The Sicilian Dragon is currently one of

the sharpest lines with the theory of the

opening in a constant state ofOux. After
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cd 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5
Nc3 g6, the author surveys both 6 Be2
(Classical) and 6 f4 (Levenfish), thus ·

providing an essential companion

volume to Sicilian Dragon: Yugoslav Attack
by Tony Miles and Eric Moskow.
David Levy, an International Master
and Scottish Olympiad player, is a noted
expert on the Sicilian Defence, and the
Dragon in particular. His previous
works include Sicilian Dragon, Sacrifices in
the Sicilian and How to Play the Sicilian
Dief nce (with Kevin O'Connell).

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Advisory Editor R G Wade

BATSFORD CHESS BOOKS

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Nirnzo-Indian 4 e:J: Nirnzowitsch,

A-E Hubner & Tairnanov Variations
AMatanovic C W Pritchett

Nirnzo-Indian Defence: Leningrad

Figurine Algebraic .Notation

Batslord Algebraic Chess Openings
System
M MacDonald-Ross
Benko Counter G.unbit
NirnzowitschfLarsen Attack
DNLLevy
R 0 Keene
Benoni
Ruy Lopez: Breyer System
W R Hartston
L S Blackstock
Colle, London and Blaclunai'-Dierner
Sicilian Dragon: Yugoslav Attack
Systems
AJ Miles, EMoskow
TO Harding
Sicilian: ... e5
TO Harding
French: Classical Lines
W Heidcnldd, T 0 Harding
Sicilian: Lasker-Pelikan
French: MacCutcheon and Advance
R G Wade,J S Speelman,
N E·Povah, L S Blackstock
Lines
T 0 Harding
Sicilian: Najdorf
King's Indian Defence: 4 �
M FStean
E Geller

King's Indian Defence: gJ Systems

EGcller

ISBN o 7134 2743 4

��-------------- --------------� ---
Sicilian Dragon: Classical and Levenfish Variations
BATSFORD ALGEBRAIC CHESS OPENINGS

SERIES EDITOR RGWADE

Sicilian Dragon:
Classical and Levenfish Variations
David Levy

1 e4 c5 2 {)f3 d6 3 d4 cd 4{)Xd4{)f6 5{)c3 g6 : 6 Ae2;

6 f4;

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1 98 1
c David Levy 1 98 1

ISBN 0 7 1 34 2744 2 (limp)

Typeset by W. Turner & Son Limited , . Ha lifa x

Pri nted in G reat Britain b y

Billing & Sons Ltd,
London, G uildford & Worcester
for the publishers
B . T. Batsford Limited
4 Fitzha rdinge Street. London W 1 H OAH

BATSFORD C H ESS BOOKS

Adviser: R . G. Wade O.B . E .
Technical Editor: P. Lamford
Contents

The Dragon vi

Preface vii
Bibliography ix
Acknowledgments X

Symbols XI

1 Introd uction and Sixth Move Divergences 1

2 Seventh Move Divergences 9
3 8 �b 3 15
4 Classica l : 8/9 �d 2 24
5 Eighth Move Diverg�nces 38
6 Alekhine's 9 .Q.g5 42
7 Ninth Move Divergences 49
8 Maroczy's 1 0 . . . �a5 60
9 Tarta kower's 1 0 . . . �c8 69
10 Levenfish - Introd uction 78
11 Levenfish with 6 . . . �c6 83
12 Levenfish with 6 . . . i;tg7! 1 03
I ndex of Va riations 1 09
I ndex of Complete Ga mes 111
We a re told that the Dragon Variation derives its name from the
shape of the B lack pawn formation which is reputed to bea r a
resembla nce to the silhouette of a dragon . Whatever may be our
opinion concerning this explanation the Dragon Va riation certainly
gives rise to an order of ferocity quite beyond common experience.
and this is perhaps the best justification for its mythica l appellation.

If I.
like Solomon. . . .
could have my wish -
my wish . . . 0 to be a dragon.
a symbol of the power of Heaven - of silkworm
size or immense; at times invisible.
Felicitous phenomenon!
'0 to be a dragon'by Marianne Moore
Preface

The Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defence is without doubt one

of the most interesting, complex, double-edged and d ifficult
openings to play as B lack or to meet as White. In writing a
monograph on such a popular variation, one is struck by the vast
amount of material available both in the form of detailed surveys in
va rious publications a nd in the h und reds of master games in
which ideas, both old and new, are tried .
Before I sta rted to write this book, I decided to omit nothing
which could be of interest to the really serious theoreticia n, yet to
try to set out the material in such a vvay as to avoid baffling the
more casual reader. ( R . G . Wade deserves full credit for suggesting
the lucid classification system now being employed in all Batsford's
theoretical monographs.)
Within each system I have given the most frequently played
va riations as main lines, even though they may not represent best
play for both sides. Ma ny variations a re illustrated by a game (or
games) so that the reader can follow the strategies involved from
their inception to the conclusion . I have also tried to show how
and why various lines have evolved in order to give the studious
reader confidence that he is playing the correct move for the right
reason . Those who make the effort to lea rn the bulk of the
material contained herein will rea p their revvards time and again
over the chessboa rd , for in a sharp opening such as the Sicilian
Dragon it is not only the ideas that a re importa nt. but also the
numerous tricks, traps a nd devastatingly swift a ttacks that often
seem to turn up as if from nowhere.
As the reader will see from the bibliography I have used ma ny
sources for my material . Most of them have been from my own
library though I must tha nk R . G . Wade and L. W. Barden who
made available to me a la rge amount of inval uable material which I
v1ii" Preface
did not otherwise have at my disposal . I would a lso like to tha nk all
those, too numerous to mention. who supplied me with scores of
games that they had played or witnessed . Wa shington devotee
Da niel Glazier was helpful in pointing out improvements in various
places a nd Larry Eva ns' excellent columns in Chess Life and
Review were often useful. Above ali i must thank R . D. Keene who
went through the original script with a fine-toothed comb in order
to correct any errors in my a na lyses a nd who contributed no small
measure of origina l-a nalysis in the Levenfish Variation.
The poem '0 to be a dragon' is printed by permission of Faber
a nd Faber Ltd . of London a nd The Viking Press of New York from
The Complete Poems of Marianne Moore.
If any readers have ideas. additions or amend ments that they
would like to offer, I would be very pleased to consider them for
any future editions of this volume .
D . N .L.L.
London. September 1980
Bibl i ography

The following list of books a nd periodica ls includes a ll publications

which were frequently consulted d uring the compiling of material
for this book.

BOOKS
Boleslavsky, Sizilianisch. 1 97 1
Boleslavsky, Drachenvariante Bis Paulsen. 1977
Ciocaltea & Sama ria n , Teoria Moderna a Deschiderilor in Sah
(volume 1), 1967
Euwe, Theone der Schach-Er6ffnungen (volume 9). 1 96 1
Evans & Korn, Modern Chess Openings ( 1 0th Edition). 1 965
G ufeld & La zarev, Sitz1lianskaya Zashita, 1 970
Koblencs, Sitz.Jiianskaya Zhashita, 1955
Marovic & Su�ic. Moderna Teorija Otvorenja, 1 967
Mata novic, Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings volume B. 1 975
Mikenas, Sachmatai, 1 968
Pachma n , Semi-Open Games, 1 970
Panov & Estrin, Kurs Debyutov, 1 968
Schwarz. Die Sizllianische Verte1digung. 1 979

PE RIODICALS
Archives (English , Germa n and Dutch), British Chess Magazine,
Chess. Chessman Quarterly, Chess Life. Chess Review. Chess Life
and Rev1ew. lnformator, Shakhmaty, Shakhmatny Bulletin,
Shakhmaty v SSR, Teorijski Bitten. The Chess Player (and The
New Chess Player).
Acknowledgments

The a uthor wishes to thank the following for their help in

preparing this book: A. A. Smith for translitera ting copy i nto
a lgebraic notation . A. Sutton for retyping the manuscript. L. J .
Smart for preparing the d iagra ms. a nd W. N . Watson for proof­
reading a nd providing valuable suggestions.
Symbols

+ Check
Balanced position
± Slight advantage for White
=F Slight advantage for Black
± C lear advantage for White
+ C lear advantage for Black
++ Winning advantage for White
++ Winning advantage for Black
a:> The position is unclear
! Good move
!? Interesting move deserving attention
?! Dubious move
? Weak move
?? Blunder
1 -0 Black resigned
Q- 1 White resigned
Y2-Y2 Draw agreed
Ch Championship
Corres Correspondence game
OL Olympiad
C Ca ndidates
IZ Interzonal
Z Zonal
F Final
Y2 F Semi-final
�kF Qua rter-final
W or B Beside each d iagra m , indicates the player to move.
1 Introduction and Sixth Move Divergences

1 e4 c5 2 {Jf3 d6 3 d4 cd 4 7 ... {Jc6

{jXd4 {Jf6 5 {Jc3 g6 8 0-0
Black's initial aim in the Classi­ For 8 {jb3 see chapter 3;
cal Dragon is to reach the type 8/9 �d2 is chapter 4; while
of position shown in d iagra m 1 8 Others are covered in chap­
which we sha ll refer to as the ter 5 .
'normal position: H is pieces are 8 ... 0-0
then reasonably well developed, 9 {jb3 ( 1)
ready to rebuff any a ttack on reaching the normal position.
the K-side or in the centre. In For other ninth moves see chap­
addition, he has eve;y oppor­ ter 7.
tunity to create play on the O­ All sig nificant d ivergences
wing with the Dragon bishop, within this sequence are due to
the semi-open c-file and the White a nd they provide us with
possible advances . . . b5 or a convenient method of sub­
. . . a5 - a4 being the most dividing the Classical Dragon .
significant features of his plans. -� j.\U \Wi ••
1 . . ... i. �- •
8 ��
P.i"{t• • - ;(41\'§t•t
-
r� ·�§ • !Y�
Layout
After: . .... . � . t
6 �e2 • •• •
Sixth move alternatives form
• . ..!..!.. . �
•
• ;:� 4). ;:�
the remainder of this chapter.
./."'\1!."\'
� '"2..1 � �] • �
6 ... .Q.g7 '

4). �� 4). ""' � f.� 4). ��

7 .Q.e3 ���-��J.l.�
� �
',� -J.i,- 'H �
Other seventh moves are � ."g. t::l
�
?e)
dealt with in chapter 2. except 9 . . Jle6
.

Alekhine's 7 0-0 {jc6 8 {Jb3 Alternatives are dealt with in

0-0 9 .Q.g5 which forms the chapter 7.
subject of chapter 6. 1 0 f4
2 1 Introduction and Sixth
a nd now Black has the choice
between Maroczy's 1 0 �a5
. .
(chapter 8 ) and Tartakower's
10 . �c8 (chapter 9 ). Some
. .
minor tenth moves are sum­
marised at the end of chapter 7.
Sixth move divergences
The Levenfish Attack 6 f4 is
considered in chapter 1 0 p.78.
We now consider :
A : 6 h3
B : 6&ljde2
C : 6 �b 5 +
0 : 6&ljd5
E : 6 �g5
F: 6 g3
6 &ljb3 does no more than
tra nspose to va riations con­
sidered after 7&ljb3. 8&ljb3 or
9&ljb3.
A:
6 h3 (2)
This idea of Lasker's prepares
for an early sa lly on the K-side
with g4, but in a position where
White's development is far from
complete such a plan should
Move Divergences
not be successful.
. 6 . . . �g7
7 �e3
After 7 g4 a6 we would
reach Fischer-Reshevsky, U S
C h 1 962-63. b y transposition ;
it continued 8 g5!? (Fischer. in
My 60 Memorable Games. also
mentions 8 �g2 o-o 9 o-o
&ljc6 = ) 8 . . . �h5! 9 �e2 e5
(If 9 . . . �c6! ? 10 &ljb3 ) 10
&ljb3 &ljf4 1 1 �d5 � X d 5 (To
be considered a re 1 1 . . .
&lj X e2 12 � Xe2 �e6 and 1 1
0-0 1 2 h4 f5 or here 1 2
. . . &ljd7! ? sacrificing a pawn . )
1 2 � X d 5 &ljc6 1 3 �g4!
� X g4 14 hg �c8! 1 5 �d 1 !
&ljd4? (15 . . . �e6 = ).
7. . . �c6
8 g4 0-0
In Henkin-Chistiakov. Black
played less actively: 8 . . . a6 9
g5 &ljd7 1 0 �e2 �a5 1 1 �d2
�c5 1 2 .§d 1 �e6 1 3 a3 0-0-0
1 4 � Xc6 be 1 5 �d4 � X d4
1 6 �Xd4 &ljd7 1 7 b4 � X a 3
1 8 0-0! a nd White had good
possibilities of attack against the
black king .
9 g5 �e8
White has over-extended his
position to such an extent that
Black could already be assessed
as having the advantage.
The a lternative 9 . . . �d7?
allows White to maintain equal­
ity by 1 0 h4 �a5 1 1 f4&ljXd4
12 JtXd4 e5 1 3 fe � Xe5 1 4
�e2 �b4 1 5 a 3 �Xd4 1 6
 1 Introduction and Sixth Move Divergences 3
�Xd4 4jf3 + 1 7 J}.Xd4 Reti­ Opoeensky's move; this in­
Samisch. Kiel 1 92 1 . volves the knight on d4 in a
1 0 h4 4jc7 time-consuming manoeuvre via
1 1 f4 e5! e2 and f4 to d5.
1 2 4jde2 Jlg4! 6 . . . Jlg7
The famous game Lasker-Na­ 7 4jf4
pier. Cambridge Springs 1 904, 7 g3 transposes to A6.
went 1 2 . . . d 5? ! 1 3 ed 4jd4 7 . . . 4jc6
1 4 4j Xd4 4j X d 5 1 5 4jf5! 8 Jle2 b6
4j Xc3 1 6 �Xd8 .§ Xd8 1 7 9 4jfd5 4J X d 5
4je7 + �h8 1 8 h5! ! .§ e8! 1 9 By exchanging a piece that
Jlc5 g h 20 �c4 ef 2 1 �Xf7 has moved four times within
4je4 22 � Xe8 J}. X b2 23 the first nine moves Black
.§ b 1 Jlc3 + 24 � 1 Jlg4 25 obtains 1:1 great lead in develop­
J}. X h 5 ! ! Returning the material ment. 9 . . . Q-0 would be in­
to nullify Napier's attack. 25 ferior beca use of 10 4j Xf6+
. . . Jl X h 5 26 .§ X h 5 4Jg3+ J}.Xf6 1 1 Jlh6 .§e8 1 2 �d2
27 �g2 4j X h 5 28 .§ X b7 a5 as in Spielrnann-Davidson, 1932.
29 .§b3 Jlg7 30 .§ h 3 4Jg3 1 0 ed
31 �3 .§a6 32 � X f4 4je2 + Or 1 0 � X d 5 Jlb7 =
33 �5 4jc3 34 a3 4ja4 35 10 . . . 4jd4
Jle3 1 -0. There is no defence 1 1 Jle3 4J Xe2
to g6. This is one of the great 1 2 �Xe2 e5 =
classic games of chess.
After 1 2 . . . Jlg4! Black has A3:
some adva ntage. analysis by 6 Jlb5 + (4)
Kaufmann.
. . .�...� � .
8 .i. . . ...
4
A2: -.&�
�'{· . - '�
-.&�.&
.
• � - . ... .
mJ.&!iO
.

6 4j4e2 (3)
B.kl.B B B
-
• �. .!..!.. 8 •
"4• -
-
. Ll
" .
- -
.
�1].- �)4�Y.
4).. i'!;� ;l }(·4·
.u.. � �JJ.� �
�� �..M,� • 'H'
fl::::$ �g � 8 t:::J.
White tries to solve an in­
ternal communications problem
in that this bishop, if on e2, can
be an obstruction to his queen.
4 1 Introduction and Sixth Move Divergences
Hence White exchanges it off.
However the simplification also
eases Black's problems.
6 . . . ,ild7
7 ,ilX d7+ � Xd7! =
After 7 . . . c:£jb Xd7 8 0-0
Jlg7 9 jle3 0-0 1 0 f4 .§.c8 1 1
�3 Korchnoi-Moiseyev, USSR
1 950, White has a little more
space a nd better control of the
centre.
A4:
6 c:£jd5 (5)
5
8
A trappy move .
6 . . Jlg7!
Not:
a) 6 . . . c:£) X d5 7 jlb5 + jld7
8 ed .il X b5 9 c:£) X b5 _ilg7 1 0
0-0 0-0 1 1 .§.e 1 c:£jd7 1 2 Jlg5
c:£jf6 1 3c:£jc3 .§.c8 1 4c:£je4! �­
b) 6 . . . c:£) X e47 7 Jlb5+
.ild7 8 �e2 f5 9 f3 c:£jc6 (or 9
. . . c:£jc5 1 0 b4c:£jca 6 1 1 c:£je6)
10 c:£jb3 c:£)c5 1 1 c:£)Xc5 de 1 2
,ilf4 .§.c8 1 3 0-0-0 �7 1 4
Ac4 e6 1 5 c:£jc7 ± Estrin­
Hofbinder, USSR 1 943.
7 ,ilb5 + Jld7
8 0-0 c:£)c6 9 c:£jb3 0-0 1 0
.§.e 1 a 6 ( Black's lead in devel­
opment gives him a very slight
edge.) Estrin-Averbakh, USSR
1 939, continued 1 1 Af 1 .§.c8
1 2 Ae3 c:£) Xd5 1 3 ed c:£je5 1 4
,ild4 ,ilf5 1 5 c 3 g5! :j:.
A5:
6 .ilg5 (6)
6
8
I n most variations of the
Dragon this bishop is placed on
e3 to support the knight at d4.
6 Jlg 5 can lead to very sharp
games with equally sharp coun ­
teraction from Black. The logical
way for Black to neutralise
White's pla ns is to develop
veiled threats against White's
knight by ,ilg7 and
c:£jc6.
6 . . . ,ilg7
7 �d 2
7 Jlb5 + accompiLshes noth­
ing after 7 . . . Jld7 8 �e2 0-0
9 0-0-0 �a5 1 0 .§.he 1 .§.c8
1 1 c:£jb3 ,il X b 5 1 2 � X b5
�c7 1 3 f4 h 6 ! 1 4 Jl Xf6
Jl Xf6 1 5 e5 de 1 6 fe Jlg5 +
G rechkin-Moiseyev, I skra Ch
1 95 1 .
 Introduction and Sixth Move Divergences
7 e5?! de 8 �db5 �bd7 can
only be good for Black.
7. . . �c6
8 0-0-0
The alternative plan is 8 �b3
seeking to minimise the power
of the Dragon bishop. Rauzer­
Kan. 10th USSR Ch 1 937.
went 8 �b3 0-0 (8 . . . h6 9
.Q.h4 between the same two
players in the 1 936 Moscow
Championship leaves Black in
difficulties. as 9 . . . 0-0 allows
10 .Q.Xf6 weakening the pawns.)
9 0-0-0 ..Q.e6 1 0 �b 1 �c8 1 1
f3 �e8 1 2 g4 �e5 1 3 ..Q.e2
�fd7 14 ..Q_h6? ( Better is 14
h4 though Black obtains strong
counterplay with . . . �b6.) 1 4
. . . ..Q.,h8 1 5 h 4 �b6 16 h5
�ec4 17 ..Q. Xc4 !f) Xc4 1 8
�h2 g5! ! 1 9 �d3 i;te5 20
�g 1 f6 21 � Xa7 �d7 22
�g 1 ( If 22 �a4 both 22 . . .
!f) X b2 and 22 . . . ..Q. Xc3 23
�Xd7 .Q_Xd7 24 � Xc3 !f)e5
followed by . . . !f)f7 win .) 22
�c6 23 !f)d4 �b6 24
!f)b3 �a6 25 �c 1 ..Q.f4 26
�d 1 !f)e5 27 !f)e2 !f) X d 3 28
cd �aS 29 a3 �b6 30 !f)bd4
Ae5 0- 1 .
8 . . . 0-0
Central liquidation by 8
!f) Xe4 9 !f) X e4 ..Q_Xd4! (9
!f) Xd4 permits the tactical
stroke 1 0 �f6 + gf 1 1 � X d4
with pressure, Rauzer-Ragozin .
USSR 1 936.) 1 0 l;tb5 J;tg7 11
�e3 0-0 1 2 ..Q. X c6 be 1 3
5
!f) Xd6 �a5 14 .Q. Xe7 �Xa2
( Ragozin ) is also satisfactory for
Black.
9 !f) X c6
9 !f)b3 besides being treated
by . . . ..Q.e6 as in the game
cited at 8 !f)b3, presents Black's
ORP with a target as shown in
Neishtadt - Band utto, corres
1959. which continued 9 . . .
a 5 10 .Q.b5 a4 1 1 !f)d4 a3 1 2
!f)b3 ab + 13 �b1 �b6 +·
9 be
1 0 e5 !f)e8 (probably 1 0 . . .
!f)d5 is stronger) 1 1 ed !f) Xd6
12 ..Q. Xe7 � Xe7 13 � Xd6
�g5 + 14 �d2 �a5 1 5 i;tc4
�b8 16 ..Q_b3 i;tf5 with good
attacking chances for the pawn .
Rauzer-Kan. USSR 1936.
A6:
6 g3 (7)
7
8
This has long been regarded
as an innoc uous move but
recently it has been undergoing
something of a revival . Like
other sixth move divergences it
is best answered by rapid devel­
opment.
6 1 Introduction and Sixth Move Divergences
6 . . . !fjc6!
This is the easiest way to
equalise.
6 . . . .Q.g4 is regarded as
inferior, a n importa nt game
being Adams-Suesman, Boston
1 944, which went 7 �d3 �c8
( Reasonable a lternatives are 7
. . . !fjc6 or 7 . . . !fjbd7) 8
.Q.g2 .Q.g7 (van Steenis-VIag­
sma, 1 946, went 8 . . . !fjbd 7
9 0-0 !fjc5 which might be
playable . ) 9 h3! .Q.d7 1 0 .Q.e3
with a bind for White.
After 6 . . . il_g4 7 f3 has
also been tried, e .g . in Bole­
slavsky-Geller, Zurich 1 953 : 7
. . . .Q.d7 8 Ae3 !fjc6 9 �d2
.Q.g7 1 0 0-0-0 (Also possible is
10 .11 g 2 !fje5 1 1 b3) 1 0 . . .
0-0 1 1 g4 §.c8 1 2 �b 1 !fje5
1 3 h4 (Comparisons ca n now
be made with the a ttacks stem­
ming from Rauzer's 6 f3.) 1 3
b5 1 4 .Q_h6 .11 Xh6 1 5
� X h6 § Xc 3 ! ? 1 6 bc �a 5 1 7
�e3 �a 3 1 8 h 5 b4 1 9 �c 1
� Xc3 20 �b2 §.c8 2 1 hg
�b2 + 22 � X b2 hg 23 a3?
ba + 24 �Xa3 !fj Xf3! .
6 . . . !J.g7 is not so accu­
rate as the text. though after 7
.11g 2 0-0 Black can still hold his
own, e .g . 8 0-0 !fjc6 9 !fjb3
.Q.d7 1 0 !fjd5 !fj X d 5 11 ed
!fje5 1 2 !fjd4 �b6 1 3 c3
§.ac8 14 h3 t¥c5 1 5 'ffie 2
§.feB 1 6 §.d 1 !fjc4 (Barcza ­
Pachman, Prague 1 954) 1 7 b3
!fjb6 1 8 !J.b2 !fj Xd 5 1 9 c4
followed by 20 A X b 7 with
equality.
Examples of bad plans for
Black in this line are, after 6 . . .
.11g 7 7 .11g 2 0-0 8 h3 !fjc6 9
!fjde2 ( Korchnoi-Suetin, 3 1 st
USSR Ch 1 963 went 9 !fjb3
!J.e6?! 1 0 !fjd5! a5 1 1 a4 !fjb4
1 2 c3 !fjb Xd5 1 3 ed .Q.d7 1 4
!fjd4 �8 1 5 �b3 !fje8 1 6
!J.e3 !fjc7 1 7 h4 and White
has pressure along the central
files. ) And now :
a ) Bronstein-Sajtar, Moscow­
Prague 1 946, went 9 . . a6.
1 0 0-0 !fje5 1 1 �h2 .Q.d 7 1 2
f4 !fjc4 1 3 b3 !fja5 1 4 Ae3
§.c8 1 5 �d2 b5 1 6 a 3 �c7
1 7 §.ad 1 with a good pe>sition
for White .
b ) Korchnoi-Bonda revsky, Len­
ingrad 1 963, continued 9 . . .
.\ld7 1 0 0-0 §. c8 1 1 !fjd 5
!fjd 5 1 2 ed !fje5 1 3 a4! !fjc4
1 4 §.a2 e 5 1 5 de .11 Xe6 1 6
!fjf4 !fja 5 1 7 !fjd 5 !fjc6 1 8
§.a3! a lso with advantage for
White .
c ) Correct is 9 . . § b8 trans­
.
posing to the Matanovi6-Giigori6
game mentioned in the note to
the next move .
An example of a bad plan for
White is 6 . . . .Q.g7 7 h3?!
!fjc6 8 !fjb3? .Q.e6! 9 Ag2
�c4 (now White cannot castle
short) 1 0 !J.g5 0-0 1 1 �d2
b5! :j: Ermenkov-Rajkovic, Vrn­
jacka Banja 1 978.
7 !J.g2
 1 Introduction and Sixth Move
White might also try 7 .!£jde2,
to avoid the possibility of the
important exchange of knights
on d4, e.g. 7 . . . -'l,g7 B -'l,g2
0-0 (not 8 . . . h5?1 9 h3 h4 1 0
g4 !; 8 . . . -'l,d7 equa lizes, 9
0-0 �cB 1 0 .!£jf4 0-0 1 1 §e 1
.§eB 1 2 § b 1 .!£je5 Ciocaltea ­
Rajkovic, Belgrade 1 979.) 9
0-0 b ut B lack obtains ea sy
equa lity with either
a) 9 .. . §b8 1 0 h3 b5 1 1
!zjf4 b4 1 2 .!£jcd5 a 5 = Mata­
novic - Gligoric, Yugoslav Ch
1 95 1 , or
b) 9 . . . -'l,d7 = 1 0 .!£jd5?!
(better 10 h3 = ) 10 . . . .!£j Xd5
1 1 ed .!£je5 :f 12 .!£jd4 �b6
1 3 c3 .§acB 1 4 �e2 .§feB 1 5
§d 1 a 5 (intending . . . a4 - a 3)
1 6 a4 and now, instead of 1 6
§c4? Tai-Gufeld, USSR
Team Cup 1 974, 1 6 . . . .!£jc4
is correct, e.g. 1 7 Af 1 h5! :f
-Ta l .
c) 9 . . . -'l,g4 1 0 h3 -'l,d7 1 1
.lle 3 §cB 1 2 b3 �a5 =
Palacios-N . N ., Havana 1 97B.
7 . . . .!£j Xd4
This simplifying move leads
to a level game. A recent try to
preserve com plications was
seen in Ci ric - Velimirovic,
Vrnjacka Banja 1 966, which
went 7 . . . .lld 7 8 .!£jde2 h 5 ! ?
9 h3 �cB 1 0 Ae3 -'l,g7 1 1 f3
.i£Je5 1 2 -'l,d4 0-0 1 3 g4 .!£jc4
1 4 b3 .!£jb6 1 5 gh?! .!£j X h 5 1 6
.ll Xg7 .!£j Xg7 1 7 f4 �c5 1 B
�d4 �Xd4 1 9 .!£j Xd4 §acB
Divergences 7
20 �de2 .!£jh5 2 1 §f 1 §c5
22 0-0-0 §feB 23 §f3 f5 +.
After 7 . . . .lld 7 8 0-0 -'l,g7
9 .!£jde2 0-0 1 0 h3 a5! (Weaker
is 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 .!£jd5 .!£J X d 5
1 2 ed .!£je5 1 3 c 3 ! Pripis­
Belyavsky, USSR 1 97B.) 1 1
i.l,e3 a4 = is another possibility.
B � Xd4 .llg 7
9 0-0
a ) 9 i.l,e3 0-0 1 0 �d2 (Not 1 0
0-0? .!£jg4 1 1 �d2 .!£J Xe3 1 2
� Xe3 -'l,e6 1 3 .!£jd 5 a 5 ! 1 4
c 3 .§bB 1 5 §ad 1 b 5 ! +
Evans - Reshevsky, Havana
1 952.) 1 0 . . . .!£jg4 1 1 i.l,f4 =
b) 9 -'l,g5 h6!? (9 . . . 0-0?! 1 0
�d2 ! Zhuravlev - Krogius.
Sochi 1 977. )
9 . . . 0-0
1 0 �d3
Or:
a ) 1 0 �d1 Jlg4 1 1 .!£je2 i.l,e6!
12 h3 .!£jd7 13 .!£jf4 -'l,c4 1 4
§e 1 a 5 1 5 .!£jd5 a4 1 6 a 3
§eB 1 7 h 4 h 5 1 B Jlg5 i}. Xd5
1 9 ed Ax b2 + Sokolsky­
Furman, 2 1 st USSR Ch 1 954.
b) 10 �d2 �c7 1 1 .!£jd 5 .!£jd5
1 2 ed b5 1 3 a4 b4! 1 4 � X b4
§ bB 1 5 �h4 Jl X b2 1 6
i}. X b2 § X b2 1 7 c4 Jla 6 1 B
§ac 1 .§fbB 1 9 § fe 1 �c5 20
�4 .§ Bb7 2 1 .llf 1 § 2b4 22
h4! Cuella r-Korch noi, Stock­
holm 1 962 .
c) 10 h3 _lle 6 1 1 �d 1 ( 1 1
�d3?? �cB! + + Zin n-Pan­
chenko, Lublin 1 977. ) 1 1 . .
�a5 1 2 .!£jd5 .ll Xd5 1 3 e Xd5
8 1 Introduction and Sixth Move Divergences
4:Jd7 1 4 c3 ! Janosevic
Martinovic. Yugoslavia 1 978.
10 . . jte6
1 1 jtd2
Teschner-Tal. European Team
Championship 1 957, went 1 1
4:Jd5 .§c8 (Also 1 1 . . . .§e8
1 2 c3 �a 5 1 3 jtg5 ..Q. X d 5 1 4
ed e5 1 5 .Q_ Xf6 jt Xf6 =f
Riemsdyn-Sosonko, Sao Pa ulo
1 978. ) 1 2 c3 .§e8 (instead . 1 2
. . . 4:J Xd 5 1 3 ed jtf5 1 4 jte4
i;l Xe4 1 5 � Xe4 jtf6 is worth
considering.) 1 3 jte3 (Sharper
is 1 3 Jlg5 ! and if 1 3 . .
4:J Xd5 1 4 ed jtf5 1 5 �d 2 ! )
1 3 . . . �a5 1 4 h 3 ? ( 1 4 a 4 is
preferable, e .g . 1 4 . . . ..Q. X d 5
1 5 ed a6 = ) 1 4 . . . �a4! 1 5
.§fe 1 b5 and Black has the
better prospects.
If 1 1 b3 d 5 ! 1 2 ed (If 1 2 e5
4:Jg4) 1 2 4:Jd5 1 3 Jlb2
.§c8 with a good game.
11 . . �c7
1 2 b3 a6
1 3 .§ac 1
With the idea of 4:Jd 1 - e3
a nd c4.
13 . . . .§fd8
1 4 4:Jd5 4:J Xd5 I
1 5 ed ..Q.f5 1 6 Jle4 Jl Xe4 1 7
� Xe4 Jlb2 ! 1 8 .§ce 1 Jlf6
1 9 c4 .§ac8 20 .§c 1 �d7 2 1
i;la5 .§e8 22 Jlb6 e5! 23 de
.§ X e6! 24 �d 3 .§ce8 25
.Q.e3 �e7 26 .§cd 1 Jlb2 27
Jld2 �c7 28 .§fe 1 jta3 29
.§ Xe6 .§ Xe6 30 .§e 1 (30
jtc3) 30 . . . Jlc5 3 1 .§ Xe6
fe 32 b4 jtb6 33 jtf4 e5 34
Jld 2 jtd4 35 jte3 Jl Xe3 36
fe �c6 37 �2 b5 38 cb ab
39 e4 �7 Y2 - Y2 Keres-Giigoric,
Zurich 1 953.
2 Seventh Move Divergences
After 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3
d4 cd 4 � X d4 �f6 5 �c3
g6 6 .Q.e2 .Q.g7
Close scrutiny is given to :
7 �b3 (8)
7 .Q.e3 is. and 7 0-0 can
become. the main line of the
Classical Dragon .
7 0-0 0-0 will transpose to
other lines as follows :
a ) 8 f4 �b6! 9 .Q.e3 (9 \fjh1?
� Xe4) when:
a1) 9 . . �c6 is D. p.50.
.
a2) Also possible here is 9 .
� Xb2 1 0 �d3 �b4 1 1 e5 de
1 2 fe �g4 1 3 .Q. X g4 .Q. Xg4
1 4 .§f4-'i,d7 1 5 �d 5 �a 5 16
� Xe7+ \fjh8 17 e6 �dB 1 8
.§af 1 with a n interesting game.
Belyavsky-Kupreichik, Kiev 1973.
b) 8 l;te3 �c6 is the main line.
c) 8 �b3 �c6 reverts to the
line being discussed .
If. after 7 0-0 0-0, White
avoids transposition into one of
these lines he fares no better.
e .g . :
d ) 8 h3 d5! 9 ed (9 e5 �e4 10
tl Xe4 de) 9 . . . � Xd 5 =
e) 8 f3 �b6! 9 \fjh 1 � Xe4!
10 �d5 �f2 + :f
The text is a n idea of Alek­
hine's which aims at early play
on the K-side. omitting the move
J}.e3 in the interests of saving
time. Specifically, White's �b3
makes Black's counter . . . d 5
harder to achieve. Black's best
plan is simple development and
he must take care over the
order of his moves.
. .
7 . . . 4jc6
On 7 . 0-0:
. .
a ) 8 .Q.e3 is harmless unless
Black plays 8 . . . b6? a llowing
9 e5! �eB 1 0 j;tf3 �c7 1 1
.Q. Xa8 winning, as in Wright­
Hartston, Cambridge 1 968.
b ) 8 0-0 transposes unless
Black plays the inaccurate 8
10 2 Seventh Move Divergences
.Q.e67 ('Develop knights
before bishops' - Emmanuel
Lasker) allowing 9 f4 b5 1 0
.Q.f3 �b6+ 1 1 �d4! .Q. X b3
1 2 � X b6 ab 1 3 cb b4 1 4 e5!
de 1 5 .Q.Xa8 winning, Matano­
vic-Casta ldi, 1 95 1 , whilst the
passive 8 . .. {jbd7 permits
White to establish a 0-side bind
by 9 a4 a 6 1 0 .Q.e3 �c7 1 1 a5.
8 0-0
8 g417 creates more dangers
to White's king than to his oppo­
nent's; Smyslov-Korchnoi, Mos­
cow 1 960, continued 8 ... b6
9 f4 .Q.b7 10 .Q.f3 0-0 1 1 h4
a 5 1 2 a4 .!£)b4 1 3 h 5 d5! 1 4
e 5 {) X g4! ( = ) 1 5 {jd4 {Jh6
1 6 hg fg ( 1 6 . . . hg 1 7 f5 ! ) 1 7
{je6 �d7 1 8 .!£) Xf8 .§ Xf8 1 9
{Jb5 d4 20 .Q. X b7 � X b7 2 1
0-0 {Jf5 22 .!£) Xd4 .!£) Xd4 23
� Xd4 �c8 24 �e4 {) Xc2
25 .§a2 �g4+ 26 �g2 �e6
27 b3 {jd4 28 .Q.e3 {jf5 29
.Q.f2 � X b3 30 .§d2 �b4 3 1
§e2 � X f4 32 .§e4 �d2 33
.Q. X b6 �d5 34 §fe 1 �c6 35
�a2 + e6 36 .Q.f2 .§c8 37
�b3 Y2-Y2
If, instead of Korchnoi's log­
ical 8 . . . b6, Black plays the
more natura l looking 8 ...
.Q.e6, he comes under the full
wrath of White's attack; 9 f4
.§c8 (9 . . . {Ja5 1 0 e5! {Jd7
1 1 ed ! ) 10 .Q.e3 (or 10 f5
.Q, X b3 1 1 ab 0-0 1 2 g5 {jd7
1 3 .Q.e3 {jc5 1 4 .1lf3 {je5 1 5
i}.g2 ;:!;!± Kurajica-Martin , Mal-
gret de Mar 1 977) 10 . . . a6
1 1 f5 .Q. X b3 12 ab {je5?! ( 1 2
{jd7 ;:!;/±) 1 3 g5 {jfd7
(better chances are offered by
13 . .§ Xc3! ? 1 4 bc {) Xe4,
though after 1 5 fg ! hg 1 6 �d5
{Jc3 1 7 � X b7 oo it is still
White for choice . ) 1 4 0-0 0-0
1 5 h4 ;:!;!± Kurajica-lvanovic,
Yugoslav Ch 1 977.
8 f4 may tra nspose to 8 0-0
0-0 9 f4, but another possibility
is (8 f4) �b6, inhibiting K-side
castling . Ornstein-Schutz, Stock­
holm 1 978-9 continued 9 i}.f3
0-0 1 0 g4 .Q.e6 1 1 {jd 5
.Q. Xd5 1 2 ed {Ja 5 1 3 �e2
{) X b3 1 4 ab {jd7 +·White's
attack is artificial and his king
has nowhere safe to hide.
8 . . . 0-0
8 .Q.e6 is also satisfac-
tory provided that Black replies
to 9 f4 with 9 . . . �c8 1 0
,J,e3 (or 1 0 .Q.f3 .Q.g4 1 1 �h 1
.Q.Xf3 1 2 �Xf3 �g4 = Wes­
terinen-Va lvo, New York 1 977)
10 . . . 0-0 tra nsposing to
cha pter 9 (see p.69). and not
with 9 . . . § c8 1 0 f5 .Q.d 7 1 1
g4 {Je5 ( 1 1 . . . 0-0 was ca lled
for; now the black king is ca ught
in crossfire in the centre ) 1 2 g5
{jg8 1 3 {jd5 (±) 1 3 . . . f6
14 .Q.e3 b6 1 5 {jd4 �7 1 6
c 3 �e8 (To meet 1 7 �b3 with
. . . .Q.a4) 1 7 {Je6! (threaten­
ing 18 {jdc7) 1 7 . . .Q. Xe6
1 8 fe + �8 (If 1 8 . . . � Xe6
1 9 �b3 �7 20 �a4+ {jc6

2 1 i;l,g4 + ca uses congestion
i n Black's ra nks . ) 1 9 "£j Xf6
"£j Xf6 20 gf i;l_Xf6 2 1 i;l_h6+
\t>gB 22 .§ Xf6! ef 23 � Xd6
§c6 (9)
'"'h .}L /� · �-
9 �% --,·-�-'
;pj;# ""3'::1< 7%% ...
W - • • �� ...
r� w � 4l> t«� • � -�
--�'@i£.£0 «
�if ?}�- ,. �"1 WI�
Y�i • � t�
, ,
B B.ftB
�:r� � a
• u • •
4l> it� -��
� w�
� � -�-
;.-_,�
�� . . �
• • Mf'\
24 �Xe5! ! de 25 .§f 1 .§cB
26 i;l,d 1 ! .§c4 27 i;l.b3 b5
i;l_ X c4 be 29 b3 a5 (Better is
29 . . . cb 30 ab a 5 ! e .g . : 3 1
.§ f3 �e 7 32 \t>f 1 �c5 33
\t>e2 �e7 34 \t>d3 �d6 + 35
\t>c2 �e 7 36 \t>b2 �eB 37 c4
�e7 3B c5! �Xc5 39 .§f7
�d4 + 40 \t>a2 �dB ! = ; but
perhaps White has better.) 30
be �e7 3 1 \t>g2 �a3 32 §f2?
(32 .§f7 �b2 + 33 \t>g3
�Xc3+ 34 \t>g4 �a3 35 c5!
� X c 5 36 .§ g 7 + \t>fB 37
.§c7 + picks up the queen.) 32
. . . �e7 33 .§f 1 g5 (If 33
�a3 34 .§f7) 34 .§f5 ! g4 (Or
34 . . . �dB 35 c5 �d2 + 36
.§f2 �dB 37 c6 etc . ) 35 c5
�dB 36 c6 �e7 37 c7 1 -0,
G usev - Averbakh, Moscow
1 95 1 '
Another point of B . i;te6
in reply to B 0-0 is that now 9
i;tg5 can be met by 9 . . . "£je5
2 Seventh Move Divergences 11
(intending to occupy c4 or g4,
possibly in conjunction with
�b6 + ) e .g . ; 1 0 f4 "£jeg4 1 1
i;l, Xf6 (What else? - if 1 1 \t>h 1
4:je3) 1 1 . . . "£j Xf6 :f. Barclay­
Watson, Glorney Cup, 1 97B.
This move order, savi ng a
tempo by not castling so early,
may be a way for Black to by­
pass the full force of Alekhinke's
'j 9 i;l,g5 (Chapter 6).
JZv0 After B . . . 0-0 White has:
r� A : 9 f3
u
B : 9 \t>h 1
C : 9 f4
9 i;te3 is again the normal
position . for which see p.55.
9 h3 transposes into variation
A p.49 .
A:
9 f3 i;te6 10 "£jd 5 is an idea
of Euwe's which is best answer­
ed by 1 0 . . . i;l, Xd 5 1 1 ed
"£jb4 a nd , if 1 2 c4 or 1 2 i;lc4,
1 2 . . . b5 would give Black
good play .
8:
9 \t>h1
This is an interesting idea
which effectively red uces Black's
tactical possibilities along his a 7
- g 1 diagonal and prepares a K­
side pawn storm by g4 support­
ed by .§g 1 .
9 . a5!
. · . This 0-side thrust. aiming for
. . . a3 in order to axtend the
range of the Dragon bishop
12 2 Seventh Move Divergences
and create play along the c-file.
forces White to weaken himself
by temporarily conceding b4 to
Black's ON . Other moves are
too slow. viz. :
a) 9 . . a6 1 0 f4 (On 1 0 a4
. 1 0 a4
�e6 1 1 f4 �a5 1 2 � Xa 5
� Xa5 1 3 �f3 .§ac8 1 4 �d5
� Xd 5 1 5 ed �d7 1 6 .§a3 �.
Dolmatov-Hawelko, Europea n
Junior Ch 1 979) 1 0 . . . �c7
( 1 0 . . . �d 7 1 1 �.f3 .§c8 1 2
i;ie3 �c7 - 1 2 b5!? - 1 3
�d 5 � . Parma-Velimirovic,
Yugoslav Ch 1 978) 1 1 g4 e6
12 f5 .§e8 13 �f4! �e5 (±)
Alekhine-Foltys, M unich 1 942.
b ) 9 . . i;te6 1 0 f4 �a 5
.
(Better is 1 0 . . . �c8, e.g .: 1 1
�e 1 ? ! - correct is 1 1 i;te3 with
roughly equal chances: or 1 1
�f3 a5 12 a4 t;YJ4 13 �d4
!iJ..c4 14 .§ f2 .§dB 15 f5 d5!
:j:. Dzieniszewski - Schneider.
Jelenia Gora 1978 - 1 1 . .
�b4 1 2 �d4 .!iJ..c 4 1 3 a 3 e5
14 �f5- if 14 ab ed- 14 . . . gf
1 5 ab � Xe4 1 6 � Xe4 fe 1 7
f5 f6 1 8 .§a3 � Xe2 1 9
�Xe2 d5 + · Westerinen-Saidy,
Tallinn 1 973) 1 1 Af3 ( 1 1 f5
Ac4 1 2 �g5 .§c8 1 3 Jtd 3 b5
1 4 �d 2?! b4! 1 5 �e2 d 5 ! :j:.
Larsen-Miles. Las Palmas 1 978)
1 1 . . . i;tc4 1 2 .§g 1 followed
by g4 ± . Konig-A . R . B . Thomas.
Bournemouth 1 939.
c) 9 . . �d7 1 0 f4 .§c8 1 1
. �d2 �e4 20 .Q.Xe4� Xe4 'f.
.,llf3 a6 1 2 i;te3 b5 1 3 �d 5
� Xd5 1 4 ed �a5 1 5 c3 �c4
1 6 �c 1 �. Tessiz - Svacel ,
Prague 1 959.
d) Panov recommends 9
b6 1 0 f4 .Q.b7 1 1 g4 �b4! 1 2
. . .
�f3 d 5 1 4 e5 �e4 =
�e6
1 0 . . . �b4 is also satis­
factory; Geba uer-Fred , Varna
1 962, continued 1 1 g4?! b6
1 2 f4 .Q.b7 1 3 �f3 .§c8 1 4
i;ie3 �d7 1 5 �d 2 .§c4! + .
1 1 f4 �b6
G ufeld and Lazarev. surpris­
ingly, fail to discuss 1 1
�c8 when the following pos­
sibilities arise :
a ) 1 2 Af3 �b4 1 3 �d4 ..Q.c4
1 4 .§f2 .§d8 1 5 .Q.e3 e5! 1 6
�db5 d 5 ! +· Golak-G ufeld ,
Cheliabinsk 1 959.
b) 1 2 .Q.e3 Jtg4 1 3 i;tg 1 .§d8
1 4 �d 5 � Xe2 1 5 � Xe2
� Xd5 1 6 ed �b4 1 7 c4 �c7
1 8 �d4 .§deS 1 9 b3 �6 20
.§ae 1 .§e8 2 1 f5 ± . Alekhine­
Golombek, Montevideo 1 939.
1 2 f5
1 2 �d 5 � X d 5 1 3 ed gives
Black an opportunity to obtain
good play in the centre . Shat­
skes-Zakharov, Moscow 1 96 1 .
continued 1 3 . . . �b4 1 4 �f3
e6 ( 1 4 . . . .§ac8 1 5 c3 �d 3
1 6 � X d 3 � X b3 1 7 .§e 1 �.
Kurajica - Velimirovic. Osijek
1 978; but less accurate is 1 7
�e2 .§fe8 1 8 .,lle 3 �c4 1 9
Wilder-Ribo, Lone Pine 1 979) .
1 5 de fe 1 6 �e2 e5 1 7 c3
 2 Seventh Move Divergences 13
<'z:jc6 1 8 �b5 �a7 1 9 §. e 1 ? 0- 1 . Though this game is far
�2 20 .Q.e3 � X b2 +. from flawless, it illustrates some
12 . . . .Q. X b3 of the more useful ideas for
1 3 cb �b4 Black in the Classical Dragon .
Not 1 3 . . . �d4 1 4 � Xd4
(Better than 1 4 .Q.g5 =, Ene- C:
voldsen-Minev, M unich 1 958) 9t4 (10)
1 4 . . . 4:) Xd4 1 5 .Q.c4! ! .
1 4 .Q.e3 <'z:jd7
On 1 4 . . . 4:) Xe4?? 1 5 4:)a2
wins the queen.
15 Jic4 <'z:jb6
van den Berg-Larsen, Beverwijk
1 959, contin ued : 1 6 <'z:ja 2
4:) Xc4! ! 1 7 4:) X b4 4:) Xe3 1 8
�e2 4:) X f 1 1 9 4:) Xc6 4Jg3+
20 hg be 2 1 b4! (Otherwise 2 1
. . . c 5 will leave White's two b­
pawns as sitting d ucks) 2 1 . . .
ab 22 a 5 c5 23 §.a2 .Q.e5 24 There are two other equalising
�c4 .Q. X g3 25 b3 §.fb8 26 a lternatives:
�g 1 �g7 27 � 1 §.a7 28 a ) 9 . b51 1 0 .Q.f3 and now:
. .

�2 .Q.e5 29 �3 .Q.d4 30 g4 a 1 ) 10 b4 1 1 <'z:jd5 4J X d 5

. . .

g5 3 1 a6 .Q.e5 32 §.a4 �6 1 2 e d 4:)a 5 1 3 <'z:jd4 ( Rauzer.

33 �g2? (Aimless. More to the who suggested 9 . b5, only
point would have been 33 §.a2, wrote of 1 3 4:) X a 5 � Xa 5 1 4
preparing to bring the rook back §. e 1 .Q_f6. Better, according to
into the game. Now Black ca n Gufeld , is 1 4 . . . �c7! 1 5 a 3
force a decisive K-side break . ) .Q_f5 1 6 .Q.e4 .Q.Xe4 1 7 §. Xe4
3 3 . . . §.h8! 34 �b5 h 5 3 5 a 5 = ) 1 3 . . �b6 1 4 c3 be
g h g4! Black ca n take advan­ 1 5 be i;;¥c 5 1 6 .Q.e3 i;;¥ Xc3 +
tage of the exposed position of Abramov-Fridstein, Moscow Ch
White's king to accelerate the 1 949.
advance of his passed pawns. a2) 1 0 .Q.b7 1 1 .Q.e3 a 6
. . .

White's resista nce from now on has been suggested b y Euwe.

was hampered by severe time a3) 1 0 �b6+ 1 1 �h 1 b4
. . .

trouble. 36 h6? §. X h6 37 i;;¥ b8 1 2 <'z:jd 5 4:) Xd 5 1 3 ed <'z:ja5 1 4

§. h 2 + 38 � 1 g3 39 i;;¥ Xa7 4:) Xa5 i;;¥ Xa5 1 5 a 3 .Q_b7 1 6
g2+ 40 �g 1 .Q.d4+ 4 1 §. e 1 .Q.f6 and now, instead of
\f1 X h 2 g 1 =i;;¥ + 42 \ffh 3 .Q.e5 1 7 f5? as in Abramov-Chistia -
14 2 Seventh Move Divergences
kov, Moscow Ch 1 949, Chis­ Forces Ch 1 960, now con­
tiakov gives 1 7 Ad2 JtXd5 1 B tinued 1 4 <tJc4 �c7 1 5 i;te3
ab JtXf3 1 9 �Xf3 = . §a6 1 6 <tJb5 �dB 1 7 c3 <tJc6
b)9 ... Ae6 1 0i;tf3i;tc4 1 1 1 B �d3 ± .
§e 1 �cB 1 2 <tJd5 §dB 1 3 1 2 <tJd5 JtXd5
c 3 b6 = . 1 3 ed <tJb4
1 0 �h 1 a5 1 4 Af3 �a6
1 1 a4 Ae6 Black is now threatening 1 5
This move order is more .. . <tJbXd5 and 1 5... <tJXc2.
accurate than 1 1 ... <tJb4 1 5 Ae2
because after 1 2 <tJd2! (instead L. Steiner-Podgorny, Mari­
of 1 2 Af3) 1 2 ... Ae6 1 3 f5! anske Lazne 1 94B, went 1 5
Black no longer has the move §f2 �c4 1 6 §d2 §feB 1 7 c3
i;tXb3 at his disposal and <tJc2! :f .
he must therefore submit to the 1 5 ... �b6
passive retreat 1 3 Ad7. with a likely repetition of moves.
Godes-Karaseyev. USSR Armed
3 8 4Jb3

1 e4 c5 2 {jf3 d6 3 d4 cd 4 literature with the result that

{)Xd4 t!£jf6 5 t!£jc3 g6 6 jle2 Black's defensive resources have
Jlg7 7 jle3 t!£jc6 been considerably strengthened.
8 t!£jb3 (11) The general idea of this vari­

11 . ....... �-
ation stems from a Russian first­
category player, P. Rabinovich.
� '1
8 �¥�t• • -
�t 't
·
8 '. . 0-0
·�
. ... . � •
•t - 9 f4
• • • • 9 0-0 jle6 simply reaches
• .ft. • the 'normal position: see chap­
• '-"" " � � d
·"?_)� . ters 8-9.
9g4?1 is a ragged and un­
ftHftaABftH
'

successful attempt to accelerate

�§. ·'iiY� -�
As with t!£jb3 on move 7
(p.9) this is an idea, popularised
by Alekhine, in which White
once again plays for a K-side
attack by omitting a developing
move - in this case 0-0. 8 t!£jb3
attempts to thwart Black's
counter-thrust d5. This
variation became well-known
through the game Alekhine -
Botvinnik, Nottingham 1936 -
certainly the most famous of all
Dragon games. Fischer employ­
ed this line in his 1961 match
with Reshevsky, and it was then
extensively analysed in chess
the K-side attack. Black may
counter with:
a) 9 . . . a5 10 g5 t!£jd7 11
t!£jd4 t!£jb6 12 f4! d5! 13 �d2
and now, instead of 13
l'£jXd4 14 jlXd4 de 15 0-0-0,
when White maintains the initia­
tive (Keres-1. Rabinovich, Lenin­
grad - Moscow 1939) Black
should play 13 .. , e5 :f.
b) 9 ... jle6 10 g5 ( 1 0 f4 is
best transposing back into the
column) 10 . , t!£jd7 11 h4
t!£jb6! 12 h5.!£jc4 13 hg fg 14
i,tXc4 jlXc4 15 �g4 t!£je5
16 �h3 �d7 ! 17 �Xd7 (If
17 �Xh7+?? �7 18 �h3
16 3 8 t;Jb3
�h8 19 �Xd7 �Xh 1+ 20 Euwe.
<it>d2 !£)f3++ !) 17 ... !£)Xd7 b) 1 0 ..Q.f3?1 Ac4! 11 �d2
=f Bronstein-Goldenov. Kiev �c8 12 �d 1 (12 0-0-0 would
1941. be much too risky, but better
c) 9... d51? 10 ed !£)b4 1 1 would be 12 ®f2 or 12 4Je2
Af3 !£)Xg4! was played in d5 13 e5 4Jd7 14 0-0 or 14
Wade-B. H . Wood, Nottingham §d1 = ) 12... �c7 and now:
1946 and Ugrinovic - Kazic, b1) 134Jd5? �b8 14 4Jd4
Yugoslavia 1966. The latter �feB! 15 ®f2 4JXd5 16 ed
game continued 12 AXg4 4JXd4 17 .Q.Xd4 ..Q.Xd4+ 18
AXg4 13 �Xg4 !£)Xc2+ 14 �Xd4 .Q.Xa2 and Black should
�2 !£)Xa1 15 �Xa1 AXc3 win. Rauzer-Lisitsin, 8th USSR
16 be �Xd5 when White had Ch 1933.
many weaknesses. Filipowicz­ b2) 13 ®f2 followed by �he1
Trapl. East European Armed and �g1 would have been
Forces Ch 1969 went instead better.
12 Ac5 !£)a6 13 Ad4 !£)f6 14 After 10 g4 Black has:
Ae5 Af5 15 !£)d4 �d7 16 A 1: 10 ... 4Ja5!
�d2 !£)b4 = A2: 10 . .. d5?!
After 9 f4 Black's main de­ A3: 10 ... �c8
cision lies between: 1 0 ...4Jd7? (intending
A: 9 ... Ae6 f5) is inferior because of both:
B: 9 .. . a5! a) 11 f5.Q.Xb3 12 ab4Jc5 13
C: 9 . . !£)a5 .Q.f3 e6 14 0-0 4Je5 15 g5 f6
0: 9 ... e5 16 �d2 fg 17 AXg5 .Q.f6 18
Ah6 ± Kliavin-Chekhover, Yr
A: final 20th USSR Ch 1952.
9... Ae6 b) 1 1 h4f5 12 h5!4Jc5 13 hg
10 g4?! hg 14 gf gf 15 �d2 fe 16
The Rabinovich Attack. 0-0-04JXb3+ 17 cb �c8 18
White can transpose into the �dg1 .ilf5 19 Ac4+ e6 20
solid lines arising from the �h2 �6 21 4Jd5!! ed 22
normal position with 10 0-0 .Q.Xd5+ .Q.e6 23 AXe6+
(see page 60) and in view of the �Xe6 24 �Xg7+ �Xg7 25
results of the text move this is �h7+ ®f6 26 �h6++, Niep­
probably his best chance. haus-P. Schmidt, Saarbrucken
Other White 1Oth moves give 1950.
Black no worries, e.g.:
a) 10 �d2 �c8 11 0-0-0 !£)b4 A1 :
offers Black good chances - 10 .. . 4Ja51 (12)
 3 8{)b3 17

•- -·-
• aD
now:
12 \- w • a) 1 3 {)c4 14 AXc4
w � ··
. ... . �·
. ... ...
.& §Xc4 15 0-0-0 �d7 16 �d3
. �
. - ... - ...
. ... . gives White a good attack. Kan­
-
- �
. -
. -·�
d Botvinnik. Moscow 1936.
.
• . ..!..!. U ..!..!. 8
-���- b) 1 3 . Ac4! (Botvinnik's
. .

· "Z..J �J - .
•""'" � suggested improvement) was
•
tried in Louma-Aister, Bratislava
..!..!.
��.�-/\-
��
U ..!..!. 8�B � u 1948. White continued 14
� ·g� .t=. -�Rf') - � AXg7 {)Xg7 15 �f3 Ae6
11 g5 16 0-0-0 {)c4 17 �e2 �b6
11 f5 is not dangerous for 18 §d3, when Filip has recom­
Black providing that he con­ mended the regrouping 18 . ..
tinues: {)a5! 19 �g2 {)c6 20 �b1
a) not with 1 1 . . �c8 12 . {)b4 21 §3d1 a5 with a good
{)Xa5! �Xa5 13 0-0 ±.but game for Black.
b) actively with 1 1 . . . �c4 12 .. . Ac4
and now: Less active is 12 §c8
b1) 1 2 e57! �Xe2 13 �Xe2 when Foltys-Eiiskases. Pede­
{)d7 (If 13 .. . de 14 §d1 brady 1936. continued 13 h4!
�c7 15 g5! wins a piece.) 14 {)c4 14 AXc4 §. Xc4 15
f6 ef 15 ed {)e5 16 0-0-0 �d3 §c8 16 0-0-0 �d7 17
{)ac4 'f. §.d2 �g4 18 {)d5 b6 19 f5
b2) 1 2 {)Xa5 AXe2 13 e6 20 �Xg7 �Xg7 21 f6+!
�Xe2 �Xa5 14 0-0 §ac8 �h8 22 {)e7 §d8 23 {)d4
transposes into chapter 8. p.62. �a4 24 �b1 {)c7 25 h5! gh
b3) 1 2 0-0 a6 13 g5 {)d7 14 26 §dh2 �d7 27 e5! �Xe7
{)Xa5 �Xe2 15 �Xe2 28 § Xh5 �Xh5 29 §.Xh5
AXc3 16{)Xb7 �c7 (Persitz 1 -0.
-Pavitos. Ascona 1976) 17 be! 13�Xg7 AXe2
�Xb7 18 Ad4 e5 = . 14 �Xe2 {:) Xg7
After 11 g5 Black has: Louma-Prucha, Brno 1944.
A11: 11 ... {)e8 15 0-0-0
A12: 11 .. . {)d7! to be followed by {)d5. when
White will have a considerable
A1 1 : spatial advantage as well as
11 .. . {)e8 some attacking chances on the
This is too passive. K-side.
12�d4!
If 12 �d2 §c8 13�d4 and A1 2:
18 3 8 fi:jb3
11 . .. 2£jd7
1 2 .Q.d4 f6!
With White's king still in the
centre, Black. by opening one
or two lines, can easily create
dangerous attacking chances.
The alternatives are:
a) 1 2 . . {)Xb3 1 3 ab .Q.Xd4
. .Q.Xd5 20 �Xd5+ )fth8 2 1
1 4 �Xd4 �b6 (Kiiavin-Vetra,
Riga 1 952) 1 5 �d2 leaves
Black no counter to the attack
along the h-file.
b) 1 2 . . .Q.Xb37 1 3 ab
. 1 5 {jd4
.Q.Xd4 ( 1 3 ... e5 would have
been much better) 1 4 �Xd4 is
very good for White because
the adverse consequences of
his spatial advantage (Black's
attacking prospects against
White's exposed king) have
almost disappeared with the
exchanges. Schories - Koch.
1 933. continued 1 4 {Jc6
1 5 �d2 {Jc5 1 6 h4 a6 1 7 h5
b5 1 8 .Q.f3 {Je6 19 �h2
{Jcd4 20 .Q.d 1 {Jg7 2 1 hg fg
22 �Xh7+ �7 23 §h6
§h8 24 �Xg6+ )ftg8 25
§ Xh8+ )ftXh8 26 �h6+
)ftg8 27 g6 1-0.
1 3 h4 fg!
Better than 13 .. . {jc6 and
now:
a) White obtained a strong
attack in Bronstein-Ragozin,
1 3th USSR Ch 1 944. After 14
h5 fg 15 .Q.Xg7 )ftXg7 1 6
{Jd4 .Q.g8 17 t")g hg 1 84JXc6
be 1 9 �d4+ e5 20 �Xd6
§f6. White could have kept his
advantage with 2 1 �d3 follow­
ed by 22 �h3·.
b) 14 .Q.e3also proved good in
Foltys - Pelikan, Podebrady
1 936: 1 4 ... {jb6 15 {jd4
t) Xd4 1 6 .Q.Xd4 d5 1 7 gf ef
1 8 .Q_Xb6 �Xb6 19 {)Xd5
0-0-0 §adS 22 �b3 �2 23
.Q.d3!, when White was win-
ning.
1 4 .Q.Xg7 )ftXg7
.Q.g8
1 6 f5
So far Schubert - Pelikan.
1939. This is the only way to
continue the attack since 1 6 fg
would leave Black with the
better game.
16 . . �b6!
Not 16 . .. gh 1 7 �d2 e5
1 8 fe {Jc5 1 9 {jd5 4JXe6 20
'lA'c3 with a very strong attack
for White.
Boleslavsky writes that Black
must immediately embark on
his counter-attack before White
completes his development and
that after 1 6 ... �b6 he
obtains good counterchances,
e.g. 17 hg {Je5 1 8 {jd5 ( 1 8
b3 co - Geller) 1 8 ... .Q.Xd5
1 9 ed �Xb2 20 {Je6+ liftg8
2 1 {)Xf8 �c3+ 22 �2
§ Xf8 and the white king is not
to be envied his position.
A2:
10 . . . d57 !
This vigorous reaction in the
 3 8{)b3 19
centre produces sharp positions b11) 18 . . . §.c8 19 Jld4
that tend to favour the first .§c4 (threatening e5) 20
player. .§d1 b5 with counterplay -
1 1 f5 Sokolsky.
Not 11 e5? d4! 12{)Xd4 (If b12) 1 8 ... �d6 19 �g3
12 ef l,tXf6) 12 ... {)Xd4 J,te5 20 �h4 (More exact is
13 JlXd4{)Xg4 14 �d3 a6 20 �h3) 20 .§ac8 21
followed by . . {)h6 - f5 with �g1 b5 22 {)e4 .§c4 23
an excellent game for Black, {)bd2 ga4 24 �h3 �Xd5
Levenfish - Botvinnik, Moscow 25 {)g5 §dB 26 .§f 1! �.f6
1936. 27 {)df3 .§ Xa2? (27
11 J,tc8 �8!) 28 �h7+ �8 29{)e5!
Lipnitsky has recommended 8 Xb2 30{)e6+! 1-0, Kramar
11 gf in his Voprosi Sovre­ - Kovalyev, Lvov 1947.
mennoi Shakhmatnoi Teoni b2) 1 4 . . . e6 1 15 Jlc5
('Questions of Contemporary {)fXd5 16 {)Xd5 {)Xd5 17
Chess Theory'), 1954. 0-0.§e8 18 c4 (Sozin-Zhudro,
12 ed corres 1937) 18 ... {)f4 gives
12 fg transposes, after 12 Black a comfortable game
hg 13 ed {)b4 14 l,tf3, Euwe.
into the column, note to White's 13 gf
13th move. 14 a3!
12 . {)b4 This is Pachman's recommen­
13 l,tf3! dation.
Two extremely sharp alter­ On 14 g5 there could follow
natives are: 14 ... {)g4 15 Jlc5 {)a6 16
a) 13d6 1?�Xd6! (Not 13 . h3 (Not 16 l,td4 e5! 17 de
ed 14 g5) 14 J,tc5 �4 15 �Xg5 Bondarevsky-Aiatortsev,
.§f1 �Xh2 16 J,tXb4{)Xg4 10th USSR Ch 1937) 16
17 JlXg4 �g3+ 18 .§f2 {)e5 17 l,td4 = Keres. -

�g1 + 19 .§f1 �g3+ Yr Y2 . 14 ... fg

Alekhine - Botvinnik, Notting­ Spassky-Listengarten. USSR
ham 1936. Junior Teams Ch 1953. con­
b) 13 fg is also inferior to the tinued 14 .. {) Xg4? 15
text in that prolonged tension JlXg4 JlXc3+ 16 be {)Xd5
cannot be maintained: 13 17 i;th6 e5 18 h4 fg 19 JlXf8
hg 14 i;tf3 and now: �Xf8 20 c4 i;te6 21 �e2!
b 1). 14 .. . {)Xg41 15 JlXg4 with a complicated game.
.QXg4 16 �Xg4{)Xc2+ 17 15 Jlg2!?
�2{)Xa1 18.§Xa1: While this move is quite
20 3 8 !£jb3
strong, 15 ab. another Pachman
suggestion. may be better, e.g.
15 gf 16 �Xf3 j}_g4 17
�g2 Jlh5 18 j}_h6 (Pachman
gave 18 Ad4 ..Q.g6 19 0-0-0)
18 ... Jlg6 19..Q.Xg7\f�Xg7
20 0-0-0. According to Boles­
lavsky White has the advantage.
15 . �a3
16 �d3!
Pachman had recommended
1 6 '/¥yd2 followed by 0-0-0. but
this is the very best queen move
with which to prepare 0-side
castling since it prevents the
consolidating ... ..Q.f5-g3. After
1 6 '/¥ye2 .QJ5 17 0-0-0 '/¥yd7
• 17 0-0-0 �Xd5
18 �d4 .Q.g6 19 h3, instead of
19 .§ac8 as in Bastrikov­
Rovner, Odessa 195 1, 19 ...
g3 would probably have given
Black a tenable position.
16 e6
Or:
a) 1 6 . . . �d7 when:
a1) 1 7 ..Q.d47 �e5 18 '/¥yg3
�d6! 19 �e4 '/¥yc7 20 0-0
(Louma-Maximowitsch, Prague
1943) 20 . . . f5 gives Black a
tenable game - Euwe.
a2) 1 7 h3! �e5 18 '/¥ye2 g3
19 0-0-0 and White has a
similar position to the above
Bastrikov - Rovner game but
with the important difference
that .Q.d4 or .Q.f4 will strength­
en his attack while gaining a
tempo on the knight.
a3) 1 7 0-0-0 �e5 18 '/¥ye2
leaves Black with a lifeless game
according to Fischer. White has
h3 and .Q.d4 in the offing.
b) 1 6 . 0 0�d6 17 0-0-0 ..Q.d7
18 .§ hf 1 .§ac8 19 ..Q.d4
'/¥yXh2? (Correct is 19 ... b5)
20 d6! e5 2 1 .§Xf6! '/¥yXg2
22 .Q.Xe5 �c5 23 �Xc5
.§Xc5 24 ..Q.d4 ..Q.Xf6 25
..Q.Xc5 'i':;¥f3 26 �e4! �Xd3
27 �Xf6+ \fjg7 28 �Xd7!
and White won after 28 ...
'i':;¥f5 29 ..Q.d4+ f6 30 �Xf8
\f�Xf8 31 d7 '/¥yXd7 32 Ac5+
\fje8 33 .§ Xd7 \f�Xd7 34
\t>d2 1-0 Nei-Pitksaar. Estonian
Team Ch 1951.
If 17 ... ed 18 h3 g3 19
..Q.d4 is strong - Fischer.
18 h3! g3
19.§hg 1 '/¥yd6!
20 JlXd5 ed
21 �Xd5?
2 1 ..Q.d4! is much stronger:
21 ..Q.Xd4 22 .§Xg3+
..Q.g7 (Or 22 \fjh8 23
'/¥yXd4+ f6 24 .§f3 ±) 23
.§dg1 '/¥yh6+ 24 \fib1 ..Q.e6
25.§Xg7+ '/¥yXg7 26.§Xg7+
\fjXg7 27 '/¥yg3+ \fjh8 28
'/¥ye5+ and White is well on top
- analysis by Fischer.
-2 1 \t>h8
Fischer-Reshevsky, 2nd match
game. New York 196 1, con­
tinued 22 .Q.f4 '/¥yg6 23 �d2
..Q.Xh3! 24 .§Xg3 .Q.g4 25
.§h 1 .§fe8 26 �e3 '/¥ye4? (A
time trouble error. 26 . . f5!
holds the balance. e.g. 27 �h2
 3 8 t;Jb3 21
�g8) 27 �h2! l;).,e6 (If 27... Estrin - Veresov, semi-final,
�f5 28 § Xg7 <ifj>Xg7 29 Spartak TU Ch 1962, continued
{)Xf5+ �Xf5 30 �d4 wins ­ 17 §c 1 ia_Xd4 18 �Xd4
Fischer.) 28 §Xg7 (28 �d2 is �b6 19 �b3 §fc8 20 a3
immediately decisive - A.R.B. �Xc2! 2 1 �Xc2 (If 2 1
Thomas) 28 .. . <ifj>Xg7 29 \t{Xc2 �.f3 22 §he 1 .Q.Xe4+
�h6+ <ifj>g8 30 §g 1+ �g6 23 §Xe4 §Xe4 with rook
3 1 §Xg6+ fg 32 �d4 §adS and two pawns and a con­
33 .Q..e5 §d7 34 �Xe6 tinuing attack for two pieces.)
§Xe6 35 �g4 §f7 36 �g5 2 1 .. . Jle6 22 \t>a 1 §Xc3!
§f 1+ 37 <ifj>d2 h5 38 �d8+ 23 be .Q.Xb3 24 �b2 §c4!
1-0. 25 §b 1 �a5 26 �Xb3
§Xc3 27 §he 1 and Black
A3: won after 27 ... §Xb3 28
10 . . . §c8 §Xb3 \t{g7 29 § 1c3 b5 30
This has been generally re­ h4 �b6 3 1 §e3 �d4+ 32
garded as incorrect. §bc3 a5 33 \t>b 1 �d 1 + 34
1 1 g5! \t>b2 �g4 35 f5 �Xh4 36 e5
Not 1 1 f5 .Q_Xb3 12 ab d5! de 37 fg hg 38 §f3 �d4 39
13 ed �b4 14 l;tf3 �fXd5 §fd3 b4! 0- 1.
15 �Xd5 �Xc2+ 16 �2
�xa 1 17 �xa 1 §c2+ 18 8 :
<ifj>g3 .Q.e5+ 19 <ifj>h3 e6 20
�d 1 §Xb2 2 1 �f4 ef 22
�d3 fg+ 23 .Q.Xg4 h5! 24
.Q.Xh5 �c8+ 25 Jlg4 �c3
winning. Dikarev - Kupreichik,
Harkov 1965.
1 1 . .. �d7
12 �d2 �b6
Or 12 ... a6 13 0-0-0 �b4
14 \t>b 1 b5 15 .Q.d4 l;tXb3
16 cb e5 17 fe �Xe5 18 .Q.e3
�a5 19 a3 {)bc6 20 �d5 As we shall see, this move
�Xd2 2 1 §.Xd2 ± Shmit­ forces White to play into a
Bogorad, Riga 1966. variation of Tartakower's 10
13 0-0-0 �b4! .. �c8 (see chapter 9, p. 69)
14 \t>b 1 �c4 in which Black's chances are no
15 .Q.Xc4 §Xc4 less than equal.
16 .Q.d4! Jlg4 10 a4
22 3 8 t;Jb3
After 1 0 a3 Black is able to
create counterplay as in Kon­
stantinopolsky - Averbakh, Mos­
cow Ch 1950, by 10... a4 1 1
l2Jd4 (If 1 1l2Jc1 e6!) 11... d5
12 e5l2Je4.
Weaker is 1 0 0-01 a4 11
l2Jd2 a3 Henderson - Pilnik,
Long Beach 1955.
10 .. . �e6
On 10 .. . l2Jb4 there are:
a) 1 1 -'l,f37 .Q.g4! 12 .Q.Xg4
(If 12 .§.c1 .Q_Xf3 13 itrXf3
l2Jd7 14 0-0 .§.c8 15 l2Jd4
l2Jb6 16 l2Jdb5 l2Jc4 :j: Svens­
son-Bengtsson, Sweden 1978)
12 . . l2JXg4 13 itrXg4
l2JXc2+ 14 <;!tf2 l2JXe3 15
�Xe3 il¥b6+ winning - White­
ley.
b) 1 1 0-0 l2Jd7 12 -'l,d4 e5 13
fe l2JXe5 14 l2Jb5 .i},e6 with
equality, Fichti-Foltys, Prague
1943.
11 0-0!
Against 1 1 g47 11 . . . d5 is
very strong, the moves 9 ...
a5 10 a4 helping Black to
secure the use of his b4, e.g.
12 f5 .i},c8 13 ed l2Jb4 14 fg
hg and now:
a) 1 5 d6 'ltYXd6 16 'ltYXd6 ed
17 0-0-0 l2JXg4 18 Jlb6
Jlh6+ 19 �b1 t2Je3 20
.§.Xd6 t2JeXc2 + Niephaus­
Heinicke, 3rd match game
1951.
b) 1 5 Jlf3 l2JXg4! (15 ... e6
16 Ac5 .§.e8 17 d6 l2Jfd5! is
also good for Black.) 16 JlXg4
J;tXg4 17 itrXg4 .Q_Xc3+ 18
bel2JXc2+ 19 <;!(f2l2JXa 1 20
.§.Xa1 'ltYXd5 + with pressure
against the knight - Euwe.
If 1 1 l2Jd4 itrb6! 12 l2JXe6
�Xe3 13 l2JXf8 l2Jg4! =t -
Euwe.
If 1 1 �f3l2Jb4 12 0-0 l2Jd7
13l2Jd4 ,ilc4 14 .§.f2 e5! and
now:
a) Matanovic - Dime, Zagreb
1953 continued 1 5 fe de 16
l2Jdb5 with some advantage for
White.
b) Bronstein - Korchnoi, Lenin­
grad 1959, continued 1 5l2Jdb5
ef 16 .i}.Xf4 J;tXb5 17 ab
-'l,e5 18 �Xe5 t2JXe5 19
l2Ja4 .§.c8 = .
1 1 ... �c8
For 11 . .. .§.c8 and 1 1 . ..
l2Jd7 see chapter 7, variation
E2 1, p.56.
12 ,ilf3
12 h3! transposes into Tarta­
kower's line, chapter 9. variation
D. p.72, and 12 �h 1 to vari­
ation A, p.69.
12 . . l2Jb4
Jano�evic - Vasyukov, Belgrade
1961, continued 13 l2Jd4 l},c4
14 .§.f2 itrd8 15 f5 d5 16 e5
l2Je4 17 fg hg 18l2JXe4 de 19
.i},g4 itrc7 20 b3 .i}.Xe5 + .
C:
9 ..
. l2Ja5 (14)
This is yet another of the
equalising lines at Black's dis­
posal.
 3 8 t;jb3 23

14 ·
pressure on the long white
• .
..... "-'"
L , -·
r• • diagonal and on White's e4 with
•t • -t� � t traditional play on the 0-side.
w � �
. - ·t �
- . 1 1 g5 .£jd7
- .d . d . d 12 0-0 ,ilb7
•
• m ..u.. u
•4f� •
• van den Berg - Rajkovic, Orebro
· '"Z-.1�.
"' " - •
.
� � 1966, continued 13 jtd3 §.c8

..u.. f< � ..u.. E.w.E..u.. u

4�-�4E � E4f� 14 .£!Xa5 ba 15 t1'e 1 .£jc5 16
�� gR
f5 ..Q.e5 17 t1'h4 e6 18 f6 h5
y
- ��
·g� Bt=. 19 ..Q.e2 )t>h7 20 .i}.Xh5 §.h8!
10 g4?! and Black had assumed the
White's best counter to .£ja5 initiative .
seems to be 10 0-0 trans­
posing, after 10 .. . ,ile6, into 0:
the main line of the Classical 9 . . . e5 is relatively un­
Dragon. See chapter 8, p, 60. explored. Pachman gives 10 0-0
10 ... b6! a5 1 1 a4 ef 12 ,ilXf4 §.e8 13
Black intends to combine ,ilf3 .£je5 =
4 Classica l : 8/ 9 �d 2

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cd 4 The main alternative is 8 .

. .

� X d4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 J;te2 �g4 9 i;l,Xg4 ..Q.Xg4 when :

J;tg7 7 Jle3 �c6 a) 1 0 0-0 0-0 transposes into
variation C4, p. 33.
There are two basically differ­
ent plans behind White's �d2 b) 1 0 f4 .\ld7 11 0-0 also
on either the 8th or 9th moves.
transposes into variation C4.
these being to: c) 1 0 �d5? is trying for too
a) Castle K-side and play along
much:
the d-. e- and f-files. c1: 1 0 . . . 0-01 11 c4 l;td7 12
b) Castle 0-side with a wider 0-0 f5? (12 ... �e5 and if 13
b3 �g4! 14 Jlg5 f6 15 l}.h4
range of possibilities of attack
on the K-side (and sharper a6! preparing for ... b5 would
counter-attacks by Black). have been much better.) 13 ef
8 �d2 ( 1 5) JtXf5 14 �Xf5 .§Xf5 15
.§ad1 �d7 16 J'th6 with
advantage. Bogatyrchuk-Bot­
vinnik, 8th USSR Ch 1933.
c2) 1 0 . .§c8 rebuffs White's
. .

plan:
c21) 1 1 c4 �a5 12 �c3 (the
exchange of queens would also
leave Black with a slight plus.)
12 . . 0-0 13 b3 ..Q_Xd4 14
.

J;l,Xd4 b5! ( :f: ) 15 �Xb5?

8 0-0 0-0 9 �d2 is discussed �Xd2+ 16 <{f;Xd2 a6!
under the transposition 8 �d2 c22) 1 1 f3 jld7 12 c4 �a5
0-0 9 0-0 ; see variation C. 13 �c3 a6 14 .§c1 �e5 15
p. 26. b3 b5! =F Yeltsov-Chistiakov.
8. 0-0 USSR 1936.
8 . . . d5 allows 9 J'tb5! After 8 0-0 White has
 4 Classical: 8!9 �d2 25

the choice of:

A: 9 �b3
B: 9 0-0-0
C: 9 0-0
9 h3 would transpose into
variation A, chapter 7, p.49.

A:
If White plays the non-com­
mittal 9 �b3 (which avoids the
exchange of knights in variation
·
B2) Black should continue
actively with 9 . .. �g4 (or 9
. .. i;te6 when Horowitz -
Reshevsky, New York 1938.
continued 10 -'th6 J;l.Xh6 1 1
�Xh6 �b6 12 �d2.§fd8 13
h3 d5 = ). and now :
a) 1 0 i;tXg4 -'tXg4 1 1 f3 (If
1 1 O-O �e5 :f ) 1 1... Ae6 = .
b) 1 0 J;l.f4 (This saves the two
bishops but loses time.) 10 ...
a5! 1 1 a4 Ae6 12 h3 �f6 13
0-0-0? (This does not fit in with
1 1 a4.) 13 ... .§c8 14 �b 1
�b4 15 �d4? ( 15 f3 !) 15 ...
.§Xc3 ! 16 �Xc3 Aa2+ 17
� 1 e5 18 Ae3 �Xe4 19
�e 1 ed 20 J;l.Xd4 �g5+ 2 1
lle3 �e5 22 J;l.d4 J;l.h6+! 23
lle3 .§c8 (23 . . . �c5 24
i.l,d3 �Xc2! is more exact.)
24 Jld3 J;tg7 25 c3 �Xc3 0-
1. Grechkin-Saigin. Sverdlovsk
Yrfinal USSR Ch 1949.
B:
9 0-0-0 (16)
This is Grigoriev's move aim­
ing for a quick bash on the K-
9 . . . d5
Black sacrifices a pawn in
order to shift the emphasis of
the struggle away from his own
K-position to White's 0-side and
into the centre.
10 ed
If 10 �Xc6 bc 1 1 e5 �d7 =
10 ... �Xd5
1 1 �Xc6 be
12 �Xd5 cd
13 �Xd5 �c7
Not 13 ... �Xd5? 14
§Xd5 i;tb7 15 .§d7 ..Q_Xg2
16 .§g 1 J;l.h3 17 .§Xe7 Ae6
18 a3 with a winning position.
14 �Xa8 J;l.f5
15 �Xf8+ �Xf8
Now, with 1 6 .§d2 (Wade­
Wotkowsky, Heidelberg 1949)
or 1 6 ild3, a position is reach­
ed which is almost identical to
one in the Rauzer (Yugoslav)
26 4 Classical: 8!9 Y/Jd2
Attack - see the companion 12 h4 jlc4
volume Sicilian Dragon: Yugo­ 13 .Q.f3
slav A ttack (Batsford). The dif­ Possibly better is 13 h5! !
ference here is that White has 13 ... .§.eB
played �e2 instead of f3, and 14 h5 Y!Ja5 15 a3 Y!Ja6 16 hg
this gives him a marginally safer hg 17 {jd5 e5 1B {JXf6+
K-side set-up. The chances are .Q.Xf6 19 ..Q.c3 (Smyslov-Kon­
about equal. stantinopolsky, USSR 1945) 19
... -'l,e6 (threatening 20
82: Y!Jc4) 20 Jle2 =
9 .. . {JXd4
10�Xd4 Jle6 C:
Also good is 10... Y!Ja5! 1 1 9 0-0 (1 7)
• ..�
1 7 B ... . �.· ·
�- •
�b 1 e5 12 �e3 Jle6 =, this
i-
line being similar to variation
C 1 in Sicilian Dragon: Yugoslav -�- -�� ��
8 ··� .
Attack {p.39). The difference ··- :a .& ;�
... .

(White's e-pawn not being de­ • • • •

fended by a pawn) is to Black's •
• � ". .u.
41- •• • •
advantage and White cannot
. �. � � .
. " .
� * �l67§.l!L�
play 13 Y/JXd6? because of 13
... .§.feB! with the ti'lreat of 14
.u.
4). P.i "� JJ..
4l- �. � � .u.
4lo �
�
... .§.Xc3. § 'a'· 'a§� '
11 �b 1 .§.cB Tarrasch's continuation which
The alternatives are less appe­ is a great favourite of his apostle
tizing: Unzicker. It is reached more
a) 1 1 . . a6 12 h4 b5 13 h5
. frequently by the move order B
b4 14�Xf6�Xf6 15 hg! hg! 0-0 0-0 9 Y!Jd2. The idea is to
! - not 15 ... be? 16 Y/Jh6 build up in the centre with
.§.eB 17 Y/JXh7+ �8 (Broer­ .§.ad 1 while avoiding committal
VIagsma. Holland 1941) 1B moves.
�g4! �c4 19 .§.d5 and White Now we examine:
wins. c 1: 9 ... Jld7
b) 1 1 . .Y!Jc7 12 Jlf3! .§.feB
. C2: 9 ... a6
13 .§.de 1 {Jd7 (or 13 ... a6 C3 : 9 . .. d5
1 4 e5! de 15 �Xe5 Y/Jb6 16 C4: 9 . .. {Jg4
Y/Jd4! ± ) 14�Xg7 �Xg7 15 9 {JXd4 10 ..Q.Xd4
{Jd5! �Xd5 16 ed {Jf6 17 .Q.d7 will transpose to C1, but
.§e3 Y/Jd7 1B .§ he1 .§c7 g4! Black can play more actively on
! Fuchs-Liebert, Halle 1961. move ten with:
 4 Classical: 8!9 �d2 27
a) 1 0 . ite61 7 11 gad1 a6
. . and ... gc8) 11 gad1 a6 12
1 2 f4 gc8 13 1l,f3 gc4 1 4 c!£)Xc6 JlXc6 13 c!£jd5 JlXd5
!zje2 �c8 1 5 c3 b5 16 h3 b4 (Or 13 . .. c!£)Xd5 1 4 ed Jlb5
co Petrosian-Getman. Sparta­ 1 5 .Q.Xb5 ab ! Goldstein­
kiad 1963. Purdy, Australia 1937) 1 4 ed
b) 1 0 . �a57 ! 11 gad1
. . c!£jd7 15 c4 a5 = Djurasevic­
J}.e6 12 .Q.Xf6 -'l,Xf6 1 3 c!£jd5 Pirc. Belgrade 1954.
�Xa2 1 4 c!£)Xf6+ ef 15 �b4 d) 1 0 c!£) Xc67! be 11 Jlh6
+ .Q.Xh6 12 �Xh6 gb8 13 b3
�a5 = / � Asztalos-Tartakower.
C1 : Bled 1 931.
9 ..Q,d7
. . e) 1 0 gad 1 (The most serious
This move is too passive and alternative.) 1 0 . . g c8 (It
.

allows White to implement his seems of little importance whe­

steady build-up. ther this move is played before
10 f4 (18) or after ... a6. e.g. 1 0 ... a6
Black's passive 9th move 1 1 -f3 gc8 1 2 <i!(h1 b5 12
allows White a wide choice of . . . !;zja5 and 13 . . f;jc4 is
-

viable. though generally less also possible - 13 f;jXc6 AXc6

impressive, alternatives : 14 a3 �c7 15 .Q,h6 gfd8 16
a) 1 0 h3 a6 11 f4 b5 i 2 a3 itXg7 <i!fXg7 = Ragozin -
.§c8 is not so great for White. Korchnoi, 21st USSR Ch Kiev
b) 1 0 c!£jb3 c!£je5 ( 1 0 g c8 1954. Weaker. however, is 1 0
. . .

11 Jlh6 .Q.Xh6 1 2 �Xh6 c!£) X d4 11 .Q.Xd4 itc6 12

. . .

c!£je5 transposes ; while 1 0 f3 ge8 13 <i!fh 1 �a5 1 4

. . .

a5 11 a4 c!£jb4 1 2 f3 �c7 1 3 .Q,Xf6 .Q,Xf6 1 5 c!£jd5! !

Ad3 c;l5!? 14 .Q.c5 de 1 5 fe Djurasevic-lvkov. Yugoslav Ch
c!£jXd3 is also interesting. Rubin­ 1952.) 11 c!£jb3 (11 f4 trans­
stein-Eiiskases. Cordoba 1951.) poses to 10 f4 gc8 1 1 gad 1 )
1 1 .,Q_h6 JlXh6 12 �Xh6 11 .§ e8 1 2 f3 �c7 (also
.§c8 13 �e3 a6 14 h3 (Or 14 possible is 12 . . J}.e6 13
.§ad 1 �c7 1 5 h3 .Q.e6 = c!£jd4 c!£)Xd4 14 .Q,Xd4 a6 and
Eliskases-Souza Mendes. Brazil ... .Q.c4) 13 c!£jb5 �b8 14 c3
1944.) a6 15 f;ja3 b5 � Folz-Geller.
14 ... c!£jc4 15 .Q.Xc4 .§ Xc4 Moscow OL 1956.
= Bondarevsky-Szabo, Hastings 10 .§ c8
1 960-61. a) 1 0 . . . a6 will normally
c ) 1 0 f3 .§ c8 (Also possible is transpose to the text.
10 c!£)Xd4 11 .Q.Xd4 .Q.c6 b) 1 0 f;jXd4 11 J1Xd4 . . .

fo llowed by . . . a6. . . b5. Jlc6 may be playable. e.g. 12

28 4 Classical: 8!9 '{!;jd2
better for White. Pilnik-Pelikan,
18 .
wt
Mar del Plata 1944.
rM
8 ' ii!r&ii • •,
•
P.O
12 . . b5
/;)?'i; � %i
�; ff
� •
1 3 a3 '{!;jc 7
%'1!!
%(
�
/

• • •
"f1f1[
14 4jb3 .§fd8
- � .!..!. U a
i?'F
.X 1M 4l- �-
·� "
15 Jlf3 Jle8
� 11 • 16 '{!;jf2 !
(;;� � � z •
4l- r� 4l- M � a 4l­ Unzicker - Eliskases. Salts­
.!..!. � .!..!. ;��• .!..!. jobaden IZ 1952. White's game
�� . -�� is slightly the more comfortable
�f3 e5 13 Jlf2 b5 14 .§ad 1 rather than superior.
b4 15 4jd5 4jXd5 1 6 ed�b5
co Nicevsky-D.IIievsky, Skopje C2:
1968. but not 1 1 . . . b5?! 12 9 ... a6 (19)
e5! de 13 fe 4jg4 14 �f3 b4
15 �XaS ± ± Penrose-J. Little­ 19 . ...... .. .
wood. Hastings 196 1-2. w BtB •t . t
11.§ad1 t •� · • t •
a) 1 1 4jb3? ! a6 12 �f3 �g4 • • • •
= / :f
B [J ft B B
.
b) 1 1 h3 4jXd4 12 JlXd4 " � � -
. � � .� .
jlc6 13 '{!;je3 4jd7 14 e5 de 4l- � 4l- M � � 4l- f.�
15 fe e6 = Horowitz-Reshevsky, £
��
U J.!.. f@fl�� .u. u
!%';;
New York 1951. y • . C::I
- �� Q
c) 1 1 !£) Xc6?! be 12 h3 '{!;jc7 This may transpose to some
13 .§ab1 .§b8 14 �f3 c5 = of the positions considered
Czaja-Bogoljubow. 1937. under C1. and like C1 the move
d) 1 1 ilf3 a6 12 4jb3 b5 (Also fails to present White with
12 .. . Jlg4 13 �h1 J1Xf3 sufficient opposition to his plan.
14 .§Xf3 b5 = Book - 10 f4
Reshevsky, Helsinki Olympiad a) 1 0 .§ ad1 Jld7 transposes
1952) 13 .§f2 Jlg4 14 a3 to note (e) to 10 f4 in variation
jtXf3 15 gf 4ja5 16 4jXa5 c 1.
-
'{J;JXa5 = Marini-Panno. Buenos b) 1 0 .§fd1 jtd7 1 1 f3 .§c8
Aires Ch 1953. 12 4jXc6 jtXc6 13 a4 a5 14
11 a6 �b5 4jd7 15 c3 4jc5 =
12 h3 Bradvakevic - Averbakh, Kis­
12 4jXc6 jtXc6 13 jtf3 lovodsk 1964.
'{!;Jc7 14.§f2 b5 15 4jd5 '{!;jb7 c) 1 0 f3 '{!;jc 7 followed by . .
16 jtd4 is also marginally 4ja5. ... b5 and ... 4jc4, or
 4 Classical: 8!9 "i!;td2 29
by ... .:£)e5, .. . Ae6 and . .. 1 0 . . 4:)b4 1 1 d6 e6 1 2
4:)c4, is perfectly satisfactory for .:£)db5 .:£)bd5 1 3 Jld4 4::)Xc3
B lack. 1 4 "i/JXc3 .:£)d5 1 5 "i!;td2
1 0 ... .:£)Xd4 ilXd4 1 6 "i!JXd4 leaves Black
1 0 ... ild7 1eads to C 1 . weak on the dark squares.
1 1 ilXd4 b5 1 1 .:£)Xd5 (2 1)
1 2 ilf3 ilb7 a) 11 13,ad1 ?1 .:£)Xe3
1 3 13, ad 1 "i!;tc7 b) 11 13,fd1 and now :
1 4 e5 de b 1 ) 1 1 . . . .:£)db4 1 2 a3
1 5 fe ± .:£)Xd4 1 3 ab e5 1 4�Xd4 ed
Unzicker - Spanjaard, Luzern 1 5 .:£)b5 "i!;te7 co Hamann -
1 948. Westerinen, Halle 1 963.
b2) 11 . . . .:£)Xd4 1 2 �Xd4
C3: �Xd4 1 3 "i/JXd4 .:£)Xc3 1 4
"ifJXc3 "i!;tb6 1 5 "i!;ta3 (Or 1 5
a4 -'l,e6 1 6 a5 "i!;tc6 1 7 "ifJXc6
be 1 8 b4 13,ab8 1 9 c3 13,fc8
20 f4 c5! = Kholmov-Spiri­
donov. 1 976.) 1 5 . .. �f5 =
Szily - Ozsvath. Budapest Ch
1 954.
b3) 1 1 . . . .:£)Xe31 1 2 .:£)Xc6
"i/JXd2 1 3 .:£)Xe7+ �h8 1 4
.§Xd2 �Xc3! 1 5 be .:£)f5 1 6
.:£)d5 Jld7 1 7 .§b 1 �c6 1 8
This liquidation of the centre jlf3 .:£)1i4 = Solmanis-Renter,
carries the danger that White 3rd Baltic Ch 1 946.
will be able to put his 3:2 0-side b4) But not 11 . . . .:£) Xc3 1 2
majority to good advantage and "i!JXc3 .:£)Xd4 1 3 jlXd4
that he will be able to put �Xd4 1 4 13, Xd4 "i!;tb6 1 5 h4!
awkward pressure on the h 1 - ± Solmanis-Beilin, 3rd Baltic
a8 diagonal with �f3. Ch 1 946.
After 9 d5 White has a c) 11 .:£)Xc6, as usual in the
choice of: Dragon, strengthens B lack's
C3 1 : 1 0 ed centre and gives him the pos­
C32 : 1 0 .:£)Xc6 sibility of counterplay along the
C33 : 1 0.§fd 1 b-file; after 1 1 . .. be:
c 1 ) 1 2 .:£)Xd57"i!JXd5 ( 1 2 . .
C31 : cd is also satisfactory) 1 3 "i!;tb4?
1 0 ed .:£)Xd5 .,lle6 +
30 4 Classical: 8!9 fyd2
c2) 1 2.§ad 1 and now: .Q..Xd4 14 'l*Xd4 fya5 Y2-Y2 .
c2 1) Smyslov-Denker, Gronin­ lnkiov-Ristic, Smederevska Pal­
gen 1946, continued 1 2 . . anka 197S.
.

.Q_f5 13 !fjXd5 f'1Xd5 14 c4! c4) 1 2 .§fd1 .§bS (Also play­

�e5 (Better is 14 . .. fyXd2 able are 12 . . . �c7 13 i;l,d4
15 .§Xd2 .§fbS 16 b3 a5 e5 14 Ac5 §dS 15 !fje4 .Q..e6
!. I = Cruz - Eliskases, Brazil Rossetto-lliesco, Mar del Plata
1944.) 15 b3 a5 16 .Q_f3 fyc7 1945; and 12 .. . .Q..e6 13
17 .Q..c5 "!_ . .Q_d4 jtXd4 14 'l*Xd4 !f)Xc3
c22) 1 2 . . fyc7 13 .Q_d4 e5 15 �Xc3 �b6 = Rodl -
.

14 .Q..c5 .§dS 15 !fje4 ± - Heemsoth, Luneburg 1947) 13

Gufeld. If 15 ... jtf5 or 15 i;l,d4 .Q..Xd4 14 �Xd4 'l*a5
. .. f5 then 16 !fjd6! or if 15 (or 14 .. . jtf5 15 fyXa7
. .. .Q..e6 16 fyg5 threatening .§Xb2 16 !f)Xd5 cd = Shmid­
c4. In the game Timoshchenko­ Toran. Lugano 1959.) 15 �e5
Belyavsky, Leningrad 1977, �b4 = Bouwmeester-Mata­
after 15 ... f5 White played novic. Zevenaar 1961.
the inferior 16 !fjg5 h6 17 c4
hg 1S cd cd. Play continued 19 21
fyg5 jte6 2 0 jte7 §d7 21 8
.Q_f6 i;l,f7 =F
c23) 1 2 . ..Q..Xc3?1 13 be
.

�a5 14 ilh6 with a strong

attack.
c24) 1 2 . . J,te6 13 l,td4!
.

(weaker is 13 !f)Xd5 cd 14
i;l,f3. Szabo-Geller, Hilversum
1973 continued 14 �c7 1 1 .. !fjXd4!
15· jtXd5 i;l_Xd5 16 �Xd5 An important finesse. 1 1
�Xc2 17 .§d2 fyc7 1S b4 'l*Xd5? 12 jtf3 �c4 13 b3
.§adS 19 �e4 .§Xd2 20 �a6 14 !fJXc6 be 15 jth6 ! is
i;l_Xd2 �d7 = ) 13 .. . J,tXd4 good for White ; Boleslavsky
14 'i(yXd4 �b6 15 !fja4 ! now gives 15 . .. .Q.Xa1 16
�Xd4 16.§Xd4 !_ . .§Xa1 .§eS? 17 'l*c3 e5 1S
c25) 1 2 . . i;l,b7 13 !fja4 jtXc6 with White finishing a
.

!f)Xe3 14 'i(yXe3 �c7 15 pawn ahead.

!fjc5 .§adS 16 jtc4 i;l,cS co After11. . !fjXd4White has:
Skold - Filipowicz. Leipzig OL C311 : 12 Ac4
1960. C312: 12 c4
c3) 1 2 .§ ac1 Jle6 13 Jld4 C313 : 12 i}.Xd4

C31 1 :
1 2 �c4
A little artificial.
12 ... �e6!
Trifunovic's solution. This is
simpler than:
a) 1 2 . . �f5 and now :
. .§ Xd8+ 'it1Xd8 20 .§d 1 �8
a 1) 1 3 .§ ad 1 �Xe3! Schmahl­
Carls. 1939.
a2) 1 3 Ag5�e6 14 �Xe7+
(14 'ltrb4 'ltrc8!) 14. .. �Xe7
15 'lt1Xd8 §fXd8 16 AXe6
fe 17 AXe7 .§ d2! :j:
a3) 1 3 �c5 e6! 14 �e7+
0:JXe7 15 'it1Xd8 .§ Xd8 16
�Xe7 .§d7 17 �a3 a6 = -
Carls.
b) 1 2 . �c6 13 -'l,c5 can
. .
transpose into a3).
13 AXd4 itXd5
14 AXg7 -'l,Xc4
15 'itth6 AXf 1
16 �Xf8 'lt1Xf8
with complete equality, Honfi­
Gufeld, Kecskemet 1958.
C31 2:
1 2 c4
This move maintains the
strong knight on d5, indirectly
defends the b-pawn, and threat­
ens the black knight.
12 . .. e5!
12 .. . �Xe2+ . exchanging
Black's most active piece, must
be suspect. After 13 'lt1Xe2
(threatening 14 .,llg5) 13
e6 14 0:Jc3 b6 (if 14 . . . -'l,d7
1 5 .§ fd1 'ltrc7 16 .§ac1 .,llc 6
1 7 {)d5! with a strong initiative,
4 Classical: 8/9 'i!fd2 31
Krogius-Kots, Erevan 1962.) 15
.§ fd1 'ltre7 (llyin - Zhenevsky -
Kan. Leningrad 1934, went 15
... 'itth4? 16 c5! 'i!fb4 and
now 1 7 c6 ±) 16�f4 �6 17
�d6 §d8 18 �e5! 'ltrg5 19
21 �Xg7 )f(Xg7 22 'itte4!
�a6 23 .§d7. White has a
substantial advantage, Kirilov -
Terpugov. USSR 1948.
13 f4
After the continuation 13
.§ fe 1? .,lle 6 14 �Xd4 ed of
Stolyar-Taimanov, Leningrad Ch
1949, White has conceded
Black the advantage of the two
bishops and the better pawn
formation.
13 .. . -'l,e6
14 fe �Xe2+
15 'it1Xe2 �Xd5
16 .§ad1 'ltre7!
Not 16.. . .Q.Xc4 17 'lt1Xc4
�c8 18 'lt1Xc8 .§aXeS 19
.§d7 -'l,Xe5 20 .§ Xb7 (Geller­
Averbakh, Szczawno Zdroj
1950) because White obtains
an outside passed pawn and
therefore the better ending.
16 ... 'ltre7, suggested by
Gufeld and Lazarev, guarantees
full equality through Black's
counterplay along the e-file.
C31 3:
12 -'l_Xd4 �Xd5
13 .§ fd1 .§ fd8
14 c3 -'l,f5
Also possible is 14... -'l_Xd4
32 4 Classical: 8!9 Yflfd2
15 cd ,ilf5 = , Skold-Pomar,
Varna Olympiad 1962, and
Fuchs-Szilagyi, Bad Liebenstein
1963.
15 ,ilf3 Jle4 =
Johansson - O 'Kelly, Varna
Olympiad 1962.
C32:
1 0 2£jXc6
In MCO. 10th edition, Evans
gives this move as being good
for White. but his assessment
can be challenged.
10 ... be (22)
11 e5
This logical follow-up to
White's previous move is strong­
er than 1 1 �ad 1 e6 12 f4
Yflfe7 13 e5 2£jd7, or, after 11
.§.ad 1 Gufeld's suggested 1 1
. . Yflfc7! 12 ed cd 13 2£jXd5
. ,ilXg4 13 f4 f6 14 ,ild4 Yflfa5
2£jXd5 14 Yfl!Xd5 Jle6 with
good counterplay.
1 1 .. 2£je4
This is the most active move,
but possibly not the best.
a) 1 1 . 2£je8 12 f4 f6 should
. .
secure equality e.g.:
a 1) 1 3 .QJ3 �b8 ! is analysed
by Gufeld and Lazarev as being
satisfactory for Black : 14 j;tXa7
.§.Xb2 15 l;td4 .ilf5 16 .§.fc 1
fe 17 fe .§.b4 18 .§.ab1 .§.c4
19 .§.b7 2£jd6! 20 l;tb6 Yflfe8
2 1 ed j;tXc3 22 ,ilXd5+ cd
23 Yfl!Xd5+ Yfllf7 24 'tfl!Xf7+
.
<iftXf7 25 .§.d1 .§.b4!.
a2) 1 3 ef ef 14 .ilf3 (or 14
J;tc5 .§.f7 15 .§.ad1 2£jc7 16
2£ja4 2£je6 17 b4 2£JXc5 18
�Xc5 Af8 19 c4 Yflfb6 = ,
Diez del Corral - Miles, Las
Palmas 1978) 14 .. . ,ile6
15 2£ja4 2£jd6 16 2£jc5 (if 16
.ild4 .ilf7 17 2£jc5 2£jb5 18
.ilf2 f5 = - Koblencs.) 16 ...
.ilf7 17 b3 Yflfc7 and the threat
to concentrate on e4 gives
Black an even game, e.g. 18
.§.ad1 .§.fe8 19 a4 .§.e7 20
l;tf2 .§.ae8 = Bonch-Osmol­
ovsky-Kopilov, USSR 1953 .
Less satisfactory than the text
are:
b) 1 1 . . 2£jd7 12 f4 e6 13
.
2£ja4 ± , e.g. 13... f6 14 2£jc5
2£JXc5 15 .ilXc5 .§.f7 16 Yflfe3
Korn-Winter, London 1949; or
13 .. . .§.e8? 14 Yflfc3.
c) 1 1 . . . 2£jg4 12 JlXg4
15 Yflfe3 ,ilf5 (Koblenz-Beilin,
USSR 1947) 16 �f2 ± -
Evans.
12 2£jXe4 de
13 Yflfc3 Yflfc7
14 .ild4? !
It is better to protect the e­
pawn with 14 ,ilf4 because

after 14 . . . .{;te6 15 .§ad 1
(Not 15 .§ fd 1? f5! 16 ef �Xf4
17 fg �Xf2+ 18 �h 1 .§ f6
+ l 15 ... a5 16 �c5! gives
White a positional bind - Gufeld.
Unless this can be improved on,
Black will do better with 1 1
t2le8.
14 . . . .§ d8
Black's threat to sacrifice the
exchange at d4 ensures him
adequate counterplay.
15 .§ ad 1
15 f4 is no better. Ravinsky­
Rovner, 1949, continued 15
. .. ef 16 -'l,c4 .§ Xd4 17
�Xd4 .Q.Xe5 18 �h4 Jlf6 +
15 ... Jle6
16 f4 ef
17 .Q.Xf3 Jld5 �
for, as Boleslavsky points out
White cannot play 18 e6, be­
cause of 18 ... .Q.Xd4+ 19
.§ Xd4 .Q.Xe6 20 .§ Xd8+
�Xd8 2 1 �Xc6 �d4+ 22
�h8 .§c8 winning all of White's
0-side pawns with ease.
C33:
1 0 .§ fd1
As long as Black avoids the
trap that lies behind this move
he should have no difficulty
neutralising the position. The
other rook move, 10 .§ad 1,
can also be met by 10 ...
�Xd4 1 1 �Xd4 t2lXe4! 12
�Xd5 t2ld6, e.g. 13 jtf4 .,{;te6
14 �c5 �c8 15 �a3 t2lc4 � ·
Jul Bolbochan - Trumpowsky,
4 Classical: 8!9 �d2 33
Rio de Janeiro 1938.
10 . t2lXd4
Not 10 . . . t2lXe4? 1 1
�Xc6! ..Q.Xc3 12 �Xd5
�Xd5 13 4jXe7+ �g7 14
�Xd5 jtXb2 15 .§ab 1 ..Q.e5
16 f4 -'l,b8 17 jtd4+ �h6 18
.,{;tf3 f5 19 g4! with decisive
threats - Gufeld.
1 1 �Xd4
If 1 1 jtXd4 �Xe4 12
�Xe4 de 13 �c3 .Q.Xd4 14
.§ Xd4 �b6 15 .§ Xe4 .,{;te6
= Klovan-Shamkovich, USSR
196 1.
1 1 .. . �Xe4!
12 �Xd5 �d6
13 �3
13 �b3..Q.b6 is no better for
White, Lisitsin-Kotkov, USSR
1956.
13 .Q.e6
Vasyukov-Gufeld, 26th USSR
Ch 1959, continued 14 �d5
�f5 15 c4 �Xe3 16 �f6+
.Q.Xf6 17 .§ Xd8 .§aXd8 18
�Xe3 .Q.Xb2 19 .§d1 .§Xd1+
20 jtXd 1 .§d8 2 1 Jle2 b6 +
C4 : 9 ... �g4(23)
23
W
34 4 Classical: 8!9 'l!Jd2
This move, gaining the two C41 1 :
bishops at the cost of relinquish­ 11 Jtd7
ing some control of d5. has 12.§ad1 .§c8
usually been the choice of If 12 . . . {)Xd4 13 JlXd4
Unzicker's opponents, and it J;l.Xd4+ 14 Y/JXd4 Jtc6 15
may be the simplest way to b4 Y/Jb6 16 b5 ± Richter -
equalise. Rellstab, Berlin 1938.
10 -'l,Xg4 -'l,Xg4 An interesting idea that was
Of White's options in this once in vogue in Czechoslo­
position only the first three vakia is 12 ... f5, to stem the
justify detailed examination. advance of the White f-pawn.
C4 1: 11 f4 Two examples:
C42: 11{)d5 a) 1 3 ef gf 14 .§fe 1 (or 14
C43: 11{)Xc6 Y!Jf2 .§f6 15 {)f3 .§g6) 14
C44: 11 h3 ... Y!Je8 15 {)d 5 Y/Jf7 CD
C45: 11 f3 Foltys-Prucha, Prague 1943.
b) 1 3 ef -'l,Xf5 14 {)Xf5 gf
C41 : 15.§fe 1 Y!Je8 16{)d5 Y!Jf7 CD
1 1 f4 (24) Foltys-Sajtvik, Prague 1943.

24 • • • •••
13 f5! ?
One of Unzicker's theoretical
mta •t•t
8 - ...
·.
contributions. Alternatives are :
. � . . ...
... .
. a) 1 3 {)d5{)Xd4 14 JlXd4
• • • • j';tXd4+ 15 Y/JXd4.§Xc2 16
d �J
• "A41- U.
� .t.• 8 f5 -'l,c6 17{)e3.§e2! 18{)g4
B "
- Ll n - B
- h5 19 {)h6+ �h7 20 c!£jXf7
Y/Jb6! 2 1 fg+ �Xg6 22
41- �
A UA 41- �
� . -A 41- U
�
� . Rf'S c!£je5+ de 23 Y/JXb6 ab 24
� • - -� �� .§Xf8 .§Xb2 25 .§f2 .§b4
Richter's recipe. White hopes 26 .§e1 J;l.Xe4 27 h3 e6 28
to embarrass Black's OB by the �h2 .§a4 29 .§ e3 h4 30 g3
encircling threat f5. Black must -'l,d5 3 1 a3 b5! 32 gh.§f4! Yr
play actively to maintain the Y2. Richter-Petrow, Bad Harz­
balance, and best are : burg 1938.
C411: 1 1 . .. ,ild7 b) 1 3 .§f2 Y!Ja5 14 h3 .§fd8
C412: 1 1 ... {)Xd4 (Threat 15 ... c!£j Xd4 16
More passive alternatives are: J;l.Xd4 e5!) 15 Y!Je2{)Xd4 16
C4 13: 1 1 .§c8 JtXd4 when, instead of 16. . .
C4 14: 11 . .. Y!Ja5 ,ilXd4 as in Trott - Stuart.
C4 15: 11 ... ,ile6 Chester 1952, Gufeld suggests
 4 Classical: 8!9 �d2 35
1 6 ... i;tc6 to be followed by �Xd6 �Xc2 2 1 �d5 �Xa2.
.. b5. Barczay-Rigo, Hungarian Ch
13.. . �e5 1978 continued 22 �c7 §c8
On 13 .. . a6 14 �d5 e6 1 5 23 �e7 -'l_f8 24 §d8 §Xd8
ci:J Xc6 be 16 �b6 ± Unzicker­ 25 �Xd8 �g8 26 �d5 �c4
P. Schmidt Bad Pyrmont 1 950. Y2-Y2 -
1 4 i;th6 �c4 1 4... i;te6
On 14 . .. f6 1 5 �d5! is 1 5 §f2 i;te5
very strong. Or 15 ... �a5 1 6 i;td4
1 5 �c 1 �Xb2 J}.e5 1 7 i;tXe5 �Xe5 (also
1 5 ... i;tXh6 16 �Xh6 satisfactory is 17 . . . de) 1 8
ci:JXb2 is not good because of §d 1 §fd8 1 9 �d4 �Xd4 =
1 7 §f3 followed by §h3. Radulov - Estevez, Leningrad
1 6 -'l_Xg7 �Xd 1 1973.
1 7 �h6! �Xc3 1 6 i;td4
So far we have followed Or 1 6 J}.f4 .§c8 1 7 -'l_Xe5
Unzicker - Giustolisi, Lugano de 18 �e3 = Pechan-Marsalek,
1 959, in which after 1 8 f6 Prague 1 953.
Black could have surmounted 1 6 ... §c8
his immediate difficulties with 16 ... �e7 17 §ad 1 .§fd8
1 8 . .. ef 1 9 -'l_Xf6 �Xf6 20 turned out rather drawish in
§Xf6 �Xe4 2 1 §f4 f5! 22 Matanovic-Trifunovic, Belgrade
§h4 §f7. 1 952. While 1 7 �d5 was
1 8 fg! shown to be no improvement in
and White should win easily - Philipp-Aitrichter, East German
Euwe. Corres Ch 1978 : 1 7 . .. -'l_Xd5
18 ed itXd4 1 9 �Xd4 f6 20
C41 2: §af 1 f5 2 1 .§f3.§ae8 + .
11 �Xd41 One other possibility is 1 6
1 2 i;tXd4 e5! ... a6 1 7 �d5 ( 17 i;tXe5 de
13 J}.e3 1 8 �h6 and .§ad 1 may be
If 1 3 fe de 1 4 i;te3 �Xd2 better) 1 7 . . . i;tXd5 1 8 ed b5
15 i;tXd2 §ac8 = . 1 9 c3 .§e8 :f/co Mracek -
1 3. . ef Uhrovic, Corres 1 977-8.
1 4 §Xf4 1 7.§d 1 �a5
1 4 J}.Xf4 �b6+ 1 5 �h 1 1 8 a3 .§c4 =
'& X b2 1 6 �d5 involves White Unzicker-Geller, West Ger­
in some risk. e.g. 1 6 ... J}.e6 many-USSR 1 960.
17 JlXd6 §fd8 1 8 §ad 1
§ X d6 1 9 �e7+ �h8 20 C41 3:
36 4 Classical: 8/9 'itJd2
1 1 . . §c8 1 2 f5 Ah5 1 3
.
h3 gf 14 ef AXd4 1 5 AXd4
f6 1 6 §ae 1 Af7 1 7.§e4 �h8
1 8 §fe 1 Ag8 1 9 <tJe2 'itJd7
20 g4 'itJc7 2 1 'itJh6 ±
Unzicker - Wood, Heidelberg
1 949.
C41 4:
1 1 . . . 'itJa5 12 f5 gf 13 ef
AXd4 1 4 AXd4 f6 (If 1 4 .. .
AXf5 1 5 'itJg5+ Ag6 1 6
<tJd5 .§ae8 1 7 §ae 1 'itJd8 18
§Xe7 ! .§Xe7 - 1 8 ..
<tJXe7? 19 'il1f6! - 1 9 <tJXe7+
'itJXe7 20 Af6 followed by
'itJh6 wins for White.) 15 a3
�h8 1 6 b4 'itJd8 1 7 h3 Ah5
18 �d5 §c8 1 9 .§ae 1 Af7
20 <tJXe7 ± Foltys -Wood,
Budapest 1 948.
C41 5:
1 1 . . Ae6 1 2 f5 and now :
.
a) 1 2 . . . Ad7 13 <tJd5 §e8
1 4 c3 <tJe5 1 5 Ah6 Ah8 1 6
.§f4 Ac6 1 7 §at 1 ! Engels­
lliesco, Mar del Plata 1 94 1 .
b) 1 2 . . . Ac4 1 3 §f2 .§c8
(If 13 .. . d5 1 4 b3! de, as in
Kohler-Kranki, Bad Oeynhausen
1 940, White can win material by
15 f6!) 1 4 b3 Aa6 leaves this
bishop badly displaced.
C42:
1 1 <tJd5 (25)
This, the most active move,
prepares to establish a Maroczy
bind with 1 2 c4. If now 1 1
e6, 1 2 <tJc3 poses Black a
25
8
problem. concerning h1s OB.
11 Ad7
a) 1 1 . . §c8 fails to reduce
.
the force of 1 2 c4, e.g. :
a 1) 12 . . <tJXd4 1 3 AXd4
.
§Xc4 which loses material to
1 4 AXg7 �Xg7 1 5 <tJe3
§Xe4 16 f3.§Xe3 1 7 'itJXe3
Ad7 1 8 'itJXa7 ± Kok -
Spanjaard, Utrecht 1 948 .
a2) 1 2 . . . Ae6 13 b3 AXd5
1 4 ed <tJXd4 15 itXd4 itXd4
16 'itJXd4 a6 1 7 a4 ± Tai­
manov-llivitsky, 16th USSR Ch
1 948.
b) 1 1 . . Ae6 at once gives
.
White too much space and all
the advantages of the bind, e.g.:
12 c4 AXd5 13 ed <tJXd4 1 4
AXd4 AXd4 1 5 'itJXd4.
1 2 c4 <tJe5
1 3 b3 e6!
Euwe's idea . As compen­
sation for tlis weak d-pawn,
Black has active piece play.
1 4 <tJc3 'itJa5
1 5 h3
To prevent 1 5 ... �g4.
1 5 .. a6
16 a4
 4 Classical: 8!9 tj'd2 37
Black was threatening to free b) 1 2 . .Q..e6 13 -'l_Xg7
. .

his game with 16 . . . b5. The �Xg7 14 b3 tj'a5 15 tj'e3

alternative. 16 f4. also leads to f5! ? 16 ef ..Q.Xf5 17 tj'Xe7+
equality after 16 .. . &LJc6 17 .§ f7 18 tj'e3 jtXc2 with
�de2 .§ fd8. roughly equal chances. S. Garcia
16 ... f5 - Marovic. Cienfuegos 1973.
17 f4 6LJf7 C) 1 2 . . AXh6 13 tj'Xh6
.

18 ef gf = tj'b6 and if 14 &LJa4 tj'd4 15

Analysis by Boleslavsky. b3 ..Q.e2 16 .§fe1 jtb5 :f .
White should try 14 tj'd2
C43: tj'Xb2 15 .§ab1 tj'a3 16 .§b7
1 1 6LJXc6 be when his well posted rook may
12 ..Q_h6 (26) compensate for the pawn.
d) 1 2 . . tj'a5 13 Axg7
.. . . �···
.

26 ®Xg7 14 §fe 1 ..Q.e6 15 .§ad 1

8 • • • :l . i §ab8 16 b3 .§fd8 = Sergeant­
. ... �
. ... . . ... � �
. ... . Landau. Hastings 1938/9.
• • • •
• • ft • .t.• C44:
. "
- �1 - . -
. Instead. hitting the bishop by
41> � 41> M_ � 41> �
a u a �JYj � ..u. �
1 1 h3 merely wastes time be­
§ �.�. �-Ei� �
cause the purpose of h3 in the
Classical Dragon is to prevent
This idea has been revived the exchanging manoeuvre ...
fairly recently in Cuba. The point &LJg4 which. in this case. has
is two-fold: White hopes to already taken place. After ( 11
establish a Maroczy Bind by h3) ..Q.e6! Black has retrieved
lLJa4 followed by c4 and b3; his hold on d5 and his position
there is also the possibility that is perfectly satisfactory.
after 12 ... ..Q.Xh6 13 tj'Xh6
White may be able to attack on C45:
the �-side by advancing his f­ On 1 1 f3 both 1 1 ... ..Q_d7
pawn and bringing his rook to 12 .§ad1 .§c8 13 §f2 tj'a5!
the h-file via f3. 14 &LJb3 (Euwe-Denker. Lon­
Black's alternatives are: don 1946) 14 ... ..Q.Xc3; and
a) 1 2 . . tj'b6 7 13 ..Q.Xg7 1 1 ... ..Q.e6 12 �Xc6 bc 13
.

�Xg7 14 &LJa4 tj'a6 15 b3 ..Q_d4 f6! 14 �e2 (to prevent

Ae6 16 c4 with a strong bind. . .. tj'a5) 14 tj'c7 are
Leb redo - Levy, Cienfuegos readily playable.
1 972.
5 E ighth Move Divergences

8 g47 d5
and now :
a ) 9 .Q.b5 .Q.d7 1 0 ed{)b4! + ·
b) 9 {)Xc6 be 1 0 e5{)d7 11
f4 e6 12 0-0 0-0 :j: ROdl -
Muller, Bad Elster 1 940.
C ) 9 ed {)Xd5 1 0 {)Xd5
�Xd5 1 1 .Q.f3 �c4 12{)Xc6
be 1 3 b3 .Q.c3+! :j: - Euwe.

8:
8 h3
So as to play �d2 and 0-0-0
without fear of . .. {)g4.
Now we examine: 8... 0-0
A: 8 g4? 9 �d2
B 8 h3 If 9 g47 d5! 10 ed {)Xd5
C: 8 f3 1 1 {)Xd5 {)Xd4 12 .�c4
D: 8 h4 .Q.e6 13 .Q.Xd4 .Q.Xd5 14
E: 8 0-0 Miscellaneous .Q. ?< g7 .Q.Xh1 + Schories -
For 8 0-0 0-0 see Ninth Move Si:imisch, Berlin 1920.
Divergences, p.49. 9 0-0 transposes to A, see
For 8 {)b3 0-0 9 0-0 see Chapter 7, p.49.
Ninth Move Divergences, p.55. 9 .. . d5
For 8 {)b3 0-0 9 f4 see and now:
chapter 3, p. 14. a) 1 0 ed {)Xd5 11 {)Xd5
For 8 {)b3 0-0 9 g4 see {)Xd4 12{)Xe7+ ( 1 2 .Q.Xd4
chapter 3, p. 14. �Xd5 1 3 .Q.Xg7 �Xg2 1oses
a pawn, Tartakower-Denker,
A: Hastings, 1945-46.) 12 . ..
 5 Eighth Move Divergences
� Xe7 1 3 ..Q_Xd4 ..Q_Xd4 1 4
�Xd4 .§e8 1 5 �e3 (If 1 5
�d2? ..Q_f5 threatening 1 6 . . .
.§adS) 1 5 . . . � Xe3 1 6 fe
.§ Xe3 = - Euwe. e.g. 1 7 'lt>f2
.§e7 18 ..Q_f3 ..Q.f5 19 c3 .§ d B
20 .§ a d 1 .§ed7 2 1 .§ Xd7 Yr
Y2 Panchenko - Krogius, Sochi
1 977.
b) 1 0 {) X c6 be 1 1 e5 {)d7 1 2
f4 e6 1 3 0-0 transposes intc
var. A, Chapter 7, p.49.
C:
8 f3 0-0 9 {)b3 d5! 1 0 ed
{)b4 1 1 d6 � Xd6 1 2 .Q.c5
�Xd 1 + 1 3 .§ Xd 1 {)c6 =
Belavenets-Levenfish, Leningrad
-Moscow 1 939.
0:
8 h4 (28)
This move was employed by
Smyslov in h is 1 958 World
Championsh ip match aga inst
Botvinnik. Now:
0 1 : 8 . . . {)g4?
02 : 8 . . . 0-0
0 3 : 8 . . . h5
39
01 :
8 . . . {)g47 denudes B lack's
K-side a nd gives White a good
game after 9 ..Q. X g4 ..Q. X g4 1 0
f 3 ..Q.d7 1 1 h5 .
02:
8 ... 0-0
This is rather risky.
9 h5
Tolush suggested 9 {)b3
when Black would need to pre­
pare . . . d5 with . . . ..Q.e6.
9 . . . d5!
Salhaazhuren - Stein, B uda­
pest 1 959, went 9 . . . {) Xd4
10 ..Q.Xd4 J}.e6 1 1 hg (if 1 1
�d2 �a5, threatening 1 2 . . .
{) Xe4, 1 2 §d 1 .§feB 1 3 hg
hg 14 f3 J}.c4 = Joha nsson­
Akvist. Albena 1 97 1 ) 1 1 . . .
hg 1 2 �d2 .§e8 1 3 0-0-0 a6
14 .§h2 �a5 1 5 .§dh 1 .§ac8
1 6 �4 g5 1 7 �3 g4 1 8 �4
{) Xe4 1 9 .§ h8 + 1 -0.
10 hg
and now Black has a choice of
two recaptures :
a ) 1 0 . . . hg, a nd now:
a 1 ) 1 1 ed {) Xd 5 1 2 {) X c6 bc
1 3 {) Xd 5 �Xd5 1 4 � Xd 5
cd 1 5 0-0-0 .ll,b 7 (Alternatives
here are 1 5 . . . .§ d B threaten­
ing . . . d4 and 1 5 . . . .§ b8 1 6
c 3 ..Q.f5 1 7 g4 ..Q.d7 = ) 1 6 f4
d4 1 7 ..Q.. Xd4 ..Q. X g 2 ( = ) 1 8
.§ hg 1 ..Q.e4 1 9 ..Q_Xg7 \f; X g7
20 .§d7 \t>f6 2 1 .§d4 ..Q.f5 22
.§ gd 1 .§ac8 23 .§ 1 d 2 .§c7
24 b3 .§h8 25 ..Q.c4! .§h3 26
40 5 Eighth Move Divergences
<i!fb2 .§e3 27 a4 e5 28 fe +
<if1 Xe5 29 a5 ,ile6 30 ,il X e6
<if1 X e6 3 1 .§d8 <i!fe7 32 .§ b8
.§e6 33 c4 a6 34 <i!fc3 f5 35
§dd8 f4 36 .§e8+ <i!tf6 37
.§ Xe6 + <if1Xe6 38 <i!fd4 .§f7?!
39 <i!fe4! <i!fd6 40 .§ b6 +
<i!fc5?? 4 1 <i!fd3! 1 -0 Smyslov­
Botvinnik. Match (5) 1 958.
a2) 1 1 4:) X c61 be 1 2 e5! 4:)e4
(Otherwise White quickly gets a
terrific a ttack a long the h-file. )
1 3 4:) Xe4 d e 1 4 .ild4 when :
a2 1 ) 1 4 . . c5 1 5 Ac3 !
. Not 1 2 l},h 6 .1}, X h 6 1 3
a 22) 1 4 . . Ae6 1 5 t¥d2
. t¥ X h6 de 1 4 fe (Or 1 4 4:) Xe4
t¥c7 1 6 t¥f4 .§fd8 1 7 Ac3
,ild5 1 8 t¥h4 <i!tf8 1 9 0-0-0
e6 20 t¥f4 f5 2 1 t¥g5 ±
Boya rinov - Pribilov, USSR
Student Ch 1 963.
a23) 1 4 . . . t¥a5 + 1 5 .il,c3
t¥d5 1 6 t¥c 1 ;E - Botvinnik.
a 24) 14 . .t¥d5 1 5 t¥d 2
. 1 3 f4
.§d8 1 6 .§d 1 t¥ X a 2 1 7 t¥f4
t¥a4 1 8 e6 f6 1 9 t¥ X e4 ±
Galakhov - Ziyatd inov, Uzbeki­
sta n Ch 1 977.
b) 1 0 . . . fg 1 1 ed ( 1 1 4:) Xc6
be 1 2 e5 may be worth pro­
bing . ) 1 1 . . . 4:) Xd 5 1 2 .1l,c4!
(Smyslov - Botvinnik, Match (7)
1 958, went 1 2 4:) X d 5 t¥ Xd 5
1 3 .il,f3 t¥c4 1 4 c3 - if 1 4
4:) X c6 bc 1 5 c3 .§ b8! - 1 4 . . .
4:) X d4 1 5 cd .1},e6 1 6 t¥b3 Yr
Y2 ; Black could now have tried
16 . § Xf3 ! ? 1 7 gf t¥c6 1 8
t¥d 1 .1},d5 1 9 .§ h 3 t¥e6 with
adequate counterplay - Model.)
12 . . e6 13 4:) X d 5 ed 1 4
.1},b3 4:) Xd4 1 5 .1},Xd4 t¥e7 +
1 6 <i!tf 1 would be regarded a s
favourable to White - Botvinnik .
03 :
8 ... h51
9 f3 0-0
1 0 t¥d2
If 1 0 4jb3 i;te6 followed by
1 1 . . . d5 equalises.
10 . . . d5
1 1 4:) Xc6 be
1 2 e5
4:) Xe4 1 5 fe t¥d4! + ) 1 4
t¥d4 =F
12 . . . 4je8
On 1 2 . . . 4jd 7? both 1 3 f4
(e.g. 1 3 . . . f6 1 4 e6 4jb6 1 5
f5 winning) a nd 1 3 e6 (Botvin­
nik) a re good for White.
N ot 1 3 ,ilh6 .1}, Xe5! 1 4
.1}, X f8 <i!f Xf8 a s B lack has
good play for the sacrificed
material .
A n interesting new move i s
1 3 g4!7 l}, Xe5 1 4 0-0-0 h g 1 5
fg t¥d6 1 6 h5 4Jg7 1 7 hg fg
1 8 t¥d 3 .§f6 1 9 .ild2 with a
promising attack. Pereira -
Pusenjak, YrF 1 1 th World
Corres C h .
13 . . f6
1 4 0-0-0
With this move White dissi­
pates his initiative. and for this
reason Botvinnik investigated
the pawn sacrifice 1 4 g4!7 hg
 5 Eighth Move Divergences
1 5 0-0-0. It seems that when
B lack has such a good share of
the centre he should be able to
provide enough distraction to
prevent White from contin uing
his attack; after 1 5 . . . fe 1 6 fe
�a5! the chances are about
even.
1 4 ef {) Xf6 15 0-0-0 .(;tf5
1 6 .(;td4 is devoid of any danger
for Black.
14 . . fe
Smyslov-Botvinnik, Match (9)
1 958, continued 1 5 fe .(;l.Xe5
16 g4 .(;l_Xg4 17 .(;l_Xg4 hg 1 8
h 5 g5! (Black must keep the
rook's file closed at all costs. )
1 9 .(;l. X g 5 �d6 20 § h4 {)f6!
(The tempting 20 . . g3 would
. §h4 39 �3 (Obviously not
be a fatal error: 2 1 §g4 �h8
22 j;tXe7! and White wins. 20
. . . jlf4 is not playable on
account of 2 1 � Xf4 �Xf4
22 �Xf4 § Xf4 23 {)e2 §a4
24 b3 § Xa2 25 �b 1 §a6 26
§ Xg4+ �h7 27 §g5 and
Black's king will soon be in
grave danger. Botvinnik states
'and Black has not a vestige of
an advantage:) 2 1 .Q_Xf6 �Xf6
22 § X g4+ �h8 23 �b 1 (If
23 § g6 jlf4! ) 23 . . . §g8
( Not 23 . . . §ab8 24 § g6!
§ Xb2+ 25 �a 1 ! ! ) 24 § b4
(24 § g6 leads to the better
ending for Black after 24 . . .
§ X g6 25 hg �g7 26 § h 1
41
§ h 8 27 § X h8 � X h 8 28
�h6 + �g8 29 �h 7+ �8 -
Botvinnik.) 24 . . . a5?! (24 . .
§ab8! would have been m uch
better, e.g . 25 §b3 § X b 3 26
ab �.f4 followed by . . . e5-e4
with a good game for Black.)
25 § b6 jlXc3 26 be §ab8
27 § X b8 § X b8 + 28 �a 1 !
§g8 29 �e3 §g4 30 a 3 ( N ot
30 �b2? §b4 + ) 30 . . . §e4
3 1 �d3 �e5 ( 3 1 . . . �d6 is
a ttractive but inferior beca use
of 32 �b2 §a4 33 §a 1 when
White's king is quite safe.) 32
�b2 §e3 33 �d4 � Xd4 34
cd �g7 35 § g 1 + �7 36 h6
§ h 3 37 § g 7 + �6 38 § h 7
39 § h8 § Xd4 40 h7 beca use
of 40 . . . �g7 when Black
wins.) 39 . . . § h 3 + 40 �b2
§ h4 YTY2 ·
E:
8 0-0 h5?
Bird's contin uation .
I f 8 . . . d 5 9 �b5! ± .
9 h3
Not 9 f3 h4 1 0 �d2 {)h5
1 1 {)d 5 e6 1 2 {)c3 {)g3 :j:
Reti-Breyer, Berlin 1 920.
9 . .�
. .(;td7
Ta rrasch - . 6ird , Hastings
1 895, co"n tinued 10 �d2 �c8
1 1 f4 �8 1 2 §ad 1 h4 1 3
{) Xc6 be 1 4 e5! ± .
6 Alekhi ne's 9 A g 5

N o variation of the C la ssical 9 ..Q..g 5 was played by Alek­

Dragon has undergone such a
transformation in recent years
as Alekhine's attacking idea
beginning with the move 9
..Q..g 5.
1 a4 c5 2 Ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cd 4
Ltl X d4 Ltlf6 5 Ltlc3 g6 6 ..Q..e2
..Q..g7 7 0-0 Ltlc6 8 Ltlb3 0-0
9 ..Q..g5 (29)
hine but it d id not receive the
mark of respectability until it
was employed with success by
the present World Champion
Anatoly Karpov. At the time of
writing (August 1 979) this move
is considered to be White's
strongest weapon against the
Cla ssical Dragon .

29 . . .. . �
B lack's funda mental problem
� .... i.
��··
- • in this line lies in the difficulty of
- .&.
8 . .. •. �
f.' '�� .&.
.. .&.
.. achieving adequate 0-side coun­
··�
. .. . g
- .
• terplay. We examine :
• • • A : 9 . . . ..Q..e 6
• . ft . • B : 9 . . . a5
C : 9 . . . a6
- �� . . 9 . . . .§.b81? is an interesting
.a. � x- .a. • 1\ r� .a. r�
a � � ..u.. •�u .u.. u idea that needs further testing .
� •�• � w Lein-Shirazi, Tiruchirapalli 1 97B
White has delayed the devel­ continued 1 0 f4 b5 1 1 a3 a 5
opment of this bishop until now 1 2 ..Q..f 3 b4 1 3 ab ab 1 4 Ltld5
so that it can be deployed on a Ltl Xd 5 1 5 ed itb6 + 1 6 'it;>h 1
more active square than the Ltld4 co
traditional e3. Amongst the 9 . . . ..Q..d7 is simply too
ideas inherent in the text move passive. After 1 0 'it;>h 1 .§.c8 1 1
are the conventional attack with f4, Black is almost totally devoid
f4. a nd the application of con­ of counterplay.
tinuing positional pressure with
an eventual Ltld5. A:

A 1 : 1 0 f4? !
A2: 1 0 �h 1 !
If 1 0 �d2 � 5 1 1 ..Q_h6
�c4 1 2 ..Q.. Xc4 ..Q.. X h6 (0r 1 2
. . . ..Q. X c4 1 3 ..Q_Xg7 � X g 7
1 4 §.fe 1 §cB 1 5 §e3 �c7
1 6 �d4 e5! 1 7 �f5 + gf 1 B
§ g 3 + �hB 1 9 �h6 �g4 20
§ X g4 Y2-Y2 Benko - Wexler,
Buenos Aires 1 960.) 1 3 �Xh6
lt Xc4 14 § fe 1 �b6 ro
Kuzmin - Tseshkovsky, M insk
1 976.
A1 :
1 0 f471
This move allows a tactical
finesse based on the fact that
the move . . . �b6 is now
check. Hence the preference
for variation B , 1 0 �h 1 .
10 . . . b5!
Possibly best. but other moves
have also been played recently:
a) 10 . . . �a5 1 1 f5 �c4 1 2
�h 1 §cB 1 3 Ad 3 ( 1 3 e5?!
J;l,Xe2 1lr � Xe2 - 14 �Xe2
de ,1 5 §ad1 �c 7 16 �Xf6
Jil.Xf6! 1 7 �d5 �c4 =F - 1 4
6 Alekhine's 9 JigS 43
. . . �e4 1 5 � Xa 5 � X g5 1 6
f6 wa s played i n one of the
Dolmatov-R istic games in the
1 977 USSR - Yugoslavia match,
and now, instead of 16 . . .
� Xa5? 1 7 fe! §feB 1 B ed
§ bB 1 9 �d3 ..Q..e 5 20 §ad 1
± . B lack should have played 1 6
. . . ef 1 7 � X b7 �e7 ro , or
1 7 . . . �b6 <ll ) 1 3 . . . b5 1 4
�e 1 ! (Weaker i s 1 4 �d2 b4
1 5 �e2 d5! 1 6 � Xa 5 � Xa 5
a nd now 1 7 ed? ! ..Q_Xd3! 1 B
� X d 3 � X d 5 =F Dolmatov­
R istic, USSR-Yugoslavia match
1 977; or 1 7 e5 �e4 1 B ..Q. Xe4
de 1 9 f6 ef 20 ..Q. Xf6 �d5 =
Sigurjonsson-Sosonko, Wijkaan
lee 1 977) 1 4 . . . a6 ( 1 4 . . .
b4 1 5 �d 1 d 5 1 6 e5! ±
Maka richev-Taborov, Da ugav­
pils 1 97B) 1 5 � Xa 5 �Xa5
16 �d5 �dB 17 ltXf6 ..Q.Xf6
1 B � Xf6+ ef 1 9 �h4 �g7
=F Zuyev-Taborov, Avangaa rd
Ch 1 97B.
b) 1 0 . . . �c8 1 1 �e 1 ( 1 1
�h 1 transposes to the main
line.) 1 1 . . . a5 12 a4 �b4 1 3
§c 1 � Xc2 1 4 § Xc2 ..Q. X b3
1 5 §c 1 �dB 1 6 �h4 with
attacking chances for the sacri­
ficed pawn . Bohosia n-Minev,
B u lgarian Ch 1 974.
1 1 Af3
1 1 jt X b5 �b6 + 1 2 �h 1
� Xe4 1 3 A Xc6 Z£) Xc3 1 4
be �Xc6 1 5 ..Q. Xe7 §feB 1 6
� X d6 � X d 6 1 7 lt X d 6
§ Xc3 1 B §ac 1 §.acB 1 9 .§f2
44 6 Alekhine's 9 !J.g5
�f5 + · following possibilities there re­
11 . . . �c4 mains scope for a wealth of
Or 1 1 .§c8 = Alekhine- original ideas a nd analysis.
Schmidt. 1 94 1 . a) 1 0 . . . !f)a5 1 1 !f)d5 �Xd5
1 2 .§e 1 .§c8 1 2 ed !f)e4 1 3 .Q.c 1 .§c8 1 4
1 3 )t>h 1 !f)d7 c 3 (Or 1 4 �f3 !f)c5 1 5 !£) Xc5
1 4 .§ b 1 a5 .§ Xc5 16 .§ b 1 !f)c4 17 b3
1 5 !f)d5 .§e8 !f)e5 1 8 �e2 ! ! ± La k -
16 �g4 .§ b8 CD Hjartarson, Norway 1 978) 1 4
Bogdanovic - P.Whitehead , . . . !f)c4 1 5 � Xc4 .§ Xc4 1 6
Lone Pine 1 978. '{fje2 '{ffc 7 1 7 .Q.e3 b 5 1 8
.§ad 1 .§a4 1 9 !f)c 1 '{fjb7 20
A2: f3 !f)f6 2 1 b3 ! / ± Byrne­
1 0 )t>h1 ! (3 1) Martin, Las Palmas 1 977.
b) 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 f4 b5 (Or 1 1
31 .. . . ••• . . . '{ffc 8 1 2 .Q.f3 .§ b8 1 3
•t•
8 • mf_@ - t ?< �- t
• ,. _ �
!f)d 5 ! Bjork-Duchenne, World
• • �
. ... . .... 3 t •
a •
• J unior Ch 1 978.) 1 2 .Q_f3 .§c8
. . . �� 1 3 !f)d 5! !f)d7 14 c3 !f)b6 1 5
B B ft . B '{fje2 !f)c4 1 6 .§ad 1 '{fjd7 1 7
- "Z...J ".-
/."'\ l1Z..J .§fe 1 ! Karpov-Ma rti n , La s
• . . -
4l- � 4l- • � ?.'4* 4l- ['�
Palmas 1 977.
.u. U .JJ. 8�� .u. � c) 1 0 . . . '{ffc8 1 1 f4 .§d8?!
� ·�· § ·� 1 2 �f3 .Q.c4 (Or 1 2 . . . �g4
Now White is ready for f4, 1 3 !f)d 5 �Xf3 1 4 '{fj Xf3
a nd B lack must act quickly !f) Xd 5 1 5 ed !f)b8 16 J1Xe7
otherwise he will be slowly .§d7 1 7 .§ael ± Matanovic.)
squashed . 13 .§f2 e6 14 .§d2 '{ffc 7 1 5
10 . . . a5 '{fje 1 h6 1 6 Jlh4 ± Karpov­
This thematic thrust has been M i les, Bad La uterburg 1 977.
Black's most popular choice, d ) 10 . . . !f)d7 (Giigoric con­
but it is not at all clear that it is siders this move to be best.) 1 1
his best. Virtually all the other f4 !f)b6 1 2 f5 �c4 1 3 a4 a6
Dragon - line moves have been 14 a 5...Q. Xe2 15 '{ff Xe2 !f)d7
tried in this position but no firm 1 6 .§ad 1 h6 1 7 �d2 !f) Xa 5
conclusion should be drawn 1 8 !f) X a 5 '{fJ X a 5 1 9 !f) d 5
from the results of the en­ '{fjd8 20 f g fg 2 1 !f)f4 '{fje8 22
counters beca use White, almost ,!£Je6 .§ Xf 1 + 23 .§ Xf 1 .§c8
inva riably, has been the strong­ 24 '{ffe 3 �f6 25 '{ff X h6 '{fjf7
er player by fa r. Within the 26 '{fjh3 ,!£Jf8 = Torre-Sosonko,

Bad La uterberg 1 977.
1 1 a4 �cB (32)
32
w is untested : 1 1
Black has also tried. though
without success :
a ) 1 1 . . . �d7 1 2 f4 �b6
(After 1 2 . . . -'1_ X b 3 1 3 cb
�c5 1 4 -'1_c4 -'1_Xc3 1 5 be
� Xe4 1 6 �h6 �f6 1 7 � XfB
\t> X fB 1 B �3 �b6 1 9 �ae 1
�dB 20 �b5! . Black has in­
sufficient compensation for the
exchange. Matanovic-Velimiro­
vic. Skopje 1 976.) 1 3 f5 (Also
possible is 1 3 �d2 �cB 1 4 f5
�d7 1 5 �c4 � X c4 1 6
..Q. Xc4 �e5 1 7 �b3 �c4 1 B
�d5 �eB 1 9 f6! ± Medina­
de Francisco. Caracas 1 977. )
1 3 . . . �c4 1 4 .Q. X c4 � Xc4
1 5 �e2! �b6 ( 1 5 . . . � X b2?
16 �d5 and c3. winning the
knight; or 1 5 �4e5 1 5
�d5 ± ) 1 6 �b5 �d4 1 7
� Xd4 .Q. Xd4 1 B �ad 1 �g7
1 9 �e3! �d7 20 �d 5 ±
Ka rpov-Sosonko, Bad Lauter­
burg 1 977.
b) 1 1 . . �c8 1 2 f4 �b4 1 3
. § Xc4 16 .Q. Xf6 .Q.Xf6 1 7 ed
-'1_f3 § d B 1 4 �d4 -'1_c4 1 5
§f2 e5 1 6 �db5 t¥c5 1 7
6 Alekhine 's 9 !J..g5 45
f! d 2 ± H .Oiafsson-Valvo, New
York 1 977.
c) There is also an interesting
idea of Averbakh's which as yet
. . . h61? 1 2
Jlh4 g5 1 3 Jlg3 d 5 (l) .
1 2 f4 �b4
No other move has been
tested in this position and the
text does indeed look logica l.
now that White's a-pawn is on
the fourth rank, but a nother
possibility is 1 2 . . . �b6,
a nalogous to van den Berg­
La rsen in va riation B. (9 �h 1 )
on page 1 3, e.g. 1 3 f5 -'1_Xb3
14 cb �b4, followed by
�d7 and �f6.
1 3 �d4
1 3 f5 should be met by 1 3
. . . Jl X b3 1 4 cb �d7 and not
1 3 . . . � Xe4?? 1 4 � Xe4
J1 Xf5 1 5 § Xf5! gf 1 6 �g3
± ± Lein - Levy, C ienfuegos
1 972.
13 . . . -'1_c4
1 4 �db5
This position was first reach ­
ed in Platonov-B uslayev, USSR
Spartakiad 1 967, and for ten
years no one could find a good
plan for Black.
14 . . t¥b6
Interesting, but possibly in­
sufficient. is 14 . . d5!?.
Ba lashov-Geller. Lvov 1 97B.
now contin ued : 1 5 .Q. Xc4
t¥bB 1 B t¥e2! f! Xf4 1 9 d6!
f! Xf 1 + 20 f! Xf 1 �dB 2 1
46 6 Alekhine 's 9 �5
§ d 1 ;;
1 5 ,ilh4
In the original Platonov -
B uslayev game White played
1 5 .il Xc4 § Xc4 1 6 'ffie 2
§feB 17 §ad 1 'ffic 5 1 B f5 a nd
now Black rushed off towards
e5 with 1 B . . . .:£lc6?, over­
looking 1 9 .il X f6 .il X f6 20 fg
hg 2 1 .:£l Xd6! ± ± . It remains
an open question whether or
not Black can improve on this
and utilize his strength on the c-
file to counter White's pressure
in the centre.
The text is designed to em­
barrass Black's queen.
15 . . . JtXe2
Feeble is 1 5 . . . 'ffic 5 1 6
,ild 3 §fd B 1 7 .ilf2 'ffih 5 1 B
Jtbp 'ffi Xd 1 1 9 § f X d 1 §fB
20 .:£la7 ± Karpov-Hernandez,
Las Palmas 1 977.
1 6 'ff1 Xe2 'ffic 5!
1 7 §ad 1 'ffic 4
1 B §fe 1 §feB
Intending . . . .:£lh5
1 9 'ff1 Xc4 § Xc4
20 .:£la3 § ccB
Still intending . . . .:£lh5!
2 1 e5 de
22 fe .:£lg4
23 ,ilg3 §ed B
After 2 3 . . . .:£lc6 2 4 .:£lc4
.:£lb4, it is not clear that White
can do better than 25 .:£la3,
with a draw.
24 h3 .:£lh6
25 §XdB+ § XdB
26 Af2 .:£lf5
27 §e4 §d2
2B �g 1
Gaprindashvili - Belyavsky,
Leningrad 1 977.
2B . . . g5!
M uch better than Belyavsky's
2B . . . 4Jc6? 29 g4!
29 � 1 ! ())
If 29 g4 {Jh4 30 .:£lc4
§ Xc2 3 1 .:£l Xa 5 § X b2 :f -
Tukmakov.
8:
9 ... a5 (33)
This move may transpose into
variation A, bu.t it has an inde­
pendent significance for two
reasons : White's f4 may not,
after a4, be answered by . . .
b5; and secondly, B lack may
choose not to develop his cB
bishop on e6.
1 0 a4
This must be best.
10 . . . .:£lb4
1 0 . . . ,ile6 1 1 �h 1 trans­
poses to A, while 1 1 'ffid 2 can
be met by 1 1 . . . §. cB 1 2
§ad 1 .:£le5! 1 3 .:£ld4 Ac4 1 4
{jdb5 JtXb5! 1 5 ab ific7 =

Vitolins - Georgad ze. USSR
1 976.
1 1 f4
The natural move. Vasyukov­
G ufeld, USSR 1 975, went 1 1
f!e 1 l},e6 1 2 �d4 f!c8 1 3
� Xe6 fe 1 4 f!a3 <;!i>hB 1 5 h4
�e8 CD .
11 . . . J}.e6
1 2 f5 Jld7
Here Black cannot try Lar­
sen's idea . 1 2 . . . l},Xb3 1 3
cb �b6 + 1 4 <;!i>h 1 �b4 be­
ca use the b4 square is a lready
occupied .
1 3 �d4 ! ! ±
White has a n ideal position .
Buturin-Boidman. USSR Armed
Forces Ch 1 978, contin ued : 1 3
. . . f!c8 1 4 J,te3 d5 1 5 e5
�e4 16 fg hg 17 �f3 � X c3
1 8 bc f! Xc3 1 9 J}.d 2 f!c8 20
�e 1 .Q.g4 2 1 �h4 �b6 + 22
<;!j>h 1 l}, Xf3 23 .§ Xf3 f! Xc2
24 f!h3 ±!± ± .
C:
9 ..
. a6 (34)
6 Alekhine's 9 Jl.g5 47
counterplay. As in variation B.
the c8 bishop waits at home
until its best square has been
decided .
1 0 f4
1 0 a4 j}_e6 1 1 f4 �a5 (The
difference - with no pawn on a5
Black can use the square for his
knight. ) 1 2 <;!?h 1 f! c8 1 3 f5
l}, X b3 1 4 cb f! Xc3! 1 5 be
� Xe4 1 6 f6 ef 1 7 -'l,f4 � Xc3
1 8 �d 3 f5 CD Dolmatov -
G ufeld , USSR 1 978.
10 . . . b5
1 1 -'l,f3 b4!
1 1 . . . -'l,b 7 1 2 <;!j>h 1 ( 1 2
�d5 ! ? ) 1 2 . . �d7 is a lso
playable, but less forceful : Tai­
Gufeld . USSR 1 977, contin ued :
1 3 �e 1 ( 1 3 a3 �b6 =) 1 3
. . . a5! 1 4 � X b5 a4 1 5 �d2
h6 1 6 l},h4 �c5! 1 7 �c4
Jla 6 1 8 �ba 3 �d4 ! . a nd
Black has more than enough
for the pawn .
1 2 �a4
1 2 �d5 � Xd 5 1 3 ed �a 5!
:f G ufeld .
-

12 . . . l},d 7!
1 3 a3
1 3 e 5 �e8 :f ·
13 . . f! bB :f
1 4 ab � X b4
15 <;!j>h 1
1 5 e5 de 1 6 �ac5 e4! ? CD .
15 . . . �c7
Also possible is 1 5 . . . .Q.,b5
1 6 f!e 1 �c7 1 7 �c3 l},c4.
An idea of Gufeld's, aimed at 1 6 �c3 Ae6
a rapid . . . b5 with immediate 1 7 �a 5
48 6 Alekhine 's 9 ilg5
Or 1 7 !fjd4 Ac4 1 8 §e 1 21 c3 § b5! + +
e5! + 0 Gofshtein - G ufeld , USSR
170 0 . §fd8! 1 9780
18 'if1e2 d5 From the little evidence avail­
19 ed able, 9 . . . a6 would currently
1 9 e5 d4! + 0 a ppear to be Black's best reply
19 . . . !fjf Xd5 to 9 i}.g50
20 !fj X d5 !fj Xd5
7 N i nth Move Divergences

After 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 9 h3 d5!

d4 cd 4 � X d4 �f6 5 �c3 Smyslov-Geller, USSR Team
g6 6 ,ile2 !J..g7 7 ,ile3 �c6 C up 1 974, went 9 . . . ,ild7 1 0
8 0-0 �b3 a 5 1 1 a4 �b4 (cf. E2.
8 ... 0-0 especially the note to Black's
35
. tenth move) 1 2 ,ilf3? ! (better
• •.t..•• •
t .t
1 2 f4 ,ilc6 1 3 ,ilf3 with a n
w -t�
� •- 0. liif.' ''�"' •
�·•
unclear position ) 1 2 . . . ,ile6!
�
-
· ·
� · r- � - t- •
��
. (if 1 2 . . . ,ilc6 1 3 �d5 ! ) 1 3
• �d4 (now if 1 3 �d5 �f Xd5
• � ft · • 14 ed !J_f5) 1 3 . . . !J_c4 1 4
•
.
B� Ll
" �. � • �
.§e 1 ( 1 4 ,ile2 immediately is
.Qo. � .Qo. .- � f� .Qo. �
�
a � a B.:L� A U
proba bly good enough for
equality) 1 4 . . . .§cB 1 5 !J..e 2
�d -
�� ..M,�
� '@ .
. l::!l l@l
�� d 5 ! ? 1 6 e5 (if 1 6 ed l£jf Xd5 1 7
White has : l£j Xd 5 l£j Xd5 with a n unclea r
A: 9 h3 position - Geller) 1 6 . . . l£je4
8: 9 f3 =F 1 7 ,ilg4 e6 1 8 f4 l£j Xc3 1 9
c : 9 <;!i>h 1 be l£ja6 20 l£j Xe6? (The com­
0 : 9 f4 bination is unsound . White
E : 9 �b3 should play 20 l£jb5 ! ? !J.. Xb5
For 9 �d 2 see Cha pter 4, 21 ab l£jc5 22 c4) 20 . . . fe 2 1
p. 26. ,i1 X e6 + <;!j>h8 22 ,i1 X c8
The first three variations (9 � Xc8 + White has at least
h 3, 9 f3 and 9 <;!i>h 1 ) a re insipid material equality but he has too
moves, each of which may be many weaknesses - especially
countered by liquidating the on the white squares a nd along
centre with . . . d5. the f-file - which Geller exploits
brilliantly : 23 �d4 �c7 24
A: �c5 �d7 25 �Xa5?! (25
50 7 Ninth Move Divergences
�ab 1 ! ? ) 25 . . . {Je6 26 �ab 1
itff7 27 ifja 7 Aa6 28 � bd 1
g5 29 fg J}_Xe5 30 .Q.f2 d4
+ + 3 1 Jlh4 Ab8 32 'iff b 6
itff4 33 g3 itff2 + 34 <it>h 1
Jle2 0- 1 .
1 0 ed
O r 1 0 {) Xc6 be 1 1 ed
{) X d 5 1 2 {) X d 5 cd 1 3 .Q.f3
.Q.a6 = Carlson-Helmertz. U .S.
Open Ch 1 978.
10 . . . {) Xd 5
1 1 {) X d 5 'ifj X d 5 1 2 .Q.f3
'ifja5! 1 3 {) Xc6 bc 1 4 .Q. Xc6
� b8 1 5 'ifjd 5 ifjc7 1 6 .Q.a4
.Q. X b2 1 7 �ad 1 Aa6 :f Rav­
insky-Lisitsin. 1 3th USSR Ch
1 944.
B:
9 f3 d5! ( N ot 9 . . . 'ifjb6. 1 0
{Ja4 followed by 1 1 c 4 and a
Ma roczy bind when White has
a good game.) 10 ed {) X d 5
1 1 {) X d 5 'if1 X d 5 = .
C:
9 <it>h1 d5
1 0 ed
After 1 0 {) Xc6 be 1 1 e5
{Jd7 1 2 f4 e6 followed by . . .
f6 Black will have undermined
White's centre a nd he then has
ncthing to fear.
10 . . . {) Xd 5
More interesting i s 1 0
{Jb4 1 1 d 6 'if1 Xd6 1 2 {Jdb5
'ifjb8 1 3 a4 .,klf5 1 4 {Ja3 �d8
Sampokw · -Masca rinas.
Wellington 1 978.
D:
9 f4 (36)
This holds up Black's normal
central thrust 9 . . . d5 beca use
then comes 1 0 e5! (White does
not now need to preface this
with the trade of knights which
strengthens Black's centre.)
9 . . . 'ifjb6
The inadequacy of White's
last move is highlighted . Black
threatens to win a pawn by 1 0
. . . {) X e4 a s well a s 1 0
'if1 X b2 and he i s putting pres­
sure along both the b6-g 1 a nd
g7-a 1 d iagonals. White must be
content to hold the balance.
9 . . .Q.e6 is obviously not
.
yet feasible.
Quieter development by 9
.. .Q.d7 1 0 <it>h 1 ( 1 0 'ifjd 2 is
.
a lso good . ) 1 0 . . . �c8 1 1
{Jb3 a 6 1 2 .Q.f3 ifjc7 a llows
White a spatial advantage by
1 3 {Jd 5 as in Euwe-La nda u.
Delft 1 940.
The a ttempt to exploit the
criss-crossing black diagona ls
by 9 .{Jg47 fails to 1 0
. .
 7 Ninth Move Divergences 51

.i}, X g4 .i},Xd4 (Not 1 0

.i}, X g4 1 1 � Xc6 winning a
piece) 1 1 .i},Xd4 �Xg4 1 2
�d2! threatening 1 3 f5! as in
Lasker-Golmayo, match 1 S93.
We now consider :
0 1 : 1 0 �f5?
·, ·-·
1 r .>·J�,
0 2 : 1 0 �d2?
03: 10 �4
0 4 : 1 0 �d 3
0 5 : 1 0 e5!? 10 . . . �g4
U ntil very recently it was
01 : thought that 1 0 . . . �Xb2 is a
1 0 �f5? loses to 1 0 . . , near fatal error beca use of 1 1
� X b2 1 1 �a4 �a 3 1 2 c3 a3. and if 1 1 . �b6 1 2 �e6
. .

� Xe4! 13 jtc 1 � Xc3 1 4 ± ± . Now this assessment must

.i}, Xa 3 � Xd 1 1 5 � Xg7 �e3. be revised following an interest­
ing in novation from a game
02: played in Pola nd : ( 1 1 a 3) � Xe4
1 0 �d2? loses a pawn after 1 2 � Xc6 ( 1 2 �4? � Xd4!
10 . . . � Xe4! 11 � Xe4 1 3 ..Q.Xd4 ..Q.Xd4+ 14 �h 1
jt Xd4. �f2 + 1 5 .§. Xf2 .i}, Xf2 =t ) 1 2
. . . � Xc3 1 3 � Xe7 + �hS
03: 1 4 ..Q.f3 .§.eS J 5 � X eS
1 0 �a4 can lead after .§.a XcS 1 6 .i},Xa7� 5 1 7 �h 1
a ) 1 0 . . �a5 to a repetition
. b6 1 S .§.ae 1 �gS 1 9 �a6
of moves by 1 1 �c3 �b6 1 2 �e4?! 20 .i},Xe4! de 2 1 .§. X e4
�a4 �Xc2 22 .§. XeS + .§. XeS 23
b) 1 0 . .�b4 1 1 c3 �a5 1 2
. .i}.Xb6 �c6! 24 a4 .§aS Y2 - Y2
b4 �c7 1 3 �f3 ,ild7 1 4 .§.c 1 Wach-Oiey, Poland 1 973.
( Pospisii-Aister. C zechoslovakia Better than 1 1 a 3 is 1 1
1 949) 1 4 . . . .§.abS! to a .§. a b 1 �a3 1 2 � Xc6 be 1 3
complicated game which is �d5 � X d 3 1 4 � Xe 7 + �hS
promising for Black. = 1 5 cd (Thomson-Levy, Scottish
+ Ch 1 974) and now Black's
04: safest course is 1 5 ..Q.g4
1 0 �d3 (37) with equal chances.
This is White's simplest Now White has :
course. exchanging into an even 04 1 : 1 1 �d 5
ending . 042 : 1 1 .i}, Xg4
52 7 Ninth Move Divergences
041 : 042:
1 1 {j d5 1 1 .Q. X g4 .Q.Xd4
This allows Black to sacrifice Naturally not 1 1 . . . c£) Xd4
his queen for three active minor 12 {jd5 ! �c5 13 .Q. Xc8 when
pieces. White wins material .
11 . . . JlXd4 1 2 .Q. Xd4 � Xd 4 +
12 {J X b6 1 3 � Xd4 c£) Xd4
Or 1 2 J1 X g4 .Q. X e 3 + 1 3 1 4 .Q. Xc8 .§a XeS 1 5 .§f2
� Xe3 � X b2 1 4 .Q. X c8 \f/g7 16 .§d 1 .§c4 1 7 .§fd2
.§a Xc8 1 5 .§ab 1 � Xa2 1 6 e5 1 8 .§ f 1 f5 = Mestrovic­
.§ X b 7 e6 when White does Hartston, Orebr6 1 966 .
not have quite enough for the
pawn . 05:
12 . . . .Q.Xe3+ 1 0 e5!7
1 3 \f/h 1 This, the Zollner Gambit
Not 1 3 � Xe3 c£) Xe3 1 4 leads to slightly obscure compli­
{J Xa8 {J Xf 1 1 5 .I}.Xf 1 f5! =t cations at the end of which
de Jong - Ragman, Match 1 933. Black has an extra pawn, and
13 .I}. X b6 White some, but not enough ,
1 4 .I}. X g4 .I}.Xg4 compensation .
1 5 f5 10 . . . de
After 1 5 c3 -'l,e6 16 f5 {je5 1 1 fe c£) Xe5
1 7 �g3 .Q.c4 Black's pieces N ot 1 1 . . . .§d8 1 2 ef
are bea utifully placed , Paulson­ .Q. X f6 1 3 .§ Xf6! ef 1 4 {ja4
Wei!. M unich 1 936. .§ Xd4 1 5 c£) X b6 .§ Xd 1 + 1 6
15 . . . gf ! .§ X d 1 ab 1 7 a 3 ! ± Veresov.
1 2 {jf5 (38)
-

1 5 . . . .l}.h5 ! is a lso good for

Black : Horowitz - Reshevsky,
New York 1 95 1 , continued 1 6
.§ae 1 {je5 1 7 �h3 f6 1 8
�h4 -'l,g4!
1 6 ef {je5
1 7 �g3 \f/h8 1 8 �h4 .Q.d8
1 9 .§ae 1 e6 20 f6 -'l,f5 + va n
den Bosch-Landau, Amsterdam
1 939. One of the points of
Black's queen 'sacrifice' is that
the Dragon pawn formation
forms an impregnable barrier to
the white queen .
 7 Ninth Move Divergences
053: 1 2 . . . � Xb2!
051 :
If 1 2 . �d8 simply 1 3
. .
� X d 8 § Xd 8 1 4 � Xe7 +
�8 (Or 1 4 . . . \t>h8 1 5 Ag5)
1 5 .Q.c5 ± Alekhine .
- �c5 + 20 \t>h 1 �cd 6 +
052:
12 . . . �e6
It seems that White can gain
the upper hand after this move.
1 3 � Xg7 \!( X g7
1 4 �d 2
a n d now :
a ) 1 4 . . . �eg4 1 5 .Q.d4 �d 7
( Romatti - de Ronde, B uenos
Aires 1 939) 1 6 jt X g4 � X g4
1 7 § Xf6! ef 1 8 �d5 winning
- Alekhine .
b) 1 4 . . . �g87 1 5 �b5 �d 7
1 6 �c3! with a great advan­
tage. Kramer - Euwe, match
1 940.
c) 1 4 . . . \!fg8 1 5 §ae 1 �c6
when :
c 1 ) If 1 6 ,.ktd 3 �d7 1 7 h 3
� h 5 1 8 � 2 �g7 1 9 �h4
�dB 20 �e4 f6, Nezhmet­
d i nov - Pogrebisky, YTF USSR
Ch 1 949, Black can cope with
all the threats and should realise
his extra pawn .
c2) White should continue with
1 6 .Q.f31 �d7 1 7 �2 followed
by �h4 when Black's defensive
resources are rather strained .
053:
12 . . . � X b21
53
1 3 �Xe 7+ \t>h8
1 4 Ad4
Not :
a ) 1 4 �d27 Ae6! 1 5 §ab 1
�a3 1 6 § X b7 .§fd8 1 7 �e 1
�e4! 1 8 �d 1 �c4 1 9 .Q.f4
Sanguinetti - Marini, 1 954.
b) 1 4 � X c87 � Xc3! 1 5 jtd4
(Or 1 5 �d4? � Xc8 1 6 � Xe5
�h 5 followed by . . . .Q. X a 1 )
1 5 . . . �XeS 1 6 jt Xe5 §dB
17 jtd4 (On 1 7 § Xf6? �c5 +
1 8 Ad4 § Xd4 + + ) 1 7 . . .
�e4 1 8 A X g 7 + \!(Xg7 1 9
�e 1 �c5 + 20 \t>h 1 � Xc2 +
White has insufficient compen­
sation for two pawns.
14 . . . �b4!
This move represents the
start of a sequence which dis­
proves the old H ungarian adage
'It isn't safe to take the b-pawn
even when it is safe to do so:
14 . . . �g8 is not so clea r :
1 5 �b5! �b4 1 6 �d5 �a4
1 7 §f4! g5 1 8 §e4 f6 1 9
� Xf6! and now :
a ) 1 9 . . . �c67 20 Ac3! !
�a6 2 1 � X h7 �b6 + 22
\t>h 1 §f5 (Or 22 \!( X h7
23 Ad 3 Af5 24 �h 5 + Ah6
25 §e6 ! ! ) 23 � X g5! .Q.Xc3
24 § h 4 + \!(g7 25 § h 7 +
� 8 2 6 � Xc 3 § X g 5 27
.Q_h 5! §f5 28 �g4 followed
by �g6 winning, Stalingrad -
Saratov, telegraph game 1 948.
b) 1 9 jt X f6 20 § Xe5
§ d B ! 2 1 §e4 .Q.d4 + 22
54 7 Ninth Move Divergences
§ Xd4 § Xd4 23 tL) Xd4 .Q_d7
when. instead of 24 tl:)f3, as
played in Aratovsky-l livitsky,
RSFSR corres 1 94S, 24 �d2
followed by �c3 and .Q.,f3
would have given White a
positional plus.
Also dubious is 14 . . . tl:)fg4
, unsound . B lack wins by 1 5 . . .
threatening to simplify by . . .
tl:)e3. Castro - Rogoff, G ra z
1 972 continued : 1 5 tl:)ed 5
(better 1 5 § b 1 ! �a 3 1 6
tL) XeS) 1 5 . . . �a3 1 6 tl:)b5
�a5 1 7 h3 tl:)h6 1 S §f6!
tl:)c6 19 .Q.,c3 �dS. and now
White's best continuation is 20
§d6! when according to Rogoff
the complications should lead
to a draw.
1 5 .Q.Xe5
Instead :
a ) 1 5 tl:)(either)d5 4J Xd 5 1 6
4J Xd 5 � X d 4 + 1 7 � X d 4
4Jf3 + wins for B lack.
b) 1 5 4J X c8 is a lso inferior
beca use of :
b1) 15 . . . § d8 1 6 4Jb5
§a XeS 1 7 c3 �e7 1S tl:) Xa7
§ Xc3! 19 �e 1 (Or 19 4Jb5
4Je4 20 �a4 §ccS 2 1 .Q_b6
tl:)c4 22 .Q. X c4? .Q.Xa 1 23
§ Xa 1 �6 24 .Q_d4 § Xd4 0-
1 Samarian - Roele. M unich
1 942) 1 9 . . . §c2 20 .Q.d 1
§ Xd4 2 1 A X c 2 �c5 22
�h 1 4JgS 23 llb3? �Xa7 24
itXf7 4Je7! and Black consoli­
dates his position. Pa lda-Galia .
Schlechter Memorial Tourney,
Vienna 1 947.
b2) 1 5 . . § a X eS 1 6 .Q.Xe5
.
(Or 16 § b 1 �e7 + ) 16 . . .
§fdS 1 7 l;)_Xf6 .Q_ Xf6! a nd
Black has a distinct positional
adva ntage in addition to his
extra pawn .
c ) 1 5 § X f6 is flashy but
.Q_ Xf6 1 6 4Jed5 tl:)f3 + ! 1 7
.Q_Xf3 � Xd4+ a nd his material
advantage is decisive.
15 . . . � Xe7
1 6 �d4
The only way to maintain any
pressure. White loses after both :
a ) 1 6 .Q_ X f67 l;)_Xf6 1 7 4Jd5
�c5 + a nd
b) 1 6 l;td6 �e3 + 1 7 )!th 1
� Xc3.
16 . . . tl:)h5
Not 1 6 . . . §dS? 17 l;). X f6
§ Xd4 1 S l;)_ Xe7 §d7 1 9
l;tf6! winning a piece.
1 7 .Q.Xg7+ tl:) Xg7
1S .Q.d3
This deprives Black's bishop
of its best square (f5) and is
probably stronger than 1 S tl:)d 5
�d 6 1 9 §ad 1 .Q.e6 when
White's compensation is in­
sufficient.
1S . . . l;).e6 (39)
This position is rather difficult
to assess. White has some
attacking cha nces based on the
weak dark squares near B lack's
king and on the pin of the Black
knight. On the other hand . Black
is a pawn ahead and his major
pieces have many open lines at
 7 Ninth Move Divergences 55

9 • • • •
f 4 a 6 1 1. g 4 ! a n d i f 1 1
• �h8 1 2 g5 4)g8 1 3 f5 �e5
3 . • ! . ll i . i
w • •.a.• t •
1 4 '1¥Ye 1 .

• • • • E2:
• m • • 9 ... a5 (40)
d
• liZJ..l!L.
� /\ · d d
-�
40
ft B ft B B ft H
� -
� �. - �-�Fl i't4
� w
their disposal. All in all. I con­
sider that Black has the better
chances. but there has not yet
been any practical experience
with this possibly crucial vari­
ation.
Alekhine's move. which he
E: introduced with success in his
9 4j b3 game with Spielmann at Mar­
The 'normal' position . 94)b3 gate 1 938.
is played in order to hold up 1 0 a4
Black's central break . . . d5. White must allow his b4 to
Black has two main plans : be weakened in this way, other­
either to try to force the thematic wise the further advance of
break . . . d5. or to play on the Black's a-pawn is likely to cause
0-side with . . . �e6. . . . 4ja 5 his some emba rrassment. e.g . :
and . . . �c4; or . . . a5 to a ) 1 0 h3 7 a 4 1 1 4jd4 a 3 1 2 b3
weaken White's 0-flank. -«ra5 1 3 4)db5 �d7 14 -«rd2
Now: 4jb4 1 5 4jd4 §fc8 :f Mia g­
E 1 : 9 . . . �d7 masuren-Soos. Varna 1 962.
E 2 : 9 . . . a5! b) 1 0 a3 a4 (Or 10 . . . �e6
E 3 : 9 . . . �e6! 1 1 f4 a4 1 2 f5 gf 1 3 ef �Xf5
14 § Xf5 ab 1 5 cb -«rd7 1 6
E1 : �d3 § a 5 :f Fries - N ielsen -
9 . . . �d7 Ristic. Gra z 1 978. ) 1 1 4jd4 d 5
This is too passive. Black 1 2 ed 4) Xd 5 1 3 4j Xd 5 -«rXd5
must play actively to engage 14 �f3 �a5 15 4J Xc6 (Or 1 5
the white pieces. otherwise � X c6? be 1 6 4) Xc6 �c7 + )
White can easily set in motion a 1 5 . . . be 1 6 .Q. Xc6 §a6 :f
pawn storm on the K-side : 1 0 Berkov-Goldberg. USSR 1 939.
56 7 Ninth Move Divergences
c ) The slow evasive 1 0 4jd2 is
easily handled : 10 . . . �e6 1 1
4jc4 b5 1 2 4j Xb5 4j Xe4 1 3
4jd4 {J Xd4 1 4 �Xd4 .§b8
1 5 .Q.Xg7 <iff X g7 16 �d4 +
{Jf6 1 7 .§ad 1 �c7 1 8 b 3
.§fc8 :j: Kopayev - Averbakh ,
USSR 1 952.
10 . . . �e6
1 0 . . . {Jb4 should be met
by 1 1 f4 when :
a ) 1 1 . . . Ae6 produces a
position similar to many in vari ­
ation A 1 . cha pter 9, p.69, but
with the important difference
that here Black's queen is on d8
instead of c8 and therefore after
1 2 f5 the reply 1 2 . . . .Q.c4 is
impossible.
b) 1 1 . . . .Q.d7 1 2 .Q.f3 �c8
1 3 h 3 Ae6 (what else?) a nd
Black is a tempo behind vari­
ation D3. p.75; Janosevic -
Fuderer, Yugoslavia 1 95 1 , con­
tin ued 1 4 4jd4 Ac4 1 5 .§f2
.§d8 1 6 .§d2 {Jd7 and now
1 7 4jdb5 would have given
White the advantage .
Now White has :
E2 1 : 1 1 f4
E22 : 1 1 {Jd4
E21 :
1 1 f4 .§c8
1 1 . . . �c8 tra nsposing into
Tartakower's line (va riation A 1 ,
chapter 9. p.69) i s Black's most
solid line.
On 1 1 . . . {Jd7 there can
follow :
a ) 1 2 f5? � X b3 1 3 cb 4jc5
1 4 �c4 4je5 1 5 .Q.d5 .§c8
when B lack has the initiative.
Denes - Troianescu, B ucharest
1 960.
b) 1 2 �d2 �Xb3 1 3 cb 4jc5
1 4 � X c5 de 1 5 � X d 8
.§a X d 8 = Beni - Trifunovic,
Helsinki 1 952.
c ) 1 2 .Q.f3 {Jb4 transposing
into Bronstein-Korchnoi. Lenin­
grad 1 959. (See chapter 3,
variation B. p.22.
1 2 f5 _ll Xb3
Or 12 . . . �d7 13 g4 {Je5
1 4 {Jd 2 .Q.c6 1 5 g5 {Jfd7 1 6
�e 1 f6 1 7 h 4 {Jc5 1 8 �g3 ±
Nei-Ragozin . USSR 1 952.
1 3 cb {Jb4
Despite the central pawn
majority and good squares at
e5 and b4 Black has very little
creative play and the two
bishops give White some advan­
tage.
1 4 �c4! {Jd 7
Not 1 4 . . . {J Xe4 1 5 fg hg
16 .§ Xf7! .§ Xf7 1 7 .Q.Xf7+
<ift X f7 18 {J Xe4. when Black
has many weaknesses.
1 5 �e2!
This is stronger tha n 1 5 {Jd5
{J Xd5 1 6 .Q. X d 5 {Jf6 1 7
.Q. X b7 .§ b8 1 8 Ac6 .§ b4! +
Janosevic - Averbakh. Titovo
Uzice 1 966.
15 . {Je5
Liberzon - Pavlenko. USSR
Armed Forces Ch 1 968 con­
tin ued : 16 Jl,b5! 4:)a6 1 7 {Jd5
 7 Ninth Move Divergences
.£)c5 1 S �g5 f6 1 9 �e3 g5
20 .§a3, and the l ight-square
weaknesses in B lack's position
ensured White a n adva ntage.
E22:
1 1 .£)d4 d5!
Alekhine's continuation. Also
possible is 1 1 . . . .£) Xd4 1 2
JlXd4 a nd now :
a) 12 . . . 'tfJc7 1 3 .§e 1 .§acS
1 4 Jld3 �c4 1 5 e5 de 1 6
J1 Xe5 'tfJc6 1 7 � Xc4 'tfJ Xc4
1 S 't!Jf3 't!Jb4 1 9 h3 .§fdS 20
'tf1e2 e6 2 1 .§a3 .£)d5 (Tolush­
Kitayev, corres 1 967) 22
-'l_ X g7! ±
b) 1 2 . ..§c8 1 3 f4 �c4 1 4
. 1 94 1 .
.§f2 e 5 when, for the offered
pawn, Black obtains active play,
Tolush-Rovner, Leningrad C h
1 939.
c) 1 2 . . . .£)d7 is recommen­
ded by G ufeld and Lazarev.
Exchanging knights in the
centre is too simplifying a nd
does not give White enough
opportunity to go wrong . 1 1
. . . d 5 ! only leads to equality, it
is true, b ut it does set White a
few problems on the way.
1 2 .£) Xe6
1 2 ed Jl X d 5 1 3 .£) Xd 5
� Xd 5 1 4 � Xc6 b e was
played in Spielmann-Aiekhine,
Margate 1 93S, which continued
1 5 �d4 e5 1 6 Jlc5 .§eS 1 7
.Q.c4 'tf1c7 1 S c 3 ( Not 1 S
JlXd5 cd 1 9 'UJ X d 5 .§adS 20
't!Jc4 .§cS) 1 S .§adS 1 9
57
'tf1c2 e4! (sim ulta neously i n ­
creasing Black's space, vacating
the useful e5 square and pre­
venting b4.) 20 .§ad 1 'tf1e5 2 1
.§fe 1 't!Jh 5! (By attacking the
rook at d 1 B lack indirectly
defends the adva nced e-pawn
a nd keeps his queen actively
placed . ) 22 'tf1e2 'tf1 Xe2 23
§ Xe2 .§bS 24 Jla3 �.fS 25
Jl XfS �XfS 26 .§ed2 Y2-Y2·
12 . . . fe
1 3 ed � Xd 5 !
Not 1 3 . . . ed? 1 4 � b 5 e5
1 5 c3, e.g . :
a) 1 5 . �h8 1 6 't!Jb3 !
. .
Horowitz-Reshevsky, New York
b) 15 . . 'tfJe7 1 6 't!Jb3 �hS
.
1 7 .§ad 1 .§adS 1 S Jlb6 !
Franke-Meyer, corres 1 959.
C) 16 . ..§f7 1 6 'itb3 .§d7
.
17 f4 -tte 7 1S .§ae 1 e4? 1 9
g 4 'l6-e6 20 f 5 gf 2 1 gf with
attacking chances for White,
Wason-Castaldi, corres.
B ut instead of 1 4 . . . e5
B lack ca n try the new move 1 4
. . . e6, a s in Hallberg -
Sundstedt Sweden 1 97S: 1 5
c3 .§f7 with roughly equal
chances.
1 4 Jld 2!
After this straightforwa rd
move, in the opinion of G ufeld
a nd Laza rev, Black has in­
sufficient compensation for his
pawn wea knesses.
If 1 4 Ag4 .£) Xe3 1 5
AXe6+ �hS 1 6 fe �b6 :j: -
58 7 Ninth Move Divergences
Boleslavsky. or . . . �c4;
c) It prepares . . . �c8 (threat­
E3: ening �g4/.Q.g4) followed by
either . . . §dB (playing for . . .
d5) or . . . a 5 with play on the
O-wing.
Now White has :
E3 1 : 1 0 h 3
E32 : 1 0 f3
E33 : 1 0 f4!

E31 :
1 0 h3 d 5 1 1 ed � X d 5 1 2
� Xd5 �Xd5 13 � Xd 5
The main line. .Q. X d 5 =
Despite the fact that 9
a 5 gives good chances of equal­ E32:
ising, the text has been the 1 0 f3 d5 1 1 ed � Xd 5 1 2
reply almost inva ria bly seen � Xd 5 �Xd5 13 � Xd 5
from the normal position. The .Q. X d 5 =

reason for this is that those

who play the Dragon usua l ly do
so beca use it prod uces lively
games in which the tactics very
often go in B lack's favour. 9
. . . .Q.e6 keeps more pieces on
the board than 9 . . . a 5 (a nd
its exchanging sequence start­
ing with 1 1 . . . d 5 ! ), a nd hence
E33:
1 0 f41
This is the only reasonable
way to hold up the equalising
. . . d5.
B lack now has two sa tis­
factory moves :
1 0 . . �aS which is covered
in chapter 8, starting on p. 60.
.

it gives White, if he is not well­

versed in Dragon theory, more 1 0 . �c8 which is dealt with
. .

opportunity to flounder i n the in chapter 9, sta rting on p. 69.

complications. Alternatives a re :
The purpose of 9 . . . �e6 is a) 10 . d51 1 1 f5! and now:
. .

threefold : a 1 ) 1 1 . . . .Q.c8 1 2 ed �b4

a ) It prepares the centre break
. . . d5.
b ) It gives B lack the option of
using his c4 square through
. . . ClJa5 followed by . . . .Q.c4
1 3 fg hg 14 .Q.f3 �f5 1 5 �d4
�b Xd5 1 6 � Xd 5 � Xd 5 1 7
.Q. X d 5 � Xd 5 1 8 � Xf5 wins.
a2) 1 1 . . . gf 1 2 ef .Q.c8 1 3 g4
with a great adva ntage.
 7 Ninth Move Divergences 59

b ) 1 0 . . 'f/Jd7 7 1 1 'f/Je 1 ±
. � X b 2 ! ? ( 1 6 . . . � Xe3! ).
c) 1 0 . . §. c8 has now com­
. d) 10 . .. b517 1 1 f5 b4? ( 1 1
pletely disappeared from master . . . .Q. X b3 1 2 ab b4 ! l 1 2 fe
praxis; Ra uzer-Chekhover, 8th be 1 3 ef + )!(h8 1 4 be �e5 1 5
USSR Ch 1 933, went 1 1 h 3 a6 .Q.d4 ± Spassky-Miles. B ugojno
1 2 'f/Jd2 b5 1 3 .Q.f3 �d 7! 1 4 1 978.
'f/Jf2 � 5 1 5 g4? �c4! 1 6 f5
8 Ma roczy's 1 0 ... 4Ja 5

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cd 4 give White no joy.

� X d4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 ..Q,e2
!J..g7 7 !J..e3 �c6 8 0-0 0-0 9 A:
�b3 ..Q,e6 1 0 f4 1 1 e5 �e8 1 2 �d5 � X b3
10 . . . �a5 (42) ( 1 2 . . . �c6 1 3 ed 'i!;YXd6 1 4
c 4 ± ) 1 3 a b d e 1 4 ..Q.f3 ef 1 5
42 -.•· � )WJ �--
�·· �
� Xf4. a nd now 1 5 . . . �d6
w f•�t• • • f411 t t consolidates Black's extra pawn .
•
. f -�J.· -t• .
?8
(Hotchkiss-Dimock. postal game
•
� � � ��
• • 1 934. went : 1 5 . . . 'i!;Y X d 1 ?
• · ft � • 1 6 § f X d 1 !J_f5 1 7 �d5 ± )
.4J[j �-� •
oll- � oll- �"x � �."' oll- r�. B:
.u. u � w��• .u. u
�d '»• /ff;'f,.M,m; � i'4f'\
g • t:;j, l@l
',�; 1 1 !J_d4 �c8 1 2 !J.. X a7
� Xc3! 1 3 be � Xe4 14 ..Q,d4
This move, initiating 0-side � Xc3 1 5 !J.. X c3 !J.. Xc3 1 6
counterplay based on either . . . � b 1 �c6, and Black's active
�c4 or . . . !J_c4. was first pieces give him excellent play
played in the game Marco - for the sacrificed material .
Maroczy, Monte Carlo 1 903. Rabinovich & llyin-Zhenevsky -
After 10 . . . �a5 White has Levenfish & Ragozin, Leningrad
A : 1 1 e5 1 933.
B : 11 !J_d4
C : 1 1 � Xa5 C:
D : 11 �d4 t 1 � X a5 *Xa5
E : 11 g4 12 !J_f3
F: 1 1 f5 1 2 'i!;Yd 2 produces a level
The most usual move has position. e .g . 1 2 . . . §ac8 1 3
been 1 1 f5. The other alterna ­ �ad 1 ( 1 3 �d5? '[WXd2 1 4
tives. however plausibie, should � Xe7 + �h8 1 5 !J_Xd2
 8 Maroczy's 1 0 . . . /i}a5
.§ Xc2) 1 3 . . . .§fe8 1 4
.�..f 3 ( 1 4 ..Q.d4 ..Q.c4) 1 4
.§c4 1 5 'ifle2 .§ec8 = / �
G uima res-Kiauser, Switzerland
1 977-8.
12 . . . ..Q.c4
1 3 .§e 1
If 1 3 .§f2 .§fd8 1 4 �d2
�c7 1 5 b3 ..Q.a 6 1 6 §d 1
.§ac8 1 7 4:)d5 4:) Xd5 1 8 ed
..Q.c3! + Treybai-Foltys, Czecho­
slovakia 1 940.
13 . . . .§fd8
14 �d2 �c7
1 5 §ac 1
More active is 1 5 �2.
15 . . . e5!
1 6 fe
Not 1 6 b3? d 5 ! e .g . :
a ) 1 7 ed e4! 1 8 be ef 1 9 c5
�a5 20 .§ed 1 ( 20 �d3 ! b6! )
20 . . . 4Jg4! 2 1 ..Q.d4 f2 + 22
<itlf 1 ( 22 �h 1 .§ X d 5 ! 23
.:tJ Xd5 f � =�+ ) 22 . . . �6+
23 �2. ..Q. Xd4! 24 .§ Xd4
�6 25 § cd 1 *h4 26 *d3
§e8 27 § e4 f5 28 §e6
4:) Xh 2 + 29 �2 * Xf4 Q- 1 ,
Rauzer-Botvinnik, 8th USSR Ch
1 933.
b ) 1 7 fe 4:) Xe4 1 8 ..Q. X e4 de
1 9 �2 ..Q.Xe5 20 .:tJ Xe4 f5
� 11 . . .
c ) 1 7 4:) X d5 ..Q.Xd5 1 8 ed e4!
19 ..Q.e2 4:) Xd 5 +
16 . . . de
1 7 �2 b6
1 8 g4 h6 =
D:
61
1 1 4:)d4 ..Q.c4 1 2 ..Q.d3 §c8
1 3 'itrf3 (Yudovich - Ragozin,
M oscow-Leningrad 1 933) 1 3
. . . e5 1 4 .:tJde2 d5!? 1 5 fe
4Jd7 � -
E:
1 1 g4 ..Q.c4
Not 1 1 . . . .:tJc4? 1 2 ..Q.d4!
§c8 (if 1 2 . . . 4:) Xb2 1 3 *c 1
4:)c4 1 4 f5 with a winning
attack) 1 3 f5 ..Q.d7 14 g 5 .:tJe8
1 5 ..Q.Xg7 .:tJ Xg7 (if 1 5 . . .
� X g7 1 6 f6 + ! ef 1 7 gf +
.:tJ Xf6 1 8 *d4 4:)e5 1 9
* Xd6 ± ) 1 6 f6! ef 1 7 gf 4:)e8
1 8 .:tJd 5 with a big plus.
Geszosz-Pribyl. Decin 1 973.
1 2 ..Q.d 3 4:) X b3
Better is 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 g5
.:tJh5
1 3 ab ..Q.Xd3
14 cd h5 1 5 h3 d5 16 .§a4! de
1 7 de h g 1 8 e5 .:tJh 7 19 hg g5
20 .§d4 �b6 2 1 .:tJd5 �e6
22 .:tJc7 with a clear advantage.
Mangini-Rojahn, Helsinki 1 952.
F:
1 1 f5
This move gives White the
best attacking chances.
..Q.c4
Alternatives are clearly out of
the question, e.g. :
a ) 1 1 . . gf? 1 2 ef ..Q.c4 1 3 g4
.
j ust helps 'Nhite's attack.
b) 1 1 . . . ..Q.d7 1 2 e5! de 1 3
fg hg ( 1 3 . . . 4:) X b3 1 4 gh +
± ) 1 4 .:tJ Xa 5 *Xa 5 1 5 .§ Xf6
62 8 Maroczy's 1 0
±± b ) 1 3 . . . del 1 4 � Xd 8
After 1 1 . . . ,ilc4 White has §f Xd8 1 5 4j Xa 5 .Q. Xe2 1 6
the following alternatives : 4J Xe2 § X c 2 1 7 §fd 1 Aitken­
F 1 : 1 2 fg Footner. British C h Whitby
F2 : 1 2 g4 1 962, a nd now 1 7
F3 : 1 2 4j Xa5 § Xd 1 + 1 8 § Xd 1 4J X g4
F4: 12 ,ild3 leaves White without a satis­
F5: 1 2 �h 1 factory line, e.g. 1 9 §d8+ .Q.f8
20 f6 ef 2 1 .Q.Xa7 �g7 22 h 3
§ X e 2 23 hg § X b2 a nd
F1 : B lack's pawn mass is over­
1 2 fg leads to equality after whelming - Golombek.
1 2 . . . hg 1 3 e5 ,il Xe2 1 4 13 . . . .Q. Xe2
itf Xe2 d e 1 5 'itfb5 4j X b3 1 6 1 4 'itf Xe2 4jc4 =
ab b6.

F3:
F2: 1 2 4J X a5 .Q. Xe2
1 2 g4 1 3 'if1 Xe2
This dangerous-looking move Or 1 3 4j X b7 ,il X d 1 1 4
was first introd uced in Milner­ 4j Xd8 ,il Xc2 1 5 4jc6 §fe8
Barry - Foltys, Buenos Aires 1 6 fg hg = Lasker-Riumin,
Olympiad 1 939. Moscow 1 936.
12 . . . §c8! 13 . . . 'itfa5
After 1 2 . . . 4jd77 White 1 4 g4 (43)
can transpose into variation F35
by 1 3 4j Xa 5 ,ilXe2 1 4 � Xe2 43 •• • • •
'itf Xa 5 1 5 4jd 5. 1 2 . . . ,il Xe2 B • .t • • .t • .t
1 3 'itf Xe2 4jd7 1 4 4j Xa 5 . f-
• • .t •
� - .
'itf X a 5 1 5 4jd 5 i s inferior for -
i• • •
• •a •
41- .
B lack. • · ft · ft ·
� "
. �. � . � .
1 3 JtXa7!
�
J..!.. � J..!.. · g · �
This is best. �
41- � 41- - -
p� -
After 1 3 e5 there can come : u
�
a ) 1 3 . . . Jt X e2 1 4 'itfXe2 de • - -�H' i"4f''
�
1 5 §ad 1 'itfc7 1 6 g5 ctlh5 1 7 Initiating the Stockholm At­
4jd 5 'itfc4. Aitken-Winter. Lon­ tack which was introduced by
don 1 950. a nd now 18 'itfg2! the English team (influenced by
would have been very strong. P.S.Milner-Barry) at the Stock­
e.g. 18 . . . 4jc6 1 9 f6 ef 20 gf holm Olympiad 1 937. This is a
.ilh8 2 1 t-zja 5! ± ± . crucial position for Dragon
 8 Maroczy's 1 0 . . . 4ja5 63

theory, a nd the multiplicity of '{tb4 1 6 a 3 * X b2 1 7 .i}.d4!

moves at B lack's d isposal has and 1 B .§.a2 ±
been the subject of much con ­ 1 6 g5 hg
troversy. 1 7 -'l, X g5
We examine : and now:
F3 1 : 1 4 . . . *e5 a ) 1 7 . . '[tb4 1 B .§.ab 1
.

F32 : 1 4 . . . d5? .§. Xc3 1 9 be '{t Xe 4 + 20

F33: 14 . . . h6 '[t X e4 4:) Xe4 2 1 Jt X e7 .§.cB
F34 : 14 . . . *b4? 22 f6 Jth6 23 .§. X b7 ±
F35: 1 4 . . . 4jd7? b) 1 7 . . . .§.fe8 1 B *g2!
F36 : 14 . . . .§.acB! 4jh7 19 fg fg ( 1 9 . . . 4:) Xg 5
The popularity of the Stock­ 20 gf + � Xf7 2 1 .§. f 5 ! *b4
holm Attack was so prevalent 22 .§.g 1 '[td4 23 e5! ± ± ) 20
d uring a period that spanned 4jd5 ± Rabinovich - Lisitsin ,
three decades that just about Leningrad 1 940.
every reasonable move has
been tried from the crucial F34:
position shown in d iagram 43. 14 . . .
itfb47 (44)
1 4 . . . .§.acB! together with
the exchange sacrifice that it 44 • • • •••
prepares is the only way for w ••• -�� ��
Black to avoid getting the . - .
� � .
... .
. ...
inferior game . • •B ft a
i-
- · 41- �
� ..u. · ..u.
41- �
·
•
. " �J "� � •
.
F31 :
. '[te5 1 5 'ltf3 d 5 1 6
ft H ft B�B B
14 . .

� Xd 5 ( 1 6 ed ? � X g4 1 7
� X g4 '{t Xe3+ winning) 1 6 �
R •
• -� · t:::!l m
��
. . . 4J Xd5 1 7 ed ! Estrin­ 1 5 g5
Aiexeyev, Leningrad 1 94B. Whit� can play for a n advan­
tage with 1 5 .§.ad 1 .§.feB 1 6
F32: Jtd4 �d7 1 7 Jt X g7 �Xg7
1 4 . . . d57 1 5 e5 4jd7 1 6 1 B �3 f6 19 g5 ! but the
Jld4 .§.feB 1 7 .§.ae 1 e6 1 B f6 text is even stronger.
± Kulis-Aim, 1 944. Black now has :
F34 1 : 1 5 . . . � Xe4?
F33: F342 : 1 5 . . . �h5
14 . . . h6 F343 : 1 5 . . . �d7
1 5 �h 1 ! .§.acB
1 5 . . . g5? 1 6 h4! or 1 5 . . . F341 :
64 8 Maroczy's 10 . . . t;Ja5

Not 1 5 . . . l£) Xe4? 1 6 .!£)d 5 '{tyf2! winning (2 1 . . . .i}.Xe 7

'{ty X b2 1 7 l£) Xe7+ �hB 1 B 22 ,ild4 + )
f6 ± ± b ) 1 7 . . . '{ty X a1 1 B .§. Xa 1
.Q. X a 1 1 9 c3 e6 20 {)e7 +
F342: <i!(hB 2 1 '{tyd2 a nd White. who
15 . .. l£) h5 is threatening both 23 � Xd6
This has been found to be a nd 23 '{tyc 1 winning the bishop,
fa ulty. has an easily won game -
1 6 a3 '{tr X b2 Rabinovich .
1 7 l£)d 5 .§. aeB 1 B .§.ab 1 !
On 1 7 . . . '{tye5 1 B '{tyd3 1 B .§.ad 1 only leads to a
l£)g3 1 9 c3! is very strong as d raw after 1 B . . . �e5 1 9
White threatens 20 �d4, a nd �c 1 '{tya 1 20 .§. f3 l£)c5 2 1
Black cannot play 1 9 . . . '{ty X e4 �f4 '{tyb2 22 �c 1 '{tya 1 etc ..
beca use of 20 '{ty Xe4 l£) Xe4 but 18 '{tyf2 is a n interesting
2 1 l£) Xe7+ �hB 22 f6! a nd strong-looking alternative
1 B '{tyf2! '{tye5 which has never been tested .
Not 1 B . . . '{trXa 1 1 9 .§. Xa 1 18 . . . '{tye5
�Xa 1 20 c3! Or 1 B . . . '{tyXa3 1 9 .§. X b7!
19 f6 ef ++
20 gf �hB 1 9 .§. b4
2 1 .§.ae 1 ! .§. e6 22 �d4 Threatening to win the queen
'{tyg5 + 23 �h 1 .§.feB 24 .§. g 1 by 20 �f4
'{tyh6 25 '{tyh4 ± Estrin - 19 . . . gf
Fridstein, Moscow 1 945. 20 �f4 '{tye6
2 1 {)c7 '{tyg6 22 l£) XeB
F343: .§. XeB 23 '{tyb5 .§.dB 24 ef
15 . . . l£)d7 '{tyh5 25 f6! ef 26 gf '{ty X b5 27
1 6 a3 .§. X b5 �Xf6 2B .§. Xb7. White
16 �d2 is also good for has a winning advantage.
White.
16 . . '{ty X b2 F35:
Or 1 6 . . . '{tya5 1 7 {)d5 14 . . . {)d7? (45)
'{trdB 1 B '{tyf2 � X b2 1 9 .§.ab 1 This used to be considered
�e5 20 f6 ± B lack's best a ntidote to the
1 7 {)d5 .§.ae8 Stockholm Attack, but after a
The alternatives are no better. time it became apparent that
Rabinovich a nalysed : Black's d ifficulties are still con­
a ) 1 7 . . . e6 1 B {)e7 + <i!(hB siderable.
1 9 f6 {) Xf6 20 gf � Xf6 2 1 1 5 {)d 5 §ae8
 8 Maroczy's 10 . . . i£)a5 65

a long the long d iagonal -

45
•• • ••• Sokolsky.
• t • l) • t � -� t
w ��
.•
• �
. .t �
�• F36:
II • . ft . 14 . . . �ac81 (46)
• B ft B ft B • • • . •••
f1Z...J �{� . "'�
•
!%';%
". -
• 46
� � � •.M,• r�
•t• •t t
..!.!. U ..!.!. &'@ • u w � - • t.
�� - - � � •
. - •
�d • · t:=!. � II B B ft B
After 1 5 . . . e6 1 6 �e7 + B B ft B ft B
LJ. • •
<i!ih8, Black i s given n o time to
8. "
• � .
ft H ft B'lf1B � ·�
set about winning the lonely­

looking knight: 1 7 g5 ef ( 1 7
. . . �fe8 1 8 f6 Af8 1 9 �ad 1
± ± ) 1 8 ef .i}, X b2 1 9 �ab 1
�e5 20 � X b2! � X b2 2 1
�d 1 �e5 22 Ad4 �b4 23
fg! ± . llyin - Zhenevsky - Volk,
Leningrad 1 940.
1 6 g5!
M uch stronger than 16 b4
�d8 1 7 �ad 1 e6! 1 8 fg fg 1 9
� Xf8+ � Xf8 20 �f4= -
Ragozin .
Also of d ubious va lue is 1 6
Ag5 �c5 + 1 7 <i!ih 1 �f6 1 8
Ae3 �c6 1 9 �g2 � X d 5 20
ed �a6 2 1 c3 �c8 22 �f3 b5
+ Bellon-Oitra. Benidorm 1 978.
16 . . . e6
1 7 �e7 + � Xe7
18 f6 �ee8
19 fg <i!i> X g7
20 �ad 1
For the sacrificed pawn ,
White has more than enough
compensation in the form of
pressure on the queen's pawn
and the possibility of an attack
�
A • U :B-� a
t:=!. Mf'\
Originally thought to be an
error, but thanks to a n ex­
change sacrifice suggested by
Simagin, we now know that
this is the only line which is
satisfactory (even good ) for
Black.
1 5 g5
Boleslavsky demonstrates that
1 5 -'ld4 a lso allows Black good
play. H is analysis runs : 1 5 . . .
'«Yb4 1 6 �ad 1 �c4 1 7 � d 3
�d7 1 8 ,il X g 7 <i!i> X g7 1 9
�d2 �f6 20 � h3 g5! (20 . ' '
� X g4 2 1 �f4 ! ) 2 1 '«1 X g 5 +
<ifth8 2 2 '«Yh6 � g8 2 3 g5
� Xg5+ 24 � X g5 � g8 and
on the open board Black's queen
is more powerful than White's
rooks.
15 . . . � Xc3!
The move that refutes the
Stockholm Attack! Before Sima­
gin's suggestion was known to
the world, everyone assumed
66 8 Maroczy's 10 . . . t;Ja5
1 5 . . . 4:)d7 to be essential
when 1 6 4:)d5! would g ive
White a strong bind .
1 6 gf
1 6 be 4:) Xe4 would clearly
be advantageous to Black.
16 . . . � Xe3
1 7 'fty Xe3 ,il X f6
1 8 c3 �c8
Simagin ends his analysis
here with the opinion that
Black's counterplay should be
sufficient compensation for the
exchange. Practical experience
bears out his assessment.
1 9 a3
Attacking o n the king-side
fails to reap White any dividends
because his own king becomes
too exposed . Davia-Whiteley,
Brecon 1 962 went: 1 9 � f3 b5
20 \!?h 1 �c4 2 1 � h 3 ,ilg7
+·
19 . . . �c4
1 9 . . . a 6 is a lso good ,
freeing the queen from the
defence of this pawn . Pavlov­
Mititelu, Bucharest 1 962 con­
tinued : 20 �ae 1 'ftyb5 2 1 � e2
\!?g7 22 �f3 h6 23 �h3 g5
24 'ftyd3 'ftyc5 + 25 'ftye3 '{tyc4
=f ·
20 �ae 1 b5!
The best way for Black to
minimise the effect of White's
slight material advantage is to
la unch a minority attack on the
0-side.
2 1 �f3 '{tyc7
22 fg hg
23 �h3 a5!
N ow White h a s n o means of
preventing an eventual . . . b4,
and with it the isolating of yet
a nother of his pawns.
24 � f 1 'ftyc5
White was threatening 25
� Xf6! ef 26 'ftyh6
25 'fty Xc5 � Xc5
26 �d3 � c4
27 � Xf6
If 27 �e 1 b4 28 ab ab 29 cb
,il X b2 30 � b3 ,ilc3 ! 3 1
�eb 1 .Q_d4+ 32 \!?h 1 (Other­
wise 32 . . . � c2 is very
strong) 32 . . . ,ilb6 33 �e 1
\!?g7! and White will find it
difficult to hang on to all his
isolated pawns.
27 . . . ef
28 � Xd6 � Xe4
29 � X f6 \!?g7 30 � b6 �e5
3 1 \!?f2 g 5 32 �a6 a4 33 c4
�c5 34 cb � X b5 35 � Xa4
� X b2 + 36 \!?g3 Y2 -Y2 . Filipo­
wicz-Hollis, Maria nske Lazne
1 962.
F4:
1 2 ,ild3 (47)
 8 Maroczy's 10 . . . l-iJa5 67

Spielmann's move. holding �g4 gives B lack a minimal

the centre intact and preparing advantage because of his con­
for a K-side attack with g4-g5 trol of e5.
etc. Now Black has :
12 . . . .Q. X d 3 F4 1 : 1 3 . . . � X b3
Trying to keep some sort of F42 : 1 3 . . . �c6
tension in the position is often F43 : 1 3 . . . d 5
the best plan for Black in the
Dragon. but -here the only F41 :
methods of doing so are to 13 . . . � X b3
Black's detriment. viz : 1 4 ab
a ) 1 2 . . . b57 1 3 � X b5 Or 1 4 � X b3 �g4!
(Or 1 3 � Xa 5 � X a 5 1 4 014 . . d5
.Q. Xc4 be 1 5 .Q.d3 §.ab8 1 6 1 5 jtd4! de
§. b 1 §.b7 1 7 g4 �d7 1 8 �d 5 1 6 de a6
.Q.Xd4 1 9 � Xd4 � b 6 20 Not 16 . . . �c7 ( 1 6
�e3 ± Petrushin-Perespkin, �d7 1 7 �d5 ! ) 1 7 e5 §.adS
1 st L 45th USSR Ch 1 977) 1 3 18 ef .Q. X f6 19 §.a4! b5 20
. . . .Q. X b 5 1 4 .Q. X b 5 � X e4 � X b5 �d7 2 1 �e2 a6 22
1 5 � Xa 5 �Xa5 1 6 .Q.c6 ± ± . .Q. X f6! ab 23 .Q. Xe7 ba 24
b) 1 2 . . . d57 1 3 e5 and now: .Q.Xf8 <;ftXf8 25 ba and White's
b1) 13 . . �e8 1 4 � Xa 5 outside passed pawn will decide
.

�Xa5 1 5 .,l;,Ld4 ! . though the the issue - Spielmann.

recent game Pa rma-Rajkovic, 17 e5 �e8
Yugoslav Ch 1 978 may cast If:
doubt on this assessment : 1 5 a ) 1 7 . . . �d5 1 8 �g4 threat­
. . . §.dB 1 6 c;!th 1 �a 6 1 7 ens §.f3-h3 followed by �h4;
.,l;tc5 .Q. X d 3 1 8 cd §. d 7 1 9 f6 and 1 8 . . . �b4? fails against
ef 20 .Q. Xf8 <;ft Xf8 2 1 ef 1 9 f6 ef 20 ef .Q.h6 2 1 .Q.c5.
� Xf6 22 �3 h5 CO b ) 17 . . . �d7 White gets a
b2) 1 3 . . � X b3 1 4 ef .Q.Xf6 good game by 1 8 �e2 �b8
.

1 5 ab .Q. X d 3 1 6 � Xd 3 d4 1 7 1 9 §,ad 1 �c6 20 .Q.c5 �a 5

fg de 1 8 gf + §. Xf7 1 9 be ± 2 1 b4! � X b4 22 .Q.Xe7 etc.
Kashda n - Denker. New York . 1 8 �g4!
1 94 1 . The suggestion of Boleslavsky
b 3) 1 3 . . .Q. X d3 1 4 ef .Q.Xf 1 gives White the advantage be­
.

1 5 fg <;ft X g7 1 6 �d4 + f6 1 7 cause of his superior mobility

§ Xf 1 ± ± and extra space on the K-side.
1 3 cd
1 3 � Xd 3 � X b3 1 4 ab F42:
68 8 Maroczy's 10 . . . li)a5
1 3 . . . 4jc6 gives White too will not run away and until he is
much freedom in the centre. ready to capture it Black can
viz : 1 4 d4 b5 1 5 �3 b4 1 6 use it as a shield . Meanwhile
4je2 ¥jjc 7 1 7 g4 a 5 1 8 .§ad 1 White is forced into the con­
a4 1 9 4jbc 1 .§.ac8 20 4jd3 tin uation : 1 9 be ¥jj Xc3 when
¥jjb 7 2 1 g5 4jd7 22 4jdf4 ± both his 0-side pawns are
Goldberg-Kotlerman. Y2 F 1 9th isolated and the d-pawn is
USSR Ch 1 95 1 . particularly vulnerable on the
semi-open file.
F43: 16 . . . 4jd7
13 . . . d5 1 7 f6 ef
15 4j Xa5 1 8 ef .Q. X f6
Not 14 e5? ( 14 .Q.d4? 4jc6 N ot 1 8 . . . 4j X f6?? 1 9
1 5 J1 X f6 J1 X f6 1 6 4j Xd5 .Q. X f6 ¥jj b 6+ 20 <i£j>h 1 .Q. X f6
.Q.Xb2 =f) 14 . . . 4j X b3 1 5 ef 2 1 4jd 5 and White wins .
.Q. X f6 1 6 ¥jj X b3 d4 1 7 .Q.h6 1 9 .§. Xf6! ?
de 1 8 .Q. Xf8 cb 1 9 .§.ab 1 I f 1 9 .Q. X f6 ¥jjb 6+ = .
¥jjd 4+ + The text is a new attempt at
14 . . ¥jj Xa5 refuting 10 . . . 4ja5
15 e5 19 . . . 4j Xf6
Again .Q.d4 is inappropriate. 20 �3 4jd7
After 1 5 . . . de 1 6 de .§.fd8 2 1 � X b7
Black has the initiative. 2 1 4jd5 .§.ae8 + .
15 . . . d4! 21 . . . .§adS
1 6 .Q.Xd4 22 4jd5 .§feB
Aitken's 16 ef .Q. X f6 17 fg 23 b4 ¥jja 4
de (not 1 7 . . . hg? 1 8 .§. f6) And not 23 . . . �a3? 24
1 8 gh + can be met by 1 8 . . . .Q.c3 ± Rantanen - Helmers.
<i£j>h8 (not 1 8 . . � X h 7 1 9- Kringsja 1 978.
§f3); White's advanced h-pawn
20 . lC>5 � N�o<5Uf)

2A . T Ci 5 , 11 ccc8 ! !
27 g_4 ) R2l8
;:; � "l;i c IS....., "\
9 Tarta kower's 1 0 . .. �c8

1 e4 c 5 2 tljf3 d 6 3 d4 c d 4 D : 1 1 h 3
tlj Xd4 tljf6 5 tljc3 g6 6 Jle2
Jlg7 7 Jle3 tljc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 A:
tljb3 Jle6 10 f4 1 1 )!th1
10 . . . �c8 (48) Now Black has :
A 1 : 1 1 . . . a5
a a1ra �•••
. ... . !{� ... ...
48 A2 : 1 1 . . . § d 8
w � .& - � .& .& I f 1 1 . . . tljg4, 1 2 Jlg 1 is
p
. ...•.� .t.• •a
Jl"JJ .& � good for White. as is 1 1 . . .
• • • • Jlg4 1 2 Jlg 1 b6 1 3 tljd5
- - 4l- Y� -
• • (Stronger than 1 3 tljd4 JlXe2
· /:". " ij ·� ��
- ..!..!. �
·'"Z.J� •
14 � Xe2 �b7 1 5 §ad 1
4l- �. 4l- • 1\ • 4l- �.
" .
§ac8 1 6 tljd5 §fe8 1 7 c4
-�- � Rf'S
..!..!. � ..!..!. E.li!L.E ..!..!. � tlj X d 5 1 8 ed tlj Xd4 1 9
R
p� · \:9 · C!l � Jl X d 4 e5 20 de § Xe6 :j:
This was played in Reti - Hase-Sosonko, B uenos Aires
Tartakower, New York 1 924. OL 1 978) 1 3 . . . �Xe2 1 4
In the tournament book Alekhine � Xe2 �b7 1 5 §ad 1 §fe8
wrote 'Black's entire structure 1 6 c3 §ac8 1 7 jlf2 tljb8 1 8
makes an a rtificial impression: �3 �a6 1 9 tlj Xf6 + jl X f6
For the further moves see 1 1 20 e5! Savon - Sosonko.
h3 tlje8? Ljublj ana/Portoroz 1 977.
Black's 1 0 . . . �c8. besides
holding up White's f5. can be a A1 :
preparation for 'freeing' ex­ 11 . . . a5
changes on Black's g4 or c4. 1 2 tljd4!
After 10 . . . �c8 White has : On 1 2 a4 Black can play 1 2
A : 1 1 �h 1 . . . tljb41 with a satisfactory
B : 1 1 �d 2 game. Also possible is 1 2 . . .
C : 1 1 �e 1 Jlg4 1 3 Jlg 1 ( 1 3 Jl X g4
70 9 Tartakower's 10 . . . 'iflc8

t-zJ X g4 1 4 ..Q.g 1 t-zjb4 = Rossetto-Panno. Portoroz 1958

Cholasura n - Mednis. Vama - 1 6 . . . ,ila6 = Matanovic­
1 962. is a quiet line.) 1 3 . . . Geller. Belgrade 1 957; or 1 4
.§eB! (better than 1 3 . . . .§dB h3 d 5 1 5 ed e 4 1 6 ,ile2
14 t-zjd5! ,i},Xe2 1 5 'fty Xe2 lZJ X d 5 1 7 lZJ X d 5 .§ X d 5 1 B
t-zj X d 5 1 6 ed ± Alekhine - itfc 1 .i}.Xe2 1 9 .§ Xe2 b6 =F
Golombek. Montevideo 1 939) Ryabchenok - Tyulin. Volgograd
a nd if 1 4 t-zjd5 ,i}, X e 2 1 5 1 977.) 1 3 . . . e5! 1 4 'itfd2
itf Xe2 t-zj Xd 5 1 6 ed t-zjb4 1 7 itfc7 1 5 .§ad 1 .§acB 1 6 itff2
c4 e6! with adequate play - b5 1 7 fe de 1 B ,ilg5 .§ Xd 1 1 9
Kan . .§ X d 1 .§dB 20 lZ:Jd5 YTY2 .
12 . . . t-zj Xd4 Holmov-Aronin. 1 7th USSR Ch
1 3 � Xd4 ,ilc4 1 949.
�=-:-:--::-::-:-:-----:-:=-:
:o ........, =
1 4 Ad3! !
The typical counter 1 4 . . . e5. 49 • •ir • • ••
available with the white king at 8 •t• •t t
g 1 . is ineffective here as the ··
� ·- �.t.. · •
-t�
black queen has no check at c5 • • • •
(compare va riation 036. p. 77. • B 4lo fU
• ..U.. � •
B
note to White's 1 6th move).
E4J� • •
A2: ft H ft •A• ft H
11 . . . .§ d8 � -�- § fQ]�
1 2 ,ilg 1 ! (49) 12 0 0 b6
0

Bronstein's improvement on 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 e5 d4 ( 1 3 . . .
1 2 ,ilf3 ,ilc4 (If 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 lZ:Je4 1 4 lZ:Jb5 ± ) 1 4 lf)b5 ± -
e5 t-zje4 1 4 t-zje2 f6 ! . Or 1 2 Bronstein .
. . . jig4?1 1 3 h3 ji X h 3 1 4 f5 1 2 . . . 4:)d7 1 3 f5 .i}. X b3
gf 1 5 gh fe - 15 . . . f4? 1 6 1 4 ab 4:)b4 1 5 .§a4 a 5 1 6
,i},Xf4 'i;!y Xh3+ 1 7 � 1 fol­ lf)d5 4:) Xd 5 1 7 ed ± Rantanen
lowed by itg2 ± - 1 6 ,i},g2 d 5 ! - Osterman. Finnish Ch 1 97B.
1 7 ,ilg5! d4 - Beni-Busek. 1 3 itfe 1 lf)b4
1953 - 1 B t-zje2 ! l 1 3 .§e 1 1 4 .§c 1 Ac4
(On 1 3 .§f2 Black can equalise 1 5 .i}. X c4 'itf X c4
with 1 3 . . . e5! . e.g. 1 4 'itfd2 - 1 6 lZ:Jd2 itfcB
Ragozin-Aronin. 16th USSR Ch 1 7 a3 lZ:Jc6
1948 - 1 4 . . . d5; or 1 4 .§ d2 1 B liJf3 'g bB
ef 1 5 jiXf4 t-zje5 1 6 t-zje2 - 1 6 Possibly 1 B . . . e6 is slightly
'g X d6 'g X d6 1 7 'itf X d6 better.
lZJ Xf3 18 gf liJh5 with threats. 1 9 lZ:Jd5 e6
 9 Tartakower's 10
20 CL)Xf6 + -'l_ Xf6 ·
2 1 c3 .§. b7
22 .ilf2! ±
Bronstein - Korchnoi, Hastings
1 975-6.
This game has put 1 0 . . .
�cB under a cloud for the time
being.
B:
1 1 �d2 .§.dB
Or 1 1 . . . a5 1 2 a4 4Jb4 1 3
CL)d4 ..{;tc4 1 4 f5?! CL)d7! 1 5
.,ll X c4 � X c4 1 6 b3 �c5
Dely - Velimirovic, Belgrade
1 96B.
1 2 ..{;tf3 Jtc4
1 3 .§.fd 1 ! e5!
14 CL)d5 ..{;tXd5 1 5 ed CL)e7 1 6
fe de 1 7 d 6 CL)f5 1 B Jtc5 e4
1 9 ..{;te2 ( Dubinin - Aronin,
RSFSR Ch 1 947) 19 . . . b6!
20 Jta3 ..{;th6 and now 2 1
�e 1 �e6! + ; or 2 1 �b4 ..{;tfB
+ 1 964, continued 1 B .§.g 1 CL)e5
C:
1 1 �e1
An interesting alternative in­
tending to reinforce the tra­
ditional king's side attack by
playing �h4. Now Black has :
c 1 : 1 1 . . . CL)g4
C 2 : 1 1 . . . Jtg4
C 3 : 1 1 . . . CL)b4
C4: 1 1 . . . a5!
C1 :
11 . . . 4Jg4
For a long time this was the
. . . �cB 71
accepted refutation of 1 1 'l/Je 1 .
1 2 JlXg4 -'l_ X g4
1 3 f5 gf
1 4 h3 -'l_ X h 3
Not 1 4 . . . f4? 1 5 .§. Xf4
Jlh5 1 6 4Jd5! �d7 1 7 'l/Jh4
Jlg6 1 B .§.af 1 .§.acB 1 9 c3 ±
Ragozin - Veresov, Moscow
1 947.
1 5 gh fe
1 6 �h4 f5
1 7 �h 1 !
This busts the accepted refu­
tation which was 1 7 CL)d 5 .§.f7!
1 B .§.ad 1 e5 1 9 Jlg5 �e6 20
�h 1 .§.afB 2 1 �h5 f4 22
.§. g 1 e3 + Ladbischensky -
Lipnitsky, Harkov 1 94B. when
Black's strong central pawns
provide more than adequate
compensation for White's extra
piece.
17 . . . .§. f7
Domnitz - Kraidman, Tel Aviv
1 9 4Jd5 �d7 20 CL)d4 CL)g6
2 1 .§. X g6! hg 22 .§.g 1 e5 23
.§. X g6! �dB (23 . . . ed 24
Jl X d4) 24 Jtg5 �a5 25
CL)f6 + �B 26 CL)e6 + a nd
White was winning.
C2:
11 . .. .ilg4
Or 1 1 . . . .§.dB 1 2 .§.d 1
CL)b4! 1 3 CL)d4 Jtc4 1 4 a3 ! ;
but the text is weak beca use of :
1 2 ..Q.d 3! ±
C3:
72 9 Tartakower's 10 . . . Y!JcB

11 . . . C2)b4 0 1 : 1 1 . . . C2)eB?
1 2 C2)d4 -'l_c4 0 2 : 1 1 . . . .§dB
1 3 a3 .Q.Xe2 03: 1 1 . . . a 5
1 4 Y!J Xe2 C2)c6
1 5 §ad 1 01 :
Black was threatening 1 5 . . 11 . . . C2)e87 is an un­
C2) Xe4 thematic alternative which aims
1 5 C2)b3 leaves White weak to create play on the king's side.
on the long diagonal after 1 5 After 1 2 Y!Jd2 f5 1 3 ef gf 1 4
. . . C2)g4 1 6 ,ild 2 a 5 1 7 C2)d5 .§.ae 1 �hB 1 5 C2)d4 -'l_gB 1 6
a4 + - Koblencs. g4! White has a distinct plus,
15 . . . C2)g4! Reti - Tartakower, New York
Also possible is 1 5 . . . .§.eB! 1 924.
16 C2)d5 C2) X e3 The logical outcome of the
1 7 Y!J Xe3 �dB last moves by Black, for White
1 B c3 e6 = was already threatening to be-
- Koblencs. . come dangerous with 1 3 g4,
but the opening of new lines is
C4: favourable to White for the
11 . . . a51 simple reason that he is better
1 2 a4 developed: - Alekhine.
Not 1 2 C2)d4? C2) Xe4! 1 3
C2) X c6 �Xc6 1 4 i;lb5 -'l_Xc3 02:
15 i;l_Xc6 i;l_ X e 1 16 -'l_ X b7 11 . . . .§. d8 (50)
jld 2! winning, Ourao - Levy,
Praia da Rocha 1 969.
12 . . C2)b4
1 3 C2)d4 ,ilc4
1 4 f5 C2)d7 =
Pachman - Gadalinsky, Spin­
d leruv M lyn 1 94B.

0:
1 1 h3
Preventing Black's C2)g4 This prepares . . . d5, which
and . . . _llg4, but Black has would liquidate the centre by a
now two satisfactory lines : play­ series of exchanges and th us
ing for an early d5 or reduce the material with which
creating queen's side play with White could operate on the
. . . a5. king's side .
 9 Tartakower's 10
1 2 J;tf3
The most effective way of
delayi ng . . . d 5 . None of
Wh ite's alternatives are any
better:
a ) 1 2 g4? d 5 1 3 e5 �e4 1 4
� Xe4 ( 1 4 �e 1 f6! ; or 1 4
Jld3 f5! ) 1 4 . . . de 1 5 �e 1
f6! =F Koblencs.
- � X d4 1 5 i;).Xd4 �c4 1 6
b) 1 2 �e1 d5 1 3 e5 d4 1 4 ef
j'i X f6 1 5 �e4 de 1 6 � Xf6+
ef 1 7 Jld3 YT Y2 Eisinger-Rabar,
Marienbad 1 960.
c) 1 2 .Q.d3 d5 1 3 e5 d4 1 4 ef
Jl, X f6 1 5 �e4 de 1 6 � Xf6 +
ef 1 7 .§ f3 ( 1 7 �e l tra nsposes
to b ) 1 7 . . . _Q. X b3 1 8 ab
.§e8 + Blau-Rabar, Switzerland
- Yugoslavia 1 950.
d) 1 2 \f/h2? d5 1 3 e5 �e4 1 4
�b5 g5! + A.R.B .Thomas -
Flohr, Bournemouth 1 939.
e) 1 2 �d4 � Xd4 ( 1 2 . . .
jld7 is passive, e.g. 1 3 g4
� X d4 1 4 _Q. X d4 J;l,c6 -
Lohmann - Bogoljubow, Bad
Pyrmont 1 949 - 1 5 _Q.f3 ! ) 1 3
jlXd4 J;tc4 1 4 f5 d 5 (Black
must play actively in view of the
threat of g4-g5) 1 5 e5 �e4 1 6
f6 ef 1 7 ef _Q.f8 1 8 ..Q. Xc4
� X c4 1 9 �d 3 = Geller -
Lipnitsky, Y2F 1 8th USSR Ch
1 950.
12 . . . ..Q.c4
a ) 1 2 . . . �d7? allows White
to sacrifice a pawn for a terrific
bind by 1 3 �d5 -'l, X b 2 1 4
;§ b 1 ..Q.g7 1 5 c4 ! ; G ufeld
gives 1 3 �d2 �c5 1 4 �2
. . . �cB 73
confining B lack to passive
defence.
b) 1 2 . . . d5 leads to obscure
complications which seem to
turn out in White's favour; there
are two plausible lines :
b 1 ) 1 3 e5! and now:
b 1 1 ) 1 3 . . . d4 1 4 � Xd4
�e2 �d5 1 7 J;l,Xd5 J;l.Xd5
18 c3 �c6 19 .§f2 e6 20
�g3 .§d7 2 1 �f 1 ! .§adS 22
�e3 J;te4 23 �g4 -'l,f5 24
�h4 b5 25 g4! ± Pachman­
Cajk, Czechoslovakia 1 944.
b 1 2) 1 3. . �e4 1 4 �e2 ( 1 4
.
Jl X e4 de = ) 1 4 . . . g5! 1 5 fg
-'l,Xe5 1 6 �c 1 �d6 1 7 c3
!£)c4 18 jlf4 �c 7 1 9 i;th5
�b6 + 20 \f/h 1 h5 2 1 -'l, Xe5
�6 Xe5 (2 1 . . . �4 Xe5 22
�4 ±) 22 �bd4 and White,
who is leading up to a strong
attack with �g3 and �gf5,
has the advantage, e.g . : 22 . . .
� X b2 23 � X b2 � X b2 24
.§ab 1 ± .
b 2 ) 1 3 ed l? �b4 1 4 de .§ X d 1
1 5 ef + \f/ X f7 1 6 .§a X d 1
� Xc2 1 7 i;tc 5 a 5 ! 1 8 �a4
�c7 1 9 .§d2 �b4 20 .§e 1
.§e8 = Rumens-Parma, Basle
1 959.
b3) 1 3 � X d5 � Xd 5 1 4 ed
�b4 = .
c ) 1 2 . . . a5 1 3 a 4 .Q.c4 1 4
.§f2 e5 is considerably inferior
to the text because in this
instance (Black's rook on dB
presents a target. and White
74 9 Tartakower's 1 0 . . . '/!icB
ha s the move �b6 at his
• • • •••
. . t � -� t
disposa l . ) Nilsson-Engels. M u­ 51 Ct B
f'� fO_ :;. _ ;:.
nich 1 936. continued 1 5 Ae2
d 5? ( 1 5 . . . Ae6 1 6 ,ilb6 ± )
w • -�---
• r
•""' •t• .
1 6 ,ilb6! J}.Xe2 1 7 � Xe2 • • • •
�d7 18 �c5 ± ± . B.l.B ft B B
1 3 �f2 �"Z.J�
• /."'\ " � . � .:m.
�- 4).
• .!.!.
•
This move, intending to trans­
.u. � a r� • .u. •
4). � 4). �� • 4).
R w-g;�- i'4f1
. g.
fer the rook to the quean's file.
is much better than the aimless �d �
1 3 �e 1 . e.g. 1 3 . . . d5 1 4 ed way for White to proceed . If
( 1 4 e5 .i}, X b3 1 5 ab d4 :f ) 1 4 instead White tries to take direct
. . . �b4 1 5 Ad4 �b X d 5 1 6 advantage of Black's weak d 5
� X d 5 .i}, X d 5 1 7 c 3 e6 1 8 square b y 1 5 4:)d5. Black can
.i}, X d5 � X d 5 1 9 'ltfe2 'ltfd7 switch his activities to the king's
+ Ary-Sentil, Brazilian Ch 1 960. side where it is White who has
13 . . . e5! several weak squares. Tarjan­
Less dynamic is 1 3 . . . d5. Fazekas, corres. contin ued : 1 5
e.g. �d5 � Xd 5 1 6 ed �e7 1 7 fe
a ) 1 4 e57 .i}, X b3 1 5 ab d4 1 6 A Xe5 1 8 c 3 4:)f5 +
�d2 de 1 7 � Xd8+ � Xd8 b ) A possibly playable alter­
18 ef cb 19 fe �c6 20 � b 1 native is 1 4 . . . ef 1 5 A Xf4
� Xe7 + 4:)e5 1 6 �h2 (obviously not
b ) 1 4 ed 4:) X d 5 1 5 � Xd 5 1 6 � Xd 6 4:) Xf 3 + 1 7 gf
.i}, X d 5 1 6 .i},Xd5 e 6 1 7 � d 2 � Xd6 1 8 'ltfXd6 'ltf X h 3 + + )
� Xd 5 1 8 � Xd 5 e d 1 9 c3 1 6 . . . 'ltfe6 ( 1 6 . . . Aa6.
followed by 'lt!f3 and �d 1 with Matanovic - Geller. Yugoslavia -
advantage to White. USSR 1 956, and 1 6 . . . �e8
1 4 �d2 are a lso good ) 1 7 g3 �d7 1 8
a ) 1 4 f6 gf 15 ef d 5 16 ,ilg5 'ltfh 1 �adS 1 9 �ad 1 b6 20
e4 gave Black a good game i n �d4 'ltfe8 Reuei-Bruggemann.
Steinmeyer - Benko. U S C h corres 1 959.
1 962-3. 1 5 4:)d5
b) 1 4 fe � Xe5 clearly eases A new idea is 1 5 'ltfe 1 ef 1 6
Black's task. AXf4 �e5 1 7 'ltfg3 4:) Xf3+
14 . . . 'ltfe6 (5 1) 18 '111 Xf3 d5 Ornstein-Heim,
Preparing . . , d5 as well as Kringsja 1 978.
defending the d-pawn. 15 . . . ef!
a) On 1 4 . . 'ltfc7 , 1 5 'ltfe 1
. 1 6 �d4
followed by 'ltfh4 is the correct I nstead :
 9 Tartakower's 10 . . . i*cB
a ) 1 6 !£jc7 is clearly out of the
question because of 1 6
i*e5.
b) 1 6 !£j Xf4 i*e7 is perfectly
satisfactory for Black. In view
of what happens in the text,
reca pturing the pawn in rela ­
tively best. but Black has a good
game.
c) 16jlX f4 !£j X e4 1 7 !£jc7
i*f5 1 8 jl X e4 i* X f4 ( 1 9
!£j Xa8 i* X e4 20 !£jc7 �e5 ! )
and again Black has a good
game.
16 . . . !£j Xd4
1 7 �Xd4 �Xd5
1 8 ed i*f5
White's pawn sacrifice has
not turned out too well. True,
Black's extra pawn is doubled.
but it dominates two importa nt
squares and the 4 : 2 king's side
majority is potentially strong for
the end game. Rolland-Larsen,
Le Havre 1 966 continued : 1 9
.§e2 h 5 20 .§e7 !£jd7 2 1
.il X g7 � X g 7 2 2 i*d4+ i*f6
23 .§e4 .§feB (With an extra
pawn and the knight v bad
bishop complex, Black is ideally
situated for the ensuing end­
ga me. ) 24 c3 i* X d4+ 25
.§ Xd4 !£je5 26 �e2 .§c5 27
.§ad 1 (Beca use of the threat to
his f-pawn, Black is forced to
exchange a king's side pawn for
one in the centre, leaving his
queen's pawn a little weak.) 27
g5 28 A X h5 !£jc4 29
.§e 1 !£je3 30 Ad 1 .§ X d 5 3 1
75
.§ X d 5 !£j Xd 5 32 ,ilf3 !£je3
33 .§e2 d 5 ! 34 c4 de 35 .§d2
.§c8 36 Jl X b 7 c3 37 be
.§ Xc3 38 �2 f5 39 a4 a5 40
h4? (On the last move of the
time control White finds a faulty
plan which only hastens his
demise.) 40 . . . g4 4 1 .§d4
(The point of his last move.) 4 1
. . . .§c2+ 42 � 1 .§ b2 0- 1 .
03:
11 a5 (52)
This active thrust which is
mentioned only en passant in
the 1 Oth edition of MCO. con­
stitutes Black's most forceful
plan in the Classical Dragon.
The ideas have been seen before
in va riations B. chapter 3, a nd
E2, cha pter 7. Here we a ug­
ment the deta i ls to illustrate
Black's potential in the position
of diagram 52. White can now
consider :
03 1 : 1 2 a 3
0 32 : 1 2 a4
033 : 1 2 Jil.f3
034: 1 2 !£jd 5?
035: 1 2 !£ja4?
76 9 Tartakower's 10 . . . Y!JcB

036: 1 2 l£jd4! 1 3 l£jd4 a3!

1 4 b3 l£je5!
031 : - Koblencs. 1 5 ef Yf1 Xc3 1 6
1 2 a3 a4 1 3 l£jd2 d 5 1 4 e5 Yf1e 1 Yf1 X e 1 1 7 .§a Xe 1 de =f ·
d4 1 5 ef ef 1 6 .Q.Xd4 l£j X d4
=F 034:
1 2 l£jd5? .Q. X d 5
032: 1 3 ed l£jb4
1 2 a4 l£jb4 1 4 c4 a4
1 3 .§c 1 1 5 l£jd4
Black was threatening 1 3 . . Or 1 5 a3 l£jf X_d5 ! ! 1 6 cd
l£j X e4 1 4 l£j X e4 l£j X c2; l£jc2 1 7 Yf1d3 ab and now:
other White tries are : a ) 1 8 .§ac1 .i}. X b2 1 9
a ) 1 3 l£jd4 .Q.c4 1 4 f5 l£jd7 1 5 YfJ X b3 .Q. X c 1 20 .§ X c 1
fg hg 1 6 �h 1 l£je5 1 7 h4? l£jd4! !
.Q.Xe2 1 8 Yf1 Xe2 Y!Jg4! 1 9 b) 1 8 .§ ab1 Y!Jf5 1 9 Y!J Xf5
l£jf3 .§ac8 + Erny-Pa rma , ( 1 9 Yf1 X b3 Y!Je4! ) 1 9 . . . gf
Basle 1 959. 20 .Q.b6 .§feB 2 1 .§ f3 .Q.d4 +
b) 1 3 .Q.f3 l£jd7 1 4 l£jd4 .Q.c4 with a won ending for Black,
1 5 .§f2 .§d8 1 6 l£jd5 .ll, Xd5 Roose-Kramer, Baarn 1 940.
1 7 ed l£jb6 18 l£jc6? l£jb6 X d5! 15 . . . a3 +
19 c4?? l£j Xe3! 20 l£j Xe 7 + Cortlever - Fontein, Amsterdam
� 8 2 1 Y!Je2 Yf1c5 0- 1 , Va n 1 939.
Hornbeek - Nikitin, 1 960.
c) Best is 1 3 .Q.d4 .Q.c4, when 035 :
Black's chances for an advan­ 1 2 l£ja4? .Q. X b3!
tage have been minimized . 1 3 ab
13 . . . l£jd7 a) 13 cb Y!Je6! 1 4 e5 l£jfd 5 1 5
Momo-Nikitin. Leningrad 1 960, .ll,c 1 de + .
continued : 1 4 i;td4 .Q. X b3 1 5 b) 1 3 l£jb6? Y!Je6 1 4 l£j Xa8
cb .Q.Xd4+ 1 6 Yf1Xd4 Y!Jc5 Yf1 X e4 1 5_ Yf1d 3 .Q.. Xc2 1 6
1 7 .§fd 1 YfJ X d 4 + 1 8 .§ X d4 Y!J X e4 l£j Xe4 1 7 .§ac 1 l£jg3!
l£jc5 1 9 .Q.c4 .§ac8 20 f5 + - Koblencs.
l£jd7 2 1 fg hg 22 l£jd5 l£j Xd5 13 . . . Y!Je6!
23 .§ Xd5 l£jc5 24 .§e 1 b6. Not 1 3 . . . l£j Xe4? 1 4 l£jb6
and Black has a good knight v Y!Je6 1 5 .Q..c 4! ± - Zhdanov.
bad bishop ending. 1 4 .ll,c4 Yf1 Xe4
1 5 .§e 1 l£jb4! 1 6 .§e2 Y!Jc6
033: 1 7 l£jb6 .§adS 1 8 .§ Xa5 d 5 !
1 2 .Q.f3 a4! 1 9 .Q.b5 Y!Jc7 20 .ll,d 4 l£jh5!
 9 Tartakower's 10 . . . '{JfcB 77

+ Bogoljubow - Herrma n n . and 18 . . . '{JJ Xe5.

Lunburg 1 947. 16 . . . '{Jfc6
1 7 .Q.g5 {Jh5 =
036: So far Alexander-Euwe, The
1 2 {Jd41 {) X d4 Hague 1 939, and Fink-Estrin,
1 3 �Xd4 �c4 corres 1 960. The second of
1 4 �d3 e5! these continued : 1 8 .Q.Xc4
1 5 fe '{/1 X c4 1 9 '{Jyd 5 '{/1Xd5 20
Or 1 5 .Q.e3 ef 1 6 .Q. X f4 d5! ct) X d 5 f6 2 1 .Q_h4 .§f7 22
O'Hanlon - Cortlever, Buenos ct)b6 .§a6 23 .Q..f2 f5 24 .§ad 1
Aires 1 939. ct)f4 25 .§d8+ .§f8 26 .§fd 1
15 . . . de ct)e2 + 27 � 1 YTY2 · 27 . . .
1 5 .Q..e 3 {Jd4 28 .§ Xf8+ .Q.. X f8 would
Natura l ly White can not cap­ probably have been the con­
ture the e-pawn beca use of 1 6 tinuation.
'{Jyc5 + 1 7 �h 1 .Q.. Xd3
10 Levenfish - I ntrod uction
1 e4 c5 2 {Jf3 d6 3 d4 cd 4
{] X d4 {jf6 5 {Jc3 g6
6 f4 (53)
The move 6 f4 was first seen
in the game Levenfish - Rabino­
vich. 1 1 th USSR Ch 1 936. The
idea was to refute the obvious
6 . . . .Q.g7 by adva ncing
immediately in the centre with
7 e5, and for almost forty years
theory accepted Levenfish's
original conception . Between
1 936 and the mid 1 950's
Levenfish analysed and played
the variation which had quickly
come to bear his name. and
even today the move 6 f4 is not
without its sting.
When writing the first edition
of The Sictlian Dragon. I was of
the opinion that 6 . . . {jbd7
was Black's best counter. The
move had been tried with some
success by the young English
players d uring the 1 960's and
little evidence had come to light
to suggest a refutation. Now I
a m of a completely d ifferent
opinion : I believe that Black's
reply to 6 f4 should be 6 . . .
Jlg7, the very move that Leven­
fish sought to refute. while I
a lso believe that 6 . . . {Jc6.
which was condemned in my
earlier works. ca n be made
playable by substituting 1 0 . . .
.Q.e7 (variation B43 1 ) for the
refuted 1 0 . . . fie 7.
In this cha pter we sha ll
examine the rarely seen 6 . . .
{jbd7 and a couple of other
useless alternatives.
6 . . . {jbd 7 (54)
This move must still be re­
garded as experimenta l . Other
tries are :
a) 6 . . Jlg4 7 �b5 + ( 7 f1d3
.
{Jc6 8 .Q.e3 .Q.g7 9 h3 �d7
1 0 �e2 is good for White in
view of the possible pawn-storm
 10 Levenfish - Introduction
g4-g5 and h4. Sherwin -
D .Byrne. New York 1 955.) 7
. . . .:£)bd7 8 .Q. X d 7 + '/tJ X d7
(8 . . . .Q. X d 7 9 e5! ) 9 'ltfd3 e5
1 0 .:£)f3 .Q. X f3 1 1 '/tJ X f3
'ltfg4? ( 1 1 . . . ef 1 2 .Q. X f4
Ag7 a nd 1 3 . . . 0-0 was
better.) 1 2 .:£)d5! 1 -0?! Korchnoi
- Spassky, USSR J unior Ch
1 948. Spassky overlooked the
fact that he could prolong the
game by 1 2 . . . �8 a lthough
after 1 3 'ltf X g4 ( 1 3 .{) X f6?
'ltfh4 + ) 1 3 . . . .{) X g4 14 h 3
.:£) h 6 1 5 fe d e 1 6 .Q.g5 + � 8
1 7 .Q.f6. Black has n o hope of
salvation.
b ) In the first edition of The
Sicilian Dragon 6 . . 'ltfb6 was
.
mentioned in print for the first
time. It was put in as an after­
thought with little analysis to
support it.
White must be careful not to
over-extend himself in attempts
at outright refutation. despite
the following : 7 e5 de 8 fe .{)fd 7
(8 . . . .:£)g4? 9 .Q.b5 + ) 9 e6!
(9 .Q.f4 J,tg7 10 .Q.c4 .{) Xe5
1 1 .:£)d 5 'ltfc5 1 2 .:£)b5 0-0 1 3
AXe5 .Q. Xe5 1 4 'ltfe2 .:£)c6
1 5 b4 .:£) X b4 1 6 'ltf Xe5
.:£) Xc 2 + 17 �d2 §dB! +
Allison-Gla zer. USA 1 97 1 ) 9
. . . fe 1 0 .Q.c4 .:£)c6 1 1 .:£) Xe6
.:£)de5? 1 2 .:£)d5! 'ltfa5 + 1 3 b4
.:£) X b4 14 .:£)dc7+ �7 1 5
0-0+ ± ± Kopche-Schelbhorn.
Hamburg 1 973.
White's best course may be
79
7 �e2 .:£)c6 8 -'te3 and if 8
. . . e5 then 9 fe de 1 0 .{) Xc6!
winning a piece.
Also good is 7 -'te3 e5 8 fe
de 9 .Q.b5 + .:£)c6 1 0 .:£)f5 'ltfc7
1 1 .Q.g5!
c) 6 . .. a& transposes to a line
of the Najdorf variation that is
rather good for White : 7 .:£)f3
.Q.g7 8 e5 .:£)g4 (8 . . . de 9
'ltJ X d 8 + �Xd8 1 0 fe .:£)g4
1 1 .Q.f4 ± ) 9 h3 .:£)h6 1 0 .Q.c4
0-0 1 1 g4 .:£)c6 1 2 .Q.e3 de 1 3
fe ±
6 . . . .Q.g7 I is chapter 1 2.
page 1 03.
6 . . . .:£)c6 is chapter 1 1 .
page 83.
. ....... .
54 . i . ,.. i . i
w • - � -
- �i- -
• • • •
• �
� u •
" ft � �
. � . .
ft B ft B a ft B
�
�
Wi't9
"�� /\ - .§.
9.:&L�
6 . . . .:£)bd7 is Flohr's recom­
mendation which, quite unjusti­
fiably, is most rare in master
chess. Perhaps the worst that
can befall Black is a tra ns­
position to lines of the 6 f4
attack against the Najdorf Vari­
ation (5 . . . a6) with the option
of delaying the move . . . a6 to
a more propitious moment.
Opening literature has under­
estimated this move but the
80 10 Levenfish - Introduction
following suggestions should
set it on the path to full re­
habilitation.
7 ..Q.e2
a ) 7 ..Q.c4 is easy to meet. e.g.
a 1 ) 7 . . . ..Q.g7 8 ..Q.e3 0-0 9
h3 a6 1 0 a4 'f!Jc7 = Rossetto­
Najdorf, Mar del Plata 1 968.
a2) 7 . . . 'f!Jc7 8 ..Q.b3 a6 9
0-0 ..Q.g7 1 0 ..Q.e3 b5 1 1 'f!Jf3
..Q.b7 = Fazekas-Wood, Bogner
Regis 1 960.
b) 7 .!£jf3 and now 7 . . .
'ftJc7 (preventing Parma's sug­
gestion of 8 l;tc4 to strengthen
the threat of e5 at some stage)
8 ..Q.d3 ..Q..g 7 9 0-0 0-0 10 'f!Je 1
a6 1 1 �h 1 b5 1 2 e5? de 1 3 fe
.!£)g4 1 4 e6 4:Jc5 :j: Andersson­
R .Garcia , Skopje OL 1 972.
If Black replies to 7 .!£jf3 with
7 . . . ..Q..g7 , White must be
careful not to play e5 too soon.
e.g . : 8 e5 de 9 fe .!£jg4 10 e6 fe
1 1 .!£)g5 A X c 3 + 1 2 be 'f!Ja 5
1 3 'f!J X g4 'f!J X c3 + 1 4 �d 1
'f!J X a 1 + I + + Ferna ndez -
Barczay, Budapest 1 978.
7 . . ..Q.g7
8 Jte3
If White behaves too optimis­
tically on the K-side he could be
crushed in the centre . Tuo­
mainen - Lee, Cracow 1 964,
went : 8 ..QJ3 0-0 9 g4? e5! 1 0
.!£jdb5 d5! 1 1 ed e4 1 2 .Q.e2
.!£jb6 (th reatening 1 3 . . .
lLJ X g4) 1 3 g5 �f X d 5 1 4
� Xe4 'iJye7 1 5 �f2 .§e8 with
Black well on the way to victory;
the game concluded 1 6 \!lf 1
a6? ( 1 6 . . . ..Q. X b2 1 7 ..Q. X b2
.!£je3 + or 17 .§ b 1 ..Q.. X c 1 wins
quicker) 1 7 .!£jd6 ( 1 7 .!£ja 3
..Q. X b2) 1 7 . . . 'iJy X d 6 1 8 c4
.§ Xe2 1 9 'f!J Xe2 .!£) X f4 20
'f!Jf3 .!£)e6 2 1 �g2 .!£) X c4 22
.!£je4 'f!Jc7 23 .!£)f6+ ..Q. X f6 24
gf ..Q.d7! 25 0- 1 .
The most satisfactory alter­
native is 8 0-0 0-0 and now:
a ) 9 �h1 a6 1 0 ..Q..f 3 e5 1 1
{)de2 ef 1 2 'f!J X d6 g5! 1 3 e5
{)e8 14 'f!Jd 3 'f!Je7 1 5 {)d 5
�c5 1 6 'f!Jf5 {)b6 a nd White
was soon crushed , Eley -
Whiteley, British Ch, Blackpool
1 97 1 .
b) 9 l;tf3 with :
b 1 ) 9 . . . e5 1 0 {)db5 'f!Jb6+
( 1 0 . . . {)e8 1 1 �h 1 ef 1 2
..Q. X f4 ! is better) 1 1 �h 1
{)e8 1 2 a4 a6 1 3 {)d5 �d8
1 4 {)bc3 ef 1 5 ..Q.. Xf4 {)e5 1 6
a 5 ± or 1 6 ..Q.e2 ± - Miles.
b2) 9 . . . a6 10 {)b3 {)b6 (If
10 . . . 'f!Jb6+ 1 1 �h 1 e5 1 2
f5 followed by g4-g5; but
possibly stronger than the text
is 1 0 . . . 'f!Jc7 1 1 g4 {)b6) 1 1
a4 ( 1 1 g4! ?) 1 1 . . . ..Q..e6 1 2
a 5 {)c4 1 3 g4 .§ b8 (better 1 3
. . . b5! ? ) 1 4 f5 .Q.d7 1 5 ..Q..e 2
b5 16 g5 �e8 1 7 {)d4 (if 1 7
�d5 ..Q..e 5 followed by . . .
�c7 or e6) 1 7 . . . �c7 1 8 h4
�e5 1 9 ..Q..e3 ! Eley-Miles,
B irmingham 1 973.
b3) Best of all is 9 . . . .!£jb6
when 1 0 e5 1eads to interesting
 10 Levenfish - Introduction
possibilities for both sides.
Finally, Black can meet 8 0-0
with 8 . . a6. deferring castling.
.
e.g . : 9 a4 (9 <ifth 1 0-0 trans­
poses to (a ) above) 9 . . . 0-0
1 0 .ilf3 ( 1 0 l£jb3 b6 1 1 ,ilf3
Ab7 a> - Geller) 1 0 . . . e5! 1 1
{Jb3 ef ( 1 1 . . . 'ifjc 7 1 2 f5! ! )
1 2 JlX f4 4je5 1 3 .Q.g5 'ifjb6+
14 �h 1 Ae6 a> Geller.
-
8 . . . 0-0
9 ,ilf3 l£jb6
Horowitz - Reshevsky, New
York 1 944, went 9 . . . a6 1 0
0-0 'ifjc 7 1 1 <;t>h 1 13, b8? 1 2 a4
b6? 13 e5 de 14 {Jc6 and
White won material . Up to now
all these moves have been un­
critica lly accepted by the theo­
reticians, but in 1 944 Boleslav­
sky had not yet exported his
. . . e5 beyond the borders of
M uscovy. With modern tech­
nique added we find that 1 1
e5! 1 2 l£jb3 b5 allows
Black to achieve an excellent
position analogous to situations
that might a rise after White had
badly misplayed a 6 f4 attack
against the Najdorf. In this
position the backward d-pawn
is not a liability.
1 0 'ifje2 e5
1 1 l£jb3 (55)
Tolush - Abra mian, Leningrad
1 939. The evaluation ( ± ) is the
common verdict; but a uthorities
such as Koblenz do not support
the judgement with any analysis.
In my opinion Black has a
81
plethora of dynamic possibilities
available. e.g.
a) 1 1 . . . .Q.e6 discouraging
White from castling K-side.
while prepa ring to occupy the
c4 square.
b) 1 1 . . . l£jg4 threatening to
exchange White's OB and con­
taining the idea of . . . ef
followed by . . . l£je5. (Possibly
this tactical device was unknown
in 1 939 but it has become
common knowledge from lines
of the King's Indian.) Play might
continue 1 2 .i1 X g4 'ifjh4+ 1 3
g3 'if1 X g4 1 4 'if1 X g4 .i1 X g4
(analysis by Keene) when Black's
two bishops, better develop­
ment and threat of . . . l£jc4
give him a fully satisfactory
position.
c ) The adventurous 1 1 . . ef.
1 2 ,il Xf4 l£jh5 1 3 ,i1 X h 5
'ifjh4 + 1 4 J;tg3 'if1 X h 5 1 5
'if1 X h5 g h 1 6 -'l_ Xd6 §e8
when Black will regain the pawn
with an equal position; perhaps
White does better to spurn the
pawn with 1 6 0-0-0 though he
may then subject himself to
82 10 Levenfish - Introduction

serious pressure after 1 6 §, d 3 f 5 ( 1 9 h 3 fe) - analysis by

i;tg4 1 7 §, Xd6 �c4 18 Keene and Levy.
11 Levenfis h with 6 ... �c6
1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cd 4
� X d4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 f4
6 . . . �c6 (56)
For many years most theo­
retical manuals considered this
to be the only serious reply at
Black's disposal . In the first and
second editions of my Batsford
book The Sicilian Dragon. I
demonstrated that the main line.
involving a supposedly equal­
ising manoeuvre invented by
Eliskases. was rather worse for
Black tha n had previously been
supposed . At the time of writing
the present volume I still hold
this view, but I have revised my
assessment of 10 �e7
(variation B43 1 , page 9. and
'now consider this move to be
the main line. and a satisfactory
one for Black.
The move 6 . . . �c6 is not
without importance in Dragon
theory, even though 6 . . . �g7
is probably a better choice. The
reason for the importance of 6
. . . �c6 lies in the trans­
positional possibility 1 e4 c5 2
4jf3 �c6 (or 2 . . . d6) 3 d4
cd 4 � Xd4 �f6 5 �c3 d6 (or
5 . . . 4jc6) 6 f4. when Black
may, if he wishes. avoid the
Scheveningen set-up of 6
e6 a nd instead opt for the
Dragon move 6 . . . g6.
A: 7 .Q.b5
B : 7 4J Xc6
After 7 �f3 .Q.g4 8 h3 (8
�e3 or 8 �e2 a re both
stronger) 8 . . . �Xf3 9 �Xf3
�g7 1 0 �e3 0-0 and now:
a ) 1 1 § d 1 �a5 1 2 a3 §ac8
1 3 .Q.e2 �d7 :j: Evans -
Reshevsky, New York 1 954.
b) 1 1 .Q.e2 �d7 1 2 §d 1 �a5
1 3 h4 h 5 1 4 e5 4jb6 1 5 ed ed
1 6 0-0 = Seidman-Eva ns, US
Open 1 955.
7 .Q.e2 or 7 �e3 will simply
84 11 Levenfish with 6 ...
tra nspose into the Classical
Dragon.
A:
7 Ab5 (57)
Botvinnik's move, which was
successfully adopted by Penrose
d uring the mid- 1 950's. The
problems posed in this line are
not sufficiently wide-ranging
and against accurate defence
White can expect no more tha n
equality.
7 . . . l;td7
This is solid but less likely to
usurp the initiative than 7
t:'c7! after which :
a ) 8 CDd5 releases the tension
prematurely, as shown in analy­
sis by Pachman , viz. 8
CD X d5 9 ed a6 and now :
a 1 ) 1 0 i;t X c6+ be 1 1 CD X c6
l;tg7 1 2 i;te3 l;tb7 1 3 l;td4
i;t X d4 1 4 � Xd4 0-0 1 5 0-0
i;t X c6 = Schmid - Parma ,
Malaga 1 963.
a2) 10 Aa47 �a 5+ 1 1 c3
� X d 5 1 2 CD Xc6 t:' X d 1 + 1 3
\t> X d 1 Ad7 wins a pawn .
a3) 1 0 CD X c6 ab 1 1 �d4 e5!
CDC6
1 2 de t:' Xc6 1 3 t:' X h8
� X g2 and Black is probably
winning, e.g. 14 ef + \t> Xf7 1 o
§f 1 Ah3 or 1 4 §f 1 i;t X e6
when Wh ite's king is fatally
exposed .
b ) 8 i;te3 is not recommended
on account of 8 . . . i;td7 9
CDd5 CD X d 5 1 0 ed CDb4! 1 1
i;t Xd 7 + t:' X d7 1 2 CDf3 t1'f5
when Black wins material.
c) 8 0-0 i;td7 is at least as good
for Black as the main line, since
after 9 i;t Xc6 be, 1 0 e5 is no
longer possible, while 9 CDd5
CD X d 5 1 0 ed CD X d 4 1 1
,il X d 7 + \t> X d 7 1 2 t:' X d4
t:'c5 results in a completely
drawn ending.
8 i;t Xc6
8 CDf3 allows the equa lising
8 . . . i;tg4, ana logous to
Seidman-Evans in the note to 7
CDf3.
After 8 i;t X c6 Black has the
choice of :
A 1 : 8 . . . bc
A2 : 8 . . . ,il Xc6
A1 :
8 ... be (58)
9 e5
and now:
A 1 1 : 9 . . . <£jg4??
A 1 2 :_9 . . . <£jd 5
A 1 3 : 9 . . . de
A1 1 :
9 . . CDg477 loses a piece
.
after 1 0 e6 fe 1 1 � X g4 e5 1 2
 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . �c6 85

10 . � Xc3
1 1 be c5!
Not 1 1 . . . ed 12 0-0 ..Q.e7
1 3 f5! 0-0 1 4 Ah6 .§e8 1 5 fg
followed by 1 6 �f3 ± -
Levenfish .
1 2 c£)f3
Interesting is 1 2 de �Xe7+
13 c£)e2 .§d8 14 �d3 Ac6
1 5 �g3? ( 1 5 �e3 + ) 1 5 . . .
Ag7 1 6 0-0 as in M .Johansson
- Nilsson. Stockholm 1 960-6 1 .
when 1 6 . . . � Xe2 would
have won a piece.
9 ... c£)d5 12 . . . ..Q.g7!
Until recently I considered N ilsson's move.
this move to be much better 1 3 c£)e5
than its reputation. but now I If 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 de � Xe7
a m not so sure. 1 5 .§e 1 Ae6. when Black has
1 0 ed the two bishops and a strong
If 1 0 c£) Xd 5 cd 1 1 �3 ( 1 1 king position while White has a
ed e6 :f . but 1 1 0-0 Jtg7 1 2 poor pawn structure.
�3 e6 transposes) 1 1 . . . e6 13 . . . ..Q.b5
1 2 0-0 (or 1 2 itd2 de 1 3 fe 1 4 c4
�h4+ 1 4 �2 �e4+ 1 5 �e3 Or 1 4 .§ b 1 ..Q.a6 1 5 �d5
� Xe3+ 1 6 ..Q. Xe3 Ag7 1 7 0-0 +
c£)f3 0-0 1 8 Ad4 .§ feB 1 9 14 . . . ed !
0-0-0 ..Q.b5 20 .§ he 1 a 5 = 1 5 cb
Chaplinsky - Tolush, 20th USSR The position is roughly equa l .
Ch 1 952.) 1 2 . . . Ag7 1 3 c3! Analysis b y Nilsson.
(This new move· of Olafsson's is
stronger than 1 3 ..Q.d2 �b6 1 4 A1 3 :
..Q.c3 0-0 1 5 .§ae 1 d e 1 6 fe f6 9 ... de
:f ) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 �g3 �c7 1 0 fe c£)g4 (59)
' 1 5 ed �Xd6 1 6 ..Q.e3 a5 1 7 1 0 . . . �d5 is not playable
.§ad 1 .§ab8 1 8 .§f2 a4 1 9 a 3 because of 1 1 c£) Xd5 cd 1 2
.§ b7 20 h4 .§fb8 2 1 .§dd2 f6 �3!
22 �f3 �e7 23 ..Q.d4 ! After 10 . . . �g4 there i s ·
Olafsson - Panchenko. Las A 1 3 1 : 1 1 Af4
Palmas 1 978. A 1 32 : 1 1 e6?!
86 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . 4}c6

1 2 'it!f3
This preparation for 0-side
castling is an idea of the Tarta r
International Master, Nezhmet­
dinov.
White could play more cir­
cumspectly with 1 2 4} X e6
"lt Xd 1 + 1 3 � Xd 1 fe 1 4 �e3
./£)f6 1 5 4}c4 �d5 1 6 ,ild2
Jlg7 1 7 o-o-o §.fB 1 a §. hf 1
0-0-0 1 9 4}a5 � 7 20 c4
�b6 = Geller - Pogrebisky,
1 7th USSR Ch 1 949.
A1 31 : 120 0 0 'itfd7
1 1 ll,f4 This is the only way to defend
Since the sacrifice 1 1 e6 is of everything. If 1 2 . . . l£)e5 1 3
d ubious merit this may be 'ft!e4.
White's best line. 1 3 .il,f4 .il,g7
11 0 0 0 Jlg7 1 4 0-0-0 ,ild5
1 2 'ft!e2 'ft!a5 Not 1 4 . . . .i}. X d4? 1 5
1 2 . . . 'ft!b8 1 3 o-o-o .il,Xe5 §. Xd4 'ft!b7 1 6 h 3 l£)f6 1 7
1 4 .il,g5! .il,f4 + ? ( 1 4 . . . f6 or .i}.h6! ± ; nor 1 4 . . o-o l£)f5
.

1 4 . . . h6 would have been 'itfb7 1 6 4) X g7 � X g7 1 7 h3

better, though then White would �f6 1 8 .il,e5 ±
have ample compensation for 1 5 'ft!e2 �f6
the pawn.) 1 5 .i}. Xf4 'ft! Xf4 + If 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6 l£) Xc6!
1 6 �b 1 "lte5 1 7 'ft!a6 "ltc7 1 8 'ft! X c6 1 7 � Xd 5 etc.
§.he 1 �e5 1 9 'ft!a3! ± Schmid 1 6 ll,e5
- Gilg, Dusseldorf 1 95 1 . The only way to maintain the
1 3 �f3 'ft!b4! pressure. If 1 6 §. he 1 simply 1 6
B�ck has good coun�rp�y ­ 0 0 0-0.
0

Euwe. 16
0 0 0 0-0
The text is considerably stron­ 1 7 .i}. X f6 ef
ger tha n 1 3 . . 0-0 1 4 h 3
. If 1 7 . . . ll,Xf6 1 8 l£) Xc6
.i}.h6 1 5 Jl. X h6 � X h6 1 6 'ft! X c6 1 9 4) X d 5 .i}.g5 + 20
'itfd2 4)f5 1 7 'ft! X d7 winning a �b 1 e6 2 1 h4! .il,d8, Black's
piece. K-side is full of holes.
1 8 l£) Xc6 'ft! X c6
A1 32: 1 9 4) X d 5 §.feB 20 'it!f3 (20
1 1 e61! ll, Xe6 4)e7 + ?? �8) 20 §.acB
 11
21 c3 f5 22 §;he 1 �8 when,
according to Euwe, Black has a
satisfactory position.
A2:
8 ... J;t X c6 (60)
60
w
Now:
A2 1 : 9 �e2
A22 : 9 �3
A23 : 9 e5
A21 :
9 �e2 is one possibility
which has not been tested , but
against this move Black should
not have anything to fear, e.g . 9
. . . itg7 1 0 lfj Xc6 be 1 1 e5
de 1 2 fe lfjd5.
A22:
9 �3 (6 1)
a nd now:
a ) 9 . . . �b6 1 0 lfj Xc6 (if 1 0
{Jb3 !£j Xe4! 1 1 lfj Xe4 �b4+
1 2 {Jbd2 f5) 10 . . . � Xc6
(on 10 . . . be? comes 1 1 e5 de
1 2 fe {Jd7 1 3 e6 fe 1 4 �f 1
0-0-0 1 5 Ae3 and White will
h a ve more than enough com­
pensation for the sacrificed
Levenfish with 6 . . . 4)c6 87
61
8
pawn - Levenfish . ) 1 1 J;te3
Ag7 1 2 0-0 0-0 = Shmit­
Kogan, 1 964.
b) 9 . . . �c8 1 0 Ae3 -'l,g7 1 1
0-0-0 0-0 1 2 g4 �c7 1 3 h4
( 13 �d2 maintains the balance.)
1 3 . . . lfj Xe4! 14 lfj Xe4 f5
1 5 gf gf 1 6 lfje6 -'l_ X e4 1 7
� X e4 fe 1 8 !£j Xc7 � Xc7 1 9
�hg 1 �7 20 J;tXa7 b6 2 1
J.l. X b6 l;t X b2 + :j: Klavin -
Zaitsev, Vladimir 1 962.
c) After 9 . . . �c7 , in Klavin­
A.Geller. 1 962 Latvian Ch, an
almost identical position to (b)
was reached by 1 0 J;te3 Ag7
1 1 0-0-0 0-0 1 2 g4 �feB; now
White won crushingly by 1 3 g5
lfjd7 ( 1 3 . . . -'l_ X e4 14 �e2
A X h 1 1 5 gf A Xf6 1 6 � X h 1
would have been infinitely better
for Black than the text, though
White would still have the
advantage with his threats of
1 7 !£jd5 as well as h4-h 5 . ) 1 4
h 4 b 5 1 5 �d2 !£jb6 1 6 h 5 b4
1 7 hg hg 1 8 �dh2 �8 1 9 f5
1 -0.
d) 9 . . . lfjd7 I 10 lfj Xc6 be
1 1 e5 d5 :j: - Geller .
88 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . tzjc6
A23 :
9 e5 (62)
9 . . . de
10 fe tzje4
Polyak-Tarasov, USSR 1 953,
went instead 1 0 . . . tzjd5 1 1
e6! f5 1 2 0-0 tzjf6 ( 1 2 . . .
�g7 1 3 tzj Xf5! ) 1 3 tzj Xc6
� X d 1 1 4 .§ Xd 1 be 1 5 �g5
�g7 1 6 �Xf6 � X f6 1 7 .§d7
0-0 when White could have
kept his endgame advantage by
1 8 tzja4 .§ fb8 1 9 c3.
1 1 tzj Xe4
1 1 e6 would not be correct
beca use of 1 1 . . . fe! (Weaker
is 1 1 . . . f5 1 2 0-0 �g7 1 3
tzj X f5! � Xc3 1 4 be � X d 1
1 5 tzjg7 + �8 1 6 .§ Xd 1 +
<it>c8? 1 7 �a3 .§g8 1 8 .§f 1 !
± Penrose - Wade, English
County game 1 956.) 1 2 tzj Xc6
�X d 1 + 1 3 tzj X d 1 be 1 4 0-0
J;l,g7 when Black's active piece
play provides more than suffi­
cient compensa tion for his
grotty pawn structure.
1 1 tzj X c6 is analysed by
Levenfish as leading to the
better endgame for White after
1 1 . . . tj' Xd 1 + 1 2 tzj X d 1 be
1 3 0-0 �g7 1 4 .§e 1 tzjc5 1 5
�d2 but now, instead of 1 5
. . . tzjd7 1 6 �c3, Black can
improve with 1 5 . . . Q-0 1 6
�b4 tzjd7 1 7 e6 (On 1 7
� Xe7 .§fe8 White loses his e­
pawn . ) 1 7 . . . fe 1 8 � Xe7
.§fe8 1 9 �d6 tzjb6 with active
piece play again providing Black
with compensation for his sick
pawns.
11 . . . .i}. X e4
1 2 0-0 -'l_g7
1 3 .§e 1 ?
We are following Penrose­
Barden, Hastings 1 957-8. After­
wards Penrose recommended
1 3 -'l,f4 with chances for both
players, e.g. 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 c3
�b6 = - Geller.
13 . . . �d5
1 3 . . . -'l,c6 was tried in
Kavalek-Jansa, Czech Ch 1 962;
the game continued 1 4 �g5!
�b6 ( not 14 . . . 0-0 1 5
tzj X c6 be 1 6 � X d8 and 1 7
� X e7) 1 5 c3 .§d8 ( 1 5 . . .
� X b2 1 6 tzj Xc6 be 1 7 AXe7
<it> Xe7 1 8 �d6 + <it>e8 1 9 e6
wins for White.) 1 6 �e2 .§d5
17 �f6! 0-0 1 8 -'l_ X g7 <it> X g7
1 9 �2 �c5 20 �g3 .§ fd8
2 1 .§ad 1 a5 22 .§d3 b5 23
�4 b4 24 <it>h 1 be 25 be
<it>g8 26 .§h3, and Black had
no defence to the threat of
�h6.
1 3 . . . .Q.d5, on the other
 11
ha nd . leads to an equal position
afte r 1 4 c3 Q-0. White cannot
affo rd to play 1 4 c4 �c6 ( 1 4
. . . � X c4 1 5 �a4 + b 5 1 6
{) X b5 �b6+ 1 7 {Jd4 + ! ) 1 5
,ilg5 beea use of 1 5 . . . �b6
nor 1 5 e6 when Gufeld and
Lazarev recommend 1 5 . . . f5
with a positional plus for Black
but I prefer 1 5 . . . � Xd4+
winning a piece.
1 4 c3 � Xe5
This is forced. If instead Black
tries
a) 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 �e2 �.f5 1 6
i£) Xf5 gf White can build u p a
K-side attack.
b) 14 . . . .Q. X e5, the effective
answer is 1 5 �a4+ �8 1 6
.§ Xe4.
c) 14 . . . .Q. X g2 1 5 c4 wins.
1 5 ,ilf4!
If 1 5 �e2 f5 1 6 .i1f4 �d 5!
( 16 . . . �4? 17 �b5 + �f7
1 8 �c4+ ) 1 7 .§ad 1 0-0 and
White's attacking chances are
not worth a pawn .
Or 1 5 �a4+ Ac6! .
15 . . � Xf4
Not 1 5 . . . �d5 1 6 �a4+ ! .
1 6 �a4+ (63)
16 . . . .Q.c6?
The decisive error. 1 6 . . .
b5? also loses. viz. 1 7 � X b 5 +
� 8 1 8 4je6 + fe 1 9 .§f 1
� X f 1 + 20 .§ Xf 1 + .Q.f6 2 1
�b4!
Best is 1 6 . . �8! when
. mat:ng threats. The text centra­
after 17 �e6 + fe 1 8 .§f1
� X f 1 + 1 9 .§ Xf 1 + .Q_f5 /.0
Levenfish with 6 . . . i£)c6 89
g4 Af6 2 1 gf ef Black has
excellent winning chances due
to his strong K-side pawns.
1 7 .§Xe7+ �8
1 8 4je6 + fe 1 9 � Xf4+
� X e7 20 �c7 + .Q.d 7 2 1
.§d 1 .§adS (not 2 1 . . . .§ hd8
22 � X b7. threatening 23
.§ Xd7 + ) 22 � X b7 .§ hf8 (22
. a 5 23 c4 �8 24 c5 .Q.e5
25 �b6 .§ b8 - 25 . . . .§c8 26
�Xa5 .Q. X b2 27 �d2 etc. -
26 �a7 .Q.c6 27 .§d6! .§b7 28
�a6 .Q.Xd6 29 �Xc6 + wins)
23 �Xa7 (23 c4 .§f4! and if
24 c5 .i1d4 + ) 23 . . . .§f5 24
a4 �e5 25 a5 �e8 26 a6
Ac6 (If 26 ..Q.b5 27
.§ X d 8 + � X d8 28 �a 8 +
�7 2 9 �b7+ �d6 3 0 g4! )
27 .§ X d8+ � Xd8 28 �e3
(after 28 �b6+ �7 29 a7
.§f8 White would have difficulty
in advancing his other passed
pawns. Also inferior would be
25 � X h 7 because of 28 . . .
.Q.c7 with some dangerous
lises the queen a nd threatens
29 g4.) 28 .Q.c7 29 b4
90 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . l£)c6
§e5 30 �d4+ 'l!tc:B 3 1 c4
§e4 32 �hB + �d7 33
� X h7 + �8 34 �g8+ �7
35 itff7 + 'l!fc8 36 itff8+ ..Q..dB
(36 . . . �7 fails to 37 b5
-'lb6 + 38 c5 it X b5 39
�d6 + ) 37 �c5 � 7 38 b5
-'laB 39 �a 7 + 1 -0, Penrose­
Barden, Hastings 1 957-8.
8:
7 l£)Xc61 be (64)
64
w
8 e5
This is White's only consistent
follow-up. Now:
B 1 : 8 . . . itg4
B 2 : 8 . . . de
B 3 : 8 . . . l£)g4
B4: 8 . . . l£)d7
81 :
8 . . . .Q.g4, trying to make
something of the principle that
trading pieces usually helps the
defender, fails here. After 9
.Q.e2 -'l. Xe2 1 0 � Xe2 de 1 1
fe l£)d5 White can get a terrific
bind with 1 2 e6! , e.g. 1 2 . . . f5
1 3 l£) Xd 5 ( Not 13 �e5? l£)f6
1 4 .Q.e3 -'l.g7 1 5 §d 1 �cB as
White's isolated pawn will soon
fall.) 1 3 . . . � X d 5 1 4 -'l.g5!
followed by § d 1 and §d7 at
an opportune moment - Euwe.
82:
8 ... de (65)
A move which leaves Black
precariously placed .
----.=-==--___,...,=
9 �Xd8+ �Xd8
10 fe l£)g4
Black hopes that play against
White's e-pawn will balance out
the poor position of his king
and his retarded development.
Other knight moves are wea k :
a ) 10 . . . l£)d7 1 1 -'lf4 -'l.g7
1 2 Q-0-0 �8 1 3 §e 1 l£)c5
1 4 -'l.e2 .Q_d7 1 5 .Q_f3 ± - Fine .
b ) 1 0 . . . l£)d57 and now:
b 1 ) 1 1 .Q_d2 'l!fc7 (Or 1 1 . . .
-'l.g7 1 2 0-0-0 .Q. Xe5 1 3
l£) Xd 5 cd 1 4 .Q.a5 + �8 1 5
§ Xd 5 -'lf4+ 1 6 -'ld2 .Q.e6
1 7 -'lb5 + �8 1 8 § d 3 ±
G lass-Steiner, Austria 1 962.)
12 0-0-0 .!£) Xc3 1 3 -'l.Xc3
.Q.e6 14 §d4 ith6+ 1 5 �b 1
jte3 1 6 §e4 .ilb6 1 7 lrtc4
§ hf8 1 8 E!,f 1 ± Baikov -
 11
Veselovsky, Moscow C h 1 977.
b2) 1 1 4J Xd 5 cd 1 2 �g5
(White may be able to do better
with either 1 2 �d2 ,ilg7 1 3
.Q.c3 't;c7 1 4 0-0-0 .,ie6 1 5
.Q.a6 �b6 1 6 .Q.e2, or 1 2 �e3
Jlg7 1 3 0-0-0 e6 1 4 .Q.d4
�e7 1 5 Jlb5 .Q.d7 1 6 .Q. X d 7
� X d 7 1 7 E!, hf 1 . Koch -
Hartung, Potsdam 1 95 1 . ) 1 2
. h6 (Slightly better is 1 2 . . .
.Q.e6 1 3 0-0-0 'tic 7 1 4 .Q.b5.
Penrose - Green, Rhyl 1 969.
though White still has the edge.)
1 3 .Q.h4 g 5 1 4 .Q.f2 Jlg7
(Donner - Spanjaard , Holland
1 953) 1 5 .Q.d4 !
1 1 .Q.f4
Black's options here are
numerous, but the most impor­
tant ones are :
B2 1 : 1 1 . . . .Q.g7
B22 : 1 1 . . . .Q.e6
Lesser alternatives are :
B23 : 1 1 . . . .Q.d7
B24 : 1 1 . . . .Q.h6
B25 : 1 1 . . . g5
821 :
Levenfish with 6 . . . 4Jc6 91
1 2 0-Q-0+ .Q.d7!
As to the alternatives :
a ) not 1 2 �ean 1 3 4Jb5!
. . .
.Q.d7 14 4Jc7 + �8 1 5 e6 fe
1 6 4J Xe6 + �8 1 7 4J X g7 +
�7 1 8 f!. X d7 E!, hd8 1 9
.Q.c4 + 1 -0. Beradze-Akopov,
USSR 1 966.
b) 1 2 . . �c7 is also bad
.
beca use of 1 3 e6 + and now:
b1) 13 . �e51 1 4 .Q.Xe5+
. .
� Xe5 15 ef with the better
ending for White.
b2) 1 3 . �b7 1 4 ef �f2 1 5
. .
E!,e 1 e5 (if 1 5 . . . � X h 1 1 6
E!, Xe7 + �b6 1 7 �a4 + �a5
1 8 .Q.c7 + � Xa4 1 9 E!,e4+
with mate to follow. ) 1 6 .Q.Xe5
.Q.Xe5 17 f!. Xe5 � X h 1 1 8
.§e7+ �b6 1 9 �a4 + �a5
20 E!,e5+ � Xa4 2 1 c3 c5 (on
2 1 . . . .Q.e6 22 E!. Xe6 E!,ac8
23 .Q.a6! ± . or 2 1 . . . a5? 22
.Q.d 3 mating) 22 E!. Xc5 .Q.e6
23 E!,c6 .Q.c8 24 .Q.c4 (threat­
ening 25 E!,c5 with a mating
attack) 24 . . . �a5 25 b4+
�a4 26 E!,c5 a5 27 �b2 with
mate to follow - Boleslavsky.
1 3 e6
1 3 .Q.e2 is superficial ; Black
should play:
a) not 13 . . . �f2 1 4 E!. Xd7 + !
� X d7 1 5 E!, f 1 ; but
b) 1 3 . � X e5 1 4 E!,d4
. .
�c7! (not 14 . . . h 5 ? 1 5
E!, hd 1 .Q.h6 1 6 g3 followed by
�b 1 ± . nor 1 4 . . . c5 1 5
.§d5 ± . nor 1 4 . . . �e8 1 5
�e4 ! l 1 5 4Je4 =
92 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . .!£)c6

1 3 .§. e1 is a less forceful, poor piece co-ordination .

though still advantageous, a lter­
native : 1 3 . . . g5 1 4 .Q. X g 5 822:
(Not 1 4 .Q.g3? h5 :f) 1 4 11 . .. .Q.e6 (67)

. .,' � � ��
.!£) Xe5 1 5 .!£)e4 ;!;
15 . . . fe 67 .1 •
� • '· -
1 4 .!£)e4 e5 W -wt B �
• Bt
wt t •
The only successful way to • t •.t.• t •
meet the threat of 1 5 .!£)c5. • • H •
15 .Q.e2! . . � ��­
• " �J • .
. •
Heidenfeld 's recommenda­
tion.
.
If 1 5 .Q.d2 .Q.f5! when . . . ft � � ft · . ft � �
.!£)f2 is a real threat; play could § • �..Q..· §
continue 1 6 .Q.h6+ 't;c7 1 7 Alexander's suggestion .
.Q.Xg7 .§. hg8 and Black re­ 1 2 4je4!
covers the piece with a good This temporary pawn sacri­
game. fice is White's best chance.
15 . . . h5 After 1 2 h3 .Q.h6! 1 3 .Q. X h6
16 .Q.d2! .Q.f5 .!£) X h6 1 4 g4 there is:
If 1 6 . . . <ifie8 1 7 h3! 4jf6 a ) 14 . '!;;c7 1 5 0-0-0 f5 1 6
. .

( 1 7 . . . .!£)h6 1 8 .!£)c5! ± ) 1 8 ef ef 1 7 .Q.g2 f5 = Keres -

.Q.f3 ( ± ) threatens .!£)c5. Padevsky, Moscow 1 963.
17 .Q.h6 + �e8 b) 1 4 . f5 1 5 ef_ef 1 6 .Q.g2
. .

After 1 7 . . . �c7 White �c7.

wins a piece by 1 8 .Q. X g 7
.§. hg8 1 9 .Q. X g4 since h e
captures the e-pawn with check.
1 8 .Q. X g 7 .§.g8
19 ..Q.f3 .§. Xg7
20 h3! 4je3
2 1 .§de 1 4jd5
Not 2 1 . . . .Q. X e4? 22
.Q. X e4 4jd5 23 c4 4jb4 24 a 3
winning.
22 4Jg3
White recovers the sacrificed
pawn and has a distinct end ­
game advantage because of
Black's horribly split pawns and
On 1 2 0-0-0+ 't;c7 Black
has nothing to fear.
12 . . . .Q.g7
1 2 . . . .Q.h6 would now be
wrong because of 1 3 .Q. X h6
.!£) X h6 and either 1 4 .!£)g5 or
14 .!£)c5 giving White an excel­
lent game.
1 3 .!£)c5 .Q. Xe5
On 1 3 . . . .!£) Xe5 1 4
0-0-0+ followed by 1 5 .§. e 1 is
very good for White.
1 4 0-0-0+ �7
1 5 .Q.Xe5+ .!£) Xe5
1 6 .!£)Xe6+ fe
 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . 0,c6 93

1 7 �e 1 <i!i>d6 a ) 1 4 . . . �f8 1 5 h 3 0,f5 1 6

1 8 g3 0,g4 � d 3 h 5 ! Szily-Gadalinski,
1 9 J;tc4 Poland - H ungary 1 949.
Not 1 9 l;th 3 0,f2 20 b) 1 4 . . . l;tf5 1 5 h3 g5 1 6 g4
.§ Xe6 + <i!i>c7 2 1 J;tg2 0, X h 1 .Q.g6? 1 7 �de 1 ! ± Estrin -
22 � Xc6 + �7 23 j;t X h 1 Kuznetsov, corres 1 949 .
.§ af8 with a won game for
Bla ck. 825 :
19 . . . e5 1 1 . . . g5 is recommended
20 �e2 by Estrin for reducing White's
White soon wins the pawn advantage to a minimum, e.g.
back and maintains a slight but a ) 12 J;tg3 h 5 14 h3 0,e3 :j:
lasting edge. This is not only b ) 1 2 .Q. X g5 {) X e5 1 3
through the pressure that he 0-0-0+ <i!i>e8 1 4 h 3 when
can exert against the second Black's isolated pawns will cause
black e-pawn, but also because him some trouble but his posi­
Black has d ifficulty in finding a tion is probably tenable.
reasonable plan, e.g.
a) 10 . . . � hf8 2 1 �d 1 + 83:
<i!i>c 7 22 .Q.e6! 8 ... {)g4 (68)
b) 20 . . . 0,f6 2 1 .§d 1 + 0,d5 Threatening 9 . . . �b6.
-
68 ' • •.t.. • � �·?:· ?8
. ' "*�q
(2 1 . . . <i!i>c5 22 � Xe5 +
<i!i> X c4 23 b 3 + with mate to ••� ·
follow) 22 �de 1 . w � - • - .& · .&
-�· -�­
823: -
. . �
. u . .
1 1 . . . .Q.d7 1 2 �d 1 .Q.g7 .
a .
a � ··
u� • •
(if 1 2 . . . �8 1 3 J;te2 h5 1 4 .
- �J " .
- . -
..!..!.
4l- . W � ..!..!.
4l-. •. E E ..!..!.
•. 4l-. U
Jlf3 .Q.g7 1 5 e6! ) 1 3 e6
.Q.Xc3+ 14 be fe 1 5 .Q.e2
�
.§f8 1 6 0-0 0,f6 1 7 .Q..e 5 ! - f§ �. ���A· §
M uller. 9 �3
9 .Q..e2 is a lso quite strong,
824: e.g . 9 . . . h5 and now :
11 .. . .Q.h6 1 2 .Q.. X h 6 a ) Not 1 0 .Q.f3? �b6 1 1 �e2
4J X h6 1 3 0-0-0+ ( 1 3 .Q..e 2 .Q..a 6! 1 2 �e4 d5 1 3 �a4 e6
Jlg 4 1 4 .§ f 1 gives White a 1 4 {)d 1 .Q.c5 + Birnstein -
smaller advantage.) 1 3 . . . �7 Hankin, USA 1 959.
1 4 Jlc4 and now the following b) 1 0 h3 0,h6 when :
h ave been tried : b 1 ) 1 1 ed � X d6 1 2 .Q.e3
94 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . 4Jc6

4jf5 1 3 'itXd6 ed 1 4 ..Q.f2

..Q.g7 = .
b2) 1 1 g4 h g 1 2 h g ..Q.g7 1 3
ed ed = Seidman-Reshevsky,
New York 1 956.
b3) 1 1 ..Q.e3 {)f5 1 2 ..Q.f2 ..Q.g7
1 3 Jl,f3 'lf1c7 1 4 ed ed 1 5 0-0
0-0 1 6 {)b5 '/'!Jd7 1 7 {)d4 !
Lyublinsky - Aronin, Moscow
Ch 1 947.
The immediate 9 h3 {)h6 1 0
g4, isolating Black's knight. is
also playable, e.g. 1 0 . . . f5 1 1
ef ef 1 2 Jlg2 d5 1 3 'lte2 +
� 7 1 4 0-0 ..Q.c5 + 1 5 <;!i>h 1
.§e8 1 6 �3 ..Q.a6 1 7 .§d 1 !
Di Camillo - Henio, US Open
1 958.
9 . . . �b6
9 . . . de 1 0 ..Q.b5! and 9 . . .
d5 1 0 ..Q.d2 followed by 1 1
0-0-0 both give White an excel­
lent game, but interesting is 9
. . . ..Q.g7 I? 1 0 ..Q.d2 0-0 1 1
0-0-0 .§ b8 1 2 ..Q.c4 �b6 1 3
..Q.b3 Yr Y2 • Soltis - Tarjan ,
Chicago 1 973.
1 0 h3 {)h6
1 1 ed ed
1 2 g4 J;tg7
1 3 ..Q.d2 0-0
1 4 0-0-0
and White has the better attack-
ing chances.
84:
8 ... {)d7 (69)
This is Black's safest reply.
Now:
B4 1 : 9 Jtc4
841 :
9 ..Q.c4
This is a trappy move, e.g.
a) 9 . . . d5? 10 {) Xd 5 cd 1 1
'/'!J X d5 ± ± .
b ) 9 . . . de? 1 0 0-0 �b6+
( 1 0 . . . J;tg 7 1 1 �3 ! ) 1 1
<;!i>h 1 ..Q.g 7 1 2 {)e4 0-0 1 3
'lte2 ef 1 4 ..Q. X f4 (threatening
1 5 {)g5) 14 . . . h6 1 5 c3
{)e5 16 ..Q. X e5 ..Q. X e5 1 7
{)g5! ..Q.f6 1 8 {) Xf7! <;!j>g7
( 1 8 . . . .§ Xf7? 1 9 .§ Xf6 wins
for White) 1 9 {)e5 ± Mestrovic
- Vidmar jnr., Yugoslavia 1 95 1 .
Black can secure immediate
equality by playing the obvious
9 . . . 4jb6
and now:
a ) 1 0 ed � X d 6 ( 1 0 . . .
{) Xc4? 1 1 '/'!Jd4 ± ) 1 1 � X d 6
( 1 1 j;td3 ..Q.g7 = ) 1 1 . . . ed
with an equal ending. Averbakh­
Lisitsin, 1 948.
b) 1 0 J;te2 J;tg 7 1 1 ed ed 1 2
J;te3 0-0 1 3 j;td4 Ah6 1 4
�d2 c5 1 5 J;tf2 i;tb7 1 6 0-0
 11
�6 1 7 g3 .§feS 1 S .§ad 1
§adS 1 9 a4 '«Yf5 20 .§fe 1
4J Xa4! 2 1 �d3 (if 2 1 c!£) Xa4
�e4) 2 1 . . . �cS 22 �b5 (22
4J Xa4 �c6) 22 . . . c!£) Xc3
2 3 .§ XeS + .§ XeS 24 �Xc3
.Q_g7 25 �b3 .§e4 26 .§ Xd6
c4 27 �a4 �fS 2S .§ d 7 �c5
2 9 .§ X b7 ..Q. Xf2+ 30 �g2
i.tb6 3 1 .§d7 .§e2+ 32 � 1
§f2+ 33 <i!fe 1 �eS + 34 0- 1 ,
Basman - Jamieson, London
1 964. This is an excellent ex­
ample for revealing the dynamic
possibilities at Black's disposal.
842:
9 �3 (70)
9 . . . .Q.g7
a) 9 . . . �b6? 1 0 ed ed 1 1
jte3! �Xb2 1 2 .Q.d4! �Xa 1 +
1 3 <;t>d2 .§gS 1 4 � Xc6 .§ bS
1 5 .,ila6 � X h 1 1 6 � X cS and
White wins. Analysis by Levan­
fish .
b ). 9 . . . d5 1 0 �e3 ( 1 0 h4
h 5! 1 1 jte3 - 1 1 e6!? c!£)f6 12
ef+ '#; X f7 13 ..Q.d3 Jtg4 14
'lftt2 �b6 = - 1 1 . . . e6 - Also
Posstble is Gufeld's idea 1 1 . . .
Levenfish with 6 . . . t;Jc6 95
c!£)b6 followed by . . . !J.f5 - 1 2
g4?! .§ bS 1 3 gh .§ X h 5 - 13
. . . .§ Xb2? 14 hg fg 15 �d3
± - 1 4 b3 �a3! 1 5 c!£)a4 c5 1 6
�g3 �a6! :j: N icevski-Ubilava,
USSR 1 977) 1 0 . . . �g7 (per­
haps 1 0 . . . e6, a Ia Ubila va )
1 1 �d3 0-0 1 2 0-0 c!£)b6 1 3
a4 d4? 1 4 a5 de 1 5 a b � X b6
1 6 <;t>h 1 and 1 7 c!£)a4 with
advantage to White - Levan­
fish .
1 0 �b5
The greedy 1 0 � X c6 is bad
on account of 1 0 . . . .§ bS 1 1
ed ( 1 1 �e3 could transpose
into the next note) 1 1 . . . 0-0
1 2 .Q.e2 �b7 1 3 �c7 � X g2
1 4 �XdS .§fXdS 1 5 de .§eS
1 6 .§ g 1 .Q.c6 when Black has
a m ple compensation for the
pawn .
1 0 �e3 is also weak. Black
can continue forcefully: 1 0 . . .
0-0 1 1 � Xc6 .§ bS 1 2 0-0-0
de 1 3 �Xa7 .§ b7 1 4 �a4 ef
1 5 c!£)b5 c!£)b6 1 6 �b3 �eS
a nd Black won quickly -
Shaposhnikov - Bonch-Osmo­
lovsky, 20th USSR Ch 1 952.
After 10 .Q.b5 Black has :
B42 1 : 1 0 . . . .§ bS
B422 : 1 0 . . . 0-0
1 0 . . . de 1 1 � X c6 .§ bS
tra nsposes into B42 1 .
8421 :
1 0 . . . .§ bS 1 1 ..Q. X c6 de
1 2 �e3 .§ Xb2 1 3 0-0-0 e4!
14 �Xe4 (not 1 4 c!£) Xe4?
96 1 1 Levenfish with 6 . . . .:£Jc6
�a5 etc . ) 1 4 . . . .Q. Xc3 1 5 �-side majority (YTY2 • 33
J}. X d 7 + .Q. X d 7 1 6 § X d 7 moves).
� X d 7 1 7 �a8 + (71)
••• •
7 7 �· 843 :
9 ed ed (72)
• Rit. i R i
8
•R • R• R •
iR ........ .
• • B. •
� - -�· i · i
•R •
i . •R •
iR
.
. -
� -
� .
ft . ft . - �� -
. -
. u
� ­
.
R � R R t! d
. "
�. d
. .
41- � '" 41- B B 41- �
17 . . . § b8! ! A lii � .!..!. - a Au
�. -
� /\ - t:=J.
'@ � �-
��� �
This strange move is actually
forced . In Shaposhnikov - 1 0 .,1le3
Bonch-Osmoslovsky, USSR This move, threatening 1 1
1 958, B lack played 1 7 .,lld 4, is the only way for White
�d8 a nd resigned after 1 8 to play for an advantage.
�c6+ �d 7 1 9 � Xc3. Alternatives are :
1 8 �Xb8+ �d8 a ) 1 0 �e2 + and now:
1 9 �Xd8+ )t> X d 8 20 .,ll X a7 a 1 ) 10 . .,lle 7 1 1 §e3 (not
. .

)ftc7 21 .Q.c5 §a8 22 a 3 )ftc6 1 1 b37 o-o 1 2 ,ilb2 ,ilh4+ .

23 .,ll Xe7 §a7 YTY2 Gra gger­
Honfi, Austria - H ungary 1 96 1 .
8422:
1 0 . . . 0-0 worked out quite
well in Bronstein - Vasyukov,
26th USSR Ch 1 959, viz. 1 1
� Xc6 § b8 1 2 .,lle 3 a6 1 3
.,lla 4 de 1 4 Q-0-0 �a5 1 5 .,llb 3
ef 1 6 .,ll X f4 § X b3 1 7 ab
�a 1 + 1 8 )ftd2 �Xb2 1 9 .§b1
.:£!b8! 20 �X c8 (20 § X b2?
§ d8 + ) 20 . . . § Xc8 2 1
nor 1 1 g3 0-0 1 2 .,llg 2 d 5 :j: )
1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 .:£!f6 1 3
h 3 ,ile6 1 4 g4 �a 5 1 5 �a6
� Xa6 1 6 ,il X a 6 .:£Jd5 1 7
.:£! X d 5 ,il X d 5 1 8 § Xd5! cd
1 9 §d 1 ,ild8 (if 1 9 . . . .,llf 6
20 § X d 5 �fe8 2 1 ,ild 2
§ad8 22 ,ild 3 ! ) 20 § X d 6
.,llb 6 2 1 .,lld 2 §ad8 2 2 .llb 5
f6 23 a4 §f7 24 a5 ± .
Ma rtsum - Neishtadt. corres
1 959.
a 2) 1 0 . . �e7 1 1 .:£!e4 �e6!
.

§ X b2 .Q. X c 3 + 2 2 )ftc 1 1 2 .,lld 2 Ae7 1 3 .,llc 3 0-0 1 4

.,ll X b2 + 23 )t> X b2 when g3 d5 1 5 .:£!f2 Af6 = Koblencs.
Black's extra pawn is not worth b) 1 0 �d4 and now :
very much beca use of White's b 1 ) 1 0 . . �6 1 1 Ae3 .,llg 7
.
 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . �c 6 97

12 0-0-0 and now both 1 2 . . . b ) 1 0 . . . d5? 1 1 .ild4 �f6 1 2

d 5 1 3 � Xf6 ,il X f6 1 4 �a4 �e2 + ,ile6 1 3 f5 ± .
(or 1 4 ,ild4) and 1 2 . . .
� X d4 1 3 .ilXd4 1 4 § X d4 8431 :
d5 1 5 �a4 are slightly better 10 . . . .ile7 (73)
fo r White.
b2) 1 0 . . . �f6 when : 73a
-· m.l·
� i-· � • ?-
· 8
b2 1 ) 1 1 b3? 1 is a d ubious
w . B� . i B i
attempt to kill Black on the long Bi. BiB
d iagona l . Timman-La ngeweg, • • • •
� d lU 'd
Amsterdam 1 974, continued U
WidB U WidB � UuB
• �-
. �" �,. • .
1 1 . . . ,ilg7 1 2 .ilb2 0-0 1 3
" .
4l- � 4l- - � �
%%
-
..u. u ..u. • • ..u. u
0-0-0 .ilg4! 1 4 ,ile2?! �d5 4l- �
and White had nothing better
than 1 5 � X g7 + <;!?Xg7 1 6 �§ B�s;AB E!
� Xd 5 + f6 1 7 .il X g4! ? cd 1 1 �3
and the bishop pair was no 1 1 �d 2 has been given a
match for Black's queen. How­ new lease of life by Larsen, but
ever, c22) 1 1 .ile3 allows Black it is unlikely that it represents a
a good game with 1 1 . . . ,ile7 ! serious threat to 1 0 . . . Ae7.
1 2 Ae2 0-0 1 3 0-0 c5 (Or After 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 0-0-0,
La ngeweg's 1 3 . . . �g4) 1 4 Larsen-Lein, Lone Pine 1 979
�d 2 d 5 1 5 ,ilf3 .ilb7 1 6 continued 1 2 . . . �b6 ( 1 2 . . .
.§ad 1 § b8 = Szabo - Reshev­ �a5 1 3 <;!?b 1 d 5 1 4 f5 -'l,f6
sky, Helsinki OL 1 952. 1 5 ,ild4 .il X d4 1 6 � X d4
c) 10 ,ile2 �f6 1 1 ,ile3 ,ilg7 .§b8 1 7 �d2 �c5, Scherbakov
1 2 ,ilf3 0-0! 1 3 ,ilXc6 §b8 - Lisitsin, 22nd USSR Ch 1 955,
14 0-0 .§ X b2 15 .ild4 �a5 reaches a critical position with
1 6 �e4 � X e4 1 7 ,il X g 7 the outlook probably good for
<;!? X g7 1 8 �d4+ �f6 1 9 Black.)
� X b2 �c5 + 20 <;!?h 1 � X c6 (Yet another plausible pos­
=F sibility is 1 2 . . . d5 at once,
After 1 0 ,ile3 Black has two e.g. 1 3 �a4? § b8 1 4 �c3
main alternatives: �c7, with attacking prospects.)
843 1 : 1 0 . . . ,ile7 1 3 ,ile2 d 5 14 h4 h5 1 5 g4!
8432 : 1 0 . . . �e7 .il X g4 16 ,il X g4 �c4 1 7
The other alternatives are not �d 3 �b8 1 8 b3 ,ila3 + 1 9
Particu larly attractive : <;!?b 1 §e8 20 .ild4 �b2 2 1
a ) 1 0 . . . �f6? 1 1 �d2 .ilg7 �d2 hg 22 f5 � X d 1 23 �h6
1 2 0-0 d5 1 3 ,ilc5 ± ± ±.
98 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . .!£)c6
Also insufficient is 1 2 . . .
.!£)f6?1 1 3 h3 Jle6 1 4 g4, with
good attacking prospects for
White. Fuderer - Trifunovic.
Yugoslav Ch 1 953. but Black
can improve earlier with 1 1 . . .
.!£)f61. preserving the option of
which side to castle. Honfi -
Partos. Bucha rest 1 973. con­
tin ued : 1 2 0-0-0 Jle6 1 3 Jld3
�a5 oo 1 4 f5!? gf 1 5 Jld4
.§ g8 1 6 �e2 .§g4! 1 7 j}_c4
d5 1 8 �e5 0-0-0 +
11 . . . d5
1 2 0-0-0 j}_f6
I n Tarjan - Timman . Venice
1 974. Black played 1 2 . . 0-0
. 0-0-0 0-0 1 3 Jld4 (not 1 3
immediately, when White over­
reacted with 1 3 g4?! and after
1 3 . . . Jlf6 1 4 Jld4 _ilXd4
1 5 .§ Xd4 .§ b8 16 .§d2 �b6
+ Black had the better attack­
ing prospects.
1 3 ,ild4 0-0
1 4 h4 .§ b8
1 5 �2 .§ b4
1 6 _il X f6 .!£) Xf6
1 7 a3 .§ b7 =
- Geller.
Black should keeP. queens on
to preserve the possibility of a
counter attack. After 1 7 . . .
�b6 1 8 � X b6 .§ X b6 1 9
.!£)a4 ! Black was steadily
mown down in Tai-Lisitsin. 23rd
USSR Ch 1 956.
8432:
10 . . . �e7 (74)
This. in conjunction with
74
w
Black's next move. is Eliskases'
resource.
1 1 �d4
1 1 �d2 is innocuous. Black
being able to equalise without
difficulty by 1 1 . . . Jlg7 1 2
.§e 1 .!£)f6 1 4 ,ilc5 �b7 15
J}.Xd6 .§dB 1 6 .§e7 ,ild7 1 7
Jle5 �b4 1 8 j}_ X f6 Jlf5 1 9
.§ b7 .§ Xd2 with a won game
for Black, N ielson - Coolen.
corres 1 958) 1 3 . . . j}_Xd4
14 � X d4 d5 1 5 Jld3 (if 1 5
Jle2 .§ b8 1 6 a 3 .!£)c5 1 7
.§ he 1 Jlf5 1 8 Jlf3 �b7 + l
1 5 . . . .§ b8 c.:
11 . . . Jlg7 !
Not 1 1 . . . .!£)f6? 1 2 o-o-o
Jlg7 1 3 �Xd6 �Xe3+ 1 4
'3fb 1 ± . e.g . : 1 4 . . . .!£)d7 1 5
Jla6 j}_Xc3 1 6 j}_Xc8 .§ XeS
1 7 � X d 7 + '3tf8 1 8 � XeS+
'3fg7 1 9 �c7 Jlf6 20 .§d7
± ± Orekhov - Goloborodko.
Odessa 1 973.
1 2 � X g7 � Xe3 +
1 3 Jle2
1 3 '3fd1 fails to 1 3 . . . .§ f8
1 4 .Q_b5 .!£)e5! 1 5 fe cb with
 11
th e threat of 1 6 . . . -'l_g4+ .
1 3 �82 �f8 1 4 � d 1 only
leads to equality, e.g.
a) Black must not play 14 . . .
t2Jc57 because of 1 5 � Xd6
t2Je4 1 6 �d8+ � Xd8 1 7
�Xf8 + �7 1 8 �e7 + ! fol­
lowed by a check at b4 or e5
followed by 20 �d4 forcing
the exchange of queens and
th us securing a won ending.
b ) 14 . . . i;l,a6 (an idea of
Vukovic's) gives White a slight
endgame advantage after 1 5
�d4 ( 1 5 � Xd6 only leads to
equality after 1 5 . . . -'l_ Xe2 1 6
j;l Xe2 � X f4 1 7 �d4 �Xd4
18 � X d4 0-0-0. ) 1 5 . . .
� X d4 1 6 � Xd4 -'l_ X f 1 1 7
� Xf 1 .
c) 1 4 . . . d5 (best) 1 5 �d3
�b6! (not 15 . . . �e7 1 6
�c3! when Black is i n some
d ifficulty) 1 6 �d4 �c5 1 7
§e3+ -'l,e6 1 8 Jtd 3 0-0-0 1 9
0-0 20 �h6 -'l,d7 = Secular­
Bruggemann, corres 1 959.
13 . . . �f8
14 �f 1 (75)
Levenfish with 6 . . �c6 . 99
1 4 . . . -'l,a6.
Black m ust now play as
actively as possible.
14 . . . -'l,a6
M uller's suggestion of 1 4 . . .
�d8 leads to equality if White
fails to find the most aggressive
continuation and plays 1 5 � d1
� 7 16 � f3 ( 16 f5 or 1 6
� X h 7 can be met by 1 6 . . .
-'l,a6) 1 6 . . . �g 1 + 1 7 �f 1
�e3 etc.
Grave doubts. however, have
been raised by a recent game in
which White played 1 5 � f31
�g 1 + (if 1 5 . . . �b6 1 6 0-0-0
± - Ciocaltea .) 1 6 -'l,f 1 �e8+
1 7 �e2 -'l,a6 1 8 0-0-0! ltXe2
19 lt Xe2 � X g2 20 �fd 3 !
� Xe2 ( o r 2 0 . . . � Xe2 2 1
� X d 6 � X c 2 + 2 2 \t>b 1
� X b2 + 23 � X b2 � X b2+
24 � X b2 � b8 + 25 �c2
� b7 26 � Xc6 ± - Ciocaltea. )
2 1 � Xd6 �e7 (not 2 1 . . .
�e7? 22 �8 + ) 22 � Xd 7 +
� X d7 2 3 � Xf7! � X d 1 + 24
� X d 1 Urzica - Vujacic. Stock­
holm 1 969.
1 4 . . . �c5 1 5 �d 1 d5 1 6
� f3 also lands Black i n hot
water. e .g . :
a) 16 . . �87 1 7 �d4 f5 1 8
.
� 1 ! � b8 1 9 a 3 ;t .
b) 16 .�g1 + 1 7 �d2
. .
� X h 2 (if 1 7 . . . � X g2 1 8
�e3+ -'l,e6 1 9 �d4 �d7 20
�a4 c5 2 1 �c 1 ± ) 1 8 � Xd 5
1 00 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . <tJc 6
a nd now:
b 1 ) 18 . <tJe4 + 1 9 � 1 cd
. .
20 �e5 + -'te6 2 1 �c7! ftd8
22 -'tb5 + ftd7 23 -'1. X d 7 +
-'1. X d 7 2 4 ft X d 5 wins for
White.
b2) 18 . . cd 1 9 -'lb5 + Ad7
. The correct order of moves,
20 fte3+ <tJe4 + 2 1 .§ Xe4+
de 22 �e5 + �d8 23 <3;c 1
a nd White wins.
14 . .ft b8 is also met by
. 1 8 ft d Xf 1 ?
1 5 ftf3, e.g . : 1 5 . . �e7 (if
1 5 . . . �g1 + 1 6 Af 1 .§ X b2
1 7 0-0-0 �b6 1 8 .§ X d6; or
1 5 . . . �b6 16 b3) 16 �d4
<tJc5 1 7 0-0-0 d5 1 8 fte3
-'te6 19 g4 ft b4 (if 19 . . . f5
20 gf ft Xf5 2 1- -'tg4 ftf6 22
a3) 20 �g7 .§ Xf4 (if 20 . .
�c7 2 1 f5; or 20 . . f5 2 1
.
. 1 9 <tJe4?
� Xe7+ �Xe7 22 ft Xd5)
2 1 <tJ Xd5! cd 22 Ab5+ �8
23 Et Xd5+ AXd5 24 ft Xe7
� X e7 25 �e5 + <tJe6 26
� X d5 ± Kizov - l lievsky,
Macedonian Ch 1 972.
1 5 ftf3! ? �g 1 +
On 1 5 . . . �e7 1 6 �d2!
(threatening 17 fte3) is very
strong.
16 Af 1 !
1 6 �2 � X a 1 1 7 AXa6
� X b2 does not give White any
real chance to find compen­
sation for his material deficit.
At one time it was thought
that White would have the
worst of the struggle here un-
less he took the d raw by 1 6
ftf 1 �e3 1 7 ftf3, but a s will
be shown, this is not rea lly the
case.
16 . . . AXf 1
1 7 0-0-0 � X g2?
transposing into the game, is
1 7 . . . 0-0-0 1 8 ft d X f 1
� X g2
Missing 1 8 .§ e3 + �d8 1 9
ft Xd6 <3;c7 20 �d4 ftfd8 2 1
fte7 �g4 22 �e5! �b7 23
<tJa4! with a devastating attack.
1 8 ft e1 + �d8 1 9 ft d Xf 1
is quite different since the black
king will be quite safe on c7.
18 . . . 0-0-0
Public opinion on this vari­
ation was misled 'by the fact of
B lack's victory in the ga me
U nzicker - Kottna uer, Leysin
1 967, a nd by the notes to that
game written by Kottnauer and
Hartston in 1 967 and endorsed
shortly afterwards by Marie in
l nformator 4.
U n zicker - Kottna uer con­
tinued, after 1 9 <tJe47, with 1 9
. . . <tJc5 20 <tJ Xd6+ ( if 20
<tJ X c5 de Black threatens 2 1
. . . �d2 + . 20 <tJg5 would
have been best.) 20 . . . Et Xd6!
2 1 ft 3f2 (on 2 1 � Xf8 + ftd8
Black threatens 22 . . . 'l!1'd2 +
with mate to follow. ) 2 1 . . .
'l!1'd 5 22 � X f8 + ft d 8 23
 11
i!Jg7? (After this White is cer­
tainly losing. Relatively best is
23 'I!Jh6 .{)e4! 24 'f!1h3 + f5
25 *b3 'I!J X b3 26 ab .{) Xf2
27 13, X f2 �d4 28 c3 �e4
when Black has d istinctly the
better of the · rook and pawn
ending as White can never
exchange rooks.) 23 . . . 'lf1Xa2
24 b3 .{)e4! 25 'f!1b2 'f!1 X b2 +
26 � X b2 .{) Xf2 2 7 � X f2
�d5 28 �e2 �7 29 �3
�6 30 §e8 a5 3 1 �e4 � h 5
32 �d4+ � 5 0- 1 . (Both 33
�d2 § h 3 + 34 �b2 �f3 and
33 �d7 § h 3 + 34 �b2 f5 35
�d2 � h4 36 �f2 �4 are
without hope.)
Correct perspective has been
restored to this line by Ciocaltea,
who recommended 1 9 'I!Jd41
.{)b6 20 h3 (76) (to take away
the flight square g4 from the
black queen ).
76 ··�· �- .
• B BiBi
8 �:a
- .&
·�
. W9 . ... .
� ... �
• • • •
.• � \� u
� . � trapped and White can exploit
• � - � · ft
ft H ft B BirB
. � -�·
This was successfully tried
out in a game won by the
Rumanian lady player, Nicolau,
against Georgieva at Gori 1 970;
that game continued 20 . .
� fe8 2 1 'ff1d 3 c5 22 'I!Jd 1
Levenfish with 6 . . . .£)c6 10 1
.{)c4 23 � 1 f2 .{)e3 24
� X g2 .{) X g2 25 'I!Jd5 1 -0.
Let us now return to the
position arising after Ciocaltea's
20 h 3 (76) and attempt to
reach a balanced verdict on this,
which the a uthor considers
typical of the problems of the
Levenfish .
It may be of value to appraise
the general positional features
of this situation before engaging
in an investigation of precise
concrete variations :
I n Black's favour a re the
following factors :
a ) The slight wea kness of
White's back ra nk. ·
b ) White's K-side pawns are a
serious endgame liability.
c) Black's pieces a re all de­
veloped .
d ) Black has an extra pawn .
To offset Black's assets is the
fact that Black's pieces, although
developed , do not co-operate;
they a re cut off in isolated
detachments; the queen espe­
cially is in da nger of being
this to organise a d ual attack on
the black queen and the key
points c6 and a7. White is well
developed and his centralised
forces are ideally placed for
action on both wings.
Now to examine some con­
crete variations :
. The main danger for Black is
that his king will be dissected
102 11 Levenfish with 6 . . . liJc6
while he is seeking to extricate
his queen. As can be seen from
N icolau-Georgieva , Black's first
priority is to release his queen
from the death trap on g2.
Since 20 . . . §.feB fails, there
is no a lternative but to resort to
20 . . g5(1) suggested by
. -
the a uthor - hoping to provide
an avenue of escape for the
queen along the g-file or the b8-
h2 diagona l . After 20 . . . g5
White has two forceful continu­
ations in 21 a4 a nd 21 f5
which lead to complications,
a nd the simple 2 1 i*e4 guaran-
teeing White a great endgame
advantage, e.g . :
a ) 21 . .�b7 22 i*e7 + a nd
.
23 i* X g5
b ) 21 . .d5 22 i*f5 + �b8(! )
.
2 3 i* X g5 i* X g5 24 fg §.d7
25 h4 lf)c4 (or 25 . . . §.e7 26
§. f6) 26 lf)a4 and Black's
position is every bit as bad as it
looks - analysis by Keene.
This a nalysis bears out our
contention that White has the
advantage after 20 h3. The best
that Black can hope for is an
inferior ending.
12 Levenfis h with 6
This move is the very re­
sponse that the Levenfish Attack
was designed to refute, and
until very recently it was con­
sidered almost insane for Black
to reply with the routine develop­
ment of h is K B . But times
change .
In J uly 1 974 the move 6 . . .
Ag7 was revived, quite inde­
pendently, by Mestel and myself.
I believe that I was the first by a
few days when I essayed the
move against Lennox in the
Scottish Championship at Ayr,
though Mastel's victory over
Vladimirov was more dramatic.
... .itg7 !
Our new idea, though Mestel
did not actually get the chance
to test it was to employ an
innovation given by Trifunovic
as an equalising line. This new
move revived a position con­
sidered by theory to be hopeless
for Black.
7 e5! (78)
The most consistent con­
tinuation.
After 7 .k;tb5 + 4jfd7! 8 .k;te3
0-0 9 .k;te2 4Jc6 Black's posi­
tion is quite comfortable, e.g.
1 ) 10 4Jb3 4Jb6 1 1 0-0 .k;te6
1 2 �h 1 4jc4 1 4 ..Q..c 1 b5! :j:
Szily-Gereben, H ungary 1 948.
b) 1 0 0-0 4Jb6! 1 1 4jd5
.k;t X d4 =
From the diagram Black has
104 12 Levenfish with 6 . . . ll!J 7!
tried several moves :
A : 7 . . . �fd7
B : 7 . . . �g4
C : 7 . . . 4:)g8
D : 7 . . . Ag4
E : 7 . . . de
F : 7 . . . 4:)h5
A:
7 4:)fd77 8 e6! 4:)f6 9
. . .
ef + �Xf7 1 0 Ac4 + d5 1 1
Ab3 E!f8 1 2 il¥f3 e6 1 3 Ae3
�g8 1 4 0-0-0 to be followed
by a K-side pawn storm ( ± ) .
B:
7 ... 4Jg4
8 -'tb5 + �8
If 8 . . . Ad7 9 � X g4
9 h3 4Jh6
1 0 Ae3 4:)c6 1 1 ed 4:) Xd4 1 2
lt X d4 � X d 6 1 3 jt X g 7 +
� X g7 1 4 � X d 6 ed 1 5 0-0-0.
In the original game of this
attack, Levenfish - Rabinovich,
1 1 th USSR Ch 1 939, White
now won the Black d-pawn and
eventually the ending : 1 5 . . .
E!d8 1 6 E!d2 Ae6 1 7 E! hd 1
4Jf5 1 8 g4 4:)e3 1 9 f!e 1 a6 (If
1 9 . . . 4:)c4 20 AXc4 AXc4
2 1 f!ed 1 and White wins the
d-pawn at once.) 20 E! Xe3 ab
21 4:) X b5 f! Xa 2 22 f! X d6
f! Xd6 23 4:) Xd6 f!a 1 + 24
�2 f!f 1 25 4:) X b7 f! Xf4
2 6 4:)c5 Ad5 2 7 4:)d3 E!f 1 28
b3 �h6 29 c4 Ag2 30 c;!te2
E! b 1 3 1 g5 + ! �g7 32 �2
Ab 7 33 b4 Ac8 34 c5 Af5
35 c6! h6 (35 . . . A X d 3 36
E! Xd3 E! X b4 37 c7 E!c4 38
f!d7 wins.) 36 gh + � X h6 37
c7 f! b 3 38 h4 E!c3 39 �c5
f!c4 40 E!e5! lrtg4 4 1 f!e4
f!c2 + 42 c;!te3 Af5 43 E!f4
Ac8 44 E! Xf7 f! c4 45 E!f4
1 -0.
C:
1
. .4Jg8 8 Ab5 + �8
.
(8 . • . Ad7 9 e6 ± ) 9 0-0 d5
(9 . . . de?? 10 �e6 + ) 1 0
Ae3 a 6 1 1 Ae2 e6 (if 1 1 . . .
b5? 1 2 � Xd 5 ! ) 1 2 �e4! 4:)c6
( 1 2 . . . de? 1 3 � Xe6 + ) 1 3
4:) Xc6 be 1 4 Ac5 + 4:)e7 1 5
4:)f6 ± Rellstab-Wittenberg,
Hamburg 1 950.
D:
1 . . Ag4 8 Ab5 + ! �8
.
(if 8 . . . 4:)c6 9 ef lt X d 1 1 0 fg
E! g8 1 1 � Xc6 winning, or 8
. . . �bd7 9 �d3! ± ) 9 �d3
4:)e8 1 0 0-0 �d7 ( 1 0 . . . de??
1 1 �e6 + ) 1 1 h3 de 1 2 fe
4:) Xe5 1 3 h g ! �c7 (If 1 3 . . .
4:) Xd 3 1 4 4Je6+ wins a piece.)
14 �e4 �Xd4+ 1 5 � X d4
4:)f3 + 1 6 f! Xf3 A X d4 + 1 7
Ae3 AXc3 1 8 Ac4 Af6 1 9
g5 winning. Koch - N usken.
Grethen 1 950.
E:
7 ... de!
The least unpleasant of
Black's options.
8 fe
 12 Levenfish with 6 . . . !J..g 7!
a nd now:
E1 : 8 . . . l£jg8
E2 : 8 . . . l£jh5
E3 : 8 . . . l£jd5
E4 : 8 . . . l£jg4
E5 : 8 . . . l£jfd7!
E1 :
8 . . . l£Jg8 9 Ab5 + .Q.d7
1 0 e6! .Q. X b5 1 1 l£jc X b5 l£jf6
1 2 "itf3 '[tb6 1 3 ef + �Xf7
1 4 '[tb3 + e6 1 5 l£jc7! '[t X c7
1 6 '[t Xe6 + �8 1 7 � Xf6 + !
A Xf6 1 8 l£je6 + winning.
Vlagsma - Wind, Rotterdam
1 946.
E2:
8 . . . l£Jh511 9 Ab5 + Ad7
1 0 g4 winning a piece.
E3:
8 . . . l£Jd5 9 Ab5 + �8
1 0 0-0 A X e5 ( 1 0 . . . e6 1 1
"itf3) 1 1 .Q.h6 + �g8 ( 1 1 . . .
.Q.g7 1 2 A X g 7 + � X g7 1 3
l£j X d 5 wins material . ) 1 2
l£j Xd 5 '[t X d 5 1 3 l£jf5! �c5+
1 4 Ae3 '[tc7 1 5 l£jh6+ �g7
1 6 §. Xf7+ + . Schwarz - Mar­
quardt. Berlin 1 950.
E4:
8 ... l£Jg4
9 .Q.b5 + l£jc6
9 . . . �8?? 1 0 Ae6 + 1 -0
actually happened in Eales - de
Veauce, Paignton 1 968 and
countless other games.
1 0 l£j Xc6 '[t X d 1 +
105
1 1 l£j Xd 1
1 1 �Xd 1 l£jf2 + 1 2 �2
l£j X h 1 1 3 l£jd4 + and 1 4 Af4
gives White two minor pieces
for a rook and is therefore
equally convincing.
11 . . . a6
1 2.Q.a4 Ad7
1 3 h3 l£jh6
Not 1 3 . . . l£j Xe5 1 4 l£j Xe5
1 4 l£j Xe7 (79)
14 . . . AXa4
After 1 4 . . . �Xe7 1 5
.Q.g5 + �8 1 6 A X d 7 +
� X d7 1 7 0-0 Black would
have been clearly lost.
1 5 l£jd5 §.d8
16 c4 l£jf5
If 1 6 . . . AXd 1 1 7 §. Xd 1
b5 ( 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 .Q.g5 §.d7
1 9 �2 ± ) 1 8 .Q.g5! is also
very good for White.
1 7 Ag5 §.d7
1 8 l£j 1 c3 Ac6 1 9 0-0-0 h5 20
l£jc7 + �8 .2 1 §. Xd7 A Xd7
22 §. d 1 AXe5 23 §. Xd7 h4
24 l£je4 l£jd4 25 §.d8 + �g7
26 l£je8 + �h 7 27 l£j4f6 +
AXf6 + 28 l£] Xf6 + 1 -0 Pilnik­
Kashdan. New York 1 949.
106 12 Levenfish with 6 . . . Ag7!

E6 : with a balanced position.

8 .. . l/Dfd7 1 14 . . . §. Xd8
Relatively best. 1 5 Jia4
9 e6 (80) with some advantage to White

·' ·T
according to Boleslavsky; but
• -J.·
80
8
�� • :;'A
- .&. �
· · ·�
-
�
-
1 5 . . . � 7. as in the previous
note, may give Black a playable
B B ft B i B position .
• • • •
. � . . F:
.
� "� .
� . d
7 l/Dh5 (8 1)

ft 8 ft B B ft 8 • �J.·
81 - • �
": · '•• -
�
R n�� /\ - t=l
� -�- -�-�
w •
-g ��·
9 . . . l/De5 - �
- .
- .&. .
... -
There is nothing better. If 9 • B R -�
. . . fe 1 0 l/D Xe6 JiXc3 + 1 1 . "
� � u
� � .
be 'l6'b6 1 2 A�4 l/Df6 1 3
. � . .
.a
41- u d .a u
§. b 1 ! ! 'l6' X b 1 1 4 l/Dc7 + �8
� ft �- - 41- �
� -g
1 5 '{td8 + l/De8 1 6 'l!YXe8+
�g7 1 7 �7 + + - Schwarz. � ��� /\ - t=l
��· �
1 0 �b5 + l/Dbc6 8 �b5 +
1 1 ef + � X f7 Not 8 g4?? l/D Xf4 9 A Xf4
1 2 0-0+ Jif6 d Xe5 + + ·
1 3 l/D Xc6 8 0 0 Jid7
0

If 1 3 Ji X c6 l/D Xc6 1 4
liD Xc6 'l!YXd 1 1 5 l/D X d 1 be
1 6 Jig5 as recommended by
Koblencs. 1 6 . . . lrtf5 1 7
� X f6 ef 1 8 4je3 �e6 gives a
tenable ending - Gufeld .
130 0 0 be
Or 1 3 . . . l/D Xc6 1 4 l/Dd5!
14 'itXd8
N ot 1 4 lrtf4 �g7! (After 1 4
. . . i!Yb6 + 1 5 �h 1 White
gains the advantage in Kamishov
- Averbakh, Moscow teams Ch
1 948. ) 1 5 lrtXe5 -'t X e5 1 6
*Xd8 §. Xd8 1 7 lrtXc6 §, b8
9 e6
9 �3?! was played i n
Vladimirov-Mestel, World Cadet
Ch Pont Sainte Maxence 1 974 :
9 . . . de 1 0 fe � Xe5 1 1 �e3
( 1 1 i!YXb7 �Xd4 1 2 *Xa8
� Xc3+ =t =t ) 1 1 . . . � X b5
1 2 l/Dc X b5 (or 1 2 l/Dd X b 5
l/Dc6 a n d Black i s a safe pawn
up) 1 2 . . . "*a5 + ! ? ( 1 2 . . .
'lfid7 1 3 Q-0-0 Q-0 is simpler)
1 3 c3 ( 13 b4 'lfib6 ! ) 1 3 . . .
a6! 1 4 'itd5 ( 1 4 l/Da3 "*c7
leaves the knight hopelessly
placed : 1 4 "* X b7 ab 1 5 b4
 12 Levenfish with 6 . . . Ag 7! 1 07

�a6 ) 1 4 . . . �X d4! 1 5 1 1 . . . 'l!fa5 1 2 �d2 ! � X b5

{Jd6 + (or 1 5 �Xd4 0-0! 1 6 1 3 c4! ± . Strangely, or perhaps
�e5 f6 + + ) 1 5 . . . ed 1 6 not. the text is not mentioned
� Xa5 �Xe3 (Black is proba­ by Geller in Encyclopaedia of
bl y winning . Even if White Chess Openings.
succeeds in sorting out his king 1 2 'l!fd3
and rooks, Black plays . . . d5- 1 2 � X d7 + � Xd 7 ( 1 2 . . .
d4 and centralises his pieces.) �Xd7? 1 3 {)g5 '1!fc4 1 4 .§. b 1
17 � 1 �c6 1 8 'l!fc 7 0-0 1 9 't;c7 1 5 .§.b4 'l!f X a 2 1 6 'l!fe2
.§.f 1 .§.ab8 20 �2 �d4 + ! {)c6 1 7 �e6 + 1 -0 J . Little­
2 1 �b 1 (if 2 1 �3 �f4 + ! 22 wood - Mestel, British Ch 1 979;
.§. X f4 �e6! 23 '/!J X b8 If 1 7 . . . �8 1 8 .§. X b7!
� Xf4 + 24 � X e3 � X g 2 + wins) 1 3 0-0 {)hf6 14 'l!fe2
wins comfortably) 2 1 . . . �e6 � 1 5 'I!Jb5 + �fd7 1 6 �d4
22 'I!J Xd6 .§. bd8 23 'l!fe7 .§.d2 �e4 1 7 .§.e 1 a6 1 8 'l!fe2
24 a 3 �hf4 25 'I!J X b7 �c5 �df6 1 9 c4 0-0 + 20 �h 1
26 'I!Jf3 �d5 0- 1 . White is 'l!fg4 2 1 'I!J X g4 � Xg 4 22
faced with the threat of 27 . . . �g 1 �fg6 23 g43 �c5 24
{) X c3 + . If 27 .§. c 1 {)d3 28 .§. Xe7 .§.ae8 25 .§. Xe8 .§. X e8
.§c2 {) Xc3 + mates. ( Notes 26 h3 .§.e4 27 �b3 .§. Xc4 28
by Mestel.) �b2 �fe4 29 � Xc5 � Xc5
9 . . . fe 30 .§. d 1 .§. Xc2 3 1 �a 3
N ot 9 . . . � X b5 1 0 ef + .§. X a 2 32 � Xc5 de + +
�Xf7 1 1 �d X b5 �f6 1 2 Lennox - Levy, Scottish C h
0-0, threatening 1 3 f5 ± 1 974.
Levenfish. 1 2 'l!fd4 �f6 1 3 'l!fc4 �c6
10 � Xe6 � Xc3 + 1 4 �d4 � X d4 1 5 cd ( 1 5
1 1 be 'l!fc8! (82) � X d 7 + 'I!JXd7 1 6 cd - 1 6
'I!JXd4 '1!fe6 + + - 1 6 . . . . .§.c8
82 · ·it···
• + ) 1 5 . . . 'l!f Xc4 1 6 �Xc4
w . ..�..
... �
- .& - . ...
� .& �f5 ! :j: MacHack - Levy,
. -�- � ­ Cambridge ( Mass.) 1 978.
aAm a •� 12 . . . � X b5
a a B a 1 3 'l!fXb5+ �c6
-
. � u . - . -
1 4 �g5 h6
ft B ft a a ft � 1 5 �f3 'I!Jf5
� •
� rn:�n·��
1 6 'I!J X b7 'l!fe4 +
�� � • -��
1 7 �2 .§. b8! =
This is Trifunovic's improve­ Clearly Trifunovic's equality
ment over the older continuation sign is, to say the least. simpli-
108 12 Levenfish with 6
fying the issue .
Much experience will be re­
quired to determine whether
Black's freedom of movement
compensates for his poor pawn
structure. Just to confuse the
issue still further, I should per­
haps mention that Tatai prefers
. . . Ag7!
White, Keene prefers Black, and
I wouldn't like to play the
position with either colour!
Seriously though, if Wh ite
can find time for the advance f5
I feel that he will have good
attacking chances. Otherwise I
would prefer Black.
I ndex of Variations

1 e4 c5 2 .l£jf3 d6 3 d4 cd 4 .1£J Xd4 .l£jf6 5 .l£jc3 g6

6 h3 2
6 .l£jde2 3
6 ,ilb5+ 3
6 �5 4
6 �5 4
6 g3 5

Classical 6 ,ile2
6 .Q.e2 ,ilg7 7 .l£jb3 9
7 ,ile3 .l£jc6 8 .l£jb3 0-0 9 f4 ,ile6 16
9 . a5
. . 21
9 . .l£ja 5
. . 22
9 . e5
. . 23
8 �d 2 0-0 9 .l£jb3 25
9 0-0-0 25
9 0-0 .Q.d7 27
9 . a6
. . 28
9 . d5
. . 29
9 . .l£jg4
. . 33
1 0 .Q. X g4 ,ilXg4 1 1 f4 34
1 1 .l£jd 5 36
1 1 .l£j Xc6 37
1 1 h3 37
1 1 f3 37
8 g4? 38
8 h3 38
8 f3 39
8 h4 39
8 0-0 Miscella neous 41
1 10 Index of Variations

6 Ae2 Jlg7 7 o-o 4)c6 8 4)b3 o-o 9 Jlg5 �e6 43

9 . . . a5 46
9 . . . a6 47
6 Ae2 Ag7 7 ,ile3 4)c6 8 o-o o-o 9 h 3 49
9 f3 50
9 �h 1 50
9 f4 'i*b6 1 0 'i*d3 51
1 0 e5 52
9 4)b3 ,ild7 55
9 . . . a5 55
9 . . . ,ile6 1 0 h 3 58
1 0 f3 58
1 0 f4 4)a5 1 1 f5 ,ilc4 1 2 fg 62
1 2 g4 62
1 2 4) Xa 5 62
1 2 ,ild 3 66
1 2 �h 1 68
10 f4 'i*c8 1 1 �h 1 69
1 1 'l*d 2 71
1 1 'i*e 1 71
1 1 h3 72
Levenfish 6 f4
6 f4 4)bd7 78
6 4)c6 7 ,ilb5 84
7 C2J Xc6 be 8 e5 ,ilg4 90
8 . . . de 90
8 . . . 4)g4 93
8 . . . 4)d 7 94
6 ,ilg7 7 e5 l2Jfd7 104
7 . . . l2Jg4 104
7 . . . l2Jg8 104
7 . . . .i}.g4 104
7 . . . de 104
7 . . . l2Jh5 106
I ndex of Complete Games

Alekhine-Botvinnik 19
Basman-Jamieson 95
Benko-Wexler 43
Berad ze-Akopov 91
Eales-de Vea uce 105
Estrin-Veresov 21
Filipowicz-Hollis 66
Fink-Estrin 77
Fischer-Reshevsky 20
Foltys-Eiiskases 17
G rechkin-Saigin 25
Gusev-Averbakh 11
Holmov-Aronin 70
Keres-Giigoric 8
Korchnoi-Spassky 79
Kramar-Kovalyev 19
Lasker-Napier 3
Levenfish-Rabinovich 104
J .Li ttlewood-Mestel 107
Nei-Pitksaar 20
N icola u-Georgieva 101
Penrose-Barden 90
Pilnik-Kashda n 105
Ra uzer-Botvinnik 61
Rauzer-Kan 5
Richter-Petrow 34
Rolland-La rsen 75
Sa lhaa rzh uren-Stein 39
Sama ria n-Roele 54
Schories-Koch 18
1 12 Index of Complete Games

Smyslov-Botvinnik 40. 40, 4 1

Smyslov-Geller 49
Smyslov-Korchnoi 10
Soltis-Ta rja n 94
Spielma nn-Aiekhine 57
Tuomainen- Lee 80
Unzicker-Kottna uer 100
van den Berg-Larsen 13
van Hombeek-Nikitin 76
Vladimirov-Mestel 106
Wach-Oiey 51