First published 2000 by Everyman Publishers plc, formerly Cadogaa Books

ple, G 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD

Copyright © 2000 Glenn Flear

The right of Glenn Flear to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 261 X

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, 6 Business Park

Road, P.O. Box 833, Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-0833.
Telephone 1-800-243 0495 (toll free)

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester

Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 0171 539 7600 fax: 0171 379 4060
email: dan@everyman.uk.com
website: www.everyman.uk.com

To my family

The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First
Rank Publishing.

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess}

Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov
Advisory Panel: Andrew Kinsman and Byron Jacobs

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Production by Book Production Services.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge,
Wiltshire.
 CONTENTS

1 ed e5 2 53 Hc6 3 £b5 ab i,fig%

4 %a4 56 5 0-0 Hxed JEAE

Bibliography 4
Preface 5
Intreduction 7

6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 Reb

Part One: 9 ¢3 £c5

1 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 £c2 Hxf2 12 Exf? f6 (Dilworth Variation) 10

2 105bd20-0 11 22 5 2
3 10&bd2 0011 £c2 £15 32
4 Tenth Move Alternatives 46

Part Two: 9 ¢3 Le7

5 Main Line with 10 9bd2 &5 11 &c2 56

6 10 &bd2: Black avoids the Main Line 74
7 White avoids the Main Line &
8 10&e3 96

Part Three: Other Systems

9 9WYe2 109
10 9 Dbd2 120
11 White’s Other Ninth Moves 138
12 Odds and Ends 147

Index of Complete Games 157

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume C (Sahovski Informator 1997)
C80-81, C82, €83, Victor Korchnoi {Szhovski Informator 1994-5)
The Open Spanish, Mikhail Krasenkov (Cadogan/Everyman 1995)
My 60 Memorable Games, Robert Fischer (Faber 1972)
Ewwe, Drazen Marovic (Sahovska Naklada 1978)
Capablanca’s Best Games, Harry Golombek (Batsford 1996)

Periodicals
Informator
New in Chess Yearbook
British Chess Magazine
CHESS Monthly
Various Chess Computer Databases: Fatbase, Fidechess, The Week in Chess etc.
 PREFACE
"The Open variation of the Ruy Lopez {or
Spanish) starts with the moves
1 ¢4 e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad &6
5 0-0 Dxed
What is the big attraction of the variation
for Black?
In the Open variation (or simply ‘Opert)
of the Ruy Lopez Black aims for active picce
play and an asymmetric pawn structure
including a queenside majority. The Open is
a logically named variation involving fluid
piece play and offers a more dynamic
struggle than the long-winded manoeuvres of
the Closed Ruy Lopez.
The variation has remained in popular use
since the 19th century and has a remarkable
pedigree. Virtually every World Champion
has played it - and most with both colours!
A number of great historical matches have
included important games from this
vasation, including of course the World
Ch clashes Alekhine-E:
Karpov-Korchnoi and Kasparov-Anand.
Over the last quarter. of a century one
associates this opening primarly with
Korchnoi, Timman and Yusupov, but in
recent years Anand has also included this
opening in his repetlm?‘
The Open attracts' players of all Styles:
Korchnoi is a orolific analvst and practitioner
of the Open and by nature a provocative,
counter-attacking player. Timman is more of
a aggressive tactical player who is attracted 1o
the more critical hnes {and like the other
great Dutchman before him, Max Euwe, he
is happy and willng
to play the Open with
either colour), whereas Yusupov is a more
caurious positional player.
Some lines of the Open involve long,
forcing tactical variations; others careful
manocuwring. In the Dilworth variation
Black even takes the gamble of giving up two
active minor pieces for a modest rook and
pawn in order to wrest the initiative from
White’s grasp. Overall in the following pages
we shall see a rich family of variations with
something for everyone.
In some opening books, the author tries
to hype their choice of opening by pointing
out ‘surprise value’, ‘attacking chances’, ‘easy
for the opponent to go wrong or whatev«.
None of these claims hold much water if the
opening is not fundamentally sound and
robust against best play.
A starisucal analysis of a large database
shows that the Open scorcs an average
percentage {44%) with an average length of
38 moves per game, Fair enough, but this is
hardly a persuasive argument! It is more
siemificant that whereas manv active lines in
Open Ruy Lopez
the Ruy Lopez come and go with fashion or
the latest novelty, the Open remains, year in,
year out, @ popular option among the top
players, providing interesting games, active
play and winning chances, whileat the same
time being positionally rock-solid.
Although this book is written
from Black’s point of view, I have purposely
t.ned to be objective with bd analysis,
and The
illustrative games have been chosen for their
intrinsic worth, not because Black wins every
one of themt
There is nothing more annoying than
opening books with ridiculous bias, in which
some sirange ideas are extolled and clear
improvements for the opponent are
conveniently ignored. Here I have tried to
point out the rough with the smooth, the
good with the bad and, yes, sometimes even
the ugly. I trust that this book can be used
with confidence by White players i their
efforts 1o obtain something agaum the
opemng. Howeve, at the same time it offers
sound but dynamic opening
t}mmn stand at the heart of your repertoire
against 1 c4.
Glenn Flear
Baillargues, France, January 2000
| INTRODUCTION
The core of the Open variation is the by
that arises after the eight standard moves
1 e4 o5 2 D)3 Hc6 3 215 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 xed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxed
fe6
which forms the starting position of all
but one chapterin this book.
Here White has a kingside majority with
an advanced pawn on €5, whereas Blackin
compensation has a d-pawn and a queenside
majority. Blagk-as a well-placed might on
e4 but this & prone 1o amack by 263 o
exchange by @b1-d2, Although White is
attacking the d5-pawn twice, it is sufficiently
well defended. Finally, White has already
managed to remove his king from the centre,
‘whereas Black is not yet ready to do so.
Typical Themes for White
Here are a summary of the typical plans (with
game references as thematic examples) thar
White commonly adopts. These are often
combined for added effect.
1. Push the fpawn along with its
counterpart on €5 to create a dangerous
attacking force (Game 32).
2. The pawn on €5 stops the black knight
from retgeating to f6, so pressure on the bl-
h7 diagonal can cause problems aganst the
h7-square (Games 24, 31, 42, 52 and 59).
3, The kuight on e is annoying so White
will try 10 exchange, undermine or at least
push back the beast, either with £2f3 or
b1-d2 (most gamesl).
4, Create pressure on the dS-square and
along the dile where Black’s queen 15
generally resident (Games 36, 4849 and
Chapter 9).
5. An early a2-a4 putting pressure on the
b5-pawn and opening up the rook’s line of
action (Games 16, 25-26 and 47).
6. The advance b2-b4 aiming to fix Black’s
queenside on rather passive squares (Games
4,37, 41, 47-48, 77 and 88).
7. Aiming to occupy the c5- and d4-
squares with pieces in order to fix Black’s
majority and limit his scope for counterplay.
This often involves the exchange of Black’s
7
Open Ruy Lopez
dark-squared bishop {Games 4, 31 and 36).
8. With the black light-squared bishop on
the kingside, advancing the kingside pawns to
harass and weaken the black king’s defences
(Games 14, 37 and 52).
9. Manoeuvring a knight to the useful f5-
square {Games 35 and 37-38).
10. Disruptive ideas based on e5-6 cither
o break-up Black’s pawn structure or as part
of tactical play on the kingside (Game 17, 36,
38 and 57).
11. Allowing Black to capture the pawn
on €5 in order to gain time (Games 18,23
and 51).
12. Recapturing away from the centre with
<2xb3 in order to press on the cile (Games
61,78 and 81),
Typical Themes for Black
For his part, Black also has several common
ideas that occur time and again. Likewise,
Black may use several of these in one game.
1. Development of the bishop to c5 with
consequent pressure on the a7-gl diagonal,
icularly the f2-square (Pat One and
Game 69).
2. Capturing on f2 with bishop and knight
and following-up with ...f7-f6 (Chapter 1 and
Game 13).
3. Supporiing the knight with ..f7-£5, so
that if White captures en passant the ffile is
opened for Black and the knight can retreat
10 the safe f6-square (Games 7, 24-27, 43, 49
and 59). If White ignores the f-pawm (Games
8-12 and 44) then it can even threaten w0
advance to f4.
4. Pressure on the e5-point, sometimes
just with picces such as ..&)d7 (Games 53-
54) or by simply seeking its exchange with
766 (Games 15, 2021, 23 and 63).
5. Black plays the liberaring ..d5-d4,
apening lines for his pieces (Games 29-30, 37
and 70-76).
6. Black plays for queenside expansion
with ...c7-¢5 with options of ..b5-b4 or ...d5-
d4 creating a passed d-pawn (Games 15, 52
and 59).
7. Supporting the d-pawn with .. #d7 and
..Bd8 (Games 37-38 and 56-58).
8. The standard pin ...&g4, slowing down
White’s kingside expansion and then using
this bishop as a defender of the black king
with ...&h5 and .. 2g6 (Games 31-39, 52, 55
and 69).
9. Pushing the a-pawn to harass a white
knight on b3 and generally gaining space
(Garmes 29-30 and 68).
10. Developing quickly, allowing White to
capture on e4 or d5. This sometimes involves
gambitting the pawm or perhaps just a
weakening of the black structure {Games 31
and 48).
11. Simplifying by exchanging knights on
2 (Games 40, 42, 58 and 88) or
eliminating the bishop with .. &%xb3 (Cnmes
41, 61-62, 68, 77 and 80-81).
12. Isolating his own d-pawn with the
line-opening ...c7-¢5 (Games 44, 46, 50 and
88).
In summary, Blad’s picces can all be
developed harmoniously, his king can usually
castle and he has no permanent weak points.
White has a number of interesting options
but no automatic route to an advantage. For
each of White’s thrusts Black has a counter,
and thus a fascinating struggle begins to 1ake
shape.
The Structure of this Book
‘The first two parts of this book deal with the
standard move 9 ¢3, to which Black usually
replies 9.8¢5 (Chapters 1-4) or 9..8e7
(Chapters 5-8). Howaever, in recent years 9 ¢3
has been replaced by 9 @bd2 as the most
popular move, since the larter reduces Black’s
options and completely avoids the 9 ¢3 &¢5
variation. After 9 bd2 the most common
move is 9..&c5, when after 10 ¢3 Black can
choose berween the 10...d4 of Chapter 10 or
10...8€7 of Chapters 5 and 6. I personally
feel thar 9 &bd2 is overrated and we shall
see that Black has several ways of obtaining a

good game. Although 9 We2, intending Bd1
with an early c2-c4 pressing down the d-line,
s out of fashion, personally T have found this
the most difficult to meet (see Chapter 9).
The final two chapters deal with other
Intreduction
possibilities for both sides, avoiding the main
Iine. Chapter 11 covers White’s other ninth
moves and Chapter 12 wraps things up with
a look ar early deviations from the standard
move order.
 CHAPTER ONE
9 ¢3 £¢5 10 Hbd2 0-0
11 £c2 Hxf2 12 Bxf2 6
1 e4 e5 2 D3 Hcb 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeS
fe6 9 ¢3 Lc5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Re2
B2 12 Hxf2 16
In this chapter we shall consider the
famous Dilworth Variation, named after the
English correspondence player who
promoted it for so long, The Dilworth leads
1o sharp forcing variations where Black, for a
modest material investment, obtains
dangerous initiative. In some ways it is
similar to the Marshall Awtack, though it is
much less popular and less well regarded.
It goes against one’s gut feeling ro give up
two active minor pieces for an inactive rook
and pawn. However, it is more important to
concentrate on what remains on the board:
an exposed white king and Black’s lead in
development with open lines for his rooks
“after ...{7-f6.
Typically, if the players (especially White)
avoid a kbyrinth of waps we often see
simplification 10 an ending with three minor
pieces against rook, bishop and two pawns.
Here theory has a slight preference for
White, but in redlity Black's activity is
sufficient to eam good play and it is often the
second player who has the betrer practical
chances. Key factors in judging resulting
positions are How many extra pawns does
Black have? Is Black likelyto invade on the
seventh or eighth ranks with his major
pieces? How well is White's king defended?
And how effectively has White developed
and can his pieces find firm footholds in the
centre?
Yusupov, Mikhalevski and others have
shown that the Dilworth is a fully viable way
1o wrest the initiative and obrain realistic
a winning chances with Black. Over the next
six games we will see an mstructive bantle
between minor pieces looking for central
outposts and rooks seeking open lines and
invasion.
Game 1
Ljubojevic-Yusupov
Tilburg 1987
1 64 e5 2 i3 He6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 £xad 6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxe’
£e6 9 c3 &c5 10 Sbd2 0-0 11 Rc2
P2 12 Exf2 f6 13 exf6
There is litle point in avoiding this move,
as allowing Black w0 capture on 5 and
maintain a passed central pawn is dubious: 13
B4 Bixdd 14 cxdd Sxdé 15 WhS g6 16
2xg6 We7, as in LLarsen-Eriksen, Denmark
1965, is already winning for Black and 13
D1 £xfd+ 14 Pxf2 fxe5 15 dgl 4 16
 9¢c3 %cb5 10 Dbd2 0-0 71 Kec2 BxF2 12 Bxf2 16

g5 Wit 17 Re3 HeS, as in Jonescu- completing his development, a5 in Krutnik-

Dilworth, comespondence 1985, also clearly Klompus, correspondence 1986,
favours the second player. Note how the b) 15 231 (@ good try for White with
pawn on e4 limits White's minor pieces. surprise valug) 15..85 (15...g5 16 Wd3 &7
For the record, 13 We2 represents Whire’s and now 17 Rxg5! is a tick that crops up
best alternative to 13 exf6 and offers chances frequently in the Dilworth) 16 @cs! (16
for equality. For cxample, 13...fxeS 14 b3 g3 Bae8 and 16 Dbd4? g 17 bé Hae$
Kxf2+ 15 Wxk2 o4 16 Wel Kgs 17 Difd4 18 &d3 Whé+, as in WeirDitworth,
Q5 18 &5 Wi6 19 Re3 Hack 20 Wgd? correspondence 1941, give Black srong
(after Van der Tales improvement 20 d1! attacking chances) 16..Rg42! (16,2631 has
White is probably okay) 20..h5 21 £b3 &h8 been suggested by Velickovic) 17 Whxds+
22 h3 Wde 23 Wh &g6 24 Wel 28 25 &hg 18 Wed g6 (not 18.Wha+ 19 gl
D2 Kxh3, as in Kluger-Szabo, Hungarian Dxf3+ 20 gxf3 Maeg 21 g5, as in Rey
Championship 1946, when Black was on top. Ardid Kl i, Paris Olympiad 1924,
13..8xf2+ when Black is in trouble) 19 £g5Ht
Experience has shown that delaying this
capture enables White to limit the exposure
of bis king 13..Wxf62! 14 Will ae8 15
b3 £xf2+ 16 Wxf2 De5 17 bdd o5 18
Rg5 and in fact it’s Black’s king that is the
problem, eg. 18..Wxg5 (or 18.W7? 19
£xh7+1) 19 Rxh7+ sbh8 20 SixgS Hxf2 21
2 (21 Sdxedt? also looks good) 21...cxd4
22 cxddt :
14 Pxt2 Wxte

My own dear improvement on the

theoretical continuation 19 Rh6 Dxf3 20
gxf3 fxf3 21 Wd4 Rd1+ 22 de3 Wxdd+ 23
xd4 Rxc2 24 Dxf8 Hxf8 with equality
according 1o Velickovic} and if 19..Wxg5
then 20 Wxa$.
15...3ae8
A sign that this variation is not particularly
troublesome is that even 15..g5 (15..2g4, as
in Babula-Simacek, Czech Republic 1998/89,
15 &g1 is best met by 16 £)11 and White hits the d5-
Games 2-6 feature 15 &f1. There
are two square) gives Black a good game: 16 Wel g4
other tries, the® st is bad, the second rather 17 Wha2! K15 18 Wxf6 Mxf6 19 Kxf5 Hxfs
good: 20 &h4 He5 21 b3 was given as unclearby
2) 15 WL g5 16 g1 g4 17 £3d4 Hidd Korchnoi, but a recent practical test shows
18 W6 De2+ 19 Rf2 Bxctor 20 Sxe2 Hafs thar Black is bever after 21..Hel+ 22 2
with a clear advantage to Black who is Hae8 23 85 (23 RF4 laoks preferable but
coming into f2 whilst White is far from doesn't equalise) 23..E8e2+ 24 &g3 Hgl 25
Open Ruy Lopez
264 Bexp2+ 26 ¥hé Hxal 27 Dxat Exb2,
s in GinzburgPereyra Arcija, Argentine
Championship 1996.
“The tricky 17 £g5 is the best uy and
should lead to equal play according to the
following analysis by Velickovie: 17...&f5 18
b3 Bad8 19 Dded Wg6 20 Hgd ho 21
Onef5 Exf5 22 Web+ Wxeb 23 Sixe6 Re8 24
&4 Hel+ 25 df2 Rxcl 26 Hxcl Hxfa+ 27
g3 &5
16 W1
16 h3, 16 £b3 and 16 Hf1 are all wellmet
by 16..2%5.
16..215
16.. g4 is generally ded here. I
am happy with Bladk's position after 17 h3
2xf3 18 @l (18 Wd3 Wid6 19 Wd1 Wgd
and wins, for instance 20 &1 Hel 21
Wxd5+ h8 22 £d3 DeS 23 R4 Dud3 -
Korchnoi) 18..8e5 19 £d1 g5 20 Wr2 £Hd3
21 Wd4 Yxda+ 22 cxd4 Bxf3 23 xf3
£ Bel+
24 @h2 o6l with a clear edge for Black in central owrposts. In the next game White was
Ostojic-Karaklaic, Beverwijk 1967. However,
1 feel uncomfortable with 17 Wd3 &e5 18
Yxh7+ 2A7.
The books prefer Black because of 19
Whe Df3+ 20 B3 Wxhd 21 Sxhd Ret+
22 Rf2 Be2+ 23 $g3 Bxc2 24 dongd He 25
©f4, as in Pupko-Monin, correspondence
1974, but is this convincing? The black king
on {7 s ugly and it wouldn't surprise me i
White has some clever resource.
An untried alternative is 16..5kh8t?
Wd3 g6 (or even 17..8g8) 18 Db3 Lf5 19
%51 {unclear according to Korchnoi).
17 &xI5
Korchnoi again conchiudes that things are
unclear after 17 b3 Wd6 18 W2 43 19
Wg3 Wcss 20 Sh1 (20 WE2 Hel+l was the
end of that in Sibarevic-Rogers, Mendrisio
1987) 20..%h8 21 gl b4, when White is
vangled up but does Black have anything
convincing?
17...8xf5 18 b3
Noi 18 £ib3? He5 19 Dbd4 Hxd3+ 20
£xf3 W2 with chronic paralysis of the
white camp in Miller-Cruz Lopez, French
Team Championship 1998.
18...441
In Game 2 the early advance ..d5-d4
proves to be a mistake, but here it creates
problems for White, There are some
differences, as here line-opening for Black
can be achieved without giving away any
able 1o occupy the centre, had access 10 ed
and didn’t have such 2 weak c3-square.
Alternatively, 18.8%5 19 £a3 Hf6 20
%ixe5 Wixes 21 Wd3, as in Kagan-Monin,
correspondence 1973, leaves White with the
better prospects as he has completed his
development and Black only has one pawn
(note thar 21.. We3+ 22 Wxe3 Hxe3 23 RSt
He2 24 D3 Hgb 25 g3 Rf6 26 He leaves
White in command).
19 cxd4
Given as a dedisive eor by most
commentators who prefer 19 a3 dxc3 20
2xf8 Rxf8 21 et (not 21 Wel Ddd)
21.Wc5+ 22 W2 Wixd2+ 23 Bxf2 bxcs 24
Hc1 exb3 25 axb3 (Yusupov), when Black
has an extra pawn in the ending although
White has drawing chances.
19..2xd4 20 Hixda?
This is the real mistake as White is now in
trouble whereas after 20 223! (my move) his
position looks playable. Then 20..&e2+ 21
@h1 ¢5 would offer some initiarive for Black
17 but nothing concrete.
 9 ¢c3 Rc5 70 Dbd2
20...4c5 21 &b2
“Ljubo’ banks on a blockade as 21 Wd3?
fails to 21 Mel+ 22 D1 Wxdd+123 Wxd4
Efxf1 mare!
21..Exf1+ 22 Hxf1 He2 23 Bi2
On 23 Bd1 WhS! is awhkward.
23...2xf2 24 &xf2 ¥d5
Three pieces are ofien the equal of o
but not here, Biack’s extra c-pawn can
be used to dislodge the knight on d4 and the
queen can invade on d3,2 or bl. White has
no central pawns and thus has serious
difficulties in finding any solid outposts for
the pieces. White now blundered but the
defence was already problematic.
25 e3?
After 25 @2f3 then 25..We4 is a nuisance.
25...We5+ 0-1
Black will follow up by ..c7-c5 winning
Game 2
Short-Popovic
Belgrade 1987
164 65 2 i3 £c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 4ad H)6
5 0-0 &ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeS
46 8 c3 £c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Lc2
@xt2 12 Bxf2 16 13 exfd &xf2+ 14
Bxt2 Wxfe 15 DFT 447
This move, opening up lines, is aggressive
but remember thar White's pieces can also
benefit. The black rooks are happy enough
0-0 11 Rec2 Dixf2 12 BxF2 f
on e8 and 8 and there is no need to bla
open the centre.
Nowadays, most grandmasters general
play 15..8%5 16 L¢3 Haes or 15..Kaes *
gl Bl5 17 Le3 as in Games 3-6. Bad
15..g5 in view of 16 Wd3 Rf7 17 Sxg5!,
in Andersson-Poletaev, cotrespondens
1960, when 17..Wxg5 18 Wxh7+ a7
£ xh7+ sbxh7 20 §ixg5+ wins for White.
18 g1t
An excellent move, simply improving h
worst-placed piece. Other moves are
found to be lacking:
2) 16 cxd4?! !Adi 17 Re4 Hads, as
Selke-Roth, correspondence 1986.
b) 16 Wd32 g6 17 Qg3 Be5 18 Whxdd ¢
19 Wdl Hadg, as in Terenkov-Lazare
correspondence 1985.
& 16 R4 dxe3 17 bxe3 (17 Lxcé cxb2
good for Black) 17..Wxc3 and now:
1) 18 Re3 Hads 19 Wet Wxcl 20 Bxc
De5 favoured Black in Monsalvo-Rot
correspondence 1977.
c2) 18 £g5 was is given by Korchnoi -
but surely afier 18..Hae
(or even 18. W5 19 2xc6 Wes+) 19 He
Wd4r 20 Wxd4 &xd4 21 Hxc7 Lxa2 Blac
has all the chances.
... 2e5
On 16..dxc3 17 255 W7 then 18 bxe
neatly tidies up. White is better as his minc
pieces are developed and working wel
whereas Black has only one pawn and n
pressure against the white monarch.
17 oxd4 Dixf3+ 18 gxf3
Inferior is 18 Wxf3 due to 18..Wxd4+ 1
We3 &4l 20 2.d2 Wxb2 (Short).
18.. Haa8
On 18..8d5 19 (4! Black has no pawn
and nothing againet White’s kingside despit
first appearances.
19 Re3 ¢5
After 19,83 20 Wxi3 xf3 21 Re
White has great minor pieces in the ending.
20 Wd3 g6 21 a2
Black will win back the pawn on d4 bu
Open Ruy Lopez
White's pieces are ready for action.
21...2h3
Popovic later proposed 21,27, but 22
D2 cxd4 23 s W3 24 Wxfd Hxdf3 25
g5 leaves the black position in ruins.
Otherwise the exchanges afier 21.&f5 22
Det Lxed 23 Wxes Rie (23..Wxf3 24 dxcs
Wixed 25 Lxed Rfe8 26 £ g5 is hopeless but
23..cxd#l? is the best my to complicate
White’s task) 24 Wf4 Wxf4 25 Rxf4 Rxd4 26
S leave the two bishaps dominating,
22 We2 oxd4 23 £h6 d3
Or 23..1fe8 24 De4 etc.
24 £63+ &h8 25 W2 Hdes 26 fe3
Quicker but complicated is 26 Rxf8! Re2
27 &e7 Wxb2 28 Bb1 WeS 29 £4 (Short).
26...0d8 27 De4 We5 28 Rd2 Ho8 29
Heo1 Wh5 30 Wdd+ 1-0
Black’s rooks failed to
effectively and White’s minor pieces were
able to gradually occupy key centeal squares.
Black’s best results in the Dilworth come
from concentrating pressure
vulnerable ffile, as we shall see in the
following games.
Game 3
Kaminski-Chekhov
Lubniewice 1993
1 ed e5 2 D3 Hc6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad HIG
5 0-0 $xed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
£06 9 c3 £c6 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Ke2
Bxf2 12 Hxf2 6 13 exf6 Lxf2+ 14
wxf2 Wxie 15 D1
The move order 15 Pg1 Hae8 16 BfL
De5 17 Le3 transposes to the game.
15...50e5 16 f.e3
White can also simply unpin a move
earlier with 16 gl The idea is thar, by
giving up a pawn to exchange queens, the
white minor pieces can be activated in the
ending. However, my impression is that in
practical play it proves to be difficult to tie
down the black rook(s). Play then
continue 16..8uef3+ 17 gxf3 W3 18 Wixf3
Hxf3 19 K5t (after 19 £d1 27 20 Dg3
£h3 21%e2 BeB 22 242 ¢5, as in Morovie-
Yusupov, Tunis Interzonal 1985, Black is
better due to his active pieces and fluid
majorities on both wings; the further 23 .1
Lxf1 24 Bxfl K1+ 25 @xf1 &f7 26 &f2
@cé 27Re3 Kig+ 28 Pe2 Rd6 29 Dhs Hi7
good winning chances for Black)
19Eaffi 20 ‘Bdl B 21 Efl Bxfl+ 22
Dxf1 5 23 Re3 db 24 cxd4 cxdd 25 Rxdd
2 xa2 with drawish simplification in Nijboer-
Rogers, Netherlands 1987/88.
16...8ae8
The tempting 16 Wha+21 17 g1 Sxf3+
18 gxf3 Bf6 19 £.d4 Wgs+ 20 $h1 Rh3 21
&3 Bf7 22 Wgl, as in Kupreichik-Stoica,
Kirovakan 1978, just enables White to
consolidate. Also imprecise is 16..xf3 17
pressurise oxf3 BE7 (or 17..06 18 Rc5 Ki7 19 We2
Dg4 20 H2 a5 21 el Rd7 22 We5 WxeS
23 Exe5 a4 24 kg3, when with only one
pawn and inactive pieces Black is worse) 18
on the g2 He 19 f4 25 20 xfSWixf5
L 21 Hg3
We6 22 2.d2 c5 23 Wf3 which yields a slight
edge to White according to Velickovic.
Black's rooks have no invasion squares and
White has opportunities to further improve
his position.
17 g1
‘The main 17 £.5 can be seen
in Games 4-6. Also common is 17 £d4,
when afier 17.Whd+ 18 Bgl D3+ 19
g3 Wgb+ 20 £g3 £h3 21 24 Heo (21.h5?
 9¢c3 %ech5 10
22 4 Bxf423 Wxhs leaves Whise
on top) 22
axb5 axb5, as in Enders-Chekhov, Dresden
1985, White has probably niothing better than
23 f4 Rxf4 24 Whs, dirching the sickly f-
pawn to obtain a reasonable ending (Black
remains active but all White's pieces are well
placed, so s about equal). Fritz instead
suggests the aggressive 23 Ha7 but then
White's first rank may become open.
Another
try is 17...2.g4 18 £1d2 (but not
18 xe5? HxeS 19 Dfd2 Whe+ 20 Bt hs
as in Jens-Ernst, Nethedands 1998, with a
strong attack for Black) 18..%ha+ 19 &gt
Dxf3+ 20 Oxf3 (also possible is 20 gxf3
£h3 21 Df1 Wes+ 22 g3 g6 23 Fh1 b
24 Wd3 Ke6 25 Bgl Wh7 with chances for
both sides in Apicella-Hardarson, France-
Toeland 1993,as all the pieces are in play
and
both kings must watch their step, though
Krasenkovs 23941 looks like an
improvement in this in¢) 20..Wh5
21 Wd2
(21 W12l allows the enverprising exchange
sacrifice 21..Exf3!?, which, however, only
earns half a point: 22 g3 2xf3 23 22 Ke2
24 2d1 Wg5+ 25 153 Wesr 26 202 with a
draw in A Tsrael 1992)
Zl..fi.x:fl (Zl...lxfi?! is well met here by 22
oxl3 Lxf3 23 W) 22 gxf3 Wxf3 23 W3
W4+ 24 Shi g6 with unclear play in Extl-
‘Widenmann, cotrespondence 1988, White
has two good bishops, but Black has
adequate activity and material compensation.
17...8003+ 18 gxf3 Wxf3 19 WxE3 Hxt3
Dbd2 0-0 11 %ec2 Bxf2 72 Axf2 16
Black has two pawns but White is readyt
keep the black rooks 2 bay and control som
key dark squares.
20 &2
White has also investigated other bishog
moves:
) 20 £.d4 £h3 21 g3 g6 22 a4 $i7 2.
2xb5 axb5 24 Hdl h5 25 Rd3 h4 with shar
play. The game Savon-Serper, Moscow 1990
continued 26 RxbS hxg3 272 xe8+ dxe8 21
hxg3 Hxg3+ 29 dh2 Hf3 30 Hel+ follower
by 31 Ee3 with a drawn ending,
b) 20 £d1 Bf7 21 2b3 c6 22 £d4 (2.
5 allows Blacl's rook to use the e5-squan
after 22..2h3 23 Be3 Ke5; for instance, 2+
a4 bxad 25 Rxa4 d4l 26 Sxdd He5+27 h
5, and Black held the initiative in Suetin
Mikhalevski, Cappelle la Grande 1999
22..5h3 23 g3 h5! 24 Hxh5 He2 25 Hg.
Hxb?2 (Chekhov), when Black's active piece
guarantee him the betrer charices.
20...4h3 21 Dd2
The contimuation 21 §g3 g6 22 Hd1 (2.
a4 leads to equality after 22..%17 23 axbt
axb5 24 Rdi Bd3 25 &fi according tc
Korchnoi) 22..c6 23 Hd2 used to be playec
frequently but has disappeared because o
23, Befg! 24 £3 h5 25 2f1 (not 25 Lxg6
in view of 25..h4 26 M1 g7 27 L.h5 315
25..Rxf1 26 %wef1 g5 and Black has some
initiative.
21..Rf6 22 2d3
Exchanging a pair of rooks leads to equa
play after 22 el Bxelt+ 23 Rxel Het
(23..b5% is a suggestion of Chekhov's) 2¢
@2 B6 25 g3 Heo.
22...h5 23 Bel HExel+ 24 Sxel c5
see following diagram
25 £ha?t
ThiszlluwsB]zd(rhedmcminvadeongz
via ad! Instead Chekhov's suggestion 25 g3
is judged as unclear by most commentators
Typically, the minor pieces can stop anything
nasty happening but are too preaccupied tc
indulge in anything particularly constructive
Open Ruy Lopez
themselves.
25.. .24 26 £g3 Rad 27 a3 h4 28 Rd6
Rga+ 29 #f2 g2+ 30 el
No 30 e32? dé+.
30...2g1+ 31 &1
After 31 &2 Bd1 32 £f4 R17 Black can
gradually build up with .16, ..g7-5 erc.
31...c4 32 fe2 &f7 33 £c5 Bh1
The line 33..Hg2? 34 22 g5 35 Rf3
would be an embarrassing way to lose!
34 £d6 Eg1 35 &c5 Hh1 36 £d6 g5 37
S52 o6 38 £b8 g4 39 L7
The resource 39 De3! Bbl 40 d1 g3+
41 hocg3 hxgd+ 42 Gxg3 £f5 43 £f3 Re2
44 @e3 holds (Chekhov). It's noteworthy
that even after progressing so far, Black isn’t
yet winning,
39...95 40 L.d67! &xf1 41 Lxi1 h3
Now White is getting squeezed.
42 262 Eb1 43 ¥g3 Hgi+ 44 wha Hg2
45 2d1 d4!
Decisively creating a passed pawn.
46 cxd4 Hxb2 47 &xga+ e 48 &xh3
©3 49 g5 B2 50 a4 c2 51 £a3 Hxh2
62 £d7 b4 53 £b2 Eg2+ 54 &f6 Re2+
55 6 Uf1 66 d5 Hb1 0-1
Game 4
Ivanchuk-Yusupov
Linares 1990
1 e4 e6 2 NE3 Dc6 3 £b5 ab 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeS
16
Re6 9 c2 £c5 10 Hbd2 00 11 8c2
iz 12 Hxf2 6 13 exf6 4xf2+ 14
wxf2 Wxt6 15 Hf1 Dab 16 fe3 Lael
17 K5 Dxf3
‘The alternative 17..Ef7 has been largely
abandoned, as this allows White to reinforce
15 with the kaight and therefore recaptusé
with a piece. The whole story
has not yet
been told, however, as the new move
19 Wle6 offers hope in an otherwise inferior
line. Play might continue 18 &1d2 Kg# 19
&gl &wf3( (Samarian’s suggestion of
19..We6 was recenly tried with some
success: 20 Wb Dxf3+ 21 Hixf3 Kxf3 22
Sxh7+ $h8 23 gxf3 Hxf3 24 Rd3 Bf4 25
Kf1 dap with complex play where Black
held its own in Hydra-Eugen 7.2, World
Comy Championship 1997) 20 x5
£xf3 21 gxf3 Wes+ (or 20 Wxf3 22 Wxf}
Bxf3 23 g2 followed by 24 2.d3 defending
against invasion on 2 and preparing active
play with a4, which Korchnoi judges to be
slightly berter for White; however, this type
of ending is no disaster for Black whose
rooks are always menacing) 22 h1 Whs 23
Wit Hxf3 24 Wg2 Bf7 25 £d3 c6 26 24
Whé 27 h3 a5 in Poulsen Tronhjem,
correspondence 1984-85, when again White
has everything under control and can start to
create pressure against the black position.
However, it's hard to see a convincing plan
(if White goes for c6 with his rook then his
first rank is weakened etc).
 9 ¢c3 e 10 Dbd2 0-0 711 Lc2 Dxr2 12 Bxf2 F6

18 gxf3 Bf7 19 Hg3 Black is now a litde tangled up and this

The fashionable 19 ®g2 is covered in allows White some tactical chances, eg,
Games
5 and 6, whereas after 19 fi.d3 Bl:ck 2. 24223 Sxh7+ or 22,184 23 2d1 Het
has 19..&h3! with play but in circum-
19.. .Q.g4 due 0 20 £¢2) as 20 Re2? Wg5 21 stances.
&3 will be killed by 21..041 - a nice 23 b4
thematic wrick; all three captures are hopeless. This move, fixing the queenside, enables
Insvead, after 20 £g3 h51 21 21 (again after White to reinforce his dark-square control in
21 @Dxh5? Wg5 22 O3 then 22..d4!
is too the centre.
srong) 21..Rg4 22 £¢2 hé 23 DI h3A (s 23..c6
better not to give the g3-square so readily;
Yusupov suggests either 23.. g6 or 23.. et
24 S.d4 Wgh with artacking chances) 24 Rh1
Hed, Short-Yusupov, Belgrade 1989, when
Whitejs fine but Black went on to win.
19...294 20 w1 Wxi3 21 Wxt3

21...8xf3?1
This is considered a mistake by Yisupov
who improvedin a later game with 21 Zxf3!
22 g2 b5 23 £g6 Heb 24 £xhS Hxgd+ 25
@xg3 fxh5, Leko-Yusupov, Horgen 1994,
though with only slight winning chances for
Black.
White can instead try the exchange of a
pair of rocks with 22 Zf11? Bxf1+ 23 doxft
7 24 Rd3 Het 25 £.d4 Bhe 26 g2
Kh3+ 27 B2 (Velickovic suggests 27 gl
intending to play b2-b4, but Black can often
react with ..a6-a5 followed
by ..Ba6 when he
shouldn't really be worse) 27..&d7 28 BMf1
5 29 Re2 %% Grosgpeter-Gyimesi,
Kecskemet 1994; the ending is balanced.
22 Bf1 Bf6
24 2157
Inaccurate. Instead 24 Rd4! exploits
Black's problems on the f-file and wins the c-
pawn: 24...1f4 {or 24. {8 25 25 Led 26
Rd7) 25 L.f5 (ntending 26 £.d7) 25..Ke7 26
25 Ke5 27 Rd7 and s0 on.
24..2e2 25 Xo1 £h5
Taking the opportunity to release the
white pressure, and now everything holds
together.
26 Hxe8+ fxe8 27 fe7 Hh6 28 £g5
Hd6 29 Le7 Hh6 30 26821
Nawrally White has a draw with 30 Rg5
but he tries for more by going for the a
pawn. This is a risky strategy as it leaves the
bishop out of play whilss Black’s king walks
boldly onto the centre stage.
30...257 31 &c5 £06 32 2xa 2d7 33
L2b7 Sf7
Better than 33..He6? 34 a4 bxa4 35 b5
which gives dangerous play for White who
would then be threatening 36 bs.
34 De2 Feb 35 D4+ be5 36 Db3 wed

17
Open Ruy Lopez

37 £f2 £h3 38 a4 &1g3 We3 27 Wk, as in Kupreichik-Shere-

‘With 6 about to fall Black decides that shevsky, USSR 1578, White is essentially o
bailing out with a draw is the safest course. pawns up and 27..8e6 can be met by 28
Perhaps 38..2d7, intending ..&d3, was &5) Bd5 29 Waf5 Kxb3 30 axb3.
worth aty. Similar to the text is 19...Wg5+ 20 $h1
38...Rg6+ 39 K93 Bf6 40 212 Ng6+ 41 (20 g3 d4 21 cxda? Kd5 22 2b3 Hed, s
£93 Bf6 42 272 Rob+ %-% i1 Gars-Naes, Budapest 1999, which is ot
An instructive tussle fearuring an bad for Black) 20...d4.
imbalance in material that is typical of 20 £xd2
Dilworth endings. White has 10 be careful, e.g 20 Wxdd??
Wxf3+ or 20 cxd4? £d5 21 Dd2 g5+ 22
Game 5 @h1 Kxf3! with the point23 £xf3 Hel+.
Acs-Mikhalevski 20 3P is untried, when after 20...dxc3!
Budapest 1997 (rather than 20..2d5% 21 Wd3 Wxf3 22
Wxf3 @xf3+ 23 &gl threatening 24 b3
1 e4 e5 2 HII Hc6 3 RbS a6 4 2ad H)f6 and also the simple recapture on d4; White
5 0-0 &xed & d4 bS 7 263 d5 8 dxe5 obtains a clear advantage as here two pieces
£e6 9 c3 £c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 31 Lc2 will be stronger than a rook and and
Hixf2 12 Hxf2 16 13 exf@ Xxf2+ 14 after 23..2.d5 24 Sxd4 g6 25 24 etc. Black
Sxt2 Wxi6 15 D1 De5 16 Re3 Uaes has no entries and must wait while White
17 8.c5 Dxi3 18 gxf3 7 19 $g2 improves his position) 21 £d4 Wha 22 bxc3
the struggle remains far from resolved.
20..Wgs+ 21 h1
218)g3 is fearured
in Game 6.
21...8d5 22 £b312
22 52 k3 23 Wixf3 is given as unclear
by Korchnoi. After 23...0xf3+ 24 xf3 Whs
25 &b3+ &hs 26 Rl Rfg 27 &d1, for
instance, things are still difficult to judge,
22...c5 23 2e3?!
Dubious, but better than 23 £xc52?
£2xb3 24 Wxb3 Wxc5 or 23 2022 o4
However, 23 £xd5t is critical, e.g. 23..Wxd5
24 22 W3+ 24..Wc6 25 dg2) 25 Wxf3
Bxf3 26 Lxc5 (26 kg2 Hd3) 26..He2 27
Hdl &7 and Black may have enough
activity to hold the draw.
Experience suggests that this is the best 23...2xb3 24 Lxg5 Lxd1 25 Exd1 Bxi3
approach. Instead 19...2.f5 20 D xf5 Wxf5 21 see following diagrarm
&g3 W5, as in Iincic-Todorovic,
Yugoslavia Championship 1990, leaves Simplification has left Black with only one
White with a comfortable edge, while afrer pawn, but he cannot be held back from 2
19..1h5 20 Wd3 (20 &e3 looks too risky after and the rooks then prove 10 be t0o bard to
20...d4 21 cxdé Wgs+ 22 f2 Wha+ 23 gt restrain.
£h3) 20.. g5+ 21 Th1 K5 22 Wxds c6 23 26 g2 BY5 27 ha
Wixc6 247 24 W) Wxcs 25 £b3 Ree7 26 If 27 3 then 27.. Xxf1!

18
 9¢3 Rc5 10
27...He2+ 28 <h3 Bxb2 29 He3 Xf2
Here White's pawns are splic and his
minor pieces have difficulty creating any real
threats. Black's rooks are dominant.
30 g3 Bbd2 31 Re77!
A ractical oversight which simplifies his
opponent’s task, but his position was pretty
grim in any case.
31..2fe2! 32 Kxd2 Exe3+ 33 &f4 Bxe7
34 2d6 27+ 35 Pga Ri6 36 Ddd+ F7
37 Hc8 o4 38 a4 Rg6+ 39 %15 X6+ 40
g4 Bf1 41 axbb axbE 42 ¥b8 Bb1 43
&5 g6+ A4 g5 Hgl+ 45 &4 h5 46
Bb7+ %16 47 Hb6+ $g7 0-1
Game 6
Kudrin-Kaidanov
USA Ch., Chandler 1997
1 e4 e5 2 B3 Nicb 3 b5 a6 4 LotOIE
5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
£06 9 c3 £c5 10 Hbd2 00 11 Sc2
Bxt2 12 Rxf2 16 13 ext6 Rxf2+ 14
$xf2 Wxi6 15 D1 Deb 16 fe3 Nae8
17 £c5 13 18 gxf3 Bf7 19 $g2 d4at
20 &xd4 Wgb+ 21 Dg3
21 h1 was consideredin Game 5.
21...06 22 £12 Bxf3!
After 22..2d52! then either 23 hd! or 23
Red B xed 24 fred Hxed 25 Rxc5.
DHd2 0-0 11 Rec2 DxF2 12 Rxf2 6
23 $xf3
On 23 Wxf3 Black wins the queen by
23,245,
23...894+ 24 ¥g2 S xd1 25 Oxd1
Again White has three pieces for queen
and pawn (another curious material asym-
metry that we have seen on several occasions
in the Dilworth). The fight for the initiarive is
important in the tactical play that follows.
25...06
Not 25..h5?! due 10 26 h4! Wxh4 27 Eht
and 28 Kxh5 with preference for White. Nor
is 25..Kd8? sarisfactory as 26 &e3 We7 27
£xc5! wins a pawn plus use of the d4-square
for the bishop. However, a reasonable
alternative to the text is 25..He2 26 h4 Wg4
(or even 26..Kxi2+) 27 Rdg+ &f7 28 45
Wixhd with complications.
26 a4?!
26 P is less loosening,
26...8e02 27 h4 Exi2+? 28 &xf2 Wxh4
“White has rook, bishop and knight for the
queen, but with a couple of pawns and a
marauding queen Black is not worse.
29 g2 Wg5
Kaidanov suggests 29..bxa4 30 Rd7 Wg4
31 Ba7 as 2 way to play for an advantage for
Black. I agree as after 31 .. Wc4! Black seems
to be better in a complex struggle.
30 axbs axb5 31 Le4 Weld k-%
Open Ruy Lopez

Summary
The Dilworth is an excellent gambit-style practical variation. For White the 15 dg1 of Game 1
is less precise than 15 @ft. Afeer 15 &f1, 15..d4 (Game 2) looks bad, but the endings
resulting from 15..8e5 16 Re3 Rae8 17 &gl in Game 3 are sound for Black.
The complications of the main line following 17 &.c5 (Games 4-6) are unclear but Black has
no reason 10 be worried if he remembers the liberating 17..4Dxf3 18 gxf3 Bf7 19 ¥g2 da.

1 e4 o5 2 &3 Ncé 3 RbS a6 4 Kad DF6 5 0-0 Hixed 6 44 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 Reb
963 2¢5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 £c2 Hxf2

12 Exf2 16 13 ext £xt2+ 14 ©xf2 Wxi6 (D) 15 Hi1

15 &gl - Game 1
15...2e5
15..d4 - Game 2
16 £.e3 Rae8 17 2c5 (D)
17 &gl - Game 3
17...Dxf3 18 gxi3 B17 19 wg2
19 g3 - Game 4
19...d4 20 £xd4 W5+ (D) 21 g3
21&h1 -Game 5
21...c6 - Game 6

74...Wxt6

20
 CHAPTER TWO

9 ¢3 £¢5 10 £1bd2'0-0
11 £c2 15

1 ed 65 2 O3 Nob 3 RbS5 ab 4 Rad D6

8 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 Game 7
%66 9 c3 £c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 o2 15 Apicella-Flear
In this chapter Black supports his centrally Clichy 1993
placed knight with the f-pawn rather than
giving up two pieces for a rook wih 1 e4 5 2 D3 Hc6 3 Rb5 ab 4 2ad D6
11.Dx2. Afier 1165 the kaight is 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 4b3 d5 8 dxe5
temporarlly well placed, but can be 2e6 9 ¢3 £65 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 £c2 5
undermined by a later £2-£3. The struggle in 12 exft
Games 8-12 revolves around White’s efforts This natural move has been abandoned as
w play this move and Black’s awtempts to Black seems to obtain adequate play. The
seek rapid activity, as he is only too aware plan of undesmining the kright with £2-£3 s
that his knight’s star role on the pivotal e4- more dangerous, as in Games 8-12.
stage are numbered. 12...8xf6 13 Hb3 £b6
In Game 7 White prefers to capture en
passant and the knight is forced back, but to
a safe square. The opening of the {-file is not
dangerous for Black.
It is more common for White to play 12
{2b3, after which the theory goes very decp
into the middlegame (the lines with queen
and passed pawns against rook and two
bishops for instance are mind-boggling - see
Games 9-10). One prime cause of the lack of
popularity of 11..f5 is thar the forcing lines
have been too well but in my
opinion there s still much that is unresolved.
Some memory work is required to play 14 Did4?
these lines, but there is the reward that the A miswake. Better is 14 @g5! Lg4 15
chapter is full of fascinating tactical ideas. Sxh7+! (Black has nothing to fear after 15
21
Open Ruy Lopez

Wd3 h6 16 h3 hxg5 17 hgs Ded) 15..%2hs
and interesting complications have been
analysed (mainly by Korchnoi) to equality:
) 16 Wd3 @5 17 Wg3 Suh7 18 Dch7
(18 WxeS?! WeSl 19 Wxe8 Haxe8 gives
excellent play for the pawn) 18..xh7 19
Wxes Whi! (in the ending after 19...Wes? 20
Wxe8 Haxe8 21 Re3 Rxed 22 fxed Hxfl+
23 Hxfl Hxe3 24 h3 White has the better
rainor piece) 20 Re3 Hac8 21 Wxd5 Re2 22
Hfel 2xe3 23 fxe3 W2+ 24 &h1 Mxed and
Black has a strong attack for the
b) Another uy is 16 Wc2 Wd6 17 &5
De5 18 Hd4 c5 19 Ddet Ded 20 Dxed
RKxe6 21 2xd5 Rf5 22 Det Wgh, as in
Derenkov-Radchenko, USSR 1963, when
despite the two-pawn deficit Black is okay in
view of 23 23 Hae8 24 Rael £xed 25
Wxed D3+ 26 Wxf3 HMxf3 27 §:xf3 with
equal chances according to Korchnoi.
14...Dxd4 15 cxd4 Wd6 18 ¥Wd3
Black has free piece play and is ready 1o
take over the initiative,
16...Rae8
After 16..c6! 17 Wg3 Wd7 18 55 &xc5
19 dxc5 &f5, as in Lilienthal-Borvinnik,
USSR {match) 1941, Black will obtain good
knight against bad bishop and has a
protected passed pawn to boot.
17 Wg3 Wd7 18 HicsY!
1 prefer the neutral 18 £d2.
18...2x¢5 19 dxc5 d4
Here 19..2f5 allows 20 £xf5 Wxf5
Wxc7, so perhaps Botvinnik's 16th move was
more precise.
20 295
Now after 20 £d2? Black pushes with
20..d31
20...5c4 21 &xf6!
The lesser evil as 21 Hfd1 HeZ and 21
Bfc1 Hxel+ 22 Bxel d3 are very difficult for
White.
21..2xt6
21..2xf1? is punished by 22 c6! W7 23
£xd4 R4 24 .5 and White takes charge.
22 Qd3
Not 22 Bfe1?! Exel+ 23 Hxel d3 as the
d-pawn will make White suffer, but possibly
22 8b30
22._.Wds 23 b
White can grab a pawn with 23 Stxcd
bxcd 24 Wxc7 d3, but Apicella was clearly
wortied about the potential strength of the d-
pawn,
23...Reb?!
T should probably have tried 23...%xd3 24
Wixd3 Wcd 25 Wg3 Wxb4 26 Wxcy HIfg
when the d-pawn is much the stronger of the
two passed pawns.
24 Bfd1 b6 25 hd £xd3 26 Exd3 Efe6
27 $h2?
Simpler was 27 Badl Hel+ 28 Hxel
Hxel+ 29 @h2 Be7 and White is holding his
own.
27...Bhs 28 13 Wds 29 Badt Exhd+ 30
21 Sg1 He2 31 a3 Wi6?!
A poor choice as White has big problems
after 31..We7!
32 Hel Dxel+
Not 32..Wf4 in view of 33 Wxh4!
33 Wxe1 Uf4 34 WeB+ oh7 36 g3 Bi5
35..Wf7 is best met by 36 We2! Hf5 37
Wes Wd5 38 g2l and 35..2xf32? loses to
36 Wed+ Xf5 37 g4.
36 Wed Web 37 Dg2! Wxed 38 fxed Xf7
39 Hxd4 $gb 40 Ud8 Lg5 41 Ha8 %-%
"The rook ending is fine for White. Nok for
the firt time in his career, Apicella has
st ]

22
 9 ¢c3 RcE 10 DBI2 0-0 17 Rec2 76

Game 8
Nurkic-Flear
Asti 1996
1 e4 5 2 3 £c6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 £ed 6 d4 b5 7 4b3 d5 8 dxeS
£06 9 ¢3 &5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 £c2 5
12 5b3 £b6 13 Hbda
Actually 13 §fd4 is more nqrmal but this
comes to the same thing. However, 13 a4
deserves a closer loole 13.Wd7 14 axb
axb5 15 Exa8 Hxa8 16 Re3 seems to be a
simple and effective way for White to avoid 17..9h4 18 %d2
lots of theory and obtain a good game, e.g. The comtinuation 18 Wd3 Bf5
16..54 (nstead 16..Rxe3 17 fxe3 b4 18 {threatening 19..Wxh2+]) 19 2xf4 Hxf4 20
&fd4 bxc3 19 Lxed, as in Suetin- hxgd Wxgd 21 Weh7+ Bf7 is the most
Faibisovich, USSR 1975, left White with a analysed variation. The further 22 Bd1 (22
big advantages note that he has use of the c5- Whs+ de7 23 Wgb is equal according to
squarg) 17 Qb6 cxb6 18 Hbdd Dxdé Korchnof) 22.8h4 23 Wd3 c5 24 dxcs
(18.bxc3? 19 RKad) 19 coxdd with a Bah8 25 i1 Mhi+ 26 e Bxdl 27 Kxdt
comfortable edge for White. Curiously this Wixe5+ 28 Rd2 Wab2+ 29 £c2 Whé+ 30
analysis by Korchnoi hasn't been tested in W3 Wi+ 31 We3 Tha 32 g4 Whas, as in
practical play. Nape p
13..5xd4 14 Dxdd Exdd 1973, 15 the last word. Despite considerable
"The alternatives 14..We? 15 3 85 and efforts I cannot find any improvements on
14..Wd7 15 f3 &5 16 eh1 Hae8 17 b4 this excellent correspondence game.
leave Black with few prospects of creating ‘The fact that these complications are well
counterplay. analysed, difficult to remember and offer
15 cxd4 nothing for White are three good reasons
15 Wxd4 is the subject of Games 11 and why nobody plays the line any longer!
12, 18...a5!7
15...f4 A new idea, stopping the bishop from
Black has lide choice; he has to find a coming to b4 and preparing to switch the
solution to the threat of £3 and to seek some rook along the third rank,
freedom for his bishop. Another try 18..2ae8 led to a dramatic
16 13 g3 condlusion in Geller-Gi.Garcia, Bogota 1978:
see following diagram
19 Rb4 BE7 20 a4 28 (20.. 27, intending
.. He6, was suggested by Filip) 21 axb5 Het
After 16../0g5? 17 h4 &7 18 £xf4 Wxhd 22 bxa6?? Wixh2+! (rather a sucker punchl).
19 Wd2 (Keres) White’s bishop pair has a Instead, after 22 h3 White rebuffs the artack
free hand and stands better.
17 812 Alternatively, after 18.Df5 19 Xxf5
Taking
on g3 is critical, see Games
9 and Hxf5, as in Ajanski-Sapundriev, Gabrovo
10. The text is still, however, rather complex 1969, the position is unclear as the opposite-
as the option of h2xg3 still remains. coloured bishops give attacking chances for

23
Open Ruy Lopez

Black but the c-file is a source for concern. now missed my chance.
19 el a6 20 Ud2 &d7
No prizes for guessing thar I too was
hoping to play .. Wxh2+!
21 hxg3 fxg3 22 £xg3 Wxg3

45..2h1?
Tmmediately after the game Nurkic
showed me the win, which starts with 45..h5!
and now one sample line is 46 a4 ®c2 47
23 Wel?! Ec7+ Sxb2 48 Bb7+ 2 49 Hc7+ dl 50
23 263! was correct, when defence of the 25 Bal 51 Hc5 d2 52 212 h4 53 Hf1 a4 54
d-pawn would mean blodking the third rank @iz Bfer 55 @ed Wl 56 Hd5 Hi6 and
for the rook. After the text, I saw that wins. .
grabbing the pawn would give White activity 46 a4 P2 47 Rc7+ xb2 48 Bb7+ &c2
on the £-file but decided that it was worth the 49 Bc7+ sed1 50 a5 Rh6 51 ab! Axaé 52
risk. Bxh7 d2 §3 &f4 Had+ 54 £f6 Pe2 55
23..Exf3! 24 Wxg3 Hxg3 25 Rf1 Hag 2h1 2h4 56 Hat Xh5+ 57 16 Hcs 58
26 Bdf2 L.e6 27 K15 2.xi5 28 Bxf5 Ug6 g4 dIW %%
29 Hf7 c6 30 Hc7 2f8 31 Me1 Bfa 32 Or 58...85c1 when 59 Ha2 holds.
R1xc6 HxcB 33 Uxce Exd4 34 Ucb
Black has no chance of winning the Game 9
ending without activating his king, Tseshkovsky-Tal
34.. Rd1+ USSR Ch., Leningrad 1974
Uninspiring is 34.. Xb4 35 Hxds Hxb? 36
a4 bxad 37 Rxas Ha2 38 6 &f8 39 Xa7 and, 1 e4 eb 2 £H3 NcB 3 2b5 ab 4 $ag H)E
since rook and g- and h-pawns versus rook 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeb
and g-pawn is totally drawn, Black cannot %06 9 c3 2c5 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Le2 16
make progress. 12 $b3 £b6 13 Dbdd Dxdd 14 Hxdd
35 %h2 27! 36 Uxbs de6! £xd4 15 cxdd 14 16 £3 g3 17 hxg3
Relying on the d-pawn being faster than We saw what happened if the sacrifice is
the queenside, I'm not sure tha Black should refused by 17 Bf2 in Game 8. The capture
really win but the defence for White is not on g3 leads 10 long forcing variations that are
easy. still rather unclear after years of research and
37 Bxab Eb1 38 Ub5 d4 39 Ub3 dxeb practical testing,
40 @93 Fed 41 Bb7 d3 42 He7+ Hd4 17...fxg3 18 Wd3
43 Bd7+ &e3 44 He7+ d2 45 Bxg? 18 Heid Whe 19 263 Why 20 &ft
After all the hard work and a few risks T £h3, as in Liberzon-Estrin, USSR 1940, may
24

just about be playable. Then Korchnoi's 21
e2 is best, when the king bunt will be fun
but not necessanly strong enough to win.
18...815
The only good move as after 18..Wh4 19
Wxh7+ Wxh7 20 &xh7+ b7 21 25
White picks up the g-pawn. Even worse is
18..g62 due to 19 We3 Wh4 20 Whe and
wins.
19 ¥xi5
Forced as 19 Wd2®? allows a decisive
combination with 19...Wh4 20 Xe1 Wh2+ 21
fl Lxc2 22 Wxe2 Bxf3+.
19...Bxt5 20 £xf5 Wha 21 2h3 Wxdd+
22 &1 WxeS
Black has queen and pawns for ook and
two bishops and intends to get his passed d-
(and sometimes c-) pawn going before White
can develop and harmonise his forces. If
given enough time White has a strong attack
on the black king, but note the practical
effect. of the pawn on g3. White is thus
occupied with the defence of his own king
and will lose precious time neutralising the
pest!
23 Rd2
23 Hb1 was suggested by Suetin but has
never been tested. White holds the b-pawn,
but this costs time 50 23..c524 &2 bl then
makses sense. The inferior 23 42 We2 24 kgl
85 25 fxg5 H18 left Black with a winning game
in Kutianin-Estrin, USSR 1944,
23...¥xb2
9¢c3 %cs5 10 DHI2 0-0 17 2c2 f5
23..c5 is considered by Korchnoi, who
gives 24 231 d4 25 Hael Wf4 26 Bod Whe
27 ©35, intending £¢7, with an advantage.
24 44 d4
24..c5? loses the important d-pawn after
25 6+ b8 26 Rxd5 Bd8 27 Badl o4 28
Sxg3 3 29 Le5 ba 30 2b3 Bd2 31 f4
(Black is going nowhere whilst White
organises a direct assault on the black king)
31..h5 32 Bb1 Rf2 33 Hfet Wd2 34 Ebd1
Wh2 35 2d8$+ 2h7 36 KR8+ g6 37 Ade+”
bfS 38 Deb+ wg 39 RS+ Fh7 40 Ledr
g8 41 226 10 Smyslov-Reshevsky, USSR-
USA 1945.
25 @xe7
25 &xg3 is coveredin Garne 10.
26..d3
26 Re6+7!
A mistakel White should pick off the g-
pawn before tryingto get an going, So
correct is 26 Rxg3 when 26..d2 27 2eb+
&h8 28 £4 Hd$ 29 Hadl (29 5 has been
suggested by Korchnoi) 29,.2d3 30 212! (30
$£22 W6 31 £5 51 32 b6 g4 gives Black a
dangerous artack) 30.. b4 31 2h2 Wed 32
R4 h5 33 Rxh5 Wel+ 34 Kf1 Wha 35 23
yielded equal chances in Barurinsky-Estrin,
cprrespondence 1946. Lines that go so deep
‘were ideal for correspondence players in long
cold Russian winters!
26...%h8 27 Bad1 He8 28 £d7
After 28 Hxd3?, 28.We2 forks three
pieces.
25
Open Ruy Lopez

28...Re2 29 2xg3 sill be some nusnces waiting to be found, so

29 Hxd3? leads to mare after 29...Hxg2. good luck!
29...d2!
The temptng 29.Exg2 allows a
persistent attack on the queen with 30 Bb1
Wxa2 31 Hal We2 32 Bfel ec,
30 f4 h5!
Freeing the back rank and stopping 31
2¢4. The d-pawn has a significant cramping
effect and White can find 0o release from its
stranglehold.
31 £c6 Wxa2 32 213 Ked 33 ¥h2 Wc2
34 Uf2 Ud3 35 Ee2 Ud8 36 Heb
Tal points out that 36 Edxd2 Wxd2 (not
36.. Hxd2? 37 HeB+ Fh7 38 Ledy) 37 Rxd2
Rxd2 38 ©xh5 b4 39 Kel Hd4 leaves Black 26 o5
‘with a winning ending. Here Tivickov introduces 2 new ides,
36...b4 37 2h4 Udd 38 2xhS b3 33 where for decades 26 Bael was the only
412 Exi4 40 293 Uf6 41 262 b2 42 move considered by theory. Then 26..d3 27
Re8+ &h7 43 Xb8 We4 0-1 B! (27 L5 Wia2 28 26 WH2 29 Rebt
If 43 Bxb2 Bhé+ 44 Fgl then 4. Wdd+ @h8 30 Re5 W2 31 f4 ¢4 32 5 led 10 2
wins. lively struggle in Boleslavsky-Bowinnik,
dlovsk 1943} 27.%h8 28 Re5 is
Game 10 probebly White’s best (Pelivov-Sapundziev,
Tiviakov-l.Sokolov Primorsko 1970), when Sapundziev proposes
Groningen 1994 the repetition 28..Wc2 29 Rc1 We2 30 Hcel
We2,
1 04 e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 A5 a6 4 Lad D6 26..Ee8
5 0-0 {xad 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxes Ivan Sokolov considers 26..Wa3?
%6 9 63 265 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 %62 15 (intending ...d4-d3) to be too slow because of
12 2b3 2a7 13 HIdd Hxda 14 Dxdd 27 Re6+ @h8 28 f4 and White pushes the f-
£xd4 15 cxd4 14 16 13 Dg3 17 hxg3 pawn to open up the black king,
fxg3 18 Wd3 215 19 Wxi5 Hxib 20 27 ta We2
£xf5 Wha 21 2h3 Wxda+ 22 Sh1 Wxes Now 27.. W23 makes more sense as the
23 242 Wxb2 24 214 04 26 Sxg3 f-pawn doesn’t advance so easily.
see following diagram
28 Raet Wh5
Both 28..Wxa2 or 28..Wd2P are worth
25...c5 consideration.
25..d3 is considered dubious because of 29 Be1! d3
26 Badl d2 27 L6+ L8 28 Rxc7 De7 29 29..g5 is neatly refutedby 30 ExcS g4 31
Lds XfB 30 La5 b4 31 B2 Kf6 32 He2+ Sxd4.
&8 33 Lc7 Th6+ 34 Lh2 Wd4 35 Hexd2 30 Excs We2 31 Hg1 Ed8
Wh4 36 g4 with advantage for White Unfortunately 31...d2?! is strongly met by
(Minev). Such astonishingly long variations 32 HdS and if 32..g5? 33 £c3 g4 then 34
were tested almost to exhaustion in the 1940s 2xp4! Instead, Sokolov suggests 31..hét? 32
to 1970, but in the computer age there may Be7 g5 with an unclear game.
26
 9 ¢3 2c5 10 DbI2 0-0 711 &c2 15

32 Re7! 39 Rc8+ @d7 40 Bh8 Exc3 41 Exh7+

&d6 42 Bh6+ £d5 43 XhE+ bd4 0-1
Nanurally 44 He5 is met by 44.He3.
Sokolov’s reintroduction of an almost
forgotten line has unfortunately not mspired
much of a following. The complications are
fascinating, albeit hard 1o follow at rimes, but
do promise Black quite reasonable chances.
Game 11
Short-Timman
El Escorial (12th matchgame) 1993
1 e4 e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 Lb5 ab 4 Rad N6
White threatens mate starting with 33 5 0-0 $1xe4 6 34 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxes
Leb. £e8 9 c3 %05 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Le2 15
32...018! 33 2xg7+ We8 34 Rg4? 12 $b3 &b6 13 HHidd Hixdd 14 Pxds
A tme+rouble error. Tiviskov larer £xd4 16 Wxdd
showed the way to keep an advantage: 34 In my opinion, the most challenging
21f6 d2 35 &xd8 d1W 36 b4l (36 Hxdl move.
Wxd1+ 37 $h2 $xds 38 Hd7+ Wxd7 39 16...c5 16 Wd1 h6
£xd7 @xd7 should only be drawm) This innovation by Timman may be
36...%dd2 37 Eccl, intending to come to the Black’s best course of action. White has the
e-file. A unique material balance, but the key bishop pair and slightly more options but the
factor is that Black’s king is 100 open. black position remains robust.
34..Wxg4 35 Hel+ We2 36 Exe2+? 17 13 Dgs 18 Re3 HoB 19 Wd2 a5
A losing mistake. Either 36 Bocl $£7 37 Speelman, who analysed the game in
Hxe2 dxe2 38 el $xg7 or 36 Rc3 Wxel+ Faformnator, suggests 19...04% 20 cxd4 cxd4 2t
37 Rxel d2 38 ©wd? Bxd? should be Rf2 (not of coarse 21 Rxd4? because of
drawn. 21...Hxc2) as an alvernative uy.
36...dxe2 37 £¢3 Ud1+ 38 &h2 Ec1! 20 Radt @e7 21 4b1 ¥h8 22 Rfe1

The pin must have been overlooked by Short has developed his forces to active-
Tiviakov, looking squares, but has yet to threaten the
27
Open Ruy Lopez

black defences,
22...8c7 23 £12 b4 24 ha Hh7 25 Wd3
51?7 26 Wab! RfcB! 27 No2
Afker 27 Wds W7 the queen is in danger
of being trapped with .. He6.
27...8c6 28 Wd3
Short judges tha taking
on a5 is too risky
(28 WxaS) in view of the reply 28...gxh4 and
the queen is ‘sidelined’, whilst Black has
attacking chances on the g-file.
28...gxh4 29 f4 Eg8
Timman later proposed to improve the
position of his knight with 29...2\8? 30 Wf3
g6 as on g6 it defends the h4-pawm and 38 Wa62!
eyes 4, Short, in time pressure, misses the more
30 W13 bxc3 31 bxo3 Hb6 32 Lc2 Bgd precise 38 La4 He7 39 Wdss WiB 40 e6+
33 &h2 deg8 41 Wds, tying Black up.
33 2b3R in Speelman’s opinion is best 38...Wg3+2!
met by 33..4M8Y, intending to meet 34 £ xd5 Speelman regards 38..Ef1! 39 e6 @6,
fxd5 35 BxdS with the blockading 35...8e6, threatening 40..Dga+ 40 g3 4! 41 g4 SghY
when Black has the better minor piece, (not 41..2xg4> 42 L2t De3+ 43 Th3
33..4b8 Dhi+ 44 Th2 Kxh2+,45 dxh2 Ded+ 46
&h1f) as unclear.
39 g1 h3
Speelman suggests thar Black could try for
a draw with 39..Hxd4 40 cxdd (40 Wxdd
fg5) 40.Kc8, angling for ..Mxc2 and
. Wel-g3+. I think the way to refute Speel-
man’s idea is 41 Waé! to meet an eventual
Wel+ with Wi1.

34 Exdst
An enterprising exchange ‘sac’ to break up
the centre and enhance the power of the
bishops,
34...4xd5 35 Wxd5 Exfa 36 Lxct Wg7
37 &d4
White threatens 1o advance the e-pawn,
exposing the black king and creang
problems on the back rank. 40 Ur2?
37...He8 White can win with 40 e6+! g8 41 2!
37..8c7 is met by 38 Wds. Bg4 42 71 Wixd6 43 K3+ (Speelman).
28
 9 c3 R¢b 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 &c2 15

40...h247 12 £b3 £b6 13 Hfdd Hixda 14 Dxda

It was betterto exchange into a worse, but £xd4 15 Wxd4 c6 16 Wd1 14
tenable, ending after 40.Bxd4 41 @xdd
Dg5 (41 WxeS 42 gieh3l) 42 e6+ BB B
Wis Wxf4 44 Hxfs Dg7 45 Rxf5 hxg? 46
Hat Pixe6 47 xg? @f6) (Speeiman).
41 &h1 Sxd4
Afker 41..Exf2> White picks up the queen
after 42 e6+.
42 Yxa4 &6
42..NxeS falls short due to 43 He2!
43 Ze2! Hh5
Or 43..20g4 44 xf5.
44 e6+ Wg7 45 &xh2 147
Losing but 45..#xd4 46 oxd4 D4 47
He5 Hxet 48 £xf5 HxeS 49 dxe5 is prewy ‘This is the main line, but theory suggests
hopeless anyway, as Speelman points out. thar Black doesn’t quite equalise.
46 2961 1-0 17 13 g5
Here downright bad is 17..g3? 18 hxg}
fxg3 19 Wd3 25 20 W5 Kxf5 21 Lf5
w0 Wh4 22 2h3 and Black has a lost position.

e mi
Compare with Games 9 and 10 where Black
wins two central pawns.
18 a4
The main alternative is 18 b4 Wb6 19
bxcs Wxc5+ 20 Wdd Wxdd+ 21 cxdd, bt
this can be met by Suetin's instructive
manoeuvre 21.2c8l 22 RKb3 Rb7 and
23...48De6 with a blockade.
Black’s minor pieces both want 1 be on
6, and with the text move White aims to
Timman resigned in view of 46..8g3 47 soften up the queenside before his opponent
Sxe8 Hixe2 48 g7+ Exg7 49 o7 Pf6 50 can get organised.
&b5 winning the knight and the game. A 18...b4!
fascinating combat. An improvement over Faag-Estrin,
The consensus view is that White comespondence 1979, which was much
probably has an edge in this variation, but better for White after 18..bxat 19 Hxa4 c4
further tests are needed to confirm this. 20 b3 Wb6+ 21 Th1 Had8 22 Wd4 Wxd4 23
cxd4 R.d7 24 Eba.
Game 12 19 cxba
Rantanen-Ornstein 19 h4, aiming for a comfortable advantage
Reykjavik 1981 after 19..9f7 20 2xf4 Wh4 21 Wd2, is met
by 19.. 803+ 20 gxh3 Wxh4 21 Bf2 2xh3
1e4 o5 2 D3 Dc6 3 b5 a8 4 Lad D6 22 Hh2 Zael 23 WxdS+ h8 24 Rd2 UxeS!
5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 kb3 d5 8 dxeS (Averbakh-Szabo, Zurich Candidates 1953)
£06 9 ¢3 2¢5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Lc2 15 with a draw because of 25 WxeS Wgd+ 26

29
Open Ruy lLopez

h1 W3+ 27 el Wit fxc4 Wxed 24 Jb1

19...c4 ‘This position shouldn’t be wo bad for

The two white bishops and Black's loose Black.
queenside enable White to keep an edge after 24...5h87
19..cb4 20 Wdd Rf5 21 kb3 Des 22 Ciric’s suggestion of 24..8e6! 25 b3
Wxd5 Wb+ 23 Th1 Rads (or 23..h8l? 24 Efc8 is critical. White has an extea pawn and
5 W8 25 Wde! - Sapundiev) 24 a5! We7 25 therefore the better game, but I spent some
Wed Wxes 26 Rxf4 Wxb2 27 Mael, as in time looking ax this position some years ago
Nokso Koiviste-K: d and Juded that Bladk’s well-placed picces
1984, " gve him excellent drawing chances, for
20 b3t instance 26 Bd1 Wixb3 27 Bxb3 He4 28 Rd2
20 Wd4 can be met with 20.¢f5t 21 Hac8 29 Bf2 #17 and it's hard to find
Lxf5 Hxf5 22 Kd1 eb 23 Wxd5 Whét 24 anything convincing for White.
s¢h1 Bd8 when White has to bail out for 25 Wo3 We2?
equality by 25 Wxe6+ Wxe6 26 Bxds+ &7 25..Bac8 is best but 26 b5 is difficult for
27 2d2, as in Varjomaa-Zerpe, Cores- Black.
pondence 1979. 26 h4 D7 27 &xf4 1-0
20...d4 21 bxcd £xc4 22 £b3 Wd5 23 A collapse by Blackat the end.

30
 9¢3 2c5 10 DbJ2 0-0 11 Kc2 f5

Summary
Against 11..45 White does best to play 12 b3 as capturing en passant (Game 7) liberates
Black’s game.
After 12...£b6 13 fd4 Dxd4 14 Dxd4 Lxd4 there is a major dichotomy ar move fifteen.
"The heavily analysed 15 cxd4 (Games 8-10) leads to wild variations but no obvicus advantage
to White. Instead I recommend 15 Wxd4 c5 16 Wd1 when the bishop pair offers White the
slightly better options and less memory work. In Game 11 Timman's 16..h6 may not solve all
of Black’s problems but offers him hope for a rich middlegame where he is not without
chances.

1 e4 o5 2 f3 Hc6 3 b5 ab 4 Lad D6 5 0-0 Hixed 6 34 b6 7 2b3 d5 8 dxe5 Keb

9 ¢3 265 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Lc2 15

12 &b3
12 ext6 - Game 7
12...2b6 13 Dfda Hixd4 14 Hxd4 £xd4 (D) 15 oxdd
15 Wxd4 c5 16 Wd1
16..h6 ~ Game 11
16..f4 - Game 12
15...14 16 §3 D93 (D} 17 hxg3
17 BF2 - Game 8
17...1xg3 18 Wd3 25 19 Wxi5 Xxf5 20 2xf5 Wha 21 £h3 Wxd4+ 22 &h1 Wxe5 23
2d2 Wxb2 24 214 dd (D) 25 2xc7
25 Rxg3 - Game 10
26...d3 - Game 9

31
 CHAPTER THREE

9 ¢3 £¢5'10 Hbd2 0-0

11 £c2 &5

1 e4 eb 2 13 Dc6 3 Lb5 ab 4 Lad D6 5 0-0 Hixed 6 d4 bB 7 Lh3 d5 8 dxeS

5 0-0 Sxe4 6 d4 bS5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxe5 £e6 9 ¢3 Rc5 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Rc2 25
£e6 9 c3 265 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Re2 K15 12 HHb3 L xf2+1?
‘This is the most solid and prudent choice A ‘delayed Dilworth® popularised by
here and was very popular amongst the and then Piket, Although considered
world’s elite in the early 1980s. Black less effective than the normal Dilworth
supponts his knight as in the last chapter, but (Chapter 1), as White can keep the e-file
this time with the bishop, which is no longer closed with 16 e6, it certainly seems playable
tied to the defence of the d5-pawn. By not and has the advantage of surprise-value,
committing his fpzwn. Black takes less The altematives are 12... 842! (Game 14)
positional risks than in the previous chapter and the normal 12..2.g6 (Games 15-21).
and retains the important option of a later 13 Bxf2 D2 14 &xf2 £xc2 15 Wxc2
f7-16 to challenge White’s key e-pawn. For 16 16 e6
his part, White can again 2im for f243 o
undermine the knight.
Although White has several ways of
handling the position the critical lines are
dealt with in Games 19-21, where Black just
about holds his own. The best plan in the
main line is to push the a-pawn to dislodge
the knight from b3 and then create problems
for White with ..a4-a3 (weakening the c3-
square), followed by hitting at the centre with
a timely ...{7-f6.

Game 13
Leko-Piket In this way, White eams enough time to
Dortmund 1994 complete his development. Black obuins a
second pawn but lacks the active play for his
1 ead 5 2 D3 Hc6 3 2b5 a6 4 £a4 D6 rooks associated with the normal Ditworth,

32
 9 c3
The alternatives are as follows:
2) 16 W5 &xe5 17 £e3 Ues 18 Kdi o6
19 £.c5 Bict was satisfactory for Black
Ljubojevic-Piket, Monaco 1994.
b) 16 ext6 is a poor psychological choice.
Although it is not bad in itself it gives Black
the fun he wants! For example, 16...Wxf6 17
gl De5 18 Wd1 Rac8! 19 Wads+ &hs 20
242 Oxf3+ 21 gxf3 Me2 and Black had
dangerous play in Seirawan-Zak, Lugano
1989.
16...Wd6 17 2e3 Wxe6 18 Hbda
Exchanging off Black's last minor piece
and thereby limiting any counter-chances.
White got into trouble after 18 &c$ in
ApicellaMurey, Paris 1989, but only because
of laer errors: 18.We7 19 Wb3 (19 Sdé
was better according to Korchnoi who gives
the position as equal) 19..W{7 20 Rd1 Des!
21 Wxd5? (2 bad emor; 21 BxdS Dgt+ 22
2 Haeg 23 Hd3 was still okay) 21 Dgd+
22 he2 Mael 23 Wf7+ Hxd7 24 Hd3 Hbe7
and Black was winning:
18...Dxd4 19 Hixds
The knight recapture is the most logical,
though 19 Rxd4 was successful in the game
Jirovsky-Macharacek, Czech Republic 1998,
when after 19..2fe8 (19..Zac8%?) 20 Hel
Wg4 21 Wd2 Be4? White won an importam
pawn with 22 2xf6! as the d5-pawn is
hanging, Black would have had a good
position after 21..c6 or 21. Hxel 22 Wxel
Rf7.
19...Web
19 Wd62 just loses time: 20 &5 We5
(20..Wixh2? 21 g3 threatens 22 Bh1) 21
&gl Kfe8 22 Bf1 Wes 23 W2 Bad8 24 £.d4
and White had a strong artack in Morovic-
Murey, Thessalonilsi Olympiad 1984,
20 Df3
Maybe White should consider 20 &5
anyway, even if it does’t gain a tempo (see
the previous note).
20...%hs
20..Wd6 21 b4 is given as slightly beuer
for White by Morovic, as indeed is the
£¢5 10 BbA2 0-0 11 £c2 475
continuation of the main game, though Bladk.
never seems in any danger.
214
If the black queen wants to go to the
kingside then it’s time to play on the other
wing.
21...c6 22 b4 HfeB 23 Wd3 Had8 24 h3
o4 25 axb5 axbb 26 £d4 Hde8 27 Ba2
W15 28 We2 hs 29 &g1 g5!
Giving sufficient counterplay 1o keep
White occupi
30 W2 H4e6 %-%
‘This vasiation is not as dangerous as the
real Dilworth, but the rook and two pawns
seem ta be sufficient compensarion for two
minor pieces (if Black isn’t too passive) and
therefore the line is playable.
Game 14
Karpov-Korchnoi
Baguio City (14th matchgame) 1978
1 ed 65 2 13 Hcb 3 2b5 a6 4 Rad N6
5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 bS 7 b3 d5 B8 dxe5
266 9 ¢3 £65 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Lc2 L8
12 23 2947
Nowadays 12..%g6 (Games 1521) has
become standard.
13 h3!
With this move Karpov introduces a
convincing plan. However, in earlier games
from the match Karpov had failed to obtain
any real advantage out of the opening: 13
33
Open Ruy Lopez
&ixcS xc5 14 Hel d4 (or even 14..Rh5 15
h3 He8 16 £f4 De6 17 Rd2 D5 18 Rf4
&6 19 22 Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City
[4th matchgame] 1978, which was agreed
drawn immediately) 15 h3 Rh5 16 cxd4
£f3 17 W3 Qx4 18 W3 Wd5 19 £e3
Dixc2 20 Wxc2 $d3 21 Red1 Xfd8 22 Wxe?
Wxe5 23 Wxe5 DixeS 24 b3 f6, Karpov-
Korchnoi, Baguio Ciy {2nd matchgare)
1978, which was drawn a few moves later.
13...2h5
13...8xf3 14 gxf3 HIxf2 represens a more
interesting try. Black will then obtain two
pawns and an unbalanced position.
14 g4! 296 15 Sxed
Introdudcing a forcing sequence that leaves
White with a safe edge in the ending,
16...dxe4 16 Dxe5 exf3 17 214 Wxd1
18 Haxd1 &d8 19 Hd7 De6
Black exchanges kuights and so the
remaining pair of minor plcscs are opposite-
coloured bishops, This is often a drawish
factor, but here Black's pawn strucrureis full
of weak points and the defence is unpleasant.
20 Dxe6 ixe6 21 Re3 Racs 22 Kfd1
A later game, Timoschenko-Sideif Zade,
USSR 1979, continued 22 £.c5 Bfe8 23 Eel
h5 when White should play 24 gxh5 ©xh$
25 h2 with continuing pressure.
22...964 23 25 RfeB 24 X7d4 245 25
b3 a5 26 ¥h2 a8 27 g3 Bas?|
Korchno fails to anticipate Karpav's plan.
Better was 27...8.c6 ot 27...a4.
34
28 h4 Hc6
29 Xxd5!
Black’s bishop was doing a good job to
hold everything tagether, so by sacrificing the
exchange White eliminates the main barrier.
Now Black is '
29...exd5 30 Exd5 Hceé 31 Rd4 c6 32
Hcb Rfg
Keene suggests 32.2d8 33 ¥xf3 Hd5 as
Black's best chance of holding the game. The
exchange of rooks would avoid White's plan
of the game,
3341
‘Winning either the a- or f-pawns and then
activating either the king or rook.
33...bxad4 34 bxad g8 35 Uxa5 Heae8 36
Ha7 Hf7 37 Hab Hc7 38 £c6 HccB 39
2d6 HaB 40 Exc6é Exad 41 ¥xf3 h5 42
gxh5 gih5 43 ¢4 Ha2 44 BEb6 f7 45 c5
Had 48 c6 Peb 47 c7 d7 48 Hbs HcB
49 a3 Hxh4 50 e64! 1-0
After 50..xe6 then 51 Rg3! wins arook.
A game of historic importance. Indeed as
a result of Karpov's team’s preparation
12..8g4 has been totally replaced by
1226,
Game 15
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi
Wijk aan Zee 1983
1 e4 e5 2 3 Hic6 3 Lb5 ab 4 Lad Di6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 d5 B dxe5
 9 ¢3 £c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 £c2 KF5

%e6 9 c3 2¢5 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Kc2 25 The straightforward 14 axb5 axb5 15

12 b3 296 Uxa8 Wxa8 16 WxdS is not good as
16..8xc3! 17 bxc3 xc2 18 Wxb5, as in
Tukmakov-5 USSR Championshi
1969, is a shade bewer for Black (bemer
bishop, pawn structure) after 18..2.xf2+ 19
Bxf2 Bb8 20 We2 Rxb3.
14..2xd4
In the e Ivanovic-Todorovic,
Yugoslavia 1990, Black played 14..8Wdn
immediately and after 15 £.¢3 £a5 16 axb5
axb5 17 @Bh4 D4 18 Dxgé hxgs 19 Hxas
Hxa8 20 ¢6 fxe6 21 Rxed adraw was agreed.
15 &xdd Wd7
Black fell into a standard trap in Timman-
Geller, Moscow 1981: 15...c5? 16 %\c6 when
13 a4 16..Wd7 fails 1o 17 Wxd5 Wxds 18 Re7+.
Here, as in a number of lines, White’s a2- 16 %63 D5
a4 push represents a sideline with some bite. "The tempting 16...¢5 is no good as after 17
Sometimes b5 or a6 become target points e the kaiight on ¢4 is threatened
with 13
and the rook on al has an early entry into the £3.
game. The usual 13 &)fd4 is seen in Games 17 ab
18-21, while White’s other main alternarives Since the exchange on b5 doesa’s really
13 £.f4 and 13 Sbd4?? are covered in Games lead anywhere, White decides to gain a
16 and 17 respectively. Early simplification tempo and some space. Now, which is the
lacks bite: 13 &ixc5 G 14 Lxgb hxgé 15 most vulnerable pawn, White's on 25 or
Re3 De6 16 Wd2 Wd7, Radulov- Black’s on a6?
Suradiradja, Indonesia 1982, and 13 We2 Heg 17...%a7 18 f4
14 Bxc5 DixcS 15 Rxgé hxgs 16 Lg5 Wd7
17 Bad1 Deb 18 Wd2 Hixg5 19 W5 We7,
Ljubojevic-Timman, Hilversum 1987, both
give comfortable equality for Blacle
Sharper is 13 e6?? f5 (White's idea is tha
13..fxe6M 14 Rxed dxed 15 DixcS exfd 16
Hixe6 gives Black the choice of which pawn
to lose, but 13..8b6 instead looks playable)
14 ixc5 (14 Soxed fred 15 Dxc5 exf3 16 e7
&xe7 17 et Wd7 18 g Hxfs 19 h3
L4 gave Black a strong antack in Losakov-
Ablouhov, correspondence 1987) 14..4xc5
15 fp5 Wd6 16 €7 Bfe8 17 Hel Ded 18
£b3 &7 19 a4, when Korchnoi judges the Black has to avoid the pawn roller, hence
‘position as unclear. This idea requires further his choice of plan.
work as this long-forgotten sideline may 18...2xc2 19 Dxc2 6! 20 exf6 Axf6 21
prove dangerous for the unwary. ®h1 c6
13...2b6 14 Hbd4 Korchnoi later preferred 21,84 22
35
Open Ruy Lopez

Kxa7 Bxa7 23 @b4 Hdé 24 We2 Had 25 eliminates the monster bishop.
)d3 ¢5 with, in his opinion, equat chances 37 fxeb Wxb2
Black starts to get his majority rolling and has
a good knight on e4, but White has the e5-
outpost, However, 1 have a slight preference
for Black as 5 can be undermined and the
a5- and f4-pawns are potential weaknesses.
22 2d4 Xf7 23 Db4
Tnteresting is 23 3 aiming for €5 via g,
23..8d6 24 Wg4 b3 26 Le5 Wd7 26
Wxd7 Xxd7 27 Ea2
A bit awhkward but a5 needs some
support. Now White will pick up a pawn but
at a certain cost...
27...c6 28 Dxab Xc8 29 Kd1 d4
38 ©c77?
A blunder. After 38 Haxb3 cxb3 39 &5
Wal 40 Sixb3 Wixe5 41 a6 We7! (Korchnoi)
the position should be drawn.
38...Wxa3 39 a6 Wab 40 Hi3+
If 40 7 then Korchnoi analyses 40..8)21
(40..Wixa7 41 De6r Fe7 42 Rg7+ Exch 43
Hxa? is no longer clear, but probebly drawn)
41 a8W+ Wxa8 42 a8 D1+ 43 Sh3
Qx.g}vnd—nadnrzdvamageformad( This
looks winging to me, eg. 4 &7 <3t 45
Dicbt BA7! 46 D4 D5 47 D2 eb.
40.. e7 41 Bg3 &c5 42 a7
With the knighton a6 and the rock on a2 Winning back the queen but Black sull
rather out of touch, the advance of the d- wins the game.
pawn creates danger for White. 42...%¥xa7 43 Bg7+ $d8 44 Deb+ Dxed
So the a6-pawn proved to be the most 45 Bxa7 c3 46 Ra6 c2 47 Ec6 94 48
fragile of the a-file pawns, but that is certamly Be3 $e7 0-1
not the end of the story! Intending 10 follow up with ..b5-b4 and
30 a3t -b4-b3 etc.
Van der Widl rejected 30 exd4 because of A fascinating game in which Black's
30...cxd4 31 Ka3 Het 32 Bxcl Hxcl 33 Bal queenside pawns played a major part.
b3 34 Bd1 &xa5 with a comfortable edge
for Black. Now the pot boils over! Game 16
30...dxc3t 31 Hxd7 ¢2 32 h4 ¢1W+ 33 Short-Timman
Fh2 Tilburg 1988
At present Black has queen for rook but
various bits are g 1 e4 a5 2 53 Dc6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad D6
33...c4 34 Kxa7 BeB 35 Rxg7+ &i8 36 5 0-0 fixe4 6 d4 b5 7 Kb3 dS 8 dxe5
Bg3 ExeS K6 9 c3 2c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Rc2 &5
In time trouble, Korchnoi sensibly 12 b3 296 13 214

36
 9 ¢c3 £c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 171 Rc2 KI5

White decides to support the advanced e
pasm before conducting an active plan.
13...4b6 14 a4
Here 14 Dfd4 should be met by 14..8e7!
(instead 14..Dxdd 15 cxd4 £6 16 Kel We7
17 Sxed Rxed 18 DeS fre5 19 Rxes K7 20
Wg4, as in Popovic-Skembris, Bar 1997,
turned out to be passive for Black).
14..%d7
Black can seriously consider 14..b4 when
15 a5 fa7 16 £)fd4 Wes! looks satisfactory
as 17 et Wxch 18 cxb4?®? (on 18 4
then 18..Wb7 holds everything together}
18.. 02! wins,
15 axb§ axb5 16 Ixad Hxa8
Early simplification doesn’t mean peaceful
intentions on Short’s part! He aims to press
against the weak points, such as b5, on
Black’s queenside but Timman is ready.
17 Bfd4 b4
Possibly 17..4)d8, intending a quick ...c7-
5, was not bad either.
18 443
The threat is 19 £b5 but Black ignores it!
Thisis a sign that he already stands well.
18...bxc3! 19 £b5 Oxf2! 20 Exf2
22 Wxb3? allows mate by 22.. Hat+.
22...Ha1 23 Wxal Dxal 24 906 Led
‘The smoke clears and the further ... 2.xf2+
will leave Black a pawn up. Short manages to
defend precisely by exploiting the absence of
the knight from the centre.
26 ¢4 B2 26 £d2!
The obvious 26 Rxd5 fxd5 27 xd5
b4 28 d6 (or 28 1 Lxf2 29 dxf2 Dixd5)
28..cxdb 29 exds DAY 30 X3 S will
teave Black with king and three pawns
against king and two on the same side, which
is standard win that can be found in all
endgame books, 5o Short delays the knight's
return temporarily before taking on dS.
26..2a3 27 £xd5 £xd6 28 cxdS Hed
29 263
Black still has slight chances but White has
managed to get his pawn back and should
now hold the game.
29... %8 30 g4 %8 31 ha g6 32 g2
Lxf2 33 Wxi2 Db6 34 d6 c6
Black can again win a pawn by M...cxd6
35 exd6 &d7 36 b4 D4 but then White is
in no real danger as this three vs. two is
drawn if White avoids gerting his pawns
fixed on dark squares.
35 213 $d7 36 244 56 37 h5 Deb 38
wed &bd 39 £c3 HdS 40 2d4 Db 41
Kc3NdS Y-

Game 17
Zso.Polgar-Van der Sterren
Wijk aan Zee 1990
7 ed e5 2 &3 Ncb 3 2b5 a6 4 a4 D6
5 0-0 Hxe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
Re6 9 c3 Rcb 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Ke2 L5
12 b3 296 13 Hibda!?
and now... At first sight this looks like a case of the
20...40xd4! 21 &xd7 wrong knight!? White’s normal plan after 13
"True, after21 Sxdd Wixb5 22 Qb5 cxb2 Dfd4 {scc Games 18-21) is to have the
Black is a queen down, bus his b-pawn wins aption of £2-£3 hitting the black knight which
the game as 23 &\c3 Hal is hopeless for may be embarrassed for a retreat square.
White. 13..0xd4
21...8xb3 22 bxc3 After 13..8xd4 14 cxdd? (14 Dxd4

37
Open Ruy Lopez

transposes to Game 18) could be awkward (s no longer check) 24 gxf7+.

for the knight on e4, but only after significant 21..187
preparation. It would probably be more This fails tactically. He should have wied
fruitful for White to try to seek action on the 21..8xd4 22 Lxd4 K5 wrying 1o block the
ofile whilst Black will counter with ...£7-f6 kingside majority’s advance.
and/or a timely ..c7-cS. 22 e8! Hxe6
14 Gixdd Tf Black moves the queen then 23 5 traps
Apicella-Komneev, Pars 1991, wok a the unfortunate bishop.
different course: 14 cxd4 £b6 15 Le3 Xc8 23 15!
6 b4 (Black was ready for counterplay with Van der Sterren was probably expecting
+.c7-c5, when the isolated d-pawn would be 23 Bxet Rxe3 24 Rxed Kxed when Black
compensated by the loose e-pawn and the has good compensation, in the form of his
active disposition of Black’s army) 16..We7 dynamic bishop pair, for the exchange.
17 a3 a5 18 bxa5 £xa5 19 £b3 Zfd8 with 23...8xf5
chances for both sides. Even worse is 23..8xd4? 24 fxe6.
14...2b6 15 Re3 24 Hxf5 2xe3 25 Hixe3 Hixc3 26 Wod!
15 &c6 can be met by 15..We8 16 Wxd5 Precisely played. Less good is 26 bxc3
&xf2 or even by 15..83xf2! immediately. Hxe3 when with three pawns for the piece
15...He8?! there are fair drawing chances.
This tums out simply to lose time, bus 26...5e4 27 Lxed dxed .
Black wanted to avoid the well-known
wactical trap 15..c52 16 &6 Wd7 17 Wxds!
More constructive were 15...Weg 16 f4 (or 16
13 £2d6) 16...£6 or 15..Wd7 which he has to
play soon anyway.
16 a4 Wd7 17 axb’ axbb 18 Hxa8 Hxa8
19 £d3 c6

28 Exf6!
A nice move on the theme of ‘pin and
win'
28..3d6 29 Wxd7 RMxd7 30 Hxc6 2d3
31 Ec3 Hd2 32 Ho2 Bd3 33 He2 10

Game 18
Now that the queenside is stabilised J.Polgar-Hellers
Zsofia turns her atention to the other wing. Wijk aan Zee 1990
When White gets the fpawn going, the
bishop on g6 is badly 1 e4 e5 2 3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad 6
20 4! e8 21 wh1 6 0-0 &xed 6 44 b5 7 £b3 dE § dxe5
Threatening 22 £5 Rxd4 23 frgh Sxe Reb 9 ¢c3 265 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Rc2 RIS

38
 9¢3 8c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Lc2 RF5

12 b3 £96 13 Hid4 £xd4 14 Hixds 18...Wb6+2!

The most testing move here is 14 cxdd,
when White then has the bishop pair, threats
of f243 and play on the c-file and against
Black’s queenside. In Games 19-21 we shall
see how Black can defend this position.
14.. Wd7
Here 14../0xe5? fails w 15 f4 &4
trapping the bishop.
A small but significant misiake, In the
game Black will be obliged to capture on d4-
(or allow the pawn-crippling 20 Wxb6) when
White is able to put the cfile to good use.
Therefore Polgar suggests 18..Wc5+ 19 Wd4
£h5, when White has compensation for the
16 {5 pawn but no more.
19 Wd4 Wixda+ 20 cxdd 2h5 21 214 c6
22h3 (6
Black secures a retreat for his bishop.
However, White’s pressure against the fragile
black queenside pawns is worth more than
the invested pawn.
23 Bfc1 Xfd8 24 axbs

15 a4
A speculaive pawn sactifice from the
word’s top female player who is typically in
an aggressive mood. Alternazives give Black a
satisfactory game:
?) After 15 &xct Wxct 16 £e3 Hfed
Black has done well in practical play: 17 £3?
(or 17 & @wxc3! Korchnoif)-Karl,
Switzerdand 1982) 17..8xc3! Speelman-
Timman, London (6th matchgame) 1989,
and now after 18 bxc3 Wixc3 19 Ld4 Wxc2
zowxammzsznwum\mm
has some d.mwmg
B) 15 f4 is no lougc( a feared weapon
since Korchnoi found the best
15..%8d4 16 cxd4 f61 17 £.e3 fxe5 18 fxe5
Dxfiy 19 Wxfl Bf8 20 We2 Wes 21 Ift
BExf1+ %-¥% Leko-Korchnoi, Leon 1994.
15...8xe5
Now that Black’s queen covers f5 this
move s playable.
16 14 &c6 17 Dxc6 Wxe6 18 15
Persistent. Black’s queen has been
displaced and this thematic move is on again.
24...cxb8
Perhaps Hellers should have chosen
2420058 25 Bxa8 Mal 26 Lxed (not 26
£b3 as 26...8¢8 halds everything together)
26...dxe4 27 Bxct L7, when the presence of
opposite-coloured bishops offers Black good
ing chances.
25 2b3 £17 26 Hc7 Dd6 27 4xd6 Bxd6
course: 28 Xb7
The threat is 29 Sxb5 and unfortunarely
for Black 28...2.08 is met by 29 Hel with the
deadly threat of doubling on the seventh.
28...Had8 29 a7 ht 30 X1xa6 Xxaé 31
Exaé He8
After 31.Hc8 White can avoid
counterplay with 32 Bal! and Black is o
with his static weaknesses: poor pawns and
an even poorer bishop.
39
Open Ruy Lopez
32 wf2 He4 33 Ra8+ ©h7 34 18 Ke?
34..8.p8? fails elegantly 0 35 g8t Hft+
36 e3! (not 36 g3 Hxd4 with 37..Hd3+
w come) 36.Het+ 37 &d3 xe8 38
Lxd5+.
35 2c2 £e8 36 Rd3 b4 37 93 b3 38 hd
Black is in zugzwang as there are no ‘pass”
moves.
38...2c6 39 Hc8 2b7 40 Hc3 Rd7 41
Exb3 Be7 42 He3 1-0
Polgar points out the reason for her
opponent’s early resignation: on 42..8xc3 43
bxc3 Lc6 44 #f3 g8 White continues 45
Ra6, threaening Lc8-e6-g8-h7-g6 and the
h5-pawn falls. Black can only defend the b-
pawn by pusting his king on hé, which
naturally allows White to create a passed d-
pawn and win easily.
Game 19
Karpov-Yusupov
USSR Ch., Moscow 1983
1 e4 o5 2 i3 Nc6 3 Lb5 a6 4 £ag Bf6
5 0-0 &ixe4d 6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxe5
£e6 9 c3 £.c5 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Lc2 £15
12 b3 £.96 13 Dfd4 Lxd4 14 cxdd
After this move Black must react quickly
before White completes his development and
plays on the c-file. The awlward move £2-f3
is also in the air.
14...05
Played in order to meet 15 £3 by 15..24!
40
15 263
Altemarively:
) 15 f4 s best met by 15 ..f5!
b) 15 &3 soon simplified out to equality
in Ljubojevic-Tal, Niksic 1983, after 15 .a4
16 £xb5 axb3 17 Rxc6 Mab 18 £3 Hxct 19
fxed bxa2 20 Exa2 £xe4 21b3.
) 15 a4 leads to nothing after 15..20b4 16
£b1 bxa4 17 Exad Dxf2! Hence White's
best is the most natural developing move
available,
15...a4 18 a2
The alternative retrear 16 %\l is covered
in Games 20 and 21.
16...a3
The continuation 16..8e7? 17 3 &xd2
18 Wxd2 c6 19 Hacl of Ermnsi-Conquest,
Gausdal 1991, allows Whitc a comfortable
edge. Instead 16...f612 should be countered by
17 £4! fxe5 18 dxeS S1xd2 19 Sxd2 Wd7 20
Lxg6 hxgs 21 We2 Web 22 Hacl, as in
PrandstetterHaba, Prague 1990, when the
pressure on the cfile leaves White with the
initiative-
17 Bxed axb2 18 b1 Lxed
18...cxedl? 19 Hxb2 Wd5, as in Comet-
Ferret, Wodd Computer Championship,
Jakarta 1996, might be worth a uy.
19 Bxb2 Wd7
This position was very fashionable in the
early cighties. The pressure on the b- and c-
files is enough for White to keep a slight but
persistent edge as our main game illustrates.
 9 ¢c3 &c5
20 243!
Berter than 20 Sxe4 dxe4 21 Rxbs QDxd4
22 Mc5 BfdS which was only equal in
Alvanov-Yusupov, USSR Championship,
Frunze 1979.
20...8xd3
Not 20.b42 21 Rb5 Efb8 22 Hxb4,
which was very difficult for Black in Ernst-
Ater, Berin 1988, as he cannot his
pawn due to 22..Exa2?? 23 Lxc6 Wxch 24
Bxbs+.
21 Wxd3 Efb8 22 Rib1
More direct is 22 f4 aiming for f4-f5 and
e5-e6.
22..b4 23 h3
1t’s true that 23 a3 bxa3 24 Hxb8+ Kxh8
25 Rxb8+ Pub8 26 Wxal, as in Hiibner-
Korchnoi, Chicago 1982, was still becer for
White, but the extra simplification makes the
game rather drawish.
23...h6 24 Ect Hb6 25 Wh1 Habs
A later game Popovic-Timman, Sarajevo
1984, continued 25..2a7 26 Hc5 a5 {too
optimistic} 27 Exb4 @c4 28 Hb3 Hab7 29
@h2 c6 30 Ha5! and Black was in trouble and
soon lost.
26 Bc5 £d8 27 Boe2 Hieb
Black can only wait and see as 27..8e6 is
strongly met by 28 f4 etc.
28 Wcl B8b7 29 o5 De7 30 $h2
jte can continue to probe on the
queenside and prepare g2-g4, f4-f4 and a
steady advance on the other wing; meanwhile
Black remains passive, Yusupov decides to
play actively, but as so often happens, this
precipitates the end.
30...445 31 Hbc2 Hgé 32 Exc7 Exc7 33
Bxc7 Wb5 24 g4 Hha 35 HcB+ $h7 36
Hd1
Stopping the black queen from coming to
3, e2 or f1.
36...Wa6 37 He2 R £b3 Bc3 19 Wd2 b4 20 &d3 £xd3 21
Karpov holds everything and prepares to
play R.e3-f4-g3.
37...16 38 %g3!
A ncat way of winning a piece.
70 Dbd2 0-0 11 fc2 &F5
38...txg4 39 ©xh4 gxh3 40 141 We6 41
Wh5 We7+ 42 $xh3 W7
A wicky move to meet but Karpov has
scen everything.
43 Bh21
Indirectly defending the queen and so the
threar of .. Hg3+ is met.
43..Wd7+ 44 5 1-0
Karpov makes everything look so smooth!
It seems thar Black doesn’t quite equalise
against 16 £3d2, although most players with
the white pieces wouldn't be able to make
anything out of such a small edge.
Game 20
Chekhov-Gorelov
Beskidy 1992
1 ed e5 2 D3 Deb6 3 Lb5 a6 4 La4 D6
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d& 8 dxe5
a6 9 c3 25 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Kc2 &5
12 2b3 296 13 Dfd4 Lxd4 14 cxd4 a5
15 2e3 a4 16 &ict a3
In order to give Black access to the c3-
square.
17 b3
The alternative 17 bxa3 doesn’t cause too
many problems: 17..Mxa3 18 Ad3 (after 18
Wxd3 Wa8), as in Nunn-Marin, Thessaloniki
Olympiad 1988, the knight on c3 gave Black
an excellent game) 18..43c3 19 Wd2 a5 20
2b3 Hixa2 21 §X5 Hixb3 22 Hxb3, as in
47
Open Ruy Lopez

Hickd-Van der Sterren, Munich 1990, and Dxet dxed! (20..Lxed 21 dxe5 wasnt so
now 22..2xb3 (Korchnol) was equal. easy for Bladk, who has the worse pawn
17...161 strucure, in Aseev-Komneev, Krumbach
‘The older 17..42b4? 18 &bl ¢5 19 dxc5 1991) seems to equalise as White cannot use
&6 20 &e2, as in Tseshkovsky-Geller, his kingside majority. After 21 dxe5 Wxd1 22
USSR Championship 1980/81, is given by all Hfxd1 Kfds 23 h3 Rf7 24 Hxd8+ Rxdg 25
the books as clearly bemer for White, but Hel B8 26 £.65 Kd5 27 Bl o6 Black had
here Black should have played 20.-85 a blockade in Ivanchuk-Timman, Riga 1985.
which is ot so clear. 19 Wel
18 Qd3 A useful move, hitting b4 and getting
readyto undermine the knight
if it ventures
to c3.
19...fxe5
If 19..2b8 20 £3 &c3 21 Dxb4s Hxb4 22
Dbxaz 23 L2 fxe5 24 B2t
(Chekhov) Black's knights are horibly
tangled. He also gives 19..We7 20 f4 fxe5 21
dxe5 d4 22 L2 as an edge for White,but
the continuasion 22..4)c3 23 g# K7 24 15
.45 is complicated and Black is not withoilt
counterpay.
Instead 19..3? is refuted by 20 Dxb4!
b4 21 Lxg6 Dbxa? 22 Kb Hxbl 23
18 exf6 is covered in Game 21, while 18 Hxa2 and White wins a piece.
{3 is met by a promising piece sacrifice 20 Dxe5 DxeS 21 dxe5 We?
18..fxe5! 19 fred Bxfl+ 20 $xf1? exd4 21 2144 fails dismally to 22 Bd1 5 23
Bxd4 dxed 22 Re3?? (berreris 22 Rc3 Wis+ £:xd4, as Chekhov points out.
23 el Rd8, although Black has excellent 22 13 D3 23 Kxg6 hxgb 24 Ld4 RIS
comy ion for the piece) 22..Wfe+ 23 25 We3 ¢52!
sogl Eds 24 W4 W3 01 Solomon-Van Chekhov instead suggests 25..He8l? with
der Sterren, Sydney 1991 the plausible continuation 26 Zfel &b5 27
White can improve with 20 Wxf1 exd4 21 Re5 Web (27..Wixe5?? 28 WE2) 28 4 g5 29
Wxb5 (or 21 Rf4 dxes 22 Wxb5 Wf6 and Wd3 o6 30 fxgs Bxg5 (30..Hxe5? 31 Lxb4)
the two central passed pawns and active 31 &xb4 Hxe5 32 Hxes WxeS 33%e1 Wdd+
pieces are fully worth the piece - Flear) 34 Wxd4 Hxel+ 35 Lxel Dxd4 36 Rd2! (36
21..40a7 22 Wxd5+ Wxd5 23 exdS dxe3 24 S22 Hxb3t 37 axb3 d4) 36..0f7 37 @iz
Lxg6 hxg6 25 3 b5 with equal chances and the bishop is better than the knight but a
accordingto Nunn. draw is on the cards.
18...hat? 26 Sxc5 Exe5 27 Qxe7 Ixe3 28 Lxba
Unconvincing is 18.2c82! s 19 £3 fxe5 d4 29 B2
20 Dxe5 DixeS 21 fiied D7 22 €5 left Whive Black ‘doesn’t have enough compensation
with an edge in Aseev-Haba, Germany 1994, for the pawn.
when he was able to win by using both o 29..Tc8
and f-files for his rooks.
see following diagram
Therefore Blacl’s best chance may be
18...fxe5. The point is that 19 @xe5 Hxe5 20 30 &xc3?71

42
 9 ¢c3 2c5
After 30 £xa3P De2+ 31 $fl B2,
Black, just as he does in the double-rook
ending that follows, obtains oo much
counterplay, 50 30 Hd2! was more to the
point.
30...Eexc3 31 Hd2 Ec2 32 Hxd4 Eb2 33
Bga &7 34 D4+ g8 35 Hgd $f7 36
h4 Hoc2 37 Ke1 He2!
Not of course 37..Kxa2 38 Rf4+ g8 39
He8+ Sh7 40 RFB Mxgd+ 41 Df1 g5 42 b5
and White wins.
38 Exe2
38 M1 is naturally
met by 38.. Kec2.
38...Hxe2 39 Ha4 Exa2 40 ¥h2 Hal 41
@g3 a2 42 ¥4 Hb1 43 a7+ g8 44
Hxa2 Exb3 45 ®g5 @h7 46 Has Hc3
-t
Game 21
Short-Timman
Yerevan Olympiad 1996
1 o4 5 2 &3 Hc6 3 2b5 a8 4 2ad Hf6
5 0-0 &ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxeb
£e6 9 c3 £¢5 10 £bd2 0-0 11 Kc2 £f5
12 £1b3 £9¢6 13 D4 Lxd4 14 cxd4 ab
15 Re3a4 16 Hc1 a3 17 b3 16 18 exi6
18 €3 was covered in the previous
game.
18...¥x16 19 De2 Hbg!
Less logical seems 19..We7 20 Hc1 &b4
21 £b1 Racs, as in Speelman Timman,
London (4th matchgame) 1989, since White
10 Dbd2 0-0 17 Rec2 RIS
has developed his rook before retreating the
bishop to b1, unlike the text continuation.
20 &b1
Not swprisingly, given that he has fully
activated his forces, Black has several routes
to full equality. White is not really organised
enough (as yet) wo exploit the weaknesses in
Black’s pawn structure.
20...We?
Imeresting is 20..¢5, an unmed
suggestion, which was analysed by Nunn t0 2
draw following 21 xe4 £xed 22 dxcS D2
23 Hel $xg2 24 doxg2 W3+ 25 gt Hxe3
26 fxe3 Wxed+.
Best could be 20...Rac8! 21 &3 (after 21
Wel 5! Black has a very active game)
21.Heb, as in Liberzon-Stean, Beersheva
1982, when Black has equal chances
according to theory. Note how active his
pieces are and how easy it is for White to go
astray. game continued 22 Lxed!
(White should play 22 Wel &xg3 23 hxg3
Sxbt 24 Wxb1 Hcs 25 Hcl with equality
according to Liberzor) 22..dxed 23 Wd2
&3 and Black was already better,
21 Bet
White threatens f2-f3. Another Karpov-
Korchnoi encounter (6th marchgame,
Merano 1981) continued 21 Wel Hfe8 22
Df4 K7, when 23 Dd3 Dxd3 24 Kxd3 is
given by all the books as a shade better for
White. Then 24..b4! 25 Hc1 £33 is critical as
the knight finds an excellent outpost, so the
43
Open Ruy Lopez

game is not clearat all (Flead). Bee+ 26 D4

21...8xf21 Forced, as after 25 &gl We3+ 26 ®hl,
Otherwise after 22 f3 Black would be the move 26..%d3 gives Black a ferocious
denied the central cutpost and he will be attack.
pushed badk. In this variation Black has wo 26...Exta+ 26 gt Bedl
keep going forward or end up with a ‘Swiss ‘Timman rejected 26..Wf6 because of 27
cheese’ queenside in the ending. Mes+ &if7 28 Bc8 when the c-pawn and
Black’s king are exposed.
27 Wd2 d3! 28 BA11?
Trying for more than the draw that fesults
from 28 Hxe4 Wxed 29 Hd1 Wxd4+ 30 Ph1
D2+
28...Exdd 29 Ri3 Dia
Unpianing cleverly as the rook cannot be
aken in view of 30..De2+.
30 W2 g5 31 He3 Bed 32 Uxed dxed
Black has two pawns, which is sufficient
compensarion here as his knight cannot be
denied an advanced outpost.
33 We3 Dd3 34 Ki1 WeS 35 Sh1 i
22 £xf2 £xb1 23 Exbt Hxf2 24 &xf2 36h4 g4 37308 %%

44
 9¢c3 25 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Rec2 2F5

Summary
White has tried various move orders and nuances to obtain something concrete against the
solid 11.. %15, The most convincing idea is 12 £1b3 Rg6 13 Dfdd Lxd4 14 cxdd a5 15 Ke3
24 16 k2 of Game 19 where Black seems to be strugglingto fully equalise.
Of the earlier deviations, 14 £yd4 (Game 18) looks like a dangerous surprise weapon but
this may be true only under the guidance of Judit Polgar. White has several 13th altematives
but they don't give him anything specal. As move 12, 12.2 g is best avoidedbur 12..8x42+
is playable, though less aggressive than in Chapter 2.
1 64 €5 2 D3 $1c6 3 Rb5 a6 4 Raq D6 5 0-0 Hxed 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 d5 3 dxeb Ke6
93 2¢5 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 Le2 215

12 ©b3 296 (D)

12..8xf2+ — Game 13
12..R¢4 ~ Game 14
13 Dfdd
13 a4 - Game 15
13 Rf4 - Game 16
13 @Dbd4 - Game 17
13...8xd4 14 cxdd
14 @xd4 ~ Game 18
14...85 15 Le3 a4 (D} 16 Hie1
16 D2 - Game 19
16...a3 17 b3 16 18 exf6
18 &3 — Game 20
18...8xt6 (D) - Game 21

15...a4 718...Wxf6

45
 CHAPTER FOUR
9 ¢3 £.c¢5: Tenth Move
Alternatives
1 e4 e5 2 D3 Hc6 3 £b5 a6 4 Rad D6
5 0-0 2xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Xb3 dS 8 dxeb
£e6 9 c3 £c5
Sometimes White prefm other moves to
10 @bd2 and these al are covered
in this chapter. The main advamage of
keeping the knight temporarily on b1 is that
the dark-squared bishop can be developed
rapidly or the white queen can come to d3.
Lines with an early We2 can transpose from
9 We2 (sce Chapter 9) and those with an
early £€3 to the lines fearuring 9 &e3 (see
Chapter 11).
To provide a brief overview of the
content of this chapter: 10 £f4 (Game 22) is
uicky but doesn’t offer a theoretical edge; 10
a4 (notes to Game 22) should be met by
10...b4; Game 23 gives a good model of how
10 handle 10 We2 followed by 11 Re3; and
10 Wd3 followed by 11 Dbd2 (Games 24
26) or 11 Ke3 (Game 27) are complicated:
Black is okay but some memorisation of long
lines is necessary.
The fact that the theoretically strongest
move is 10 &bd2 should not Iull the Open
player into over-confidence if he faces one of
these variations. Farly deviations are
sometimes deadly because of their surprise
value and readers intending 1o play 9..&c5
should not skip over this chapter.
46
Game 22
Gofshtein-Mikhalevski
Beersheva 1994
14 e5 2 Df3 £c6 3.8b5 a6 4 Lad 6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 Kb3 d5 8 dxe5
Ke6 9 ¢3 Re5 10 £f4
A rare move that provokes Black into
tricky complications, where he stands well if
he knows what to do. White reinforces the
e5—p=wn and prepares quick development
d the undcrmlmngoflhekmghlune‘iby
4)fd4 and £2-f3 or ©bd2 and Dixed.
Black should meet 10 a4 (a typml idea
seen in mmyvmnnsof the Open; White
creates threats against b5 and
d5) with 10..b4! (10..Kb8?! is inadvisable as
11 axb5 axb5 12 &bd2 00 13 Ke2 gves
White a bewer version of lines arisingin
several other chapters: White has already
freed his queen’s rook for action on the a-file
and thus has gained time on some main lines)
11 4 DixeS 12 cxbs Dxdd (12 Sxb4l? 13
f3 leads to complications which Korchnoi
as unclear after 13...8.c5! 14 Re3 &f6
15 Wet Wds) 13 Wxd4 W6 14 Re3 Bt 15
Wxf6 2xxf6 16 Bl &ixba 17 Hxc7 00 with
equal chances in Wedberg-Castro, Manila
Olympiad 1992.
 9 ¢3 2¢5:
Compare this 1o 10 £bd2 00 11 a4 when
for the same reason 11..b4 is Black’s most
logicdl course. The game Kupreichik-
Mikhalchishin, Lvov 1988, continued 12 R¢2
bxc3P? (instead of this 12...8f5! is better) 13
Hixet dxed 14 Sxed Wxd1 15 Hxd1 BEdB 16
el cxb? 17 Rxb2 Eabs 18 £a3 Lxa3 19
Exa3 £d5 20 g3 Be721 Kc3 c6 22 Lxd5
Exd5 23 Hc4, which turned out to be a linle
becter for White thanks o his superior pawn
structure.
Despite this instructive counter-example, I
believe that Black should meet a2-a4 on
moves 9, 10 or 11 with b4,
10...g5!
Black does best to allow himself to be
provoked! The text forces the win of the e-
pawn at the risk of loosening the kingside.
However, White thus obtains some tactical
play against 2 less than fully secure black
king.
11 ke3
Not 11 g3? b5t and White is alreadyin
trouble.
11...8x03 12 fxe3 g4 13 Ddd Dxes 14
2d2 Ho51?
Inferior is 14..2xd2¥ 15 Wxd2, as in
Murey-Flear, Brussels 1992, when after
1585 16 a4 D4 White can cause
problerns by playing 17 W21 with theears on
the a- and f-files.
15 ed!?
White wans to blast open the centre while
Tenth Move Alternatives
the biack king is exposed.
Most garmes have continued 15 Wel, but
the correct defence has been worked our:
15.Wd6e! (15.00 16 Wg3 Vg5, a5 in
Metger-Tarrasch, Frankfart 1887, allows
Pereny?’s 17 £xd5!, when 17..2xd5 18 Rf5
leaves the blad position compromised
without even any marerial compensation) 16
e4 (Mikhalchishin considers 16 Wh4 &g6 17
Wi6 We7 18 e4 Wd6 19 Kxf6 000 to be
unclear) 16..000 17 exd5 Lxd5 18 &f5
We6 19 £d4! (not 19 We3? &ixb3 20 axb3
Rb7 Perenyi-Mikhalchishin, Linz 1988,
when Black has consolidared the extra pawn)
19..d6 with a repetition. For those looking
for winning prospects Korchnoi suggests
19...We8 instead of 19..Wd6.
15...2%b3 16 axb3 0-0 17 We1
White could have considered 17 We2 with
the point that 17..4g6 is then met by 18
e fxe6 19 Wixgd, so Black would do
beteer in that case to play 17...Wdé.
17...2gB! 18 We3
Mikhalevsld points out that Black has the
slightly better ending after the exchanges that
follow 18 exd5 &xdS 19 We3! Ze8 20 Who
Wha 21 s Wxho 22 Dixher g7 23 Bt
He2 24 K2 Qxf2 25 Sxf2 Rb7.
18...HeB! 19 Bao1 c5!
Forcing White to make a decision about
this knight.
20 Dxe
Mikhalevsli shows the consequences of
20 &5 with some deep analysis: 20...&xf5
21 Mxf5 d4 22 Whe! Be5! 23 Hef1! Wi 24
Wh5 Hae8 25 Wxg4 Whe! and here he claims
an edge for Black. Flowever, I think tha
White is okay after the further 26 Hxe5 Bxe5
27 Wd7 Re7 28 Wes+ b7 29 Bf2.
20...2xe6 21 Wxch
see following diagram
21..04!
Sacrificing material to wrest the initiative.
The opening duel has been won by Black due
o energetic play on his part.
47
Open Ruy Lopez
22 U5
Taking on d4 is fraught with danger: 22
Wxd4? fals to 22..2d6 23 W2 Hxd2 24
Wxf7+ &h8 and Black wins, while after 22
cxd4?! Mc8 23 Wo4 a5! 24 Wb5 Wxdd+ 25
Rf2 Rc2 White will be tied up to the defence
of the second rank.
22..Ma7! 23 Wxga!?
Obtaining f3 for the knight at the cost of
the queenside.
23...dxc3 24 O3 exb2 25 hd
Following 25 Hf2 (25 Wh5 is
dangerous afer 25..f6) 25..Wf6 26 Dg5
We3 27 Hefl Hee7 28 Whs, the cool
28.WgN holds everything together, for
instance 29 Mxb2? loses to 29..h6.
25...%h8 26 Bd17!
More consistent was 26 h5 fe5 27 xe5
Wd4+ 28 Sh1 Wxe5 29 Hd1 Hes, but Black
has held the extra pawn and is in control.
26...2d7! 27 D95 Exd1 28 Exd1 Whe+
29 ¥h1 He7 30 Rf1 ¥c6! 31 Wd1 €6 32
Wd4 g8 33 h5 Wel 34 Wd3 Rd7! 35
Wxd7 Wxt1+ 36 $h2 Wra+ 37 g3 Wxgh
38 hxg6 hxg6 39 Wd3
A chase of the king fails, as Mikhalevski
points out: 39 Wds+ g7 40 We7+ he 41
Wig+ &h5 42 Whe+ Whe! 43 Wxfe i+
44 g2 Wd2+ exc.
39...597 40 g2 Th6 41 Wds Wga! 42
Wd2+
42 Wixf6 is hopeless after first 42, Wxedr
and only then queening the pawn.
48
42...h5! 43 WdS+
On 43 Wxb2 then 43..Wxet+ 44 &h2
sbg4 wins comforiably, for instance 45 Wxf6
We2+ 46 h1 Wel+ 47 g2 Wxgds.
43...15 44 Wds Wxed+ 45 ¥h2
Better is 45 &f2 but after 45..g5! White
can resign anyway.
45..b1W 0-1
Game 23
Kamsky-Anand
Las Palmas (6th matchgame) 1995
1 e4 o5 2 £}3 Dc6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 {ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 2h3 db 8 dxe5
L£e69c3
In fact, 9 €3 K5 (I recommend 9...Re7
— see Chapter 11) 10 We2 We7 11 ¢3 0-0 was
the actual move order
of this game.
9...£c5 10 We2 0-0 11 Re3 -
White embarks upon a plan to exchange
Black's dark-squared bishop and to bring his
rookto the d-file or 1o press against ¢5. With
accurate play Black has lile to worry him
not but the position can become simplified too
quickly and alile dull
11..%e7
The simplification 11..%xe3 12 ¥xe3
allows White to obtain control of ¢5 too
easily and is what he is playing for! This
theme is dcv:]opod in Game 27 {see 10 Wd3
&xe3 and 10..W
[nsteadl...f(:canbemabylhcncnve
pawn sacrifice 12 Rd1 2xe3 13 Wxe3 fxe5
14 @bd2, when Korchnoi shghdy prefers
White. Then the furcher 14..8xd2 15 Wxd2
Bxf 16 gxf3 &e7 might be worh
investigation.
12 Rd1
Or 12 Kxc5 Wixe5 13 ©bd2
£g4 1
Dixed dxed 15 Wxet Lxf3 16 Wxd3 DxeS 17
Wed Radg 18 Radl &c4 19 Lxcd bxot 20
Hfel g6 and the game is drawish, as in
Matanovie-Geller, YugoslaviaUSSR 1958,
12...H2ad8 13 2xcb
An earlier game Kuijpers-Ekstrom, Bern
 9 c3 Rc5: Tenth Move Alternatives

1988, continued 13 @bd2 Loxe3 14 Wxe3 266 93 £c5 10 ¥d3 0-0 11 Dbd2
Bixd2 15 Bxd2 #a5 16 Hadl b3 17 axb3 Andrei Sokolov's petline. White
¢S and was pretty solid for Black. undermines the knight and intends to use his
13...¥xc6 14 Dda WH6! queen actively. The alternative is 11 fe3 (see
An excellent move, freeing c5 for the Game 27).
knight. Always be ready for £2-03 in the 11..6
; Too passive is 11..0xd2?! 12 Sxd2 He?
15 £3 £c5 18 h1 (or 12..%e7 13 Rc2 g6 14 £he) 13 Dde
After 16 &xc6 Anand gives ‘16...Wxc6 17 Wd7 14 Rc2 g6 15 bs Kxdd 16 Wxdd &6
A2 equal’ but 16..8xb3+ is npuch stronger, 17 Whe Dixe5 18 £h6f6 19 Kxf8 Axd8 20
e.g 17 @h1 Dxal 18 £xd8 Mxd8 19 Da3 bs 24 and Black had very lintle for the exchange
20 cxtb4 Wxb4 21 Hxal Kb8 and Black is in Bonch Osmolovsky-Chekhover, USSR
rmuch better (Flear). 1956. This is a good illustration of Bladk’s
16...Kfe8 17 Ha3 Lc8 18 Hxc6 Yxch problems on the kingside dark squares when
19 Dc2 Hxb3 20 axb3 16 the bishop on ¢5 has no influence.
However, 11.20xf2 12 Hxf2 &xf2+ 13
xf2 16 14 exf6 Wxf6 is worth auy, as 15
Lxdsd &35 16 Kxeb+ Wixes looks risky for
White.

Black has a clear advantage bur Kamsky

keeps his cool and sacrifices the pawn
immediasely. He excellent drawing
chances as Blacs queenside majority is well
blocked by the knight. 12 ex16 Dxf6 13 Db
21 e6! Hxe6 22 W2 Wd6 23 ba Ede8 24 Nowadays 13 a4 is considered more
d2 We7 25 gt He5 26 Hdd Wd6 27 precise, leading after 13..J2b8 14 axb5 axb5
&b3 He3 28 Had1 o6 29 Wg3 We? 30 to similar play as the main game except that
W2 He5 31 Ld4 We7 32 Hb3 He3 33 White has an extra trump in the form of his
Dd4 B3e5 24 HH3 hé 35 X1 He338 control of the =file - see Games 25 and 26.
Dda X3e5 37 2b3 He3 38 Hd4 %-% 13..2eB!
More active than 13..2672! 14 &xf7 Bxi7
Game 24 15 &3 when White has threats against d5
Khalifman-Kaidanov and controls the e5-square.
Kuibyshev 1986 14 Wg3 Wd6 15 &c2
Now that Black has covered the d5-pawn
1 e4 e5 2 53 &ic6 3 K15 a6 4 La4 D6 the bishop switches w0 a more productive
5 0-0 Dxeq & d4 b5 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxeb disgonal. Black is berer afier 15 &d3
439
Open Ruy Lopez

Bixf3+ 16 Df3 Wxgd 17 hagd Hed, and position. He is only one pawn up, but the
much better after 15 Rel? Dfgs 16 Dded white bishop is locked out of play.
dxed 17 Rxe6+ ¥h8 18 Re3 2! 19 Whe
h6 20 Dxe4 Dxet 21 Wxed Racdl, as in
Schelfhout-Euwe, Amsterdam 1942. White is
also illadvised to take the bishop pair
immediarely with 15 £1xe6 because he will
then struggle to complete his development.
‘This option will later become sannoying, so
now Black does best 10 retreat his bishop.
15...2d7 16 Db3 £b6 17 £d4 HaeB 18
&t
“White develops and builds up his threars.
Black cannot leave this pin unchallenged.
18...5h5!
A pawn sacrifice which leads to the white 29..xe8
bishop becoming locked out of play on h. Not 29..8xe8» 30 Wixfe+ Wxfd4 31
19 £xeS Hxe5 20 Lxh7+ ¥h8 21 Wha Dbt Fe7 32 Dxf4 and White comes out a
96 piece ahead.
"The alternative 21..Wh6 is inferior as is 30 Rxg6+ 7 4
known from an analogous position (see A draw is also on the cards after the
Game 25; note 10 Black’s 23rd move). alternative line 30..Wxgs 31 Wxf4 Wb 32
22 t4 Rxd4+ WL
Bladk could also consider 22..Hxg5 23 31 ¥h7+ s#16
Wg5 (23 fxg5t? xh7 24 M8 Wxd 25 Hf1 31..%d8 32 D7+ Bxf7 33 Wxf7 gives
Wg7 26 hl &g8 27 b4 is gven by White nothingto fear.
Kaidanov as unclear) 23..dxh7 24 5 Rxf5 32 Whe! Hgd+ 33 Sh1 W4
25 Bxi5 2xf5 26 g4 We5 which is analogous Not 33.Hxg5? 34 Kd3+ S17 35 Wxg5
to Garne 26. and White’s h-pawn gives him the berter
23 oxd4 RefS chances.
I once played 23..Exg5? here (the result 34 X065+ We7 35 Wg7+ Bd6 36 Wab+
of only half remembering the theory - a lirtle
knowledge is a dangerous thing,.), but after
24 Wixg5 dxh7 25 5 Rd5 26 Rufs Lxf5 27
g4 Wba 28 X1 £c2 29 Wd2 White
was
winning in Howell-Flear, Oakham 1994, more options.
24 g3 g7 25 Heet
see following diagram
Timman
25... Dt
Reykjavik 1988
Black goes for liberation.
26 gxf4 Rxf4 27 Rxt4 Dxf4 28 He7+ 1 e4 e5 2 53 HcB 3 Kb5 a6 4 Rad &6
&18 29 HeB+! 5 0-0 Dixe4 6 d4 bS 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxe5
A remarkable tactical reply. Instead 29 %66 9 ¢3 £cBb 10 Wd3 0-0 11 Hbd2 5
Whe+ @xe7 30 W7+ &d3 31 D7+ Bty 12 exf6 £x6 13 a4 b8
32 Wxf7 L5 leaves Black with 2 winning In my opinion 13..Rf7 is rather passive.
50
 9 ¢3 £¢5: Tenth Move Afternatives

The game Andrei Sokolov-Yusupov, Tilburg
1987, continued as follows: 14 &g5 &5 15
Wy Wds 16 Ouxi7 Bwi7 17 DF3 Uxgd 18
hxg3 c6 19 &4 Sxd4 20 cxdd, when the
two bishops offered White the better
chances.
14 axb5 axb5 15 Dg5 Des
15..d6! is an excellent novely that was
inwoduced a few years ago by Skembris.
Then 16 S.c2 g6 17 {xeé Dgd 18 We3
Wxe6 19 Df3 Ubes 20 £.d2 Kd6 was agreed
drawn in A.Sokolov-Skembris, Bar 1997, but
Black is perhaps already better as his pieces
are so well placed.
16 Wg3 Wds 17 K2 £d7 18 Hb3 2b6
19 &4
Sokolov's latest try is 19 @d4
— see the
next 3 30 ¥ha Red 31 h3 Wdst
19...8beS 20 Dd4 HhS 21 Lxe5 Hxeb
22 £xh7+ $h8 23 Eha 6!
After 23,86 Sokolov has shown how to
obtain the advantage: 24 £\df3 Hee8 25 Hfet
Hxel+ 26 Rxel &6 (26..164 27 g4 g6 28 h3
05 29 bs £d6 30 He5 Sokolov-Kobese,
Groningen 1997, was even worse; Bladk is
lostas he cannot defend al the weak squares
around his king) 27 Rc2 g8, a5 in
A Sokolov-Timman, Belfort 1988, when
Wih6 gxh6 29 Deb was best with 2 clear
extra pawn for White (Sokolov).
2414
T was once faced with 24 g#2! (a new idea)
but T managed to find a way out: 24.. Hxg5!
25 Wxg5 W4 26 Wxf4 Dxf4 (Black
abandons the exchange but the bishop is
trapped) 27 Sixg6 Dixgé (f 27..8xg4 then
28 31 %h3 29 K2 grovels on bur Black is
still better) 28 3 &h4 29 h3 Exf3 30 wh2
Hxft 31 Rxft ®p7 32 b4 <5 33 bxc5 £xc5
34 g3 #-% SolozhenkinFlear, Chanac
open 1995.
24...Mxg5
In a recent game I borrowed 24..Xefsh
from an analogous position (see Game 24,
after Black’s 22nd or 23rd move). After 25
Lxg6 a draw was agreed in Sax-Flear, Ano
Liosia 1999, This scemingly premasure result
is justified after 25..Wxg6 26 g4 Hxi4 27
gxh5 Lxda+ 28 oxd4 R 1+ 29 Hxfl Hxfl+
30 f1 Wd3+ with a perpetual check. More
ambitious was 27..Hxh4l? 28 Rxf8+ Wg8 29
Hxg8+ Pxg8, but the ending seems okay for
“White after 30 Ra8+ g7 31 RdS.
25 Wxg5 ¥xh7 26 Hae1?
A mistake. Timman's analysis shows that
the game is equal after 26 f51 Hxf5 27 Hxf5
2xf5 28 g4 We5 29 gxfS Rxdd+ 30 oxdd
Wxd4+ 31 $h1 Wed+.
26..597
Black consolidares and White's tactical
play is limited. The two pieces will beat the
rook in the long run.
27 &h1 £xd4 28 cxd4 £15 29 Re7 sbg8
Preparing ..Bf7. White has to shed a
pawn to stay on the board.
32 €5 Lxf5 33 Hcl Led 34 g1
34 Hexc7 is not the sort of move Timman
would allow without having somethis
prepared. In fact, after 34.Hft+ 35 &h2
Wde+ Black comes out a clear piece up, e.g.
36 Wgd Wxgd+ 37 dngd &5+ 38 @h2
Dixe7.
28 34...8171 35 Zxe4 g5!
“The point. Black now has a whole piece
more.
36 Wga dxed 37 Wxed4 Uf4 38 Web
Wxd4+ 39 Wxd4 Rxd4 40 Hxc? Ubs 41
$f2 Bxb2+ 42 13 Kb4 43 Ub7 2h7 44
94 g6 45 Zb6+ W7 46 Zh6 HeB 47
&3 26 48 Zh8 g7 0-1
Game 26
A.Sokolov-Sulskis
Geneva 1998
164 e5 2 B3 £1c6 3 £bS 26 4 Lad Bif6
5 0-0 @xed 6 d4 bS5 7 £h3 dS 8 dxe5
£e6 9 ¢3 &c5 10 Wd3 0-0 11 Hbd2 15
12 exf6 Dxf6 13 a4 Eb8 14 axbb axbs
15 Hg5 Heb 16 g3 Yd6 17 Ke2 2d7
13 £b3 Lb6 19 Hida.

51
Open Ruy Lopez

of 26...Bxf31 27 gxf3 £xf3 mare.

26 Ha3
The line 26 &b3 Bxf3 27 &xd5+ Xi7 28
Ha7 &5 29 Hd7 gives Black somewhat the
better chances as he will eventually have two
pieces for rook and pawn.
26...8xf3 27 gxf3 Hixd4 28 Lh1
After 28 &b3 &xb3 29 Hxb3 Hfc8 30
Bdl Hc2 31 HxdS Res 32 g2 Mee2 33
BbxbS g@xfo+ 34 dg3 White has good
drawing chances as the ending of rook plus
g- and h-pawns against rook and f-pawn
shouldn’t be winning.
19...h6 28...Bxf3 29 Bxf3 Dxf3 30 La2 &8 31
19..Kbe8 looks reasonable, when White £xdS Deb 32 Het
may have nothing better than 20 Rf4 Black has a clear extra pawn but White's
wansposing to Game 25. However, 19..¢5? activity should be sufficient to bold the game.
20 {4 Xbes is no good because of 21 32...b4 33 14 Dd3 34 Hc7 Rb5 35 X7+
Bes! (Sulskis). 35 Rt is nanurally met by 35.. 55,
20 &f4 fxd4t 35...%e8 36 2b3 Hcb
An important intermezzo. Instead 36..4)c! gets nowhere after 37 Re6.
20...53h5? loses a pawn after 21 £xe5 Sixg3 37 g2 g5 38 Bf6 Dxfa+ 39 f3 Hd3
22 ©xd6 Dxf1 23 .08 hxg5 24 Re7. 40 Exd6 Qub2 41 ga?!
21 cxd4 DhE 22 £xeb?! 41 ed! leaves the knight looking rather
Sulskis prefers 22 dreS Sugd 23 exds offside. White should win back one pawn,
He2+ 24 hi Dxf4 25 dxc7 Bb7 26 D3 for instance 4184 (or 41.h5 42 Bb6) 42
Rxc7 27 b3 with chances for both sides Heb+ ©d7 43 bd4 Rc7 44 Hxh6 and a draw
after 27..Rf5. is not far away.
22..8xg3 23 £xd6 De2+ 41..Hc3 42 a2 Na3
Now that this check is available, Black 42..b3 43 £xb3 Hxb3 44 Exh6 Xb5 45
valses the initiaiive. Rg6 draws easily for White.
24 $h1 cxd6 25 B3 Rgd 43 £b1 Ha1 44 £96+?
Sulskis suggests 44 &5 Qica 45 Hxhé
DS+ 46 FhY
443...%e7 45 Eb6 Hh1 46 2h52! Dd3 47
93 Hel 48 Exh8 b3 49 296 Hgi+ 50
%f3 Db+ 51 H12 Hgdt!
A surprise but now Black has enough to
win,
52 ®xg1 Dxh6 53 w92 @16 B4 2d3
@5 66 VI3 dd4 56 b1 ¥c3 57 h3
Sd2 58 o4 dc1 59 2d3 b2 60 Feb
D7+ 61 $d5
61 f6 is w0 slow: 61..8d6 62
b5 63 h4 Ba3 64 h5 Dc2 65 Rxc2 Pxc2
‘White had probably overdooked the threa 66h6 b1W and wins.

52

61...0d8 62 &h7 Db7 63 ¥d4 Deb 64
@c3 Dic6 65 L5 Heb 66 £h7 DI3 01
Black picks off the h-pawn.
Sokolov has made the plan of 10 Wd3 and
11 bd2 into a useful weapon. Black has a
satisfactory game, but only if he can find his
way through the complications.
Game 27
Kamsky-Anand
Las Palmas (4th matchgame) 1995
1 4 6 2 DI3 Hc6 3 KbE a6 4 Lad D6
B 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b6 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
Re6 9 c3 R¢5 10 Wd3 0-0 11 Le3
White hopes that the exchange of dark-
squared bishops will reduce Black’s tactical
activity, making it easier for him to exploit
the weaknesses in the black pawn structure.
11..16
“The most preciseas 11..£6
can be met by
12 §bd2 Dxd2 13 Wxd2 Lxe3 14
ixe5 15 PxeS fxe5 16 Wxes Wd7 17 a4 o6
18 axb5 axb5 19 £c2 Exal 20 Hxal &f5 21
Rxfs Wxd5 22 Wxfs Rxd5 23 Bab Rf6 24
&f1, when White managed to win the ending
in Berelovich-Mikhalevski, Groningen 1993.
Instead 11..Wd7 is passive: 12 Obd2 Rxe3
13 Wxed {5 (Korchnoi examines 13..8xd2
14 Wxd?a5 15 L2 ¢5 16 W3 g6 17 Wed
and White has an edge) 14 exf6 L6 15
Wes Haes 16 Hd4 He5 17 K2, as in
Prasad-Bhave, Calcutta 1992, when White’s
9 ¢3 RcB: Tenth Move Alternatives
queen is a nuisance.
‘The immediate 11...8xe3 scems to fall in
with White's plan: 12 Wxe3 £e7 13 Bd1 hé
14 b2 &5 15 a4 6 16 Ddd Kgb 17
Bixe4 Lxed, as in ShorYusupov, Linares
1990, and now Yusupov prefers White after
the simple 18 Rc2.
12 exf6 Wxf6 13 bd2
Ne ever plays 13 £xd5 any more as
it is well met by 13..8ad8 when 14 Rxet+
(14 &xc52 is worse due to 14.8xc5 15
Sxebr Wxe6 16 Wel Wxed 17 fxedDB
and Black wins back the under
favourable circumstances) 14..Wxet 15 We2
xf2! 16 P2 Bde§ 17 Hel Wds 18 $d2
M3+ gives Black enough play for a draw,
g 19 xB (19 gif3 is simplest as Black
has nothing berter than 19..Wxh2+ 20 $f1
Whit drawing) 19.DeS+ 20 de2 Web is
given as ‘equal’ by Korchnoi. After 21 d1
{or 21 Rxc5 Hcd+ 22 Re3 W2+ 23 Bd1
Dixd? 24 &xxd2 Wxh2 and Black shouldn’c
be worse) 21...8c4 22 Sxc5 Dxd2 23 Hxes+
Wxe8 24 bxd2 (24 Duxd2?? Wh5) 24..Wes
Black picks off the kingside and is probably
better.
13..8xe3
13..2e5 is unanimously regarded by
theory as inferior: 14 {xeS WxeS 15 d4
£xd4 16 cxd4 Wde 17 Hacl, as in Tal-
Langeweg, Wik aan Zee 1960, when Black
has some ugly squares and a bad bishop.
14 Wxe3 Dxd2 15 ¥xd2
15 &wd2, with the idea of tucking the
Wxe3 queen into the ¢5-hole, was adequately met in
a tussle between two comespondence
legends: 15..%ad8 16 Wc5 &7 17 Hadt
Wdb 18 Ded Wxc5 19 Qxc5 25 20 a4 be
with equal chances in Zagorovsky-Estrin,
correspondence 1968-72. (Yes, thar's whar I
meant to write. At least they had plenty of
time to get it right!). Note that Black used his
queenside pawns actively.
16...Had8 16 Rfe1 $ha!
The alternative 16..5%5 bas also been
played, but White can keep an eye on the
53
Open Ruy Lopez

dark squares by 17 We3 or 17 Wd4. 277 Bed).

24...Hxd1 25 ¥xd1 ©d6 26 Des Hf7 27
3
Black is not worried by 27 Sxc7 Hxc? 28
Bxd6 Bxc 29 Rxab b 30 g3 b3, when the
ending is drawn.
27...Re7 28 §c5 He22!
Simpler was 28..2e3!
29 Hxab H5 30 Dxc7 Dxhs 31 Bde

The game move, geting off the a2-g8

diagonal, is the best plan.
17 He3
After 17 &4 Black keeps everything
under control with 17..8g8. Fraenik points
out tha 17 Wel Rg4 18 Hdd Das,
preparing ..c7-c5, gives adequate counter-
chances.
17...2.98 18 Bd17 31..5f5
A slip which allows Black to seize the A playable alternative was 31..&uxg2R?
initiative. After the normal 18 &d4 Des Either way Black has to play actively to hold
chances are balanced. the draw.
18...d41 19 Hes1 32 Je4 Mxa2 33 Hxb5 He2
Not 19 £ixd4? Sixd4 20 cxd4 Exds 21 Or33.8b2,
Wxd4?? as 21...Wxf2+ mates. 34 &h2 Eb2 35 D4t
19...dxc3 20 Wxc3 Wxo3 21 bxe3 Dab?! After 35 c4 h5 White retains some
Tmpatient! The slower plan of 21..h6 22 ‘winning chances.
h3 a5 cuts out White’s counterplay and 35...0xd4 36 Hxda Hc2 37 Xcd 17 38
leaves Black with the better pawn structure, f4 8d2! 39 Pc6 Rd3 40 g3 h5! 41 $h3
22 Sxg8 kxg8 23 Hg5! Hed 24 ha g6 42 g2 He3 43 EcB g7 44 c4 Hc3
After 24 Be6 Exdl 25 Hxdl £1b2! Black 45 5 Bc2+ 46 ©h3 $17 47 c6 g7 48
stays afloat due White's weals back rank (26 ©7 %h7 49 &ha g7 50 g4 %-%

54
 9 ¢3 &c5; Tenth Move Alternatives

Summary
A well-prepared Black player should not have problems with the lines that we have seen in this
chapter.
gvhm’s alternatives 1o 10 @bd2 fall into two camps. The sharper tries 10 R4 (Game 22)
and 10 W3 followed by £3bd2 (Game 24-26) are double-edged, whereas the plan involving
the exchange of darke-squared bishops (Games 22 and 27) is positional but not very dangerous
for either colour. Recent experience suggests that the sharper tries are risky and in the case of
10 &4, dubious.

1 e4 o5 2 £Y13 Bic6 3 &b5 a6 4 Kaa D6 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 Kb3 d5 B dxe5 Keb

963 2c5

10 Wd3
10 R4 - Game 22
10 We20.0 11 Re3 We7 (D) - Game 23
10...0-0 11 &bd2z
11 Red - Game 27
11..15 12 ext6 HHxt6 13 ad
13 &g5 - Game 24
13...2b8 14 axbb axb5 15 Hgb (D) Deb 16 Wg3 Wd6 17 Re2 Rd7 18 Hb3 2b6 19
Kf4
19 D4 hé ~ Game 26
19...Ebe8 20 24 Dhs (D) - Game 25

71...We7 15 ©gb 20...h5

55
 CHAPTER FIVE
9 ¢3 £.e7: Main Line with
10 &bd2 He5 11 £c2
1 e4 e5 2 N3 D6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad D6
6 0-0 Hxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe’
206 9 c3 Ke7 10 Dbd2 Heb 11 L2
This is a popular way of playing with
Black. The knight on ¢5 hits the bishop on
b3 and Black typically follows up with ...&.g4
pinning the f3-knight, which slows down
White’s logical kingside action. The knight
may later come back 10 e4 or go to €6 or
even 24 when challenged, depending on
ciroummstances. White can choose as 1o which
wing to concentrate his efforts and the play
that follows often gives chances for both
sides with Black preparing to react actively as
soon as White creates any weaknesses.
In my experience only very well-prepared
players of the white pieces manage to cause
any problems as Blad's position is
fundamentally sound.
The move order variations in this
are subtle and memorising all the variations is
impractical,
so 1 believe it is best to
concentrate on typical plans and manoeuvres.
Some players have experimented with
ideas based on an early ..d5-d4 push, but
most games continue 11..&g4 12 Hel when
Black chooses between immediate castling
followed by ..He8 or alternatively 12..Wd7
and typically ..2d8, temporarily leaving the
king in the centre. The choice comes down
56
o amaterof taste.
The following guide summarises Whites
three main swaregies and how they are
employed against each of Black’s three maih
development plans.
White’s three mairt strategies are as
follows:
1. 13 b3 (Games 31-32 and Game 36).
2. 13 ©f1 without b2-b4 (Games 30 and
33-35),
3. 13 f1 with b2-b4, hitting the knight
on c5 (Games 37 and 38).
In Game 39 the rare tries 12 Wel and 12
We2 are discussed.
Black’s three main development plans are:
1. A quick ...d5-d4 (Games 29 and 30).
2, 12..0-0 and generally ...Ee8 (Games 31-
35).
3.12..Wd7, delaying casthng to bolster the
centre (Games 36-38).
Strangely enough, none of the main games
actually used the specific sequence 9 c3 &e7
ar move nine and so I have taken the liberty
of fiddling the move orders. White players
often induce this variation via the fashionable
move order 9 Hbd2 Hc5 10 c3 Re7 11 22,
which limits Black’s options {for mstance,
avoiding Part One) and indeed most games
transposed
to this chapter via tha move
order.
 9 c3 Re7: Main Line with 10 Dbd2 &e5 171 Rc2

holding his own in these variations.

Game 29
Xie Jun-Zsu.Polgar
Cannes (10th matchgame) 1996
1 ed e5 2 D3 DcB 3 RS a6 4 Laq D6
5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 £th3 d5 8 dxeb
66 9 c3 Le7 10 Dbd2 Bcb 11 Ke2d4
The normal 11..8g# is the subject of
Games 30-39,
12 Ded
12 ©b3 has been investigated recently:
12..d3 13 &b1 (13 Dxc5 transposes back 10
the main game) 13..4xb3 14 axb3 Rf5 15
L3 00 16 Rd4 Wd5 17 Hel Kfd8 18 He3
ixd4 19 cxd4 5 20 $xd3 cxdd 21 Ke2 Web
22 h3 Bd5? (Black should have prevented the
redeployment of the knight by 22...8.b4 with
equal chances) 23 Glel 25 (after 23..Xxe5?
24 Hxe5 Wxe5 the fork 25 W3 wins) 24
£xf5 Wxf5 25 9d3 with a clear advantageo
White in Topalov-Piket, Antwerp 1997.
Another try was 16 &d4 (instead of 16
2d4) 16..80xd4 17 cxd4 5 18 Rxdd exdd
19 £xd4 Wxd4 20 Lxf5s Wab2 with unclear
play in Ulibin-Daniliuk, Krasnodar 1997.
Instead, Leko played very simply in his
match against Khalifman (Budapest 2000):
12 cxd4 axd4 13 &ixds Wxd4 14 D3 Wxd1
15 Bxdl &gt 16 Re3 00 17 h3 which
doesn’t ook like much but White was able to
win.
Theoretically speaking, Black seems to be
12...d31
Much better than 12..2d5 13 &xc5
£xc5 14 Sixdd Kxd4 15 cxdd Rt 16 Led
Wd7 17 el with a clear advamage for White
in Tarrasch-Post, Mannheim 1914.
The old main line ran 12..dxc3 13 Hixcs
£xc5 14 Led Wd7 15 bxc3 Hd8 16 Wxd7+
f.xd7 17 Hd1 and was shown
to be goed for
White in a couple of CapablancaChajes
encounters: 17..%2e7 (17..00? fals to 18
RKe3l Rxe3 19 Hxd7! Bxd7 20 fxch, as
pointed out by Capablanca, and 17..23b8 18
Dd4 Ke7 19 Re3, as in Capablanca-Chajes,
New York 1916, was no improvement for
Black) 18 ©da hé? (objectively better is
18... 224, but White has the initiative after 19
Rd3) 19 &b3 £b6 20 a3 and Black cannot
castle or compete for the c3-square, as in
Capablanca-Chajes, New York 1915,
13 @xc5 dxc2 14 Wxdg+ Hxd8i 15
Dxed
Daniliuk, who was responsible for
introducing 12..d3, gives 15 xa6? Rt 16
He1 b4 as winning for Black, but 17 £ixc7+
$d7 18 &d2 is not clear ar all as Black isn’t
winning a piece.
15...fxe6 16 Ke3
Cvetkovic considers that 16 242! 00 17
£g3 g5 18 Hacl (18 el gives Black
dangerous play after 18..h5}) 18, Hxf3! 15
gxf3 Bd2 offers good compensation for
Black.
16...8d5 17 Hac1 Dxeb 18 fxeb HxeS
19 Hxc2
The continuation 19 &d4 Re2 20 $f1
Bd? 21 23 Bd5 22 Exc2, as in Griinfeld-
Greenfeld, Biel 1999, comes to more or less
the same thing, although White then wied a
different plan after 22..0-00 (22..$f7) 23 a4
£.d6 24 g3 L7 25 axb5 axb5 26 Ba7 with
slight pressure for the first player.
19..%4f7 20 c4
Anothertry is 20 £f4 Hc5 21 Rd1 Hd8
22 Hxd8 £xd8 23 Bd2 Hd5, as in Borriss-
Pieper Emden, Budapest 1991, which also

57
Open Ruy Lopez

ended in a draw. a clear advantage ~ Korchnoi; note that with

20...b41? the rook on f1 this line is equal as the e-pawn
Or 20..8d68, as in Akopian-Danitiuk St. drops) 18 He3 Rad8 19 £xd3 &ixd4 20 cxdé
Petersburg 1993, when Daniliuk judges the RKgé 21 Ret Weo 22 We2 with a clear
position to be equal with the plaa of .. Ha8, advantage for White in Geller-Anand, New
.bSxc4, .EbS, .a5-aé gving Black Delht 1587.
sufficient activity to compensate for his 13 D1 da?t
inferior pawn structure. ‘This proves here. Best is
21 Hd1 Hd8 22 Xxd8 £xd8 23 $f1 295 13..Me8 as in Games 34 and 35.
The ook ending is only equal so White 14n3 £S5
wies to keep the tension. After 14.8xf3 15 Wxf3 3 16 &bl
24 2a71? Bf5 25 e de8 26 $d3 dd7 Whice will soon round up the advanced d-
27 13 chit pawn.
Stopping the bishop from coming back 15 Dg3 £xf3
casily. Now that White no longer has the same
28 He2 67 29 Rb3 a51? control of d2, this moveis justified.
Of course 29...2.d6 would most likely be a 16 Yxt3 d3 17 bat
draw, but now it is Black who is trying for 17 Rb12? loses 10 17..d2, bur 17 Wxch is
more! possible, when the continuation 17...dxc2 18
30 Peq Pc6 31 L5 g6 32 g4 NFS 33 W3 O3 19 Re2 Rg5 20 Rxg5 Whags 21
Hd2 a4 34 £¢3 h5 35 2d3 hxgs 36 fxgd Bxc2 &ixe5 22 We4 HaeB, Vehi Bach-
21 37 b3 a3 38 Hd2 g5 39 Xd3 Kal 40 Wedberg, Bicl 1990, was equal.
Hd2 Bb1 47 e5 Bb2 42 Se1 2d8 17...dxc2 18 bxeS Wd?
Timman rejected 18..%xe5 19 HxeS
Informaor Wdt+ 20 @hz RI6 because of 21 Hf5
shows that it’s risky for either side to avoid threatening 10 take on f6. 1 wasn’t sure about
the draw. this idea when I first studied it, and nor was
43 Bd6+ Pc7 44 2d2 Pc6 46 Hd6+ o7 Open expert Mikhalevski who tied it in
48 Bd2 %-% 1998. This game continued 21..Hfe8 22
Bxf6 (22 £h5 may be worth a try) 22..gxd6
Game 30 23 Wxf6 Heb 24 WgS+ Hgo 25 Wes Ret
Timman-Korchnoi (note thar White has a draw if be likes) 26
Groningen 1996 Wxc7 Wel 27 a4 Bf8 28 axb5 axb5 29 H)f5
Wxf2 30 Hhé+ Ep7 31 Dgd Wi 32 Nigd
1 €4 ¢5 2 D3 D6 3 LbE a6 4 Rad DI6 Bge 33 We3 hS with fascinating
6 0-0 Sixe4 6 d4 bS 7 Rb3 d6 B dxe5 complications that evenmally led to a draw in
fe6 9 c3 ke7 10 Dbd2 HcB 11 £c2 Y.Griinfeld-Mikhalevski, Israel Champion-
294 12 Be1 00 ship, Ramat Aviv 1998.
Here 12...d4?! is inferior, as after 13 &b3 19 &5
d3 14 £b1 &xb3 15 axb3 &5 we have 2 With the nasty threars
of 20 Wxc6 and 20
variation from Game 29, note 1o White’s Wxd7.
12th move, except that here White has the 19...5%e5
exira move Hel. This helps White to obtain Korchnoi's attempted improvement on
an advantage after 16 £e3 0-0 17 244 Wds 19..h8 20 W4 g6 21 Sue7 Wxgd 22 hugs
(or 17...5xd4 18 Huxddl R 19 Rxd3 Kxd &xe7, which was bad for Black in
20 et Wd7 21 @ixe7+ Wixe7 22 Wxd3 with ARodriguez-Wedberg, New York 1988 (the

58
 8 c3 &e7: Mamn Line with 10 Dbd2 8¢5 11 Rc2

c-pawn falls and the bishop dominates the W4,

knight). 25 Dd4 Bxd4 26 cxdd kxdd 27 Ha2
In the main game, in return for his piece Wxel
Black has installed a queen on d1, restraining The alternative 27... xe3
2 28 Wxe3 should
White’s development. be winning for Whice.
20 Bxe5 Wd1+ 21 $h2 &16 28 Hxc2
Not 28 Wxd4? as Black queens after
28..%Wd1
28...4b1
Korchnoi rejected an inferior ending after
28..2xe3 29 Hxcl Lxct 30 Wb7! b4 31
axb4 axb4 32 Wxb4 Rg5.
29 Hee2 X6

22 He3
Timman finds a good, but perhaps not the
best, idea. Instead22 Wg3! (ot however22
Dh6+? oh 23 R5 Wxf3 24 Hxf3 ReS+
and Black wins back the piece) can be met by
22..8fe8 23 f4 Re6, when what can White
do with his queenside pieces? In fact, White
managed 10 find a winning continuation 30 Red2?
without answering this question in 30 c6! is best when White is clearly better
v-Mamadzoev, Dushanbe 1997: after 30..b4 (30..Hb8? is bod after 31 Wid)
24 Giho+ DIB 25 Bxch fxch 26 Dgh Ke7 27 31 axb4 axb4 32 Hel Wb3 33 Re3 &c3 34
W12 P8 28 De3 x5 29 Hixd1l Hee? (Tiraman),
As this line is convincing, Korchnoi's 30..Wct 31 We3 b4 32 axbs axb4 33
nevwal of 13...04 looks frankly short-lived. Rds
22...Rad8 In the ending after 33 Hd8 Wed 34
After 22.3ae8 Timman considers 23 Rxf8+ xf8 35 Exe3 K44 Black eliminates
&h6+ Sh8 24 D7+ g8 25 Hhor Shs White's ks queenside pawn and should
26 &g4 10 be winning for White. therefore draw, In any case Black now has
23 a3 a5 just about enough compensation.
Renewing ideas of ..b5-b4. 33...Wc4 34 Wd3 Wxd3 36 xd3 Kbs 36
24 Wed Eb3 Hb5 37 c6 Xb6 38 Ked £¢3 39 Ecd
24 Qe7+ can be mer by 24.8xe7 25 &f8 40 Hb1
Hxe7 Bd3 26 He3 Hd2! and White has Not 40 Hexc3? bxc3 41 Exbé? as Black
enormous technical difficulties. wins with 41...c2.
24...hB 40...e7 41 14 Re6 42 Rd1 15 43 g4 g6
After 24...g6 Timnman points out a win for 44 g3 a6 %%
White with 25 Dhé+ g7 26 Dt Rfe8 27 A sharp wsdle in which Korchnoi was
59
Open Ruy Lopez

perhaps fornunate to draw. The thematic

~d5-d4 ooks playable &t move eleven (Game
29) but speculative when employed any later
than that.
Game 31
Z.Almasi-Korchnoi
Linz 1997
1e4e5 2 D3 8 3 2b5 a6 4 Ra4 D6
5 0-0 Nxed 6 d4 b5 7 b3 d5 8 dxeb
£e6 9 c3 Re7 10 Dbd2 Hcb 11 Ke2
294 12 Be1 00
‘The alternative 12..8d7 is considered in 17 Deb!
Games 36-38. A clear improvement on the ‘book’ move,
13 Db3 Dea but it has been played”before, both in a
Black offers a pawn for the bishop pair computer tournament in 1991¢) and a later
and a lead in development though in fact, correspondence game which we now follow
Black's best try may be 13..8e8 {see Game for some time.
32). However, 13..8%62 is unsatisfactory, as Standard theosy used to continue 17 Dg5*
for instance 14 Wd3 g6 15 £h6 He8 16 hé (17..g6» leads to a strong artack for
Hadt &5 17 Wd2 £xc2 18 Wxe2 Wd7 19 White after 18 S1xh7 dxh7 19 Wxge+ hs
B3 Had8 20 h3 68 21 W2 lefs Black with 20 He3 £46 21 £xd6 cxd6 22 Hg3, as in
a pasive game in Geller-Unzicker, Bad ARodriguez-Milos, Bogota 1991, or simply
‘Worishofen 1991, 20 h3 - Korchnoi) 18 -&h7 Ef7 19 h3
14 &f4 (Krasenkov recommends 19 Sxxfé+ Bxfo 20
Risky is 14 Sxed?! dxet 15 Wxd8 Raxds Wh7+ 27 21 2¢3) 19..5h5 20 Wee Hds
16 Hxed Bd1+ 17 Qel (17 Bel?? loses on 21 Wixgs Wxgs 22 hxgt g6 (22846 is
the spot 1o 17..6xf3) 17.2fd8 wih suggested by Korchnoi with the idea of
excellent play for the pawn. meeting23 g5 by 23..405, leaving White’s
14...f6 knight stranded) 23 g3 &h3+ 24 g2 Hxf2s
14..f5 comes to the same thing as in the 25 dxh3 dxh7 26 D4 with interesting
main game, while 14..e8 s a recent idea of complications that led to a draw in Large-
Marin’s. Black doesn'’t get full compensation Flear, British Ch., Eastbourne 1990.
after 15 Rxed dxed 16 Hxed Wxdl+ 17 17...DxeB 18 R.xeb g6 19 Wd4 c6 20 13
Hxdi £xf3 18 gxf3 Hadg 19 Heel (19 Rxds 20 §)c5 &xcS 21 Wxc5 also gives White a
Exd8 20 G4 Sixclé 21 Bxdd Budd 22 cxdd clear positional edge.
6 should be a draw) 19..g5 20 2¢3 g7 21 20...215 21 £xt5 Wxfs 22 Woe!
e6 Oxdl
22 Bxdl £5 23 Lxc7
&f6, as in Black now lacks the time necessary to get
Kuczynski-Marin, Budapest Zonal 1993, bus organised and keep everything intact. This is
will nevertheless retain good drawing chan- much more dangerous than the continuation
ces. 22 2g3 Wd7 23 Hadl £3h5 24 Re5 BE7 25
15 exf8 Dxf6 16 Wd3 Wd7 Who 2h4 26 g3 2.8, which
led to a drawin
Afamousmp;swawvm Berglund-Yerofeev, correspondence 1995,
s in Al 22..Wd7 23 a4 Kic8 24 W12
Petersburg 1914, White wants to play £e5-dd-c5 but first
60
 9 ¢3 Ke7: Main Line with 10 ®bd2 Dc5 11 Rc2

puts his queen out of danger. The alternarive 26 9 c3 Ke7 10 D bd2 Nc5 11 K62
24 axb5 axb5 25 Hxa8 Exa 26 Hxd4 LeB 27 294 12 Xe1 0-0 13 £b3 Re8 14 Hixch
Ea1 looks strong at first sight but can be met Topalov's move. After the critical 14 h3
by 27...We8 threatening .. 7. Sixb3 15 Wd3 g6 16 Sxb3 Le6 17 Hdl
24.. B8 Wd7 18 £xd5 Hads 19 Lot Wxd3 20 Hxd3
With ideas of coming to g4 or o4 with the Bxd3 21 £xd3 2.5 22 L4 Re5 23 6 fxed
knight. 24 &xc7 €5 Black had adequate counterplay
25 Wda for the pawn in Sax-Hbner, Budapest 1991.
Threatening to capture first on b5, then However, Krasenkov ints out the
on a8 and finally on f6, to win a piece. powerful 15..2£5! 16 Wxf5 g6 when Black is
25..%cB 26 293 c5? on top.
Almasi considers this a mistake and 14...8xc5
suggests 26...2d8, but in any case White has
a strong bind.
27 We3 Hf7 28 axb5 d4 29 Web axbh

15 Wa3
The original 14 Swcs game was
instructive: 15 264 Wd7 16 h3 2xf3
Now a fine mini-combination to bring the (16...&h5? fails vo 17 $xh7+ dxh718 Dig5+
last piece into the attack. g6 19 Wd3+ W5 20 Wg3 and White has a
30 Ea7! dxc3 winning artack) 17 Wixf3 £1d8 18 Hadl 6 19
After 30...Wxe6 31 BxaB+
wins a rook. h4 De6 20 21 B8 21 Wgad! (21 &5 keeps
31 bxc3 ¢4 32 a4 £d5 33 Reall 1-0 the initiative) 21...5! 22 exf6 (22 Lxf5» Bxfs!
‘The clearest. 23 W5 278 and Black will capture on 2,
A terrible blow for a variation that was winning back the sacrificed material with a
hitherto considered playable. So after good game) 22 Bt 23 Re3 Maff 24 DxcS
13..8De4 14 K44, Marin’s 14.He8 is &xes 25 Wxd7 Dxd? and Black had
objectively beiter than 14..f6, but it is still a equalised in Topalov-LSokolov, Antwerp
bit of a grovel. 1997.
16...g62! 16 £f4 215 17 Wd2 £xc2 18
Game 32 Wixc2 Wd7 19 Had1 £d8 20 h3
Van den Doel-Haba Hlaba suggests 20 o as slightly beter for
Cappelle la Grande 1998 White. However, 20..bxc4 21 Wxc4 dxct 22
Bxd7 §cb is fully satisfactosy for Black, who
1 e4 €5 2 Bf3 Nc6 3 RbE a8 4 Lad D6 has an the interesting plan of ..&b6,
5 0-0 fixe4 6 d4 bE 7 2b3 d5 8 dxe5 followedby ..8c5-d3.
67
Open Ruy Lopez

20...480e6 21 £h6 Re7 22 Hh2 Wcb Black, 2 dear pawn down and with an
22..f5 23 exf6 Rxf6 24 Dt Kh8 is a exposed king, was almost cerainly lost
shade better for White after 25 @e5 Rxe526 anyway.
Hxe5 c6. 40 &7+ 1-0
23 Bga a4 24 14 Wb
24..dxc3 25 f5 @g5 was possible, aiming Game 33
for complications. Ivanchuk-Tukmakov
25 &h1 dxe3 26 bxe3 New York 1988

1 ¢4 6 2 D3 Dc6 3 AbS a6 4 224 D6

5 0-0 &ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxe5
26 9 c3 Le7 10 Dbd2 D5 11 Lc2
204 12 Hel 0-0 13 &1 £h5
This is considered less accurate than
13..2e8 (considered in the next main game)
as Black tends to become rather passive, as
we shall see.
14 g3
The actual move order was 14 £e3 Rg6
15 g3, but 14 &e3 allows 14..4xe5 wheh
best play leads 10 a draw {as analysedby
26...8ad8? Tvanchul): 15 Sxc5 Pxf3+ 16 Wxi3 Kxf3
Nawral but bad Bever was 26.8g7, 17 fxe7 Wd7 18 Rxf8 Rxg? 19 L5 Kxf1
holding up the central pawns or at least 20 Sxf1 Whi+ 21 g1 W+ 22 Shl.
forcing the exchange of one of White's 14..2¢6 15 Le3
dangerous minor pieces.
27 51 Bxd1 28 Kxd1 &8
A bad sign but 28...gxf5 29 Wixf5 Wes 30
&6+ kxf6 31 Wxfo Wed loses o 32 Hd4!
(Elaba).
29 23 Wea 30 Dhé+ ThE 31 e6
Levering open Black’s king,
31..46
31587 32 Dgd gxf5 33 ext7 Dxf7 34
Wxf5 also looks difficult for Black.
32 txg6 Wxe6 33 L4
33 gxh7! was even better as 33..%xe}
loses to 34 g6,
33...2d6 34 Axd6 cxd6 35 gxh7 D7 36 Here 15 £)f5 $d7 16 g4 Bad8 17 bé Ded
&5 18 &ixe7+ 7 19 Bh2, as in Kupreichik-
But not 36 xf7+ Wxf7 37 Hxds because Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986, and now 19..5!
of 37.KHel+ 38 ®h? W7 pinning and 20 £ fxgt 21 fxed g3 2 £hs
winning. {Korchnoi) or 17 £)3d4 (mstead of 17 hé)
36...We2 37 Wb3 Hg5 38 Dxd6 Ko 39 17..80d4 18 cxdd @6 19 f4 £b4 20 Rt
Wd6 W2 £6, as in Van Mil-Kowronias, Sonnevanck
Objectively better was 39..%xh7, but 1992, are both double-edged.
62
 9 ¢3 Re7: Main Line with 10 Dbd2 c§ 11 Ke2

15...2e8 term pressure against the centre and kingside.

After the alternative 15.d7 a new idea In retum Black has a fairly solid position bur
is 16 £xg6 (instead, 16 h4 &e6 17 hs Lxc2 no real counterplay.
18 Wxc2 16 19 exd6 Rxf6 20 h6 offers a very 22.,.05 23 Wi5 Ha7
slight pull 1o White according to Korchnoi) Ivanchuk instead recommends 23..%Wd7
when White continued maturally and 24 He4 Had 25 Hgs Fhs! when White
maintained an edge in Svidler-L.Sokolov, Pula cannot take the f-pawn nor easily increase the
1997, afver 16.. b6 17 W2 Be6 18 be a5 pressure.
19 a3 fb8 20 Badt axb4 21 axb4 &ecd8 22 24 Ded DB 25 Dags Lxg5 26 Lxgs
h4 Wice 23 Wb3 Wca 24 Yxct dxcd 25 Sret Wc8 27 £e3 h6 [l
&f8 26 g3 Ba3 27 Fg2. An ervor but after 27...2d7 28 b3 it's not
16 ha 50 casy 1o find anything positive for Black to
The most aggressive, but 16 Hel, just do.
developing the last piece, has been played 28 Dhal
with some success. Matanovic then suggests Heading for f5.
16.. %07 17 b4 2xc2 followed by ..8a4 but 28...Jc7 29 Wg4 Dg6 30 D5
siill prefers White, The kingside is about to collapse. .
16...8xc2 30..Hxe5 31 £f4 Wxf5 32 W5 xS
Or 16.Rf8 17 &g5 Wd7 18 Kxgs! 33 Rxc7 Dd7 34 14 Deb 35 g4 Hixc? 36
(instead 18 h5 £xc2 19 Wixe2 hé 20 Hadl gxf5 $18 37 Ze2 b8 38 He5 1-0
Wg# 21 &cl Hads, as in Henao-Milos, An example of what 10 avoid with Black!
Bogota 1991, was solid for Black) 18.. hxg6
19 h5 gxh5 20 £xhS et 21 Ke3 and again Game 34
White has the better options (Henao). Wang Zili-Yusupov
17 Wxo2 D7 18 214! DI Novi Sad Olympiad 1990
18..fxh4 is tempting but Ivanchuk
considers it too risky to grab the h-pawn 1e4 e6 2 Df3 He6 3 2bS a6 4 Rad D6
because of 19 &5 Re7 20 e6 D8 21 exi7s 6 0-0 ©xed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
&xf7 22 Hadl when White has a scong %66 9 c3 Le7 10 Dbd2 BB 11 K2
tiative. £64 12 Ze1 0-0 13 11 e8!
19 h5 D66 20 2e3 Das 21 Hadl Do
22 ge1

14 De3
Most games continue with 14 h3, when
White is well co-ordinated
and has long- after 14...205 White chases the bishop with
63
Open Ruy Lopez

15 g3 or 15 g4, as in Game 35.

Here we discuss the aimnanve&
2 14 b4 is wo we o worry
Black, e.g. 14.. 84t 15 g3 Dixe5 16 Gt
Rxf3 17 gxd3 dxed 18 fxet 26 (Whitehas
the two bishops but setious problems with
his seructure, thus Black is already betcer) 19
264 g6 20 Wxds Raxd8 21 2xc7 K8 22
€5 @ixed 23 Rxe5 Hxe5 24 Hxe5 RxeS 25
£b3 g6 26 Bcl Kxc3 27 a4, when the
opposite-coloured bishops eamed White a
in Yemelin-Komeev, Russian
Championship, St Petersburg 1998, Naturally
Korneev didn’t want 1o risk falling into his
opponent’s prepararion with the risky-
looking 15...8w%c31? but it seems playable: 16 17...8e6
W3 g6 17 ¥xc3 fxbé 18 Wixch Reb Nagral but Korchnoi recently tried
(18..2x63 19 Ra3) 19 &4 Bxch 20 Hixct 17..%h51 and was at least equal after 18
W8 with an unclear material balance. Wis £f6 19 D6 Lg6 20 Wxgsd frg 21
b) After 14 24 £h5 15 &e3, Black has Dxd8 Haxdg 22 Rdl d4 with an active
15...d4 which simplifies comfortably, e.g. 16 ‘position in Leko-Korchnoi, Ubeda 1998.
xdd Rxf3 17 Wxl3 Zed4 18 W3 Hixc? 19 18 D6
&ixc2 Wd3 20 De3 c6 21 Redt %-% Henao- 18 D52 looks interesting. After
Ch.Toth, Bogota 1991. 18..8xf5? (18.-2f8) should be equal) 19
14...8xe5 WxfS 2f6 20 £f4 Sxe5 21 Lxe5 6 22 Me3
Fhe exchange 14...8:xf3 is given as bad by Black had problems in Daly-Glodeanu,
everyone, but perhaps unfairly, and certainly Bucharest 1993.
not for the real reason! Then 15 Wxf3 Hxe5 18...4d6 19 Dxe?+ Bxe7
16 Wixd5 (the best way may be 16 Wf5! dhg6 Coramentators are unanimous that Black
17 &xd5 £.d6 18 HxeS+ Wxes 19 £e3 De6 has an equal game here.
20 Bd1 Rd8 21 g3 with a comfortable edge 20 b3 Dd7 21 2b2
due to the bishop pair in Adams-Gi.Garcia, 21 a4 is preferred by Yusupov who
New York 1995) 16..40ed3 17 Hd1 ‘witha prefers Black from now on. It's instructive to
clear advantage’ according to Yusupov, bur see how Black expands the queenside, not to
17...9¥xd5 {certainly
not 17..4xc1? due 10 18 create a passed pawn but 10 annex the d3-
Rxh7+ dexh? 19 Wh5+) 18 Sixd5 £d6 and square,
Black is okay (Flear). Instead 14,262 is 21..Bae8 22 Hadi c5 23 3 De5 24
t00 passive and loses time. W2 cal 25 Wg3 6
15 £xh7+ Everything holds together nicely and
In order to unpin. The inferior 15 Sixgd?! Yusupov is ready to further expand his
has been played but White really doesn’t have majority.
enough compensation for the pawn. 26 Rd4 Wes 27 bxod dxcd 28 Dc2 ab
15...%xh7 16 We2+ g8 29 2a3?
Yusupov points out that 16..8ed3 17 29 &h1 holds out longer.
Qixga 15 fails 1o 18 Bd1 fxg4 19 BeS and 29...b4 30 cxba Wa7
White recovers the piece with an excellent The pin is decisive.
64
 9 c3 Ke7: Main Line with 10 Dbd2 D& 171 Re2

31 b5 Hd7 32 Reed Xf5 33 W2 Gxed ‘Wahls-Hiibner, Munich 1991.

34 Hxd7 Wxd7 35 fxe4 Wd1+ 36 Del Instead 15 b4#? led to unclear play after
£d3 0-1 15 Bed! 16 Ded Rxf3 17 g3 Dxf2 18
So the 14th move akernatives to 14 h3 @xf2 Shir 19 2f1 Rxel 20 Wxel Dixes
don't worry Black. 21 Wg3 W6 22 Dxd5 We6 23 B3 Bcd 24
fe4 Badg 25 Of5 Wi6 in Szoapk-
Game 35 Gi.Garcia, Salamanca 1988,
Svidler-Adianto 15...8.96 16 DI5 Ded!?
Groningen 1997 An interesting of Timman's. Safer
seems to be 16..2.18! 17 £f4 Deb (17..Wd7
1 ed4 €5 2 D13 D6 3 Lb5 a6 4 824 HIG was less convincing in Spraggeti-Korneev,
5 0-0 £ixed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 San Sebastian 1999, as White had a useful
266 9 c3 £e7 10 Dbd2 D5 11 202 initiative after 18 2\3h4 Hat 19 Hb1 Db 20
£04 12 el 0-0 13 Df1 Re8 14 h3 £hs Wgah 18 £h2 a5 19 N3 o6 20 Hd4
Dixd4 21 cxdd D 22 b3 Bixe3 23 Bxe3 c5
24 Rxgh hxgs 25 dues Rxc5 26 Hd3 dd with
equal play in Wahls-Fisbner, Germany 1991,
17 @xe7+ Hxe7 18 L£14 Wd7 19 Hha
o5
After 19..Eae8 White can safely grab the
pawn with 20 Sixg6 hxgb 21 Lxed dxed 22
Wixd7 Hxd7 23 Hxed (Svidler).
20 Dixgh hxg6 21 Le3 o6 22 14 d4 23
fe4 Bd8

15 &g3 e T
The other method of pushing badk the
bishop is 15 g4, when 15..9g6 16 $xg6 a
hxg6 17 @3 Wd7 18 WxdS (18 ba? is again 17 w7
1
w0 weakening due to 18.4%4 19 Hixds 1
Eadg and Black has good acivity for the
pawn, e.g. 20 Sxe7+ Yxe7 21 W2 W7 22
g2 Wd3 23 Wxd3 Bxd3 winning back the
pawn with interest in Onischuk-Timman,
Wik aan Zee 1997. I immediately 18 &xds
then after 18...Xad8 19 {xe7+ Wxe7 20 We2 24 Q21
2d5 Black has the added option ..4d3) Svidler’s improvement on Van den Doel-
18._Ead 19 Bdl We6 20 Wixe6 fxe6 21 Timman, Dutch Championship, Roterdam
&d4 fon 21 g2 then 21..Bxdl 22 Hxd1 1997, which continued 24 Rc1 &c5 25 K3
d3 wins back the pawn with equal play) W6 and Black was doing very well
21505 22 f4 M7 23 21 (23 b4 Bad 24 The text keeps the pressure on d4 and
Dixeé Exdl+ 25 Hixdt £f6 gives Black all threatens 25 &h4.
the play) 23..2f6 24 Dec2 5 and Black 24.. oe8 25 Wga De?
opened up the game 10 his advantage in 25...dxc3 loses material to 26 Had1.

65
Open Ruy Lopez

26 h4 c5 27 Radt Dd5 28 1§ We saw the idea of 13 (b3 against

The two bishops keep Black occupied in
the centre, which in time gives White the
chance to prise open the black king,
28...gxt5 29 Wxi5 HH8 30 We3
Now it's cashing-in time as Black cannot
avoid losing the d
30...We6 31 cxd4 coxd4 32 @xdd4 De?
33 a3 BEd7 34 £c3 Hed8 35 Hxd7 Zxd7
36 hS Dh7 37 We3 Wb+ 38 $h2 Whe
39 Woa D8 40 Hf1 Deb 41 266 We3 42
h6 Hg5
12..0-0 in Games 31 and 32.
13...2e6 14 h3
White can equally play 14 Wd3 (sopping
Black from Iingside for the time
being) 14..8h5 15 Bfd4 Dexdd (15..286
16 &5 0-0 17 Wh3 IOfe8 18 £d1 28 19
h4 Mad8 20 f4 Red 21 fe3 Rev 22 £gt
was dangerous* for Black in ZsoPolgar-
Hracek, Brno 1991) 16 £xdd £.g6 17 25
Hds 18 Wg3 with a complicared game in
Hazai-Diesen, Helsinki 1989,
14...8h5 15 25

Combination time: How does White

finish off the job? 15..8cd8
43 e8! fxe6 44 WxgS! 10 After 15..8d8 16 Dbd4 00 the blow 17
With the point 44..Mxg5 45 h7+ S8 46 2xh7+! leads to a dangerous .
B8+ and mates. 17..sxh7 18 D5+ Lxg5 19 W5+ Kho
20 £xh6 gxh6 21 D5 Bhs 22 Wxhe+ g8
Game 36 23 Wf6 Zh7 24 B3 8 25 Hgd, =5 in
Ehlvest-Hjartarson Llvanov-Sagalchik, USSR 1989.
Belfort 1988 However, after the immediate 15...0-0 this
bination is only worth a draw: 16 2xh7+
1 e4 e5 2 &3 Hic6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad D6 @xh7 17 g5+ Lxg5 18 Wxh5+ Kb6 19
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 bS5 7 4b3 d5 8 dxeS RKxhé gxhé 20 Wfs+ Shs (20.%g8
%06 9 c3 2e7 10 Hbd2 Hes 11 Le2 provokes 21 Ke3) 21 W6+ h7 22 Wi5+, as
£.94 12 Be? Wd7 in TindeLalic, Yugostw Championship
Compared to 12..00, Black is better 1989.
prepared to support the d-pawn with ..2d8 Another uy is 15..Rg6 16 BDfds 0.0
after this move. However, the king stays (Krasenkov recommends 16.8)cxdd 17
longer in the ceotre and the king’s rook &ixd4 00 and then ...c75) 17 234 Dexdd
cannot come as quickly to the natural e8- 18 cxd4 45 19 f4, when Nunn-Tal, Naestved
uare.
square. 1985, continued 19..h5 (Korchnoi instead
13 Hb3 suggests 19..24 20 @5 Wc6 21 Lxe6 fxeb
66
 9 €3 Re7: Main Line with 10 Dbd2 Bc5 11 22

22 £e3 Rxc5 23 Hct, which Limits White to pressure on the d-flle and Black has no
an edge) 20 Kxh5 Lxh5 21 Wixh5 a4 22 coumerplay.
Hic5 Dxch 23 dxe5 Lxcs+ 24 Red Lxed+ 24,8957
25 Bxe3 £5 26 e6 and White was on top. A positional error, By exchanging the
16 Re3 as blockading piece Black can no longer stop
An interesting alternative is 16..8b7 17 the e-paw's ust to expand’ (with e5.06)
We2 c5 18 Hadl Bd8 19 bd2 W6 20 g4 whereupon the fasally
226 21 f1 0022 &)g3 a5 23 b3 W6 24 24.. 947 is
h4 d4 with complex play in Sigurjonsson- recommended by Ehlvest, when Black is
Stean, Munich 1979. Minic suggests 25 &d2 ready to support the centre with ..c7-c6 if
here, as with the game continuation 25 exd4 necessary. Tn that case Bladk’s game would
cxd4 26 fcl Rb4 27 At Hc6 28 h5 Kxf5 be solid, albeit rather passive,
29 gxd5 things should have been unclear after 25 %xg5 4xg5 26 He2 Rfes 27 Wg3
29..80c7 30 Wed £Nd5 31 Wgs Bhs. £h6 28 Bdel $h7?
17 &5 28..Ke6 holds out longer but 29 f4 $h7
Or 17 .5 a4 18 Sxe? Wxe7 19 Dbd2 o6 30 f5 gxd5 31 W3 crashes throughal
20 b4 g5 21 We2 g6 22 .43 (22 gt same.
Rxgé 23 hxgs Bdeb 24 We3 b favoured 29 6l
Black in Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City Threatening
to come w0 e5 with the
[28th machgame] 1978) 22..@de6 with Jnight,
equal chances (Korchnod. 29...16
17..Wcs Or 29..Bxe6 30 Exe6 fxeb 31 De5 Wes
Black may do best 1o play 17..&xc5! 18 32 Qixgé! Wixgh 33 Wxc7+ and White wins
Rxc5 26 19 L4 h5 20 Rxet Dxes 21 material (Ehlvest).
L3 ¢5, a5 in Zarnicki-Sorokin, Villa Gesell
1996, when he has counter-chances due to
the queenside majority. Black later pushed
his d-pawn
and went on o win.
18 ©d3 £xf3 19 Wxi3 g6 20 994
20 % xet, fxc6 is unclear (Ehlvest).
20...h5 21 2xe6 Dxe6 22 Had1 Zd8 23
Hd2 0-0 24 Zedt

Black looks as if he can hold it together

but Ehivest finds a way through.
31 De5! fxeb 32 Wf7+ $h8 33 Hxes
P Despite the extra piece Black’s queen and
rooks cannot mount a defence for very long.
The strong e-pavm cuts the communication
in the black camp.
White has maintained
an edge. He has 33..Hg8 34 e7 Rde8 35 He6 Wd? 36

67
Open Ruy Lopez
Hxg6 Hxg6 37 Wxgé £.g7 38 Wi
Black is totally tied up and White wants 10
bring his rook to the h-file.
38..04 39 cxd4 Lxd4 40 Zeb £g7 41
9310
This stops any fiest rank nonsense and
prepares Eeé-cd-h4. Black is totally paralysed
and therefore resigned.
A fine win by the Estonian Grandmaster,
but not exactly what an Open player wants to
repeat! Possible improvements for Black are
15,26, 15..00 (but this allows a draw),
16..83b7 or 17..4&xc5 (which is complex and
yields double-edged play). If none of this
suits the critical reader, then 12.00 is
recommended.
Game 37
Haba-Marin
Budapest Zonal 1993
1 e4 5 2 Df3 Hich 3 RS a6 4 Rad H6
5 0-0 fixed 6 d4 b5 7 £h3 d5 8 dxe5
fe6 9 c3 Re7 10 Dbd2 Hc5 11 Lc2
294 12 Bel W7 13 BH
White intends a dangerous plan; coming
t0 €3 with gain of time. IUs generally
ised tha going via fl afer the
intermediare 13 b3 Rh5 is less effective, e.g.
14 D1 Bd8 15 Re3 (after 15 g3 26 16
Re3 00 17 Kxc5 £xc5 18 a4 £6 19 e6 Wb,
as in Borngasser-Behrmann, West Germany
1985/86, Black has good play; the e6-pawn is
68
tmore of a weakness than an asset) 15..8e6
16 g4 £g6 17 £15 00 18 g3 a5 19 b4
D4 20 fel hel, as in Gavrkov-
Kharitonov, Sverdlovsk 1984, with aa
unclear position.
Heading the other way with 13 @63 {or
13 b3 £h5 14 G)b3) is another promising
idea, as we saw in Game 36.
13..2ad8
After 13..Rh5 14 Dg3! (now this is the
right way, as Black loses time) 14..2g6 15
b4t (15 Ddé xc2 16 Wxe2 00 17 Dgf5
Bfe8 also looks reasonable and at first sight
most White players would be happy here.
However, piece play alone is insufficient to
maintzin the pressure, eg. 18 He3 Rf8 19
et Wixch 20 D4 Wd7 21 ba De622
b3 g6 23 Re3 ¢5 and Black had equalised
in Prandstetter-Prichoda, e 1990)
15..00 16 h5 Rxc2 17 Wxc2 5 18 exde
L, as in Mokry-Yusupov, Dubai
Olympiad 1986, and now 19 b6 g6 20 g5
gives White an edge. The presence of the
pawn on hé will be a cause for concem for
Black even deep into the ending.
14 De3 215 15 ba!
Thisp!anscanswlavemad(wixha
and has been largely
nsponn.blc for the fact that no
players generally prefer 12..0-0 and 13..5e8.
The alternative 15 &f5 is covered in
Game 38.
15...0e6 16 g4
The alternative continuation 16 &f5 0-0
(afier 16..d4 the move 17 Red! stymics
Black's counterply) 17 a4 Rg6 18 g4
(nstead 18 23 d4! 19 axh5 axb5 20 H5xd4
Doxdd 21 Dxda Kxb4 22 fxgs hogh 23
Wh3 &ixds 24 Rxds Re7 was equal in
VasquezMarin, Andorra 199%) transposes
back to the main game.
Black can vary with 17..Bfe8? but this
leads to a long forcing line with an
unpleasant ending for Black: 18 axb5 axb5 19
Wd3 £g6 20 Wxb5 Dxes 21 Wxd? Hud7
(not 2193+ 22 gef3 Bxd? 23 Rad) 22
 9 ¢3 fe7: Mamn Line with 10 &bd2 Hc5 11 Kc2

ue7e Bxe7 23 Sxgt hxg 24 bt Becs than

L
20.. @bs 21 f£e3 o5 (21.d4 is
25 &cb,
as in ARod in, Novi Sad d eg 22 fxd4
Olympiad 1990, when the simplification has Qxd4 23 @3xd4 £xb4 24 Lxb5 6 25
not Liberated the black position. et Lxf5 26 gxf5 Kixc3 27 Wxd7 Dxd7
Another dubious Black try is 17..f62 18 28 &1xd8 MxdR 29 e6! and White
is close to
axb5 axb5, as in Cuartas-Pi Ubeda winning according to Galkin) 22 bxc5 £xc5
1998, which looks bad for Black after 19 23 We2 Rxc3 24 Wxed A7 25 Ba7 Wes 26
Wds! édé! and Black was in deep trouble n
16...8.96 17 D5 0-0 GalkinSorokin, Elaterinburg 1997, as
The continuation 17.h5 18 h3 d4 26..2xd6 is ynet by 27 Bxc7 Wxc7 28 exd6.
(18..xg 19 hocga isl? 20 g2 Fol? worked 19 axbb axb5 20 S.e4 Rfed 21 Yu3!
in the game Abramovic-Flear, Val Maubuée This is annoying for Black as the bs-pasm
1989, but leaves me unconvinced) 19 Red! requires defending, Less effective is 21 &e3
$f8 20 a4 left Black with serious problems &8 22 Wd2 h$ 23 h3 Dxb4 24 b4 dxe3
to solve in Hjartarson-Korchnoi, St John (1st 25 Wxd7 exf2+ 26 kxf2 Mxd7 27 fc6 Edd8
matchgame) 1988. 28 Bebl &4 29 Sxe8 Hxes 30 Sg3 DNe2+
18 a4 31 22 D4 32 g3 De2+ 33 B2 Hf4 with
a draw in Palkovi-Matin, Stara Zagora 1990.
21...8b8 22 2d2
Not best. Instead 22 cxd4l £xb4
(probably betcer than 22..4\xd4 23 G\Ixd4
L2xf5 24 Dd5 Wxd3 25 £xd3 Bxd3 26
Sixe7+ Mxe7 27 a8 with a clear advantage
for White due to the bad knight ~ Haba) 23
Ed1 c6 24 Re3 £f8 and White keeps the
better prospects (Korchnoi). This hasn't
been tested but is the critical assessment for
Black’s set-up. The central/kingside bind is
maore immediately important than any long-
term prospects offered by a queenside
18...d41? outside passed pawn, but at least Black has
Black has worked diligently 1o get this something to play for.
thematic counter going, but it probably isn’t 22...c5 23 oxd4 Dxd4 24 DIxdd Lxfs!
quite good enough for On 24..cxd4 then 25 Ha5 picks up the b5-
The alternative 18. .lfes should be pawn.
studied closely, e.g 19 axb5 axb5 20 £d3 25 Dxf5
Hbg 21 We2 HcdB 22 Ha7 d4 23 cxdd Kxf5 25 gxi5 Wixd4 26 Wxd4 Hxd4 gives Black
24 gxf5 Pxdd 25 Sixcdd Wxdd 26 Rxc7 sufficient counter-chances.
£xb4 27 &b2 Y4 28 £.c3 Kxc3 29 Bxc3 25.. ¥xd3 26 £xd3 Hxd3 27 Dxe7+
Ee7! (not 29...b4 30 Hcd Whe 31 Het with a Hxe7 28 Ha8
strong attack in Shabalov-Sorin, Bid 1992) Black has temporary problems with his
30 Rb1 g6 31 Bgd, as in Zamicki-Sorin, badly placed knight but as soon as it’s
Argentine Championship 1996, when after liberated, White’s pawns prove to be too
31..40c6 Black had coumerplay against the wealto claim a significant adventage.
centr¢ and managed to draw. This move 28..HeB 29 2f4 Hd4 30 £g3 @18 31
20..Hb8 looks more convincing for Black bxes Yi-Ya

69
Open Ruy Lopez

31 b5 Gich 32 Bab b4 33 Bd6 Mgt is b) 16 b4 can now be met with 16..2e4!

fairly unclear, but some White players, with a with satisfactory counterplay; in Yudasin-
‘more ambitious frame of mind, may prefer to Detran, Budapest 1982.
play on here. - ¢) After the innocent-looking 16 h3 then
This line has been deeply investigated
and 16...Bfe8? is too routine (playable instead are
theoretically may just favour White. cither 16..2g6 or the introductory 16..%e6
However, in practical play a well propared 17 £¢3 and only then 17..2fe8, as after the
Open Ruy Lopez player can probably getby, further 18 g4 £g6 19 a4 Rc5 the game
as White has to play very precisely o Brodsky-Main, Bucharest 1994, was unclear)
maintain an edge. 17 e+ Oe? (17 Bxe? fails 10 18(g4
£g6 19 £g5) 18 Lxh7+l Bxh7 19 Dgde
Game 38 g6 20 g4 with advantage to White (Marin).
A.Sokolov-Korchnoi 186...50xe7
Tilburg 1987 Afer 16 Wxe7? 17 RS, as in
ARods -Gi.Garcia, Bayamo 1987, White
14 65 2 D3 Db 3 LbS a6 4 Rad DI wins at least a pawm,
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 263 d5 8 dxe6 17 b4
£e6 9 ¢3 Re7 10 Hbd2Dc5 11 fc2 ‘Two other moves have been tried here:
294 12 Ze1 Wd7 13 Of1 2ds 14 De3 ) 17 Wd4? £xf3 18 gxf3 De6 19 Wha
£h6 15 5 g6 20 Wig4 d4 turned out better for Blatk
The stronger15 b4l was consider d in in Griinfeld-Korchnoi, Zapreb 1
Game 37. 1987, .
15...0-0 b) 17 £63 is a tricky move, when 17..4e4
For 15.-e6 16 b4l {Black doesn’t mind is playable, as is 17..%834 when 18 &xh7+
16 24 b4l 17 a5 Da7 18 Pixe? Wxe7 19 Wd3 (the simplistic 18 £xat bxa4 19 Kc5 Hfes
b5, as in Aseev-Agzamov, USSR 1984) see 20 fxe7 Bxe7 only yields equal chances
Garne 37, note 1o White’s 16th move. [Korchnoi] as White cannot exploit the
doubled apawns and Black has coumer-
chances on the b-file; while 18 Wd3?! can be
smet energeticallyby 18..4g6! 19 b3 3 20
g5 Wh3! and Black stood well in Van der
Wiel-Hjartarson, Rotterdam 1989 and finally
18 Hbl &g6 19 Wd3, as in Adams-Flear,
Leeds 1988, should be met by 19..2xf3 20
gxf3 Bde8 with advantage to Black) is well
defended by 18..xh7 19 e6 £.xf3! 20 W2+
Sed and Black wins.
However, the narural 17...8e6? fails to 18
Laxh7+t dxh7 19 Dg5S+ g6 20 g4 and
Black was struggling in Geller-Hazai, Sochi
16 Hxe7+ 1982. The combination works if the queen
Ahernati ely:
2) The aggressive 16 haP? Lg4 17 Qixe7
on d7 no longer defends g4.
17..5e4
4e7 18 Wid4 Sxf3 19 gxf3 Gre6 20 Wgs da Korchnoi once blundered with 17...0%a42?
was very sharp and unclear in Ady-Flear, (he obviously became confused with the lines
Bamsdale 1989. in the previous note) 18 xh7+! dxh7 19 ¢6
70
 9 c3 Re7: Main Line with 10 @bd2 &Hc5 11 Sc2

1.0 HisboerKorchnoi, Tilburg 1987, since chances,

after 19..fxe6 (19..8xf3 20 Wd3+! Ded 21 30 e5
Wh3+ wins; compare to lines where White 30 Ra7 also favours the second player
has already played Re3 when this manoeuvre after 30...&0xed+ 31 Se2 B4 32 7 Bxb4.
15 not possible) 20 Dg5+ kg6 21 g4 the 30..%17 31 Hab Hedt 32 P2 Bc3 33
attack is overwhelming. L3 Pe7 34 2447
18 £xed dxed 19 Wxd7 Exd7 20 Hgs 34 Ha8 Hed 35 g8 &f7 36 Hds is
296 21 e6! recommended by Korchnoi. White must stay
activel
34..(Xc4 35 dd3 Dgb 36 L6+ &7 37
Za5 @cB 38 Hab+ ded5 39 Eab De6 40
Hxb§ Hixc5+ 41 bxch Xxch 42 Hxcb+?
The final error. Sokolov obviously
misjudged the rook ending after 42 HbS,
which is not good but may be tenable.
42...xcs 43 a4 $c6! 44 ha Rd7 45
2d5 h5 48 e6+ Le7 47 @c6 Lxe6 48
Exc? $f5 49 2d6 gl 50 FeS &xha
51 ®f4 g6 52 43 g5 0-1
Game 39
"The simplification has led 1o an ending in Pedersen-Magomedov
which this move gives White 2 shight pull Cappelle {a Grande 1998
21..Bd3
Korchoi prefers White after 21..fxe6 22 1 e4 o6 2 B3 Hc6 3 b5 a6 4 Kad D6
Sixe6 RE7 23 a4 Bd6 24 Dg5 R 25 Re3 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxed
with the point that 25..16 can be met by 26 £e6 9 c3 2e7 10 Dbd2 D5 11 Kc2
Dixed! Sxed 27 K5 Bet 28 3 R4 29 axbs £g4
axb5 30 Kxe7 Hxe7 31 Hedl calmly
increasing the pressure.
22 oxf7+ 2xf7 23 Hixed 445 24 13
24 a3 &¥xc3 25 Pixc3 Wxc3 26 Le3 He8
27 Bed1 gave White a small but persistent
edge, despite the opposite-coloured bishops,
in Hiibner-Zak, Lugano 1989.
24...2.96 25 12 Be8
Black has good play for his pawn and in
any case the c3-pawn will fall
26 aa? .
26 &5 is more testing, when after
26, Bxc3 27 Bxe8+ RKxe8 28 £d2 He2 29
el 25 30 a3 White is not worse.
26...%xe4 27 Hxed Hxed 28 fxed Dixc3 12 We1
29 axb5 axb5 12 We2, intending either 13 We3
The target of the isolated e-pawn and (unpinning) or 13 Bd1 (pressure on the d-
good piece activity offers Black the winning fle), is worthy of closer study, although
717
Open Ruy Lopez
Black seems to be able to cope after 12..Wd7
and now:
2) 13 Ed1 Ed8 14 @f1 d4 (or 14..00 15
De3 Pxe5 16 HxdS, as in Shambkovich-
McLaughlin, Chicago 1988, and now
Korchnoi's 16...We6! looks better for Black,
although theory says its only equal) 15 g3
d3 16 We3 £xf3 17 gxf3 Wes 18 ©xd3
Dxd3 19 Hxd3 Rxd3 20 Wxd3 Dxes 21
We4 00 with no problems for Black in
Shamkovich-Radashkovich, Israel 1974.
b) Unpinning doesn’t give anything either
due to 13 We3 @6 14 ba d4 15 oxdd Dexds
16 Re4 Ed8 17 a3, as in Westerinen-
Chekhov, Moscow 1982, and now the
follow-up 17...c5 (Korchnod) is equal
12...208
This move, stopping White from coming
to d4 with the unpinned knight, is perhaps
the most logical continuation, but castling is
perfealy satisfactory for Black, eg. 12..00
13 &4 Gwdd 14 cxdd e 15 Db3 (15
We3d e8! 16 deed RxcS 17 Wgd Ke2 18
Bel &d4, as in BlokhuisCOMP Wohess,
The Hague 1997, gave a strong initiative for
Black, who won easily) 15...a5, as in Gligoric-
Miagmasuren, Tel Aviv Olympiad 1964, is
given as the standard way to equalise. That
game continued 16 We3 51 17 exf6 Hxf6 18
£3 %5 19 a4 bxad 20 Hxad Re8 21 Hat for
21 Hxa5 HxaS 22 £xa5 <5 23 b3 c4 and
Black wins back the dpawn under
favourable circumstances with 24..8b6)
21...24 and Black was doing well.
13 h3 £h5 14 Dh2 296 15 Rb1
Distinetly inferior is 15 Rxgé due 1o
15...xg6! (F-file) 16 b3 (or more recently 16
Ddf3 00 17 Re3 Bf5 18 g4 K7 19 W2
Wd7 20 Hadl Raf8, as in Lobrhanidze
Kormeev, Minsk 1998, with preference for
the second player) 16..g51? 17 .3 0.0 and
Black had the bewer game in i quickly lead to a perpetual check.
Rubinstein, Vilnius 1912.
15..%d717
After 15,95 16 4 2xb1 17 Bl D3
18 Wg3 Sixct 19 Bbxcl 00, as in Fahmi-
72
Kostic, Carlsbad 1911, White's aggressive-
looking position is not that dangerous with
two pairs of minor pieces already exchanged,
but he can claim a slight injuiarive.
16 4 £xb1 17 Exb1 g6 18 Dga
18 5 &g7 19 f6 Lc5+ 20 hl De6 21
b3 2b6 22 Re3 is suggesied by Pedersen
as a favourable alternative for White. He has
2 space advantage but the kmight on e6 holds
everything together for Black.
18...0-0-017
The struggle becomes complex after this,
an extremely rare option for the black king in
the Open.
19 £b3 d4a 20 cxdd
20 &6 dxc3 21 bxc3 £18 22 f5 guf5 23
&xf5 is unclear according to Pedersen.
20..Dexda 21 Le3 N5 22 Re1 Wds 23
Wab &b7 24 &te!
"The point - see the previous note!
24..%d3
24...2.x16? allows White’s artackto get out
of hand with 25 &5+ Hxc5 26 Hxc5 Wd7
27 Hict HcB 28 Beo!
25 2a7!
A surprise, kecping the bishop in the
anack. If instead 25 £f2 then 25..83
defends painlessly. Now the complications
25..xa7 26 i3 Lc5+ 27 Bxcs Whi+
28 wh2 Hd1 29 Exc7+ Dxc? 30 Wxe7+
waB 21 Wc6+ a7 32 Wo7+ a8 33
Wb+ %-%
 8 c3 Le7: Mamn Line with 10 &bd2 Dc5 11 K62

Summary
This is perhaps the most difficult chapter for move order complexities and transposisions.
1f Black wishes to play for a quick ..d5-d4 the best moment is move 11. Play in Game 29
suggests that the ending that follows is more or less equal, but note that the early simplification
offers few winning chances.
Black’s most consistent route to equality is 11...2g4 12 Ke1 00 and 13..He8. This is true
against either 13 b3 (Game 32) or 13 Df1 (Games 34 and 35).
The plan with 12..Wd7 and . 2d8 doesn’t seem to equalise against either 13 ft (Games
37 and 38) or 13 b3 (Game 36).

164 e5 2 D3 Do6 3 L5 a6 4 Lad Df6 5 0-0 Hixes 6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxe5 Le6

9 c3 207 10 Abd2 Hes 11 Le2

11..%04
11..d4 - Game 29
12Ze1 (D)
12 Wel - Game 39
12..00
12.8d7
13 b3 - Game 36
13 &1 Xd8 14 Be3 b5
15b4 (D) - Game 37
15 DS - Game 38
13 &1
13 &b3
13..80e4 - Game 31
13,828 - Game 32
13..He8
13..d4 - Game 30
13..8h5 - Game 33
1403
14 3 — Game 34
14...2h5 15 Hg3 K96 16 &5 (D) - Game 35

73
 CHAPTER sSIX

9 ¢3 £e7 10 Hbd2:
Black avoids the Main

The well-rescarched variations of the 5 0-0 Sixed 6 d4 b5 7 b3 d5 8 dxed

previous chapter are not everybody’s cup of £e6 9 ¢3 2e7 10 Hbd2 Wd7
tea. Sorne players have sought other ways of An experiment of Anand thar hasnt
developing and ideas without 10..%c5 are caught on. Games 41-45 fearure 10..0-0.
covered here. 11 62
Anand’s 10.Wd7 (Game 40) hasnx
caught on at all, whereas 10..0-0 (Games 41-
45) has arich history but is out of fashion.
After 10.00 White can uy 11 We2
against which 11.8xd2 (Game 41) often
goes wrong in practical play as White will
immediately probe away at Blaci’s rather
naked king. Black can get his queenside
majority going but it seems slow and
ineffective. I prefer 11.8%5 (Game 42)

The other dangerous 11th move is 11

22 when Games 44 and 45 offer some 11..8%d2
ideas as to keep an edge. ‘White was much beter after 11..£f5 12
Overall, Black’s playin Chapter 5 is more Dd4 (interesting is the solid continuation 12
popular, which suggests that most top Hel Qc5 13 Df1 Rxc2 14 Wxc200 15 Re3
players belicve 10..85 to be best, but there 6 16 Badl £6 17 exfo xfo 18 D3 Lads
is certainly surprise value in trying 10...0-0. 19 @ed, as in ZaparaRodrigues, Bogota
1991, when White has a slight initiative)
Game 40 12..82g6 13 at 00 (Krasenkov proposes
J.Polgar-Anand 13..40xd? 14 Rxd2 00 as an improvement)
Munich 1991 14 Sixet Lxed 15 axb5 axb5 16 Kxa Hxa8
17 Rxed dxed 18 €6 fxe6 19 Hxb5, as in
1 @4 €5 2 H3 H1c6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Rad HIE Luther Krasenkov, Asii 1996, because of
74
 8 ¢3 Ke7 10 Dbd2: Black avosds the Main Line

problems with the black pawn structure. Ee5 and White is winning (Polgar).
12 Wxd2 294 19 %e3 g6 20 Rhé+ g8 21 Woa
After 12..0-0 White keeps the initiative “White has good attacking chances for the
with 13 Wd3, Typically when the knight on pawn. Exactly the type of position to avoid
4 is exchanged for its counterpart on d2, the against Judit Polgar!
black position loses its potential dynamic 21..W16 22 %c2 218 23 fg5 Wd6 24
qualities and White ofven has a safe odge. 44 YdS 25 Zad1 Hab 26 hat
13 W4 Black has longterm problems organising
his army, so White has the time to loosen the
opposing king’s defences.
26...c6 27 h5 Ded 28 b3 Od6 29 hxg6
hxg6

13..2xf32
Polgar analyses 13..00 14 &5 h6 15
Dh7 Efe8 16 h3 and then after either
16..8e6 or 16..Re2 the shot 17 @\f6+!
yields a strong artack. 30 £xg6! fxg6 31 Ze6t
However, less entertaining but much Avoiding 31 Wxge+ L7 32 Rxd6 (32
better is 14...8xg5! 15 Wixg5 hél (15, Hae8?! Wixd6 Wxd6 33 Rxd6 2xc3 is not clear)
16 £3) 16 W4 (16 We3 2f5 is equa) which is met by 32..2hé,
16..Hae8 17 f3 2h5 with a good position. 31..007
Perhaps White should my 18 Wg3 Sxe5 19 Polgar points out why the other defences
$xh6 but Black has no problems after fail: 31..Ha7 to0 32 &xd6 &xd6 33 Wxge+
19...86 (Flear). Bg7 34 Heg+ and 31408 o 32 Hxgb+
14 275 Rg7 33 Wetr fF 34 B3,
Gaining time. 32 Sxd6 £g7 33 Hdel
14...%d8 15 Wxf3 33 Hxgh was simpler.
15 gxf3 also looks reasonable. 33..Zh6 34 g3 Wd7 35 4f4 o5 36
18...5xe5 16 We2 Wd6 £xg5 g6 37 W15 Exe6 38 Wxe6+?
The continarion 16..%c6? 17 Bd1 00 18 The clearest path to victory is 38 Hxe6
Le4 spells rouble for Black (Polgar). Hes 39 Hxe8+ Wxe8 40 £f¢ leading to a
17 De1 D6 18 295 @18l winning queen ending, whereas the text gives
The only hope as others are clearly chances for Black to draw by mobilisinghis
lacking: 18..£6? 19 Wh5+ f8 20 He6 Wc5 queenside majority.
21 Re3 d4 22 xd4 with a clear advantage 38...Wxe6 39 Hxe6 Zc8 40 Rd2 T7 41
(Korchnoi) and 18..g6> 19 Badl gxf5 20 Hel c5 42 &f1 ¢4 43 bxed Hxc4?
Rxe7 Sixe7 21 Bxd5 Wi 22 Hxf5 Wdé 23 43.bxct 44 Ebl d4 would give
75
Open Ruy Lopez

reasonable drawing chances by creating a 11...8¢5

dangerous passed pawn. 11..2xd2 is inferior, as we shall see in the
44 Zc1 06 45 Le2 d4 46 cxdd xdd next main game. Akematively, 11...&f5P 12
47 2e3 £b2 48 Oxc4 bxed 49 Rd2 Bd1 &5 13 Dfi Hub3 14 axb3 Ked, as in
The bishop ending with two connected Visser-Emst, Groningen 1997, could be met
passed pasns seems to be a comfortable
win. by 15 &f4 rather
than 15 &g3 Rxf3 16
49..%97 50 &c2 PdS 51 3 K6 52 exf3?! (16 Wixd3 is equal) 16..Wd7 17 £4 Weo
£h6 o5 53 g4 Ld4 54 Rd2 4b6 55 18 Re3 f6 when Black was better.
%01 £a5 56 a4 Pe5 57 £g5 d5 58 12504
£d2 Rc7 59 £03 K14 60 £6 Lg3 61 After 12 &c2?2! Black imm frees
g5 £he 82 £dB 212 63 g6 £d4 64 Lab his position with 12...d4!, when after 12 Ed1
*e6 65 L¢3 1-0 Wd7 13 £c2 £6, as in Vasiukov-Lutikov,
Moscow 1982, Black had already equalised.
Game 41
Mecking-Korchnoi
Aungusta (2nd matchgame) 1974
1 64 o5 2 3 Dc6 3 Kb5 a6 4 Ras Hi6
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
£06 9 c3 267 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 We2
Apart from 11 £c2 (Games 43-45) there
are also some less common tries here:
) 11 &4 Dixdd 12 exdd Hxd? 13 Kxd2
c5 14 dxc5 &xc5 with easy piece play for
Black, eg. 15 Hcl Ec8 16 Hxc5 Hxd5 17
b4 Wc7 18 Wd4 Hel 19 £xf8 B8 151
Keres-Fine, Amsterdam 1938, 12...5xb3
b) 11 Hel®? (not previously considered a Asother idea is to first capture on d4,
dangerous move order, but Anand has changing the pawn structure, .8, 12..Dxd4
inroduced a critical idea) 11..4c5 and now: 13 cxds b3 (1347 14 f4 £5 15 exd6
b1) 12 Nd4 Hixdd 13 cxd4 D3 14 Be3 6 16 5] 217 17 g4 was already very
&xxcl 15 Rxcl c5 16 dxc5 Ecfl 17 Bd3 &xc§ difficalt for Black in Znosko Borovsky-
Euwe, Broadstairs 1921) 14 £xb3 Hc8, asin
Botvinnik Denker, Groningen 1946, when
1989. was by now playing 15 £d2! followed by Ecl
instructive: 18 Ded! dxed! (a positional queen White stops the counter .....c7<5 and thus
sacrifice) 19 Hxd8 Bfxd8 20 Wel Rxb3 21 keeps Black tied down to the defence of his
axb3 24 and Black has equal chances. weakened queenside.
b2) Anand came up with 12 KlZwfll}Mfé 14 b4 Had
K2 d4 13 Db (previously 13 cxdd (14.8xd4! 15 cxd4 Sas fimits White's
Dixd4 14 Gixd4 Wxdd 15 We2 Rads 16 HF3 advantage) 15 23 Hxd4 16 Hxdd 5 17
Wcd, as in KiGeorgiev-Piker, Biel 1993, was exf6 Hxfo 18 ixet Wxet 19 Wd3 Ugb 20
known to be equal) 13...dxc3 14 bxc3 Wxdl 24 Bf8 21 Hacl Wd7 22 Rg3 27 23 He5
15 xdl Bads 16 25! and White
kept an @b 24 Hfel, as in ShorcUnzicker, West
initiative in Anand-Komneev, Villarrobledo Germany 1987, White has a clear advantage
1998, in view of his good bishops and rooks and

76
 9 ¢3 Le? 10 Dbd2: Black avoids the Main Line

Black’s awlkwardly placed pieces. spot.

13 Hi2xb3
White should seriously consider 13 @xct
fixel 14 Haxcl Wd7 15 Sxe7+ Wixe7 16 4
15 17 exf6 Wixf6 18 We3 265 19 Wds, as in
Janosevic-Lukic, Yugoslavia 1955, when he
has a nice edge due to his better minor piece
and, by following up with b2-b4, a blockade
of the pawn majority.
13...Wd7 14 Oxc6 Wxd6 15 ko3
White is spoilt for choice. 15 f4
fl.f5 16 Re3 Wgs 17 WE2 f6 18 e6), = in
Keres, USSR Ck
1947, also gives Black some problems.
15...%15
After 15..Wc4 16 Wd2! White obtained an
edge in Fischer-Buwe, New York (2nd
matchgame) 1957 - but the complete score
of this game has been lost! Tt is astonishing
chat a machgame of a former World
Charmpion can be miskaid as recently as the
1950s. ‘This is better than 16 Wc2 Wga 17
Dd4 HicB 18 4 5, as in StokzSzabo,
Groningen 1946, when Black has equalised.
16 Rid1
17..2d7 18 b4
On 18 b3 then 18..We4 is an awkward
pin.
18...Wed 19 £d2
After 19 f4 f6 Black starts to open the
position for his bishops.
19...Wxe2 20 Hixe2
In this typical Open Ruy Lopez ending the
bishops compensate for a devalued majarity.
20...2fe8 21 214 ¢6 22 Dd4 a5 23 a3
axb4 24 axba Haq 25 Hb3
After 25 Hxad bxat 26 Hal c5 Black has a
useful passed pawn.
25,.Jea8 26 Ke3 16 27 Qd4 fre5 28
Sxe5 L5 29 Eac) £95 30 f4 £d8 31
2d2 204 32 Nc5 206 33 £d4 Lxcb 34
fxc5 Ba2 35 Bcdl hE %-%
Neither majority looks dangerous with
opposlte b:shops,
line used to attract many of the
world’s top players, but Black’s prospects of
an equal game and active play are worse here
than in Chapter 5.
Game 42
Hecht-Langeweg
Hangelo 1968
1 e4 e5 2 D3 H1c6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad DIE
5 0-0 Oxed & d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxeb
%eB 9 c3 267 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 We2
Dxd2
As we saw in the previous game, 1145
is promising for White but this proves to be
an even more passive try. The exchange

16...Wg6!
An improvement on 16.. 1648 17 5 &f8
18 W2a5, as in Botvinnik-Euwe,
1934, when after 19 Hacl a4 20 Hc5
has an advantage despite the opposite-
coloured bishops.
17 &da
Not 17 Hxd52? as 17..Re4 wins on the
mmveandumelydmconeaappmachm
After 12 Wxd2 125 13 Rc2 &ca 14 Wd3
White g6 15 She Pxb2 (this cheeky move is
playable bur dangerous and more double-
edged than 15..2eB 16 Wd4 f6 17 exf 2.xf6
18 W4 c5 19 Bfel with a pleasant edge to
White in Scholl-Zuidema, Netherands 1967)
77
Open Ruy Lopez

16 We3 Black has tried

two defences:
2 16.2e8 17 Wi4 c5 18 &35! (bewer
than the 18 &g5 d4 19 cxd4 cxd4 20 Red, as
in ‘TalKorchnoi, Riga 1955, becanse
20...5c8! is unclear - Van der Tak) 18..Wb6
19 Rael d4 20 P4 with a strong attack in
Asmati Kosnicky, correspondence 1942,
b) 16..&3c4 17 Wf4 o512 (the best practical
ty as after 17..f6 18 Lxf8 Wfg 19 Hds
Wi7 20 exfe £xf6 21 a4 Black had
insufficient play for the exchange in Psakhis-
Zaitsev, Yerevan 1982) 18 ©xf8 9xf8, as
given by Keres. Black may have a playable
game here (the white rooks are not as yet that
useful) but Whiteis probably favourite.
12...9a5 13 2¢2
Wg3 Rd6, as in Keres-Dyckhoff,
comespondence 1936, when 24 ££4 is best
with an advantage, according to Korchnoi,
since the game continuation 24 Wg5 He5 25
De3 Wi7 26 Wha Bt 27 fxgb Wxg6 28 Bfo
Hh5 29 Bxgo+ hxgh 30 W6 Bxh2+ 31 bgl
Bxhe 32 Wg5 ®h7 was undear and
eventually led to a draw.
14 c1 Wd7 15 b3 b6 16 Wd3 g6 17
206 Rfp8 18 Wd2 52!
18...c5 is probably better, because the text
gives White a static target as Black no longer
has the option of opening the centre with
. f7-f6.
19 ha! &h8 20 Xad1 c5 21 W4 18 22
£xf8 Exf8 23 Hg5 Kae8 24 Hd3
The storm clouds are gathering!
24...Wg7 25 h5 hé

13...80¢4
‘The akemnatives are as follows:
2) In Vasivkov-Lukic, Reyljavik 1957, 26 hxg8!
Black tied 13..c5 14 #d3 g6 15 2h6 He Much more dangerous than 26 Pxe6
16 Hadl &4 17 Rel f6 18 exfo £xf6 19 xe6 27 hxgb Hxg6 28 Hg3 HgS, which is
Bfel Wd6 20 &b3, when White had a only a little better for White as his opponent
persistent initiative but no easy breakthrough. is holding the kingside together.
b) 13...#d7 and now: 26...hxg5 27 Wxg5?
b1) 14 Hadl ¢5 15 Rfel &c6 16 Lcl This is given as an error in
Bfeg 17 Wd3 g6 18 We3 Rf8 19 W4 he 20 with the line 27 Bh3+ g8 28 Wxg5 Wxes
Whe Lt 21 24 2xf3 22 o3 Re7 23 29 Rh7 proposed as stronger; indeed
Wg3 Rad8 24 h4 with an unclear position in 29..Wf6
30 Whs! Ee7 31 g71 seems to do the
Sznapile-Lalic, 1989. tidk
b2) Instead 14 Wd3! g6 15 Rh6 gives 27..44 28 Ri3 &g8 29 Exi4 Hxta 30
‘White a dangerous initiative, e.g. 15..2f5 16 Wxf4 2f8 31 WgS d4 32 cxda DA5?!
We2 Bfes 17 Dd4 Kxc2 18 Dxc2 Rd6 19 A more robust defence was 32..cxd4 33
£4 £6 20 Wd3 fxe5 21 f5 Rc5+
22 Shl ed 23 £4 &5 34 £5 Bxe5 35 Wh We7 36 Wh7+
78
 9 c3 &e7 10 Dbd2: Black avoids the Main Line

Wxh7 37 geh7e Sxh7 38 fxebr Bg7 for White in the game Am.Rodnguez-Karl,
o). Chiasso 1993.
(;ga:)(l?l D4 34 2d1 2d5 35 Wha b) 11..8xd2 yet again proves tame after
'35 ba was more precise. 12 Wxd2 f6 13 ed6 Xxf6, as in Yates-
35...2xg2 36 Zd8 Dixg8 37 Lxg6 Wxg6 Tarrasch, Bad Kissingen 1928, when
38 Exfe+ $xf8 39 Wds+ 4f7 40 e6+ Korchnol's 14 g5 &xg5 15 Wxg5 Wxg5 16
Black loses back the bishop and the game. Lxp5 a5 gives White a pleasant endgame
40..9g7 41 We7+ $h6 42 Wis+ Th5 edge due to the bishop pair.
43 Whe+ $g4 44 dxg2 #fa+ 45 Lh2 ©) Black cannot really support the knight
1-0 with 118 12 £d4 Dxd4 13 cxd4 5
Lntheendn!becamerzzhum&ybutnhe (13..f6 proved two loosening in Ivanchuk-
carly e, and the notes, show that Korchnoi, New York rapidplay 1994, due to
although just about playable, this line gives 14 &ixed Rxet 15 Kxed dxet 16 Wb+
White dangerous aacking chances. 1 feel h817 £e3 c6 18 Wes Wes 19 Racl with
thar 11..xd2 is too co-operative
and is a big problems in the black camp) 14 Zixed
poor practical choice. Sxed 15 Rxed dxed 16 d5 He8, as in Geller-
Korchnot, Budva 1967, when 17 f4 would
Game 43 have maintained the advantage.
Arsenev-Zuhovicky 12 exfé
USSR 1967 Expericnce has shown that White has
more chances of obtaining something from
1 e4 e5 2 N3 HeB 3 LbS a6 4 Lad HI6 the opening with 12 £d4 or 12 b3 (see
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 Games 44 and 45 respectively).
£66 9 ¢3 07 10 Hbd2 0-0 11 4c2 12..50xf6 13 b3
The continuation 13 g5» Rg4 14 3
£c8 15 Hel Wd6 16 We2 247 17 Db3
Rae8 gave Black superior development in
Kotov-Averbakh, USSR 1952, However, a
reasonable alternative to the text was 13 Rel
24 14 DL Wd7 15 De3 Rc5 16 Dxgd
Dixgh 17 Re3 Sxe3 18 fxe3 Hads 19 e4 dd,
as in Godena-Brunner, Novi Sad Olympiad
1990, which was more or less equal.
13..494! 14 ¥a3
Korchnoi believes thar 14 h3 &5 15 g4
can be met by 15..8wg4 16 hagt Kxgs 17
Wd3 25 18 Wxfs Hxfs 19 x5 with an
145 unclear position. White has plenty of material
The most interesting as others give White for the queen buz an exposed king.
2 comfortable game: 14..Ded
2) 118 12 Dbl (12 HAR is also The most dynamic. Instead a draw was
promising after 12.2%e5 13 b4 Dat 14 agreed after 14.Wd7 15 Dbd4 Hxdd 16
Wh5 Higé 15 4 &ixc3 16 5 Lxb4 17 fxe6 oxd4 Sxf3 17 Wxf3 g6 18 Rh6 BF7 19 Kael
fxe6 18 £12f3, as in Ivanovic-Cvetkovic, D4 20 Wh3 Rf6 21 Red o6 22 &dl in
Yugoslav Championship 1974) 12..4xb3 13 Rohde-Korchnot, Beersheva 1987,
b3 Wd7 14 Wd3
g6 15 Rh6 with an edge Worse is 14..£xf32 which unnecessarily
79
Open Ruy Lopez

weakens the light squares, After 15 Wixf3 The immediate 20...2hS fails to 21 Wxd5+
Wde 16 Wh3 Wes 17 &d2 &d6 18 Rf5 Bxd5 22 &xd5+ %h8 23 Lxal.
e7 19 Ret+ Th8 20 Bfel and White had 2113
an edge in Gufeld-Leveren, Cardoza 1998, Now, however, 21 Wxd5 Xxd5 22 £xd5
due to the pair of bishops and some hight- can be met by 22.. {8 23 Rxe4 Re2 etc.
square fraglity in the black camp, However, 21...2h5! 22 fxed Wh2+ 23 Df2 His+ 24
another move 14..2h5, intending ...2g6, is afa
safe. Equally hopeless is 24 el Wha+ 25 g3
15 Dbd4 Hixdd 16 Dxdd £d6 Rxfi+ 26 Exfl Whi+.
4. Mixta+ 25 Fe Bh11 01
A nice mating atack which shows the

@
power of Blacc’s active pieces after 13 exf6.
Game 44

-
Short-Prasad
Subotica Interzonal 1987
1 e4 o5 2 D3 HcB 3 L5 a6 4 a4 DI
5 0-0 xed 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxeS
£06 9 c3 267 10 Hbd2 0-0 17 c2 #5
12 Bd4 Hixdd 13 exd4 Hxd2
After 13..¢5 14, dxc5 $xc5 (14..Dxd2!
Blacl’s minor pieces are active and given transposes to our main game) 15 @b3 b6
half the opportunity he is poised to pounce 16 &d4 White had an optimal position
a1 White’s king, (snight on d4 and play against the weak black.
17 &xb5? pawns on d5 and f5; ponmnalforflf} etc)
This move, playing for tricks against the and thus a clear advantage in Adams-
exposed d5-pawn, proves to be fraught with Demarre, Paris 1989,
danger. Akernativ 14 £xd2 ¢5 15 dxcb £xc5
a) 17 b3 b8 18 h3 Wha 19 4 s
20 We3 Haef 21 &3 2xf3 22 Wxf3 c6, as in
Gipslis-Suetin, Tallinn 1959, favours Black.
b) 17 @x6? Wh 18 Wxds+ h8 19 h3
Rcf2 20 fxed Hxfl+ 21 Pxfl Ri+ is even
winning for the second player.
) Instead 17 h3 is White’s most prudent
course, when after 17..Wh4 18 Sxb5 Dxf2
19 2.g5! xd3 20 Lxh4 axb5 21 Kxd3 Kd7
he escaped with equality in Ragozin-
Ravinsky, USSR 1947.
"The game continuation is an unfortunate
move order reversal which allows Biadk a
winning attack starting with... 16 263
17...2xh2+1 18 Pxh2 Wha+ 18 kg1 Ef5 Mmpmciseismndwhmphymy
‘Threatening 20...2h5. continue 16..8b6 __ (Krasenkov
20 b3 &h8 16..Wd7) 17 b4 2d#the passive 17... m'
80
 9 ¢c3 Re7 10 Dbd2: Black avoids the Main Line

allows White a blockadeby 18 &e3 Wd8 19 2124

Wd4, leaving the d5-pawn weak) 18 2b3 Unconvincing is 21 £xd5 Qxd5 22 Wxds
Hac8 19 W3 Ph8 (19..Lxe5? leads w0 a as Bladk’s position is fine after 22... Rxf2+.
disaster after 20 Ecel Wd6 21 Hxe5 WxeS 22 21...2fd8 22 h4 h6 23 h5 ab 24 Th2
Hel Wds 23 xe) 20 £f4 and White kept Short would like to create chances in the
an edge due to the pressure on d5 and centre and on the kingside, but is constantly
Black’s slightly exposed pieces in Gufeld- restrained by tactical chances on the a7-g1
Prasad, New Dethi 1984, diagonal, Funnily enough, this move soon
16...Whe allows another tactical point, so perhapsh1 is
Another reasonable move is 16.. Wd7, e.g. the right
17 Hcl Hfe8 (17..Hac8? allows 18 Hxc5 24...Wb5 25 Rd2
Ixc5 19 £.b4 simplifying positively as Black After 25 Rdl Prasad intended 25..We$
is left with his *bad bishop’, for instance eyeing hS.
19..Wc7 20 Wd4! Hc8 21 Rxc5 Wxe5 22 25...%63! 26 Exc8
Wxc5 Hxc5 23 Bd1 and White would expect The artack with 26 Wxe3 Excl 27 £xhé
to win with a plan involving 24 and &g1- is met by 27..We8, covering the king, as
2-e3-d4 when the d-pawn will fall sooner or Prasad points out;
later. 'This nightmare scenario is always a 26...8x14+ 27 Wxf4 Exc8
problem for Black when he liberates with Black has enough counterplay as he has
«€7-¢5, isolating his owh d-pawn, and then obtained control of the cile and has ideas
plays 100 passively) 18 £.c3 a5 19 a3 &b6 20 such as ..a5-a4, gaining ground on the
Ec2 a4 21 Ra2 d4! and Black had equal play queenside.
in Ivanchuk-Hjartarson, Tilburg 1989. 28 g3 a4 29 L1 Ecd 30 Le2
17 W3 Bads The ending that follows is about equal,
Slightly better was 17..$h8, not yet but Black has 10 be careful as he has the
committing the rooks. White cannot take on slightly worse pawn structure.
d5 as the bishop hangs on d2. 30..Exf4 31 £xb5 Heq 32 £xad Hxe5
18 Rac1 b4! 33 4d1 17 34 L3 De7 35 dg2 Da7
Keeping White cramped. 18...2.d4? would 36 b3 a8 37 £f1 g8 38 Le2 IS 39
have allowed 19 £b4 followed by installing Le3 o7 40 Ld4 $d6
the bishop on d6, when the d5-pawn would Normally once the king is on d4 in such
not be long for this world. positions, Black would be in trouble, but the
19 Hc2 &h8 20 Rfcl He8 semi-open afile keeps the black position
alive,
41 Hc2 Re6 42 2e2 £17 43 14 Ra¥??
A slip. Tt was more sensible to ‘pass’ with
43..Re6.
44 2b5!
Creating winning chances as White can
10w use cb.
44...2xh5 45 Rc6+ Le7 46 226 413
46..%d7 is met by 47 ®c5 and Black,
despite being a pawn up, has several pawns
on the verge of
47 0bé %ed 48 ®e5 £b1 49 Hxd5
£xa2 50 2c4

8t
Open Ruy Lopez

50 f.c4 followed by Hxbé gives White an
edge accordingto Short. In the game, Short
tested his less-experienced oppoment but
Black had sufficient resources to hold on.
80...2b1 51 ¥xb4 Led 52 @c3 Rd7 53
S04 Hd6 54 Mxd6 dxd8 55 $d4 g5 56
262 gxt4 57 gxf4 £.d5 58 bd de4 59 bS
£.d5 80 Rh5 Rb7 61 ko4 Ld6+ 62 kb
£g2 63 @ab ¥c7 64 Hab K1 65 L3
£d3 66 $a5 Le4 67 2h5 Tb7 68 £96
Pa7 69 b6+ b7 70 ¥bS Ld3+ 71 Rcb
S04 72 2h5 $b8 73 LeB b7 74 296
Fab
Simpler was 74...8.c2.
75 &xI51? Lxi5 76 ¥c6 Ledt 77 Pc7
h5 78 15 h4 79 6 h3 80 b7 &xb7 81 §7
h2 82 f3¥W h1W 83 Wi+ Wes+ 84
Wxc6+ LxcB B5 dxch %-%
A good practical example with an isolated
d-pawn i the Open. White should not be
allowed to blockade the d-pawn with
knight, nor to exchange the dark-squared
bishops too early. Black must compete for
the c-file and space on the queen's wing and
generally remain active.
Game 45
Nunn-Korchnoi
Cologne (rapidplay) 1989
1 e4 e5 2 D3 Hc6 3 £.b5 a6 4 2adq H6
5 0-0 Hxed 6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 db 8 dxe5
£e6 9 c3 Le7 10 Dbd2 0-0 11 Re2 16
12 £b3 Wd7 13 Ofda
Directly preparing £2-f3. If White detays
this idea then Black should seek play by
expanding on the queenside, eg, 13 Hel a5!
(13..40d8, intending ..c7-c5 is not bad either,
but 13..Ead8 14 We2 Rfe8 15 Hid4 Hixdd
16 @ixdd c5 17 Dixe6 Web 18 {3 Sig5 19 a4
was t00 routine in Nunn-Wedberg, Novi Sad
Olympiad 1990; compared to the main game
White is better organised) 14 £d3 Hab8 15
We2 ad 16 Dbda Hixd4 17 Hxd4 o6 18 13
25 19 fc2 b4t 20 £d2 b3 21 axb3 axb3 22
#dt Raf! 23 Hxa8 HxaB 24 Se3 (after24
82
5b3 Zixb3 25 Kxb3 Bb8 Black will win
back the b2-pawn) 24.. b8, as in Akopian-
Krasenkov, Vilnius 1988.
13...8xd4 14 Dxd4
White had nothing special after 14 cxd4a5
15 £3 24 16 fxed axb3 17 Lxb3 fxed 18 Re3
Exf1+ 19 Wixf1 Bf8 20 We2 hé in Griinfeld-
'Tal, Riga Interzonal 1979,
14...c5 15 Hixe6 Wxe6 16 13 g5
a
force opposite-coloured
but it’s far from
keeps some pressure,
eg. 17..8&xg5 18 f4 Re7 (the idea 18..Rd8
19 a4 4 20 axb5 &bé+ 21 tht axb5 is
refuted by Vasiukov's 22 2xf5) 19 W3 c4
20 Hfd1 Had8 21 Bd2 LcS+ 22 bf1! (the
point is that 22 &h1 dd 23 Had1 d3 24 Bxd3
Hxd3 25 Hxd3 cxd3 26 4b3 Wxb3 27 axb3
Hd8 wins for Black as the white king cannot
blockade the d-pawn - Vasivkov) 22..Rd7
23 Had1 Rfd8 24 b3 g6 25 b3 b5 26 g3 By,
as in Korsunshy-Chekhov, USSR 1979, when
White has chances for an amtack by
continuing with 27 g2 followed by g3-g4.
17...96 18 We2
This offers nothing A better ty is 18
Dxg5 xg5 19 4 Ke7 20 x5 for 20 Wi3
b4, as in Balashov-Korchnoi, West Germany
1980) 20.axbS 21 Hxa8 HxaB 22 g4, bur
Black held on to equalise in Hibner-
Korchnoi, 1989, with 22..fxgd 23
f5 gxfs 24 Bxfs Hab 25 Thi Shs 26 Wngd
 9 ¢c3 Re7 10 BDbd2: Black avoids the Main Line

Hal+ 27 g2 Wes. about b2

Another improvement on the game is 18 26...44 27 £g1 Wd8B 28 bxcd
hil &h8 19 We2 c4 20 Wf2 Had8 21 axbs Desperately trying to activate his position.
axb5
22 Sue3 Ha8 23 Wd2, when White had ‘The alternative was 10 go passive after 28
made more progress than usual in Milos- £xd4 Wxd4 29 Rdi, but this is met by the
Sorin, Villa Gesell 1996. However, even after annoying 29..We3,
osing time Black still drew without any great 28...Kd2 29 Wea 2b4
difficulty. aring to anack g2 with his queen.
18...c4 30 X1 Wo5 31 M2 Bxi2 32 &xf2 £e3

White was on top after 18..Wc6d 19 33 Wd5+7!

£xg5 Rxg5 20 f4 Re721 g4 ba 22 Hadl in 33 6 would be met by 33.b4 with
ARodriguez-Passeror, Malta Olympiad complications, when the extra exchange may
1980. not yet be a decisive factor.
19 Bet 33...%97 34 €671
the continuation after 19 £xg5 The exchange of queens leaves White in
0xg5 20 f4 Re7 21 axb5 axb5 22 Hxa8 great difficulties; Black can then use his king
a8 23 g4, os in RoddguesSorin, Pan actively whereas the white monarch is out of
American Team Championship 1995, with play.
Hiibner-Korchnoi above. Here Black 34..xd5 35 cxd5 16 36 93 Ha8 37
continued with 23..%h8 and held Le4
comfortably after 24 g5 gxf5 25 bht Hg8 Inscead 37 gd4 loses to 37..Hal+! 38
26 Whs Wgs. g2 Ha2
19...Wb6+ 20 Th1 Deb 37... flfl‘l+ 38 292 Ha2 39 1 fxg3 40
Once Black has esiablished
a knight on hxg3
this excellent blockading square, & is he who Not 40 b4 41 fc5 b3? 42 €7 and now
can start to look for an initiative. who is winning?
21 Rd1 Had8 22 axb axbb 23 Le3 d4 41 Rda+ e7 42 g4 £d6 43 el bd 44
The opposite-coloured bishops are not a &d1 b3 45 g5 2b4 46 KiG+ DB 47
problem for Black. He has a promising £.e5 g2 48 d6 and 0-1
queenside majority and White's bishop has The ending after the continuation
no useful role. 48...Hd2+ (48..b2 49 7+ wins for White) 49
24 cxds 24 25 Zxds Doda 26 63 el b2+ 50 Rxb2 Hxdé 51 2 Hxet
26 @xd4 Wixds leaves White worrying shouldbe won for Black.

83
Open Ruy Lopez

Summary
There is some merit in trying to vary from standard play as early as move ten. White can
probably squeeze out a slight edge in Games 41 and Games 44 and 45, if he remembers the
theory. However, Games 40 and 42 are too easy for White and should be avoided by the
second player.
In conclusion, 10..0-0 is not bad but it is less precise and much less common than 10..4c5.

1 o4 o5 2 i3 Dc6 3 LS a6 4 Kad D6 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxeb Reb

9 ¢3 2e7 10 Dbd2

10...0-0
10..Wd7 (D) - Game 40

11835 (D) ~ Game 41

11..8%d2 - Game 42
11...f5 12 &b3
12 ex{6 - Game 43
12 34 ~ Game 44
12..9d7 (D) - Game 45

84
 CHAPTER SEVEN

9 c3 Le7:
White avoids the Main Line

1 e4 66 2 I3 Hc6 3 215 a6 4 Red HfE

5 0-0 Hixe4d 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 Game 46
£e89 c3 Re7 Karpov-Korchnoi
In this position White generally plays 10 Baguio City (24th matchgame) 1978
b2 (Chapters 5 and €) or occasionally 10
Se3 (Chapter 8). Here we cxamine other 1 e4 65 2 H43 A1c6 3 205 ab 4 RKad Hi6
lines in which these two moves are omitted 5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeS
or significantly delayed. 206 9 c3 Le7 10 Rc2
In Game 46 Kapov employs 10 fc2 Not yet a divergence from Chapter 5 as
c5 11 h3 investing a tempo to stop ...&g4, “White could meet 1085 with 11 &bd2
whereas in Game 47 White allows the pin transposing. Here we deal with ideas where
with 11 Ket. White delays or avoids the standard knight
Gatnes 48 and 49 involve the plan of c2- development.
<3, We2 and Ed1 which sometimes arises via
9 We2. In Chapter 9 the similar plan of We2,
Rd1 and c2-c4 will be examined.
In Game 50 Hisbner tries 10 Xel and 11
‘Dd4and6m51ukaadoselod{a 10
24, a favourite of
“The games and notes here are less well
known than those in some of the other
chapters, and some of these lines are really
quite obscure. I suggest that the reader
concentrate on development plans and
general principles rather than memorising
various series of archaic moves parrot-
fashion. Itwl]lpaymbeawamof 10...5¢5
tcanspositional ideas and pay A reasonable alternative is 10..Rg4 11 h3
attention to comparisons with play in r.he f3 (11805 is well met by 12 £b3) 12
more modemn variations. gxf3 @5 13 f4 Wd7 (13..0-01 14 b4 Dadt15

85
Open Ruy Lopez

el gave White good amacking chances in 13...20xd4 14 cxd4 Db7 15 Dd2

EuweCortever, Amsterdam 1945) 14 Wf3 Keene prefers 15 @3 ¢5 16 dxc5 Dxcs
Hd8 15 Rd1 (jPolgar prefers White after a 17 Q¢3, intending 18 4.
different move order: 15 Re3 00 16 2d1) 15...c5
15..05 16 Le3 We6 17 Dd2 00 18 Db3 Black does best to open the centre even at
JPolgarHitbner, Munich 1991, when Black the risk of being stuck with an isolated pawn.
should continue 18...%e4 19 ‘Wgz 7 20 3 It's the only way of getting his pieces active.
£)f6 with undlear play (f-Polgar) 16 dxcS Dxe§ 17 DI 16
Also pl lnsmo-ou‘ifl!ezfacsu
mnwa 13 Dd2f6 14 exd (Krasenkov
profers 14 b4, when White had an edge after
14..Da4 15 1263 Sixd4 16 Dxdd 5 17 exfo
Bxf6 18 xes Wxeo 19 Wd3 Hg6 20 £44 in
Short-Unzicker, West Gemmany 1987)
14...2xf6 15 ixe6 Dixe 16 Wd3 g6 17 Ded
Sg7 18 D5 De5 19 W3 Duxgs! but not
19..Hae8? 20 Dxh7! Exh7 21 f4 with a
vicious attack in Kouranen-Sorensen,
correspondence 1978) 20 &xg5 when White
has a small edge due to the bishop pair.
11 h3
11 Hel is considcred (by transposition)in
the next main shouldn’t grab the pawn
The oontmumon 11 ££4 Rg4 12h3 Kh5 (due to 18 Rxf5 Wxfs 19 Wxd5 Rfd8 20
13 &bd2 can be compared to Chapter 5, W6 Hacs 21 Wh6 Dd3 with excellent play)
except that White's bishop is on g3 or hd. but Filip instead suggests 19 &d4 Wd7 20
Then Perenyi-Karsz, Zalakaros 1988, led to W3 with an edge for White.
interesting play: 13..836 14 £g3 £c5 15 18...Hac8 19 Hcl &xc2 20 Hxc2 De6
Wbt Rg6 16 Db3 £b6 17 Hd1 00 18 She 21 Rd2
Wd7 19 215 Efes. 21 Mee2 is suggested by Tal who then
11 &4 is suggested by various authors, prefers White; unbike in the game Black
without much analysis. In fact, the idea of cannot take control of the c-file.
quickly pushing £2-f4 (whether or not the 21...K4d8 22 Wb3 Hc4 23 Hed1 Wb7
pawn is taken) is faily dangerous in a Black has good active piece play and the
number of other variations of the Open, so d-pawn is hard to pressurise.
why not here? 11.8e$ 12 f4 (Krasenkov 24 a3 g8
suggests 12 Wh5 and only then f2-f4) 24..hé with the idea of ..Rg5 was also
12..Rg4 13 Wel 4 is unclear; Black has 2 possible,
loose-looking position but an extra pawn. 25 Wa2 a5 26 b3 Hc3 27 a4 bxad
11...0-0 12 Ha1 27.b4 may hbave been a bemer
Instead 12 We2 d4 13 cxdd Oixdd 14 continuation, e.g 28 £d4> Bxf3! 29 gxf3
Gwed4 Wxd4 15 Bdl Wet 16 Wxcd Dxcd £g5 30 Re3 d4 and the white queen is too
was equal in Palosh-Lukacs, Tuzla 1981, far avway to save his king,
12..%d7 13 Dda. 28 bxasd Hcé 29 Xd3 g7 30 Wd2 RKxad
Now White is again ready for the f-pawn It was better to keep the tension with
push, but without sacrificing the e-pawn. 30...8b4. The text over-simplifies and a draw

86
 9 ¢3 £e7. White avoids the Main Line

becormes likely. open) and White prepares a2-a4. The pawn

31 £h6+ g8 32 Hxd5 Xxdb 33 ¥xdS on b5 can no longer advance and may
WxdS 34 MxdS £18 35 Rxf8 &xi8 36 g3 become a static target.
a7 37 Hb5S Dc7 38Hc5 DeB 39 Kb5 The dowuside is that the structure c3 and
Hd8 40 wg2 h8 41 @d2 Hat 42 Hcd b4 may become weak if White loses the
D6 43 Heb $d7 44 D6+ dc? 45 D8
*xc8 %-% 13...%066 14 a4 Eb8 15 axb5 axh6 16
Don't forget that in such positions the Dbd2
isolated d-pawn is also a passed pawn. It’s a moot point whether 16 Ha6 helps
White or simply invites Blacl§ to make a
Game 47 useful developing move, e.g 16.Wd7 17
Beliavsky-Dorfman a3 {or 17 Dbd2 00 18 O Ha8 19 Hxal
USSR Ch., Thilisi 1978 Kxa8 20 £d3 lbs 21 g3 Rg6 22 D5 d4!
[normal with this setup] 23
1 84 5 2 23 Hic6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lag Di6 Buxe7+ Wixe? 24 L xp6 hxgh 25 cxdd B8 26
6 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeb d5 Wd7, when Black had equalised in Short-
266 9 c3 267 10 £.c2 Hic5 11 Hol 294 Yusupov, Reylgavik 19%0) 17..00 (after
The actual move order was 9..8¢c5 10 17..83cd8 White was able to re-deploy kis
22 fgd 11 Bel &e7. minor picces favourably with 18 &5 00 19
12h3 2 L6 20 £fd4 Hes in Kupreichik-Haba,
Here the natural 12 Dbd2 leads back 10 Prague 1990, when White can keep up the
5. pressure with 21 g4) 18 Sixb5 Dxb4! (not of
After 12 Re3 QDe6 13 £b3 Qixe5 14 course 18..Exh5? 19 Wd3 and Black loses
Wrds? Wxds 15 Rxds £xf3 16 23 material) with equal chances according to
3xf3+ 17 gxf3 £5! Black had a clear endgame Haba.
edge in Tseshkovsky-Tal, USSR Champion- 16...80g5 17 Hab Wd? 18 We2 0-0
ship, Thilisi 1978.
12...2h5 13 b4

Theory gives this position a5 equal, but the

figh( that follows contains a number of
A novelty ar the time. However, the idea interesting ideas and is worth following more
of hitting the knight with this push is known closely.
from a number of Open variasions; Black is 19 £d3 Dd8 20 We3 Dde6 21 Hda
forced 1o immediatelymake a decision (he xd4 22 cxdd
might otherwise like to keep his options White has unpinned and is ready 10 push

87
Open Ruy Lopez

with f2-f4-f5 and g2-g4. Black has to claim

some space on the kingside as a fist priority.
22...4561 23 a6
23 exf6? Lxf6 opens the posiion for
Black
who threatens ... Rae8 etc.
23...Wc8 24 o6 Hed 25 13 £g5
The complications thar follow seem to
favour Black as White's ‘centralised’ pieces
are getting in each other's way.
26 W2 4hd 27 DN q
Beliavsky offers the exchange to liberate
his position, but Dorfman prefers wo keep
the initiative by exchanging White’s annoying
rook on 6 which at present protects the e- Dorfman suggests instead 42.. Wi7! when
pavwm. White has to go into a dubious ending with
27...5b61? 43 Wifs Wxf5 44 gxf5 Mxf5 45 Re5 b5 46
A messy alternative is 27...2xe1 28 Wxcl g3 HpS 47 2 b4 which he judges as
@d& 29 WeS or 29 £.f41? winning for Black_
Equally murky would be 27..4f2+ 28 The opening here looks satisfactory for
Wxf2! Gk 29 sbxf2, incending &4, when Black, so White does best to include tie
Black has a material advamtage but his flexible &bd2 in his plans, see Chapters 5
remaining pieces aren't working together. and 6. .
28 Bxb6 exb6 29 e7 L.xa7
Black seems to be on top after 29, 2e8. Game 48
30 gat Short-Timman
Creating havocl E! Escorial (6th matchgame) 1993
30...296 31 fxed fxed 32 Lxb5 £hd
White decides to again give up the rook 1 84 o5 2 N3 HNcé 3 Ab5 a6 4 Lad DS
on et as Black threatens
to come into f2. § 0-0 Hixe4 6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 d6 8 dxeb
33 203 fxe1 34 Wxatl h5 35 Wct Wds! £669c3
The right decision as White’s kingside is The actual move order of the game was 9
looking shaky and Black can cause more We2 £e7 10 2d10011 3.
problems with queens on. 9...2e7 10 We2
36 295 Wd6 37 Wce Wxba 38 Wxd5+
K17 39 Web 204 40 Lxch+ Wxcd 41
Lfa?
A mistake
on the 41st move! Dorfman
considers 41 @3 to be equal, when
presumably
Black has to take the perpetual.
41...hxg4 42 hxga
see following diagram

42..We2? %-%
‘With the time-trouble over, now it’s White
who will take a perpetual, but with his last
move Black misses his chance!

88
 9 c3 Ke7: White avoids the Main Line

10...0-0
With this move order I quite like 10..Zc5!
as I don’t believe that White can ob;in
anything after 11 Rc2 d4! 12 Bd1 (12 Rt
Lwed 13 Wixed WdS is fine for Black)
12..8c4 13 Wel d3 14 a3 (14 b3 Wes
wins immediately for Black, as in Peters-Van
Kempen, correspondence 1985) 14..%c8 15
£b1 &dS! (an improvement on Szabo-
Euwe, Amsterdam 1939, which continued
15..9f5 16 Dd4 Bxdd 17 cxd4 Des 18
&ixcd bxed 19 W3 and Black was in trouble
as 19..Wgd is met by 20 Bxd3) 16 &xd3
2xf3 17 gxf3 Bxd3 18 Kxd3 W5, when
Black has the better ending after 19 We4 (o
19 He3¥ Rc5 with an advantage - Euwe)
19..Wxed 20 fxed Kxa3 21 bxad Bxe5 22
Hd5 @cd 23 L4 c6 24 Hc5 Reg according
1o Korchnoi.
11 Bd1
Both 11 2 and 11 £bd2 are reasonable
alternatives here,
11..0c5
11.Wd7 is considered in the next main
game, while the immediae 11.£57
interesting, when 12 exf6 £xf6 13 Re3 is
given as undlear by Kurgjica Note thar 13
Wxe4? dxet 14 Rxe6+ Fh8 15 Hxd8 Haxds
16 &fd2 leaves White too tangled up after
16..2g5 and 13 W3 is no good becauseof
13..8¢5.
12 fc2 fga7
Although this ‘double-pin’ seems narural it
was previously untried at Grandmaster level.
The ahernative plan 12..8d7 followed by
..8d8 and then ...&g# or ..&F5 is possible,
but generally this is employed without
mnedmecasthngasanbcsea:mv_henm
main game.
13 b4t
The later try 13 fe3 He8 14 b3 Re6l 15
&bd2 237 16 £.4 £6 proved satisfactory for
Black in Peptan-Zso.Polgar, Moscow 1994.
13..2004
The dS-pawn is insufficiendy defended
after 13..4De6? 14 £b3.
14 %54
The d5-pawn is exposed but immediate
artempts 2t refutation don’t work, as analysed
by Speelman:
) 14 of? is cleardy bad after 14..8%b4 15
Rxa4 bxad 16 a3 6 17 cxdS DixeS! 18
Wixes £xf3 19 gd3 &6,
b) 14 W32 doesn’t in fact win a pawn
due to 14..g6 15 Wixd5 Wxd5 16 Zxds £xf3
17 gxf3 @b 18 Hd1 Hixes.
) 14 Rb3 can be safely met by 14..8%b6.
is d) 14 fxat ‘weakens’ Black’s structure,
but the e5-pawn and the €3-b4 chain are aso
fairly weak and a source of counterplay
for
the second player.
14..Wd?
With the text move Black prepares to
offer the d-pawn and in compensarion he
obtains rapid mobilisation, a theme common
in the Open. Instead, 14...23b6 would be met
by 15 a4 and the rook comes inwo play.
16 Wd3
15 4l is critical, when 15..8)xb4 16 2xad
bxat 17 a3 makes more sense now as the e5-
pawn is better protected. Speelman then
continues with 17..Wf5! 18 £g3 D2 19
a2 £xf3 20 Wxf3 (20 gxf31? 514 21 Hxdd
Wxb1+ 22 Hd1 Wb3 23 =xd5 Lxa3 looks
somewhat better for White) 20..4dé 21
Wefs Dxfs 22 xd5 without giving a
conclusion. After the further 22..8ab8 23
£4 g5 24 d2 b3 I shink Black is doing
olay; he is more active despite an ugly pawn

89
Open Ruy Lopez
structure.
16...96 16 Wxd5 WxdS 17 Exd5 Db6
18 Rd1?
Short should have played 18 Hd2!
according to Speclman, who continues
18..&8c4!? (18..Had8 19 Letl and the knight
has no good squares) 19 He2 Sxf3 20 gxf3
a5 (20...Hadsl? 21 £he Hfe 22 f4 Ud5 23
bg2 d8 is also a bit fishy for Black — Flear)
21 Se4 a6 22 24! {otherwise Black has
good positional compensation} 22..axb4 23
Sxc6 Mxch 24 axb5 BeS {or 24..2b6 25 Hed
£33 and now 26 cxbd) 25 cxbé Bxb5 26
@c3! Bb7 and White has liberared his
position and maintained an extra pawn (after
26...2xb4? then 27 &d3).
18...Had8 19 Ee1
Now that 19 fe4 isn’t playable (unlike in
the previous note, herethe rook on d1 would
be en prise) White must cede ground on the
d-file and ...£dd5 becomes a useful option,
Black has excellent compensation and it is
“White who has the problems. One small
imprecision and the game has tumed.
19...0d5 20 £h6
After 20 23 xf3 21 gxf3 Rg5 Black
starts to control too many important squares.
20...Xfe8 21 a4
Speelman considers 21 Dbd2 @xc3 22 23
{with an edge to Black) to be a lesser
evil.
21..8xf3 22 gxf3 218 23 KxiB
24 o6!
Otherwise Black just picks up the e-pawn,
k1
keeping the better structure
development. This makes a fight of it.
24..167
Simpler was 24..Hxe6 25 Hxe6 fxe6 26
axb5 axb 27 Ret (27 Hat? Ddxbdl)
27..4De5 with an advantage according to
Speelman, with which one has to agree. One
possible contimuation is 28 Kxd5 Exd5 29
g2 Hd1 30 Hab+ de7 31 Da3 D3 32
axbs D4+ 33 W3 g5 with a crushing
atack Understandably Timman wanted to
keep his sucture imact but now his
opponent wriggles out.
25 axbb axb5 26 &1 Deb 27 Ked D
Perhaps 27..f5 28 Sxd5 RxdS 29 &g2
Dd3 30 He3 Hxe6 31 Kxeb D4+ 32 Sgd
G1xe6 was a simpler way 1o keep an edge.
28 Ha3 c6 29 De2
29...8x06
Perhaps Timman intended 29...£5 but only
now saw 30 Dd4! fret 31 Hxet Dedd
(31.Dfd3 32 4) 32 e7+ Hxe7 33 Bxe7
Rxdd (33..8xe7 34 Hxce+ Bed 35 Dixds
sbxd8 36 IMa5) 34 Maa7 with sufficient
counterplay (Speelman).
30 Ha6 Ed6 31 Dd4!
White is over the worse and has good
drawing chances.
31..4xd4 32 cxd4 Kxd4 33 £xc6 Dxc
34 Hxe8+ dxe8 35 Hxc6 $a7? 36 Mc7+
Lxf8 &e6 37 Hxh7 Hxb4 38 Bb7 g5 39 Bb6+
&e5 40 14+ gxfd 41 g2 Zb3 42 h3
©f5 43 Hc6 wgb 44 Scb+ 15 45 Hdb
 9 ¢3 Le7: White avaids the Main Line

Bb2 46 13 Hb3+ 47 92 b4 48 b6 22 Hxel d3 23 &b1 De5 (23..h6!? - Flear)

g6 49 Bb6+ ¥h5 50 Eb8 oha 51 Eh8+ 24 4 War+ 25 Sh1 Sg# 26 b3, which is
g5 52 hd+ &g 53 HgB+ 27 %-% given by Apicella as unclear.
21 bxc3 Deb 22 Lha4 Hca 23 Wdd L5
Game 49 24 $xf5 WxfS 25 &g3 Ha2 26 h3?
Apicella-Flear 26 adl was suggested by Apicella as the
Cappelle la Grande 1994 way to keep the balance. The move order in
the game has a big hole in it
1.4 05 2 D3 A6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad DI6 26...h5! 27 a4?
§ 0-0 Qxe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeb 27 b4 was the only move,
206 9 c3 207 10 We2 0-0 11 Bd1 Wd? 27...h4 28 axb5
12 K03 {5 13 exf8
Ahernatively, 13 $bd2 Da5 (or 13.. L6717
- Korchnoi) 14 &d4 c5 15 &xe6 Wxeo 16
f4, as in Kurgjica-Diesen, Osijek 1978, was a
lirde better for White, but Black is equal after
14..2fd8 according to Filip.
13...8x18
Apicella criticised this move, preferring
13..Bxf6 with only a slight edge, but he had
misjudged the position, as we shall see in the
next note,
14 2e22t
Apicella judges the position afcer 14 Wd3
as giving White a clear advantage, but Black 28...axb6??
is actuallydoing fine after 14...Had8 15 Wixed My hand automatically recaptured on b5,
{15 a4 &a5 looks okay to me) 15..dxed 16 after which the tssle is no longer clear.
Rxd7 %xb3 17 Bxd$ Bxd8 and after either Insicad 28..He4 simply wins a piecel
knight goes to d2 Black plays 18..&d5 with 29 Za7 Wg6 30 WdS+ Th7 31 Hdai?
at least Suddenly it’s the black king which is in
14 @bd2 has been plyed a couple of danger. Nacurally, 31 &xhé was possible but
times, eg, 14 axdz (14 adsv is_more the fight is now all about the initiative,
31..Het+
Lugano 1%8) 15 Wxdz 27 16 n.c_s 6 was After 31.. Wb 1+ 32 %h2 hxgd+ I couldn’t
a little passive but Black held on in A Ivanov- find anything convincing against 33 Rxg3.
Wedberg, New York 1992, 32 Sh2 hxg3+ 33 fxg3 W5 34 Mha+
14...97 15 Dbd2 Dd6! g6 35 WbT!
The exchange of knights Iooked only 35 Hga+? fails to 35..Wxgt 36 hxgs
about equal to me, so I decided to play for Rh8+.
more. 36...298 36 Bga+ Lh6
16 £g5 £x95 17 Lxgh d41? Unforwunztely 36..Wxg4 is refuted by 37
17...ae8 also seems good but I couldn’t Wi7+ g5 38 Wxgs.
resist the text. 37 Znd+ ¥g6 38 Bga+ 16 39 Hxg7
18 De4 Hae8 19 Dxd6 exdb 20 Wdz Rh8?
dxc3 39..0e3! would have drawn after 40
Also possible is 20...82c4 21 Hel Hxel+ Bh7+ g6 41 Bg7+ w6 erc,
87
Open Ruy Lopez

a0 27 Wge 41 W3t 13 fxe4 (13 L4 is nothing special: 13..23c4!

Now that the time control had been 14 S.xd6 Dexdé 15 Hxed fxe6 16 Dxet Wi
reached, I realised that there was no defence. 17 D8 Bxf8 18 Wxds+ ®h8 19 Dd2
41..De3 §ixb? with equality according to Korchnoi)
"Too late. 13..Rg4 (13..9h48) 14 Wd2 (or 14 W2 5
42 Wta+ Wob 43 Wxd6+ 1-0 15 £xd5 cxd4 16 Lxa8 Whe 17 Bf1 &3 18
An error-strewn game but a great fight. W2 Wxf2+ 19 Hxf2 Hxa, as in Teichmann-
This typifies my barles against Apicells; T John, Wroclaw march 1913, with a complex
almost always get a good opening but when posttion which is judged abous equal by
he wakes up, he turns the game and Pve various commentators) 14..Wh 15 g3 (or 15
never beaten him (and I've lost quite a few!). b3 ¢5 16 W2 Wh5 17 He3 dxed 18 hxgt
Dxgs 19 Bh3 Wxh3 20 Wxf7+ Hxd7 21
Game 50 Dxf7+ Rxf7 22 gah3 cxdd 23 hxgt L5
Hiibner-Piket with another unclear posiion from the
Dortmund 1992 TeichmannJohn, Wrocaw mach 1913)
15..Wh5 16 Wg5 Wh3 17 Wha (oot 17 Dd2
1 84 05 2 53 £c6 3 £b5 a6 4 Rad 56 £d3 18 Bf fxg3 19 hxg3 Wixg3+ 20 Sht
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxe5 6 21 ¥xd5 Rh3 and Black wins - Pliester)
£e6 9 ¢3 £e7 10 Ze1 0-0 17..Wxha 18 gxhd ¢5 19 Df5 £xf5 20 eds
Objectively best is 10..8c5! 11 £.c2 Rgt D3+ 21 #f2 Drel 22 Fxel 4 23 LY
with a fully playsble game, s we saw in Lxh2 with an unclear position (Phester).
Game 47. 12 cxd4 hé
11 Hda Or 12..4b4 13 He2 Whd 14 23 $a5 15
fc2 b6 16 f3 Bg5 17 Re3 f6 18 Wd2
Hae8 19 ext6 gxf6 20 c3, when White had
the better pawn structure in Engels-
Bogoljubov, Stutgart 1939,
13 13 g5 14 D3
14 Ke3 Lf5 15 DS c6 16 Acl Lh7,
intending .46, is given by Hibner as
unclear.
14...05 15 14 cxd4 16 De2!
Berter than 16 Wxd4 Kc8 17 Wd1 d4! and
Black fights back.
16...d3
The line 16..2e4 17 1xd4 .05 18 Le3
11...8xd4 just gives White what he wants: a strong
Certainly not 11..Wd7??, when 12 ixet square on d4, action n the centre and
wins, as in Tarrasch-Zukertort, Frankfurt ‘nothing much for Black to arack.
1887. 17 Wxd3 2c5+ 18 Dd4 215! 19 Wxfs
However there is a wild altemative in De6 20 Le3 Dxdd 21 Wd3
11..£%e5, taking the bulk by the homns! The Hiibner later criticised this natural move,
vasiation that follows is great for those thar preferring 21 £xd4 fxdd+ 22 bh1 Sxb2
like to indulge in speculative complications, 23 Hadl d4 24 Hd3 when the opposite
the text move
is for the more sober! bishops give White promising attacking
After 11..&xe5P play follows 12 {3 £d6 chances as Black’s bishop is not helping with
92
 9 ¢c3 Re7: White avoids the Main Line

the defence. All this despite being a pawn
down (the d-pawn is going nowhere as White
‘has total light-square domination).
21..0%b3 22 axb3 d4 23 L2 Wds
h3 Xfe8 25 kh2
A waste of time accordingto Hiibner.
25...a5 26 Hecl £b6 27 Hc2 Hec8 28
Hact Ixc2 29 Hxc2 a4 30 bxas bxad 31
fel Wh3
‘The endingis
32 Wxb3 axb3 33 N6 La5 34 Lxab
ixa5 36 Eb6 d2 36 Bd6
I 36 Hxb3 then 36..Kd5.
36..Ha2 37 Bxd3 Exb2 38 g3 g5 39
[ Aez 40 Xxb3 %-%
‘Thisis another example of ...c7-c5 leaving
Black with a double-edged pawn structure,
Game 51
Alekhine-Euwe
Netherlands (13th matchgame) 1935
1 o4 e5 2 Hf3 DcB 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad 56
5 0-0 fxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 dS 8 dxeb
£e6 9¢3 2e7 10 a4
A favourite of Alekhine, this sensible
move often crops up as a sideline.
10...bat
Both 10,2252 11 axb5 axb5 12 c2 00
13 &4, as in Ahues-Montacelli, San Remo
1930, and 10..Hb8 11 axb5 axb5 12 Dd4
£3xe5 13 £3 5 14 £c2 £d7 15 b4, as in
Alekhine-Rohachek, Munich 1941, were both
much better for White.
Black must keep the a-file dosed at this
early stage in the game {in Chapter 11, 9 a4 is
also best met by 9..b4).
11 &d4
Afer 11 £¢3 00 12 cb4 Murey
Demarre, Paris 1990, Black does best to play
12.. &4 freeing the c-pawn for its advance,
11..Dxes51
Courageous but 11..24xd4 12 cxd4 5! is
worthy of further investigation, eg. 13 f3 o4
(a0t 13..8g5 14 Rxg5 Rxgb 15 4 of 16
Frg5 cxb3 17 Wixb3 with berter chances for
White according 1o Korchnod) 14 Sxct (14
2 st 15 Dd2 b7 16 £4 Who 17 D3
g6, as in Klavins-Ostrauskas, USSR 1957,
24 looks like a good Freach for Bladk) 14 .43
15 fxd5 WxdS 16 hxgd Bd8 17 Re3 K5,
swhich Korchnoi regards as equal
12 4 Dod?!
More active is 12.Rgd, when after 13
We2 c5 14 fxe5 cxd4 15 cxd4 0-0 16 D2
fe2 17 Hel Hc8 18 Wb1 b5 Black meets
19 Qx4 with 19..%.g6.
In this position relatively
best is 20 Wd3
dred 21 Wdl Rh4 22 Bft Rg5 with equal
play in Evans-Hanauer, New York 1949.
Other wies scem lacking: 20 £.02 dxed 21
S£e3 kb4 22 g3 Qg5 23 Kxg5 Wxgs 24
fxet Wd2 and Black was more aaiive in
Poletaev-Zbandutio, correspondence 1956,
and 20 Hif6+ Sxf6 21 Wa2 Rh4 22 g3
fe4 when Black is bemer (Kom) as the

83
Open Ruy Lopez

queen on a2 is decidedly
out of play! 33 &xe3 3 etc) 31..Wb4 and the win is
1315 clear.
Natural bur later analysts discovered 13
We2l Ha5 14 Lc2 00 15 B2 with
advantage to White, e.g. 15..8c5 (15..8xd2
16 Dixeb fxeb 17 Wxeb+ $h8 18 £xd2 and
15..48M6 16 Bxe6 fret 17 Wxeo+ Hb8 18
3 are not much better) 16 Dixe4 dxed 17
Wxed Sxddt 18 cxd4 g6 19 £5 Rd5 20 Wt
with a decisive attack in Gibl-Sleihard,
correspondence 1954-36.
13...2¢8 14 Wot
With the threar of taking on o4 (followed
by e4) or recovering the pawn on b4,
14...£b7 15 cxb4 c5!
The standard counter. Now the pinon the 31 Wxe3 We6 32 Ug3 He8 33 Wg5 WeS
a7-gl d.\agonal will be t00 swong, hence 34 Wxe5 Hxeb 35 Xg4 Ze3?
‘White's reaction. Consolidation starting with 35..Hc5 was
16 1617 &xf6 17 DF5 0-0 18 bxcb Zes called for. With an extra pawn Black should
19 Wba WoB 1y 1o win slowly but surdy. The text is mét
The black pieces are well placed, whereas by masterful dcfensivc work, up to a point!
White has not completed his development 38 g1
md:smdangcrnfsmplybungapawn Also possible was 36 Bxcs Bxd+ 37 gt
Hg3 38 Ded! Hgb 39 Be7 5 (39..Hb6? 40
20fi.xM a5 21 Wa3 dxe4 22 fic3 Hixcs £c5) 40 Bxb7 fxed 41 Be7 with a likely
Marovic recommends 22...8xc3 23 bxe3 deaw,
Re2 24 Ha2 fxg2, but then 25 Bxe2 Lxit 36...2d3 37 Axcd Bd2 38 b4 Bxg2+ 39
26 d6 Wb looks rather messy. Instead a @ft Tb2 40 Hd4! g6 41 bxab Hc2 42
simple way to an advantage is 24..Exa2 25 &bs g7 43 et HcH544 Hd6 L£c6 45
Wxa2 WxeS+. a6 2xb5 48 a7 £.c8 47 Hxc6 Ha5 48
23 $e3 Wc 24 X3 Hd3 He7 Hxa4 49 $d2 g5 50 ®c3 h5 51
24,.Be5! 25 4 Wes seems to win. b3 Mat 62 Yed g4 53 hxgd hxgd 54
25 Raf1 Hxe3! &d4 Lg6 55 Le5?
A temporary exchange sacrifice which Giving an vanecessary chance; 55 &e3!
reduces White’s defensive capabiliries. Now ‘was correct.
the a8-h1 diagonal is a major problem. 55...16+
26 Dxe3 2.d4 27 We7 Instead 55..8ad!, cunting the king and
If 27 &edt then 27...Ke8
wins quickly. threatening ...{7-£5, looks winning to me, for
27..2e5 28 dh1 Oxf3 29 Bxf3 BfS 30 instance 56 Hc4 f6+1 57 Re6 Hab+ 58 Ed5
h3 Rxa7 59 g+ bf5 60 Hgt Hd7+.
see following diagram 56 4 Bad+ 57 %u3 5 58 *ha16 59
b7 %-%
After 30 M5 then 30..Wxf3! An important historic game which Euwe
30...2xe3? should have won. The opening chosen by
30..Wbél leaves White with no defence: Alekhine should’t be dangerous for the well
31 it (or 31 DedS Wxb2 32 BF Lxed prepared player.
94
 9 c3 £e7: White avords the Main Line

Summary
In this chapterwe have seen a selection of older ideas and tricky move orders.
Against 10 £.c2, 10 We2 and 10 Hel the simplest reply is the universal 10...8%c5 with play as
in Chapter 5.
As with most lines involving
an early a2-a4 by White, Black does best to react 10 10 a4 with
10..b4.

1 04 e5 2 I3 Dic6 3 265 a6 4 Lad HI6 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxe5 2e6

963 fe7

10 We2
10 Bet - Game 50
1034b4 (D) - Game 51
10 £e2 &5
11 k3 - Game 46
11 Bel Sg4 12 h3 45 13b4 (D) ~ Game 47
10...0-0 11 Rd1 Hecs
11..Wd7 - Game 49
12 862 (D) ~ Game 48

96
 CHAPTER EIGHT
9 c3 £e7 10 £e3
1 e4 e5 2 HI3 Hc6 3 LbS a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 ©ixe4 6 d4 bS 7 2b3 d5 B dxe
£e69c3 2e7 10 263
With this move White develops his
queen’s bishop to control the key d4- and c5-
squares. The move Le3 is also popular one
move earlier, when Black may then react with
9..8c5 or 9.40c5, whereas after 9..267
White may delay or dispense with thé move
c2-¢3. All these ideas are developed in
11
Bladk’s two main plans exploit the fact
that with the bishop on 3 White has less
control of e4 and ¢5. The first three games in
this chapter deal with 10..%¢c5, when besides
the standard 11..Rg4 (Game 52), the plan
. Dc5-d7xe5 is feasible, as in Games 53 and
54.
In Games 56 and 57 Black builds up in
the centre with 10.Wd7 11 Dbd2 Hdg
(1&g is less effective, a5 we see in
Game 55), allowing White 1o capture on ¢4
when the resulting endings are acceptable for
Black, although White may retain a very
stight pull.
Finally, in Games 58 and 59 White
chooses to contimue development with 12
Hel 00 13 Rc2, forcing Black vo finally
make a decision about the knight on ed.
These games are critical as Black’s best at
986
move 13 is not yet clear.
Game 52
Dolmatov-Yusupov v
Wijk aan Zee (11th matchgame) 1991
104 65 2 D3 He6 3 LbS a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 2h3 d5 8 dxeS
206 9 c3 2e7 10 23 Db
10..Wd7 is the subject of Games 55-59,
while after 10..0-0 transposition to Games
57-59 is likely with 11 &bd2 Wd7 and then
11 2062
The natural 11 @bd22!
is an error due to
11..42d3), hitting both b2 and e,
11 83442 is no good either: 11..8Mxe5 12
&ixet fxeb 13 Rd4 D7 14 Lxg7 He8 15
$.d4 Dxb3 16 axb3€5 17 Le3 ¢5 with a big
ceatre and a clear advantage for Black in
Laykan-Flear, Hastings Challengers 1988/89.
11..204
Black prepares the retreat ..Heé to the
blockading square. This same plan is covered
in Chapter 5, the difference being that there
White delays the development of his queen’s
bishap. Here, ance .e3 has been played, the
plan is much less popular for Black See
Games 53 and 54 for the adlternative,
11.45d7.
 9 c3 Rke7 10 Re3

12 Sbd2 De6 13 Wb1! compensation for the sacrificed piece with

This neat move, unpinning and eyeing h7, his good centre and chances of launching an
wasn't available in Chapter 5 (with the artack against White’s fragile kingside.
bishop still on c1). Black now has to spend 16...0-0 17 51 a5 18 23 c5 19 ha
time bringing his bishop back to g6 in order o4 20 Lc1 Afe8 21 b3 &b6 22 hS
1o castle. Finally forcing Black to yield the f5-square
13...2h5 but he has had time to complete his
development.
22...9xf5 23 Hxf5 £.68
Black has played as solidly as possible. He
il 12y 10 make somethingof his queenside
majority whilst staving off aacking ideas by
White.

14 2157
‘With Black losing time to get his king 10
safety, White can obuin the better game by
immediately
playing on the queenside:
3} Moreto the pointis 14 a4l b4 15 a5
D66 16 ¢4 00 17 Hd1 dxot 18 Lxgh hgs
19 Wed Da7 20 Sixcd Wes 21 Rxa7 Hxa7 24 203 Wb 25 Dh2 a5 26 Hgs Dd7 27
22 844, 25 in JansaKelecevic, Sarajevo Ed2 b4 28 Zadt Nc7 29 14 bxe3 30
1981, when White is somewhat better Wxo3 We6 31 Wg3 ¥h8
organised. Clearly not 31...Wxf5?? which loses on the
b) Another good plan is 14 b4 £g6 15 spot to 32 Bhé+.
b3 00 16 34 W7 17 b5 axb5 18 Lxgh 32 Dife3 d4 33 Hed HdS
hxge 19 Wd3 (Soics), which also gives “White has run out of steam. Black covers
White slightly annoying pressure against d5 all his sensitive points and is ready for ...a5-a4
and b5, and .. 3.
14...2¢6 15 Ed1 Wd7 16 Wo2 34 he?
16 g4 is aggressive but risky, e.g. 16..0-0 Desperate stuff. Black now uses the g-file
17 &4 (17 ha hS! 18 Rxgé frgh 19 Wixgs and the doubled h-pawns to positive effect,
D4 20 Lxf4 Rxf4 provokes complications so White should have avoided this self-
in which White’s king is the more exposed to destructive
anzck)l?%lsflglélfi}m as in 34...9%h8 35 et a6
h 1985, A useful defensive move but 35.h5
Here White’s attack looks dangexous bur would have won further material.
Kindermann no longer believes in it, giving 36 W3 h5!
19,84 20 Rct 6 21 hS &xfS 22 gxfS ‘Winning the exchange and the game.
fxe5 23 fxe6 Wxe6 when Black has good 37 ©h2 &xf4 38 Wxf4 2h6 39 Wha

97
Open Ruy Lopez
£xd2 40 Bxd2 W5 41 14 D8 42 BN
Eg6 43 Dod Wes 44 Uf2 d345 Wxhs
De6 46 Wi3 Wxi3 47 Exi3 Ddd 48
Exd3 De2+ 49 &1 Dxf4 50 Jr3 Oxg2
§1 Uxf7 Dg8 527 HiB+ 53 Po2 D+
54 del Hgi+ 55 D1 Dd6 56 Rxch
Hgxf1+ 57 ®e2 X812+ 58 ¥d3 Hba+ 0-1
A model illustration of defence combined
with gradual progress on the queen’s flank.
Game 53
A _Sokolov-Flear
Clichy 1993
1 e4 5 2 M3 Do 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad DS
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeS5
206 9 c3 2e7 10 203 HcS 11 Le2
Hd7
In my opinion, this is more logical than
11...8g# as Black hits the e5-pawn which is
less easy to defend now thar the bishop
blocks the e-file.
12 et
Abematively:
2) White cannot hold onto the pawn by 12
££42 a5 12..g5! is good for Black: 13 Re3
(13 83 h5! invites Black to start a i £xc5 23 Hxed &xd4 24 Hxc8 Haxc8 and
attack) 13..8dxe5 14 DixeS Sxe5 15 2.4 6
16 Dd2 £.d6 17 Hel 0-0 and White had no
real compensation in ASokolov-Kaidanov,
Vilnius 1984.
b) 12 £.d4 is worth a try, when the game
Sulskis-Komneev, Linares 2000, continued in
98
bizarre fashion: 12..g5 13 Mel g4 14 @fd2
2b8 15 b4 a5 16 a3 2ch 17 b3 a4 18 Acl
Dxdd 19 exdd Dbé with an unusual
position.
<) 12 Dd4? leads to a long forcing
variation which seerns fine for Black:
1) 12..8dxe5 13 £4 Dct 14 Dxch Hxed
15 Dxd Suedl 16 Dxe6 De3 17 Hxc7+
®d7 18 Dxa8 Pxc2 19 Dbé+ (19 Dd2
£.05+ 20 kh1 &xal 21 Hxal Dxa8 22 Hel
dé 23 g3 He8 was agreed drawn at chis
point in Ta-Timman, Montpellier 1985)
19..bc6 20 EwdS L.c5+ 21 Shl Pxd5 22
A2 (after 22 o4+ Black’s best is 22..ecl)
22..8xal 23 Exalle8 24 Hd1 Be2 with a
strong initistive tha is worth a pawn in
Denis Flear, Le Toucquet 1988,
g with the other kmight
12. ams looks dangerous but is not by any
means fully worked ous, e.g 13 f4 &4 14
22 508 (s this really Black’s best?) 15 Hel
Wde 16 f5 Rd7 17 We2 $d8 18 b3 a5 19
R¢3 with atacking chances for the pawn in
Tmanaliev-Sagalchik, Frunze 1989.
12..Ddxes
If Black chickens out with 12..00 then
White should probablybe better, e.g. 13 24
b6 14 )4 (I prefer 14 bd2 followed by
15 Wbl, as Black will have to make a
concession on the kingside and there is not
the same counterplay as in the game; White is
then fully deployed and has slightly better
chances) 14..8xd4 15 cxd4 c5 16 Dd2 D4
17 2b3P (fshing in troubled waters)
17..4xb2 18 Wh1 o4 19 Kxh7+ k8 20
Me3 W8 (20..cxb3 is possible here but the
attack is rather dangerous after 21 £f5) 21
22 c3 {afier 21..cxb3 22 axb3 White wins
back the piece and is doing well) 22 D5
Black was on top in Dolmatov-Yusupoy,
Wijk aan Zee (7th matchgame) 1991. Instead
of 22 &3c52 Yusupov gives 22 Wel b4 23 a3
as better for White,
but I'm not sure why!
Afcer 23...a5 White's only chance is to break
through against Black's king, but the
 9c3 fe7 10 Re3

likelihood of this happening is questionzble. Ah7 22 Wd2 Wde

13 £1xe5 HixeS Theory prefers 22..%7 23 WER! (23 gt
Of coursel) 23..Wb8 24 Wgs We8 25 W4
Wb8 which was drawn without further play
in Kuczynski-Flear, Polanica Zdroj 1992, but
Pm not fully satisfied with Black’s position.
23 gat

and the threar of squeezing Black for room

with g4-g5 is difficult to meet. If Black allows
g4-¢5 then the king, bishop and rook on h7
step on each others’ toes. If be plays ..g6-g5
himself, he then has weaknesses on £5 and b
as well as the ugly p5-pawn.
arp alternative is 14 4 &4
(14..Dg4? 15 L.d4 <5 16 £5! is much betrer
for White) 15 d4 ¢5 16 Rxg7 He8 17 {5
Lxf5 18 £xf5 Hxg7 19 b3 &bs 20 Dd2, as
in Novik-Sagalchik, Chorzow 1991. The
position is unclear. Black has an extra pawn
but some problems getting co-ordinated due
1o his insecure king,

Everybody
now seems to play this move
but 14..8%6 is also possible, eg. 15 Lxg?
g8 16 £.d4 (Krasenkov prefers 16 WhS)
16..xd4 17 cxd4 2.6 18 Dd2 6 19 D3
000 with balanced chances in an 23...2d8 24 g5 £97 25 Kael c5 26 hd
unbalanced position in Watson-Kaidanov, d4 27 cxd4 Lxd4
Moscow 1985. Nawrally after 27...cxd4 White blockades
15 &xg7 2o8 18 Lxg6 HAxg7 the pawn with 28 Wd3 which then becomes
16..hxg6¥! was once played by my wife. more of a weakness than a strength.
‘The problem is that after 17 25 Black will 28 g2 £e6 29 We2 Sd4 30 Wd2 Leb
probably be obliged to exchange dark- 31 We2 £d4 32 Hed Eha 33 b4 ¥g7 34
squared bishops and he will be left with a bad bxch Zxc5
bishop against the white knight. Black is finally forced off the long
17 Bxe6 diagonal as 34...Wxc52 loses to 35 Dixd4.
Black had the better chances after 17 35 Wc3+ &h7 36 De5 4da
LhsY &f8 18 D2 d6 19 Dt W6 20 36..2hf8 may be a better defence but
3 Bd8 in Morozevich-Flear, Hyéres 1992, then 37 h5 gxh5 38 WP yields White an
when the bishop pair became troublesome. attack.
17...hxg6 18 Ke5 37 W3 &xe5
18 He2 is considered
in Game 54. Here 37..Bhf8 sheds a pawn and leads to
18...c6 19 Dd2 #f8 20 D3 L6 21 Me2 a probably losing ending after 38 &xf7 Wd5
99
Open Ruy Lopez

39 Kf4 Wxf3+ 40 Bxf3 Bd7 41 Rd1 Wc3, as in Tolnai-Gyimesi, Kecskemet 1993,

38 U7+t the move 26 94! (Gyumesi) would have
A neat finish given Black problems due to the pawnon c6
38...247 39 h5 10 and a general looseness in the black camp,
e.g 26.8c8 27 HubSt
20 &3 26 21 Wd2 Wd6 22 Whe+
22 g4 d la Sokolov is more to the point.
22...847 23 We3 Th8 24 a4 bxad!
Korchnoi finds a novel way of handling
the queenside pawns, note that 24,268 here
seemns inferior after 25 Wa7!
25 Exp4 £16 26 Rab $g7 27 Web Bhds
28 Wxd6 Zxd6 %-%
After the exchange of queens the slightly
worse pawn structure is hardly a worry for
Black, who has counter-chances on the b-file
and with ...dS-d4.
Black is kitled along the h-file. Note how
the kingside ended all tangled up, which is Game 55
symptomatic of the variation. Lautier-Korchnoi
An excellent game by my opponent. Ubeda 1997
Before this game, I had never really had any
problems playing 10..%c5 and 11..4)d7, but 1 e4 o5 2 O3 Dc6 3 2b5 D6 4 0-0
this experience has put me off playing like &xe4 5 d4 a6 6 Lad b5 7 4b3 d5 8
this again. dxeS Le6 9 c3 Re7 10 2e3 Wd7 11
Dbd2 fga7!
Game 54 A brand-new idea which is, however,
Khalifman-Korchnoi immediately refuted by Lautier. The normal
Ubeda 1997 11..Kd8 is considered in Games 56-59, while
11.00 is possible and will probably
1 ¢4 05 2 &3 Hc6 3 £h5 &6 4 00 transpose
to later games
in this chapter.
fxe4 5 d4 a6 6 a4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 12 Qixed dxed 13 Wd5!
dxeS Re6 9 c3 fe7 10 Le3 Hcs 11
2c2 DNd7 12 Ze1 Hdxe5 13 Zxes LixeS
14 244 g6 15 xg7 Hg8 16 2xg6 7 P
Rxg7 17 Hxe6 hxgh 18 Le2
18 Me5 was the subject of Game 53.
18,548
Similarly 18..8h7 19 £d2 &8 20 B3
266 21 h3 g7 22 Wd3 Bh8 23 Bdl c6 24
5 Wds 25 Dt Hact was oqual in
Magem-Flear, Palma de Mallorca 1991,
19 D42 B8
After 19..816 20 D3 Wd6 21 a4 Bds
(better was 21..Bb8! with ideas of ..b5-bd)
22 Wd3 o6 23 axb5 axb$ 24 Ha6 Eh7 25 h3 The dS-square can. often be a problem for
100
 9 c3 Re7 10 Re3

Black after ...&g4, and this is a clear example. its advance.

The same move is from the 29...£63 30 a5 &84 31 Uxg7 Hc7 32
analogous position in which Black has castled Hg8+ Hes 33 Mg7 Mc7 34 Bg8+ Ec8 35
but his queen is still on d8. Hg5 Bxf4 36 6 HeB 37 Hg7 Ega 38
13...Wxds xgd fxgd 39 2d6
13...exf3 is out of the question: 14 Wxf7+ Korchnoi has complicated the task as
&d8 15 Wixg?! (15 M2 is less clear, eg much as possible, but now with an exra
15..8d6 16 exd6 Wxf7 17 &xf7 fxg2 18 advanced passed pawn Lautier is winning,
7+ xc7 19 Hd2, though White will soon 39...9c7 40 Bed 2d1 41 £ed L3 42
bave an extra pawn) 15..He8 16 Kfd1 Qd6 Re3 2.6 43 f1
17 Wf6+ with an awack plus an advantage in 43 £xa6 is too hurried as 43..Ma8 wins
maverial back the pawn immediately. It’s better 10 take
14 £xdS6 0-0-0 time out to centralise the king, since the a-
Here 14..exf3 is not possible as the knight Pawn is not running away.
on c6 is captured with check. 43..267 44 Zb3 £13 45 Lel h5 46
15 fxcB exf3 16 gxf3 2d7 17 Le4 Le6 @d2 Ld6 47 Bbé+ FcS 48 Sc3 L6 49
18 a4 Hxa6 818 50 o7 Rf3+ 51%d2 La4 62
The game is not yet over bur with a clear fe2 Axf2 53 Ka8 Uxh2 54 Hcs+ dd6
pawn deficit it’s clear that Korchnoi’s idea 65 e8W 2 xe8 56 Hxe8 g3 57 a6 Zh1 58
has failed. a7 1-0
18...f5 19 £¢6 b4 20 cxbd £xhd 21 14
£b3 22 Ric1 £d2 23 $xd2 Xxd2 Game 56
Timman-Korchnoi
Reykjavik 1987
1 e4 65 2 O3 Dcb 3 £b6 36 4 Las Hif6
5 0-0 Oxed B d4 b5 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxeb
£66 9 c3 2e7 10 2e3 Wd7 11 Sz
Hds

24 Be3t
The quickest wayto activaze his position is
o give up the b-pawn Lamier will soon
recuperate the sickdy black c-pawn, and his
rooks can then enter the black camp.
24...Hxb2 25 Rac1 Le6
After 25.. Hd8? Lautier intended 26 Xxb3!
Rxb3 27 e6 winning. "The logical move, buikding up the ceatral
28 292 Hb4 27 Exc7+ b8 28 He7 He8 defences before castling,
29 Het 12 Hxes
Getting behind the passed pawn ready for The most direct. 12 k3 is the subject of
101
Open Ruy Lopez

the next main game and 12 Bel of Games 58 White's pieces are better placed and he has
and 59. the d-file.
12...dxed 13 Wxd7+
13 &d4 leads to fascinating complications:
13..8xb3 14 axb3 Hxe5 15 Wh5 Hc6?
turned out badly for Black in Timman-
Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987, when after 16 Xxa6
fixd4 17 Lxdd 00 18 Wes f6 (18..416 19
xcf6f) 19 Wixed Black was just 2 pawn down.
Seven years later Korchnoi unveiled the
improvement 15..Wd5! 16 &5 Kf8 (White
has the better pawn structure after 16..g6 17
fixe7 grb5 18 §xdS HxdS 19 Hxa6) 17
Bfd1 &d3 18 Rd4 g6 19 Whe? (Korchnoi
recommends 19 We2 but concludes that after
19.gxf5 20 RKxh8 Hdé Black has 20...8c6 21 Ee2 Hcd8 22 h3 h4 23 a4
compensation for the exchange) 19...Wx{5 20 bs
2xh8 Re7 21 Wg3 £6 22 Bxab Si7 23 2xf6 ‘The most ambitious.
fxfo 24 Wxe7+ Nd7 25 W3 Anand- 24 $c4 £b7 25 Hael bxc3 26 .fi.xc3
Korchnoi, Monaco (blindfoldf) 1994, when RF6!
254l 26 Bxd7+ Wxd7 27 Hxf6r B The doubled pawns are less of a factor
wins for Black. Rather them than me in a than the cramping effect of the e-pawn and
blindfold game(f) but seriously, Korchnoi's the importance of exchanging White's
improvement 15..Wd5 seems playable. dangerous bishop.
13., 2xd? 27 2xf6 gxf6 28 13 Dd4 29 b3 15
‘The other recapture 13..%xd7 might be Nanral but Korchnoi now prefers 29...25.
worth a try. Korchnoi then gives a plausible 30 fxe4 Hexed 31 Kxod fxed 32 227
line 14 g5 Lxb3 15 axb3 Lxg5 16 Rxgh White may have an edge after 32 Zf1!
Ea8 17 Rfel Peb, judging it to be unclear. because of 32..2d5 33 £xd5 Xxd5 34 Xf4
Black has a well-centralised king but the a6- €3 35 Sfll Rdi+ 36 We2 Ed2+ 37 Pxed3
pawn is a problem. Ixg2 38 b4 Za2 39 a5 a3+ 40 d4 Hxh3
14 @g5 Dxe5 15 L.d4! 41 Bc5 (Korchnoi) but a draw Looks likely.
15 @ixe4 Dd3 16 Rabt o5 offers no 32...Xd2+ 33 He2 Hxe2+ 34 £xe2 ab!
advantage for White. In the pure bishop ending Black has the
15...8xg5 16 £xe5 0-0 17 £xc7 Hc8 winning chances: He has a useful passed
18 £b6 Nfe8 pawn, White'’s queenside is not going
see following diagram
anywhere for the time being and White's
pawns are all fixed on light squares.
Material is equal, but with unbalanced 35 g4
pawns both sides bave chances despite the After35 g3 there is 35..f5! 36 gxh4 f4 and
early simplification. Black will win (Korchno).
19 Hfe1 h5 20 £d42! 35..16 36 Pe3 Df7 37 Lc4tr a7 38
20 Hadl £6 is a shade berter for White &d4 d6 39 Lh5 63!
according to Korchnoi. Black can expand on "The only chance to release the blockade.
the kingside with ..&e7, 40 Hxe3 £g2 41 &4 £xh3 42 g5 Le7
745 and is probably 43 gxf6+ Hxf6 44 S04 L8

102

It may seem amazing that Black won this
game. Hie only has two rook’s paws and one
of them is the wrong one! True, Timman did
niss a draw but it wasn't obvious.
45 4.d5
Best is 45 b4l axb4 46 a5 We7 47 a6 wds
48 a7 £b749 gt and Black cannot win
(Korchnoi).
45...h3 46 f.04 Lo7 47 L3 Ld6 48 ba
A possible alternative
was 48 h2 $c5 49
g3 b4 50 Fh2 Rf5 51 B3 K2 52
@xh3 £xb3 53 £d3 Rxat 54 &5 RbS 55
RcZ R4 56 g3 Rb3 57 kb1 o4 58 2
a3 59 el @c3 and Black queens the pawn.
48...axb4 49 £b3 Lo5 50 Th2 $b6 51
@93 wab 52 £.c2 L6 53 $h2 Ld7 54
2b3
After the naturaf 54...2%24 Korchnol is of
the opinion thar White draws by 55 f.e6,
presumably judging tha Black has
insufficient time to get the b-pawn going the
whole way. However, think that Black can
stll win! For instance, 55..&b6 56 Sxh3
c5 57 g3 2b5 58 &b3 (or 58 $2 Rt
59 £f5 b3 60 Pe3 wbd 61 Bd2 a3 62
£e2 b2 63 2b1 @b3 and Black wins by
getting his king to al and then forcing our
the bishop with ...8a2-b1 etc) 58..82d4! 59
B2 dc3 60 Ad1 43,
55 @93 $c5 56 $h2 £dé 57 o3 Les
58 fic2 $cb 59 £d1 Fcd 60 Th2 wc3
61 85 2c8 62 Ya3 £d463 £b3 Hc5 64
9 ¢c3 fLe7 10 fe3
484 %66 65 Th2 Sd6 66 wg3 DT 67
#62 wc6 68 2ad+ THT 69 2bS h3 70
£d3 b2 71 $h2 c6 72 Lg3 dcb 73
&h2 808 74 ©g3 &b 0-1
Game 57
Bologan-Daniliuk
Russia 1997
1 e4 e8 2 D3 Nc6 3 £bS a6 4 a4 HI6
5 0-0 fixed & d4 b5 7 b3 d5 8 dxe5
£e6 9 c3 Le7 10 Le3 Wd7 11 Dbdz
Bd8 12h3
Cunting out any ideas of ...&2g4.
12...0-0
As so often, White obtains comfortable
devel t after 12..2xd2, eg. 13 Wxd2
a5 14 Rg5 5 15 Bhel 06 16 Hadi hé 17
Lxe7 Wxe7 18 Rc20-0 19 Wd3 g6 20 We3
©g7 21 a3, when in Shor-Ljubojevic,
Linares 1989, White had the better prospects.
He continued with Wf4 and h3-h4 and went
on to win,
13 £c2
13..815
The luest try. A sharper alternarive is
13..65 14 exf6 2xf6 15 g 215 16 Lxf5
W5 17 Wbt W& and Black had no
paricular problems in Kengis-Anand, Riga
19%. Insead 15 Wbl @h8 (worh
investigaiing is 15..h6P 16 /b D) 16
g5 K8 17 L65 (Anand) yields an iniiative
for White. In the analogous position in
103
Open Ruy Lopez

Game 59 (Georgie huk) Black had but neither side misses any
access to the gé-square and thus bewmer significant winning chances.
chances for counterplay. 30 &h2 De2 31 Leb Hxc3 32 Hgs 2d5
14 Dxed 33 Hxg7+ $15 34 £.d4 Hxba 35 EeT1?
White may have done better to keep the No better is 35 Zxh7 5 36 Zhs+ (36
tension for another move with 14 Het, since $£xc5? loses time on the main line after
after, say, 14..Hfe8 then 15 o4 could be 36...52g6 37 Be7 &3 exc) 36..50g6 37 Bxc5
undertaken under slightly more favourable Hxc5 38 x5 Dd3 39 Rd4 b4 40 3 exf3
circumstances. 41 gxf3 b3 42 g3 b2 43 Kxb?2 Sixb2 with
14...5uxe4 15 £xe4 dxed 16 Wxd7 Hxd7 an immediate draw.
17 e Bd31? 35..c5 36 £h8 Dd3 37 g4+ g5 38
An active approach, although the ©g3 Exf2 39 Bg7+ $16
alternative 17...fxe6 18 42 Qas! s given as Not 39..0h6?? 40 Tha! Rf4 41 Rg5 K7
satisfactory by Anand. Black will obwin 42 2g8 and Black is mated!
counterplay by .24 (if White captures on 40 Hd7+ e6 41 Exd3 X8
e4) or by ..d3 (after 19 b3 by White). Black recuperates the piece and the rook
18 ext7+ Hx{7 19 HA2 £.c5! ending is just a draw.
The point. Now capturing on e4 gives 42 Ic3 Hxh8 43 Hxct b8 44 14 ba
“White nothing so... 45 &xed b3 46 Hc6+ 7 47 Kc7+ &6
20 £.xc512 Exd2 21 b4 Deb 22 Dfd1 48 HcB+ Hgb 49 Heb+ g6 50 Hob+
Daniliuk suggests 22 a4! with the variation g7 51 Hc7+ g8 52 He1 b2 53 b1
22..0d3 23 axb5 QixcS 24 bxas Dxab 25 Eb3 64 d4 ©g¥ 55 ©c4 Exh3 56 Dxb2
Hxa6 Hc2 26 Hcb leading to an extra pawn g3 57 $d4 %-%
for White.
22.. Bfd7 23 Hxd2 Hxd2 24 84 Nd3 25 Game 58
axb5 axbs 26 Ra8+ 17 27 Dfg+ Khalifman-Mikhalevski
‘White can retain the better chances with Linares 1997
27 RdB! ke6 (27..0d1+ 28 ©h2 &ixf23? 29
Kf8+) 28 He8+ ©d5 29 Rd4 (Daniliuk). 104 e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad D6
Certainly the black pawns are more exposed, 5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeb
but Black’s pieces may be active enough. £e6 9 c3 £e7 10 Re3 Wd7 11 Dbd2
27...89g8 28 £.03 Hc2 29 £d4 Hcl! EdS 12 He1 0-0
The actual move order in the game was
10..0-0 11 bd2 Wd7 12 Hel Jads.
13 £¢2 Hixd2
The challenging 13...f5 is considered in the
next main game, whereas 13..8f5 14 Sixes
Rxet 15 fxed dxed 16 Wxd? Bxd7 17 e6
fxe6 18 Dd2 left White with an edge due to
better pawns and use of the c5-square in
Dolmatov-Yusupov, Wik aan Zee (ist
matchgame) 1991; compare this with the
previous main with the difference that
there White had played the less useful h2-h3
instead of Hel).
The complications that follow are 14 ¥xd2 25 16 Bad1

104
 9c3 2e7 10 Rel3

compensation and covers the weak points

fairly well. Then 22 b4 looks like the best wy,
forcing Blackto commit the bishop early, but
22..2b6 23 Be7 d4t is only about equal.
20..%16 21 Rxc7 Hd7 22 Re5 ¥i5 23
Wd3
White settles for a slightly favourable
ending as Black has no compensation for his
isolated pawn. This is natural enough, but as
this proves insufficient to win pethaps 23
Wd4 could have been tried, trying to create
threats and weaknesses with the queens on.
23..Wxd3 24 Xxd3 16 25 Rd4 Hf7 26
15...82xc2 4 £d6 27 15 He8 28 HxeB wxo8 29 B2
An atempt to improve on 15 Hfe8 16 Be7 30 He3 L6
Rf4 proposesm ing16 h3 The simplified ending after 30..%xe3 is
with 16...&xc2 17 Wxc2f6) 16...Was 17 Rg3 probably playable, but the bishop is happy on
Wgb 18 xdS Wxf5 19 We3 when Black is this good defensive outpost and the defence
solid-enough but White has more options is simpler with rooks on.
(typically he will play £)d4, 1o meet .. Wgé by 31 £.¢5 Bd7 32 $f3 d82!
£2-£4-£5 and ... &4 with c2xd4 and play on Black can generate counterplay with
the cAile). For example, 19,268 (19..%g6 32..86 33 g4 puf5 34 gxfS Hg7 as pointed out
with the idea 20 4 Rc5 is a suggestion of by Mikhalevski.
Krasenkov's) 20 b3 h6 21 £d4 Wgb (ess 3394106
good is 21.8xd4 22 cxd4, as in Anand- Passive, again 33...g6! should be tried.
Kamsky, Monaco rapidplay 1995, as the ¢7- 34 ha $c7 35 g5 15
pawn becomes an obvious target) 22 f4 Keeping the king out of g4 and hS etc.
@xd4Bad4c5‘24dxxf:1xr515ch5
Wxg3 26 W2 Wxf2+ 27 ©xf2 dd 28 We2 g5
29 g3 f6 and Black had enough counterplay
in Lautier-Krasenkov, Yerevan Olympiad
199%.
An interesting alternative is 15..2%5 16
Dd4 Ret 17 .fi.xc4 dxed 18 W2 Bt 19
264 (Krasenkov recommends 19 Waet
&ixb2 20 Ball with the berter prospects)
19..65 20 6 fxe6 with saisfactory play for
Black in a lively position, as in Cherniaev-
Krasenkov, Russia 1992
16 Wxc2 Wgs 17 h3 Wed 18 Wa2 Hxes
A fearless pawn-grab which looks suicidal 36 g62
at first sight. 36 &f8 gives winning chances
19 Hixes WxeS 20 L4 to Khalifman, e.g, 36..Kf7 37 £b4 Bd7 38
ite must lated 20 £xc5 g6l 268 followed by Hxe5 and f5-
Wel+ 21 Rxel £xc; it's nice to win the fo.
queen but Black has adequate material 36...Rd8 37 e2 $c6 38 Ld4 Ld6 39

105
Open Ruy Lopez

£d3 a5 40 a3 a4 41 Hel %-% 20 Sixes Rxft+ 21 gl dred 22 Hxed Bi5

Black never fully equalised (untl the end,
Open
willing1o play the black pieces here.
If the plan of 13.8xd2 and 14..Rf5
seems a lirde dull, however, then the next
game illustrates a more dynamic plan which
offers realistic winning chances for Black.
Game 59
Ki.Georgiev-lvanchuk
Manila Olympiad 1992
1 e4 5 2 3 Nc6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad DG
5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 b3 d5 8 dxe5
.08 9 c3 £67 10 Re3 Wd7 11 Dbd2
Xd8 12 Ee1 0-0 13 £c2 5
Combative. The knight is supported and
there is even the threst of ..£5-64 in the air,
50 White has no choice but to take the pawn,
14 exf6 Dxi6
23 He2 Yxc2 and the players agreed to a
draw.
Khalifman has abandoned his earlier try of
15 b3 £t 16 L5 d6 17 h3 &hs 18
Wd3, as in Khalifman-Hiibner, Manila
Interzonal 1990, due 1o doubt to Korchnoi's
suggestion of 18..2xf3 19 Wxf3 Des 20
Wh5 Bf5 21 Wg4 h5 when Black s on top.
15..h6
Othuw-ise 16 &g5 was threatened.
16
Wonhy of consideration is 16 h3! which is
not d by ECO, but I think is rather
annoying as Blads’s ‘counterchances often
feature use of the gd-square. For instance,
the variarion 16 £b3 Sgd! 17 £c5 SxcS 18
fixc5 Bxf3l 19 gxf3 &ge5 20 Wd1 &f5
offers Black adequate compensation
according to Kiril Georpjev. :
16...0e5
I 16..2d6 17 £df3 with advantage and
16..8g4 17 £h7+ Shy 18 Hg6+ winning
for White (Kiril Georpjev).
17 Db3 Digs 18 Ncb Wes 19 Dxob
Wxe6 20 £h7+ $h8

This move, fighting for the bl o 5

diagonal, is a logical counter to the early
opening of the e- and ffiles, A fusther ..h7-
b6 will leave the black kingside looking 21 815
exposed. Apparendy the remarkable move 21 25!t
Instead 15 g5 &5 16 Rf4 (16 Lxf5 (suggested by Ivanchuk) is best, when his
Wxf5 leaves Black with a healthy game) following variation is beautiful: 21...&c5! 22
16..8c5 17 @b3, as in Khalifman- g6+ Wxgh 23 Rxf2+ 24 hl Rxel
Hjartarson, Luceme 1993, was met by 25 Wxel Df24 26 gl Dh3+ 27 dhi
17..8xf2+ 18 Pxf2 Rxc? 19 Wnc2 Ded+ &2+ with a repetition.

106

21...Wf7 22 Dig6+ PxgB 23 fixgs DeS
24 fe2 c5!
Black takes the initiative and thus gets his
majority rolling.
25 Ed1 Dc6 26 XM
To cover £2 as the bishop is about to be
booted away.
26...d4 27 cxdd cxd4 28 fct Db 29
£d3 Hxd3 30 Yxd3 Wed 31 Hd1 216
32 a4 Afed 33 f1 We7 34 gant
White is struggling but this makes things
worse. 34 gl was more prudent as now
Black picks up a
34...Wc6 35 $g1 bxad 36 214 Wns
To exchange his h-pawn for the white b-
pawn. This is okay in principle
but Black
then has to be careful with such an open
king.
37 Wg6 d3 38 £xhG He2 39 Le3
39 hhz?
imperceptible loosening which is
clcvedy exploited by his opponent, The safe
9c3 2e7 10 Ke3
way to take the pawn was 39..Bxb? with a
dominating position.
40 Wga!
Threatening the ad-pawn and worse: 41
Wha+ followed by the caprure of the rook
on d8 with check,
40..Wd7 47 Wha+ $g8 42 Nxad WdS
43 Wg4 Re8 44 Wcd
White has the better chances in the
cndupg, ‘The black pawns are split and his
counterplay is unconvincing.
44.. Wxcd 45 Bxcs d2
The only chance.
48 1
The d-pawn is immunel (46 Bxd2?
H8xedl or 46 Sxd2? Hds 47 B2 Rd4).
Now Black has to sacrifice the exchange.
46..H8xe3 47 fxe3 Oxh2 48 Xha Hxha
49 gxha &1 50 de2 a5 51 Bf1?
Kiril Georgiev showed latar that 51 Mgi!
wins: 51..a4 52 ®d1 23 53 Bg6 #f7 54 b5
&f8 55 Bab L7 56 e4 e7 57 &5 Ki7 58
Ra7+ de6 59 Kuxp7 dxeb 60 h6 a2 61 Hay
a1W 62 Bxal 26 63 Hab+ Rf7 64 h7 g7
65 Bh6 &h8 66 Xh5 2b2 67 xd2.
61...ad 52 e4 a3 53 EfS g6!
Compared to the previous note, with the
h-pawn now only on h4 (a dark squarel)
White cannot make progress.
54 Bf6 &g7 55 Ha6 $f7 56 &d1 &g7
57 o2 $17 58 Heb %-%
Georgiev points out that the winning try
58 K6 g7 59 Ba6 L17 60 €5 Rb2 61 e6+
We7 62 Pxd2 6 63 Pd3 a2 64 Hxa2
sPxe6 65 Hat 7 is only a draw.
Open Ruy Lopez

Summary
The idea of 263, either on move 9 or move 10, is quite popular as Black’s defence is not so
simple.
The most reliable tries are the ..&)c5-d7xe5 defence, as in Games 53 and 54, or .. &d7,
..Ed$, .00 and then ..£7-f5 (Game 59). White can only maintain a nominal pull against these
lines. However, the defences based on ...&g# (Games 52 and 55) are less convincing and
cannot be recommend

1 e4 e5 2 I3 Neb 3 Lb5 86 4 Lad )6 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeb Re6

9c3 .fi.a( 10 kel

10..8c8
10..Wd7 11 Dbd2
11.8g4 - Game 55
11..8d8
12 &xed (D) - Game 56
12h3 - Game 57
12 Bel 00 13 £c2
13..xd2 - Gamne 58
13..£5 (D) - Game 59
11 £c2 d7
11..8g4 - Game 52
12 Het Ddxes 13 Dxe5 Dxeb 14 £dd Hg6 15 Lxg7 HgB 16 Lxg6 Exg7 17 Hxeb
hxg6 18 Ze5
18 Re2 - Game 54
18...c6 (D} - Game 53
 CHAPTER NINE
9 We2
1 e4 a5 2 D3 Dc6 3 KbS a6 4 234 D6
5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 d5 B dxe5
£e6 9 We2
With 9 We2 White preparesto bring the
king’s rook o d1 where it will bear down on
the d5-pawn. Another point is that ..2c5
can be met by £e3, reducing Black's
influence on the dark squares. Black has
three main responses: 9..2¢5, 9..8)5 and
9...2€7, which we shall deal with in turn.
The carly 9..2¢5 is generally met by 10
Re3 (Game 60) where Black ambitiously
tried 0 avoid dull ines involving .. &xe3.
After 9.5 (Games 61 and 62) White
sometimes plays for a quick c2-c4,
Finally, 9...2.7 is the most popular move,
when White usually
tries 10 Ed1 and 11 c4
wlthpmsu.reonv.he d5-square, Black
can try
main defences: 10455 transposing
bad(wGamcséI and 62, 10..0-0 11 c4 dxcd
12 fxcd Wd7 and ..87-66 (Game 63); or
10,00 11 ¢4 dxed 12 fxcé Rc5 13 Le3
£xe3 14 Wxe3 Whe (Games 64-65). Nowe
that if insteadof 11 ¢4 White tries 11 c3, then
we transpose to Chapter 7, Games 4849.
‘The 9 We2 variation is curious in that
White's results are good but the line is out of
fashion. It is difficult 1o say which defence is
objectively best, but my conclusions are as
follows: the main lines of 9...8.e7 have been
over analysed, whereas 9..8.c5 feels wrong
and in fact neither offer a convincing route
to equality. I believe that the complex
positions resulting from 9..&¢5 may offer
Black the best practical chances.
Game 60
Antunes-Flear
Paun 1988
104 €5 2 £3 \c6 3 £bS a6 4 £a4 D6
5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 bS 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
f£.06 9 We2 20517
With the text move Bladk is not afraid to
exchange dark-squared bishops as this frees
the e7-square for his queen’s knight or
queen.
10 Le3
Another try is 10 Pbd2 Hixd2 11 Lxd2,
when experience suggests that White keeps
the faintest of edges after 10..00 12 Eadl
He8 (ess logical is 12.8d7 13 &e3 Re7??
14 3 a5 15 L2 B4 16 Kl o6 17 b3
b6 18 £d4c5 19 Pixe Wxet 20 W3
W6 21 Wd2 Whs 22 £4 £5 23 ext6 Lx(6 24
Ef3, when in Wittran-Féssmeier, Austria
1989, White held the initiative, backed up by
his bishops) 13 Re3 (or 13 a¢ Hb8 14 axb5
axb5 15 Re3 Lxed 16 Wxed Be7 17 c3 c6,
as in Ljubojevic-Larsen, Linares 1981, when
109
Open Ruy Lopez

“White is a shade more active but Black has

no particular worries) 13..8xe3 14 Wxe3
8325 (14..8De7 is also solid) 15 Dd4 We7 16
€3 ¢5 17 Qixeb freb 18 K2 Dod 19 We2, as
in Smirin-Kaidanov, Norilsk 1987. This type
of position frequently occurs in the Open
Ruy Lopez. White has the better minor piece
but the black posmon is solid and he has a
useful queenside majority.
Instead of 12.He8, the latest uy is
12.. &7, but 13 h3 (13 Re3 a5 14 Dd2 5
15 ¢3 &wb3 16 Dxb3 d4 17 Rfel Rct 18
Wigs dxe3! gave Black adequate practical play
for the queen in Doggers Dieren
1999) 13...807 14 €3 ¢5 15 R4 &6 16 Rc2 A speculative idea which sets different
Wd7 17 Wd3 g6 18 We3 favoured White in problems. Aliematively, 11...8xe3 12 Wxe3
Svidler-Golod, European Cup 1999. 2e7 13 Dbd2 Df5 14 We2 Led2 15 Wxd2
10...00 6 16 a4 Who 17 axb5 axb5 18 c3, as in
Safe but dull is 10..%xe3 11 Wxe3 De? Balashov-Smyslov, Tilburg 1977, was a touch
12 Hd1 00 13 3 D5 14 We2 c6 (this better for White, while 11..8e7 or 11..4a5
position can also arise via 9 £.e3 and 9 c3 are similar. The exchange.of dark-squared
%05 10 Wd3 00 11 Le3) when a recent bishops limits Bladk’s chances for
game Apicella-Skembris, Cappelle la Grande munm-play but his position remains solid.
1999, continued 15 L2 Hg5 16 Hid4 Hxds 12 a3
17 cxd4 f5 18 D2 f4 19 3 £f5 20 Db3 a5 12 Rxeé! fxe6 13 Lcl! looks betrer for
with reasonable counter-chances. White.
Also playable is 10..We7 11 21 Bd§ 12 12..%c3 13 bxe3 dxe3
Dbd2 £wxd? (White obtains 2 strong artack ‘The point of Black’s play. For the queen
after 12...2xe3 13 Wxe3 &5 14 <3 g4 15 hehas rool, bishop and an advanced passed
Ke1 00 16 8Dd4 Pxdd 17 xd4 Hes 18 f4,
as in Rossetto-Schweber, Argentina 1970; the 14lxds exf2+ 15 f1 Zaxds 16 Wed
..8g4 idea seems ineffective when the queen continuation 16 Rxe6 fxe6 17 Dg5
is alrcady
on €3) 13 Hxd2h6 14 Hadl d4 Rf5 18 &xed Hd5 (18...Exe5? 19 Wgt wing)
{(Black cannot maintain the pawn on d5 but 19 Wg4 is given as better for White by
this move offers counterplay) 15 Rxe6 Gf Antunes, but 19..g6 looks promising for
White just captures everything on d4 then Bladk, e.g. 20 Dxc7 Hdxe5 21 fixab Dast 22
Black has .75, hiuing the rook and Bxc5 Dot etc. Anmunes also suggests 16
threatening ..c5<4 to tap the bishop) g5t Lxb3 17 axb3hé 18 De4 with an edge
15..Wxe6 16 Lxd4 Pxda 17 Hixde £xd4 18 to Whie, which looks abous right bur after
Hxd4 Hxd4 19 Bxd4 Wxa2 20 6! fxe6 21 18..2b6 19 Sud2 Rfe8 20 A3 &ixe5 21
Whs+ @e7 22 Wos+ 7 (2.6 23 Dixe5 f6 22 Bdl Exdi+ 23 Wxdl Hxe5 a
Wcil)
23 g3 (23 ha is more precise
with 2 draw is the most likely result.
slight odge according to Parma) 23..8xb2 16...2e7
Parma-Korchnoi, Rome 1981, and White has 16..8xb3 17 b3 De? was less
nothing betver than a draw. weakening, when the position remains
11 Bd1 unclear.

170
 9 We2

17 £.xeB fxe6 18 Dgb D5 19 Le2 %66 9 We2 Dcb 10 Bd1 o7

19 Gixe6? falls into a deadly waps
19.. 83+ 20 e2 il and 19 g4? De3+ 20
e2 g6 also leaves White in trouble.
19...83 20 B3
20...2d5?
An error. Antunes judges the position 1o
be equal after 20..h5 21 W6 or 20.. b6 21
g5 L3 repeating,
After the game move I was expecting 21
Bf1 in orderto give the rook for the bishop
and f-pawn, but Antunes had seen that White
has an attractive forcing line leading to a win.
21 g4l Xfds 22 gxf6 Xd1 23 Hxd1 Exd1
24 Wag+ 7 25 fxeb+ o7 26 Wgs
1+
Finally the passed pawn
‘metamorphose but to no avail.
27 dxe3 Hel+ 28 4 1-0
After 28..Wca+ 29 g3 e 30 Wxg7+
‘White is ready to take on e1.
Frankly, this game was unconvincing and
there is definitely scope for improvement
here. 9..48.c5 and 11..d4 is a risky winning
ry that may be worth a punt, but do your
homeworlk firsd
Game 61
A.Sokolov-Marin
Manila Interzonal 1990
1 e4 05 2 HI3 HNc6 3 Lb5 ab 4 Lad4 D6
5 0-0 fxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeb
Theory takes dim view of the immediate
10..40xb3, e.g. 11 axb3 We8 (or 11..Re7 12
cAl) 12 ¢4 @b4 (or 12..dxc4 13 bxcd Lxod
14 Wed b4 15 D223 £b3 16 Dixb5 Lxdi
17 wc7+ Wxc7 18 WxaBt 247 19 25
£xf3 20 Wxf3 with a swong attack for the
piece in GipslisHasg, Pecs 1964) 13 cxb5
axb5 14 Exa8 Wxa8 15 2d2 (it is considered
weaker to grab the pawn; iU's better to leave
Black with his weak points and artack them)
15..¢6 16 Dd4 Dab 17 b4 Re7 18 el Hbs
19 £4 W7 20 W2 with a strong iniiative for
White in JenkinsWright, correspondence
1960.
11 Le3 .
The critical 11 ¢4 is considered
in the next
main game, while 11 £33 is likely
to lead to
sition to the main after
11..8%b3 12 cxb3 00 13 Se3. Also possible
is 11 &xd5 £xd5 12 £33 Lcd! (Black seems
to have enough for the queen after this
move} 13 Exd+ Hxdf 14 el b4 15 b3
206 16 Siet (aot 16 fat Hixat 17 bust
Des) 16.Hd1+ 17 Det Hd4 18 2b2
2 19 We2 Hxal 20 Sxal Pixal 21 Hxcs
Rxc5 22 £Hd3 256 23 L4 00 24 Bk f6
25 b4 fxe5! (an improvemen: on 25..h8 26
®h2 £d7 27 exf6, as in Boleslavsky-
can Karaklaic, USSR-Yugostavia 1957) 26 WxeS
Bf6 27 28 27 28 §xd7 xi7 29 Wxal
Bxf2 30 h2 a5 with equality in “Timman-
Yusupov, Montpellier Candidates 1985.
Open Ruy Lopez
11...0-0
Here 11..5b3 is playable: 12 axb3 Wes
13 )3 b4 (this knight is comfortable here
and in analogous positions; White has
difficulty
in pushing it back with c2-c3 and it
performs a useful fanction bearing down on
&2 as well as defending the a6~ and d5-
squares) 14 £g5 fxgs 15 Dxgd 00 16
&ce4 (a tactical shot but Black has
resources) 16..h6 (or 16..dxe4 17 Wxed 215
18 Wxb4 Q.xc2) 17 Zxes Wixes 18 D3 (nox
18 &5 We7 and the knight cannot be
maintained) 18..c5 19 4 f5 20 ¢3 &6 21
W3 Bfd8 22 He2 a7 with a good game for
Black in Novik-Soroldn, USSR
Championship, Moscow 1991,
Equally unclear is Korchnof's analysis 16
Wd2c5 17 D2 h6 18 Hixeb fxe6 19 3 Bc6
20 We3 De7 21 b4 dd.
12 De3
12 c4? only leads to equality after
11..bxot 13 RKxct Da5 14 Lxd5 Kxds 15
&3 xf3£ 16 Wxf3 WeS 17 b4 d7 18 bxas
DixeS 19 WIS Dg6 20 Bacl La3 21 Bbl, as
in HibnerKorchnoi, Solingen (5th
matchgame) 1973.
12..5xb3 13 exb3!?
Capruring away from the centre always
needs justificarion; here it allows play on the
c-file, while by retaining
the a-pawn White
can push the knight away from b4,
13..Wd7 14 Xd2 Rad8
Not 14..£62 15 exf6 £xf6 16 Badl Lxc3
17 bxc3 Had8 18 c4 bxcs 19 bxct Lg4 20
Hxd5 when Black has insufficient
compensation for the pawn.
15 Sad1 Hfe8 16 h3
‘White will capture on d5 but first he wants
o be fully prepared.
16...46 17 Qxd5 £xd5 18 HxdS Wxd5
19 Exd5 2xd5 20 exf6 £x16 21 W2
material balance of two rooks for
queen and pawn is about equal. White has
some prospects with his kingside majority,
bu not without risk as it is potentially
weakening to push the pawns in front of his
7712
own king Black should wait and see with
21...e6 when the position is balanced.
21...00571 22 d2 Pd3
After 22..c5 the move 23 Wf5! creates
surprising difficultics.
23 Wet
Winning 2 pawn and thereby enabling
White to create a passed pawn, which tips the
balance in his favour.
23...1ddS 24 ¥xa8 Dxb2 25 ¥xbs Hd1
26 Doa Dxe3 27 Dixe3 He7 28 a4 Nd2
29 a5 Ta2 30 b4 Hat+ 31 ©h2 37 32
g4 %e7 33 Deb £d6 34 WdS LxeS+
35 ixe5 Xb1 36 a6 Txbd 10
Game 62
Greenfeld-Pyernik
Israel 1983
104 e6 2 D3 Dcb 3 &bS a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 253 d5 8 dxeb
206 9 We2 D5 10 Bd1 Re7 11 ¢4 ddl
Best. Afier 11.4mb3 12 axb3 £b4 (or
12..0-0 13 cxd5 £xd5 14 3 Lxf3 15 gxf3
We8 16 &5, as in Keres-Alatortsev, USSR
Championship, Moscow 1947, and now
16..8d8 17 214 &7 keeps White down to
an edge - Korchnoi) White has a pleasant
initiative after 13 &c3.
12 cxb5 d3!
Again 12..4%b3 is not good: 13 axb3
axb5 14 HExa8 Wxa8 15 L5 Lxb3 16 Hcl
Sxg5 17 Bxg5 h6 18 &d2! (18 e6 hxgs 19
 9 We2

exf7+ is unsound after 19..d7] and 18 B3 Note that the flashy 18 Rh6 loses material
00 19 Wxb5 La4 20 Wes Zb8, as in after 18..Db4.
MeckingKorchnoi, ~ Augusta [4th 18...8c4
matchgame] 1974, was only equal) 18..hxg5 18..83b4 was suggested by Korchnoi as a
19 &b3 0-0 20 6 and White had more than possible improvement.
enough compensation for the pawn in 19 &xe7 ¥xe7 20 a7
igucz-Agzamov, Cienfuegos 1984, This annoying pawn will play the role of a
decoy so that White has time to get going on
the other wing
promising: 20...0-0 21 DHbd2 £a6 22 b Wba
@) 13..8xb3 14 axbd 24 15 Ld2 Ne2
16 Ha5 with the better game for White in
Kalinkin-Zaitsev, Krasnoyarsk 1960,
b) 13..4)d4 14 Pxd4 Wixdd 15 Lxc6 fxch
16 fe3 Wxe5 17 &2 with a fairy undlear
position which Korchroi judges as a little
better for White. For insmnce, after the
obvious continuation 17...axb5 18 &3 Wis
19 fxch $xc5 20 Wxdd Wxd3 21 Hxd3
2d8, Whice has the better pawn structure.
14 axb3 &b4 15 £d2 Hec2 16 Uxa6
Hxa6 17 bxa@ £xb3

If now 23 &ics Wxb3 24 Wixd3 Wxd3 25

Bxd3 Qxc4 26 Ec3 then Black has 26..2a8!
27 Exc4 Hxa7 using White's back-rank
weakness to equalise.
23 g3
Now there is no bank-rank problem.
23...Wga?
23..Wb71 is a clear improvement which is
not mentioned by theory. By keeping an eye
on the 3-knight, Black has time to round-up
the a7-pawn. Who s better here?
Instead, the nawral 23.Ma8 fails 10 24
This position was tested in the early D4 Wxb3 25 Bb1.
cighties but has not seen amy recent 24 h3 ¥f5 25 g4 Wia 26 Wg2 Ha8?
developments. Black obviously underestimated the
18 &g¢5! weakness of his back rank Bemter was
Theory prefers this to 18 £c3 %c4 19 26..8b7 27 Wg3 Wxgi+ 28 fxg3 Xa8 29
@Dbd2 Lxab 20 b3 0-01 21 Hot WH8 22 Del Dxet 30 Hxel Bxa7 31 2f2, bur
Wixd3 Wxb3 23 £a5 Dxd324 b3 25 25 White’s active king gives hun the beter
Dbd4 £ixd4 26 Hixdd Rd7 and the bishop ending.
pair and a passed pawn gave Black an edge in 27 Dg5! Bxa7 28 Wc6
ARodriguez-Yusupov, Tolica Interzonal The e8-squareis a target.
1982, 28...Wxe5
Open Ruy Lopex
28...g6 29 WeS+ g7 30 o6l is very nasty
indeed!
29 Wd7 1-0
29..Ha8 30 Wixi7+ wh8 31 Wh5 wins
comfortably.
Game 63
Martens-Flear
Hyéres 1991
1 04 95 2 13 fc6 3 2bS 86 4 L4 6
5 0-0 £xed 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe&
fe6 9 We2 267 10 Xd1 0-0 11 c4 bxcd
12 #xcd4 Wd7
12...8.5 is deah with in the next two main
games, while 12...dxc4 is not too bad, though
after 13 Rxd8 Rfxd8 14 c3 &uxc3 15 bxc3
h6 16 2f4 Bd3 17 Dei Bd5 18 Hd1 Eads
19 Hxds Hxds 20 b3, as in Augustin-Perras,
correspondence 1978, Black doesn’t quite
have full compensation for the queen.
13 He3
After 13 Qe3 Black should simply play
13..f6. Instead 13..16d82! is speculative,
although 14 Rxaé Db4 15 Lb5 c6 16 £d3
Dxd3P? 17 Wxd3 215 18 We2 ¢S gave Black
reasonable play for his pawn in Brustkem-
Sturaa, Wichem 1999.
13...2%c3 14 bxc3 16 15 exf6 2xi6
Black has liberated his pieces but White can
kecpan:dgebyobtammgnbeblshoppfllr
ags
186
114
‘The two main alternatives are fine for
Black:
) 16 Wixe6+ is unimpressive after 16...
Wxe6 17 Lxd5 Wad5 18 Hxd5 Lxc3 19
Hb) b4 20 Bc5 Qa2 21 &e3 (21 Bt
Efb8 22 Hxbg+ Hxb8 23 Rf4 a5 24 Hxc7
Ka8 25 Re5 is equal according to
TPamovic) 21..Rf6 22 Hxc7 &3 and
Black's 2-pawn guaranteed him the advantage
in McKenna-Flear, Hastings 1993.
b) A defence against 16 2g5 has been
worked out but Black must play precisely;
16...%h8! (16...8:xc3 is tempting, but White’s
initiative is sufficient to win back the pawn
with the better of it after 17 Hacl £f6 18
Suxf6 Bxf6 19 Dg5 De7 20 Hel dxod 21
et Dd5 22 Hc5 W7 23 Ded Heb 24
Wxed - Buwe) 17 Rxf6 (after 17 We3 then
Korchnoi's 17..%xg5 18 Zxg5 £g8 holds
everything neatly together) 17..Exf6 18 £g5
&Y (after the immediate 18..2¢8 White
can get away with 1% £xa6) 19 Wd3 (here
the checky 19 2xa6 can be met by 19..8g4
20 f3 Rfab21 fxgd he 22 S Hib3 23
zabl Hxa2 and Black recovered the pawn
ity in Sigurjonsson-F.Olafsson,
Genzva1977) 19. .8g8 20 De4 (20 £xds is
safelymet by 20.. 2d6 21 c4 Bixcdl)20.. Mg
21 )3 (21 £xd5 leads to an awkward pin
after 21..Hd8 22 c4 6, when White then has
to play an unconvincing exchange sacrifice
with 23 Rxg8 Wxd3 24 Hxd3 Hxd3 25 £f7
Eg4) 21..80xc4 22 Wxcd Bcb 23 Wdd W7
24 Hel with equal chances according o
Korchnoi.
A new idea 16.De7% (nstead of
16..%h8) worked well in F.Braga-Rosito,
Mar del Plata 1999, after 17 4b3 hé 18
Lat? (18 Kel immediately looks a better
uy) 18..c6 19 el hog5 21 Wxeot Wae6 22
Hxeb Rxc3 23 Ed1 and Black drew easily.
16...£xg5 17 Sxg5 h6
The continuation 17..Eae8¥ 18 Wd2 De5
19 Rxd5 Wxd5 20 Wixd5 Rxd5 21 Hxds
X5 was refuted by 22 Xd8! in Geller-Larsen,
Copenhagen 1966, when after 22..8\3+ 23

h1 Mxd8 24 Lxd8 D2 25 {3 Hc5 26 Ecl
Black was still a pawn ight.
18 £e3 Deb
18..Wid6 immediately can be met by 19
251 Wxcs 20 Wxeb+ Sh8 21 £xdS, but
Black can unravel by 21.. W2+ 22 h1 Rf6
23 We4 Eaf8 with the threat of mare;
otherwise 19 £b3 @e5 transposes to the
main game.
19 £63 Wd6
20 h3
Also promising is the idea 20 d4 c5 21
Bf4 g5 (Krasenkov prefers 21..6)7 with
equalising chances) 22 Hxfg+ Exf8 23 f3
415, when in Vogt-Sydor, Cienfuegos 1975,
White could have kept a small but annoying
edge by contnuing 24 Hdl c4 25 £xcd
Gixcs 26 Wxcs Wxh2+ 27 xh2 dxot 28
Rds.
20...Eae8 21 Hda.
21 c#? allows the dangerous 21... &xh3!
21...c5 22 Rfa &1
Black can cover his exposed pawns with a
solid game afier 22..8%7. Nevertheless,
“White has more options due to the bishop
pair, 22..g5!? was played in a similar position
in Vogt-Sydor, see the note to White's 20th
move.
23 Whs
White threatens to increase pressureon
the centre with 24 Ed1, but in faa 23 Rdit
may be best, when 23..We5 24
‘WdZctQZS.fi.cZQdéZ(.lxfiHEfoU
9 We2
%44 Wh5 28 et was dissinely unpleasant
for Black in Moiseev-Van Pero, corres-
pondence 1977. Black shouldn’t allow the
bishop to sit 5o snugty on d4, so 22..8d7 (by
defending the c5-pawn) avoids the necessity
of weakening the central dark squares.
23..g5!? 24 AxfB+
After 24 Rd1 then 24..Xxf4 25 $xf4
Wxf42? fails 10 26 WxeB+, bur 24...We5 looks
okay.
kay,
24 .2xf8 25 kxg5 We5 26 Nd1
26 4 is well met by 26..Wxc3,
26...c4
looks dubious after 27 22,
27 $c2 Wxgh 28 Wxg5s %-%
White should have played on as 28 Wxp5
hag5 29 Bb1 (29 Bel 47 and .. 66 holds
nicely) 29,215 (or 29,47 30 Hbb Za8 31
f1 aiming for d4) 30 Kxf5 Hxf5 31 Bbé
yields him a safe edge.
convinced me thar the
12.Md7 Tine doesnt sobve all of Bladk's
problems.
Game 64
Karpov-Korchnoi
Baguio City (12th matchgame) 1978
1 e4 e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 2 Lad D6
5 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxe5
Le6 9 Wo2 £e7 10 Xd1 0-0 11 c4 bxcd
12 fixcd £c56 13 Re3 2xe3 14 Wxe3
Whe 15 £b3
Open Ruy Lopez
15...0as
After 15..Wb6 (or 15..Wa7) White does
best o keep queens on with 16 We2 £e7 for
16..Mad8 17 @3 Pxc3 18 bxc3 De7 19
Rabi WaS 20 c4 dxcd 21 RKxct Kxcd 2
Wixcd, as in Vogt-Strobel, Vraca 1975, when
‘White has somewhat the better chances due
to Black’s inferior pawn structure) 17 £x3!
&ixc3 18 bxc3 ¢5 19 g5 (also promising is
19 Hab1 Hab8 20 £.c2 Wes 21 Dg5 252
Rxf5 Quf5 23 ¢6) 19..h6 20 Sixes fxe6 21
Hel, intending Had, with slightly the berter
chances for White. The bishop is the better
minor piece especially when it comes to the
c2-h7 diagonal.
16 Det
16 &bd2 is more testing, see the next
mein game.
16...Wb6
Nowadays the main fine is considered to
be 16..4)xb3 17 axb3 f5! (not here 17..Whb6?
18 Wxb6 cxb6 19 b4, as in Hibner
Demarre, Dresden 1969, when White has a
big advantage as £2-£3 is threatenad) 18 exfé!
(otherwise after 18 £3 4 19 Wd4 c5 20 Wd3
@Dg5, 18 Hd3d4 19 Wxd4 Kd8 or 18 Hid2
5 19 Hdcl Wxe5 Black has good play)
18...Hxf6 19 £3 &d6 20 £d2 Rhe21 21 or
21 Hdcl oS! with threars against h2 in
Sakharov-Oim, comespondence 1977)
21217 22 Dd3 &5 23 WS Wh6 when
chances are balanced (Korchna).
17 Wxbe
This time 17 We2 simply loses a pawn
after 17...3b3 erc.
17...cxb6 18 3
The pawn grab 18 £xd5 is dubious after
18..Zads, and better was 18 Rc2¥
&3c4 19 £3 £)c5 20 b4 27 21 £4 Hacg22 £5?
D3 23 fxeb freb 24 D2 Hixc2 and White
resigned in Lenz-Kolev, Vienna 1990. Even
if White hadn’t blundered with 21 5, Bladk
already had a good game.
18...2xb3
Filip gives 18..4c51 19 £xd5 £xds 20
Hxd5 @c4 21 b3 @De3 as unclear but this
116
looks too risky to me.
19 axb3 DcS 20 b4 HA7
20..40b3? 21 Ha3 d4 22 Dd2 Bxd2 23
Hxd2 will lose a pawn.
21 i3
21..95?
A poor choice. Keene suggests 212§,
Korchnoi 21..d4 and Smyslov 21..a5, all of
which give equal chances. In ¢ach case Black
has sufficient activity to compensate for the
exposed pawns on d5 and a6
The text aims to hinder White in the
support of his e5-pawn but it loosens the
black kingside and is soon regreteed,
22 o3 Btc8 23 DF2 dat
23..8%xe5 24 Bxd5 £xd5 25 Bxd5 f6 26
De4 is deceptive as, despite the symmetry,
Black has sufficient problems to lose a pawn
by force.
24 Do2 43!
Trying to complicste as 24..%xe5 25
Dxd4 followed by Ded leaves Black with
holes everywhere.
25 Hxd3 Rc4 26 D3
After 26 &)c3 hé! 27 Ded LKxd3 28 Bxd3
&xe5 29 Hd5 4! Black has good drawing
chances. Here 26 f4l, hanging on to the
pawn, is recommended most
commentators, although Bladk’s active pieces
give him reasonable drawing chances.
26...&xd3 27 Rxd3 Hixe’ 28 Nd5 Dgbt
in ditching a pawn for active play.
Black is no longer in danger of losing.
 9 We2

29 Hxg5 Hc2 30 b3 Xb2 31 &5 Uxb3 Black after 21..Rfe8) 20 &5 Rxf5 21 fuf5
32 h4 &f8 33 h5 De7 34 Dxe7 dxe? 35 Had8 22 b3 (or 22 Hel &ic6 23 Radl Hd¢
Zel+ &8 36 Hed ab 37 Hegd de7 38 24 Rb1a5 25 He3 f5 with chances
for both
bxa5 Exa5 39 h6 Hxg5 40 Hxg5 bs 41 sides in Jansa-Stean, Virsac 1979) 22..Kfe8 23
Rg7 Bb1+ 42 &h2 Xd1 43 Mxh7 Hd8 44 Bei c4 24 Wg5 Wc7, mainly because of the
Rg7 Xh8 %-% identity of the player of the black pieces,
‘A good fight-back
by Korchnoi. Kavalek-Karpov(), Montreal 1979, when
Black has a good position with ar least
Game 65 equality. His central pawns are advancing and
Kr.Georgiev-Flear White's kingside play is unconvincing.
Ano Liosia 1999 17 Dxeq!
Neither 17 Wxb6 cxb6 18 Sixed Suxb3 19
1 e4 €5 2 DF3 Hcb 3 Lb5 56 4 Las D6 axb3 dxed 20 Qg5 Lxb3 21 Bds fe2 22
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxeS Hxb6 hé 23 Hh3 Rd3 24 D4, as in
£e6 9 We2 £e7 10 Hd10-0 11 ¢4 bxcd TMartinBehrmann, West Germany 1986,
12 £xc4 2c5 13 Le3 £xe3 14 Wxe3 nor 17 &\d4 @2 18 Bxd2c5 19 &xeb fre6
Wb8 15 £b3 Da5 16 Dbd2 W6 20 Hct Kac8 21 Hde2, as in Koch-Murey,
Cannes 1989, and now 21..d4! (Korchnoi)
offer White i
17...Wxe3 18 fxe3 Hxb3 19 axb3 dxed
20 24

The main alternative is 16...Wa7, but this

can transpose back to the game after 17
‘x4, Instead the exchange of queens on a7
is not worrying for Black: 17 Wxa7 Jxa7 18
da (18 Qixed Gixb3 19 axb3 dxed 20 S1d¢
c5 21 @xe6 fxe6 22 Hd6 Hb7 23 a3 Hbf7,
2s in Scherbakov-Ruderfer, USSR 1971, was
satisfactory for Black; note the importance of
the rook on the second rank which is useful
for doubling and stopping White coming to
the seventh) 18.40xd2 19 Hxd2 c5 with
adequate counterchances in Kuijpers-
Langeweg, Netherlands 1968.
Afeer 16.. W27, a notable alternative is 17
Dd4 Fed? 18 Wxd2 Whe! 19 £c2 S and in the main game the centrally posted
(19..8c4 20 We2 5 21 D5 is also fine for
Black has three sensible moves, but which
is best? The problem is that in each case,
Black has to play well just to hold a draw and
has no realistic winning chances.
20...28
Skembris suggested to me thar 20..2ab8
might be the way to equality, but 21 Edct
Rxb3 22 Rxc7 Hbé 23 a7l £d5 24 b3 gave
White good chances and he went on to win
in Timman-Tal, Wik 2an Zee 1982, Here
kmight is a far superior piece to the opposing

117
Open Ruy Lopez

bishop, so how about 20..c51? obliging the With limited time available my opponent
knight to exchange itself? Then after 21 failed to find the win and only afier extensive
taxcsfuszzzde(zzz&lmzzms analysis was the truth found.
(22..Hab8 23 a3 is uncomforable for
Black, who will lose a pawn by force, e.g.
23...c4 24 Kxe6 Mxb3 25 Hxb3 cxb3 26 Kxab
with a clear advantage - Timman) 23 Hxe6
(now 23 Ba3 is met by 23..$f7) 23.. Hxb3
24 Hexab Hxa6 25 Mxab f7 26 Ma7+ g6
(26..%e6 27 Hxg7 Lub2 28 Uxh7 allows
White connected passed pawns and is
therefore better for him) 27 Zc7 Hxb2 28
Hxe5 Black still has 2 hard fight on his hands
o draw despite the fact thet the extra pawn is
doubled.
21 Xdc1! £xb3
21...Eb7 was possible. 36 Ddar?!
22 Exe7 g6t The win starts
with 36 b4t £b7 37 a2
22.%0¢6! is the best chance for ful £d5 38 D3 L6 39 Dxed &d5 when 40
equality, g 23 Hd1 Kb6 24 b4 hé 25 &6 &6 6 41 exf6 Txde 42 og5 Le8 43 whé
Ee8 26 2 Bh7, as in Tal-Sturua, Yerevan was my opponent’s first try, but this is
1982. Here Bladk seems to be holding his thwarted by 43...50e5!! (Flear) 44 g7 e6 45
own but White kept plugging away and won o421 (45 of§ 217 46 We7 is equal) 45..K17 46
in the end. &5 fe8 47 DB Pxe5 48 Lxe8 Ixf6 and
It is interesting that after his loss o Black has the only winning chances.
Timman, Tal then played the same line as An hour
or so later
40 £d2! 247 41 b3l
“White Later in the year. (Krum Georgiev) was found to do the trick,
23 h4 £d5 24 Hab 2b7 25 Bxb7? Xxb7 as after 4L.axb3 (4L.23 42 @bl a2 43
26 Zc5 hs £3c3+) 42 @xb3 White cannot be prevented
Georgiev prefers 26...82c8, but the pure from using his knight with decisive effect on
knight versus bishop ending is also tough as the kingside. The knight comes to g5, d6 or
we shall see. d8 and with a timdly e3-e4 or c5-¢6 White
27 &2 a5 28 $g3 a4 29 HbS £¢8 30 liberates his king to invade and capture {7 or
Dbt 6. In an extended post-mortem1 vainly tried
The inferior
30 4 g7 31 dxeda3 32 to defend this position aginst my opponent
bxa} Mxa3 gives reasonable drawing chances and I am now convinced
that it is lost.
as Black will seck an active defence involving 36...d5 37 b3 axb3
Hb2 etc. 37...a37 38 £)b5 a2 39 Hc3+ picks off the
30...%f8 a-pawn.
Although 30..2d7 31 Eb8+ Rxb3 32 38 Dxb3 £a6 39 D4 Rd3 40 Db3 L1
&xh8 £b5 traps the knight,
White will win 41 Dab Rab 42 Hb3 211 43 Hab Lab
after33 f4 Bf8 34 Pxed Re7 35 dd5 X1 Y-t
36 g3 22+ 37 e4 as the knight can retum to The presence of the e4-pawn is important;
the fray with a decisive effect. now the fisquare is defended and
31 Eb8 Hxb8 32 &xb8 ¥e7 33 Do+ consequentlythe bishop is able to stop the
&e6 34 $14 £a6 35 g3 £c8 knight comingto the kingside.
1718
 9 We2

Summary
The seasible 9 We2 is out of fashion but gives Black a difficult choice.
The ‘solid' 9..8.¢7 is deeply anatysed but a well prepared White player can render it *passive’
and squeeze out a small but persistent edge, as in Games 63 and 65.
The double-edged moves 9. ..Rc5 (Game 60} and 9..8c5 (Games 61 and 62) are more fun,
the larter. Despite losses in both illustrative games, Black has dear improvements
in the notes and 9..4%5 should be okay.

1 ¢4 @6 2 D3 16 3 £b5 a6 4 a4 HH6 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 bs 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 Le6

9 We2

9...%e7
9... 85 - Game 60
9.5 10 Bd1 &e7
11 £ e3 - Game 61
11c4 (D) - Game 62
10 Rd1 0-0 11 o4 bxcd 12 £xc4 265
12.Wd7 (D) - Game 63
13 Le3 £xe3 14 ¥xe3 WbB 15 £b3 Hab 16 Dod2
16 Del - Game 64
16..Wh6 (D) - Game 65
 CHAPTER TEN
9 Hbd2
1 e4 e5 2 &3 Hc6 3 LbS ab 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 &ixe4 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 d5 B dxeS
KeB 9 Dbd2
In recent years 9 @bd2 has become very
popular. Black faces a decision as to whether
to allow tansposition to other chapers
(paticularly Chapter 5 by playing an carly
.&e7) or to try and exploit the fact tha
“White has temporarily less control of the d4-
square.
The sharpest method is 9 &bd2 £x5 10
<3 d4 (Games 70-76) which leads to great
complications. Black seems to have a fully
sznsfaamy game — if he knows the theory!
‘The resulting positions require study but the
reward for this investment in time will be
games rich in fascinating possibilities.
The dangerous-looking 11 &5 has been
shorn of its terroras a study of Games 70-72
will show, whereas other, more positional
ideas for White are detailedin Games 73-76.
However, Black is not obliged to play for
an early ...d5-d4, as Games 66-69 will show.
In Game 66 Black seeks transposition to
Part Two by playing 9..Re7, which White
then avoids by means of the immediate 10
Pixed.
Game 67 mvites transposition to Part One
with 9..&c5 but dhis often leads to carly
simplification
with 10 &xed,
120
1 think that these moves axe also perfectly
adequate and have the advantage of avoiding
the need to learn the rest of the chapter. The
disadvantage, particularly of the laster, is that
the resulting ending is 4 little dull
Finally, Game 68 examines some wusual
ways of handling 9 Bbd2. These really do
require more practical cxperience at a high
levl and the conclusions here are
Game 66
Geller-Krasenkov
Cappelle la Grande 1992
1 e4 e5 2 D3 D6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Rad HE
5 0-0 fixe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeS
Re6 9 Dbd2 Re7
Here 10 ¢3 would return to Part Two.
10 Dxed dxed 11 Lxed fxe6 12 Dgs
Tarjan judges the position resulting from
12 A2 €3 13 fre3 Hixe5 14 Whs+ Dgb as
unclear.
12..8xg6
Instead 12.Wd5 13 WhS+ g6 14 W4
Lxg5 15 Sxg5 Bixes 16 Wg3 DF 17 Rf6
00 18 Had1 W5 was about equal in Geller-
Unricker, Bern 1987. However Black should
not hurry to exchange queens as afier
12, Wxd1? 13 Bxdl Rxg5 14 &xg5 Bf8 15

$h4 €3 (15,265 16 Bd2 Exe5 17 Badi dlso
Jooks awkward for Black) 16 fxe3 Xf5 17 a4
b4 18 &g3 Bd8 19 Rd3 Ef7 20 Hadl White
kept the better prospecs in Sax-Tajan,
Hastings 1977/78,
13 Wh&+ g6 14 Wxg5 0-0
in the exchange of queens is ilk
advised: 14..Wxg5¥ 15 Kxg5 00 16 Kf6
b4 17 Kael with the clearly beter game for
White whose bishop is a real nuisance.
However, Krasenkov prefers the immediate
14..WdSP?
15 Wg4 Wd5 16 Het
‘White has an important alternative here in
16 &f4. Afeer 16...Xad8 (inferioris 16..2xe5
17 Wig3 &t 18 b3 &ds 19 Hadi, which
allowed White an initiative in the rock ending
after 19..Wc5 20 £.xd6 cxd6 21 Wixds Wxdé
22 Hxd6 Kac8 23 Hxaé in Vopt-Chekhov,
Potsdam 1985) 17 h (not 17 Had1 Hixes 18
We2 Wed 19 Wxct Dixcd 20 Lxc7 Rxdt 21
Rxd1 &xb2 and now it is Black who has the
extra pawn) 17..&xe5 18 Wg3 IS, as in
Subit-A.Rodriguez, Cuban Championship
1990, Black has managed10 hold on to his
extra pawn for the moment, but White wilt
obtain adequate compensation by doubling
on the e-file.
16..8f5 . will probably prove to be the stronger minor
The pawn grab 16..8d4? 17 &hé Sixc2
18 Zad1 loses the initiative.
17 Rh6
After 17 Exe4? Haf8, as in Hazai-
9 Dbd2
Chekhov, Bulgaria 1985, White has a
problem with the £2-square, Black shouldu’t
be allowed to double on the £file.
17...9c5
If 17..d4 18 We2 Wib2 19 Wxed We3,
Krasenkov proposes 20 f4 with an edge ©
White. However, after 17.. 815! 18 Wxed
1d8 19 £f4 Wxed 20 Exed Hcd 21 Lx7
He8 22 £g3 4xb2 23 Hxe 25 24 Hab 2
draw was agreed in Chandler-Beckemeier,
Germany 1990/91.
18 He2 Mds
18..40d4 19 Exet £3b3 20 Bfl (Geller
and Gufeld) leaves Black with no compen-
sation for the pawn.
19ha
A useful move with ideas of h4-h5 or
£hé-g5 depending on circumstances and, of
course, giving his king bolt hole.
19...8d5 20 Xf1
Black can of course take the e-pawn off
with 20..HdxeS, but after 21 Hxe4 Wxc2 22
HxeS Dwes 23 Wdd W3 24 Wa7 Black’s
kingis a major cause for concern.
20...Wd4 21 b3 Wc3
The best bet was a slightly worse ending
after 21.. 835 22 Wxed Wyed 23 Bxed D7,
when the e-pawn is isolated and the bishop
piece.
22 h5t Deb 23 Wxed Nxhs 24 214
As soon as the e-pawn falls the bishop
leaps into fife and the efile becomes a
721
Open Ruy Lopez

problem for Black. 10...dxe4 11 £xe6

24...2d477 ‘The immediate 11 @g51 is fashionable,
A blunder. After 24,85 25 Hfel o5t when White s a fant edge after
Black is just sbout hanging on. Whice’s best 1L Wxd1 12 Hxdl &xb3 (12.009 13
may then be 26 Rxe5 (26 X3 with ideas of Dxed fxeb 13 Lxe6+ Lh8, as in Gross-
Be3 and £2-4 is interesting, but 26 Ke3 Wb2 Sulskis, Budapest 1998, may be worth
27 o4? fails to 27..2d4) 26.Rfxe5 27 WxeS investigating) 13 axb3 00 14 Omed Rd4
Hxe5 28 Hxe5 Wxc2 29 M52 W3 30 Bxeb (14...2b6 15 14 Rfe8 16 3 Dd4 17 Bd2
with an edge. &eb 18 Redt lefe Black with an uphill
2% Was+ Pg7 26 R xe5+ 1-0 struggle in Khalifman-Golod, Belgrade 1999)
Despite the result of this game, 9..e7 is 15 &6 fxe6 16 b1 b6 17 c3 25 18 3 a4 19
a safe practical move which avoids the long bxaé bxat 20 &5, as in De Vreug-
theoretical lines of 9..8c5. Mikhalevsks, Dieren 1999.

Game 67
Van Mil-Flear
Ouakbam 1994

T4 o5 2 DI3 4106 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad 6

5 0-0 £xe4 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 dS 8 dxeS
£66 9 Qbd2 $c6
Aiming for transposition to Part One after
10e3.
White usually goes for mass simplificarion
here, when he obtains the slightly berter
pawn structure and thus a faint and fairly
risk-free edge.
10 Dxed
10 We2 is examined in Chapter 9, Gam
60, note to White’s tenth move, while White
also has some lesser tries: . Lxf6 17 exté€2 18 Bel {d4 19 7+ bxd7
3) The inclusion of the extra moves 10 24
b4 gives White potential access to the cé
square. However, this proved to be
unimportant in the game Mios-Flear, Las
Palmas 1993: 11 Dxe4 dxed 12 Rxe6 Wndl
13 Rxd1 fxe6 14 Dg5 0-0 15 Hixed Rdd! 16
3 bxc3 17 bxc3 &b6 18 Bl If5 19 ez
BxeS 20 £3 M5 with equality.
b) 10 Well? is an idea of the German
Thomas Luther. After 10..8xd2 11 $xd2
g4 12 Re3 Re7 13 Wdl Dixe5 14 Rxds
O0P 15 h3 (uaking the exchange is risky)
1523+ 16 Rxf3 Wxdl 17 Lxdl Sxdl
18 Rfxdl, the game Luther-Flear, Lenk 1992,
was agreed drawn.
122
11..8xd1
Also playable is 11.fxet 12 Wxds+
(keeping
the queens on with 12 §d2 Wd5 13
Wh5+ g6 14 Wha €3 15 Ded Re7 16 6+
20 Wi+ g8 21 Wxc7 was undlearin
Marjanovic-Tarre, Novi Sad 1984) 12.. Hxd8
13 &35 £b6 14 Gdxe6 Hd7 15 Dg5 Dxe5 16
Dxed 00 17 Rd2 Ded 18 K3, as in
Viadimirov-Lopez, St Barbara 1992, when
Black regains the pawn by 18..3e7 19 Haet
Bfe8. In fact, Black can also play 13..00 14
Re3 (14 Dxe6? Lxf2+ 15 Phl 3 looks
great for Black) 14...8xe3 15 fxe3 Rfe8 with
ble equaliy in Kwiakowsl Flear,
Not 12 £xf7+ $xi7 13 D5+ Pgo 14
Lxd1 because of 14...e3!
12...xe6 13 g5 0-0 14 Dxed

14 &e3 proved 1 be special afi
14...2xe3 15 fxe3 HxeS 15%:471753
gt 18 el Re$ in PrasadKrasenkov,
Gausdal 1991.
14...2b8
This position received a lot of artention a
few years ago, but experience has shown that
Black seems to have an equal game. White
cannot maintain the extra pawn and Black is
active enough to compensaie his slightly
worse pawn structure., The main drawback is
that it’s all a linle dull and Black has difficulty
creating any winning chances.
16 b3
A sensible move, protecting the c4-square
a0d preparing the bishop's development to
b2 or a3. Other ilities include:
2 15 sft het? (15. K5 16 f3 Kafg 17 3
&ixe5 18 ©e2, as in Doggers-Ernst, Dieren
1999, or 17..Bxe5 18 Rel leaves White with
chances of consoli his better pawn
structure) 16 ¢3 Dxe5 17 Pe2 Kad8 18 Bxds
Exd8 19 b3 &f7 20 3 Hd5 with reasonable
counter-chances in Zontakh-Skembris, Cutro
1999.
b) 15 g3 K5 16 3 &ve5 17 b2 Hafg 18
4 Qb 19 g5 B5F6 20 Hel €5 and Black
had enough activity in Glek-Komeev,
Krumbach 1991.
) 15 a4 &ixe5 16 h3 Hic4 17 Het Hac8 18
&f1 d6 and Black started to assume the
initiative in Griinfeld-Mikhalevsli, Tel Aviv
1994.
9 Dba2
15...0xes
Alernatively, 15.2f5 16 &b2 Rf4 17
Hel Haf8 18 He2 Rd4 offers Black
satisfactory counterplay, when 19 ¢3 £b6 20
Rcl Exed 21 Axet Hxf2 22 Ke3 He2 even
gave Black an edge in Beudaert-Flear, Creon
1999.
16 223
This stops the doubling of rooks.
16...Xf4 17 Be1 Hd8 18 Ra2 Hcb 19 ¢3
e5?!
A poor swatgic decision as Black will
inevitably have a passive game after this.
Instead 19..35 looks unconvincing after 20
3¢5 but 19..Bd5! {covering c5 and g5) 20
Kael De51, heading for d3, gives Black good
play.
20 Mol h6 21 o1 K7 22 Rd2 2ed7?
A tactical oversight which leaves Black in
trouble. Better was 22..Hxd2 23 &xd2 &f8
with a passive but playzble game, as 24 Re3
Hd7! holds cverything together, despite
Black’s poor pawn worse structure.
23 Hxd7 Bxd7 24 £xh6!
‘Whoops! Where did that one come from?
Black can save the pawn at the risk of
allowing the white king a dominating role.
24...8xf2+
Not 24...gxh62? because of 25 D6+
25 $xf2 Bf7+ 26 Fe3 gxh6 27 Zd1
Now it is White who has the d-file,
27...b4 28 BdB! bxe3 29 Dxc3
Comparing pawans, Black’s are all isolaed
whereas White’s are neat and tidy. Black
must therefore get active or die.
29...2f1 30 Ze5 HbA 31 Bxc?
Simplest was 31 HxeS Helt 32 He2
Dxa2 33 KeS+ {7 34 HeB D14 35 Bxc7+.
31..8e1+ 32 $f2
My opponent rejected 32 3! because of
32 Hel 33 Dd5 Bf1+ 34 P2 Dxd5 and
Black escapes. But in this line 33 a3! is very
strong as after 33..42 34 ®ed the white
king invades with a decisive effect.
32..8d3+ 33 ©g3 D4 34 213 B+ 35
@ed Rel+ 36 BF3 Bf1+ 37 Pod Zet+ 38
123
Open Ruy Lopez
@15 Hixg2 39 Ded
Pethaps 39 &)d5P could have been tried.
39...%e2 40 D6+ i3
White cannot easily deliver mate as both
41 Pe6 or 41 g6 are met by 41..Df4+.
41 a4 e4! 42 Dxed Dha+ 43 Teb D3+
44 ©d5 Hxh2 45 b4 Rhs+ 46 ©d6 Bha
47 Hc3 Exed 48 Exf3+ g7 49 Hb3 $f6
50 b5 axbb 51 axbb Ne6+ 52 Sd7 He7+
53 &d8 Hh7! 54 b6 hS 55 b7 ha 56 b3W
Rh8+ 57 wd7 Hxb8 58 Hxb8 &i5 59
&d6 h3 60 Hb4s g5 81 Beb Y-%
A thoroughly frustrating expmcnae for
my opponent, who needed to win for a
Grandmaster norm.
Game 68
Tischbierek-Péhtz
Potsdam 1985
1 e4 85 2 13 HHc6 3 LbS5 a6 4 2ed HIE
5 0-0 b5 6 £b3 Dixe4 7 d4 d5 8 dxe5
206 9 Qibd2 o5 10 ¢3 Dxb3
This line that has never gained much
popularity despite being judged as equal by
the books.
Korchnoi was punished emphatically by
Karpov after trying the experimental 10..g67
11 We2 K57 12 Dd4 DxeSA (playable bur
uninspiring is 12..%wd4 13 cadd Db7 14
Rc2 c5 15 £4 cxd4 16 Hb3 Whe 17 W2 00
18 &ixd4 with a pleasant edge for White in
Fishbein-Murey, Moscow 1989) 13 f4 £c4
14 £5 gxf5 15 QxS Bg8 16 Sixcs dxet 17
Rc2 @d3 18 2hé K18 19 Hadl and Black
was in all sorts of trouble in Karpov-
Korchnol, Baguio City (8th matchgame)
1978.
T quite like 10.Wd7R 11 SHdé S
(11..8Dxe5 is too risky after 12 f4 &ic6 13 £5
with artacking chances for White in Adams-
Ziadinov, Dublin 1991) 12 cxd4 ad! 13
Rxa4 bxat 14 b3 o5 when Black had
equalised in Guid-Sundararajan, Yerevan
1999.
The alternatives 10...Rg4 and 10..d4 are
124
considered in Game 69 and Games 70-76
respectively.
11 Sxb3 Le7 12 Dida
The alternasive 12 Re3 can be met by
12.9¢4, when 13 Rc5 Dxed! 14 Lxe7
Wxe7 15 Hel 3 16 gxf3 WeS+ 17 hl
0-0 yields equality for Black ~ Korchnot.
12,947
Another sound idea is 12..8xd4 13 cxdd
00 14 Rd2 6! (another typical method to
Tiberate the black position) 15 Hel fxeS 16
Rxe5 Rd6? (optimistic, instead 16..R17
followed by ...&d6 is satisfactory) 17 Rg5
(after 17 Hxe6! Sxh2+ 18 f1l Hxiz+ 19
Soxf2 Whas 20 Le3 Wias 21 &d3 W5+ 22
&c3 Black doesnt really have enough
compensation) 17..We8 18 He3 Wg6 19
Wez Wxg5 20 Hxe6 Whd 21 g3 Wh3 22
Hel h5 and here a draw was agreed in
Henao-Obando, Los Angeles 1991.
However, 12..&xe5? is a mistake as after
13 Rel g6 14 Dixeb fxe6 15 D4l HIS 16
Wg4, as in GKuzmin-Beliavsky, USSR
1977, White was obviously much better.
13 4 Dxd4 14 cxd4 ab 15 Le3 ad 16
De1
After 16 $c5 £xc5 17 dxc5 Black
has a
light-squared blockade and can play for
more with 17..&5 {with ideas of ..h7-h5,
..&ed, .. W5 and bringing 2 rook to go).
Instead 17..h5? was disastrous for Black in
Bejaoui-Flear, Tunis 1999, after 18 c6! Wxch
19 £5 with a raging astack for White.
 9 Dba2

16...c51? e6-g4 and ..Detc5-¢6. If White plays too

Introducing a double-pawn sacrifice 1o
obiain good play for the bishops.
17 dxcb d4 18 Wxda Wxd4 19
0-0-0 20 Ke3 6
Black has grear play for his pieces despite
the two-pawn deficit.
21 b3 fxe5 22 15
ing a pawn, with gain of time, o
obtain a kingside majority. Note that Black
remains particularlyactive after 22 fxe5 Hd5
23 b4 Hhdg 24 ££4 Hdd.
22...2f7 23 bxad bxa4 24 2b1 $c7 25
Hba Le8 26 g4 h6 27 $f2 c6 28 wg3
EdB 29 Ze1 Zhd8 30 h4 &xc5
Finally winning back the sacrificed
‘material, after which the game is equal.
31 Hod £d4 32 g5 hxgh 33 &xg5 28d6
34 £d3 2c3 35 Uxc3 %-%
Indeed 35.Hxd3+ 36 Hxd3 Hxd3+
He3 Rxe3+ 38 Rxe3 is dead drawn.
Game 69
Lutz-Yusupov
Germany 1996
1 e4 e5 2 D3 Nck 3 A5 a6 4 £ad D6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b 7 £b3 d5 8 dxes
206 9 Hibd2 Hcb 10 ¢3 £ga
This opening is similar t the
manoeuvting lines of Chapter5, However,
here Black aims 1o develop his bishop to ¢5
in one go, that is after having played ...Rc8-
routinely then the black ser-up is fine, but
unfortunarely this plan takes 100 much time
2xd4 and White can retain the initiative, as we shall
see below.
11 22
‘White should at some point retreat his
bishop
as otherwise he fails to maintain
any
pressure, e.g. 11 Hel Wd7 12 D1 Dxb3! 13
axb3 Re7 14 h3 £e6 15 K5 Kxg5 16 DS
00 with a comfortsble game for Black in
Das-Sriram, Calcutta 1999.
1.6
Qunck central development was seen in
Kharitonov, Bayamo 1989:
11..Wd7 12 Hel Uds 13 b3 Heb 14 a4
L7 15 axb5 axb5 16 Wd3. The plan of an
early ..Wd7 and ..Ed8 sometimes leaves the
bS-pawn exposed and now ,..0-0 will be hard
to achieve,
Leko-Anand, Linares 1999, varied from
this with 12..d4> 13 b3 dxc3 14 Wxd7+
Kxd7 15 bxe3 D8 16 Dg5 hé 17 Ded
xed 18 SKxet Kc6 and Black had 2
reasonable game.
12 He'l £c5 13 Hb3
Also effective is 13 a4 Hb8 (13..b4% is a
berter try) 14 axbS axb5 15 &b3 with an
edge for White ~ A Rodriguez.
13...8a7
‘This is better than 13...2b6 14 24 £e7 15
b5 b5 16 Hxa8 Wxa$ 17 Wd3 o6 18
37 Dfds Bixd4 19 Dxdd W 20 K5 hé 21
Sxe7 oxe7 22 W3, which was distinctly
k for Black in Sax-Flear, French
Teamn Championship 1990.
14 a4b4 15 Wd3 £h5
In order to play ... &g6 followed by ..0-0.
16 Ddal
An enterprising
pawn sacrifice.,
16...4xd4 17 cxdd 296 18 Wd1 Sxc2
19 Wixc2 Hexdd
Black does best to take the pawn as
otherwise White follows up with Re3 and
Eet to pressurise the c-file,
20 Hxdd Hxdd 21 Web De6 22 Feb+
125
Open Ruy Lopez
22 Wixb4 wins back the pawn but after
22..¢5 Black will then casdle and operate
down the b-file with excellent play.
22..%e7 23 Ke3 dd
Stopping the bishop from coming o ¢5,
which would create problems after 23..Wd7
24 Rc5+ BixeS 25 WxcS+ el since Black's
rooks are disconnected.
24 £ xd4l Dxda
Not 24..Wxd4? as 25 Ead1 We5 26 Hd7+
e8 27 WxalB+ wins.
25 WcE+ Fe6 26 Had1 WdS
In this way the queens are exchanged
White has the more active rooks bur the
centralised
king is now a positive feature.
27 Wxd4 ¥xd4 28 Hxd4 Khdsl?
This activating pawn sacrifice
preferred by Yusupov to 28..c5 29 Hdé+
e7 30 Hed1 Hhd8 31 %ft when White has
abind,
29 Hxb4 Hab8 20 Hcd Rxb2 31 Zc6+
e7 32 Bxc7+ Hd7 33 Ecé Rdd2 34 Hf1
a2 35 Zxat Rd4 36 93 Saxad
For club players, the ending of rook and
four pawns against rook and three on the
same side is notoriously difficuk to defend.
But for players as technically proficient as
Yusupov the defence is not a major task.
37 Eb6 fJabg 38 Ka6 Ha4 39 Uxad Exad
40 92 Ha2 41 $h3 16 42 ext6+ wxf6
Rook and three versus rook and two is
even easierto defend!
43 13 hS 44 Zb1 Bf2 45 Rbé+ 17
126
g6 47 Sha Hxh2+ 48 &gb Kg2 48 Db7+
g8 50 Bb3 Bg7 51 Za3 Bg1 52 Na7+
g8 53 dxg6 Hxg3+ 54 Txh5 %-%
Game 70
Kasparov-Anand
New York (10th matchgame) 1995
This is one of the most famous Open Ruy
Lopez games of all time.
1 04 o5 2 23 o6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 B dxeb
£66 9 Dbd2 £1c6 10 ¢3 d4 11 HgBI?
A seemingly ctazy move thar Karpov
to unleash on Korchnoi in their
1978 Baguio City match. Accepting the
sacrifice with 11 MWixg5 is possible (Game 72)
and Black can also safely decline it (Game
71). Here Kasparov launches a home-
prepared attack which kills off the defence
inaugurated by Bladk’s previousty well
regarded 11th move,,
11...dxc32!
White also retains the berter game after
11.80b3 12 Hixed fre6 13 Wxb3 (or even
13 axb3 d3 14 Wh5+ g6 15 Wi3 Dxe5 16
Wet Rg7 17 £4 D7 18 B3, winning back
the pawn with imterest in M.Gonzalez-
Rodriguez, Spain 1999) 13..Wid5 14 Wxds
was exd5 15 )3 drc3 16 bac3, as in Angan-
1ysson-Pokojowcayk, Copenhagen 1980.
12 Pxe6 fxe6 13 bxc3 Wd3
46 f4 In theic sixth matchgame Kasparov was
 9 Dbd2

held in this line by Anand, but by the tenth White has a raging attack after both
game was ready with the plan of exchanging 16..2d8 17 Wh5+ g6 18 Wyt WxeS 19 &b2
the c5-knight so thar the defences around the and 16..Wxal 17 WhS+ g6 18 W3,
black king are weakened. In fact, the atrackis 17 g4 Wxat 18 Lxeb Ud8
50 srmngthat White can even sacrifice his Another defensive wy is 18.Wc3 bur
queen’s rookl “White then wins material by 19 247+ d8
14 So2t 20 Rg5+ Ke7 21 Dxe7+ Pxe? 22 Wagl+
Kasparov’s new sacrificial idea. Previously d8 23 Wxh8+ $xd7 24 Wxas,
theory had contimued 14 23 Wxdl 15
Lxdl Re7 16 Red 17 Rb3 7 18
Eadl &dxe5 19 Dxe5+ {even better is 19
&5+ Lxg5 20 Kxg5 which is clearly better
for White — Korchnoi) 19..8xe5 20 24
&4 Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (10th
matchgame) 1978, and now Tal's 21 Rd7
yiclds White an edge.
This was the state of affairs until the sixth
game when 14..0-00 (instead of 14..Wxd1)
15 Wel &xxb3 16 axh3 b7 17 L3 L7
Kasparov-Anand, New York (6th
matchgame) 1995, proved to be about equal.
All this is just for the record as the text is 19 &h6!
much stronger. Bladk escapes after 19 Rg5% Wc3 20
14..8xc3 15 Db3! Bxb3 £xd8 hS 21 Wg6+ Pxds.
A later try to rescue the variation was 19..Wc3 20 £xg7
15..2d8 16 Rd2 Hxd2 (or 16..Wxe5 17 Hel White threatens mate starting with 21
Wd5 18 Wg4 and the black monarch is in Wh5+.
mortal danger) 17 §xd2 fxes 18 Hb3 20...Wd3 21 2xh3 Wgb
Bed7 19 @4 £d6 20 Hel, but Black's king 2122+ 22 h1 Dg3+ 23 hxg3 Wxf1e
never found a safe haven in Khalifman- 24 &h2 Wd3 25 Rf5 We4 26 [4 leaves Black
Hracels, Pému 1996. an exchange up but a king down.
16 2xb3 22 £16 Re7 23 Lxe7 Gxgd 24 Lxgd
xe7 25 Re1
Open Ruy Lopez

After the vicious artack comes the slow _ Hervera

and Dominguez) 17 g4 Eg8 18 {5+
torture of a lost ending. White has an extra gxf5 19 Exf5 2571 and Black should be able
pawn and his problems on the c-file mean to beat off the artack (Flear).
that Black cannot activate his pieces. Instead of 14 &ed White successfully tried
25...c6 26 #4 ab 27 2 a4 28 $e3 ba 14 Wg4+ in Svidler-Anand, Dos Hermanas
29 8.d1! 1999, when 14..%e7 15 e6 fxetl? 16 Hel
White sensibly keeps an cye on the Wd7 17 fxe6 Dixed 18 DF3 HeB 19 Hg5
queenside before Black gets any further Dds 20 Rd2 he?! 21 &3 Wd5 22 Hes Wd6
advanced. 23 <xd4 gave White more than enough
29...23 30 g4 Bd5 31 Do4 cb 32 Ted compensation. This amack is far from
Hd8 33 Zxcs De6 34 Xd5 Hc8 35 15 convincing, however, as Black has two clear
Bca+ 36 @e3 Deb 37 g5 Re1 38 Xdé improvements: first 15..&wh3 (instead of
1-0 15...8xe6) 16 Dixb3 Kxe6 17 Hel Wd5 18
xS Hd8 19 wxd4 hé 20 Rf4 with
Game 71 compensation for White {Selvanov); and
Onischuk-l.Sokolov fater 20..¥d5! (instead of 20..h6) intending
Wijk aan Zee 1997 21..80d7, when White’s best is 21 &xe6
Dxe6 22 Bt Wxe6 23 Hel Wxels 24
1 04 o5 2 DI 41c6 3 AbE a6 4 Lad DG .fi.mel&cc}lSixc}@dBandBlzd(uokzy
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 b3 d5 8 dxe5 ear).
£06 9 Dbd2 Dcs 10 o3 dd 11 Og5 ... Wxd5 13 Db3 kb3
Kd5! I Sokolov points out why 13..Kd8 is bad:
‘The best way 1o refuse the knight. 14 x5 Lxc 15 eb! fxeb 16 Fixed!
14 axb3 Re7 16 Df3

12 4xd5
A critical alternative is the enterprising
piece sacrifice 12 Qxf71? dxf7 13 W+ e
14 Det Dxed (ot 148003 15 Wet+
@f7 16 WIS+ De8? 17 6 Rxe6 18 Wxet+
@e7 19 Wxb3 and White had a clear
advantage in Domingucz-Rios, Cuba 1996;
better was 16..%g8) 15 Wred 7 16 f4 g6
(less good is 16..2xb3 17 f5+ Ff7 18 axb3
Wds 19 Wi4 when White has compensation
128
15...431
This seems to equalise completely and
improves on 15..2xe5 16 &xd4 Dgs 17
WE3 Wxf3 18 Dxf3 which gave White a safe
edge in Anand-LSokolov, Lyon 1994.
16 262 0-0 17 £d4 Efd8 18 Wxd3
An admission that White has nothing, but
he has little choice in view of Sokolov’s line
18 He1? £ixd4 19 cxd4 Kb4 20 He3 d2 21

243 ¢5 22 Dixd2 c4.
18...Wxb3 19 We2 We6 20 Rid1 2d5 21
h3 aS
Fresing bis queen’s rook.
22 %e3 Had8 23 Exd5 WxdS 24 Xf4
Wd3 25 Wxd3 Exd3 26 $F1
“White probably should have forced the
continuation 26 eb fxe6 27 Sxc7 a4 28 c4
bxcd 29 Bxa4 3 which was of course equal.
26..h6 27 we2 Nd5 28 h4 a4 29 e6
fxe6 30 &xc7 Xf6 31 o4 Ddd+ 32 Dxds
Exd4 33 cxbb Zb4 34 b6
A more comfortable way to draw was 34
Ha? Rxb2 35 £.d6 Rxb5 36 Exad.
34..2xb2+ 35 &f1 Db4 36 Axad Hxad
37 b7 Bb4 38 b8W+ Hxb8 39 Lxb8
Lxhs
The ending should be a draw especially as
the h-pawn is the notorious ‘wrong rook’s
pawr.
40 De2 FA7 41 Pe3 g6 42 g3 £16 43
&ed hS 44 4 263 45 Ke5 Lol 46 BI3
$17 47 £d4 g6 48 Lh2 o7 49 LeS
©d7 50 £16 &d6 61 Leb+ Rd5 B2 216
@ed 53 g4 2d5 54 gxh5 gxhE 56 Le7
h4 56 dg4 sed 57 £05 h3 53 Wxh3
$13 59 216 293 60 Rg7 Lxf4 61 L6
o5 62 2xe5 £xo5 %-%
Game 72
Shirov-Timman
Wijk aan Zee 1996
1 84 e5 2 O3 Dc6 3 LbS a6 4 Rad D6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
266 9 bd2 Des 10 3 44 11 DgS
Wxg5 12 Wi3
see following diagram
12...0-0-01
12...8d7 is inferior as Black cannot hang
on 10 the piece and has to give &t back under
‘worse circumstances: 13 £xf7+ &e7 14 d5
ixes 15 Wez d3 16 Wel o6 (16.2e8is
regarded as the lesser evil by Korchnai, eg.
17 f4 Wh5 18 fxe5 $d8 19 Rf7 Wxe5 20
9 Dbd2
fxe8 Wxel 21 Hxel Rxe8 22 B3 with
some compensation for the but
White is still favourite) 17 f4 Whé 18 &3
d8 19 fxe5 Re7 20 D3 with a strong
initiative for White in Wolff-Flear, London
1990.
"There is another idea, 12..8d7, but this
leads to a better ending for White after 13
©d5 &xd5 14 WxdS+ &d6 15 et (or 15
cxd4 §ixd4 16 Hcd, as in Brondum-Brinck
Classsen, Denmark 1979) 1546
(15..15? 16 S+ ~ Stean) 16 exd6 Wet
17 Wxc5 Wxc4 18 Wxct bxcd 19 dxc7 $xc7.
13 Lxe6+
13 Wixch leads 1o equality after 13..WxeS
14 &3 Wd5t (3 novel way 10 exchange
queens) 15 &xd5 £xd5 16 Hixdd Lxch 17
yxct He8 (Stean).
13...fxe6 14 xc6 Wxe5 15 ba
After
15 @3 Wd5 16 WxdS exdS 17 cxd4
e4 the position is more or less equal.
15..8d5
15..xc3 16 bxe5 cxd2 17 Wxat+ 7 18
Lol is clearly bewter for White Korchnoi)
as Bladk’s king is a problem.
Instead, the text exchanges queens and
sacrifices a piece for a powerful pawn
phalanx in the centre.
16 WixdB exdS 17 bxch dxc3 18 Db3 d4
19 2a3
A fairly recent try is 19 Bdi d3 20 23
Le7 21 S04 Hxd4 22 Hieds 6 23 Dxd3
Hd8, as in GufeldJaTomes, Los Angeles
129
Open Ruy Lopez
1995, which is given by EQO as ‘with
sufficient compensation’ but after 24 f1
White may be berter. T suggest 20..d2 as a
possible improvement,
However, after 19 242 b4 20 a5 d3 Black
had grear compensation in Gi.Garcia-
Timmermans, Moscow 1999.
19...g6!
Timman’s improvement over one of his
own games from 17 years ago (what a
memory he must havef) where he had White!
That game contisued 19..8&e7 70 &b4 X6
21 a4 $d7 22 axb5 axh5 23 Hab c6 24 Rd1
Pe6 25 Hxco+ Sd5 26 Kxfé Ec4 and things
were still undlear in Timman-Styslov, West
Germany 1979.
Tnstead of 21..sbd7, worthy of note was
21..bxa4 22 c6 d3 23 Hxa4 d2 24 Hxat Fb8
25 Bxd2 cxd2 26 Rd1 Rhes 27 df1 Rels+
28 Hxel dxel¥+ 29 dxel Xe8+ 30 &f1
£.d4 with just about enough compensation
for the pawn in NNinovK.Dimov,
correspondence 1995.
20 £b4 297 21 a4 Ld7 22 axbb axb§
23 Hadt
‘The main point of having his bishop on
g7, tather than f6, is that 23 a6 can be met
by 23..20a8, whereas in the original Timman-
Smyslov game (sec the previous now)
23..Ha8 would have been met by 24 Hxfé!
gxf6 25 &¥xd4 with advantage.
However, a recent game looks important.
Van den Doel-Timmermans, Netherfands
130
1999, continued 23 Hfd1!? &e6 24 Hacl (this
wzyWhltesmpsLhelungoormngtodS due
to the pin on the c-pawn) 24..8d5 25 Ra5
a8 26 B3, when the pawns are stymiod
and White went on to win.
23...%e6 24 Rfel+
A curious alternarive is 24 2d3 &d5 25
fxc3 @t (a family forkl) 26 Ridt dxcd 27
a5+ kxcS 28 Db7+ c4 29 DaS+ b4 30
Qic6+ L4 31 DaS+ (Shirov) with a strange
perpetual check which neither side dare
avoid,
24..0dS 25 Sxc3
25 &5 c226§d2c1W27Exc1 Sthéis
equally unclear (Ski
25... %04 26 2a5 @xba 27 Eb3+ ded 28
Eec1+ %d5 29 c6 ©d6 30 ExbS b8 31
£b4+ ko8 32 Hel+ %16 33 Lo7+ W7
34 2d5 Zhc?!
Up to here Black has played well, but the
text is inferior to 34..2he8 35 Bd7 g8 36
©f1 (36 Hxc72! Ebc.37 Hxc8 Uxc8 38 Hcl
£h6 ~ Flear) 36..d3 37 Hxd} Mb6 with
equality (Shirov).
35 Rd7 %98 36 g3 Hb6 37 Hct b3 38
£.c5 da?
Not 38..2c3? because of 39 Hxg7+, but
38...2h6 (Shirov) would sill have put up &
fight.
39 2d1 Hchs 20 g2
Black will lose the d-pawn and the game
will be over.
40...218 47 £xf8 Exi8 42 H1xd3 Rxd3
43 Dxd3 Ef7 44 14 Re7 45 g4 Heb 46
Rds+ 7 47 2d7+ Re7 48 Axe7+ Sxe?
49 g5t 1-0
Black resigned because of the
continuation 49..2d6 50 h4 @xc6 51 5 gxf5
52 h5 %dé 53 g6 hxgt 54 he.
Game 73
Chandler-Yusupov
Hastings 1989790
1 e4 o5 2 Hf3 HNc6 3 RbS a6 4 Lad HI6
S 0-0 fixed 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 dS 8 dxeb
 9 Dbd2

£e6 9 Dbd2 He5 10 ¢3 d4
fixe6 12 cxd4
12 a4 was well defended by 12..dxc3 13
bxc3 b4 14 cxb4 b 15 Ka3 Wd5 16 Abt
25 17 b3 Le7 18 Wd2 Wob 19 Hixa5 Hxa5
20 Bxb4 WaBl in Romanishin-Marin,
Dresden 1988, when White had
better than 21 Bb3 R.xa3 22 Bxa3 Hxad and
a draw was on the cards.
12..Hcxdd 13 ad
13 &le4 is the most popular move here
(see Games 74-76), while 14 Wf3 (14 Wc2 is
best met by 14..Wd5) 14.5d8 15 Wc6+
Wd7 16 Wxab (a draw was agreed after 16
Wxd7+ in Rogers-Anand,
Olympiad 1988,as the ending is totally equal)
doesn’t win a pawn for long as afier
16..Wd5, as in Cicak-Beckemeier, West
Germany 1988, the dual threats of 17..5a8
and 17.Wxe5 win the pawn back
comfortably.
11 Lxe6 Polanica Zdroy 1995, with a faint edge to
‘White who can continue with £2-f4 etc.
b) 13..&5 14 Ded (or 14 Hb3 Hixb3 15
Wxb3 0-0! [Chekhov’s move] 16 axb5 axb5
17 Hxa8 Wxa8 18 WxbS hée? with
compensation in Adams-.Sokolov, Moscow
Olympiad 1994; Black can even play slowly
as his more active pieces are difficuk 1o
dislodge) 14..0-01? {or 14..8b6 15 &fg5
g5 16 Sxgs Wd7, as in ARodrigues
Korneev, Barbera del Valles 1994, when 17
Rel offers some initimtive for White) 15
Bixe5 Dxf3+ 16 Wxf3 Dxc5 17 axb5 axbs
18 Rg5 Rxal (this shows self-confidencel)
Thessaloniki 19 Rxd8 Mxfi+ 20 dxfl Hxd8 21 g3 e
22 Wh7 g6 23 WxbS ¢S5, when the game
‘Topalov-Anand, Dos Hermanas 1996, was
soon drawn as White cannot make progress.
Both the altematives are reasonable, but
the text offers the most potential for the
second player to generate winning chances.
14 Hxda Dxda
The continuation 14..Wxd4 15 axbs
Wxe5 16 bxaé 0-0 17 Wad Hfb8 18 a7 Hb7
19 &3 WhS, as in Hijartarson-Smejkal, West
Germany 1990 (amongst others), is ot bad
but White kecps a slight initiative into the
ending as the a-pawn will take time to round-

15 Ded 0-0 -
After 15..De6)! 16 fe3 0-0 17 £4 Wxdl
18 ixd1 Xfb8 19 Rd7 Kf8 20 {5 {Dd8 21
a5! Black had a passive ending in Karpov-
Korchnoi, Merano (18th matchgame) 1981.
16 axb5 Bxb5 17 Le3 Wea
13...807 Black’s queenside pawns are split. White
There has also been interest in two can press along the & and c-files but in the
alternative defences: meantime Black is able to activate his
2) 13..1b8 14 axb5 axb5 15 De4 Re7 16 position and search for counterplay in the
2630 (originally Korchno?'s suggestion and centre,
improving on the dullishequality resulting 18 ¥ds
from 16 Ddé+ xds 17 Qxd4 Sxd4 18 A good example of how Black can address
Wxd4 dxeS 19 Wxe5 00 in Nunn-Timman, White's pressure the weak pawnswas
Amsterdam 1985) 16..45 17 a7 Wxd1 18 18 Wc2 We6 19 f4 Hadg 20 Had Hd7 21
Bfxdl Xd8 19 g4 Exd1+ 20 Rxd1 Dh4 21 Rfal Wd5 22 h3 6 23 exf6 Rxf6 24 Dixd6+
&uch4 Kxh4 22 Ke3, as in Smirin-Fibner, Hxfe 25 Hxa6 Dxa6 26 Hxab Odd with
137
Open Ruy Lopez

sufficient activity for the pawn in Adams- P2 Re5 49 I3 wdd 50 a7 Fe5 51

Yusupov, Hastings 1989/90. Ea4 &6 62 Hd4 e 53 Hca 15 54 ba
o6 55 b5 Hb6 56 Bc6 1-0

Game 74
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi
Sarajevo 1984

1 e4 o5 2 D2 HNc6 3 KbS a6 4 a4 DI6

18...24872!
Yusupov believes that Black has enough
counterplay with 18.. W5t 19 g3 (or 19 f4
HMad8) 19..Wg6, intending .XKad8
counterplay,
19 ¥c6 Wi5
It might have been beter to play 19..8d4
20 Sxd4 Hxd4 21 £4 25, which in Yusupov’s
opinion limits White’s advantage
minimum.
20 4 h5 21 h3 Hah8 22 Zfd1
22 Rxa6?! Hd3 allows Black too much
play.
22...2h4 23 Wo2 wh8 24 Wea Wge 25
®h1 267 26 905 2h4 27 We2
“White has consolidated his position and
now threatens WF3 and f4-f5.
27...Exd1+ 28 Hxd1 Ze8 29 Wi3 Wi5 30
2g1 g8 31 §ic5 g6 32 Wce
Note how Blad’s knight an b5 is just a
spectator.
32...WcB 33 e6! Hxed
If 33..6xe6 34 Wed Rh7 then 35 f5 is
crushing,
34 Dxe6 Wxe6 35 Wxo6 xa6 36 a1
“The exchange down, Black has too many
weaknesses to hold.
36...293 37 Hxa6 &f7 38 2h2 212
o6 %67 40 291 293 4% Hcb o6
Rxc6 £xf4 43 Eb6 Hc7 44 £h2 g5
£xt4 gx14 46 g1 D6 47 Tb7+ HH6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 ¢4 b5 7 Xb3 d5 8 dxeS
£66 9 Dbd2 D5 10 ¢3 d4 11 Lxe6
Dxe6 12 cxdd Hexds 13 Ded fe?
A good move which avoids reams of
theory is 13..Wd5, eg. 14 Dxd4 Dxd4 15
&3 Wetl (15, Wd7 gives White the berter
of it, as after 16 $e3 £c5 17 Wh5he
threatens both 18 ad1 and 18 c6) 16 2e3
Hd§ 17 Sxdé L5 18 €6 Dxdd 19 exf7+
with Sxf7 20 W3+ B4 21 Who+ g6 22 Wds+
Wxd5 23 Hixd5 Bd4 24 Dxc7 £bb 25 Wid]
Zhdg 26 Bxd4 Exdd 27 Qa6 Md2 and
Black had, if anything, the better of it in
Andrijevic-Todosovic, Panchevo 1989, In
10 a this line Korchnoi gives 21 Wb7 as better for
White, but 1f we look further with 21..2f8!
22 g3 {not 22 5452 as 22 Bxf2 23 Bxf2+
g8 wins for Black) 2225 23 D4 g8 24
BYxcS (rather than 24 Bacl £xf2+1 25 Dxf2
Mxf2) 24.Wxc5 25 Hacl Wdd 26 Hxc7
Wxb2 then Black has equalised (Flea).
14 £e3 D5
14..Dxf3+2 15 Wxf3 0.0 16 Bfd1 gave
White comfortable developmeat in Karpov-
Korchnoi, Merano (14th matchgame) 1981,
and after 16.We8? 17 Di6+ White was
simply winning, viz. 17...8xf6 18 exi6 We8
19 fxg7 Ed8 20 h4 5 21 Hacl We7 22 h5
We5 23 he Wxb2 24 Hd7 Exd7 25 Wxa8+
Hd8 26 Wt We2 27 Rt Hd1 28 Was+
2d3 29 W and White soon won.
156 Wc2 0-0
see following diagram
39
42 Not of course 15..2xe3? because of the
46 disruptive 16 Wob+.
48 16 D6+

132
 9 Dbd2

21..2\d4 22 f5 BdS 23 Kxd4 Hxdd 24 B3

Hxdi 25 Hxdl c4 as a bemer way of
obraining counterplay for Black.
22 Bed Kxd1 23 Hxd1 We7 24 &ic3
On 24 £5 there is 24...Wxe5.
24..2d8 25 2d5 Wh7 26 W3 $h8 27
Dixe7 Wxe7 28 Hxds+ Wxd8 29 15 Hidd
30 Wed g8 31 Bf1
White should probably
play 31 ¢6.
314..96 32 g4 We8 33 6 gxf5 34 gxi5
Weel
An excellent defensive move. After the
alternative 34..fxe6, Van der Wiel intended
wnother World Championship game 35 £xd4 exd4 36 Wxeb+ Wxed 37 fres Dfg
dnued 16 Qeg5 Lxg5 17 g5 g6 18 38 e2 Fe7 39 dd3 et 40 Txd4 6 41
26 fxe6 19 Hael Wd5 20 b3 Hac8, as in b4 and wins!
pov-Korchnoi, Merano (16th match- 35 Wga+ 18 36 Kh6+ Fe7 37 f6+
€) 1981, but in this particular case Black ©xf6 38 295+ Leb 39 exf7
39 &7 Be6 40 P2 Wd7 looks a file
“he main atemzive, 16 Had, is seen in delicate but Black can live with i,
next
two main 39..Wh1+ 40 &2 Wxh2+ 41 Wg2
..&xf6 17 Wxt5 207 18 ad1 Wxg2+ 42 Exg2 Db 43 Re7 cd 44 Lg3
‘he continuation 18 Efd1 Wc8 19 Hacl ab 45 a3 #A5! %-%
1 20 Hxd8+ Wxd8 21 Wed c5 22 b3, as in White cannot avoid the exchange of his
in-Bonerill, Swansea 1987, is best remaining pawns after 46 $tha g6 47 8W
atered by 22..Hb8), not allowing the Dixf8 48 Lxi8 RA5 49 g3 Ped 50 w2
:nto b7, followedby ..¥d7 and .. Hd8. @d3 51 Pel #c2 52 Kg7 b4 or a dead-
Wc8 19 Dd2 Xd8 20 14 drawn ending after 49 c5 et 50 2b6 ba
51 D xa5 bxa3 52 bxa3 s, as it's the wrong
rools pawn.
Game 75
De Firmian-Hellers
Biel 1989
1 64 e5 2 B3 D6 3 bS5 a6 4 Rad D6
§ 0-0 £xed 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 B dxe
266 9 Hbd2 Dc5 10 ¢3 db 11 Lxe6
Dxe6 12 oxdd Doxdd 13 Ded fe7 14
Se3 DS 15 We2 0-0 18 Mad1 Hxe3 17
xed
.c5 White's doubled isolated e-pawns have a
3..)41 21 Wea BY5 (Van der Wiel) is a positive side; they restrict Black’s minor
sler way 1o equality. picces and White can press on the Efile
¥h3 Xda against £7.
an der Wiel instead offers the suggestion
Open Ruy Lopez

22 Bd3 Rf8 23 Bh3 g6 24 Dho+ Kxh6 25

Bxhé c5! and with the rook on hé “offside’
Black had enough counterplay in Short-
Yusupov, Montpeliier Candidates 1985)
22.. Exe?23!fl!d714!c3“m2251xc6

In this game, by playingan carly £d4,

White restores his structure to a semblance
of normality. Alternative plans not involving
)d4 are discussed in the next main game.
18 &da
Or 18 &g3 Bd8 (ready to meer White's
5 with ...28; indeed Hellers, instructively,
mmw:blemstzveoffthehngamck
without ‘wealsening pawn moves)
19 Dd4 Dixd4 20 exdd o6 21 Hf5 KB
Hd3 Weo 23 Wd2 Ed7 24 Hg3 h8 25 W5
Wb 26 Wha Wes 27 Zh3 Wgp 28 Bf4 Hadg
29 Eg3 Wes 30 Bh3 W6 with a draw by
repetition in Sax-Hellers, Haninge 1989.
18...8xd4 19 axdd Wes!
A pawn sacrifice linking the rooks which
are readyto come to the ¢- and d-files.
20 ¥xc7
‘Teking up the challenge. The possibiliies
after declining the pawn are also interesting:
3 20 Ed3 %6 21 W (eaking
it afver allf
21...fxe5 22 Wxe5 Bxfl+ 23 dxfl Rig+ 24
Ef3 Wit 25 Df2 Sha+ 26 bed Welr 27
&d3 Wb14, as in Chandler-Yusupov, Minsk
1982, with a perpetual check looking like best
play.
b) 20 @g3 c6 (after 20..£621 21 BM5 fe5?
22 Wb3 Bladk is forced to shed a piece and
he resigned, Tseshkovsky-Yusupov, Yerevan
1982; ugly is 20...c521 21 dxc5 Xfc8 22 bé, as
the protected passed pawn gave White 2
positional advantage in Wedberg-Morovic,
New York 1988) 21 &5 Bfe8 22 &ixe7+ (or
22..Wo4
22 Theory frowns upon 22. 68 but this is
not justified in my opinion. On examining 23
Wel Hxf2 (23. Wxa2?! turned out badly after
24 d6 H8c7 25 Hxc2 Exc2 26 Wed Hxb2
27 Kfl as White had a powerful artack,
Hubner-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1985) 24 Wxf2
Wxa2 25 d5 Wb3 26 W3 Wixb2 27 d6 Rd8
28 Of1, which led to a White win after
28..f6? in Gavriljansky-V.Balashov, cores-
pondence 1988, I spent some time analysing
28.. %221, after which 29 d7 (or 29 @fé+
$xf6 30 exf6 Wee) 29...&be+ 30 hi Ef8
looks fine for Black.
23 Wel 2b4 24 Hc3 Bxi2 25 Wxf2 16
26 exf6
The ending after 26 ¢6 Ke8§ 27 We4 Wxed
28 Bixed Bxe6 29 Ac5 Bd6 30 b2 f5 as in
Gavriljansky Firamov, correspondence 1988,
offexs equal chances
. Huf6+ 27 g1 Beb
Blad(cannmnsilywinbadnhepawnbm
his pieces are so active that White struggles
to consolidate. Thus a dynamic equilibrium is
achieved.

134

28 Wil Ld6 29 W3 Wxi3 30 gxf3 Rhé
31 Rd2 14 32 He2 Xd6 %-%
Black certainly has nothing to worry sbout
after 33 d5 (or 33 Het Exd4l 34 Hxdd L.e3+)
33.b4 34 He8+ f7 35 Hed Rxh2+
xh2 bxe3 37 bxc3 Hxds.
We can conclude that the pawn sactifice
gives adequate play.
Game 76
Prasad-Ernst
Gausdal 1991
104 5 2 D13 Nc6 3 AbS5 a6 4 Las Hi6
5 0-0 @Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxeS
26 9 Hbd2 D5 10 c3 d4 11 Kxeb
%ixe6 12 cxdd Doxdd 13 Ded ke7 14
203 &5 15 We2 0-0 16 Zad1 HHxe3 17
xe3 WcB 18 h3
‘White aims to bring his knights to such
threatening squaresas £5 and g4
After 18 Rd3 I prefer Beliavsky’s
suggestion of 18. . Hd8 (to exchange off a
potential piece)to 18...c5,
as T don’t
like the idea of letring the kight into d6 so
easily. White is better after 19 ©d6 Wc7 20
Efd1 Bfd8 21 Bd5 K18 22 b3, as in Short-
Beliavsky, Barcelona 1989, since he has a
bind. Interesting was 19..Wb8I
19..9c7) 20 b3 Ra7 21 Rid1 Hd8 22 Hixf7
(why not 22 HdS, keeping the tension?)
22.<0xf7 23 Exd8, as in Stoica-Marin,
Eforie-Nord 1988, when 23..8xd8 24 Wf5+
&e7 25 Wzh7 Ed7 26 What @4:8 27 Whe+
@e? (Stma) is i
lack equalised after 18 WcsWes 19 Hcl
chfi 20 Hxcé Rfd8 21 Hicl Bd5 22 Dc3
Hcs 23 De2 Wxcl+ 24 Dixcl K5 25 Sf2
&b6 in GXuzmin-P.Thipsay, New Delhi
1984, as his rook is now freed from
defensive task.
18...Ed8
After 18..25 19 d4 Dxd4 20 exd4 Wes
2t &h1 c6 22 &g3 Efds, Klovan-F.Levin,
Groningen 1991, play is similar to Game 74,
note to White's 20th move
9 Dbd2
Korchnot's suggestion of 19 Webl? can be
met by 19..2b8 with ideas of .. Hbé.
Black faled w0 keep White ar bay in
Ioseliani-Ekstrém, Biel 1989, with the
36 dubious alternative 18...c52 19 Dh2 Wc7 20
D4 The 21 Db D8 22 HdS c4 23 Bife!
with a crushing awack. Again prematurely
giving away control of the dé-square helps
White.
18 Bh2
If 19 Hel then 19..c5 is the move (since
here Black has adequate control of the dé-
square), when 20 Wi2 Wb7 21 &h2 Wxed!
22 Wxi7+ ©h8 23 Wxet g5 led to equal
chances in Karpov-Yusupov, Linares 1983.
19...2xd1 20 Wxd1 We8
(instead of
A useful move, Black defends the £7- and
b5-pawns and prepares to develop his rook
by ..Hd8or ...a6-a5 and .. Hab.
2184
‘Two other moves have been tried here:
) 21 Wh5 &5 22 §g3 25! {an avractive
manoeuvre which limits White's scope for an
attack) 23 &5 Hab 24 Ppd Hgb 25 b3 {or 25
h2 2d8)) 25..8d8 26 Df2 Wcb 27 4, as
in Tal-Korchnoi, Reylgavik 1987, when Black
its can even play 27..2we4 28 Wdl &d6 29
g4 51b7 and escape with his booty.
b) Bladk’s manoeuvres were less
convincing in Watson-Flear, London 1990,
when after 21 Dg3 a5 22 &)f5 Hab 23 Wd5
£.d8 24 g4 h5 25 Dh2 DB 26 D3 Heo
Instead 27 Bd1 Re7 my opponent could have taken
135
Open Auy Lopez

a pawn with 28 &xe7+ Wxe7 29 Wxb5.

It’s not clear thar 21..8d8 (instead of
21..25) 22 W2 5 23 Hgt Bd7 (B..c#!
transposes back to the main game) 24 &¥5
h8 25 We4 was any betterin Molay-Ernst,
Gausdal 1989. Afer 25..%c8 26 Dd6 Kxd6
27 exd6 Bxdé 28 Xxf7 Black had problems.

26 D6+?
Prasad felt that Black has enough play
after 26 Wh7 Hc7 27 Wxab ¢3, bur T think
that White should have tried 26 £d6! £.xd6
27 exd6 and if 27..c3% (the best chance is
27...a5 and if 28 Kd1 then 28. Wad) then 78
21...2d8 22 We2 c5 23 g3 c4! 24 Wed Wxb4 25 29 Wb3 c2 30 Hcl W6 31 Wd3 is
He8 much better for White.
The active 24..2c5! has its points. If 25 26...gxh6 27 DuxhG+ Fh8 28 Dxf7+ g8
Wi4 then 25..40d3, while on 25 Wf5 Ad3 or 29 Wo4+ Dg7 20 €8
even 25_b4. White’s attack is dangerous but only
25 5 ba seems toyield a perpetual check.
Ernst, with the benefit of experience from 30...4c5 31 Wy5 We?
his game against Mokry, finds a way 10 31..Wxe6? fails to the artistic 32 Dhé+
obtain counter-chances. A passed queenside h8 33 WxcS!
pawn is just the counterbalance thar 32 Dh6+ She 33 Wes We7 %-%
 9 Dbd2

Summary
Despite the great popularity of 9 @bz, Black has several ways to achieve a good game. In
Games 66-68, Black avoids the main line and in each case should more or less equalise. The
surprise effect of 11 &g5 has gone and Black can confidently decline the sactifice with
11..8d5 (Game 71) which promises a safe position, or aim to navigae sharp unclear
complications by taking the knight (Game 72).
The well established 11 £xe6 (Games 73-76) requires accurate defence on Black’s part, but
he has no particular cause for concem.
1 e4 5 2 D3 Hcb 3 £b5 a6 4 Rad D6 5 0-0 DHxed 6 ¢4 b5 7 Rb3 d5 8 dxe5 Reb
9 Hbd2

9...5cE
9..Re7 - Game 66
9..2.65 - Game 67
10 ¢3 d4
10..8ub3 ~ Game 68
10..2g4 - Game 69
11 Lxe6
1195 (D)
11..dxc3 - Game 70
11..2d5 - Game 71
1. Wxg5 - Game 72
11..80xe6 12 oxd4 Doxd4 13 Ded
1324 (D} - Game 73
13...2e7 14 263 DI5 15 Wo2 0-0 16 Bad1
16 Df6+ - Game 74
16...2xe3 17 fxe3 Wes (D) 18 h3
18 &d4 - Game 75
18...8d8 - Game 76
 CHAPTER ELEVEN
White’s Other Ninth Moves
1 e4 e5 2 §f3 Hic6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 bS 7 263 d5 8 dxe5
Le6
So far in this book we have examined
White's most popular moves, 9 c3, 9 We2
and 9 &bd2. The most commonly played
alternative to these is 9 Re3 (Games 77-79),
but in this chapter we shall also consider 9
He1 (Game 80) and 9 a4 (Games 81 and 82).
In Games 77 and 78 Black meets 9 Re3
with the defence 9..4c5. The conclusion
from these examples is that Black has a
difficult game. This suggests that the popular
9..%¢7 is the best reply, as in Game 79,
‘when 2 transposition to Chapter 8 arises after
10 ¢3. In Game 80, we sec that Black has no
particular problems after 9 Kel.
However, 9 a4 has some surprise value. In
fact, an early a2-24 in a number of positions
forces Black to make a decision on the
queenside. In general the safest is to react
with ..b5-b4, as here, closing the game in
order to catch up in development.
Game 77
L.Bronstein-Sorokin
General Pico City 1996
1e4 e5 2 D3 Hcé 3 RS a6 4 Rag H6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 2bA d5 B dxes
738
Reb 9 kel Hob
The safest move here is 9..Re7 (see
Game 79).
‘Whiteis able to obtain
an edge due fo
control of d4 and ¢5 after 9..£¢5 10 Lxc5
{or, as quoted in older boaks, 10 Wd3 0-0 11
A3t b4 12 We2 Hixc3 13 bxc3 Lxed 14
Wxe3 £1c6 15 ad £)a5 16 axb5 axb5 17 WS,
as in Kholmov-Antoshin, USSR Champion-
ship 1967) 10.8xc5 11 Dd4 Dxdd 12
Wxd4 Db7 13 3 5 14 Wi4 00 15 Dd2
a5 16 Rc2 Bic6 17 Wed Wd7 18 Radl
215 19 Rxf5 Wxf5 20 @b3, as in Imanaliev-
Mamadzoey, Azov 1991,
Another promising plan for White here is
10 el (instead of 10 £xc5) 10..0-0 11 3
£xe3 12 Hxe3a5 13 Dbd2 xb3 14 axb3
Dxd2 15 Wxd2 c5 16 bd! with the better
chances in Bologan-Ermeni, Basel 1999.
10¢c3
Until the present game, theory didn’t
suggest that this creates problems for Black.
See Game 78 for 10 &c3.
10...9xb3 11 axb3 Le7
A worthwhile alternative was tested in
King-Kaidanov, Palma de Mallorca 1989:
1..Rg4 12 £f4 Re7 13 Ba3 00 14 b3
25 15 Bc2 Wd7 16 3 REdS 17 g4 Lo
18 Dd4 x4 19 cxd4 ¢5 with a tough batde
in prospect.
 White’'s Other Ninth Movas

problems finding a credible defence.

17..2d8
After 17..2e7, 18 Df6+! 2xf6 (18...5xf6
19 Wg3+ Ph8 20 exf6 wins immediately for
White) 19 exf6 gives useful artacling chances
for White and after 17..c5 the atack
launched by 18 g5 is strong.
18 Dg5 g6 19 Ded Le7 20 Wea
With strong pressure against the black
king,
20...297 21 D6 LxI6 22 exf6+ Ph8 23
Who Eg8 24 Hfel
12 Hbd2
The sharp move 12 &d41? can be defused
by 12.2%xe5 (dso sound is 12.&wd4 13
cxd4 00 14 &3 f6 15 f4 fxe5 16 fxe5 Hxfl+
17 sExf1 b4 18 g1 Kxc3 19 bxc3 35, and
Black had winning chances in Ghinda-
Yusupov, Dubai Olympiad 1986, as he
threatens to create an outside passed pawn)
13 £4 QDiga 14 Hixe6 Pxed 15 Hxdy Gixdl
16 Hxd1 Xxdg 17 Hxa6 with equal chances ~
Yusupov and Dvoretsky.
Another plan 12 h3 00 13 b4 Wd7 14
@Dbd2 was rather elaborare in AKuzmin- Threatening 25 Ee5, followed by doubling
Sorokin, USSR 1988, when Black was able to on the e-file. White has ideas based on Exet
equalise with 14...d4 15 @xd4 Dxe5. followed by 7+ or Ble4-h4. The anack is
12...0-0 particularly sivong due to the presence of
With the benefit of hindsighr, Black would opposite-coloured bishops.
have done better to have wied 12.%g4, Black rather desperately decides to giveup
when after 13 Wc2 Wd7 14 Rg5 265 15 his queen
to obtain some freedom,
but to no
Wd1 £xg5 16 Dxg5 00 17 Hel Hids 18 avail.
£)gf3 d4 he scized the initiative in Timman- 24...¢6 25 Meb cxd4 26 ExdS Rxd§ 27
Yusupov, Tilburg 1987. Wg5 Hgd8 28 cxd4 ab 29 hd4 2cd 30
13 b4 d4 14 Dxdd DHxda. He1 Hxd4 31 Whe Tg81-0
Not here 14.%xe5 as 15 Qixe6 fxeé White mates with 32 He8.
leaves the black pawn structure
compromised. Game 78
15 £xd4 Axb4 16 Ded Wd5 17 Wd3! Dvoiris-Sorokin
A clear improvement on 17 W3 R{d8 18 Russian Ch., Voronezh 1988
Hdfd1 K8 19 be Wea 20 Hd2 Wd5 with 2
balanced position in Panchenko-Sorokin, 1 o4 &5 2 D3 Hc6 3 Ab5 ab 4 Rad D6
USSR 1991, 5 0-0 fixed4 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 d5 8 dxe5
After the game move White threatens 18 f1e6 9 £e3 Db 10 Hc3
cxba and 18 g5 and Black suddenly has big Now
the threar to the d5-pawn forces
139
Open Ruy Lopez
Black’s hand,
10...Dxb3 11 cxb3
“This recapture away from the centre offers
White the option of pressing along the c-file.
11...Wd7
Mikhalchishin suggests 11.8b8, when
Korchnof’s 12 £d4 can be met by 12..c5 13
Dixed fxeb 14 Who+ g6 15 Wes Wd7 with 2
playable position (Flear). Black’s suspicious-
looking kingside pawn strucure s
compensated by Hexiole queenside pawns.
The natural move 11..8e7 is perhaps the
most popular but it fails to convince, After
the continuation 12 Hcl Wd7 (12007 13
fDxbs axb5 14 Hxcé Mxa2 15 Wb a8 16
Hfcl allows White a clear advantage as <7 is
fatally weak ~ Korchnoi) 13 h3 0.0 14 He2
Hfcg 15 D4 25 16 a3 D8 17 Dd3 K5 18
D5 Lxc5 19 Rxc5 Deé 20 B4, as in
Groszpeter-Brunner, Biel 1990, White
achieves the optimal central bind.
After 13 &e2 (insiead of 13 h3) Black
fared better in Smagin-Mikhalchishin,
Moscow 1989, as after 13..Ec8 14 &)f4 0.0
15 £.c5 2dB 16 Kxe7 Dixe7 17 Wdd he was
able to play 17... &¢4 with a reasonable game.
“This explains why Groszpeter was quickto
in Winsnes-
Krasenkov, Stockholm 1989/90: 13 Wd2 0-0
14 Hfd1 Had8 15 £¢5 d4 16 Ded 25 17
W4 fxg5 18 Hifxgs WeZ, bur after 19
Bxcbl! Kxc6 20 )6+ White had a winning
140
artack.
12 ¥d2 2d8 13 295
By exchanging dark-squared bishops,
White hopes to obtain a ‘good knight versus
bad bishop’ middlegame. This would
particularly be effective if he were allowed to
blockade the centre on d4 and ¢5.
13..%e7 14 Haci kg4 15 2xe7 Sixe?
16 Hel c5
So Black has freed his c-pawn,but now he
experiences difficultics due to his lack of
development.
17 Dd3 Wa7
Black could have considered 17..Hc8R
andif 18 b4 cxb4 19 Dxxb4 then 19...a5!
18 Wg5 K15 19 Hf4 Lg6
Korchnoi proposes 19.d4 as an
improvement, but sull prefers Whites
prospects after 20 2h5 He8 21 e2.
20 2td? Wb7
21 et
“The d5-pawn is attacked
by a fourth piece
and Black has yet to castle.
21..56 22 ¥g4 d4 23 Oixg6 hxgb 24
Des
Now the c-pawn comes under fire!
24...04 25 bxc4 bxot 26 Wi
26 Bxc4 allows Black o struggle on with
26..Wxb2 (26..45 27 W4 Wxe4 is refured by
28 Boxdd), whereas the text move threatens
27 &d6+.
26...¥d5 27 d2 c3 28 bxc3 dxc3
The black central pawns have crept

forward but with Black’s king still in the
centre all is lost.
29 §)f1 Wixe6
Afcer 29..8xd1 30 Bxd1 Exd1 simply 31
Wat+- wins the rook.
30 Rxds+ wxd8 31 Hxc3 EhS 32 Wb+
S8 33 We7+ 1-0
Black’s position seems too difficult to
handle after 10 &3, 50 9..%c5 is not to be
recommended.
Game 79
Dvoiris-Kaidanov
USSR 1984
1 e4 a5 2 H3 6 3 b5 26 4 Lad DIG
6 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 bs 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
Le6 9 £23 Re7 10 Hbd2
Here 10 3 is White's best move, as in
Chapter8.
A poor alternativeis 10 We1d0-0 11 Bc3
£b4 12 Bd1 Re8 13 Ed3 De7 and White is
lefi with his pieces all tangled up, Zaitsev-
Unzicker, Moscow 1982
10...85¢5
11 DB
11 32 is embarassed by 1163
forkingtwo pawns. Then 12 Wc2 Hdxes 13
Dixe5 Dixe5 14 Kd4 16 15 Bfel, as in the
game Tseshkovsky-Kaidanov, Moscow 1985,
should have been followed up with 15.. 2.7
16 fxe5 fxe5 17 Rxe5 0-0 with the better
chances for Black in Kaidanov’s opirtion.
White’s Other Ninth Moves
Relatively best, but not woo worrying for
Blackis 11 D4 Dxd4 12 Lxdé Wd7 13 3
a4 14 Kbl c5 15 23 0-0 16 A3 Hadg 17
We2 25 18 Ebdl Wet with comfortable
development for Black in Tseshkovsky-
Balashov, USSR 1980.
11...0-0
An ambitious alternative is 11..d412, when
12 Rxe6 fxe6 13 Whs+ g6 14 W Wds
(Korchnoi) looks promising for the sgcond
player.
12 ¥Whs
White would fike to attack but this is not
justified by Black’s solid position.
12...£x95 13 £xg5 Wd7 14 Haet Hfe8
15 W3 h6
Dvoiris believes that Black should
dispense with this move and play 15..d4 16
Wg3 $h8 when he already prefers Black.
18 2f4 Zad8 17 Wg3 &h7 18 c3
18...215
An imprecision. Instead, 18..d4 19 £.c2+
L5 leaves Black with full development and
his centrat play starting to roll. It is of course
logical for Black to push with ..d5-d4; White
has dbandoned any pretence of cemtral
control for rather naive attacking gestures
and frankly deserves to be punished!
19 Rd1 We7 20 Hfel ab 21 &1 Oxb3
22 axb3 Wes 23 We3 2027
A dubious pawn exchange. Again 23...d4
was the move and when the smoke clears it
will be Black who has the more active pieces:
141
Open Ruy Lopez

24 cxdd Wd5 25 g3 K2 26 Bd2 Sixdd 27 (Bilguer).

We3 ©xb3 28 Wxad. 9...8¢5 10 £95
24 Hd2 £xb3 25 Wd3+ $g8 26 Wxbs Afier 10 &5 Black can simply play
So4 27 Wes 1087 11 Bixed fxe6 with a solid game.
Since White's kright will be quite 10...%07 11 Sxe? Dxe7 12 c3 Dxb3
threateningon €3, Black would do well to
exchange & off with 27...&xf1.
27...16 28 Ho3 Hxed 29 L xe5 WxeS 30
Wxab 5 31 Hdd1 £b3 32 Ha1
Whitehzs[hcbmcrminorpicccbut'
Black still has enough counterplay after
Divoiris’s suggestion of 32..d4.
32...0a87
A time-trouble mistakse, quickly made and
Iong regretted!
33 Wxa8 Hxa8 34 HxaB+ ®h7 35 Hal
%04 36 Haal Lb5 37 Had1 c6 38 DxdS
Wbe 39 De3 La4 40 Ha4 4 41 Hxad
fxe3 42 Hxe3 Wxb2 43 g3 ¥b1+ 44 dg2 13 Wxb3?1
Wb7 45 ha W7 46 Hued ob 47 He7 More logical was 13 axb3 c5 14 b4, whert
Wd5+ 48 ¥g1 Wdl+ 49 wh2 Wd2 50 Yusupov feels thar Black has an equal game
1f3 c4 51 Bc7 We2 52 Bff7 &hs 53 074 after 14...cab# 15 cxb4 00. After continuing
@h7 54 292 Wd3 55 HNfxed Wds+ 56 with some natural moves, 16 &id4 Whe 17
@h2 Wd6 57 24c6 W8 58 $g1 Whs 59 8123 Hac8 18 a2 Hfd§ 19 Ba3, Fricz 5
217 Wb1+ 60 ¥h2 hS 61 Leb We2 1-0 then scnualy prefers Black - a controversial
it clearly doesn't rate White’s
Game 80 blockade very highly.
Kupreichik-Yusupov 13...c8
USSR Championsbip 1981 13..d4 is premature as the soquence 14
Wd1 dxe3 15 £c3 has just helped White's
1 e4 65 2 NI Do 3 £b5 ab 4 Rad HI6 development.
5 0-0 Dxe4 8 d4 b5 7 kb3 d5 8 dxeS 14 a4 0-0! 15 axbb Wb6
fKeb
9 Uel Black recovers the pawn with an equal
A seasible developing move, preparing to game.
meet 9...&c5 by 10 £e3. 16 Wa4 Rd7 17 Dbd2 &xb5 18 Wha
The self-weakening 9 B3 is not good g6 19 Wga
due t0 9...4xc310 bxc3 Qe7! (this excellent Tt was better to play 19 Wg3.
move, threatening 11...c5, was first playedby 19...We6 20 Wg3 Wis!
Rubinstein, and is stronger than the solid Black’s pieces are well placed and he can
10..8.e7 11 Dd4 Dixd4 12 exdd Wd7 13 a4 start to take the initiative.
0-0 14 axb5 axb5 15 Rd2 c5, whenadmw 21 b4?
was agreed in Van Riemsdijl see ing diagram
Dieren 1989) 111a3a5mdw1mmusm
cede his dark-squared bishop to save its To obrain access to the dé-square but the
colleague. After 12 Rxe7 Rxe7 13 a4 ¢5 14 resulting weaknesses on the c-file are a more
axb5 00 Black has the much better game significant factor.
142
 White’s Other Ninth Maoves

&d4 &d7 14 £3 D5 15 be Dt 16 £4 Wa?

17 £e3 &xb4 with unclear play (Korchno).
It maybe that instead of 15 b4, 15 f41 is
critical, when the game Di Bucchiano-Van
der Ziipp, Beverwik 1984, coninued
15,364 16 15 5 17 o6 cxdd 18 exd?+ dxd7
@ which point 19 Wgt looks ke an
improvement on the game’s 19 Wd3 Woh,
which s again best judged as unclear.
10 a5
10¢ Re7 transposes
1o Game 51.
10...5¢5 11 Ke3
‘This move falls to impress. For the
21...Hac8 22 bxe5 Bxc5 23 66 alternauve 11 Kg5 see Game 81.
23 He3 is met by 23.Wc2 and the c3- 11...5%b3 12 cxb3 Wd7
falls. Black can even consider 12..c4, as White
23..8xc3 24 e7 Ne8 25 Hd4 Uxg3 26 had nothing afier 13 Pud4 Sixdd 14 Wrdd
Hixf5 Re3t Wxd4 15 2xd4 00-0 16 Re3 Kxb3 in
Kupreichik had probably missed this CamporaMurey, Moscow 1989, More
move, the point being that 27 £dé Txe7 28 dangerous is Korchnot's 13 Wc2®?, when
Bxe7 Dxe7 29 Suxb5 axb5 30 Ead+ is met 13...dxe3 14 Wxc6+ £d7 15 Wc2 €2 16 Hel
by 30...Hc8. Now White has nothing for the Kb5 17 Pbd2 Wd3 18 Wxc?7 Re7 19 Dot
pawn. Hd8 is muky. The swomg epawn
27 &3 Be7 compensates for the loss of maerial.
Black will now take the e-pawn, but only 13 We2
when good and ready.
28 £334 Lc4 29 Zab1 h6 30 Kbé 243
31 137
Losing immediately. Instead 31 h3 £xe7
32!:3“533%5“834%}0:7%&7
35 Hxe7 Hxe? 36 Exa offers some hope.
31..0xe7 32 Ue3 Lct+ 33 &f2 He2+
34 $g3 Axf6 35 HUxe7 Uxe7 36 HxfS
o0-1

Game 81
Mowsesian-Motwani
Hastings 1996/97
13...815
1 4 5 2 &3 5Xc6 3 £b5 a6 4 224 H6 Arother good model for Black is the
5 0-0 Hxed & d4 bS 7 Lb3 d5 8 dxed following example: 13...2)8! (moving off the
2669 a4 ba exposed c-file and heading for €6 where it
The best move, as is generally the case in can support the c-pawn) 14 Q.5 X5 15
Wel 56 16 Lxf8 Dxfg 17 G2 0.00
teresting,e. {here the queenside is quite safe as White has
wxbS Sixb3 11 cxbJ axb5 12 Exa8 ‘Wxns 13 no way through) 18 el &b7 19 £f1 c5 20
743
 Open Ruy Lopez

Dg3 Rgs 21 Dhé 5 22 exfe Hxf6 with 24 ¥al Rxal 25 Wxal a6 26 Hd1 Nas
chances for both sides in LBronstein- 27 Det
Yusupov, Lucerne Olympiad 1982 indeed ‘White now exchanges off the d-pawn and
Black went on to win. is past the worse.
14 Wel Zb8 15 Dha 27...a4 28 Dxd3 Wes 29 Wcl axb3 30
Changing tack as 15 2.5 gets nowhere &6 2x05 31 2xc5 Bd8 32 De3
after 15...8xc5 16 Wxc5 Eb5 and ...0-0. With opposite<oloured bishops it's not
15...4¢6 16 f4 Re7 17 Wel d4 18 Lc1 clear that Black can use his extra pawn.
d3 32...h6 33 h3 g6 34 ®h2 Ud7 35 Rxd7
The immediate 18..1b5 is suggested by Wxq7 38 Wa1 g5 37 W1 h7 38 Wr3
Kenworthy in the tounament bulletin. The gxf4 39 Wxf4 Wq7 40 Dxf5 Wxes %-%
fact that Black has many ideas is a sign that 41 WixeS Dixe5 42 B4 K7 43 b4 s
White’s strategy has been far from simply equal.
convincin,
19 D3 Ub5 20 Le3 Uxas 21 Hbd2 0-0 Game 82
22 Zet Ljubojevic-Yusupov
Linares 1991

104 ¢5 2 &3 D06 3 AE a6 4 Rad Di6

6 0-0 Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7 §b3 d5 8 dxeS
66 9 ad b4 10 a5 Dc5 11 g5 Wd7 12
Dbd2 h6 13 Lhd +

Black has won a pawn with a good game,

but on such a chaotic board everything is still
possible.
22..45
Black would like to iberate his position
with 22...§6!2, but would have to take account
of the combination 23 5 Kxf5 24 Mxc
Wixct 25 Dda Wd7 26 ks Mxe5 27 W2
Be8 28 Dc4 when things are less clear.
23 Bc4 Ka2?
Just holding everything together with
23..Bd5)was possible, or 23, 2:xc4 24 Exch
4)d8, exchanging the powerful white knight
and intending ..&e6. In either case White
would rely on a blockade 10 resist and there
would still be much work to do to exploit the
extra pawn.
144
Black must now allow the exchange of
darksquared bishops or play the potentially
weakening 13..g5.
13..Re7
Risky and unclear is 13...g5! 14 8.3 Rg7
{(an aggressive alternative is 14..%e7,
intending ..h6-h3) 15 c3 0.0 16 £.c2 bxc3 17
bxc3 Xf5 (grabbing 2 pawn by 17..g4 18
Dd4 Buxe5 is deemed good for White by
Kindermann after 19 Kel 6 20 et Wixeb
21 f4 gxf3 22 &)xf3, but there is nothing
 White’s Other Ninth Movas

wrong with 17.. g4 18 h3 Rh5)) 18 £xf5 improvement, on what follows.

Wixf5 19 §b3 (19 &d4! sers more problems)
19..4%4 20 WixdS Zug 21 frgd DS 22
&5\d4 Wd3 with an ineresting fight in
prospect, Kindermann-Marin, Novi Sad
Olympiad 1990.
14 2xe7 Dxe7
The other sensible capture 14..Wxe7 is
aso satisfactory; eg. 15 <3 bxcd 16 bxcd
Hixb3 (16..00 17 K2 £5 18 &4 Hxda 19
xd4 Det4 was also fine for Black in
Pokoj Karsa, Tapolca 1981) 17 Hxb3
0-0 18 Hel Habg 19 Dfdd a7 20 Sixes
{after 20 e2? ¢S 21 D4 Rid8 22 We2 b
Black was better in Ijubojevic-ljartarson, 21 Lxi5 DxfB 22 Dxf5 Wxf5 23 Wxch
Amsterdam 1991) 20...fxeb 21 Wd4 &Xb5 22 Rxdz
Wes (22 Wedl?) 22.Wh4 (Hjartarson), ‘The disappearance of the minor pieces has
Another example is 15 We2 00 16 We3 not diminished the interest; both sides have
Rfd8 (Korchnoi suggests 16..Kab8, winning chances.
intending ...Kb5) 17 c3 b7 18 K2 bxc3 19 24 ¥xc71?
bxc3 &ibxa5 20 Bad, with complex play in 24 Hadl Rxd1 25 Kxd1 Wxe5 give White
Vigjadinovic-Kolev, Vinjacka Banja 1990. less than nothing,
15 B4 24..Ee8 25 Wd6 Hxc3 26 Wxa6 Hcc2
Again 15 We2 00 16 We3 (eyeing | th 27 Wbe
The pawn race is sccondary to White’s
need to defend his king,
1989, was agmeddrawn afier the following 27..d4
moves: 16..43b7 17 c3 bxe3 18 bxc3 ¢5 19 Cutting off the queen from the defence of
Re2 Rf5 20 Sxf5 G5 21 W4 De7 22 o4 2.
5348 23 cxds Wxd5 24 W4 Deb 25 Rict 28 Wds+ wh7 29 ¥ha
Rfdg 26 @e4 Dcb 27 Hdé. Black has a Holding the fort.
passed pawn but it is well blockaded. 29...9517
15...0-0 16 ¢3 bxc3 17 bxc3 Hab8 Black could have tried 29..Wxe5 30 a6
Black took over the initiative after Ha2,
17..2¢4 18 Wb12! 2 poor square; 18 Wel, 30 Wh3
as in the main game, or 18 £3 25 19 £c2 30 Wg3? is too dangerous, e.g. 30..8d3 31
offer about equal chances) 18..Hab8 in £3 Hdd2 32 a6? (32 Eh1 is met by 32.hsY
Kristiansen- -Yusupov, Esbjerg 1990. 32..WF4 33 Wh3 g4 34 fxg4 Wed+ and Black
18 &c2 Rg4 19 We1 Ub2 20 Wed LrS! wins.
Black has at least equalised.
Now neither 30...Wxh3!
21 Hixf5 Bxc? 22 Hixe7+ Wxe7 (with a The simplest.
comfortable game for Black) nor 21 &2b3? 31 gxh3 Ha2 32 a6 Hxi2 33 Exa2 Hxa2
Hixb3 22 £xb3 Bb8 23 &ad WeB (and 34 Hxf7+ g8 35 Nd7 Hxab 36 Mxd4
Black’s pieces are the more dynamic) are any 73704 %-%
Open Ruy Lopez

Summary
Neither 9 Hel (after 9. £1c5) nor 9 a4 (et of course by 9..b4) are dangerous.
After 9 £e3 the phan of .45 followed by ..&3b3 looks insufficient and Black is given a
rough time in Games 77 and 78, Black should therefore play 9..8¢7, when White’s efforts to
avoid transposing 1o Chapter 8 by 10 ¢3 aren't impressive.
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 £)c6 3 £bS a6 4 2ad D6 5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b6 7 b3 d5 8 dxeb Leb
9 4e3
9 Bel - Game80
9 a4 b4 1025 DS
11 &e3 - Game81
11 8¢5 (D) - Game 82
&es
9..8¢7 10 Dbd2 &5 (D) - Game 79
10 o3
10 <3 b3 - Game 77
10...2xb3 11 cxb3 (D) - Game 78

11 295 10..8c5 71 cxb3

| CHAPTER TWELVE
Odds and Endd
1 64 5 2 3 Hc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 Dxed
This chapter features
various deviat
for both sides, between move six and move
eight.
6 Ze1 (Game 83) and 6 d4 b5 7 263 d5 8
‘Dxe5 (Game 88) illustrate rather timid lines
where White would seem to be content with
a draw; note that he failed dismally in the
former example. However, Game 87 looks a
White’s speculative and eccentric eighth
move alternatives. An aggressive opponent
may enjoy such perilous complications,
indeed in one of them the author almost
came unstuck, although some sound
preparation should enzble one to avoid any
danger.
Black can also vary ar an eatly stage, as we
see shall
in Games 84-86. The Riga variation
(Game 84) is sharp and looks fike a useful
surprise weapon, although White can bail out
with a draw, although in Game 85 Fischer
shows the delayed version to be basically
bad. Finally, Game 86 illustrates another
tempting try for Black, 7..&e7, where Tal's
attempt at refutation has a distinctly crude
feel to it. A number of other efforts are
mentioned in the notes, but nothing really
serves to challenge the soundness of Black’s
idea.
Game 83
Vitolinsh-Mikhalchi
Uzhgorod 1988
1 e4 05 2 3 Dc6 3 K5 36 4 La4 D6
6 0-0 Hixed 6 Fol
Some strong players occasionally employ
this as a surprise weapon, but in my
experience this move is mainly used by
weaker players secking to obtain a drawish
posision.
Play is similar in some respects (pawn
structure, for instance) after 6 We2, when the
recommended course of action is 6..8c5
(rather than 6..8)6 7 Rxch dxct 8 DxeS
Re7 9 Bel Re6 10 d3 007 [necessary are
first 10..Wc8 or 10..41d7} which was terrible
after 11 Dxf7? in Wedberg-Sellberg,
Stockholm 1976/77) 7 Rxcb dxct (more
secure than 7..bxc6? 8 d4 Bie6 9 dxe5 Re7
10 43, as in Kholmov-Gurgenidze, USSR
Chanpionship 1957, when Blacks pawn
structure is unwieldy) 8 d4 (8 Wxe5+ tAes is
nothing for White) 8..8e6 9 dxe5 &d4!
(9.5 10 Hd1 We7 11 3 00 12 Hed
Rb6 13 §g3, as in Walbrodi-Bardeleben,
Hastings 1895, offers more options and freer
development for White) 10 &xd4 Wxd4 11
3 (Or 11 Zd1 Rp4 12 Hxdd Rxe2 13 &3
147
Open Ruy lLopez
£h5 14 g5 h6 15 R4, as in Liangov-
Sehiman, Albena 1989, and now with
15...2.c5 Black has the bishop pair and White
has a kingside majority, as in the Exchange
variation. Here Black has a superior version
with the e-pawn already advanced 1o the €5-
square [fixed on a dark square, the
colour as White’s bishop] and Black having
an ideal blockading square on ¢6 for his king)
.. Re6 12 Xd1 Wed 13 Td3, Ke7 14 b3
Wh4 15 £d2 00 and Black had managed 1o
develop soundly but actively in Diickstein-
Unzicker, Munich Olympiad 1958. The
bishop pair compensates for White's space
advantage and better pawn structure.
8...2¢5 7 £x06
7 &3 is deceptive. In the play-off for the
1995 blitz. championship of Languedoc I fell
for 7..8xad? 8 Dxe5 Ke? {or even worse
8.5%e5 9 HxeS+ £e7 10 &d5 00 11
Bxe7+ £h8 12 WhS and Black is losing;
note the threat
of 13 Wxh741) 9 &ds 0-0 10
&ixc6 dxct 11 Q7+ Fh8 12 Whs witha
strong initative, as in Hamdouchi-Flear,
Montpellier (blitz) 1995. In the game I lost
the exchange but eventually won on time.
Correct is 7..%e7! 8 &d5 e4! (8..00 is a
lictle passive after 9 Rxc6 ducé 10 Dixe7+
Wixe7 11 d4 Gde6 12 Bxe5 6 13 Rel 2.d7 14
c4 Had 15 Wh3 Wi7 16 Re3 Hfeg 17 Hedl
£.c8 18 Hacl &8 19 R4 Db 20 Rg3 with
a small odge despite the presence of
opposite-coloured bishops in Kengis-Morris,
London 1991) 9 &xcé dxc6 10 e Wxe7
11 d4 (11 b4¥ proved w be 100 loosening
after 11..Re6! 12 bxc5 exf3 13 Wxf3 Wxcs
14 2b2 Wig5 15 Rc3 0-00 in Kengis-Tal,
Yurmala 1983) 11..8d7 12 g5 f6 13 Hd2
00 14 Hxet Wi7 15 Rf4 b6 16 3 HdS
17 Rd2 b5 with a very solid position for
Black in SchweberSavon, Mar del Plaa
1971
The presnce of opposiie-coloured
bishops is a common feature in such lines.
7...dxc6 8 Hixeb 267
If 8..2662 then 9 Wh5 is awkward as
148
Bxf7 is threatened.
9 d4
The comtinuation 9 b3 00 10 Ra3 De6
11 &xe7 Wixe7 12 3 Rd7 13 He3 Hads
14 d3 Rc8 15 Wh5 looks agpressive, but
after 15..Df4 16 W3 Wg5 White had
same nothing bewter than exchanging into an
ending with 17 Wg3 Wxg3 18 hxg3 &ds 19
Dxd5 oxd5 in Popovic-Prasad, Subotica
Interzonal 1987.
9...5e6 10 £¢3 0-0 11 ¢4
White would like to obtain a pleasant
space bind as in the Kengis:Mortis game
above. However, the presence of the bishop
pair aliows Black to generate
count;
11...16 12 43 £t
Giving up the eS-square but chasing
White’s bishop.
13 &3
‘White has also experimented
with the idea
of putting the bishop on c3, as Black is about
o boot it away with ...£5-f4 anyway. Thus 13
&d2, as in Gipslis-Averbakh, USSR
Championship 1958, would be best met by
13..8066 14 R c3 &4 15 W2 g5t with active
counterplay.
13..14 14 2d2
Vitolinsh had previously experimented
with 14 Rel, when 14.8g5 15 Des 3 16
Lxg5 Rxg5 17 g3 (17 &3 is too
dangerous after 174.,fl.g4) gave undlear play
in Vitolinsh-Hermiin, USSR 1979,

14.. 8617
A double-edged alternative is 14..&g5 15
Sxgs Laxgs 16 Ded Re7 17 £c3 318 gxf3
Weg 19 dS, as in Vitolinsh-Sagalchik, Minsk
1988,
15 d5?!
White could have tded 15 @De2 with the
idea thar 15.2md4 16 Dixdd Lxdd 17
Gxdd Wxdt is srongly met by 18 Sbd.
Better is 15..g5 with a complex game in
prospect.
15...5%5 16 De5?
16 Wc2 was better, trying 10 cover the
wealmess on d3.
18...2xe5 17 Bxe5 Dd3 18 De2 K5!
18..Qxb2? 19 Wb3 D3 was playsble,
but Black prefers to keep a bind rather than
give up the initiative for an unimpostant
pawn.
19 Re1 W6 20 Wa213t
White’s tangled pieces cannot stem the
tde.
21 He3 He5 22 Wd4 MaeB 23 g3 RcB!
Preparing an evenwal .. Wg2 mate!
24 Ld2 Y5 25 Wha g6 0-1
1If White removes the queen then 26..Wh3
This game ilustrates that Black can obtain
imeresting play ageinst the variation with 6
Bel.
Game 84
Westerinen-Geisdorf
German Bundesliga 1980
1 e4 65 2 Hf3 Dc6 3 b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 fixed 6 d4 exda!?
The risky but playsble Riga variation.
Black takes 2 second pawn but allows a nasty
pin on the e-file. Although it has a dubious
reputation, White cannot in fact refute this
cheeley line.
7 Be1dS
e diagram
see following
8 xda
Odds and Ends
‘White has several alternatives here:
) ECO recommends Korchnoi's analysis
8 8¢5 Re7 9 Lxe7 Pxe7! 10 c4 dxcd 11
xe3 Le6 12 fxch bxct 13 Dd4 Hixc3 14
bxc3 Wd7 15 W4 5 16 D5+ dds 17
Wxg7 Reg 18 Wxh7 with an edge to White”
but 18...Rxf5 19 HxeB+- Wixe8 20 Wxi5 We6
Tooks equal to me.
b) The sharp 8 c4 should be met by
8...cbxc3 9 1xc3 Lb4! when 10 L5 (after 10
Wxd5 Wxd5 11 xd5 Lxel 12 Dac7+ &dg
13 Dxa8 Kxf2+ 14 &f1 Re6 15 HA2
Qued2+ 16 xf2 Ded+ 17 gt )5, White
‘may’ have enough compensation for the
pawn according to Boll) 10..£6 11 &e5 00
12 Oxc6 (12 fxch is no good after
12.80%g5) 12.bxct 13 Lxc6 Hb8 14
Lxd5+ Ph8 15 Sxed Wxdl 16 Raxd1 fxg5
is equal; the two bishops compensate for the
bad pawns.
9 8 De5 provokes 8.2d6 9 Dxck
&xhd+ 10 Exh2 Wha+ 11 gl W24 12
&h2 Whe+ with an immediate draw by
check.
8...2d6 9 HixcB Kxh2+
Pethaps the biggest drawback for
ambitious Black players is that White can
now take the bishop and draw (10 xh2
Whe+ 11 gl Wxi2+ etc).
10 _531 N o
been other Twinning aemnpt o 10 min &f1 ehas
running as follows: 10..Wh4 11 Hd4+ b5 12
149
Open Ruy Lopez
£300 13 563 Wh5 14 2b3 R4 15 Wads
2xf3 16 WxhS 2xh5 17 Rd5 Haes 18
Sxet Hxot 19 g3 f5 20 9d2 Hgd, as in
Nyholm-Leonhardk, Stockholm 1907, when
Leonhard’s 21 @3, leading to equal
chances after 21...8xg3 22 fxg3 Hxg3, is a
clear improvement on the game was
quickly decided after21 ®g2? f4 22 &5 Hf5
23 fed fxg3 0-1.
10...9h4 11 Exed+ dxed 12 Wds+ Wxds
13 Hixd8+ dxd8 14 dxh2
White
has two pieces for the rook
bur
Black has two pawns and a solid game.
14...266 15 Ke3
After 15 c3 Black can win the bishop
with 15...c5! 16 Rg5+ &c8l, as in Okhof-
Boll, Den Bosch 1987, which continued 17
Dixed b5 18 Gixc5 bxad 19 Sixad Hb8 20 b3
Hb5 21 &e3 and White has only one pawn
for the exchange.
15...f5 16 Dd2!
The historically more poputar 16 &c3 is
another reason why the Riga variation has
been unfaidy weated 'Theory has been
tainted by simply quoting the famous game
Capablanca-EdLasker, New York 1915,
‘which White dominated after 16..&e7 17 g4
g6 18 g3 h5 19 gxf5 hd+ 20 Sh2 gufs 21
ez b5 22 b3 Lxb3 23 axb3 Hhgs 24
Rd1 Hadg 25 Hxd8 xd8 26 £dd, picking
upthefpzwnwlrhzwmnmgposmon Black
didoe defend that well, the clearest
improvement being 19...xf5! 20 &b3 Bheg+
150
21 Sf4 Sxb3 22 axb3 deeé 23 2d4 Hads
with the bemer prospects for Black in
Nikolaiczuk-Scholten, Baden Baden 1980.
16...Le7
‘The alternative 16..Bf8 is recommended
by Bol, but White then has several
promisingideas, such as 17 g# g6 18 gxf5
gxf5 and Black's king is no longer in a
position to stop his counterpart’s invasion
@fter 19 &g3 b5 20 Kb3 Bg8+ 21 b4 Le7
22 b5 or 17 £3 exf3 18 wf3 {4 19 Bdt+
b8 20 £c5 Hd8 21 Hel with pressure.
17 f3t
‘The opening of the centre leaves the black
king short of squares.
17...b5 18 b3 exf3 19 D3 h6
Alittle slow but still playable. The natural
move is 19...Zhes, developing!
20 206+ 7 21 el Rhes??
A blunder. In fact the posiion after”
21.Rxb3! 22 Re7+ &6 23 axb3 Hac8 24
Bd7 is sull tenable with 24..5(). At first
sight, this looks loosening but Black is now
ready to liberate his king's rook and use his
majority.
22 Hxe6! Hxe6 23 Hd4 HaeB 24 HixeB
Hxe6 25 418 ¥xf8 26 Lxe6 14 27 b4
10
Despite the result of this game, my
condusion is thar the Riga variation is
playable.
Game 85
Fischer-Trifunovic
Bled 1961
1 64 €5 2 D3 Dc6 3 £b5 ab 4 Lad HFE
5 0-0 $ixed6 d4 b5 7 Lb3 exdd
with the previous game, the
capture of the second pawn is now dubious.
The key difference is that the bishop on b3
gives Whice added ractical possibilities.
8 Hel
The continuation 8 Suxd4 K5 9 s
Wi6 10 Wds may also be dangerous for
Black, according to Korchnoi, but Fischer

suggests 8...8\7! which seems to hold
8...d5 9 Hc3!
... S
The defence is not improved by 9..dxc3
10 @xd5 &b7 11 RKxed! (the clearest)
11..8e7 12 We2 with unpleasant pressure in
Cosulich-Harandi, Siegen Olympiad 1970, as
Black cannot castle.
10 Dxed dxed 11 Uxed fe7 12 RKxeb
fxe6 13 Dxdd
Better than 13 Hxe6 Wd7 14 We2 00 15
Wet Ef6 16 &5 g6 and Black held on in
Burn-Tarrasch, Ostend 1907.
13...0-0
Unfortunasely for Black, the pin 13..¢5 is
undone by 14 Wh5+ g6 15 Dixce gah5 16
&1xd8 Bxd8 17 Re3 with a big advantage for
White due to the quality of the respective
pawn structures.
14 Wg4 Dxdd 15 Hxdd WcB 18 Hed 216
Odds and Ends
"The situation is positios for
Whmbuthehastopl;)e cmnf‘zfliyverygood
17 Se3
The tempting 17 g5? Hgé 18 h4 h6 19
Whs fails to 19..WeS! 20 Dxe7 Hxg2+
(Fischer).
17..Wd7 18 Bd1 Wee 19 £d4 Hge 20
We2 Hd8 21 g3 Wd5 22 et
“The e6-pawn comes under siege.
22..c6 23 £c3 d6 24 205 Md8 25
£14 car?
After 25..Wxa2 White would
the queen out of play with 26 b3 and hea
follow up with Bxe6 when Black’s king will
be difficultwo defend.
26 Hxe® Bxe6 27 Wxe6+ Wxe6 28 Hxe6
£16 29 Rxa® Hd1+ 30 @92 Sxb2
‘White has an extra pawn but Black is
active, which presents technical problems.
31 b8 Hal 32 Hxb5 Hxa2 33 ZcS Kad
34 Re5 kxeS 35 Exeb Za2 36 Me2 ¥17
37 13 &6 38 wed g5 39 Bd4 W5 40
3
Fischer later wrote thar 40 xct gt 41
b3 was simplest.
40...c3 41 Bf2 Ha3 42 &cd h5 43 ¢b4
Ka8 44 14 Fed!
The active king holds out stubbornly for 2
while longer.
45 fxg5 ¥e3 46 Hg2 ddd 47 Ze2 BbS+
48 %a4 Hg8 49 ha 28 60 He7 23 51
Hd7+ Leq 52 He7+ dd 53 Hd7+ dcd
54 Hc7+ &d4 55 b3 MUxg3 56 Hd7+
o4 57 En7 &d4 58 HxhS Hg1 59 Xhs
Hb1+ 60 Las Bal+ 61 b6 Hbi+ 62
@c6 Bt 63 Ed8+ Y4 64 HeB dbd 65
@d5 Hd1+ 66 Leb Del+ 67 Bf7 Bfl+
68 g6 Hf2 69 h5 Bxc2 70 hé Bh2 71
h7 62 72 BcB b3 73 kg7 1-0
Game 86
Tal-Smyslov
USSR Championship 1977
1e4 e5 2 D3 N6 3 £b5 a6 4 Lad D6
5 0-0 Dxed 6 d4 b5 7 2b3 26717
1517
Open Ruy Lopez

A ressonable sideline that is not easy 11..8g5

punish. Not the greedy 11..&c5+? 12 &h1 B2+
8 Qes 13 Bxf2 $x02 as 14 g5 yields 2 winning
A totally speculative alrernative is 8 £.d51 antack.
&6 9 2xf7+1 Pxf7 10 dxeS. 12 42
White can, however, probably obtain a 12 3 can be defused by Smyslov's
small edge by 8 dxe5 0-09 &.d5 D5 10 &3 12..5h8 13 f4 f51 14 exfo Rc5+ 15 Shi
£b7 11 a4 b4 12 Ded Sixed 13 Lxes d6 14 Wxf6 and Blackis suddenly
the one with the
KF4, a5 in Kaumov-Khamdanov, Shenyang attacking potential.
1999, since Blacl’s pawns are rather loose. 12...2e4 1318
8...00xe5 9 dxe5 2b7 10 Wga!? Tal's inwition lets him down here as he
‘Perhaps White should seule for 10 £d5 burns his bridges for a sharp but unsound
Sxds 11 Wxd5 &c5 12 4 c6 13 Wf3 00 14 anack against his fellow former World
Ke3 f5 15 exfe Hxf6 16 3 d5 17 Bad1, as Champion.
in KupreichikNorri, Debrocen 1992, which 13...h8
strikes me as starting1o fook fike 2 ‘normal Smyslov points out the simplest defence
Open position. White has an initiative with for Black: 13..2c5+ 14 &h1 Fhs 15 &3
£4-£5 and g2-g4 e1c. D)2+ 16 B2 Lxf2 17 205 16 18 exfb gl
10...0-0 19 £ho Hg8 20 Lxp8 Wxg8 21 Wxgs+
Hxg8 and Black wins. ‘
14 23
Showingno fear; safer was 14 £e3.
14...2c5+ 15 &F1 dB 16 16 g6!
Playing for the full point. After 16..gxf6
17 h3 fxe5 18 Hxh7+ b7 19 Wh+ dp8
20 Wig6+ White has a perperual.
17 Wh4 dxe5 18 o2

11 132t
Too optirmistic. Betteris 11 He1 d5 (cather
than 11.8g5% 12 Hic3! Sxcl 13 Hxed
Rxe4 14 Baxcl Kc6 15 He3 and White
had
a strong arack in MiTseitlin] A
USSR 1978) 12 &h6 25! (Korchnof's move
is very solid and in his opinion preferable to
12..8g5P 13 Rxg7 Pxg7 14 h4 with an
edge for White). 18...Wda!
Another
try is 11 £c3 &ixc3 12 bxe3 (12 With the point thar after 19 Whé &c3+!
£h6 is nicely refuted by 12..%f6! 13 exi6 Black mates quickly.
Wxf6 14 Lg5 Wd4)) 12..%h8 13 244 d5 14 19 Eh3 W2+ 20 ¥xf2 Hxf2 21 Ehe
exdé 2xdé 15 Hadl WeB, which
was dead Hed 22 Lh6 Dxf6
equalin Anand-Piket, Roquebrune 1992. The simplest.
152
 Odds and Ends

23 &xf8 BxiB 24 &ft Xd8 point. Black gives back the pawn but has the
The power of the two bishops is better middlegame in prospect as both of
overwhelmi ‘White’s bishops are resiricted by his ugly
25 o4 g5 26 Eh3 g4 27 Hc3 b4 28 Hc pawn structure.
Hd4 29 g3 “Frue to my nature, I decided to bold on to
Stopping the rook from coming to f4, but the pawm, and indeed grab more, but in the
now {3 is a handy square for Black. process I almost lost the house.
29...213 30 a3 ab 31 axb4 axb4 32 Hab 11 Dh3 2xh3 12 Wh5+ g6 13 Wxh3 16
Dd7 33 £c2 e4 34 el £b6 35 Nad+ A solid-looking pawn centre perhaps, but
g7 36 2d8 15 37 Lad De5 38 Nxdd with a centralised
king and 2 few holes ‘here
£xd4 39 Dd2 and there’
it proves to be rather shaky.
A belated development for a queen’s 14 13 Wd7 15 fxe4 dxed 16 a4 ba?
knight! Not in itself bad, the question markis for
39...2xb2 40 b3 K3 0-1 underestimating White’s next move and
The ¢-pawn will go all the way. generally being too smug,
17 a5! bxc3 18 224 Rb4
Game 87 18..Wixd4+ 19 Ph1 Wed is similar to the
Wagman-Flear game except that the bishop can now go to
Aosta 1990 g7 after 20 2.5 {following 20 Exf5l? gxf5 21
Whs+ dd8 22 25+ Re7 23 Whé Rxg5 24
104 o6 2 13 Hc6 3 Kb5 a6 4 Lad D6 Wixg5+ &8 25 Wi6 Bladk stays on top with
5 0-0 £xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 Hc3 25._.4%d41) but in any case after 20..Rg7 the
A fearless gambit line that is full of venom black king is still caught in the crossfire of
for the unwary. White’s bishops.
The insanc-looking8 c4 is best met by 19 295 hb 20 d5t
8..dxcd 9 L2 Bf6 10 dxes Wxd1 11 Hxdl Open lines are worth more than pawns,
Dd7, while 8 24 gives Black a wide choice. my opponent kept telling me!
Simply 8..b4! is the most sensible to modern Recently Wagman claimed a win for
eyes, but the main line in the early
part of the White with 20 g4 (with the idea that 20... fxg4
century continued 8., Sd4? 9 &ixd4 excd 21 We3 yields a winning attack). However,
10 axb5 (10 IR is sharp) 10..8c5 11 3 Black can defend with 20..Wxd4+ {or even
00 12 cxd4 Rb6 13 &c3 £b7 14 brab Hxa 20..0-0 21 d5 hxgd) 21 b1 hxgd 22 Lxcé+
15 Bxab $xa6 16 Rel, when the game f7 with enough compensation for the
LaskerSchlechter, ~ Vienna/Berlin (8th piece.
marchgame) 1910, was balanced. 20..Wxd5 21 Had1 Wed 22 b3 Wb+
8...8xc3 9 bxc3 edt 23 Re3 We7
More cautious is 9...8.e7 but after 10 dxe5
see following diagram
fe6 11 Dd4 White is not worse. The text
move is the ‘honourable’ choice for those 24 Lad
who wish to punish White's ‘crazy’ eighth The most testing is 24 &.d5 W6 25 Lxed!
move. (not 25 285> Wxgh 26 Lxch+ be7 27 Lxad
10 Dg5 162! Hxa8 which simplifies, to Black’s relief) and
However, this is unnecessarly the important e-pawn falls, Black’s defences
provocative. Instead 10...2.5 11 f3 €3! 12 f4 are reduced and the pressure is maintained. 1
Wd7 13 Wf3 Rd8 14 Wxed+ Le7, as in think that 25..Bb8l is then forced (as
Sackes-Zuravlev, USSR 1962, is more to the 25..1d8? 26 £xco+ Wxcé 27 Hxd+ donds
163
Open Ruy Lopez

28 Wha+ L7 loses a rookto 29 Wd4+) and
he seems to be ableto grovel on, e.g, 26 Wg3
Des 27 Bd5 L.d6 28 L4 Sgdl 29 Wel
£xh2+ 30 h1 We7, escaping,
A move with a reputation for being dull
and
8...2xe8 9 dxe5 c6
With this move, Black essentially kills off
the influence of the b3-bishop on the a2-g8
disgonal. By uniting his ¢- and d-pawns the
lightsquared bishop and queen will mot
remain tied to the defence of the d-
strongpoint.

24...We6 25 Wg3 Zh7

Not 25...0-0? as there is 26 2b3.
26 Hxfs!
Less precise is 26 SLxc6+ Wxco 27 HxfS,
as Black is then not obliged to capture and
can play a useful move such as 27..2d8. 10 Bd2
26...9x15 27 KxcB+ Wxcé 28 WgB+ 28 Not an impressive winning try!
29 Wxh7 We6 30 Wxh5+ Wi7 31 Whe Typical of the 8 Zxe5 variation is 10 c3
Wg7! S5 11 We2 00 12 Le3 £f5 13 Dd2 Whe
A move that evokes the defensive adage when wholesale minor piece exchanges arc
‘A halfpomt is worth more than your on the cards, e, after the further 14 Sixet
dignil Rixed 15 Hfel Hads 16 £3 RF5, the game
32wh5+ W7 33 Yhs Wg7 34 Who+ Keres-Korchnoi, USSR Championship 1973,
%% was equal.
Only a draw for White’s efforts, but he White could keep more tension with 10
certainly obtained his pound of grandmaster Re3? Re7 11 3 (11 DA2 Hxd2 12 Wxd2
sweat for the three invested pawnsl Even 00 13 We3 fails to impress as White cannot
pow, years later, a friend of My Wagman’s maintain the bind on ¢5, eg. 13..8b7 14 4
still valks to me of this game and claims that a5 15 a3 b4 16 Wd2 24 and Black had an
White was winning, I haven’t found anything equal game in Fischer-Addison, US
convindng but if somebody finds Championship 1966/67) 11..0-0 (Krasenkov
something,.. prefers 11151 or 11.25%) 12 3 &c5 13
£c2 5 (on 13..8%6 14 Wd3 g6 15 Rh6
Game 88 g7 White can uy Tukmakov's risky
Short-Timman suggestion of 16 g4f?, keeping Black out of
El Escorial (8th matchgame) 1993 f5) 14 exf6 Mxf6, Barle-Tukmakov,
ia-Russia 1976, when 15 2443 (15
1 64 e5 2 DF3 Hc6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad D6 fl'? 65 16 2xf5 Kxf5 17 £\2 is instead
5 0-0 2xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £5b3 db B {Hixeb considered by Tukmakov as slightly beter
154
 Odds and Ends

for White, due no doubt to the potential Another aggressive gesture from Shory,
trump card of his mobile kingside majority) bur Black’s position is 2 tough as granite,
15,817 16 Dd2 De6 17 Le5 2d6 18 Wel Afer the exchange of queens, note that
Haa7 was more than comfortable for Black. White's bishop, denied the b1-h7 disgonal, is
10..0xd2 11 Kxd2 Ke7 12 Wh5 f anything the worse bishop.
Without knights this attractive looking 19...8f5 20 Wxf5 x5 21 h3 hs
‘long-move’ becomes feasible, but there is Wihite's last hope for anything positive
nothing for the queen to attack. was a pawn-roller with g2-g4, £2-64-15 etc.
12...8e6 22 Rdet Had8 23 £d1 g6 24 b4
Another way of defending would be
12..Wd7 13 3 W5 14 Wd1 Wb,

24...cB!
The weak c3-pawn will keep White in
13 c3 Wd7 14 Rg5 2151 15 Rfe1 che eck.
After 15 @17 Black’s defence is tidied up 25 bxcb Hc8 26 a4 Exc5 27 axbb axbs
with 15.. &g6. 2894 %-%
15...296 16 Wha &xg5 17 Wxgs 0-0 18 28..hxg4 29 Sxgd is drawish.
Zad1 Bfe8 19 He3
Open Ruy Lopez

Summary
White has nothing but a dull game after 6 Het (Game 83), or
6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 Dxe5
(Game 88).
White’s speculative 8 £33 (Game 87) is positionally unsound, see the note to move 10.
“Taking the second pawn on d4 on move seven is bad (Game 85), whereas on move six it's
provocative but certainly playable; the downside is that White can force a draw (Game 84).
Finally, the adventurous 7...2.e7 {Game 86) sets different problems.
1 ed eb 2 DF2 Dcb 3 KbS a6 4 £ad- D6 5 0-0 Hxed

6 d4
6Bel (D ) - Game 83
6...b5
6..exdd - Game 84
7 853 d5
7..exd4 — Game 85
7.. 867 - Game 86
8 Qe
883 (D) - Game 87
8...2%e5 9 dxeb c6 (D) ~ Game 88
 INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES

Mikhalevslu, Budapest 1997 i 18

"' khi Ne lands (13th b } 1935 93
Almasi.Z- Korchnm, Linz 1997.
Antunes-Flear, Pau 1988......
Apicella-Flear, Cappelle la Grande 1994
Apicella-Flear, Clichy 1993
Arsenev-Zuhovicky, USSR 1967 .
Beliavsky-Dorfman, USSR Ch., Thilisi 1978.
Bologan-Daniliuk, Russiz 1997
Bronstein.L-Sorokin, General Pico City 1996.
Chandler-Yusupov, Hastings 1989/90 .
Chekhov-Gorelov, Beskidy 1992
De Firmian-Hellers, Biel 1989.
Dolmatov-Yusupov, Witk aan Zee (11th matchgame)} 199
Dvoiris-Kaidanov, USSR 1984 ........c.covueeen
Dwoiris-Sorokin, Russian Ch., Voronezh 1988
Ehlvest-Hjartarson, Belfort 1988.
Fischer-Trifunovic, Bled 1961 .
Geller-Krasenkov, Cappelle la Grande 1992
Georgiev.Ki-Ivanchuk, Manila Olympiad 1992
Georgiev.Kr-Flear, Ano Liosia 1999 ....
Gofshtein-Mikhalevski, Beersheva 1994,
Greenfeld-Pyernik, Israel 1983
Haba-Marin, Budapest Zonal 1993.
Hecht-Langeweg, Hangelo 1968,
Hisbner-Piket, Dortmund 1992 ...
Ivanchuk-Tukmakov, New York 198
Open Ruy Lopez

Tvanchuk-Yusupov, Linares 1990.

Kaminski-Chekhov, Lubniewice 1993 .
Kamsky-Anand, Las Palmas (4th matchgame) 1995.
Kamsky-Anand, Las Palmas (6th matchgame) 1995.
Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (12th matchgame) 1978......ccoeevnivnns 115
Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (14th matchgame) 1978 33
Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (24th matchgame) 1978 85
Karpov-Yusupov, USSR Ch., Moscow 1983.
Kasparov-Anand, New York (10th b ) 1995 d26
Khalifman-Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986.
Khalifman-Korchnoi, Ubeda 1997.
Khalifman-Mikhalevski, Zinares 1
Kudrin-Kaidanov, USA Ch., Chandler 1997.
Kupreichik-Yusupov, USSR Championship 1981
Lautier-Korchnoi, Ubeda 1997,
Leko-Piket, Dortrmund 1994..
Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Linares 1991
Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Tilburg 1987
Lutz-Yusupov, Germany 1996
Martens-Flear, Hyéres 1991 ..
Mecking-Korchnoi, Augusta (2nd b ) 1974
Mowsesian-Motwani, Hastings 1996/97..
Nunn-Korchnoi, Cologre (rapidplay) 1989
Nurkic-Flear, Asti 1996.
Onischuk-Sokolov.l, Wijk aan Zee 199
Pedersen-Magomedov, Cappelle la Gran,
Polgar.J-Anand, Munich 1991........
Polgar.J-Hellers, Wijk aan Zee 199
Polgar.Zso-Van der Stetren, Wijk aan Zee 1990
Prasad-Emnst, Gausdal 1991 .........

Short-Prasad, Subotica Interzonal 1987

Short-Timman, E! Escorial (6th hgame) 1993 88
Short-Timman, E/ Escorial (8th 5 ) 1993 154
Shont-Timman, E! Escorial (12th b ) 1993 27
Short-Timman, Tilburg 1988 ...........cccovcevviinieereacrioreinccnnennes 36
Short-Timman, Yerevan Obmpiad 1996 43
Sokolov.A-Flear, Clichy 1993....
Sokolov.A-Korchnoi, Tilburg 198
Sokolov.A-Marin, Manila Interzonal 1990,

168
 index of Complete Games

Sokolov.A-Sulskis, Geneva 1998 ...

Sokolov.A-Timman, Reykjavik 1988
Svidler-Adianto, Groningen 1997..
Tak: lov, USSR Champ bip 1977,
‘Timman-Korchnoi, Groningen 1996.
Timman-Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1987.
Tischbierek-Pihtz, Potsdam 1985.
Tiviakov-Sokolov., Groningen 1994...
Tseshkovsky-Tal, USSR Ch., Leningrad 1974 . .24
Van den Doél-Haba, Cappelle la Grande 1998 .. .61
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Sarajevo 1984 . 132
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1983. .34
Van Mil-Flear, Oskbam 1994 .............. 122
Vitolinsh-Mikhalchishin, Uzk

Xie fun-Polgar.Zsu, Cannes (10th matchgame) 1996 .57