The Ultimate Dragon

Volume 2: Classical
and Other Variations

Eduard Gufeld,
Oleg Stetsko

B.T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published in 200 I
© Eduard Gufeld, Oleg Stetsko 200I

ISBN 0 7134 8689 9

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.

Printed in Great Britain by

Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers,
B.T. Batsford Ltd,
9 Blenheim Court,
Brewery Road,
London N7 9NT

A member of the Ch�lis Group pic

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

 Contents

Preface 5
Introduction 6
Classical and Other Variations 7
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 (6 .ie2 i.g7)
Chapter 1: Classical Dragon with 7 .ie3 lDc6 7
Line 1 : 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'd2 8
Line 2: 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 16
Line 3: 8 0-0 0-0 9 lDb3 18
Line 4: 8 lDb3 33
Line 5: 8 h4 38
Line 6: 8 'ii'd2 39
Chapter 2: Classical Dragon with 7 lDb3 (7 0-0 8 0-0 lDc6)
... 42
Line 7: 9 'it>h1 43
Line 8: 9 i.g5 48
Line 9: 9 lie1 65
Chapter 3: Variations with 6 i.c4 (6 ... .ig7 7 h3 0-0) 70
1 ) Continuations with the development of the bishop 8 .ie3 (8...lDc6)
Line 1 0 : 9 i.b3lDxd4 71
Line 11: 9 .ib3lDa5 72
Line 12: 9 .ib3.id7 10 0-0 l:tc8 75
Line 13: 9 .ib3 i.d7 10 0-0 'ii'a5 79
Line 14: 9 0-0 86
2) Continuations with the development of the bishop on g5
Line 1 5: 8 0-0 lDc6 9 llel .id7 1 0 .ig5 88
Line 1 6: 8 i.b3 a6 9 0-0 b5 1 0 l:te1 .ib7 1 1 i.g5 89
Chapter 4: Variations with 6 .ig5 92
Line 1 7: 7 'ii'd2 92
Line 18: 7 .ib5 93
Chapter 5: Levenfish Attack 6 f4 97
Line 19: 6 ... .ig7 97
Line 20: 6...lDc6 99
Line 21: 6... lDbd7 105
Chapter 6: Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 110
Line 22: 6...lDc6 7 lDde2 Ill
Line 23: 6...ltJc6 7 i.g2 12 1
Line 24: 6 ... i.g7 126
 Preface
hat does the
W
modem "Dragon"
represent? Nearly
half a century of
investigation and
application in
competitive play. The practical
experiences of several generations
of chess players have been
particularly intense in the latter part
of the 20th century and have
enabled the Dragon to grow into a
monumental structure. As with all
social structures there have been
fluctuations in its development; on
occasion it has receded into the
shadowy background of unfashion­
able inventions, but it has also
enjoyed starry moments when the
most eminent grandmasters have
lauded it to the skies. It seems that
in recent years the Dragon has been
passing through just such a period.
The best confirmation of this was
seen in the Kasparov-Anand (New
York 1995) title match where the
world champion used it to good
effect.
As befits the richness of its ideas
and the ramifications of its various
plans, the Dragon variation is
regarded as one of the most
complicated openings employed in
modem practice. The authors realise
that it is not possible to cover
everything related to such an
immense subject and have restricted
the range of their monograph to the
Eurely classical treatment I e4 c5 2
lll f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt::lxd4 lt::lf6 5
lt::lc3 g6, leaving the so-called
"Accelerated Dragon", 2... lt::lc6 3 d4
cxd4 4 lt::lxd4 g6, for another time.
The whole range of systems
characteristic of the classical
variation of the Dragon can be
divided into 3 main directions:
I) The Rauzer Attack---6 .te3
.tg7 7 f3 followed by 8 'if'd2 with
the inclusion of queenside castling
and development of the bishop on
c4·
2.) Classical variations---6 .te2
with the development of the second
bishop on e3;
3) Modem variations with the
fianchetto of the light-squared
bishop---6 g3
In a separate group we have the
less frequently seen continuations 6
h3, 6 .tg5, 6 f4
Without doubt in modem practice
centre stage is taken by the Rauzer
Attack, which the authors look at in
Volume I, dealing with all other
systems in this book.
 Introduction

In Volume One we looked at the

theory of the Dragon variation: 1 e4
c5 2 tll f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6
5 lt:Jc3 g6 examining the Rauzer
Attack (6 i.e3 i.g7 7 D). In this
volume we shall investigate all other
main directions of play.

6 i.e2-Chapters I and 2
6 i.c4-Chapter 3
i.g5 Variations-Chapter 4
6 f4-Chapter 5
6 g3-Chapter 6

Symbols used in this book

+ check
+- winning advantage for White
± large advantage for White
;!; slight advantage for White
-+ winning advantage for Black
+ large advantage for Black
+ slight advantage for Black
level position
good move
!! outstanding move
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
? bad move
?? blunder
1-0 the game ends in a win for White
0-1 the game ends in a win for Black
1h-1h the game ends in a draw
(ch) championship
(m) match
(izt) interzonal tournament
(zt) zonal tournament
(ol) olympiad
 1: Classical Dragon
with 6 �e2 �g7 7 �e3
(I e4 cS 2 ttJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 ltJf6 5 tbc3 g6)
6 ..te2 i.g7
Lines associated with the develop­
ment of the bishop on e2 and subse­
quent kingside castling were
practised as long ago as the 1 9th
century and therefore it is custom­
ary to group them under the name of
Classical Dragon.
White's main direction of play is
linked to the development of his
dark-squared bishop on e3 or g5. In
the second case White moves away
his knight as it has insufficient pro­
tection on d4.
7 .tel-this chapter
7 lbb3-Chapter 2
Classical Dragon with 7 ..ie3
(l e4 cS 2 ttJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 tbc3 g6 6 ..ie2 ..tg7)
7 ..te3
Completing a solid system of de­
velopment of the minor pieces. On
this square the bishop reinforces the
centre and prepares for operations
on both flanks.
7 tbc6
.•.
8 0-0
Immediate kingside castling is the
classical plan.
The game takes an independent
direction if White refrains from
kingside castling. Main deviations
are 8 lL!b3 (Line 4), 8 h4 (Line 5)
and 8 'ii'd2 (Line 6).
8 g4 is not in the spirit of the posi­
tion and allows 8.. d5! 9 tbxc6 (no
.
better is 9 ..ib5 ..id7 10 exd5lL!b4 +
 8 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 .i.e3

or 9 exd5lL!xd5 l 0lL!xd5 'ii'xd5 II 14 'ii'c l a6 15lL!d4lL!xd4 16 .i.xd4

.i.f3 'ii'c4 =i=) 9...bxc6 1 0 e5lL!d7 II lL!g4 1 7 .i.xg4 .i.xd4 18 lL!e2 .i.a7
f4 e6 1 2 0-0 0-0 and Black's posi­ with an active position for Black,
tion is preferable, Rodi-Miiller, Bad Ciocaltea-Beliavsky, Lucerne (ol)
Elster 1940. 1982.
8...0-0 2) 9 �h l d5 (also deserving atten­
tion is the counterattack with the
other pawn: 9 ...lL!xd4 1 0 .i.xd4 e5!?
II .i.e3 .i.e6 12 f4 exf4 13 .i.xf4
'ifb6 1 4 lib l llfc8 15 .i.g5!lL!d7 1 6
lL!d5 .i.xd5 1 7 'ii'xd5 llle5 18 c3
llc5 19 'ii'd2 'ii'c6 with equal
chances, Barua-Gufeld, New Delhi
1984) l 0 exd5 ( l 0 lL!xc6 is also
seen: IO ... bxc6 II e5lL!e4 1 2lL!xe4
dxe4 13 'ii'xd8 llxd8 1 4 llfd l .i.e6
15 .i.d4 f5 with approximately equal
chances, Adams-Khalifman, Las
Palmas 1993) 10 ...lL!xd5 (or
In this position White's main con­ lO...lL!b4 II 'ii'd2lL!bxd5 12lL!xd5
tinuations are: lL!xd5 13 .i.h6 .i.xh6 1 4 'ii'xh6 'ifb6
15lL!b3 a5 1 6 c4lL!f6 17 c5 'ii'c7=
9 1i'd2-Line l N.Nilsson-Inkiov, Copenhagen
9 f4--Line 2 1990) l l lL!xd5 lL!xd4 12 .i.xd4
9lL!b3-Line 3 'ii'xd5 13 .i.xg7 'ii'xdl 14 llaxdl
�xg7 with an equal endgame,
On the prophylactic continuations Femandez-Komljenovic, Olot 1992.
9 h3 or 9 �hl Black gets the chance
to attack the centre by ...d6-d5 with
good coi.mterplay. Line 1
l ) 9 h3 d5 1 0 exd5
I a) l O...lL!xd5 l l lL!xd5 'ii'xd5 (1 e4 cS 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
(worth considering is l l...lL!xd4 12 lL!xd4 lL!f6 S lL!c3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.i.xd4 'ii'xd5 13 .i.xg7 'ii'xd1 1 4 .i.e3 lL!c6)
llaxdl �xg7 1 5 .i.f3 .i. f5 with an
equal ending, Levenfish-Chekhover, 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'd2
USSR 1939) 12 .i.f3 'ii'a5 13lL!xc6
bxc6 14 'ii'c l (or 14 .i.xc6?! l1b8 15
'ii'd5 'ii'c7 + Ravinsky-Lisitsin,
USSR 1 944) l 4....l:.b8 15 c3 c5 (af­
ter l 5 ... 1i'c7?! 1 6 lld l lte8 17 b3 e5
18 .i.c5 and Black stands worse,
Knox-Ward, Oakham 1 994) 16 l:ld1
.i.b7 with even chances.
l b) IO...lL!b4 11 d6 (or 1 1 'ii'd2
lL!bxd5 12lL!xd5lL!xd5 13 .i.h6 e5=
Thorhallsson-Grenn, Gausdal 1991)
I l...'ii'xd6 12lL!db5 'ifb8 13 a3lL!c6
 Classical Dragon with 6 1Le2 Jig7 7 iLe3 9
A very old plan, already more
than 100 years old. White allows
...d6-d5, but hopes in this case for a
lead in development which should
tell if lines are opened.
Black's main continuations are:
1A: 9. . . d5
18: 9 ••. ltJg4
1C: 9. . .iJ..d 7
lD: 9 .•. ltJxd4
1A
(1 e4 cS 2 itJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 itJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 1Le2 iJ..g7 7
iJ..e3 ltJc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'd 2)
9 d5
...
The most consistent move,
through which Black smashes the
centre.
10 exdS
10 l:.fd1 is a trappy move with the
idea, after IO...li)xe4? 1 1 ltJxc6
1Lxc3 I2 'ii'xd5 'ii'xd5 13 ltJxe7+
�g7 1 4 ltJxd5 iJ..xb2, to upset the
coordination of Black's active
pieces, 15 l:ab1 iJ..e5 16 f4 JibS 17
iJ..d4+ �h6 1S iJ..O f5 19 g4! and to
attack the king, but this leads to
nothing substantial if Black first ex­
changes knights, l O... ltJxd4 11
'ii'xd4. For example: 1 l...ltJxe4 12
'ii'xd5 itJd6 13 'ii'h3 iJ..e6 14 itJd5
itJf5 15 c4 ltJxe3 16 itJf6+ 1Lxf6 17
l:xdS l:taxdS 1 S 'il'xe3 iJ..xb2 and
Black has sufficient compensation
for the queen, Vasiukov-Gufeld,
USSR (ch) 1959.
It is also easy to parry the attempt
to cramp Black's position after 10
ltJxc6 bxc6 11 e5 llleS 12 f4 f6 13
iLD l:.bS 14 1Lxa7 l:xb2 15 ..id4
Jif5 16 l:fd I fxe5 17 fxe5 llb4 with
equality, Minev-Gufeld, Sofia 1967.
10...itJxd5
10 ... itJb4? 1 1 d6! 'ii'xd6 I2 itJcb5!
leads to an obvious advantage for
White.
1 1 ltJxc6
Here already I I l:fd1 allows
Black the p�wn sacrifice 1 1 ...ltJxc3!
I2 ltJxc6 1Vxd2 13 ltJxe7+ �hS I4
l:xd2 1Lxc3! 15 bxc3 itJf5 to obtain
good counterplay on the queen's
flank.
At first the continuation 1 1 ltJxd5
was popular, but it leads to mass ex­
changes: 1 l . ..itJxd4! 12 c4 (or 12
1Lc4 iJ..e6 13 iJ..xd4 iJ..xd5 1 4 iJ..xg7
1Lxc4 1 5 'ii'h6 iJ..x fl 16 iJ..xf8 1i'xf8
with full equality, Honfi-Gufeld,
Kecskemet 196S) 1 2 ...e5 1 3 f4 iJ..e6
1 4 fxe5 ltJxe2+ 15 'il'xe2 iJ..xd5 16
l:ad1 1Lxc4 (stronger is 16 ... 1Lxe5
17 .:.xd5 'ii'c7 1S h3 llfdS 19 l:fxd1
llxd5 20 l:xd5 a6 21 'ii'd2 l:eS 22
b3 and White has the better chances
in view of his pawn majority on the
queen's flank, Berg-Thomert, Swe­
den 1995) 17 'ii'xc4 'ii'cS 1S 'ii'xcS
l:.axcS 19 l:.d7 1Lxe5 20 l:xb7 a5 21
b3 l:c2 with an even endgame,
Panchenko-Gufeld, Daugavpils
197S.
l l .bxc6 12 .:.ad1
..
12 l:fd1 is also seen, then
12...1i'c7 13 iJ..d4 e5 14 iJ..c5 l:r.dS 15
1Lc4 iJ..g4 I6 l:e1 itJb6 I7 iJ..d3 iif5
and Black maintains equality,
Mariotti-Parma, Rome 19S 1 .
10 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 .i.e3

1 2......c7
On 12....i.f5 13 lLlxdS ,.,xdS
(13 ... cxdS is not good because of 1 4
c3! and i n the event of 1 4...� 8 1S
.i.cS l:r.e8 16 .i.a3! .i.e6 17 .i.f3
Black suffers material losses) 1 4 c4!
White's pawn structure is better,
Smyslov-Denker, Groningen 1 946.
1 2....i.e6 is also insufficient to
equalise the game: 1 3 lLlxdS cxdS
1 4 .i.f3 'Wic7 1 S .i.xdS .i.xdS 16
,.,xdS ,.,xc2 1 7 l:r.d2 ,.,c7 18 b4 and
White retains the initiative, Szabo­ Black obtains the advantage of the
Geller, Hilversum 1 973. two bishops, but concedes space.
13 .i.d4
1 3 lLlxdS leads to simplification 10 .i.xg4 .i.xg4
after 13... cxdS 14 ,.,xdS .i.e6 1S
,.,cS ,.,xeS 1 6 .i.xcS l:r.fc8! (this is White's main continuations are:
stronger than 1 6....i.xb2 17 .i.a6
.i.xa2 18 c4 .i.f6 19 l:r.d7 l:r.fd8 20 1Ba: l l f4
l:r.c7 l:r.d2 with an even endgame, l Bb: l l lLlxc6
Kovalev-Savchenko, Simferopol 1Bc: l l lLld5
1988) 17 .i.xe7 l:r.xc2 1 8 .i.f3 l:r.b8
and Black 's chances are preferable, The restrained 11 f3 .i.d7 12
German-Pomar, Stockholm (izt) l:r.adI, with the idea of gradually
1962. preparing a knight invasion on dS,
13 ... e5 14 .i.c5 l:r.d8 15 lLle4 f5 does not create (>articular problems
In White's favour is IS. . ..i.f5 16 for Black: 12 ... l:r.c8 (or 12 ...a6 13
lLld6! or 1S ....i.e6 16,.,gS. lLldS bS 14 c3 l:r.c8 = Kholmov­
16 lLlg5 R.Byme, Moscow 197S) 13 l:r.f2
On 1 6 lLld6?! follows 16 ... .i.f8!. ,.,aS! 14 lLldS (weaker is 14 lLlb3?!
16 ... h6 17 c4 hxg5 18 cxd5 cxd5 .i.xc3 :f: Euwe-Dcnker, London
19 ,.,xg5 .i.e6 and Black keeps the 1 946) 14 . . ....xd2 IS l:r.fxd2 with an
balance, Timoshchenko-Beliavsky, equal endgame.
Leningrad 1 977.
IDa

1B
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.i.e3 lLlc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 ,.,d2)
9...lLlg4
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.i.e3 lLlc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 ,.,d2 ltlg4 10
.i.xg4 .i.xg4)
l l f4
Here, Black 's possible plans are
associated with the continuations:
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 i.e3
27Ba1 : l l ...i.d7
27Ba2: l l ..ltJxd4
. f5 ltJe5 1 4 b3 (worth considering is
After I I ...'ii'a5 12 f5! Black risks
falling under a dangerous attack.
For example: 1 2...gxf5 13 exf5
i.xd4 14 .i.xd4 f6 15 a3 �h8 1 6 h3
i.h5 17 liJd5 ± Foltys-Wood, Buda­
pest 1948.
1Ba1
(1 e4 cS 2 ltJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 ltJc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'd 2 ltJg4 10
i.xg4 i.xg4 1 1 f4)
l l .. i.d7
. i.xd4+ 15 'ii'xd4, since the accep­
Black moves his bishop out of the
danger zone, avoiding the risk of it
being cut off by f4-f5. However this
involves a loss of time and White
grabs space, based on the possibility
of a knight invasion on the d5
square.
12 :ad1
But not an immediate 12 liJd5 e6!
and he does not succeed in exploit­
ing the weakness of the d6 pawn in
view of the counterplay on the c­
file: 13 ltJc3 ltJa5 14 b3 :c8 1 5
:ael a6 16 f5 ltJc6! with an excel­
lent game for Black, Barden-Pilnik,
Helsinki (ol) 1952.
12 ...:c8 13 h3
II
Also possible is an immediate 1 3
1 4 i.h6 ltJc4 1 5 'ii'c I , since
1 5... ltJxb2?! is dangerous because
of 1 6 i.xg7 ltJxd I 1 7 'ii'h6 ltJxc3 1 8
fxg6 whereupon, in the game
Unzicker-Giustolisi, Lugano 1959,
White retained the better chances
after 1 8 ... fxg6 19 :xf8+ 'ii'xf8 20
i.xf8 :xf8 21 'ii'e3) 14...l:te8 1 5
liJd5 i.c6 16 h3 i.xd5 17 exd5 'ii'd7
when, instead of 18 i.g5 as played
in the game Ellison-Lirindzakis,
Balatonbereny 1992, White main­
tains the better position by 1 8 c4.
Also worthy of deeyer study is the
immediate 13 liJd5 tl!xd4 14 i.xd4
tance of the pawn sacrifice by
15...:xc2 gives White a dangerous
attack on the king: 16 f5 i.c6 (or
1 6 ...f6 1 7 fxg6 hxg6 1 8 e5! dxe5 1 9
'ii'd3) 1 7 ltJe3 :e2 (17...:c5 1 8 b4
l:te5 19 ltJg4! ±) 18 ltJg4 h5 1 9
tiJh6+ �h7 20 ltJxf7! with material
gains for White, Richter-Petrov,
Bad Harzburg 1938.
13 ...b6
Or 1 3...a6 14 :f2 f5?! 1 5 exf5
gxf5 1 6 tiJd5 :n 17 tiJf3 with dan­
gerous threats for White, Radulov­
Bobotsov, Varna 1968. But 14...b5
was more logical.
14 fS liJeS 15 b3 i.c6 16 JigS
i.b7 17 liJdS i.xdS 18 exdS a6 1 9
a4 'ii'd7 2 0 c4 with the better game
for White, Nevednichy-Rogozenko,
Bucharest 1993.
1Ba2
(1 e4 cS 2 tiJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 ltJc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'd 2 ltJg4 10
i.xg4 i.xg4 1 1 f4)
l l .. ltJxd4
.
12 Classical Dragon with 6 .i&.e2 .i&.g 7 7 .i&.e3
12 .il.xd4 e5 13 .il.e3 exf4 14 1lxf4
Also interesting is 14 .il.xf4!?
'il'b6+ 15 �h1 _.xb2 16 �d5 with
an initiative for the pawn, since
1 6...-.xa l ? is not good: 17 llxa1
.il.xa 1 18 c3! and the bishop on a1
has no way out.
14 ....il.e6 15 1lf2 .il.e5
Or 1 5...llc8 1 6 .il.d4 .il.e5 =
Unzicker-Sax, Wijk aan Zee 198 1.
16 .il.d4
16 .il.f4 l:lc8 17 .il.xe5 dxe5 18
_.e3 offers nothing.
16...-.e7
Other possibilities:
1) 1 6...a6 1 7 �e2 llc8 18 c3 .il.d7
19 �6 _.e7 20 lle 1 .il.c6 21 �f4
f6! ·(2 1 ...l:lce8 22 lle3 ± Jimenez­
Larsen, Palma de Mallorca (izt)
1 970) 22 l:le3 l:f.f7 Larsen.
= l:lbd8 18 �h I 1"6 19 I� nnd White
2) 1 6...-.a5 1 7 .il.xe5 dxe5 18
ti:Jd5 _.xd2 19 l:f.xd2 = Radulov­
Mestel, Belgrade 1982.
17 a4
After 17 llad1 l:lfd8 Black
proceeds with ...d6-d5 and fully
equalises, Matanovic-Trifunovic,
Belgrade 1 952.
17 ... a6 18 aS l:lac8 and Black's
chances are not worse, Hartman­
Inkiov, Saltsjobaden 1988.
1Bb
(I e4 c5 2 ti:JO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tl:Jxd4 ti:Jf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.il.e3 tl:Jc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 _.d2 tl:Jg4 10
.il.xg4 .il.xg4)
1 1 tl:Jxc6
A comparatively new plan, asso­
ciated with an exchange of the
Dragon bishop. However, Black ob­
tains a half-open b-file, a compact
pawn chain and the possibility of an
attack on the centre e4 pawn.
l l ... bxc6 12 .il.h6 .il.xh6 13 •xh6
13 ...�6
This is more active than 13...l:lb8
14 b3 Wa5, since after the retreat 15
We3 White retains control over the
centre.
1) 15 ... e5 16 h3 i.c6 1 7 l:lad l
maintains the initiative, Knmsky­
Rao, Philadelphiu 199 1.
2) 15...l:lf'd8 16 li)n4 ( 16 h3?!
.il.e6 17 l:lfd l to IH l:ld 3 ._,b6 19
�6 Wc5 "' Timmnn-Topalov,
Novgorod 1995) 16 . . . c5 ( l6 ... ..te6
17 f4 ;!;) 17 c4 ;t (J.Tirnmun).
14 l:labl .le6
Also worth con� idcrin g is 14 ...
e5!? 15 �hi .lc6 16 I� f5 with
roughly equal chunccs, R.Perez­
Tregubov, Cappello In < irnndc 2000.
15 l:lfdl
In the first in11tunce preven ting
.. d6-d5, which miMhl li11luw, for
.
example, on 15 Wh4 n, Ifl <J..h I d5!
 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 .i.e3 1 3
when after 17 exd5 cxd5 1 8 ::tfeI
llfe8 Black's position is preferable.
On 15 llfe l also best is l 5...d5 (in
the game Ljubojevic-van der Wiel,
Tilburg 1 984, l 5 ...::tab8?! was
played after which, as pointed out
by Van der Wiel, Black could obtain
a good game by l 6...'il'a5! 17 'il'e3
f5!? 18 e5 f4) 1 6 e5 .i.f5 17 'il'd2
lHd8 with roughly even chances.
lS...fS!
Increasing the sphere of activity
of the king's rook. After 15...l:tab8
16 l:.d3 'il'c5 17 b3 ::tb4 18 :te l f6
19 'il'd2 a5 20 lLla4 'il'a7 21 c3 ::tb7
22 c4 llb4 23 l:.c3 c5 24 f4 White
keeps the initiative, Kindermann­
Benko, Aruba 1992.
16 ltd2 :n 17 b3 f4 18 lLle2
'il'b4 19 ::td4 'iVcS 20 ::td2 'il'eS and
Black's game is preferable, Nielsen­
Tiviakov, Gausdal 1993.
lBc
(l e4 cS 2 �0 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.i.e3 �c6 8 0-0 0-0 9 'il'd2 �g4 10
.i.xg4 .i.xg4)
l l �dS
White intends to increase his con­
trol over the centre by c2-c4, but in
this variation the absence of his
light-squared bishop is felt.
l l ....i.d7
On l l ...:cs White could sacrifice
a pawn: 12 c4! �xd4 13 .i.xd4
l:.xc4 14 .i.xg7 �xg7 in association
with the manoeuvre 1 5 �e3. How­
ever after 15 ...l:.xe4 16 f3 .i.xf3!
(16 ... :xe3? 17 'il'xe3 .i.e6 1 8 'il'xa7
±) Black has three pawns for the
piece and the situation is unclear,
e.g. 17 ::txf3 'il'b6! 18 �h i (18
l:td1?! d5! +) l 8 .. .'iWd4! 19 'il'f2 f5
20 lldl 'il'e5 and Black is not worse,
Stoica-Vera, Timisoara 1 987.
V.Stoica also looked at 17 gxf3
l:te5! 18 f4 (18 'il'd4 'iib6!) l 8...lte4
19 �d5 e6 20 �c3 'il'b6+ 21 �hI
l:tb4, but even here White does not
appear to have made any particular
progress.
In Timoshchenko-Makarychev,
USSR (ch) 1979, Black shunned the
pawn sacrifice: 12....i.e6 13 b3 'ii'd7
14 l:tae 1 �xd4 15 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 1 6
'il'xd4 ::tc5 17 f4 .i.xd5 1 8 exd5 b5
and also obtained satisfactory play.
12 c4 �es
After 12 ..f5 13 exf5 gxf5 14 f4
.
ltf7 15 l:tadl :cs 1 6 l:.fe l White's
position is preferable, Trepp-Haik,
Biel l 986.
13 b3 e6! 14 �c3 'ii'aS
Interesting, as in the game Emms­
Riemersma, Gausdal 1993, is
l 4...�g4!? when after 15 .i.g5 'il'a5
16 �de2 (16 .i.e?? 'ii'e5!) l 6...b5!
17 h3 b4 1 8 hxg4 bxc3 1 9 'il'c l
::tfe8 Black gained the advantage.
IS h3 a6 16 f4
Or 16 a4 f5 17 f4 �f7 1 8 exf5
gxf5! (I.Boleslavsky).
=
l6 ... �c6 17 �de2 l:.fd8 and
Black is ready for the break ... b7-b5,
which gives him equal chances.
lC
( l e4 c 5 2 � f3 d 6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e2 i.g7 7
.i.e3 �c6 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'd2)
14 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g 7 7 i.e3
9 . i.d7
. .
The favourite continuation of the
old days. Black hurries to complete
his development and start action on
the queenside. Possible continua­
tions for White here are:
lCa: 10 f4
lCb: 10 .:adl
l Ca
(1 e4 cS 2 lLJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLJxd4 lLJf6 5 lLJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 lLJc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 1i'd2 i.d7)
10 f4
lO...lLJxd4
The routine 10 ....:c8 allows White
to avoid an exchange of knights by
1 1lLJb3! i.g4 12 l:tad1 b5 13 e5 and
maintain the initiative, Inkiov-Sax,
Baile Herculane 1982.
1 1 i.xd4 i.c6 12 i.f3
Activity by 12 e5?! after 12...lLJe4
13 lLJxe4 (weaker is 13 1i'e3 dxe5
14 fxe5 i.h6 15 1i'd3lLJg5! 16 i.g4
i.g7! 17 :ad1 b5 +) 13...i.xe4 14
.:ad1 dxe5 15 fxe5 1i'd5 16 c4 1i'e6
hands Black the initiative
(D.Velimirovic).
12 ...e5!
A typical method of counterplay
in similar Sicilian formations. Black
either rids himself of the weakness
on d6 with an exchange of pawns,
or compensates for it (if White al­
lows ... e5xf4) by grabbing the e5
square and pressurising the e4
pawn.
13 fxeS dxeS 14 i.e3 it'xd2 IS
i.xd2 .:rd8
15...lLJd7 leads to an equal end­
game after 16 i.e3 .:fd8 17 .:fd 1
i.ffi 18 lLJd5 i.c5 = Mariotti­
Velimirovic, PortorozJLjubljana
1 975.
16 i.e3
Weaker is 16 .:adl ?! .:d4! 17
i.g5 h6 1 8 i.xf6 i.xf6 19 .:xd4
exd4 20 lLJd5 i.g5 21 l:td1 .:c8! +
Illescas Cordoba-Gulko, Leon 1992.
16 ... i.f8 17 .:adl lLJd7 and the
game is even (B.Gulko).
l Cb
(1 e4 cS 2 lLJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLJxd4 lLJf6 5 lLJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 lLJc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 it'd2 i.d7)
10 .:adl
IO ... .:cs 1 1 f3
A sturdy move reinforcing the
centre. Also possible is 11 f4, since
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 i.e3 15
here, with the rook already standing
on d1, 1 l ...lLlxd4 12 i.xd4 i.c6
yields nothing because of 13 i.f3!
and the advance ...e7-eS is not
possible.
For a long time Black pursued a
plan of attack on the queen's flank:
1 l ...a6 12 h3 (or 12 lLlxc6 i.xc6 13
i.f3 "jjc7 14 ltf2 bS 1S lLldS "jjb7
16 c3 l:tfe8 17 fS aS = Larsen­
Kavalek, Bugojno 1982) 1 2...bS
(threatening ... bS-b4, gaining an
important tempo-more passive is
12...-.c7 1 3 lLlb3 i.e6 1 4 i.f3 bS
1S lLldS i.xdS 16 exdS lLlb8 17
lLld4 ;!; M.Kovacs-Nikolic, Reggio
Emilia 1978/79) 1 3 a3 "jjc7 14lDb3
.l:.fd8 1 S i.f3 i.e8 1 6 "jjf2 l:.b8 1 7
lLldS and White has the freer game,
Unzicker-Eiiskases, Saltsjobaden
(izt) 19S2. Worth considering is
1 l ...lLlg4!?. For example, the game
Sisish-Golubev, Ko�abrsk/Alushta
1997, continued: 1 2 ltJxc6 bxc6 13
i.d4? eS! 14 i.xa7 ( 1 4 fxeS cS!)
14...-.aS 1S i.f2 lLlxf2 16 l:.xf2
exf4 17 "jjxd6 i.e6 18 "jjxf4 l:.b8 19
'ii'c1 "jjb4 with advantage to Black.
1 1. .. a6 12 a4
It is useful to hold back the b­
pawn. Earlier, 12 �h1 was played
and Black did not experience any
particular difficulties:
1) 12...lLlaS 13 i.h6 lLlc4 14
i.xc4 Axc4 1S i.xg7 �xg7 16
lLlce2 bS Nimzowitsch­
Tartakower, Bled 1931.
2) 12...bS 1 3 lLlxc6 i.xc6 14 a3
fic7 1S i.h6 .l:.fd8 16 i.xg7 �xg7
1 7 "jje3 i.b7 18 l:[d3 "jjcS 19 "jjxcS
.l:.xcS= Ragozin-Korchnoi, USSR
(ch) 19S4.
12 ...fic7 13 lLlb3 .:.res 14 "jje 1
lLlb4 15 l:td2 i.e6 16 lLld4 i.c4 17
'ii'f2 e5 18 i.xc4 "jjxc4 19 lLlde2 d5
and, after opening the centre, Black
obtained a fully equal game,
Kristensen-I.Ivanov, Gausdal 1993.
1D
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 lLlc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 "jjd2)
9 ... lLlxd4
The attempt to solve the problem
of defence by exchanges activates
the white bishop which, in the cen­
tre, cramps Black even more than
the knight since it is not attacked
and needs no support. And yet with
accurate play Black can fight for
equality.
10 i.xd4 i.e6
10...i.d7 is also seen. Now in the
event of 11 f4 i.c6 12 i.f3 there
arises a position examined in varia­
tion 1Ca (9 ... i.d7), where Black ob­
tains a good game. Therefore more
promising looks 11 .l:.ad l i.c6 12 f3
a6 13 a4 'WaS 14 "jje3 with the more
pleasant position for White.
1 1 l:.ad1
Also here the move 1 1 f4, though
it looks more logical (than upon
10...i.d7), could add to Black's
problems: 1 l ..."jjaS! ( 1 l ...a6 is a
loss of time: 1 2 l:.ad1 l:.c8 13 i.f3
.l:.c4 1 4 lLle2!, threatening to grab
space by b2-b3 and c2-c4,
T.Petrosian-Gutman, USSR 1 963)
1 2 l:lad1 l:[fc8 1 3 fS?! i.c4 and
Black is already better, Christensen­
Borge, Copenhagen 1991.
1 6 Classical Dragon with 6 if..e2 if..g7 7 if..e3
1 3 if..f3 was safer.
On 1 1 l:.fe 1 possible is 1 l ...'ifa5
I2 l:.adi l:tfc8 1 3 if..fl a6 1 4 tt:ld5
'ihd2 I5 l:txd2 .txd5 I6 exd5 �:ffi
1 7 c4 b5 I8 b3 bxc4 I9 .txc4 tt:le8
20 i.xg7+ 'ittxg7 2 1 g4 and White
has only a symbolic advantage,
Geller-Arbakov, Tiraspol 1 994.
l l 'ifc8 12 l:.fe1 lld8 13 tt:ldS
...
.txdS 14 exdS a6 15 if..n l:te8 16
a4 tt:ld7 17 il..xg7 �xg7 18 aS and
White has the more active play,
Radulov-Kristensen, Silkeborg
1 983.
Line 2
(1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 if..e2 .tg7 7
.te3 tt:lc6 8 0-0 0-0)
9 f4
An old continuation, preventing
the move 9... d5.
9 'ifb6!
...
In bringing the queen out to an
active position, Black attacks the
knight d4 (threatening ...tt:lf6xe4)
and the b2 pawn.
The thrust 9...tt:lg4?! is insuffi­
cient. It was introduced as long ago
as the last century in the game
Lasker-Golmayo, Havana 1 893,
which continued 1 0 if..xg4 if..xd4 II
if..xd4 if..xg4 12 Wd2 if..e6 13 f5
if..c4 1 4 l:tf3 tt:lxd4 1 5 Wxd4 if..a6 I6
tt:ld5 l:r.c8 1 7 f6 llc4 I8 Wd2 exf6
I9 'ii'h6 f5 20 l:r.h3 I-0.
On 9... il..g4, IO tt:lxc6! is strong.
For examP.Ie: 1 0...if..xe2 II tt:lxe7+
Wxe7 I2 'ifxe2 llfe8 I3 Wd3 tt:lxe4
I4 tt:ld5 Wd7 I5 f5 and, apart from
the weak d6 pawn, Black comes
under an attack, Barua-D.Gurevich,
New York 1 987.
The problem of the e4 pawn can
be solved in two ways:
28A: 10 'ii'd3
28B: 10 eS
He cannot ignore the threat to
capture the e4 pawn: 1 0 �h 1 tt:lxe4
1 1 tt:lxc6 Wxc6 1 2 tt:ld5 lle8
( 1 2...Wd7 1 3 if..d4 with chances for
both sides, Romanishin-Sosonko,
Tilburg I979) 1 3 if..f3 f5 and White
has no compensation for the pawn
(G.Sosonko), while on the aggres­
sive IO tt:lf5? Black could take the
b2 pawn with impunity: 1 0...Wxb2
1 1 qja4 'ifa3 I2 c3 tt:lxe4! I3 if..c 1
tt:lxc3 etc.
2A
(1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:ld4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 if..e2 .tg7 7
if..e3 tt:lc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 'ifb6)
10 'iVd3
 Classical Dragon with 6 .i..e2 .i..g 7 7 .i..e3 1 7
This obvious defence of the e4
pawn relinquishes his control of the
g4 square.
10....!Z:lg4
Apparently he could have also
gone for 1 0...'ifxb2 1 1 a3 (or 1 1
:b1 'ifa3 12 .!Z:lxc6 bxc6 13 .!Z:ld5
ii'xd3 14 .!Z:lxe7+ �h8 15 cxd3
Gayson-Holmes, England 1987)
1 l ....!Z:lxe4 1 2 .!Z:lxc6 (on 12 .!Z:la4
Black could sacrifice the queen:
12...'ifxd4 1 3 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 14 �h1
.i.f5 15 _.d1 .!Z:lf2+ 16 l:1xf2 .i.xf2,
obtaining a sufficient equivalent,
Crepan-Mukhtarov, Portoroz 1994,
but even stronger is 12....!Z:lc5! 13
.!Z:lxc6 .!Z:lxa4 14 .!Z:lxe7+ <li'h8 and
White suffers material losses)
12....!Z:lxc3 1 3 .!Z:lxe7+ 'ili>h8 14 .i.O
l:r.e8 1 5 .!Z:lxc8 :axc8 1 6 .i.xa7 d5
with a sharp game, Wach-Oley,
Poland 1973.
l l .!Z:ld5
11 .i.xg4 leads to an approxi­
mately equal endgame
1 1 ... .i.xd4 12 .i.xd4 'ifxd4+ 13
'ifxd4 .!Z:lxd4 1 4 .i.xc8 (worth
considering is 14 .i.dI!? .i.e6 1 5
l:r.f2 with· the idea of driving away
the knight, Podlesnik-Jazbinsek,
Ljubljana 1 994) 14...l:tfxc8 15 .l:f2
l:tc4 1 6.!Z:ld5.!Z:lc6.
l l ... J.. xd4! 12 .i.xg4
After 1 2 .!Z:lxb6 J.. xe3+ 13 �h 1
(after 13 ii'xe3 .!Z:lxe3 14 .!Z:lxa8
.!Z:lxfl 15 .i.xfl d5 Black has the bet­
ter endgame) 13...J..xb6 14 .i.xg4
.i.xg4 15 f5 .!Z:le5 16 'ifg3 .i.e2 and
Black has more than sufficient com­
pensation for the queen, Leiber­
Berend, Ostend 1992.
12 ... J.. xe3+ 13 'ifxe3 'ifxe3+!
R.Schwarz recommends 13...
'ifxb2 14 .i.xc8 :axc8 15 l:tab1
'ifxa2 16 l:r.xb7 e6, but after 17
.!Z:lf6+! 1;g7 18 'ifc3! (also-interest­
ing is 18 f5 1;xf6 19 'ifh6 with the
threat 20 'ifh4!) 18....!Z:le5 19 'ifh3
<li>xf6 20 fxe6+ or 20 'ifh6! and
White has a strong attack.
14.!Z:lxe3 .i.xg4 15.!Z:lxg4 l:lac8
Or 15...f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 .!Z:le3
l:tac8 with approximate equality,
Grosar-Winslow, 1993.
16 .!Z:le3 f6 17 :ad1 .!Z:la5 18 :a
= rj;rJ with an even endgame, Grosar­
Ward, Berne 1992.
2B
(1 e4 c5 2 .!Z:lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.!Z:lxd4 .!Z:lf6 5 .!Z:lc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.i.e3 .!Z:lc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 'ifb6)
10 e5
after
The so-called Zollner Gambit­
the most consistent, but hardly a
correct continuation.
10 ... dxe5 1 1 fxe5 .!Z:lxe5 12 .!Z:lf5
'it'xb2!
A determined capture of a pawn,
laying claim to be a refutation of the
gambit.
The other possible continuation is
12 ...'ife6 13 lbxg7 �xg7 14 'ifd2
1;g8 (not good is l 4....!Z:lg8? l 5.!Z:lb5
'ifd7 16 'ifc3 ± Kramer-Euwe, (m)
1940, or l 4....!Z:leg4? 15 .i.d4 'itd7
1 6 .i.xg4 'ifxg4 17 :r6 ± Alekhine)
15 :ael lbc6 (weaker is l 5...J..d7
16 .i.d4 .i.c6 17 .i.b5 .!Z:lfd7 18
.i.xc6 bxc6 19 'ife3 f6 20 .i.xa7
with advantage to White, Grechkin­
lvashin, corr. 1952) 16 .i.O (in
18 Classical Dragon with 6 i&.e2 i&.g 7 7 i&.e3
Black's favour is 16 i&.d3 'ii'd7 17
h3 liJh5 18 'ii'f2 ltJg7 19 'ifh4 'ifd8
20 ltJe4 f6 + Nezhrnetdinov­
Pogrebysky, USSR 1949) 16...1Vd7
1 7 'ii'f2 with the idea of attacking by
1Vf2-h4 (E.Geller).
Upon the transposition to an end­
game 1 2...'it'd8 13 'ifxd8 .l:lxd8 14
lllxe7+ �f8 (14...'�h8 15 il.g5 ±)
15 i&.c5 White obtains the advantage
(Alekhine).
13 lDxe7+ ¢>h8 14 il.d4
This move sets Black the most
complicated problems, whereas af­
ter 1 4 'it'd2 i&.e6! 15 .l:lab l 'ifa3 1 6
l:hb7 .l:.fd8 17 'ife 1 ltJe4! or 14
lDxc8 'ifxc3! 1 5 i&.d4 1Vxc8 1 6
i&.xe5 .l:.d8! White has no apparent
objects of attack.
14...'iib4!
Upon passive defence 14 ...ltJg8
15 lllb5 "iVb4 1 6 liJd5 1Va4 17 .l:.f4
White has a dangerous attack,
Aratovsky-Ilivitsky, corr. 1948.
1 4 ...liJfg4 leads to interesting
variations. For example: 15 liJed5
(15 ltJcd5? 'it'xd4+! or 1 5 lDxc8
lDe3!) 1 5...1Va3 16 lDb5 1Va5 17 h3
lDh6 1 8 l:tf6! lDc6 19 i&.c3 'iVd8
with dynamic equality, Castro­
Rogoff, Graz 1972. A possible fur­
ther continuation is 20 .l:ld6 1Vg5 21
i&.d2 with 'perpetual check' to the
queen.
15 i&.xe5
After 15 lDxc8 .l:ld8 (or
15....1:1axc8 16 i&.xe5 .l:lfd8 1 7 i&.xf6
i&.xf6! +) 16 liJb5 .l:laxc8 17 c3 'it'e7
18 lDxa7 .l:.xc3 with an extra pawn
for Black, Palda-Galia, Vienna
1947.
15 ...1Vxe7 16 'ifd4 liJh5
16 ...ltJe8 is also possible.
17 i&.xg7+ ltJxg7 18 i&.d3 i&.e6
and White does not have full com­
pensation for the sacrificed pawn
(E. Geller).
Line 3
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 i&.e2 i&.g7 7
i&.e3 liJc6 8 0-0 0-0)
9 liJb3
The most radical means of pre­
venting the thrusts ... d6-d5 and
. ..liJf6-g4. The drawback of the
move is that it removes the knight
from the centre which allows Black
to obtain counterplay on the queen's
flank.
The main continuations for Black
are:
3A: 9...i&.e6
38: 9 ...a5
38: 9 ...a6
3D: 9... b6
 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 .i.e3 1 9
Worth considering is the hardly
investigated 9 ... o!De5 with the idea of
1 0 f4 o!Deg4 1 1 .i.d4 e5 12 fxe5
o!Dxe5 =. The game Lukin-Sergeev,
St-Petersburg 1993, continued 10 h3
.i.e6 1 1 o!Dxd4 (after 11 .!Dd2 d5! 12
f4 d4! 13 fxe5 .!DeS Black takes
over the initiative) 11....!Dc4 12 .i.c1
l:tcS 13 b3 o!De5 14 o!Dxe6 fxe6 15
.i.b2? _.a5 1 6 _.e1 g5! and because
of his threat to double rooks on the
c-file, Black has the preferable
game. Stronger was 15 .i.d2 with
complex play.
Upon the continuation 9....i.d7
White exerts pressure in the centre
by 1 0 f3 :cs 1 1 o!Dd5.
3A
(1 e4 c5 2 o!Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
o!Dxd4 .!Df6 5 o!Dc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
i.e3 o!Dc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 o!Db3)
9 .i.e6
...
A reliable continuation. Black de­
velops his bishop on the most attrac­
tive square from where it supports a
break in the centre ...d6-d5, leaving
in reserve the possibility of a flank
attack ...a7-a5.
10 f4
White intends the advance f4-f5,
which Black must reckon on when
planning his game. His main
continuations are:
3Aa: 10 .-c8
...
3Ab: 10 o!Da5
...
3Ac: 1 0 l:tc8
...
It is useful also to get familiar
with 10...b5, where the sacrifice is
tactically based on the activity of
the pieces: 11 .i.xb5 o!Dg4! 12 _.d2
o!Dxe3 13 •xe3 o!Db4 etc. Usually
the pawn is not taken:
1) 11 f5 .i.xb3 (weaker is
11...b4?! 12 fxe6 bxc3 13 exf7+
�hS 14 bxc3 ± Spassky-Miles,
Bugojno 197S) 12 axb3 b4 with a
complicated game.
2) 11 .i.f3 _.d7 12 h3 .i.c4 13 e5
.!DeS 14 l:tf2 and White's chances
are preferable, Liberzon-Miles,
Baden 19SO.
3Aa
(1 e4 c5 2 o!Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
o!Dxd4 .!Df6 5 o!Dc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.i.e3 o!Dc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 o!Db3 .i.e6 10
f4)
10 .-c8
...
The most popular continuation for
Black. The queen not only takes un­
der control the f5 and g4 squares but
20 Classical Dragon with 6 Jie2 Jig 7 7 Jie3
also frees a place for the rook from
where it will support the advance
...d6-d5.
1 1 �hl
This prophylactic move, moving
the king off the weakened g1-a7 di­
agonal and securing a square for the
dark-squared bishop, is the most
common continuation in this varia­
tion. But it is useful to look also at
other moves.
1 ) 1 1 i.f3 (this move, useful in
other variations, allows Black to
drive back the bishop) 1l ...lLlg4
(upon the exchange of the light­
squared bishops 1 l ...il.g4 12 ltJd5!
i.xf3 1 3 'it'xf3 lLlxd5 14 exd5 White
fixes the Dragon pawn phalanx,
which complicates Black's task, for
example the game Hiibner-Miles,
Tilburg 1 985, continued 14...ltJb4?!
15 'ii'e4 lLla6 16 c3 'it'c7 1 7 l:.ae1
btae8 18 f5 and White gained the
advantage, but upon the better
1 4... lLlb8! 1 5 c3 ltJd7 16 llae1 lLlf6
it is not easy to breach Black's posi­
tion, Asrian-Khalifrnan, New York
1 998) 12 i.e1 i.xb3 13 i.xg4 i.e6
1 4 f5 i.d7 (worth considering is the
intermediate exchange 14...i.xc3!?
15 bxc3 .i.d7 16 i.h6 l:.e8 1 7 fxg6
hxg6, not fearing 1 8 llxf7?! i.xg4
19 btg7+ �h8 20 'ii'd2 llg8 21 :tf7
'ii'e6 22 llafl ltJe5 +) 15 ltJd5 e6
(15...bte8 is also seen-in the game
Tal-Fedorowicz, Reykjavik 1986,
White offered a pawn sacrifice by
1 6 .i.g5 and on its refusal 16... i.f8?
17 a4 lLle5 18 i.h3 obtained an ob­
vious advantage, but nevertheless
after 16...i.xb2 17 l:.b1 i.e5 there
was apparently nothing real; more
natural is 16 c3 lLle5 17 i.h3 e6 18
fxe6 .i.xe6 19 i.xe6 llxe6 20 i.g5
;!; Asrian-Xu Jun, Ubeda 1998) 16
fxe6 (in Asrian-And.Rodriguez,
FIDE-Wch Las Vegas 1999, was
played 1 6 lLle3 lld8 17 i.h3 lLle5
with an equal game, also nothing is
offered by 17 'it'xd6 exf5 18 exf5
i.xf5 19 'it'f4 lld4 ) 16...i.xe6 17
=
i.xe6 fxe6 18 llxf8+ i.xf8 19
lLlf6+ �g7 20 ltJg4 h5 21 ltJf2 ;!;
Krnic-Rigo, Rome 1986)
2) 11 h3 (in radically preventing
the thrust to g4, White loses an im­
portant tempo and Black can attack
the bishop via the c4 square)
1 l ...lld8 12 lLld4 (after 1 2 i.t3 i.c4
13 l1f2 e5! Black takes over the ini­
tiative: 14 f5 gxf5 15 exf5 d5 16
Jig5 e4 + Steinmeyer-Benko, USA
(ch) 1 962/63, or 14 lld2 'it'e6 15
ltJd5 exf4! + Rolland-Larsen, Le
Havre 1966) 1 2...ltJxd4 13 i.xd4
Jl.c4 1 4 f5 d5! 15 e5 lLle4 16 f6 exf6
17 exf6 i.f8 18 i.xc4 'it'xc4 with
equal chances, Geller-Lipnitsky,
Kiev 1950.
3) 11 'it'e1 lLlb4! (exploiting the
weakening of the c2 square to ex­
change bishops; risky is 1 l...lLlg4?!
because of 12 i.xg4 i.xg4 13 f5!
gxf5 14 h3 f4 15 l:txf4 i.h5 16 ltJd5
with a very strong attack for White,
Ragozin-Veresov, Moscow 1945)
12 ltJd4 i.c4 13 a3 i.xe2 14 'it'xe2
lLlc6 15 llad1 (15 lLlb3 ltJg4 16
i.d2 a5! +) 15 ...lLlg4 (or 15 ...1le8
with the idea 16 ... lL!xd4 17 i.xd4
e5! ) 16 ltJd5 lLlxe3 17 'it'xe3 'it'd8
=
1 8 c3 e6 and the position is simpli­
fied, while the weakening of the d6
pawn cannot be exploited.
l l ...lld8
11 ... i.g4 is also encountered,
when after 12 i.xg4 'it'xg4 13 'it'e1
b5 14 i.d2 b4 15 ltJd5 lLlxd5 16
exd5 lLld4 the initiative passes to
Black, Kupreichik-Stanec, Oberwart
1999. Stronger, as in the main varia­
tion, is 12 Jig l .
 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 i..e3 21
I) I2...b6 I3 �d5 i..xe2 I 4 'ii'xe2
'iVb7 I5 l:tad I ltfe8 I 6 c3 .l:.ac8 I7
i..f2 �b8 I8 'ii'f3 'ii'a6 I9 �xf6
i..xf6 20 e5! with advantage to
White, Savon-Sosonko, Ljubljana/
Portoroz I 977.
2) I 2....1:.d8 13 �d5 i..xe2 I4
'ii'xe2 e6 I5 �xf6+ i..xf6 I6 c3
i..g7 I7 AadI l:[b8 18 i..f2 ! b5
(l8...'ii'c7!?) I9 i..h4 ltd7 20 ltd3
and, in view of the weakness of the
d6 pawn, Black has the preferable
game, Anand-Fedorowicz, Amster­
dam 1990.
3) l 2...Ab8 13 �d4 a6 (worth
considering is 13 ...i..xe2 14 'ii'xe2
b5!?) I4 i..xg4 'ii'xg4 15 'ii'd2 ltbc8
I6 Aael b5 (also interesting is
l 6 ...Afd8) 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5 b4!
I 9 �xc6 .l:.xc6 20 �e2 �h5
(20...'ii'd7 21 �d4 ±) 21 �d4 (or 21
i..d4 'ii'e6 ) 21...ltc5! with equal
= consistent 12...d5!? I3 e5 �g4 14
chances, Svidler-Khalifman, Tilburg
1994.
4) I2...i..xe2 (the most consistent)
1 3 'ii'xe2 'ii'g4 (possible is 13...�d7
I4 ltf3 f5 I 5 ltdl Af7 16 exf5 gxf5
I7 �d5 �f8 I8 c4 e5 with
sufficient counterplay, Kotronias­
Zaichik, Moscow I987) I4 'ii'd2 b5
(in the game Kasparov-Gufeld,
Baku I978, Black pursued a plan of
pressurising the f4 pawn: 14...�h5
15 ltf3 f5 16 h3 'ii'h 4 I7 exf5 gxf5?!
I 8 �d4 and landed in a difficult po­
sition; stronger was 17....lhf5 18
i..f2 i..xc3! 19 bxc3 'ii'f6 20 i.. e3,
though even here White's chances
were preferable) 15 .l:.ael b4 I6
�d5 with chances for both sides,
Westerinen-Gufeld, Havana 1985.
On I l...a5 simplest is 12 a4,
transposing to a position from the
variation 9... a5 10 a4, since on 12
�d4 Black could play 12...�xd4 I 3
i..xd4 i..c4 14 i..d3 b5! with not bad
counterplay on the queen's flank.
12 i..gl
White does not have a more use­
ful move. Let's look at the other
possibilities.
I) I2 �d4 i..g4 13 f5 i..xe2 14
�dxe2 �e5 (controlling the e5
square guarantees Black a fully
equal game) 15 i..g5 'ii'c5 I 6 �f4
lte8 17 �d3 'ii'd4 18 i..xf6 i..xf6 I9
�d5 'ii'xe4 20 �c7 gxf5 2 I �xa8
l:lxa8 22 �xe5 i..xe5 and Black has
full compensation for the exchange,
Bareev-Tiviakov, Belgrade GMA
I989.
2) 12 i.. f3 i..c4 (12...i..g4 allows
an occupation of the central posi­
tion: I3 �5! i..xf3 I4 'ii'xf3 e6 15
�xf6+ i..xf6 16 c3 d5 17 e5 i..g7
18 .:.aeI b5 19 �d4 and White ob­
tains a small but enduring positional
advantage, Kupreichik-Novikov,
Lvov 1988; worth considering is the
i..gI d4 15 �e4 �e3 16 i..xe3 dxe3
I7 'ii'e1 i..c4 18 ltgl 'ii'f5! with a
complex game, Barua-Yurtaev,
Frunze 1983) 13 ltf2 e5! (the stan­
dard Sicilian method: the weakness
of the d6 pawn is compensated by
having an outpost on e5 for his
knight) 14 ltd2 (on 14 g3 possible is
I4...d5! 15 exd5 e4 16 �xe4 �xd5
+) I4...exf4 (this allows White to
stabilise the pawn structure in the
centre, worth considering is
I4...'ii'e6!? I5 fxe5 �xe5 or
14... i..h6!? I5 Ad6 'ii'c7 16 .l:.xd8+
22 Classical Dragon with 6 iie2 .1ig 7 7 .1ie3
l:lxd8 with active counterplay) 15
iixf4 lbe5 16 .1J..xe5 (it is easier for
White to count on a struggle for the
advantage with a stable pawn
structure; after 16 lDe2 l:a6 the
weaknesses in both camps balance
each other out, Matanovic-Geller,
Belgrade 1957) 16 ...dxe5 17 .1J..e2
l:.xd2 18 'ii'xd2 .1J..e6 19 l:fl 'Wd8 20
'ii'e3 and White's chances are some­
what preferable, Votava-Klopfer,
Altensteig 1993.
12 ... d5 13 eS lDe4
More passive is 13 ...lDd7, which
allows the establishment of a base
on d4 for his knight: 14 lDb5 .1if5
15 lD5d4 lDxd4 16 lDxd4 iJ..e4 17 e6
lDf6 18 exf7+ �xf7 19 iJ..d3 e6 20
'ii'e2 and White's chances are pref­
erable, Thipsay-Stanec, Moscow
(ol) 1994.
Now the most promising con­
tinuations for White are:
3Aa1 : 14 iJ..d3
3Aa2: 14 lDbS
Not good is 14 t:Dxe4 dxe4 15
'We1 f6 (worth considering is
15 ... b6! ?, averting the threat of
lDb3-c5, and then ...f7-f6, and also
15... g5!?) 16 lDc5 fxe5 17 fxe5
lDd4! (after 17....1J..f5?! 18 .1J..c4+
..t>h8 19 t:Dxe4 lDxe5 20 iJ..b3 'Wc6
21 l:.f4 h6 22 'We2 White has a
dangerous initiative, Lobron-Sax,
Lucerne (ol) 1982) 18 t:Dxe4? lDxe2
19 'ii'xe2 .1J..c4 and White is left the
exchange down, Zagrebelny­
Asanov, USSR 1983.
On 14 lDd4 the doubled pawns
14...t:Dxc3 15 bxc3 t:Dxd4 16 iJ..xd4
iif5 17 iJ..d3 only stabilise White's
centre and allow him to go over to
an attack on the king's flank:
17...'We6 (17...e6 18 g4 .1J..xd3 19
cxd3 ±) 18 'Wf3 l:ac8 19 l:aeI l:c6
20 iixf5 gxf5 21 l:g I �h8 22 g4
and the g-file is opened to White's
advantage, Kovalev-Matveeva,
Helsinki 1992. However after
14... f6! 15 lDxe6 'Wxe6 I 6 lDb5 l:d7
17 exf6 exf6 18 f5 gxf5 19 l:xf5
'Wxf5 20 iJ..g4 'We5 21 .ixd7 f5!
Black's centralised pieces secure
him a good game, Smirin­
Tukrnakov, Rostov 1993.
3Aal
(1 e4 cS 2 lDfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 i.e2 .1J..g7 7
.1J..e3 lDc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lDb3 .1J..e6 10
f4 'Wc8 1 1 �hl l:d8 12 i.gl dS 13
eS lDe4)
14 iJ..d3
Threatening to win a pawn.
14 ... f6 IS exf6 exf6 16 lDbS
Not dangerous for Black is 1 6 f5
lDxc3 (apparently also possible is
16 ... .1J..xf5 17 lDxd5 �h8 18 lDe3
iJ..e6 ) 17 bxc3 .117 18 lDd4 lDe5
=
19 lDe2 'Wc7 20 i.d4 'Wd6 21 lDf4
l:e8 and the chances of the two
sides are approximately equal,
Kindermann-Landenbergue, Mos­
cow (ol) 1994.
16 ...rs 17 c3
 Classical Dragon with 6 �e2 �g7 7 �e3 23
It is possible to assess the present
position as preferable for White, not
only because of the blockaded
isolated black d5 pawn but also the
definite weaknesses around it which
might show themselves after an ex­
change of the dark-squared bishops.
White's next plan is to gain space
on the queen's flank which pro­
vokes a further weakening of the
dark squares.
17...�h8
The game swings around to a
similar scenario also on 17...�f7 18
a4 a6 (or 18 ... h5 19 a5 h4 20 .:.n
g5!? 21 fxg5 �h5 when, according
to an analysis by D.Barua of the
game Barua-Tiviakov, Tilburg
1 992, White retains the advantage
by 22 'ii'c2 �xf3 23 gxf3 lt:\e5 24
fxe4lt:\xd3 25 'ii'xd3 dxe4 26 'ii'h3)
19 lt:\5d4 l:r.e8 20 a5 l:r.e7 2 1 l:.a4
�e8 22lt:\xc6 �xc6 23 l:r.b4 and the
rook invades on the queen's flank,
Lau-Tukrnakov, Antwerp 1 993;
stronger seems 2 l ...'ii'd7!? ;!;,
18 a4 �g8 19 a5 a6 20 lt:\5d4
l:.e8 2 1 lt:\xc6 'ifxc6 22 �d4!
It is important to exchange the
cemented bishop; after 22lt:\d4 'ii'c7
23 lt:\c2lt:\c5! 24 �d4 lt:lb3 25 �b6
'ii'd6 26 l:r.a3 lt:\c5 Black does a
successful "twirl", Anand-Gelfand,
Linares 1992).
22...l:r.e7 23 �xg7+ �xg7 24
lt:\d4 'ii'c5 25 �c2 �e6 26 'ii't3
�d7 27 l:.fd1 and Black is doomed
to passive defence, Illescas­
Tukrnakov, Lyon 1 992.
3Aa2
(1 e4 c5 2 lt:\t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:\xd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:\c3 g6 6 �e2 �g7 7
�e3 lt:\c6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lt:lb3 �e6 10
f4 -.c8 1 1 �h1 .l:[d8 12 �g1 d5 13
e5lt:\e4)
14 lt:\b5
White intends to consolidate the
d4 square for the knight, which
forces Black into resolute action.
14...g5!
A decisive break in the centre.
But also possible is 1 4 ... f6 15 exf6
exf6 16 lt:\5d4 f5 = Balashov­
Mitenkov, Moscow 1999.
15 fxg5
After 15 g3 �h3 White has to part
with the exchange: 16lt:\5d4!? �xf l
17 �g4 e6 1 8 'ifxfl , obtaining defi­
nite compensation for it since after
1 6 .:.n gxf4 1 7 gxf4 �h8 1 8 :d3
(or 18 lt:\5d4 l:r.g8 19 'ii'd3 �g4 20
:m �h6! and Black's threats are
too dangerous, Morovic-Tringov,
Lucerne (ol) 1 982) 18...�h6 19 �f3
the initiative passes to Black.
15 ...lt:\xe5
Taking with the bishop 15...�xe5
16 �d3 �f5 17 'ii'e2 �g6 18 l:.ad1
24 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 .i.e3
tLlxg5 1 9 tLlxa7! leads to an advan­
tage for White, Timman-Tarjan,
Banja Luka 1974.
16 tLlxa7
On 16 tLl3d4 good is 16 ....i.d7
and for the time being White must
look at consolidating his position by
17 c3, since quite bad is 17 tLlc3?
tLlxc3 18 bxc3 'ii'xc3 1 9 l:.b1 'ii'c7
and White has no compensation at
all for the pawn, Qin Kaiying­
Matveeva, Subotica (izt) 1 99 1 .
16...'ii'd7
After 16 ...'ii'xc2 he has to reckon
on 1 7 .i.d4 with the threat of 18
:ct.
17 tLlb5 tLlc4 18 tLl5d4 tLlxb2 19
'ii'c 1 tLla4 20 'ii'f4 and White's
chances are better, Daniliuk­
Maximenko, St.Petersburg 1993.
3Ab
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 tLlf6 5 tLlc3 g6 6 .J..e2 .i.g7 7
.J..e3 tLlc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 tLlb3 .i.e6 10
f4)
10 tLla5
.•.
With this continuation, first
played in the game Marco-Maroczy,
Monte Carlo 1 903, Black, in
allowing the advance f4-f5, endeav­
ours to ease his defence by the ex­
change of two minor pieces,
incidentally having in mind the
manoeuvre ...l:.a8-c8xc3 and
...tLlf6xe4.
1 1 f5
The most consistent, otherwise
Black will be able to carry out a
freeing advance of pawns in the
centre:
1) 1 1 tLlxa5 'ii'xa5 12 .i.f3 .i.c4 13
l:.e1 (after 1 3 :t2 l:fd8 14 'ii'd2
'ii'c7 1 5 b3 .i.a6 16 :ad 1 l:.ac8
Black 's position is preferable,
Treybai-Foltys, 1940) 1 3....1:.fd8 1 4
'ii'd2 'ii'c7 1 5 l::ta c 1 e5 1 6 fxe5
(weak is 1 6 b3? d5! 1 7 exd5 e4 and
Black has the advantage, Rauzer­
Botvinnik, USSR (ch) 1 933)
16...dxe5 1 7 'ii'd2 b6 1 8 g4 h6 with
equal chances (E.Geller).
2) 11 .i.d4 .i.c4 (also worth con­
sidering is 1 1...l:lc8!? 12 .i.xa7
l:lxc3 13 bxc3 tLlxe4 14 .i.d4 tLlxc3
with compensation for the ex­
change) 12 tLlxa5 (or 12 .id3 l:lc8
1 3 Wf3 e5 1 4 tLlde2 d5! = )
1 2... .i.xe2 13 'ii'xe2 'ii'xa5 14 l:ad1
(14 e5 tLld5 15 tLlxd5 'ii'xd5 ) =
14...l:lfd8 15 �h1 e6 and, by
preparing ...d6-d5, Black does not
stand worse, Yanofsky-Kaptsan,
Canada (zt) 1986.
3) 1 1 �h1 .i.c4 1 2 e5 .ixe2 13
'ii'xe2 dxe5 14 fxe5 tLld5 1 5 J:lad1?
tLlxc3 16 l:r.xd8 tLlxe2 1 7 lha8 .l:.xa8
1 8 tLlxa5 .ixe5 with an extra pawn
for Black, Timman-Hjartarson,
Reykjavik 1988.
l l ....ic4
Here the main continuations for
White are:
3Ab1: 12 .id3
3Ab2: 12 tLlxa5
The attempt to exploit the hanging
position of the black pieces by tacti­
cal means does not work: 1 2 e5
.i.xe2! 1 3 'ii'xe2 dxe5 14 l:tad1 'ii'c7
15 tLlb5 'ii'c4! with an extra pawn
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 i.e3 25
for Black, or 12 fxg6 hxg6
(12... fxg6? 13 .:xf6!) 13 e5 i.xe2
14 1Wxe2 dxe5 15 �5 tiJb3! 16
axb3 b6 with the better game for
Black, Panov-Chistiakov, Moscow
1936.
3Ab1
(1 e4 c5 2 tiJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tL!xd4 tiJf6 5 tLlc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 tiJc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 tiJb3 i.e6 10
f4 tlJa5 1 1 f5 i.c4)
12 i.d3
Despite the fact that an antidote
has been found to this continuation,
popular in the old days, it is periodi­
cally met even today.
12 ...i.xd3
The main reply, but worth consid­
ering is 12...d5 13 e5 tLle4 14 tL!xa5
1i'xa5!? (in the game Sieiro
Gonzalez-A.Hemandez, Havana
l 9S6, was played l 4 ... tL!xc3 15
bxc3 1i'xa5 16 f6 exf6 17 exf6
:reS! I S 'ifd2 i.f8 19 i.h6 'ifc5+
20 'it>h l .:.e6 and Black maintains
the balance, but if White had played
16 i.d4!, preparing e5-e6, then
Black's problems would be more
complicated) 15 tL!xe4 (or 15 i.d4
'ifc7) l 5... i.xd3 16 cxd3 'dxe4 17
d4 �6! with a double-edged game
(Andres).
13 cxd3
On 13 1i'xd3 good is 13...tlJg4 ! .
13 ...d5
A timely opening of the position.
Including an exchange of knights by
l 3... tLlxb3 14 1i'xb3 activates the
queen, while counterplay by
l 4...tlJg4 15 i.g5 1i'a5 16 �h1 1i'c5
17 i.h4 i.e5 IS h3 tiJf6 leads into a
blind alley after 19 .:.n .:.acS 20
:an and White takes over the ini­
tiative, Mortensen-Amason, Esbjerg
l 9S4. But also possible is 14 axb3
when l 4...d5 is not so effective: 15
i.d4 dxe4 16 dxe4 a6 (or l 6...'ifc7
17 e5 :adS IS exf6 i.xf6 19 .:.a4!
b5 20 tLlxb5 1i'd7 21 1i'e2 a6 22
i.xf6 axb5 23 i.xe7 with an extra
pawn for White, R.Spielmann; but
eossible is l 6...e6) 17 e5 tL!eS IS b4
0.c7 19 f6 exf6 20 exf6 i.h6 21
i.b6 and White's chances are pref­
erable, Spielmann-Landau, Amster­
dam l 93S.
The retreat of the knight 13...tL!c6
14 d4 e6 (14...b5!?) 15 fxe6 fxe6 16
�h l 'ife7 17 i.g5 leaves White
with the initiative, Zapata­
R.Hemandez, Merida 1992.
14 tL!xa5
Not good is 14 e5? tLlxb3! 15 exf6
i.xf6 16 1i'xb3 d4 17 i.h6 dxc3! IS
i.xf8 cxb2 19 .:.abl 1i'd4+! and for
the exchange Black has a passed b2
pawn and the initiative.
14 ...1i'xa5 15 e5 d4! 16 i.xd4
Risky is 16 exf6 i.xf6 17 fxg6
dxc3 I S gxh7+ �hS.
16...tiJd7 17 f6 exf6 18 exf6 i.xf6
18...tL!xf6? loses a piece: 19 i.xf6
�6+ 20 �hl i.xf6 21 tiJd5.
19 .:.xr6
19 i.xf6 �6+ 20 �hl (after 20
.:.f2 tL!xf6 21 'iff3 �g7 22 l:el
:adS 23 .:.e7 l:d7 White has no
compensation for his weakened
pawn structure) 20... tL!xf6 21 'iff3
26 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g 7 7 i.e3
1;g7 22 l:tae 1 l:tad8 23 lle7 th-th
Upton-Holmes, England (ch) 1987.
19....!Dxf6 20 'ii'f3 .!DhS
The game Rantanen-Helmers,
Oslo 1978, continued 20...c!Dd7? 21
'ii'xb7 l:tad8 22 .!Dd5 llfe8 23 b4
'ii'a3?! (23...'ii'a4) 24 i.c3 with a
great advantage to White, since he
has no opposition on the long a l -h8
diagonal.
21 tiJdS fS
The bishop, in complete control
of the long diagonal, is no weaker
than a rook. However Black's rear is
quite reliably defended by heavy
pieces. For example, the attempt to
win a pawn by 22 c!De7+ c:l;f7 23
'ii'xb7 llab8! leads to an exchange
of queens-24 c!Dc6+ llxb7 25
c!Dxa5 lld7 and the recovery of ma­
terial (J.Silman).
The game Kindermann-Bjazevic,
Mendoza 1986, continued 22 b4
'ii'd8 23 i.e5 :cs 24 d4 :c2? 25
'ii'b3 and White won. However, af­
ter 24 ...l:tf7 or 24...'ii'd7 the game
assumes an unclear character.
3Ab2
(1 e4 cS 2 c!Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
c!Dxd4 c!Df6 5 c!Dc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
.ie3 c!Dc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 c!Db3 i.e6 10
f4 c!Das 1 1 fS i.c4)
12 c!DxaS
12 i.xe2 13 'ii'xe2
•.•
Mass exchanges by 13 c!Dxb7
i.xdI 14 c!Dxd8 i.xc2 15 c!Dc6 l:tfe8
lead to an equal endgame, Lasker­
Riumin, Moscow 1 936.
13 ...'ii'xa5 14 g4
If White is striving for the initia­
tive then he must take such sharp
measur�s to fight for the d5 square.
The quieter method 1 4 i.d4 leads
to simplification and equality after
14 ... c!Dd7 15 i.xg7 c:l;xg7 16 c!Dd5
c!Df6!. But if Black does not strive
for simplification-14...llac8, then
he risks ending up in the worse po­
sition: 15 llad 1 a6 (or 15 ...llfe8 16
r:i;hl b5 17 c!Dxb5 'ii'xa2 18 c!Dxa7 ±
Glek-Lobron, Tilburg 1994) 16 a3
b5 17 c!Dd5 c!Dxd5 18 exd5 llc7 19
c3 'ii'a4 20 i.xg7 c:l;xg7 21 lldeI ;!;
Thipsay-Peptan, Biel 1999.
14...llac8
A counterattack with the threat to
sacrifice the exchange is the best
way to counter the advance g4-g5.
Other moves are insufficient to
maintain equality. Thus 14...'ii'b4?
is not good: 15 g5 c!Dh5 (15...c!Dxe4?
loses because of 16 .!Dd5) 16 a3
'ii'xb2 17 c!Dd5 llae8 18 'iVf2 and
White develops a dangerous attack
(the threat is f5-f6), Estrin­
Fridshtein, USSR 1945, while on
the prophylactic 14...llae8 15 g5
 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 .i.e3 27

lt:Jd7 16 li'ld5 gxf5 17 lhf5 there A natural developing move, creat­

follows a frontal attack on the f-file. ing the threat of an exchange sacri­
15 g5 fice on c3.
On 15 i.d4 Black defends himself 1 1 �hi
by l5...'ili'b4 16 .l:adl 'ji'c4!, cover­ This waiting move, useful in a
ing the d5 square by the "X-ray" number of cases, moves the king off
pressure on the c2 pawn. the weakened a7-gl diagonal.
I.Boleslavsky _presents this varia­ Another idea, II i.f3, intending
tion: 17 l.td3 tLld7 18 i.xg7 'iti>xg7 to plant the knight on d5, allows the
19 'ji'd2lt:Jf6 20 .l:lh3 g5! 21 'ji'xg5+ thrust 1I...i.c4 (on 1l...b5 White
'ifi>h8 22 'ji'h6 .l:g8 23 g5 l:.xg5+ 24 does not deviate from the general
'ji'xg5 .l:.g8 and the black queen is line: 12lt:Jd5lt:Jd7 13 c3 a5 14 a3 a4
not weaker than the rooks. 15 li'ld4 .i.xd5 16 exd5 li'lxd4 17
15 ....l:lxc3 16 gxf6 i.xd4 i.xd4+ 18 'ji'xd4 'ji'b6 19
It is understandable that White .l:ad1 .l:c4 20 'ji'xb6 lt:Jxb6 21 g3
does not settle for 16 bxc3li'lxe4. and obtains the better endgame,
16 l:txe3 17 'ji'xe3 i.xf6 18 c3
.•. Mortensen-P.H.Nielsen, Denmark
l:tc8 19 Whl 1991) 12 .l:e1 (or 12 .l:f2 b5 13 .l:d2
Or 19 a3 .l:lc4 20 .J:ael b5 21 :n b4 14 lt:Je2 'ji'c7 ) 12...b5 (after
=

'ji'c7 with equal chances, 12... e5 13 'ji'd2 exf4 14 i.xf4 li'le5

Filipowicz-Hollis, Marianske Lazne 15 .J:ad1 b5 16 'ji'xd6 'ji'xd6 17
1962. .l:xd6 lt:Jxf3+ 18 gxf3 b4 19 lt:JdI
19 .....a6 20 h4 .l:lc4 21 h5 d5! tLlh5 20 .i.e3 and Black does not
with excellent counterplay for have enough compensation for the
Black, Lukin-Kr.Georgiev, pawn, Gubematorov-Minasian,
Naleczow 1981. Podolsk 1990) 13 'ji'd2 a5 14 lt:Jd5
li'ld7 15 .J:ad1 b4 with an active
3Ac game for Black. In the game Gross­
Oiesen, New York 1993, White sac­
(I e4 c5 2 lt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 rificed a pawn, 16 e5 dxe5 17
lt:Jxd4 lt'lf6 5 lt:Jc3 g6 6 .i.e2 i.g7 7 li'lxe7+ 'ji'xe7 18 'ji'xd7 'ji'xd7 19
i.e3 lt:Jc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lt:Jb3 i.e6 10 .l:xd7 lt:Jb8 20 .l:a7 exf4, but did not
f4) obtain compensation.
Black's plans are only promoted
10...l:tc8 by 11 f5 .i.d7 12 g4 lt:Je5! and the
threat to sacrifice the exchange be­
comes real.
1) 13 i.d4 .l:xc3 14 bxc3 li'lxe4
15 lDd2 lt:Jxd2 16 'ji'xd2 i.c6 and,
for the exchange, Black has a pawn
and a positional advantage,
Ravinsky-Simagin, Moscow 1957.
2) 13 lt:Jd2 .l:xc3 (also not bad is
13 ... i.c6 14 g5lt:Jfd7 15 'ji'e1 a6 16
'ji'h4 b5 17 a3 a5 + Akopian­
Fonseca, Los Angeles 1991) 14
bxc3 i.c6 15 i.f3 lt:Jxf3+ (also
good is an immediate 15...d5) 16
28 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 il.g 7 7 il.e3
_.xf3 d5 I7 il.d4 dxe4 18 _.h3
ll:ixg4 19 il.xg7 �xg7 20 ll:ixe4
1Vb6+ 21 ll:if2 gxf5 0-1 Daniliuk­
Malakhov, Russian (ch) 1995.
On 11 g4 possible is I 1...ll:Ja5 and
now on 12 g5 it is necessary to take
into account the exchange sacrifice
12...Axc3 I3 bxc3 ll:ixe4 14 il.d3
ll:ixc3 15 1i'e1 ll:ic6 and Black has
an obvious advantage, Yu Shaoteng
-Wang Ziti, Beijing 1997. Therefore
it is better to start with I2 f5 and af­
ter 12.....ic4 13 g5 (13 ll:ixa5 ..ixe2
leads to a position from the varia­
tion 10...ll:Ja5) 13 ...ll:id7 arises a
double-edged game.
l l ... a6
Worth considering is II. ..ll:ia5,
planning, on 12 f5, to exploit the c4
square:
1) I 2.....ic4 13 ..id3 a6 (dubious
is 13...d5?! 14 ll:ixa5 _.xa5 15 e5
ll:Je4 16 ll:Jxe4 dxe4 I 7 ..ixc4 l:bc4
18 f6 ± Thipsay-Beaumont, Tor­
quay 1998) 14 _.e1 (I4 'W'd2!?)
14.....ixd3 15 cxd3 ll:ixb3 16 axb3
d5! 17 ..ig5 d4 with equal chances,
Kindermann-Cebalo, Munich I 989.
2) 12...ll:Jc4 13 ..id4 ..id7 14
..ixc4! .l:.xc4 I5 _.d3 llc8 16 ..ixa7
b6 17 _.a6 b5! with compensation
for the pawn, Thipsay-Watson,
Kuala Lumpur I992. It seems that
16 AadI ;t; gives Black more
difficulties.
1 2 ..if3
Sometimes 12 ..id3 ll:Ja5 is seen.
For example, the game Vink­
Neessen, Holland (ch) I999, contin­
ued 13 ll:id4 ..id7 I4 _.e2 'flc7 15
l:lae1 ll:ic4 16 ..ic1 with rather the
better chances for White. 13.....ic4
is worth considering.
1l.....ic4
Too slow is 1 2 ... ll:Jd7 13 ..ig4 (or
13 f5 ..ic4 14 ..ie2 ll:ice5 I5 fxg6
hxg6 16 ..ig5 ll:if6 17 ll:id5 ll:ixd5 18
exd5 Wc7 19 c3 llfe8 = Asrian-
Khalifman, FIDE-Wch Las Vegas,
1999) 13.....ixg4 (on 13 ... ..ic4 pos­
sible is 14 llf2 with the threat of
e4-e5) 14 _.xg4 ll:ib6 15 _.e2 ;t;
Kupreichik-Larsen, Esbjerg 1988.
Also dubious is 12... lLla5?! 13 e5!
(on 13 ll:id4 ..id7 I4 ..ig1 e5!? 15
ll:ide2 1i'e7 16 a4 l:lfe8 17 _.eI exf4
18 ll:ixf4 ll:ic4 Black equalises the
game, Zapata-Petursson, St Martin
1992) 13...ll:ie8 14 ll:ixa5 _.xa5 15
..ig4 ..ix_g4 16 _.xg4 l:ld8 17 e6
•rs 18 'ifxf5 gxf5 19 il.b6 l:la8 20
l:laeI with advantage to White,
Kovalev-Ca.Hansen, Gausdal 1990
On 12 ... b5 possible is 1 3 ll:id5
(there was weaker play in the game
Zapata-Armas, Matanzas 1994-13
_.ei ?!, which allowed Black to start
an attack on the queen's flank:
13...a5! 14 l:ld1 b4 15 ll:id5 ll:id7 16
e5 a4 17 ll:Jc 1 dxe5 18 fxe5 ..ixd5
19 ..ixd5 ll:icxe5 20 _.xb4 e6 21
..if3 l:lc4 22 1Vb5 _.b8 23 _.xb8
l:lxb8 and obtained an advantage in
the endgame) 13....txd5 14 exd5
ll:ia5 15 _.e2 ll:ic4 16 .td4 and
White's chances are preferable,
Cela-Angelopoulos, Athens 1993.
13 .l:.fl e5 14 l:ldl ll:ie8 15 ..ig4
After I5 f5 �h8 16 g4 .tf6 17
l:lg2 ..ig5 18 .txg5 _.xg5 Black
controls the important dark squares
and has the preferable game, Glek­
Tolnai, Cattolica 1993.
15 ...f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 .tel ..in
__
18 _.e1 �h8 19 'iffl iL:x.b3 lO a:x.b3
ll:id4 2 1 ..id3 ll:if6 ll h3 _.e8 with
approximately equal chances,
Nijboer-Szalanczy, Vienna 1990.
38
(1 e4 c5 l ll:if3 d6 3 d4 c:x.d4 4
ll:i:x.d4 ll:if6 5 ll:ic3 g6 6 .tel .tg7 7
..ie3 ll:ic6 8 0-0 0-0 9 ll:ib3)
9 a5
...
 Classical Dragon with 6 �e2 �g 7 7 �e3 29
A continuation introduced into
practice by A.Aiekhine. With the
threat ...a5-a4-a3 Black practically
forces the reply a2-a4, gaining the
b4 square. However upon this the
b5 square also becomes vulnerable.
10 a4
He does not succeed in exploiting
the weakening of the b6 square: IO
lDd5 .!bxe4 II �b6 'ii'd7 I2 .!bc7
l:tb8 I3 .!bxa5 �xb2! with material
advantage for Black.
I O .i.e6
...
Other ways of developing this
bishoy have also been tried:
I0 .. .ti�b4 II f4 .i.d7 (in the game
Gufeld-Zaremba, USA 1998, Black
dared to play II....i.g4?! I2 .i.xg4
.!bxg4 13 'ii'xg4 .!bxc2 14 'ii'e2
.!DxaI I5 lhaI, which turned out in
White's favour) I2 .i.f3 .i.c6. The
game Lukin-Zarudny, USSR I986,
continued I3 .!bd5 b5 14 .i.b6 'ii'd7
I5 .i.xa5 and here, instead of the ex­
change I5 ....i.xd5 16 exd5 after
which White's chances were prefer­
able, A.Lukin recommended
I5 ... bxa4! I6 .i.xb4 axb3 I7 l:Xa8
.i.xa8 =.
11 f4
On I1 .!bd4 simplest is II....!Dxd4
I 2 .i.xd4 l:tc8 with piece play
around the weakened squares. For
example: 13 ltei .!bd7 I4 .i.xg7
�xg7 I5 .!bb5 'ii'b6 I6 b3 .!be5 I7
c4 .i.d7 and the chances of the two
sides are equal, Ermenkov-Nijboer,
Dieren 1988. A.Aiekhine's con­
tinuation I1... d5 is justified only in
the case I2 exd5?! .i.xd5 13 .!Dxd5
.!Dxd5 14 .!bxc6 bxc6 15 .i.d4 e5 16
.i.c5 l:le8 17 .i.c4 'ii'c7 I8 c3 l:lad8
I9 'ii'c 2 e4! with initiative for Black,
Spielmann-Aiekhine, Margate I938.
But with a preliminary exchange of
the bishop, I2 .!Dxe6 fxe6 13 exd5
exd5 (I3 ... .!Dxd5 I4 .i.d2! ;!;) I4
.!bb5 e5 I5 c3 ltf7 (anticipating I6
'ii'h3) I6 f4 'ii'e7 17 fxe5 .!bxe5 18
.i.d4, White obtains a promising po­
sition in view of the weakness of
Black's pawn structure (E.Geller).
l l .i.xb3
...
A radical means of exploiting the
weakening of the b4 square so as to
organise a counterattack in the cen­
tre. After 1 l ...d5 12 e5 (also inter­
esting is 12 f5!?) I2....!De4 13 .!Dxe4
dxe4 I4 'ii'xd8 l:lfxd8 I5 .!bc5,
White has the better endgame,
Hennigan-Porubszki, Budapest
I990.
There is an interesting continua­
tion associated with the exploitation
of the c4 square:
I) 1I....!bd7 12 ltb1! (White de­
fends the b2 pawn, threatening the
advance .!bc3-d5; the continuation
I2 f5 plays into Black 's hands:
I2 ... �xb3 13 cxb3 .!bc5 14 .i.c4
.!be5, with the game A.Fedorov-
30 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 i..e3
M.Makarov, Russia 2000, continu·
ing 1 5 i..d 5?! l:te8! 1 6 ltlb5 e6 with
a good game for Black, M.Makarov
recommended 15 'ii'e2!? ;!;)
1 2...ltlb6 1 3 .!t)d4 i..c4 1 4 ltldb5
:tc8 1 5 b3 i..e2 1 6 ltle2 ltld7 1 7
ltlg3 ltlb4 1 8 l:lf2 ltla2 1 9 e5! ±,
Gavrikov-Yrjola, Tallinn 1 985.
2) 1 l ....!t)b4 1 2 ltld4 (or 1 2 i.. f3
ltld7 13 ltld4 i..c4 1 4 l:lf2 e5! 1 5
ltldb5 exf4 1 6 i..xf4 i..xb5 1 7 axb5
i..e5 1 8 i..xe5 ltlxe5 with equal
chances, Bronstein-Korchnoi, USSR
1 959) 1 2...'iWc8 1 3 �h 1 i.. c4 1 4
i..d3 i..xd3 1 5 cxd3 'ii'd7 1 6 'ii'e2
ltlg4 17 i..g 1 e5 18 ltldb5 exf4 1 9
l:lxf4 ltle5 20 d4 ltlec6 21 l:.afl with
the more active game, Yakovich­
Makarov, St.Petersburg 1 995.
3) 1 1 ...l:lc8 12 i..f3 (after 1 2 f5!?
i..xb3 1 3 cxb3 .!t)b4 14 i..c 4! ltld7
1 5 'ii'e2 ltle5 1 6 i..b5 ltla6 1 7 ltld5
the weakness of the light squares in
Black's camp is obvious, Liberzon­
Pavlenko, USSR 1 968, but by play­
ing at once 1 3...ltld7 1 4 i..c4 ltlc5
followed by ...ltlc6-e5, Black posts
his knight actively, creating
counter-chances) 1 2...lllb4 1 3 ltld4
i..c4 1 4 l:lf2 ltld7 1 5 l:ld2! (or 1 5
i..g4 e6 1 6 ltldb5 i..xb5 I 7 ltlxb5
ltlf6 1 8 i..f3 d5 19 e5 ltle4 20 i..xe4
dxe4 21 ltld6 l:.c6 22 :td2 ltld5 23
'ii'e2 l:lxd6 24 exd6 i..xb2 25 l:lf l
i..c3 with sufficient compensation
for the exchange, D.Schneider­
Perelshteyn, USA 1 999) 1 5...i..a6
(!.Rogers considers the preliminary
1 5...ltlb6 best, but this is also insuf­
ficient for equality) I6 ltlcb5! e5 I7
ltlb3! ( I7 ltle2? exf4 I8 i..xf4 i..xb2
+ Hennigan-Rogers, London 1 989)
1 7... exf4 I8 i..xf4 i.. xb2 I9 l:.xd6!
i.. xaI 20 ltlxa 1 ! and the active
white pieces more than compensates
for the sacrificed exchange.
4) 1 l...'ii'c8 1 2 �h i (also possible
is 1 2 h3 ltlb4 13 ltld4 i.c4 14 i..d3!
ltld7 1 5 ltldb5! ltlxd3 16 cxd3
i..xb5 I7 axb5 b6 1 8 f5 ! and Black
has to maintain a passive defence)
1 2...ltlb4 1 3 i.. f3 llJg4 1 4 i.. g 1 h5
I5 .!t)d4 i..c4 I6 l:leI e5 1 7 llldb5
l:ld8 (also possible is 17 ...exf4 at
once or after the exchange on b5) 1 8
h3 ltlf6 I9 .!t)xd6 l:lxd6 20 'ii'xd6
lllxc2 2 1 fxe5 ltle8 22 'ii'd2 lllxa 1
23 l:.xa 1 i..xe5 with an equal game,
Asrian-And.Rodriguez, FIDE-Wch
Las Vegas (rapid) 1 999.
12 cxb3 e6
White's advantage on the queen's
flank is devalued by the doubled
pawns which might tell in the end­
game. Therefore Black strives for
exchanges, above all of the e4 pawn
which leads to an opening of the
position. On routine manoeuvres
"square by square" of the type
I2...lllb4 1 3 l:lc l llld7 1 4 i..c4 l:lc8
1 5 'ii'g4 ltlc5 16 f5! White's space
advantage, consolidated by the ac­
tive pair of bishops, mokes Black 's
defence difficult. For example:
I6....!t)cd3 1 7 fxg6 hxg6 18 1Vxg6!
l:lxc4 1 9 'ii'g 3! and Alack falls under
a dangerous attack.
13 .i.f3 ltlb4 14 'ii'e2
Now after 14 l:lc l d5! 1 5 exd5
lllfxd5 Black cqunliscs, Serper­
Khalifman, Vilnius 1 9 8 8 .
This blow in foct is olso good on
1 4 l:lf2, but ollcr corresponding
preparation: 14 ... 'ii'c7 (upon the im­
mediate 1 4 .. dS I S cxdS li�fxd5 1 6
.
i..xd5 .!t)xd5 1 7 o!i)xdS Bl uck comes
up against problems with his iso­
lated d5 pawn: 17 ... 'ii'xdS? I X 'ii'xd5
exd5 1 9 l:ld l ± or 17 . cxd5 1 8 i.. d4
. .
l:le8 1 9 ..txg7 � x � 7 20 rs ;!;
S.Garcia Mortincz· Pinul, ( 'uhu (ch)
1 984) 15 l:ld2 dS I ll cxd� lilfxd5 17
ltlxd5 exd5 18 ..t l'2 l:lhlli 19 i.b6?
d4! and Rinck tukcN over the
initiative, Scmcnyuk- K hnl i I'man,
Riga 1 988.
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 i.e3 3 1
1 4 ...d5
On 14...'ii'e7 there also follows 15
l:tad l with the idea 'ii'e2-b5 and
i.e3-b6.
I5 l:tadl 'ii'e7 I6 'ii'b5! l:r.fc8 I7
exd5 lDfxd5 I8 lDxd5 lbxd5
On 18...exd5, 19 i.b6 1s
unpleasant.
I9 i.fl!
After 19 i.xd5 exd5 20 i.b6 d4!
and Black has enough counterplay.
The game Yakovich-Khalifman,
Kuibyshev 1986, went on 19 ... .l:.c2
20 i.xd5 exd5 21 'ii'xd5 l:r.xb2 22
i.c5 ! and White achieved the ad­
vantage. As pointed out by
Y.Yakovich, worthy of attention is
19 ... i.xb2! ? 20 i.xd5 exd5 2I
l:.xd5, though even here White's
chances are preferable.
3C
(I e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lDf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 lbc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lbb3)
9... a6
With this typical Sicilian move,
Black strives for a flank attack,
avoiding positional concessions
(characteristic for the move 9... a5).
The main continuations for White
are:
3Ca: IO a4
3Cb: IO f4
3Ca
(I e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 liJf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 lbc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lbb3 a6)
IO a4
Radically preventing the advance
... b7-b5, but also weakening the b4
square. Now Black can pursue a
similar plan to the previous
variation.
I O...i.e6
After I O ... lba5 11 e5 lbe8 12
lbxa5 'ii'xa5 13 lbd5 i.e6 14 exd6
exd6 15 lbb6 White's position is
preferable.
1 1 f4
11 .l:.a3 looks rather artificial:
ll...d5 12 exd5 lbxd5 13 lbxd5
'ii'xd5 and the game is even,
Ljubojevic-Larsen, Riga (izt) 1979.
l l ...llc8
Already here l l ...lba5 is more
real, since 12 f5 is harmless (or 12
e5 lbe8 and Black is ready for the
incursion ...i.e6-c4) 12... i.c4 13
fxg6 hxg6 14 e5 i.xe2 15 'ii'xe2
dxe5 16 llad l 'ii'c7 17 g4 lbxb3 18
cxb3 e6 19 g4 and now in the game
Matulovic-Nicevski, Stip 1979,
Black should have continued
19...lbd5 with a double-edged
game.
12 �hi
Also encountered is 12 f5 i.d7
(12 ...i.xb3 13 cxb3 lbb4 14 i.c4
lbxe4?! 15 fxg6 hxg6 16 lbxe4 d5
17 'ii'g4 gives White the better
chances, Tseshkovsky-Azmaipar­
ashvili, Minsk 1985, but 14...lbd7 is
possible) 13 a5 lbe5 14 i.b6 'ii'e8
15 lbd2 gxf5 16 exf5 i.c6 17 i.d4
'iii>h8 with chances for both sides,
32 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g 7 7 .i.e3
Kovalev-Ovseyevitsch, Alushta
1 999.
1 2....i.xb3
Possible is 1 2... tt::ld7 1 3 tt::ld2
(mass exchanges by 1 3 tt::ld 4?!
tt::lxd4 14 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 l S "ii'xd4
"ii'b6! 1 6 'ii'xb6 tt::lxb6 are in Black's
favour in view of the weakness of
the c4 square) 13 ... tt::laS 1 4 fS .i.c4
1 S .i.d3 tt::leS (accepting the pawn
sacrifice, 1 S ....i.xd3 1 6 cxd3 .i.xc3
17 bxc3 .l:txc3 1 8 .i.h6 .l:te8 1 9 tt::lf3
g !ves White chances for attack) 1 6
'iVe2 dS! (weaker is 1 6 ... bS?! 1 7
axbS axbS 1 8 tt::lf3 ! ;!; Kindermann­
Yrjolii, Dubai (ol) 1 986) 1 7 exdS
tt::lxd3 1 8 cxd3 .i.xdS 1 9 tt::lde4 with
a complicated game.
13 cxb3 "ii'a5 14 g4 tt::ld 7 15 e5!
tt::lb6
1 S ....l:tfd8 1 6 exd6 tt::lf6 is not bad.
16 exd6 llfd8 17 tt::le4! exd6 18
.i.d2
The game Tukrnakov-
D.Gurevich, Geneva 1 99S, arrived
at this position, where after
1 8...'ii'dS? 19 .i.f3 White obtained
the advantage. V.Tukrnakov sug­
gested 18 ... tt::lb4! 19 'ii'e 1 tt::l6d5
with complex play.
3Cb
(1 e4 c5 2 tt::lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt::l xd4 tt::lf6 5 tt::lc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
.i.e3 tt::lc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 tt::lb3 a6)
10 f4
White carries out a standard plan
linked to the advance (depending on
the situation) of the e- or f-pawns.
10...b5
Also seen is 1 0 ....i.e6 1 1 fS .i.xb3
(possible is 1 1 ....i.d7 with the idea,
after ...tt::lc6-eS, of transferring the
bishop to c6; when the opportunity
presents itself Black can open the
g-file) 1 2 axb3 l:.c8 1 3 <ifi>h 1 tt::leS 1 4
lla4 .l:tc6! lS g4 (also interesting is
l S tt::ldS bS 16 l:.d4 in conjunction
with an exchange sacrifice,
1 6...tt::led7 1 7 'ii'd2 tt::ldS 1 8 exdS!
.i.xd4 19 .i.xd4 in order to attack by
'ii'd2-h6, L.Psakhis) l S ...bS 1 6 llxd4
llxc3! 1 7 bxc3 'ii'a8 1 8 .i.f3 'fic6 1 9
g S tt::lxf3 20 'ii'xf3 tt::ld7 2 1 l:.d2
.i.xc3 22 l:.g2 aS with counterplay
for Black, Psakhis-Lechtynsky,
Tmava 1 988.
Worth considering is the more re­
strained 1 1 .i.f3 with the idea of
tt::lc3-dS.
11 .i.O .i.b7
A natural reply, but deserving at­
tention is the plan of a flank attack
after 1 l....i.d7 1 2 'fid2 .l:tb8, carried
out in the game Glek-Robovic, Os­
tend 1 993, which continued 1 3 tt::ldS
b4 1 4 l:.fe 1 aS 1 S a4 tt::le8 1 6 "ii'f2 e6
1 7 tt::lb6 .i.xb2 1 8 .l:tab 1 .i.c3 1 9
.l:ted1 with double-edged play.
 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.. e2 .i.. g 7 7 .i..e3 33
After 1 l ...e5 12 f5 l:tb8 l 3 g4 b4
1 4 lLld5 lLlxd5 1 5 exd5 lLle7 16 i.e4
f6 1 7 'ii'd3 Black lands in a cramped
position, Cabrilo-Larsen, New York
1 988.
Premature is 1 l...b4 1 2 lLld5 lLld7
l 3 e5! ( 1 3 lLld4? i.xd4 1 4 i.xd4 e6
+) 1 3...l:tb8 1 4 exd6 exd6 1 5 'ii'd2
i.xb2 16 l:tad 1 i.g7 1 7 lLld4 i.b7
18 ltlxc6 i.xc6 1 9 ltlxb4 i.xf3 20
l:txf3 'ii'a5 2 1 c3 and after the trans­
fer of the bishop to d4, White in­
creases his initiative with an
advance of the f-pawn.
12 e5
After 1 2 'ii'd2 lLld7 13 'ii'f2 ltla5
14 ltlxa5 'ii'xa5 the game is equal,
Morrison-Wojtkiewicz, Atlantic
Open 1 999.
12 ...dxe5 13 ltlc5 exf4 14 ltlxb7
'ii'c7 15 i.xf4 'ii'xb7 16 'ii'e 1 l:tad8
and Black equalises the game,
Yakovich-Savchenko, Rostov 1 993.
3D
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 lLlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 ltlc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 lLlb3)
9 b6
...
This continuation looks rather
passive but, having few weaknesses,
Black can counter White's initiative.
10 f4 i.b7 1 1 i.f3 lLld7
Black introduces the bishop into
play and brings the knight over to
the queen' s flank. Throwing in the
routine 1 1 ...l:tc8 represents a loss of
time: 1 2 'ii'e2 lLld7 1 3 a3! (in the
game Liberzon-Stein, Tallinn 1 969,
was played l 3 l:tad 1 ? lLlb4! 1 4 'ii'd2
i.xc3! 1 5 bxc3 ltlxa2 and Black ob­
tained the advantage) 13 ...ltlc5 1 4
llad 1 and White's chances are
preferable.
12 'ii'd 2 lLla5
Dubious is 12 ...b5?! 13 ltlxb5
i.xb2 1 4 l:.adl and White gains the
advantage, Sax-Kagan, Rio de Ja­
neiro (izt) 1 979.
13 ltJ xa5 bxa5 14 llad1 lLlb6 15
b3 a4
Or 1 5 ...llc8 1 6 ltle2 a4 1 7 'ii'a5
1ic7 1 8 c4 axb3 19 axb3 �
Benjamin-Abramovic, Palma de
Mallorca GMA 1 989.
16 i.d4 i.xd4+ 17 'ii'xd4 l:tc8
and Black equalises the game, Drei­
Cvitan, Ticino 1 994.
Line 4
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 ltlc6)
8 lLlb3
This continuation has been widely
seen in the practice of world cham­
pions. By holding back castling
34 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g 7 7 i.e3

White prepares a pawn attack on the l 2...lt:\e5 13 �h l h6 14 lt:\d4 a6

king's flank. This idea was advo­ with equal chances, Stavich­
cated by Alexander Alekhine. Golubev, USSR 1988
8...0-0 9 f4 2) 9...a6 10 g4 b5 11 g5 llld7 12
The continuation 9 g4 stands by Wd2 lllb6 13 o-o-o l:tb8 14 lt:\d4
itself, on this Black can react as in Wc7 15 lt:\xc6 1Wxc6 16 llld5 lt:\xd5
the main variation by carrying out 1 7 exd5 "ikc7 with a double-edged
the programmed ...d6-d5: 9... d5 10 game, Totsky-Mukhametov, Ore)
exd5 lt:lb4 1 1 i.f3 lt:\xg4 12 i.c5 1994
lt:\a6 13 i.d4 lt:\f6 with a compli­ 10 g4
cated game, Filipowicz-Trapl, Not only countering the threat of
Warsaw 1 969. ... d6-d5, but threatening an assault
9. .i.e6
. on the king' s flank.
By developing the bishop Black Black 's most consistent replies
not only prepares the break ... d6-d5, are:
but also takes under control the im­
portant c4 square. 4Aa: 10 ...d5
Deserving more attentive study is 4Ab: 10 ... lt:\a5
the position with the inclusion of 4Ac: 10...l:.c8
9...a5 10 a4 i.e6. Now on the move
11 g4 (the main continuation on Also worth considering is 1 0 ...a5
9... i.e6) the blow in the centre 1 1 f5 i.c8 12 g5 llld7 13 lt:\d4 lt:lb6
11...d5! becomes more effective 1 4 0-0 �e5 15 b3 d5! with a com­
compared to variation 4Aa: 1 2 f5 plex game, Gulko-Lukin, USSR
i.c8 13 exd5 lt:lb4 14 fxg6 (practi­ 1979.
cally forced, since on 14 i.f3 strong
is 14...gxf5! and, distinct from 4Aa
variation 4Aa, White does not have
the intermediate move a2-a3) (1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
14...hxg6 15 i.f3 i.xg4! 1 6 i.xg4 lt:\xd4 lllf6 5 lt:\c3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
lt:\xg4 17 'ifxg4 lt:\xc2+ 18 'ittd2 i.e3 lt:\c6 8 lt:lb3 0-0 9 f4 i.e6 10
lDxe3 19 'ifi>xe3 'ifb6+ 20 llld4 f5! g4)
with an obvious advantage for
Black, Bokuchava-Soos, Tbilisi 10...d5
1 965. 11 lt:\d4? is not good because
of 1 l ...'ifb6! 1 2 lt:\xe6 Wxe3 13
lt:\xffi lt:\g4 with a strong attack for
Black (M.Euwe). It seems that
White has to return to 11 0-0, which
leads to a position examined in
variation 3B.
It is also useful to familiarise one­
self with the rarer continuations:
1) 9 ... e5 l 0 0-0 exf4 II i.xf4 l:te8
12 i.f3 (weaker is 1 2 Wxd6 Wb6+
13 1Wc5 lt:\xe4 1 4 1Wxb6 axb6 1 5
lt:\xe4 ltxe4 16 i.d3 l:tea4 +
Kolpakov-Tukmakov, USSR 1 979)
 Classical Dragon with 6 j.,e2 j.,g7 7 j.,e3 35
By sacrificing a pawn, Black
meets the flank attack by opening
lines in the centre. This plan was in­
troduced into practice in 1936 by
the 6th world champion
M.Botvinnik.
1 1 rs
The defect of the move 11 e5?!
was clear as long ago as the game
Levenfish·Botvinnik, Moscow
1936, which continued 1 l...d4! 12
li)xd4 (12 exf6 j.,xf6! +) 12...li)xd4
13 j.,xd4 li)g4 +.
l l . j.,cS 12 exd5 li)b4 13 j.,f3
. .
Upon the preliminary exchange
13 fxg6?! hxg6 14 j.,f3 Black has
the choice between 14...tiJxg4 15
j.,xg4 j.,xg4 16 'ii'xg4 tlJxc2+ 17
..t>t2 tlJxa1 and the recommended
continuation of the 5th world cham­
pion M.Euwe: 14...e6!? 15 j.,c5
ll:)fxd5 16 tDxd5 tDxd5 17 0-0 l:le8
18 c4 tiJf4! in both cases with good
chances for Black.
On 13 d6 the famous game
Alekhine-Botvinnik, Nottingham
1936, continued 13...'ifxd6 14 j.,c5
'iff4 15 l:.fl 'ifxh2 16 j.,xb4 tlJxg4
17 j.,xg4 'ii'g3+ 18 l:.t2 'ii'g1+ and
Black forced a draw, but also possi­
ble was l 3...exd6, not fearing 14 g5
in view of 14...j.,xf5! 15 gxf6
tlJxc2+ 16 ..t>t2 'ifxf6 with an attack
for Black.
13...gxf5 14 a3!
White achieves nothing after 14
g5 tlJg4 15 j.,c5 tiJa6 16 h3 tlJe5 17
j.,d4 and the game is equal
(P.Keres).
14 ... fxg4
Worse is 14 ... tlJxg4 15 j.,xg4
Jlxc3+ 16 bxc3 tiJxd5 17 j.,h6 e5
18 h4 with an attack for Black,
Spassky-Listengarten, USSR 1953.
15 j.,g2
White sacrifices a pawn. If he
tries to attack without material
expenditure-15 axb4 gxf3 16
'ifxf3, then Black obtains counter­
chances by transferring the bishop
to the strong g6 square, 16.. _j.,g4 17
'iVg2 j.,h5=0
1 5 ... tiJa6 16 'ifd3
Also interesting is 16 'ii'd2 j.,f5 17
h3 g3 18 0-0-0 l:.c8 19 l:.hg1 j.,g6
20 j.,f3 b5 21 j.,h6 j.,xh6 22 'ifxh6
'iVd6 23 li)d4 l:.xc3 24 bxc3 'iVxa3+
25 �d2 tlJc5 with sharp play,
Hausner-Lutz, Germany 1992.
16.. tiJc7
.
Other continuations have been
considered to be clearly in White's
favour, but such assessments have
recently been challenged:
1) 16...e6 17 0-0-0 tiJxd5
(17...exd5 18 h3 g3 19 j.,d4 ±) 18
h3 g3 19 .l:.hg1 'itd6 20 j.,xd5 exd5
Fischer-Reshevsky, New York
1961, after which White can obtain
the advantage by the move 21 j.,d4!
(R.Fischer).
2) 16...tiJd7 17 0-0-0 (on 17
j.,d4?! very strong is 17...e5! 18
dxe6 j.,xd4 19 tiJxd4 tiJdc5! 20 'ii'e3
'iVh4+ with advantage to Black)
17 ...tlJe5 18 'ife2 'ii'c7 19 j.,d4?!
(stronger is 19 h3!? with chances of
attack on the king) 19...tiJg6! 20
j.,xg7 after which in the game
Yakovich-Lemer, Kuibyshev 1986,
instead of 20...'iff4+?, Black could
have defended himself successfully
by means of 20.....t>xg7 21 d6 exd6
36 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 i..e3
22 'Dd5 (22 'Db5 'ike7 ) 22 .. .'ifdS
= In anticipation of the opponent's
23 'ike3 h6 with the idea of
...'ikdS-g5 (Yakovich).
3) 1 6...'ikd6 17 0-0-0 'Dh5 (upon
the routine 1 S ... i..d7 l S l:thfl :lacS
19 i..d4 White has the advantage,
Nei-Pitksaar, USSR 1 95 1 ) l S h3
'Df4 19 'ike4 'Dxg2 20 hxg4 'ikg6 21
'ikxg2 i..xg4 22 l:tdg 1 h5 seems rea­
sonable for Black, Yakovich-Sadler,
K.oge 1997.
17 0-0-0 iDeeS 18 h3 g3
After this pawn "break" the king
is left in a safer posiiton. In White's
favour is 1S...'Dd6 1 9 hxg4 i..xg4
20 l:.dfl h5 21 i..h3 i..xh3 22 l:txh3
'ikd7 23 i..d4 ± Petrienko-Tolnai,
Voronezh 19S7.
19 'Del 'Dd6 20 'Dxg3 i..d 7 21
i..d4 l:tc8 22 �b1 i.. a4 23 i.. O �h8
24 .l:lhg1 .l:lg8 25 .l:lg2 'ikc7 26 'Dc5
Lembit Oil considers 26 lle1!
best.
26 ... i..b5 27 'ikd2 b6 28 'Dce4
'Dfxe4 and now in the game
Oll-Pigusov, Beijing 1997, instead
of 29 l£lxe4?! 29 i.. xe4 would retain
the better game.
4Ab
(1 e4 c5 2 lt:JO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 5 lt:Jc3 g6 6 i..e2 i.g7 7
i..e3 lt:Jc6 8 lt:Jb3 0-0 9 f4 i..e6 10
g4)
10...lt:Ja5
long castling Black commences ac­
tive operations on the queen's flank.
1 1 g5
An immediate attack of the bishop
allows Black to obtain good coun­
terplay after 11 f5 i..c4!
1 ) 12 0-0 a6 13 g5 lt:Jd7 14 lt:Jxa5
i..xe2 1 5 'ikxe2 i..xc3 16 lt:Jxb7 'ikc7
17 lt:Jxd6 i..xb2 1 S l:tab 1 i..e5 19
lt:Jc4 i..xh2+ with advantage to
Black, Persitz-Partos, Ascona 1976.
2) 12 e5 i..xe2 (also possible is
12...lt:JeS 13 e6 fxe6 14 fxg6 hxg6
15 i..d3 'ikc7 16 h4 d5! +
Bohmfeld-Miles, Dortmund 1 979)
1 3 'ikxe2 'Dd7! (not 13 ...dxe5? be­
cause of 14 .l:ld 1 'ikc7 15 g5! and 16
lt:Jd5 winning a piece) 1 4 f6 exf6 15
exd6 .l:leS I6 0-0-0 lt:Jc4 with a good
game for Black.
3) 12 i..d3 d5? 13 e5 'DeS 14
lt:Jxa5 'ikxa5 I5 i..d4 lt:Jc7 I6 0-0
with a greater space advantage for
White, Olsson-Thorhallsson, Co­
penhagen I990. I2 ...lt:Jd7 was
necessary.
Worth considering is a prelimi­
nary II i..d4 i.. c4 and now I2 g5
i..xe2 (weak is 1 2 .... e5? I3 gxf6
exd4 1 4 lt:Jxa5 i..xe2 I5 �xe2 'ifxf6
I6 'Dd5 'ike6 17 'ikd3 with
advantage to White, Yakovich­
Riemersma, Belgrade GMA I9SS)
13 'ikxe2 lt:Jh5 I4 i..xg7 lt:Jxg7 I5 f5
.l:lcS 16 0-0-0 and White's chances
are preferable, Isupov-V.Kozlov,
Vladivostok 1990
l l ...lt:Jd7
Or 1I...lt:JeS I2 i..d4! i..c4
(12 ....l:lcS 13 h4 lt:Jc4 I4 i..xc4 .l:lxc4
15 'ikd3 .l:lcS 16 0-0-0 is in White's
favour, Foltys-Eiiskases, Podebrady
I936) I3 i..xg7 i..xe2 14 'ikxe2
�xg7 and now, in the game
Louma-Prucha, Bmo I944, White
should have played I5 0-0-0, retain­
ing rather the better chances.
 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 i..e3 37
1 l ...tt::lxe4 12 tt::lxe4 i..xb2 does
not work because of 1 3 i..d 4! ±
Vroombout-Sa1a, Weekender 1999.
12 i..d4 f6!
1 2... tt::lxb3 1 3 axb3 i..xd4 14
'ii'xd4 or 12...i..xb3 13 axb3 i..xd4
14 'ii'xd4 are to White's advantage.
13 h4
After the exchange 13 gxf6 tt::lxf6
it is easier for Black to defend him­
self: 14 'ii'd2 (the essence of the po­
sition is not changed by 14 l:tg1 iifl
15 'ii'd2 ltc8 16 f5 'ii'c 7! 17 h4 tt::lc4
and the initiative passes to Black,
Osterman-Nesis, corr. 1980) 14
'ii'd2 ltc8 15 f5 i..fl 16 i..d3 •12-th
Shabalov-Finegold, USA (ch) 1 994.
White achieves nothing after 13
tt::ld5 tt::lxb3 14 axb3 fxg5 15 i..xg7
�xg7 16 'ii'd4+ �g8 17 i..c4 i.. fl
18 fxg5 e6 and the game is even,
Jongsma-Lutz, Tilburg 1993.
13 ... fxg5
Otherwise after h4-h5 White com­
mences an attack. For example:
1 3... tt::lc6 (13 ... ltc8 14 h5 tt::lc4 15
tt::ld5 ±) 14 h5 fxg5 1 5 i..xg7 �xg7
16 tL!d4 i..fl 17 hxg6 hxg6 18
tt::lxc6 bxc6 19 'ii'd4+ e5 20 'ii'xd6
gxf4 21 0-0-0 and White's attack is
the more dangerous, Markun­
Stavanja, Bled 1992.
14 i.. xg7 �xg7 15 tt::ld4 i.. g8 16
f5 'ii'b6
A very sharp position has arisen
which I.Boleslavsky assessed as fa­
vourable for Black, considering that
on 17 hxg5 or 17 h5, 1 7...tt::le5 was
good. However one must exercise
caution. For example, in the game
Thiel-Schmitz, Germany 1993,
Black played 17 ...tt::lc6? and after 18
llJxc6 bxc6 19 'ii'd2 came under
attack.
4Ac
(1 e4 c5 2 tt::lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt::lxd4 tt::lf6 5 tt::lcJ g6 6 i..e2 i..g7 7
i..e3 tt::lc6 8 tt::lb3 0-0 9 f4 i..e6 10
g4)
10 . l:.c8
. .
1 1 r5
Another direction of play comes
from 11 g5 tt::ld7 12 'ii'd2 tt::lb6 (after
12...a6 13 0-0-0 tt::lb4 14 �b1 b5 15
i..d4 f6 16 h4 tt::lc6 17 i..e3 b4 18
llJa4 fxg5 19 hxg5 White is more
active) 13 0-0-0 (or 13 0-0 tt::lc4 14
tt::ld3 d5 and Black is already better,
Mertin-Ciaussen, Germany 1993)
13 ...tt::lc4 (or 1 3... tt::lb4 14 q;>b1 tt::lc4
15 i..xc4 l:.xc4 16 i..d4 i..g4 17 ltc 1
= Estrin-Veresov, USSR 1962) 14
Jtxc4 i..xc4 15 �b1 a5 16 h4 b5
with a double-edged game.
Willemze-Anka, Holland (ch) 1998.
l l ...i..xb3
38 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g l 7 i.e3
This exchange is interchangable
with the following blow in the cen­
tre. But also possible is II. . .i.d7 I2
'ifd2 (I2 g5 lile8 I3 0-0 i.xc3 I4
bxc3 lilg7 IS lild4 tileS favours
Black) I2...lile5 1 3 g5 .r:r.xc3!? (or
1 3 ...lile8 I4 lild4 lilc4 IS i.xc4
.r:r.xc4 1 6 0-0-0 ;!;) 1 4 gxf6 llxe3 1 5
'it'xe3 i.f6 with a double-edged
game, Haist-Honfi, Baden-Baden
I985.
12 axb3 dS
On 12 ... e6 possible is 13 g5 lilxe4
1 4 lilxe4 exf5 1 5 lilc3 .l:[e8 1 6 i.f2
and Black does not have full com­
pensation for the piece, Savon­
Gufeld, USSR (ch) 1 972. But worth
considering is 1 2 ...lile5 1 3 g5 :txc3
with sufficient compensation for the
exchange.
13 lilxd5
On 13 exd5 lilb4 14 i.O possible
is 1 4 ...lilfxd5! 1 5 lilxd5 lilxc2+ 1 6
'itf2 lilxa 1 1 7 'ii'xaI l:tc2+ 1 8 'itg3
i.e5+ 19 <Ji>h3 e6 with an attack on
the king, Dikariev-Kupreichik,
Kharkov 1 966.
13 ...lilxe4 14 i.f3 with an unex­
plored game.
Line S
(1 e4 cS 2 lilf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lilxd4 lilf6 5 lilc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
i.e3 lilc6)
8 h4
V.Smyslov employed this move
in his I958 world championship
match against M.Botvinnik.
8 0-0
...
In the last, 9th, game on this
theme from the Smyslov-Botvinnik
match, Moscow I958, Black pre­
vented the advance of the h-pawn:
8 ... h5 9 0 0-0 1 0 1i'd2 d5 II t:Dxc6!
bxc6 I2 e5 lile8 1 3 f4 (on 1 3 i.h6
Botvinnik intended 1 3 ... i.xe5! 1 4
i.xffl 'itxffl) 1 3 ...f6 (after 1 3 ...f5
Black is deprived of counterplay,
whereas White retains the advantage
on the queenside due to the weak­
ness of the c5 square.) I4 0-0-0 fxe5
IS fxe5 i.xe5 1 6 g4 i.xg4 I7 i.xg4
hxg4 1 8 h5 g5! 1 9 i.xg5 1i'd6 and
Black's chances proved to be
preferable.
Later M.Botvinnik recommended
1 4 g4 fxe5 (in the game
Omelchenko-Heemsoth, corr. I982,
Black accepted the pawn sacrifice
1 4 ... hxg4?! and lost after IS 0-0-0
fxe5 I6 fxe5 1i'a5 1 7 h5 i.xe5 1 8
hxg6 i.xc3 1 9 :th8+!) 1 5 fxe5
i.xe5 with unclear complications.
9 hS dS 10 hxg6 hxg6
In the game Smyslov-Botvinnik,
Moscow (m/7) 1 958, 1 0 ... fxg6 1 1
exd5 lilxd5 was played when, as
shown later by M.Botvinnik, White
could have obtained an undoubted
advantage after 1 2 i.c4! e6 1 3
lilxd5 exd5 I4 i.b3 lilxd4 1 5 i.xd4
1i'e7+ 1 6 'itf l .
1 l lilxc6!
Exchanges by 1 1 exd5 lilxd5 1 2
lilxc6 bxc6 1 3 lilxd5 1i'xd5 1 4
1i'xd5 cxd5 leave the game even,
Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow (m/5)
1 958.
l l ... bxc6 12 eS lile4 13 lilxe4
dxe4 14 i.d4 i.e6
Or 1 4 ... 1i'a5+ 15 i.c3 1i'd5 1 6
'ii'c l ;!; (M.Botvinnik).
15 1i'd2 cS
 Classical Dragon with 6 il..e2 il..g7 7 il..e3 39
Weaker is 15...'ii'c7 1 6 'ii'f4 l:tfd8
I7 il..c3 il..d5 18 'ii'h 4 �f8 19 0-0-0
and the opening of the h-file makes
it easier for White to organise an
attack, Boyarinov-Pribilov, USSR
1 963.
16 il..c3 'ii'xd2+ 17 'it>xd2 l:f.ad8+
Also possible is an immediate
17...f5 and on 1 8 �e3-18...l:.ad8
(weaker is 18...�f7?! 19 g4 ;!;;) 19 f4
exf3 20 il..xf3 g5 with an equal
game.
18 �e3 f5 19 exf6 exf6 20 l:.ad1
f5 21 il.. xg7 �xg7 22 g3 �f6 with
approximately equal chances in the
endgame, De Ia Villa-Almeida, An­
dorra (zt) 1987.
Line 6
(1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tiJd4 tiJf6 5 tbc3 g6 6 il..e2 il.. g7 7
il..e3 tbc6)
8 'ii'd2
For the time being, White does
not make a decision where to place
his king, intending to sort this out
according to the future development
of events while exploiting the fact
that Black cannot now play 8 ... d5 in
view of 9 il.. b5.
8...0-0
8...tbg4 is also seen sometimes. A
possible continuation for White is 9
il.. xg4 il..xg4 10 tbd5 l:c8 11 c4
'ii'a5 12 tbc3 a6 13 l:c1 0-0 14 b3
il..d7 15 0-0 l:tfd8 16 l:.fd1 with
positional pressure, Bogatyrchuk­
IIyin-Genevsky, USSR (ch) 1934.
But also worth considering is 9
tbxc6 bxc6 10 il..xg4 ..txg4. For
example: 11 il..h6 il..xh6 (11...0-0 is
safer) 1 2 'ii'xh6 e5 13 0-0 'ii'e7 14
b3 AdS 15 f4 and White's chances
are preferable, Simon-Adam,
Hungary 1 993.
9 0-0-0
Here already on 9 l:d 1 possible is
9 ...tbg4 10 il..xg4 il..xg4. For exam­
ele: 11 f3 il..d7 1 2 0-0 l:.c8 13 l:f2
llle5 1 4 b3 f5 15 exf5 gxf5 1 6 t'Lld5
t'Llf7 1 7 tbe2 e6 18 tiJdf4 b5 with
double-edged play, Larsen-Miles,
Reykjavik 1986.
On 9 h4 (or 9 h3) 9...d5 is good:
10 exd5 (the game van den Bosch­
Euwe, Amsterdam 1936, continued
1 0 t'Llxc6 bxc6 11 lld1 'ii'c7 12 h5?!
tbxe4 1 3 tbxe4 dxe4 14 hxg6 hxg6
15 il..d4 l:d8 16 'it'c3 l:xd4 17 l:xd4
'ii'b6 0-1) 1O ...tiJxd5 1 1 tbxd5
tbxd4! 12 tbxe7+ 'ii'xe7 13 il..xd4
il..xd4 14 'ii'xd4 l:te8 with equal
chances, but also possible is
9...t'Llxd4 1 0 il..xd4 'ii'a5 1 1 0-0-0
il.. e6. For example the game Zelcic­
Mantovani, Velden 1994, continued
12 'ii'g5 'ii'xg5+ 13 hxg5 tiJd7 14 f4
llac8 15 g3 f6 16 gxf6 il..xf6 17
il..f3 with some initiative for White.
On 9 f3, 9...d5 is also good: 10
0-0-0 (weaker is 10 exd5 lllxd5 11
tbxd5 'ii'xd5 12 c3 tbxd4 13 il..xd4
il..xd4 14 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 15 cxd4 il.. e6
with rather the better endgame in
view of the presence of the isolated
pawn, Camus-Collas, Cappelle Ia
Grande 1993) 10 ....tbxd4 (weaker is
l 0... 1i'a5 11 tiJb3 'ii'c7 12 lLlb5 'ii'd8
13 exd5 tbe5 14 d6 exd6 15 'ii'xd6
'ii'xd6 16 l:xd6 with an extra pawn
for White, H.Nielsen-Sylvan,
40 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 .i.e3
Roskilde 1998) 11 .i.xd4 dxe4 12
fxe4 .i.e6 with equal chances. Also
possible is 9...�xd4 10 .i.xd4 .i.e6
11 0-0-0 'ii'a5 12 �b1 Afc8 13 a3
l:.ab8 1 4 g4 b5 with chances for
both sides.
9 ...�xd4
After 9... d5 10 exd5 �xd5 11
�xc6 bxc6 12 �xd5 cxd5 13 'ii'xd5
arises a position similar to that ex­
amined in the Rauzer Attack, the
only difference being that instead of
f2-f3 he has made the useful devel­
oping move .i.fl -e2, which allows
White to retain somewhat the better
chances after the continuation
1 3...'ii'c7 14 'ii'xa8 .i.f5 15 'ii'xffi+
�xffi 16 .l:.d2 ;!; Wade-Wotkovsky,
Heidelberg 1 949.
On the fashionable manoeuvre
9 ... .i.d7 10 �b 1 Ac8 possible is the
more active 11 f4. For example the
"speed" game lvanchuk-Anand,
Monaco (rapid) 1997, continued:
1 l ...a6 12 l:.he1 b5 13 .i.f3 'ii'c7 14
�b3 b4 15 �a4 l:.b8 16 e5 dxe5 17
�ac5 .i.c8 18 .i.xc6 'ii'xc6 1 9 fxe5
�g4 20 .i.f4 and White gained the
advantage.
Worth considering is 9 ... �g4!? 10
i.xg4 .i.xg4 11 f3 .i.e6 12 �xc6
bxc6 13 .i.h6 'ii'a5 (after
13... .i.xh6?! 1 4 'ii'xh6 'ii'a5 15 f4!
White has a dangerous attack linked
to l:.d1-d3 and f4-f5) 14 .i.xg7
�xg7 1 5 a3 l:tab8 16 �e2! 'ii'e5 17
'ii'd4 f6 18 l:.d2 l:.b7 19 'ii'xe5 fxe5
20 �c3! with an equal game in
Glek-Smirin, Pula 1997.
10 .i.xd4 .i.e6
Also not bad is 10...'ii'a5 and
nothing is offered by 1 1 .i.xf6 .i.xf6
12 �d5 'ii'xd2+ 13 Axd2 �g7,
while on 11 .i.c4 possible is
1 l ...b5!. It seems that better here is
11 �b1 on which 1 l .. .e5 is also
interesting (1 l ....i.e6 is looked at
below) 12 .i.e3 .i.e6 13 'ii'xd6 l:.fc8!
with an initiative for the sacrificed
pawn.
1 1 �bl
Or 11 f3 l:tc8 12 g4 'ii'a5 13 a3
.i.c4 14 g5 �h5 15 .i.xg7 �xg7 16
.i.xc4 l:txc4 17 �d5 'ii'xd2+ 18
l:.xd2 .!:[e8 with an equal endgame,
Sermier-Murey, France 1993.
Also 1 1 h4 is interesting, meeting
11...'ii'a5 with 12 'ii'g5, e.g. Shirov­
Topalov, Madrid 1996, continued
12... b5!? 13 'ii'xb5 'ii'c7 14 e5 �e8
15 exd6 �xd6 16 'ii'c5 1Wxc5 1 7
.i.xc5 .i.xc3 18 bxc3 l:.fc8 =.
l l .. .'ii'a5
White also retains the initiative on
other continuutionN.
1) l l . . .l:.cH 1 2 u3 (with the idea of
capturing on o7; nller 1 2 h4 .i.c4 13
.i.f3 l:.e8 1 4 hS 'ii'n 5 1 5 n3 'ii'a6 16
hxg6 hxg6 1 7 /i)dS c5 ond Black
does not 11tnnd wnrHc, Smyslov­
KonstantinopniNky, Mnscow 1945)
12 . . .'ii'o S J J .t " n' .t " n' 1 4 �d5
'ii'xd2 I S li)x n, I -J/jJ.7 1 6 �h5+
gxhS 1 7 l:.xd2 with the better end­
game lhr White.
2) l l . . .'irc7 12 .tn! (playing in
the style uf the� lhul.t"l' Allack by 12
h4 hS 1 .\ n J:li�H 1 4 J:ldg l 'ii'a5 15
o3 bS I t1 :,1 1 h-1 li1vnurs Black,
Riet�n-l(ubnl•l h, MuNcow (ol) 1994)
1 2 . . . J:llcH 1 .1 :,le d i;)d7 ( t 3 ...a6 14
eS t ) 1 4 i. 11 11'1 ·J.o"l.f/ 1 5 li1d5! with
 Classical Dragon with 6 J..e2 J..g 7 7 J..e3 41
a positional advantage to White,
Fuchs-Liebert, East Germany 1961.
3) l l ...a6 12 h4 b5 13 h5 b4 14
J..xf6 J..xf6 15 hxg6 (15 lD<i5 J..g7
with chances for both sides, Honfi­
Jean, Monte Carlo 1967) 15...hxg6
( 1 5...bxc3? 16 'iVh6) 16 lDd5 ;!;;, in­
tending an attack after 16 ... J..xd5 1 7
exd5 a5 18 'ir'h6 l:te8 19 J.. g4.
4) l l ...b5 1 2 J..xb5 l:tb8 1 3 l:the 1
'iVa5 14 J..a4 l:tb4 15 J.. b3 lhd4 1 6
'iVxd4 lDd5 17 exd5! J..xd4 18 l:txd4
J..f5 19 l:txe7 and White's chances
are still preferable, Kupreichik­
Watson, Frunze 1985.
12 a3
The obvious 12 J..xf6 also spoils
the pawn structure after 12 ... J..xf6
1 3 liJd5 ( 1 3 ...'iVa4 14 lDxf6+ exf6
15 b3 'iVxe4 16 J.. f3 and after 17
'iVxd6 White has in effect an extra
pawn on the queen's flank). But
stronger is 12...exf6 with counter­
play after ...f6-f5.
On 12 lDd5 'iVxd2 13 lDxe7+ �h8
14 l:txd2 lDxe4 15 J..xg7+ �xg7 16
l:td4 lDf6 17 J..f3 l:tfe8 18 lDd5
lDxd5 19 J..xd5 J..xd5 20 l:txd5 l:te2
21 l:tf l l:tac8 22 c3 .l:.c6 Black has a
good endgame in view of the threat
of 23 ... l:tb6! (analysis).
12 ...l:tfc8 13 J.. xf6 J..xf6 14 lDd5
'ii'xd2 15 lDxf6+ �g7 16 lDh5+
gxh5 17 .l:.xd2 with rather the better
endgame for White, though Black
has sufficient defensive resources,
Glek-Khalifman, Russia (ch) 1995.
 2 : Classical Dragon 7 ctJb3
(1 e4 c5 2 tt::l f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt::lxd4 tt::l f6 5 tt::lc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7)
7 tt::lb3
This retreat of the knight keeps
open the possibility of developing
the queen's bishop not only to e3,
but also to the more active position
on g5. In the latter case it is clear
that the knight on d4, which has
thereby lost its support, must move
away and there is no better square
for it (on f3 it hampers the advance
of the f-pawn). In addition, the
knight retreat increases White's
control over the d5 square and he
can carry out the plan of a f2-f4
pawn attack with his dark-squared
bishop remaining for the time being
on its original square.
7 0-0 8 0-0 tt::lc6
...
Also seen is the development
8...tt::lbd7 with the idea of saving a
tempo for a pawn advance on the
queen's flank thanks to the attack on
the e4 pawn.
For ;xample: 9 f4 b5! 10 .i.f3
Wib6+ 11 �h1 e5 12 a4 b4 13 tt::ld5
tt::lxd5 14 'iVxd5 .i.b7 15 Wib5 .i.a6
(15 ...l:tac8!?) 16 'iVxb6 tt::lxb6 17
.l:r.d1 exf4 18 .i.xf4 .i.xb2 with a
good game for Black, Mortensen­
Mestel, Hastings 1993, or 9 .i.g5 a6
10 a4 b6 11 f4 .i.b7 12 .i.f3 b5 13
axb5 axb5 14 .l:r.xa8 .i.xa8 with
chances for both sides, Gavrilakis­
Meste1, Thessaloniki (ol) 1988; also
not bad is 14...'ii'a8!?.
White usually prevents this coun­
terplay by means of 9 a4 b6 10 a5
.i.b7 11 f3 a6 12 axb6 'iVxb6+ 13
�h1 a5 (or 13 ... ltfc8 14 tt::la5 .i.c6
15 tt::ld5 .i.xd5 16 exd5 ltc5 17 .i.e3
tt::lxd5 18 .i.xc5 'ii'xc5 19 tt::lb3 !
B.Horvath-Dueball, Rotterdam
1988) 14 .i.g5 .l:r.fc8 15 'iVd2 (after
15 lta2 d5! 16 tt::lxd5 tt::lxd5 17 exd5
a4 18 tt::lc1 .i.xb2 19 c4 a3! Black
equalises the game, Wahls-Golubev,
Berlin 1993) l 5 ...tt::le5 16 .l:r.a2 and
White's chances are preferable
(M.Golubev).
 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 li::Jb 3 43
After 8 ...li::Jc6 the basic plans,
each assuming an independent char­
acter, are associated with the
continuations:
9 �h 1-Line 7
9 i..g5-Line 8
9 Ae1-Line 9
After 9 f4 b5! Black exploits in a
tactical way the momentary weak­
ening of the g1-a7 diagonal: I 0
i..xb5 is not favourable for White,
since then follows IO... li::Jxe4! 11
li::lxe4 'iib6+, winning back the
piece. True, White can occupy the
d5 square by 10 i..f3 b4 II li::Jd5,
but after 1 I ...li::lxd5 12 exd5 li::Ja5
Black has compensation for the
weakening of the e7 pawn and ob­
tains counterplay on the queen's
flank, since the c2 pawn is also
backward.
Line 7
(1 e4 c5 2 li::JO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li::J xd4 li::Jf6 5 li::Jc3 g6 6 i..e2 i..g7 7
li::Jb3 0-0 8 0-0 li::lc6)
9 �h1
A prophylactic king move, pre­
paring the advance f2-f4. Black's
main continuations are:
7A: 9 ... a5
7B: 9 ... i..e6
7C: 9... a6
7A
(1 e4 c5 2 li::JO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li::Jxd4 li::Jf6 5 li::Jc3 g6 6 i..e2 i..g7 7
li::Jb3 0-0 8 0-0 li::Jc6 9 �h1)
9 ... a5
A natural reaction to the knight
move which has more foundation
here than after the developing move
i..c l -e3.
10 a4 i.. e6 1 1 f4 'ii'h6
In good time seizing control of
the important diagonal, otherwise it
will be taken by White:
1) 1 l ...'Wc8 12 i..e3 li::lb 4! (on
12...i..g4 possible is 13 i..g l l:.d8 14
li::Jd5 i..xe2 15 'Wxe2 and White
dominates the centre, Alekhine­
Golombek, Montevideo 1939) 13
li::Jd4 (or 13 i..f3 l:.d8 14 li::Jd4 i..c4
15 l:.f2 e5 16 li::Jdb5 d5! and Black
takes over the initiative, N.Rogers­
Soltis, Murphy 1994) 13...i.c4 14
i..d3 (or 14 l:.cl i..xe2 15 'Wxe2
li::Jg4 16 i..g l e5 17 fxe5 li::lxe5 18
li::Jcb5 ;!; Matanovic-Deze, Yugosla­
via 1977) 14 ...e5 15 li::Jdb5 l:.a6 16
'We2! with rather the better chances
for White, Morovic-Rantanen,
Lucerne (ol) 1982.
2) l l ...Ac8 12 i..e3 li::Jb4 13 li::Jd4
i..c4 14 li::Jdb5 i..xe2 15 'Wxe2 Ac6
16 l:.adl 'Wb8 17 .l:td2 b6 18 li::Jd5
'Wb7 19 i..d4 li::Jbxd5 20 exd5 and
White gains a space advantage,
Mencinger-Baric, Pula 1990.
12 li::Jd 5!
After 12 f5 Black prevents the
transfer of the knight on b3 to b5
and obtains counterplay along the
dark squares: 12...i..xb3! 13 cxb3
'ii'b4 (13...'Wd4 is also interesting)
44 Classical Dragon with 6 i&.e2 i&.g7 7 liJb3
1 4 il.e3 liJd7 (but not 14...liJxe4? in
view of 15 liJd5! trapping the
queen) 1 5 il.c4 liJb6 1 6 �a2 liJxc4
17 liJxb4 liJxe3 1 8 'ife2 liJxfl 1 9
liJxc6 liJg3+ with sufficient com­
pensation for the queen, Van den
Berg-Larsen, Beverwijk 1959.
12 ... il.xd5 13 exd5 liJb4 14 il.f3
li'a6!?
The continuation 14 ....Z::.ac8 15 c3
liJd3 16 li'xd3 'iVxb3 17 lie1 liJd7
18 li'e2 leaves White with a definite
initiative, Kurajica-Velimirovic,
Osijek 1978.
But worth considering is 14...e6
1 5 dxe6 fxe6 16 liJd4 d5 1 7 l:a3
l:lfe8 1 8 Ae3 .!:.adS 1 9 c3 liJa6 20
.l:te2 liJc5 and a "French" type of
position arises in which Black ob­
tains sufficient counterplay thanks
to the possibility of his controlling
the e4 square, Messa-Martin, Roma
1 983.
15 il.e2 'ifb6 and Black maintains
the balance, Nijboer-Riemersma,
Nederland (ch) 1 993.
78
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 il.e2 il.g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6 9 �hi)
9 .. il.e6
. 2) 12 il.d3 d5?! 13 liJxa5 1Wxa5
A natural developing move. Black
for the time being avoids weak­
nesses on the queen's flank.
10 f4
As in the variation with the devel­
opment of the bishop on e3 the main
continuations for Black are:
7Ba: I O ...'iVc8
7Bb: I O...l:.c8
Distinct from the variations where
the bishop is standing on e3, the
manoeuvre 10...liJa5 1 1 f5 il.c4 is
less attractive, since White has
several ways to fight for the
advantage:
1) 1 2 e5 il.xe2 (or 1 2...liJe8 1 3 e6
liJf6 14 liJd4 il.xe2 15 'iVxe2 liJc6
1 6 exf7+ l:.xt7 1 7 liJe6 'iVd7 18
fxg6 hxg6 19 il.f4 with gaping
weaknesses for Black, Zapata-Oltra
Caurin, Salamanca 199 1 ) 13 liJxe2
liJe8 (13...liJg4! ?) 14 fxg6 hxg6 15
e6! liJc6 16 �f4 liJe5 17 liJd4 liJc7
18 exf7+ (18 il.d2 'iVc8 19 exf7
l:xt7 20 c3 'iVd7 + Psakhis-Lemer,
Moscow 1986) 18... .Z::.xt7 1 9 liJfe6
liJxe6 20 liJxe6 .Z::.xfl 2 1 'iVxfl +
'ir'd7 and here, in the game Torre­
Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1981, White
retained the better chances with the
move 22 il.d2.
1 4 e5 liJe4 15 liJxe4 il.xd3 16 cxd3
dxe4 17 f6 with advantage to White,
Sl!lrensen-Muse, Berlin 1992.
3) 1 2 liJxa5 il.xe2 13 'ir'xe2 1Wxa5
14 g4 and now the exchange
sacrifice 14...l:ac8 15 g5 ltxc3 is no
good because of 16 gxf6 (if the
bishop was on e3 Black would take
it with tempo), nor 1 4 ... 'ifb4 15 g5
liJd7 16 a3 and he has to retreat
since the b2 pawn is defended.
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.. e2 i..g 7 7 l"iJb3 45
7Ba
(1 e4 c5 2 l"iJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l"iJxd4 l"iJf6 5 l"iJc3 g6 6 i..e2 i..g7 7
l"iJb3 0-0 8 0-0 l"iJc6 9 �h1 i..e6 10
f4)
10..JWc8
A multi-purpose move,
establishing control over the f5, g4
and c4 squares.
1 1 i..f3
White prepares the thrust l"iJc3-d5.
Sometimes the move 1 1 i..d3 is
employed, with the idea of f4-f5,
but on this he loses control over the
d5 square and Black can counterat­
tack in the centre: l l .. .d5 (in the
game Smirin-Khalifman, USSR (ch)
1988, Black carried out this move
after some preEaration: 1 1 ...l"iJb4 12
l"iJd4 i..g4 13 'Wei l"iJh5! 14 l"iJb3 a5
15 i..d2 a4 16 l"iJci d5! and also ob­
tained a good game) 12 f5 dxe4 1 3
fxe6 exd3 14 exf7+ J:lxf7 1 5 'ifxd3
l"iJb4 16 'ife2 'ifg4 17 l:tf3 e5 with
an excellent game for Black,
So.Polgar-Ashley, New York 1992.
The continuation 1 1 i..e3 leads to
variations with the early develop­
ment of the bishop on e3.
l l . i..g4
. .
Exploiting the absence of the
bishop from e3, Black endeavours
to secure himself against the thrust
l"iJc3-d5 by exchanging pieces.
After l l...i..c4 12 J:lf2 l:td8 13
l"iJd5 e6 (also interesting is 13 ... e5
1 4 l"iJxf6+ i..xf6 15 i..g4 'ifc7 1 6 f5
i..g7 1 7 'iff3 and now, in the game
Rantanen-Binham, Helsinki 1983,
Black could have played 17 ... d5
with chances for both sides) 14
l"iJxf6+ i..xf6 15 c3 'ifc7 16 i..e3 e5
17 l"iJd2 and White's chances are
preferable (since on 17...i.. e6 possi­
ble is 18 f5), Sigurjonsson-Miles,
Hastings 1975176.
Also after l l....l:r.d8 12 l"iJd5 i..xd5
1 3 exd5 l"iJb4 1 4 c3 l"iJa6 15 i..e3
l"iJc5 16 .l:r.e1 'ifc7 1 7 l"iJd4 White
consolidates his pieces in the centre
and has the preferable position,
Kindermann-Habibi, Dortmund
1 987.
12 l"iJd5 i.. xf3 13 'ifxf3 l"iJxd5
Simplifying the position with ex­
changes, but also possible is the
plan to counterattack on the queen­
side: 13 ...b5 14 c3 b4 1 5 i..d2 'ifb7
16 l:.ae1 a5 17 l"iJxf6+ exf6 1 8 l"iJci
J:lfe8 19 l"iJd3 'ifb5 20 f5 g5 2 1 h4
112-112 Kavalek-Sosonko, Waddinx­
veen 1 979.
14 exd5 l"iJd4 15 l"iJxd4 i.. xd4 16
'ifd3 i..f6 with equal chances,
Kindermann-Chiburdanidze, Biel
1988.
7Bb
(1 e4 c5 2 l"iJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l"iJxd4 l"iJf6 5 l"iJc3 g6 6 i..e2 i..g7 7
l"iJb3 0-0 8 0-0 l"iJc6 9 �h1 i..e6 10
f4)
10...J:lc8
Black continues his development,
ignoring the threat of f4-f5, and in
this way counting on exploiting the
e5 square.
46 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 tiJb3
1 1 f5
Rej ecting this move in favour of
11 .i.f3 allows Black to solve his
opening problems with the help of
the standard ... e7-e5 thrust:
1I....i.c4 12 l:.f2 (or 12 lle1 e5! 13
tiJd5 tiJxd5 14 exd5 tiJb4 15 'ii'd2
.i.xb3 16 'ihb4 .i.xc2 17 'iWxb7 e4
18 .i.e2 .i.d4 and the black bishops
dominate the position, Chechlov-
Hoffmann, Biel 1994) 12 ...e5 13
.i.e3 .i.h6!? (also good is 13 ...b5 14
fxe5 tDxe5 15 a3 "ile7 16 tiJd4 l:.fd8
17 .i.g5 h6 18 .i.xf6 'iWxf6, main­
taining the balance, Cabrilo­
Chatalbashev, Cacak 1991) 14 'iWd2
exf4 15 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 16 'iWxf4 tiJe5
!!nd with his control of the e5 square
Black secures equal chances,
Cabrilo-Velimirovic, Bukovicke
Banje 1993.
l l ... .i.d7 12 .i.g5
Also interesting is the plan to put
eressure on the king's flank: 12 g4
tiJe5 13 g5 tiJe8 14 tiJd4 .i.c6?!
(more active was 14...CiJc4 15 .i.c1
'ikb6) 15 .i.e3 tiJc7 16 tDxc6 tDxc6
17 .i.c4 a6 18 .i.b6 'iWd7 19 f6 and
White gains the advantage,
Kashasvili-Theocharides, Halle
1995.
12 ... tiJe5 13 .i.d3
After 13 tiJd4 .i.c6 14 tiJxc6 llxc6
threats of sacrificing the exchange
appear for Black, since 15 .i.xf6
�xf6 16 tiJd5 is harmless after
16....i.g5 17 g3 e6 18 tiJf4 'iWe7
when Black even has the better
chances, Lengyel-Borge, Budapest
1991.
13 ... tiJc4 14 .i.xc4 ltxc4 15 'iWd3
llc8 16 llad1 .i.c6 17 tiJd5 .i.xd5
18 exd5
The posttlon is characteristic of
such plans of play but with the
important difference that White is
ready to open the f-file. In the game
Leko-Turzo, Szeged 1994, Black
hurried to exploit his trump card­
the e5 square-and came under at­
tack: 18...CiJg4 19 c3 tiJe5 20 'iWh3
lle8 21 ttJd4 llc5? (2I...'iWa5!?) 22
fxg6 hxg6 23 tiJe6. Worth consider­
ing is 18 ... 'iWc7 19 c3 'ii'c4, striving
to compensate for the weaknesses of
both the e7 and d5 pawns.
7C
(1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
tiJb3 0-0 8 0-0 tiJc6 9 �h1)
9 a6
.••
Since the knight on c6 is not at­
tacked, Black endeavours to organ­
ise an offensive with the b-pawn.
White's main continuations are:
7Ca: 10 f4
7Cb: 10 a4
 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g l J {jjbJ 47
7Ca
(1 e4 c5 2 {jjf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ljjxd4 {jjf6 5 ljjc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
ljjb3 0-0 8 0-0 ljjc6 9 ..t>h1 a6)
10 f4
White ignores the plan to advance
on the queen's flank, hoping to con­
quer the position in the centre.
10 ... b5 1 1 .i.f3 .i.d7
Leaving the b-file open for the
rook. After I I ....i.b7 White can pro­
ceed with the standard knight thrust
1 2 a4 b4 1 3 ljjd S, also with the idea
of exerting pressure by a4-aS. The
pawn break in the centre 1 2 eS is
linked to a pawn sacrifice: 1 2 ...dxeS
13 ljjcS 'iVb6 (weaker is 1 3 ...'i'xd1
14 l:txd1 e4! 1 S ljj3xe4 ljjxe4 1 6
.i.xe4 l:1ad8 1 7 .i.e3 ;!;) 1 4 ljjxb7
'i'xb7 1 S fxeS ljjd7 1 6 e6 fxe6 1 7
ljje4 ltad8 1 8 'ii'e 1 ljjdeS 1 9 {jjgS
'i'c8! for which there is apparently
not sufficient compensation,
Chemiaev-Serper, St.Petersburg
1994.
12 .i.e3 l:tb8
1 2 ...b4 is rather premature. Then
1 3 ljjdS (on 1 3 lLJa4 possible is
1 3 ...l:1b8 14 a3 aS I S l:1f2 'fkc7 1 6
l:td2 and here, i n the game Short­
Chiburdanidze, Banja Luka 1 98S,
Black could have maintained the
balance with the move 1 6 . . .l:tfd8)
13 ... ljjxdS 14 exdS {jjas I S .i.d4
ljjxb3 1 6 axb3 aS 1 7 .i.xg7 �xg7
1 8 'fkd4+ and White has some space
advantage, Cabrilo-Pavlov, Tmava
1 98 1 , but worth considering is
1 2 ...l:tc8 1 3 l:tf2 b4 J 4 {jja4 l:tb8 1 S
a3 {jjas ! with approximately equal
chances, Nunn-Kudrin, Wijk aan
Zee 1 98S
13 a3
Black also has sufficient counter­
Qlay after 1 3 a4 bxa4 (or 1 3 . b4 1 4
..
lLJdS ljje 8! followed by ... e7-e6) 1 4
l:1xa4 aS.
13 a5 14 a4 bxa4 15 ljj xa4 'it'c8
.•.
16 ljjb6 'i'c7 17 ljjxd7 ljj xd7 18 c3
l:1fc8 with equal chances, Zontakh­
Khasin, Budapest 1 99 1 .
7Cb
(1 e4 c5 2 {jjf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ljjxd4 {jjf6 5 ljjc3 g6 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7
ljjb3 0-0 8 0-0 ljjc6 9 �h1 a6)
10 a4
Radically preventing Black's
plan, but now the b4 square is
weakened.
10....i.e6
Also interesting is the plan with
the fianchetto of this bisho_p: I O ... b6
I I f4 .i.b7 12 .i.f3 lLJd7! (or
12 ...l:1c8 13 .i.e3 eS with an unclear
game) 13 .i.e3 l:tc8 14 ltf2
48 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 li:Jb3

(A.Mikhalchishin recommended 1 4
l:.b 1 with li:Jc3-d5 t o follow)
14 ...lt:Ja5 ! 1 5 lt:Jxa5 bxa5 1 6 i.d4
( 1 6 l:.a3?! .l:.c4 1 7 l:tb3 "it'c8 1 8 "iid3
l:tb4 19 l:.fl lt:Jc5 20 i.xc5 "it'xc5 +
Smirin-Kramnik, Bugojno 1999)
16 ... e5 1 7 fxe5 lt:Jxe5 with chances
for both sides.
1 1 f4 li:Ja5
Black could obtain a pawn major­
ity on the right flank: 1 I ...i.xb3 1 2
cxb3, but this reduces his resources
for counterplay. It is a long way to As pointed out by I.Smirin, this is
the endgame and White needs to confirmed by the variation:
reckon on the advantage of the two 19 ...Wb6 20 aS 1Wd4! (20 ...ilxb2?
bishops: 1 2 ...e6 1 3 i. f3 l:tc8 1 4 2 1 lta2 "ilib4 22 li:Je4 ±) 21 ilt3
i.e3 l:.e8 1 5 i.g1 ilc7 1 6 .l:.c 1 "ilib8 "iig4! 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 "ifxb7 l:tb8
1 7 .l:.c2 and though here, in the and the position is even. However,
game Smirin-Kir.Georgiev, Elenite in the game, Smirin-Mark Tseitlin,
1 993, a draw was agreed, White's Israel 1 99 1 , followed 19 ...gxf5? 20
chances appear to be preferable. lt:Je4 and White gained the
12 li:Jxa5 advantage.
On 1 2 f5 best is 1 2 ... i.c4 13 e5
i.xe2 1 4 li:Jxe2 li:Je8 with a complex Line 8
game, but weaker is 1 2 ... i.xb3 1 3
cxb3 "ilib6 1 4 l:ta3 .l:.ac8 1 5 i.d3 e6 (1 e4 cS 2 li:Jt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1 6 i.g5 with some advantage for li:Jxd4 li:Jf6 5 li:Jc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
White, Sznapik-Pavlov, Baile Her­ li:Jb3 0-0 8 0-0 li:Jc6)
culane 1 982.
12 ...1Wxa5 13 i.d3 l:.ac8 9 i.gS
Also worth considering is
1 3 ...b5!? 1 4 f5 i.d7 1 5 i.d2 bxa4
1 6 lt:Jxa4 'ikc7 1 7 li:Jc3 .l:.tb8 1 8 l:.a2
with a complicated game (I.Smirin).
14 f5 i.c4 15 'We2 i.xd3
On 1 5 ..ilb4 follows 1 6 a5.
.

16 cxd3 e6! 17 i.d2

Or 1 7 i.g5 l:tce8 1 8 'ikf3 li:Jd7
with equal chances.
17 ...exf5 18 exfS :res 19 'ikd1 !
On 1 9 ikf3, Black equalises by
1 9 ...'Wf5.
From its starting square the queen
can be transferred to b3, while for The active development of the
the time being White plans i.d2-g5. bishop (respective to the restrained
But all the same this position objec­ i.e 1 -e3) is one of the ideas of the
tively can be assessed as dynami­ retreat of the knight to b3. The aim
cally equal. of it is not only to prevent the
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 l:i:Jb3 49
advance ...d6-d5, because of the
possibility of a capture on f6, but
also the "X-Ray" effect on the e7
pawn. The drawback of the move is
the weakening of the g 1 -a7 diagonal
which is felt after f2-f4.
Black's main continuations are:
SA: 9 a5...
SB: 9 i.e6
•••
SC: 9 a6
...
Also seen sometimes is piece sup­
port for the advance of the b-pawn.
1 ) 9 .. Jlb8 10 a4 (the most radical;
also possible is 1 0 .l:r.e 1, preventing
1 0 ...b5 by defending the e4 pawn:
10 ... a6 I I f4 b5 12 i.f3 h6 1 3 i.h4
e5 14 f5 g5 1 5 i.f2 l:i:Je7 16 g4 .l:r.e8
1 7 1Vd2 b4 I 8 l:i:Je2 i.b7 1 9 l:i:Jg3
d5 ! 20 l:i:Jc5 i.a8 2 I .l:r.ad l 1Va5 with
sharp play, Zapata-R.Hemandez,
Bayamo 1990) 1 0...i.e6 I I f4 l:i:Ja5
I 2 �h l l:tc8 1 3 l:i:Jxa5 1Vxa5 14
i.d3 i.c4 1 5 1Ve2 (also good is I S
1Vf3, but premature i s 1 5 f5 d5! 1 6
i.xc4 Axc4 I 7 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 8
l:i:Jxd5 .l:r.xe4 I 9 l:i:Jxf6+ exf6 and
Black maintains the balance, while
after 16 e5 l:i:Je4 1 7 l:i:Jxe4 dxe4 1 8
i.xc4 l:txc4 I 9 i.xe7 .l:r.fc8 he even
has the preferable game, A.Sokolov)
1 5 ...1Vb4 16 .l:r.ab l e6 1 7 f5 with the
rather better chances for White,
A.Sokolov-Ljubojevic, Tilburg
1987.
2) 9 ... i.d7 IO �hl .l:r.b8 I I f4 (he
does not succeed in slowing down
the b-pawn even by 1 1 a4 in view of
1 l .. .a6 1 2 f4 b5 1 3 axb5 axb5 1 4
i. f3 h6 1 5 i.h4 b4 I 6 l:i:Jd5 l:i:Jh7 !?
1 7 .l:r.a2 g5 I 8 i.g3 gxf4 1 9 i.xf4
l:i:Je5 and the centralised knight
guarantees Black good counterplay,
Vogt-Thorsteinsson, Saltsjobaden
1 988) l l .. .b5 1 2 i.f3 aS f3 a4 (or
1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 i.xc6 i.xc6 1 5 1Vxd8
.l:r.fxd8 16 fxe5 l:i:Jg4 I 7 i.xe7 .l:r.e8
1 8 l:i:Jxa5 i.a8 1 9 i.d6 b4 20 i.xb8
bxc3 2 1 i.d6 l:i:Je3 with sufficient
compensation for the exchange,
Szell-Liptay, Magyarorszag I 986)
13 ...bxa4 I4 .l:r.xa4 l:i:Jb4 15 .l:r.a3
i.e6 1 6 l:i:Jxa5 .l:r.a8 I7 l:i:Jb3 .l:r.xa3 I S
bxa3 1Vc7 with good counterplay,
Soltis-Jovicic, Belgrade GMA 1988.
SA
(1 e4 c5 2 l:i:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l:i:Jxd4 l:i:Jf6 5 l:i:Jc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
l:i:Jb3 0-0 S 0-0 l:i:Jc6 9 i.g5)
9 a5
•••
As in other variations, the natural
reaction to the placing of the knight
on b3. The drawback of the move is
the weakening of the b5 square.
10 a4 i.e6
After the immediate 10 ...l:i:Jb4
White can advantageously return to
d4 with his knight: I I i.f3 ! (the
move I I .l:r.e I is examined within
the variation 9 .l:r.e !-chapter 9)
1 1 ...1Vc7 1 2 l:i:Jd4! i.d7 1 3 1Vd2
.l:r.ac8 1 4 .l:r.ad 1 1Vb8 1 5 .l:r.fe 1 .l:r.fe8
16 h3 i.c6 17 l:i:Jcb5! and, after oc­
cupying the main key squares on the
board, White has the advantage,
Balashov-Spiridonov, Halle 1 976.
1 1 �h1
This prophylactic move is made
practically automatically in
50 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.e2 .i.g7 7 lbb3
conjunction with f2-f4. Thus 1 I f4
l:r.c8 1 2 'iti>h I leads to a transposition
of moves. However we should men­
tion that on I 2 .i.f3 possible is
12 ...lbd7 I3 'it>h i lbb6 intending to
place the knight on c4.
l l ...:cs
Subsequently preparing a transfer
of the bishop to c4. In this context
also worth considering is 1 l . ..'iVc8
1 2 f4 ( I 2 lbd5? does not work be­
cause of 1 2 ... lbxe4 1 3 lbb6 'iVd8 1 4
lbxa8 lbxg5 I 5 'ifd2 lbe4 1 6 'ife3
lbc5 and the knight has no way out
from a8) 1 2 ... l:r.d8 (or 1 2 ...lbb4 1 3
lbd4 .i.c4 14 lbdb5 l:r.d8 1 5 .i.d3
'ifc5 16 'ife2 llac8 1 7 l:tad 1 lbxd3
1 8 cxd3 .i.xb5 1 9 axb5 a4 20 l:.a 1
.l:r.a8 2 1 lla3 lldc8 = Yurtaev­
Ledder, Lyngby 1 990) 1 3 .i.f3?!
lbb4 1 4 lbd4 (not much better is 14
l:.f2 or 14 l:r.e 1 +) 14 ....i.c4 15 l:.f2
h6 1 6 .i.h4 e5 Black obtains the
better game, Cherniaev-Gallagher,
Hastings 1 994. A.Cherniaev recom­
mended 1 3 'ife 1 lbb4 1 4 llc 1 with
complex play.
On the thrust 1 l ...lbb4 White, just
like a move earlier, makes a favour­
able return with the knight: 1 2 lbd4
'iic 8 (after 1 2 ...llc8 1 3 lbxe6 fxe6
1 4 .i.d3 'iVd7 1 5 f4 White is ready to
advance the e-pawn; the possible
character of the struggle is illus­
trated by the game, Fliickiger­
Danner, Bern 1 990, which contin­
ued 1 5 ...l:r.c5 16 .i.b5 "fie? 1 7 e5!
dxe5 1 8 fxe5 lld8 19 exf6 .i.xf6 20
.i.d2 llh5 21 h3 .i.g5 22 'ifxh5 gxh5
23 .i.xg5 and White had more than
enough material compensation for
the queen) 1 3 f3 .i.c4 14 lbcb5 lle8
1 5 .i.xc4 'ifxc4 16 c3 lba6 1 7 'ife 1
h6 1 8 .i.e3 l:tad8 1 9 b3 'iVc8 20 c4
b6 2 1 l:tb I and White has a space
advantage, Ivanovic-Basagic,
Yugoslavia (ch) I99I
The plan of transferring the
second knight to the queen's flank is
passive: I I ...lbd7 I2 f4
I) I 2 ...lbb6 1 3 f5 .i.c4 I4 .i.xc4
lbxc4 I 5 'ife2 lbb6 I6 'iVb5 and
White has very strong pressure,
Karpov-Sosonko, Bad Lauterberg
I 977.
2) I2 ....i.xb3 13 cxb3 lbc5 I4
.i.c4 .i.xc3 I5 bxc3 lbxe4 I 6 .i.h6
lbf6 (a practically forced exchange
sacrifice, since on I6 ... l:te8 follows
I 7 f5 !) I7 .i.xf8 �xf8 I 8 "ilf3 1i'd7
(or I 8 ...'iVb6 I9 l:tae i ± Matanovic­
Velimirovic, Skopje I976) I9 l:.ad i
1i'f5 20 h3 llc8 2 I 1l'e3 l:tc7 22
.i.d3 'iVc8 23 .i.e2 ;!; Savanovic­
Velimirovic, Vrnjacka Banja I 998 .
12 f4
In the game Renet-Petursson,
Marseilles I988, was seen I2 l:te I
lbb4 I 3 lbd4 .i.d7 14 lbdb5 .i.xb5
I 5 .i.xb'5 'iVb6 I6 'iVe2 'ifc5 I7 .i.e3
'iVh5 1 8 .i.b6 'ifxe2 I9 l:txe2 with
the transfer to a rather better end­
game for White.
12 ...lbb4
Now the concession of the d4
square is not so important since
Black is preparing a place on c4 for
his bishop.
13 lbd4
White transfers his knight to a
more active position.
Premature is 1 3 f5?! .i.xb3 I4
cxb3 llxc3! 15 bxc3 ( 15 .i.xf6 l:tc5 !
=F Bangiev-Kupreichik, USSR I 975)
1 5 . . . o!Dxe4 1 6 cxb4 .i.xa i I7 'iVxa i
lbxgS with active play for Black.
However it is necessary to take
into account Black's tactical re­
sources. For example, in the game
Moroz-Chernikov, Pardubice I 997,
on 1 3 i.h4'!! followed I3 ... lbxe4 !
14 �xe4 lilxc2 1 5 lbbc5 .i.f5 I 6
'ifxc2 llc5 1 7 'iVdJ d 5 +.
13 ... .tc4 1 4 l.ildb5
 Classical Dragon with 6 1Le2 1l.g 7 7 li:Jb3 51
Here the continuations are:
8Aa: 14...dS
8Ab: 14 ... 1LxbS
SAc: 14 ...1Wb6
8Aa
(1 e4 cS 2 li:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li:Jxd4 li:Jf6 S li:Jc3 g6 6 1Le2 1Lg7 7
li:Jb3 0-0 8 0-0 li:Jc6 9 iLgS aS 10 a4
1Le6 1 1 'it>hl .!:lc8 12 f4 li:Jb4 13
li:Jd4 1Lc4 14 li:JdbS)
14... dS
This radical attempt to break up
the centre involves a pawn sacrifice.
1S 1Lxc4
Nothing is offered by 1 5 e5 li:Je8
1 6 li:Jd4 1Lxe2 1 7 li:Jcxe2 'jj'd7 when
Black's chances are not worse,
Reyes-Portela, Madrid 1 992.
1S....!:lxc4 16 1Lxf6 1Lxf6 17 exdS
1Wb8
Weaker is 1 7 ...1Lxc3 1 8 li:Jxc3
l:tc5 19 'i'd4 'ifb6 20 l:ad I li:Jxc2 2 1
'jj'e4 with a dangerous initiative for
White, Zapata-Estevez, Bayamo
1984.
18 'ife2! .!:lxf4 19 d6!
With a timely return of the pawn,
White maintains an enduring
initiative.
19 ... llxfl+ 20 llxfl 'ii'd8 21 l:td1
exd6 22 l:txd6 'ii'e7 23 'ii'xe7 1Lxe7
24 l:td7 1Lf6
Also after 24 ... 1Ld8 25 ltxb7
li:Jxc2 26 li:Je4 f5 27 li:Jed6 White's
chances are preferable, Van der
Wiei-Piket, Holland (ch) 1 988, but
26 li:Jd5 seems stronger.
2S li:Je4! 1Lxb2 26 c3 li:Jc6 27
.!:lxb7 ltd8 28 g3 with the better
endgame for White, Balashov­
Geller, Lvov 1 978.
8Ab
(1 e4 cS 2 li:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li:Jxd4 li:Jf6 S li:Jc3 g6 6 1Le2 1Lg7 7
li:Jb3 0-0 8 0-0 li:Jc6 9 1l.gS aS 10 a4
1Le6 1 1 �h1 ltc8 12 f4 li:Jb4 13
li:Jd4 1Lc4 14 li:JdbS)
14...1LxbS
1S .i.xbS li:Je8
The first experience of this varia­
tion involved a pawn sacrifice
1 5 ...h6 I 6 1Lh4 li:Jh7 1 7 'ii'd2 g5 1 8
fxg5 li:Jxg5 1 9 1Lxg5 hxg5 20
'ii'xg5, but nevertheless Black's
counterplay, 20... e6 21 'jj'g3 ltc5 22
ltadl (22 l:tf4 llg5 23 'jj'f2 ;t Vogt­
Barczay, Tallinn 1 98 1 ) 22 ... ltg5 23
'ii'f2 'ii'c7 24 'ii'f4, did not fully
compensate for the pawn,
Romanishin-Tseshkovsky, Riga (izt)
1 979.
52 Classical Dragon with 6 i. e2 i.g7 7 tiJb3
His problems are not solved by
1 5 ...d5 1 6 exd5 tiJfxd5 1 7 tiJxd5
tiJxd5 1 8 c3 and White's position is
preferable, Franzoni-Korchnoi,
Berne 1 992.
16 e5 d5 17 .l:.fl f6 18 exf6 i.xf6
19 i.xf6 tiJxf6 and Black equalises,
Makarychev-Tseshkovsky, Sochi
1 983.
8Ac
(1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
tiJb3 0-0 8 0-0 lt::lc6 9 i.g5 a5 10 a4
i.e6 1 1 �h1 llc8 1 2 f4 lt::lb4 13
lt:Jd4 i.c4 14 lLldb5)
14. ."ifb6
. b3 l:xc3 2 1 tiJxc3 h5 ! 22 lt::le4 and
Occupying the active diagonal
and preventing 1 5 e5?- 1 5 ...dxe5
16 fxe5 l:.fd8.
This sharp position has still not
been sufficiently investigated. Up to
now White has attempted to develop
in the following directions:
1) 1 5 i.h4 (with the aim of
driving the queen from the active
diagonal)
l a) 1 5 ...'ifc5 1 6 i.d3 l:lfd8 (it is
also not easy on 16 .. .l:lfe8 1 7 f5
lt::lxd3 1 8 cxd3 i.xb5 1 9 axb5 b6 20
.l:.a4 'ifc7 21 "ifb3 'ifd8 22 l:ld4 with
strong pressure in the centre,
Fishbein-Fossan, Stavanger 1 990)
1 7 i.f2 'ifh5 1 8 i.b6 'iVxd 1 1 9
l:.fxd 1 ll f8 2 0 lt::la7 and Black has a
difficult endgame, Karpov­
Hemandez, Las Palmas 1 977.
1 b) 1 5 ... i.xe2 16 'iVxe2 'ii'c5 1 7
l:lad 1 (worth considering is 1 7 b5
with the idea of .l:.a 1 -d 1 -d2 and
i.h4-f2, which forces Black into
passive defence) 1 7 .. .'ii'c4 1 8 l:.fe 1
llfe8 19 'ii'xc4 .l:.xc4 2 0 lt::la3 l:.cc8
2 1 e5 dxe5 22 fxe5 lt:Jg4 23 i.g3
and an equal endgame arises,
Gaprindashvili-Beliavsky, USSR
1 977.
2) 15 i.xc4 .l:.xc4 16 'ili'e2 llfc8
17 .l:.ad 1 'ii'c5 1 8 f5 ! (in the game
King-Wilder, Dortmund 1988, was
played 1 8 e5 dxe5 19 fxe5 lt::lg4 20
White likewise develops an unpleas­
ant initiative) 1 8 ... lt::lc6 1 9 i.xf6! (or
19 i.e3 'iib4 20 tiJa2 'ii'xa4 2 1
lt::lbc3 l:lxc3 2 2 tiJxc3 'iVb4 with
good counterplay for Black)
1 9 ...i.xf6 20 fxg6 hxg6 2 1 lt::lxd6!
and White wins a pawn.
3) 1 5 i.d3 l:.fe8 (or 13 ...i.xd3 1 6
cxd3 d 5 1 7 e 5 d4 1 8 exf6 exf6 1 9
i.h4 dxc3 2 0 bxc3 tiJd5 2 1 c4 lt::le3
22 i.f2 'ii'e6 23 i.xe3 'iVxe3 24 f5 !
llfd8 25 :n 'ii'e5 26 d4 and White
has effectively an extra pawn in the
centre, Haik-Dancevski, Cannes
1 997) 16 'ii'e2 i.xd3 1 7 cxd3 lt::ld7
18 f5 lt::lc5 19 i.e3 'iVc7 20 d4 lt::ld7
2 1 l:lad1 and White's game is pref­
erable, Kundin-Le Roux, Tallinn
1 997.
8B
(1 e4 c5 2 lt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:Jxd4 lt::lf6 5 lt::lc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
lt::lb3 0-0 8 0-0 tiJc6 9 i.g5)
9...i.e6
A natural developing move
through which White for the time
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.. e2 il..g 7 7 l?Jb3 53
being avoids the weakening of his
queen's flank, characteristic of
9 ... a5.
White's plan entails the advance
of the f-pawn and therefore this is
his main continuation.
8Ba 10 f4
8Bb 1 0 'itth 1
If White plays for the exchange of
the Dragon bishop, Black succeeds
in generating activity on the queen's
flank: 10 "ifd2 :cs 1 1 l:lad1 (for the
present, premature is 1 1 il.. h6 il..xh6
12 ifxh6 aS ! I3 ife3 a4 I4 l?Jxa4
l?Jb4 15 il..d I l?Jxc2 16 il..xc2 l:lxc2
1 7 l?Jd4 l:k4 ! and Black has the ini­
tJatlve, Malaniuk-Giek, Sibenik
1990, on 1 7 l?Jc3 would have fol­
lowed I 7 ...il..c4! ) I I . ..l?Je5 I 2 il..h6
il..c4 1 3 il..xg7 'ittxg7 I4 :re i i..xe2
15 l:.xe2 l?Jc4 I6 Wfci l?Jd7 I 7 l?Jd5
l?Jde5 I S l?Jd4 l?Jc6 with equal
chances, Liicke-Leko, Nettetal
1 992.
8Ba
(1 e4 c5 2 l?Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l?Jd4 l?Jf6 5 l?Jc3 g6 6 il.. e2 il..g7 7
l?Jb3 0-0 8 0-0 l?Jc6 9 il..gS il.. e6)
10 f4
This move allows a flank advance
by Black.
10...b5!
The pawn is thrown into the
queenside attack, exploiting its
immunity from capture ( I I il..xb5?
"ifb6+ +).
Also worth considering is
10 ...'ii'c8 with the idea of exchang­
ing the light-squared bishop after I I
il.. f3 il..g4. In the game Roskutov­
Mukhametov, St.Petersburg I 996,
White carelessly played 12 l?Jd5?
and after I 2 ... il..xf3 I3 g_xf3 ( 1 3
"ifxf3 l?Jxd5 I 4 exd5 liJd4 +)
1 3 ...l?Jxd5 14 exd5 h6 I S il.. h4 ifh3
landed in a difficult position.
11 il.. f3
White reinforces his position in
the centre, counting on an occupa­
tion of the d5 square. Worth consid­
ering is also I I f5 il..c4 I 2 �h I with
a practically unexplored game. Thus
not good is I 2 ... b4?! 1 3 il..xc4 bxc3
14 fxg6 hxg6 I S bxc3 l?Jxe4 I 6
l:lxf7! and the black king is in
danger.
Here the main directions of play
are linked to the continuations:
8Ba1 : l l ...b4
8Ba2: l l ... il..c4
Also possible is I I . . .l:.c8 I 2 'iPh i
"ifb6. For example: 13 l?Jd5 il..xd5
54 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g 7 7 li)b3
14 exd5 li)a5 1 5 li)xa5 'ifxa5 1 6 a3
h6 1 7 i.h4 'ifc7 1 8 c3 a5 with
roughly equal chances, Savanovic­
Annanda, Bled 1 999.
8Ba1
(1 e4 c5 2 li)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li)xd4 li)f6 5 li)c3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
tiJb3 0-0 8 0-0 ltJc6 9 i.g5 i.e6 10
f4 b5 1 1 i.f3)
l l . .b4
. suggest 21 l:la2 'ifc4 22 l:tfa1 li)e4
Grabbing space on the queen's
flank.
12 tiJd5 i.xd5
Worth considering is 1 2 ... a5 13 a4
(it is necessary to block this pawn,
since after 13 ltJxf6+ exf6 14 i.h4
a4 1 5 ltJc l a3 16 b3 g5 1 7 i.f2 f5
Black is in full possession of the
initiative, Silva-Almeida, Almada
1988) 1 3 ... bxa3 14 l:.xa3 a4 1 5
i.xf6 i.xf6 1 6 ltJxf6+ exf6 1 7 ltJd4
'ifb6 with a double-edged game, Ye
Jiangchuan-Ljubojevic, Moscow
(ol) 1 994.
13 exd5 ltJa5 14 'ife2 .l:r.c8 15
�h1 'ifb6
Preventing the manoeuvre
tiJb3-d4-c6.
16 ltJxa5 'ifxa5 17 a3 llc7!
Before continuing the pressure on
the queen's flank, it is useful to de­
fend the a7 pawn. There was weaker
play in A.Sokolov-Khalifman,
USSR 1 986: 1 7 ... h6?! 1 8 i.h4 bxa3
1 9 l:lxa3 'ifb4 20 c3 'ifxf4 2 1 i.g3
'ifc4 22 'ifxc4 llxc4 23 l::Ixa7 and
Black was left a pawn down.
18 axb4 1Vxb4 19 c3 1Vc5 20
'ifd2 llb8 1/z-1/z
King-Krlihenbiihl, Lucerne 1 989.
Black compensates for the attack on
his a7 pawn with play against
White's weaknesses on b2, d5, f4.
As a possible continuation we might
23 i.xe4 1Vxe4 and Black's position
looks preferable.
8Ba2
(1 e4 c5 2 li)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL'lxd4 tiJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
tiJb3 0-0 8 0-0 ltJc6 9 i.g5 i.e6 10
f4 b5 1 1 i.f3)
1 1 ...i.c4
A logical move which, besides the
occupation of an important square,
opens the way for a type of plan
which blockades the bishop f3 .
12 .l:r.e1 e5
Worth considering is a prelimi­
nary 12 ... h6 1 3 i.h4 and, after driv­
ing back the active bishop, Black
can go over to play in the centre:
1 3 ...e5 1 4 �h l Ac8 1 5 f5 g5 1 6
i.g3 b4 1 7 ltJd5 i.xd5 1 8 exd5 lL'le7
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 liJb3 55
with excellent prospects, Barua­
Boissonet, Gausdal 1986.
13 f5
After 1 3 fxe5 liJxe5 14 �h i h6 1 5
i.e3 b4 1 6 liJd5 liJxd5 1 7 exd5 :e8
18 liJd4 liJxf3 19 'iVxf3 'iVh4 Black
has the more active position,
Moroz-Jurtaev, Podolsk 1 990.
13 ...'ii'b6+
Also good is 1 3 ... b4 14 liJd5
i.xd5 1 5 exd5 liJe7 16 fxg6 hxg6
1 7 a3 a5 1 8 axb4 (on 1 8 �h 1 'iVc7
Black intends elay on the queen's
flank after ... �e7-f5 and a5-a4)
18 ...a4 19 liJd2 'iVb6+ 20 �h1
._,xb4 with an equal game. Klicnar­
Neumeier, Budapest 1999.
14 �h1
After 14 i.e3?! 'iVc7 15 a3 gxf5 !
16 liJd2 f4 1 7 liJxc4 bxc4 1 8 i.f2
l:tab8 19 l:tb 1 liJe7 Black equalises
the chances, King-Mestel, England
(ch) 1 989.
14...b4 15 liJd2! bxc3 16 liJxc4
'ii'b4
This is apparently more accurate
than 1 6 ...'iVc5 1 7 b3 liJd4, since it
creates a threat to the e4 pawn.
1 7 b3 :adS
After 17 ...liJd4 1 8 liJe3 liJxf3 1 9
gxf3 ! White can establish an
"eternal" knight on d5.
18 liJe3 liJe7!
A complicated position has arisen,
an evaluation of which depends on
White's possibilities of exploiting
the weak d5 square. A possible con­
tinuation was 19 i.xf6 i.xf6 20
liJd5 liJxd5 2 1 'iVxd5 and, in order
not to find himself reduced to a po­
sition where he is doomed to a de­
pressing defence of the weak d6
pawn, Black should go for the pawn
sacrifice: 2 l .. .gxf5 ! 22 exf5 e4! 23
i.xe4 (or 23 :xe4 'iVc5 ;!;) 23 ...l:tfe8
24 i.d3, though even here White's
chances are preferable.
In the game Moutousis-Aiterman,
Santiago 1 990, White played 1 9
'iVc 1 and here Black could develop
counterplay on the king's flank by
1 9 ...gxf5! 20 exf5 (or 20 liJxf5
liJxf5 2 1 exf5 �h8) 20 ... h5 ! 2 1
i.xf6 i.xf6 2 2 i.xh5 Wg7 with
...:f8-h8 to follow (B.Aiterman).
8Bb
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6 9 i.g5 i.e6)
10 �h1
A useful prophylactic retreat of
the king.
Here Black's original plans were
linked to the continuations:
56 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g 7 7 tiJb3
8Bb1: 1 0...h6
8Bb2: 1 0 tiJaS
•..
8Bb3 : 10 .....c8
Also logical is 1 0...l':tc8 1 1 f4 a6
( 1 l . . .tiJa5 leads to the variation
10 ... tiJa5) 1 2 i.f3 b5 ( 1 2 .....c7 1 3
l:.e 1 l:.fe8 1 4 tiJd5 i.xd5 1 5 exd5
tlJa5 16 c3 ;!; Kovalev-Tennstedt,
Berlin 1 993) 1 3 tiJd5 i.xd5 (after
1 3 ...tiJd7 14 c3 tiJb6 1 5 'ii'e2 tiJc4
1 6 l:.ad 1 and White has a small but
enduring advantage, Karpov-Martin,
Las Palmas 1977) 14 exd5 tiJa5 1 5
'ii'e2 tlJc4 1 6 tiJd4 (the alternative is
16 c3) 16 . . .tiJxb2 (also possible is
16 ...tiJxd5 ! ?) 17 tlJxc6 l':txc6 1 8
dxc6 and here in the game Feigin­
Willemze, Heme 1 998, Black ob­
tained sufficient compensation for
the exchange after 1 8 ... d5 ! .
8Bb1
(1 e4 cS 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
tt::lb3 0-0 8 0-0 tiJc6 9 i.g5 i.e6 10
�h1)
10 ... h6
A consistent plan, driving back
the bishop, after which Black can
strive for a counterattack in the cen­
tre, exploiting the loss of tempo due
to the king move.
1 1 i.h4 gS 12 i.g3 d5 13 tiJc5
The exchanges 1 3 exd5 tt::lxd5 14
tiJxd5 'ii'xd5 hand over the initiative
to Black, Gluzman-Dumitrache,
Moscow (ol) 1 994.
13 ... d4
Black is practically forced to play
a game for tempi. Taking the e4
pawn leads to the creation of many
pawn weaknesses in his camp.
I) 1 3 . . .tlJxe4 14 l'LI3xe4 dxe4 1 5
l'Lixe6 fxe6 1 6 c3 'ii'd5 1 7 'ii'a4 _.f5
1 8 h3 �h8 1 9 l:tae 1 l:.ad8 20 i.g4
'ii'g6 2 1 'ii'xe4 and White's light­
squared bishop faces no opposition,
Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Brussels
1 988.
2) 13 ... dxe4 1 4 l'Lixe6 fxe6 1 5
i.c4 'ii'c8 1 6 l'Lib5 l'Lia5 1 7 i.b3
tt::lxb3 1 8 axb3 l'Lid5 1 9 c4 l'Lif4 20
'ii'c2 and, after winning back the e4
pawn, White organises pressure on
the e6 pawn, Hebden-lvkov, France
1 989.
After 1 3 ... d4 it is unfavourable for
White to take the pawn (14 l'Lixe6
fxe6 1 5 l'Lib5 e5).
14 l'Lib5 i.c8 15 i.c7
White endeavours to gain a tempo
for the advance of his e-pawn.
After 1 5 l'Lic7 llb8 16 tt::ld5 e5 1 7
l'Lixf6+ 'ii'xf6 Black is no worse,
Lan�-Basin, Tmava 1 989.
Not dangerous is 15 e5 l'Lid5 1 6
l'Lid3 a6 1 7 l'Lia3 i.f5 1 8 i. f3 e 6 =
Zel�ic-Damaso, Pula 1997.
1S...'ii'e8 16 i.g3 _.d8 17 eS l'LidS
18 tiJxd4 l'Lixe5 19 c3 l'Lif4 20 i.xf4
gxf4 21 'ii'c 2 'ii'c7 with approxi­
mately equal chances, Kholmov­
Smirin, Klaipeda 1988.
8Bb2
(1 e4 c5 2 l'Lif3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l'Lixd4 l'Lif6 5 tt::lc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
l'Lib3 0-0 8 0-0 l'Lic6 9 i.g5 i.e6 10
�h1 )
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g 7 7 li:Jb3 5 7
1 0...li:JaS
The most popular plan of play
which is linked to an occupation of
the c4 square.
11 f4
After I I li:Jd5 i.xd5 I 2 exd5 llc8
1 3 c3 li:Jc4 I4 i.ci 'iVd7 I S f4 b5 1 6
i. f3 a S I 7 li:Jd4 li:Jb6 Black comes
first with his counterplay on the
queen's flank, Romanishin-Lemer,
Tashkent 1 980.
Here Black's main continuations
are:
8Bb2a: l l ...llc8
8Bb2b: l l .. li:Jc4
. I 985) 1 7 llxd 1 i.xe5 18 i.xe7 l.tfe8
Weaker is l l . ..i.c4?! I 2 e5 i.xe2
( 1 2 ...li:Je8 1 3 li:Jxa5 leads to the loss
of the e7 pawn) I3 'ifxe2 dxe5?
( 1 3 ...li:Jxb3 14 axb3 ±) 14 llad i
'ifc7 1 5 fxe5 li:Jxb3 I6 exf6 exf6 I 7
i.f4 1 -0 Kengis-Belaz, Berne I 995.
8Bb2a
(1 e4 cS 2 li:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li:Jxd4 li:Jf6 S li:Jc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
li:Jb3 0-0 8 0-0 li:Jc6 9 i.gS i.e6 10
'iii'h 1 li:JaS 1 1 f4)
l l ..llc8
. and by attacking the b3 pawn Black
Forcing White to decide on his
future plan since, despite his
apparent control over the e4 square,
Black threatens an exchange sacri­
fice followed by the capture of the
e4 pawn.
12 fS
Tempting is 1 2 e5 li:Jxb3 1 3 axb3
dxe5 I4 fxe5 li:Jd5 I S l:lxa7 winning
a pawn, but after 1 5 ...li:Jxc3 !
( I 5 ... h6?! I6 i.d2 'ifb6 I 7 l:a4 li:Je3
I 8 i.xe3 'ifxe3 1 9 l:r.e4 ±
Slobodjan-Szalanczy, Dortmund
I 992) 1 6 bxc3 'ifxd l (if he declines
the exchange of queens by I 6...'ifc7
I 7 i.f3 i.xe5 I 8 l:lxb7 'ifxc3 I 9
i.xe7, White gains the advantage,
Van der Wiei-Haik, Montpellier
1 9 i.b3 i.xc3 Black equalises.
12 ...i.c4
Or 1 2 ... i.d7 13 li:Jxa5 'ifxa5 1 4
i.xf6! exf6 1 5 'ifxd6 i.c6 1 6 'iff4
and Black hardly has compensation
for the pawn, Petschar-Szalanczy,
Oberwart 1 99 1 .
1 3 i.d3 bS
A natural reaction, but worth at­
tention is 13 ... a6! ? and if White
considers I4 'ife i , then Black sim­
plifies the position: I4 ...i.d3 1 5
cxd3 li:Jxb3 1 6 axb3 (now the aim of
the move 1 3 ...a6 becomes clear­
the a-pawn is defended) I 6... 'ifb6
maintains the balance. But stronger
here is I 4 'ifd2.
14 'ife1
58 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 liJb3
After 14 'i'd2 Black carries out
the favourable advance ...d6-d5 :
14 . . . b4 1 5 liJe2 (weak is 1 5 liJd 1 ?
liJxe4 with advantage t o Black)
1 5 ...d5 ! 1 6 e5 (after 1 6 liJxa5 'i'xa5
1 7 e5 liJe4 1 8 i..xe4 dxe4 1 9 i..xe7
llfe8 20 i..xb4 e3 ! the advantage
passes to Black) 1 6...liJe4 1 7 'ii'e3
ttJxg5 1 8 'ii'xg5 liJc6 1 9 e6 liJe5
with complex play, Mainka-Ristic,
Dortmund 1989.
But possible is 14 liJxa5 'ii'xa5 1 5
'ii'd2 b4 1 6 liJe2 d5 1 7 e5 liJe4 1 8
'i'e3 ! (weaker is 1 8 i..xe4 dxe4 1 9
i..xe7 llfe8 2 0 f6 'i'xe5 +)
1 8 . . . liJxg5 (weaker is 1 8 ... i..xe5 1 9
i..xe4 dxe4 2 0 i..xe7 l:tfe8 2 1 f6
with an obvious advantage to White,
Bangiev-Teslia, USSR 1 986) 1 9
'i'xg5 i..xd3 20 cxd3 f6 2 1 exf6
i..x f6 22 'i'd2 and White's chances
are preferable, A.Bangiev.
14... b4 15 liJdl
After 1 5 liJe2 i..xd3 16 cxd3 liJc6
1 7 liJf4 a5 1 8 l:td 1 l:te8 1 9 'ii'h4 d5
20 l:lf3 dxe4 2 1 l:[h3 'i'd6 Black has
the preferable position, Riemersma­
Sosonko, Holland (ch) 1 993.
15...d5 16 e5 lle8
So as in the future to be able to
move away the knight, while retain­
ing the e7 pawn (after an exchange
on a5).
17 liJxa5
Or 1 7 exf6 exf6 1 8 i..e3 d4 with
equal chances.
17 ... i.. xd3 18 cxd3 'ifxa5 19 .id2
Less clear is 19 fxg6 fxg6 20 liJe3
'ii'b5 2 1 'ii'h4 'i'xd3 22 :tad 1 , as oc­
curred in the game Kurajica-Honfi,
Stip 1978, after which the chances
were equalised by the move
22 ...'ii'e4! .
19...liJg4 20 d4 and White has the
more active position, Makarychev­
Taborov, Daugavpils 1978
8Bb2b
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 i..e2 i..g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6 9 i..g5 i..e6 1 0
'it>hl liJa5 1 1 f4)
l l ...liJc4
A continuation which has lately
come into fashion.
12 f5
Beginning forcing play, but also
possible is 1 2 i..xc4 i..xc4 13 l:r.f2
b5 with a double-edged game. In
Kristensen-Madsen, Vejle 1 994,
Black played 13 ...'i'b6 and after 1 4
'ii'f3 l:r.ac8 1 5 l:[d2 i..e6 1 6 h3 l:[fe8
1 7 l:r.ad1 'ii'a6 1 8 liJd4 White's
chances were preferable.
12 ...liJxb2 13 'ii'c l
Also seen is 1 3 'ii'e 1 i..d7 1 4
'ii'h4, but Black succeeds i n repuls­
ing the assault: 14 ... l:tc8 (possible is
the preliminary attack 14 . . . liJa4 1 5
liJxa4 i..xa4 when, in the game
G.Kuzmin-Khalifman, USSR (ch)
1 990, after 16 liJd4 l:r.c8 1 7 i..d3
i..d7 ! 1 8 l:lab 1 'ii'c7 1 9 :n 'i'c5 20
liJe2 'ii'a5 2 1 l:r.h3 h5 Black has the
better chances) 1 5 .!:tf3 (or 1 5 liJd5
liJxd5 16 exd5 f6! 1 7 i.e 1 lhc2 1 8
liJd4 l:r.xe2 1 9 liJxe2 liJd3 20 liJd4
liJe5 with chances for both sides,
 Classical Dragon with 6 il.e2 il.g7 7 t'iJb3 59
Kruszynski) I 5 ...l:.e8 I6 :an
l:txc3 ! I 7 l:.xc3 l'£Jxe4 I 8 'ifxe4 ( I 8
fxg6?! is insufficient: I 8 . . .hxg6 I 9
l:.cf3 l'£Jxg5 20 _.xg5 il.e6 with a
reliable position for Black,
Kruszynski-Inkiov, Copenhagen
I988; W.Kruszynski looked at I 8
l:.h3 l'£Jxg5 I9 'iVxgS h6 2 0 'iVc I
il.xf5 ! 2 I l:txf5 ! gxf5 22 l:.g3 �h7
23 l:.xg7+! �xg7 24 _.xb2+ e5 and
Black likewise defends himself)
I8 ... il.xc3 I9 l'£Jd4! d5 ( I 9 ...�6!?)
20 'iff3 ! il.xd4 2I fxg6 il.f6
(2 1 ... fxg6 22 'ii'xd5+ ±) 22 gxf7+
�xf7 23 il.c l ! 1;g7 24 il.xb2 l:tf8!
(24 ... il.xb2 25 'iVf7+ �h8 26 il.d3)
25 il.ci �h8 26 'ifxd5 il.c6 27 'ii'h 5
'iVdS and Black maintains the bal­
ance, Kotronias-Khalifman, Bled
1 99 I .
1 3...il.c4 1 4 'iVxb2
Also worthy of further study is I 4
e 5 il.xe2 I S l'£Jxe2 l'£Je4 I 6 f6 exf6
I7 ex f6 l:te8 (after I 7 ... l'£Jxg5 I 8
1Wxg5 l:te8 White's chances are
preferable) I 8 l'£Jc3 ! (the game
Khalifman-Savchenko, USSR I984,
continued I 8 l'£Jg3 l'£Jxg5 1 9 _.xb2
il.h8 20 l:.t2 h6 2 I l:.afl lte6 22 c4
l'£Jh7 and Black surrounds and wins
the f6 pawn) I 8 ... l'£Jxg5 I 9 _.xg5
l:tc8 20 t'iJdS l:.e5 2 1 Wd2 l'£Jc4 22
'iVd4 and White gains the advantage,
Kupreichik-Watson, Germany I 993.
14...il.xe2 15 l'£Jxe2 l'£Jxe4 16 f6
l'£Jxf6 17 t'iJbd4 'iWd7 18 c4 l'£Je4
Also possible is 1 8 ...l:ac8 I9
l:tac I l:txc5 20 il.e3 l:.fc8 21 �3 d5
22 cxd5 l'£Jxd5?! 23 l:txc5 ! :xeS 24
..igi l:.c8 25 lld i ± Gipslis-Borge,
Aalborg I 993; stronger was
22 ...'iVxd5 or 22 ...llxc l .
1 9 il.e3 d 5 20 cxd5 'iVxd5 2 1
l:tab1 t'iJd6! with a double-edged
game, Gipslis-Nadyrhanov, Alushta
1 994.
8Bb3
(1 e4 c5 2 l'£Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l'£Jxd4 l'£Jf6 5 l'£Jc3 g6 6 il.e2 il.g7 7
t'iJb3 0-0 8 OPO l'£Jc6 9 il.g5 il.e6 1 0
�h l)
to -.c8
...
A rather passive arrangement of
the heavy pieces. However Black's
position is sufficiently fire-proof
and resembles a spring, ready to
uncoil at an appropriate moment,
and White needs to make quite an
effort in order to maintain the
initiative,
1 1 f4 :d8 12 il.f3 il.c4 13 :n h6
By driving back the bishop Black
prepares play in the centre. Less
successful is 13 ... e6 14 lld2 'iVc7 1 5
_.e 1 h6 1 6 il.h4 l:td7 1 7 :ad 1 with
strong pressure on the backward d6
pawn, Karpov-Miles, Bad Lauter­
berg 1 977.
Upon flank play 13 ... a5, 1 4 l'£Jd5!
is unpleasant: 1 4 ...1:ta6 15 .txf6
exf6 16 .tg4 f5 1 7 exf5 gxf5 1 8
.te2 .txe2 1 9 llxe2 and the
shattering of Black's pawn structure
determines White's advantage,
Yurtaev-Kapengut, Pula 1 990.
14 il.h4 e5 15 il.xf6
60 Classical Dragon with 6 J..e2 J..g 7 7 liJb3
To realise his plan White is
obliged to part with his bishop,
since on an immediate 1 5 f5?!
follows 15 ... g5 16 J..g3 and, after
neutralising the bishop, Black sets
about attacking on the queen's
flank: 1 6 ...b5 17 a3 aS 18 liJd2 liJd4
19 liJxc4 'ii'xc4 20 J..e2 'ii'c 5,
keeping the initiative, Tischbierek­
Parker, Hastings 1 99 1 .
1 5...J..xf6 1 6 f5! d 5 1 7 liJxd5
J..xd5 18 exd5 gxf5 19 J.. e4!
Now Black is forced to weaken
the light squares by 19 ... f4 and after
20 'ii'h 5 or 20 g3 White's chances
are preferable. There was weaker
play in the game G.Kuzmin­
Nadyrhanov, Alushta 1 994,-
1 9 ... liJe7?! 20 d6! , after which
White had the advantage.
8C
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 J..e2 J..g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6 9 J..g5)
9 ... a6
Exploiting the retreat of the
knight from d4 to rush forward by
... b7-b5-b4, which gains in strength
with the absence of the bishop from
the g l -a7 diagonal.
White's main continuations are:
8Ca: 10 f4
8Cb: 10 a4
8Ca
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .i.e2 J..g7 7
lbb3 0-0 8 0-0 lbc6 9 .i.g5 a6)
10 f4
White plans play in the centre to
counter Black's sudden attack on
the flank.
10 ... b5 1 1 .i.f3
If he wants, White can slow down
the b-pawn with the move 1 1 a3, but
in this case Black has time to de­
velop his light-squared bishop:
1) I I . ...i.b7 12 ..th l ( 1 2 .i.£3 re­
duces his control over the b5 pawn
and Black can continue with a flank
attack: 12 ...a5 13 �h i b4 14 axb4
axb4 1 5 l:txa8 .i.xa8 1 6 lbd5 e6 1 7
lbxf6+ .i.xf6 1 8 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 1 9
'it'xd6 'ii'xb2 and achieves the better
position, Bistric-Admjan, Sarajevo
1 982) 1 2 ...lbd7 13 f5 lbce5 ! (after
1 3 ...lbc5?! 14 lbxc5 dxc5 1 5 lbd5
and White has a strong initiative,
Smirin-Aiterman, Israel 1 994) 1 4
'ii'e 1 l:tc8 1 5 'ii'h4 lle8 with a com­
plex, unexplored game.
2) I I . . .J..e6 1 2 �h 1 l:c8 (it seems
that 1 2 ... .i.c4 13 .i.xc4 bxc4 is pre­
mature because of 14 lbd2! and on
14 ... d5 there is a possible exchange
sacrifice: 1 5 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 6 lbxd5 !
.i.xb2 1 7 lbxc4 .i.xa 1 1 8 'ii'xa 1 with
more than sufficient compensation
for White, Yurtaev-Diaz, Frunze
1 989) 1 3 J..d3 lba5 (also worth con­
sidering_ is 13 ... .i.xb3 14 cxb3 lbd7
1 5 b4 liJb6 with complicated play;
in Ljubojevic-Aiterman, Groningen
1 993, Black played the weaker
1 3 ...lbd7?! and after 14 lbd2! lbb6
 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 Cf)b3 61
I 5 f5 i.d7 I6 'ii'e I Cf)e5 I7 'ii'h4
White had the better game) I4
Cf)xa5 'ii'xa5 I5 f5 i.c4 I 6 'ii'f3 b4
with roughly equal chances
(B.Alterman).
After I I i.f3 the main continua­
tions are:
8Ca1 : l l ... b4
8Ca2: l l . .i.b7
. 2) I4 l:lb i Cf)c4 I5 'ii'e2 'iWc7 I 6
Also seen is I I . ..i.d7 I 2 l:le I h6
I3 i.h4 Cf)h7 I4 i.f2?! b4 I 5 Cf)a4
l:tb8 I 6 a3 Cf)e5! I 7 axb4 Cf)c4 I 8
'iWe2 Cf)xb2 ! and Black achieves the
better game, Ye Jiangchuan­
D.Gurevich, Biel (izt) I 993, but, as
pointed out by Ye Jiangchuan, by
playing I4 l:tb I ! g5 I 5 i.g3 gxf4
(after I 5 . . .b4 1 6 Cf)d5 e6 I 7 llle3 the
d6 pawn is weak) I 6 i.xf4 Cf)e5 I 7
�h i White retains the slightly better
chances.
8Ca1
(1 e4 c5 2 Cf)o d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Cf)xd4 Cf)f6 5 Cf)cJ g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
Cf)bJ 0-0 8 0-0 Cf)c6 9 i.g5 a6 10 f4
b5 1 1 i.O)
l l ..b4
. Also played is I2 ... i.d7 1 3 a3
12 Cf)a4
The attempt to cramp Black in the
centre and get to the e7 pawn by an
exchange of knights-I 2 Cf)d5
Cf)xd5 I 3 exd5 leaves Black the
better chances after I 3 . . .Cf)a5,
thanks to the active positions of his
pieces:
I) I4 Cf)xa5 'ii'xa5 I5 'iWe i i.f5
and Black takes over the initiative,
Gonzales-Chiburdanidze, Barcelona
I 979.
'it> h I i.f5 ! and the black pieces hang
menacingly over White's position,
Zapata-Miles, Thessaloniki (ol)
I 984.
3) I4 'ii'e2 i.xb2 ( I 4 ... Cf)xb3? I 5
cxb3 'ii'h6+ I 6 'it>h I lte8 I 7 l:tfe I ;!;
Ljubojevic-Sosonko, Tilburg I 984)
I 5 i.xe7 'ii'b6+ I6 'ii'f2 'ii'xf2+ I 7
'it>xf2 i.xa I 1 8 l:lxa I Cf)c4 ! I 9 i.xf8
�xf8 20 c3 a5 with equal chances
(L.Ljubojevic).
4) I4 l:.e i �c4 I 5 'iWe2 'iWb6+ I 6
'ii'f2 'ii'x f2+ I 7 'it>xf2 a 5 I 8 i.e2
i.a6 and Black's chances are
preferable, Ciric-Petursson, San
Bernardino I99 I .
12 ...'ifc7
Black defends the knight (in case
of e4-e5) and exerts pressure on the
c2 pawn, without for the present de­
ciding where to place the bishop.
(after I3 e5 possible are both
1 3 ...Cf)e8, and 1 3 ...dxe5 1 4 fxe5
Cf)xe5 I 5 i.xa8 'ifxa8 I6 Cf)ac5 i.c6
when Black has sufficient compen­
sation for the exchange, Zapata­
D.Gurevich, New York I 984)
1 3 ...l:.b8 (or I3 ...l:lc8 I4 .:.f2 Cf)a5
I 5 lLlxa5 'ifxa5 I6 axb4 'iVxb4 I 7 c3
'ii'b8 I 8 e5 dxe5 I 9 fxe5 i.xa4 20
'ifxa4 _.e5 2 I i.f4 ;!; Mensinger­
Petursson, Ljubljana I98 I ) I4 axb4
ltxb4 (weaker is I4 ...lLlxb4 I 5 e5
Cf)e8 I6 c3 Cf)d3 I 7 'ifxd3 l:lxb3 I 8
l:.f2 ± Wilder-Lindemann, Naestved
I 988) I 5 'it>hi 'ifc7 I 6 Cf)c3 i.e6 I 7
Cf)a5 l:lfd8 and Black has the
62 Classical Dragon with 6 Ji.e2 Ji.g7 7 (i)bJ
preferable game, Gofstein-Gufeld,
USSR 1978.
13 c4
The most active. When the oppor­
tunity arises White will threaten to
play c4-c5. Other continuations are
also encountered:
I ) 1 3 l:lf2 l:tb8 I4 c3 (i)a5 I 5 cxb4
(i)xb3 I 6 'ii'xb3 Ji.e6 I 7 'ii'c3 'ii'a7
I 8 'ii'e I Ji.d7 I 9 (i)c3 llxb4 with
equal chances, Zapata-Kudrin,
Titograd I 984.
2) 1 3 ltc 1 a5 ! I4 l:le i Ji.a6 I 5 c4
bxc3 1 6 (i)xc3 'ii'a7+ (weaker is
I 6 . . .(i)b4?! I 7 e5 (i)d3 1 8 f5 (i)xei
I9 'ii'xe I dxe5 20 (i)d5 with an
equal game, Bashkov-Rechlis,
Ostrava l 99 I ) I 7 ..th I (i)b4 I 8 Ji.e2
l:tfc8! with initiative to Black (at an
appropriate time he will threaten
. . .ltc8xc3).
3) 13 c3 l:tb8 I 4 .l:tc i Ji.d7 I 5
..th 1 a5 I 6 e5 dxe5 I 7 Ji.xf6 exf6
I 8 cxb4 axb4 I 9 (i)ac5 Ji.c8 20 fxe5
fxe5 2 I Ji.d5 and the activity of the
white pieces compensates for the
sacrificed pawn but no more than
this, Zapata-Martin, Salamanca
I 99 1 .
13 ...(i)d7
In the game Hiibner-Romero Hol­
mes, Wijk aan Zee 1992, Black sac­
rificed a pawn by 1 3 ... h6?! I4 Ji.h4
g5 I 5 fxg5 hxg5 I 6 Ji.xg5 (i)e5, but
after I 7 (i)d4 'ifxc4 I 8 l:lc l 'ii'd3 I 9
(i)c6 he did not obtain sufficient
compensation.
14 �h1 aS
14 ...(i)b6 is not good because of
I5 (i)xb6 'ii'xb6 I6 e5.
15 'ii'd2 (i)b6 16 (i)xb6 'ii'xb6
with chances for both sides, Gipslis­
Shirov, Daugavpils I 990.
8Ca2
(1 e4 cS 2 {f)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
(i)xd4 {f)f6 5 (i)c3 g6 6 Ji.e2 Ji.g7 7
(i)b3 0-0 8 0-0 (i)c6 9 Ji.gS a6 10 f4
bS 1 1 Ji.f3)
l l .. Ji.b7
.
Black is no hurry to force events
and completes his development.
12 �h1
A prophylactic move, characteris­
tic for the structure with the pawn
on f4.
Also seen is the natural 1 2 (i)d5
(i)d7 I 3 c3 l:le8 (worth considering
is 1 3 ... f6! ? 14 Ji.h4 e6 I 5 (i)e3 g5
I6 Ji.g3 gxf4 17 Ji.xf4 (i)de5 =
Roskutov-Kotsur, Russia I 997) I4
'ii'e i (or I 4 �h i a5 when in the
game Xie Jun-Serper, Jakarta I 994,
instead of I 5 'ii'd 2?! a4 I6 (i)c i a3
=i=, necessary was I 5 a3) 14 ...(i)b6 I 5
l:ld i (i)xd5 I 6 exd5 (i)a5 with an
equal game. Van der Wiei­
Konguvel, Koszalin I 998.
1 2...(i)d7
Also possible is 1 2 ...lte8 13 (i)d5
(i)xd5 I4 exd5 (i)a5 I 5 (i)xa5 'il'xa5
1 6 c3 h6 1 7 Ji.h4 b4 Savanovic­
=
Vuckovic, Ikaros 1 999.
13 ltb1
In the game Tai-Gufeld, USSR
1 977, was played 13 'ii'e l a5 14
(i)xb5 a4 I 5 (i)d2 h6 I6 Ji.h4 (i)c5
with a double-edged game.
13 ...l:le8 14 (i)dS f6!
A recommendation of Kramnik;
Black drives back White's active
 Classical Dragon with 6 J.e2 J.g7 7 lDb3 63
pieces. Weaker is I 4 . . .'iVb8?! I 5 c3
a5 I 6 a3 a4 I 7 lDc l e6 I 8 lDe3 lDf6
1 9 lDd3 lDe7 20 lDf2 ;!;; Xie Jun­
Tisdall, San Francisco 1 995.
15 J.h4 e6 16 lDe3 g5! 17 fxg5
In the game Apicella-Svidler,
Erevan (ol) I 996, was played 1 7
J.g3 gxf4 1 8 J.xf4 lDde5 1 9 J.h5
litE 20 c3 "ii'e7 2 I "ii'e2 lDg6! and
Black obtains the preferable game.
17 ... fxg5 18 J.g3 lDde5
Also not bad is 1 8 ...J.e5 I9 lDg4
i.xg3 20 hxg3 lDde5.
19 J.h5 l:tf8 20 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 21 c3
with chances for both sides
(P. Svidler).
8Cb
(1 e4 c5 2 tDo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 J.e2 J.g7 7
lDb3 0-0 8 0-0 lDc6 9 J.g5 a6)
10 a4
White radically prevents Black's
intended advance, but in this case he
weakens the b4 square, without
obtaining in return (as on ... a7-a5)
the b5 square.
I O .J.e6
..
A standard plan to pressurise the
c4 square. Recently this bishop has
tended to be fianchettoed: 10 ...b6 I I
f4 J.b7 1 2 J.f3 lDd7 1 3 l:tf2 ! (the
rook transfers to d2; in the event of
1 3 l:te i l:tc8 I4 'ii'd2 lDa5 ! I 5 lDxa5
bxa5 I6 �h i l:te8 I 7 .!:lad1 lDb6
Black maintains the balance without
difficulty, Upton-Piket, Elista (ol)
I 998) 1 3 ...lDa5 (after 1 3 ... lDc5, I 4
l:d2 reveals the point o f the rook
manoeuvre: I4 ...lDxb3 I 5 cxb3
lDb4 I6 e5 ± Z.Sturua) 14 lDd4
l:tc8?! 15 lDd5 ± Sturua­
Lobzhanidze, Panormo (zt) 1 998.
Z.Sturua recommends the exchange
of the dark-squared bishop by
1 4 ... h6 1 5 J.h4 J.xd4 16 'ifxd4 e5!
I7 'ifxd6 'ifxh4 18 1kxd7 'ii'x f4 I 9
l:e i ;!;;.
1 1 �hl
The main move in this variation.
Also seen is I 1 f4 b5 ! (Black's
most energetic reply, also not bad is
I l ...lDa5 I 2 �h i l:c8 I3 lDxa5
'ifxa5 I4 J.d3 .!:lfe8 I 5 'iff3 J.d7 I 6
l:tab I 'Wc5 ! I 7 J.xf6 exf6 1 8 lDd5
f5 1 9 exf5 J.c6 20 c4 J.xd5 2 1
'ifxd5 1kxd5 22 cxd5 l:te3 =
Fishbein-Alterman, New York
I 997) 1 2 axb5 (or 1 2 J.f3 b4 1 3
lDd5 J.xd5 I 4 exd5 lDa5 I 5 lDd4
'ifb6 1 6 'it>h 1 l:tac8 I 7 f5 l:tc4 with
an excellent game for Black,
Moutousis-Shirov, Santiago 1 990)
I 2 ... 'Wb6+ 1 3 ¢>h 1 axb5 I4 l:xa8
l:txa8 I 5 lDd5 J.xd5 I6 exd5 lDa5
1 7 lDxa5 l:txa5 with equal chances,
Kunas-Odendahl, Germany I 993.
ll . .llc8 1 2 f4 lDa5
.
Weaker is 12 ...lDb4 13 J.h4
lDxe4 I4 lDxe4 lDxc2 1 5 lDbc5
lDxa1 1 6 lLlxe6 fxe6 I 7 "ii'xa i l:tc2
1 8 J.g4 .!:lxb2 19 J.xe6+ �h8 20
'ife I Wb6 2 1 f5 gxf5 22 J.xe7 and
White gains the advantage, Short­
Martin, Biel (izt) 1 985.
13 lDxa5
On I3 f5 White must reckon on
the exchange sacrifice, 1 3 ... J.xb3
14 cxb3 l:xc3! 1 5 bxc3 lDxe4. The
game Dolmatov-Gufeld, USSR
1 978, continued 16 f6! exf6 17 J.f4
64 Classical Dragon with 6 i.. e2 i..g 7 7 (i)b3
(i)xc3 1 8 ,.d3 f5 with a double­
edged game.
13 ... 'iha5 14 i..d3
After 14 i..f3 White organises
pressure on the c-file by 14 ....r:tcS 1 S
ltb 1 'ikc7 1 6 i.. h4 ltc8 1 7 l:te 1 l:r.c4
1 8 i..f2 'ikaS and has the preferable
game, Ramirez-R.Hemandez, Mex­
ico 1 984.
14 ...i..c4
This looks the most consistent.
But other continuations are also
seen:
1 ) 14 ... l:r.cS?! 1S fS gxfS 16 i..d 2!
'ikc7 17 exfS i.. c4 18 i.. e3 l:r.c6 19
ltf3 'ifi>h8 20 -.e2 i..d3 21 cxd3 with
advantage to White, A.Sokolov-Sax,
Biel (izt) 198S.
2) 14 ...l:r.xc3 1S bxc3 'ikxc3 1 6
l:r.b1 'ikc7 1 7 'ikd2 i..d7 ! 1 8 'ikb4
i..c6 1 9 aS l:r.e8 and Black has
sufficient compensation for the
exchange, Mamyslo-Barczay, Bad
Worishofen 1 988.
3) 1 4 ... 'ikb4 1S llb 1 l:r.fe8
( 1 S ...i..c4 16 'ikf3 e6 is looked at
below) 1 6 'ike 1 i..c 4! 1 7 'ikh4 (in
case of 1 7 fS i..xd3 1 8 cxd3 'ikd4 1 9
l:td 1 e6! Black forces a pawn ex­
change, 20 fxg6 fxg6 2 1 'ifh4 l:r.f8,
and has the preferable game, Piza­
Vershinin, Pardubice 1 994; he can­
not derive benefit from the standard
manoeuvre 1 7 i..xf6 i..xf6 1 8 lD<IS
'ikxe 1 1 9 t'i)xf6+ exf6 20 ltfxe 1 ,
since after 2 0. . .i..xd3 2 1 cxd3 l:r.c2
Black invades with his rook) 1 7 ... bS
1 8 axbS axbS 19 fS -.cs 20 b4 'ikb6
with equal chances, Wedberg-Emst,
Malmo 1 988.
4) 14 ... l:r.fe8 1 S -.e2 'ikb4
4a) 1 6 aS?! i..g 4! ( 1 6 . . . i..c4?
leads to the loss of a piece: 1 7 l:r.a4
-.xb2 1 8 l:r.xc4 llxc4 1 9 (i)d 1 'ikd4
20 i..xc4 'ikxe4 2 1 i..x f6 'ikxe2 22
i.. xe2 i..x f6 23 (i)e3 :c8 24 ltldS
'iti>g7 2S c4 when Black's position is
blockaded and he does not have
sufficient compensation for the
piece, Zelcic-Bagaturov, Elista (ol)
1998) 1 7 'ikd2 i..d7 and White's
chances are preferable, Anand­
Topalov, Linares 1994; nor are mat­
ters changed by 1 7 ,.e 1 i..d7 1 8
i..xf6 i..x f6 1 9 lDdS 'fixe 1 20
lDxf6+ exf6 21 l:r.fxe 1 l:r.e7 +
followed by ... i..d7-c6, ...l:r.c8-e8.
4b) 16 fS i..c4 17 i..d2 with a
complicated game (V.Topalov).
15 'ikf3
On 1 S f5 also good is 1 S ...'ikb4 !
1 6 l:r.b 1 bS 1 7 axbS axbS 1 8 'ikf3
'ikcS 1 9 (i)d1 ?! dS and Black has the
mtttatJVe, Serensen-Alterman,
Santiago 1 990; stronger is 1 9 l:r.be 1
b4 20 Lbd 1 b3 with roughly equal
chances.
1S. .'ikb4
.
Also seen 1 S ...i..xd3 16 cxd3 e6
1 7 fS 'ikb6 1 8 l:r.ab 1 l:r.ce8 1 9 'ikh3
'ikd4 with sufficient counterplay for
Black, Landa-Alterman, Yurmala
1 989.
16 .Z::.a b1 bS
The most energetic. On 16 ...e6
White attacks by 17 fS eS 1 8 i..x f6
i.. xf6 19 fxg6 fxg6 20 'ikg4 and
gains the advantage, Fishbein­
I.lvanov, Saint John 1 988.
17 axbS axbS 18 i..xc4 'ikxc4 and
Black has the more promising
position, Thorhallsson-Petursson,
Reykjavik 1 994.
 Classical Dragon with 6 .i.. e2 .i..g 7 7 liJb3 65
Line 9
(1 e4 c5 2 liJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJcJ g6 6 .i.. e2 .i..g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6)
9 l:te1
A positional plan. This arrange­
ment of forces is a child of the 90s.
White supports the e4 pawn with the
rook, intending to place the bishops
on fl and g5 and carry out the thrust
liJc3-d5. After the exchange of
knights the rook on e I exerts
pressure on the e7 pawn. However,
the realisation of this plan requires
time and Black hurries to commence
active counterplay.
Black's main continuations are:
9A: 9 a5
•..
9B: 9 ....i..e6
9C: 9...a6
Passive is 9 ....i..d7 IO .i..g5 l:tc8 I I
_.d2 liJe5 I 2 l:tadi a6 I 3 liJd5 !
liJxd5 ( 1 3 ...liJxe4? I4 liJxe7+ ..t>h8
I 5 liJxc8 loses the exchange) I 4
exd5 l:te8 I 5 c 3 with a positional
advantage for White, Tseshkovsky-
Larsen, Moscow I 999.
·
9A
(1 e4 c5 2 liJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 .i..e2 .i..g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6 9 l:.e1)
9... a5
As in other similar variations the
drawback of this active move lies in
the weakening of the b5 square, but
here, after White's practically
forced reply, Black also obtains his
own plus in the b4 square.
10 a4 .i..e6
Possible is an immediate occupa­
tion of the d4 square: I O... liJb4 I I
.i..g5 h6 (in White's favour is
I I ....i..e6?! I 2 liJd4! l:.c8 I3 liJxe6
fxe6 I4 l:la3 ..t>h8 I 5 h4 _.e8 I6 e5
dxe5 I 7 .i..f3 and, in view of the ob­
vious defects of Black's pawn struc­
ture, the advantage lies with White,
Vasiukov-Gufeld, Leningrad I 975;
better was I 2 .i..h4 .i..d7 1 3 .i.. fl l:lc8
I4 _.d2 g5 I 5 .,t.g3 liJh5 I 6 liJc i
liJxg3 I 7 hxg3 -.c7 and White's
chances are preferable, Kuczynski­
Grabarczyk, Lubniewice I 993;
more logical was I4 liJd4 with a
transfer of the knight to b5.
11 .i..n
I I .i..g5 llc8 I 2 .i.. fl leads to posi­
tions examined below.
66 Classical Dragon with 6 iL.e2 iL.g7 7 0.b3

l l ....l:tc8 continuation was I 8 i.xg6 ! fxg6 I 9

Worth considering is the break in Wxd4 lDxc2 2 0 Wc3 ltJxe i 2 I i.h6
the centre I l . ..d5 . For example, the lDf3+ 22 gxf3 l:tf7 23 l:te I threaten­
game Schmaltz-Stisis, Gstaad I 993, ing .l:te i -e6 and h4-h5 (Y.Schwartz).
continued: I2 lDc5 i.g4! I3 f3 d4 16 ltJb5
I4 lDb5 i.c8 I 5 b3 (or I 5 c3 dxc3 Here, on I6 i.g5, possible is
I 6 lDxc3 b6 I 7 lDb3 i.e6 +; I 7 I6 ...i.xd4 I 7 'ii'xd4 ltJxc2 I 8 'ii'c3
lDd3 i.e6 =F) I 5. . .lDd7 I 6 ltJd3 lDxei I 9 i.h6 f6 20 i.xf8 �xf8 +
lDdb8 I 7 i.a3 lDa6 I 8 Wd2 lDc7 I 9 (Z.Vukovic).
lDxc7 'ii'xc7 and Black obtains the Now, in the game Z.Vukovic­
more promising position. It seems Kosanovic, Yugoslavia I 999, Black
that White needs to confine himself played poorly: I6 ...'ii'd 7?! I 7 .l:ta3 !
to I2 exd5 0.xd5 1 3 0.xd5 i.xd5 I4 and White retained the initiative.
c4 with approximately equal Stronger was 16 ... e5! 17 dxe6
chances. fxe6 18 l:ta3 ( I 8 lDxd6?! is to
12 0.d5 Black's advantage after I 8 ...l:c6 I9
After I2 i.g5, Black exchanges 0.b5 ltJbd3 !) 18...d5! with counter­
the light-squared bishops and ob­ play for Black (Z.Vukovic).
tains a fully equal game: I 2 ... lDb4
I 3 lDd4 i.c4 I 4 lDdb5 (less accu­
rate is I4 i.xc4 .l:txc4 I 5 lDdb5, 9B
which allows Black more effec­
tively to exploit the c-file. I 5 . . .'ii'c8 (I e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
I6 'it'd2 h6 I 7 i.f4 g5 1 8 i.g3 lDh5 lDd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
I9 .l:tad I ltJxg3 20 hxg3 'it'c5 2 I lDb3 0-0 8 0-0 lDc6 9 l:tel)
l:.e3 l:.c8 + Kristensen-S.Hansen,
Aars I 995) I4 ...i.xfl I 5 .l:txfl h6 9 ...i.e6
I6 i.h4 'ii'b6 I7 'it'e2 .l:tfe8 I 8 .l:tad I
lDd7 I 9 �h i lDe5 20 lDd5 lDxd5 2 I
exd5 'ii'c5 Gipslis-Ovseevich, Al­
=

ushta I994.
12 ...i.xd5 13 exd5 lDb4 14 c4
ltJd7 15 ltJd4
Also met is I 5 i.g5 lle8 I6 'ii'd2
ltJe5 I 7 l:lec I b6 I 8 h3 lDd7. Here,
in the game Ermenkov-Chandler,
Novi Sad (ol) I 990, White forced a
draw by I9 .l:te i lDe5 20 .l:teci 0.d7,
but nevertheless White could have
shown his initiative by 2 I i.e3.
15 ...lDc5! A natural developing move.
Though White has a space advan­ IO i.fl
tage, Black has compensation in the White's main reply.
shape of his active minor pieces. The preliminary I 0 i.g5 gains in
However, weaker is I 5 ... ltJe5 I6 b3 strength only after I O... a5, since
lDed3 I 7 i.xd3 i.xd4 when in the White can post his light-squared
game Schwartz-Kaliksteyn, New bishop more actively: I I i.b5 lDd7
York I 995, the strongest I 2 lDd5 l:le8 I 3 c3 a4 I4 lDd2 0.b6
 Classical Dragon with 6 R.e2 R.g7 7 liJb3 67
1 5 liJf3 and retain the more
prom1smg pos1t1on, Kupreichik­
Velimirovic, Cetinje 1 993.
However, this does not prevent
Black's counterplay by ... d6-d5:
1) 10 ... h6 1 1 R.h4 g5 1 2 R.g3 d5
13 liJc5 d4 14 liJb5 R.c8 1 5 e5 liJd7
with a complicated game, Romero­
Leko, Leon 1993.
2) I O ... d5 !? I I R.xf6 R.xf6 1 2
liJxd5 (Black has no fear of losing a
pawn by I2 exd5, after 1 2 . . .R.xc3).
12 ...R.xb2 13 l::tb 1 R.a3 I4 _.d2
R.d6 1 5 c4 b6 16 l:.ed1 l:.c8 I 7 f4 ;!;
Gild.Garcia-Vescovi, Elista (ol)
1 998.
10 ...a5
On 10 ... d5, apart from the consis­
tent 1 1 liJc5 R.g4 ! I 2 f3 d4 I 3 liJb5!
R.c8 I4 c3 dxc3 I 5 liJxc3 maintain­
ing control over the centre, White
could transpose to the endgame by
I I exd5 liJxd5 I 2 liJxd5 ..i.xd5 I 3
c4 R.e6 I4 liJc5 'ii'xd i I 5 l:.xd 1
R.g4 I 6 f3 l:.ad8 I 7 R.e3 R.c8 I 8
liJa4 R.f5 19 l:.xd8 l:.xd8 2 0 l:.c 1 ,
when his chances are somewhat
preferable, Ermenkov-Los, Gronin­
gen I 990.
In the event of 10 ... l:.c8 I I R.g5
White carries out his plan to reduce
Black's counterplay: I I ...liJe5 I 2
liJd5 R.xd5 (weaker i s 1 2 . . . liJc4?!
13 R.xc4 l::txc4 14 'ii'd3 b5 1 5 R.xf6
exf6 I6 liJe3 ± Heissler-Sievers,
Germany I 994) I 3 exd5 l:.e8 14 c3
_.c7 I 5 l:.b 1 liJc4 I 6 liJd2 liJxd2 1 7
'ii'xd2 a 6 1 8 c4 l:.b8 I 9 l:.bc I and
White, establishing control over the
centre, has the preferable chances,
Moldovan-Varga, Gyor I 99 1 .
1 1 R.b5
Distinct from the note to the move
I 0 R.fl , White loses a tempo.
l l . 'ii'c7 12 a4
. .
Worth considering is an immedi­
ate 1 2 R.g5 l:.fd8 13 liJd5 (prevent­
ing ... d6-d5) 1 3 ... R.xd5 ( 1 3 . . . a4 I4
R.xf6 axb3 1 5 R.xg7 ;!;) I4 exd5
liJe5 I 5 a4 with the idea of I 5 . . .liJc4
I6 'ii'e2 liJxb2 1 7 c4 trapping the
knight.
12 ...liJb4 13 R.g5 d5 14 exd5
l:.ad8 15 d6 l::txd6 16 'ii'c l R.xb3 17
cxb3 liJd3 18 R.xd3 l:.xd3 and
Black controls the d-file, Mainka­
Polster, Germany I 994.
9C
(1 e4 c5 2 liJt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 R.e2 R.g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6 9 l:.e1)
9 a6
.•.
Black prepares the advance of the
b-pawn. Here possible continuations
are:
9Ca: 10 R.g5
9Cb: 10 R.n
9Ca
(1 e4 c5 2 liJt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 R.e2 R.g7 7
liJb3 0-0 8 0-0 liJc6 9 l:.el a6)
10 R.g5
A useful move. With an indirect
attack on the e7 pawn White in­
creases his control over the d5
square.
68 Classical Dragon with 6 i..e2 i..g 7 7 liJb3

IO b5 11 i.. fl
... l:e8 16 c4 ;t, Kramnik) 14 �dS and
then a4-aS with the better game. In­
stead of 1 2 ... �b6? ! worth consider­
ing is 1 2 ...l:b8 with the idea, on 1 3
�dS, of playing 1 3 ...aS.
3) I l ...i..d7 12 �dS l!JxdS 1 3
exdS �eS 1 4 c3 l:e8 I S �d4 l:c8
1 6 a4 bxa4 17 i..xa6 l:b8 1 8 i..e2
'ii'c7 1 9 i.e I �c4 and Black
maintains the balance, Tischbierek­
Petursson, Gausdal 1990
4) l l ...i..b7 1 2 liJdS (1 1 a4!?)
12 ... l!JxdS (or 12 ... �d7 13 'ii'c l l:e8
14 a4 b4 l S aS ;t Egorov-G.Sorokin,
l
A feature of the present position is Ekaterinbur l 997) 13 exdS liJeS 14
the pawn formation a6-bS, the a4 'ii'b6 l S xe7 l:tfc8 16 i..gS �c4
·

Achilles Heel of which is the threat 1 7 axbS axbS 1 8 l:xa8 l:txa8 1 9 l:e7
to undermine it by a2-a4 when, if l:f8 and Black holds the position.
... bS-b4, White fixes the a-pawn Hjartarson-Petursson, Reykjavik
with the move a4-aS, taking under 1 999.
control the b6 square. Black must S) l l ...h6 (it is useful to drive
take into account this circumstance away the bishop to the king's flank)
when planning his game. Let's look 1 2 .i.h4
at the possible continuations: Sa) 1 2 ...i..b7 1 3 a4 b4 14 �dS
I} l l .. .l:te8 1 2 a4 ! (the undermin­ �d7 I S l:b l l!Jb6 16 aS ! l!Ja4 1 7
ing idea; after 1 2 liJdS l!Jd7 1 3 c3 'ii'd2 gS 1 8 i..g3 �xb2 1 9 l!Jxb4
l:tb8 Black prepares the advance of l!JxaS 20 �xaS 'ii'xaS 2 1 c3 l!Ja4 22
the bS pawn and the theme 14 a4 b4 eS! and White generates an
is not so effective, for example, the initiative, Nielsen-Ward, London
game Pliester-Sax, Aruba 1 992, 1 990.
continued IS l!Jd4 l!JdeS 16 f4 Sb) 12 ... �g4 13 h3 �geS 14 a4
�xd4 1 7 cxd4 �c6 1 8 e5 dxeS 19 �c4 I S axbS l!Jxb2 1 6 'ifcl i.. xc3
dxeS i..e6 with complex play) 1 7 bxc6 'ii'c7 1 8 l:e3 'ii'xc6 1 9
1 2 ...b4 1 3 liJdS �xdS 14 exdS l!JeS i..xe7 l:e8 2 0 i..xd6 l:xe4 2 1 l:xe4
l S aS ! �d7 ( I S ... i..b 7?! 16 i..e3 'ii'xe4 and the position has ex­
�d7 1 7 i..d4 ±} 16 i..c l �cS 1 7 ploded, Chandler-Shirov, Hastings
�d2 i..d7 1 8 �c4 ± . The knight 1 992.
controls the weak b6 square, Sc) 12 ...�d7 13 l:tb l �b6 1 4
Tischbierek-Vatter, Germany 1 994. �dS l:tc8 (also interesting i s 1 4 ...gS
2) l l . . .�d7 12 'ii'c l (or 1 2 l:b l l S i..g3 �c4) l S f4 ! i..b7 16 c3 l:c8
�b6 1 3 �dS l:e8 14 i..e3 �xdS I S = Vukovic-Rogozenko, Bucharest
exdS l!JeS 1 6 i..d4 i..b7 Vukovic­ 1 999.
=

Rogozenko, Bucharest 1 998) Sd) 12 ...e6! ? (preparing ... d6-dS)

12 ... �b6?! and here, in the game 1 3 'ii'd2 'ii'c7 14 l:.ad l l:.d8 l S f4
Kramnik-Serper, USSR 1 989, White i..b7 1 6 a3 l:.ac8 and Black's
should have played 1 3 a4! b4 chances are already preferable,
( 13 . . .i..xc3 1 4 bxc3 �xa4 I S i..h6 Adams-Miles, Tilburg 1 993.
 Classical Dragon with 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 l'Db3 69
9Cb
(1 e4 c5 2 t'Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l'Dxd4 l'Df6 5 l'Dc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
l'Db3 0-0 8 0-0 l'Dc6 9 .:tel a6)
10 i.n
Deploying his forces in accor­
dance with the requirements of the
plan with 9 l:.e I .
1 0...b5 1 1 t'Dd5
Also worth considering is I I a4
b4 I2 t'Dd5 e6 I3 t'Dxf6+ i.xf6 I4
aS ! i.b7 I S l:.a2 'We7 I6 i.e3 and
White has the better chances
because of Black's weaknesses on
b6 and a6, Ermenkov-V.Georgiev,
Sofia I 993.
ll l'Dd7
•.•
Weaker is I I . ..l'Dxd5 12 exd5
t'De5 1 3 c3 with the better game for
White.
12 c3 e6 13 l'De3 l'Db6 14 f4 .i.b7
15 l'Dg4 l'Dc4
After I 5 ...t'De7 I 6 t'Da5 i.c8 1 7 f5
exf5 1 8 l'Dh6+ �h8 19 exf5 l'Dxf5
20 t'Dxf5 i.xf5 2 I t'Db7 ikc7 22
l'Dxd6 White develops an initiative,
Ruban-Cvetkovic, Cetinje I 993
16 l'Dd2 'Wb6+ 17 'ith1 l'Dxd2 18
i.xd2 f5 with chances for both
sides, Zagrebelny-Serper, Tashkent
I 992.
 3 : Variations with 6 .il.c4
(1 e4 c5 2 lt::lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt::ld4 lt::lf6 5 lt::lc3 g6)
6 ..ic4
White develops the bishop to an
active diagonal. But now, in order to
develop his other bishop to e3, he is
obliged to secure its position against
the thrust ...lt::lf6-g4 by playing
h2-h3. Quite frequently he com­
mences this play with an immediate
6 h3, which after 6. . ...ig7 7 ..ie3 0-0
8 ..ic4 leads to a simple transposi­
tion of moves.
This prophylactic move is often
made also after 6 ..ie3 ..ig7 (for the
time being the thrust 6... lt::lg4? is not
possible because of 7 ..ib5+) 7 h3,
since on 7 ..ic4 good is 7 ...lt::lg4 and
8 ..ib5+ �ffi. Furthermore the game
Ljubojevic-Sosonko, Buenos Aires
(ol) 1 978, continued: 9 ..ig5 h6 1 0
..ih4 g5 1 1 ..ig3 "ii'b6 1 2 lt::lde2 (du­
bious is 1 2 tll f5 ?! ..ixf5 13 exf5
..ixc3+ 14 bxc3 'ii'xb5 1 5 'ii'xg4
lt::ld7 + Sosonko) 1 2 ... h5 1 3 h4 ( 1 3
h3 h4! +) 13 . . .gxh4 1 4 l:txh4 lt::lc6
1 5 'ii'd2 lt::ld4! 1 6 ..ixd4 'ii'xd4 and
Black has equal chances.
6 ... ..tg7 7 h3
If White intends to develop the
bishop on g5, then this prophylaxis
is not obligatory: 7 0-0 0-0 8 l:te 1
lt::lc6 9 ..ib3 a6 1 0 lt::lxc6 bxc6 1 1
..ig5 h6 1 2 ..th4 lt::lh5 13 f3 'iPh7 1 4
'ii'd2 ..ie5 1 5 ..t f2 'ii'a5 1 6 l:ad1
l:b8 1 7 ..id4 f6 and Black
establishes a solid defence, Short­
lvanchuk, Novgorod 1 994.
N.Short considers 1 7 ..ie3 ! g5 1 8
g3 to be stronger, driving away the
dark-squared bishop with an active
position.
7 . 0-0 8 ..ie3
..
The plan with the development of
this bishop to g5 is looked at in
Lines 1 5 and 1 6.
In the game Benjamin-Gufeld,
New York 1989, White tried 8 lt::lf3 ,
on which followed 8 ... lt::lbd7 !? 9 0-0
a6 l O a4 b6 1 1 'ii'e2 ..ib7 1 2 ..if4
'ii'c7 1 3 l:fe 1 e6 14 .rlad 1 lt::le5 1 5
..ib3 lt::lfd7 1 6 lt::ld2 lt::lc5 after which
Black obtained a completely equal
position.
8. lt::lc6
..
Before completing his develop­
ment 8 ...c!Dxe4 9 lt::lxe4 d5 1 0 lt::lb5
looks risky for Black; though in the
game Shrentzei-Afek, Ramat Ha­
sharon 1 984, after 10 ... a6 1 1 ..ixd5
axb5 1 2 c3 b4 1 3 cxb4 lt::lc6 1 4 "ii'b3
lt::lxb4 1 5 ..ixf7+ l:txf7 16 'ii'xb4
White won a pawn, Black had in
return sufficient piece activity.
 Variations with 6 .ic4 71

9 .ib3 13 'it'd2?! l:r.c8 14 0-0 l:r.c4 1 5 l:r.fe l

A prophylactic retreat of the 'ifd7 1 6 �b5 l:r.fc8 1 7 'it'xa5 e5 1 8
bishop to counter the threat of .ib6 l:r.xc2 ; Mestel-Larsen, Hast­
...�f6xe4. The alternative 9 0-0 is ings 1 986) 1 3 ...l:r.c8 14 l:r.e I (insuffi­
examined in Line 14. cient is 14 e5 �d5 15 �xd5 exd5 ) =

Black's main continuations are: 14 ...�d7 1 5 �b5 .ixd4 1 6 �xd4

'it'b6 1 7 'ifd2 l:r.f6 1 8 b3 �e5 1 9
9...�xd4-Line 1 0 .l:.e2?! (stronger i s 1 9 l:r.e3 l:r.cffi 20
9...�a5-Line I I l:.fl with roughly equal chances)
9....id7-Lines 1 2 and 1 3 1 9 ... g5 ! and Black seizes the initia­
tive, Tal-Larsen, Brussels 1 987.
Line 1 0 1 0 .ixd4 b5
Here IO ....ie6 already does not
( 1 e4 c 5 2 � 0 d 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 force an exchange on e6: I I 0-0
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .ic4 .ig7 7 .ixb3 (the manoeuvre l l ...'it'a5 is
h3 0-0 8 .ie3 �c6 9 .ib3) poor: 1 2 .l:.e l 'it'h5 13 �d5 .ixd5 1 4
exd5 'it'xd l 1 5 :axd l and Black's
9... �xd4 position is cramped, S.B.Hansen­
N.Nilsson, Copenhagen 1995) 1 2
axb3 a6 1 3 'ife2 :c8 1 4 l:[fd l �d7
1 5 .ixg7 ri;xg7 16 �d5 l:r.e8 I 7
�e3 and White has a small but en­
during positional advantage,
Ljubojevic-Rajkovic, Titovo Uzice
1 978.

An exchange of knights linked to

a plan of developing the bishop on
the flank to pressurise e4, as well as
the tactical possibility ... b7-b5 or the
exchange of the light-squared bish­
ops by ....ic8-e6.
Regarding the latter, also worth
considering is the inclusion of the
move 9 ... a5 1 0 a4 which weakens 11 a3
the position of the bishop b3- After I I �xb5 �xe4 (also
I O... iDxd4 I I .ixd4 .ie6 1 2 .ixe6 worthy of attention is I I ...'it'a5+ 1 2
(a consequence of the move 9 ...a5- �c3 �xe4, not fearing 1 3 .ixg7
opening the f-file makes it easier for ri;xgJ 14 'it'd5 in view of 14 ...�c5
Black to obtain counterplay, there­ 1 5 'ifxa8 .ib7 1 6 'iVxfE+ �xffi with
fore interesting is 1 2 .idS !?, which chances for both sides) 1 2 .ixg7
so far has not undergone serious �xg7 1 3 'it'd4+ �f6 14 0-0-0 .ib7
practical trials) 1 2 . . . fxe6 1 3 0-0 (or 1 5 .l:.hg l 'it'a5 16 �c3 l:r.ac8 Black
72 Variations with 6 i..c4
obtains an equal game, Tai-Gufeld,
USSR I 973.
But not bad is the simple I I 0-0
i.b7 ( I l . . .a6?! is passive: I 2 l:e i
i.b7 I 3 llld5 i.xd5 I4 exd5 ±
Mitkov-Neessen, Weekender I999)
I 2 'ii'd3 (on I 2 l:e i possible is
I2 . . . e5 1 3 i.e3 lllxe4 I4 lllxb5 d5
I 5 f3 lllg3 I6 i.c5 lllf5 I 7 lllc3 d4
I S i.xf8 i.xf8 I 9 llle4 i.h6 with
excellent play for the sacrificed ex­
change, Sznapik-Skrobek, Poland
(ch) I977) 1 2 . b4 1 3 llld5 e6 14
..
lllxf6+ i.xf6 I5 l:ad i and White's
position is preferable, Matanovic­
Dueball, Bad Pyrmont 1970.
l l a5
...
Just in time, since after l l . . .i.b7
12 'ii'd3 this move entails a pawn
sacrifice: I 2 ... a5?! I 3 'ii'xb5 and not
good is 1 3 . . . i.xe4? I 4 i.xf6 exf6 I 5
lDxe4 'ile7 I 6 'ii'e2 l:fe8 I 7 i.a4 f5
1 8 i.xe8 l:xe8 I 9 0-0 and Black
does not have sufficient compensa­
tion for the exchange, De Firmian­
Oiesen, Gausdal 1995.
12 0-0 i.b7 13 f3
Worth considering 1 3 'ii'd3 i.a6
14 lllxb5 lllxe4 1 5 i.xg7 'iirxg7 1 6
'iVxe4 i.xb5 1 7 l:fe I e 6 I S c4 i.a6
19 l:tad I 'ifb6 20 l:.e3 l:ac8 2 I l:c3
and, thanks to the pawn majority on
the queen's flank, White's chances
are preferable, Hector-Borge, Esper­
gaerde I 992.
13...i.c6 14 l:e1 l:b8 15 llld5
i.xd5 16 i.xd5 lllxd5 17 exd5
i.xd4+ 18 'Wxd4 .l:te8 19 c3 'ii'b6
and though Black's position is
cramped, he has no weaknesses,
Short-Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee
I 995.
Line 1 1
( 1 e4 c5 2 lllf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lllf6 5 lllc3 g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 i.e3 lllc6 9 i.b3)
Black strives to exchange the ac­
tive bishop, but this move involves
a loss of time and White can count
on holding on to the initiative.
10 0-0
The thrust I 0 f4 weakens the
h i -aS diagonal: I O...lllxb3 (also
good is 1 0...b6, since I I e5 lllh 5 I 2
i.d5 weakens the position riskily:
I2 ...dxe5 ! 13 fxe5 when in the game
Sigurjonsson-Diaz, Cienfuegos
I975, in place of 13 ...i.a6? 1 4 'tff3
l:c8 15 0-0-0, which turned out in
White's favour, the simpler
I 3 ...l:b8 would have given Black
excellent play, since I4 e6 fxe6! is
not dangerous) I I axb3 b6 I 2 g4
i.b7 I3 'ii'f3 a6 I4 g5 lllh5 1 5 f5
l:c8 16 0-0 i.e5 with counterplay
for Black, Mitrovic-Markovic,
Vmjacka Banja 1 996.
On I 0 'ii'd2 Black can deliver a
blow in the centre, characteristic for
a situation where White is late with
castling: I O...lllxb3 I I axb3 d5 ! ? I 2
e5 llle4 1 3 lllxe4 dxe4 I 4 i.f4
'ifb6! I 5 'ii'e3 f6! I 6 'ii'xe4 fxe5 I 7
i.xe5 i.f5 I S 'ii'd5+ ( I 8 lllxf5 l:xf5
+) I 8 ...e6 I 9 _.a5 i.xe5 20 'ii'xe5
i.xc2! and White has to defend,
Oil-Alterman, Beijing I 997. But
also possible is IO ...i.d7, since
harmless is I I i.h6 l:c8 I 2 i.xg7
'iirxg7 1 3 _.d3 a6 I4 f4 e5! I 5 lllde2
 Variations with 6 .ic4 73

'iib6 16 0-0-0 .ibS ! 1 7 'ii'f3 .ixe2 l:.ad 1 .ixd4 1 7 'ii'xd4 e5 1 8 'it'd5!

18 'ii'xe2 lLlxb3+ 1 9 axb3 exf4 and and White achieves the advantage,
Black stands a little better. Short­ Ciric-Neulinger, Neustadt 1 99 1 ;
Kramnik, Novgorod 1 997. 1 5 ...l:.e8 was more prudent, fol­
Here Black's main continuations lowed by ...l:.a8-c8, . . .'ii'd8-c7,
are: ...lLlf6-d7, though even here White's
chances are superior.
l lA: I O b6
•.• 2) 1 1 .idS .ia6 1 2 l:.e 1 l:.c8 1 3
liB I O...a6 .igS 'ii'd7 1 4 a4 .ic4 1 5 .ixc4
l:.xc4 with chances for both sides,
l lA Inkiov-Ermenkov, Plovdiv 1982
3) 1 1 .igS .ia6! 12 l:te 1 l:.c8 and
(l e4 c5 2 lLJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 because of the threat to sacrifice the
lLJxd4 iLJf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .ic4 .ig7 7 exchange by ... l:tc8xc3 Black has
h3 0-0 8 .ie3 lLlc6 9 .ib3 lLla5 10 quite good counterplay.
0-0)
l lAa: l l ....ib7
IO ...b6 l lAb: l l ...lLlxb3

l lAa

(l e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .ic4 .ig7 7
h3 0-0 8 .ie3 lLlc6 9 .ib3 lLla5 10
0-0 b6 11 ...d3)

l l ....tb7

Black carries out a plan with piece

activity in the centre:
l l 'ii'd3
Let's also look at other
possibilities:
1) 1 1 l:.el ! ? .ib7 12 .tgs h6 1 3
.ih4 lLlxb3 (on 1 3 . . .l:.c8, 14 'ii'd3
looks promising; after 14 lLldS pos­
sible is 14 . . .g5 1 5 lLlxf6+ .ixf6 1 6
.ig3 lLlxb3 1 7 axb3 .ixd4 1 8 'ii'xd4 This position remains insufficient­
lhc2 1 9 l:.xa7 'ii'c7 with equal ly investigated. White maintains the
chances, De Firmian-K.aliksteyn, pressure in the centre, but the black
Philadelphia 1 995) 14 axb3 a6 1 5 pieces control the situation.
'ii'd3 (or 1 5 lLldS e6 1 6 .ixf6 .ixf6 The attempt at a pawn attack does
1 7 lLlxf6+ 'ii'xf6 1 8 c3 l:.ad8 with not give Black problems.
equal chances, Morovic-Brunner, 1 ) 1 2 f4 l:.c8 (or 1 2 ...lLlxb3 1 3
Buenos Aires 1 992) 1 5 ...lLJh5?! 1 6 axb3 lLld7 1 4 .id2 lLlcS 1 5 ._,e3 e5
74 Variations with 6 i.c4
= Fedorowicz-Christiansen, USA
(ch) 1 977) 1 3 l:ae l J:.xc3 14 'ii'xc3
l2Jxe4 1 5 'ifd3 l2Jxb3 16 axb3 e5 1 7
l2Je2 'ifa8 1 8 b4 l2Jf6 and Black has
excellent piece play for the ex­
change, Mortensen-Kudrin, Copen­
hagen 1983.
The attempt to exploit the d5
square is apparently refuted by
Black:
2) 12 i.d5 (weaker is 1 2 l2Jd5?
l2Jxb3 13 l2Jxf6+ i.xf6 14 axb3 d5
and Black is better) 12 ...'ii'd7 1 3
llad l (Black's task i s simpler on 1 3
i.xb7 'ifxb7 1 4 J:.ad l llac8 1 5 l:fe l
when in the game Moldovan-Marin,
Bucharest 1 994, instead of the hur­
ried 1 5 ...l2Jc4 16 i.e I b5 1 7 b3 ;!;, as
pointed out by Marin, Black should
have prepared to occupy the outpost
on c4 by 1 5 ... a6! 1 6 l2J f3 b 5 1 7 a3
l2Jc4 1 8 i.c l l:c7, obtaining excel­
lent play) 1 3 ... 1lac8 14 l:fe1 a6 1 5
a4! l:fe8 1 6 i.a2! (otherwise Black
exchanges this bishop: 16 l2Jf3
l2Jxd5 17 exd5 l2Jc4 18 i.eI b5 or
16 l2Jde2 i.d5 I 7 exd5 l2Jc4 18 i.e 1
b5 19 axb5 l2Je5 ! 20 'itg3 axb5,
obtaining good counterplay­
M.Marin) 1 6...'ifc7 1 7 l2Jf3 lLld7 1 8
i.d4 l2Jc4 and the game is even,
Mitkov-Marin, Sitges 1 997.
A concentration of pressure in the
centre looks more promising:
3) 1 2 i.g5 l2Jxb3 1 3 axb3 a6 14
llfe 1 h6 1 5 i.d2 b5 1 6 f4 e6 with
unclear play, J.Polgar-Topalov,
Novgorod 1996.
4) 12 l:fd 1 llc8 1 3 l2Jde2 l2Jd7 1 4
i.d4 l2Je5 1 5 'ii'g3 i.a6 1 6 f4 l2Jec4
1 7 i.xg7 'it>xg7 1 8 J:.ab 1 and, after
reinforcing the queen's flank, White
has the preferable game. Sieiro­
Diaz, Cuba (ch) 1988.
5) 12 l:ad1 'ifc8 13 l:fe 1 i.a6 14
'ii'd2 l:e8 15 i.h6 i.h8 16 i.a4 lld8
1 7 l2Jf5 'ife6 1 8 'ifg5 llac8 19 g4
with an attacking posttlon for
White, Klovans-Cicak, Germany
1 998.
l l Ab
(1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 5 l2Jc3 g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 i.e3 l2Jc6 9 i.b3 l2Ja5 10
0-0 b6 1 1 'itd3)
l l ...l2Jxb3 12 axb3 i.b7
13 l:[fd1
After the exchange on b3 the
pawn structure on the opponent's
queen's flank is determined and
White can count on pressure along
the a-file.
In case of 13 llad 1 llc8 14 l:fe 1
a6 1 5 i.g5 lle8 16 'ife3 llc5 1 7 b4
l:xc3 1 8 'ii'xc3 l2Jxe4 1 9 'iie3 l2Jxg5
20 'ifxg5 i.f6 Black obtains an
active game for the exchange,
Gavrikov-Schneider, Debrecen
1 988.
13...a6 14 l2Jde2 b5
Worth considering is 1 4 ... l2Jd7
with the idea of ... llf'd-e8.
15 lla2 l:lc8 16 l2Jd5 e6 17 l2Jxf6+
'ifxf6 18 c4 d5 19 exd5 exd5 20
cxb5 axb5 21 i.d4 with advantage
to White, Ljubojevic-Admjan,
Amsterdam 1 978.

l lB
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 i.e3 ltJc6 9 i.b3 ltJa5 10
0-0)
10 ... a6
1 1 f4
After I I i.g5 h6 1 2 i.h4, 1 2 ...b5
seems to be the simplest (in the
game Morovic-Romero Holmes,
Leon 1993, 12 ... e6 13 f4 ltJxb3 14
axb3 e5 15 fxe5 dxe5 1 6 ltJf3 was
played and Black started to have
worries about the e5 pawn) 1 3 i.d5
i.b7 with chances for both sides.
1 1 ...ltJxb3
On I I ...'ii'c7 possible is 1 2 ltJf3
and if 1 2 . . . ltJc4?, then 1 3 i.xc4
'iVxc4 14 e5 dxe5 1 5 fxe5 ltJh5 1 6
'iid5 with a perceptible advantage
for White, Kurajica-Miles, Wijk aan
Zee 1 977. Stronger is 1 2 . . . e6.
12 axb3 i.d7 13 'i6'f3 l:lc8 14 g4
e5 15 ltJde2 i.c6 16 f5
Or 1 6 g5 ltJd7 1 7 f5 f6 1 8 fxg6
hxg6 19 gxf6 liJxf6 and White's at­
tacking pawns disappear without
having achieved anything in
particular.
16 ... d5 17 g5 ltJxe4 18 ltJxe4
dxe4 19 'iVfl gxf5 20 'iixf5 'iid7
with equal chances, Da Costa
Junior-Pinto Neto, Brasil 1 993.
Variations with 6 i.c4 75
Line 12
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 i.e3 ltJc6 9 i.b3)
9 ...i.d7
A popular plan to organise piece
pressure on the c-file, analogous to
play against the Rauzer.
10 0-0 :c8
The second main direction of play
for Black, IO . . .'iVa5, is examined in
Line 1 3 .
There are other more rarely met
continuations, having ideas in
common with the above-mentioned
variations though with special
features of their own:
1) IO ...ltJxd4 I I i.xd4 i.c6 (the
plan to put pressure on e4 is in the
spirit of the 9 ...ltJxd4 variation, but
also possible is l l . ..b5 1 2 l:te l e5 1 3
i.e3 b4 1 4 ltJd5 ltJxe4 1 5 ltJxb4 aS
16 ltJd5 ;!; Amason-Spacek, Prague
1 978/79) 1 2 'iid3 (defending the
pawn and connecting rooks, where­
as 1 2 :e I ? e5 1 3 i.e3 ltJxe4 loses
the pawn without compensation)
I a) 1 2 ...b5 1 3 l:lfe l 'iid7 14 ltJd5
i.xd5 (or 14 ...ltJxd5 1 5 exd5 i.b7
16 i.xg7 �xg7 1 7 l:le3 with strong
pressure along the e-file,
Sigurjonsson-Miles, Hastings 1 974)
1 5 exd5 'iib7 1 6 ._,f3 l:tfe8 1 7 :ad I
76 Variations with 6 il..c4
:ac8 18 a4! with advantage to
White, Christiansen-Szmetan, Tor­
remolinos 1976.
l b) l 2 ... lUd7 (the exchange of the
centralised bishop seems the most
expedient method of defence in this
cramped position) 1 3 il..xg7 �xg7
14 l:tfe l (or 14 l:tad l aS I S f4 a4 1 6
il..dS 'ii'b6+ 1 7 'ii'd4+ 'ii'xd4+ 1 8
:xd4 a3 + A.Kogan-Jirovsky,
Lazne Bohdanec 1 996; R.Byme and
E.Mednis recommend 1 4 'it'd4+ f6
I S �h2 'ii'b6 1 6 'ii'd2 ;t) l 4 ... a6 1 S
iUdS l:lc8 1 6 l:lad l lUeS 1 7 'ii'e3
lUxb3 18 'ii'xb3 il.. xdS 19 exdS with
a space advantage for White, but
Black's position has no weaknesses,
Emms-Jonasson, Nopavogur 1 994.
2) l O ... lUaS (intending to ex­
change the bishop b3 in the spirit of
the variation 9 . . . lllaS)
2a) I I 'ii'd2 l:lc8 ( I I ... bS ! is more
energetic) 1 2 l:tad l a6 1 3 life l bS
14 il..gS lUc4 I S il..xc4 l:lxc4 1 6 eS
dxeS 1 7 iUf3 and White's chances
are preferable, Radulov-Forintos,
Kecskemet 1 972.
2b) I I 'ii'd3 a6 (or l l ...lUxb3?! 1 2
axb3 a6 1 3 iUdS ;t and now
l 3 . . . e6?! 14 lUxf6+ 'ii'x f6 I S lUe2
.tc6 1 6 .id4 eS 1 7 il..e3 leads to an
advantage for White in view of the
weakness of the backward d6 pawn,
Landa-Foldi, Matra 1 993) 1 2 l:tfe l
:c8 ( l 2 ...bS !?) 1 3 iUdS-see
1 0... l:tc8 1 1 :e l .
2c) I I l:.e l .l:tc8 1 2 1i'd3 leads to
variation l A, looked at below.
3) I O ... a6!? (leaving in reserve the
manoeuvre ...lUc6-eS, Black pre­
vents the development of the queen
on d3) l l l:te l bS ( l l ...llc8, see
1 0... l:.c8) 1 2 iUdS lUxdS (repulsing
the threat of lUd4xc6 and il..e3-b6,
but Black achieves the same aim by
l 2 . . .lUaS or l 2 ...l:te8- 1 3 a4 bxa4
14 il..xa4 lUxdS I S exdS lUeS 1 6 b3
fie? 17 'ii'd2 'ii'b7 1 8 il..xd7 lUxd7
1 9 'WaS, and finding Black's weak­
nesses, White has the preferable
position, Hebden-Watson, London,
1 989) 1 3 exdS iUeS 14 'ii'e2 'Wc7 I S
c3 il.. f6 1 6 l:lad l l:lfc8 1 7 iUf3 aS
with equal chances, Wedberg­
Lindemann, Naestved 1 988.
After IO ...l:lc8 White's main con­
tinuations are:
l2A: 1 1 l:le1
12B: 1 1 f4
The move I I ii'd3 hands Black an
important tempo, l l . . .iUeS, and af­
ter 1 2 'ii'e2 the exchange sacrifice
l 2 ...l:lxc3 1 3 bxc3 lUxe4. is
possible.
l2A
(1 e4 cS 2 iUf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lUxd4 iUf6 5 lUc3 g6 6 il..c4 il..g7 7
h3 0-0 8 il..e3 lUc6 9 il..b3 il..d7 10
0-0 l:lc8)
1 1 .:.et
A useful developing move. White
not only defends the e4 pawn
against the attack ...b7-bS-b4, but
also intends the thrust lUc3-dS
which, after an exchange of knights,
broadens the sphere of activity of
the rook. White's main plans are
linked to the moves:

41Aa: I I ltJe5 ...
41Ab: I I a6 ...
More passive is I I ...l:[e8 I 2 'ii'd2
'ii'a5 I 3 liJf3 a6 ( 1 3 ...b5 at once is
more energetic) I4 .:adi b5 I 5 .i.h6
.i.h8 (or I 5 ...liJd8 I6 liJd4 llc5 I 7
a3 .i.xh6 I S 'ii'xh6 llh5 I 9 'ii'f4 with
somewhat better chances for White,
Tal-C.Hansen, Reykjavik I 986) I 6
ltJg5 lLle5 1 7 f4 lLlc4 1 8 e 5 ! allows
White to develop an initiative,
Jansa-Watson, Gausdal I 988.
l2Aa
{l e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 .i.c4 .i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 .i.e3 ltJc6 9 .i.b3 .i.d7 10
0-0 l:tc8 II l:tel)
l l . ..liJe5
Black transfers his knight to the
c4 square.
12 f4
On 12 'ii'e2?!, preventing
... ltJe5-c4, he has to reckon on the
exchange sacrifice I 2 ...llxc3 ! 1 3
bxc3 ltJxe4. For example: I 4 f4 (or
14 .i.d2 lLlxd2 I 5 'ii'xd2 e6! I 6 a4
'ii'a 5! I 7 lLlb5 d5 1 8 'ii'e3 a6 1 9 lLld4
l:.c8 20 lLle2 lLlc4 2 I .i.xc4 llxc4 +
Aleksic-Tiviakov, Amantea I 99 1 )
I4. . . .lLlxc3 I 5 'ii'fl lLlc6 1 6 'ii'd3
'ii'a5 I 7 lLlxc6 .i.xc6 I S .i.d4
Variations with 6 .i.c4 77
.i.xd4+ I9 'ii'xd4 e6 20 l:.xe6? (20
.:e3 lLlb5 2 1 'ii'd3 'ii'b6 +) 20... lLlb5 !
2 1 'ii'e3 fxe6 22 'ii'xe6+ 'St>h8 23
l:[d 1 'ii'b6+ 0- I Mitkov-Tiviakov,
Mamaia I 99 I .
1 2 ltJc4 1 3 .ixc4 l:.xc4 1 4 'ii'd3
•..
llc8!
After 14 ...'ii'c8? 15 e5 dxe5 (on
I 5 ...ltJh5 I 6 liJd5 l:.e8 17 exd6 exd6
I S .i.f2 �f8 I 9 l:.xe8+ .i.xe8 20
.:e I White has an obvious advan­
tage, Ljubojevic-S.Garcia Martinez,
Portoroz!Ljubljana 1 975) 1 6 fxe5
lLlh5 I 7 ltJd5 .:es I S l:.ad I .i.xe5 I 9
b3 .:c5 2 0 liJf3 and Black suffers
material losses, Mitkov-Leenhouts,
Weekender I 999.
15 lladl
On 1 5 e5 best is 15 . . . ltJe8
=.
15... a6 with approximately equal
chances (S.Tiviakov).
12Ab
(I e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 �c4 .i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 .i.e3 ltJc6 9 .i.b3 .id7 10
0-0 l:lc8 II l:lel)
l l...a6
After completing his develop­
ment, Black commences a flank at­
tack with the objective of
weakening the defence of the e4
pawn. Here White's main continua­
tions are:
12Ab l : 12 lLld5
12Ab2: 12 'ii'd2
l2Abl
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 .i.c4 .i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 .i.e3 ltJc6 9 .i.b3 .i.d7 1 0
0-0 llc8 I I l:.el a6)
12 lLld5
78 Variations with 6 il.. c4
White threatens to exploit the
weak b6 square.
12 ...lt:la5
1 2 .... lt:lxe4?! loses the exchange:
1 3 lt:lxc6 bxc6 14 ..tb6 'ii'e8 1 5 lt:lc7
l:.xc7 16 ..txc7 d5 1 7 f3 lt:lc5 1 8 c3
and Black does not have sufficient
compensation, Tolnai-Malakhov,
Balatonbereny 1995.
Worth considering is 12 ...lt:lxd5
1 3 exd5 lt:le5 14 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 1 5 l:.ad1
l:.fe8 16 c3 b5 with equal chances,
Bielczyk-Bobras, Suwalki 1 999.
l3 'ii'd3 lt:lxd5
13 ...lt:lxb3 14 axb3 ..tc6?! is
insufficient to equalise (More
prudent would be 14 ... e6 ;;!;;) due to
1 5 lt:lxc6! l:.xc6 1 6 c3 lt:ld7 1 7 ..tg5
l:r.e8 1 8 'ii'e3 and White obtains the
advantage, Popovic-Sinanovic,
Yugoslavia (ch) 1 99 1 .
1 4 exd5 l:.e8 1 5 c3 'ii'c7 1 6 ..tg5
lt:lxb3
On 16 .. .'�f8 strong is 1 7 lle4 ! .
17 axb3 'ii'c 5! 18 lt:l tJ e5 and
Black has equal chances, Watson­
Larsen, Esbjerg 1 988.
12Ab2
(1 e4 c5 2 lt:ltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 g6 6 ..tc4 il.. g7 7
h3 0-0 8 ..te3 lt:lc6 9 ..tb3 ..td7 10
0-0 l:.c8 1 1 l:.e1 a6)
12 'ifd2
With the intention, when the op­
portunity arises, of exchanging the
dark-squared bishops.
12 ... b5
Or 1 2 ...l:.e8 1 3 l:.ad1 lt:lxd4 14
..txd4 ..tc6 15 lt:ld5 ! i.xd5 1 6 exd5
lt:ld7 1 7 i.xg7 �xg7 1 8 l:te3 b5 1 9
l:r.de 1 with unpleasant pressure on
the e7 pawn, Watson-Tolnai, Buda­
pest 1989.
13 l:.adl
Here the exchange of the dark­
squared bishops by 13 lt:lxc6 i.xc6
14 ..th6 ..txh6 1 5 'ii'xh6 involves
simplification. The game Sznapik­
Jansa, Prague (zt) 1985, continued
1 5 ...e6 16 a3 a5 1 7 'ii'f4 e5 1 8 'ii'd2
b4 1 9 axb4 axb4 20 lt:ld5 ..txd5 2 1
exd5 'ii'b6 and Black has a fully
equal game.
13 ...b4 14 lt:\d5 lt:lxd5
On 14 ...lt:lxe4 possible is 1 5 'ii'e2
with the threat of lt:ld4xc6.
15 exd5 lt:lxd4 16 ..txd4 ..txd4 1 7
'ii'xd4 and White has a space advan­
tage as well as pressure on the e7
pawn, Watson-Findlay, England
(ch) 1 990.
12B
(1 e4 c5 2 lt:ltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 g6 6 ..tc4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 i.e3 lt:lc6 9 i.b3 i.d7 10
0-0 l:.c8)

1 1 f4
White prepares the advance e4-e5,
while indirectly attacking the a7
pawn.
ll ... a6 12 'ift3
Also seen is 1 2 'ii'd3 'ifa5 (not bad
is 1 2 ...'ifc7 13 l:lad l .!Da5 14 f5 .!Dc4
1 5 �xc4 'ifxc4 with roughly even
chances, Janosevic-Mohr, Bled
1989) 13 l:tae l 'ifh5 14 �f2 1:fd8
1 5 'ii'g3 e6 1 6 .!Dxc6 �xc6 17 f5
gxf5 1 8 exf5 exf5 1 9 l%e7 d5 with a
sharp game, Zelie-Jovanovic, Pula
1 999.
1 2 e5 dxe5 13 .!Dxc6 l%xc6 1 4
fxe5 .!Dh5 looks risky. I n the game
Komeev-Tiviakov, Paris 1 99 1 ,
White exchanged the e 5 pawn for
the one on e7, but at the cost of a
pinned queen: 1 5 'iff3 �xeS 1 6
�xf7+ �g7 1 7 g4 ( 1 7 'ii'd5 'ifc7
with the threat 1 8 ... .!Df6) 1 7 ...l%f6 1 8
'ifd5 �xc3 1 9 bxc3 1:8xf7 20 �d4
'i!tf8 2 1 �xf6 .!Dxf6 22 'ifd4 'ifc7
and Black gained a material advan­
tage. Of course the consistent move
was 1 5 g4, but this entails a great
weakening of White's rear. For ex­
ample 1 5 ....!Dg3 1 6 l%f3 l%xc3 1 7
bxc3 .!De4 1 8 �d4 �c6 and Black
has compensation for the exchange.
12 ... b5 13 a3
Also possible is 1 3 l%ad I .!Dxd4
14 �xd4 �c6 1 5 l1fe l 'ifc7 1 6 a3
a5 1 7 'ii'e2 'ifb7 1 8 .!Dd5 �xd5 1 9
Variations with 6 �c4 79
exd5 a4 20 �a2 .!Dh5 (20 ...l%fe8 !?)
2 1 �xg7 �xg7 22 'ii'd2 .!Df6 23 c3
and White's chances are preferable,
Van Riemsdijk-Egger, Sao Paulo
(zt) 1 993. .
13 ... .!Da5 14 .l:r.adl .!Dc4
On 14 ... .!Dxb3?! good is 1 5 cxb3 !
( 1 5 .!Dxb3 allows Black to make a
favourable sacrifice of the ex­
change: 1 5 .. Jhc3 16 bxc3 �c6 1 7
.!Dd2 'ifa8 + Westerinen-Dueball,
Berlin 1 97 1 ) 1 5 ...'ifc7 16 g4 'ifb7
1 7 e5 with advantage to White
(Dueball).
15 �cl 'ifc7 16 �hi e5 17 .!Dde2
�c6 and Black's chances are not
worse, since the activity of his
pieces compensates for the draw­
back of the backward pawn, Hector­
Tiviakov, Haninge 1992.
Line 13
(1 e4 c5 2 .!DO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.!Dxd4 .!Df6 5 .!Dc3 g6 6 �c4 �g7 7
h3 0-0 8 �e3 .!Dc6 9 �b3 �d7 1 0
0-0)
10...'ii'a5
Analogous to the Rauzer Attack
Black develops his queen on an ac­
tive square. This position is often
reached by another order of moves
in the so-called "Accelerated
Dragon" 1 e4 c5 2 .!Df3 .!Dc6 3 d4
80 Variations with 6 Jic4
cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 lLlc3 Jig? 6 Jie3
lLlf6 7 Jic4 -.as 8 0-0 0-0 9 Jib3 d6
1 0 h3 Jid7. Placing the bishop on
b3 instead of e2 makes it distinct
from the classical scheme. On the
one hand the bishop is more active
along this diagonal: it not only pre­
vents the advance ... d6-d5, but also
makes possible the attack with f2-f4
followed by f4-f5 or e4-e5. On the
other hand here it takes away a
square from the knight, and more­
over from b3 the bishop cannot
reinforce the e4 pawn (by means of
f2-f4 and Jie2-f3). This circum­
stance forces White to solve the
problem of the e4 pawn without
delay.
Entering into White's plan is pres­
sure on the king's flank and the cen­
tre, while Black intends to carry out
counterplay against the e4 pawn and
on the queen's flank. White's main
continuations are:
13A: 1 1 f4
138: 1 1 l:te1
13A
(1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 g6 6 Jl..c4 Jig7 7
h3 0-0 8 Jie3 lLlc6 9 Jib3 Jid7 10
0-0 ,.aS)
1 1 f4
Taking under control the central
squares, White prepares the advance
e4-e5. Black's main continuations
are:
13Aa: 1 1. ..lLlxd4
13Ab: 1 1 l:lac8
••.
13Ac: 1 1 -.hS
••.
l l ...e5?! is risky because of 1 2
lLlxc6 Jl..xc6 1 3 f5 ! Jixe4 1 4 lLlxe4
lLlxe4 1 5 fxg6 hxg6 1 6 l:r.xf7! with
dangerous threats for White, Short­
Wagman, Lugano 1986.
Sometimes l l ...l:lad8 is played
with the idea, after 1 2 ,..d3 or 1 2
-.n, of relieving his game by
1 2 ...lLlxd4 1 3 Jixd4 Jic6. But after
1 2 lLl£3 ! b5 1 3 a3 a6 14 Wei -.c7
1 5 �4 the rook on d8 does not pull
its weight, whereas White gets his
attack going on the king's flank,
Kurajica-Hiibner, Barcelona 1 965.
13Aa
(1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 g6 6 Jl..c4 Jig7 7
h3 0-0 8 Jie3 lLlc6 9 Jib3 Jid7 10
0-0 -.as 1 1 f4)
1 1 ...lLlxd4 12 Jixd4
12 ... Jic6
With the help of a typical freeing
manoeuvre Black has activated his
queen's bishop and created such an
important defensive resource as the
break ... e7-e5. If played at once, this
operation is unfavourable: 1 2 ...e5?!
13 Jie3 Jic6 14 f5! Jl..xe4 15 lLlxe4
lLlxe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 1 7 lhf7 with
dangerous threats for White,
Pedzich-Urban, Poland (ch) 1 992.
13 ...d3
The most appropriate place for the
queen in the present structure.

On 1 3 'ii'f3 unpleasant is
13 ...'ii'b 4! 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 5 l:tfe 1
'ii'c5+ 16 �h 1 .i.xc3+ 1 7 'ii'xc3
'ii'xc3 1 8 bxc3 l:tac8 with the better
endgame for Black, Ciocaltea­
Furman, Harrachov 1 966. This same
manoeuvre is good on 1 3 'ii'e2-
1 3 ...'ii'b4 ! 14 l:tad 1 tDxe4! 1 5 .i.xg7
�xg7 1 6 lDd5 'ii'c5+ 1 7 �h2 lDf6!
1 8 'i:Jc7 .i.xg2 ! 1 9 'ii'xe7 .i.xh3! 20
�xh3 'ii'h 5+ with perpetual check.
On 13 lDd5 good is 1 3 ...l:tae8!
( 1 3 ... l:tfe8 14 f5!) 14 'ii'd3 lDxd5 1 5
exd5 .i.b5 1 6 c4 .i.xd4+ 1 7 'ii'xd4
.i.d7 1 8 �h2 'ii'c5 1 9 'ii'd2 e6!
equalising.
13 ...l:tad8
In going for an opening of the
game around the e5 square, Black
not only prevents the advance of the
e-pawn, but also, when the opportu­
nity arises, threatens e5. Sometimes
an immediate 1 3 . . . lDd7 14 .i.xg7
�xg7 is played:
1) 1 5 �h1 f6 (weaker is 15 ...lDc5
1 6 'ii'd4 f6+ 1 7 l:tae 1 lDxb3 1 8 axb3
'ii'c5 19 'ii'd2 e6 20 l:tf3 .J:.fe8 2 1
l:td3 ± Matanovic-Simagin, USSR­
Yugoslavia 1 963) 1 6 .i.d5 ( 1 6 'ii'd4
'ii'c 5) 1 6... lDc5 1 7 'ii'e3 'ii'b6 1 8 b3
e6 1 9 .i.xc6 Ih-Ih Ciric-Honfi,
Liechtenstein 1 992.
2) 15 l:tae1 l:tac8 1 6 'ii'd4+ �g8
1 7 lDd5 and White's chances are
preferable.
14 l:tad1
Other continuations do not create
particular problems for Black.
1) 14 l:tae 1 e5! (after 14 ...lDd7 1 5
.i.xg7 �xg7 16 'ii'd4+ lDf6 1 7 f5
'ii'b6 1 8 'ii'xb6 axb6 1 9 g4 and
White's chances are somewhat pref­
erable in view of his better pawn
structure, Short-Korchnoi, Garmisch
1 994) 1 5 .i.e3 exf4 1 6 .i.xf4 d5 ! 1 7
e 5 lDe4 with even chances, Ekblom­
Pytel, COIT. 1 969.
Variations with 6 1ic4 81
2) 1 4 f5 lDd7 15 .i.xg7 (or 1 5
lDd5 .i.xd5 1 6 .i.xg7 �xg7 1 7
.i.xd5 lDf6 ) 1 5 . . .�xg7 1 6 1i'g3
=
'ii'e5 1 7 'iib4 lDf6 and, in associa­
tion with a subsequent ...b7-b5,
Black has a fully balanced game,
Tukmakov-Ka_pengut, Rostov 1966.
3) 14 lDd5 'i:Jxd5 1 5 exd5 .i.xd4+
1 6 'ii'xd4 .i.d7 1 7 llae 1 l:tfe8 1 8
�h1 'ii'c5 with equal chances,
K.Jovans-Kapengut, Riga 1 965.
14...lDd7
Here already 14 ... e5 is bad since
after 15 .i.e3 exf4 16 l:txf4 Black is
left with a weakness on d6. On
14 ...b5 good is 1 5 lDd5 (in the game
Short-Hellers, Wijk aan Zee 1986,
after 1 5 a3?! b4 16 axb4 'ii'xb4
Black equalised) 1 5 ... .i.xd5 1 6 exd5
with a small but enduring space ad­
vantage for White.
14 ... lDd7 15 .i.xg7 �xg7 16 �h1
Or 1 6 lDd5 e6 1 7 'ii'd4+ e5! 18
fxe5 dxe5 1 9 'ii'd3 lDc5 with equal
chances, Matanovic-Tal, Palma de
Mallorca 1 966.
16...lDc5 ·
On 1 6...'ii'c5 possible is 1 7 lDd5
e6 1 8 c4 ! .
17 'ii'd4+ e 5 18 fxeS
After 1 8 'ii'e3 lDxb3 1 9 axb3 exf4
20 l:txf4 'ii'e5 Black occupies the e5
square, retaining equal chances,
Ciric-Gheorghiu, Wijk aan Zee
1 968.
18...lDxb3 19 axb3 dxeS 20 'ii'f2
fS! 21 b4! Wxb4 22 l:bd8 l:hd8 23
exfS g5 24 f6+ �fl and a double­
edged position has arisen, Martin­
Bellon, Olot 1 974.
13Ab
(1 e4 cS 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDcJ g6 6 .i.c4 .i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 .i.e3 lDc6 9 .i.b3 .i.d7 10
0-0 Was 1 1 f4)
82 Variations with 6 ii..c4
1 1 .. .l:bc8
Black completes his development.
Here White's main plan is linked to
the following continuations:
13Ab1: 1 2 ltJO
13Ab2: 12 'ii'O
Less logical is 1 2 1Vd3 ltJb4 1 3
'il'e2 ltJa6 14 'ii'f3 ltJc5 1 5 l:r.ad1
ltJxb3 16 ltJxb3 and the game is
equal, Parma-Stein, Yugoslavia­
USSR 1965.
13Ab1
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 ii..c4 ii..g7 7
h3 0-0 8 ii..e3 ltJc6 9 ii.. b3 ii..d7 10
0-0 'ifa5 1 1 f4 l:tac8)
12 ltJO
White carries out a plan of attack
on the king's flank:
12 ...'ii'h5
Upon less active continuations it
is easier for White to develop an
attack:
1) 1 2 .. J�fd8?! 1 3 'ii'e 1 ii.. e6 14 f5 !
b5 1 5 fxg6 hxg6 1 6 'ii'h4 ltJe5 1 7
ltJg5 ltJc4 1 8 ti:)d5 with dangerous
threats, I.Zaitsev-Dietze, Polanica
Zdroj 1979.
2) 12 .. .l:�cd8 13 'il'e1 ii..c8 14 .:.d 1
e6 1 5 'ii'h4 'ii'h5 ( 1 5 . . .ltJe8? 16 f5
exf5 1 7 l:td5 and White has an obvi­
ous advantage, Kuraj ica-Kuijpers,
Wijk aan Zee 1970) 1 6 g4 'ifxh4 1 7
ltJxh4 and White's chances are pref­
erable in view of his space
advantage.
13 'il'el
1 3 'ii'd3 does not prevent 13 ... b5,
since 14 'ii'xb5 'ii'xb5 15 ltJxb5
ltJxe4 is not in his interests. How­
=
ever in the game De Firmian­
Vescovi, Bermuda 1995, Black pre­
ferred 1 3 ...'ii'a 5?! and after 14 a3
lDh5 1 5 g4 ltJf6 16 �g2 followed
by b2-b4 White obtained a great
space advantage.
13 ... b5 14 a3 aS 15 l:td1 a4
After 1 5 ...b4 16 axb4 axb4 1 7
liJd5 the e4 pawn is immune
( 1 7 ...ltJxe4? 1 8 ti:)b6 1:.c7 1 9 ltJxd7
l:txd7 20 ii..d5), and White's advan­
tage is obvious.
16 ii..a2 b4 17 ltJd5 bxa3 18
ltJxf6+ ii..xf6 19 l:td5 e5 20 l:txd6
exf4 21 l:txf6!
In the game Klundt-Kapengut,
Ybbs 1 968, 2 1 ii..x f4? was played
and after 2 l . ..'ifc5+ 22 ..t>h 1 ii..e6
Black obtained the advantage.
21 ... fxe3 22 'il'xe3 axb2 23 ltJg5
ltJb4 24 ii..xti+
Or 24 ii..b 1 a3 ! .
24...'iPg7 25 'ii'd4 'it>h6 with a
complicated position (I.Boleslavsky,
V.Korchnoi).
13Ab2
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 ii..c4 ii..g7 7
h3 0-0 8 ii..e3 ltJc6 9 ii..b3 ii..d7 10
0-0 'ii'a5 1 1 f4 1:ac8)
12 'il'O

This development of the queen is
characteristic for the f2-f4 scheme:
from this square it is best able to or­
ganise an attack on the king's flank.
The drawback of developing the
queen on f3 is the possibility of its
being shadowed by a bishop on c6.
12 .....h5
Here 1 2 ... tt:lxd4 1 3 .i.xd4 .i.c6 is
not so effective. For example: 1 4
l:tad l b 5 1 5 •e3 b4 1 6 e 5 (or 1 6
tt:ld5 .i.xd5 1 7 exd5 Janosevic­
Kagan, Netanya 1971) 16 ...tt:le8 1 7
tt:le4 .i.xe4 1 8 •xe4 e 6 1 9 c 3 dxe5
20 fxe5 with a positional advantage
for White, Hector-Wilder, Cannes
1 989.
13 tt:lxc6
The best way of driving away the
queen. On 1 3 _.f2, with an indirect
attack on the a7 pawn, Black coun­
terattacks by 1 3 ...b5! 14 a3 (or 1 4
tt:ldxb5 tt:lxe4 1 5 tt:lxe4 •xb5 1 6
tt:lg3 a S 1 7 a4 �4 with a double­
edged game, Byrne-Stein, Saraievo
1 967) 1 4 ... a5 1 5 tt:lde2 a4 1 6 �g3
•h4 1 7 .i.a2 b4 and Black has
counterplay on the queen's flank,
Tseshkovsky-Kapengut, Odessa
1968.
13 ....i.xc6! 14 g4
After 14 .i.xa7 •xf3 1 5 gxf3
tt:lh5 16 .i.e3 .i.xc3 1 7 bxc3 .i.b5 1 8
life I l:.xc3 an equal endgame is
Variations with 6 .i.c4 83
reached, Reverby-Ansel, New York
1 993.
14....a5 15 l:.ad 1 ! b5 16 g5 tt:ld7
17 f5! .i.xc3?!
Stronger was 17 ... gxf5 ! 18 �5
.i.xc3 ! 1 9 g6! tt:lf6 20 �6 .i.xe4 2 1
bxc3 •xc3 22 �h2 f4 with a com­
plex game.
18 bxc3 tt:les 19 •r4 tt:lc4 20
.i.d4 and White's position is prefer­
able, Kamsky-Anand, Sanghi Nagar
(m/6) 1 994.
13Ac
(1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 .i.c4 .i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 .i.e3 tt:lc6 9 .i.b3 .i.d7 10
o-o •as 1 1 f4)
l l ...•h5
By offering a queen exchange,
Black wants to solve his opening
problems at once ( 1 2 •xh5 tt:lxh5
= ) while on any refusal he will
,
quickly get his a- and b-pawns mov­
ing. However on h5 the queen is
quite vulnerable.
12 tt:lf3!
Apparently the best. On 1 2 •d3
there is the interesting pawn sacri­
fice 1 2 ...b5 ! .
84 Variations with 6 J..c4
Accepting the sacrifice leads to an
unpleasant situation for White: I 3
lDdxbS lDb4 I 4 _.c4 a S and ...l:.ac8,
or 13 lDcxbS lDb4 I4 _.c4 aS I S
lDc7 ltac8 I 6 c3 d S with material
gain for Black. But also after the re­
jection of the sacrifice Black does
not have an easy game.
I ) I 3 a4 b4 (possible is I 3 ...lDb4
I4 'ii'd2 bxa4 I S J..xa4 J..xa4 I 6
ltxa4 a S ) I 4 lDdS lDxdS I S J..xdS
= (Bonsch) .
.l:.ac8 and Black's piece activity
increases sharply, Grabzewski­
T.Georgadze, Lublin I 974.
2) 13 a3 a6 I 4 lDf3 ltac8 I S ltadi
.!L!aS I6 eS dxeS I 7 fxeS J..fS I 8
_.d4 .!Lld7 and White's position
assumes an unstable character, De
Firmian-Whitehead, San Francisco
I977.
3) I3 .l:aei aS I4 a3 (also here it
is unfavourable to take the pawn: I 4
.!LldxbS .!Llb4 I S _.e2 'ii'xe2 I 6 l:.xe2
.!Llxe4 +) I4 ...b4 I S .!Llxc6 J..xc6 I 6
axb4 axb4 I 7 .!L!dS .!LlxdS I 8 exdS
J..d7 I9 J..d4! (it is necessary to ex­
change the threatening bishop, in
the game Short-Kamsky, Linares
(m/2) I 994, White played I 9 J..f2 ?!
and after I9 ... .l:r.fe8 20 ltb i WfS he
begins to experience serious diffi­
culties) I9 ...�bS ! 20 _.xbS (or 20
J..c4 J..xc4 2 I _.xc4 ltfc8 22 _.xb4
ltab8 23 Wa4 J..xd4+ 24 _.xd4
ltxc2 +) 20 ...J..xd4+ 2 I �h I Wh4
with rather better chances for Black.
12 ...b5! 13 aJ a5 14 _.dJ
Also seen is the preliminary I 4
.!L!d s J..e6 ( 1 4 . . ..!Llxe4? leads to ma­
terial loss: I S .!Llb6 .l:ad8 I 6 .!L!xd7
ltxd7 I 7 J..dS) I S _.d3 a4 I 6
.!Llxf6+ J..x f6 I 7 J..xe6 fxe6 I 8 c3
ltab8 I9 'iti>h2 and the threat of
g2-g4 forces Black to make posi­
tional concessions: I9 . . .dS 20 eS
J..h8 2 I g4 ..h6 22 .!LlgS .!Lld8 23
'iVd4, which obviously favours
White, Vujadinovic-Todorovic,
Kladovo I 992.
14...a4
I 4 ...b4 also leads to an interesting
game. Let's look at the possible
variations.
I ) I S .!Lle2 bxa3 I6 .!Llg3 axb2
(weak is I 6 ....!Llb4? I 7 .!LlxhS .!Llxd3
I 8 .!Llxf6+ J..xf6 I 9 cxd3 axb2 20
lta3 ±) I 7 .!LlxhS bxa I 'if I 8 .l:xa I
=
lDxhS I 9 c3 with a complex game
2) I S axb4 axb4 I6 ltxa8 .l:r.xa8 I 7
.!L!dS with some initiative for White.
15 J..d 5!
After IS J..a2 b4 the game is
even.
15 ....!L!xd5
This exchange leads to a type of
structure where Black is cramped
and for all practical purposes con­
fined to passivity. In this line Black
would have a more dynamic posi­
tion after I S . . . e6! ? I6 J..xc6 �xc6
I 7 .!Lld4 (or I 7 J..d4 ;t) I 7 ...J..b7 I 8
fS though even here White is in pos­
session of the initiative, Gi.Garcia­
Zamora, New York I 994.
16 exd5
After I 6 .!LlxdS .l:ab8 (weaker is
I6 ...J..xb2? I 7 l:lab I J..g7 I 8 .!Llb6
lta7 I9 ltbS ±) I 7 .!Lld4 l:.fe8 I 8
lDxc6 J..xc6 I 9 .!Llxe7+ l:.xe7 20
'iVxd6 l:.be8 2I _.xc6 l:.xe4 the ac­
tivity of the black pieces fully com­
pensates for the sacrificed pawn
(Bonsch).

16 ...ltJa5 17 i.d4
The game J.Polgar-Kamsky, Bue­
nos Aires 1994, reached this sharp
position where after I 7 . . .'ith6?! I 8
.:ae I l:tfe8 I 9 ltJxb5 Black did not
obtain compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn. More logical was
17 ... ltJc4 18 i.xg7 �xg7 19 l:tfel
l:tfe8 and it is not easy to expose the
defects in Black's position.
13B
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJcJ g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 i.eJ ltJc6 9 i.b3 i.d7 10
0-0 WaS)
11 llel
In the first instance a prophylactic
move, preventing Black's plan. For
Variations with 6 il.c4 85
example, there is no particular point
in the exchange I I ...lllxd4 I 2 Jl..xd4
after which I 2 ... e5?! is not good be­
cause of I 3 i.e3 i.c6 I4 1i'xd6!
ltJxe4 15 ltJxe4 i.xe4 16 i.d2 1i'd8
I 7 1i'xd8 l:.fxd8 1 8 i.g5 ! with a dif­
ficult endgame for Black, while on
1 2 ... i.c6 possible is 1 3 ltJd5 since
the e4 pawn is defended and after
1 3 ...i.xd5 I4 exd5 l:tfe8 I 5 c3
White's position is preferable.
It is necessary to mention that the
thrust ltJc3-d5 represents the
leitmotiv of the variation, since if
the knight is exchanged the rook e I
becomes active.
l l l:.ac8
.•.
I l ... l:.fe8 is a radical way to com­
bat the manoeuvre ltJc3-d5. Then on
I 2 1i'e2, Black has a good reseonse
in I 2 ...1i'h5 ! 1 3 ltJf3 llle5 I4 lllxe5
1i'xe5 with roughly equal chances,
Ree-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1 976
But worth considering is I2 'ii'd3
with the idea I 2 ...ltJe5 1 3 1i'e2 and
f2-f4 is threatened, while after
1 2 ...ltJxd4 1 3 i.xd4 i.c6 I4 llad i
l:tad8 1 5 1i'e3 b6 16 ltJd5 ltJxd5 1 7
exd5 White has the advantage, Tal­
Seibold, Germany 199 1 .
Also possible is an immediate 1 2
f4 with the threat to advance the e­
pawn, while after 1 2 . . . ltJxd4 1 3
i.xd4 e 5 1 4 fxe5 dxe5 1 5 i.e3 i.e6
1 6 1i'f3 a6 1 7 :n 'ifc7 1 8 l:.f2 b5
19 i.g5 ltJh5 20 liJd5 Black starts to
have problems in the centre,
Grunfeld-N.Nikolic, Belgrade GMA
1 988.
Also 1 1 ...1i'h5 has its own prob­
lems: 1 2 1i'xh5 ltJxh5 1 3 l'lad 1
ltJxd4 14 i.xd4 and, in connection
with the threat ltJc3-d5, he has to
lose a tempo on the retreat 1 4...ltJf6,
since 14 ... ltJf4? 15 i.xg7 'l;xg7 1 6
e 5 i.c6 1 7 exd6 exd6 1 8 f3 creates
trouble for the d6 pawn, Dobos­
Diamant, Hungary 1992.
86 Variations with 6 Jl.c4
1 2 'Wd2
Threatening the manoeuvre
lZ:ld4xc6 and lZ:lc3-d5. Playing an
immediate 12 lZ:ld5 l:lfe8 (or
l 2 ...'Wd8 1 3 lZ:lb5 lZ:lxd5 14 exd5
lZ:\a5 1 5 lZ:ld4 b5 1 6 c3 lieS I 7 lZ:lc2
'Wc7 1 8 Jl.d4 with some initiative
for White, Henning_�-Kapengut,
Lublin 1 973) 1 3 Ji.d2 'it'c5 14 ll:lf3
lZ:lxd5 1 5 exd5 lZ:la5 16 Jl.e3 gives
White the rather better prospects,
L.Bronstein-Kagan, Rio de Janeiro
(izt) 1979.
Also possible is 12 'Wd3, on
which 12 ... lZ:\e5?! is not good be­
cause of 1 3 'We2 b5? 14 a4! b4 1 5
lZ:ld5 .l:lfe8 1 6 lZ:lb5 lZ:lc6 1 7 .l:lad 1 !
with advantage to White, Ljubo­
jevic-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1976,
but also on the better 12 ...lZ:lxd4 1 3
Jl.xd4 Jl.c6 with the idea ...lZ:lf6-d7,
White's chances are preferable.
12 .....l:lfe8 13 lZ:lf3 a6
Worth considering is the immedi­
ate l 3 ... b5!?.
14 .l:ladl b5 15 Ji.h6 Ji.h8
Or 1 5 ... lZ:ld8 16 lZ:ld4 l:c5 1 7 a3
Jl.xh6 1 8 'ii'xh6 .l:lh5 1 9 'iff4 lZ:\e6
20 Jl.xe6 Jl.xe6 2 1 g4 with an at­
tacking position for White, Tal­
Cu.Hansen, Reykjavik 1 986.
16 lZ:lg5 lZ:\e5 17 f4 lZ:lc4 18 e5!
The game Jansa-Watson, Gausdal
1988, reached this sharp position.
White's initiative looks quite
unpleasant and after the poor
1 8 ... lZ:\h5? 1 9 'iff2! he developed a
dangerous attack. V.Jansa recom­
mends 18 ... b4 19 lZ:lce4 lZ:lxe4 20
.l:lxe4 Jl.e6! 21 Jl.xc4 Jl.xc4 22 b3,
but even here White's chances are
preferable.
Line 14
(1 e4 c5 2 lZ:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lZ:lxd4 lZ:lf6 5 lZ:lc3 g6 6 Jl.c4 Jl.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 Jl.e3 lZ:\c6)
9 0-0
9 ...lZ:lxe4
A consistent reply, liquidating
White's centre. After 9 . . . a6 White,
if he does not want to lead the game
into variations looked at above after
1 0 Ji.b3, could leave the bishop on
the king's flank-1 0 lle 1 lZ:\a5 1 1
Jl.fl , though, as before, Black can
exploit the c4 square. For example:
1 l ...Ji.d7 12 lZ:ld5 :lc8 13 c3 ll:lc4
1 4 Jl.xc4 .l:lxc4 1 5 Jl.g5 lZ:lxd5 1 6
exd5 Jl.xd4 1 7 cxd4 f6 1 8 Jl.h6 .l:le8
1 9 'Wd3 llb4 with equal chances,
Todorovic-Markovic, Yugoslavia
1989.
10 Jl.xti+
10 lZ:lxe4 d5 does not create par­
ticular problems for Black. For
example: 1 1 lZ:lxc6 bxc6 12 Ji.d3

dxe4 1 3 .txe4 'i'c7 14 c3 l:lb8 1 5
'iVe2 .te6 1 6 l:lfd 1 l:lb5 1 7 l:ld2
.!:tfb8 18 .i.d3 l:ld5 with an even
game, Eismont-Seres, Eger 1 993.
Now Black can take the bishop in
two ways:
14A: 10 .. Jhti
14B: 10 ...�xti
14A
(1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 .tc4 .tg7 7
h3 0-0 8 .te3 tt:lc6 9 0-0 tt:lxe4 10
.txti+)
10 ... l:lxti 1 1 tt:lxe4
1 1 ...h6
This move was introduced into
practice by E.Pigusov. Black pre­
pares a refuge for his king.
Also worth considering is the plan
to form a pawn centre:
1 ) 1 l ....i.xd4 1 2 .txd4 d5 1 3 tt:lg3
e5 14 .te3 .te6 1 5 'i'd2 'i'c7 1 6
l:tfe 1 .J:r.e8 1 7 c 3 a6 1 8 .tg5 l:lef8 1 9
l:te2 e4 2 0 c4 tt:le5 2 1 cxd5 .txh3
with a double-edged game, Barlov­
Strikovic, Yugoslavia (ch) 1 989.
2) 1 1 . . .tllxd4 1 2 .i.xd4 e5 (after
1 2 ... .tf5 1 3 tt:lg5 l:lf8 14 c4! h6 1 5
.txg7 �xg7 1 6 tt:le4 White retains
the initiative, Stoica-Makropoulos,
Variations with 6 .i.c4 87
Bucharest 1 983) 13 .tc5 d5 14
tt:lxd6 .te6 15 tllxf7 .txf7 1 6 c3 b6
1 7 .te3 d4 1 8 cxd4 exd4 1 9 .i.f4 d3
20 'i'd2 'i'd4 and Black's active
piece play compensates for the sac­
rificed exchange.
12 c3
Or 1 2 'iVd2 �h7 1 3 llad l 'ir'a5 14
tt:lc3 .td7 15 a3 .!:taf8 16 'i'e2 .i.xd4
1 7 .txd4 tt:lxd4 1 8 .!:txd4 .tc6 and
Black has an equal position,
Watson-Ward, England (ch) 1989.
1 2...�h7
Actually the black king is not
threatened at the moment and so he
could complete his development:
1 2 ....td7 1 3 .l:r.e l 'ifa5 14 'ifb3 "it'a6
1 5 a4 tt:la5 16 'ifa2 tt:lc4 1 7 tlld2
llc8 1 8 tt:lxc4 'ii'xc4 19 'ifxc4 l:txc4
20 a5 a6 2 1 tllc2 l:ta4 with a com­
plicated endgame where Black's
chances are not worse, ]ansa­
Watson, Oslo 1 99 1 .
1 3 'i'b3 d 5 1 4 .l:r.ad1 ? !
H e does not succeed in exploiting
the shadowing of the queen by the
rook. Therefore more logical is 14
tt:lc5 with a complex game.
14 ... tt:la5 15 'ifb4 b6 16 tt:lb3
.ta6 17 l:tfe1 tt:lc4 18 .tel e6 19
tt:lbd2 tt:le5 with the superior game
for Black, whose advantage of the
two bishops reinforces his pawn
centre, Kupreichik-Pigusov, Mos­
cow (GMA) 1 989.
14B
(1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tllf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 .tc4 .tg7 7
h3 0-0 8 .te3 tt:lc6 9 0-0 tt:lxe4 10
.txti+)
10. .'1ti>xti
.
This move was suggested by
A.Wojtkiewicz. Black forms a pawn
centre.
88 Variations with 6 �c4
1 1 ltJxe4 ltJxd4 12 �xd4 e5 13
�e3 d5 14 ltJg3
Nothing is offered by 14 �g5
'it'd? 1 5 lt:)c3 h6 16 �h4 d4 1 7 ltJe4
�g8 (or 1 7 ...'it'c6 1 8 l:.e1 �f5 1 9 f3
.!:tac8 20 c3 �g8 + Jansa-Hellers,
Heming 199 1 ) 1 8 lle 1 b6 1 9 'it'd3
�b7 20 c4 llac8 2 1 �g3 'ii'c6 22 b3
g5 and Black develops a dangerous
attack, Gi.Garcia-Van de Mortel,
Wijk aan Zee 1 996.
14 ... �g8
14 ... d4 leads to a rather forcing
game: 1 5 �d2 �g8 16 ltJe4 'it'b6 1 7
b3 � f5 1 8 lle l llac8 1 9 llc l ! with
chances for both sides.
15 c3 �e6 16 ltJe2!
Threatening to smash the pawn
centre with the break f2-f4. Upon
the passive 1 6 'it'e2 'it'h4 White's
chances are preferable, Petersen­
S.B.Hansen, Copenhagen 1 995.
16...g5! 17 'ii'd 2
There is no particular benefit to be
derived from the h5 square: 1 7 ltJg3
h6 1 8 ltJh5 �h8 and if 1 9 h4, then
1 9 ...'it'd7 ! with the better chances
for Black.
17... h6 18 h4! gxh4 19 �xh6
Worth considering is 19 �g5 !?
�xf6 20 .txf6 'ii'xf6 2 1 f4, saddling
Black with an isolated d5 pawn.
19 ...'it'f6!
Black endeavours to counter the
threat of the break ...f2-f4 in a more
favourable situation. After
1 9 ... �xh6 20 'ii'xh6 'it'f6 2 1 'it'xf6
llxf6 22 f4 he will have problems
with the isolated d5 pawn.
20 �g5
On 20 �xg7 'it'xg7 2 1 f4 there is
2 l . . .h3 ! 22 g3 (22 l:.f2 l:.f6!)
22 ... h2+! 23 <t>xh2 d4! 24 cxd4
�d5, not giving the white king any
peace (A.Shirov).
20.. .'i'g6 21 �xh4 l:.f5!
Black's active piece play fully
compensates for the sacrificed pawn
(the threat is ...l:.f5-h5), Adams­
Shirov, Biel 1 99 l .
Line 15
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 �c4 �g7 7
h3 0-0)
8 0-0
The drawback of the development
of the bishop to c4 (as in the previ­
ous variation from Line 14) is its
unstable position (when the oppor­
tunity arises there is the threat of
...ltJf6xe4) Therefore this plan is
usually adopted in conjunction with
kingside castling and the move
llfl -e 1 or moving away the bishop
8 �b3, which is looked at in Line
1 6B.
After 8 ltJf3, besides the develop­
ment 8 ...ltJc6, Black could choose
7 ...ltJbd7. For example, the game
 Variations with 6 .Jtc4 89

Benjamin-Gufeld, New York 1 9S9, position where Black has sufficient

continued: 9 0-0 a6 10 a4 b6 1 1 counterplay, Zelcic-Habibi, Geneva
'iWe2 .i.b7 1 2 .i.f4 'iWc7 1 3 :re i e6 I 993.
14 llad 1 �e5 1 5 .i.b3 �fd7 and l l a6
...

Black's position is already On I I . ..'i1Va5 good is I 2 �d5 !

preferable. �xd5 ( 1 2 ...�xd4 1 3 .Jtxf6 ±) I 3
8...�c6 �xc6 bxc6 1 4 exd5 cxd5 I 5 .Jtxe7
Also seen is S ... �xe4 9 �xe4 d5 :res I6 .Jtxd5! ( I 6 c3 .Jte5 I 7 .Jtg5
10 �b5 dxc4 (possible is 10 ... a6 1 1 ± Kveinys-Szalanczy, Budapest
1Wxd5 1Wxd5 1 2 .Jtxd5 axb5 with ac­ I 992) I 6 ... .Jtxb2 I 7 1Wf3 .Jte6 I S
ceptable play, Winge-Emst, Sweden :xe6 .Jtxa i 1 9 :e5 ! l:txe7 20 :xe7
19S9) 1 1 'iWxdS :xdS 1 2 �c7 .Jtf5 with a clear advantage to White
1 3 f3 �a6 14 �xaS l:lxaS 1 5 :e 1 (A.Kveinys).
�b4 and Black has active play for 12 �f3 :es 13 lle2 h6 14 .Jte3
the exchange, Kveinis-Kupreichik, bS
Poland 1 99 1 . However the lack of
practical trials so far does not allow
us to give a more accurate evalua­
tion of the capture S ... �xe4. This is
because White also has the reply 9
.Jtxf7!?. Therefore perhaps Black
should prefer to avoid risks and
continue his development.
9 :e1
The continuation 9 .Jte3 leads to a
position examined in Line 14.
9....Jtd7 10 .JtgS
After 10 .Jtb3 Black develops ac­
tive play on the q�een's flank: In this double-edged position
l O. . lDxd4 I I Wxd4 .Jtc6 I 2 'ii'd3
. Black has sufficient resources. For
�d7 I 3 'i1Vg3 a5 I4 a4 �c5 1 5 .Jtd5 example, the game, Zelcic-Tolnai,
1Wb6 I 6 :a2 :acS 1 7 .i.g5 :res 1 S Velden I 994, continued: I 5 a3 :m
'ii'f3 e6 I 9 .Jtxc6 bxc6 20 .Jtf6 e5 16 'ii'd3 �a5 I 7 .Jtd4 �xb3 I S cxb3
with equal chances, Kotronias­ e5 1 9 .Jte3 .Jte6 20 l:ld2 :xc3 2 I
Hoffmann, Munich I 992. bxc3 'ii'a S and Black has good com­
10...l:tc8 pensation for the exchange.
Worth considering is 10 ...�xd4
I I 1Wxd4 �g4 1 2 'ii'd2 �e5 I 3 .Jtb3
:cs I 4 �d5 :es 1 5 c3 .Jtb5 1 6 16
.l:.ad I a5 1 7 .Jtc2 �c4 I S 'ii'c I �b6
and Black holds the balance, (1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Gallagher-Komljenovic, Candas �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .Jtc4 .Jtg7 7
1992. h3 0-0)
11 .Jtb3
After I I �xc6 .Jtxc6 I 2 .Jtb3 h6 8 .Jtb3
I3 .Jth4 e6 I4 f4 'ii'c7 I 5 a4 d5 I 6 A prophylactic retreat of the
e5 �d7 I 7 �e2 �c5 I S a 5 �e4 I 9 bishop, avoiding the threat of
�g3 f5 arises a complicated ...�f6xe4.
90 Variations with 6 ii.c4
8 a6
...
Black prepares an "accelerated
fianchetto" of the second bishop.
The alternative 8 ...b6 9 0-0 ii.b7 1 0
l:le 1 li:Jbd7 1 1 il.g5 h 6 (or 1 l . ..l:.c8
12 lt:Jd5 .l:tc5 13 c3 l:.e8 14 lt:Jf3 'ii'a8
I5 ii.e3 lt:Jxd5 I6 exd5 ii.xd5 I 7
ii.xc5 ii.xf3 1 8 gxf3 lt:Jxc5 i s a very
healthy exchange sacrifice for
Black, De Firmian-Hodgson, Ber­
muda 1 997) 1 2 ii.h4 li:)c5! (also
good is 1 2 ....:.cs 1 3 li)d5 a5 14 c3
e6 1 5 lt:Jxf6+ lt:Jxf6 16 'ii'd3 .l:tc7 1 7
.:.ad 1 'ii'a 8 1 8 ii.c2 lt:Jd7 1 9 f4 lt:Jc5
= Vertici-Geller, Moscow GMA
1 989) 1 3 ii.d5 (here already on 1 3
lt:Jd5 possible i s 1 3 ... g5 1 4 li:)xf6+
ii.xf6 1 5 ii.g3 lt:Jxe4; in the game
Socko-Macieja, Zagan I 997, White
limited himself to 13 f3 a6 1 4 'i'd2,
but after 14 . . . e5! 1 5 ii.xf6 ii.xf6 1 6
lt:Jde2 il.g5 17 'ii'd 1 lt:Jxb3 1 8 axb3
'ii'c7 19 li:)d5 i.xd5 20 exd5 b5 the
mitlative passed to Black)
1 3 . . .lt:Jxd5 14 exd5 l:te8 1 5 'ii'd2
'i'd7 16 a4 ( I 6 .:.e3 li:)a4 ! +)
16 ...l:tac8 1 7 l:te3 with an unex­
plored position (B.Macieja).
9 0-0 bS 10 .:.et
Defending the pawn. Activity by
I O lt:Jd5 is premature: I O ... ii.b7 1 1
li:)xf6+ ii.xf6 1 2 ii.h6 .:.e8 l 3 .:.e 1
lt:Jd7 (or 1 3 ...'ii'c8 1 4 c3 lt:Jc6 1 5
lt:Jxc6 ii.xc6 1 6 'ii'f3 a5 = Jansa­
Pekarek, Namestovo 1 987) 14 c3
lt:Jc5 1 5 ii.d5 'ii'd7 16 'ii'f3 b4 1 7
.:.ad 1 bxc3 1 8 bxc3 .:.ac8 and Black
has the advantage in view of the
weakness of the c3-pawn, Jansa­
Kir.Georgiev, Malmo 1 987.
After 10 a4 b4 1 1 lt:Jd5 e6?!
( 1 1 ...ii.b7 would be more careful)
1 2 lt:Jxf6+ ii.xf6 I 3 ii.h6 l:.e8 and
Black has problems defending the
d6 pawn. The game Short-Mestel,
London 1986, continued I4 'ii'd2
'ii'h6 1 5 l:.ad 1 ii.b7 16 lt:Jxe6! and
Black landed in a critical position.
However he could have played
10 ... ii.b7, which after I I l:le 1 leads
to a position looked at below. But
worth considering is 1 I axb5 ! ?
lt:Jxe4 1 2 lt:Jxe4 ii.xe4 13 l:le 1 .
l O iL.b7
...
l l iL.gS
Also seen is the undermining 1 1
a4.
1) 1 l . ..li:Jbd7 12 axb5 axb5 l 3
llxa8 'ii'xa8 1 4 lt:Jdxb5 lt:Jxe4 1 5
lt:Jd5 ! (or 1 5 lt:Jxe4 ii.xe4 1 6 lt:Jc7
'ii'b7 1 7 ii.d5 ii.xd5 1 8 lt:Jxd5 ;!;
Stoica-Martin Gonzalez, Dubai (ol)
1 986) 1 5 ...lt:Jdf6 1 6 lt:Jxe7+ �h8 1 7
lt:Jc7 'ii'a5 1 8 lt:Jcd5 with an extra
pawn for White, Elseth-Jeger,
Norway 1 990.
2) l l . ..bxa4 I2 ii.xa4 'ii'c7 l 3
il.g5 lt:Jbd7 1 4 lt:Jd5 (or 1 4 ii.xd7
'ii'xd7 1 5 li:Jb3 .:.ac8 = Pekarek­
Emst, Dortmund 1 992) 1 4 ... lt:Jxd5
1 5 exd5 lt:Je5 1 6 lt:Jc6 ii.xc6 I 7 dxc6
 Variations with 6 i.c4 91

e6 1 8 i.f4 l:f.fd8 1 9 i.xe5 i.xe5 lt:'lf6 1 8 i.e3? (necessary was 1 8

with equal chances, Jo.Horvath­
Sehner, Budapest 1987
3) 1 l ...lt:'lc6 12 lt:'lxc6 i.xc6 1 3
axb5 axb5 14 l:f.xa8 'ii'xa8 1 5 lt:'ld5
i.xd5 16 exd5 'ii'b7 1 7 c3 l:.e8 1 8
i.xf6 i.xf6 1 9 h4 with the idea of
lt:'lf3-g5) 1 8 ...l:.xd5 ! 1 9 i.xd5 i.xd5
20 lt:'lh4 i.xa2 and Black's light­
squared bishop has no opposition.
l4 l:.e8 15 lt:'lf3 'ii'a8 16 l:.ad1
...

i.e3 lt:'ld7 1 9 i.d4 lt:'le5 and Black

holds the balance, Jansa-Khalifrnan,
Germany 1 99 1 .
l l ...lt:'lbd7 1 2 lt:'ld5 .l:tc8
After 1 2 ...l:.e8 1 3 c3 lt:'lxd5 1 4
exd5 ! ? Black gets into a cramped
position, whereas 1 4 i.xd5 'ii'c7 1 5
a4 bxa4 1 6 l:.xa4 lt:'lc5 allows him to
display activity on the queen's
flank, Klundt-Watson, Kecskemet
1 988.
l3 c3 l:.c5
Also possible is 13 ...l:.e8 14 f3
lt:'lxd5 1 5 i.xd5 'ii'b6 16 i.xb7
'ii'xb7 1 7 lt:'lc2 lt:'lb6 1 8 lt:'le3 lt:'lc4, l6...a5
with an equal game, Kholmov­ After 16 ... lt:'lxd5 17 exd5 lt:'lf6 he
Watson, Sochi 1 988. can continue 18 i.xf6 i.xf6 19 lt:'lg5
14 'ii'd 2 i.xg5 20 1Wxg5 e5 !? and Black rids
This is more accurate than 14 himself of the backward pawn (2 1
'it"d3 l:.e8 15 lt:'lf3 1Wa8 and by a 'ii'f6 'ii'd8).
transposition of moves there arises a 17 a3 i.xd5 18 exd5 lt:'lb6 1 9
position from the game Hector­ i.e3 lt:'lc4 2 0 i.xc4 l:.xc4 with equal
Tiviakov, Stockholm 1 990, which chances, Piper-Tiviakov, Oakham
continued: 16 l:f.ad 1 lt:'lxd5 17 exd5 1 990.
 4 : Variations with 6 i.. g5
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 g6)
6 .tg5 .tg7
In 1 936, when still in the proto­
type stage of developing a plan of
att3:ck against the Sicilian Dragon,
Vsevolod Rauzer placed the dark­
squared bishop on the more active
g5 square. However, when it be­
came clear that then the knight on
d4 was insufficiently defended,
Rauzer changed to developing the
bishop on e3 .
Modem masters more often link
the move 6 .ig5 to a development
of the queen on e2 in order to pre­
pare a break in the centre with f2-f4
and e4-e5. Upon this White does
without the move f2-f3, characteris­
tic for the Rauzer Attack formation.
Let's look at both directions of play:
7 'ii'd 2 Line 1 7
- In the game Rauzer-Ragozin,
7 .ib5+-Line 1 8
Line 1 7
( 1 e4 c 5 2 ltJO d 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4
lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 g6 6 .tg5 .tg7)
7 'ii'd 2
White prepares queenside cas­
tling. This allows Black to exploit
the insufficiently defended knight
on d4.
7 ... lt:lc6 8 0-0-0
Sometimes he moves the knight
beforehand with 8 lt:lb3 0-0 and
only then plays 9 0-0-0. Incidentally
we should mention that after an ex­
change of the dark-squared bishops,
9 .th6 .txh6 1 0 1Wxh6, the queen is
deflected and Black can organise
active play on the queen's flank:
1 0... a5 1 1 a4 .ie6 1 2 .tb5 'ii'b6 1 3
0-0 lt:lb4 1 4 'iVd2 ltac8 1 5 lt:ld4 .tc4
and the chances of the two sides are
equal, G.Kuzmin-Matveeva, Frunze
1 987.
8...0-0
Leningrad 1936, Black played

8 ...lt:)xe4 and after 9 lt:)xe4 lt:)xd4?
IO lt:)f6+! exf6 I I _.xd4 0-0 I 2 ..if4
fS I 3 _.xd6 ..ie6 I4 _.xd8 1:.fxd8
I S 1:.xd8 1:.xd8 I 6 a3 ! White had an
obviously better endgame. But
nevertheless it is not simple.
Stronger was 9 ... ..txd4 1 0 ..tbS ..tg7
I I ..ixc6+ (or I I _.e3 0-0 I 2 ..ixc6
bxc6 1 3 lt:)xd6 .-as with good
counterplay for Black) I l . ..bxc6 I 2
lt:)xd6+!? •xd6 I3 .-as ..txb2+ !
(this is more energetic than
1 3 ....ixd4 I4 1:.xd4 _.xd4 I S l:.d i
'Wb6 I6 .-es f6 I 7 ..txf6 0-0) I4
..ti>xb2 'Wb8+ IS �a I ..ie6 and Black
repulses the threats.
9 lt:)xc6
Also here after 9 ..th6 ..txh6 I 0
_.xh6 Black goes over to a counter­
attack: IO ...lt:)xd4 I I 1:.xd4 eS !? I 2
l:td i ..ie6 I3 _.d2 .-as ! I 4 _.xd6
l:tfd8 I S _.a3 'ii'b 6! and now I 6 f3?
is not good because of I 6....-e3+ I7
�bi l:.xd i+ I 8 lt:)xd i _.e i I 9 _.d3
..ic4 ! .
Therefore the fate of the knight d4
must now be decided. White deals
with this in a radical way. The alter­
native is 9 lt:)b3 ..ie6 (after 9 ... a6 I O
f3 lle8! arises the Rauzer Attack
formation; the game G.Kuzmin­
Nadyrhanov, Krasnodar I 998, con­
tinued: I I lt:)dS lt:)xdS I 2 exdS lt:)eS
I3 ..th6 ..th8 I4 h4 _.c7 I S hS lt:)c4
I6 ..ixc4 _.xc4 I 7 llde I eS I 8 l:te4
Variations with 6 ..ig5 93
_.c7 I 9 lleh4 aS 20 hxg6 fxg6 with
chances for both sides; the position
of the knight on b3 allows Black to
play more consistently: I I ...lt:)d7 !?
I 2 h4 aS ! ) I O f3 llc8 when Black
completes the mobilisation of his
pieces and prepares for a counter­
attack on the queen's flank.
I) I I �b i lle8! I 2 g4 lt:)eS I3
..ie2 lt:)fd7 I4 ..ih6 ..ih8 I S h4 lt:)b6
I 6 hS lt:)ec4 1 7 ..ixc4 lt:)xc4 I 8 _.h2
gS! and after devaluing White's
attack Black already threatened
I9 ... lt:)xb2, Panov-Kan, USSR (ch)
I937.
2) I I lt:)dS ..ixdS I 2 exdS lt:)xdS!
(also good is I2 ...lt:)eS) I3 _.xdS
lt:)b4 I 4 _.e4 llxc2+ I S _.xc2 lt:)xc2
I 6 �xc2 _.c8+!. He already has
queen and two pawns for ·rook,
knight and bishop, and the white
king must take a walk, since 1 7
�b I ? drops a piece to I 7. . ..-fS+. It
seems that the knight thrust is more
purposeful after an exchange of
bishops by I I ..th6.
9 ... bxc6 10 eS lt:)e8
The pawn sacrifice I O...lt:)dS I I
lt:)xdS cxdS I 2 exd6 _.xd6 1 3 WxdS
'ii'b6 can boomerang against Black.
For example, the game Geiser­
Gerber, Geneva I 993, continued: I 4
'ii'b3 Wxf2 I S ..ic4 ..ifS I 6 llhfl
Wxg2 I 7 ..ixe7 l:tfb8 I 8 ..ixf7+
�h8 I9 .idS lhb3 20 ..ixg2
..ixb2+ 2 1 �d2 ..ic3+ 22 �e3 llb6
23 l:txfS I -0.
1 1 exd6 lt:)xd6 12 ..ixe7 'ihe7 13
Wxd6 'ii'g5+ 14 'ii'd2 'ii'a5 and the
activity of the black pieces compen­
sated for the sacrificed pawn,
Rauzer-Kan, USSR 1 936.
Line 18
(I e4 c5 2 lt:)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:)xd4 lt:)f6 5 lt:)c3 g6 6 .igS ..ig7)
94 Variations with 6 i.g5
7 i.bS+
White completes his development
with tempo.
7...i.d7
Hardly seen in practice, but appar­
ently possible, is 7 ...li:)bd7 8 'ii'd2 a6
9 i.e2 'ii'c7 with chances for both
sides.
8 'ii'e2
The future play depends on
Black's decision as to which piece
he will force White to exchange his
light-squared bishop for. Therefore
his main continuations are:
ISBa: 8... a6
18Bb: 8...0-0
18Bc: 8 ... li:)c6
After the direct exchange
8 ... i.xb5 9 li:)dxb5 a6 I O li:)d4
White maintains the better chances:
I) I O...li:)c6 I I 0-0-0 li:)d7 ! I 2
i.e3 l:r.c8 I 3 li:)xc6 lhc6 I 4 i.d4
i.xd4 I 5 .:txd4 e5 I6 l:td3 (in the
game Shamkovich-Lisitsin, USSR
(ch) I 954, was played I 6 l:td2? li:)b6
+) I 6...li:)c5 1 7 l:td2 li:)e6 I 8 li:)d5
li:)d4 I 9 1We3 followed by q.,c l-b I
and c2-c3 ;!;.
2) I 0...1i'a5 I I f4 li:)bd7 I 2 0-0-0
h6 1 3 li:)b3 1i'c7 I4 i.xf6 li:)xf6 1 5
e 5 ! and White achieved the advan­
tage, Vitolins-Sher, USSR I 976.
18A
(1 e4 c5 2 lt:)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li:)xd4 li:)f6 5 li:)c3 g6 6 i.g5 i.g7 7
i.b5 i.d7 8 'ii'e2)
8...a6
Gaining a tempo for development,
but this hands over the initiative to
White.
9 i.xd7+ li:)bxd7 10 h4!
After IO 0-0-0 l:r.c8! (this is
stronger than 10 ... 0-0 I I f4 l:c8 1 2
li:)b3 l:txc3 ! ? I 3 bxc3 1Wc7 I 4 lld3
e6 I 5 f5 li:)e5 I6 l:[h3 and White is
on the attack, Vitolins-Alterman,
USSR I 988) I I f4 l:r.xc3! I 2 bxc3
1i'c7 1 3 l:[hei h6 I4 i.h4 0-0 I 5
1We3 l:.c8 I 6 h3 'ii'c5 Black takes
over the tmttattve, Masserey­
Hoffman, Biel I 994.
I O .:cs
•.•
Also worthy of consideration is
I O... h6, clearing up the position of
the bishop. For example, in the
game Giaccio-Hoffman, Buenos
Aires I993, after 1 1 i.xf6 li:)xf6 I 2
0-0-0 1Wa5 1 3 f4 l:tc8 I 4 e5?! ( I 4
li:)b3 is safer) I 4. . .dxe5 I 5 fxe5
ll)d5 I6 1Wg4 .:xc3 ! Black devel­
oped a strong attack. But it is more
logical to retain the bishop by I I
i.e3.
1 1 l:[h3!

Preventing the exchange sacrifice
on c3 .
ll h5 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 <li>b1 e6
...
14 lt:)b3 llc6 15 f4 '6'c7 16 l::t hd3
b5?!
A blank shot. 1 6 . . .1lc8 !? ;!; is more
solid.
17 a3 l:.c8 18 l:.ld2! with the
threat of piling up the heavy pieces
on the d-file, after which the weak­
ness of the d6 pawn is greatly felt,
A.Frolov-Palkovi, Hungary 1 990.
18B
(1 e4 c5 2 lt:)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt'lxd4 lt:)f6 5 lt:)c3 g6 6 .i.g5 .i.g7 7
.i.b5+ .i.d7 8 'ife2)
8 . 0-0
. .
9 0-0-0 '6'a5
This manoeuvre is sometimes em­
ployed after the exchange of a pair
of pieces, 9 ... .i.xb5 1 0 lt:)dxb5
-I0 ...'6'a5 1 I f4 lt:)c6 I 2 <t>b i a6
( 1 2 . . . l::tfc8 allows White to carry out
a breakthrough in the centre: I 3 e5
dxe5 I4 fxe5 lt:)eS 1 5 lt:)d5 a6 I 6
lt:)a3 b 5 I 7 e6 ± Ennenkov-Glienke,
Berlin 1987) 1 3 lt:)d4 lt:)xd4 14
.!:.xd4 h6 with the idea of I5 .i.h4
lt:)h5. Also worth considering is the
Variations with 6 .i.g5 95
Qreliminary I 0. . . a6, since 11
lllxd6?! does not work because of
I l .. .exd6 I2 e5 lieS ! +.
In Zhukhov-Nadyrhanov, Novo­
rossiysk I 996, White took with the
queen, 1 0 'ifxb5, when after
I O... lt:)c6! 1 1 lt:)b3 (on 1 1 '6'xb7
Black counterattacks by 1 I ...lt:)xd4
I 2 11xd4 llb8! 1 3 '6'xa7 l:r.a8! I 4
'6'b7 '6'a5 !-Nadyrhanov) more ac­
curate than 1 1 ...'ii'c8 1 2 .i.xf6 .i.xf6
I 3 �5 �g7 I4 f4 ;!; maintaining
the initiative, is I I ...llc8 ! ?.
10 �b1
On the more natural IO f4,
preparing e4-e5, Black commences
energetic counterplay.
I ) I O ... a6 I I .i.xd7 lt:)bxd7 I 2
.l:[he 1 11ac8 I 3 lt:)b3 '6'b4 14 e5?
(necessary was I4 a3 !) I4 ... 11xc3 !
I 5 bxc3 '6'a3+ I 6 �b i lt:)b6 with a
dangerous attack for Black,
Grigorov-A.Kovacevic, Belgrade
I989.
2) I O....i.g4!? (an attempt to take
over the initiative) I I lt:)f3 lt:)c6 I 2
'itb I lt:)h5 1 3 lt:)d5 e6 I 4 .i.xc6 bxc6
I 5 '6'd2 ( I 5 lt:)e7+? 'ith8 I6 lt:)xc6
loses after 16 ...'iVb6 I 7 lt:)cd4 .i.xf3)
I5 ... '6'xd2 16 lt:)e7+ �h8 I7 11xd2
h6 1 8 .i.h4 lt:)xf4 and Black
achieves a material advantage,
Yurtaev-Petrakov, Kstovo I 994.
10 ...a6 1 1 .i.xd7 'ii'xg5 12 h4
'6'a5
Risky is I 2 ...'6'e5 13 .i.h3 lt:)c6?
after which the queen is in danger:
I4 lt:)b3 b5 I 5 g3 b4 I 6 f4 '6'h5 I 7
g4! '6'xh4 1 8 llla4 and the queen
cannot get out without great
material loss, Schula-Fiedler, Czech
Republic 1 993.
13 .i.h3 lt:)c6 14 lt:)b3 '6'c7 15 f4
b5 16 lt:)d5 lt:)xd5 17 exd5 lt:)a5 and
Black is not worse, Blodstein­
A.Fedorov, Voskresensk I993.
96 Variations with 6 i..g5
18C
(1 e4 c5 2 .!LJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.!LJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 i..g5 i.. g7 7
i..b5+ i..d7 8 'iVe2)
8...lLlc6
This move allows White, after an
exchange of knights, to carry out the
break e4-e5.
9 0-0-0 0-0
Or 9 ...l:lc8 1 0 i..xc6 bxc6 1 1 f4
0-0 1 2 e5 dxe5 1 3 fxe5 lLld5 14
lLlxd5 cxd5 and here in the game
Ghinda-Sax, Malta (ol) 1 980, in­
stead of the solid 1 5 l:lhfl , White
provoked an attack upon himself: 1 5
e6? fxe6 1 6 lLlxe6 'iVb6 1 7 lLlxg7
l:lf2! +.
9 ...lLlxd4 10 l:lxd4 'iVa5 is
insufficient to maintain parity after
1 1 e5 ! i.. xb5 1 2 'iVxb5+ 'iVxb5 1 3
lLlxb5 dxe5 1 4 lLlc7+ �f8 1 5 l:lb4
l:lc8 (defending the pawn by
1 5 ... l:lb8 fails to 1 6 lLla6 lLid5 1 7
l:lb5 l:lc8 1 8 l:lxb7 ± Hartmann­
Hauer, Germany 1985) 16 l::txb7 a5
1 7 %:td1 lLle4 1 8 i..e3 .!LJd6 19 ::ta7
lLlc4 20 i..c5 and the activity of the
white pieces does not allow Black to
complete his development without
material loss, Vitolins-Yurtaev,
Frunze 1979.
10 i..xc6 bxc6 11 e5 dxe5
1 l .. .'ii'a 5? loses a piece to 1 2 lLlb3
1 -0 Lakos-Lipp, Balatonbereny
1 995.
1 2 lLlxc6 'iVe8 13 lLlxe5 i..e6 14
l:the1 l:lc8
Worthy of attention is 14 ...'iVc8 !?
followed by ...l:la8-b8.
15 'iVa6 %:tc5
White remains with the initiative
after 1 5 ....:tc7 16 lL!b5 .:tc5 1 7 lLld4
i..d5 1 8 lLlb3 i..xb3 19 axb3 'iVb8
20 i..x f6 i..xf6 2 1 lLld7 ! 'iVxb3 22
lLlxf6+ exf6 23 .:te2 l:tfc8 24 'iVxc8+
l:lxc8 25 .:td8+ l:lxd8 26 cxb3 with a
rather better endgame for White,
Vitolins-Mortensen, Riga 1 98 1 .
16 f4 'iVa8 1 7 .:td2 :res 18 l::te d1
h6 19 i.. h4 lLle4 20 lLlxe4 'iVxe4
with chances for both sides,
Hamdouchi-Garcia Lopez, Alicante
1 992.
 5 : Levenfish Attack: 6 f4
(l e4 c5 2 ltJt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJd4 lLif6 5 ltJc3 g6)
6 f4
Initially this system was worked
out by grandmaster Grigory Leven­
fish. White endeavours to take the
initiative with e4-e5. What does
Black do against this? The main
continuations are:
6 i.g7-Line I 9
.•.
6 . ltJc6---Line 20
. .
6...ltJbd7-Line 2 I
Line 1 9
(l e4 c 5 2 ltJ O d 6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 lLif6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 f4)
6...i.g7 - with a strong attack for White,
Black allows the advance of the
e-pawn.
7 e5
Other continuations are not so
consistent and allow Black to obtain
a satisfactory game:
I ) 7 i.b5+ t2Jfd7!? (in White's fa­
vour is 7 ...i.d7 8 e5 dxe5 9 fxe5
ltJg4 IO e6 i.xb5 1 1 exf7+ �xf7 I 2
Wf3+ lLif6 1 3 ltJdxb5 ±) 8 i.e3 0-0
9 0-0 (or 9 i.e2 ltJc6 1 0 0-0 ltJb6 )
=
9 ... a6 IO i.e2 ltJc6 I I �hi ltJc5
(striving for an attack on the e4
pawn; less convincing is I I ...ltJxd4
I 2 i.xd4 i.xd4 I 3 'it'xd4 b5 I4 a4
bxa4 I 5 .l:txa4 i.b7 I 6 l:.fa i and
White has some initiative on the
queen's flank, Hiibner-Vatter,
Germany I985) I 2 'ii'd2 i.d7 and
after ... b7-b5 Black has sufficient
counterplay.
2) 7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 'Wb6! 9 i.e3
Wxb2? I 0 'ii'd3 'Wb4 I I e5 ! dxe5 I 2
fxe5 ltJg4 1 3 i.xg4 i.xg4 I 4 l:.f4 !
Beliavsky-Kupreichik, USSR I 975.
Necessary was 9 ...ltJc6, transposing
98 Levenfish Attack 6/4
play to the variation 6 .ie2 .ig7 7
.ie3 lLlc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 'iib6 (Line
28).
7 iL!hS
...
The possibility of this move is
based on tactics: 8 g4? lL!xf4. Black
leaves White with worries over the
pawn tension since he cannot main­
tain the pawn on e5.
The other retreat of the knight is
weaker: 7 ... lLlg4 8 .ib5+! �f8 9 h3
lLlh6 I O .ie3 lLlc6 I I exd6! lLlxd4
I 2 .ixd4 'ifxd6 I3 .ixg7+ �xg7 I4
'ifxd6 exd6 I5 0-0-0 and White has
an obvious advantage because of the
weakness of the d6 pawn,
Levenfish-Rabinovich, USSR (ch)
1939, or 7 ...iL!fd7 8 e6! iLlf6 9 exf7+
�xf7 10 .ic4+ d5 I I .ib3 l:.f8 I 2
'iff3 e6 I 3 .ie3 �g8 I 4 0-0-0 with
an attacking position for White.
But the inclusion of the premature
exchange 7 ... dxe5 8 fxe5 changes
matters: 8 ...lLlfd7 (also here
8 ...lLlg4? is no good because of 9
.ib5+: now 9 .. .'it>f8? loses at once to
1 0 lLle6+, with the well-known
'mechanism' 9 ...lLlc6 IO lLlxc6
'ifxd I + I I lL!xd I a6 I 2 .ia4 .id7
not allowing Black to avoid material
loss after 1 3 h3 iLlh6 I4 lLlxe7) 9 e6
lLle5! I O .ib5+ lLlbc6 (also possible
is IO ...lLlec6 I I exfl+ �f8 I 2 lLlxc6
'Wxd I 1 3 lLlxd I lL!xc6 I4 c3 .ie6 I 5
0-0 .if6 I 6 iL!f2 �fl with an equal
endgame, Dzhafarov-Guseinov,
corr. 1 975) I I exfl+ �xfl 1 2 0-0+
.if6 1 3 lLlxc6 (or 1 3 .ixc6 lLlxc6 1 4
lLlxc6 'ii'xd 1 1 5 lLlxdi bxc6 I 6 .ig5
.ia6 with a defensible position)
1 3 ...bxc6 14 'ifxd8 l:.xd8 1 5 .ia4
.ia6 16 l:te l c5! and, though
White's pawn structure is better, his
advantage is minimal since the
black pieces are better coordinated.
8 .ibS+ .id7
9 e6
The most consistent. Upon other
continuations Black does not experi­
ence particular problems:
I) 9 'iff3?! dxe5 10 fxe5 .ixe5 1 1
.ie3 .ixb5 1 2 lLlcxb5 'ii'a 5+! 1 3 c3
a6 14 'ifd5 .ixd4 ! 1 5 lLld6+ exd6 1 6
'ii'xa5 .ixe3 and the three pieces
prove stronger than the queen,
B.Vladimirov-Mestel, France 1 974.
2) 9 .ixd7+ 'Wxd7 I 0 exd6 0-0 I I
iL!de2 lLlc6 1 2 0-0 .l:ad8 1 3 f5 'ifxd6
1 4 'ifxd6 :txd6 with equal chances,
Beckmeyer-N.Ristic, Dortmund
I 988.
3) 9 'ife2 .ixb5 (on 9 ... a6 good is
I O .ic4 ! lLlc6 I I lLlxc6 .ixc6 I 2
l:.fl ! ± G.Mittelman) I O iLldxb5!
(nothing is offered by IO 'ifxb5+
'ii'd7 I I lLlf3 lLlc6, with the game
Lederman-Mestel, Beersheva I 988,
continuing I 2 0-0? a6 I 3 'ii'e2 dxe5
I4 fxe5 ll:Jxe5 ! and White loses a
pawn; stronger was I 2 exd6 'ifxd6
1 3 'ifxb7 0-0 I4 0-0 l::tab8, when
Black regains the pawn with a fa­
vourable position) I O ... a6 I I lLla3
dxe5 1 2 fxe5 'i'd4 (weaker is
I 2 ... e6 I3 0-0 'ii'd4+ I4 .ie3 'ifxe5
I 5 lLlc4 ±) 1 3 g4 lLlxf4 I4 .ixf4
'ii'xf4 I 5 iL!d5 'ii'xe5 I6 'ii'xe5 .ixe5
I 7 lLlc4 ;!;= Lederman-Mittelman,
Beer-Sheva I 997.
9 fxe6 10 lLlxe6 .ixc3+ 11 bxc3
...
'ii'c8

On l l ...'ifa5 Y.Kotkov suggests
1 2 i..d2 ! i..xb5 l 3 c4.
12 i..xd7+
Black has an easy game after 1 2
'W'd3 lilc6 l 3 lilg5 i..f5 1 4 'ifd5 h6
1 5 lile4 'W'e6 16 'ifxe6 i..xe6 trans­
posing to an even endgame, Peters­
Mestel, Hastings 1980/8 1 .
1 2...�xd7 1 3 lilgS 'W'xc3+ 14
i..d2 'ifc4 15 l:.b1 b6 16 l:tb4 'W'dS
17 0-0 and the active white pieces,
together with the insecure black
king, give White full compensation
for the sacrificed pawn, Conquest­
Watson, London 1 989.
Line 20
(1 e4 cS 2 lilf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lilxd4 lilf6 S lilc3 g6 6 f4)
6...lilc6
A more logical continuation
which forces White, if he wants to
play e4-e5, to exchange his central­
ised knight.
The main continuations here are:
20A: 7 lilxc6
208: 7 lilf3
208: 7 i.. bS
Levenfish Attack 6f4 99
20A
(1 e4 cS 2 lilf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lilxd4 lilf6 S lilc3 g6 6 f4 lilc6)
7 lilxc6
7 ... bxc6 8 eS
Here Black has the choice be­
tween maintaining the pawn tension
and transferring to the endgame.
20Aa: 8...lild7
20Ab: 8...dxeS
Risky is 8 ...lilg4 9 i..e2 (also in­
teresting is 9 h3 ll:lh6 10 g4 !) 9 ... h5
l 0 h3 ll:lh6 I I i..f 3 'W'b6 1 2 exd6
exd6 l 3 'W'e2+ i..e7 1 4 i..e3 'ifxb2
1 5 �d2 i..f5 1 6 i..xc6+ �f8 1 7
l:thc l with decisive threats for
White, Perelshteyn-Torres, Philadel­
phia 1999.
Also in White's favour is
8 ...i..g4?! 9 i.. e2 i..xe2 10 'W'xe2
dxe5 I I fxe5 lild5 12 e6 f5 (or
l 2 ...f6 13 lilxd5 'W'xd5 14 i..f4 i..g7
1 5 0-0 ± Durao-Piatonov, Cappelle­
la-Grande, 1 995) l 3 lilxd5 'ifxd5 1 4
i..g5 and, by creating an outpost on
d7, White prepares a rook invasion
(M.Euwe).
100 Levenfish A ttack 6 f4
20Aa
(1 e4 c5 2 lt::lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt::l xd4 lt::lf6 5 lt::lc3 g6 6 f4 lt::l c6 7
lt::lxc6 bxc6 8 e5)
8 lt::ld7
...
9 exd6
White saddles Black with hanging
pawns, at the same time preventing
the fianchetto of the bishop. An at­
tack on the c6 pawn looks prema­
ture: 9 'ii'f3 i.g7 (counterattack is
the best defence, although the thrust
9 ...'ii'b6 is not recommended by
theory, being referred to in an old
analysis by Levenfish: I 0 exd6 exd6
I I ..te3 'ii'xb2 12 i.d4 'ii'xa l + 1 3
�d2 l:.g8 14 'ii'xc6 etc; however in
the game Snepvangers-Solleveld,
Holland 1 998, Black played
1 3 ...lt::le5 ! 1 4 fxe5 i.h6+ 1 5 �e2
0-0 1 6 �f2 c5 ! and went over to a
decisive counterattack) 1 0 i.b5 0-0
(also seen is IO ...dxe5 I I i.xc6 l:tb8
1 2 i.e3 llxb2 13 0-0-0 e4! 14 'ii'xe4
i.xc3 ! 1 5 i.xd7+ i.xd7 16 l:txd7
'ii'xd7 1 7 'ii'a8+ l:.b8! and Black
maintains the balance, Gragger­
Honfi, Vienna 196 1 ) I I 'ii'xc6 (also
possible is I I i.xc6 l:tb8 1 2 exd6
exd6 1 3 0-0 lt::lf6 and Black's pieces
develop great activity: 14 lt::le4
i.g4 ! 1 5 lt::lx f6+ i.xf6 1 6 'ii'xg4
'itb6+ 1 7 lith I 'ii'xc6 1 8 f5 i.xb2
Sadovoj-Nesis, corr. 1 982) I l ...l:lb8
1 2 i.e3 ! a6 1 3 i.a4 dxe5 14 0-0-0
'ii'a 5! 1 5 i.b3 (after 1 5 l:txd7?!
i.xd7 16 'ii'xd7 l:tfd8 Black starts
up an attack) 1 5 ... exf4 16 i.xf4
l:txb3 1 7 axb3 'ii'a I + 18 �d2 'ii'xb2
1 9 l:.b I lt::lb 8! 20 'ii'xc8 l:txc8 2 1
l:txb2 i.xc3+ with an endgame
advantage to Black, Bronstein­
Vasiukov, USSR (ch) 1 959.
9 exd6
...
10 i.e3
After 1 0 'ii'd4 lt::lf6 White does not
succeed in carrying out his plans
because of the exposed position of
his queen:
I ) I I b3 i.g7 1 2 i.b2 0-0 l 3
0-0-0 i.g4 ! 14 i.e2?! lt::ld5 1 5
'ii'xg7+ �xg7 16 lt::lxd5+ f6 1 7
i.xg4 cxd5 and White has no com­
pensation for the queen, Timman­
Langeweg, Amsterdam 1974.
2) I I i.e3 i.e7 12 i.e2 0-0 1 3
i. f3 (or 1 3 0-0 c 5 1 4 'ii'd2 d 5 and
Black's pieces will create havoc,
Szabo-Reshevsky, Helsinki (ol)
1 952) I 3 ...d5 I 4 'ii'd2 'ii'a5 I 5 0-0
i.c5 I 6 �h i 1h- 1h Kasparov­
Balashov, Moscow I 98 1 .
3 ) I I i.d3 i._g7 1 2 'ii'e3+ �d7 I 3
0-0 'ii'b6 I 4 'iVxb6 axb6 1 5 i.e3
�c7 with an even endgame, Campa­
Marin, Sevilla I 994
After I O i.e3 Black's main con­
= tinuations are considered to be:

37Aa1 : 10 lbf6
.•.
37Aa2: 10....te7
He does not manage to derive any
benefit from the pinned bishop:
I0 ...1i'e7?! I I Wid4 .ig7! ( I l .. .lbf6
I 2 0-0-0 .ig7 I 3 1i'xd6! 1i'xe3+ I 4
�b i i s in White's favour) I 2 1i'xg7
1i'xe3+ I 3 .ie2 l:r.:ffi I4 l:r.fl .ta6 I 5
l:r.f3 1i'g I + I 6 .tfl .ixfl I 7 0-0-0
1i'xg2 I 8 l:[dfl 0-0-0 I 9 Wfd4 ! ( I 9
lbe4 lbc5 = Unzicker-Kottnauer,
Leysin I967) I 9 ...lbb6 20 h3 !
threatening to trap the queen after
1i'd4-d3.
20Aa1
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbcJ g6 6 f4 lbc6 7
lbxc6 bxc6 8 e5 lbd7 9 exd6 exd6
10 .ie3)
10 ...lbf6
A logical continuation, through
which Black endeavours to
fianchetto his dark-squared bishop.
1 1 Wid2
White prepares queenside cas­
tling, keeping the d-pawn under
control. After I I 1i'f3 d5 I 2 .ie2
.ie7! he does not succeed in taking
under control the weakened g i -a7
diagonal: l 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 1i'f2 l:.b8 1 5
b3 'ii'a5 1 6 .id4 l:r.b4 I 7 'ili>h 1 lbd7
Levenfish Attack 6f4 101
18 .ixa7 lbc5 and in return for the
sacrificed pawn Black dominates
the dark squares, Milijanovic­
Damjanovic, Belgrade 1 993.
ll ..tg7 12 o-o-o d5 13 .ic5
..
.ie6 14 a3
After 14 1i'd4?! the queen be­
comes a convenient target in the or­
ganisation of counterplay on the
queen's flank: I4 .. .'ii'a5 I5 .ib4
'ilc7 I 6 g3 l:r.b8 I 7 .ia3 l:[g8 1 8
1i'a4 Wfb6 I 9 .ig2 lbd7 and Black
goes over to the attack, Nunn-Miles,
London 1 982.
14...lbd7
On 14 ...'ii'a5 White hurries to ex­
ploit the pin on the e-file: 1 5 .ib4
'ilc7 I6 l:.e i lbd7 1 7 lbxd5!? cxd5
I 8 'ii'xd5, maintaining a dangerous
initiative.
15 .id4 .ixd4 16 'ihd4 'ii'f6 17
1i'xf6 lbxf6 with an equal ending
(E. Geller).
20Aa2
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 f4 lbc6 7
lbxc6 bxc6 8 e5 lbd7 9 exd6 exd6
10 .ie3)
10....te7
Despite the weakening of the long
diagonal, Black makes the decision
 102 Levenfish A ttack 6/4

to defend the d6 pawn, so as not to double-edged game, Larsen-Lein,

lose control of the important g l -a7 Lone Pine 1 979.
diagonal after ...d6-d5 .
11 'ii'd 2 20Ab
On I I -.o good is l l ...d5 and
White does not manage to exploit (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
the weakened dark squares: 1 2 l2Jd4 l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 g6 6 f4 l2Jc6 7
0-0-0 .tf6 1 3 .td4 0-0 14 h4 l:tb8 l2Jxc6 bxc6 8 eS)
1 5 _.f2 l:tb4 16 .txf6 l2Jxf6 1 7 a3
and here, in the game Tai-Lisitsin, 8...dxeS
USSR (ch) 1 956, instead of This exchange leads to the worse
I 7 ...�6 I 8 -.xb6 l:txb6 1 9 l2Ja4, endgame for Black. A characteristic
which allowed White to obtain a drawback looked at in the position
definite advantage, Black maintains below is the presence of numerous
the balance with the move l 7 ...llb7. pawn islands.
This same method is also good on 9 -.xd8+ 'iPxd8 10 fxeS
I I .te2-I l ...O-O I 2 0-0 d5 ! I 3
l2Ja4 (on 1 3 f5 good i s I 3 . . ..tc5 I 4
.tc5 l2Jc5 I 5 f6 d4 I 6 b4 dxc3 I 7
bxc5 .tf5 + Skytte-Guid, Patras
I 999) 1 3 ...l:te8 14 _.d2 l2Jf6 I 5 _.c3
l2Je4 I 6 -.xc6 .td7 I 7 _.a6 'ii'c8 ! ,
equalising, Nunn-Sax, Teesside
1974.
1 1 0-0
.•.

Also possible is I l ...l2Jf6 I 2 0-0-0

(not in the spirit of the position is
the attack 12 h3 0-0 I 3 g4 d5 1 4
.tg2 .ta6 I 5 a 3 l2Je8 I 6 'iPf2 l2Jd6
. and the advantage is already with
Black, Ghinda-Kunsztowicz, Bo­ l O...ltJdS
chum I 98 l ) I 2 . . . . 0-0 I 3 h3 d5 14 On 10 . . .l2Jg4 White defends the e5
g4 _.a5 with a complicated game, pawn by I I .tf4! and threatens the
Perelshteyn-Shahade, USA I 999. advance e5-e6. I.Boleslavsky ana­
12 0-0-0 l2Jb6 lysed the following continuations:
Weaker is I 2 ...l2Jf6?! 1 3 h3 .te6 I ) I I . ...tg7 1 2 0-0-0+ 'iPc7 (or
14 g4 '6'a5 I 5 .tg2 l:tab8 16 b3 d5 1 2 ....td7 1 3 e6! fxe6 I4 l2Je4 e5 1 5
17 f5 .td7 I 8 'iPb I .tb4 19 .td4 .te2 h5 1 6 .td2 i.f5 1 7 .th6+ 'iPe8
with advantage to White, Fuderer­ 1 8 .txg7 l:tg8 19 .to llxg7 20 h3 !
Trifunovic, Yugoslavia 1 952. l2Je3 2 1 l:tde l l2Jd5 22 l2Jg3 ±) 1 3
13 .te2 e6+ .te5 1 4 .txe5+ l2Jxe5 1 5 exf7 ±
The flank attack 1 3 h3 .te6 14 g4 2) 1 I ....td7 I 2 l:td I ! .tg7 1 3 e6
a5 I 5 f5 l2Jc4 I 6 .txc4 .txc4 is re­ .txc3+ I 4 bxc3 fxe6 1 5 .te2 l:tf8
pulsed by Black without particular I 6 0-0 l2Jf6 I 7 .te5 ±.
difficulty, Guzzardo-Copie, corr. 3) I I .. ..te6 I2 l2Je4 .tg7 13 l2Jc5
1 987. .txe5 I4 0-0-0+ <i;c7 I 5 .txe5+
13 ...dS 14 h4 hS IS g4 .txg4 16 l2Jxe5 I 6 l2Jxe6+ fxe6 I 7 lie I 'iPd6
.txg4 l2Jc4 17 _.d3 'ifb8 with a 1 8 g3 l2Jg4 I 9 .tc4! e5 20 l:te2! !.

l l ltJxd5
Another way is I I .td2 .tg7 1 2
0-0-0 .txe5 1 3 ltJxd5 cxd5 14
.ta5+ 'it>e8 1 5 lhd5 .tf4+ 1 6 .td2
.te6 1 7 :d3 with some advantage
to White, Glass-Steiner, Austria
1962.
ll ...cxd5 12 .tg5
Or 1 2 .tf4 h6 13 c4 e6 14 :di
..tb4+ 1 5 .i.d2 .txd2+ 1 6 :xd2
.tb7 1 7 cxd5 ..txd5 with equality,
Durao-Copeland, Dublin 1 99 1 .
12 ... h6
1 2 ... .te6 1 3 0-0-0 'it>c7 14 .tb5
with advantage to White, Penrose­
Green, England 1969
13 .th4 g5 14 .tf2 ..tg7 15 0-0-0
and in view of the disrupted black
king, White has the preferable
chances, Donner-Spanjaard, Hol­
land 1953.
20B
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 f4 ltJc6)
7 ltJf3
This retreat of the knight and the
rejection of the pawn advance e4-e5
has become quite popular recently.
7 ... .tg7 8 .td3 Wb6
An active move, preventing
castling.
Also possible is 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0.
Levenfish Attack 6f4 1 03
I ) 9 ...ltJb4 10 h3?! (stronger is 1 0
.te3 or 1 0 'We2) I O . . tDxd3 I I cxd3
.
b5! 1 2 .te3 b4 13 lDe2 a5 14 g4 h5
1 5 g5 ltJe8 and Black obtains the
more promising position; Spasov­
Boissonet, Tunja 1 989.
2) 9 . . ..tg4 10 'We i .txf3 I I :xn
e6 1 2 �hi :c8 1 3 :n (or 13 .te3
a6 14 :d i 'We7 with a complicated
game, Mrva-Rogozenko, Pardubice
I 997) 1 3 ...:e8 14 'Wf2 a6 1 5 f5 and
White had kingside pressure,
J.Polgar-Topalov, Leon 1 996.
3) 9 ... b5 !? (a pawn sacrifice for
the initiative) 10 ltJxb5 'Wb6+ 1 1
'it>hl ltJxe4 1 2 ltJxa7 :xa7 1 3 .i.xe4
ltJb4 1 4 a3 d5 1 5 .txd5 .tf5
( 1 5 ... :d8 1 6 .te3 ! ±) 1 6 .tb3 :c8
17 ltJg5 ltJxc2 1 8 .txf7+ �ffi (per­
haps it was worth limiting himself
to 1 8 .. .'ifi>h8 19 :a2 h6) I9 'ti'd5 e6
20 .txe6 :d8 2 1 1Va2 ltJxa I 22
.txf5 gxf5 23 ltJe6+ 'it>e8 24 ltJxd8
and White maintains his material
advantage, Ady-Shahade, Manhat­
tan 1 999.
9 'ti'e2 0-0 10 ltJd1
On the exchange of queens 1 0
'ii'e3 'ii'xe3+ I I .txe3 ltJb4 I 2 h 3 b6
1 3 a3 ltJxd3+ 14 cxd3 .tb7 White
cannot count on an advantage,
Hiibner-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee
I 986
10...e5 11 .te3 ltJd4 12 'ii'd2 ltJg4
13 .txd4 exd4 14 0-0 .td7 15 :e1
:res 16 h3 lDf6 with chances for
104 Levenfish Attack 6 f4
both sides, Minasian-Komljenovic,
Oviedo 1 993.
20C
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLld4 lLlf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 f4 ltJc6)
7 i.b5
An attempt to reduce Black's con­
trol over the eS square for which he
willingly gives Black the advantage
of the two bishops but does not
cause him any particular problems.
7. .. i.d7 8 i.xc6
Upon· the retreat 8 ltJf3 i.g7 9
ife2 0-0 harmless is IO eS?! dxeS
I 1 fxeS ltJg4 I 2 i.f4 a6 1 3 i.c4
i.e6 and Black's chances are prefer­
able, Sax-Ivanovic, Vrbas 1 980. I O
0-0 is safer.
8.. . bxc6
Also possible is 8 ... i.xc6 9 eS (or
9 ltJxc6 bxc6 I 0 0-0 i.g7 I I 'it>h I
0-0 I 2 i.e3 dS ) 9 ...dxeS I 0 fxeS
= i.eS White has a tangible
ltJe4! ( I O. . .ltJdS I I e6 fS I 2 0-0 ;!;)
I I lLlxe4 ( I I lLlxc6 'ii'xd I+ I 2
ltJxd I bxc6 1 3 0-0 i.g7 I 4 l:te I
lLlcS I 5 i.d2 0-0! = G.Levenfish)
1 1 . ..i.xe4 I 2 0-0 i.g7. Now on the
natural 1 3 l:te I ? ! could follow the
energetic 1 3 ...ifd5 ( 1 3 ... i.d5 I4 c4
i.c6! ) I4 c3 ifxeS, not fearing I S
= I 7 ... i.xf6 I S ltJxc6 'ii'xc6 I 9 lLlxd5
i.f4 ifxf4 I 6 'ii'a4+ 'it> f8 (after
I 6 ... i.c6? I 7 l:txe7+! �f8 I 8 lLle6+
White wins the queen, Penrose­
Harden, Hastings I 957/58) I 7 ltJe6+
fxe6 1 8 l:tfl 'ii'xfl + I9 lhfl + i.fS
20 g4 i.f6 2 1 gxfS exfS and the two
rooks are stronger than the queen
(E.Geller). But also after the better
I 3 i.f4 0-0 14 c3 "ilfb6 Black has a
fully equal game.
9 e5 dxe5
Also interesting is 9 . . .ltJdS I O
exd6 ( I 0 ltJxdS exdS I I exd6 e6 +)
I 0 ... ltJxc3 I I bxc3 cS! 1 2 ltJf3
(weaker is 1 2 dxe7? ifxe7+ 1 3 lLle2
.l:[d8 14 'ii'd3 i.c6 I S 'ii'g3 i.g7 +
Johansson-Nilsson, Stockholm
I 960/6 I ) 1 2 . . . i.g7 I 3 ltJeS i.bS I 4
c4 exd6 I 5 cxbS dxeS with equal
chances.
10 fxe5 ltJg4
In White's favour is I O ... ltJdS 1 1
ltJxdS cxdS I 2 'ii'f3 .
l l e6
An interesting attempt to exploit
the theme of overloaded bishop. Af­
ter the quiet 1 1 i.f4 i.g7 1 2 'ii'e2
ifaS ! 1 3 ltJf3 'ii'M ! Black has good
counterplay (M.Euwe).
ll ... .i.xe6 12 'ii'f3
There is nothing in 1 2 lLlxe6
ifxd l + 1 3 ltJxdi fxe6 14 lLle3 lLlf6
I S lL!c4 lLldS, with an equal game,
Geller-Pogrebysky, USSR (ch)
1949.
12 ...'ii'd7 13 i.f4 i.g7 14 0-0-0
i.d5
Otherwise after I4 . . .0-0 I S ltJfS
'ii'b7 I6 ltJxg7 'iti>xg7 I7 h3 lLlf6 1 7
advantage.
15 'ii'e2
Threatening, after I 5 ... 0-0?, the
blow 1 6 lLlxc6! .
15 ...ltJf6 16 i.e5 0-0 17 i.xf6
exf6!?
This looks more promising than
i.gS+ 20 'iti>b 1 e6 2 I h4 i.d8.

18 ttJxc6 W'xc6 19 tlJxd5 llfe8 20
'flo :ac8 21 c3 f5 22 llhe1 �f8
with roughly equal chances
(M.Euwe).
Line 2 1
(1 e4 c 5 2 tlJ t3 d 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4
tlJd4 tlJf6 5 tLlcJ g6 6 f4)
6...tLlbd7
This move radically stops the
threat of e4-e5, however the knight
is more passively placed on d7 and
does not have such an effective in­
fluence on the centre.
So now that he is not experiencing
pressure on the knight d4, White is
more free to create havoc with his
forces, with the d5 square in his
sights.
The game often leads to a position
arising from an analogous structure
in the Najdorf Variation ( 1 e4 c5 2
ttJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlf6 5
tLlc3 a6), where upon the continua­
tion 6 f4 tLlbd7 Black then plays
7 ...g6
The main continuations here are:
21A: 7 J.e2
21B: 7 tLlt3
Hardly investigated is 7 J.c4 ..ig7
8 tLlf3 (see 2 1 B) or 8 J.e3 0-0 9 h3
Levenfish A ttack 6 f4 105
a6 1 0 a4 'ilc7 I I J.e2 b6 I 2 ..tn e5
13 tLlde2 J.b7 with a good game for
Black, Rossetto-Najdorf, Mar del
Plata 1 968.
21A
(1 e4 c5 2 lbt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tlJxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 f4 lbbd7)
7 ..te2
In this situation the transfer of the
bishop to f3 is facilitated since the
b5 square is under extra control
from the knight d4 and Black does
not have the standard counterplay
associated with ...b7-b5.
7 .....tg7 8 0-0 0-0 9 'it>h1 !
White creates the threat of
invasion on d5, abstaining for the
time being from the development of
the bishop to e3, so that the knight
does not come to c4 with tempo. For
example, after 9 J.e3 a6 10 ..tn
possible is IO ...W'c7 I I W'e2 tLlb6
1 2 l:tad 1 tLlc4 1 3 J.c 1 e5 14 fxe5
dxe5 1 5 tLlb3 J.e6 with a good
game for Black, An.Bykhovsky­
A.Nikitin, Moscow 1964, or in more
contemporary style I O ... e5 1 1 tLlb3
exf4 I 2 J.xf4 lbe5 and the occupa­
tion of the e5 square compensates
for the weakness of the d6 pawn,
V.Ristic-N.Ristic, Cetinje 1 990.
9 ...a6
106 Levenfish A ttack 6 f4
10 a4
The usual reaction to ...a7-a6.
White not only prevents . . . b7-b5,
but also, when the opportunity
arises, threatens to exploit the weak­
ened b6 square by a4-a5.
Upon the continuation I 0 J.f3
Black carries out a standard plan
with the blockading move ... e7-e5
and a subsequent exchange of
pawns, after which the knight is es­
tablished on e5. Here the weakness
of the d6 pawn is not felt so much.
I) I O...'ii'c7 I I g4 e5 I 2 lbde2
exf4 1 3 g5 lbe8 I4 lDxf4 lbe5 I 5
lDfd5 'ifd8 I 6 J.g2 J.e6 I 7 a4 lieS
18 l:r.a3 lbc4 19 l:r.b3 lba5 20 l:lb4
l:r.c4 2 I l:r.xc4 lbxc4 with roughly
equal chances, Lau-Bonsch, Graz
(zt) I 993.
2) 10 ...e5 I I lbb3 (or I I lbde2
'ifc7 I 2 a4 b6 I 3 J.e3 J.b7 and
though White has the freer game,
Black could fight for equality)
I I ...exf4 I 2 J.xf4 lbe5 1 3 ..i.e2 b5
I4 J.g5 h6 I 5 J.xf6 J.xf6 I6 lbd5
.i.g7 I 7 a4 with a more promising
position for White, in view of the
weakness of the d5 square,
Khalifman-Kupreichik, Kuibyshev
I 986.
10...'ifc7
Black takes under control the c4
square and prepares ...e7-e5, which
for the present is premature
( I O ... e5?! I I lbb3 exf4 I 2 J.xf4
lDe5 I 3 J.g5 and White exploits the
weakening of the d5 square).
However possible I O ... l:e8 I I
J.f3 e5 I 2 lbb3 (or I 2 fxe5 dxe5 !
I 3 lbb3 b6 and I4 . . . J.b7 = )
I 2 ... exf4 (after I 2 ...'ifc7 possible is
I3 f5 ! with advantage for White
both on 13 ...b6 I4 b4, and also after
1 3 ...d5 1 4 exd5 e4 I 5 J.e2) I 3
J.xf4 lDe5 I 4 J.e2 J.e6 I 5 J.g5 h6
I 6 J.h4 l:r.c8 I 7 lbd4 lbc4 with a
complicated game, Leko-Lautier,
Investabank, Belgrade I 995.
11 J.f3
White prevents the fianchettoing
of the bishop c8 because of the
threat e4-e5. The other popular con­
tinuation is I I J.e3, although the
appearance of the bishop on this
square stimulates the manoeuvre of
the knight to c4. Let's look at some
possibilities:
I) 1 l ...e5 1 2 lbb3 b6 I3 f5 ..i.b7
I4 1i'd3 l:r.ad8 I5 fxg6 hxg6 I6 J.g5
and White's chances are preferable,
Glek-Neverov, Frunze I 988.
2) 1 I ...lbb6 I2 'ifd3 J.g4 I3 l:laei
e5 I 4 lbb3 J.xe2 I5 lhe2 lbc4 I 6
.i.e I exf4 I 7 l:.xf4 lDe5 1 8 'ifh3
'ifd7 I 9 'ifh4 lDh5 20 l:lfl 'ii'g4 and
the game is even, Dolmatov­
Kuczynski, Polanica Zdroj I 987.
On I I a5 possible is I l .. .b5 ! I 2
axb6 lbxb6 and Black is ready to
occupy the c4 square.
l l ...l:r.e8
In recent times Black has ab­
stained from weakening his position
by I l ...e5, with the idea of blocking
the bishop, though this plan is quite
reliable: I 2 lDde2 (also interesting is
I 2 lDb3 exf4! 1 3 J.xf4 lDe5 I4 J.g5
J.e6 I 5 J.e2) 1 2 ... exf4 ! (weaker is
I 2 ...b6?!, on which possible is I 3 f5
J.b7 I4 lbg3 l:.ac8 1 5 J.g5 h6 I 6
J.e3 with the better game for White,
in view of the weakness of the d5
square, Hazai-Martinovic, Vmjacka

Banja 1 984) 1 3 lLlxf4 lLle5 1 4 lLlfd5
lLlxd5 1 5 lLlxd5 _.d8 1 6 i.e2 i.e6
1 7 i.e3 l:tc8 1 8 c3 lLlc4 with equal
chances; Hazai-Inkiov, Plovdiv
1984.
12 lLlb3
After 1 2 i.e3 lLlb6 1 3 _.d3 Black
realises the main idea of his de­
fence: 13 ...lLlc4 14 .te l e5 I 5 lLlde2
exf4 16 lLlxf4 lLle5 and obtains an
excellent g_ame. Stronger is 13 e5!
dxe5 14 li)dxb5! axb5 1 5 lLlxb5
_.d7 1 6 i.xb6 l:lxa4 ! 17 _.xd7
i.xd7 1 8 lLlc7 l:lc8 1 9 fxe5 lLle8,
though as before Black has a fire­
proof position, Glek-Kupreichik,
Blagoveshensk 1988.
After 12 a5 e5 13 lLlde2 b5 ! 1 4
axb6 lLlxb6 Black likewise has
equal chances.
However after 1 2 lLlb3 Black has
a fully equal game.
For example, the game Anand­
lvanchuk, Linares (m/6) 1 992, con­
tinued 1 2 ...lLlb6 1 3 _.e l lLlc4 14
i.e2 (on 1 4 _.h4 possible is
14 ...i.d7 1 5 g4 i.c6) 14 ...b6 1 5
i.d3 i.b7 1 6 _.e2 l:lec8 1 7 lLld2
lLlxd2 1 8 i.xd2 lLld7 and Black has
the preferable position. V.lvanchuk
recommends 1 3 g4 e6 with a com­
plicated game, whereas weaker is
13 ... i.e6?! 14 a5 lLlc4 1 5 f5 and
White obtains the advantage.
Levenjish Attack 6 f4 I 07
Also seen is l2 ...l:.b8 l3 aS e6 14
i.e3 bS 15 axb6 lLlxb6 with
approximately equal chances,
Z.Almasi-Bonsch, Altensteig 1 993.
21B
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 f4 lLlbd7)
7 lLlt3
7...i.g7
Considered a reliable continua­
tion, since for the present 8 e5?!
dxe5 9 fxe5 is unfavourable for
White as the complications arising
after 9 ...lLlg4 I 0 e6 fxe6 I I lLlg5
i.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 _.a5 1 3 _.xg4
_.xc3+ 14 'iii>d 1 -.xa l 1 5 _.xe6
_.d4+ end in Black's favour, as in
the game Fernandez Garcia­
Barczay, Budapest 1 978.
But more often Black eiJlploys
another order of moves: 7 . . .'iic7 8
i.d3 a6 9 0-0 i.g7.
8 i.d3
Hardly investigated is 8 i.c4,
leading, for example, after 8 ...lLlb6
9 i.b3 0-0 10 i.e3 i.d7 I I ..d3
i.c6 12 0-0-0 to a double-edged po­
sition, Hecht-Whiteley, Nice (ol)
1 974.
8 ...-.c7
/08 Levenfish Attack 6f4
Here already it is necessary to
take under control the e5 square,
since, for example, on 8 ...a6?! pos­
sible is 9 e5 dxe5 I 0 fxe5 ltlg4 I I
e6 fxe6 I 2 'ife2 'ifb6 1 3 .i.c4 ltlge5
I4 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 I 5 .i.b3 lLlc6 I 6
.i.e3 lLJd4 and here in the game
Mikh.Tseitlin-Kuczynski, Polanica
Zdroj I989, with the move I 7 ..ta4
White forces the knight to go back,
obtaining the advantage.
9 0-0 a6
10 a4
White radically prevents the thrust
. . .b7-b5. But he need not rush with
this and can prepare a break in the
centre by I O �hi 0-0 1 1 'ife i ,
which has an effect on the flank
advance I l ...b5?! -I2 e5 ! dxe5 I 3
fxe5 lLJg4 I4 lLJd5 ! (in Black's
favour is I4 e6?! lLlc5 ! I5 'ifh4
lLlxd3 16 cxd3 .i.xe6 + Andersson­
R.Garcia, Skopje (ol) I 972)
I4 ...'ifc5 (passive is I4 ...'ifd8?! I 5
.i.g5 f6 I 6 exf6 exf6 I 7 lLle7 'iPf7?
18 .i.xf6! ..txf6 I9 lLlg5+ and White
wins, Mrva-Jirovski, Budapest (zt)
I 995) I5 .i.e4 lLldxe5 I 6 lLlxe7+
'ifxe7 I 7 .i.xa8 .i.e6 I 8 .i.e4 and
though Black has active play for the
exchange, his material deficit will
still make itself felt (R.Garcia). The
counter I I .. .e5 prevents the break in
the centre by radical means. For
exam_ple: IO 'ife2 0-0 (dangerous is
IO ... lllc 5?! I I e5 dxe5 I2 fxe5
lLlfd7 13 lLJd5 'ifc6 I4 ..tc4 lLJe6 I 5
a4 lLlb6 I 6 lLlxb6 'ifxb6+ I 7 l:.t2
0-0 I8 a5 and White has the advan­
tage, A.Sokolov-Sadler, France
I 993) I I 'iPh i (for the present pre­
mature is I I e5 dxe5 I 2 dxe5 lllg4
1 3 e6 lLlc5) I l . ..e5 ! I 2 a4 lLlc5 I 3
.i.c4 .i.e6 I 4 .i.xe6 lLlxe6 I 5 f5 lLlf4
I6 .i.xf4 exf4 I 7 'ifd2 'ifb6 and
Black holds the balance, Sax-Vera,
Rome I985.
10...0-0 11 �h1
A prophylactic retreat from the
weakened diagonal.
Sometimes I I 'ife i is played at
once, I O...b6 I 2 'ifb4 e6 (directed
against f4-f5, which, however, is not
so dangerous since it weakens the
e5 square: I 2 ... ..tb7 I 3 f5 l:.fe8 I 4
.i.h6 .i.h8 I 5 'iPh I e6 I 6 fxg6 fxg6
I 7 l:.f2 'ifc5 I 8 lLJg5 'ife5 with an
active game for Black, Kaminski­
Jaracz, Poland I 992) I3 .i.e3 .i.b7
I4 l:laei l:.ae8 I 5 .i.d4 e5 I6 fxe5
dxe5 I 7 .i.e3 lLlh5 I 8 lLld2 lLlc5
with an equal game, Svidler-Lautier,
Groningen I 995
l l . b6 12 'ife1 .i.b7 13 'ifh4
. .
13 e5
...
A standard method for this sort of
position, but worthy of study is the
rarer I3 ... e6, not fearing I4 f5 l:.ae8

1 5 .ig5. Seen here is 1 5 ...'ii'c5 1 6
l:ab l ! (on 1 6 l:.ad1 follows
16 . . .'ifb4 , since the attempt to trap
the queen by 1 7 .id2 'ii'xb2 1 8 e5
.ixf3 ! 19 l:a 1 �xeS 20 l:.fb 1 'ii'xa 1
2 1 .l:ha1 .ib7 requires significant
material concessions, Bangiev­
Rashkovsky, USSR 1 975) 1 6 . . .gxf5
1 7 exf5 e5 and Black equalises the
game, Anand-J.Polgar, Buenos
Aires 1 994. But V.Anand considers
that 1 5 .ig5 allows 1 5 ... gxf5 !? 1 6
exf5 ( 1 6 �d2 �xe4 1 7 �dxe4 fxe4
1 8 �xe4 f5 ! +) 1 6 ... e5 ! , after which
Black has the initiative. Therefore
he should possibly exchange
beforehand by 1 5 fxg6 hxg6 1 6
.ig5.
14 fxe5
Or 14 .id2 �c5 1 5 l:.ae1 l:.ae8 1 6
fxe5 dxe5 1 7 �g5 �cd7 1 8 l:. f3 h6
19 �h3 ./tJh5 20 g4 �f4 2 1 �xf4
exf4 22 .ixf4 �e5 and Black's pos­
session of the 'eternal' blockading
square on e5, together with active
pieces, compensates for the sacri­
ficed pawn, Ljubojevic-Miles, Skara
1 980.
14...dxe5 15 .ih6 �h5
Levenfish Attack 6 f4 1 09
In principle, matters are not
changed by 1 5 .ig5 �h5 16 .ie7
.if6 1 7 .ixf6 �hxf6 1 8 'ii'h6 �g4
1 9 'ii'g5 �gf6 20 'ii'h6 �g4 2 1 'ii'g5
�gf6 22 'ifh6 I,h-Ih Ciocaltea­
Shamkovich, Tbilisi 1 969.
16 .ixg7 �xg7 17 �g5 �df6 18
l:lfJ h6
It is useful to drive back the active
knight at once, since after 1 8 ...'ii'e7
19 l:.afl White threatens 20 �xh7
�xh7 2 1 l:.xf6 �g7 22 l:.xg6+ ! . The
game Prasad-Tal, Subotica (izt)
1 987, continued 1 9 ... h6 20 �h3
.ic8 2 1 .ie2! and White maintained
a dangerous initiative.
M.Tal recommended 1 8 ...l:.ad8
followed by l:d8-d4 with counter­
play a_gainst the a4 and e4 pawns.
19 lll h3 l:ad8
Also possible is 19 ...'ii'd6 20 l:.afl
l:.ac8 2 1 g4 l:xc3 22 gxh5 l:.xd3 ! 23
cxd3 �xh5 with sufficient compen­
sation for the exchange,
V.Lepeshkin.
20 :an ./tJh7 21 l:l3f2 l:ld6 22
�d1 l:f6 and Black repels the im­
mediate threats, Zamicki-Quinteros,
Argentina 1 995.
 6 : Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
(1 e4 c5 2 liJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6)
6 g3
White meets the fianchetto of the
f8-bishop in the same vein but with
a somewhat different idea. The main
thing coming out of the classical
variations is that White, by prevent­
ing the advance ... d6-d5, himself
strives to occupy the d5 square with
the knight, helped by the manoeuvre
..tfl -e2-f3. The counter-fianchetto
of the bishop fl enables him to
solve both problems.
Black, in his tum, strives to ex­
ploit the fl-a6 diagonal, in particu­
lar the c4 square. Likewise, when
the opportunity arises, he utilises the
move g2-g3 to carry out the ad­
vance ... h7-h5-h4.
Black's main continuations are:
6 lLlc6-Lines 22 and 23
...
6 ..tg7-Line 24
...
Less effective is the attempt to
counter White's intentions by
6 .....tg4, since 7 f3 ..td7 8 .i.e3 lLlc6
9 'ii'd2 .i.g7 narrows down Black's
possibilities.
I) White could go over to a fa­
vourable variation of the Rauzer I 0
0-0-0 0-0, looked at in detail in
book I, with the main continuation
I I g4. Let's also tum our attention
to some additional possibilities after
I I h4:
I a) l l ...h5 1 2 .i.h6 .i.xh6 1 3
'ii'xh6 'ii'b6 1 4 lLlxc6 Wxc6 1 5 .i.b5
'ii'c5 16 liJd5 �xd5 1 7 l:txd5 'ii'c7
1 8 .i.xd7 'ii'xd7 1 9 g4 and White
undermines the opponent's defence,
Cuijpers-Ballmann, Zug 1 987.
l b) I I . .Jlc8 12 g4 ..txg4!? (this
sacrifice of a piece for three pawns
is one of the defensive resources of
the Dragon; 1 2 ...lLle5 and 1 2 ... h5
are looked at in the analysis of the
Rauzer Attack) 1 3 fxg4 ( 1 3 lLlxc6
eases Black's game: 1 3 .. Jhc6 1 4
fxg4 lLlxg4 1 5 .i.e2?! lLlxe3 1 6

'ii'xe3 .i.xc3 1 7 bxc3 'ii'a5 and Black
develops an initiative, obtaining suf­
ficient material equivalent for the
piece, Schlosser-Rigo, Dortmund
1987; stronger was 1 5 lDd5)
13 ...lDxg4 14 lDde2 ! lDce5 1 5 b3
and White's chances are superior.
2) The game turns out positively
for White also after 10 g4:
2a) 10 ... h5 I I g5 lDh7 1 2 f4 and
White has a space advantage, also
presenting interest is 1 2 .i.c4 lDxg5
1 3 0-0-0 lDxd4 14 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 1 5
'ii'xd4 l:.ffl 1 6 f4 with decisive com­
pensation for the pawn, Cocozza­
Rigo, Rome 1984.
2b) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 h4 h5 1 2 gxh5
lDxh5 13 0-0-0 1i'a5 14 .l:tg l with a
promising position for White,
Svidler-Solozhenkin, Leningrad
1 990.
Line 22
(1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDcJ g6 6 gJ)
6...lDc6
Played with the intention of driv­
ing away as quickly as possible the
knight from d4 or exchanging it, in
order to lure the white queen to the
centre and thereby gain time for de­
velopment. White cannot reply 7
.i.e3 because of 7 ... lDg4.
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 I l l
7 lDde2
The continuation 7 .i.g2 is exam­
ined in Line 23.
The main directions of play for
Black are linked to the moves:
22A: 7 ....i.g7
22B: 7....i.d7
22B: 7...b6
Rarer continuations are:
I ) 7 ...b5?! 8 .i.g2 b4 9 lDd5 lDxd5
1 0 exd5 lDe5 I I f4 lDd7 1 2 'ii'd4
lDf6 1 3 'ii'b4 with an extra pawn for
White, Zsu.Polgar-Chiarelli, USA
1 998.
2) 7 ... .l:tb8 8 .i.g2 (8 a4!?) 8 ... b5 9
0-0 .i.g7 1 0 lDd5 lDd7 I I c3 a5 1 2
lDd4 li:)xd4 1 3 cxd4 e6 1 4 lDf4 b4
(also worth considering is 14 ... 0-0
followed by ... .i.c8-b7 and
. .. 1i'd8-b6) 1 5 .i.e3 .i.a6 1 6 :e 1 0-0
1 7 'ii'd2 li:)b6 1 8 b3 li:)c8 and Black,
intending the manoeuvre
...lDa7-b5-c3, stands no worse,
Lutz-Topalov, Cap d'Agde 1 994.
3) 7 ....i.g4 8 .i.g2 1i'c8 9 h3 .i.d7
leads to the structure in 22B, but
with an extra tempo for White.
22A
(1 e4 c5 2 ll:)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 li:)f6 5 lt:)cJ g6 6 gJ li:)c6 7
lDde2)
7....i.g7
1 12 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
8 .ig2 0-0
On 8 ... l:b8 White can choose a
plan with queenside castling: 9 b3 !?
(9 a4 a6 is looked at below) 9 . . .b5
10 .ib2 0-0 1 1 'ifd2 t:Lle5 12 f4
tt::led7 1 3 0-0-0 .ib7 14 t:Lld5 aS 1 5
l:.he 1 t:Llxd5 1 6 exd5 .ixb2+ 1 7
�xb2 b4 1 8 llld4 with a space ad­
vantage for White, whereas Black's
counterattacking resources are cur­
tailed, Topalov-Shirov, Las Palmas
1 994.
9 0-0
After 9 h3, with the idea on
9 ....id7 IO 0-0 'ifc8 to have the pos­
sibility 1 1 �h2, Black can go over
to the thrust ... b7-b5: 9 ...l:b8 1 0 a4
a6 I I .ie3 (more accurate is 1 1
tt:ld5, retaining after l l . ..b5 1 2 axb5
axb5 the choice between 1 3 .ie3
and 1 3 .ig? , when on 1 3 . . . tt:ld7
good is 1 4 'tfc l ! ;!;) l l ...b5 12 axb5
axb5 1 3 tt:ld5 b4 (or 1 3 . . .tt:ld7 1 4
tt::ld4 tt:lxd4 1 5 .ixd4 .ixd4 16
'ifxd4 .ib7 1 7 tt:lb4! �6 18 'ifxb6
tt:lxb6 1 9 0-0 ;!; Matulovic-Relange,
Sabac 1998) 14 tt:ld4 tt:lxd4 1 5
.ixd4 tt:lxd5 1 6 exd5 .ixd4 1 7
'ifxd4 .if5 and Black maintains the
balance, Matulovic-Zontakh, Sabac
1 998.
Black's future plans are linked to
the continuations:
22Aa: 9 l:.b8
...
22Ab: 9 .id7
...
9 ...'ifa5 does not prevent White's
elanned manoeuvre: 1 0 h3 'ifb5 I I
lL!d5 tt:lxd5 1 2 exd5 tt:la5 I 3 tt:ld4! ?
.ixh3 1 4 'ifxh5 gxh5 1 5 .ixh3
.ixd4 I6 l:e 1 and the activity of
White's pair of bishops compen­
sates for the sacrificed pawn,
Balashov-Dvoiris, Smolensk 1 99 I .
After 9. . ..ie6 White likewise suc­
cessfully struggles for the occupa­
tion of the d5 square:
I 0 tt:lf4 (insufficient is 1 0 tt:ld5
because of 10 . . . .ixd5 I I exd5 tt:le5
1 2 h3 'ifc7 followed by ...tt:le5-c4)
10 ....ic4 I I l:.e i e5 1 2 tt:lfd5 tt:lxd5
I 3 tt:lxd5 f5 I4 b3 .ia6 1 5 .ia3 f4
1 6 c3 'ifd7 1 7 tt:lb4 tt:lxb4 I S .ixb4
.:.adS 1 9 'ifd5+ �h8 20 c4 with a
positional advantage for White,
Svidler-Borge, Copenhagen I 99 1 .
22Aa
(1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 g3 tt:lc6 7
tt:lde2 .ig7 8 .ig2 0-0 9 0-0)
9 J:tb8
..
Black removes his rook from the
X-Ray of the bishop on g2 and pre­
pares the advance of his b-pawn.
10 a4
In preventing Black's intended
plan, White prepares the opening of
the a-file, after which his queen's
rook will be 'developed' without
moving from its starting position.
On other continuations Black car­
ries out ...b7-b5 without difficulty
and maintains the balance.
I) 1 0 b3 b5 I I l:b 1 b4 1 2 tt:ld5
.ia6! I 3 .ib2 t:Lld7 I4 .ixg7 �g7
1 5 c4 bxc3 1 6 l:e I tt:lc5 I 7 tt:lexc3
tt:ld3 and Black is in firm possession
of the initiative, Condie­
Kir.Georgiev, Dubai (ol) I 986.

2) 10 h3 b5 1 1 lLld5 iDd7 1 2 c3 e6
1 3 liJb4 lLlxb4 14 cxb4 lLlb6 1 5 lLlc3
d5 16 exd5 lLlxd5 17 'ifb3 lLlxc3 1 8
bxc3 .ib7 = V.Salov-Serper, New
York 1 996.
10... a6
Passive is 1 0 ... b6?! 1 1 l:.e 1 .ib7
1 2 h3 lLlb4?! (really it is better to
return to the plan of preparing
...b6-b5 by 1 2 . . .a6 1 3 .ie3 lLla7) 1 3
lLld5 lLlbxd5 14 exd5 ikc7 1 5 l:.a3 !
ltfe8 16 lte3 with unpleasant pres­
sure on the e7 pawn, Kir.Georgiev­
Shirov, Pardubice 1994.
The main directions are play are:
22Aa1 : 1 1 iDdS
22Aa2: 1 1 h3
22Aa1
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 ltJf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 g3 lLlc6 7
lLlde2 .ig7 8 .ig2 0-0 9 0-0 l:.b8 10
a4 a6)
1 1 lLld5
l l ...b5
Sometimes the knight makes a
preliminary retreat: 1 1 ...lLld7 1 2 c3
(also worth considering is 1 2 ltb 1
b5 1 3 axb5 axb5 1 4 b3 with the idea
of exchanging the darK-squared
bishoes) 1 2 ...b5 1 3 axb5 axb5 1 4
lLld4 ttJde5 1 5 lLlc6 ( 1 5 f4 ltJxd4 1 6
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 1 1 3
cxd4 lLlc6 1 7 e 5 e6 1 8 lLlf6+ .ixf6
1 9 exf6 leads to unclear play,
Modiahki-Sulaiti, Dubai 1 996, but
perhaps 1 8 lLle3 is more promising)
1 5 ...lLlc6 1 6 'ii'e2 b4 1 7 .id2 bxc3
1 8 .ixc3 .ixc3 1 9 bxc3 .ie6 20 c4
.ixd5 2 1 cxd5 lLld4 with an even
game, Milu-Marin, Bucharest 1 996.
12 axb5 axb5
13 .igS
This looks the most active. Let's
also examine other continuations:
1 ) 1 3 .ie3 b4 14 l:.a2 ( 1 4 lLld4
leads to mass exchanges: 14 ...lLlxd4
1 5 .ixd4 lLlxd5 1 6 exd5 .ixd4 1 7
'ii'xd4 .if5 1 8 .ie4 .ixe4 1 9 'ii'xe4
'ii'd7 and Black maintains the bal­
ance, Atlas-Zontakh, Europa Cup,
Eupen 1 999) 14 ...lLlg4 1 5 .ig5 h6
16 .ic l e6 1 7 lLle3 b3 1 8 cxb3
lLlge5 19 .id2 'ifb6 and Black's ini­
tiative fully compensates for the
sacrificed pawn, lvanchuk-Kramnik,
Horgen 1 995.
2) 13 c3 b4 (V.Mikhalevski ana­
lysed 1 3 ...lLld7 14 lLld4 with the
possible branches: 14 ...lLlde5 1 5
ttJxc6 lLlxc6 1 6 'ii'e2 e6 1 7 lLlb4
lLlxb4 1 8 cxb4 .ib7 1 9 l:.d l 'ii'c7 20
.if4 ltfd8 2 1 l:.ac l 'ii'e7 = and
14 ...lLlxd4 1 5 cxd4 .ib7 1 6 lLlb4
lta8 1 7 .ie3 ltxa l 1 8 'ii'x al 'ifb6 1 9
'ii'd 1 'ii'a5 2 0 ikd2 ltc8 ) 14 lLlxf6+
=
(upon the exchange of the cavalry
14 lLld4 lLlxd4 1 5 ltJxf6+ Black
1 1 4 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
eliminates the e4 pawn-1 5 . . . exf6!
1 6 cxd4 f5 ! :j: Kopylov-Nesis, corr.
1 992) 14 ... ..txf6 1 5 lt::lxd4 lt::le 5 1 6
f4 ..tg4 1 7 1Wc 2 lt::lc4 1 8 f5 'iVb6
with double-edged play, Shevelev­
Mikhalevski, Israel (ch) 1 999.
3) 13 h3 b4 14 ..te3 lt::ld7 15 1ic1
(in Black's favour is 15 lt::ld4?
..txd4 ! 1 6 ..txd4 e6 1 7 lt::le3 e5 +)
1 5 ... e6! 1 6 lt::ldf4 ike? 1 7 .:a2 lt::lf6
(on 1 7 . . . lt::lde5 1 8 lt::ld3 lt::lc4 possible
is 1 9 ..th6) 1 8 lt::ld3 .:d8 19 c4! ..tb7
20 b3 lt::ld7 (more active is
20... lt::la5 !) 2 1 .:d 1 ;!; Malakhov­
Svidler, Russia (ch) 1 997.
13 ...lt::ld7
Also worth considering
13 ...lt::lg4 14 c3 h6 1 5 ..td2 lt::lge5 1 6
lt::ld4 lt::lxd4 1 7 cxd4 lt::lc6 1 8 ..te3 e5
19 dxe5 dxe5 20 ..tc5 .:e8 and
though White' s chances look prefer­
able, it is not easy to breach Black's
position which does not have any
weaknesses, Marinkovic-Djuric,
Vmjacka Banja 1 996.
14 1Wcl
In the game Gi.Hemandez-Serper,
Chicago 1 997, was played 1 4 .:a2
h6 1 5 ..td2 ..tb7 1 6 ..tc3 lt::lde5 1 7
b3 e6 1 8 lt::lb4 'iVb6 1 9 1id2 .:fd8
with an equal game for Black.
14...:e8
A position of dynamic equality
has arisen: White is in possession of
the a-file and controls the centre,
while Black has counterplay on the
queen's flank.
In the game A.Ivanov-Emst,
Gausdal 1 99 1 , after 1 5 .l:f.d 1 lt::lc5 16
..th6 ..th8 White made an unsuc­
cessful exchange sacrifice: 1 7 b4?!
..txa1 1 8 1ixa1 lt::le6 1 9 lt::ldf4 lt::le 5!
and landed in a difficult position .
White chose a more flexible
startegy in the game Gi.Hemandez­
Serper, Chicago 1 997: 15 h3 ..tb7
16 .l:f.d1 1ic8 17 ..th6 ..th8 18 ..te3
..ta8 19 c3! and White's chances
looked preferable.
22Aa2
is
(1 e4 c5 2 lt::\0 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt::lxd4 lt::lf6 5 lt::lc3 g6 6 g3 lt::lc6 7
lt::lde2 ..tg7 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 0-0 .l:tb8 10
a4 a6)
l l h3 b5 1 2 axb5 axb5
l3 ..te3
A logical consequence of the
move 1 1 h3-White places his
pieces harmoniously in the centre.
In this same structure White can
also play first 1 3 ..tg5 h6 14 ..te3.
The thrust 13 lt::ld5 in this situa­
tion is less logical since White
spends time on the modest move 1 1
h3. A possible development of
events is 13 ...lt::ld7 14 .l:ta2 (on 14 c3
good is 1 4 ... b4; there was weaker

play in the game Gufeld-Shahade,
I998: I4 ... lLlb6?! I S ll::lxb6 _.xb6
and White obtained an important
tempo for development: I 6 �e3
_.d8 I 7 lLld4 ;!;) I 4 ...ll::lc 5 (also pos­
sible is I4 ... e6 I S lbdf4 _.c7 1 6
�d2 lLlcS I 7 ll::lc I �b7 1 8 ll::lcd3
l:ta8 T.Horvath-Kir.Georgiev,
Lvov I 984) I S �g5 h6 I6 �d2 b4
I 7 b3 �a6 I 8 l:.e 1 e6 I9 lLldf4 _.c7
20 �e3 l:tfd8 with an even game,
Goetz-Jirovsky, Germany I999.
13 ... b4
In the game Van der Wiel­
Reinderman, Holland (ch) 1 999,
Black played an immediate
I3 ...ll::ld7 and after I4 lLld4 �xd4 I S
�xd4 b4 I 6 ll::le2 ll::lxd4 I 7 lbxd4
'ii'b6 I 8 _.d2 lLleS I 9 l:fd 1 �d7 20
b3 l:.fc8 obtained full equality.
14 lLld5 lLld7
As in variation 22Aa I Black has
an effective influence on the
queen's flank. Let's look at the pos­
sible continuations.
I ) 1 5 lLld4 �xd4 I6 �xd4 e6 1 7
ll::le3 e5 with an active game for
Black, Stojanov-V.Georgiev, Bul­
garia (ch) I999.
2) I S l:ta2 e6 I 6 lLldf4 b3 ! (thanks
to the pawn sacrifice Black brings
his pieces to active positions: 1 7
cxb3 ll::lb4 I 8 l:la I �xb2 I 9 l:b I
�e5 20 lLld3 ll::lxd3 2 I _.xd3 lLlcS
22 'ii'c2 �a6 and Black has more
than sufficient compensation,
Marinkovic-Kovacevic, Yugoslavia
I 997.
3) 15 'ii'c i lLldeS I 6 �h6 (after I6
b3?! e6 I7 lLldf4 his concentration
of forces on the c I-h6 diagonal is
reduced and after I7 ... �b7 1 8 l:d i
_.c7 Black's chances are preferable,
Payen-Rigo, Paris 1 995) I 6... �xh6
I7 'Wxh6 when Black could play
I7 ... b3 or I 7 ...ll::lc4 I 8 b3 lLl4e5 I 9
f4 (not I 9 _.d2? because o f I 9 ...
�xh3 ! ) with unclear consequences.
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 1 15
22Ab
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll::lxd4 lLlf6 5 ll::lc3 g6 6 g3 lLlc6 7
ll::lde2 �g7 8 �g2 0-0 9 0-0)
9.. �d7
.
Without glVlng up the plan of
counterattack on the queen's flank,
Black continues his development
since White is practically forced to
prevent the threat to exchange the
light-squared bishops after
.....d8-c8.
10 h3
After I 0 lDdS lLlxdS 1 I exd5 lLleS
I 2 lLld4 'ii'b6 1 3 c3· l:ac8 I4 'We2
l:fe8 I S l:d 1 aS ! , thanks to the
threat of ...lbe5-c4 Black's chances
are preferable, Tai-Gufeld, USSR
I 974.
Here Black's plans are linked to
the continuations:
22Ab 1 : 10 ... l:c8
22Ab2: 10 ... a6
22Ab1
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll::lxd4 lLlf6 5 ll::lc3 g6 6 g3 ll::lc6 7
ll::lde2 �g7 8 �g2 0-0 9 0-0 �d7
10 h3}
10...ltc8
1 1 6 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
A traditional plan to exert
pressure on the c-file with a drift to­
wards occupation of the c4 square.
1 1 tLldS
A typical raid for the present type
of position: after the exchange of
knights White fixes the Dragon
pawn chain. But we should look
also at the development of the sec­
ond bishop:
1) 1 1 �e3 ttla5 12 b3 b5 13 l:lc l
'ilc7 14 'ii'd2 l:tfd8 1 5 ttld5 ttlxd5
16 exd5 e5 1 7 dxe6 fxe6 with
chances for both sides, Rotstein­
Kachur, Lvov 1 995.
2) 1 1 �g5 ttle5 12 a4 h6 13 �e3
ttlc4 14 �cl a6 1 5 b3 ttla5 1 6 �e3
b5 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 lla2 ttlc6 1 9
'ild2 ttlb4 2 0 l:laa 1 ;t Cioara­
Contempi, Italy 1 999.
1 1 . ..ttlxd5
The influence of the centralised
knight is too great to delay this
exchange. In the event of l l ...ttle5
12 a4 (after 1 2 ttlef4 ttlxd5 1 3 exd5
'ilb6 14 c3 l:lfe8 1 5 l:le l 'ila6 it is
easier to defend, Boleslavsky­
Polugaevsky, USSR (ch) 1 956)
1 2 ... lDe8 1 3 l:la2 e6 14 ttle3 ttlc6 1 5
�d2 f5 1 6 exf5 gxf5 1 7 c4 and by
restricting Black's "small centre",
White has the preferable game,
Mestel-Silva, Malta (ol) 1 980.
12 exdS tLleS 13 a4 'ilc7
By attacking the c2 pawn, Black
prevents the clamp on the centre by
b2-b3 and c2-c4, which makes pos­
sible 1 3 ...'ilb6 14 l:ta2! e6 (or
14 ...'ilc5 1 5 b3 �f5 1 6 c4 �d3 1 7
�e3 'ii'c7 1 8 f4 �xe2 1 9 'ilxe2
tLld7 20 a5 ± Ostojic-Los, Belgrade
GMA 1 988) 1 5 �e3 'ilc7 16 b3
exd5 1 7 ttlf4 and White occupies
the weak d5 square, obtaining the
advantage, Marinkovic-Mednis,
Amsterdam 1987. On 13 . . .ttlc4 also
good is 14 l:la2! with the threat of
b2-b3 and c2-c4.
14 ttld4
After 14 c3 b5 15 f4 ttlc4 16 axb5
�xb5 1 7 'i&;lh2 'ilb6 and Black has
the Imhahve, Speelman-Peters,
Hastings 1 980/8 1 .
Furthermore, in the game Jansa­
De Firmian, Vmjacka Banja 1 983,
followed 1 4 ... 'ii'c5 15 c3 a6 16 :te l
l:lfe8 and here White could retain
the rather better chances with the
move 1 7 l:le2.
22Ab2
(1 e4 cS 2 ttlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ttlxd4 ttlf6 5 ttlc3 g6 6 g3 ttlc6 7
ttlde2 �g7 8 �g2 0-0 9 0-0 �d7
10 h3)
10...a6
Black pursues a plan of a pawn
counterattack on the queen's flank

along the lines of variation 22Aa.
Together with this the developing
move ... .i.c8-d7 cannot be consid­
ered a loss of time.
1 1 a4
Also seen is 1 1 tLld5 tLlxd5 1 2
exd5 tLle5 l 3 c3 'il'c8 1 4 'ifi>h2 .i.b5
1 5 a4 .i.c4 1 6 .i.e3 with rather bet­
ter prospects for White, Pripis­
Beliavsky, USSR 1 978.
ll ..J:tb8 12 tLld5
The continuation 1 2 .i.e3 b5 1 3
axb5 axb5 14 tLld5 usually leads to
a simple transposition of moves.
1 2...b5
The drawback of an early defining
of the position of the knight by
1 2 ...tLla5 was revealed in the game
Geller-Parma, Malta (ol) 1 980,
which continued 13 l:ta2 ! lL!xd5 1 4
exd5 'iVc7 1 5 b 3 b 5 1 6 axb5 axb5
17 i.e3 l:ta8 1 8 .i.d4 tLlb7 19 J:xa8
l:txa8 20 .i.xg7 'it>xg7 when there is
the fine manoeuvre 2 1 'il'd4+! 'it>g8
22 'iVd2 and White can get the better
game.
13 axb5 axb5 14 .i.e3
White takes under control the
periphery of Black's queen's flank,
since the exchange 14 ...tLlxd5?! 1 5
exd5 creates additional problems
associated with the emergence of a
weak c6 square. On the other hand,
upon other continuations this ex­
change is possible:
1) I4 .i.g5 tLlxd5 I 5 exd5 tLle5
and now after I6 tLld4 h6 I7 .i.e I
'iVb6 I 8 c3 b4 Black takes over the
initiative, Soltis-Donaldson, Lone
Pine 1 98 1 .
2) I 4 l:te 1 tLlxd5 I 5 exd5 tLle5
and Black has a promising position.
For example, in the game Rivera­
Campos Moreno, Madrid I 993, af­
ter I 6 J:a7 a favourable exchanging
operation becomes possible:
I6 ...'iVc8 17 ..tih2 .i.xh3 I 8 .i.xh3
tL!f3+ I9 'it>g2 ltJxe I+ 20 'iVxe I
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 1 1 7
'il'xc2 2 I l:txe7 .i.f6 2 2 l:te3 .i.xb2
with a good game for Black.
14...b4
On I 4 ... tLle8 good is I 5 tLld4 e6
(here the advance I 5 . . .b4 only cre­
ates problems for Black: I 6 'iVd2 b3
I 7 c3 tLlc7 I 8 tLlxc6 .i.xc6 19 l:ta7
tLlxd5 20 exd5 .i.b5 2 I l:.e I l:te8 22
.i.g5, riveting him to the defence of
the weak pawns on e7 and b3,
Marinkovic-Vuruna, Belgrade GMA
1 988) I6 tLlxc6 .i.xc6 I 7 tLlb4 .i.b7
I 8 c3 and White, controlling the
weak squares on the queen's flank,
has the preferable position, Jansa­
Jakobsen, Esbjerg I98 I .
The exchanging operation
14 ... e6?! 1 5 tLlxf6+ .i.xf6 16 'il'xd6
.i.xb2 I 7 l:tad1 l:tb7 I 8 c3! places
the dark-squared bishop in a danger­
ous position, Atlas-Fieish, Roslavl
I 989.
15 .l:ta2 tLle8 16 .i.g5 h6 17 .i.d2
e6 18 tLle3 tLlc7 with roughly equal
chances, Smirin-Pigusov, Podolsk
I 990.
22B
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 tLlf6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 g3 tLlc6 7
tLlde2)
7....i.d7
1 18 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3

Black does not hurry with castling are preferable, Waitzkin-Moskow,

and, by threatening an exchange of New York 1993.
light-squared bishops, counts on 9 .i.g7
...

preventing the white king castling Here the most often employed
kingside. continuations by White are:
8 .i.g2 _.c8 9 h3
The same problem, as it were, is 22Ba: 10 a4
solved also by 9 lLlf4, but after 22Bb: 10 .i.eJ
9 . . . .i.g7 1 0 0-0 0-0 it is not easy for 22Bc: 10 b3
White to make a choice: after 1 1
lLlcd5 lLlxd5 1 2 exd5 lLle5 there is Also seen is the manoeuvre 1 0 g4
the threat of ... .i.d7-g4, on 1 1 l:r.e 1 0-0 1 1 lLlg3 llb8 1 2 a4 lLlb4 1 3 .i.e3
l:r.e8 1 2 a4 likewise bad is 1 2 . . .lLle5, b6 14 0-0 l:r.d8 1 5 f4 .i.xg4! ? 1 6
while on 1 1 .i.e3 follows 1 1 ...lLlg4. hxg4 lLlxg4 1 7 .i.f2 lLlxf2 1 8 llxf2
In the game Ostojic-Rechlis, Berlin .i.xc3 19 bxc3 _.xc3 and Black's
1 987, was played 1 1 .i.d2 l:r.e8 1 2 three pawns fully compensate for
a4 lLld4?! (worth considering i s 1 2 the sacrificed piece, Zecevic­
a4 .i.g4 1 3 f3 .i.e6 14 .i.e3 lLle5) 1 3 Jovicic, Yugoslavia 1 986 .
.i.e3 llJe6 14 lLlfd5 lLlxd5 1 5 exd5
lLlc5 16 .i.d4 and White retains
some initiative. 22Ba
However, is the manoeuvre
... .i.d7-h3 so unpleasant? Thus (1 e4 c5 2 lLlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
M.Matulovic quite successfully lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 gJ lLlc6 7
advocated the continuation 9 b3, lLlde2 .i.d7 8 .i.g2 _.c8 9 h3 .i.g7)
ignoring the threat of . . . .i.d7-h3
because then he can exploit an 10 a4
exchange of bishops on h3 to gain a
tempo in the struggle for the d5
square by lLle2-f4, while White
solves the problem of the weaken­
ing of his king's flank by castling
queenside: 9 ....i.g7 1 0 .i.b2 0-0 1 1
'Wd2 .i.h3 1 2 .i.xh3 _.xh3 1 3 0-0-0
l::tfd8 (or 1 3 ...l:r.fc8 14 �b 1 b5 1 5
lLlf4 _.d7 1 6 lLlfd5 _.e6 1 7 f3 l:r.ab8
1 8 lLle2 and White's chances are
preferable, Matulovic-Velimirovic,
Vmjacka Banja 1 99 1 , M.Matulovic
recommended 14 . ....g2 1 5 lLlf4
•n 16 l:r.he 1 .i.h6 with complex White prevents the thrust . . .b7-b5.
t�lay) 14 lLlf4 _.c8 (or 14 .....d7 1 5 1 o 0-0 1 1 .i.e3
...

llJfd5 l:tac8 16 lLlxf6+ .i.xf6 1 7 lLld5 Also deserving attention is 1 1

.i.xb2+ 18 �xb2 _.e8 19 g4 _.ffl 20 lLld5 !?.
g5 with advantage to White, l l l:r.d8
...

Matulovic-A.Kovacevic, Bukovicke Black prepares the advance

Banja 1 993) 1 5 �b1 e6 16 h4 b5 1 7 ...d6-d5.
_.e2 a6 1 8 h5 and White's chances 12 _.d2 lLlb4 13 l::t c 1 .i.c6

Also seen is 1 3 ... a5 14 lL!d4 e6 1 5
b3 l:ta6 1 6 g4 i.c6 1 7 0-0 e5 with
approximately equal chances, Short­
Mestel, Hastings 1 982.
Not good is 13 ... h5 14 b3 e5 1 5
lL!b5 ( 1 5 'Wxd6? i.xh3) 1 5 . . .lL!c6 1 6
c4 and White underlines the weak­
ness of the d6 pawn, Short-Watson,
Brighton 1982.
14 0-0 d5 15 e5 d4 16 i.xd4
i.xg2 17 'itxg2 lL!c6 and here in the
game Rechlis-Rachels, Manila (izt)
1990, White obtained the advantage
with the move 1 8 f4 ! .
22Bb
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL!xd4 lL!f6 5 lL!c3 _g6 6 g3 lL!c6 7
lL!de2 i.d7 8 i.g2 'ifc8 9 h3 i.g7)
10 i.e3
This looks the most harmonious
development but it allows the thrust
...b7-b5, tactically based on the un­
defended b2 pawn.
10 ...0-0
Worth considering is 1 0...b5. For
example: 1 1 l:tc 1 b4 1 2 lL!d5 lL!xd5
13 exd5 lL!e5 14 b3 i.b5 1 5 0-0
'iia6 16 l:le 1 i.xe2 1 7 'Wxe2 'Wxe2
1 8 l:txe2 a5 transferring to an equal
ending, Marinkovic-Jovicic, Bel­
grade 199 1 .
1 1 l:lcl
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 1 1 9
On 1 1 'iid2 likewise possible is
1 l ...b5 12 l:tc 1 'iia6 13 b3 b4 1 4
lL!d5 'Wxa2 1 5 lL!xb4 lL!xb4 1 6
'Wxb4 'iia6 1 7 'Wd2 'Wc8 1 8 c4 i.c6
1 9 f3 a5 20 0-0 lL!d7 with approxi­
mately equal chances, Kagan­
Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro (izt)
1 979
1 1 ...l:td8
Also seen is 1 l .. .b5 12 b3 l:tb8 1 3
'Wd2 a 5 (worth considering is
13 ...'Wa6! ? with the threat of b5-b4)
14 lL!d5 lL!xd5 1 5 exd5 lL!b4 1 6 c3
lL!a6 1 7 h4 h5 1 8 0-0 lL!c5 19 lL!d4
and White, by controlling the cen­
tre, has the preferable position,
Abramovic-Petursson, New York
1 986.
12 b3
Worth considering is 1 2 'Wd2 !?.
12 ...d5!
A decisive counterblow, based on
the shadowing of the queen by the
rook. This move is also played after
preparation: 1 2 ...e6 1 3 0-0 d5 !? 1 4
exd5 exd5 1 5 'it>h2 i.e6 1 6 lL!d4
'iic7 1 7 lL!ce2 lL!e4 with sufficient
counterplay for Black, Marinkovic­
Velimirovic, Vmjacka Banja 1 99 1 .
1 3 exd5
After 1 3 lL!xd5 lL!xd5 14 exd5
lL!b4 (upon 1 2 'Wd2!? this move
would not be possible) 1 5 c3 lL!xd5
16 i.xd5 i.c6 1 7 c4 e6 Black wins
back the piece with a good game.
13 ... lL!b4 14 i.d2
No help is 14 i.g5 i.e6 1 5 i.xf6
i.xf6 16 'Wd2 i.xd5 ! and Black
wins back the pawn. On 14 i.d4
follows 14 ...lL!bxd5.
14 e6 1 5 0-0 lL!bxd5 16 lL!xd5
•..
exd5
Also good is 16 ...lL!xd5 1 7 c4
lL!f6.
17 lL!f4 i.c6 18 i.a5 b6 19 i.b4
lL!e4 and Black equalises the game,
Marinkovic-Golubev, Belgrade
1 99 1 .
120 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
22Bc
(1 e4 cS 2 lbt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 ltJf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 g3 lbc6 7
ltJde2 �d7 8 �g2 'ii'c8 9 h3 �g7)
10 b3
Black carries out a plan with the
fianchettoing of the second bishop.
10...0-0
An interesting idea of Matulovic
is 10 ... h5 (it should be mentioned
that M.Matulovic employed this
thrust in reply to 7 ltJge2-7...h5,
practically forcing 8 h3, which after
8 ...�d7 9 �g2 'ii'c8 10 b3 leads to a
transposition of moves) 1 1 �b2 0-0
1 2 'ii'd2 aS 1 3 0-0-0 b5 (in the game
Matulovic-Velimirovic, Yugoslavia
(ch) 1 988, Black offered a sacrifice
of the exchange- 1 3 ...a4 and on the
refusal l 4 ltJd5? axb3 1 5 axb3 l:ta2!
took over the initiative but, as
pointed out by Matulovic himself, it
is still worth accepting the sacrifice
14 ltJa4 :xa4 1 5 bxa4 'ii'a8 1 6 ltJc3
lba5 1 7 �fl :c8 1 8 �b1 ;!;) 1 4
lbd5 a4 1 5 lbb6 (in the case o f 1 5
lbxf6+ �xf6 1 6 �xf6 exf6 1 7
'ii'xd6 Black has sufficient counter­
etay: 1 7 ... axb3 1 8 axb3 �e6 1 9
lDc3 :d8 20 'ii'c5 lbd4 2 1 'ifxc8
:axeS = I.Markovic) 1 5 ...'ii'a6 1 6
lbxa8 :xa8 1 7 lbc3 axb3 1 8 cxb3
and here in the game Matulovic-
Markovic, Belgrade 1996, Black
should have played 1 8 ...b4 ! .
1 1 �b2 aS
Also seen is 1 l . ..lbe8 1 2 'ii'd2 ( 1 2
'ii'c 1 lbc7 1 3 a3 e6 1 4 f4 :es 1 5
'ii'd2 d5 1 6 e5 b5 = Lepelletier­
Koch, Narbonne 1 997) 1 2 ...b5 1 3
0-0-0 'ii'a6 1 4 �b 1 e6 1 5 f4 l:td8
with roughly equal chances, Palac­
Koch, Cannes 1 995.
1 2 a3
He does not succeed in exploiting
the weakening of the b6 square: 1 2
lba4, apart from 1 2. . .l:ta6 13 c4
lba7 1 4 lbac3 b5 with counterplay,
Black could try to exploit White's
delay in castling-12 ...lbb4 ! ? with
the idea of 1 3 lbb6 'ii'xc2 14 �xf6
�xf6 1 5 lbxd7 �xc3+! 16 lbxc3
ltJd3+ and Black wins the queen
(V.Salov).
12 ...l:ta6 13 :b1 lba7 14 ltJf4
:e8! 15 ltJcdS ltJxdS 16 ltJxdS
�xb2 17 :xb2 a4! 18 bxa4 ( 1 8 b4
'ii'c4 ) 18 ... lbc6! and Black main­
=
tains the balance, Salov-lvanchuk,
Buenos Aires 1 994.
22B
(1 e4 cS 2 lbt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 ltJf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 g3 lbc6 7
ltJde2)
7...b6

Black intends to exploit the fl-a6
diagonal.
8 i..g2 i.. a6 9 0-0 i..g7 10 h3 0-0
On I 0 . . .lieS possible is I I i..g5
lLld7 I 2 l:r.e i h6 ( I 2 ... 0-0 leads to a
eosition looked at below) I 3 i..e3
lDa5 I4 i..d4 ;t (A.Yermolinsky).
II i..gS l:lc8
Also seen is I l . ..h6 I 2 i.. e3 lLld7
I3 lle i lieS I4 'ii'd2 (or I4 l:r.b i
�h7 I 5 a4 with unclear play,
Kudrin-Thorsteinsson, Reykjavik
I9S6) I 4 ...�h7 I 5 l:r.adi lL!c5 I 6 b3
i..b7 I 7 g4 e5 I S f4! ;t as played in
Yermolinsky-Smirin, Erevan (ol)
I 996.
12 l:r.e1 lL!d7 13 l:r.b1 lLlde5 14 b3
fS l 5 lLlf4
G.Kaidanov recommends I 5 exf5
l:lxf5 I6 f4 lLlf7 I 7 g4 i..xe2 I S
lLlxe2 l:r.c5 I 9 i..h4 d5 2 0 f5 with
sharp play.
15 ...'ifd7 16 exf5 Wxf5 17 h4
'it>h8 18 i..e4 'ii'd7 19 h5 l:r.f5! 20
i..xf5 'ifxf5 21 h6 i..f8 22 lLle4 i..b7
23 f3 lLlb4 with sharp play,
Kaidanov-Shabalov, Philadelphia
I 997.
Line 23
(1 e4 cS 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL!xd4 lLlf6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 g3 lL!c6)
7 i..g2
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 121
At one time this move was not in
theory's good books since it allows
the deflection of the queen to the
exposed d4 square, which enables
Black to gain tempi for the develop­
ment of his pieces. However in re­
cent years White has found ways to
place his pieces actively.
7...lL!xd4
The consistent reply, but also pos­
sible is 7 ...i..d7 S h3 i..g7 9 i.. e3
0-0 I 0 'ifd2 l:r.cS I I 0-0 lL!xd4 I 2
i..xd4 l:r.c4 ! ?, striving to attack the
c2 pawn and preventing the knight
jump to d5 with good prospects in
the forthcoming struggle. For
example, in the game Salov-Anand,
Buenos Aires I 994, White became
"violent" by I 3 'ifd3 'ifcS (on
1 3 ...i..e6 possible is I4 lLle2 !) I 4
i..x f6?! i..x f6 I 5 lL!d5 llxc2 I 6
lLlxf6+ exf6 I 7 'ifxd6 llc6!
( I 7 ....i.e6 I S 'ifd4 =) I S 'ifd4 i..xh3
I9 i..xh3 'ifxh3 20 'ii'xa7 l:r.eS and
landed in a difficult position. More
reliable was the knight retreat 1 3
lL!e2, intending b2-b3 and c2-c4. An
alternative worth considering is I 3
e5 !? with the idea of I 3 ...lDeS I 4
'ifd3 .
8 'ifxd4 i..g7
9 0-0
It is useful to become acquainted
with other continuations:
122 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
I ) 9 .i.g5 0-0 I O 'ji'd2 .i.e6 I I 0-0
I a) I I . . .'ifb6 I 2 a4 .l:.ac8 1 3 lL!b5
a6 I4 .i.e3 'ji'd8 I 5 lL!d4 � Bakic­
Ataiik, Vmjacka Banja I 992.
I b) 1 I . . .l:c8 I2 lL!d5 (on 1 2 .l:.fe 1
possible is 1 2 ...l:te8 1 3 lL!d5 lL!g4 ) =
12 ... lL!xd5 1 3 exd5 .i.f5 I4 c3 .l:.c7
1 5 h3 b5 16 a3 a5 1 7 l:ac I 'ifh8 I 8
l::tfe 1 'fib7 1 9 l:e2 and, thanks to the
pressure on the e7 pawn, White's
chances are preferable, Baiashov­
Brodsky, Smolensk I 99 1 .
1 c) I I ...l:b8 ! I 2 lL!d5 .i.xd5 I 3
exd5 'ji'd7 1 4 .l:.fe i l:fc8 1 5 c3 b5
I6 l:.e2 .i.b7 1 7 .l:.ae i a5 ! with
initiative to Black, Rajthajm­
Szuharek, Palic 1 999.
2) 9 .i.e3 0-0 10 'ji'd2 lL!g4 1 1
.i.f4 lL!e5 1 2 lL!d5 .i.g4 1 3 0-0 e6 I4
lL!e3 lL!f3+ 1 5 .i.xf3 .i.xf3 I 6 .i.xd6
b5 1 7 'ii'd3 .i.xe4 1 8 "6'xe4 "6'xd6 1 9
l:Hd 1 'ii'c5 with excellent play for
Black, Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Moscow
(ol) 1 994.
3) 9 a4 0-0 IO a5 (White grabs
space on the queen's flank)
IO ... i.e6 (or 1 0....i.d7 1 1 0-0 .i.c6
1 2 'ifb4 "6'c8 13 h3 .l:.d8 I4 .l:.d l
l:.d7 1 5 �h2 .l:.c7 I 6 .i.e3 with
!lOmewhat better chances for White,
Radu-Calzetta, Kishinev I 995) I I
'fib4 lL!d7! ( 1 1 . .."6'c7) I 2 lL!d5 ! (it is
dangerous to take the pawn 1 2
'ii'xb7 lL!c5 1 3 'ifb4 .l:.b8 1 4 "6'a3
.i.c4 or I 3 'fibs l:b8 I 4 "6'e2 .l:.b4!?
with a dangerous initiative for
Black) I 2 ...b5 I 3 axb6 (on 1 3 a6
possible is I 3 ...lL!c5 I 4 0-0 .i.xd5
1 5 exd5 "6'c8 = S.Tiviakov)
1 3 ... .i.xd5 I4 exd5 'ifb6 I 5 "6'xb6
axb6 1 6 .l:.xa8 .l:.xa8 1 7 �d2 b5 I 8
l:.e I lL!b6 1A-1h Marinkovic­
Tiviakov, Cacak I 996.
9 0-0
...
Here White's main plans are
linked to the continuations:
23A: 10 h3
23B: 10 -..,4
23C: IO 'ii'd3
23A
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL!xd4 lLlf6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 g3 lL!c6 7
.i.g2 lL!xd4 8 "6'xd4 .i.g7 9 0-0 0-0)
10 h3
A useful prophylactic move, an­
ticipating the thrust of one of the
pieces (most frequently the knight)
to g4.
10 .i.e6
...
The move with the most ideas for
the struggle for the c4 square. After
I O. . . .i.d7 I I 'ji'd3 (more passive is
I 1 'ii'd i l%c8 I 2 a4 l:.c4 ) I I .. Jlc8
=
I2 a4 .i.e6 1 3 l:le I lL!d7 I4 lL!d5
.i.xd5 I 5 exd5 .i.f6 I6 l%a2 White,
preparing b2-b3 and c2-c4, obtains
a space advantage, Sanz Alonso­
Romero Holmes, Benidorm I 984.
But also worth considering is
I O...lL!g4 I I "6'd 1 lL!e5 with the
same ideas. On 1 2 f4 possible is
1 2 ...'ifb6+ 1 3 �h2 lL!c4, while on
I 2 'ii'e2 follows I 2 ....i.e6 1 3 lL!d5
.l:.c8. In the game Saltaev-Kondou,
Komotini I 993, White played 1 2
lL!d5, but after I 2 ... b5! I3 a4 e6 14
lL!e3 b4 I 5 f4 lL!c6 I 6 e5 d5 1 7 c4

bxc3 1 8 bxc3 'iVb6 Black obtained
good counterplay.
1 1 "ifdl 'ir'c7
Other continuations are also seen:
I) 1 I ...'ir'a5 1 2 ll:ld5 ..ixd5 1 3
exd5 ll:ld7 (or 1 3 ...l:tac8 1 4 c 3 'iVb5
1 5 l:te l l:tfe8 1 6 a4 'ir'a5 1 7 ..if4
ll:ld7 1 8 h4 ;!; Makarychev-Jevtic,
Novi Sad 1 983) 14 c3 ..if6 1 5 ..ih6
l:.fe8 16 h4 b5 with chances for both
sides, Janosevic-Martinovic, Smed­
erevska Palanka 1 978
2) l l . . ...,d7 1 2 �h2 l:tac8 1 3 ll:ld5
ll:lxd5 14 exd5 ..if5 1 5 c3 h5 1 6 a4
(worth considering is 1 6 ..ie3)
16 ...llc4 ! 17 l:te l ..ie5 ! with a
double-edged game, Laketic­
Shcherbakov, Chelyabinsk 1 99 1 .
3 ) I I ...'ir'c8 !? 1 2 �h2 'ii'c 4! 1 3 a4
l:tac8 1 4 a5 ll:ld7 1 5 ..id2 (in the
game Makarychev-Svidler, Russia
(ch) 1 995, was played 1 5 l:la3 'ir'c7
1 6 f4 ..ixc3 ! 1 7 l:txc3 'ii'xa5 1 8 f5
..ic4 1 9 l:tf4 ..ia6! and White does
not obtain sufficient compensation
for the pawn) 1 5 ...'ii'c 7 1 6 f4 ..ic4
1 7 l:.e l e6 1 8 'ii'f3 with a complex
game (P.Svidler).
12 ll:ldS ll:ldS
Weaker is 1 2 ... ..ixd5?! 13 exd5
b5 14 l:te 1 l:lfe8 1 5 c3 l:tab8
( 1 5 ... a5!?) 1 6 ..ig5 h6 1 7 ..ie3 ll:ld7
1 8 'ii'd2 with a small, but enduring
advantage for White, Lukin­
Arakelian, St.Petersburg 1 994.
13 exdS .irs 14 c3 bS I S 'ii'e2
l:.ab8 16 ..tgs :res 17 'ii'd 2 hS 18
.l:.fel aS with approximately equal
chances, Fabisovich-Savchenko,
Pula 1 990.
23B
(1 e4 cS 2 ll:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll:lxd4 ll:lf6 S ll:lc3 g6 6 g3 ll:lc6 7
..ig2 ll:lxd4 8 'ii'xd4 ..ig7 9 0-0 0-0)
10 'iVb4
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 123
In recent times this plan of organ­
ising pressure on the queen's flank
has become quite popular.
10...'ii'c7
10 ...l:tb8 1 1 a4 looks passive, and
though in the game Popovic-Sax,
Sarajevo 1 982, after I I ...ll:lg4 1 2
ll:ld5 ll:le5 1 3 a5 ..id7 1 4 ..ie3 ll:lc6
1 5 'ii'a3 b6 16 axb6 axb6 1 7 c3 b5
Black managed to keep the balance,
on the basis of insufficient pactice it
is difficult to give a real evaluation
ofBiack's idea.
But it seems that also premature is
the activity by IO ... a5 I I 'iVb3 ..ie6
1 2 'ii'xb7 (on 1 2 ll:ld5 good is
1 2 ...a4! 1 3 'ii'xb7 ll:lxd5 14 exd5
..if5 1 5 ..ig5 'iVb8 1 6 'ii'xb8 l:lfxb8
1 7 ..ixe7 l:txb2 + Adams-Kramnik,
Wijk aan Zee 1998) 12 .....ic4 1 3 e5!
(weaker is 13 l:te 1 ll:ld7! 14 'ir'c6
and now, following the game Milos­
Gaprindashvili, Palma de Mallorca
(GMA) 1 989, 14 ... ll:le5 ! 1 5 'ii'a4
.l:.b8 leads to an advantage for
Black-Milos) 1 3 .....txfl 14 'ii'xa8
'ii'xa8 1 5 ..ixa8 dxe5 16 �xfl l:txa8
1 7 a4 e6 1 8 l:ta3 l:.c8 19 l:.b3 and
White's chances are preferable.
Nevostruyev-Sherbakov, Russia
1 998.
11 a4
White endeavours to restrict
Black's pawns on the queen's flank,
but also not bad is the development
of the bishop:
124 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
1 ) 1 1 .i.gS .i.e6 1 2 liJdS .i.xdS 1 3
exdS a S (weaker i s 1 3 . . .'ifxc2?! 1 4
'ifxb7 'iffS 1 S .i.e3 'ifd7 1 6 'ifb4
.l:r.fb8 1 7 'ifd2 l2Jg4 1 8 .i.d4 and
White gains the advantage,
Glek-Vaulin, USSR 1 98S) 14 �S
( 1 4 'iib3 bS) 1 4 .. .'ii'xc2 1 S 'ifxb7
'ii'fS 1 6 .i.e3 'ii'd7 with equal
chances.
2) 1 1 .i.e3 .i.e6 1 2 liJdS .i.xdS 1 3
exdS liJd7 1 4 .i.d4 aS 1 S ii'd2 .i.xd4
1 6 ifxd4 with some advantage for
White, Hartvig-Jacobsen, Lyngby
1 988.
l l ...�e6
On 1 l . . .aS simplest is 1 2 'ifbs
.i.d7 1 3 'ii'e2, followed by .i.e 1 -e3.
After 12 'ii'b3 .i.e6 13 liJdS ltJxdS
14 exdS .i.fS 1 S c3 .i.d3 Black has
an easy game: 16 :e 1 .J:I.ab8 (or
16 ....i.f6 1 7 .i.e3 .i.c4 = Torres­
Koch, Tunja 1 989, but on 1 6... bS
with the idea of 1 7 axbS .J:I.fb8 +. he
should consider 1 7 .i.gS !) 1 7 .i.gS
.J:I.fe8 with equal chances, Popovic­
Velimirovic, Titograd 1 984
12 a5
In the event of 1 2 liJdS .i.xdS 1 3
exdS 'il'xc2! 1 4 ii'xb7 .J:I.fe8 1 S aS
l2Jg4 16 'ifb4 ltJeS White achieves
nothing, Popovic-Timman, Zagreb/
Rijeka 1 98S
After 12 .i.gS h6 (or 12 ... .l:r.ac8 1 3
llfc 1 aS ! ? and Black's chances are
not worse, Spangenberg-Leko, Bue­
nos Aires 1 994) 1 3 .i.d2 aS 1 4 ii'a3
.J:I.ac8 1 S .J:I.ac 1 l2Jg4 1 6 liJdS .i.xdS
1 7 exdS 'ii'b6 1 8 c3 hS arises a posi­
tion with chances for both sides,
Gi.Hemandez-Boissonet, Tunja
1 989.
12 ...l2Jd7 13 .i.e3
Striving to transfer the bishop to
the long diagonal, White does not
allow the deterioration of his pawn
structure, counting on the activity of
the bishop-pair. If he wants, he can
avoid this by means of 1 3 .i.d2 l:tfe8
14 .J:I.fc 1 ltJeS 1 S liJdS 'il'd7 16 'il'a4
.J:I.ac8 1 7 .i.c3 .i.h3 18 ifxd7 .i.xd7
1 9 f4, retaining the somewhat better
chances, Kindermann-Wirthensohn,
Hamburg 1 99 1 , or 1 3 liJdS .i.xdS 1 4
exdS .J:I.ab8 1 S .i.gS .l:r.fe8 1 6 c3
lDcS, but not achieving anything in
particular, Lanzendorfer-Lindeman,
Saltsjobaden 1 988.
Also seen is 13 �gS llfe8 14
.J:I.fc 1 ltJeS 1S liJdS 'ild7 1 6 ifa4
.i.xdS 1 7 exdS 'iVfS and Black dis­
plays counter-activity, Milosevic­
Petursson, Lugano 1 989.
13 ....i.xc3
Also possible is 1 3 ...ltJeS 14 liJdS
.i.xdS 1 S exdS l:[fc8 (weaker is
1 S ...'ifxc2?! 1 6 ii'xb7 l:lfb8 1 7
ifxe7 .i.f8 1 8 'iVh4 llxb2 1 9 .J:I.ac 1
'il'f7 20 l:tc7 with advantage to
White, Popovic-Ivanovic, Yugosla­
via (ch) 198S) 1 6 c3 'ii'd7 1 7 l:tfd 1
and White's chances are preferable,
Kudrin-Tal, Titograd 1 984.
14 bxc3 l2Je5
Weaker is 14 . . ..i.c4 1 S .l:r.fe 1 a6 1 6
f4 .l:r.ac8 1 7 e S and White obtains the
better game, but also after 1 7 �d4
eS 1 8 .i.f2 .i.bS 1 9 :a3 b6 20 .l:r.d 1
his chances are preferable,
Kotronias-Yrjolii, Dubai (ol) 1 986.
15 f4 lLlc4 16 .i.d4 f6 17 .J:I.fe1
.J:I.fd8

On I 7 ....tt7 also follows I 8 eS
dxeS I 9 fxeS fxeS 20 .icS with the
better chances for White.
18 e5! fxe5 19 fxe5 d5
After I9 ...dxeS 20 'ii'xb7 'ii'xb7 2 I
.ixb7 l:tab8 2 2 a6 and White has the
better endgame.
20 l:teb1 l:d7 21 'ii'a4 l:f8 22
.ixa7 liaS 23 .ib6 'ii'xe5 24 .id4
and White's chances are preferable,
Kotronias-Kir.Georgiev, Sofia
I 986.
23C
(1 e4 c5 2 tilfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tilxd4 tilf6 5 tilc3 g6 6 g3 tilc6 7
.ig2 tilxd4 8 'ii'xd4 .ig7 9 0-0 0-0)
lO 'ii'd3
White removes the queen to a
more natural position for implemen­
tation of his central strategy, but
here the queen becomes vulnerable
to the knight.
1 0....ie6
Also worth considering is
I O...'ii'aS with the idea of transfer­
ring the q�een to hS. For example:
I I .id2 'ifhS I 2 f3 .ie6 1 3 l:r.ac l
l:fc8 I4 b3 tilg4 + Carstens-Polster,
Germany 1987. More logical is I I
.ie3 'ii'hS 1 2 f3 .
After 1 0 ...tild7 1 1 tildS tileS I 2
'ii'e2 .id7 1 3 c4 l:r.b8 1 4 .igS l:r.e8
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 125
IS l:r.ac 1 bS 1 6 b4 tile6 1 7 .ie3 aS
I 8 cS White's chances are prefer­
able, Charbonneau-Bourval, Mont­
real l 999.
ll tild5 tilxd5
Black exchanges the active
knight. Another inventive idea from
the point of view of struggling for
the c4 square is l l .. .l:r.c8 1 2 c3 l:r.e8
1 3 .ie3 (weaker 1 3 .igS tilg4 14
l:r.ad l h6 IS .te l 'it'as I 6 a3 .id7!
17 'ii'e2 tileS 18 l:fe 1 .ia4 and
Black gained the advantage,
Martinez-Mestel, Oviedo 1 993)
13 ... 'ii'aS I4 a4 .ixdS I S exdS tilg4
1 6 .if4 tileS 1 7 'ii'e2 ifa6 I 8 'ii'c2
'ii'd3 I 9 'ii'b3 llc7 20 .:tad l 'ii'c4
with equal chances, F ercec­
Damjanovic, Pula 1 990.
12 exd5 .trs 13 'ii'e2 b5
Also worth considering is
1 3 ...'ii'd7 !?, with the queen looking
at both flanks. For example: 14 c3
l:r.fe8 I S .ie3 .ih3 16 l:fd 1 .ixg2
I 7 'it>xg2 a6 1 8 a4 bS and Black
keeps the balance, Tolnai­
Schneider, Hungary 1 994.
14 c3 l:r.b8 15 .ie3
Or IS .igS lle8 16 'ii'd2 aS I 7 a3
•A-•A Hartmann-Sosonko, Hanover
1983.
15 ...'ii'c7 16 'ii'd2 l:fc8 17 l:r.fe1
b4 18 cxb4 1i"c2 19 .:tacl 'ii'xd2
Also in White's favour is
19 ... 'ii'xb2+ 20 l:xc8 .ixc8 2 1
1i"xb2 .ixb2 2 2 .id2 (22 .ixa7
l:r.b7! = ) 22 ... .if6 23 l:r.c i ;!;
(J.Benjamin).
20 .ixd2 .ixb2 21 l:r.c6
He cannot leave the c-file: 2 1
l:r.xc8+?! l:r.xc8 2 2 llxe7 .te l ! 23
.ie I .igS and the rook falls under
the crossfire of the two bishops
(J.Benjamin).
21 ...�fS 22 a4 .id7 23 b5 .ixc6
24 dxc6 .id4 25 .ih3 and since the
threat to form a pair of passed
pawns, supported by the active
126 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
bishops, constrains Black's rook,
White's position is preferable,
Benjamin-Kaliksteyn, New York
1993.
Line 24
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 g3)
6.....ig7
A natural move, with which Black
does not pretend to drive away the
knight.
7 ..ig2
. White allows the thrust .....ic8-g4,
hoping to derive benefit from the
unstable position of the bishop.
Here the continuations are:
24A: 7.....ig4
248: 7 ...0-0
On 7 ...ltJc6 it is necessary to take
into account 8 ltJxc6 (8 ltJde2 leads
to a position from Line 22) 8 ...bxc6
9 e5 dxe5 10 'ifxd8+ (winning the
exchang_e by I 0 ..ixc6+ ..id7 1 1
..ixa8 'ifxa8 is not so good, for
example the game Matulovic­
Erdogan, Ankara (zt) 1 995, contin­
ued: 1 2 f3 e4 1 3 0-0 exf3 14 'ii'x f3
..ic6 15 'ife2 0-0 16 ..if4 'ifb7 1 7
.l:r.ab 1 ltJg4 1 8 'ifxg4 'ifb6+ 1 9 l:lf2
..ixc3 with a good game for Black)
IO ...<ihd8 1 1 ..ixc6 l:tb8 1 2 ..ie3
with a more pleasant endgame for
White. In the game Adams-Dreev,
Linares 1 997, Black decided on
1 2 . . .lhb2?! and after 1 3 0-0-0+
q;c7 14 ..ib5 l:[b4 1 5 a3 he had to
give up the exchange.
24A
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 g3 ..ig7 7
i.g2)
7...i.g4
This thrust is more logical than on
the 6th move since the idea of trans­
ferring to the channels of the Rauzer
Attack by f2-f3 is less effective with
the bishop on g2. However now,
distinct from 22B, White carries out
kingside castling.
8 ltJde2 ltJc6
By threatening to exchange bish­
ops with 8 ...'ifc8, Black can prevent
castling, but after 9 h3 i.d7 the
game leads into positions looked at
in variation 22B, though with a loss
of tempo (. . . ltJb8-c6 has not been
played).
9 h3
After 9 0-0 'ifc8 White is forced
to reconcile himself to an exchange
of light-squared bishops: 1 0 f3 (not
good, of course, is 1 0 .l:r.e 1 ? ltJe5)

1 0 ... .th3 (after 10 . . ..td7 1 1 .te3 h5
1 2 "ii'd2 lDe5 1 3 b3 White's chances
are preferable) 1 1 .txh3 'ii'xh3 1 2
.tg5 (not in the spirit of the position
is 1 2 g4?! g5 ! 13 lbd5 h5! +)
1 2 ... 0-0 1 3 'ii'd2 h6 1 4 .te3 �h7 1 5
l:tac 1 'ii'd7 1 6 lbd5 lDxd5 1 7 exd5
tbe5 with equal chances, Spassky­
Fischer, S.Stefan!Belgrade (m/24)
1 992.
9.. .td7 10 0-0
.
After carrying out the plan with
queenside castling by 1 0 b3 Wc8 1 1
.i.b2 0-0 1 2 'ii'd2 b5 1 3 0-0-0 Black
has good counterplay: 13 ... a5 1 4
lDd5 a4 1 5 lDb6 ji'a6 1 6 lDxa8
J:lxa8 1 7 b4 a3 1 8 .tc3 J:lc8 19 f4
.te6 20 �b l Wa4 2 1 lDc l lDa5 22
e5 lDc4 and Black's initiative is
more than sufficient compensation
for the sacrificed exchange, Prasad­
Hodgson, Linares 1 996.
10...'ii'c8 1 1 �h2 0-0 and the po­
sition reached differs from that
looked at in Line 22 only in the in­
significant change of position of the
king to h2.
The usual continuations in this
scheme are 1 2 a4 and 1 2 .te3. But
let us also tum our attention to 1 2
b3, taking under control the impor­
tant c4 square. On 1 2 ... b5 possible
is 13 .tg5, after which not good is
1 3 ...b4?! 14 lbd5 ±, while in the
event of 13... h6 14 .te3 White's
Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 12 7
chances are preferable. In the game
Kovalev-Apicella, Ostende 199 1 ,
Black tried to put pressure on the h3
pawn: 14 ...lDh7 1 5 a3 lDg5 and
after 1 6 f4 ! lDxh3 1 7 'ii'd2 .tg4 1 8
J:lae 1 h5 1 9 f5 lost the ill-fated
knight.
24B
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 g3 .tg7 7
.tg2)
7 ... 0-0
Leaving the bishop thrust until he
has completed the development of
his king's flank.
8 0-0
On 8 h3, besides 8 ...lDc6 Black
could choose 8 ...lDbd7 with the
transfer of this knight, according to
circumstances, to c5 or e5: 9 0-0 a6
1 0 a4
1 ) l O ...lDc5 1 1 .te3 (worth con­
sidering is 1 1 .l:r.e 1 'iic7 1 2 .tg5
.te6 1 3 lbd5 .txd5 14 exd5 .l:r.ae8?!
1 5 'ii'd2 and, due to the threat a4-a5,
White obtains the advantage, Mazi­
Jazbinsek, Bled 1 995; stronger was
1 4 ...h6, driving away the bishop)
1 1 ...'iic7 1 2 'ii'd2 .td7 1 3 aS e5 1 4
lDb3 .te6 1 5 tDxc5 dxc5 1 6 ltla4
lbd7 17 flfd l and White had t he
128 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3
more prom1smg position in the
game Velitkovic-Runic, Yugoslavia
(ch) 199 1 .
2) 1 0.....c7 1 1 :e t lLle5 1 2 lLld5
lLlxd5 1 3 exd5 _.c4 14 i.e3 with
rather the better chances for White,
Mestel-Holland, England (ch) 1 989.
On 8 b3 possible is 8 ...i.g4 9
_.d2 lLlc6 l 0 lLlxc6 bxc6 I I i.b2
_.a5 (more crucial is l l . ..d5 1 2 h3
i.e6 1 3 0-0-0! ? _.c7 1 4 _.e3 :ac8
15 e5 lLld7 16 f4 lLlb6 1 7 g4 :rd8
1 8 _.f2 i.d7 19 �b 1 e6 20 h4 and
White is ahead in the race for attack,
A.lvanov-Kreiman, USA (ch) 1 994)
1 2 h3 i.e6 1 3 0-0-0 :rd8 with a
complicated game.
8 ... .tg4 9 tll de2
After 9 _.d3 Black gets the knight
into action with tempo by an attack
on the c4 pawn: 9 . ....d7 1 0 lLld5
lLlc6 I I i.e3 lLle5 1 2 �3 :res,
with chances for both sides,
Mortensen-Watson, Esbjerg 1 988.
There is also good counterplay for
Black after 9 f3 i.d7 l 0 i.e3 lLlc6
I I _.d2 :cs 1 2 a4 a6 1 3 :f2 _.c7
14 lLld5 lLlxd5 1 5 exd5 lLle5 16 b3
_.c3 and Black's chances are not
worse, Adams-Mestel, England (ch)
1 990.
9 lLlc6
.•.
Also possible is 9 . ....c8 10 :e t
(after l 0 i.g5 lLlc6 he cannot do
without the move 1 1 f3 since after
I I lLld5?! lLlxd5 1 2 exd5 lLle5 the
weakness of the f3 square tells: 1 3
f3 ? i.xf3 ! 1 4 i.xf3 lLlxf3+ 1 5 :xf3
_.g4 and Black wins back the piece,
retaining an extra pawn,
Marinkovic-Kudrin, Belgrade GMA
1 988) l O... lLlc6 I I f3 i.h3 1 2 i.h1
i.e6 1 3 i.e3 i.c4 1 4 _.d2 :ds 15
lt:lf4 e6 1 6 i.f2 _.c7 1 7 lLld3 :ac8
1 8 i.g2 i.a6 19 a4 b6 1h-1h Sax­
Kudrin, New York 1987
10 h3 i.xe2
Black is forced into this exchange
if he does not want to lose time on
the retreat of the bishop along the
lines of the previous variation.
1 1 lLlxe2
After I I _.xe2 :c8 1 2 i.e3 lLld7!
the threat to take on c3 forces White
to retreat: 1 3 lLld 1 lLld4 14 i.xd4
i.xd4 1 5 c3 i.g7 16 lLle3 :e8 1 7
:rd l _.c7 1 8 h4 lLle5 1 9 f4 lLlc4
and Black equalises the game,
Mohr-Cebalo, Ljubljana 1994.
l l . :cs
. .
Or 1 l .. .lLld7 1 2 c3 :c8 1 3 i.e3 a6
14 _.d2 _.a5 15 i.h6 i.xh6 1 6
_.xh6 _.e5 1 7 :ad 1 with somewhat
the better chances for White,
Komeev-Vila, Linares 1 995.
12 c3 a6 13 lLlf4 b5 14 _.e2 lLla5
15 :d1 _.c7 16 h4 e6 17 h5 :res
18 hxg6 hxg6 19 lLld3 lLlc4 with
chances for both sides, A.Kogan­
Neverov, Lazne Bohdanec 1996.
 Illustrative Games
Game l
Minev - Gufeld
Sofia 1 967
1 e4 c5 2 lt:JfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 5 lt:Jc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
.tel 0-0 8 0-0 lt:Jc6 9 1i'd2 d5 10
lt:Jxc6 bxc6 11 e5
l l lt:Je8
.•.
After l l . . .lt:Jd7 it is easy for White
to establish a blockade on the
queen's flank: 1 2 f4 e6 1 3 lt:Ja4 1Ve7
1 4 1Va5 ! when Black has great diffi­
culties. The exchange of one of the
knights also favours White:
l l ...lt:Jg4 1 2 i.xg4 i.xg4 1 3 f4 f6
1 4 i.d4 1Va5 1 5 1Ve3 .tf5 16 l:f2!
or l l .. .lt:Je4 12 lt:Jxe4 dxe4 1 3 1Ve3
1Vc7 1 4 .tf4! i.e6 1 5 l:ad l .
1 2 f4 f6 1 3 .to
With the threat of 1 4 lt:Jd5.
13...l:b8! 14 i.xa7 l:xb2 15 i.d4
.trs 16 l:fcl fxe5 17 fxe5. l:b4 18
l:ab1 l:c4! 19 l:b7
The continuation 19 i.e2 l:xd4
20 1Vxd4 1Vc7 leads to an advantage
for Black. Now however Black
threatens to take the 'exhausted'
rook. But. ..
19...lt:Jd6! 20 i.b6 1Ve8 21 exd6
.txc3 22 i.xd5+
A head-spinning situation: nearly
half the pieces on the board are un­
der attack! On the tempting
22 .. .'�h8 White had prepared the
deadly blow: 23 1Vxc3+! ! l:xc3 24
l:.xe7, threatening 25 i.d4+ mating.
22 ... cxd5! 23 1Vxd5+ 'ikf7 24
1Vxf7+ 'itxf7 25 l:.d1
Or 25 d7? i.d4+ ! .
25...i.f6?
Missing a chance to win by
25 ...l:b4 ! .
2 6 d7! l:xc2 2 7 d8=1V l:xd8 28
i.xd8 i.e4 29 l:.a7 l:bg2+ 30 'itfl
l:xh2 31 i.xe7!
The final flash!
31. .. l:hl+ 32 �e2 i.fJ+ 33 �xfJ
l:xd1 34 i.xf6+ �xf6 35 l:.xh7
•A-•A
130 Illustrative Games
Game 2
Timman - Topalov
Novgorod 1 995
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lc3 tt:lc6 3 tt:lf3 g6 4 d4
cxd4 5 tt:lxd4 i.g7 6 i.e3 d6 7 i.e2
tt:lf6 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ii'd 2 tt:lg4 10 i.xg4
i.xg4 1 1 tt:lxc6 bxc6 12 i.h6 i.xh6
13 'ihh6 l:b8
More active is 1 3 ...'ifb6.
14 b3 'ii'a5 15 'ii'e3 l:tfd8 16 h3? !
A poor move. White drives the
bishop to a better position. More
consistent is 1 6 tt:la4 e5 1 7 c4 with
control over the centre (J.Timman).
16 ... i.e6 17 l:tfd1 f6 18 l:d3 'ii'b6
19 'ii'h6
White plans an attack on the in­
sufficiently defended king.
19 'ii'c5 20 l:ad1 �h8 21 l:1d2
•..
2l. ..l:tg8
White already threatens to attack
by 22 e5 fxe5 (22 ...'ii'xe5 23 l:e2)
23 tt:le4 'ii'b6 24 tt:lg5 i.g8 25 l:g3
so Black brings in a defender, in­
tending ...g6-g5. The queen has to
withdraw.
22 'ii'e3 Wxe3 23 l:xe3 g5 24
tt:le2 �g7 25 tt:ld4 i.d7 26 tt:lf5+
.txr5
It was also still possible to fight
on with 26 ...�f8!?.
27 exf5 �f7 28 l:tde2 .l:.b7 29 g4
More cunning is 29 g3, retaining
the more pleasant prospects, since
now Black displays some activity.
29 ... h5 30 �g2 hxg4 31 hxg4
l:h8 32 l:te4 aS 33 l:te1 .l:.h7 34 .l:.e6
a4 35 bxa4 l:th8 36 .l:.1e3 .l:.a8 37
l:h3 l:txa4 38 l:h7+ 'it>f8 39 �g3
l:txa2 40 l:txf6+ exf6 41 .l:.xb7 ltxc2
42 l:.b8+ �e7 43 l:tb7+ �e8 44
l:tb8+ �d7 45 l:tb7+ liteS 1/z-1/z
Game 3
Dlescas - Gulko
Leon 1 992
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 d6 6 i.e2 g6 7
0-0 i.g7 8 i.e3 0-0 9 'ii'd 2 i.d7 10
f4 tt:lxd4 1 1 i.xd4 i.c6 1 2 i.f3 e5!
A typical method in the Sicilian of
reacting to the bishop manoeuvre to
f3. After the exchange . . . e5xf4 the
weaknesses of the d6 and e4 pawns
balance each other out and Black
has important control over the e5
square.
13 fxe5 dxe5 14 i.e3 'ii'xd2 15
i.xd2 l:.fd8 16 l:ad1?!
This allows Black to seize the
initiative. He should take the d4
square under control-1 6 i.e3.
16...l:.d4! 17 i.gS
Now after 17 i.e3 l:.c4 ! the e4
pawn is hanging.

17 ... h6 1S .ixf6 .ixf6 19 l:r.xd4
exd4 20 lLldS .igS 21 l:.dl l:.cS! 22
l:r.xd4 .ixdS 23 llxdS l:.xc2 24
lld7!
A superficial look at the position
would be deceptive. Despite the ma­
terial equality, opposite-coloured
bishops with rooks on the board,
there is no guarantee of a draw and
the side having the initiative is the
one who has the advantage.
Therefore White, not concerned
about losing a pawn, strives for
maximum activity. After 24 llb5 b6
25 a4 .ie3+ 26 'iti>fl a6 27 l:.b3 .id4
28 l:tb4 .icS 29 llb3 aS followed by
30 ....id4 or 30 ...llc4, Black increas­
es his advantage (B.Gulko).
24...llxb2 25 eS llxa2 26 .idS!
In the spirit of the same strategy.
After the direct 26 .ib7 Black suc­
cessfully attacks the eS pawn:
26....ie3+ 27 �fl l:.f2+ 28 lt>e 1
llfS 29 .idS .if4 (B.Gulko).
26....ie3+ 27 lt>n l:tf2+ 2S �el
bS 29 g4
Preventing llf2-f5.
29...llf4 30 l:.dS+ �g7 31 l:.d7
�f8 32 lidS+ �e7 33 l:tbS .ib6 34
l:tb7+ lt>eS 35 llbS+ �d7 36 llb7+
�cS 37 l:txti l:.xti 3S .ixti gS
It has all come down to 'pure'
opposite-coloured bishops where
the extra pawn is no guarantee of
victory.
39 .ieS a6 40 e6 .idS 41 e7?
An incomprehensible decision. He
was not obliged to give up the
pawn. After 4 1 �d2 q;c7 42 �c3
�d6 43 .id7 the outcome of the
struggle is unclear.
41 ... .ixe7 42 �e2 �c7 43 �d3
�d6 44 .ig6 �cs 45 .irs lt>b4 46
.icS
Also after 46 �c2 aS 47 .id7 a4
the game turns out in White's
favour.
Illustrative Games 131
46...a5 47 .id7 .id6 4S �c2
.ixh2 49 .ieS a4 SO .id7 .ieS 51
.ieS 'it>aS 52 .ic6 b4 53 �d3 b3 54
�c4 h5 0-1
Game 4
Castro - Rogoff
Graz 1 972
1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLld4 g6 5 .ie3 .ig7 6 .ie2 ltlf6 7
lLlc3 0-0 S 0-0 d6 9 f4 'iib6 10 e5
dxe5 1 1 fxe5 lLlxeS 12 lLlf5 'ifxb2
13 lLlxe7+ �hS 14 .id4 lLlfg4
Theory considers 14 . . .'ifb4 to be
best.
15 lLledS
1 5 lLlcdS? is not good because of
1 S ...'ii'xd4+! 1 6 1i'xd4 lLlf3+ with
advantage to Black. Now, however,
he threatens to trap the queen by 1 6
lLlcbS.
15 ...1i'a3 16 lLlbs 'Was 17 h3
lLlh6
1S l:tf6!
Shutting out the defence of the
knight on eS. Clearly Black cannot
capture the rook, 1 8 ....ixf6? 1 9
lLlxf6 lLlc6, because of 2 0 .ic3 fol­
lowed by a discovered check with
the knight f6.
1S ... ltJc6 19 .ic3 'iVdS 20 lLlbc7?
132 Illustrative Games
Overlooking the opponent's reply.
Necessary was 20 l:.d6 'Wg5 2 1 .i.d2
with ap_proximately equal chances.
20 ... tll e7! 2I 'ii'd2 lt::l xdS 22
lt::lxdS ..ie6 23 :txe6
He has to beat a retreat. The
deflection 23 1hh6? ..ixh6 24
l:r.xg6+ does not work because of
24 ... f6 etc.
23 ... fxe6 24 ..ixg7+ �xg7 2S
'ii'c3+ ..ti>g8 26 lt::le3 l:r.c8 27 'Wa3
'ii'd2 28 .i.c4 llc4 0-I
Game S
Spassky - Miles
Bugojno 1978
I e4 cS 2 lt::lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt::lxd4 lt::lf6 S lt::lc3 g6 6 ..ie2 ..ig7 7
..ie3 0-0 8 0-0 lt::lc6 9 lt::lb3 ..ie6 I O
f4 bS
The strength of this move is per­
haps greater than its reputation­
which to a certain extent was
damaged by this game.
1 1 fS b4?!
He should first exchange on b3.
I2 fxe6 bxc3 13 exti+ �h8 I4
bxc3 lt::leS
After 14 ...lt::lxe4 15 ..if3 d5 (or
1 5 . . .lt::lxc3 16 'ii'd2 d5 1 7 lt::ld4) 1 6
..ixe4 dxe4 1 7 lt::lc5 the i7 pawn is
revitalised.
IS ..id4 lt::lxe4 I6 .in lt::lxf3+ I7
'ii'xf3 lt::lf6 I8 l:.adi!
Subjecting the queen to an 'X­
ray' : 1 8 ...l:r.xil 1 9 lDc5 ! .
I 8. ..'.,c8 I 9 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 2 0 llxd6
l:r.xti 2I l:tc6 'We8 22 'We4 lld8 23
g3 ..ig7 24 'We6!
Blocking in the black pieces.
24 ... l:r.xfl + 2S �xfl .i.f6 26 lt::lcS
..ixc3 27 lt::le4 ..id4 28 c3 ..ib6 29
..ti>e2
White's arrangement of pieces
makes a pretty picture. Black cannot
move practically anything, while the
exchange of queens loses quickly.
29......d7 30 'Wxd7 :txd7 3I c4
lld4 32 lt::lgS h6 33 llc8+ I-0
Game 6
Kasparov - Gufeld
Baku 1978
I e4 cS 2 lt::lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt::lxd4 lt::l f6 S lt::lc3 g6 6 ..ie2 ..ig7 7
0-0 0-0 8 ..ie3 lt::lc6 9 lt::lb3 ..ie6 I 0
f4 'Wc8 I I �hi ..ig4
Nowadays the most frequently
met continuation is 1 l . ..:td8.
I2 ..igi ..ixe2 I3 'Wxe2 'Wg4 I4
'Wd2 lt::lhS IS :tf3 fS I6 h3 'Wh4 I7
exfS gxfS?!
Stronger was 17 .. Jlxf5 1 8 ..if2
..ixc3 ! 19 bxc3 'ii'f6 20 ..ie3, though
even here White's chances are
preferable.
I8 lt::ld4 lt::lg3+
A poor manoeuvre after which
White goes over to the attack. But it
was not easy to find the right way.
For example, on 1 8 ... e5 possible is
19 ..if2! 'We7 20 fxe5 lt::lxd4 2 1
'ii'xd4 dxe5 22 'Wd5+ 'Wil 2 3 lt::lxf5
winning a pawn. Perhaps the best
was 1 8 ...'Wf6, threatening mass ex­
changes on d4 .
I9 �h2 lt::le4 20 lt::lxe4 fxe4 2 I
llg3 'Wh6
Repulsing the threat of lt::ld4-e6,
most graphically illustrated by the
variation 2 l .. .'Wxf4? 22 'ii'x f4 l:.xf4
23 llxg7+ ..ti>xg7 24 lt::le6+.

22 i.e3 :n 23 f5 'iff6 24 c3 �h8
25 :n 'ife5 26 tllxc6 bxc6 27 i.d4
27...'iVd5
On the tempting 27 ...:gs
Kasparov intended to continue 28
f6! ! 'ifxg3+ 29 �xg3 i.h6+ 30 �h2
i.xd2 3 1 fxe7 :fg7 32 :f8 and
White wins.
28 l1xg7 :xg7 29 c4 'ifxc4 30
l1f4 c5 31 i.xgJ+ �xg7 32 f6+!
exf6 33 'ifxd6 'iffi 34 :xe4 �h8
35 :r4 l1g8 36 :xr6 'ifg7 37 :a c4
38 l:.c2 a5 39 a4 h6 40 l:.e2 'ifg5 41
'ifd4+ 'ifg7 42 'ifxc4 'ifg3+ 43 �gl
:d8 44 'ifc3+ 'ifxc3 45 bxc3 :c8
46 l:.e5 :xc3 47 :xa5 �g7 48 :h5
1-0
Game ?
Barua - Tiviakov
Tilburg 1 992
1 e4 c5 2 tll f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tllxd4 tllf6 5 tllc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
0-0 tllc6 8 tllb3 0-0 9 �hl i.e6 1 0
f4 'ifc8 1 1 i.e3 :d8 12 i.gl d 5 13
e5 tlle4 14 i.d3 f5 15 exf6 exf6 16
tllb5
Not dangerous for Black is 1 6 f5
i.xf5 1 7 tlld5 �h8.
16...f5 17 c3 i.f7 18 a4 h5 19 a5
h4 2o :o
Illustrative Games 133
20...g5!?
Black exploits a tactical chance
which has cropped up. However
opening his castled position has its
mmuses.
21 fxg5 i.h5 22 'ifn ?!
Stronger is 22 'ifc2 ..ixf3 23 gxf3
tlle5 (after 23 ...tllxg5 24 i.xf5 Wb8
25 i.e3 tllil 26 :g1 White's threats
are irresistible) 24 fxe4 tllxd3 25
'ifxd3 dxe4 26 'ifh3 with advantage
to White (Barua).
22 ...i.xf3 23 gxf3 :f8
White overlooked this tactical re­
source (24 fxe4 fxe4) but his posi­
tional advantage is sufficient
compensation for the exchange.
24 f4 a6 25 tll5d4 tlle7 26 'ifh3
tllg6 27 :n 'ifd7 28 .tel l:tae8 29
i.h5 'ifd6 30 tllxf5?!
30 tlle2 followed by i.g 1-d4 is
more reliable. Now Black simplifies
the position.
30...tllxf4 31 tllxd6 tllxh3 32
i.ti+ lbti 33 tllx fi �h7
Stronger is the preliminary
33 ... tllg 1 .
34 i.b6 �g6 35 �g2 tll hxg5 36
tllxg5 tllxg5 37 h3 l:le2+ 38 :a
l:.el 39 :d2 :bt 40 tllc5 tlle4 41
:e2 tllg3 42 l':lc2 d4 43 tllxb7 tll f5
44 �f3 :ht 45 l::.g2+ 'it>f6 46
i.xd4+ tllxd4+ 47 cxd4 l:.xh3+ 48
�e4 l':lg3 49 l:lxg3 hxg3 50 �f3
�e6 51 tllc5+ �d5 IA-1/i
134 Illustrative Games
Game 8
Smyslov - Botvinnik
Moskow (m/9) 1 958
1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 d6 6 .ie2 g6 7
.ie3 .ig7 8 h4 h5 9 f3 0-0 10 'ifd2
d5 1 1 lLlxc6 bxc6 12 e5 lLle8
Also 1 2 ...lLld7 is not bad.
13 f4 f6 14 0-0-0 fxe5 1 5 fxe5
.ixe5 16 g4 .ixg4!
Stronger than 16 . . . hxg4, which
leaves White more attacking
chances.
17 .ixg4 hxg4 18 h5
The position seems critical, but...
1.8...g5!
The white h5 pawn has become a
shield for the black king whereas
Black's control of the centre enables
him to take over the initiative.
19 .ixg5 'ifd6 20 l:h4 lLlf6
After the exchanges 20 .....tf4 2 1
.ixf4 'ifxf4 2 2 'ii'x f4 l:xf4 2 3 lLle2
the game is equal.
21 .ixf6 'ii'xf6 22 l:xg4+ �h8 23
�b1
An immediate 23 l:g6 does not
work because of 23 ... .if4, but now
after 23 ...l:b8 it would already be
possible.
23 ...l:g8 24 l:b4!
White defends resourcefully. Af­
ter 24 l:g6?! l:xg6 25 hxg6 �g_7 26
l:h l l:h8 27 l:xh8 �xh8 28 'ifh6+
�g8 29 'ii'h7+ �f8 the endgame is
more pleasant for Black.
24... a5! 25 .l:r.b6 .ixc3 26 bxc3
.r:tab8 27 l:lxb8 .l:lxb8+ 28 'iti>a1 !
The king i s safer here than on the
c I square and already l:[g I is
threatened.
28 ... .r:tg8 29 'ii'e3 .l:r.g4 30 a3 .l:te4
31 'ifd3 'ii'e5 32 �b2 l:e3 33 'ii'd4
'ii'xd4 34 cxd4 �g7
3 l . ..e5 is stronger.
35 l:tgl+ �fi 36 h6 l:lh3 37 l:[g7+
�f6 38 l:h7 l:h4 39 'iti>c3 l:th3+ 40
�b2 l:th4 1/z-1/z
Game 9
Kupreichik - Watson
Frunze 1 985
1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7
'ii'd2 lLlc6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 0-0-0 lLlxd4
10 .ixd4 .ie6 1 1 �b1 b5
An interesting pawn sacrifice for
the initiative. The continuations
l l . ..l:c8 and l l . ..a6 lead to a more
'academic' game.
12 .ixb5 l:b8 13 .l:lhel 'ii'a5 14
.ia4
The bishop is included in the de­
fence, but White has to reckon with
the consequences of the manoeuvre
which Black now makes. After 1 4
.id3 l:fc8 Black's attack is the
more dangerous.
14...l:.b4 15 .ib3 l:.xd4 16 'ii'xd4
lLld5

17 exd5!
An effective, even if practically
forced, queen sacrifice. After 1 7
'ii'd3 tLlxc3 14 bxc3 �xc3 Black's
attack becomes dangerous.
17 ... �xd4 IS .l:.xd4 �f5 19 .l:.xe7
'ii'dS 20 l:te3
He is not tempted by the pawn, 20
lha7, which allows Black to display
activity by 20 ...it'g5 2 1 g3 'ii'h5 22
h4 'ii'O .
20...l:teS 2 1 tLldl
We can see the results of the
queen sacrifice: White has a formal
material and slight positional advan­
tage, though he can never underesti­
mate the queen's capabilities.
21 ...�f8 22 g3 Wg5 23 a3 'ii'h 5
24 h4 h6 25 �c4
Not 25 �a4? in view of25 ...l:te4 ! .
2 5...g5 26 �e2 'ii'g6 2 7 l:xeS+
�xeS 2S tLle3 'ii'f6 29 l:[b4 �d7 30
f3 �dS 31 l:[e4 �f5 32 hxg5 hxg5
33 :c4 �d7
Here Black could play more ac­
tively by 33 ...'ii'e 5, though after 34
.l:.c3 the capture 34 ...'ii'xg3? would
be unfavourable because of 35
tLlxf5 'ii'e 1+ 36 �a2 'ii'xe2 37 tLlxd6
and White _gains a passed pawn.
34 :c3 WhS 35 g4 'ii'h l+ 36 �a2
'ii'e l 37 �a6 'ii'd 2 3S �b7 q;e7 39
�c6 �cS 40 tLlc4 'ii'f4 41 �b5 f5
42 tLle3 fxg4!
A clever piece sacrifice, allowing
him to set up a pair of passed
pawns. But also possible was
42 .. .'�d8.
43 :xeS gxf3 44 :es+ 'iti>f7 45
l:e6 g4 46 �eS?
A mistake, after which White
risks losing. Stronger was 46 �d3
g3 47 �g6+ ..t>f8! 48 tLlf5 it'xf5 49
�xf5 g2 50 �e4 g 1 ='ii' 5 1 �xf3
with an equal endgame (Minic,
Sindik).
46...�g7 47 �g6 'ii'xe3! 4S .l:be3
�g6
Illustrative Games 1 35
The passed pawns are stronger
than a rook.
49 l:teS �g5?
Black wants to win in the most
comfortable way, but ... overlooks
the opponent's rather obvious reply.
Necessary was 49 ... f2 50 l:tf8 g3 5 1
l:[g8+ 'iti>f5 52 l:[g3 f1 ='ii' 53 l:r.d3 a5
and White needs to think about con­
structing a ' fortress' of the type 54
a4 etc.
so l:[f8 �h4 51 c4 g3 52 :r4 1-0
Game 1 0
A.Fedorov-M.Makarov
Russia 2000
1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 g6 4 d4
cxd4 5 tLlxd4 �g7 6 tLlb3 tLlf6 7
�e2 0-0 S �e3 d6 9 f4 aS 10 a4
�e6 1 1 0-0 tLld7 12 f5 �xb3 13
cxb3 tLlc5 14 �c4 tLle5 15 �d5?!
Stronger is 1 5 'ii'e2! ? i,
M.Makarov.
ts .. :es! 16 tLlbS
.
The game D.Schneider-Nataf,
New York 2000, continued I 6
�xc5 dxc5 1 7 �xb7 'ii'x d1 1 8
:axd I :ab8 I 9 �a6 (weaker is 1 9
�d5?! e6 20 fxe6 fxe6 2 I �c4
tLlxc4 22 �xc4 �d4+ 23 �hI l:r.xb2
+) 19 ... :xb3 20 �b5 l:r.b8 and
Black has the preferable game.
16 ... e6 17 fxe6 fxe6 IS �c4
tLlxe4
 136 Illustrative Games
19 .ixe6+?
A serious mistake. After 19 .idS !
exd5 20 1rxd5+ �h8 2 1 1Wxe4 d5
22 1fc2 lDg4 23 .if4 l:.c8 24 1fd2
'ii'b6+ 25 �h 1 the activity of the
white pieces is in fact compensation
for Black's extra d5 pawn. But now
White suffers material loss.
19 ....1:txe6 20 1fd5 1re7 21 lDc7
No good is 2 l lDd4 lDc5 +.
21 ...1fxc7 22 1rxe6+ �h8 23
l:.acl lDc5 24 1fd5 1rc6 25 1rxc6
lDxc6
It all comes down to a technical
endgame. · By playing 26 ... f5 ! Black could
26 l:.ti lDe5 27 l:.c7 lbg4 28
.ixc5 dxc5 29 h3 .id4+ 30 �fl
l:U8+ 31 �e2 l:.e8+ 32 �d3 lbe5+
33 �d2 l:.f8 34 :tel b6 35 l:.e7 .l:tf5
36 l:le6 �g7 37 l:.xb6 .ixb2 38
�e3 l:lti 39 l:le2 l:le7 40 �d2 .id4
Stronger is 40. .. .ia3 ! 4 1 �c2
.ib4 with a winning position.
41 l:lb5
It's also not easy for him after 4 1
�c2 c4 42 l:lb5 cxb3+ 4 3 �xb3
�f6 +.
41 ... l:la7 42 .:.e4 �f6 43 l:lf4+
�e6 44 .:.bs l:ld7 45 lieS+ �d5 46
. l:la8 lbc6 47 l:lc8 .ie5 48 l:.f3 lbd4
49 .l:td3 .l:tb7 50 l:ld8+ .id6 0-1
Game 1 1
Fischer - Reshevsky
USA {m) 1 961
1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 g6 5 lbc3 .ig7 6 .ie3 lLlf6 7
.ie2 0-0 8 f4 d6 9 lDb3 .ie6 10 g4
d5 1 1 f5 .ic8 12 exd5 lbb4 13 .if3
gxf5 14 a3 fxg4 15 .ig2 lba6 16
'ifd3 e6
Practically forcing White to sacri­
fice a second pawn which in the
final result proves to be to his
advantage. At the present time
1 6...lDd7 1s considered more
reliable.
17 0-0-0 lbxd5
No better is 1 7 ... exd5 1 8 h3 g3 19
.id4 with advantage to White.
18 h3 g3
White strives to open lines on the
king's flank, while Black barricades
them.
19 .l:thgl 1fd6 20 .ixd5 exd5 2 1
lbxd5 �h8 2 2 .if4 1fg6 2 3 1fd2
.ixh3! 24 l:.xg3 .ig4 25 l:lhl
The threat was 26 lbe7 1re6 27
l:lxg4 ! 1rxg4 28 l:txh7+! �xh7 29
�+! .
2 5...l:lfe8 26.lbe3 1fe4?
have successfully defended himself.
For example, 27 lDxg4 fxg4 28 1fh2
l:lac8 29 llxg4 l:le 1 + ! . Now how­
ever a catastrophe befalls him.
27 1fh2 .ie6
28 l:lxg7! �xg7 29 1rh6+ �g8
Or 29 ...�h8 30 .ie5 ! .
3 0 l:lgl+ 1fg6 3 1 l:.xg6+ fxg6 32
lDd4 l:lad8 33 .ie5 l:ld7 34 lDxe6
l:lxe6 35 lbg4 .:n 36 1fg5 l:lfl+ 37
�d2 h5 38 'ifd8+ 1-0
Game 1 2
Yakovich - Lerner
Kuibyshev 1 986
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 lLlf6 5 lbc3 lbc6 6 .ie2 g6 7
.ie3 .ig7 8 lDb3 0-0 9 f4 .ie6 10
g4 d5 1 1 f5 .ic8 1 2 exd5 lbb4 13

.to gxf5 14 a3 fxg4 15 .tg2 lba6
16 'iVd3 ltld7 17 0-0-0
Apparently the best. On the obvi­
ous 1 7 .td4 possible is 1 7 ... e5! 1 8
dxe6 .txd4 ! 1 9 lbxd4 ( 1 9 'iVxd4
'iVh4+) 1 9 . . . lbdc5 20 'iVe3 'iVh4+
and Black's position uncoils like a
spring (Y.Yakovich).
17 ... lbe5 18 'iVe2 'iVc7 19 .td4
More logical is 1 9 h3, opening
lines for an attack on the king.
19 lbg6 20 .txg7+ 'iVf4+?
..•
This thrust only promotes White's
attack. More solid was 20 .. .'�xg7 2 1
d6 exd6 2 2 lbb5 'iVe7, successfully
defending himself.
21 �b1 �xg7 22 h3 h5
On 22 ... g3 follows 23 l:ld3.
23 :d4 'tVe5
24 'iVd2! gxh3 25 .txh3 .txh3 26
l:bh3 l:lad8 27 l:le4 'iVf5 28 'iVg2
'iVd7
White's heavy pieces carry out a
frontal attack and an attempt to 'buy
him off' with an exchan.ge sacrifice
fails: 28 ...l:lxd5 29 :o 'tVg5 30 l:lg3
'iVf5 3 1 lbxd5 'iVxd5 32 :xg6+.
29 lbd4 l:lh8 30 l:le7!
The beginning of the end.
30...'iVg4 31 l:lg3 'iVxd4 32 l:lxg6+
�f8 33 l:lxb7 lbc5 34 l:lb4 'iVe5 35
'iVfl 'iVe7 36 d6 'iVe5 37 l:lf6 l:lh7
Illustrative Games 13 7
38 :tf5 'iVxd6 39 l:lxc5 l:le8 40 .l:td5
1-0
Game 13
Savon - Gufeld
USSR (ch) 1 972
1 e4 c5 2 lbo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 ltlf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
.tel lbc6 8 lbb3 0-0 9 f4 i.e6 10
g4 :cs 1 1 f5 .txb3 1 2 axb3 e6
More energetic is 1 2 ...lbe5 1 3 g5
l:.c3 !?, but Black intends a clever
piece sacrifice.
13 g5
l3 ...lbxe4 14 lbxe4 exf5 15 lbc3
After 15 ltlf6+ .txf6 16 gxf6
'iVxf6 the game is level.
15 ...l:le8 16 .tfl 'iVxg5 17 �fl !
d5 18 ltlxd5 f4?
Black is distracted. He should
play 1 8 ... .txb2, though even then
White's chances are preferable.
19 c4 lbe5 20 l:lg1 'iVh6?
The queen is out of play here.
20...'iVf5 would be more stubborn.
21 h4! l:lc6 22 l:txa7 l:tce6 23
lbb7 lbc6 24 .tg4 l:.e4 25 .to
l:ld4 26 .txd4 lbxd4 27 l:le7 l:tb8
28 l:te4 lbxb3 29 lbe7+ �h8 30
lbc6 l:r.a8 31 'iVxb3 'iVxh4 32 �e2
h5 33 lbe5 �h7 34 lbxti l:tb8 35
'iVxb8 1-0
1 38 Illustrative Games
Game 1 4
Nunn - Kudrin
Wijk aan Zee 1 985
1 e4 c5 1 lbo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .tel .tg7 7
0-0 0-0 8 'ifi>h1 lbc6 9 lbb3 a6 10 f4
b5 1 1 .to .td7 1 1 .te3 l:tc8 13
l:[f2
With the idea l:.f2-d2.
13 ...b4 14 lba4
After 14 lbd5 lbxd5 1 5 exd5 lba5
the game is equal.
14 ... 1lb8 15 a3 lba5 16 lbxa5
'il'xa5 17 axb4 'ii'xb4 18 c3 'it'b5
19 e5! dxe5 10 fxe5 'ii'xe5 1 1
.td4 .txa4?
A mistaken exchange which not
only gives White the advantage of
the two bishops but, more impor­
tantly, a pair of connected passed
pawns. 2 1 ...'il'b5 was necessary.
11 llxa4 'il'e6 13 'ifa1 'il'c8 14
l:tel l:te8?!
Better was 24 ... e6, leaving the
rook for more active operations.
15 l:txa6 lbg4?
Pseudo-active, upsetting the coor­
dination of his pieces. More logical
wa 25 ... e6 followed by ...lL!f6-d5.
16 .ta7 l:.b5 17 'il'a4 l:.d8?!
Black is tempted by the trap, 28
'il'xb5? lld 1 + 29 .tg1 .td4 30 cxd4
'il'c l , but also after 27 .. Jig5 28
.tgl , in conjunction with the threat
l:ta6-a8, things are bad for him.
18 .txg4 'it'b7 19 .to 'il'd7 30
.tg1 'il'd3 31 lla8 l:tbb8 31 l:.xb8
l:.xb8 33 llxe7 'ii'd8 34 l:td7 1-0
Game 1 5
Smirin - Mark Tseitlin
Israel 1 991
1 e4 c5 1 lbo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lL!f6 5 lbc3 lbc6 6 .tel g6 7
0-0 .tg7 8 lbb3 0-0 9 'ifi>h1 a6 10 a4
.te6 1 1 f4 lba5 11 lbxa5 'ifxa5 13
.td3 llac8 14 f5 .tc4 15 'ii'el
.txd3 16 cxd3 e6!
After the closing of the d-file this
break is effective. Not dangerous is
17 .tg5 l:.ce8! and neither way of
exchanging the f-pawn is to his
advantage.
17 .tdl exf5 18 exf5
On 1 8 lbd5 Black had planned
1 8 ...1lc2.
18 ...l:.fe8 19 'il'd 1 !
The queen heads for b3 . After 1 9
'ii'f.3 'ii'x f5 Black i s not worse.
19 ...gxf5?
An unnecessary weakening of his
position, which in addition allows a
transfer of the knight to an attacking
position. Better was 19 . . .'ii'b6 20 a5
'ifd4 ! and the queen controls the
whole board.
10 lbe4 'il'd5 11 lbg3 'ifxd3 11
lL!xf5 l:.el 13 .tc3 'ife4

24 'ii'x e2!
An effective queen sacrifice, neu­
tralising Black's rush forward. On
24 l:f3 he could have continued the
offensive: 24 ...lt:Jg4 25 'iffl ..ixc3
26 bxc3 'ii'e 5.
24...'ii'xe2 25 l:lae1 'ii'c2
Black has four ways of driving
away the queen and he does not find
the best one. Bad is 25 . . .'ii'g4? 26
..ixf6, and also no good is 25 . . .'ii'c4
26 lt:Jxd6 'ii'c6 27 lt:Jxc8 'ifxc8 28
..ixf6 or 25 ... 'ii'd3 26 lt:Je7+ �f8 27
lt:Jxc8. The best chance lies in
25 ...'ii'h5 ! 26 lt:Je7+ �f8 27 lt:Jxc8
lt:Jg4 28 ..ixg7+ �xg7 29 h3 'ii'h 4!
30 l:le2 'iVd8 31 lt:Je7 lt:Jh6! and
Black manages to defend himself
(I.Smirin).
26 lt:Je7+ �f8 27 lt:Jxc8 lt:Je4?
Fatally leaving his queen unpro­
tected, since it now falls victim to a
'windmill' combination. Necessary
was 27 ...lt:Je8 28 ..ixg7+ lt:Jxg7 29
lt:Jd6 f5.
28 l:lxe4! 'ii'xe4
After 28 ... ..ixc3? 29 lt:Jxd6 threat­
ens a back rank mate.
29 l:lxti+! �g8 30 l:lxg7+ �f8 3 1
l:lti+ �g8 3 2 : n 'ii'e6 3 3 li:Jb6 d5
34 a5 'ii'e2 35 l:lel 'ii'b5 36 h3 d4
37 ..ixd4 'ii'xa5 38 l:.e7 'ii'b5 39
l:lg7+ �f8 40 l:lxh7 �e8 41 l:lxb7
'ii'c6 42 l:la7 'ii'c l+ 43 ..igl 'ihb2
44 lba6 'Wb1 45 l:la4 'ifb5 46 l:lg4
'ii'e2 47 li:Jd5 'ifdl 48 lt:Jc3 'iVai 49
lt:Je4 <J6ti 50 li:Jd2 �f6 51 li:Jf3 �f5
52 �h2 'ii'c l 53 ..id4 1-0
Game 1 6
Tal - Gufeld
USSR 1977
1 e4 c5 2 lt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:Jxd4 li:Jf6 5 lt:Jc3 g6 6 ..ie2 ..ig7 7
0-0 lt:Jc6 8 li:Jb3 0-0 9 ..ig5 a6 10 f4
b5 1 1 ..if3 ..ib7 12 �hl li:Jd7! 13
'ii'e 1 a5!
Illustrative Games 13 9
Black prefers to sacrifice a pawn
since after 1 3 ...b4 1 4 lt:Jd5 ..ixb2 1 5
ltd I ..ig7 1 6 e5 the initiative passes
to White.
14 li:Jb5 a4 15 li:Jd2 h6 16 ..ih4
lt:Jc5
Also here, unfavourable is
16 ... ..ixb2 17 l:lb 1 a3 18 lt:Jxa3.
17 lt:Jc4 ..ia6 18 li:Jba3 li:Jd4 19
l:.fl l:tc8?!
Up to this point Black has played
very energetically, but now, with a
routine move, he loses precious
time. More energetic was 19 . . .lt:Jxf3
20 gxf3 f5 ! 2 1 exf5 g5 22 fxg5 hxg5
23 ..ixg5 l:lxf5 or 1 9 ... d5 20 exd5
lt:Jxf3 2 1 gxf3 'ii'xd5 22 li:Jb6 'ii'h5
with a complicated game.
20 l:td1 lll xf3 21 gxf3 'ikc7 22 b3
f5 23 exf5 g5 24 fxg5 hxg5 25
..ixg5 llxf5 26 'ii'xe7 d5! 27 li:Jd6
27...'ii'xe7?
A mistake due to not seeing
White's reply on the 29th move. It
was necessary to give up_ the ex­
change by 27 ... l:txg5 28 'iWxg5 (28
lt:Jxc8?! 'ii'f4 29 'ii'c5 ..ie2 !)
28 ...'ikxd6.
28 ..ixe7 lt:Je4 29 fxe4!
After 29 lt:Jxe4 dxe4 everything is
in order for Black.
29 ... l:lxf2 30 lt:Jxc8 ..ixc8 31 exd5
axb3 32 axb3 ..ih3 33 ..ic5 l:te2 34
l:td3?
140 Illustrative Games
White has an enormous advan­
tage, but Black retains some initia­
tive and hypnotic hopes in the
strength of the bishop-pair. Never­
theless, by giving up part of his ex­
tra material, 34 l£lc4! .l:.xc2 35 d6
.i.d7 36 .i.d4, White would consoli­
date his forces. Unfortunately Tal
could not overcome the psychologi­
cal influence of the bishop on b3 .
34..J:te 1 + 35 .i.gl .i.f5 36 l:.e3
.:at 37 l£lc4 .i.d4
Now the deadly pin demonstrates
that everything is in order for Black.
38 .l::tg3+ �h7 39 h4 l:.cl 40 l£ld2
.i.xc2 41 d6 l:.dl 42 l£lc4 .i.f2!
42 ....i.xb3? is a false trail: 43
.l::txb3 .i.xg l 44 l:.b7+ �h6 45 �g2
and White again has the advantage.
43 l:.g4 .i.xb3 44 lDb2 .i.d5+ 45
�h2 .i.xgl+ 46 l:.xgl l:.d2+ 47
�g3 l:.xb2??
Incomprehensibly underestimat­
ing the passed pawn. After 47 ....i.b3
or 47 ... .i.e6 the logical outcome of
this long-suffering game would be a
draw.
48 d7 l:.b8 49 l:.dl l:.g8+ 50 �f4
.i.e6 51 d8 =1i' l:.xd8 52 l:.xd8 1-0
Game l ?
Apicella - Svidler
Erevan (ol) 1 996
1 e4 c5 2 l£lf3 l£lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 l£lf6 5 lDc3 d6 6 .i.e2 g6 7
0-0 .i.g7 8 lDb3 0-0 9 .i.g5 a6 10 f4
b5 1 1 .i.f3 .i.b7 12 �hl lDd7 13
l:.bl .l:.e8 14 lDd5 f6!
Black drives away the bishop. The
weakening of the kingside pawn
formation is compensated by the
centralised position of the knight on
e5.
15 .i.h4 e6 16 l£le3 g5! 17 .i.g3
As shown by the further develop­
ment of events, stronger was 1 7
fxg5 fxg5 1 8 .i.g3 lDde5 (or
18 ... .i.e5 19 l£lg4 .i.xg3 20 hxg3
lDde5 2 1 l£ld4 ) 1 9 .i.h5 l:.f8 20
=
1i'e2 1i'e7 2 1 c3 with chances for
both sides (P.Svidler).
17 gxf4 18 .i.xf4 l£lde5
•..
With the establishment of the
knight on e5, Black's position
proves to be preferable.
19 .i.h5 .:.rs 20 c3 1i'e7 21 1i'e2
l£lg6! 22 .i.g3
As pointed out by P.Svidler, the
lesser evil was the exchange of the
bishop which has no prospects: 22
.i.xg6 hxg6 23 1i'g4 g5 24 .i.g3
when after 24 ...l£le5 25 .i.xe5 fxe5
26 lDa5 White comes alive.
Stronger is 24 ...l:.ae8 ! , retaining the
better chances.
22 l£lce5 23 lDd2
.•.
23 lDg4 merely provokes 23 ... f5.
23 ...�h8 24 l:.f2 .!:.adS 25 l:r.bfl
.i.h6
With the idea of exchanging the
dark-squared bishops after .i.g5-h4,
which would consolidate the posi­
tion of the knight on e5.
26 l£lg4 l£lxg4 27 .i.xg4 d5!
After this move Black's position
uncoils like a spring. But by now
good advice for White is hard to
come by.
28 .i.h5
Also after 28 exd5 .i.xd5 29 c4
(threatening 29 ... .i.d2) 29 . . . .i.a8 ! 30
lDb3 f5 3 1 .i.h5 .i.e4! Black has the
advantage (P.Svidler).

28 dxe4 29 tbxe4 f5 30 �xg6
.•.
On 30 tbd6 best is 30 ... �a8 ! ,
which leads to a transposition of
moves, whereas 30 ... l:xd6 3 1 �xg6
f4 32 �c2 e5 (32 ... fxg3 33 'ii'e5+
'it>g8 34 'ii'xg3+) 33 �xf4! �xf4 34
l:xf4 allows White to defend
himself.
30 ... hxg6 31 tbd6
The only safe place for the knight,
but not for long.
3l...�a8!
On 3 l . ..�d5 possible is 32 c4 ! .
3 2 �e5+
After 32 'ii'e5+ �g8 33 .l:.d 1 �g7
34 'ii'c5 e5 the queen is driven back.
32 ...�g� 33 l:d1 l:d7 34 'ii'd3
.l:.fd8 35 'Wg3
On 35 .l:.fd2 would have followed
35 ... �d5.
35...'ii'g5
After the exchange of queens the
knight on d6 is doomed.
36 'ii'xg5 �xg5 37 l:d3 �e4 38
.l:.h3 l:xd6 39 l:h8+ �f7 40 l:h7+
'ite8 41 l:h8+ 'itd7 0-1
Game 1 8
Karpov - Martin
Las Palmas 1 977
1 e4 c5 2 ttJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tbxd4 tbf6 5 tbc3 g6 6 �e2 �g7 7
0-0 0-0 8 �g5 tbc6 9 tbb3 �e6 10
'i&Jh1 a6 1 1 f4 b5 12 �0 l:c8 l3
tbd5!
In the present situation this thrust
is good, since Black has no counter­
play associated with a capture on d5
-a consequence of the not entirely
successful combination of moves
... �c8-e6 and ...b7-b5.
l3...tbd7 14 c3 tbb6 15 'ii'e2 tbc4
16 .l:.ad1 'ii'd7 1 7 l:fe1 Wa7 18
�h4 l:fe8 19 tbcl ! 'ii'b8 20 tbd3 aS
21 tbfl �d7 22 �g4! �xg4 23
tbxg4 a4 24 a3 'ii'b7 25 .:.n tbd8?
25 ...l:f8 is more tenacious.
Illustrative Games 141
26 f5 f6
27 �xf6!
A decisive opening up of the
king's position .
27 ... exf6 28 tbgxf6+ �xf6 29
tbxf6+ 'itf8 30 fxg6 hxg6 31 'ii'g4
tbf7 32 'ii'xg6 tbce5 33 tbh7+ 1-0
Game 1 9
Karpov - Miles
Bad Lauterberg 1 977
1 e4 c5 2 ttJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tbxd4 tbf6 5 tbc3 g6 6 �e2 ..ig7 7
0-0 0-0 8 �g5 tbc6 9 tbb3 �e6 10
�h1 .,c8
An attempt to treat the position in
the spirit of the variation where
White's bishop is developed on e3 .
l l f4 l:d8 12 �f3 �c4 l3 l:fl e6
14 l:d2 _.c7
It becomes clear that the differ­
ence in having the bishop on g5 in­
stead of e3 is in White's favour,
since the pin on the knight f6 pre­
vents Black from displaying any ini­
tiative in the centre. Therefore he
has to go over to defence.
15 'ii'e 1 h6 16 �h4 .l:td7
It is also not easy on other con­
tinuations: 1 6... a5 1 7 a4 �6 1 8 e5
or 16 ... l:f8 17 l:.ad 1 tbe8 18 �e2.
17 .l:.ad1 e5?
Black cannot endure the difficul­
ties of a 'god-forsaken' defence
-but this was necessary at all costs.
 142 Illustrative Games
Now, however. White wins
elegantly.
18 .ixf6 .ixf6
19 .ig4!
A masked tactical blow: the rook,
it turns out, cannot leave d7 because
of 20 i..e2 !, and the white knight
occupies d5 with decisive effect. An
immediate 19 .ie2 achieves nothing
since after 1 9....ixe2 20 ltJd5 the
queen can go back to d8.
19...exf4 20 .ixd7 'ii'xd7 2 1
:xd6 'ii'e7 22 :d7 'ii'e5 2 3 ltJd2
i..e6 24 lt:lf3 it'b8 25 l:r.7d6 i..e7 26
:6d2 i.. f6 27 ltJd5 .ig7 28 c3 g5
29 'ii'fl lt:le5 30 'ii'c5 i..g4 31 :n
-b6 32 it'hs it'b7 33 lt:ld4!
After 33 lt:lxe5 .ixe5 34 lt:lxb6
'ii'b 8 35 :ds axb6 36 :xeS i..e2 the
outcome of the game is unclear.
33 ... .id7 34 it'b3 'ii'a6 35 'ii'd 1
.ig4 36 it'b1 lt:lc4 37 'ii'd3 b5 38
:dfl it'b7 39 b3 ltJd6 40 lt:lrs lt:lxrs
41 exf5 l:r.d8 42 c4 �h8 43 h3 i..h 5
44 :e1 1-0
Game 20
Anand - Topalov
Linares /994
1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 g6 6 .ie2 .ig7 7
0-0 0-0 8 i..g5 a6 9 a4
This weakens the b4 square,
which is exploited technically by
V.Toealov.
9 ... ttJc6 10 tiJb3 .ie6 1 1 �h1
l:r.c8 12 f4 lt:la5 13 lt:lxa5 'ii'xa5 14
i..d3 l:r.fe8
A move in the modem style.
Black prophylactically defends the
e7 pawn in case of lt:lc3-d5 . Another
possible continuation is 14 ....ic4,
which White now prevents.
15 'ii'e2 it'b4 16 aS?!
White fixes the black pawn-pair,
but this only increases the number
of his own weaknesses. Worthy of
consideration is 1 6 f5 .ic4 1 7 i..d2.
16 ...i..g4! 17 'ii'd2
On 1 7 'ii'e 1 V.Topalov intended
1 7 ... .id7 (after 1 7 ...1Vxb2 1 8 i..x f6
i..x f6 1 9 ltJd5 and White has an un­
pleasant initiative) 1 8 .ixf6 .ixf6
1 9 ltJd5 'ii'x e1 20 lt:lxf6+ exf6 2 1
:rxe 1 :e7 with the idea of
. . ..id7-c6 and ...:c8-e8.
17 ....id7 18 'ii'e 2?
A draw offer? But on 18 l:.a3 it is
possible that Anand did not like
1 8 ....ic6 followed by 1 9 ...lt:ld7.
18 ...'ii'xb2 19 i..xf6 .ixf6 20 ltJd5
i..b5
Also not bad was 20...'ii'xa 1 2 1
:xa 1 i..x a1 .
21 .ixb5 'ii'xb5 22 'ii'xb5 axb5 23
l:labl l:tc5
 Illustrative Games 143

Summing up, Black has an extra,

albeit doubled, pawn. In view of the
fact that White's weak pawns are in
need of defence, it is not a good
idea to allow into play the second
black rook (24 lLlxf6+ exf6).
24 :rd1 �g7 25 lLlb6
On 25 g4 good is 25 ...g5 26 lLlxf6
exf6!
25....:.xc2 26 :xb5 :e2
As D.Bronstein used to joke in his
day "White's weaknesses disappear
and soon there is not a single one Black fully mobilises his forces
left!". and commences operations against
27 lLld5 lbe4 2S .:.xb7 :as 29 g4 White's king's flank.
lba5 30 g5 i.a1 ! 3 1 ltJxe7 19 i.e3 'ii'c 7 20 lLlfl
Not possible is 3 1 l:.xe7 because The exchange 20 exf5? gxf5 2 1
of 3 I .. ..:.ds. ltJt2 only plays into his opponent's
31. ..l:.xf4 32 ltJc6 l:.aS 33 l:.xd6 hands. After 2 1 ...l:U6 the rooks
:a2 34 l:[d1 :m 35 liJdS 'it>gs 36 break through to g6 for an attack on
.:.bs h5 the king.
Preventing the mate threat after 20... e5! 21 exf5 .l:.xf5 22 lLld3?
37 lLle6. Better is 22 i.d3 with the idea of
37 gxh6 i.e5 3S .l:.b7 l:.xh2+ 39 22 . . .1:.f7 23 lLlh3 and ltJg5 .
.

�g1 l:.hg2+ 40 'it>h1 .:.h2+ 41 �g1 22 ... .1:.af8 23 fxe5 ltJxe5 24 lLlxe5
l:.hg2+ 42 �h1 l:.g4 0-1 i.xe5 25 'ii'g4 'ii'e7
G.Serper considers the best
Game 2 1 continuation of the attack to be
Zagrebelny - Serper 25 ...i.c8! ? 26 'ii'e2 i.xh2 27 �xh2
Tashkent 1 992 l:h5+ 28 �g I d5 29 g3 (29 g4
i.xg4 !) 'ii'xg3+ 30 'ii'g2 .:.xfl + ! .
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 2 6 h3
ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7
0-0 ltJc6 S lLlb3 0-0 9 l:.e1 a6 10
i.n
I0 i.g5 is more often played.
10...b5 1 1 liJd5 liJd7
Weaker is I I . ..liJxd5 1 2 exd5 lLle5
13 c3 with the better game.
12 c3
White plans i.c l -g5. Also worth
considering is 1 2 a4 with the idea of
1 2 . .b4 1 3 a5 ! , fixing the weak a6
.

pawn.
1 2 e6 13 lLle3 lLlb6
••.

Also not bad is 1 3 ...ltJc5. 26...l:.f3!

14 f4 i.b7 15 ltJg4 ltJc4 16 liJd2 From here the rook attacks not
'itb6+ 17 �h1 lLlxd2 1S i.xd2 f5 ! only the bishop fl but also the h3
144 lllustrative Games
pawn, as shown by 27 i.g5? 'ii'x g5!
28 'ii'xg5 l:r.xh3+ 29 �gi i.h2+ 30
�hi i.g3+ 3 I �g i i.f2 mate.
27 i.h6 l:t8f5 28 �gl 'ii'f6?
Hallucinating, Black continues
under the illlusion that the rook can­
not be taken (but now the white
king is no longer on h i ! ) and denies
himself the fruits of his preparation
for a decisive storm, the logical
development of which might be
28 . . .l:r.f2 29 l:te2 l:r.xe2 30 'ii'xe2
'ii'h4 with an invasion on g3.
29 gxf3 i.xf3 30 l:r.xeS! 'ii'xeS?
Confusion. Circumstances have
changed with the sharp increase in
the role of the dark-squared bishop.
Necessary was 30 ...dxe5 3 I 'ii'g3
g5 ! .
31 'ii'h 4! gS 3 2 'ii'e l i.e4
Through inertia, Black plays for
the attack, but in his 'groggy' state
it would be more logical to ex­
change queens rather than bishops.
33 i.g2 i.xg2
33 ... d5 is stronger.
34 �xg2 l:tf6 35 'ii'xeS dxeS 36
i.xgS l:tg6 37 h4 h6 38 �f3 hxgS
39_ l:tgl l:r.f6+ 40 �e3 �fi 41 l:r.xgS
It comes down to a prosaic rook
ending where Black, due to his
pawn weaknesses, has no chance.
4l. l:r.f4 42 l:r.xeS l:r.xh4 43 �d3
•.
�f6 44 l:te4 l:thl 45 a4 �f5 46
axbS l:tdl+
Or 46... axb5 47 l:r.b4 l:td i + 48
�c2 l:r.d5 49 �b3 followed by l:r.d4
and �b4.
47 �c2 �xe4 48 �xdl axbS 49
�c2 �dS so �d3 �cs 51 b3 �dS
52 b4 �eS 53 c4 �d6 54 cxbS �c7
55 �d4 �b6 56 �c4 �c7 57 �cs
�b7 58 b6 �a6 59 b7 'iti>a7 60
b8='ii' I-O
Game 22
Benjamin - Gufeld
New York 1 989
I e4 cS 2 tiJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLixd4 tLif6 5 tLic3 g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 tiJfJ
An unjustified concession in the
centre. The main continuations are 8
0-0 and 8 i.b3.
8 tLibd7! ? 9 0-0 a6 10 a4 b6 I I
.•.
'ii'e2 i.b7 1 2 i.f4 'ii'c7 13 l:tfel e6
14 l:r.adl tiJeS I S i.b3
After I 5 tLixe5?! dxe5 Black con­
trols the d4 square.
lS ... tiJfd7 16 tiJd2 tlJcS 17 i.e3
l:r.ad8 18 i.gS?!
A loss of time. More consistent is
18 f4.
18 ... l:r.d7 19 'ii'e3 dS!
Now the position opens up to
Black's advantage.
20 exdS exdS 21 'ii'g3 tLie6! 22
h4 tlJxgS 23 hxgS l:tfd8 24 ttJn
24 ...'iti>tll !

The attack on the queen's flank is
crowned by his majesty who covers
squares of invasion along the e-file.
25 ._,h4 lLlc4! 26 .i.xc4 ._,xc4 27
._,xh7?
A dubious decision. For the sake
of a pawn the queen becomes a sta­
tistic, but also after 27 ._,xc4 dxc4
the advantage of the two bishops is
obvious.
27......g4 28 l:ld3 ._,xg5 29 l:lh3
d4!
A decisive break in the centre,
allowing a graphic demonstration of
the geometrical influence of the
bishops.
30 tt:Je4 '6'e5 3 1 lLlfd2 d3! 32 lLJO
._,xb2 33 cxd3 llxd3 34 lLleg5 l:ld1
35 .l:.xd1 .J:txdl+ 36 �h2 ._,xf2 37
lLlf7
Also after 37 lLle6+ fxe6 38 ._,xg6
Black has at his disposal the forcing
manoeuvre 38 ....i.e5+! 39 lLlxe5
._,gl + 40 �g3 ._,xg2+ 4 1 �h4
._,xh3+! 42 �xh3 llh 1 + 43 �g4
l:lg 1 +, leading to victory.
37... .ixf3! 38 .rlxf3 ._,g1+ 39
�g3 ._,el+ 40 'iii>g4 lld4+ 41 �g5
._,e7+ 42 �xg6 ._,e6+ 43 �g5 ._,g4
mate! 0-1
Game 23
Tal - Gufeld
USSR 1973
1 e4 c5 2 lLJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLJf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
.ic4 lLlc6 8 h3 0-0 9 .i.b3 lLlxd4 10
.ixd4 b5 11 lLlxb5
After this game, preference was
given to 1 1 a3 .
l l ... lLlxe4 12 .i.xg7 �xg7 13
...d4+ lLlf6 14 0-0-0 .i.b7
Possibly more accurate Is
1 4 ......a5.
15 .rlhg1 ._,aS 16 lLlc3 llac8 17
l:lge1 e6!
Cold-bloodedly preparing d6-d5.
18 g4 llfd8!
/llustrative Games 145
Not fearing 19 .ixe6 fxe6 20
llxe6 .rlf8, Black prepares to break
the pin on the Ion.g diagonal.
19 f4 ._,c5 20 1t'd3 d5 2 1 f5 exf5
Upon opposite-sides castling the
isolated pawn is not a weakness.
22 lLla4!
After 22 gxf5 d4! Black has the
advant�ge.
22 ... Wb4 23 gxf5 ._,f4+
After 23 ...d4! ? the 'Tarrasch
knight' (which is badly placed) is
stuck on the edge of the board and
White would still have to struggle
for equality.
24 ..t>b 1 l:le8 25 fxg6 hxg6 26
lLlc3 lh-lh
Game 24
Moldovan - Marin
Bucharest 1994
1 e4 c5 2 lLlc3 lLlc6 3 lLlge2 g6 4
d4 cxd4 5 lLlxd4 .i.g7 6 .ie3 d6 7
.ic4 lLlf6 8 h3 0-0 9 .ib3 lLla5 10
0-0 b6 11 ...d3 .i.b7 1 2 .i.d5
The main continuation here is 1 2
l:lfd l .
1 2......d7 1 3 .ixb7 '6'xb7 14
llad1 l:lac8 1 5 .l:.fe1 lLlc4?!
This thrust should be prepared by
1 5 ... a6! 16 lLJf3 b5. Now however
the knight cannot be maintained on
this outpost.
16 .tel b5 17 b3
146 Illustrative Games
Not good is 1 7 lDcxb5 a6 1 8 lDc3
lDxb2 and Black has the advantage.
17 ...b4 18 lDd5
The exchange 1 8 bxc4? bxc3 1 9
'ii'xc3 lDd7 is i n Black's favour.
18...ltJd5
On 1 8 ... ltJe5? follows 1 9 'ii'b 5!,
while after 1 8 ... ltJa3 White rein­
forces his knight-1 9 c4.
19 exd5 lDe5
Weak is 1 9 . . . lDb6? 20 lDc6 and
not possible is 20 ... lDxd5? because
of 2 l lDa5.
20 'ii'e4 f5 21 'ii'e2
21. ..'ii'xd5!
Black prepares to give up the ex­
change if only not to allow the
knight to get to e6: 2 l ...f4 22 ltJe6
f3 23 'ii'e4 etc.
22 ltJxf5
After 22 f4 'ii'c5 23 i.e3 lDd7 24
lDe6 'ii'xc2 25 lDxf8 'ii'xe2 26 l:xe2
�f8 Black has two pawns for the
exchan_ge and a solid endgame.
22 ...lllf3+ 23 'ii'xf3 'ii'xf5 24
'ii'xf5 l:.xf5 25 l:xe7 l:xc2 1/l- lh
Game 25
Jansa - Watson
Gausdal 1 988
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 ltJf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
h3 0-0 8 0-0 lDc6 9 i.e3 i.d7 10
i.b3 l:.c8 1 1 :et .l:.e8
Prophylactics in anticipation of
lDc3-d5. The main continuations
here are l l ...a6 and l l ...ltJe5.
12 'ii'd 2 'ii'a5 13 lDf3 a6
More energetic is an immediate
l 3 ...b5.
14 l:ad1 b5 15 i.h6 i.h8 16 ltJg5
lDe5 17 f4 lDc4
18 e5!
Exploiting the opportunity that
1 8 ... lllxd2?? is not possible because
of 1 9 i.xf7 mate!
18...lDh5?
And immediately Black makes a
mistake. After the counter 1 8 ...b4
not possible is 1 9 ltJd5? because of
1 9 ...lDxd2 20 lDxf6+ i.xf6, while
on 1 9 lDce4 ltJxe4 20 :xe4 i.e6! 2 1
i.xc4 i.xc4 the position is simpli­
fied and White's advantage is
minimal.
19 'ii'fl ! lDg7
The knight heads for f5. Now al­
ready 19 ... b4 does not achieve its
objective: 20 lDd5 e6 2 1 'ii'a7 ! and
White maintains the initiative.
20 g4!
Restricting the knight.
20 ...b4 2 1 lDd5 lDe6 22 f5!
Going for material gain.
22 ...lllxg5 23 i.xg5 ltJxe5 24
lDxe7+ l:xe7 25 i.xe7 i.c6 26 .l:.e3
'ii'b6 27 i.xd6 i.f3 28 i.xe5 i.xd1
29 i.xh8 �xh8 30 .l:te8+ 1-0

Game 26
J.Polgar - Kamsky
Buenos Aires 1 994
1 e4 c5 2 lL!fJ lL!c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL!xd4 g6 5 lLlc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 iLlf6 7
i.c4 1Wa5 S 0-0 0-0 9 i.b3 d6 10 h3
i.d7 1 1 f4 1i'h5 12 liJfJ b5! 13 a3
a5 14 1i'd3 a4
Also possible was 14 ...b4 1 5 lLle2
( 1 5 axb4 axb4 ) 15 ...bxa3 1 6 lLlg3
= 27...1i'xf4 2S �fl 1Wa4 29 lL!bd4
axb2 1 7 lLlxh5 bxa 1 =1W 1 8 lha 1
lLlxh5 19 c3 with an unclear game
(Bi:insch).
15 i.d5 lL!xd5
After 1 5 ... e6 16 i.xc6 i.xc6 1 7
lL!d4 i.b7 1 8 f5 White has a strong
initiative, Gi.Garcia-Zamora, New
York 1 994.
16 exd5
On 16 lL!xd5 possible is 16 ...:ab8
( 1 6... i.xb2? 1 7 :ab 1 i.g7 1 8 iLlb6)
1 7 iLld4 :res with double-edged
play.
16 ... lL!a5 17 i.d4 1i'h6
An artificial decision, apparently
based on an oversight. After
1 7 ... tiJc4 Black risks nothing.
1S l:tae1 :res 19 lL!xb5 :acS 20
b3 i.f5 21 1i'd2
2 I...:xc2?
Black is counting on an attack,
but he has insufficient resources for
this. However there is no way back:
Illustrative Games 147
after 2 l .. .iLlb7 22 i.xg7 1Wxg7 23
lL!bd4 White has a solid advantage.
22 1Wxa5 i.xh3 23 l:.fl
Black's hopes are justified upon
23 gxh3? 1Wxh3 24 liJd2 1i'g3+ 25
�h1 1i'xh3+.
23 ...axb3 24 i.xg7 �xg7 25
:xc2 bxc2 26 1Wc3+ �gS 27 gxh3
The rest is 'minus the two knights
defence'.
:as 30 :xe7 1Wa5 31 1Wxa5 1:.Xa5
32 lL!xc2 .l:r.xd5 33 a4 :as 34 :e4
f5 35 :b4 �g7 36 lL!cd4 'iti>f6 37
lL!b3 :a7 3S a5 g5 1-0
Game 27
Adams - Shirov
Bie/ 1 991
1 e4 c5 2 iLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL!xd4 iLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 i.c4 i.g7 7
0-0 0-0 S h3 lL!c6 9 i.e3 lL!xe4 10
i.xfi+ �xfi
Another way is 1 0...:xf7.
1 1 lL!xe4 lt:Jxd4 12 i.xd4 e5 13
i.e3 d5 14 lL!g3 �gS 15 c3 i.e6 16
lLle2!
Preparing f2-f4, which is not good
immediately: 1 6 f4? d4! 1 7 cxd4
exf4.
16...g5! 17 1i'd2 h6 1S h4! gxh4
19 i.xh6
19 ...1i'f6!
148 Illustrative Games
While preventing the break f2-f4,
Black tries to exchange the bishop
in a more favourable li_ght than after
19 ... i.xh6 20 'ii'xh6 WVf6 2 1 'ii'x f6
l:r.xf6 22 f4! when Black is left with
an isolated pawn on d5. Now, how­
ever, on 20 i.xg7 'ii'xg7 2 1 f4 there
is the intermediate move 2 l ...h3 ! 22
l:.f2 (on 22 g3 Black sacrifices two
pawns: 22 . . . h2+! 23 �xh2 d4! 24
cxd4 .idS opening the white king's
posiiton) 22 ...l:r.f6 ! , forcing White to
weaken his pawn cover: 23 g3 exf4
24 l:.xf4 (or 24 lDxf4 'ii'xg3+ 25
'it>h l i.f5 26 'ii'xd5+ i.e6!)
24 . . . l:r.xf4 25 'ii'x f4 i.g4! with
chances for both sides (A.Shirov).
20 i.g5 'ii'g6 21 i.xh4 l:.f5 22 f4
Intending, on 22 . . . l:.h5?, the ma­
noeuvre 23 i.g5.
22 ...'ii'g4!
A.Shirov has a fine feeling for the
pulse of the attack.
23 i.g5?
Now, with the black queen once
again in an attacking position, this
manoeuvre is not good. A.Shirov
considers obligatory 23 i.e7 l:.e8
(or 23 ...�£7 24 i.d6 l:.g8 25 fxe5
'ii'xg2+ 26 �xg2 i.xe5+ 27 �h 1
l:th8+ ) 24 l:.f3 ! with a double­
= 19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 Wc6 21 :a
edged game.
23 ...l:r.af8! 24 :a d4!
A decisive break introducing the
light-squared bishop into the attack.
25 cxd4 exf4 26 i.xf4 i.c4 27
i.e3 .l:.xa 28 i.xa i.xe2 0-1
Game 28
Tal - Gufeld
Sukhumi 1972
1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 d4
cxd4 5 lbd4 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 f3
lDc6 8 i.c4 0-0 9 'ii'e2 lDa5 10 i.d3
e5 1 1 lDb3 i.e6 12 0-0 l:tc8
A pawn sacrifice for the initiative.
On 13 i.a7 follows l 3 ...lDc4 ! .
1 3 l:tfd1
More decisive is 1 3 lDa5, elimi­
nating the possibility of the ma­
noeuvre lDa5-c5 winning a pawn.
1 3 ...Wxa5 1 4 lDb5.
13...lDc4 14 i.xc4 i.xc4 15 Wa
b6 16 l:td2 'ii'c7 17 l:tad1
It is not easy to exploit the
isolated pawn and stronger was to
'develop' the rook a l without
moving it from its square-1 7 a4
'ii'c6 1 8 a5.
17...lDe8! 18 'ii'h4 f5
Black has taken the initiative,
controlling the centre and the flanks.
l:tc7 22 :n i.f6 23 llg3+ l:r.g_7 24
l:txg7+ lDxg7 25 'ii'h6 llSe6 26 ltJd2!
A fine manoeuvre with the objec­
tive of eliminating the advantage of
the two bishops, based on an inter­
mediate move to break Black's lines
of communication-26 ... exf4 27
lDxc4 Wxc4 28 lDd5 ! .
2 6...i.g7 2 7 'ii'h4 i.a6?!
Retaining the two bishops but let­
ting go of the advantage. Stronger
was 27 ... lDd4 ! 28 lDxc4 Wxc4 29
l:td2 b5.
28 lDf3 i.b7 29 fxe5 dxe5 30
lDd5 Wxc2 3 1 lDe7+ 'it>h8 32 lDg6+
�g8 33 lDe7+ 1/z.l/z

Game 29
Short - lvanchuk
Novgorod 1 994
1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
llJxd4 liJf6 5 llJc3 g6 6 .tc4 .tg7 7
0-0 0-0 8 l:e1
Lately this plan has become fash­
ionable. The usual continuation is 8
h3 .
8...llJc6
Worth considering is 8 ... a6 9 .ib3
b5 10 .tg5 .tb7.
9 .ib3 a6 10 llJxc6 bxc6 1 1 .tg5
h6 12 .th4 llJh5
Beginning play on the dark
squares. After 1 2 ...llJd7 it is neces­
sary to take into account the active
13 f4 llJc5 14 .if2.
13 f3 �h7 14 ii'd2 .te5 15 .tf2
'ii'a5 16 l:ad1 l:b8 17 .id4
N.Short considers the best to be
17 .ie3 ! g5 1 8 g3, threatening to
blast the king's flank by f3-f4.
17 f6 18 lile2 'ii'xd2 19 l:xd2
••.
19...llJf4
Gathering the maximum ' harvest'
with play on the dark squares,
whereas on 19 ... c5 Black could with
advantage step back by 20 .te3 ! ,
creating a threat against the proud
bishop on e5, since not possible is
20... .txb2? because of the X-ray on
the b-file: 2 1 l:b 1 (2 l . ...ia3 22
.tg8+).
Illustrative Games 149
20 liJxf4 .txf4 21 .ie3 .txe3+ 22
l:txe3 g5 23 g3 l:b7 24 c3 .id7 25
f4 .tg4
White maintains a slight initiative,
but no more.
26 �g2 �g7 27 .tc4 a5 28 b3
.th5 29 h4 f5!
Demonstrating to White that his
rear is also vulnerable. On the ex­
changes 29 ... .tf7 30 .txf7 l:txf7 3 1
hxg5 hxg5 3 2 fxg5 fxg5 3 3 �h3
White begins a siege of the weak g5
pawn.
30 exf5 gxf4 31 gxf4 l:xf5 32
�g3 .tf7 33 .ta6 l:c7 34 .id3
1/z-1/i
Game 30
Short - Kramnik
Novgorod 1 997
1 e4 c5 2 llJO llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
llJxd4 liJf6 5 llJc3 d6 6 h3
The signal for the forthcoming
development of the bishop on c4.
6 ... g6 7 .te3 .tg7 8 .tc4 0-0 9
.ib3 lila5 10 'ii'd 2
White prepares queenside cas­
tling. The main continuation is 1 0
0-0.
10 .td7 1 1 .ih6 l:tc8 12 .txg7
•..
�xg7 13 'ii'd3
Preventing an incursion of the
knight on c4, which is possible after
1 3 0-0-0.
13 a6 14 f4 e5!
.•.
Black prevents the advance e4-e5
in the most radical way. The
weakening of the d6 pawn has no
significance since after an exchange
on f4 the weakness of the d6 and e4
pawns is mutual, while the black
pieces have a good outpost on e5.
15 llJde2 'ii'b6 16 0-0-0 .tb5!
Counterbalancing the weakness
on d6--an exchange on b5 would
remove the knight's defence of the
e4 pawn.
150 Jllustrative Games
17 'i'f3 .txe2 18 'i'xe2 �xb3+ 19
axb3 exf4 20 l:thfl
20 ...'i'a5?
Even Caissa's strongest players
sometimes take an awful tumble to
earth: Kramnik, carried away by his
queen incursion, forgets the well­
known truth that one in the field is
not a fighting unit and bankrupts his
opening strategy.
As pointed out by N.Short, it was
necessary to defend the f4 pawn:
20 . . . �h5 2 1 'i'd2 l:tfe8! 22 'ifilb 1
(weaker is 22 'i'xd6?! 'i'xd6 23
l:r.xd6 �g3 ! , intending on 24 l:txf4
-24 ... l:txc3) 22 ...l:te6 23 l:tf3 'i'c6
with a good game for Black.
21 l:txf4 'i'a1 +?!
Why not 2 1 . . .'i'e5 ?
22 tt:\b1 �d7
Threatening ... e4-e5 and an attack
on the queen from the rear (l:tf4-a4).
23 l:txd6 �c5 24 'i'e3 a5 25 e5
b5 26 l:th4 'it'g8
On 26 ...h5 decisive is 27 l:r.xh5 ! .
27 l:r.d5 �e6 28 'i'h6 l:txc2+ 29
'ifilxc2 l:.c8+ 30 �c3 1-0
Game 3 1
Rauzer - Kan
USSR 1 936
1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.g5 .tg7 7
'i'd2 �c6 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 �xc6
The tactical operation thought up
by Rauzer leads to a forced win of a
pawn. But it turns out that Black has
sufficient compensation for it.
.9 . bxc6 10 e5 �e8 1 1 exd6
.
�xd6 12 .txe7 'ifxe7 13 'ifxd6
'i'g5+ 14 'i'd2 'i'a5
Even stronger is 14 ...'i'xd2+ 1 5
'it'xd2 .i.h6+, driving the king to the
centre of Jhe board.
15 .tc4 l:tb8 16 .tb3 .tr5 17
�a4?
A ruinous loss of two tempi, but
also after the correct 1 7 l:the l Black,
with his two bishops, stands well.
17 ...l:tb4! 18 �c3 llfb8 19 l:the1
c5 20 'i'd5
Or 20 �5 c4 2 1 �xb4 cxb3 !
winning.
20 ... 'it'c7 21 a3 .i.h6+ 22 l:.e3
Forced!
22....i.e6 23 axb4
Desperation...
23....txe3+! 24 fxe3 .txd5 25
�xd5 'ifd6 and Black won. 0-1
Game 32
Shevelev - Mikhalevski
Israel (ch) 1 999
1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 g3 �c6 7
�de2 .tg7 8 .tg2 0-0 9 0-0 l:lb8 10
a4 a6 1 1 �d5 b5 12 axb5 axb5 13
c3

The main continuation is consid­
ered to be 1 3 �g5.
13 ...b4
Also possible is 1 3 ... ll:ld7 1 4 ll:ld4
ll:lxd4 1 5 cxd4 �b7 with approxi­
mately equal chances.
14 lll xf6+
With the inclusion of 1 4 ll:ld4
ll:lxd4-15 ll:lxf6+ Black eliminates
the e4 pawn-1 5 ... exf6! 1 6 cxd4 f5 !
and obtains the better game.
14 �xf6 15 ll:ld4 ll:le5
..•
Black counts on exploiting certain
weaknesses in the light-squared pe­
riphery of the opponent's position.
The alternative is 1 5 ... �b7 1 6
�e3.
16 f4 �g4
Requiring accurate calculation
since the bishop might be cut off.
Also worth considering is 1 6 ...bxc3
1 7 bxc3 ll:lc4.
17 'ii'c 2 ll:lc4 18 f5
On 1 8 b3 there is the intermediate
1 8 ...bxc3 .
Ui...'ii'b6 19 'ii'f2 llfc8 20 lla4
For the present the g4-bishop can­
not be caetured: 20 h3 ll:lxb2 2 1
fxg6 (2 1 'ifxb2 llxc3) 2 l . . .ll:ld3 22
gxf7+ (also insufficient is 22 'ii'e3
hxg6 23 llxf6 ll:lxc 1 14 llxc 1 exf6
25 hxg4 'ii'c 5) 22 . . .�xf7 23 'ii'a2+
b3 (V.Mikhalevski). Therefore
White indirectly defends the knight
on d4 (the threat was 20...ll:lb2).
20...bxc3 21 bxc3 ll:le5 22 llb4
Now on 22 h3 possible is
22 ...ll:ld3 23 'ii'e3 llxc3 (or
23 ...ll:lxc 1 24 llxc 1 �xd4 25 llxd4
e5 ) 24 �d2 (24 hxg4 ll:lxcl ! )
= his bishop is free and his positional
24 ...l:.a3 (the tempting 24 ...ll:lc 1 25
'ii'f2 �xd4 26 l:hd4 llle2+ 27 �h2
leads to a blind alley) 25 llc4 �xd4
26 .rl.xd4 �e2.
22 ...W'c5
V.Mikhalevski prefers to balance
on the edge and counter the threat of
h2-h3 since it is not easy to assess
Illustrative Games 151
the consequences of the queen sacri­
fice: 22 ...W'xb4 23 cxb4 ll:ld3 24
W'e3 ll:lxc1 25 l:r.xc 1 .rl.xc 1+ 26
'ii'xc 1 �xd4+ 27 �fl .
23 l:.xb8 llxb8 24 'ii'e3
Also here after 24 h3 there is
24 ...ll:ld3 25 'ii'e3 (or 25 W'd2 ll:lxc1
26 l:.xc 1 �e2) 25 ...'ii'c3 26 ll:lc6
�e2 and the bishop lives.
24...ll:lc4 25 W'f2 ll:le5 26 W'e3
26 ... h6!
After having confirmation of
White's intentions V.Mikhalevski
decides to play for a win, since now
on 27 h3 it is necessary to reckon
with the threat of27 ... i.g5.
27 ll:lc2
White proposes an immediate ex­
change of queens since even worse
is the endgame after 27 ii'xh6 'ifxc3
28 'ii'e3 'ifxd4! 29 'ii'xd4 ll:lf3+ or
27 fxg6 fxg6 28 'ii'xh6 'ifxc3 29
'ii'e3 'ifxe3+ 30 �xe3 ll:lc4 3 1 �f2
l:.b2 (V.Mikhalevski).
27...�e2
The crowning of Black's strategy:
achievements evident.
28 lle1 ll:ld3 29 'ii'xc5 dxc5 30
llxe2 1:tb1 31 fxg6 fxg6 32 �n
l:.xcl 33 c4 �g7 34 h4
Despite the pawn equality, White
has a difficult position since the
presence of opposite-coloured bish­
ops favours the attacking side. For
152 Illustrative Games
exam_ple, on 34 l:td2 possible is
34 ... ltJe5 and 35 �g2? loses to
35 ... .tg5 36 l:tf2 .!Dg4 37 l:te2 l:tc2 ! .
3 4...h S 3 S Ad2 .!Des 3 6 �fl
It's also not easy after 36 �g2
.!Dg4 37 .td3 .tc3 38 l:te2 .!De5.
36....!Dg4+ 37 �e2
After 37 �g 1 .tc3 38 l:te2 e5 ! a
king raid decides: 39 l:tg2 �f6 40
l:te2 �e7 4 1 l:tg2 �d6, as given by
V.Mikhalevski.
37 .tc3 38 l:tdl l:txc2+ 39 �d3
...
:a 40 �xc3 .!De3 41 l:td7 .!Dxfl 42
l:txe7+ �f6 43 l:tc7 .!Dxg3 44 Ac6+
�g7 4S eS l:te2 46 e6 l:te3+ 47 �d2
l:teS 48 e7 lbe7 49 'itd3 l:teS 0-1
Game 33
B.V1adimirov Meste1
- London 1 982
France 1 974
I e4 cS 2 .!Do d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.!Dxd4 .!Df6 S .!Dc3 g6 6 f4 .tg7 7 eS
.!DhS 8 .tbS+ .td7 9 "ii'O
The most consistent continuation
here is 9 e6. The queen takes aim at
the b7 pawn but never gets as far as
taking it.
9 ... dxeS 10 fxeS .txeS I I .te3
.t-xbS 12 .!DcxbS "ii'aS+!
Just in time. Now the troublesome
knight is driven away, while
ventures by White to try and win the
queen require great material
expenditure.
13 c3 a6 14 "ii'dS
14 .txd4! IS .!Dd6+ exd6 16
..•
"ii'xas .txe3
It becomes clear that the three
pieces are stronger than the queen,
while the open position of the white
king does not allow any of them to
be won: 1 7 "ii'a4+ .!Dc6 1 8 "ii'e4+
�d7 19 'iVxe3 l:te8.
17 �di .!Dc6 18 "ii'c7 0-0 19 l:tfl ?
Why not 1 9 "ii'b7 ?
19 ... l:tab8 20 �c2 .!Dd4+ 21 �bl
.!De6 22 _.xd6 l:tbd8 23 _.e7 l:td2
24 a3 .!Dhf4 2S "ii'xb7 .!Des 26 •o
.!DdS 0-1
Game 34
Nunn - Miles
I e4 cS 2 .!DO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.!Dxd4 .!Df6 S .!Dc3 g6 6 f4 .!Dc6 7
.!Dxc6 bxc6 8 eS .!Dd7 9 exd6 exd6
10 .te3 .!Df6 I I "ii'd 2 .tg7
In this variation the bishop is of­
ten developed on e7, where it pro­
tects the dark squares.
12 0-0-0 dS 13 .tcs .te6 14 _.d4
Here the queen is vulnerably
placed. Better is 14 .te2 .
14 ..."ii'aS IS .tb4 "ii'c7 16 g3 l:tb8
17 .ta3
17 l:tg8!
.•.
Preparing ....!Df6-e4.

18 'ii'a4 'ifb6 19 .ig2 lLJd7
On 19 ...lLJg4 follows 20 l:lxd5 ! .
2 0 l:t.d3 .if5! 21 rl.e1 'itd8 2 2 rl.f3
22 lLJxd5 does not work due to
22 . . . .1Lxb2+! 23 'itb l ! cxd5 24 l:lb3
.ixc2+! 25 'itxc2 'ii'f2+ and Black
wins (Miles).
22 ... l':1e8 23 l:lxe8+ 'itxe8 24 lLld1
lLlc5 25 .l:t.e3+ 'itd8 26 .ixcS 'ii'xc5
27 c3 d4!
An astonishing position. For­
mally, the black king is the more ex­
posed, but it is its covered colleague
that perishes.
28 l:.f3 .1Le4 29 l:lf2 dxc3 30
.ixe4 cxb2+ 31 'itd2 b1='ii' 32
.ixb1 l:lxb1 33 l:lf3 l:lb4 34 l:ld3+
'itc7 3S 'ffa3 aS 36 lLlc3 .if8 37
'ii'c l 'ii'f2+ 38 'itd1 'figl+ 39 'ite2
'ii'x c1 0-1
Game 35
Prasad - Tal
Subotica (izt) 1 987
1 e4 cS 2 lLJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLJxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 a6 6 f4 lLlbd7 7
a4 g6
A metamorphosis typical of the
modem treatment of the opening.
From the Najdorf variation Black
has transposed to the Dragon.
8 .id3 .tg7 9 lLlf3 0-0 10 0-0
'ii'c7 1 1 'ii'e l eS
The same well-known technology.
Black is willing to trade weaknesses
(d6 and e4) in order to control the
e5 square.
12 'ith1 b6 l3 'ii'h4 .i.b7 14 fxeS
dxeS 1S .ih6 lLlhS 16 .ixg7 'itxg7
17 lLlgS lLJdf6 18 l:lf3 'ii'e7
1 8 ...l:lad8! with the idea of
19 ... l:ld4 suggests itself.
19 l:lafl h6
Repulsing the threat to win a
pawn: 20 lLlxh7 'itxh7 2 1 l:.xf6.
20 lLlh3 .ic8
Illustrative Games 153
21 .ie2!
Intending, on 2 l .. ..ie6, to attack
by 22 g4 lll f4 (22 . . . .1Lxg4 23 .l:.xf6!
.ixe2 24 rl.xg6+) 23 lLlxf4 exf4 24
g5 .
2t. ..lLJdS 22 'ii'f2 lLJxc3 23 l:lxc3
.ixh3 24 .ixh5
Not 24 rl.xh3 lLlf4.
24....td7
M. Tal indicated as better:
24 ....1Le6 25 .ie2 b5 26 axb5 axb5
27 .ixb5 l:lab8 28 l:lc5 l:lxb5 29
l:lxb5 .ic4 30 l:ld5 .ixfl 3 1 'ii'xfl
'ii'b4 32 l:lxe5 'ii'xb2 and Black
maintains the balance.
25 .ie2 bS 26 rl.d1 ! l:lfc8 27
l:lxc8 .ixc8
Losing a pawn, whereas possible
was 27 ...l:lxc8 28 'ii'a7 l:.xc2, not
stopping short of a piece sacrifice:
29 .tfl bxa4 30 'ii'xd7 'ii'xd7 3 1
l:lxd7 llxb2 32 l:ld3 llb l 33 'itg l
l:le l 34 l:la3 l:lxe4 35 .ixa6 .l:.b4
with equal chances (M.Tal).
28 axbS axbS 29 .ixb5 'ifb4 30
.ic6! l:la6
No help is 30....ib7 3 1 l:tfl .l:t.f8
32 .ixb7 'ii'xb7 33 'ii'f6+ 'itg8 34
'ii'x e5.
31 :tfl! r5
An unfounded exposure of his
own king, but also after 3 l .. ..ie6 32
'ii'f6+ 'ith7! (32 ...'itg8 33 .id5) 33
.id5 Black suffers material losses.
32 .idS! f4
Of course not 32 ...'ffxb2? 33 'ii'c 5.
154 Illustrative Games
33 c3 'ike7 34 b4 i.e6 35 b5 lla3
36 i.xe6 'ikxe6 37 'ii'c5 llb3 38 lla1
h5 39 h3
Not carried away by the chase: 39
l:a7+ �h6 40 'ii'f8+ �_g5 4 1 'ii'd8+
�g4 42 h3+ �g3 43 'tfg5+ 1Wg4 ! !
and it is White who needs to think
about saving himself (M.Tal).
39 ...'ikf6
After 39 ... f3 40 l:la7+ 'it>g8 4 1
.!::ta8+ �h7 42 'ika7+ �h6 4 3 l:.h8+
'iti>g5 44 'ii'e3+ this pawn is lost.
40 .!::ta6 1-0
Game 36
Tal - Gufeld
USSR 1 974
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 g3 ltJc6 7
ltJde2 i.g7 8 i.g2 0-0 9 0-0 i.d7
10 ltJd5
Nowadays this move is consid­
ered premature-in great part on the
basis of this game, though Black
also had to 'suffer'. But such is the
fate of pioneers. Preference today is
given to the prophylactic 10 h3.
10...ltJxd5 11 exd5 ltJe5 1 2 ltJd4
'W'b6
· Black has the initiative on the
queen's flank. One of the key
threats is the march of the a-pawn.
13 c3 l:.ac8 14 'ii'e2 l:fe8 1 5 l:.d1
a5 16 a4
16...l:.c4?
This natural move, attacking a
pawn, proves to be a mistake. After
1 6 ...ltJc4 1 7 i.fl h5 Black would
prevent the development of the
bishop c l and maintain the advan­
tage. Now however a typical Tal
surprise awaits Black. _
17 i.e3! i.xa4?
It is as if Black is hypnotised. The
lesser evil was 1 7 . . . 'it'a6 1 8 i.fl
'ii'a 8.
18 b3! i.xb3 19 .!::td b1
Now it becomes clear that Black
loses a piece. The rest is a matter of
technique.
19 ...l:.xc3 20 ltJxb3 'ii'c7 21 ltJxa5
l:.c2 22 'ii'b5 ltc8 23 i.e4 ltJg4 24
i.b6 ltJxf2 25 i.xf2 J:.xf2 26 �xf2
i.xa1 27 rl.xa1 'ii'c3 28 'ii'b 1 f5 29
i.g2 1Wd4+ 30 �n ltc2 31 'ii'e 1
'ii'd3+ 32 �g1 lte2 33 'ii'n 'ii'd4+
34 �h1 ltf2 35 'ii'g 1 'ii'b2 36 �c4
1-0
Game 37
Makarychev - Svidler
Russia (ch) 1 995
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 g3 g6 7 i.g2
�xd4 8 'ii'xd4 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 h3
i.e6 1 1 'ikdl 'ii'c8 12 'it>h2 'ii'c4!
Exerting pressure along the c-file
restricts White's possibilities, due to
the worry over his c2 pawn.
13 a4
The thrust 1 3 �d5 ltJxe4 1 4
ltJxe7+ �h8 I s t o Black's
advantage.
13 ... rl.ac8 14 a5 ltJd7 15 lta3
It was better to continue his devel­
opment by 1 5 i.d2 'ii'c7 1 6 f4 i.c4
1 7 l:le l e6 1 8 'ii'f3 with a compli­
cated game.
15 ...'ii'c7 16 f4?!
Now it is already too late for 16
i.d2 because of 1 6 ...ltJe5 1 7 b3
'ii'c5 with the threat of ... ltJe5-c6.

16...i.xc3! 17 l:bc3
After 1 7 bxc3 i.c4 1 8 .r:te 1 'ii'c5!
19 �h2 i.a6 the position of the
rook on a3 merely hampers the de­
velopment of the bishop.
17 ...'iha5 lS r5 .i.c4 19 .r:tr4
i.a6!
It is important to simplify the po­
sition in anticipation of the attack.
20 rxg6 hxg6
Not 20 ... fxg6? 2 1 'ii'g4 and
White's hopes are justified.
21 .r:th4
It makes sense to retain the rook
by the move 2 1 .r:tcf3.
21....r:txc3 !
The anticipated sacrifice.
22 i.d2 :res 23 i.xc3 .r:txc3 24
'ii'd2 'ii'e 5!
24 ... l:tc5 25 b4 'ii'c7 26 bxc5
'ii'xc5 27 'ii'h6 'ii'e5 28 'ii'h7+ �f8
29 'ii'h8+ 'ii'xh8 30 .r:txh8+ �g7 3 1
l:ta8 leaves Black the exchange
down in a worse ending.
25 bxc3
After the queen exchange 25
'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 26 bxc3 i.c4 the a­
pawn is unstoppable.
25 ... i.c4 26 'it'h6 lL!f8
It has become obvious that
White's attack has come to a dead
end whereas Black threatens a swift
advance of the a-pawn.
27 ltg4
Trying to complicate. On 27 'ii'e3
could follow 27 ... a5 28 'ii'a7 i.a6.
Illustrative Games 155
27...a5 2S ltg5 'ii'xc3 29 e5 'ii'xc2
30 �hl 'ii'h l+ 3 1 �h2 'ii'h2 32
�hl dxe5 33 .r:tg4 i.e6 34 l:r.h4 e4
35 'ii'f4 a4 36 'it'xe4 a3 37 'ii'xb7
'ii'c l 3S �h2 a2 0-1
Game 38
Spassky - Fischer
S.Stefan!Belgrade (m/24) 1 992
1 e4 c5 2 lLle2 lLlr6 3 lLlbc3 d6 4
g3 g6 5 i.g2 lLlc6 6 0-0 i.g7 7 d4
cxd4 8 lLlxd4 i.g4 9 lL!de2 'ii'cS 10
f3 i.h3 1 1 i.xh3 'ii'xh3 1 2 i.g5
The attempt to trap the queen by
1 2 g4?! is refuted by 1 2 ... g5 ! 13
lL!d5 h5 ! 1 4 lLlef4 gxf4 15 lLlxf4
'ii'x fl+! 1 6 'ii'xfl hxg4 with danger­
ous threats for Black (Y.Balashov).
12 0-0 13 'ii'd2 h6 14 i.e3 �h7
..•
15 .r:tacl 'ii'd 7 16 lL!d5 ll:Jxd5 1 7
exd5 ll:Je5 lS b3 b 5 19 i.d4 ltacS
20 r4 ll:Jg4 21 i.xg7 �xg7 22 ll:Jd4
ll:lr6 23 c4 bxc4 24 bxc4 e6
Black is not afraid of the forma­
tion of the hanging 'little centre',
the drawbacks of which are com­
pensated by the exposure of the
white periphery. Also worth consid­
ering is an attack on the c4 pawn:
24 . . ..r:tc5 ! ? 25 f5 g5 26 'ii'e2 l:tfc8 27
ll:lc6 lt8xc6 28 dxc6 ltxc6 with suf­
ficient compensation for the ex­
change (Y.Balashov).
25 dxe6 rxe6 26 :ret :res 27
ll:lb3 a6 2S 'ii'd4 .r:tc6 29 .r:tedl
Not dangerous is 29 c5 dxc5 30
'ii'xd7+ ll:lxd7 3 1 .r:ted 1 .r:te7 and
Black defends himself.
29 ... e5 30 rxe5 ltxe5 31 'ii'xe5
dxe5 32 .r:txd7+ ll:Jxd7
In the approaching endgame the
weak c4 and e5 pawns balance each
other out.
33 .r:tdl ll:lr6 34 c5 �f7 35 .r:tcl
ll:Jd7 36 �f2 �e6 37 �e3 �d5 3S
.r:tdl+ �e6 39 .r:tcl �d5 1/l- 1/l
 Index of Variations

1 e4 c5 2 tiJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 g6 (6 .te2 .tg7) 7

Chapter 1 Classical Dragon with 7 .te3 tiJc6 7

Line 1 : 8 0-0 0-0 9 'iWd2 8

1A 9 ...d5 9
1 B 9 . . .ltJg4 10 .txg4 .txg4 10
1 Ba 1 1 f4 10
1 Ba 1 1 I ....td7 11
1 Ba2 1 1 ...tiJxd4 11
1Bb 1 1 ltJxc6 12
1 B e 1 1 liJxd5 13
1 C 9 . . ..td7 14
1 Ca 1 0 f4 14
1 Cb 1 0 ltad 1 14
1D 9 ... tiJxd4 15
Line 2: 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 1Wb6 16
2A 1 0 'iWd3 16
2 B 1 0 e5 17
Line 3: 8 0-0 0-0 9 tiJb3 18
3 A 9. . ..te6 1 0 f4 19
3Aa 1 0 ...1Wc8 1 1 � h 1 ltd8 1 2 .t g 1 d 5 1 3 e 5 ltJe4 19
3Aa 1 1 4 .td3 22
3Aa2 14 tiJb5 23
3Ab 1 0 ...tiJa5 1 1 f5 .tc4 24
3Ab 1 12 .td3 25
3Ab2 1 2 ltJxa5 26
3Ac 1 O. .ltc8
. 27
3B 9 ... a5 28
3C 9 ... a6 31
3Ca 1 0 a4 31
3Cb 1 0 f4 32
3D 9 ...b6 33
Line 4: 8 tiJb3 0-0 9 f4 .te6 10 g4 33
4Aa 1 0 . . .d5 34
4Ab 1 0 ...tiJa5 36
4Ac 1 0...ltc8 37
Line 5: 8 h4 38
Line 6: 8 'iWd2 39
 Index of Variations 157

Chapter 2 Classical Dragon with 7 lt:lb3 (7 0-0 8 0-0 lLlc6)

..• 42

Line 7: 9 ..t>hl 43
7A 9 . . .a5 43
7B 9 ... ..ie6 1 0 f4 44
7Ba I O...'Wc8 45
7Bb I O...l:c8 45
7C 9 ...a6 46
7Ca 10 f4 47
7Cb 10 a4 47
Line 8: 9 ..ig5 48
SA 9 ... a5 10 a4 ..ie6 I I �hl l:c8 1 2 f4 lLlb4 1 3 ltJd4 ..ic4 14 lLldb5 49
8Aa: 14 ... d5 51
8Ab: 1 4 .....ixb5 51
SAc: 1 4 ...'Wb6 52
SB 9 .....ie6 52
8Ba 10 f4 b5 1 1 .to 53
8Ba 1 1 l . ..b4 54
8Ba2 l l .....ic4 54
8Bb 10 �h l 55
8Bb 1 1 O... h6, 56
8Bb2 lO ...lLla5 1 1 f4 56
8Bb2a l l . ..l:tc8 57
8Bb2b l l ...lLlc4 58
8Bb3 1 0 . . .'iic8 59
SC 9 . . . a6 60
8Ca 10 f4 60
sea l l O ...b5 1 1 .to b4 61
8Ca2 1 o . . .b 5 1 1 .t o ..ib7 62
8Cb 1 0 a4 63
Line 9: 9 l:tel 65
9A 9 ...a5 65
9B 9 . . ...ie6 66
9C 9 ...a6 67
9Ca 10 ..ig5 67
9Cb 1 0 ..ifl 69

Chapter 3 Variations with 6 ..ic4 (6 ..ig7 7 h3 0-0)

.•• 70

1) Continuation with the development of the bishop 8 ..ie3 lt:lc6 70

Line 10: 9 ..ib3 lt:lxd4 70

Line 1 1 : 9 ..ib3 lt:la5 10 0-0 72
l l A 10 ... b6 1 1 Wd3 73
l l Aa l l .. ...ib7 73
1 1 Ab l l ...lLlxb3 74
l i B I O ... a6 75
1 58 Index of Variations

Line 12: 9 .ib3 .id7 1 0 0-0 :c8 75

1 2A 1 1 :e 1 76
1 2Aa 1 l ...�e5 77
1 2Ab 1 l . ..a6 77
1 2Ab 1 12 �d5 77
12Ab2 12 'ii'd2 78
1 2B 1 1 f4 79
Line 13: 9 .ib3 .id7 10 0-0 'ii'a5 79
13A 1 1 f4 80
1 3Aa 1 l . . .�xd4 80
1 3Ab 1 1 . ..:ac8 82
1 3Ab 1 1 2 �f3 82
1 3Ab2 12 'ii'f3 82
13Ac 1 1 ...'ii'h5 83
13B 1 1 :e 1 85
Line 14: 9 0-0 �xe4 10 .ixf7+ 86
14A I O . . :xf7
. 87
1 4B 1 0... �xf7 87

2) Continuation with the development of the bishop on g5 88

Line 15: 8 0-0 �c6 9 :e 1 .id7 10 .ig5 88

Line 16: 8 .ib3 a6 9 0-0 b5 10 :e 1 .ib7 1 1 .ig5 89
Line 17: 7 'ii'd 2 92
Line 18: 7 .ib5 .id7 8 'ii'e2 93
1 8A 8 ... a6 94
1 8B 8 ... 0-0 95
1 8C 8 ...�c6 96

Chapter 5 Levenflsh Attack 6 f4 97

Line 19: 6....ig7 97

Line 20: 6 ... �c6 99
20A 7 �xc6 bxc6 8 e5 99
20Aa 8 .. .lt�d7 9 exd6 exd6 10 .ie3 1 00
20Aal 1 0 ...�f6 101
20Aa2 1 0. . . .ie7 l0 1
20Ab 8 ...dxe5 1 02
20B 7 �f3 1 03
20C 7 .ib5 1 04
Line 2 1 : 6 ... ltJbd7 1 05
2 1 A 7 .ie2 1 05
2 1 B 7 ltJf3 1 07
 Index of Variations /59

Chapter 6 Counter Fianchetto 6 g3 111

Line 22: 6 ... c!t:\c6 7 c!t:\de2 111

22A 7 ...J..g7 8 J..g2 0-0 9 0-0 111
22Aa 9 ....:.b8 1 0 a4 a6 1 12
22Aa l 1 1 c!t:\d5 1 13
22Aa2 II h3 1 14
22Ab 9 ... J..d7 10 h3 1 15
22Ab l IO . . .l:tc8 1 15
22Ab2 1 0 ...a6 1 16
22B 7 ...J..d7 8 J..g2 1i'c8 9 h3 J..g7 1 17
22Ba 10 a4 1 18
22Bb 10 J..e3 1 19
22Bc 10 b3 1 20
22B 7 ...b6 1 20
Line 23: 6 ... c!t:\c6 7 J.. g2 c!t:\xd4 8 1i'xd4 J..g7 9 0-0 0-0 121
23A 1 0 h3 1 22
23B 10 'iVb4 1 23
23B 1 0 1i'd3 1 25
Line 24: 6...J..g7 7 J..g2 1 26
24A 7 ... J..g4 1 26
24B 7 ...0-0 1 27
 Index of Illustrative Games

page

I Minev-Gufeld, Sofia 1 967 1 29

2 Timman-Topalov, Novgorod 1995 1 30
3 Illescas-Gulko, Leon 1 992 1 30
4 Castro-Rogoff, Graz 1 972 131
5 Spassky-Miles, Bugojno 1 978 1 32
6 Kasparov-Gufeld, Baku 1978 1 32
7 Barua-Tiviakov, Tilburg I 992 I33
8 Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow (m/9) 1 958 I 34
9 Kupreichik-Watson, Frunze I 985 I 34
IO Fischer-Reshevsky, USA (m) I96I I 35
II Yakovich-Lemer, Kuibyshev 1 986 I 36
I2 Savon-Gufeld, USSR (ch) 1972 I 36
13 Nunn-Kudrin, Wijk aan Zee I 985 1 37
14 Smirin-Mark Tseitlin, Israel i 99 1 1 37
15 Tal-Gufeld, USSR 1 977 138
I6 Apicella-Svidler, Erevan 1 996 I 39
I7 Karpov-Martin, Las Palmas 1977 1 40
18 Karpov-Miles, Bad Lauterberg 1 977 141
19 Anand-Topalov, Linares 1 994 141
20 Zagrebelny-Serper, Tashkent 1 992 1 42
21 Benjamin-Gufeld, New York 1 989 144
22 Ta1-Gufeld, USSR 1973 144
23 Moldovan-Marin, Bucuresti 1 994 145
24 Jansa-Watson, Gausdal 1 988 145
25 J.Polgar-Kamsky, Buenos Aires 1 994 146
26 Adams-Shirov, Biel 1 99 1 1 47
27 Tal-Gufeld, Sukhumi 1972 147
28 Short-lvanchuk, Novgorod 1 994 I48
29 Short-Kramnik, Novgorod 1 997 1 49
30 Rauzer-Kan, USSR 1 936 149
3I Sheve1ev-Mikhalevski, Israel (ch) 1 999 I 50
32 Vladimirov-Mestel, France 1 974 I5I
33 Nunn-Miles, London 1982 1 52
34 Prasad-Tal, Subotica (izt) 1987 1 52
35 Tal-Gufeld, USSR 1 974 1 53
36 Makarychev-Svid1er, Russian (ch) 1 995 I 54
37 Spassky-Fischer, S.Stefan!Belgrade (m/24) 1 992 I 55
 -+ - -

V lu
- --+---
In this second part of their detailed wdrk on the Dragon Sicilian, the authors present
coverage, to date, of all lihes other than the Rauzer, which is dealt with in Volume
One. These l�nes range from an unhurtied 'Classical' development of pieces to the
early pawn r4sh f4 and e5 seen in the 'Levenfish Variation'.

I
Here, compared to the Rauzer, there is a greater concentration of play in the centre
of the board where Black is ready to fight his opponent blow for blow. On the other
hand, if need be, Black can react to any kingside offensive with a counterattack on
the other wing, making full use of the open c-file for his rook and the long h8-al
diagonal for his mighty Dragon bishop.

Whether playing the White or Black side, no competitive player- at club or tourna­
ment level - can afford to be without this book.

Eduard Gufeld, originally from the Ukraine, is a globetrotting grandmaster, current­

ly living in Los Angeles. A colourful character, well known throughout the chess
world, he has written a number of Batsford chess books, most recently The Art of
the King's Indian. Oleg Stetsko is a specialist on opening theor i and co-author of
The Classical French. !
Also available from Batsford

U LTIMATE DRAGON�
VOLUME 1
MAS TERING
S ICILIAN
THE lc-SVESHNIKOV
S ICILIAN
Eduard Ciufeld &
Danny Kopec Wei[ McDonald
Oleg 3tetsko 0 7134 8482 9 I o 7134 8581 7
0 7134 8643 0

1
I
p4.99

J
I 9