Queen's Indian Defence

Kasparov System
 Queen's Indian
Defence
Kasparov System
MIKHAIL GUREVICH
Translated by George Pyatov

1 d4 tl:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tl:lf3 b6 4 a3

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1 9 9 1

©Mikhail Gurevich 1991

ISBN 0 7 1 34 6756 8

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library

All rights reserved. No part of this book

may be reproduced, by any means, without
prior permission of the publisher

Typeset by Lasertext, Manchester

and printed in Great Britain by
Dotesios Ltd, Trowbridge, Wilts.
for the publishers,
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W1H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R. D. Keene GM, OBE
Contents

Foreword by Gary Kasparov vii

Preface 1

1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 e6 3 tiJf3 b6 4 a3
1 4 ... c5 5
2 4 ... �a6 17

4 . . . �b7 5 tiJc3
3 5 ... tiJe4 29
4 5 ... g6 37
5 Classical 5 ... d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 �f4 44
6 Classical 5 ... d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3 53
7 Classical 5 ... d5 6 cxd5 tiJxd5 Introduction and 7 "ilt'c2 64
8 Classical 5 ... d5 6 cxd5 ttJxd5 7 e3 86

Solutions to Problems 99

Postscript 103

List of Illustrative Games 104

Foreword by Gary Kasparov

This book, written by Mikhail Gurevich, Soviet Grandmaster and one

of the world's leading chessplayers, is devoted to a fashionable system
of the Queen's Indian Defence.
The reader will be introduced to the theoretical aspects along with
supporting illustrations from modern chess practice, and will be given a
chance to glance at the system's prospects for the near future. But far
more important, it seems to me, is that the author kindly extends his
invitation to the reader to come right into his home laboratory for
creative work, and then and there he will reveal his methods of working
as a professional chessplayer.
The 4 a3 system has been a part of my openings arsenal for a long
time, and I have achieved many of my memorable wins with it. Ex­
World Champion Tigran Petrosian was an outstanding expert in this
system and one can find a lot of instructive and valuable material
pertaining to it in his games.
The structure of this book is very far from being routine or cliched.
This is not j ust a straightforward openings monograph. The material is
thematically interconnected in a very skilful way, and the illustrative
games have been carefully selected to present the subject matter in all
its aspects.
Finally, the book is not at all dull or monotonous reading matter. In
fact, it is a very warm and human work in which the author expresses
himself in a strongly vivid and picturesque style. All this makes me feel
sure that the book will appeal to a wide audience of chessplayers -
from enthusiastic amateurs to experienced professionals.
Preface

The information explosion is nowadays part and parcel of every area of

human activity. However, I would prefer to steer clear of dogmatic
attempts to generalize about this process or to assess it in some way;
instead I would suggest looking humbly and quietly for ways to adapt
oneself to it. After all, chessplaying is itself a rather controversial matter!
I am a practising professional chessplayer, which means that my job
is not to sift an enormous mass of information originating from
theoretical researches, but rather to scrutinize the chessplaying process
itself. As Goethe once observed: "In art it is not thinking that does the
job, but making." This will probably remind the reader of another
quotation on theory which, according to the quotation, "is dry but the
tree of life is evergreen". I try to do my job first of all by critical analysis
of my own chess games, and also by reviewing the whole approach to
tactical and strategical issues. That is what I call my domestic research
laboratory. This modus operandi, I believe, will become the most popular
one in the foreseeable future.
In each classical opening there are systems which have been tested
continuously in practice from early times until now and which thus
possess a long-established strength. The standard assessment of these
systems is not subject to any drastic change. Actual games or the analysis
of leading theoreticians can to some extent influence their popularity
with chessplayers, or accentuate something in a fashionable line and
prompt some more precise definitions or recommendations. All this will
serve at the same time as irrefutable evidence of the vitality of those
systems.
Of course, this is only really true of classical openings and classical
schemes. In chess, as in any other art, classical things are unfading and
evergreen. Dubious opening experiments, which in most cases aim only
at scoring a tournament point at any cost, are dooiJled to appear and
then fade away very quickly like nocturnal butterflies.
What is professionalism in our brotherhood? First of all, it is a
2 Preface

perpetual perfecting of skills and a creative rethinking of the chessplaying

process. And that Drang nach perfection - that is, a continuous drive
toward improving one's results - will inevitably lead a chessplayer to
such a state of mind that, figuratively speaking, he will start to feel by
his fingertips, like a musician, the different positional nuances. He will
acquire a self-confidence and psychological stability which will help him
to play chess under the pressure of any dramatic situation. In this way
each player will forge his own style of playing chess and create his own
credo. In this way also, he will raise his level of playing chess and thus
increase his enjoyment.
The Queen's Indian Defence is one of the classical openings, and 4 a3
is one of the most fashionable systems within this opening. If one looks
down the system's genealogical tree one can see that fifty or sixty years
ago the system was seldom played, even though it had been tested by
such universally recognised authorities as Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Reti,
Samisch and others. But the system really became fashionable only after
it was heavily exploited by Tigran Petrosian, who became a beachhead
for the future strategic concepts of the system. Among prominent
contemporary chessplayers who are practioners of the system there are
such personalities as Gary Kasparov, Arthur Yusupov, Lajos Portisch,
Jan Timman, Rafael Vaganyan, Smbat Lputian, myself, and many other
Grandmasters.
But what is it that is so appealing to this 4 a3 system for all of us,
practical players and theoreticians alike, who profess different principles
and approaches in relation to chessplaying? First of all, of course, it is
the inner wealth of its substance and, as the consequence of that
substance, that universal character of the system. The 4 a3 move could
be considered both as a preventive and as a preliminary one - for the
purpose of b2-b4 with activity on the queenside. At the same time, the
move can often transpose into the development schemes of some other
openings closely related to it, for example the Queen's Gambit and the
Catalan. In all these openings the emphasis is on the domination of the
centre by pieces or by pawns. For White here there is a very effective
pawn manoeuvre to e4. This is where the action is. In the meantime, by
the move 4 a3 White prompts Black's king's bishop to make its move
as if to speak out in favour of this or that scheme of development, while
reserving for himself the possibility of a flexible response.
When I was writing this book I had to undertake a venture which
was rather unusual for me. From thousands of games I chose and sorted
some dozens which could be helpful and revealing in the exposition of
 Preface 3

my most cherished and carefully considered views, beliefs and concepts,

and which also could help me to recommend precise assessments.
Furthermore, the selected games were not to be just kinds of advertising
clips for the promotional campaign of my favourite system, they had to
be good representations of some of the most sharp and brilliant strategic
·
and tactical concepts, not only in the opening but also in the middlegame
and endgame stages.
What is the difference between the theoretical knowledge of an expert
in chess theory and that of a practising professional chessplayer? I think
the latter is aware of many more typical nuances, and, of course, the
latter is much more experienced in putting things into practice during
high-level tournaments. And if the present-day Grandmaster might keep
in his mind some hundreds of such positions, his less experienced
counterpart, however, only some dozens. Those positions - tabiyas­
might be a part of this or that opening. That is why I suggest that the
reader looks into the 4 a3 system by way of studying the tabiyas which
represent different variations of the 4 a3 system.
A thorough study of this material may provoke some questions,
especially concerning this opening. In that case, I would advise against
a hasty recourse to monographs and reference books. It would be a
better idea for you to pick out and write down a certain position or a
concept and after having finished a section to try to make your own
analysis. I am sure that this sort of activity will be much more useful
than browsing through theoretical investigations.
Besides a principal or fundamental game the texts of other games,
which are sometimes just as interesting, will be given, but here the
annotations will be a little shorter. It is up to you to add to them. And
to secure your mastery of the study material, the thematic examples of
combinational or positional struggle in this or that scheme will be given
at the end of each section in the form of several problems. If you fail to
solve any problem you can find the right answer at the back of this
book. These problems are then followed by the tabiyas of that section,
which appear time after time in practical play and will bring reward to
those who unravel their secrets.
I would advise against swallowing the whole book in one gulp. Take
your time and stop whenever this or that position or a certain part of
the book attracts your attention. Those who like the Indian setups -
that is, the more dynamic ones - could first of all study the variations
with 4 . . . c5 or 4 . . .tb7 5 tt::lc3 g6. Those who prefer the centre not
.

too crowded with pawns will find an interest in the section 4 . .tb7
. .
4 Preface

5 ll:lc3 ll:le4. In short, there is a wide variety of choices in positions and

schemes that will reward the taste of even the most demanding chess
connoisseur.
I hope that you already have your preferences and beliefs concerning
concepts, style, etc., which will enable you to make the right choice. But
there is still another very important factor in the art of playing chess,
that is the psychological background of personality. The schemes selected
by you should be in conformity with your personal traits, your way of
life, your predilections and passions for other fine arts, for example your
favourite music. In other words, I mean everything that in everyday life
gives you more self-esteem, independence, and brings you the most
aesthetic pleasure. Chessplaying is, in a way, a prototype or a pattern
of life and one can find out how to "live and learn" in real life
from chessplaying and how to realize one's ideals and aspirations in
chessplaying.
Now I dare say that you no longer fear to set out on a journey
through the labyrinth of this system. I have done my best to weave an
"Ariadne's thread" for you strong enough for this purpose.
 1 4 . . . c5
Epishin-Yudasin
USSR 1987
1 d4 tt:Jf6
2 c4 e6
3 tt:lf3 b6
4 a3 c5
There is no particular reason to
go into deep positional analysis
after 4 . . . d5, which will usually
transpose into such basic schemes
as 4 . . . ..ib7 5 tt:Jc3 d5. Practice
shows that if Black avoids devel­
oping his bishop to b7 he cannot
achieve equality, e.g. 4 . . . d5 5
tt:Jc3 ..ie7 6 cxd5 exd5 7 ..if4
0-0 8 e3 ..if5 (up to this point it
was still possible to get back into
regular schemes by way of . . .
..ib7. 8 . . . ..ie6 has also been
played here, but in Wilder­
Larsen, New York 1 984 Black had
to face serious problems: 9 h3 c5
10 ..id3 tt:lc6 1 1 0-0 a6 12 : c l
c4 1 3 ..ib1 b 5 1 4 ..ig5 : fe8 1 5
tt:Je5 "ii'b6 1 6 f4 J:. ad8 1 7 "ifc2 g6
1 8 'i!ff2 �h8 19 'i!fh4 and White's
attack is very dangerous) 9 ..ie2
tt:Je4 10 "ii'b3 c6 1 1 0-0 ..id6 1 2
..ixd6 "ifxd6 1 3 : acl tt:Jd7 14
·
J:. fd l J:.fb8 1 5 tt:Je1 a5 1 6 tt:Jd3 h6
1 7 tt:Jxe4 ..ixe4 1 8 "ifc3 .l:[c8 19
"ii'd2 tt:Jf6 20 b4. In van der
Sterren-Short, Baku 1 983, a draw
was agreed here though White had
some advantage and could have
gained activity both in the centre
and on the queenside.
Somewhat fanciful is 4 . . . tt:Je4
with an attempt to upset White's
regular set up. This daring sally
could be ignored by 5 g3 ..ib7
6 ..ig2 which promises a well­
known opening initiative, but in
fact it is possible to refute it by a
concrete action. In this context
Glek-Rozentalis, USSR 1 985 is
instructive: 5 tt:lfd2 d5 (otherwise
White will completely dominate
the centre) 6 e3 ! ..ib7 7 cxd5
exd5 8 tt:Jxe4 dxe4 9 tt:Jc3 ..id6 1 0
..ib5 + ! �f8 (10 . . . tt:Jd7? 1 1 'i!f g4)
1 1 "ifc2 "ifg5 1 2 g3 a6 1 3 ..tfl ! f5
14 ..ig2 h5 (an attempt to create
counterplay, in case of the routine
1 5 0-0, by way of 1 5 . . . h4 1 6 f3
h3) 1 5 ..id2 tt:Jd7 1 6 0-0-0
(Black's king cannot evade a direct
attack) 1 6 . . . h4 17 .:l.hfl h3 1 8
..i h 1 'i!fg4 1 9 f3 ! exf3 20 .:l.f2 g6
21 J:. dfl �g7 22 J:. xf3 ! J:. hf8 23
: f4! ..ixf4 24 ..ixb7 ..ih6 25
6 4 . . . c5
..tf3 W'g5 26 ..txa8 l:txa8 27 �d5
.:t c8 28 W'c6 W'd8 29 ..tc3 W'e8
30 ..t>d 1 ! and after several moves
Black resigned.
5 d5
If 5 e3, it makes no sense for
Black to switch over to the Tar-
rasch Defence by way of 5 . . . d5
with an inferior setup. The . . . c5,
. . . g6 scheme promises an equal
game with its tendency to Benoni­
type positions.
5 exd5
6 cxd5 g6
7 �c3
For White there is still another
scheme of development - a tough
and aggressive one - 7 e4!?. Now
in reply to 7 . . . d6 8 ..tb5+ will
be good, promising an obvious
positional advantage : Black will
have difficulty shielding his weak­
nesses on the light squares. An
attempt to capture the central
pawn and get away with it did not
have a happy ending in Benjamin­
de Firmian, USA Ch. 1986: 7 . . .
�xe4 8 ..td3 �f6 (if 8 . . . �d6 9
O-O f6 1 0 .:t e l + �f7 1 1 �c3 and
White obtains excellent chances to
attack in return for the pawn.
Maybe 8 . . . f5 is best, but this
decision could be a rather agoniz­
ing one) 9 0-0 ..tg7 10 .l:l. e l +
�f8 1 1 d6 ..tb7 1 2 �c3 ..txf3
(played with good reason because
there is a danger of attack if 1 2 . . .
�c6 1 3 �g5 h6 1 4 �xf7 �xf7 1 5
..tc4+ �f8 1 6 W'd3 ! �a5 1 7
W'xg6 �xc4 1 8 .:t e7) 1 3 W'xf3 �c6
14 �b5 h6 1 5 ..td2 ..t>g8 1 6 ..tc3
�h7 17 �c7 ..txc3 1 8 bxc3 (the
simple .:te8+ is also winning) 1 8
. . . �g7 1 9 �xa8 W'xa8 20 ..tb5
.:t c8 21 .:t ad 1 �f6 22 ..txc6 W'xc6
23 W'xc6 .:t xc6 24 c4 �f8 25 .:t e7
and White realized his advantage.
7 ..t g7
8 e4
In this kind of position choosing
a scheme is a matter of taste.
A traditional fianchetto is also
possible: 8 g3, with good prospects
for White. An interesting game
Vegh-Farago, Budapest 1 987
continued 8 . . . 0-0 9 ..tg2 d6 10
0-0 �bd7 1 1 ..tf4 W'e7 12 h3
(preventing Black from regroup­
ing his forces by way of �g4-e5)
1 2 . . . h6 1 3 e4 �h5 14 ..td2 ..t>h7
1 5 �h2 a6 16 .:t e l ..tb7 1 7 W'c2
.:t ac8 (Black did not like the possi­
bility of a queenside blockade after
1 7 . . . b5 1 8 a4! ..t4 1 9 �dl a5 20
�e3) 1 8 a4 c4? (trying to set the
pawns on the queenside in motion,
but this plan is met by an elegant
refutation; 1 8 . . . �e5 would not
be much better after 19 �xe5
..txe5 20 f4 with an obvious
advantage in the centre) 1 9 ..tfl !
.:t c7 20 .:t ad l .:t d8 2 1 .te3 .:t cc8
22 �d2! �c5 !? 23 �xc4 W'c7 24
..td4 ! .txd4 25 .:t xd4 �d7 26
.:t d2 W'c5 27 W'd l �g7 28 W'f3 f6
29 �e3 W'b4 30 h4! and White
soon won .
8 0-0
9 h3
 4 . . . c5 7

9 .i.d3 or 9 .i.e2 are also quite There is no need to hurry the

possible. exchange of bishops - 1 2 .i.f4 is
9 d6 also strong.
10 .i.d3 (1) 12 tt:lxa6
13 .:l.e1 'Wb7
This is a typical manoeuvre.
Black strives to capture the d5-
B pawn when an opportunity arises;
at the same time he takes the
queen away from the unpleasant
confrontation with White's rook
down the e-file.
14 .i.f4
I think you will have already
observed the role that this bishop
plays in all the ramifications of
this variation.
10 'ile7 14 l:tfd8
In Novikov-Yudasin, Lvov This is more vigorous than 1 4
1 987, Black exchanged white­ . . . J:t ad8 which may b e answered
squared bishops here but could by 1 5tt:lb5 ! tt:le8 1 6 J:l.ab 1 , followed
not equalize : 10 . . . .i.a6 1 1 0-0 by b2-b4.
.i.xd3 12 'ilxd3 tt:lbd7 1 3 .i.f4 15 'ile2! tt:lc7
'ile7 1 4 .:l.ael a6 1 5 a4 lHc8 1 6 16 l:t ac1 !
tt:ld2 tt:lh5?! (this looks like a logi­ White plays the opening in a
cal move but in fact it stimulates subtle way, with the best position­
White's impending attack on the ing of his pieces.
kingside. 1 6 . . . tt:le8 would have 16 tt:lhS
been better) 1 7 .i.h2 J:t cb8 1 8 17 .i.gS
g4! tt:l hf6 1 9 f4 tt:le8 20 e5! (the The routine 17 .i.h2 loses the
breakthrough in the centre is the initiative after 1 7 . . . .i.h6.
leitmotif of White's strategy) 20 . . . 17 .l:le8?!
dxe5 2 1 fxe5 .i.xe5 22 �h1 ! b5 A tempting move, but the only
23 tt:lf3 c4 24 'ile3 f6 25 g5 and way for Black to defend himself
White has obtained an advan­ was by 1 7 . . . J:t d7 and sliding the
tageous position for attack, queen's rook to e8. In that case,
though the game ended in a draw White would have to shift the
after mutual mistakes. action to the queenside with 1 8
11 0-0 .i.a6 'iid2 followed by b2-b4.
12 .i.xa6 18 'iid2
8 4 . . . c5

With the terrible threat of g2- 30 .!:!.edt .l:!.e8

g4 and 'iff4, paralysing the centre 31 ll:Jf7+ 1-0
and the kingside.
18 .US
19 g4 ll:Jg7 (2) Cebalo-Dizdar
Yugoslavian Ch. 1982

1 d4 ll:Jf6
2 c4 e6
3 ll:Jf3 b6
4 a3 c5
5 d5 ..ta6
6 'ifc2
This position can also arise from
another move order : 4 . . . ..ta6 5
'ifc2 c5 6 d5. 6 'ifb3 instead of 6
'ifc2 is also playable for White,
against which a pawn sacrifice in
20 e5! dxe5 the spirit of the Volga Gambit
21 ll:Jxe5 f5 looks promising: 6 . . . b5 7 cxb5
It is now becoming difficult to ..tb7, occupying the centre.
know what good advice one could The modest 6 b3 will present
give Black to help him cope with Black with even fewer problems.
the numerous threats! Both 6 . . . b5 and 6 . . . exd5 7 cxd5
22 ..tf6! b5 g6 promise an equal game, for
23 d6 .l:!.e6 instance Huss-Sigurjonsson, Ran­
This was the last practical ders Zonal 1 982 continued : 8
chance - the end would come ..tb2 ..tg7 9 e4 ..txfl 10 �xfl
more quickly after 23 . . . ll:Jce6 24 d6 1 1 ll:Jbd2 0-0 12 'ifc2 ll:Jbd7 !
d7 ll:Jd4 25 dxe8('if) .1:1. xe8 26 ll:Je2. 1 3 g3 ll:Jg4 1 4 ..txg7 �xg7 1 5 h3
24 dxc7 .l:!.xf6 ll:Jge5 and now Black is fine.
25 'ifd7! 6 exd5
It is time to lower the curtain - Interesting complications arise
White's pieces have developed a after 6 . . . 'ife7 7 ..tg5 (7 ll:Jc3
fantastic activity ! ..txc4 8 ..tg5 is also possible, with
25 .l:!.c8 similar ideas) 7 . . . exd5 (Black has
26 ll:Jd5 .l:!.d6 to meet the challenge otherwise he
27 'iff7+ � h8 will lose the fight for the centre
28 ll:Jf6 .l:!.xf6 after 7 . . . h6 8 ..txf6 'ifxf6 9 e4) 8
29 'ifxf6 'ifxc7 ll:Jc3 ! (this is a gambit idea -

activity at any cost! Those who
prefer a quieter strategy could
choose something more moderate,
e.g. 8 .txf6 'lixf6 9 cxd5 which
secures a small positional advan­
tage : 9 . . . g6 10 e4 .txfl 1 1 �xfl
.tg7 12 e5 'lWe7 13 ll:lc3. But 8
ll:lc3 ! claims to refute the 6 . . . 'lWe7
concept) 8 . . . .txc4 9 e4! (if 9 b3
Black has the vigorous 9 . . . d4! in
reply) 9 . . . h6 (after 9 . . . 'lWe6
White concluded hostilities in an
impressive manner in Fernandez­
Ortega, Cuba 1 982: 10 .txc4 dxc4
1 1 0-0-0 ll:lc6 1 2 e5 ll:lh5 1 3 ll:ld5
.:tc8 14 'lixc4 .te7 15 g4! b5! 1 6
'lWe4! ll:lf6 1 7 .txf6 gxf6 1 8 ll he 1
0-0 1 9 'lWf4 fxe5 2 0 ll:lxe5 ll:ld4 2 1
ll:lc6 .t d 8 2 2 ll:lce7 + �g7 23
ll xe6 fxe6 24 'lWe5 + and Black
resigned) 10 .txf6 'lWxf6 1 1 exd5
.txfl 1 2 �xfl ! d6 1 3 ll e 1 + .te7
14 'lWa4+ �f8 1 5 'lig4! ll:la6 1 6
Wd7 : d8 1 7 Wxa7 ll:lb8 1 8 Wxb6
ll:ld7 19 'lWb7 g6 20 .!:t e3 �g7 2 1
g 3 'lWf5 2 2 �g2 .tf6 23 ll:le4 .1:!. b8
24 'ilfc6! ll:le5 25 ll:lxe5 .txe5 26
l:!.he1 .!:t xb2 27 .!:t f3 'ilfc8 28 ll:lxd6
.txd6 29 'ilixd6 .!:t b7 30 'i!ff6+
�h7 3 1 ll e7 winning, Miles­
Kudrin, London 1 982.
7 cxd5 .tb7 (3)
In Kasparov-Browne, Banja
Luka 1 979, Black played the open­
ing unsuccessfully : 7 . . . d6 8 ll:lc3
ll:lbd7 9 .tf4! .te7 10 g3 0-0 1 1
.tg2 .!:t e8 1 2 0-0 ll:lh5?! 1 3 .td2
ll:lhf6 14 .!:t fe 1 .tf8 1 5 a4! ll:lg4 1 6
ll:lb5 .tb7 1 7 e4 a 6 1 8 ll:la3 .!:t b8
1 9 h3 ll:lgf6 20 ..tc3 Wc7 21 ll:ld2
4 . . . c5 9
.tc8 22 .tfl ! g5 23 ll:lf3 h6 24
ll:lc4! b5 25 axb5 axb5 26 e5! ll:lxd5
27 ll:lxd6 .txd6 28 exd6 'i!id8 29
ll:le5 and Black soon resigned.
8 e4
In the whole of the 4 a3 system
there are many positions that can
arise from different move orders.
If instead you now play 8 ll:lc3 you
have arrived at the position arising
from the variation 4 . . . .t a6 5
'lWc2 .t b7 6 ll:lc3 c5 7 d5 exd5 8
cxd5. Here also the struggle is
replete with combinational ideas :
8 . . . ll:lxd5 9 .tg5! .te7 (9 . . . f6?!
further weakens the light squares,
as in Novikov-Sokolov, USSR
1 982 which continued : 10 ll:lxd5
.txd5 1 1 .tf4 'lWe7 12 0-0-0
.tb7 1 3 e4 ll:lc6 1 4 .tc4 0-0-0
1 5 .!:t he 1 d6 1 6 .td5) 10 ll:le4 (in
reply to 10 'ilfe4 Black will gain
the advantage after 10 . . . ll:lxc3 1 1
'lixb7 ll:lc6 1 2 .txe7 �xe7 1 3
bxc3 .!:t b8 1 4 Wa6 b5, and in reply
to 10 ll:lb5 the magnificent game
Dzhandzhgava-Chernin, Lvov
10 4 . . . c5
1 987 is very noteworthy and
instructive : 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 llld 6
llle3 ! ! 12 fxe3 ..txf3 1 3 exf3 i.xg5
14 ..tc4 lllc6 15 f4? ..txf4! 1 6
lll xf7 'i!Vh4+ 1 7 g 3 ..txg3 + 1 8
'oto>d2 ..tf2 1 9 <oto>d 1 d 5 and White
resigned. Instead of 1 5 f4?, 1 5 h4
or 1 5 'i!Ve4 is tougher but in any
case Black has sufficient counter­
play) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .l:l.d 1 lllc7 1 2
llld 6 ..td5 1 3 h4 lllc6 14 e 3 <oto>h8
15 .l:l. xd5 (this is a typical sacrifice
in this variation) 1 5 . . . lllx d5 1 6
'ike4 'iib 8 1 7 ..td3 g6 1 8 lllx f7+
.ct xf7 19 'ikxd5 and White's omin­
ous threats to Black's kingside
are sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed material, Nascimento­
Farago, Lucerne 1985.
8 'ike7
9 ..td3
Miles' idea of 9 lllc3 lllx d5 1 0
lLI b 5 a 6 1 1 ..tg5 i s interesting.
9 lllxd5
10 0-0 lllc7
11 lllc3
The alternative is 1 1 ..tg5 f6 1 2
..th4 and a possible reply is 1 2 . . .
lllc6 1 3 lllc3 0-0-0 1 4 .l:l. fe 1 g5 1 5
llld 5! 'ilk g7 1 6 ..tg3 d 6 1 7 b4 when
White has acquired good chances
to attack in return for the pawn.
In Henley-Maninang, Indonesia
1 982, Black could not find a
defensible setup and soon lost the
game: 1 7 . . . llle 5 1 8 a4 h5 1 9
..txe5 dxe5 20 a 5 lllx d5 21 exd5
<oto>b8 22 axb6 axb6 23 ..te4 cxb4
24 'ika4 ..tc5 25 .l:l. ecl 'ikc7 26 d6 !
11 'ikd8
1 1 . . . llle6 looks more powerful.
In this case 12 llld 5 does not help.
Lukov-S. Garcia, Cienfuegos 1 983,
is typical : 12 . . . 'ikd8 13 llle 5 g6
14 b4 ..tg7 15 ..tb2 0-0 16 bxc5
lllxc5 17 ..tc4 d6 1 8 lllg4 lLI bd7
19 f4 b5 20 f5 ..te5 21 ..txe5 lll xe5
22 lll xe5 dxe5 23 ..ta2 .ct c8 24
.l:l. ad 1 'ikh4 25 'ikb2 lll xe4 and the
tactics of the tip-and-run attacks
have brought White to a standstill,
and Black now launched a decisive
counter-offensive.
Tougher is 12 ..tc4 lllc6 1 3 .l:l. d 1
(with a promise of the initiative)
1 3 . . . a6 14 i.e3 .l:l.c8 1 5 lll a 4!
'ikd8 16 ..txe6 fxe6 17 'ikb3 lll a 5
18 'ikxb6 ..tc6 19 'ikxd8+ .l:l. xd8
20 lllc3 lllb 3 21 l:t ab 1 ..te7 22 e5
(Black's central pawn mass has to
be immobilized) 22 . . . h6 23 llld 2
when White's pieces have been
better co-ordinated, promising
him a small but lasting positional
advantage, Bonsch-Kiirner, Tal­
linn 1 983.
12 llld5 llle6
Depriving White of the possi­
bility of the ..tg5 thrust. In Ruka­
vina-Skembris, Budva 1981,
· Black ignored this threat i n order
to hasten development but faced
serious problems : 12 . . . lllc6 1 3
i.g5 ..te7 1 4 lll xe7 lllxe7 1 5 .l:l. ad 1
h6 1 6 ..th4 0-0 1 7 ..tc4 (White's
two bishops are very active, com­
pelling Black to defend passively)
17 . . . 'ike8 1 8 ..tg3 'ikc8 1 9 ..td6
.l:l.e8 20 llle5 llle6 21 f4 lllc6 22 f5
llle d8 23 lllxf7 ! lllxf7 24 ..txf7 +
 4 . . . c5 11

�xf7 25 -.b3+ �f6 26 -.g3 g5 20 lt:lxe7 + -.xe7

(after 26 . . . �f7 the reply 27 21 J..d5 J..xd5
-.g6+ �g8 28 f6 is decisive) 27 22 exd5 -.g5
fxg6+ �g7 28 .l:rf7+ �g8 29 -.f4 23 J..xd4 cxd4
and mate is inevitable. 24 l:t xd4 : res
13 b3 Having sacrificed the pawn
White's attacking potential is back, Black has achieved a sig­
huge and he can continue to nificant success and the disappear­
strengthen his position, though the ance of the minor pieces has pre­
sharper 1 3 lt:le5 lt:lc6 14 f4 is also vented a direct attack against the
possible. king. But in the endgame with
13 J..e7 heavy pieces he also faces serious
14 J.. b2 lt:lc6 problems as White secures control
15 .l:tadl : cs of the e-file and increases his activ­
16 : ret (4) ities.
25 l:t de4 l:t xe4
26 -.xe4 g6?!
4 Safer is 26 . . . h6.
B 27 h4 -.d2?
28 h5! d6?
Black makes a series of mistakes
in time trouble and loses the game.
He should have tried 28 . . . l:tcl ,
hoping t o find salvation in the
queen ending.
29 a4 bxa4
30 bxa4 l:t c2?
31 h6! 1-0
White has completed his
development and is ready for ener-
getic action. van der Sterren-van der Vliet
16 lt:lcd4 Amsterdam 1983
17 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4
18 -.bt 0-0 1 d4 lt:lr6
19 J..c4 2 c4 e6
Occupation of the d5-square 3 lt:lr3 b6
promises a lasting advantage. 4 a3 c5
Black has chronic weaknesses in 5 d5 J..a6
the centre. 6 -.c2 exd5
19 b5! 7 cxd5 g6
12 4 . . . c5
Switching to the Benoni schemes
looks more promising than 7 . . .
.i.b7.
8 lZlc3
If instead 8 .i.f4!? d6 9 lZlc3
.i.g7 10 'ifa4+ 'ifd7 1 1 .i.xd6 'ifxa4
1 2 l2Jxa4 l2Jxd5 1 3 0-0-0 l2Je7 1 4
e4 .i.xfl 1 5 .:. hxfl lZlbc6 1 6 l2Jc3
and now Black should play 16 . . .
.i.xc3 ! 1 7 bxc3 :td8 1 8 .i.c7 :td7
with equal chances, Browne-Tim­
man, Las Palmas Interzonal 1 982.
8 .i.g7
9 g3
9 e4 is also quite possible, com­
pelling Black to exchange the
white-squared bishops : 9 . . . .i.xfl
10 ..t>xfl d6 1 1 'ifa4+ 'ifd7 1 2
'ifxd7+ l2Jbxd7 1 3 .i.f4 with the
better game.
9 0-0
10 .i.g2 d6
11 0-0 l2Jbd7
Obviously such a typical "Indi­
an" move as 1 1 . . . :te8 also has
full "citizen's rights". Let us exam­
ine two breathtakingly exciting
games : 12 :te l and now :
(a) 1 2 . . . 'ifc7 1 3 .i.f4 (more
accurate is 1 3 e4 lZlbd7 1 4 .i.f4
l2Jh5 1 5 .i.e3) 1 3 . . . l2Jh5 1 4 .i.d2
l2Jd7 1 5 'ifa4!? .tb7 1 6 'if h4 (it
is clear that the queen has been
transferred here for an attack even
though no particular preparations
for it have yet been seen) 1 6 . . .
a6 1 7 :tacl b5 1 8 b4! (this is
a necessary preventive measure
against Black's ever-increasing
activity on the queenside) 1 8 . . .
'it'd8 1 9 .tg5 f6 20 .td2 f5 2 1
.tg5 'it'b6 (the correct reply, 21
. . . .tf6 ! , would have maintained
the dynamic equilibrium) 22 e4
cxb4 23 axb4 :tac8 24 .te3 'it'd8
25 .tg5 'it'b6? (again 25 . . . .tf6
is a must) 26 exf5 ! (the sacrifice
of the piece makes it possible to
attack) 26 . . . :txe l + 27 :txe l
.txc3 28 :te7 l:t c4 29 'it'h3! .tc8
30 fxg6 lZldf6 31 .txf6 lZlxf6 32
gxh7 + ..t>f8 33 h8('if)+ ..t>xe7 34
'ii'g7 + 1 -0, Kasparov-Fedorow­
icz, Graz 1981.
(b) 1 2 . . . lZlbd7 1 3 h3 l2Je5 1 4
l2Jxe5 .:. xe5 1 5 e4 .:. e 8 1 6 .te3
l2Jd7 17 f4 c4 18 e5! dxe5 19 d6
.!:!. c8 20 f5 lZlc5 2 1 .txc5 .!:!. xc5 22
l2Je4 .:. a5 (it was worth sacrificing
material here - 22 . . . :td5 ! , giv­
ing good chances to equalize) 23
g4 'it'd7 24 :tad l J:t c8 25 fxg6 hxg6
26 'iff2 .tb7 (26 . . . .l:!. e8 !) 27 lZlf6+
.txf6 28 .i.xb7 'it'xb7 29 'ifxf6
'ifd7 30 'i!i'e7! and in due course
White managed to realize his
advantage, Yusupov-Timman,
Tilburg 1 986.
12 l:!. e1 b5
The search for counterplay is
connected with the manoeuvre
'ii'b6 and b5-b4. Black played less
successfully in Agdestein-Akes­
son, London 1 986, after 1 2 . . . 'ife7
13 h3! lZle5 14 l2Jxe5 'ifxe5 1 5 e4
'ii'e7 16 .tg5 h6 17 .te3 l2Jd7
18 J:t ad l l:t ac8 19 f4 b5 (Black's
counterplay is lagging behind,
allowing the typical breakthrough
in the centre) 20 e5! b4 21 l2Je4
 4 . . . c5 13

dxe5 22 •a4! ..i.c4 23 •xa7 .r.!.a8

5
24 d6! '*'e6 25 lZJxc5 lZ:lxc5 26 w
'*'xc5 .r.!.ab8 27 d7 ..i.b5 28 d8(._)
.:. fxd8 29 .I:Xd8 + .r.!.xd8 30 •xb5
exf4 31 ._b6 and wins.
13 h3
The precautionary move 1 3 h3
has laid the foundation for the
advance of the e-pawn. In
Drasko-Langeweg, Sarajevo
1 9 8 1 , White's basic intentions
were concentrated on active play .rJ. xc3 20 .1:!. xa6 - is clearly to
in the centre with the immediate White's advantage.
1 3 e4. However, although White 17 lZJd7
endeavoured to secure himself on 18 ..i.fl! .b7?!
the kingside at any cost, he never Black is at a loss. Time is run­
succeeded and Black launched a ning out and 1 8 . . . f5 was essential.
quick and elegant mating attack : But now Black's counterplay lags
1 3 . . . '*'b6 1 4 ..i.fl lZ:lg4 1 5 ..i.f4 behind. Besides, the queen on b7
.:. ac8 1 6 a4 b4 1 7 lZJb5 lZ:lge5 1 8 has been rather unfortunately pos­
lZJxe5 lZJxe5 1 9 ..i.xe5 ..i.xe5 20 itioned.
..i.c4 •b8 2 1 �e2 ..i.xb5 22 axb5 19 Wd2! f5
.:. ce8 23 'itg2 f5 24 •d2 f4 25 f3 20 exf5 gxf5
h5 26 .:.n .rJ.e7 27 <ith 1 •d8 28 21 bxc5 lZJxc5
'*'g2 .:. g7 29 g4 ._g5 30 : a2 hxg4 22 .l:!.ab1 f4
31 fxg4 f3 ! 32 .rJ.xf3 .rJ.xf3 33 •xf3 23 gxf4 exf4
.:. f7 34 'ilfe2 •ct + 35 'itg2 ..i.d4 24 ..i.d4 .l:!.f7
36 b3 •g1 + 37 <ith3 .rJ. h7 mate. 25 ..i.xb5 ..i.xd4
13 .:.c8 26 •xd4 ..i.xb5
14 e4 lZJe5?! 27 .rJ.xb5 .l:!.g 7+
An unsuccessful attempt to 28 <ith2 Wc7
blockade the centre. 1 4 . . . '*'b6 29 d6 Wc6
was more in keeping with the spirit 30 .l:.g1
of this position. The fate of the game has been
15 lZJxe5 dxe5 decided, however White has to be
16 ..i.e3 'ilfc7 (5) accurate to realize his advantage.
17 b4! 30 .l:!.xg1
Here tactics IS m strategy's 31 'itxg1 lZJe6
employ. The exchange of fire - 32 Wf6! •xc3
1 7 . . . cxb4 1 8 axb4 •xc3 1 9 'ilfxc3 32 . . . •xd6 33 .l:!. g5+ !
14 4 . . c5
.

33 'Wxe6+ �h8 8
34 d7 'Wg7+ w
35 �h2 .l:!. d8
After 35 . . . .1:!. g8, the winning
reply is 36 W'xg8+ W'xg8 37 .l:!. e5.
36 W'e8+ W' g8
37 .l:!. e5 1-0
37 .1:!. b8 is even more spectacu­
lar, since after 37 . . . .l:!.xb8 38
W'e5+ wins.
White to move
Problems

6 9
w w

White to move White to move

7 10
w B

White to move Black to move

 4 . . c5
. 15

11 14
B w

Black to move ( 1 0 . . . tt:lc7)

15
Tabiya Positions B

12
B

( 1 1 0-0)
Having completed a general
examination of the material, we
can draw the following conclu­
( 1 0 0-0)
sions : the variations with 4 . . . c5
5 d5 exd5 and 5 . . . ..ta6 6 "ilfc2
13 exd5 7 cxd5 g6 are quite viable
B and vigorous. The games based on
these variations have taken on
the characteristics of the Modern
Benoni Defence, where the closed
nature of the position does not
allow White to obtain any particu­
lar advantage. The only disadvan­
tage for Black, as I see it, lies in
the fact that it is unlikely that each
( 1 1 0-0) and every chessplayer enrolled
I6 4 . . . c5

here for the Queen's Indian extra pawn, where his adversary
Defence will necessarily love every has a long-term initiative. In every
item on the "Indian" menu. In that case, after 4 c5 5 d5 a compli­
. . .

case, his choice should probably cated strategic confrontation

be the 5 . . . �a6 6 'Wc2 exd5 7 replete with tactical ideas will
cxd5 �b7 variation, having to ensue.
defend a position, albeit with an
 2 4 . . . i.. a 6
Cebalo-Marjanovic
Yugoslavia 1987
1 d4 lt:lf6
2 c4 e6
3 lt:lf3 b6
4 a3 .i.a6
5 'tfc2
The most flexible continu­
ation - White retains the possi­
bility of varying his opening strat­
egy. Continuations such as 5 lt:lbd2
or 5 e3 would only be justified if
Black plays in a routine way. Here
are some persuasive examples
from practice.
(a) 5 lt:lbd2 d5 6 'tfc2 .i.e?
(tougher is 6 . . . .i.b7, keeping the
e4-square firmly under control. In
Browne-Polugayevsky, Reykja­
vik 1988 Black had no difficulties :
7 cxd5 exd5 8 g3 .i.e? 9 lt:le5 0-0
10 .i.g2 c5 1 1 0-0 lt:la6 1 2 dxc5
lt:lxc5 1 3 b4 lt:lce4 14 lt:lxe4 lt:lxe4
1 5 .i.xe4 dxe4 1 6 l:l.d1 'tfc8 1 7
'tfb3 .i.f6 1 8 .i.b2 .i.xe5) 7 e4 0-0?!
(it would be wiser to destroy the
centre by 7 . . . dxe4) 8 e5 lt:le8 9
.i.d3 h6 (if Black had played 9 . . .
g6 White could have launched a
direct attack on the kingside by
10 h4! h5 1 1 J:tg1 lt:lg7 12 g4) 1 0
0-0 c 5 1 1 dxc5 bxc5 1 2 l:l.d 1 lt:lc7
1 3 lt:lfl lt:lc6 14 lt:lg3 lt:la5 1 5 b3 !
.a. b8 1 6 .a. b 1 'tfe8 1 7 .i.xh6! (this
is a typical demolition sacrifice -
if 1 7 . . . gxh6 1 8 "it"d2 lt:lxb3 1 9
"it"xh6 with a mating attack) 1 7 . . .
dxc4 1 8 .i.h7+ �h8 1 9 .i.g5
.i.b7 (there was a threat of 20 'tfe4
and 2 1 "it"h4) 20 .i.e4 .i.xg5 (in
reply to 20 . . . cxb3 there was
another opportunity to re-route
the queen to the kingside by 2 1
"it"d2 and then 'tff4) 2 1 lt:lxg5 'tfe7
22 'tfd2 f5 23 .i.xb7 l:l.xb7 24 "it"f4
�g8 25 bxc4 and White converted
his advantage into victory,
Browne-Hjartarson, USA 1 986.
(b) 5 e3 d5 (a scheme with 5
. . . c5 also seems to have good
prospects. In Hort-Ljubojevic,
Amsterdam 1 988, Black managed
to achieve an equal game: 6 lt:lc3
.i.e? 7 .i.e2 cxd4 8 lt:lxd4 .i.b7 9
.i.f3 lt:lc6 10 b3 0-0 1 1 lt:lxc6
.i.xc6 1 2 .i.b2 "it"c7 1 3 .C. c l 'tfb7
14 .i.xc6 dxc6 1 5 0-0 .C. fd8 1 6
'tfe2 .i.d6 1 7 .a. fd 1 'tfe7) 6 lt:lbd2
.i.e? 7 b4 0-0 8 .i.b2 lt:lbd7 (also
possible is 8 . . . c5) 9 'tfa4 'tfc8 1 0
l:tc1 c 5 1 1 .i.e2 dxc4 1 2 dxc5 bxc5
 IX 4 . . . ..ta6
13 b5 ..tb7 14 Wc2 a6?! (more
accurate is 14 . . . .l:!. d8 1 5 0-0
tt:lb6 1 6 tt:le5 a6 with equality,
Gheorghiu-Romani shin, Riga
1 979) 1 5 bxa6 .1:!. xa6 16 tt:lxc4 ..te4
1 7 ..td3! ..txd3 ( 1 7 . . . ..txf3 1 8
gxf3 would have given White the
possibility of a dangerous attack)
1 8 Wxd3 l:l.d8 1 9 ..txf6 ..txf6 20
Wc2 tt:lb6 21 tt:lfd2 Wc6 22 0-0
tt:lxc4 23 tt:lxc4 g6 24 l:l.b 1 ri;g7
25 l:l.fc l h5 26 h3 and White has
a long-term positional advantage,
Gheorghiu-Rajkovic, Lone Pine
1 980.
5 ..t b7
The retreat of the bishop is by
no means a positional concession.
Having loosened White's control
of the d4-pawn, Black plans to
undermine it with c7-c5 to create
some counterplay on the central
dark squares. But if instead he
chooses the light-squared strategy
with the help of an eventual d7-
d5 he loses the battle both in the
centre and on the queenside, e.g.
5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3 (it is also
quite possible to interpolate the
moves 7 tt:lc3 c6 here. In this case,
White's plan is also connected
with the opening up of the game
in the centre, e.g. 8 ..tg5 ..te7 9
g3 0-0 10 ..txf6 ..txf6 1 1 ..tg2
.l:le8 1 2 0-0 tt:ld7 1 3 l:l.fe1 ..tb7 1 4
e4 dxe4 1 5 tt:lxe4 ..te7 1 6 .l:lad 1 )
7 . . . ..t d 6 8 ..tg5 (without this
pin and the subsequent exchange
on f6 it is difficult for White to
organize pressure in the centre) 8
. . . 0-0 9 tt:lc3 c6 10 0-0-0 (a brave
decision - White's king on the
queenside creates certain precon­
ditions for Black's counterplay.
The more moderate 10 ..th3
promises a long-term initiative : 10
. . . h6 1 1 ..txf6 Wxf6 1 2 0-0 l:td8
1 3 l:tfd 1 Mark Tseitlin-Yudasin,
USSR 1 984) 10 . . . h6 1 1 ..txf6
Wxf6 1 2 ..tg2 l:l.c8 1 3 e4 dxe4 1 4
tt:lxe4 W d 8 1 5 J:the1 ..tf8 1 6 tt:le5
.l:!. c7 17 ri;b1 ..tb7 (Black woufd
not even think of counterplay on
the queenside while being forced
into a passive defence) 1 8 f4 (this
pawn is a battering ram!) 1 8 . . .
tt:la6 1 9 f5 ..te7 20 Wc4 ..td6 2 1
f6 b 5 22 We2 ..tc8 23 tt:lxc6! .l:lxc6
24 tt:lxd6 .l:lxd6 25 We8+ Wxe8 26
.l:!. xe8+ ri;h7 27 ..txa8 and, after
several more moves, Black
resigned, Epishin-Barkovsky,
Leningrad 1 985.
6 tt:l c3 cS
7 dxcS
While relieving the pressure in
the centre, White uses all his might
to interfere with Black's efforts to
develop counterplay. 7 d5 will lead
to positions from the 4 . . . c5 5 d5
..ta6 variation. But 7 e3 allows
the loosening of the pawn for­
mation on the kingside : 7 . . . cxd4
8 exd4 ..te7 9 ..td3 ..txf3 10 gxf3
tt:lc6 1 1 ..te3 .l:lc8 1 2 0-0 tt:la5
13 We2 0-0 1 4 .l:lacl d5 with
a complicated struggle, Portisch­
Arnason, Reykjavik 1 987.
7 bxcS
8 ..tf4

8 ..tg5 is more often played,
though even here there is nothing
of real value for White. 8 . . . ..te7
(8 . . . h6 9 ..th4 ..te7 is also good)
9 e3 d6 (there is no hurry to move
this pawn: 9 . . . 0-0 10 ..te2 lbc6
1 1 0-0 1Wb6) 10 ..te2 (Black equal­
ized easily in Portisch-Timman,
Reykjavik 1 988 after 10 .r.td 1 0-0
1 1 ..te2 ll:Jbd7 1 2 0-0 1Wb6 1 3
.r.td2 .l:l. ad8 1 4 .l:l. fd 1 .l:l. fe8 1 5 h3
ll:Jf8! 1 6 ..tf4 ll:Jg6 1 7 ..th2 .l:l. d7 1 8
1W b 1 .l:l. ed8) 1 0 . . . ll:Jh5 (exchanging
dark-squared bishops is an inte­
gral part of Black's defence) 1 1
..txe7 1Wxe7 1 2 b4 lbc6 1 3 bxc5
dxc5 14 .l:l. b 1 ll:Jf6 1 5 0-0 0-0 and
chances are approximately equal,
Yusupov-Timman, Hilversum
(M) 1 986.
By developing the bishop to f4,
White strives to create pressure on
the semi-open d-file.
8 ..te7?!
Black ought to stimulate a
speedy exchange of dark-squared
bishops using the already familiar
manoeuvre 8 . . . ll:Jh5 9 ..tg5 ..te7.
Now White has a workable initia­
tive in the centre.
9 .r.td1 0-0
10 e3 d6
11 .:t d2 1Wb6
1 1 . . . ll:Jh5 now would no longer
pass because of 12 ..txd6 ..txd6
1 3 ll:Jb5.
12 ..te2 .r.td8
13 0-0 ll:Jbd7
14 h3
Sapping the strength from pro-
4 . . . ..ta6 19
bable manoeuvres by Black's
knight on h5 or g4. In Lobron­
Polugayevsky, Biel 1 986, White
preferred the straightforward 14
.:t fd 1 ll:Jf8 1 5 b4, which led to a
reciprocally tough fight.
14 ll:Jf8
15 .ttb 1 .Ud7?!
This will untie White's hands on
the queenside. The undermining
manoeuvre b2-b4 should have
been hindered by a7-a5. In that
case, Black would have weakened
the b5-square, and after 16 .r.tbd 1,
followed by ll:Jb5, White would
have had increased pressure on
the d6-pawn. Nevertheless, this
was the best choice.
16 b4 cxb4
17 axb4 .Uc8
18 'Wa4
This relieves the rook from its
duty to defend the b-pawn; the
new mission is to increase pressure
on the d-file. Black ought to have
chosen the cautious 1 8 . . . .l:l. dd8,
preserving his defensive capabili­
ties. But he did not sense the
danger and his position was hit by
a tactical assault.
18 ll:Je4?!
19 ll:Jxe4 ..txe4 ( 16)
20 c5! dxc5
It is possible that Black had
originally counted on 20 .. . .r.txc5
2 1 bxc5 'Wxb 1 + 22 ..th2 e5! with
an equal game, overlooking the
prosaic transition to an unpleas­
ant endgame after 22 l:!.d l ! 'l!Vc2
 Whilst White is free to improve
/()
w the position of his pieces, Black is
condemned to sit and wait.
32 g6
33 g3 <otg7
34 <otg2 'lli'b2
35 J:t ab7 'ifal
36 ..tc6 'iWa5
37 J:t e7 "ifc5
38 ..ta4
38 ..te8 was also a winning
23 'lli'xc2 ..txc2 24 J:t d2 ..te4 25 move.
cxd6. 38 <otf6
21 J:t xd7 ..tc6 39 .l:ec7 'it'd5
22 'it'xc6! 'lli' xc6 40 ..te8 <otg7
23 J:t xe7 41 J:t d7 'iWe4
White has a material advantage, 42 ..txf7 <oth8
but it is still necessary to co­ 43 : bc7
ordinate his pieces. Black is completely immobil-
23 lllg6 ized.
24 J:t xa7 lllx f4 43 "iff5
25 exf4 'lli'e4 If 43 . . . g5 then White replies
26 .:tel 'lli' xb4?! decisively 44 hxg5 hxg5 45 ll d l,
Whilst capturing his opponent's followed by J:[h l , with a mating
pawns Black has completely given attack.
up the initiative. Maybe the best 44 llld4 "We4 +
choice was 26 . . . c4, though after 45 (3 'it'd3
27 J:t xf7 c3 28 lll g 5 he would have 46 ..txe6 g5
had to endure the travail of an 47 ..tf5 1-0
exhausting defence.
27 .:t el! 'iW xf4
28 J:t xc5 J:t b8 Bareev-Eingorn
28 . . . 'it'b8 is j ust a little more Kiev 1986
vigorous, but after 29 .l:!.ca5 the
evaluation of the position has not 1 d4 lllf6
been significantly changed. 2 c4 e6
29 .l:!.cc7 .l:!. f8 3 lllf3 b6
30 ..td3 'iff6 4 a3 ..ta6
31 h4 h6 5 'it'c2 ..tb7
32 ..te4 6 lllc3 c5

7 e4 cxd4
8 tt:lxd4 (17)
17
B Psakhis, USSR 1983 White took
One of the tabiyas of this vari­
ation. Black has three possibilities :
8 . . . d6, 8 . . . tt:lc6 and 8 . . . ..tc5.
We will examine the first and
second of these in this section and
the third in the next game. If the
starting point for the examination
is the centre and how to dominate
it, then 8 . . . tt:lc6 looks the more
logical, while 8 . . . d6 leads to
positions that are typical of the
"hedgehog" formation of the Tai­
manov variation of the Sicilian
Defence, but with a more advanta­
geous set up for White.
We will examine the variation
8 . . . d6 first: 9 ..te2 (it is also
possible for White to obtain activ­
ity in the centre by 9 ..tg5 tt:lbd7 1 0
J:.dl . Black has t o play vigorously:
10 . . . a6 1 1 f4 'ifc7! 1 2 f5 exf5 1 3
tt:lxf5 g6 1 4 tt:le3 ..tg7 1 5 ..tf4 tt:le5
16 ..te2 0-0 with an equal game,
Novikov-Schneider, Lvov 1 986) 9
. . . ..te7 10 0-0 (the plan involving
4 . . . ..ta6 21
queenside castling is also interest­
ing : 10 ..te3 tt:lbd7 1 1 f4 0-0 1 2
0-0-0 .!:t e8 1 3 g4!? e 5 14 tt:lf5 exf4
1 5 ..txf4 Goldin-Lerner, USSR
1 986) 1 0 . . . 0-0 (in Lputian­
advantage of his opponent's fanci­
ful manner of play and gained
superiority on the queenside: 10
. . . tt:lbd7 1 1 f4!? a6 12 �h 1 .!:t c8
1 3 a4 h5? 14 ..te3 h4 1 5 h3 .!:t c7
1 6 f5 e5 1 7 tt:lb3 tt:lc5 1 8 tt:lxc5
bxc5 19 a5 ..tc6 20 tt:ld5 .!:t b7 2 1
J:.fb 1 0-0 22 b4. Instead o f 1 3 . . .
h5?, 1 3 . . . .!:t c7 followed by 'iia 8
creating pressure on the centre
pawns is more vigorous) 1 1 .CI.d 1
'ifc8 (an attempt to save time at
the expense of the prophylactic
a7-a6) 1 2 ..te3 tt:lbd7 1 3 f3 tt:le5
14 'iib 3 .!:t d8 1 5 .!:t ac l .!:t b8 1 6
..tfl ..ta8 1 7 'ifa2 (preparing the
thematic b2-b4) 17 . . . 'iib 7 1 8
..t h 1 .CI. bc8 1 9 b4 h6?! (this is a
waste of time. There was a chance
to create counterplay by 1 9 . . .
r.th8 followed by J:.g8 and g5-g4)
20 tt:la4 r.th8 21 J:.b1 tt:lh5 22 c5 !
d 5 ! 23 tt:lc3 tt:lf6 (opening up the
game should have been achieved
by 23 . . . dxe4) 24 ..tf4 tt:lg6 25 c6
J:.xc6 26 tt:lxc6 'ifxc6 27 exd5 !
exd5 (the endgame is obviously in
White's favour after 27 . .. •xc3
28 J:.bc1 ..txd5 29 J:.xc3 ..txa2
30 J:.xd 8 + ..txd8 3 1 ..tb8) 28
..td2 d4 29 tt:lb5 tt:ld5 30 •c4 ,..d 7
3 1 •xd4 ..tc6 32 tt:lc3 ..tf6 3 3
•c4 and Black has not gained
sufficient compensation for the
2!. 4 . . . ..ta6
sacrificed material, M. Gurevich­
Sokolov, Leningrad 1 987.
8 lll c6
9 lll xc6 .i.xc6
10 .tf4 (18)
Starting the fight for control of
the dark squares. After the neutral
10 .te2, Black will blockade the
centre by 10 . . . 1Wb8! 1 1 0-0 1We5
12 .tf3 g5! 13 g3 .tc5! 1 4 .tg2
0-0-0. The . . . 1W b8 manoeuvre is
also possible in reply to 10 .tg5,
for instance 10 . . . 'illb 8 1 1 g3 lll xe4
1 2 lll xe4 f5 1 3 .tg2 .txe4 1 4
.txe4 1We5 1 5 f 3 fxe4 1 6 .tf4
'illa 5+ 1 7 .td2 "it'f5 1 8 fxe4 'illc5
19 'illd 3 l:[c8 20 b3 'ill h 5 21 0-0
.tc5 + 22 'ifo>g2 : f8 23 b4 and
White has taken the initiative,
Lputian-Psakhis, Sochi 1987.
Instead of 1 1 . . . lll xe4, 1 1 . . . 'ille 5
would have been better and, even
though White has adequate com­
pensation for the pawn after 1 2
.tf4 .txe4 1 3 .txe5 .txc2 1 4
l:[cl .tg6 1 5 .tg2 l:[c8 1 6 lll b 5,
Black's defence was still easier.
18
B 27 : xe8+ J:[f8 (27 .. . 'ifo>g7 28
10 lll h5
I.n M. Gurevich-Yudasin, Tbi­
lisi 1 985, Black opted for 10 . . .
.tc5 striving for quicker develop­
ment: 1 1 .te2 0-0 12 l:l.dl! (taking
control of the d4-square and con­
templating b2-b4) 1 2 . . . a5 1 3 0-
0 ll c8 14 'illd 3! lll e 8 (otherwise
White would have exchanged the
dark-squared bishops by .td6,
gaining the advantage in the cen­
tre) 1 5 : d2 f6 1 6 lll b 5 (now Black
has to make a difficult decision. If
he plays 16 . . . .txb5 1 7 cxb5 d6,
then 1 8 l1 b 1 and in order to a void
losing his bishop on the c5-square
he will have to give away his a­
pawn: 1 8 . . . a4 19 .i.d 1 ) 1 6 . . . f5
1 7 e5 'illh4 1 8 1Wg3! (very simple
and profound: the exchange of
queens deprives Black of the possi­
bility of counterplay and con­
demns him to very unpleasant
defensive efforts) 1 8 . . . 'illx g3 1 9
hxg3 : a8 (there was a threat of
20 lll a1) 20 .tf3! h6 2 1 l:l.fd 1 g5
22 .te3 .txe3 23 fxe3 (with each
exchange the cramped position of
Black's surviving pieces hastens
their downfall) 23 . . . n f7 24 .txc6
dxc6 25 l:l. d8 J:Xd8 26 l:l.xd8 cxb5
cxb5 is also hopeless) 28 l:[xf8 +
'ifo>xf8 29 cxb5 a4 (otherwise White
will play a4, relocate his king to the
queenside and establish a passed
pawn there to distract Black's
king, and finally exploit the situ­
ation by making his way towards
Black's pawns on the kingside) 30
 4 . . . ..ta6 23

�f2 �f7 3 1 �e2 �g6 32 �d3 It is clear now that Black has
�h5 33 b3 ! 1 -0. lost the opening battle.
11 ..te3 17 e5
1 1 ..td2 also looks strong 18 g4! lZld7
enough, e.g. 1 1 . . . 'it'b8 1 2 g3 f5 The centre has to be held at any
13 ..td3 ..tc5 1 4 0-0-0! 'it' b7 cost.
1 5 J:the1 and White has good 19 f5 'it'a5?!
prospects for attack, Helmers­ In his search for counterplay
Tisdall, Gausdal 1 986. Black leaves the d6-pawn to the
11 ..tc5 mercy of fate. To be on the safe
12 ..txc5! side, 1 9 . . . 'it'c7 would have been
A very sharp move! White ends correct.
the fighting for the dark squares, 20 ..te2 J:tb7?!
increasing pressure both in the 20 . . . 'it'c7 is still stronger.
centre and on the kingside. The 21 J:t xd6 J:t fb8
routine 1 2 'it'd2 would have led 22 J:t gd 1 J:t xb2
only to an equal game after 1 2 . . . 23 'it'xb2 J:t xb2
'it'b8! 1 3 ..te2 ..txe3 1 4 'it' xe3 lZlf4 24 �xb2 'it'c7
1 5 ..tf3 0-0 1 6 0-0 e5, Psakhis­ 25 g5
Popovic, Bor 1 985. The price that Black has paid
12 bxc5 for winning the queen is too high :
13 g3 0-0 all White's pieces have become
14 ..td3 lZlf6 dangerously active.
15 0-0-0 d6 (19) 25 �f8
26 f6 gxf6
27 gxf6 �e8
28 �a2 a6
29 ..th5 'it'b7
30 lZld5 1-0
Complete domination!

Novikov-Chernin
Lvov 1987

1 d4 lZlf6
2 c4 e6
3 lZlf3 b6
16 f4! J:t b8 4 a3 ..ta6
17 J:thg1 5 'it'c2 ..tb7
24 4 . . . .i.a6
6 tt:'!c3 c5
7 e4 cxd4
8 tt:'!xd4 .i.c5
In principle the most important
move here - Black takes the d4-
square under his strict control. In
so doing he is not afraid to reward
his opponent with the "advantage"
of the two bishops in exchange for
lively play for his pieces in the
centre.
9 tt:'!b3
The tame 9 tt:'!f3 would result in
White losing the initiative : 9 . . .
tt:'!c6 10 .i.d3 tt:'!g4 1 1 0-0 'ilfb8 1 2
tt:'!e2 0-0 1 3 h 3 tt:'!ge5.
9 tt:'!c6 (20)
9 . . . .i.e7 is a positional con­
cession and also permits White to
arrange his pieces advanta­
geously : 1 0 .i.f4 tt:'!h5 1 1 .i.e3 d6
12 .i.e2 tt:'!f6 1 3 0-0 tt:'!bd7 14 .l:tfd 1
0-0 1 5 f3 'i!fb8 1 6 tt:'!d4 .l:!:e8 1 7
..t>h 1 ..t>h8 1 8 .i.fl .l:!:g8 1 9 a4 g5
20 a5 g4? 21 a6 gxf3 22 gxf3 1 -0,
Polugayevsky-Dizdarevic, Sara­
jevo 1 98 1 . Of course, 20 . . . g4 was
a gross blunder, but by that time
Black's position had become obvi­
ously inferior anyway.
20
w .i.e2 0-0 15 .:t ad 1 "ifc7 16 tt:'!d2!
10 .i.g5
10 tt:'!xc5 is safe for Black : 10 . . .
bxc5 1 1 .i.d3 d6 ( 1 1 . . . h6 is also
possible) 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 .i.g5 h6
14 .i.h4 g5 1 5 .i.g3 e5 (the dark­
squared bishop is out of business
and the weakness at d5 is purely
imaginary) 16 "if d 1 a5 1 7 .: b 1
.l:!:b8 1 8 J:!.e 1 ..t>g7 1 9 f3 .i.c8 20
.i.f2 .i.e6 2 1 .i.fl 1:!. b7 22 tt:'!b5
tt:'!d4 23 b4 axb4 24 axb4 tt:'!xb5 25
cxb5 c4 26 b6 'ilfb8 27 .:t e2 .1:1.�8
28 J:!.d2? (this was very careless :
28 ..t>h l ! tt:'!d7 29 J:!.d2 tt:'!xb6 30
.l:!:xd6 c3 3 1 J:!.cl would have led
to an equal game) 28 . . . c3 29 :tc2
J:!.xb6 (a typical material sacri­
fice - in compensation for which
Black can now play actively on the
dark squares) 30 .i.xb6 "ifxb6+ 3 1
..t> h 1 d5 32 exd5 tt:'!xd5 with a
clear advantage, Vyzmanavin­
Salov, Irkutsk 1 986.
Perhaps it is better for White to
complete his development in a
simple way, intending subsequent
play in the centre and on the
queenside. In this context Khalif­
man-Tukmakov, Kuibishev 1986
is instructive: 1 0 .i.d3 .i.e7?! 1 1
f4 d6 1 2 0-0 tt:'!d7 1 3 .i.e3 tt:'!c5 14
.:t ac8 17 b4 tt:'!d7 1 8 tt:'!b3 a6 1 9
.l:!:cl ! (a preventive measure
against the possibility of b6-b5)
1 9 . . . "ifb8 20 .i.d3 g6 2 1 1Wf2
.i.a8 22 tt:'!a4 .i.d8 23 .i.e2 tt:'!e7
24 tt:'!c3 .i.b7 25 tt:'!d4 tt:'!f6 26
f5! (having regrouped his forces
White starts a direct attack against

Black's king) 26 . . . lll xe4 27 lll xe4
.txe4 28 fxe6 f5 29 .th6 � e8 30
.tf3 d5 31 cxd5 � xc 1 32 � xcl
.txd5 3 3 lll c6 ! 1 -0. White threat­
ened to deal Black a mortal blow
with "it'd4. The basic reason for
Black's defeat is the bishop's
retreat to e7 and the transition to
a "hedgehog" set up. The amount
of time wasted on that formation
was so great that Black was never
able to create any viable counter­
play. The correct plan is 10 . . . d6
1 1 0-0 0-0 ( 1 1 . . . h6!?) 1 2 h3 h6
1 3 .tf4 e5 14 .td2 aS 1 5 � ae 1
� e 8 1 6 "it'd 1 lll d 4 1 7 lll xd4 .txd4
with an equal game, Psakhis-A.
Sokolov, USSR 1 987.
One should never give up the
dark squares without striking a
blow!
10 a6
This is a prophylactic move
against lll b 5, but is not the strong­
est. 10 . . . lll d4 (or 10 . . . h6 1 1
.th4 lll d4) looks more consistent.
After 1 1 lll xd4 .txd4, White must
play 1 2 .td3 but not 1 2 lll b 5?
which, in Naumkin-Tukmakov,
USSR 1 988, resulted in a worse
game for White : 1 2 . . . .te5 1 3
.td3 a6 1 4 tllc3 "it'c7 1 5 h3 0-0
16 0-0 lll h 5 1 7 lll e2 f5 ! . In this
variation White should contem­
plate queenside castling.
The manoeuvre 10 . . . h6 1 1
.th4 lll d 4 is probably the most
logical and the strongest, for
instance 1 2 lll xd4 .txd4 1 3 .td3
"it'b8! (Giek's recommendation is
4 . . . .ta6 25
interesting : 1 3 . . . g5!? 1 4 .tg3
lll h 5 15 .td6 a6 16 lll e2 "it'f6 with
a complex struggle) 14 .tg3 .te5
1 5 0-0-0 0-0 16 �b1 � c8 1 7
J:the 1 d6 1 8 f4 .txc3 1 9 "it'xc3 b5
and Black has managed an equal
game, M. Gurevich-Vaganian,
USSR 1 988. The lll c6-d4 move,
as we can see, is the key factor in
the fight for the central squares.
In M. Gurevich-Lerner, Moscow
1 987, Black delayed this move
after 1 0 . . . h6 1 1 .th4, playing 1 1
. . . d6?! instead, when he was faced
with serious problems : 1 2 0-0-0!
We7 13 . te2 g5 14 .tg3 e5 1 5
lll d 5 lll x d5 1 6 cxd5 lll d 4 1 7 lll xd4
.txd4 1 8 � xd4 exd4 1 9 Wa4+
�f8 20 "it'xd4 f6 21 h4.
Have you noticed how often in
different variations the exchange
sacrifice for the dark-squared
bishop can be found?
We have concentrated inten­
tionally on 10 . . . a6 in order to
emphasize those problems which
might arise for Black if he does
not strive for active counterplay.
11 0-0-0 "it'c7
12 �b1 .te7
Having missed the opportunity
to play lll c6-d4, Black had no
choice but to resort to exchanging
the dark-squared bishops. In
Kasparov-van der Wiel, Amster­
dam 1 988, Black was unsuccessful
with 12 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 "it'd2 d6. It
soon became clear that the bishop
on the c5-square is no more than a
kind of handsome theatrical extra
26 4 . . . ..ta6

and White has completely cap­ Stronger was 1 9 . . . h6, in antici­

tured the centre and the dark pation of a possible 20 b4, but it
squares : 1 4 f3! h6 1 5 ..tf4 tl:le5 1 6 was difficult to foresee the ener­
h4! �b8 1 7 h 5 ! .:.d7 1 8 .:.c1 .:.c8 getic thrust of the queen to g5.
1 9 ..te2 �a7 20 .:.hd 1 .:.dd8 2 1 20 f5! tl:lc6
g 4 tl:lg8 2 2 ..tg3 tl:le7 2 3 f4 tl:l5c6 21 tl:lxc6 ..txc6
24 ..tf3 .:.b8 25 ..th4 with a clear 22 'it'g5 tl:ld7
advantage. If 22 . . . .:. hg8, 23 tl:ld5 is very
13 f4! tl:lg4 strong.
14 ..txe7 tl:lxe7 23 'it'xg7 tl:le5
15 'it'd2 tl:lf6 24 ..tfl .:. cg8
16 ..td3 25 'it'f6 'it'd8
Restricting the opponent's At the cost of a pawn Black has
scope for activity and completing become a little more active and
his development quickly. now tries to find salvation in the
16 d6 endgame.
17 .:. hel 26 'it'xd8+ .:. xd8
1 7 g4!?, planning to unleash a 27 fxe6 fxe6
pawn attack, looks a good alterna- 28 ..te2 .:. dg8
tive. 29 g3! h5
17 0-0-0 30 .:.edt tl:lf7
18 tl:ld4 �b� Passivity is disastrous for Black.
19 .:. cl! (21) The only real chance for defence
was 30 . . . �c7, hoping for activity
after 3 1 tl:lb5+ axb5 32 cxb5 h4
21 33 g4 .:.f8.
B 31 .:.fl! tl:lg5
32 .:. f4 h4
33 gxh4 tl:lh3
34 .:.f6 .:. xh4
35 .:. xe6 tl:lf4
36 .:.xd6 tl:lxe2
37 tl:lxe2 �c7?
Black should have tried instead :
37 . . . ..txe4+ 38 �a1 �c7 39
.:.d4 .:.gh8.
White is ready to engage the 38 e5 .:. g2
enemy energetically over the entire 39 tl:ld4 ..te4+
board. 40 �al .:. hxh2
19 .:. c8? 41 .:.n .:. f2
 4 . . . .i.a6 27

Black had to play this, since if 24

41 . . . .i.g6? or 41 . . . l:xb2? White B
has a mating attack beginning
with 42ltle6+. In any case, White's
attack is overwhelming.
42 ltle6+ 1-0

Problems

22
B Black to move

25
w

Black to move

23
w White to move

26
B

White to move

Black to move
28 4 . . . ..ta6

Tabiya Positions You should now be convinced

that the 4 . . . ..ta6 concept leads
to an interesting struggle. The dis­
27 cussion around 5 "it'c2 ..tb7 6 tt:lc3
w c5 7 e4 cxd4 8 tt:lxd4 . ..tc5 9
tt:lb3 tt:lc6 appears to be the most
fundamental one. No doubt this
variation will time and again be
seriously tested in practice, and
will also be the subject of the
analysis of theoreticians. The 8 . . .
d6 or 8 . . . tt:lc6 variations seem to
be less interesting. Black's game
(7 . . . bxc5) here could be improved, but still
White's initiative in the centre is
assured. If White does not wish to
28 keep to the beaten tracks, he could
w settle for the 7 dxc5 variation.
On the whole, positions of
dynamic equilibrium will arise
from all these variations.

(9 . . . ..txc6)

29
w

(9 . . . tt:lc6)
 4 . . . .i. b7 5 tt:J c3 tt:J e4
3
Andersson-Petursson
Reykjavik 1988
1 d4 lll f6
2 c4 e6
3 lll f3 b6
4 a3 ..tb7
5 lllc3 lll e4
This exchange operation is typi­
cal of the Queen's Indian Defence.
Initially, Black limits himself to
piece play in the centre, striving for
simplification and for unhurried
manoeuvring.
5 . . . ..te7 is too passive because
it permits White to capture space
in the centre and to wage war
actively over the entire board: 6
d5 exd5 (or 6 . . . 0-0 7 e4 d6 8
..td3 c6 9 0-0 cxd5 10 cxd5 exd5
1 1 exd5 lll bd7 12 .l:. e 1 .l:. e8 1 3
..tf4 a6 1 4 a4 with a better game
for White, Reshevsky-Blocker,
New York 1 984) 7 cxd5 0-0 8 e4
d6 9 ..tc4 c5 1 0 0-0 a6 1 1 a4
lll bd7 1 2 ..tf4 lll h 5 1 3 ..te3 g6 1 4
lll d2 lll e 5 1 5 ..te2 lll g7 1 6 f4 lll d 7
17 lll c4 f6 1 8 .l:. b 1 a5 19 lll b 5 lll e 8
20 1Wd3 ..ta6 21 ..tg4 and Black's
pieces are passive, while White,
after a small-scale regrouping, will
carry out the thematic e4-e5,
opening up the centre and achiev­
ing an obvious advantage, Rodri­
guez-Milanovic, Pancevo 1 985.
6 lllxe4
In reply to 6 1Wc2 the best way
to equalize is 6 . . . lll xc3 7 1Wxc3
..td6!? 8 d5 0-0 9 e4 exd5 10 exd5
(10 cxd5 .l:. e8 with counterplay) 1 0
. . . c6! Weaker i s 7 . . . ..te7 because
of 8 ..tf4 0-0 9 e3 d6 10 ..td3
when White has good prospects
for attacking on the kingside.
6 ..txe4
7 e3
This outwardly harmless
scheme of development is venom­
ous enough! At one time the vari­
ation with 7 ..tf4 was also consid­
ered to be unpleasant for Black.
However, White's plan could be
justifiable only in the event of
routine and passive play on the
part of his opponent : 7 . . . ..te7 8
e3 0-0 9 ..td3 ..txd3 10 1Wxd3 d6
1 1 0-0 lll d 7 1 2 h3 .l:. e8 1 3 .l:. fd 1
when Black i s compelled t o take
defensive action, Donchenko­
Kholmov, Moscow 1983. There
are better prospects of success in
7 . . . ..td6!? 8 ..txd6 cxd6 9 d5
30 4 . . . ..tb7 5 iLJc3 iLJe4

0-0 10 iLld2 exd5 1 1 iLlxe4 dxe4 did not rush forward with e3-e4
1 2 W"xd6 e3 or 7 . . . ..txf3!? 8 gxf3 but preferred to develop his pieces
..td6! 9 ..txd6 cxd6 with good on the queenside. White played in
practical chances. a more straightforward manner
7 ..te7 in Timman-Andersson, Wijk aan
The correct response to 7 . . . c5 Zee 1 98 1 : 10 0-0 0-0 l1 e4 dxe4
is 8 ..td3! (but not 8 d5?! because 1 2 W"xe4 iLJd7 1 3 W"c6 iLlf6 14 ..tf4
of 8 . . . exd5 9 cxd5 W"f6 ! 10 ..te2 W"d7! 1 5 W"xd7 iLlxd7 1 6 l:tad 1 c6
W"f5 1 1 0-0 W"xd5 and now Black 1 7 l:tfe 1 (White's little enterprise
has a position with good pro­ in the centre demands a certain
spects, Tim man-Ljubojevic, amount of accuracy from Black)
Amsterdam 1 978) 8 . . . ..txd3 9 1 7 . . . l:tfe8 1 8 d5 cxd5 1 9 cxd5
W"xd3 cxd4 1 0 W"xd4 (after 1 0 exd5 20 l:t xd5 iLlf8 2 1 �fl ..tf6
iLJxd4 d5 the position has been 22 l:txe8 l:txe8 with equal game.
significantly simplified) 10 . . . iLJc6 10 0-0
1 1 W"d3 ..te7 12 e4 W"c7 1 3 0-0 11 0-0 c6
0-0 14 b3! a6 1 5 l:td 1 (the position 12 l:t acl ..td6
is reminiscent of the Sicilian 13 e4 l:te8
"hedgehog" in a variation unfav­ Black is already facing diffi­
ourable for Black) 1 5 . . . l:ta7 1 6 culties with the development of his
g 3 l:tc8 1 7 ..tf4 W" d 8 1 8 b4! h5 1 9 queenside pieces.
l:tacl l:tb7 20 b 5 ! axb5 2 1 cxb5 14 cxd5 cxd5
iLJa5 22 iLJe5 l:t xcl 23 l:t xcl ..tc5 15 exd5 exd5 (30)
24 iLJc6! WaS 25 iLJb4 'iff8 26 iLJa6!
..txa3 27 l:tc7 l:txc7 28 ..txc7
W"e7 29 ..txb6 iLJb7 30 ..tc7 ..tc5 30
3 1 iLlxc5 iLlxc5 32 ..td6 1 -0, w
Gheorghiu-Andersson, London
1 980.
8 ..td3 ..txd3
9 W"xd3 d5
Sooner or later White will play
e3-e4 and so it is understandable
that Black wants to defuse the
situation in the centre, at least to
a certain extent.
10 ..td2 One might think that White
Andersson is excellent at hand­ made a bad bargain when he
ling such outwardly unpretentious relieved the pressure in the centre.
positions. It is noteworthy that he But in this kind of position, when
 4 . . . .i.b7 5 lt:lc3 lt:le4 31

the pawn formations are arranged 30 lt:lxh4 lt:ld2+

almost symmetrically, whoever 31 �g2
has the initiative will get the upper White has played the middle­
hand. It is time for White to game brilliantly. He has captured
exchange the dark-squared bish­ a pawn and will now realize his
ops so that his knight can occupy advantage in the endgame. Indeed,
e5. It is very instructive to observe this part of the game was carried
Andersson's simple and elegant out by Andersson at an equally
way of implementing his plan. This high level and displays his mag­
game is a brilliant example of nificent technique.
shrewd positional manoeuvring in 31 .C. e4
the middlegame. 32 .C. c7 aS
16 lt:lg5! g5 33 .C. b7 .C. xd4
17 -.h3 h5 If 33 . . . lt:lc4 White would pre­
1s -.r3 -.d7 serve his advantage by 34 lt:lf3
19 .i.f4 lt:lxb2 35 .C. xb6 lt:lc4 36 .C. b5 a4
The first part of the plan (the (36 . . . lt:lxa3 37 .C. xa5 and 38
forced exchange of bishops) has .C. xd5) 37 .C. xd5 lt:lxa3 38 .C. a5 lt:lc2
been implemented and at the same 39 .C. xa4.
time White has weakened the dark 34 .C. xb6 lt:lc4
squares on his opponent's king­ 35 .C. bS+ �g7
side. 36 lt:lf3 l:l d1
19 .i.xf4 37 a4! d4
20 -.x£4 lt:la6 3S b3 lt:la 3
21 lt:lf3 .C. acS 39 .: as d3
22 lt:le5 -.e6 40 .C. xa5 l:l b1
23 g4! h4 41 .C. d5 l:l xb3
Forced -
otherwise White 42 lt:ld2 l:l c3
would have soon attacked the 43 g5!
king. But now the h4-pawn is Black desperately defends him­
doomed. self but White does not leave him
24 h3 lt:lbS the slightest chance of salvation.
2s .: ret lt:ld7 43 �fS
26 lt:lf3 -.r6 44 aS lt:lc2
Of course, not 26 . . . .C. xc l 45 �f3 .C. a3
because of 27 -.xcl winning a 46 �f4 lt:lb4
piece. 47 .C. c5 �eS
27 .C. xeS + .C. xeS 4S �e3 �e7
2S -.x£6 lt:lxf6 49 .C. e5+! �d7
29 �fl ! lll e4 .C. b5 lt:lc6
0
50
32 4 . . . ..tb7 5 lL!c3 lL!e4

51 lL!c4 .l: c3 chess practice does not give White

52 .l: c5 .l: b3 any reason to be overly optimistic.
53 a6 .l: bl 7 ..tb7
54 .l: d5+ <i;c7 This is obligatory. Black need
55 .l: xd3 :at not be afraid that White will use
56 .l: a3 ! .l: xa3 the b l -h7 diagonal as a means to
57 lL!xa3 <i;b6 endanger the kingside. From the
58 <i;e4 <i;xa6 positional point of view it is far
59 lL!c4 lL!d8 more important to retain control
60 h4 <i;b7 of the main diagonal. For if 7 . . .
61 lL!e5 1-0 ..tg6?! he will face serious
troubles : 8 g3! (but not 8 e4?
because of 8 . . . lL!c6! and the fact
Hansen-Larsen that White's centre is unprotected
Copenhagen 1988 makes itself felt) 8 . . . lL!c6 (an
attempt to create early counter­
1 d4 lL!f6 play. But better still would be the
2 c4 e6 sound 8 . . . c6 9 ..tg2 d5 1 0 0-0
3 lL!f3 b6 ..te7 restricting the opponent's
4 a3 ..tb7 scope for activity) 9 e3 ! e5!? (in
5 lL!c3 lL!e4 Kasparov-Andersson, Tilburg
6 lL!xe4 ..txe4 1 98 1 , Black was unfortunate with
7 lL!d2 9 . . . a6 10 b4! b5 1 1 cxb5 axb5 1 2
This move - as distinct from 7 ..tb2 lL!a7 1 3 h4! h 6 1 4 d 5 ! exd5
..tf4 and 7 e3 - is considered 1 5 ..tg2 c6 1 6 0-0 f6 1 7 .l: e l !
fundamental. Exploiting the fact ..te7 1 8 1Wg4 <i;f7 1 9 h 5 ..th7 20
that the bishop is unprotected, e4 dxe4 2 1 ..txe4 ..txe4 22 lL!xe4
White occupies the centre with his lL!c8 23 .l: ad l .l: a7 24 lL!xf6!! gxf6
pawns. The optical illusion created 25 1Wg6+ <�;f8 26 ..te l ! d5 27
by the powerful pawn centre was .l: d4! lL!d6 28 .l: g4 lL!f7 29
at first so impressive that the ..txh6+! <i;e8 30 ..tg7 winning)
theoreticians regarded this scheme 10 d5 lL!b8 1 1 h4 h5 (attempting
as virtually a refutation of the 5 to restrict the mobility of White's
. . . lL!e4 variation. Actually, it is pawn chain) 12 e4 a5 1 3 b3 lL!a6
not as simple as all that. First, 7 14 ..th3 lL!c5 1 5 1We2 ..te7 (open­
lL!d2 hinders somewhat the ing up the position is disastrous
development of the queenside for Black : 1 5 . . . ..txe4 1 6 lL!xe4
pieces, and secondly, White's cen­ lL!xb3 1 7 ..tb2! lL!xa 1 1 8 ..txe5) 1 6
tral pawns could become targets ..tb2 d 6 (maybe Black should
for attack. In any case, modern have resolved to sacrifice a pawn :

1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7 ..txe5 .1:1. e8 laying
the foundation for counterplay in
the centre) 17 0-0 ..tf6 1 8 .l:!. ab 1
lLid7 1 9 b 4 axb4 2 0 axb4 ..tf8 (the
weakness of the h5-pawn deprives
Black of the possibility of castling)
21 .1:1. a l ! .1:1. xa1 22 .1:1. xa1 r;tg8 23
lLib3 ! (methodically strengthening
the position of his pieces, White
shifts the focus of his attention
over the entire board waiting for
an opportunity to open up the
position) 23 . . . ..te7 24 lLic1 lLif6
25 f3 r;th7 26 lLid3 .l:!. e8 27 b5!,
Psakhis-Gurgenidze, USSR 1 985.
Black is not in an enviable situ­
ation after 27 c5 either, but the
suffocating blockade of the queen­
side is still more effective. After
the transfer of White's knight to
c6, Black, in order to avoid being
smothered, will have to open up
the position on the kingside, which
is advantageous for White's domi­
nating pieces.
8 e4 �f6!?
The early queen thrust causes
doubt to arise involuntarily in our
minds even when such a provoca­
tive move has been substantiated
positionally. However, Black will
face serious problems if he allows
White to complete his develop­
ment without hindrance : 8 . . . g6
9 ..td3 ..tg7 10 lLif3 d6 1 1 0-0
0-0 12 ..tg5 �d7 1 3 'llf d2 lLic6 1 4
d5 (there i s n o need t o hurry
the blockading of the centre : 1 4
..tc2 !?) 14 . . . lLie5 (after 14 . . .
lLid4 1 5 lLixd4 ..txd4 1 6 .l:!. ad 1
4 . . . ..tb7 5 lLic3 lLie4 33
White would have gained a long­
term initiative) 1 5 lLixe5 dxe5 1 6
.:. fd 1 exd5 1 7 cxd5 c6 1 8 ..tc4
cxd5 1 9 ..txd5 .:. ac8 20 "it"e2 h6
21 ..tb3 "it"e8 and White managed
to gain a dominating position after
22 ..th4 g5 23 ..tg3 "it"e7 24 "it"g4
l:r cd8 25 h4, Polugayevsky­
Christiansen, Thessaloniki Olym­
piad 1 984.
White has good prospects also
after 8 . . . d5 9 cxd5 exd5 1 0
e 5 (White could only daydream
about such a position in the
French Defence !) 10 . . . "it"d7 1 1 f4
c5 1 2 ..td3 ..ta6 1 3 ..txa6 lLixa6
14 0-0 lLic7 1 5 f5 0-0-0 1 6 lLif3
lLib5 17 e6! fxe6 1 8 lLie5 "it"c7 1 9
fxe6 lLixd4 20 lLif7 ..td6 2 1 ..tg5 !
..te7 22 ..txe7 "it"xe7 23 lLixh8
ll xh8 24 �a4 and it is obvious
that White must win, Kallai-Len­
gyel, Budapest 1 985.
9 d5
9 e5 suggests itself. A compli­
cated struggle will ensue after 9 . . .
�d8 1 0 lLif3 d6. 9 . . . "it"g6 is weaker
in view of 10 lLif3 ..te7 1 1 ..te2
0-0 12 0-0 f6 1 3 ..tf4 fxe5 1 4
..txe5 d6 1 5 ..tg3 with the initia­
tive, Polugayevsky-Speelman,
London 1 985.
9 a5!?
Black played the opening
without success in Lobron­
Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1 985: 9
. . . lLia6 10 ..td3 ! lLic5 1 1 ..tc2
exd5 1 2 exd5 ( 1 2 cxd5 will also
give an advantage) 1 2 . . . "it"e5+
13 ..tfl ..ta6 1 4 l:r b 1 "it"xd5 1 5
34 4 . . . .i.b7 5 lt'lc3 lt'le4

b4! .i.xc4+ 16 �g1 .i.d3 1 7 bxc5 15 'ii' c l exd5

.i.xc2 1 8 'ii' xc2 .i.xc5 1 9 lt'le4 16 cxd5 lt'lc5
.i.d4 20 h4 f5 2 1 lt'lc3 'ilfc4 22 l:l h3 17 'ii' c3 f6
.i.c5 23 'ii' xf5 0-0-0 24 'ilfe4 and 18 .i.h5 g6
White's material advantage is 19 .i.f3 .i.a6 (31)
enough to win. In Ribli-Haik,
Thessaloniki Olympiad 1 984,
Black also met disaster: 9 . . . c6 31

1 0 lt'lf3 cxd5 1 1 cxd5 .i.c5 (if 1 1 w

. . . exd5 1 2 e5! is very strong) 1 2
.i.d3 a 5 1 3 0-0 e 5 1 4 b4! axb4 1 5
.i.g5 'ii' d 6 1 6 axb4 .i.xb4 1 7 l:l xa8
.i.xa8 1 8 'ii' a 1 with mortal threats.
9 . . . .i.c5 !? deserves attention
although here also White has good
prospects for an attack : 10 lt'lf3
exd5 (10 . . . 'ii' g6 1 1 b4! 'ii' xe4+ 1 2
.i.e2 .i.d6 1 3 0-0 'ii' g6 14 .i.e3
with advantage) 1 1 cxd5 'ifg6 1 2 Black has arranged his pieces
.i.d3 'ii' xg2 1 3 l:l fl c6 1 4 b4 cxd5 ideally and now turns his attention
1 5 exd5 .i.e7 16 .i.b2 .i.xd5 1 7 to energetic action.
.i.e2 .i.b7 1 8 l:l g 1 'ii' h3 1 9 l:l xg7, 20 lt'lc4
Glek-Krasenkov, USSR 1 985. The e4-pawn was doomed.
10 .i.e2?! 20 lt'lxe4
This is the beginning of an 21 .i.xe4 'ii' xe4
unhappy plan. White's strategy 22 lt:lxd6 cxd6
calls for a search of active possi­ 23 l:l fe1 W'f5
bilities and for that purpose 10 23 . . . 'ii' x d5? 24 l:l xe8 l:l xe8 25
.i.d3 lt'la6 1 1 0-0 lt'lc5 12 .i.c2 is 'ii' xf6 winning.
logical. 24 'ii' d4 .i.b7
10 lt'la6 25 'ii' xb6 l:l e2!
11 l:l bl .i.d6! This is very strong and
12 0-0 0-0 elegant - Black starts a direct
White is unable to set his pawn attack against the king.
mass in motion - 1 3 f4 exd5 14 26 'ii' d4 l:l fe8
cxd5 'ii' d4+ 1 5 � h 1 l:l ae8 1 6 'ii' c2 21 :n �f7
lt'lc5 1 7 e5 .i.xd5! - which means 28 l:l bd1?
that he has lost the opening battle. White is in an obvious state
13 b3 l:l ae8 of confusion - he should have
14 .i.b2 'ii' e7 nipped Black's ever-increasing
 4 . . . .tb7 5 lll c3 lll e4 35

activity in the bud with 28 .tc3

34
.txd5 29 .:. b2. w
28 .C. 8e4
29 1Wc3 .C. f4
30 f3 .C. c2
31 1We3 l:txb2
32 .:. ret <i;g7
33 1We8 .txd5
34 .C. e7 + <i;h6
35 1Wf8+ <i;g5
36 .C. xh7 .C. xg2+ !
37 <i;hl .C. xh2 +! White to move
0-1
35
Problems w

White to move

White to move Tabiya Positions

33
B

Black to move (8 . . 1Wf6)

.
36 4 . . . .i.b7 5 lLic3 lbe4

I believe that the 5 . . . lLie4

37
B variation will always find its
adherents among those players
who prefer quiet play in the open­
ing. One has to use a pharmaceut­
ical weigher to define the minute
amount of advantage that White
has in the 7 .i.f4 or 7 e3 variations.
Obviously, provided the game is
played accurately, that advantage
can be gradually levelled off.
(10 'ifxd3) Of course, Black has to hold
himself in readiness for the sharp
7 lLid2 .i.b7 8 e4 "irf6. In this case,
38
w the basic mission is absolutely
clear : deprive White's pawn centre
of its mobility and then undermine
it. The main practical shortcoming
of this variation lies in the fact
that it cannot really lend a helping
hand to the venture of seizing the
initiative. But, in any case, this is
altogether a very difficult task in
the Queen's Indian Defence.
(9 . . d5)
.
 4 J.b7 5 ttJ c3 g6
4
. . .

Kozul-Romanishin itself, after which positions typical

Sarajevo 1988 of the Indian systems will arise.
6 d5 exd5
1 d4 tLlf6 6 . . . ..ig7 is also quite possible
2 c4 e6 even though it is obvious that, for
3 lLlf3 b6 the creation of counterplay, Black
4 a3 ..tb7 cannot do without exd5. It is typi­
5 lLlc3 g6 (39) cal of the Indian setups that White
can choose between a sound 7
g3 and a more active 7 e4. In
39
w Zichichi-Spassky, Reggio Emilia
1 983/84, Black was unsuccessful
with 7 e4 0-0 8 ..te2 d6?! (stronger
is 8 . . . exd5 9 exd5 tLla6 although
here also White obtained a long­
term positional advantage after 1 0
..tg5 h 6 1 1 ..th4 .!:!. e8 1 2 0-0 tLlc5
1 3 b4 tLlce4 14 tLlxe4 J:txe4 1 5 J:l. c l
a 5 1 6 ..t d 3 J:l. e8 1 7 tLld4, Barbero­
Hecht, Lucerne 1 985) 9 0-0 lLlbd7
10 tLld4 tLlc5 1 1 f3 a5 12 ..te3 a4
As far back as the early 1 980s 1 3 lLldb5 'fie7 1 4 J:l. b 1 .C. fd8 1 5
theoreticians were rather sceptical ..tg5 h6 1 6 ..th4 Wid7 1 7 'fic2 c6
in their evaluation of this strange 1 8 dxc6 ..txc6 1 9 .l:l. bd 1 ..txb5
double fianchetto variation. But 20 tLlxb5 and White's position is
modern chess is richer than any obviously better. But still 7 e4
kind of dogma or axiom, giving is probably too aggressive. The
birth to analogous strategical correct sequence was 7 . . . exd5 8
hybrids fairly frequently. In reply cxd5 'fie7! starting counterplay in
to 5 . . . g6 the move 6 d5 suggests the centre.
38 4 . . . �b7 5 tt:Jc3 g6
7 g3 tt:Ja6!? (a flexible
manoeuvre - Black is in no hurry
to open up the position in the
centre. Quite viable also is 7 . . .
0-0 8 �g2 c6 9 dxc6 dxc6 fol­
lowed by c6-c5, gradually loosen­
ing the positional squeeze) 8 �g2
tt:Jc5 9 0-0 0-0 10 tt:Jd4 a5 (10 . . .
exd5 1 1 cxd5 .:t e8 would be more
energetic) 1 1 tt:Jdb5 ! tt:Je8 ( 1 1 . . . d6
12 ..te3 e5 1 3 b4 occupying space
on the queenside) 1 2 �e3 c6 1 3
dxc6 dxc6 1 4 1Wxd8 .:t xd8 1 5
�xc5 bxc5 1 6 .:t ad l .:tc8! 1 7 .:t d7.
In Piket-Gelfand, Adelaide 1 988,
Black made a mistake here : 1 7
. . . �a8? which gave White an
advantage after 1 8 tt:Ja7 .:t b8 1 9
tt:Ja4 ..txb2 20 .1:t b 1 tt:Jf6 2 1 .l:t d3
�e5 22 .l:t xb8 .:t xb8 23 �xc6
�xc6 24 tt:Jxc6 .:t b l + 25 �g2
�c7 26 tt:Jxc5. The correct move
would have been 17 . . . ..ta6!, e.g.
1 8 .:t a7 cxb5 19 .:t xa6 bxc4 20
.1:t xa5 .1:t b8 21 tt:Ja4 ..txb2 22 .l:t xc5
�xa3 23 .l:t xc4 with equality.
7 cxd5 � g7
8 g3 0-0
9 �g2 c6
The point of Black's strategic
plotting is to avoid the Indian
patterns of the d6, tt:Jbd7, .:t e8
type, when Black is doomed to
passive defence.
10 0-0
Events took an interesting turn
in Yusupov-Razuvayev, USSR
1982: 1 0 ..tg5 !? cxd5 1 1 .:. b l (with
the threat of 1 2 tt:Jxd5) 1 1 . . . tt:Ja6
1 2 tt:Jxd5 �xd5 1 3 �xf6 1Wxf6 1 4
1Wxd5 tt:Jc5 1 5 0-0 1We6 1 6 1Wdl
.l:t ac8 1 7 e3 1Wc4 18 tt:Jd2 1Wd3 19
tt:Je4 1Wxd l 20 .:t fxd l tt:Jxe4 2 1
�xe4 .l:t c7 and White possesses a
minimal advantage in the
endgame, though a draw is inevi­
table if Black plays accurately.
Evidently the simplest way for
Black is 10 . . . h6 1 1 ..txf6 1Wxf6
with an approximately equal
game.
10 tt:Jxd5
This move tends to reduce
White's possibilities for the initia­
tive. Another variation is 1 0 . . .
cxd5 then, for example, 1 1 tt:Jg5
tt:Ja6 12 tt:Jxd5 tt:Jxd5 13 ..txd5
�c6 14 �f4 tt:Jc5 1 5 .:t b l h6 1 6
tt:Jf3 .:t e8 1 7 �e3 1We7 1 8 �xc6
dxc6 1 9 1Wcl h5 20 .:t e l .:t abS 2 1
.l:t d l .:t bc8 with equality, Kozul­
Romanishin, Tbilisi 1 988.
11 tt:Jxd5 cxd5
12 ..t g5 1W e8
13 1Wd2 tt:Ja6
14 �h6
White has gained a long-term
initiative for the pawn, but Black's
position is sufficiently tenable.
14 tt:Jc5
Salov-Lerner, Moscow 1986,
was identical up to this point but
Black here chose 14 . . . �xh6 1 5
1Wxh6 1We7, which allowed White
to hold the initiative on the dark
squares : 1 6 .l:t ad l tt:Jc7 1 7 .:t d2
tt:J� l 8 .:t M 1 1Wffi l 9 1WM� 1W�
20 tt:Jd4 �c6 2 1 e3.
15 �xg7 �xg7
16 b4 tt:Je4
 4 . . . .i.b7 5 li:Jc3 g6 39

17 ... b2 + f6 Since we have ascertained that

18 l:fcl .C. c8 the attempt at pressure tactics by
19 .C. xeS •xeS 6 d5 is ineffective, let us now
20 .C. cl •bs examine other, more flexible, game
21 h4 continuations for White. Besides
White continues to keep the 6 .i.f4, the moves 6 .i.g5 and 6
initiative but he has failed to bene- •c2 are found in practice.
fit from it. 6 .i.g5 is justifiable after 6 . . .
21 .C. c8 h6 7 .i.h4 .i.g7 8 •c2. Later
22 h5 .C. xcl + Black will be compelled to weaken
23 •xcl a5! his kingside still further and that
24 h6+ <J; f7 opens the way for vigorous activity
25 bxa5 bxa5 by White's pieces there : 8 . . . d6 9
26 li:ld4 ... d6 .C. d 1 •e7 10 e3 a6 (by trans­
All the black "holes" have been position the game has been trans­
thoroughly patched. There is formed into one of the systems of
nothing left for White but to the Old Indian Defence in which
organize a dark-squared blockade Black has placed his pieces rather
in order to preserve the dynamic badly) 1 1 .i.e2 li:lbd7 12 0-0 g5
equilibrium. 1 3 .i.g3 li:lh5 1 4 d5 li:Jxg3 1 5 hxg3
27 .i.xe4 dxe4 0-0-0 (it is interesting to note that
28 e3 .i.a6 any castling here, queenside or
29 • c3 ... d5 kingside, does not save Black's
30 •c7 <J;e7 king from a direct attack) 1 6 b4
31 •bs •c4 g4 17 li:lh4 .i.f6 18 dxe6 fxe6 1 9
32 <J;h2 •n li:Jg6 • h7 20 li:Je4! <J;b8 2 1 li:lxf6
33 •£4 .i.b7 li:lxf6 22 .i.d3 .C. hg8 23 c5 •d7
34 g4 •a6 24 b5! bxc5 25 bxa6 .i.a8 26
35 g5 !-t •b2+ <J;a7 27 •x£6 •c6 28 li:Jh4
and Black soon resigned, McCam­
bridge-Alburt, USA Ch. 1 985. A
Cebalo-Abramovic correct defence plan was intro­
Yugoslavian Ch. 1988 duced by Black in Piket-Gelfand,
Amsterdam 1 988 : 6 . . . .i.g7 7
1 d4 li:lf6 •c2 0-0 8 .C. d 1 h6 9 .i.h4 g5 1 0
2 c4 e6 .i.g3 li:l h 5 1 1 d5 d6 1 2 li:ld4 •e7 1 3
3 li:lf3 b6 e3 li:Jxg3 1 4 hxg3 c5 with equality.
4 a3 .i.b7 The scheme with 6 •c2 is also
5 li:J c3 g6 quite subtle. There is no sense in
6 .i.f4 Black setting up his position in the
40 4 . . . .i.b7 5 lt:lc3 g6
centre prematurely, since White is
better equipped here for hostilities
than his counterpart: 6 . . . c5 7 e4
cxd4 8 lt:lxd4 .i.g7 9 .i.g5 h6 1 0
.i.f4 0-0 1 1 lt:ldb5 with unpleasant
pressure on the dark squares or 6
. . . d5 7 cxd5 exd5 8 .i.f4 a6 9 g3
lt:lbd7 10 .i.g2 .i.g7 1 1 0-0 0-0
1 2 .l:tfd 1 J:t e8 1 3 lt:le5 lt:lf8 1 4 lt:ld3
lt:le6 1 5 .i.e5 and now the centre
is under White's tight control,
Lukov-Danailov, Bulgaria 1 984.
Correct is 6 . . . .i.g7 7 e4 0-0
8 .i.e2 d5 9 cxd5 exd5 10 e5 lt:le4
1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 .i.f4 c5 1 2 J:t d 1 W"c8 !
with counterplay) 1 1 . . . c5 1 2 J:!. d 1
W"c8 1 3 .i.e3 lLld7 1 4 .i.b5 cxd4
1 5 .i.xd4 lt:ldc5 1 6 .i.e3 lt:le6 1 7
: ac1 lt:lxc3 1 8 W"xc3 W"xc3 1 9
: xc3 J:!. ac8 and now Black has no
problems, Gorelov-1. Botvinnik,
Moscow 1 987.
6 .i. g7
7 e3 0-0
8 .i.e2 d6
Pursuing the dark-squared
bishop by 8 . . . lt:lh5 9 .i.g5 .i.f6
could result in a blockade of the
kingside after 10 h4.
9 0-0 lLlbd7 (40)
40
w opponent's pressure in the centre
It is difficult for White to get a
sizeable advantage with this type
of position. Choosing a scheme of
development is a matter of taste.
10 h3 (the h2-b8 diagonal will
still be under control) 10 . , . lt:le4
1 1 lt:lxe4 .i.xe4 12 lt:ld2 .i.b7 1 3
.i.f3 W" c8 14 .i.h2 e 5 1 5 dxe5
dxe5 1 6 'ilfc2 .l:t e8 17 .l: ad 1 lt:lc5
1 8 b4 e4! 19 .i.g4 lt:le6 20 J:!. fe 1
a 5 2 1 .i.e2 axb4 22 axb4 f5 2 3 c5
bxc5 24 b5 !? .i.d5 25 lLl b3 .1:t d8
26 .i.c4 Wb7 27 J:!. xd5 J:!. xd5 28
.i.xd5 'iWxd5 29 .l: d 1 .l: a2! 30
.!:l. xd5 .l: xc2 and now it is White's
turn to be on the alert, Portisch­
Spassky, Montpellier 1 985.
10 W"c2 lt:l h5!
11 .i.g5 .i.f6
12 .i.xf6 W"xf6?!
In spite of the exchange of dark­
squared bishops, White's strategic
initiative is secured due to his
advantage in space. It was there­
fore important for Black to keep
his pieces correctly co-ordinated
by 12 . . . lt:lhxf6.
An attempt to create counter­
play on the kingside proves to
be ill-judged and Black will soon
possess nothing to oppose his
and on the queenside.
13 b4 lt:l g7
14 : ab1
An additional stimulus for the
c4-c5 advance. If now 14 . . . e5,
15 lt:ld5 ! is very strong.
14 a5
15 c5 axb4
 4 . . . .i.b7 5 ll:lc3 g6 41

16 axb4 bxc5 23 ll:lf5

17 bxc5 .i.c6 (41) 24 tt fb1 h5
17 . . . .i.xf3 18 .i.xf3 ::t ab8 25 h3
leads to the blockading of the Cut off on the queenside, Black's
queenside after 19 "it'a4 "it'e7 20 pieces do not have enough time to
tt xb8 l hb8 21 .i.c6. prevent White's attack.
25 tt e8
41 26 .i.fl tt aa8
w 27 .l:tf4 "it'g7
28 g4 hxg4
29 hxg4 ll:le7
30 ll:lg5!
Rushing upon the weak f6-
square.
30 f5
31 ll:lxa4 ll:lxa4
If 31 . . . tt xa4 32 ll:le6! is even
worse for Black.
18 e4!
32 ll:le6 "it'c3
Threatening 1 9 d5.
33 "it'd1 "it'e5!
18 tt a5?
An ingenious move but this is
To deal with this dangerous
no save either - White easily
threat he should have taken dras­
neutralizes the last outburst of his
tic measures : 1 8 . . . d5! In that case
opponent's activity.
both 19 .i.b5 and the blockading
move 19 e5 lead to a better game 34 tt xa4 tt xa4
for White. 35 "it'xa4 ll:lxd5
19 "it'd2! 36 ll:lg5! q;g7
The rook on a5 has visibly 37 ll:lf3 "it'e4
sagged; there is now a threat of 20 38 "it' xe4 fxe4
ll:ld5. 39 ll:ld4 e3
19 tt fa8 40 fxe3 tt xe3
20 d5 exd5 41 .tg2 ll:lf4
21 exd5 .i.a4 42 l:t fl ll:lxg2
22 c6 ll:lc5 43 q;xg2 q;h6
23 tt b4! In reply to 43 . . . l:t e4 there was
A brilliant manoeune ! As well an elegant winning move 44 tt f4!
as exerting pressure on the queen­ 44 tt f7 tt e4
side, White is ready to relocate the 45 ll:lb5 l:t xg4+
rook to attack the kingside. 46 q;f3 1-0
42 4 . . .tb7 5 lt:lc3 g6
.

Problems Tabiya Positions

42 45
w w

White to move
(9 . . . c6)

43 46
B w

Black to move
(9 . . 0-0)
.

44
w With the 5 . . . g6 variation, the
sub-division of the 4 a3 system has
come to an end. This variation is
also regarded as a non-classical
one. The positions that arise
remind one of chameleons - they
often inconspicuously transpose
from one opening into another. In
modern chess this kind of gutta­
percha tactic for playing the open­
White to move ing is becoming more and more

fashionable. It is very difficult for
White to choose a precise plan for
the development of his pieces in
order to maintain the initiative.
There is also a lack of practical
material and, as a result, there is
4 . . . -*.b7 5 ltlc3 g6 43
broad scope for individual
researches. I expect that the 6 11rc2
and 6 -*.f4 variations will gather
speed in their development. But
for the time being the final say
rests with those who play White.
 Classical 5 . . . d5
5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 �f4

D. Gurevich-Korchnoi after 5 . . . d5 it is still premature

Beersheva 1984 to give an exact designation to the
opening in which the players will
l d4 lll f6 find themselves. Pure Queen's
2 c4 e6 Indian positions could be referred
3 lll f3 b6 to only after 6 cxd5 lll x d5, but
4 a3 .tb7 after 6 . . . exd5 we shall have to
5 lll c3 d5 (47) define which side of the "two-faced
Janus" is facing us.
6 cxd5
47 This is the most consistent and
w
fundamental move. Continuing a
Ia Queen's Gambit is ineffective :
6 .tg5 .te7 7 e3 0-0 (7 . . . lll bd7
8 cxd5 lll x d5 9 lll x d5 .txd5 1 0
.txe7 "i/ xe7 1 1 .!:t e l c 5 1 2 .tb5
with the better game) 8 .!:tel lll bd7
9 cxd5 exd5 10 .td3 c5 and White
has not gained anything in com­
parison with regular Queen's
Gambit schemes.
This is Black's classical response 6 exd5
to the Kasparov-Petrosian sys­ 7 .tf4
tem. The next few moves will make The pawn structure has been
the opening plans of the players defined and White can now project
completely clear. For the present the outlines of a future arrange­
there are possibilities for all kinds ment of the pieces. Let us first
of simple and complex transitions consider some other interesting
to other openings : the Queen's possibilities.
Gambit Declined, the Catalan 7 .tg5 .te7 8 e3 (White
opening, and so on. In a word, executed an aggressive plan in
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 ..tf4
Agdestein- Portisch, Reykjavik
1 987: 8 ..txf6 ..txf6 9 "ilfc2 0-0 10
0-0-0 but Black played accurately
to contain White's attack on the
kingside and then launched a
counterattack against the queen­
side, utilizing the a3-pawn as an
additional object for his activity:
10 . . . c5 1 1 e3 cxd4 12 exd4 .!Dc6
13 h4 l:!. e8 14 �b1 "it"d6 1 5 g4 g6
1 6 g5 ..tg7 17 h5 a6 18 hxg6 hxg6
19 ..th3 b5 20 .!De2 b4 21 a4 b3
22 "ilfd2 l:!. xe2 23 "ifxe2 "ilfb4 24
"it"d3 "ifxa4 25 ..td7 l:!. d8 26 ..txc6
..txc6 27 �cl ..tb5 28 "it"c3 ..td7
29 �d2 .l:l. c8 30 "iii d 3 "iii b4+ 0-1 .
9 e 3 o r 9 g 3 here looks more
logical, for instance:
(a) 9 e3 0-0 10 "iii b3 .l:l. e8 1 1
.:t d 1 c6 1 2 ..td3 .!Dd7 1 3 0-0 .!Df8
14 .l:l. fe1 .!De6 1 5 ..tb1 g6 1 6 ..ta2
"ilfc7 17 "ilfc2 l:!. ad8 with equality,
Petursson-Hjartarson, Reykjavik
1 985;
(b) 9 g3 0-0 1 0 ..tg2 ..te7 1 1
"iii b3 l:!. e8 1 2 0-0 c5 1 3 .l:l. ad 1 .!Da6
14 e3 ..tc6 with a complicated
struggle, Gelfand-Ehlvest, Tallinn
1 989) 8 . . . 0-0 9 ..td3 .!Dbd7 (in
the famous game Sultan Khan­
Capablanca, Hastings 1 930/3 1 ,
Black made an attempt t o gain
activity by 9 . . . .!De4 but this move
proved to be obviously premature
after 10 ..tf4 .!Dd7 1 1 "ilfc2 f5 1 2
.!D b 5 ! ..t d 6 1 3 .!Dxd6 cxd6 1 4 h4
.l:l. c8 1 5 -. b3 "ife7 16 .!Dd2 and
Black has no compensation for
the imperfections of his pawn
structure) 10 0-0 c5 1 1 J:t c l .!De4
45
( 1 1 . . . a6 is interesting since it
projects a future pawn attack on
the queenside by c5-c4 and b6-
b5) 12 ..tf4 .!Dxc3 1 3 .l:l. xc3 c4 14
..t b 1 b5 15 .!De5 .!Dxe5 1 6 ..txe5
..td6 17 f4 f5 1 8 g4 ..txe5 19 fxe5
fxg4 20 "ilfxg4 .l:. xfl + 21 �xf1
"ilfe7 with a double-edged game,
Bisguier-Pliester, New York 1 989.
The subtle 7 "ilfa4+, more often
played after 7 g3 ..te7 with a
transposition of moves, will lead
to other variations of the system.
7 . . . .!Dbd7 has an independent
importance for which White has
the following possible plan : 8 ..tg5
..te7 9 ..txf6 ..txf6 10 g3 c5 1 1
..th3.
If7 . . . "it"d7 !?, which looks more
logical, then 8 "ilfxd7 + .!Dxd7 9
.!Db5 ..td6 10 .!Dxd6+ cxd6 1 1 ..tf4
�e7 12 e3 .!De4 1 3 ..td3 .l:. ac8 14
�e2 .!Db8 ! and the doubled pawns
are not a weakness, in fact they
keep the important central squares
under control. Chances are equal
as was shown by the outcome of
Razuvayev-Tukmakov, Moscow
1985: 1 5 l:!. hc 1 ..ta6 16 .!Del g5
17 ..tg3 f5 1 8 f3 .!Df6 19 �d2
..txd3 20 .!Dxd3 .!Dc6 21 l:!.c3 �d7
22 b3 .!De7 23 J:t xc8 J:t xc8 24 a4
.!Dc6 25 .:t e l J:l. e8 26 ..tf2 .!Da5 27
�c3 .l:l. c8 + 28 �b2 .l:l. xcl 29
.!Dxc1 .!Dc6 and in a couple more
moves the players agreed to a
draw.
7 ..td6
8 ..tg3
The insipid 8 ..txd6 "ilfxd6, after
46 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 ..tf4
which Black completes the
development of his pieces in a
harmonious way, is less promising
for White: 9 l::l. cl a6 1 0 g3 0-0 1 1
..tg2 ll:lbd7 ( 1 1 . . . lLlc6 1 2 0-0
ll:le7 1 3 b4 l::l. ab8 14 "it"b3 ..tc8 1 5
l::l. fd 1 ..te6 1 6 ll:lg5 with a better
game for White, Pinter-Csom,
Baile Herculane 1 982) 1 2 0-0 c5
13 dxc5 bxc5 14 ll:ld2 l::l. ab8 1 5 e4
d4 1 6 ll:la4, when, having fixed the
hanging pawns, White has a slight
positional advantage. Instead of 9
. . . a6, Black has better prospects
with the plan 9 . . . "it"e7 10 g3 0-0
1 1 ..tg2 c5.
8 a6
Black envisages the setup: "it"e7
and lLlbd7 without c7-c5 and
therefore he takes . preventive
measures against the lLI b5 thrust.
Other defensive plans have been
essayed in practice :
(a) 8 . . . ll:le4?! 9 "it"b3 0-0 10 e3
ll:lxc3 1 1 "it"xc3 c5 1 2 ..te2 ..txg3
1 3 hxg3 ll:ld7 14 0-0 "it"e7 1 5 a4
with an initiative on the queenside,
Portisch-Chernin, Tunis Inter­
zonal 1 985. 9 "it"a4+ instead of 9
"it"b3 is also interesting.
(b) 8 . . . 0-0 9 e3 ll:le4 (Black
faces awkward problems after 9
. . . c5 10 ..te2, for instance :
(b1) 1 0 . . . ..txg3 1 1 hxg3 ll:lbd7
1 2 "it"c2 l::l. e8 1 3 l::l. d 1 cxd4 14 l::l. xd4
ll:lf8 1 5 0-0 "it"e7 1 6 l::l. fd 1 and
White has unpleasant pressure in
the centre and on the queenside,
Portisch-Gligoric, Linares 1 98 1 ;
(b2) 1 0 . . . ll:la6 1 1 "it"b3! cxd4
1 2 ll:lxd4 lLlc5 1 3 "it"a2 ll:lfe4 1 4
l::l. c 1 ll:lxg3 1 5 hxg3 ..te5 1 6 l::l. d 1
and the weakness of the isolated
pawn is felt, Chernin-Gligoric,
Saint John 1 988) 10 "it"b3 (a specific
response to the knight's thrust) 1 0
. . . ll:lc6!? (this is an attempt to
strike up a confrontation on the
queenside. Probably the most
sensible idea is 10 . . . lLlxc3 1 1
"it"xc3 c5 by analogy with the
Portisch-Chernin game) 1 1 ..td3
( 1 1 "it"xd5 ll:lxc3 12 bxc3 ..txg3
1 3 "it"xd8 ..txf2+ leads only to
equality) 1 1 . . . lLla5 1 2 "it"c2 f5 1 3
b4 ll:lc4 (if 1 3 . . . ll:lxc3 there is an
unpleasant reply 14 bxa5 ! ll:le4 1 5
a6 ..tc8 1 6 "it"c6 thus blockading
the queenside) 14 ..txc4 ll:lxg3 1 5
..txd5 + ..txd5 1 6 hxg3 ..tc4 1 7
ll:ld2 ..te6 1 8 lLle2 and Black has
only apparent compensation for
his pawn. White's position is ten­
able and his knights have enough
manoeuvrability to contain his
opponent's possible activity, Stoli­
arov-Zagriabin, corres. 1 988.
9 e3 "it"e7
Black is in no hurry to castle: 9
. . . 0-0 10 l::l. c1 l::l. e8 1 1 ..td3 "it"e7
12 b4! ll:lbd7 13 "it"b3 c6 14 0-0 a5
15 ..tf5 ! axb4 16 ..txd6 "it"xd6 1 7
axb4 l::l. a7 1 8 l::l. a 1 l::l. ea8 1 9 l::l. xa7
l::l. xa7 20 e4 with advantage to
White, Miles-Panno, Puerto
Madryn 1 980.
10 ..td3 ll:lbd7
11 0-0
1 1 ..th4 "it"e6 1 2 lLlg5 "it"g4
equalizes.
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 .tf4 47

11 .txg3! exchanges he seeks to weaken the

This exchange is now essential possible attacks against his king,
since after 1 1 . . . 0-0 the .th4 but his position is tenable and, for
manoeuvre is stronger : 1 2 .th4 the time being, there is no reason
'ii' e6?! 1 3 lll g5 with the intention for this excessive anxiety. The cor­
of answering 1 3 . . . 'ii' g4 with 1 4 rect move was 1 7 .:t c2 with an
.txh7 + . approximately equal position.
12 hxg3 0-0 17 lll xh2
13 b4 lll e4 (48) 18 ..txh2 .:t d6
It is hardly expedient to play 19 .:t c2 f5
c7-c5, when Black will suffer the 20 .:t h 1 ..th8!
discomfort of defending the iso­ This is an important preventive
lated pawn. measure.
21 .txe4 fxe4
22 ..tg1 'ii' f7
48
w 23 a4 .:t f6
24 'ii' a2 c6
25 a5 b5
26 'ii' b2
The closed nature of the pawn
structure allows White to continue
organizing his defence.
26 .tc8
27 lll a 2 g5!
28 lll c l .tg4
14 'ii' b3 29 .:t d2 ..tg8!
White has set a cunning position 30 lll b3?!
trap : 1 4 . . . lll xg3? 1 5 .:t fe 1 lll h 5 White does not immediately
16 lll x d5 'ii' e6 1 7 e4 seizing the find the accurate defensive set-up:
initiative. 30 'ii' c2, intending 30 . . . .:t d8 3 1
14 ll:ldf6 'ii' c 5, developing a counter attack
15 .:t fel lll g4! on the queenside but granting
Almost imperceptibly, White's Black precious time for an active
kingside has become a target for regrouping of his forces.
counterplay. 30 .:t d8
16 .:t a2 .:t ad8 31 'ii' c3 .:t dd6
17 ll:lh2? 32 ..tfl .:t h6
White's behaviour is under­ 33 .:t g1 J: h2
standable from a psychological 34 'ii' c5 .:t dh6
point of view : with the help of 35 'ii' b6 'ii' f8 (49)
48 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 .i.f4

Preserving the dark-squared

49
w bishops - it is easier to defend
the pawns on the queenside this
way and also, when the occasion
arises, to defend the kingside.
8 e3 0-0
9 .i.e2
This is the most fundamentally
important move here. 9 .i.d3
looks more energetic and Black
has to reply very accurately, other­
36 "ikc7? wise White gains good attacking
In time trouble White makes a possibilities : 9 . . . c5 10 0-0 tt:lbd7
fatal mistake. It was imperative to (this move is more flexible than
play 36 .l:l. c2, creating a possible 10 . . . tt:lc6, which occurred in
escape square for the king. Now Spassov-Inkiov, Albena 1 978, 1 1
Black ends the fighting with a .!:!. c 1 a6 1 2 tt:le5 c4 1 3 .i.b1 b5.
bang. Black's counterplay on the queen­
36 .l:. xg2! side is clearly lagging behind. 1 4
37 "ike5 "ikf3 ! tt:l a 5 1 5 g4! tt:le8 1 6 "ik h 3 g6
If 37 .l:l. xg2 Black mates in four 1 7 .i.h6 tt:lg7 1 8 f4 .i.f6 1 9 .l:l. cd 1
moves. Have you seen it? tt:lc6 20 g5! .i.xe5 2 1 dxe5 tt:le7 22
37 .!:!. xg1 + .i.xg7 c;f;>xg7 23 f5 gxf5 24 11Vh6+
38 c;f;>xg1 .i.f3! c;t>g8 25 .l:. xf5 ! with a winning
The trap has closed. attack) 1 1 tt:le5 (a routine
39 "ik xg5+ 'it>h8 manoeuvre - occupying the cen­
40 "ike5+ "ikf6 tre and intending to relocate his
0-1 pieces to attack the kingside) 1 1
Mate is inevitable. . . . cxd4 (the preceding game shows
that the plan c5-c4 and b6-b5 is
pointless) 1 2 exd4 tt:le4 1 3 J:!. e 1
Browne-Nikolic
tt:lxe5 1 4 .i.xe5 tt:lxc3 1 5 bxc3
Naestved 1985
.i.d6! (intending to exchange all
1 d4 tt:lf6 his opponent's active pieces) 1 6
2 c4 e6 'i!f h 5 g6 1 7 "ii h6 .i.xe5 1 8 dxe5
3 tt:l f3 b6 "ike? 19 .!:!. e3 J:!. ad8 and Black's
4 a3 .i. b7 counterplay in the centre counter­
5 tt:l c3 d5 balances White's activity on the
6 cxd5 exd5 kingside, Browne-Kudrin, USA
7 ..tf4 .i. e7 Ch. 1981.
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 ..tf4
In Chernin-Miralles, Sibenik
1 987, the opening was played in
an original way: 9 J:[ c 1 c5 (the
routine 9 . . . lLlbd7 leads to diffi­
culties : 10 ll:lb5 c6 1 1 ll:ld6) 1 0
ll:le5 !? (the development o f the
white-squared bishop suggests
itself but White has something up
his sleeve) 1 0 . . . c4 1 1 g4!? (the
king's bishop is going to occupy
the main diagonal) 1 1 . . . lLlc6?!
(more vigorous is 1 1 . . . b5! 1 2
ll:lxb5 "ifb6, immediately stirring
up counterplay on the queenside)
1 2 ..tg2 ll:la5 1 3 g5 ll:ld7 14 "it"g4
ll:lxe5 1 5 ..txe5 - it is obvious
that Black has lost the early battle.
9 c5
This is an interesting attempt to
do without the thematic
manoeuvre : 9 . . . lLlbd7 1 0 ll:le5
ll:lxe5 1 1 dxe5 lLle4 1 2 ll:lxe4 dxe4
1 3 "it"c2 ..tg5 ! 1 4 ..tg3 "it"e7 1 5
0-0 J:t ad8 1 6 J:[ fd 1 ..td5 1 7 J:t ac l
c6 and Black has secured equality,
Portisch-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1 986.
10 ll:le5
This thrust could have been
postponed a little while: 1 0 0-0,
to which Black must reply 1 0 . . .
lLlc6. I hope that you have noticed
the difference between the
development of this knight after 9
..td3 and 9 ..te2. Weaker is 1 0
. . . lLlbd7 1 1 ll:le5 cxd4 1 2 exd4
lLle4 1 3 J:t c l lLlxe5 1 4 dxe5 J:[ c8
1 5 ll:lxe4 dxe4 1 6 "it"a4 a5 1 7 ..tb5
with a clear advantage to White,
Browne-Hiibner, Lucerne Olym­
piad 1 982.
49
10 lLlc6
11 0-0 ll:lxe5?!
The exchange in the centre
looks so natural that one can
hardly rebuke Black for it. But
even more accurate is the prelimi-
nary 1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2 exd4 ll:le4 (the
passive 1 2 . . . a6 resulted in serious
troubles for Black in Portisch­
Spassky, London 1 982: 1 3 J:[ c l
ll c8 1 4 lLlxc6 J:t xc6 1 5 "it"b3 b 5 1 6
ll:l a 2 J:[ c4 1 7 ..t e 5 ! The plan o f 1 2
. . . lLlxe5 1 3 dxe5 lLle4 is also
unfavourable for Black : 14 lLlxe4
dxe4 1 5 "it"a4 a6 1 6 J:t fd 1 "it"e8 1 7
"it"b3 ..tc5 1 8 "it"g3 "it"e6 19 b4 ..te7
20 ..tg4 1Wg6 21 ..te3 ! Timman­
Larsen, Tilburg 1 982) 13 lLlxc6
..txc6 14 J:l. c 1 "it"d7 1 5 ..ta6 J:t ad8
16 "it"d3 ..td6 1 7 ll:le2 ..txf4 1 8
lLlxf4 "it"d6 1 9 g 3 ..td7 20 ll fe 1
l:l fe8 with equality, Farago­
Matanovic, Vienna 1 986.
12 dxe5 ll:le4
13 lLlxe4 dxe4
14 ..tc4!
Suggesting that Black might like
to continue the tactic of total
exchanges: 14 . . . "it"xd 1 1 5 J:[ axd 1
J:l. fd8 1 6 e6 fxe6 1 7 ..txe6+ ..tf8
1 8 ..tc7, but in that case he would
also give away all the initiative in
the endgame.
14 ..tc6
15 "it" g4
The queen's placement here is
more active than on a4 or b3.
15 ..th8
16 J:t ad1 "it"e8?!
Black is not aware ofthe danger,
 50 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 ..tf4

otherwise he would have chosen the subsequent intrusion of the

16 . . . 11Fc8 followed by 11Ff5, oppos­ queen is decisive.
ing White on the kingside. But 21 11F xh4 11Fe8
now White unfolds his attack 22 11Ff4 b5
almost unopposed. 22 . . . ..tb5 is equally hopeless
17 ..tg3! (50) in view of 23 11Fxe4 ..txc4 24 11Fxc4
11Fxe5 25 11Fxf7.
23 ..td5 ..txd5
24 J:t xd5 11Fe7
25 11Fxe4 h6
26 h3 J:t e8
27 11Fc2 J:t c8
28 11Ff5 J:t c7
29 11Fd3 1-0

Problems
Aiming at the e4-pawn and pre­
paring to exchange the dark­
squared bishops in the most
advantageous way.
17 J:t d8
It is easy to give advice but,
for better or worse, Black had
to decide on 1 7 . . . f5, sacrificing
material after 1 8 exf6 ..txf6 1 9
..td6 ..txb2 20 ..txf8 11Fxf8 but
preserving some chances of saving White to move
the game.
18 l:t xd8 11Fxd8
19 J:td1 11Fa8
20 ..th4
White's play is simple and per­
sistent - with each exchange his
remaining pieces gain in potential
and Black's e4-pawn grows
increasingly weak.
20 ..txh4
In reply to 20 . . . f5, 2 1 exf6
..txf6 22 ..txf6 J:t xf6 23 11Fg3 ! with Black to move
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 i.f4 51

53
w

White to move
(9 . 0-0)
. .

54
w 57
8

White to move

( 1 0 i.g2)
Tabiya Positions

58
8

(10 . c5)
. . (8 i.g3)
52 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 .i.f4

. . . .i.e7 seems to me the safer

59
B move and the one having the
(10 0-0)
In this section we have covered
the 7 .i.f4 variation. Black can
count on an equal game after both
7 . . . .i.d6 and 7 . . . .i.e7, but 7
greater scope. The positions that
arise remind one of the exchange
system in the Queen's Gambit
Declined.
At the same time, the plan 7
.i.g5 .i.e7 8 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 9 g3 is
rather interesting. It is not easy
for Black to liven up his two
bishops and White can combine
activity both in the centre and on
the queenside. I expect that this
plan for White will become the
subject of discussion in the near
future.
 Classical 5 . . . d5
6 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3
Lputian-Popovic
Sarajevo 1985
1 d4 lL!f6
2 c4 e6
3 lL!fJ b6
4 a3 ..tb7
5 lL!cJ d5
6 cxd5 exd5
7 g3 ..te7
This is the most natural way of
developing, although 7 . . . ..td6
occurs more frequently, when
Black wants to provoke White
into playing the ..tg5 pin, creating
pressure on the light squares. But
this straightforward strategy does
not pay White any particular divi­
dends: 8 ..tg5 0-0 9 ..th3 ..te7 10
0-0 c5 1 1 "ifc2 lL!e4 12 ..txe7
"ifxe7 1 3 dxc5 bxc5 1 4 J:l. ac l lL!d7
with equality. In practice, 7 . . .
..td6 is used by Black as a catalyst
to lure his opponent into revealing
his plans. The following scheme
,
looks more attractive for White: 8
..tg2 0-0 9 0-0 J:l. e8 10 ..tf4 a6
1 1 ..txd6 "ifxd6 1 2 b4, blockading
the dark squares both in the centre
and on the queenside. In Ionescu­
Marin, Bucharest 1 985, White
gained a dominating position after
1 2 . . . lL!bd7 1 3 l:t c l lL!f8 14 1Vb3
lL!e6 15 e3 lL!e4 16 J:l. c2 J:l. ab8 1 7
l:l. d 1 h 6 1 8 lL!el ! lL!6g5 1 9 lL!d3
'
J:l. e7 20 l:l. dc 1 J:l. d8 21 a4 c6 22 a5
b5 23 lL!e5. 9 . . . J:l. e8 here was not
a good move. 9 . . . lL!bd7 is more
logical, even though here also
White keeps some initiative : 1 0
lL!b5 ..te7 1 1 ..tf4 c 6 1 2 lL!d6
..txd6 1 3 ..txd6 J:l. e8 14 J:l. c 1 lL!e4
1 5 ..tf4, Anastasian-Rozentalis,
Tbilisi 1 989.
8 1fa4+
This move imparts an original
colouring to all White's sub­
sequent strategy. In modem chess
practice this kind of early queen
thrust is a frequent occurrence.
Later we will consider the classical
8 ..tg2, which leads to positions
similar to the g3 system of the
Queen's Indian Defence.
8 c6
This is an automatic response,
although there is nothing heretical
in 8 . . . 1Vd7 either. The point is
that there are not many players
who would willingly endure the
endgame after 9 "ifxd7 + lL!bxd7
10 lL!b5. 8 . . . lL!bd7 would not
54 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3
equalize either, e.g. 9 tLle5 c5 1 0
dxc5 0-0!? ( 1 0 . . . bxc5 1 1 .th3
d4 12 0-0! dxc3 13 .tt d 1 ) 1 1 c6
tLlc5 1 2 11id1 .ta6 13 b4 tLlce4 14
.tb2, followed by tLlf3 with the
initiative on the dark squares.
9 .tg2
The exotic 9 .th3 is justified if
Black plays the sluggish 9 . . . 0-0
1 0 0-0 c5 1 1 .tt d 1 c4?! 1 2 tLle5 a6
1 3 .tg5 b5 14 11ic2 tLlc6 1 5 .tg2
with the initiative to White,
Tukmakov-Yudasin, Kuibishev
1 986. More vigorous is 1 1 . . . tLlc6
12 .tg5 .tt e8! and according to
Yusupov-Ljubojevic, Bugojno
1 986, Black has excellent counter­
play in the centre : 1 3 dxc5 bxc5
14 .txf6 .txf6 1 5 tLlxd5 tt xe2! 1 6
tLlf4 tLld4 1 7 tLlxd4 cxd4 1 8 tLlxe2
11id5 19 �fl g5 ! 20 .tt ac l g4 2 1
.txg4 11i h 1 + .
9 0-0
10 0-0
White essayed an interesting
plan in Lputian-Rozentalis, Lvov
1987: 10 .tf4 tLlbd7 1 1 .tt d 1 c5 1 2
0-0 a6 1 3 dxc5 bxc5 1 4 11ib3!
11ib6?! 15 tLld2 c4 1 6 11ixb6 tLlxb6
1 7 .te3 tLlfd7 1 8 tLldb 1 and gained
an obvious advantage. Black can
complicate by 1 3 . . . tLlxc5 or 1 3
. . . bxc5 1 4 11ib3 tLlb6 but in any
case White's initiative is secured.
Maybe Black's best plan here is
10 . . . tLlh5 1 1 tLle5 tLlxf4 12 gxf4
.td6, with an attempt to create
counterplay on the dark squares.
10 c5
However strange it may seem,
this thematic c-pawn move creates
the preconditions for the develop­
ment of White's initiative in the
centre. In Ilic-Meinsohn, Mont­
pellier 1 983, Black decided to
forgo c6-c5 but the problems that
he encountered were insoluble: 1 0
. . . tLla6 1 1 tLle5 1W e 8 1 2 .tg5 tLlc7
1 3 .tt fe 1 tLle6 14 .txf6 .txf6 1 5
: ad 1 tLlxd4 1 6 tLlg4 tLle6 1 7
tLlxf6+ gxf6 1 8 11ig4+ �h8 1 9
11ih4 f5 20 .th3 tLlg7 2 1 e4! fxe4
22 tLlxe4 dxe4 23 .tt xe4 11ib8 24
11ih6! : d8 25 .td7! �g8 26 11if6
and White soon won. The most
vigorous move here is 1 0 . . . tLl bd7
which we shall discuss in the next
game.
11 .tt d1 tLla6
1 1 . . . tLlc6 loses a pawn after 1 2
dxc5 bxc5 1 3 11ib5 .tt b8 1 4 .tf4
.td6 1 5 tLlxd5.
12 .tf4
This is more flexible than 1 2
.tg5, although here also White
has the better game : 12 . . . h6
(weaker is 1 2 . . . tLlc7 owing to 1 3
dxc5 ! bxc5 1 4 tLle5 11id6 1 5 tLlc4
11ia6 1 6 tLla5 Dorfman-Roman­
ishin, USSR 1981) 1 3 .txf6 .txf6
14 tLlxd5 .txd5 1 5 11i xa6 cxd4 1 6
tLlxd4 .txg2 1 7 �xg2 .txd4 1 8
e 3 11id5+ 1 9 � g 1 11ib3 20 exd4
11ixb2 2 1 : abl.
12 .tt e8
This is inconsistent. The plan
should have been carried out to
its logical conclusion : 1 2 . . . tLlc7
1 3 .te5 tLle6 14 dxc5 tLlxc5 1 5
11ic2, when White has an initiative
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3 55

in the centre but Black has gained Dreev-Rozentalis

some freedom for manoeuvring in Vilnius 1988
exchange.
13 l:t acl h6 1 d4 ll'lf6
14 e3! .i.f8 2 c4 e6
15 ..te5 3 ll'lf3 b6
White has placed his pieces in 4 a3 ..tb7
a classical set-up, with ominously 5 ll'lc3 d5
increasing pressure in the centre. 6 cxd5 exd5
Black must now urgently defuse 7 g3 ..te7
the situation by exchanging his 8 .-a4+ c6
opponent's most active pieces. 9 ..tg2 0-0
Unfortunately, this excellent plan 10 0-0 ll'lbd7
was badly executed. 11 ..tf4
15 ll'l g4? If 1 1 l:t d 1 the most sensible
reply is 1 1 . . . l:te8, similar to the
This move was motivated by
positions considered in the next
good intentions viz. to "bite" the
note. In Epishin-Rozentalis,
bishop and to maintain the over­
USSR 1 986, White decided to
protection of the d5-pawn. But the
weaken the dark squares on the
correct move was 1 5 . . . ll'ld7 and,
kingside with the help of 1 1 ll'lh4,
after the forced sequence 1 6 ll'lxd5
but he did not gain anything sub­
.i.xd5 17 .- xa6 f6 18 dxc5 ll'lxc5
stantial after 1 1 . . . g6 1 2 ll'lf3 l:te8
19 .-e2 fxe5 20 e4 ll'lxe4 21 ll'lh4
1 3 ..tf4 ll'lh5 14 ..th6 ..td6 1 5
ll'lf6 22 ..txd5 ll'lxd5 23 .-e4 l:t c8,
l:t fe 1 ll'ldf6 1 6 l:t ad 1 .-c7 1 7 l:t c l
the position is still tenable. Now
the finish is just a few moves away. .-d7 1 8 ll'lg5 .-e7 1 9 ..tf3 c5.
11 ll'lh5
16 ll'lxd5 cxd4 This is the most important move
17 .-xd4! ll'lxe5 here. As long as White has not
18 ll'lxe5 completed his development, Black
Now if you take a look at the will try to create counterplay on
battlefield from Black's trenches, the dark squares. But if he procras­
there is a terrible scene of utter tinates in taking concrete action
devastation! White's pressure will become un­
18 ll'lc5 pleasant: 1 1 . . . l:te8 1 2 l:t fd 1 ( 1 2
19 .-r4 f6 ll'le5 ll'lxe5 1 3 ..txe5 .i.d6 1 4
20 ll'lg4 .-b8 .i.xd6 .-xd6 1 5 b 4 i s also possible,
21 .-r5 �b8 although here it is easier for Black
22 ll'ldxf6! gxf6 to defend himself) 1 2 . . . ll'lh5 1 3
23 ll'lxf6 1-0 .tel (in Polugayevsky-Chandler,
·, h < ' l u ssJca l .'i . . . d5 6
I ,oml o n 1 986, White played 1 3
l:l ac I but Black gradually slipped
out of the positional squeeze : 1 3
. . . lll xf4 1 4 gxf4 lll f6 1 5 lll e 5 'it'd6
16 e3 'ife6 17 .!:!. d2 ..if8 18 b4
.:t ec8 1 9 'it'b3 .:t ab8 20 J: dc2 g6
2 1 lll b 1 lll d7) 1 3 . . . 'Wic7 1 4 e4
dxe4 1 5 lll xe4 lll df6 16 lll e 5 tt:ld5
1 7 'ifc4 Belyavsky-Short, Mont­
pellier 1 985.
12 J: ad1
Meeting the challenge. White
continues systematically to
increase pressure in the centre. He
should not bother to spend time
retreating his bishop : 1 2 ..id2
.:t e8 13 .!:!. ad 1 ..id6 14 lll h4 lll df6 !
1 5 lll f5 ..ie7 1 6 b4 g6 1 7 lll e 3 a6
1 8 'it'b3 b5 19 lll c2 ..ic8 20 lll e 1
..if5 with equality, Timman-Kar:
pov, Lucerne Olympiad 1 982.
12 J: acl, which occurred in
Dokhoyan-Rozentalis, Vilnius
1988, also looks logical in this
regard. Black's most accurate
reply is 1 2 . . . J: e8 1 3 1Hd1 lll xf4
1 4 gxf4 tt:lf6, obtaining the position
from Polugayevsky-Chandler.
Rozentalis played 14 . . . lll f8 and
subsequently lost the game: 1 5
lll e 5 'WI d6 1 6 e4! dxe4 1 7 lll xe4
'Wih6 1 8 f5 ..ig5 1 9 .!:t c3 .th4 20
.!:!. h3 'iff4 2 1 'it'b3 .!:!. e7 22 lll d6
'ifxf2+ 23 �h1 J: d8 24 lll dxf7
J:d5 25 tt:ld6 ..ta8 26 lll e4.
12 lll xf4
13 gxf4 (60)
Aestheticists looking at White's
pawn formation will probably
raise their eyebrows : why on earth
cxd 5•cxd 5 7 g3
60
B
should the kingside be weakened
like this? But this is an imaginary
weakness, since in return White
has very promising possibilities to
blockade the centre and attack the
kingside. In chess, as well as in
life, truth seldom has a noble
appearance.
13 a5!
The purpose of this move is to
achieve the quickest creation of
counterplay on the queenside
rather than to prevent b2-b4.
Black's position is in need of dras­
tic measures - half measures are
just not enough : 1 3 . . . f5 14 e3
lll f6 1 5 lll e 5 'if d6 1 6 b4 lll e4 1 7
lll xe4 fxe4 1 8 J: c l b 5 1 9 'Wi b3 �h8
20 f3 and Black is condemned to
a difficult defence, Piket-Reshev­
sky, Lugano 1 987.
Black could try to create
counterplay on the kingside but
he has no real prospects on that
part of the board : 1 3 . . . lll f6 1 4
lll e 5 'Wi d 6 1 5 J: c 1 !? (White also
gained the advantage in Yusupov­
Short, Dubai 1 986 : 1 5 �h1 lll h 5
16 e3 f6 17 tt:ld3 g5 18 lll e 2! �h8
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3 57

19lt:lg3 lll g7?! 20 fxg5 fxg5 2 1 lt:le5 29 . . . h6 (still having preventive

a5 22 f4 gxf4 23 exf4 .:t adS 24 measures in mind) 30 "it'c6 i.d4
"it'b3 ! c5 25 dxc5 "it'xc5 26 f5 !) 1 5 3 1 .:t h5 .:t Sa6 32 "it'b5 g6 ! 33 .:t xh6
. . . "it'e6 1 6 b4 b5 1 7 "it'b3 a6 1 S ..to>g7 34 .:t h3 "it'xd5 35 "it'eS .:t aS .
.:t c2 lt:lh5 1 9 e3 : adS 20 lt:le2 f6 36 "it'e7 i.f6 37 "it'e3 .:t b2 3S f5 g5
2 1 f5 ! "it'd6 22 lt:ld3 "it'd7 23 e4 - 39 .:t g 1 .:t xb3 40 .:t xg5 + ..to>fS
White strikes up the decisive 0-1 .
attack in the centre and on the 14 b5
kingside, Vyzmanavin-Naumkin, 15 "it'c2 b4
Moscow Ch. 1 9S4. 16 axb4 axb4
14 e3 17 lt:le2
This is a more powerful move White's hopes lie in the activities
than that of the earlier game, on the kingside.
Bareev-Yudasin, Lvov 1 9S7, in 17 "it'b6
which White quickly handed the 18 lt:lg3 b3?!
initiative to his opponent: 14 "it'c2 Provoking White into greater
b5 1 5 ..to>h1?! (vacating a square activity; correct was 1 S . . . i.a6
for the rook but in reality wasting 19 .:t fe 1 i.b5.
precious time. Better was 1 5 e3 19 "it'f5 lt:lf6
or 1 5 lt:le5 with a complicated 20 ..to>h1 .:t a2
struggle) 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 axb4 axb4 21 "it'b1 i. a6
1 7 lt:la4 i.a6! 1 S b3 i.b5 1 9 22 .:t g1
lt:lc5 lt:lxc5 20 dxc5 .:t a3 2 1 .:t fe 1?! White makes systematic prep-
(salvation should have been arations to attack the kingside.
sought in the ending with bishops 22 lll g4
of opposite colours: 2 1 lt:ld4 "it' a5 23 .:t d2 i. b4
22 lt:lxb5 "it'xb5 23 e4) 2 1 . . . "it'a5 24 i.h3 (61)
22 e4 .:t a2 23 "it'b1 i.xc5 (Black
dominates the queenside) 24 exd5 61
i.xf2 25 .:t e5 c5 (25 . . . f6 was B
also strong) 26 i.fl i.xfl 27 .:t xfl
.:t aS 2S "it'd3 "it'dS (the queen has
done all it could on the queenside
and now is ready to jump into the
kingside by the route d7-h3) 29
"it'b5? (the d-pawn is entrusted
with White's last hop�s, and these
were contained in the attempt to
gain activity on the kingside by This is the essence of White's
way of 29 "it'e4 followed by f4-f5) plan - whilst sacrificing material
58 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3

he is building up his pieces into a 3 lZ:l f3 b6

powerful task-force on the king­ 4 a3 .t b7
side. 5 lZ:l c3 d5
24 ..t xd2 6 cxd5 exd5
25 ..txg4 ..tb4 7 g3 ..te7
26 lZ:lh5 g6 8 .tg2 0-0
27 lZ:lf6 + � g7 9 0-0
28 lZ:l e5 ! This position is a sort of next
Winning back the lost material of kin to positions from the 4 g3
by 28 lZ:ld7 and 29 lZ:lxf8 would system. The next few moves will
deprive White of a significant part make it clear whether 4 a3 is a
of his attacking potential. waste of time - helping Black to
28 'W/c7 complete his development eas­
28 . . . ..tc8 is no good in view ily - or an integral part of White's
of 29 ..txc8 .!:!. xc8 30 'ilff5, with strategic plan.
decisive threats. 9 c5
29 lLlfd7 .l:!. a8? It is difficult for Black to create
This kind of miserliness is in the counterplay without this move.
spirit of Ebenezer Scrooge, the In Vaganyan-Speelman, London
notorious character of English 1 985, White gained a big advan­
literature. The position could still tage after 9 . . . .!:!. e8 10 ..tf4 a6 1 1
have been held by 29 . . . ..tc8 ! 30 .l:!.c1 ..td6 1 2 e3 ..txf4 1 3 gxf4
lZ:lxf8 �xf8 31 ..txc8 'ilfxc8 32 lZ:lbd7 14 lZ:le5 c5 1 5 lZ:lxd7 'i!fxd7
"ifc1 ..td6. 16 lZ:la4.
30 "iff5! 10 .tf4
Evidently Black simply missed This is a typical move - White
this effective blow in his calcu­ takes the dark squares in the cen­
lations. After 30 . . . gxf5 there tre under his control and com­
follows 3 1 .tf3 + and mate next pletes his development quickly.
move. 10 "ifc2 is also played quite
30 .l:!. f8 often. White intends to move the
31 "iff6+ 'it>g8 king's rook to d1 and to build up
32 lZ:lxg6! hxg6 pressure against Black's central
33 .te6! 1-0 pawns. 10 . . . lZ:la6 (10 . . . lZ:lbd7 1 1
.l:!. d 1 .l:!. c8 is also quite possible but
10 . . . lZ:la6 is more flexible) 1 1 .!:!. d 1
Timman-Langeweg
(Black has n o problems after 1 1
Dutch Ch. 1981
.tg5 h6 12 ..txf6 ..t xf6 1 3 .l:!. fd 1
1 d4 lLl f6 .l:!. e8 1 4 .l:!. acl .l:!. c8 1 5 e 3 lZ:lc7 1 6
2 c4 e6 'i!fb1 lZ:le6 1 7 dxc5 bxc5, Yusupov-
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3
Hjartarson, Thessaloniki 1 984) 1 1
. . . li:Jc7 1 2 .tf4 li:Je6 1 3 .te5 li:Jg4
14 dxc5 .txc5 1 5 e3 :!.e8 16 'iWf5
li:Jh6 1 7 'iWh5 f6 with an approxi­
mately equal game. The insignifi­
cant weaknesses of Black's pawn
formation are compensated by the
promising possibilities of his
pieces, Novikov-Rozentalis,
USSR 1 986.
10 li:Ja6
The knight's manoeuvrability
allows Black to combine defence
of the queenside pawns with
counterplay in the centre after the
possible move from a6-c7-e6.
An attempt to accelerate a crisis
in the centre by 10 . . . li:Jc6 is not
so good: 1 1 dxc5 bxc5 1 2 li:Je5
li:Jd4 13 li:Jc4 'iWc8 ( 1 3 . . . li:Je4 14
li:Je3!) 14 li:Ja5 (the tempting 1 4
lLld6 i s not actually very effective:
14 . . . .txd6 1 5 .txd6 l:le8) 14 . . .
.ta6 1 5 .te5 :!. d8 1 6 .txd4 cxd4
1 7 'iWxd4 .tc5 1 8 "it'a4 and Black's
counterplay is only temporary,
Naumkin-Gligoric, Belgrade
1 988.
And if 1 0 . . . lLlbd7 White holds
·
the initiative for a long time: 1 1
li:Je5 l:l e8 1 2 .l::. c1 li:Jf8 1 3 dxc5
bxc5 14 li:Jc4 li:Jg6 1 5 .tg5 :1. b8
1 6 .txf6 .txf6 1 7 li:Jxd5 .txb2
18 li:Jxb2 .txd5 19 'li'xd5 'li'xd5
20 .txd5 etc., Nikolic-Chandler,
Naestved 1 985.
11 li:Je5
White responds actively against
Black's pieces. At the same time
White hopes to weaken Black's
59
defence of his pawns with the help
of advantageous exchanges.
White also has the possibility of
the plan of 'li'c2 and l:l d 1 that we
have already seen. Black must co­
ordinate his pieces accurately : 1 1
'li'c2 li:Jc7 1 2 l:l fd l li:Je6 1 3 .te5
l:l c8 14 dxc5 bxc5 1 5 l:l abl (a
preventive measure - defence of
the b2-pawn which, during tactical
skirmishes in the centre, is often
under fire from Black's queen or
dark-squared bishop, and at the
same time preparation for fixing
the hanging pawns by b2-b4) 1 5
. . . d4?! (more logical i s 1 5 . . . 'it'd7,
completing his development) 1 6
.txf6 ..txf6 1 7 li:Jg5! (this trio of
'li'c2, .tg2 and li:Jg5 often strikes
this kind of dagger blow in the
Queen's Indian Defence) 1 7 . . .
li:Jxg5 (wanting to save the dark­
squared bishop, but correct was 1 7
. . . .txg5 1 8 ..txb7 l:l b8 without
disturbing the co-ordination of his
pieces) 1 8 .txb7 l:l b8 19 .tg2
c4?! (continuing the ruinous tactic
of activity at any cost. It is obvious
that this favours White's better co­
ordinated pieces. 19 . . . li:Je6 would
have been better) 20 ti:Jd5 l:l c8 21
l:l bel :!. e8 22 h4 li:Je6 23 'lWa4 d3
24 exd3 ..txb2 25 l:l xc4 'iWd6 26
l:l b4 l:l b8?? 27 l:l xb2 and Black
resigned, Dzhandzhgava-Rozen­
talis, Lvov 1987.
Black introduced a more suc­
cessful arrangement of the pieces
in Salov-Aseev, USSR 1 984: 1 1
. . . 'li'c8 1 2 l:l ad l l:l d8 1 3 ll fe1
60 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3
lf:lc4 14 tt:lxe4 dxe4 15 tt:lg5 cxd4
1 6 'ilt'xc8 :t axeS 1 7 tt:lxe4 ..ta8 1 8
J:[ c l tt:lc5 1 9 tt:lxc5 bxc5 20 J:[ c4
..txg2 2 1 �xg2 .l:!. a8 22 b4 cxb4
23 axb4 tt d7 24 .l:!. a 1 J:!. b7 with
equality.
11 tt:lc7
1 1 . . . .l:!. e8 1 2 dxc5 tt:lxc5 1 3 tt:lf3
tt:lfe4 14 tt:lb5 a6 1 5 tt:lbd4 ..tf6 1 6
J:[ c l g5?! 1 7 ..te3 'iit' d7 1 8 tt:ld2
J:[ ac8 19 tt:lxe4 dxe4 20 J:[ c2 tt:le6
21 J:[ d2 tt:lxd4 22 ..txd4 l:!. cd8 23
e3 'ilt'e6 24 'llt' h 5 with an obvious
advantage, Gheorghiu-Adorjan,
Riga Interzonal 1 979.
12 dxc5 bxc5 (62)
62
w 14
13 'ilt'a4
13 tt:lc4 is justified if Black plays
the routine 1 3 . . . tt:le6?! which
occurred in Vaganian-Janet­
schek, Baden 1 980: 14 ..te5 tt:ld4
1 5 tt:le3 ! tt:le4 1 6 tt:lexd5 tt:lxc3 1 7
tt:lxc3 ..txg2 1 8 ..t<xg2 'ilt'b6 1 9
tt:ld5 ! 'ilt'e6 20 tt:lxe7+ 'W/xe7 2 1
..txd4 .1:!. ad8 22 e3 with a won
game. Correct was 1 3 . . . .1:!. b8 1 4
..txc7 'ilt'xc7 1 5 tt:lxd5 ..txd5 1 6
..txd5 J:[ bd8 1 7 e 4 tt:lxe4 1 8 'llt' f 3
.lhd5 19 'it'xe4 : d4 20 'ilt'c2 ..tf6
2 1 J:[ ad 1 g6 with equality, Levitt­
Kharitonov, Moscow 1 988.
With this queen move Timman
takes the weakened squares on the
queenside under control and at
the same time secures the defence
of the f4-bishop.
13 tt:le6
Now it is easier for White to
attack the d5-pawn. Correct was
1 3 . . . ..td6, ignoring 1 4 tt:lc6
owing to 14 . . . ..txc6 15 11t'xc6
..txf4 16 gxf4 J:[ b8 with strong
counterplay, Grooten-Kaiszauri,
Ramsgate 1 982.
J:[ ad1
Naumkin-Kengis, USSR 1 985,
continued : 14 J:!. fd 1 a5 15 h4 J:[ a6
1 6 ..tg5 l:!. d6 1 7 e3 h6 1 8 ..txf6
..txf6 19 tt:lg4 ..te7 20 tt:le5 ..tf6
and a draw was agreed. Black's
concept of defending his d5-pawn
with the queen's rook is interest-
ing.
14 J:[ e8?!
Over the next few moves Black
intensifies his counterplay on the
half open b- and e-files but at
the same time his control of the
hanging pawns is weakening. 1 4
. . . a 5 was better.
15 J:[ d3
16 tt:lxd5 tt:lxd5
17 ..txd5 ..txd5
18 .l:!. xd5 11t'xb2
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exci5 7 g3 61

19 .!:[ d2! 'W'c3 Problems

20 .l:l. d7 (63)
The position has turned to 64
White's advantage. His pieces w
have become more active, and the
a7- and f7-pawns seem to be weak.

63
B

White to move

65
w

This kind of transformation is

typical when Black Imtmtes
counterplay prematurely and there­
by resolves to open up the centre.
20 lLld4?!
White to move
More vigorous is 20 . . . 'it'b2.
21 e3 lLle2+
22 'iti>g2 lLlxf4+ 66
23 gxf4 w
The advantage could also have
been preserved by 23 'it'xf4 but
with this move White has set a
subtle trap - and Black now falls
for it.
23 aS
24 .l:!. b1 .I:!. adS?
25 J:t d3! 1-0
This retreat is a terrible weapon ! White to move
1 1 .1 ( ' l ; , ssica l 'i . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3

White to move
(10 . . . lt:la6)

Tabiya Positions
71
w
68
B

(1 1 . . . lt:la6)
(9 0-0)

72
69 B
B

(10 'iWc2) ( 1 1 ..tf4)

 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 g3
With the 7 g3 vanatwns we
complete our review of the pos­
itions arising from 6 . . . exd5. I
hope that the thoughtful reader
has noticed that the amount of
material and the number of inter­
esting concepts inherent in 7 g3,
leading to a more fruitful game
than 7 .tf4. The plan of 8 'it'a4+
is especially attractive.
It is also obvious that for Black
it is not an easy task to escape
from the squeezing of the posi-
63
tiona) vice, and for that purpose
he has to secure a defensive centre
and carry out such preventive
measures as will bring about sim­
plifications advantageous for him.
I am sure that this original
Catalan/Queen's Indian Defence
cocktail will be popular among
the players of White for a long
time to come. Maybe this explains
why Black more and more chooses
6 . . . lLlxd5, and this move is dis­
cussed in the following chapter.
 Classical 5 . . . d5
7 6 cxd5 ttJ xd5
Introduction and 7 'if c2

M. Gurevich-Gavrikov Sacrificing a pawn, White intends

Tallinn 1987 to start an attack. In order to
refute his opponent's overbold
1 d4 lLif6 venture, Black must act vigor­
2 c4 e6 ously : 9 . . . 'i!Vh4! (9 . . . ..tb7 1 0
3 lLif3 b6 'i!Vg4 h5 1 1 'i!Vf4 with the initiative)
4 a3 ..tb7 10 'i!Va4+ (if 10 g3 'i!Vd8 1 1 'i!Va4+
5 ll:lc3 d5 c6 12 f3 ..td5 1 3 'i!V d 1 f6 14 lLig4
6 cxd5 lLixdS ( 73) c5 15 ..tb5+ ..tc6 16 ..tc4 cxd4!
17 ..txe6 ..tc5 and White is no
better off than at the start, Stanis­
73 zewski-Stempin, Poland 1 984) 1 0
w . . . c6 1 1 d5 ..td6 ( 1 1 . . . ..tc5 1 2
g 3 ..txf2+ i s also good) 1 2 lLixf7!?
(after 12 ll:lf3, 12 . . . 'i!Vf6 is strong)
1 2 . . . �xf7 1 3 dxe6+ �xe6 1 4
..te2 �d7 1 5 ..te3 �c7 and
White has not gained sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed
material, Nogueiras-Belyavsky,
Thessaloniki Olympiad 1 984.
There is no good reason for 7
This is the basic tabiya of the 4 'i!Va4+, for instance 7 . . . ll:ld7! 8
a3 system. Before we move on lLixd5 ..txd5 (8 . . . exd5?! 9 ..tg5
to the main variations connected or 9 ..tf4 with a long-term initia­
with 7 'i!Vc2 and 7 e3, we shall first tive for White) 9 ..tg5 (9 'i!Vc2!? c5
consider some less popular lines. 1 0 e4 ..tb7 with equality) 9 . . .
7 ..td2 ..te7 1 0 ..txe7 'i!Vxe7 1 1 .l:l. c l ? (the
For some time the position after c7-pawn is "poisoned"; the road to
7 e4?! lLixc3 8 bxc3 ..txe4 9 ll:le5 equality is : 1 1 ll:le5 a6 1 2 'i!Vxd7 +
has been the subject of discussion. 'i!Vxd7 1 3 lLixd7 �xd7) 1 1 . . . 0-0!
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 l2:\xd5 Introduction and 7 'it'c2
12 .l:!. xc7 lLlc5!? (more vigorous
was 1 2 . . . .l:!. fc8 ! when White had
no other choice but to submit
to the terms of an aggravated
situation after 1 3 l: c3, since 1 3
.l:!. xd7? "ilfe8 ! followed by ..tc6 was
the road to defeat) 1 3 J:!. xe7 l2:\xa4
b3! (White would have lost quickly
after 14 e3 .l:!. fc8 1 5 �d2 �f8 1 6
.l:!. d7 ..tc6 1 7 l: d6 ..txf4! 1 8 gxf3
�e7) 14 . . . ..txb3 1 5 l2:\d2 ..ta2 !
1 6 e4 .l:!. fc8 1 7 h4 �f8 1 8 l: d7
.l:!. d8 19 .l:!. xd8+ n xd8 20 .l:!. h3
.l:!. xd4 2 1 .l:!.d3 l:txd3 22 ..txd3
l2:\c5 and Black pushed home his
advantage, Bonin-Adorjan, New
York 1 986.
7 l2:\d7
7 . . . c5 would be careless of
Black, allowing White to gain a
dangerous initiative by the pawn
sacrifice: 8 e4! l2:\xc3 9 ..txc3
..txe4 10 l2:\e5 (in comparison with
7 e4?! White has many more active
possibilities here) 10 . . . a6 1 1 'it'h5
.l:!. a7 1 2 dxc5 ..txc5 13 "ilfg4 ..tg6
14 'it'a4+ �e7 1 5 J:L d 1 'it'c8 1 6
..td3 ..txd3 1 7 J:!. xd3 with an
attack, Romanishin-Panchenko,
Sochi 1 983.
If 7 . . . ..te7 White has a choice :
(a) 8 'it'c2 0-0 9 e4 l2:\xc3 1 0
..txc3 c 5 1 1 dxc5 ..txc5 1 2 ..td3
l2:\d7 13 .l:!. d 1 "ilfc7 14 b4 ..td6 1 5
'it'b2 e 5 1 6 0-0 .!:l acS 1 7 J:L c l
with the better game, Gelfand­
Pieniazek, Arnhem 1 987/88;
(b) 8 "ilfa4+ 'it'd? 9 "ilfc2 0-0 1 0
e 4 l2:\xc3 1 1 ..txc3 c 5 1 2 dxc5
..txc5 1 3 .l:!. d 1 "ilfc6 14 ..td3 l: c8
65
1 5 0-0 a5 1 6 "ilfe2 ..ta6 1 7 ..txa6
l2:\xa6 18 l2:\e5 "ilfe8 19 'ifg4 with
a dangerous attack, Romanishin­
Vaganyan, Lvov 1 984.
8 'ifc2 ..te7
Black temporarily gives the
initiative in the centre to his
opponent. This plan is employed
more often than the other lines:
(a) 8 . . . l2:1 5f6 !? 9 e4 c5 10 d5!
exd5 1 1 exd5 ( 1 1 e5 !?) 1 1 . . . ..td6
1 2 0-0-0 0-0 1 3 ..tg5 'it'b8 14
..tb5 a6 1 5 ..txd7 l2:\xd7 16 l2:\e4
with the better game, Peshina­
David, Budapest 1 989.
(b) 8 . . . c5 9 e4 l2:\xc3 10 ..txc3
cxd4 1 1 l2:\xd4 a6 ! 12 g3 ..te7 1 3
..tg2 0-0 1 4 0-0 "ilfc7 1 5 .l:!. ac l
.C. ac8 1 6 "ilfe2 'if b 8 1 7 .l:!. fd 1 .l:!. fd8
with equality, Votruba-Stoica,
Athens 1 984.
9 e4 l2:\xc3
Henkin-Vyzmanavin, Barnaul
1988, was amusing: 9 . . . l2:\ 5f6 10
0-0-0 0-0 1 1 ..td3 ( 1 1 �b1 is
more accurate) 1 1 . . . h6?! (stimulat­
ing White's attack on the kingside
and wasting time for counterplay
starting with: 1 1 . . . c5 12 d5 c4!
1 3 ..txc4 J:L c8) 12 �bl ! c5 1 3 d5
exd5 ( 13 . . . e5 14 g4 with an attack)
14 exd5 ..td6 (it is dangerous to
open up the game: 1 4 . . . l2:\xd5 1 5
l2:\xd5 ..txd5 1 6 ..txh6! ..txf3 1 7
gxf3 gxh6 1 8 ..tf5!) 1 5 g4! l2:\e5 1 6
lLlxe5 ..txe5 1 7 g 5 hxg5 1 8 ..txg5
..txc3 19 "ilfxc3 l2:\xd5 20 ..th7 +
and White has realized his advan­
tage.
10 ..txc3 0-0
1111 ( ' l a s s 1 c a l ') . . . d) 6 cxd5 lil xd5 Introduction and 7 'i!Vc2

I I ll el l 'lW c8 20 tiJg5
11 .r. cl.\ ..li>.a6 Black faces a difficult choice
U 0-0 ..txd3 since 20 . . . ..txg5 21 'i!Vxg5 cxd4
14 'lWxd3 22 l:t xd4, followed by l:t g4, starts
The a l ternative 14 l:t xd3 pre­ a direct attack against the king.
serves some initiative for White : 20 J:t f8
1 4 . . . ..Wb7 1 5 J:t e 1 J:t fe8 1 6 d5 21 tiJe4 'i!Vc7
exd5 17 .!hd5 J:t ad8 18 h4 tiJc5? 22 d5!
( 1 8 . . . c6! with a reasonable game) Having secured the maximum
1 9 b4 tiJe6 20 'i!Vb3 ..tf6 2 1 l:t f5 activity for his pieces White opens
with the advantage, Eingorn­ up the game.
Lerner, Moscow 1 985. 22 exd5
14 'i!Vb7 23 l:t xd5 QJf6
15 J:t fe1 (74) 24 l:t xd8 ..txd8
25 tiJd6 tiJd5
74 26 'i!V g4 tiJxc3
B 27 bxc3 �h8
28 l:t d 1 'i!Ve7
29 g3 ..tc7
29 . . . Wxe5? 30 tiJxf7 +.
30 'li'xg7 + ..t>xg7
31 tiJf5+ ..th8
32 , tiJxe7 ..txe5
33 c4
Providing a magnificent
bivouac on d5 for the knight and
White's pieces are harmoni­ preparing a typical attack by the
ously placed. The straightforward pawn minority on the queenside.
1 5 d5 quite obviously simplifies Under conditions of seeming
Black's defence : 1 5 . . . exd5 1 6 simplicity in the ending Black will
exd5 ..tf6. have difficult problems to solve.
15 J:t fe8 33 a6
16 'i!Ve3 ..tf6 34 a4 ..td4
17 Wf4 35 wfl !
White's plan is taking shape - Not 35 tiJd5 when 35 . . . l:t d8 is
he combines activity both in the a good reply - 36 tiJxb6? is no
centre and on the kingside. good in view of 36 . . . ..txf2 + .
17 J:t ad8 And i f 35 J:t b 1 , then 35 . . . J:t e8
18 h4 c5 followed by l:t e2.
19 e5 ..te7 35 J:t d8
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tt:lxd5 Introduction and 7 'ifc2 67

36 .ct bl .ct d7 49 l:t el n c2

Black is forced to sacrifice the 50 tt:le3 J:t b2
pawn in order to activate his rook: 51 .,Pf3
36 . . . J:t b8 37 a5 b5 38 cxb5 wins Whilst White systematically for-
for White. tifies his position, Black is forced
37 tt:ld5 b5 to sit and wait.
38 axb5 axb5 51 n b4
39 n xb5 J:t a7 52 J:t e2 l:t a4
40 J:t b3! .!:t a l + 53 J:t c2 l:t a l
41 ..t>g2 l:t cl (75) 54 tt:lf5 l:t a3+
55 .,Pe4 l:t a l
75 56 tt:lg7+
w Of course, not 56 f4 in view of
56 . . . .!:t e l + 57 o;Pf3 J:l fl + .
56 ..t>f7
57 tt:lf5 ..t>e6
58 J:t d2 .!:t el +
59 tt:le3 ..td4
60 .l:ta2 ..txe3
61 l:t a6+ ..t>e7
62 fxe3 J:t gl
63 ..t>d5!
42 tt:le7! The principal maxim in this
It turns out that both 42 . . . kind of ending is activity!
J:t xc4 and 42 . . . ..t>g7 are bad : 63 n xg4
(a) 42 . . . J:t xc4 43 tt:lf5 h5 44 .l:t b6 64 .l:!.a 7 + ..t>f8
J:t c2 45 J:t h6+ .,Pg8 46 tt:lxd4 cxd4 65 'it;>xc5 l:t e4
47 l:t xh5 with a technically won 66 c;t;>d5 n xe3
rook ending; (b) 42 . . . ..t>g7 43 67 c5 ..t>e8
: b6 f6 44 h5 J:t xc4 45 tt:lf5 + . 68 J:t xh7 f5
42 J:t c2 69 h6 f4
43 .l:t f3 ..t>g7 70 J:l a7 J:t h3
44 h5 f6 71 h7 1-0
45 tt:lf5+ ..t>f7
46 J:t f4 ..te5
46 . . . .ct d2 47 tt:lxd4 48 .,Pfl, Gelfand-Lerner
followed by ..t>el, winning the d4- Norilsk 1987
pawn and the game.
47 l:t e4 ..t>e6 1 d4 tt:lf6
48 g4 J:l a2 2 c4 e6
r.H c ' l , • ·• ·• u u l � d .., h c x d 'i <'i \ x d ) I n t roduction and 7 'it'c2

' ti l L\ b6 4_1 xf6 22 l:t xe6 'it'xe6 23 'it'f4 with

4 n.\ ..tb7 a blockade on the dark squares,
� ti\d dS Kasparov-Karpov, Moscow
6 cxdS tt:J xdS (World Ch.) 1 9S4/S5.
7 'it'c2 8 e4
This flexible and many-sided By S .i.d2 White could trans­
move is adopted more often than pose to the 7 .i.d2 scheme.
the classical 7 e3 in modern chess 8 tt:Jxc3
practice. White intends to play 9 bxc3 0-0
e2-e4 to create a powerful pawn 10 .i.d3
centre and, depending on Black's 10 .i. b2 would be premature -
response, he is able to organize his the dark-squared bishop may be
game on any part of the board. required to occupy a different posi­
7 .i. e7 tion under certain circumstances.
Let us examine some other con­ At the same time, it is imperative
tinuations in which Black does not to complete the development of
oppose his opponent's basic plans the kingside pieces as soon as
at the start : possible. 10 . . . c5 1 1 .l:!. d 1 ?! ( 1 1
(a) 7 . . . g6 S .i.g5! f6 9 .i.d2 .i.d3) 1 1 . . . 'it'c7 ! 1 2 d5 exd5 1 3
'it'd7 10 e4 tt:Jxc3 1 1 .i.xc3 'it'c6 1 2 exd5 c4! (now in order to deal with
tt:Jd2 and White dominates the the queenside blockade White
centre, Barbero-Contin, Argen­ must spend time attacking the
tina Ch. 1 9S5. enemy c4-pawn. During this time
(b) 7 . . . tt:Jd7 S tt:Jxd5 exd5 9 Black's pieces will become much
.i.g5 f6 (9 . . . 'it'cS 10 g3 .i.d6 1 1 more active) 14 'it'a4 l:t cS 1 5 .l:t d4
.i.h3 0-0 1 2 0-0 c5 1 3 'it'f5 and tt:Jd7 16 .i.xc4 .i.f6 1 7 d6 � eS +
Black is forced to enter into an 1 S 'itt fl 'it' d S 1 9 .!:t d 1 tt:Jc5 20 'it'c2
inferior endgame : 1 3 . . . tt:JbS 1 4 'it'd7! 21 h4 'it'g4 22 .i.a2 .i.e4
'it' xcS .i.xcS 1 5 .i.xcS � xeS 1 6 23 'it'd2 .i.d3+ and White soon
dxc5 bxc5 1 7 .t!. fd l d 4 1 S � acl resigned, Bareev-M. Gurevich,
tt:Jc6 1 9 .i.f4 .i.e7 20 e3, Ftacnik­ Lvov 1 9S7.
Gheorghiu, Prague 1 9S5) 10 .i.f4 10 c4!? is justified if Black plays
c5 1 1 g3 ! g6 (if 1 1 . . . .i.e7 White the routine 10 . . . c5?! 1 1 d5 exd5
will gain an advantage by the 12 exd5 .i.f6 13 l:t b 1 l:t eS + 1 4
manoeuvre 12 .i.h3 and .i.f5) 1 2 .i.e2 'it'e7 (14 . . . .i.cS 1 5 0-0
h4! 'it'e7 1 3 .i.g2 .i.g7 1 4 h 5 f5 .i.g4 1 6 h3 .i.h5 1 7 g4 .i.g6 l S
1 5 'it'd2 .i.f6 1 6 � c l .t!. cS 1 7 l:t c3 .i.d3 with the better game) 1 5
l:t c6 and here also White gained .i.e3 tt:Jd7 1 6 0-0 .i.d4 1 7 .i.xd4
the advantage by l S .i.g5 .t!. gS 1 9 'it' xe2 l S 'it'a4 'it'e7 19 .l:t be l 'it'd6
hxg6 hxg6 20 .l:!. e3 .t!. e6 2 1 .i. xf6 20 : xeS+ : xeS 21 .i.e5 ! with the
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tt:lxd5 Introduction and 7 1Wc2
advantage, Miles-Farago, Dieren
1 988. The correct battle plan was
introduced by Black in G. Geor­
gadze-Anastasian, Tbilisi 1989:
1 0 . . . tt:ld7 1 1 ..id3 e5! 1 2 tt:lxe5
tt:lxe5 13 dxe5 ..ic5 14 ..ib2 1We7
15 0-0 : ad8 16 lHe1 : d7 17 ..ifl
: fd8 and White's centre has been
crushed - Black's pieces are very
active.
10 c5
11 0-0
Here also 1 1 ..ib2 is not effec­
tive, for instance 1 1 . . . 1Wc8 ! 1 2
1We2 ..ia6 1 3 0-0 ..ixd3 1 4 1Wxd3
1W a6 15 'ilfxa6 tt:lxa6 16 tt:le5 l:Hc8
17 l:l. fd 1 ( 1 7 l:l. ac l l:l. c7 18 f4 l:l. ac8
19 q;>f2 tt:lb8 20 l:l. fd 1 ..id6 also
leads to equality, A. Petrosian­
Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1 987) 1 7 . . .
cxd4 1 8 cxd4 .1:1. c2 1 9 tt:ld3?! (better
was 19 .1:1. ab 1 followed by tt:lg4- e3
ousting the rook and preserving
equal chances) 1 9 . . . l:l. ac8 20
l:l acl q;>f8 2 1 q;>fl q;>e8 (Black's
pawn majority on the queenside is
an essential feature of the position)
22 l:l. xc2 l:l. xc2 23 l:l. c 1 : xc1 + 24
tt:l xc 1 ?! (the e5-square should have
been kept under control) 24 . . . f5
25 f3 fxe4 26 fxe4 e5! 27 tt:lb3 exd4
28 tt:lxd4 ..if6 29 q;>e2 tt:lc5 30
q;>e3 tt:le6 31 tt:lxe6 ..ixb2 32 a4
q;>e7 33 tt:lc7 ..ie5 34 tt:ld5+ q;>d6
35 h3 q;>c5 and Black turned his
advantage into victory, Malan­
iuk-Ehlvest, USSR Ch. 1 987.
11 1Wc8
If here 1 1 . . . cxd4 12 cxd4 tt:lc6
1 3 ..ib2 .l:!. c8 14 1We2 a tabiya
69
position from the 7 e3 system
arises. And after 1 2 . . . 1Wc8 1 3
1We2 ..ia6 the position has trans­
posed to the game under consider­
ation.
12 'ilfe2 cxd4
If 1 2 . . . ..ia6, the correct move
is 1 3 ..if4 (you will recall that
earlier we discussed the necessity
of delaying the development of the
dark-squared bishop) 1 3 . . . ..txd3
14 1W xd3 1Wa6 15 1We3 tt:ld7 1 6
.l:!. fd 1 'ilfa4 1 7 h4! cxd4 1 8 cxd4
tt:lf6 19 .l:l d3 with the better game,
Sakayev-Alterman, USSR 1 988.
13 cxd4 ..ia6
14 ..tb2 ..ixd3
15 1Wxd3 1Wa6
16 1Wd2
16 1We3 is also interesting. In
Podgayets-T. Georgadze, USSR
1 986, Black's inadequate response
soon lost him the game : 16 . . .
tt:ld7 1 7 l:l. ad 1 l:l. fe8 1 8 1Wf4 1Wb5?
1 9 .tl d2 tt:lf6 20 d5! exd5 21 tt:ld4
1Wa4 22 tt:lf5 tt:lxe4 23 tt:lxg7 ..ixa3
24 1Wg4 ..txb2 25 tt:lxe8+ q;>h8
26 tt:ld6!
16 tt:ld7
17 d5
It is possible to interpolate 1 7
n fe 1 here, followed by 1 8 d5. In
Tukmakov-M. Gurevich, Minsk
1 987, after 17 . . . l:l. ad8 1 8 d5 exd5
19 exd5 ..tf6 20 l:l. ad 1 ..txb2 2 1
1Wxb2 l:l. fe8 22 l:l xe8+ l:l. xe8 White
did not achieve any success but
his efforts could have been intensi­
fied by 20 ..ixf6 tt:lxf6 21 d6.
17 exd5
/I I I ( , , ., . o l , ,d · , d '• c , n d � t,; , x d 'l l n l ro d u c l i on and 7 'ilfc2

IH I' \ d ._ lli l't1 W h i te could not immediately

1 11 dt1 ..t xb2 lind an accurate plan to gain activ­
.W 'lit' xb2 ity. More vigorous was 32 'ilfc3 !
on a passed
l ksulcs c o u n l i ng 32 .:t d8
can organize press­
pa w n . W h i te 33 o;t>h2 .:t f8
ure on the kingside. Black's lot is 34 'ilfc3!
harder - the numerical superior­ The passed pawn on d6 is so
ity of his pawns on the queenside powerful that even after sacrificing
has a purely symbolic value here. a pawn White still preserves the
20 b5 (76) advantage. Now he has to activate
his king.
76 34 ll xf2
w 35 'ilfc7 .:t f7
36 'ilfxd7
The advantage could also have
been preserved by 36 'ilfxa5
36 .:t xd7
37 wg3
White's king is on his way to e5
and there is no way for Black to
prevent it from getting there : 37
21 ll ad1 ll fe8 . . . e5 38 o;t>g4 o;t>f7 39 o;t>f5 e4 40
22 ll d5 J:tab8 :t d 1 e3 41 ..te5 e2 42 ll e 1 l:t d8
23 ll fd1 'ilfc6 43 o;t>d5 J:t e8 44 d7 .:t e3 45 o;t>d4!
24 h4! a6 winning.
25 h5 37 o;t>f7
25 llg5 g6 26 h5 was probably 38 o;t>f4 ..t>e8
even more vigorous. 39 o;t>e5 n f7
25 h6 40 nc3!
26 l2Je5! 40 ..t>xe6? n f6 + 4 1 ..t>e5 o;t>d7
White favours exchanges - his and Black is saved.
remaining pieces are becoming 40 ..t>d8
more and more aggressive. If 40 . . . �d7 the winning line
26 l2Jxe5 is 41 n c7+ o;f;>e8 42 ..t>xe6.
27 ll xe5 'ilfd7 41 o;f;>xe6 b4
28 ll de1 ll e6! 42 axb4 axb4
29 ll xe6 fxe6 43 .:t g3! (77)
30 'ilfe5 :t e8 43 :t b7?
31 lldl a5 Now Black unexpectedly finds
32 ll d3 himself in Zugzwang. His best
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 l2lxd5 Introduction and 7 't!fc2 71

how to make use of a central

77
B passed pawn.

Problems

78
w

hope was 43 . . . lH6+ 44 we5

.!:t. f2 with activity for the rook,
threatening White's king with
checks from the rear.
White to move
44 .!:t. g4! c;t>e8
If 44 . . b3 the winning reply is
.
79
a pendulum-like movement with B
mating threats : 45 n a4 n b8 46
.!:t. f4.
45 .!:t. c4 .!:t. b8
There was no save by 45
c;t>d8 owing to 46 g4 b3 47 .!:t. a4
.!:t. b8 48 .!:t. f4 c;t>e8 49 d7+.
46 .!:t. c7 b3
46 . . . wf8 47 n f7+ wg8 48
d7 b3 49 .!:t. f l winning. Black to move
47 .!:t. xg7 c;t>f8
48 .!:t. f7 + c;t>g8 80
49 d7 b2 w
50 .!lfl c;t>g7
51 .!:t.bl
Avoiding the last trap : 5 1 c;t>e7?
b l ('t!f) 52 .!:t. xb l .!:t. xb l 53 d8('t!f)
.!:t e l +.
51 .!:t. b6+
52 we7 .!:t. b7
53 c;t>e8 1-0
This is an instructive game on White to move
1 .' < ' l ; 1 � sH·0 1 I .� . . . d S (, c x d S ti \ x d 5 Introduction and 7 'ifc2

Kasparov-Morey
81
B Moscow /nterzona/ 1982

1 d4 lilf6
2 c4 e6
3 lilf3 b6
4 a3 .tb7
5 lilc3 d5
6 cxd5 lilxd5
7 'ifc2 c5
8 e4 lilxc3
Black to move 9 bxc3 (84)

Tabiya Pos i t i o ns 84
B

82
w

9 lilc6
In attacking the central pawn
Black seeks to create counterplay
(8 ... .txd5)
as soon as possible. This plan has
an essential defect - the knight
83 has blocked the bishop's working
w diagonal and invites the advance
d4-d5.
If 9 . . . .te7, White is not
obliged to play 10 .td3 0-0 1 1
0-0 as in Gelfand-Lerner, there is
a more powerful manoeuvre at his
disposal : 10 .tb5+ .tc6 1 1 .td3,
breaking up the co-ordination of
Black's pieces. In this context
(10 . . . c5) Kasparov-Gheorghiu, Moscow
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 l2Jxd5 Introduction and 7 'ifc2
Interzonal 1 982, is instructive: 1 1
. . . l2Jd7 1 2 0-0 h6 (Black tries to
avoid the well-known variation
but to no avail: 12 . . . 0--0 1 3 d5
exd5 14 exd5 i.xd5 1 5 ..txh7+
�h8 1 6 i.e4 and White has the
better game. Sooner or later White
will play d4-d5 but in a more
favourable context) 1 3 J:!. d 1 ( 1 3
'ife2 0-0 1 4 e 5 with the initiative
is also possibl�) 1 3 . . . 'ifc7 (it is
difficult for Black to complete his
development : 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 d5
exd5 15 exd5 ..ib7 16 c4 with the
advantage; but if 1 3 . . . cxd4, 14
l2J xd4 'if c7 1 5 lLlxc6 'if xc6 1 6 'ife2
with the threat of ..ib5 is strong)
14 d5! exd5 15 exd5 ..ixd5 1 6
..i b 5 a 6 (or 1 6 . . . ..ic6 1 7 ..if4
'ifb7 1 8 ..txc6 'ifxc6 1 9 J:!. e 1 with
an attack) 1 7 ..if4 ! 'if xf4 1 8
..ixd7+ wxd7 1 9 J:!. xd5+ ..t>c7?
(depriving his queen of space for
retreat, better was 19 . . . >tt c8) 20
J:!. e 1 i.d6 (20 . . . ..if6 21 J:!. e4) 2 1
J:!. f5 'ifc4 2 2 J:!. e4! 'ifb5 23 J:!. xf7+
>tt b8 24 J:!. e6 J:!. d8 25 c4 'ifc6 26
l2Je5 'ifc8 27 'if b 1 1-0.
10 ..tb2 J:!. c8
Serious problems await Black
in every corner - it is difficult to
meet the J:!. d 1 and d4-d5 scheme
which hangs over the position like
the sword of Damocles.
(a) 10 . . . g6 1 1 J:!. d 1 i.g7 1 2
d5 exd5 1 3 exd5 'ife7+ 1 4 ..ie2
l2Je5 15 'if a4+ l2Jd7 16 0-0 0-0 1 7
J:!. fe 1 'ifd6 1 8 ..tb5 ! l2Je5 1 9 lLlxe5
..txe5 20 g3 J:!. fd8 21 i.c6 J:!. ab8
22 .tel ! f6 23 'ifc4 (a defensive
73
move - more vigorous was 23
i.h6! ..ixc3 24 ..txb7 ..t xe 1 25
..tc6 ..ta5 26 ..tf4 preserving the
advantage) 23 . . . 'ifc7 24 f4 i.d6
25 ..txb7 J:!. xb7 26 J:!. e6 f5 27 a4
<t>g7? (the last chance for counter­
play was 27 . . . 'ifd7 with the idea
of b6-b5) 28 'ife2 c4 29 ..te3 i.c5
30 'itt g2 ..t;>h6 3 1 g4! fxg4 32 f5 +
..t xe3 33 'ifxe3 + <iit h 5 34 fxg6
1-0, T. Petrosian-Sosonko, Til­
burg 1982.
(b) 10 . . . ..te7 1 1 J:!. d 1 (it is
possible here to transpose into the
7 e3 system by 1 1 i.d3 0-0 1 2
0-0 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 J:!. c8 1 4 'ife2) 1 1
. . . 0-0 1 2 d5 exd5 ( 1 2 . . . l2Ja5 1 3
c4 exd5 1 4 cxd5 'ifd6 1 5 ..te2 'if g6
1 6 0-0 .!:t ad8 1 7 l2Je5 'ifh6 1 8 ..tc3
..td6 19 lLlg4 with an obvious
advantage, Aseev-A. Sokolov,
USSR 1 984) 13 exd5 l2Ja5 14 ..td3
..tf6 1 5 0-0 (overindulgen�e by 1 5
..txh7+? is fraught with danger:
1 5 . . . ..tt h 8 16 ..te4 ..ta6 17 i.d3
J:!.e8+ 1 8 'itt fl l2Jc4, Portisch­
Sosonko, Tilburg 1 9 82) 1 5 . . . h6
16 c4 ..txb2 17 'if xb2 ..ta6 1 8
l2Je5 'iff6 1 9 f4 J:!. ad8 20 'ifc2
and White has preserved all the
advantages of his posttlon,
Franco-Helmers, Lucerne Olym­
piad 1 982.
(c) Black's best reply is perhaps
10 . . . cxd4 1 1 cxd4 .!:t c8. In Miles­
Lautier, Lugano 1 989, White
delayed his development for the
sake ofd4-d5, and Black exploited
the situation profitably : 1 2 J:!. d 1
i.d6 1 3 'ifb 1?! 'ife7 1 4 'ifa2 l2Ja5
 1·1 1 'b s s ll·a l 'I ... d'i 6 cxd 5 4) xd5 I ntroduction and 7 'ifc2

J ', Ill h'l 1 i. d1 I (l ..txc6+ .lhc6 lll xd6 18 0-0 lll e4 1 9 'iff4.
I I d 'l l' X d 'i .ll c5 1 9 e5
I H li)d4 16 �xg7 'it'e7+
'llh l' 'i 1 . The correct line is 1 3 'it'd2 17 �e2 .ll g8
0 0 14 ..td3 holding on to the 18 wh6! r5
i n i t i a t i ve from the opening. 1 8 . . . .ll c2 1 9 lll d4 with a quick
11 .ctd1 cxd4 win.
12 cxd4 a6 19 �f6 'it'f8
Hurried attacks against the 20 Wxh7 Wf7
queen only bring additional prob­ If 20 . . . .ct xg2 there is a nice
lems to Black : 12 . . . lll a 5 1 3 refutation : 2 1 lll e 5! 'ifxf6 22
�b5+ �c6 1 4 �xc6+ .ct xc6 1 5 �h5+ and mate is inevitable.
'tt' e2 lll c4 1 6 d 5 ! lll xb2 1 7 'ifxb2 21 Wxf5 .ct g6
exd5 18 exd5. Better was 12 . . . 22 'ife4+ 'iti>f8
�d6 with the continuation as in 23 lll g5! .ll xg5
the preceding note. 24 ..txg5 J:. e8
13 'ii d2 25 ..th6+ 'iti>g8
If 1 3 d5 the correct reply is 1 3 26 Wg4+ 1-0
. . . lll e5 1 4 'if b3 lll xf3 + 1 5 gxf3 It is interesting that White
exd5 with a double-edged game. attacked before he had completed
13 lll a5 (85) his development.

85 Cebalo-Miralles
w
Marseilles 1986

1 d4 lll f6
2 c4 e6
3 lll f3 b6
4 a3 ..tb7
5 lll c3 d5
6 cxd5 lll xd5
7 'ifc2 c5
8 e4 lll xc3
14 d5! exd5 9 bxc3 lll d7
15 exd5 �d6? Black keeps White's mobility
This is tantamount to an uncon­ in the centre under control and,
ditional surrender. After 1 5 . . . depending on his opponent's
We7 + 1 6 ..te2 lll c4 White pre­ choice of scheme, he can either
serves the advantage only with the complete his development or cre­
help of the tactical assault: 17 d6! ate counterplay on the c-file.
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 ll:lxd5 Introduction and 7 'llt' c2
10 �f4
A formation of the bishops on
d3 and b2 is not very helpful for
White : 10 �d3 "fkc7 1 1 �b2 (a
good reply to 1 1 'llt' b l is 1 1 . . . g6
followed by 12 . . . �g7 with an
harmonious arrangement of the
pieces) 1 1 . . . cxd4 12 cxd4 "fkxc2
1 3 ..txc2 �a6 14 ..t.>d2 J.. e7
1 5 l:!. hc 1 0-0 16 �d3 �xd3 1 7
..t.>xd3 f5 ! with equality, A . Petro­
sian-Oll, USSR 1 985.
10 cxd4
10 . . . .ie7 allows White to
complete his development at his
own convenience : 1 1 �d3 l:!. c8
1 2 "fke2 0-0 1 3 0-0 cxd4? (the
correct reply is 1 3 . . . ll:lf6 with no
danger from an attack, for instance
14 e5 ll:ld5 1 5 'llt' e4 g6 16 .i.h6
l:!. e8) 14 cxd4 l:!. c3?! (better is 1 4
. . . ll:lf6 1 5 J.. d 2 l:!. c7 1 6 a 4 'llt' a 8
1 7 l:!. fe l or here 16 l:!. fe l J..c6 1 7
a4 a 5 1 8 "fkd1, Dzhandzhgava­
Oll, Vilnius 1 988) 1 5 l:!. fc l ! l:!. xc l +
1 6 l:!. xc l ll:lf6 1 7 l:!. c7 ll:lh5 l S
�e5 ! f6 1 9 l:!. xb7 fxe5 20 g 3 ! with
a dominating position, Gulko­
Timman, Amsterdam 1 987.
Another alternative for Black is
10 . . . l:!. c8 !?. In Levitt-Anand,
London 1 987, after 1 1 d5 exd5 1 2
exd5 'it'f6 1 3 .tg5 'llt' d6 1 4 J.. b 5
�e7 1 5 0-0 0-0 16 �xe7 'fk xe7
17 l:!. fe 1 'fkd6 1 8 �xd7 'fkxd7 1 9
ll:lg5 a draw was agreed. I t would
be interesting for White to investi­
gate 1 1 "fkb3!?
11 cxd4 l:!. c8
12 'fkb3 J.. e7
75
Capturing the pawn is danger­
ous : 12 . . . .txe4 1 3 ..ta6 l:!. c2 1 4
0-0, followed by l:!. ac l . 1 3 J.. b 5
is also agood enough.
If 12 . . . 'fkf6 White must reply
very accurately. In van der
Sterren-van der Wiel, Wijk aan
Zee 1 986, White made a wrong
choice of plan and lost the game:
1 3 .tg3 "i¥g6 14 .td3 �e7 1 5
0-0 0-0 1 6 l:!. fe 1 l:!. fd8 1 7 l:!. ad 1
'llt' h 5 1 8 .tc4 J.. f8 1 9 d5? ( 1 9
1Lh4) 1 9 . . . ll:lc5 20 'ifa2 b5! 2 1
.i.xb5 ll:lxe4! 2 2 l:!. xe4 l:!. xd5! 23
1:1. xd5 J.. x d5 24 1:1. c4 �xc4 25
.i.xc4 'ifd5! 26 ll:ld2 l:!. xc4 27
'if xc4 'llt' x d2 28 h3 .txa3 29 'it'c8 +
J..f 8 30 'llt' a8 a5 3 1 f3 'ifb4.
The right move is 1 3 'ife3! By
energetic exertion in the centre
and on the queenside White
achieves an advantage : 1 3 . . . "it'g6
14 ..td3 ..te7 1 5 0-0 0-0 16 e5
"it'h5 17 �e4 �xe4 18 'ifxe4 l:!. c7
19 l:!. fc l l:!. fc8 20 l:!. xc7 l:!. xc7 2 1
'llt' a 8+ ll:lf8 22 d5! exd5 23 e 6 ! l:!. c3
24 "it'xa7, Gelfand-Mikhalchishin,
Minsk 1 986.
13 �d3 0-0
It is far from pleasurable to play
the position after 1 3 . . . ll:lf6 1 4
.tb5+, but this line i s the most
fundamental for Black : 14 . . . ..to>f8
1 5 0-0 ( 1 5 d5 !?) 15 . . . ll:lxe4 1 6
ll: ac l g 5 1 7 n xc8 J.. xc8 1 8 .tel
rt;g7 19 �c6 ll:ld6 and White has
gained an initiative for the pawn,
though Black's position is tenable,
Khalifman-Anand, Moscow,
1 987. If 14 'ifb5 + 'ifd7 ( 1 4 . . . �c6
7(, < 'lassical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tt:Jxd5 Introduction and 7 'ifc2
1 5 'llt' b l ! ) 1 5 tt:Je5 'ilfxb5 1 6 ..txb5 +
'�f!l 1 7 f3 tt:Je8 1 8 tt:Jd7+ 'it>g8 1 9
0 0 g 5 20 ..t g 3 <j;g7 2 1 a 4 .!:t d8?
(Black can fight for equality by 2 1
. . . tt:Jd6) 2 2 .!:t fcl a 6 2 3 ..te5 + f6
24 tt:Jxf6 with an edge, Lputian­
H. Olafsson, Erevan 1 988.
14 0-0 (86)
86
B 16
14 tt:Jb8
This reorganization is not
undertaken because things are
going well. 14 . . . tt:Jf6 is not effec­
tive as was convincingly shown
by White in Khalifman-Blatny,
Groningen 1 985/86: 15 .!:t fe l tt:Jh5
16 ..td2 g5 17 :t ad 1 tt:Jg7 18 ..tbl
f5 1 9 d5! exd5 20 exf5 ..tf6 2 1
'i!fd3 h 6 22 tt:Je5 d4 2 3 ..tb4 'i!fd5
24 'iffl ! ..txe5 25 ..te4 'ilfxe4 26
%1 xe4 ..txe4 27 ..txf8 %1 xf8 28
.!:t e l and White soon won.
15 .!:t ad1 h6
If 1 5 . . . ..td6 it is difficult for
Black to meet White's attack on
the kingside : 16 ..td2 :t c7 1 7 .!:t fe l
..ta6 1 8 ..tbl ! .!:t e8 1 9 h4! tt:Jd7
20 tt:Jg5 tt:Jf8 21 e5 ..te7 22 'ilff3
..txg5 23 ..txg5 'ilf a8 24 'ifg4 �h8
25 :t e3 tt:Jd7 26 'ilf f4 'ifc8 27 .!:t g3
.!:t g8 28 h5 ..te2?? (an oversight in
a strategically hopeless position)
29 'ilfe4 and Black resigned,
Portisch-Korchnoi, Montpellier
1 985.
Black probably has to decide
on 1 5 . . . tt:Jc6 16 d5 tt:Ja5, although
it is not easy to neutralize White's
ini tiative.
:t fe1 tt:Jc6
17 d5! tt:Ja5
18 'ilfa4 exd5
In the circumstances one should
normally disapprove of this move
as Black is opening up his position
in the centre while White's pieces
are very active. But, in fact, Black
has no choice : 1 8 . . . .!:t c3 1 9 d6
..tf6 20 e5 ..txf3 21 gxf3 ..tg5 22
..tg3, paralysing the whole centre.
19 exd5 ..txd5 (87)
87
B
20 ..txh6!
This undermining sacrifice
looks like it has come straight
out of a textbook. It is especially
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lZJxd5 Introduction and 7 "tWc2 77

impressive in view of the fact that 36 ..txh6 'ii' h8?

with the centre open there is a Black has defended himself skil­
strong possibility of unpleasant fully, but in time trouble makes a
counter-attacks. gross blunder. The correct move
20 .H6 was 36 . . . 'ii' d4 with the idea of 37
Very interesting complications 'ii' g 8 'ii' d 8, when he can hold the
arise after 20 . . . lZJc4 2 1 lZJe5 ! lZJb2 position. Now it falls apart.
(the road to victory lies on the 37 'iW e4 'iW c8
light squares) 22 "tWg4! ..tf6 23 38 'l!fb4+
..tb 1 ! lZJxd l 24 "tWf5 g6 25 lZJxg6. Driving out the king from his
21 "tWg4 .!:t e8 shelter. There is nothing left for
22 .!:t xeS+ "tW xe8 Black but to drag out his resist­
23 'iWf5 ..te6 ance for some time by sacrificing
24 't!Vh7+ ..ti>£8 material.
The first wave of the attack has 38 .!:tc5
been repulsed by Black but White 39 ..txe6 fxe6
has still preserved the advantage. 40 ..te3 aS
The second wave begins with 25 41 ..txc5+ 'ii' xc5
..tg5! threatening 'ii' h 8+ followed 42 "tWe4 "tWd6
by "tWxg7. Having missed this 43 'ii' h 7+ l-0
possibility, White gives his
opponent a real chance to save the
game. Kasparov-van der Wiel
25 ..td2 lZJb3 Amsterdam 1988
26 ..tf4 .!:t d8
27 .!:t el lZJc5 l d4 lZJf6
28 ..tc2 .!:t d5! 2 c4 e6
Black has patched almost all 3 lZJf3 b6
the "holes" and has co-ordinated 4 a3 ..tb7
his pieces. 5 lZJc3 d5
29 h4 ..t;>e7 6 cxd5 lZJxd5
30 lZJg5 'ii' d8 7 't!Vc2 c5
31 lZJxe6 lZJxe6 8 dxc5
32 h5 .!:t d4 White unties his hands to gain
33 ..te3 activity for his pieces on both
The d4- and d2-squares must be wings. The alternative is to play
kept under control. against the hanging pawns after 8
33 .!:t c4 ..tg5 ..te7 9 ..txe7 "tWxe7 10 lZJxd5
34 h6 gxh6 exd5 1 1 .!:t e l 0-0 12 dxc5 .!:t c8
35 ..tb3 .!:t c6 1 3 'ii' d 2 bxc5, but this does not
m c ' l i l '•'•h 1 1 1 ., d 'l h o d )
I ' I " I I I Pw W i n k u nyt h i n�o� special
• h ll' Itt h 1 .� u Jcomplctc dc vcl op
d4! 1 6
1 1 11 ' 1 1 1 . 1 ·1 d fi \ ( 1 7 1 5 ..lk.c2
• · x d•l Jlud l 1 7 gxf3 cxd4 1 8 0-0
ti 1 hh l l) t d 3 g6 20 .!:!. ee l 1Wf6 2 1
.ll c4 'll h f3 2 2 .l:!. xd4 .!:t d8 2 3 .t b l
a n d a draw was agreed, Quin­
tcros-Ribli, Dortmund 1 986.
8 .txc5
9 .tg5
White must act with vigour: 9
.i.d2 0-0 10 e3 lLlf6 1 1 .te2 ll:lbd7
12 0-0 a6 1 3 .!:t fd 1 h6 14 .tel
1Wb8 15 b4 .te7 16 h3 .l:!. c8 1 7
1Wb3 ll:le5 1 8 ll:ld4 ll:ld5 1 9 .!:t ac l
ll:lxc3 2 0 .t!. xc3 .t d 5 with the
better game for Black, Khar­
itonov-Ehlvest, USSR 1 985.
9 1Wc8
Weakening the pawn chain by
9 . . . f6 is disadvantageous since
White can reply .td2 followed
by e4, and the weakness of the
a2-g8 diagonal could help White
to develop activity in the centre.
By exchanging dark-squared
bishops Black can ease the tension
only for a short while : 9 . . . .te7
10 .txe7 1W xe7 1 1 ll:lxd5 exd5 1 2
e 3 0-0 1 3 .td3 (M. Gurevich­
Ionescu, Moscow 1 987, is interest­
ing : 1 3 .tb5 d4 14 ll:lxd4 .txg2
1 5 J:!. g 1 .te4 16 lLlf5 ! .txf4 1 7
1W xf5 a6 1 8 .td3 g6 1 9 1Wd5! 1Wd7
20 .txg6! 1W xd5 21 .te4+ ,.Ph8
22 .txd5 J:!. a7 23 o;Pe2 and White
won the endgame. 1 3 . . . .!:tc8 is
more vigorous if Black is prepared
for a long-term defence) 1 3 . . .
h6 (1 3 . . . g6 stimulates White's
li\xd5 I ntroduction and 7 1Wc2
attack : 14 0-0 .!:t c8 1 5 1W a4 ll:ld7
- 16 .!:t fd l ll:lc5 1 7 1Wf4 'it>g7 1 8 1Wg3
ll:lb3 1 9 tt ab 1 1Wf6 20 h4 Farago­
Sibarevic, Banja Luka 1 985, and
if 1 3 . . . tt c8 White has a strong
reply: 1 4 1We2 ll:ld7 1 5 0-0 ll:lc5 1 6
lLld4 lLlxd3 1 7 1Wxd3 .!:t c5 1 8 .!:t fd l
g 6 1 9 : d2 : ac8 20 1Wfl 1We4 21
.!:t ad l and Black is faced with
the problems of a hard defence,
Ehlvest-Korchnoi, Zagreb 1 987)
14 0-0 ll:lc6 15 J:!. ac l : ac8 1 6
1W·a4! 1Wf6 1 7 .!:t c2 ll:la5 1 8 .!:t fc l
ll:lc4 1 9 1W d 7 ! ll:ld6 2 0 ll:ld4 n xc2
2 1 l:txc2 a5 22 1Wc7 1Wd8 23 h3
.ta8 24 .ta6 lLle4 25 1W xd8 J:1 xd8
26 'D. c7 ll:lc5 27 .tb5 o;Pf8 28 g3!
lLle6 29 ll:lxe6+ fxe6 30 f4! (White
has only to transfer his king to the
centre and Black's position has set
into a state of paralysis) 30 . . . d4
3 1 exd4 .te4 32 o;Pf2 .!:t d 5 3 3
.tc4 n d 6 34 'it>e3 .tc6 35 h4
and Black soon resigned, Kallai­
Biro, Budapest 1 985.
10 .!:tel h6
11 .th4
Other continuations are weaker:
(a) 1 1 .td2 ll:lf6 12 e3 0-0 1 3
.te2 ll:lbd7 1 4 0-0 1Wb8! 1 5 b4
.te7 1 6 ll:ld4 .!:t c8 1 7 1Wb3 a 5 ! and
Black has equalized, Chekhov­
Timoshenko, Berlin 1 986;
(b) 1 1 lLlxd5 hxg5 12 b4 g4 1 3
ll:le5 J:!. h 5 ! 1 4 1Wb2 (14 1Wa4+? lLlc6
1 5 bxc5 : xeS 1 6 ll:le3 l hc5 1 7
n xc5 bxc5 1 8 g 3 'it>f8 1 9 h 3 ll:ld4
with advantage to Black, Peturs­
son-Hansen, Borgarnes 1 985) 1 4
. . . .!: xeS 1 5 1Wxe5 .txb4+ 1 6
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lt:lxd5 Introduction and 7 'ilfc2 79

..to>dl lt:lc6 (also possible is 16 . . . 13 e4!

W' d7) 1 7 J:l. xc6 'ilt'd7! (after 1 7 . . . In Sokolov-Timman, Belgrade
W'xc6 1 8 lt:lxb4 0-0-0+ 1 9 lt:ld3 1 987, White shilly-shallied to some
f6 20 W'b2 e5 2 1 -.Pel e4 22 lt:\b4 extent : 1 3 e3 0-0 14 j_b5 j_a6
and White gained a slight advan­ 1 5 j_xa6 'ilfxa6 1 6 'ilfe2 'ilf xe2+
tage in Dreev-Gelfand, USSR 17 ..to>xe2 ::t fc8 ! 18 J:. hd 1 j_f8 1 9
1 9 86) 18 J:l. c7 'ilfa4+ 19 J:. c2 .l:t d8 lt:ld4 lt:\c5 20 lt:lxc5 bxc5 2 1 lt:lb5
20 e4 j_e7 2 1 j_c4 - a very a4! 22 j_g3 J:l. a5 23 lt:ld6 j_xd6
complex position, filled with many 24 j_xd6 J:l. b5 25 J:. d2 J:. c6 26
possibilities for tactical manoeuv­ j_g3 f5 ! 27 e4 fxe4 28 J:l. c4 J:. b3
ring, and ideal for players who 29 J:. xe4 c4 30 j_e5 c3 3 1 bxc3
love excitement! J:. xa3 32 J:. c2 lt:l xc3 + 33 J:. xc3
11 a5 .l:t axc3 24 j_xc3 J:l. xc3 35 .l:!. xa4
This is a necessary preventive and a draw was agreed.
measure : 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 lt:lxd5 exd5 13 lt:lc7
1 3 e3 lt:ld7 ( 1 3 . . . lt:lc6 is weaker 1 3 . . . lt:lf4 14 j_g3 lt:lh5 1 5 j_b5
in view of 14 j_d3 a5 1 5 0-0 d4 or 13 . . . lt:\5f6 14 j_xf6 lt:lxf6 1 5
16 e4 J:. e8 1 7 j_g3 lt:ld8 1 8 J:. fel j_b5+ with advantage t o White
a4 1 9 W'd1 lt:le6 20 lt:le5 j_a6 2 1 in both cases.
f4 W'b7 2 2 f5 with a n obvious 14 lt:lxc5 bxc5
advantage, Ftacnik-Hjartarson, A forced weakening of the pawn
Esbjerg 1 985) 14 j_e2 j_d6 1 5 formation : 1 4 . . . lt:lxc5? 1 5 b4
W' d l W'e8 1 6 0-0 lt:lc5 1 7 lt:ld4 'ilfe4 axb4 1 6 axb4 j_xe4 1 7 W' b2 j_xf3
1 8 j_g3 j_xg3 19 hxg3 W'e5 20 1 8 bxc5 winning.
W'c2 J:. fc8 2 1 j_g4 lt:\e6 22 W'f5 15 j_e2 j_a6
with a slight but persistent advan­ 16 0-0 0-0
tage, Yusupov-Chernin, Tunis 17 J:. fd1 f6!
Interzonal 1 985. The dark-squared bishop has to
12 lt:la4! lt:ld7 (88) be maintained.
18 j_c4! j_ xc4
19 'ilfxc4 J:. f7
88
w 20 j_g3 e5
The weakness of the light
squares on the kingside makes it
possible for White to gain con­
siderable activity.
21 lt:lh4! 'ilfe8
21 . . . W'a6 22 'ilf xf7+ winning
all Black's pieces on the seventh
rank.
XO ( ' l a ssical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lt:\xd5 Introduction and 7 'ii' c2

22 lt:\f5 'iWe6 Returning the compliment.

23 'iWe2! More vigorous was 38 . . . 'ifxe4
Taking aim at the kingside. but in any case White must eventu­
23 .!:t b8 ally realize his advantage after 39
24 .!:t d6 'i!Ve8 ..th6 + ! ..t>h7 40 ..tf8 + �g8 41
25 .!:t cd1 lt:\f8 (89) ..txc5.
39 'ifc8+ r:bg7
40 "ifc7+ lt:\d7
89 41 'iWf4 "ifc4
w 42 h3 "ife6
43 .!:td1 .!:t c6
44 ..td8! tt:lb6
The last chance was 44 . . . c4
but even this move was not enough
to save Black after 45 ..txa5 c3
46 ..txc3 ! .!:t xc3 47 .!:t xd7!
45 nn 1-o

Lputian-Lalic
26 f4!
Saint John 1988
Breaking Black's pawn chain
and activating the bishop.
1 d4 lt:\f6
26 lt:\ b5
2 c4 e6
27 fxe5 tt:lxd6
3 tt:lf3 b6
28 lt:\xd6 'ii' a4
4 a3 ..tb7
29 lt:\xf7 .!:t xb2
5 lt:\c3 d5
30 lt:\xh6 +! c;t;>h7
6 cxd5 lt:\xd5
31 'iWh5
7 'iWc2 lt:\xc3
31 'iWf3 also wins easily.
8 "ifxc3 (90)
31 g6
32 'iW f3 c;t;>xh6
90
33 .!:t fl 'iWd4+ B
34 c;t;>h1 tt:lh7
35 exf6 tt:lxf6
36 ..tf4+ �g7
37 ..tg5 .!:t b6
38 'iWh3?!
An inaccuracy in mutual time
trouble. 38 'iWf4! was winning.
38 c;t;>g8?!
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lll x d5 Introduction and 7 "i!Vc2
After 8 bxc3 the game could
transpose to positions from the
variations with 7 . . . .i.. e7 or 7 . . .
c5. 8 . . . f5 has an independent
importance but this move con­
spicuously weakens the e6-pawn
and makes it easier for White to
attack the king : 9 e3 lll d7 10 ..ic4
"i!Vf6 1 1 "i!V b3 e5 1 2 e4 .i.. d6 1 3 ..ig5
"i!Vg6 1 4 h4, Naumkin-Veselovsky,
Moscow 1 984.
White, in turn, could avoid this
scheme by e2-e4: 8 . . . ..ie7 9 e3
"i!Vc8 (9 . . . 0-0 !? 10 ..id3 wh8 1 1
"i!Ve2 c5 1 2 0-0 lll c6 1 3 .i.. b2 "i!Vc7
14 e4 J:[ ad8 15 J:[ ad l lll a5 16 J:[ fe1
..if6 1 7 h4 e5 1 8 h5 lll c6 1 9 d5
lll a 5 with a complicated struggle,
Vyzmanavin-Kishnev, Budapest
1 986) 10 ..i b2 c5 1 1 ..ib5 + ..ic6
(in Kasparov-Ehlvest, Belfort
1 988, White gained a slight advan­
tage after 1 1 . . . lll c6 12 0-0 0-0
1 3 .i.. d 3 wh8 14 "i!Ve2 �c7 1 5
J:[ ad1 J:[ ad8 16 e4 lll a 5 1 7 J:[ fe1
..if6 1 8 c5 .i.. e7 1 9 lll d2) J 2 ..id3
c4 13 ..ie2 lll d 7 14 a4 a6 1 5 0-0
0-0 16 e4 b5 17 .i.. a 3 .i.. x a3 1 8
J:[ xa3 'liN b7 1 9 lll d2 lllb 6 2 0 a5?!
(correct was 20 axb5 axb5 21 J:[ fa1
J:[ xa3 22 J:[ xa3 J:[ a8 eliminating
the defects in the pawn structure
and switching the play to the cen­
tre) 20 . . . lll d7 21 f3?! e5! 22 d5
� a7 + 23 wh 1 ..ib7 24 J:[ aa 1 f5 !
25 J:[ ad 1 f4 ! 26 g4! J:[ f6 27 �b2
J:[ e8 28 J:[ g 1 .i..c 8 29 J:[ g2 lll f8 30
h4 J:[ h6 31 J:[ h2 �e7 32 h5 g6! 33
�b4 wg7 34 J:[ g 1 lll d7 (can you
see the difference in strength and
81
manoeuvrability of the opponent's
minor pieces?) 35 "i!V xe7+ J:[ xe7 36
hxg6 J:[ xh2+ 37 wxh2 wxg6 38
wh3?! (the defences can only be
held if the king is removed to f2)
38 . . . lll c5 39 wh4 J:[ c7 40 J:[ b 1
lll b7 4 1 J:[ a 1 lll d6 42 lll b 1 J:[ g7 43
lll a 3 wf6 44 J:[ g 1 lll f7 45 wh3
h5 0- 1 , Timman-Karpov, Tilburg
1 988.
8 h6!
Thanks to this move the popu­
larity of the 8 "i!Vxc3 variation has
noticeably declined. The point is
that White's strategic plan
includes the exchange of the dark­
squared bishops so that he will be
able to play actively on the dark
squares. Let us be certain of this
concept.
After 8 . . . lll d 7 9 ..ig5 :
(a) 9 . . . ..ie7 10 i.xe7 wxe7
1 1 g3 (1 1 e3 is also interesting. In
Portisch-Ljubojevic, Rotterdam
1 989, after 1 1 . . . lll f6 1 2 ..ie2 'iWd6
13 J:[ c 1 J:[ hc8 14 0-0 c5 1 5 dxc5
J:[ xc5 16 �b4 a5 17 �a4 i.c6 1 8
'i/Nd4 i.xf3 1 9 'i/Nxd6+ wxd6 20
i.xf3 J:[ ac8 Black has succeeded
in equalizing but one feels that
White's game is the more vigor­
ous) 1 1 . . . lll f6 12 ..ig2 �d6 1 3
0-0 J:[ hc8 14 b4 c 5 1 5 dxc5 bxc5 1 6
b 5 with the better game, Lputian­
Makarychev, St. John 1 988.
(b) If 9 . . . lll f6 White must play
10 e3 (10 e4 is too aggressive as was
shown by Benjamin-Razuvayev,
Dortmund 1 985 : 10 . . . c6! 1 1
..ixf6 gxf6 12 d5 exd5 1 3 0-0-0
 H .' ( ' l w. '>ll'l l l "' . . . d .'l (, cxd."i l,;ixtl 5 I ntroduction and 7 'ilfc2

'llt dC1 14 cxd.'i 0 0 0 1 5 ..ib5 c5 (b2) In M. Gurevich-Adorjan,

I t• <J.> h l .l:t gH 17 g3 ..txd5 1 8 Akureyri 1 988, White tried yet
<J.> a I ? ( 1 8 ..ic4) 1 8 . . . ..ig7 1 9 another idea viz. 9 ..tf4 ..td6 10
'llt c2 f5 ! 20 'ilfxf5+ 'ilfe6 2 1 'ilff4 lt:le5 but it was not crowned with
..ib7! 22 ..id3 ..th6 23 'ilff5 'ilf xf5 success : 10 . . . li:Jd7 1 1 f3 .!:!. c8 1 2
24 ..txf5+ �c7 25 .:. xd8 .l:t xd8 e 4 0-0 1 3 l:l d 1 lt:lf6 1 4 ..ie3 c 6 1 5
26 ..ig4 f5 27 ..ih5 .!:t d3 and g 3 'ilfe7 1 6 lt:ld3 lt:ld7 1 7 lt:le5 lt:lf6
White resigned a few moves later) 1 8 'ilib3 lt:ld7 1 9 lt:lxd7 'ili xd7 20
10 . . . .l:t c8 1 1 'ilfc2 'i!fd5 12 'ilf a4 + ! ..ic4 'ilfc7 2 1 wf2 c5 22 d5 exd5
..tc6 1 3 'ilf a 8 ..tb7 1 4 ..ib5+ lt:ld7 23 ..ixd5 J:!. fd8 24 ..txb7 'i!t' xb7
15 'ilfa4 c6 16 ..ic4 'ilfa5 + 17 'ilf xa5 25 l:l d5 'ilfe7 26 l:l hd 1 ..te5 27 f4
bxa5 18 �e2 with the advantage ..id4! and White's insignificant
in the endgame. Perhaps 16 ..id3 initiative in the centre was success­
a6 17 e4 is even stronger. fully neutralized.
(c) 9 . . . 'ilfc8 striving for 9 ..te7
counterplay after 10 . . . ..id6 and 10 .H4 c6
1 1 . . . c5 looks more logical for Much more interesting is 1 0 . . .
Black. 0-0! 1 1 l:lcl c5 ! , and Black intends
But 8 . . . h6 is the most unpleas­ to seize the initiative. In Browne­
ant move for White to have to M. Gurevich, New York 1 989,
meet. after 1 2 dxc5 bxc5 1 3 bxc5 'ilid5
9 b4 14 e4! 'i!t'xe4+ 15 ..te3 J:!. c8 16
Alternatives include : ..id3 'ilfc6!? 17 'i!fb3 (complica­
(a) 9 e3 ..te7 10 ..tb5+ c6 1 1 tions like 17 lt:le5 'ilf xg2 1 8 we2
..ta4 0-0 1 2 0-0 lt:ld7 1 3 e4 (if 1 3 are hardly advantageous for
l:l d 1 then 1 3 . . . 'ilfc7 14 e4 l:l fd8 White) 1 7 . . . ..ta6 1 8 0--0 J.xd3
is a strong reply) 13 . . . b5 1 4 ..tc2 1 9 'ilixd3 lt:ld7 and the position
c5 1 5 l:l: d 1 'ilfc7 16 d5 .l:t ad8! with has reached a state of dynamic
equality. equilibrium.
(b 1 ) 9 ..tf4 ..td6! 10 .tg3 (the 11 e3 0-0
exchange of bishops makes it eas­ 12 ..te2 l£Jd7
ier for Black to defend himself: 1 0 13 0-0 aS!
..ixd6 cxd6 1 1 d 5 e 5 1 2 e4 0-0 14 lLleS axb4
1 3 ..ie2 ..ta6 1 4 l:l c 1 ..ixe2 1 5 15 axb4 lt:lf6!
�xe2 'ilfd7 1 6 h 3 f5 1 7 lt:ld2 fxe4 Black's counterplay is linked
1 8 lt:lxe4 lt:la6 19 b4 J:!. ac8 with with the weakness of the b4-pawn.
equality, Burger-Reshevsky, After the passive 1 5 . . . lt:l xe5 1 6
Reykjavik 1 986) 10 . . . 0-0 e3 a6 ..txc5, Black i s condemned t o a
followed by lt:ld7 and J:!. c8 creating hopeless defence.
counterplay. on the queenside. 16 lt:lxc6 lt:ldS
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lll x d5 Introduction and 7 "ilfc2 83

17 lll xe7+ "ilfxe7 Having failed to find a way

18 "it"d2 lll xb4 to strengthen his position, White
19 : ab1 lll d5 now makes two weak moves in
20 -'.g3 succession and loses the game. The
It is difficult for White to utilize correct move was 33 h3, elimina-
the slight weakness of Black's ting the weakness of the first rank.
b-pawn. A better plan seems to 33 g5!
involve pawn activity in the centre 34 g4?
and the mobilization of the two The game could still have been
bishops. saved after 34 i.e3.
20 rues 34 ..txg4
21 -'.f3 b5! 35 .i.xg5 i.h3
22 : b3 n a3 36 f3 "ilfxf3
23 -'.h4! "it"f8 37 "ilff2
24 n xa3 "it" xa3 37 : e l is also bad in view of
25 e4 lll c3 37 . . . J: c4 !
26 d5 exd5 37 "it" xf2+
27 exd5 "it"d6 38 wxf2 hxg5
28 i.g3 "it"d7 39 d7 1 H8
29 d6 (91) 40 c;to>e3 'it>g7
0-1
91
B

Problems

The restricted material allows

Black to defend with comparative
ease.
29 lll e4!
30 -'.xe4 -'.xe4
31 :et -'.f5
32 n e7 "ilfc6
33 -'.f4?! Black to move
84 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 t2lxd5 Introduction and 7 'Wc2

Tabiya Pos i t i o n s
93
w
96
w

White to move

( 1 2 . 0-0)
. .

94
w
97
B

White to move
(1 1 ..ih4)

95
B 98
B

Black to move ( 1 0 ..i b2)

 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tt:Jxd5 Introduction and 7 'ii' c2 85

tions arise following 7 . . . ..te7, 7

99
w . . . tt:Jd7 or 7 . . . c5 - a mass of
( 1 1 . . :! c8)
. happy for White were it not for the
100
w that after 8 "i!t'xc3 h6! White does
(8 . . . h6)
There is much food for thought
in this chapter. We have discov­
ered that there is no way to punish
6 . . . tt:Jxd5 by means of 7 e4. The
modest 7 ..td2 or the subtle 7
'ii' a4+ do not present Black with
any serious problems. But after 7
"i!Vc2 a flood of interesting posi-
fanciful ideas, and transpositions
into other variations or even into
other openings. 7 . . . c5 - seem­
ingly the most important move
here - reaches a critical position
after 8 dxc5 ..txc5 9 ..tg5, though
Black is still under heavy pressure
after 8 e4.
The situation would have been
(apparently naive but in reality)
exceptionally strong 7 . . . tt:Jxc3.
You will have assured yourself
not succeed in keeping the initiat­
ive from the opening. Could
White's game be improved here?
This is a rather difficult question
to answer, though I am sure that
the players of White - and the
final say rests with them ! - will be
elaborating on this subject. Future
chess practice will reveal whether
these efforts are going to be fruitful
or fruitless. In the meantime one
can limit oneself to 8 bxc3 or
return to the classical 7 e3 which
at one time was forced out of the
picture precisely because of 8 bxc3.
In summary, White's problems
after 7 'llf c2 are the most pressing
for the 4 a3 system at the present
time.
 Agdestein-H. Olafsson
Gjovik 1985
1 d4 lLlf6
2 c4 e6
3 lLlf3 b6
4 a3 .t b7
5 l2Jc3 d5
6 cxd5 l2Jxd5
7 e3
The classical scheme in develop­
ment. The centre is the focal point
of the whole struggle.
7 lLl d7
White's strategic plan would be
implemented after 7 . . . c5 8
.tb5+ .tc6 9 .td3, causing dis­
array amongst Black's pieces : 9 . . .
cxd4 1 0 exd4 l2Jd7 1 1 0-0 J.. e 7 1 2
:cte1 0-0 1 3 lLle4 lLl5f6 1 4 l2Je5
.tb7 15 lLlg5 'flc7 16 .td2 n ad8
1 7 :ctc1 'it'b8 18 'fle2 .td6 1 9 J.. b 1
and White has good prospects
both in the centre and on the
kingside, de Firmian-Kudrin,
USA Ch. 1 984.
7 . . . lLlxc3 8 bxc3 g6 is also
interesting. An attempt to exploit
the weakness of the dark squares
is not very fruitful : 9 a4 i.g7 10
i.a3 lLld7 1 1 a5 c5 1 2 .tb5 0-0
1 3 a6 J..d 5 14 c4 i.xf3 1 5 "if xf3
cxd4! 16 .txf8 l2Je5 17 "ife2 d3 !
with the better game, Thorsteins­
Petursson, Akureyri 1 988.
Perhaps it makes sense for
White to play 9 i.b5+, transpos­
ing to the 7 e3 g6 variation which
will be examined in the next game.
8 i.d3 lLl5f6
Again 8 . . . c5 is unsuccessful, in
view of 9 e4 lLlxc3 10 bxc3 i.e7
1 1 0-0 cxd4 12 cxd4 0-0 13 "ife2
l:t c8 14 i.b2 "ifc7 15 "ife3 lLlf6 1 6
l2Je5 b 5 1 7 f4! with the advantage
to White, Kasparov-Akesson,
Dortmund 1 980. 8 . . . f5 will not
bother White either: 9 "ife2 lLlxc3
10 bxc3 'l!t'f6 1 1 0-0 "ifg6 12 l:t e 1
J..e 7 1 3 e4 Tukmakov-Ehlvest,
USSR Ch. 1 984.
9 e4 c5
10 i.f4
The breakthrough in the centre
is easily neutralized : 10 d5 exd5
1 1 exd5 i.d6! 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 i.g5
'flc7 with an aproximately equal
game, Kasparov-Karpov,
Moscow (World Ch.) 1 984/85.
10 lLlh5
The purpose of this is to disrupt
the co-ordination of White's
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lLlxd5 7 e3 87

pieces. If Black plays 1 0 . . . .i.e7 14 b4 .txd4

or 10 . . . a6 White will sacrifice a 15 .txd4 e5
pawn and seize the initiative : 16 .te3 0-0
(a) 10 . . . �e7 1 1 d5! exd5 1 2 17 f3 �e7
lLlxd5 .i.xd5 1 3 exd5 lLlxd5 1 4 18 �b3 .!:!. fd8
.i.g3 0-0 1 5 .i.a6 lLlc7 1 6 .tb7 19 lLle2 lLle8
.!:!. b8 17 .i.c6 and White domi­ 20 l:Hd1
nates the light squares, Portisch­ The weakness of the e5-pawn
H. Olafsson, Thessaloniki Olym­ prevents Black from easy man­
piad 1 984. ouevring. But f7-f6 would weaken
(b) 10 . . . a6 1 1 d5! exd5 12 exd5 the light squares and further limit
lLlxd5 13 lLlxd5 .txd5 14 0-0 .te7 the mobility of the knights. The
1 5 .!:!. e 1 lLlf8 16 .te4 .txe4 1 7 game reminds one of traffic on a
�a4+ b 5 1 8 'ihe4, Kozul-Kiril one-way street - all going m
Georgiev, Sarajevo 1 985. Black's direction.
11 .te3 cxd4 20 h6
12 lLlxd4 lLlhf6 21 .!:!. d2 lLldf6
13 0-0 .tc5!? (101) 22 .!:!. ad1 .!:!. ac8
23 a4 .!:!. c6
24 b5 J: cd6
101 25 lLlg3
w
White's next few moves are
aimed at weakening the
opponent's pawn structure.
25 .tc8
26 �b2 q;,h7
27 .tf2 q;, g8
28 �c3 .td7
29 a5 h5?!
Black's activity on the kingside
is only temporary and creates
In exchange for giving White additional problems of defence.
the advantage of the two bishops 30 lLlfl J: c8
Black intends to restrict White's 31 �b4 q;,r8
possibilities on the kingside. 32 axb6 axb6
After 1 3 0-0 the position is 33 �b2 g5
reminiscent of a Sicilian and it 34 .tg3 .!:!. c5
could be treated as such : 1 3 . . . a6 35 .tf2 .!:!. c8
followed by .te7 and 0-0 com­ 36 .te2 g4
pleting Black's development. 37 �b4 .!:l. e6
XX < ' l assical ."i . . . d5 6 cxd5 1Zlxd5 7 e3

\H
. wxe7
'llt xc7 + side) 9 h5 0-0 (it is better not to
.w ..th4 � c7 delay castling : 9 . . . c5 10 .td3 !
40 fxg4 hxg4 li:lc6 1 1 h6 ..tf6 1 2 li:le4 cxd4 1 3
41 li:le3 1Zlxf6 + 'i!t'xf6 1 4 exd4 when there
Strategically the position is won is a noticeable weakness on the
and White is in no hurry, however dark squares) 1 0 hxg6 hxg6 1 1
4 1 �xg4 would also have been 1Zlxd5 (it is important to stabilize
enough for victory. the centre. White came to grief
42 wrs in Miles-Adorjan, Reggio Emilia
43 1Zlxg4 .txb5? 1 984/8 5 : 1 1 li:le4 li:ld7 1 2 1Zleg5?
A tactical oversight. But even li:l 5f6 13 .tc4 'W/e7 14 'W/c2 c5 1 5
after a better move, e.g. 42 . . . 1Zlh4 .td5 ! 1 6 e4 ..txc4 1 7 'WI xc4
.tc8, White could have gained a � ac8 1 8 1Zlhf3 cxd4 1 9 'W/xd4 1Zlg4!
decisive advantage : 43 1Zlxf6 1Zlxf6 If 1 1 e4 the best reply is 1 1 . . .
44 .txf6 � xf6 45 � d6. 1Zlxc3 1 2 bxc3 c5!) 1 1 . . . exd5 1 2
43 1Zl xf6 .txe2 ..td2 1Zld7 1 3 ..td3 � e8 1 4 .tc3
44 1Zlxe8 1-0 a5 1 5 'W/c2 ..ta6! (an important
exchange) 16 .txa6 and in
Razuvayev-Rodriguez, Moscow
Browne-H. Olafsson 1 985, a draw was agreed.
New York 1984 (b) 8 1Zlxd5 exd5 (8 . . . 'W/ xd5 is
not so good : 9 'W/c2 'W/d8 10 e4
1 d4 li:l f6 ..tg7 1 1 ..tg5 'W/d7 1 2 .tc4 0-0
2 c4 e6 1 3 0-0 1Zlc6 14 � ad 1 with the
3 li:l f3 b6 initiative, Timman-Short, Lon­
4 a3 .tb7 don 1982. There is an interesting
5 li:lc3 d5 pawn sacrifice here : 9 . . . li:ld7 10
6 cxd5 li:lxd5 'W/ xc7 � c8 1 1 'W/[4 .tg7) 9 b4 (the
7 e3 g6!? distraction of the dark-squared
This idea is becoming increas­ bishop onto g7 creates the pre­
ingly popular in modern chess conditions for White to play on
practice. It is not easy for White the queenside. 9 ..td2 1Zld7 10 'W/a4
to exploit any weakness of the a6 1 1 � c 1 is also interesting, where
dark squares since his pieces are active play on the c-file is com­
not yet sufficiently active. bined with the idea of e3-e4) 9 . . .
8 .tb5+ .tg7 1 0 'W/b3 0-0 1 1 a4 ( 1 1 .te2
Alternatives include : li:ld7 12 .tb2 c6 1 3 0-0 'W/e7 1 4
(a) 8 h4 ..tg7 (after 8 . . . 1Zlxc3 a 4 � ac8 1 5 a 5 � c7 1 6 � fc 1 � fc8
9 bxc3 ..tg7 10 .td3 is logical, 1 7 � c2 with a slight advantage,
striving for activity on the king- Miles-Miralles, Metz 1 985. The
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tt:lxd5 7 e3 89

position is reminiscent of one that .i.g7 1 2 ..tb5+ ..tc6 1 3 ..txc6+

arises from a system of the Griin­ tpxc6 14 'ifa4 'ifd7 1 5 dxc5 with
feld Defence after 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 the better game.
g6 3 tt:lc3 d5 4 tt:lf3 i.g7 5 i.g5 10 e4 tt:lxc3
tt:le4 6 cxd5 tt:lxg5 7 tt:lxg5 e6 8 11 bxc3 c5
tt:lf3 exd5 9 e3 0-0 10 b4. However, 12 ..tg5 'i¥d6
the fact that White has preserved 13 'Wd3 tt:lc6
his dark-squared bishop in the 14 l:td1 0-0
game is most likely an advantage 15 0-0 tt:la5 ( 102)
for him) 1 1 . . . tt:ld7 1 2 i.a3 l:t e8
1 3 l:t c 1 c6 1 4 i.d3 a5 1 5 0-0 axb4 102
1 6 i.xb4 l:t a7 1 7 l:t fe 1 'ifa8 1 8 e4 w
with the initiative, Kiril Georgiev­
Ornstein, Stockholm 1 984.
8 c6
9 ..tc4
White played unsuccessfully in
Kasparov-Korchnoi, London
(Candidates) 1 98 3 : 9 ..td3 ..tg7
10 e4 tt:l xc3 1 l bxc3 c5! 1 2 ..tg5
'i¥d6 1 3 e5 'ifd7 14 dxc5?! (this
weakening of the pawn structure Intending to blockade White's
makes it possible for Black to gain pawn centre. 1 5 . . . cxd4 16 cxd4
the initiative) 14 . . . 0-0! 1 5 cxb6 l:t ac8 is also logical.
axb6 1 6 0-0 'ifc7 1 7 ..tb5 i.xe5 ! 16 i.a2 c4
1 8 ..t h6 ..tg7 1 9 ..txg7 �xg7 20 17 iie3 'ifxa3
'ifd4+ ..tg8 2 1 tt:lg5 h6 22 tt:le4 18 ..tb1
..txe4 23 'ifxe4 tt:la6 24 'ife3? (24 White has gained a persistent
..txa6) 'ifc5 ! 25 'ifxc5 tt:lxc5 26 initiative on the dark squares in
l:t fb 1 l:t fd8 27 ..tfl l:t d6 28 l:t b4 the centre and on the kingside in
<;t>f8 29 a4 l:t a5 and Black con­ return for th� pawn.
verted his advantage into victory. 18 l:t fe8
Kozul-M. Gurevich, Belgrade 19 h4 f6?!
1 988, was interesting : 9 tt:lxd5 !? The position after 1 9 h4
exd5 10 ..td3 ..tg7 1 1 e4 dxe4 1 2 occurred in Matamoros-Gil,
..txe4 ..ta6 1 3 ..tg5 ! 'i¥d6 1 4 'i!t'd2 Gausdal 1 986, by transposition of
0-0 1 5 0-0-0 ..tc4 16 ..tf4 with moves. Black's attempt to fortify
chances for both sides. his position here was unsuccessful:
9 .i.g 7 19 . . . b5!? 20 e5 b4 21 h5! 'ifxc3
9 . . . tt:lxc3 10 bxc3 c5 1 1 0-0 22 'iff4 i.xf3?! 23 gxf3 b3 24 i.f6
90 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tt:lxd5 7 e3

j¥ b4 25 hxg6 fxg6 26 ..txg6 ! hxg6 42 tt:lc8+ c;te8

27 ..txg7 with an attack. It is 43 tt:ld6+ 'Wte7
interesting, however, to look at 22 44 tt:lc8+ 'Wte8
. . . b3 23 ..tf6 'iW b4 where we see 45 ..tc2 b5
the advance of the passed pawns 46 e7 'iWh5+
combined with defence. 47 c;td2 'iWh2
20 ..th6 ..txh6 48 <;tel 'iWc7
21 'iWxh6 'iWf8 49 l:t h3 1-0
22 'iWe3 l:t ad8?
22 . . . l:t e7, taking the seventh
rank under his control, was neces-
Kasparov-Najdorf
sary.
Bugojno 1982
23 h5 tt:lc6
24 hxg6 hxg6
1 d4 tt:lf6
25 e5! f5
2 c4 e6
26 tt:lg5 'iWh6
3 tt:lf3 b6
27 'iWg3 tt:le7!?
4 a3 ..tb7
28 tt:lxe6 tt:ld5
5 tt:lc3 d5
29 tt:lxd8 tt:lf4
6 cxd5 tt:lxd5
30 'iWxf4! 'iWxf4
7 e3 ..te7 (103)
31 tt:lxb7
White has sufficient material
and positional advantage to win, 103
but he still has to be accurate. w
31 l:t e7
32 tt:ld6 l:t h7
33 l:t fe1 l:t h2
34 l:t e3! 'iWh4
35 .t>fl l:t h l +
36 <;i;>e2 'iWg4+
There is no salvation by 36 . . .
11: xd 1 37 wxd 1 'iWxf2 in view of
38 J:l e2 'iWfl + 39 l:t e 1 'iWxg2 40 e6
"ii' b 2 41 e7 ! 'iWxb1 + 42 c;te2 and 8 ..tb5+
there is no perpetual check. This is a classical manoeuvre.
37 l:t f3 J:l xdl By provoking c7-c6 White has a
38 'it>xd1 'iWxg2 predetermined strategy for several
39 c;t;>e2 'iW hl moves to come. 8 ..tb5+ might
40 e6 c;tf8 also have an independent import-
41 l:t e3 c;t;>e7 ance if, after 8 . . . c6, White chooses
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tZ:lxd5 7 e3
9 tZ:lxd5?! when Black should play
9 . . . W'xd5 since neither 9 . . . cxb5
10 tZ:lxe7 W'xe7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 l:l e 1
nor 9 . . . exd5 1 0 ..td3 tZ:ld7 1 1
W'c2 tZ:lf6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 b4 l:l c8
1 4 ..tb2 would grant him equal
opportunities.
8 c6
9 ..td3 tZ:lxc3
This is more accurate than 9 . . .
c5 1 0 tZ:lxd5 ..txd5 ( 1 0 . . . W'xd5
1 1 dxc5 ..txc5 12 ..tb5+ <J;; e7 1 3
W'e2 a 5 1 4 ..td2 l:l d8 1 5 ..tc3
<J;;f 8 16 0-0 with the better game,
Gheorghiu-Karpov, Moscow
1 9 8 1 ) 1 1 dxc5 bxc5 12 0-0 0-0 1 3
W'c2 h6 1 4 ..td2 tZ:ld7 1 5 ..tc3
J:t b8 16 e4 ..tc6 17 : act W'c7 1 8
l:l fe l with a long-term initiative,
Karpov-Najdorf, Mar del Plata
1982. 9 . . . 0-0 usually transposes
to one of the main variations.
10 bxc3 cS
11 0-0 tZ:lc6
Tigran Petrosian insisted on 1 1
. . . 0-0 but this allows White to
develop his pieces speedily, caus­
ing a weakening of the kingside at
the same time.
In this context Kasparov­
Petrosian, Moscow 198 1 , is
instructive: 12 W'c2 g6 1 3 e4 tZ:lc6
14 ..th6 l:l e8 (there is an interest­
ing exchange sacrifice here: 1 4 . . .
cxd4 1 5 ..txf8 ..txf8, but after 1 6
l:l ad 1 White still has the advan­
tage) 1 5 l:l fd l Wc7 16 We2 l:l ed8
17 W'e3 e5 ! 18 d5 tZ:la5 19 c4 tZ:lb3
20 : a2 f6 (Black has succeeded in
depriving White's centre of mobil-
91
ity but White is still holding on to
the initiative) 21 h4! ..tc8 22 : b 1
tZ:ld4 2 3 tZ:lxd4 cxd4 24 W' g 3 ..tf8
25 ..td2! ..td6 26 .:. fl W'g7 27 a4
a5 28 : b2 ..tc5 29 f4 ..td7 30 h5
..txa4?! (now White's attack has
become very dangerous, though
30 . . . gxh5 3 1 W h2, followed by
..tel -h4 and : b2-f2, would still
have been threatening) 3 1 h6 W'c7
32 f5 g5 33 ..txg5! fxg5 34 W'xg5+
<J;;f 8 35 Wf6+ (this mistake in
time trouble changes the situation
drastically. The correct line was
35 f6! Wf7 36 W'xe5 J:t e8 37 W'g5
Wg6 38 : f5 Wxg5 39 : xg5 <J;;f 7
40 e5 when the pawn trio gives
him an advantage) 35 . . . <J;; e 8 36
l:l a l We7!! (a magnificent reply!
By giving back the piece Black
seizes the initiative : 37 W'xe7+
<J;; xe7 38 J:t xa4 J:t d6!) 37 W'e6
l:l d6! 38 'ifg8 + Wf8 39 W'g3 W'xh6
40 : xa4? (a mistake in a difficult
situation) 40 . . . W'cl + 41 <J;;f2
W'xb2+ 42 <J;; f 3 <J;; f7 0-1 .
1 2 'ife2 tZ:lc6 1 3 l:l d l i s another
interesting line. In Ribli­
Groszpeter, Hungary Ch. 1 9 8 1 ,
Black's choice o f plan was un­
successful: 1 3 . . . Wc7 14 e4 e5 1 5
d5 tZ:la5 1 6 tZ:ld2 ..tg5 1 7 tZ:lc4
tZ:lxc4 1 8 ..txc4 ..txcl 1 9 : dxc l !
Wd6 20 a4 f5 2 1 exf5 l:l xf5 22 a5
l:l af8 23 f3 <J;;h 8 24 axb6 axb6 25
..td3 l:l h5 26 ..te4 ..tc8 27 l:l cb l
..tf5 2 8 : a 6 : b 8 2 9 'it' a2 ..txe4
30 l:l bxb6 ! l:l xb6 3 1 l:t xb6 Wd8
32 W'a7 and White won.
After 1 1 . . . tZ:lc6 White must
92 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lll xd5 7 e3
devise a plan for the further
development of his pieces.
12 e4
This move is frequently linked
with the idea of �e3.
12 0-0
1 2 . . . cxd4 1 3 cxd4 0-0 is just­
ified if White plays the routine 14
..te3, for instance 1 4 . . . <;t;> h8 15
'We2 f5 16 J:!. ad l ?! (16 exf5 with
equality) 16 . . . f4 17 �cl lll xd4
1 8 lll xd4 'it'xd4 19 ..tb2 Wc5 20
Wg4 Wg5 2 1 'Wxe6 J:!. ae8 with a
very good game for Black, Vagan­
ian-Razuvayev, USSR 1 982.
Here is a plan of development that
could be agreeable to White : 1 4
�b1 lll a 5 1 5 �d2 J:!. c8 1 6 J:!. e 1
lll c4 1 7 �b4 .l:t c7 1 8 'ilf d 3 J:!. e8
1 9 �a2 .i.a6 20 d5, Nogueiras­
Liang, Lucerne Olympiad 1 982.
13 � e3
Let us make certain that 1 3
�b2 i s harmless for Black : 1 3 . . .
cxd4 1 4 cxd4 �f6 1 5 e5 �e7 1 6
We2 Wd5 1 7 .te4 ( 1 7 .i.c4 Wd7
with equality) 1 7 . . . lll x d4! 1 8
�xh7+ '1txh7 1 9 �xd4 .l:t ac8
and Black is in better shape than
White, Ryskin-Cherepkov, USSR
1 982.
13 cxd4
14 cxd4 J:!. c8
15 'it'e2 ill aS
White is counting on active play
in the centre and on the kingside,
while Black counter-attacks on the
queenside.
16 :t fe1
The basic concept of Black's
play is . . . J:!. c3 and . . . lll b 3, and,
when an opportunity arises, the
exchange sacrifice for the light­
squared bishop : 1 6 J:!. fd 1 J:!. c3 1 7
a 4 'it' a 8 1 8 lll d2?! (better i s 1 8
d 5 lll b 3 1 9 ..td4 J:!. xd3 2 0 'it'xd3
lll xa 1 21 �xa1 J:!. d8 ! 22 lll d4 'it'c8
23 Wg3 ..tf8 with chances for both
sides, Galakhov-Huzman, USSR
1 982) 18 . . . J:!. d8 19 d5 exd5 20
..td4 J:!. xd3! 2 1 "i!fxd3 dxe4 22 'it'c3
lll c6 ! 23 i.xg7 J:!. d3 ! 24 Wb2 'it'd8!
25 .i.c3 'i!Vd5 threatening a mating
attack, Lputian-Podgayets,
USSR 1 980.
It should be now clear why
White overprotects the e4-pawn
by 16 l:!.fe l .
16 'it'd6
By provoking the advance of
White's pawns Black causes a
crisis in the centre. Other possi­
bilities include:
(a) 16 . . . J:!. c3 17 a4 lll b 3 (if 1 7
. . . 'it'a8 then 1 8 �f4 is a good
reply) 1 8 .l:t ad 1 'it'a8 19 lll d2 J:!. d8
20 lll xb3 .!:txb3 2 1 'ifg4 with the
initiative.
(b) 16 . . . <;t;>h8 (preparing f7-
f5) 1 7 h4!? (now if 1 7 . . . f5, then
1 8 ..tg5 is strong) 1 7 . . . ..txh4 1 8
J:!. ad 1 ..te7 1 9 d5 .i.c5 ! 20 �f4
f6 ! 21 dxe6 'ife7 and a very compli­
cated struggle lies ahead, Kaspa­
rov-Groszpeter, Graz 1 98 1 .
1 7 d5 exd5
18 e5 We6
19 lll d4!
White is striving to reach his
opponent's king whatever the cost.
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 7 e3 93

However, he would have gained Farago-Lau

compensation for the pawn any­ Budapest 1987
way after 19 lt:Jg5 ..txg5 20 ..txg5.
19 'llf xe5 1 d4 lt:Jf6
20 lt:Jf5 ..tf6 2 c4 e6
21 'llf g4 ( 104) 3 lt:Jf3 b6
4 a3 ..tb7
104 5 lt:Jc3 d5
B 6 cxd5 lt:Jxd5
7 e3 ..te7
8 ..t b5 + c6
9 ..td3 lt:Jxc3
10 bxc3 c5
11 0-0 lt:Jc6
12 ..tb2
This is a less satisfactory
scheme. White must strive to com­
21 � ce8? plete his development before
In defending this kind of pos­ becoming active in the centre.
ition just one wrong move can 12 � c8
lead to a quick defeat. Black 13 'llf e2 0-0
should have played 2 1 . . . 'llt' c3 ! 22 14 � ad1
lt:Je7 + ! ..txe7! 23 ..td4 'ii' xd4 24 In Glek-Novikov, USSR 1 986,
'llf xd4 ..tf6 25 'llf g4 ..txa1 26 � xa 1 a complicated, double-edged pos­
and although White has kept the ition arose after 14 e4 cxd4 1 5
initiative Black's position is quite cxd4 ..tf6 1 6 'llf e3 lt:Ja5 1 7 � acl
defensible. 'llf d7 18 h4 'llf a4 1 9 'llf e2 .l:!. fd8 20
22 ..td2 'llf x a1 h5.
Forced, since after 22 . . . 'llf c7 14 cxd4
23 lt:Jh6+ �h8 24 � xe8 � xe8 Otherwise it is difficult for Black
25 'ii f5 and Black's situation IS to obtain counterplay on the
hopeless. queenside. Black must hurry as
23 � xa1 ..txa1 White has great attacking poten­
24 lt:Jxg7! ..txg7 tial : 14 . . . 'llf c7?! 1 5 c4! cxd4 1 6
25 ..th6 1 -0 exd4 lt:Ja5 1 7 d 5 ! exd5 (not 1 7 . . .
In his last hour Black could lt:Jxc4? in view of 1 8 'ilfe4 g6 1 9
have checked his opponent's king ..txc4 'ilfxc4 20 "i!fe5) 1 8 cxd5
a few times by .l:!. e 1 +, � xfl +, ..txd5 19 ..txh7+ �xh7 20 � xd5
..ta6+ etc., but he preferred to 'iti>g8 21 ..txg7! wxg7 22 lt:Je5
resign right away. � fd8! 23 'llt' g4+ <t>f8 24 W'f5 ! f6
94 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lll x d5 7 e3
(24 . . . ..td6 25 -.f6!) 25 lll d 7 +
r:t xd7 26 r:t xd7 -.c5 27 -.h7 .l:!. c7
28 -.h8+! (28 .l:l. d3? -.xf2+ !) 28
. . . ..tf7 29 r:t d3 lll c4 30 r:t fd 1
lll e 5? (30 . . . ..td6! 3 1 r:t d5 -.c6
32 h4 with a clear advantage for
White) 3 1 -. h7+ ..te6 32 -.g8 +
�f5 33 g4+ �f4 34 r:t d4+ �f3
35 -.b3 + 1 -0, Kasparov-Por­
tisch, Niksic 1 983.
15 cxd4
There is no simple defence for
Black if White chooses 1 5 exd4
instead : 1 5 . . . ..td6 ( 1 5 . . . lll a5
1 6 lll e 5 ..tf6 1 7 f4 with an attack
on the kingside) 1 6 c4 lll a 5 1 7 lll e 5
..txe5 1 8 dxe5 "file? (in Kozul­
Lalic, Yugoslavia 1 989, Black's
performance was worse: 1 8 . . .
-. h4 19 f4 lll b3 20 ..tc2 lll c 5 2 1
f5) 1 9 "it' h 5 g6 20 -.h6 -.c6 2 1 f3
-.c5+ 22 �hl lll xc4 23 ..td4!
-. xa3 24 ..tf2 and the weakness
of the dark squares gives White
sufficient compensation for his
pawns, Kasparov-Tukmakov,
USSR 1 982.
15 ..tf6
Restricting his opponent's scope
for activity. 1 5 . . . lll a 5 1 6 e4 f6? is
not so good in view of 1 7 d 5 ! e5
1 8 lll h4 ! ..tc5 19 c;t;> h 1 g6 20 f4
.ll d6 2 1 -.g4 �h8 22 lll f 3 ! -.e7
23 fxe5 fxe5 24 -.g3 c;t;>g8 25
lll xe5 ! and White won, Browne­
Dzindzichashvili, Chicago 1 982.
16 e4
The key to success - the com­
bining of efforts in the centre and
on the kingside.
16 lll a5
The d4-pawn is poisoned : 1 6 . . .
lll xd4? 1 7 ..txd4 ..txd4 1 8 ..tb5
e5 1 9 lll x e5 with an obvious
advantage, Gligoric-Liang,
Lucerne Olympiad 1 982. 1 6 . . . g6
is also dubious : 1 7 h4! -.e7 1 8 h5
r:t fd8 1 9 -.e3 lll a 5 20 .:t e l a6 2 1
r:t xc8 r:t xc8 22 .:t e l r:t xc 1 23 -.xc1
"it'd8 24 h6 -.c8 25 -.f4 when the
rook exchanges have slightly eased
tensions on the kingside, Por­
tisch-Christiansen, London 1 982.
17 r:t fel
Now I am going to reveal a
little secret - the game actually
arrived at this position after a
curious transposition of moves : 7
-.c2 ..te7 8 e4 lll xc3 9 bxc3 0-0
1 0 ..td3 c5 1 1 0-0 lll c6 1 2 ..tb2
cxd4 13 cxd4 r:t c8 14 -.e2 lll a 5 1 5
r:t ad 1 ..tf6 1 6 r:t fe l . I changed the
order of the moves to familiarize
you with other possibilities for
both sides.
This position is yet another
tabiya of the system. White has
outstripped his opponent in the
development of his pieces, which
are noticeably more active, and
therefore Black should play with
extreme accuracy .
17 r:t c7
If 1 7 . . . -. c7 then 1 8 lll d 2 fol­
lowed by e5 and lll e4 is good,
shifting the centre of gravity of the
struggle to the kingside. 17 . . . g6
provokes a typical reaction : 1 8 h4!
..txh4 ( 1 8 . . . ..tc6 19 d5!) 1 9 d5!
exd5 20 -.d2! ..tf6 21 e5 ..tg7 22
 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tt:lxd5 7 e3 95

e6 with an attack.
105
The best move is 17 . . . .l:l: e8 w
inhibiting d4-d5: 18 ..tb5 ( 1 8 h3
..tc6 19 ..ta6 ..tb7 20 ..tb5 ..tc6
21 ..ta6 ..tb7 and a draw was
agreed. Polugayevsky-Balashov,
USSR 1 983) 1 8 . . . ..tc6 1 9 ..ta6
..tb7 (the complications of 19 . . .
..ta4 20 ..txc8 ..txd1 21 .l:l: x d 1
'ilf xc8 2 2 d5 exd5 23 ..txf6 .:. xe4
24 'iWb5 favour White) 20 ..txb7
ttJxb7 21 .l:l: d3 tt:la5 22 J: ed 1 'iWd7
32 ..tc6! h6
23 e5 ..te7 with chances for both
33 'ilfe3 .l:l: c8
sides, Vyzmanavin-Legky, Tash­
34 tt:le5!
kent 1 987.
White's pieces have become
18 J: cl
amazingly active.
The sharper 1 8 h4 ..txh4 1 9
34 .l:l:c7
d5 exd5 2 0 tt:lxh4 'ilf xh4 2 1 exd5,
35 tt:ld7+ .l:l: xd7
Epishin-Aseev, USSR 1987, is
36 ..txd7 'iWxd7
also interesting.
37 'ilfxh6 + <;i;>e7
18 .l:l: xc1
38 .l:l: e4+ <;t;>d8
19 .l:l: xcl g6
39 'ilff8 + <;i;>c7
20 .:. d 1 ..tg7
40 J: e7 1-0
21 h4! 'iWd6
22 h5 J: c8
23 ..tb5
Emphasizing the unfortunate
Problems
positioning of Black's queen.
23 'ilff4
24 d5! ..txb2 106
25 'ilf xb2
w
exd5
26 exd5 J: d8 ( 105)
27 J: d4! 'ilff6
28 h6 g5
Black decides to open up the
game to relieve the pressure from
White's attack.
29 'ilfe2! 'ilfxh6
30 'ilfe7 'iWd6
31 'ilfxg5+ <;t;>f8 White to move
96 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lt:lxd5 7 e3

Tabiya Pos i t i o n s

1 10
B

White to move
(1 0 exd4)

108
w

White to move (9 . . . c5)

109 1 12
w B

White to move (9 h5)

 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 lt:lxd5 7 e3 97

1 13 1 16
B B

(9 ..tc4) ( 1 5 exd4)

1 14 117
w w

( 1 1 . . . ..txc5) ( 1 6 . . . lt:la5)

In the final chapter we have

1 15
w considered the variations arising
from 7 e3. Here too, Black is
destined to achieve positions of
dynamic equilibrium in all the
main ramifications, provided he
plays accurately. The main thing
for Black is that he should not
lose his head when White's attack
in the centre and on the kingside
becomes a pressing reality.
( 1 2 . . . .!:!. c8) Counterplay on the queenside will
98 Classical 5 . . . d5 6 cxd5 tL!xd5 7 e3
be enough to confront it, and a
tenable position on the kingside
will allow him to organize an ade­
quate defence.
But if Black wishes to avoid
positions of the 7 e3 j_e7 type,
when he has come to know them
well enough, he can turn to 7 . . .
g6. But in that case he should
analyse this kind of position
beforehand and do it independ-
ently since there is a lack of
material that has been tested in
actual practice.
Generally s,peaking, in view of
the crisis in which 7 1Wc2 now finds
itself, one may assume that the
trend will shift in favour of 7 e3.
The new ideas are actually the old
long-forgotten ideas. And, besides,
there is still plenty of room here
for creative research.
Solutions to Problems

Before checking your answers you should realize that the correct solution
to each of these problems does not necessarily bring a clear advantage
to one or the other side. First you have to assess the situation accurately
in order to understand what your mission in the position is - to win,
to gain an advantage or just to find a means of escape from a difficult
situation. In some cases, you will have to work out the best continuation
from the given position in order to do this.
You should not be too disappointed if your answers do not coincide
with the ones given here. Try to find out the cause of this disagreement.
In any case, it is quite possible that you will succeed in finding something
of your own which will prove to be an equally strong continuation to
the text.

6 Lputian-Psakhis, USSR Ch. 1 980/8 1

1 .tg4! .tc8 2 .txc8 ! :t axeS 3 a4! , getting the queen's rook
involved in the game via a3. White has the advantage.

7 Schmidt-Omstein, Tmava 1 983

1 b4! cxb4 2 axb4 ..tb7 3 :t act and White has the better game.

8 Yusupov-Fries-Nielsen, Lucerne Olympiad 1 982

1 :t d5 ! "ifg6 2 :t xd7! a6 3 n xb7 axb5 4 lll d 5 with the advantge.

9 1 "if a4+! o;Pd8 (1 . . . lll d 7 2 "ifc6 :t d8 3 �t e l + .te7 4 lll e4

winning) 2 :t e l J.. e7 3 h4! with the advantage.

10 Burger-Chandler, Brighton 1 9 8 1
Black urgently needs counterplay : 1 . . . g5! 2 lll c 7 g4 3 h 4 ..txe2
4 "ifxe2 lll f3 + 5 .txf3 gxf3 6 lll f6 + .txf6 7 "ifxe7 .txe7 8 lll e6
:t g4+ and Black soon won.
100 Solutions to Problems

11 1 . . . .!:!. xe4! 2 'ilfxe4 lll hf6, followed by .i.xd5 with an excellent

game.

22 1 . . . .!:!. xe5! 2 dxe5 'ilfxe5 3 'ilfb2 'ilff5 and Black has good chances
to attack on the kingside.

23 Agdestein-Arnason, Reykjavik 1 987

1 g4! h6 2 g5 hxg5 3 fxg5 lll e 8 4 g6! An example of a typical
attack.

24 M. Gurevich-Eingorn, USSR Ch. 1986

1 . . . b5! 2 cxb5 axb5 3 axb5 d5! 4 exd5 lll c5 5 lll xc5 .i.xc5+
'iti>h 1 lll x d5 with very good compensation for the pawn.

25 1 lll d 5! exd5 2 cxd5 0-0 3 lll d 4! with the advantage.

26 Christiansen-Seirawan, USA Ch. 1 983

1 . . . a5 ! 2 0-0 g5 ! 3 .i.g3 d6 with a good game.

32 1 cxd5 cxd5 2 a4 .!:!. b8 3 ::t fb 1 with the advantage.

33 Romanishin- Portisch, Indonesia 1 983

1 . . . lll d 7! 2 cxd5 lll b 6! 3 d6 'ilfxd6 4 'ilfxd6 .i.xd6 5 0-0-0 .i.e7
with equality.

34 1 e5! .i.xe5 2 .!:!. xe5 ! dxe5 3 .i.f6 winning.

35 Christiansen-Portisch, Linares 1 985

1 dxc5 ! .i.xc5 (1 . . . bxc5 2 e6! lll xe6 3 lll e 5) 2 b4 .i.e7 3 .i.b2
0-0 4 lll d4 with the better game.

42 Novikov-Lerner, Kuibishev 1 986

1 dxc5 bxc5 2 lll e 4! lll xe4 3 fxe4 with the better game.

43 1 . . . J:!. a7 ! 2 0-0-0 .!:!. d7 and Black has the better position.

44 Ftacnik-Plaskett, Hastings 1 982/83

1 e5! dxe5 2 lll x e5 with the advantage.
 Solutions to Problems 1 01

51 Portisch-Chernin, Tunis Interzonal 1 985

1 1:1 fc1 ! ..txb5 ( 1 . . . lLle4 2 lLld2!) 2 axb5 c4 3 lLld4 a4 4 f3 ! with
the advantage.

52 Spraggett-Browne, USA 1 979

1 . . . d4! 2 exd4 ..txf3 3 1Wxf3 cxd4 4 .l:!. c7 lLle5, seizing the
initiative.

53 Bonsch-Vladimirov, Havana 1 986

1 lLle1 ! a5 2 f3 a4 3 lLld3 1W b6 4 l:t dc2 c4 5 li.:lb4 with the
advantage.

54 Ribli-Gligoric, Lucerne Olympiad 1 982

1 ..tg4 ! lLlxg4 2 1Wxg4 1Wf6 3 lLld7! lLlxd7 4 "ilfxd7 ..txf4 5 "ilfxb7
..te5 6 l:t ad l ! with an obvious advantage.

64 Eng-Teschner, West Germany 1 985

1 e4 ! lLlxe4 2 lLlxe4 dxe4 3 ..txe4 g6 4 1Wb3! with the advantage.

65 Dreev-Rozentalis, Lvov 1 987

1 lLle2! "ilfc8 ! (not, as in the game, 1 . . . 1:t ac8? 2 'ii' d 3 lLle4?! 3
..tg4 with the advantage) 2 1Wxc8 .l:!. axc8 3 lLlxd4 and White has
the better game.

66 1 ..txd6! ( 1 ..txf6 'ifxf6 2 e4 dxe4 3 lLlxe4 'ii' g6 with equality) 1

. . . "ilfxd6 2 b4 a5 3 b)Ja5 .l:!. xa5 4 'it' b4 ! 'ii' xb4 5 axb4 with the
better game.

67 Skembris-Guimares, Budva 1 9 8 1
1 b4! lLl bd7 2 e4! lLlxe4 3 lLlxe4 .1:!. xe4 4 lLlg5 .1:!. ee8 5 bxc5 with
the advantage.

78 1 ..txd5! 'ifxd5 2 c4 ! "i!f b7 (2 . . . 'ifa5 3 ..td2!) 3 d5! ..tg7 4

lLlxf7 with an obvious advantage.

79 1 . . . cxd4! 2 cxd4 f5 ! 3 exf5 exf5 with the advantage.

80 Dreev-Mikhalchishin, Lvov 1 987

1 lLld2! e5 2 lLlc4 "ilfc7 3 ..tg3 lLlh5 4 lLle3 lLlf4 5 ..tfl
lLle6 6 lLlcd5 'it'd8 7 lLlxe7+ 1Wxe7 8 lLlf5 and, after a successful
regrouping, White has gained the advantage.
1 02 Solutions to Problems

81 1 . . . cxd4! 2 cxd4 .txa3! 3 ..txa3 "ii c3 + with the advantage to

Black.

92 Lputian-Adorjan, Hastings 1 9 86/87

1 . . . g5! 2 .te3 (2 .tel g4 3 lll g 1 ..tg5 !) 2 . . . g4 3 lll d 2 f5 with
the advantage.

93 Vyzmanavin-Novikov, Tashkent 1 984

1 e4! ..tc6 2 .td2 "ii b7 3 b4! .te7 4 ..td3 with the advantage.

94 Spraggett-Karklins, Toronto 1985

1 ..ta6 ..txa6 2 "ii c 6+ wd8 3 lll e 5 "ii e 7 4 d5! "ii e 8 5 lll xf7 + !
"ifxf7 6 dxe6 winning. A brilliant attack !

95 1 . . . lll d 5!, seizing the initiative.

106 de Boer-Pokojowczyk, Copenhagen 1 983

1 d5! exd5 2 lll g4 f6 (2 . . . h5 3 lll h 6+ .t>h7 4 l:t h3 !) 3 exd5
lll x d5 (3 . . . ..txd5 4 lll e 3 J:[ c5 5 l:t c3 ! winning) 4 I H3 ! ! "iWd6 5
.ta2 wh8 6 Wd2 winning.

107 Polugayevsky-Petrosian, Moscow 1 9 8 1

1 h 4 lll c6 2 .te3 .tf6 3 e 5 .tg7 4 h 5 and White has gained an
opportunity to attack.

108 Podgayets-Chechelian, USSR 1 979

1 h6! .th8 2 d5! .txb2 3 "ifb3 l:t xe4 (3 . . . exd5 4 exd5 l:t cc8 5
Wxb2 f5 6 lll g5 l:te8 7 d6! winning) 4 "ifxb2 ! l:t xe 1 + 5 l:t xe 1 f6
6 l:t xe6 ..txd5 7 l:t xf6 with an obvious advantage.

109 Browne-Ribli, Surakarta/Denpasar 1 982

1 d5! exd5 2 f5 ! with the possibility of an attack.
Postscript

Every author is a kind of dreamer at heart. And so I firmly believe that

after reading this book you will join the ranks of the 4 a3 system's
proficient exponents by including it in your repertoire of favourite
openings. The inquisitive reader will undoubtedly find some terra
incognita in the theoretical works devoted to this system, as well as new
possibilities for both sides. He will improve the schemes that have been
repeatedly tested and in this way he will certainly supplement his own
chess arsenal.
You may have already realized that there has been a decline in the
system's popularity in the last couple of years, but I am certain that this
is a short-term phenomenon. The devotees of the system are in the
process of research. And it is my dearest wish that the readers of this
book will make their contribution to the continuous pursuit of knowledge
and the discovery of truth. On this road of intellectual toil there will be
many ups and downs, but it is the only true way for those who are eager
to reach the summit of chess mastery.
List of Illustrative Games

The following complete games are annotated in depth by the author :

Epishin-Yudasin, USSR 1 987 5

Cebalo-Dizdar, Yugoslavian Ch. 1 982 8
van der Sterren-van der Vliet, Amsterdam 1983 11
Cebalo-Marjanovic, Yugosalvia 1 987 17
Bareev-Eingorn, Kiev 1986 20
Novikov-Chernin, Lvov 1 987 23
Andersson- Petursson, Reykjavik 1 988 29
Hansen-Larsen, Copenhagen 1 988 32
Kozul-Romanishin, Sarajevo 1 988 37
Cebalo-Abramovic, Yugoslavian Ch. 1 988 39
D. Gurevich-Korchnoi, Beersheva 1 984 44
Browne-Nikolic, Naestved 1 985 48
Lputian-Popovic, Sarajevo 1985 53
Dreev- Rozentalis, Vilnius 1 988 55
Timman-Langeweg, Dutch Ch. 1 9 8 1 58
M. Gurevich-Gavrikov, Tallinn 1 987 64
Gelfand-Lerner, Norilsk 1 987 67
Kasparov-Murey, Moscow Interzonal 1982 72
Cebalo- Miralles, Marseilles 1 986 74
Kasparov-van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1 988 77
Lputian-Lalic, Saint John 1 988 80
Agdestein-H. Olafsson, Gjovik 1 985 86
Browne-H. Olafsson, New York 1 984 88
Kasparov-Najdorf, Bugojno 1 982 90
Farago-Lau, Budapest 1 987 93
I S B N 0 - 7 1 3.

I I II
7807 1 3 4