .g.tc4 ..tb5 ! ( all I I '§a4 1Wb6 1 2 t0xd5 ! ed I 3 b 3 analysis by Karpov). .if5?! 8 l0d2!) 8 e4 b6 =. ..c4 ± 7 d4 is '82' above. b6 1 3 l0d2 5 t0 xc3 llfd8 I4 't!ff3 a6 ( I4 . ..ta3 9 d4 e4 1 0 l0d2 ±) 8 0-0 e6 (8 . 8 i. . .ib5+ 1 2 cd lieS 13 i. e.txc6 1 3 h5 ( I 3 't!fxg6? e6) 1 3 . Best m ay be 8 it'a4!?.112 8 l0f3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation l0e5 'ii'c7 9 '§a4. or 8 l0e5 !? 9 . .a3 'i!i'c7 Shatskes. .!. llb8 1 2 . .. 1 4 .b2 e6 + Christiansen-H. e.g4 = . ll fc l 1Wxa4 1 6 b a 1Hb8 1 7 .tc4 i. ..ie2 i. or 8 .. ..tc4 e6 / 16 w 10 d4 t. . .Olafsson. .txc5 8 .txc5 IS llxc5 llb2 19 d4 e tc. e7 I 0 e4 0-0 I I 't!fe cd C23 7 .b7 I 3 e4 etc. . i. Lone Pine 1977.!. USSR 1948.txc6 with the idea 8 . .txd7+ 1Wxd7 i. e5!?) 9 d4 0-0 10 . h6 9 '§c2 1Wc7 8 t0e5 i.g.ib5 is C23.h6! 1 3 llc2 C2 l0b6 Karpov) 1 2 . .. and 7 .tb5 ( 1 2 e4 i.tg7 .ib2 e5 + Shamkovich­ .ig7 ( 8 . . Leningrad I97 l .. l0c6 does not lead to Equal.b2 l0b4 14 i. pointless.. 9 0-0 0-0 Thus 5 .g7 8 h4 !? is 7 0-0 i. . '§b5 1 5 . .. .

. xc6 i. USSR Ch f6 1 6 lt:l e4 Il:adS 1 7 lilfd i e5 = 197 1 . i.f5 ! =F Vukic-Bukal. Or here S i. . . .g7 I 0 6 'ti'a4+ is harmless after 6 . . \!t'b6 1 3 \!t'e2 i.d7 1 4 d 5 lUeS 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I lil ab l b6 1 2 1t'h4 1 5 de i.a3 !? 6 i. i. 1 3 i. Bugojno 197S. lt:lb4 1 3 't!tb l t Smyslov-Bronstein . or S . ltJS c6 10 �a4 d own.e6! I I 1td l i. th ing. C23 Amsterdam I956. .g7 ! S lt:l xc5 1Wa5 f6 I I 0-0 e 5 1 2 1Wa4 ties Black 9 a3 �4c6 (or 9 . . .d7 1 3 d5 ! t = was H tibner-Tal. . Orense 1Wxd4. lilgS I I 0-0!? 1975..f4 with the idea 9 . An odds-and-ends section of i. . .e3 i.. i. . Warsaw 1 979. .g2 i.g5? lt:ld4 ! ) doesn't achieve any­ test after S e3 ( " ! " U hlmann) S .b5 + i. . . .xe6 1 6 \!t'b5 ! ± Korchnoi­ i.g7 9 a4 0-0 I 0 lt:l xd5 e d 1 1 d4 a re also possible. which seems critical) 9 d4 1 2 1WxdS li xdS 1 3 i. those lines which do not trans­ 7 0-0 pose.f4!? (or 1 2 i.d7 =F with a bind.b2 i. . . d4 is ' B 2' above. Garcia. lt:l f6 !? =. 6 i.g7 1 2 . . 6 'ti'b3 �b4! 7 lt:le4? (7 a3 i. 1 5 i.. lt:lc7 B ronstein's deviation 5 . be lt:le2 e5 . a n d n o w 1 0 . 7 . 8 1Wb3 1Wc7 Yugoslavia 1 973) 10 1Wc4? ! ( 1 0 9 lilbl b6 1Wc2 + ) 1 0 .b7 1 2 i.e3 lt:la5 ! =) 1 1 .. i. Halle 1 9 S I ) 9 i. .g2 lt:l c6 7 0-0 e6 faces a severe i. . i. .xg7 'it>xg7 14 0-0 lt:lc6 1 5 'W'b2+ Polugayevsky-Bronstein.g7 12 1Wa4 is u nclear.xf3 ! ? Wirthensohn. and now Uhlmann 10 lil c l 't!t'a5 I I lt:l a4 lidS 1 2 'W'c2! gives 1 5 .b2 0-0 Madrid 1 973. . lt:lc6! 1 1 1td3 intending 9 lt:le I 1td7 or 9 lt:lxc6 ( I I i. xc3 1 4 cd I 0 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 I I ed 0-0 1 2 lilb1 i.e7 ( but no one mentions S .d7 = Gheorghiu-Csom . Smej kal-Sc h midt. S d4!? cd 9 lt:l xd4 �xc3 1 0 i. Bad Kissingen 1 9S 1 . lt:l e5 = .xc5 0-0 I I i. . .d7 S 1Wc4 �b4 !? ro. b5 1 1 1th4 b4 I 2 lt:l d3 10 lt:lg5 e6 I I c4 i. �d5 1 0 7 . . and S d 3 i. .e7 7 i. . lt:ld7 S 0-0 i. be is logical. . Czechoslova kia 19SO) 1 0 i.g7 D 7 0-0 5 g3 7 \!t'a4+ lt:lc6 is Chapter 3. . and 1 0 . b2 0-0 �a6 1 3 i. S \!t'b3 e6 (or S .b4 ! ± Smej kal­ lt:lc6 7 �e5 lt:lxc3 ! S de 1td5 9 lt:l xc6 Jansa. 8 lt:l xd5 5 g6 As usual . . . .e2 i. 8 ltJj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 1 13 8 1Wc7 Uhlmann-Adamski .e7 9 i. lt:lb4 =) 9 d3 �c6 = ( 10 6 i. .g2 1Wc7 9 d4 cd! ( B u kic. d7 9 i. The older S b3 i.b7 1 3 c4 Il:adS 1 4 i. .f5 ( 14 . b u t 1 0 . lt:l4c6 =) 7 . . x f3 was U hlma nn-S. 9 .h 5 =) 1 5 e4 lilacS i. .

lil ab8 is and don't mind the Semi-Tarrasch u nclear) 1 1 lil b 1 �h3 1 2 'it'a4 Queen's Ga mbit. and n ow 1 2 . . .Ree.!:. safe edge Zee 1973. . 9 . 9 . but 5 d4 may appeal to �e3. .114 8 &i:Jf3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 8 't!t'xdS �xg2 1 3 <t>xg2 't!t'd5 1 4 �e3 &i:Jc7 9 d3 &i:Ja6 !? 1 5 lilfc l . Clearly the m ost dan­ Palma de Mall orca 1 972: 10 a3 gerous lines in this chapter stem 't!t'h5 ( 10 000 'it'd6 1 1 lil b 1 �d7 1 2 from 5 e4. Andersson. . . . &i:Jc6 is Chapter 3 again. Conclusion. &i:Ja6 !? was Andersson-Smej kal. Wijk aan those who want a small.

Part III 2 ltJf3 Systems .

.

. . lb f6 . 2 e3 ' A I 2' . . .tb2 2 b3 (1 1 7) A l l 3 . . Its main irregular li nes.txc5 10 lDbd2 lbc6 I I cd d5 equalizes immediately. . White 8 2 g3 can try 4 lDf3 d 5 5 cd ed 6 e3 (6 d4 c 2 lbf3 lDf6 7 e3 . g6?! A l 2 3 . .ig4 = o r 7 .ib2 lbf6 4 . . d5 !? 4 cd lDxd5 5 lDf3 lbc6 6 a3 (6 lDc3 lD xc3 7 . . d 5 3 cd 1t'xd5 4 lDc3 AI 'i!t'd8. . 4 lDf3 lDf6 5 e3 e6 6 . . by which one side virtue is to discourage . lDf6 Chapters 1 0. ..ig2 is Chapter 2. . . . d4? 7 . . .ig2 . . . .ib2 . . . but it is only an i mportant 2 lbf3 by looking at occasional choice now. .ixf6 is ' A l '. .. . or even 2 . . cd 8 lDxd4 Other moves tend to transpose..ie7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 d5 (or 8 .g7 6 .ixf6 ! ) 6 lbc3 (6 e 3 . neither 2 lbc3 nor 2 lDf3: 2 . . e6 3 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann. Be fore that.ie2 or 7 . g6. cd =) cd 4 ed d5. 2 . lbc6 3 . g6. . 2 e4 lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 4 g3 i. . . .see 5 . we A2 2 . lbc6 117 B a) 3 . . . equal. .ib5 . San Antonio 1972. . . can lead to a Queen's Gambit after 2 .if5 !) 6 . e . . On 2 . b 6 3 . or the other avoids the material in A I 2 . g6 3 .ie2 Panov A ttack after 2 . .ie6 7 lDf3 h6 8 0-0 d 5 (? ) 9 cd lDxd5 10 e3 ! intending d4. .1 4.. g6? ! 6 .t i ntending d4) 7 e3 e5 8 'i!t'c2 . . . . . d6 4 g3 lDc6 5 .tg7 .td3 g6 10 h4 . .ie7 9 0-0 .g. and 2 f4 't!t'xd5 1 2 a3 lUd8 = Petrosian­ can be a nswered by 2 . 2 d3 e6 with the idea . . . . . 9 de . 2 lb f6 A 3 .ib2 e5 will transpose to A 2 b3 ' A 2' . . .ig2 e5 (5 .g. lDf6 3 d4 .ib5 . . b) 3 . a6 7 d4 t) 7 . line A .ib2 e6 .tb4+ =) 6 .ib7 i s doubtless 2 . e5 look at lines where White plays 2 . Saidy. .txc3 f6 and . e5 = ) 6 .te6 9 . lDf6 (6 . e 6 7 g 3 lDf6 8 . e. f6 ( 6 . d6 3 .9 2 ltJf3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 1 c4 c5 Larsen gave this move new life In this chapter we introduce the a few years bac k.

. 1 18 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' I I li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 1 2 . 5 . . 1 2 0-0 . . . b6 6 e3 . d5 5 cd 14 lUd I lbb8 1 5 li:Jd5 ± K arpov­ ed 6 e3 with the idea 6 .. . . d4? 8 .ixd5 9 li:Jxd5 7 .te7 6 . or 1 0 .i b5 ! with advantage .te7 9 e3 0-0 1 0 ed cd I I li:J a3 .tg4!?) 1 2 li[ e l t Gulko­ B Belyavsky. 0-0 I I li:Jh2 .. I I d3 . d4) 8 cd .tb7 10 ..ie2).. .. Moscow 1973. . . and now either 10 li:J h2 ! ? USSR Ch 1973.i. . .. . d5 8 cd li:Jxd5! 9 li:J a3 b6 10 li:Jc4 . Wijk aan Zee 8 e3 0-0 9 li:Jge2 a6 1 0 li[c l b5 1 974.. 5 d5 Safer 5 . very slightly !.g.ig4.tg2 d4 All 7 b4! ?) 6 . . .... e . e6 4 li:Jf3 . 3 g6?! 4 e6 4 . . li:Jxd5 is playable.id4 't!rct6 1 6 g3 :t. .tb5 is also natural. . or 1 0 0-0 9 li:Jxd4 .ib4+ 10 . . d5 (lest li:Jf4. d6 7 a6 6 g3 li:Jc6 7 .tg2 li:Jc6 7 0-0 d5 is a Re ti 3 li:Jc6 System.tb7 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 1i'd2 t!fa5 c) 3 ..tg2 d4 8 0-0 .td7 8 0-0.tel!? (or 9 . .ie6 I I li:J f l a nd li:Je3-d5 .t h6 9 li:Jf3 7 . . 4 li:Jf3 Al l 4 g3 e6 5 li:Jf3 transposes.t b7 7 li:J l e2 develop after (e.tc3 . 't!lb7 I I .. Keene-Bellon. .. . li[e8 ) 1 3 lL! xc6 be 6 g3 li:Jc6 14 'tit'c2 li[e8 1 5 .txc3 li[c8 1 3 h5 ! 7 .te2 0-0 7 0-0 (7 d4 cd 8 li:J xd4 1!fa5+ 9 1t'd2. .tc7 ( 1 2 . San A ntonio 1 972 .t Zaitsev) I I li:J d 2 0-0 advantage..i g7 6 cd ed Probably not the best. .te7 (4 . . USSR 1973. but has serious troubles with the l oss makes the k ingside difficult to of d 5 .tg2 f5 ± Timman-Adorjan. ..b7 I I d4 li[ c8 = Petrosian-Vasyukov. but Black Here 6 . . . 5 .) 7 a3 .txf6 ! ef 5 e3 5 li:Jc3 (1 18) 5 g3 d5 6 cd ed 7 . . 't!fd7 I I 'tit'f3 idea 7 . . .. .id6 ( 10 . . Or 5 ..tf4 .t f5 1 /8 ( I I . continued 8 d4 cd . A m­ sterdam 1 979) 7 . Petrosian-Belyavsky. d5 6 .ie6 1 2 e3 retains the 'tlt'a5 I I 1i'd3 . . A ndersson-Szabo.g.ie2 ±) 9 .. li:J c6 7 B rowne. 1 974. 7 .tg2 h5 8 h4 . Cala Galdana After 7 . with the 'tit'xd5 1 0 li:Jf4 ± ( 1 0 .tb5 !) 5 g3 0-0 (5 . . a6.

2 lLlj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' 1 19 A2 7 li:lf3 f6 8 0-0 .. 9 . .ig2 d5!? 6 cd li:lxd5 ed. . d5 !? . . . . Romania li:lxb4 14 . .ig7 7 e3 lO 0-0 is Chapter 2. b6 (Suba): ! ? 1 2 cd li:le7 1 3 li b l ? ( l 3 b4 =/oo) 1 3 b) 2 . 7 li:lge7 8 e3 0-0 8 . . . unless 8 .ig2 g6 3 . 10 li:ld5 b) 4 li:lf3 d6 5 d3 g6 6 li:lc3 . a6) Seirawa n-Tarjan. .ic3 'ifb5 1 3 . Suba-Stefanov..ie6 I I a3 a) 2 . . Now normal is 7 . . . 1980. Iine B.ie6 + ( 10 'tlrxc5 lieS I I 'it'b5 li:lb6 9 . . . 1 970. . then I I �e2! oo.ib2 li:l c6 (1 1 9) 6 li:lc3 . . 2 e5 5 . . was Larsen-Browne. .ie2 0-0 = Andersson­ lO li:ld5 .ig7 6 d 3 li:lge7 (or Seira wan. .see the text). Or 7 . .ie7 9 e3 and d4.ig2 lt:lc6 6 'it'd2 . . . Hastings 1 974-75. g6 3 d4!? cd 4 'tlrxd4 lt:l f6 .. . Lugano Stean.ig4 6 h3 Reykjavik 19 72.ig7 7 li:lc3 0-0 West Germany 1 980. . . Tilburg 1982. Larsen-Kavalek. .ig7 7 d3 1/9 7 e3 li:lge7 8 li:lge2 . 'tWd7 14 li:lf3 0-0 1 5 a3 li:l a6 16 4 g3 h4 !? li:l c7 17 a4 b5 18 h5 ± Larsen­ a) 4 e3 g6 5 li:lf3 . 4 d6 8 li:lh3? li:la5 ! 9 'tlrd3 'tWc7 ! + follow­ 4 .!: or 1 0 0-0 'it'd? a nd . li:lec3 b e 16 b e e 5 =/oo .ie6 !? 9 li:ld5 .. but 8 b3 ! is :!.g.ixd5 I 0 cd li:lb4? ( 1 0 . . . e . 'tlrd7 = ) 12 b4!? cb 13 ab 5 ..ih5 7 0-0 li:l f6 8 d3 'it'd? 9 li:lbd2 li:lf6. . . . d5!? 3 cd 'it'xd5 4 li:lf3 li:lc6 d5!? ( I I . 1 9 80. . a nd instead of 5 . line B I . .ia3 =/oo Keene-Timman. After li:lge7 8 .ie6 ..ig2. 5 . went 1 0 .ie6 I I 'it'e2 ) 10 . �h8 !?. 'tlrd7 I I h4 !? f5 1 2 c) 4 li:lc3 d6 5 g3 g6 6 . . . 5 .id6. N iks ic 1 983. . f5 ! ) 7 a3!? d5! 8 cd li:lxd 5 9 'tlrc2 9 li:lge2 . USA I I li:ld5 !..if5 l O li:le4 . . e5 6 li:l c3 'it'd?! with the idea (preventing li:l e3) I I li:ld5 li:lxd5 . . . 9 li:le l li:l c6 1 0 li:lc2 f4 ! t. . li:lge7 5 .ig7 7 'tWd2 li ae8 1 3 h 5 b 5 ! 1 4 h g h g 1 5 li:lf3 !? (7 d3 or 7e3 . 6 . f5 ( ! ) 8 0-0 . li:lge7. . . .ie6? is dis­ w cussed in Chapter 2. White can avoid this by 7 e3 is he wishes) I I e4 '@a5 1 2 . .. li:lge7 8 d3 0-0 B 9 0-0 h6 1 0 li:l d2 ( l O e3!? planning 2 g3 e6 10 .if! ! ( ± " Larsen) " 1 3 . . g5 1 4 e3 li:lg6 =t= Hecht-Hubner. 'tlra5 +! Keene. .ig2 .

. or 5 e3 t.g.ib7 4 . ..ig5 .ig3 f5 !? or 7 . .ixd5 . 6 . g6 all \!t'xd5 1 2 .i g2 e5 I I . 5 g3 .ig2 3 .ixb4! - C2 2 . c) 4 e6 !? is Wedberg's other idea.ie7 (6 . b6 is independent in the line 4 cd ed 3 g3 . Mestel suggests 8 '@d2.ib4 6 g3 't!t'a5 !? 7 li:Jxc6 de 8 . 1!t'b6 !? ( Wedberg) really 120 shouldn't be any better than when 8 White p lays it.tc 1 . 2 ...!. cd 4 li:J xd4 g6 5 g3 . .ic3 lish games begin with this move. ..id2 't!t'c7 ! 9 About half ofSymmetrical Eng­ li:Je4 1!ra5 ! 10 . Polugayevsky- .. .ig7 6 . .ixf6 . d6.id7 oo.txc3 I I 't!rxc3 2 .ie7 8 li:J h3 d4 ( or 8 . . 1983.8 . f5!? 3 d4 (or 3 e3 .ixh 3 !?) 9 . 3 d4 cd 4 li:J xd4 li:Jf6 is Chapter Lone Pine 1 979. . 1!t'b6!? 7 li:Jb3 C l 2 .txh3 .ig2 li:Jc6 7 li:Jb5 ! ? (o r 7 li:JbH) 7 . Indonesia 7 . e6 and 2 . . 6 .ie7 12 0-0 0-0 13 �c l C l 2 3 g3 b6 1 4 \!t'a4 tl ± Seirawan-Giigoric.id2 .txc3+ 1 2 be li:Jf6 \12-\12 Adorjan­ This section deals with irregular Wedberg. 2 li:Jf3 (120) by Christiansen . .ih6 li:Jd4!? or some such transpose. . . But B lack also has: c a) 4 d5!? 5 't!ra4 \!t'b6! is suggested . . e .Wed berg.) works. 3 . li:J f6 3 li:J f3 li:Jf6 4 . (20) 1958. which has not done b adly.ixf6 1 0 li:Je4 Cl . . li:Je5? 7 c5) 7 . . . . 5 li:Jb3 ..120 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' 9 cd li:J xd5 I 0 . 5 g3 !?.ie6..i bner. . . .ig2 b6 is Chapter 8 li:Jbc3 . .. . 1!Vc6 9 . . . Critical is 5 li:Jb5 d6 (5 . .. . match I I. li:Jc6 li:Je5 8 1!rc2 a5 . Lucerne 1979) 6 . . Botvinnik-Smyslov.ixd6 7 't!t'xd6 li:J ge7 8 li:Jc3 0-0 9 e4 ± Hi.!. b) 4 .. . .txh3? ( 1 0 . b4 + orders.!.ib2 1!t'c7 6 li:Jc3 li:J f6 = Andersson-Adorjan. .if4 e5 (6 .. .ig2 a4 10 li:Jc I . Oslo 1 984.ig7 I I li:Jc3 0-0 12 . . a6? 6 li:Jd6+ .i g5 .ig2 g6 5 d4 cd 6 't!t'xd4 5 d3 li:Jc6!? li:Jf6 7 b3 li:Jc6!? (7 . 1 4.ie7 ! l l li:Jf4 .ie7 7 1 2) 8 't!rd I !? li:Je5 9 0-0 li:Jxf3+ 10 ef 't!t'b3 li:Jbd7.i. ll:lf6 9 . . . li:Jf6.ig7 is Chapter Or 5 . 5 li:Jc3 .!. 3 d5 2 . . 2 . 2 li:Jc6 or I I �cl 't!ra5+ 1 2 't!t'd2 't!rxa2 oo) C l l 3 li:Jc3 I I .

8 ti'e7+ 9 .idS 'W'b3 . Gurevich-Yudasin. g6 !?) 7 0-0 0. Sverdlovsk ( 1 0 .l.) 6 llJb4 7 li:ld2 .ie6 1 2 li:lf4 't!fa5+ Cl2 1 3 't!fd2 ± (Portisch).ie3! or 8 o o .ie2 d5 6 7 i..ib4 8 li:lb3!? ) 6 ef o o .ixd8 fg 1 2 . e.ie7 I I Portisch-Radulov..xd5 1 2 cd .ixf6 1 0 li:ld5 0-0. 2 llJj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' 121 Ornstein.ixg2 'irc7 1 0 (9 .. Dortmund 1983.. Zaid. 00. 6 ed e4 7 d5 ef Now after 8 de White keeps the a l ) 5 .ie2 li:lf6 8 0-0 121 i.xf3 8 i.b4 3 0 0 . .ie2! . H ere 7 li:le5!? has led to 7 .tg7 6 . and now I I .!. g6 4 d4 cd 5 li:lxd4 .d6 (7 i.xf3 li:lxd4 9 . USSR 1 9 85) 8 li:lg4 li:l xg4 Cll 9 ti'xg4 0-0 1 0 .. 4 e3 a3) 5 ..if4 . 6 li:ld2 cd 7 ed . 10 . 000 de 9 't!fxf3 li:lf6 10 . Yugoslav 1 3 "i!t'a4+ 't!fd7 = Suba-Wedberg..e2! i. .... li:lf6 5 d4 (121) (5 . e4 6 d5 (6 li:le5 ! ? W edberg.0 8 a 3 d 6 9 l:t b l 1t'e8 7 de fg 8 cd+ .id4 c5 1 4 .) I I . .if4 .t xd2+ 12 �xd2 cd ( 1 0 li:ld2 't!t'b6 =) 10 .. a) 4 . Aseyev... 4 g3 f5 5 d3 llJf6 6 .if8 I I c5 ! ± Moskalenko­ M oscow 1 985. Ch 1 974.ie3 ± Timman-Radulov.. ed =) I I li:lxc6 be 12 "i!t'a4 1984. 4 r5 b) 4 d6 5 d4 cd ( 5 ed 6 ed . US Junior Ch 1978.te5 f5 1 5 . 't!t'b6 1 3 . li:lxd5 !? . . cd!? 6 ed e4 7 li:lg5 ! ? i. de! d4 9 . 3 g3 e5 a2) 5 .ig4 7 . USSR 1985. l:td l :!:.. Reykjavik 198 1 ) 6 ed . . a5 !?) I 0 b4 "i!t'h5 I I li:ld5 . ed 6 ed d5?! 7 .ie7 8 edge.ie7 (6 . Indonesia 1983. B H elsinki 1 972 .ic3 i.. 5 d4 cd 5 e4 6 d5 (or 6 li:ld2 li:lf6 7 d5 0 0 0 .te2 0-0 9 0-0 l:t e8 000 "i!t'a6! was = in Eingorn-Dorfman. .e7 9 .g.txd7 9 .ig5 li:lxd4 3 .ie3 ! cd li:l xd5 7 0-0 li:lc7 ! ? oo Speel man­ li:lxf3+ 10 1Wxf3 't!fd7 I I 0-0-0 ± Wedberg.ie5 =/oo Vai nerman­ Black's fourth.id2 7 .ig5 .ig5 f5 ( 1 0 f6 I I o o .b4 8 .tc3 li:lf6 8 . . li:lf6 4 e3 e5!? is the note to 1 3 0-0-0 .ixf6 . 1 982) and: Helmers-Sigurj onsson. . . .ic6 I I li:l d5 i. .id6 1 2 e3 t Bukic-Mestrovic.ig2 . . 9 g4! :!: Odendahl-Costigan.l. 3 li:lc3 e5!? c5! .id6 8 a3 li:la6 oo.ig4 .tg2 0-0 9 0-0 d5 I 0 0-0 I I li:lcxe4 . Buenos A ires 01 1 978) 8 d5 li:le5 9 't!t'b3 tt'e7 I 0 .

liJc6 7 0-0 d5 =. A standard position. Amsterdam 1 985.tg2 . transposes line A I . .tb2 f6 6 liJc3! e5 !? 7 lt:\xd5 5 d3 d6 'i¥xd5 8 e3 . . 1!t'a5+ (K eene). liJf6 7 liJcH.tg2 liJc6 5 0-0 e5?! ( 5 . cd 7 liJxd4 liJc6 8 liJc2 d6 9 e4 (9 0-0 . . . so critical is 7 . t!t'b6 8 liJc3 . In .te2 (6 de(!) liJa6 7 . took an 3 g3 odd turn after 7 0-0 h6!? (7 . . . 1!t'xb2 9 and now Napolita no gives 9 liJd3 ! . after 6 . .te6 9 �c4 t was Miles­ 6 liJc3 liJ f6 Timman. but 9 liJd5 'it>d8 c ) 3 b3 g6 4 . corres 1950-53. d4 6 d3 e5 7 b4 !?) 6 t!t'a4 (123) : C2 1 3 g3 C22 3 liJc3 a ) 3 e3!? g6 4 liJc3 .t g2 f5 ! ? liJxd5 5 . . 7 liJd2 d5 frees 6 e4 liJb6 7 d5 e5!? 8 liJxe5 .122 2 liJf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' liJc2!? can transpose to Chapter I 0. . Vaganian.tg7 5 e3 0-0 6 �e2 or 9 liJ b5 lt>d8 is unclear. 122 C21 1 w 3 d5 4 cd 4 . 6 . . .tf5 ! 1 0 f3 d5! � Vaganian) . d5 4 cd 4 . C2 and 3 .t b2 . . . Plovdiv 1 983. Lo ne Pine 1979. . . . here 3 . but Larsen­ C2 1 Shirazi. .t d2 Napolitano-Adam. . e6 5 d5 best) and 6 . d5 8 liJ h4 g5 9 liJg6 lii:g 8 10 liJ xf8 C2 1 2 3 . . But to a Rubinstein Variation (Chapter Black has the i mportant options 6). . g6 lt>xfl! I I a3 f4 1 2 b4 Uoo. Inkiov- .. 'ffb6 !? ( when 7 liJd2 =/ oo is b) 3 b4 !? cb 4 d4 d5 (or 4 . . cd is safer) 6 . . . 3 .tg7 5 d4 0-0 (5 .td6. . 5 . . b6 4 . g6) C2 1 1 3 .t b7 is Chapter I I . de 6 1!t'a4 is a Catalan . a6!? 4 liJc3 ! (4 �g2 b5 ! ) 2 liJf6 (122) will lead t o a standard White space advantage after d4..te2 liJxc5 8 0-0 t) 6 . 'i¥xd5 ( ! ) ) the latter case. . . . when 8 .ic5) 5 cd liJ xd5 (5 . lii: b l ?? '@xc3 wins. Black's game. . .

. ..tg5! .!.txc6+ llJd7 1 0 . 1Wxg5 9 llJxd5 't!Vd8 10 1 9 79..tb8 1 4 f4 e f 1 5 gf ltl d7 ! ? (7 . 8 e3 llJ xc3 with .d6 I I d 3 .tf4 . "ilc7? 7 llJc3 de 8 llJxe5 "ilxe5 6 0-0 e5 !? 7 llJc3 . e6 8 0-0 .i. . .txc l 1 2 1978 .f4 4 llJxd5 llJd5 ! ? ( 1 2 . 'itd6 !? versus Pan no in Buenos A ires 1 980: 7 d3 !? . Quinteros tried the novel 6 . . llJg4 9 ltlc3 llJxe3 10 fe = Andersson­ e. 7 .te3!? e6 8 0-0 In teresting is 5 . ..d7 1 2 .. . B ugoj no 1 986.i. . . The main .txc6 be 1 0 'ifxc6 llb8 I I "ilxd6 lit b6 1 2 1Wc7 0-0 1 3 llJc3 . Reggio Emilia =/ro Korchnoi-Ka rpov..i.tg4 8 llJc3 cd 9 ed need tests. .. . 1 0 "ilxd8+ �xd8 I I ...te7 8 cd llJxd5 9 "ilc4 f5 =/ro Timman-Portisch. 6 d4 (124) 6 . .tg2 . . this options are 7 llJc3!? (e .i.txf3 8 llJc3 . .td7 8 de e5 9 0-0 . ..g4 1 2 ltJ 1 d2 llJd4 Andersson-Portisch.txc7 and 14 5 . . Sombor 1 9 76. .txc5 10 lbc3 t llJa6 I I .te7 =. 7 . Tilburg 1 980) 8 . 2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' 123 Black's position is exposed. . .. . .. . llJf6!? 7 e3 (7 . USSR . 5 llJc6 b) 6 . .td7 has become a popular position. . . A sampling of ideas: 7 llJg5 and even 7 llJa3!?. N ik�ic . . 7 tWa4 0-0 (or 9 .. .i.!. Miles-Ljubojevic.te6 = Miles-Lj ubojevic. . Moscow 1985) 7 . Finally.. . "ilxc4 ± Zaichik-Eingorn.tc4.e7 1 2 .i.t g2 e5 7 0-0 llJc6 ( 1 4 .g.d7 8 "ilb3 llJa5 9 'itc3 llJc6 10 1i'b3 =.tg7 . . 0-0) 15 . e6 10 "ila4 "ild7 I I 0-0 ... ad8 (?) 5 b3 f6! 6 . 7 .. e. . .. 0-0 1 3 .t xd5 ! "ilxg5 9 . b 5 !? 8 cb llJe7 .te6 8 llJg5 (8 9 . ..g. . .. .. .e7 1 3 de! ± Portisc h-Kavalek.t xd 5 "ile7 I I d3 .te7 9 de . Th ese a) 6 . ..d6 7 llJg5 ! lit c l ) 1 3 .t c6 1 1 B a3 llJ a6 1 2 "ilb3 .txc5 197 1 .d6 1 2 . 8 llJb5 "ilb8 9 cd llJxd5 10 llJg5 !?).d2! .. g6 !? 6 d4 .tg2 d5) 13 llJxd5 ed 14 litfel :U. 0-0 17 ..i. .txc6+ ± . .. .. e4) 8 .i.b2 0-0 1 3 "ile l !? ( 1 3 line has been 6 .te6 8 llJxe6 !.g. llJc7 7 e3 . or 6 .txg5 1 0 .tg4! Karpov) 1 0 'itc2 .i. .txe7 llJxe7 18 1Wxa7 ± Lucerne 01 1982... . Th e relevant Following Andersson's lead.txf3 16 ..i. 7 e4 llJc7 ! 8 d5 llJ b5 ! 9 0-0 Portisch. Nik�ic 1 9 83.. Kovacevic-Barle..i.td7? 8 c d 124 lbb4 9 "ild l llJfxd5 1 0 d 4 ! .td7 7 cd llJxd5 8 llJe3 litc8 I I b3 ( I I 'ita4!?) I I llJxe5! llJxe5 9 "ile4 etc. 7 . .

ie6 14 b3 . lieS 1 4 &i:Jb5 . lic8!? . . l 9S3. 124 2 !Df3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' li[ c l . ltJc2 9 ltJh4 't!t'xd4 ! 1 0 ltJ d2 ! ? .. 5 . xc6+ be l 2 ltJxf5 't!t'd7 1 3 't!t'a4 b) 4 . with the idea a) 4 d4 cd 5 ltJ xd4 d5!? 6 i..ig2 d6 't!t'xd I + 9 �xd l ltJxc6 (1 25) A fter 6 .ltJb6 7 de tt'xd l + S �xd l &i:Ja4 9 &i:Jc3 &i:Jxc5 (9 . then 9 't!t'xa5 ltJ xa5 1 0 4 b3 . . C212 or 7 . A lbu rt. ..id2!? Speelman) 1 0 .id7 I I .!. . d5?! 7 cd ltJ xd5 S . . Turin 1 982. . . USSR Ch l 97S. ltJac6 I I ltJc3 ltJc2 12 d 5 ! ) (6 . .ig7 ) 7 ltJO d4 S 0-0 ltJc6 9 e3 S .i e3?! ( 10 ltJb5 ! ltJe6 I I ltJ g5 ltJ cd4 1 2 ltJ xe6 ltJxb5 . 0-0? .. .t Andersson-Tim man .ig2 . 0-0 7 ltJc3 1tc7!? S 't!t'd3 ltJc6) mund l 9S5.g2 e5? 10 . I I i. g6 1 2 i. . Rome l 9S6. 19S2).id6 1 3 &i:Jc3 ( 1 3 &i:Ja3 !? plan­ ning &i:Jc4 or ltJb5 Andersson) 1 3 . . .id2 !? is interesting. .ig7 5 d4 cd 6 ltJ xd4 d5 !? g6... ltJxe6 1 3 .ib2 0-0 e) 6 . . London 1 9S2) 1 0 .ie3!? . . match (3) l 9S6) 1 2 lilc l g6 Novi S ad l9S2) S .ie3 ± Byrne) 1 0 e l ) 1 0 .ib2 t Nikolic-Ra zuvayev. .1 2 .ig7 14 � e l 0-0 15 �e2 . Wijk aan Zee �c l e5 15 ltJc4 t Miles-Ljubojevic. . c) 6 .ixc3 ! ( 14 .ixc5 10 b4 I I . .ixc6+ be l l ltJc3 ( I I . .id7 I I i. . and now best was 1 4 7 cd ltJxd5 S 0-0 0-0 9 ltJb5!? e6 1 0 ltJe4! gf 1 5 ltJ xc5 . .ie7 I I . . . Mar del Plata Hubner. .. and now 7 . although the e4 ltJb4 =.8 .ie6 13 �c 2 . .ig4 9 a3 cd 10 ab de I I be g6! + 1 5 ltJa4 ±) 1 5 li[ xc3 a5 = S myslov­ Andersson-Po rtisch.e3 . onus is on White to improve 4 .e3 llcS (or .i g7 d) 6 .. Dort­ (6 . . .ig6 ! ? 9 ltJxg6 1 3 f4 .if5 7 0-0 (7 ltJc3 ltJdb4 ! S e4 . Speelman­ Pritchett. Speelman-van der Wiel. . .ig4 10 't!t'b3 ! ± Tukma kov­ ( 1 0 .if5+ 14 Andersson-Seirawan. match (7) l 9 S 3 .9 de . Tilburg 19S3) I I . .ie7 . . ltJ xa l Belyavsky. 1 3 lilcl .i e 3 li eS 1 2 lil b l ltJa5 1 3 ltJe5 . cd 7 ltJ xd4 ltJdb4 8 &i:Jxc6 6 . ltJe6 I I � 2 g6 1 2 lilhd l t a5 1 2 ltJd2 . e6 S ltJe5 (S a3!? e 2 ) 1 0 ltJc3 . .ig7 earlier. Speelman­ . ltJxc3+ 1 0 be . .t Andersson-Portisch. . ltJdb4 (!) S a 3 !? (S 't!t'a4! 'tia 5 3 g6 ro Miles.i bS 1 5 &i:Jfd4 &i:Jxd4 16 &i:Jxd4 &i:Jd5 1 7 li d l .. e5 !? 1 2 li[c I 0-0-0.ie6 hg 10 ltJ c3 ! cd I I ltJ xd5 ed l 2 1!t'b3 = Andersson-Farago.

there Or 9 . 1 3 lt:ld6+ @xd6 (?) 14 _.8 i. e6!? and 7 .i.c4 I I e3? ! i.g4 1 2 h3 i. .e6 + Tempone-Kasparov. 9 . . d5 10 i. . I I . Hasti ngs 'it>h6 13 'ii'd 2 i. so Black is a tempo u p .xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 2 lt:lg5+ Dzindz ihashvili.. lt:le4 ! ?) 9 li:l xd4 i. Weinstein­ i. 8 lt:lc6 9 e3 Two good moves after 9 d3 are 9 . .i.xd4 1 6 i. 6 ed e6 7 a3 ! (7 i. . 0-0 7 0-0 h6! . d6 are possible) . d 3 ( 1 0 d4? e4 I I lt:lg5 lle8 + Webb­ But here 8 cd! lt:lxd5 is promising. ..!. B uenos A ires 01 10 cd (intending 1 0 . but Kudrin. i. . e. . although its lt:l xc3 1 2 be i. . . .g7 6 i. lt:lc6 8 d4 cd (8 .g4 + Kasparov.f4.b5 +) 1 978. . . . 'i!rd7 e. and 9 .xe6+ 'it>hH in Andersson­ Dort m und 1 980.e7 parov) I I .f5. . .f6 3 lt:lc3 b6 looks better. . b) 4 g6 seems best to me. _.g. . . . attained popularity. 2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 ' O thers' 125 i. .e2 Also 4 e 3 !? can be dangerous: e6 avoids locking in B lack's bishop a) 4 i. g5 !? i. 8 lt:lc3 8 e3 lt:lc6 9 d4?! ed 10 ed i. i. but I I _.xf6 7 . In 9 . lt:lc7. .o n a Benoni) 6 .xf6 I I i. ll ab8 1 2 lt:lg5 a6 = .d7 I 0 lt:lc3 'ii'a5 I I e3 t Romanishin-Gulko.. . 5 d4 ..b5+ i. 4 e4 i. .b7? 8 d5 is bad. .xb7 Tarjan.f5.e2 (6 d5 d6 7 e4 (}-0 8 i. Sk ara 1 980) 10 .78.i. e6 6 d5 . Adorjan. . . . a6 (9 . .e7 12 h4 ! or I I . lt:lh5 I 0 e3 f5 I I li:ld2 lt:lf6 = Now 8 i.c6 1 0 i. b 6 .xc3 17 i.c7 I I i.g. . i. . . e. Kasparov. . lt:lc6! 1 3 . xf6 . .xg7 �xg7 9 (}-0 b6 10 d4 t i. .) . . After 9 .d7 = lt:ld7 oo) 9 .xf7+ 'it>d8 C22 15 @xb7 Karlsson. lt:le8 1 0 lt:ld2 lt:lc7 ran into I 0 . . value is still unresolved. .xg5 Karlsson) 7 .b5+! ab 1 2 lt:l xb5 _. i.i. ed I I . .i.xb2 =. .e7 9 i.d5 . lt:le8 planning . . . 1 985.. lt:lb4 I I e4 i. .We bb. . .b7 5 d4 cd (5 .i.trs view of 14 d5 .d3 0-0 9 h4!? S peelman­ lt:la6!? (7 . (}-0! I I de fe 1 2 . 9 lt:le5 ( ! ) (9 . .e7 . contin ued 1 0 i. . followed 1 4 0-0 lt:lxd4 1 5 lL!xd4 i. .d6!?) 1 0 'i!rf3 Kasparov) I I a3 ( I I lt:lg5! t Kas­ _. . USA 1 977. 1 977. Here 1 0 . .a6! 15 de lle8. .txf6 Bernat-Rogers.d3 ( 1 0 . .7 . .g5 !? . d 5 (126) 7 0-0 e5 7 .i.g3 ! is still A risky line which suddenly good.g...d6 1 3 i. Wijk aan Zee 1984. USSR 1978. on b7.

. li:J c6) 7 of 9 c5?! be 1 0 i. . .. .e7 I I 0-0 l:l:c8 1 2 i.. (Greenfeld) was interesting. a6 oo Tal-Toskov.g5 (7 f3 11t"b8 !? 8 i. .g. Magyarorszag 8 0-0 i. �e4!? doesn't deserve the for 0-0-0 and a central advance: '??' I gave it (or £CO's " ±±" . .g5 i.f4 a6 1 3 0-0-0 't!t'c7 14 � b l i. . H owever.c2 a6 10 0-0-0 0-0 I I g4!). 't!t'b8 with the idea f4. . Albena 1984. . and now instead 5 i. ..b7 1 5 h5 li:Je5 1 6 l:l:h3 t (int ending 1 7 g6 ! ) Vera-Lebredo. Yugoslavia 198 1 ) 9 g5 li:Jfd7 1 0 h4 li:J c6 I I li:Jxc6 ( 1 1 i. Murei-Dankert. .e3 e6 9 1Wd2 No w 7 f3 would tranpose to i.d3 e6 6 0-0 d6 ! ? (6 . . . . Rome 198 1 ) 8 .g2 w i.g5 li:Jd7 10 0-0-0 'tireS I I �b l li:Jg5 8 li:Jxg5 fg 9 i.. 'it'b8 9 1!rd2 :!: (9 . .d3 �d7 1 0 0-0 h5 I I i. i. . .c2 i. J. Tal gives 1 2 ed! i.e3) 1 1 . . 7 li:Jd5 !? e6 8 �xf6+ 'it'xf6 (8 . Also 7 i. . . or 7 i. 9 .e2 11t"b8 ! ?) 7 .. . . c3 d6 1 4 An irregular seve nth move was g3 :!: . Managua 1 982. 126 2 li:JjJ In troduction and 2 ' Others' 8 e4 (8 b3 i.g2 a6 10 0-0 a) 4 . . . .g5 ! similar to the 4 . e. li:J c6 9 li:Jxc6 l:l: xc6 10 i.d2 e5 I I li:Jd5 i. li:J f3 ) 1 0 .g7 9 0-0-0 a Hedgehog-like position. and 7 i. .xd5 . and here I I . for 7 . li:Jbd7 1 0 f4 ± Lebredo) 8 g4!? (or 4 i.e3 ± with f4. b2 e6 = .g.b7 (9 .b7 (127) l:l:c8 I I i.d6 l 0 li:J db5 i. g6 8 i.xc6 1 2 i.c5 9 i.xc6 9 't!t'e2!? (9 i. i.. b2 was Ornstein-Lj ubojevic. . 127 i. li:J c6?! 8 li:J xc6 i. Winants.b7 9 i. SWIFT 1987.e7 ( 8 . .f4 t Cvetkovic­ Velikovic. . gf? e.xc6 that matter). b) 4 . li:J c6 !? 5 d4 cd 6 li:J xd4 i. .d3 e6 (7 . . d6 5 d4 cd 6 li:Jxd4 i. l:l:e8!? was best. h6 10 i. g6) = Csom-Horvath .e7 9 't!re2 0-0 1 0 b3 ( 10 �h l 1984. since 6 li:Je2 f6 ! 7 d3 9 i.b7!? 8 g3 . . li:J c 1 0 f3 a5 !?) 1 0 f3 with 1980. . 8 . Nice 01 1 974. . . preparing a) 5 . .e7 1 3 i.e5 I I f4 i. and here or 1 1 . 8 d5 d6 li:Jc5 1 2 f3 a5 1 3 h4 'it'b7 1 4 h5! 9 e4 li:J c7 l 0 a4 e6 =) 8 . e6 (7 . .d3 t) I I i. K orchnoi­ 12 J. London i. Berlin 1 983) . Greenfeld-K udrin.e3 e 6 8 f3 i s solid.e7 8 d4 cd 9 li:J xd4 a6 is 9 li:Jb5 'it'b8 1 0 1t"g4 li:Jd7 I I i. . cd 9 li:J xd4 ± Korchnoi-Gheorghiu. 5 e5 Beer-Sheva 1 984. 5 d3 d6 6 g3 is Chapter I I . . the biggest danger in 5 li:J g4 this sequence is 7 11t"e2 !?. 7 . li:Jbd7 9 i. . b5+ li:Jd7 +loo.b7 7 i.xc3 Chapter 1 3. . d6 lines above. . 8 . li:J bd7 8 li:J xc6 i. .d2 'it'c7 12 b3 :!: Korchnoi­ M akropoulos.xg5 (9 d4 !?) 9 .

! 984) 7 'ihf3 (7 gt1? cd 8 't!rxd4 li:Jc6 8 li:J xd4 e6 9 t!fe4) 7 ... . g6 9 .. Dzin dzihashvili. . Mar del Plata li:Jf7 1 2 .txf3 ! 8 1txf3 li:Jc6 9 e6 !? 6 d4 (6 . much room for independent in­ 6 li:J h6 vestigation. ... . . . .. g6 10 ..te7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 lil e l 1 98 1 . .. e6. 1ib8 9 . went 9 .td3 .. Lone Pine 1980) 7 cd 6 . and the reader will find I I 1i'd4 d6 1 2 0-0-0 =/oo Uhlmann.td3 . .tf4 view of 3 . After 8 . Planinc. cd 7 li:Jxd4 g6 8 .txf3 !? (6 . .g 7 9 't!re2! llJ c6 1 0 li:Jf3 li:J h6 1 1 the idea 9 . London ± Uhlmann..tc2 li:Jd4 1 4 .tg3 li:Jgxe5 1 0 llJxe5 li:J xe5 however. 7 d4 b) 5 .t b7 5 e5.ta4+ �f8 =/ oo (9 .txf3 ! 7 1!rxf3 li:Jc6 8 g6 = U hlmann-Adorjan. .tf4 1 3 . Yugoslav Ch 1 977) 9 . a 6 1 0 li:Jf3 f5 1 1 g3 Portisch-Quinteros..tf4 li:Jc6 10 llJf3 .. .. . . be 10 . lLg8 is a more serious option: 7 . be 9 1i'e4 li:J xd4 14 'it'xd4! was Gheorghi u­ ( 9 . ..txh6!?) 9 .tg2 .tg7 9 t!fg3 with space and the bishops 1 1 . . . . Romania 1979..td3 .te2 li:Jf5? 1 2 g4 ! li:J fd4 1 3 li:Jxd4 would be interesting) 8 . . Vaganian-Pytel. 6 h3 This is a rather s kimpy over­ 6 d4!? cd 7 li:Jb5 ! li:Jc6 8 ... .txh6 gh 1 1 e6 ! h4 ! V ± Mestel-Miles. Sa rajevo "fWg3 g6 was equal in Qu interos­ 1982. . li:J c6 8 de (8 d 5 !? li:J xe5 8 ..tf4 7 .tg7 1 1 f4 f5 1 2 1te3 d6 Buenos Aires 01 1978. li:Jc6 1 5 h4 h6 1 6 h5 :V ±. . b6 4 e4 . . .. 2 liJf3 In troduction and 2 ' Others' I 27 ttJc6 may be a playable gambi t.tf4 li:Jd4 1 0 1t'e4 f5 ! = Raicevic­ S tefanov.txf3 8 1hf3 li:Jc6 9 de! with i. .

d3 'it'a5 3 lLlc3 g6 (128) 10 0-0 ! ) 7 lLlc2 (7 i. . ..e2 i. have cast 1 3 lLlb5 lLld7! 1 4 'it'd4 lLlc5 1 5 i.g5 lit c8 1 1 lLla3 h6 1 2 i. d6 8 i.g.e6 9 e4 lLld7 I 0 lLld5 lLlc5 I I f3 f5 =/oo K ee ne-Tal. . 0-0 1 1 i. lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 1 c4 cS a) 6 e3 lLlf6 (6 . . .a6 1 2 lD d4 lLl a5 developed better systems.b7 10 i. dark squares and maintain flexi­ or 7 .. lLlf6. e . . . . .g5 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 d5 9 cd lLl xd5 10 lLlxc6 be 1 1 l!Ja4 128 lLld7! = van Scheltinga-Tarjan. A 4 d4 129 B 4 e3 B 4 a3 i.. w Wij k aan Zee 1 973-74) 7 . Spain 1 975. colours reversed)9 e4 i. 0-0 (7 . .xc3+ 8 be lLlf6) 8 i.h6 !?) 4 e3 . and the fact that B lack has 10 .xc3+ 8 be lLlf5 9 i.g7 5 litb1 a5 6 e3. e2 b6!? (8 . . 10 Three Knights: 2 .g5 i.ibner­ Diez del Corral.g7 6 lLlc2 (1 29) . l!Jf6 7 d4 cd 8 ed d5 9 i. But the difficulties following i. . Maribor disuse. H astings 1973-74) 8 i.e6 I 0 e 4 = is Chapter 6. This variation hopes to control b) 6 lLlb3!? d6 7 e4 b6!? (or 7 . i.. lLlh6 7 lLlc2 !? . h6 the Three K n ights into relative lLle6 = Osterman-Holzl. Hi. .e2 bility. USSR 1 966. . is well a ns wered by 6 .g4! etc.h4 a6 1 3 1Wd2 lth7 14 0-0 t Korchnoi-Gipslis. d6 9 0-0 i. . 1983. A 4 d4 cd S lLlxd4 i. i. . 2 lLlf3 l!Jc6 7 .xc3+ 9 be lLlf6 10 f3 ( 10 i.

Three Knights: 2 . . . ltlc6 3 ltlc3 g6 129

A I ' 6 . . . d6 8 f3
A2 6 . . . .1xc3+ 8 ltlb4!? 9aS 9 ltld5 ltl e4 ! 10
6 . . . ltlf6?! 7 g3 d6 8 .i.g2 �0 9 �0 9c2 ltld6 I I e4 llJeS 12 .i.f4 f6 1 3
(or 9 b3 �) 9 . . . .i. d7 (9 . . . '1Va5 1 0 .i.e2 ( 1 3 lit d I !? ltldf7 1 4 .i.g3 ±
e 4 � or 1 0 .i.d2 ± or 1 0 l0 d 5 ± ; 9 . . . planning f4) 1 3 . . . ltldf7 1 4 .i.e3 d6
.1e6 1 0 b 3 9d7 I I ltldS .i.fS 1 2 I S lit b l ;t Szabo- Ribli, Wijk aan
,ib2 ltlxdS 1 3 .1xg7 rj;xg7 1 4 Zee 1 97 3 .
.i.xdS ! .i.h3 I S lit e I h S 1 6 ltle3 8 d6
h4 17 litcl ± intending cS, 9 e4 .i.e6
Petrosian-Smej kal , Amsterdam Now Tai manov recommends 1 0
1 973) 10 b3 9c8 I I .tb2 .i.h3 .i.h6!? or 10 ltld4. · Quinteros­
12 l:t b l litd8 13 e4 .1xg2 1 4 Fischer, B u enos A ires 1 970, went
rj;xg2 e6 I S l:t e l a6 1 6 ltl a4 ! 10 .i.e2!? liteS I I ltle3 9a5 1 2 .i.d2
± Korchnoi-Htibner, m atch (2) llJeS 1 3 9b3 l0 fd7 ! 1 4 f4 tOeS I S
1 980. 9c2 ltlc6 1 6 � 0 9a4! +.
AI B
6 d6 4 e3 (130)
7 g3
7 e3 .1xc3+ = . 7 e4 .1xc3+ is line 130

A2, and here 7 ... ltl h6 8 h4!? (8 B

.1e2) 8 ... fS 9 hS fe 10 ltlxe4 is given
as unclear by Botvinnik.

7 .te6
8 l0e3 liteS
9 .i.g 2 9d7?!
Better 9 . . . .1xc3+. After 9 . . .
't1Vd7 , Keres-Kuij pers, 1959, went
10 .i.d2 .i.h3 I I .1xh3 9xh3 1 2
ltlcdS ltlh6 1 3 9b3 9d7 1 4 .i.c3 This presents serious problems
U ±. for 3 . . . g6 , and has accounted for
A2 its fall from favour. The threat is
6 .1xc3+ d4-dS.
7 be lt)f6 ! ? B l 4 . . . ltlf6
The lines with . . . 1t'a5 are deal t B2 4 . . . d 6
with in Chapter 6, line A, since B3 4 . . . .i.g7
that order is now the main way of 81
reaching these positions. In fact, 4 ltlf6
7 . . . 9aS is probably Black's best. S d4 cd

130 Three Knights: 2 . . . li'lc6 3 liJc3 g6

.ie2 .ig7 8 0-0 li'lh6 (8 . . . li'lf6 is
' 83'; 8 . . . .ixf3 9 .ixf3 li'l xd4 1 0
.ixb 7 lilb8 I I .ie4 U ±) 9 d5 .ixf3
1 0 .i xf3 li'le5 I I b3 (}.0 1 2 i. d2 a6
13 .ie2 li'l f5 1 4 U.e I @b8 1 5 lic l
U.c8 1 6 f4 li'ld7 1 7 .ig4 ± S mej kal­
Zi nn, Lugano 01 1 968 .
6 i.e2 .ig 7
7 d5 liJ aS
7 . . . li'le5?? 8 li'lxe5 .ixe2 9 @a4+.
7 ... .ixc3+ 8 be li'la5 9 e4 b6 10 0-0
li'lf6 I I h3 ± Taimanov, e.g. I I . . .
.ixf3 1 2 .ixf3 0-0 1 3 .ih6 lieS 1 4
'itd3 li'ld7 1 5 .ie2 lt:le5 1 6 'i!t"g3
lt:lexc4 1 7 f4 etc. Finally, 7 . . . lt:l b8
8 h3 .ixf3 9 .ixf3 lt:lf6 I 0 0-0 0-0
I I 'itd2 a6 1 2 U. b l ! lt:lbd7 1 3 .ie3
Wi nning d5. 7 cd li'lxd5 1s a was also ± in Smyslov-Simagi n,
Caro-Kann. USSR 1 95 1 .
7 lLle4 8 0-0
Nothi ng works, e .g. 7 . . . .ig4 Or 8 .id2 lt:lf6 9 h3 .ixf3 10 .ixf3
8 .ixf6 ef 9 cd i.xf3 10 1!hf3! 0-0 I I b3 a6 1 2 0-0 U.b8, Tai­
li'lxd4 I I @e4+ @e7 12 (}.(}.0 ± , or Velimirovic, Titograd 1 984, and
7 . . . .ig7 8 .ixf6 i.xf6 9 cd li'lb8 1 0 now best is 1 3 a4! .
h3 0-0 I I .ic4 li'l d7 1 2 0-0 ± 8 lt:lf6
Uhlmann-Pribyl, Tallinn" 1 977. 8 . . . .ixc3+ 9 be lt:lf6 I 0 lt:ld2
8 cd li'lxc3 .ixe2 I I 1!¥xe2 0-0 12 e4 li'ld7 1 3
9 be 'ihd5 I 0 .ie2 (" 1 0 'tlrb3 ±" li'lb3 with the idea .ih6, f4 etc.
8o tvinnik) 1 0 . . . .ig7 I I (}.0 0-0 12 9 h3 .ixO
c4 't!Vd6 1 3 d 5 li'la5? ( 1 3 . . . .ixa l 14 10 .ixf3 0-0 I I .ie2 e6 1 2 de ( 1 2
'i!t"xa l ± ) 14 U.c l b6 15 U.el U. e8 e4 ed 1 3 ed ;l;) 1 2 . . . fe 1 3 @c2 'i!t"e7
1 6 c5! ±± ( 1 6 . . . be 1 7 1Wa4) Rogoff­ 14 b3 lt:lc6 1 5 .ib2 i Filip-Averbakh­
Zuckerman, Lone Pi ne 1 978. Moscow 1 96 1 .
82 83
4 d6 4 .i g 7
5 d4 .i g4 5 d4 d6
5 . . . .ig7, most often played, is 5 . . . lt:lf6? 6 d5 lt:lb8 7 e4 d6 8
line 83 below. 5 . . . cd 6 ed .ig4 7 .ie2 ± Welin-Zieher, Copenhagen

Three Knigh ts: 2 . . lt:\c6 3 lLlc3 g6
.. 131

1982. Better 5 ... cd 6 ed d6 (6 . . . 10 f4 lt:lf7, Pytel-Tal, Jurmala 1 983;
tDf6 7 d 5 lt:lb8 8 d 6 ! ± ) 7 d5 (or 1 1 g4!? ed 1 2 g5 lt:le4 l 3 lt:l xd5 lt:l g3
7 i.e2) 7 . . . lt:l e5 (7 ... lt:lb8 8 i.d3 =/oo Pytel.
lt:lf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 i.g5! ±) 8 lt:l d4 6 lt:lf6
(or 8 lt:l xe5 ;!;) 8 . . . lt:l h6 9 h3 0-0 1 0 6 . . . cd 7 ed lt:l f6 8 d5 lt:lb8 9 0-0
i.e3 lt:l f5 1 1 lt:lxf5 .ixf5 1 2 g4 .ic8 0-0 10 .ie3 ;!; Portisch-Petrosian,
1 3 f4 t Partos-Paidoussis, Ista nbul S an Antonio.
1 975. 7 d5
6 .ie2 (132) Or 7 0-0 cd 8 ed .ig4 9 d5 .ix£3
10 .ix£3 lt:le5 1 1 .ie2 ;!; Uhlmann­
B rowne, Zagreb 1 970.
7 lt:la5
7 . . . lt:le5 8 lt:ld2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10
a4 lt:le8 1 1 f4 lt:ld7, Ribli-Pogats,
Hungarian Ch 1972, and now Haag
gives 12 Jil a3 ! .
8 e4
Or 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ti'c2 ;!;. A fter 8 e4 ,
Filip-Sanz, Olot 1975, went 8 ...
0-0 9 h3 (o r 9 0-0 .ig4 1 0 .ie3!?
6 d5!? is not so clear, e.g. 6 . . . .ixf3 l l gf ;!;) 9 ... a6 1 0 0-0 llb8 l l
lt:le5 ( or 6 . . . i. xc3+!? 7 be lt:l a5 ) lle l ! .i d7 1 2 e5 lt:le8 1 3 .if4 b5 1 4
7 li:ld2 (7 lt:lxe5 i. xe 5 8 i.e2 lt:l f6!? cb a b 1 5 1t'd2 ;!;.
9 0-0 g5!? - 9 0- 0 (D - 1 0 i.d3 g4
000

I I ct>h 1 Jilg8 oo Keene-va n der Conclusion. 4 e3 is still a good
Wiel, Aarhus 1 983) 7 . . . f5 8 .ie2 reason to avoid 3 . . . g6. The Three
lt:lf6 9 h3 e6!? (9 .. 0-0 10 f4 lt:lf7 00
0 Knights is probably doomed to
Korchnoi-Fischer, Sousse I Z 1 967) lasting quiescence.

11 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

I c4 c5 can prove im portant. White can
2 lt:lf3 lDf6 gain a tempo in certain lines, and
3 g3 sidestep problems based on . . .
3 lt:l c3 e6 4 g3 b6 will often trans­ lt:le4 i n others, b y choosing 5 lt:l c3
pose, but unique is 5 e4 .tb7 (5 . . . e6 6 d4 cd (6 . . . lt:le4 7 d5 ( ! ) lt:l xc3
lt:lc6 6 .tg2 .tb7 7 0-0 t!Vb8 8 ll e l 8 be .ie7 9 e4) 7 'ti'xd4 (133)
d6 9 d 4 c d 1 0 lDxd4 ;t Romanishin­
Vaiser, Sochi 1 984) 6 'it'e2!? lt:lc6
(6 ... d6 7 d4 cd 8 lDxd4 a6 9 .tg2
'ti'c7 10 0-0 lt:lbd7 I I .te3 ! was
Korchnoi-Csom, Rome 1 98 1 , or
here 8 ... g6! ? 9 .tg2 a6 1 0 0-0 lt:lbd7
I I lld l 'ti'b8 1 2 a4 ! .tg7 1 3 a5 ±
Petrosian-Psa khis, Las Palmas I Z
1 982) 7 .tg2 d6 8 0-0 .te7 9 ll d I
a6 (9 . . . lt:l d4? 1 0 lt:lxd4 cd I l lt:lb5
e5 12 lDxd4 ! ed 1 3 e5 ± Seirawan­
van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1983; a) 7 ... .ic5?! 8 'ti'f4 0-0 9 0-0 d5,
9 ... e5!?) 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 lt:l xd4 Vaganian- Browne, Gjovik 1983,
1 2 ll xd4 'it'c7 1 3 b3 !? ( 1 3 .te3 !) and now Adorj an gives 1 0 lld l !
1 3 . . . b5 1 4 .t b2 e5 1 5 ll d d l be 1 6 'ti'e7 I I cd lt:lxd5 1 2 lt:lxd5 .ixd5
ll a c l =/ ro Rivas-Short, Plovdiv 13 b3 ± .
1 984. b) 7 ... d6 8 0-0 i s a main line, but
3 b6 8 .tg5 is challenging: 8 . . . lt:lbd7
3 . . . e6 4 .ig2 lt:lc6 5 0-0 b6 !? 6 (8 . . . .ie7 9 li d I h6 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6
d4 cd 7 lt:l xd4 .t b7 8 lt:lb5 !? (8 lt:lc3) I I 'it'f4 - 1 / 'ti'e3!? - I I . . . .txc3+
8 . . . d6 9 .if4 e5 1 0 .ig5 a6 I I .txf6 12 be g5, Chekhova-Litinskaya ,
gf 1 2 lt:l 5c3 ;Vro Pigott-Brittan , USSR 1 984, and now 1 3 'it'e3 ! ;t
London 1 979. Chekhova) 9 lt:lb5 t!Vb8 (9 . . . h6 1 0
4 .tg2 .i b7 .ixf6 lt:l xf6 I I lld l lt:le4 1 2 lt:lh4
5 0-0!? lbc5 1 3 0-0! ± Suba-K indermann,
An issue of move order which Dortmund 1 985; 9 ... e5!? l O lt:lxd6+

.ixe4 8 d3 .. is not available . Georgadze. e5 9 b3 lLl c6 1 0 a3 0-0 I I lii: b l a5 1 2 lLld5 = Plachetka­ Vaisman.ib2 ( 1 2 . . . simply or 6 cd lLl xd5 7 0-0 intending d4 is 8 . 8 .ib7 9 e4 . Copenhagen 1 985.tg5 h6 1 3 cd! ed 1 4 . .id2 0-0 h5?! ( 1 0 .ib4 is the main .ic6 14 lLld5 .!:) 7 . . see b3 0-0 I 2 .ie7 B 6 . . . Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 133 . . ll c8 1 3 Other tries include 8 . d6 7 lii: e 1 (7 d4 cd 8 lLlxd4 !?) 7 .td6 9 'ira4+ lD bd7 10 . lLlc6 8 'irf4 .i e l lii: c7 1 4 e4 lii: d 7 1 5 'it'e3 't!fa8 . planning l l .if6 1 2 lLle4? . 5 e6 (134) A 6 . .. Stara Pazova I983. or even 1 0 .. but 7 'irc2! looks . .te3 ± = Stean-Andersson.td6 l 0 'tlfh4 0-0 I I lLlc3 . 1!1b8 has its points.. . lii: e 8 . ..g.!: Romanishin­ interesting is 1 0 . about equal) I I . Otherwise 8 .!: Fedorowicz.i e l 'irb8 1 4 Rashkovsky-Kharitonov.ig5 . since 9 lLlb5 the alternative..ie7 (7 .t xb2 ! ) 1 1 'tlfc4 lLlc6 bishop is diverted from b2. .. .ixd6 I I 'it'xd6 lLlc4 Suba) 1 0 lii:d l ' A3 ') 7 cd lDxd5 (7 . lLl a5 ) I I lii: fd l ( I I b ) 6 d4 cd 7 'irxd4 lLlc6 8 '1Vf4 can ll ad l a6 1 2 lLld4 1!1c8 1 3 lLl xc6 be independent. . .ie3 ) I 2 . . 1 2 lLlc3 lii: c8 with equality in New York 1 985) 13 . . . . and 8 .. . 0-0! . . lLl bd 7 1 0 e4 c) 7 . . 0-0 1 0 lii:d I lLl e7 ro K asparov. b) 6 . . Sverd­ h3? ! a 6 1 5 't!fe3 b5 ! + H . . d5 6 lLle5 ding e4 looks . d 5 !? ) 8 d 3 lLlf6 9 e4 d 6 1 0 lLlc3 . .. Amsterdam Stukaturkin-Sakharov USSR 1 98 1 . 8 . .. .. . . lLle7 9 lLle5 !? . 9 'it'a4+ 'ird7 (9 .!: A ..ic7 I I .!:.!:. e.txg2 1 0 �xg2 lLlg6 1 1 lLlxg6 hg 16 't!fe2 lii: c8 ro Frias-De Firmian. . lLl c6 9 d4 cd 1 0 lLl xd4 lii: c 8 I I a) 6 d3 d5 (for 6 . ..ie7 !? (now that White's . lii:c 8 and .ie7 1 3 . . . Aside from this.tc5 9 lLlc3 De Firmian. ed 8 lDe5!?. or 10 lDe5 !?) 1 0 'irg4 problem with this order: 9 . . 1 979) 1 2 lii: ac l h6 ( 1 2 . 5 d 3 !? e6 6 e4 although in this case I I lLl e5 inten­ d6 transposes to A3.Greenfeld-Suba. lLle4!? 7 lLla4!? (7 lLlxe4 . lLlxc3 1 1 be ..ih3 e . d5 !? 9 lii: d l ! . . lLlc4 . 'ire7.ie7 = Fedorowicz.ie7 Thessaloniki 01 1 984. also 1 2 'ira4! 0-0 1 3 .ie7 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cd is 'A2'.. a 6 1 2 e4 d 6 1 3 1!1e3 lii: a 7 .ih6 10 0-0 .ixc6 1 4 e4 d6.Oiafsson­ lovsk 1 984.. . USSR 1 972. . . Finally. or 6 lLlc3 8 . . a6 a) 6 .ie7 1 2 d6 ( I I . e5 I I 'ire3 a6 l 2 lLl c3 . 5 . . . .ie7 7 e4 d6.g. .if4 ro) 8 lDc3 .

if4 t Uhlmann-Szabo.if4 '@b7+ 1 2 0 0 0 14 e5! ±) 13 lUd I li dS 14 . Beersheva 1 9SO. . lt:Jxd4 S lt:Jxd4 .ie 7 I I b3 ( 1 1 li d l a6 1 2 ti'd3 d) 6 . and lt:J xe6!? fe 1 0 ot>xg2 en Siddeek­ instead of the normal 12 . e5 S d3 . Thus 7 .ib4 1 2 e.g. .g. 7 · o o lil:cS?! S e5! lt:JgS 9 d3 d6 1 0 lid I e5) S e4 d6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:J xd4 .ic5 13 '@d3 A .id6 ! =.g. I I . 1 2 . and 7 t!Yc2 !? 0-0 (7 lt:Jc6 S e4 d6 9 0 0 . 10 'tWbS I I . Smej kal.. I I o o · .ixg2 9 ot>xg2 (9 Andersson. since 7 d4 lt:Jd7) I I 0-0. /34 Queen 's Indian and Hedgehog = Karlsson-Fe dorowicz. sa w 7 'i!t'bS !? 8 d4 0 0 0 Dzindzihashvili.ie7 1 4 . db is the main answer: c) 6 .ib4!? ot>g 1 d6 1 3 .ic6 1 5 a4 a6 16 f4 lia7 17 a5 b5 . .ig5 . = . are suspect. Moscow 1 972. cd 10 '@xd4 is considered equal . e.ixf6 ! = . when 1 4 · o o lil:eS! would have been but S li e I (S d6 9 d4 !) or S d3 000 equal . 1 2 '@bS ( 1 2 o o • a6? 1 3 li fd 1 lt:JeS 0 0 0 e.id2 t Karpov-Hort. or 1 0 a6. . Lugano improves.ib2 a6 1 4 t!Ye2 was Smyslov­ Biel IZ 1 976.if4 '@c6+ 1 2 f3 . lLld7 . .ie7 1 2 t!Ye2 a6 13 llfd l .ie7!?) 10 lil:e I cd I I cd . . S d4 cd 9 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 (9 li eS 1 0 0 0 0 lt:J xd5 S d4 lt:Jxc3 9 be lt:Jd7 (9 . or 1 0 '@bS 000 0 0 0 IS ti'b6 . Christiansen­ 0 0 . ..ig5 ! f6 1 3 . Amsterdam lt:Jbd7 1 1 li d 1 '@bS 1 2 b3 lieS 1 3 1 972.ie7 14 lil: d 1 0-0 = Fedorowicz. d5 7 cd (or 7 lt:J e5) 7 ..if4 is promising.ib2 ti'bS Fedorowicz. ..ie7 9 lt:Jh4 0-0 A3 7 d3 1 0 lt:Jf5 lt:J d4 1 1 g4! t Stean­ A4 7 d4 Sch neider. Estes Park 19S4) 9 . Hastings 1979-SO. 19S3. lt:Jxc6 ( ! ) .ixc6 I I . . . cd 9 lt:J xd4 lt:J xd4 10 'it'xd4 .ixf6 .. . t!Yc 7 1 4 li ac l t!YbS 1 5 e5 ! ) 1 0 t!Yxd4 Waddi nxveen 1 9 79. 6 .Larsen. . .ia3 ( ! ) prevents o o .ie7 (136) So W hite' s best is 7 e4 (135) 136 w A I 7 b3 A2 7 lil: e l Now 7 .lt:Jc6 is popular.

. . d5 is fi ne. New is 7 . a6 10 d4 lt:lbd7? I I d5! ed 1 2 0-0.I I .tf6 ( 1 3 . Helsinki 10 e4 lt:lc6 ) 8 . by e4/d4/ 1 8 e6 with the attack. xb7 1 5 lt:l d5 ±±: Hulak. 7 fJ. . . . Ribli.!. b8 1 3 lt:l f5 de? 1 4 d 4 . e . . a6 is B l . 7 . USSR 198 1 .. lt:l xc3 (9 .!. Tbilisi 1969. 1t'c7 I I 1t'e2 lt:l e4 =. .1 1 . .txd5 1 5 1t'xd5 ± Andersson­ Plovdiv 1 983 . . .e8 1 2 e4 cd Czechoslovakia 1978 . .Gu revich. fJ.txd5 lt:lf6 I I d4 ro Speelman. . Browne . lt:le4!? 1 2 . .txc3 cd 1 2 1Wxd4 1t'xd4 was equal in Andersson-Polugayevsky. 9 . lt:lxc3 I I . Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 135 Al lt:l xd4 .a7 1 3 lLlf5 d4 14 ed ± 8 lt:la4!? (8 lt:lxe4 . d5 del Plata 1982.or I I fJ. . or 8 . .b8! cd I I lt:lxd4 lLl 8c6 . e.!.. Seirawan- . . Larsen-G ligoric.\12 Smej kal-Ribli.te7 to 7 d4.c8 I I fJ. Mar A 2 l 7 .ib2 d6 8 . A22 7 . 9 cd lt:lxd5 1 0 d 4 ( 1 0 lt:l xd 5 .cl lLld7 12 d4 fJ.1 2 lt:l xc6 1 3 lt:lxd4 a6 was Dzindzihashvili­ = lt:l xc6 13 e5! . c8) 16 d5! ed 17 e5 . 7 dS b ) 9 . . . Lucerne 0 I 1 982) 10 . to gain a tempo on lines 7 b3 0-0 where he plays d4/1t'xd4/e4/. N ow I I 1t'e2 fJ. . 8 .txe4 9 d3 . Ftacnik-Meduna. . . d5 9 cd ed 1 0 d3 = 1 983) 13 lt:l xd5 lt:l xd5 14 . .id4 \12 .d l 't!fc7 13 d4 1t'b7 1 4 de lt:l xc5 1 5 . fJ. . lLlc6 1 0 fJ.el (13 7) lt:l a 5 ! ? ) 1 4 fJ.tb7 Karlsson-D. .e8 1 5 h4 h 6 (?) The most important alternative ( 1 5 . cd b 5 ! .c7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 ed d5 14 cd � 8 . lt:l b4!? 10 d4 = 10 d4 fJ.c l 8 cd ed fJ.txb7 fJ. with the idea e5 . a) 9 . d5 8 e3 lt:le4!? lt:ld4 etc.txd5 I I 1t'b l . d6 9 e3 lt:lbd7 Black must be careful after 7 . lt:l xd5 9 e4 (9 lt:lxd5 ed 10 d4 Petrosian-Dolmatov. . . .ib2 . .e3/ 7 .ib2 . e l !? fJ. . Best A21 seems 10 . d 6 9 d4 c d 10 lt:l x d4 . . . . .Fedder. fJ.g. . 0-0 12 a3 Stopping d5 d ue to I I d5 ed 1 2 ltJ4c6 13 e5! . . .if6 1 0 'it'c2 lt:lxc3 I I . 0-0 ) 9 .ixc3 d4 = Le i n-Gurgenidze. . . . Amsterdam 1 978... lt:ld7 12 fJ.b l fJ. . Portoroz 1 979) 10 be 0-0 I I d4 cd A2 12 cd lLlc6 1 3 . g . 8 e4 lt:lc6?! 9 e5! lLle8 1 0 lt:lh4! g6 ( 1 2 . Wij k aan Zee 1983. . c8 . W hite hopes.

._d8 =) 1 4 .tf2 e5 Mar del Plata 1 9S2.0 1 3 f4 lit fe8 I 4 f5 !? e 5 1 5 ltlc2 I 0 . I O �3 lLl bd7 ( 1 0 . the con tinu­ 1 1 . ( 1 2 . 11 . . I I .. . 198 1 .. . litac8 14 g4 ( 1 4 f5 e5 I 5 More c ommon than 7 . . . .te3 lLl bd7 1 2 f4 also lLlh5 18 lLld5 oo Fedorowicz . 136 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog Timman.d7 1 2 e4! ltlxe4 ( 1 2 . . d4?! 1 3 ltlf5 ! . . a6 runs into 14 g4 I I e5 ( ! ) de 12 .xc4?? loses to 12 lite I ( I 2 . match I 984._d l =.tb2 =. . . .tgS 10 de be 1 1 ltlh4 is worth a look. . lit eS =) I 2 � 1 3 e5 !). e5 I 7 fe de 1 8 lLld5. .xd4 ...txb7 lita7 13 ltlc6 a ) 14 .xe4 ! Kan­ Taimanov._c8 I I . I 2 .. . 10 ltlbd7 0. 0-0 9 d4 cd 10 ltlxd4 has the looks better than I 6 b4. drawback that 10 . . . a nd 1 0 ltle5 cd I I -.. d5. ltlc5 I 5 ..xh4 with an unclear 10 lLl xd4 'tllc7 position in Fedorowicz-Browne.g.te3! US Ch I 9 S4. 1 6 . I 5 g4 e5 I 6 ll:lf5 g6 1 7 g5!? . ation I I lit c l h6 ( I I . Mar del ltle4 o r I I . I 984. Dezan-Bass. 7 d6 b ) 13 . . . USSR 1977.tdS 14 ltla4) 1 3 ll:lxe4 de I 4 -. 0-0 12 g4 !? is dangerous. .xd7 ltlxd7 1 5 . . b) 14 rs ltlf8 I 5 g4 ±. ll:la6 I I lit c l liteS ( 1 1 . . And here 1 0 .. I I b3 ltlbd7 I 2 . difficult to handle.t 11 ltlbd7 Romanishin-Tal . 1 6 ltlf5 ef I 7 b4 ! ±± Lemach ko­ A2 Aiexandria.. . litad8 1 4 g4 ltlc5 I 5 .. e5 . .g. but ltld5 .tfl .tf8 I 5 b3 lit ac8 I 6 f5 e5 11fxd i 1 4 lLlxe7+ �hS I 5 lit xd i I7 ltlc2 b5 = Spassov-Stoica. Larsen-Quinteros. but 1 4 . .txf6 lLlxf6 1 3 -.g. Other moves include 10 . favours White. USSR Ch I 95 2. Las Palmas 19S l . .tg3 ! . a) 1 3 . e. b 5 ! . ltlc6!? I I de ltla5) 1 1 de ll:lxc5 I 2 . ltl e 4 =) 1 3 d e be I 4 ltl a4 . . .. I I . . .tc5 1 2 �4 9 d4 cd ltle4 I 3 ltlxe4 -. h6 Tal) I 2 e 3 ltlc7 ! ? Plata 1982. . S . . e. After 10 . 9 d4 �0 10 ..i. . . ltlbd7. Athens lit xb 7 1 6 b 3 etc. and now 1 6 8 e4 a6 (138) .tf4 ltla6! =. .tf2 g6. -.a4 a6 1 4 de be 12 litc1 0-0 1 5 ltld2 litbS I 6 e4 de led t o a level 13 f4 litfe8 game in Qu interos-Polugayevsky. e.

and against 7 .. C l 7 . lle8 1 4 b4 .. . In general. continued 1 0 lLl f5 ll d8 . d5 C2 7 . . c 1 5 .ixd5 seems =. . due to to 6 lLlc3 a bove. . 8 eel . d5 !? . ed 1 8 be be isn't enough) A t ry t o improve upon 1 4 . . 8 fter 9 . e5 8 lLle5!? 0-0 9 . B u t On 8 . . 16 . . f6.ifl (l39) 7 d3 This variation is fai rly com mon /39 due to orders like I c4 llJf6 2 lLlc3 B lLlf6 3 g3 e6 4 llJf3 b6 5 e4 . . . . Los 1 7 cd lLlxf2 or 1 7 lLlxe4 de 1 8 .. h6 1 2 de be 1 3 a3 i ntending 1 7 . . .ig5 lLlc7 1 2 d4 h6 lLlxe4 de = ( although here 1 7 g5 ! ? Winslow) 1 1 . .ifl Angeles 1 982. Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 137 1 5 llJd5 1t'd8 or 14 . . . giving 1 6 e5?! lLlfe4 =t= with the idea the game Shirazi-Winslow. but it 0-0 comfortably equal. 'it'xe7 2 1 "itd2 llc8. llac8 1 7 llfl 'ifb8 18 f5 e5. . . 16 . d6 . . . Li nares 1 98 1 . .ib7 5 d3 etc. . . . 9 . when Black gets some com­ 9 lLle5 0-0 is harmless and 9 d4 pensation for the exchange. . .if8 is critical. . . 0-0 C1 7 dS Not possible i n the above­ mentioned move orders.ib7 6 d3 or I c4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 e6 3 llJf3 b6 4 e4 . lLlxd5 19 cd a5 20 lLl xe7+ (lest . . . doesn't look sufficient. 1 8 de fe 1 9 lLlxe6 1lhg4 ( 1 9 . 'tireS lljf8 1 5 g 5 lLlfd7 1 6 b 3 ( 1 6 'W'g4!?) 20 'W'b3 ! ) 20 lLlc7 ± .tb2 . but 7 . d5 is likely now Fedorowicz gives 19 lLlde2! equal.tf8 1 5 may be good). 16 . .ig5) 2 0 . A key position. . . . and 16 ed ed 1 7 b4 lLlce4! 1 8 lLla6 1 1 d4 ( 1 1 . . . 1 6 cd! as best. 'it'xf4 17 b4 14 lLl cS ltJcd7 ( 17 . with the idea lLlg3. Fedorowicz suggests lLlb5 lLlc7 1 6 lLlxc7 'it'xc7 1 7 . 9 'it'a4+ is note 'a' 1 6 lLlf5 ! seems t o improve. 9 0-0 Fedorowicz analyses 1 5 .. lLl xd5. but 1 6 fe (?) de 17 lLlf5 ll ad8 1 8 ltJd5 could be tried.if4 'it'c8 1 0 cd versus Agdestein in Naestved 1985: lLl xd5 1 1 lLlxd5 . e. . . Ftacnik suc­ 8 cd ceeded with the move 1 5 . ef 1 7 g5 lLlfd7 1 8 b4 lLle6 1 9 9 lLl h4!? lLld5. 'it'd7 10 e4!?. .g. 0-0. llJfe4 1 8 lLlxd5 ( 1 3 lLlb5!?) 1 3 . . 7 lle l loo ks good Quinteros-Ribli .

Kislo­ 140 vodsk 1 972) 1 5 ii'c2 lt:le6 1 6 :ad I w t Vaganian-Matanovic. .i. lt:lc6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:lxd4 lt:ld7) 1 3 b 3 lt:l c7 1 4 . . :res 1 4 :ac l C2 1i'bS) was balanced in Portisch­ 7 0-0 Lju bojevic.. .i.b2 . but S . Tai­ t Smyslov-Reshevsky.i.b2 . I I d4. Belgrade Polugayevsky. .i.138 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog lt:le4 t. . . and 1 970) 10 . d) 9 :el doesn't allow d4 in one Los Angeles 1 9S I . . ..!...i.. .. d5? ! 9 cd ed 10 e5 a nd e. e5 I I .b2't!fd7 !? ( 10 . . This illustrates step (as 7 :e l did). : ac l 1i'bS 1 7 f4 .i. Gligoric. . . Smyslov-Filguth. .Y2 Pe trosian-Darga.h3 lt:lc7 1 2 lt:lh4 g6 1 3 lt:l g2 intending r4. . Smej k al-Piachet ka. a 6 ) I I g 4 lt:lc7 1 2 lt:\0 d5 1 3 fS d e c) 9 .aS I S �h i . .. was Watson-de Firmian. 9 lt:lc6 a) 9 .e3 lt:lc6 I I d4 cd 1 2 now best. Tallin·n 1973. . lt:lbd7 1 0 1i'e2 a6 I I .i. lt:lc6 1 0 d4 e5. de 14 lt:ld5 looks . . b) 9 h3 a6 (9 .d6 Y2 .i. match ( 1 ) 1 974. b) 9 .!. 1i'd7 1 2 .i. .b2 9 b3 lt:le8 (?) 12 d4 . 198 1 .!.f8 I I :el 1 4 de .d6 1 5 lt:l h4! lt:l d4 1 6 lt:l r5 t Polu gayevsky-Gurgenidze . .i. .i. lt:l c6 1 0 :d l I I . . 1978.i.f8 Czechoslovakia 197S. so 9 .i. . lt:l xe4?! 1 3 lt:lxe5 ! ) .xc6 1 3 .b2 : acS 1 3 ltJ c2 e5 ) 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 1i'c7 1 2 b3 = a6 1 4 1i'e2 :res 1 5 :rd ! 1i'c7 1 6 a6 1 3 . 11 lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4 c ) 9 1i'e2 lt:lbd7 (9 . . e5?! I I de de 1 2 lt:ld5! ( 1 2 Carrasco-Gh eorghiu. lt:lc6 12 d4 e5 "=" ECO. . a6 1 0 . .f4 I I :e 1 lt:lc6 1 2 .!. Not S . Madrid 1973. ..g. . planning d4. Palo Alto . . but 13 de Las Palmas 1 973. is 1 3 lilac I ! .. lt:lxd4 lt:l xd4! (lest lt:l c2) 1 3 1i'xd4 10 d4 cd lt:ld7 1 4 :rd :bS 1 5 :ac I 1i'c7 = 1 0 . 1 9 lt:le3 .. lt:la6 1 0 : e l (or 1 0 1i'e2! and d4) 1 0 . a) 9 lt:le l lt:lc6 1 0 f4 ltJeS (or 1 0 . Belgrade 1 974.b2 .h3 ii'c7. 8 e4 d6 (140) Common is 9 .. I I de de 1 2 ltJd5 ltJeS !? ( I 2 . :eS) lt:lxd4 :cs 1 2 lt:lxc6 ! . .!.i.r6 ( 1 4 lt:l xd4 transposes. Korchnoi-Petrosian.i. lt:lbd7 the general " rule" that Black 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 a6 12 b3 1i'c7 1 3 shouldn't allow lt:lc2 when his .i.!. .. :es 10 .i.b2 :acS (or 1 3 .i. lt:lc6 10 d4 cd I I d) 9 .

1 1 i. 0-0?! 8 d5 ed 9 cd d6 1 0 lt:\d2 198 1 . Rio de lt:\g6 . . . lt:\a6 1 1 lt:\c4 lt:\c7 12 a4 ± Smyslov­ 10 lt:\c6 Dominguez. .ixe4 9 d5 b5 !?. Zagreb 1 969.b2 d6 1 2 d3 lii: a 7! = Uh 1mann­ Ribli . lii: ac8 1 7 ... ..b2 :S: ad8 14 :i:te I lt:\e8 !? with the idea . . d6 1 1 b3 a6 12 i.ibner-Sunye. e. 't!t'b7 1 2 0 :i:td8) a4 to follow. . A41 8 lt:\xd4 lt:\bd7 is less effective). d5 1t'c7 1 5 :S:ac l 't!t'b7 is double-edged. A42 8 1t'xd4 1 2 1t'xd4 a6 (141) A41 8 lt:l xd4 i.b2 Kovacevic. lt:\xc3 9 be 1967. . . . . gf 1 3 lt:\h4! or 1 2 . Las Palmas 1 972. . . Yudovich­ Or I I b3 . 0-0 14 l:Ud 1 :S:fd8 1 5 llac 1 ( 1 5 lt:\a4 1 1 lt:l db5 ( 1 1 e4 1t'xc4 !? 1 2 lt:\cb5 :S: ab8 ! ) 15 .f4!?) 1 1 i.l. ...ta3 . V rbas 1 977) 1 0 .g.d6 lt:\c6 ! 13 i. . i. b5 Hort-Tal.e3 'it'c7) 1 1 b 3 1t'b7 1 2 0 lt:\c6. USSR Ch Janeiro I Z 1 979) 8 . . 1 3 . . or 1 1 . Tallinn 7 . H avana 1 3 e5 1t'h6 14 lt:\ d2 ! is difficult) 1 2 01 1 966. i. . saw 8 d5 :i:td8 or 1 2 . . f6 12 i. . Nei-Gurgenidze. lt:\xd4 . New York 1927. .xc3 b3 l::t fd8 1 5 'tW O ( 1 5 0 d 5 ) 1 5 . 1 1 i. . . 7 . d5 !? should suffice. .xe7 A4 lt:\ xe7 14 lt:\ d6 1t'c6+ 1 5 0 lt:\c8 1 6 7 d4 cd lt:\de4 lt:\ xe4 = N ei-Gipslis. b2 1t'b7+ 1 2 0 d5 =.g5 f6!? ( 1 1 . . 1t'c7 But 10 i.ic6!? 1 4 :S:fd 1 Harmless is 10 b3 0-0 ( 10 .. . . . 0-0 1 0 e4 ( 10 b3 a6 1 1 i.. Best may be 13 . .i b2 . . . . I I . . . possible now is 1 3 i. but 1 1 . xg2 141 9 �xg2 'it'c8 w Also 9 . 0-0 1 0 or I I . .f6 1 1 1t'd3 lt:\c6 1 2 e4 or 10 e4 d6 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 i. (8 lt:\xe4 . Capablanca­ Vidmar. . 0-0 1 2 i. . f6 (9 ..f4!? is complex: 1 0 . 11 lt:\xc6! lt:\e4!? is almost untested. . . 9 . xf6 a6 1 6 l::t fe 1 d6 1 7 l hc l 1!t'b7 = and 1 2 . with lt:\c6 oo. . . 8 't!txd4 (1 42) . 1t'c8 (or 10 . 1 0 1t'd3 Here 1 3 . .. Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 139 ow n knight is on co ( lt:\ c2 versus . lt:\e5 1 2 1t'e3 1t'b7+ 1 3 0 1t'b3 t was H i. .ib4 . . a6 12 i. . l::tc 1 fg 1 3 l::t xc3 ed 14 ed 0-0 1 5 1i'c I A42 h6 1 6 h4! gh 1 7 lt:\xh4 ±± . 1t'xf6 intending . then 10 d6 11 1t'xc6+ i.d2 l::t ac8 1 4 1 1 e5 ! ? ca n be tried) 1 0 e4 ! i. 0-0 Ku rajica. . . . f5 .

t xf3 lil:c8 =F with this) 10 ire3 ( 10 'tlrd3 d5 I I e5 Slitsky-Ruderfer.i. . lLlc6 1 1 't!t'h4 " ! with de =. . 1 967. d6 A421 8 lLlc6 9 1Wf4 9 'tlt'd2 lLla5 1 0 b3 d 5 I I lLle5 de 9 't!t'b8 a) 9 .1 0 . b) 9 . Black could argue ba 16 de . 9 . 't!t'xf4 1 2 gf !. 10 e4 transposes to 8 . .i. .." Yudovich. . lLlbd7 systems.d8 1 3 . d6 I I = Or I 0 1Wxb8+ lt xb8 I I . .. . .txa5 de . d6. .1 1 cd lLl b4 = . ad I . . 1 2 lLl b5 0-0 =) 12 .f4 l:r.i. lLld7 1 2 cd 1 0 lLlbS lLlb4 ) 10 .. .I I . .txd6 1 4 lLlxd6 .d6) 1 3 . . and now . . . .xf3 a6 1 5 .txf3! 17 . . .b2!? Veresov.. .i. . went 1 0 .i.i. Korchnoi-Barcza­ Leningrad 1967.i. 0-0 A423 8 . Black must first Probably not the m ost accurate decide where he wants his q ueen's order for the .. . . . lLlc6 A422 8 .c8 14 . Moscow 1 964. . .txh4 1 3 . . 0-0 1 0 e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 lt d 1 and 10 b3 transpose to 'A422') 1 0 . 0-0 142 below. .ta8 1 5 lt fd l ltb8 16 :S:d2 ( 16 lLlg5 !) 16 .xc3 13 be ± Korchnoi­ a) 9 b3 lLlc6!? 10 't!t'f4 't!t'b8 1 1 .c5 !? ( 1 0 .i. :S:fd8 ( 1 6 . . lLla5!? 1 0 ltd ! ! ? ( 10 b3 . B After 1 0 lLlb5 . A422 8 o-o (143) The m ai n line. Korchnoi­ lLld2! t Smyslov-Tal. . and Milic suggests 1 7 lLlg5 ! ...f4 l:r.!.a xb8 1 2 .c8 lt d l 1Wc7 1 2 1We2 lLl e5 1 3 b3 lLlxf3+ 12 lLlb5 lLl e4 1 3 l:r.t) b) 9 e4!? lLlc6 (9 . .i. .b4? ( I I . lLlc6 ideas. .c7 l:r. h6). . lLlxd5 1 2 cd . . .c5 1 4 14 .. .or 10 . 1Wc8 ! 1 1 b3 d5 1 2 cd? ( l 2 lLle5 10 lil:d1 . but k night: best for the .i.i.i.d6 (or 13 . USSR 1 967. 't!t'c8!? 1 0 e5 . .td2 't!t'b2 14 'tlra4+ 'lt>f8 1 5 . lLla5 !?) 9 ltdl 12 e5 . ltc8 1 1 ltd ! .b2 . Moscow Kholmov. A42 1 8 . . 't!t'xc3 the idea 1 1 . .140 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 1963. 0-0 I I 't!t'xb8 l:r. . .

. .ie3 !? It xd6 . 'ii?f 8!? lt:lc6 1 2 'tlt'd2 lld8 13 't!t'e2! lt:ld7 Averbakh) 1 5 b3 .ih3! ± nd lt:lge4) 1 1 . Better Tatai .if4 lld8 I I l:l:ac l lt:lc6 b) 1 1 e4 't!t'xf4 ( 1 1 .i c6 ! . lt:le5 ( 1 3 lt:lb5 d5 ! ) 1 3 . e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 . .ie3 'ii?g7 1 8 f4! gf 10 'tlt'f4 d6 1 9 gf lt:l c6 20 lt:l ce2 ± Pet rosian­ Moves like 10 . Stockholm IZ 1 962.ixf4 Itfd8 1 3 e5 lt:le8 14 lt:ld4 1 0 't!Vf4 lt:l a6 ! I I b3 d5 =) I I b3 lt:l a5 ( 14 . . .. .. a6 10 . 12 . .ic5 I I \!fh4 i s d ubious. a6 1 3 lt:lg5 ! ( 1 3 e4 l:l:d8 transposes. .. . . .. 1958. 'tlt'c8 l 0 Pachman.ixf3 :!. . . lt:ld7 1 3 . . .i b2 l:l:d8 a) 12 . .ia3 d5 1 3 . d6 is ' A423'.ia3 1!1b8 15 lld2 g5 ( 1 6 .. 14 . d5? ! l O Itad l g5 ! 1 9 lld8 ll xd8 20 l:l: xd8+ lt:le5 .. . .ixf6 16 . .ixd6 .ixg2 1 7 'ii? xg2 It xc4 1 8 . 9 .ia3 ! lt:lxf3+ ( 1 3 . M ilan 1 975) 17 . . . . . l:l: ac8!?. This 'ii?g7 2 1 l:l:a8 lt:ld5 ! = Portisch­ leaves the old move 9 . . . . may be more accurate) I I . ..ib2( ! ) Forintos-Kushnir. Palma de Mallorca 1974. Sarajevo 1972. but 1 3 l:l:d2 ! is also strong) 1 3 .ixg2 16 'ii? xg2 ( 1 3 . lt:lf3+ 18 't!t'xf3 .id2 (or I I lt:lf5 ! 1 1 .if4 l:l:d8 l 3 lt:lg4 l 3 lt:l xc 6 etc) I I 1!1e2 d6 1 2 b3 lt:lb5 lt:la5 1 4 . l O . l:l:fxb8?! 1 2 . . I I .ib4) 1 3 e5 ! b4 l 4 11 b3 'tlt'b8 lt:la4 lt:le8 1 5 .ie7 ( 1 7 .ie5 2 0 lt:l xd6! H aag) 1 8 l:l:d2 ± Smyslov-Andersson . . Vrbas 1 977. d6 1 7 ed . b) 12 . . l:l:d8 AI burt) 12 'tlt'd3 d5! = Refir-Milev. .ixd6 1 6 9 .ib6 ± I I . . . 144 lt:lg6) 1 4 . 'tlt'd7 1 2 . . lt:leS 1 3 . lt:l xd6 19 l:l:d2 :t Karpov-Portisch. .g. w Rovinj-Zagreb 1970.ib2 li:lde5 1 4 llad 1 :!. 12 e4 b5?! ( 1 2 . . .i xc6 1 5 . Lone Pine 1975. and 9 . . a6 1 2 .i xd6 lt:lc5 16 l:l:ad l ± Korchnoi-Gipslis. . . h6 1 4 lt:lge4) 1 4 lt:lce4 lt:le5 1 5 lt:lxf6+ . lt:la5 1 2 b 3 't!t'e7 1 3 intending lt:ld5 or lt:l b5 Szabo­ lt:lb5 :t are no longer played. .if4 l:l:bc8 1 3 Smej kai-Giigoric. e .id6 1 4 cd! .ixd6 1 8 . d4 1 2 lt:lxd4 ( l l . . . 't!t'b8 (144) : 12 . .. . Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 141 Karklins gives 1 5 . Biel a) 1 1 1lhb8 ( I I b3 l:l:d8 1 2 't!t'xb8 IZ 1 976. and lO . llc8 1 1 b 3 a6 Portisch. d6! 1 4 = 9 lt:lc6 lt:l xc6 . is lO . . . l:l:axb8 d 5 ! ? I I e 5 ! . .ic5 I I 1!1d3 is oo.i b2 l:l:fd8 1 3 . .ie3 f6 1 6 . .i xb7 l:l: xb7 17 lt:le4 ! ..ixb2 1 9 l:l: ab l . Ljubljana 1973) 1 2 . .id6 :t Portisch-Csom. lld7) 14 . with the idea 1 3 . .ib4 I I . l:l:a7 ( 1 3 . Hort-Nicevski. . . Amsterdam 1 967 .

tiated. . . . with more space to work etc. posi tions with the knight on c6. Taim anov-Kholmov. b5 and . This lL!b4 1 7 lL!fd4 (or 1 7 e5 !?). . to defuse the counter- . Black's pawn on d6 should a safer positional solution beginning prove a wea kness in the long run. . lL!c6. lL!d7 1 5 lL!g5 ! The n. . d5. . in A423 particu lar.i a8 1 7 t!re2 (. and . . . players on the White It's worth a little space to consider side turned their attention to either how this came about. . . this countless games. . it often turned out that he couldn 't transfer his forces as planned above. (2) I f 145 w Wh ite did manage t o ac hieve the bind. many strong players.g. . b5?! 1 5 cb ab 16 lL!xb5 weaknesses or material gain. continued 15 lL!e l (e. Two di fficulties arose: ( I ) Pre­ t!rb8 1 8 a 4 t!rc8 1 9 l:lab I lL! e8 20 f4 venting both . . with �g5 xf6. . Thus White tends to be as much tied up by Black 's latent activity as Black himself is tied up by White's space Now Black intends . . with. e. . After sort of squeeze was a trade mark of 14 .142 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 13 e4 White's strategy in these ci rcum­ Aga in 1 3 l:ld2 is promising. . .g. White could more rapidly 13 a6 shi ft his forces from one side to 14 "tit'e3 "tit'a7 another. d5 turned . the b7 bishop had 8 d6 ( 145) more direct control of e4. �c6). . including USSR Ch 1 967. .g. because any com­ mittal movement would release the pressure on Blac k 's game.i f6 2 1 h3 lL!c7 22 lt>h 2 lL!a7 23 out to be more difficult than in lL!e3 U ± . By traditional an early central break (e4-e5) or to theory.l. . . a6 14 "tit'e3 ! ( 1 4 li:Jg5 ! h6! 1 5 forward: establish a bind on Black's lL!ge4 lL! xe4 intending 1 6 lL! xe4 f5 two freeing moves . In fact. stead of . . lL!bd7 in­ advantage. . Still in its i n fancy After several years and seemingly at the time of the first edi tion.ig5) 1 4 . . eventually forci ng new 14 . d5 and even b5 (after. the essential vali­ ' He dgehog' system subsequen tly dity of Blac k 's st rategy versus a became the single most popular central bind seems fu lly substan­ answer to the English Opening. . . .) 1 7 . l:lab8 1 6 lL!c2 . b5 and . "tit'a7 . stances was supposed to be straight­ 13 . e.) Botvinni k and Smyslov.

. lt:lb4 1 5 'ti'b l i. f6 20 1 9S I .15 lt:Je5 l:i:e8! . 1 6 't!t'h7+ 'i!ff8 Christiansen) 1 4 . ed!? 1 3 1t'f4 h 6 1 4 .ta3) A4232 A4232 9 l:i: d l 9 l:i:d1 0-0! ? A4233 9 e4 The safer 9 . . . xg2 1 6 'i!txg2 lieS 17 f3 (?) b5! =t= continues. a3 u nder A423 l . . Speelman­ 10 lt:la6 ! Hawksworth.g S(!) lt:Jbd7 'A4232' . R iga IZ 1 979 . 1 2 . so I have grouped b3 and ll:Jbd7.. . e5!? 1 2 'tie3 e4 1 3 10 . . . .g. x d5 ( 1 2 . Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 143 attacking potential of B lack's set­ a6 14 lt:lbd4 'ti'c7 =!+ was Suba­ up.. . xd5 1 6 i. . . f5 1 9 lt:Jc6 i. a6! 1 7 l:i: xe4 lt:Jxe4 1 S lt:l d4 ! ( I S 1 3 i. lt:Jb5 d5 ( I I . Edinburgh 19S5) I I As suggested in the first edition. but the debate i. whereas 1 0 .. a 6 or 1 3 . . . . Krnic-De Firmian. 1 0 lt:lg5 ! ? . .. Gurevich-Benjamin. lt:lc6 I I 'tif4 a6 12 l:i:d l ::!:: i. g5 in 'A4233'. .!. . ..txe4 1 3 llfd l 0-0 1 4 b5 1!t'cS 1 5 lt:J xe5 lt:lxe5 1 5 . . 10 . .. 10 a6 I I l:i:d l ts this order is 10 i. . and A4231 now Krnic gives 1 5 . 10 i. Ro mania 19SO) 1 2 . US Ch 19S3.. lt:l xd5? 1 3 . . xe4 fe 2 1 i.g. f4 e5 1 4 . d5 ! i. N ice 19S I .. . e.. . a6 is 'B' below. A423 1 9 b3 ( with 10 .txf6 gf 14 cd ( 1 4 lt:Jg5 h6! 1 5 . Also possible is 9 . Hastings 1975-76. and 9 . US Ch 'ti'xe4 d5 !) I S . .. 'i!txg2 0-0 1 2 lt:Jge4 lt:lxe4 ( 1 2 . those games where an early e4 is lt:leS 1 3 lt:lb5) 1 3 lt:Jxe4 1!t'c7 ! 1 4 b3 played under A4233. a6 done much to discourage advocates 13 b4?! lt:lcd7 14 i.1 5 . lt:lc6 I I 't!t'f4 . .. lifdS 1 5 f3. . a 3 1 7 a3 i. and now 1 3 . b2 transposes to li nes b) I mportant for an assessment of below.txg2 I I lid l without e4 under A4232. 9 . . and the rare ( 1 4 lt:J xd6 l:i:adS) 1 4 . .ta3 lt:J c5 I I b4 lt:Jce4 12 lt:Jxe4 b 3 ( 1 2 lt:J xd6? lidS 1 3 i.txf6 23 'tixb6 ab = Uhlma nn-J ansa.txf6 .. .!. b2 l:i:eS 22 . d5!? I I . 1 3 lt:lxd5 i. l:i:dS . . . . .txf6 12 l:i:ac l ( 1 2 ll:Jb5 lt:lfe4 1 3 't!t'e3 lt:J xf6 1 5 lt:Jfd4 . . 9 b3 with 10 i. .. e .. a6 10 lt:J g5 is These lines are highly transposi­ ' B22' below.. . xf6 lt:Jxf6 1 4 lt:lfd4 lt:lg4 1 5 'tif4 transposes to ' A422'. .. . .txe5 i. . b2 . tional . . . b 2 'ti'bS 1 5 lt:ld2 of the Hedgehog. x d5 14 l:i:ac l is unclear.. a6 10 e4 is examined A4234 9 i. lt:J bd7 a) 10 lt:lbS !? lt:lc6 I I 'ti'd3 'ti'bS 1 2 1 0 .txe7 'ti'xe7 1 2 c d lt:lxd5 12 'i!t'd2!?) 12 cd i. e 4 = B yrne and · M ednis. AI burt-Tarjan. M il es-Adorjan...txe7 't!t'xe7 1 4 e4 and 1 5 11 l:i:fd1 lt:lcS e 5 .e 5 'tib7 10 i. These latter strategies have Stefanov. 9 b3 0-0 10 b3!? 9 . lt:lf6! =. xg2 1 6 'tie3 ! ? l:i: dS I 6 l:i: d4 ( 1 6 lt:Jd4 !?) 1 6 'i!fxg2 lt:leS H Alburt) 1 2 .

. . d6.t xf6 ! ) 1 5 . .. .. Buenos A ires 01 1978. 11 . Bouaziz. Better seems 1 5 . 1 4 lt:l ge4 't!rc6 a 6 i s probably more accurate than Or 1 4 . .. 'tlt'c6.g.. Korchnoi-Ftacnik . Riga IZ 1 979) 1 3 lt:lc3 ( 1 3 or 1 5 .g. but in Titovo U zice 1 978 .e3 :C:ac l 'tlt'c7 1 6 h 3 ]i[ac8 = Ribli­ 1 2 lt:ld2 . . . b5 ( 1 6 . 9 .id6 1 7 't!rf5 ! ]i[e8 1 8 lt:lde4 transposes t o 1 2 lLlg5 . . . and n o w 1 6 . .ic6 1 4 't!rc4! ( 14 lt:le5 lt:lxe5 1 5 Polugayevsky...txf6! 1 6 't!rxd6 'tlt'b7+ 1 7 'i!?g l ( 1 7 ± Ftacnik.ia8 ]i[fc8 1 7 'tlt'e2 lt:lc6 ( 1 7 . g5!?) 1 8 = Horvat h-Borm.. 9 . . . . . lt:l xc3 't!ra3 lt:lc6 = Koval:evic-Ljubojevic. . .if4 ! w as lt:le8 = Baumbach-Espig. lt:le8 with the idea . USSR 1980) 1 7 .ixg2 1 4 'i!?xg2 't!rxd5 . 10 lLlbd7 ]i[ fd8 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+ . . Or 1 4 . is =/ro according to Kengis. ]i[a7 1 4 lt:lge4 't!t'a8 1 5 f3 Biel 1 984.te5 2 1 e4 ! U ± Adorjan­ 'tlt'b7+ 1 5 f3 lt:le5 (or 1 5 . .. . 1 2 lt:l xd5 lt:lxd5 19 . . general this looks a risky line . Vrbas 1 977.ib7 1 7 e5 !?) 16 . w Buenos Aires 1 980. e. and now 17 .txd5 . . .. . . . Kengis-Shabalov. g5 1 3 . 't!rb8 1 4 lt:lge4 ]i[ d8 1 5 lt:l xf6+ 1 7 lt:l d4 ± ) 1 7 lt:lxb5 't!rb7 1 8 lLlc3 ! . Or very s trong. . ]i[ fd8 =. Buenos A ires 1980 . . 't!t'xe5 't!t'c8 = Schii ssler-Suba . . 146 After 14 . . . e . b5 Ljubojevic. . 1976. Baden 1 980) 1 3 lt:l xc6 ]i[xc6 was equal in Korchnoi­ .c7 1 3 lt:ld4 .. .ixg2 ]i[c8 1 5 'tlra6 'tlk 7 1 6 lt:lb5 . 't!rb7. Lu­ A42321 cerne 01 1 982) 1 4 . lil e8 . . 't!rc8 ( 1 4 .tb2 a6 ( 146) lt:lc5 1 6 ]i[ac 1 'tlt'b7 = Schmidt­ G iigoric. .. O r 1 3 . a6 1 6 lt:lc3 . . 1 6 . 12 'tlt'c7 O r 1 2 . . . . . lt:le5 1 8 Jurmala 1 985. . ]i[xd8 20 lt:le4 lt:le3 =/ ro R uderfer­ lt:ld5 1 7 b4. 1 3 lLld4 ( 1 3 A423 2 1 1 2 lt:l g5 h3!?) 1 3 . 12 lLlg5 . . . . . Ftacnik) 13 'i!?xg2 'tlt'c7 15 e4 h6 (?).txg2 1 3 'i!?xg2 't!rc7 1 4 Giigoric. Hort-Browne. lt:lc5 f3 lt:le5 1 8 't!ra3 lt:lg4! 1 9 ]i[xd8+ 1 6 e5 ( 1 6 lt:ld4 . . . ]i[ fc8 1 6 e4 lt:le8 =) 1 6 e4 't!rh4 ]i[c8 ! 1 4 e4 ]i[c4 1 5 lt:lfd4 .144 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog . A42322 12 't!t'e3 With the ideas lt:ld4-c6 and/or f4-f5 .tf8 1 5 A42322 1 2 .!.txg2 1 4 'i!?xg2 .txd5 20 'tlt'd2 . Psakhis. went 15 f3 li[fd8 16 lilac l lt:lc5 1 7 lt:l xc5 be 1 8 'tlt'f4 d5 19 e4 de =. .

. e 5 ! ? =) 1 3 lilad l � 8 1 4 e 5 de 1 5 13 lilfc8 'tlt'xe5 'tlt'a7 ro Lief-Walder. Buenos Aires 1 9SO.. . b3) 1 2 lilfd1 and now: A4233 b3 1 ) 1 2 .txh6 2 1 'tlt'xh6 ffi 22 ed ± transpose. 'tlt'bS 19 ll:lc6 'tit'aS 20 lZl xdS 'tlt'xdS 2 1 'tlt'f4 . ffi 1 5 lilad 1 lil ad8 1 6 ll:lc2 "=" Hubner. 'tlt'b7) 1 7 ll:lh4! =F Valvo-Gheorghiu. . . e . 1 7 1M3 ll:ld7 ! 10 b3 ll:lbd7 1 8 b4 ! f5! ? oo ) 1 5 . 1 4 ll:ld4 . . Smej kal-Raj kovic. 1 3 . Seirawan-Browne.. ll:lg4 plan of ' A4233 1 ' . 147 b32) 1 2 . again.taS 1 8 g4 ll:le5 ! 1 9 g5 Tilburg 1 982.. and giving the king a safe square A42 33 1 10 b3 on h2. . . �7 1 6 lild2 11 lild1 litfc8 1 7 h3 lilc7 1 8 a4 ll:l fd7 = a) 1 1 ... lil acS 1 4 lilac ! lilfdS 1 5 b) The simple 1 1 . Complex 1 9S4. 9 . Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 145 13 h3 number of defences to the e4-e5 Larsen's move.g.ta3 . . was 13 . 0-0 will usually ll:lh6+ . ll:leS 20 .txg2 b2) 1 2 lilfe1 1Wc7 1 3 11t'd2 lil fe 8 1 4 1 5 �xg2 ll:l eS ll:ld4 . . lilfe8 ! .txg2 1 6 �xg2 ll:le5 1 7 f4 from favour: 'it'b7+ I S ll:l f3 ll:lc6 1 9 �h2 b5 b l ) 12 ll:ld2 . 11t'b8 1 7 11t'f4 . . .t Rshaid) 1 9 ll:l f5 ! ll:lxd5 20 Most flexible.t f8 1 5 lilac I lit adS 1 6 h3 g6?! ( 1 6 .tffi Korchnoi­ = Rey kj avik 1 9 78. . . Bel­ grade 1977. lilfe 1 lit eS 1 5 h3 . . . is a neglected plan) 1 4 . . US Ch 1 980 .tb2 0-0 has fallen ll:ld4 . .tf8 1 7 ll:le l ! intending ll:ld3. corres 1 984. Chicago 1 9S2.txg2 14 �xg2 ll:le5 A42332 10 'tlt'e3 (or 14 .ta3 ll:lc5 12 lilfe l 0-0 ( 12 .i. Larsen-Browne. Phila­ lilac l 'tlt'b7 I S ll:l xc6 lhc6 1 9 a4 delphia 1978. s topping . . . but cuts down on the Rshaid-Wiedenhafer.tc6! 14 a4 9 e4 a6 (147) 'tlt'c7 1 5 h3 lilfe8 = Karpov-Browne. ed I S cd ll:lc5? ( I S . �s = ) 1 7 ll:ld5 ! ! (148) 1 7 . 1 3 ll:ld4 . . . l:lfe8 !) 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 f4 !? �7+ A42331 1 6 ll:lf3 ll:leg4. . In Htibner-Browne. .tc6 1 3 a4 'tlt'bS 1 4 20 f5 ! e5 2 1 g4. f4. lilc8 13 ll:ld2 . 'tlt'c7 1 3 11t'e3 lil fe8 1 4 w ll:ld4 ( 1 4 'tlt'e2 lilacS 1 5 lil d 2 'tlt'bS 1 6 lil ad l . B rowne. Anaheim Or. White got some pull ll:lg6 20 'tlt'e3 ll:lh5 2 1 ll:le2 d5 22 e5 after 16 �g l ll:lc6?! ( 16 . . .

b 5 1 9 . .. 1i'b8! 1 3 ll:ld2 ( 1 3 'ti'e3 Now known is 1 7 b4 ll:lcd7 1 S c5 ! . and i nstead of 1 7 h3 h5! l S Ksieski..ic6+ Psakhis.ie5 Tiller-H. 'ti'c7?! 19 . liteS 1 4 ll:ld4 . Novi Sad 0-0 1 7 ll:la4 litfcS 1 S ll:l xc5 ..ixc7 ll:lcd7 =) 1 4 . . . Stempin­ 1 9S2.. 11 'it'c7!? USSR 19S3.ixe7 'it'xe7 1 7 'W'e3 litc7 l S l S 'it'xe5 is bad..) . .Olafsson. .ic6 1 7 'it'e2 ll:lcd7 . .. 1!t'b8 1 2 . . ll:lcS!? 12 e5 de 13 1i'xe5 or litd6/ ll:lf6 can follow.. . . ll:la4 ± Tiller-Lobron. . .ta3 ll:lc5 13 e5 and Randers 1 9S2) 1 5 ll:la4 ( 1 5 i.. . A msterdam 1975) 1 4 ll:l xd7 20 ll xd7 ! ! 't!fxd7 2 1 cb llaS a4 't!V c7 1 5 't!Ve3 n acS 1 6 'ti'e2 ll:le5.txf3 ( 13 ..ixg3 = S mejkal-Quinteros..ixg2 1 7 'it>xg2 lit cS ) 1 5 . Then below) 14 . litac8 1 4 'it'e3 b5 ! + Uhlmann­ untested. ll:lcd7. ....b2 now: liteS 1 6 'it'e2 'ifaS = Tu kma kov­ c l ) 13 . a) 1 1 . c) 11 . . l S . . Polanica Zdroj 1 9S3) 19 f4 ll:l g6 1 9 ll:lf3 d5 ! 20 cd h4 ! =F. .. . de 1 4 't!fxdS+ . ll:la4 be 20 't!fh6+ 'it>gS 21 be 'ti'f8 !? Ftacnik gives 17 'it>h 1 =.c7 =) 1 3 . 22 'W'e3 'it>g7.ixf3 14 .i xe7+ 'it>xe7 19 litadl h6 (else 1 9S2. Mayorov-Andrianov.ib2 is 1 3 .ixf3 de 15 . . l S ... . . 15 'it'e2 'it>ffi 1 6 'it'e3 lita7 (149) 0-0 1 6 ll:le5 .. de 14 Wxe5 'ti'a7!? ( 1 4 . but on 17 ..ixf3? 1 5 'W'xbS+ lit xbS 1 6 . compare I like the simple 17 lld2. litc7? 16 . White ( 1 3 ll:l xe5 ..if4 0-0 1 5 't!fc7 't!fxc7 1 6 b4 if Black does nothing.. 23 litac l ! Andrianov.ixd7 Ljubojevic..g. 'it'cS? lS 'W'xe5 ! or 17 . ... .. .ia3 ll:lc5 1 3 e5 but this leaves many questions. . .. 22 litd 1 'ti'c6 23 ll:le4 f5 24 b5 ! ! Polugayevsky-Ftacnik.tffi =) 1 3 . 'ti'g5 ) 20 ll:le4 with the idea c5 and/ b) 11 . Lucerne 01 with a winning attack.g. 0-0 1 5 lit d2 c2) 13 .i xc5 19 1 9S2. . .. .146 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog b33) 1 2 .ib2 ( 1 4 . litdS (or e. USSR Ch 1 9S3. . liteS 1 6 litad l . g6 !? ( l S . \i'cS 1 4 intends simply litadl and then (e.txf3 de 1 5 't!fxe5 ll:lcd7 17 . .. lita7 1 2 .ib2! ± and .. Randers l S .

New York 1 984. 14 1!fxd8 nfxd8 1 5 lt:Jxe5 .. . Mednis . ne8 a) 14 . but 23 14 lieS! . .ixg2 1 8 rtlxg2 ll fe8 1 9 f4 t'iJg4 20 lt:Je2! lt:Je5 2 1 h 3 lt:Jf6 22 t'i:le3 b5 23 Ilacl t Ftaenik.ixg5 1 6 rtlf8 2 1 llad 1 rtle8 22 f4 ± Pytel­ rtlxg2 llc8 . Ilde8 1 7 lt:Ja4 lt:Jxc5 be 20 .ia3 lt:Jc5 lt:Je5 . 13 e5 de Las Vegas 1986. Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 147 . lt:Jxb5 ± Korsunsky-Norgulev./8 . lt:Jfd7 ( 1 5 .ia3 lt:Je5 1 3 e5 de 2 1 Ile I ! ± Olafsson-Kinderrnann.ib2 h 5 !? 18 h4 ( 1 8 h3) 18 . .ixg2 17 rtlxg2 lt:Jcd 7 1 8 .. . .ixe5 lt:Jd7! was rtlxe7 1 7 'ifd6+ ±) 1 6 '@xg7 .ixf3 Kralove 198 1 . . K rnic-Stoica.ib2 lig8 2 1 1i'h7 ± Ii:ab8 18 lt:Jxe5 be . . . . 1 5 . . . 0-0? 1 2 .ixd6 . tL1ed7 1 5 'ifxb8+ nxb8 1 6 . Also possible in this line is 14 . 16 . ..ixb4 20 lt:Jxb6 . . New York 1 7 'it'h6 . . . . . h5!?. .if6 1 7 �h6 . lt:Jxc5 19 ll:xa I \!t'c7 20 lld1 lld8 d) 11 . B elfort 1 9 83.ic3 2 1 lt:Jxa8 n xa8 gives 1 7 . Wijk aan Zee 18 cb ( ! ) ab 19 lt:Jd4! ...ixg2 \12-\12 I vanka-Browne. 'i!t'c8 15 lt:Ja4 ( 1 5 1i'e3 !? 17 . . .ixd6 1 7 n xd6 rt/e7 1 8 Ilad 1 b5 ! + Trosclair-G heorghiu. .ixc5 nxc5 2 0 f4! b5 21 lld2 1982 .ib2 h5!? 16 h3 .ib2 !? 0-0 1 7 t'i:ld4 . . .if6 equal in Pelts-Browne. '@c7 1 9 $>xg2 .ixg2 20 USSR 1977. Poland 198 1) 17 . H radec 16 . . Mar del Plata . A thens Krusyns ki. . Instead of 17 .ixa3 1 7 1!fxa3 b5 Ge orgiev-Ftaenik. lt:Jcd7 1 6 'ifb2 . . b4! 24 lt:J e2 lt:Jfe4 =) 16 . 'ifb8 17 'ifg4 h5 m Miles-Georgiev. lt:Jxa4 16 . 15 . h4 ro B rowne) 1 7 1!fxc7 Ilxc7 1 8 1 2 . 't!t'xe5 1 5 lt:J xe5 ..ixc5 / 9 Stean-Ligterink.ixe7 \t>xg2 lt:Jxe5 2 1 .ixg2 20 1 985.. . Ii:g8!? 1 8 lt:Je2 g5 1 9 lt:Je5 .txc5 be ( 1 7 .tc I " ! " �xe5 14 'ifxe5 (/50) 1 6 lt:Jxe5 .ixf3 1 7 1!'xc7 ll: xc7 1 8 ..ixg2 20 rt/xg2 0-0. .if8 (or 1 6 .ib2 ! Ilb7 20 Ild3 b) 14 . Mednis .i e l ( l 6 . .ixe5 ! 198 1 . and aside from 17 . lt:Jfd7 Ftaenik) 1 5 . lt:Jfd7 ! 1 6 'iff4!? ( 1 6 'ifxg7 . .ixa I 1 8 lt:Jxe5 =/ro G reenfeld) 16 .ic6 (or g4 ± Ftacnik-Ambroz. . 22 lt:J d7+! lt:Jxd7 23 ll:ac l ±±) 1 8 1 5 \!t' xc7 �a4 lld6 1 9 <M3 h5 20 h3 lla7 2 1 1 5 . 1 7 . .ib2 ! 0-0 18 rtlf3 t .1 9 .ixg2 1 6 Reykjavik 1 982) 18 .ixe5? 1 8 lt:Ja4 rt/f8 19 b4! llxc5 18 f4 llc7 19 f5 t.i xa l 1 8 ll: x a 1 ( 1 8 lt:Jxc5!? 1986. ne7 1 9 lt:Jg5 .

For the 19 i. Los Angeles 1 98 1 .!:. . lt:lc6 13 i.b2 lilfd8 ( 1 3 . lt:lcd7 1 7 i. but it is no more than 13 i. 20 Theoretically. .xg2 1 9 �xg2.g. Biel 1 985. . Played exclusively now.f8 1 6 h3 l:i ac8 1 7 �h2 i. . .a3 liled8 �xg2 lt:le5 23 lild2 llhd8 24 lil ad 1 20 f4 .!: Uhlmann-Tarjan.xe7 �xe7 21 lt:ld4 i. 19 .f4 lilc8 it over the last decade. 10 1t'e3 0-0 14 l:ifel .f6 ( !). calls this ". .b2 l:ife8 a drawn ending. . .b4 1 9 lt:l a2 i. other players have 1 9 i.f4 and lt:le 5.!: I vanov­ Browne. . . possible is 19 .e7 ! 23 lldd 1 i. .a8 19 i.a3 !?) 1 8 . . . d5 . . Gutman. .f4 lieS 1 8 a4 !? (perhaps 18 lt:le5 i.d6 most part.. 25 lt:lf3 i..!:: (Kengis) needs tests.!::� . went 20 e. 12 b3 (15 1) IS lil xc7 16 i.g.d6 lt:lb7 shied away from the variation.xe5 .xg2 24 �xg2 f6 would i ndicat e. i. 1 9 . Skopje �e8 25 �fl lt:lc6 26 �e2 . i.c5 Andersson-Browne­ = 12 lt:lbd7 Naestved 1 985. . e . Lone Pi ne 198 1 . After 19 .xe4 Uhlmann's al most exclusive use of 18 i. the line may be lt:le5 lt:lb7 ! 21 f4 lt:lxd6 22 ll xd6 better than its l ac k of popularity i.xg2 22 lile8 1 8 lUd 1 i. .f4 11 lt:ld4 1t'c7 . .cl /5/ A clever t ry wh ich threatens i. i. . But also arise after . Gutman­ llfe8) 1 4 lil a c l lt:l xd4 1 5 1t'xd4 .g. e. b5 and/or . b5 20 llac l lt:l xe5 2 1 i. either because they mistrusted 19 lt:ld3 !? White's c hances or because they Not 19 . llc6? 20 i.e 5 f6 20 i. 1 5 . Gutman 1976.c5 20 lt:le5 i.xg2 23 lld7+! against the (often devastating) �e8 24 llad 1 ±±: Gutman-de Black counterattacks which can Firm ian. 16 lt:lfe4 ! 1 6 . .xe7 �xe7 simply didn't feel up to defending 2 1 b4 lt:l a4 22 lt:le5 i.xe5 be 22 lt:la4. Lj ubojevic. xg2 21 �xg2 lt:lxe5 22 i. although A42332 1 3 . . lt:ld3. i. This line has been dominated by 1 7 lt::lx e4 i. lilad8 is not unthin kable. . . .148 Queen's In dian and Hedgehog lt:lxd7 lt:l xd 7 1 9 lt:l e4 llc6 20 i. 1 2 .

Be rlin 1 9S2) 1 6 ll e2 ( 1 6 llad 1 �bS 1 7 �c 1 ll:lc5 1 S �b 1 '@aS 1 9 f3 '@bS 20 f4 e5 + was Uhlmann-Akesson. . Uhlmann-Grunberg. . g7 22 :U. i. East Ger­ llad8 18 g4 e5 + Uhlmann-Szabo. . . this (with the idea ll:la4) 25 .a 1 '@aS 19 f3 :U. . and now 16 . Uhlmann-Ribli. . White is ready to answer with e5 . Romanian 24 . Polanica Zdroj 1 9 S 1 ) 1 6 .g7 ( 2 1 . . i. Ch 1 9S6.ta 1 b) 14 ct>h1 i. lLl eS 26 has become Uhlmann's m ain idea. Budapest 19S2.f8 The result was dramatic: after years 15 lite2 llad8 of high fashion.tc6 = i.IS ll:lc2 ef 19 1!1xf4 20 f4 ll:l xe3 21 �xe3 i. litacS 1 6 lle2 '@bS 1 7 1!id2 ll:lc5 1 S litd 1 1!1aS 1 9 '@e 1 " ! t Uhlmann­ � Vaiser.g7 2 1 i. d5 at any point. ll:lc5 17 lld 1 ll:lg4 !? ( 1 7 . . this simplifying Uhlmann-Adorjan. . the H edgehog was 1 5 . . . . e5 !? ( 1 7 .h6 24 lite2 lledS 25 ll:l c2 ! apparently not due to any clear . c5 vari­ ll:lc5 1 S i. . East German 1 S ll:lc2 ef 1 9 1!1xf4 ll:lc5 (?) ( 1 9 . ll adS ! =) Uhlmann-Womacka. . ll:le3 i. . Halle 1976. .Rodriguez. . . . Tilburg 1 9S 1 ) 1 9 �d 1 '@aS !? 20 ll:lc2 i. . This was 23 1!1f2 i. Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 149 Not even in the first edition.g7 1 7 1!id2 ( 1 7 h3? e5! . 16 . Uhlmann-Gheorghiu. llac8 1 6 lld 1 �S 1 7 �d2 replaced as the main 1 . .g5 (152) c) 14 h3 i.fS 1 5 llfe1 ll adS ( 1 5 . A still unresolved line. . . 16 1rd2 g6 a) 1 4 lit acl ll ac8 1 5 h3 'it'bS 1 6 g4. e5 ll:lc5! 20 ll:lb4 ll:lh5 2 1 '@f2 '@d7 22 li:ld5) 22 b4 li:ld7 23 lit ed2 lLlbS =F Stefanov-Gheorghiu. . . 1!ibS) 1 S ll:l c 2 g 6 transposes.g7 1 9 �d 1 ltJc5 = Hiibner-Kasparov. edS 20 ation (by the Double Fianchetto ct>h 1 g6 2 1 '@e3 i. ll:le5 2 0 litd I h6! ) 2 0 ll:lb4 ± A4234 Uhlmann-A.g7 27 lled2 b5 28 ll:le2! tl ± If Black plays . Dresden 19S5.g7 20 ll:le3 ll:l xe3 2 1 1!1xe3 . g6! 17 ct>h l . 14 i. posi tional line became popular. .h6 Bucharest l979 . f8 25 �d4 ! e5 26 �f2 ± Ch 1 97S) 17 . . . .ed2 liteS of the next chapter).or 1 7 .tfl i.a 1 h5 22 b4 li:lcd7 2 3 �xd6 h4 ! After all the messy lines had 24 g4 ll:lc5 25 �xb6 li:ld3 =Iro been played a while. . Manila I Z 1 9 76. . '@bS 1 7 llae1 g6 1 S �d2 ll:lc5 (or 1 S .US I S 17 ll d 1 ll:lc5 f4 e5 (Stean).f8 15 f4 g6 1 6 litae I i. 1 S ll:lc2 ll:lg4 19 ll:le3 ! ( 1 9 . . many v Romania 1 9S4) 19 . 9 i.

Tilburg 1982.e7 but because it denies Black the = Hebert-Greenfeld. . 0-0 1 0 lHd l li:Jbd7 ( 1 0 . .. . ..f6 17 a4 .e7 1 3 li:Je4 d5 ( 1 3 . 1 5 li:Jde4 't!t'c6 1 6 .!.xf6 'ti'e5 ( 1 8 . b) 11 . .ie7 13 li:Je4 h6? 1 0 .txe4) Andersson-Langeweg.xe4 14 'it'xe4 lila7 1 5 the first edition! 10 Iilfd1 li:Jbd7 li:Jd4 't!t'c8 1 6 b 3 JileS 1 7 a4!? 1tc5 1 1 li:Jd2 !? is relatively untested.xf3 1 2 e f! ? ( 1 2 .g5..g.i. A move I called "uninspired" in 1 3 li:Je4 .!. . 0-0 14 lld2 lld7 1 5 9 a6 llc1 't!fc7 1 6 b 3 llc8 1 7 a4 li:Jc6 1 8 9 .xe4 14 't!t'xe4 li[c7 15 b3 was lUd 1 .. B a) 1 1 hf3 1 2 't!t'xO ( 1 2 .i.. . lla7 1 3 f4 0-0 1 4 llad 1 . li:Jc6! 16 li:Jd4 li:Jxd4 =..150 Queen's In dian and Hedgehog advantage produced by 9 . llad 1 �0 1 4 b3 li:Jd7 ! 1 5 li:Je4 . . Thessaloniki type of game he wants. .i.xc6 llxc6 20 li:Ja2 ! li:Jc6 1 1 't!t'd3 t ) 1 1 li:Jb 5 was ex­ . and now Cebalo gives and 1 7 li:Je5 wins.i.i. . . . . 01 1984) 1 3 . . Bath 1983. 9 . .i. .xf3 . .b7) 22 b5 ab 23 cd d5 24 li:Jc6 ±± Kavalek­ /53 Velikov.xe4 1 4 'ti'xe4 13 li:J de4 'itc 7! 1 4 li:Jxd6 lHd8 with li[a 7 1 5 li:J d4 1tc8 ( 1 5 .xg2 1 2 <t>xg2 �0 1 2 .i.xf6! c) 1 1 0-0 1 2 llad 1 ( 1 2 llfd 1 .c6 16 't!t'c4 ! Zee 1 98 1 . li:Jd7 1 9 li:Jxe6 ! ±) 19 11'itd3 (154) 'ir'b 1 llfc8 20 ll fd 1 li:Jd7? ( 20 . .. xc3 !? .xf3 . . Solingen v Slavia 1984.i. .e7 .i.!. . .i. oo Karpov-Kasparov. .i.. USSR 198 1 ) best seems 1 1 . . ll xc4 22 .i. li[ a7 1 3 llfd 1 ( 1 3 1 2 . lla7 12 llad1 .e 7 1 3 li:Je4 .i.i.. Cuba 0 h6! = .xf6 . 't!t'xc6 'itxc6 1 9 .i. lla7 1 3 llfd 1 . .i xd5 1 5 li:Jc3 . . . 1 5 . am ined in 'A4232' above. Andersson-Browne. 1 5 . 1984) 1 6 b3 1!t'c 5 1 7 a4 llc7 1 8 lld2 10 . .i.i..i.xf6 1 1 't!t'd3 a6 1 2 . 'ite7 a) 1 1 .i. lld7 16 b3 counterplay.i. . K arpov­ 11 lla7 Browne. . e .e5 1 4 't!t'd2 0-0 1 5 ll ac I b5?! 1 6 't!fe3 ! . . Wijk aan 14 cd .i.) Karpov) 1 2 .t Nogueiras-Pazos. 10 .i.. . . . g6) More popular than 1 1 't!t'f4 (153) 21 b4 ! ! g6 ( 2 1 .

d7 1 7 f4 i.d8 1 5 ll:lc5 ! i) 1 5 ll:l xc4 2 1 b3 ll:le5 22 ll:lxe5 i was 't!t'd4 h 6 ! 1 6 lLl f3 i. ac 1 0-0 1 6 Naestved 1985. Novi S ad 1982. or 1 5 ..Y:! Tal-Browne.g8 I 9 't!t'xh7 ±± . 'it'b7+ Ftacnik) 1 8 fe fe 1 9 'ii'g4 I985) 19 . . ad l i..c7 ! ? 1 6 f5 e5 (?)... c l ! ) 2 1 b 6 't!t'xd5 1 3 ll:le4 0-0 14 :U. very seldom does Black achieve 13 i. g6 G reenfeld. although: 1 7 h4!? 12 :U. x g2 1 4 gives 1 7 f6! ed ( 1 7 .. About equal. . :U. i. 1 5 .. e7 1 3 ll:le4 0-0 1 4 0-0 1 8 fe fe 1 9 :U.. xg5 14 i. . . i. .ac l Y:! . f6 1 8 'tlt'xd6 'tlt'b7+! =/ro or 1 7 ll:lxd4 = Tal-Gavrikov. i.fd I i. 't!t'c7 1 5 Sheva I 984. 't!t'a8 ! 17 :U. Montpellier 1 985.0 Htibner-Lj ubojevic. ll:lc6 1 6 f5!? ll:le5 1 7 't!t'e4 e.c7 I 9 :U. ll:ld4 i.d2 ( 1 4 ll:lxd6? 22 be ±± Greenfeld-Pasman.fd 1 ! ?) 1 5 .e7 23 't!t'd4 Ftacnik-Browne. when Nikolic 1 2 :U. ll:l c6 ( 1 5 .. :U.ad1 i. .g. e4 ! f5 16 . .xf8+ i. 1 984. :U. g5. and often the i end­ <t>xg2 Wb 7 + 2 0 f3 d5 = S myslov­ i ngs are theoretically drawn.. 1 5 . g 5 20 ll:l xe6 1Wxe6 2 I 1Wxc4 20 :U. Naestved 1985. Reykjavik 1 986. USSR Ch 1 984. I9 ll:l c3 ll:l c6 ! 20 't!t'e2 i.. . More common is Ribli... 12 :U. and now 19 e4 is t. . e d 2 I :U.. Ni kolic­ Taxco IZ 1 9 8 5. . ll:lc6 1 8 :U. Tallinn . Groningen Vaganian-Htibner.cd2 i 16 0. f6 1 7 b 3 'ii' c7 1 8 :U. :U. . ac8 ( 1 7 . xg2 1 9 after 9 i. .xe7+ <t>xe7 ! 25 'ii' xb6 d) 11 . ll:lf5 'ii'c6 ! . ll:leg5 !? ( 1 5 :U. . . Ehlvest-Greenfeld. f6 18 ll:lf5) <t>xg2 ll:lc6 1 5 f4 ll:lxd4 ( 1 5 . :U.. e7 1 3 ll:l d4 i. But Short. e4!?) 1 6 ll:l xc6 ( 1 6 f5 ( ! ) ll:l e 5 1 7 b) 1 1 . Thessaloniki 01 1 98 2-83. . . Beer­ i.c8 1 5 :U. 1 6 ll:l xc6 't!t'xc6 17 :U.. :U.g8 24 :U.x g2 the active play he gets in other 14 <t>xg2 'ii'c 8!? lines. . .e 7 b5!? 18 cb :U.. g6 1 6 h4 Probably Black can equalize ll:ld7 17 b3 ll:lf6 1 8 ll:ld4 i. . x f8 20 ll:lf3 ll:lfg5 g6 ( 1 4 ..f3 't!t'xc6 18 b3 16 i. .fd l i...c7 1 5 f4 ! (threatening f5) h4! 'tlt'c7 1 7 h 5 ± Ni kolic-De�e. . 0-0? 1 2 :U.. 15 f4 g6 c) 1 1 .. e7 1 3 ll:lg5 't!t'e4 :U. xe4 14 't!t'xe4 :U. 16 f5 !? I 6 f5 !? gf I7 e4 fe I 8 ll:lxe4 f5 or 16 b3) 16 1hd4 0-0 1 7 f5 ( 1 7 (forced) I 9 ll:lg5 !? ( I 9 lixf5 !? gf 20 :U. d7 1 6 14 .f3 e5? 20 ll:ld5 ! ! 1 3 ll:ld4 'tlt'b7 (20 . g2 :U. .fd 1 ll:le7 13 ll:le4 ll:ld7 26 'ii' xa6 =/oo Tal-Short...xe l + :U. ... .de i 't!t'xe i 2 2 :U. 0-0 18 fg :U. x b7 lla7 1 5 i. . . f6 1 8 e4 ± 0-0. Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 151 ( 1 4 .e4 =/ro :U.xc4 1 8 fe fe 1 9 b3! Greenfeld) i...d7 1 5 fS ! ) 1 5 't!t'xc3 :U..d4 't!t'c6+ 2 1 :U..d7) 14 ... . 1 6 Novi Sad 1 982. .. xf3 1 5 i.xe4 ! 1 7 't!t'xe4 Dorfm an-Psakhis. e7 12 :U. London 1982. . f3 ! ? Ftacnik) 1 7 . .f3 b5 = Welin­ 16 b3 Browne. 't!t'c7 is a good alternative.x f3 :U. . . i.

1 3 Or 10 .e7? ! 1 0 J. . .. Sahovic-Gipslis.e7 transposes to 'A4234'.e7 9 d4 cd 10 lLlxd4 ( 1 0 1 1 .f4 ! ± . . . lLlce4(!) 82 9 lld 1 and 13 lLlxe4 li:lxe4 14 'tlt'xg7 J. . USA 1 977. �0? 1 1 ll fd 1 lLle8 1 2 lLle4 lLlc6 1 3 11t'd2 d5? 1 4 cd J. . . .t ) 8 J. Uhlmann-Rogoff.e7? 1 2 li:lge4 10 lOgS J. 7 b3 d6 (7 . J. .a3! lLlc6 ( 1 0 . . and 9 . ll c8 1 2 lLlge4 ll c6 is 9 lLlbd7 better t han 1 1 .e7 1978. and now Rogoff gives 8 1 9 b3 15 . ..!. c ) 9 J.xg2 1 1 821 9 . lle8!?. d5 8 cd lLlxd5 9 lLlxd5 Zuckerman) 1 1 11f4 . Lone Pine 1976. J.b2 ( 8 e 3 J. 11t'b8 12 lilfd 1 d5 1 3 J. d 4 . Polanica Zdroj 1985. or 8 . .xg2 . . 11t'xd5 1 0 J.xa3 1 5 de! 11t'xd2 7 d4 1 6 li:lfxd2 ± Zuckerman-8enjamin..e7 11t'c7 1 3 f4 lbc6!? ( 1 3 ..a3 ! is looked at 1!rxe7 14 cd J. .152 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 8 lLlc5 1 3 llfd 1 lLlxe4 1 4 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 6 a6 (155) 1 5 11t'xe4 llb8 1 6 J. 10 lild1 J. Jurm ala 8 22 9 .f6 a) 9 e4 J.xg2 1 1 w �xg2 J. J. �0 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 'it'd3 't/c7 =) 1 2 . . J.e7 1 2 lLlde4 11t'c7 1 3 llfd 1 0-0! 1 4 lld2 ( 1 4 lLlxd6 llfd8) 1 4 . J. Moreover.. 'tlt'b7) 1 4 lLl O 'tlt'b7 1 5 11t'e2 llfe8 Seirawan-Fedorowicz. . . .!. .xg2 1 1 �xg2 lLlxe7 1 4 lLle5 .e7? 8 d4 cd 9 New York 1 979. . . . 1 2 . .. 9 lild1 b) 9 J. . d5 1 3 J.e7 1 0 b3 lLlbd7 1 1 J.a3 or 1 3 lLla4 lLl d7 looks good. and now 1 1 .. . .xe7 11t'xd4 is 'A') 1 0 .e7 9 d 4 lla7! =) 8enko-Diesen. 1 2 b4 lLlcd7!? 13 b5 lLlc5 1 4 11t'e3 7 cd ab 1 5 lLlxb5.. lLl bd7 �xg2. .g. 1 1 J. lLlbd7 1 0 lLld2 J. . J. ed 1 0 11t'c7 1 2 llac1 lLle5 1 3 llfd 1 . .. . 11t'c7 1 2 lLlge4 8 21 lld8 or 1 1 .!. . .a3 lLlc5 M oscow 1 982.xe7 11t'xd4 d6 1 0 J. .. 'tlt'bS ) . . 'tlt'b8 1 2 llad 1 lLlc5 is 'A4233 1 ' ( 1 1 82 .e3 lLlbd7 1 0 lLl g 5 J. 7 . 11t'b8 !. .a3 li:lc5 = . 8 11t'xd4 d6 8iel I Z 1 976. e. 155 or 9 .xd5 1 5 lLlc3 ±± below.. llfd8 = was Dr� ko-Griinberg. 'iVb8 1 1 J. . . 1 2 . . . .b2 or 9 . gS J. 1 1 . . 81 9 b3 lLlbd 7 ! 9 . 1 6 llad 1 oo 8ronstein-Kalinchev.

. lt:lxd5 1 4 lt:lxd5 i.f4 t Robatsch­ .f4 lt:lde5 1 7 lt:ld5 ed 18 lt:lf3 'ti'b8 1 8 � g l 'ti'b7 1 9 "it'd2 ! cd =/oo.b2 . 14 lt:lxe4!?.e3!? ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+ A position where White still has Ilijin.xe7 lt:lxe7 1 5 lil:ac l lil:e8 1 6 l!Ja4 ± Ftacnik-Suba. i. 0-0? 1 1 i. .t 1 6 "tlt'b6 ± Larsen-Gheorghiu. . . Ornstein-Ftacnik.\12 Adorjan-Sub a. e .e7 1 8 'ti'e3 b5 1 9 lil: ac 1 .xf6 !? is unclear) 1 5 .. .t Adorj an- .e7 1 5 h4 lt:ld7 1 6 lt:lxe4 lt:le 5 1 4 b3 lil:d8 ! 1 5 i. . Horvath gives 1 6 "tlt'e4! ± with 12 lt:lge4 0-0 ! the idea lt:la4.f4 lt:lxe4! 1 4 "t!t'xe4!? 1 3 lt:lge4 ( 1 3 lt:lce4 0-0 1 4 lt:lxf6+ \12.g. Hungary 1 984. .e7 1 4 16 lt:lb6 lil:b7 1 7 lt:lxf6+ Horvath) lt:lxf6+ lt:lxf6 1 5 lLle4 0. e. 0-0 1 2 lt:lce4 lil:a7 13 lt:lxf6+ a) 1 1 . IIijin.g5 !? ( 1 3 i.xf6 1 5 'ti'g4 'ti'c7!? . . . . 1 5 or 1 5 .e7 1 1 . lt:l xf6 1 6 11t'h4 lt:ld5 chances to exert pressure.. . Sochi 1 977. lil:d7 14 . .. G . 10 i..xa3 or 14 i. . i. .xf6 "tlt'xf6 1 8 "tixf6 gf 19 Schneider. . ..0 1 6 lt:lxf6+ 15 lt:lxf6+ i.e3 i. .g. Plovdiv 1983. . . lil:c8!? 1 2 lt:lge4 lil:c6 1 3 13 b3 i. b5 ( 1 6 . Las Adorj an-Lau. continued 13 0-0 1 3 lt:lxd6 "t!t'c7 1 4 lt:lde4 ( 14 i.d6 1 4 cd lt:lxd5 ! 1 5 "tlt'g4 lt:lf6 1 6 "tn14 with an attack) 1 3 .e3! b 5 b3 lt:lf6 1 7 'tWO lil:d7 1 8 i.xf6 14 "tlt'g4 i. but 1 5 . 12 "tlt'f4 lil:a7 b) 1 1 .x g2 1 1 �xg2 lt:lc6 11 i.. "tlrc7 1 5 b3 lt:lf6 with the idea 1 6 "it'e4 g6 1 7 i.xf6 1 7 i. i. i. . "tia8 1 7 �gl lil: d8 9 i.xf6 was Horvath­ i. .b2!? intending 1 3 . . . . e5 1 5 "tlt'd5 "t!t'c7 16 i. . Palmas 1 976. Horvath­ convincing. Virovitica 198 1 .a3! lt:lc6 1 2 B 1rf4 d 5 1 3 cd (or 1 3 i. "tlrc7 1 2 lt:lge4 l!Jxe4 1 3 i.15 . Prague 1985. lil:ad8 1 5 i. . . M alta 1 98 1 ) 1 3 . . . lil:d7 - 14 . /56 or here 10 .xe7 "tlt'xe7 is a better try) 1 4 i.. Trnava 1 983) 822 16 .e3 lt:le5 ( 1 4 . but this is not very The typical gambit idea. Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 153 11 �x g 2 (156) 1 0 lt:lgS 1 0 b3 lt:l bd7 transposes to 'A'. b5 could follow. Garcia..f4 ! ?) 14 i.b2 lil:d7 14 . . and now lld4 !. lt:lce4 lt:le8 1 6 lt:lf3 ( 1 6 lil:ac l h6 1 7 lt:lg4 ! 16 i. . 0-0 1 5 lt:l a4 b5 may favour White) 1 3 . e d ( 1 3 . .e7 1 4 i.

apparently 't!t'e3 ± Adorjan-Rohde.. . 17 ct>g l ! be 1 8 be ll:la5 1 9 li[ac l Thus an early ./54 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog Schneider.. New York without corresponding benefits.ta3 e5 22 problems for Black . Hu ngarian Ch 1 984) 1985. a6 creates certain li[c7 20 lil de2 't!t'c8 2 1 .

West Ge rman Ch thing). Copenhagen I977. .tb2 d5 =!+ Andersson-Larsen.tb7 4 lt:lf3 intending d4.tg7 7 d4 cd 5 g6 (15 7) (7 . .tg7 will lt:lc6 I4 llfe l e5 + Ivkov-Tukmakov. Tilburg I985. however. . 10 d4 lt:l xc 3 ! I I . that the Double Fian­ 3 g3 b6 chet to can be conveniently used 4 .tg7 for the moment. as lt:lxd5 9 t!t'c i (9 0-0 lt:l c6 10 ll b i ?! outlined in Chapter 9. and 6 d4 cd 7 t!t'xd4 . .tg7 A I 7 d4 A2 7 d3 S low is 7 ll b i ? ! lt:lc6 8 b3 0-0 9 .tb7 of the structural features of the 5 0-0 . d5 9 lt:le5 t!t'c8 = i n the 157 first edition) 9 lt:la3 d5 10 lle I de w I I t!t'a4+ lt:l bd7 1 2 1Wxc4 a6 ! 1 3 t!t'e2 0-0! =. g6 3 g3 (3 d4 cd 4 lt:lxd4 .g.tg2 .) 2 lt:lc3 5 �0 lt:lf6 3 g3 renders 3 . for one Nicolaiczu k. b6 4 . . A 6 lt:lc3 .tg7 8 .txc3 8 6 b3 lt:ld4 +lro) 9 . 12 Double Fianchetto Defence 1 c4 c5 An extraordinarily popular vari­ 2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 ation at the highest levels. as (e. b6 ineffec­ 5 lt:lc3 g6 can be independent in tive . at least 2 . whereas 2 lt:lc3 b6 allows the line 6 b3 d5 (!) 7 cd .tb2 3 e4 . transpose to 'A I '.tg7 6 d 3 !? lt:lh6!? 7 lt:lc3 0-0 Hedgehog without as much risk 8 .tb7 only against 2 lt:lf3 . The reader should n ote. 1978. Sao A 6 ll:l c3 Paulo I 979. 0-0 10 lt:lxd5 1!hd5 6 d3 . .t d2 f5 9 ll b i lt:lf7 = Feustei­ (no initial weakness on d6. .tg7 7 e4 will transpose to I I . . . It retains many 5 e4 is a S icilian) 3 . lt:lc7! + Andersson-Korchnoi . Korchnoi-Miles. . 0-0 8 d5 b5 Miles) 8 ed 't!t"c8 !? (I gave 8 . .txg7 �xg7 I 2 t!t'c3+ f6 I 3 0-0 'A2'. Lugano I 985. saw 6 e 3 . . or 7 e3 0-0 8 d4 .tg2 .

. . e6 I I . 't!Va4.. 1!rxb3 1 4 ab d6 1 5 lbc4 lt:ld7 1 6 1l a6 :t) 1 4 lt:lc4 d6 1 5 . cd ( 1 0 . . .th3 1 1 cd d6 1 2 . . .. . 10 . .ixb2 1 4 li[ b l . . 1!t'f6 wi th a spatial advantage" Ivanov) Karpov) 1 4 1!t'd l d6 1 5 . .txf6! ..if4 :t. went 7 lt:le4 (158) 10 cb ( 10 lt:ld2 . Lucerne 01 e. .tc8 ( 1 2 . gives 15 . . lt:le4 9 d5 0-0 A l 2 7 . . 7 d4 8 . . in the game.. lD xc3 ! 1 6 . .txg2 1 2 �xg2 1!t'xb5 1 3 1!rb 3 ! 'ti'a6 !? ( 1 3 . d5 12 lt:le5 1l c8. Ma nnheim 1 975. . but 1 0 'ti'b3 is promising.if6 1 5 13 lt:le4 ± G reenfeld-K arolyi. .ih3 t or I I . b5 as best.txg7. . . Not 10 h4 14 li[fd l li[c7 1 5 1!re3 1!t'a8 1 6 . . . e 6 9 lt:lf4 d5? I I .ig5 :t. e5 !? 1 2 f4 !? ( 1 2 li[e l ) 1 2 . a ) 8 1!rd3 lt:lxc3 ( 8 . . . 1 0 lt:lcxe4 f) 9 be 0-0 1 0 e4 (" 1 0 d5 12 1!t'xf3 f5 1 3 e4 f4!? ( 1 3 . . .ih6 b5! =. . Vadasz.. Eising­ Zalaegerszeg 1 979. =leo Ivanov-Miles.ig5 lt:lc6 1 3 li[ac I lil:c8 Threatening lt:ld2. .. 1 5 . 1 6 . Karpov-Timman.1 3 d5 lt:l e7 1 4 1986.txc3 .txf3 •. a t leas t =.txe4 A l l 7 .tf4 and 1lae l . . ... 1!rxe2 1 4 lt:lc4 lt:la6 1 5 .td2!? . ..id2 lt:ld7 16 . 10 . 8 . f5 !? 9 lt:lg5 cd b) 9 e5 10 1!t'b3 0-0 I I . e6!? .tc3 lt:lf6?! ( 1 6 .txc3 1 7 1!rxc3 0-0) 17 li[ad I 0-0 1 8 .txg2 I I �xg2 'ti'b6 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 h4 lt:la6 = Schmidt­ /58 Ornstein. . Swedish Ch 1 984. Brussels lt:ld2 e5 . . 156 Double Fianchello Defence cd 9 ed lt:lc6 1 0 ..te3 lt:lc6 1 2 'ti'a4 ± Karpov-Timman.. . . . .. f4 t Pfleger-Gligoric.. . 1 0 de be I I lt:ld2! lt:lf6 1 2 cd lt:lxd5 e f 1 3 .. . d6 1 1 . Amster­ Groningen 1 9 8 1 ) 9 dc bc 1 0 lt:le l !? dam 1 98 1 .txf3 b) 8 4Jd5!? lt:lc6 (8 .txe4 d6 = ) I I . li[ b8?? 1 7 .Ftacnik. Erevan 1976) 1 0 .txf6 19 'ti'c2 8 lt:lxe4 li[lb8 20 b3 with all the play..if4!? lt:la5 1 1 b3 ll b l 0-0 1 5 lt:lc3 .txf4 .id2 a5 1 6 10 . 1982.id7 1 4 ll b l h 5 ! 1 7 lle l g 5 1 8 li[ be3! gf . when Ftacnik Keene.txc3 A1 1 7 be 1!rc8 =. . is assessed as =/co by f5 l l lt:l d3 a6 1 2 lt:ldf4 .. 0-0 9 lt:lg5 ! 11 ef e6 (159) lt:ld6 1 0 . 13 . M anila 1974) 10 . . .. but Renman­ All Ornstein..g. d6 1 6 li[d7 1 3 4Je6! ) 1 3 . cd a) I gave 9 .. Timman. 1!rb6 w I I 4Jd2! ( 1 1 a4 a6 1 2 a5 1!rxb5 1 3 lt:ld4 c d 1 4 . .1 2 .ih3 .

ih6 lii: e8 2 1 lii: e 3 ! 10 . .ih6 .i xb7 i. . 0-0 9 1i'h4 d6 1 0 .ixg7 'it'xg7 14 lii: fd l � Schmidt. Greenfeld­ A 1 2 1 8· 1i'xd4 E. . . .!. ..ie3 ( 1 3 f4) 1 3 . planning lLld4 a6 1 7 :Iii: b3 :Iii: a 7 1 8 lii: be 3 lii: e 7 1 9 Pekarek-Ambroz. . . Lone with the idea . lLl bd7 I I lii: a c I lii: c 8 12 b3 with ongoing pressure.!. The problem is that now 1 2 .Barle.if6 1 5 9 lii: d l ll:lbd7 10 b3 ( 1 0 't!Yh4 lii: c8 . After 1 2 . e6 =) I 0 . . . . . Double Fianchetto Defence /57 1 9 lii: e 8 b5 ! 20 't!Yxb5 't!Yb6 =I CD a ) 8 .. b 3 ll e8 1 4 't!Yh3 ! :. .ig5 .ih6 lii: e8 CD Seirawan-Miles.ixc6 1 3 7 cd 1t'd4 . d5 =) Korchnoi-Panno.if6 1 5 a4 't!Ya8 1 6 ll:Je 1 lii: f5 ! 1 7 . 0-0 1 1 Pine 1 978) 1 3 . . 1 2 't!Yf4!?) 1 2 't!Ye3 ( 1 2 Alexandria.b2 lii: c 8 (or 1 1 . llc5 1 3 . . d6! (160) (Adorjan's move) 12 lii:e 1 ! " 1 2 f4!" Filip. . .ixg2 1 4 'i!7xg2 :.id4 Gurevich. . 1i'xb7 1 8 f3 h5 = ( or 18 .h6 is strong. . . i. Groningen 1 982- A l 22 8 ll:l xd4 83) I I ll:Jxc6 de 1 2 't!Yh 3 1i'd7 = Al21 Donaldson-Lengyel. .ig7 ll:lbd7 l l . . lii: ac l a6 1 3 ll:Jd5 b5! = Donaldson­ 12 . . or 1 6 . . lii: e8 1 3 lii: a c l a 6 1 4 . = or 1 0 . Prague 1986) l:Ixe7 . a6 in tending 1 2 l:I a 7 1 4 't!Yd2 ll e8 = Levitina­ lii: a cl b5.ih6 ( 1 0 followed. !59 w b) 8 . .. Pula 1975. S trasbourg 8 1i'xd4 ll:Jc6 1985.txb2 1 5 llad l !) 1 5 f4 11 47 1 6 a) 9 't!fh4 h6 ! 1 0 ll:Jd4 ( 1 0 ll:ld5 lii: c8 llad l :tl ± . match (23) 1986. . . 1 0 lii: d l li fe I (! ) and 1 6 . went 1 3 . g5 ( 10 .ixe7 20 . . 9 't!Yf4 .ig5 ! ? ll:lbd7 I I lii: fd l . Karpov-Kasparov.ig5 .Gudmundsson. New York 1 985) 12 .i h6 lii:e 8 14 1i'a4 a6 ( 14 .ie3 llc8 1 2 lii: a c l a6 1 3 1 8 .ixg7 'ii?x g7 1 9 lii: e 3 etc.id4. Timman suggested 1 6 . . . ed 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:J c6 1 4 . .. . lii: c 8 All I I lii: d I g5?! 1 2 ll:Jxc6 . h 5 1 7 . 1 2 lii: b 1 a 5 ( 1 2 . Lucerne 1985. . Dubna 1983. . lii: c5) 1 0 .ia l lii: c5 ! 1 5 e d 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:Jc6 1 4 . .

. .tf6 1 9 in Korchnoi-Miles. and b) 9 . ltle8 1 2 1i'b5 .. But Donaldson-Kouatly... . . Dort­ mund 1986. 1 7 .txe5 1 4 1i'xe 5 f6 1 5 1 0 �c2 0-0 I I e4. 10 �a5!? Now Black can head for a some­ No t best. who gives Envigado 1 983: 1 0 .ta3 . perhaps.tg5 ( I I b3 �h5! Kengis) I I . . . or take his exciti ng..t xg2 9 ... �h5 I I 'tWe3 �b4 1 2 l:[ b l a) 9 . .txf6 1 2 �d5) I I l:[ c l 19 gf! ± . . but most what passive ending. �c6!? 1 2 � cb5 1i'd5+ 1 3 Strasbourg 1 985. went 1 6 .. while even 1 7 .. �c6 is less effective due to li[xc4 1 3 �e 5 ..t is given by Donald­ .. .ta6 1 6 1i'a4 =/ro is playable. �f6 ! e 4 1i'xg5 1 4 �c7+) 1 2 e4! � xe4! Yl.txa 1 9 1!Vc8 14 �d6+ �f8 10 b3 15 �xeS .. Analysis by Panno. .txc3 1 2 li[ b l . . 11 b3 b5 Yermolinsky-Eingorn.!.ta3 lif5 ! = A l 22 1 9 . 0-0 or 1 0 . . I I . 9 . . A l 22 9 lil:c8 8 �xd4 . Cuban Ch 198 1 . . �a5 10 b3 0-0 with the idea 9 � xg2 (1 61) I I l:[d I e5! Shamkovich .. . ..txc8 A fascinating alternative is 10 16 g4 . USSR 1982.. as in Agudelo-Rodriguez. 0-0 10 1i'h4!? �a5 I I .. . ... .. 158 Double Fianchetto Defen ce b) 9 1i'd3 li[c8 1 0 e4 �g4 was equal idea 1 7 . lilc8 12 b3 lic5! 1 3 li[ac l h6 = Kengis-Ma karichev. No t I I . . Moscow 1 986. �e4? 12 �e5 ! ± .txf6 . .. �h5 12 1i'e3 b5 transposes.tf6 1 8 g5 �f5 h 6 I I . 1i'c8 Velez-Lebredo. . .\t'l . 0-0) I I 1i'xe4 . . . 10 lid1 10 b3 � e4 ( 10 . . 0-0 ( I I . Baden-Baden 1i'xg4 �g7 20 �d4! keeps an edge.tb2 .t xb2 . e. .ta3!? with the �g7 1 8 �e8+ li[xe8 19 li[xe8 . . . 0-0. 0-0 I I 1i'h4!? chances in the middl egame: �a5 12 b3 lil c5 1 3 .txe7 li[ e8 1 6 �d6 ! ! li[xe7 1 7 li[c8+ son.td2 �xg4 1 8 1i'g5 13 �xe4 1!Vxd4 14 1!Vxd4 .tg7 13 1i'h4 h6 1 4 . �xg4 18 1i'f4 .txd4 1 5 . . poses to 9 . . 198 1 . Either 10 ..t S myslov-Ko hlweyer. 1!Vxc4 ( 1 0 ... 16 0 0 0 �g7 1 7 .tf6 1 9 1!ha5 . 1i'c7 10 b3 0-0 I I e4 trans­ I I . . . I n fact.g.. . A l 222 9 . . .. 12 �xb5! �h5 A l221 13 1i'e3 .td2 �d6 1 3 1i'e2 1i'c8 1 4 lilad l .tg5 !?...

16 1i'e6 10 11rb7+ 1 6 .0 1 5 llc l e6 22 i. h5 is possible. ll:ld7 the same event. 18 . Manila IZ 1 976. nor 18 .g5 ! h6 23 i. . perhaps 1 8 18 . ll:l a6 1 6 was Polugayevsky-Smyslov from ll:lc6 1fe6 1 7 1fd3 ± or 1 5 .!. 1 9 1i'e4 lil fc8! Ilxd7 Gl igoric. 'tib7 1 7 'tlt'd3 (}. Nottingham �f7 22 i. . . although then 1 8 20 'it'xe6 fe) 1 9 . but 13 ll:lxd5 1fxd5 Black should be able to hold with 14 i. 1 936.g7 .!. 'Wxd4 ll:lg4 1 6 1fd2 i. . . . Rubinetti-Emma. .!. . . Bagirov. lilfc8 19 lil xc8 Ilfd l ) 1 6 a4 (intending ll:l b5) 16 . . .xc l �! 22 a4 :t Polugayevsky­ e. 2 1 i. ..g. (}. . finally. f5? 1 9 1 4 i.b2 0-0 1 3 e4 . ll:lc6. i. . . e 5 1 8 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 21 Ilxd7 � .h6 i. . . although this last looks difficult.f6!? 1 9 1 6 llc7 ll fc8 17 ll:lc6 ! 'tlt'e6 1 8 lilc7 ! ( 1 9 i. . 18 Il fdl 12 cd ll:lxd5 White has some edge here. Il xc6 m ay hold. . .0 1 8 Il fd l 11 f3 d5 ll fc8 1 9 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 20 Ilxd7 Ilxcl I I . a6 14 llc I ll:l xd4 1 5 Spassky. 'tlt'xd7 1fxd7 1 9 ll xd7 Ilc6 20 or.g5 ! ± Tal-Polugayevsky. .e3! proper defence. . .f2) 1 7 . But 1 8 . 1 3 . . or . .. USSR Ch 1 976. b2? 0-0 1 5 'tid3 lld8 + was 1fc4 � f7 20 't!t'xe6+ �xe6 2 1 Ilc6+ Capablanca-Botvinnik. . . .h6 1 7 ll:ld5! 17 'tid3 0-0 ± Kochiev. A1222 15 ll:lxc6 't!t'xc6 9 0-0 16 Ilcl (162) 10 e4 'tlt'c7 (163) /62 163 B w . . . lil xc8? 20 'it'd7) 20 a 6 1 7 1Vd3 ! ? ( 1 7 i.d8 ± which h 5 ! (to improve upon 1 5 . 'ti'xc8 ( 1 9 . Ilac8? 1 9 14 ll:lc6 Ilxc8 1hc8 2 0 'it'd? 'ti'a6 2 1 ll d l Noteworthy is 1 4 . lightly . . Buenos Aires 1 979. ll:lc6 1 2 i. Not 1 8 . h 5 1 9 lilc7 lilad8 Kasparov. Double Fianchetto Defence 159 20 f4 =/ro. .

match ( 1 3) 1 984-85. Gladsaxe 1 983. 7 . . . I I 1!t"e2 After 1 5 . . 15 lLl f6+ . Bor 1985) 13 .. as far as I Vilela.t e 3 = Adorjan.ie3 ! liteS 1 2 b3 14 1We5 ! lLlc5 I 3 f3 �) I I ..txe7 lLle5 1 8 1!t"d l 1!t"b7 1 5 f3 f5 1 6 litd l � Chekhov­ lLlxd7 1 9 1!t"xd7 1!t"xa2 = Karpov­ Psakhis . . . lLla6 I I b3 ( or I I .. . lit xb2 . . . g6 8 1!t"a4+) 7 e4 may be a a ) 1 4 . Or 1 5 . . . 'it'e2. . lLlb3. I 2 lLld5 !? 'ilrct8 ( 1 2 .id6 litfd8 Adorjan) 1 8 'ttx a8 lLlc6 1 9 'it'b7 'it'xa2 20 14 . e6 14 b3 ( 1 4 f3 lLlxf3) 1 6 . 'tit'aS 1 7 lLlf6+ . 'ilt'e5 is Karpov-Kasparov.te3 litb8 2 0 'ilt'a6. 1!t"c8 weak .if4 Black has two lines: lLlc6 1 2 lLlc2 a6 1 3 lit d l ( 1 3 .g.txf6 . and. . 1We6 1 6 lLlf6+ h5! threatening .. 1 2 . lLlc5 1 2 f3 lLle8 1 4 . 1 7 lLl e3 lLle5 1 8 litd2 g6! I 9 litad l . e . . .id2 1 7 'ilt'xa8 lLlc6 1 8 1!t"b7 g5 ! 1 9 'it'xd7 1!t"b7 I 7 f3 b5 1 8 lLl e3 f5 = Vukic­ lLld4 20 g4 1Wg6 2 1 . lLlc6. lLlcb5 1!t"xa2 1 4 lit a l = Ftacn i k­ match (20) 1 984-85. . lLlc6 !? I 5 . d6 9 h3 lLlc6 transposes. . or 8 cd 12 'i!fe5 lLlxd5.ig5 lLl bd7. 1i'c7 ! 16 . or 1i'c6 I 7 litd5 f5 =t= Kharitonov.tb2 lit fd8 1 6 f3 d6 't!fxd7 lLld4 =/oo intending . . Adorj an. . or 8 l!Je5 0-0 9 . . Gj ovik 1983. o r (best) 1 9 1!t"xe4 1 4 lite I 1!t"f5 ! 1 5 litxe7 lLla6 llbel 1!t"f5 2 0 . 9 lLl h4 lLlc6 10 f4 lLld 7! I I h 3 e6 .ig7 (6 .txf6 1 6 'it'xa8 lLlc6 8 e4 lLlc6 (164) 17 1Wb7 1We4+ !) 1 5 . Kasparov. . o r 1 9 I I lLl d5 lLlxd5 1 2 cd 1!t"e5 13 lLlf3 . I I .g. . .txb2 Speelman.txf6 I 4 lit a c l litfc8 1 5 b3 lLl e8 1 6 .if4 1Wb7 1 5 . .ie3 1Wxc4 1 2 lit c l lLlc6! 1 3 14 . . 14 litbl e.. 9 .. . agreed drawn.1 60 Double Fianchetto Defence All the rage.te3) 1 3 lite I e6 7 d3 0-0 14 litxe4 ed 1 5 cd lLla6 = Gochev­ 7 . (Kasparov) leaves the white d-pawn Thus the ending from 9 . Gavrikov. .te3? 'ilt'e5 1 5 litad l ( 1 5 c5 more accurate order. . 8 't!fa4+ 1Wd7. II lLlxe4! for n ow.ib2. a n d 1 9 . . . 'ilt'e5 1 3 A2 . H ansen­ . 1Wb7 1 5 . . 'tlt'c5 1 3 .ta3 lLlc6 15 lit ad l 1We5 1 6 1 2 .ib2 't!fxb2 1 6 1 3 .t ( or here I I lLlc2 lLle8 b) 1 4 . Jurmala 1983.i d2 lLld6 1 3 b3 1!t"c8 14 1!t"e l ! lit xd7 1!t"a5 ! 1 7 . 0-0 10 e4 't!fc7 ! also 12 lLlxe4 appears to equalize.tc7 h5! 20 litbe l h4. g4. k now. .txf6 17 'tlt'xa8 lLl c6 1 8 1Wb7 g 5 ! . . . Teteven 1 985. . . Weak er are 10 . 13 'it'f3 1Wxd4 6 d3 .ig5 e6 15 . Adorjan. and 10 . seems sufficient to draw. then 1 7 11 b3 lLlc3 is bothersome. . Irkuts k 1 983). d 5 is still untried. . .if4 8 .te3 �. d5 7 lLle5 is annoying. Finally.ie 3 . 'tlt'h5 (!) 1 6 g4! ( 1 6 lLlf6+ . lLlc6 I I .ig3 1!t"e4+ 22 Psakhis.

. a 6 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 ltl xd4 ltld7 1 3 \!rb8 13 cd ro) 1 1 ..g7 + 1 1 't!ld2 ltld7 Cafferty-Miles. Polanica Zdroj 1 98 1 . 10 i. b) 9 l:l:e1 e6 (9 . . 1954. Uhlmann­ 13 i. . h6?! I I Wd2 �h7 12 d4 :t Karlsson-Miles.e3 1 0 i. and now B ro wne gives d) 9 ltle1 d6 10 f4 ltld7 ! 1 1 ltlf3 15 f5 !? be 1 6 de ltl e5 17 b3 e6 1 8 ltld4 1 2 lLl xd4 cd 1 3 ltle2 f5 = i. .g5 ltl e8 1 0 \!rd2 ltlc7 1 1 i. . Ma nila 1 98 1 .g5 ( ! ) may be the best try. or 1 2 �h2 a6 1 3 ltlh4 ltld4 b4 d6 1 3 be de = Karpov-Savon. .xf6 i. . . 19 \!hh6 �h8 looks forced. USSR Ch 1 975. . . N i ce 01 1 974. 1 2 b3 ltlde5 1 3 ltle1 c) 9 l:l:b1 ltle8 (or 9 ..e3 ltld4 1 1 ltle2 e5 1 2 1 97 1 . but e) 9 ltlh4 ltl e8 ( 9 .g. ltld4!? 1 1 f5 6 b3 i. 10 'tlt'e2 ( ! ) has the idea 10 . =/ro Romanishin-Winants.e 3 d6 13 l:l:c1 ltld4 1 4 : e 1 Marians ke Lazne 1 978.h6 a s unclear.xh6 Uhlmann-Hecht. .e3 �h7 ( 1 1 .. Vr§ac 1 973. . Brussels Hatjun-Forintos. . 1 2 i.xf6 1 4 ltl xd 5 ( 1 4 cd Spiridonov. . h3 d5 1 1 ed? ( 1 1 e5 ! ltl d7 1 2 i. .g5 1 0 . Equal..g5 Wb8 1 3 Wd2 ! 10 . don 1980. 164 9 d6 w Now 9 . h6 ( 1 0 .g. l:l: c8 1 1 \!rd2 a) 9 i. E n gland 1 980.. .g5 and 1 3 cd. . Wd7 = Pfleger-Jansson. . Gjovik 1 983) 1 0 Vaganian-Ma nning. d6 10 a3 e6 I I 10 l:l:c8! l:l: b 1 ltld7 1 2 i. 9 .xc6 1 4 i.h6 ltled4 1 3 ltlxd4 ( 1 3 ltlh4!?) 1 3 . Hungarian Ch 1 986.. ltlc7!) I ' m not sure why 6 . . e6 10 :e 1 !? is Caffe rty­ Miles again . e..g5 h6! ltlxc6 i. i. 10 . .xb2 1 5 Ilb 1 i. Lon­ USSR Ch 1 973. S kopje ltld7) 10 i.!. . .e3 ltJd4 = Me duna-S m ej kal. d6 1 0 f4 e6 1 1 fine...!. . . ltl xd4 = A lburt-Vaganian. ed 12 i. d5 1 1 e5 ltld7 1 2 i. ltlb4 +) 1 4 .d4 .h6 ltld7 1 2 ltlh 2!?) 1 1 i. i. d6 1 0 ltlh4 ltld4 = Planinc-Sofrevski. 9 h3 e . d5!? . . Speelman-Browne.. Then 1 8 . ltle6 1 2 i. .g5 ltlc7 1 1 1fd2 ltle6 12 i.g7 Ribli) 1 1 ltlf3 Wc8 !? ( 1 1 . 14 f4 b5. ltle8 10 i. Double Fianchetto Defence 161 1 2 i.xg7 �xg7 1 3 ltlh4 ltled4 l:l:c8 1 2 \!rd2 � h 7 1 3 b 3 plan ning 14 f4 f5 1 5 ef gf 16 b4! cb 1 7 ltlb5 d4) 1 2 d4 ltla5 1 3 Wd3 e5 1 4 d 5 . g4 ltl e8 1 2 ltl f3 ltlc7 ! 1 3 f5 d5! B Popov) 1 0 f4 f5 ( 1 0 .

.. . 1 0 'ti'd2 d5! I I cd 'ti'xd5 10= .ixc3 ! ? I I d e 1Wxd5 1 2 1Wxd5 17 lii: a c l ( 1 7 li:lc2 b 5 ! .i xg7 'it>xg7 14 cd lb b8 .. .ixg2 1 4 and 9 lbc3 li:lxd5 9 d4 li:l xd 5 1 0 = . Wij k reasonable options. Sweden v Norway 1 984. continued 1 3 1Wxd8 lii: fxd8 1 4 lii: ac l li:le7 (?) 1 5 lii: fd l lii: ac8 ( 1 5 . li:lc3 li:la6!? I I 'ti'e2 d 5 1 2 lii: fd l 10 h6 lii: fd8 1 3 lhc l de ( 1 3 .. . . (7 . d5 =) 9 d4 'it'e7 1 0 14 .ixf6 ! ? . ..... 7 cd 'tid2 ( I I lbd5? ! b5 ! Adorjan) 1 1 . and 7 000 10 'ti'h4 e 6 8 d 4 d5 i s also of interest.tb2 . 7 .ixf6!? 1 0 . li:la6!? 9 d5 e6 (9 ..ie4 16 a3 t Karpov-Kasparov.... . 1 5 1Wd4+ 'it>h7 1 6 h4 !I ± 8 arcza- match ( I I ) 1984-85. . b5 1 0 lba3? ( 1 2 lb xc6 ) 1 2 . 12 fS O therwise White dominates the centre. . d5 1 6 lbe 1 ) 9 lbc6 1 6 li:l b 5 ! d5 1 7 li:lxa7 lii: a 8 1 8 li:lb5 9 . e ..ie4. 'it>xg2 'tic7 1 5 f3 'tib7 1 6 e4 e6!? ( 1 6 e4 li:l c7 = o r 9 .g.. . H ungarian Ch 1 966. lii:fd8 = Korchnoi-Adorjan. . . d6 I I li:lc3 h6 12 lbd5! Tukmakov) 1 4 be lii: a c8 1 5 li:lb5 li:lxd5 13 .. .ixd5 1 3 l Hd l .. 8iro.. aan Zee 1 973. .ig7 8 .. 17 li:lde2 b5 !) .txc3 ( !) 0 0 0 . 7 ... . . g5! 1 3 = lii: e l ! ! ) with the idea 1 0 d 6 lbe4. . 1 1 lbe5 't!t'c7 1 2 8 . 1 7 . ...txf6! 8 d4 cd The best chance.ig7) 7 . e6 9 de be 10 li:lc3 1We7 are .ixb7 'ti'xb7 1 5 a nd 8 .162 Double Fianchetto Defence shou ldn't be effective. 9 't!t'xd4 (165) 11 ef I I ... 1Wh3 lb xe5 1 4 . . /65 12 li:lc3 B Kasparov (who queries I I .ib2 0-0 Wijk aan Zee 1 984. 81 11 . .txe5 'ti'e4 + Ribli-Enklaar. . lii: fd8 1 7 li:ld5 li:le5 Adorjan) = li:lc3 .ib2 0-0 0 0 0 lii: c8 1 2 lii: fd l a 6 1 3 li:ld4 . .. . . 8 1 8 d4 'ti'f4 d5 !? I I lii: d I 'ti'c8 1 2 c d li:lxd5 82 8 li:l c3 13 'tid2 (?) ( 1 3 'tie l ) 1 3 = lii: d 8 0 0 0 8 e3 e6 (8 .txf6) gives 1 2 lba3 d5 1 3 lii: ad l 'ti'e7 ! + here. li:lbd7 1 1 = tending li:lc6. lbe4 !? 10 . d5 is the last note. Here 14 .ixf6? 1 2 'ti'xh6 e6 1 3 li:lc3. . . Now 8jarnehag-Ostenstad.ixg7 li:le3! H Kasparov. d6 10 li:lc3 ( 10 lii: d l li:l bd7 lii: x a2 19 li:lfd4 lii: aa8 20 cd ± in­ 1 1 li:lel 't!t'c7 ) 1 0 .. .

lt:le4 10 lt:l xf6 ("?!" Ftacnik. . e6 822 8 .. I n general. Double Fianchetto Defence 163 1 5 llxc3 d5 1 6 cd lt:lb4 seems to 1984.t) 10 lt:l xd4 ( 1 0 'tWxd4 lt:lbd7 is Schneider-Ftacnik. . 1 5 lt:l f4!?). . ±) I 4 i. f6? 1 4 lt:lxf6! nxf6 i. d5 823 8 . . 20 lt:lxb7 llc8 + .f8 lt:le l ! llfd8 1 6 lt:ld3 lt:le4 1 7 1We l ! :t oo Eisterer-Sax. lt:le4!? 9 '@c2 (9 d4 lt:l xc3 10 i. Thessaloniki 01 1 984. and now 1 2 e3 ! ? 'tie7 I3 lt:la4 'tie7 I4 i. idea 14 . . . lt:lxc3 1 4 lt:lxe5) . . . 166 B 9 d5 8 2 1 8 . 8alatonbereny Taimanov-Tal. Stary Smokovec '8 1 ' ) 10 .xc3 I I 'tixc3 d5 ( I I .xc3 1 3 . . . . . f6 I 5 lt:lxf6) I4 . lt:l xc3 I 0 i. . . and now 15 . USSR 1 983. or 1 2 d e ( ! ) lt:lxc5 ( 1 2 . so Ftacnik gi ves 1 7 lt:l e4 'tixd8 ll xd8 1 5 i. . .. . USSR Ch 1974.a3 i. 821 10 de be 8 e6 11 ed ed 9 d4 12 llcl lt:la6 9 lic l d5 (9 . llcl . lt:l a6 a) 8 .xg2 I I ct>xg2 d 5 !? 1 2 I 983. '@e7 I 0 d4 d6 I I Now 1 3 e3 would b e the 9 li c l 'tid3 :!) 1 0 cd ed ( IO .. . . . . . but more accurate is :!) I I d4 lt:l a6.a6 = 8 lt:le3 (166) Taimanov-Kudrin. lt:l xd5 I I d4 note above. 'tid7 I4 lt:lbd4 82 1lfe8 1 5 nc2 a5 ! 16 a3 i.xc3 = Alburt­ lt:ld7 1 8 i. ..a3 llac8 I 5 l 3 de be 14 lt:la4 llfc8 1 5 i. . lt:l c6 1 2 1 5 lt:lg5 1t'c8 1 6 llac l lt:lc6 1 7 lt:le4! ll fd l d5 I 3 d4!) 1 2 cd 'tixd5 1 3 d4. be improve . e5! ( 1 3 . . f6 1 5 b) 8 .xc3 lt:lc6 =) 9 . . . 8 d4 is not is the main line below) 1 3 lt:lb5 very dangerous. ( 13 lt:ld4!? :!) 13 . .xe5+ ( 1 4 lt:lxe5!? with the lightly :t. . . . .xf6+ lt:lxf6 I 9 lt:ld6 'ife6! Polugayevsky. lt:le6 (?) 9 d4 cd (9 . i. llxf6! I 6 lt:l g5 cd lt:lxd5 1 3 lt:ldb5 ( 1 3 'tid2 or I 3 1t'c8 I 7 lil ac ! ? lt:l c6! wins ( I 8 lt:le4 e3!? may im prove) 1 3 . . . .

. . . i. ( 1 7 lt:lc6 �f6) 1 7 . . . Hu ngary 1 9 82. . Lone Pine 1 9 75. �f6 1 8 �b5 t) 9 lt:le 5 !? e6 (9 . . . lt:lbd7 1 0 f4 !?) 1 0 18 li xc8 + ( 1 8 a3 lt:la2 =) 18 .xg7 �xg7 1 2 cd 't!t'xd5 15 �xg 2 (168) 1 3 d4 lifd8 1 4 lt:le l 't!t'd7 = Torm­ Lj ubojevic.. . lt:lfd7 1 3 lt:lxf7 ! with a killing attack. . 9 e3 d5 1 0 lt:lxd5 14 lt:lxd4 i. 20 . d 5 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 1 0 lt:le5 !?) 1 0 .xc3 . . 9 d5 9 . lt:l a6 is ' 8 23') 1 1 lt:lb5 ! lixc8 1 9 lid2 a 6 Y2-Y2 Benk<r a6? ( 1 1 . 't!t'd8 ( 1 4 . . . USSR Ch 1 973. and now Ch ekhov gives 1 5 ( 1 7 liacl lilacS ) 1 7 . . Weinstein. Tjentiste d) 15 .Y2 Tai­ 't!t'd7 1 4 d5 t) 1 4 e5 ( 1 4 d 5 e 6 =) Savon. lt:l f6 ! 1 8 e3 ( 1 8 12 d4 cd lt:lc6 lic7 1 9 b4 a 6 20 a4 b5) 1 8 . lt:l xd5 1 1 i. For 1 1 . xg 2 lt:l xd5 1 1 i. . Mestei-Chekhov. . lidS 16 lifd 1 lt:l a6 1 7 lt:lc6 1 975. . . . see 823.164 Double Fianchetto Defence 822 This endi ng is u npleasant but 8 d5 qui te tenable for Black: 9 lt:lxd5 a) 1 5 . . 'ti'd7 oo). 9 d4 13 't!t'xd4 9 d3 d5! =. Niksic 1 976. Nice 01 1974.. d 4 c d ( 1 0 . . . lildc8 ! 1 8 1!t'e2! cd 1 6 lUd 1 .x g 7 � x g7 2 1 h4 liad7 22 f4 tl ± Andersson­ 11 cd 't!t'xd5 H ort. .b7. a6?! 16 life ! lia7 17 lic2 Lengyel-Sugar. . 9 lil c l 168 B can be met b y 9 . lifd8 1 8 e3 �f8 ( 1 8 .. . 1 3 lt:lh4 'ti'd7 1 4 i. e5 19 lt:lf3 f6 9 lt:lxd5 20 g4 ! t) 1 9 liac 1 �e8 20 g4! h6 10 i. 9 cd lt:l xd 5 10 't!t'c 1 lt:l c6 liac 1 lt:lb4! ( 1 7 . . lt:lxe7 ( 1 8 lil ac I lic7) 1 8 .xd5 1 2 d4 �a6 1 3 c) 15 . . . liteS 16 lilacl lt:l d7 1 7 lifd 1 't!t'd3 i. . cd 1 0 lt:l xd4 ( 1 0 't!t'xd4!? lt:le4!? 1 1 't!t'e3 lDxc3? 1 2 i. .xg7 �xg7 12 cd ihd5 1 3 d4 lilfd8 = ( 1 4 e4 't!t'h5). . lt:l a6 1 3 e4! 't!t'd6 ( 1 3 . a 6 1 9 a 4 lt:le4 ! 2 0 lt:lc6 Y2. .. lle8 13 't!t'xd4+ 19 lt:lc6 lixe2 20 lild7 lilc8 = Marie. �f6 14 . . .. . . b) 1 5 . . e6 1 0 d4 d5 1 1 e3 ( I I cd ed 1 2 de w as ' 8 2 1 ' ) 1 1 .. lt:la6 16 1Hd1 liac8 1 7 . . . 16 lUd 1 may also 8 lt:la6 be lightly t. or by 9 .. 't!t'e7 1 2 't!t'e2 1Hd 8 = .. Or 1 2 . . xb7 follow­ 823 ed by 15 't!t'xd4+. . . 't!t'd5 !? 1 5 lt:lh4 2 1 b4 b5 =.!:. lt:l fd7) 1 2 lt:lxd4 ( ±) 1 2 . .

. went 14 ll c l llfe8 169 1 5 llc2 llad8. r3 d6 1 5 't!Vd 2?! ( 1 5 lt:\c2! . . lt:\c7 ! Kasparov). 10 lt:\e5 12 cd ed A move I suggested in the fi rst 1 2 . etc. 1 3 llc l d4 =. The Double Fianchetto Defence is solid and reliable.with the 11 lt:\xc5! idea lt:\e3) 15 .t-) 1 2 . and now 16 lLld4 B ( = ) ( Ftacni k) was better than 1 6 b4 d4 ! . a6 16 lbc l llfc8 ! I I . . . Biel S i lm an-Wi nslow. . After 11 de (169) 13 . Double Fianchetto Defence 165 �xc3 1 3 't!Vxc3 lt:\c5 1 4 llfd l . and 1 0 d e lt:\xc5 1 3 lt:\f3 I I lt:\xd5 lt:\xd5 =. . .ixd5 't!Vxd5 1 5 't!Vxd5 e d 1 6 llfd l c3 lt:\ xc3 1 2 .Rodriguez. Conclusion. 't!Vc7 1 3 e4 'it'b7 1 4 = Andersson. cd I I 't!Vxd4 lt:\d7 1 2 f4.ixg2 I I 'ittxg2 lt:\c5 1 2 ll e l ll c l 't!Ve7 1 3 lLld3 cd 1 4 lt:\b5 't!Vd7 ( 1 2 f3 ! . Thes­ saloniki 01 1984. Its m ain drawback is a lack of positive prospects for the second player. lt:\ b4 12 llad l ± .. to replace 10 cd lt:\xd5 I I . which here I I .!:! ± = A ndersson-Polugayevsky. . . be? 12 cd ed 1 3 lLld3 't!Ve7 = Su nye-Larsen. . .ia3 1 9 82.t. .Ftacnik . lLlxd5 =) 1 2 1 0 . allows 14 lt:\b5! a nd lLlbd4 . . 10 e6 13 't!Vd7 ! 1 0 . . Palo Alto 198 1 ) 1985. Biel 1985. . . Las Pal mas IZ 14 lt:\a4 llac8 1 5 ll c l ll fd8 1 6 . . . or Bet ter than 1 3 lle8.t.ixc3 llc8 = (or 1 2 . I I cd ed ( or I I . ..ixd5 1 4 edition. lLl xd5 1 3 lt:\xd5 . . 't!Vd7 Ftacni k-Speelman. This will probably inhibit expansion of its use on any but the highest I I e3 't!Ve7 1 2 't!Ve2 de 13 be ll ac8 levels. .

. but oo . . . White has: A 5 g3 B 5 lLlc3 5 lLlc2 or 5 f3 are a nswered by 5 .ie2 d5 7 cd (7 0-0 .ie6 1 3 lLlxd5 equality. 't!Yb6!? (1 7 1) is the m ain alternative: One of the most common English Opening positions. . c) 5 ..!:. e4 't!Yxe4+ 10 1i'e2 1!t'xh 1 I I lLld6+ . . . 1i'c7. . g6!? 9 't!Ye2 lLle5 5 g3 10 . d5 6 . d) 5 . . . d5 = .ie3 't!Yd8 I I . . e6 is note 4 lLlxd4 lLlc6 (1 70) to 6 ... Slow is 5 e3 e6 (5 . at least =. = (Filip).ig2 e5? (6 . d5 =) 6 Now 6 lLlb3 lLle5 ! (intending . ed 8 1!t'c6) 7 . . . .ie7 Black has no certain route to I I ed ed 1 2 lLlc3 .. A lLlxc4 8 0-0 e6 (8 .ic5 7 . . 't!Yb6) 7 lLlxc6 be 8 0-0 . or 8 .ie3 ! lLle5 7 lLle3 lLlxc4!? 8 lLlxc4 1i'c6 9 (compare 5 e4 lLlb4 in Chapter 8).Janicki) 9 1Wc2 d5 1 0 e4 . . 13 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lLlxd4 6 1i'xd4 g6 7 .ig7 . .ig2!? 0 c5!? 1!t'c6 8 li:gl lLlc3 .ixf6 This isn't played much. 5 e6 White can also play 6 lLlc2!? a) 5 . . lLlc6 1 c4 c5 or here 7 lLld6+ . . . d5 =) 7 .id6 =) 7 . . 1 70 w 8 lLlc3 is Chapter 4.id4 lLlc6 12 .ixd6 8 't!Yxd6 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 1i'e 7 9 't!Yd l !?.ig2 . 3 d4 cd b) 5 .id6 = (a Queen's Gambit). . . e5?! 6 lLlb5 .

ltJe5 7 Finally.xc5 9 ltJxc5 't!t'xc5 1 0 0-0 d5 is 'tlj'xb7 llc8 . . . 7 ltJb3 . . . . ltJc4 is promising.g4 1 6 li:J d 2 Uoo. speculative. . . I I ab!? i. . .0 d6 9 ltJc3 i s 5 li:Jc3 e6 6 g3 i.c5 below) 8 i. 't!t'b2 =/oo . then 1 2 . i. i. . .b4+ 7 ltJ c3 is analysed . . . . . 8 't!t'c2 !?) 8 . e. o r 6 . e6 8 i. 0"J b5(!) with the idea 6 . Alburt. .e3!? 't!t'a5+ 8 ltJc3 b5 9 ltJd2 is 8 cd ed = (Aibu rt). He re 7 i. . .g5 i. .f4) 1 0 i. a6 9 analysed under 4 . .f4!? 0-0 I I ltJc7 . e6 5 g3 of 'tli'a4 ltJd6 1 0 i. d5 as options. d 5 is is natural: 7 . but 7 . went 6 . . . . however) I I be!? (":!:" Alburt) I I b) 6 .7J xl7+ <c!te8 1 3 ltJxh8 !? ( 1 3 ltJd6+ wi th the idea 9 . . . . . i. . Miles-Giigoric.e7 =. <c!id8 1 2 Or 7 ltJb5!? d5 8 cd ed 9 ltJ lc3 . d5 7 and 7 .. d6 9 0-0 In t h e first edition I suggested 6 i. i. . ltJc3 is 823 below) 8 ltJ I d2 (8 c5!? �xh2 were threats) 1 4 .f4 e5 1 5 i. i.d2 (lik ewise 8 ltJc3 d5) 8 .c5 7 ltJb3 (7 ltJc2 d5. but 1 3 . . W'b4! I 0 ltJd2 1985. . . .d2 't!t'b6 (7 .f4 :1::) I I i.e7 ( 10 . 7 e3 i. . . Black has 7 . .. de 9 ltJca3 't!t'a6 10 llb8 I I 0-0 i. .b4+ 8 u nclear.xd5 ltJd6 I 0 Chapter 1 4. .c5 !?) 8 B liJ b3 is Ch apter 1 4.g2 V ±. .c5 8 ltJxc6 (8 ltJb3 1 5 llac l i. . . be 9 '§'c2 (=?). 7 ltJc2!? . .a6 1 2 lt:Jb5 ! ± Chernikov-Stein.c5 is possible.. and now 1 3 . i. compare in tending i. g6 14 't!t'c2 ! or 1 3 i.. li:Je5 (! 7 . the Gri.g.. . .e7) 8 .c5 (9 . . . . i. c4 a6 I I i. . . . 7 1 72 li:Jb5 d5 8 0-0 0-0 9 . went 8 . Moscow 1 966. d5 7 0-0 i. cd! 1!t'xb 5 8 ltJ c3 't!Vb6 9 de 1!t'xc6 I 0 lt::l e 5 8 't!t'e2 i s n o t productive. 5 li:Jc3 (1 72) c) 6 . g6 and . .g2 ltJe5 9 Alburt-de Firmian. i.b4 belo w. .e3) 9 i.e7 8 0. i. . 0-0 1 2 ltJb5 'W'a5 1 3 i.infeld Defence.c5 8 0-0!? is �g2! ltJxc4 8 ltJ l c3 d5 (8 .d2 'ti'd8 1 4 under 5 ltJc3 e6 6 g3 i. . . li:J c6 167 ( '' ±" Kasparov) I I . a6 7 l0 5c3 8 0-0!? ( 7 i.g2 'W'b6 ! ? ltJxe2+ 1 3 <c!ih I li:Jxc I 1 4 ltJb5 'ti'b6 a ) 6 .e7 1 2 W'c2 0-0 13 a3 b3 i.g2 :1:: .f4 i. i. .b2. cb I I 't!t'xb3 ltJd4 1 2 "i!t'c5 =. 2 l0f3 l0f6 3 d4: 4 . .e7 9 li:Jc3 0-0 1 0 0-0 b6? ( 1 0 . 6 i.d7 1 5 i.b4+ �e3 't!t'd8 I I i.ig5!? Kova�evic. 't!t'xh 2 1 4 g4 !.b4+ ( 7 . i. d4? 1 0 c=). interesting) 7 . .. . . . . New York �b3 !? (9 ltJd2) 9 . 7 d5 Bugojno 1 982. d6 I I i. . B 7 ltJ xc6 be 8 0-0 0-0 9 t!t'c2 !?) 7 . . . 14 't!t'b5+ ( . After 8 0-0. .

ib4+ Cherepkov-Kiaman. . e6 e 6 7 e4! ? (7 g 3 is the main 6 . f) 5 .. e. g6 6 g3 . promising. . . li:J xc3 0-0 ± Portisch-Donner. .. Ch 1 974. went 1 3 llc l . Amster­ 12 be .if4 e 5 9 c d ef 10 'it'xf4 ! li:J b5 I I li:Jc7+ '1!?d8 1 2 . a 3 llfd8 1 5 'i!rc2 ! ) 1 2 llc l c5 1 3 e) 5 .. lt::l xc3? 9 .ic5 7 .ie7 ( 9 .ib5+ . Edmonton 1985. Skopje 1968.id7 1 0 'i!rxd5 ! Ivanov-Ca banas.. .g. 't!lb6 6 li:Jb3 (6 e3 e6 7 . d6 7 . 0-0. .. I I .ig7 7 . USSR 1958..ig5 ! . 6 li:Jc2 e6 7 e3 f3) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jxc6 be 8 . dam 1 969) 9 g3 (9 e4 lt::l b4 ! =) 9 .ixf6 ef 1 0 'i!rd2 ± Gheorghiu­ . e5- c) 5 .if5 ! 'i!rg5 1 6 li:Jc3 ±± in . 7 li:J xc6 be 8 'i!rxc6+ (8 cd ed) 8 1 5 .. 'i!rb6 (8 .ib7.ib4 1 5 ll xa2! a)5 . ..ie2 e4.id6 tests.. . Wij k aan Zee One o f the oldest lines of the 1973. but Abolinsh-Isomussu.. . li:Jg4 I 0 'i!rd2 'i!rh4+ I I g 3 'i!rh6 1 2 But 6 . (Janicki). d) 5 .id2 'i!re7 planning . . e6(!) seems reasonable.if3 't!t'b6 13 lt::l a4 't!t'b5 1 4 Matulovic. terrain for key i nternational con­ corres 1 980-2.ib7 transposes to li:Ja4 llc8 14 b3 ! intending lt::l b 2- Chapter 9.if4 is also . .ixc3 'tixd l + 10 line ) 7 .ib7?! ( I I . . . . e . . .g. . . . . .ih3 h 5 1 4 0-0 li:Jf6 e. . b6!? 6 e4 . .ia6 1 2 .g. Or 6 .ixc3+ 1 6 be 'i!rxa 2 17 'i!rc7+ is Chapter 4. . Here 7 cd li:J xd5 8 li:Jxd5 b) 5 . .ig7 8 li:Jd5 0-0 9 t ) 1 0 . .id2! (8 d5!?. . e5? 6 li:Jdb5 . . Polugayevsky-Belyavsky. USSR . f2) 6 'i!ra4!? with the idea 6 .id3 d5 9 cd ed 1 0 llxd l f6 I I g3 e5 12 .ig2 .ig5) 7 .id7 1 3 ed li:J xd5 I I 0-0!. . lt::l x c3 !? 1 0 . ..ie7 13 'i!rh 5!. 9 . .. Black's alternatives are mostly 14 li:Jb5! ±. . or 7 g3 .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 b3 !. d5 is the most interesting 1 73 deviat io n : w fl) 6 li:Jxc6!? be 7 c d cd 8 e4!? li:J xe4 9 . C22. 'it'b6! ? 7 li:J db5 e 6 8 . 'i!ra5 1 3 dubious : lld l ! li:Jxa2 1 4 lil a ! ..ie3! 'i!rxd4 9 'i!rxd4 lLl xd4 I 0 .id7 9 'i!ra6 d4! 10 li:J b l .ixc3 'i!rd5!? . 'i!rc5 was English Opening. . .t b4 8 . and still the suggested. . .ic5 8 e3 li:Je5 !) 6 .ig2 0-0 I I 0-0 . li:J c6 5 e6 (1 73) li:J xa8 Tal-Donner. li:Jxd4 6 'i!rxd4 g6 (6 .ixe3 8 li:Jd6+ '1!?f8 9 fe ±.. . 'i!rd7 ? 7 li:Jdb5 or 7 cd li:Jxd5 8 li:J xd5 'it'xd5 9 li:Jb5 ± (Tal) . e4 lt::l x c3 9 'tixd8+ '1!?xd8 =) 8 . . . c4. note (b) to 4 . and now 12 .. . .ig2 or 6 li:Jc2 . ... I I . After 1 2 . 168 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . li:Jd l ! 'i!rg6 1 3 .

. a5 (Hort) Sicilian.id6.ia3 = yet doesn't appeal to top players: 7 Andersson-Sosonko..ixd2+ I I 1t'xd2 cd 12 e3 0-0 . . 7 lt:l xc6! be ! (7 . .id2 0-0 8 .. . Moscow 1 959. .ie7 and 1 74 .ic7 't!t'e7 9 line above. . or here 7 . lt:le5 ? 8 c5) 8 .id2 d4 1 3 lt:le4 't!rd5 =t= Oj anen­ Endzelins.ig5 a6 9 I 0 . considered harmless for or 1 4 ..ie2 d5 = Filip­ cycles have occurred since: first. .ixd4 9 ed de =) 7 . d5 10 cd ed I I lt:lxf6 gf 1 2 . corres 1 955.. popularity .g.ib4 d 5 7 lt:ldb5 e 5 or 6 .9 . c) 6 . . .. ... o r here 8 .g.. .. .ib4!.ie7 . e5 1 5 b4 .or 8 .ic5 8 0-0 .ie2 b6 =.ixd4 9 ed de) 7 e 3 (7 e4? lt:l xe4! 8 lt:lxe4 't!t'e 5) 7 . B l 2 6 . . . . d5 7 cd ! ? lt:lxd5 a) 6 .ie7) 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 1 0 Il: c l Il: b 8 ! l l b) 6 . .. .ie7 =. . . 7 .id3 e5 (or 8 . a6 8 .ic5!? 7 .ie6 .ie6. ..ie2 . 't!t'a5) 7 lbb5 a6 8 lt:ld6+ �e7 9 lt:le4? (9 lt:l xc8+ = ) 9 . . .id6 =.ig5 . . . .. e . 9 . . d5 7 .ia6 1 5 .ixf6 (9 lt:la3 . ltJc6 1 69 B I 6 li:ldb5 Korchnoi-Timman.ib4 7 lt:ldb5. . Tilburg 1982) . .ixc3+ 9 almost exclusively chosen . .id3 't!t'b6 (or 13 ... Black after e. .id2 0-0 10 a3 . . 0-0 9 e5 't!t'a5) 9 .ib4 (or 9 . .ie? = - 1 3 . . .. . or 7 lt:ldb5 became the main line. A move I advocated in the first d) 6 e3 d 5 (or 6 .if4 e5 (7 . d5 Independent is 6 . . d6. . and fairly reliable answers to 6 ed 8 . . . recently.ie2 .i xa6 a) 6 e4 .. . . .if4!? can transpose after 6 . . . . d6 has never been refu ted.. Black had 14 . . . .id2.ib5 lt:ldb5 have cut into the latter's . Better 7 .id6 =. Two lt:lxc3 d5 = .ie3! ± 8 lt:l xc6 be 9 . . 2 ltJf3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 .. . . e6. ..ig5 .or 9 . 't!t'c2 't!t'a5 1 2 e3 lt:lxc3 1 3 be . Hilversum 1982. . . ..ib4 (or 6 . Bl d e 8 1Wxd8+ �xd8 9 e 5 ! is 6 lbdb5 (1 74) d angerous) 8 . B b) 6 a3 't!t'c7 (or 6 .if4 e5? 8 . . 0-0 8 . .id6 8 0-0 0-0 = or even 6 g3 has been strengthened again.id7 9 0-0 .ie2 lt:lxd4 9 ed d5 =) 7 following Korchnoi's lead. . .ic5 !? 8 e 3 . with White a transposes to note (b) above to 5 tempo down on the 5 . B2 6 g3 and aside from 14 .. cd (7 . . . d 5 ("f3") . and 7 lt:lb5 edition at a time when 6 g3 was 0-0 8 a3 . . . . .ib4 is a Taimanov 't!t'xa6. e) 6 . B l l 6 . a5) 14 0-0 10 g3 't!t'b6 I I lt:lc2! lt:lg4 1 2 . .ie3 . . which is B I I . 6 Vasyu kov.

ixd6 9 li:J xd6 (1 76) and: li[c8 with no problems.id6 . .if4 e5 9 li:Jf5+ <t. 13 . . .ig5 a6 9 li:Jd6+ <t. . . f5 ( ! ) .if3 li:Je5 2 0 li:Jd4 .e7 (8 . .ixb4 1 3 f3! ±± . . e4 1 3 't!t'd6 I 6 't!t'g5 +. d 4 1 1 li:Jd5+ li:Jxd5 I 2 c d 't!t'xd5 Lein.e7 10 li:Jxc8+ com pares well for White with 7 li:Jd6+?! above. d 5 ? 8 g3 f5 1 2 . . .ie6!? I I e3 ( ! I I . 14 . B l ack . 't!t'a5 15 l:tc l .f8 l:tc8 1 5 l:t b l 't!t'a3 1 6 l hb7 li:Ja5 1 7 10 . . 7 a3 . . in More accurate seems 1 0 . Finally. 7 . . Zilberstein­ . l:t c8 !? I 3 lid I e4!?) I 3 0-0-0 a b . After 10 .ixc3+ 8 London 1980) 9 . .ic7!? 'tlt'xd6 'tlt'xd6 1 5 l:txd 6 . we have Mikenas' line of the last paragraph. .g. gf 10 li:Ja3 (1 75) li:Jxc 3 d5 can lead to e. .if5 =.ie6 1 2 . . . view of I4 . 811 6 . . 9 cd ed 10 e3 0-0 I I .ib4 7 .ie2 f4! 1 7 ef . . because of the sequence I I e 3 . .g. and here 10 li:Jde4!? h6 I I li:Jxf6 gf I 2 Now e. . . USSR v Yugoslavia 1967. li:J c6 li:Jxe3 1 3 li:Jxe3 'tlt'xb2 1 4 li:Jed5 whereas here 8 . .ixc3 16 be 8 . . . li:Ja6 1 5 li[ c l I 2 't!t'd 2 ( 1 2 't!t'h 5 ! ?) 1 2 .ie5!) 1 3 .ie2 t) 1 2 . . . d4 1 0 a3 . 1 76 f5 I I g3 . . 0-0-0 ( 1 3 l:t d i . Tel Aviv 1 964) 10 .ie2 . li:Jd3) Gipslis-M inic. .Timman-Soson ko. 1 0 .ixb4+ li:Jxb4 I 4 't!fd2! ±±.!. . . . . or 9 e3 0-0 I 0 1 75 B .ixc4 't!t'xd l + 1 2 li:Jxd l li:Je5 = (in tending .ia5 I I b4 li:Jxb4 1 2 ( 1 2 . .e7 8 li:Jxc8+ l:txc8 is bad for White's development. . . . .ie2 de I I . and 7 li:Jd6+!? <t. USSR Ch I 972. .if4 7 .ig2 .ie6! I 4 8 .ig7 (9 . . . . f5 I 2 t!fd2 ( 1 2 .id2 16 .ig5 0-0 8 e3 d5 = is slow. e5 8 . .f8 9 li:Jxa8 li:Je4 't!t'a5 1 5 l:tfd l e4! ro Mi kenas) I I 10 a 3 ! li:Jxc3 I I 'i!t'd3 ±) 9 li:J xa8 e5 .ig7 li:Jc6 1 5 li:Jc7 o r 1 4 .ig7 I 3 0-0 B 0-0 I4 't!t'd2 t!fa5 .Szabo­ 'tlt'a5 I 4 li:Jd5 t!fxd2+ 15 l:txd2 0-0-0 Langeweg. <t.1 70 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . .ig2 .id2 also seems good .ig5 d5! (Tai manov) favours l:tb4 =/ro . l:td8. . 7 0-0 Now 7 .ig7 1 3 't!t'd2 0-0 140-0 li:Jc7+ <t.ih6 I 8 li:Jc2 ef I 9 (or 10 cd ef I I de 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'c l !) 1 0 .

. .. .Korchnoi-Andersson. . . 't!i'xd4 1 3 ed b6 = Kapengut.id7 1 5 l:lfd l . lt:Jd4 I I l:l d l 't!i'xd6 1 2 't!i'xd4. .txc3+ 1 0 15 .. lt:Je8 I I e 3 't!i' b4 ! = . .te2 d6 ( 1 3 . I I . Korchnoi-Polugayevsky. 8 1!fe7 ll:Jxd4 1 3 l:lxd4 b5!? Polugayevsky) 9 .te2 . . .. Mexico City 1 98 1 ) 12 ll:Ja3 1!t'b6 ! 9 . . 10 1!t'd8 ! g3 ll:Je5! 1 3 b3 d 5 !) 1 2 . ( 19 . . . . 1 4 . or 1 0 . .>f8 13 g3 ll:Jc6 1 4 . .!. Gjovi k 198 3. 1!fxd4 1 3 l:lxd4 b6 .ie8 8. Euwe. ll:J xd 6 12 lD xd6 ( 1 2 't!i'xd6 b) I I g3 a6 ( I I . . . . . . . . d5!? 1 4 cd ll:Jb4 1 5 12 ll:Jd6 'i!. . . .. b6 ? 1 8 ll:Jxf7) I 0 . but 1 2 . ll:Je5 1 3 e3 h6 must be considered) I I . ll:Je7 ! ?) 1 4 0-0 Abramson-Rokhlin. e . after 12 .ig3 1!t'f6 1 2 1!fd2 a6 1 3 ll:Jd4 g6 =) (5) 1 980. e . . ll:Jxd6 I I 't!i'xd6 't!i'b6 1 2 l:lb I Adorj an-Agdestein . . l:ld8 1 3 N o t I 0 . 1!fxd6?! I I ll:Jxd6 l:ld8 .!. or 17 f4 ± ( 1 7 . 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 .ig2 ± .g.id6 ( I I = Korchnoi-Polugayevsky. .tf3 ed 1 6 a3. . e5) 1 5 . d5 =. 1 3 ll:Jc7 l:la4 1 4 II a6 ll:Jxb5 ( 1 4 c b 1!t'b4+ 1 5 't!i'd2 ll:Jd4! Black needs an improvement.tg2 ..12 ed and .!.!. . lt:J xe8 ab! =. d 5 1 6 f4 ll:Jf6 1 7 e4 a5 b e ll:Je8 looks =. . ... l hc4 1 5 e3 l:l b4 lt:Jd4! I I e 3 1!fxd6 1 2 1!fxd4 . match 1 2 g 3 'i!. . l ightly . . . match . . lidS 1 3 g3 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4. lt:Jf6 1 3 e3 h6 14 lt:Jf3 lt:J e4 1 5 't!i'c2 d 5 !? or si mply 1 2 . 1!t'b6 ! ? 10 1!fd2 ( 1 0 l:lb l + Janicki) 14 .. ll:Je8 10 e3 ( 1 0 1!t'd2 1!t'b6.tg2 d5 = ( 1 6 l:l d I b 5 !) Korchnoi­ 10 ll:Jxd6 ll:Je8 I I lDcb5 a6 ! 1 2 Polugayevs ky.ia6 14 l:ld l ll:Ja5 1 5 e4 l:lfd8 = l:ld7 16 l:lfd I . . ll:Je8 1 2 't!i'd2 a6 't!i'xd6 and .!.tg2 ll:Je8 14 ll:Jcb5 ( 1 3) 1 9 80.g. . ll:Jxd6 1 5 ll:Jxd6 't>e7 1 6 0-0-0 lib8 b) 9 . corres 1 965- ( 1 4 l:lb!?) 14 . . .>f8 1 3 . .. . . h6 = . very 11 e4 lightly . a) 1 1 0-0-0 a6 1 2 ll:Jd4 ll:Je8 ( 1 2 . 1!ff6 ! Hort).ixd6 1 3 l:lb l 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4 lDxb4 1 5 10 't!i'xd6 (1 77) . ltJc6 1 71 a) 9 . . l:ld8 ? I I 't!i'xe7 ll:Jxe7 . . . Johannesburg 198 1) 10 . with . . . .ib7 1 5 0-0 . I I . l:lxe8 12 e3 ( 1 2 . . match ( I ) 1 980. . . b6 1 3 't!i'd2 1 3 ll:Ja3 b6 1 4 ..id6 13 lLJ xc6 be 14 't!i'd4 d6 1 5 c5 (else 9 a 3 ! ? (Raj kovic) 9 . . lt:Je8 ( 1 0 . or 1 0 .1 2 . Miles-Hjartarsson.Keene) I I lt:Jxe8 ( I I lt:Jde4 f5 1 2 ll:Jg5 1!fc5 1 3 e3 b6 1 4 . ll:Jb7. b6) 1 2 . .

. Ci:Je8 1 2 9 Ci:Jc7+ �e7 10 Ci:J xa 8 d4 I I a3 1!t'd2 a 6 1 3 Ci:Ja3 (or 1 3 Ci:Jd6) could . i.xa2 = 1 78 Kraidman-Cramling.b4 c5) 1 5 a 3 ro . . Ci:Je5) 1 4 i. Hungary 1 969) 8 . .d3 ltac8 = 1 3 Ci:Jxe8 ltxe8 Filip-Flesch.!. . . I I . lla7 1 5 transposes.. . ed 8 Ci:Jxd5 't!t'xc7 1 4 Ci:Jxc 7 llb8 ( 1 4 .g.xd2+ 1 1 't!i'xd2 't!t'xd2+ slight edges for White. Lucerne 0-0 1 2 i.b4+ (or 9 . .te2 Wb 6 ed 9 't!t'xd 5 ! ? (9 e3 i. . Aggressive and critical. 't!t'g5 oo Portisch. i. Ci:J xc 3 9 'tWxd8+ �xd8 10 Ci:Jxc3 1 2 Ci:Jc7 Ci:Je8 i. B lack could also I n general. Gausdal 198 1 .b4 leads to try I 0 .b4+ 12 Ci:Jc3 0-0 1 3 Ci:Jxb4 1 7 a3 Ci:Jc6 1 8 ltd 1 !. 6 .g. Ci:Jd4 1 3 6 dS (1 78) 0-0-0) 1 3 e 3 lild7 ( 1 3 . . 1 1 i. . 1 2 7 .e6 1 4 't!t'd2 1 982. .c4 = e 5 1 6 0-0 'tWd4 1 7 ll d I 't!t'xd6 1 8 Tuzovsky-Greckin.tf4 lld l ( 1 2 't!i'd2 d 5) 1 2 . . . . .infeld . 'W'b4 1 6 'itxb4 llxd8 1 1 e3 i. de ( l 2 .c5 = e. . . Ci:J h 5 ( 9 .b5 12 .Y2 but 1 2 e3 ! (Gipslis) 1 2 . 8 i. . i.. oo. ) 20 Ci:J a4 b5 2 l cb Portisch.1 72 2 Ci:Jf3 Ci:Jj6 3 d4: 4 . Thessaloniki 01 1 984. e. e. .c7 !?) 8 Ci:J xd5 (8 e4 use tests. .e6 ( 1 0 . .d2 i. . but I I ..b5 ltfd8 1 5 0-0-0 i. 1 5 lilb 1 'W'd4 i. . . i.. . b6 20 f4 lilb8 .g4 U ±.f4 �e7 12 i. Also. .xb5 Ci:Je5 23 a3 lta5 24 Ci:Jc3 a3 i. 1 4 . 8 . went 16 ltd I ! 'itxd6 1 7 ltxd6 't!t'a5 15 i.. w 7 e5 Spassky tried 7 . and not 12 �xd 2 0-0 13 f3 !? lild8+ 14 �e l much counterplay. d4!? versus Trifunovic in Belgrade 1964: 8 Ci:Jc7+ �e7 9 'ita4! (9 't!t'b3 !?) 9 . or 1 5 .d3. . or here 1 3 Ci:Jc3) 1 1 't!t'xd8+ 812 lilxd8 1 2 Ci:Jc3 0-0 ! ( 1 2 . 't!t'b6 ! ? is a viable option. After 1 5 . . . . xc3+! 1 8 b e Ci:Jb4! =F Suba­ .d7 1 3 lite ! a6 14 i. .f4!?. a6 1 3 't!i'c7 7 cd Ci:J xd5 (7 ..g5 't!t'c7 1 3 e3 i. . .ta5 ! 12 i. Ci:Jg6 1 3 Ci:J xa7 ! Ci:Ja5 1 4 Ci:Jb5 ±) l 3 't!t'a3+ . 1 1 ab 22 i. . Ci:Jc6 Not I I . .g. .h4 g5! 16 i. .xc3 1 5 b e i. . d e 1 0 ltd ! ) 1 0 Ci:J xa8 Ci:J xf4 I I Ci:Jb5 i.g3 ll fd8 1 7 �f8 1 8 0-0 �7 19 llfd 1 g5? ( 1 9 1!t'c2 i. . . 't!t'e7 I I Ci:Jc3? 1t'd4 Korchnoi-Gri. . . lta7 1 3 c5 t. i.e2 Ci:Je5 1 4 0-0 i. .. . USSR 1967) ltxd6 Ci:Jd4 19 i. . 1!t'a5 1 2 i.e6!? 1 0 't!t'xd8+ Instead of 1 5 .e6 =) 9 .xd2+ 1 2 'itxd2 0-0 1 3 't!t'd6 ±± . . .d7 12 g3? Ci:Jg6 1 3 't!t'a3+ �f6 1 4 1!t'f3+ \12. 10 i. . i.

g4 intending .. .g. 1 7 . 8 ef 9 de be 10 't!Yxd8 + ct>xd8 (1 79) With one further split: B l2 1 1 12 . . insufficient) 16 l:txb4 lit xb4 1 7 17 l:tc4 �c6 1 8 l:tg l ( 1 8 f3 e 3 ! ? ( 1 7 g3 l:tc4?! 1 8 ct>d2 l:td4+ 1 9 :ilfd8 ! ) 1 8 .. 8 � 1� 8 �g5 a6! 9 ll:lxd5 ll:l xd5 1 0 B �xd8 �b4+ =F. .. H tibner­ :ilxfl g4! 2 1 lit xc5 h5 etc. (Xu Jun). ct>c7 !? 1 3 ll:lxl7 ±. .. �b4 1 8 llxb4 a b 1 9 ll:ld 1 l hd6 ll:lg4! 1 4 ll:ld l ct>c7 1 5 :ild4 litxa2 20 �c4 lit xg2 2 1 ll:lf7 looks g5 16 g3 c5 ( " ! " Raj kovic). l:tb8!? was played: 1 3 ll:lx17+ <t>e8 14 ll:lxh8 ( 1 4 ll:ld6+ i... and 1 7 . l:txf4 19 e3 t or 1 9 litg8 1 4 ll:le5 �f5 15 e4 !? ( 1 5 g3 litgl ct>g8 20 ll:lg6 :!: Stean-Liberzon. or here 18 . c 5 1 8 �d3! 1 1 0-0-0+ �d7 1 2 ll:ld6 �xd6 1 3 o r 17 . lZlc6 1 73 ct>f6 1 4 'ti'xe3 ± puts this line to 12 ll:ld6 (180) rest. Virovitica 1 980. �b4 ( 1 5 . . c 2 i. b 4) 1 5 . . . �xd6 B 12 1 2 12 . 1 98 2) 14 . fe 18 fe ct>f8 1 9 ll:lf3 ( 1 7 �xg8 l:txe5 1 8 �b3 ef 19 i. i.. ... .. B ugojno . . .. 2 lZlf3 lZlf6 3 d4: 4 . ct>c7 a) Originally 12 . In Trois­ Makropoulos. . �c5) 17 . Black ct>f8 1 8 g f ct>g8 1 9 e 3 <t>h 8 2 0 �d3 settled for 12 . .0 ct>xh8 2 1 ll:le4! t i. llxb2. . Ro gulj. . x d6 1 5 llxd6 lit xb2 1 6 l:td2 l:tb4 1 7 g3 l:tc4! 1 8 ll:l d 1 ct>e7 An arena for some heavyweight = Andersson-Timman. . <t>e7!? 13 g3 g5 14 �g2 8121 �g7 1 5 0-0 lit ab8 16 ll:lc4 ! t 11 :ildl+ �d 7 Polugayevsky-Giigoric.. .. . but 1 5 lit d4 ! ( 1 5 B 1 2 1 1 1 :ild l + l:td2? i. fe 16 �c4 lite8! 1 7 Baden 1 9 80) 17 .. b) 12 . a 5 1 6 B 1 2 2 1 1 ll:ld4 e 3 fe 1 7 fe. Athens 1 976.d 3 ct>g8 20 0. .. . . ll:le4!?) 15 . . . . e. Bugojno battles throughout the 80s .. ll:lxh2 1 9 gf ll:l xfl 20 <t>c I ct>f8 20 e 3 ± . lit h 8 =. .

g2 1 1 .. fg 16 hg !) 1 6 1 7 . lt:Jf6 ...1 74 2 !i:JjJ !i:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . conti nued 1 8 (7) 1983. xe6 t Xu Jun-de Firmian. fg 1 5 hg litb8 is worthy of 14 llb8 ! attention ( 1 6 b3 ? c4. !i:J xd5 cd 1 6 g3 llac8 = H . 1 8 i. 1 6 litc l ) I I .b7) 1 2 . Luceme 01 1982) 14 . match Cebalo.ih3 !i:J f6 15 g3 !i:Jh5 ! ? ( 1 5 .Fiorito.. .. <t1c7 14 lii: d4 g5 1 5 g3 t. . . .g2 t va n der Heij den. 0-0 fg 1 9 h g .. lt>c7 1 3 lt:Jc5 . . . Thessalo niki 01 1984) 19 <trc2 ( 1 9 lt>cl !?) 1 9 . Gutman mentions Net herlands 1 984. . . 14 li[d2 lt:Jb6!? a s well .xe2 <trc7 1 8 i. 14 b3 lii: b4 1 5 g3 <tre7 1 6 litd2 After 1 7 . London 1 984. de­ 12 l!. 15 !i:J xd7 !i:J xd7 81211 16 g3 12 i.f3 g4 litxc l 20 lit xc l t Korchnoi-Portisch. . . Ma lmo 1 983.. .ixc3 1 7 be lit b l + Andersson­ = i. .f5+ = Karpov­ Polugayevsky. .ie2 . 15 g3 f3 8122 16 <t1d1 11 lt:Jd4 (181) 16 i.ib4!?. . <tre7 1 4 lld4 ( 1 4 lld2 !i:Jd5 !? 1 5 Lucerne 01 1982. .xd6 1 6 litd2 !i:Je5 ! 1 7 e3 fe 1 8 fe i. 17 ..c4 i. . 81212 Another Korchnoi move. b4 1 6 i. .h3 fe 1 7 i.ixc3 20 be lit b l + 2 1 13 .e6 21 i.id7 1 4 g3 lit b8 1 5 litd2 i.ib4 20 lite ) lit d8 2 1 14 liteS . g5 17 . . !i:Jc6 1 9 82. lle7 20 b3 litd8 2 1 litxd8 <trxd8 22 f4 i.Olafsson. . . <tre7 19 <t.b4 13 lilxd6 llb8(!) 19 .>c7 !? signed to avoid Black's active 13 !i:Jxf7 lit g8 piece play of the last two sect ions.Olafsson­ 16 !i:Jxb2 Sosonko. New 181 York 1 984.ig2 litdd2 ! = . match (5) 1983.g2 ( 1 6 !i:Je4 !) 16 . . ... . lt:Je5 !?. . .Portisch . . c5 ! ? 1 2 lilc6+ ( or 1 2 lildb5 .. .ie6 1 4 g3 Ta l.g4+!? ( 1 8 . xd7 !i:Jxd7 1 8 b3 <trc7 = H. . . f5 1 7 i. 1 3 lit b l litb2 = Rubi netti-Velimirovic. . . 17 . Adorjan­ c5 = Korchnoi-Polugayevsky. and 17 . Vrsac 1983. 8 16 fe+ 1 7 i. .c i llbe8 20 b3 i. 14 !i:Je5 11 . . lt:Jc5?! 1 8 0-0 litc2 1 9 lit c l i.

After 14 i. by Levitina. and here Gligoric likes " 1 7 . . i.c5 14 i.tb4. Korchnoi-Portisch. . lih5 h6 = Djuric-Velimirovic.xh3 1 6 passive: l:txh3 i. .t c 5 8 ll:lb3 .te7(?) 1 1 l:t c l de e4 t. . European Team Ch 1 983. . i. . .0-0 i. ed . i.g2 B21 6 . . .xc3+ 15 be '!/c7 1 6 b) 6 . .1 0 . . . . 1 0 . . i. 1 2 . d5 appears best 1 5 ll:le4 ± Gligoric.xc6! Ligterink-Hulak. 9 . ll c l d5? 1 2 cd ed 1 3 ll:la4 ..g5 . llJc6 1 75 i.g2.e7 10 a4! 0-0 1 1 .. roughly equal. . . Karpov-Schauwecker. as Black's piece play i.g2 ( 1 3 gfl?) 1 3 .0 fg 1 5 h g h5(?) 1 6 l:tad I '!. . . i.. . i. Older moves tend to be too Polugaye vsky. li b8 1 4 0-0-0 ( 14 i.xd4 1 5 l:t xd 4 !. . went 14 . are not effective. .. e. Volmac 1 984.or 10 . . .b4 way exhausting its possibilities.a6 ? 1 5 ll:lxc6! ± . Ti mm an-Gligoric.b4 lixb 2 1 5 0-0 l:tb4 = Andersson­ B 22 6 .g2 b3 !. 6 .g2 l:tc8 1 4 0. B 23 6 . h4" . . . .id7 1 4 . . .tb2 after 17 .b4 ! .. i.g.g2! ll:lg4 15 ll:le4 ! ! or 1 4 . Bath 1 973. . Tilburg 1 983) 1 4 . .. 2 llJf3 llJf6 3 d4: 4 . it'b6 '!/c7 oo. .h3 i.g2 i. .. . . ll:l a5 9 b3 d5 10 i. . l:tb8 1 3 0. .. 14 i. . dS can transpose to 6 .t and 1 2 . .. 1 5 i. a6 7 . fg been debated a mong top players transposes.txf6 gf Overall. 0-0 ( 1 6 l:th4 g5!? 1 7 lith6 ll:lg4 1 8 i.d6 1 3 i. b4!? 1 3 i.ib2 l:td8 1 1 compensates for his pawn weak.b7?! 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 ll:lf3 ± is given nesses. ll:lg4 . '!/c7 1 2 6 g3 (182) g3 i. . c5?! 1 3 ll:ldb5 l:tb8 1 4 ltJxa7 ! llxb2 1 5 0-0-0 . . 12 g3 fg 1 2 .d7 8 0-0 a6 9 . for over 30 years without in any 13 hg i. a) 6 .c7 1 7 i..ta3 Or 14 llc l c5 = . . 82 match (3) 1 983.. . d6 7 i.. intending . .ig2 it'c7 8 0-0 .te7 (8 planning . or to a Queen's Gambit after 7 cd Titograd 1 985) 16 .c5 Polugaye vsky. Or 1 3 . .. . went I I . But 1 2 This simple development has . llab8 1 7 ll:lb3. .. 12 b4 llJ c6 1 3 ll:lxc6 be 14 . . . de!? 1 1 after 6 ll:l db5. . . ..c5?! ( 1 2 . .xf6 !) 9 b3 0-0 10 .tg2 . h 5 ! c) 6 . i. llhe8 18 l:tfe 1 l:tb5 1 9 de 11 b4 . c 5 after 7 .b4. White was better .t Gutman) 1 3 l:tc l ! fg 1 4 hg i. . 'tib8 1 2 lla2 with the idea l:td2. .

a6 9 8 e4 d5 9 ed ed lO liJdb5 ±) 8 . . .!. 't!t'e7) 1 2 b e 't!t'eS 1 3 llb 1 't!t'c7 1 4 7 0-0 cS ! liJaS 1 S 't!t'h S ! fS 1 6 g 4 ti'xcS a) 7 . .ig 5 a6 9 . liJfd7 ! = (Tukmakov). h6 10 . .if4 ! (9 e4 !? 1!t'c7 1 0 .ixc3? ( 1 1 . 1i'a5 ( 9 .. Joksic.if4 ! liJg6 (7 . .!. . ll e8 1 1 liJbS. . Yugoslavia 1 977. awk ward for Black ..ia3 b) 8 .if4 liJc4 1 3 liJe3! liJ xe3 ( 1 3 . liJe5 8 "ti'b3 (8 0-0!? liJ xc4 9 "ti'b4? 1 1 cS ! etc. 7 .ixc3 1 0 b e lld8 1 1 .1 76 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . .. . .!.ie3 . liJaS l O 1!t'd3 d 6 1 1 liJb3 .ixe3 . . Lone Pine 1 978. 1!t'b3 . Szabo-Enk1aar. 183 . .ixc3+ lO be d 5 1 1 liJe3 .ig2 0-0 8 0-0 a6 (8 .ie7 1 0 .ig2 liJe5 .. d S 1 1 liJe3 lld8 1 2 cd liJd4 ( 1 2 e4!?) 1 2 . .if4 . .id2 liJb3 1!t'hS l O . 9 . De�in 1977. (or 8 .. . liJhS 10 .ixc3 9 be liJxc4 1 0 1i'a4 liJ b 6 1 1 '§'b3 0-0 1 2 . . . .ixc3 I 0 1!t'xc3 dS 1 1 b3 liJd6 821 1 2 . liJ xc4 .. . . . .ie3 l:lfd 1 liJxd4 1 3 cd d S Spassov­ and 9 liJb3 d6 10 .i xc3 (8 .ixf6 "it'xf6 1 1 e3 . 1!t'a5 8 0-0! .if4 ±) 9 be 0-0 (9 . . 8 0-0 d5 a) 8 . . ) 1 0 liJb3 d) 7 . . . .!. .... 1 4 9 . c) 7 . .) 9 .ifS = Bukal­ .icS 9 liJ c 2 . 1!t'xb 7 ! liJ xd4 1 S c d 1!t'xd4 1 6 l:lab 1 d S 9 cd liJxdS l O liJ xdS e d 1 1 aS ? 1 7 . a6 9 i. liJc6 . . lld8 1 1 . llac 1 ± .ia3) 8 . 8 liJdbS ! ?) 8 . d5 8 liJxc6 ! be 9 1!t'a4 is Cobo. .ixdS liJe7 Tu kmakov-Hort. 10 .ig2 (183) ..if4 are options) Form anek. .ixc3 + 9 b e 0-0 l O 0-0 ( l O .ia3 1!t'hS 1 2 . .!. ) 9 liJ c 2 . 1 3 1S c4 liJxd S 16 cd .. .igH) 8 .ia3 d 6 1 2 1i'd2!?) l O . . 't!t'cS 14 .ib8 ±± Stahlberg-Pe rsitz.ig4 1 3 life 1 1!t'c5 1 4 e) 6 .) 9 . . Furman­ Vistanetskis. 't!lb6 9 e3 1!i'xc3 1 0 liJbS!) 1 0 "ti'b3 lld8 ( I O .ie3.. dS 1 1 cd ed Amsterdam 1973.!. . o r here 8 . liJe5 1 3 "ti'b3. tWaS (8 . d) 6 . . 1i'd3 1i'a5 1 5 liJf5 ± Smys1ov­ b) 7 . .ib4 b6 1 S 1i'c2 oo Shatskes. Palermo-Evans. . Vilnius 1 960. . Stara Zagora 1 97 7.. 1 2 . hg 1 8 liJf3) Garcia­ main line 823 1 . .ia 3 0-0 1 3 "ireS llJfe8 1 4 ll fd 1 6 . . liJe5 7 .. Havana 1 967.ixd5 !? or 14 lld l ) 14 . .!. or here l O liJ xc6! be 1 1 Lj ubljana 1 9SS) 1 1 . ...igS) 9 .ie7 7 .ixc3+ l O be B dS 1 1 cd ed 1 2 .gS !? (or 9 liJc2 . 't!rb6 ! ? 8 llJc2 !? (8 liJb3 is the 1 7 gS ± ( 1 7 . .. .id6 liJe8 1 2 cS 1!t'a5 1 3 . .id2 . 9 cd ed . "it'e7!? 9 liJc2 (9 . . ed 1 3 liJ xd 5 liJxdS 14 .

liJg4 I I :file I liJge5.ta6 1 7 d5 ! ? intending I I c d e d 1 2 .i d 2 it:lge5 1 5 liJb5 liJg6 1 6 c5! d 5 lilxd8 14 liJa4 t Tiller-Pl achet ka.if4 or 10 . . . liJge5 1 4 liJb5 !) 1 4 I I cd .ixf6 gf 1 8 e4 de 19 .ie3 't!t'b6 are Vu kic-Minic. . .ia6 1 6 lilf3! liJe4 1 7 Alto 1 98 1 .ig4 ( else I I 10 .. . .ig5. Vinkovci 1 977. or 1 3 liJa3 lild8 7 li:lb3 =) 1 2 . . . 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . I 0 . and aside .id7 ( 1 0 .ie6 I I 184 li:lxc6 be 1 2 lilc l t) I I be . . Milan 1 9 75.te7 is still common. 10 li:ld4!? .ixe4 .txf6 gf =. li:l a5 1 3 't!t'a4 b6 1 4 lilfd l li:lc4 15 . .g. .txe 2 1 5 lil fc l 14 liJd2 b6 = Ciafone-Tarjan . 12 . . .te3 liJf6 ( I I .ixc3 ( 1 0 .ig2 14 e3 ± Adorjan) 12 ll:cl liJg4 1 3 0-0 9 0-0 d6 (184) (9 . but . . .txe7 t) 't!t'd7 or 1 2 . Cap D'Agado 1 986: 10 . . liJe5 1 2 c5 ! d5 1 3 7 . or White keeps a riskless edge: 8 . e. Browne. deserve a look) Bertok. . 't!t'b6) I I liJ db 5 ( I I b3 a6 1 2 . . Portisch-Donner. . . . . .ig4 1 2 '@b3! . liJc6 1 77 1 0 . as in Quinteros.. . .ie6 1 2 W lilb I ll:l a5 1 3 f4 ! li:lc4 1 4 'it'd3 li:lb6 1 5 l He l h 6 16 . . . b6 1 0 liJd5 !? ed I I cd . .Lj ubojevic. . went 10 . . and Norway v Czechoslovakia 1 98 1 . ll:c8 = l l . 't!t'b8 1 2 . lilf5) and now 1 6 lile3 . li:l a5 I I liJb3) I I li:lxc6 be 1 2 't!t'c2 ( 1 2 'it'a4 liJ xa5 ( I I . Palo li:le4 ( 1 5 . fu tile. Prague 1985.ixa2 20 lilb5 ±.tcs a6 ! 1 3 . More common are: I 0 ..ie6 12 lilb I favours W hite.ie3.txc3 1 3 lil xc 3 't!t'e2 lilb8 1 2 lil d l 't!t'c7 1 3 .id4 li:lc6 1 4 e4 ! = Kapengut. . 9 either 1 7 liJd6 ± or 1 7 e4 d4 1 8 . Toluca 1982. . ll:le5 1 3 b 3 a6 1 4 liJd4 t 7 li:lc2 't!t'b6 ! or 7 .ib4 . ll: c8 ) 1 2 .. . .if4 liJe5 li:lxd4 1 4 .if4 ( 1 2 . . .ig2 The best move is 1 0 .ixc3 I I be . After 1 0 . .ig5 6 . a6 10 c5! d5 . Adorj an-Hulak . .txd4 .if4. Adorjan­ Gheorghiu-Tu kmakov. . lile8 I I Now harmless is I 0 e4 a6 I I lilc l . .te7 1 3 'trxd8 .txd6 12 . .ib7 1 2 d6 liJd6! (as played) is strong. . when d5 9 cd ed 10 0-0 . liJe5 I I c5! and 1 0 . . 1 0 . b6) 8 . 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'd2 favours White. . 7 e3 0-0 (or 7 .ih4 't!t'd6 1 7 .ig5 .ie3 Zee 198 1 .ib2 822 lilb8 =) I I . Wij k aan M o kry. h 6!?.if4 lice I ± (Portisch).if4!. O r 1 0 lile8 1 3 de 'tlt'xe7 14 lil e l t . . . 1 0 . liJ h5 I I 7 . Santa Mo nica 1966.ie3 Or 1 0 . .. .tf4 g5 ( 1 3 .ixd6 liJxc4 1 2 .

. 1 2 li:Jd4(!) li:Jxc4 ( 1 2 . . .b2 ±) 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 'ifc2 it'c7 ! 1 3 Su nye-Hase. . . 15 'it>fl e5 1 6 litd3!? i.e6 13 li:Jd5 liteS.1 78 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . .d7) is also equal. .b4 1 5 li:Ja4 ::!:: Tu kmakov­ i. Tal. li:Jxe7+. . li:Jc6 from 12 li:Jb5 a6 1 3 li:Jbd4 li:Jxd4 1 4 'ifxd4 !. 14 i. . Tbilisi 1 9 S3.xc3 I I be (}.e7 I S 'ti'xa 7 ! etc of 1 3 i.xc3 c5 li:Jd5 ! ( 1 4 . .d2 li:Jxc3 I I i. 14 . i.a5 ro .t) I I Christiansen gives 1 4 .d2 litdS 1 3 'tt"c I li:Jd4 (or 13 . b3..c3! ! and li:Jd2 ( Ga vrikov). . . . I O . li:Jc5 i. . Finall y. 13 . I ndonesia I I 'ifxdS+ has also had success.g. . Erevan 1 9 SO) 14 . 9 . .0 1 2 i. . 1 9S2.g5 ! ( I I US Ch 19S I . 10 a3 i. .f6 1 4 li:Jc5 'ti'c7 12 be 'ti'e7 = . 1 0 14 li:JcS eS 'ifc2 li:Jxc3 ! ( 1 0 . li:Ja4 1 5 i. .a5 1 7 litb5 ± was 11 be!? (1 85) Christiansen-Radulov. .t) 1 5 13 ll b 1 0-0 i.0 I I i. .b2 b6 1 6 e4 li:J de7 ro.e7 equalises. 'tlt'd4 I I li:Jb5 'ife5 1 2 a4 !) I I li:Jxc4 'ife7 Tu kmakov) 1 2 bc i. . but 10 li:Jxc3 the immediate 1 5 lld3(!) intending 10 . . 14 li:Jd4 and li:Jb5) 14 litd l !? ( 1 4 12 i. 0-0! ( I I .xc3 1 3 lit b l a5 1 2 i. li:Jb6 1 3 'ifxdS 1 4 1 2 litxd1 i. .e6 I I i. I I . li:Jxe2+ ( 1 5 .. . i.a3 Reykjavik 1 9S2. . h 6 l l litc l e5 1 2 i. . i. li:J xc 3 ? 1 2 'tfxdS+ a nd litbS 1 7 li:Ja4! i. 11 'ti'xd1 10 0-0 (!) No better seems I I . f6 1 5 a3 9 li:JxdS lUd8 1 6 li:Jc5 ± Reshevsky-Kogan. 0-0 1 2 lit b l !). . . 8 i. e. . . ed 10 0-0 i.d2 i. . . li:Jb5 etc (Adorjan).b4 Stean-Sosonko. 0-0 may improve. (}. .xc3+ lit b I 0-0 1 3 i.xc3+ I I be 1 5 'ti'a4 litdS 1 6 lUc l ( ±) 1 6 . . li:Jd4!? be i. i. . . . .e3 lit dS 1 3 'ifb3 li:Jd5! = ( 1 3 . li:JdS? 1 5 i. . A msterdam 1979.f4 . .xc3 i. Moron 1 9S2. 'it>xdS litdS i s best.xc6 1 4 c5! ± ) 1 3 i. Gavrikov­ Zaichik. .xc3 1 2 10 i.g2 dS 9 cd 9 (}. liteS 16 li:Ja6! i. Probably Ftacnik's 1 4 .a3 ! 15 . .0 de I 0 li:Jd2 (}. Fi nally. c4 li:Je5 =) 1 2 .d7 1 3 li:J xc6 i.xc6 ± with the idea li:J xc6. .e3 i. .d7 1 5 'it>f l li:Jxc l 1 7 lit xc3 li:Jxa2 I S lita3 li:Jc5 ± Adorjan-Sigurjonsson. . . li:Jxd S!? ( I I .0 ( 10 . .d2 . e5 16 e3) 1 6 liteS 1 3 c4 li:Jb6 14 litc l i. etc looks good.

. . lt:\xd5 1 0 1!t'xd5 . 9 . .ib4 (or 7 . 823 6 Still the main line. ..tf5 1 6 li xb7 B �a5 1 7 lic7 liacS I S lba6! ( ±) I S . . .15 .. . . h 6 1 4 'W'd3 lidS 1 5 a 3 . a6 (S . Belyavsky-Gurevich.ig2 d5 b) 8 . . Rome 1977. . 10 ba � xc 4 I I 1!t'b3 ?! ( I I 0-0 0-0 better 9 . .. .b6 drives the wh ite knight from the centre without the loss of tempo 6 . .ig5 ! .ixc3?! 10 c5! it'c7 . .1 6 � d4 a6.ig2 . Razuvayev- Polugayevsky.ixc3 14 1!t'xc3 b6 1 5 c6 c) 7 �c2 d5 ! (or 7 . I I .. 6 . Whit e has done well against it.ic5 entails. . d5. .ig2 ! 7 . .. Recently the move 8 23 1 7 . . Warsaw 1 977) Still the normal move.ig2 'ti'a6 =) S cd ed 9 � xd5 (9 b3 Portisch-Donner. . .ig2 ( S . . . . 1 3 'W'xb4+ 13 'ti'xb4 �xb4 + (Gufeld). 8 232 7 . 2 �!3 �!6 3 d4: 4 . de 16 �d4! .ib4 has p repared the direct .ic5.ia3 .tel d5 1 2 cd 0-0 1 3 1 975. b) 7 e3 . .ie3 'W'a6 (9 ._. East Germany l 9SO.ic5 S e3 0-0 9 0-0 .if4 e 5 I I . .ig5 ± 'ti'a4 . . . �e5 9 .ixd6 ( 1 3 . . .. . �c6 . . . d5 = ) S ._.ixa3 Mikhalchishin-Valenti. .i b4+ ! 1 2 �xb4 0-0 . . although S . Moscow l 9S5. �e5 7 �b3 (186) 8233 7 .ie 6 1 7 liac l ! d6 I S lifd I ± Portisch) I I 't!t'e4. . USSR 10 c5 �c4 I I .ib4 . . .if4 lt:lfg4! 9 e3 a6 +) S . . . . . .ixf6 li b S 1 3 a) 8 0-0 9 0-0 .ig5 a6 1 2 . d5 7 �xc6 'ti'xc6! or: 8231 a) 7 �db5 �e5 (7 ..if4 e5 1 3 .ic5?! S . = Gufeld) 9 . . lib l d5 + (Euwe). 'W'c7 9 cd � xd4 1 0 1!t'xd4 'W'xd 4 I I ed 10 c5 �c4 I I 'itd4! �xe3 1 2 'W'xe3 �xd5 =. l:UdS? 1 9 l hdS+ l hdS 20 lhc3 l -0. 1 79 After 1 4 . � e 5 10 c5 't!t'a6 I I 'ti'd4 1 2 e4!?) I I . . .ie3 'ti'a5) 9 . lidS 1 4 .. K rk 1 976. � xc4!? 9 'W'a4 'ti'c5 ! 1 0 Others: . . ended 186 quickly: 1 5 .ixd6 1 6 �c5! Ro manishin) 1 4 't!t'd 3 ! libS see diagram 15 a4! �e5 16 'itd4 lidS 17 �b5 ± Romanis hin-H ulak . libS 1 3 0-0 . . �d5 a b 14 'W'a7 ! 'W'd6 oo) 9 �a3 (9 I I be b5 1 2 .a6 Lipinski-Schinzel. .. . Amsterdam 197 1 . . e 5. . i hb 3 12 ab �a5 1 3 �c6 1 2 'it'd3 ! Tischbierek-Goglitz.ixf2+ 9 � f l �g4 1 0 1!t'd6 ! ±± 8 .

Parnu 1977. corres 1979-82.td2 d5 I I li[ c l 1 984. . kent 1 980) I I .t xc6 1 6 .tg5 .te3 ! (" ±" Eingorn) 9 'ire2 (188) .t xc3 @'a4 o r 1 2 0 0 0 @'g4.xc3 1 2 . 1 3 "t!lxe2! with a k illing attac k . li:J c6 c) 8 .txc5? I I li:Jxc5 b e 1 2 8 0 0 . . Perhaps even better is l 0 0-0( ! ) 8 e4 .txb7 t intending . 9 c5 of E ingorn-Mikhalchishin. :U. b5 !?) 14 . Tash­ Lju bojevic.t xc3!? 1 2 be d5 1 3 .txf6 gf 1 5 oo• Gligoric) I I 0 0 0 d5 12 "it'b3 . d6 9 f4 lt::l g6 1 0 "t!le2 .te 3 o o • /87 "t!la6 I I 0-0 0-0!? 1 2 li:Jc5 ! ) 1 0 0-0! w li:Jxc3 ( 1 0 . I I "t!lb3 !? ( 1 3 e4!?) 1 3 .b6 t planning 1!Va4. Korchnoi­ 15 .ta3.te3 "t!lc7 1 3 li:Jd4 .te7 li:'le4 1 8 1!t'e3 =/ro Tatai-Ostojic. 10 ab Fernandez-Le bredo.180 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . Tukmakov-Razuvayev. match (5) 1 97 7. Tilburg 1 985.te 3 "t!lc7 1 2 . which went 1 1 . .8. @'a5 13 li:Jca4 ± .te3! with a strong attack ) 1 2 . Palo 12 000 li:'la5 13 @'a3 b6 1 4 cd ed 1 5 Alto 1 98 1 .tb2 i. Cuba 1984.tb2 12 .tb7 I I . 1!t'xc5 12 . . Lvov a) 9 0-0!? "t!lxc4 10 . 13 . 1 3 e4 ! h6 ( 1 3 .tg5 o o • d5 =) I I 0-0 ( I I c 5 b6. Gulko-So kol ov. 1 0 .tg2 . 11 0-0 0-0 b) 9 li:Jd2 !? . Ta llinn 1 9 8 1 . l 2 "t!lc2!? Bagirov) I I be . Thus 9 b6 (187) both 10 cb and 10 0-0 look good 9 0 0 0 1!t'c4 1 0 0-0! .tf3 ± van 1!t'xa3 1 4 . .txf6 .tb4 be?! ( 1 0 . . 0 0 d5 l 2 li:Jxc5 i.t xc5 I I li:J xc5 for White.td2 1!t'c4 19 . . 1 3 0 0 0 li:Jg5 1 8 .te3 1!t'e7 1 3 li:Jb5! t 8232 Chekhov-Alburt. . 14 0-0 a6 1 5 li:Jd4 t Polugayevsky­ 1!t'd4.te3 li:Jb4 16 a3 li:Jd3 17 'flc2 Spassky.te7 I I 'f/d6 ! . c4! li:J xc 4 1 6 li:Jxc4 "t!lxc4 1 7 .t xc3 1 2 o o · .td7 14 llbl a6 1 5 li:Jxc6! . fb l etc.t xa 3 ll fc8 = (Stean). 1 3 .td7 (or li:'ld4 t Thinnsen-de Firmian . U SSR 1978. 7 li:Je5 10 cb!? The old main line. .t g5 . .tf4 e5 Rome 1 97 7) 13 1!t'a3 .txc3 1 2 . H ere I I 0 0 0 c4 1 2 here 1 2 .td7 1 3 n e t 0-0 be li:Je5 1 3 . . Dyck-Bernard.txc 3 l O be 0-0 (or 10 o o · II .te7 ( I I 0 0 0 .t xc 3 I I be 0-0 1 2 c4 oo• li:Jde 7 B agirov-Barczay. li:J d4? l 3 li:J xd 5 ! ! li:'lxe2+ li:Jc5 "t!la5 1 3 @'d6 ! looks worse.txc6+ "t!lxc6 1 7 :U.tb7 14 . d5 9 cd (9 li:Jd2 d4 1 0 li:Ja4 'f/c7 = ) 9 li:Jxd5 (9 0 0 0 ed 1 0 .

.t xc3 1 5 cd! ed 1 6 be .fl Stean-Spassky. .i xe5 1 5 � xc3 d6 1 6 lLld4 lt:lxd4 1 7 ef 17 'it'c4 f2+ oo Miles-Nunn. .ie6 1 9 g4 Holmov-Razuvayev. the main line.ta6 lLl b5 d5 !? ( 1 3 . a5!? l O .id4 e 5 llac8 1 9 f5 ! ± . .txe5 lLlxe5 17 'trxe5 a5 ( 1 7 . lLlxc4! 1 6 a 3 lLlxa2 8233 17 llxa 3 d4 1 8 . d6?! 1 0 f4 lLlg6 1 1 . . . . . . .d2 lLl xc3 l l . .i xc 3 fe 1 6 . f6 13 c5 !? ( 1 3 gives I 0 i.txc3 lLlc7 ( 1 4 cd ed 1 5 . b6( ! ) 1 8 .ig2 lLlxc 3 1 2 be .id2 1 2 . lLlxa 8 de? ( 1 5 . A wild line goes 9 .t xd2+ 1 5 'trxd2 t) 1 4 a3 ( 1 4 .ixc3 13 . USSR 19 7 1 . . . although Taimanov 't!t'c7 14 . . USSR Ch 1 98 1 . 't!t'c6 1 4 . 'it'c7 !? 1 1 f4 ! lLlxe4 1 2 chishin).ie3 o!) 1 3 . .ixd2+ 1 7 'trxd2 'trb8 1 8 �c 1 B :!: Ubi1ava-Gu1ko.ig2 a6 1 3 �c 1 �b8 1 4 g4! ± b6 1 7 � ac 1 f5 1 8 � fd 1 .id4) 1 1 f3 0-0 1 2 lLld4 'it'a6 1 3 13 . . 10 f4 lLlc6 8 cd II . . Tilburg a few years ago and is currently 1977.id4 de 1 6 . . . . . ef 1 9 gf �ae8 1 7 ed lLlxd 5 1 8 'it'xc4 o! Karpov) 1 5 20 i. . .i d2 ( 1 2 . . M unich 1 979. lLl xe4 12 . . d5 falls short after 1 3 e5 ± Shatskes) 10 .ie3 13 ll acl !? ( l O f4 lt:l eg4! 1 1 e5 a4 oo) lO . .ig2 ±± Karpov-Miles. .id4 ±) 1 4 14 0-0 .d4 lLld7 was best . .id2 de 19 llxc3 U ± 7 dS (189) Karpov) 1 6 fe lLl xe4 1 7 �d 1 ! 'it'c6 This radical solution was revived 1 8 . .txd4 e 5 1 8 i.id2 0-0 1 2 here 14 0-0 . 'trd8 ( 1 3 . 'trc7 1 4 lLl b 5 . lLlc6 181 ef lLlxf6 14 c5 't!t'c7 1 5 . (" ! " Velimirovic).id2! (or 11 'it'c7 l O f4( ! ) w ith the idea lO . 'it'd6 ( 1 4 . d6 1 1 f4 ±. or .te3!? 'ti'b4 9 cd lLlxd5 is Or 1 1 e5 lLl e8 1 2 . or here 1 4 . 9 0-0 USSR 1 985.ie3 unpromising.txc3 1 5 .tg2 fe 1 5 fe b6 1 6 lLle4 a 5 oo ) 1 4 .ie3 8 . ..d3 a4 1 9 lLld2 d6 20 cd lLlxd6 2 1 0-0-0 ± Dvoiris-Tal.ta6 oo) 1 8 i.tg2 b6 1 1 .ig2 b6 1 6 /88 lLlb5 .. . and instead of 18 . . 'it'c6 !? 1 5 lLlxa8 lLlxc4 1 6 . or 9 lLle4 1 4 llc 1 (Mikha1chishin). . . 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 .ig2 d5 1 5 0-0-0 a 5 1 6 . . . .td2 t) 12 . Weak is 9 . . London 1 977) 1 4 .tg2 . 1 8 .txc3 't!t'e4 . 1 3 e5 lLle8 1 4 �c 1 " ±" (Mikhal­ 'it'c6 ( l 0 . 'it'c6? 1 0 . .. . . . .

e3 'iVc 7 1 3 l1Jc5 0-0 1 4 'iVa4 i. (}0 c 4 \12. 't!t'c4 I I ./4 licl!? - ( 24) 1 9S4) 14 . .e3 'ira6 1 4 l1Jc5 !? .f4!? (or 1 0 i. . l1Jg4 11 �d2 (190) 1 0 i. . ..e6 l1Jd4 lidS ( 1 3 . e4 1 9 lie5 ! ±) 1 9 lixb7 lii:d I i. Vrsac 19S3) Adorjan) 1 7 l:l:ab I e5 I S lib5 ! 13 'ti'xd2 a4 1 4 ltJc I 0-0 1 5 l1Jd2 ( 1 5 i.te7 I I 0-0 (}0 ( I I .xc5 lieS 1 6 e3 �f5 1txe7 16 l:l:xfd l g6 ( 1 6 .e7 1 2 i.xc5 1 5 i. 8 l1J xd5 9 l1Jxd5 The other popular move is 9 i. Biel 19 85.lightly ! Kasparov-Karpov (26).. e5 1 2 i. .tg5 d4 1 2 e3 'ire6 13 l1Jb 5 is also loose. . e5 1 1 (}0 ( I I l1Jd2 'irc7 1 2 l1Jc4 �e7 1 3 l1Jc3 �e6 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 c4 i. . . Perhaps 9 . .d2 i. .18 2 2 l1Jf3 l1Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . . h3. . Li­ i.xc5 1 4 i.d7 !?) 1 4 l1Jxc6 !? 14 i. w b) 10 . and 9 ..e3 't!t'dS 1 5 li c l lieS 1 6 ( 14 'iVa4 i.. . H ere I I . Lugano 1 983.xc5 lidS is an option. i. .. . 9 ed 1 2 f3 'ti'e3 1 3 't!t'd2 t.e3.. .g2 (9 i. or here 1 7 b) 11 . match 1 3 i. a5 1 2 0-0 i. .te3 'irc7 1 3 a) 1 1 ..xc5 . 0-0 1 2 (}0 i. . �e6!? 1 2 .. I 0 .d2!?) 9 . Nik� ic) I I . .xd3) 1 5 . . l1J xc3 1 0 be: a) 1 0 .xc5 I I e3 with the idea a3 is �g l -h2 is slow but worth con- apparently bad. . e5 above. . .xc6 1 6 l1Jd4!? ! ( 1 6 a3 planning l1J c5). .xc5 I I e3 ) I I �f l !? with the idea i.e6 ( 1 8 .c5 1 6 l1Jd5 'ird7 = Tal­ lvanovic. l1Je4 I 0 lic l l1Jxc3 (t he c-p awn is immune) I I li xc3 't!t'e4 12 f3 'iVf5 would be best. l1J c6 lidS! 20 lidb l U± Adorj an­ 189 Zys k . 11 i.g4 1 3 h3 i. .d7 15 l1Jxc6 i. i.g4 Moscow 1 9S4-5) 12 . Dortmund 1 984. .xc6 be 1 7 liab I t Cvetkovic­ van der Wiel. i. Then 9 . lixd l 1 5 l1J xe7+ 14 . i.f5 1 6 l1Jd3 i. .xd2 ( 1 2 .\12 Kasparov-Karpov. .e3 'f!Jc7 1 3 l1Jc5 trans poses to I I . . . . . h6 !? \12-\12 Adorjan-Ivanovic. 9 c5 !? 1 0 �g2 �b4+ is very interesting.te3 'ira6 1 3 l1Jc5 i. . Instead. . lidS . . . Giigoric. e 5 !? 1 0 a3 sideration. .

d 7 18 litfd 1 lita5 1 9 'tWa5 ! g 5 22 litc7 'tWf6 2 3 'tWc5+ lt:ld5 'tWa7 20 lt:lb4! litc5 2 1 lt:l xc6 'tWd6 24 'tWxa7 ct>g7 oo Adorj an­ .te3 1986) 1 8 . lita5! Ei ngorn. . i. 0-0!?) 1 4 ct>xd2 0-0-0 " ±" (Spraggett). lt:lc6 183 ("?! 1 5 .txc5+ 't!t'xc5 ' 20 ll a c l 't!t'e7 2 1 17 litac I i. 0-0-0 1 3 lit e ! lit he8 ( 13 . ct>d7! 1 7 lt:l xc6 be 1 8 e3 :t easy way to escape his difficulties Tukmakov) 1 7 life I i.txe2? Conclusion: Black has found no ( 1 6 . 2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 3 d4: 4 .. . Plovd iv 1 986) 1 6 lt:l f4 d4 . . . . 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 Nikolic. .txb4 1Wxb4 1 5 f4 !? f6 oo White with some pull . 13 't!t'xb4 12 0-0 14 'it'c2 0-0 1 2 . .Cebalo. 1 5 . Commonwealth Ch 1985.f4+ ct>a8 1 5 a 3 t 'itc7 ± Smejkal-Cebalo. ..tf5 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 1 7 0 0 0 14 . Neither 6 . 14 .txc6+ be 1 6 . .ler. . and the 1 3 h3!? . h 5 1 6 litac l ct>b8 1 7 lt:lc5 Chand.te3 ( 1 4 lit c l !?.ib4. .. Danner. . litfe8 H .txb4 presently satisfactory. Here Spraggett­ 15 h3 i.txc5 1 8 'tra4+ ct>f8 1 9 Gligoric. . 'it'c4!? ( 1 5 . .ic5 n o r any o f the traditional Tukmakov-Veingold. litd6 18 II hd 1 :t . 't!t'a6 20 llxd8 lit xd8 2 1 h 3 . Lugano 1 983. . .. . . .tf3 22 ct>b8 1 4 i. . . . Oiafsson. .. France Tukmakov) 14 .ih5 14 . .txc6 22 11rb4 ± Eingorn­ . . . llxe8 19 lt:l xc6 be 20 b3 ± . . d5!? apparently leaves 14 . c4 1 8 lit xe8 after 6 g3. Lvov 1 984.txd4 c5 lit fd 1 llfd8 1 8 lt:l d 5 t Georgiev­ 17 lt:l xc5 . 6 .txb4!? • 'itxb4+ 1 3 'itd2 15 litfd1 11rxd2+ ( 1 3 . newer 7 . . M ikhalchishin.txb4 ( 1 4 .. Smyslov­ continued 1 5 . is natural) 1 6 litd2 litfe8 1 7 e3 g6 12 litd8 1 8 h3 (or 1 8 lite I lt:le5 !? 1 9 lit xd5 1 2 . USSR 1979. d4!? 1 5 . .. move after 6 . ..te4 20 litxe3 !?. .f5 19 'tWd I . Novi Sad 1 984) 17 lt:ld5 t. 1Wxb4 lie! 'tWb4 2 1 lt:ld4 ! ±. 1Wa 6!?) 14 . Copenhagen 1 985. 't!t'b6 7 lt:lb3 are 13 . 1 5 'tWd4! 't!t'xd4 1 6 lt:l xd4 .

. . for example. can arise from the but it is conside red fully equal in controversial Nimzo-I ndian line the main lines following 6 . ed 7 4 lLlxd4 e6 (191) . . . . . . great transpositional signi ficance.ic5 12 1!t'a4 b5! 1 3 . 4 .ig2 . . 1!t'c7 duces variat ions which are of Very important is 5 . . It intro­ A2 5 . d4. and I d4 lLlf6 2 the reader may consul t the first c4 c5 3 lLlf3 cd 4 lLlxd4 e6 is a (English notation) edition of this Benoni.ig4!? have had some . . balanced game.ig2 . although now a) 5 e3 (5 . lLlc6 6 even li nes such as 5 . . . . e6 has long been considered A I 5 .if4 . 14 2 lb f3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 . . B iel 1986. . e5 7 lLlf3 d4 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 e3 d3!? b) 5 lLlb5 d 5 6 cd (6 . e5 I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlc3 . .ie2 d5 = . d5 6 . e6 1 c4 c5 7 lt:ld2 lLle4 ! i ntending 8 1!t'a4 lLlc6 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 9 lLlc7+ <t>f8 1 0 lLlxa8 1!t'f6! I I 3 d4 cd g3 lLl xd2 etc) 6 .if4?? e5 ! ) 5 .ib4 4 lLlf3 and 7 . which is a Catalan Openi ng.ixb5+ ab 1 4 1!t'xa8 0-0 :t= Korchnoi-Greenfeld.id4 lLlxd4 10 / 91 w 1!t'xd4 1!t'c7 I I e3 . c5 5 g3 cd 6 lLlxd4. . and update it by Chess Infor­ A 5 g3 mant from #29 on.ie3 lLlc6 9 . . g3. .ib4 6 not discuss it for reasons of space. book.ib4+ 8 lLl l c 3 0-0 =) 7 lLl5c3 ed 8 . For further details. . . .ib4+ and 9 .ib4+ Black's most rel iable line. Surprisingly B 5 lLlc3 little has changed. but can serve to produce an original. I will The positi on after 5 lt:\c3 . . .if4 . d5 6 . a6 (or 6 . A 5 g3 This move lacks the di rect punch of 5 lLlc3. . .

very ed j. 6 Now 1 3 tt'd 3 d5 ! l 4 cd Itd8! ( 1 4 .xe5 f3 't!t'xc4 =. . . Szirak IZ 1986. Szirak I Z 1 986) 1 0 lt:ld4! j. b6? l -0 Rogers-Suba.g. j_g2 j. 'it>e7 !? .f4 ! lt:le8 j. .b4+ j. . d5!?.. j. . . xd4 =) 14 ... . e5 ( 1 0 . . . 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: 4 .g4 1 5 h 3 j. . .e7 8 j_g2 lt:lc6 9 0-0 (t) 9 . .. lt:lc6!? 7 lt:lb3 flc7 8 e3 8 j_g2 - Havana 1986. . . 6 . 6 lt:ld2 1 -0 . e. 10 . 1 0 . e. Reggio Emilia 1 97 7-8) 6 . AI 5 i. . . be = was - / 92 B Coppini-A verbakh. j. . j.. . d5!? Nogueiras . .b4+ 9 j.e5 I I lite l j. . 1981. .. e6 185 success.b4+ (6 . 't!t'b6 7 lt:lxc5 lt:lc7 lit b 8 1 7 lt:ld5 f.g.b7. tt'xc5 8 lt:ld2 'it'c6 9 e4 ! ±) 7 j. h6 1 4 j. Nogueiras-Psakhis. . 1 4 .xb7 =.a3 . .e6 1 8 j. . 1 5 .f6! gf 1 9 a s in several games. . e. along with the normal 9 .a3 lit e S 1 5 c 5 't!t'a5 1 6 j.!: Pavlovic-Karlsson. flc5 instead of 8 lt:l b3 j. 8 lt:lc3 avoids this) 9 ltle5 . de 1 5 'it'xd4 cb 1 6 flxd4 1 0 1!hd4 lt:lxd4 l l lt:lc3 flxb6 a b 1 7 a b j. .8 . e.g. .g. ..lg5? ... 1 4 ed tt'xd4 1 0 lt:lb5!): 8 .xd4 9 ed 17 j. lt:lxd4! ( 8 i. .c7 Psakhis) 1 2 .c5 ! 1 3 a5 fld8 lt:lb5 ± Ku ligowski-Su nye. 'ffa 5+ 6 lt:lc3 (6 Itd I lt:lc6 13 b3 ! a5 1 4 j. 0-0? 9 lt:l c 3 ±. a6 6 j. lt:lc6 lt:lb5 ± Nogueiras) I I lt:l b5 0-0! ( Chapter 1 3. the gambit 8 Itc5) seems to hold. 8 . tt'b6 7 e3 lt:lc6 8 lt:lxc6 8 lt:ldb3!? .b2 d3. A). . Popular is 5 . j. tt'b6 !?..i b 2 ( 1 4 c d j. Rodriguez. Nice idea lt:la4) 198 1 . on 6 lt:ld2. The game went 1 3 b3 d5 1 4 transpose and a void 8 .f5 ! 1 5 j.c5 7 e3 lt:lc6. j. here 6 . b 2 't!t'xc5 . . to h6! etc. .12 A rare line is 5 . . .b8 1 2 Other moves i nclude 5 . . . Graz 14 lt:ld6 j.c5.d2 't!t'b6 7 j.c3 e5 ! 8 lt:lb3 tt'c6 9 15 litd2 f6 1 6 litad l lt:le 5? 17 j. . and now j. flc7 ( 8 2 below) and 5 . .c5 1 2 j_g5 0-0 1 3 fld2 . .e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I litfd I . . .b7 l l j_f4 0-0 1 2 12 lt:lxd4 ( 1 2 a4 j.d2 1 5 j_g5 ! . b6 9 j_g2 j.11 . h 5 1 6 f4! . lt:le4 7 j.g2 j.Nogueiras-A m .d2 lt:lxd2 8 'ffx d2 a6 9 i.c5. 8 . lt:lxd5 1 6 litacl lt:le5! l 0 't!Vc2 d 5 =I oo ( I I cd tt'a6 ! ) tt'a5 1 7 't!t'xd4 lt:l b6 18 j. 1 8 f4 ef 1 9 't!t'xf4 i.xc3?! I I be and j_e7 and 9 . . . j. . .d2 6 6 lt:lc3 is A2 below.g2 ( I I . 1 5 It e l 0-0!? is critical (or 8 lt:lc3 !. j.1 7 .. . .xf6 'it'xf6 1 5 b4 j_e7 1 6 6 lt:lb3 j. ed.d2 fle6 1 8 f4! . 5 . xd4 9 . j.. .xd4 1 0 lt:lc3 (192) (with the lightly . USSR 1979.!: Yusupov-Ani kaev. or 9 .

6 . li:J c6 1 3 c. .tg2 . 'ira5... . .ig2 .tg2!? . '1J. .txd4 9 e d 'it'xd4 1 0 0-0 9 li:Jdb5 0-0 li:Jc6! has been equal in practice) 8 10 e3 d5 li:Jb3 d5 (8 . . 1 1 li:Jd6 'irb4 = Auen-Hartston. .ig4 = Stean-Sanz.ic5 8 e 3 ..!. . Schneider.. 1 1 . 6 .ig2 .d8 1 3 1 1 . ..!. Litinskaya.c 1 0-0 1 1 w . .tc5 = or 7 .!. li:Jc6 1 2 li:Jxc6 b e 1 3 0-0 'irg4 1 4 'ird6) 9 li:Jdb5 'it'b4 1 0 li:Jc7+! c.ac 1 .!. . e6 . 't!t'b4+ 9 't!t'd 2 Pinter. .xc8 ! . .td7 = 8 li:J c6 ( !) ... .!.ig2) 8 .. Las After 1 1 . Rashkovsky­ Palmas 1 978. Vilnius 1 980 . liJc6 I I 't!t'b5! .!...hd 1 li:Ja6 = - Petursson-Forintos. .!. .ig2 m ild. . . ..1 1 ./0 . Ljubljana 198 1 ) 1 4 .. .. .!. . . .tg2 li:Jc6 (simplest.!.tg2 li:J c6 1 6 0-0 b 6 1 7 7 .ac 1 . . . a6 9 a3 ! 'irxc4 1 0 'fJ. . .txd2 7 'irxd2 (or 7 8 li:Jc3! li:J xd 2 11rb6 8 liJ2b3 'it'b4+ 9 Zilberstein's gam bit..>xd2 b6 ! 1 5 . ..>e7 1 2 . . .!. But most of these ". .tg2 0-0 9 cd ed 1 0 li:Jc3 'it'xc4 9 e4 'irc5 1 0 li:Jb3 'ire7 1 1 li:Jc6 1 1 0-0 . 't!hb2!? (8 . .d 1 1 9 76. . . Grinza-Evans. 1 0 6 'irb6 (1 93) .ia6 1 8 liac 1 . . but 7 . . Czechoslovakia 1975. . (8 7 'it'xb4+ e3!?) .tg2 ± with the idea 1 1 . . 1 2 'fJ.tc3 li:Je4 9 'it'b3 . .dl . . . Browne) 8 .>xd 2 c. .te7 7 . .!. . li:Je4!? 8 1We3 'irxb2 (or 8 . went 1 2 b) 7 e3 li:Jc6 ( 7 . Frunze 1 983. 8 li:Jd2 'it'd2 . . Skara 1980.tc3 .!. 't!t'c7? 1 2 li:Jd5 t!t'd8 1 3 '1J. 'ire7?! 12 cd ed 1 3 . a5 !?) 9 cd ed 1 0 0-0 11 a3 'it'a5! . USSR 1975. . 14 c. .>e7) 1 1 li:Jxc6 ! b e 1 2 'fJ.!. 186 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 .!.. c.1 2 . . or 1 2 .!.>d8 1 1 't!t'd2 li:Je4! 1 2 li:J xe6+ fe 1 3 li:Jxe4 't!t'xd2+ 14 li:J xd2 ( 1 4 c. 193 8 . .!.. .txb4 (8 . . .tc5 !? 8 c5 ( 1 2 b4 'it'd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 .. Baku Complex is 8 . li:Jc6 1 2 li:Jxc6 be 1 3 0-0 .te7 8 .tc5 7 li:Jb3 .Rashkovsky-Sideif-Zade."s are a6 . li:Jc6 7 li:Jc2 . 7 .tg2 li:Jc6 8 . .bd2 1 1 'irxd2 0-0 1 2 li:Jc3 '1J..txb4 li:Je4 . d6. . 6 . 0-0. 8 ..) 7 .ig2 . .>c7 1 5 .ib7 1 6 'fJ. . . . . Pribyl-Gross. c l .. 1t'xd2+ 10 li:Jxd2 d5 !? ( l 0 . Alexandria­ a) 7 . .!. 0-0 9 'it'b3 'irc5 1 0 '1J. H aifa e5 ±.>c3 li:Jxd4 Vienna 1 972.ig4 1 5 'ird2 li:Je5 = Hausner­ .ig2 0-0 'irxd2+ 1 1 c... - Rashkovsky-Chekhov.>xd4 d6 1 5 '1J. d5 ( 7 .!.te7 =. 1983) 8 . c. d5 =) is less 'it'a5+ 9 li:Jd2 li:Jxd 2 1 0 'ihd 2 effective: 9 li:Jb5 li:Ja6 10 . .!. .

d5) 7 . .tb4+ 8 . .txd2 1 0 .tb4+ 9 lL!5a3 lL!bd7 = (Ne istadt).te7 ( Razuvayev) 10 0-0 0-0 . .tc3 t lL!c6 =.tg2 a6 9 lL!c3 . .tb2 Sicilian-like . . . e6 187 �b6! ?) 1 2 . lL!c6 8 b3 ( 8 lL!xc6 de!? 9 0-0 .!. a5 1 4 A 2 1 6 lL!d2 c 5 t Stean-Cebalo. 7 lLl bS 't!Vb8 d) 6 '@"d3 a6 (6 .td2 lL!c6 1 2 c) 6 �a4 . . d6. . a 5 ! ) 14 . . b6 1 5 lL!xc8 ll fxc8 1 6 cb e) 6 . Phoenix . . .tg2 .tg2 �xc4 as above. . 9 1i'd3 a6 1 0 0-0 d6 I I . �b6 7 e3 lL!xc6 be 1 3 . lL!c6 8 lL!xc6 de! 9 . USSR 1 979. 1i'b6 8 . .tg2 a6 9 0-0 8 . . �xc4!? 7 0-0 ab 1 7 0-0 lL!a 5 +. lLlc6 9 lL!b5 198 1 .te7 8 . d5?! (8 0 0 0.tc5 = .te 7 10 1i'c2 0-0 I I b3 e5 1 2 . .Peters. .te2 ( 1 3 llc l 1980) 8 . . .te6 1 3 a3 (or 13 1i'c3 ) 1 3 . lL!xd4) 9 lL!xc6 b e 1 0 Diesen-Andersson. . .td2 .txd2 d5 + Kapengut) 7 . .0 . . . Torremolinos 0. a6 etc. 6 . 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . Bradford. . �d8 1 3 .) 8 lL!xc6 de 9 0-0 Atta cking c4 and preparing the .tc5 8 e3 ltJc6 =. USSR lL!c 3 �c6 = or 8 .tg5 . . .txd2+ I I b) 6 b3 .tb4 7 . European Cup 1 984. lL!c6) 9 .ta5 'tWb 7 1 4 . Rashkovsky.t d7 + . .tg2 (7 lL!c 3 is A 22) 7 .Kasparov. S mederevska A 22 6 lL!c3 Palanka 1 980. .tb4+ (6 . . . . Pernik 198 1 . Buenos Aires 9 . . . . .te7 e4! lL!xe4 9 .te7 8 . .t e 7 I I lt:l c3 0-0 1 2 e4 t Arkell­ 1 9 78) 1 3 . . . .te3 lL!d7 = 9 lL!c3 bS Olafsson-Karpov.te7 ( "? ! 8 . 't!t"b8 =. a6 7 . .tg5 lL!c6! with the idea .tg2 a6 I 0 'it'b3 e5 I I .tb2 . . llb8 14 b4 a5 ! 1 5 't!t"a4 .td2 t) 7 / 94 lL!c3 (7 lL!d2 �xc4 8 lL!c2 0-0 9 0-0 w . . . d5. . but White has 7 e3 or 7 1i'b3 . . A21 6 lL!d2 lL!c6 Or 6 . 8 . .te7 9 .te7 1 0 A2 lL!c3 0-0 I I lL!e4 lld8 1 2 �e l 5 �c 7 (194) �d4 = Duric-Antonov.tc5 (or 6 . Mi khalchishin-Lukin..td2 'it'xc4 I 0 l:tc I . . d6 8 b3 .tc5 !? 7 lL!2b3 a) 6 '@"c2 d 5 7 lL!b5 �c6 8 . �e7! 1 4 lL!d6 ( 1 4 b4 Psakhis. . . .txc5 13 lL!c4 't!t"b5 14 b3 ± 1978) 7 .tg2 lL!c5 1 0 't!t"d 5 with 10 0-0 0-0 I I lL!a4 ! 'it'a5 12 c5! attack. . 'it'xc4 8 0-0 0-0 (or 8 .tg2 . . .tc5 �d2 't!t"a5 1 2 lL!c5 =/rn" Kasparov) and .tb4+ =. . . a6 7 b3 . 8 . . . 6 . .tb4+ 7 lL!d2 (7 .tg2 lL!c6 (7 . . . . . . or 6 . a6) 7 lL!b3 . e5 7 lL!b5 't!t"c6 8 7 . . . 6 .

tf4 e5 1 5 .!: b 6 1 0 . 7 . . A22 e) 7 .tg2 ll g I .tg2 !) I 0 0-0 e5 I I l1:Ja4 ..tf4.. .. . London lil:c I .tb4 8 'tib3 . USSR Ch 1976. be) 9 e4!? ( 9 l1:Jc2) and now: a) 7 .tc5 8 .. e5! (Polugayevsky).tb6! ( 1 3 .. . .. b) 7 e3 11:Jc6 (7 .tb4 8 .tb2 lil:d8) I I . .tb4 8 .0 .td2! lil:c8 1 2 ( Gipslis). . 7 .Olafsson-Alburt.te3 . .te2 b6 .!: Dantov-Tischbierek..td6 . .. .. . b5!? 8 ( Muller). .txf6 gf ( 8 .te7! 9 .. .. e . . .Kavalek.. .txc7 9xc7 1 6 lil:c l lil:a7..tb7 (Korchnoi).tf4 (8 0-0 1Wc7 9 ..188 2 l1:Jf3 l1:Jf6 3 d4: 4 .tc5 !) 8 . . Berlin 1 984. ........tc5 10 .tb4 1 0 .tf4 e5 idea I I . . a6 8 .. a) 7 1t'a4 l1:Jc6 8 11:J xc6 t!t'xc6 =.tf4!? d6 l O l1:J b3 11:Jbd7 I I Seirawan-Polugayevsky.. Reykjavik 'tib8 9 . b) 7 .. cb .tb4 ( !).tf4!?. .. The main option is 6 ..te7 I I ..te3 ± f) 7 1id3 l1:Jc6 (7 . went I 0 0. .. . Manila 1982. l1:Jc6 8 11:Jdb5 !? b 3 t H . b5. or 7 . e6 I I 11:Jde4 t inte nding 12 ..tb7 I I ...tg2 6 l1:Jc3 a6 (195) d6 10 lil c l 11:J bd7 = Tarjan­ Not 6 . 11:Jxd6+ . . . 1 5 . Rashkovsky-Taimanov. .. a3 .... =.tb7 9 e4!? .tg2 .. 1 984. !..tg2 11:J bd7 = USSR Ch 1 977) 14 . e5 8 l1:Jxe4! = Tarj an-Fedorowicz. .tb7 9 't!t'e2 d6 1 0 . .tg5 l1:J c6 +) 8 . Wijk aan Zee 1978.tf4 d6 ally equal. .g.txc3+ 9 be gf 1 0 e4 b5 I I 't!t'f3) 9 ll c l b6 1 0 .te7 14 . . .tb7 I I ... . . 8 . .txf4+ 1 4 gf 0-0 1 5 lil: g l .. l1:J c6 / 95 9 11:Jxc6 be 10 lil:c l 'irb4 I I a3 1i'b7 w 1 2 .td2 d5 =. .. ..txd6 1 3 't!t'xd6 1i'b8 = Sosonko... d6 8 ... .. .tf4 .tg2 . dynamic­ d) 7 b3 b5!? 8 .txb7 't!t'xb7 1 2 0-0 . . .b e5..tgS!? 9 .. b5 !? 8 cb . . . After 7 . .... 7 . ..tf4 l1:Je5 10 1!t'd4 d6 I I 1 986. .te3 c) 7 e4 b6 (7 ..te 7 a) 7 .tf4 d6 1 2 lld l �e7! ) 9 . b5!?) 8 0-0 I 6 11:Jc3.. . 0-0 9 .te3 a6 9 't!t'xc6!? ( 8 .. . b6. Vaganian.te7 8 0-0 1Wxc4 . . . 1t'c7 8 .. US 11:Jdb5 'tixc4 9 . S kopje 1976.txc5 1 2 11:Jde4 l1:Jxe4 1 3 11:J xe4 9 11:Jxc6 de = ..tg2 1Wxc4 !? (7 ..txd6 1 2 0-0-0 11:J xc4 1 3 g) 7 .. Polugayevsky-Taimanov. . . .tc7 1 5 Maninang-Dolmatov. 9xc4? 7 e4 'it'b4 (7 ... .tg2 . I I .txe5 or 8 .. .tg5 11:J bd7) 8 . ..tg2 .. . .. or 7 USSR 1 978.tf4) 8 a 3 't!t'b6 9 . 7 'tib3!? . 7 . 'tic6 9 Ch 1 977) 8 l1:J xc6 (8 b3 . be 10 . .t Rashkovsky-Vaganian. . 7 . . ..tb4 7 't!t'd 3 (7 .tb7 9 . . c5!? ( I I b3 0-0 1 2 . ... . de =.tg2 't!t'c7 = with the l1:Jc6 9 11:Jxc6 de (9 .. .te7 = ) 8 . .

7 e3 (7 e4!?) 7 . 0-0 10 0-0 h6 I I . Korchnoi-Furman. . not so easy for 8 . .tb4 (197) 10 0-0 h6 197 11 . ( 1 2 ..txf6 gf 9 lt:lb3 lt:l a5 =/ro Black as 5 g3. 5 . 'i!t'e5 !?) 1 2 . 2 ltJfJ ltJf6 3 d4: 4 .if4!? 0-0 7 lt:l db5 lt:le4!? (7 . 5 . .tf2 a n d e 4 - Yusupov) 1 4 . B2 5 . .tb4 d ) 6 'it'c2 lt:lc6 7 e 3 0-0 8 .txg2 1 4 lt:l f5) 1 3 . B l 5 .txf6!? ( 1 3 6 g3 is A22. . . .ig5 lt:lc6 ( 6 .te3 0-0 w 1 2 h3 ll e8 1 3 f4 !? ( 1 3 b3) 1 3 . d 5 e) 6 . 1 2 lt:lf5 5 a6 6 e4 is a Kan Sicilian.txg2 1 4 lt:lc6 ( 6 . . USSR Ch 9 . lt:l c6 9 . .t b4 8 llc l !?) 'i!t'd 2 1!1b7 ! + Grigorian-Ka rlsson.tb7 1 0 lt:ld5 !? ed I I cd . .if4 lt:le4 1 0 'i!t'c2 9 . 'tia5 ! 9 .tc5 (6 ..ie2 (8 Erevan 1 980.. Here 6 lt:ldb5 ( ! ) .tf4 e5 8 lt:ld5 or 8 .ia3 d5 ! + Fischer) 9 f3 lt:lc5 1 0 1!i'd2 0-0 + Debarnot-Tatai. Budapest 1986. . B 5 lt:lc3 (196) 1 96 8 6 g3 a) 6 e3 lt:le4 7 'i!t'c2 lt:l xc3 8 be . 8 lt:lc7 lt:lh5) 8 't!fc2 lt:lxc3 9 .tg 2 lt:lb d 7 lt:lxc3 = Furman-Tal. 'i!t'd 2 0-0 I I lit e I ab ro Do nchev­ E. t!t'xd6 t was Speelman-Fedorowicz. I ndependent is 6 .td7 = Yusupov­ Psa khis.td2 . b5!? 8 cb . . Erevan 1 986. .tg5 0-0! ? . .. .tg2 (9 . .. .tb7 9 f3 . lt:lf3) 8 .ixc3+ 7 be t!t'a5 8 'i!t'd3 lt:la6! (8 .tg5) 7 .tb4+.te2 d 5 =. . . . h6 7 .tc7 8 . Las Palmas 1975. . . .tf4 0-0 8 llc1 d6 8 . . .td3 or 7 f3 is Chapter 1 5 .. 5 lt:lc6 i s Chapter 1 3.txf6 gf 1 3 d6 .. e6 1 89 b) 7 . . b) 6 lt:lc2 . . d6? 7 Ortega. . b6 9 .td6 . . . b 6 6 .. USSR Ch 196 1 ..ie7 =.tc7 'i!t'e7 9 . .txf6 gf) 9 .tc5 1 0 e4 d6 7 . 'i!t'c8 1 3 . lt:lf8 1 4 lt:lb3 ( 1 4 . . . 12 e4 lHc8 1 3 b3 'it'd8 1 4 a4 tl ± 81 Gauglitz-Petra n. and .th4 . . . Erev an 1 982..tc5 ! 1 2 d6 Lone Pi ne 1 978. d5( !).. .td7 1 975.txd6 1 0 8 . h6) 7 li c 1 1i'b6 The main line. c) 6 .

1 90 2 li:Jf3 lt/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

be '@f6 I 0 e3 a6 I I l:i:c l .ta5 ! ? ( I I g2) 6 ... d5 7 .tf4 (7 a3? .txe3+ 8
. . . a b 12 cb e5 !?) 1 2 li:Jc7 e5 1 3 li:Jd5 li:Jxe3 d4 9 li:Ja2 0-0 1 0 e3 li:J e6 =!=; 7
't!i'e6 14 .tg3 d6 1 5 .td3 f5 =/oo ed ed 8 .tg5 0-0 9 e3 a6 10 a3 and
Murei- Shamkovich, Wij k aan Zee 10 . . . .ta5 = or 1 0 . . . ab I I ab l ha 1
1 9 83. 1 2 '@xa l li:Je6 1 3 .txb5 d4! =/oo
f) 6 '@b3 li:Ja6 (6 . . . .tc5 7 li:Jf3 '@b6 Kagan-Gulko, USSR 197 1 ) 7 . . . 0-
=, or 7 .te 3 li:Ja6!, or 7 e3 li:J c6 8 0 8 e3 (8 li:J e7 ? li:Jh5; 8 '@b3 li:J e6) 8
li:Jf3 0-0 9 .te2 d5 =) 7 .tg5 (7 e3? . .. li:Je6 (or 8 . . . a6(! ), and 9 li:Je7
li:Je4; 7 li:Jc2 .te7; 7 .td2 0-0 8 e 3 l:i:a7 1 0 li:Jxd5 ed I I .txb8 .txe3 1 2
b 6 = ) 7 . . . h6 ( 7 . . . '@a6 8 .td2 li:Jc5 be .tg4 or 9 a3 .t a 5 1 0 li:J d 6 li:Je6
9 't!i'e2 li:J ee4 10 li:J xe4 li:Jxe4 = +) 9 a3 .txe3+!? (or 9 . . . .ta5 10 b4
Bronstein; but 1 0 li:Jb 3 ! .txc3 I I a6 =) 10 li:Jxe3 h6 I I ed ed 1 2 .te2
.t.xe3 '@f5 1 2 f3 seems to favour ( 1 2 li:Jb5!? ) 1 2 . . . d4 = Szilagyi­
White) 8 .txf6 't!i'xf6 9 e3 '@g6 1 0 Fa ber, Bagneux 1 975.
llc l 0-0 I I a 3 .te7 1 2 g 3 li:Je5 1 3 h) 6 .td2 is the best of these slow
'@e2 '@xc 2 1 4 llxe2 a5 ro Gunawan­ moves: 6 . . . li:Je6 (6 . . . 0-0 7 a3
Rom anishin, De Pasar 1 984. .te7 ! ? 8 .tf4 d5 9 e3 li:Jbd7 10 .tg3
g) 6 li:Jb5 has two good replies: de I I .txe4 ! Velikov-Sem kov,
g l ) 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 (7 .tf4 d5 or 7 . . . Bulgaria 1 9 80- 1 , or 7 . . . .txe3 8
li:Je4!?) 7 . . . .txe3+ 8 li:Jxe3 d 5 9 .txe3 li:Je4 9 '@e2!? d5 I 0 e3 li:Jxe3
.tg5 (9 e3 li:Je6 =; 9 ed ed 1 0 .te3 I I '@xe3 de 12 .txe4, C.Hansen­
li:Je6 I I .td4 lle8 12 e3 li:Jg4 ! ) Hjartarson, Esbjerg 1 985, and
9 . . . h6 1 0 .txf6 '@x6f I I e d e d instead of 12 . . . b6 1 3 0-0 ;!;, 12 . . .
'@xd 5 ? ! ( 1 2 e3 li:Je6!? - 1 2 . . . lld8 .td 7 was best, but 9 l:i: e l may
13 '@d4! w - 1 3 '@xd5 lld8 14 '@f3 improve) 7 a3 (7 li:Je2 .te5 8 .te3
't!i'g6 1 5 lid I llxd I + 1 6 li:J xd I .txe3 9 li:J xe3 0-0 =, or 7 . . . .te7 =)
=/oo; here 1 3 . . . .tg4!? 1 4 '@b3? ! 7 . . . .te7 8 .tg5 (8 .tf4 d6 9 .tg3 !?)
'@g6 1 5 f3 .te6 =F was Murei­ 8 . . . 0-0 9 e3 d5 ! ? 10 .te2 h6 I I
West, Biel 1 985; Murei gives 1 4 .th4 li:Je5 1 2 ed :t Karner-Gipslis,
.t b 5 llad8 1 5 't!i'e4 ! ;!;) 1 2 . . . lld8 Tallinn 1 975.
1 3 't!i'f3?! ( 1 3 '@b3 li:J a6 ! ? or 1 3 . . . A fter 6 g3:
li:Je6 oo K apengut) 1 3 . . . '@b6 ! 1 4 B I I 6 . . . li:Je4
l:i:d l l:i: xd l+ 1 5 li:Jxd l li:Je6 1 6 1i'e 3 B l 2 6 . . . 0-0
( 1 6 e3 .te6 =F ) 1 6 . . . li:Jd4 1 7 't!i'e8+ 6 . . . li:Je6 is Chapter 1 3, B 2 1 , and
'lt>h7 18 e3 li:Je2+ ! 19 'lt>d2 .tf5 ! 20 6 . . . '@e7 7 '@d3 is A22 above.
'@xa 8 't!i'd6+ 21 'lt>e l li:Ja l ! 22 Bll
1Wxb7 't!i'e7+ ! 0-1 Vaganian-Planinc, 6 li:Je4
Hastings 1 974- 5. 7 't!i'd3

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 91

No longer seen is 7 1tc2 'ira5 ! (8 be .i.xc3+ 10 'lt>d I 't!t'e5 ! I I .i.f4
t;Jb3 1!ff5!) or 7 .i.d2 .i.xc3 (7 . . . @f6 12 lit e ! .i.e5 ; 9 a3 lLle4+ I O ab
t;:Jxc3!?) 8 .i.xc3 lLlxc3 9 bc 't!t'a5 1 0 't!t'xb4+ I I lLld2 lLlc5 ! .
�d3 0-0 I I .i.g2 lLlc6 1 2 lLlb3 't!t'c7 9 lLle4
1 J c5 b6 = G rigorian-Savon, 10 't!t'xe4 .i.xd2+
U S SR 1 976. 11 lLlxd2 0-0
7 't!t'aS 12 .i.g2 lLlc6
Presumably 7 . . . .i.xc3 8 be lLlc5 13 't!t'e3
m ight be tried, but 7 . . . lLlxc3 8 be The best alternative is 1 3 't!t'd3 !?,
11.. c 7 9 lLlb5 ! favours White. e.g. 13 . . . 't!t'e5 14 li b ! lLld4 1 5
8 lLl b3 (198) 1t'b3(?!) a5 1 6 't!t'c3 f6 oo Suba­
8 lLlc2?! .i.xc3+! (8 . . . lLlxc3?! 9 Ftacnik , Prague 1 985; 1 5 't!t'c3 ! ,
tt:Jxb4 lLlxc2 1 0 lixa2 with pressure) but Black's 1 3th and 1 4th moves
9 be lLlc5 ! I 0 't!t'd2 ( 10 @e3 b6; 1 0 were hardly forced.
�d4 0-0 I I ..b 3 b 6 1 2 .i.g2 lLlc6 + , Lesser moves are 13 a3 lidS ( 1 3
o r I I . . . d6! 1 2 0-0-0 b6 ! Banas­ . . . d5 14 cd ed 1 5 't!t'xd5 't!t'c7 =
Lerner, Stary Smokovec 1977) 1 0 Padevsky) 14 't!t'c2 ( 1 4 't!t'f4!?) 1 4 . . .
. . . b 6 I I .i.g2 .i.b7 1 2 .i.xb7 lLlxb7 d5 1 5 0-0? lLl d 4 1 6 1t'd3 de 1 7
1 3 .i.a3 lLlc6 14 O-O d6 + Lombard­ lLlxc4 't!t'h 5 1 8 lilad l e 5 + -
Rogoff, Biel 1 9 76. Romanishin-lvkov, Sochi 1983;
and 1 3 't!t'f4 e 5 ! 14 'lrh4 ( 1 4 't!t'e3
lLld4 1 5 't!t'd3 d5 ! 1 6 cd .i.g4! +
Dorfm an-Makarichev, USSR Ch
1978) 14 . . . d6 1 5 a3 .i.e6 1 6 ll c l
lilad8 1 7 llc3 d 5 1 8 lLlb3 @b6 1 9
cd lixd5! =F LjubojeviC-Velimirovic,
Yugoslavian Ch 1 982.
13 dS
14 0-0 d4
IS @d3 ( 199)
see diagram
B I I I 8 . . . lLlxc3 IS lid8
B I I 2 8 . . . 't!t'f5 a) IS 't!t'b6 16 'ira3 ! e5 1 7 c5 't!t'b5
...

Bi l l ( 1 7 . . . 'i!t'c7 !? Gulko) 1 8 lil fe l lt:lb4
8 ltJxc3 19 lilac I .i.e6 20 lLle4 :! Gulko­
9 .i.d2! G . Agzamov, USSR 1982; 20 . . .
9 lLl xa 5 lLle4+ 10 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ lLlxa2 ! 2 1 lLld6 1!t'b3 2 2 't!t'xb3
I I 't!t'xd2 lLl xd 2 1 2 'lt>xd 2 lLlc6 = ; 9 .i.xb3 23 .i.xb7 ! t (Gulko).

192 2 liJf3 lf¥6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

This leaves 16 . . . g6!? 17 b4 11fc7
199 (Informant), which favours White
B after 1 8 f4; and 1 6 . . . .ie6 1 7 b4
t!t"c7 1 8 f4! ? ( 1 8 liJe4 ( !), and 1 8 ..
.

g6 1 9 liJf6+ 'it>g7 20 liJd5, or 1 8 .. .

h6 1 9 liJc5 .ic8 20 f4 Informant) 1 8
. . . ef 1 9 gf g6 ! =/oo Giffard­
Cebalo, Sainte Maxime 1982. Over­
all, none of these 16th moves
seems fully equal for Black.
16 a3
b) After 1 5 . . . e 5 1 6 a3, Black has 1 6 llfd 1 ( Ftacnik).
tried just a bout everything, e.g. 1 6 16 liJe5
. . . f5 1 7 liJ b 3 ( 1 7 b4? ! "t!t'c7 1 8 c 5 1 6 . . . t!t"c7 ! ? (Gaprindashvili);
.i e 6 + Padevsky-Semkov, Bulgaria 1 7 f4 ! ( 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 f5 or 1 8 b4).
1 9 8 1 ; 1 7 .ixc6!? be 1 8 b4 "t!t'c7 1 9 17 b4(!)
f4 t Padevsky) 1 7 . . . 1rc7 1 8 1 7 @c2 'it'c7 18 1i'e4 ( 1 8 llac l
.id5+ ! 'it>h8 1 9 f4 lld8 2 0 fe 'irxe 5 .id7 =) 1 8 . . . a 5 ?! ( 1 8 . . . llb8 1 9
2 1 ll ad 1 ± Ljuboj evic-Szmetan, llac l b6 = S tohl; 1 8 . . . d3!?) 1 9
Buenos Aires 1 979. Or 16 ... @c 7 9 llac 1 a 4 20 c5 ;!; Polugayevsky­
1 7 f4 ( 1 7 b4 .ie6 1 8 liJe4 liJe7 ! oo) Ftacnik, Moscow 1985.
17 . . . ef 18 llxf4 .ie6?! ( 1 8 ... lle8 17 'iVc7!?
19 .id5 .ie6 20 ll af l "t!fb6 ? - 20 . . . The original idea was 1 7
llad8 - 2 1 b4 ± Popov-Chekov, liJxd3 1 8 ba liJc5. Then 1 9 llab 1
USSR 1 979) 19 .ixc 6! be ( 1 9 . . . llb8 20 llb4!? is natural, to stop
'it'xc6 2 0 b4 ± Informant) 2 0 c 5 . . . lLla4 , but 20 . . . b6 2 1 llab 1 lld6
t!t"e5 2 1 b 4 .id5 2 2 llxd4 liJe5 2 3 holds. So perhaps 20 liJe4, and 20
lLlc4 ± Catalan-Saeed , Dubai . . . liJxe4 2 1 .ixe4 or 20 . . . liJa4 2 1
1 9 8 1 . Or 16 ... .if5!? 17 liJe4?! ( 1 7 llb4 liJc3 22 liJ xc 3 de 23 llc l lld2
b4 .ixd3 1 8 ba .ixe2 1 9 llfe 1 .id3 24 .if3 c2 25 llb2 etc. Needs tests.
20 a6 llab8 21 ab liJa5 oo - 18 "t!t'b3 .id7
Prandstetter. But 1 7 1i'xf5 1rxd2 19 f4!
18 1lld 3( ! ) with the idea 18 . . . " ±" (Gaprindashvili): 19 . . .
1rxb2 1 9 llab l t!t"c3 20 ll xb 7 liJg6 ( 1 9 . . . lLlg4 2 0 1i'f3 ! lLle3 2 1
looks best) 1 7 . . . .if6 1 8 b 4 'iVc7 1 9 t!t"xb7 t!t"xb7 22 .ixb7 liJ x f l 2 3
f4 ( 1 9 c5!? f5 2 0 liJd6) 1 9 . . . f5 20 'it>xfl llb8 24 .i f3 ± Gaprindashvili)
liJeg5 e4 + Ftacnik-Prandstetter, 20 liJf3 .ic6 2 1 llfd l !? ( 2 1 llac l )
Czechoslovakian Ch 1982. 2 1 . . . e 5 22 f5 liJe7, Gaprindashvili-

2 lLlf3 liJ/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 93

Mokry, Polanica Zdroj 1986; 23 14 . . . 'irxc5 1 5 lt:lxc6 de 1 6 't!t'xc5 be
g4 ! with the idea lilac l , lt:ld2-e4 1 7 .ixc6 lilb8 1 8 lilfd l , H uzman­
( Gaprindashvili). Tu k makov, USSR 1 983; "!" -
8112 H uzman . 1 8 . . . .ib7 1 9 JJ.. d 7 lilbd8
8 1tfS 20 JJ.f4 JJ..c 8 is one approach.
9 1We3 (200) It's interesting that (a) and (c)
are approximately equal, which
:!00 indicates that 8 . . . 't!t'f5 may be
B somewhat underest imated by com­
parison with 8 . . . lt:l xc3.
10 JJ..g 2 lt:ld6!?
11 cS lt:l c4
12 11t'd3!
As suggested in the first edi tion,
rather than 12 't!t'f4 't!t'xf4 1 3 gf
b6! =. After 1 2 't!t'd3, Miles-Sax,
D ubai 1 986, w ent 1 2 . . . 'irxd3 1 3
9 lt:lc6 e d lt:l4a5 1 4 lt:l xa5 lt:lxa5 1 5 JJ.e3
a) 9 ... lt:l xc3 1 0 be JJ..e 7 1 1 JJ..g 2 ( 1 5 .id2 JJ..x c5 1 6 lt:lb5 JJ.. b6 1 7
lt:lc6 ( 1 1 ... 0-0 12 0-0 lt:la6 1 3 c5! JJ..b 4 d 5 ! 1 8 lt:ld6+ �d7 1 9 liJxf7
.ixc5 1 4 lt:l xc 5 1Wxc5 1 5 Wxc 5 lt:lc6 ! oo Miles; 17 lt:ld6?! �e7 ! 1 8
lt:lxc5 1 6 JJ..a 3 d6 1 7 lilfd 1 ± JJ..b 4 �f6 = ) 1 5 . . . d6 1 6 c d JJ.d7 1 7
Donchenko-Saharov, USSR 1976) 0-0! ( 1 7 �e2 JJ..c 6 = Velikov­
1 2 c5! 0-0 1 3 .ia 3 lild8 ( 1 3 . . . b6!? Kurtenov, Vrnjacka Banja 1985)
14 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 5 cd lilb8) 14 0-0 1 7 . . . JJ.. x d6 1 8 lt:le4 (" ±" Miles) 1 8
t!t'e5 15 Wd3 Wc7 16 lilfd l ;!;! ± . . . .ie7 1 9 lilfc 1 lt:lc6 ( 1 9 . . . JJ..c6 20
Fedorowicz-Kaufman, New York JJ..d 2) 20 ILleS .ixc5 2 1 .ixc5, and
1 9 79. 21 . . . f6 was best , but 22 b4 or 22
b) 9 ... lt:la6 1 0 JJ.g2 lt:lxc 3 1 1 be d4 is strong.
.icS 12 lt:l xc 5 lt:l xc5 1 3 1t"d4 ! B12
t!t'xd4 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 JJ.f4) 1 4 cd 6 0-0
lt:lb4 15 �2 ± Lombardy-Hebert, 7 JJ..g 2
Lone Pine 1 98 1 . 7 11t'b3 JJ..c 5 (7 ... .txc3+ 8 be d5
c ) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 JJ..g 2 lt:l xc3 1 1 be JJ.. e 7 9 cd t Gulko, e.g. 9 ... lt:l xd5 1 0 e4
1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 c5 !?) 12 ... lt:lc6 1 3 c5 lt:lb6 1 1 JJ.. a 3 lile8 1 2 lt:lb5) 8 JJ..e 3
b6( !) 14 lt:ld4!? ( 1 4 cb ab 1 5 1Wxb6 (8 lt:lf3 ! ? 11t'b6 9 1!t"xb6) 8 . . . 1i'e7 9
.ia6 1 6 1We3 JJ.. c4 1 7 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 8 JJ..g2 ! lt:l c6 (9 . . . lt:lg4 1 0 lt:le4 liJxe3
cd lilxa2 Huzman; 1 4 JJ.. a 3 lilb8)
= 1 1 1!rxe3 t Gulko) 10 lild 1 lt:l g4 1 1

lt::l a 5 I S lt::l a 4! is strong.e3! . .Fedorowicz. . Cl ichy 1 9S6- 7.d7 1 2 lbxd5 ed 1 3 1 3 i. . 7 dS (20 1) 201 w b) 9 . . . . 12 . 8 1 22 s \!t'b3 i. 17 .xc5 \!t'xc5 1 3 Ci:Je4 't!ta5+ 1 4 \!t'c3 ( 14 �fl !?) 14 . . . i. . Ci:Jf6 = Gulko) I S . . Novi Sad 1 9S6.g5 !?) 1 2 . .194 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . Ci:Ja4 ! d e 1 9 Ci:Jc5 i. .xc3!?) 1 4 �fl litdS ( 1 4 . .a6 ? ! ( 1 7 .f3 de 1 1 i. .. . .d 7 1 3 't!txc4 't!txc4 1 4 .. Dortm und li::l d 7?! I I litd l 1re7 1 2 i. liJb6 13 i..1 3 . 1 6 lit c I c3! 1 7 be i. ..c6 I S 'tlrd I " ±" . a6?! 1 3 li::ld 6 i. litdS I I \!t'xb6 a b 1 2 li::ld b5 lt::l c6 19S6) I I litd I i. 't!tb6 1 0 't!tb5 ( 1 0 lt::l c 2!?) 1 0 ± Georgadze-A. de 9 \!t'a4 (9 lt::l c 2!? i. .e3 i.e6 1 4 8 1 2 1 S cd li::ld 6 t Suba) 1 3 . Rodriguez.e3 lDdc5 1 9S6. Reggio Emilia Nimzo-Indi an. e6 Ci:Jxc6 be 1 2 i. .xc3 a6 (Condie). .e3 i. 21 a4! planning a5- gone S . . . . i. Seville . Condie-Suba. 202 \!t'xc3+ 1 5 Ci:Jxc3 litbS 1 6 b 3 d 5 1 7 B 0-0 i. . e5? 9 li::l c 2 i.xd5 1 9 1Wxd5 ! Karpov-Portisch. since Ci:Jxc4 is threatened and i. 1raS 1 0 \!t'xa5 ( I 0 \!t'b5 e5 !) 1 0 .xc5! \!t'xc5 1 4 lbe4 \!t'b6 1 5 't!txc4 a) 9 .Conquest-I .xa5 I I li::l d b5 lt::lc 6 12 litd I ( 1 2 i.g4 1 5 S 0-0 !? is an important recent h 3 k4') 1 5 lbxc4 i.c5 1 4 i. lbd4 ( 1 3 . . lba6 10 lb db5 lbd5 ( 1 0 . = Zaitsev) 1 4 a3 i.xb7 litabS 1 9 i.. 1 0 be 't!tc7 !? I I lt::l e 3 litdS 12 \!t'a4 c) 9 . Farago.1 5 lt::l xc4! lbxc3 1 6 litd2 a5 17 i. Sokolov-lzetu.c6 looks equal) (diagram) i.a3 \!t'xd I 1 2 litfxd I liteS 1 3 ed 20 i.6) 1 3 lDd6 (or 13 i.1 4 . . . lt::l x c4 i.e7 1 5 i.xc3 1 4 be li::l d5 . e5 ( 1 2 . . xc4 I S i.e3 i.c5 lit xd l + 1 6 litxd l �f8 1 7 li::l d 6.1 2 .cS 20 litd4 t Gulko.xc5 be 1 5 litfd l litxd5 \!t'c8 ( 1 3 .f4 i. i.a3 liteS IS lite! ± Ke y for both the English and Romanishin-Ribli. . 't!teS 1 4 i. . . White has: 19S5. . . lt::le 3 favours White.xc3 10 be c d i. . so play has D ubai 1 9S6. lLla5 15 i.xb6 14 a3 ± .xc3 1 6 b e i.e6 1 7 move.f6 I .. S . . . .f4 lit b2. Tilburg 1 9S6.

. . 't!t'c7 1 4 0-0 lila5 lilc l .ia6 1 3 and 1 0 .ie7 I I b3 lt:Jc6 I I .! Karasev-A iburt. . .0 lilc8 1 6 . . . . Erevan 1 980. . lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 = /oo Belyavsky-Alburt. lt:Ja6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc5 1 4 lt:Je3 . a 6 1 2 . . ab ( 1 2 .0 e5 1 2 lt:Jc2 'i!fc2?! 1Wa5 1 2 .ie3 lt:Ja6 ( 1 5 .ie6 1 3 c4) 13 'i!fxd5 Ftacnik. not a m bitious lil b l e 5 1 2 lt:J c2 ( 1 2 lilxb7 ed =) 1 2 but still of i nterest.1 1 . .if4 1 3 . . lt:Jc6 1 3 lil b l a6! oo) I I .Klar.ib6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc6.id2 (203) Tu kmakov. 2 0f3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . USSR Ch 15 . .id2? 't!t'a6! =!= Ho rt-Kindermann. lt:lb6 1 3 lt:Je3 . . . ltJc4 .ie6 1 5 . lbc6 10 lt:J xc 6 be I I 0-0! ( I I . Bugojno 1 980.te l (or 1 2 c4! lt:lb6 1 2 0-0 . .g. Osterman-M inic. Cienfuegos 1 984) 1 3 .ie3 't!t'c7 14 't!t'd3 lild8 1 5 't!t'e4 . . . ..ixd5 ! f) 1 3 . e6 195 812 1 1976. . 't!t'b6 1 0 e 3 ( 1 0 . Thessaloniki 1 984) 1 3 ( 1 3 . oo Schm id. here 1 2 . . 11 lt:l b5 ( !) a) l l lt:Jc2 lt:Jc6 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 0-0 . . 't!t'e7 12 lt:lb5 Dortmund 1 983) 12 . I I .ib2) I I lt:Jxc 6 be 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 ( I I 0-0 e5 .ie 3 . . . .ig4 1 4 13 lt:Ja3 lt:lc6 14 c5 ! :t Makarichev) f3 .ie3.txd5 ed seem equal.ie6 1 5 c4 :t Sunye-Agzamov.tel lild8 = Aksharumova­ lild I lil ab8 = (Hort).i f6 ( 1 2 . . .ie6 = ) 1 2 .ig4.ie6 16 lilfd l =/oo Tai-Timman. Volgograd 1 985. Neuhausen 1 96 1 .ih 3 ! Ho rt) 10 . Alexandria. Yugoslavia 1 976 b ) 9 . . . b ) 11 lt:lb3 lt:Jc6 12 0-0 lt:Jb6 ( 1 2 .ie6 1 4 lil c l =. . lt:Jc6 ( 1 0 10 be e5!? . . .ia5 I I 0-0 ( I I 't!t'b3 !?) I I lild l 'i!fb6 14 lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 1 5 e4 't!t'e2 . e5 1 3 e4 . ..ib6 1 2 lil b 8 1 2 1Wc2 .14 't!t'c2 . b4 16 't!t'b3 f) 1 6 .ie7 I I The older move. . 8 cd lt:Jxc3 1 0 be . .txc3+ I I be 'ifxb5 1 2 a b lt:J xc 3 Or I 0 . . .ie6 1 5 8 lt:Jxd5 0.e I !?) I I .ia6 1 3 e5 1 3 . e5 1 2 lt:lb3 . .ic5 I I lt:l b 3 ( I I 0. .. a) 9 . . .13 . . . but both 1 0 .ib4 o f Grigorian­ 9 . slightly 9 'i!fb3 can lead to: favoured White. Mascarinas­ 12 . .id2 .ta6 +) I I . . Lucerne 1 983. . Santos-Ligterin k. . .. . . . I I . . ltJa5 Sunye . 9 . . . . e. lt:Jde7 1 3 a4!? 't!t'c7 . The main option is 9 . and n o w 1 0 . lt:Jc4 1 3 i.ie7 1 3 lil d I 'ti'b6 1 4 0-0 lt:Jc6 1 3 't!t'c2 e 5 1 4 e 3 . . lt:Jb6 I 0 lt:Jc2 . . .1 2 lt:lb3 . . lt:Jb6( !). . .t xc3 11 lt:Jc6 9 . USSR 1 974.

1 2 .1 3 . . . .ie6 1 3 'ird3 . . tiJ c6 9 tiJxc6 ... . tiJb6 1 3 c5 liJc4 1 4 lbc6 =. 't!t'e7 =) 1 2 0-0 lb c6 1 3 a 4 . lbc6 1 3 lii: d l ). 1 2 .ie3 ! tiJa6 10 cd liJg4 USSR 1 98 1 . . 1 2 . . although this could re­ .Stempin­ 1!fxc3 be I I 0. 17 . 'ikb4 . tiJ f6 1 3 . Lucerne . .ic3. . d4 1 2 cd ed 1 3 0-0 0. . 9 1!fxc3 e5 10 lbb3 ( 1 0 lbb5 a6 tiJc7 1 3 . 14 a4 ± ( i. I I . Kiev 1 984. With a small edge.ib2 lii: e 8 1 4 f4 ! ) 1 3 e 3 a5 oo (Stempin). lbbd7 !?. lb c6 ( I I .Ro manishin-Agzamov. . Poland 1982.ig5 i.g. . e5 8 't!t'b3 (204) B l 222 9 . 't!t'e8!?) 1 2 0-0 't!t'c7 An a ttempt to gain more activity 13 . 1!fc7 !? 14 0-0 lii: d 8 c) 8 .ib2!? may improve I I tiJc2! tiJxe3 1 2 liJxe3 .ixe3 ! He ( 1 2 . .0 .ixe3+ attack. . de 8 1 223 9 . . d4 I I 't!t'd3 13 . .ixc 3 Zdroj 198 1 . e6 lUc l lii:8 d 1 7 't!t'f3. tiJde7 ( 1 2 . . .. . I I 't!t'xc 3 't!t'xc3 1 2 be ed 1 3 . . ..c6 1 4 tiJc2 1 985. b) 1 0 lbc2!? de 1 1 1!fb5!? ( 1 1 1!fxc4 i. Toluca 1 982. . .id5 . .ixc3+ 1 0 1 5 't!t'b l ! t Arbikov-Gavrikov.id5 1 5 semble 8 0-0 de 9 't!t'a4 above after tiJd6 t .1 96 2 liJf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . .ie6 1 4 c 5 ! ? . . . 12 .ia3 lii:e8 10 de 14 c4!? ( 1 4 lii: ab l !?) 14 . 8122 8 1 22 1 9 .ic3. i.id5) I I . . . 1 2 . . . . . Romania v East Germany (205) ( 1 2 lba3 . tiJa6 9 0-0 't!t'a5 10 cd .e7 1 7 f4 ! with 8 . a6!? I I tiJa3 ( I I 'ti'a3 !?) I I li[fc l t Ghitescu-Short. .0 't!t'e7 1 2 b3 lii: d 8 ( 1 2 Adamski. . . . . .a3 lii: fc I follows) 12 e4! Polugayevsky-Holmov. e .ie6 1 4 't!t'b 5 't!t'c7 + Kouatly-Portisch.ic5 9 . d ue to the 9 be bishops. . .13 1 983. b) 8 . lle8 = . . lii:a 4 .ie6 1 5 0-0 tiJc5 1 6 11 't!t'a3 1!fc4 lic8 1 7 lii: a d I ± Gheorghiu­ A gambit. .ig5. . de 1 5 1 0 .e6 14 lii: ab I lii: a b8 1 5 than 8 cd provides.e6 and .ic3) 1 3 0. Farago-Szymczak. ed 1 4 liJxd5 . lbc6 204 8 1 22 1 B 9 e5 10 lbb5 a) 1 0 lbf3 de I I 1!fxc4 1!fa5 ( I I . e 5 1 3 . I I 't!t'xc4 a6 1 2 lbc7 Knaak. . Polanica a) 8 . .ig5 or I I lba3 d4 +) 1 0 .xf6 gf 1 6 lbe3 0. .

14 i. lLlfd5 1 4 lLl d 6 'it'f6! 1 5 lild4! i. . b5 1 4 'it'c5 lild7 =) 1 4 1t'xd 5 prevailed .d5 ! 1 5 lb xb7 tlc7 16 lLld6 .ixd I ot>f"8 (!) 26 i. 10 'it'xc4 e5 I I lilb5 is the last II lLlc6 section .ib7 1 7 1i'c5 i. bS 1 3 'tt'c 5 lLl bd7 1 4 'tt'a 3 Hjartarson. Basin-Aseev. .d2 lbca4 1 9 . . 2 lilj] lbf6 3 d4: 4 . a6 I I .c6 1 4 1!t'xc4 lild8 + Ubilava-Georgadze..ixg2 1 7 't>xg2 lbd5 +. . . but 1 3 .xh 3 ( 1 2 i.c5 a6 15 . lilc7!? K arpov) 1 7 .ia5. I 0 .xc6 bc 1 9 i. ...ia3 a ) I I . a nd .e6 H 1 2 . . . e6 1 97 USSR 1 98 1 . lilc4?? 1 -0..ixf8 ab 16 i.d6 lilxa2 1 7 i. . tfd7!? 1 2 'it'c5 lba6 1 3 0 -0 i. . . lHd l with the idea 1 5 . .xa8 lbb6 16 i.c6 12 . Kujbysev 1 986) 1 3 . . Olafsson­ a ) 1 2 ... . i. 'iVxc7 15 i. i. 1 6 c4! .h3!? 12 i.c2 g6 29 f3 ..xa8 tfxa8 14 f3 co) 1 2 lbb3 b5 !? 1 4 tlc5 lilbd7 1 5 'it'b4 e4 .ixc6 lil b8 a nd instead o f 1 9 . lile8 12 0-0 ( 12 Ild I) 12 . lila5 20 lbxb7! Sosonko-Timman..e3 B l 222 . . 'tt'xd3 ! = 1 2 0-0 i.. . i.xb8 /Dd7 ! 1 8 i. .g4!? (Olafsson). . Gjovik 1985) 1 7 . 14 lidS 1 5 'it'c5 Ii: xd l 16 Ilxd l a6 1 7 lbd6! ( 1 7 lLla3 tlf8 ! = H . USSR Ch 1 985. i. . . f5 is u nclear. 9 de 't>d8 1 6 tfe3 b 6 1 7 0-0 i. e5 1 3 lilbd7 1 3 i. i.a3+ 't>d7 28 i.e6 1 3 i. but 12 li1 b I ! makes Tu kmak ov. .. d 7 1 3 Il d l ( 1 3 lb d6 i. 1 9 23 i.b7. lbb5 'it'b8 = ) 1 9 . 1t'd5 1 3 0-0 1t'xb 5.Gu feld). i. .xb6 lbxb6 2 1 0-0 lilc4 .ie3 ! 16 e4 lil c7 ( 1 6 . 1!t'c7! 1 5 'it'd3 ( 1 5 0-0 b5 1 6 i. . . .e3 a6 (or 1 3 . . lbxb7 2 1 tlc6 ! 'it'xc6 22 . .g2 lLlfd5 lil d 7 1 8 'ika3 'tt'c 7 1 9 1t'a4! ( 1 9 1 7 e4! lilxc3 1 8 i. 1Wc6! 2 0 i.a4 lilxd l + 25 . the point of Black's I I th unclear. :!1!5 12 i. . lilfd8 1 6 10 'it'b6 liab l co. .t was Franco-Marcussi.e I 't>e 7 27 intending .xd7 lild8 24 i. Or 1 0 .. . .xc6 b e 1 5 lid I 'it'e7 ! = Ubilava­ USSR 1 983. i. lilbd7 1 1 lilb5 lilb6 1 2 b) 11 . . and b) 12 .b7 = 10 'it'a3 Holzi-Portisch.d5) 1 4 lild6 i. . . lila7(!) 1 3 lLld5 lb xd 5 ( 1 3 White's two bishops eventually .g5 ! lb bd7 1 5 Buenos A ires 1 985. .xb7 .. f5 . .xg 2 = Cebalo) 1 5 . . Tilburg 198 1 .. Lucerne 01 1 982.xe5 f6 =t= (Hjartarson). . . . I nstead.. . . 13 litd 1 'it'b8 14 0-0 1 4 i.

. match (4) 1986.. lic8.. b6 1 5 (}. .!. . 11 .. ...id4 a) 12 .ic6! 1 3 &De7+ 'i!lh8 1 4 &Dxg6+ ±± . b6!? (K orchnoi) has the 12 'tt'x a6 &Dxa6 idea .. . . (Polovodin).. &Dxd5? 1 2 .t Kasparov) 1 5 li:lb3! 1 1 .. After 14 li:la5.. .id7? ! 1 3 c4 &De7 ( 1 3 . . liac8 =F with the Generally. . de looks superior idea .. went weak after 1 3 ..ie6 2 1 f4!? ( 2 1 . . 1 3 .ixb5 15 cb 14 . . e 5.. 'tt'x a2 23 lii: a I 'tt'd 2 + Simagin) &Db6 14 c5 &Dbc4 1 5 (}.ia3 !? 9 &Dc6 1 4 0-0 . continued 14 . . 21 . B Lucerne 1985. . . and now 1 5 .. .. . . Mi nsk 1 9 85..ie3 Or I I .. threatening . . .ixd5 and 1 5 li:lxa7 is only 13 &Db5 equal.ia3 . Novi Sad 10 cd &Da5 ! 1986. 13 'tt'c 6! B1 223 14 .ig5 &Dbd7 1 4 li fd I h 6 = Basin-Holmov. .if5 !? 1 3 &De 3 . . lUd8 . .0 t..0 ..ic6 f4 o f Kasparov-Suba.ixb7 1 8 e5 'tt' xe 5 oo..1 98 2 &DfJ &Df6 J d4: 4 .ih3 oo) 20 . D ubai 1 986. . .. 1 7 .ib7.ixd5 Else Black piles up on the c-file. .. . 11 'tt'a6 ! No t I I .ia6 14 13 &Db5 &Dd5 &Db5 is critical ( 1 4 .id4 lic8 16 . .ixd 5 ed 13 &Df5 li:lxc4 16 . . lid8! 1 5 e4 11 'tt'c2 &Dxd5 &Dc4 (or 15 . to 9 .ie4 oo (Polovodin). o r I I (}. e5 1 8 206 lid I lifd8 = Karpov-Portisch. .. . . . . ... ( 1 6 .ixb7 lic7 1 7 ...ie7 lii: xd5 ! 1 9 .ig5 e5 1 2 &Dc2 . 9 ..0?! looked Polovod in..ia3! .id7 16 &Dd6 .. 13 c4 . .ie3 h6! Ka rpov) 17 . . After 14 .id2 &Dc4 oo). e6 li b ! ( 17 &Dxb7 . . ed 20 0-0 ( 20 'tt' x 5 . . .. ..0 e5 1 2 &Dc2 'tt'c7 1 3 . . 12 'tt'c 7! . . ..id4. Ubilava­ Kasparov's 1 3 (}.id7 1 4 e4 li:l b6 1 5 1 4 .ic5 b 6 2 2 . =F. b5!?) 17 &Dxc4 &De7 =. a6 =) 16 ed 'tt' x b5 1 7 12 'tt'd3 (206) lii: b l 'tt'a 6 1 8 . .. .. b) 12 . U SSR Ch 1983. .ia6! ± 'tt'd 8 1 4 &De7+ 'i!lh8 1 5 &D xd5 ± Kasparov-Karpov. . &Dg4 ? 1 2 &Dc6 ! &D xe 3 Kasparov) 1 4 0-0 lic8 ( 1 4 .. .. .id7 15 a4 a6 1 6 e4 ab 17 Karpov's move. 1 4 . or 15 ..... I zet a-Simagin. .ia 3 . . ed 'tt'c4 = ( K asparov).ih 3! 22 lii: f2 'tt'e 6 23 'tt'e2 b6! &Db4 1 4 'tt'c 3 &Dbc6 1 5 . 24 'tt'x e6 fe +.

.e7 . 1 0 undesirable. . lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7 I I .i.i. . . .i. . tt:Jc 3 . 5 d5!? (207) or 8 . .i. . lt:Jxc6 be 8 e3 is solid but uninspiring) 7 d4 is Chapter 1 3.i. lt:J e6 or 6 .i. 6 .i.b4+ 1 2 82 1 6 . . . B 1 2.b4 7 'ira4+ lt:Jc6 8 lt:J xe6 . . .d 2 . .i.i. ..d3 t. 1 0 1 0 . "iff5 9 'ti'e 3 and 6 .xf6?! gf I 0 ed .e2 9 be be (9 .i. a) 7 lt:Jc2 d4 8 lt:Jd5 .i. de 7 lt:Jdb5 look 8 .ixb5?! (9 .xe7 lt:Jxe7 9 e 3 � (Filip). e6 5 h asn't been seen more often. . . but then lt:Jxe4 I I ed 'i!t'xd 5 12 .i. . 'i!t'b6! 1 0 i.. de 1 3 It's a bit surprising that 6 . . Then 6 . .i.i. . . USSR Ch useful. .i. e5 and does something Mi khalch ishin-Gorelov.e6!? 9 e4 . to be 6 . and 1 2 .xe3 lt:Jc6 looks playable. . . xb 5 I I . and now 1 0 e3 lt:Je4!?.f4 . . e6 199 This whole l ine with 4 .i.i. .0 8 e 3 lt:Je6 9 9 lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7 cd lt:Jxd5 1 0 lt:J xd5 ed I I lt:Je7 10 e3 lt:Jc6 .b4 6 g3 has opened up 821 greatly over the past few years.i. .i.e6" ! " 9 R2 . . .i.f5 = (Neistadt). or 1 0 e4!? lt:Jxd2 with two bishops.i. .xc3+ 'ire 2 �. lt:Jh5 7 8 lt:Jd5 .. .g2 d5 8 7 lt:Jb3 0-0!?. x b6 . .f4!? is the only other which �e l 0-0 1 5 lid ! 'i!t'e5 1 6 'i!t'a3 ± prevents . b) 7 lt:Jdb5!? a6 (7 .g5 e5 The key l ines at the moment seem 6 . . . 6 . 'i!t'd 7 I 0 cd lt:Jxd5 I I t (Tal). 1 0 . . .i.e7 7 cd (7 e3 or 7 lt:Jf3) 7 . lt:Jc6 7 lt:Jdb5 (7 198 1 .xd2+ 1 3 �xd2 'i!t'xd5+ ( 1 3 822 6 cd . .i. a t least) 10 lt:J xb5 ab I I 'i!t'xa8 . . .d7 1 0 e4 ! Neistadt) 8 'it'a4 w (remarkably..i. . lt:J xd5 1 4 �e l lt:Jb4 1 5 Ile l ) 1 4 6 . . . lt:Jc6 or 1 2 . .e7 (Tal). Presu mably he doesn't like lid ! !). so that leaves 6 .i.d7 9 cd (9 . .i.i.xb8 and 6 ..i. .e 3 . .i.c4 'i!t'c5. . g5 .i. lt:Je4 7 'ti'd 3 'i!t'a5 8 lt:Jb3 lt:Jxd5 8 . 1 0 .xf6 gf 10 e4 rn (Mikhalehishin). 'i!t'b4+ I I 'i!t'd2 'i!t'xd2+ 1 2 'i!t'xc6+ . even grandmasters have fallen for 8 lt:Jxd5?? ab 9 lt:Jxf6+ 'it'xf6 ! ) 8 . . 2 lt:Jf3 lt:'l/6 3 d4: 4 .d7 I I 'i!t'd6 d e . d4 8 lt:Jd5 lt:Ja6 _'() 7 9 'ti'a4 . . .e7!? 7 e 3 (7 lt:Jdb5 0. 0-0 7 . . . either 1 2 .xa4 1 2 lt:Jxa4. . a5 I I ed a4 1 2 lt:Je5 ed+ 1 3 . . .i. lt:J bd7 = or 1 2 .i.i.b4+ = Mikhalchishin. . . 0-0 I I ed ed+ 1 2 .i.i. . .b4+ 1 2 �e2 oo) 7 .xb5 1 1 ll'lxb5 ab! +) 9 . .

tf4 ! liJxe2 1i'e5 1 8 liJc3 a s " a strong Kupreichik-Georgadze. now. ..txf6 'ti'xf6 1 3 ed ed 1985.b6 !? (8 . . Liege 1 930. alternative". and that seems correct.txc5 1!t'xc5. . Here 1 5 . . . and for g3 (9 e4 liJ xc 3 9 .tc3 e5 =.. liJd5 1!ra5 1 7 . yield much either. 6 . .tc3 f6 = 10 . 8 liJxd5 'itxd5 9 bishops). b 6 1 0 . Ortega played I I t Polugayevsky-Dzindzihashvil i . liJb4!? 1 0 .tc4 would favour . . . Janicki a) 7 . it looks like a good liJd2 !) 1 2 . Lu blin 1 976.tg 5 deserves a closer look . 8 liJb4 822 9 . l£Jxc3 8 'ihd8+ Quinteros. liJc4 i.tc5 1 4 . .tg2 liJxc3 ( 1 0 . Although Black e 5 ! ? 1 0 .te3 6 cd l£Jxd5 9 i.td2 . .(two 8 g3 liJb6 =. . 7 11 liJxc6 l£Jxc6 l£Jdb5 a6 ( or 7 . .tc5!? 8 liJb 3 i. e5 1 6 b) 7 .tb7 liJxe2+ ( 1 6 . Riga 1972. .td7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 a3 7 .te7 'itc4 1!Ve7 1 7 liJd5 1!Vg5 = . . .txc3 'ite7 1 2 a4 (or 1 2 5 . . .. .t e 6 1 1 sacrifices his counterchances with liJa4 !) 1 1 .. .g5 hasn't been shown to . and now instead of 1 5 li[fd l e5 1 6 7 .h4 .tg2 . . l£Jc6 was Ortega-Tal.te2!? h6 1 2 .te7 9 liJ xd5 'ti'xd5 I 0 . . 7 l£J xd 5 'ti'xd5 8 e3 l£Jc6 9 l£Jxc6 9 0-0 1!t'xc6 I 0 . .. . d5. . 1 1 li[ xd 1 f6 was Nimzowitsch­ I n any case.e2 h6 1 3 i. .te6 1 6 l£Jd5 Erevan 1986. liJb4 8 liJ f3 ! i. e6 10 . White's advantage Rubinstein. 6 i. 14 0-0 0-0 =. 12 g3 ! !) 9 after 6 cd is very small.tc3 'ti'xd 1 + White.b5+ . The game went 12 0-0 'ti'a5 ed 9 liJd4 liJc6 10 e 3 1i'b6! 1 1 liJc2 1 3 1t'b3 .e7 9 g3 (9 a 3 suggests 15 llac1 liJ d4 1 6 't!t'a4 liJbc6 1 0 e4 :t ) 9 .!.Kasparov.te6 = ( Kapengut). . . a 6 1 3 liJd2 liJc6 1 4 neutralising line.c7 1 5 liJ e 3 .td7 I I . Moscow �xd 8 9 be . . .txc3 0-0 oo Polugayevsky) 9 .tc5 = Gipslis) 8 liJxd5 1 98 2.td2 liJ4c6 =.200 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . Tal recommends 1 1 8 e4 ed ! ed+ 1 2 i.te2 liJ8c6 Adamski-Su etin. e5 may improve) 1 7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 li[c 1 liJd7 1 3 .

tg2 6 lL:lc7 e5 etc) 5 . . e6 208 has grown drama tically over the B past decade. A 4 . b6 4 . lL:lb4 7 tla4+ (everything t o E2 after 7 f3. . .. .. a6 8 g3 e5 9 lL:lb3 . . .e3 lL\8c6 8 C22. . lL:lc6 1 0 'tib6 9 \!t'd4 ! ) 9 lL:lxd5 . 7 . lL:lc6 and 4 .i. lL:lxb5 . . . . .d7 8 llJ bc 3 lL:lxd5 (8 . 4 . e. e6 6 e4 b6 transposes a) 6 . .td7 1 1 0-0 .g. b 6 and 4 . 6 .. lL:lxc6 'tixd I + 9 �xd 1 lL:lxc6 1 0 ... .. d5 5 . . . d5 B 4 .i. .. .. . . . looks good. e5 E 4 . The theory of Black's 4th move alternatives to 4 . . .tb4 1 2 0-0 ... . b5 7 'iWxd5 6 lL:lc3 't!fxd4 7 lL:lxd4 (!) 7 . .t d7..t d7 (9 . . 4 cd cd 5 \!t'xd4 (5 lL:lxd4 is " A") 5 .. e. . . :t1 ± Reti-Grau. 6 . note (a) to 4 .. g6 C 4 . . .i.txd5 1 0 . d6 5 lL:lc3 (5 g3 d5!. li e I etc.f4) 6 . .g.tc6 1 1 e4!? with the idea 1 1 6 e4! (208) .tg2 . 15 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 1 c4 c5 A 2 lL:lf3 lL:lf6 4 d5 3 d4 cd 5 cd lL:lxd5 A good place to m ention 3 . . .. . e 5 are n o w standard systems.td7 1 2 .g..tg2 . . . In particular.. . a6 D 4 .txc3 1 3 be llJxe4 1 4 6 g3 e5 7 lL:lc2 lL:lc6 8 e4 lL:ldb4 = . . B rowne-Sosonko.. London 1 927) 1 0 Denpasar 1 982. .tg5 ! 'tid I Y ± . . 6 lL:l b 5 't!t'a5+ 7 lL:lbc3 lL:lxc3 8 4 lbxd4 lL:lxc3 e5 9 e3 =.. lL:lxd5 7 e 4 llJc7 8 . . e. . a6!? 6 \!t'a4+ (6 f3!?. or to Chapter 9. .

Moscow 1 974. Vilnius i.g7 9 ll:d l 0-0 1 0 1 9 5 1 . liJd 7 may be better. looks strange..g7 9 i. .b4 !) I I . .c5 I 0 ll: d I a 6 I I i. . .d7 9 Most common.d7 1 3 l:lc l t ) I I .-xd I + 8 'it'xd I 0-0-0+ 1 2 'it'e l i. and Tim man Karasev. e 5 ! ? 7 liJf3 d4 8 0-0 liJc6 9 e3 liJf5 !) 7 . 8 i.-xd8+ 'it'xd8 9 liJxc3 i.g4 ..g.c4( !). . 8 . . Yugoslavia refute) 8 0-0 i. . e . liJba6 9 a3 liJ4c6 I 0 liJ I c3 ! Savon­ be 1 2 liJd2 g6.g2 de (6 7 .c6 1 5 f3 t (Browne). . went 9 liJ xe6 a) 6 cd liJxd5 7 liJdb5 liJ xc3 8 (9 liJxc 6 1i'xd l + 10 'it'xd l a6 co) 9 .d6 4 g6 1 2 i. . Folkestone 5 liJc3 19 33. . 8 i.d7 1 0 liJc3 e6 I I ll:c l i. Also 7 liJc3 e5 8 liJ db5 1t'xd 1+ 9 ct'xd I lt:lxb5 209 10 liJxb5 liJ a6 I I i. 7 .202 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves liJ c3 !.e6 I I (or just I I liJc3 intending I I .g2 ll:c8! 1 3 ll:c l 'it'c7! . . .e3 !.g2 is !. . Better 5 g3 d5 6 i. 5 f3 d5! 6 cd liJ xd5 7 e4 liJc7 = (8 b) 6 . e.g7 14 ll:c l e 5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I+ 9 ct'xd I liJ8a6 i. e 6 9 liJc3 i. . or 7 . 7 liJb5 !? . . a6 9 liJc3 or 8 . liJc6. 7 i.xb5 i.c4 ! ( I I i.e3 !) 7 .b5+ (or 7 liJc3 e5 . . . 1t'a5 = ) I I (Minic).xc6+ liJc6 = Pac hman) 1 0 i. . 1t'xd I+ I 0 'it'xd I i.b5+ i. . Tu kmakov.d7 1 3 i.Kara k laic. liJc3 e 5).0 i.d7 9 . i.d2 i. .xd7+ lt:lbxd7 (9 . here 6 g3 0-0 7 i.b4+ 9 liJc3 0-0 I 0 liJf3 ±. . . . .c5 1 2 'it'e2 i. i. but is hard to Yudovich. .e3! ± intending f4 1t'xc4 liJ b 6 ( ? 1 0 .d4 1 5 'it'e2 c5 1 6 i.e3 ? ! w i.. e5 8 'ffh 5 ! 5 . liJf6 7 i.. lt:lc6!? better) I 0 0-0 e6 I I liJc3 1t'c7. a6 9 . or 7 liJa3 recomm ends 1 3 b3 i. . .e6! 1 2 i. 1t'xd7!? seems 1 978) 7 . 'it'b3 i (Tu kma kov).f4 5 d5 (209) 7 i. i. .g7 (or 9 . After 8 . due to 8 .e2. .g7 6 e4 is a S icilian. Timman­ has a good option in (b): Miles. . liJ4c6 8 liJxc6 liJxc6 B 9 i. bu t White seems to keep some edge by 8 1t'a4 ( !) . .g. . d3!? . g3 liJd7 1 2 i. 10 i. 7 liJe6!? 7 .. .xe6 I I i.xa7 i.-a4+ liJbd7 (7 . . .. g 6 8 0.g5!? Forced.e3 ! .Belyavsky. a6 8 e5 . . 1 2 i.e2 ! Dake-Muller. 9 . .e3 i.e3 'it'e7 1 4 ll:hd l i. d7 8 1t'e2 (8 e5 i. i. . and i. Bugojno 1986. 10 1t'b3 t 9 liJxb5 1t'xd 1 + =) 8 . although White liJxe6 ±.. .b5+ liJc6 6 i.

.d7 ! . li:Je5 1 2 i.b3 i. . a6 ( = ) .c3 t ( Korchnoi).xf6 ef. . 6 .. . the idea 8 .xf6 14 i.ao 1 962.g7 1 1 b3 f5 1 2 i.g7 7 e3 0-0!? (7 . . 1Wc7 1 3 i. . . e3 ( 8 . i. 5 i. 8 li:Jfd2 ! (8 li:Jd4 de!) 8 .xb5 1 4 cb li:Jb4 1 5 fe t.!.xb8 llxb 8 1 0 cd i. or 8 . .d7 1 1 li:Jd6 ±± or 8 . . 'ii'x d8+ <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ li:Jd7 ( I 0 . .x c4 0-0 9 0-0 i. i_g7 t) 10 llc l a6?! 1 1 0-0 w li:Jbd7 1 2 a3?! ( 1 2 li:Jd5! Su etin) 1 2 .c6 ( 1 2 . I I g3 !) 1 1 i. . = ) 8 it'b3. .e3 b 6 1 2 5 g3 d 5 ! 6 i. . g. .xd7 b4 17 i.e7? 1 3 b4! 1We5 1 4 f4! '8'b8 1 5 i. i. . . . .b3 ±) 1 2 6 de it'xd4 i. The game went 1 0 g3 li:Jb3! U ± was Martz-Miles. e4!? 8 Schmid. . match (5) 1932. e6 transposes to Chapter idea 7 .b 7 1 2 llfd l �a5 1 3 e4 .xe6+ <&h8 h) 6 li:Jf3( ! ) ". match (3) 1986 'tWa4+ li:Jd7 1 2 'tWe4+ 1We7 1 3 is less clear. . Vaganian-Gulko. . .d7. Simagin­ 7 �xd 8 <&xd8 8 e4. Stean. li:Jbd7 1 4 li:Je6! fe 1 5 i. Here 7 . li:J c6? 9 �xd8+ <&xd 8 c 1 0 0-0-0+ i.!. .xf7+ ±) 1 3 i. . USSR After 9 . 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 203 = Flohr-Euwe. 8 . Portisch-Benko. . . g7 7 . 7 i.d7 8 li:Jd5! 14.g2 llc8 1 4 <& b I ! l hc4 Black has a Catalan with the extra 1 5 b3 llc6 16 li:Ja3 ± Stean­ move . . .a6 1 3 i.xf6 gf 9 i.xf7+ ±± Petrosian-Korchnoi. . . 1 8 c ) 6 jJ4!? i. li:Jxd4?! ( I I . de 16 i.d7 9 . 5 li:Jc3 i.xd4 1 1 ed e6 ( 1 0 it'b 3 li:Jc6!) 10 . . 1Wa5 8 i. . . li:Jh5!? intending 9 Las Pa l mas 1 972.. . li:Jc6 I I llfd 1 with attack. . a6 10 a4! is t or 1 0 1We2 b5 I I i.xf6 6 . . . Leningrad 1 95 6. went 10 1Wd2! i. 4 a6 f6 9 '8'xd8 <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ i.xf7+ ±±. .b4 210 (9 . Curar. . i." (Stean).xc4 i. li:Je4 7 li:Jxe4 de 8 li:Jb5! with i. . i. . li:Jc6 li:Ja4 t. .d7 I I A tricky move which may be i.g5 !? d5 6 cd 't!Vxd5 = i. Finally.d7 1 3 f3 Pine 1 976. Lone i.g7 9 used as a transpositional device . 7 e3 5 d5!? (2 10) Or 7 li:J db5 ( Korchnoi) with the 5 . London 1 979. e . Ch 1 976.g2 i.g2 e5 7 li:JO d4 ! and g3 i. . 8 i. Korchnoi. . de 9 . (Miles). 1Wxd I+!? 9 llxd I li:J a6 of 0-0! t) 9 fe li:Jg4 1 0 cd li:Jxe3 I I Speelman-A lburt.

Webb-Miles. established line with a solid repu­ USSR 1976. e6) 7 7 cd ed li:Jf3 e4 8 li:Jd2 de 9 i.id2 e5 8 li:Jf3 li:Jc6 9 e4 li:Jdb4 = or 9 0 0 0 li:Jxc3 = ) 7 li:Jb 4! 8 'i+'xd8+ �xd8 0 0 0 9 li:Ja3 b5 (or 9 e 5 I 0 g3 .ie3 . de 7 'i+'xd8+ 4 e5 (21 1) �xd8 8 e4 e6 9 li:Je5 �e8 1 0 li:J xc4 . 'i+'a5+ 9 . 9 . Teesside 211 I 975) 7 cd (7 i. . transposes to Olafsson­ li:Jc3 0-0.ie3 �0 1 2 li:Ja4! (White c) 6 i.ie7 b) 6 i. . . de 7 'i+'xd8+ 'it>xd8 8 li:Ja5 e6 a) 5 li:Jc2 d5 6 cd 'i+'xd5 (6 . Cienfuegos I 945.e2 'i+'a5+ = Rashkovsky-Chekhov. e ) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jdb5 !? (7 .Garcia-Jansa. .g. lightly . Olafsson-Miles. .e7 9 lie8 13 li:Jac5 (even better is I 3 li:J xe7 'i+'xe7 =.ie3 lii:d 7 12 li:Jc6+ Moscow 1 980) 7 li:Jxd5 8 e4 li:Jb4 0 0 . li:J8c6 10 li:Jxb4 I I ��0 �e8 1 2 .tc l h6 1 5 li:Ja4! with advantage. 8 .d2 'i+'d8 =) 7 d4 8 li:Jd5 . a6) 12 o o . g6 ! =. .ixc6 lii: d 4 9 .if4! li:J fd7 . . 6 . . Otherwise tixd5 ( 7 . li:Jc6 - . .if4) 9 e6 (9 . . li:Jc6 9 .or 7 .f4 e6 7 e3 li:Jc6 =. . de 7 e4 ! :t) 7 li:Jc2 takes advantage of .ib8.ie7 9 e3 offers 000 more prospects) 8 o o .if5 ! 9 0 0 0 14 l:.id7 = Adamski- . b7. (7 li:Jf3 d4 = planning 8 li:Jd5 i.!.ic5 1 0 �0 �0 1 I li:Jd4 lii:e 8. i.ib4 = . . .ic8 0 0 .g5 e 5 ! (6 . G . . 6 e6 5 li:Jb5 6 o o .ie6 England I 975. . . li:Jxc6 1 3 .ig2 .id2 .!. . Minsk 1976. and 8 .ie3 ! is critical) 7 Miles in note (d) a bove.ib6! ± Rashkovsky) 1 3 . .ib6+ 'it>e7 14 . .ie 6 Still experim ental at the time of 1 2 ��0+ !? ( 1 2 . D d) 6 li:Jf3!? e6 (6 .g2 lit a 7 I I .ig2 li:J 8c6 =) 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 .id2 li:Je4 .ic3 o o • b5 9 g3 (or 9 .ic5 7 000 9 li:J xc 4 . .ie2 =. g5 .!. 1 0 i. this is now a well­ �b I llc8 + Karasev-Tseshkovsky.ig2 lla7 1 3 li:Jc6 . .ixb4+ I I . .ixb4+ 10 15 a4 ! b4 1 6 li:Ja 2 ±) 1 0 . tation. or here 8 .ixc6 threatens . 10 0-0 . 9 .ie7 8 e3 li:Jc6 = ) w 7 ed 8 e3 (8 . I I .ixf6 gf 1 0 e3 li:J c6 1 I i. e .ie2) 1 2 o o . .id2 li:Jc6 =) 9 . . 204 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 6 li:Jb3!? li:Jxc6 1 4 .Su khanov-Sinelnikov.e2 i.ie6 I I 0 0 .xc4 b5 I 0 8 g3 li:Jc6 i.ib5+ (or 9 li:Jxb4 . a) 6 e3 e5!? (6 .i g 5 . li:J bd7 9 a4 b6 10 li:Jxc4 ± or 8 8 li:Je3 'tid4 9 'tic2 li:Jc6 10 . e5 0 0 0 . li:Jd7 1 3 the first edition .

xc3 intending i. 'tWh5/b3 seem good) + Novikov-Bu khman . Leningrad 10 lt:lxe4 i.0 1 0 i. .b4 10 i. Prague 1 98 1 ) 8 b4 9 0 0 . but then 8 1!t'a4 ! . . . 8 .e3 . 8 . Olot i. a6 !? 7 . i.g.xd6 9 i. . . . lightly . c) 6 . 8 a3 b4 9 W'a4+ 't!Vxa4 10 lt:l xa4 b) 5 fiJf3 fiJc6 6 fiJc3 i.g2 �d8 1 3 0-0 i.id7 13 'i!t"d5 ! .xb5+ lid l 't!Vc6 1 4 e4 ! i. .threatening .d3.c5 8 d6 ! (212) ( 8 1!t'c2!? 9 b4! .. 'tWaS+ 7 ll:\ 5 c3 b 5 8 fiJd2 ( 8 I I li xd I li:l a6 1 2 . .a5 9 intending 6 .>fll 8 fe U ±. .c5 8 ll:ld2 ( 8 and here 1 6 .b2 Uoo. ll:l l c3 a6 .g. I I fiJxe4? by Scoones. .b6. 6 cd i. o r 14 lt:ld6+ . . B. . lt:lc6 1974. i ntending 9 'i!t"b l e3) 8 e3 (8 a3 ll:lce4! (9 lt:lb3 1!t'b6 ! ) 9 ll:l xe4!? 0 0 0 i. So 7 c) 5 .!. .d2 lie8 10 e3 . 8 .d2 lt:lxd5 I I e4 lt:lc7 + Adamski­ 0-0 (or 7 . i.!. a) 6 .xc3 9 i.g5 fiJa6 7 fiJbc3 !.) 7 'tWxd2 0-0 8 ll:\ 1 c3 lt:la6 lt:la6 9 b4!? i.e3 ! is W'xd� 8 1!t'xd5 ll:l xd5 1 0 i.e6 I I g3 !? and 1 0 ll:lxf6+ gf I I e4 Scoones) 9 .c5! Palatnik-Agzamov. best is 7 .!. ll:l xd5? 1 0 lt:lc4 'it'c7 I I .xe7 'i!i>xe7 1 6 fiJ xe3 1 0 'tWd3 lt:lg4 I I g3 ll:lf6 1 2 1!t'c l ! ± Lombardy-M artin. 8 ll:le4 ! ? 9 e3 ll:l xd6 10 b4 0 0 0 I I 'tWc2 i.) 14 i. i. e 2 li e8 I I attack).xd5 1 3 i.g. i. . W'f6 .. g4 ! lt:la6 (better I I ·W"xd5 1 2 0 0 . . Palatnik-Lutikov.e6 1 5 i.. i. .c3 ll:l xb5 12 i.. .e4! 1 3 ll:lxe4 ± Capablanca-Torres. . .b4+ 7 i. e 4 9 fiJg5 (9 fiJd4 lt:led6+. 0-0 7 a3 i.e7 8 lt:ld6 b4 i.c 3 1!Vb6 8 e3 a6 = ) 7 . e .e7 1 5 i..!. 1!Vf6! gives a strong b4 !? i. e6.ixf6 gf 1 3 a3 t) 9 g3 b4 9 W'a4+ W'xa4 I 0 li:lxa4 i.1 4 1 9 29. ll:l l c3 or 9 . . .d2 (I gave 7 note to 5 .d2 (or 6 ll:l l c3 liJ l c3 0-0! with the idea 8 a3 i.ll:l5c3 i. i.g5 i. d 5 (not 9 . . . when both I 0 1!t'c2 fiJxe4 12 i. . lhd5 'i!. Odessa 1977.e2 i. 2 fiJ/3 fiJj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 205 Gufeld. .b4 7 i.b6 1 0 ll:l l c3 0-0 I I 9 g3 li:lc5 10 i.ie7 1 0 '@xd8+ 'i!i>xd8 I I 0 0 0 1 98 1 . . . .c5 6 i.g2 lt:l d7 1 4 a) 5 . .g5 ! . i.d2 i. lieS I I .f5 I 2 e3 i. but 9 't!Vxd5!? is given 0 0 . 5 d5! 1!t'xd5 i.xc3 12 i. 8 'i!t"d3 ! ? lt:lg4 9 lt:ld l f5) 8000 ll:la6 ( 8 0-0? 9 lt:lc7 ll:le4 0 0 . Cvetkovic) 1 2 b) 5 . If 7 ll:l5c3 . or 7 i..!. e4 !? 8 fiJ g5 1!t'e7 Barlov.c4. ..) 6 . e. �e 8 1 0 a3 i. =. i..g2 a6 I I ll:ld6 'i!t'b3 i. . would transpose to Chapter 1 3 . . 8 fiJg4 9 ll:lc3 ! 0 0 .xd5 ( 1 3 .e3 ! i. .c5 7 i.a 7 9 e3 0. ll:lc3 lt:l xd2 1 5 'i!i>xd2 'i!t"h4 1 6 g3 . .xe3 7 fiJd6+ i. .g4 ! i.xc3 �e8 intending . fiJ xd4 10 ed d5!.b6 I I i.xd2+ ( 6 .h3 ll:l f6 1 3 0-0 ±. 0-0 9 ll:lb3 i.b7 ( 1 0 f5 I I ll:lg5) I I 0 0 0 1 9 75.!. . Tbi lisi 1983.ig4? ( 1 0 .b4+ 6 i.xc3 'tWxd5 1 3 i. . . . . Barcelona ll:lxe4 .Scoones) 8 . . i. Yurmala e .xb4 lle8 1 3 i.ib4 1 0 ll:\ 1 c3 'i!t'xd I + 0 0 0 b ) 6 . e6 note (b). .b7 e3 0-0 1 0 i. 9 .c3 . . d6 6 i.

. . . . . 1 0 .g. 10 . wins a second pawn. . . c) 7 d6 0-0! (7 . li:Je4? 8 e3 li:Jxd6 9 8 e3 'i!t'dS. li:Jbd7 (or 8 . 7 . Here 9 �d2! li:Jxc3 1 0 li:Jd2 �xd6 1 2 li:J c4 !) I I �e2 li:Jxc3 with t h e idea li:J d S i s more �xe2 1 2 'i!t'xe2 � xd6 1 3 0-0 �b8 cri tical . . . . b4 . . lt:J xdS t Scoones . but li:Jc7? li:Je4! 9 e3 �b4+! 10 li:Jc3 others are of in terest: li:l xc3 H or 1 0 li:Jd2 'i!fxd6 I I a) 8 g3 li:Jg4!? (8 . . . �xe3 9 fe li:Ja6 ( 9 . Zilberstein-Semeniuk. 7 . . No vosibirsk probably jus t equal) 1 0 e3 lic8 I I 1 9 76. b) 7 e3 0-0 8 �c4 !? (8 li:JSc3 is the main line. li:J c6 9 e 3 �fS 1 0 �e2 a6 I I li:Jc7 lic8 1 2 0-0 e4 +! + Dzindzihashvili-Alburt. Lvov 1977. U S A ( tele­ phone) 1 977. . a) 7 li:J l c3 0-0 (7 . .g. e. �d2 li:J xdS 1 2 'i!fe4! �c6 1 3 'i!t'xeS 7 li:J5c3 lie8 14 '8'g3 ± . . . Co rneli us-Schroer. . . . . li:Jbd7 ( or 8 . . 'i!t'b6 8 �e3 li:Jbd7 9 �xeS �xeS 10 li:J Sc 3 . �aS !? 8 lt:J I c3 li:J xdS planning 9 'i!t'e4? li:J xc3 10 't!Vxe5+?? �e6 I I li:Jxc3 �xf2+ Scoones. . New York 1980. . . . . . li:JxdS!?) 9 'i!t'd7 16 lifd l lic8 1 7 li:Je4! ± lt:J l c 3 �d 7?! (9 . . e4? 8 li:Jxe4 ! li:J xe4 9 'i!t'a4+ e3 a6 9 li:Ja3 bS planning . 8 e4? lt:Jg4 or 8 li:Jxc3 1 0 be li:Ja6 I I a4 !) 8 �e3 (8 �g5 �xf2+ come up short. . 8 a3 lt:JxdS 9 �c4 � e6) 8 . .206 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves li:Jxa8 lid8 ++ ) 8 . . �d8 I I g3 0-0 1 2 ( 1 3 . e. . . 7 . �b7) 8 . . 8 7 . . Pukshansky. 'i!t'e7) 14 li:Jd2 'i!fe7 IS 'i!t'c4 �g2) 8 a3 0-0 (8 . a6 9 li:J S c3 bS 1 0 �b3 li e8 1 1 0-0 e4 = ) 9 li:J Sc3 e4 1 0 h 3 . . li:Ja6 ( 7 . . . lie8 ! =. corres 1979-80. d) 7 'i!t'c2 !? has m ore poi nt .Tseitlin. �xbS 1 2 li:JxbS 8 li:Je4 =/oo Svedchikov-M . Tsamrjuk­ Almost exclusivel y chosen. li:Jc6 ! ) 1 0 li:J i c3 �d 7 1 1 :!/2 'i!t'd2 ( I I a4) I I . . e4 9 �g2 e3!? . . . a6 8 li:Ja3! 0-0!? 7 0-0 (213) 9 li:Jc4 Scoones) 8 d6 ( 8 �gS a6! . 8 d6? a6 ! . 1!VaS+ 8 li:J I c3 li:Je4 9 e3 Most common. . .

id6 1 2 li:Jc4 9 i.g6 1 2 h4 h6 1 3 .ie2 i.. li:Jgxe5 20 \!t'h4+ 1 3 'it>d2 00 . .ib2 li:Jc7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jcxd5 Reinert. = Lerner-Tverdokhlebov. li:Jd4! 1 7 i. .trs 1 0 li:Jd2 l:l:e8 ( 1 0 . "tie7 10 li:J d 2 i. De nmark 1985) 1 1 . i. .g5 and or g4/ i. Similar are 8 . .. l:l:d8 1 4 li:Jxd6 ( 1 4 'tWc2 i..ig6 1 7 h4! Scoones) reply sharply by 8 ..xd6 1 2 li:J dxe4 li:Jxe4 1 3 li:J xe4 I98 1 . Ii: xd6 1 5 't!Vc2 li:J c6 1 6 . . a) An apparently simple solution l:l:e8) I I d6!? ( I I i.. Lvov 1 98 1 .g.b4 I I g4! i. Kui ndzi) 9 e3 (9 li:Je4 f5 ! ) 9 .1 3 li:Jxd6 Pesh ina-Vaganian.f5 ( 10 . . . Ne w York 1 98 1 . 1 0 i. . i. . After 8 . a6 9 i. l:l:d8 .ie7 1 4 g4 intends g5 . .id3?! ( 1 6 i.f5 oo.f5 . . U SSR I 979.. B Antunac-Sh amkovich.f5 =) 1 4 b) 9 . 'it>e2!?) 20 li:Jc6 ± A lterman­ 8 e4 Faerman . and 8 .g6 oo Hansen­ i. . 1 3 li:J d2 li:Jb6 14 li:J b3 'it>h8 =/oo li:Jc6 1 3 d6!? Scoones .e2 e4 10 0-0? 214 ( 1 0 li:Jd2!) 1 0 .. 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 207 10 i.f5 9 a3 li:J bd7 Dl 10 li:Jbd2 e4 I I b4 .xh7+ 'it>f8 = 'ti'xb2 1 3 li:Jd I :!. l:l:e8 9 i.xe3 I I fe li:Je8 1 2 'ti'd4 lb xe5 'ti'xe5 ( ? I 9 . .12 ..xe3 i. .g2. .f8 12 .f8 I I li:J d2 is discussed u nder 9 li:Jd2 .. .f5 .e5 I 9 ..e2 (21 4) li:Jb6 oo Mascarinas-Buturin. e. bu t i. . .ig4 1 0 b) 9 . . . . Ii:e8 1 0 b4 i. . 'tWxd6 14 i.f5 oo. .e2 02 9 li:Jd2 9 a3 will usually transpose. .xg4 ( 1 6 ..f5 'tWe7 1 2 b4( ! ) transposes to 02. 9 .i f5 1 3 g4 i. .ie2 li:J f6 I I a 3 li:Jbd7 1 2 b 4 i. . .e2 l:l:d8 1 2 'tWd 2 is 9 .h3 I I a3 l:l:d8 1 2 l:l: g l ! i. . . . . aS !? 10 li:J d2 'tlt'e7 ( 1 0 . . e4: D l 9 i. 1 3 b4 . . . Odessa i..d6 I I b4 i.xe3 1 1 fe 'tWb6 1 2 1Wd4 i... l:l:e8 I I li:Jd2 i.. 8 . . . . USSR 1979. e4 1 0 0-0 i.d6 I 2 li:Jc4 li:Ja6 .ie2 Ii:ad8 I 6 g4! i. .. 'tWb6 9 e3 e4!? Kislovodsk 1 982.g2 1 8 'it'e4 li:Jb3 ± Palatnik-Kasparov. here 9 . li:Jbd7 1 0 li:Jd2 l:l: e8 I I 'tWc2 . .d6 I 2 li:J c4 li:Jbd7 13 i.. .. . li:Ja6 (!) 10 a3 l:l:e8 I I b4 .b2 a6 14 would intend active play based on 't!Vd4 l:l: fe8 I5 . Quasi­ independent are: 9 'tWe7!? a) 9 ... . Black could i.xg4! li:J xg4 18 li:Jxe4 i.. e4 note to 1 0 . 8 .e2 ) 1 6 .ixe3 i...g2 i. f5 1 0 c) 9 .c4 t Scoones) I I b4 b) 8 h3!? hasn't been tried . e4 9 g4 !? e3 1 0 17 i..

. .. .td2 c) 9 . . Daugavpils l 97S. Leningrad slavia l 9S l ) 14 1t'b3 b5 1 5 li:Ja5 1 9S l : 14 1t'b3 . a6.d6 13 li:Jc4 !. .tf5 l 0 .d6 1 3 li:Jc4 a6 ( 1 3 .i.i. .i.) I I li:Jc4 . .i. . Litvinov-Shereshevsky. lieS Kasparov) IS li:Jxe4 ! Scoones. ..f5 !? followed b y . lidS ( 10 .tg6 li:Jc6 16 0-0 1t'g5 ! 17 'it'h l ! lid6?! Better 1 2 .i..xc3 1 2 be 1 5 . . .tf8 1 3 'it'c2 .tg6 Mamuzic-Barczay. Also 10 li:J b 3 !? Vliet-Alburt. . went 13 0-0 li:Ja6 1 4 . ..i..d2 have kept some advantage. li:Jb6? 1 4 a3 above. lieS l 4 li:Jb5! li:Jb6 1 5 li:J xb6 a b 12 li:Jcxe4 li:Jxe3 ! 1 3 fe .f5 = . li:Jb6 1 2 b4 ..b6 1 5 i.i.f5 = 9 .i. Mikhalchishin­ and 0-0-0 for White. should also be considered. I I Now 9 . Subotica 1 9S l ) 1 2 h4 h6 l 3 1t'b3 .a3 llcS 1 6 h5 favoured W hi te 'tixd5 1 3 'tixd 5 li:Jxd5 = Pekovic­ in Hasin-Karasev. 10 a3 . .e5 situation is still complex. his bishop is still 9 li:Jd2 lieS m isplaced on g6. .. " ±" for White) 1 1 b4 .i.te2 li:Jb6 1 7 lieS 12 li:Jc4!? 1t'g5 1 3 g3 .t2 .trs 1 0 li:Jd2 I O . .b4 Scoones) 1 2 a3 . Yugo­ was Ba rkovsky-Tseitlin.tf5 1 4 b4 i. .d 6 1 2 .te2 .g6 ?! ( I I . .f8 l 2 li:Jc4 li:Jbd7 1 3 .i. Kalinsky­ b4 planning 1t'd4.. li:Jc7 1 5 lic l :t After Black wins 02 the d-pawn. . li:Jbd7 1 1 1t'c2 ( ! ) 1t'e7 1 2 b4 10 a3 . . Janicki).i. 1t'e7 1 0 a3 leads to ..i..f5 would be note (c) to 9 .xc4 .i. Here 1 7 15 li:J c4 li:J xc 4 16 .i.d6 1 3 Wb3 .g. . USSR ch l 9S l .. . .xd2+ 1 5 li:J xd2 li:Jc5 ! 1 6 be 1t'xa5 17 d6 llacS I S li:Jc6 1 6 li:Jf3 lieS 17 'it'c4 li:la5 ! +..i. lidS I I li:Jxc5 1t'xc5 1 2 . according to ( 17 . when he suggests g4-g5 . lle8 10 li:Jd2 ( 1 0 0-0 . although the li:Jbd7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jb6 14 't!Vb3 .. . although this ...i. .tb2 b5 1 0 . USSR now 20 .t a6 ! ! (Kasparov) would l 9SO. b4 I I 'it'b3 .i.i.i. . .. New York l 9S2.txe3 ! 1 6 d 6 ± Ljubojevic-Browne..i. b4 !? I I g4 .208 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 'it'b3 . USSR l 9S l .f5 I I inten ding ll c 1 favoured White in a3 li:Ja6 = . van der note (c) to 9 a3.b2 (Scoones. li:Jxd6 'ihd6 1 5 li:Jb5) 14 .i.i.. 12 lixd5 11 . . h6. .i..t b7 I S ll d4.i.. After 1 2 .h3 1 4 ll d 1 . . Be rgen 1 9S2.xc3 1 4 be 'it'xd5 1 0 . USSR 1977.i.txe4 1 9 'it'xe4 lid2. Barczay. .b2 looks safe Pu kshansky.f5 1 2 b4 . 1 0 a3 li:Jb7d I I li:Jd 2 Ivanov-Popovich.. liacS Hodos-Gofstein. . 1t'b4 'tidS = . 'it'e5 !? I I li:Jd2 15 li:J xd6 'ihd6 16 . Kasparov.b2 12 .. . Subotica 1 9S l .!.g6. 10 lld8 1 1 li:Jb3!? 11 a3 li:Jxd5 The "main line" has been I I b4 1 1 .i. but Black also has e. and i. .b2 a6 ( 1 3 12 li:Jxd5 .!.

• .. Lugano OJ 1 968.ig5 (215) ti:Je3 ( 1 0 ti:Jg3 !?) 1 0 . . disrupt Black's kingside .ig7 .ie2 e6 1 2 . 6 'iic 2 d6 7 e4 e6 (7 .ie2 ( 10 ti:Jb5 f3 e6 ( 5 . e. . 9 e 4 e 6 1 0 6 . E 4 b6 The Sicilian/Hedgehog-like posi­ tions w hich often result from this 6 a6 move are now standard fare in a) 6 . 215 Conclusion: Now that White has B some experience versus 4 . d6 transposes to mai n lines) 7 I I 0-0 . but then 8 .. USSR 198 1 .t) 1 0 .t Rashkovsky­ E2 6 f3 Grigori an .ie3 ti:Jbd7 1 0 0-0 .g.ib7 . .if3 ( 1 0 . . e5. f6 1 0 . or 8 1929. El 'iic 7! i s n ot clear. d6 I I 'W'd4 f6 1 2 transposes) 6 e4 . .K otov . .ie2 •. ti:Jc(j 7 e4 d6 8 .ib4 I I .ib7 9 b) 6 . . g6 8 . the results are beginnig to even out.ie3 l0c6 I I 5 ti:Jc3 ti:Jb5! ± Alekhine-Samisch.id3 A logical move which hopes to 'W'e5 1 2 'tlrc2 . 2 ti:Jf3 tl:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 209 disadvantage should probably not be decisive. Black's knight is better on Jansson. . ti:Jb3? ti:Jxe4 ! ) 7 .0 .if4 .ixc3+ 1 3 be ti:J a6 etc.ie3 'tWb8 . . . .t.. ti:Je4?! 7 ti:Jxe4 .ib4+!? (agai n. . 8 . e . d5 6 cd ti:Jxd5 7 e4 ti:Jc7 8 intending ti:Jd6+ .ig7 is also playable) 8 .ie7 =.ie2 .ixf6 gf 1 3 0. .. This last line with 9 ti:Jd2 seems to be the most serious try for an advantage. . . . and now d7. a6 9 . recom mended 8 ti:Jf5. Pomar­ 0-0 !.ie7 E l 6 . instead of I I a3 .ixe4 8 f3 international chess. 6 .ie3 0-0. .looks . I c2. 'W'c7 7 lilc l ti:Ja6 8 a3 (8 . . White's 'W'f3 lilg8 1 2 0-0-0) I 0 . e3 . o r just I I ti:Jc3 . . I I ti:Jc2 c) 6 . e. :IileS 9 e3 ti:J c5 10 f3 d6 I I 5 . . g.ixf6 gf8 e4 ! ? e6 9 . . Baden The only serious al ternative is 5 Baden 1 925 ) 10 .ic5 8 . 5 .. USSR 1 976.i b7 6 e4 d6 7 ti:J c3 good.ih5!? lil xg2 I I .Karasev.id6 ! +. Carlsbad ti:Jc3 (7 .ie2 d6 9 lilg8 10 . . .. ti:Jc6 = queen is rather poorly placed on Khasin. . . . 10 . .g.ixc3 1 2 be d6 = was best. .!. 0-0 ti:Jc6 10 .) 8 .id2 . .ie2. 0-0 8 . Perhaps 8 e3 is best.ie2 d ) 6 h6 7 .ie2 e6 9 .ig5 14 b4 ti:Jd7 1 5 f4! . . .!. Menchik-Canal.ib7 9 e4 g6 (9 .

. b5 1 3 li:Jc2 f5 ( 1 3 . . �f7! 1 5 f4 . .txf6 as far as I k now. flc7 (or 1 3 . 12 . e.tb7+ t!fd7 24 stood well in Butnorius-Palatnik .t a4 and Black 22 'ii'e 6+ �d8 23 .txd5 1 6 'ii'b3 'ii'b5 ! 1 7 cb 'ikc7 1 8 ll fe l + .if3 li:Jxd4 1 2 ed .te2-f3. d6 !? i s the m ain alternative: 7 .te2 litg8 1 0 �0 li:J xd4 I I .tc3 lite8 . 1 984) 9 'ii' h 5 (9 li:Jde2!? intending a3) 9 . . . gf 8 e3 ( 8 e4 li:Jc6 9 .te2 li:Jc6 I I .i g6 10 g4! f6 I I . d6? (8 . . li:Jc6 a l ) 9 . . li:J bd7! =) 7 .tf3 in tending . . f5 1 2 . . . line.idS+ �e8 litg4 1 9 . . A very unclear 1978.e2 with attack is well met by 7 . .ie7 1 9 lhe7+! . 7 . .txe4 9 t!fe2: (216) e) 6 . litfd l ± Kavalek-Kudrin.. . . Cuban Ch 1982. I) 6 . . h5!? 9 h4 e6 I 0 li:Jde2 t with I I 0-0-0) I I 0-0-0 ( I I cd t!fd7 ! . but has obvious .tf5 Wa4 1 4 1irf3 ..g4!? . li:J xe4 8 li:J xe4 . lit d8 1 7 a3 is crucial .tb7 10 li:Jf5 ! d5 ( 10 . b4 1 4 li:Jxb4) 1 4 a3 . . .txd5 1 6 cd li:J xe6! de 1 6 11Vxe6+ t!fe7 ( 1 6 . in teresting after 7 . . . .te2-0. e6 7 li:Jdb5! (7 e4 h6) 7 . . b5 1 2 li:Jd5 ! t._.d3 !) 1 2 cd t. . . ._.txO 1 3 'ii'xf3 ll c l e6 1 3 cd .id2 !? e6 1 3 lld l ( l 3 0-0 looks 'ii'd7 1 0 li:J d5 li:J xd4 I I e d llg8 !? more accuxate) 1 3 . .tb4+ 1 4 � f2 0-0 1 5 was t in Agza mov.te7 1 4 promising for White. .Kotov) 1 5 1i'a5+ 1 5 b4 ?! ( 1 5 �fl .tO .txf6 (7 e4 !? intending 7 .1 2 li:J e 3 f6! 'ii'h5 'ii' c8 !? 10 . .td3 ! ? lit xg2 1 3 ..ta5 mate. I I . Berkeley a2) 9 .g. . t!Vxd5 ?? 1 2 li:Jxg 7+ . li:Jxe4 8 li:Jxe4 . . . 8 . . litg6. . e6 9 .xd4 . . .. . e6) 12 'ii'c 8) 1 4 0-0 h5? ( 1 4 .1 1 the idea li:Jf4.if4) 1 7 t!fxb6 . Sochi d e (Scoones). 1 2 .tg2 lita7 li:Jf4 should be considered) 9 . . . This gambit has gone unrepeated. . .c7 1 0 . .te4 ( 1 8 ab litg5 ! ) 18 . . Lebredo's Now Black has: 9 li:Jc2!? should be tried) 8 .te2 li:Jc6 �0-0!?) I I . USSR Krasnodar 1 980. . 'ii'd6 !?) 1 2 I I ._. . . . .tg6 I I t!fe3 ( I I 1 984. d5 10 f3 . . but 1 7 .te 2 and I I .txa8 .txf6 gf I I 2 16 B li:Ja3 d5 ( I I . .tf4 e5 9 . e6 ro) is complex but li:Jd8 1 2 0-0 . ._. . . .tb4+ �f7 2 1 . H ere 9 . . 'ii'd 7 ( I I . . or a) The gambit 7 e4! ? is extremely here 9 li:J de2 !? intending li:Jf4.te7 K otov.txO 1 3 'ii' xO .txe4 9 . . . (intending . .Scoones) 1 5 . .tg7 = Vera­ Lebredo. . Zilberstein-Kim. . .. . . .Bonsch. �xe7 20 . .tc5 1 6 .ig5 a6 10 .txb3 1 8 . . 1!re7 10 . d6 8 . .210 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves .

. .ixc3+ ( 10 . 1 2 ef li:Jc6 1 3 li:J xc6 .ixg2 0. USSR 1 967 ) see ms 9 c4 e6 1 0 li:Jg3) 9 .0-0 d ) 7 'ti'c2 h6 (or 7 c6 8 e4 d6 = ) o o • with an attac k .i xd5 0 0 0 9 'ti'd2 li:Jc6 I 0 li:Jxc6 de I I 0-0-0 1 0 'i!fxd5 ( I 0 cd? c6 ! I I d6 'ilc5 1 2 . . with play against t he c-pawns. . 14 ef h3 1 5 . A lma h5 ! ? I I a3 li:Jc6 1 2 �h I h4 1 3 f4 f5! A t a 1 978. simply 9 . C.ie2 .2 8 e6 Rash kovsky-Psa khis . H ansen-Piaskett. went 1 0 li:Jf3 'i!fc5 I I 'ti'h4 f5 8 e3 1 2 . .ih4 'i!fc7 9 e3 c6 I 0 li:Jf3 d 6 Co pen hagen 1 98 5 ) 9 . c) 7 l:lcl e6 8 f3 h6 9 . .ie7 I 0 b) 8 e4 e6 9 g3 ( 9 . 't!fc7 1 0 li:Jf4. . . 2 li:J.i f3 hg+ 16 . USSR ll c l 'ifa5+ etc) 1 0 .2 . li:Jc6 9 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 I 0 H ausner-Tseshkovsky.g.ie2 'ti'c7 1 0 0-0 'ti'b3 'ti'c7 = Dzibuan. e6 1 2 li:Jd6 .Psak h i s. t hreatening .ib4!? etc.ie2 ifc7 1 6 llad l 'i!Vxd6 1 7 li[ xd6 b ) 7 f3 e6 8 e4 'ti'c7 ( 8 d6 9 'ti'd 2 0 0 0 �e7 1 8 ll fd l llc6 = (Suetin ). The two k ey li nes w i t h regard t o . 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 ll e l li:J d7 1 4 't!fh5 �e7 e ) 7 li:JfS!? 'ti'c7 8 'ti'd4( ! ) is o f note.ixc6 1 3 a3 'ti'c7 = ..ig2 .ig7 1 3 0-0 li:Jc6 1 4 ll a c l a ) 8 li:J fS !? b 5 ! ? 9 a 3 ! be 1 0 e4 li:Jc6 li:J e 5 1 5 'i!fg3 li:J g6 1 6 ll fd l llc8 ! 1 7 I I . . Smyslov./3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2J J merits i n terms o f development Sueti n . .i xc6 1 4 llg3 7 gf (2 1 7) 'ti'c7 oo Peresipkin-Zaid. .ixc4 e6 1 2 li:Jd6 + . 1 4 li:Je5 ! 15 0 0 0 and o pe n lines.. I feel that this is W h ite's best chance for advantage. e.i xd6 +.ie7 = Zi l berstei n-Suetin. Alma Ata 1 977. 'ti'xe5 li:J xe5 1 3 cd . .Vaiser.Botvinnik. . . Banja L uka li:J xg7+ .Lj u bojevic. li:Jc6 I I ll d l 1 974. 'i!fe5 .ixd5 1 4 f3 1.ih6 10 li:Jg3 or 9 . 8 . Rash k ovsky. .ie7 I I 0-0 0-0 = bet t er 8 ifc7 ( ! ) 9 li:Jd5 !? ( best o o . .ig7 I I g4 f4 !? Blac k's lead in development. USSR 1 974. 8 . Lerner. Still li:J bd7 1 0 . 9 'ti'c7! "=" ( Psakhis).ie2 . 'i!Vxd6 llc8 1 4 0-0. 'ti'c7 ) I I be 'i!Vc7 Mallorca 1 972.1. g . U S S R 1 9 79 . with the idea 9 . e . 1 0 0-0-0 'ti'e5 I I 'i!fh3 .ih4 . w b) 9 li:Jde2!? is again i nterest ing. Pa lma d e . .i xg7 I I 1!t'xg7 1!t'e5 1 2 1 98 1 .ib4 10 = Po mar. R iga 1 98 5 . 't!fc7 (prevent­ 21 7 ing 1 0 ll g l ) was easier. 9 'ti'hS!? White is better if he c a n neutralise a) 9 a3 f5 ! ? 1 0 ll g l .

Budva 1 98 1 ) 9 . 7 . . .txd6 9 t!t'xd6 ±) 8 &i:J xd5 (Zai tsev) is untested. . . lt:le6 (Spraggett). .txb4 1t"c4 1 3 . lt:l e3 1 2 .. .. . a6. i.te7 . . h ere 9 i.te3 E2 . This is (8 &i:Jdb5!?) 8 . . 8 "i!n>8 a) 8 .tc5 1 0 i. and 6 . 16 .tb4+ 10 . Santos-Soylu.e2 li fdS 1 2 li he l d5 1 3 cd lt:lxd4 ± Mi nev) 9 cd . USSR 1 975. e4 8 b) 8 . 7 .te3 e6 is the main 1 0 lt:ldb5! .te3 8 lt:l xc6 . . . i. 1t"xd5 9 e4 ±. . 8 e3 should be investigated. . . . .b4+ 10 c) 8 . de =) 9 e5 lt:lh5! (Spraggett). . and . M ontpellier . e5 7 &i:Jdb5 d5 (7 . .txf6 gf line. . . . USSR Ch 1 973. . i. Pomar-Robatsch. .. E2 l 6 . . . .te2 0-0 10 i.would meet 1 2 f4 by 1 2 . .td2 1 4 i.txb4 ±± ) 1 2 e d a b 1 3 . d5 7 cd &i:J xd 5 8 &i:Jxd5 Zelandinov.10 . lt:lxd5 9 cd i. 9 't!Vd2 c) 6 . &i:Jd6+ . . . an important sidelin e. .txc6!? (8 . when d6!? 9 i. Sant Feliu 1 973.c5!? 9 1t"d2 (9 .212 2 &i:Jf3 &i:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 6 i.e2 i... .Spraggett-Spassky.te7 9 .. d6 . .. .txf6 gf �e7 1 2 e5 ! with a big attack.txd5 11 e4! .tc3 i.. 7 . .d2 a6 . .txe3 1 2 6 f3 (2 18) 1Wxe3 e5 1 3 g4! with attack . Trzyniec 1 972. e6 7 e4 is the main line.te5 . . 0-0 10 0-0-0 . .. Then I I .g5 e6 1 0 c5 ! b e I I 't!Va4+ both 7 e4! ? and the line 7 . 8 e3 is critical . . lt:l xd4 8 't!Vxd4 e6 ( 8 . . 1i'b8 8 . lidS .tc5 I 0 1t"d2 0-0 I I 0-0-0 .Wxc7 1 2 . .te2 0-0 l 0 0-0 1t"bS . . 8 .txd5 (8 ..txb5+ 19S5. &i:Jc6 lt:lxd4 1 2 1t"xd4 ! d5 ! 1 3 cd e d 1 4 e5 E22 6 .. lidS + Taima nov) 1 2 6 lt:lc6 lt:ldb5 ! a6 1 3 lt:ld6 V ± Taimanov­ 7 e4 e6 Ta l.e2 0-0 I I lid I E21 &i:Je5 ? ! ( I I .. 9 .. b7 6 .td6 above. d6. ... . .g5 are 6 .We7 I I lt:lc7+ .xd4 ed 1 5 e5 lt:ld7 1 6 f4 lt:lxd5 I I e4 a6 ( I I ..Scoones .tc5 1 5 t!t'd3 d4 =/ ro Khasin­ a) 6 .. d 5 ! 1 3 cd ed 1 4 e 5 d 4 1 5 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 etc) I I . . .d6 ! is harder to meet.b4 !? 9 lic l lieS 1 0 a3 . d6 I I 't!Vd2 lt:le5 1 2 lifd l ::t:) I I f4 ( I I lt:lc2 was recommended .I I 0-0 d5 !) 9 . ( 1 0 . when 7 .b4 transposes to 5 f3 e6 9 .txd4 ! 17 1t"xd4 lt:lc5 = lt:ld7 1 4 0-0 ±± Hort-Si kora.

b2 1 2 ti:Jxc3 0-0 (2 19) l:te8 13 't!t'd2.� �- �-� � . llf8 = with the 2/9 · � i. . . Torre­ 1 4 i. .c6 I 8 'it>bl ti:Jxd4 1 5 't!t'xd4 l:t fc8 =/oo a3 ti:Jbd5 1 9 ti:Jxd5 ti:Jxd5 was Plaskett. . 't!t'b8 ) 1 0 w �� . 8 i. ti:Jbd7 moves: 1 3 0-0-0 J:ld8 1 4 e5 ti:Je8 I 5 Plask ett) I 2 h4 ti:Jc6 1 3 g5 1!fc7 I4 c5 ti:Jb4! 1 6 'it>b i ti:Jc7 I 7 h4 i. .d4 ! ti:Je8 I 6 llae i ± G reenfeld­ B Miles. .�. . . Budapest 1 984.e2 ('T Informant) I 3 . .e7 � � �D1. . .e3 0-0 I 0 0-0 ti:Jbd7 I I 't!t'd2 a6 I 2 ll fd i is a 10 ti:Jbd7 Kan Sicilian.·. 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 213 10 . . . London I 984) I 5 cd ed I 6 e5 t (Mi les). .c6 =/oo ����� � Htibner-Ljubojevic. • � � � -• & • & � & • • �•a • ti:Jdb5 !? ( 1 0 i. E22 6 d6 7 e4 e6 7 . But 9 't!t'd2 0-0 10 0-0-0!? a6 I I g4 White has two other advantageous ti:Jfd7 !? ( I I . i. � � is also playable. • • � �ffl. . 20 9 0-0 llh3! ti:Jxe3 2 1 1!fxe3 ± (Gheorghiu).g7 9 i. a6 9 i. Uhlmann-Ljubojevic. d5?! �--·� � �-� i.e2 i. 1 2 cd ed 13 e5 is strong) I I .xc3 10 b3 !? ti:J bd7 I I 'it>h i a6 I 2 i. wr� •. .e3 lt:lbd7 ( I I . ti:Jc6. .e2 Spraggett. . . . but not 1 0 .xc4 ti:Je5 I 4 Now harmless is 1 3 e5 ti:Jg4 ll e l ! ± Pomar-Gheorghiu. lle8 1 2 't!t'f2 ti:J bd7 1 3 .. . ti:Jb3 etco. g l f6 1 5 1!fxd7 ( 1 5 h3 ti:Jh6 1 6 molinos 1 973.. 't!t'c7 .. . . Montreal I979. . .e7 8 . 1 1 . . . � -- . g6 8 i. lld8 I 4 0-0 d 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . � g I I ed ed I2 0-0 de 13 i. ef lhf6 1 7 i. . Gheorghiu-Adorjan. 0-0 II f4 i. d4 I 7 ef de I8 't!t'xe3 favours Wh ite.e7 9 0-0 ti:Jbd7 (9 . .e3 ti:Jf5 = Scoones­ 9 i. ti:Je7? 1 5 220 i.xh2 I I l hh2 ! . . . . . . . 8 i. the point being that I 6 . d5 White after 't!t'f2. .. � · · � idea .d3 i.e2 ti:Jbd7 I 0 a4 ! ? i. Biel I983.0 1 3 'it>h i � � � � ll c8 I 4 't!t'b3 a6 1 5 ti:Ja3 i. . 't!t'b8 I I i. . a6 I l 't!t'e l ( ! . . 10 0-0 (220) or 1 3 i. Ii: ac8. 8 i. . b4. c onsidered better for IO . e 3 transposes) 1 0 .f4 ti:Je5 1 2 a4 0. . Madrid I 973. since l l . I 3 . Esbjerg 1982.A kesson.

ifl lilacS 1 5 t!i'f2 't!t'bS = . li:ld4 (Gufeld).ig 1 . .Lj uboj evic. .ic7 l S g3 . 't!t'b8 16 . . . . 214 2 fi:Jj3 fi:Jj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves lilfd l .if2 't!t'c7 1 6 fi:Je3 fi:Je5 = 1 9 lil b l !? ( l 9 c5!? Gurevich) 1 9 . li:lc6. main line position.ifl ( 1 4 lLlc2 Seirawan-Benj amin. t!i'c7 1 3 a4 !?. Here 1 5 Skopje 1 96S. 't!Vc7 16 a3 li:le5 lilxe3 = Strauss-D.idS 1 7 = Yusupov-Tses hkovsky. Or. 1 5 a3) 15 . .) 1 2 1t'f2 ( 1 2 Wg3 ! ? with the . Madrid 1 973. . since White 't!VbS 1 5 't!t'f2 .ic7 l S t!i'g l ! 19S l . li:lc5 19 lLl xeS . . li:le5 !?) 1 6 b4 . . . lile8 13 . a6 1 3 fi:Jd4 lil eS = ) 1 3 lifd l a6 1 4 14 't!t'b8 fi:Ja3 ? ! d5! + Gheorghi u-Ma rovi c. . . 12 lic8 a) 12 . lileS 1 4 .iffi 1 6 has effectively saved the tempo li:l b 3 li:l e 5 1 7 t!i'f2 li:lfd7 l S li:la4 .i ffi 1 4 lilac l t!i'c7 1 5 b4 litacS 1 6 idea 12 .. 1 4 . . .iffi 15 . 1 5 . USSR fi:Jb3 ( 1 7 �h l .idS) 1 5 t!i'g3 .iffi 'it'bS 1 5 a3 lileS 1 6 lilfd l . . . Else 1 3 li ac l lilfeS 1 4 .id4 lilcdS 20 a4 ! ± Or 1 3 . a typical line. 14 't!Ve l lifeS ( 1 4 .iffi 1 5 . US Ch 19S l ) . Wij k aa n Zee 1 974) d 5 ( 1 9 . . 1 4 . 21 fi:Jxd5 . . fi:Jc5 !? 1 2 lifd l d5!? 1 3 cd e d 1 4 fi:Jf5 de 1 5 't!t'e l fi:Jed7 1 6 't!t'g3 oo.. .ixd5 22 ed .ixd5 1 7 ed fi:Jxd5 =F Panno. . ..if2. . b) 1 2 .ifl lilacS ( 1 3 . . 1 9S5. . . a3 !? 't!t'bS ( 1 5 . 11 t!i'd2 Kishinev 1 975. lieS ( 1 2 . Bugojno 1 9SO) 14 by 1 2 . 19 . 12 lilfd 1 1 2 a 4 li e S 1 3 lifd l lieS 1 4 a 5 ? ! d5! 1 5 cd ed 1 6 fi:Jxd5 ?! . . . . h5!? Gu revich) 20 cd ed 14 . .ifl in the above line. . . . . . USA 17 b3 't!t'b8 = . 1 1 . . .ixb4. 1t'c7 1 3 fi:Jd 5 ! 'it'dS 1 4 a 3 't!t'bS 1 7 fi:Jb3 t Polugayevsky­ fi:Jxe7+ 1t'xe7 1 5 lilfe l ! can be met Ljubojevic. . . . . . Eising-Tarjan. . with attac k . lilac l 't!t'c7 1 5 �h l ( l 5 b4? d5! 1 6 cd lilbS!? Byrne) 1 3 lilac l 1t'c7 1 4 b4 . .I. . . lieS. .. as usual. h6 1 9 .idS 11 a6 17 li:l b3 li:le5 l S li:la4 d5 ! =/ro Versus fi:Jdb5. . Gurevich) 1 7 .ixg3 ! 23 hg Eksjo 1 975. .iaS ! 13 liac1 't!t'c7 ( l S .Gurevich. be intending 1 1 fi:J db5 'it'bS 1 2 t!i'd2 lildS ( 1 2 . li eS) 12 . I vanov-Sa von. e5 .. Ogaard-Omstein. .ifl This bodes well for Black's 14 b4 d5!?.

.d8 1 7 i. . .t fl! 1 7 li:Jc2? ( 1 7 a 3 o r 1 7 li:Jb3) 1 7 1 8 .fl! 1 7 b3 b5 =. .d8 2 1 lile I l:lc5 ! playable. however. USSR big "if'. . . lilc2 l:lg8 ! 20 1lcd2 g5! with Practice shows that this is a very attack. .td8 18 b4 1le7 19 a3 1lce8 20 i. . . i. li:Jxc4 1 9 i. however. . . Paul 1 982. . . . and instead of 19 ( 20 i. . .d4 i. Merkulov.d4 li:Jd7 2 1 't!rg3 lil c6 22 li:Je3 . .com pare (b). went 17 . with advantage to White. and simplest is 19 . .f8 . . Ani kayev­ St. li:Je5 (Ani kayev gives 1 7 . both 1 982. i. . i. . .a5 d5 ! 22 ed ed 23 li:Jf5 d4 ! 24 Scoones) with a complex position. A fter the text move. . li:Jfd7 20 b4 Wij k a an Zee 1 973) 20 . Taimanov-Yusupov.d8-c7 a n d . . li:Jde2 Yus upov) 1 8 . lilc6 2 1 g5!? 2 1 a3 <tig7 (or 2 1 . .with .c7 1 8 g3 Agza mov . . 1l h5 . e5 23 li:Jf5 d5! =F Hort-Lj ubojevic. Conclusion: White may have 17 't!rgl some kind of theoretical edge if Not 1 7 b4 ?! li:Je5 1 8 li:Ja4 d5 ! or there is some sequence by which 1 7 li:Jb3? ! i.. li:Jb3 bind.c7 16 . . 2 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2 15 a) 16 li:Jc2 i. USSR 1982. . . . 1 8 i. favourable for Black in Grigorian­ b) 16 li:Jb3 i.c7 1 8 't!rh4 ( 1 8 of B lack's basic plans . USSR 1 98 1 . . as above) 1 8 . .b6 1lh5 =F Webb­ perhaps a bit in White's favou r. . Hartston. ct>h8 may be possible.xb6 ( 1 8 li:Ja3 d5 ! ) intending . B radford-Sh apiro. .f2 Several games have gone 16 . li:Jxd4 l:lc5 25 i. And 17 b3 i. lil cd8 1 9 li:Jd2. British Ch 1977.look quite li:Jg6 20 i. lilg8. d5? 20 ed ed 21 c5 b5 2 2 li:J b6 ±. g5 .d8 .c6 =..xc4 li xc4 20 li:Je3 1 8 b3 h6 19 li:Ja4. . . ct>h7 i. d5 was also 16 . li:Je5 1 9 't!rh3 i.c7 1 8 't!rg 1 ct>h 8 1 9 he achieves the a3. . .g5 i. . b4. or here intending . . For now. . li:Je5! e.g. Anikayev gives 1 9 . i.

Transpositions on later moves are dealt with in the text. b6 3 e3 6 3 g3 3 e3 6 3 lilf3: 3 . . . N-KB3 Systems) 3 . g6 3 d4 6 2 . . e5 3 g3 ( 3 lilf3 lilc6 121 ) 3 . 1 c4 c5 and· 2 lil c3 lilc6 ( 2 . . . Unless o therwise i ndicated.ig2 d6 5 e3 6 2 . . . . . This i ndex is designed to help the reader find h is way through the various move orders to the pages which cover a particular sequence of interes t. . lil c6 4 . . d5 4 cd ed 5 d4 or 4 d4 is a Queen's Gambit) 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lil xd4 is Chapter 1 4) is Chapter 7 2 . If the move in parentheses transposes to another part of the book. the relevant page n umber follows. . . or that they are minor alternatives (discussed in the text at the beginning of the spli t into major alternatives). . .Index of Variations and Transpositions Transpositions a bound in the Symmetrical English. g6 Chapter 1 0 . . . . Others) II 2 lilc3 lilf6 III 2 lilf3 IV 2 O thers 2 lil c3 lilc6 2 . e5 121 3 . e6 3 lilf3 (3 e4 lilf6 is English 1 . . lilf6 (3 . . and are mentioned throughout the text. . parentheses without a page n umber mean that the enclosed moves are analysed in the note to the move preceding the parentheses. .

. 8 ira4 . . . lLl f6 (5 . .. . . . 6 e3. . . e6 9 5 . . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lLlxd4 189) 4 . d6 5 1 5 . 5 . 5 . Chapter 4 . . b6..g7 Chapters 3.... Index of Variations and Transpositions 21 7 3 . . . e6 15 5 d3: 5 . . . 4 3 . . .xc3. lLlf6 Chapter 7 3 .. 5 .. . . d5 7 cd lLlxd5 8 lLlxd5 (8 d3. d6 1 7 5 e4: 5 . . . 5 . lLl f6 5 . . a6. . . . . 5 a3 (5 lLlh3): 5 . . a6 12 5 b3 : 5 . lLlf6. . . . . g6 5 J. . h 5 . . . J. lLlh6) 50 5 . e6 ( 5 . .. 5 . .. . . . d6 12 5 . lLl f6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd is Chapter 1 3) 4 . e 5 ( 5 . . 6 h4. 6 a3) 54 6 d4 58 5 . 5 . 5 . . . e6. d5. .g2 J. 0-0 6 . e 6 52 6 0-0 (6 d3.. .. lLl f6 (5 . d6 38 6 . . lLl f6 2 7 5 . e5. . . a6) 20 5 . 6 b3 . . . 5 . b6) 8 5 . . . d6. g6 (3 . a6 ( 5 . . lLlh6. . . . . 5 . lLl f6 2 1 5 e3: 5 . l:t b8. 5 . . . . .. . . e5. . . b6. .. . .. 4 a3) 4 . 5 . . .. . e5 60 6 0-0 (6 d3) 6 d4 38 6 .. 5 . J.. e5.xc3) 14 5 . .. 8 lLlg5) 34 7 d4 (7 d3 9) 7 . 5 . . . . a5.. d6) 8 lLlxd4 . J. .. . 8 irb3 . e5) 4 J. e5. cd (7 . e6 ( 5 . 7 . .gl (4 b3 . .xc3+..g7 5 lLlf3 . . 3 . . J.. .. e 6 29 s . 5 . . d6) 26 5 . 5 . l:t b8 ) 1 7 5 .

lt:l b6. ed is a Queen's Gambit ) : 8 d4 0-0 (8 . . . b6 4 e4 (4 e3) 4 .. . . 1i'xd5) 9 d4 91 . cd 5 lt:lxd4 202 3 . ... . i. lt:lc6) 125 3 . . . b6 5 e4 (5 i. . lt:l xc3 99 5 . . . . 4 . i. . . .. . g6 (5 . a6 83 4 . . 0-0 83 ) 7 cd lt:l xd5 ( 7 . . . 6 'i!t'b3) 1 13 3 . 'i!t'b6 83 ) 6 0-0 d5 (6 . 5 .. lt:l xd5 83 ) 6 d4 is a Queen's Gambi t 4 . . . . lt:lc6 4 .g2 d5 82 4 . .g2 (6 'i!t'b3 . lt:lc6 6 i. . . . 6 b3. .b7 (4 .. .g7 5 d4 cd 6 ed d5 is a Grti nfeld) 4 . 6 lt:lxd5 ) 6 . . . .g2 i. 6 'i!t'a4+) 70 6 d3 71 6 lt:lf3 73 4 li:lf3 4 i.g2 lt:lc7 (5 . .. 5 1i'a4): 5 . . . 6 lt:lh3. lt:lb4 100 5 d4 109 5 e3 1 1 1 5 g3: 5 . . . .g2 (6 'i!t'a4+. 9 lit b 1 ) 84 8 lt:lxd5 ed (8 . 5 . .. . lt:lc7 is Chapter 6 5 . . e6 . lt:lb4. d6.b7 is Chapter 1 1 ) 5 ..b7 126 5 i. . 5 .e7 (5 . lt:lf6) 6 i.218 Index of Variations and Transpositions II 2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 3 g3 3 lLl f3 and: 3 . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lt:lxd4 is Chapter 1 4 ) Chapter 7 3 . d5 4 cd lt:lxd5 5 i. . . . . 6 f4. d5 4 cd lt:lxd5: 5 e4 (5 li:lxd5. .g2 i. . 5 . e6 3 . . d5 5 cd ed (5 . . . . .. . lt:lxc 3 68 ) and: 6 'i!t'b3 (6 a3. g6 32 5 . . lt:l xc3 84) 9 e4 (9 de. . lt:l f6. g6 4 d4 (4 e3 i. .

.i. . .. 5 ll:ldb5 ) 5 . 3 .g7 (6 . . . 6 e3) 6 . 4 .b7 4 .. a6 152 ) 7 d4 (7 b3. d5 201 ) 4 lilxd4 ll:lc6 4 .. cd (7 . . . 7 l:i:e 1 135 . . 2 . . ll:le4 139 ) . . a6. 4 d4 128 ) 129 3 g3 e5 (3 . .i.i.. see Chapters 1 1 and 1 2 . . 5 . . g6 155 2 lbc6 : . . 8 Wxd4 (8 ll:lxd4 139): 8 . . 2 . Wc7 (5 . .. .i..b4+ 185 ) 187 5 ll:l c3: 5 .b4 (5 . .. d6 142 5 . . . . . see I I 3 g3 b6 ( 3 .b2 0-0 8 ll:lc3 (8 d 4 162 ) 1 63 3 . .i. . g6 202 4 . ..i. 0-0 140 8 . 6 d4 133 ) 6 .. a6) 6 g3 (6 Others 189 ) : . g6: 6 lil c3 (6 d4. 3 b3 122 ) 3 lil c3. Wa5 + . .i. 5 . .i. .. . .i.. .. e5 12 1 ) 4 e3 (4 a3 . . d5 . g6 124 ) 4 ... cd (7 . ll:le4 156 ) 1 5 7 6 b 3 .. . Wb6 185 . . . 5 .g2 f5 121 3 d4 (3 e3. b6 209 4 . .. . . . . 3 d4 cd 4 ll:lxd4 e6 (4 . d6) 201 4 . ll:l c6 140 8 .. 3 b4. ..g7 7 d4 (7 d3 160) 7 .. .b7 5 0-0 (5 ll:lc3 e6 6 d4 132 . e5 204 4 . 5 .i. ..i.e7 (6 .. 7 .. Index of Variations and Transpositions 219 Ill 2 lLl f3 lLlf6 2 b6 3 g3 . . d5 ( 4 . e6: 5 g3 (5 e3. e6 3 d4 cd 4 ll:l xd4 ll:lc6 120 2 f5 1 20 . . a6 203 4 . ..g2 lLlf6. .. 5 .. .. . . d5 161 ) 7 ... . . e6 6 ll:lc3 (6 d3. .. 0-0. . b6. . . cd (3 . .g2 . 5 ll:lc3 g6 155 ) and: 5 . 7 d3 137) 7 . . . d5. g6) 4 . 't!t'b6 ) 120 3 lil c3 g6 ( 3 . d5 1 22 ..

. .. .. . d5 1 72 6 g3: 6 ..b4 (6 .i.. g6 ( 3 . .ig2 (3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 ..ib2: 3 . .. . ltJf6 (2 .. Others 168 ): 6 ltJ db5 : 6 . . g6 ( 2 . ..ig2 b6 is Chapter I I ) 3 . . 't!t'b6 1 79 IV 2 b3 2 e4 ltJc6 3 ltJ c3 g6 4 .. . .220 Index of Variations and Transpositions 6 .i. see Chapters l -5 2 ...• e6 (5 .c5 1 77 6 .g7 4 ltJc3 . .i. d5 199 5 ltJ c3 (5 g3. Others) 1 76 6 . 5 Others 166 ) 5 . . . . 2 .i.. ltJe4 190 6 . see Chapter 2 2 e3 ltJf6 3 ltJc3 d5 4 cd ltJxd5 5 ltJO 1 1 1 2 g3: 2 . . Others 1 1 7 . . . . ltJ c6 118 . d6 ) 1 70 6 . d5 1 19) 3 .. . . e5 1 1 9 ) 3 ... . . . . d5 120 2 . e6 3 .b4 (6 .. .g2... 6 .g2 ( 3 d4 1 19 ) 3 .. 0-0 193 5 . .. . . Others) 118 3 ..i.c 5. .i.i.