Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Sicilian Defence Tactics in The Chess Opening 1

    Uploaded by

    ismael

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Sicilian Defence Tactics in The Chess Opening 1

    Uploaded by

    ismael
    94 views119 pages

    Original Title

    sicilian-defence-tactics-in-the-chess-opening-1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    94 views119 pages

    Sicilian Defence Tactics in The Chess Opening 1

    Uploaded by

    ismael

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 119
    Tactics In the Chess Opening 1 A.C. van der Tak &Friso Nijboer OIGILLAN DEFENCE NEW iN CHESS © 2003 Interchess BV Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands www.newinchess.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the publisher. Cover design and drawing: Joppe Andriessen Printing: A-D Druk BY, Zeist, The Netherlands Production: Anton Schermer Translation: Piet Verhagen Printed in the Netherlands ISBN 90-5691-112-0 Tactics in the Chess Opening In six volumes our series Tactics in the Chess Opening covers the entire range of openings from a tactical point of view. Each volume has 250 fully annotated games, arranged by NICKEY, the ope- ning classification system of New In Chess. Sicilian Defence In this book you will find carefully selected and expertly annotated Sicilian games full of unexpected turns and brilliant surprise attacks. You can study these games or just enjoy them, but either way they will end up making you a stronger player! 1. Sicilian Defence 1.e4 c5 2. Open Games 1.e4 e5 3. Semi-open Games 1.e4 rest 4. Queen's Gambit 1.4 d5 5. Indian Openings 1d4 Af6 6. Flank Openings and Gambits 1.¢4, 1.Af3 ete. Contents Najdorf Variation Black plays 2...d6 and 5...a6 Dragon Variation Black plays 2...d6 and 5...26 Scheveningen Variation Black plays 2...d6 and 5...e6 Sozin and Velimirovic Variations Black plays 2...c6 and 5...d6, White plays 6.2c4 Rauzer Variation Black plays 2...c6 and 5...d6, White plays 6.225 Sveshnikov Variation Black plays 2...4c6 and 5...e5 Taimanov and Paulsen Systems Black plays 2...e6 without 4...0f6 Four Knights and Pin Variation Black plays 2...e6 and 4...0f6 44 72 98 113 129 143 160 Accelerated Fianchetto With 2...Ac6 and 4...26 Rossolimo Variation The Anti-Sicilian with 3.2b5 Alapin Variation The Anti-Sicilian with 2.c3 Various Systems NICKEY Sicilian Defence Index of Players NIC - an Integrated System 174 186 192 201 232 234 238 Najdorf Variation A.C. van der Tak Black plays 2...d6 and 5...a6 S146 0 Arencibia @ Martin del Campo Motanzas 1994 1.e4 ¢5 2.03 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.dxd4 DIG 5.Dc3 a6 6.295 e6 7.64 Dc6!? A provocative move for which there is no known refutation. B.Axc6 8.e5 at once is another attempt to prove that Black's previous move is no good, but after 8..h6 9.@h4 Dxd4! 10.Wxdd (10.exf6? looks like a refutation but isn’t: 10...f5! I1.fxg7 Wxh4+ 12.g3 Oxg3_ 13.gxh8W Det+ 14.2 Wi2+ 15.ded3 DeS+ 16.404 bS+, and the white king is doomed, e.g. 17.deb4 a5+ 18.dexbS Eb8+ 19.cbxa5 Db3+ 20.cxb3 Wa7+ or 17.Axb5 axbS+ 18.¢c3 b4+ 19.exb4 Had+) 10...dxe5 11.Wixd8+ Bxd8_ 12.fxe5 g5, and Black holds, e.g. 13.exf6 gxh4 14.0-0-0+ dc7 15.Hd4 &d7 16.2xh4 &c6 17.De4 Mg8 18.23 Ngo. 8...bxc6 9.e5 h6 10.2h4 g5 11.fxg5 1] .exf6 gxh4 is good for Black, as is 11.2g3 4d5 12.Axd5 exd5. 11...Dd5 12.064 After 12.0xd5 cxd5 13.WhS Wb6! Black has good counterplay, e.g. 14.g6 Wh4+ 15.cbd! Wxb2 16.gxf7+ d7 17.Bcl dxe5. 12... Wb6 13.2d3 hxg5 14.2f2 An example with 14.2g3 is 14..0f4 15.Qxf4 gxf4 16.Oxd6+ Bxd6 17.exd6 Wrxb2 18.0-0 Wdd+ 19.¢h1 Wxd6, with good play for Black, Gongora-Abreu, Cuban championship 2001. 14... Wxb2 15.0-0 15.2xd6+ &xd6 16.exd6 We5+ or 15.exd6 £5 is good for Black. 15...Wxe5 16.293 Wda+ Worth consideringis 16...f4!”, a suggestion from the English grandmaster Tony Kosten. 17.eh1 £51 17.,.2e37! is risky; 18.WE3 Dxfl 19.2xf1 £5 20.03! yields White good attacking chances, e.g. 20...Wb6 21.xd6+ &xd6 22. 8xd6 Ba7 23.Eb1 g424.We2 Wd8 25,265 218 26.244, A Vitolinsh-Drilinsh, Riga 1990. 18.03 @xc3 19.Axc3 Wxe3 20.21 Was After 20...Wg7 21.8xc6 f4 22.We2! White has good compensation, Miiller-Dinstuhl, German Bundesliga 1997. 21.5xc6 2b7 Another possibility is 21...8e7, whereupon White plays 22.We2, e.g. 22...0ef7 23.Bfcl f4 24.8c7 WeS 25.We2 fxg3 26.0fl+ dg8 27.@h7+ Bxh7 28.Wy6+ Bg7 29.We8+ &h7 30.Wh5+ sg8, and a draw through perpetual check, according to Kosten. 22.Wb3! 2xc6 23. xe6+ vdB 24.2xt5 24.Wf6+ is not convincing: 24,..8e7 25.Wxh8+ dd7 26.WhS 218. 24...We3 x * 2 & a 2A : Ha Wo f & & & & 24...Wa3 is met by 25.el! a5 26.517 Wxd3 27. Wi6+ de8 28.Web+ dd8 29.Wi6+, and perpetual check. 25.201? White should have gone for the draw: 25.8xf8+ Bxf8 26.Wxdo+ dee8 27.Web+, and perpetual check; 27.@g6+?! is weaker: 27.017 28.We6+ bd8 29.xf7 Wel+ 30.Re1 Hb8 31.Wd6+ dec8 32.206+ b7. White may well have thought that the text would lead to a quick win; if Wc3 retreats, 26.Ra5+ is fatal 25.2.7! Here White must have kicked himself! 26.We2? A last resort would have been 26.Wxd7+ s&xd7 27.S2.xc3, but this would also have been very good for Black. 26...Wal Now @el is pinned as well! 27.411 297 Covering Wal and rendering 28.05 harm- less. 28.017 We5 29.h3 2c6 30.915 318 31.0xf8+ Axf8 32.994 297 33.2d2 bs White resigned. S152 O Murey @ Yudasin Podolsk 1991 Ted c5 2.0f3 dé 3.d4 cxd4 4. O46 5.203 a6 6..2.g5 e6 7.14 We7 BES b5 9.151? Other possibilities are 9.@xf6 gxf6 10.c5 Sb7 11,WhS and 9.0-0-0 b4 10.e5 2b7 11 AcbS, with very complicated play in both cases. 4 9.2106 10.Axc6 Wxe6 1I.2xf6 ext 12.2d3 gives White a good position. 10.cb5! eae of & W bhs A kaa COE BAe k ODA wW &AA AA & ee # The point of 9.f5!?. No good is 10.txe6? bxe3 11.2xf6 cxb2 12.b1 gxf6 13.Wxf6 We3+ 14.612 fxe6 15.Wxh8 c6, and Black wins. 10...axb5 A better alternative may be 10...\Wb7!?; after [1 .fxe6 fxe6, 12.2.xf6 gxf6 13.Wxfo Wxed+ 14.s2f2 WeS 15.c7+ ded7 16.WrxeS dxes 17.2xa8 BeS is very good for Black, Emst-Ungureanu, Berlin 1988, but 12.5 Wxt3 13.Dc7+ (13.gxf3 axbS 14.exf6 &f7! is unclear) 13.,.ad7 14.!xf3 Sexc7 15.exf6 gxf6 16.2xf6 Bg8 results in a roughly equal position. 11.fxe6!? The alternative 11.2&xb5+ leads to unclear play: 11...2d7 12.fxe6 &xbS 13.xb5 Wes, eg. 14.8xf6 WxbS 15.0xg7 Oxg7 16.4xf7+ Sd8 17.Wxg7 Bes. 11...807!? Less good is 11...fxe6?! 12.8xf6 gxf6 13.Wxf6, with good prospects for White, 12.e5 dxe5S After 12.,.2b7? White had prepared the sur- prising refutation 13.2xb5+ Gf8 (13...ed8 I4exd6!) 14ext6! &xf6 15.8xf6! @xf3 loe7+. 13,.2xf6! Alter 13.2xb5+?! @f8 14.2x16 Black can recapture on {6 with the bishop, after which White has insufficient compensation for the sacrificed piece. 13.2xb5?! Wb7! looks good for Black as well. 13...gxf6!? 13...8.xf6?! would have been good for White: 14.2xb5! Web 15.Wxe6+ Dxc6 16.0¢7+ tee7 17.xa8 Dd 18.0-0-0. 14,Qxb5+ sf8 15.05 2xe6 In the game Murey-Spraggett, Paris 1991, Black played 15...fxe6?! here; after 16.)xe7 sbxe7 17.Wxa8 Wb6 18.Wat Wd4 19.23 (19.Bd1! should be good as well) 19...£d7, 20.2xd7! We3+ 21.sef1 Wi4+ 22.he2 West 23.sed1 would have been good for White. 16.xe7 HaS! 17.Wxf6 Hxb5 18.2f1 Wxe2 18,..e8 19.Wxh8+ dxe7 20.Wxh7 would have led to an unclear position with slightly better chances for White. Now the tension dissolves in a peaceful perpetual check. 19.Wxe6 Wed+ 20.hd2 Wdd+ 21.he2 Wxb2+ 22.ce3 We3+ 23.ce2 We2+ 24.he1 Weds 25.d2 Wda+ Draw, $16.2 O Van der Wiel I Kasparov Amsterdam 1991 1.e4 cB 2.5f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.2xd4 M6 5.2ic3 a6 6.2g5 e6 7.14 We7 8.WI3 @bd7 9.0-0-0 b5 10.e5 Sb7 11.Wh3 dxe5 12.xe6 fxe6 13.Wxe6+ £e7 14.8.x16!? gxf6 Bad is 14...2ixf6? in view of 15.2xb5+, e.g 15...82f8 16.fxeS 28 17.We6, with a win ning position for White 15.e2 Threatening 16.%hS+. In the game Tseitlin- Gutman, Soviet Union 1971, White tried 15.2xb5!? axbS 16.Axb5; after 16...We6 17.2d6+ Wxd6 18.Bxd6 “eS an unclear position arose. 15..N5 16.05 The moves 16.9£3 and 16.2xbS fail to lead to an advantage (as well). An example with 16.fxe5 is Kuindzhi-Tseitlin, Soviet Union 1971: 16...00f8 17.Wh3 Bd8 18.exfo Wr4+ 19.1 Hxd1+ 20.Exd1 Wxf6 21AxbS axbS, and now 22,2xb5+ Sc6 23.2f1 Wd6 24.Saxc6+ Wxc6 25.Wb8+ sed7 26.Wa7+ &c8 27.Wb8+ would have led to perpetual check and a draw. 16...8xd5 17.2xd5 cd After 17...b6 White also holds the draw: 18.Qxh5+ (18.2d3?! and 18,2d3?! do not convince) 18.,.xh5 19.Wg8+ 2£8 20.We6+, Capelan-Polugaevsky, Solingen 1974. 18.Wf5 Wc6 19.Wg6+ &f8 20.0hd1 After 20.2xe5?! Kasparov has indicated 20...4e8! as the strongest reply. 20... WeB After 20...8e6 21.8xh5 BxhS 22.Wxhs Dxf4 23.Wh8+ df7 24.Wh7+ &f8 25, Wh8+ itis also perpetual check. 21.5 WoB 21...exf4? loses: 22.Exc5 Sxc5 23.Wxlor dog8 24.WeS+! SelB 25.WxcS+. 22.Wg6 We6 23.axh5 WgB x #we a aw AAD a ARAM BAR er! 24.2d8+ Or 24.WES Wxg2 25.xc5 Bxh5 26.Wxh5 2xc5 27.Wh8+ we7 28.Wh7+, with perpetu- al check. 24...xd8 Here the players agreed a draw in view of 25.0xd8+ Qxd8 26.We8+ dg7 27.W26+ {8 28, We8+, and perpetual check. $16.2 O Vitolinsh @ Yoferov Moscow 1972 Yea c5 27013 dé 3.d4 cxd4 4. Of 5.203 a6 6.295 e6 7.f4 8.Wf3 Wc7 9.0-0-0 b5 10.e5 As we will see, this advance leads to extreme- ly interesting complications. 10...ab7 11.Wh3 dxe5 12.0xe6!? fxe6 13.Wxe6+ 2e7 14.2.xb5!? For the alternative 14.8xf6!2, see Van der Wiel-Kasparov. A third possibility is 14.2xb5!? axbS 15.2xbS, In Kamsky-Gel- fand, Linares 1993, Black had few problems after 15...Re4! 16.2d2 &f8 14...axb5 15.axb5 Wc6 16.2d6+ dd8 17.fxe5 ke7 After 17...He8 18.exf6 gxfo 19.%xb7+ dec7!? 20.Uxd7+ Wad? 21Bf4+ tec8 22.Wad7+ &xd7 23.4d1+ White has excellent chances, Bronstein-Ciocaltea, Kislovodsk 1968. After the alternative 17...Ad5!? 18.8xe7+ c7, however, the position is unclear. 18.Wxe7 Other possibilities were 18.91 or 18.2.xf6. After the text Black can at the very least force a draw through perpetual check. 18...oxa2 Like this. With 18...€d5 Black could have continued the fight. 19.exf6 Hal+ 20.6d2 Wd5+ 21.c3 Wab+! Black should not demand too much from his position: 21...Bxd1? 22.Bxd1 WxdI 23.fxg7 Hg8 24.\e8+ wins for White 22.0d3 Wd5+ And now 22...0xd1+? 23.2xd1 Wxg5 would have been bad in view of 24.2xb7. 23.¢3 Draw. S165 O Timman @ Gelfand Wijk aan Zee 2002 1.e4 c5 2.013 d6 3.44 cxd4 4.dxd4 'f6 5.03 a6 6.295 e6 7.4 Abd7 8.4/3 Wc7 9.0-0-0 bS 10..2xb! A sacrifice Black should always be on his guard against in the Najdorf. Black must play very accurately to stay afloat. 10...axb5 11.dxb5 Wb8 12.e5 Bad 12...dxe5? is met by 13.Wxa8 Wxa8 14.¢7+ #ed8 15.0xa8, but 12...8b7 is playable; 13.We2 dxeS 14.Wed leads to a complicated position, ‘The books give the game Kengis-Dvoiris, So- viet Union 1982: 14...8e7 15.2c7+ &f8 16.Hxd7 Axd7 17.Hdl Axgs 18.fxg5 28 19.2365 g6 20.81 eg8 21.8xf7, and now Black should have gone 21... ¥/b6!, with per- petual check after 22.%e7 Wyl+ 23.d2 Wxg2+ 24.sed1 Welt. 13.exf6 gxf6 14.2n6! After 14.@h4? Bxb5 White has nothing left. 14...0.xh6 ‘This is more or less forced; 14...2xb5?! 15.2xf8 DxfB 16.AxbS WrbS 17.2xd6 fa- vours White. 15.2xd6+ &e7 16.%b1 Hd8 ‘The moves 16...b6 and 16...Wa8 have also been played here. 17.3he1 ©b6 18.cb5 2xb5 To eliminate the threat of 19.0f5+. But in Lutz-Gelfand, Dortmund 2002, played six months later, it turned out that Black can casily play 18..2a6!; there followed 19.285+ f8 20,Wc3 HxbS 21.Wxf6 Hixb2+! 22.Wxb2 “dS 23.Exd5 Wxb2+ 24.sexb2 Qg7+! 25.2xg7 Hxd5. and a draw. It seems that Black had done some homework in the meantime! 19.2xb5 Zixd1+ All this was still known territory! Timman had prepared the variation at home and knew it inside out, whereas Gelfand had to find eve- ty move over the board. He had already used a lot of time here. The text may be a slight inaccuracy. An earlier game saw 19...25c4! 20,1Wb3 (20.Wc6 Ad2+ 21.seal Gxf4 is good for Black) 20...d2+ 21.8xd2 Bxd2 22.Wb4+ Bd6 23.23 2d7 24.Wxd6+ Wxd6, and adraw was agreed, Brodsky-Timoschenko, Moscow 1992. The endgame will offer roughly equal chances. 20.0xd1 2xf4 Now 20...“c4 can be strongly met by 21.Wes!. 21.93 2e5 Bad is 21....04? 22. Wed3 id2+ 23.seal 2h 24.Wa3+ dd7 25.Wb4, and White is win- ning. 22.Wa3+ we8 23,d6+ 2xd6 24.Wxd6 Wxd6 25.2xd6 This is the endgame White had been aiming for. The passed pawns on the queenside give him the best chances. 25...00d5 26.64 &e7? This loses; 26...2e3 was called for. 27.4c6 &b7 28.cxd5! &xc6 29.dxc6 kd6 30.94! Now Black will lose the pawn ending. After the careless 30.b4 Black gets a pawn duo on f5 and eS, and White can whistle for his win, After the text Black resigns. It will be follo- wed by 30...s#xc6 31.b4 deb5 32.03 seed 33.shc2 e5 34.shd2 bS 35.83 Hb 36.04. S17.4 0 Maeder M@ Czaya Correspondence game 1977 1.e4 c5 2.f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4ixd4 6 5.A¢3 a6 6.2.95 e6 7.64 bS Polugaevsky"s move, which leads to extre- mely sharp positions 8.e5!? The only way to try and refute Black’s set-up. After 8.23 Abd7 or 8.2d3 Abd7 or 8.43 &b7 Black will have fewer problems. 8...dxe5 9.fxe5 We7 10.exf6 The alternative is 10.We2. See the game Mendes-Ribeiro. 10...We5+ 11.262 Wxg5 12.Wd3 14 ‘This variation has been subjected to countless analyses, but even in 2003 it is still unclear who is objectively better. In practice White has scored the better results, and no wonder: White is on the war path! 12.0-0 has also been played. A recent exam- ple is 12...8a7 13.Wd3 Bd7 14.Ae4 Wes 15.23 Wxb2 16.We3 @.b7 17.24 b4 18.2ab] Wxe2 19.DfgS! We7 20.Exb4! Bxed 21.Dxed Sxb4 22.fxg7 Hg8? (22...2c3!) 23.0f6+ ded8 24. xg8! cS 25.016 BxeI+ 26.seh1 dec8 27.xd7!, and Black resigned, Leko-Ghaem Maghami, Erevan 2001. Beautiful to watch but hard to fathom! 12... Wxf6 13.51 And here many games have 13.0-0-0. 13...We5 After 13...Wg6 White's strongest continuati- on is 14.Wh3!?, with the threat of 15.2h5. 14.0011? After 14.0-0-0 Black can go 14,..2a7 15.23 Wi4+ 16.ad2 Wc7, but the position remains hard to assess. 14.f3 has also been tried. 14...5a7 Less good is 14...We7!; after 15.2h5! 26 16.@f3 a7 17.Ac6, White was better in Beliavsky-Polugaevsky, Moscow 1981. 15.23 We7 16.25! 5 A strong reply to 16...¥b6?! is 17.Ace4!. 17.uda! 17...2g8? ‘This loses by force. 17...h5?! is also suspect in view of 18.8xf5! exfS 19245 Wd7 20.8d3!, followed by 21.2e3+ and a proba- bly winning attack, Black's best option seems to be 17...We7!? 1825+ g6 19.Wxh8 Wxgs 20.013 Bg7 with an extremely unclear position. The w! te queen is boxed in, but how is Black to ex- ploit this? White continues 21.2f2 b4 22.Ufd2 @d7 23.22. The handful of practi- cal examples we have show a good score for White. What does your computer think of it? 18.5xf5! 2e7 After 18...exf5, 19.2h5+ g6 20.2d5 wins. 19.047 We5 20.2xe7+! Wxe7 21.2ce4 Black resigned in view of 21...4d7 22.0h5+ 26 23.Af6+ or 21...206 22. Wb6. S178 1 Mendes i Ribeiro, F Correspondence game 1987 1.e4 c5 2./0f3 dé 3.d4 cxd4 4.0xd4 “6 5.03 a6 6.295 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 We7 10.We2 Mier this move, too, countless games and the- retical analyses have failed to bring clarity. 10...:d7 11.0-0-0 2b7 The eS pawn must not be taken: 11 12.Wxe5 @xe5 13.DdxbS or | 12.2idxbS axb5 13. Wixe5. 12.494 Wxe5 But not 12...2xe5? in view of 13.Dxe6! fxe6 14. Wxe6+ @e7 15. 2xb5+. 13.203 the thematic sacrifice 13.@xb5?! is unclear: bS 14.3hel hS! 15.Wh4 Wes xbS Hxa2 17.eeb1 2d5, and White ns to have nothing. 13...n6 14.24 Here 14.2xe67! hxgs 15.Shel? doesn’t work, as 15...2h4 leaves the queen with nowhere to go! 15.8del Zh4 16.Wdl fxe6 17.xe5 “xe is also good for Black: he has plenty of material for the queen 14.95 15.\xe6!? According to the books, 15.023 We3+ is good for Black, while 15.She1 h5 16.Wxgs Bh6 17.Bxe5 AxeS 18.Qxb5+ axbS 19, Wxh6 Bxh6 20.05 Dbd7 21.Dxh6 Lxg2 22.@xb5 Hxa2 23.éeb1 Had leads to an equal endgame, 15...H5 ‘Taking the knight, 15...fxe6?, is very suspect, as Black will not survive 16.2hel: 16...h5 (16... We4+? 17.Wxf4 gxf4 18.226 mate!) 17.Ag6+ Wd8 18.axh5 WeS 19.2g3, and Black is certain to lose. 16.Wh3! &h6 We'll take another look at capturing on 6: 16...{xe6? 17.2hel Wi4+ 18.eb1 Wet 19.xc6+ fd8 20.Wxe4 hxgd 21xg5+ sbc7 22.8144 ed8 23.9f5 xg? 24.Ad5 &xd5 25.Exd5 Se7. Thus far a correspon- dence game Sarink-Boll from 1992. Now White could have won with 26.@xb8! Exb8 27.Bxa6 Bxh2 28.Bxd7+ see8 29.8x24 17.b1 g4 And again: 17...fxe6? 18.Shel g4 19.2.26+ £8 20.Wd3, with a winning attack. 15 18.Ac7+! Wxc7 19,che1+ #8 After 19...Ae5?, 20.We3 2p7 (20...Ad7 21.85) 21.xb5+ wins. 20.2e7+ g8 21.Wxh5 297 22.Wg5!? Unclear is 22.Wxp4 DeS 23.We5 Dbd7. 22...06 Less good is 22...Wxh2?! 23.26! Wxd6 24.8h7+, or 22,,.Hh6?! 23.215 &c6 24. 2d8! W7 25.2104 Bxed 26.Exed 16 27.He8+ Df8 28.Wxg4, 23.215 AceS 24.246 Wb6 After 24...Wd8?! 25.Wxd8+ Hxd8 26.0xe5 BxeS 27.Hxe5 DxeS 28.Hxd8+ dee7 29,2xh8 dxh8 30,e4 an endgame arises in which White is a pawn up. 25.2xe5 ©xe5 26.2xe5 16? For a long time Black kept finding the right move, but now he slips up. Correct was 26... Wh6! 27.Bd8+ Bxd8 28.Wxd8+ 08 29.2xh8 Wxh8 30.W 25+ W27, and now the endgame is hard to win, both after 31.Wxg7+ 2xg7 32.804 Bxe4 33.xe4 £5 and 31,.WEd xg? 32.Oxe4 27.Wxg4 And Black resigned in view of 27...fxe5 28.2.c6+ Wh7 (28...hf8 29.WES+) 29.WhS+ 2h6 30.4d7 mate, or 27...e8 28.5d7 Wgl+ 29.0d1 $18.5 O Peleshev i Odeev Correspondence game 1988 5 2.03 dé 3.d4 cxdd 4.2xd4 246 5.2c3 a6 6.395 e6 7.44 Wb6 8.Wd2 Wxb2 Gligoric once said: never take on b2, even when it’s correct. Now the risks are indeed considerable, but this ‘poisoned pawn variation’ is nevertheless played a lot, especi- ally by correspondence players. Despite the many examples itis still not clear how poiso- 16 nous the b2 pawn really is. 9.b3 Threatening 10.a3 and 11.2a2, catching the queen. 9... Was Escaping the trap. Also playable, however, is 9.206 in order to meet 1¢ 10...a5!. Also possible is 9... 10.a3? can be strongly met by 10...2ic5. 10.2.xf6 gxf6 11.2e2 h5 To prevent White from putting his bishop on hS. 11...2c6 12.0-0 2d7 13.2h5 would be difficult for Black. 12.0-0 @cé6 Playable alternatives are 12...d7 and 12...Yb4. The theory books will provide you with more information. 13.Ab1 Wb4 13...Wb2? is bad, as it leads back into the trap: 14.23, followed by 15.23. 14,Wes d5 x 2 @&f & 4 a0 AMAR SS AW Ho | 2s Black returns his pawn in order to get coun- terplay. Less good is the other pawn sac 14...£5! 15.exf5 d5 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.c3 We7 18.21d2 2d7 190f3, with good play for White, Robatsch-Kortchnoi, Palma de Mal- lorca 1972. 15.exd5 e7 16.¢3 5 Here, 16....2d7 has been suggested as an im- provement. 17.Wd3 Wb6+ 18.212 18.hI 2! hd (threatening 19...2g3+) 19.024 * ¢3 20.a4 Wa? costs White the exchange. 18...2d6 After 18...We3 19.2e4 Wxd3 20.2xd3 Be7 21.Bel White has the better position, Mecking-Tal, Las Palmas 1975. 19.2364 This looks obvious, but it doesn’t yield much. Another possibility is 19.dxe6 fxe6 20.We4 LIT (after 20.,.We3 White has the trick 21.635! Wrxe4 22.0xf6+, winning a pawn, but 20...Wc6!? is worth considering: after 21Wexc6+ bxc6 22.843 def7 23.2.xf5 exf5, Black's pawn formation is in tatters, but ta- king into account his bishop pair, his position isn’t all that much worse) 21.8c4 We3 -Wxt5! Wxe3 23.Wed; with 23,,c5 k can win the exchange, but then 24.2)xc5 Wxal+ 25.561 is strong. 19... xf4 20..xf6+ sof! xf & & 4 a Bh ep a : ess & ow ATA SHAR ot & 20...$2e7 is strongly met by 21.dxe6!, as wit- ness 21..fxe6?! 22,Wxf5 Wrf2+ 23,dexf2 extS 24.2054, with advantage; 21...8.xe6? 22.0)d5+ Oxd5 23.WxdS Oxh2+ 24.soxh2 Wxi2 25.We5+, winning; and 21...dext6 22.13 We3 23.Wxf4 Wxf4 24.5xf4, with a slightly better position for White. 21,We3 &xh2+ 22.dexh2 Suspect is 22.96112!, when Black can safely play the strong 22...e7!. He can also try & 22.,.2e34 23.he1 Sp3, although this is not completely clear after 24.25! (24.d7+? Axd7 25.Wxh8+ se7 26. Wxa8 “xg2+, and Black wins) 24...Qxf2+ 25.dxf2 25 26.del. After the text-move the game is drawn because of perpetual check. 22...Wxf2 23.0d7+ &g8 24.0f6+ of8 25.d7+ &g8 26.f6+ Draw. S188 O) Grechikhin Popov, Valery Cherepovets 1997 1.e4 ¢5 22if3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.axd4 Of6 5.¢3 a6 6.295 e6 7.14 Whe 8.Wd2 Wxb2 9.5b1 Wa3 10.65 Acé 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.xc6 bxc6 13.e5 d5 For the main line, 13...dxe5, see the games Brunner-Stohl and Gipslis-Kortchnoi. 14.2.xd5 xd5 15.3.2 dxe5 16,0-0 Does White have sufficient compensation for the two sacrificed pawns? This is not clear, but the position of the black king is definitely rather scary, and in the last analysis the aim of chess is to mate the enemy king. 16...Ha7 Less good is 16....c5+?! 17.deh1 BiB 18.04 Hxfl+ 19.8xf1 @b7 20.81 !, with the threat of 21.We2, 17.c4 We5+ 18.2h1 d4 19.oh5+ An important intermediate move to weaken square f6. Other tries have been 19.We2 and 19.43, 19...96 20.2d1 fe7 21.Qad+ wd8 22.2.xe7+ The other move, 22.1117, leads the game intoa great theoretical complex about which we can only say here that things become extre- mely complicated and that both players have chances, Just consult the theory books. 22.62h6!? Hp8 23.2117 may be a good alterna- tive, 22...Hxe7! This is an important juncture in the game. Other moves are bad: 22...Wxe7? 23.Wa5+! WeT 24.54b6 Xb7 25.c5 de7 26.2xb7 Wxb7 27.c6, winning, Nordby-Engel, correspon- dence game 1982/83 and 22...dexe7? 23.Wg5+ ded6 24.Wh6! b7 25.2xb7 &xb7 26.Wg7 Wc8 27.c5+!, also winning, Paska- nov-Kosenkoy, correspondence game 1987. 23.Wg5 Sc7 24.ofe1 218 25.oxe5 After 25.8c2 Black coolly plays 25...5 with advantage. 25...Wb4! 26.205+ Here, 26.Bee]?! 215 27.Wy3+ Wd6 28.Wb3 Sed8 leads to advantage for Black, Rahn-G.Miiller, correspondence game 1986. But 26.W g3!is worth considering: 26...s8d8 27.863 Hef7 28.eg1 Sf4, with an unclear position with roughly equal chances, Traut-Zilin, correspondence game 1996. 26...id8 27.01 Wxad 28.2xc8+ vexc8 29.WWc5+ &bs Less good is 29...¢2d8? 30.Bb1! (30.Exd4+? Wd7 is unclear), when Black can only play 30...2f1+, and White is better after 31.2xf1 Wd7 32.b6+. 30.4b1+ a8 31.Wxe7 Now the game will quickly fizzle out to adraw. 31...0b8 32.2xb8+ @xb8 33.d8+ 18 &b7 34.We7+ &b6 35.Wd6+ w&b7 36.We7+ 2b8 37.Wd8+ &b7 38.We7+ Draw. SI8.9 O Brunner i Stohl Dortmund 1990 Yea c5 2.093 dé 3.d4 cxda 4dxd4 5.03 a6 6.295 e6 7.4 Whe 8.Wd2 Wxb2 9.2b1 Wa3 10.f5 “Ac6é 11.fxe6 fxe6 12,0xc6 bxc6 13.e5 dxe5 14. 2xf6 gxf6 15.’\e4 Wxa2 Bad is 15...f5? in view of 16.@e2! fxe4 17.@h5+ see7 18.0-0. 16.0d1 16.xf6+ looks obvious, but after 16...8f7 Black seems to have little to fear, e.g. 17.863 Walt 18.2 Wadd 19.We5 e4, according to an analysis by Nunn. 16...27 17.22 17.3d6+ &xd6 18.\Wxd6 WaS+ 19.c3 Ha7 is not convincing either. 17...0-0 18.0-0 £5 Here 18.,.a7 is also possible, e.g. 19.23 @h8 20.Hg3 Bd7 21.Who BAT 22.Whs Bxdl+ 23.Gxd1 Was! 24.sef1 Wes! 25.Wxf7 Wxdl+ 26.82f2 Wxc2+ 27.0%e3 Bc5+ 28.AxcS WrxeS+ 29.43 edt! 30.sexe4 Wed+, and a draw. Black has perpe- tual check, G.Andersson-Poulsen, corres- pondence game 1991, 19.Wh6 The critical position in this variation, 19.7? Not like this! 19...fxe4? is bad as well: 20.8xf8+ @.xf8 21.We5+ deh8 22, Wi6+ eg8 23.@h5 Ba? 24.3f1 @c5+ 25.ceh1 Wd5 26.2474 Bxf7 27. Wxf7+ Gh8 28. Wi6+ wes 29. y5+ deh 30.h4 Wd6 31.h5, and White had a winning attack, Griinfeld-Helmers, Luzern 1979. Correct is 19.,.Wxe2!, e.g. 20.8d3 Wrxe2 21 Bg3+ Wet7 22.xf5+! extS 23.g7+ de8 .Wxc6+ Ld8 25,Wb6+ He8 26.We6+ SAB, and adraw, Velimirovic-Ftacnik, Vrsac 1981 20.23 Sg7 21.5fd1! r moves are no better: 21...@b7? 16+ &xf6 (or 22...6¢h8 23.Dxh7 Hxh7 24.8d8+!, and mate!) 23.Wxf6 B18 24.5d8 U7 250x184 Uxf8 26.Wg5+ dhs 27.547, and curtains; or 21...8d7? 22.0f6+! Axf6 23,.Waxt6 Wxc2 24.Wxe5 Hd8 25.1! B17 26.Wg3+! By7 27.Wh4 Hb8 28.2xd7 Bxd7 29.8xd7 Bb1+ 30.9212 WeS+ 31.613 We3+ 32.003 Bfl+ 33.she2, and Black resigned, Krempel-Svendsen, correspondence game 1990, Quite complicated and virtually impos- sible to calculate over the board! 22.5d8+ Oxd8 23.2xd8+ df7 24.Wh5+ 146? Now Black loses. More stubborn was 24...24g6, which would have been followed by 25.Wxh7+ Bg7 2625+ de7 27.Be8+ .d6 28.Wxe7 Wh 1+ 29.df2 Wxe2+ 30.23 We3+ 31.deh4, with advantage for White. Thus the analysis by the white player. 25.Wh4+ Hg5 26.Wh6+ Zg6 27.Wi8+ 4.95 28.93 Black resigned, There is no defence against the threat 29.h4 mate. SI8.12 Ci Gipstis i Kortchnoi Leningrad 1963 1.e4 c5 2.cf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4..xd4 D6 5.03 a6 6.295 e6 7.14 Whe 8.Wd2 Wxb2 9.2b1 Wa3 10f5 cb 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.xc6 bxc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.2xf6 gxf6 15.5e4 2e7 For 15...Wxa2!?, see the game Brunner Stohl. 16.2e2 16...0-07! Not a good move, but this was not yet known in 1963, Stronger is 16..h5, when after 17.4b3 Wad the starting position of an exten- sive theoretical complex arises. White can choose between 18.c4 and Vitolinsh’s sacrifi- ce 18.Axf6!? &xf6 19.c4, It would go too far here to go into this more deeply, so I will limit myself to one example to illustrate White's, chances: 18.0xf6+!? @xf6 19.c4 Bhd 20.g3 @e7 21.0-0 Ba7 22.hb8 Hc7 23.Wd3 Sc5+ 24.8h1 Se7 25.Wed kd6? (stronger is 25...Hd7! 26.WxeS5 Add, and after 27.WeSt+ &d6 28.Ed1 c7 29.2ixd4 Bxdd 30,WeS+ Hd6 31.8b2 c5 32.813 Wred 33.We7+ Bd7 34.WeS+ Bd6 35.Wy7+ it’s a draw through perpetual check) 26.Rd1+ Wxdl+ 27.2xdI b4 28,Wd3+ Sd4 29.c5+ &xc5 30.Wa3+, and White won, Beliavsky- Hiibner, Tilburg 1981. 17.5b3 Wad 18.c4 &h8 18...f7 is met by 19.0-0 £5 20.223+ &h8 21.Wc3, winning, Vitolinsh-Gutman, Riga 1967, while after 18...{5 19.0-0! fxe4 (19.05 20.0y3+ seh8 21.We3) 20.0 23+ ahs 21. Bxf8+ Oxf 22.We5 Blac! 19.0-0 a7 £7 is met by 20.2h5. 20.Wh6 £5? This loses. More stubborn was 20...Wa5; ter 21. Dxf6! WeS+ 22.ehl Qxf6 23.Bxf6 Bg7 24.We3! We7 25.8x18+ Wxf8 26.5b8 White is better, but the game is by no means won yet. 21.293 ob4a Now it is over at once; but 21...f7 22.2h5 fxed 23.8xf7 @cS+ 24.He3! Qxe3+ 25.#xe3 would not have saved Black either, nor would 21...Rg8 22.Uxg8+ dxg8 23.0f6+ Oxf 24.Wxt6 Was 25.4d1. 22.2161 Black resigned. White is threatening 23.WE8+! &xf8 24.5g8 mate, to which there is no adequate reply: 22...8d8 23.xh7 Bxh7 24.Wf6+, or 22...Haf7 23,We5. $19.2 O Keres Bi Najdorf Goteborg 1955 Tied cB 2.0f3 dé 3.d4 cxd4 4.axd4 ATG 5.c3 a6 6.295 e6 7.14 207 8.013 h6 9.2h4 g5?! An interesting but dubious idea. In the same round of the tournament this was also played in Geller-Panno and Spassky-Pilnik! 10.fxg5 Dtd7 11.2xe6!? 20 TLWhS!? DeS 12.8g3 Gxps 13.He2 is another option, but the text is far more direct. e6 12.Wh5+ &f8 13.2b5! Geller seems to have been the first player to go for this surprising bishop move, with Spassky and Keres following in his footsteps. After 13.2d3? the white attack stalls: De 14.0-0+ eg7 15.23 Qbd7. 13.297? After 13...axb52, 14.0-0+ wins, In Geller- Panno White was also winning after 13...Be5? 14.0g3 Bxg5 15.0-0+ we7 16.2xe5. This line reveals the point of 13.251: if 14...bd7 then 15.9xd7 wins. Later it was discovered that Black's strongest possibility is 13...2h7!; despite extensive analyses, no clear win for White was found after this move, although he can count on at least a draw through perpetual check, as in, for instance, Timman-Stean, London 1973: 14.96 BAT 15.Wxh6+ Sg8 16.2f1 Bxfl+ I7.Qxf1 De5 18.804 xed, and drawn. 14.0-0 Aes 14,.We8 15.g6 wins for White. 15.293 ‘Ag6 16.gxh6+ Hxh6 17.5f7+! &xf7 18.Wxh6 axb5 Other moves are no better: 18...Wh8 19.2614 26 20.8084! x8 21.Wxg6+ ke7 22.8xf6 Wxf6 23.axd6+, or 18...2f6 19.Wh7+ sef8 20.Wxg6 axbS 21.261. 19.5f1+ LEB Or 19... 20.Wh7+ Sf8 21.Wxe6, win- hing. 20.Wxg6+ &d7 21.27 Ac6 Alter 21...b4, 22.dS! exdS 23.exd5! wins, while 21...8%¢6 would have been met by 22.Wh7 Bg5 23.e5 d5 24.83. 22.5051 ‘The knight intervenes decisively! The pin- ning of 2e7 will spell the end for Black. 22...uxa2 Or 22...exd5 23.Wxd6+ Se8 24.W26!, with decisive threats, e.g. 24.87 25.exd5. 23.h4 Upto this point, the game Spassky-Pilnik was identical! Now Spassky played 23.h3, also with a quick win for White. 23...WhB 24,2xe7 Axe7 25.Wg5 Black resigned, SI 9.7 (1 Georgiev, Krum @ Inkiov Varna 1977 1.e4 c5 2.f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.\xd4 * 16 5.i¢3 a6 6.2.95 6 7.f4 2e7 8.Wf3 We7 9.0-0-0 Abd7 10.203 b5 11,2he1 Qb7 12.457! A well-known sacrifice in these kinds of posi- tion with the rook on el, but its correctness is more than questionable. For 12.43, see the game Lassen-Karlsson. 12...2xd5 Black can probably just take the knight with the pawn. In the game Vitolinsh-Zilber, Soviet Union 1973, White won beautifully: 12...exd5!? 13.05 28? 14.05 dxeS 15.fxeS ed 16..xe4 dxed 17.Exed Wed 18.06 16 19.exf7++ dext7 20.0h6+, and Black resig- ned. Later it was found, however, that after 13...90f8! 14.Wg3 dxed 15.2xe4 Bxed 16.Bxe4 WeS! White does not have enough compensation for the sacrificed piece. 13.exd5 &xg5 13...xd5? is met by 14.Wxd5! exdS 15.Bxe7+ sof8 16.225 Bd8 17.2e6!, winning. 14.0xe6+1? 14.fxg5 eS yields White nothing. Hence this spectacular rook sacrifice. 14..4xe6 15.2xe6 After 15.WhS+? g6 16.&xg6+ hxg6! ITWxh8+ DB 18.Dxe6 xfs 19.Dxt4 0-0-0 Black has averted all danger. 15...Wb6 16.Wh5+ 96 17.Wxg5 17.xg6+2! is unclear: 17...e7 18.Wxe5+ DTG, e.g, 19.8h5 We3+ 20.ckb1 Bags 21 21.297 Sc8 22.Wh4 Exg7 23.Be1 Wxel+ 24.Mxe1+ sed8, and Black is probably fine. 17...We3+ 18.eb1 Does White now really have enough compen- sation for his rook? 18.217 x x o a 4 4 &&A EDS 19.Whe 19.Whd is probably stronger; after 19...Hae8 20.Hel Wa2 (20...¥Wb6? loses after 21.Wh6) White can go for perpetual check with 21.Dd8+! Hxd8 22,We7+ sog8 23.Weé+ 19...2xd571 Later it was found that Black should have played 19..Hag8!, eg. 20.AgS+ eB 21,Wh4 dB! 22.hel Wh6 23.DF7++ ke8 24.Dxh8 Exh8 25.2.xg6 WaB!, with advanta- ge for Black, Maliszewski-Surowiak, corres- pondence game 1992. 20.WQ7+! Sxe6 21.154! gxt5 22.0xf5+1 There’s no end to White’s sacrifices, But will he win’? 22...2x15 23.0f1+ W142 Yes, now White wins! But after 23...de4! 24.W edt! (not 24.We7+? Reb! (24...2e5? 25.Wh4+) 25.Wrxe6+ De5, and White is fi- nished) 24...%e5 25.8 f5+ te6 26.E13+ fe7 27.Wh4+ (27.Exe3+ “eS is less clear) 27...,82e6 28, We4+ it is perpetual check and a draw, according to an analysis by Nunn, 24.Wxd7+ seg5 25.h4+ 22 Black resigned. There follows 25...Wxh4 26.4 27+ dehS 27.B15+, and mate. SI9.7 C Lassen @ Karlsson Correspondence game 1981 1.64 65 2.23 d6 3.44 cxd4 4.xd4 2f6 5.21¢3 a6 6.2.95 e6 7.14 Le7 8.Wt3 We7 9,0-0-0 ‘Xbd7 10.2d3 b5 11.Ehe1 2b7 12.Wg3 b4 13.21d5!? exd5 Now, as opposed to Georgiev-Inkiov, 13...2axd5 is not good: 14.exd5 Bxd5 15.8.xe7 Bxe7 16.Dxe6! Bxe6 17.65 6 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Alfg4 Zie5 20.Bxe5 dxeS 21.Wh4+ def7 22.Ef1+ dg8 23.86, and White wins. 14.25 The alternative is 14.exd5.° An example: 14..xf7! This is how White exploits the weakness of £7. The sacrifice is undoubtedly correct: White gets three pawns for the piece and the black king is denied a safe haven. 18...@xf7 19.Wxh7+ ve6 20.Wxg6 According to Nunn, 20.8xf6+!? Dxf6 21.Wxb7 was another possibility. 20...We7 21.Hadi! Wh7 22.93 ve7 22...E.g8 is awkward in view of 23..204+ te7 24.Axg8 Exg8 25.Wd3. 23.ad5+! 23.8152! Es is less clear. 24... Wh6? Now Black has sealed his own fate, 24...W28? is also bad: 25.Exf6! xf 26,Wh4+ &f7 27.Ef1+ Be8 28.d6 Wg7 29.2264, and mate. Relatively best was 24...e412, but with 25.Hdel Bg8 26.8c7! We6 27.g3 Back 28.d6+ dee6 29.47! White keeps a strong at- tack going, again according to Nunn, 25.d6+ 2od8 26.215 a7 27.2xd7 Exd7 Black resigned. 32 $113.2 0 Zaitsev @ Dementiey Riga 1970 4.e4 c5 2.0f3 dé 3.d4 cxd4 4.dxd4 26 5.23 a6 6.2c4 e6 7.2e3 bS 8.2b3 We7 Going for the pawn with 8..b4?! 9.a4 ‘xed? is very risky: 10.Axe6! fxe6 11.6 RbT 12.DxaB Bxa8 13.2.xc6, and the black king is stuck in the centre. Playable, however, are 8...2e7 and 8...2b7. 9.f4 ba?! Black keeps eyeing pawn e4. But 9....2e7 and completing his development was better. 10.a4 Dbd7 Again, taking on e4 is not advisable: 10...2xe4?! 11.65 e5 12.013, with the threat of 13.4) 11.65 5 12.2e6! A thematic sacrifice in this line. See also the game Kalegin-Dvoiris, SI 13.12. 12...fxe6 13.fxe6 cS 13.,.22b8 is met by 14.2b6 &b7 15.8.a4+. 14,.xc5 dxes 15.0-0 c47! ‘This makes it easier for White to demonstrate the correctness of his piece sacrifice. But other movesalso yield him good chances, e.g. 15...%e7 1684+ Ef8 17.Exf6+ Oxf6 I8.WdS &b7 19.Wed! Bc8 20.EdI, or 15..2d6 16.895 EA8 17.2xf6 gxf6 Ix.Whs+ d8 19.Bad. 16.Exf6! gxt6 Or 16..cxb3 17.WhS+ 26 18.Exg6 hxg6 19.Wxg6+ eT 20.241, and mate 17.Wh5+ ke7 18.W17+ kd6 19.e7! Wxe7 19...2.xe7 runs into 20.5, mate. 20.4xe4 Black resigned. SI 13.10 O Timotic @ Veron Metz 2000 1e4 5 2.0f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4./xd4 £16 5.2c3 a6 6.2c4 e6 7.2b3 bS 8.5.95!7 ‘The mos common move is 8.0-0. The text is 1un interesting sub-variation. 8...2e7 9.013 We7 9. .Wb6 is a good alternative. 10.0-0-0 Blick can meet 10.2x162! &xf6 11.e5 effec- with 11..2xeS! (less good is 11...2b791, as White then has the strong 12,8d5!) 12,Waxa8 Qxd4 13.3 27, and Black has good play for the exchange. 10...0-07! Stronger is 10...bd7!, with a complicated position with roughly equal chances after, for instance, 11.Ehel 0-0 12.Wh3 Ae5, 11.e5! 2b7 IL..dxeS is met by 12.8.xf6 &xf6 (12...exd4 13.S.xe7 Wxe7 14,Wxa8 2b7 15.25! exd5 16.#4a7 yields too little compensation for the exchange) 13.Dxe6 fxe6 14.Wxa8 b4, and now instead of 15.e4? Be7 16.824? Wb! 0 Varavin-Karjakin, Alushta 2002, correct ws 15.Ga4 and if 15...2e7 16.Wed, 12.exf6! 2.xf3 13.fxe7 &.xd1? This loses at once. His only move was 13...Be8; it is true that White then plays 14.2xf3, and should be better with three pieces for the queen, but at least Black can still put up a lot of resistance, as in the game Meszaros-Vajda, Hungary 1998: 14...d5 15.2d4 h6 16.803 Wre7 17.14 Ad7 18.4 Eac8 19.h4, and White created chances for himself. 14.2xe6! Black resigned. And it’s easy to see that this hammerblow left him little choice. In an ear- lier game between two strong masters (later grandmasters!) this move was overlooked: 14.exf8W+? dxf8 15.Exd1 d5 and the game Yudasin-Novikov, Kuibyshev 1986 was eventually drawn! $113.12 QO Adams i Sadler Dublin 1993, 1.e4 c5 2.f3 dé 3.d4 cxd4 4.xd4 @46 5.3 a6 6.6.04 e6 7.2.b3 b5 8.0-0 &b7 9.Re1 Dbd7 10.295 Wh6 11.04 b4 12.\d5!7 33 A well-known knight sacrifice in the Sicilian. The results are often quite unclear, but White nearly always gets good attacking chances. 12...exd5 13.exd5+ EY Fes & : & abi a A & g& a 13... After 13...%d8 White continues 14.2c6+!. After 14...2xc6 15.dxc6 Wxc6 16.2d5 Wc8 17.Wh5!? &e7 18.Wxt7 he has good chan- ces. In the game Golubev-Mantovani, Biel 1992, Black played 14...s%¢7, followed by an extraordinarily beautiful attacking spectacle: 15.a5 WS 16.3d4 We5 17.2e3 Sxd5 18.04 bxe3 ep. 19.Bcl! WxaS 20.5xc3+ ? (20...4b7 offered more chances of survival) 21.Bxd5 Dxd5 22. W13! Dxc3 23.Wo6+ G8 24.bxc3! a7 25.8b1 Bb8 26.Wxc5+! Ws (26...dxe5 27.Dc6+, and mate) 27.Ac6+ ta8 28.2ixb6, and Black resigned. Golubev has analysed this game deeply for both the Infor- mator and NIC Yearbook 26, but we don't have the space to go into his analyses here. 14.05 WcS 15.2.e3 15.£4 is also good, but the text generates all kinds of additional threats. 15...We8 Other moves are no better. 15...8.¢7 loses the queen after 16.2c6 Wb5 17.xe5 dxeS 18.84, as does 15...2xd5 16.2a4+ dB 17.De6+, 15...2xd5 16.fad+ Bfd7 17.De6 ‘We8 18.2xf8 gives White a large advantage. 34 16.2ad+ he7 16...’FA7 is also met by 17.f4, e.g. 17...2g6 18.Df5 Be7 19.2d4 dB 20.Exe7 Axe7 21.@xd6, winning, or 17..2xd5_18.fxe5, dxe5 19.2f4 Gc5 20.Exe5+ #e6 21.seh1 Bxdd 22.Wxd4 0-0 23.Exe6 fxe6 24.8xd7 Exf4 25. Wxf4 Wxd7 26.Wxb4, with a better endgame. Thus Adams’ analysis. 17.4 @xd5 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.WhS! 16 20.8.2 Now White simply threatens to continue with 21.Bael or 21.2g3. The black king is in a most unfortunate position. 20...96 Or 20...8d6 21.WH7, or 20...2f4 21. ExeS+! fxeS 22.Wxe5+, winning. 21.Exe5+! Lf7 There is nothing better: 21...fxeS 22. WxeS+

    You might also like