Gary LaneBeating the French Gary Lane B. T. Batsford Ltd, LondonFirst published 1994 © Gary Lane 1994 ISBN 07134 7390 8 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved, No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Typeset by John Nunn GM and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1H OAH To Regula, Samuel and Benjamin Zutter The photograph on the back cover was taken by Jean Lane A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Adviser: R. D. Keene GM, OBE Technical Editor: Graham BurgessContents Symbols Introduction 1 Modern Variation 2 Milner-Barry Gambit 3 Classical Variation 4 Euwe Variation 5 Systems with ...Age7 6 5...Dh6 7 Kupreichik Variation 8 White Deviates on Move Four 9 Wade Variation 10 Systems with ...b6 11 3.27 Index of Variations 13 49 63 75 107 119 123 127 137 145 155 159Symbols Weh corr. Check Double check Checkmate Slight advantage to White (Black) Clear advantage to White (Black) Winning advantage to White (Black) Level position Good move Bad move Outstanding move Blunder Interesting move Dubious move Championship World Championship Zonal Interzonal Candidates Olympiad Postal gameIntroduction A Brief History The surge of popularity in the Ad- vance French during recent years has seen it become one of the most chal- lenging openings available. The question of how to respond to the French Defence has in the past con- centrated on 3 “c3 and 3 4d2, with a mass of theoretical analysis to ab- sorb. Consequently, attention has turned to the lesser known Advance, with a wealth of promising new ideas being contributed by such world-class players as Anand, Nunn and Short. This book aims to present the common variations with an em- phasis on the most popular lines and allow the reader to create arepertoire suited to his or her style. Tt has a fine pedigree with early devotees such as Jaenisch and Paul- sen. It was a frequent choice of Aron Nimzowitsch who transformed the understanding of the line. Since the 1930s its popularity has fluctuated as players began to follow fashion by exhaustively analysing the Tarrasch and Winawer variations. In the 1980s and 1990s the reversal of for- tunes has been accomplished by shedding the unfair image as a gam- bit line to concentrate on adventur- ous, reliable systems that are still being explored. Ideas in the Advance French 1) The Centre6 Introduction This is the critical position of the Advance French. Black has devel- oped so as to put pressure on d4. The ‘Nimzowitsch’ pawn centre (d4, e5 for White, e6, 05 for Black) re- quires White to support d4 and be ready to meet ...f6. White's space ad- vantage affords him the luxury of choosing between positional and tactical continuations; thus White can sometimes instigate a kingside attack, or can otherwise try to restrict Black’s forces further. The current trend is 6 a3, which is discussed in Chapter 1. The idea is that b4 will gain greater space and tule out the prospect of a qucenside pawn advance by Black. In tourna- ment practice Black tends to adopt a direct plan of putting pressure on d4 and controlling the c-file with his queen’s rook. A less positive re- sponse can see Black's game dete- tiorate due to the lack of active squares for his minor pieces. The following position is typical: Now White plays 10 243 @g4 11 14 Qb3 £67! 15 exf6 Rxf6 16 Dc5 Bcd8 17 DeS Kxe5 18 Kxh7+ shat- tering Black's defences. See the note to Black's 11th move in Game 13. A number of games examine the consequences of Black preventing b4 with 6...c4, followed by queen- side castling. This leads to a long manoeuvring game where White has a slight edge thanks to his space ad- vantage. Black often tries to obtain counterplay by a rapid pawn push on the kingside. The usual problem with this is that lack of co-ordination amongst Black’s cramped minor pieces results in White either picking off the pawns themselves or else us- ing the vacant squares in their wake to infiltrate Black's camp. It is also possible for White to launch a queenside attack. This can be achieved with the b4 thrust which, if taken, enables the queen's rook to enter the fray on the b-file; if ig- nored, then a4 will help to reduce Black's activity severely. The fol- lowing position demonstrates that knowledge of a standard idea in this line can have a dramatic effect.White now plays 14 &hi! 0-0-0 15 Dg2 g4 16 De3 Mdg8 17 b4 Dc6 18 a4 h4 19 @dxc4! and White has excellent prospects. See Game 5. Thus Black cannot completely ig- nore White's attacking prospects by merely launching a pawn storm. Therefore an early ...f6 to contest the centre is sometimes considered the antidote. However, this move leaves e6 weak and backward, and White can then focus on controlling the e-file. In return Black has more freedom to find better posts for his pieces, resulting in a double-edged game. See Games 7 and 8. White's most ambitious approach is the Milner-Barry Gambit. 6 243, placing the bishop on its most active square, is regarded as an extremely aggressive continuation. It is re- nowned for numerous tactical pos- sibilities with White sacrificing his d- and e-pawns for active play. Black often has trouble neutralizing White's lead in development, since the black queen is constantly hounded. The following position shows a key point of the gambit; the e- and d-files are open (see following diagram): Now White can convert his lead in development into a mating combina- tion: 17 g3 Wg5 18 Wxd5+! exd5 19 &b6+ axb6 20 He8 mate. The com- plete game can seen in the note to Black's 12th move in Game 14. There are various ways for Black to shield his exposed queen; note how many variations there are in Introduction 7 Chapter 2! In view of the defensive problems experienced when both” pawns are taken, Black will often settle just for the d-pawn, when White has to rely on positional ad- vantages as a form of compensation rather than a direct attack. See Game. 16. It is worth taking an interest in the bizarre 9 @g5 featured in Game 14, note to White's 9th move. A move that has largely been ex- plored in Scandinavian postal games, it has tremendous surprise value and there is still a lot of scope for new ideas. The initial point is to provoke Black into weakening his kingside pawn structure while trying8 Introduction to make use of the open lines to launch an attack. Chapter 3 deals with 6 Re2, which is a solid and reliable line. White will develop steadily while keeping d4 securely guarded. Black relies on queenside expansion to add tension to the position. The follow- ing position demonstrates the type of slight edge for which White is aim- ing: Now 12 a3! &xc3+ 13 Axc3 0-0 140-0 Hac8 15 b4 with advantage to White — see line ‘b’ in the note to Black's 11th move in Game 17. 2) Black Avoids 5...Wb6 The desire to follow an independent path has prompted research into a variety of alternatives. The common approach is 5...2d7 which is dis- cussed in Chapter 4 and often trans- poses to established lines. It has the benefit of not committing the queen until White has declared a plan of ac- tion. Sometimes Black follows up et a A maintain a pawn on eS and then seek to exploit the resultant space advan- tage. idea of White's attacking pos- sibilities can be gauged from Ro- manishin-Ivanchuk, Irkutsk 1986. White won in fine style with 18 Db5!! Rxb5 19 Rxb7+ 1-0. The note to Black’s 9th move in Game 20 illustrates the game. The standard response is 6 £e2, in the knowledge that 6...Wb6 would transpose to a poor line that is dem- onstrated in section 4 of this intro- duction. Instead, Black follows a plan of ...age7-f5 while White counters with 4a3-c2 before trying to make progress on the kingside. See Games 21, 22 and 23. Also pos- sible is 6 a3 which is less convincing with the queen on d8 but is perfectly feasible. The disadvantage is that .Wc7 will put pressure on e5; Black follows up by ...f6 or the manoeuvre ...e7-c8-b6, having saved a tempo with his queen. Chapter 5 examines an early ak DM Ventnhe cette onsimilar to the previous chapter al- though White has the option of 243. A likely continuation is ...0£5 to in- crease pressure on d4. White can re- ply with 2a3-c2 and &43 which can be seen in Game 31. A more active course of action is to be found in Game 30 by responding with 243 and g4 to oust the knight on f5, fol- lowed by a kingside attack. After 5...Qh6 White can follow the illustrative game in Chapter 6 with 6 dxcS or transpose to other lines. It represents one of Black's most fashionable defences and the relative lack of theory has encour- aged a growing band of followers. 3) Exchange of Light-Squared Bishops These lines feature Black resolving to exchange White's king's bishop. However, while this is positionally desirable, it involves a loss of time which allows White to seize the in- itiative. One of the most popular is the Wade Variation, which involves the manoeuvre ...&c8-d7-b5. Introduction 9 The most radical way to invite complications is to play c4 which is discussed in detail in Chapter 9. If Black routinely exchanges on c4 then White can cause disruption with the pawn thrust d5. Thus after 7 c4 Rxc4 8 Rxc4 dxc4 9 dS De7 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 0-0 Wc6 12 We2 fs 13 Wxc4 &e7 14 Mc3 0-0 15 Rg5 Wa6 16 Dbs Qxgs5 17 Axes Dds 18 WxcS DxbS 19 a4 White will take on b5 when the extra pawn should secure victory. See the note to Black's 8th move in Game 39. For those preferring a more positional approach, Game 40 examines 7 dxcS Rxc5 8 0-0 Rxe2 9 Wxe2 Wa6 10 We2 Dd7 11 a4 which also gives White good prospects. It is also possible to try to ex- change bishops with 3...b6, planning ...d0a6. This was once considered to be one of the main defences, but the modern treatment 4 2b5+, which has been championed by Anand, has forcibly demonstrated that White can pose Black numerous problems. The point is that 4...&d7 is answered strongly by 5 &2d3 when the uncom- pleted fianchetto is a potential weak- ness. The main alternative 4...c6 5 Rad gives White sufficient time to exploit his territorial advantage, es- pecially as there is little pressure on d4. See Game 41. Chapter 11 features a rare move: 3.47, aiming to continue with 4..a6 and 5...&%b5. Black's posi- tional aims are laudable, but this is10 Introduction 4) White exchanges on cS The burden on White to maintain the chain of pawns c3, d4 and eS has led Black to tempt fate by avoiding an exchange of pawns in the centre for as long as possible. While the aim may be to reduce White’s options, very often the opposite is the case. Thus there are cases when White can break up the pawn structure by tak- ing on c5, generally followed by b4 intending to limit Black’s activity Now White plays 7 dxcS! &xc5 8 0-0 £6 9 b4 Re7 10 Rf4 fxeS 11 Dxe5 DxeS 12 Rxe5 DL6 13 Dd2 and the outpost on e5 gives White the advantage. See the note to Black's 6th move in Game 14 for details. The exchange on c5 can also oc- cur when Black has temporarily blocked the bishop's route to cS by playing ...dge7. Consider the fol- lowing example: This position (see following dia- gram) is from Euwe-Kramer, Zaan- dam OAK White anw osined an advantage with 7 dxcS! Wce7 (or 7..Mxc5 8 b4 Wh6 9 b5 t) 8 Dad BDxe5?2 9 DbS WxcS 10 Wa4 +-. The example is from the note to Black’s 6th move in Game 17. 5S) White Deviations 5 &e3, which is examined in Chap- ter 7, represents White’s soundest way to avoid well-known lines. It has the benefit of keeping the option of e2 which allows White to adopt a set-up different from that which is usually associated with the opening. The d4 pawn is well supported, free- ing White’s hands to attack on the Kingside. It has only recently been subjected to serious attention at tour- nament level and so the theory of the line is still evolving. Chapter 8 deals with various mis- cellaneous ideas for White. These of- fer independent lines which require little knowledge of theory to play. 4 We4 is an aggressive line that at- tempts to disrupt Black's develop- ment by targeting g7. However, while the activity of White’s queencan prove useful, Black can gain counterplay by undermining White's pawn centre. By omitting 4 c3 in favour of 4 D3 (like 4 We4, an idea pioneered by Nimzowitsch) White aims to ac- celerate his development. The conse- quence of this may be that White must gambit the d4-pawn, in return for a firm grip on the e5 square and piece play. With best play White should restore material equality after a while, when the chances ought to be equal. 4 dxcS is an interesting line. White continues by quietly develop- ing and maintaining support of e5. It offers Black some chances to go wrong but is considered relatively harmless. . 6) General Strategy and Suggested Repertoires For those interested in creating arep- ertoire with the Advance French, the following alternatives might be con- sidered. Firstly, for players who wish to build up methodically: Introduction 11 1) Meet 5...Wb6 by either 6 a3 (Chapter 1) or 6 &e2 (Chapter 3), and answer 5..&d7 by 6 Re2 (Chapter 4). 2) The Wade variation can be met by 7 dxc5. 3) The recommendation 4 2b5+ is suitable for all players to seek an advantage in Chapter 9. Secondly, for more aggressive players who delight in complica- tions: 1) The games contained in Chap- ter 2 should provide suitable inspira- tion. 2) Meeting 5...2d7 by 6 &d3 will usually transpose to a Milner- Barry Gambit, but consideration should also be given to 6 dxcS (see Game 29). 3) The Wade variation is well met by 7 c4. However, in order to obtain a feel for the characteristic middlegame positions which arise from the Ad- vance French, the reader is recom- mended to play through each illustrative game.1 Modern Variation The Modern Variation was originally inspired by Paulsen. However, it is only in recent decades that its popu- larity has expanded to the point where it is considered the main line. The idea of 6 a3 is to gain space on the queenside. This forces Black to resolve c5-d4 pawn tension, which can then allow White to develop his light-squared bishop to its optimum square. The variation has been championed by such players as Fe- dorowicz, Korchnoi and Tal. Game 1 Sveshnikov-Timman Tilburg 1992 uUabUun = Benge ERaeS 6 a3(1) White's plan is to continue with 7 b4 and take the pressure off the cen- tre by removing the tension on d4. 6 of With this move Black pinpoints b3 as a weakness. The next stage usually consists of a long ma- noeuvring phase. White aims to con- trol the kingside by advancing his pawns, while Black takes charge on the opposite flank. The main alternatives 6...Ah6, 6...a5 and 6...2d7 are examined later in this chapter. The rarer continuations do not merit detailed coverage: a) 6...£67! and now: al) 7 exf6 Dxf6 8 Re2 (8 b4 exd4 9 cxd4 &d6 10 &b2 0-0 11 Re2 a6 12 0-0 Ded 13 Abd? = Me- stel-Comay, Tel Aviv 1977) 8...&e7 9 b4 c4 10 0-0 0-0 11 &g5 a5 = Corvi-Santis, Rome 1990. a2) 7 &d3! Rd7 (7...cxd4 8 cxd4 &d7 9 b4 & Nilsson-Thorbergsson,14 Modern Variation Munich 1958) 8 0-0 (8 b4!?) 8...fxeS 9 dxe5 0-0-0 10 We2 Dge7 11 &xh7 g6 12 Rxg6 Dxg6 13 Wxg6 Re7 and Black has active play in com- pensation for the sacrificed pawns; M.Schlosser-McDonald, Oakham 1988. b) 6...Age7 7 dxc5! WxcS (or 7..Mic7T 8 Dd4! Wxe5+ 9 Re2 + ECO)8 243 2g6 9 We2 27 100-0 0-0 11 g3 Wh6 12 2e3 We7 13 Rd4 A714 Dbd2 Dxd4 14 cxd4 Hac8 16 h4 £5 17 exf6 gxf6 18 h5 Dh8 19 Dh4 DE7 20 DES + Hlousek-Mista, Olomouc 1977. 7 ®bd2 &d7 7...Dge7? would be a disaster af- ter 8 &xc4! (Xie-Akhsharumova, Thessaloniki OL 1988) 8...dxc4 9 @xc4 intending Dd6+ winning. 8 b3!? This is unusual, but the opportu- nity to free the position has pre- sented itself since Black has avoided the more common move-order 7...QaS. Now 8 Re2 would trans- pose to the next illustrative game, but Sveshnikov reveals a different approach, 8... exb3 9 @xb3 a5 The preparatory move 9...c8 should be considered as a possible improvement. 10 DxaS WrxaS 11 &a2 Wad 12 Wl! (2) A delicate switch which results in the queen adopting a more positive role. The pawn on b7 is attacked, while 2d3 will prove to be bother- some if Black envisages castling kingside. 12... 26 Black may try to reinforce his control over c4 with 12...b5. How- ever, this can be undermined by 13 &d3 intending &c2 and a4. In Prié-Apicella, Paris 1990, White’s unusually placed queen proved its worth after 12...b6 13 &d3 De7 14 0-0 Bc8 15 Del g6 16 Dc2 27 17 De3 Wo6 18 a4 We7 19 c4 cb 20 cxdS DAxd5 21 DAxdS Rxd5 22 Rb5+ Sf8 23 Hol Wd8 24 W4+ 28 25 xc8 Wxc8 26 We7 R£8 27 Wxa7 Wd8 28 Bc hS 29 Bc7 Bh7 30 Wxb6 Wh4 31 h3 We4 32 REl g5 32 Bc8 1-0. 13 243 De7 14 0-0 ho?! Timman prefers 14...2c8 with the idea of ...b6 and and ...2d8 with decent chances. However, White can play the aggressive 15 &xh7 96 1616 &xg6 fxg6 17 Wxg6+ Sd7 18 Wo Hg8 19 Des forcing 19...xg5, and White is better according to Sveshnikov. 15 Sel D8 16 4 dxc4? Ina difficult position Black walks into a crafty trap. Necessary was 16...Ab6, after which White would still be better placed: 17 cxd5 exd5 (17... Dxd5 18 2ic4 WbS 19 Hb4 +) 18 e6! with the advantage. 17 Bxe4 Whos 18 WxbS R&xb5S (3) 19 Exc8+ White engineers a won ending. 19 Exc8 20 &xb5+ 8 21 ofl Sc 22 Bcl+ Sbs 23° Exc8+ Sxc8 24 SS White can demonstrate his supe- tiority by pursuing the kingside pawns and consequently wrecking their structure. Modern Variation 15 A ae £6 25 a4 eT 26 27 ed7 27 «ds! exdS 28 e6+ 1-0 Game 2 Sveshnikov-Eingorn Palma de Mallorca 1989 1 ed 6 24 ds 3 05 cs 43 D6 5 Of woe 5...f6 which aims to undermine the pawn chain, but Nimzowitsch demonstrated the way to handle this idea: 6 &b5! Rd7 (6...a6!7 7 Rxc6+ bxc6 8 0-0 cxd4 9 cxd4 c5 10 exf6 gxf6 11 Hel +) 7 0-0 Wb6 (7...2xe5? 8 Dxe5 Rxb5 9 Wh5+ Se7 11 Wi7+ Sd6 12 dxc5+ xe5 13 Hel+ YF5 14 Wh5+ g5 14 g4#; 7...£57! 8 c4! a6 9 &xc6 bxc6 10 De3 cxd4 11 Dxd4 £ Maudsley-Wise, British Junior Ch 1970) 8 &xc6 bxc6 9 exf6 Axf6 (9...gx£6 10 He5!) 10 DeS Rd6 11 dxc5 Rxc5 12 Kgs Wd8 13 Rxf6 Wxf6 14 WhS+! 26 15 We2 248 16 ®d2 0-0 17 Rael Bfe8 18 Phi 2d6 19 £4 cS (Nimzowitsch-Levenfish, Karlsbad 1911) 20 Wa6! +. In Vasiukov-Velimirovié, VrSac 1989, an attempt to stifle White's at- tacking ambitions with 5...£57! failed after 6 e204 7 b3 cxb3 8 axb3 Re7 9 h4 Dh6 10 Rxh6 gxh6 11 Wel16 Modern Variation Wh6 12 Wxh6 Wxb3 13 Wg7 E08 14 0-0 We2 15 Qdi Wo2 16 Ags Las 17 Oxh7 He8 18 Rh5 Rd7 19 Dad Rxh4 20 QxeB Kxe8 21 DEB 1-0. 6 a3 e 7 Dbd2 Da5 Without doubt the safest choice at Black's disposal. Attempts to destabilize the centre are not so good, for example 7...f6!? 8 Re2 (8 g3!7 fxe5 9 DxeS DE 10 £4! ECooley-Brown, Middlesex 1985) and now (4): a) 8...fxe5 9 Dxes DG (after 9...Axe5 10 dxeS Dh6 11 Dxc4! dxc4 12 Qxh6 &d7 13 BgS Wxb2 14 0-0 Wxc3 15 2h5+ g6 16 Whi White is better according to Pahtz) 10 £4 Rd6 11 Dd£3! (11 RhS+ 26 12 £3 0-0 13 We2 Se7 14 0-0 @Dxe5 15 fre5 De8 16 Red Bxfl+ 17 Sxfl 2d7 18 g3 Dg7 19 h4 BfB+ 20 bg2 Wa8 21 Dts + Prié- Wintzer, Lugano 1989) 11...0-0 12 0-0 £d7 13 Dxd7 Dxd7 14 g3 D6 15 &g2 De4 16 xc4! Dxc3 17 bxc3 dxe4 18 We2 Bfe8 19 Wxc4 + Kharlov-Guedon, Torcy 1991. b) 8...2d7 9 0-0 and now: bl) 9...0-0-0 10 b3! cxb3 11 @®xb3 We7 12 Hb1 Re8 13 Ql4 h6 14 c4 = Sveshnikov-Meshkov, Po- dolsk 1990. b2) 9...Ha5 10 Bel He7 11 RE Dp6 12 hd! fxe5 13 h5 e4 14 hxg6 exf3 15 Dxf3 Db3 16 Des! Oxal 17 QE7 hxg6 18 Dxh8 Wo3 19 We3 0-0-0 20 Rg5 He8 21 Hxal + Khar- lov-Edelman, Maringa 1991. 8 Ler There is little to be gained from trying 8 b37! cxb3 9 Bb1 2d7 10 2d3 Rad 114 dxe4 12 Axc4 Dxc4 13 &xc4 BoB 14 Rxb3 Rxb3 15 Exb3 Wa6 16 Qd2 h6 17 We2 Wrxe2+ 18 dxe2 b6 19.24 De7 20 a5 }dS5 with at least equality, Emodi- Glek, Budapest 1989. 8 .. 9 00 Black has tried a number of other moves:a) 9...h6 and now: al) 10 a4 Be7 il Wel g5 12 hi Dg6 13 g3 Be7 14 Sd hS 15 &c2.0-0-0 16 Wal g4 17 Del cb 18 Qg2 Bdg8 19 Bel Was 20 D1 WS 21 gl 2d7 22 We2 Wg7 23 2d2 Rd8 24 Heb] Bc7 25 Af4 De7 26 Dg2 HS 27 Mel Wb8 28 Le3 Dp6 2-42 Vasiukov-Kuzmin, Mos- cow 1991. a2) 10 Zb1 0-0-0 11 b3 Dxb3 12 @xb3 cxb3 13 c4 dxc4 14 Rxc4 De7 15 Wd3 &c6 16 Bxb3 We7 17 Re3 Hb8 18 Bibl da8 19 Dd2 a-12 Kjeldsen-Jensen, Lyngby 1989. b) 9...0-0-0 and now: bl) 10 Zbl £5 11 b3 cxb3 12 c4 a4 13 cxd5 exd5 14 DgS Dh6 15 Rb2 Re7 16 £4 SbB 17 Rc3 Dc4 18 Dxc4 dxc4 19 Rxc4 We6 20 Rxb3 Wxc3 21 &xa4 We3+ 22 Phil Bxd4 23 Wb3 Wxb3 24 &xb3 Dg4 25 De6 Hd2 26 Dxg7 Dl2+ 27 Exf2 Axf2 28 Rd5 Bd8 29 2 £3 Bb27? 30 Bxb2 1-0 Westerinen-Tisdall, Gaus- dal 1992. b2) 10 Bel Dh6 11 Afi DEs 12 De3 h6 13 Bfl Re7 14 Del Dxe3 15 Rxe3 £5 16 exf6 gxf6 17 Eb Rc8 18 RhS Rxh5 19 WxhS Rxa3 20 DF3 Re7 21 Bfel Wd6 22 Dn4 Dc 23 Dg6 Wh7 24 Re4 Wa7 25 We4 e5 26 Wxd7+ Exd7 27 dxeS fxe5 28 DxeS Dxe5 29 ExeS Rd6 30 Be8+ &c7 31 Re3 a6 V2-'/2 Muk- hametov-Naumkin, Leningrad 1991. c) 9.6 10 bi 0-0-0 11 Hel De7 12 Rll Dg6 13 b3 cxb3 14 4 Modern Variation 17 fxeS 15 c5 We7 16 @xe5 DxeS 17 ExeS Rxc5 18 Dxb3 Rd6 19 Dxa5 WxaS 20 2d2 We7 21 He3 debs 22 Beb3 a8 23 Exb7 Wxb7 24 Bxb7 Sxb7 25 &b4 t Anand-Prasad, New Delhi 1987. 10 Hel This is a safe continuation that of- fers White a small advantage with which to play for a win. The alterna- tives are: a) 10 g3 4b3 (10...Dec6 11 Bb! &e7 12 Hel 0-0-0 13 Dg2 Hs 14 Df4 Sa8 15 2F3 Qc8B 16 Bel gs 17 b4 cxb3 18 Dxb3 h6 19 0d3 with an unclear position; Nikolenko-Ris- tovié, Moscow 1991) 11 @xb3 &a4 12 Wd2 &xb3 13 Dh4 Deo 14 Dg2 BDe7 15 h4 Dc6 16 He3 h5 17 £4 0-0-0 18 h2 £5 19 exf6 gxf6 20 £3 = Morales-Belién, Palma 1991. b) 10 Dgs h6 11 Dh3 0-0-0 12 Df4 £5 13 exf6 gxf6 14 2 £3 Wd6 15 @Dn5 €5 16 Hel e4 17 Re2 £5 18 a4 ReB 19 b4 VxhS 20 Rxh5 Dac6 21 bS DaS 22 g3 Dg8 23 Rad Wa7 24 £4 D6 25 RxfB BdxfB 26 D1 Hhg8 27 De3 c7 28 a2 Bg7 29 Sh Bigs 30 Be] &b6 31 We2 Wes 32 Wd1 Wd7 33 We2 We6 'n-'2 GroSar-Bareev, Bled/Rogaska Slat- ina 1991. 10 ... We6 The queen makes room for the king's knight to shuffle along to b6. Such a slow process is possible due to the lack of feasible pawn breaks. Black has also tried alternatives,18 Modern Variation but has received little reward for the endeavour: a) 10...2c8 11 We2 h6 12 a4 a6 13 Qd1 a7 14 h4 HcB 15 hS Re7 16 He3 &d8 17 Wl D7c6 18 Wa2 g5 19 Dh2 £5 20 ex Rxf6 21 Dgd &g7 22 bi e5 23 b4 cxb3 24 Dxb3 Dxb3 25 Bxb3 We7 26 DxeS + Si- nowjew-Piskov, Dortmund 1992. b) 10....Ag6 11 g3 Re7 12.h4 £5 13 HS 468 14 Hol g5 15 b4 cxb3 16 c4 with an unclear position; Mot- wani-I.Gurevich, Hastings 1991. c) 10...h6 and now: cl) 11 We20-0-0 12 Bb1 &b8 13 fl Wb3 14 Wxb3 Axb3 15 R64 AcB 16 Bg3 "2-2 Sveshnikov-Nik- olenko, USSR 1991. 2) 11 Bbi Dc8 12 Dfl Wb3 13 Wxb3 Dxb3 14 RE4 Rad 15 Dg3 b5 16 DhS Db6 17 g4! + Sveshnikov- Luce, Berlin 1989. 11 We2 12 Des The best way to break down Black's fortress is to provoke con- cessions as part of a patient ma- D8 noeuvring game. 2. h6 13 Oh3 Dv6 14 Sea 0-0-0! Black rightly judges that his king will be safer on the queenside. Now a Standard misjudgment is that the Kingside pawns need only to be pushed forward to force White to take defensive measures. In reality, such schemes are invariably flawed; the pawns are easily picked off as it is difficult for Black to mobilize forces in their support. 15 @hs We7 16 a4 White has no desire to allow 16...%a4, dislodging his queen. 16 .. Reb 17 Sal bs 18 2e3! (6) With this useful move White pre- pares to torment Black's kingside pawns. The long-term plan is to ex- ploit the resulting weaknesses by rapidly transferring the queenside pieces to the other flank. 18 ... Bc8 19 Bg3 96 20 Ate Ba7 21 Dxd7+ Wxd7 22 EB Sveshnikov suggests 22 h4! as a way to pursue the initiative. This is similar to the actual game but saves time in view of the fact that the rook soon returns to g3.22 Bc7 23 Wel Wes 24 «+4 hs Now 24...2e7 25 Hh3 (25 h5 gxhS with an unclear position) 25...h5 26 Df3 intending &g5 gives White the g5 square as a jumping-off point for invading Black’s position. 25 Bg3 Rd7 26 D3 Bb3! This simplifying exchange makes White's task of steadily claiming more space rather less smooth. It is necessary to hold on to the important dark-squared bishop but the draw- back is that a4 is now under attack. 27 &xb3 exb3 28 a5 &b5 29 Re5 Re2 30 262! (7) At this stage a finesse is required to present Black with more problems by temporarily shifting attention to the loose pawn on b3: 30 @d2 Wb5 31 He3 &c4 32 Wdl with aslightad- vantage according to Sveshnikov. Modern Variation 19 30... Bes 31 Des &h6 32 Dh3 Regd 33 gs &xh3 34 Bxh3 xg 35 hxgS Was 36 Bg3 Be6 37 Wh Hao 38 WbS Bes! The other rook comes across to the queenside to add to the defence. This ensures equality. 39 4 dxc4 40 Ec3 Bc6 41 Bxe4 Bxc4 42 Wxed Wxg5 43 a6 A blunt attack with 43 21?! ac- tually manages to allow Black to contemplate trying to win the game after 43...Wd8! 44 a6 He7!, when d4 will come under pressure. 43... Bc8 44 Wxb3 Ecl+ 45 Excl Wxel+ 46 Sh2 Wet hl, Game 3 Haba-Knaak Halle 1987 ANWaWwnd = BQaage aSPaRS20 Modern Variation 7 @bd2 The rare alternatives are as fol- lows: a) 7 Dg5 (suggested by Ciocal- tea) 7...2d7 8 WhS Dh6 9 Dh3 g6!. Keres evaluated the position as Slightly favourable to Black. b) 7 b4 a5 8 &b2 axb4 9 axb4 Exal 10 Rxal Wa6 11 Dbd2 &xb4! 12 cxb4 Axb4 (intending ...Wxal) 13 &c3 Da? followed by ...De7-c6 and ...b5-b4 is Keres’ recommenda- tion to gain Black an advantage. c) 7 Re2 Rd7 8 0-0 £67! (or 8...Dge7 9 Dbd2 Da5, transposing into Game 2, Sveshnikov-Eingorn) 9 Dbd2 fxe5 10 DxeS DxeS 11 dxeS 0-0-0 12 a4 Me? 13 b3 cxb3 14 @xb3 £ Bastrikov-Zurakhov, USSR 1955. Tow Das 8 Ebi A popular idea that prepares a fu- ture b3 or b4. With this useful move White is cleverly trying to save a tempo. Nor- mally White will castle, but then he must play Hel in order to free fl for the knight to transfer to the kingside. By playing fl first, White saves the tempo with the rook. After the routine 10 0-0 Black play: a) 10...h6 11 Hel (11 g3 0-0-0 12 Dh4 Sb8 (12...£5 13 exf6 gxf6 14 &g4 e5? 15 b3! cxb3 16 Dxb3 £5 17 Rh3 Rad 18 DxaS! + Zaitsev- Farago, Szolnok 1975} 13 &h5 96 13 Be2 We7 15 Dg2 Rc6! = was Timman-Liberzon, Venice 1974) 11...Rc6 12 D1 Wo3 13 QE4 Rad (13..Wxd1 14 &xd1 intending g4 and 2g3 +) 14 Wel Wb6 15 23d2! Dg6 16 Re3 Dh4 (Sveshnikov-Ein- gorn, USSR Ch 1985) 17 &g4!7 with equal chances. b) 10...2b37 11 Rxc4! Dxd2 12 @Dxd2 dxc4 13 Dxc4 followed by Dd6+ and DE7 +. ©) 10...2c6 11 b4 cxb3 12 4 dxc4 13 &xc4 h6 =. d) 10...Dg6 11 Hel Re7 12 g3 We7 13 2f1 2c6 144 Wd7 15 h5 = Tischbierek-Vogt, Halle 1987. e) 10...Hec6 11 We2 Re7 12 b4 cxb3 13 Dxb3 Dxb3 14 Bxb3 We7 15 04 DaS 16 Bc3 Bc8 17. c5 Rc6 18 De5 Wa8 19 Bg3 Kxgs 20 Lxe5 Wd7 21 &d2 + Bartolome-Goldsch- midt, Acasusso 1991. f) 10..Wc7 11 Ags h6 12 Dn3 0-0-0 13 Af4 Hb8 (13...26!7) 14@bhS5 with an unclear game; Zaitsev- Vasiukov, Moscow 1969. 10 .. {6 Black follows the traditional theme of striking at the centre in an effort to open up the position. In Sveshnikov-Eingorn, Sochi 1985, Black managed to defuse the situ- ation by opting for an ending: 10...Wb3!2 11 Rf4 Rad 12 Wxd3 Rxb3 13 Ne3 Dg6 14 Bg3h5 15h4 Re7 16 Dgs RdB 17 Dh3 ADc6 18 Dis Dxl4 19 Qxf4 De7 20 Res Dg6 21 QxdB Bxd8 22 g3 Rad 23 cd a7 24 Mafl De7 25 Dg2 Lhe 26 Df =, 1 h4 0-0-0 12 hS Deeb 13 24 White is reluctant to release the tension with 13 exf6 gxf6 as Black can attempt to force through ...e5 with bright prospects. 13... 14 DxeS DxeS 15 &xe5 D6 If 14...2d6, then White maintains his territorial gains with 15 f4!. 16 &g3 5?! (9) Without a supporting pawn on £6, this gallant gesture lacks conviction. The quieter 16...2e7 is a steadier op- tion, although 17 %e3 and Dp4 keeps a hold on the important e5 square. 17 dxe5 RS Not 17...d4? 18 Dd2 with a win- ning game. fxeS Modern Variation 21 18 b4 exb3 19 Bxb3 Was 20 Bd2 Ehe8 It is difficult for Black to justify his pawn sacrifice, for example 20...d4 (20...de8 21 c4!) 21 0-0. d3 (21,..%e6 22 Bb5 Wxa3 23 Abi +-) 22 €6 (22 &g4 Bhe8 23 e6 Exe6!? +) 22...dxe2 (22..2xe6 23 &g4 &d7 24 c4 +-) 23 exd7+ Exd7 24 Wrxe2 + (Haba). 21 0-0 BDxeS 22 Wol! We7 (10) A practical choice, as it is the obvious way to defend b7. Other22 Modern Variation treatments invite complications but White emerges on top: a) 22...h6 23 Bxb7 £&b6 24 Ab3 Wrxa3 25 Dc5! Wxc5 (25...$2.xc5 26 Bb8+ dc7 27 RxeS+ BxeS 28 Wo7+ and 29 Hxd8) 26 a6 &b5 27 W£5+ and White wins. b) 22..2c6 23 Hxb7 &b6 24 Db3 Wxa3 25 Hxd7 Bxd7 26 Re4 t. 23 4 had?! This leads to a speedy débfcle. Black has slightly more chance of surviving after 23...d4 24 De4 b6 (24...28 25 Rh4 Re7 26 Lxe7 Bxe7 27 Exb7 +-) 25 Axc5 Wxc5 26 Wxh7 +. 24 cxdS Bxd5 Grabbbing the exchange also does not enable Black to defend: 24... Kxb3 25 Dxb3 Hxd5 26 Hcl b6 27 We4 Wd6 28 Axc5 Exc5 (28...bxc5 29 £4 +) 29 Hdl We6 30 Wrxh7 +. 25 Ded &xb3 26 Wxb3 eds There is no redemption for Black: a) 26..2d4 27 Wb5 Exe4 28 Wrxe8+ Wd8 29 224+ +. b) 26...Wa5 27 Hel db8 28 c4 Hd4 29 £26! Wxa6 (29...2b6 30 WE7 +-) 30 Dxc5 Wb6 (30... We6 31 Rxe5+ ExeS 32 Dab+ +-) 31 WE7 WHS 32 Deb +. 27 Rcd Bas 28 Re6+ obs 29 AxcS WxeS 30 We3 1-0 Game 4 Degraeve-Delmont Belfort 1992/93 e4 6 4 dS eS cS 3 Dc6 Ot Wo6 a3 4 @Dbd2 White can experiment with 7 h4, aiming to increase his control of the kingside while keeping options open as to where to position the king’s bishop. It is relatively unknown, al- though Black tends to secure equal- ity by forming a defence based upon an early ...f6. a) 7...2d47 8 h5S and now: al) 8...f6 9 We2 a5 (9...fxe5 10 Dxe5 DxeS 11 dxe5 Rc5 =) 10 KE b3 11 Ha2 0-0-0 12 g4 Dh6 13 &h3 DET 14 0-0 g5! 15 Re3 Re7 16 exf6 &xf6 17 DeS Whf8 18 Dxd7 Bxd7 19 Dd2 Axd2 20 Wxd2 Wd6 21 Baal = Djurié-Vaganian, Bled/ Rogagka Slatina 1991. a2) 7...S0d7 8 hS h6 9 Dh4 Das 10 2 0-0-0 11 Bb1 # Khomiakov- Kabadze, Budapest 1992. b) 7...£6 8 exf6 (8 We2) 8...Dxf6 9 Dbd2 2d6 10 b3 cxd3 11 Wxb3 Wxb3 12 Axb3 0-0 = Miljanié- Miller, Budapest 1989. c) 7..@a5 8 g3 tansposes to Game 6, Sveshnikov-Eingorn, Sochi 1986. NAW SAWN =Modern Variation 23 The closed nature of the position allows White a certain amount of room for creativity. Normally when advancing his h-pawn, White has in mind the possibility of continuing with g3 and 2&h3. In this case, the purpose is to stifle Black's kingside play with hS. 9 hs A reflex move which blocks White's intended push, but gives up the g5 square for future operations. 10 bi De7 11 Of This device to save time can be recognised from the game Haba- Knaak. White delays a decision about castling whilst the knight can leap to g3 or e3. 11. @b3 12 Sgs The drawback of ...h5 is clear; the bishop can take up an active post. 14 fi A preliminary measure to lessen the influence of a possible discov- ered attack on the queen. Now 14...Wa6 can be met with Wel fol- lowed by g3 and 4g2 with a com- plex middlegame. 4. &xa3!? An interesting, if not completely sound, continuation. Black offers two pieces for the rook, which is dangerous due to the threat of the queenside pawns romping to the eighth rank. . 15 bxa3 Dd2+ 16 Wxd2 Wxbl+ 17 Bei Wal 18 fa! White has no choice but to relin- quish his a-pawn, so opts for a light- ning assault on the black king: Note that 18 @c2 $2.xc2 leaves White pas- sive, while the a-pawn drops any- way.24 Modern Variation 18 ... Wxa3 19 £5 Das The straightforward 19...b5!? is a suggestion by Jadoul to try to create a passed pawn which will distract White from his campaign. Now the knight is added to the task of has- sling the queen but more importantly it takes away another defensive piece. 20 213 Db3 21 We2 Bel 22 Hh3 Wxe3 23 fxe6 fxe6 (13) 24 Dxd5! Itis hardly surprising that with the black king shielded by a thin line of pawns there is an opportunity for a tactical explosion, The knight is ta- boo due to 24..exd5 25 &xh5+ Exh5 26 Hxc3. ow Was 25 2c3 a3 2% Axd3 Wxc3 27 Bei Wo 28 Red The culmination of White's at- tack: the two bishops are about to snare the hapless king. 8... ae 29 Hf3 ed7 30 &xb7 Also crushing is 30 Hf7+ Exf7 (30...de8 31 $296) 31 Wxf7+ dc8 32 Wg8+ dc7 33 Wxa8 +. 30 .. Exf3 31 &xf3 as 32 d5 Woe 33 dxe6+ Sc? 34 Red Wrxe6 35 &xa7 3 36 WeS+ 1-0 Game 5 ‘Yilmaz-Manni Budapest 1992 1 e 6 2 d4 ds 3&5 cS 43 D6 5 OS Who 6 a3 4 7 93 White declares his intention to de- velop the bishop on h3. The idea is to reduce the effectiveness of Black’s basic plan (...f6 to break up the pawn chain) by targeting the potentially weak point 66. 7 ow a7 8 Bh3(/4) hé One of the most ambitious de- fences; Black simply envisages anavalanche of pawns to smother White’s kingside. This line requires careful handling by White who needs to employ an unusual manoeu- vre to thwart the problem. 8...2e7 is also worth consideration. For exam- ple: a) 9 Dbd2 and now: al) 9...0-0-0 10 Dfl £59! 11 exf6 Dxf6 12 De3 e5 13 Rxd7+ Bxd7 14 dxe5 De4 15 e6 t Jezek-Lundquist, corr. 1956/59. a2) 9..4a5 10 0-0 (10 Hb Bc82! 11 0-OhS 12 Del g6? 13 Dg2 = Walther-Frank, Amsterdam 1954) 10..h5 11 Bel (11 Hol 0-0-0 12 Bel g5 13 &g2 Dh6 14 Kh AES 15 4g2 with an unclear position; Bosboom-Brenninkmeijer, Holland 1992) L1...g5 (11...0-0-0 12 2g2 96 13 Be3 Dh6 + Vitolin3-Zelinsky, Latvian Ch 1978) and now: a21) 12 Dc2 Rad 13 Bbi g4 F Blatny-Drvota, Detin 1978. a22) 12 4 g4 13 &g2 Dh6 14 We2 @f5 F Storm-Casper, De&in 1978. Modern Variation 25 b) 9.0-00-0-0 10 Abd2 (10 Del g5 11 £4 gxf4 12 gxf4 £5 t Makro- poulos-Gavrilakis, Greek Ch 1976) 10...2a5 11 Del g5 12 £4! gxf4 13 gxf4hS 14Dp2 An6 15 De3 Hags+ 16 dhi p4!? 17 Dxgd hxgd 18 Sxgd £5 19 exf6 Qxf6 20 Hei Wd6 21 D3 Db3 22 Hoi Re8 23 We2 xgd 24 Hxg4 @h5 25 We2! Qxed 26 Wxg4 Das 27 £5! + Ciocaltea- Heim, Romania 1979. 9 Dbd2 Das 10 0-0 25 11 Mba eT In the game Silman-Kushnir, Lone Pine 1975, Black preferred to activate her king’s knight: 11...Dge7 12 &g2 0-0-0 13 h4?! (13 Del!?) 13..g4 14 Del h5 15 Bhi DE 16 Dg? Kh6 17 Bel £6 18 Dfl Ras 19 exf6 Hxf6 20 &xh6 H8xh6 21 Die3 Ddb 22 D4 Uxf4! 23 ext Wad8 24 £5 Wxh4 25 fxe6 Rxe6 26 De2 Wi6 27 Wd2 25 28 Had! Re4 29 Wf4 We7 30 Dh4 26 31 Wh2 We5 32 &g2 Dc6 33 He3 De? 34 Blel D5 35 xed Dxe4 36 xed dxe4 37 We5 @xh4 0-1. 12 Dei hs 13 &g2 Dh6 (15) 14 Shi An essential move if White is to create dynamic play. In practical tournament play, White often be- comes congested and Black can steadily build up his forces behind the pawn shield. The difference here is that White embarks on a clever26 Modern Variation manoeuvre to transfer the el knight to a more prominent post. 14. 0-0-0 15 Dg2 24 16 De3 Bags Simple development, adding an- other rook to the offensive. However, the next step (...h4) carries no imme- diate threat, so White can now follow up his minor-piece manoeuvre with queenside counterplay. 17 b4 18 a4 ha 19 Daxed! A. scintillating sacrifice. The knight is given up in order to pene- trate into the heart of Black's camp. The attack will gather momentum as the queenside pawns roll forward. 19 .. dxc4 20 Axc4 Wel 21 24 a8 22 Dd6+ Rxd6 23 exd6 Wes Upon 23..Wb8 White’s pawn avalanche crashes through with 24 bS and c4-c5-c6. DES (16) 25 bs! All of a sudden, the queen is on the verge of being tapped by 26 Hb4, forcing Black to take evasive measures. 25 aS 26 bxa6 Wxaé 27 cf The pair of bishops directed to- wards the opposing king will en- hance their influence once the c- and d-pawns advance. It is too late for Black to switch his kingside forces to the other flank to create a defen- sive barrier. 27 we @xd6 28 dS es 29 Qxe5 Bhs 30 2f4 Rts 31° Ebel There is no respite for Black, as White energetically maintains the pressure. 31. 32 Rxed Dxe4d33 Wad4 Dae 34 OS De8 35 c6 The reward for having faith with the speculative 19 Adxcd is the c- pawn reaching the sixth rank with a vengeance. 35 bxc6 36 dxc6 Dxc6 37 Bfdi £b7 38 Wd7+ a8 39 Hxc6 1-0 Game 6 Sveshnikov-Eingorn Sochi 1986 1 6 2 d4 d5 3 05 cS 43 D6 5 Of Woe 6 a3 4 7 3 &d7 8 h4 Since Black may have in mind a pawn storm commencing with ...g5, White takes immediate steps to pre- vent such activity. 8 ww Das 9 Dbd2 We6!? (17) A sortie to disrupt White's plan of kingside expansion. Black prepares lo offer the trade of queens and, should White avoid the exchange, in- filtrate the opposition’s camp. A number of other moves have been tried: Modern Variation 27 a) 9...h5 and now: al) 10 g5!? De7 11 WE3 DES 12 Bh3 g6 13 QxéS! pxfS 14 We2 ad 15 Ddf3 Ab3 16 Mbt Axcl 17 Uxcl + Degraeve-I.Sokolov, Baguio City 1987. a2) 10 &h3 Dh6 11 0-0 Re7 12 Del g6 13 Dg? 0-0-0 14 Hb1 bs 15 Df3! Wh3 16 We2 Rad 17 Bp5 Sxg5 18 Dxgs We2 19 WE3 2b3 20 W64! % Sax-Ree, Amsterdam 1979. b) 9...h6 10 &h3 (10 hS De7 11 &h3 Db3? 12 DAxb3 Rad 13 Dfd2 Bc6 14 0-0 Das 15 £4 Dxb3 16 @xb3 &xb3 17 We2 + was Bron- stein-Mestel, London rapid 1976) 10...0-0-0 11 0-0 Be7 12 Hbi £b8 13 Det DES 14 Dg2 Ke7 15 WH Rc8 16 hS Bh 17 Des + Sax- Knaak, Szirak 1985. c) 9...0-0-0 10 &h3 £5 (more ac- curate than 10...4b8?! 11 0-0 h6 12 h5 De7 13 Hel g6 14 Dh2 gxh5 15 Wxh5 28 16 WE3 + Hodgson-Lee, London 1977) 11 0-0 @h6 12 Det 7 13 Dg2 g5 14 hxgS ADxgs 15 Af4 Axh3+ 16 Axh3 Re7 17 Hbt28 Modern Variation Hdg8 18 Df3 F Klinger-Portisch, Dubai OL 1986. d) 9...e7 10 h5 h6 11 Dh4 0-0-0 12 2h3 £6 13 £4 Bp8 14 Wed £5 15 We2 g5 16 bxg6 Dxg6 17 Dp2 Re7 18 DE Db3 19 Hot Axci 20 Excl Hg7 21 df2 = Prié-Ree, France-Netherlands 1990. 10 gs It is natural that White is keen to make room for the queen to escape Black’s attentions. After 10 &h3?! (10 &e2 gives White a slight plus) 10...Wa4 11 We2? Wc2 12 0-0 b3 Black is better. 10 .. h6 11 Dn3 Wad 12 Wee! Sveshnikov suggests that the end- ing after 12 Re2 Wxdl+ 13 Qxdi slightly favours White. However, the text declares more aggressive inten- tions. 12 We2 13 Dea The knight is heading for the cen- tral post €3 to oust the queen. 13 Del 14 Der Wh7?! An interesting idea to bring the queen to the defence of the kingside and enforce ...g5. It would, however, be more precise to preserve control of b3 in order to keep the queenside closed: 14...S04 (14.65 15 e3 2) 15 De3 Wh7 16 Rh3 Db3 17 Dxb3 &xb3 when White has a slight edge. 16 &d3 As the knight has not been obliged to occupy €3, White's the- matic pawn sacrifice allows him to gain time by attacking the enemy queen. The main point is that as Black has transferred the queen to the kingside, White now signals the attack on the opposite flank. As usual with the advance of the b- pawn, the priority is not necessarily to recapture on b3 but to open up the. position with c4. 16 a We8 17 Ebi had 18 Be3 Bc8 If 18...b5 then 19 c4! bxc4 10 Daxc4 is strong due to the d-pawn being pinned. 19 of ‘dxc4 20 Ddxet = Dxeo4 21 Dxes Das The flurry of tactics fails to make an impression: after 21...&xc4 22 Rxc4 £06 23 Wxb3! &xh1 24 £3 thebishop is blocked and White will de- molish the qucenside. 22 Rd2 23 0-0?! As the king is quite safe in the centre, Sveshnikov recommends dis- lodging Black’s most active piece: 23 De3 Rc6 24 Red with the supe- tior chances. Now Black can create some counterplay by utilizing the Re7 power of his dormant queen. 23. gs! 24 bS We7 25 BDe3 Rc6 26 @xd5 Rxd5 27 2e4(19) 27 ww 24 Black will not readily allow a bishop exchange, as the blockade of d5 is soon undermined by 27...d8 28 Rxd5 Hxd5 29 Hxb3 b6 30 Mb5!. 28 We2 29 £43 Rds 30 &b5+ Bc6?! A valiant attempt to create coun- terplay by offering the exchange in aA Moder Variation 29 return for control of the h1-a8 diago- nal. 30.206 31 &xc6+ bxc6 32 Exb3 is better for White, but the more restrained 30...¢d8!? deserved consideration. 31 Axc6+ 32 Exb3! &xb3 33 Ebi 0-0 On 33...2d5 comes 34 Hb8+ Rd8 35 RaS (35 Uxd8+? Hxd8 36 Wa6 £5 37 Ra5+ Se7 F) 35...0-0 36 Rxd8 +. bxc6 34 EBxb3 Has 35 Ras Bes 36 Wet Bc8 37 &d2! Black can no longer adequately defend his shattered queenside pawn structure. 37 we Rd8 38 Hb7 D6 39 Red Has 40 a4 hs 41° Wxc6 Wh7 42 aS &xaS 43 Bxa7 1.0 Game 7 Sax-Uhimann Sarajevo 1982 124 6 2 44 d5 3&5 cS 43 D6 5 OS Wo6 6 a3- 4 7 3 1630 Modern Variation Black employs a popular method of attacking White's pawn chain. 8 exf6 In Malaniuk-Uhlmann, Tallinn 1987, White preferred to allow ex- changes on e5: 8 &h3!? fxe5 9 @xe5 Dxe5 10 dxeS Ac5 11 Whs+ g6 12 We2 £47 13 Dd2 De7 14 £3 h6 15 0-0 0-0-0 16 Hel £. John Watson has suggested 8 “h4!? fxe5 (8...We7!?) 9 WhS+ 96 10 Dxg6 DEG 11 Wh4 Bp8 12 Wxf6! Hxg6 13 Wh4 exd4 14 Re2! dxc3 15 bxc3 with good play, but curiously there have been few devotees of the plan. 8 .. @xf6 9 &g2(20) The alternatives are rare guests at tournament level: a) 9 Dbd2 Rd6 10 Kg2 0-0 11 0-0 &d7 12 We2 We7 13 Hel dhs 14 De5 ReB 15 £4 KhS = Ratsch- Franz, Germany 1958. b) 9 &h3 and now: bl) 9....2d6 10 We2 (100-0 0-0 and now: 11 Hel?! e5! 12 &xc8 Baxc8 13 dxe5 Ded! F or 11 Dbd2 €5 12 xc Haxc8 13 dxe5 LxeS 14 Bei Bfe8 15 Dfl d4 16 cxdd Rxd4 17 Re3 Rxe3 18 Dxe3 De4 19 Wad5+ @h8 20 Ddi Wes F Gillen- Harding, Dublin 1991) 10...0-0 11 Rxe6+ Lxe6 12 Wxe6+ Ph8 130-0 BDaS 14 Dbd2 Hae8 15 Wh3 Re2 16 Hel Hxel+ 17 Axel WbS 18 Dc2 We8 19 4e3 h6 and Black has com- pensation for the sacrificed pawn; S.Arkell-J.Cooper, British Ch 1990. b2) 9..a5 10 Dbd2 246 11 0-01? (11 We2 transposes to the note above) 11...0-0 12 He5 (12 Hel Shs 13 Qxe6 Rxc6 14 Bxe6 Hac8 15 EXxe8 Hxe8 with an unclear position according to Botterill) 12...2xe5 13 dxe5 2d7 14 DB Db3 15 Re3 Ddc5 16 Hb We7 17 Rxc5 Axc5 18 We2 2.47 (18...2d37! 19 Dd4 Wxes 20 Wxe5 DxeS 21 £4 Dd3 23 Dxes 4) 19 Dd4 Hae8 20 £4 Me7 (otter ill-Botto, Llanelli 1977) 21 &g2 =. a6 0-0 9 mw 10 0-0 11 We2 Tt is necessary to prevent ...e5; Przewoznik-Uhimann, Poland 1980, continued 11 bd2?! e5! 12 dxe5 Rxe5 13 DxeS (13 We2 is equal) 13...Dxe5 14 We27! (14 Of317 may be better) 14...2e8! 15 013 Lg4 16 Wd 1 Had8 17 3 Wxb2 18 2406 19 h3 Axf3+ 20 x3 Kxf3 21 Wxf3 We2 22 Wd We4 23 Wes hé 24 Wad2 WES 25 Rxf6 Wxf6 26 Zadl bS 27 Wb2 a6 28 a4 bxa4 29 HalWf3 30 Hxa4 He2 31 Wel? Brg 32 Wal Bxf2 0-1. ll. hs This is the most popular ty in contemporary practice but the alter- natives merit consideration: a) 11...2d7 12 De5 Re8?! (Uhl- mann prefers 12...2ae8! whereupon 13 Dxd7 Dxd7 14 &e3 keeps an edge for White) 13 Axc4! Dxd4 (13...dxc4 14 Wxe6+) 14 cxd4 dxc4 15 &c3 + Alexander-Uhimann, Mu- nich OL (prelims) 1958. b) 11..Qa5 12 Dbd2 Rd7 13 De5 Reds #. 12 DeS Rxe5?! Black instantly exchanges the powerful knight but according to Uhl- mann a more restrained approach is necessary. For example: 12...d7! 13 £4 (or 13 Dxc6 Wxc6 14 Wxe6 (6 intending ...&£5 with an unclear game) 13...@dxe5 14 fxe5 Hxfl+ 15 Sxfl Re7 =. 13° dxeS 14 Re3 Od WaS (21) Modern Variation 31 The other paths are pleasant for White: a) 14.25 15 Qd2 Was 16 4 &d7 (Alexander-Uhimann, Munich OL 1958) 17 3 £. b) 14...Wc7 15 £4 Bas 16 Dd2 BcS 17 AxcS Wxe5+ 18 WE2 Waxf2+ 19 doxf2! Rd7 (19...g57! 20 $e3 t) 20 de3 Hac8 (Mestel-Bot- terill, London 1978) 21 Bael! He7 22 £5! (22...exf5 23 Rxd5 HxeS+ 24 @d4 Bxel 25 Bxel +) 22...Bxf5 23 Exf5 exdS 24 ddd Ac6+ 25 Sxd5 Re6+ 26 Sd6 +. 15 {4 Dc5 16 Qd2 &d7 17 Hadi! White accentuates his control of the position by centralizing the queen’s rook while threatening 18 Axc4 dxc4 19 Wxe4 b6 20 Axc5 +. 17. ReB 18 f5! exfS After 18..@xe5 19 fxe6! Black has double trouble in the form of back- rank mate and a vulnerable d5 pawn. 19 &xd5 Bd3! 20 Dxecd! White is exposed on the light squares after 20 &xc6?! &xc6 21 @xc4 Wd5 22 Bxd3 Wxc4 intending +.dtb5 and Black is better. Wxd5 Wxa3 &hS If Black aspires to steal the eS pawn then White's greater activity32 Modern Variation triumphs: 22...2£7 23 Dd6 DxeS 24 @xf7+ Bxf7 25 Md5 Dc4 26 Rd4! @xb2 27 Hdxf5 Hxf5 28 Bxf5 in- tending 29 Hf7 or 29 EbS with ad- vantage. 23 Hel?! The problem with this move is that the pressure is taken off £5, so the previous note is now redundant. On 23 Hd2! bS 24 Ad6 DxeS 25 Hd5 White has a clear advantage. 23... R£7! 2a Dd2 Not 24 4d6? @xe5 and Black wins. a Bxe5 25 Bd6 Eres 26 2d4 Dc6 27 Exe8+ Rxe8 Otherwise White will invade the seventh rank: 27...Bxe8 28 Ed7 He7 29 Exe7 Dxe7 30 Rxa7 +. 28 Df3 Sg8 29 ef2 b6 30 be3 fs 31 of4 Se7! 32 Has 86 33 h4 h6? It appears logical to deprive the king of the g5 square but it proves to be only a temporary measure and merely weakens g6. The best way to ensure equality is swap the roving rook: 33...%d8 34 Bxd8 Dxd8. Ap- proaching from another angle with 33...2.£7 also works, since 34 2{6+ Sxl 35 Md6+ Leb 36 Hxc6 Bc8 37 Bd6 de? 37 Hd2 f6 is equal. 34 Qg7! hs 35 gS Bc8 36 Bd2 ot7 37 thé Bec7 The position is bleak after 37...De7 38 De5+ Sg8 39 V6 and the g-pawn must fall. 38 DgS+ Se7 (22) 39 R1B+! A stylish way to deliver the knockout blow. 39 ow ef 40 Hd6+ Ses 41 He6+ eas 42 Bxe8 De5 43 2e7 1-0 Game 8 Zaitsev-Pokojowczyk Sochi 1976 1 e4 6 2 d4 a5 3 5 cS 43 D6 5 Of Whe6 a3 4 7 Doa2 This flexible move-order is fa- voured by those who wish to incor- porate g3 in their play but prefer to avoid the complications of the pre- vious game. 7 iw DaS 8 g3 Qd7 9 Sh3 The old line 9 &g2 is no longer popular because in some instances g2 is useful for the manocuvre Hel - g2-c3 and the bishop on h3 can stifle the option of ...f6. The game Clarke- Petrosian, Munich OL 1958 pro- vides a good example of likely play: 9...0-0-0 10 0-0 h6!? (10...b8 11 tel De7 12 Df Db3 = Alexander- O'Kelly, Hastings 1953/54) 11 Hel De7 12 DEl (12 We2 g5!? 13 DF1 Dg6 14 D3d2 e7 = Casper-Knaak, East Berlin 1982) 12...Df5 13 De3 (Clarke suggested 13 g4 De? 14 Bibi as better) 13...0xe3 14 Bxe3 &c7 15 Bel Wb3! 16 We2 2a4 17 2e3 db8 (17...We2!) 18 Bad1! Wo2 19 d2 WES 20 Bfl 95 (20...0b3 21 Hdd!) 21h3 hS 22 Dh2 Bdg8 23 g4 We6 24 £37 (24 £417) 24...hxgd 25 xgd Dc6 26 £37! Rd 27 RF2 De? 28 Hel Bh6 29 Dfl?! (29 2g3 Bgh8 30 Wg2!) 29...Rgh8 30 223 Bxh3! 31 Rxh3 Bxh3 32 Wg2 Wh7 33 De3 Dgé 34 Dga Ds4 35 Mxk4 gxf4 36 Sl Me3 37 W2 Wh3+ 38 e2 Mg2 39 Mel Mxf2+ 40 Dxi2 Wh7 41 Bhi Weg6 0-1. Modern Variation 33 9 £62! (23) White is well prepared to meet this typical freeing move. Black has a choice of alternatives: a) 9...h6 100-00-0-0 11 Bel and now: al) 11...f57! 12 exf6 gxf6 13 Def3! De7 14 Hel Dg 15 Hb £5 16 We2 We7 17 b3 cxb3 18 Axb3 Bc4 19 Dfd2 Db6 20 2g2 ws 21 c4! Ivanov-Suetin, RSFSR Sparta- kiad 1978. a2) 11..e7 12 Hbl gb8 13 Do2 We 14 WE Re8 15 Df4 Rad 16 2g4 Qc2 17 Hal g6 18 We2h5 = Nitevski-Vilela, Detin 1978. a3) 11...g5 12 &g2 Re7 13 Bbi hS 14 We2 (14 &h1!? and 4g2) 14...Dh6! 15 Dc2 bs 16 De3 c8 17 Hel h4 18 g4 £6 F Pinter- Schmidt, Budapest 1977. b) 9...@e7 10 0-0 h6 (10...We7 11 4h4 Qc8 + Pinter-Mednis, Bu- dapest 1976; 10...Dg6 11 Hel 0-0-0 12 Ebi £6 13 exf6 gxf6 + Giulian- Tlersié, corr. 1982/83) 11 Dh4 0-0-0 12 Bg? and now: b1) 12...b8 13 Bb1 We7 14 He3 DcB 15 £4 g6 16 £5 gxf5 17 g4 fxg 18 Dxg4 ReB 19 Dse * Zaitsev- Savon, Dubna 1976. b2) 12...g6 13 @e3 hS 14 Hbi Rh6 15 Rg2 BdfB = Platonov-Ree, Kiev 1978. ¢) 9...We6 10 0-0 Wad 11 We2 We2 12 Del Wg6 13 £4 De7 14 De2 DES 15 De3 Sthhlberg-An- gos, Munich OL 1958.34 Modern Variation White continues in a logical fash- ion by pinpointing the pawn at e6. 12 Re7 13 Ebi! Sb8 (24) 13..@ge7 can be answered strongly by 14 b3 cxb3 15 Axb3 + a4? 16 Hxe6 winning. 14 ba! xb3 15 @xb3 @xb3 Black would dearly like to pin the knight but this would allow a clever riposte: 15...2a4 16 Bxe6 &xb3 17 WEI 2c4 (17...Dc6 18 R&4+ bas 19 Dd2 +-) 18 Rf4+ has 19 Wel! +-. 16 Exb3! The consistent continuation. After 16 Wxb3 Wc6 17 Rf4+ Ga8 18 We2 He8 19 Hecl the attack is less effec- tive. 16 .. Rad? Krogius suggested 16...Wa6!? as an alternative. 17 Exb6 Rxd1 18 Ebxe6 Rxf3 19 Qf4+ a8 (25) 20 Rc?! This is the point; the sting in the tail is revealed. The danger of back- rank mate swings the game in White’s favour. Nothing can be gained from 20 He& 4h6 but after the text 20...2c8 (20...2f8 21 He8+) 21 e8 De7 22 H8xe7 Kcg8 23 Reb wins, 20 .. @n6 21 Qxd8 Bxd8 22 He8 1-0Game 9 Torre-Grefe San Francisco 1991 1 e4 6 2 d4 d5 3 0&5 cS 43 D6 5 3 Woe 6 a3 A 7 @bd2 Rd7 8 g3 £62! (26) The recurring theme ...f6 is not appropriate here, as 7...$0d7 is rather slow compared to 7...@a5 which at Icast uncovers the queen to support 6 and reduces the movement of the opposing queen’s knight. Kavalek-Fuchs, Havana 1966, saw yet another approach: 8...h6!? 9 @h4 (9 4) 9...Ba5 10 £4 De7 11 &h3 96 12 Dg? Ae5!7 13 g4 De7 14 e3 h5 15 £5 hxgd 16 fxe6 S.xe6 17 Rxg4 0-0-0 =. 9 exi6 Axi6 10 We2 0-0-0 Modern Variation 35 A brave effort to complicate mat- ters by proposing a kingside offen- sive while simultaneously fending off White's attack. It is based on the misguided premise that the closed nature of the queenside allows suffi- cient time for a build-up of forces. After the better 10...2d6!7 11 2h3 0-0 12 Rxe6+ Hh8 13 Rxd7 Dxd7 (13...ae8 14 Qxe8 Hxe8 15 Des @xe5 16 0-0 +-) 14 0-0 Hae8 15 Wal Black has some compensation for the pawn. 11 2g2 obs This is too cautious and there- fore slow. At least 11...h6 intending 12...g5 poses White some problems and aims to fight for the initiative. 12 0-0 13 b3! (27) AB It is of considerable importance for White's attack that the b-file be opened. This is not just for the rooks to make an impression, but to facili- tate c4 allowing the rest of the forces to join in the fray.36 Modern Variation 13... cxb3 14 bl b2 15 &xb2 2d6 16 c4 The opening has been a complete success for White. Black has failed to register any aggressive intent, while Torre has set in motion the de- cisive storming of the queenside. 16 .. Was 17 Bfcl Bhe8 18 Des After this move the king’s bishop is uncovered to add weight to the on- slaught. 18 .. Rxe5 19 dxe5 Ba7 20 We3 At last the queen steps aside to avoid the pin, leaving Black with all sorts of problems. 20 Dv6 21+ cxdS exdS 22 2d4 Now both rooks are revealed to exert immense power by dominating the b- and c-files. On 22...4a4? 23 £1! Was 24 Exc6 wins a piece. Dec4 22 23 Axet dxc4 24 Ral Ba3 25 WeS Das 26 e6! (28) The loss of the pawn is irrelevant when it allows the queen’s bishop to deliver a devastating check. 26 .. Rxe6 27 Be5+ 1-0 Black resigned in view of the variation 27...a8 28 WxaS! Wxa5 29 Rxb7#. Game 10 Kharlamov-Shinaui Moscow 1991 le 6 2 d4 a5 3 05 cS 43 Dc6 5 Of Wh6 6 a3 aS!? Now 7 b4 is not feasible; however, the drawback is that this move cre- ates a weakness on bS. 7 243 (29) This is considered the antidote. The idea is to reach a favourable form of the Milner-Barry Gambit where Black's inability to play ...a6 causes extra defensive problems. The quieter 7 Re2 is also possi- ble: a) 7...cxd4 8 cxd4 Dge7 9 b3 (9 4317 DES 10 Db5; Keres evaluatesthe position as better for White) 9... DES 10 2b2 Le7 110-02! (11 g4 @Dh6 12 Bgl +) 11...2d7 12 bh hs 13 Dc3 g5! 14 Das Wal F Kliavin- Klasup, USSR 1955. b) 7...82d7 8 b3 cxd4 9 cxd4 @Dge7 10 0-0 AF5 11 Re3! Re7 12 4c3 0-0 13 Rd3 Dxe3 14 fxe3 £6 15 Bgs!? (15 exf6 gxf6 16 Dad Wd8 17 Ha2 with an unclear posi- tion) 15...f5 (15...fxg5 16 WhS g6? 17 Sxg6 hxg6 18 Wxg6+ Ph8 19 Hf6! +-; 16...H£5! with unclear play) 16 Dad Wad8 17 Dh3 Les 18 Df4 RET 19 g4 g5? 20 Dxeb Rxeéb 21 gxf5 b5 22 fxe6 1-0 Cortlever-van Seters, Beverwijk 1958. Tow 2d7 The acceptance of the gambit is the acid test but Black has also pre- ferred increasing the pressure on d4, e.g. 7...Dge7 8 0-0 cxd4 9 cxd4 ALS 10 &x£5 exf5 11 Dc3 Re6 12 Dad! Wb5 13 2e3 Re7 14 Del 0-0 15 }d3 Mac8 16 Hcl Bal (16...kc7 17 Dac5 b6? 18 a4 +-) 17 Dac b6 18 a4 We8 19 Dxe6 fxe6 20 Wb3 Excl Modern Variation 37 21 Excl 2d8 22 h4! h6 23 Afa g5 24 hxgS hxgS 25 Dxd5! exd5 (or 25...£4 26 Rxf4 gxf4 27 Dxf4 +-) 26 Wxd5+ 7 (26... WE7 27 e6 We7 28 Sxg5 +-) 27 £4! g4 28 b3 HET 29 Wa8! +— Georgadze-Dra&ko, Tbilisi 1985. 8 0-0 The old-fashioned 8 &c2!? has some followers: a) 8...2ge7 9 0-0 cxd4 (9...D65 10 dxc5! Rxc5 11 Abd2 + Tal-Sok- olsky, USSR 1955) 10 cxd4 £5 11 Qxf5 exf5 12 Dc3 Ke6 13 Dad (13 Wad Bc8 14 WS WxbS 15 DxbS with equality, Koch-Schwertfeger, corr. 1964) 13...Wa7 14 2¢3 Qe7 15 Hcl h6 16 Zc5 0-0 17 Del Lh7 18 £47! Bg8 19 Ded3 &c8 20 W3 Hds 21 Dad b5! 22 WxbS Dxd4! F Leisebein-Hunger, corr. 1985/86. b) 8...h6 9 h4 h5 10 b3 4h6 11 Rxh67! Bxh6 12 dxc5 Rxc5 13 0-0 LB 14 Dbd2 £6 15 exf6 gxf6 F Vat- ter-Korchnoi, Lugano 1986. c) 8...WbS 9 c4 dxc4 10 Dc3 Wh6 11 d5 exd5 12 Dxd5 Was 13 0-0 Re6 14 Re4 Daa 15 Dea Rod 16 Rxb7 Hb8 17 Red AxHB+ 18 Rx Wxdl 19 Qxdl QS 20 Das BDe7 21 Rad+ Sd8 22 De3 Qd3 23 Hdl dc7 24 Rd2 bb6 25 Macl ¢ Kiselev-Shaposhnikov, USSR 1989. 8 exd4 In answer to the push 8...24 White should not follow the example of Dowden-Beliavsky, Lucerne OL 1982, which continued 9 dxc5?!38 Modern Variation Rxc5 10 Dbd2 £6 11 We2 Dge? F. A better try is 9 We2 or even 9 Phi to play a future £4 after the ex- changes on d4. 9 cxd4 @xd4 In the game Maki-Hadjiyiannis, Haifa 1989, Black reacted cautiously with 9...h62! 10 c3 Axd4 11 Axd4 Wxd4 12 We2 Me7 13 @h1 Hc8 14 £4 Wb6 15 Abs Qxb5 16 RxbS+ Bcf 17 £5 Re7 18 Rxc6+ Bxc6 19 We4 exfS 20 Wxg7 Ef8 21 We3 Bg6 22 WES Web 23 QF4 Bes 24 Hf2 Rc5 25 He2 b6 26 b4 Ld4 27 Edi 1-0. 10 Axa Wxd4 1 D3 Wxe5 (30) As can be seen in the chapter on the Milner-Barry, at this stage Black often inserts ...a6 to stop AbS. As this is not possible here, other paths have been followed: a) 11..Qh6!? 12 DS Wxes 13 Hel Wb8 14 WE 2d6 15 Dxd6+ Wxd6 16 R£4 We7 17 Wg3! £6 ('h-1h Zaitsev-Uhlmann, Berlin 1982) 18 d6! WET 19 Bact &c6 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 +. b) 11...Wb6 and now: bl) 12@h1 Se7 13 £4 96 14 Hel (14 We2!?) 14.206 15 Re3 d4 16 2 DE5 17 Qe4 Re7 18 WH .0-019 Rxc6 Wxc6 20 Des Hac8 21 24 Be3 22 Rxe3 dxe3 23 Hxe3 Mids 24 Hc3 Wb5 25 Hb3 = Rosenthal- Gerstner, Bundesliga 1991/92. b2) 12 Wy42! £5 13 exf6 Dxf6 14 Wg3 Qe7 15 Wxg7 Bg8 16 Wh6é Wad 17 Hal Wg4 18 Qf1 Bg6 19 Wa Whs 20 2e2 Wn3 21 WE e522 Wrh3 Lxh3 23 g3 Re6 F Shtein- berg-Silov, Kharkov 1967. b3) 12 We2 De? 13 Kgs h6 14 &d2 g6 15 e3 d4 16 Des Dd5 17 Rd2 Re7 18 h4 Kc6 19 Bfci We7 20 DcS Rxc5 21 Hxc5 We7 22 Hacl Wrxh4 23 2b5 0-0 24 &xc6 bxc6 25 g3 Wh3 26 Hicd Me7 27 Bxd4 DES 28 Hd3 +— Schlosser-Claesen, Ade- laide 1988. 12 Hel Wa6 In normal lines of the Milner- Barry 12...Wb8 is popular, but now 13 @xd5 has more venom due to the threat of Db6. 13 Dbs Wos 13...8xb5 leaves Black’s king stranded in the centre of the board, after which a game Prié-Villeneuve, Paris 1990, continued 14 S.xb5+ Sd8 15 WhS Df6 16 Wxt7 We7 17 Wre6 Wxe6 18 Hxe6 2c5 19 Rg5 Rd4 20 Hdl Rxb2 21 Bxd5+ Lc8 22 Bc5+ dd8 23 Hc2 1-0.14 Wr3 Rd6 15 Wxd5 Rxh2+ 16 Gh De7 (31) 17 Waa White is poised to demolish the opposition. The queen exerts consid- erable pressure by hitting g7, while preventing castling due to the need to defend d7. 17 Rc6 18 Rg5! 16 19 Bxe6 Now White's rooks crash through into Black's position, sealing his fate. 9 .. es 20 Wes 0-0 21 Bxe7 &xb5 22 WxbS Was 23 BxeS —fixgS 2% Heel = WI 25 MES Whee 26 gl mtas 27 Wxb7 abs 28 WiT+ ohs 29 HfesS 1-0 Modern Variation 39 Game 11 Prié-de la Villa Garcia Leén 1991 1 2 3 4 5 6 This system has experienced fluc- tuating bouts of popularity. The idea is to exert pressure on d4 while tak- ing White outside normal lines. 7 b4 exd4 8 cxd4 The alternative 8 2xh6 doubles the h-pawns at the cost of opening up the g-file. Practice indicates that it deserves respect: 8...gxh6 9 cxd4 Rd7 (9...297 10 Dc3 £6 11 Dad intending S2b5 + ; 9... g8! followed by ...Etg4 is unclear according to Fe- dorowicz) 10 &e2 (not 10 &c3? @xb4 —+) 10...a5 (10... g8 10 0-0 ; 10...2g7 110-0 4) 11 bS De7 1240 Modern Variation Bc3 a4 13 0-0 WaS 14 Wd2 M8 (14...c8? 15 DxdS +-) 15 Hécl @b6 16 h3! Bc8 17 Dh2 Dc4 18 Bxc4 Bxc4 19 Dg4 VxbS 20 Wo2! Rc6 21 Dxd5! Excl+ (21...Wxd5? 22 D6+ +-; 21...RxdS 22 Exc4 xc4 23 DF6+ Sd8 24 Wxb7 +-; 21...exd5 22 Exc4 dxc4 23 Df6+ He7 24 d5! Rxd5 (24...c3 25 Wa2 +-) 25 Wad! #e6 26 Hdl +-) 22 Excl Rxd5 (22...exd5 23 Exc! bxc6 24 Df6+ +-) 23 Di6+ Ye7 24 DxdS+! Wxd5 25 Wh4+ de8 (Rogers-Velimirovié, Vr8ac 1987) 26 Hc8+! d7 27 We3 +-. 8 ats 9 Re3! The question of how to defend the d-pawn is important. The text is a re- finement on the old line that was based on two games at Wijk aan Zee in 1989; 9 &b2 Re7 (9...Rd7 10 24 @n6 11 h3 £6 12 Bc3 fxeS 13 dxe5 Re7 (13.067 14 Da4 Wa8 15 h4 £) 14 Dad Wa8 15 Hcl 0-0 16 Dc5 Rxc5 17 UxcS D7 18 Rg2 = Sveshnikov-Lputian, Sochi 1993) and now: a) The stem game, Fedorowicz- Dokhoian, Wijk aan Zee 1989, con- tinued 10 Rd3 Rd7 (10...a5!7 LL Rxf5 exf5 12 Ac3 Re6 13 bS a4! 14 0-0 Db8 15 &cl Ad7 is unclear; Campora-Dokhoian, Wijk aan Zee 1989) 11 0-0 g5 (11...0-0 12 43 Dexd4 13 DAxd4 Wxd4 14 Qxf5 Wrxdl 15 Hfxdl exf5 16 Axd5 4; 11... Dfxd4 12 Dxd4 Dxd4 13 Wed! £) 12 Qxf5 exfS 13 Dc3 Reb 14 Dad Wos (14...Wd8 15 Dc5 b6 16 @xe6 fxe6 17 Hel He8 18 bS Das 19 Hxc8 Wxc8 20 Axg5! +) 15 Dc5 g4 16 Del RKxcS 17 dxe5 a5 and now 18 Wd3! Wxd3 19 Zxd3 gives White a clear advantage. b) 10 Re2 Rd7 11 0-0 is an at- tempt to revive Fedorowicz's plan, which so far has proved uniformly successful: bl) 11...0-0 12 Wd2a6 13 Bd1 £6 14 &c3 fxe5 15 dxeS Had8 16 Hacl Wa7 17 2d3 Dh4 18 Dxh4a Qxh4 19 Hf AxeS 20 Rbi Dga 21 g3 Rg5 22 We2 HES 23 Hel MdfB 24 He2 Re3 25 Adi Rb5 26 Dxe3 @xe3 27 Bxe3 Axil 28 g4 d4 29 gxf5 dxe3 30 fxe6 1-0 Grosar-Jelen, Bled 1992. b2) 11...2c8 12 Wd2 0-0 13 di Dh4 14 Dxh4 Rxh4 15 We4 Ke7 16 2d3 £6 17 Wh4 h6 18 Wg3 fxe5 19 dxeS 225 20 Dc3 Qf4 21 We6 @xeS 22 Wh7+ Sf7 23 Re2 Nes 24 RhS+ SEB 25 De2 Mos 26 Axfs Exf4 27 QxeS Wxf2+ 28 whi 1-0 Relange-Bauer, French Ch 1993. D ow {6 10 2d3! (33) This move has largely put 6...h6 out of business. Black sprung a sur- prising sacrifice to secure a draw in Romanishin-Lputian, Erevan 1988. After 10 bS DxeS! 11 dxeS Dxe3 12 fxe3 Wxe3+ 13 We2 Welt 14 Wal with perpetual check. 10 .. @xe3Modern Variation 41 11 fxe3 fixeS?! White also has a pleasant position after the safer 11...f5 12 0-0 &e7 13 4c3 intending 14 Ha4 and 15 Hcl or e2-f4 and Wel with some ad- vantage. 12 bs e4 After 12...a5 13 @xeS the cen- tral knight is strong and the threat of Wh5+ is lethal. 13 bxc6 exd3 14 De5 There is no hurry to take on d3 when the king can can be pursued instead. 14. bxc6 15 WhS+ 26 16 Dxg6 hxg6 17 Wxh8 We7 In response to 17...Wb2, White can avoid a calamity by means of 18 0-0! +-. 18 0-0 We7 19 Wha Ra6 20 Sd2 Re7 21 Wi4 ed7 Once again the weakness in Black’s camp imposed by the lack of control over eS is emphasized by the manoeuvres of the knight, which constitute a prelude to taking control of the seventh rank. 22 we 2d6 23 DeS+ ec7 24 WiT+ Wxt7 25 Bxf7+ ob6 26 Ebl+ ead 27 Dxc6+ eat 28 of2 Rxa3 29 tel Red 30 Exa7+ Exa7 31 Dxa7 2d6 32 DcB Re7 33 Db6+ a3 34 Sd2 a2 35 Hb4 1-0 Game 12 Galdunts-Ambartsumian Armenian Ch 1991 1 @& 6 2 d4 a542 Modern Variation eS 5 3 Dc6 ap Woe 6 a3 &d7 Black is prepared to allow White's plan of gaining space on the queenside, since he plans to seize control of the c-file. 7 b4 naw exd4 Bc8 (35) 8 cxd4 The move-order is important, as now 9 4c3? is ruled out by the reply 9...Dxb4, The text is an improvement on 8...Dge7, as played in Kamber- Michaud, Germany 1993, which saw White secure a crushing advantage: 9 Bc3 DES 10 a4 We7 11 Qb2 Re7 (11...b6 12 Hcl g6 13 2a6 Bh6 14 Bc3 Hb8 15 h4 was slightly better for White in the game Zaichik-Roz- entalis, USSR 1987) 12 2d3 Hc8 13 0-0 £6 14 Hcl Wd8 15 Ac5 b6 16 Dxd7 Wxd7 17 Wa4 2d8 18 Bxc6! Bxc6 19 &b5 De7 20 Hel 1-0. 9 2b2 The alternatives 9 $3 and 9 2e2 are discussed in the next illustrative game. 9. Das A game Roos-Paulsen, Baden- Baden 1990, saw a passive approach being exploited: 9...26 10 243 a7 11 &c3 De7 12 0-0 DbS 13 Dag WaT 14 Bc5 26 15 a4 Dc7 16 b5 b6 17 Dxa6 Dxa6 18 bxa6 2d7 19 We2 Ac6 20 Hicl &b4 21 2a3 Sxa3 22 Bxa3 Db4 23 Axc8+ KxcB 24 &b5+ he7 25 Wd2 Dxa6 26 We5+ 1-0. The spectacular 9...2xb4?! used to be acknowledged as a refutation of the variation. Angelov-Poriazov, Plovdiv 1988 continued 10 axb4 Wxb4+ 11 Wa2 (11 &c3 Bxc3 12 @xc3 Wxe3+ 13 Dd2 Wxd4 and Black wins) 11...%c2 12 &c3 Wb3 13 We3 Dh6 14 Re2 DS 15 Wa3 Belt 16 2di 2b5 17 Wxb5+ WxbS 18 &d2 Bxd1+ 0-1. However, Abra- movié pointed out that the sacrifice is faulty: 12 a3! Wb3 13 Wad3 b4+ 14 Abd? Bo3 15 DAxb3 Hxd3 16 &xb4 with a clear advantage. 10 Dbd2 In Petronié-Paulié, Belgrade 1988, White conceded the c4 square to Black and equality arose after 10 2037! D4 11 Wo3 (after 11 243, Parma considers 11...Qh6 12 0-0 eT 13 Dbd2 De3 14 fxe3 Bxc3 15 We2 0-0 unclear, whilst 11...2e7 12 0-0 Dh6 13 We2 DE5 = was Klinger- Arencibia, Gausdal 1986) 11...a5 12£.d3 a4 13 Wdl De7 140-0. 2b5 15 Rc2 We6 16 Hel h6. 10 .. 11 Axed! This is the best way to seek an edge. After 11 &xc4 dxc4 12 Bcl (12 &c3?! De7 13 Bes Dd5 140-0 Re7 15 We2 h6 Afek-Khuzman, Berlin 1990) Black equalizes by sac- rificing a pawn: 12...c3! 13 &xc3 De7 14 0-0 DdS 15 De4 Re7 16 Rd2 0-017 Dc5 cb 18 Rs Was 19 Wd2 @c7 20 We3 b6 21 De4 'n-Vh Sax-Nogueiras, Luceme 1989. Dea ll... dxc4 12 Bel a5 (36) Black counter-attacks by neglect- ing the defence of c4 in favour of an assault on b4. At this critical junc- ture, Black has investigated other possibilities: a) 12...c3 13 Bxc3 Bxc3 14 &xc3 De7 15 Rd3 DdS 16 Kd2 Re7 17 0-0 0-0 18 Wc2 h6 19 Hcl Bc8 20 Wxc8+ Qxc8 21 Hxc8+ 2£8 22 bS 5 23a4 a5 24 hd hg? 25 hxgS hxgs 26 Rxg5 Le7 27 Re3 Rb4 28 Led Wa7 29 &xd5 exd5 30 225 2£8 31 216+ dg8 32 Re7 1-0 Murey- Touzane, Podolsk 1991. b) 12..2b5 13 2d2!? (13 d5 is possible) 13...c3 14 Kxc3 Bxc3 15 Rxc3 Mxfl 16 Dxfl! De7 17 De3. Psakhis considers the position to be in White's favour. c) 12...Wa6 13 d5! exd5 14 Wxd5 Reb (14...De7 15 Wed bS 16 Re2 Wg6 17 We3 Dc6 18 Dh4 Web 19 Modern Variation 43 h3 hS 20 £4 with an unclear position; Motwani-Wegener, Vienna 1991) 15 Wed De7 16 &e2 Rd5 17 Wad bs 18 0-0 Wh7 19 Hfd] Re6 (19.206 20 e6! +-) 20 Dgs DS 21 Wha Re7 22 Dxe6 fxe6 23 2£3 We7 24 2d5! Wo6 (24...exd5 25 Wxf5 in- tending e6 +) 25 g4 Hf8!? 26 Rh @Dh4 27 We3 Hd8 28 Bxd8 Wxd8 29 We3 a6 30 £4 + Afek-Psakhis, Is- rael 1990. 13 a2 axb4 14 Axed Was In the game Sveshnikov-Neved- nichy, Bled 1991, Black lost control of d6: 14...Wa7?! 15 axb4 &xb4+ 16 Rc3 Lxc3+? (16...Re7!2) 17 Bxc3 £8 19 Ba3 Wh6 20 Dd6 Hd8 21 WE Dh6 22 2d3 +. 15 axb4 bs The b-pawn is taboo due to the danger of Dd6+: 15...Rxb4+ 16 R03 Rxc3+ (16...Le7 17 Ras +-) 17 Bxc3 +.44 Modern Variation 18 Bc5 Sveshnikov has suggested 18 &d3 0-0 19 0-0 &c6 20 d5! # as an- other course of action to be consid- ered, 18 .. 0-0 19 2d3 Das 20 0-0 @xb4?! The act of stealing a pawn allows a violent attack to be unleashed. Black has to find recourse in the al- ternative. After 20...Wb6 21 Wh5 {5 22 Bfci play might proceed: a) 22...8a8!? 23 We2 Ma2 24 bi Ha6 25 2d3 Wxd6 26 Bxb5 &xbS 27 BxbS Ha2 28 Bas Dla! 29 Wd2 Bxb2 30 Wxb2 Ad3 31 Wd2 @xcl 32 Wxcl Wxb4 33 HeS Wxd4 34 Bxe6 2d8 = Sveshnikov-Lputian, Moscow 1991. b) 22...Wxd6 23 Qxb5 is better for White according to Sveshnikov. ¢) 22...Axb4 23 Bxc8 Rxc8 24 We2! (24 Hxc8? Bxc8 25 d7 Bf 26 RFl Dds 27 We8 Wa6! 28 dow Wxd8 29 Wxe6+ #h8 30 &xbS Ac7 31 WeS DxbS 32 WxbS Wb8 -+) and now: 1) 24...@xd3? 25 Bxc8 Af4 26 Bxf8+ hxfB 27 Wes +-. 2) 24,..Wxd6? 25 2a3 $b71? (25... Wxd4 26 &xb4 Wxb4 27 Hxc8 +-) 26 Wd2! Wd5 27 2fi Dc6 (27...Qa2 28 Hc5! Wh3 29 Bxb5 Wixa3 30 Exb7 Ac3 31 We3! +) 28 Rxf8 Sxf8 29 Wid +. 3) 24...2d7 25 2a3 Wa5! =. 21 Bhs £5 (37) The battering of the kingside will reach a climax after 21...26 (or 21...Dxd3 22 Wxd3 g6 23 d5!) 22 d5! when the domination of the dark squares ensures victory: 22...Axd5 (or 22...gxh5 23 Sxh7+ dxh7 24 WrxhS+ &g8 25 Wh8#) 23 Bxh7 Sxh7 24 Whs+ des 25 Whee. 22 «dS! This advance of the d-pawn is the keystone of White’s attacking ambi- tions: it opens the long dark-squared diagonal and disrupts Black's pawn structure. 22 we exdS In his notes to the game (upon which these notes are based) Gal- dunts demonstrates the possible complications: a) 22...@xd3 23 Wxd3 Ho4 24 Wh3 h6 25 dxe6! Rxe6 26 Bxh6 gxh6 27 Wxh6 3g4 (27...Wd7 28 Wh8+ £7 29 WhS+ d98 30 We6+ +-) 28 h3 Hg5 29 We6+ intending Bel +-. b) 22...@xd5 23 Qxf5 exf5 (or 23...SRxf5 24 Bxf5 exfS 25 Wxd5+8 26 Bel +) 24 Wxd5+ h8 25 Wa2!! +. 23 Wb3 @xd3 24 Wxd3 Be4 The game is brought to an abrupt finish after the alternatives: 24.27 25 Wh3 h6 26 Bxh6 gxh6 27 Wxh6 +- oF 24...2e6 25 Wh3 h6 26 Bxh6 gxh6 27 Wxh6 +. 25 WxdS+ The point of Black’s defensive rook manoeuvre is revealed upon 25 Wh3 h6 26 Bxh6 gxh6 27 Wxh6 d4 28 Wg6+ Ph8 29 Wh6+ with a draw. 25 ow hs 26 Wa2! Now 27 Wh6 is ominous. 26 bg8 27 fxg? xg 28 Wh6+ of7 29 Hel The rook is brought into play to aid the king hunt. 2D Bed 30 Bxe4 fxe4 31 Wxh7+ = $f6 32 Wh6+ m7 33 Wh7+ It would be a fitting finish to a fine game if White (in time-trouble) had found 33 Hg5! Wf6 34 WhS+ de6 35 Bg6 +-. 33. 6 34 Wxe4 Bg8 35 Bh6+ on 36 WadS+ 36 Hh7+ wf6 (36.297 37 Wd5+) 37 He7 is a clean kill (Nunn). Modern Variation 45 Now victory is only achieved by Black failing to fathom the on- slaught. 36 bg7 37 Whs ES 38 94 £43? 38...We8 is a sterner defence. 39 Be6 ors 40 He7 Rg6 41 Wh6+ 10 Game 13 Langner-Bashkov Ostrava 1991 1 e4 6 2 d4 d5 3&5 5 43 Deb 5 Of Whe 6 a3 &d7 7 b4 White has experimented with the flexible 7 2e2: a) 7...c4 8 Dbd2 a5 transposes into Game 2, Sveshnikov-Eingorn, Palma 1989. b) 7...Age7 8 dxcS Wc7 9 0-0 Dg6 10 b4 DgxeS 11 Dbd2 g6 12 Bel Dxf3+ 13 Dxf3 Rg7 14 Dds a6 15 &g5 0-0 16 Wd2 £6 17 &h6 €5 18 &xg7 bxg7 19 DAxc6 Rxc6 20 &d3 Had8 21 He3 Wd7 22 Hael BE7 23 &c2 We7 24 Bh3 Qd7 25 Wh6+ dg8 26 2x96 Be7 27 &xh7+ 7 28 BE3 We6 29 Wh5+ de7 30 BxeS+ fxe5 31 WxeS+ 1-0 Kettner- Schmitt, Baden-Baden 1990.46 Modern Variation ¢) 7...Qh6 8 b4 cxd4 9 Rxh6 (9 cxd4 @£5 10 &b2 Re7 11 0-0 (6 = Beckett-Bus, Oakham 1992) 9...d3! 10 &xd3 gxh6 11 0-0 &g7 12 Hel 0-0 13 ADbd2 £6 14 exf6 Lxi6 F Sveshnikov-Razuvaev, Palma 1989. Tow exd4 8 cxd4 Bc8 9 23 (38) With this useful move White aims to develop the kingside briskly. Ithas grown in popularity as a viable alter- native to the standard 9 b2. The position offers fresh challenges as the bishop can be easily exchanged, but at least that would boost the support for d4 and open the f-file for future attacking operations. White has occasionally employed 9 2e2: a) 9....@ge7 10 0-0 As 11 &b2 (11 Re3 Re7 12 Abd? £6 13 &d3 Dxe3 14 fxe3 Hd8!7 15 Bol Dxe5 16 Bxc8+ BxcB 17 DxeS fxe5 18 We4 is unclear; Blatny-Teske, Leip- zig 1988) 11...2e7 12 Wd2 0-0 13 Hdl £6 14 Dc3 fxeS 15 dxeS Re8 (15...h8?! 16 Hac] Wd8 17 &d3 intending 2e2 +) 16 Bact 2h5! (16...2h4? 17 bS! Dxf3+ 18 Vxf3 DxeS 19 Dxd5 Dxf3+ 20 gxf3 exdS 21 Exc8) 17 Dad Wd8 18 Ac5 x5 19 Bxc5 Dh4 20 Dxh4 Lxe2! (20...WWixh4 23 £3 +) 21 Wxe2 Wxh4 22 Edel with equality, Sveshnikov- Lputian, USSR 1990. b) 9...2xd47! 10 Axd4 Excl 11 Wxcl Wxd4 12 We3 #. ¢) 9...a5 10 bS Dxd4 11 Dxd4 Excl 12 Wxcl Wxd4 13 Wc3?! (13 We7! Wxal 14 Wo8+ de7 15 Wd6+ Se8 16 Whs +) 13..2c5! 14 0-0 Wxce3 15 Dxc3 d4 16 Hacl Rxe5 F Strikovié-Cabrilo, Prokupjle 1987, 9 One There are a lot of supporters for 9...Dge7, which is designed to oc- cupy £5 as a way to put pressure on 4 while reserving the option of tak- ing on e3. The problem is that it al- lows White to exchange on f5. After 10 &d3 £5 play might proceed: a) 11 &xf5 exf5 12 0-0 Re7 13 Wad2 0-0 14 &c3 Re6 15 h4 (15 Bfcl a5 16 bS Da7 17 Wd3 h6 18 BDad2 Wa8 19 Dad b6 20 Rxc8 Wxc8 21 Db1 Wb7 22 Dbc3 He8 23 &d2 &d8 24 Db2 = Haba-Schmidt, Pra- gue 1990) 15...a5 (15...fe8 16 &95 a5 17 Sxe7 Bxe7 18 b5 Ha7 19 Bfb1 Bcd 20 Dd1 Bec7 21 a4 t An- drienko-Danielian, Jurmala 1991) 16 bS Ba7 17 Wb2 Bc4 18 Dd2 Bc7 19 Hfb1 £4 20 S.xf4 Wxd4 21 De2 Wkxb2 22 Exb2 c8 23 Re3 Rxh424 b6 Bd7 25 Db3 d4 26 Dexd4 3d5 27 @c5 Bg4 28 Dxb7 Bxe5 29 ®c6 Bh5S 30 Hcl £16 31 Bbb1 He7 32 @bxa5 1-0 Andrienko-Kiriakov, Alma-Ata 1991. b) 11 0-0 Re7 (11..0d8!2 12 Rxf5 exf5 13 Wd2 Rb5 14 Bel Bxcl 15 Wxcl &e7 16 4c3 = Shrentzel-Pein, Haringey 1989) 12 Dbd2 0-0 13 Db3 Abs 14 Dc5 Lb5 15 Rg5 Bxd3 16 Wxd3 h6 17 @xe7 @xe7 18 Bic] We7 19 Wd2 W6 20 h3 Hc? 21 a4 Dbc6 22 Babi Tfc8 23 bS Das 24 g4 Me 25 dg2 Bcc8 26 Ad? Wd8 27 Df6+! gxi6 28 exf6 $h7 29 fxe7 Wh6 30 Wes 1-0 Grosar-Ottavi, Rome 1990. 10 a3 Des 11 00 Dxe3 In the game van der Werf-Jolles, Groningen 1990, White had a vig- orous offensive after 11...Qe7 12 Dbd2 Dxe3 13 fxe3 0-0 14 Db3 £62! 15 exf6 2xf6 16 DcS Bcd8 17 De5! VxeS (17...2c8B 18 WhS g6 19 Dxg6 +) 18 &xh7+! sbxh7 19 BxfB Bxf8 20 Dxd7 Wd8 21 DxfB+ Wxf8 22 Wh5+ d98 23 dxeS W8 1-0. 12. fxe3 26 The system involving this move has a good reputation, based on the game PiriSi-Khuzman, Balatonber- eny 1988, which continued 13 #h1 (not 13 @g5? @xeS! F) 13...297 14 gs?! 0-0 15 We4? @xe5! 16 dxeS Wrxe3 17 Ra2 Wxd3 18 Haf2 Bc4 19 Wh3 Wxh3 20 gxh3 2e8 21 Ad2 Modern Variation 47 %c3 22 a4 h6 23 Dgl3 Rxad 24 Hel bS 25 h4 Bfc8 26 hS5 Bel 0-1. However, White’s play can be dramatically improved by launching a kingside attack using both his knights to invade the dark squares around the black king. 13 Dec3 (39) 13. &h6 14 Wel 0-0 15 @d1 This is the start of a slow but powerful manoeuvre to harass the bishop. 15 &g7 16 D2 Was Even at this early stage Black is obliged to go on the defensive by thwarting White's plan of an even- tual Wh4. On 16...f6 17 exf6 &xf6 18 Des 2g77 19 Wh4 Wa8 20 Des h5 21 2.xg6 Black is destroyed. 17 Dea a6 18 Wg3 Db8?! (40) Black chooses a faulty plan, which he will not get the time to put48 Modern Variation into effect. After ...b5 the idea is that White's attack will be stunted, while a rook invading at c3 will prove to be a distraction. The only way to make an impres- sion on the game is to play 18...f6 19 exf6 &xf6 20 Dxf6+ Bxf6 21 ®Dg5!, but this is in White’s favour nevertheless. 19 Wea dS 20 SxbS axbS 21 Df6+ Rxf6 Now 21...2h8 loses to 22 Dxh7! @h7 23 Dgs+ gs 24 Wh4. 22 exf6 hs 23 De5 Bec7 24 Bf The final key to White's victory; the rook will be added to the attack on the h-file. ww gs 25 Wh4 wes 26 h3 1-02 Milner-Barry Gambit The concept of 6 23 followed by sacrificing at least the d-pawn was popularized by the Englishinan Sir Stuart Milner-Barry. This cavalier approach naturally attracted Tal who tevelled in the tactical possibilities. In recent times, Rozentalis and Sveshnikov, in particular, have re- fined the approach to the point where only one pawn is discarded in pursuit of the black king. The gambit is diffi- cult to contend with, and will appeal to aggressive players. If Black is un- prepared for them, the complications are extremely difficult to fathom over the board. Game 14 Strauts-Kantoris USSR 1985 1 e 6 2 44 a5 3.5 cS 4 3 D6 5 Woe 6 2d3(41) The most active posting for the bishop. 6 exd4 It is misguided to try to transpose to other lines with 6...0ge7?!. This occurred in Milner-Barry-Trott, Eng- land 1951: 7 dxcS We7 (7...Wxc5 8 b4 W6 9 Re3 4) 8 Dad Dxes 9 DoS Dxd3+ 10 Wxd3 Wxc5 11 Le3 d4 12 &xd4 We6 13 DeS Wxg2 14 Dd6+ HdB 15 &b6+ 1-0. A common error is 6...2d7 when White can continue with 7 0-0 as in the illustrative game or take the chance to seize the initiative. After 7 dxc5! &xc5 (7...We7 8 £4 Rxc5 9 0-0 Dge7 10 b4 2b6 11 a4 +) play might proceed: a) 80-0 and now: al) 8..Dge7? 9 b4 Qxb4 1050 Milner-Barry Gambit cxb4 Dxb4 11 Re3 We7 12 Da3 We3 13 DbS Wxd3 14 Dc7+ ed8 15 Wxd3 Dxd3 16 Dxa8 +- Mol- nar-Joppien, Vienna 1990. a2) 8...f6 9 b4 Re7 10 RF4 fxeS (10...8c8 11 Dbd2 Wd8 12 a3 £5 13 c4 g5? 14 @xg5 1-0 Almeida-Purgi- mon, Andorra 1987) 11 AxeS Dxe5S 12 Rxe5 Df6 (12...2.£6 13 Wh5+ 26 14 Qxg6+ hxg6 15 Wxg6+ +-) 13 @d2 0-0 14 AF3 2.d6 15 We2! Bac8 16 2d4 We7 17 DeS Ke8 18 Hael Sxe5 19 &xe5 + Nimzowitsch- Salwe, Karlsbad 1911. a3) 8...a5!2 9 a4 (9 We2 £6 10 QE4 Dge7 11 Dbd2 Age 12 Hg3 0-0 13 Ab3 Re7 14 exf6 Bxf6 15 @bd4 = Rubinetti-Ivkov, Palma de Mallorca 1970) 9...@ge7 (9...\ce7 10 Da3 Dg6 11 We2 D8e7 12 Dds RxdS 13 Vxb5+ Dc6 14 4 h6 15 g3 Dge7 16 dg2 Bd8 17 Kd2 Wa7 18 Had1 £b6 19 h5 0-0 20 &d3 with unclear play; Mellado-Byk- hovsky, St. Barbara 1992) 10 @a3 @g6 11 We2 0-0 12 Abs Had8 13h4 £6 14 exf6 gxf6 15 2h6 Hfe8 16 b4! axb4 17 a5 Qxa5 18 cxb4 &xb4 19 hS @c4 20 hxg6 &xbS 21 gxh7+ Of7 22 Bab1 Wd6 23 Dgs+! fxgs 24 Sxg5 e5 25 Wh5+ 97 26 Exb4 e4 27 ExbS Wc6 28 Bxb7+ Jonk- man-Natinovié, Holland 1993. b) 8 We2 a5 9 Dbd2 a4 (after 9...Wic7?! 10 0-0 Dge7 11 Db3 in- tending Dbd4 White has the advan- tage; C.Hawthorne-Evans, Bristol 1983) 10 b4 axb3 11 xb3 a3! 12 0-0 Dge7 13 Ad2 Dgé 14 Ddaat &e7 15 Bel 0-0 16 h4! £5 17 exf6 Rxf6 18 abl Wa7 19 &c3 Dxd4 20 cxd4 Re8 21 DgS Axgs 22 hxg5! Qf4 23 Sxf4 Mxf4 24 93 B68 25 Wxe6+ &f7 (Hort-Andersson, Reykjavik 1972) 26 Wh3! g6 27 We4 +. 7 oxd4 &d7 It would be a grave error to grab the pawn because of 7....2)xd4?? 8 @Dxd4 Wxd4 9 &b5+ picking up the queen. 8 0-0 The move-order involving 8 4c3 is also perfectly playable. The older lines are somewhat doubtful: a) 8 2e2?! Age7 9 b3 AS 10 Rb2 Rb4+ 11 Hl 0-0 12 243 £6 13 &xf5 exfS and Nimzowitsch felt Black was better, so he switched to 6 Re2 to save a tempo. b) 8 22?! Db4 9 Bc3 Axc2+ 10 Wxc2 Bc8 11 0-0 Be7 12 Bdt Ac6 13 a4 Ha5 F Basjouni-Uhlmann, Prague 1954. 8 @xd4 9 Dxd4 The speculative 9 @g5!? can be traced to the game S¢rensen-Thap- per, Karlskrona 1963, which contin- ued 9...g6 10 2e3!? &c5 11 Ac3 h6 12 Ba4 Rxad 13 Wxad+ S£8 with an unclear position. It has since been heavily analysed by the Malmé chess club and has become popular in correspondence chess. It is cer- tainly useful as a surprise weapon,although its soundness has not yet been confirmed by strenuous com- petitive play. For example: a) 9...26 10 &e3 and now: al) 10...Wxb2 11 43! (not 11 Rxg6? De2+! +; 11 Dxf7 Weal 12 Bd6+ or 12 Dxh8 Ac6 is unclear according to Krantz) 11...Wxc3 12 Bel Wa5 13 &xd4 Bh6 14 h4 De7 15 WE3 S&xg5? (15...0-0 16 5 Wa8 17 Wi6 Qxgs 18 hxgs is un- clear) 16 hxg5 0-0 17 &c5 Hfe8 18 WE6 Dc6 19 Bfel Wd8 20 WE4 b6 21 &d6 Hc8 22 2a6 1-0 Krantz-Tie- mann, corr. 1992. a2) 10...2c5 11 2c3 and now: a21) 11.265? 12 QxfS5 Qxe3 (Stork-Pinarelli, Malmé 1979) 13 @xd5! exd5 14 Rxd7+ dxd7 15 Wixd5+ c8 16 fxe3 De7 17 Racl+ bb8 18 Wxt7 Wxe3+ 19 Phi Wrgs 20 Wf8+! + Krantz. a22) 11..Qe7 12 Hcl 0-0 (or 12...8c8 13 Qa4 Wb4 14 Dxc5 Bxc5 15 Bxc5 Wxc5 16 Axf7! 0-0 17 Qh6+ bg7 18 Des M8 19 D6 Bc7 20 We4 Dec6 21 Wh4 hS 22 @Dxh5+ gxhS 23 WE6+ we8 24 Wig6+ £8 1-0 Keogh-Walsh, Dub- lin 1976; 12...Qb3!? Krantz) 13 Wed! hS 14 WE DefS 15 Qxf5 Dxf5 16 Rxc5 Wxc5 17 Dces We7 18 Af6+ g7 19 Bc7 MidB 20 24 hxg4 21 Wxg4 b6 22 h4 a5 23 h5 +— Schipper-Luers, corr. 1989. b) 9...h67! 10 WhS (10 Dxf7!? xf7 11 WhS+ e7 12 Bc3 is an- other idea) 10...0-0-0 11 Dxf7 Re8 Milner-Barry Gambit 51 12 Bc3 8d7 13 g6 intending 14 &e3 + (Krantz). c) 9...£67 10 WhS+ 96 11 &xg6+ + (Krantz). d) 9.277! 10 Dxh7 #. e) 9...£5 10 exf6 Dxf6 11 xh7! 0-0-0 (11...Axh7 12 Wh5+ dB 13 RKh7 Ac? 14 Rg5+ Re7 15 Vxe7+ xe7 16 Wey5+; 14..c8 15 Zecl Wxb2 16 Wg6 +-) 12 Dgs Rd6 13 h3 Bh4 14 Re3 Bah8 (14...Wxb2 15 Bc3 intending 16 Axf7) 15 Dd2 Dea? 16 Rxd4 Wxd4 17 Daf &h2+ (Stork-Ohisson, Sweden 1987) 18 @xh2 Dxh2 19 dxh2 WeS+ 20 git. f) 9...Qe7 and now: fl) 10 h4 h5? 11 Re3! Ac5 (or 11... Wxb2 12 @xf7! @xf7 13 2x4; 11..&xg5 12 hxgS Wxb2 13 g6 Waal 14 gxf7+ Qxf7 15 &xd4) 12 3 De7 13 Hcl He8 14 Da4 Rxad 15 Wxa4+ Dec6 (Sgrensen-Dehl- ryd, Malmé 1979) 16 BixeS! WxcS 17 Bcl and 18 &.xd4 +. 2) 10 2h7?! Bc6 11 Wh 0-0-0 12 Wxf7 Wd4 13 Wxg7 Dxe5 14 hl (14 Wxh8? DE3+!) 14... Wxd3 15 Hel Wxh7 16 WxeS 2£6 17 Wd6 e518 R£4 exf4 19 Bcl+ &c6 0-1 Rohrich-Heyken, Dortmund 1993. g) 9...2c6!? 10 Rel (Harding considers 10 &xh7 Dh6 followed by ..SLeT to be unclear) 10...2c5 (10...g6 11 WE3 Dh6 12 WE6!? =) 11 WES DxeS (11..Dh6 12 h3!) 12 Bxe5 £6 13 WhS+ de7 14 WE7+ Sd8 15 Wxg7 Rxf2+ 16 eh] Wa4?52 Milner-Barry Gambit 17 Dxe6+ Rxe6 18 Rxe6 Wxd3 19 W£8+ +— (Harding). h) 9...£05!7 10 Dxh7 (10 Dc3 g6 11 &e3 wansposes to note ‘a’) 10...2c6! 11 Wh5 (with the idea 12 @f6+) 11...Dh6 (11...0-0-0 12 Wxf7 £) 12 Bc3 intending 13 a4 with equal chances (Harding). 9 om Wrxd4 10 Bc3 Wre5 (42) The major alternative 10...a6 is examined in Game 16, Sveshnikov- Razuvaev. Black should accept the challenge as the less common ideas are just not good enough: a) 10.2647! 11 DbS WxeS 12 We4! a5 13 2f4 Dho 14 We3 Wh5S 15 Wxg7 Hg8 16 Wxh6 We4 17 2g3 a6 18 Dd6+ de7 19 We3 &b4 20 DES+ 1-0 Kottnauer-Palmer, England 1961. b) 10...Wb67! and now: bl) 11 We4hS 12 Wg5 g6 13 a4! KG (not 13...a6? 14 Rxg6 fxg6 15 Wrxg6+ $d8 16 Dxd5! +-; 13...2€7 14 Wi4 Wb4 15 Db5 with compen- sation according to Tal) 14 Wh4 a6 15 Rxh6 Dxh6 16 Wie BiB 17 @xdS Wd8 18 WE4 exd5 19 Wxh6 We7 20 We3 2c621 Kaci Bg8 22 £4 SB 23 £5 gxf5 24 Wh6+ Bg7 25 BxfS d7 26 Bc7 Web 27 Whs+! g8 28 Wxh5 Bc8 29 Bxc8 Kxc8 30 Bf We7 31 Wh6+ 87 32 Bde WrxeS 33 Wh8+ 1-0 Tal-Stahlberg, Stockholm 1961. b2) 11 a4 De? (11...a57 12 Re3 Rc5 13 RxcS Wrc5 14 Hcl Wo6 15 Weg4! + Mdhring-Forintos, Halle 19£8) 12 Re3 Wad8 13 2p5! h6 14 Db5! Rc6 15 Dd6+ Sd7 16 Dxf7 We7 17 Dxh8 hxgs 18 We2 DS 19 RxfS exfS 20 e6+ de7 21 Whs dxe6 22 Bfel+ &d6 23 b4 d4 24 Wg6+ 1-0 Moles-Miyasaka, Skopje 1972. c) 10...Dge72! 11 DbS Wxe5 12 Bel (Keres suggests 12 £4! Wb8 13 f5 a6 14 WE3 with advantage to White) 12...Wb8 13 WE 2xb5 14 Rxbs+ Dc6 15 WxdS Ad6 16 Rxc6+ bxc6 17 Wxc6+ He7 18 Re3 Bc8 19 Wed h6 20 Rd4 Rxh2+ 21 Shi Wi 22 Wo7+ Wc7 23 Wb3 Rd6 24 Axg7 Wa5 25 Wh7+ de8 26 Wf3 Rab8 27 Badl Re7 28 dpi b5? 29 Wd3 Bd5 30 Wh7 218 31 &xf8 1-0 Corden-Knox, British Ch 11 Bel This old-fashioned move attempts. to hang on to the d-pawn, but it is the first step on a perilous journey for Black. Wd6The more resolute 11...Wb8 is covered in Game 16, Borg-P.Nik- olié. It is not wise to play 11...Wc7? since 12 @xd5 merely gives White a tempo. Play can continue: a) 12...Wd8 13 Rf4 Bc8 14 Wb3 2c6 15 Rc4 Re7 16 Dxe7 Dxe7 17 Zad1 with a clear plus for White, Clarke-Elliott, England 1959. b) 12,..WaS 13 Bxe6+ fxe6 (cer- tainly not 13...2xe67 14 2b5+ d8 15 a4! Bxd5 16 Wxd5+ 1-0 Fried- mann-Beneda, corr. 1974) 14 WhS+ dB (14...967 15 DEG+) 15 Rgs+ D6 16 Dxf6 Ve7! 17 De4 and White has the better game due to Black's stranded king. 12 Obs Wo8 (43) There are still those reckless enough to continue 12...&xb5 13 S&xb5+ $d8 and hope to survive the onslaught. White should be able to claim a sizeable advantage by fol- lowing general attacking ideas based on sacrificial combinations at d5, penetrating on the c-file and prevent- ing Black developing his forces. For example: a) 14 Re3 De7 15 Hel DFS 16 cS WE4 (16...Wxc5!) 17 g3 Wg5 18 Wxd5+! exd5 19 &b6+ axb6 20 We8# (1-0) Foulds-Lang, New Zea- land 1956. b) 14 Wh5! and now: bl) 14...96 15 WE3 £6 (15...£5 16 £4 W6 17 Wxd5+! +--) 16 2£4 5 17 Bxe5! fxe5 18 RxeS WreS 19 Milner-Barry Gambit 53 Wxf8+ dc7 20 Bcl+ 1-0 Moyer- Kozmarek, corr. 1969. b2) 14...8e7 15 Wh4+ 206 16 &d2! a5 17 Bact intending 2£4 with excellent chances according to Griffiths. b3) 14...We7 15 2£4 (15 &g5!?) 15...D£6 15 WE3 Bac8 16 Hacl +. 13 Wf3 Rd6 14 Dxd6+ Flashy play led to success in Tal- Nei, USSR 1958, which finished in brilliant fashion after 14 Wxd5 Axh2+ 15 Phi Rc6 16 We5! Ae 17 £4 h6 18 Wxg7 Hg8 19 Hxe6+! fxe6 20 Rg6+ dd8 21 Wxf6+ 1-0. 4... Waxd6 15 Sf4 Wh6 16 Wg3 On 16...@f8 comes 17 2.7! We6 (17... Wxb27 18 &e5!) 18 Bec! Wa4 19 b3 Wd4 21 &e5 +. 17 2e5 6 18 Sxg6+ be7 There is no long-term reward in taking the offered piece: 18...hxg654 Milner-Barry Gambit 19 Wxg6+ dd8 20 We7 fxeS 21 Wxh8 de7 22 Wg7+ dd6 23 hd! +. 19 Shs! fxe5 20 We7+ 1-0 Game 15 Borg-P.Nikolié Kavala 1985 1 4 6 2 d4 as 3&5 cS 43 D6 5 Of Whe 6 2d3 exd4 7 exd4 &d7 8 00 Dxd4 (44) 9 Dxd4 The Czech player Jiri Nun has in- vestigated the intriguing alternative 9 Dod2: a) 9..De7 10 Dxd4 Wxd4 11 D3 Wad 12b3 WaS 13 2d2 Wd8 14 Bel h6 15 b4! a6 16 a4 M6 17 Ebi &Re7 18 bS axb5 19 axb5 DaS 20 @Bd4 D4 21 Lxc4 dxc4 22 We4 with a slight plus for White, Nun- Razuvaev, Sochi 1989. b) 9...2c6!? 10 Db3 Dge7 11 &e3 We7 12 Bcl Dg6 and White has insufficient compensation for the pawn; Nun-Schmittdiel, Prague 1990. 9 ne Waxd4 10 23 Wre5 11 Bel Wos Black's intention is to avoid his queen being harassed and to develop his kingside quickly. 12 Oxd5 2d6 13 We4 This is Milner-Barry’s original idea to maintain the tension. Now the queen targets g7 and sets a trap if the h-pawn is grabbed: 13...&xh2+? 14 Dhl eS 15 Rls Axf4 16 Wxg7 Wa8 17 Wxh8 +-. The obvious 13 WAS to protect h2 soon runs into trouble: 13...f8 14 &c3 Df6 15 Wh4 2c6 16 RES Re5! (16...d5? 17 Dxd5 Rxd5 18 Be4! +) 17 £47! (after 17 &b5!7 h6 the pin of the pawn is ineffective due to the threat of 18...2xh2+) 17...2d4+ 18 Phi h6 19 £5 Hg8 20 Re3 Rxe3 21 Bred exfS 22 Rxf5 g5! 23 Wd4 WF and Black can hang on to the extra pawn; Bisguier-Westerinen, Netanya 1971. os 14 &d2 hs The queen is dislodged from its optimum square. Less accurate is 14.206 15 &c3! e5 16 Be3 hS 17 Wh3 Df6 18 Radi e4 19 Bc2 ReS20 Rb4+ dg8 21 DS 26 22 Ads We8 23 De7+ de7 24 Rxe5 Wxe7 25 We3 Bhd8 26 h3 Hac8 27 Bxd8 Bxd8 28 &.xe4 + Soylu-Ziiger, Haifa 1989, 15 Wh3 (45) 15. exd5?! The start of an hallucinatory se- quence. Black’s idea is to add an- other pawn to the war chest and develop his knight with gain of tempo. However, there is still the nigglesome problem of co-ordinat- ing the rooks, while the black king is liable to be threatened with back- rank combinations. In Pyhilé-McDonald, Gausdal 1990, Black preferred to activate his knight immediately: 15...0h6!? 16 Be3 g8 17 Dc4 (17 Lc3! Dga 18 Axed hxgd 19 Wxg4 2xh2+ 20 ef WE 21 93 Bd8 22 Be5! 2c823 Rc2 Hd5 24 Bael £5 25 We5 ExeS 26 RxeS 2d7 27 Bdi WET 28 Wds+ e829 a4 Ph7 30 Lxe8 Wxe8 31 Wrxe8 Hxe8 32 Md7 £4 33 dg2 fxg3 Milner-Barry Gambit 55 34 fxg3 1-0 Finkel-Slutzkin, Ramat 1992; 17 g3 is unclear - Borg) 17.207 18 WxhS DFS 19 We5 &xh2+ 20 Sf is again unclear. Another approach is possible: 15.206 16 Be3 (16 Db4 Rd7 17 Dd5 &c6 18 Db4 %h-'h Motwani- Brunner, Clichy 1991) 16.06 17 BDA Rc7 18 Bc3 Dd5 19 De5 @Dxc3 20 Dxf7!? Rh2+ (20....xf7 21 Wxe6+ £8 22 WiS+ dg8 23 Rct+ RAS 24 AxdS DxdS 25 Wxd5+ @h7 26 W£5+ with a drawn position - analysis by I.Kuznekov) 21 Bhi De4 22 Axes Sxf7 23 Rxc6 Bh6 24 Rd7 Re5 25 £4 Rxf4 26 Sxe6+ Hf8 27 Hadi 1-0 Sal- nikov-Prudnikov, USSR 1991. 16 Wxd7 Axh2+ 17 hi a6 18 WES Tt is essential for White to main- tain a grip on the situation by keep- ing his queen strongly centralized. There is no joy to be gained from 18 We7+ dg8 19 g3 De4! when Black is on top. 18 ... 2d6 19 Hacl The dormant rook is brought to the scene of battle. 19 Was 20 &g5 e7?! A possible improvement is to seek sanctuary in the ending: 20...Wd7 21 Rxf6 WxfS 22 Rxf5 exf6 23 Hed! with equal chances. 21 Me5! bg8 (46)