FOR CHESS 1E BATSFORD. LIBRARY OF TOURNAMENT OPENINGS me ee Indian DYaaiae recent references from Master play. many previous chess books. Ffim Geller updated from the Russian edition by R, G. Wade. ABATSFORD CHESS BOOK Engl: Four eights French Classis TD Harling & W Heidenietd French: MacCutcheon and Advance Lines TD Harling riineld Defence: Exchange Va Nimzo-indian: 4 63: Nimzowatsch,Hiibner and Taimanov Variations CW Pritchett Nimzo-tndian: Leningrad System A Macdonald-Ross Nimzowitsch Defence Queens Gambit Declined: TD Harding ed A} Whit -READ BATSFORD FOR CHESS , UO ae eo ere nem Ex Peend RN ETN EN Pepe aadurer om pence eRe tt comprehensive work on this major opening is available in English. The richness and complexity of play and the elasticity of piece and pawn formations appeals to all grandmasters. Owing to the great | PUR uO MUNRO en aces ang ec rca Union in 1980, required substantial revision and updating by | International Master R.G.Wade, who included several hundred more Grandmaster Efim Geller is widely regarded as one of the worlds! leading theoreticians. He won The USSR Championship in 1955 and 1979, qualified for the Candidates tournaments of 1953, 1956, 1962, 1965, 1968 and 1971 and represented the USSR at several Olympiads, een a Nan OL etree a tte oy Dr Ken Neat, a leading North of England player who has translated Ra -READ BATSFORD Sicilian Dragon: Classical and Levenfish Variations DNLtevy si Dragon: Yugoslav Atak es, E Moskov | Sicilian: Lasker-Petikan RC Wade, JS Speelman, NE Povah, LS Blackstock Ruy Lopez: Breyer System LSblackstock Spanish Ruy Lopez): Marshall TD Harling Spanish Ruy Lopes): Open KOConnel Fora complete fist of Batsford Chess please wit to: BT. Batsford, 4 Fichardinge Street, London WH OAK. Xi ISBN ©7134 25466.THE BATSFORD LIBRARY OF TOURNAMENT OPENINGS Series edited by R.G.Wade OBE Queen’s Indian Defence EFIM GELLER Translated by Dr K.P.Neat Updated from the Russian edition by R.G. Wade B.T Batsford Ltd, LondonFirst published 1982 © Efim Geller 1982 ISBN 0 7134 2546 6(limp) Photoset by Andek Printing, London and printed in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd, London; Guildford & Worcester for the publishers B.T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London WIH OAH A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Adviser: R.G.Wade Technical Editor: P.A.Lamford Contents Symbols Introduction 10 n R B 4 1s 16 7 18 19 4 g3 saab 493 bat 4 g3 Bb? 5g? @ba+ 4 g3 &b7 5 Se? various 4 g3 Qb7 5 Dg? Re7 6 Hed 493: 75 ed 4 gh: 7 various 4 gh: 7 O03 dS 4 gh: 7 ed Hed 4 e3: § We? Introduction 4 y3: 9 Wed £5 4 33:9 Wre3 cf 4 gs 4 Be3 bd (R.G.Wade) 403 4 ats Delayed £264 (R.G.Wade) 4 a3 Introduction 403 Gb7 5 Ded d5 6 ed Index of Variations Index of IMustrative Games vi vid 7 34 50 39 68 78 9 100 3 129 42 154 168 175 198 2u 223 229 246 248Symbols Check Slight advantage Clear advantage + Winning advantage = Level position Unclear position 4+ ! Good move " Outstanding move 2 Interesting move " Dubious move 2 Weak move n Blunder corr Correspondence oL. Olympiad Zz Interzonal L League ch Championship ve Semi-final Introduction This opening has a history which goes back more than 60 years. Its forefathers, in the words of Savielly Tartakower, one of the most brilliant of chess writers, can be regarded as AronNimzowitsch, Alexander Alekhine and Ewfim Bogoljubow, who in the years after the First World War “were ro longer satisfied with the simple imitation of King’s Indian strate- gies, but on this basis developed the fantastic picture of an “ideal” i.e. without... d5 ~ Queen's Gambit {the Queen's Indian Defence!” For this reason, Tartakower wrote later ia 1924 “in our time ‘one no longer asks which ‘Indian’ games have been played, but rather which ‘non-Indian’ Ithardly needs saying that these words are even more justified with regard to the present day. and an honourable place ir the family of ‘Indian Defences’ is occupied by the Queen’s Indian. the theme of the present book, It is not by accdent that we have begun with a trief excursion into history, and it was not merely to do justice to the chess giants who were at the source of the Queen’s Indian Defence. The main point is that any player who is anxious to improve must not think that chess began from the day that he himself made his first move. By referring to the classical heritage, to the experience of the strongest grandmasters of the past, one is able to understand better the logic of chess development, and frequently one comes across interesting new ideas. In short, there is a deep meaning hidden in the chess aphorism “An innovation is something old which has been well forgotten” The Queen's Indian Defence did not always enjoy such a high reputation as it does now. Atter a brilliant start (the Queen’s Indian ‘was in the basic opening repertoire fof such chess giants as. World ‘Champions Capablanca, Alekbine, Euwe and Botvinnik,’ and also some of the strongest grandmasters of their time, Rubinstein, Reti, Nimzowitsch, Bogoljubow, Keres and others), in the 1930s and 40s it acquited the reputation of being a drawing opening, in which both sides found it difficult to obtain complicated and promising posi- tions. But then came a reassessment of values. The World Champions ‘Smyslov, Petrosian and Spassky, and also grandmasters Portisch, Korchnoi and Larsen, have done much to revive the Queen's Indianvith Introduction Defence, by gaining in this opening, 1 series of brilliant victories, both with White and with Black. Inter- esting strategic ideas and ways of conducting the struggle are being, demonstrated in the Queen's Indian Defence by the present World Champion Anatoly Karpov, and evidence of the topicality of the defence is provided by the fact that it occurred several times in the Final Candidates’ mateh in 1974, and was a frequent guest in the Candidates’ series of 1977 and. 1980, most of these games being full-blooded struggles. ‘And now a few words about the basie ideas of the Queen’s Indian Defence, which normally begins with the moves 1 d4 3 DM b6 (1) w Initially 3 was played merely to avoid the Nimzo-indian Defence, which is possible after 3 ec} &b4. At the present time White, while avoiding attempts to seize the centre immediately (3 Ge} is made as a preparation for ¢2-e4) and not allowing the Nimzo- Indian, has the further plan of developing his Kingside as quickly as possible, Black, in his turn, normally refrains from ... d5, which seriously restricts his white-squared bishop, and by its development at 7 wishes to establish piece control over the central squares d5 and o4, Despite the apparently quiet devel- ‘opment of the play in the Queen’s Indian Defence, both players do nevertheless require a decp under- standing and knowledge of the resulting positions, otherwise they risk quickly ending up ina difficult situation. In this book the author har set himself the task of combining a monograph and a text-book, and of combining present day theoretical conclusions with explanations of the motifs which gave rise to this or that variation. Tf this aim has been more or less achieved, he will consider himself satisfied, especially if the book should prove useful both to beginners and to highly graded players 9 Uke black bishop. by the fianchetto cf his own, thus supporting possible pawn advances to ch and ds, In those years when the Queen's Indian Defence was still in its infancy, Tartakower wrote: “In the bishop against bishop batile begun with this move, White's bishop, thanks to its defended position, is stronger than its oppo- ent at b7. As a consequence of this methodical means of play, the entire process of the fianchetto of Black’s bishog is called into question.” Time has not effirmed such @ categorical assessment, but even today 4 g3 is the move that sets Black most problems. Now Black normally develops his bishop at b?, either immediately or after the exchange of black- squared bishops, and this will be considered in Chapters 3-12. In the fist two chapters we will examine the counterattack on c4 by ... a6, either immediately (the present chapter) or after the pre- liminary exchange of black-squared bishops (Chapter 2). fon 2.26 (3) An idea of Nimzowitseh, at f sight rather _parado: Black gives up control of the long white diagonal, but makesan immediate atack on ef, which has been ‘weakened by the planned develop- ment of the white bishop at g2. Black often resorts to this variation when he is secking a complicated game, In passing, we should also mention the following curious2433 has trap: 4. 65 5 dS! (S Sg? is stronger) 5... a6 and now: a) 6 b3? when Black wins at feast a pawn by 6 ... xd! 7 ed WKS, b) 6 Wer, Zilberstein-Vaganian, USSR Ch 1973, when Black could have accepted the pawn sacrifice as in Grigorian-Keres (p. 8), Now White can defend his of pawn by: AS @bd2 BS We2 C5 3 D 5 Waa It'S Wh3 there are: a) 5... 65 leading after 6 d$ to a Benonictype position, b) 5... 2b7 6 @g? SM 7 dS! ed & Bhd de? 9 Wed+ He. ©) 5 1 666 44 E77 Dbd2 0-08 $22 d5 90-0 @ibd7 10 Zacl e511 Bid) @b7 12 de OxeS 13 We2 Bek 14 bl Bed7 15 Wb3 Wes 16 a3 a8 is Taimanov-Polugayevsky, Moscow (Four Teams) 1981 ) 5. B06 6 Obd2 Bas 7 Was Ub78 e2590-0 G6 10 Wer cd 11 xd Sexp? 12 oxy? Be’ Bed ae = Chandler-Hort, Bochum 1981 €) 5 dS 6 cd WRd5 (6 ... ed!) 7 We2! Ach 8 Dcd Mb4 9 Ga Bxc3 10 axed Dea? 11 e2!5 12 Bd. Hes 13 Oxed fe 14 Hdl Wad 15 fixed Wet (Timman- Browne, Wijk aan Zee 1981) 163 ‘Whs 17 0-0 (intending 9.43) 17 Qb7 18 xh? De? 19d (intending Sixg?) ‘The game Naegeli-Nimzowitsch, Berne 1934, went 5 g2? Sixct 6 0-0 &d5 7 ye3 IS Res bs (8. Be?) 9 We2 with some compensation as ... 0-0 is held up, A 5 Mbd2 (4) ‘A natural continuation which theory considers rather passive and which has been played com- paratively rarely in recent years. By blocking the dfile White ‘weakens his control of dé and in certain variations is deprived of the possibility of supporting d4-d5 with his queen, However, the move also bas its virtues: while developing, the knight simultane ously controls 4, and is ready to support c2-ed. Black has three basic plans: ALS... 5 AZ 5... debs A3 5... @b7 After $... d5 Black cannot hope to exploit the weakening of d4 ~ 6 Sg? Be? and now: a) 7 Wad+ 6 8 cd and al) 8 .. ed! 9 Des 0-0 10 Dxeb @xc6 1] Wre6 Hes 12 Wad We7 1313 WT 14 def HS 15 &h3 with advantage to White, Vaganian- Kuzmin, USSR 1971 42) 8 .. bS followed by ... ed with equal chances. b} 7 0-0 0-0 and: bl) 8 b3 Dbd7 (8 ... oS? 9 Wd2 Gch 10 de be I cded 12 Bet 2b7 13. Hel with pressure on the hanging pawns, Htbner-Sosonko, Biel 1Z 1976) 9 De5 &b7 10 &b2 65 11 ed @xd5 12 Aided ed with full equality, Dzhindzhihashvili- Polugayevsky, USSR 1971 2) 8 eS (increasing the pressure along the hi-a8 diagonal) 8 ... c6 (Bu. 65 9 ed ed 10 de skxc5! 11 ‘Db3 Bek 12 Da3 Dbd7 13 es h6 14 Sxi6 Dxt6 15 Bel Ze8 16 Kel Wd6 17 3 Hed 4-14 is Sosonko-Browne, London 1980) 9.3 @id? 10 Dui! Sb? 11 Ab2 aS 12 e4! and White seized the initiative in the game Ragozin- Klaman, Leningrad 1954. Sn 5 (5) a Ublmann’s idea ~ to utilize the development of the knight at d2 to seize the centre. Alternatively, 6 &g? and now: a) 6 ... Sb7 (cautious), allowing White slightly the better game after 70-0 S67 8 b3: al) 8...cd 9 Sb2 0-0 10 We2d6 11 $93 Rab 3 add Dbd7 12 fal, Kraidman- Gheorghiu, Natanya 1977 2) B... Deb 9 Lb2 Oxa4 10 xds Sixg? 11 xg? ed 12 O18 .0-0 13 Wadd We? 14 ch — Peterson- Bronstein, Tallinn 1965. b) 6... Be6 7 de and now: 1) Ta. SLxeS 80-00-0923 SAb7 10 bs e711 @b2 Hc8 12 Wb3 Her 13 Bach Wa8 [4 Wa3 h6 15 Bfdl Bids 16 ef d6 17 We? a5! and Black gradually equalized in the game Bronstein-Taimanoy, Zarich C195 b2) Tube 8 0-0 Re7 (8... Hb is also satisfactory) 9 63 0-0 10 s&b2 “&ib7 oF 10... d6 with few problems ior Black, Nedelikovié-Bronstein, Belgrade 1954, Bolbochan-Keres, Varna OL 1962 and Tukmakov- Anikayev, Frunze 1979, plus many other games, 6 ed 7 8 es Geller-Georgadze, USSR_Ch (Top L) 1980/81, went 7... Og4 8 h3 Gih6 9 Mp2 (9 Dad"? R710 23) 9. Deb 10 6-0 OS 11 Wad! Wes (11. U7!) 12 Ded hS 13 Sd? &b7 14 Hlel a6 15 Wal Db4 16 Dxdat 8 er Deb Black aims to repair his lack of development as quickly as possible. ‘The alternative is a more cautious move with an already developed piece:8 ... &b7, whieh in Uimann- ‘Torbegsson, Reykjavik 1968, gave White a very strong atiacking position after 90-0 Se7 10 Zel IS M1 g4 eT 12 Ded, but 10 461? could have been considered,44.93 Bab eliminating the cramping forepost ates, 9 00 iba Consistently continuing with his development. Clearly premature is activity of the type 9 .. b5% 10, cb xbS If Hel &b4 12.43, when Black faces difficult problems, Uhlmana-Keres, Moscow 1967. 10 Wad We (6) M1 Bxddt In practice ouly 11 #3 bay beew played here: a) 11. fie7% (for the sake of retaining the two bishops it is not worth losing @ tempo} 12 b4 &b7 1351 £5(13... be 14 Bes) 14 b2 be 15 Bfcl with a powerful initiative for White, while in addition it is not clear how Black is to complete his development, Gufeld-Gipslis, USSR Ch 1969. b) IL... xd? 12 &xd2 Dge7 and both sides have chances. ‘The column move suggested by us promises White an advantage. Mw. Saxe? I... @xdd 12 Wabs Bed 13 We3 Cixal 14 Hed allows White a very strong attack, 12 x06 Perhaps even stronger is 12 bs, threatening a check at d6 and answering 12... Seb4 with 13 Bx26, Now White has aclear advantage after 12... &xcl 13 Baxcl 267 14 ds fxg? 15 txg?, Thus the immediate pawn coun- terattack in the centre fails 10 equalize for Black, AL 5 Hy tue a i ‘wwe o4 z Regarded by Nimzowitsch as the logical sequel to 4 .. has. Black again threatens the ¢4 pawn, and solves the problem of the rapid development of his kingside, 6 Wer a) 6 Wad 5 and now: al) 7de x58 822 26790-00-0 10 Gel dS 11 O43 Be 12eded 13 3 $ Ostermeyer-Svenn, Dortmund 1981 a2) 793 @xd2+ 8 &xd2 0.09 4 WeS 10 Kd6 KeS 1) de Ged 12 Sg? be 13 DA2 Dud? 14 shed? D7 15 13 eb 16 e3 WA 17 ba Who 18 WH3 Dad 14-14 Portisch- Seirawan, Europe v America 1981 b) 6 Wh3 462! (6. 5! 7 a3 Bxd2+ 8 ¥xd2 cd 9 Bixdd ABT 10 £3 0-0 =~ Kasparov) 745! Sixd2+ 8 xd? GeI9 eI" shes Ded 10 Sap? DxgS 11 Dxg5 ed 12 ed 0-0 co) 9... 5 10 Bd2 We7 (10 do? 11 £300 Iebed [Bed xf 14 Bxfl a5 15 ¢5 + is Kasparoy- Speelman, Malta OL 1980) 11 0-0-0 ed 12d Beat 13 Axed Wired 14 13 2 ~ Kasparov 6 ab7 Not a retreat, butan exploitation of the white queea's position to seize o4! After 6... 0-07 Sig? d5 White should continue 8 0-0, since 8 a3 Qxd2+ 9 xd? cS allows Black easy equality by utilizing his superior development: 10 de be 11 ba GbdT 12,0-0 eb 13 ab Saxed 14 Qxch He8 - Kerchnoi-Parma, USSR v Yugoslavia 1971 6.05 Tedcd 8e5 RbT9 Le? ued 10 0-0 Bxd2 11 Bxd2 xd? 12 Wxd2. x03 13 AA Deo 14 Bfel We? 15 Lxc6 = is Alburt- Seirawan, US Ch ‘981 ar Jal fact § Wad Bxd2+9 dxd? D6 10 Ske3 a6 11 Seg? MDS! (11 St!) 12 Wal dS 13 cd Bixds 14 0-0 0-0 15 e3 a5 16 et Ys is Mot-Ta, Tilburg 1980 shed Leas convincing is 7a 8 0-0 5.9 Ge5 0-0 10 ed ed 11 QdI3 Ged 12 Be} Bed 13 Bacl 06 14 fd, when White created weak- nesses in the opponent's position, Portisch-Bronsteir, Las. Palmas 1972, Now after 8 Wal (8 W3!? cb 90-0 xd? 10 Sead? 0-011 Bat He8 12 We3 a5 13.93 We7 14 acl 493 as 5 6 15 Og5 “bd 16 He} 44b7 17 a3 Dab 18 b3 h6 19 &hd Hads 20 4 * Romanishin-Lein, Lone Pine 1981) & ... Sexd2+ (8 .. 0-0 9 0-0 Sixd2 10 Wrd2aS 11 b3d6 12 2 Sbd7 13 Back af 14 b4a3 15 sial b5!? Tal-Bronstein, Tallinn 1981) 9 kexd2 d6 10 0-0 \bIT HL Shed ‘We? White stands slightly better bbut Black, who has retained control over ed, has a sound position In Pire-Nimzowitsch, Bled 1931 White tied to retain the two bishops by 12 Hel 0-013 83, but Black parried this idea by 13 BIS 14 Sig? Bed AB Som 267 With White's potential pressure ‘on dS lessened by @bd2 Platonov introduced this return to the usual battle for a grip on the a&-hl diagonal 6 seg (8) Toth-Tatai, Rome 1981, went 6 We2!? o5 Ted cd 8 Bxdd eb 9 Be6 Sexc6 10 &p2 HeR 11 0-0 d6 12b3 e713 Ab? 0-0.6 493 Sas AM 6 s ABIL 7 00 A3I2 7 ed! TdSed8 Dhd cb Yea Dads 10 4 E41 gf Wxbd 12 03 Whs 13 0-0 Se? 14 Bel 00 15 63 15 is Toth-Parma, Rome 1981 If 7 de be =. a3 7 00 ed 7... £8783 0-09 sb? We7 10 Hel cd 1 Dxd4 ing? 12 xg? Wo7+ 13 O23 Das is Unzicker- Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1981. & Dydd 8 Ob} Re 9 Dbxdd a6 is O.Rodriguez-Tatai, Rome 1981 Bn sixg? 9 oxgr eB 9... See7 10 4 4-142! Brownes Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1981 Da WeT 10 bI n6 11 $b2 Sec? 12 €3 0-0 13 WII Bal 14 Gea xed 15 Weed Wo7 16 Wxb7 4-14 is Taimanoy-Andersson, Wijk aan, Zee 1981 10 «3 Be? HL WE3 Qe6 12 Dxc6 Wxc6 13 ‘Wreb 4-4 is Smyslov-Karpov, Amsterdam 1981 A312 7 edt ed If7 a. Dxed 8 De5! (8 HDy5!) 8 - DEH? I WhS g6 10 Wh3! wins material ~ Dorfman. Alter 7... d68 d5ed9 ed a6 10 41, instead of 10... We8? giving White a clear endgame advantage by 11 Wad Ofa7 12 daxa6 Yxa6 13 ‘Wxa6 (Sosonko-Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1981), Black should play 10... axfl_ intending ... g6 with a playable Benoni-type game ~ Sosonko. 8 eS Det? Risky ~ Sosonko. Instead 8 ... Dg8 9 0-0 d6 and ia) 10 Bb3 de 1t Bxes Wxg? 12 sox? Dd7 13 Be6 (13 Wadd!) 13 eS 14 Qbxdd 7 15 WH faxes = is Sosonko-Parma, Malta OL 1980. b) 10 @xd4 Sexe? 11 xg? a6 11 de 12 WI3 Qd7 13 Abs! intending 14 Sc7+) 12ed @xd6 13 WB Ha7 14 Shed Hd7 15 Hdl De? 16 gS. +; Sosonko-Gheorghiu, Wijk aan Zee 1981, now went 16 @g6? 17 @axe6 tt:. However, 16... 0-0 17 Wed ig6 18 h4 also gives White a strong attack ‘The game van Gaalen-van der Wiel, Holland 1981, wet 8 o. Deb 9 Axed xed 10 Wxdd &bI+ HL Bd? QNdI+ 12 Wad? Bob 13 Wi Gxf3 14 Gixt3 BoB 15 x06 Hxc6 16 0-0 Wet 17 b3 w/t 9 00 Wer 9 ou AS 10 HS BHO 1 Bxdd xed 12 Bxg2 eS 13 B23 Bxd4 14 Dxdd WeR 1S sexh6 Exh6 16 ObS Wet 17 Sh2 tis Sosonko-Ivanov, Lone Pine 1981 9. ¥eS intending ... De3 is suggested by Ivanov. If 9... d6 10 Bel de 11 @xe5 Sixg? 12 Ggd intending Dal? 10 Sel hs 10... Bc6 MA} DH6 12 Bed Se7 13 14 0-0 14 DASH ens 15 fags Bxe5 16 BxeS Sexi6 17 Bred WeS 18 ba! Wred 19 Bel Wxbs 20 a3 W221 Platonov, Frunze 1980. 12 @xdd sing? 13 doxe? e614 Wis Eds 15 DbS Wb? 16 Ded lS.17 Wal ef 18 Ded6+ Bxdo 19 Bxd6+ ds 20 Dxb7+ Hxb7 21 GgS+ Hes 22 Bad! Wes 4/4 Timman-Ljubojevié, Amsterdam Mow 2h6 1981 A32 w In @ quick game Sosonko (v Ligterink at Nijmegen 1981) tried Ted faxed § Bed 59 Wadt 6? PS 10 ed ed - 10 M1 xed de 12 (better 9 xd? 1 Daf?! 0-0 16 13 Ded We7 14 Wal 5 holding the plus pawn) 10 eded 11 eT 9) ‘. ra Wen wf jag macaw al Aaa 7 00 xed de 12 Bred + 8 Hel d5 9 cd ed 103 bd7 11 Sb2 HeX 12 Hel £d6 13 03 We7 14 We2 cS 15 de be 16 e4 Oxed 17 |®h4 = Toth-Andersson, Malta OL 7H. 0-0 8 Wer 1980. Alter 8 b3 c5 9 b2: a) 9 wed 10 xed @xg2 11 xe? Be2 WbS 22 9xb7 ‘dings 23 ed 1-0 is Dorfman: 493 as 7 We7 12 04 d6 13 OOS Wes 14 WHE DbAT 15 &5 Dre 16 SxeS Wrf3 17 Bxi3 de 18 Dxe5 a6 19 Dus Bic8 20 Bfdl Ee? 21 ad a5 22 {S$ Eb7 is Romanishin-Tarian, Lone Pine 1981 1b) 9 a6 10 €3 cd 1) xd We? 12 Bel dane? 13 dru? ch 14 Oreo WaeG-+ 15 WHS Mick 16 Bid Za? s Gheorghiu-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1981, Bn as 9 ed 169 G5 5: a) 10 ed &xd5 11 e4 D7 12 de Wer 13 Deed (13 Bd3!) 13 xeS 14 D3 Deb! (if Md. Res 15 BgS!) 15 fxc5 be = 16 Re} dd 17 Sexd4 (or 17 Ha3 Eads!) 17... od 18 eS Sixg2 19 exe? Web! 20 wel Dest 71 We? Hack 22 Bacl Wa5! 23 3 (23 3) 23 ‘Bedt F 24 Wad (24 Wa? fet) 24 Bxa2 25 Bal Qe} 26 fet (26 Bxa? dB!) 26 ... Bo? 27 Hed Rb§_ ++ is H.Olafsson-Portisch, Malta OL 1980, by) 10 de be 1 cd ed 1263 bd7 13 Sib2 Fixed 14 SexeS Hes 15 BES Sid? 16 Sef4 D6 17 Lad WaT 18 Hfel Had8 19 Hes We8 204 2.16 21 @d3 c4 Rashkovsky-Belyavsky, Moscow (Four Teams) 1981, o ed 1£9... Oxd5 10 b3 A711 2 Be8 12 Bacl 5 13 WI b5 14 de ExcS 15 Ded Bxcl 16 Bxcl hb is Chandler-Miles, Chichester 1981 10 eS eS 1 df3 OF 11 b3 bd7 12 &b2 Be813 ‘Wa3 (13 WES!) 13. Be8 14 Back84 93 Bab eT 15 Bfdl DAB 16 037! (16 de Bxc5 =) 16. Bd6 F173 Deer (intending 18... ed 19 ed Exct 20 Excl @xd4) Belyavsky-Psakhis, pase tps Ura @ibd7 12 att es 13 de Ones 14 Axes Gixe5 15 Radi Wes 16 Wb3 WIS 17 Dd3 Bhd 18 Dxe5 Des 19 Wb4 Back 20 &e3 h6 21 Wad ~ Kasparov-Gheorghiu, Moscow 1981; White has some pressure, 5 Wed (10) With his strongest pieve under- taking purely defensive functions, this move does not promise White any advantage so ost The most’ energetic — Black promptly exploits the weakening of dé caused by the removal of the queen from di. 6 892 ‘The following pawn sacrifice is dubious: 6 d5% ed Ted 67 (7 Dxd57? 8 Wedt) § gS (if Bcd then 8 ... We7 with attacks on ed and d5) 8... &xd59 fic} 267 10 Bd Be? 11 Se? ho 12 date x6 13 Det S27 and White had no compensation in L.Grigorian- Keres, Moscow 1967, 06 (11) Now we consider: BI 7 00 B27 de White cannot maintain his hold on dé by 7 Wad Wed 8 4e3 since 8 ed! 9 Dxdd Dad! 10 Zixc6 Dxe3 LU fe 42b7 gives Black an appreciable advantage ~ Holmov-Klaman, Odessa 1957 i: wa lban Hae WES This leads 10 ILLUSTRATIVE GAME No 1, which is Sveshnikov- Kupreichik, USSR'Ch 1976 [At the cost of a pawn White tries o gain «lead in development 7 ed 8 Ral Be8 This indirect defence of the d4 avn ig mueh stronger than a) 8... 05% 9.43, wien the threat of ba-b5 gives White the advantage. b) 8. 52 9 Had Wek 10 DreS AaxeS 1 Gxa8 WraB 12 Wrab dd 13 Bel! and wins, 9 Wad ‘The queen has to move out of the line of the black rook, since 9 ‘xd xd 10 Had fails to 10 5 11 Bd fixed. Fs ast ubT 10 @id4 @xdé 11 10 Das 10 B39! with the idea of regaining the material leaves the white queen offside, a factor which Black can exploit ty 10. Sea! with the threat of 11. eS and Benb3. 10 fixed After 10. &xa3.1 Bxad sxc 12 Aixdd We7 Krogits-K uzminikh, Leningrad 1951, White could have gained compensation for the pawn by 13 b3 Wxad 14 xa} Sao 15 eat Mobs A mistake in ¢ very sharp position, Proferable was Ii @xd4!? when the threat of b4 gains markedly in strengt, Nw as 1 Rant (13) A further inaceurazy. but White's position was already worse, The lesser evil was 12 ba c3 13 We? when Black has a ¢roice: a) 13... Ne? 14 Bel (or 4 Badd 443 Ras 9 16 when 15... De2isinevitable) 14... d3, so as, after the queen moves, to continue 15... .¢5 with an attack on £2. b) 13... @a6 with favourable complications after the pi 14 Wh3 Dxe2+ 1S hl Be} 16 Was Axel 17 Dds He?, ol 7Ewee #) (i Wa awa x er a ae Ao ee ee eS AD Gaw ie May Do. Sixe2! White was counting on 12 287 13 Odd, when his hopes af gaining tho initiative forthe pawn ‘would be fully justiied. Now he & forced into a difficult position 13 ha 13 Sel? Gxl9 14 fxd ed 1S Ase) Bed foes meaty a M4 Bes bes (14) (Only now is Black's idea revealed:10 4 g3 Sao a) 18 QbS Bed! 16 Wh3 ibd. b) 15 Ger bs 16 Wxdd Bxc2. c) 15 Ob Bxf3 16 xf x13 17 Tixdd Qe5 18 Ha3 Seb with the threat of ... B16 or first... &xf2+, and for the exchange Black has ‘more than sufficient compensation, White therefore launches a des- perate attack: 15 Wad4 Hxa3 16 DgSt (the best chance) 16... Sixdt 17 Bxd HxuSt (including the rook in the defence) 18 2c6 Exgp5t 19 Qxd7+ GeT 20 Bhd {6 21 Wed Wxe7! (simple and good; now Black has merely to complete his mobilization) 22 Exd7+ xd? 23 Wash dd8 24 Yaa des 25 Yxbd6 G17 26 ad cS 27 WoTt eT 28 hd Ha5 29 Wed (5 30 We2 Bhas 31 ed g6 32nd Head 33 het hg 34 gf af 0-1 7 sixes ‘The idea Of this move is to leave the e-file open for the black rook. wwhea its opposition with the white queen will become a factor. Also possible is 7..be8 0-0 7 a) 9 Wad and 10 Bai Ba8% 11 e300 12 BEF do 13 a3 Ab7 14 ba Gigs 15 be Wxcs 16 Des WIS 17 WS with a big advantage to White - Rodriguez-Larsen, Las Palmas 197: 2) 9 n, WeB! 10 EH0-0 11 Be3 a6 12 Bfdl Bd8 13 Oh5 eB 14 a3 Qb7 15 Aic3 Da and Black seized the initiative in Kestler-Keres, Bamberg 1968. b) 9 b3 0-0 10 &b2 WeT II Bed Habs 12 Efdl fd8 13 Bact dé 14 €3 42b7 with roughly equal chances, = Holmov-Cherepkov, USSR 1968. 8 00 ‘The attempt to attack the black pieces with gain of time by 8 a3 is unsuccessful after 8 ... Bet a) 9 DAM Ge7 10 BS? @xdS 1 cd Sb4 12 Yd2 Bert 13 wal 13 Stl Dxal andif 14 c3 then 4. We? 15 Gd? Ped 16 Wee? dS) 13... Ded! 14 #ne? Daf21 15 del Exc2 16 af? fo FF b) 90-0 Dds! 10 Dxes xcs 11 Dd2 WeT 12 Wed eS! and to save the ed pawn White has to allow a series of weaknesses in his position after 13 {4 &d6 14 bs 27! 1SbS.&b7 16 SxbT SoS 17 €3 Wab7 F Goldenov-Borisenko, Minsk 1952, gn Hes 9 Wad ob7 10 De3 0-0 Mags as Black is the first to create a specific threat (12... xed, when 13 Weed fails to 13... 0x24). In parrying it White loses control over a number of central squares. 12 O02 fxg? 13 dxgz kad 14 acl 5 As was shown in Beutelhoff- Kupreichik, Dortmund 1975, Black has the better game: a) 1d Bxc3 16 Bic} WadS+ 17 ‘DAR Bxe} 18 be Ged and Black wins a pawn, b) 15 Aaf6 Sn" 15 cdl Sixed 17 Hxc3_Hxc3 18 be WxdS+ and White's queenside is broken up, 5 b3(I6) OWE SD zl A quiet continuation, but at the same time the most solid, White makes no attempt to refute the ‘opponent's plan inmediately (as is the case with 5 Wad in seetion D) but supports ed vith a pawn, markedly reducing the scope of the bishop at a6, A temporary ‘weakening of c3 mus; be considered a certain drawback to the move. CIs... ds C252. Bb4t Rather passive butsound enough is 5... eT 6 dep? cb 70-00-08 ba? d5 9 AI Ata? 10 Rel (10 WE") 10... cS 11 ed de 12 @ixed Bred 13 Bred Wb7 14 Hel i with equality, Savon-Polugayevsky, 493 Rab IT USSR Ch 1967. ct Sw as 6 gr After 6 cd ed 7 Og? &b4+ 8 RA Sixd2+ 9 Dbxd2 0-0 10 0-0 €5 Black easily equalizes, since his bishop at a6 is active, Holmoy- Tarasov, USSR 1957 6 Subse Alternatively Black can try 6 .. de 7 eS, after which a highly unclear position arises. A possible continuation now is 7... feb4+ and: a) 8 @f1 and now: Al) 8 Ld6!? 9 Deed Hd 10 ib? 0-0 I Bel Be6 12 Dbd2 Bibs 13 We2bS 14 Ze3 is Lengyel- Zaitsev, Graz 1979. 42) 8 a. 669 be (9 xed Dreb 10 Sixc6+ de? 1 xa8 Wya8 with initiative forthe exchange) 0-0 10 b2 We7 11 Wo? Hus 12 443 fhaS 13 Da} Dbd7 14 BE Lack 15 ef ¢5 16 eS cd I7 ef Gato 18 We2 8x04 = is Kurajica-Karpov, Bugojno 1980. b) 8 a2 Wadd 9 xb4 Weal 10 Be3 (10 Be6!? BASH) 10... Wea 11 Baas eb and although Black cannot keep his b3 pavin alter 12 Pd2, he nevertheless has three pawns for the picce. Helmers- Plaskett, Bergsjé 1981, continued 12... BdS 13 Bxd5 ed M4 Dxb3 0-015 Bet! ow. Also possible is 6 ..c5, intending to remove the rook from the X-ray action of the white bishop us quickly as possible and at the same time increasing the pressure12 423 a6 on cf. This plan promises Black equality after 70-0 eb 8 Ob2 eB and: a) 9 Dbd2 Ge7 10 Bel 0-0, Bobekov-Rakié. b) 9 ed ed 10 Hed (or 10 de Lxe5 MH 4c3 0.0 12 Del Be’ with chances for bot sides, Westerinen- Johannessen, Gausdal 1973) 10 eT NM de be 12 Bel 0 - Romanishin-Fernande7, Cienfuegos 1977. 7 au 7 @ld2? proved to be a fatal mistake in the game Uhlmann- Smyslov, Moscow 1956, which continued 7... e5 &de daxe5 9 2b2 0-0 190-0 c6 11 e3 Bes 12.de? (better 12 Sad) 12... ed 13 @ad dd! 14 Ge3 We? 15 Bel (17) Bey 15 ... Be2! 16 BEI (if 16 Bxc2 (Bxf2+ 17 Bhd axel 18 Hxel dt winning material, or 17 x2 Dest 18 $13 wr 19 tres Hicd+! 20 be Mc8+ 21 hs Who mate) 16... Qxal 17 Wxal Bid’ 18 @f3 a3 0-1 Tow Sind 7... Be7 leads to a position from section C2 (p. 14), while 7 2d6?! is dubious after 8 @c3 c6 9 0.0 de 10 be xed 11 eS when White has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn ~ Guteld-Katalimov, USSR 1969. 8 @bxd2)— Dbd7 9 00 0-0 10 Set °s Alternatives are weaker: Thed He8 12 es We? al) IB... xeS Hide ined 15 faxed! de 16 Dxed Bed8 17 WhS with a subsequent invasion of a6, a2) 13... de 14 Bexcd snes 1S xed bS (the threat of 16 e5 and 17 £2d6 forces Black to accept the weakness at e6; after 15... e5 White develops strong pressure by 16 de xe5 17 Dne5 Wires 18 H4) 16 e3 Woo 17 Hed Wide 18 Wal -AIB 19 Hdl gb 20 b4 Holmov- Bivshev, USSR Ch 1954 bb) 10... b7 (chis prevents e2-cd but allows White to gain an advantage by active queenside play) 11 ba and: BI) IL... 65 (now too late) 12 cd ed 13 de be 14 be Bxe5 15 AI and White can begin a systematic siege of the isolated d-pawn. b2) 11... Ded 12 5 £5 13 We? be Id be S06 15 €3 Wo 16 Bb3 a5 17 Hel Ags 18 Oxps Ways 19 Eb Bibs 20 Gd3 and White's minor pieces are more active than their ‘opponents ~ Krogius-Borisenko, USSR Ch 1965, i ed de Now after 12 Axed xed 13 Exc $b7 Black bringshis bishop into play with gain of time and equalizes, Zilber-Vitolinsh, USSR 1973, and Sahovié-Bohm, Lone Pine 1978 cr So abst (18) 6 a2 6 @bd2 has not been tried in practice; White hasobviously been afraid of his opponent exploiting the weakening of <3. 6 bet Black has lured the white bishop to d2, thus weakenuag he Uefenee of dé, a factor which can tell in certain variations. Also possible is... &xd2+and. a) 7 Dbxd2 dS transposing into section Cl (p. 12), bb) 7 Bra? Jeading to a position from Chapter 2 (p. 31). 7 og Against the best defence White achieves nothing by 7 c3, trying to seize the centre with e2-e4 a) 7. d5 8 cd ed 9 4g? 0-0 100-0 Dbd7 I Dest Bb7 12 AE (12 Dd} Ded 13 Mt dk 14 we2 Ho§ 15 Rad] Qxd? 16 Bxd2.a6 17 <3 bt 18 Had! Wo7 19 Wh? /£ Popov-Kuzmn, USSR Team 493 Bab 13 b) Tan. SH7 8 eg? 5 and: 1) 90-00-0 10 Bel Ga6 11 Bus! with the better chances, Browne- Larsen, Las Palmas 1977. 2) 9 dB! ed 10 Dh 0-0 ted d6 12 0-0 Hes 13 AES Af8 14 ef BS 1S Wed W616 Hlel Hao 17 Bad when the bishop at b7, which has made two moves, is markedly restricted, and White has a firm advantage in the centre and on the K-side, N.Popov-Ornstein, Albena 1978 ©) Te OD 8 04 dS 9 cd xf 10 exll ed 11 eS Med 12 Wed Dred 13 xc} WAT 14 hg? e515 eb! Wre6 16 Wre6 fe 17 Bhel Al 18 xe6, Kuligowski-Keene, Buenos Aires OL. 1978. d) 7. e6! (intending to recapture on dS with the e-pawn) and: dL) 8 dS? ed 9 ed ed followed by eG with the betrer game for Black 2) 8 ef d5 and now: * 21) 9 eS! Ded 10 G43 DyeH M1 Sixc3 eS 12 ed (12 0-0 0-0) 12 Wad 13 xa Drab 14 de Wed-+!9 ca/= Tarjan-Polugayevsky, Riga IZ. 1979, 622) 9 Hed de 10 Axed Sb? when: 221) ML Bp? 5! 17 Begs 0-0 13 de h6 14 Qh3 ed 15 Wb2 be 16 0-0 Whe 17 Bed is Seirawan- Browne, US Ch 1981 222) 11 €8 xed 12 Weed be 13 de Bxe5 14 fc Od7 15 Axe7 WaS+ 16 dl BgS 17 Rb2 (17 Wah?? 0-0-0 18 se2 Abs FF) 17 xi2 18 Bed WhS (Zaichik- Viadimirov, USSR 1980) 19 ge2 223) I d3 Dba 12 0-0-014 4 93 B06 xed 13 xed 46 and Black's position is slightly preferable, Ribli-Hort, Tilburg 1978 Tw 6 This is more thematic than 7 9s: a) 8 AeS 0-0 9 00 e6, Korchnoi- Petrosian, Moscow 1971,and Waite does not have the important move 10 2c} because of 10... de (this is where the fact that dis undefended becomes important). E.Aivarez~ Panno, Argentinian Ch 1980, went 10 Ge} BAT U1 Oxd7 Wrd7 12 ‘d2 Bas 13 e4 b7 14 Be] Dab 15.a3 G18 16 WhS He? 17 AL (6 18 h3 WHT 19 Wt7+ waf7 20 Ste. b) 8 ed and: b1) 8... ed 9 Hc} transposing into Petrosian-Korchnoi, mentioned in the note to White's previous move. 2) 8 a Bnd shen: b21) 90-0 0-0 10 He3 a7 11 Bel and White has the freer game, Sosonko-Portisch, Tilburg 1979. 522) 9 ie a7 10 Dxd5 ed 11 0-0 0-0 and now: 221) 12 AES He¥ 13 Hel cS 14 Bel WEG 15 days Wek LG de Bxc3! = is Timman-Ribli, Amsterdam 980. 222) 12 Hel Hes 13 Rel! @b7 14 bal c6 15 ad &d6 op is Tatai- Langeweg, Dortmund 1981 8 0-0 8 gS!? should be considered. 8.9.c3d59 dibd2 Mibd7 10 We2 Ab7 11 ef! (Popov-Deze, Novi Sad 1980) 11... 0-0 12 ¢5 Bet 13 0-0 Bes oo sl fed as 9 ed By immediately defending 44 White restricts the opponent's ccounterplay, Nonetheless, the move loes not promise him much The incautious 9 @e3. while it does not immediately lose a pawn (9. de 10 %2e5), forces White wo concern himself with the defence of o4 and dd after 9... 0-0 9 Dbd7 10 ed ed 1 ad B67 Benjamin-Browne, Philadelphia 1979). Now: a) O'Kelly-Miles, England (The Master Game) 1978, continued 10 ed cd 11 23 @c6, with the more active game for Black, since the white dishop at g2 is less active than its black opponent at a6. b) 10 De5 afd? = ©) 10 24 bd? when: cl) I Aid2 G4 12 Hel cS 13 &3 oo (13 Bd6? Bxe3 14 Bxe3 ed T Kakageldiev-A.lvanov, Russian Team Ch 1981), 2) M3 with 21) IL 4 €8 12ad ed 13 @xdd Bek 14 Dabs 05! 15 Se5 d4 16 xt xi 17 Bd5 (17 Bxa7") 17 Dxd5 18 xd OxdS_ 19 ab Be7 4 - Polugayevsky-Timman, match (2) 1979. 22) 11, DAS? 12 Gd? #5 13 Wed Bie 14 ys DAY 15 ed ed 16 WI -£ Timman-van der Wiel, Dutch Ch 1980. 23) I... He8 12 Bll de 13 be @d5 14 e4 (14 Back Sibd 15 Wo! fixed 16 04 oS! Zaitsev-Bellin, Graz 1979) 14... Daf 15 gf &h8 16 €5 £5 7 Ligterink-Browne, Wijk aan Zee 1980. 9 )e8 0-0-and on 0 af td 1 faxed 07 13 Lutikov-Psakhis. USSR’ 1980) is aan interesting attempt to prevent Black's normal development (in, particular of the snight at 68), but the position of the knight at e5 allows Black to regroup with guin of time by 10... Qid7 MI Zxd? (after 11 13 63 the threat of 5 hinders the development of White's queensice) 11... xd? 12 2 Be8 and now aa) 13 Bel £5 (preventing e2-e4) 14 ad 6 1S eb Re7 16 aS 4 Korchnoi-Peirosian, Moscow C 1971 by 13 a4, Morriscn-Miles, Amster dam 1978, when Black could have replied 13... £5. although he also had a good game after (3... to"? 14 4 8 15 ed el ©) 1B ef and) C1) 1B on, de2t 14 be (14 axed is even stronger) H4 ... bS 15 ¥fe2 be 16 fd with advantage to White, Bukié- Tal, Bugcjno 1978, €2) 13... &5! (braking up White's pawn centre) 14 ed ed and after either 15 Saxd5 #116 16 Re? cd 17 Sb2 DS or 15 de de 16 o6 Dds Black has sufficent counterplay. 9 Wed Dbd7 10 Bel 0-0 1 ad Bek 12 Gad Fed 13 Bel 15 is Tatai-Seirawen, Torremolinos 1980. Bes 14 9.14 eS o. 00 Occupying et with gain of tempo by 9... 4? allows White the more promising game after 10 b2 DAT 1 GA Hixd2 (1 493 Gab 1S ‘hel 12 et) 12 xd? b5, und now not 13 3 ~ Barezay-Tompa. Hungary 1978 = but [3 Be2! intending ¢2-c4. 10 bd? 10 DieS HU? leuds toa position considered a little earlier. 0 Dha7 i Zet The inclusion of 11 Bel Hes does not fundamentally afleet the assessment of the position: after 12 Bel ¢9 13 6.b2 bS the game is level ~ Krogius-Antoshin, Sochi 1967. ui. 3s ‘This counter-blow is better aot delayed, since the preparation of it by I... &b7 [2e4 Tixed 13 Ores de 14 Hxed 6.86 15 Be3 We? 16 wel fds 17 Bul gave White big positional advantage after 17 eS 18 de be 19 Red fixed 20 Bac} GM 21 DeS Bra 22 Brd3, Ivkov-Lengyel, Sarajevo 1980. 1 ed Possible now is the pawn sacrifice 12... de 13 be ed 14 Dxdd Bes (forced in view of the threat of 15 eS and 16 Zico) 15 Gres fe 16 Bxe5 G5 and: a) 17 Wed Ox12+ 18 Wl? Bed 19 Wad Dxes 20 Hares Prd? 21 Yxo6+ ehs with good play for the pawn. by 17 GS We7 (or 17. xed 18 Bd4 {419 eS G.xel 20 ef with great complications) 18 d4 with a very sharp position and chances, for both sides ~ Korchnoi-Tal, USSR Ch 1972, However, as in section Cl,16 4 g3 &a6 Black equalizes most easily by 12 wnde 13 Qxed Dred 14 Bxed S07. ‘Thus it can be concluded that the 5 b3 variation does not allow White to count on an opening, advantage. D 5 wad ° ‘The most critical reaction to Black’s plan. White does not merely defend his c4 pawn, but iumucdiately attacks the black bishop and thus hinders the devel- ‘opment of the opponent's Q-side. Black has a choice of three basic plans: DIS... Se? Dz 5... 6S D3 5... 6 Not to be recommended is § We7 (attempting to solve Black's development problems by 6 Wh4t) 6 a3 Wd6 7 D2 5 8 4 Web when Black has manoeuvred too much with his queen, and in Olafsson-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1977, White easily gained a serious advantage after 9 Wxc6 Dre 10 5 Odd 11 dd cd 12 ba e513 £43. ‘Also unsvecessful is the plan of transferring the knight to. the queenside: 5... Ded 6 eg? Bd6 7 65 and now a) 7 a. 06 8 de Hb7 8 6 de and instead of the excessively quiet 10 e3, Unvicker-Korchnoi, South Africa 1979, White could have set his opponent virtually insoluble problems by 10 eS, b) 7... HBTS b4 c69 Hic} Be7 10 Sf4 06 and now instead of 11 0-0 0-0 12. Hidt g5!, Lerner-Tal, Minsk 1979, White could have ‘gained a material advantage and a winning position by the simple 11 bS cb 12 Oxb5 0-0 13 Dxd6 (but not 13 66 &xbS 14 cb? Bxad 15 ba Wc7! with the threats of We3t, .. Bob and ... seb) 13 xd 14 od DI eT (20) 6 43c3 hasalso been played, with the idea of occupying the centre by eleed. If Black tries to prevent this by 6 OT! then 7 &g2 and now: 4) Ton Ded and al) 8 We2 Dxc3 9 Bac3 (40 100-0 ‘#4 leading to a position examined in Chapter 10 (p. 123), Belyavsky- Gulko, Lvov 1978 a2) 8 xed x04} 0-0 0-0 10 Hel xe? 11 Dxg2 and in certain variations the qaeen at a4 can increase White's Q-side pressure 1) 7 0-0 and: bl) 8.060 Sed 9 Dred Axed 10 Hdl Wes 11 Del sxe? 12 Beg? 65 13 dS with the initiative, Benko- Keres, Los Angeles 1963. 2) 8 eS! dS (White also has the advantage after 8.., Qe4229 xc? xe? 10 Wer Bxc3 11 Des!) 9 Sixf6 Sxi6 10 cd ed J 1 0-0Bd7 12 “Sh3! AMS (Black loses a pawn after 12 .. 66 13 AxdS!) 13 ad] 6 14 Sg? BS 15 bd with a positional advantage for White, Bronstein-Petrosian, Portoro2 IZ 1958, But Black need not prevent 2-04, but can pir his hopes on his lead in development after 6 ... 0-0 Ted.d51 (7... BDT?S Se3 dS 9 ed ed 10 25 Hed 11 3-0 5 12 Wed 13 shc2! + Antoshin-Speelman, Frunze 1979) 8 ed (or 85 Bed) 8 Sixfl 9 ext 2d 10 05 hed 11 ‘g2 and: a) 11 €52 12 det @xe3 13 be be 14 Hdl and Black lost a pawn. Spanjaard-van Scheltinga, Bever- vwijk 1957. by AL... @xe3 12 be Wa? with an equal game, Toran-Matanovie, Beverwijk 1956. 6 0-0 Here too 6... D7 is a loss of time, and transposes into the above games Bronstein-Petrosian ot Benko-Keres 493 R05 17 7 Bed Now that his bishop has moved to g2 White need no longer fear the exchange of bishops, and is, again ready to advance e?-c4 7. 6 ‘The most jlexible continuation. Blocking the long white diagonal, Black retains the possibility of 5, .. d6 or even ... bS with the sacrifice of a pawn. The immediate 7... d5 is unpleasantly met by 8 5, while 7. &b7 is answered by the familiar 8 6.g5! 8 kM With the concrete threat of 9 daxbs. Less energetic is 8 00 BR (8 5.9 eS Wes! 10 b3 bS HT Was $d8 12 Wad _e7 is Belyavsky- Antoshin, USSR 1978; or 9 ed ed! 10 14 Wu7 =) 9 Ret d5 10 cd b5 11 Wha bd 19 dé Gxd6 13 Sad @bd7 4 WE OxF4 1S gf DAS ‘when Black has sufficient counter- chances in a double-edged position, Holm-Petrosian, Copenhagen 1960, White also gains no advantage by B BeS, since after 8... We® he cannot prevent ... d5 for long: a) 9 4 (threatening b4-b5) 9 ‘Gb? 10-0-0:d6 11 2id3 d5 12.65 a5 and Black advantageously opened up the game on the queenside, where the white queen is situated, Sliwa-Szabo, Goteborg IZ 1955. »b) 90-0 a5 anc: bl) 10 Hel bS! 1) eb ch 12 dl dd with advantage to Black, Stahtberg- Taimanov, Zirich C 1953 2) 10 ed ed 11 Weed (Black also equalizes after 11 Gd 06 1218 493 abs Bf He8 13 Bxe6 Web Kagan- Matanovié, Tel Aviv 1966) 11 Bre 12 “AM Qbd7 13 Gxd7 ‘xd7 14 fel Back and the game is level ~ Olafsson-Matanovié, Hastings 1953/54 We now consider DUS... d6 DI2 8... Bes ‘The pawn sacrifice 8... bS?! can hardly be considered correct: 9 cb cb 10 Bxb$ Ads 11 Oe3 (after U1 Sxbs? fixbS Black regains his materiat with the more active position) 11. Bxf4 12 gf and now! 2) 12. WH6, Bukhman-Osnos, USSR 1972, when White should hhave replied 13 e5! Wxb2 140-0 5 15 @xd5 ed 16 Zabl We? 17 Skxd5 with eithera material advan- tage or good attacking chances b) 12... dS 13.0.0 WG 14 Bab! @c6 15 Bfdl and Black has insufficient compensation for the pawn, Baltserovsky-Keres, Moscow 1963 Du a6 (21) 8 za WU se) (A) Bawa [4 ee wae Oe AR GAR oie ee This seems insufficiently active, although it isa veiled preparation for... bS. 9 Bel Black’s hopes were fully realized after 9 0-0 bS! 10.eb eb 11 Wb3 (or IL @xbS WaT! 12 cd Wxad 13 Dad Sxe2) 11... Yas 1203 45 13 DeS WoO 14 HUT Des with a ood game, Kolarov-Antoshin, Sofia 1961 9. Wes Continuing to play for ... bS by 9... We® can lead to serious difficulties for Black: a) 10 eS de 11 axb8 &bS 12 Dabs cb 13 Wa6 Bxbs 14 WaT Bak 15 Wrb6 DAS was Flesch-Lengyel, Miskole 1963, Biack could already have forced a draw by perpetual attack on the queen. b) 10 0-0 b5 11 ch ob and now: bl) 12 Wh3 dS 13 Des do 14 2d3 Bxid 15 gf Dbd7 16 Was when it is difficult Tor Black tw avoid loss of material, Ivkov- Zuidema, Beverwijk 1963. 2) 12 Was Wds 13 Wards Badd 14 Qd2 dS 1S Bfel and having parricd the threat of ... b4 White retains very strong Q-side pressure, Lengyel-Bilek, Miskole 1963. 10 0-0 Abd? Black loses too many tempi after 10... &b7 11 Beal Ans 12 d2 5 13 ed ed 14 Badd DMG 15 Lf when White has x big lead in development and strong pressure on d6 ~ Palmasson-Bolbochan, Havana OL 1966. Me Sfdt —ab7 Now after 12 e4 @h5 White has much the more active game: a) 13 gS? Sxe5 14 Dxgs Ohi6 15 Wa3? h6 16 f3 c5 and Black took the initiative - Portisch- Smyslov, Amsterdam 1Z 1966. b) 13 &e3 and Whte retains all the advantages of his position. biz And now: D121 9 00 D122 9 Kel Di21 a) dst 9... WI? is weaker, since White can exploit the position of his bishop and the black queen on the same diagonal by 10 d5! ed 1 ed bS 12 We and: a) 12... ed 13 TAS go 14 Wh3 with an irresistible attack on d5 Rossetio-Matanovit, Portoroz 1Z. 1958. b) 12... ba 13 d6 be(13... Bd 14 ®ed and it is not apparent how Black is to continue his develop- ment) 14 de He8 15 be Kxe7 16 “Dd with threats literally over the entire board, 10 Bes WHT Me Bfel The exchange 11 ed ed allows Black's bishop to attack the <2 43 Rao 19 pawn, and alter 12 fel bS 13 Wh3 bd 14 Dad Tok he seized the initiative in Euwe-Matanovie, Beverwijk 1958. Now Black has two good con- tinuations a) 1. BS J2cb cb 13 Wal Bbd7 Led Abs 14-1 Bilek-Polugayevsky, Beverwijk 1966 b) ML a BoB 12 cd ed 13 @b5 RxbS 14 Bxck+ Wae& 15 Wxds Was 16 Bel |hS when Black drove back the active white pieces and gained equality, since the bishop at 22. is very passive = Trifunovié-O'Kelly, Beverwijk 1963. Diz 9 Bel White continues to prevent the advance ... d5. WoT (25) Weaker is 9. d5 10 cd when Black is forced to leave himself with a weak pawn at c6 after 10 ed 11 eS Be 12 0-0 SBT 13 Bled Dba 14 ett and. a) 14... Bfd8 15 ed Bxd5 16 Dads cd 17 S\xd7 WRd7 18 Wad Bx? 19 4h3 winning the exchange b) 1 a de 15 ned res 1620 4 93 Bab Dxt6+ Axl 17 de bs 18 3! Ws03 19 ab she? 20. daco winning a pawn, Gradetsky-Geterdal, core 1960. 10 as! Exploiting the opposition of bishop and queen, White continues his active play. Less promisi 10 e548 1 ed-ed and now 8) 12.060 b5 13 Wal Biba? when al) 14 Se6? Bob 15 Dads Was 16 xdS Qxd5 and Black hus ‘nore than sulficient compensation for the queen, Hasin-Isimanoy USSR Ch 1965, : 42) 14 Qd7 7 and Blac has the move promising postion, 8) 12 OHS ed 13.000 16 14 Od WOT 15 1e3 Wrad 16 Baad Ob? with approximate equality, Net Taimanov, Moscow 196s, Ww ed Ha cd 11. Sis interesting a) 12 de axco 13 Wal bd 14 as x5 15 Wards R16 16 Be? eee 17 e3 bS wth aicien-counter chances — Bukié-Polugayevs Skopje 1968: mais b) 12 Wed and 1 IZ... 413 d6 be 14. de eB and White retains the advantage, since pari from the familiar manceuvis (.19) 15 be Hae? 16 2d he aloo has 15 std6 Wxb2 16 dd, when the 63 pawn cannot be defended. 22) 12... ed 13 Zid ba (or 13 Qc6 14 DLS He8 15 Drs ads 16 dexdS with a sharp position where White seems to have the better chances, since 16 bs fails to 17 3), and if 14 ads Sxd5 15 Wes then simply 1 Alb 16 Wsds Wrds 17 dees Dee sind» 244 ince 12... ®e6 is unsatisfactory because of 13 @xd5 Black will experience difficulties over the development of his queenside. Ir can be concluded that Black's plan with the gradual mobilization of his forves (5... @e7, .. e6 and the transfer of the queen to b7) does not give him full equality, Exploiting the departure of the white queen from the defile, making d4-d5 impossible, Black" uttacke the white centre at once. A dran= ack to the move isthe weakenin Of the a8-b1 diagonal ince the black e-pawn can no longer block it, and Black is therefore forced to waste time on retreating his bis! to b7, ee 6 ag gor We now consider: D217 de D227 0-0 Du 7 ae axes White also has some advantage after 7... be 8 0-0 sie 9 De3 0-0 10 S{4 Wb6, Osnos-Bronstein, ‘Tbilisi 1973, and ow 11 Ws. 8 ed 0-0 9 00 Bed White also has the better game after 9... &e7 10 £4 Ga6 11 Bacl Dc5 12 Wd. dé 13 b4 Dees 4 Qxed dixed 15 Wad, with 2 queenside initiative, Lambert-Lee, Hastings 1975/76. 10 fxe4 Also good is 10 #c2 @xe3 11 Wred Wek 12 b3 Ge7 13 2b? 16 (03. 16 14 Wa? Sixb2 15 Bab? favours White, since after 15... dS he occupies the e-file with his took with gain of tempo) 14 Bacl, Bas- Sokolov, USSR 1974. Ww sixed Osnos-Tseshkowsky, USSR 1973, now continued If Sf Deo 12 Had! We7 13 a3 a5 when White could have gained a stable advan- tage by 14 Des! xg? 15 bxe? DxeS 16 Axe5 d6(not 16... Bids 17 67) 17 3, since the threat of b2-b4 will force Black to incur an isolated d-pawh after ... dS, p22 7 0-0 (25) [ze ee "i Sl AT es _ WuaN 2 2B ne eg Oe, AR ee 4 i 493 has 21 Now Black has a choice: D221 7... eT D222 7. ed p22 aa et Black is content to develop gradually, hoping in time to newt ralize White’s advantage. 8 Hed 0-0 9 Bal White creates the threat of d4-d5(-d6), but he can also be satisfied simply with pressure on the defile after 9 de be 10 dl ds 1H @e4 Ws 12 Bd2 Bd8 13 Bad Bab 14 Wes when the retreat 14 eB is forced and White retains the initiative — Antoshin-Szabo, Moscow 1963. en 36 Larsen’s idea, which indirectly parties the threat of 10 d5, and at the same time deprives White of bs. If9.... Ned 10 xed Sxe4, then’ a) LI de? be 12 De5 Axe? 13 xe? with an equal game ~ Vukié-~ ivanovie, Yugoslav Ch 1969. b) 11 45, and after this thematic advance Black is faced with the difficult problem of how to continue his development. White aiso has the advantage after 9. d6 10 SF ANS 11 Ses ‘We 12 9.h3! renewing the threat of d4-d5, Kluger-Portisch, Budapest 1964, 10 ft After 10.d5(2) ed 11 ha bs! 12 cb ab 13 Wxb 6 14 Wb3 a4 Black seizes the initiative ~ this is the point of Larsens idea2243 bab 10. 6 1 de be Now the attempt to increase the pressure on d6 by 12 bd allowed Black to equalize after 12... 266 13 Wa3 cb 14 Wab4 05 15.65 a5 16 WaS of 17 cd &xd6 18 Badlo Wad 19 Bxd6 fg, Gheorghiu-Keene, Montilla 1974 Therefore, by ansiogy with the Antoshin-Szabo game cited above, White should increase the frontal pressure on d6 by 12 ¢2, when he retains the initiative D222 Alter this Black can develop his bishop at 5, but on the other hhand the time jost on the manoeuvre -- £iu6:b7 becomes more notice- able 8 Oxdd xg? 9 sxe? Wee This move can be considered obligatory. The queen vacates the file, which the white rook is ready {0 occupy, and allows the knight to be developed at c6. immediately 9 ... 425 them: a) 10 BP (blocking the af-hl diagonal) when Black has sufficient counterchanecs: a1) 10... Be6 11 Hc3 $b412 war 0-0 13 Bfal a6 14 act We7, Hésberg-Keres, Stockholm 1967, 22) 10 «OD IT Ge} Wed 12 Ges WT 13 Oxt6 ef 14 Radi a6 15 Hdd Ha8 Minev-Lengyel, Sarajevo 1971, planning to counter 16 Hdl with 16... BS ») 10 al Wes (all the same this is Practically forced, since Black has no other way of developing) L113 and: Di) I .. Be6 12 Dxe6 Wreb 13 2c} with advantage to White b2) UL ... @xd4 12 Hixdd Wes 13 Ed3 Ac 14 fd Des 15 ba Wes 16 Wxe6 Bxc6 17 dé with a markedly better ending for White, Karner-Keres, Tallinn 1967 9... ST is less logical, since for such a ‘modest” development oF the bishop there was no reason for Black to release the tension in the centre. After 10 e300 11 Edt We? 12 fd WO7+ 13 B a6 14 4 d6 15 Bde2 (15 Se? Bas is Unzicker-Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee 1981) 15... Bd8 16 Bd2 S617 Hadi De8, Browne-Andersson, Buenos Aires OL 1978, White should have played 18 @d4 dixdd 19 Bad, when the threat of 20 eS sives him the bettergame. However, Trois-Polugayevsky, Riga IZ 1979, went 10f3 0-0 11 Hdl We8 12 c3 a6 13 e4d6 14 Re3 Wb7 with equal play. By 9 ... We8 Black retains the choice in certain variations between cS and... eb, 10 ts Cccupying the n2-b8 diagonal, so as t0 prevent .. Deb (10 ‘11 5 witha big positional Wantage, since the seriously SeMMeoine 11s oS force Other moves alow Blick saiy equality, eg 10 Bdt 2c Chee Woes 12 eb de 13 4 eT 14 Bd? 0-00 15 Of3 Dd7, Korehnoi-Keres, Luhacovice 1969, while 10 ed Gab (ako 10 + 11 13.a6) LL BAL Be? 12h, Bo 13 bes aes 14 Wed do 13 acl a6 is PomarStean, Montilla arr eS 11 Bhs White also retains an advantage by I! Hdl 0-0 12 203 WT 1313 eb 14 Bch de 5 dhdé Sxd6 16 Bxd6 Hac8 17 Had! with central pressure, Balashov Polugayevsky, USSR Ch 1976, u weet 2B 0-0 13° Sat After 13 Dle¥ abeld Ge7?t Ha? the white knight is clearly entangled in the alack position 13 ab Black's position is not yet ripe for the seemingly active 13... 43%! and after 14 S163 (with the threat of 15 G7) 1d. Hed 15 cd ed 16 b4 GIB 17 Hacl WOT 18 @c7 = ‘Tsamriuk-Kucryashov, USSR 1974 ~ White gsined a material advantage, since 18 ... Exc? 19 Lixo? Whe7 is met by 20 Dxd5 We5 21 Dato+ with the irresistible (after the defence of e2) and 4 g3 Bab 23 decisive intrusion of the white rooks onto the 8th rank. 14 28c3 WT 18 a2 (27) mew wa White stands slightly better. After 15... Zac6 16 faded xed 17 ‘@xe4 Kuzmin-Karner, USSR 1972, Black parried the threatened i vasion on d6 by 17...€5,and on 18, Xg5 should have replied not 18 #5 19 Boxes with advantage 19 White, but 18... h6! 19 &d2 Dd with equality. To be considered, therefore, is 16 &g5!? or even 16 43 with the threat of Dxe5 and Sd6, bs £6 (28) ‘A move known for a long time,244 g3 8.06 by which Black hopes to exploit the early development of the white queen to create counterplay on the queenside, In recent times he has been prepared, for the sake of this, to sacrifice a pawn, 6 23 Black implements his plan in full after 6 Sg? bS 7 cb cb 8 3 Deb 9 0-0 Wb6 10 ed Be8 11 25 ®d5 12 te} a5, Artsukevich- Kopilov, Leningrad 1954, 6. bs A new ides. Formerly Black tried to carry it out without the sacrifice of a pawn by 6... 48 7 cd and now a) 7 wu ed (this is inconsistent) & Be5 and: al) 8... We8 9 Be5 Be7 10 Bel with additional threats, 92) 8. Wb79 Sigs she7 10 Be? 0-0 11 0-0 and Black has to seek a defence in the simplification after 11... @fU7, since after 1... h6 12 Saxo SinQ6 13 £4 aS 14 Bad) Bee IS eft 5 16 We2 @a6 17 Belt Be? 18 Rfdl Wee 19 Axds! White penetrated decisively on the e-file, Furman-Keres, USSR Ch 1948. b) 7... b58 Wb3ed9 g5 SeeTand: b1) 10 a4 ba 11 Bxad 0-0 12 x6 x16 13 ¢3 c8 with @ very sharp position where the two bishops and the weakened white squares ‘on the opponent's kingside com- pensate Black for his weak Q-side pawns — Malich-Polugayersky, Budapest 1965. 62) 10 Sxf6"? 2xf6 1 ad ba 12 Dxad with the direat of 13 e5, and White’s chances are preferable, 3) 10 eg? Abd? 110-0! b4 (11 0-0 looks more cautious) 12 Dad fxe2 13 Hfel fixf3(13.... Red 14 Wxb4) 14 Yx!3 0-0 15 Bae! with very strong pressure for the pawn, Rossetto-Smyslov, Amsterdam IZ 1964, We should also mention that quiet development by 6 ... @e7 7 S22 0-08 0-0(8 M48. d59ed ed 10 Sit4 Wa7 11 Wad? bxd7 12 Hacl leaves White with the freer game, Polugayevsky-Ebertein, USA 1978, 7 eb ch 8 Axbs whe And now: D319 93 D329 Be3 D3r 9 63 Theory ennsiders thie inefficient for gaining an advantage, but in our opinion this assessment is too categorical a Sb7 10 eer eb This transfer of the bishop to a more active position is the basis of the existing opinion, Utes If 11 W3 WO7 12 0-0 a6, un. Wp? 12 0.0729) 2. a6 In this very sharp position the immediate acceptance of the sacr fice is weaker: 12..* x9 13 uxt WaI3 14 WeB+ e7 and now: 8) 15 WeSt shad 16 WeT+ 7 17 WeS+ with perpetual check — Fimman-Gulko, Niksié 1978. b) 15 b3 Sed and b1) 16 Rad+ G16 17 Bxi8 ego 18 ‘Wb7 Gob with counterplay based on the temporarily offside white gueen, 62) 16 d5!? when White vacates d4 and threatens by de to expel the black queen while retaining all the advantages of his attacking position. 13 Ge Oxf Diack secepta the suorifice, and after 14 Sxf3 Wxf3 15 We8+ we? a) 16 d5 (blocking the black queen's retreat to cb) 16... 4xd5 17 Wh? hS 18 Wxa8 hd 19 Dxd5+ ed 20 Wxb8 with a draw, Kluger- Portisch, Hungary 1958, since on 20... h3. White gives perpetual check by 21 We5+ wd8 22 Bbs+ b) 16 4 (with the same idea of interference) 16 .. Axed 17 Wb? when 17... a2 fuils to 18.45 with the threat on 1f Axf17? of winning the que:n’ by 19 d6+, while after 17... c6 18 Wrxa8 Bxc3 19 be Wxc3 20 dS White retains good attacking chances. a2 9 Bed bd 10 sg? (20) 493 Ra 25 10 Gd21? 00 11 Sig? De6 12 Hb1 (12 a3!) 12... Hab8 13 a3 hxc} 14 Sxc3 Bfes 15 We? Be7! 16 0-0 Ged 17 fel Wb3t = Kuzmin-Mednis, Riga 1Z 1979. aw) | 0. After 10 promising continuation: By 11 Wal he can attempt to retain his extra pawn, since 1] DAS 12 La? Dxd4 13 xd Wedd 1S SaxbA Wd? Wxd2t 17 xd? gives hima clearly superior ending. 110-0 Oxc3 12 be Jexe2 13 Bel also favours White: a) 13... Wab 16 Waab Sxa6 1S eS with an advantage in the ending, Karner-Bronstein, Parnu 1971 b)13.. BbS 14 Wad BeS (with the idea of driving the white queen off the a3-f8 diagonal by ... QaS-ed) and now: 1) 15 @h4%! (with the one-move threat of (5) 15... De? 16 Zbl ‘Wa6 17 Wb4 Rd} with approximate equality (18 @b7 Wb6), Ristié- Omstein, Venjacka Bunja 1978 b2) 15 Hbt Wa6 16 Hes! with a number of strong threats, for26 493 246 ‘example 16 ... dS 17 ¢4! ML Wat Now White retains his extra pawn, and after 11... Ged 12 ad? Black has insufficient compensation, Ic is an important factor that from di the queen simultaneously defends the pawns at e2 and dd, After 11 We2 the d4 pawn is insufficiently defended, Tukmakov- Gulko, Leningrad 1977, continued 11... Qe6 120-0 Bfes 13.3 syed 14 be Dds! 15 Hdl Dee? 16 b2 abs 17 Bab! Wb3, when Black first casily regained his pawn and then even won one by 18 Wxb3 Bxb3 19 Dd? bs 20 8 Dxe3 21 fixc3 Bxe3 22 Bbel Hxa3. LL 0-0 is also less convincing here, since Black regains his pawn with his king already castled and in safety: 11... x03 12 be sexe2 13 Bel and now: a) 13. Bavz! 1b Wrad @xab 1S 5 dS 16 04 Be8 17 €5 td? (or 17... Be6 18 xc6 Bxo6 19 sla with a big advantage ia the ending) 18 Qxd7 Bxd7 19 64 Abs 20 Hab! and Black is condemned to a difficult defence, Bagirov-Zeichik, Kirovakan 1978. b) 13... J2bS 14 Wb3 (now that Black has castled 14 Wa3 is less g00¢) with roughly equal chances, Vukié-Bronstein, Sarajevo 1971, Also insufficient for an advantage is 11 ded? c6 12 Bb] Babs 13.3 fixc3 14 xc} Bes when White was forced to lose a tempo on the defence of his e-pawn by 15 We?, and Black regained his material after 15... DeT 16 0-0 eS 17 fc] Wb3 18 Wyb3 Exb3 19 2d? xc. ‘Thus the modern idea ofa pawn sacrifice in the 5 ... e6 variation leads to sharp piece play. but does not promise Black full equality LOG W Ss 2 E Black intends the sime idea of attacking the 4 pawn, but first exchanges the dark-squarec! bishops which enables him to develop his kingside more quickly. 5 Ba? Or 5 Qbd2 and now: a) 5... &b7 6 Sg2, transposing into Chapter 3, page 35 b) 5. a6, which isless convincing here: 1) 6 WedeS 7 ie? Heo 8de Axed 90-0 0-0 10.23 Se7 1. b4 with the initiative for White, Petran-Csom, Hungary 1975, 62) 6 ad followed by Ae? and a2-a3, forcing the retreat of both black’ bishops 5 send Attempts have alse: been made to delay this exchange, while still attacking the c4 pawn, by 5...a56 Sg2, and now: a) 6m a6 7 Sixb4 ab, with two ‘examples: al) 8 bd2% 0-09 a3 cb 100-0 b7 11 W3 We7 12 ab Wrbdand Black had the better game, Popov- Portisch, Wijk aan Zee 1975. a2) 8 DeS Ba? 9.a3 Bc8 10 Dd3 bba 11 Exa3 Bxa3 12 @xa3 0-0 13 0-0 4-\4 Browne-Spassky, Manila 1Z 1976, although White has opened the a-tile and seized the itiative b) 6. 0-0 7 0-0 sao and: bl) 8 a3 Sie? 9 De5 Ba7 10 Wed 6 11 Dd3 d5 12 ed ed 13 &c3 c5 14 de Bxc5 with equality, Estever- Romanishin, Cienfuegos 1977. 2) 8 We2 d5 9 Sixb4 ab 10 Abd2 QT I Biel eo 12¢3 Har 13ed ed 14 if] a8 15 03 WAG 16 &b5 bal? 17 &xc6 ab 18 Bxa7 beet 19 Wael Bxcb6 20 Bes Bd7 21 We? Wac? 22 Bxc? @h3 and the complications have ted to a slightly better ending for White, Savon- Romanishin, Lvov 1978. 3) 8 HeS Ka? 9 @xb4 ab 10 a3 c8 11 Ba3 ba 12 Ox03 Kb7 13 xb] Bxb7 14 DS dS 15 od Wrd5 16 Wed c6 17 De} Whs 18 sbg2, with powerful queenside pressure, Ivkov-Romanishin, Novi28 4 93 bse Sad 1975. bd) 8 2y5 &e7 9 Ac3 h6 10 d.xl6 Axt6 IL Kel d6 12 Bel c5 13 b3 Ba7 14 dS xc 15 Hxe3 eS Belyavsky-Makarichev, USSR Ch 1980/81 6 Wed? a6 (32) |e We E| ea aaa 2k Gam Zz ee &R | ee y wa Se A Boy AB MAR BS ay Boge Now White has three ways of defending 4 A 7 wed B7Ba3 C763 A 7 ger White simulataneously prepares e2-e4, but on the other hand he loses’ the possibility in certain cases of supporting the dé-d5 break with his queen, Tw 5 (33) Apart from this counterattack in the centre, Black also gains equal chances by the quiet 7... 0-0 8 Sg2 c6 9.0.0 d5 10 Qbd2 AbAT HI Biel 5, Vukié-Parma, Yugo- slavia 1969] We now consider; AL 8 ig? A2 8 eb Less pood is 8 d5 ed 9 ed 0-0 10 3 (10 e4 can be met by 10 xed or 1... Be8 ) 10... bS with good counterplay. AL 8 gd Deb 9 Was Probably better is 9 de be 100-0 0-0, although after 1163 (IL Zl WeT 12 Wad D7 13 Me} db 14 Hd2 Hfd8 15 Hadl h6 16 a3 £ McCambridge-Dzhindzhihash vili, Lone Pine 1981) 11... We7 12 23 Babs 13 Lad] BFds 1 ef uo 15 Site! Oza 16 h3 ges Black was threatening to invade on dé, Zhukovitsky-Libert, Sochi 1967 9. We8 10 00 This ECO recommendation is better than 10 @e5% when an exchange sacrifice gave Black a strong attack in Minev-Szabo, Marianske Lazne 1969: 10 Dxdd! {1 Bra Yaad 1213 Ab7 13 @c3 0-0 14 QbS d6 15 Dxdd-de Le Bed Bat, 0... 0-0 Bar ECO gives this position as favourable for White, but this evaluation is incorrect. uw. ed 12 Oxdd xd 13 Bxdd 13. Gxa8? is dangerous: 13 fxe2+ 14 Il fixed and for the exchange Black has two pawns and an attack. ‘This position was reached in Keller-Dickstein, Zivich 1975, where Black could have gained a comfortable position ty 13... d5, when he answers Led not by {4 Axd52 15 Bxd5! ed 16 De} but by 14... Welt and 15... Wxb2, when it is now White who has to think in terms of equalizing. a2 8 eA 4) A new plan, first played in ILLUSTRATIVE GAME No 2, Belyavsky-Razuvayev, USSR 1978. White creates the immediate threat of dS, but weakens a whole complex of white squares on the kKingside. He plans tocastle Q-side, Which is most unusual for the Queen's Indian Defence, 8. ed Otherwise 9 ds. 9 Bxds 00 Ww Hed 10 22 is of course answered by 493 ROE 29 10... ds. 10. 2b7 To be considered was 10 Wie8, with the idea of exploiting White's lack of development (king in the centre), e.g, 11 e5 De8 12 Bed Heb 13 gs g6 with a sharp pasition M00 a6 Preventing DabS-d6, but to be considered was {1 .. a6, with the idea of counterplay on the cefile (... He) and against the e4 pawn (.. 29). 12 Bgl nce 12 282 seriously weakens the e4 pawn, 12 263 allows Black to gain a tempo in the manoeuvre . DpdeeS, and 12 Le? blocks the e-file for his rooks, White decides to advance f4 and g4-g5 with the bishop at f1 and his rooks dis- sounected. RD. wer Slightly more accurate was 12 c6, retaining the option of playing the queen via eT to eS, 1B fd Zeb50 493 abe ‘The alternative was 16 We2 £5 17 h3 ©h6 when the poor position of the black knight gives White slightly the freer game. 16 fs Or 16... eB 17 foxh7+ dhs 18 We2 Bxd1_ 19 WhS and now a) 19... Bfe8 20 dg6+ wes 21 ATT Sof 22 6 g6 Wb7 23 Whst GeT 24 Wag 7+ aR 25 WIR Sc? 26 Wa6+ dB 27 Zxdl and White b) 19... £38 20 4 es and: bL) 2 g6+ ys 22 sixlT+ sone 23 Sig6 Bred 24 Wh8+ we? 25 What with perpetual check. 2) 21 ed eed 22 Wn 7+ G1823 Anf? Oxc3, again witha probable draw. 3) 21 Eg3t with the threat of Hh3 followed by mate in two moves 17 Hyel— ac8 18 m3 Dhe 19 bt bs? This activity is unjustified. 19 WoT was essential, preparing BS, whieh would Rave left all 10 play for. The game now concluded 20 cb ab 21 Wb3! (not 21 AxbS7? &xds 22. Wre? xd) 21... b422 Wxd4 Hs 23 &bS ied 24 af HET 25 Hd2 Hb? 26 dedi ho 27 Baa AixbS 28 ab Woo 29 xd? Exd? 30 Bnd? Weyl 31 ga Hast 32 D3 Wxg3 33 b6 Abs 34 67 We3 35 Was Weis 36 Bxt7 1-0. B 7 a3 (36) White defends his c4 pawn by developing, a move which is only possible because the bishops have been exchanged. But the knight is badly placed on the edge of the board, and later White will have to waste time on transferring it to + more active position 7. S The most energetic move The attempt to block the a8-hl disgonal with pawns, 7... 0-0 8.22 d5 9 0-0 c6 10 Bact ba {1 Hed We? 12 Efel, allowed White to acize the initiative on the queenside in the game Marovié- Lengyel, Malaga 1968, Ts SUb7! recommended by Taimanov. in Damengambit bis Holléndisch (Berlin 1975) is sound enough ~ 8 sig? 0-0 9 0-0 d6 and now: a) 10 Dh Axe? 1 Dre? Hbd7 12 Bad! c6 13 (dS 14 Bel with a minimal advantage for White, Taimanoy-Larsen, Leningrad IZ 1973, b) 10 Hfel Sbd7 If Bad! We7, Ikov-Benko, Vrsac 1970, and now 12 Dh4 Sry? 13 Oxg2, with the threat of |4.e4, should be met not by 13... d5, when 14 ed ed 1S ‘Wid with the threat of Me3-f5 and pressure on the e-ileis unpleasant, put by 13... Ded followed by... 8 ag? Be 9 0-0 0-0 10 RAY He nde Now that the black rook can occupy the b-file only with loss of tempo this attempt to create pressure in the centte is perfectly jostified. Other moves achieve nothing, a) UL eS cd (weeker is It Qxds? 12 e3 and 13 @xd7) 12 Axcb de 13 Wxds Bxd4 14 Bxd4 with simplification and equality, Mecking-Korehnoi, Augusta 1974. b) II Wael d5 12 ated 13 @e2 (White loses after 13 de be 14 Exc5? died, but [4 Hel should be considered) 13... He8, again with equality ~ Ivkoy-Pokojowezyk, Polanica Zdro§ 1977, Hw be 12 Obs Theory regards White's position as preferable, but this hardly corresponds to reality, since Black can continue 12... d5 13 ed (otherwise the pawn advances to 44) 13 ..ed with good counterplay. Tt may be concluded that the defence of the c-pawn by 7 Da3 does not give White any opening advantage. c 7 3037) dS A logical contintation of the attack on ¢4, Weaker is 7...c58 8920-09 0-0 ®c6, when 10 dS ed [Ted d4 (11 @b4 12 Bc3 Bb713 a3 Dab 14 493 Rbse 31 S819 Pints af MAR aw Bes ef is even worse) 12 @xd4 cd 13 Wrxd4 f&.xe2 14 Bel gives White a marked spatial advantage. 8 hig? (38) Now Black hus two fundamen tally different plans. He can either strengthen his own pawn centte or else attempt to make @ counter attack against White's centre. We consider: C18. 66 C28... 00 cl 8 6 9 Bed The preliminary 9 ed ed (9... ed is also satisfactory) and only then 10 3 allowed Black to equalize after 10. 0-0 11 @eS Wd6 120-0 bd? 13 {4 Had’ 14 Hal Abs!324 ¢3 Bde 15 Hacl Sc8, since the weak c-pawa is securely defended and the white knight can be dislodged, osian-Larsen, Manila 1974 he plan of concentrating the white forces on the queenside also leads to equality: 9 0400-0 10) Eel Dd? M1 ad Bes 12 Gad We? 13 Wo? c5, Bronstein-Polugayevsky, USSR Ch 1961 9 Aba (39) More accurate than 9 ... 0-0, when 10 Be5 hinders the develop: ment of Black’s queenside, vitually forcing 10 ... @fd7, and now: a) 11 Bxd7 Dxd7 120-0 fo 13 cd cd 14 Btcl Wd6 15 He? Hack 16 Hacl Ec? followed by ... Hfcs with a quick draw ~ Bagirov- Razuvayev, Fronze 1979. b) 11 Bde de 12 Added 13 xc6 Deb M4 Sixes Kes and Black's position is slightly preferable. Browne-Andersson, Amsterdam 1978. ©) 110-0 xe 12.de ad7 13 £4 bs (on 13... de?! White has the highly unpleasant 14 fit, and if 14 eS 15 b4 D7 16 Lxc6) 14 eb cb 15 fel with advantage to White, Lerner Razuvayev, Minsk 1979. 0 10 Wb2 Very serious consideration should be given to 10 de5!? which has not yet occurred in practive, and ‘which after 10 ... @xeS (sooner or later this exchange is foreed, since Black cannot tolerate the knight at eS for long) 11 de d7 12 4 leads to a position similar to that reached above in the game Lerner~ Razuvayev. 0. 0-0 1 00 zest? By consistently increasing the pressure on ¢4 and threatening 12 de Black maintains the balance Alternatives are weaker: a) M1... de 12be xed 13 Ad? 9.06 (bad is 13... @d5? 144) 14 8x06 Hac 15 deg? and White seizes the on the queenside by Gi) mee 13 Hacl de 14 be @xe4 15 Qd2 @a6 16 .xc6 Bae8 17 Abs with the better game for White, Zaitsev- Likert, Solnok 1975, 12 a2 ‘The exchange [2 ed ed activates the black bishop. Now Black can continue either 12... 65 13 de BxeS or 12 BoB"? with the idea of... Dab and after 13 ed @d6 14 e5 the black knight occupies with gain of time 4 strong position at [5 ‘Therefore, as mentioned above, White should continue 10 Ges. cz g 00 Or immediately 8 ... ¢5, and now: a) 9 ed Dxd5 10 Ded 0-0 11 de Oona Bel Oxe3 13 aed be 4 Wad8 Hid’ 15 ExcS Bac’, and Black has adequate compensation for the pawn, Rashkovksy-Averkin, Moscow 1973 +) 9 Ge5 Med 10 We3, Rukavina- Bronstein, Sarajevo 1971, and Black could have gained counter- ‘chances by 10 .. 52b7. ©) 9 De8 0-0 10 BeS Hab7 11 0-0 @bd7 12 Hid He8 13 Back and Write gained am advantage by forcing his opponent to cede the centres 13 =. 6d 14 Bad 28 15 gd, Vaganian-Balashov, Lenin- Black pins his hopes on a central counterattack, for the sake of which he is even prepared to agree to hanging pawns. 4 gh Abte 33 wed ed 1 Bc3 eb de Or 12 fal ed! 13 xed de 14 D5 Dxdd 15 03 He2+ 16 Gil WI 17 a7 Wt? 18 Del BAIS and since 19 11” is bad because of 19... xg3+ Black has perfectly adequate compensation for the exchange, Russ-Konstantinopolsky, corr. 1963/65 n be Polugayevsky-Bronstela, Erevan 1975, now continued {3 Bfdl, when the counterattack on €2 by 13... dd 14 Bad Be8 gave Black sufficient eounterchanees, Therefore we suggest 13 Bfel followed by Badl, when , in our opinion, White has the preferable position ‘Summing up, it can be said that practice does not yet enable us to daw a definite conclusion on this variation, Tt is clear only that, although the exchange of the black-squared bishops (with a subsequent attack on 4) allows Black to develop his kingside more quickly, it weakens the blac squares in his position, which, as we have seen, makes itself felt in certain eases,3 493 Q2b75 292 Bb4+ 1 a4 216 2 ef 6 3. 3 bo 48 R07 (41) ‘The most natural incarnation of the basic idea of the Queen’s Indian Defence. Black establishes control over e4 and simultaneously parries the action of the white bishop, which will be developed at 2 5 ag? 5 Qc3 is occasionally played, when Black has a choice between: 5... SieT, leading to positions examined later in Chapter 5. 5...b4, transposing to the Nimzo-Indian Defence, 5... 8x13! (Since 5 De} is rarely played, this idea of Réti’s has only oceasionally been tried) 6 ef dS-and now: 8) 7d (after this Black's Sth move is to some extent justified) 7 Bxd5 8 sig? 06 9 14, with two examples: a1) 9... £e7 100-00-011 Be? 16 with equal chances, Simisch-Réti, Berlin 1922, 2) 9. 26 100-0 x7 11 e200, Grunfeld-Réti, Wroclaw 1925 1b) 7 p26 8 We? 207 90-00-0 10 14 and bl) 10... @bd7 11 £8 and White broke up his opponent's pawn centre, obtaining a big advantage, Stoltz-Bemdtsson, Goterborg 1931 62) 10 ... de (more promising) 11 Wxot DS 12 Wa bd and 13 BS, with a sharp and complex position where both sides have weaknesses, Sib4+ (42) a wens wa aa a a | ha i 8 Y As we will see in later chapters, this bishop often plays a highly important role by controlling a whole complex of black squares, ‘Therefore in principle its exchange favours White Even so, Black sometimes — though more rarely nowadays than formerly - resorts 10 the exchange for two reasons. Firstly, fhe gains a tempo for the develop- rent of his kingside,and secondly he lures one of the white pieces to <2, which weakens Waite’s pressure fon the defile. In addition, Black acquires the additioral possibility of switching to the pawn set-up with... d6 and .. 65, which without the exchange of bishops ‘would be merely to his opponent's advantage. ‘We should also add that this variation was introduved into major events by Bogoljubow, Nimzo- witsch and especially Capablanca. White now has a choice A 6 Bhd? B 6 Bd? 6 Dbd2 (41) | we a White hopes to gain.a tempo for the development of his queenside initiative (a2-a3), cr to gain the advantage of the two bishops after the exchange on d2. But more significant are the drawbacks to 493 Qb7 5 Bg? Bddt 35 this move: loss of control over the centre, and hence the possibility for Black of attacking the centre with his & or d-pawn, We consider three main con- tinuations for Black: Al 6. Bet A2 6.1. 0-0 AD 6... 65 AL 6 Bed Capablanca’s move. 7 00 ‘Dxd2 8 xd? xd? 9 Wa a6 So as to be able to answer 10.45 with 10... €5 Less good is 9... 0-0, and now: a) 10 d5 d6 LI de fe 12g5 xg? 13 Gixe2 WHO 14 Wed “a6 with a double-edged position, Knezevie- S.lvanov, Varna 1974, 5) 10 We? (threatening 11 eS) 10 » Geb 1 Badd d6 12 d5 with a serious advantage to. White - Horowitz-Denker, New York 1946, 10 Bhat Alternatives are weaker: a) 10 d5 eS 11 b4 BAT 12 cSde 13 be Sxe5 14 Dxe5 0-0 and Black has no difficulties - Ubtmann- Liebert, Weimar 1968. ) 10 We2 d7 11 e4 0-0 12 Bad! ‘WeT 13 Bhd g6 14 {4 and now the timely 14 ... eS enabled Black to equalize after 15 fe de 16 d5 a5, Alekhine & Reilly v Flohr & Monosson (consultation), Nice 1931 w 0-0 Réti-Capablanca, Bad Kissingen 1928, now continued 11 Bach36493 Bb75 hed bb4e DAT 12 Gel Sxg? 13 Dxg? We? 14 ed Bfd8 15 “e3 and White's game remained slightly preferable, Az 6 0-0 (44) Preparing ... dS, which cannot be played immediately because of the queen check at a4, Less suitable to this aim is 6... a5, e.g, 70-0058 We2.0-09 Be5 Wek Ide &xdS 11 4 SLb7 12 Ddes Ba6 13 a3 Re7 14 8e3 followed by Bacl, Bfdl with a serious initiative for White, Gheorghiu-Larsen, Manila 1974, ‘he a Or the immediate 723 and now ANT... 7 80-065 9 b3 dS Wed ed 11 de be 12 eb? Dba 13 Rel eB 14 et Wh6 with a complicated position, characteristic of the Cata- lan Opening, with the difference that White has made the unneces- sary move a2-a3 — A.Zaitsev- Polugayeysky, Kharkov 1967 b) Tan And? 8 B.xd2 46 9.0.0 Dbd7 10 Wed We7 11 3 e512 de de 13 Bfd1 Blas 14 a2 O18 with complete equality, Tukmakov- Gipslis, Riga 1970. 7 as Alternatives are weaker: 7... faxd22! (this is not forced) 8 ‘Wxc21 d6 9 b3 Dbd7 10 sb? Bbs 11 Radi ®ed 12 Wed 15 13 d5 ed 14 ed Hef 1 Dh4, Alekhine- Alexander, Nottingham 1936, 7 C57! 8 a3 Bxd? (8... BaS9 ®b3) 9 xd2 and if... cdthen 10 b4 Bc8, and now: a) 1 Dxd4 Oxg2 12 bxg2 Deo 13 Bd6 Bek 1413 Axd4 15 Wadd eS with @ sharp game, Mititelu- Kosira, Budapest 1960. b) 11 @d6!? and: bi) IL... Bed 12 Wxd4 Ha6 13 bd Hck 14 Bacl Axd6 15 Wxd6 followed by Bf! with a big advantage to White - Karpov- Andersson, Madrid 1973. b2) 10... Axf3!? (Minic) 12 &xf3 Be6 13 Bxc6 de 14 Wxdd Ded 15 {dl and in the endgame White seizes the important open file Accecont try was 7 Se? 8 We? d5 9 b3 de 10 Axc4 Red 11 Wd? ‘WadS 12 &b2 Dbd? 13 Bid] Hack 14 Wel Wa8 15 Bacl a5, Stajcic- Korchnoi, Baden Baden 1981 8 ad Or & Se&, so as to transfer the 2 knight to a more active position at 3, and now: 2) 8... We8 (defending the bishop and preparing the exchange on c4) 9 Ddf3 de 10 Dxc4 Abd7 11 BEA AdS 12 Kd? Axd2 13 Wrd2 D516 with a level game, Siimisch-Teller, Prague 1943. b) 8... @bd7, with these examples: b1) 9 Dd3 &d6 10 b4 when Black should reply 10 ... eS with a complicated game, but not 10 de? 11 &xb7 Eb8 12 Axcd Bxb7 bs, after which White has a Wajda, Budapest 1921 7 2) 9 @id3 {2d6 10 cded 11 b4 Ee 12 Bo] Hed with muehly equal Ghances, Vukie-Bobotsov, Varna 68. $3) 9 Qal3 Le7 10 Dxd7 Oxd7 and again White has no advantage, Bronstein-Stolyar, Moscow 1957 8... 669 Qaf3 Des 10 We sd6 I) Hd} @d7 12 aft Anta 13 fxld.ad 1d fel WeT 15 ed ed 16 a3 5 17 de be 18 DFA Blas 19 £5442 /oe/s Petursson-Uusi, Tallinn 1981 8 b3 Dbd79 Ab? We8 10 Hel We? 11 c3 BEB 12 Wed 5 Andersson-Sunye, Hastings 1980/ ster 8 ded 9 ad 46 10 4 Abd7 11 b2 De8 12 Hel Bed 13 Bros de 14 Dd Black took the initiative by 14 ...b5t 15 We2 We? 16 fl bo 17 Bes Wes 18 see {545 in Vaganian-Balashov, USSR Ch 1980/81 gn 9 bd Ahernatives are weaker: 2) 9 ... a8 10 BS wit a queenside bind b) 9... @bA7 10 5. )9 mde 19 Dxed Dbd? 11 Ab? followed by Zl. 10 bs Black's task is even simpler I be be 11 de xcs 12 $b? Dbd7 13 Des DxeS 14 fixed Det 15 e315 &b2 is strongly met by 15... Wb6) 15... Eb3, Rubinstein- Alekhine, Semmering 1926. 493 Qb7 5 hg? bt 37 10 26 Peev-Partos, Bulgaria vRomania 1972, now continued 11 de be 12 AD? Gd 7 13.a4 de 14 Dros ab 15 ab Ebs 16 Wa4 b6 wath an equal game a3 6 65 (45) Black agrees 10 part with his bishop, but immediately exploits the fact that the knight on d2 prevents the advance dd.dS, and that therefore White's centre can be successfully attacked. 7 a Less critical replies are: Tde &xcS 8 0-0 0-0 9 b3 dS 10 fb? Deb Med DxdS 12.03 dke7 13 ef Bc7, Lombard-Jonsson, Skopje OL 1972. 70-0 cd and now: a) 8 Dxdd bxe29 dee? Wes 10 Wr} Deb and Black seized the initiative, Langeweg-Ivkov, Wijk aan Zee 1970. b) 8 b3 0-0 9 Abxd4 Bc7. with bl) 10 b3 Acé 11 Des We? 12 fdxo6 de 13 Gb? 5 and Black has no difficulties — A.Zaitsev- Ivkov, Busum 1969, 2) 10 2f4 a6 and Black retains38433 BTS By? Bhar both his bishops, Vul Sarajevo 1971 7. 8 Wxd2 At least threatening d4-ds. No better is 8 &xd2, and now: a) 8... cd 9 bd Bab 10 $.d6 Hes with equal chances, according to Korchnoi, However, Gheorghiu- Hecht, Romania v West Germany 1979, continued If e5!0-0 120-0 46 13 daxdd ¢ b)8... 009 debe 104, Korchnoi: Parma, Rovinj/Zagreb 1970, and now by 10... a5! Black could have clarified the position on the Q-side and gained equal chances 8. ed Radically eliminating all White's plans associated with da-d5, White is unable to exploit the resulting weakness at d6. 9 00 No better is the immediate 9 Wxdd Be6 10 Wh (10 Wao We7) 10... Be8 and now: a) 11 &gS Ga5 12 Bet @b3 13 Edt bS!? 14 ch Was+ 15 Bhs Wxbst 16 ab Med with at least aan equal game for Black, Farago- Dely, Hungary 1971 b) IL Bd? 0-0 12 bd Be8 with equality, Uhimann-Portisch, Mos- cow 1967. a 0-0 10 xd After 10 Oxd4 White even loses the advantage of the two bishops. "arma, hxd2+ 0. D6 1 Wa as 12 bd Black is easily able to maintain the balance: a) 12... de 13 Wxed Hes. b) 12....€5 13 deed 14 Wh3 Wxds (not 14... ef 15 de fg 16 Bal, and Black loses a pawn) 15 Wyxdis @xd5 16 gs dé, Uhlmann. Parma, Skopje/Ohrid 1968, ‘These examples show that after 6 Dbd2 Black has several simple ways of obtaining an equal game. B 6 ad? (46) The main continuation. White does not cling to the two bishops, Which, as we have seen, do not give him any advantage, but mobilizes his forces as quickly as possible. «Ea Wenz] ae +. Black now has three basic plans. He can attempt to maintain his bishop at b4, retreat it or exchange it. We therefore consider: BI 6... a5 B26... We? B36... Be7 Ba 6... xd2+ BL 6 as (47) ‘This move was introduced in the 19205 by the English master Yate aly to be recommended is 6 m7 dixbd (7 0-00-08 Saxbé spade 1.a3 ba 11 b4a5 12 fe BxaS, Sosonko-Wirthensohn, Bad Kissingen 1981) 7 .. cb, and now: “bat (t00 passive) 8... 0.09 20 de followed by —- 65 with ipproximate equality, Tukmakov- Vitolinsh, Franze 1979. by 8 a3 ba 9 Hxa3 followed by 3, when White hes a central pawa majority and active play 7 00 The most convenient way of breaking the pin on the bishop at 2, which forces Black to decide immediately the proslem of his bishop at ba, Other moves achieve little for White: a) 7 Rxbd ab 8 a3, when Black need not hurry over the exchange 99 83 but can continue to control ©)7 Hed Bxc38 xc} Ded 9 Wer Dxc3 10 Wred 0-0 11 0-0 d6 12 Bad] Od7 13 Del xg? 14 cbxg2 Be8 1S e4 05 Yeti — Flesch Romanishin, Dortmund 1976. 493 Bb7S Sg? Rod Two moves should now be considered: BIL 7... 0-02 BI2 7... xd BU. Tw 0-02! 8 at With the unpleasant threat of 9 Sand 10a 8. 206 Or 8... Re7 9 Ded and: 2} 9 d5 10 BieS Da6 1 ed.ed 12 Bel c5 13 de xcs 14 DS Led 15 é4witha clear superiority for White, Osnos-Kuzmin, Tallinn 1965. b)9... Hed 10 Dxe4 Bxed 11 Wa? do 12 Wed Sb7 13 Wad 15.14 Del xg? 15 Deg? gS 16 fd? eS 17 ‘e3 with an appreciable advantage, Benko-Lengyel, Malaga 1969. 9 sxde Accorcling 10 an analysis. by Voronkov this is stronger than 9 |cH2! x4 10 gh Ded 11 We? sxc} 12 Wxc3 WEG 13 €3 a6 14 We2 Whe 15 whi Whs with a good game for Black ~ Nei Sakharov, Khatkov 1967, an ed 10 ast Wer Or 10... ed II ed and now: a) 11. @ixdS? 12 Bhd WeS 13.64 Whs 14 213 and Black loses a piece. b) 11. SixdS 12 Ac3 and White regains his pawn with a virtually decisive advantage, in view of the ‘opponent's numerous pawn weak- nesses, Madd ed Totally bad is 11 .. Wed 1240 4.93 BIS Rg? bd a3, or even 12 de Ax? 13 eft; meanwhile White was threatening, 12 de de 13 QbS followed by 14 xb? and 15 Dxd6, Dod Now after 12... saxd5 (12 @xd57 13 DES) 13 exdS Dads 14 a3, followed by Kel and Dabs, gains very strong pressure. Twn xd? Since the alternative is unsatis- factory, this exchange must _be considered essentially forced. But if this is the case, Black should make it at once, without wasting time on... a5, which also weakens his queenside 8 Wad? 00 9 Be es 10 xed axed i Oh4 sixg? 12 Dxgr a6 (48) White has the freer position, with obvious chances in the centre and on the kingside But after 13 adi @d7 14 ed Whs (with the idea of beginning active play on the queenside) 15 We? ad 16 Be3, Korchnoi-Spassky. Palma de Mallorca 1968, Black could have gained good counterplay by 16... 5 17 ob Has. ‘To be considered, therefore, is the immediate 13 e4!7 ~ not determining for the moment the position of the queen’s rook, and a) 13. e5, when White has a choice between 14 dS and 14 de!? de 15 WdS Ha6 (15... Wxd52 16 cd) 16 WxeS Hed 17 Wet (better than 17 Wfa Wdd) 17. Bxed 18. Sif with the initiative, b) 13. DA7, when White's queen's rook can occupy a more active position by 14 Rael, and after 14... Wbs 15 f4 White has the initiative, since the blockading move 15. £5 is bad because of 16 ef ef 17 Ges. ‘Thus the attempt to maintain the bishop at bd by 6 ... a5 cannot give Black complete equality B2 6 on WeT (49) Introduced by Nimzowitsch. But here too Black is sooner of later forced to exchange on d2, 50 that the following words of Alekhine are justified: “All the same Black will have to take the bishop, and therefore he should do this imme- flatly and develop his queen ata ropriate_momen waar gba noted that, wthin afew moves, a position from the main Variation B4 is normally reached. 7 00 [As was stated above, this is the inost natural way 0 developing. 7 %e3 leads to a Nimzo-Incian sition which is perfectly accept- able for Black Tn faxd2 After 7... 0-0, it. analogy with variation B11, White can play 8 2f4, and now: a) Bw. dS'9 5! and al) 9 be 10 a3 a5 11 de with the threat of b2-b4,and after I! ce 12 skd6 White wins the exchange, Znosko-Borovsky~Thomas, 1929, 42)9 a. Dhd7 10 a3 LxeS 11 de eS 12 66 xcO 13 We? au Black's pawn centre cannot compensate for his material deficit, Ivkov- Nemet, Yugoslavia 1972 b) 8... shd6 9 xd6 Wrd6 10 Ded (threatening a3 cr Be? and 2 c4-e5) and: 1) 10... Ged? 11 4S, andif IL... 6? then 12 es 62)10... WeT LT We2 dé, and now instead of 12 Badl eS 13 d5 ed 14 ed, Becker-Reinhardt, Stuttgart 1939, which, however, also gave White the betier game, stronger was 12 e4, witha big advantage in the centre 8 Wxd2 The other captures are weaker: 8 Dfxd2 Oxe29 Sry? 5 witha good game, Hug-Andersson, Berlin 493 RPT 5 he? Bbst 41 1971 8 Gbxd2 and now: a) 8 a. 0-0 9 2, with: al) 9...€5 l0eded 1125 Ded 12h3 4ih6 13 gS, winning material, Lengyel-Florian, Gyula 1965. 2) 9 d6 10 €4e5 LI Ble] Obd7 (to be consideredis 11 .. 54? 12 dS 6 with ... 5 to follow) 12 Bact a5 13 Ghd Bes 14 ALS, with a clear advantage to White, Samisch- Unricker, Lucerne 1948. b) 8. e512 9 de (9 We? eb), with 1) 9 ...be, and the position of the white knight at d2 allows Black to follow up advantageously with ds. 2) 9... WexeS 10 Hel 0-0 11 03 WeT 12 5 (with the idea of preventing... d5 and, in the event of the exchange, of activating the knight) 12... dS (3 fd? Axe? 14 xg? be, and the game Vidmar- Johner, Carlsbad 1929, showed that the chances are roughly equal. 8 6 This is best, transposing into variation BS. 8....0.0allows 9 éc3, when 9 Bet is unfavourable because of 10 Axed faxed 11 FA! (attacking the bishop and the c? pawn) 11... dS 12 ed, and now: a) 12... ed 13 Bact ®a6 14 Bes xg2 15 Sxe2e5 16 debe 17 Bld ‘with pressure b) 12... &xd8 with two examples: bl) 13 e4 Ab714 Bacl witha clear advantage to White, Bondarevsky- Dubinin, Leningrad 1939, 62) 13 Back a6 14 Hes eS 15 de424 g3 &b75 Be? Rbse be 16 Wad sxe? 17 exe? BOTH 18 el Blas 19 Dd3, with an attack on the weak ¢5 pawn, Habner-Larsen, Las Palmas 1976. 9 Wer Now on 9 c3 Black simplifies by 9... Ded: a) 10 Ded Gxed 1 Wis 15 12 DgS xg? 13 coxg2 0-0 and Black has no problems, Vukié-Rukavina, Yugoslavia 1972, b) 10 We2 “xe3 11 Bac} Dd, when White gains no advantage by bl) 12 dSe5 13 d20-0 14 b4a5 15 43 g6, Rossetto-Letelier, Buenos Aires 1964, or b2) 12 cS Ad5 13 Bfel 246, Bolbochan-Rocas, Rio de Janeiro 1938. on 10 eB We brave reuched & position which is considered below (page 48), Theory rightly considers it more promising for White, who controls e4 and has the possibility of creating central pressure B3 0-0 6 Se? (50) su w One of the fashionable continue ations in this variation. Black lures the bishop to d2.and hopes to, exploit the fact that it blocks the dfile, hindering White's pressure on this file and also a possible 4-5 advance, 7 Bed ‘The most exact move order, 70-0 allows Black the immediate counter-blow 7 ... 5 8 Be3, and e8219 dS! ed 10cd xd" 11 Oxd5 Sexd5 12 eed AT 13 Sixg? High 14 sic} De6 15 Wer x6 16 @h3 and Black has no satisfactory defence against the many threats of Hdl, f5 etc, Kan-Lilienthal, Moscow 1945. b) 8. cd 9 Dads Oxe? 10 exe? Wes TE b3 WHTF 12 13:d5, with complete equality, Bertok-Kastro, Budapest 1960. Te 0-0 Here 7 ...¢52t is no longer good in view of 8 d5 ed 9 Bhd. 8 00 It would be interesting to try in practice the plan with 8 Wee? ds (otherwise e2-e4 and dd-d5) 9 cd Bxd5 10 xdS Axd5 [1 e4 Ob7 12 0-0-0, utilizing the extra tempo gained as a resuit of Black's AIS b4-e7 manoeuvre, We now consider: BSI 8... @a6 B32 8... dS Capablanca’s 8 ... ‘Ded, which at one time was popular, has now zone out of use, since’ by 9 d5 ‘xd2 10 Wed2 White markedly cramps his opponent a) 10... a6 [1 ed f6 12 Rad e5 followed by b2-b4, Holmov- Lilienthal, Moscow 1949. b) 10 £5 (merely steating a Pcher weakness on e6) 11 Bit ea 12 Bach 276 13 Wed B26 14 But c6 15.3, with a bigadvantage fo White - Popov-Golombek, Kecskemet_ 1968 10... Sxf6, and Ep 11 Ead1, which alows Black fo solve the problems of his queenside developmen:: 11... d6 [2 de fe 13 dé Saxg? M4 xg? We8 15 Wed Lxd4 with an equal ‘game, Euwe-Alekhine, World Ch 1937. 2) I Bel or 1 ed, with an advaptage in the centre BBL 1333 Bow ‘Bab (51) {xy ye WA a ak a aa <7 pa Qala re Gan @ wl a wen SR OAR ew wisn This leads to ILLUSTRATIVE GAME No 3, which is Timman- Polugayevsky, Wijk aan Zee 1979, Black’s idea is to answer the natural 9 Bel with 9. ¢5, when the bishop decoyed to 42 prevents White from advancing 10 d5 (because of 10... ed 11 Hind De7) 9 Bes Exchanging the white-squared bishops can hardly be best. The 4g Rb7 5 Rg? Rb 43 fact that the knight at a6 is momentarily unprotected is no ‘compensation for the disappearance of the bishop from g2. Alternatives: a) 9 Hel He (the game Ree- Karpov, Amsterdam 1981, varied swith 9. c5 10 Sf4.ed 1 Bex 06 12 Wd2 Wes 13 b3 Hd8 14 Bt De5 =) 10 €3! (10 Hel dS 1] cded 12 fd e513 Wad Ded 14 Bedl Dyed 15 Exe3 Bb4 16 de be 17 eS a5 is Ree-Hort, Amsterdam 1981) 10... oS 11 We? dS (1 d6!?) 12 GeS Mbs (12... Bed) 13 Bfd] Qba!? 14 a3 Ach 15 @el! a3 16 de (Kurajica-Borik, Dor mund 1981) 16 ... be. b) 9 5 ed 10 Od ob 1 cd Dxd5 2 @xd5 cd 13 Se} BE 14 DS So6 15 a4 Yh-l4 ~ Borik-Hort, Bochum 1981 9) 9 a3 05 105 ed 11 Zh4 Met 12 M5 16 13 ed xc} 14 be d6 15 e4 6 16 We3 Be? Kuzmin- Romanishin, USSR Ch 1980/81 4) Also to be considered is 9 Wad on xg? 10 Sag? GS ‘The bishop's place at b7 is taken by the queen, This couldalso have been achieved by 10 ... We8, bur the move played creates a possible threat of ...¢5, when the knight's position at e5 may prove shaky. i es wh7 Forced, since I... ¢5 can be met by 12'siF4, and if 12...d6 then 13 Deb We7 14 Bnet Wee? 15 de, when Black loses the exchange. De 6 An essential link in Black's plan44 493 Qb7S Rg? Db4+ = he must aim for the pawn break wu dS oF, in some cases, .. BS. In general, it should be mentioned that the position is highly dynamic and flexible, even though the centre is in White's hands. Now White should have immediately retreated his knight tod3, when he would have been threatening ed- e5 and would have had a slight positional edge. 13° Sfel An unfortunate move, which allows Black the tactical possibility of exchanging his insufficiently active knight at a6 for White's centralized one. 13 ow b+ Threatening to win the exchange by 14... Bc2. is Bact as 15 23 xd3 te wus 40! (32) et we "owe Gabe aaa BAG i go Als fol Bie By au Five black pawns stand on the 6th rank, and each is ready to take his centre, White himself crosses 17 dS ed 18 cd 18 ed would have been met by 18... bSt w bs 19 a3! Preparing to answer 19... 05 with Da2-b4-c6. But Black is by no means obliged (0 liquidate the pawn tension in the centre im- mediately, and so better was 19 de fe 20 13, followed by directing the knight via e2 to dé or F4 19a Back ‘The position is completely level, so the opening battle has essentially been won by Black 20 aft Bed But this is wrong. Much simpler was 20 ... €5, when on 21 &35 White has to reckon with 21 Dxd5, while after 21 Be} 8 22 a2, with the idea of manoeuvring the Knight to ¢6, Black replies 5" Linstead 21 G2, ten 21 a7 22 Had 3 WD f5, and White risks coming under de fe 8 a8 23. Kedt Alter 23 Eedl White is better prepared for possible breaks in the centre, 23 a7 243 Bec 25 Der Better is 25 Se3. Now Black seizes the initiative, 2B eS 26 Bbt ba Consolidating the position of the knight, which fulfils numerous functions, including the defence of 6, Now the safest for White was 6 Me axbd 28. Bed, and if 28 Gxb3 29 Wxd3 Grb3 30 xd He? 31 faxe?, with a probable Jhaw, But he fails 0 sense the Ganger, and makes a mistake, iter which Black acquires a very Grong pawn at a3, which in the end decides the gare. 27 e382 ba 28 bd d7 29 Wb3 28 30 D4? (better 30 Wad d5 31 ed faxb4, with an inferior but defensible position) 30... d5 31 ed ‘abd 32 Urb Sxbd 33 de (better 33 Hrc8 Bxc8 34 de, since now Black could have won immediately by 33 ..a234 Exe Hxcl 35 dd di) 33. Bvdl 34 Exdl a2 35 5 (the best practical chance) Ed8 36 e7 ZxdSl 37 Huds ath 38 e8W Wart 29 Sd? Brd? 40 Hed Mb4+ 41 ed Was 42 hd? (ctsating a further veakness at 23) 42... aS 43 Bed do (the sealed move) 44 He? h6 45 e4 Wad 46 hS fie 47 hg Wel 48 sett Odo 49 shed WeS 50 Was Weds 51 ed AeS+ 52 ha2 Wad+ $3 Gal Wis 54 ed? Wh2+ 55 dad Wh3+ $6 Gd? dsr 57 wel Bas O- B32 Be 5 (53) 9 od 9 eS, trying to force Black to tecapture on d5 with the e-pawn, is parried by the simple 9 ... c6!: 8) 10 ed od 11 Hel HHA? 12 Oxd7 xd7 13 M4 cS, Pachman- Alatortsev, Prague v Moscow 1946, 2) 10 Wad a6! 11 Wb3 (the threat 493 @b7 5 Sg? BbEt 45 was H.. 65) Ho. e512 049 Greed, since 12dcis unpleasantly met by 12... de, and 12d by 12 ed) 12... ed 13 add de, Najdort Corte, Mar del Plata 1946. Dn @xd5 9... ed?! leaves Black with the unfavourable ¢7/45 pawn forma- tion, and White has various ways of exploiting the advantages of his position 4) 10 Wb3, and now: al) 10.66 1] Be5 bd? 12 eas ‘eX 13 Efel, and White prepares the advance Of his pawn to e4, 2) 10... Dbd7 11 Bll 6 12 64 e813 of Dred 14 Dred de iS He5 DxeS 16 de and White has the freer game, Guimard-Pachman, Havana 1962. b) 10 eS, and if 10... Qbd7 then II Wad Bxe5 12 de Bed 13 Dred de 14 Sc and, without meking serious positional concessions, it is difficult for Black to avoid loss of material 10 We2 A wealth of practice has estab- lished this to be the best way of preparing e2-ed, 10 Hel, with the same aim, is less flexible, since in46 493 Bb75 Be? Abst certain variations White's king's rook can profitably occupy dl After 10 Hel a) 10... Bxe3 MH fxc3 DAT 12 Wed (threatening 13 HS) 12 .. ‘Wc 13 ef, Lilienthal-Alatortsev, Moscow 1947, and Black had to reconcile himself to an inferior position after 13 .. He8 14 Had] 06, since 13... 5 14 5 is totally S Hed Bxc3 (11... £6 or IL... 4c7 are also all right) 12 xc3 od 13 @xd4 d7, and Black has a satisfactory position. White can also attempt to obtain the favourable pawn for- mation by 10 Qxd5, and now: a) 10... ed, leading to a position examined in illustrative game No 5 (page 64), b) 10... SixdS 11 We? a7 12 ed 407 13 Bfat, and: I) 13... Df62 14 thes 5 15 de AixeS 16 S25 with good attacking chances, Dyner-Dunkelblum, Haifa 1958, 2) 13... €5, in the hope of 14 de Dxc5, which would reduce White’s pressure, but doubts can be cast on this idea by 14 d5!? ed 15 ed followed by Sc3, with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn, 0 a7 For the moment 10 ... €5 is not good, in view of 11 de &xcS 12 QgS 6 13 Wed, when White threatens, in particular, to transfer his queen to he. Now after 11 Bfdt ¢5 12 de @xo5 13 14 Wes 14 Orcs Kad IS BS Gxe5 16 Sxd5 ed 17 Sings We6 18 Be} Det White’s position is somewhat preferable. He has a strong bishop, control of a4 and the possibility, as_in Tukmakov-Balashov, Riga 1970, of continuing active play on the queenside by 19 ad, But Black’s excellently placed queen and knight allow him hope for counterplay, e.g. «WS, with the threat of hdxg3 and. xe3 ‘Thus present-day practice does not allow us to conclude that White can cast doubts on the manoeuvre Sf8-b4-e7, even though he gains a fempo for the develop- ment of his queen’s bishop. Ba 6 Sexi2+ (54) Since the time of Capablanca it has been established that 7 bxd? does not give Whitcan advantage, since the knightis passively placed and has no prospects, eg. 7... 0-0 8 0-0 and now: 2) 8. 6 9 We? Dbd7 10.e4e5 11 45, with two examples: 1) IL... ONS?! 12 d4a5 1343 8 14¢5, and Black's counterplay on the kingside is too slow, Gheorghiu- idan, Manila 1974, Krys 123 WT 1323 g6 14 4, and White retains the initiative, Johner-Riehter, Berlin 1928. bp 8 St? (Che most natural and active plan), and: #5179 Bel (with she idea of 10e4)9 ed 10 Dxd4 LxB21I xg? D6 1p 213 Dedé 13 Wadd dS, wich complete equality for Black — Pfleger-Andersson, Montilla 1974. 2) 9 de be 10 Bk? Deb, and Black is threatening to seize the initiative, as in fact oceusted in these examples: b21) 11 ef We7 12 fel d6 13 Hacl h6 14 a3 d7 15 We3 a5, Soultanbietf-Sultan Khan, Litge 1930. 22) 11 Had] We7 1243 h6 13 fet Habs, Bogoljubow-Nimzowitsch, Beclin 1927. 223) 11 EAU WL6 12 43 Babs 13 Habl Bic 14 ef e5 15 Hd3 d6 16 BML Add — Canal-Capablanca, Budapest 1928. 7 0 After 7. d6 8 @c3 Black is essentially forced to play 8 .. 0-0, with a simple transposition of moves, since 8... Qe4 is met by 9 Wi, and: 8) 9... DF6 (Black loses too many tempi) 10 0-0 Sbd? 11 e4 0-0 12 Hadi We7 13 e9 with an attack, Nei-Bobotsov, Beverwijk 1966 b) 9. @xed 10 Des Wes 11 WalT+ dB 12 Dreb+ Wreb 13 res xg? 14 be (ess clear is 14 ‘Bgl? Bes) 14... aixh 15 Wea (15 {37 x13) 15... &b716 Wxg7, with # decisive advantage ~ Rocha- 493 Wb7S Bg? Bhat 47 Danielsson, Munich OL 1936. 8 Ac3 a6 8... Bed is again weaker, in view of 9 We2 (only equality results from 9 @ixed xed 10 d5 (10 0-017 5% ~ 10... d6- 11 acl Bd? I2.cd Gxd5 13b4 Heb? M76 ~ 14 Bal We? 15 ha! Dror" 16 @xdS @xd5 17 Hos Bas 18 e4 Bi6 19 We2 + Timman-Hibbner, Tilburg 1980] 10... Ye7 11 0-0 eB 12de de 13 BMdl o6 14 Wes 45, Buwe-Capablanca, Amsterdam 1931) and now: 4) 9 4 £5 10 BeS dS Led ed 120-0 Gud7 13 £4 Dav 14 Bact Bac 15 Wxe3, with a difficult position for Black, Euwe-Flohr, Amsterdam 1932. b) 9 w @xe3 10 DES Bed (Black loses in the possible variation 10 WreS HL Bxb7 Geb 12 shxas xed 13 Wed Bxdd 14 Wed WeS+ 15 Sed £5 16 0-0-0) LI Bxed Bxed 12 Weed Wxgs 13 Wxak e614 Wh7 Axd4, and: fl) AS Bal c5 (weaker is 15 Wes?! 16 63, Euwe-Capablanca, Amsterdam 1931) 16 €3 De2t 17 bd? WES 18 We? b4 19 c4 WIS 20 wel @xa2# with a double- edged game, Euwe-Capablanca, Amsterdam 1931 2) 18 0-0! (Keres) 15... Bxe2+ 16 ‘2, and White wins material. 9 We Preparing ©2-c4 and then, if possible, d4-d5, to restrict Black's bishop to the maximum extent. Here 9 0-0 is weaker, Black's easiest way to equalize being 9 Bed 10 Hixed (1D Be? no longer